[Transcriber's Notes:
   "Students of history are doomed to watch it repeat."
      —Dozens of similar observations.

"History For Ready Reference" consists of 7 physical volumes,
3 kg. each. The last two volumes are supplements relating
to events after 1890.

The first five volumes form a single logical volume of 3935 pages,
printed as 5 physical volumes. To make searches and cross
references more convenient, this file combines these five volumes.

The beginning of each volume is at these page numbers:
   Volume 1   - {1}
   Volume 2   - {769}
   Volume 3   - {1565}
   Volume 4   - {2359}
   Volume 5   - {3129}
   SUPPLEMENT - {3669}

This production does not include an html version. The individual
html files integrate the maps and other images, but provide no
other useful service. Furthermore, my internet browsers do not
reliably handle the size of this file.

A list of all words used in this work is found at the end of this
file as an aid for finding words with unusual spellings that are
archaic, contain non-Latin letters, or are spelled differently by
various authors. Search for:

   "Word List: Start".

I use these free search tools:
   Notepad++ -- https://notepad-plus-plus.org
   Agent Ransack or FileLocator Pro -- https://www.mythicsoft.com

The following modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

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

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

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

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

5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
   with spaces and newlines. Many abbreviations are expanded to
   full words to simplify searches.

6. Subjects are arranged thusly:

---------------------------------
MAIN SUBJECT TITLE IN UPPER CASE
   Subheading one.
   Subheading two.

   Subject text.

      See CROSS REFERENCE ONE.

      See Also CROSS REFERENCE TWO.

      _John Smith,
      External Citation Title,
      Chapter 3, page 89._
---------------------------------

   Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
   (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
   Some main titles include several synonyms or alternate spellings.

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

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

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

   Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
   and in italics (as in the original). Italics are indicated
   by underscores:

      _This is in italics._

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

7. The bibliography in Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides
   additional details, including URLs of available internet
   versions. Search for:
     {xxi}

   Another bibliography is provided in volume 5 at:
     {3885}

8. Minor formatting irregularities have corrected:
      Citations in the earlier volumes have been changed to:
         _Author
         Title
         Location in work._

      Ellipsis is rendered as … instead of "...".

      Em dash is rendered as — instead of --.

Search Tips:

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

      first.{1,100}second

   To search for titles,
      USE ALL UPPER CASE;
      Set "Match Case";
      Begin the search text with a circumflex to indicate
      the beginning of the line:

         ^MAGNESIA


End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

   ----------Volume 1: Start--------

[Image: Spine]

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (left)]

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]


History For Ready Reference, Volumes 1 to 5

From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History

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

By J. N. Larned

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

In Five Volumes

Volume I—A To Elba

Springfield, Massachusetts.
The C. A. Nichols Company, Publishers
MDCCCXCV


Copyright, 1893,
By J. N. Larned.

_The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
United States Of America_
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.


Preface.

This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better
Literature of History in the English language, and to give it
an organized body—a system—adapted to the greatest
convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading,
for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.

The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily
distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of
books,—embracing the whole range (in the English language) of
standard historical writing, both general and special: the
biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the
social investigations, the archeological researches, the
ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important
tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical
knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits,
careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found,
and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired.
The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples,
and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are
faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair
selection from its fruits.

History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its
scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have
searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its
meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words.
If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but
slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is
presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its
topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their
large relations, both national and international.

For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the
broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could
possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common
to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many
styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light
which shines directly from the pens that have made History
luminous by their interpretations.

Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the
finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which
are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must
sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully
chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important
of such documents—charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions,
covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions
of many countries—have been accordingly introduced and are easily
to be found.

The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical,
and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed,
and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the
same alphabetical and chronological order.

Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully
but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and
consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler
discussion by references from each caption under which it may be
sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of
five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number,
at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of
encyclopedic works.

Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general
sketch of the history of _Europe_, and in what I have called the
"_Logical Outlines_" of a number of national histories, which are
printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been
dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work
represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt
warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without
permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from
books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or
deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those,
authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or
denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received
the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and
count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly
letters of permission which have come to me from authors and
publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific
acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.

The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of
property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been
taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by
omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional
interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by
paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is
shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of
different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for
each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the
divergences between English and American orthography; but, since
much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions
of English books, and since both copyists and printers have
worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not
have governed with strict consistency throughout.

J. N. L.

The Buffalo Library,
_Buffalo, New York, December,_ 1893.


Acknowledgments.

In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy
and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I
have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now
proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those
persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind
permissions. They are as follows:


Authors.

Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
General Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
General Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
  late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under General Pope," by the late
General George H. Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late General A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late General Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
General R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
General Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.


Publishers.

_London_:

Messrs.
W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.


_New York:_

Messrs.
D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;

_Edinburgh:_

Messrs.
William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.

_Philadelphia:_

Messrs.
L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.

_Boston:_

Messrs.
Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.

_Dublin:_

Messrs.
James Duffy & Company;
Hodges, Figgis & Company;
J. J. Lalor.

_Chicago:_

Messrs.
Callaghan & Company;
A. C. McClurg & Company;

_Cincinnati:_

Messrs.
Robert Clarke & Company;
Jones Brothers Publishing Company;

_Hartford, Connecticut:_

Messrs.
O. D. Case & Company;
S. S. Scranton & Company;

_Albany:_

Messrs.
Joel Munsell's Sons.

_Cambridge, England_:

The University Press.

_Norwich, Connecticut:_

The Henry Bill Publishing Company;

_Oxford:_

The Clarendon Press.

_Providence, R. I._

J. A. & R. A. Reid.


A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I
am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of
eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the
proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their
suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance
given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.

In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I
owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among
whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond,
Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no
feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which
places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of
which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is
the head.

I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with
that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and
drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes
have been produced.

J. N. Larned.


List Of Maps And Plans.

'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
  Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
   To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
   On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
   To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
   On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
   To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
   On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
   To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
   To follow page 432


Logical Outlines, In Colors.

   Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.

   Austrian history, To follow page 198.


Chronological Tables.

The Seventeenth Century:
   First half and second half,  To follow page 208.
   To the Peloponnesian War, and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
   To follow page 166.


Appendices To Volume I.

   A. Notes to Ethnographic map;
      by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
      by  Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
      by  Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;
      Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
      by Major J. W. Powell and
      Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.

   F. Bibliography of America
      (Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology,
      and Ethnology), and of Austria.


{1}

History For Ready Reference.

A. C. Ante Christum;
   used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
   B. C.—Before Christ.

A. D. Anno Domini;
   The Year of Our Lord.

      See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

A. E. I. O. U.

   "The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used
   by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate,
   books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est
   Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist
   Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not
   safe in an inch of his dominions."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      volume 2, page 89, foot-note._

A. H. Anno Hejiræ.

     See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

A. M.

   "Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the
   beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted
   chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.

A. U. C., OR U. C.

   "Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno
   urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the
   Year of Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 753.

AACHEN.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.

AARAU, Peace of (1712).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

ABÆ, Oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

ABBAS I. (called The Great), Shah of Persia; A. D. 1582-1627

ABBAS II., A. D. 1641-1666.

ABBAS III., A. D. 1732-1736.

ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
      also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

ABBEY.
ABBOT.
ABBESS.

      See MONASTERY.

ABDALLEES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

ABDALMELIK, Caliph, A. D. 684-705.

ABD-EL-KADER,
   The War of the French in Algiers with.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

ABDICATIONS.
   Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.

      See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

  Amadeo of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

   Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

   Charles V. Emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561,
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

   Charles X. King of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

   Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

   Christina, Regent of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

   Christina, Queen of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

   Diocletian, Emperor.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

   Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

   Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

   Louis Philippe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

   Milan, King of Servia.

      See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.

   Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, and King of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889,
      and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

   Ptolemy I. of Egypt.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.

   Victor Emanuel I.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

   William I., King of Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

ABDUL-AZIZ, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1861-1876.

ABDUL-HAMID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1774-1789.

ABDUL-HAMID II., 1876-.

ABDUL-MEDJID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1839-1861.

ABEL, King of Denmark, A. D. 1250-1252.

ABENCERRAGES, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273, and 1476-1492.

ABENSBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A.D. 1758.

ABERDEEN MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852, and 1855.

ABIPONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

ABNAKIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ABO, Treaty of (1743).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

ABOLITIONISM IN AMERICA, The Rise of.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.

ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

ABOUKIR, Naval Battle of (or Battle of the Nile).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ABOUKIR, Land-battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

ABRAHAM, The Plains of.

   That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable
   victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so
   called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham,
   who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the
   colony."

       _F. Parkman,
       Montcalm and Wolfe,
       volume 2, page 289._

   For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the
   Plains of Abraham,

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759, (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.

   In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live
   on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do
   not live in the country. … Absenteeism is an old evil, and
   in very early times received attention from the government.
   … Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from
   the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are
   apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly
   poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is
   a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. … I
   am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the
   country and the people. … It is too much to attribute to it
   all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is,
   however, an important consideration that the people regard it
   as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions
   of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely
   or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."

      _D. B. King,
      The Irish Question,
      pages 5-11._

{2}

ABSOROKOS, OR CROWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ABU-BEKR, Caliph, A. D. 632-634.

ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

ABUL ABBAS, Caliph, A. D. 750-754.

ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.

   "Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity
   into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of
   Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the
   church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"—or
   Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
      page 4._

ABURY, OR AVEBURY.
STONEHENGE.
CARNAC.

   "The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and
   Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200,
   are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible
   relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing
   group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is
   that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred
   by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the
   beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of
   unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by
   a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of
   earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of
   stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded
   long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton,
   and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in
   another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the
   largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130
   feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second
   to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the
   pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful
   parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the
   ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty
   are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed
   among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge
   on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury,
   since not only are some of the stones used in its construction
   worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than
   those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a
   circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen
   stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into
   each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet
   within this was a circle of small foreign stones … and
   within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a
   horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet
   high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called
   the altar-stone. … At a distance of 100 feet from the outer
   line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer
   circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and
   includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date
   than some of the barrows of the district."

      _W. B. Dawkins;
      Early Man in Britain,
      chapter 10._

   "Stonehenge … may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the
   Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time,
   the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being
   probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the
   stones are all in their natural condition, while those of
   Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude
   that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the
   close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of
   Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as
   temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved
   to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be
   described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by
   a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus,
   sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone
   circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany,
   consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly
   both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground,
   while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues
   originally extended for several miles, but at present they are
   very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for
   agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are
   several detached portions, which, however, have the same
   general direction, and appear to have been connected together.
   … Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the
   Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as
   having been erected during the same period."

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      Prehistoric Times,
      chapter 5._

ABYDOS.

   An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont,
   mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in
   alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is
   supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at
   different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and
   Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the
   Hellespont—the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero
   and Leander—nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in
   the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge
   of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an
   important victory over the Peloponnesians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480, and 411-407.

ABYDOS, Tablet of.

   One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in
   the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It
   gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his
   ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when
   found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M.
   Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the
   first.

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      volume 1, book 3._

ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.

      See ETHIOPIA.

ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.
   Conversion to Christianity.

   "Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native
   country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer,
   recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would
   appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or
   Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early
   in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for
   the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he
   and his companions were attacked at a place where they had
   landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two
   youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of
   Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who
   advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be
   his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who
   left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of
   the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the
   prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he
   became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such
   Christian traders as visited the country, had already
   introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia,
   repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and
   … Athanasius … consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum
   [the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus
   founded continues to this day subject to the see of
   Alexandria."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 2, chapter 6._

{3}

ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
   Wars in Arabia.
   Struggle with the Mahometans.
   Isolation from the Christian world.

   "The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in
   Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians,
   under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show
   their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The
   prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a
   zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging
   the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to
   suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants
   who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes
   of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be
   murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this
   a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered
   Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a
   Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But
   at the death of the latter, which happened soon after,
   Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a
   natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now
   became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before.
   … Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign
   of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the
   undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and
   was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the
   Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent
   empire of the Homerites, and established a new government
   favourable to the Christians."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion
      and Church, second period,
      section 1._

   "In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the
   dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power
   seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire,
   sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed
   themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority
   in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of
   it."

   "It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their
   acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way
   to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon
   afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia,
   spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated
   the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile
   Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of
   Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith;
   presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous
   followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and
   incessant wars ravaged her territories. … She lost her
   commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital
   threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. …
   There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk
   under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the
   Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable
   moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."

      _M. Russell,
      Nubia and Abyssinia,
      chapter 3._

   "When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia,
   ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of
   its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut
   off from communication with the rest of Christendom. … They
   [the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a
   semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely
   mixed with Jewish customs."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
   European Attempts at Intercourse.
   Intrusion of the Gallas.
   Intestine conflicts.

   "About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
   contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
   at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
   Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
   Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
   impress upon Ethiopia. … Prince Henry of Portugal … next
   opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
   route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
   A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
   without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
   discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
   derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
   ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
   not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
   Negus, or Nagash—the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
   married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
   He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
   Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
   Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
   the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
   their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
   Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
   on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
   to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
   the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
   were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
   Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
   fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
   maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
{4}
   Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
   "In the middle of the 16th century … a
   migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
   over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
   fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
   and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
   dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
   large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
   Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
   here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
   Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
   Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
   by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
   firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
   had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
   Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
   of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
   the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
   arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
   nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
   trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. … But the same
   fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
   lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
   missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
   prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
   which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
   and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
   Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
   from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
   governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
   Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
   attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
   cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
   and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
   and civilization. … After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
   Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
   by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
   confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
   and the inhabitants sold into slavery. … Towards the middle
   of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
   considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
   their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
   political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
   years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
   English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
   Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
   Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
   In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
   not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
   commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
   Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
   of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
      Introduction._

ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
   Advent of King Theodore.
   His English captives and the Expedition which released them.

   "Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when
   he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras
   Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose
   name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the
   boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better
   known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old
   family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land
   begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated
   in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a
   considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life
   was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla
   bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and
   plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the
   life of a freebooter. … Adventurers flocked to his standard;
   his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras
   Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central
   Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now
   resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent
   of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself
   crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking
   the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared
   that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr.
   Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with
   admiration of his talents and character, and became his
   counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his
   life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several
   misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The
   British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden,
   immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of
   Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was
   entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to
   the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter,
   duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the
   Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made.
   Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences
   of the indifference of the British Government to his
   overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and
   imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same
   time he was still further offended by certain passages in a
   book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary
   named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the
   latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging
   and torture. The first step taken by the British Government,
   when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England,
   was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a
   letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the
   captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made
   its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore
   seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised
   freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became
   filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's
   credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and
   intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was
   drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken
   cogitations was a determination to detain the mission—at any
   rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of
   skilled artisans and machinery from England."
{5}
   Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into
   confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were
   allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation
   known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be
   sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was
   actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil
   engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery
   and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the
   release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year
   was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until
   September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000
   British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert
   Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian
   to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous
   difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and
   transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868,
   to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where
   Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400
   miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed
   to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with
   no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when
   it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by
   the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a
   few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was
   simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and
   when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on
   the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance
   left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the
   captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an
   unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from
   the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which
   he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused
   these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and
   stormed by the British troops—slight resistance being
   made—he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the
   place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in
   himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June
   the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was
   sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."

      _Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
      volume 9, chapter 28._

   "The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore
   failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the
   front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and
   afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th
   March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or
   Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek
   of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment
   of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral … promises a new era
   for Abyssinia."

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN
      _H. A. Stern,
      The Captive Missionary._

      _H. M. Stanley,
      Coomassie and Magdala,
      part 2._

ACABA, the Pledges of.

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

ACADEMY, The Athenian.

   "The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens,
   was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the
   school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty
   plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle
   stream rolled through it."

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Biog. History of Philosophy,
      6th Epoch_.

   The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose
   for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which
   were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different
   quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance
   of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily
   exercises and athletic feats. … Before long several of the
   schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even
   took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the
   Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at
   home. Gradually we find the traces of some material
   provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the
   different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the
   sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy,
   which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There
   lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. …
   Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum,
   in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably
   possessed the house and garden which after his death came into
   the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."

      _W. W. Capes,
      University life in Ancient Athens,
      pages. 31-33._

   For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other
   gymnasia of Athens.

      See GYMNASIA GREEK.

  Concerning the suppression of the Academy,

      See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

ACADIA.

      See NOVA SCOTIA.

ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.
   Their expulsion.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730; 1749-1755, and 1755.

ACARNANIANS.

      See AKARNANIANS.

ACAWOIOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

ACCAD.
ACCADIANS.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

ACCOLADE.

   "The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order
   of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the
   cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body,
   the neck, whereon it was struck. … Many writers have
   imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier
   might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is
   not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as
   the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to
   trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the
   religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only
   ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of
   battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not
   allow of many ceremonies."

      _C. Mills,
      History of Chivalry,
      page 1, 53, and foot-note_.

ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.

   This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League"
   of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements
   in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the
   towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with
   its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa,
   Terina and Pyxus. … The language of Polybius regarding the
   Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to
   these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and
   friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and
   the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of
   the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 10._

{6}

ACHÆAN LEAGUE.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ACHÆMENIDS, The.

   The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings
   of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an
   ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian
   tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King
   Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family
   have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we
   have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was
   Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of
   Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis,
   the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called
   Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the
   tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger
   branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had
   two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger
   Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of
   Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that
   eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not
   correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and
   that he was the ninth king."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 8, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
      book 7 of Herodotus_.

      See, also, PERSIA, ANCIENT.

ACHAIA:

   "Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast
   of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller
   would pass into Achaia—a name which designated the narrow
   strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities
   between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the
   peninsula. … Achaean cities—twelve in number at least, if
   not more—divided this long strip of land amongst them, from
   the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on
   one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on
   the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends
   and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once
   occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had
   expelled."

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

   After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
   League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
   organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and
   Epirus.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

   "In the Homeric poems, where … the 'Hellenes' only appear in
   one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed
   by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But
   the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian
   people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the
   opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later
   time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were
   nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock.
   … [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its
   earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the
   special name of a population dwelling in the north of the
   Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."

      _Georg Friedrich Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      Introduction._

   "The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the
   Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national
   body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or
   independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear
   neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest
   and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the
   Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians.
   Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always
   regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. …
   The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast
   of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible
   to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people
   originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact
   anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the
   main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families,
   from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression
   'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."

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

      ALSO IN
      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      ACHAIA,
      and
      GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.
   Mediæval Principality.

   Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in
   Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a
   major part of the Peloponnesus—then beginning to be called
   the Morea—by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted
   by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger—nephew and namesake
   of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the
   conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was
   invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as
   it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him
   in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally
   succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,
   who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the
   Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a
   destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently
   the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and
   Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the
   title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of
   Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the
   Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and
   ravages.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 8._

ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.

ACHMET II., 1691-1695.

ACHMET III., 1703-1730.

ACHRADINA.

   A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the
   "outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the
   island, which was the "inner city."

ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.

   After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to
   the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle
   for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four
   brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save
   one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a
   soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the
   title of king. His authority was established over the greater
   part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and
   Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern
   Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The
   suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the
   Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,
   when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were
   surrendered to him.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 2._

{7}

ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ACOLAHUS, The.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

ACOLYTH, The.

      See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.

ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.

   After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to
   deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of
   which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in
   the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.
   The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and
   those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The
   pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 7._

ACRABATTENE, Battle of.

   A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews
   under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12, chapter 8._

ACRAGAS.

      See AGRIGENTUM.

ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
   Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

ACRE: A. D.1187.
   Taken from the Christians by Saladin.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
   The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
   Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

ACRE: A. D. 1291.
   The Final triumph of the Moslems.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

ACRE: 18th Century.
   Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.

   "Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the
   history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of
   Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost
   entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored
   its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway
   comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by
   the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and
   adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique
   marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."

      _M. Malte-Brun,
      System of Universal Geography,
      book 28 (volume 1)._

ACRE: A. D. 1799.
   Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
   Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.

      See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.

ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

      See KORKYRA.

ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.

   "A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered
   practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the
   Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the
   Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,
   during the administration of Pericles. … On entering through
   the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and
   beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings
   anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less
   elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and
   exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of
   alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or
   fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice
   known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the
   Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an
   Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in
   the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator
   might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their
   dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary
   sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or
   modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our
   best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor
   collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods
   and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of
   the arts."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the
   Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,
   surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,
   and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of
   which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one
   great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the …
   sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of
   Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on
   the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.
   This would not have been consonant either with the customs or
   the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica
   crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
   and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the
   necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained
   uninhabited. … The western end of the Acropolis, which
   furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one
   hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow
   that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to
   fill up the space with a single building which should serve
   the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a
   suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and
   sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the
   Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in
   Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,
   surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. … It may be
   defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on
   both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 8._

      See, also, ATTICA.

ACT OF ABJURATION, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ACT OF MEDIATION, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

ACT OF SECURITY.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

{8}

ACT RESCISSORY.

      See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.

ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
   Naval Battle of the Greeks.

   A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
   the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
   Peloponnesian War.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 1._

ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
   The Victory of Octavius.

      See ROME: B. C. 31.

ACTS OF SUPREMACY.

      See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.

ACULCO, Battle of (1810).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

ACZ, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.

ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.

ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
      1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).

   In diplomatic service.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1796-1801.

ADAMS, John Quincy.
   Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

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

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1829.

ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;
      1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.

ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

ADEL.
ADALING.
ATHEL.

   "The homestead of the original settler, his house,
   farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the
   share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the
   northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;
   the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the
   owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified
   also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.
   Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the
   same name."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3, section 24._

      See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.

ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

ADELANTADOS.
ADELANTAMIENTOS.

   "Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts
   [in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of
   Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by
   further conquests."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520._

ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.

ADIABENE.

   A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of
   country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was
   originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with
   Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary
   kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was
   seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently
   held.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      page 140._

ADIRONDACKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.

ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ADITES, The.

   "The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in
   the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their
   progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 7, chapter 2._

      See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

ADJUTATORS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

ADLIYAH, The.

      See ISLAM.

ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.

ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.

ADOPTIONISM.

   A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,
   which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not
   truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma
   is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,
   Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne
   took active measures to suppress the heresy.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 12._

ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.

ADRIANOPLE.
HADRIANOPLE.

   A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated
   by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over
   Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the
   defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS
   (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the
   capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).
   It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878
   (see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave
   its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and
   the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).

ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.

ADRUMETUM.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

ADUATUCI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

ADULLAM, Cave of.

   When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he
   sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the
   Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from
   Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to
   Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now
   feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. … Besides
   these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some
   of the original Canaanites—of whom the name of one at least
   has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast
   columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean
   palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system
   gathered round the hero of the coming age."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 22._

ADULLAMITES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

{9}

ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).

   This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
   great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
   Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 11._

ÆAKIDS (Æacids).

   The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson
   was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
   and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those
   claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.

ÆDHILING.

      See ETHEL.

ÆDILES, Roman.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

ÆDUI.
ARVERNI.
ALLOBROGES.

   "The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or
   Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies
   between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river
   was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The
   Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town
   was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]
   the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the
   supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous
   country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile
   valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of
   the Allier and the Loire. … They were on friendly terms with
   the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who
   occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).
   … In order to break the formidable combination of the
   Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,
   who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.
   … A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier
   between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their
   new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and
   kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which
   the Romans practiced when it was useful."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

      See, also, GAULS.

Ægæ.

      See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).

ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ÆGEAN, The.

   "The Ægean, or White Sea, … as distinguished from the
   Euxine."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 413, and foot-note._

ÆGIALEA.
ÆGIALEANS.

   The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
   its inhabitants.

      See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆGIKOREIS.

      See PHYLÆ.

ÆGINA.

   A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and
   Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied
   by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to
   Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power
   and commercial importance, and became for a time the most
   brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian
   war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the
   Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the
   allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they
   offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians
   thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to
   interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages
   to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See
   GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great
   extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor
   with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence
   to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and
   in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking
   possession of their discomfited rival.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      Also in
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, volume 4, chapter 36._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.
   Defeat and subjugation.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
   Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
   Their settlement at Thyrea.

       See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.

    The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they
    entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was
    signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city
    having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was
    reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings
    of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.

       _E. A. Freeman,
       History of Federal Government,
       chapter 8, section 2._

ÆGINETAN TALENT.

       See TALENT.

ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).

   A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in
   his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 3, section 97._

ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ÆLFRED.

      See ALFRED.

ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.
   The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.

   "The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of
   which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. …
   enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,
   or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law
   prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the
   assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for
   watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was
   held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 16._

ÆMILIAN WAY, The.

   "M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. …
   constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian
   Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to
   Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great
   north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to
   Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the
   colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across
   the Appenines to Arretium."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 41._

ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.

{10}

ÆOLIANS, The.

   "The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according
   to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to
   obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into
   three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. … All
   the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and
   of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common
   name of Æolians—a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was
   incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among
   which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be
   assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the
   two former races, though even these were scarcely in any
   quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be
   found a single original stock, to which others had merely been
   attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples
   assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is
   recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is
   found between the several members of this race as between
   Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood
   nearer to the former, others to the latter. … A thorough and
   careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that
   the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main
   races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,
   while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater
   number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."

      _G. F. Schöman,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 1, chapter 2._

   In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,
   appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is
   represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were
   Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and
   Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,
   Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be
   distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,
   as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and
   presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them
   to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes
   even by defiance."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 6._

      See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,
      and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

ÆQUIANS, The.

      See OSCANS; also LATIUM;
      and ROME; B. C. 458.

ÆRARIANS.

   Roman citizens who had no political rights.

      See CENSORS, ROMAN.

ÆRARIUM, The.

      See FISCUS.

ÆSOPUS INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.

   "At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the
   Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,
   whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the
   Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They
   worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol
   the device of a wild boar. … They often use clubs, iron
   weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn
   and other produce than might be expected from the general
   indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and
   are the only people who gather amber, which they call
   glesum."—"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to
   the north-east of the Vistula. … The name still survives in
   the form Estonia."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb, with note._

      See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

ÆSYMNETÆ, An.

   Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried
   not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring
   tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,
   under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of
   æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the
   title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which
   succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an
   extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of
   protector or dictator."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 10._

ÆTHEL.
ÆTHELING.

      See ETHEL, and ADEL.

ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.

      See ETHELBERT, etc.

ÆTOLIA.
ÆTOLIANS.

   "Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early
   times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a
   savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an
   Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.
   The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the
   most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes
   and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life
   being preferred universally. … It was not till the wars
   which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians
   formed a real political union, and became an important power
   in Greece."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 3._

      See also,
      AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.

   "The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions
   been written down in the shape of a formal document, would
   have presented but few varieties of importance. The same
   general form of government prevailed in both; each was
   federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,
   its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head
   of all. The differences between the two are merely those
   differences of detail which will always arise between any two
   political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from
   the other. … If therefore federal states or democratic
   states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or
   strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should
   see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral
   characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political
   conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some
   faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political
   conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in
   which we know it best [last half of third and first half of
   second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. … The
   counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to
   mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political
   aggrandisement."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 6_.

   The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in
   continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and
   they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their
   agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it
   was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle
   with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,
   B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its
   nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 7-9._

      ALSO IN _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66._

{11}

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.
   Founding of Herat and Candahar.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
      and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
   In the Syrian Empire.

      See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
   The Ghaznevide Empire.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
   Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
   Conquest by Timour.

      See Timour.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.
   Conquest by Babar.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.
   Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
   Conquest by Nadir Shah.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
   The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
   His Conquests in India.

         See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
   Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
   English interference.

   "Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed
   Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth
   had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a
   wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,
   who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was
   lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance
   that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in
   1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh
   ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,
   which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,
   and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at
   length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at
   length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and
   in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After
   the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a
   prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in
   making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man
   thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,
   uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British
   occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the
   legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan
   was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one
   sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one
   of the youngest. … Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed
   was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and
   dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been
   addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation
   of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost
   Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the
   Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,
   no longer truculent, but courteous. … There was a fine
   rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine
   chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our
   hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty
   to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the
   second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in
   Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His
   schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that
   certain arrangements were entered into between him and the
   Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's
   part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian
   Government replied that to afford him assistance would be
   inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the
   Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed
   financially toward his undertaking by granting him four
   months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a
   scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,
   but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a
   successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on
   Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in
   extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,
   and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed
   Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his
   artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the
   south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the
   Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the
   Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part
   availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of
   British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,
   he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by
   a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had
   crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded
   Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,
   1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his
   lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of
   the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other
   independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was
   soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of
   disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia
   which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered
   in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly
   undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says
   Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger
   entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to
   Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,
   which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without
   definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious
   man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the
   Persian army began the siege of Herat. … The Dost made no
   concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,
   in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for
   assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the
   Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations
   with the western powers if he were given reason to expect
   countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian
   Government. … The situation of Burnes in relation to the
   Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a
   Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose
   credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if
   that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to
   Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took
   small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes
   that he cared for no connection except with the English, and
   Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in
   the sincerity of those declarations.
{12}
   But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed
   to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to
   indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.
   It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became
   hopeless. … The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his
   promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to
   obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,
   and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the
   Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian
   minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit
   at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been
   discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about
   the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which
   Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,
   connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his
   official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and
   garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to
   deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since
   he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had
   gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the
   character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he
   had no design of obstructing the existing situation in
   Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,
   that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to
   discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah
   Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our
   protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs
   now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following
   June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,
   escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no
   explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our
   frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central
   Asia—a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the
   most arduous marching ground in the known world. … Lord
   William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the
   project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley
   regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks
   and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of
   infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic
   sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to
   settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march
   into that country."

      _A. Forbes,
      The Afghan Wars,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN;
      _J. P. Ferrier,
      History of the Afghans,
      chapter 10-20._

      _Mohan Lal,
      Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
      volume 1._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
   English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
   The revolt at Cabul.
   Horrors of the British retreat.
   Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
   Sale's defence of Jellalabad.

   "To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the
   friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to
   join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was
   contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah
   for the restoration of the banished house. The
   expedition—which according to the original intention was to
   have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of
   Shah Soojah and the Sikhs—rapidly grew into an English
   invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on
   the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General
   Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of
   these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the
   highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would
   not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through
   their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-
   the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,
   with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the
   loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all
   collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The
   want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to
   Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern
   Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards
   the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a
   fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty
   movements the English had left their battering train behind,
   but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,
   and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor
   did the English army encounter any important resistance
   subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,
   and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo
   Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah
   Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the
   fortress Palace of Cabul. … For the moment the policy seemed
   thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a
   fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one
   dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the
   unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. … Dost
   Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English
   envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family
   to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was
   there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both
   the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he
   had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a
   victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their
   policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that
   the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their
   successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.
   For while the English officials were blindly congratulating
   themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to
   an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all
   sides visible. … The removal of the strong rule of the
   Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the
   other families and tribes. The whole country was full of
   intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the
   English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.
   But they soon found that the hopes excited by these
   negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had
   bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be
   disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did
   not find that they derived any advantages from the
   establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every
   Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the
   predominance of the English infidels.
{13}
   But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of
   sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in
   spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the
   people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion
   that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold
   upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived
   himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a
   portion of the English army, under General Sale, into
   Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy
   the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his
   successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken
   by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition
   of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface
   was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from
   that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The
   army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of
   General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.
   But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,
   was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and
   liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but
   was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting
   in the vigour and decision which his critical position was
   likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English
   Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had
   persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,
   and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul
   and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great
   conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every
   important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening
   of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was
   held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be
   made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning
   an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir
   Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,
   and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's
   army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The
   evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and
   rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at
   once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's
   house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.
   Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which
   marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this
   crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of
   the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative
   security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far
   too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an
   entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on
   almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness
   of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored
   within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at
   some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was
   made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time
   onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible
   supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.
   The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy
   and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some
   flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of
   helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might
   even yet have been averted by a little firmness. … But the
   commander had already begun to despair, and before many days
   had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.
   Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances
   but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as
   well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide
   the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar
   Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the
   beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern
   mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the
   insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent
   chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he
   promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if
   a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.
   … While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he
   intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double
   dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent
   messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should
   make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their
   troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition
   was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops
   to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to
   complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the
   presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against
   whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's
   own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing
   but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major
   Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at
   length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of
   the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all
   the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort
   to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey
   had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors
   of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English
   military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life
   out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or
   shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of
   camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which
   lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,
   had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is
   uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd—it can scarcely be
   called an army—was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of
   the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with
   Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the
   married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two
   generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope
   that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      volume 4, pages 61-66._

{14}

   "Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.
   Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before
   very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to
   lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling
   remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass—a dark,
   steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable
   toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had
   barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was
   finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;
   the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped
   from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to
   Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their
   own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the
   number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by
   straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached
   Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,
   came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had
   numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The
   curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for
   any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful
   catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and
   reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of
   Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and
   shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the
   worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is
   all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our
   successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in
   this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before
   Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out
   and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the
   treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly
   declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale
   rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and
   military commander with the knives at their throats.' General
   Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold
   this place on the part of Government until I receive its order
   to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the
   turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was
   at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to
   have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a
   succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the
   place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most
   formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the
   garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,
   re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the
   gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every
   attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at
   length, when it became certain that General Pollock was
   forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they
   determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out
   of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and
   completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly
   fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad
   [April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and
   dispersed. … Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we
   had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne
   of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon
   after the departure of the British, … and his body, stripped
   of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a
   ditch."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of our own Times,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the War in Afghanistan._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan_.

      _Lady Sale,
      Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan._

      _Mohan Lal,
      Life of Dost Mohammed,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
   The British return to Cabul.
   Restoration of Dost Mahomed.

   It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain
   permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to
   advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to
   do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at
   Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one
   writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be
   cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of
   the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood
   which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet
   pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for
   two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now
   the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other
   leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the
   British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and
   defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After
   one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he
   could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their
   mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on
   his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,
   after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he
   captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been
   destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command
   of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been
   taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,
   the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed
   the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as
   it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,
   brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first
   considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of
   Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington
   called it 'The Song of Triumph.' … This proclamation, put
   forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really
   an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an
   insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was
   gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple
   of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are
   believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying
   neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum
   at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni
   and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived
   on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English
   prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),
   who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were
   brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.
   General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not
   now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar
   in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and
   Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into
   India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent
   back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.
{15}
   Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. … The war
   being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son
   of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when
   his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position
   that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly
   afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom
   we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in
   India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as
   king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which
   he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,
   when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,
   and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur
   to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab
   forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly
   terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a
   friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power
   would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his
   kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we
   declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the
   advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian
   encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short
   time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between
   England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims
   over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained
   independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed
   attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,
   including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This
   was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days
   after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere
   Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of
   Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the
   Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,
   asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,
   however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of
   'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a
   neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was
   at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had
   he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would
   have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he
   was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold
   acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William
   Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000
   muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded
   that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a
   friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers
   revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government
   that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country
   which he brought under his power. However, after various
   changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two
   brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,
   Abdurrahman."

      _P. F. Walker,
      Afghanistan,
      pages 45-51._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the War in Afghanistan_.

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of Afghanistan,
      chapters 11._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
   The second war with the English and its causes.

   The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle
   of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice
   royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord
   Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly
   inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the
   dynastic quarrels of the Afghans … and in attempting to
   cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and
   arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. … Lord
   Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his
   successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in
   1869. … Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He
   refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge
   himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he
   promised that he would not press for the admission of any
   English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return
   expected by England for this attitude of friendly
   non-interference was that every other foreign state, and
   especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly
   or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our
   interests were so closely involved. … But a different view
   was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was
   supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir
   Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as
   contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them
   desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,
   Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the
   Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of
   Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.
   In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir
   Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was
   ably maintained. … A Viceroy whose views were more in
   accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to
   be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord
   Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving
   effect to the new policy. He was instructed. … to continue
   payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing
   dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of
   unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance
   of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in
   exchange for these advantages. … Lord Lawrence and those who
   thought with him in England prophesied from the first the
   disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of
   the Afghans. … The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English
   Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common
   interest to the two Governments, was calculated … to excite
   feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere
   Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. …
   Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and
   consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and
   Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. … The English Commissioner was
   instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of
   the Treaty was the admission of an English representative
   within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request
   on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand
   proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy
   formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.
{16}
   Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave
   him to understand that the English would proceed to secure
   their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew
   his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the
   two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,
   information reached India that a Russian mission had been
   received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of
   the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war
   with Russia. … As the despatch of a mission from Russia was
   contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception
   under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord
   Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand
   the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his
   intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer
   selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him
   forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as
   it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of
   course the mission was not admitted. … An outcry was raised
   both in England and in India. … Troops were hastily
   collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was
   thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier
   at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the
   formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing
   aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of
   England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct
   territorial aggression. … As had been foreseen by all
   parties from the first, the English armies were entirely
   successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. … By the
   close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the
   Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in
   January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the
   resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken
   to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was
   drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as
   regent. … Yakoob readily granted the English demands,
   consenting to place his foreign relations under British
   control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably
   more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the
   rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He
   received in exchange a promise of support by the British
   Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the
   conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley
   withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to
   establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in
   July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and
   eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad
   story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and
   scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious
   uniformity—the English Resident with his little garrison
   trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan
   mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself
   respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,
   the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save
   their hatred of English interference, the people seething with
   anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the
   Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack
   upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]
   after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his
   entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the
   previous war was avoided. The English troops which were
   withdrawn from the country were still within reach. … About
   the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the
   Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On
   the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at
   Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make
   his formal entry into the city of Cabul. … The Ameer was
   deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the
   people required under pain of death, and the country scoured
   to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late
   outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of
   retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the
   English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was
   cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of
   some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.
   … A new and formidable personage … now made his appearance
   on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the
   late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had
   sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported
   by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take
   place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to
   20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. … It was
   thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and
   southern province. … The policy thus declared was carried
   out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the
   same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the
   north signs were visible that the only possible successor to
   the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. … The Bengal army
   under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,
   suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the
   Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The
   first part of the programme was carried out. … The second
   part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious
   disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the
   withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. …
   Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's
   friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to
   accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,
   rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,
   and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of
   June [1880] his army started. … But before the end of June
   Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would
   be assaulted. … General Burrows found it necessary to fall back
   to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called
   Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of
   the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the
   position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th
   of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of
   this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,
   numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously
   defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,
   about half the English troops returned to Candahar.
{17}
   General Primrose, who was in command, had no
   choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,
   and wait till he should be rescued. … The troops at Cabul
   were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster
   reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army
   under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered
   city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry
   out the intended withdrawal. … With about 10,000 fighting
   men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a
   successful issue his remarkable enterprise, … falling upon
   the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short
   distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the
   forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British
   force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively
   refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent
   occupation. … The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob
   continued for a while, and until it was over the English
   troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been
   several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]
   occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the
   evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally
   accepted as Ameer."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, pages 534-544._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Forbes,
      The Afghan Wars,
      part 2._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      The Afghan Question from 1841 to 1878_.

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Russo-Afghan Question_.

----------AFGHANISTAN: End----------

AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.

      See LIBYANS.

AFRICA: The Roman Province.

   "Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had
   doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman
   Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian
   inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the
   fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,
   all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the
   developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim
   of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of
   North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. … The
   arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite
   after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes
   as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman
   government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,
   and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the
   kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.
   We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman
   subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it
   like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia
   as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of
   the native governments. … As for the previous rulers, so
   also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a
   limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial
   supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or
   taking back of the frontier in Africa. … The former
   territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier
   kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,
   as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until
   the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name
   [Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the
   river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well
   as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. …
   Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. … The
   Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the
   Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed
   it; but … probably the whole south as far as the great
   desert passed as imperial land."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 13._

      See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.

AFRICA: The Mediæval City.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

AFRICA:
   Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
      and 908-1171;
      also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
      and SUDAN.

AFRICA:
   Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
   The rounding of the Cape.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.

AFRICA:
   Dutch and English Colonization.

      See SOUTH AFRICA.

AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
   Settlement of Sierra Leone.

      See SIERRA LEONE.

AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The founding of Liberia.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
   Partition of the interior between European Powers.

   "The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin
   Conference of 1884-1885 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that
   Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely
   considered. … The founding of the Congo Independent State
   was probably the most important result of the Conference. …
   Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,
   Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to
   their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.
   … The compromise … arrived at placed the Mission Station
   of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The
   frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of
   Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from
   the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,
   constituted by a royal charter, … "was given administrative
   powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions
   thereby placed under British protection … apart from the Oil
   Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,
   embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern
   frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories
   of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its
   confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany
   and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and
   action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and
   in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German
   sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.
   … At present it allows the French Congo territories to
   expand along the western bank of the M'bangi … provided no
   other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in
   which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the
   conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On
   the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention
   by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks
   of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier
   in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit
   of the basin of the Casini.
{18}
   On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which
   France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left
   to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for
   German Colonization—Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count
   Pfeil—quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,
   Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were
   conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters … armed
   with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On
   the 27th February, the day following the signature of the
   General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,
   or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German
   Colonization the territories … acquired for them through Dr.
   Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was
   proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon
   the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles
   knew no bounds. … Prior to 1884, the continental lands
   facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British
   influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and
   the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of
   the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and
   the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty
   of the Sultan. … Still, Great Britain had no territorial
   claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally
   protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no
   effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German
   Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and
   the British and German Governments arranged questions between
   them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,
   which was afterwards superseded by the more definite
   Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In
   April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization
   were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with
   Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took
   over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of
   Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal
   charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an
   enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently
   the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series
   of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,
   whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over
   vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and
   Cape Frio. … It was useless for the Cape colonists to
   protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to
   the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. … On 3rd
   August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa
   was founded, and …. received the Imperial sanction for its
   incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was
   formed—the German West-Africa Company—and the
   administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial
   Commissioner. … The intrusion of Germany into South-West
   Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the
   extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.
   Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer
   insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had
   adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,
   having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its
   territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was
   absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was
   added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.
   Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.
   By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain
   acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the
   early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over
   the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a
   British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country
   bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions
   in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,
   and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at
   this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having
   obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the
   British South Africa Company, … On the 29th October 1889,
   the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.
   It was declared in this charter that the principal field of
   the operations of the British South African Company shall be
   the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
   British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
   African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
   dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other
   boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land
   was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great
   Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the
   continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over
   the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over
   Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now
   to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took
   formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of
   Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from
   Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of
   Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of
   King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian
   troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of
   Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,
   except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the
   result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th
   September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and
   its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and
   Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,
   Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of
   Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has
   practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no
   hold over Abyssinia. … Italy has also succeeded in
   establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties
   concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh
   (about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North
   latitude)—a distance of 450 miles—were placed under Italian
   protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her
   Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. … The
   British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now
   extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute
   (43° 15' East longitude). … The activity of France in her
   Senegambian province, … during the last hundred years …
   has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her
   territory. … The French have established a claim over the
   country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.
{19}
   A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra
   Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at
   Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal
   withdrew all rights over Dehomé. … Recently, a French sphere
   of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan
   regions between Algeria and Senegambia. … Declarations were
   exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]
   with the following results: France became a consenting party
   to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great
   Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over
   Madagascar. … And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of
   influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean
   possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on
   Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere
   of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs
   to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of
   July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main
   provisions the following definitions of territory: "The
   Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention
   of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria
   Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to
   the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the
   western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to
   be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro
   within the British sphere. … Treaties in that district were
   made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.
   Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin
   Pasha. … (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of
   influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally
   drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence
   it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores
   of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River
   Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was
   continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the
   Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern
   frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River
   and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of
   influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of
   Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile
   watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her
   Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on
   the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the
   islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the
   Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south
   latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line
   was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give
   Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)
   The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony
   was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger
   Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade
   zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as
   applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and
   Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the
   dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal
   zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,
   however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have
   since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany
   within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.
   Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was
   ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,
   1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain
   acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion
   of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the
   Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted
   passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the
   confines of the Congo Independent State and German East
   Africa. … Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower
   Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo
   Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake
   Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the
   South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West
   Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her
   provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo
   Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. … On
   May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an
   end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent
   State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the
   country was equally divided between the disputants. … Lord
   Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very
   wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by
   the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of
   goods through territories in which two or more powers are
   indirectly interested."

      _A. S. White,
      The Development of Africa,
      Second Edition, Revised, 1892._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Keltie,
      The Partition of Africa,
      chapter 12-23._

      See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.

AFRICA: The inhabiting races.

   The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in
   number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,
   stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who
   comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs
   (with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between
   Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole
   South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in
   that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include
   with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and
   Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are
   occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including
   Abyssinians and Gallas.

      _A. H. Keane,
      The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:
      Africa, appendix)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown,
      The Races of Mankind,
      volumes 2-3._

      _R. N. Cust,
      Sketch of the Modern Languages of Africa_.

      See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.

----------AFRICA: End----------

AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGADE.
      See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.

AGAS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.

AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

AGE OF STONE.
AGE OF BRONZE, &c.

      See STONE AGE.

{20}

AGELA.
AGELATAS.

   The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly
   trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of
   which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the
   Agelatas.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 2._

AGEMA, The.

   The royal escort of Alexander the Great.

AGEN, Origin of.

      See NITIOBRIGES.

AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.

      See SENONES.

AGER PUBLICUS.

   "Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her
   early history. … Large tracts of country became Roman land,
   the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager
   publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this
   land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which
   it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most
   curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. … That
   part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor
   given remained public property, and it was occupied, according
   to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a
   Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this
   occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took
   what he could, and more than he could use profitably. … We
   should be more inclined to believe that this public land was
   occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;
   but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.
   There was no survey made of the public land which was from
   time to time acquired, but there were certainly general
   boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had
   become public property. The lands which were sold and given
   were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. … There
   is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were
   originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,
   that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,
   were due to the state."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 11._

AGGER.

      See CASTRA.

AGGRAVIADOS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGHLABITE DYNASTY.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.

AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.

AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AGINNUM.
   Modern Agen.

      See NITIOBRIGES.

AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

AGNATI.
AGNATIC.

      See GENS, ROMAN.

AGNIERS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.

AGOGE, The.

   The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the
   ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the
   young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

AGORA, The.

   The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the
   centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even
   earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with
   the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it
   generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of
   the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest
   part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of
   commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here
   even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,
   for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the
   oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive
   games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,
   both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and
   states was carried on; from here started the processions which
   continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,
   though locally separated. Although originally all public
   transactions were carried on in these market-places, special
   local arrangements for contracting public business soon became
   necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently
   rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching
   the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most
   likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of
   Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between
   the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of
   Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of
   Athenian commerce. … The description by Vitruvius of an
   agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of
   post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular
   in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The
   numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of
   marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for
   walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all
   marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the
   remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      translated by Hueffer,
      part 1, section 26._

   In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was
   called the Agora.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 20._

AGRÆI, The.

      See AKARNANIANS.

AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.

   "Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman
   laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these
   laws all land was declared common property, and that at
   certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and
   made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It
   is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences
   of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known
   to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were
   thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian
   laws were not private property, but the property of the state.
   They were, originally, those public lands which had been the
   domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any
   City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an
   Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in
   whole or in part."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8._

      See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.

{21}

AGRI DECUMATES, The.

   "Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a
   triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the
   confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an
   enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and
   presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river
   to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most
   part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman
   defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an
   enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of
   Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many
   of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original
   inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to
   have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The
   intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered
   in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the
   district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri
   Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially
   connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt
   made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much
   later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of
   Augustus]."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Roman,
      chapter 36._.

   "Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
   Decumates of the Roman writers."

      _R G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 8._

     See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.

AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

AGRIGENTUM.

   Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek
   colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older
   colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid
   cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified
   by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious
   tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was
   destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by
   Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and
   grandeur.

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

      See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.

   Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

   Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
   Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.

      See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.

AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

AIGINA.

      See ÆGINA.

AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

AIGUILLON, Siege of.

   A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An
   English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,
   held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of
   the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles,
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 120._

AIX, Origin of.

   See SALYES.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:
   The Capital of Charlemagne.

   The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of
   Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the
   French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of
   the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome
   arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia—palaces,
   gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,—for the
   erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid
   under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.
   It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there
   that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that
   foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch
   perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and
   the improvement of music."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 17._

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
   The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
   Succession (1748).

   The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
   on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
   to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
   belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
   concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
   influence of England and Holland … forced the peace upon
   Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
   its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
   had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
   and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
   accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
   Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
   side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
   acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
   England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
   made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
   sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
   Cape Breton. … The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
   Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
   France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
   trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
   years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
   obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
   sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
   unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
   other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
   retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
   mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
   of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
   main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
   recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
   guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
   everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
   additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
   of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
   conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
   Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
   the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
   Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
   possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
   without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
   Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
   Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
   of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
   remained with the Genoese.
{22}
   For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
   [the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
   possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
   old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
   changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
   by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
   design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
   vexed questions had been set at rest. … Of all the ambitious
   projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
   Frederick alone was substantially realized."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 3._

   "Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin
   and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many
   conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,
   it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross
   inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned
   to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all
   endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the
   electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most
   deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not
   only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost
   its own patrimonial possessions. … The most trying problem
   is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of
   Hungary [Maria Theresa]. … The verdict of history, as
   expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of
   writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice
   of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was
   formed against her."

      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1745-1756,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, letter 30._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 108 (volume 3)._

      See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.

   "Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least
   important, but at the same time one of the most estimable
   peoples in Greece … our knowledge is only fragmentary. The
   boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the
   people spoken of as a political whole. … Thucydides speaks,
   by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an
   institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,
   in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for
   judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the
   supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not
   in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own
   time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of
   Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already
   held there. … Of the constitution of the League we know but
   little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and
   probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been
   held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had
   entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in
   Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General
   with high authority. … The existence of coins bearing the
   name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity
   enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of
   particular cities also occur."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 4, section 1._

AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).

   The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the
   ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours
   in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between
   the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:
   they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the
   Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with
   the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,
   sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and
   half-Epirotic,—like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.
   Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were
   subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in
   unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of
   plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be
   unarmed. … Notwithstanding this state of disunion and
   insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose
   political league among themselves. … The Akarnanians appear
   to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical
   ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the
   Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the
   Grecian heroes,—Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and
   Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and
   other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to
   be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the
   Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,
   and so they seem to have continued with little alteration
   until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of
   them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter
   enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact
   of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian
   accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in
   socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that
   this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the
   Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the
   Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,—a people the
   most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the
   Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in
   marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the
   Akarnanian character."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 24._

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.

AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

AKKAD.
AKKADIANS.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

AKKARON.

      See PHILISTINES.

AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

      See KORKYRA.

ALABAMA:
   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;
      CHEROKEES.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
   Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

{23}

ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
   French occupation and first settlement.
   The founding of Mobile.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
   Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
   Partly embraced in West Florida.

      See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
   Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Partly in dispute with Spain.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
   All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

      See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
   Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
   Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
   Organized as a Territory.
   Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

   "By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi
   Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,
   thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a
   Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as
   they now exist. … By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress
   authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form
   a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed
   into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same
   footing as the original States.' … The joint resolution of
   congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by
   President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

      _W. Brewer,
      Alabama,
      chapter 5._

ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
   General Mitchell's Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
   The Battle of Mobile Bay.
   Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   The Fall of Mobile.
   Wilson's Raid.
   End of the Rebellion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------ALABAMA: End----------

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
   In their Origin.
   The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
   Precursors of the Alabama.

   The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially
   commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the
   government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the
   progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a
   proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,
   1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those
   depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property
   belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and
   notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the
   Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had
   abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned
   war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a
   side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was
   armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was
   short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the
   Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of
   the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet
   steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more
   active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and
   twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the
   blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of
   June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran
   among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon
   made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was
   everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great
   favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical
   operations. She became the terror of the American merchant
   service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent
   out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at
   the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British
   guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.
   Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her
   piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of
   the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial
   aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,
   especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators
   determined to procure from those friends some powerful
   piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and
   construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a
   ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British
   Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,
   in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate
   ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was
   the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.
   Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well
   satisfied from information received that she was designed for
   the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British
   government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,
   1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed
   and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to
   Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off
   Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The
   blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.
   Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense
   to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed
   the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few
   minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of
   his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his
   seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed
   from the service without a hearing—an act which subsequent
   events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December
   the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical
   cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. … The name
   of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

{24}

   The fate of the Florida is related below—A. D. 1862-1865.

      _R. Semmes,
      Memoirs of Service Afloat,
      chapters 9-26._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapters 30-31 (volume 2)._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
   The Alabama, her career and her fate.

   "The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the
   Confederates] … is thus described by Semmes, her commander:
   'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet
   in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and
   coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was
   barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to
   carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. … Her
   engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an
   apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the
   fresh water that her crew might require. … Her armament
   consisted of eight guns.' … The Alabama was built and, from
   the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'
   The contract for her construction was signed by Captain
   Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' …
   On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of
   the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,
   and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the
   month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The
   purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was
   notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an
   object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at
   that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence
   on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. … Early
   in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the
   British authorities—a point maintained throughout the
   struggle—that they would originate nothing themselves for
   the maintenance and performance of their international duties,
   and that they would listen to no representations from the
   officials of the United States which did not furnish technical
   evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign
   Enlistment Act. … At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the
   United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired
   proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of
   affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance
   with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl
   Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by
   the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a
   request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to
   be ready for sea and might leave any hour. … It … appears
   that notwithstanding this official information from the
   Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers
   until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so
   clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under
   these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in
   the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion
   of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her
   Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the
   Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool
   saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and
   left the port this morning.' … After leaving the dock she
   proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on
   board, and also Bullock. … The 290 slowly steamed on to
   Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all
   that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort
   was made to seize her. … When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay
   her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the
   Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only
   stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for
   Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of
   August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail
   was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the
   'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six
   guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'
   Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important
   cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed
   discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain
   Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,
   whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in
   Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes
   and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There
   were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some
   stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a
   part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in
   transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was
   not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was
   hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went
   back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under
   that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

      _The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
      Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
      Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151)._

   The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
   Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
   Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
   several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
   westward, and making several captures, she approached within
   200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
   18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
   19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
   Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
   7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
   between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
   the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
   arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
   captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
   Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
   she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
   near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
   numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
   Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
   was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
   In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
   was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
   cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
   Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
   including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
   From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
   Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
   arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
   repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
   harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
   business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
   to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
   vessel of the enemy. … But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
   with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
   attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
   within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
   calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
   and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
   possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
   London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
   with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
   Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
   one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
   smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
   broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
   two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
   their tonnage was about the same."

      _E. A. Pollard,
      The Lost Cause,
      page 549._

   Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer
   Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on
   the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June
   19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department
   that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off
   this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from
   Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,
   as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or
   two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of
   Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At
   twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering
   towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,
   we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was
   attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to
   and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,
   within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or
   three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action
   continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and
   round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the
   expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about
   twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In
   a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following
   particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the
   Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the
   former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the
   object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow
   of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this
   point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was
   not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,
   shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,
   and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they
   had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats
   would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats
   not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the
   Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in
   his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the
   Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,
   when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the
   Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,
   and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,
   and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost
   immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was
   actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from
   shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and
   others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as
   comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the
   Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the
   commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an
   act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means
   to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work
   rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was
   mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and
   others, and also the very officer who had come on board to
   surrender."—In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the
   following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated
   she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious
   damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken
   effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and
   rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having
   been wounded. … The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173
   projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'
   accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded
   18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the
   coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine
   room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken
   effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by
   explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

      _Rebellion Record,
      volume 9, pages 221-225._

      ALSO IN
      _J. R. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in the Civil War;
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne,
      The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders,
      volume 3._

      _R. Semmes,
      Memoirs of Service Afloat,
      chapters 29-55._

      _J. D. Bullock,
      Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
   Other Confederate cruisers.

   "A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to
   prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became
   quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included
   the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which
   made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which
   made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was
   captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by
   a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],
   in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the
   United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the
   restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was
   captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and
   sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was
   contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the
   Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British
   shipyards."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 24._

{26}

   The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the
   Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship—the Sea King—built
   for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,
   Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned
   (October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the
   Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of
   which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her
   appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she
   fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of
   one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were
   captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21
   were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at
   upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred …
   two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of
   existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of
   hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of
   the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;
   yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way
   southward he received information, August 2d, of the final
   collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and
   surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered
   her to the United States.

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Confederate Cruisers
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
   Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
   against Great Britain.
   First stages of the Negotiation.
   The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

   "A review of the history of the negotiations between the two
   Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward
   Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show … what was intended by
   these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used
   on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence
   between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the
   20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape
   of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under
   instructions from the Government of the United States. In this
   note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,
   and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the
   directions which I have received from my Government to solicit
   redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'
   … Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,
   1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing
   out of the acts of the Alabama. … As new losses from time to
   time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were
   brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were
   lodged with the national and individual claims already
   preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved
   was by common consent deferred. … The fact that the first
   claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains
   how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all
   the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama
   claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually
   over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl
   Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of
   American vessels transferred to the British flag during the
   war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing
   from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is
   multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going
   on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation
   with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the
   ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as
   vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the
   effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' … He
   stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing
   that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government
   of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord
   Russell … said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties
   of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured
   by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United
   States have sustained. … Referring to the offer of
   arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord
   Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government
   must decline either to make reparation and compensation for
   the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to
   any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the
   negotiations between the two Governments. … In the summer of
   1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord
   Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the
   place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give
   an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the
   rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared
   to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,
   should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might
   possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by
   instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call
   Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'
   to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for
   damages which were suffered by them during the period of the
   civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United
   States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is
   neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and
   unconciliatory toward Great Britain. … Lord Stanley met this
   overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which
   he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a
   reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,
   and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which
   the arbitration shall apply.' … As the first result of these
   negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson
   convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.
   It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United
   States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the
   14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the
   Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.
   Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States
   Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided
   for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction
   over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States
   upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the
   so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of
   subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the
   United States which may have been presented to either
   government for its interposition with the other since the 26th
   July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The
   Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was
   rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made
   provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted
   of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more
   extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

      _The Argument of the United States delivered to the
      Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division
      13, section 2._

{27}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
   Renewed Negotiations.
   Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

   The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon
   treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President
   Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of
   Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take
   into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;
   and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign
   Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw
   cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the
   British Government with the United States, and the
   inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in
   Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington
   a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John
   Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening
   negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and
   terms acceptable to Great Britain. … Sir John Rose found the
   United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of
   good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,
   on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through
   Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American
   Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold
   its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle
   the various pending questions between the two Governments
   affecting the British possessions in North America. To this
   overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with
   pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the
   United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners
   should be extended to other differences,—that is to say, to
   include the differences growing out of incidents of the late
   Civil War. … The British Government promptly accepted this
   proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The
   joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,
   by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of
   proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at
   New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's
   suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without
   waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by
   special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:
   "On the part of the United States were five persons,—Hamilton
   Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood
   Hoar, and George H. Williams,—eminently fit representatives
   of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of
   the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey
   and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford
   Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of
   Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected
   British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the
   able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in
   revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any
   other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of
   Professor Montague Bernard. … In the face of many
   difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,
   completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which
   received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

      _C. Cushing,
      The Treaty of Washington,
      pages 18-20, and 11-13._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
      Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh,
      chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      _A. Badeau,
      Grant in Peace,
      chapter 25._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

   The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,
   and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the
   17th day of the following June, set forth its principal
   agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas
   differences have arisen between the Government of the United
   States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still
   exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several
   vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
   as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has
   authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
   express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's
   Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of
   the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the
   depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to
   remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the
   United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such
   claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's
   Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the
   said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid
   vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall
   be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of
   five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,
   that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the
   United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;
   His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one;
   the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to
   name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be
   requested to name one. … The Arbitrators shall meet at
   Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after
   they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and
   carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be
   laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United
   States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions
   considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall
   be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the
   high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend
   the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all
   matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5
   of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall
   submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the
   matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed
   by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the
   high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to
   the case, and by such principles of international law not
   inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to
   have been applicable to the case:
{28}
   A neutral Government is bound—First, to use due diligence to
   prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its
   jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to
   believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a
   Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like
   diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of
   any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such
   vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,
   within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to
   permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports
   or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,
   or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military
   supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to
   exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to
   all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation
   of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty
   has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
   declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the
   foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international
   law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned
   in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in
   order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
   relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory
   provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the
   questions between the two countries arising out of those
   claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
   Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
   in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
   observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to
   bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
   invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,
   relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and
   provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and
   commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any
   liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a
   sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to
   25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in
   addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the
   convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on
   certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein
   defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
   common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty
   for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice
   given by either party of its wish to terminate the
   arrangement] … to take fish of every kind, except shell
   fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours
   and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
   Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of
   the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being
   restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to
   land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also
   upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
   nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
   do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
   British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
   said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
   understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
   the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
   all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are
   hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19
   secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of
   fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the
   United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.
   Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that
   were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first
   article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for
   the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each
   country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the
   inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides
   that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her
   Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens
   of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of
   greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of
   this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this
   assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
   States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
   appointed to determine … the amount of any compensation
   which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of
   the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
   Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,
   one by the President of the United States, one by Her
   Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her
   Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three
   months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian
   Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and
   their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles
   24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal
   privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the
   other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,
   Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,
   St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the
   transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one
   country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32
   extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to
   Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary
   laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of
   Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date
   of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration
   of two years after either of the two high contracting parties
   shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate
   the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for
   submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the
   Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between
   Vancouver's Island and the continent)—to complete the
   settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.

      _Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other
      Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 478-493._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Cushing,
      The Treaty of Washington,
      appendix._

{29}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
   The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

   "The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and
   with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The
   United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great
   Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy
   named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss
   Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,
   the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed
   Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great
   Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the
   case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,
   Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis
   being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United
   States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft
   Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,
   by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing
   of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of
   April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the
   convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion
   should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next
   day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,
   subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be
   occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the
   15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were
   continued until the 14th of September following, when the
   decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the
   Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander
   Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the
   British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the
   performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the
   cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those
   vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her
   departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that
   date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,
   the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the
   Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the
   duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels
   called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,
   and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that
   they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of
   evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the
   indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit
   of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the
   judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the
   general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"
   and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any
   sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision
   put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective
   earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following
   language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable
   compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is
   necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,
   and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net
   freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow
   interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with
   the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is
   preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in
   gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for
   further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,
   as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,
   making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII
   of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,
   awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five
   hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid
   by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of
   all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,
   conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
   aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called
   "indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential
   losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the
   Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were
   dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the
   Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a
   statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not
   constitute, upon the principles of international law
   applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of
   compensation or computation of damages between nations." This
   declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of
   the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

      _C. Cushing,
      The Treaty of Washington._

      ALSO IN
      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 3)._

----------ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End----------

ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).

      See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

ALAMANNI.

      See ALEMANNI.

ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.

   The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of
   the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its
   name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."

      See ASSASSINS.

ALANS, OR ALANI, The.

   "The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.
   C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and
   again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A
   similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern
   Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca
   places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two
   bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the
   other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of
   the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the
   successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the
   ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus
   and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. … The result
   seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and
   harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a
   vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own
   country."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 17._

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 6, note H._

   "The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the
   Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched
   their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,
   at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

      _J. C. L. Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 3._

{30}

ALANS: A. D. 376.
   Conquest by the Huns.

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

ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
   Final Invasion of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
   Settlement in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ALANS: A. D. 429.
   With the Vandals in Africa.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

ALANS: A. D. 451.
   At the Battle of Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

----------ALANS: End----------

ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).

      See ALMOHADES.

ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
      and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ALARODIANS.
IBERIANS.
COLCHIANS.

   "The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires … are
   almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic
   name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere
   variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable
   in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to
   connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of
   the Inscriptions. … The name of Ararat is constantly used in
   Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a
   particular mountain. … The connexion … of Urarda with the
   Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the
   inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian
   king … ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or
   Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the
   mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians
   were refugees of a later period driven northward by the
   growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,
   is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the
   tenor of the inscriptions."

      _H. C. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 7, appendix 3._

   "The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds
   closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was
   [anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus
   Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians
   of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,
   probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the
   neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must
   be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other
   side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as
   Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and
   fertility, were the Colchians,—dependents, but not exactly
   subjects, of Persia."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
   Purchase by the United States.

   As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between
   the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the
   sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more
   than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found
   difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected
   with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were
   disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite
   negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian
   minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he
   received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the
   President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the
   cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,
   privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any
   associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,
   Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was
   returned, stating that the minister believed himself
   authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final
   instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On
   the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
   secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to
   the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of
   $7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the
   treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or
   negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,
   1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of
   the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal
   transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau
   taking possession in the name of the Government of the United
   States.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 28, chapter 28._

      ALSO IN
      _W. H. Dall,
      Alaska and its Resources,
      part 2, chapter 2._

   For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

ALATOONA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ALBA.
   Alban Mount.

   "Cantons … having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and
   including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
   political unities with which Italian history begins. At what
   period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in
   Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a
   matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban
   range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to
   settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the
   most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the
   new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above
   Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the
   Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was
   universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,
   and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old
   Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very
   ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and
   Tusculum. … All these cantons were in primitive times
   politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its
   prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the
   assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship
   based on community of descent and of language not only
   pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an
   important religious and political institution—the perpetual
   league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency
   belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as
   well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay
   the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton
   of Alba. … The communities entitled to participate in the
   league were in the beginning thirty. … The rendezvous of
   this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the
   similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'
   (feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day
   annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an
   ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to
   the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _Sir W. Gell,
      Topography of Rome,
      volume 1._

{31}

ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

ALBAIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ALBAN, Kingdom of.

      See ALBION;
      also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBANI, The.

      See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ALBANIANS: Ancient.

      See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.

ALBANIANS: Mediæval.

   "From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the
   bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first
   half of the seventh century], we may … venture to date the
   earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the
   Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now
   called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of
   the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more
   particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an
   important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of
   the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece
   with the Hellenic race can be found in history. … It seems
   very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation
   without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition,
   like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the
   singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece Under the Romans,
      chapter 4, section 6._

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
   Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.

   "John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of
   Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other
   petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign,
   and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages
   for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose
   name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength
   and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the
   Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on
   him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The
   young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits
   under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of
   Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died,
   Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son
   constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over
   this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by
   Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to
   escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his
   patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief
   secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at
   his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish
   commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver
   that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the
   Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened
   to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance
   and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith,
   and declared his intention of defending the creed of his
   forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native
   land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner
   and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly
   twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power
   of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and
   his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 4._

   "Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian
   territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the
   Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones
   enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet
   their involuntary reverence for his valour. … His infant son
   was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were
   invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues
   to flow in the noblest families of the realm."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 67.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN
      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 11, sections 11-25._

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.
   Conquests by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------ALBANIANS:  End----------

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623.
   The first Settlement.

   In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had
   established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a
   trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle
   Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the
   present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was
   carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a
   more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected
   on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany.
   That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort
   Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,'
   after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son.
   As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of
   bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians
   [Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the
   Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa
   Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship … and
   desired that they might come and have a constant free trade
   with them, which was concluded upon.'"

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, pages 55 and 151._

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.
   Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   Occupied and named by the English.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
   Again occupied by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

----------ALBANY, NEW YORK: End----------

ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ALBANY REGENCY, The.

      See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.

ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH
      CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).

ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

{32}

ALBERT,
  King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
  Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
  Albert I., Duke of Austria and
    King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
  Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
  Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
  King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.

ALBERTA, The District of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

ALBICI, The.

   A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia
   (Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in
   the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend
   their city against him.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 4._

ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.

   "Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the
   vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic,
   half rationalistic theory of Christianity, … appears almost
   suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible
   power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and
   on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France,
   in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees.
   … The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France.
   Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring
   insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were,
   at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the
   Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in
   some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain,
   absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal
   revolt from Latin Christianity. … In no [other] European
   country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so
   deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church
   more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 9, chapter 8._

   "By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received
   the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where
   the agents of the church who came to combat them found them
   mostly to abound,—the district around the town of Alba, or
   Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the
   commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general
   denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended
   together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a
   predominant element among the people thus designated."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3._

   "Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and
   Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy,
   the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their
   errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but
   the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They
   received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by
   the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are
   called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of
   Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran,
   Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also
   held that the evil spirit created all visible things."

      _Johannes Baptist Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.
      https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo_

   "The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless
   debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on
   the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so
   zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill
   founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with
   the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were
   apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of
   domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and
   the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not
   seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings,
   and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries,
   the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were
   accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would
   have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be
   meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter
   Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of
   Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of
   dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether
   calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not
   as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious
   exaggeration."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 7._

      ALSO IN
      _L. Mariotti,
      Frà Dolcino and his Times._

      See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
   The First Crusade.

   "Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
   Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
   Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
   those which had already elevated him to almost universal
   dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
   and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
   of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
   in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
   the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
   the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
   Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
   Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
   unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
   Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
   he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
   of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
   the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
   on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
   enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
   of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
   his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
   terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
   themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
   freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
   underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
   his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
   Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
   success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
   occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
   question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
   Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
   them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
   easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
   human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
{33}
  and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
  those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
  even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
  addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
  was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
  attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
  placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
  poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
  and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
  project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
  the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
  nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
  by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
  throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
  necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
  Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
  inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
  leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      chapter _4.

      ALSO IN
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Crusades against the Albigenses,
      chapter 1._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 9, chapter 8._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3
      https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo_.

      See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
   The Second Crusade.

   "The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed
   than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism
   of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux.
   Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part
   of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording
   shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. …
   The unhappy Raymond was … again excommunicated from the
   Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the
   champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn
   that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of
   Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of
   heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted
   land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each
   successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may
   not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics,
   or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were
   compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning
   faggots. … At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to
   the city of Toulouse. … Throwing himself into the place,
   Raymond … succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It
   was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a
   fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of
   1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of
   Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of
   Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and
   their united forces came into communication with each other at
   Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from
   Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213],
   at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by
   seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military
   array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and
   decisive. … Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army,
   deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of
   the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the
   sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse
   immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of
   Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently
   held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and
   twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged
   as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other
   counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 7._

      ALSO IN
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of Crusades against the Albigenses,
      chapter 2._

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
   The Renewed Crusades.
   Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
   Pacification of Languedoc.

   "The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
   quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
   rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
   sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
   liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
   again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
   Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
   the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
   stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
   existence. … Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
   cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
   unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
   [Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
   the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
   feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
   succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
   reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
   unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
   fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
   now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
   France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
   and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
   formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
   Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
   crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
   them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
   on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
   and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
   the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
   the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
   his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
   brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
   Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
   This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
   Languedoc. … All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
   conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
   an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
   monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
   Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
   succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
   boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
   Blanche of Castile.
{34}
   "The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
   the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
   Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
   VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
   campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
   collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
   lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
   attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
   barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
   by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
   Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
   willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
   avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
   in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
   two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
   to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
   Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
   treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
   them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
   these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
   penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
   possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
   reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
   Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
   Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
   another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
   Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
   Berenger, count of Provence."

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 2-3._

   "The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the
   French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse
   and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of
   Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne,
   Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to
   the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the
   crown fifty years later. … The name of Toulouse, except as
   the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new
   acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name
   of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and
   Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they
   became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the
   French kingdom."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Geography of Europe,
      chapter 9._

   The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.

   "The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These
   supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France.
   The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with
   calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates
   transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the
   slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify
   nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long
   succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more
   numerous than had ever before been brought together in
   European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know
   that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and
   unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay
   nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the
   sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at
   their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the
   merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the
   landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and
   castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been
   massacred. … Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the
   European world had never mourned over a national disaster so
   wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 7._

----------ALBIGENSES: End----------

ALBION.

   "The most ancient name known to have been given to this island
   [Britain] is that of Albion. … There is, however, another
   allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back,
   though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the
   story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows
   of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked
   by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy.
   Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were
   Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation,
   restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing,
   undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the
   sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them
   sons of Neptune or the sea-god. … Even in the time of Pliny,
   Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with
   Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts
   themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they
   are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word
   in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the
   kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be
   a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of
   it. … It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that
   has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which
   it once applied."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN
      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      chapter 1._

      See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBIS, The.
   The ancient name of the river Elbe.

ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.

ALCALDE.
ALGUAZIL.
CORREGIDOR.

   "The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or
   governor. … Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the
   law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and
   criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the
   Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii.
   331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding
   the two offices. … An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable
   or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and
   criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius')
   and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical
   government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes._

ALCANIZ, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).

      See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.

{35}

ALCANTARA, Knights of.

   "Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of
   Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,'
   A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the
   military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don
   Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of
   choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence
   they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the
   Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the
   territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of
   the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who
   encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the
   neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for
   a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they
   applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy
   the place: that permission was readily granted: with his
   assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers
   erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by
   other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire
   fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the
   foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St.
   Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service
   alike to king and church."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division. 2._

ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).

      See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.

ALCIBIADES, The career of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.

ALCLYDE.

   Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the
   victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock
   in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman
   town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English
   for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan,
   or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the
   slightly modified form of Dumbarton. … Alclyde was more than
   once destroyed by the Northmen."

      _J. Rhys;
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, CUMBRIA.

ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

ALDIE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

ALDINE PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

ALEMANNI,
ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.
   Origin and first appearance.

   "Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe
   war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was
   waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is
   named, which we here meet for the first time—the Alamanni.
   Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a
   little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the
   appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as
   well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes
   comprehended under this name stand forth—more than is the
   case among the other great Germanic peoples—in their separate
   character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other
   Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is
   not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the
   new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by
   the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the
   mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in
   equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the
   main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to
   the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is
   not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times
   dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further
   mention after the end of the second century, furnished a
   strong contingent to the Alamanni."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4._

   "The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name
   from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat
   exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,
   who quotes Asinius Quadratus. … Notwithstanding this, I
   think it is an open question, whether the name may not have
   been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of
   Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic
   allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,—parts of the Decumates
   Agri—parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,
   or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,
   a name so German as to have given the present French and
   Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a
   population other than Germanic. I know the apparently
   paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in
   the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'
   by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the
   'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner
   or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and
   'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).—Grimm, ii.
   628.—Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that
   the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in
   Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other
   words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in
   'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of
   importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the
   parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time
   of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.
   Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those
   Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,
   indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits
   that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no
   tangible difference can be found."

      _R. G. Lathan,
      The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 11._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
   Invasion of Gaul and Italy.

   The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire …
   increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of
   Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of
   Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered
   the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni
   penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into
   the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and
   displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight
   of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger
   rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.
   Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars—Valerian
   in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,
   succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force
   which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany
   laden with spoil."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{36}

ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
   Invasion of Italy.

   Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the
   reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from
   the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,
   when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of
   the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the
   Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these
   last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the
   Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading
   havoc as they went. It was only after three great
   battles,—one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost
   beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was
   defeated), and a third near Pavia,—that the Germanic
   invaders were destroyed.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 11.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
   Repulse by Julian.

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
   Invasion of Gaul.

   The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread
   ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great
   spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the
   Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman
   forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian
   auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted
   energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the
   invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them
   back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,
   the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a
   memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he
   strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,
   fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,
   the Burgundians, which weakened both.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 25.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
   Defeat by Gratian.

   On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to
   lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of
   his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the
   Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly
   recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and
   encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near
   Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The
   Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than
   5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.
   Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his
   troublesome neighbors in their own country.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
   Overthrow by the Franks.

   "In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that
   career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any
   intermission until the death of their warrior king. The
   Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on
   the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,
   had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into
   collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of
   Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and
   defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood
   of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then
   established a considerable number of his Franks in the
   territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are
   found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

      _V. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 2._

   "Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts
   of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and
   forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be
   overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat
   overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he
   bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a
   Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic
   faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,
   whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who
   art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who
   trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on
   my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me
   from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in
   Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the
   fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they
   turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was
   slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its
   over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at
   Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.
   "In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or
   504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the
   Alamanni. … Clovis moved his army into their territories and
   won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that
   of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms
   as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the
   Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,
   the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was
   taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district
   received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,
   or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.
   The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and
   dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of
   Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here
   they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;
   and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to
   the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.
   … Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and
   Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new
   Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus
   Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 11._

      See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
      and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank Dominion.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
   Final subjection to the Franks.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

{37}

ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.
   Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was
   recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

   The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu
   Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the
   Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of
   1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege
   of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and
   slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered
   with corpses. … It is said that 100,000 women and children
   were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its
   mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus
   submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,
   the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great
   Khan called him to the East.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      pages 209-211._

ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
   Sack and Massacre by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

ALEUTS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.

ALEXANDER
  ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
  Conquests and Empire.

     See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.

  Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.

  Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.
  Abduction and Abdication.

     See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

  Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825.

  Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.

  Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.

  Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.

  Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214-1249.

  Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.

  Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.

  Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.

  Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254-1261.

  Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410
  (elected by the Council of Pisa).

  Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.

  Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.

  Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.

  Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.
   The Founding of the City.

   "When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the
   little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye
   of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a
   great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships
   could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour
   roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was
   needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The
   site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of
   land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake
   Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,
   which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by
   the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel
   with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake
   Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,
   the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was
   above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet
   broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of
   the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the
   mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which
   Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.
   The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but
   the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a
   Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on
   the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The
   situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best
   Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port
   connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural
   emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,
   because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for
   steamships of an unbroken sea route."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 12._

      See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
      and EGYPT: B. C. 332.

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
   Greatness and splendor of the City.
   Its Commerce.
   Its Libraries.
   Its Museum.
   Its Schools.

   Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the
   throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it
   in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded
   by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy
   Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It
   was the first of those new foundations which are a marked
   feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and
   importance—above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,
   then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as
   Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.
   … Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The
   intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned
   with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the
   omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles
   with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite
   regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the
   habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,
   one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there
   in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,
   Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and
   variable character to the population. Let us not forget the
   vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom
   trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where
   the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had
   opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and
   Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships
   on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,
   as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the
   wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,
   the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the
   silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of
   Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece—a thousand
   imports from all the Mediterranean—came to be exchanged for
   the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of
   India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,
   the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.
   Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to
   the marvellous fertility and great population—it is said to
   have been seven millions—of Egypt, they made all the profits
   of this enormous carrying trade.
{38}
   We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were
   by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the
   great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. …
   All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.
   Philadelphus was anything but that. … It was he who opened
   up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great
   port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for
   centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern
   parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna
   to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the
   Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and
   of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the
   progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the
   world's history, and we must separate his University and its
   professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate
   section. … The history of the organization of the University
   and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For
   the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we
   should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford
   type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and
   spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,
   and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,
   this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for
   teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a
   centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model
   came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the
   Academy of Plato, had a fixed property—a home with its
   surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,
   it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and
   where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed
   stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the
   successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a
   property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and
   so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius
   the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,
   brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake
   drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no
   doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the
   great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled
   Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle
   moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in
   one central repository all that the world knew or could
   produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a
   proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the
   great library, which in those days had a thousand times the
   value a great library has now, but also observatories,
   zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other
   new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from
   the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and
   museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most
   brilliant group of students in literature and science was
   formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the
   grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall
   presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated
   the process by which the size of the earth is determined
   to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of
   Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of
   philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to
   have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of
   the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,
   Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who
   mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to
   this day. … The vast collections of the library and museum
   actually determined the whole character of the literature of
   Alexandria. One word sums it all up—erudition, whether in
   philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange
   to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was
   no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact
   that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.
   Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious
   words, were departments of research dear to them. In science
   they did great things, so did they in geography. … But were
   they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to
   the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next
   generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus
   developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its
   place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the
   credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in
   literature—the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;
   the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas
   and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of
   our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk
   songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of
   Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was
   fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was
   far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for
   ever."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 13-14._

   "There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
   the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
   smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
   situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
   totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
   Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
   latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
   Matter, _Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
   seg., 237 seq.)_ It is not stated by any ancient writer
   where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
   which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
   it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
   that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
   queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
   civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
   libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
   is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
   first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
   still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
   took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
   suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
   below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
   though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
   Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
   of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
 {39}
   Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
   its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
   do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
   place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
   chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
   speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
   great Alexandrian library. … Gibbon seems to think that the
   whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
   the Emperor Theodosius—see below]; but this was not the case.
   It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
   was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
   and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
   standing long afterwards."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the
   Moslems,

      See below: A. D. 641-646.

      ALSO IN
      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties,
      chapter 3._

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapters 7, 8 and 12._

      See, also, NEOPLATONICS.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
   Cæsar and Cleopatra.
   The Rising against the Romans.
   The Siege.
   Destruction of the great Library.
   Roman victory.

   From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
   Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
   murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
   afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
   being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
   more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
   in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
   between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
   Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
   war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
   ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
   Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
   hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
   dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
   of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
   lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
   Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
   rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
   great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
   commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
   commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
   that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
   the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
   caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
   priceless libraries of Alexandria—the library of the
   Museum—was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
   By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
   conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
   determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
   that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
   arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
   of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
   crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
   with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
   overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
   Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
   Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
   to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
   Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

      _A. Hirtius,
      The Alexandrian War._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 20._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 18._

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 12._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
   Destruction of the Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 116.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
   Massacre by Caracalla.

   "Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
   capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
   murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
   was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
   those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
   of his rapine and cruelty. … In the midst of peace, and upon
   the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
   Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
   secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
   the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
   without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
   sufferers."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 6.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
   Tumults of the Third Century.

   "The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
   united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
   superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
   occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
   neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
   in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
   time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
   multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
   After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
   prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
   insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
   the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
   of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
   of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
   suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
   off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
   street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
   converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
   considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
   spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
   palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
   philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
   afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
   solitude."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
   Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

   After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
   Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
   there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
   Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
   and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
   his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
   war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
   Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
   quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
   Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
   everafter."

      _J. B. L. Crevier,
      History of the Roman Emperors,
      book 27._

{40}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
   Siege by Diocletian.

   A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
   occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
   desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
   Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
   war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
   and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
   on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
   Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
   the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
   rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
   multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
   vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
   the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
   but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
   thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
   and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
   sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
   Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
   Alexandria; those proud cities … were utterly destroyed."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
   Great Earthquake.

      See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
   Destruction of the Serapeum.

   "After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
   sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
   city and temple of Serapis. … The archepiscopal throne of
   Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
   peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
   alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
   indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. … The
   votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
   inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
   389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
   exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
   These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
   rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
   sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
   which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
   the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
   magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
   truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
   of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
   temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
   "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
   and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
   shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
   whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
   prejudice."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 28.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
   in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
   annotator, Dr. Smith.

      See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
   The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

   "His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
   412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
   his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
   parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
   death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
   temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
   prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
   oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
   the sectaries. … The toleration, and even the privileges of
   the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
   secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
   prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
   Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
   patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
   the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
   were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
   levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
   rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
   from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
   he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
   deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
   shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
   have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
   this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
   guilty."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
   more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
   deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
   honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
   woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
   lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
   by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
   learning; her modesty commended both. … Hypatia lived in
   great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
   whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
   hostility to the patriarch. … Some of Cyril's ferocious
   partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
   with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
   rent her limb from limb."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Kingsley,
      Hypatia._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
   Taken by Chosroes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
   The Moslem Conquest.

   The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
   Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
   Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
   641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
   once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
   pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
   that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
   as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
   and retaking of the city—641 and 646—have been much confused
   in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
   first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
   treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
   fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
   commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
   Alexandrian Library—or so much of it as had escaped
   destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
   patriarchs—is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
   the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
   Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
   narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
   repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
   Abulpharagus—that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
   Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
   the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
   were pernicious.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

{41}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
   Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

      See CRETE: A. D. 823.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
   Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Battle of French and English.
   Restoration to the Turks.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
   Surrendered to the English.
   The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
   Bombardment by the English.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
   Bombardment by the English fleet.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Destruction.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------

ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA, The Burning of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA., A. D. 1861 (May).
   Occupation by Union troops.
   Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

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

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

      See TALENT.

ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

   Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

   Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

   Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

   Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1204.

ALFONSO
  ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134

  Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
    and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

  Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
  A. D. 739-757.

  Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.

  Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.

  Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.

  Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

  Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.

  Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.

  Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.

  Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.

  Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

  Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.

  Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.

  Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

  Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.

  Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
  I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

  Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

  Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.

  Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.

  Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

  Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.

  Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.

  Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.

  Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.

  Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.

ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

   "The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
   derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
   side of which was separated from the land."

      _M. Russell,
      History of the Barbary States,
      page 314._

      For history, see BARBARY STATES.

ALGIHED, The.

   The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
   be a Holy War.

ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ALGUAZIL.

      See ALCALDE.

ALHAMA, The taking of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.

ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

      See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.

ALLEGHANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

ALLEMAGNE.

   The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
   the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

      See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

   And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,—1645.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

{42}

ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

   The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
   chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
   and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
   Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
   Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
   Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
   and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
   taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
   Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
   mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
   small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
   command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
   B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
   at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
   were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
   to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
   the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
   struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
   of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

ALMA, Battle of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).

ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

      See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ALMOHADES, The.

   The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
   originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
   the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
   similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
   religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
   reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
   Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
   took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
   himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
   that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
   army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
   Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
   Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
   Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
   the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
   1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
   successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
   supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
   than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
   Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
   Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
   kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. …
   With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
   successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
   Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
   have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
   dynasty gradually declined. … The Almohades, like the
   Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
   scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
   attempt to remember."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 4_

      See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.

ALMONACID, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

ALMORAVIDES, The.

   During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
   a missionary from Kairwan—one Abdallah—preaching the faith
   of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
   religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
   "The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
   Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
   religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
   claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
   Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
   After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
   There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
   powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
   abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
   Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
   Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
   assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
   Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
   shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
   scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
   Moslems. … The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
   like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
   prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
   A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
   Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
   Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
   Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
   Spain. … The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
   under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
   however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
   1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
   own" [the Almohades].

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 2 and 4_.

      See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ALOD.
ALODIAL.

   "It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
   exists between the words odal and alod, but their
   signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
   hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
   the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
   appear in the host and in the council. … The land held in
   full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
   otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
   created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
   included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
   for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
   witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
   charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
   bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
   historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
   became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
   place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
   land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
   land."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36._

{43}

   "Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
   the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
   depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
   continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
   instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
   inheritance. … Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
   century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

      _H. Hallam,
      Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 1, note._

      ALSO IN
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxon in England,
      book 1, chapter 11._

      See, also, FOLCLAND.

ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.

ALPHONSO.

      See ALFONSO.

ALSACE.
ALSATIA:
   The Name.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
   Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

        See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Joined to the Empire.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
   Revolt of the Peasants.

      See   GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
   Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
   Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
   Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
   Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
   Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete Absorption in France.
   Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
   Seizure of Strasburg.
   Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

     See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
   Invasion by the Austrians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
   Ceded to the German Empire by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

ALSACE: 1871-1879.
   Organization of government as   a German Impanel Province.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

----------ALSACE: End----------

ALTA CALIFORNIA.
   Upper California.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

ALTHING, The.

      See THING;

      Also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;

      And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

ALTIS, The.

      See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.

ALTMARCK.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
   Burned by the Swedes.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.

AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.

AMAHUACA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

AMALEKITES, The.

   "The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the
   Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the
   Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:
   12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,—Edomites,
   Ammonites, and Moabites,—who stood in a relation of close
   kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in
   dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and
   establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had
   partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir
   (Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,
   'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy
   2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to
   the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were
   termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however
   stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more
   northerly neighbours. … Separate from the Edomites or
   Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed
   an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was
   confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as
   camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) … The
   Kenites … did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They
   were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the
   Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of
   Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the
   Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them
   as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and
   Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or
   'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Races of the Old Testament,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 1, section 4._

      See, also, ARABIA.

AMALFI.

   "It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the
   interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of
   which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known
   before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant
   career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.
   554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the
   middle of the twelfth. … There must be, I suspect, some
   exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the
   only age when she possessed any at all."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 1, with note._

{44}

   "Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two … ravines, the
   mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their
   very house-walls. … It is not easy to imagine the time when
   Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and
   harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little
   communities were second in importance to no naval power of
   Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy
   during the eighth century; and after this time the history of
   Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and
   Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,
   their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation
   by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.
   D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and
   the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of
   Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two
   Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port
   of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;
   founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly
   order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in
   Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all
   the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'
   formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had
   stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their
   shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime
   laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,
   prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,
   and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if
   they did not actually invent, the compass. … The republic
   had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.
   When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage
   of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see
   ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers
   succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to
   extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for
   assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little
   commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of
   Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and
   when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called
   Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The
   ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of
   Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at
   Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on
   its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the
   harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects
   of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to
   complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from
   the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was
   ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's
   teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Sketches and Studies in Italy,
      pages 2-4._

AMALINGS, OR AMALS.

   The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or
   Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from
   the gods.

AMAZIGH, The.

      See LIBYANS.

AMAZONS.

   "The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early
   creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.
   … A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,
   dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary
   intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and
   burning out their right breast with a view of enabling
   themselves to draw the bow freely,—this was at once a general
   type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme
   eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all
   repugnant to the faith of the latter—who had no recorded
   facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as
   to the past except such poetical narratives themselves—to
   conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in
   anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females
   constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally
   accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to
   illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he
   ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled
   in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of
   resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be
   employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who
   indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against
   the Amazons. … The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the
   river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast
   of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,
   in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by
   Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the
   Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not
   yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe
   aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,
   carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by
   invading Attica … and penetrated even into Athens itself:
   where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,
   by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought—in the very heart
   of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the
   exact position of the two contending armies. … No portion of
   the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply
   worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and
   defeat of the Amazons. … Their proper territory was asserted
   to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian
   colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia
   Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians
   and geographers. … Some authors placed them in Libya or
   Ethiopia."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 11._

AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.

   The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
   in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
   who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
   Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
   except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
   Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
   female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. …
   After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
   sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
   of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
   and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
   one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
   accident rather than design that led him to it. After …
   Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
   340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
   forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
   expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
   the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
   course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
   building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
   part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
   After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
   country ten days' journey beyond—a country of gold, and with
   plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
   the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
   this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
   arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
   provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
   this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
   account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
   he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
   knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
   place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
   his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
   Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
   and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
   the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
   'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
   girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
   herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
   fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
   of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
   vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
   received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
   and stronger vessel. … On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
   and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
   pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
   they know what direction they should take.' Following the
   coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
   length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
   Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
   he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
   It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
   by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
   tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
   adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

      _H. H. Smith,
      Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast,
      chapter 1._

   In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at
   length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,
   both early and recent, concerning it.—Mr. Southey had so much
   respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to
   restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the
   great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much
   resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon
   fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his
   map, and in all his references to the great river he
   denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of
   Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O
   Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among
   those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.
   … Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more
   appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of
   waters.' … The origin of the name and mystery concerning the
   female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few
   years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. … Mr. Wallace, I think,
   shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his
   companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in
   habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. … I
   am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has
   arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the
   early voyagers."

      _J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
      Brazil and the Brazilians,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN
      _A. R. Wallace,
      Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,
      chapter 17._

      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

AMAZULUS, 
ZULUS.
   The Zulu War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.

AMBACTI.

   "The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] … developed the system of
   retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround
   themselves with a number of hired mounted servants—the
   ambacti as they were called—and thereby to form a state
   within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of
   their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common
   levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. … This
   remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as
   the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the
   Po. … It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the
   root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is
   common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great
   historical importance to ascertain whether the word—and
   therefore the thing—came to the Celts from the Germans or to
   the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the
   word is originally German and primarily signified the servant
   standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,
   'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable
   with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the
   Celts. … It is … probable that the Celts, in Italy as in
   Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired
   servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that
   case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note._

AMBARRI, The.

   A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district
   between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBIANI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

AMBITUS.

   Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and
   many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 9._

AMBIVARETI, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
   Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)

      See FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.

AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

AMBOISE, Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

AMBOYNA, Massacre of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).

      See KORKYRA.

AMBRONES, The.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

AMBROSIAN CHURCH.
AMBROSIAN CHANT.

      See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

AMEIXAL, OR
ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]

{46}

AMERICA, The Name.

      See below: A. D. 1500-1514.

AMERICA, Prehistoric.

   "Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to
   sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated
   by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly
   in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with
   shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others
   cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds
   were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the
   country. They did not attract great attention, however, until
   the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then
   they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people
   older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on
   the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told
   of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of
   culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and
   using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of
   many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The
   research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject
   in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch
   have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the
   mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early
   explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of
   North American Indians; so we know that many of them were
   builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these
   mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art
   found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At
   the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they
   were produced before modification by European culture, have
   been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of
   collections have been carefully compared. All this has been
   done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's
   arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially
   identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the
   figment of theory that there was an ancient race of
   Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American
   Indians. … That some of these mounds were built and used in
   modern times is proved in another way. They often contain
   articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and
   copper ornaments. … So it chances that to-day unskilled
   archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,
   stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to
   the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the
   mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper
   spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected
   in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. …
   The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,
   proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some
   were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely
   scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to
   build communal houses. … Some of the very large mounds were
   sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.
   There is still a third class … constructed as places for
   public assembly. … But to explain the mounds and their uses
   would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say
   that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by
   white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected
   by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but
   they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still
   existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,
   conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found
   only at great heights. … The tribes lived in the plains and
   valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.
   The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the
   ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon
   walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of
   loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence
   these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and
   they had large communal houses, even larger than the
   structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.
   Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins
   are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little
   of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the
   whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the
   Isthmus. … No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a
   higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,
   Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands
   of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing
   tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,
   made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates
   that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone
   and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the
   exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about
   1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]
   has been built since, and it is among the largest and best
   villages ever established within the territory of the United
   States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."
   With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the
   craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or
   otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent
   archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo
   ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the
   crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the
   tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to
   hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the
   Indian tribes. … Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it
   began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the
   highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when
   the good queen sold her jewels."

      _Major J. W. Powell,
      Prehistoric Man in America;
      in "The Forum," January, 1890._

   "The writer believes … that the majority of American
   archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that
   any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of
   our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving
   that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a
   stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.
   Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish
   conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
   here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition
   from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written
   language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not
   yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

      _H. W. Haynes,
      Prehistoric Archæology of North America
      (volume 1, chapter 6, of
      "Narrative and Critical History of America")._

{47}

   "It may be premised … that the Spanish adventurers who
   thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same
   race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and
   South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life
   and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and
   customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
   physical characteristics, they were the same people in
   different stages of advancement. … There was neither a
   political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in
   America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but
   one race of Indians, the Red Race."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines:
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 5.),
      chapter 10_.

   "We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the
   existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the
   primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and
   developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars
   to the Homeric age of Greece."

      _F. W. Putnam,
      Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,
      1886._

      ALSO IN
      _L. Carr,
      The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley_.

      _C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
      United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      1883-84_.

      _Marquis de Nadaillac,
      Prehistoric America_.

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
      and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.

AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
   Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.

   The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the
   Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was
   prominently brought before the people of this country in the
   year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at
   Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North
   America, under the editorial supervision of the great
   Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose
   that the first general account of these voyages was then
   given, for it has always been known that the history of
   certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were
   preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. … Yet,
   owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple
   in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not
   understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years
   been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through
   a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted
   out to vague and uncertain reports. … It now remains to give
   the reader some general account of the contents of the
   narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the
   western continent. … The first extracts given are very
   brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to
   the report in general circulation, which indicated one
   Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has
   been fixed at the year 876. … The next narrative relates to
   the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in
   983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards
   returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to
   Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their
   abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions
   of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year,
   986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a
   storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not
   visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son
   of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid
   to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are
   hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of
   considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who
   found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter,
   returning to Greenland the following spring [having named
   different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and
   Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes].
   After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of
   Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the
   point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was
   begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one
   of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his
   brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing
   home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most
   distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an
   Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern
   annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish
   ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006
   he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein,
   whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the
   undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with
   three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here
   his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a
   great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its
   first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found
   it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the
   natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman
   named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland
   in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the
   same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she
   returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly
   murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After
   this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are
   not essential.

      _B. F. De Costa,
      Pre-Columban Discovery of America,
      General Introduction._

   By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as
   discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed
   to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of
   Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with
   Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England.
   Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's
   Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay,
   Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities
   supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked
   by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor
   Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian
   investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the
   sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in
   Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton
   Island.

      _G. Storm,
      Studies of the Vineland Voyages._

{48}

   "The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of
   the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the
   general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which
   ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more
   than facts will warrant. … Archælogical remains of the
   Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to
   near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the
   North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a
   single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy
   of credence, has ever been found. … The most convincing
   proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America,
   south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of
   horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of
   North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish,
   French and English settlers."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 2._

   "What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor
   Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent,
   must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of
   personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story
   of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse
   voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two
   centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of
   such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later
   still. … A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say
   that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on
   facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into
   pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories
   that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make
   appear as genuine chronicles. … The weight of probability is
   in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American
   mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south
   of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches
   to well established historical records. … There is not a
   single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to
   time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the
   presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of
   Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of
   America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the
   possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by
   Professor Winsor in the same connection.

      _J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same._

      ALSO IN
      _Bryant and Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      chapter 3._

      _E. F. Slafter, Editor,
      Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877)_.

      _E. F. Slafter, Editor,
      Discovery of America by the Northmen
      (N. H. History Society, 1888)_.

      _N. L. Beamish,
      Discovery of America by the Northmen._

      _A. J. Weise,
      Discoveries of America,
      chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
   The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
   His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
   His departure from Palos.

   "All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement
   by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to
   him have signally failed. … Columbus originated no new
   theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular
   idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of
   the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the
   glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the
   project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new
   theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his
   predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the
   first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by
   sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance
   with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had
   entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the
   West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added
   the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to
   overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he
   believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be
   two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever
   be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese
   voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of
   the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to
   Columbus his project? … Second, to what extent did his
   voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English
   merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to
   have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no
   evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that
   voyage of the existence of land in the west. … Still, his
   visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first
   formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time
   could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, summary appendix to chapter 1._

   "Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
   Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
   'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
   in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
   Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
   whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
   the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
   were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
   sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
   contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
   general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
   one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
   indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
   which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
   own idea himself. … He first applied himself to his
   countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
   scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
   had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
   sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
   … Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
   the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
   Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
   with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
   of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
   Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
   go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
   the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
   the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
   required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
   viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
   eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
   rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
   Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
   persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it—the
   story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
   obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
{49}
   "The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
   was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
   Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
   bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
   furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
   placed at his disposal. … The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
   mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
   eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
   three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
   for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
   on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
   1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
   they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary
   Islands."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Winsor,
      Christopher Columbus,
      chapter 5-9, and 20._

AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
   The First Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.

   The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the
   Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but
   the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships,
   and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were
   caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The
   'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the
   letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern
   coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her
   sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a
   main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a
   boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta'
   and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen
   sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the
   latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d
   of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos,
   and this memorable voyage was commenced. … The expedition
   proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta'
   was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running
   before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square
   sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the
   vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the
   expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera,
   one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. … Columbus had
   chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate
   prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a
   course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to
   the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly
   to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds—namely, the
   north-east trade winds—always moving in the same direction,
   as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are
   turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus
   were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature
   which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of
   her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm
   among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions
   would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these
   unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which
   excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the
   compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. …
   This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300
   miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships
   had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers
   found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is
   called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears.
   They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of
   weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit
   of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known
   now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a
   circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found
   crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there
   is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin,
   the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the
   centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to
   this day, moving up and down and changing its position
   according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its
   mean position. … As day after day passed, and there was no
   sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous.
   Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told
   them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that,
   with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At
   length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus
   was on the poop and saw a light. … At two next morning, land
   was distinctly seen. … The island, called by the natives
   Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been
   ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles
   long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24°
   10' 30'' north latitude. … The difference of latitude
   between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5°
   South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily,
   85'; voyage 35 days. … After discovering several smaller
   islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October,
   and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it
   to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli,
   between Europe and Asia. … Crossing the channel between Cuba
   and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of
   St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with
   presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus … named
   the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this
   peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The
   Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank
   and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small
   colony on the island. … A fort was built and named 'La
   Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and
   provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his
   homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted
   several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17,
   and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.

      _C. R. Markham,
      The Sea Fathers,
      chapter 2._

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of Columbus,
      chapter 5._

{50}

   The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which
   Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has
   now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly
   justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador
   or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand
   Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor
   says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's
   Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men
   will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which
   these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."

      _J. Winsor,
      Christopher Columbus,
      chapter 9._

      _J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 1, note B._

   Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively
   asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there
   has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question
   is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus
   Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best
   supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was
   the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
      appendix 18._

AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
   Papal grant of the New World to Spain.

   "Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most
   momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at
   the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of
   the discovery of a new continent. … Ferdinand and Isabella
   thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from
   their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to
   have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen;
   and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the
   African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of
   urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to
   them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To
   remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had
   recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5
   [1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and
   Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish
   monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to
   be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined
   his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and
   south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South
   Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the
   Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present
   knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a
   vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's
   stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the
   American Continent except the Brazilian coast.

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN
      _E. G. Bourne,
      The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
      (Yale Review., May, 1892)_.

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      _J. Gordon,
      The Bulls distributing America
      (American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4)_.

      See, also, below: A. D. 1494.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
   The Second Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
   Subjugation of Hispaniola.

   "The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery
   presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at
   Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the
   bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large
   ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. … Before
   sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the
   Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there
   calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the
   island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons,
   bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus
   first introduced into the islands of the west from the
   Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not
   until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries,
   and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser
   Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing
   through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of
   Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity
   of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on
   the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten
   months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the
   marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his
   unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure,
   had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until
   the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning
   the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor
   ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the
   founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the
   present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of
   which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of
   the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part
   of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While
   the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent
   back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration
   of the interior of the island—the mountains of Cibao—where
   abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were
   found—far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the
   Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their
   appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot
   before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail
   with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more
   extended exploration than he had attempted on the first
   discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme
   end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the
   proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and
   those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous
   countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of
   gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the
   island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native
   name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed
   in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba
   and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western
   extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief
   that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to
   the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a
   voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried
   Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his
   illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to
   his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived
   and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the
   extremity of the Asiatic continent."
{51}
   Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some
   further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils
   and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy,
   resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound
   torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned,
   therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and
   spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those
   seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete
   insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"—September 4.
   Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his
   brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for
   years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command
   of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to
   Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were
   again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they
   plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making
   priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing
   officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the
   court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly,
   reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude
   and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to
   Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his
   enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his
   brother Bartholomew.

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      books 6-8 (volumes 1-2)._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _J. Winsor,
      Christopher Columbus,
      chapters 12-14._

AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.

   "When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is
   generally believed that the only title upon which were based
   the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull
   of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take
   into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the
   petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of
   Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the
   portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made
   between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian
   fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise,
   owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic
   congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced
   by any student of elementary mathematics. This line … runs
   along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. … The
   name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle
   of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the
   continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two
   centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and
   the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were
   acquiring."

      _L. L. Dominguez,
      Introduction to "The Conquest of the River Plate"
      (Hakluyt Society Publications. Number 81)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
   Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.

   "The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of
   which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every
   thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which
   belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and
   'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A
   feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters
   had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his
   voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore,
   not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at
   Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery.
   On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a
   commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of
   them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the
   eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships,
   at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or
   regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the
   banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as
   vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the
   territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in
   this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the
   patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land
   at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part
   of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all
   the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to
   their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent,
   which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward
   America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and
   commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son
   Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to
   Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he
   reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in
   the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his
   third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two
   years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he
   discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of
   about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran
   along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and
   landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand
   Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were
   marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a
   large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for
   the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which
   had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he
   saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of
   provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of
   three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor,
   where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and
   encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him
   the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and
   even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him
   with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many
   as he pleased. … On the third day of the month of February
   next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly
   obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the
   rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and
   once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with
   him of their own will. With this license every trace of John
   Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no
   one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it
   has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a
   continent first saw the light."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States of America.
      (Author's last Revision),
      part 1, chapter 1._

{52}

   In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the
   Cabots, in the _Narrative and Critical History of America_,
   there is published, for the first time, an English translation
   of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of
   Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an
   account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a
   Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to
   light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to
   the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian
   Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a
   merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles
   Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North
   America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian
   being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was
   made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the
   map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany
   in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is
   inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according
   to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
   who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
   who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the
   Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle
   Isle, and thence home. … The extensive sailing up and down
   the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with
   Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told
   as occurring on the voyage of discovery—as only one voyage is
   ever mentioned—must have taken place on a later voyage."

      _C. Deane,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 1, Critical Essay._

      ALSO IN
      _R. Biddle,
      Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
      chapter 1-8._

AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
   The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
   Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
   His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.

   "Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early
   part of the year 1496 until after his return from the
   Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504,
   rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed
   to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a
   cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or
   April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other
   addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then
   Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4,
   1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made
   under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or
   pilot. These letters … became speedily popular, and many
   editions were published, more especially in France, Germany,
   and Italy. … The letter to Soderini gives an account of four
   voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the
   service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal.
   The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and
   returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so
   long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This
   voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America
   not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing
   that was calculated to invest it with much importance in
   Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as
   has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to
   attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a
   slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in
   the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a
   while to be practically identified with the second voyage,
   made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most
   outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which
   it has been left for the present century to remove. The second
   voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de
   Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500.
   They explored the northern coast of South America from some
   point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as
   far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding
   year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo.
   Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going
   over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained
   cruising till February. … It is certainly much to be
   regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition,
   Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief
   commander. … However … he was writing not for us, but for
   his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would
   interest him. … Of the letter to Soderini the version which
   has played the most important part in history is the Latin one
   first published at the press of the little college at
   Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. … It
   was translated, not from an original text, but from an
   intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years,
   however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian
   text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was
   ultimately derived. … If now we compare this primitive text
   with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe
   that, in the latter, one proper name—the Indian name of a
   place visited by Americus on his first voyage—has been
   altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has
   become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious
   editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of
   course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is
   a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his
   study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of
   it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of
   the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river
   Panuco—fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern
   neighbours the Aztecs—he would have known that names of
   places in that region were apt to end in ab. … But as such
   facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot
   much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed
   doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a
   region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab
   became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other
   is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation
   shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition,
   and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there
   has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious
   circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first
   voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an
   Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44
   large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree-
   trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could
   be drawn up in case of danger.
{53}
   This may well have been a village of communal houses of the
   Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were
   afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was
   called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over
   a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious
   town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to
   Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if
   that style of defensive building had not been common enough in
   many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient
   Switzerland to modern Siam. … Thus in spite of the latitudes
   and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter,
   did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the
   Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now
   there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with
   Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the
   gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499,
   one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by
   Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in
   these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when
   people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have
   come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was
   suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be
   merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and
   that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in
   order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the
   continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was
   assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with
   the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the
   shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so
   simple and intelligible that it became quite generally
   adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be
   critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about
   sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in
   no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from
   projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as
   soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared
   to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation
   against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely
   pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in
   order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the
   continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter
   to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what
   we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of
   which there could be any question, so far as supplanting
   Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was
   generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia,
   by his new route, in 1492. … It was M. Varnhagen who first
   turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. …
   Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of
   Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to
   any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds"
   that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern
   coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found
   his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden
   Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with
   the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and
   carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a
   straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without
   touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the
   Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius
   understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude
   definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few
   interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a
   dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be
   "an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is
   to this day an important article of food in tropical America.
   … After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still
   to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the
   windings of the coast for 870 leagues. … After traversing
   the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves
   'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen
   supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but
   afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood
   of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June,
   1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. …
   They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour,
   preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very
   hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white
   strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a
   fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some
   distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition,
   and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly
   Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with
   the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the
   Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The
   Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk
   fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners.
   Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled
   home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for
   Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of
   Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well
   received and sold our slaves.' … The obscurity in which this
   voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact
   that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and
   the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the
   impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of
   America unless we bear in mind all the attendant
   circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which
   revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would
   have attracted much attention in Spain and have become
   altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument,
   however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers
   were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to
   astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on
   this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the
   coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco
   Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be
   simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. E. Lester and A. Foster,
      Life and Voyages of Americus Vespucius,
      part 1, chapter 7_.

      _J. Winsor,
      Christopher Columbus,
      chapter 15._

{54}

AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
   Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
   The ground of English claims in the New World.

   "The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this
   patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in
   that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is
   not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. …
   Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he
   was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age.
   And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics,
   and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in
   company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone
   else his father's views, and also the position of the newly
   discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as
   a fit person for the command of another expedition to the
   northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers,
   were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed
   with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month
   of May. We have no certain information regarding his route.
   But he appears to have directed his course again to the
   country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with
   his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of
   this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he
   encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great
   displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved
   to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a
   southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to
   anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his
   vessels after their Arctic hardships. … He probably was the
   first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which
   through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland
   southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on
   his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and
   open water to India.' … After having rounded Cape Cod, he
   must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west,
   and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore
   nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in
   the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. …
   From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it
   appears … certain that Cabot landed on some places of the
   coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a
   conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the
   subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he
   had found on most of the places copper or brass among the
   aborigines.' … From another authority we learn that he
   captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England,
   where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by
   the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at
   what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary
   with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians
   until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's
   Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south
   of New York harbor. … The southern terminus of his voyage is
   pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter
   Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the
   Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude,
   which is near that of Cape Hatteras. … On their return from
   their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had
   discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more
   extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views
   of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and
   barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude,
   from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier
   across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a
   sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of
   China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found
   land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr.
   G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London
   in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the
   scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to
   recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one
   vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' …
   When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for
   another expedition to the same regions, he was supported
   neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the
   scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay
   was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of
   this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of
   the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that
   great continent, in which now the English race and language
   prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true
   beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English
   claims and possessions in the northern half of America."

      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Biddle,
      Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
      chapter 1-10._

      _J. F. Nicholls,
      Life of Sebastian Cabot,
      chapter 5._

AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
   The Third and Fourth Voyages of Columbus.

   Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the
   shores of Central America and Panama.

   When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and
   Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised
   him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and
   delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not
   correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found
   world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most
   people were of this mind; though Columbus was not
   disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a
   third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and
   Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th
   of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named
   either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck
   the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was
   later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of
   Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the
   Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he
   half believed that its exuberant tide came from the
   terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti
   on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had
   established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo
   Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically
   during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a
   revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival
   found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a
   while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching
   Roldan warmly to his interests.
{55}
   Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name
   without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new
   commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with
   authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if
   necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who
   arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of
   August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the
   Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego
   refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus
   returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed
   charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the
   Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his
   brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the
   prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The
   captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but
   Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in
   Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his
   degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were
   shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to
   make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon
   apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by
   the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short
   of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the
   sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before
   Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral
   had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the
   Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to
   undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage;
   and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was
   supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each.
   … He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his
   brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached
   San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a
   half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de
   Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor—with
   Maldonado, Las Casas and others—now lay in the harbor waiting
   to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been
   instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his
   vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat
   ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused,
   though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best
   he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board
   Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was
   wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The
   Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs;
   and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed,
   the richer portions of India. … A landing was made on the
   coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers
   landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession
   of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in
   gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape
   which they rounded, Gracias à Dios—a name still preserved at
   the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend
   southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on
   deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels
   coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica;
   then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until
   they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found
   houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of
   Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along
   the northern coast of South America." There turning back,
   Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa
   Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold
   proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral,
   withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one
   worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica,
   beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want
   followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew
   alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island.
   Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily
   and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally
   humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in
   Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his
   companions to that place, where Ovando received him with
   ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus
   departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in
   November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was
   not until the following May that he had strength enough to go
   to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received
   by King Ferdinand—Isabella being dead. "While still hope was
   deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships
   brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of
   May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted
   friends by his bedside."

      _J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 2 and 4._

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 10-18 (volume 2)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.
   The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.
   The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.

   One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who
   accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo
   de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to
   Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop
   Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the
   Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the
   discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this
   assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by
   the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in
   his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus
   complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying
   that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.
   They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and
   after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200
   leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed
   on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,
   and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and
   Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted
   westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It
   was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda
   gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of
   the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which
   brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.
{56}
   From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,
   and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,
   where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.
   His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the
   delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from
   the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,
   carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,
   from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the
   beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set
   sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his
   first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the
   first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.
   and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.
   Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la
   Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the
   westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the
   Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his
   departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and
   on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to
   discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed
   vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the
   water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two
   lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe
   also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,
   which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil
   trended south-west."

      _R. H. Major,
      Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      volume 3, chapter 1-3._

AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
   Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to
   the Isthmus of Darien.

   "The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their
   important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in
   the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No
   journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence
   little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a
   previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal,
   father of Gaspar. … Touching at the Azores, Gaspar
   Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast
   of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north
   discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps
   Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named
   Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to
   Lisbon before the end of 1500. … In October of this same
   year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels.
   Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which
   lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the
   coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on
   the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude.
   Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501,
   and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first
   authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined
   as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be
   given hereafter."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 113._

   "We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a
   humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his
   life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not
   consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that
   a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in
   his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this
   expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest
   influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 5, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine,
      chapter 5_.

      _R. Biddle,
      Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
      book 2, chapters 3-5_.

      See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
   Voyage of Cabral.
   The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.
   Curious evolution of the continental name "America."

   "Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of
   Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a
   fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and
   establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast.
   This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed
   from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde
   Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether
   driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that
   were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a
   somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April
   22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per
   day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond
   the limit reached by Lepe. … Approaching it in such a way
   Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the
   papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in
   latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country
   for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships
   back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor
   and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. … Cabral called the
   land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became
   Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he
   had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest
   names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of
   Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay
   obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at
   last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.'
   Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to
   prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished
   to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer
   familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to
   Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high
   reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do
   not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with
   Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from
   the service of Spain into that of Portugal. … On May 14,
   1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding
   spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from
   Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was
   chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for
   believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first
   halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first
   week in June. … After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever
   seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude
   about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the
   festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to
   the cape before which they dropped anchor.
{57}
   From this point they slowly followed the coast to the
   southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. …
   It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that
   they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known
   by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New
   Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years
   later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to
   have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like
   some that had already been seen in this strange world; for
   they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by
   February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left
   the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean.
   Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of
   direction. … Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of
   the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles
   wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led
   him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent.
   At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees
   west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore
   unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no
   use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only
   to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of
   direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the
   little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island
   of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to
   turn homeward. "Vespucius … headed straight North North East
   through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of
   more than 4,000 miles was made—with wonderful accuracy,
   though Vespucius says nothing about that—in 33 days. …
   Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they
   arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. … Among all the
   voyages made during that eventful period there was none that
   as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and
   there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked
   it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into
   the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was
   preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the
   Southern hemisphere. … A coast of continental extent,
   beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and
   running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond,
   did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. … It was land
   unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying
   that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny
   had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it
   a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first
   occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to
   any part of what we now call America, the reader must be
   careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in
   our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius
   was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on
   a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by
   Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed
   after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his
   letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or
   April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter
   begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at
   sufficient length about my return from those new countries
   which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most
   gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is
   proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the
   new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from
   Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to
   call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them:
   'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and
   to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it
   transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say
   that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent,
   but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of
   them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found
   many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country.
   But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of
   theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts."
   … This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a
   private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503,
   about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth
   voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin
   version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was
   printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' … The
   little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the
   great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at
   least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course
   of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German
   versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by
   this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond
   the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to
   the ancients,—who did know something, at least, about the
   eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was
   supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began
   soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a
   great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the
   equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the
   earth [previously known], and so this opposite region,
   hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by
   Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand
   the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people
   read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we
   can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing
   calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of
   Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in
   doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very
   different things; and to give credit to one was by no means
   equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507,
   Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié,
   published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic
   Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of
   Vespucius—the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account
   is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)—appended to it. "In this
   rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America.
{58}
   After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited
   surface into three parts—Europe, Asia, and
   Africa—Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth
   Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to
   hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land
   of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious
   mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from
   women.' … Such were the winged words but for which, as M.
   Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to
   be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New
   India, or perhaps Columbia. … In about a quarter of a
   century the first stage in the development of the naming of
   America had been completed. That stage consisted of five
   distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him
   beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to
   the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus
   Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. … 3.
   the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an
   equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4.
   the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part
   of the earth, and might properly be named America after its
   discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several
   maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to
   Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a
   globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an
   equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to
   stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America,
   but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the
   Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. … This wider
   meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly
   established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name
   Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red
   dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under
   that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable
   things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found
   the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had
   seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became
   fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name
   America from its local associations." When, in time, and by
   slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands
   found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors,
   formed part of one continental system, and were all to be
   embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had
   become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended
   to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the
   western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541,
   by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon
   a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it
   appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern
   continent.

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Scaife,
      America: Its Geographical History,
      section 4._

      _R. H. Major,
      Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,
      chapter 19._

      _J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, ch, 2, notes._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 99-112, and 123-125._

AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
   Banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1502.
   The Second Voyage of Ojeda.

   The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to
   Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his
   reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of
   reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and
   likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had
   discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was
   authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and
   to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. … With
   four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and
   thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he
   found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he
   sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found
   his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short
   duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his
   partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica,
   failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a
   state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail
   for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All
   that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came
   off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him
   a ruined man."

      _R G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      book 1, chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.
   The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   First Settlement in Brazil.

   In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six
   ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain
   island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of
   Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the
   Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de
   Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of
   all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra
   Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one
   vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a
   port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited
   above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the
   rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they
   coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took
   port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here
   they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives,
   with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the
   interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24
   men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave
   them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six
   months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and
   returned in safety. … The honour, therefore, of having
   formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo
   Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as
   this time paid to it. … But the cargo of brazil which
   Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who
   were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that
   valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in
   consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name
   of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz]
   which Cabral had given it."

      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

{59}

AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
   The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.
   The Settlement at Darien.

   "For several years after his ruinous, though successful
   lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that
   we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela],
   in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to
   have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find
   him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse,
   though as proud in spirit, as ever. … About this time the
   cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts
   by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral
   fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the
   ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in
   building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had
   corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches
   of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved,
   therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to
   place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was
   recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of
   the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King
   Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by
   furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents
   and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich
   returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies
   along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary
   line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part,
   extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and
   the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west
   [called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to
   Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of
   Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place
   whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the
   equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran
   pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant.
   Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived
   at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much
   quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a
   notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had
   money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who
   promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of
   recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready
   to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509.
   Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the
   future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time
   enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached
   the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon
   the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the
   country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate
   savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned
   arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was
   among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was
   nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a
   searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of
   Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a
   common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were
   joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared
   nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda
   founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end
   of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives,
   terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in
   their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid
   exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and
   hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At
   length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers
   at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome
   provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half
   recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated
   heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to
   convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The
   voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the
   coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the
   morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and
   sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San
   Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the
   colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn
   nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of
   returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the
   place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a
   convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San
   Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be
   all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were
   left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One
   of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made
   its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy
   Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his
   commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San
   Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and
   even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter
   had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de
   Balboa—so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's
   ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had
   coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a
   removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the
   Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good,
   and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes
   of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called
   attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of
   Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent
   to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that
   granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly
   deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While
   events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus
   establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself,
   at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had
   suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and
   long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his
   followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in
   their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700
   who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at
   Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios
   undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this
   situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of
   his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with
   supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the
   prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his
   way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the
   government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight;
   but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before
   he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he
   arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a
   treacherous party among the colonists—to whom Balboa is said
   to have opposed all the resistance in his power—was put on
   board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his
   friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail
   straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of
   March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the
   island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus and his Companions,
      volume 3._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

{60}

AMERICA: A. D. 1511.
   The Spanish conquest and occupation of Cuba.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1511.

AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
   The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,
   and his Discovery of Florida.

   "Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by
   Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he
   did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first
   exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This
   cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the
   vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies,
   that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain
   whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of
   his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous
   region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set
   sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N.
   ¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure;
   and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday,
   called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name
   of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of
   April, and took possession of the country in the name of the
   king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a
   name given by the Indians to all the country lying between
   Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon,
   however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his
   exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and
   on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his
   course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of
   Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and
   described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered
   the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad
   weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to
   repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the
   orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de
   Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land,
   which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He
   returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days
   afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He
   reported that he had explored the island,—which he described
   as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,—but
   he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places
   Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all
   the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this
   voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of
   'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon
   him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order
   to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the
   homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."

      _W. B. Rye,
      Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida,
      by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society, 1851)._

      ALSO IN
      _G. R. Fairbanks,
      History of Florida,
      chapter 1_

AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
   The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.
   Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.

   With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift,
   Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in
   affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for
   faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to
   carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's
   colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade
   proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with
   gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien
   adventurers had found considerable quantities in the
   possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it
   with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish
   friendly relations with one of the most important of the
   neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he
   wedded—according to the easy customs of the country—and
   whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift
   and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested
   more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking
   of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little
   compared with the treasures reported to them as existing
   beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian
   youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their
   imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea,
   not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of
   which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He
   told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to
   fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the
   story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the
   king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They
   sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the
   following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the
   court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had
   unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had
   caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced.
   Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached
   Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at
   the same time, a commission as captain-general from the
   authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the
   discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described,
   and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could
   interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he
   set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other
   sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which
   were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the
   burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law,
   King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by
   whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting
   the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without
   fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa,
   attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter
   of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of
   September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from
   whence the South Sea was visible.
{61}
   The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty
   leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and
   his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they
   suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want
   of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height,
   Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the
   sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time,
   any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit
   down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down
   upon the vast Pacific—the first man of the Old World, so far
   as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave
   thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being
   permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand
   be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he
   and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He
   then addressed them. … Having … addressed his men, Vasco
   Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the
   kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in
   order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees,
   formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the
   names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the
   vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope
   and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs,
   having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he
   called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his
   person and took possession of this sea for the kings of
   Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of
   it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in
   the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with"
   the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his
   way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth
   of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route
   which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north,
   reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been
   absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him
   with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news,
   'such signal and new news,' … to the King of Spain,
   accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a
   detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length,
   was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that
   came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page
   thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and
   labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a
   man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the
   beginning of March, 1514. … Vasco Nuñez's messenger,
   Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his
   master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in
   the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his
   authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De
   Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;—an
   envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus
   the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest
   and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously
   exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias,
   Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from
   the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise
   for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage
   with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the
   command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus,
   carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But
   circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity
   to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to
   accomplish his arrest—Francisco Pizarro being the officer
   fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant.
   Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried,
   found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head
   upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de
   Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who,
   since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike
   and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose
   career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the
   other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful
   regions of the earth."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 6 (volume 1)_.

   "If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias
   Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by
   far the worst man who came officially to the New World during
   its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all
   agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458)._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus and His Companions,
      volume 3._

AMERICA: A. D. 1515.
   Discovery of La Plata by Juan de Solis.

         See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.
   The Spaniards find Mexico.

   "An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with
   three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring
   Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He
   encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far
   out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found
   himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking
   the name of the country, he was answered by the natives
   'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the
   Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily
   corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different
   etymology. … Bernal Diaz says the word came from the
   vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which
   it is planted. … M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible
   derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what
   they say.' … Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of
   the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size
   and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and
   lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and
   rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was
   struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and
   with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold
   ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization
   far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New
   World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in
   the warlike spirit of the people. … Wherever they landed
   they were met with the most deadly hostility.
{62}
   Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,
   received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party
   escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula
   as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached
   after an absence of several months. … The reports he had
   brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of
   curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]
   of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all
   despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a
   little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered
   lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de
   Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to
   himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.
   Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. … Grijalva soon passed over to
   the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same
   places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,
   with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the
   architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region
   of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the
   subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at
   the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of
   worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by
   these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula
   the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider
   extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced
   the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered
   less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,
   however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic
   with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the
   satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and
   trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and
   vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva
   now thought that in this successful traffic—successful beyond
   his most sanguine expectations—he had accomplished the chief
   object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one
   of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and
   continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province
   of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months
   from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised
   to learn that another and more formidable armament had been
   fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find
   orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very
   courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was
   received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with
   reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of
   establishing a colony in the country he had visited."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      Conquest of Mexico,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN: C.
      _St. J. Fancourt,
      History of Yucatan,
      chapter 1-2._

      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 2-19._

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Spanish Conquest of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1524.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.
   The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.
   The Congress at Badajos.

   Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese
   gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies
   under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the
   Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and
   astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited
   Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At
   the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove
   that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of
   demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from
   that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to,
   adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were
   discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and
   the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed
   through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward
   voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than
   three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and
   only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano]
   to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise
   was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe
   for the first time began to assume its true character and size
   in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp
   and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the
   enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of
   geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences.
   This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? …
   The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home,
   now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were
   thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their
   rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade
   with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their
   prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of
   the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves
   energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the
   Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the
   first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse
   with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian
   subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar.
   Hence these kings and their people came under the protection
   of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the
   Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore
   doubly theirs. … Matters thus waxing hot, King John of
   Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet
   until the disputed points could be discussed and settled.
   Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich,
   consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian
   princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be
   discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of
   gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by
   their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in
   dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define
   and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to
   abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the
   early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town
   four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each
   prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers,
   mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and
   pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as
   then—such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan
   Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. … The debates and proceedings of
   this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and
   Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could
   be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the
   verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the
   Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own
   decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last
   day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the
   Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two
   hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the
   Portuguese. … However, much good resulted from this first
   geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific
   were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon
   after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."

      _H. Stevens,
      History and Geographical Notes, 1453-1530._

{63}

   "For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the
   Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by
   famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith
   his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea
   and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched
   food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome
   matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he
   resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying
   daily. … In the whole history of human undertakings there is
   nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals,
   this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in
   comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman
   perseverance."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
      chapter 19._

   "The voyage [of Magellan] … was doubtless the greatest feat
   of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be
   imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other
   planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first
   voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of
   human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period.
   But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of
   Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when
   the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest
   English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well
   as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty
   of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the
   ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies
   that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were
   endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as
   the prince of navigators."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN
      _Lord Stanley of Alderley,
      The First Voyage Round the World (Hakluyt Society, 1874)_.

      _R. Kerr,
      Collection of Voyages,
      volume 10._

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
   The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.
   Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.
   Exploration of the Carolina Coast.

   In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been
   one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having
   heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own
   charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good
   pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His
   professed object was to search for some strait, west of
   Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of
   the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his
   ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports,
   rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of
   remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water
   brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon
   the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. … The carefully drawn
   map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in
   this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of
   the Espiritu Santo. … But Garay thought not of the
   Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of
   Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a
   dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the
   river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in
   1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom
   the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out
   two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for
   their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they
   passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called
   Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the
   name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given
   to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large
   number of the confiding natives on board their ships the
   adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the
   vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the
   other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for
   his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to
   make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the
   undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his
   largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men
   were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to
   suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of
   honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority,
   made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of
   St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which,
   in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7._

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 1, chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
   The Voyages of Verrazano.
   First undertakings of France in the New World.

   "It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid
   no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I.,
   wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to
   navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in
   regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani,
   who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which
   began to be much talked of in France. … Verazani was
   accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North
   America; but our historians have not spoken of his first
   expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not
   Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani
   himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8,
   1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the
   success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself
   with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which
   he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he
   sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to
   cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same
   year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine,
   on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight
   months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of New France
      (translated by J. G. Shea),
      book 1._

{64}

   "On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the
   'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near
   Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500
   leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the
   northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track
   was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first
   voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a
   hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it,
   and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation
   to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400
   leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had
   never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators.
   The country was very low. From the above description it is
   evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the
   United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his
   land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He
   first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states,
   looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned
   northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of
   South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in
   these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only
   of the coast of North Carolina. … He rounded Cape Hatteras,
   and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore,
   where he anchored and spent several days. … This was the
   second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50
   leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the
   east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some
   authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most
   likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in
   other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape
   Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south
   of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to
   Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100
   leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his
   third landing-place, in New York Bay. … He found at this
   third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to
   anchor, well-protected from the winds, … and from which he
   ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the
   shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league
   further, he discovered a most beautiful lake … of three
   leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to
   him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. …
   This description contains several accounts which make it still
   more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these
   occurrences."—Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend
   Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the
   lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay
   Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long
   Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or
   describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay
   and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and
   Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North,
   from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of
   Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition,
   from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a
   half months."

      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN

      _G. Dexter,
      Cortereal, Verrazano, &c.
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 1)._

      _Relation of Verrazano
      (New York Historical Society Collection,
      volume 1, and N. S., volume 1)_.

      _J. C. Brevoort,
      Verrazano the Navigator._

AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.
   The Explorations of Pizarro and Discovery of Peru.

   "The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of
   Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor
   Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama
   and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the
   Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro,
   a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of
   Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one
   of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always
   was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and
   settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and
   in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to
   perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown,
   he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of
   the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his
   fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary
   supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of
   Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year
   1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian
   servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many
   hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From
   this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of
   hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no
   country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro
   returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at
   an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama.
   Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become
   unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen
   was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind
   to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived
   at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain
   Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro,
   his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his
   party followed the coast until they came to a great river,
   which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of
   Buenaventura, in New Granada]. … They there found signs of
   gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the
   Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his
   comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to
   Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the
   enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more
   than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused
   by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not
   be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by
   it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his
   comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had
   commenced, and … Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men.
{65}
   He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to
   the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first
   110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro
   when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two
   captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted
   along the land. When they thought they saw signs of
   habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with
   them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They
   continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great
   hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews
   died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and
   during all those three years they discovered no good land. All
   was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good
   country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan,
   where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors,
   sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good
   land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the
   Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the
   end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good
   reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found
   in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro
   arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the
   two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out
   from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land.
   But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long
   that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were
   obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships
   reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the
   Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the
   villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern
   Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were
   seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when
   90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of
   Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them;
   but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not
   wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully,
   with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there
   were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives,
   the villages having their streets and squares. One village had
   more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to
   the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be
   done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers,
   which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they
   agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the
   villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they
   would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news
   of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for
   more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue
   their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went
   in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor
   entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying
   that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had
   suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered
   that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while
   those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty
   to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest
   went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on
   that island for five months, when one of the ships returned,
   in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues
   further down the coast. They found many villages and great
   riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver,
   and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by
   the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by
   the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had
   been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two
   Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute
   their undertaking. … The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only
   able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his
   friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an
   account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had
   performed."

      _F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro),
      Account of the Province of Cuzco;
      translated and edited by C. R. Markham
      (Hakluyt Society, 1872)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1525.
   The Voyage of Gomez.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): THE NAMES.

AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.
   Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.
   The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
   Discovery of the Mississippi.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

AMERICA: A. D. 1531-1533.
   Pizarro's Conquest of Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
   Spanish Conquest of the Kingdom of Quito.

      See ECUADOR:

AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
   Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.

   "At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip
   Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to
   resume the project of founding a French colony in the New
   World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and
   he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques
   Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted.
   Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d
   of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He
   steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair
   winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in
   Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still
   covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he
   could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees
   south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name
   of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. … After
   making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without
   being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a
   southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent,
   and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from
   heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with
   the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians
   that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs.
   … On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the
   coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in
   the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in
   all the places where he landed.
{66}
   He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France,
   and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. … On
   the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded
   that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that
   part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart
   than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye.
   This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample
   than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This
   fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier …
   embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were
   separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the
   close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of
   rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to
   take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the
   river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the
   arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is
   almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by
   Cartier. … On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the
   gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on
   that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or
   rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and
   the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which
   this bay is part; and because the river, before that called
   River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly
   acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. …
   The three vessels … ascended the river, and on the 1st of
   September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely
   reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and … hastened to
   seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight
   leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger
   and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He
   called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to
   Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage,
   printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the
   country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken;
   for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians
   gave this name to the whole country along the river on both
   sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island,
   Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off,
   and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix,
   because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the
   Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called
   Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he
   received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom
   the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of
   Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two
   Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who
   knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the
   strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble
   him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island
   now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had
   heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without
   seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was
   that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from
   his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the
   advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the
   French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St.
   Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga
   Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of
   palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each
   over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a
   single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade,
   ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided
   with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place.
   The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They
   received the French very well. … Cartier visited the
   mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the
   name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island
   [Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country,
   the sight of which charmed him. … He left Hochelaga on the
   5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix."
   Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly
   from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the
   following spring. "Some authors … pretend that Cartier,
   disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from
   further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of
   that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier
   himself says in his memoirs. … Cartier in vain extolled the
   country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the
   wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold
   and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use
   to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere
   saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a
   strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was
   reckoned as nothing."

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of New France,
      (translated by J. G. Shea),
      book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Kerr,
      General Collection of Voyages,
      part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6)_.

      _F. X. Garneau,
      History of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1540.
   Introduction of Printing in Mexico.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709.

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
   Spanish Conquests in Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
   Spanish Conquests of New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
   Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.
   Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.

   "Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of
   Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who
   desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.
   … The title and authority of lieutenant-general was
   conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,
   Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand
   Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of
   the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.
   Jacques Cartier was named second in command. … Jacques
   Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his
   fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until
   the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of
   the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to
   a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during
   the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned
   his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.
{67}
   In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy
   chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion
   could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid
   the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant
   silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail
   for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise
   paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent
   settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques
   Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval
   proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues
   west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,
   and remained through the winter with his colony, having a
   troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of
   the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century
   afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to
   colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries
   on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were
   steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after
   fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry
   IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery
   again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,
   obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same
   powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's
   undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.
   Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to
   stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private
   adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to
   barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A
   wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest
   and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages
   to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each
   time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,
   Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval
   captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a
   monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having
   succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De
   Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the
   privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at
   Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of
   Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel
   Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.

      _E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1-2._

AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
   The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.
   Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.

   "The history of English America begins with the three
   slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562,
   1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection
   with America, previously to those voyages, had any result
   worth recording. England had known the New World nearly
   seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its
   discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery
   spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to
   the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of
   novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become
   fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy
   to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or
   plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish
   sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for
   the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new
   continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade
   worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal
   kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. …
   As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand
   for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African
   settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of
   French and English adventurers, they procured from these
   settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the
   Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about
   the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire
   supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for
   negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became
   known to the English and French captains who frequented the
   Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from
   boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in
   1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little
   squadron with which he executed this project was the first
   English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This
   voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet
   broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from
   trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced.
   The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in
   disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note …
   from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the
   first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have
   closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage,
   however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further
   than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These
   ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already
   well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into
   the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their
   return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second
   voyage … he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping,
   however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his
   slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger
   scale. … Having sold his slaves in the continental ports
   [South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other
   goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike
   out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would
   carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's
   narrative … proves that at every point in these expeditions
   the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He
   had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little
   doubt that one at least of these had already been with
   Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to
   Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune.
   They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America,
   then universally know in the mass as New France, to
   Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds,
   to Europe.
{68}
   This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts
   afterwards famous in history through English colonization. …
   The extremely interesting narrative … given … from the pen
   of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions …
   contains the first information concerning America and its
   natives which was published in England by an English
   eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the
   remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by
   the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they
   came home in due time richly freighted,—from what source is
   not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had
   changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and
   Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint,
   He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast,
   where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he
   sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake
   sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of
   fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a
   disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves,
   they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port
   of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet.
   Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel
   escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged
   to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority
   of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew,
   died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that
   landed in England, in January, 1569.

      _E. J. Payne,
      Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Hawkins Voyages;
      edited by C. R. Markham
      (Hakluyt Society, Number 57)_.

      _R. Southey,
      Lives of the British Admirals,
      volume 3._

AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
   The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the
   World.

   "Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one
   of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in
   Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native
   place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's
   chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by
   profession from boyhood; and … had served as a young man, in
   command of the Judith, under Hawkins, … Hawkins had confined
   himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This
   practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the
   purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of
   another nation. The English, especially those of the west
   country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and
   the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in
   consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in
   the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to
   settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared
   for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her
   interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of
   cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America
   which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in
   pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage
   was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made
   more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American
   coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre
   de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of
   the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way
   into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap
   of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake
   himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to
   retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the
   winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the
   Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked
   on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of
   Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to
   Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the
   excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this
   occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and
   there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific;
   and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of
   God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it
   was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his
   famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder
   Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The
   Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from
   attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English
   pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of
   Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of
   Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed
   from Plymouth, December 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels,
   and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered
   the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which
   made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships,
   separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while
   attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake,
   in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian
   coasts, where he cruised until he had taken and plundered a
   score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian
   treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he
   came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and
   for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was
   usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which
   sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus
   reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted
   beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited
   him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the
   country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in
   preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place
   where He landed must have been either the great bay of San
   Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or
   the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further
   north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more
   to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He
   believed himself to be the first European who had coasted
   these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers
   had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was
   thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary
   result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way
   a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached
   Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.

      _E. J. Payne,
      Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,
      pages 141-143._

      ALSO IN
      _F. Fletcher,
      The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake
      (Hakluyt Society, 1854)_.

      _J. Barrow,
      Life of Drake._

      _R. Southey,
      Lives of British Admirals,
      volume 3._

{69}

AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
   The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC; A. D: 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
   The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
   Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

   In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of
   Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir
   Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter
   empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such
   remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by
   any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or
   fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their
   proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next
   year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but
   misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish
   intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583,
   Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the
   general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern
   parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which
   left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the
   expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels,
   forms the first page in the history of English colonization.
   Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking
   possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English
   name formerly applied to the continent in general … was now
   restricted. … Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set
   sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of
   Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced;
   one of his largest ships went down with all on board,
   including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as
   the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and
   the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home,
   intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next
   spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was
   sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization
   found a watery grave. … Gilbert was a man of courage, piety,
   and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and
   quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had
   set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas
   and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the
   northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be
   occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the
   Canaries and the West Indies."

      _E. J. Payne,
      Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,
      pages 173-174._

   "On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the
   frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by
   waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of
   joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried
   out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within
   hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,'
   reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute
   in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday
   night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate
   being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights
   were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight,
   and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which
   was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and
   swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that
   night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of
   England. … In great torment of weather and peril of drowning
   it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which
   arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."

      _E. Hayes,
      A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert
      (reprinted in Payne's Voyages)._

      ALSO IN
      _E. Edwards,
      Life of Raleigh,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _R. Hakluyt,
      Principal Navigations;
      edited by E. Goldsmid,
      volume 12._

AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
   Raleigh's First Colonizing attempts and failures.

   "The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by
   one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in
   that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial
   empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books;
   like Drake he could rule men. … The associations of his
   youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to
   sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and
   there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in
   his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent
   precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the
   thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task.
   Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but
   to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were
   Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the
   extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would
   suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design,
   they took a more southerly course than any of their
   predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water,
   and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near.
   The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their
   approach. The sight before them was far different from that
   which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the
   bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a
   scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean.
   … Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached
   an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly
   took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then
   delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They
   soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was
   an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named,
   as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them
   from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than
   a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved
   friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle,
   loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such
   as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which
   the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself
   as of its inhabitants. … With them they brought two of the
   savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells
   us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that
   Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his
   success.
{70}
   On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made
   preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was
   provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was
   under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to
   establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of
   Ralph Lane. … On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set
   sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a
   circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the
   island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in
   the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders,
   Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally
   ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after
   exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to
   England, promising to come back the next spring with new
   colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of
   Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island
   of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait.
   There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and
   there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion,
   may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the
   camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English
   settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers
   during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring
   their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer
   friends. … The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and
   without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for
   their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have
   supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in
   guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He,
   however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of
   exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination
   of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English,
   and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At
   the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with
   the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared
   and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a
   great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical
   expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain
   Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the
   disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be
   taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board
   his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was
   in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the
   coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful
   supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the
   departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later
   Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in
   the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last,
   unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen
   men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail
   for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to
   the Spaniards."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 4_.

   "It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his
   company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco
   as one of the products of the country, which they presented to
   Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was
   brought into use in England, and gradually in other European
   countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this
   point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by
   Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter
   Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some)
   Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out
   of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into
   England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden
   fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men
   brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And
   these men which were brought back were the first that I know
   of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they
   call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being
   taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began
   to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. …
   Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585
   was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and
   scientific turn, whose services in this connection were
   greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went
   back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his
   observations in the New World."

      _L. N. Tarbox,
      Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony
      (Prince Society 1884)._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Hariot,
      Brief and true Report
      (Reprinted in above-named Prince Society Publication)._

      _F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina, volume 1
      (containing reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)_

      _Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale
      (Archæologia Americana,
      volume 4)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
   The Lost Colony of Roanoke.
   End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.

   "Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an
   agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and
   families, who should make their homes in the New World; and,
   that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he
   granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal
   government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed
   its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the
   administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships
   were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen
   Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing
   'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived
   on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the
   dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they
   hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of
   men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found
   the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones
   lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The
   fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The
   instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new
   settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval
   officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West
   Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and
   White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. … It was there
   that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid.
   But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning,
   being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding
   natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England,
   under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and
   supplies.
{71}
   Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to
   his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of
   the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first
   offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States.
   The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony,
   now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose
   names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy
   return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and
   his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this
   plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants
   of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the
   first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their
   adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its
   attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain.
   … Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his
   generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with
   supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful
   voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till
   one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after
   a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were
   compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the
   English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger;
   nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered
   till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even
   then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless
   expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient
   for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used
   the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants
   and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus
   obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia
   is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first
   efforts of England in North Carolina with the final
   colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had
   emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was
   not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a
   grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the
   number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than
   another year elapsed before White could return to search for
   his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke
   was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to
   Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from
   storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The
   conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony,
   neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted
   into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh
   long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their
   existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at
   five several times, to search for his liege men. But
   imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate
   of the colony of Roanoke."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      part 1, ch.5 (volume 1)_.

   "The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony.
   Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show
   traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language
   is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many
   cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No
   other theory of their origin has been advanced."

      _S. B. Weeks,
      The Lost Colony of Roanoke
      (American History Association Papers,
      volume 5, part 4)_.

   "This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost
   colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors
   in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave
   of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it
   ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind
   was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and
   not less arduous undertakings. … Desirous, at the same time,
   that a project which he had carried so far should not be
   entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce
   would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might
   terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign
   his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in
   London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic
   between England and Virginia. … It appeared very soon that
   Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different
   from his own. … Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on
   by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take
   possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's
   death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."

      _J. Grahame,
      History of the Rise and Progress of the
      United States of North America till 1688,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Stith,
      History of Virginia,
      book 1._

      _F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, Nos. 7-8._

AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
   The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.
   The First Englishmen In New England.

   Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had
   served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the
   Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,
   "with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,
   among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the
   accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the
   Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of
   Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At
   this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen
   years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,
   there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except
   those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty
   French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to
   settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from
   Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight
   were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a
   straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect
   course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been
   hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven
   weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is
   now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,
   manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in
   European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign
   voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and
   his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,
   called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it
   retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,
   the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the
   soil of Massachusetts. … Sounding his way cautiously along,
   first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and
   probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next
   landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.
{72}
   To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since
   transferred to the larger island further north. … South of
   Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard
   Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted
   on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost
   of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was
   denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. … Here Gosnold
   found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the
   sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a
   rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and
   rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three
   weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading
   expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,
   prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with
   palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an
   inventory of their provisions, they found that, after
   supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the
   return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks
   for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the
   question whether the party to be left behind would receive a
   share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,
   and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,
   going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some
   Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach
   for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the
   decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a
   settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed
   for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at
   Exmouth. … The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with
   consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts
   of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his
   company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The
   next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,
   by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.
   seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value
   on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from
   Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and
   gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,
   1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel
   commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast
   with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the
   Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and
   kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some
   addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage
   was fruitless."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN
      _Massachusetts History Society Collection, 3d Series,
      volume 8 (1843)._

      _J. McKeen,
      On the Voyage of George Weymouth
      (Maine History Society Collection,
      volume 5)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1603-1608.
   The First French Settlements in Acadia.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605, and 1606-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607.
   The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the
   failure in Maine.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after;
      and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The First Voyages of Henry Hudson.

   "The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken
   … for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing
   from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of
   sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what
   is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched
   further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a
   wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland
   to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a
   passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the
   entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This
   design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the
   attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his
   homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher
   degree of latitude than any previous navigator. … He reached
   England on his return on the 15th September of that year
   [1607]. … On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced
   his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company,
   with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by
   the north-east. … On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had
   reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was
   in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla."
   Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he
   returned to England in August.

      _J. M. Read, Jr.,
      Historical Inquiry Concerning Henry Hudson,
      pages 133-138._

      ALSO IN
      _G. M. Asher,
      Henry Hudson, the Navigator,
      (Hakluyt Society, 1860)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.
   Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and
   the Great Lakes.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611, and 1611-1616.

AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
   Hudson's Voyage of Discovery for the Dutch.

   "The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of
   Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they
   could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was
   destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He
   longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;
   and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the
   Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search
   of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia
   stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of
   treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar
   Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a
   small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,
   the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship
   is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned
   by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of
   the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of
   ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who
   had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the
   west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and
   running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in
   the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of
   Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,
   believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of
   New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the
   north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of
   Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite
   the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered
   that his countrymen were planted.
{73}
   Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware
   Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without
   going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the
   3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was
   invading New York from the north, less than five months after
   the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic
   existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy
   Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with
   'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.
   After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and
   at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was
   pronounced to be very good for all winds. … Ten days were
   employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,
   Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last
   the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of
   Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.
   Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and
   two battles fought with them]. … Having completed his
   discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given
   his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of
   the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.
   … A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into
   Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant
   account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands
   which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused
   to search further for the north-western passage."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 15
      (or part 2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision")_.

      ALSO IN
      _H. R. Cleveland,
      Life of Henry Hudson
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 10),
      chapters 3-4_.

      _R. Juet,
      Journal of Hudson's Voyage
      (New York History Society Collection,
      Second Series, volume 1)._

      _J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
      History of the State of New York,
      part 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.
   The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting
   exploration.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
   The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.
   The Naming of the country New England.

   "From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see
   VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a
   chasm in his biography. … In 1614, probably by his advice
   and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some
   London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for
   the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it
   was then called, North Virginia. … In March, 1614, he set
   sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and
   the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at
   the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they
   built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were
   to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper,
   which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up
   a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications,
   and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for,
   although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in
   taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing
   season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they
   diligently employed the months of July and August in taking
   and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While
   the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in
   a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from
   Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs,
   and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of
   the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the
   country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in
   August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain
   Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish
   in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled
   miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the
   Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent
   colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few
   others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this
   purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship,
   he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of
   Malaga. … Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his
   map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince
   Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would
   substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had
   been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the
   country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and
   not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. … The first
   port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was
   Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his
   friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in
   the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth
   Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes
   and large promises, induced him to engage his services to
   them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth,
   with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers,
   besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove
   her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas
   Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a
   profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to
   effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's
   vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render
   it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a
   second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small
   bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the
   same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny
   seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a
   succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in
   Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention
   for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small
   boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate,
   in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too
   much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself
   in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and
   an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form
   in June, 1616. … Captain Smith's work on New England was the
   first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."

      _G. S. Hillard,
      Life of Captain John Smith
      (chapters 14-15)._

      ALSO IN
      _Captain John Smith,
      Description of New England._

{74}

AMERICA: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction of negro slavery into Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the
   Chartering of the Council for New England.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   Formation of the Government of Rio de La Plata.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1621.
   Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.
   Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
   The Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

   "Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a
   grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north
   latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of
   October 5, 1629. … The tenure is declared to be as ample as
   any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England,
   ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held
   and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are
   constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and
   the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina
   [or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina
   islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the
   earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several
   parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was
   checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil
   war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death,
   became earl of Arundel and Sussex … made no attempt to avail
   himself of the grant. … Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to
   the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive
   possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long
   time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast
   extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th
   and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the
   present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia,
   [Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little
   exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of
   East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of
   Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The
   grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had
   obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the
   earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have
   obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at
   the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and
   the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet,
   at this time, there were two points only in which incipient
   English settlements could be discerned; the one on the
   northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow
   into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest
   portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The
   settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the
   County of Nansemond. … They had been joined by a number of
   Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance
   had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas.
   … The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of
   Cape Fear river; … those who composed it had come thither
   from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to
   rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the
   assignees of Carolina ever surrendered the charter under which
   it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become
   vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."

      _F. X. Martin,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 5 and 7._

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
   The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1631.
   The Dutch occupation of the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1632.
   English Conquest and brief occupation of New France.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1632.

AMERICA: A. D. 1632.
   The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, and A. D. 1633-1637.

AMERICA: A. D. 1638.
   The planting of a Swedish Colony on the Delaware.

         See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
   The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.

   "The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly
   distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the
   world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and
   exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. …
   After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,
   and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous
   men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the
   purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at
   will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was
   their market; thither they repaired with their salted and
   smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in
   exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places
   where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered
   carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became
   known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or
   since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.
   Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in
   couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and
   having entire community of property—a condition termed by
   them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they
   addressed one another. … A man on joining the fraternity
   completely merged his identity. Each member received a
   nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his
   antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be
   a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a
   proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to
   hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'—as a Benedick
   he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' … Uncouth and lawless
   though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now
   attaching to their name would never have been merited had it
   not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The
   hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet
   from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race
   resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst
   dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell
   easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others
   dragged into slavery. … Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the
   brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a
   war of horrible reprisals commenced.
{75}
   Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the
   buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured
   by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the
   cruelties of the aggressors. … The Spaniards, utterly
   failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so
   short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their
   statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned
   cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of
   subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was
   almost extirpated. … The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard
   was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every
   saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical
   buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,
   and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed
   the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of
   feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only
   desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.
   … Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the
   buccaneers developed into a new association—the freebooters."

      _C. H. Eden,
      The West Indies,
      chapter 3._

   "The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the
   former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a
   name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed
   into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in
   its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services
   could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be
   disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and
   sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild
   cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever
   they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding
   expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers
   were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of
   Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the
   growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors
   appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De
   Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies.
   During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and
   the English were driven out, both from that islet and from
   Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands.
   Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause.
   … In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards,
   but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and
   in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were
   reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the
   more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious
   among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois,
   who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665
   with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer
   named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in
   command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most
   notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the
   strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing
   indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus,
   defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the
   great and wealthy city of Panama—the largest and richest in
   the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The
   city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits
   of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to
   England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for
   him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the
   buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized
   Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured
   there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched
   themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering
   operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast.
   Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England
   and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France,
   brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the
   extinction of the buccaneer organization.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States: Central America,
      volume 2, chapter 26-30._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Thornbury,
      The Buccaneers._

      _A. O. Exquemelin,
      History of the Buccaneers._

      _J. Burney,
      History of the Buccaneers of America._

      See, also, JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

AMERICA: A. D. 1655.
   Submission of the Swedes on the Delaware to the Dutch.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

AMERICA: A. D. 1663.
   The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
   and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

AMERICA: A. D. 1664.
   English conquest of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D.1664.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and
   La Salle.
   Louisiana named and possessed by the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.

AMERICA: A. D. 1674.
   Final surrender of New Netherland to the English.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

AMERICA: A. D. 1681.
   The proprietary grant to William Penn.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.

AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697.
   The first Inter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of
   the League of Augsburg).

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
      also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.

AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.
   The French colonization of Louisiana.
   Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735.
   The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
   on the Lakes.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702.
   Union of the two Jerseys as a royal province.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of
   the Spanish Succession).
   Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

AMERICA: A. D. 1713.
   Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty
   of Utrecht.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE) A. D. 1711-1713.

{76}

AMERICA: A. D. 1729.
   End of the proprietary government in North Carolina.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

AMERICA: A. D. 1732.
   The colonization of Georgia by General Oglethrope.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of
   the Austrian Succession).

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1760.
   Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.

   The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and
   Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).

   English Conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

AMERICA: A. D. 1749.
   Introduction of negro slavery into Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:
   Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great
   French War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany.
   Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   The Peace of Paris.

   Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the
   Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great
   Britain.

   West of the Mississippi and New Orleans to Spain.

   Florida by Spain to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   Growing discontent of the English Colonies.
   The question of taxation.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769.
   Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and
   the revolt against it.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768, and 1769.

AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1783.
   Independence of the English colonies achieved.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL) to 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
   Erection of the Spanish Vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
   Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine
   Provinces.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Chilean independence achieved.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American
   States.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826,
      and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

----------AMERICA: End----------

AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
   Linguistic Classification.

   In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for
   1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director
   of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of
   the North American aborigines based upon the most recent
   investigations. The following is a list of families of speech,
   or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:

   "Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as
     being but part of the Caddoan stock].
   Algonquian.
   Athapascan.
   Attacapan.
   Beothukan.
   Caddoan.
   Chimakuan.
   Chimarikan.
   Chimmesyan.
   Chinookan.
   Chitimachan.
   Chumashan.
   Coahuiltecan.
   Copehan.
   Costanoan.
   Eskimauan.
   Esselenian.
   Iroquoian.
   Kalapooian.
   Karankawan.
   Keresan.
   Kiowan.
   Kituanahan.
   Koluschan.
   Kulanapan.
   Kusan.
   Lutuamian.
   Mariposan.
   Moquelumnan.
   Muskhogean.
   Natchesan.
   Palaihnihan.
   Piman.
   Pujunan.
   Quoratean.
   Salinan.
   Salishan.
   Sastean.
   Shahaptian.
   Shoshonean.
   Siouan.
   Skittagetan.
   Takilman.
   Tañoan.
   Timuquanan.
   Tonikan.
   Tonkawan.
   Uchean.
   Waiilatpuan.
   Wakashan.
   Washoan.
   Weitspekan.
   Wishoskan.
   Yokonan.
   Yanan.
   Yukian.
   Yuman.
   Zufiian."

  These families are severally defined in the summary of
  information given below, and the relations to them of all
  tribes having any historical importance are shown by
  cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and
  associations, and many tribal names not scientifically
  recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that
  they have a significance in history and are the subjects of
  frequent allusion in literature.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abipones.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abnakis, or Abenaques, or Taranteens.

   "The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and
   Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. … We must admit that a large
   portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if
   not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is
   found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by
   different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner
   of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their
   respective native languages. … The word generally received
   is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from
   the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the
   Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky
   commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. … It
   has been difficult for different writers to determine the
   number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word
   Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the
   people of the east or northeast. … We find that the word
   Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the
   Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted
   with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early
   writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New
   France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis
   always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and
   south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any
   other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to
   Newfoundland. … The Abnakis had five great villages, two
   amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St.
   Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in
   Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers,
   between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the
   Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. … The nation of
   the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original
   people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind
   of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of
   a past flourishing age."

      _E. Vetromile,
      The Abnaki Indians
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6)_.

      See, also, below:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

{77}

   For some account of the wars of the Abnakis, with the New
   England colonies,

      See
      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;
      and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Absarokas, Upsarokas, or Crows.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acawoios.

      See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acolhuas.

      See MEXICO, A. D. 1325-1502.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Adais.

      [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

   These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley,
   lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission
   of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the
   Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates
   with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre'
   [Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all
   that remains to us of their language, which according to the
   collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so
   difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten
   words of it. … A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr.
   Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the
   discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words
   have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he
   regards it as a Caddoan dialect."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 45-46._

      See preceding page.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Adirondacks.

   "This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the
   tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the
   Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence,
   above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th
   century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion
   to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when
   reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who
   entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people
   Algonquins—a generic appellation, which has been long
   employed and come into universal use, among historians and
   philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had
   preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Notes on the Iroquois,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Æsopus Indians.

      See below: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Agniers.
   Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)
   bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      volume 1, page 9, foot-note._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Albaias.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Aleuts.

      See below: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Algonquian (Algonkin) Family.

   "About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now
   know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their
   prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah
   river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north.
   … The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at
   some distant day had been derived from the same primitive
   tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most
   closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the
   tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to
   the Cree—the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a
   genealogical tree of these dialects. … We may, however,
   group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their
   relationship. This I do"—in the following list:

   "Cree.
   Old Algonkin.
   Montagnais.
   Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,
   Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.
   Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.
   Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo
   [the last three named forming, together, the nation of the
   Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.
   Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.
   … All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,
   on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the
   Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an
   identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,
   defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they
   were collectively known as Wapanachkik—'those of the eastern
   region'—which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the
   remnant of a tribe in Maine. … The members of the
   confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who
   occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site
   of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper
   on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or
   Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between
   Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called
   Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries
   of the Potomac and Patuxent. … Linguistically, the Mohegans
   were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to
   those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of
   Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent
   offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the
   course of migration had been eastward. … The Nanticokes
   occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,
   except its southern extremity, which appears to have been
   under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Lenape and their Legends.
      chapters 1-2._

   "Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated
   tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of
   the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York,
   including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of
   the Iroquois Confederacy. … The Mohegans finally retired
   over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the
   Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware
   river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern
   Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and
   sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died
   in their tracks."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Notes on the Iroquois,
      chapter 5._

{78}

   "On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the
   Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed
   in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what
   is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border,
   the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The
   Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat
   less than a third of the native population of New England.
   That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were
   known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the
   Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and
   westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua.
   The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by
   a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or
   Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now
   New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next
   dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name.
   Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in
   the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's
   and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary
   race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the
   State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts
   and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the
   Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the
   River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were
   the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets,
   who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The
   New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity.
   … Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional
   effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor.
   Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)_.

   "The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e.,
   the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first
   ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal
   races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English
   colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The
   Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the
   Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into
   numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name.
   The tribes on the east side of the river were generally
   Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were
   hereditary enemies. … Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was
   occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was
   subdivided into various clans. … Staten Island, on the
   opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. …
   Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks;
   while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known
   'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or
   sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. … To the south
   and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the
   Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the
   Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by
   various tribes of the Lenape race. … The island of the
   Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name
   (see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the
   Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief
   village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the
   Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the
   Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present
   counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of
   Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans
   had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. …
   They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus
   Indians."

      _J. R Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 3_

   "The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more
   extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North
   America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky
   Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south
   at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern
   part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian
   tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian
   neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by
   those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the
   southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on
   the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan
   families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern
   shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who
   were gradually retreating before them to the north. In
   Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting
   of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early
   period had separated from the main body of the tribe in
   central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah
   River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they
   carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until
   about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally
   driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon
   afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee
   and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country
   stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho,
   two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from
   their kindred on the north and had forced their way through
   hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country
   of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado,
   thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that
   direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of
   the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the]
   principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy,
   Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset,
   Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk,
   Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa,
   Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi,
   Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The
   present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of
   whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the
   United States."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 47-48._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. De Forest,
      History of the Indians of Connecticut._

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia  Americana, volume 2),
      intro., section 2._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 2-3._

      See, also, below:
      DELAWARES; HORIKANS; SHAWANESE; SUSQUEHANNAS; OJIBWAS;
      ILLINOIS.

   For the Indian wars of New England,

      See NEW ENGLAND:
      A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);
      A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

{79}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Alibamus, or Alabamas.

      See below: MUSKHOOEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Alleghans, or Allegewi, or Talligewi.

   "The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a
   distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is
   perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the
   country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of
   their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams,
   which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages.
   They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or
   Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans.
   Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this
   word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they
   described the principal scene of their residence—namely, the
   Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The
   word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period;
   having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the
   country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares.
   (Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from
   its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the
   broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania.
   … There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial
   plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the
   Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the
   ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates,
   cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These
   evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile
   table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed
   towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and
   also, as denoted by recent discoveries, … of some species of
   beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound
   builders."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Information respecting the Indian Tribes,
      part 5, page 133._

   This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that
   the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of
   the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and
   seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of
   highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being
   identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their
   race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived;
   while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is
   of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies.
   According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from
   their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them
   of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route
   of their migrations is being traced by the character of the
   mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the
   mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois
   and Lenape] … must have been southward, … and the exit of
   the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the
   Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to
   have followed in reaching their historical locality. … If
   the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that
   the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi
   from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."

      _C. Thomas,
      The Problem of the Ohio Mounds
      (Bureau of Ethnology, 1889)._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84)._

      _J. Heckewelder,
      Account of the Indian Nations,
      chapter 1._

      See, below:
      CHEROKEES, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
      also AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Amahuacas.

      See below: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Andastés.

      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Andesians.

   "The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical
   rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of
   tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of
   Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and
   in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them.
   Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The
   Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the
   river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a
   mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance
   and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their
   peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The
   Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon,
   wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The
   Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it
   leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The
   Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo,
   on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most
   terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods
   between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have
   a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of
   Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali,
   are Christians. … Their language is the principal one on the
   river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called
   collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. … Within
   the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On
   the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are
   distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing.
   Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or
   Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the
   source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros,
   or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali
   below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian
   province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama,
   Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the
   Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor
   James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory
   between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type
   of the Quichua. … Among all the Indians of the Provincia del
   Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These
   people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of
   these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are
   muscular, active men. … The Morona are cannibals in the full
   sense of the word. … The Campo, still very little known, is
   perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and,
   according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least
   with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though
   James Orton does not think this possible. … The nearest
   neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or
   Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy,
   are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the
   language is wholly different. … Among the Pano people are
   the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are
   passing into extinction."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 227-231._

{80}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Apache Group [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

   Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the
   savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western
   portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and
   Arizona. … Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant
   raids they are led first in one direction and then in another.
   In general terms they may be said to range about as follows:
   The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes,
   the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting
   northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila,
   Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language
   allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call
   themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal
   divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños,
   Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones,
   Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New
   Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora,
   and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the
   Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves,
   having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with
   which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the
   Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of
   the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the
   head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank
   of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the
   Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in
   the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and
   the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio
   Hassayampa. … The Apache country is probably the most desert
   of all. … In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious
   Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat
   and cold, finds safe retreat. … The Pueblos … are nothing
   but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5_.

   Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of
   the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the
   Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It
   has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 109._

      See, also, below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Apalaches.

   "Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none
   is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as
   an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish
   travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay
   and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the
   great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied
   by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found
   their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and
   from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say,
   their own race and place have been but guessed at." The
   derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio
   vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an
   indication of ancient connections with the southern continent,
   and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca
   dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,'
   and the earliest application of the name in the northern
   continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme
   par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes
   (Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by
   eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' … We have …
   found that though no general migration took place from the
   continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there
   was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not
   only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and
   Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern
   continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida
   and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that
   their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted
   upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this
   foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously
   stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a
   confederation of many nations at one time under the domination
   of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany
   mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it
   included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah
   is evident from the fragments we have remaining. … The
   location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont
   placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and
   Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a
   portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by
   the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore,
   in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah
   and Altamaha.' … According to all the Spanish authorities,
   on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between
   the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers—yet must not be
   confounded with the Apalachicolos. … They certainly had a
   large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain
   1,000 warriors. … I am inclined to believe that these were
   different branches of the same confederacy. … In the
   beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the
   devastations of the English, French and Creeks. … About the
   time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to
   the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here
   they had a village numbering about 50 souls."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Apelousas.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Araicu.

      See below: GUCK ON COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arapahoes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Araucanians.

      See CHILE.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arawaks, or Arauacas.

      See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arecunas.

      See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arikaras.

      See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arkansas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Assiniboins.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Athapascan Family.
   Chippewyans.
   Tinneh.
   Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

   "This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a
   class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill
   river, and north of the source of the fork of the
   Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles
   of the Pacific Ocean. … The name is derived, arbitrarily,
   from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the
   Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of
   the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and
   Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some
   primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin.
   … We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied
   by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and
   65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Information Respecting the Indian Tribes,
      part 5, page 172._

{81}

   "The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of
   nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living
   between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or
   Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America;
   the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its
   tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and
   the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to
   Copper River."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      The Native Races of the Pacific States,
      chapter 2._

   "The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be
   divided into two groups. …

   1. Tinneh—Chippewyans of authors. …
   Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans,
   Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group
   of Indians. … This great family includes a large number of
   American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie
   south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong
   to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of
   North America in a northerly and southerly direction,
   principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. … The
   designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has
   been accepted by most modern ethnologists. …

   2. T'linkets, which family includes the Yakutats and other
   groups.

      _W. H. Dall,
      Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1)._

   "Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain
   family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong,
   the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes
   slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base,
   the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and
   endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least,
   their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty.
   Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and
   nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of
   civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having
   some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is
   owing to having captured and adopted the members of more
   gifted tribes. … Agriculture was not practised either in the
   north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with
   them the inspiration came from other stocks. … The most
   cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said
   to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive
   agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they
   were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their
   crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or
   acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly
   underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving
   the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later
   acquisition of their artisans."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 69-72._

      See, above, APACHE GROUP, and BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Atsinas (Caddoes).

      See Note, Appendix E.

      See below: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Attacapan Family.

   "Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little
   is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis
   of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by
   Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty
   information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his
   material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was
   reduced to 50 men. … Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words
   and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs
   considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and
   published by Gallatin. … The above material seems to show
   that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except
   possibly the Chitimachan."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 57._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Aymaras.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Aztecs.

      See below: MAYAS;
      also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;
      and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE WRITING.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Bakairi.

      See below: CARIBS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Balchitas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Bannacks.

      See below: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Barbudo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Baré.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Baure.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Beothukan Family.

   The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to
   have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its
   discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk
   indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 57._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Biloxis.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Blackfeet, or Siksikas.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home
   of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika,
   which word has this signification. It is derived from their
   earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north,
   where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their
   bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half
   a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which
   embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina
   (Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an
   interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the
   constellations."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 79_.

      SEE above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

      And, below: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Blood, or Kenai Indians.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Botocudos.

      See below: TUPI. GUARANI. TUPUYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Brulé:

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caddoan Family.

      See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;

      See, also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cakchiquels.

      See below: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Calusa.

      See below: TUMUQUANAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cambas, or Campo, or Campa.

      See above: ANDESIANS;
      also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cañares.

      See ECUADOR.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Canas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Canichanas.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

{82}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caniengas.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cariay.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO Group.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caribs and their Kindred.

   "The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so
   different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them,
   and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like
   those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to
   distinguished attention. … The traditional accounts of their
   origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of
   being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and
   open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation
   which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated
   from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains.
   The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with
   weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning
   their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of
   time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here,
   abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the
   Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of
   years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which
   links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria,
   on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from
   Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of
   Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their
   expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all
   the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the
   southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma.
   Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of
   that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch
   found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which
   empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and
   other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the
   windings of the Cayenne."

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 6, chapter 3, (volume 1)._

   "To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin
   of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have
   given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are
   not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the
   imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce
   a belief that traces of them would have been found on those
   islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives
   of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a
   similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is
   sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous
   and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula,
   extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout
   the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which
   still maintain their independency. … I incline therefore to
   the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were
   rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from
   any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own
   traditions referred constantly to Guiana."

      _B. Edwards,
      History of British Colonies in the West
      Indies, book 1, chapter 2._

   "The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis,
   originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as
   the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired
   inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr.
   Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting
   men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of
   that number. … The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were
   formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of
   them remains."

      _H. G. Dalton,
      History of British Guiana,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _E. F. im Thurn,
      Among the Indians of Guiana,
      chapter 6._

   "Recent researches have shown that the original home of the
   stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands
   at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is
   still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic
   form of the Carib tongue."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Races and Peoples,
      page 268._

   "Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes …
   all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near
   Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none
   worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according
   to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful.
   In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for
   their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their
   features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian
   profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little
   farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a
   lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are
   repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are
   decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity
   prevails."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      page 237._

   "The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern
   Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at
   one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they
   were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the
   date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated
   nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been
   from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations
   are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay
   and Schingu rivers."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Races and Peoples,
      page 268-269._

   "The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the
   Caribs. … The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are
   less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. … According to
   their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper
   Demerera] … from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who
   originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by
   the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios
   occupied their vacant territory. … The Macusis … are
   supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the
   Orinoco. … As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have
   been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The
   Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and
   taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as
   the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of
   enslaving them. … The Arecunas have been accustomed to
   descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. … This
   tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the
   Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. … The
   Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the
   land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them
   respecting their early history. … The Tivitivas, mentioned
   by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he
   calls Quarawetes."

      _W. H. Brett,
      Indian Tribes of Guiana,
      part 2, chapter 13._

{83}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caripuna.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cat Nation, or Eries.

      See below: HURONS, &c.,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Catawbas, or Kataba.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
      also, TIMUQUANAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cayugas.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chancas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chapas, or Chapanecs.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cherokees.

   "The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to
   students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to
   be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known
   Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of
   some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged
   into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."

      _C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-4)_.

   Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient
   "mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley—the Alleghans or
   Talligewi of Indian tradition—are set forth by Professor Thomas
   in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published
   by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and
   in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in
   Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably
   occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of
   what is now the United States of America, since the date of
   the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation,
   or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the
   powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of
   New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a
   very early period [1540] following the discovery of the
   American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard,
   Fernando de Soto. … At the time of the English settlement of
   the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and
   well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters
   of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and
   Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of
   the Tennessee on the north and west. … In subsequent years,
   through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever
   advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties
   whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their
   domain, the location and names of their towns were continually
   changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839]
   west of the Mississippi. … This removal turned the Cherokees
   back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a
   quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the
   journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically
   different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of
   their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of
   the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives,
   but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished
   the zeal and industry of the entire community in its
   accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however,
   was again characterized by an advance toward a higher
   civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the
   report of their agent that they are again on the increase in
   population. … With the exception of occasional
   drawbacks—the result of civil feuds—the progress of the
   nation in education, industry and civilization continued until
   the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best
   attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls.
   The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and
   ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked
   alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces,
   but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional
   divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate
   waste. … The war over, and the work of reconstruction
   commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished,
   heart-broken, and revengeful people. … To-day their country
   is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater
   population than they have had at any previous period, except
   perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when
   those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated
   to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have
   2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported
   by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly
   $100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000
   can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and
   log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches
   with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000
   acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. … They
   have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that
   of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and
   beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. …
   The present Cherokee population is of a composite character.
   Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees,
   Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and
   admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee
   citizenship."

      _C. C. Royce,
      The Cherokee Nation of Indians
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84)._

   This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of
   the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and
   federal governments, from their first treaty with South
   Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.—"As
   early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that
   of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a
   connection between them. … Mr. Hale was the first to give
   formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki
   to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come
   into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful
   comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made
   by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the
   relationship of the two languages."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 77._

      See Note, Appendix: E.

      ALSO IN
      _S. G. Drake,
      The Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 4, chapter 13-16._

      See, above: ALLEGHANS.

      See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's
      War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cheyennes, or Sheyennes.

      See above; ALGONQUIAN FAMILY

{84}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chibchas.

   The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the
   Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the
   conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the
   Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At
   that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the
   autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were
   well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous
   antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer
   speak the well-developed and musical language of their
   forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only
   be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the
   languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota,
   and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the
   celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor)
      volume 6, page 215_.

   "As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the
   finest on the continent."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Races and Peoples,
      page 272._

      See, also, COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chicasas.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chichimecs.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chimakuan Family.

   "The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the
   largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their
   warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and
   when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70
   individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges
   on Port Townsend Bay."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 62._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chimarikan Family.

   "According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as
   known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe,
   living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the
   Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch
   up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are
   said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom
   they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival
   of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 63._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chinantecs.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chinookan Family.

   "The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its
   mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook]
   nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River,
   and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. … The
   position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as
   at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the
   great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they
   possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and
   the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds,
   and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."

      _G. Gibbs,
      Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      page 164._

      See, also, below: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chippewas.

      See below: OJIBWAS;
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chippewyans.

      See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Choctaws.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chontals and Popolocas.

   "According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in
   Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family
   exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means
   simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people
   other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the
   Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca,
   Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is
   'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one
   speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have
   also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers,
   with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to
   have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz,
   Mechoacan and Guatemala."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 146-153._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chontaquiros.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chumashan Family.

   "Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa
   Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been
   known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which
   seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by
   Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.:
   Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has
   no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the
   fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the
   dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely
   known than any of the others."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 67._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cliff-dwellers.

      See AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coahuiltecan Family.

   "Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This
   family appears to have included numerous tribes in
   southwestern Texas and in Mexico. … A few Indians still
   survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in
   1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the
   Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las
   Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 68._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coajiro, or Guajira.

   "An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the
   Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same
   name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all
   sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is
   known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the
   well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many
   respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New
   Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani
   on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with
   chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the
   other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the
   Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial
   foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their
   land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in
   constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know
   how to ride excellently. … They have numerous herds of
   cattle. … They follow agriculture a little."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, page 243._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cochibo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cochiquima.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coco Group.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coconoons.

      See below: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cofan.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

{85}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Collas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Comanches.

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,
      and KIOWAN FAMILY;
      and above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Conestogas.

      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Conibo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Conoys.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Copehan Family.

   "The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north
   by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian
   families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan,
   Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of
   San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 69._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Costanoan Family.

   "Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this
   group name Latham included five tribes … which were under
   the supervision of the Mission Dolores. … The territory of
   the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point
   near the southern end of Monterey Bay. … The surviving
   Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now
   scattered over several counties and probably do not number,
   all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr.
   Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the
   towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 71._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Creek Confederacy, Creek Wars.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Crees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Croatans.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Crows (Upsarokas, or Absarokas).

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cuatos.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cunimaré.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cuyriri or Kiriri.

      See below: GUCK on Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Dakotas, or Dacotahs, or Dahcotas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Delawares, or Lenape.

   "The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a
   as in father, é as a in mate). … The Lenape were divided
   into three sub-tribes:
      1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.
      2. The Unami or Wonameys.
      3. The Unalachtigo.
   No explanation of these designations will be
   found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From
   investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my
   request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are
   wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these
   sub-tribes on the Delaware river. … The Minsi lived in the
   mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above
   the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. … The Unamis'
   territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended
   from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their
   southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the
   land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did
   not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737
   that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter
   for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey
   totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares
   near where Wilmington now stands."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Lenape and Their Legends,
      chapter 3._

   "At the … time when
   William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been
   subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well
   known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the
   Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and
   placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not
   even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the
   Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William
   Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,
   accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the
   Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. …
   The use of arms, though from very different causes, was
   equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus
   the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the
   British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace
   and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years
   between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the
   first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the
   colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands
   might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at
   last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without
   lands of their own, and therefore without means of
   subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters
   of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to
   their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on
   the Juniata they were encroached upon. … Under those
   circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west
   of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,
   obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,
   the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the
   Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to
   Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The
   Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the
   French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join
   in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier
   settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by
   the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made
   with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put
   an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares
   removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. …
   The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and
   importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who
   were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven
   Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for
   some years the progress of the British and American arms.
   Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans
   during the War of Independence, the main body, together with
   all the western nations made common cause with the British.
   And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,
   they were again at the head of the western confederacy in
   their last struggle for independence. Placed by their
   geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,
   during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last
   moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The
   decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the
   confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by
   the treaty of Greenville of 1795."
{86}
   After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on
   White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally
   ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there
   were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number … had
   previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain
   the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].
   Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in
   an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.
   Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,
   and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united
   with the Senecas and some other tribes."

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 2._

      See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY:
      below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
      Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768;
      and MORAVIAN BRETHREN;
      and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"
      see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Eries.

      See below: HURONS, &c.,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Eskimauan Family.

   "Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo
   are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and
   of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including
   Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the
   Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as
   about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the
   western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of
   Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier
   are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians,
   named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the
   sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic
   America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands.
   Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the
   inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from
   the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show
   a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The
   Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal
   branch of the Eskimo nation. … As regards their northern
   limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their
   habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic
   explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of
   them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown
   to us. … On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring
   nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at
   an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest
   investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist
   between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would
   sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from
   the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo
   decidedly resemble their American neighbours. … With regard
   to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American
   nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure.
   Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very
   remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the
   language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group.
   … According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were
   already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year
   1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the
   American continent. … Between the years 1000 and 1300 they
   do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on
   the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies
   were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware
   of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in
   fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an
   expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the
   abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists.
   … About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from
   the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten
   in the mother country.  … The features of the natives in the
   Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the
   Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left
   the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or
   culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland
   was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited
   exclusively by Eskimo."

      _H. Rink,
      Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo,
      introduction and chapter 6._

      _H. Rink,
      The Eskimo tribes._

   "In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock
   collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their
   coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general
   term to designate a very well-defined race. …The Orarians
   are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits,
   comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the
   Aleuts."

      _W. H. Dall,
      Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
      (Contributed to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      part 1._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Esselenian Family.

   "The present family was included by Latham in the
   heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. … The term
   Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel
   languages, leaving the present family … [to be] called
   Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of
   which it is composed. … The tribe or tribes composing this
   family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from
   Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia
   Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report,
      Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 75-76._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Etchemins.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Eurocs, or Yuroks.

      See below: MODOCS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Five Nations.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Flatheads (Salishan Family).

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though,
   says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so
   distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so
   general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist.
   of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. … is: 'The
   Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under
   the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."

      _M. F. Force,
      Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio,
      page 32._

   "The Salish … are distinctively known as Flatheads, though
   the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 107._

   "In … early times the hunters and trappers could not
   discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received
   their respective designations, for the feet of the former are
   no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body,
   while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of
   rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that
   real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that
   they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the
   custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of
   the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners
   or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks,
   Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of
   flattening their heads prevails among them all."

      _P. Ronan,
      Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian Nation,
      page 17._

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan
   Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 102._

{87}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Fox Indians.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and below, SACS, &c.

   For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians at Detroit in
   1712,

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

   For an account of the Black Hawk War,

      See Illinois: A. D. 1832.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Fuegians.

      See below: PATAGONIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Gausarapos or Guuchies.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ges Tribes.

      See below:
      TUPI.
      GUARANI.
      TUPUYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: HIDATSA;
      also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guaicarus.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guajira.

      See above: COAJIRO.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guanas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guarani.

      See below: TUPI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guayanas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guck or Coco Group.

   An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and
   north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been
   called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for
   the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very
   important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a
   large number of tribes. … We need enumerate but few. The
   Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.),
   number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are
   wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the
   mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on
   the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who
   have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most
   tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord
   who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL
   DORADO].  … The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio
   Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay.
   Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay,
   belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which,
   though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the
   Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas
   show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western
   borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among
   them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found
   on the northwest coast of North America. … In the same
   district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact
   that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South
   America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses
   of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about
   120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band
   of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter,
   however, in its own room. … Finally, complex tribes of the
   most different nationality are comprehended under names which
   indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly
   used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and
   Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira
   River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify
   'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related
   that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for
   preservation. … Formerly the Mura … were greatly feared;
   this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost
   entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the
   Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. … The Mura are the
   gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other
   tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as
   pariahs. … Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are
   also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous
   tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know
   nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 245-248._

      ALSO IN
      _F. Keller,
      The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
      chapters 2 and 6._

      _H. W. Bates,
      A Naturalist on the River Amazons,
      chapters 7-13._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guuchies.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Hackinsacks.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Haidas.

      See below: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Grosventres

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of
   the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent
   village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the
   waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in
   Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this
   tribe is … intimately connected with that of the politically
   allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name,
   Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the
   early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was
   applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in
   language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west
   of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished
   from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and
   Grosventres of the Prairie. … Edward Umfreville, who traded
   on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, … remarks: …
   'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or
   Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and
   as well made as any tribe whatever.' … In the works of many
   travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is
   spelled in various ways. … This, although a Hidatsa word, is
   the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the
   Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed
   the water.' … Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife
   River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom
   Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the
   name "now generally used by this people to designate
   themselves."

      _W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa
      Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and
      Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7)_.

   See also, below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

{88}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Hitchitis.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Horikans.

   North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the
   Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present
   counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe
   of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended
   from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green
   Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake
   George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now
   well bear their sonorous name."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      page 77._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huamaboya.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huancas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huastecs.

      See below: MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huecos, or Wacos.

      See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Humas, or Oumas.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Hupas.

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: MODOCS, &c.

   Hurons, or Wyandots.
   Neutral Nation.
   Eries.

   "The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was
   occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the
   Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe
   called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation,
   dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of
   the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while
   the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war
   between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the
   northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern
   flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the
   Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000
   souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The
   Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from
   their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and
   superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and
   social customs, they were closely assimilated to their
   brethren of the Five Nations. … Like the Five Nations, the
   Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they
   bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to
   surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and
   this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their
   country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was
   rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for
   though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point
   of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of
   the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in
   the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the
   Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all
   within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in
   panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed.
   Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the
   village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still
   remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while
   others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought
   an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern
   lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters,
   they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake
   Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of
   Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to
   Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where,
   by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon
   acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The
   ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the
   Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an
   exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon
   found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by
   all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a
   few years their destruction as a nation was complete."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

      _F. Parkman,
      The Jesuits in North America,
      chapter 1._

   "The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of
   the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of
   Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the
   Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the
   Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but
   principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds
   extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake
   Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. … They are
   first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the
   Hurons in 1615 … but he was unable to visit their territory.
   … The peace which this peculiar people had so long
   maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some
   jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated
   in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral
   Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our
   city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year,
   and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic
   were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of
   the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. … The
   survivors were adopted by their conquerors. …. A long period
   intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and
   the permanent occupation of their country by the
   Senecas,"—which latter event occurred after the expulsion of
   the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under
   General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They
   never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the
   Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks
   and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo
   Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years
   before. … It has been assumed by many writers that the
   Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter,
   according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the
   western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by
   the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them
   as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one
   of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed
   nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."

      _O. H. Marshall,
      The Niagara Frontier,
      pages 5-8, and foot-note_.

   "Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of
   Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river,
   lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by
   the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a
   member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful
   lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their
   most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic
   stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that
   interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the
   holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the
   totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the
   abundance of that mammal within their territory."

      _W. C. Bryant,
      Interesting Archaeological Studies in and about Buffalo,
      page 12._

{89}

   Mr. Schoolcraft either identifies or confuses the Eries and
   the Neutral Nation.

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Sketch of the History of the Ancient  Eries
      (Information Respecting the Indian Tribes,
      part 4. page 197)._

      ALSO IN
      _J. G. Shea,
      Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation
      (same, part 4, page 204)._-

      _D. Wilson,
      The Huron-Iroquois of Canada
      (Transactions Royal Society of Canada, 1884)_.

      _P. D. Clarke,
      Origin and Traditional History of the Wyandottes._

      _W. Ketchum,
      History of Buffalo,
      volume 1, chapter 1-2_.

      _N. B. Craig.
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, page 225_.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;

      Also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
      1634-1652; 1640-1700.

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

   For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Illinois and Miamis.

   "Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and
   descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley
   chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on
   the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in
   the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their
   name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.
   Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis
   and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the
   repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in
   particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the
   population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the
   early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter
   of the eighteenth century,
   to a few small villages."

      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SACS, &c.;
      also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Incas, or Yncas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Innuits.

      See above: ESKIMAUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iowas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Iroquoian Family.

   "At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or
   nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to
   European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and
   uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful
   region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the
   Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas—as they
   should properly be called—possessed the Mohawk River, and
   covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of
   large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which,
   hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best
   boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas
   the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their
   name. … West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the
   central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the
   League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles.
   together with the common outlet of this inland lake system,
   the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still
   proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the
   long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were
   clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the
   lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and
   dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered
   the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called
   Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes
   of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni,
   or League of United Households, who were destined to become
   for a time the most notable and powerful community among the
   native tribes of North America. The region which has been
   described was not, however, the original seat of those nations.
   They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to
   ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised
   the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation,
   the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the
   Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family
   occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching
   from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all
   clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the
   fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which
   flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all
   these tribes showed a close affinity. … The evidence of
   language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show
   that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and
   the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes,
   Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St.
   Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the
   first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at
   Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec.
   … As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive
   swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south.
   As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with
   whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most
   dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a
   fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere
   surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent
   traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed,
   these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and
   united their forces in an alliance against a common and
   formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the
   confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized
   'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name
   to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast
   earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the
   perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which
   lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow
   and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors
   of the conquered people fled southward. … The time which has
   elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously
   estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period
   about a thousand years before the present day. It was
   apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the
   Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves
   over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open
   to their occupancy."

      _H. Hale,
      Introduction to Iroquois Book of Rites._

{90}

   After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the
   French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the
   Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred
   which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able
   to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled
   with France for the mastery of the North American continent,
   and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more
   than to any other single cause. England still retained the
   faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came
   to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except
   the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the
   Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the
   political transaction of the League were substantially closed.
   This was, in effect, the termination of their political
   existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended
   over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they
   became dependent nations. During the progress of the
   Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to
   Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand
   River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston,
   where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by
   the British government. … The policy of the State of New York
   [toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane.
   Although their country, with the exception of that of the
   Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event
   of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the
   rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the
   country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the
   Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from
   time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a
   reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of
   them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to
   Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to
   the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have
   remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire …
   near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas
   "still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga,
   with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance.
   About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party
   are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have
   removed to the west. … In the brief space of twelve years
   after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga
   county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted
   and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to
   the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they
   finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them
   removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still
   another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio,
   from whence they were removed by government, a few years
   since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi.
   About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York.
   … The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory,
   finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of
   Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. … The
   residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small
   reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany,
   which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser
   counties of the State."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      The League of the Iroquois,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and
   occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With
   few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the
   native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of
   the entire State."

      _Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian
      Problem of the State of New York 1889._

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Notes on the Iroquois._

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

      _C. Colden,
      History of the Five Indian Nations._

      _J. Fiske,
      Discovery of America,
      chapter 1._

   In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became
   Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from North
   Carolina.

      See below: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

   On the relationship between the Iroquois and the Cherokees,

      See above: CHEROKEES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Their Name.

   "The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are
   doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the
   explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct.
   The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been
   formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which
   these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which,
   when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly
   uttered is an exclamation of joy. … But … Champlain had
   learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other
   Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It
   is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the
   Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois
   tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the
   latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe,
   and also a piece of tobacco,—and, in its verbal form, to
   smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in
   the Book of Rites,—denighroghkwayen,—'let us two smoke
   together.' … In the indeterminate form the verb becomes
   'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might
   be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or,
   briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation
   ('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also
   by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates,
   noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold.
   The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of
   this plant, of which they had a choice variety."

      _H. Hale,
      Iroquois Book of Rites,
      appendix, note A._

Iroquois Confederacy.
   Their conquests and wide dominion.

   "The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the
   Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was
   first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to
   resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its
   establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although
   the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved
   by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer
   to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where
   the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree
   upon the terms and principles of the compact. … After the
   formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power
   and influence. … With the first consciousness of rising
   power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the
   Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a
   nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first
   struggle for the ascendancy.
{91}
   … At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation
   [the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their
   original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as
   Quebec. … A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the
   establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,
   in 1615. … Friendly relations were established between the
   Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption
   until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson
   to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up
   between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for
   European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the
   use of which they were afterwards destined to become so
   expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of
   friendship. … With the possession of fire-arms commenced not
   only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the
   Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the
   Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a
   permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly
   exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side
   of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus
   possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,
   and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they
   had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the
   Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole
   country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the
   north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa
   river, near Montreal. … They also made constant inroads upon
   the New England Indians. … In 1680, the Senecas with 600
   warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders
   of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. …
   At various times, both before and after this period, the
   Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the
   Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. … For about a
   century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois
   were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close
   of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal
   subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the
   territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,
   Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and
   western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,
   Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England
   States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these
   nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a
   constant supervision. If any of them became involved in
   domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them
   and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their
   future conduct."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      League of the Iroquois,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America,
   and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the
   Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the
   dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of
   their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have
   mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and
   dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful
   of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly
   scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one
   might boast a more numerous population than all the five
   united tribes."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.
   Their wars with the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
      1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.
   Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1652;
      also, above, HURONS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.
   Surrenders and conveyances to the English.

      See
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Their part in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
      and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Tribes of the South.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its
   tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most
   southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low
   country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and
   Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended
   beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in
   Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far
   north as James River. … Lawson, in his account of the North
   Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and
   the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year
   1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways
   inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were
   principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices
   of the Tuteloes. … It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways
   had preserved their independence and their numbers later than
   the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they
   had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated
   from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they
   are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in
   possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,
   which had been at an early date reserved for them. … The
   Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North
   Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in
   that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois
   tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and
   the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200
   warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked
   the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a
   fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants
   south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in
   forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five
   Nations. This could not have been given without involving the
   confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras
   were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly
   of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was
   again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the
   northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the
   Tuscaroras. … Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the
   Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell
   them as slaves.
{92}
   The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on
   the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made
   peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of
   the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year
   1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to
   the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since
   shared their fate."

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 2._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Itocos.

      See above: CHIBCHAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Itonamos, or Itonomos.

      See above: ANDESIANS;
      also BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Jivara, or Jivaro.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kah-kwas.

      See above: HURONS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kalapooian Family.

   "Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the
   Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the
   Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources
   of the Willamat River.'… The tribes of the Kalapooian family
   inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the
   falls."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 81._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kanawhas, or Ganawese.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kansas, or Kaws.

      See below: SIOUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kapohn.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Karankawan Family.

   "The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according
   to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St.
   Bernard (Matagorda Bay). … In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a
   Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly
   lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of
   twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language
   he remembered. The vocabulary … such as it is, represents
   all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary
   the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa
   but from all others."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 82._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Karoks, or Cahrocs.

      See below: MODOCS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kaskaskias.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kaus, or Kwokwoos.

      See below: KUSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kaws, or Kansas.

      See below: SIOUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kenai, or Blood Indians.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

      See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Keresan Family.

   "The … pueblos of Keresan stock … are situated in New
   Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small
   western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also
   are tributaries of the Rio Grande."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 83_.

      See PUEBLO.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kikapoos.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kiowan Family.

   "Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning
   'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author
   who first formally separated this family appears to have been
   Turner. … Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary
   furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion
   expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language
   is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting
   that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other
   family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long
   intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct
   from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and
   other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa
   tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the
   Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to
   determine their pristine home. … Pope definitely locates the
   Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its
   tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in
   substantial accord with the statements of other writers of
   about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on
   the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they
   appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 84._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kiriri, Cuyriri.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kitunahan Family.

   "This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,
   Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,
   a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 85._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Klamaths.

      See below: MODOCS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Koluschan Family.

   "Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly,
   kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped
   lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the
   Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit
   the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th
   degree of north latitude.'"

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 86._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kulanapan Family.

   "The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the
   west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and
   Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the
   Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega
   Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near
   Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 88._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kusan Family:

   "The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as
   living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the
   Clamet."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 89._

      See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kwokwoos.

      See above: KUSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Lenape.

      See above: DELAWARES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Machicuis.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Macushi.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Manaos.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mandans, or Mandanes.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Manhattans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Manioto, or Mayno.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mapochins.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Maranha.

      See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Maricopas.

      See below: PUEBLOS.

{93}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mariposan Family.

   "Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a
   county in California and subsequently taken for the family
   name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of
   the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of
   Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above
   name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to
   the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut.
   As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound
   basis, his name is here restored."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 90._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mascoutins, or Mascontens.

      See below: SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Massachusetts.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mataguayas.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mayas.

   "In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a
   mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten
   days' journey in a canoe. … During his fourth voyage
   (1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba,
   he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously
   dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were
   merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first
   mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of
   the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name
   was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the
   similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that
   no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. … Maya was
   the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper
   name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single
   province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it
   had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about
   a century before, when this whole district was united under
   one government. … Whatever the primitive meaning and first
   application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify
   specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended
   sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood
   to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related
   dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the
   Maya proper. … The total number of Indians of pure blood
   speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite
   200,000, most of them in the political limits of the
   department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000
   of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in
   daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American
   languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its
   ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and
   supplant their native speech. … The Mayas did not claim to
   be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by
   the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership
   of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous
   immigration from the West, which was connected with the
   history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these
   appears to be wholly mythical. … The second tradition
   deserves more attention from the historian. … It cannot be
   denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the
   Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to
   have migrated from the north or west from some part of the
   present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional
   importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican
   Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz,
   of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The
   idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great
   migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south.
   Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most
   closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest
   Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient
   traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two
   partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though
   differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a
   community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find
   these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the
   Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan
   Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. … The annals of
   the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Maya Chronicles,
      introduction._

   "Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala,
   Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities
   have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and
   magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a
   detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this
   work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less
   unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear
   hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character;
   in other respects they resemble each other more than they
   resemble the Aztec ruins—or even other and apparently later
   works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear
   evident marks of great antiquity. … I deem the grounds
   sufficient … for accepting this Central American
   civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an
   extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the
   peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and
   applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has
   claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of
   the linguistic family mentioned. … There are no data by
   which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its
   downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and
   foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by
   Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants
   of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some
   remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although
   some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of
   others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on
   the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable
   material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the
   16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an
   advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language
   survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed
   by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed
   materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not
   likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later
   than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been
   inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its
   highest power at a date preceding rather than following the
   Christian era."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2;
      volume 4, chapters 3-6;
      volume 5, chapters 11-13._

{94}

      ALSO IN
      _Marquis de Nadaillac,
      Prehistoric America,
      chapters 6-7._

      _J. L. Stephens,
      Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and
      Travel in Central America, &c._

      _B. M. Norman,
      Rambles in Yucatan_.

      _D. Charnay,
      Ancient Cities of the New World_.

      See, also, MEXICO: ANCIENT, and AZTEC AND AND MAYA
      PICTURE-WRITING.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mayoruna, or Barbudo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Menominees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Metöacs.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Miamis, or Twightwees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Micmacs.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mingoes.

   "The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were
   known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is
   said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,'
   meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed
   the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country
   of the Delawares."

      _H. Hale,
      The Iroquois Book of Rites,
      appendix, note. A._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minneconjou.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minnetarees.

      See above: HIDATSA;
      and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
      See Note, Appendix E. 9.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minquas.

      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS;
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minsis, Munsees, or Minisinks.

      See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Miranha.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Missouris.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mixes.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mixtecs.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mocovis.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern
   California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River,
   south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the
   river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs,
   on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to
   the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the
   Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast;
   the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above
   the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the
   Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah
   Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath;
   numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay
   north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the
   Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The
   Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central
   and southern tribes."

      _H. Bancroft,
      The Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   "On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the
   Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean,
   respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of
   the river.' … The Karok are probably the finest tribe in
   California. … Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the
   home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest
   race in all that region, and they even excel them in their
   statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute
   force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are
   the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their
   wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended
   diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole …
   are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race,
   but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for
   keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or
   deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold
   against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including
   that arm so awful to savages—the artillery—was almost the
   only feature that lent respectability to their wretched
   tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."

      _S. Powers,
      Tribes of California
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 3),
      chapter 1, 7, and 27._

   "The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies
   upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the
   Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call
   the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which
   lies in Northern California. … The main seat of the Modoc
   people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of
   Little Klamath Lake. … The two main bodies forming the Klamath
   people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc
   Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as
   many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and
   form the northern chieftaincy. … The Klamath people possess
   no historic traditions going further back in time than a
   century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law
   prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased
   individual by using his name. … Our present knowledge does
   not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically
   with any of the other languages compared, but … it stands as
   a linguistic family for itself."

      _A. S. Gatschet,
      The Klamath Indians
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology,
      volume 2, part 1)._

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and
   Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian
   Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the
   Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River
   Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct
   family named the Palaihnihan Family.

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 89 and 97._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mohaves (Mojaves).

      See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mohawks.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mohegans, or Mahicans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

   Montagnais.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Montauks.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Moquelumnan Family.

   "Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in
   Calaveras County, California. … It was not until 1856 that
   the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth
   by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers
   several vocabularies representing different languages and
   dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the
   Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented
   by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme
   paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's
   Beiträge. … The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory
   bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the
   Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the
   west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip
   on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this
   family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San
   Francisco Bay."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 92-93._

{95}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Moquis.

      See below: PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Morona.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Moxos, or Mojos.

      See above: ANDESIANS;
      also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mundrucu.

      See below: TUPI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Munsees.

      See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also MANHATTAN ISLAND.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mura.

      See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Muskhogean, or Maskoki Family.

   "Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the
   Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding
   position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them,
   but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain
   degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki
   one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their
   ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these
   tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the
   Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from
   the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short
   intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent
   Indian communities, and also among each other. … The
   irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused
   serious difficulties to the government of the English and
   French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their
   adhesion between the French and the English cause. The
   American government overcame their opposition easily whenever
   a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an
   exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how
   to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the
   stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were
   constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly
   conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of
   folk lore. … The only characteristic by which a subdivision
   of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following
   their ancient topographic location from east to west, we
   obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki
   proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on
   Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From
   these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the
   Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw
   community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern
   division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the
   Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the
   Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct
   Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the
   Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch,
   comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to
   them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its
   northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw]
   branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the
   middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa,
   Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became
   separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a
   community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the
   fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. …
   Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of
   the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural,
   Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek
   Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee,
   and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced
   by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. … The accent
   is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None
   of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own
   language. … Why did the English colonists call them Creek
   Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki
   country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a
   number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi
   and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the
   inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were
   called Creeks from an early time. … In the southern part of
   the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of
   Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and
   are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in
   whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians,
   Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and
   Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with
   the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh
   Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in
   the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered
   remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red
   River."

      _A. S. Gatschet,
      A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
      volume 1, part 1._

   "The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the
   [Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages
   altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a
   residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the
   banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one
   hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east
   of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they
   consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the
   country. They may have been the same nation which is called
   Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. … The
   four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the
   War Department … consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.:
   The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas
   (5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees,
   26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000.
   The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to
   them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of
   that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of
   what may be allotted to the Chicasas."

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), section 3._

      See below: SEMINOLES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Musquito, or Mosquito Indians.

   "That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived
   its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects,
   but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the
   shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people,
   short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut
   features, and small straight noses—not at all negroid,
   except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number
   about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the
   efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to
   writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are
   one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 162._

      See, also, NICARAGUA: A. D., 1850.

{96}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nahuas.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nanticokes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Napo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Narragansetts.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Natchesan Family.

   When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley,
   they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of
   country that now surrounds the city which bears their name.
   "By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established
   that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around
   them less by their customs and the degree of their
   civilization than by their language, which, as far as
   comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity
   with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too
   readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely
   received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even
   to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and
   inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached
   themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 2, page 97._

   "Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the
   early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for
   their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a
   semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history.
   We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in
   their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and
   bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and
   cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring
   tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied—the
   most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the
   Mississippi—and the influence of its attractions in
   substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence
   of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one
   apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for
   his pillow. … Their government was an absolute despotism.
   The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property,
   and their lives. … The Natchez consisted exclusively of two
   classes—the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common
   people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes
   understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their
   customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies
   of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and
   witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father
   Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of
   civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or
   rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The
   house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow
   bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of
   this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative
   writers as the peer of Montezuma!"

      _J. F. H. Claiborne,
      Mississippi,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions,
   planned and executed a general massacre of the French within
   their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually
   exterminated within the following two years.

      _C. Gayarre,
      Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance,
      2d series, lecture 3 and 5._

   "The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the
   well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the
   Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years
   ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then
   inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was
   the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of
   Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their
   dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined
   the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in
   Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic
   relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long
   been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 96._

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
      See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Natchitoches;

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nausets.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Navajos.

      See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, and APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Neutral Nation.

      See above: HURONS, &c.;
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nez Percés, or Sahaptins.

   "The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major
   Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes,
   occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its
   affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in
   contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus
   holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern
   and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the
   latter, they made good use of it."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 107._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 106._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Niniquiquilas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nipmucs, or Nipnets.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678
      (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nootkas.

      See below: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nottoways.

      See above: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nyantics.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ogalalas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ojibwas, or Chippewas.

   "The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and
   their friends the Ottawas,—the latter of whom were fugitives
   from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the
   Iroquois,—were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were
   closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The
   Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the
   basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In
   their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at
   length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the
   Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the
   outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once
   encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they
   were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern
   Algonquin tribes."

      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

{97}

   "The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met
   with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest
   to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de
   Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance.
   M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this
   term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little
   difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report,
   in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first
   recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of
   Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the
   island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded
   by them at former periods to the French. … The Chippewas are
   conceded, by writers on American philology … to speak one of
   the purest forms of the Algonquin."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Information respecting the History, Condition and
      Prospects of the Indian Tribes,
      part 5, page 142._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Copway,
      The Ojibway Nation._

      _J. G. Kohl,
      Kitchi-gami_.

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR:
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Omahas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Oneidas.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

   Onondagas.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Orejones.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Osages.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Otoes, or Ottoes.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Otomis.

   "According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest
   owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at
   the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this
   portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States
   of Queretaro and Guanajuato. … The Otomis are below the
   average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly
   dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes
   slightly oblique."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 135._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ottawas.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS.
      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
   Pacaguara.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pacamora.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pamlicoes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pampas Tribes.

   "The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis
   by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches
   [or Puelts—that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these,
   under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground,
   between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The
   Querandis … were the great opponents to settlement of the
   Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. … The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians
   [see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and
   from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting
   stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the
   Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches,
   and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches
   horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South
   American races. … Of the Guayanas horde there were several
   tribes—independent of each other, and speaking different
   idioms, although having the same title of race. Their
   territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents
   into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched
   over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They
   were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish
   invaders. … The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21°
   South  latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in
   number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies
   dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo,
   or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east
   into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. … The Cuatos lived
   inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and
   constituted a very small tribe. … The Orejones dwelt on the
   eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San
   Fernando—close to the western side of Paraguay river. …
   Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of
   Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest
   which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward
   from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the
   province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. … The Guanas Indians were
   divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there
   was a particular and different name. They lived between 20°
   and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay,
   and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter
   crossed the last-named river in 1673. … The Albaias and
   Payaguas Indians … in former times, were the chief tribes of
   the Paraguay territory. … The Albaias were styled Machicuis
   and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards'
   arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the
   river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into
   a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. … The
   joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend
   their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side
   of Paraguay river. … The Albaias were a very tall and
   muscular race of people. … The Payagua Indians, before and
   up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were
   sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. … The
   Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and
   subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which
   their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or
   trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after
   the conquest. … The Tobas, who have also the titles of
   Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the
   Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of
   the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of
   these there are some remains in the present day. … The
   Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. … The
   Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite,
   lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the
   tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected
   the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly
   opposite Goya, in 1748."

      _T. J. Hutchinson,
      The Parana,
      chapters 6-7._

{98}

   "The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province
   Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no
   fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their
   neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every
   direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their
   enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey
   advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo,
   which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the
   last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war
   carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards … and, migrating
   towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held
   by the Calchaquis. … From what region their ancestors came
   there is no room for conjecture."

      _M. Dobrizhoffer,
      Account of the Abipones,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

   "The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of
   a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in
   winter cover themselves with skins. … They paint themselves
   all over with different colours."

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of Paraguay,
      book 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 256-262._

      See, also, below: TUPI. GUARANI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pampticokes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pano.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Papagos.

      See below: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Parawianas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pascogoulas.

      See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Passé.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Patagonians and Fuegians.

   "The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken
   (men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to
   as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to
   the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans
   physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of
   them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and
   built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and
   have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a
   sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro.
   … On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell
   three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of
   culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle
   Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east
   of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west.
   … The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris,
   that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the
   American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied
   the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the
   Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members.
   This interesting theory demands still further evidence before
   it can be accepted."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 327-332._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pawnee Family (named "Caddoan" by Major Powell).

   "The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been
   known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least
   understood of the important tribes of the West. In both
   respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During
   recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have
   evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the
   central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains
   still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation
   between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the
   family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos
   or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts
   or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern
   or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase
   the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where
   Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was
   upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they
   claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence
   from time immemorial. … They have a tradition that they are
   the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have
   sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. …
   The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve
   secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government.
   … In many respects, their method of building lodges, their
   equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they
   quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however,
   with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned,
   is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. … The name Pawnee is
   most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to
   have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate
   their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the
   most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came
   naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word
   in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee
   Picts) and the Arikaras. … The true Pawnee territory till as
   late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara
   south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably
   beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian.
   … On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in
   eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes,
   Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending
   as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big
   Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as
   several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares,
   Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living
   under the guardianship of the United States. … On the west
   their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may
   perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake
   River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence
   south to the Arkansas. … It is not to be supposed, however,
   that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this
   territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by
   various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages,
   Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three
   originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their
   hostility. … In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United
   States their claim upon all the above described territory
   lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining
   territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15
   wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit
   beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and
   removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the
   Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their
   junction."

      _J. B. Dunbar,
      The Pawnee Indians
      (Magazine of American History, April, 1880, volume 4)._

      ALSO IN
      _G. B. Grinnell,
      Pawnee Hero Stories._

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 95-97._

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 59._

      See, also, above: ADAIS and BLACKFEET.

{99}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Payaguas.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pehuelches, or Puelts.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Penacooks, or Pawtucket Indians.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Peorias.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pequots.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SHAWANESE;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piankishaws.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piegans.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piman Family.

   "Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family
   is included within the United States, the greater portion
   being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California.
   The family is represented in the United States by three
   tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have
   lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila
   River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied
   the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila,
   but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more
   extensive and extends to the south across the border."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 98-99._

      See below: PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pimenteiras.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piru.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pit River Indians.

      See above: MODOCS (KLAMATHS), &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piutes.

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pokanokets, or Wampanoags.

      See above:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING
      PHILIP'S WAR).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ponkas, or Puncas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
      and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Popolocas.

      See above: CHONTALS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pottawatomies.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, OJIBWAS, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Powhatan Confederacy.

   "At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has
   been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians
   within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit
   of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were
   about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors.
   The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was
   occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a
   confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and
   acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the
   rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as
   far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his
   History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects
   to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of
   savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the
   superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank
   of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and
   power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where
   Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the
   north side of York River, within the present county of
   Gloucester. … Besides the large confederacy of which
   Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that
   was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs,
   consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between
   the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five
   tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and
   James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to
   these, many scattering and independent tribes."

      _G. S. Hillard,
      Life of Captain John Smith
      (Library of American Biographies), chapter 4._

   "The English invested savage life with all the
   dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or
   'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom,
   his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his
   cabins were his various seats of residence. … In his younger
   days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was
   the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his
   dominions had been extended. … The name of his nation and
   the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He
   himself possessed several names."

      _E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Pocahontas,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _Captain John Smith,
      Description of Virginia, and General Historie of Virginia.
      (Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and 360)_.

      See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Puans.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pueblos.

   "The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples
   of New Mexico and Arizona … I call the Pueblos, or
   Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name
   given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as
   were found, when first discovered, permanently located in
   comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term
   Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks
   of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between
   latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is
   employed as a general appellation for this division, it will
   be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular
   sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos
   proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern
   Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower
   Gila river,—the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate
   tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit
   Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'
   yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural
   nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of
   this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day …
   in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which
   prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado
   in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers
   visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of
   Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches
   were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied
   by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,
   from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New
   Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was
   given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the
   Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the
   present day were mentioned in the reports of the early
   expeditions by their present names.
{100}
   … The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are
   the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are
   situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are
   planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by
   artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of
   the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,
   a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a
   Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three
   or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about
   150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories
   of from eight to nine feet each in height. … The stories are
   built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,
   decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of
   terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both
   sides of the building; in others they face only towards the
   outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These
   terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three
   or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants
   of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story
   beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner
   communication with one another, the only means of mounting to
   them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along
   the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at
   pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The
   outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely
   solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,
   in some towns, a few loopholes. … To enter the rooms on the
   ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to
   the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door
   in the floor by another ladder on the inside. … The several
   stories of these huge structures are divided into
   multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are
   apportioned to the several families of the tribe."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   "There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New
   Mexico. … We cannot … refuse to adopt the views of General
   Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo
   of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of
   the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of
   Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui
   district, and Acuco with Acoma."

      _A. F. Bandelier,
      Historical Introduction to Studies among the Sedentary
      Indians of North Mexico
      (Papers of the Archœolog. Institute of America:
      American Series, volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _J. H. Simpson,
      The March of Coronado._

      _L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
      chapter 6._

      _F. H. Cushing,
      My Adventures in Zuñi
      (Century, volume 3-4)_.

      _F. H. Cushing,
      Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (1882-83),
      pages 473-480._

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapter 10._

      See, also, AMERICA, PREHISTORIC,
      and above: PIMAN FAMILY and KERESAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pujunan Family.

   "The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham:
   Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of
   Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a
   tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which,
   upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana,
   all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These
   races resembled one another in every respect but language.'
   … The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by
   Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their
   distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento
   in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth,
   and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit
   River."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 99-100._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Puncas, or Ponkas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY:
      and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Purumancians.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quapaws.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quelches.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Querandis, or Pehuelches, or Puelts.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quiches.
   Cakchiquels.

   "Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the
   nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a
   tongue, which from its principal members has been called the
   Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated
   that half a million persons use these dialects. They are
   scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory,
   and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf
   of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan'
   dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of
   Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the
   Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and
   are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much
   as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects.
   … The civilization of these people was such that they used
   various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record
   and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or
   less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The
   most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of
   Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an
   unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was
   familiar with the ancient records."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Essays of an Americanist,
      page 104._

      ALSO IN,
      _D. G. Brinton,
      Annals of the Cakchiquels._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      chapter 11._

      See, also, above: MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quichuas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quijo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quoratean Family.

   "The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a
   range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of
   the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its
   sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the
   Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 101._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Rapid Indians.

   A name applied by various writers to the Arapahoes, and other
   tribes.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Raritans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Remo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Rogue River Indians.

      See above: MODOCS, ETC.

      See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Rucanas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sabaja.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

{101}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sacs (Sauks), Foxes, etc.

   "The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies,
   so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name
   is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The
   French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in
   the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same
   language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though
   belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was
   common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called
   Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a
   distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed
   by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that
   the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a
   prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate
   'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted
   principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture
   of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt
   the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay
   south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois
   River. … When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had
   their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox
   River, and generally farther east than the country which they
   lately occupied. … By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and
   Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of …
   the Mississippi. … The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809
   to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States.
   They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and
   the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the
   mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. … The
   territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be
   generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the
   Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the
   country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the
   country bordering on the Ohio."

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 2._

   The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but
   almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies
   or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for
   treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier
   days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers],
   but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is
   very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct
   tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the
   disappearance of the name will not be strange."

      _J. G. Shea,
      Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins
      (Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,
      part 4, page 245)_.

      See above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

   For an account of the Black Hawk War

      See Illinois, A. D. 1832.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sahaptins.

      See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Salinan Family.

   This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San
   Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,
   Monterey County, California.

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 101._

      See ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Salishan Family.

      See above: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sanhikans, or Mincees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sans Arcs.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
   Santees.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

      See Note. Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sarcee (Tinneh).

      See above: BLACKFEET.

      See Note. Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sastean Family.

   "The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his
   name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or
   Klamath tribes. … The former territory of the Sastean family
   is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries
   from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where
   the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy
   Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the
   Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath,
   the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as
   Ashland, Oregon:"

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report,
      Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 106._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Savannahs.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Seminoles.

   "The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies
   'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the
   Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek
   settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in
   independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as
   frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it
   is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a
   runaway.' … The Seminoles of modern times are a people
   compounded of the following elements: separatists from the
   Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly
   civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes.
   … The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts
   by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt
   there were reasons for this. … These Indians showed, like
   the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states
   during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper
   Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship
   with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under
   Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with
   the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko
   ['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his
   brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These
   unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the
   Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began,
   which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and
   Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in
   April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession
   of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union
   (1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the
   treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in
   exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to
   move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of
   a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's
   landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the
   more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of
   the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and
   whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major
   Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and
   continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an
   immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D.
   1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile
   Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822
   gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to
   them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory
   amounted to 2,667 in 1881. … There are some Seminoles now in
   Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."

      _A. S. Gatschet,
      A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
      volume 1, part 1, section 2._

{102}

   "Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida
   they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. … In the
   unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have
   ever been in the wrong."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
      page 148._

   "There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians
   commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families,
   living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely
   separated groups or settlements. … This people our
   Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer.
   … The Seminole have always lived within our borders as
   aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural
   necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and
   Indian has been secured. … The Indians have appropriated for
   their service some of the products of European civilization,
   such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for
   clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which
   they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish
   missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some
   few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated
   practically nothing from the white man."

      _C. MacCauley,
      The Seminole Indians of Florida
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),
      introduction and chapter 4._

      ALSO IN
      _J. T. Sprague,
      The Florida War_.

      _S. G. Drake,
      The Aboriginal Races of North America.
      book 4, chapter 6-21._

      See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Senecas; their name.

   "How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among
   Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible
   supposition is, that the name has any reference to the
   moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of
   the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the
   assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the
   Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus
   gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no
   authority. … The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch
   map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. … It
   is claimed by some that the word may be derived from
   'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of
   in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter
   Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. … Without
   assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself
   with giving some data which may possibly aid others in
   arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion
   of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated
   themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits
   first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the
   national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill
   people,' as now used by the Senecas. … If the name Seneca
   can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word
   'Nan-do-wah-gaah' … it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,'
   as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary
   letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the
   first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of
   the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation
   with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the
   disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been
   dropped in the process of contraction so common in the
   composition of Indian words—a result which would be quite
   likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through
   two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing
   queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are
   worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."

      _O. H. Marshall,
      Historical Writings,
      page 231_

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and HURONS, &c.

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

   For an account of Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas,

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shacaya.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shahaptian Family.

      See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
   Shastas.

      See above: SASTEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shawanese, Shawnees, or Shawanoes.

   "Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares—see above], and
   associated with them in some of the most notable passages of
   their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the
   French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their
   eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and
   disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but
   from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early
   period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming
   embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the
   Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction.
   Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they
   lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought
   refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their
   native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of
   the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new
   settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now
   suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they
   were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge
   among the Lenape."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

   "The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated
   there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French
   and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed
   to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano
   are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the
   orthography of the two respective languages. … Much industry
   has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to
   trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think
   without success. … We first find the Shawano in actual
   history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland
   river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures
   as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for
   the present with the earliest account—the account given by
   Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes
   themselves, about the year 1680—that they formerly lived by
   the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."

      _M. F. Force,
      Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio._

   "Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan
   than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared
   in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as
   the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided
   into four bands"—Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake,
   Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in
   Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name
   to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient
   Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of
   this band."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Lenape and their Legends,
      chapter 2._

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Shawnees and their Migrations
      (History Magazine, volume 10, 1866)_.

{103}

   "The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of
   the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their
   former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the
   junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which
   point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate
   from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash,
   in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares.
   This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous
   (not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or
   Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful
   neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live
   in peace with their new allies. … The Shawanese [about 1755,
   or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more
   powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which
   resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated
   by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the
   Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting
   expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from
   Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of
   the river below the town, where they found a number of
   Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river
   in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to
   the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel
   arose among the children for the possession of it, in which
   their mothers soon took part. … The quarrel became general.
   … Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for
   battle. … The Shawanese … were not able to sustain the
   conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the
   remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river,
   shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to
   the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has
   been called the Grasshopper War.

      _L. H. Miner,
      The Valley of Wyoming,
      page 32._

      See, also, above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765-1768;

   For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War",

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sheepeaters (Tukuarika).

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sheyennes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shoshonean Family.

   "This important family occupied a large part of the great
   interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean
   tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory
   on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon
   the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of
   the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and
   Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands
   encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon
   the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their
   own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky
   Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats
   by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. …
   Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of
   Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed
   westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the
   Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country,
   where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the
   Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire
   mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of
   the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being
   held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian),
   and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country
   included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending
   farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche
   division of the family extended farther east than any other.
   … Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas
   River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory
   bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the
   head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande.
   How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this
   early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show
   that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they
   have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains
   from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and
   Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was
   limited generally by the Colorado River … while the Tusayan
   (Moki) had established their seven pueblos … to the east of
   the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had
   pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to
   the Pacific."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 109-110._

   "The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend
   southward. … The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah,
   from Oregon to New Mexico. … The Gosh Utes [Gosuites]
   inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the
   Pah Utes."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Siksikas, or Sisikas.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Siouan Family.
   Sioux.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,
   in reference both to their respective dialects and to their
   geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,
   viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;
   the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred
   tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but
   called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje
   ('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call
   themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay
   of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des
   Puans). … According to the War Department they amount [1836]
   to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a
   considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox
   River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock
   River of the Mississippi. … The Sioux proper, or
   Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the
   French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente
   Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven
   bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently
   independent of each other. They do not appear to have been
   known to the French before the year 1660.
{104}
   … The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by
   the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan
   and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.
   … The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,
   and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the
   Missouri. … The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are
   called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from
   the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or
   'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part
   originally of the Yanktons. … Another tribe, called
   Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated
   on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. … Carver
   reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs
   us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]
   live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern
   tributary of the Missouri. … I have been, however, assured
   by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak
   a distinct language, for which there is no European
   interpreter. … The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)
   consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,
   which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the
   Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to
   entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of
   those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed
   1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,
   including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live
   in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and
   48° north latitude. … The third Minetare tribe, is that
   known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]
   nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are
   an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the
   Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the
   Yellowstone River. … The southern Sioux consist of eight
   tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.
   Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,
   from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree
   of north latitude. … Their hunting grounds extend as far
   west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,
   and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°
   west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas
   or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the
   Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the
   Missouri and of the river Kansas. … The Osages, properly
   Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the
   neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other
   Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same
   dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into
   Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost
   one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or
   Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the
   river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are
   now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the
   Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They
   amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their
   lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a
   territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,
   extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45
   to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the
   Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. …
   The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,
   have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,
   and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and
   occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. … The five other
   tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey
   Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,
   the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. … All the nations
   speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may …
   be computed at more than 50,000 souls."

     _A. Gallatin,
     Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
     (Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
     section 4._

   "Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and
   means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many
   later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which
   signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The
   two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The
   term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family
   sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to
   him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is
   in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that
   the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was
   correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as
   distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family
   who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term
   with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only
   recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting
   the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an
   extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the
   Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some
   affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even
   with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him
   to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call
   attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a
   considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
   Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the
   Catawba linguistic material available, which has been
   materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the
   result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects
   of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the
   Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including
   Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,—the
   latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two
   Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw,
   Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros
   Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba
   and Woccon.

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 112._

      ALSO IN
      _J. O. Dorsey,
      Migrations of Siouan Tribes
      (American Naturalist, volume 20, March)_.

      _J. O. Dorsey,
      Biloxi Indians of Louisiana
      (V. P. address A. A. A. S., 1893)_.

      See, above: HIDATSA.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sissetons.

      See above SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Six Nations.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

{105}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Skittagetan Family.

   "A family designation … retained for the tribes of the Queen
   Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida.
   From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language
   with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz
   Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically
   related. The two languages possess a considerable number of
   words in common, but a more thorough investigation is
   requisite for the settlement of the question."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 120._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Snakes.

      See above: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Stockbridge Indians.

   "The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the
   Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of
   Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called
   Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by
   Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians
   belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New
   York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton,
   in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by
   Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even
   from Rhode Island and Long Island."

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
      page 35._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Holmes,
      Annals of America, 1736
      (volume 2)_.

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races,
      page 15._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Susquehannas, or Andastes, or Conestogas.

   "Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas;
   … the French in Canada … make frequent allusions to the
   Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to
   their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois;
   later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the
   tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at
   the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map,
   followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my
   researches led me to correct this, and identify the
   Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas
   as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an
   appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that
   given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while
   Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote
   it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio
   Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. … Prior to 1600
   the Susquehannas and the Mohawks … came into collision, and
   the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war
   which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the
   Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to
   the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the
   proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th
   century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with
   the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely
   overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and
   became involved there in a war with the colonists and were
   destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to
   Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were
   allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was
   settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always
   friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the
   Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a
   treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas,
   Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a
   treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble
   remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion
   entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out
   of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor
   creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were
   all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place.
   Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad
   story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in
   Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so
   familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained
   the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."

      _(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap,
      Maryland Historical Society, May, 1851:
      and 8vo. Albany, 1867)_.

   "Logan was a Conestoga, in other words a Susquehanna."

      _J. G. Shea,
      Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of
      the Province of Maryland
      (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5)._

      See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tachies.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND THE NAME.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tacullies.

      See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Taensas.

      See NATCHESAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Takilman Family.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct
   language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue
   River."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 121._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Talligewi.

      See above: ALLEGHANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tañoan Family.

   "The tribes of this family in the United States resided
   exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from
   about 33° to about 36°."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 122._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tappans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Taranteens or Tarratines.

      See above: ABNAKIS:
      also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tarascans.

   "The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal
   god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest
   people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present
   State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to
   their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors,
   they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the
   same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the
   conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people,
   maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in
   culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were
   quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. … In
   their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their
   neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured
   surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was,
   however, the usual material."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 136._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tarumi.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tecuna.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tehuel Che.

      See above: PATAGONIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Telmelches.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tequestas.

      See below: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tetons.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Teutecas, or Tenez.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

{106}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Timuquanan Family.
   The Tequestas.

   "Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic
   Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present
   time. … In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the
   northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and
   although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they
   held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of
   the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. … The people
   received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa.
   … The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,'
   waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's
   name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. … The
   languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in
   order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. … The Calusa held
   the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name
   is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay.
   … Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the
   peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There
   was a tradition that they were the same people which held the
   Bahama or Lucayo Islands."

      _A. S. Gatschet,
      A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
      volume 1, part 1._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tinneh.

      See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tivitivas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tlascalans.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   T'linkets.

      See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tobacco Nation.

      See above: HURONS;
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tobas.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Toltecs.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tonikan Family.

   "The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:
   First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of
   Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,
   Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that
   parish, about twenty-five are now living."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 125._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tonkawan Family.

   "The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium,
   whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs
   in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the
   western and southern parts of what is now Texas."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 126._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tontos.

      See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Toromonos.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Totonacos.

   "The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were
   the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now
   included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of
   their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which
   time they were independent, though a few generations before
   the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the
   arms of the Montezumas. … Sahagun describes them as almost
   white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their
   features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully
   dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered
   with sandals. … These people were highly civilized.
   Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles
   from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were
   of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small
   garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was
   conducted. … The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult
   to make out. … Their language has many words from Maya
   roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 139._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tukuarika.

      See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tupi.
   Guarani.
   Tupuyas.

   "The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact,
   on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term
   derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior
   or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with
   the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi
   dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the
   Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially
   serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and
   this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible,
   and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with
   the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which
   must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation.
   The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in
   forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a
   universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide
   extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on
   this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the
   continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. …
   Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations
   and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in
   tropical South America. … This history … leads to the
   supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few
   centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern
   South America, and have spread a higher culture over that
   region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their
   fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western,
   and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of
   smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani
   (warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It
   cannot be determined from which direction they came. The
   greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of
   Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of
   civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are
   scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island
   to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They
   say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a
   weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are
   now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and
   along both banks of the Amazon. … It is somewhat doubtful if
   this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. … The central Tupi
   live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira.
   … Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them.
   … The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The
   western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who
   came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and
   manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of
   idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor)
      volume 6, pages 248-249._

   "In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also
   widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom
   the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe.
   To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower
   Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going
   quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery,
   and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and
   must have inhabited the country a long time."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Races and Peoples,
      pages 269-270._

{107}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Turiero.

      See above: CHIBCHAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tuscaroras.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
      and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tuteloes.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Twightwees, or Miamis.

      See above: ILLINOIS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Two Kettles.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uaupe.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uchean Family.

   "The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with
   any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been
   visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of
   Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many
   investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank
   of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is
   supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town,
   this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first
   known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the
   Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the
   Savannah."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 126._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uhilches.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uirina.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uncpapas.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Utahs.

      See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wabenakies, or Abnakis.

      See above: ABNAKIS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wacos, or Huecos.

      See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wahpetons.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Waiilatpuan Family.

   "Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux
   or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as
   indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River
   and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 127._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Waikas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wakashan Family.

   "The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the
   Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the
   island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' … The term
   'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally
   ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been
   adopted. … Though by no means as appropriate a designation
   as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called
   Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled
   under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority
   and must be retained."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 129-130._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.

      See above: POKANOKETS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wapisianas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wappingers.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Waraus.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Washakis.

      See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
    Washoan Family.

   "This family is represented by a single well known tribe,
   whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central
   Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 131._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.

      See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Winnebagoes.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wishoskan Family.

   "This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is
   known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes
   which speak it. … The area occupied by the tribes speaking
   dialects of this language was the coast from a little below
   the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River,
   including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 133._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Witumkas.

      See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Woccons.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wyandots.

      See above: HURONS.

   Yamasis and Yamacraws.

      See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yamco.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yanan Family.

   "The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a
   range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and
   terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line
   running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern
   side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The
   western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10
   miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it
   averages double that distance or about 20 miles."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 135._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yanktons and Yanktonnais.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yncas, or Incas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuchi.

      See above: UCHEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuguarzongo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yukian Family.

   "Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to
   receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat
   of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the
   mountains to the coast."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 136._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuman Family.

   "The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
   generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila
   Valleys."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 137._

      See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuncas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuroks or Eurocs.

      See above: MODOCS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zaporo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Zoques, Mixes, etc.

   "The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring
   regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call
   themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,
   about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In
   ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,
   the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly
   civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were
   agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and
   constructing buildings of stone and mortar.
{108}
   The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of
   these    still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. … The Mixtecs
   adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast
   of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In
   culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. … The mountain
   regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent
   portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats
   of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians
   draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and
   cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the
   Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful
   accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of
   years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,
   homely, lazy and drunken. … The faint traditions of these
   peoples pointed to the South for their origin. … The
   Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state
   of Oaxaca. … The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs
   and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the
   Spaniards as deliverers. … Other names by which they are
   mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. … In speaking of the
   province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it
   derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants
   were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and
   inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of
   horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,
   excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were
   withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that
   they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. … But the more
   authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were
   properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red
   macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern
   latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to
   Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains
   of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      pages 140-146._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Bandelier,
      Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zoques.

      See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zuñian Family.

   "Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the
   people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi
   who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."

      _J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 138._

      See, above, PUEBLOS;
      also, AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.

----------AMERICAN ABORIGINES: End----------

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER),
      and after.

      Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY).

AMERICAN KNIGHTS, Order of.

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

AMERICAN PARTY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

AMERICAN SYSTEM, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.

AMICITIÆ.

      See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

AMIDA, Sieges of.

   The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of
   the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the
   Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two
   nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a
   terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian
   king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and
   slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few
   surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town
   was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans
   and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass
   through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was
   besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by
   storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A
   century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but
   with less violence.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapters 9, 19 and 24._

      See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

AMIENS.
   Origin of name.

      See BELGÆ.

AMIENS: A. D. 1597.
   Surprise by the Spaniards.
   Recovery by Henry IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

AMIENS: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

----------AMIENS: End----------

AMIENS, The Mise of.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).
   Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England
   and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the
   Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the
   cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.

      _J. S. Brewer,
      Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 2, chapters 26 and 28._

AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.

AMIR.
   An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.

AMISIA, The.
   The ancient name of the river Ems.

AMISUS, Siege of.

   The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important
   operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the
   coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it
   is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus,
   which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following
   year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken
   and sent to Rome.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapters 1 and
      2._

AMMANN.
   This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal
   Council or Gemeinderath.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

AMMON, The Temple and Oracle of.

   The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which
   was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with
   the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah
   was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its
   identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell
   ('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). … The site of the
   celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by
   Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently
   visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of
   the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of
   Delphi and Dodona."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 8, section 1,
      and chapter 12, section 1, and note E._

   An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C.
   525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

{109}

AMMONITES, The.

   According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the
   Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second
   daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest
   daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical
   history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab
   was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the
   Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."

      _G. Grove,
      Dictionary of the Bible._

      See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
      also, MOABITES.

AMMONITI, OR AMMONIZIONI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1863 (DECEMBER).

AMORIAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

AMORIAN WAR, The.

   The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens,
   took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of
   Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the
   birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun
   Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the
   place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to
   him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he
   invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous
   army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of
   Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that
   distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,—whence the ensuing war
   was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in
   the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the
   doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance
   for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the
   caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a
   merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of
   his revenge.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter  52.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

AMORITES, The.

   "The Hittites and Amorites were … mingled together in the
   mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists
   tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments
   teach us that they were of very different origin and
   character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and
   'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes,
   and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on
   their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we
   cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their
   enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was
   because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the
   contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted
   with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the
   characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points
   out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who
   form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of
   the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern
   Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the
   mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and
   are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles.
   The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail
   to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the
   population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled
   skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall
   stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and
   when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called
   dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the
   skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country
   they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the
   modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the
   Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across
   representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom
   we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we
   see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We
   know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long
   after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken
   from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of
   Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great
   temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular
   profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it,
   their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the
   features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of
   stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the
   white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite
   inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as
   giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by,
   the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish
   invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and
   Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of
   Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their
   neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the
   Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the
   Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the
   mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans
   themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the
   peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the
   British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular
   branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied
   by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built
   of large uncut stones. … It has been necessary to enter at
   this length into what has been discovered concerning the
   Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully
   they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they
   afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of
   Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They
   extended over a much wider area."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Hittites,
      chapter 1._

AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

   "An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body
   was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous
   temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that
   temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece
   [besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of
   Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some
   celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater
   importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the
   greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it
   incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek
   nation had some kind of representation among them.
{110}
   But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect
   representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other
   objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a
   fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the
   Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other
   existing body to the character of a general representation of
   all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the
   religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a
   political character. … Once or twice then, in the course of
   Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with
   real dignity in the name of united Greece. … Though the list
   of members of the Council is given with some slight variations
   by different authors, all agree in making the constituent
   members of the union tribes and not cities. The
   representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as
   single members, side by side with the representatives of petty
   peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the
   Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless
   mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development
   of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference
   in its constitution. … The Amphiktyonic Council was not
   exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a
   diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of
   any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and
   Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much
   more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British
   Parliament or even an American Congress. … The nearest
   approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be
   if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen
   by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

AMPHILOCHIANS, The.

      See AKARNANIANS.

AMPHIPOLIS.

   This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on
   the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake
   into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called
   "The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human
   sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.

      _Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 15._

   It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and
   made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437],
   dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to
   Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able
   Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into
   Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused
   great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the
   historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the
   disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate
   exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years
   later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an
   expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in
   Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was
   killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether
   Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her
   victory is a question.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 4, section 102-135;
      book 5, section 1-11._

      See, also,
      ATHENS: B. C. 466-454,
      and GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

   Amphipolis was taken by Philip of Macedon, B. C. 358.

      See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

AMPHISSA, Siege and Capture by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 339-338).

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

AMPHITHEATRES, Roman.

   "There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not
   an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of
   spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats
   seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries
   in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first
   recreation for which they provided in the places where they
   were stationed. … Gladiatorial combats were held from early
   times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but
   until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which
   could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two
   semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any
   special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It
   may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance
   first suggested the elliptical shape. … As specimens of
   architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the
   mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose
   displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration.
   The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and
   unpleasing in its lines when entire."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction._

AMPHORA.
MODIUS.

   "The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal,
   which contained a cubic foot … equal to 5.687 imperial
   gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The
   Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the
   latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained
   one-third of an Amphora. … The Culeus was equal to 20
   Amphoræ."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 13._

AMRITSAR.

      See SIKHS.

AMSTERDAM:
   The rise of the city.

   "In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland,
   not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially
   drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of
   the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men
   who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea;
   but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a
   century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town,
   or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The
   spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion
   of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive
   artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and
   peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better,
   their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble
   hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship
   of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary
   limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive
   process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was
   necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing
   that the date of each successive enlargement has been so
   accurately recorded."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Three Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

{111}

AMT.
AMTER.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.
   Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.
   Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.
   Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.

AMYCLÆ,
   The Silence of.

   Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of
   Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric
   invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its
   independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but
   succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a
   proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of
   Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often
   disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at
   length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the
   silent city was taken by surprise."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 7._

AMYTHAONIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS. ARGOLIS.

AN, The City of.

      See ON.

ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

   "Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled
   round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is
   one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all
   other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it.
   Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none?
   In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was
   much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered
   many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words
   against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at
   this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself
   to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress
   Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and
   appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in
   1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the
   Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest
   he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal
   property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann,
   to preach in one of the churches against the errors of
   Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he
   stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the
   churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening.
   They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the
   wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The
   bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if
   the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and
   revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against
   the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but
   in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of
   which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in
   the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were
   confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those
   who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced
   to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its
   gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the
   Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles
   of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches
   were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved
   for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest
   the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of
   the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread,
   and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a
   tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up
   his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the
   doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he
   rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the
   reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The
   mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it,
   and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded
   the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the
   evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains
   across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates
   and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there
   appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long
   ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced
   through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who
   bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These
   men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson,
   head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once
   associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a
   scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the
   streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw
   visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the
   extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. … A great
   number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the
   land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten;
   those who were sick were carried to the market-place and
   re-baptized by Rottmann. … This was too much to be borne.
   The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus
   began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a
   multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor,
   held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth
   the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the
   crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they
   declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be
   turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves
   were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was
   revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible
   was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and
   libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then
   it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled
   down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which
   the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on
   them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go
   forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He
   dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded
   and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck
   dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson
   took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He
   declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been
   killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which
   was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many.
{112}
   Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry
   Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further
   revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the
   capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. … Then
   he had another revelation that every man was to have as many
   wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was
   too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed
   against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more
   respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the
   seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of
   them. … At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of
   sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens,
   unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations
   committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the
   prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise
   the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets
   ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people,
   hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the
   place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of
   Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh
   plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust
   into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron
   cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this
   hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect
   throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the
   desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted
   to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Story of Germany,
      chapter 36._

      ALSO IN
      _S. Baring-Gould,
      Historic Oddities and Strange Events,
      2d Series._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3)_.

      _C. Beard,
      The Reformation
      (Hibbert Lectures., 1883),
      lecture 6._

ANAHUAC.

   "The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was,
   probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the
   Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions
   occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races.
   Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia
   suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote
   the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."

      _W. B. Prescott,
      Conquest of Mexico,
      book 1, chapter 1, note 11._

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

ANAKIM, The.

      See HORITES, and AMORITES.

ANAKTORIUM.

      See KORKYRA.

ANAPA: A. D. 1828.
   Siege and Capture.
   Cession to Russia.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ANARCHISTS.

   "The anarchists are … a small but determined band. …
   Although their programme may be found almost word for word in
   Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the
   Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the
   Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain,
   Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated
   nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one
   and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older,
   stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger
   and more modern sense, those who are simply political and
   constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine
   came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he
   revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about
   him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded
   that no great improvement could be expected until all our
   present political, economic, and social institutions were so
   thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone
   should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated
   world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all
   anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as
   far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction
   against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to
   abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is
   to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of
   clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is
   an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire,
   dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a
   large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for
   their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and
   death are counted but as rewards. … Forty-seven anarchists
   signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of
   their number at their trial at Lyons. … 'We wish liberty
   [they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with
   the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and
   form—whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or
   republican—whether inspired by divine right or by popular
   right, by anointment or universal suffrage. … The best
   governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in
   human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and
   dissoluble, is our ideal.'"

      _H. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
      chapter 8._

   "In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
   communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
   the state that it shall embrace all the more important
   concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
   would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
   therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
   banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
   most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
   individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
   elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
   work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
   gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
   … About 12 years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah
   Warren reached similar conclusions in America."

      _H. L. Osgood,
      Scientific Anarchism
      (Political Science Quarterly,  March, 1889),
      pages 1-2._

      See, also, NIHILISM.

ANARCHISTS, The Chicago.

      See Chicago: A. D. 1886-1887.

ANASTASIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern.) A. D. 491-518.

ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.

ANASTASIUS III., Pope, A. D. 911-913

ANASTASIUS IV., Pope., A. D. 1153-1154.

ANATOLIA.

      See ASIA MINOR.

ANCALITES, The.

   A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.

ANCASTER, Origin of.

   See CAUSENNÆ.

{113}

ANCHORITES.
HERMITS.

   "The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England … offered few
   spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a
   hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world
   into a more strict and solitary life than that which the
   monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves,
   as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of
   stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is
   nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have
   been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony,
   immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only
   recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this
   practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of
   these cells are to be found about our parish churches."

      _C. Kingsley,
      The Hermits,
      page 329._

   The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious
   ascetics who lived in solitary cells.

      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquity of the Christian Church,
      book 7, chapter 1, section 4._

   "The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a
   hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed
   his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading
   indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."

      _R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the
      Court of Husting, London,"
      volume 2, page xxi._

ANCIENT REGIME.

   The political and social system in France that was destroyed
   by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the
   "ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal
   English form—"the ancient regime;" others render it more
   appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special
   application is to the state of things described under FRANCE:
   A. D. 1789.

ANCIENTS, The Council of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795(JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ANCRUM, Battle of.

   A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making
   an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D.
   1544.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 35 (volume 3)._

ANDALUSIA:
   The name.

   "The Vandals, … though they passed altogether out of Spain,
   have left their name to this day in its southern part, under
   the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen
   conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 4, section 3._

      See, also: VANDALS: A. D. 428.

   Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to
   the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.

ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

ANDASTÉS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

ANDECAVI.
   The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
   tribe which occupied that region.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

ANDERIDA.
ANDERIDA SYLVA.
ANDREDSWALD.

   A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex
   and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva
   by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided
   nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the
   Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald.
   On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans
   established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which
   has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the
   Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in
   the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a
   long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew
   all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton
   left."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman, and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

ANDERSON, Major Robert.
   Defense of Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER); 1861
      (MARCH-APRIL).

ANDERSONVILLE PRISON-PENS.

      See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

ANDES, OR ANDI, OR ANDECAVI, The.

      See VENETI of WESTERN GAUL.

ANDESIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES; ANDESIANS.

ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.
ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.
ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.

ANDRONICUS I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D.
1183-1185.

Andronicus II. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A.
D. 1282-1328.

Andronicus III. (Palæologus), A. D. 1328-1341.

ANDROS, Governor, New England and New York under.

      See
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and 1686-1689;
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

ANDROS, Battle of (B. C. 407).

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ANGELIQUE, La Mère.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

ANGERS, Origin of.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

ANGLES AND JUTES, The.

   The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,
   passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the
   Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,
   and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of
   these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common
   worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she
   interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her
   car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and
   within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.
   Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the
   presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by
   her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by
   heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns
   wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to
   battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and
   quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,
   weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same
   priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,
   if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified
   in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly
   swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror
   and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is
   seen only by men doomed to die.
{114}
   This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the
   remoter regions of Germany."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany;
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter 40._

   "In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the
   fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more
   uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a
   matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the
   several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in
   the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy
   it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to
   the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period
   it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power,
   into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be
   reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is
   by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not
   connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the
   Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached
   their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history
   we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen
   of the Goths and the close similarity between their
   descendants and the neighbour Frisians."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that
   they are only known through their relations to us of England,
   their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they
   would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old
   Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because
   there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of
   Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other
   writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in
   Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated.
   … I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were—1: The
   Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of
   Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to
   the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian
   to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is
   one of great magnitude and numerous complications."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus;
      Epilegomena,
      section 49._

      ALSO IN
      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 89-95._

      See, also, AVIONES, and SAXONS.

   The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in
   Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and
   547-633.

ANGLESEA, Ancient.

      See MONA, MONAPIA, and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ANGLO-SAXON.

   A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and
   Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which
   took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by
   their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate
   the race, the language and the institutions which resulted
   from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being
   superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the
   people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term
   Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to
   designate the Early English people and their language, before
   the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that
   period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are
   protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman
   _(Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A)_, says: "The name by
   which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they
   were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,'
   'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which
   the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. …
   As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable
   with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was
   one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers,
   not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke
   of themselves, as Englishmen—'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"

      See, also, SAXONS, and ANGLES AND JUTES.

ANGLON, Battle of.

   Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the
   Persians, with disaster to the former.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 20._

ANGORA, Battle of (1402).

      See TIMOUR
      also, TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.

ANGOSTURA, OR BUENA VISTA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

ANGRIVARII, The.

   The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their
   settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the
   neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some
   extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of
   Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe
   is preserved in that of the town Engern."

      _A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
      Tacitus's Germany,
      notes._

      See, also, BRUCTERI.

ANI.
   Storming of the Turks (1064).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

ANILLEROS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

ANJOU:
   Creation of the County.
   Origin of the Plantagenets.

   "It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign
   [Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in
   the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian
   part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France,
   and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks
   of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling
   up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold
   of ignoble birth. … He sought to surround himself with new
   men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of
   the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the
   most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king.
   Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus,
   an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived
   by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude,
   cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and
   driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus
   entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve,
   and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a
   bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the
   forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a
   pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This
   happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus
   served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great
   authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's
   energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and
   aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage
   with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's
   daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal
   family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois
   were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal
   also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory.
   Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the
   first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,—Marquis, Consul
   or Count of Anjou,—for all these titles are assigned to him.
   Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary
   Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant
   family."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

{115}

ANJOU: A. D. 987-1129.
   The greatest of the old Counts.

   "Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest
   of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked
   type of character which their house was to preserve with a
   fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without
   natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake,
   and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his
   gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war
   against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a
   humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their
   foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old
   man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like
   a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet.
   … But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men
   broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At
   his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater
   provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent,
   at least in real power, first among them all. … His
   overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed
   by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. … His great
   victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the
   seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while
   Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted
   the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert
   Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed
   his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel
   was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow
   wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at
   his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the
   Norman border. Here … his advance was checked by the genius
   of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of
   Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of
   Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions,
   the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left
   Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to
   fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem.
   … Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared.
   It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded
   to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter
   Matilda."

      _J. R. Green,
      A Short History of the English People,
      chapter 2, section 7._

      ALSO IN
      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapters 2-4._

ANJOU: A. D. 1154.
   The Counts become Kings of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANJOU: A. D. 1204.
   Wrested from the English King John.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
   English attempts to recover the county.
   The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.
   Creation of the Dukedom.

   King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the
   sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his
   forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded
   and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like,
   he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following
   year, and … made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In
   that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at
   Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a
   blow. But … the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat
   from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th
   of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is
   called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the
   confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus
   established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the
   first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur
   [of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count
   in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine,
   owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal,
   William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de
   Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner
   during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of
   England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230
   he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view
   of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of
   his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old … advanced
   to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace
   was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to
   the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou
   and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246,
   he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the
   counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and
   title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou.
   Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third
   House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured
   his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of
   his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine,
   ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY
   (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended
   in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In
   1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in
   1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The
   Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came
   to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,—the
   "good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for
   the most part a name, and who is best known to English
   readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the
   stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father,
   Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count
   of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In
   1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in
   Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar,
   as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and
   Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke,
   whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen
   Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted
   kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to
   Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament—to
   René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title
   during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief
   period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his
   competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).

      _M. A. Hookham,
      Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      introduction and chapters 1-2._

----------ANJOU: End----------

{116}

ANJOU, The English House of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1155-1189.

ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.
   Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

ANJOU: A. D. 1282.
   Loss of Sicily.
   Retention of Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

ANJOU: A. D. 1310-1382.
   Possession of the Hungarian throne.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

ANJOU: A. D. 1370-1384.
   Acquisition and loss of the crown of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.
   Claims of Louis of Anjou.
   His expedition to Italy and his death.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-
   Renewed contest for Naples.
   Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.
   Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.
   Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

----------ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: End----------

ANKENDORFF, Battle of.

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

ANKERS.

      See ANCHORITES.

ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.

ANNALES MAXIMI, The.

      See FASTI.

ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.
   War with France.
   French protectorate accepted.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, NOVA SCOTIA:
   Change of name from Port Royal (1710).

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.

   "A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the
   churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on
   presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on
   receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from
   their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates,
   or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the
   crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars.
   Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of
   the chief resources of the papal revenue."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 4._

   "The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and
   other promotions was apparently first made in England by
   Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by
   Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a
   measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout
   Christendom for three years, and met with universal
   resistance. … Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of
   Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in
   parliament and council the demand must have been regularly
   complied with."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 19, section 718._

      See, also, QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

ANNE, Queen of England, A. D. 1702-1714.

ANNE OF AUSTRIA, Queen-regent of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1651-1653.

ANNE BOLEYN, Marriage, trial and execution of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, and 1536-1543.

ANSAR, The.

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

ANSIBARII, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN, &c.

ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.

      See GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY.

   Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

      See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.

ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ANTES, The.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

ANTESIGNANI, The.

   "In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a
   certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of
   the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard,
   from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."

      _C. Menvale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 15._

ANTHEMIUS, Roman Emperor:(Western), A. D. 467-472.

ANTHESTERIA, The.

      See DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.

ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and
      1845-1846.

ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, American.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, Mexican.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

ANTI-RENTERS.
ANTI-RENT WAR.

      See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO.

ANTIETAM, OR SHARPSBURG, Battle of.

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

ANTIGONEA.

      See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.

ANTIGONID KINGS, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

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

ANTIGONUS GONATUS, The wars of.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

ANTILLES.
ANTILIA.

   "Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the
   antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets
   etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia
   of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734,
   says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish
   peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the
   direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of
   Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an
   island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak
   of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin
   (Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by
   corruption Antilia. … The seven bishops were believed in the
   16th century to be still represented by their successors, and
   to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most
   geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of
   Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. …
   As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had
   discovered a large island, Española was at once identified
   with Antilia, … and the name … has ever since been applied
   generally to the West Indian islands."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of the New World called America,
      volume 1, page 98._

      See, also, WEST INDIES.

{117}

ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.

ANTIOCH:
   Founding of the City.

      See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.
   The Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY, EARLY.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
   Great Earthquake.

   "Early in the year 115, according to the most exact
   chronology, … the splendid capital of Syria was visited by
   an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all
   the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has
   periodically suffered. … The calamity was enhanced by the
   presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east,
   assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take
   part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the
   victims were many Romans of distinction. … Trajan, himself,
   only escaped by creeping through a window."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 65._

ANTIOCH: A. D. 260.
   Surprise, massacre and pillage by Sapor, King of Persia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 526.
   Destruction by Earthquake.

   During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of
   the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more
   frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the
   metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of
   May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the
   adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of
   the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were
   crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 43.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ANTIOCH: A. D. 540.
   Stormed, pillaged and burned by Chosroes, the Persian King.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 638.
   Surrender to the Arabs.

   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 969.
   Recapture by the Byzantines.

   After having remained 328 years in the possession of the
   Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by
   the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a
   Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great
   effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine
   arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending
   Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus
   Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even
   Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and
   Mesopotamia were not lasting.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D. 716-1007,
      book 2, chapter 2._

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE, A. D. 963-1025.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1097-1098.
   Siege and capture by the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1099-1144.
   Principality.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.
   Extinction of the Latin Principality.
   Total destruction of the city.

   Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt
   and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily
   extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name
   was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the
   captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This
   fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last
   vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at
   Acre.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 59.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and
   permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for
   the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and
   pedlars from all parts of the East. … 'It was,' says the
   Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the
   hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the
   captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be
   purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for
   five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all
   the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the
   churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired
   in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah
   Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul
   and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the
   vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and
   without an inhabitant."

      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6._

----------ANTIOCH: End----------

ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.

      See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

ANTIUM.

   "Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards
   of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a
   small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port;
   the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring
   indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more
   than a mile to the eastward. … The piracies of the ancient
   Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22
   long ships. These Numicius took; … some were taken to Rome
   and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. … It
   [Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from
   Ostia."

      _Sir W. Gell,
      Topography of Rome,
      volume 1._

ANTIUM, Naval Battle of (1378).

      See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

ANTIVESTÆUM.

      See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.

ANTONINES, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 138-180.

ANTONINUS, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

ANTONINUS PIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 138-161.

ANTONY, Mark, and the Second Triumvirate.

   See ROME: B. C. 44 to 31.

ANTRUSTIONES.

   In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
   recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
{118}
   several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices
   political and judicial, or from a position about the person of
   the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant
   attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. …
   Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same
   position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later
   times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial
   oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as
   it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in
   the palace, where they superintended the various departments
   of the royal household."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

ANTWERP:
   The name of the City.

   Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.—"The city was
   so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity,
   ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and
   discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of
   Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted
   one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his
   castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river
   the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff.
   Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence,
   two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up
   in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his
   turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from
   whose exploits Brabant derived its name. … But for these
   antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would
   seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first
   half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and
   exchange of Europe. … the commercial capital of the world.
   … Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but
   Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm
   to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its
   sister cities' grasp. … No city, except Paris, surpassed it
   in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic, Hist. Introduction,
      section 13._

ANTWERP: A. D. 1313.
   Made the Staple for English trade.

   See STAPLE.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1566.
   Riot of the Image-breakers in the Churches.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.
   Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.
   Demolition of the Citadel.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1583.
   Treacherous attempt of the Duke of Anjou.
   The French Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.
   Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.
   The downfall of prosperity.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.
   Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.
   Closing of the Scheldt.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1706.
   Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
   Siege of the Citadel by the French.
   Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------ANTWERP: End----------

APACHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

APALACHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES.

APAMEA.

   Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates,
   the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had
   become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian
   Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second
   only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary
   crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the
   passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of
   the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still
   the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or
   Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317)_.

APANAGE.

      See APPANAGE.

APATURIA, The.

   An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for
   three days in the early part of the month of October
   (Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the
   Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the
   constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each
   containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens
   in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the
   aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic
   tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family
   ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of
   adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful
   citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll;
   sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages
   to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied
   with much festivity and enjoyment."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 64 (volume 7)._

APELLA, The.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION. &c.

APELOUSAS, The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL, INHABITANTS.

APHEK, Battle of.

   A great victory won by Ahab, king of Israel over Benhadad,
   king of Damascus.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 4, section 1._

APODECTÆ, The.

   "When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom
   the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and
   distributed them to the several administrative departments,
   these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens
   the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number
   of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. … They had in
   their possession the lists of the debtors of the state,
   received the money which was paid in, registered an account of
   it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in
   the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors
   who had paid the demands against them from the list, and
   deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together
   with the council, apportioned the sums received."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 2, chapter 4._

APOLLONIA IN ILLYRIA, The Founding of.

      See KORKYRA.

{119}

APOSTASION.

   See POLETÆ.

APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

APPANAGE.

   "The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger
   children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands
   and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of
   peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new
   class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests
   and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of
   the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy
   was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it
   impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal
   family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as
   circumstances would permit."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 2._

   "From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to
   provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of
   appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons,
   which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them
   reverted to the crown."

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 1, page 308, note._

APPIAN WAY, The.

   Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from
   312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during
   that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the
   Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of
   the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been
   quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by
   Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a
   shorter and safer one. … The Appian road, even if Appius did
   carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that
   splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which
   have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined
   polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been
   able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius
   commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in
   the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later
   basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the
   beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to
   the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads
   constructed according to artistic principles had
   previously existed."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 45._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Gell,
      Topography of Rome,
      volume 1._

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of ROME,
      volume 1, page 251._

APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Lee's Surrender at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL, VIRGINIA).

APULEIAN LAW.

      See MAJESTAS.

APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.
   Norman conquest and Dukedom.
   Union with Sicily.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194.

APULIANS, The.

      See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.

      See SALYES.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

AQUÆ SOLIS.

   The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in
   modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned
   in Roman times with temples and other edifices.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

AQUIDAY, OR AQUETNET.
   The native name of Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

AQUILA, Battle of (1424).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

AQUILEIA.

   Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the
   Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial
   emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at
   the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty
   miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood
   is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which
   separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B.
   C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to
   serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by
   the vague name of Gauls. … Possessing a good harbour, with
   which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia
   gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between
   Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 4._

AQUILEIA: A. D. 238.
   Siege by Maximin.

      See ROME: A. D. 238.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 388.
   Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.

      See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 452.
   Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      also, VENICE: A. D. 452.

----------AQUILEIA: End----------

AQUITAINE:
   The ancient tribes.

   The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one
   of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought
   the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated
   their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where
   three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes
   which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones,
   Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci,
   Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the
   lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of
   the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name
   Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and
   the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the
   Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni
   contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne]
   and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants
   of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots.
   Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road
   from Dax to Bordeaux."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

   "Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the
   Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. … If, as
   seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of
   the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they
   must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees
   before the beginning of the historic period."

      _I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 5._

AQUITAINE: In Cæsar's time.

   See GAUL DESCRIBED BY CÆSAR.

AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 567.
   Divided between the Merovingian Kings.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

{120}

AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.
   The independent Dukes and their subjugation.

   "The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils
   of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it
   without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the
   Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But
   the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different
   members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a
   distant possession within their grasp; and at this period
   [681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were
   gathering the reins of government over the three
   kingdoms—Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy—into their hands].
   Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince.
   The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in
   fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it
   had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons
   [see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who
   descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north
   until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the
   Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke
   of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against
   the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with
   them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which
   established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance
   and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century
   afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant'
   Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it,
   fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to
   establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years
   [760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction
   of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became
   masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their
   principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was
   assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the
   satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine
   to the monarchy of the Franks."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 14-15_.

      _W. H. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 5-6._

AQUITAINE: A. D. 732.
   Ravaged by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
   Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

   In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
   separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and
   Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of
   Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine
   proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the
   Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse.
   Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province,
   entirely dependent on the central or personal government of
   Charles. … The nominal designations of king and kingdom
   might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a
   scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute
   dependence and subordination."

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 11._

AQUITAINE: A. D. 843.
   In the division of Charlemagne's Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D.843.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
   The end of the nominal kingdom.
   The disputed Ducal Title.

   "Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the
   last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of
   Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute
   a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between
   powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of
   the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by
   Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the
   Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony.
   King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the
   Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of
   that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou
   disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south
   with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou
   acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or
   Guienne,—supposed to be a corruption of the name of
   Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which
   remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of
   Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of
   England (1151)."

      _E. De Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      book 2, chapter 3, foot-note._

   "The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's
   predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory
   between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was
   bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by
   Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County
   of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been
   united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian
   kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had,
   in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the
   Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast
   territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of
   overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had,
   however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of
   Toulouse."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      See, also, TOULOUSE: 10TH AND 11TH CENTURIES.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152.
   Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown
   of England.

   In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of
   Aquitaine—William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour
   whom the Red King had hoped to succeed—died on a pilgrimage
   at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before
   setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage
   had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he
   left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he
   bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis
   [VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength
   of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of
   all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to
   be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with
   the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between
   the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:—a
   territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain
   and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert
   more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152
   Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the
   great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather
   than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess
   was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy,
   afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage
   Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained
   so for three hundred years.

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

{121}

AQUITAINE: 12th Century.
   The state of the southern parts.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
   Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.
   The final conquest and union with France.

   "By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward
   III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was
   recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine,
   without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French
   monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France,
   partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A.
   D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief,
   but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The
   feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The
   nobles to a great extent, though far from universally,
   preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their
   notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the
   privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would
   make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities
   and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also,
   clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good
   reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by
   interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of
   Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects
   to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Franks and the Gauls
      (Historical Essays, 1st Series, No.7)._

----------AQUITAINE: End----------

AQUITANI, The.

      See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.

ARABIA.
ARABS:
   The Name.

   "There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was …
   given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and
   their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the
   original Semitic name Arab."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Notes to Herodotus,
      volume 2, page 71._

ARABIA:
   The ancient succession and fusion of Races.

   "The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more
   especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism,
   became uniform throughout the peninsula. … But it was not
   always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the
   inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one
   race. … Several distinct races successively immigrated into
   the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their
   distinctive characteristics, their manners and their
   civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one
   blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages
   were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism
   alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now
   called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the
   name, who have used any discernment in collecting the
   traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example,
   distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula.
   They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs
   into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba.
   … The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of
   Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the
   Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram,
   descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary
   importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people
   of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba
   were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian
   tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin
   were Ismaelitish tribes. … The Cushites, the first
   inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by
   the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad,
   the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab
   historians are but fanciful legends. … In the midst of all
   the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may
   perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the
   Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of
   Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces
   of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an
   advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing
   a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with
   whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and
   obscene rites. … It was about eighteen centuries before our
   era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. … According
   to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar
   nature, was accomplished only by force. … After this
   invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still
   the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in
   knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still
   almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and
   material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was
   formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the
   race of Cush. … Little by little the new nation of Ad was
   formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba
   proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis,
   there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the
   neighbouring provinces they were already settled. … It was
   during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that
   Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called
   it the land of Pun. … Conquered during the minority of
   Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen
   appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous
   times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II.
   recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne,
   and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the
   twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian
   power was finally lost. … The conquest of the land of Pun
   under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the
   temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M.
   Duemichen. … The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari
   afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between
   India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under
   Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of
   its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern
   Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. … For a
   long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans
   crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more
   difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not
   attempted till some centuries later. …
{122}
   The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia
   towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the
   history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the
   first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as
   commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet
   Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were
   thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all
   spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' … A great
   number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade,
   established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein.
   Phœnician factories were also established at several places on
   the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and
   Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. … This
   commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty,
   seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have
   ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III.
   … Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon
   despatched vessels down the Red Sea. … The vessels of the
   two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once
   before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth
   dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the
   merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder,
   and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by
   the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of
   India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in
   the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant
   voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned.
   The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of
   Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus
   the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power
   of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the
   cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem
   to see Solomon. … The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to
   Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the
   ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place
   at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. … The
   empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which
   the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived
   amongst the Cushite Sabæans. … The assimilation of the
   Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution
   which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan
   over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the
   civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language,
   the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were
   still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in
   their interests. … Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible
   always carefully distinguishes them by a different
   orthography. … The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however,
   especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the
   Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving
   rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the
   mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to
   M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into
   Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the
   revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. …
   The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into
   Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of
   their having done so. … Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites,
   and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was
   succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and
   feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he
   allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to
   make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of
   Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. …
   Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being
   Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these
   two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite
   tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism.
   The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the
   Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. …
   This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab
   historians."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapters 1-2 (volume 2)._

ARABIA:
   Sabæans, The.

   "For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic
   inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one
   another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of
   the dialects is philologically older than the other,
   containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The
   inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital
   of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the
   Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect
   were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of
   the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The
   Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was
   destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for
   several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been
   engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom
   of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of
   Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders
   of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who
   migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century
   B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are
   still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than
   once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia.
   About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from
   350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them.
   Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine
   help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan
   kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had
   long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it,
   and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith.
   His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as
   Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378,
   brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their
   sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka.
   Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of
   Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which
   subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of
   Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract
   the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and
   proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its
   assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the
   members of the two religions.
{123}
   A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of
   Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and
   the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of
   Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of
   Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi
   were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed.
   The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the
   kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces
   its history from the time when its princes were still but
   Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian,
   through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later
   still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they
   claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of
   Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated
   their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first
   discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ
   is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B.
   C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in
   a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh,
   became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be
   sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed
   when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The
   visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the
   long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south
   of Arabia. … As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set
   before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of
   Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two
   dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan
   and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography
   offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the
   seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan
   kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the
   midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that
   the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom
   preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is
   that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian
   inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that
   though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan
   people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan
   kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics
   of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn
   of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto
   imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet
   in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and
   practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician
   written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date
   are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet
   itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The
   names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us.
   … A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must
   necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies
   of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless
   not the first which had sought to gain possession of the
   cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is
   alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy.
   … But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its
   infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a
   small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. …
   The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly
   lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed
   it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful
   kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have
   exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Arabia
      (Contemporary Review, December, 1889)._

ARABIA: 6th Century.
   Partial conquest by the Abyssinians.

      See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

ARABIA: A. D. 609-632.
   Mahomet's conquest.

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

ARABIA: A. D. 1517.
   Brought under the Turkish sovereignty.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

----------ARABIA: End----------

ARABS, Conquests of the.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

ARACAN, English acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ARACHOTI, The.

   A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab,
   or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the
   tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call
   themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers,"
   are probably derived from them.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

ARAGON: A. D. 1035-1258.
   Rise of the kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

ARAGON: A. D. 1133.
   Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.
   The Monarchical constitution.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.
   The first oath of allegiance to the king.
   Conquest of Balearic Islands.
   Subjugation of Valencia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.
   The Castilian dynasty.
   Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ARAGON: A. D. 1516.
   The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna,
   mother of Charles V.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

----------ARAGON: End----------

ARAICU, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

ARAM.
ARAM NAHARAIM.
ARAM.
ZOBAH.
ARAMÆANS.

      See SEMITES;
      also, SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

ARAMBEC.

      See NORUMBEGA.

ARAPAHOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

ARAR, The.
   The ancient name of the river Saone, in France.

ARARAT.
URARDA.

      See ALARODIANS.

ARATOS, and the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ARAUCANIANS, The.

      See CHILE.

ARAUSIO.

   A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is
   represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in
   the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.

      _P. Goodwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 5._

ARAUSIO, Battle of (B. C. 105).

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

{124}

ARAVISCI AND OSI, The.

   "Whether … the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi,
   a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into
   Germany, as both nations still retain the same language,
   institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."—"The
   locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of
   the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna
   (Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion
   of the south-west of Hungary. … The Osi seem to have dwelt
   near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus
   have occupied a part of Gallicia."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      with geographical notes._

ARAWAKS, OR ARAUACAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

ARAXES, The.

   This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic
   streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently
   with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into
   the Caspian.

ARBAS, Battle of.

   One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which
   the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.

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

ARBELA, or GAUGAMELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ARCADIA.

   The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern
   peninsula of Greece—a district surrounded by a singular
   mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been
   pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and
   from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the
   many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part
   of the country, however, has only one opening towards the
   western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the
   Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also
   increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some
   lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of
   the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes,
   or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that
   in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus
   many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This
   region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and
   elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams
   flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a
   country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of
   Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was
   always considered in the light of a single community. Its
   climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly
   in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on
   the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been
   described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native
   of Arcadia."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a
   smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and
   pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and
   picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their
   time between tending their flocks and making love to one
   another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic
   conception of the country and the people is not to be traced
   in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the
   actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently
   primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or
   picturesque about their land or their lives."

      _C. H. Hanson,
      The Land of Greece,
      pages 381-382._

ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.
   The union of Arcadian towns.
   Restoration of Mantineia.
   Building of Megalopolis.
   Alliance with Thebes.
   Wars with Sparta and Elis.
   Disunion.
   Battle of Mantineia.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371, and 371-362.

ARCADIA: B. C. 338.
   Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

ARCADIA: B. C. 243-146.
   In the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

----------ARCADIA: End----------

ARCADIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 395-408.

ARCHIPELAGO, The Dukes of the.

      See NAXOS: THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM.

ARCHON.

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

ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

ARCOLA, Battle of (1796).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ARCOT: A. D. 1751.
   Capture and defence by Clive.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

ARCOT: A. D. 1780.
   Siege and capture by Hyder Ali.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

----------ARCOT: End----------

ARDEN, Forest of.

   The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater
   part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden
   became the dwindled representative."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 7._

ARDENNES, Forest of.

   "In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests,
   the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which
   extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as
   the shores of the North Sea."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 22._

   "Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French
   departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes.
   Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name
   exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 14._

ARDRI, OR ARDRIGH, The.

      See TUATH.

ARDSHIR, OR ARTAXERXES,
   Founding of the Sassanian monarchy by.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

ARECOMICI, The.

      See VOLCÆ.

ARECUNAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AREIOS.

      See ARIA.

ARELATE:
   The ancient name of Arles.

   The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes
   called the Arelate.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378,
      and SALYES.

ARENGO, The.

      See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

AREOPAGUS, The.

   "Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood
   upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common
   altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments
   concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the
   barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the
   citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been
   the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and
   to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained
   conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of
   twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the
   accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he
   was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the
   most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the
   city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."

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

{125}

   "The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient
   legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the
   Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a
   highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance
   of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its
   forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and
   solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges
   might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the
   criminals. … The venerable character of the court seems to
   have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and,
   without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to
   erect it into a supreme council, invested with a
   superintending and controlling authority, which extended over
   every part of the social system. He constituted it the
   guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over
   the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the
   State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and
   profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of
   interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and
   imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature
   of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to
   define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let
   them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is
   indistinct. … It was filled with Archons who had discharged
   their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats
   for life."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

   These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from
   it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes,
   but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the
   Thirty.—"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first
   establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. … But
   there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the
   senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial
   antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions
   underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent
   and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings
   and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of
   course be known by the title of The Boule,—the senate, or
   council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed
   from the place where its sittings were held, would not be
   bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or
   council, from which there was need to discriminate it."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, and 466-454.

ARETHUSA, Fountain of.

      See SYRACUSE.

AREVACÆ, The.

   One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their
   chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian
   resistance to the Roman conquest.

      See NUMANTIAN WAR.

ARGADEIS, The.

      See PHYLÆ.

ARGAUM, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ARGENTARIA, Battle of (A. D.378).

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI. GUARANI.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.
   Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.
   First founding of Buenos Ayres.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
   The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
   Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.
   Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

   "In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid
   at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice
   previously been chosen—namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de
   Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded
   the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected
   for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the
   worst ever chosen for a city … has probably the worst
   harbour in the world for a large commercial town. …
   Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres
   soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the
   Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe
   fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The
   latter, however, were effectually quelled. … The Spaniards
   were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they
   had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives
   between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning
   which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De
   Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage
   back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the
   ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a
   party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The
   death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by
   the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him
   was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of
   the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed
   into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio
   de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital.
   This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. … The
   merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the
   supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the
   prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way
   of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were
   relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels
   of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of
   50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation
   Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of
   its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the
   English … obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying
   Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of
   which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos
   Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200
   negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of
   the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other
   goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but
   under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on
   the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of
   transacting a considerable contraband trade. …
{126}
   The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By
   the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the
   important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the
   Banda Oriental—or 'Eastern Border'—afterwards called
   Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. … The Portuguese, …
   not contented with the possession of Colonia … commenced a
   more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place
   they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who,
   by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements
   at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed
   circumstances of contention … was founded the healthy and
   agreeable city of Monte Video. … The inevitable consequence
   of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two
   countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty
   between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles
   stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her
   establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for
   which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as
   the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But … the
   inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the
   idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by
   their slave-dealing atrocities. … The result was that when
   2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the
   War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to
   ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no
   longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore
   retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the
   governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of
   Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the
   Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it
   was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of
   the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with
   which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the
   questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign
   governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the
   government of that colony; for it was still under the
   superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima,
   3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly
   resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the
   Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important
   resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La
   Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected
   into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres.
   … To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a
   former governor of Buenos Ayres. … The first act of Cevallos
   was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the
   most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil.
   Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of
   Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the
   neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a
   treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen
   Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of
   which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country,
   whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay,
   and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating
   the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier
   line. … The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into
   the provinces of—(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was
   the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish
   possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as
   the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios,
   and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was
   Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of
   Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del
   Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine
   provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca,
   Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of
   which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of
   Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was
   Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine
   provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volumes 13-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 17._

      _S. H. Wilcocke,
      History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres._

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
   The English invasion.
   The Revolution.
   Independence achieved.
   Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its
   dissolution.

   "The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since
   the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla,
   and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778;
   but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became
   aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to
   do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that
   millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte
   Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would
   soon see that their interests would be best served by
   submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to
   these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying
   Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was
   revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the
   second European war in 1803. In 1806 … he sent a squadron to
   the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the
   British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the
   Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though
   few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards,
   terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without
   knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When
   they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford
   in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to
   evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took
   possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river.
   Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under
   orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn,
   to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent
   connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the
   long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore
   invested a second time. But the English land forces were too
   few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city
   strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces
   for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at
   two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to
   hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards,
   who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they
   capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two
   months.
{127}
   The English had imagined that the colonists would readily
   flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This
   was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead
   the Spanish colonists to their independence. … In 1810, when
   it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the
   Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the
   colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of
   the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to
   carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went
   over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the
   feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful
   to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders
   of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General
   Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle
   stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into
   Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers
   carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but
   these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the
   Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and
   capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and
   even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to
   establish a new government over the scattered and
   half-civilized population of this vast country. … The first
   result of independence was the formation of a not very
   intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of
   the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the
   existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal
   government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this
   functionary was little more than titular. How limited the
   aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered
   from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were
   sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask
   for an English protectorate; if possible under an English
   prince. They were next to try the same plan in France,
   Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain
   still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the
   colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being
   made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty
   aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the
   Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord
   Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do
   anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain
   itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was
   powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing
   into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when
   Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general
   congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at
   Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should
   unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of
   the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in
   imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing
   for two legislative chambers and a president. … The
   influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces
   were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and
   Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme
   Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres
   thought their city destined to exercise over the rural
   provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under
   similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able
   Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now
   became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful
   provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga,
   soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of
   Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them
   of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore,
   could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact
   collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda
   Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon
   followed the example. For a long time the provinces were
   practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the
   only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos
   Ayres itself."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. G. Mulhall,
      The English in South America,
      chapters 10-13, and 16-18._

      _J. Miller,
      Memoirs of General Miller,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. J. Page,
      La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
      chapter 31._

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
   Anarchy, civil war, despotism.
   The long struggle for order and Confederation.

   "A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the
   country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces.
   Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was
   elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil
   war which had broken out during the government of his
   predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director
   General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of
   Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was
   declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty
   to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially
   proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military
   chiefs who had seized the power, General Martin Rodriguez was
   named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in
   establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J.
   Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia—one of the most enlightened
   Argentines of his times—as his Ministers. This
   administration did a great deal of good by exchanging
   conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into
   diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his
   term General Las Heras—9th May, 1824—took charge of the
   government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the
   Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and
   elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated
   Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine,
   however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding
   could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor
   yet upon the place of residence for the national Government.
   Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution—called
   here 'unintarian'—and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be
   declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress
   held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the
   resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this
   event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would
   include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each
   Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected
   Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its
   Governor.
{128}
   He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once
   undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces,
   opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba,
   the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in
   reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in
   preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his
   young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to
   acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the
   Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He
   wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the
   Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was
   soon organized by the latter, under the command of General
   Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete
   victory over the Brazilian forces—twice their number—at the
   plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande
   do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several
   occasions, so that when England offered her intervention,
   Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the
   convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties
   agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and
   independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few
   sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from
   Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to
   fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There
   he found aid from the Commander General of the country
   districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion
   with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires.
   But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without
   trial on the 13th December. … Not only did the whole
   interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle,
   under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other
   Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and
   the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared
   Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real
   fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and
   Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. … The
   legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on
   account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas,
   elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December
   6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. …
   During this the first period of his government he did not
   appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a
   re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R.
   Balcarce was then—17th December, 1832—named Governor, but
   could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont
   succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had
   come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship
   which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned
   in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several
   times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his
   terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts
   of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in
   vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De
   Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance
   with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose
   against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of
   Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video—the asylum of the
   adversaries of Rosas—from the army which besieged it, and
   thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively
   large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros,
   near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same
   day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English
   war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he
   went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime
   Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces,
   under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a
   general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier
   village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This
   assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a
   National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National
   Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this
   Constitution the Congress met again the following year at
   Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital,
   and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first
   President of the Argentine Confederation. … The important
   province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the
   deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th
   September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather
   against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had
   taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province
   from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes
   utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé,
   wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was
   victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A
   short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon—near the
   site of the former battle—and Buenos-Aires won the day. This
   secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious
   General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years
   from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government
   was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter
   was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic
   owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that
   he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with
   Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in
   it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of
   Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868,
   Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded General Mitre in the
   Presidency. … The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda
   succeeded him in the Government."

      _R. Napp,
      The Argentine Republic,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. F. Sarmiento,
      Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants._

      _J. A. King,
      Twenty-four years in the Argentine Republic._

{129}

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
   The Constitution and its working.
   Governmental corruption.
   The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.

   "The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form
   corresponds closely to that of the United States. … But the
   inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and
   political practice falls below the level of a self-governing
   democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as
   commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil
   service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses
   absolute authority in administration. The country is governed
   by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws.
   Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of
   the civil service. … President Roca [who succeeded
   Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his
   brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President
   Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the
   interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but
   was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose.
   … Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the
   boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the
   government of the day and exposed its corruption. … The
   government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not
   trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity.
   … This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one
   important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the
   capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If
   the country had not been on the verge of a financial
   revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the
   Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and
   disaster confronting them, men turned against the President
   whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if
   the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the
   government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning
   an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. … The
   government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of
   the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión
   Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a
   terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez
   Government. … The revolution opened with every prospect of
   success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to
   co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of
   the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For
   four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or
   purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government
   palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the
   suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent
   forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the
   government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General
   Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the
   situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of
   refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army
   were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the
   volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and
   children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion
   passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of
   President Juarez and the succession of vice-President
   Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days
   there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory
   which nobody except General Roca understood. … In June,
   1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed
   in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. … All
   business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been
   diverted to Brazil. … All industries were prostrated except
   politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions
   was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. … During
   thirty years the country has trebled its population, its
   increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the
   United States during the same period. The estimate of the
   present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000
   in 1857. … Disastrous as the results of political government
   and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its
   ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a
   magnificent railway system, an industrious working population
   recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances
   for progress."

      _I. N. Ford.
      Tropical America,
      chapter 6._

      See CONSTITUTION, ARGENTINE.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1892.
   Presidential Election.

   Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme
   Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,
   was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.

----------ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------

ARGINUSAE, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION, The.

   "The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest
   periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey.
   The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason,
   who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him,
   enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers
   which no ship had ever before encountered, are all
   circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative
   to Alkinous. … Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest
   of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had
   carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle
   to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of
   the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês,
   Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and
   Lynkeus—Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of
   Boreas—Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus,
   Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas,
   Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus,
   Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were
   among them. … Since so many able men have treated it as an
   undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic
   chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long
   ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that
   the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of
   fact, is one altogether fruitless."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, part 1, chapter 13._

   "In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of
   the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life
   and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually
   united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes
   dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their
   activity. … The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a
   variety of ports—from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and
   Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion
   by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof
   of how homogeneous were the influences running on various
   coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the
   greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of
   the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
   movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea—in other
   words, a Greek history in Europe—begins."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapters 2-3._

{130}

ARGOS.
ARGOLIS.
ARGIVES.

   "No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of
   powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern
   peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa,
   apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district,
   is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the
   foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast
   Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's
   march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient
   fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire
   to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear
   evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days
   of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several
   principalities must have arisen by the side of one another,
   each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some,
   according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with
   other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland
   country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne
   out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of
   Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is
   brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he
   builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as
   the first and mightiest in the land. … The other line of the
   Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus.
   … [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the
   new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself
   essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion
   of Apollo. … Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the
   family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian
   fastness. … During these divisions in the house of Danaus,
   and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families
   acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race
   of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the
   western coast of Peloponnesus—the Amythaonidæ. … While the
   dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the
   native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in
   savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping
   the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the
   country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS,
   which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. …
   The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by
   descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived
   its origin from Lydia. … The poetic myths, abhorring long
   rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in
   succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other,
   viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat
   of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of
   Argos."

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

   After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE
   MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek
   history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power
   and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by
   her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once
   been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards
   Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what
   steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable
   to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings
   subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. … The title [of
   king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at
   the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. … There is some
   ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that
   time a Herakleid—since the Spartans offered to him a third
   part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with
   their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans
   [about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion
   of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the
   remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to
   them: the plain round their city was very productive; and,
   except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus
   superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both
   to have been independent states at the time of the Persian
   War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a
   time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
   Calamitous War with Sparta.
   Non-action in the Persian War.
   Slow recovery of the crippled State.

   "One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the
   hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six
   years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with
   Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king,
   succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted
   from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive
   territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist
   him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near
   Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians
   at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if
   Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the
   extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely
   routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to
   which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed
   almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens
   of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have
   captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be,
   hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The
   loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for
   some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at
   the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause,
   inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole
   energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion
   without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took
   no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt
   of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion.
   Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising'
   tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the
   Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of
   aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state
   in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the
   revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and
   influence, which she at once employed and increased by the
   harsh policy … of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she
   compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid
   to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of
   the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B.
   C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle,
   adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization.
   As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is
   known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of
   other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though
   there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian
   party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at
   an important crisis."

      _C. H. Hanson,
      The Land of Greece,
      chapter 10._

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

{131}

ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.
   League formed against Sparta.
   Outbreak of War.
   Defeat at Mantinea.
   Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ARGOS: B. C. 371.
   Mob outbreak and massacre of chief citizens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

ARGOS: B. C. 338.
   Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

ARGOS: B. C. 271.
   Repulse and death of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

ARGOS: B. C. 229.
   Liberated from Macedonian control.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ARGOS: A. D. 267.
   Ravaged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ARGOS: A. D. 395.
   Plundered by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

ARGOS: A. D. 1463.
   Taken by the Turks, retaken by the Venetians.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ARGOS: A. D. 1686.
   Taken by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------ARGOS: End----------

ARGYRASPIDES, The.

   "He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he
   might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme
   parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be
   suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the
   trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with
   silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver
   shields, Argyraspides."

      _Justin,
      History
      (translated by J. S. Watson),
      book 12, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 58._

      See, also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

ARGYRE.

      See CHRYSE.

ARIA.
AREIOS.
AREIANS.

   The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of
   modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants
   were known as the Areians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

ARIANA.

   "Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations
   of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the
   whole eastern half of Iran."—Afghanistan and Beloochistan.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 7, chapter 1._

ARIANISM.
ARIANS.

   From the second century of its existence, the Christian church
   was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of
   the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy
   Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it
   had been employed from the beginning of the second century,
   when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of
   men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the
   divine nature. … The Founder of the new religion, the Being
   who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he
   man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to
   all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter
   opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who
   maintained it in a series of learned controversial works
   between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had
   quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the
   people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place
   of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the
   Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to
   acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused
   the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by
   rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator.
   … It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body
   of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the
   populace in all the great cities (and especially at
   Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the
   monks of the desert … were almost without exception
   partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox.
   … Constantine thought this question of dogma might be
   decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325,
   he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at
   which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the
   Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as
   orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to
   the flames."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

   "The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] … anxiously
   sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the
   rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and
   consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and
   ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of
   Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the
   homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the
   Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their
   theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly
   embraced. … The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
   was established by the Council of Nice, and has been
   unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian
   faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and
   the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the
   Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to
   gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became
   friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the
   later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were
   ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were
   subjected to persecution, which was directed with special
   bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous
   bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by
   hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging
   creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar
   substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
   Asia. … The Greek word which was chosen to express this
   mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the
   orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided
   the furious contests which the difference of a single
   diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the
   Homoiousians."
{132}
   The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,
   remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian
   creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from
   the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy
   westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors—
   Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves—through the influence of the
   Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary
   successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and
   Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the
   final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had
   founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted
   [A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain
   was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary
   conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 21 and 37.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian
   orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded
   its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

      _A. Neander,
      General History of Christian Religion and Church,
      translated by Torry,
      volume 2, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 110-114._

      _W. G. T. Shedd,
      History of Christian Doctrine,
      book 3._

      _J. H. Newman,
      Arians of the Fourth Century._

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
      lectures 3-7._

      _J. A. Dorner,
      History of the Development of the Doctrine
      of the Person of Christ,
      division 1 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;
      FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;
      also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

ARICA, Battle of (1880).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

ARICIA, Battle of.

   A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497,
   which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared
   against the former.

      _Livy,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 26._

ARICIAN GROVE, The.

   The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium,
   near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early
   league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      _Sir. W. Gell,
      Topography of Rome,
      volume 1._

   "On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the
   precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is
   perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana
   Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. … The site was excavated
   in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at
   Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations,
   see the _Athenæum_, 10th October, 1885. For details of
   the finds see _'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza
   Archeologica,' 1885_.—The lake and the grove were
   sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town
   of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three
   miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. … According to
   one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by
   Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric
   Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy,
   bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. … Within
   the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch
   might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break
   off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt
   entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he
   slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the
   Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful
   branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,
   Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the
   world of the dead. … This rule of succession by the sword
   was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other
   freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held
   office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."

      _J. G. Frazer,
      The Golden Bough,
      chapter 1, section 1._

ARICONIUM.
   A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the
   principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the
   Forest of Dean.

      _T. Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
      page 161._


ARII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

ARIKARAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

ARIMINUM.

   The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which
   grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C.
   295-191.—When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the
   frontier of Cisalpine Gaul—the Rubicon—his first movement
   was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three
   weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had
   now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had
   ordered from Gaul.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 14._

ARIOVALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 626-638.

ARISTEIDES, Ascendancy of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

ARISTOCRACY.
OLIGARCHY.

   "Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however,
   this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of
   excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government
   is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in
   nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with
   taking the same terms in a relative sense, … aristocracy …
   will be that form of government in which the ruling few are
   distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth,
   hereditary wealth, and personal merit. … Whenever such a
   change took place in the character or the relative position of
   the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of
   its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled
   to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its
   power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it
   became a faction, an oligarchy."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 10._

ARISTOMNEAN WAR.

      See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

ARIZONA: The Name.

   "Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the
   native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley,
   stream, or some other local feature—just south of the modern
   boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters
   of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de
   Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century,
   the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and
   being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The
   aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the
   common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root
   'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to
   escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as
   are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the
   barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while
   similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. …
   The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as
   our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 12, page 520._

{133}

ARIZONA:
   Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, SHOSHONEAN
      FAMILY, AND UTAHS.

ARIZONA: A. D. 1848.
   Partial acquisition from Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
   Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.
   The Gadsden Treaty.

   "On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister
   to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was
   moved southward so as to give the United States, for a
   monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona
   south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include
   a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. … On the face of the
   matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory
   settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United
   States of a route for a southern railroad to California."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 12, chapter 20._

----------ARIZONA: End----------

ARKANSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1542
   Entered by Hernando de Soto.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
   Detached from Missouri.
   Organized as a Territory.
   Admitted as a State.

   "Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits
   of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the
   parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act
   of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act
   establishing a separate territorial government in the southern
   portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated
   was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial
   government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and
   distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed
   first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas
   Territory, and, at the period of its first organization,
   contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its
   limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the
   Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between
   the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of
   the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to
   the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of
   Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The
   population of this extensive territory for several years was
   comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of
   White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between
   New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the
   Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially
   in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. … So feeble was the
   attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious,
   and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the
   Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization,
   had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including
   4,576 slaves. … The western half of the territory had been
   erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for
   the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as
   the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration
   began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into
   other portions of the southwest. … The territory increased
   rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the
   whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630
   slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had
   doubled its population. … The people, through the General
   Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to
   establish a regular form of state government. The assent of
   Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to
   meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the
   purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same
   was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following
   the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as
   an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the
   twenty-fifth in the confederacy. … Like the Missouri
   Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the
   earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro
   slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the
   new Constitution."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (March).
   Secession voted down.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for
   troops.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
   Advance of National forces into the State.
   Battle of Pea Ridge.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
   Progress of the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D.1862(December).
   The Battle of Prairie Grove.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
      1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).
   The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (July).
   The defence of Helena.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).
   The breaking of Confederate authority.
   Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-Missouri).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).
   Last important operations of the War.
   Price's Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

{134}

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864.
   First steps toward Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction completed.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------ARKANSAS: End----------

ARKITES, The.

   A Canaanite tribe who occupied the plain north of Lebanon.

ARKWRIGHT'S SPINNING MACHINE, OR WATER-FRAME, The invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

ARLES: Origin.

      See SALVES.

ARLES: A. D. 411.
   Double siege.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

ARLES: A. D. 425.
   Besieged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
   Siege by the Franks.

   After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A.
   D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at
   Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the
   Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against
   the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations
   the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the
   siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some
   graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries,
   written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an
   Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a
   great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain.
   "The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in
   secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc
   as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"—where the
   Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson,
   Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 9._

ARLES: A. D. 933.
   Formation of the kingdom.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.
   The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in
   France.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032, and 1127-1378.

ARLES: 1092-1207.
   The gay court of Provence.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, and 1179-1207.

----------ARLES: End----------

ARMADA, The Spanish.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

ARMAGEDDON.

      See MEGIDDO.

ARMAGH, St. Patrick's School at.

      See IRELAND: 5th to 8th CENTURIES.

ARMAGNAC, The counts of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

ARMAGNACS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1415-1419.

ARMENIA:

   "Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a
   high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches
   eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and
   41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a
   continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is
   connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion
   of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia
   Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from
   west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or
   longitudinal direction. … The heart of the mountain-region,
   the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to
   the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of
   Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst
   these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep
   and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and
   occasional broad plains—a country of rich pasture grounds,
   productive orchards, and abundant harvests—this interesting
   people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of
   the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of
   the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing,
   as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most
   important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent
   horses to the stud of the Persian king."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

   Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the
   country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another
   Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had
   passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new
   people had been formed—the real Armenians of later times,
   and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on
   the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards
   under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about
   190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a
   branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was
   subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established
   which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of
   these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier
   part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front
   rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia.
   Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and
   much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their
   successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of
   Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia
   Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid
   monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth and Seventh Great Oriental Monarchies._

ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.
   War with the Romans.
   Great defeat at Tigranocerta
   Submission to Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63.

ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.

   Annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan and restored to
   independence by Hadrian.

      See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

ARMENIA: A. D. 422 (?).
   Persian Conquest.
   Becomes the satrapy of Persarmenia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ARMENIA: A. D. 1016-1073.
   Conquest and devastation by the Seljuk Turks.

      See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and 1063-1073.

ARMENIA: 12th-14th Centuries.
   The Mediæval Christian Kingdom.

   "The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of
   two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long
   outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military
   orders; and which, with very little help from the West,
   sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with
   almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and
   Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their
   origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By
   Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient
   Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the
   frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to
   Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this
   territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in
   length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in
   breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before
   the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the
   sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.
{135}
   The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia
   Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the
   mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.
   … Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the
   Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from
   the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and
   had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of
   the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the
   Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession
   of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of
   Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little
   respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be
   gained. … Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at
   the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in
   1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having
   successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was
   recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and
   was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in
   1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was
   a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was
   assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia
   sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see
   CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin
   exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike
   hostile."

      _William Stubbs,
      Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

ARMENIA: A. D. 1623-1635.
   Subjugated by Persia and regained by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------ARMENIA: End----------

ARMENIAN CHURCH, The.

   The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national
   churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The
   Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their
   prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same
   time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he
   was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned,
   both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the
   preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first
   instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. … By an
   accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon
   [A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in
   words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at
   that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence
   of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that
   Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person]
   with sufficient clearness. … It was not until eighty-four
   years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the
   doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and
   an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

   "The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the
   learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired
   with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings,
   who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of
   Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the
   Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been
   permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the
   earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the
   theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan
   were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads
   of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to
   propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of
   oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid;
   they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white
   turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry
   of the Greeks."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ARMINIANISM.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

ARMINIUS, The Deliverance of Germany by.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

ARMORIAL BEARINGS, Origin of.

   "As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems
   somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and
   peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins
   or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But
   the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary
   distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments,
   wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;
   sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations
   and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote
   the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar
   symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been
   borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps
   scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the
   thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very
   general."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2._

ARMORICA.

   The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the
   mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany,
   and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as
   Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in
   Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth
   centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier
   of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or
   Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The
   commotions of the third century, which continued to increase
   during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from
   that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a
   regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had
   the protectorate, but this is wrong."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 318._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      volume 2, page 235._

      See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, and IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.

ARMSTRONG, General John, and the Newburgh Addresses.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

ARMSTRONG, General John: Secretary of War.
   Plan of descent on Montreal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

ARMY, The Legal Creation of the British.

      See MUTINY ACTS.

ARMY PURCHASE, Abolition of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

ARNÆANS, The.

      See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

{136}

ARNAULD, Jacqueline Marie, and the Monastery of Port Royal.

      See PORT ROYAL and the JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

ARNAUTS, The.

      See ALBANIANS, MEDIÆVAL.

ARNAY-LE-DUC, Battle of (1570).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ARNOLD, Benedict, and the American Revolution.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY);
      1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER);
      1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ARNOLD OF BRESCIA, The Republic of.

      See ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.

ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED, at the Battle of Sempach.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

ARNULF,
   King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;
   King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.

AROGI, Battle of (1868).

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

ARPAD, Dynasty of.

      See HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE;
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114; 1114-1301.

ARPAD, Siege of.

   Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning
   B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought
   with it the submission of all northern Syria.

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Assyria,
      chapter 2._

ARQUES, Battles at (1589).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

ARRABIATI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

ARRAPACHITIS.

      See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

ARRAPAHOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ARRAS: Origin.

      See BELGÆ.

ARRAS: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ARRAS: A. D. 1654.
   Unsuccessful Siege by the Spaniards under Condé.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

----------ARRAS: End----------

ARRAS, Treaties of (1415 and 1435).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1431-1453.

ARRETIUM, Battle of (B. C. 285).

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ARROW HEADED WRITING.

      See CUNEIFORM WRITING.

ARSACIDÆ, The.

   The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder
   of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the
   rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne.
   According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian;
   according to others a Scythian.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

ARSEN.

   In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into
   Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was
   destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia
   Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise
   transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern
   Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses
   belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have
   contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to
   capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it.
   The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at
   Armenian commerce."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 2._

ARSENE, Lake.

   An ancient name of the Lake of Van, which is also called
   Thopitis by Strabo.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 22, section 1._

ARTABA, The.

      See EPHAH.

ARTAXATA.

   The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under
   the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.
   At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman
   Emperor Nero.

ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.
ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.
ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.
ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

ARTEMISIUM, Sea fights at.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480.

ARTEMITA.

      See DASTAGERD.

ARTEVELD, Jacques and Philip Van:
   Their rise and fall in Ghent.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337, to 1382.

ARTHUR, King, and the Knights of the Round Table.

   "On the difficult question, whether there was a historical
   Arthur or not, … a word or two must now be devoted; … and
   here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh
   literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor,
   and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case
   he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the
   departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that
   of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so
   called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever
   his presence might be called for. The other military captains
   here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces
   in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes
   Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was
   entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the
   island. The successors of both these captains seem to have
   been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's
   suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense
   superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called
   emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin
   title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,'
   later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the
   Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this
   country, the title was given to the highest officer in the
   island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr
   Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of
   our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be
   regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's
   position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of
   his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that
   wrote the _Historia Brittonum_ ascribed to him: there
   Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of
   the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being
   their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the
   uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by
   Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than
   Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called
   Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the
   island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were
   called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great
   ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig.
{137}
   On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle
   of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest
   that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious
   than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever
   that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above
   them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and
   romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this
   hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic
   Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom
   the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case
   it was of a different origin, may have become identical in
   sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations
   are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside
   for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a
   god of that name, let us see what could be made of him.
   Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded
   as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the
   Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader
   of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in
   somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did
   to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually
   given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may
   be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of
   Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while
   Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around
   which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting
   to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On
   the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness
   that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly
   means that Arthur's court was the first early court where
   those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing
   as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other
   described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies,
   we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to
   Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well
   with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to
   ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended
   history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it
   back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under
   one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all
   culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the
   Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might
   be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus
   and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time
   to time."

      _J. Rhys,
      Studies in the Arthurian Legend,
      chapter 1._

      See, also CUMBRIA.

ARTHUR, Chester A.
   Election to Vice-Presidency.
   Succession to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880 and 1881.

ARTI OF FLORENCE.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (American).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, and 1783-1787.

ARTICLES OF HENRY, The.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

ARTOIS, The House of.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ARTOIS: A. D. 1529.
   Pretensions of the King of France to Suzerainty resigned.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

ARTYNI.

      See DEMIURGI.

ARVADITES, The.

   The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad,
   and who also held territory on the main land.

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1._

ARVERNI, The.

      See ÆDUI;
      also, GAULS, and ALLOBROGES.

ARX, The.

      See CAPITOLINE HILL;
      also GENS, ROMAN.

ARXAMUS, Battle of.

   One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with
   the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 24._

ARYANS.
ARYAS.

   "This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or
   descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among
   Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may
   seem strange that we English should be related not only to the
   Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians,
   French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still
   that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the
   Persians and Hindus. … What seems actually to have been the
   case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus
   and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range
   called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the
   nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and
   united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but
   yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a
   common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a
   word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant
   those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came
   to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on
   whom, of course, they would look down. … As their numbers
   increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for
   them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then
   began a series of migrations, in which the collection of
   tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started
   off to seek their fortune in new lands. … First among them,
   in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,
   travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North
   of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on
   to the extreme West. … Another of the great families who
   left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic.
   These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West,
   passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and
   Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the
   Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the
   Romans. … Next we come to two other great families of
   nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and
   perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans
   did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. … The word Slave
   comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and
   was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who
   could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were
   not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as
   dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in
   obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of
   babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"

      _C. F. Keary,
      Dawn of History,
      chapter 4._

{138}

   The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan
   family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified
   form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following:
   "The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which
   it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan,
   Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and
   Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over
   the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly
   passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their
   languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. …
   The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or
   parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic
   period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor
   Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated
   Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was—where could it have
   been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it
   necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the
   neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it
   somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then
   Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic
   theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to
   deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive
   the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards
   Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to
   the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and
   beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for
   lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans
   must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. … As
   might be expected in the case of such a difficult question,
   those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of
   the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the
   spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of
   Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a
   district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian;
   Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great
   plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of
   Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the
   Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka
   on Scandinavia."

      _J. Rhys,
      Race Theories
      (in New Princeton Review, January, 1888)._

   "Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to
   race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we
   speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no
   more than X + Aryan speech. … I have declared again and
   again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor
   hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan
   language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,
   Celts and Slaves. … In that sense, and in that sense only,
   do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier
   stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest
   Scandinavians. … If an answer must be given as to the place
   where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,
   whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered
   tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago,
   'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."

      _F. Max Müller,
      Biog. of Words and Home of the Aryas,
      chapter 6._

   The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans
   are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in _The Origin of the
   Aryans_, by G. H. Rendall, in _The Cradle of the
   Aryans_, and by Dr. O. Schrader in _Prehistoric
   Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples._

      See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

AS.
LIBRA.
DENARIUS.
SESTERTIUS.

   "The term _As_ [among the Romans] and the words which
   denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but
   were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in
   general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of
   twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote
   shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of
   weight the _As_, or Libra, "occupied the same position in
   the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to
   the most accurate researches, the _As_ was equal to about
   11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It
   "was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ
   was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The
   _As_, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed,
   as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins
   those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By
   degrees; however, the weight of the _As_, regarded as a
   coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the
   commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12
   ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war
   (B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long
   afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce,
   which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of
   Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16
   Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became,
   respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in
   value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is.
   estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence
   sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the
   Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius
   Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 13._

ASCALON, Battle of (A. D. 1099).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ASCANIENS, The.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.

ASCULUM, Battle of (B. C. 279).

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

ASCULUM, Massacre at.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ASHANTEE WAR, The (1874).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880

ASHBURTON TREATY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

ASHDOD.

      See PHILISTINES.

ASHRAF, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1725-1730.

ASHTI, Battle of (1818).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

{139}

ASIA: The Name.

   "There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have
   originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively.
   Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from
   the Phœnicians. … The Greeks first applied the title [Asia]
   to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to
   them, and with which they became first acquainted—the coast
   of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it
   as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special
   application to the country about Ephesus."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Notes to Herodotus,
      volume 3, page 33._

ASIA:
   The Roman Province (so called).

   "As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions
   of the kings of Pergamus … left by the will of Attalus III.
   to the Roman people (B. C. 133). … It included the whole of
   Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small
   part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not
   the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however,
   was detached from it."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, section 1._

ASIA: Central.
   Mongol Conquest.

      See MONGOLS.

ASIA:
   Turkish Conquest.

      See TURKS.

ASIA:
   Russian Conquests.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876, and 1869-1881.

ASIA MINOR:

   "The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient
   geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers
   until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth
   century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer
   who employs the term in its modern sense."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 7, section 2._

   The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with
   "The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among
   the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by
   their successors, the Turks.

ASIA MINOR:
   Earlier Kingdoms and People.

      See
      PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.
      LYDIANS.
      CARIANS.
      LYCIANS.
      BITHYNIANS.
      PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).
      PAPHLAGONIANS.
      TROJA.

ASIA MINOR:
   The Greek Colonies.

   "The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the
   Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the
   population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not
   subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and
   the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their
   ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or
   Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes
   in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia
   Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When
   at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from
   Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands,
   was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or
   tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians,
   Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien
   elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same
   tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on
   the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies.
   … Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the
   north. The precise limits of their territory were differently
   fixed by different authorities. … The Aeolic cities fell
   into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre,
   and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate
   neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.—The
   northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In
   the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna,
   Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was
   subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. … The
   second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after
   the death of Codrus—see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO
   B. C. 683—according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of
   Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first
   to the Carian city of Miletus—see MILETUS,—which they
   captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island
   of Samos]. … The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was
   established, similar to the union which the Ionians had
   founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of
   Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a
   minority. … The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in
   the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was
   not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one
   life-time. … The two most famous of the Ionian cities were
   Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously
   known as Anactoria. … Ephesus was originally in the hands of
   the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the
   Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary
   goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a
   temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of
   birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than
   Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were
   Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which
   finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae,
   Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios.
   "Chios was first inhabited by Cretans … and subsequently by
   Carians. … Of the manner in which Chios became connected
   with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. …
   The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the
   southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the
   Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian
   occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. …
   Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the
   Aegean [see CRETE]. … The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that
   in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the
   command of Althaemenes. … Other islands colonised by the
   Dorians were Thera, … Melos, … Carpathus, Calydnae,
   Nisyrus, and Cos. … From the islands, the Dorians spread to
   the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first
   settlement. … Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and
   the Ionian element must have been considerable. … Of the
   Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on
   the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and
   Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus
   and Cnidus. … The territory which the Aeolians acquired is
   described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by
   the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited
   by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were
   the chief. … In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the
   Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not
   occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the
   town of the same name … near Lampsacus, and also formed the
   subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this
   once famous nation.
{140}
   But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems,
   and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places
   in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of
   the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents
   any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the
   Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was
   divided—or, at least, later historians speak of it as
   divided—into principalities which recognised Priam as their
   chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its
   eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever
   the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed
   by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic
   poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in
   wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. …
   The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in
   Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war.
   … We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of
   Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of
   the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician
   power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C.
   From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks
   were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. … By 1100
   B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks,
   though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes
   and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)_.

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

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 13-15._

      _J. A. Cramer,
      Geography and Historical Description of Asia Minor,
      section 6 (volume 1)._

      See, also, MILETUS, PHOCÆANS.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
   Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.
   Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest
   and annexation to the Persian Empire.

   "The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to
   wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not
   the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was
   considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at
   length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence
   the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who
   had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the
   Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and
   exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the
   Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw
   hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason
   to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered
   their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS].
   … But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a
   powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital
   was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the
   first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS),
   whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned
   his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a
   century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to
   reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C.
   568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he
   made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia
   excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and
   Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but,
   according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled
   not with their political institutions, and they might deem
   themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the
   payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover,
   cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus
   was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his
   kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire
   then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during
   his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from
   the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they
   incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now
   sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the
   same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian
   monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to
   prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and
   sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus,
   being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for
   the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who
   had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages,
   came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the
   cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians
   abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the
   Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return,
   sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the
   Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy,
   and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of
   Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian
   empire."

      _T. Keightley,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated and edited by G. Rawlinson,
      book 1, and appendix_

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapters 6-7 (volume 6)._

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 501-493.
   The Ionian revolt and its suppression.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 479.
   Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.

      See ATHENS: B. C.479-478.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 477.
   Formation of Confederacy of Delos.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.
   Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.
   Conspiracy against Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.
   Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 412.
   Re-submission to Persia.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.
   Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten
   Thousand.

      See PERSIA: B. C.401-400.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.
   Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.
   Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 334.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 301.
   Mostly annexed to the Thracian Kingdom of Lysimachus.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.
   Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.
   Changes of masters.

      See SELEUCIDÆ.

{141}

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.
   First Entrance of the Romans.
   Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.
   Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of
   Rhodes.

      See SELEUCIDÆ B. C. 224-187.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.
   Mithridates and his kingdom.
   Massacre of Italians.
   Futile revolt from Rome.
   Complete Roman Conquest.

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
      also ROME: B. C.78-68. and 69-63.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 292.
   Diocletian's seat of Empire established at Nicomedia.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 602-628.
   Persian invasions.
   Deliverance by Heraclius.

      See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1063-1092.
   Conquest and ruin by the Seljuk Turks.

   See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and 1073-1092.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1097-1149.
   Wars of the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1147-1149.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1204-1261.
   The Empire of Nicæa and the Empire of Trebizond.

      See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

----------ASIA MINOR: End----------

ASIENTO, OR ASSIENTO, The.

      See
      SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;
      and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

ASKELON.

      See PHILISTINES.

ASKLEPIADS.

   "Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the
   descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and
   widely diffused. The many families or gentes called
   Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice
   of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of
   Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain
   relief—all recognized the god, not merely as the object of
   their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 9._

ASMONEANS, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

ASOPIA.

      See SICYON.

ASOV.

      See AZOF.

ASPADAN.

   The ancient name of which that of Ispahan is a corrupted form.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

ASPERN-ESSLINGEN (OR THE MARCHFELD), Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ASPIS, The.

      See PHALANX.

ASPROMONTE, Defeat of Garibaldi at (1862).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ASSAM, English Acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ASSANDUN, Battle of.

   The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund
   Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or
   Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly
   defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the
   field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund
   soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the
   battle-ground.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

ASSASSINATIONS, Notable.
  Abbas, Pasha of Egypt.
     See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

  Alexander II. of Russia.
     See RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.

  Beatoun, Cardinal.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

  Becket, Thomas.
     See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170

  Buckingham.
     See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

  Cæsar.
     See ROME; B. C. 44.

  Capo d'Istrea, Count, President of Greece.
    See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

  Cavendish, Lord Frederick, and Burke, Mr.
    See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

  Concini.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

  Danilo, Prince of Montenegro (1860).
     See MONTENEGRO.

  Darnley.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

  Francis of Guise.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

  Garfield, President.
     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.

  Gustavus III. of Sweden.
     See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

  Henry of Guise.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

  Henry III. of France.
     See FRANCE; A. D. 1584-1589.

  Henry IV. of France.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1600.

  Hipparchus.
     See ATHENS: B. C, 560-510.

  John, Duke of Burgundy.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

  Kleber, General.
     See FRANCE; A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

  Kotzebue.
     See GERMANY; A. D. 1817-1820.

  Lincoln, President.
     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

  Marat.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

  Mayo, Lord.
     See INDIA; A. D. 1862-1876.

  Murray, The Regent.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

  Omar, Caliph.
     See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 661.

  Paul, Czar of Russia.
     See RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.

  Perceval, Spencer.
     See ENGLAND; A. D. 1806-1812.

  Peter III.
     See RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.

  Philip of Macedon.
     See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

  Prim, General (1870).
     See SPAIN. A. D. 1866-1843.

  Rizzio.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

  Rossi, Count.
     See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

  Wallenstein (1634).
     See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

  William the Silent.
     See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

  Witt, John and Cornelius de.
     See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674.

ASSASSINS, The.

   "I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe
   of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during
   the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all
   Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied
   in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however
   there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's _History of
   Mohammedanism._ The word Assassin, it must be remembered,
   in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and
   not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they
   were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the
   Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has
   been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application
   is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th
   century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty,
   but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of
   Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were
   originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN
   CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the
   principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their
   inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion
   and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything'
   was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle,
   addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was
   simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the
   Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the
   dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to
   throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise.
   … Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly
   before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of
   Alamout—the Vulture's nest—in northern Persia, whence they
   extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain
   fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was
   the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at
   whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 4._

{142}

   "In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or
   Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To
   kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an
   action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the
   reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the
   Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered
   Alamut until that of his death—a period of thirty-five
   years—he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the
   seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny,
   he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself
   invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused
   a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more
   than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful
   organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by
   the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the
   Caliphate out of existence.

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
      part 3, chapter 3._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
      chapter 9._

   The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in
   Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically
   exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or
   Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the
   Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was
   demolished.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 193;
      and part 3, pages 91-108_.

      See BAGDAD; A. D. 1258.

ASSAYE, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA; A. D. 1798-1803.

ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

ASSENISIPIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1784.

ASSIDEANS, The.

      See CHASIDM, THE.

ASSIENTO, The.

      See ASIENTO.

ASSIGNATS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL);
      1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

ASSINARUS, Athenian defeat and surrender at the.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

ASSINIBOIA.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ASSINIBOINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ASSIZE, The Bloody.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).

ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.

   The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or
   enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th
   century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale
   regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and
   oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the
   beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London
   and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"—that is, early
   in the present century.

      _G. L. Craik,
      History of British Commerce,
      volume 1, page 137._

ASSIZE OF CLARENDON, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM, The.

   "No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem,
   after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D.
   1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he
   solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims
   who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of
   Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation
   of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey
   composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of
   feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of
   the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was
   deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the
   improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted
   as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of
   Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the
   fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous
   tradition and variable practice till the middle of the
   thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John
   d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories;
   and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen
   hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of
   Cyprus."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ASSIZES.

   "The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the
   Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the
   Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the
   only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of
   Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of
   new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, … In
   this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the
   Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman
   prætors. … The term Assize, which comes into use in this
   meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the
   continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name
   for such edicts. … In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply
   means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily,
   it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as
   the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly
   the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is
   commonly used at the present day."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13._

ASSUR.

      See ASSYRIA.

ASSYRIA.

   For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is
   referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.
   The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will
   go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding
   to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history
   and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible
   that the time between the publication of our first volume and
   our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty
   literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the
   sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light
   large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,—sacred
   and historical writings, official records, business contracts
   and many varieties of inscriptions,—have almost
   revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of
   antiquity derived from it.
{143}
   "M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,
   was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the
   buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the
   first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced
   his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but
   he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New
   at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked
   in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself
   with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving
   unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at
   Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad
   by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party
   of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days
   his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some
   sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he
   transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly
   explored that site. … The palace which M. Botta had
   discovered … is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings
   yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian
   architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.
   Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch
   decorated by six winged bulls. … The operations of M. Botta
   were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of
   sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,
   arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.
   Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at
   Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his
   predecessor. … Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned
   in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards
   took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At
   length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of
   Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria
   himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and
   descended the Tigris to Nimroud. … Mr. Layard has described
   in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,
   and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. …
   After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited
   Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.
   On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were
   continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of
   Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.
   Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various
   sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum
   receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected
   in the national museums of France and England, and the
   numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of
   the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on
   the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria
   and Babylonia."

      _G. Smith,
      Assyrian Discoveries,
      chapter 1._

   "One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
   explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
   library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
   Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
   not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
   literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
   of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
   represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
   characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
   meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
   plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
   of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
   preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
   spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
   their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
   termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
   which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
   Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
   accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
   from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
   dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
   placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. … The
   bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the
   long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the
   greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction
   of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions
   conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the
   later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the
   stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the
   British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to
   light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: The Second Monarchy,
      chapter 9._

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      books 3-4._

      _George Smith,
      Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria._

      See, also, BABYLONIA and SEMITES.

ASSYRIA, Eponym Canon of.

   "Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who
   were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a
   custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they
   called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' … Babylonian and Assyrian
   documents were more generally dated by the names of these
   eponyms than by that of the reigning King. … In 1862 Sir
   Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of
   Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important
   discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great
   many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up.
   Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from
   these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled
   from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      chapter 3._

ASTOLF, King of the Lombards, A. D. 749-759.

ASTRAKHAN:
   The Khanate.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

ASTRAKHAN: A. D. 1569.
   Russian repulse of the Turks.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

ASTURIANS, The.

      See CANTABRIANS.

ASTURIAS:
   Resistance to the Moorish Conquest.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

ASTY, OR ASTU, The.

   The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its
   connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 10._

      See also, ATHENS: AREA, &c.


  A Logical Outline of Athenian and Greek History

[Red  ]  Physical or material.
[Blue ]  Ethnological.
[Green]  Social and political.
[Brown]  Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black]  Foreign.

  In which the dominant conditions and influences
  are distinguished by colors.

  The Land

The most capable people of early times, placed in the most
favorable environment that the world in those times could offer
them, worked out a civilization—perfect in all refinements
except the moral—which has been the admiration and the marvel of
later days.

Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no
marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer
struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to
hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse
were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its
separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its
clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure
to their social and political advance. In no other region of
Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have
grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid
influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.

It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had
much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the
Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one
another in their various political groups, and by differences
that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or
sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which
distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth,
or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned,  the Athenian
is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from
the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by
calling it family or race.


    Ionians and Dorians.

At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of
kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of
descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided
streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very
different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in
time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the
traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race
(the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact
again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited
nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them
more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared
them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy
and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own.
In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal
measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they
narrowed it to commoner aims.


    Achaians.
    Mycenæ.

It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their
elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of
Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,—washed by the
same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were
first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to
borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their
civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer
portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact
that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground,
remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final
masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the
strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two
branches of the race.


    Sparta.-Athens.

By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon
the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the
Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city
with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius
and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the
civilization of the ancient world.

In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which
kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the
kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,—the oligarchy in time, was
overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the
people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a
"tyrant,"—and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign.
In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end
as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest
democracy that has ever had trial in the world.


  Æthel democracy.

That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to
doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its
great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it
from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free
institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who
raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the
government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the
annals of so small a state.

Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a
great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the
larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which
inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the
Persians back.


  B.C. 498-479.  The Persian War.
  B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.
  B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.

Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian
War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of
a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia
Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded
the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as
she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers
overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers
and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble
prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her
abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art,
which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and
since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from
which they came.


  B. C. 431-404.  Peloponnesian War.

But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly
and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without
generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects,
and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time
was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down
from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden
age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were
given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the
republic.


  B.C. 404-379—Sparta
  B.C. 379-362—Thebes

Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination,
imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of
Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes—the
most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race—the
Spartan yoke was broken.


  B.C. 338—Macedonian supremacy.

But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all
hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared
was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole
peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as
the orator Demosthenes.


  B. C. 384-328.
  Alexander's conquests.
  Hellenization of the East.

But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their
career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and
higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he
made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They
Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria,
and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every
field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of
thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the
intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing
force.


 B. C. 197-146.—Roman conquest.

Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit
of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the
Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from
history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her
teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry
it wherever the Roman eagles went.


   Christianity.

A little later, when that civilization was changed by the
transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to
be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in
the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought
ruled mankind again in an altered phase.


  A. D. 476-1458.—The Eastern Empire.

At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece
drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and
fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a
thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew
strong and stood in peril no more.

{144}

ASTYNOMI.

   Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number.
   "They were charged with all that belongs to street
   supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which
   purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their
   orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the
   streets."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

ASUNCION: A. D. 1537.
   The founding of the city.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.

   "From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of
   Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more
   than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of
   petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking
   advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and
   of the distractions which followed their final extinction,
   established their authority over some of the finest provinces
   of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a
   local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their
   memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they
   ruled. … The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word
   of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a
   governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."

      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      volume 1; chapter 9._

   "It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as
   actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of
   princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor
   unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria
   and Persia at the time they flourished."-

      _W. H. Morley,
      Preface to Mirkhond's History of the Atabeks._

      See, also, SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

ATAHUALPA, The Inca.

      See PERU: A. D. 1581-1533.

ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
      and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

ATHABASCA, The District of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ATHABASCANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHABASCAN FAMILY.

ATHALAYAS.

      See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

ATHEL.
ATHELING.
ATHELBONDE.

      See ADEL.

ATHENRY, Battle of.

   The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the
   English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered
   and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred
   Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 282._

----------ATHENRY: End----------

ATHENS:

ATHENS:
   The Preëminence of Athens.

   "When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. … To
   citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and
   dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life
   itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from
   which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant
   lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as
   a mere dialect but as the language of literature,—a thing
   unknown in the history of any other people,—the Attic idiom,
   in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and
   were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the
   very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital
   of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name
   applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is
   Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here
   found a centre and a focus."

      _S. H. Butcher,
      Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,
      pages 38-39._

   "Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in
   details but in large masses. It matters little how early the
   Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to
   Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens,
   the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not
   so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates
   of uninteresting tribes and towns."

ATHENS:
   Area and Population.

   "The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens
   proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure,
   is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is
   very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom
   states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an
   estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the
   peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the
   numbers of Thucydides. … Rome was circular, Syracuse
   triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities,
   joined by a street of four miles in length,—a figure, the
   superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that
   of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form.
   Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of
   equal extent, its population was greater than that of all
   Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in
   Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 10._

Ionian Origin.

      See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

ATHENS:
   The Beginning of the city-state.
   How Attica was absorbed in its capital.

   "In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down
   to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes,
   having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of
   alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the
   king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together
   in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to
   war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with
   Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a
   powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in
   the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and
   separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica
   in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall.
   They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled
   them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward
   they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great
   city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his
   descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have
   regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or
   'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè.
   Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground
   lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be
   urged in proof of this statement."

      _Thucydides,
      History
      (Jowett's  translation),
      book 2, section 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)_.

{145}

[Image: Map]

PLAN OF ATHENS.

From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,"
by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.


[Image: Map]

HARBORS OF ATHENS.


{146}

ATHENS:
   From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.
   End of kingship and institution of the Archons.

   At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see
   GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both
   from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the
   refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia.
   … When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is
   again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal
   house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from
   Peloponnesus. … A generation later the Dorian invasion,
   which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the
   Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An
   oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler
   perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus
   disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp,
   struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the
   second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate
   the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the
   title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded
   him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or
   'ruler.' … These legends evidently cover some obscure
   changes in the internal history of Attica."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11._

   "After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage,
   perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between
   his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to
   have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however,
   seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new,
   precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as
   it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was,
   indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus,
   transmitted it to his posterity. … After twelve reigns,
   ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the
   office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or
   calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house
   of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme
   magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This
   change was speedily followed by one much more important. …
   The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single
   year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were
   severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among
   these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of
   the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He
   represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar
   jurisdiction—that which had belonged to the king as the
   common parent of his people, the protector of families, the
   guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights
   of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king
   [basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the
   functions assigned to him were those most associated with
   ancient recollections. He represented the king as the
   high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the
   mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes
   which affected the interests of religion. … The third archon
   bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king
   as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who
   watched over its security in time of peace. … The remaining
   six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which
   literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to
   them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes
   which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues;
   because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare
   and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."

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

   "We are in no condition to determine the civil classification
   and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of
   the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian
   chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any
   knowledge of the anterior centuries. … All the information
   which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from
   authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by
   Solon, and later]—and who, finding no records, nor anything
   better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as
   they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally
   attached to the dominant legendary names."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

ATHENS: B. C. 624.
   Under the Draconian Legislation.

   "Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set
   down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and
   thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or
   less generality. In the later and better-known times of
   Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure
   of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the
   task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence,
   next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate
   dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no
   separation of powers; the archons both judged and
   administered…. All of these functionaries belonged to the
   Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the
   narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room
   for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy
   on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case,
   and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the
   duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in
   writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be
   'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with
   the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle
   finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of
   the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness
   of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we
   are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special
   inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested
   with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and
   cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe
   laws of his own invention. … The general spirit of penal
   legislation had become so much milder, during the two
   centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared
   to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._

{147}

ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
   Conspiracy of Cylon.
   Banishment of the Alcmæonids.

   The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical
   government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C.
   612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant
   of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by
   the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of
   Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender;
   but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess
   Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to
   retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was
   effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in
   their hands as they passed out through the midst of their
   enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at
   once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from
   them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though
   they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The
   treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to
   have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved
   in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect
   upon it. Megacles and his whole family—the Alcmæonids as they
   were called, from the name of one of their ancestors—were
   held accountable for the affront to the gods and were
   considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was
   ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial,
   they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.),
   while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out.
   The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence
   on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and
   his constitutional reforms.

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

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10._

ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
   Struggle with Megara for Salamis.
   Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.

   "The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages,
   had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of
   her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the
   latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian
   government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without
   bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to
   the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and
   defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than
   unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce
   the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden,
   upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian
   claims. … Many of the younger portion of the community,
   pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for
   enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any
   stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At
   this time there went a report through the city that a man of
   distinguished birth … had incurred the consecrating
   misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the
   market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that
   distinguished the sick. … Ascending the stone from which the
   heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a
   poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice
   of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed
   insanity protected him from the law—his rank, reputation, and
   the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis,
   conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and
   the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly
   proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the
   address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of
   Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. … The stratagem and
   the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his
   spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm
   permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect
   the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned,
   and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief
   struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. … But the
   brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened
   by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest—losses
   were sustained on either side, and at length both states
   agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the
   island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal
   from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece
   had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an
   extension of the sense of justice. … The arbitration of the
   umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and
   the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards
   they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so
   tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in
   this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in
   the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a
   town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race,
   who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi,
   sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to
   possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece
   had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the
   Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the
   Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the
   altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the
   tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the
   Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi
   inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The
   war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at
   the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer
   makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The
   besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be
   reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the
   territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the
   superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that
   the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands
   of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore
   advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to
   dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The
   advice was adopted—Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became
   thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had
   the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the
   waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. … The Pythian games commenced, or
   were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."

      _Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,
      Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      See, also, DELPHI.

{148}

ATHENS: B. C. 594.
   The Constitution of Solon.
   The Council of Four Hundred.

   "Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and
   moderation are described by the ancients as the
   characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the
   privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of
   officers, and to render all the participators in civil and
   political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same
   time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to
   which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was
   far from contemplating a total subversion of existing
   regulations. … Whatever was excellent in prescription was
   incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but
   prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten
   religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force.
   The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every
   member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule
   of conduct."

      _W. Wachsmuth,
      Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
      section 46 (volume 1)_.

   "The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was
   Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties
   corresponding to the geographical division of the country,
   which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants
   of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali,
   on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at
   their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the
   people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or
   Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great
   majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief
   only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen,
   have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he
   preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused
   himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid
   of the house … of Codrus."

      _C. F. Hermann,
      Manual of the Political Antiquities of Greece,
      chapter 5, section 106._

   "The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in
   order that it might be exercised with advantage it was
   necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of
   citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class
   from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those
   who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by
   rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. … This
   change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be
   regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but
   as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one
   was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford
   relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in
   amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of
   interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the
   former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be
   reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested
   possession of his legal rights. … A second ordinance
   enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored
   to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute
   criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which
   had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that
   time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to
   Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon
   were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close
   connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a
   proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the
   validity of the new citizenship. … The right of
   naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when
   6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure,
   but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the
   privileges of citizenship. … The statement that Solon
   received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every
   artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as
   Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated
   the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci … probably took the
   place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of
   sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed
   them. … The servile order, exclusively consisting of
   purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body,
   stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves
   became the property of individual citizens, but a certain
   number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were
   abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive
   taskmasters. … Those who were manumitted stood upon the
   footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming
   their Prostatæ. … Upon attaining the age of puberty, the
   sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi.
   The state gave them two years for the full development of
   their youthful strength. … Upon the expiration of the
   second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their
   eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the
   popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of
   those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos
   took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of
   which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the
   space of one or two years performed military service in the
   Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The
   ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book
   which contained the names of those who had attained majority;
   this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune,
   preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and
   speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria,
   Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation
   denoted the difference between him and the silent member of
   the assembly, the Idiotes. … Upon attaining his 30th year,
   the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified
   for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. … The
   word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen
   who has fully attained maturity. … The judges of the courts
   of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of
   the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men
   than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon
   appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according
   to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of
   state. … Upon the principle of a conditional equality of
   rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and
   which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general,
   he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these
   were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of
   wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of
   a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation,
   however, only affected that portion of capital from which
   contributions to the state-burthens were required,
   consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. … The
   Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned
   to perform military service, but only exercised the civic
   right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; … the
   highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such
   as the archonship, and through this the council of the
   Areopagus. … In lieu of the former council of
   administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon
   instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the
   first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person
   under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were
   renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and
   such as were deemed eligible drew lots."

      _W. Wachsmuth,
      Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
      section 46-47 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3, section 4._

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 11, chapter 3._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11._

      _Plutarch,
      Solon._

      _Aristotle,
      On the Constitution of Athens
      (translated by E. Poste),
      chapters 5-13._

      See, also,
      AREOPAGUS, PRYTANES, HELIÆA, and DEBT.

{149}

ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.
   The tyranny of the Pisistratidæ.

   "The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be
   insufficient even in his own life-time. … The poor citizens
   were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform
   of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the
   lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of
   Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General
   Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses
   which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment
   and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided
   Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with
   even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by
   Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus,
   the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the
   Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his
   family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of
   Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood
   Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who
   … had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war.
   As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon,
   Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants
   of the adjacent hills. … Solon watched the failure of his
   hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the
   leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to
   the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers.
   With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the
   most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved
   general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men
   who had nothing to lose. … Pisistratus met the vehement
   expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place.
   The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his
   life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an
   unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous
   discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people
   allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of
   fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he
   threw off all disguises, and established himself in the
   Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. … Herodotus tells
   us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not
   alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The
   Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet,
   though it is improbable that either the one or the other was
   allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The
   archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the
   city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the
   Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the
   Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the
   administration for his family or his adherents." Twice,
   however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination
   of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first
   instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was
   compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus
   remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his
   death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias,
   with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were
   associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon
   made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed
   against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in
   taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C.,
   with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from
   the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids,
   was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his
   guidance that the Athenian democratic
   constitution was reorganized.

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11 and 30._

ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
   The constitution of Cleisthenes.
   Advance of democracy.

   "The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical
   party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.
   The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,
   though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,
   which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. …
   Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,
   unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his
   ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which
   Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.
   His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage
   over his rivals; he planned an important change in the
   constitution, which should forever break the power of his
   whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which
   their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the
   confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the
   Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made
   a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,
   each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The
   ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,
   called demes, each containing a town or village. …
   Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;
   but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the
   tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political
   importance. … Cleisthenes at the same time increased the
   strength of the commonalty by making a great many new
   citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only
   aliens—and these both residents and adventurers from
   abroad—but slaves. … The whole frame of the state was
   reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.
{150}
   The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,
   that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of
   the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty
   councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five
   or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being
   elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the
   Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called
   regularly four times in the month, certain business being
   assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into
   ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most
   of the public offices, though the number of the archons
   remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal
   institution of the ostracism. … These changes, and the
   influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of
   Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of
   maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,
   accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings
   of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by
   assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes
   responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],
   which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming
   dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with
   an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by
   banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then
   proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to
   lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his
   friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted
   this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and
   Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and
   besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a
   siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and
   Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian
   troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to
   the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and
   Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned
   triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a
   force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The
   Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit
   the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of
   it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the
   Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it
   up.

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

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 31._

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 15._

      _Aristotle,
      On the Constitution of Athens
      (translated by E. Poste),
      chapter 20-22._

ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
   Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.
   Help solicited from the Persian king.
   Subjection refused.
   Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.
   Protest of the Corinthians.
   Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.

   "With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a
   deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias
   was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian
   king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to
   anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the
   Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an
   independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on
   being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of
   Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance
   if they would give him earth and water,—in other words, if
   they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand
   of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was
   indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens.
   … Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast
   down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal
   insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be
   despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including
   the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis
   in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from
   Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign.
   He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring
   that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous
   errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King,
   Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion
   broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their
   enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who
   won a series of victories over the Boiotians and
   Euboians"—completely overthrowing the latter—the
   Chalcidians—taking possession of their city, and making it a
   peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.—See KLERUCHS. The
   anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the
   defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at
   the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had
   been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian
   priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him
   and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce
   in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their
   freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own.
   Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians
   with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias
   at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who
   were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot."
   The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought
   their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy,
   with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the
   Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans
   thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for
   themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to
   convince them that the time was coming "in which they would
   find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his
   exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested
   unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the
   internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished
   tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Greeks and the Persians,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4)._

{151}

ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.
   Aid to Ionians against Persia.
   Provocation of King Darius.
   His wrath and attempted vengeance.
   The first Persian invasions.
   Battle of Marathon.

   "It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion
   over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the
   onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as
   if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the
   Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was
   of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after
   defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent
   for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with
   which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia
   and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to
   unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a
   great campaign against the Scythians. … The Greeks were his
   best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by
   which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats
   over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's
   territory. The result was not one which could properly be
   called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful
   character. … A great region, in which they had already
   obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once
   more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the
   Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the
   dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia,
   one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do
   homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust
   back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even
   into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern
   Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that
   the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper
   home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek
   islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at
   issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants.
   … The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was
   not a person of any great importance. It is not always great
   natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own
   powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the
   work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of
   contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the
   other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. …
   Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range
   of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an
   imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought
   of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all
   the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a
   great and successful offensive war upon them. … He announced
   in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to
   the people of their old laws. … A general overthrow of
   tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia,
   and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in
   the cities was based upon a good understanding between the
   holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these
   rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the
   signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily
   renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to
   take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the
   same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with
   Persia. … The cities and islands which had so often been
   forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by
   their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have
   expected so much. … He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of
   the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with
   him in his plans. … Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook
   himself to Athens. … The Athenians granted Aristagoras
   twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to
   Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus
   revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced,
   directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in
   their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which
   imposed on them their heaviest burdens. … By the burning of
   Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the
   Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods.
   We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take
   the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the
   great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the
   world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult
   calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made
   no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the
   Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been
   informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had
   scarcely heard. … The enterprise of Aristagoras had
   meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger
   part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All
   the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in
   revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first
   concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if
   attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their
   first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the
   advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were
   assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. … It
   must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade,
   by which the combination against the Persian empire had been
   annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having
   consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan
   of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise
   against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this
   project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the
   empire and the court, … Mardonius by name, whom he united to
   his family by marrying him to his daughter. … This general
   crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always
   accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the
   mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the
   districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been
   brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was
   directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king.
   … In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always
   made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered
   ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to
   gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a
   promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he
   found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his
   undertakings to another time. … In order to subdue the
   recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt
   was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom,
   Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the
   satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius
   who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was
   undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and
   the maritime districts.
{152}
   It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in
   general. … Their design was to utilize the internal
   dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon
   whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them
   as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of
   Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery
   into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege
   committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian
   sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens
   also without much trouble. … It was a circumstance of great
   value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who
   was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the
   son of Kimon. … Although a Thracian prince, he had never
   ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for
   having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus,
   for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably
   qualified to be at their head in the interchange of
   hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own
   personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The
   force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but
   the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented
   their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the
   Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own.
   These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew
   swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in
   breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was
   of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two
   wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian
   sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good
   service against the bronze armor and the spear of the
   Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage,
   and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to
   withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was
   heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their
   misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of
   their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the
   shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the
   Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and
   took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the
   city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to
   anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves
   once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Universal History,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus,
      History,
      book 6._

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)_.

      See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493,
      and GREECE: B. C. 492-491, and 490.

ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
   Condemnation and death of Miltiades.
   The Æginetan war.
   Naval power created by Themistocles.

   "The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was
   he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command
   on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant
   success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited
   in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an
   opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before
   they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before
   the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might
   be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required
   them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the
   expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of
   the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships
   to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia.
   From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they
   refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and
   successful was the resistance offered that, after a long
   delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled
   to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at
   once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. …
   Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into
   court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was
   given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a
   fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even
   Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public
   debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his
   wound. … His condemnation was one in a long series of
   similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to
   those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and
   errors of judgment. … We have very little information about
   the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon.
   So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain,
   she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. … Meanwhile, a man
   was rising to power, who may be said to have created the
   history of Athens for the rest of the century,—Themistocles,
   the son of Neocles. … On the very day of Marathon,
   Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians
   would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long
   as they were masters of the Ægean? … With an insight almost
   incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a
   maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough
   to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly
   fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only
   secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to
   Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to
   abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a
   mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the
   fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the
   hands of Xanthippus … and Aristides. … They were by no
   means prepared for the change which Themistocles was
   meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had
   been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of
   Spartan customs. … He had been second in command at
   Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From
   him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute
   opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the
   support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles
   had no support of the kind. He had to make his party …
   conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus
   looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather
   round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they
   might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not
   been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun,
   soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked
   attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.),
   [Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned
   above—B.C. 509-506].
{153}
   It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the
   heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of
   the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity
   soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and
   defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally
   caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. … It was
   clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite
   inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the
   leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now
   "came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as
   he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of
   Aristides. … It was clear that nothing decisive could be
   done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles
   were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be
   carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose
   them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the
   safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and
   accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had
   got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master
   of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his
   plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he
   was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the
   treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines
   from Laurium. … By the summer of 480, the Athenians … were
   able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use
   of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. … At the same time Themistocles
   set about the fortification of the Peiræus. … Could he have
   carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus
   the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the
   city might be in close connection. But for this the people
   were not prepared."

      _E. Abbott,
      Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN: Plutarch, _Aristides. Themistocles._

ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
   The second Persian invasion.
   Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.
   Abandonment of the City.

   "The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of
   Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good
   fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several
   insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon
   put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who
   succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the
   Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention
   during the first years of his reign. But he completely
   conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves
   about four or five years; and he then made preparations for
   that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was
   longing. The account of the three years' preparations of
   Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a
   bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the
   isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by
   storms—all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus.
   History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can
   no longer be separated. … The Greeks awaited the attack
   (Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves.
   The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the
   miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept
   together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of
   the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the
   most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be
   honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to
   all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the
   Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no
   resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out
   differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the
   entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending
   Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely
   surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered
   the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated.
   The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance
   after another. … It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did
   make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position
   there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including
   even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000
   Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely
   have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in
   the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700
   Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? …
   Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend
   themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on
   land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of
   Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and
   1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied,
   but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. … All
   this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if
   there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men;
   but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest
   to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been
   as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to
   an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they
   were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as
   afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open
   field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while
   marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an
   undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the
   contest, of which we may form a conception from the
   description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three
   days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the
   Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so
   generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and
   they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical.
   … After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open
   before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a
   distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened
   her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens.
   Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is
   almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in
   taking the temple. … The miracles by which the temple is
   said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner
   during the attack of the Gauls.
{154}
   But the temple of Delphi was certainly not
   plundered.' … The city of Athens had in the meantime been
   abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge
   in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the
   Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' …
   The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. …
   During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was
   fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but
   glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a
   third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks
   at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they
   withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.'
   God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit
   suffered shipwreck. … While the Greek fleet was stationed in
   the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards
   Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The
   Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified
   the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted
   to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they
   forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn
   against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. …
   But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the
   Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own
   city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and,
   thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the
   barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to
   sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and
   children on board their ships, and sail far away from the
   Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where
   Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle
   as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and
   that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the
   enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved
   to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time,
   Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable
   difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as
   with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of
   the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly
   contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that
   occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by
   every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet
   saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the
   Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as
   soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He
   accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to
   surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the
   retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to
   deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This
   device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed
   him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure
   of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis
   commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae,
   or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The
   battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of
   Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who
   ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common
   cause with the Greeks. … Their accession increased the
   victory of the Greeks. … Certain as the battle of Salamis
   is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very
   doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving
   a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' … Winter
   was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged
   Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and
   partly in Boeotia. … The probability is, that the Athenians
   remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open
   sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so
   far as it had not already been devastated, if they would
   conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained
   any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause
   of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for
   when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not
   faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the
   Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it
   scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the
   Peloponnesians. … Mardonius now again advanced towards
   Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards
   Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession
   of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however
   (Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the
   Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually
   advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was
   fought. … In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is
   historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks,
   and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without
   being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it
   then disappears. It is also historically certain, that
   Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks.
   … After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes.
   In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war,
   Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their
   opinions were divided. … On the same day on which the battle
   of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a
   victory at sea. … After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian
   cities revolted against the Persians."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      volume 1, lectures 37 and 38._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus,
      History;
      translated and edited by H. Rawlinson,
      book 7 (volume 4)_.

      _Plutarch,
      Themistocles._

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

ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
   Protection of Ionia assumed.
   Siege and capture of Sestus.
   Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.
   Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

   "The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with
   Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally
   unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own
   victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole
   country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too
   great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the
   Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. … It would be
   better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in
   settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had
   favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians,
   and Thessalians. … The Athenians, on the other hand,
   espoused the cause of the cities. … Ionia ought to be a
   bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes.
{155}
   … The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent
   among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced
   settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos,
   Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into
   the confederation … and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek
   empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of
   caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage
   from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the
   bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or
   had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed,
   the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. …
   The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved
   … not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the
   strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in
   the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked
   without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They
   allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under
   the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians
   and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The
   Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long
   siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the
   main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in
   the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one
   naval power, and having after such successes attained to a
   confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer
   seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they
   regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of
   Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens
   itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few
   scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as
   their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and
   ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned
   from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its
   crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured
   to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials
   of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration
   of the city was commenced with all possible activity. … But
   even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied
   their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its
   security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town,
   public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It
   was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the
   city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond
   the circle of the ancient walls, … so as to be able, in case
   of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the
   country-population within the capital itself. … But the
   Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls
   undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations
   became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their
   neighbours broke out afresh. … The Peloponnesian states,
   above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention
   of Sparta to the situation of affairs. … As at Sparta city
   walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts
   prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town
   was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it
   was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of
   the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference
   undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event
   of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could
   be successfully defended; that central Greece would
   necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every
   fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At
   such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans
   made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered
   the immediate cessation of building operations, and with
   assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta,
   in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his
   arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by,
   pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the
   meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls,
   and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of
   Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The
   enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and
   were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They
   now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good
   advice."

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

      ALSO IN
      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
   Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.
   The founding of Athenian Empire.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
   Constitutional gains for the democracy.
   Ascendency of Aristeides.
   Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.
   The sustentation of the commons.
   The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

   At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the
   Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on
   the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other
   posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may
   thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic
   peninsula … were not less anxious to seek protection in the
   bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes
   and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic
   Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and
   Byzantium. … Some sort of union, organised and obligatory
   upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all.
   Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy
   of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the
   Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the
   Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also
   from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian
   states—traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among
   these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most
   formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose
   treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium
   (See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten
   years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a
   temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable
   projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater
   than himself—the Athenian Themistokles. … The charge
   [against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects
   itself with the previous movement of political parties. …
   The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly
   appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both
   the peremptory necessity of  cooperation against a common enemy.
{156}
   And apparently it was not resumed during the times which
   immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their
   country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in
   prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver
   of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is
   commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy
   of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character
   of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian
   old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the
   originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had
   now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact.
   … From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the
   grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which
   character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. …
   The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively,
   were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the
   men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from
   a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory,
   which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers,
   as combatants, and as patriots. … The political change
   arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the
   military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of
   Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as
   head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the
   political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or
   privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass,
   strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting
   against all recognised political inequalities. … Early after
   the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was
   enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According
   to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian
   census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were
   not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed
   votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a
   magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher
   classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility
   extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength
   of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find
   that it was proposed by Aristeides. … The popularity thus
   ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his
   previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from
   his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought
   into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new
   Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of
   Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled
   political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of
   his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his
   duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New
   political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising
   with Aristeides. … Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon],
   (son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles
   was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to
   Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the
   treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of
   the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days.
   "Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism
   of Themistokles."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 44 (volume 5)_.

   The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the
   political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are
   represented somewhat differently from the account above, in
   the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which
   is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one
   of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the
   council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and
   ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on
   them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the
   victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the
   country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised
   funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced
   them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service
   the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and
   public affairs were admirably administered during the
   following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their
   name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed
   themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of
   Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were
   Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of
   Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former
   reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his
   contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ
   the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The
   rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though
   they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians
   from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were
   due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity
   afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct
   of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after
   the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478
   B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. …
   Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and
   wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer
   the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country
   occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation,
   he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or
   sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as
   public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of
   their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the
   rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the
   position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians,
   whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to
   retain their own constitutions and to rule their own
   dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by
   the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the
   public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave
   maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or
   jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500
   soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home
   magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed
   soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the
   Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000
   sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships,
   and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the
   gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense
   of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was
   thus secured.
{157}
   The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the
   period during which the country continued under the ascendency
   of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were
   gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more
   preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed
   incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of
   the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put
   to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences
   committed in their administration. Afterwards in the
   archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council
   itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which
   were the keystone of the existing constitution, and
   distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and
   the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of
   Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to
   be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. …
   Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before
   the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally
   they stripped it of all its principal functions. The
   assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of
   Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the
   circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this
   the degradation of the constitution proceeded without
   intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular
   favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer
   of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of
   Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political
   life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war.
   Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as
   the generals had no military experience and owed their
   appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each
   expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives,
   chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to
   the wealthy classes or to the commons."—Aristotle, On the
   Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter
   23-26.—On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much
   of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once
   dismissed as unhistorical. … If the evidence of Thucydides
   is to count for anything, it is quite certain that
   Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C.
   … Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the
   remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is
   supported by all our authorities—if indeed it is not merely
   repeated by them."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 11, section 5._

      ALSO IN
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Problems in Greek History,
      page 96._

      _Plutarch,
      Themistocles._

      See, also, below: B. C. 466-454.

ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
   Continued war against the Persians.
   Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.
   Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.

   "Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians
   was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast
   of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470].
   The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally
   Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold
   and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of
   wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their
   bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into
   the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus
   was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in
   Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an
   Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic
   Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled
   the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought
   and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who
   had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them
   in his own trireme to Athens,—an act which gained him great
   favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates
   were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and
   expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the
   first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the
   Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not
   now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon
   appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before
   Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were
   at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the
   hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to
   Athens—an example which they soon followed in other cases.
   … After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the
   coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had
   assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a
   fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to
   the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of
   Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch.
   Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and
   attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying
   at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of
   350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician
   vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in
   the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to
   attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did
   not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships
   fell into the hands of the victors, and several were
   destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his
   men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of
   the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they
   turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors;
   and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two
   important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80
   Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he
   immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of
   them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the
   termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The
   year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated,
   and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."

      _T. Keightley,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN
      _W. W. Lloyd,
      The Age of Pericles,
      chapter 27 (volume 1)._

      See also PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

{158}

ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
   Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.
   Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.
   Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.
   Fall and exile of Cimon.
   Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.
   Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.
   Building the Long Walls.

   "It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens
   that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a
   mistress rather than a leader. … Two years after the
   reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out
   into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of
   Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the
   mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this
   coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the
   Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But
   the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to
   develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. … A
   spot called 'The Nine Ways,' … where that great river first
   begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be
   spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to
   secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian
   tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders
   with such desperation that … the Athenian armies were
   defeated. … It was probably the discouragement which this
   defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her
   secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save
   her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt
   to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own
   resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians
   of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the
   ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well
   disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that
   moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful
   Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the
   Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE
   THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own
   resources; and these were so considerable that she held out
   against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole
   years. … She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B.
   C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like
   Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her
   war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine
   of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of
   her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian
   hands. … The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate
   struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos
   came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his
   reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the
   city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the
   Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from
   destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of
   the Persian war. … His pleading was bitterly opposed by the
   anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen,
   Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as
   antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy
   prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta
   [B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so
   unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed
   its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore,
   began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at
   last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating
   that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN
   WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified
   the anti-Spartan party at Athens. … Cimon was now no longer
   able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the
   conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose
   foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his
   views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances
   abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward
   Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the
   constitution. They were determined to carry out to its
   furthest logical development the democratic tendency which
   Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of
   Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is
   known. But Pericles … was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser
   of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and
   Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of
   the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and
   haughty—a strange chief for the popular party. But his
   relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed
   between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the
   cause of democracy. … While Cimon had Greece in his mind,
   Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the
   times was favourable to the narrower policy. … The first aim
   which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the
   cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C.
   477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the
   stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. …
   Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He
   chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a
   rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in
   Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a
   law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial
   power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. …
   When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. …
   Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against
   Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But
   this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not
   long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous
   friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. …
   The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in
   sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The
   foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in
   troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and
   Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby
   made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable.
   He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most
   powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close
   alliance with Megara. … In Boeotia, too, he stirred up
   enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in
   that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458
   B. C. the storm burst. … At the moment of the outbreak of
   the first important naval war which she had to wage with a
   Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two
   important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk
   of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from
   Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461
   and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. …
{159}
   It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the
   treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic
   needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other
   confederates. … The second important event of the year 458
   B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of
   Athens [See LONG WALLS]. … When they were finished Athens,
   Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified
   triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse
   of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for
   the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and
   herds."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 23-24._

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

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

      _Plutarch,
      Cimon; Pericles._

ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
   Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
   Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.
   Recall of Cimon.
   His last enterprise against the Persians.
   The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.
   Five years truce with Sparta.

   "Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western
   border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the
   Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged
   throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent
   his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this
   rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at
   the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance.
   The Athenian commanders, whether following their own
   discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted
   Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to
   defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of
   Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body
   of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their
   cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called
   White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the
   Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. …
   Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a
   sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans
   to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an
   expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading
   Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have
   been unable to render him the service for which it was
   offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not
   yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored
   internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion.
   Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and
   have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the
   completion of the long walls. … But among his opponents
   there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work
   in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means
   of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the
   hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading
   army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work
   and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the
   Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the
   Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at
   Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans
   were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at
   home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust
   Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round
   Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at
   Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the
   Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to
   oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important
   advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of
   Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now
   fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable
   juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close.
   The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms.
   … The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with
   their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if
   they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless
   wanderers in Naupactus. … But these successes were
   counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens
   this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of
   Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance
   from Sparta, … raised a great army, which he placed under
   the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus.
   Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced
   the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an
   island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town
   called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length
   he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. … The
   Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the
   Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the
   enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over
   the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned
   their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all
   destroyed. … Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of
   the Persians and put to death. … Egypt … was again reduced
   under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where
   another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of
   king … maintained himself for several years against the
   power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the
   Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet
   and army which had been first employed in the war. They had
   sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their
   countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent
   disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the
   Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the
   Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped
   to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this
   calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent
   on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early
   in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a
   ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the
   superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their
   operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon
   Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having
   accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the
   public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards
   embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side
   of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of
   Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing.
{160}
   He then … laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. … This
   attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result
   of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole
   advantageous or encouraging. … It seems to have been not
   long after the events which have been just related that Cimon
   was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose
   was moved by Pericles himself;—a fact which seems to intimate
   that some change had taken place in the relations or the
   temper of parties at Athens. … The three years next
   following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454
   or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without
   affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was
   followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course
   of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near
   the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had
   solicited succour from the Athenians. … Cimon was appointed
   to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed
   to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of
   Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium.
   Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a
   wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of
   provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still
   animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with
   his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and
   Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having
   completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with
   another which they gained on shore, either over the troops
   which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force
   by which they were supported. After this they were joined by
   the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned,
   it would appear, without having achieved any material object,
   and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's
   military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace
   [sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace
   of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian
   king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy.
   Within less than a century after his death it was, if not
   commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty,
   negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus,
   the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military
   occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days
   journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or,
   according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the
   Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus
   and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the
   town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of
   Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to
   render the whole account extremely suspicious."

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

   Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;
   Professor Curtius rejects it.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 45 (volume 5)._

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

ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.
   War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.
   Victories of Myronides.
   Siege and conquest of Ægina.
   Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.
   Defeat at Tanagra.
   Overthrow of the Thebans.
   Recovered Ascendency.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.
   Hostile revolution in Bœotia.
   Defeat at Coroneia.
   Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
   The thirty years' truce.
   Territorial losses.
   Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
   Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he
   attained it.
   The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire
   under his rule.

   "The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their
   confederacy and their internal politics. … After the death
   of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by
   Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a
   kinsman of Cimon. … Hitherto the members had sat here or
   there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined
   into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a
   consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold
   its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before
   him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of
   the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies—no
   fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the
   'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.
   The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been
   established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were
   paid—a second source of income to the poor. Such measures
   were beyond anything that the private liberality of
   Cimon—splendid as it was—could achieve; and on Cimon's death
   no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his
   purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the
   war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public
   purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating
   in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded
   the surplus as the money of the allies. … Pericles took
   another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as
   the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,
   and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at
   the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a
   part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of
   Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new
   temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena—the
   celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].
   … Other public buildings were also begun about this time.
   Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was
   found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. …
   For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with
   crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply
   of practical seamen. … Thus by direct or indirect means
   Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of
   citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these
   paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public
   festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new
   splendour. … That all might attend the theatre in which the
   plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should
   receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge
   demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We
   may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. … Or
   we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for
   art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.
{161}
   Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are
   far from including the whole truth. Pericles … was, if we
   please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was
   something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with
   impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he
   cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He
   sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city
   the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and
   the opportunity of a happy and useful life. … The oligarchs
   determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. …
   They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should
   be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual
   arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in
   the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,
   but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the
   feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.
   Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen
   years Pericles was master of the city. … While Athens was
   active, organizing her confederacy and securing her
   communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed
   the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they
   awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens
   had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the
   confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,
   of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And
   meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first
   city in Greece."

      _E. Abbott,
      Pericles,
      chapters 10-11_.

   "A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens
   had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head
   of the Ionian League—the mistress of the Grecian seas; with
   Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and
   arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was
   Humbled—Ægina ruined—Megara had shrunk into her dependency
   and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very
   constitution from the hands of an Athenian general—the
   democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself
   subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had
   remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich
   pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of
   Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in
   Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms
   and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the
   opposite coast—the most powerful islands of the Grecian
   seas—contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally
   subjected to her revenge. … In all Greece, Myronides was
   perhaps the ablest general—Pericles … was undoubtedly the
   most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. …
   In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens
   acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and
   while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of
   her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of
   appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. …
   It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the
   seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies
   were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important
   cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus
   Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. …
   Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of
   Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours
   in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of
   the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a
   focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her
   dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal
   traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the
   Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the
   same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a
   third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with
   Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and
   preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even
   should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."

      _E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,
      Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
      book 4, chapter 5,
      book 5, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Lloyd,
      The Age of Pericles,_

      _Plutarch,
      Pericles_.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Art.

   "The Greeks … were industrious, commercial, sensitive to
   physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and
   controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in
   the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators
   and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to
   meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile
   aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works
   of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice
   discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a
   nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in
   prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the
   next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of
   rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all
   systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the
   foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors,
   yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and
   passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence,
   giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while
   preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what
   we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480
   B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and
   the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great
   was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that,
   only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."

      _E. E. Viollet-le-Duc,
      Discourses on Architecture,
      page 65._

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Domestic life.
   The Athenian house.

   "For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering
   Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the
   epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,
   Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose
   circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).
   But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded
   together and the population always in activity. There wagons
   were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the
   ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places
   in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy
   scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually
   entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and
   slaves were carrying messages or burdens.
{162}
   Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,
   going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of
   corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large
   numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,
   fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.
   Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they
   generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of
   considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and
   parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make
   his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news
   of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were
   current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing
   among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,
   or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,
   garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that
   second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.
   Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,
   and of certain transactions of more or less creditable
   character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism
   to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to
   his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of
   influence in the public assemblies—thanks to his liberality;
   while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons
   and to enrich the temples."

[Image]
Plan Of Athenian House.

   "We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the
   residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on
   the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow
   streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is
   surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B
   the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a.
   From this first court: in the centre of which is a small
   fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the
   passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is
   likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room,
   at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private
   altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and
   wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the
   cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The
   large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the
   gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a
   common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and
   closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the
   passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small
   garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the
   servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction
   Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to
   the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is
   sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from
   this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace
   L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above
   the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the
   Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus.
   From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about
   twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to
   protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds.
   From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending
   towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by
   olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. … In
   the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were
   arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect
   only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the
   house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In
   this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give
   an account of the commissions they have executed, or to
   receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them,
   he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at
   R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the
   gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he
   entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which
   are shut off, not being in communication with the first court
   except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation
   which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to
   domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are
   admitted into the second court; for example, if they are
   invited to a banquet,—which is held in the great hall K. The
   master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two
   members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller
   room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas
   fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great
   hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one
   of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican
   marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and
   cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate
   painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth
   plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of
   timber artistically wrought and coloured."

      _E. Viollet-le-Duc,
      The Habitations of Man in all Ages,
      chapter 17._

{163}

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.
   Contrast with the Romans.

   "It is remarkable … that the 'equality' of laws on which the
   Greek democracies prided themselves—that equality which, in
   the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and
   Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens—had little in
   common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal
   administration of civil laws among the citizens, however
   limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the
   applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class
   which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first
   excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some
   purposes slaves. … There are two special dangers to which
   law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be
   liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too
   rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more
   progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves
   with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and
   needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any
   superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was
   not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so,
   though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may
   have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of
   national character is the capacity for applying and working
   out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of
   abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or
   the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The
   Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was
   quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of
   a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular
   courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate
   knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest
   tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators
   and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his
   Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were
   constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly
   influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of
   jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which
   never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they
   stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts
   of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of
   judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of
   the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at
   the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to
   which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could
   be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked
   with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew
   up. … The other liability to which the infancy of society is
   exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the
   greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law,
   arising chiefly from its earlier association and
   identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the
   human race to those views of life and conduct which they
   entertained at the time when their usages were first
   consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two
   races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and
   grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern
   societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of
   the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as
   consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have
   been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has
   in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has
   uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the
   conclusions it could build on ancient texts without
   discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no
   reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the
   laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had
   given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."

      _H. S. Maine,
      Ancient Law,
      chapters 3-4._

   "But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one
   time the great political safeguard against state oppression
   and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become
   so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just
   as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the
   abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any
   other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been
   administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large
   bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our
   jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it
   a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of
   the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits
   of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question,
   though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge
   to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that
   too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most
   of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than
   all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and
   witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past
   decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the
   same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were
   state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly
   were kept. … There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias
   against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to
   transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them
   in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so
   falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence
   there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a
   thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of
   Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a
   certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state
   documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited
   in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in
   the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at
   seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in
   and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his
   brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find
   the most libellous charges brought against opponents on
   matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal
   evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some
   speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of
   mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the
   former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to
   tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived,
   how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or
   else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one
   another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small
   majority you came to an absurd decision.'
{164}
   'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates,
   'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for
   decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire
   after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to
   wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to
   their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you
   ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to
   hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it
   is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and
   most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act
   contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place
   here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is
   at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for
   conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get
   an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed
   once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and
   defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as
   to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will
   not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a
   single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which
   citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who
   do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same
   thing.'"

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Social Life in Greece,
      chapter 13._

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Political life.
   The democracy.

   "The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and
   yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the
   toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to
   be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The
   Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that
   self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every
   possession of the common heritage into some new and more
   brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all
   that formed its real life and its real glory, from the
   Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned
   this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or
   Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the
   contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant
   cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and
   see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of
   thousands—here at least of a truth is something which Athens
   did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian
   priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the
   common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth
   of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that
   Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own
   blood—as we think that the institutions which grew up under
   their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are
   living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of
   one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal
   right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution
   taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to
   take when it was able to run its natural course in a
   common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever
   the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an
   Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in
   its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things,
   delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals;
   but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will
   be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign
   body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to
   say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or
   chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose
   its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have
   only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with
   another of the original elements, the Council. This body too
   loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking
   power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or
   appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy
   discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more
   advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be
   exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against
   every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power
   of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly,
   Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as
   chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to
   decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is
   pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of
   a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a
   single city. It is a form of government which works up the
   faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the
   form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn
   genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its
   weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch
   so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life
   needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely
   to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her
   glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown
   of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human
   beings to a higher level than any government before or since;
   it gave freer play than any government before or since to the
   personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few
   years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian
   decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must
   set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of
   other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our
   knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one
   picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an
   Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution
   because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded
   classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that
   there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the
   Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of
   official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell
   to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês
   reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but
   because he was Periklês. … In the Ekklêsia which listened to
   Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in
   an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we
   ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials
   for calling up the political life of Athens in all its
   fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds
   of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear
   away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the
   parent state of justice and freedom.
{165}
   Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is
   shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the
   first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion
   could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught
   that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free
   vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the
   banishment or massacre of the weaker side. … It must be
   constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an
   aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were
   understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the
   Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also
   political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong
   to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either
   case, the highest authority of the State is the general
   Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be
   the whole people or only a part of it. … The slaves and
   strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek
   ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the
   sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not
   his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the
   aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in
   placing the final authority of the State in the general
   Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. … The
   people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same
   class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it
   against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men
   widely differing in character, widely differing in their
   relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of
   ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way,
   almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the
   State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of
   fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less
   than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its
   legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of
   the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the
   inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into
   being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of
   reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction
   of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth
   also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it
   affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which
   still remained the special heritage of certain sacred
   families. … In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room
   for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened
   to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful
   conservative administrators, men able to work the system which
   they find established, no form of government is so fertile.
   … But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency
   of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom
   and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Comparative Politics,
      lectures 5-6._

   "Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his
   smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public
   business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of
   the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for
   the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence
   both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on
   foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of
   Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the
   sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the
   ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so
   great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own
   boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his
   thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign
   Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he
   himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or
   Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be
   levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task
   of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty,
   and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner,
   to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of
   Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor,
   his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened
   to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the
   arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias
   to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as
   extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own
   'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own
   policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the
   bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a
   second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that
   the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. … We suspect that the
   average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above
   the average English Member of Parliament. It was this
   concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every
   citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing
   characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing
   like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world:
   the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day
   have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and
   have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The
   great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons
   which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and
   for every land and people."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian Democracy._

   "The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which
   is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common
   usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The
   word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous
   meaning. It denoted on the one hand political
   independence,—the exercise of sovereign power by the State
   and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every
   Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the
   Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like
   them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet
   or not. But the word also denoted personal and social
   liberty,—freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the
   absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance
   between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in
   this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the
   absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life
   was but little known except at Athens."

      _S. H. Butcher,
      Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
      pages 70-71._

{166}

   "To Athens … we look … for an answer to the question, What
   does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely
   democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under
   favourable circumstances, there is no form of government
   which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a
   vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a
   pure democracy. … But it does not follow that, though in
   this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of
   government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms
   of government. … Neither, on the other hand, does it follow
   from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian
   democracy—not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the
   Macedonians—that all democracies are short-lived, and must
   pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for
   the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it
   is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian
   Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as
   it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according
   to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his
   day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an
   effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might
   have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on
   that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force
   and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught
   by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under
   the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that
   democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be,
   not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong
   neighbour—for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more
   blushless way than democratic Greece—but that any loose
   aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst
   themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether
   democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of
   government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground
   against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong
   monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples
   at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much
   freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity.
   They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon
   used the German States at the commencement of the present
   century."

      _J. S. Blackie,
      What does History Teach?
      pages 28-31._

   "In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion.
   … The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy,
   which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when
   the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as
   speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No
   Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine
   Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus
   attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek
   discussions, and suggested by the experience, already
   considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The
   age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a
   wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple
   narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the
   results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his
   light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit,
   and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often
   reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads
   like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian
   Assembly."

      _W. Bagehot,
      Physics and Politics,
      pages 170-171._

ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
   New settlements of Klerouchoi.
   The founding of Amphipolis.
   Revolt and subjugation of Samos.

   "The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of
   Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The
   establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who
   retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so
   well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously
   good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in
   the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
   Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of
   settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old
   wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which
   now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had
   passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the
   attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The
   task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city
   came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to
   the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas
   and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. … Two years before the
   founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. … In
   this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs
   who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated
   the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the
   Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the
   Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the
   island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the
   oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,
   as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian
   Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather
   than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with
   Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and
   seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos
   succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed
   over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready
   for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion
   had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room
   to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was
   dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of
   whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these
   ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to
   watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off
   the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.
   With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the
   Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its
   return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians
   gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But
   no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the
   Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,
   broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days
   remained masters of the sea.
{167}
   The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after
   the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships
   from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with
   thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian
   oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by
   their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the
   revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,
   give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of
   the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made
   their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. …
   The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger
   nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied
   for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot
   war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the
   question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years
   to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition
   from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.
   … The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be
   no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed
   the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took
   credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had
   they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of
   revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the
   condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,
   she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had
   been spent in desperate warfare."

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 431.
   Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
   Its Causes.

   "In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
   Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
   in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
   between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra.
   A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States
   complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on.
   The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were
   jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE:
   B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek
   States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in
   a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in
   the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other.
   Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles
   everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the
   common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle
   between these classes all over Greece, and often within the
   same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one
   another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for
   Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was
   all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the
   oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis,
   Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong
   by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on
   we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy,
   acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost
   all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast
   towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of
   Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes,
   the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far
   stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land
   army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system
   of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Greece (History Primers),
      page 84._

   The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in
   reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which
   made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who
   says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to
   the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to
   contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems
   to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the
   Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and
   that the allies themselves should have only so much as to
   enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may
   not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of
   Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect,
   that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for
   the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider
   only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens
   are attendant on this practice; in the first place they
   receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in
   the next place, they manage the government of the allied
   states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships;
   they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those
   of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each
   state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the
   Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to
   the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the
   Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of
   justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty
   of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a
   greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house
   makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or
   slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the
   visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did
   not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the
   Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and
   captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual
   of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens,
   knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause
   according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the
   people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to
   use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the
   people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the
   allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the
   Athenian people."

      _Xenophon,
      On the Athenian Government
      (Minor Works, translated by Reverend J. S. Watson),
      page 235._

   The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the
   outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.—The
   prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of
   the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their
   connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C.
   431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary
   to take account of the consequences of the war as they
   affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had
   occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively
   provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.

{168}

ATHENS: B. C. 431.
   Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
   Siege of Athens.

   "While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and
   were still on their way, but before they entered Attica,
   Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten
   Athenian generals, … repeated [to the Athenians] his
   previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their
   property from the country into the city; they must defend
   their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip
   for service the fleet in which lay their strength. … The
   citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their
   children and wives, their household goods, and even the
   wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks
   and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent
   islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the
   Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country.
   Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any
   other Hellenic people, from very early times. … When they
   came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find
   homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their
   abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and
   shrines of heroes. … Many also established themselves in the
   turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could
   find; for the city could not contain them when they first came
   in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and
   the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the
   Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning
   their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against
   the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the
   Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at
   Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time
   in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on,
   and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans
   into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was
   in full ear, invaded Attica: … They encamped and ravaged,
   first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. … At Acharnae
   they encamped, and remained there a considerable time,
   ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus
   that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him
   in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do;
   but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The
   people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his
   previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to
   battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The
   Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions
   lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia.
   … On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to
   their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets
   were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B.
   C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their
   families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main
   cause of the war. … The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan
   exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country
   to cultivate. … About the end of the summer the entire
   Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of
   Megara. … After ravaging the greater part of the country
   they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with
   cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year
   during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."

      _Thucydides,
      History;
      translated by B. Jowett,
      book 2; sections 13-31 (volume 1)._

ATHENS: B. C. 430.
   The funeral oration of Pericles.

   During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance
   with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first
   fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public
   charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the
   celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead
   are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering
   which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are
   placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on
   hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a
   single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies
   are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The
   procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether
   citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased
   are present at the place of interment and make lamentation.
   The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot
   outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in
   war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in
   recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the
   field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man
   of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city,
   delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people
   depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was
   repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who
   were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the
   fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty
   stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard
   as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as
   follows:

      'Most of those who have spoken here before me have
      commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other
      funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such
      an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who
      have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have
      preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they
      should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as
      this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the
      reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the
      eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues
      believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is
      difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even
      moderation is apt not to give the impression of
      truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is
      likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of
      his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well
      informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own
      powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration.
      Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as
      each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well
      himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is
      aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our
      ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice,
      I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour
      to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I
      will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and
      becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a
      tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never
      been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by
      their valour they have handed down from generation to
      generation, and we have received from them a free state.
{169}
      But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our
      fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a
      struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire.
      And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most
      of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of
      improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all
      things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace
      and war. Of the military exploits by which our various
      possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we
      or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or
      Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and
      is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should
      like to point out by what principles of action we rose to
      power, and under what institutions and through what manner
      of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such
      thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this
      numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably
      listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into
      rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our
      neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we
      are called a democracy, for the administration is in the
      hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law
      secures equal justice to all alike in their private
      disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and
      when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred
      to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as
      the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man
      may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his
      condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life,
      and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one
      another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he
      likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though
      harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained
      in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades
      our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by
      respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial
      regard to those which are ordained for the protection of
      the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring
      upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the
      general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for
      our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have
      regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home
      the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we
      daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy.
      Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the
      whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of
      other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our
      military training is in many respects superior to that of
      our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and
      we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or
      learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an
      enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or
      trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the
      matter of education, whereas they from early youth are
      always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make
      them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to
      face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves,
      but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone
      into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are
      fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have
      seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have
      never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy
      divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send
      our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and
      defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had
      routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been
      vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with
      a light heart but without laborious training, and with a
      courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law,
      are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate
      the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave
      as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too
      our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we
      are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and
      we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we
      employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a
      real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace;
      the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An
      Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he
      takes care of his own household; and even those of us who
      are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics.
      We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public
      affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and
      if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a
      policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion,
      not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is
      gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a
      peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too,
      whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but
      hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be
      esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense
      both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that
      account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are
      unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by
      receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the
      firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive
      the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in
      his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's
      generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying
      a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a
      calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom
      and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that
      Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual
      Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of
      adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with
      the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and
      idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is
      verified by the position to which these qualities have
      raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone
      among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her.
      No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses
      which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject
      complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we
      shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty
      monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of
      this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises
      of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please
      for the moment, although his representation of the facts
      will not bear the light of day.
{170}
      For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a
      path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal
      memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the
      city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they
      could not bear the thought that she might be taken from
      them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on
      her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens
      because I want to show you that we are contending for a
      higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges,
      and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men
      whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been
      already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified
      them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious.
      And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that
      their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found
      equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs
      has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be
      the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate
      their final seal. For even those who come short in other
      ways may justly plead the valour with which they have
      fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil
      with the good, and have benefited the state more by their
      public services than they have injured her by their private
      actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or
      hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put
      off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a
      man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming
      that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any
      of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler
      cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be
      honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to
      hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of
      death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when
      the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer,
      rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from
      the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet
      stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their
      fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their
      fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men;
      they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire
      to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a
      less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be
      expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever
      about the advantages of a brave defence which you know
      already. But instead of listening to him I would have you
      day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens,
      until you become filled with the love of her; and when you
      are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that
      this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty
      and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict
      had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who,
      if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their
      virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their
      lives to her as the fairest offering which they could
      present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively
      made was individually repaid to them; for they received
      again each one for himself a praise which grows not old,
      and the noblest of all sepulchres—I speak not of that in
      which their remains are laid, but of that in which their
      glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every
      fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth
      is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they
      commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own
      country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an
      unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the
      hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming
      courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not
      weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has
      no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw
      away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is
      always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any
      accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man
      of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far
      more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time
      when he is full of courage and animated by the general
      hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the
      dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know
      that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes;
      and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most
      honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an
      honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so
      ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the
      term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel
      this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind
      you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And
      sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a
      man never knew, but which were a part of his life before
      they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at
      which they may hope to have other children, and they ought
      to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who
      may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones,
      but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left
      desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot
      have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children
      to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have
      passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you
      have been happy during the greater part of those days;
      remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and
      be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the
      love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some
      say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and
      useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the
      departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be
      an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however
      pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought,
      I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The
      living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is
      out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives
      is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to
      those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them
      up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more
      weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and
      not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I
      have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law,
      making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of
      deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been
      honourably interred, and it remains only that their
      children should be maintained at the public charge until
      they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as
      with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead,
      after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of
      virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are
      enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you
      have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'

   Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter,
   with the end of which ended the first year of the
   Peloponnesian War."

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      translated by B. Jowett,
      volume 1, book 2, sections 34-47._

{171}

ATHENS: B. C. 130-429.
   The Plague in the city.
   Death of Pericles.
   Capture of Potidæa.

   "As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians
   … invaded Attica, where they established themselves and
   ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when
   the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. … The
   disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia;
   thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading
   over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell
   upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus,
   and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the
   cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It
   afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality
   became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes
   which might or could have produced such a disturbance of
   nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his
   own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the
   symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may
   recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was
   myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The
   season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary
   sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease,
   it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all
   in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with
   violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of
   the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly
   suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid.
   There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the
   disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest;
   then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring
   on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given
   names; and they were very distressing. … The body externally
   was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid
   colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and
   ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. … The disorder
   which had originally settled in the head passed gradually
   through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst,
   would often seize the extremities and leave its mark,
   attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some
   escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their
   eyes. … The crowding of the people out of the country into
   the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered
   most. … The mortality among them was dreadful and they
   perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they had died, one
   upon another, while others hardly alive wallowed in the
   streets and crawled about every fountain craving for water.
   The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of
   those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was
   such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all
   law, human and divine. … The pleasure of the moment and any
   sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of
   honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man
   deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they
   learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after
   ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own
   coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And
   now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy,
   though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians
   turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and
   imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with
   peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles
   spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged
   their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general
   and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he
   was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for
   some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B.
   C. By his death the republic was given over to striving
   demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain
   and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on,
   acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was
   especially embittered in the course of the second summer by
   the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who
   were captured while on their way to solicit help from the
   Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus,
   who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still
   holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately,
   although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague.
   But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to
   starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to
   depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled
   anew, with colonists.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      translated by Jowett,
      book 2, sections 8-70._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Abbott,
      Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapters 13-15._

      _W. W. Lloyd,
      The Age of Pericles,
      chapter 64 (volume 2)._

      _L. Whibley,
      Political Parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War._

      _W. Wachsmuth,
      History Antiquities of the Greeks,
      sections 62-64 (volume 2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 429-421.
   After Pericles.
   The rise of the Demagogues.

   "When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to
   frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would
   have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have
   been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities.
   When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and
   conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no
   politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and
   foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other,
   as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot
   wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke
   bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries
   which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good
   laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great
   achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes
   which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without
   reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country
   involved in a ruinous war.".

      _E. Abbott,
      Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      pages 362-363._

{172}

   "The moral change which had … befallen the Attic community
   had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles,
   manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory
   signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of
   his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people
   had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating
   themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded
   in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the
   voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly
   citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in
   existence—no aristocracy, no official class, no board of
   experienced statesmen—nothing, in fact, to which the citizens
   might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had
   recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the
   interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had
   spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now
   put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But
   as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude
   after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the
   people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence.
   Pericles stood above the multitude. … His successors were
   obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence,
   they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak
   points in the character of the citizens, and achieved
   popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring
   to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. … Now for the
   first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens
   thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,—men of
   the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which
   had so vigorously increased at Athens. … The office of
   general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest
   men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to
   their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious
   multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their
   activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes.
   … On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking.
   Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain
   Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the
   comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the
   district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and
   mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead
   in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who
   had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. … It was not until
   after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had
   first made themselves a name by their opposition against
   Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to
   maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it
   is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that
   the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly
   manifests itself."

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

   "The characters of the military commander and the political
   leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this
   division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was
   no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to
   warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and
   successful general; but in him the military character was
   quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a
   wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the
   state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After
   Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of
   Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in
   Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character.
   Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier.
   But the old notion of combining military and political
   position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who
   proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were
   needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was
   tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced
   into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of
   Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was
   turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he
   measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal
   battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that
   the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct
   persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the
   two characters; but he left no successor. … A Demagogue then
   was simply an influential speaker of popular politics.
   Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while
   Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one
   was the same as the position of the other. The only question
   is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by
   Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Essays, 2d series,
      pages 138-140._

ATHENS: B. C. 429-427.
   Fate of Platæa.
   Phormio's Victories.
   Revolt of Lesbos.
   Siege of Mitylene.
   Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

ATHENS: B. C. 425.
   Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general.
   Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.
   Socrates as soldier and citizen.
   The trial of the Generals.

   "Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His
   father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a
   midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and
   intellectual development. There is no specific record of him
   at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429
   B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say
   is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid
   period of Athenian or Greek history. … As a boy he received the
   usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an
   education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of
   quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to
   have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is
   represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the
   choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit
   of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men
   of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of
   the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know
   thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root
   of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of
   mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He
   understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry;
   and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the
   theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or
   Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and,
   especially, with those of Anaxagoras.
{173}
   But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go
   beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. … All then
   that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life
   consists of general statements like these. During these years
   there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429
   B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa,
   an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed
   everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold,
   and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this
   siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with
   Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he
   eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the
   Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians
   were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the
   battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who
   did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and
   the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and
   foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says
   Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have
   been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the
   battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian
   forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and
   Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific
   services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates
   was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at
   Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to
   hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds
   [13. C. 423]. … The Clouds is his protest against the
   immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates
   for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of
   Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The
   grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and
   Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day
   in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian.
   Aristophanes cared little—probably he did not take the
   trouble to find out—that Socrates' whole life was spent in
   fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that
   Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a
   good centre-piece for a comedy. … The Clouds, it is needless
   to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but
   Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he
   made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life.
   They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice,
   against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten
   chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long
   'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an
   evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath
   the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the
   better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' …
   For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear
   nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which
   there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in
   the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he
   meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. … In
   406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the
   battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the
   south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian
   commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to
   save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians
   at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance
   of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and
   many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been
   left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and
   an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of
   duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered
   certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser
   Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on
   which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was
   adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide
   in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate
   resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation
   and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the
   acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders
   collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was
   illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal
   trial. … Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate,
   the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed
   of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of
   the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members
   of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for
   the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and
   ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven
   days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the
   proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it
   were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed:
   one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly
   each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates:
   it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he
   was the speaker. … On the day on which it was proposed to
   take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the
   eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as
   we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the
   accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri
   opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the
   ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats
   and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not
   put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote.
   Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry
   people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him.
   … But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings
   were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the
   generals were condemned and executed."

      _F. J. Church,
      Introduction to Trial and Death of Socrates,
      pages 9-23._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 406.

{174}

ATHENS: B. C. 421.
   End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.
   The Peace of Nicias.

   "The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just
   ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B.
   C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast
   quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side,
   but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was
   unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the
   successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was
   still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of
   Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and
   the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified.
   Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken
   the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having
   escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever
   known."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      History of Greece,
      page 341._

   "The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias …
   put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of
   states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years,
   viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol.
   lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3
   (towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this
   reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the
   Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a
   triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had
   attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to
   fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered
   upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the
   dominion of Athens in its whole extent,—notwithstanding all
   the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the
   calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves:
   the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to
   Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the
   fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain.
   Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the
   peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the
   discontent among her confederates, particularly among the
   secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and
   obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion
   of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth
   to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore
   the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had
   begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so
   dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall
   back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates.
   Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same
   year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms
   of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual
   assistance against any hostile attack."

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

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

ATHENS: B. C. 421-418.
   New combinations.
   Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy.
   Rising influence of Alcibiades.
   War in Argos and Arcadia.
   Battle of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ATHENS: B. C. 416.
   Siege and conquest of Melos.
   Massacre of the inhabitants.

      See GREECE: B. C. 416.

ATHENS: B. C. 415.
   The expedition against Syracuse.
   Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).

   A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of
   Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse.
   Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage,
   appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous.
   Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon
   Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite
   the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and
   where he hoped to be in command. … All men's minds were
   filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were
   to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and
   public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking
   about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors,
   its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be
   easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their
   sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not
   approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that
   the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the
   service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage;
   even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with
   Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the
   enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new
   subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a
   state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a
   disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He
   ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to
   gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the
   greatest danger. … One of the demagogues, however, replied
   that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he
   proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the
   generals full power to use all the resources of the city in
   preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was
   completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was
   impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of
   Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at
   hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a
   source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not
   long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the
   expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. … An
   event which took place shortly before the departure of the
   fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the
   hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated.
   … 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were
   blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The
   upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower
   part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base,
   without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of
   the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers
   throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous
   situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses
   as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at
   the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. … The
   religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be
   planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the
   companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became
   associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at
   Athens,—political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' … To
   all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes
   unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient
   expiation.
{175}
   While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent
   enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible
   man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he
   had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of
   Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism.
   The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a
   favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos,
   and we have good reason to believe in a political machination,
   seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the
   impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds.
   An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves,
   without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to
   mind that before this time some of these statues had been
   broken by young men after a night of carousal and
   intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in
   set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the
   Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the
   superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political
   anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred
   statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the
   government even less than they had respected the gods, and it
   was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed
   without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this
   men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was
   he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe
   him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the
   other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although
   proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon
   whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had
   been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to
   prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had
   intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but
   the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a
   compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done
   in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades
   found himself threatened on all sides. … Urging as a pretext
   the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they
   obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and
   that the question of his guilt or innocence should be
   postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of
   summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city,
   citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak.
   … At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and
   dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes
   were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and
   confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Greek People,
      chapter 25, section 2 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 6, section 27-28._

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Athenian Empire,
      chapter 5._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 58 (volume 7)._

ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
   Fatal end of the expedition against Syracuse.

   "Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a
   charge of impiety. … He did not go back to Athens for his
   trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from
   him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in
   Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias
   could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to
   make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might
   say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He
   now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under
   cover of settling matters at Segesta. … The Syracusans by
   this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up
   to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they
   had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists.
   … The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides
   in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also
   sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the
   people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked.
   … But the most important embassy of all was that which the
   Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took
   up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta.
   And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the
   banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he
   could against Athens. … He told the Spartans to occupy a
   fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a
   great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous
   help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan
   commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in
   those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the
   Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of
   Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick
   and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. … And now at
   last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do
   something. … The Athenians … occupied all that part of the
   hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined
   by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year,
   the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the
   Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry
   it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be
   hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a
   cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall
   from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more
   than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill,
   and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower
   ground by the Great Harbour. … The Syracusans were defeated,
   as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they
   lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed
   away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian
   fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on
   the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained
   in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and
   for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by
   success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he
   neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that
   Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the
   Syracusans sank. … It was at this darkest moment of all that
   deliverance came. … A Corinthian ship, under its captain
   Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news
   that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the
   help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was
   actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same
   end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk
   of surrender. … And one day the Athenian camp was startled
   by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a
   truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily
   with bag and baggage.
{176}
   Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that
   the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it
   was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the
   Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance
   was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos
   and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had
   come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as
   a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he
   offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then
   entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his
   scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western
   end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall
   running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from
   ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on
   building, and some small actions took place. … Another
   winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending
   of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops.
   … Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people.
   … This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance
   had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they
   were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To
   send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear
   nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether
   anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and
   whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the
   assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be
   sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and
   Eurymedon. … Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by
   help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object
   now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new
   force came. … It had been just when the Syracusans were most
   downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the
   Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits
   were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of
   Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first,
   seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of
   light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with
   all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica;
   they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought
   Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to
   Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as
   Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done
   but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the
   fleet home again. … The attack was at first successful, and
   the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the
   Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the
   assailants back. Utter confusion followed. … The last chance
   was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias
   would stay on. … When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh
   help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from
   Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just
   at that moment the moon was eclipsed. … Nikias consulted his
   soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine
   days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was
   the destruction of the besieging army. … It was felt on both
   sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the
   Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the
   Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now
   blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across
   it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that
   the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the
   shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the
   chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like
   a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. … The last fight
   now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and
   their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small
   a space. … The fight was long and confused; at last the
   Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the
   invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun
   to take vengeance on her enemies. … The Athenians waited one
   day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe
   place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The
   sick had to be left behind. … On the sixth day, after
   frightful toil, they determined to change their course. …
   They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first.
   Much better order was kept in the front division and by the
   time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles
   behind. … In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the
   frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were
   prisoners. … The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the
   night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and
   driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the
   river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There
   was the end. … The Athenians were so maddened by thirst
   that, though men were falling under darts and the water was
   getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but
   drinking. … No further terms were made; most of the horsemen
   contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners.
   Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private
   slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led
   prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the
   stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man
   daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died;
   many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were
   after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The
   generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished
   to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts
   against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to
   Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so
   it was done. … So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the
   greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that
   which came to the most utter failure."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Story of Sicily,
      pages 117-137._

      ALSO IN:
      _Thucydides,
      History;
      translated by B. Jowett,
      books 6-7 (volume 1)._

      See, also, SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{177}

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
   Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition.
   Spartan alliance with the Persians.
   Plotting of Alcibiades.
   The Decelian War.

   "At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the
   most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition
   produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than
   that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own
   days, after the battle of Jena. … 'At least 40,000 citizens,
   allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may
   easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom
   belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of
   the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the
   plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property
   may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The
   consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to
   be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and
   whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of
   this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which
   Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the
   same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands
   of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt.
   The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself,
   and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was
   impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong
   escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan
   was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no
   safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the
   Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their
   city; and this state of things had already been going on for
   the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the
   Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after
   the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among
   them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more
   might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that,
   although there was no such man, and although the leading men
   were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful
   arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case.
   … The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was,
   that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among
   the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the
   Spartans the very element which before they had been
   altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he
   urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a
   fleet to Ionia. … Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after
   another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded
   treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of
   Persia—Darius was then king—and in his own name as satrap;
   and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks.
   … The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable
   hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the
   Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid
   of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that
   the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but
   the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their
   maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter
   were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the
   Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised
   the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies,
   as pay for the army. … In return for this, they renounced,
   in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the
   Greek cities in Asia."

      _E. C. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      volume 2, lectures 53 and 54._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

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

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
   Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens.
   Revolution of Samos.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.-
   The Probuli.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.
   Conspiracy against the Constitution.
   The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.

   Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became
   known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a
   number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a
   deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and
   empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation
   for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were
   unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the
   prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in
   its results; various secret associations had sprung up and
   conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress
   and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the
   infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly
   here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states,
   determined the more respectable members of the community to
   guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by
   the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful
   malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that
   populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled
   all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there
   is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his
   partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase
   the perplexity and distress of his native city from without,
   in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety
   and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his
   plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile,
   Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the
   Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the
   Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to
   obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens
   were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles;
   and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would
   be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were
   removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the
   commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the
   establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any
   attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely
   with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and
   Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with
   Alcibiades. … Their plan was that the latter should
   reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which
   he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the
   assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap
   the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to
   manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight
   undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred
   and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but
   most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet,
   whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the
   imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the
   prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some
   weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of
   returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades.
   Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and
   perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not
   persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with
   their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above
   named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten
   plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the
   rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling
   the constitution."

      _W. Wachsmuth,
      History Antiquities of the Greeks,
      volume 2, pages 252-255._

{178}

   The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to
   represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of
   government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of
   which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those
   five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of
   that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators
   thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from
   their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of
   Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when
   news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos,
   where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed,
   the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it—repudiated it
   altogether—and organized themselves as an independent state.
   The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his
   influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then
   an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was
   recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a
   reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had
   given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in
   June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their
   sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme
   sovereignty of the state restored to the people—not, however,
   to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of
   reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain
   amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had
   never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired
   end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of
   similar institutions in other states and to constitute all
   Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military
   equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the
   rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the
   name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate
   designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last
   few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the
   abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed,
   not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental
   principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were
   bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the
   whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and,
   according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution
   which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of
   Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same
   time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish
   the union between army and city."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5._

   Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan
   camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 8, section 48-97._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

      ALSO IN:
      _V. Duruy,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

ATHENS: B. C. 411-407.
   Victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His triumphal return.
   His appointment to command.
   His second deposition and exile.

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ATHENS: B. C. 406.
   The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae.
   Condemnation and execution of the Generals.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406;
      and above: B. C. 424-406.

ATHENS: B. C. 405.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Decisive defeat at Aigospotamoi.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ATHENS: B. C. 404.
   The Surrender to Lysander.

   After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which
   destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the
   city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off
   supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They
   waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in
   upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of
   their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely
   from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the
   cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan
   harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs
   established uniformly in power. About November he reached the
   Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus,
   while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the
   Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica
   and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no
   longer any power except the power to endure, and that they
   exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the
   demand that their Long Walls—the walls which protected the
   connection of the city with its harbors—should be thrown
   down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens
   and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There
   was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest
   and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace.
   The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the
   acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day
   of the Attic month Munychion,—about the middle or end of
   March,—that this victorious commander sailed into the
   Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the
   surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the
   Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles,
   several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and
   assisting him with their counsel."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 65 (volume 8)._

   The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were
   demolished, and then followed the organization of an
   oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of
   terror under "The Thirty."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Xenophon,
      Hellenics,
      book 2, chapter 2._

      _Plutarch,
      Lysander._

{179}

ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
   The tyranny of the Thirty.
   The Year of Anarchy.

   In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender
   of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian
   War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had
   been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan
   friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the
   city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was
   accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence
   of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet
   in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this
   assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated
   sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing
   the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty
   persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he
   declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these
   speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts
   of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men
   outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to
   appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both
   parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of
   Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke
   to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their
   absolute master. … By such means the motion of Dracontidas
   was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and
   cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All
   better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote.
   Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and
   his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of
   Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the
   anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the
   confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the
   assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board
   of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government
   authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the
   members of the new government had formerly been among the Four
   Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of
   action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of
   Athens for eight months, and executed their will without
   conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in
   the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a
   picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms
   while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large
   numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had
   escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge,
   chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now
   sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized
   themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to
   expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first
   seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in
   numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few
   weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The
   Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent
   height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered
   their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the
   usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took
   refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the
   government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while
   Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their
   headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of
   Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into
   Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating;
   but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened,
   assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts
   to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The
   result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the
   Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The
   Thirty were put to death,—treacherously, it was said,—but an
   amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which
   they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official
   annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates
   were not recognized.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5,
      and book 5, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Xenophon,
      Hellenics,
      book 2, chapters 3-4._

      _C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies.
      chapters 2-3._

ATHENS: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   Alliance with Persia.
   The Corinthian War.
   Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls.
   Athenian independence restored.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-371.
   Brief alliance with Thebes against Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
   The New Confederacy and the Social War.

   Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to
   appear of the decline of Spartan power—during the year of the
   archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made
   memorable at Athens by various movements of political
   regeneration,—the organization of a new Confederacy was
   undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a
   century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but
   only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat
   of the federal council. … Callistratus was in a sense the
   Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to
   bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in
   place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments
   necessary to the existence of the confederation were
   introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' …
   Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and
   Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at
   once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even
   such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in
   confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 1_.

   This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and
   influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years.
   But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy,
   namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves
   in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an
   inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted
   three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the
   secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their
   independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power,
   just at the time when she was called upon to resist the
   encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 42._

ATHENS: B. C. 370-362.
   Alliance with Sparta against Thebes.
   Battle of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

{180}

ATHENS: B. C. 359-338.
   The collision with Philip of Macedon.
   The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.

   "A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power
   under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to
   notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of
   the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the
   efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time
   of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just
   practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was
   now a kind of balance of power between the three leading
   States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was
   greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could
   easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus
   when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a
   man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who,
   like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the
   sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found
   her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of
   Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she
   was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy,
   Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but
   she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this
   period seem to represent the currents of Greek political
   thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes
   represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a
   union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the
   common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to
   have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that
   the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no
   longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general
   Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an
   arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who
   might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading
   States. … The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall
   into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B.
   C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens
   alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece
   as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind
   was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen
   her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he
   perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. … After 346
   his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic.
   But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the
   Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real
   and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His
   strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies
   too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the
   Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What
   was needed was a real federal union between the leading
   States, with a strong central controlling force; and
   Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could
   never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city.
   Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most
   heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is
   the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age
   and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on
   Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one
   who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece.
   He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and
   to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions
   of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more
   prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. … Phocion was the
   somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of
   thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some
   time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the
   rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the
   history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and
   with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as
   well as to a particular city. … Athens was far more open to
   criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical
   dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of
   the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong
   government of reason. … Aristotle took the facts of city
   life as they were and showed how they might be made the most
   of. … To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and
   war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as
   natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though
   he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the
   conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform,
   even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. …
   Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a
   manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a
   negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism,
   like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most
   momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an
   alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with
   Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence.
   Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources
   were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be
   found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid
   courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could
   not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion
   despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The
   faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they
   also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting
   on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated
   either Athens, Greece, or Philip. … A policy of resistance
   found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of
   inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would
   still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy,
   that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the
   presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second
   policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for
   Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip
   assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
      chapter 10._

      See, also, GREECE: 357-336.

ATHENS: B. C. 340.
   Alliance with Byzantium against Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

{181}

ATHENS: B. C. 336-322.
   End of the Struggle with the Macedonians.
   Fall of Democracy.
   Death of Demosthenes.
   Athenian decline.

   "An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things.
   Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as
   yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately
   Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but
   Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible
   vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league;
   Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters,
   are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that
   time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king.
   His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for
   Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta
   attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is
   overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most
   celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the
   most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to
   depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more
   embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party;
   and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall.
   When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came
   with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether
   he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused
   of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent.
   This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and
   as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence
   he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for
   his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He
   resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence
   he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica.
   Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the
   clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The
   moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded
   every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed
   through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number
   and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against
   Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed
   his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a
   day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to
   bring back the advocate of liberty. … It was a momentary
   glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to
   conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them
   the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends
   were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of
   Demades were condemned to die. … Demosthenes had escaped to
   the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge
   in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias,
   the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself
   under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write
   something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained
   in it."

      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      Reflections on the Politics of Ancient Greece,
      translated by G. Bancroft,
      pages 278-280._

      See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of
      Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens,
      GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

   "With the decline of political independence, … the mental
   powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit
   together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the
   habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part,
   gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and
   their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too
   much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the
   times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of
   relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things.
   What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy
   would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were
   studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of
   the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. … Stoic
   apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic
   imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the
   political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines,
   too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same
   political helplessness produced the sinking of national
   distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the
   separation of morals from politics which characterise the
   philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers
   between nations, together with national independence, had been
   swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united
   in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into
   close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach
   that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens
   of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to
   his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social
   ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths
   which had been already realised in part, and which were in
   part corollaries from the existing state of society."

      _E. Zeller,
      The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,
      pages 16-18_.

   "What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the
   age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his
   successors—they lasted barely two generations—printed in a
   few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens.
   There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at
   Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people,
   idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their
   earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental
   reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life,
   and regarded the complications of a love affair as more
   interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and
   loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our
   day who spend all their time reading novels from the
   libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in
   twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were
   surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and
   interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to
   exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great
   object—liberty—to give them a keen pursuit in life. The
   relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were
   bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want
   of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class
   was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of
   these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled
   men, established those relations which brought estragements,
   if not ruin, into the home life of the day."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Greek Life and Thought,
      pages 123-124_.

{182}

   "The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the
   accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must
   have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except
   by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain.
   I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed
   upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder.
   The price of even necessary and simple things must have often
   risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home
   large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies
   made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in
   the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which
   they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the
   appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery,
   but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have
   profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also
   the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have
   copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental
   stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example
   of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not
   affect those in contact with them. These influences were not
   only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show
   off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old
   townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I
   imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were
   the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and
   mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which
   preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private
   houses, and not temples and public buildings only—a change
   beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in
   like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern
   world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was
   modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from
   shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of
   bronze—a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still
   admired for its very antiquity."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Greek Life and Thought,
      pages 105-106._

   "The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the
   question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops
   with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens
   before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the
   campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of
   the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the
   supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down
   to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the
   constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent
   views we regard that of the German historian as the most
   correct. … The historic sense of Grote did not exclude
   prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by
   political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter,
   after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate
   Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he
   throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and
   humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no
   longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will
   have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy
   was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria,
   when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul,
   and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his
   baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have
   stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to
   the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else
   persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek
   power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt
   his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph
   abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of
   Hellas. … The truth is, that the history of Greece consists
   of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other.
   The first recounts the stories of the Persian and
   Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes
   and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which
   it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the
   Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with
   their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily,
   Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities
   care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one
   another. Their political institutions, their religious
   ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language,
   commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are
   the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek
   history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to
   us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling
   kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind
   in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized
   life over the known world. In the first period of her history
   Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the
   world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient
   expression, and call the history of independent Greece the
   history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of
   Hellenism. … The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the
   cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes,
   were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of
   the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their
   councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the
   Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position
   quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek
   cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal
   terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of
   the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose
   history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece,
   and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of
   any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. … On the
   field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were
   wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a
   succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from
   obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of
   Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian
   garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief
   cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the
   recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian
   Greeks. … In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented
   itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians
   languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every
   day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of
   life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the
   background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the
   West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood
   the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and
   showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer
   faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league
   somewhat on the plan of the Achaean.
{183}
   But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians,
   whose union was of a different character. It was the first
   time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in
   order to prey upon its neighbours. … In the course of the
   Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the
   Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and
   philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity
   than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still
   more it resulted from growing materialism among the people,
   who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs,
   and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in
   life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the
   religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its
   nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national,
   almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians
   suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East,
   and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an
   extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions
   ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the
   world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and
   natives. … Into Greece proper, in return for her population
   which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities.
   Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many
   votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made
   more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed
   by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the
   days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places
   and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old
   and strange. On the coins of the previous period the
   representations of deities had been always the best that the
   die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest
   contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them
   strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling
   early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos.
   … In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left
   vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions
   of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics
   and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all
   educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt
   our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the
   Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat
   coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy
   was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the
   ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by
   their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we
   have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can
   have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks.
   Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held
   to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the
   importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the
   Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more
   modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is
   less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks
   of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects
   the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable
   similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the
   power over material nature, arising alike from the greater
   accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid
   development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces
   of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts
   upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak,
   centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most
   conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and
   superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In
   both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a
   distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and
   family life, and to make the individual rather than the family
   or the city the unit of social life. And in the family
   relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of
   morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods
   similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 15._

ATHENS: B. C. 317-316.
   Siege by Polysperchon.
   Democracy restored.
   Execution of Phocion.
   Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

ATHENS: B.C. 307-197.
   Under Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Antigonids.

      See GREECE: B. C.307-197.

ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
   Twenty years of Independence.
   Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.

   When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C.
   288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose
   against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and
   the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated
   to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid
   siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so
   far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to
   assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired.
   The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the
   Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession,
   undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed
   after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period,
   B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having
   regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens,
   and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and
   Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the
   Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions,
   was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession
   of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a
   master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes
   called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic
   Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence
   of his city.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 61._

ATHENS: B. C. 229.
   Liberation by the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ATHENS: B. C. 200.
   Vandalism of the second Macedonian Philip.

   In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an
   attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in
   the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the
   Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He
   destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art,
   all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs.
   The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples,
   schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not
   even the sepulchres were spared."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 64._

{184}

ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.
   Under Roman rule.

   "Athens … affords the disheartening picture of a
   commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as
   well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found
   itself in a flourishing condition. … No city of antiquity
   elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica,
   of about 700 square miles. … But even beyond Attica they
   retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic
   War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in
   which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of
   Cæsar;—he asked them only how often they would still ruin
   themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their
   ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the
   territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but
   also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of
   their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the
   lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos
   in the Aegean. … Of the further grants, which they had the
   skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against
   whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and
   Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller
   islands of the Thracian Sea. … Hadrian, moreover, gave to
   them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the
   Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them
   no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions
   was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the
   Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the
   expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege,
   hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it
   were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful
   institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed
   since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the
   capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the
   Athenians from his purse. … Yet the community was in
   constant distress."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 7._

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

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.

ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.
   Siege and capture by Sulla.
   Massacre of citizens.
   Pillage and depopulation.
   Lasting injuries.

   The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage
   war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor
   among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the
   fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army.
   Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek
   revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing
   from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself
   tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by
   the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then
   Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the
   principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by
   blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such
   weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed
   and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city
   suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus
   was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven
   the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that
   they evacuated in no long time.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 17._

   "Athens was … taken by assault. … The majority of the
   citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to
   become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private
   movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed
   some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to
   the flames. … The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly
   destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's
   campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and
   depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of
   property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens
   from that time lost its commercial as well as its political
   importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost
   extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous
   mass of settlers, received the right of
   citizenship."

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

ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?).
   The Visit of St. Paul.
   Planting of Christianity.

   "When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of
   God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither
   likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then
   immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to
   the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they
   that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and
   receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they
   should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while
   Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within
   him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in
   the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in
   the market place every day with them that met with him. And
   certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers
   encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say?
   other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
   because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took
   hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May
   we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
   For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would
   know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians
   and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing
   else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul
   stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of
   Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat
   superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects
   of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription,
   'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance,
   this set I forth unto you. … Now when they heard of the
   resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We
   will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out
   from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and
   believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a
   woman named Damaris, and others with them."

      _Acts of the Apostles,
      Revised Version,
      chapter 17_.

{185}

   "Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting
   of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great
   Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an
   assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars'
   Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens
   of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and
   grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided
   he had received some educational impressions beyond the
   fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that
   wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate
   prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn
   indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her
   philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant
   afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments
   flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his
   imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from
   Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as
   the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human
   refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of
   admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most
   brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and
   position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time
   within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of
   a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but
   was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of
   this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a
   religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but
   on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem
   insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was,
   this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle,
   capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty,
   yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the
   truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to
   the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen,
   yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with
   everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding
   all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of
   complacent euphemism—where could a more uncongenial soil be
   found for the seed of the Gospel? … To an Athenian the Jew
   was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor
   even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute
   indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic
   philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism
   alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That
   Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would
   be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of
   meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether
   uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds
   were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the
   Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo,
   witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even
   into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the
   quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and
   still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And
   just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained
   its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens,
   more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a
   faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than
   a century we find this faith so well established there as to
   yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person
   of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of
   its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian
   Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period
   before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that
   one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection
   to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality,
   will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over
   every relic of the Christianity of Athens."

      _C. T. Cruttwell,
      A Literary History of Early Christianity,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson,
      Life and Letters of St. Paul,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      _F. C. Baur,
      Paul,
      part 1, chapter 7 (volume 1)_.

   On the inscription,

      See
      _E. de Pressensé,
      The Early Years of Christianity: The Apostolic Era,
      book 2, chapter 1._

ATHENS: A. D. 125-134.
   The works of Hadrian.

   The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the
   venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or
   resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between
   A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the
   city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and
   supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been
   reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of
   Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called
   "Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new
   temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the
   works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast
   national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated
   back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his
   hand to without finishing.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 66._

ATHENS: A. D. 267.
   Capture of, by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ATHENS: A. D. 395.
   Surrender to Alaric and the Goths.

   When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D.
   395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the
   city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of
   Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious
   general, is … perfectly established. The public buildings
   and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton
   destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that
   Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city
   and its inhabitants."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_.

      See, also, GOTHS: A. D. 395, ALARIC'S INVASION OF GREECE.

ATHENS: A. D. 529.
   Suppression of the Schools by Justinian.

   "The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their
   superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of
   Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed
   a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient
   art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the
   business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians
   were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their
   taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at
   least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In
   the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the
   Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the
   Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated
   with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured
   in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and
   pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to
   the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders
   still lived in those venerable seats. …
{186}
   The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most
   virtuous of the Roman princes. … Some vestige of royal
   bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. …
   The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic
   succession, continued … to the edict of Justinian [A. D.
   529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of
   Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few
   remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 40.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ATHENS: A. D. 1205.
   The founding of the Latin Dukedom.

   "The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of
   Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of
   Constantinople, A. D. 1204—see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
   1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of
   Romania. … The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and
   Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the
   isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of
   Athens can alone be traced in any detail. … Otho de la
   Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself
   during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the
   army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of
   Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his
   share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that
   the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his
   portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of
   Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that
   Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his
   immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania.
   … Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were
   severe sufferers by the transference of the government into
   the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace
   and security. … The social civilization of the inhabitants,
   and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the
   luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the
   condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now
   inferior. … The city was large and wealthy, the country
   thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be
   traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites.
   … The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of
   the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of
   the West where chivalry flourished."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course.
      lecture 5._

ATHENS: A. D. 1311-1456.
   Under the Catalans and the Florentines.

      See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

ATHENS: A. D. 1456.
   The Turks in possession.

   Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after
   the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D.
   1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of
   the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of
   the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a
   young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her
   talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made
   regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said
   to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her
   hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco,
   stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople
   to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of
   all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the
   affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of
   Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to
   take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to
   confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara."
   This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his
   way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by
   the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the
   complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the
   legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara
   under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the
   duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him
   for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it,
   and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent
   principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as
   he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than
   Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What
   gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple
   of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of
   Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the
   genius of the Greeks.'"

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 13, sections 10-12._

ATHENS: A. D. 1466.
   Capture and plundering by the Venetians.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ATHENS: A. D. 1687.
   Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians.
   Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829.
   The Greek revolution and war of independence.
   Capture by the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------ATHENS: End--------------

ATHERTON GAG, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

ATHLONE, Siege of (A. D. 1691).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ATHRAVAS.

      See MAGIANS.

ATIMIA.
   The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the
   loss of civic rights.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

ATIMUCA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUCUA.

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
   Sherman's advance to the city.
   Its siege and capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September).
   Exclusive military occupation of the city.
   Removal of inhabitants.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (November).
   Destruction of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

----------ATLANTA: End----------

ATLANTIC OCEAN:
   The name.

   The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single
   passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental
   way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one
   well known in his day."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 7, section 1, note._

   For a sketch of the history of the modern use of the name,

      See PACIFIC OCEAN.

{187}

ATREBATES, The.
   This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which
   occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also,
   by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a
   region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was
   probably a colony from the former.

      See BELGÆ;
      also BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATROPATENE.
MEDIA ATROPATENE.

   "Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of
   Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek
   Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier.
   'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected
   by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old
   fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the
   Seleucids."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 4._

   Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh,
   together with the country intervening between that basin and
   the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern
   corner of the Caspian."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

   Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who
   had declared himself king after Alexander's death."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 13._

ATSINAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

ATTABEGS.

      See ATABEGS.

ATTACAPAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATTACAPAN FAMILY.

ATTAMAN, or HETMAN.

      See COSSACKS.

ATTECOTTI, The.

      See OTADENI;
      also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATTIC SALT.

   Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks,
   "which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was
   seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in
   the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an
   article of trade."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

ATTIC TALENT.

      See TALENT.

ATTIC WAR, The.

      See TEN YEARS' WAR.

ATTICA.

   "It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by
   trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern
   Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from
   north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated
   the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason
   Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of
   Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an
   uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in
   their origin to the land. … On the other hand Attica was
   perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the
   sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of
   coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of
   the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible;
   while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite
   the mariner to land. The first landings by which the
   monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were
   interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated
   the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar
   on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor
   came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced
   the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed
   by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The
   population became mixed. … This first epoch of the national
   history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It
   forms the transition from the life of rural districts and
   villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with
   twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king,
   who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every
   twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall
   and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common
   national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve
   towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would
   have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable
   advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of
   the Cephisus. … Into the centre of the entire plain advances
   from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among
   them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the
   exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all
   sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad
   level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries
   of the national gods and the habitations of the national
   rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock
   in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the
   national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the
   twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named
   after the national king Cecrops. … So far from being
   sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy
   means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a
   sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted
   to the cultivation of barley; everywhere … labour and a
   regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not
   unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered
   were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the
   mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus;
   and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the
   beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain
   nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most
   excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was
   to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture.
   The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and
   finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough
   to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and
   transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive
   of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened
   the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and
   animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of
   the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar
   history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were
   agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself
   overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she
   admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller
   groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an
   invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of
   a violent revolution. … The immigrants who domesticated
   themselves in Attica were … chiefly families of superior
   eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of
   population, but also in materials of culture of every
   description."

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

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Lockhart,
      Attica and Athens._

      See also, ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

{188}

ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.

      See HUNS.

ATTIOUANDARONK, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS. &c.

ATTYADÆ, The.

   The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung
   from Attys, son of the god Manes.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17._

AUBAINE, The right of.

   "A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the
   property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being
   naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of
   Louis XIV.

      _J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy in Europe,
      page 285._

AUCH:
   Origin of the name.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUCKLAND, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

AUDENARDE.

      See OUDINARDE.

AUDIENCIAS.

   "For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South
   America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial
   government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time
   this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru
   residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient
   administration from such a centre … at once became apparent.
   Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore,
   established in the distant provinces, and their presidents,
   sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of
   the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia
   of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile
   was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was
   established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president
   of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general.
   The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as
   captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a
   captain-general."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Colonial History of South America.
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, page 295)._

AUERSTADT, Battle of.

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

AUGEREAU, Marshal, Campaigns of.

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

AUGHRIM, OR AGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AUGSBURG: Origin.

      See AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 955.
   Great defeat of the Hungarians.

      See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530.
   Sitting of the Diet.
   Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1555.
   The Religious Peace concluded.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1646.
   Unsuccessful siege by Swedes and French.

      See GERMANY; A. D. 1646-1648.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1686-1697.
   The League and the War of the League.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1703.
   Taken by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.

   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1806.
   Loss of municipal freedom.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------AUGSBURG: End----------

AUGURS.
PONTIFICES.
FETIALES.

   "There was … enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome.
   Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the
   god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer
   addressed himself directly to the divinity; … no
   intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure
   this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter
   to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of
   speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with
   it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to
   ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and
   even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was
   natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should
   regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their
   advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men
   specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national
   Italian institution, which had a far more important influence
   on political development than the individual priests or
   priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously,
   confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged
   with the worship of a specific divinity. … Under the Roman
   constitution and that of the Latin communities in general
   there were originally but two such colleges: that of the
   augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled
   in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of
   birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and
   reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge
   builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function,
   as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the
   building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They
   were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of
   measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the
   duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming
   to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of
   festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every
   judicial act took place on the right day. … Thus they
   acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after
   the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman
   worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president
   of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] … They
   themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the
   science of things divine and human.' … By the side of these
   two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in
   spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the
   twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation)
   destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the
   remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring
   communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged
   infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand
   satisfaction and declare war."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 12._

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

      See, also, AUSPICES, and FETIALES.

{189}

AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.

      See TUÈVES, ORIGIN OF.

AUGUSTA VEROMANDUORUM.
   Modern St. Quentin.

      See BELGÆ.

AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

   "Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may
   be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest
   of Rhætia by Drusus. … The Itineraries represent it as the
   centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 36, note._

AUGUSTODUNUM.

   The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to
   Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.

AUGUSTONEMETUM.

      See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

AUGUSTUS.
AUGUSTA:
   The Title.

   "Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of
   the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had
   abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the
   acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree.
   The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were
   peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully
   aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of
   honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which
   the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the
   subtler policy of creating another for himself, which
   borrowing its original splendour from his own character,
   should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. … The epithet
   Augustus … had never been borne by any man before. … But
   the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to
   things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites
   of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the
   word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the
   divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and
   authority of Jove himself. … The illustrious title was
   bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of
   the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by
   the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 30._

   "When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now
   left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of
   distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title,
   decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an
   epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect
   and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. …
   This being an honorary appellation … it would, as a matter
   of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his
   immediate descendants. … Claudius, although he could not be
   regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his
   accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed
   by all succeeding rulers … who communicated the title of
   Augusta to their consorts."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

AULA REGIA, The.

      See CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

AULDEARN, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

AULERCI, The.

   The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which
   occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the
   Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes—the
   Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2._

AULIC COUNCIL, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUMALE, Battle of (1592).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

AUNEAU, Battle of (1587).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

AURANGZEB, Moghul Emperor, or Padischah of India, A. D. 1658-1707.

AURAY, Battle of (1365).

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

AURELIAN, Roman Emperor. A. D.270-275.

AURELIAN ROAD, The.

   One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome
   to Pisa and Luna.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 11._

AURELIO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 768-774.

AURUNCANS, The.

      See AUSONIANS;
      also OSCANS.

AUSCI, The.

      See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUSGLEICH, The.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUSONIANS, OR AURUNCANS, The.

   A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower
   valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been
   exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 10._

      See, also, OSCANS.

AUSPICES, Taking the.

   "The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never
   entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public
   or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to
   ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the
   undertaking. … This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;'
   and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was
   abandoned or deferred. … No meeting of the Comitia Curiata
   nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the
   auspices had been previously taken. … As far as public
   proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among
   the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty
   devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. … In an army
   this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and
   hence all achievements were said to be performed under his
   auspices, even although he were not present. … The objects
   observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of
   animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave
   spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications
   by their flight … others by their notes or cries … while a
   third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages.
   When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food
   was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported
   themselves was closely watched. … The manner of taking the
   auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:—The
   magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose
   immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been
   summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. … With his
   aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which
   the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining
   staff ('lituus') of the augur. … This operation was
   performed with the greatest care. … In making the necessary
   observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur,
   who reported to him the result."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 13._

      See, also, AUGUR.

{190}

AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

   "About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made
   to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy,
   and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in
   spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault,
   already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful
   spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic
   privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order,
   sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter
   and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other
   churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. …
   Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at
   canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a
   new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons
   Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and
   unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully
   distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but
   all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the
   observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of
   the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom
   they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between
   the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic
   confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the
   monastic side. … The Austin canons, as they were commonly
   called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 3._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
   Discovery and early exploration.
   The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.

   "Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the
   first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea
   of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would
   seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves
   and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve
   their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long
   had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that
   island-continent, which until recent years was best known by
   her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted
   for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence
   which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached
   the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch
   yacht Duyphen, or Dove,—the earliest vessel whose name has
   been handed down,—sighted, about March, 1606, what is
   believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in
   a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in
   1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was
   made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six
   maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and
   1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called
   Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."

      _F. P. Labilliere,
      Early History of the Colony of Victoria,
      chapter 1._

   In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru,
   across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far
   that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place
   'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land
   of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really
   a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and
   more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. … In
   after years, the name he had invented was divided into two
   parts; the island he had really discovered being called
   Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had
   discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was
   shortened by another discoverer—Flinders—to the present term
   Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the
   small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next
   twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality.
   "In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed
   along the southern coast, and its name was given to the
   southwest cape of Australia. … In 1628 General Carpenter
   sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has
   taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all
   the northern and western, together with part of the southern
   shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had
   some idea of colonizing this continent. … During the next
   fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in
   1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions
   in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman,
   with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman
   discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but
   which has since been named in his own honor—Tasmania. "This
   he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if
   it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia."
   In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the
   command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he
   explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of
   Australia; but the description which he gave of the country
   did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We
   hear of no further explorations in this part of the world
   until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought
   of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the
   year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly
   brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that
   the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769,
   persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to
   the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on
   this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the
   distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the
   'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments
   embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the
   renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes
   of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite,
   and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the
   shores of New Zealand and Australia.
{191}
   Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern
   coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles
   inland, and two of his scientific friends—Sir Joseph Banks
   and Dr. Solander—made splendid collections of botanical
   specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany
   Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks
   and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook … took
   possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty,
   giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the
   resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales.
   Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed
   a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine
   it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour
   of his friend Sir George Jackson. … The reports brought home
   by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in
   those days with regard to Australia. … It so happened that,
   shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal
   with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population.
   In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the
   English then found they could no longer send their convicts
   over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time
   the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became
   necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just
   as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called
   attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose,
   both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance.
   Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to
   Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and
   in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of
   eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January,
   1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a
   proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of
   the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for
   something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to
   examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port
   Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water,
   with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent
   prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the
   most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him
   far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It
   seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there
   with lovely islets. … Captain Phillip selected, as the place
   most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in
   honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was
   so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two
   of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the
   founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual
   starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the
   population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons.
   Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk
   Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had
   resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor
   Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought
   with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon,
   George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They
   were young men of the most admirable character. … Within a
   month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about
   eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.'
   Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this
   small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully
   charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an
   open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the
   region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear
   his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or
   Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and
   Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop,
   sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's
   Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared.
   Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to
   make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so.
   Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on
   the way by the French and held in captivity for six years,
   while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years
   after being released.

      _A. and G. Sutherland,
      History of Australia,
      chapter 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden,
      History of Australia,
      chapter 1-3 (volume 1)._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
   Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales.
   Introduction of sheep-farming.
   The founding of Victoria and South Australia.

   "For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to
   New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously
   called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor
   creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only
   civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted
   clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the
   first batch of convicts. … Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered
   on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement
   for twelve years. His administration was the first turning
   point in its history. … Macquarie saw that the best and
   cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen
   as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked
   on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the
   government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he
   could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage
   the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one
   day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue
   the government farms, and to employ the convicts in
   road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When
   he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the
   town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was
   stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains,
   which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in
   1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on
   which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie
   surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains
   above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling
   them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only
   was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures
   of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made,
   connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers
   were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains.
{192}
   Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river,
   and the settlement at Newcastle formed. … When it became
   known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free
   colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly
   changing their character, English and Scotch people soon
   bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie
   returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as
   populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and
   many years in advance of what it might have been under a less
   able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine
   pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the
   colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long
   before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that
   the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world.
   The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more
   abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a
   lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several
   years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon
   the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the
   colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and
   procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of
   George III. … The Privy Council listened to his wool
   projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had
   found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the
   great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was
   well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without
   waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense
   tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called
   squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the
   government and thus got their runs, as they called the great
   districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain
   extent secured to them. … Hundreds upon hundreds of square
   miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and
   stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. … It was in
   the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that
   the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in
   England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital
   with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became
   enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as
   depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that
   the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but
   in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the
   question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir
   Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England;
   and English working men now turned their attention to
   Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or
   free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these
   classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally
   enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own
   exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in
   greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population
   into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press
   were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling
   Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825].
   The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of
   them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth
   the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the
   capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in
   his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony.
   The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was
   supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray
   river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray
   river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on
   the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time,
   the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was
   commenced. Darling … was the first to sell the land at a
   small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. …
   Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years
   administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a
   fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the
   colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which
   now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in
   1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a
   convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was
   neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South
   Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and
   north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an
   exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country
   around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this
   new land, which had been called, from its rich promise,
   Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a
   capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the
   English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the
   beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen
   Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its
   being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony
   arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829.
   This was called South Australia, and the first governor
   arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended
   capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William
   IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system,
   called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the
   founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most
   effectually, because they were quite independent of the
   experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr.
   Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. … His
   notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to
   represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong
   democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce
   in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found
   in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners:
   and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting
   labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than
   they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out
   these ideas in South Australia. … Like the settlement of
   Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan
   for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the
   non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political
   economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an
   Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made
   fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to
   the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a
   delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and
   lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became
   almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so
   did those of the capitalists who had anything left. … The
   depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It
   contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it
   of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of
   the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities
   of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and
   produces large quantities of wool."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden,
      History of Australia,
      volume 1-2._

{193}

AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855.
   Progress of the Port Phillip District.
   Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the
   colony of Victoria.
   Discovery of Gold.
   Constitutional organization of the colony.

   "In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly
   6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep
   in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and
   horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place
   was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore
   decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent,
   to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor
   of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was
   appointed to this office. … He arrived at Melbourne on the
   30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new
   community appear to have become affected by a mania for
   speculation. … As is always the case when speculation takes
   the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became
   fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in
   consideration of the amount of business done, and large
   transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From
   highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. … Such a state
   of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the
   population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. … From
   this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder
   business system took the place of the speculative one. … All
   this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South
   Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered
   in consequence. … A cry was raised for separation. The
   demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South
   Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased
   activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities.
   The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th
   November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the
   satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in
   Melbourne for five consecutive days. … Before, however, the
   separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary
   that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle
   details. … The requisite forms were at length given effect
   to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since
   been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was
   proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales
   had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria,
   after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time
   the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank
   of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of
   separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the
   sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. … In a little more than
   a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent
   colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold
   existed within its borders. … The discovery of gold … in
   New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused
   numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered
   detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was
   held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a
   'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized
   to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative
   quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on
   the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties
   were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The
   precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the
   Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and
   Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and
   eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer
   and to extend over a wider area than any which had been
   discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the
   adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. …
   When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the
   United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other
   European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from
   the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart
   Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to
   try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all,
   swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general
   scramble for wealth. … The important position which the
   Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the
   discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent
   thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government
   determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should
   be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as
   its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar
   circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and
   afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly
   based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the
   establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make
   laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented
   generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative
   Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative
   Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of
   both Houses to be elective and to possess property
   qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either
   property or professional qualifications [the property
   qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has
   since been abolished]. … The Upper House not to be
   dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to
   be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved
   every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the
   discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the
   Government, four at least of whom should have seats in
   Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' … This
   Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November,
   1855."

      _H. H. Hayter,
      Notes on the Colony of Victoria,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Labilliere,
      Early History of the Colony of Victoria,
      volume 2._

      _W. Westgarth,
      First Twenty Years of the Colony of Victoria._

{194}

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
   Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales.
   Its erection into the colony of Queensland.

   "Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth
   Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged
   to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had
   grown so large that it was erected into a separate and
   independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies
   between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude
   138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on
   the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South
   Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia;
   on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and
   on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an
   area … twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times
   as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England.
   … Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the
   outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is]
   Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital
   of the colony. … The mineral wealth of Queensland is very
   great, and every year sees it more fully developed. … Until
   the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold
   mining as an industry was hardly known."

      _C. H. Eden,
      The Fifth Continent,
      chapter 10._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.
   Proposed Federation of the Colonies.

   "It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow
   countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the
   term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the
   empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common
   purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a
   'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its
   decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted
   afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland,
   Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South
   Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted,
   it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not
   unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right
   direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation
   Conference, not private but representative of the different
   Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to
   the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that
   the best interests of the Australian colonies require the
   early formation of a union under the Crown into one
   Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed
   quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the
   hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful
   factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the
   election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the
   Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A
   Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891,
   which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the
   several Colonies."

      _A. Caldecott,
      English Colonization and Empire,
      chapter 7, section 2._

   "On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian
   Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South
   Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each
   Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry
   Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the
   Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland),
   Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry
   Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several
   days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which
   the Federal Government should be established, which were to
   the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies
   should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would
   be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that
   intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power
   to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal
   Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military
   defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces
   under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of
   a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal
   Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of
   Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal
   Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia,
   should be established; and that a Federal Executive,
   consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers,
   should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at
   great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions
   were then referred to three Committees chosen from the
   delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the
   distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters
   relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the
   other to consider the question of the establishment of a
   Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the
   'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first
   mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration
   was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill
   should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for
   approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention
   closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation
   of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a
   Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National
   Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the
   Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still
   (October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has
   passed the Lower House with some amendments."

      _Statesman's Year-book, 1893,
      page 308._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.
   New South Wales and Victoria.

   "New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical
   resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same
   population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues,
   expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects
   in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total
   population. … But … considerable differences lie behind
   and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in
   the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than
   Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which
   distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she
   possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and
   will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although
   New South Wales is three and a half times as large as
   Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy
   combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other
   but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent
   [namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia].
{195}
   As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted
   emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been
   Irish, while the English section was largely composed of
   Chartists, … the legislation of New South Wales has
   naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was
   carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe
   and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens
   Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to
   religion. A public system of education was introduced, with
   other measures of democratic legislation. … Public
   education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by
   fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning
   from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general
   it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent
   times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. …
   The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into
   the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial
   aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of
   squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of
   1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those
   against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural
   causes—soil, climate and the lack of water. … The traces of
   the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight
   in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness,
   running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more
   vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least
   the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of
   the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists
   in a young country. … A population of an excellent type has
   swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the
   unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain
   to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either
   somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case
   with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh,
   or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and
   left no descendants. The convicts were also of various
   classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome
   of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those
   transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were
   people of average morality ruined through companions, wives,
   or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially
   depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in
   a new country, away from their old companions and old
   temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and
   their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their
   ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to
   man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would
   not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On
   the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken
   ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the
   'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all
   facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the
   earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold
   discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the
   diggings."

      _Sir C. W. Dilke,
      Problems of Greater Britain,
      part 2, chapter 2._

AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.

   "It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the
   Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to
   distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West.
   But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of
   the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the
   latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia
   (New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the
   original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German
   bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them
   (a difference so great as to lead to their permanent
   separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the
   treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish
   element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by
   which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included
   the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German
   element was wholly predominant. The import of the word
   Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its
   widest sense it was used to denote all the countries
   incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in
   subjection to it, in which the German language and population
   prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the
   territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even
   that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper
   sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks
   themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was
   subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower
   Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness
   of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north
   by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest
   [southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning
   below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and
   Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of
   Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above
   Arcis."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 3._

   "The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with
   a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we
   have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike,
   Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first
   occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived
   the most compactly and in the greatest number. … This was,
   in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence,
   while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not
   it—'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth
   of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at
   Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have
   separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the
   northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the
   exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of
   the Salian Franks in Gaul. … To such an extent had they been
   absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the
   population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them
   Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as
   the merest untutored barbarians."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 13, with note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 5, section 5._

      See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.

[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY]

{196}

AUSTRIA: The Name.

   "The name of Austria, Oesterreich—Ostrich as our forefathers
   wrote it---is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern
   part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its
   Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria
   also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never
   given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia.
   But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the
   Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German
   kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on
   to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become
   one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a
   process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Historical Geography of Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 8, page 305._

AUSTRIA:
   The birthplace.

   "On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict,
   were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were
   to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both
   were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was
   the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube,
   beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so
   many invaders from the Orient. … The cradle of Prussia was
   the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in
   the region of the exterminated Slavs."

      _E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 3, section 13._

AUSTRIA:
   The Singularity of Austrian history.
   A power which is not a national power.

   "It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the
   various lands which have at different times come under the
   dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by
   itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common
   power. A continuous narrative is impossible. … Much mischief
   has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has
   within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers
   on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done
   only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical.
   We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia,
   Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only
   England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in
   this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere
   question of style. For those are all national powers. … But
   when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,'
   direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are
   misrepresented. … I have seen the words 'Austrian national
   honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria'
   was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians'
   spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are
   misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria'
   means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what
   is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the
   sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of
   those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like
   that of the people of England, France, or Italy. … There is
   no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can
   be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there
   be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an
   English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the
   English or French government carries out the will of the
   English or French nation. … Such phrases as 'Austrian
   interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the
   interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They
   simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling
   family, which may often be the same as the interests and
   wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can
   never represent any common interest or common wish on the part
   of the whole. … We must ever remember that the dominions of the
   House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies,
   etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which
   have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common
   feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the
   Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a
   whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only
   parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the
   closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie
   close to them, but which are under other governments. The only
   bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars,
   treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign.
   The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count
   of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is
   all. … The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of
   Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European
   history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but
   in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of
   the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The
   power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power
   of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers
   of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps,
   with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of
   warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these
   powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two
   princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria
   has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the
   long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman
   Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were
   elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something
   great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has
   done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that
   another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the
   Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been
   already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only
   scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar
   nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national
   power. … The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with
   known boundaries which have changed singularly little for
   several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of
   Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing.
   Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called
   'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one
   of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is
   constantly forgotten. … A smaller point on which confusion
   also prevails is this.
{197}
   All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of
   as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people,
   if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it
   was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as
   grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In
   truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He
   has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria
   still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well.
   But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all
   called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the
   Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same
   way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes
   and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking
   of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in
   1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had
   ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect,
   was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture
   which has thoroughly well served its ends."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Preface to Leger's History of Austria-Hungary_.

   "Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern
   History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two
   portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and
   dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place
   of both rights and forces. … Austria may be regarded as
   representing the more ancient form of right. … The middle
   ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year
   1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian,
   were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as
   embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea
   of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a
   profound influence with politicians. … The house of Austria
   … lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one
   of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by
   violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well
   advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief
   forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law
   is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but
   that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The
   imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the
   super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that
   legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had
   raised upon it."

      _William  Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
      Medieval and Modern History,
      pages 209-215._

[Image]

   ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

   NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.

AUSTRIA:
   The Races.

   "The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890
   for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;
      Austria (1890):
      German 8,461,580;
      Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871;
      Polish 3,719,232;
      Ruthenian 3,105,221;
      Slovene 1,176,672;
      Servian and Croatian 644,926;
      Italian and Latin 675,305;
      Roumanian 209,110;
      Magyar 8,139.
      Hungary (1880):
      German 1,972,115;
      Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806;
      Ruthenian 360,051;
      Slovene 86,401;
      Servian and Croatian 2,359,708;
      Roumanian 2,423,387;
      Magyar 6,478,711;
      Gipsies 82,256;
      Others 83,940,"

      _Statesman's Year-Book, 1893;
      edited by J. S, Keltie._

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

A Logical Outline of Austrian History

In Which The Dominant Conditions And
Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.


[Red]   Physical or material.
[Blue]  Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.

The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in
being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,—
the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power.
Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable
arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic
Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the
Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected,
in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in
Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the
territory so named contributed little more than a strong central
position and a capital town.

Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian
history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that
his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character
was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the
weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they
had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the
benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him
and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the
Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy),
Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons.
The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its
history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time
until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the
higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind;
but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic
self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted
through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these
qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective
Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs
of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the
wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the
weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater
houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid
Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical
functions of the Emperor—small as the actual powers that he
held might be—were instruments of policy which the Austrian
princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages
and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and
craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the
consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of
Austria has pursued its aims.

By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear
from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one,
the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and
Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of
Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including
Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never
moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the
carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties,
united in no way but by homage to a common prince.

The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given
most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the
judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian
crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it
the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and
Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of
s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the
dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in
its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a
mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has
supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was
otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.

The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most
extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that
part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders
fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was
final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The
Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are
scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until
recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German
power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself.
This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent
influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria
bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven
together and clinging around it; and through the broken and
divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and
princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could
lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom,
to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then
Austria—expelled by it from the Teutonic circle—first found her
true place in the politics of Europe.

For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien
interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire—
the proper subject of their care,—and they were drawn to alien
sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the
hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large
majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the
Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of
the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly
responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of
Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength
in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the
hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the
sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they
deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head
of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the
Holy Roman Empire—that lingering fiction of history,—and yet
assuming to be an Emperor still—the Emperor of an Empire which
rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.

The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break
the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family
of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which
extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false
relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to
the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among
her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her
neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise.
It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in
nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It
listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the
resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal
Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and
champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won
Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with
those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized
world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.

Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity—
the Prussian and the Austrian—to account, and weighed them
together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of
Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization
of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny
in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its
statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from
the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has
learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher
in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It
has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great
nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its
interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to
which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and
Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe
is to command the precarious future of the southeastern
states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous
Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are
united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the
colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are
united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood
free.

[Right Margin]

9th Century.
The March.

A. D. 1272.
Rodolph of Hapsburg.
Emperor.

A. D. 1282.
The House in possession.

A. D. 1438.
The Imperial Crown.

A. D. 1363-1526.
Gathering of crowns and coronets.

The mixture of races.

A. D. 1521-1531.
The Reformation.

A. D. 1618-1648.
Thirty Years War.

A. D. 1806.
End of the Holy Roman Empire.

A. D. 1815-1866.
Policy of Metternich.
vs. policy of Stein.

A. D. 1859.
Loss of Lombardy.

A. D. 1866.
Seven Weeks War.
Loss of Venice.

A. D. 1867.
Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A. D. 1882.
The Triple Alliance.

-----End of "A Logical Outline…"-----

{198}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
   The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy,
   under the Babenbergs.
   Changing relations to Bavaria.
   End of the Babenberg Dynasty.

   "Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the
   German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above:
   AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the
   first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto
   III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to
   which it is there applied was created a march after the
   destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like
   all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into
   two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so
   called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia,
   Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia—the sea-coast having
   been ceded to the Eastern emperor;—the eastern margraviate
   comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper
   Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark
   included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was
   completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. … The early
   history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which
   the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar
   and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom,
   and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with
   its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In
   876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it
   lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince,
   in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was
   destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their
   frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or
   Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to
   Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted
   to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of
   Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with
   him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country
   during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house
   of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from
   the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau,
   in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It
   reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms
   part of the kingdom of Bavaria. … Though not of right an
   hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and
   remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so
   important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was
   glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial
   interest of one family. … The marriages of the Babenbergs
   were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that
   name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of
   Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle
   began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of
   Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose
   representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and
   Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was
   placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony
   was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy
   of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the
   Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son
   under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle
   Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their
   old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer
   Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of
   Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and
   was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the
   margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II.
   endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the
   widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry
   the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the
   Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the
   German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him.
   Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the
   decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this
   unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the
   emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward,
   Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of
   the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the
   Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria
   and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first
   hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st
   of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in
   the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves
   from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian
   territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened
   extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. … Henry
   II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a
   fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding
   country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many
   at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by
   Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of
   Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory.
   This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took
   its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar
   III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a
   margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of
   the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar
   VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of
   duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the
   Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria
   his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has
   remained so ever since. … Leopold V. is the first of the
   Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He
   joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur
   de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when
   Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass
   through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself
   by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling
   his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks.
   Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did
   much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the
   staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the
   city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with
   many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called
   Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the
   Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors,
   including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were
   against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the
   Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select History Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, number 7._

{199}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
   Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.

   "The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of
   Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian
   genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual
   pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry
   it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the
   seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count
   of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson
   of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and
   on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh
   ['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the
   residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the
   descendants of Guntram. … The successors of Werner increased
   their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the
   Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or
   administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or
   districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor
   of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that
   part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held
   the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received
   from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the
   town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the
   Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory
   by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden,
   whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy,
   by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 1_.

   "On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided
   between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former
   receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of
   Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter,
   the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other
   territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count
   of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who
   was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the
   baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his
   father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but
   the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal
   uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own
   lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. … His
   disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into
   repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. … In a
   quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops
   against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for
   which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then
   entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom
   he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars
   against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV.
   King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this
   little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with
   the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which
   that election carried with it, was due to a singular
   friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before.
   When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to
   Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across
   the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection
   secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with
   the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop
   conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272,
   after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272],
   the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor,
   the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a
   candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as
   desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative
   lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from
   whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims
   of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at
   length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke
   of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. …
   The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the
   contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince …
   persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as
   his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria,
   Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources;
   and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of
   Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these
   four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and
   distrust of the other German Princes. To all these
   territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently
   disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria
   [and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy,
   together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece
   Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the
   latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose
   uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria
   and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of
   Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies
   on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip,
   brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the
   Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to
   Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian
   dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to
   pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph
   with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and
   confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way
   he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he
   compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the
   last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a
   bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when
   Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The
   terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul
   of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support
   of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a
   desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in
   which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian
   troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the
   Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men.
   In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to
   appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy.
{200}
   But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the
   Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and
   Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The
   projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of
   Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose
   sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King
   of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the
   several claimants to those territories by various cessions of
   lands …. obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to
   the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two
   surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with
   those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at
   this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Planta,
      History of the Helvetic Confederacy.
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315.
   Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons.
   The Tell Legend.
   The Battle of Morgarten.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290.
   Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349.
   Loss and recovery of the imperial crown.
   Liberation of Switzerland.
   Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria.
   The imperial crown lost once more.

   Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for
   his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of
   Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his
   death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor
   and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum
   of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events;
   he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair,
   for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt
   to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf
   had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose
   Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his
   adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign
   of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very
   ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the
   throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died
   out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a
   battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even
   unjustly—in Alsace and Switzerland—and it proved an
   unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused
   the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to
   revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew
   John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains
   in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the
   Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The
   assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager
   queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people
   killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of
   the present Switzerland had been originally included in the
   Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together
   with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and
   ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless,
   by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance.
   Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce
   and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far
   in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all
   the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When
   Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried
   to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic
   mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and
   Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together
   at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian
   bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if
   tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the
   insurrection."

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

   "Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the
   duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He
   failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That
   was Switzerland's field of Marathon. … When Rudolf of
   Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his
   poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not
   give their votes for his son Albert. … Albert, however,
   succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they
   were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third
   time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise
   refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois,
   brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on
   the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule
   over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who
   became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were
   poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of
   enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf
   failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by
   victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and
   Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because,
   besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of
   Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married
   the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he
   remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless
   spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond
   the Alps. … He was seriously threatening Naples, when he
   died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a
   Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's
   interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once:
   Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor
   Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by
   the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into
   his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at
   the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were
   on such good terms that both bore the title of King and
   governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and
   the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had
   revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in
   the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with
   the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did
   the same. … While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip
   the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other
   hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile
   auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former
   hostility.
{201}
   When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who
   wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV.,
   Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. … Tired of a crown
   loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to
   submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived
   the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally
   releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which
   brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the
   Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the
   Diet, on the report of the electors. … The king of France
   and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by
   this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of
   Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia
   in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the
   French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following
   year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol
   for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them.
   The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363.
   The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up,
   as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III.,
   king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it
   to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps
   poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then
   became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."

      _V. Duruy,
      The History of the Middle Ages,
      book 9, chapter 30._

      See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
   Forged charters of Duke Rudolf.
   The Privilegium Majus.
   His assumption of the Archducal title.
   Acquisition of Tyrol.
   Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.

   King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry,
   at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret
   Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and
   Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this
   means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this
   scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian
   princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an
   understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was
   arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male
   heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol
   that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the
   Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche
   had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to
   assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the
   exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the
   house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the
   Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with
   the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep
   possession of this part of her inheritance. … Carinthia also
   did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria.
   Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband
   (1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis
   of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only
   with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the
   houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest.
   … When … Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he
   consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria.
   Albert did homage for it. … According to the wish of their
   father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the
   eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name
   of the others [1358-1365]. … He was only 19 when he came to
   the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of
   the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance,
   Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull
   [see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure
   either her territorial importance or a proper position for her
   princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college
   of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched
   from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. … These
   grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards
   Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV.
   It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance
   of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse
   to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes,
   religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended
   that there were in existence a whole series of charters which
   had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and
   emperors, and which secured to their princes a position
   entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to
   these documents, and more especially the one called the
   'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of
   service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect
   him; … he was to appear at the diets with the title of
   archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors.
   … Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to
   light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who
   refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying
   charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without
   waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal
   insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by
   these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had
   inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria,
   Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were
   simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them,
   and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally
   led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the
   ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses
   of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each
   guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in
   case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the
   estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A
   similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and
   thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the
   first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these
   long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to
   his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son
   Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time
   declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol
   should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did
   so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there
   received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. …The acquisition
   of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria
   Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western
   Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died
   at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute
   princess still survives among the Tyrolese."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      pages 143-148._

{202}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388.
   Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

      SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516.
   Contests for Hungary and Bohemia.
   The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.

   "Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if
   Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held
   them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the
   independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they
   weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between
   the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland
   and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458].
   United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for
   a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary
   until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes
   until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the
   hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who
   won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George
   Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias
   Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary
   (1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical
   pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected
   the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias
   victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of
   Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his
   father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias
   the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son,
   Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time,
   Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from
   Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all
   sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and
   content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and
   Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died
   first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at
   the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had
   refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states
   and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D.
   1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief
   defender, Hungary her conquests and her political
   preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to
   introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries.
   … Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected
   King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and
   by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He
   appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and
   Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of
   succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should
   die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son
   Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516
   Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."

      _J. Michelet,
      A Summary of Modern History,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493.
   The Imperial Crown lastingly regained.
   The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.

   "After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected
   an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with
   scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient
   throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law
   of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time
   King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished
   prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit
   to the empire; but he died … in the second year of his
   reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks.
   … In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new
   council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work
   of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But
   this council soon became engaged in many perplexing
   controversies with Pope Eugene IV. … The Germans, for a
   time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under
   the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the
   chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz
   in the year 1439. … Amongst the resolutions then adopted
   were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges
   of the pope. … These and other decisions, calculated to give
   important privileges and considerable independence to the
   German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's
   cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was
   elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as
   Frederick III. … Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who
   meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a
   nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated
   to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the
   empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy—the Turks,
   against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on
   the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. … They then
   made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded
   also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. … The
   Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II.,
   Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir
   to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as
   king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the
   Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private
   nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and
   thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from
   holding possession of either of these countries. … In
   Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and
   feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels.
   … The emperor could not give any weight to public measures:
   scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own
   subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send
   challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna
   revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this
   disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went
   to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick,
   together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years
   of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of
   Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself
   at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster,
   whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend
   the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded.
{203}
   …The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference
   such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they
   assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia,
   was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set
   the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between
   him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to
   resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna.
   Albert died in the following year. … In the Germanic empire,
   the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his
   hereditary lands. … The feudal system raged under
   Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even
   by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic
   sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the
   bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave
   of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most
   important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union
   which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the
   foundation for the greatness of Austria. … In the year 1486,
   the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by
   the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert,
   called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the
   emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a
   changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a
   remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire,
   so that the profound contemplator of coming events might
   easily see the dawn of a new era. … These last years were
   the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him
   in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was
   so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died
   on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The
   emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the
   restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King
   Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his
   successor."

      _F. Kohlrausch,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 14_.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1468.
   Invasion by George Podiebrad of Bohemia.
   The crusade against him.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1471-1491.
   Hungarian invasion and capture of Vienna.
   Treaty of Presburg.
   Succession to the throne of Hungary secured.

   "George, King of Bohemia, expired in 1471; and the claims of
   the Emperor and King of Hungary being equally disregarded, the
   crown was conferred on Uladislaus, son of Casimir IV. King of
   Poland, and grandson of Albert II. To this election Frederic
   long persisted in withholding his assent; but at length he
   determined to crush the claim of Matthias by formally
   investing Uladislaus with the kingdom and electorate of
   Bohemia, and the office of imperial cup-bearer. In revenge for
   this affront, Matthias marched into Austria: took possession
   of the fortresses of the Danube; and compelled the Emperor to
   purchase a cessation of hostilities by undertaking to pay an
   hundred thousand golden florins, one-half of which was
   disbursed by the Austrian states at the appointed time. But as
   the King of Hungary still delayed to yield up the captured
   fortresses, Frederic refused all further payment; and the war
   was again renewed. Matthias invaded and ravaged Austria; and
   though he experienced formidable resistance from several
   towns, his arms were crowned with success, and he became
   master of Vienna and Neustadt. Driven from his capital the
   terrified Emperor was reduced to the utmost distress, and
   wandered from town to town and from convent to convent,
   endeavouring to arouse the German States against the
   Hungarians. Yet even in this exigency his good fortune did not
   wholly forsake him; and he availed himself of a Diet at
   Frankfort to procure the election of his son Maximilian as
   King of the Romans. To this Diet, however, the King of Bohemia
   received no summons, and therefore protested against the
   validity of the election. A full apology and admission of his
   right easily satisfied Uladislaus, and he consented to remit
   the fine which the Golden Bull had fixed as the penalty of the
   omission. The death of Matthias Corvinus in 1490, left the
   throne of Hungary vacant, and the Hungarians, influenced by
   their widowed queen, conferred the crown upon the King of
   Bohemia, without listening to the pretensions of Maximilian.
   That valorous prince, however, sword in hand, recovered his
   Austrian dominions; and the rival kings concluded a severe
   contest by the treaty of Presburg, by which Hungary was for
   the present secured to Uladislaus; but on his death without
   heirs was to vest in the descendants of the Emperor."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      The History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 28 (volume 2)._

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487, and 1487-1526.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.
   Marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy.
   His splendid dominion.
   His joyous character.
   His vigorous powers.
   His ambitions and aims.

   "Maximilian, who was as active and enterprising as his father
   was indolent and timid, married at eighteen years of age, the
   only daughter of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy."

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477

   "She brought him Flanders, Franche-Comte, and all the Low
   Countries. Louis XI., who disputed some of those territories,
   and who, on the death of the duke, had seized Burgundy,
   Picardy, Ponthieu, and Artois, as fiefs of France, which could
   not be possessed by a woman, was defeated by Maximilian at
   Guinegaste; and Charles VIII., who renewed the same claims,
   was obliged to conclude a disadvantageous peace." Maximilian
   succeeded to the imperial throne on the death of his father in
   1493.

      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      letter 49 (volume 1)._

   "Between the Alps and the Bohemian frontier, the mark Austria
   was first founded round and about the castles of Krems and
   Melk. Since then, beginning first in the valley towards
   Bavaria and Hungary, and coming to the House of Hapsburg, it
   had extended across the whole of the northern slope of the
   Alps until where the Slavish, Italian, and German tongues
   part, and over to Alsace; thus becoming an archduchy from a
   mark. On all sides the Archdukes had claims; on the German
   side to Switzerland, on the Italian to the Venetian
   possessions, and on the Slavish to Bohemia and Hungary. To
   such a pitch of greatness had Maximilian by his marriage with
   Maria of Burgundy brought the heritage received from Charles
   the Bold. True to the Netherlanders' greeting, in the
   inscription over their gates, 'Thou art our Duke, fight our
   battle for us,' war was from the first his handicraft. He
   adopted Charles the Bold's hostile attitude towards France; he
   saved the greater part of his inheritance from the schemes of
   Louis XI. Day and night it was his whole thought, to conquer
   it entirely.
{204}
   But after Maria of Burgundy's premature death, revolution
   followed revolution, and his father Frederick being too old to
   protect himself, it came about that in the year 1488 he was
   ousted from Austria by the Hungarians, whilst his son was kept
   a prisoner in Bruges by the citizens, and they had even to
   fear the estrangement of the Tyrol. Yet they did not lose
   courage. At this very time the father denoted with the vowels,
   A. E. I. O. U. ('Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich
   unterthan'—All the earth is subject to Austria), the extent
   of his hopes. In the same year, his son negotiated for a
   Spanish alliance. Their real strength lay in the imperial
   dignity of Maximilian, which they had from the German Empire.
   As soon as it began to bestir itself, Maximilian was set at
   liberty; as soon as it supported him in the persons of only a
   few princes of the Empire, he became lord in his Netherlands.
   … Since then his plans were directed against Hungary and
   Burgundy. In Hungary he could gain nothing except securing the
   succession to his house. But never, frequently as he concluded
   peace, did he give up His intentions upon Burgundy. … Now
   that he had allied himself with a Sforza, and had joined the
   Liga, now that his father was dead, and the Empire was pledged
   to follow him across the mountains, and now, too, that the
   Italian complications were threatening Charles, he took fresh
   hope, and in this hope he summoned a Diet at Worms. Maximilian
   was a prince of whom, although many portraits have been drawn,
   yet there is scarcely one that resembles another, so easily
   and entirely did he suit himself to circumstances. … His
   soul is full of motion, of joy in things, and of plans. There
   is scarcely anything that he is not capable of doing. In his
   mines he is a good screener, in his armoury the best plater,
   capable of instructing others in new inventions. With musket
   in hand, he defends his best marksman, George Purkhard; with
   heavy cannon, which he has shown how to cast, and has placed
   on wheels, he comes as a rule nearest the mark. He commands
   seven captains in their seven several tongues; he himself
   chooses and mixes his food and medicines. In the open country,
   he feels himself happiest. … What really distinguishes his
   public life is that presentiment of the future greatness of
   his dynasty which he has inherited of his father, and the
   restless striving to attain all that devolved upon him from
   the House of Burgundy. All his policy and all his schemes were
   concentrated, not upon his Empire, for the real needs of which
   he evinced little real care, and not immediately upon the
   welfare of his hereditary lands, but upon the realization of
   that sole idea. Of it all his letters and speeches are full.
   … In March, 1495, Maximilian came to the Diet at Worms. …
   At this Reichstag the King gained two momentous prospects. In
   Wurtemberg there had sprung of two lines two counts of quite
   opposite characters. … With the elder, Maximilian now
   entered into a compact. Wurtemberg was to be raised to a
   dukedom—an elevation which excluded the female line from the
   succession—and, in the event of the stock failing, was to be
   a 'widow's portion' of the realm to the use of the Imperial
   Chamber. Now as the sole hopes of this family centred in a
   weakling of a boy, this arrangement held out to Maximilian and
   his successors the prospect of acquiring a splendid country.
   Yet this was the smaller of his two successes. The greater was
   the espousal of his children, Philip and Margaret, with the
   two children of Ferdinand the Catholic, Juana and Juan, which
   was here settled. This opened to his house still greater
   expectations,—it brought him at once into the most intimate
   alliance with the Kings of Spain. These matters might
   possibly, however, have been arranged elsewhere. What
   Maximilian really wanted in the Reichstag at Worms was the
   assistance of the Empire against the French with its
   world-renowned and much-envied soldiery. For at this time in
   all the wars of Europe, German auxiliaries were decisive. …
   If Maximilian had united the whole of this power in his hand,
   neither Europe nor Asia would have been able to withstand him.
   But God disposed that it should rather be employed in the
   cause of freedom than oppression. What an Empire was that
   which in spite of its vast strength allowed its Emperor to be
   expelled from his heritage, and did not for a long time take
   steps to bring him back again? If we examine the constitution
   of the Empire, not as we should picture it to ourselves in
   Henry III. 's time, but as it had at length become—the legal
   independence of the several estates, the emptiness of the
   imperial dignity, the electiveness of a head, that afterwards
   exercised certain rights over the electors,—we are led to
   inquire not so much into the causes of its disintegration, for
   this concerns us little, as into the way in which it was held
   together. What welded it together, and preserved it, would
   (leaving tradition and the Pope out of the question) appear,
   before all else, to have been the rights of individuals, the
   unions of neighbours, and the social regulations which
   universally obtained. Such were those rights and privileges
   that not only protected the citizen, his guild, and his
   quarter of the town against his neighbours and more powerful
   men than himself, but which also endowed him with an inner
   independence. … Next, the unions of neighbours. These were
   not only leagues of cities and peasantries, expanded from
   ancient fraternities—for who can tell the origin of the
   Hansa, or the earliest treaty between Uri and Schwyz?—into
   large associations, or of knights, who strengthened a really
   insignificant power by confederations of neighbours, but also
   of the princes, who were bound together by joint inheritances,
   mutual expectancies, and the ties of blood, which in some
   cases were very close. This ramification, dependent upon a
   supreme power and confirmed by it, bound neighbour to
   neighbour; and, whilst securing to each his privilege and his
   liberty, blended together all countries of Germany in legal
   bonds of union. But it is only in the social regulations that
   the unity was really perceivable. Only as long as the Empire
   was an actual reality, could the supreme power of the
   Electors, each with his own special rights, be maintained;
   only so long could dukes and princes, bishops and abbots hold
   their neighbours in due respect, and through court offices or
   hereditary services, through fiefs and the dignity of their
   independent position give their vassals a peculiar position to
   the whole. Only so long could the cities enjoying
   immediateness under the Empire, carefully divided into free
   and imperial cities, be not merely protected, but also assured
   of a participation in the government of the whole. Under this
   sanctified and traditional system of suzerainty and vassalage
   all were happy and contented, and bore a love to it such as is
   cherished towards a native town or a father's house. For some
   time past, the House of Austria had enjoyed the foremost
   position. It also had a union, and, moreover, a great faction
   on its side. The union was the Suabian League. Old Suabia was
   divided into three leagues—the league of the peasantry (the
   origin of Switzerland); the league of the knights in the Black
   Forest, on the Kocher, the Neckar, and the Danube; and the
   league of the cities. The peasantry were from the first
   hostile to Austria. The Emperor Frederick brought it to pass
   that the cities and knights, that had from time out of mind
   lived in feud, bound themselves together with several princes,
   and formed, under his protection, the league of the land of
   Suabia. But the party was scattered throughout the whole
   Empire."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
      book 1, chapter 3._

{205}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1493-1519.
   The Imperial reign of Maximilian.
   Formation of the Circle of Austria.
   The Aulic Council.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1499.
   The Swabian War with the Swiss Confederacy and the Graubunden,
   or Grey Leagues (Grisons).
   Practical independence of both acquired.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
   Extraordinary aggrandizement of the House of Austria by its marriages.
   The Heritage of Charles V.
   His cession of the German inheritance to Ferdinand.
   The division of the House into Spanish and German branches.
   Acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia.

   In 1496, Philip the Fair, son of Maximilian, Archduke and
   Emperor, by his marriage with Mary of Burgundy, "espoused the
   Infanta of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand [of Aragon] and
   Isabella of Castile. They had two sons, Charles and Ferdinand,
   the former of whom, known in history by the name of Charles
   V., inherited the Low Countries in right of his father, Philip
   (1506). On the death of Ferdinand, his maternal grandfather
   (1516), he became heir to the whole Spanish succession, which
   comprehended the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and
   Sardinia, together with Spanish America. To these vast
   possessions were added his patrimonial dominions in Austria,
   which were transmitted to him by his paternal grandfather, the
   Emperor Maximilian I. About the same time (1519), the Imperial
   dignity was conferred on this prince by the electors [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1519]; so that Europe had not seen, since the
   time of Charlemagne, a monarchy so powerful as that of Charles
   V. This Emperor concluded a treaty with his brother Ferdinand;
   by which he ceded to him all his hereditary possessions in
   Germany. The two brothers thus became the founders of the two
   principal branches of the House of Austria, viz., that of
   Spain, which began with Charles V. (called Charles I. of
   Spain), and ended with Charles II. (1700); and that of
   Germany, of which Ferdinand I. was the ancestor, and which
   became extinct in the male line in the Emperor Charles VI.
   (1740). These two branches, closely allied to each other,
   acted in concert for the advancement of their reciprocal
   interests; moreover they gained each their own separate
   advantages by the marriage connexions which they formed.
   Ferdinand I. of the German line married Anne (1521), sister of
   Louis King of Hungary and Bohemia, who having been slain by
   the Turks at the battle of Mohacs (1526), these two kingdoms
   devolved to Ferdinand of the House of Austria. Finally, the
   marriage which Charles V. contracted with the Infant Isabella,
   daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, procured Philip II. of
   Spain, the son of that marriage, the whole Portuguese
   monarchy, to which he succeeded on the death of Henry, called
   the Cardinal (1580). So vast an aggrandisement of power
   alarmed the Sovereigns of Europe."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe,
      period 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 25 and 27 (volume 1)._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 1._

      See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519.
   Death of Maximilian.
   Election of Charles V., "Emperor of the Romans."

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.
   The imperial reign of Charles V.
   The objects of his policy.
   His conflict with the Reformation and with France.

   "Charles V. did not receive from nature all the gifts nor all
   the charms she can bestow, nor did experience give him every
   talent; but he was equal to the part he had to play in the
   world. He was sufficiently great to keep his many-jewelled
   diadem. … His ambition was cold and wise. The scope of his
   ideas, which are not quite easy to divine, was vast enough to
   control a state composed of divers and distant portions, so as
   to make it always very difficult to amalgamate his armies, and
   to supply them with food, or to procure money. Indeed its very
   existence would have been exposed to permanent danger from
   powerful coalitions, had Francis I. known how to place its
   most vulnerable points under a united pressure from the armies
   of France, of England, of Venice, and of the Ottoman Empire.
   Charles V. attained his first object when he prevented the
   French monarch from taking possession of the inheritance of
   the house of Anjou, at Naples, and of that of the Viscontis at
   Milan. He was more successful in stopping the march of Solyman
   into Austria than in checking the spread of the Reformation in
   Germany. … Charles V. had four objects very much at heart:
   he wished to be the master in Italy, to check the progress of
   the Ottoman power in the west of Europe, to conquer the King
   of France, and to govern the Germanic body by dividing it, and
   by making the Reformation a religious pretext for oppressing
   the political defenders of that belief. In three out of four
   of these objects he succeeded. Germany alone was not
   conquered: if she was beaten in battle, neither any political
   triumph nor any religious results ensued. In Germany, Charles
   V. began his work too late, and acted too slowly; he undertook
   to subdue it at a time when the abettors of the Reformation
   had grown strong, when he himself was growing weaker. … Like
   many other brilliant careers, the career of Charles V. was
   more successful and more striking at the commencement and the
   middle than at the end, of its course. At Madrid, at Cambrai,
   at Nice, he made his rival bow down his head. At Crespy he
   again forced him to obey his will, but as he had completely
   made up his mind to have peace, Charles dictated it, in some
   manner, to his own detriment.
{206}
   At Passau he had to yield to the terms of his enemy—of an
   enemy whom Charles V. encountered in his old age, and when his
   powers had decayed. Although it may be said that the extent
   and the power of the sovereignty which Charles V. left to his
   successor at his death were not diminished, still his armies
   were weakened, his finances were exhausted, and the country
   was weary of the tyranny of the imperial lieutenants. The
   supremacy of the empire in Germany, for which he had struggled
   so much, was as little established at the end as at the
   beginning of his reign; religious unity was solemnly destroyed
   by the 'Recess' of Augsburg. But that which marks the position
   of Charles V. as the representative man of his epoch, and as
   the founder of the policy of modern times, is that, wherever
   he was victorious, the effect of his success was to crush the
   last efforts of the spirit of the middle ages, and of the
   independence of nations. In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, and
   in the Low Countries, his triumphs were so much gain to the
   cause of absolute monarchy and so much loss to the liberty
   derived from the old state of society. Whatever was the
   character of liberty in the middle ages—whether it were
   contested or incomplete, or a mockery—it played a greater
   part than in the four succeeding centuries. Charles V. was
   assuredly one of those who contributed the most to found and
   consolidate the political system of modern governments. His
   history has an aspect of grandeur. Had Francis I. been as
   sagacious in the closet as he was bold in the field, by a
   vigorous alliance with England, with Protestant Germany, and
   with some of the republics of Italy, he might perhaps have
   balanced and controlled the power of Charles V. But the French
   monarch did not possess the foresight and the solid
   understanding necessary to pursue such a policy with success.
   His rival, therefore, occupies the first place in the
   historical picture of the epoch. Charles V. had the sentiment
   of his position and of the part he had to play."

      _J. Van Praet,
      Essays on the Political History of the 15th,
      16th, and 17th Centuries,
      pages 190-194._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1519 to 1152-1561,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, to 1547-1559.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1525-1527.
   Successful Contest for the Hungarian and Bohemian Crowns.

   In Hungary, "under King Matthias the house of Zapolya, so
   called from a Slavonic village near Poschega, whence it
   originated, rose to peculiar eminence. To this house, in
   particular, King Wladislas had owed his accession to the
   throne; whence, however, it thought itself entitled to claim a
   share in the sovereign power, and even a sort of prospective
   right to the throne. Its members were the wealthiest of all
   the magnates; they possessed seventy-two castles. … It is
   said that a prophecy early promised the crown to the young
   John Zapolya. Possessed of all the power conferred by his rich
   inheritance, Count of Zips, and Woiwode of Transylvania, he
   soon collected a strong party around him. It was he who mainly
   persuaded the Hungarians, in the year 1505, to exclude all
   foreigners from the throne by a formal decree; which, though
   they were not always able to maintain in force, they could
   never be induced absolutely to revoke. In the year 1514 the
   Woiwode succeeded in putting down an exceedingly formidable
   insurrection of the peasants with his own forces; a service
   which the lesser nobility prized the more highly, because it
   enabled them to reduce the peasantry to a still harder state
   of servitude. His wish was, on the death of Wladislas, to
   become Gubernator of the kingdom, to marry the deceased king's
   daughter Anne, and then to await the course of events. But he
   was here encountered by the policy of Maximilian. Anne was
   married to the Archduke Ferdinand; Zapolya was excluded from
   the administration of the kingdom; even the vacant Palatinate
   was refused him and given to his old rival Stephen Bathory. He
   was highly incensed. … But it was not till the year 1525
   that Zapolya got the upper hand at the Rakosch. … No one
   entertained a doubt that he aimed at the throne. … But
   before anything was accomplished—on the contrary, just as
   these party conflicts had thrown the country into the utmost
   confusion, the mighty enemy, Soliman, appeared on the
   frontiers of Hungary, determined to put an end to the anarchy.
   … In his prison at Madrid, Francis I. had found means to
   entreat the assistance of Soliman; urging that it well
   beseemed a great emperor to succour the oppressed. Plans were
   laid at Constantinople, according to which the two sovereigns
   were to attack Spain with a combined fleet, and to send armies
   to invade Hungary and the north of Italy. Soliman, without any
   formal treaty, was by his position an ally of the Ligue, as
   the king of Hungary was, of the emperor. On the 23d of April,
   1526, Soliman, after visiting the groves of his forefathers
   and of the old Moslem martyrs, marched out of Constantinople
   with a mighty host, consisting of about a hundred thousand
   men, and incessantly strengthened by fresh recruits on its
   road. … What power had Hungary, in the condition we have
   just described, of resisting such an attack? … The young
   king took the field with a following of not more than three
   thousand men. … He proceeded to the fatal plain of Mohaez,
   fully resolved with his small band to await in the open field
   the overwhelming force of the enemy. … Personal valour could
   avail nothing. The Hungarians were immediately thrown into
   disorder, their best men fell, the others took to flight. The
   young king was compelled to flee. It was not even granted him
   to die in the field of battle; a far more miserable end a
   waited him. Mounted behind a Silesian soldier, who served him
   as a guide, he had already been carried across the dark waters
   that divide the plain; his horse was already climbing the
   bank, when he slipped, fell back, and buried himself and his
   rider in the morass. This rendered the defeat decisive. …
   Soliman had gained one of those victories which decide the
   fate of nations during long epochs. … That two thrones, the
   succession to which was not entirely free from doubt, had thus
   been left vacant, was an event that necessarily caused a great
   agitation throughout Christendom. It was still a question
   whether such a European power as Austria would continue to
   exist;—a question which it is only necessary to state, in
   order to be aware of its vast importance to the fate of
   mankind at large, and of Germany in particular. … The claims
   of Ferdinand to both crowns, unquestionable as they might be
   in reference to the treaties with the reigning houses, were
   opposed in the nations themselves, by the right of ejection
   and the authority of considerable rivals.
{207}
   In Hungary, as soon as the Turks had retired, John Zapolya
   appeared with the fine army which he had kept back from the
   conflict; the fall of the king was at the same time the fall
   of his adversaries.  … Even in Tokay, however, John Zapolya
   was saluted as king. Meanwhile, the dukes of Bavaria conceived
   the design of getting possession of the throne of Bohemia. …
   Nor was it in the two kingdoms alone that these pretenders had
   a considerable party. The state of politics in Europe was such
   as to insure them powerful supporters abroad. In the first
   place, Francis I. was intimately connected with Zapolya: in a
   short time a delegate from the pope was at his side, and the
   Germans in Rome maintained that Clement assisted the faction
   of the Woiwode with money. Zapolya sent an agent to Venice
   with a direct request to be admitted a member of the Ligue of
   Cognac. In Bohemia, too, the French had long had devoted
   partisans. … The consequences that must have resulted, had
   this scheme succeeded, are so incalculable, that it is not too
   much to say they would have completely changed the political
   history of Europe. The power of Bavaria would have outweighed
   that of Austria in both German and Slavonian countries, and
   Zapolya, thus supported, would have been able to maintain his
   station; the Ligue, and with it high ultra-montane opinions
   would have held the ascendency in eastern Europe. Never was
   there a project more pregnant with danger to the growing power
   of the house of Austria. Ferdinand behaved with all the
   prudence and energy which that house has so often displayed in
   difficult emergencies. For the present, the all-important
   object was the crown of Bohemia. … All his measures were
   taken with such skill and prudence, that on the day of
   election, though the Bavarian agent had, up to the last
   moment, not the slightest doubt of the success of his
   negotiations, an overwhelming majority in the three estates
   elected Ferdinand to the throne of Bohemia. This took place on
   the 23d October, 1526. … On his brother's birth-day, the
   24th of February, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Prague. ….
   The affairs of Hungary were not so easily or so peacefully
   settled. … At first, when Zapolya came forward, full armed
   and powerful out of the general desolation, he had the
   uncontested superiority. The capital of the kingdom sought his
   protection, after which he marched to Stuhlweissenburg, where
   his partisans bore down all attempts at opposition: he was
   elected and crowned (11th of November, 1526); in Croatia, too,
   he was acknowledged king at a diet; he filled all the numerous
   places, temporal and spiritual, left vacant by the disaster of
   Mohaez, with his friends. … [But] the Germans advanced
   without interruption; and as soon as it appeared possible that
   Ferdinand might be successful, Zapolya's followers began to
   desert him. … Never did the German troops display more
   bravery and constancy. They had often neither meat nor bread,
   and were obliged to live on such fruits as they found in the
   gardens: the inhabitants were wavering and uncertain—they
   submitted, and then revolted again to the enemy; Zapolya's
   troops, aided by their knowledge of the ground, made several
   very formidable attacks by night; but the Germans evinced, in
   the moment of danger, the skill and determination of a Roman
   legion: they showed, too, a noble constancy under difficulties
   and privations. At Tokay they defeated Zapolya and compelled
   him to quit Hungary. … On the 3rd November, 1527, Ferdinand
   was crowned in Stuhlweissenburg: only five of the magnates of
   the kingdom adhered to Zapolya. The victory appeared complete.
   Ferdinand, however, distinctly felt that this appearance was
   delusive. … In Bohemia, too, his power was far from secure.
   His Bavarian neighbours had not relinquished the hope of
   driving him from the throne at the first general turn of
   affairs. The Ottomans, meanwhile, acting upon the persuasion
   that every land in which the head of their chief had rested
   belonged of right to them, were preparing to return to
   Hungary; either to take possession of it themselves, or at
   first, as was their custom, to bestow it on a native
   ruler—Zapolya, who now eagerly sought an alliance with
   them—as their vassal."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1564-1618.
   The tolerance of Maximilian II.
   The bigotry and tyranny of Rodolph and Ferdinand II.
   Prelude to the Thirty Years War.

   "There is no period connected with these religious wars that
   deserves more to be studied than these reigns of Ferdinand I.,
   Maximilian [the Second], and those of his successors who preceded
   the thirty years' war. We have no sovereign who exhibited that
   exercise of moderation and good sense which a philosopher
   would require, but Maximilian; and he was immediately followed
   by princes of a different complexion. … Nothing could be
   more complete than the difficulty of toleration at the time
   when Maximilian reigned; and if a mild policy could be
   attended with favourable effects in his age and nation, there
   can be little fear of the experiment at any other period. No
   party or person in the state was then disposed to tolerate his
   neighbour from any sense of the justice of such forbearance,
   but from motives of temporal policy alone. The Lutherans, it
   will be seen, could not bear that the Calvinists should have
   the same religious privileges with themselves. The Calvinists
   were equally opinionated and unjust; and Maximilian himself
   was probably tolerant and wise, chiefly because he was in his
   real opinions a Lutheran, and in outward profession, as the
   head of the empire, a Roman Catholic. For twelve years, the
   whole of his reign, he preserved the religious peace of the
   community, without destroying the religious freedom of the
   human mind. He supported the Roman Catholics, as the
   predominant party, in all their rights, possessions, and
   privileges; but he protected the Protestants in every exercise
   of their religion which was then practicable. In other words,
   he was as tolerant and just as the temper of society then
   admitted, and more so than the state of things would have
   suggested. … The merit of Maximilian was but too apparent
   the moment that his son Rodolph was called upon to supply his
   place. … He had always left the education of his son and
   successor too much to the discretion of his bigoted consort.
   Rodolph, his son, was therefore as ignorant and furious on his
   part as were the Protestants on theirs; he had immediate
   recourse to the usual expedients—force, and the execution of
   the laws to the very letter. … After Rodolph comes Matthias,
   and, unhappily for all Europe, Bohemia and the empire fell
   afterwards under the management of Ferdinand II. Of the
   different Austrian princes, it is the reign of Ferdinand II.
   that is more particularly to be considered. Such was the
   arbitrary nature of his government over his subjects in
   Bohemia, that they revolted. They elected for their king the
   young Elector Palatine, hoping thus to extricate themselves
   from the bigotry and tyranny of Ferdinand. This crown so
   offered was accepted; and, in the event, the cause of the
   Bohemians became the cause of the Reformation in Germany, and
   the Elector Palatine the hero of that cause. It is this which
   gives the great interest to this reign of Ferdinand II., to
   these concerns of his subjects in Bohemia, and to the
   character of this Elector Palatine. For all these events and
   circumstances led to the thirty years' war."

      _W. Smyth,
      Lectures on Modern History,
      volume I, lecture 13._

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

{208}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
   Struggles of the Hapsburg House in Hungary and Transylvania to
   establish rights of sovereignty.
   Wars with the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604, and 1606-1660.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

   Seventeenth Century: Second Half.

        Contemporaneous Events.

A.D.

1651.
      Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;
      Cromwell's victory at Worcester; complete conquest of
      Scotland.

1652.
      Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.
      End of the Fronde.
      Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.

1653.
      Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment of
      the Protectorate in England.
      Adoption of the Instrument of Government.
      Return of Mazarin to power in France.
      The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.

1654.
      Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,
      under Cromwell.
      Peace  between the English and Dutch.
      Conquest of Nova Scotia, by the New England colonists.

1655.
      Alliance of England and France against Spain.
      English conquest of Jamaica.

1656.
      Beginning of the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.

1658.
      Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and possession given
      by the French to the English.
      Death of Cromwell and succession of his son Richard as
      Protector.

1659.
      Meeting of a new Parliament in England;
      its dissolution;
      resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation
      of a provisional government by the Army.

1660.
      March of the English army under Monk from Scotland to
      London.
      Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of the
      monarchy, in the person of Charles II.

1661.
      Restoration of the Church of England and ejection of 2,000
      nonconformist ministers.
      Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.
      Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.

1662.
      Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.
      Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of
      the Covenanters.

1664.
      Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the
      English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the
      duke of York.
      Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret.

1665.
      Outbreak of the great Plague in London.
      Formal declarations of war between the English and the
      Dutch.

1666.
      The great fire in London.
      Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and
      defeat of the former.

1667.
      Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames.
      Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland, France
      and Denmark.
      War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights, in
      the Spanish Netherlands.

1668.
      Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against
      France.

1669.
      First exploring journey of La Salle from the St. Lawrence
      to the West.

1670.
      Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,
      betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess
      himself a Catholic.

1672.
      Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.
      Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the Prince
      of Orange, and murder of the De Witts.

1673.
      Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.

1674.
      Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch
      and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.

1675. War with the Indians in New England, known
      as King Philip's War.

1678.
      Pretended Popish Plot in England.
      Treaties of Nimeguen.

1679.
      Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.
      Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.
      Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.
      Defeat of Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge.

1680.
      First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.

1681.
      Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.
      Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in
      France.
      Grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to William Penn.

1682.
      Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.

1683.
      The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and
      Algernon Sidney, in England.
      Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;
      their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by
      John Sobieski, king of Poland.
      Establishment of a penny post in London.

1685.
      Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession of his
      brother James II., an avowed Catholic.
      Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth.
      Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.

1686.
      Consolidation of New England under a royal
      governor-general.
      League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France.

1688.
      Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England, and
      imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for refusing to
      publish it.
      Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the
      English crown.
      Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and flight of
      James.

1689.
      Completion of the English Revolution.
      Settlement of the crown on William and Mary.
      Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights.
      Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island;
      siege and successful defense of Londonderry.

1690.
      The first congress of the American colonies.
      Battle of the Boyne in Ireland.

1692.
      The Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.
      Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.

1695.
      Passage of the first of the Penal Laws, oppressing
      Catholics in Ireland.

1697.
      Peace of Ryswick.
      Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.

1699.
      Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland, Venice,
      and the Emperor.

1700.
      Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.
      First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden.


   ----------Subject: Start--------

Seventeenth Century: First Half.

Contemporaneous Events.

A.D.
1602.
      Chartering of Dutch East India Company.
      First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."

1603.
      Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of James I.

1600.
      Gunpowder plot of English Catholics.
      Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," and part
      1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."

1606.
      Charter granted to the London and Plymouth companies, for
      American colonization.
      Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at
      Scrooby, England.

1607.
      Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
      Migration of Scrooby Independents to Holland.

1609.
      Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.
      Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery of
      Jupiter's moons.

1610.
      Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of Louis XIII.

1611.
      Publication in England of the King James or Authorized
      version of the Bible.

1614.
      Last meeting of the States General of France before the
      Revolution.

1610.
      Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known
      weekly newspaper.

1616.
      Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.
      Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.

1618.
      Rising of Protestants in Bohemia, beginning the Thirty
      Years War.

1619.
      Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.
      Introduction of slavery in Virginia.

1620.
      Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle
      of the White Mountain.
      Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.
      Migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America.

1621.
      Formation of the Dutch West India Company.
      The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.

1622.
      Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in England
      "The Weekly Newes."

1624.
      Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.

1625.
      Death of James I., of England, and accession of Charles I.;
      beginning of the English struggle between King and
      Parliament.
      Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of
      the Emperor against the Protestants.

1627.
      Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.
      Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.

1628.
      Passage by the English Parliament of the act called the
      Petition of Right.
      Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.
      Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.
      Publication of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the
      blood.

1629.
      Tumult in the English Parliament, dissolution by the king
      and arrest of Eliot and others.

1630.
      Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,
      as the champion of Protestantism.
      Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New
      England, and founding of Boston.
      The Day of the Dupes in France.

1631.
      Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial
      general, Tilly.
      Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig, by Gustavus
      Adolphus.

1632.
      Defeat and death of Tilly.
      Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen.
      Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., of England, granting
      him the territory in America called Maryland.
      First Jesuit mission to Canada.

1634.
      Assassination of Wallenstein.
      Levy of Ship-money in England.

1635.
      First settlements in the Connecticut valley.

1636.
      Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his
      founding of Providence.

1637.
      The Pequot War in New England.
      Introduction of Laud's Service-book in Scotland; tumult in
      St. Giles' church.

1638.
      Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.
      Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;
      organization of the Tables;
      signing of the National Covenant.

1639.
      The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.

1640.
      Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.
      Recovery of independence by Portugal.

1641.
      Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption of the
      Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.
      Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres of
      Protestants.

1642.
      King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the Five
      Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.
      Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.
      Death of Cardinal Richelieu.

1643.
      Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
      Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant between the
      Scotch and English nations.
      Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.
      Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.

1644.
      Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, in the
      English civil war.

1645.
      Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English
      Parliamentary army.
      His victory at Naseby.
      Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.

1646.
      Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.
      Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.

1647.
      Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, and
      his seizure by the Army.

1648.
      The second Civil War in England.
      Cromwell's victory at Preston.
      Treaty of Newport with the king.
      Grand Army Remonstrance, and Pride's Purge of Parliament.
      Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
      Peace of Westphalia; cession of Alsace to France.

1649.
      Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England, and
      establishment of the Common-wealth.
      Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.
      First civil war of the Fronde in France.

1650.
      Charles II. in Scotland.
      War between the English and the Scotch.
      Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.
      The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.

-----End "Contemporaneous Events"-----

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1618-1648.
   The Thirty Years War.
   The Peace of Westphalia.

   "The thirty years' war made Germany the centre-point of
   European politics. … No one at its commencement could have
   foreseen the duration and extent. But the train of war was
   everywhere laid, and required only the match to set it going;
   more than one war was joined to it, and swallowed up in it;
   and the melancholy truth, that war feeds itself, was never
   more clearly displayed. … Though the war, which first broke
   out in Bohemia, concerned only the house of Austria, yet by
   its originating in religious disputes, by its peculiar
   character as a religious war, and by the measures adopted both
   by the insurgents and the emperor, it acquired such an extent,
   that even the quelling of the insurrection was insufficient to
   put a stop to it. … Though the Bohemian war was apparently
   terminated, yet the flame had communicated to Germany and
   Hungary, and new fuel was added by the act of proscription
   promulgated against the elector Frederic and his adherents.
   From this the war derived that revolutionary character, which
   was henceforward peculiar to it; it was a step that could not
   but lead to further results, for the question of the relations
   between the emperor and his states, was in a fair way of being
   practically considered. New and bolder projects were also
   formed in Vienna and Madrid, where it was resolved to renew
   the war with the Netherlands. Under the present circumstances,
   the suppression of the Protestant religion and the overthrow
   of German and Dutch liberty appeared inseparable; while the
   success of the imperial arms, supported as they were by the
   league and the co-operation of the Spaniards, gave just
   grounds for hope. … By the carrying of the war into Lower
   Saxony, the principal scat of the Protestant religion in
   Germany (the states of which had appointed Christian IV. of
   Denmark, as duke of Holstein, head of their confederacy), the
   northern states had already, though without any beneficial
   result, been involved in the strife, and the Danish war had
   broken out. But the elevation of Albert of Wallenstein to the
   dignity of duke of Friedland and imperial general over the
   army raised by himself, was of considerably more importance,
   as it affected the whole course and character of the war. From
   this time the war was completely and truly revolutionary. The
   peculiar situation of the general, the manner of the formation
   as well as the maintenance of his army, could not fail to make
   it such. … The distinguished success of the imperial arms in
   the north of Germany unveiled the daring schemes of
   Wallenstein. He did not come forward as conqueror alone, but,
   by the investiture of Mecklenburg as a state of the empire, as
   a ruling prince. … But the elevation and conduct of this
   novus homo, exasperated and annoyed the Catholic no less than
   the Protestant states, especially the league and its chief;
   all implored peace, and Wallenstein's discharge. Thus, at the
   diet of the electors at Augsburg, the emperor was reduced to
   the alternative of resigning him or his allies: He chose the
   former. Wallenstein was dismissed, the majority of his army
   disbanded, and Tilly nominated commander-in-chief of the
   forces of the emperor and the league. … On the side of the
   emperor sufficient care was taken to prolong the war. The
   refusal to restore the unfortunate Frederic, and even the sale
   of his upper Palatine to Bavaria, must with justice have
   excited the apprehensions of the other princes. But when the
   Jesuits finally succeeded, not only in extorting the edict of
   restitution, but also in causing it to be enforced in the most
   odious manner, the Catholic states themselves saw with regret
   that peace could no longer exist. … The greater the success
   that attended the house of Austria, the more actively foreign
   policy laboured to counteract it. England had taken an
   interest in the fate of Frederic V. from the first, though
   this interest was evinced by little beyond fruitless
   negotiations. Denmark became engaged in the quarrel mostly
   through the influence of this power and Holland. Richelieu,
   from the time he became prime minister of France, had exerted
   himself in opposing Austria and Spain. He found employment for
   Spain in the contests respecting Veltelin, and for Austria
   soon after, by the war of Mantua. Willingly would he have
   detached the German league from the interest of the emperor;
   and though he failed in this, he procured the fall of
   Wallenstein. … Much more important, however, was Richelieu's
   influence on the war, by the essential share he had in gaining
   Gustavus Adolphus' active participation in it. … The
   nineteen years of his [Gustavus Adolphus'] reign which had
   already elapsed, together with the Polish war, which lasted
   nearly that time, had taught the world but little of the real
   worth of this great and talented hero. The decisive
   superiority of Protestantism in Germany, under his guidance,
   soon created a more just knowledge, and at the same time
   showed the advantages which must result to a victorious
   supporter of that cause. … The battle at Leipzig was
   decisive for Gustavus Adolphus and his party, almost beyond
   expectation. The league fell asunder; and in a short time he
   was master of the countries from the Baltic to Bavaria, and
   from the Rhine to Bohemia. … But the misfortunes and death
   of Tilly brought Wallenstein again on the stage as absolute
   commander-in-chief, bent on plans not a whit less extensive
   than those he had before formed. No period of the war gave
   promise of such great and rapid successes or reverses as the
   present, for both leaders were determined to effect them; but
   the victory of Lutzen, while it cost Gustavus his life,
   prepared the fall of Wallenstein.
{209}
   … Though the fall of Gustavus Adolphus frustrated his own
   private views, it did not those of his party. … The school
   of Gustavus produced a number of men, great in the cabinet and
   in the field; yet it was hard, even for an Oxensteirn, to
   preserve the importance of Sweden unimpaired; and it was but
   partially done by the alliance of· Heilbronn. … If the
   forces of Sweden overrun almost every part of Germany in the
   following months, under the guidance of the pupils of the
   king, Bernard of Weimar and Gustavus Horn, we must apparently
   attribute it to Wallenstein's intentional inactivity in
   Bohemia. The distrust of him increased in Vienna the more, as
   he took but little trouble to diminish it; and though his fall
   was not sufficient to atone for treachery, if proved, it was
   for his equivocal character and imprudence. His death probably
   saved Germany from a catastrophe. … A great change took
   place upon the death of Wallenstein; as a prince of the blood,
   Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, obtained the command.
   Thus an end was put to plans of revolutions from this quarter.
   But in the same year the battle of Nordlingen gave to the
   imperial arms a sudden preponderance, such as it had never
   before acquired. The separate peace of Saxony with the emperor
   at Prague, and soon after an alliance, were its consequences;
   Sweden driven back to Pomerania, seemed unable of herself,
   during the two following years, to maintain her ground in
   Germany: the victory of Wittstock turned the scale in her
   favour. … The war was prolonged and greatly extended by the
   active share taken in it by France: first against Spain, and
   soon against Austria.  … The German war, after the treaty
   with Bernhard of Weimar, was mainly carried on by France, by
   the arming of Germans against Germans. But the pupil of
   Gustavus Adolphus preferred to fight for himself rather than
   others, and his early death was almost as much coveted by
   France as by Austria. The success of the Swedish arms revived
   under Baner. … At the general diet, which was at last
   convened, the emperor yielded to a general amnesty, or at
   least what was so designated. But when at the meeting of the
   ambassadors of the leading powers at Hamburg, the
   preliminaries were signed, and the time and place of the
   congress of peace fixed, it was deferred after Richelieu's
   death, (who was succeeded by Mazarin), by the war, which both
   parties continued, in the hope of securing better conditions
   by victory. A new war broke out in the north between Sweden
   and Denmark, and when at last the congress of peace was opened
   at Munster and Osnabruck, the negotiations dragged on for
   three years. … The German peace was negotiated at Munster
   between the emperor and France, and at Osnabruck between the
   emperor and Sweden; but both treaties, according to express
   agreement, Oct. 24, 1648, were to be considered as one, under
   the title of the Westphalian."

      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      A Manual of the History of the Political System
      of Europe and its Colonies,
      pages 91-99._

   "The Peace of Westphalia has met manifold hostile comments,
   not only in earlier, but also in later, times. German patriots
   complained that by it the unity of the Empire was rent; and
   indeed the connection of the States, which even before was
   loose, was relaxed to the extreme. This was, however, an evil
   which could not be avoided, and it had to be accepted in order
   to prevent the French and Swedes from using their opportunity
   for the further enslavement of the land. … The religious
   parties also made objections to the peace. The strict
   Catholics condemned it as a work of inexcusable and arbitrary
   injustice. … The dissatisfaction of the Protestants was
   chiefly with the recognition of the Ecclesiastical
   Reservation. They complained also that their brethren in the
   faith were not allowed the free exercise of their religion in
   Austria. Their hostility was limited to theoretical
   discussions, which soon ceased when Louis XIV. took advantage
   of the preponderance which he had won to make outrageous
   assaults upon Germany, and even the Protestants were compelled
   to acknowledge the Emperor as the real defender of German
   independence."

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      volume 2, chapter 10, section 4._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, to 1648;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626; and
      ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1621.
   Formal establishment of the right of primogeniture in the
   Archducal Family.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1624-1626.
   Hostile combinations of Richelieu.
   The Valtelline war in Northern Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War with France over the succession to the Duchy of Mantua.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Renewed war with the Turks.
   Help from France.
   Battle and victory of St. Gothard.
   Twenty years truce.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1668-1683.
   Increased oppression and religious persecution in Hungary.
   Revolt of Tekeli.
   The Turks again called in.
   Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
   Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714.
   The wars with Louis XIV. of France: War of the Grand Alliance.
   Peace of Ryswick.

   "The leading principle of the reign [in France] of Louis XIV.
   … is the principle of war with the dynasty of Charles
   V.—the elder branch of which reigned in Spain, while the
   descendants of the younger branch occupied the imperial throne
   of Germany. … At the death of Mazarin, or to speak more
   correctly, immediately after the death of Philip IV., … the
   early ambition of Louis XIV. sought to prevent the junior
   branch of the Austrian dynasty from succeeding to the
   inheritance of the elder branch. He had no desire to see
   reconstituted under the imperial sceptre of Germany the
   monarchy which Charles V. had at one time wished to transmit
   entire to his son, but which, worn out and weakened, he
   subsequently allowed without regret to be divided between his
   son and his brother. Before making war upon Austria, Louis
   XIV. cast his eyes upon a portion of the territory belonging
   to Spain, and the expedition against Holland, begun in 1672
   [see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678],
   for the purpose of absorbing the Spanish provinces by
   overwhelming them, opened the series of his vast enterprises.
   His first great war was, historically speaking, his first
   great fault. He failed in his object: for at the end of six
   campaigns, during which the French armies obtained great and
   deserved success, Holland remained unconquered.
{210}
   Thus was Europe warned that the lust of conquest of a young
   monarch, who did not himself possess military genius, but who
   found in his generals the resources and ability in which he
   was himself deficient, would soon threaten her independence.
   Condé and Turenne, after having been rebellious subjects under
   the Regency, were about to become the first and the most
   illustrious lieutenants of Louis XIV. Europe, however, though
   warned, was not immediately ready to defend herself. It was
   from Austria, more directly exposed to the dangers of the
   great war now commencing, that the first systematic resistance
   ought to have come. But Austria was not prepared to play such
   a part; and the Emperor Leopold possessed neither the genius
   nor the wish for it. He was, in fact, nothing more than the
   nominal head of Germany. … Such was the state of affairs in
   Europe when William of Orange first made his appearance on the
   stage. … The old question of supremacy, which Louis XIV.
   wished to fight out as a duel with the House of Austria, was
   now about to change its aspect, and, owing to the presence of
   an unexpected genius, to bring into the quarrel other powers
   besides the two original competitors. The foe of Louis XIV.
   ought by rights to have been born on the banks of the Danube,
   and not on the shores of the North Sea. In fact, it was
   Austria that at that moment most needed a man of genius,
   either on the throne or at the head of affairs. The events of
   the century would, in this case, doubtless have followed a
   different course: the war would have been less general, and
   the maritime nations would not have been involved in it to the
   same degree. … The treaties of peace would have been signed
   in some small place in France or Germany, and not in two towns
   and a village in Holland, such as Nimeguen, Ryswick, and
   Utrecht. … William of Orange found himself in a position
   soon to form the Triple Alliance which the very policy of
   Louis XIV. suggested. For France to attack Holland, when her
   object was eventually to reach Austria, and keep her out of
   the Spanish succession, was to make enemies at one and the
   same time of Spain, of Austria, and of Holland. But if it
   afterwards required considerable efforts on the part of
   William of Orange to maintain this alliance, it demanded still
   more energy to extend it. It formed part of the Stadtholder's
   ulterior plans to combine the union between himself and the
   two branches of the Austrian family, with the old
   Anglo-Swedish Triple Alliance, which had just been dissolved
   under the strong pressure brought to bear on it by Louis XIV.
   … Louis XIV., whose finances were exhausted, was very soon
   anxious to make peace, even on the morrow of his most
   brilliant victories; whilst William of Orange, beaten and
   retreating, ardently desired the continuance of the war. …
   The Peace of Nimeguen was at last signed, and by it were
   secured to Louis XIV. Franche-Comté, and some important places
   in the Spanish Low Countries on his northern frontier [see
   NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF]. This was the culminating point of the
   reign of Louis XIV. Although the coalition had prevented him
   from attaining the full object of his designs against the
   House of Austria, which had been to absorb by conquest so much
   of the territory belonging to Spain as would secure him
   against the effect of a will preserving the whole inheritance
   intact in the family, yet his armies had been constantly
   successful, and many of his opponents were evidently tired of
   the struggle. … Some years passed thus, with the appearance
   of calm. Europe was conquered; and when peace was broken,
   because, as was said, the Treaty of Nimeguen was not duly
   executed, the events of the war were for some time neither
   brilliant or important, for several campaigns began and ended
   without any considerable result. … At length Louis XIV.
   entered on the second half of his reign, which differed widely
   from the first. … During this second period of more than
   thirty years, which begins after the Treaty of Nimeguen and
   lasts till the Peace of Utrecht, events succeed each other in
   complete logical sequence, so that the reign presents itself
   as one continuous whole, with a regular movement of ascension
   and decline. … The leading principle of the reign remained
   the same; it was always the desire to weaken the House of
   Austria, or to secure an advantageous partition of the Spanish
   succession. But the Emperor of Germany was protected by the
   coalition, and the King of Spain, whose death was considered
   imminent, would not make up his mind to die. … During the
   first League, when the Prince of Orange was contending against
   Louis XIV. with the co-operation of the Emperor of Germany, of
   the King of Spain, and of the Electors on the Rhine, the
   religious element played only a secondary part in the war. But
   we shall see this element make its presence more manifest. …
   Thus the influence of Protestant England made itself more and
   more felt in the affairs of Europe, in proportion as the
   government of the Stuarts, from its violence, its
   unpopularity, and from the opposition offered to it, was
   approaching its end. … The second coalition was neither more
   united nor more firm than the first had been: but, after the
   expulsion of the Stuarts, the germs of dissolution no longer
   threatened the same dangers. … The British nation now made
   itself felt in the balance of Europe, and William of Orange
   was for the first time in his life successful in war at the
   head of his English troops. … This was the most brilliant
   epoch of the life of William III. … He was now at the height
   of his glory, after a period of twenty years from his start in
   life, and his destiny was accomplished; so that until the
   Treaty of Ryswick, which in 1698 put an end to his hostilities
   with France, and brought about his recognition as King of
   England by Louis XIV., not much more was left for him to gain;
   and he had the skill to lose nothing. … The negotiations for
   the Treaty of Ryswick were conducted with less ability and
   boldness, and concluded on less advantageous terms, than the
   Truce of Ratisbon or the Peace of Nimeguen. Nevertheless, this
   treaty, which secured to Louis the possession of Strasbourg,
   might, particularly as age was now creeping on him, have
   closed his military career without disgrace, if the eternal
   question, for the solution of which he had made so many
   sacrifices, and which had always held the foremost place in
   his thoughts, had not remained as unsettled and as full of
   difficulty as on the day when he had mounted the throne.
{211}
   Charles II. of Spain was not dead, and the question of the
   Spanish succession, which had so actively employed the armies
   of Louis XIV., and taxed his diplomacy, was as undecided as at
   the beginning of his reign. Louis XIV. saw two alternatives
   before him: a partition of the succession between the Emperor
   and himself (a solution proposed thirty years before as a
   means to avoid war), or else a will in favour of France,
   followed of course by a recommencement of general hostilities.
   … Louis XIV. proposed in succession two schemes, not, as
   thirty years before, to the Emperor, but to the King of
   England, whose power and whose genius rendered him the arbiter
   of all the great affairs of Europe. … In the first of the
   treaties of partition, Spain and the Low Countries were to be
   given to the Prince of Bavaria; in the second, to the Archduke
   Charles. In both, France obtained Naples and Sicily for the
   Dauphin. … Both these arrangements … suited both France
   and England as a pacific solution of the question. … But
   events, as we know, deranged all these calculations, and
   Charles II., who, by continuing to live, had disappointed so
   much impatient expectation, by his last will provoked a
   general war, to be carried on against France by the union of
   England with the Empire and with Holland—a union which was
   much strengthened under the new dynasty, and which afterwards
   embraced the northern states of Germany. … William III. died
   at the age of fifty-two, on the 9th of March, 1702, at the
   beginning of the War of Succession. After him, the part he was
   to have played was divided. Prince Eugene, Marlborough, and
   Heinsius (the Grand Pensionary) had the conduct of political
   and especially of military affairs, and acted in concert. The
   disastrous consequences to France of that war, in which
   William had no part, are notorious. The battles of Blenheim,
   of Ramilies, and of Oudenarde brought the allied armies on the
   soil of France, and placed Louis XIV. on the verge of ruin."

      _J. Van Praet,
      Essays on the Political History of the
      15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries,
      pages 390-414 and 441-455._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV:,
      volume 2, chapters 2 and 4-6._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapters 5-6 (volume 3)._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and
      FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1697.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1687.
   Merciless suppression of the Hungarian revolt.
   The crown of Hungary made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1699.
   Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.
   The Peace of Carlowitz.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1699-1711.
   Suppression of the Revolt under Rakoczy in Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1700.
   Interest of the Imperial House in the question of the Spanish
   Succession.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1701-1713.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1704;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1702, to 1707-1710, and
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.
   Its Circumstances changed.

   "The death of the Emperor Joseph I., who expired April 17,
   1711, at the age of thirty-two, changed the whole character of
   the War of the Spanish Succession. As Joseph left no male
   heirs, the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria
   devolved to his brother, the Archduke Charles; and though that
   prince had not been elected King of the Romans, and had
   therefore to become a candidate for the imperial crown, yet
   there could be little doubt that he would attain that dignity.
   Hence, if Charles should also become sovereign of Spain and
   the Indies, the vast empire of Charles V. would be again
   united in one person; and that very evil of an almost
   universal monarchy would be established, the prevention of
   which had been the chief cause for taking up arms against
   Philip V. … After an interregnum of half a year, during
   which the affairs of the Empire had been conducted by the
   Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, as imperial vicars
   for South and North Germany, the Archduke Charles was
   unanimously named Emperor by the Electoral College (Oct.
   12th). … Charles … received the imperial crown at
   Frankfort, December 22d, with the title of Charles VI."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.
   Acquisition of the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1719.
   Continued differences with Spain.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714.
   The Desertion of the Catalans.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714-1718.
   Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks from
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738.
   The question of the Succession.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., and its guarantee by
   the Powers.

   "On the death [A. D. 1711] of Joseph, the hopes of the house
   of Austria and the future destiny of Germany rested on Charles
   [then, as titular king of Spain, Charles III., ineffectually
   contesting the Spanish throne with the Bourbon heir, Philip V.
   afterwards, as Emperor, Charles VI.] who was the only
   surviving male of his illustrious family. By that event the
   houses of Austria, Germany and Europe were placed in a new and
   critical situation. From a principle of mistaken policy the
   succession to the hereditary dominions had never been
   established according to an invariable rule; for it was not
   clearly ascertained whether males of the collateral branches
   should be preferred to females in lineal descent, an
   uncertainty which had frequently occasioned many vehement
   disputes. To obviate this evil, as well as to prevent future
   disputes, Leopold [father of Joseph and Charles] had arranged
   the order of succession: to Joseph he assigned Hungary and
   Bohemia, and the other hereditary dominions; and to Charles
   the crown of Spain, and all the territories which belonged to
   the Spanish inheritance. Should Joseph die without issue male,
   the whole succession was to descend to Charles, and in case of
   his death, under similar circumstances, the Austrian dominions
   were to devolve on the daughters of Joseph in preference to
   those of Charles. This family compact was signed by the two
   brothers in the presence of Leopold. Joseph died without male
   issue; but left two daughters." He was succeeded by Charles in
   accordance with the compact.
{212}
   "On the 2nd of August, 1718, soon after the signature of the
   Quadruple Alliance, Charles promulgated a new law of
   succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under
   the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. According to the family
   compact formed by Leopold, and confirmed by Joseph and
   Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of
   Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, should they
   both die without issue male. Charles, however, had scarcely
   ascended the throne, though at that time without children,
   than he reversed this compact, and settled the right of
   succession, in default of his male issue, first on his
   daughters, then on the daughters of Joseph, and afterwards on
   the queen of Portugal and the other daughters of Leopold.
   Since the promulgation of that decree, the Empress had borne a
   son who died in his infancy, and three daughters, Maria
   Theresa, Maria Anne and Maria Amelia. With a view to insure
   the succession of these daughters, and to obviate the dangers
   which might arise from the claims of the Josephine
   archduchesses, he published the Pragmatic Sanction, and
   compelled his nieces to renounce their pretensions on their
   marriages with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. Aware,
   however, that the strongest renunciations are disregarded, he
   obtained from the different states of his extensive dominions
   the acknowledgement of the Pragmatic Sanction, and made it the
   great object of his reign, to which he sacrificed every other
   consideration, to procure the guaranty of the European
   powers." This guaranty was obtained in treaties with the
   several powers, as follows: Spain in 1725; Russia, 1726,
   renewed in 1733; Prussia, 1728; England and Holland, 1731;
   France, 1738; the Empire, 1732. The inheritance which Charles
   thus endeavored to secure to his daughter was vast and
   imposing. "He was by election Emperor of Germany, by
   hereditary right sovereign of Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia,
   Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the Tyrol, and the
   Brisgau, and he had recently obtained Naples and Sicily, the
   Milanese and the Netherlands."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 80, 84-85 (volume 3)._

   "The Pragmatic Sanction, though framed to legalize the
   accession of Maria Theresa, excludes the present Emperor's
   daughters and his grandchild by postponing the succession of
   females to that of males in the family of Charles VI."

      _J. D. Bourchier,
      The Heritage of the Hapsburgs
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
      chapter 2._

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1719.
   Sardinia ceded to the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily.

      See
      SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and
      ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1731.
   The second Treaty of Vienna with England and Holland.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
   Interference in the election of the King of Poland.

   See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1733-1735.
   The war of the Polish Succession.
   Cession of Naples and Sicily to Spain, and Lorraine and Bar to
   France.

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735, and
      ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1737-1739.
   Unfortunate war with the Turks, in alliance with Russia.
   Humiliating peace of Belgrade.
   Surrender of Belgrade, with Servia, and part of Bosnia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October).
   Treachery among the Guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction.
   The inheritance of Marie Theresa disputed.

   "The Emperor Charles VI. … died on the 20th of October,
   1740. His daughter Maria Theresa, the heiress of his dominions
   with the title of Queen of Hungary, was but twenty-three years
   of age, without experience or knowledge of business; and her
   husband Francis, the titular Duke of Lorraine and reigning
   Grand Duke of Tuscany, deserved the praise of amiable
   qualities rather than of commanding talents. Her Ministers
   were timorous, irresolute, and useless: 'I saw them in
   despair,' writes Mr. Robinson, the British envoy, 'but that
   very despair was not capable of rendering them bravely
   desperate.' The treasury was exhausted, the army dispersed,
   and no General risen to replace Eugene. The succession of
   Maria Theresa was, indeed, cheerfully acknowledged by her
   subjects, and seemed to be secured amongst foreign powers by
   their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction; but it soon
   appeared that such guarantees are mere worthless parchments
   where there is strong temptation to break and only a feeble
   army to support them. The principal claimant to the succession
   was the Elector of Bavaria, who maintained that the will of
   the Emperor Ferdinand the First devised the Austrian states to
   his daughter, from whom the Elector descended, on failure of
   male lineage. It appeared that the original will in the
   archives at Vienna referred to the failure not of the male but
   of the legitimate issue of his sons; but this document, though
   ostentatiously displayed to all the Ministers of state and
   foreign ambassadors, was very far from inducing the Elector to
   desist from his pretensions. As to the Great Powers—the Court
   of France, the old ally of the Bavarian family, and mindful of
   its injuries from the House of Austria, was eager to exalt the
   first by the depression of the latter. The Bourbons in Spain
   followed the direction of the Bourbons in France. The King of
   Poland and the Empress of Russia were more friendly in their
   expressions than in their designs. An opposite spirit pervaded
   England and Holland, where motives of honour and of policy
   combined to support the rights of Maria Theresa. In Germany
   itself the Elector of Cologne, the Bavarian's brother, warmly
   espoused his cause: and 'the remaining Electors,' says
   Chesterfield, 'like electors with us, thought it a proper
   opportunity of making the most of their votes,—and all at
   the expense of the helpless and abandoned House of Austria!'
   The first blow, however, came from Prussia, where the King
   Frederick William had died a few months before, and been
   succeeded by his son Frederick the Second; a Prince surnamed
   the Great by poets."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 23 (volume 3)._

   "The elector of Bavaria acted in a prompt, honest, and
   consistent manner. He at once lodged a protest against any
   disposition of the hereditary estates to the prejudice of his
   own rights; insisted on the will of Ferdinand I.; and demanded
   the production of the original text. It was promptly produced.
   But it was found to convey the succession to the heirs of his
   daughter, the ancestress of the elector, not, as he contended,
   on the failure of male heirs, but in the absence of more
   direct heirs born in wedlock. Maria Theresa could, however,
   trace her descent through nearer male heirs, and had,
   therefore, a superior title. Charles Albert was in any event
   only one of several claimants. The King of Spain, a Bourbon,
   presented himself as the heir of the Hapsburg emperor Charles
   V. The King of Sardinia alleged an ancient marriage contract,
   from which he derived a right to the duchy of Milan. Even
   August of Saxony claimed territory by virtue of an antiquated
   title, which, it was pretended, the renunciation of his wife
   could not affect. All these were, however, mere vultures
   compared to the eagle [Frederick of Prussia] which was soon to
   descend upon its prey."

      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
      chapter 2._

{213}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October-November).
   The War of the Succession.
   Conduct of Frederick the Great as explained by himself.

   "This Pragmatic Sanction had been guarantied by France,
   England, Holland, Sardinia, Saxony, and the Roman empire; nay
   by the late King Frederic William [of Prussia] also, on
   condition that the court of Vienna would secure to him the
   succession of Juliers and Berg. The emperor promised him the
   eventual succession, and did not fulfil his engagements; by
   which the King of Prussia, his successor, was freed from this
   guarantee, to which his father, the late king, had pledged
   himself, conditionally. … Frederic I., when he erected
   Prussia into a kingdom, had, by that vain grandeur, planted
   the scion of ambition in the bosom of his posterity; which,
   soon or late, must fructify. The monarchy he had left to his
   descendants was, if I may be permitted the expression, a kind
   of hermaphrodite, which was rather more an electorate than a
   kingdom. Fame was to be acquired by determining the nature of
   this being: and this sensation certainly was one of those
   which strengthened so many motives, conspiring to engage the
   king in grand enterprises. If the acquisition of the dutchy of
   Berg had not even met with almost insurmountable impediments,
   it was in itself so small that the possession would add little
   grandeur to the house of Brandenbourg. These reflections
   occasioned the king to turn his views toward the house of
   Austria, the succession of which would become matter of
   litigation, at the death of the emperor, when the throne of
   the Cæsars should be vacant. That event must be favourable to
   the distinguished part which the king had to act in Germany,
   by the various claims of the houses of Saxony and Bavaria to
   these states; by the number of candidates which might canvass
   for the Imperial crown; and by the projects of the court of
   Versailles, which, on such an occasion, must naturally profit
   by the troubles that the death of Charles VI. could not fail
   to excite. This accident did not long keep the world in
   expectation. The emperor ended his days at the palace La
   Favorite, on the 26th [20th] day of October, 1740. The news
   arrived at Rheinsberg when the king was ill of a fever. … He
   immediately resolved to reclaim the principalities of Silesia;
   the rights of his house to which [long dormant, the claim
   dating back to a certain covenant of heritage-brotherhood with
   the duke of Liegnitz, in 1537, which the emperor of that day
   caused to be annulled by the States of Bohemia] were
   incontestable: and he prepared, at the same time, to support
   these pretensions, if necessary, by arms. This project
   accomplished all his political views; it afforded the means of
   acquiring reputation, of augmenting the power of the state,
   and of terminating what related to the litigious succession of
   the dutchy of Berg. …The state of the court of Vienna, after
   the death of the emperor, was deplorable. The finances were in
   disorder; the army was ruined and discouraged by ill success
   in its wars with the Turks; the ministry disunited, and a
   youthful unexperienced princess at the head of the government,
   who was to defend the succession from all claimants. The
   result was that the government could not appear formidable. It
   was besides impossible that the king should be destitute of
   allies. … The war which he might undertake in Silesia was
   the only offensive war that could be favoured by the situation
   of his states, for it would be carried on upon his frontiers,
   and the Oder would always furnish him with a sure
   communication. … Add to these reasons, an army fit to march,
   a treasury ready prepared, and, perhaps, the ambition of
   acquiring renown. Such were the causes of the war which the
   king declared against Maria Theresa of Austria, queen of
   Hungary and Bohemia."

      _Frederick II. (Frederick the Great),
      History of My Own Times:
      Posthumous Works (translated by Holcroft),
      volume 1, chapters 1-2._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
   The War of the Succession: Faithlessness of the King of Prussia.
   The Macaulay verdict.

   "From no quarter did the young queen of Hungary receive
   stronger assurances of friendship and support than from the
   King of Prussia. Yet the King of Prussia, the
   'Anti-Machiavel,' had already fully determined to commit the
   great crime of violating his plighted faith, of robbing the
   ally whom he was bound to defend, and of plunging all Europe
   into a long, bloody, and desolating war, and all this for no
   end whatever except that he might extend his dominions and see
   his name in the gazettes. He determined to assemble a great
   army with speed and secrecy, to invade Silesia before Maria
   Theresa should be apprized of his design, and to add that rich
   province to his kingdom. … Without any declaration of war,
   without any demand for reparation, in the very act of pouring
   forth compliments and assurances of good will, Frederic
   commenced hostilities. Many thousands of his troops were
   actually in Silesia before the Queen of Hungary knew that he
   had set up any claim to any part of her territories. At length
   he sent her a message which could be regarded only as an
   insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he
   said, stand by her against any power which should try to
   deprive her of her other dominions: as if he was not already
   bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of
   more value than the old one. It was the depth of winter. The
   cold was severe, and the roads deep in mire. But the Prussians
   pressed on. Resistance was impossible. The Austrian army was
   then neither numerous nor efficient. The small portion of that
   army which lay in Silesia was unprepared for hostilities.
   Glogau was blockaded; Breslau opened its gates; Ohlau was
   evacuated. A few scattered garrisons still held out; but the
   whole open country was subjugated: no enemy ventured to
   encounter the king in the field; and, before the end of
   January, 1741, he returned to receive the congratulations of
   his subjects at Berlin.
{214}
   Had the Silesian question been merely a question between
   Frederic and Maria Theresa it would be impossible to acquit
   the Prussian king of gross perfidy. But when we consider the
   effects which his policy produced, and could not fail to
   produce, on the whole community of civilized nations, we are
   compelled to pronounce a condemnation still more severe. …
   The selfish rapacity of the king of Prussia gave the signal to
   his neighbours. … The evils produced by this wickedness were
   felt in lands where the name of Prussia was unknown; and, in
   order that he might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to
   defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel, and red
   men scalped each other by the great lakes of North America.
   Silesia had been occupied without a battle; but the Austrian
   troops were advancing to the relief of the fortresses which
   still held out. In the spring Frederic rejoined his army. He
   had seen little of war, and had never commanded any great body
   of men in the field. … Frederic's first battle was fought at
   Molwitz [April 10, 1741], and never did the career of a great
   commander open in a more inauspicious manner. His army was
   victorious. Not only, however, did he not establish his title
   to the character of an able general, but he was so unfortunate
   as to make it doubtful whether he possessed the vulgar courage
   of a soldier. The cavalry, which he commanded in person, was
   put to flight. Unaccustomed to the tumult and carnage of a
   field of battle, he lost his self-possession, and listened too
   readily to those who urged him to save himself. His English
   gray carried him many miles from the field, while Schwerin,
   though wounded in two places, manfully upheld the day. The
   skill of the old Field-Marshal and the steadiness of the
   Prussian battalions prevailed, and the Austrian army was
   driven from the field with the loss of 8,000 men. The news was
   carried late at night to a mill in which the king had taken
   shelter. It gave him a bitter pang. He was successful; but he
   owed his success to dispositions which others had made, and to
   the valour of men who had fought while he was flying. So
   unpromising was the first appearance of the greatest warrior
   of that age."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Frederic the Great
      (Essays, volume 4)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (April-May).
   The War of the Succession: French responsibility.
   The Carlyle verdict.

   "The battle of Mollwitz went off like a signal shot among the
   Nations; intimating that they were, one and all, to go
   battling. Which they did, with a witness; making a terrible
   thing of it, over all the world, for above seven years to
   come. … Not that Mollwitz kindled Europe; Europe was already
   kindled for some two years past;—especially since the late
   Kaiser died, and his Pragmatic Sanction was superadded to the
   other troubles afoot. But ever since that image of Jenkins's
   Ear had at last blazed up in the slow English brain, like a
   fiery constellation or Sign in the Heavens, symbolic of such
   injustices and unendurabilities, and had lighted the
   Spanish-English War [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], Europe was
   slowly but pretty surely taking fire. France 'could not see
   Spain humbled,' she said: England (in its own dim feeling, and
   also in the fact of things), could not do at all without
   considerably humbling Spain. France, endlessly interested in
   that Spanish-English matter, was already sending out fleets,
   firing shots,—almost, or altogether, putting her hand in it.
   'In which case, will not, must not, Austria help us?' thought
   England,—and was asking, daily, at Vienna … when the late
   Kaiser died. … But if not as cause, then as signal, or as
   signal and cause together (which it properly was), the Battle
   of Mollwitz gave the finishing stroke and set all in motion.
   … For directly on the back of Mollwitz, there ensued, first,
   an explosion of Diplomatic activity, such as was never seen
   before; Excellencies from the four winds taking wing towards
   Friedrich; and talking and insinuating, and fencing and
   fugling, after their sort, in that Silesian camp of his, the
   centre being there. A universal rookery of Diplomatists, whose
   loud cackle is now as if gone mad to us; their work wholly
   fallen putrescent and avoidable, dead to all creatures. And
   secondly, in the train of that, there ensued a universal
   European War, the French and the English being chief parties
   in it; which abounds in battles and feats of arms, spirited
   but delirious, and cannot be got stilled for seven or eight
   years to come; and in which Friedrich and his War swim only as
   an intermittent Episode henceforth. … The first point to be
   noted is, Where did it originate? To which the answer mainly
   is … with Monseigneur, the Maréchal de Belleisle
   principally; with the ambitious cupidities and baseless
   vanities of the French Court and Nation, as represented by
   Belleisle. … The English-Spanish War had a basis to stand on
   in this Universe. The like had the Prussian-Austrian one; so
   all men now admit. If Friedrich had not business there, what
   man ever had in an enterprise he ventured on? Friedrich, after
   such trial and proof as has seldom been, got his claims on
   Schlesien allowed by the Destinies. … Friedrich had business
   in this War; and Maria Theresa versus Friedrich had likewise
   cause to appear in Court, and do her utmost pleading against
   him. But if we ask, What Belleisle or France and Louis XV. had
   to do there? the answer is rigorously Nothing. Their own windy
   vanities, ambitions,  sanctioned not by fact and the Almighty
   Powers, but by Phantasm and the babble of Versailles;
   transcendent self-conceit, intrinsically insane; pretensions
   over their fellow-creatures which were without basis anywhere
   in Nature, except in the French brain; it was this that
   brought Belleisle and France into a German War. And Belleisle
   and France having gone into an Anti-Pragmatic War, the unlucky
   George and his England were dragged into a Pragmatic
   one,—quitting their own business, on the Spanish Main, and
   hurrying to Germany,—in terror as at Doomsday, and zeal to
   save the Keystone of Nature there. That is the notable point
   in regard to this War: That France is to be called the author
   of it, who, alone of all the parties, had no business there
   whatever."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.,
      book 12, chapter 11 (volume 4)._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

{215}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (May-June).
   Mission of Belleisle.
   The thickening of the Plot.

   "The defeat of Maria Theresa's only army [at Mollwitz] swept
   away all the doubts and scruples of France. The fiery
   Belleisle had already set out upon his mission to the various
   German courts, armed with powers which were reluctantly
   granted by the cardinal [Fleury, the French minister], and
   were promptly enlarged by the ambassador to suit his own more
   ambitious views of the situation. He travelled in oriental
   state. … The almost royal pomp with which he strode into the
   presence of princes of the blood, the copious eloquence with
   which he pleaded his cause, … were only the outward
   decorations of one of the most iniquitous schemes ever devised
   by an unscrupulous diplomacy. The scheme, when stripped of all
   its details, did not indeed at first appear absolutely
   revolting. It proposed simply to secure the election of
   Charles Albert of Bavaria as emperor, an honor to which he had
   a perfect right to aspire. But it was difficult to obtain the
   votes of certain electors without offering them the prospect
   of territorial gains, and impossible for Charles Albert to
   support the imperial dignity without greater revenues than
   those of Bavaria. It was proposed, therefore, that provinces
   should be taken from Maria Theresa herself, first to purchase
   votes against her own husband, and then to swell the income of
   the successful rival candidate. The three episcopal electors
   were first visited, and subjected to various forms of
   persuasion, bribes, flattery, threats,—until the effects of
   the treatment began to appear; the count palatine was devoted
   to France; and these four with Bavaria made a majority of one.
   But that was too small a margin for Belleisle's aspirations,
   or even for the safety of his project. The four remaining
   votes belonged to the most powerful of the German states,
   Prussia, Hanover, Saxony and Bohemia. … Bohemia, if it voted
   at all, would of course vote for the grand-duke Francis
   [husband of Maria Theresa]. Saxony and Hanover were already
   negotiating with Maria Theresa; and it was well understood
   that Austria could have Frederick's support by paying his
   price." Austria refused to pay the price, and Frederick signed
   a treaty with the king of France at Breslau on the 4th of
   June, 1741. "The essence of it was contained in four secret
   articles. In these the king of Prussia renounced his claim to
   Jülich-Berg in behalf of the house of Sulzbach, and agreed to
   give his vote to the elector of Bavaria for emperor. The king
   of France engaged to guarantee Prussia in the possession of
   Lower Silesia, to send within two months an army to the
   support of Bavaria, and to provoke an immediate rupture
   between Sweden and Russia."

      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 99 (volume 3)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (June-September).
   Maria Theresa and the Hungarians.

   "During these anxious summer months Maria Theresa and the
   Austrian court had resided mainly at Presburg, in Hungary.
   Here she had been occupied in the solution of domestic as well
   as international problems. The Magyars, as a manly and
   chivalrous race, had been touched by the perilous situation of
   the young queen; but, while ardently protesting their loyalty,
   insisted not the less on the recognition of their own
   inalienable rights. These had been inadequately observed in
   recent years, and in consequence no little disaffection
   prevailed in Hungary. The magnates resolved, therefore, as
   they had resolved at the beginning of previous reigns, to
   demand the restoration of all their rights and privileges. But
   it does not appear that they wished to take any ungenerous
   advantage of the sex or the necessities of Maria Theresa. They
   were argumentative and stubborn, yet not in a bargaining,
   mercenary spirit. They accepted in June a qualified compliance
   with their demands; and when on the 25th of that month the
   queen appeared before the diet to receive the crown of St.
   Stephen, and, according to custom, waved the great sword of
   the kingdom toward the four points of the compass, toward the
   north and the south, the east and the west, challenging all
   enemies to dispute her right, the assembly was carried away by
   enthusiasm, and it seemed as if an end had forever been put to
   constitutional technicalities. Such was, however, not the
   case. After the excitement caused by the dramatic coronation
   had in a measure subsided, the old contentions revived, as
   bitter and vexatious as before. These concerned especially the
   manner in which the administration of Hungary should be
   adjusted to meet the new state of things. Should the chief
   political offices be filled by native Hungarians, as the diet
   demanded? Could the co-regency of the grand-duke, which was
   ardently desired by the queen, be accepted by the Magyars? For
   two months the dispute over these problems raged at Presburg,
   until finally Maria Theresa herself found a bold, ingenious,
   and patriotic solution. The news of the Franco-Bavarian
   alliance and the fall of Passau determined her to throw
   herself completely upon the gallantry and devotion of the
   Magyars. It had long been the policy of the court of Vienna
   not to entrust the Hungarians with arms. … But Maria Theresa
   had not been robbed, in spite of her experience with France
   and Prussia, of all her faith in human nature. She took the
   responsibility of her decision, and the result proved that her
   insight was correct. On the 11th of September she summoned the
   members of the diet before her, and, seated on the throne,
   explained to them the perilous situation of her dominions. The
   danger, she said, threatened herself, and all that was dear to
   her. Abandoned by all her allies, she took refuge in the
   fidelity and the ancient valor of the Hungarians, to whom she
   entrusted herself, her children, and her empire. Here she
   broke into tears, and covered, her face with her handkerchief.
   The diet responded to this appeal by proclaiming the
   'insurrection' or the equipment of a large popular force for
   the defence of the queen. So great was the enthusiasm that it
   nearly swept away even the original aversion of the Hungarians
   to the grand-duke Francis, who, to the queen's delight, was
   finally, though not without some murmurs, accepted as
   co-regent. … This uprising was organized not an hour too
   early, for dangers were pressing upon the queen from every
   side."

      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1740-1745,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duc de Broglie,
      Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa,
      chapter 4 (volume 2)._

{216}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (August-November).
   The French-Bavarian onset.

   "France now began to act with energy. In the month of August
   [1741] two French armies crossed the Rhine, each about 40, 000
   strong. The first marched into Westphalia, and frightened
   George II. into concluding a treaty of neutrality for Hanover,
   and promising his vote to the Elector of Bavaria. The second
   advanced through South Germany on Passau, the frontier city of
   Bavaria and Austria. As soon as it arrived on German soil, the
   French officers assumed the blue and white cockade of
   Bavaria, for it was the cue of France to appear only as an
   auxiliary, and the nominal command of her army was vested in
   the Elector. From Passau the French and Bavarians passed into
   Upper Austria, and on Sept. 11 entered its capital, Linz,
   where the Elector assumed the title of Archduke. Five days
   later Saxony joined the allies. Sweden had already declared
   war on Russia. Spain trumped up an old claim and attacked the
   Austrian dominions in Italy. It seemed as if Belleisle's
   schemes were about to be crowned with complete success. Had
   the allies pushed forward, Vienna must have fallen into their
   hands. But the French did not wish to be too victorious, lest
   they should make the Elector too powerful, and so independent
   of them. Therefore, after six weeks' delay, they turned aside
   to the conquest of Bohemia."

      _F. W. Longman,
      Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
      chapter 4, section 4._

   "While … a portion of the French troops, under the command
   of the Count de Segur, was left in Upper Austria, the
   remainder of the allied army turned towards Bohemia; where
   they were joined by a body of Saxons, under the command of
   Count Rutowsky. They took Prague by assault, on the night of
   the 25th of November, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the
   husband of Maria Theresa, was marching to his relief. In
   Prague, 3,000 prisoners were taken. The elector of Bavaria
   hastened there, upon hearing of the success of his arms, was
   crowned King of Bohemia, during the month of December, and
   received the oath of fidelity from the constituted
   authorities. But while he was thus employed, the Austrian
   general, Khevenhuller, had driven the Count de Segur out of
   Austria, and had himself entered Bavaria; which obliged the
   Bavarian army to abandon Bohemia and hasten to the defence of
   their own country."

      _Lord Dover,
      Life of Frederick II.,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Frederick II.,
      History of My Own Times
      (Posthumous Works, volume 1, chapter 5)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (October).
   Secret Treaty with Frederick.
   Lower Silesia conceded to him.
   Austrian success.

   "By October, 1741, the fortunes of Maria Theresa had sunk to
   the lowest ebb, but a great revulsion speedily set in. The
   martial enthusiasm of the Hungarians, the subsidy from
   England, and the brilliant military talents of General
   Khevenhuller, restored her armies. Vienna was put in a state
   of defence, and at the same time jealousies and suspicion made
   their way among the confederates. The Electors of Bavaria and
   Saxony were already in some degree divided; and the Germans,
   and especially Frederick, were alarmed by the growing
   ascendency, and irritated by the haughty demeanour of the
   French. In the moment of her extreme depression, the Queen
   consented to a concession which England had vainly urged upon
   her before, and which laid the foundation of her future
   success. In October 1741 she entered into a secret convention
   with Frederick [called the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf],
   by which that astute sovereign agreed to desert his allies,
   and desist from hostilities, on condition of ultimately
   obtaining Lower Silesia, with Breslau and Neisse. Every
   precaution was taken to ensure secrecy. It was arranged that
   Frederick should continue to besiege Neisse, that the town
   should ultimately be surrendered to him, and that his troops
   should then retire into winter quarters, and take no further
   part in the war. As the sacrifice of a few more lives was
   perfectly indifferent to the contracting parties, and in order
   that no one should suspect the treachery that was
   contemplated, Neisse, after the arrangement had been made for
   its surrender, was subjected for four days and four nights to
   the horrors of bombardment. Frederick, at the same time
   talked, with his usual cynical frankness, to the English
   ambassador about the best way of attacking his allies the
   French; and observed, that if the Queen of Hungary prospered,
   he would perhaps support her, if not—everyone must look for
   himself. He only assented verbally to this convention, and, no
   doubt, resolved to await the course of events, in order to
   decide which Power it was his interest finally to betray; but
   in the meantime the Austrians obtained a respite, which
   enabled them to throw their whole forces upon their other
   enemies. Two brilliant campaigns followed. The greater part of
   Bohemia was recovered by an army under the Duke of Lorraine,
   and the French were hemmed in at Prague; while another army,
   under General Khevenhuller, invaded Upper Austria, drove
   10,000 French soldiers within the walls of Linz, blockaded
   them, defeated a body of Bohemians who were sent to the
   rescue, compelled the whole French army to surrender, and
   then, crossing the frontier, poured in a resistless torrent
   over Bavaria. The fairest plains of that beautiful land were
   desolated by hosts of irregular troops from Hungary, Croatia,
   and the Tyrol; and on the 12th of February the Austrians
   marched in triumph into Munich. On that very day the Elector
   of Bavaria was crowned Emperor of Germany, at Frankfort, under
   the title of Charles VII., and the imperial crown was thus, for
   the first time, for many generations, separated from the House
   of Austria."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Von Raumer,
      Contributions to Modern History:
      Frederick II. and his Times,
      chapter 13-14._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741-1743.
   Successes in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (January-May).
   Frederick breaks faith again.
   Battle of Chotusitz.

   "The Queen of Hungary had assembled in the beginning of the
   year two considerable armies in Moravia and Bohemia, the one
   under Prince Lobkowitz, to defend the former province, and the
   other commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine, her
   brother-in-law. This young Prince possessed as much bravery
   and activity as Frederick, and had equally with him the talent
   of inspiring attachment and confidence. … Frederick, alarmed
   at these preparations and the progress of the Austrians in
   Bavaria, abruptly broke off the convention of
   Ober-Schnellendorf, and recommenced hostilities. … The King
   of Prussia became apprehensive that the Queen of Hungary would
   again turn her arms to recover Silesia. He therefore
   dispatched Marshal Schwerin to seize Olmutz and lay siege to
   Glatz, which surrendered after a desperate resistance on the
   9th of January. Soon after this event, the King rejoined his
   army, and endeavoured to drive the Austrians from their
   advantageous position in the southern parts of Bohemia, which
   would have delivered the French troops in the neighbourhood
   and checked the progress of Khevenhüller in Bavaria.
{217}
   The king advanced to Iglau, on the frontiers of Bohemia, and,
   occupying the banks of the Taya, made irruptions into Upper
   Austria, his hussars spreading terror even to the gates of
   Vienna. The Austrians drew from Bavaria a corps of 10,000 men
   to cover the capital, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the
   head of 50,000 men, threatened the Prussian magazines in Upper
   Silesia, and by this movement compelled Frederick to detach a
   considerable force for their protection, and to evacuate
   Moravia, which he had invaded. Broglie, who commanded the
   French forces in that country, must now have fallen a
   sacrifice, had not the ever-active King of Prussia brought up
   30,000 men, which, under the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, entering
   Bohemia, came up with Prince Charles at Czaslau, about
   thirty-five miles from Prague, before he could form a junction
   with Prince Lobkowitz. Upon this ensued [May 17, 1742] what is
   known in history as the battle of Czaslau [also, and more
   commonly, called the battle of Chotusitz]. … The numbers in
   the two armies were nearly equal, and the action was warmly
   contested on both sides. … The Prussians remained masters of
   the field, with 18 cannon, two pairs of colours and 1,200
   prisoners; but they indeed paid dearly for the honour, for it
   was computed that their loss was equal to that of their enemy,
   which amounted to 7,000 men on either side; while the Prussian
   cavalry, under Field-Marshal Buddenbroch, was nearly ruined.
   … Although in this battle the victory was, without doubt, on
   the side of the Prussians, yet the immediate consequences were
   highly favourable to the Queen of Hungary. The King was
   disappointed of his expected advantages, and conceived a
   disgust to the war. He now lowered his demands and made
   overtures of accommodation, which, on the 11th of June,
   resulted in a treaty of peace between the two crowns, which
   was signed at Breslau under the mediation of the British
   Ambassador."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, page 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II. of Prussia,
      book 13, chapter 13 (volume 5)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June).
   Treaty of Breslau with the King of Prussia.

   "The following are the preliminary articles which were signed
   at Breslau: 1. The queen of Hungary ceded to the king of
   Prussia Upper and Lower Silesia, with the principality of
   Glatz; except the towns of Troppau, Jaegendorff and the high
   mountains situated beyond the Oppa. 2. The Prussians undertook
   to repay the English 1,700,000 crowns; which sum was a
   mortgage loan on Silesia. The remaining articles related to a
   suspension of arms, an exchange of prisoners, and the freedom
   of religion and trade. Thus was Silesia united to the Prussian
   States. Two years were sufficient for the conquest of that
   important province. The treasures which the late king had left
   were almost expended; but provinces that do not cost more than
   seven or eight millions are cheaply purchased."

      _Frederic II.,
      History of My Own Times
      (Posthumous Works, volume 1),
      chapter 6._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June-December).
   Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.
   Belleisle's retreat from Prague.

   "The Austrian arms began now to be successful in all quarters.
   Just before the signature of the preliminaries, Prince
   Lobcowitz, who was stationed at Budweiss with 10,000 men, made
   an attack on Frauenberg; Broglio and Belleisle advanced from
   Piseck to relieve the town, and a combat took place at Sahay,
   in which the Austrians were repulsed with the loss of 500 men.
   This trifling affair was magnified into a decisive victory.
   … Marshal Broglio, elated with this advantage, and relying
   on the immediate junction of the King of Prussia, remained at
   Frauenberg in perfect security. But his expectations were
   disappointed; Frederic had already commenced his secret
   negotiations, and Prince Charles was enabled to turn his
   forces against the French. Being joined by Prince Lobcowitz,
   they attacked Broglio, and compelled him to quit Frauenberg
   with such precipitation that his baggage fell into the hands
   of the light troops, and the French retreated towards Branau,
   harassed by the Croats and other irregulars. … The
   Austrians, pursuing their success against the French, drove
   Broglio from Branau, and followed him to the walls of Prague,
   where he found Belleisle. … After several consultations, the
   two generals called in their posts, and secured their army
   partly within the walls and partly within a peninsula of the
   Moldau. … Soon afterwards the duke of Lorraine joined the
   army [of Prince Charles], which now amounted to 70 70,000 men,
   and the arrival of the heavy artillery enabled the Austrians to
   commence the siege."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 102 (volume 3)._

   "To relieve the French at Prague, Marshal Maillebois was
   directed to advance with his army from Westphalia. At these
   tidings Prince Charles changed the siege of Prague to a
   blockade, and marching against his new opponents, checked
   their progress on the Bohemian frontier; the French, however,
   still occupying the town of Egra. It was under these
   circumstances that Belleisle made his masterly and renowned
   retreat from Prague. In the night of the 16th of December, he
   secretly left the city at the head of 11,000 foot and 3,000
   horse, having deceived the Austrians' vigilance by the feint
   of a general forage in the opposite quarter; and pushed for
   Egra through a hostile country, destitute of resources and
   surrounded by superior enemies. His soldiers, with no other
   food than frozen bread, and compelled to sleep without
   covering on the snow and ice, perished in great numbers; but
   the gallant spirit of Belleisle triumphed over every obstacle;
   he struck through morasses almost untrodden before, offered
   battle to Prince Lobkowitz, who, however, declined engaging,
   and at length succeeded in reaching the other French army with
   the flower of his own. The remnant left at Prague, and
   amounting only to 6,000 men, seemed an easy prey; yet their
   threat of firing the city, and perishing beneath its ruins,
   and the recent proof of what despair can do, obtained for them
   honourable terms, and the permission of rejoining their
   comrades at Egra. But in spite of all this skill and courage
   in the French invaders, the final result to them was failure;
   nor had they attained a single permanent advantage beyond
   their own safety in retreat. Maillebois and De Broglie took up
   winter quarters in Bavaria, while Belleisle led back his
   division across the Rhine; and it was computed that, of the
   35,000 men whom he had first conducted into Germany, not more
   than 8,000 returned beneath his banner."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 24 (volume 3)_.

   "Thus, at the termination of the campaign, all Bohemia was
   regained, except Egra; and on the 12th of May, 1743, Maria
   Theresa was soon afterwards crowned at Prague, to the recovery
   of which, says her great rival, her firmness had more
   contributed than the force of her arms. The only reverse which
   the Austrians experienced in the midst of their successes was
   the temporary loss of Bavaria, which, on the retreat of
   Kevenhuller, was occupied by marshal Seckendorf; and the
   Emperor made his entry into Munich on the 2d of October."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 103 (volume 3)._

{218}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
   England drawn into the conflict.
   The Pragmatic Army.
   The Battle of Dettingen.

   "The cause of Maria Theresa had begun to excite a remarkable
   enthusiasm in England. … The convention of neutrality
   entered into by George II. in September 1741, and the
   extortion of his vote for the Elector of Bavaria, properly
   concerned that prince only as Elector of Hanover; yet, as he
   was also King of England, they were felt as a disgrace by the
   English people. The elections of that year went against
   Walpole, and in February 1742 he found himself compelled to
   resign. He was succeeded in the administration by Pulteney,
   Earl of Bath, though Lord Carteret was virtually prime
   minister. Carteret was an ardent supporter of the cause of
   Maria Theresa. His accession to office was immediately
   followed by a large increase of the army and navy; five
   millions were voted for carrying on the war, and a subsidy of
   £500,000 for the Queen of Hungary. The Earl of Stair, with an
   army of 16,000 men, afterwards reinforced by a large body of
   Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, was despatched into
   the Netherlands to cooperate with the Dutch. But though the
   States-General, at the instance of the British Cabinet, voted
   Maria Theresa a subsidy, they were not yet prepared to take an
   active part in a war which might ultimately involve them in
   hostilities with France. The exertions of the English ministry
   in favour of the Queen of Hungary had therefore been confined
   during the year 1742 to diplomacy, and they had helped to
   bring about … the Peace of Breslau. In 1743 they were able
   to do more," In April, 1743, the Emperor, Charles VII.,
   regained possession of Bavaria and returned to Munich, but
   only to be driven out again by the Austrians in June. The
   Bavarians were badly beaten at Simpach (May 9), and Munich was
   taken (June 12) after a short bombardment. "Charles VII. was
   now again obliged to fly, and took refuge at Augsburg. At his
   command, Seckendorf [his general] made a convention with the
   Austrians at the village of Niederschönfeld, by which he
   agreed to abandon to them Bavaria, on condition that Charles's
   troops should be allowed to occupy unmolested quarters between
   Franconia and Suabia. Maria Theresa seemed at first indisposed
   to ratify even terms so humiliating to the Emperor. She had
   become perhaps a little too much exalted by the rapid turn of
   fortune. She had caused herself to be crowned in Prague. She
   had received the homage of the Austrians, and entered Vienna
   in a sort of triumph. She now dreamt of nothing less than
   conquering Lorraine for herself, Alsace for the Empire; of
   hurling Charles VII. from the Imperial throne, and placing on
   it her own consort." She was persuaded, however, to consent at
   length to the terms of the Niederschönfeld convention.
   "Meanwhile the allied army of English and Germans, under the
   Earl of Stair, nearly 40,000 strong, which, from its destined
   object, had assumed the name of the 'Pragmatic Army,' had
   crossed the Meuse and the Rhine in March and April, with a
   view to cut off the army of Bavaria from France. George II.
   had not concealed his intention of breaking the Treaty of
   Hanover of 1741, alleging as a ground that the duration of the
   neutrality stipulated in it had not been determined; and on
   June 19th he had joined the army in person. He found it in a
   most critical position. Lord Stair, who had never
   distinguished himself as a general, and was now falling into
   dotage, had led it into a narrow valley near Aschaffenburg,
   between Mount Spessart and the river Main; while Marshal
   Noailles [commanding the French], who had crossed the Rhine
   towards the end of April, by seizing the principal fords of
   the Main, both above and below the British position, had cut
   him off both from his magazines at Hanau, and from the
   supplies which he had expected to procure in Franconia.
   Nothing remained but for him to fight his way back to Hanau."
   In the battle of Dettingen, which followed (June 27), all the
   advantages of the French in position were thrown away by the
   ignorant impetuosity of the king's nephew, the Duke of
   Grammont, who commanded one division, and they suffered a
   severe defeat. "The French are said to have lost 6,000 men and
   the British half that number. It is the last action in which a
   king of England has fought in person. But George II., or
   rather Lord Stair, did not know how to profit by his victory.
   Although the Pragmatic Army was joined after the battle of
   Dettingen by 15,000 Dutch troops, under Prince Maurice of
   Nassau, nothing of importance was done during the remainder of
   the campaign."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 104 (volume 3)._

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, pages 30-36._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England,
      1713-1783, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
   Treaty of Worms with Sardinia and England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743 (October).
   The Second Bourbon Family Compact.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
   The Prussian King strikes in again.
   The Union of Frankfort.
   Siege and capture of Prague.

   "Everywhere Austria was successful, and Frederick had reason
   to fear for himself unless the tide of conquest could be
   stayed. He explains in the 'Histoire de Mon Temps' that he
   feared lest France should abandon the cause of the Emperor,
   which would mean that the Austrians, who now boldly spoke of
   compensation for the war, would turn their arms against
   himself. … France was trembling, not for her conquests, but
   for her own territory. After the battle of Dettingen, the
   victorious Anglo-Hanoverian force was to cross the Rhine above
   Mayence and march into Alsace, while Prince Charles of
   Lorraine, with a strong Austrian army, was to pass near Basle
   and occupy Lorraine, taking up his winter quarters in Burgundy
   and Champagne. The English crossed without any check and moved
   on to Worms, but the Austrians failed in their attempt. Worms
   became a centre of intrigue, which Frederick afterwards called
   'Cette abyme de mauvaisc fol.' The Dutch were persuaded by
   Lord Carteret to join the English, and they did at last send
   14,000 men, who were never of the least use.
{219}
   Lord Carteret also detached Charles Emanuel, King of Sardinia,
   from his French leanings, and persuaded him to enter into the
   Austro-English alliance [by the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13,
   1743, which conceded to the King of Sardinia Finale, the city
   of Placentia, with some other small districts and gave him
   command of the allied forces in Italy]. It was clear that
   action could not be long postponed, and Frederick began to
   recognize the necessity of a new war. His first anxiety was to
   guard himself against interference from his northern and
   eastern neighbours. He secured, as he hoped, the neutrality of
   Russia by marrying the young princess of Anhalt-Zerbst,
   afterwards the notorious Empress Catherine, with the
   Grand-Duke Peter of Russia, nephew and heir to the reigning
   Empress Elizabeth. … Thus strengthened, as he hoped, in his
   rear and flank, and having made the commencement of a German
   league called the Union of Frankfurt, by which Hesse and the
   Palatinate agreed to join Frederick and the Kaiser, he
   concluded on the 5th of June, 1744, a treaty which brought
   France also into this alliance. It was secretly agreed that
   Frederick was to invade Bohemia, conquer it for the Kaiser,
   and have the districts of Königgrätz, Bunzlau, and Leitmeritz
   to repay him for his trouble and costs; while France, which
   was all this time at war with Austria and England, should send
   an army against Prince Charles and the English. … The first
   stroke of the coming war was delivered by France. Louis XV.
   sent a large army into the Netherlands under two good leaders,
   Noailles and Maurice de Saxe. Urged by his mistress, the
   Duchesse de Châteauroux, he joined it himself early, and took
   the nominal command early in June. … The towns [Menin,
   Ypres, Fort Knoque, Furnes] rapidly fell before him, and
   Marshal Wade, with the Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian army, sat still
   and looked at the success of the French. But on the night of
   the 30th June—1st July, Prince Charles crossed the Rhine by
   an operation which is worth the study of military students,
   and invaded Alsace, the French army of observation falling
   back before him. Louis XV. hurried back to interpose between
   the Austrians and Paris. … Maurice de Saxe was left in the
   Netherlands with 45,000 men. Thus the French army was
   paralysed, and the Austrian army in its turn was actually
   invading France. At this time Frederick struck in. He sent
   word to the King that, though all the terms of their
   arrangement had not yet been fulfilled, he would at once
   invade Bohemia, and deliver a stroke against Prague which
   would certainly cause the retreat of Prince Charles with his
   70,000 men. If the French army would follow Prince Charles in
   his retreat, Frederick would attack him, and between France
   and Prussia the Austrian army would certainly be crushed, and
   Vienna be at their mercy. This was no doubt an excellent plan
   of campaign, but, like the previous operations concerted with
   Broglio, it depended for success upon the good faith of the
   French, and this turned out to be a broken reed. On the 7th of
   August the Prussian ambassador at Vienna gave notice of the
   Union of Frankfurt and withdrew from the court of Austria; and
   on the 15th the Prussian army was put in march upon Prague
   [opening what is called the Second Silesian War]. Frederick's
   forces moved in three columns, the total strength being over
   80,000. … Maria Theresa was now again in great danger, but
   as usual retained her high courage, and once more called forth
   the enthusiasm of her Hungarian subjects, who sent swarms of
   wild troops, horse and foot, to the seat of war. … On the
   1st of September the three columns met before Prague, which
   had better defences than in the last campaign, and a garrison
   of some 16,000 men.  … During the night of the 9th the
   bombardment commenced … and on the 16th the garrison
   surrendered. Thus, one month after the commencement of the
   march Prague was captured, and the campaign opened with a
   brilliant feat of arms."

      _Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
      Frederick the Great,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, letter 28._

      _F. Von Raumer,
      Contributions to Modern History:
      Frederick II. and his Times,
      chapter 17-19._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
   Frederick's retreat and fresh triumph.
   Austria recovers the imperial crown.
   Saxony subdued.
   The Peace of Dresden.

   After the reduction of Prague, Frederick, "in deference to the
   opinion of Marshal Belleisle, but against his own judgment,
   advanced into the south of Bohemia with the view of
   threatening Vienna. He thus exposed himself to the risk of
   being cut off from Prague. Yet even so he would probably have
   been able to maintain himself if the French had fulfilled
   their engagements. But while he was conquering the districts
   of the Upper Moldau, the Austrian army returned unimpaired
   from Alsace. The French had allowed it to cross the Rhine
   unmolested, and had not made the slightest attempt to harass
   its retreat [but applied themselves to the siege and capture
   of Freiburg]. They were only too glad to get rid of it
   themselves. In the ensuing operations Frederick was completely
   outmanoeuvred. Traun [the Austrian general], without risking a
   battle, forced him back towards the Silesian frontier. He had
   to choose between abandoning Prague and abandoning his
   communications with Silesia, and as the Saxons had cut off his
   retreat through the Electorate, there was really no choice in
   the matter. So he fell back on Silesia, abandoning Prague and
   his heavy artillery. The retreat was attended with
   considerable loss. Frederick was much struck with the skill
   displayed by Traun, and says, in his 'Histoire de mon Temps,'
   that he regarded this campaign as his school in the art of war
   and M. de Traun as his teacher. The campaign may have been an
   excellent lesson in the art of war, but in other respects it
   was very disastrous to Frederick. He had drawn upon himself
   the whole power of Austria, and had learnt how little the
   French were to be depended upon. His prestige was dimmed by
   failure, and even in his own army doubts were entertained of
   his capacity. But, bad as his position already was, it became
   far worse when the unhappy Emperor died [January 20, 1745], worn
   out with disease and calamity. This event put an end to the
   Union of Frankfort. Frederick could no longer claim to be
   acting in defence of his oppressed sovereign; the ground was
   cut from under his feet. Nor was there any longer much hope of
   preventing the Imperial Crown from reverting to Austria. The
   new Elector of Bavaria was a mere boy. In this altered state
   of affairs he sought to make peace. But Maria Theresa would
   not let him off so easily.
{220}
   In order that she might use all her forces against him, she
   granted peace to Bavaria, and gave back to the young elector
   his hereditary dominions, on condition of his resigning all
   claim to hers and promising to vote for her husband as
   Emperor. While Frederick thus lost a friend in Bavaria, Saxony
   threw herself completely into the arms of his enemy, and
   united with Austria in a treaty [May 18] which had for its
   object, not the reconquest of Silesia merely, but the
   partition of Prussia and the reduction of the king to his
   ancient limits as Margrave of Brandenburg. Saxony was then
   much larger than it is now, but it was not only the number of
   troops it could send into the field that made its hostility
   dangerous. It was partly the geographical position of the
   country, which made it an excellent base for operations
   against Prussia, but still more the alliance that was known to
   subsist between the Elector (King Augustus III. of Poland) and
   the Russian Court. It was probable that a Prussian invasion of
   Saxony would be followed by a Russian invasion of Prussia.
   Towards the end of May, the Austrian and Saxon army, 75,000
   strong, crossed the Giant Mountains and descended upon
   Silesia. The Austrians were again commanded by Prince Charles,
   but the wise head of Traun was no longer there to guide him.
   … The encounter took place at Hohenfriedberg [June 5], and
   resulted in a complete victory for Prussia. The Austrians and
   Saxons lost 9,000 killed and wounded, and 7,000 prisoners,
   besides 66 cannons and 73 flags and standards. Four days after
   the battle they were back again in Bohemia. Frederick
   followed, not with the intention of attacking them again, but
   in order to eat the country bare, so that it might afford no
   sustenance to the enemy during the winter. For his own part he
   was really anxious for peace. His resources were all but
   exhausted, while Austria was fed by a constant stream of
   English subsidies. As in the former war, England interposed
   with her good offices, but without effect; Maria Theresa was
   by no means disheartened by her defeat, and refused to hear of
   peace till she had tried the chances of battle once more. On
   Sept. 13 her husband was elected Emperor by seven votes out of
   nine, the dissentients being the King of Prussia and the
   Elector Palatine. This event raised the spirits of the
   Empress-Queen, as Maria Theresa was henceforward called, and
   opened a wider field for her ambition. She sent peremptory
   orders to Prince Charles to attack Frederick before he retired
   from Bohemia. A battle was accordingly fought at Sohr [Sept.
   30], and again victory rested with the Prussians. The season
   was now far advanced, and Frederick returned home expecting
   that there would be no more fighting till after the winter.
   Such however, was far from being the intention of his
   enemies." A plan for the invasion of Brandenburg by three
   Austrian and Saxon armies simultaneously, was secretly
   concerted; but Frederick had timely warning of it and it was
   frustrated by his activity and energy. On the 23d of November
   he surprised and defeated Prince Charles at Hennersdorf. "Some
   three weeks afterwards [December 15] the Prince of Dessau defeated
   a second Saxon and Austrian army at Kesselsdorf, a few miles
   from Dresden. This victory completed the subjugation of Saxony
   and put an end to the war. Three days after Kesselsdorf,
   Frederick entered Dresden, and astonished everyone by the
   graciousness of his behaviour and by the moderation of his
   terms. From Saxony he exacted no cession of territory, but
   merely a contribution of 1,000,000 thalers (£150,000) towards
   the expenses of the war. From Austria he demanded a guarantee
   of the treaty of Breslau, in return for which he agreed to
   recognize Francis as Emperor. Peace was signed [at Dresden] on
   Christmas Day."

      _F. W. Longman,
      Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick II.,
      book 15, chapters 3-15 (volume 4)._

      _Lord Dover,
      Life of Frederick II.,
      book 2, chapters 3-5 (volume 1)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745.
   Overwhelming disasters in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (May).
   Reverses in the Netherlands.
   Battle of Fontenoy.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (September-October).
   The Consort of Maria Theresa elected and crowned Emperor.
   Rise of the new House of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

   Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of
   Maria Theresa, was elected Emperor, at Frankfort, Sept. 13,
   1745, and crowned Oct. 1, with the title of Francis I. "Thus
   the Empire returned to the New House of Austria, that of
   Hapsburg-Lorraine, and France had missed the principal object
   for which she had gone to war." By the treaties signed at
   Dresden, December 25, between Prussia, Austria and Saxony,
   Frederick, as Elector of Brandenburg, assented to and
   recognized the election of Francis, against which he and the
   Elector Palatine had previously protested.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1746-1747.
   Further French conquests in the Netherlands.
   Lombardy recovered.
   Genoa won and lost.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and ITALY; A. D. 1746-1747.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1748 (October).
   Termination and results of the War of the Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.
   The Seven Years War.

   Since the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great of
   Prussia, "he had cast off all reserve. In his extraordinary
   Court at Potsdam this man of wit and war laughed at God, and
   at his brother philosophers and sovereigns; he ill-treated
   Voltaire, the chief organ of the new opinions; he wounded
   kings and queens with his epigrams; he believed neither in the
   beauty of  Madam de Pompadour nor in the poetical genius of
   the Abbé Bernis, Prime Minister of France. The Empress thought
   the moment favourable for the recovery of Silesia; she stirred
   up Europe, especially the queens; she persuaded the Queen of
   Poland and the Empress of Russia; she paid court to the
   mistress of Louis XV. The monstrous alliance of France with
   the ancient state of Austria against a sovereign who
   maintained the equilibrium of Germany united all Europe
   against him. England alone supported him and gave him
   subsidies. She was governed at that time by a gouty lawyer,
   the famous William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, who raised
   himself by his eloquence and by his hatred of the French.
   England wanted two things; the maintenance of the balance of power
   in Europe, and the destruction of the French and Spanish colonies.
{221}
   Her griefs were serious; the Spaniards had ill-treated her
   smugglers and the French wanted to prevent her from settling
   on their territory in Canada. In India, La Bourdonnaie and his
   successor Dupleix threatened to found a great empire in the
   face of the English. As a declaration of war the English
   confiscated 300 French ships (1756). The marvel of the war was
   to see this little kingdom of Prussia, interposed between the
   huge powers of Austria, France, and Russia, run from one to
   the other, and defy them all. This was the second period of
   the art of war. The unskillful adversaries of Frederick
   thought that he owed all his success to the precision of the
   manœuvres of the Prussian soldiers, to their excellent drill
   and rapid firing. Frederick had certainly carried the soldier
   machine to perfection. This was capable of imitation: the Czar
   Peter III. and the Count of St. Germin created military
   automatons by means of the lash. But they could not imitate
   the quickness of his manœuvres; the happy arrangement of his
   marches, which gave him great facility for moving and
   concentrating large masses, and directing them on the weak
   points of the enemy. In this terrible chase given by the large
   unwieldy armies of the allies to the agile Prussians, one
   cannot help noticing the amusing circumspection of the
   Austrian tacticians and the stupid folly of the fine gentlemen
   who led the armies of France. The Fabius of Austria, the sage
   and heavy Daun, was satisfied with a war of positions; he
   could not find encampments strong enough or mountains
   sufficiently inaccessible; his stationary troops were always
   beaten by Frederick. To begin with, he freed himself from the
   enmity of Saxony. He did not hurt, he only disarmed her. He
   struck his next blow in Bohemia. Repulsed by the Austrians,
   and abandoned by the English army, which determined at
   Kloster-seven to fight no more, threatened by the Russians,
   who were victorious at Joegerndorf, he passed into Saxony and
   found the French and Imperialists combined there. Prussia was
   surrounded by four armies. Frederick fancied himself lost and
   determined on suicide. He wrote to his sister and to d'Argens
   announcing his intention. There was only one thing which
   frightened him: it was, that when once he was dead the great
   distributor of glory—Voltaire—might make free with his
   name: he wrote an epistle to disarm him. … Having written
   this epistle he defeated the enemy at Rosbach. The Prince of
   Soubise, who thought that he fled, set off rashly in pursuit;
   then the Prussians unmasked their batteries, killed 3,000 men,
   and took 7,000 prisoners. In the French camp were found an
   army of cooks, actors, hair-dressers; a number of parrots,
   parasols, and huge cases of lavender-water, &c. (1757). None
   but a tactician could follow the King of Prussia in this
   series of brilliant and skillful battles. The Seven Years'
   War, however varied its incidents, was a political and
   strategical war: it has not the interest of the wars for
   ideas, the struggles for religion and for freedom of the 16th
   century and of our own time. The defeat of Rosbach was
   followed by another at Crevelt, and by great reverses balanced
   by small advantages; the total ruin of the French navy and
   colonies; the English masters of the ocean and conquerors of
   India; the exhaustion and humiliation of old Europe in the
   presence of young Prussia. This is the history of the Seven
   Years War. It was terminated under the ministry of the Duke of
   Choiseul," by the Peace of Hubertsburg and the Peace of Paris.

      _J. Michelet,
      A Summary of Modern History,
      pages 300-302._

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, to 1763;
      and, also, SEVEN YEARS' WAR.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1772-1773.
   The First Partition of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
   The question of the Bavarian Succession.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1782-1811.
   Abolition of Serfdom.

   See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1787-1791.
   War with the Turks.
   Treaty of Sistova.
   Slight Acquisitions of Territory.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1790-1797.
   Death of Joseph II. and Leopold II.
   Accession of Francis II.
   The Coalition against and war with revolutionary France, to
   the Peace of Campo Formio.

   "It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked
   the Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked
   them. The diplomatists of the 18th century viewed at first
   with cynical indifference the meeting of the States-General at
   Versailles. … The two points which occupied the attention of
   Europe in 1789 were the condition of Poland and the troubles
   in the East. The ambitious designs of Catherine and the
   assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the existence of
   the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and awakened
   English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety of
   Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn
   by long dissensions and mined by a miserable constitution, was
   vainly endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great
   neighbours, to avert the doom impending, and to reassert her
   ancient claim to a place among the nations of the world. But
   Russia had long since determined that Poland must be a vassal
   State to her or cease to be a State at all, while Prussia,
   driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong Poland
   and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if
   Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to
   unity and greatness. These two questions to the States
   involved seemed to be of far more moment than any political
   reform in France, and engrossed the diplomatists of Europe
   until the summer of 1791. In February, 1790, a new influence
   was introduced into European politics by the death of the
   Emperor Joseph and the accession of his brother, Leopold II.
   Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no enthusiast and no
   dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions of
   Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian
   statecraft, discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed,
   quietly determined to have his own way, and generally skilful
   enough to secure it. Leopold found his new dominions in a
   state of the utmost confusion, with war and rebellion
   threatening him on every side. He speedily set about restoring
   order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph. He
   conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He
   gradually re-established the authority of the Crown. …
   Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were
   occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of
   that time his success was marked.
{222}
   Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had been checked. War had
   been averted. Poland had been strengthened by internal
   changes. Prussia had been conciliated and outmanœuvred, and
   her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of
   August, 1791, the Emperor was free to face the French problem,
   and he set out for the Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of
   Prussia and the Emigrant leaders at the Saxon Elector's Court.
   For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants
   had been causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with
   open arms by the ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the
   Electors of Mayence and Trèves, they proceeded to agitate
   busily for their own restoration. … The object of the
   Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the European
   Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene
   actively in their behalf. … After his escape from France, in
   June, 1790, the Comte de Provence established his Court at
   Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother the Comte
   d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner, he
   claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of
   King. The Court of the two French princes at Coblentz
   represented faithfully the faults and follies of the Emigrant
   party. But a more satisfactory spectacle was offered by the
   camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely trying to organise an
   army to fight against the Revolution in France. To Condé's
   standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants. … But the
   German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on
   the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and
   it drew down on them the hostility of the French Government.
   The Emperor joined them in protesting against it. In February,
   1792, Condé's army was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms,
   and to retire further into Germany. The Emperor was well aware
   of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant princes. He had as
   little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not intend to
   listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all, it
   would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order
   to save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would
   not undertake a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime.
   … Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing.
   … Early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died. His heir
   Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation,
   assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances
   of any effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the
   prospect of war rose on the horizon. Francis' language was
   sufficiently sharp to give the Assembly the pretext which it
   longed for, and on the 20th April, Louis, amid general
   enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared war against
   Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can
   exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and
   prepared the way for a military despotism in the future."

      _C. E. Mallet,
      The French Revolution,
      chapter 7._

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);
      1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), and (JULY-DECEMBER);
      1794 (MARCH-JULY);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
      1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1794-1796.
   The Third partition of Poland.
   Austrian share of the spoils.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1797 (October).
   Treaty of Campo-Formio with France.
   Cession of the Netherlands and Lombard provinces.
   Acquisition of Venice and Venetian territories.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1798-1806.
   Congress of Rastadt.
   Second Coalition against France.
   Peace of Luneville.
   Third Coalition.
   Ulm and Austerlitz.
   Peace of Presburg.
   Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
   Birth of the Empire of Austria.

   "When Bonaparte sailed for Egypt he had left a congress at
   Rastadt discussing means for the execution of certain articles
   in the treaty of Campo Formio which were to establish peace
   between France and the Empire. … Though openly undertaking
   to invite the Germans to a congress in order to settle a
   general peace on the basis of the integrity of the Empire, the
   Emperor agreed in secret articles to use his influence to
   procure for the Republic the left bank of the Rhine with the
   exception of the Prussian provinces, to join with France in
   obtaining compensation in Germany for those injured by this
   change, and to contribute no more than his necessary
   contingent if the war were prolonged. The ratification of
   these secret provisions had been extorted from the Congress by
   threats before Bonaparte had left; but the question of
   indemnification had progressed no farther than a decision to
   secularise the ecclesiastical states for the purpose, when
   extravagant demands from the French deputies brought
   negotiation to a deadlock. Meanwhile, another coalition war
   had been brewing. Paul I. of Russia had regarded with little
   pleasure the doings of the Revolution, and when his proteges,
   the knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had been deprived of
   Malta by Bonaparte on his way to Egypt, when the Directory
   established by force of arms a Helvetic republic in
   Switzerland, when it found occasion to carry off the Pope into
   exile and erect a Roman republic, he abandoned the cautious
   and self-seeking policy of Catherine, and cordially responded
   to Pitt's advances for an alliance. At the same time Turkey
   was compelled by the invitation of Egypt to ally itself for
   once with Russia. Austria, convinced that the French did not
   intend to pay a fair price for the treaty of Campo Formio,
   also determined to renew hostilities; and Naples, exasperated
   by the sacrilege of a republic at Rome, and alarmed by French
   aggressiveness, enrolled itself in the league. The Neapolitan
   king, indeed, opened the war with some success, before he
   could receive support from his allies; but he was soon
   vanquished by the French, and his dominions were converted
   into a Parthenopean republic. Austria, on the contrary,
   awaited the arrival of the Russian forces; and the general
   campaign began early in 1799. The French, fighting against
   such generals as the Archduke Charles and the Russian
   Suvaroff, without the supervision of Carnot or the strategy
   and enterprise of Bonaparte, suffered severe reverses and
   great privations. Towards the end the Russian army endured
   much hardship on account of the selfishness of the Austrian
   cabinet; and this caused the Tsar, who thought he had other
   reasons for discontent, to withdraw his troops from the field.
{223}
   When Bonaparte was made First Consul the military position of
   France was, nevertheless, very precarious. … The Roman and
   Cisalpine republics had fallen. The very congress at Rastadt
   had been dispersed by the approach of the Austrians; and the
   French emissaries had been sabred by Austrian troopers, though
   how their insolence came to be thus foully punished has never
   been clearly explained. At this crisis France was rescued from
   foreign foes and domestic disorders by its most successful
   general. … In the campaign which followed, France obtained
   signal satisfaction for its chagrin. Leaving Moreau to carry
   the war into Germany, Bonaparte suddenly crossed the Alps, and
   defeated the Austrians on the plain of Marengo. The Austrians,
   though completely cowed, refrained from concluding a definite
   peace out of respect for their engagements with England; and
   armistices, expiring into desultory warfare, prolonged the
   contest till Moreau laid the way open to Vienna, by winning a
   splendid triumph at Hohenlinden. A treaty of peace was finally
   concluded at Lunéville, when Francis II. pledged the Empire to
   its provisions on the ground of the consents already given at
   Rastadt. In conformity with the treaty of Campo Formio,
   Austria retained the boundary of the Adige in Italy; France
   kept Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine; and the princes,
   dispossessed by the cessions, were promised compensation in
   Germany; while Tuscany was given to France to sell to Spain at
   the price of Parma, Louisiana, six ships of the line, and a
   sum of money. Shortly afterwards peace was extended to Naples
   on easy terms. … The time was now come for the Revolution to
   complete the ruin of the Holy Roman Empire. Pursuant to the
   treaty of Lunéville, the German Diet met at Regensburg to
   discuss a scheme of compensation for the dispossessed rulers.
   Virtually the meeting was a renewal of the congress of
   Rastadt. … At Rastadt the incoherence and disintegration of
   the venerable Empire had become painfully apparent. … When
   it was known that the head of the nation, who had guaranteed
   the integrity of the Empire in the preliminaries of Leoben,
   and had renewed the assurance when he convoked the assembly,
   had in truth betrayed to the stranger nearly all the left bank
   of the Rhine,—the German rulers greedily hastened to secure
   every possible trifle in the scramble of redistribution. The
   slow and wearisome debates were supplemented by intrigues of
   the most degraded nature. Conscious that the French Consul
   could give a casting vote on any disputed question, the
   princes found no indignity too shameful, no trick too base, to
   obtain his favour. … The First Consul, on his side,
   prosecuted with a duplicity and address, heretofore
   unequalled, the traditional policy of France in German
   affairs. … Feigning to take into his counsels the young
   Tsar, whose convenient friendship was thus easily obtained on
   account of his family connections with the German courts, he
   drew up a scheme of indemnification and presented it to the
   Diet for endorsement. In due time a servile assent was given
   to every point which concerned the two autocrats. By this
   settlement, Austria and Prussia were more equally balanced
   against one another, the former being deprived of influence in
   Western Germany, and the latter finding in more convenient
   situations a rich recompense for its cessions on the Rhine;
   while the middle states, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg,
   received very considerable accessions of territory. But if
   Bonaparte dislocated yet further the political structure of
   Germany, he was at least instrumental in removing the worst of
   the anachronisms which stifled the development of improved
   institutions among a large division of its people. The same
   measure which brought German separatism to a climax, also
   extinguished the ecclesiastical sovereignties and nearly all
   the free cities. That these strongholds of priestly
   obscurantism and bourgeois apathy would some day be invaded by
   their more ambitious and active neighbours, had long been
   apparent. … And war was declared when thousands of British
   subjects visiting France had already been ensnared and
   imprisoned. … Pitt had taken the conduct of the war out of
   the hands of Addington's feeble ministry. Possessing the
   confidence of the powers, he rapidly concluded offensive
   alliances with Russia, Sweden, and Austria, though Prussia
   obstinately remained neutral. Thus, by 1805, Napoleon had put
   to hazard all his lately won power in a conflict with the
   greater part of Europe. The battle of Cape Trafalgar crushed
   for good his maritime power, and rendered England safe from
   direct attack. The campaign on land, however, made him master
   of central Europe. Bringing the Austrian army in Germany to an
   inglorious capitulation at Ulm, he marched through Vienna,
   and, with inferior forces won in his best style the battle of
   Austerlitz against the troops of Francis and Alexander. The
   action was decisive. The allies thought not of renewing the
   war with the relays of troops which were hurrying up from
   North and South. Russian and Austrian alike wished to be rid
   of their ill-fated connection. The Emperor Alexander silently
   returned home, pursued only by Napoleon's flattering tokens of
   esteem; the Emperor Francis accepted the peace of Presburg,
   which deprived his house of the ill-gotten Venetian States,
   Tyrol, and its more distant possessions in Western Germany;
   the King of Prussia, who had been on the point of joining the
   coalition with a large army if his mediation were
   unsuccessful, was committed to an alliance with the conqueror
   by his terrified negotiator. And well did Napoleon appear to
   make the fruits of victory compensate France for its
   exertions. The empire was not made more unwieldy in bulk, but
   its dependents, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, received
   considerable accessions of territory, and the two first were
   raised to the rank of kingdoms; while the Emperor's Italian
   principality, which he had already turned into a kingdom of
   Italy to the great disgust of Austria, was increased by the
   addition of the ceded Venetian lands. But the full depth of
   Europe's humiliation was not experienced till the two
   following years. In 1806 an Act of Federation was signed by
   the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and
   thirteen minor princes, which united them into a league under
   the protection of the French Emperor. The objects of this
   confederacy, known as the Rheinbund were defence against
   foreign aggression and the exercise of complete autonomy at
   home. … Already the consequences of the Peace of Lunéville
   had induced the ruling Hapsburg to assure his equality with
   the sovereigns of France and Russia by taking the imperial
   title in his own right; and before the Confederation of the
   Rhine was made public he formally renounced his office of
   elective Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and released from
   allegiance to him all the states and princes of the Reich, The
   triumph of the German policy of the Consulate was complete."

      _A. Weir,
      The Historical Basis of Modern Europe,
      chapter 4._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799, to 1805, and
      GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803, to 1805-1806.

{224}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1809-1814.
   The second struggle with Napoleon and the second defeat.
   The Marriage alliance.
   The Germanic War of Liberation.
   The final alliance and the overthrow of the Corsican.

   "On the 12th of July, 1806, fourteen princes of the south and
   west of Germany united themselves into the confederation of
   the Rhine, and recognised Napoleon as their protector. On the
   1st of August, they signified to the diet of Ratisbon their
   separation from the Germanic body. The Empire of Germany
   ceased to exist, and Francis II. abdicated the title by
   proclamation. By a convention signed at Vienna, on the 15th of
   December, Prussia exchanged the territories of Anspach, Cleves
   and Neufchâtel for the electorate of Hanover, Napoleon had all
   the west under his power. Absolute master of France and Italy,
   as emperor and king, he was also master of Spain, by the
   dependence of that court; of Naples and Holland, by his two
   brothers; of Switzerland, by the act of mediation; and in
   Germany he had at his disposal the kings of Bavaria and
   Wurtemberg, and the confederation of the Rhine against Austria
   and Prussia. … This encroaching progress gave rise to the
   fourth coalition. Prussia, neutral since the peace of Bâle,
   had, in the last campaign, been on the point of joining the
   Austro-Russian coalition. The rapidity of the emperor's
   victories had alone restrained her; but now, alarmed at the
   aggrandizement of the empire, and encouraged by the fine
   condition of her troops, she leagued with Russia to drive the
   French from Germany. … The campaign opened early in October.
   Napoleon, as usual, overwhelmed the coalition by the
   promptitude of his marches and the vigour of his measures. On
   the 14th of October, he destroyed at Jena the military
   monarchy of Prussia, by a decisive victory. … The campaign
   in Poland was less rapid, but as brilliant as that of Prussia.
   Russia, for the third time, measured its strength with France.
   Conquered at Zurich and Austerlitz, it was also defeated at Eylau
   and Friedland. After these memorable battles, the emperor
   Alexander entered into a negotiation, and concluded at Tilsit,
   on the 21st of June, 1807, an armistice which was followed by
   a definitive treaty on the 7th of July. The peace of Tilsit
   extended the French domination on the continent. Prussia was
   reduced to half its extent. In the south of Germany, Napoleon
   had instituted the two kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemberg
   against Austria; further to the north, he created the two
   feudatory kingdoms of Saxony and Westphalia against Prussia.
   … In order to obtain universal and uncontested supremacy, he
   made use of arms against the continent, and the cessation of
   commerce against England. But in forbidding to the continental
   states all communication with England, he was preparing new
   difficulties for himself, and soon added to the animosity of
   opinion excited by his despotism, and the hatred of states
   produced by his conquering domination, the exasperation of
   private interests and commercial suffering occasioned by the
   blockade. … The expedition of Portugal in 1807, and the
   invasion of Spain in 1808, began for him and for Europe a new
   order of events. … The reaction manifested itself in three
   countries, hitherto allies of France, and it brought on the
   fifth coalition. The court of Rome was dissatisfied; the
   peninsula was wounded in its national pride by having imposed
   upon it a foreign king; in its usages, by the suppression of
   convents, of the Inquisition, and of the grandees; Holland
   suffered in its commerce from the blockade, and Austria
   supported impatiently its losses and subordinate condition.
   England, watching for an opportunity to revive the struggle on
   the continent, excited the resistance of Rome, the peninsula,
   and the cabinet of Vienna. … Austria … made a powerful
   effort, and raised 550,000 men, comprising the Landwehr, and
   took the field in the spring of 1809. The Tyrol rose, and King
   Jerome was driven from his capital by the Westphalians: Italy
   wavered; and Prussia only waited till Napoleon met with a
   reverse, to take arms; but the emperor was still at the height
   of his power and prosperity. He hastened from Madrid in the
   beginning of February, and directed the members of the
   confederation to keep their contingents in readiness. On the
   12th of April he left Paris, passed the Rhine, plunged into
   Germany, gained the victories of Eckmühl and Essling, occupied
   Vienna a second time on the 15th of May and overthrew this new
   coalition by the battle of Wagram, after a campaign of four
   mouths. … The peace of Vienna, of the 11th of October, 1809,
   deprived the house of Austria of several more provinces, and
   compelled it again to adopt the continental system. …
   Napoleon, who seemed to follow a rash but inflexible policy,
   deviated from his course about this time by a second marriage.
   He divorced Josephine that he might give an heir to the
   empire, and married, on the 1st of April, 1810, Marie-Louise,
   arch-duchess of Austria. This was a decided error. He quitted
   his position and his post as a parvenu and revolutionary
   monarch, opposing in France the ancient courts as the republic
   had opposed the ancient governments. He placed himself in a
   false situation with respect to Austria, which he ought either
   to have crushed after the victory of Wagram, or to have
   reinstated in its possessions after his marriage with the
   arch-duchess. … The birth, on the 20th of March, 1811, of a
   son, who received the title of king of Rome, seemed to
   consolidate the power of Napoleon, by securing to him a
   successor. The war in Spain was prosecuted with vigour during
   the years 1810 and 1811. … While the war was proceeding in
   the peninsula with advantage, but without any decided success,
   a new campaign was preparing in the north. Russia perceived
   the empire of Napoleon approaching its territories. … About
   the close of 1810, it increased its armies, renewed its
   commercial relations with Great Britain, and did not seem
   indisposed to a rupture. The year 1811 was spent in
   negotiations which led to nothing, and preparations for war
   were made on both sides. … On the 9th of March, Napoleon
   left Paris. … During several months he fixed his court at
   Dresden, where the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia,
   and all the sovereigns of Germany, came to bow before his high
   fortune.
{225}
   On the 22nd of June, war was declared against Russia. …
   Napoleon, who, according to his custom, wished to finish all
   in one campaign, advanced at once into the heart of Russia,
   instead of prudently organizing the Polish barrier against it.
   His army amounted to about 500,000 men. He passed the Niemen
   on the 24th of June; took Wilna, and Witepsk, defeated the
   Russians at Astrowno, Polotsk, Mohilow Smolensko, at the
   Moskowa, and on the 14th of September, made his entry into
   Moscow. … Moscow was burned by its governor. … The emperor
   ought to have seen that this war would not terminate as the
   others had done; yet, conqueror of the foe, and master of his
   capital, he conceived hopes of peace which the Russians
   skilfully encouraged. Winter was approaching, and Napoleon
   prolonged his stay at Moscow for six weeks. He delayed his
   movements on account of the deceptive negotiations of the
   Russians; and did not decide on a retreat till the 19th of
   October. This retreat was disastrous, and began the downfall
   of the empire. … The cabinet of Berlin began the defections.
   On the 1st of March, 1813, it joined Russia and England, which
   were forming the sixth coalition. Sweden acceded to it soon
   after; yet the emperor, whom the confederate power thought
   prostrated by the last disaster, opened the campaign with new
   victories. The battle of Lutzen, won by conscripts, on the 2nd
   of May, the occupation of Dresden; the victory of Bautzen, and
   the war carried to the Elbe, astonished the coalition.
   Austria, which, since 1810, had been on a footing of peace,
   was resuming arms, and already meditating a change of
   alliance. She now proposed herself as a mediatrix between the
   emperor and the confederates. Her meditation was accepted; an
   armistice was concluded at Plesswitz, on the 4th of June, and
   a congress assembled at Prague to negotiate peace. It was
   impossible to come to terms. … Austria joined the coalition,
   and war, the only means of settling this great contest, was
   resumed. The emperor had only 280,000 men against 520,000.
   …. Victory seemed, at first, to second him. At Dresden he
   defeated the combined forces; but the defeats of his
   lieutenants deranged his plans. … The princes of the
   confederation of the Rhine chose this moment to desert the
   cause of the empire. A vast engagement having taken place at
   Leipsic between the two armies, the Saxons and Wurtembergers
   passed over to the enemy on the field of battle. This
   defection to the strength of the coalesced powers, who had
   learned a more compact and skilful mode of warfare, obliged
   Napoleon to retreat, after a struggle of three days. … The
   empire was invaded in all directions. The Austrians entered
   Italy; the English, having made themselves masters of the
   peninsula during the last two years, had passed the Bidassoa,
   under General Wellington, and appeared on the Pyrenees. Three
   armies pressed on France to the east and north. … Napoleon
   was … obliged to submit to the conditions of the allied
   powers; their pretensions increased with their power. … On
   the 11th of April, 1814, he renounced for himself and children
   the thrones of France and Italy, and received in exchange for
   his vast sovereignty, the limits of which had extended from
   Cadiz to the Baltic Sea, the little island of Elba."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 15._

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE), to 1813;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and
      FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812 to 1814.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814.
   Restored rule in Northern Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Treaties of Paris and Congress of Vienna.
   Readjustment of French boundaries.
   Recovery of the Tyrol from Bavaria and Lombardy in Italy.
   Acquisition of the Venetian states.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE),
      and 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER):
      also VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1820.
   Formation of the Germanic Confederation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
   The Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
   Return of Napoleon from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo Campaign and Its results.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1835.
   Emperor Francis, Prince Metternich, and "the system."

   "After the treaty of Vienna in 1809, and still more
   conspicuously after the pacification of Europe, the political
   wisdom of the rulers of Austria inclined them ever more and
   more to the maintenance of that state of things which was
   known to friends and foes as the System. But what was the
   System? It was the organisation of do-nothing. It cannot even
   be said to have been reactionary: it was simply reactionary.
   … 'Mark time in place' was the word of command in every
   government office. The bureaucracy was engaged from morning to
   night in making work, but nothing ever came of it. Not even
   were the liberal innovations which had lasted through the
   reign of Leopold got rid of. Everything went on in the
   confused, unfinished, and ineffective state in which the great
   war had found it. Such was the famous System which was
   venerated by the ultra-Tories of every land, and most
   venerated where it was least understood. Two men dominate the
   history of Austria during this unhappy time—men who, though
   utterly unlike in character and intellect, were nevertheless
   admirably fitted to work together, and whose names will be
   long united in an unenviable notoriety. These were the Emperor
   Francis and Prince Metternich. The first was the evil genius
   of internal politics; the second exercised a hardly less
   baneful influence over foreign affairs. … For the external
   policy of Prince Metternich, the first and most necessary
   condition was, that Austria should give to Europe the
   impression of fixed adherence to the most extreme Conservative
   views. So for many years they worked together, Prince
   Metternich always declaring that he was a mere tool in the
   hands of his master, but in reality far more absolute in the
   direction of his own department than the emperor was in his.
   … Prince Metternich had the power of making the most of all
   he knew, and constantly left upon persons of real merit the
   impression that he was a man of lofty aspirations and liberal
   views, who forced himself to repress such tendencies in others
   because he thought that their repression was a sine quâ non for
   Austria. The men of ability, who knew him intimately, thought
   less well of him.
{226}
   To them he appeared vain and superficial, with much that
   recalled the French noblesse of the old régime in his way of
   looking at things, and emphatically wanting in every element
   of greatness. With the outbreak of the Greek insurrection in
   1821, began a period of difficulty and complications for the
   statesmen of Austria. There were two things of which they were
   mortally afraid—Russia and the revolution. Now, if they
   assisted the Greeks, they would be playing into the hands of
   the second; and if they opposed the Greeks, they would be
   likely to embroil themselves with the first. The whole art of
   Prince Metternich was therefore exerted to keep things quiet
   in the Eastern Peninsula, and to postpone the intolerable
   'question d'Orient.' Many were the shifts he tried, and
   sometimes, as just after the accession of Nicholas, his hopes
   rose very high. All was, however, in vain. England and Russia
   settled matters behind his back; and although the tone which
   the publicists in his pay adopted towards the Greeks became
   more favourable in 1826-7, the battle of Navarino was a sad
   surprise and mortification to the wily chancellor. Not less
   annoying was the commencement of hostilities on the Danube
   between Russia and the Porte. The reverses with which the
   great neighbour met in his first campaign cannot have been
   otherwise than pleasing at Vienna. But the unfortunate success
   which attended his arms in the second campaign soon turned
   ill-dissembled joy into ill-concealed sorrow, and the treaty
   of Adrianople at once lowered Austria's prestige in the East,
   and deposed Metternich from the commanding position which he
   had occupied in the councils of the Holy Allies. It became,
   indeed, ever more and more evident in the next few years that
   the age of Congress politics, during which he had been the
   observed of all observers, was past and gone, that the
   diplomatic period had vanished away, and that the military
   period had begun. The very form in which the highest
   international questions were debated was utterly changed. At
   Vienna, in 1814, the diplomatists had been really the primary,
   the sovereigns only secondary personages; while at the
   interview of Münchengratz, between Nicholas and the Emperor
   Francis, in 1833, the great autocrat appeared to look upon
   Prince Metternich as hardly more than a confidential clerk.
   The dull monotony of servitude which oppressed nearly the
   whole of the empire was varied by the agitations of one of its
   component parts. When the Hungarian Diet was dissolved in
   1812, the emperor had solemnly promised that it should be
   called together again within three years. Up to 1815,
   accordingly, the nation went on giving extraordinary levies
   and supplies without much opposition. When, however, the
   appointed time was fulfilled, it began to murmur. … Year by
   year the agitation went on increasing, till at last the
   breaking out of the Greek revolution, and the threatening
   appearance of Eastern politics, induced Prince Metternich to
   join his entreaties to those of many other counsellors, who
   could not be suspected of the slightest leaning to
   constitutional views. At length the emperor yielded, and in
   1825 Presburg was once more filled with the best blood and
   most active spirits of the land, assembled in parliament. Long
   and stormy were the debates which ensued. Bitter was, from
   time to time, the vexation of the emperor, and great was the
   excitement throughout Hungary. In the end, however, the court
   of Vienna triumphed. Hardly any grievances were redressed,
   while its demands were fully conceded. The Diet of 1825 was,
   however, not without fruit. The discussion which took place
   advanced the political education of the people, who were
   brought back to the point where they stood at the death of
   Joseph II.—that is, before the long wars with France had
   come to distract their attention from their own affairs. …
   The slumbers of Austria were not yet over. The System dragged
   its slow length along. Little or nothing was done for the
   improvement of the country. Klebelsberg administered the
   finances in an easy and careless manner. Conspiracies and
   risings in Italy were easily checked, and batches of prisoners
   sent off from time to time to Mantua or Spielberg. Austrian
   influence rose ever higher and higher in all the petty courts
   of the Peninsula. … In other regions Russia or England might
   be willing to thwart him, but in Italy Prince Metternich might
   proudly reflect that Austria was indeed a 'great power.' The
   French Revolution of 1830 was at first alarming; but when it
   resulted in the enthronement of a dynasty which called to its
   aid a 'cabinet of repression,' all fears were stilled. The
   Emperor Francis continued to say, when any change was
   proposed, 'We must sleep upon it,' and died in 1835 in 'the
   abundance of peace.'"

      _M. E. Grant Duff,
      Studies in European Politics,
      pages 140-149._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
   Gains of the Hapsburg monarchy.
   Its aggressive absolutism.
   Death of Francis I.
   Accession of Ferdinand I.
   Suppression of revolt in Galicia.
   Extinction and annexation of the Republic of Cracow.

   "In the new partition of Europe, arranged in the Congress of
   Vienna [see VIENNA. THE CONGRESS OF], Austria received
   Lombardy and Venice under the title of a Lombardo-Venetian
   kingdom, the Illyrian provinces also as a kingdom, Venetian
   Dalmatia, the Tirol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg, the Innviertel and
   Hausrucksviertel, and the part of Galicia ceded by her at an
   earlier period. Thus, after three and twenty years of war, the
   monarchy had gained a considerable accession of strength,
   having obtained, in lieu of its remote and unprofitable
   possessions in the Netherlands, territories which consolidated
   its power in Italy, and made it as great in extent as it had
   been in the days of Charles VI., and far more compact and
   defensible. The grand duchies of Modena, Parma, and Placentia,
   were moreover restored to the collateral branches of the house
   of Hapsburg. … After the last fall of Napoleon … the great
   powers of the continent … constituted themselves the
   champions of the principle of absolute monarchy. The
   maintenance of that principle ultimately became the chief
   object of the so-called Holy Alliance established in 1816
   between Russia, Austria and Prussia, and was pursued with
   remarkable steadfastness by the Emperor Francis and his
   minister, Prince Metternich [see HOLY ALLIANCE]. …
   Thenceforth it became the avowed policy of the chief
   sovereigns of Germany to maintain the rights of dynasties in
   an adverse sense to those of their subjects. The people, on
   the other hand, deeply resented the breach of those promises
   which had been so lavishly made to them on the general summons
   to the war of liberation.
{227}
   Disaffection took the place of that enthusiastic loyalty with
   which they had bled and suffered for their native princes; the
   secret societies, formed with the concurrence of their rulers,
   for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the foreigner,
   became ready instruments of sedition. … In the winter of
   1819, a German federative congress assembled at Vienna. In May
   of the following year it published an act containing closer
   definitions of the Federative Act, having for their essential
   objects the exclusion of the various provincial Diets from all
   positive interference in the general affairs of Germany, and
   an increase of the power of the princes over their respective
   Diets, by a guarantee of aid on the part of the confederates"
   (see GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820). During the next three years,
   the powers of the Holy Alliance, under the lead of Austria,
   and acting under a concert established at the successive
   congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona (see VERONA,
   CONGRESS OF), interfered to put down popular risings against
   the tyranny of government in Italy and Spain, while they
   discouraged the revolt of the Greeks.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

   "The commotions that pervaded Europe after the French
   Revolution of 1830 affected Austria only in her Italian
   dominions, and there but indirectly, for the imperial
   authority remained undisputed in the Lombardo-Venetian
   kingdom. But the duke of Modena and the archduke of Parma were
   obliged to quit those states, and a formidable insurrection
   broke out in the territory of the Church. An Austrian army of
   18,000 men quickly put down the insurgents, who rose again,
   however, as soon as it was withdrawn: The pope again invoked
   the aid of Austria, whose troops entered Bologna in January,
   1832, and established themselves there in garrison. Upon this,
   the French immediately sent a force to occupy Ancona, and for
   a while a renewal of the oft-repeated conflict between Austria
   and France on Italian ground seemed inevitable; but it soon
   appeared that France was not prepared to support the
   revolutionary party in the pope's dominions, and that danger
   passed away. The French remained for some years in Ancona, and
   the Austrians in Bologna and other towns of Romagna. This was
   the last important incident in the foreign affairs of Austria
   previous to the death of the Emperor Francis I. on the 2nd of
   March, 1835, after a reign of 43 years. … The Emperor
   Francis was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., whose
   accession occasioned no change in the political or
   administrative system of the empire. Incapacitated, by
   physical and mental infirmity, from labouring as his father
   had done in the business of the state, the new monarch left to
   Prince Metternich a much more unrestricted power than that
   minister had wielded in the preceding reign. … The province
   of Galicia began early in the new reign to occasion uneasiness
   to the government. The Congress of Vienna had constituted the
   city of Cracow an independent republic—a futile
   representative of that Polish nationality which had once
   extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. After the failure
   of the Polish insurrection of 1831 against Russia, Cracow
   became the focus of fresh conspiracies, to put an end to which
   the city was occupied by a mixed force of Russians, Prussians,
   and Austrians; the two former were soon withdrawn, but the
   latter remained until 1840. When they also had retired, the
   Polish propaganda was renewed with considerable effect. An
   insurrection broke out in Galicia in 1846, when the scantiness
   of the Austrian military force in the province seemed to
   promise it success. It failed, however, as all previous
   efforts of the Polish patriots had failed, because it rested
   on no basis of popular sympathy. The nationality for which
   they contended had ever been of an oligarchical pattern,
   hostile to the freedom of the middle and lower classes. The
   Galician peasants had no mind to exchange the yoke of Austria,
   which pressed lightly upon them, for the feudal oppression of
   the Polish nobles. They turned upon the insurgents and slew or
   took them prisoners, the police inciting them to the work by
   publicly offering a reward of five florins for every suspected
   person delivered up by them, alive or dead. Thus the agents of
   a civilized government became the avowed instigators of an
   inhuman 'jacquerie.' The houses of the landed proprietors were
   sacked by the peasants, their inmates were tortured and
   murdered, and bloody anarchy raged throughout the land in the
   prostituted name of loyalty. The Austrian troops at last
   restored order; but Szela, the leader of the sanguinary
   marauders, was thanked and highly rewarded in the name of his
   sovereign. In the same year the three protecting powers,
   Austria, Russia, and Prussia, took possession of Cracow, and,
   ignoring the right of the other parties to the treaty of
   Vienna to concern themselves about the fate of the republic,
   they announced that its independence was annulled, and that
   the city and territory of Cracow were annexed to, and forever
   incorporated with, the Austrian monarchy. From this time forth
   the political atmosphere of Europe became more and more loaded
   with the presages of the storm that burst in 1848."

      _W. K. Kelly,
      Continuation of Coxe's History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 5-6._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1849.
   Arrangements in Italy of the Congress of Vienna.
   Heaviness of the Austrian yoke.
   The Italian risings.

   "By the treaty of Vienna (1815), the … entire kingdom of
   Venetian-Lombardy was handed over to the Austrians; the
   duchies of Modena, Reggio, with Massa and Carrara, given to
   Austrian princes; Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to Napoleon's
   queen, Maria Luisa, because she was an Austrian princess; the
   grand-duchy of Tuscany to Ferdinand III. of Austria; the duchy
   of Lucca to a Bourbon. Rome and the Roman states were restored
   to the new Pope, Pius VII.; Sicily was united to Naples under
   the Bourbons, and later deprived of her constitution, despite
   the promised protection of England; the Canton Ticino, though
   strictly Italian, annexed to the Swiss Confederation; the
   little republic of St. Marino left intact, even as the
   principality of Monaco. England retained Malta; Corsica was
   left to France. Italy, so Metternich and Europe fondly hoped,
   was reduced to a geographical expression. Unjust, brutal, and
   treacherous as was that partition, at least it taught the
   Italians that 'who would be free himself must strike the
   blow.' It united them into one common hatred of Austria and
   Austrian satellites. By substituting papal, Austrian, and
   Bourbon despotism for the free institutions, codes, and
   constitutions of the Napoleonic era, it taught them the
   difference between rule and misrule.
{228}
   Hence the demand of the Neapolitans during their first
   revolution (1820) was for a constitution; that of the
   Piedmontese and Lombards (1821) for a constitution and war
   against Austria. The Bourbon swore and foreswore, and the
   Austrians 'restored order' in Naples. The Piedmontese, who had
   not concerted their movement until Naples was crushed—after
   the abdication of Victor Emmanuel I., the granting of the
   constitution by the regent Charles Albert, and its abrogation
   by the new king Charles Felix—saw the Austrians enter
   Piedmont, while the leaders of the revolution went out into
   exile [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821]. But those revolutions and
   those failures were the beginning of the end. The will to be
   independent of all foreigners, the thirst for freedom, was
   universal; the very name of empire or of emperor, was rendered
   ridiculous, reduced to a parody—in the person of Ferdinand of
   Austria. But one illusion remained—in the liberating virtues
   of France and the French; this had to be dispelled by bitter
   experience, and for it substituted the new idea of one Italy
   for the Italians, a nation united, independent, free, governed
   by a president or by a king chosen by the sovereign people.
   The apostle of this idea, to which for fifty years victims and
   martyrs were sacrificed by thousands, was Joseph Mazzini; its
   champion, Joseph Garibaldi. By the genius of the former, the
   prowess of the latter, the abnegation, the constancy, the
   tenacity, the iron will of both, all the populations of Italy
   were subjugated by that idea: philosophers demonstrated it,
   poets sung it, pious Christian priests proclaimed it,
   statesmen found it confronting their negotiations, baffling
   their half-measures."

      _J. W. V. Mario,
      Introduction to Autobiography of Garibaldi._

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1848-1849.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1835.
   Accession of the Emperor Ferdinand I.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1839-1840.
   The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
   Quadruple Alliance.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848.
   The Germanic revolutionary rising.
   National Assembly at Frankfort.
   Archduke John elected Administrator of Germany.

   "When the third French Revolution broke out, its influence was
   immediately felt in Germany. The popular movement this time
   was very different from any the Governments had hitherto had
   to contend with. The people were evidently in earnest, and
   resolved to obtain, at whatever cost, their chief demands. …
   The Revolution was most serious in the two great German
   States, Prussia and Austria. … It was generally hoped that
   union as well as freedom was now to be achieved by Germany;
   but, as Prussia and Austria were in too much disorder to do
   anything, about 500 Germans from the various States met at
   Frankfurt, and on March 21 constituted themselves a
   provisional Parliament. An extreme party wished the assembly
   to declare itself permanent; but to this the majority would
   not agree. It was decided that a National Assembly should be
   elected forthwith by the German people. The Confederate Diet,
   knowing that the provisional Parliament was approved by the
   nation, recognized its authority. Through the Diet the various
   Governments were communicated with, and all of them agreed to
   make arrangements for the elections. … The National Assembly
   was opened in Frankfurt on May 18, 1848. It elected the
   Archduke John of Austria as the head of a new provisional
   central Government. The choice was a happy one. The Archduke
   was at once acknowledged by the different governments, and on
   July 12 the President of the Confederate Diet formally made
   over to him the authority which had hitherto belonged to the
   Diet. The Diet then ceased to exist. The Archduke chose from
   the Assembly seven members, who formed a responsible ministry.
   The Assembly was divided into two parties, the Right and the
   Left. These again were broken up into various sections. Much
   time was lost in useless discussions, and it was soon
   suspected that the Assembly would not in the end prove equal
   to the great task it had undertaken."

      _J. Sime,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 19, sections 8-11._

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848 (December).
   Accession of the Emperor Francis Joseph I.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Revolutionary risings.
   Bombardment of Prague and Vienna.
   Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
   Accession of Francis Joseph.
   The Hungarian struggle for independence.

   "The rise of national feeling among the Hungarian, Slavonic,
   and Italian subjects of the House of Hapsburg was not the only
   difficulty of the Emperor Ferdinand I. Vienna was then the
   gayest and the dearest centre of fashion and luxury in Europe,
   but side by side with wealth there seethed a mass of wretched
   poverty; and the protective trade system of Austria so
   increased the price of the necessaries of life that
   bread-riots were frequent. … The university students were
   foremost in the demand for a constitution and for the removal
   of the rigid censorship of the press and of all books. So,
   when the news came of the flight of Louis Philippe from Paris
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848] the students as well
   as the artisans of Vienna rose in revolt (March 13, 1848), the
   latter breaking machinery and attacking the houses of
   unpopular employers. A deputation of citizens clamoured for
   the resignation of the hated Metternich: his house was burnt
   down, and he fled to England. A second outbreak of the excited
   populace (May 15, 1848), sent the Emperor Ferdinand in
   helpless flight to Innsprück in Tyrol; but he returned when
   they avowed their loyalty to his person, though they detested
   the old bureaucratic system. Far more complicated, however,
   were the race jealousies of the Empire. The Slavs of Bohemia
   … had demanded of Ferdinand the union of Bohemia, Moravia,
   and Austrian Silesia in Estates for those provinces, and that
   the Slavs should enjoy equal privileges with the Germans.
   After an unsatisfactory answer had been received, they
   convoked a Slavonic Congress at Prague. … But while this
   Babel of tongues was seeking for a means of fusion, Prince
   Windischgrätz was assembling Austrian troops around the
   Bohemian capital. Fights in the streets led to a bombardment
   of the city, which Windischgrätz soon entered in triumph. This
   has left a bitterness between the Tsechs or Bohemians and the
   Germans which still divides Bohemia socially and politically.
   … The exciting news of the spring of 1848 had made the hot
   Asiatic blood of the Magyars boil; yet even Kossuth and the
   democrats at first only demanded the abolition of Metternich's
   system in favour of a representative government. …
{229}
   Unfortunately Kossuth claimed that the Magyar laws and
   language must now be supreme, not only in Hungary proper, but
   also in the Hungarian 'crown lands' of Dalmatia, Croatia, and
   Slavonia, and the enthusiastic Magyars wished also to absorb
   the ancient principality of Transylvania; but this again was
   stoutly resisted by the Roumanians, Slavs, and Saxons of that
   little known corner of Europe, and their discontent was fanned
   by the court of Vienna. Jellachich, the Ban or Governor of
   Croatia, headed this movement, which aimed at making Agram the
   capital of the southern Slavs. Their revolt against the
   Hungarian ministry of Batthyanyi was at first disavowed in
   June, 1848, but in October was encouraged, by the perfidious
   government of Vienna. A conference between Batthyanyi and
   Jellachich ended with words of defiance: 'Then we must meet on
   the Drave,' said the Hungarian. 'No, on the Danube,' retorted
   the champion of the Slavs. The vacillating Ferdinand annulled
   his acceptance of the new Hungarian constitution and declared
   Jellachich dictator of Hungary. His tool was unfortunate.
   After crossing the Drave, the Slavs were defeated by the brave
   Hungarian 'honveds' (defenders); and as many as 9,000 were
   made prisoners. Unable to subdue Hungary, Jellachich turned
   aside towards Vienna to crush the popular party there. For the
   democrats, exasperated by the perfidious policy of the
   government, had, on October 6, 1848, risen a third time: the
   war-minister, Latour, had been hanged on a lamp-post, and the
   emperor again fled from his turbulent capital to the
   ever-faithful Tyrolese. But now Jellachich and Windischgrätz
   bombarded the rebellious capital. It was on the point of
   surrendering when the Hungarians appeared to aid the city; but
   the levies raised by the exertions of Kossuth were this time
   outmanœuvred [and defeated] by the imperialists at Schwechat
   (October 30, 1848), and on the next day Vienna surrendered.
   Blum, a delegate from Saxony [to the German Parliament of
   Frankfort, who had come on a mission of mediation to Vienna,
   but who had taken a part in the fighting], and some other
   democrats, were shot. By this clever but unscrupulous use of
   race jealousy the Viennese Government seemed to have overcome
   Bohemians, Italians, Hungarians, and the citizens of its own
   capital in turn; while it had diverted the southern Slavonians
   from hostility to actual service on its side. … The weak
   health and vacillating spirit of Ferdinand did not satisfy the
   knot of courtiers of Vienna, who now, flushed by success,
   sought to concentrate all power in the Viennese Cabinet. Worn
   out by the excitements of the year and by the demands of these
   men, Ferdinand, on December 2, 1848, yielded up the crown, not
   to his rightful successor, his brother, but to his nephew,
   Francis Joseph. He, a youth of eighteen, ascended the throne
   so rudely shaken, and still, in spite of almost uniform
   disaster in war, holds sway over an empire larger and more
   powerful than he found it in 1848. The Hungarians refused to
   recognise the young sovereign thus forced upon them; and the
   fact that he was not crowned at Presburg with the sacred iron
   crown of St. Stephen showed that he did not intend to
   recognise the Hungarian constitution. Austrian troops under
   Windischgrätz entered Buda-Pesth, but the Hungarian patriots
   withdrew from their capital to organize a national resistance;
   and when the Austrian Government proclaimed the Hungarian
   constitution abolished and the complete absorption of Hungary
   in the Austrian Empire, Kossuth and his colleagues retorted by
   a Declaration of Independence (April 24, 1849). The House of
   Hapsburg was declared banished from Hungary, which was to be a
   republic. Kossuth, the first governor of the new republic, and
   Görgei, its general, raised armies which soon showed their
   prowess." The first important battle of the war had been
   fought at Kapolna, on the right bank of the Theiss, on the
   26th of February, 1849, Görgei and Dembinski commanding the
   Hungarians and Windischgrätz leading the Austrians. The latter
   won the victory, and the Hungarians retreated toward the
   Theiss. About the middle of March, Görgei resumed the
   offensive, advancing toward Pesth, and encountered the
   Austrians at Isaszeg, where he defeated them in a hard-fought
   battle,—or rather in two battles which are sometimes called
   by different names: viz., that of Tapio Biscke fought April
   4th, and that of Godolo, fought on the 5th. It was now the
   turn of the Austrians to fall back, and they concentrated
   behind the Rakos, to cover Pesth. The Hungarian general passed
   round their left, carried Waitzen by storm, forced them to
   evacuate Pesth and to retreat to Presburg, abandoning the
   whole of Hungary with the exception of a few fortresses, which
   they held. The most important of these fortresses, that of
   Buda, the "twin-city," opposite Pesth on the Danube, was
   besieged by the Hungarians and carried by storm on the 21st of
   May. "In Transylvania, too, the Hungarians, under the talented
   Polish general Bem, overcame the Austrians, Slavonians, and
   Roumanians in many brilliant encounters. But the proclamation
   of a republic had alienated those Hungarians who had only
   striven for their old constitutional rights, so quarrels arose
   between Görgei and the ardent democrat Kossuth. Worse still,
   the Czar Nicholas, dreading the formation of a republic near
   his Polish provinces sent the military aid which Francis
   Joseph in May 1849 implored. Soon 80,000 Russians under
   Paskiewitch poured over the northern Carpathians to help the
   beaten Austrians, while others overpowered the gallant Bem in
   Transylvania. Jellachich with his Croats again invaded South
   Hungary, and Haynau, the scourge of Lombardy, marched on the
   strongest Hungarian fortress, Komorn, on the Danube." The
   Hungarians, overpowered by the combination of Austrians and
   Russians against them, were defeated at Pered, June 21; at
   Acz, July 3; at Komorn, July 11; at Waitzen, July 16; at
   Tzombor, July 20; at Segesvar, July 31; at Debreczin, August
   2; at Szegedin, August 4; at Temesvar, August 10. "In despair
   Kossuth handed over his dictatorship to his rival Görgei, who
   soon surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the
   Russians (August 13, 1849). About 5,000 men with Kossuth, Bem,
   and other leaders, escaped to Turkey. Even there Russia and
   Austria sought to drive them forth; but the Porte, upheld by
   the Western Powers, maintained its right to give sanctuary
   according to the Koran. Kossuth and many of his fellow-exiles
   finally sailed to England [and afterwards to America], where
   his majestic eloquence aroused deep sympathy for the afflicted
   country. Many Hungarian patriots suffered death. All rebels had
   their property confiscated and the country was for years ruled
   by armed force, and its old rights were abolished."

      _J. H. Rose,
      A Century of Continental History,
      chapter 31._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapter 55._

      _A. Görgei,
      My Life and Acts in Hungary._

      _General Klapka,
      Memoirs of the War of Independence in Hungary._

      _Count Hartig,
      Genesis of the Revolution in Austria._

      _W. H. Stiles,
      Austria in 1848-49._

{230}

AUSTRIA: A. D.1848-1849.
   Revolt in Lombardy and Venetia.
   War with Sardinia.
   Victories of Radetzky.
   Italy vanquished again.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1850.
   Failure of the movement for Germanic national unity.
   End of the Frankfort Assembly.

   "Frankfort had become the centre of the movement. The helpless
   Diet had acknowledged the necessity of a German parliament,
   and had summoned twelve men of confidence charged with drawing
   up a new imperial constitution. But it was unable to supply
   what was most wanted—a strong executive. … Instead of
   establishing before all a strong executive able to control and
   to realise its resolutions, the Assembly lost months in
   discussing the fundamental rights of the German people, and
   thus was overhauled by the events. In June, Prince
   Windischgraetz crushed the insurrection at Prague; and in
   November the anarchy which had prevailed during the whole
   summer at Berlin was put down, when Count Brandenburg became
   first minister. … Schwarzenberg [at Vienna] declared as soon
   as he had taken the reins, that his programme was to maintain
   the unity of the Austrian empire, and demanded that the whole
   of it should enter into the Germanic confederation. This was
   incompatible with the federal state as contemplated by the
   National Assembly, and therefore Gagern, who had become
   president of the imperial ministry [at Frankfort], answered
   Schwarzenberg's programme by declaring that the entering of
   the Austrian monarchy with a majority of non-German
   nationalities into the German federal state was an
   impossibility. Thus nothing was left but to place the king of
   Prussia at the head of the German state. But in order to win a
   majority for this plan Gagern found it necessary to make large
   concessions to the democratic party, amongst others universal
   suffrage. This was not calculated to make the offer of the
   imperial crown acceptable to Frederic William IV., but his
   principal reason for declining it was, that he would not
   exercise any pressure on the other German sovereigns, and
   that, notwithstanding Schwarzenberg's haughty demeanour, he
   could not make up his mind to exclude Austria from Germany.
   After the refusal of the crown by the king, the National
   Assembly was doomed; it had certainly committed great faults,
   but the decisive reason of its failure was the lack of a clear
   and resolute will in Prussia. History, however, teaches that
   great enterprises, such as it was to unify an empire
   dismembered for centuries, rarely succeed at the first
   attempt. The capital importance of the events of 1848 was that
   they had made the German unionist movement an historical fact;
   it could never be effaced from the annals, that all the German
   governments had publicly acknowledged that tendency as
   legitimate, the direction for the future was given, and even
   at the time of failure it was certain, as Stockmar said, that
   the necessity of circumstances would bring forward the man
   who, profiting by the experiences of 1848, would fulfil the
   national aspirations."

      _F. H. Geffcken,
      The Unity of Germany
      (English Historical Review, April, 1891)_.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.
   The Return to pure Absolutism.
   Bureaucracy triumphant.

   "The two great gains which the moral earthquake of 1848
   brought to Austria were, that through wide provinces of the
   Empire, and more especially in Hungary, it swept away the sort
   of semi-vassalage in which the peasantry had been left by the
   Urbarium of Maria Theresa [an edict which gave to the peasants
   the right of moving from place to place, and the right of
   bringing up their children as they wished, while it
   established in certain courts the trial of all suits to which
   they were parties], and other reforms akin to or founded upon
   it, and introduced modern in the place of middle-age relations
   between the two extremes of society. Secondly, it overthrew
   the policy of do-nothing—a surer guarantee for the
   continuance of abuses than even the determination, which soon
   manifested itself at headquarters, to make the head of the
   state more absolute than ever. After the taking of Vienna by
   Windischgrätz, the National Assembly had, on the 15th of
   November 1848, been removed from the capital to the small town
   of Kremsier, in Moravia. Here it prolonged all ineffective
   existence till March 1849, when the court camarilla felt
   itself strong enough to put an end to an inconvenient censor,
   and in March 1849 it ceased to exist. A constitution was at
   the same time promulgated which contained many good
   provisions, but which was never heartily approved by the
   ruling powers, or vigorously carried into effect—the
   proclamation of a state of siege in many cities, and other
   expedients of authority in a revolutionary period, easily
   enabling it to be set at naught. The successes of the reaction
   in other parts of Europe, and, above all, the coup d'état in
   Paris, emboldened Schwartzenberg to throw off the mask; and on
   the last day of 1851 Austria became once more a pure
   despotism. The young emperor had taken 'Viribus unitis' for
   his motto; and his advisers interpreted those words to mean
   that Austria was henceforward to be a state as highly
   centralised as France—a state in which the minister at Vienna
   was absolutely to govern everything from Salzburg to the Iron
   Gate. The hand of authority had been severely felt in the
   pre-revolutionary period, but now advantage was to be taken of
   the revolution to make it felt far more than ever. In Hungary,
   for example, … it was fondly imagined that there would be no
   more trouble. The old political division into counties was
   swept away; the whole land was divided into five provinces;
   and the courtiers might imagine that from henceforth the
   Magyars would be as easily led as the inhabitants of Upper
   Austria. These delusions soon became general, but they owed
   their origin partly to the enthusiastic ignorance of those who
   were at the head of the army, and partly to two men"—Prince
   Schwartzenberg and Alexander Bach. Of the latter, the "two
   leading ideas were to cover the whole empire with a German
   bureaucracy, and to draw closer the ties which connected the
   court of Vienna with that of Rome.
{231}
   … If absolutism in Austria had a fair trial from the 31st of
   December 1851 to the Italian war, it is to Bach that it was
   owing; and if it utterly and ludicrously failed, it is he more
   than any other man who must bear the blame. Already, in 1849,
   the bureaucracy had been reorganised, but in 1852 new and
   stricter regulations were introduced. Everything was
   determined by precise rules—even the exact amount of hair
   which the employee was permitted to wear upon his face. Hardly
   any question was thought sufficiently insignificant to be
   decided upon the spot. The smallest matters had to be referred
   to Vienna. …. We can hardly be surprised that the great ruin
   of the Italian war brought down with a crash the whole edifice of
   the reaction."

      _M. E. G. Duff,
      Studies in European Politics,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 33._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853.
   Commercial Treaty with the German Zollverein.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853-1856.
   Attitude in the Crimean War.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1856-1859.
   The war in Italy with Sardinia and France.
   Reverses at Magenta and Solferino.
   Peace of Villafranca.
   Surrender of Lombardy.

   "From the wars of 1848-9 the King of Sardinia was looked upon
   by the moderate party as the champion of Italian freedom.
   Charles Albert had failed: yet his son would not, and indeed
   could not, go back, though, when he began his reign, there
   were many things against him. … Great efforts were made to
   win him over to the Austrian party, but the King was neither
   cast down by defeat and distrust nor won over by soft words.
   He soon showed that, though he had been forced to make a
   treaty with Austria, yet he would not cast in his lot with the
   oppression of Italy. He made Massimo d'Azeglio his chief
   Minister, and Camillo Benso di Cavour his Minister of
   Commerce. With the help of these two men he honestly carried
   out the reforms which had been granted by his father, and set
   new ones on foot. … The quick progress of reform frightened
   Count Massimo d'Azeglio. He retired from office in 1853, and
   his place was taken by Count Cavour, who made a coalition with
   the democratic party in Piedmont headed by Urbano Rattazzi.
   The new chief Minister began to work not only for the good of
   Piedmont but for Italy at large. The Milanese still listened
   to the hopes which Mazzini held out, and could not quietly
   hear their subjection. Count Cavour indignantly remonstrated
   with Radetzky for his harsh government. … The division and
   slavery of Italy had shut her out from European politics.
   Cavour held that, if she was once looked upon as an useful
   ally, then her deliverance might be hastened by foreign
   interference. The Sardinian army had been brought into good
   order by Alfonso della Marmora; and was ready for action. In
   1855, Sardinia made alliance with England and France, who were
   at war with Russia; for Cavour looked on that power as the
   great support of the system of despotism on the Continent, and
   held that it was necessary for Italian freedom that Russia
   should be humbled. The Sardinian army was therefore sent to
   the Crimea, under La Marmora, where it did good service in the
   battle of Tchernaya. … The next year the Congress of Paris
   was held to arrange terms of peace between the allies and
   Russia, and Cavour took the opportunity of laying before the
   representatives of the European powers the unhappy state of
   his countrymen. … In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon
   Buonaparte, the President of the French Republic, seized the
   government, and the next year took the title of Emperor of the
   French. He was anxious to weaken the power of Austria, and at
   the beginning of 1859 it became evident that war would soon
   break out. As a sign of the friendly feeling of the French
   Emperor towards the Italian cause, his cousin, Napoleon
   Joseph, married Clotilda, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel.
   Count Cavour now declared that Sardinia would make war on
   Austria, unless a separate and national government was granted
   to Lombardy and Venetia, and unless Austria promised to meddle
   no more with the rest of Italy. On the other hand, Austria
   demanded the disarmament of Sardinia. The King would not
   listen to this demand, and France and Sardinia declared war
   against Austria. The Emperor Napoleon declared that he would
   free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic. … The Austrian
   army crossed the Ticino, but was defeated by the King and
   General Cialdini. The French victory of Magenta, on June 4th
   forced the Austrians to retreat from Lombardy. … On June
   24th the Austrians, who had crossed the Mincio, were defeated
   at Solferino by the allied armies of France and Sardinia. It
   seemed as though the French Emperor would keep his word. But
   he found that if he went further, Prussia would take up the
   cause of Austria, and that he would have to fight on the Rhine
   as well as on the Adige. When, therefore, the French army came
   before Verona, a meeting was arranged between the two
   Emperors. This took place at Villafranca, and there
   Buonaparte, without consulting his ally, agreed with Francis
   Joseph to favour the establishment of an Italian
   Confederation. …Austria gave up to the King of Sardinia
   Lombardy to the west of Mincio. But the Grand Duke of Tuscany
   and the Duke of Modena were to return to their States. The
   proposed Confederation was never made, for the people of
   Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna sent to the King to pray
   that they might be made part of his Kingdom, and Victor
   Emmanuel refused to enter on the scheme of the French Emperor.
   In return for allowing the Italians of Central Italy to shake
   off the yoke, Buonaparte asked for Savoy and Nizza. … The
   King … consented to give up the 'glorious cradle of his
   Monarchy' in exchange for Central Italy."

      _W. A. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy from 1815 to 1890,
      chapter 9-10._

      _C. de Mazade,
      Life of Count Cavour,
      chapter 2-7._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1862-1866.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Quarrel with Prussia.
   The humiliating Seven Weeks War.

   Conflict with Prussia grew out of the complicated
   Schleswig-Holstein question, reopened in 1862 and
   provisionally settled by a delusive arrangement between
   Prussia and Austria, into which the latter was artfully drawn
   by Prince Bismarck.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

{232}

   No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed
   that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies
   to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in
   1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia
   sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack
   Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated
   the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D.
   1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in
   Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the
   Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover.
   The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with
   the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should
   march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push
   on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to
   enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the
   King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the
   second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced
   across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at
   Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They
   were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General
   Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. … As in the
   wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals …
   never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did
   indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he
   found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated,
   and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him.
   The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated
   an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of
   Gitschin on Königgrätz. … The Prussians pushed on, and now
   the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz,
   whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing
   on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is
   crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy
   ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north
   of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character
   dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. … But about Chlum,
   Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek
   planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against
   the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the
   centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The
   battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning,
   by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army
   upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle
   raged most fiercely. … Two things were against the
   Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and,
   secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had
   what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired
   by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they
   can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders
   used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is
   called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa
   (o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously
   pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of
   Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the
   Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to
   terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a
   crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at
   Prague."

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Story of Germany,
      pages 390-394._

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866.
   The War in Italy.
   Loss of Venetia.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
   Concession of nationality to Hungary.
   Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.

   "For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased
   from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme
   in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian
   institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the
   German tongue being declared the exclusive language of
   official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was
   carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials.
   No vestige was left, not only of the national independence,
   but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the
   country was divided into provinces without regard for
   historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe
   out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary.
   All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to
   these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the
   sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the
   enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary
   Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the
   short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. …
   Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in
   consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of
   the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again
   convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and
   resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial
   Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat
   incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the
   futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in
   which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into
   due consideration—an arrangement was concluded under the
   auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on
   the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national
   existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal
   rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give
   way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an
   indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common
   rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of
   Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government,
   and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with
   slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in
   1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management
   of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary
   for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the
   entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers
   were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal
   committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the
   Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were
   framed for the smooth working of these common institutions,
   for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in
   matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and
   Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility
   to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality.
{233}
   The financial questions pending in the two independent and
   equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken
   for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise
   in relation to interests touching both States, such as
   duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on
   these subjects taking place by means of identical laws
   separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. …
   Simultaneously with these arrangements the political
   differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by
   granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. … Thus the
   organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of
   dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two
   halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of
   defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent
   into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies
   of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of
   Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its
   unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."

      _A. Pulszky,
      Hungary
      (National Life and Thought,
      lecture 3)._

   "The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a
   committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of
   whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true
   patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the
   revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of
   the rights of his country. … On the 8th of June [1867], the
   emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth.
   On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions
   of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard
   to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified
   some portions of the laws of 1848. … Since the Ausgleich the
   empire has consisted of two parts. … For the sake of
   clearness, political language has been increased by the
   invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania,
   to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by
   a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha—a stream
   which never expected to become so celebrated."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 35._

      ALSO IN:
      _Francis Deák,
      A Memoir,
      chapters 26-31._

      _Count von Beust,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapter 38._

      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 5._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
   The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
   Its new national life.
   Its difficulties and promises.
   Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.

   "Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm
   than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always
   does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that
   it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living
   evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the
   campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign
   domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making
   a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over
   which she presides. It does not require much insight to
   perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this
   fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the
   German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests
   impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns,
   the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these  to
   command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible
   for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual
   understanding with a population which felt itself
   attracted—alike by the ties of race, language, and
   geographical position—to another political union. Nay more,
   as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as
   a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the
   Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its
   subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two
   difficulties—the relations with Germany and the relations
   with Italy—were swept away. From this time forward Austria
   could appear before the world as a Power binding together for
   the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of
   which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In
   short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas
   before she had none. … Baron Beust, on the 7th of February,
   1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be
   stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and
   imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal
   Constitution in the world would never reconcile the
   nationalities to their present position, as provinces under
   the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the
   question—Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable,
   how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm
   the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an
   almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus
   obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining
   provinces by building up a new system of free government. It
   would be out of place to give a detailed account of the
   well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into
   the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary,
   however, to describe the additions made to it by the political
   machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same
   principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth,
   as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own
   responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and
   Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty
   delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent
   Hungarian interests—twenty being taken in each case from the
   Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,'
   whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively,
   though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the
   difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly,
   and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were
   competent in matters of foreign policy, in military
   administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood
   three Imperial ministers—the Reichskanzler, who presided at
   the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the
   Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three
   ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag,
   and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on
   the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of
   federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism,
   both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be
   borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a
   retrogression.
{234}
   At a time in which all other European nations—notably North
   Germany—were simplifying and unifying their political
   systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. … The
   true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867
   was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was
   not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but
   the pacification of Hungary. … The internal history of the
   two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf
   Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task
   before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first
   place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more
   assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true
   that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000
   inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all
   the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they
   formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority,
   under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to
   range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great
   advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her
   government was not bound by the traditional policy of former
   Vienna ministries, and … it had managed to keep its
   financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who
   are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary
   institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed
   the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be
   credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is
   mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented
   representative government, and claim this glory for
   themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the
   Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for
   Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."—_Austria since Sadowa
   (Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95)._—"It is difficult
   for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the
   difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has,
   as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets.
   The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no
   difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other
   districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself
   crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him
   to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by
   the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend
   himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and
   of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to
   continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and
   Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient
   kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the
   election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite
   kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz
   Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to
   have its separate Ministry and its separate official language,
   and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the
   so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an
   ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of
   Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of
   Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And
   if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or
   a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are
   not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are
   gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly
   of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats
   complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not
   ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech
   population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom.
   Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia
   may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on
   the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia
   on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the
   most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to
   call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and
   the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it
   is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be
   strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the
   Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining
   ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the
   integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our
   survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much
   better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its
   Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name),
   its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and,
   although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria,
   Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with
   which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality
   of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for
   trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present
   highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar
   rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally
   detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the
   Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers,
   inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen.
   Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes
   unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an
   executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume
   and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races,
   there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to
   about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There
   are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans
   and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars
   only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between
   five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories
   of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000
   of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races—Germans,
   Jews, and Magyars—while between three and four millions of
   Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as
   being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult
   to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things
   which these figures reveal."

      _The Present Position of European Polities
      (Fortnightly Review, April, 1887)._

{235}

   "In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound
   between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired
   to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her
   eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every
   interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was
   thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after
   the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of
   Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866,
   she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at
   the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order
   to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential
   for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of
   Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and
   obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should
   encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If,
   in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860,
   and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas
   and interests which had then taken place in the policy of
   France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly
   constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and
   influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire,
   and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then
   threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that
   Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced
   to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour
   some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian
   statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and,
   impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased
   carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the
   policy here indicated. Their objects have already been
   partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and
   Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was
   striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment
   this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian
   section of the empire. … Russia has never made any secret of
   her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once
   openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria
   remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at
   present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so
   commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that,
   once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by
   Austria on the flank and rear. … And if this be true now,
   how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her
   march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some
   time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for
   almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to
   commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She
   must further consolidate and make certain of what she has.
   Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or
   death—a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no
   unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a
   bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies
   in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population
   thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is
   doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the
   not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria,
   and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for
   ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with
   the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic
   military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to
   suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on
   her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should
   occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than
   madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably
   for her."

      _V. Caillard,
      The Bulgarian Imbroglio
      (Fortnightly Review, December, 1885)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878.
   The Treaty of Berlin.
   Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUTERI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

AUTUN: Origin.

      See GAULS.

AUTUN: A. D. 287.
   Sacked by the Bagauds.

      See BAGAUDS.

----------AUTUN: End----------

AUVERGNE, Ancient.
   The country of the Arverni.

      See ÆDUI;
      also GAULS.

AUVERGNE, The Great Days of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.

AUXILIUM.

      See TALLAGE.

AVA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AVALON.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
      and MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

AVARICUM.

      See BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

AVARS, The.

   The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful
   Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide
   dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was
   one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni,
   or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the
   nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national
   family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth
   century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center
   of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their
   first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost
   annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the
   Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity
   to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their
   wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they
   turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense
   exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which
   inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset;
   for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned
   everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred
   origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of
   the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants,
   established themselves in the wide plains which stretch
   between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect
   information they were naturally enough confounded with the
   greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known
   to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had
   broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force
   to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the
   Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true
   barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the
   mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the
   terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The
   pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by
   Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east
   of the Black Sea.
{236}
   They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the
   Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The
   important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate
   siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages
   extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were
   beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through
   Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the
   Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than
   once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by
   Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628),
   with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of
   their Empire was the Dacian country—modern Roumania,
   Transylvania and part of Hungary—in which the Avars had
   helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The
   Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers
   into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in
   subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and
   peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an
   imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated
   intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar
   conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme
   for the most degraded servitude."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 42.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

AVARS: 7th Century.
   The Slavic Revolt.

   The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the
   Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed
   Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank
   merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king.
   The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the
   Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to
   be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar
   warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead
   of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars
   to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection
   with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the
   Serbs or Servians and Croats—Slavic tribes of the same race
   and region—to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year
   630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer
   mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of
   Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine.
   It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of
   history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and
   Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of
   European nations."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4._

AVARS: A. D. 791-805.
   Conquest by Charlemagne.

   "Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who,
   joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes,
   accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and
   their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other
   nations of Europe. … They extended their limits towards
   Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. … Much
   of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a
   struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous
   nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This
   was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom
   they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke
   of Bavaria, Tassilo,—most obstinate of all who resisted the
   Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of
   vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed
   the power of the Avars and took possession of their country.
   The royal "ring" or stronghold—believed to have been situated
   in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the
   Theiss—was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was
   seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to
   churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his
   own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been
   made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and
   wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated
   people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land
   between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube,
   where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies.
   This was the end of the Avar nation.

      _G. P. R. James,
      History of Charlemagne,
      books 9 and 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 7._

----------AVARS: End----------

AVARS, The Rings of the.
   The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and
   effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They
   seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts,
   constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being
   called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the
   valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their
   expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was
   somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were
   driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The
   intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of
   chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and
   summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees
   and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable
   hedge."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 9._

AVEBURY.

      See ABURY.

AVEIN, Battle of (1635).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

AVENTINE, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

AVERNUS, Lake and Cavern.

   A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an
   extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of
   Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations
   among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus
   called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there
   who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and,
   having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned
   whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and
   doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having
   answered the questions, went off."

      _Maximus Tyrius,
      quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      c. 2, lecture 9._

      See, also, CUMÆ: AND BAIÆ.

AVERYSBORO, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH:
      THE CAROLINAS).

AVIGNON: 10th Century.
   In the Kingdom of Arles.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1226.
   Siege by Louis VIII.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

{237}

AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348.
   Made the seat of the Papacy.
   Purchase of the city by Clement V.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1367-1369.
   Temporary return of Urban V. to Rome.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417.
   Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome.
   Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.

      See PAPACY: A. D.1377-1417.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Revolution and Anarchy.
   Atrocities committed.
   Reunion with France decreed.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1797.
   Surrendered to France by the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D: 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AVIGNON: A. D. 1815.
   Possession by France confirmed.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

----------AVIGNON: End----------

AVIONES, The.

   "The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by
   Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini,
   Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These
   tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin,
   Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being
   their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define
   their precise localities."

      _A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
      Minor Works of Tacitus,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany._

AVIS, The House of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.

AVIS, Knights of.

   This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated
   about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly
   observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became
   connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received
   from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III.
   united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 4._

      See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

AVITUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455-456.

AVVIM, The.
   The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan,
   from which they were driven by the Philistines.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 1, section 4._

AYACUCHO, Battle of (1824).

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

AYLESFORD, Battle of (A. D. 455).

   The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after
   their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was
   fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

AYMARAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.

      See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

AZINCOUR (AGINCOURT), Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AZOF OR AZOV: A. D. 1696.
   Taken by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

AZOF: A. D. 1711.
   Restoration to the Turks.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739.
   Captured by the Russians.
   Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

----------AZOF: End----------

AZTEC.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT; and A. D. 1325-1502;
      also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

   "No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It
   was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They
   [the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse
   paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of
   maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one
   of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15
   inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled,
   but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that
   on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden
   boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the
   whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as
   if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They
   also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment
   with these devices. … What is still more astonishing, there
   is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were
   not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood
   on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was
   probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In
   these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic
   notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and
   represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not
   connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which
   this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is
   a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages
   it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which
   it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time—the
   writing of proper names. For example, the English family
   Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a
   'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned
   in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent,
   coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' … As a syllable
   could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it,
   as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some
   change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic
   value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as
   universally the attention of the artist was directed less to
   the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the
   Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed
   book to us, and must remain so in great part. … Immense
   masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives
   of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone
   yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less
   than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed.
   Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these
   memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough
   remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of
   Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a
   sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had
   we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond
   all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan,
   would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system.
   They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27
   elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different
   from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with
   themselves. But besides these they used a large number of
   purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed
   constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in
   addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. …
   With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been
   preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the
   Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no
   positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is
   especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also,
   there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of
   picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Myths of the New World,
      chapter 1._

----------AZTEC: End----------

{238}

B.

BABAR,
   King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-;
   King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-;
   Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.

BABENBERGS, The.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BABYLON: The City.

   "The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a
   hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the
   entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such
   is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that
   approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a
   broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall
   fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. … And
   here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out
   of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall
   was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they
   got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a
   sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in
   kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the
   borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct
   the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot
   bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every
   thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of
   the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber
   facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse
   chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred
   gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The
   bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a
   small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where
   the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from
   Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this
   river. The city is divided into two portions by the river
   which runs through the midst of it. This river is the
   Euphrates. … The city wall is brought down on both sides to
   the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall,
   there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt
   bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the
   streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to
   the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the
   water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low
   gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the
   great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the
   water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There
   is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the
   first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre
   of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In
   the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of
   great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct
   of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way,
   with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my
   time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid
   masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was
   raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to
   eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path
   which winds round all the towers. … On the topmost tower
   there is a spacious temple."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by G. Rawlinson,
      book 1, chapters 178-181._

   According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was
   but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly
   with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the
   historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of
   Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter
   author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the
   cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits
   for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. …
   My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did
   not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."

      _H. C. Rawlinson,
      note to above._-

      See, also, BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.

BABYLON OF THE CRUSADERS, The.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

BABYLONIA, Primitive.

   (So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has
   been and is being brought to light by recent search and study,
   and the account of it in English historical literature is so
   meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for
   deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part,
   to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred,
   therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before
   its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume,
   there will be later and better works to quote from on all the
   subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory,
   which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by
   many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done
   much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go
   sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)

   The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament
   narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia
   between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic
   Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first
   half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers.
   It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated
   Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the
   Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to
   cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus
   had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which
   afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped
   writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had
   attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their
   cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly
   on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft,
   impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus.
{239}
   The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects.
   … In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and
   Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them
   still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the
   latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated
   classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in
   modern Europe they are taught Latin."

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

   "Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of
   the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long
   continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the
   language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named
   Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played
   by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is
   highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western
   Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and
   sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only
   of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans,
   and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea
   that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon
   and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached
   its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that
   still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly
   Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve
   labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean
   epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture
   is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient
   Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our
   modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly
   influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point
   in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an
   intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in
   spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother
   of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians
   never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf,
   while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been
   born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian
   literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the
   dead language of primitive Chaldea."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Babylonian Literature,
      pages 6-7._

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 2._

   "The place of China in the past and future is not that which
   it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed
   that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from
   the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. … It
   was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted
   series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of
   communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere,
   published and unpublished, and of contributions to several
   works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some
   knowledge of arts, science and government of the early
   Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the
   old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of
   Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting
   not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of
   some length between the Susian confederation and the future
   civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their
   neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the
   time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming
   again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same
   line."

      _Terrien de Lacouperie,
      Babylonia and China
      (Academy, Aug. 7, 1880)._

   "We could enumerate a long series of affinities between
   Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last
   was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it
   seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of
   tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the
   Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the
   year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were
   obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the
   Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of
   that region, where they must have been influenced by the
   Akkado-Chaldean culture."

      _Terrien de Lacouperie,
      Early History of Chinese Civilization,
      page 32._

      See, also, CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

BABYLONIA: The early (Chaldean) monarchy.

   "Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea
   shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each
   headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the
   sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a
   patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i.
   e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the
   beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its
   college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding
   settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers.
   That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than
   probable. … There comes a time when for the title of patesi
   is substituted that of king. … It is noticeable that the
   distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous
   Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names
   of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic
   idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old
   language. … Furthermore, even superficial observation shows
   that the old language and the old names survive longest in
   Shumir,—the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with
   little chance of mistake that the North,—the land of Accad,—
   was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established
   their first headquarters in that part of the country, that
   their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in
   accordance with these indications, the first grand historical
   figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim
   with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet
   unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of
   Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be
   called—more generally known in history under the corrupt
   modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,'
   to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the
   same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of
   Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in
   Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a
   wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two
   cities came to be considered as one double city, and the
   Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'—Sepharvaim, which
   is often spoken of in the Bible. … The tremendously ancient
   date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of
   Agade—perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in
   history."

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      Story of Chaldea,
      chapter 4._

{240}

   "A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains
   of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was
   conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the
   capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became
   a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to
   it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it
   held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is
   probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. … A newly-found
   inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C.
   3750 [_foot-note_]. … The first care of Khammuragas,
   after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway
   over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. … Khammuragas
   became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward
   the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty
   must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included
   more than one line of kings. … It was under the Cassite
   dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,—
   partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of
   the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. … In B. C.
   1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son,
   Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian
   influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown
   by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne.
   This event may be considered the turning-point in the history
   of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria
   henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of
   Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western
   Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a
   hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but
   this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was
   captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270,
   and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Chaldea,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, ASSYRIA.

BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.
   The later Empire.

   For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270,
   Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long
   period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern
   neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were
   frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they
   were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct
   power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625
   B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of
   the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes
   of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in
   extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was
   now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or
   Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real
   founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho
   to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at
   the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded
   his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord
   of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the
   destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the
   invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre
   also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is
   doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now
   enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much
   to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and
   walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis
   of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound,
   was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three
   walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were
   constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median
   prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and
   overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated
   to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a
   height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other
   temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and
   in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were
   established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six
   months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562),
   and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short
   and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when
   he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the
   Neriglissar of the Greeks. … The chief event of his reign of
   four years and four months was the construction of a new
   palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was
   murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now
   passed from the house of Nabopolassar,—Nabu-nahid or
   Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another
   family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and
   witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"—which was
   overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see
   PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire
   which he founded.

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 15._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: The Fourth Monarchy,
      chapter 8._


BABYLONIAN JEWS.

      See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50, and A. D. 200-400.

BABYLONIAN TALENT.

      See TALENT.

BABYLONIAN TALMUD, The.

      See TALMUD.

"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

BACCHIADÆ.

      See CORINTH.

BACCHIC FESTIVALS.

      See DIONYSIA.

BACENIS, Forest of.

      See HERCYNIAN FOREST.

BACON'S REBELLION.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.

{241}

BACTRIA.

   "Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty
   Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored
   district in the region of the Upper Oxus. … On the banks of
   the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend
   broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh
   mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and
   beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes
   of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and
   the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians—the Bakhtri
   of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. … In ancient
   times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but
   their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds,
   with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land
   enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 6. chapter 2._

   The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the
   Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire
   until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA,
   &c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian
   conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the
   farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed
   part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256
   B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an
   ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into
   revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its
   independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C.
   281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted
   on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years
   before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood.
   … The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement,
   as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206
   to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the
   Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a
   small kingdom to a considerable empire"—extending over the
   greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into
   the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw
   off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so,
   were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to
   mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished
   about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates
   I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued
   masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapters 3-5._

BADAJOS: The Geographical Congress (1524).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BADEN: Early Suevic population.

      See SUEVI.

BADEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Grand Duchy.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806, and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

BADEN: A. D. 1813.
   Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French
   Alliance.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BADEN: A. D. 1849.
   Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

BADEN: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
   transformed into the German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.

----------BADEN: End----------

BADEN, OR RASTADT, Treaty of (1714).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BADR, OR BEDR, Battle of.

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

BÆCULA, Battle of.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

BÆRSÆRK.

      See BERSERKER.

BÆTICA.

   The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards
   took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25, and A. D. 428;
      also TURDETANI, and VANDALS: A. D. 428.

BÆTIS, The.

   The ancient name of the Guadalquiver river in Spain.

BAGACUM.

      See NERVII.

BAGAUDS, Insurrection of the (A. D. 287).

   The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched
   during the distractions and misgovernment of the third
   century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which
   was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have
   been much like those that occurred in France and England
   eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called
   Bagauds,—a name which some writers derive from the Celtic
   word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage."
   They sacked and ruined several cities,—taking Autun after a
   siege of seven months,—and committed many terrible
   atrocities. The Emperor Maximian—colleague of
   Diocletian,—succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general
   outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were
   traces of it surviving long afterwards.

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France, volume 1: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, DEDITITIUS.

BAGDAD, A. D. 763.
   The founding of the new capital of the Caliphs.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 763.

BAGDAD: A. D. 815-945.
   Decline of the Caliphate.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1050.
   In the hands of the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
   The Fall of the Caliphate.
   Destruction of the city by the Mongols.

   In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis
   Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a
   great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to
   send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to
   exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained
   their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of
   Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of
   the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or
   Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness
   and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the
   Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world,
   Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad,
   preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to
   raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to
   the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the
   Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous
   and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous
   preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken
   after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols.
   They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some
   Christians, who are said to have been spared through the
   influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The
   sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we
   are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with
   all his family, was put to death.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 193-201._


----------BAGDAD: End----------

[Image]
I.
Asia Minor
And The
Balkan Peninsula
Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.

Byzantine Empire.
Selj. Turks.
Servia.
Bulgaria.
Cilician Armenia.
Venetian Possessions.
States Under Latin Rule.
County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.


II
ASIA MINOR
AND THE
BALKAN PENINSULA
IN 1265
(SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE
EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)


III
ASIA MINOR.


IV
TURKISH EMPIRE.

----------End----------

[Image: ASIA MINOR AND BALKAN PENINSULA.]
[Image: TURKISH EMPIRE.]

{242}

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. (Continued)

   For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in
   the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had
   become once more "an independent temporal state, though,
   instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the
   caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their
   position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times,
   whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious
   character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the
   Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small
   state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole
   of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body,
   but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition
   of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their
   last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of
   Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it
   survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to
   become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan
   of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended
   Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was
   proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under
   the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his
   successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the
   Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument
   both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes.
   From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title
   of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the
   cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself
   the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah
   has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun,
   rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to
   enemies, neutrals, and allies."

      _E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens,
      lecture 4._

BAGDAD: A. D. 1393.
   Timour's pyramid of heads.

      See TIMOUR.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638.
   Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks.
   Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------BAGDAD: End----------

BAGISTANA.

      See BEHISTUN, ROCK OF.

BAGLIONI, The.

   "The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they
   carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th
   centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that
   of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate
   of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles
   fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing
   the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the
   catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy
   was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger,
   and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular
   fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the
   city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely
   authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator
   of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set
   foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the
   Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and
   goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal
   legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold
   him. … It was in vain that from time to time the people rose
   against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public
   square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the
   dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son
   Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they
   flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in
   the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the
   treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian
   republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. … From
   father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few
   Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who
   equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were
   they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on
   among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the
   ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained
   these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following
   some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the
   Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal
   authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until
   1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic,
   possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo.
   But from this year forward to their final extinction, every
   detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest.
   Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above
   the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated
   house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out
   with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Sketches in Italy and Greece,
      pages 70-72._

BAGRATIDAE, The.

      See ARMENIA: 12th-14th CENTURIES.

BAHAMA ISLANDS: A. D. 1492.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

BAHRITE SULTANS.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.

BAIÆ.

   Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near
   Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans.
   "As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of
   advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to
   this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade
   the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on
   shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes,
   in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails,
   lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song
   and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male
   and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was
   here the business of the day; … they turned the pools of
   Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these
   pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and
   conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their
   surface."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

BAINBRIDGE, Commodore William, in the War of 1812.

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

{243}

BAIREUTH, Creation of the Principality of.

      See GERMANY: THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

----------BAIREUTH: End----------

BAJAZET I.
   Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1389-1402.

   Bajazet II., A. D. 1481-1512.

BAKAIRI, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

BAKER, Colonel Edward D., Killed at Ball's Bluff.

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

BAKSAR, OR BAXAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BALACLAVA, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

BALANCE OF POWER.

   In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which
   aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the
   greater nations.

      _T. J. Lawrence,
      International Law,
      page 126._

BALBINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 238.

BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

BALCHITAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, The Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

   Baldwin I., Latin Emperor at Constantinople
   (Romania), A. D. 1204-1205.

   Baldwin II., A. D. 1237-1261.

BALEARIC ISLANDS:
   Origin of the Name.

   "The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,'
   to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and
   the name is no doubt Phœnician."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 4._

   For the chief incidents in the history of these islands,

      See MINORCA and MAJORCA.

BALIA OF FLORENCE, The.

   The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their
   power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento
   and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time
   to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning
   faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated
   in private by the chiefs of the great house. … Segni says:
   'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the
   Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to
   address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and
   then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute
   power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their
   good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and
   partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately
   retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this
   parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting
   a change in the state."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
      page 164, and foot-note._

      See, also, FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and 1458-1469.

----------BALIA OF FLORENCE: End----------

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BALKAN: Ancient History.

   The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the
   most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a
   common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it
   seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They
   occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA,
   DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for
   some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.

      See, also, AVARS.

----------BALKAN: End----------

{244}

[Image: Danubian And Balkan States]

Danubian And Balkan States

Showing Changes During
The Present Century

The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN
LETTERS and this style of boundary:

All subsequent change, are shown by ITALIC
LETTERS and this style of boundary:

The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty
of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:

----------Danubian And Balkan States: End----------

BALKAN:
   Races existing.

   "In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited
   by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in
   distinct patches here and there over a large country. A
   district like one of our larger counties in which one parish,
   perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another
   English, another Danish, another Old French, another the
   tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or
   Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and
   which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western
   land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into
   South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of
   which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real.
   All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of
   recorded history, together with several races which have come
   in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but
   as nations, each with its national language and national
   feelings, and each having its greater or less share of
   practical importance in the politics of the present moment.
   Setting aside races which have simply passed through the
   country without occupying it, we may say that all the races
   which have ever settled in the country are there still as
   distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular
   region where it forms the whole people or the great majority
   of the people, still there are large districts where different
   races really live side by side in the very way which seems so
   absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We
   cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side
   by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side
   by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace.
   The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques
   and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position
   from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form
   three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and
   Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came
   in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West,
   while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has
   nothing answering to him in the West. … When the Romans
   conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three
   great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those
   three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for
   themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern
   Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every
   reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of
   the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and
   Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as
   thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. … But the
   position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high
   civilization, hindered this.
{245}
   The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely
   political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they
   gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own
   language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say
   that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the
   Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the
   Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became
   the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that
   spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately,
   that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread,
   the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by
   no name but that of Romans. … While the Greeks thus took the
   Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people
   in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language,
   exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good
   reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old
   Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly
   like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly
   Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name.
   They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as
   the people of Gaul or Spain. … In short, the existence of a
   highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way
   the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it
   was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of
   itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the
   peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as
   distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians,
   still keep their own languages, while the third, the old
   Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves
   Roumans. … The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place
   answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the
   West. … But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in
   many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with
   regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of
   the Teutons towards the Western Empire. … They learned much
   from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to
   do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman,
   in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western
   Empire became Roman. … Thus, while in the West everything
   except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or
   Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or
   Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct
   nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as
   distinct nations still. … There came among them, in the form
   of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only
   hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by
   special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case.
   Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might
   simply have become a new nation alongside of the other
   South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do
   this. … The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan
   branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan
   speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether
   another class of nations and languages. … Long before the
   Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come;
   and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both
   the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian
   nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as
   the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a
   Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated
   with an existing European nation or may sit down as an
   European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done
   one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the
   Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately
   of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of
   the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the
   original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less
   nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as
   barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations
   of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were
   afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who
   settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in
   lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in
   as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many
   conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated
   by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the
   Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their
   foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a
   Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have
   nothing Turanian about them except the name which they
   borrowed from their Turanian masters. … The Bulgarians
   entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced
   Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the
   South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history.
   But all their later history, from a comparatively short time
   after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a
   Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the
   Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if
   circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle
   among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by
   the Aryan nation among whom they settled."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. G. Latham,
      The Nationalities of Europe._

BALKAN: 7th Century.
   (Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.)
   The Slavonic settlement.

   "No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been
   oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its
   inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of
   Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav
   tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube,
   and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed,
   'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris
   barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with
   the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew
   upon the littoral. … At the fall of the Empire came the
   Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and
   massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. … In
   630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia,
   and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same
   race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia,
   Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation
   which exists to-day dates from this epoch."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Balkan Peninsula,
      chapter 3._

{246}

   "Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at
   Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the
   plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the
   encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. … To accomplish
   this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western
   Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian
   mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of
   the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient
   seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between
   the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of
   these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the
   continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate
   plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian
   subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the
   western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the
   invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who
   settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants.
   Their original settlements were formed in consequence of
   friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of
   an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and
   Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain
   degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. …
   These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire,
   were composed of agricultural communities. … Unlike the
   military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded
   them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the
   lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every
   relic of the ancient population, they formed political
   communities and independent states, which offered a firm
   barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. … The states
   which they constituted were of considerable weight in the
   history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia,
   Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some
   centuries a political position very similar to that now held
   by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 4, section 6._

      See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION;
      and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

BALKAN: 7th-8th Centuries (Bulgaria).
   Vassalage to the Khazars.

      See KHAZARS.

BALKAN: 9th Century (Servia).
   Rise of the Kingdom.

   "At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth
   century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the
   Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the
   supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country
   they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the
   Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern
   Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time
   of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the
   Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject
   themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the
   Greeks. …. The Emperor … permitted the Servians to be
   ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who
   preserved a patriarchal form of government. … In the
   eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they
   had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their
   immediate control, and to subject it to their financial
   system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive.
   "Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment
   of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct
   government, but it also firmly established the princely power
   of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the
   preservation of the national independence. … Pope Gregory
   VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 1._

BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.)
   Conversion to Christianity.
   The Bogomiles.
   Hungarian crusades.
   Turkish conquest.

   After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and
   Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was
   acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical
   race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism
   which still exists. The Croats were converted first by
   missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and
   Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently
   part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to
   Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from
   Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern
   Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav,
   inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still
   in use. … In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of
   Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of
   Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization.
   It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the
   first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming
   originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia,
   annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long.
   The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the
   year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about
   1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of
   'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then
   Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint
   Stephen. … About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia.
   who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people
   who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they
   received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving
   God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy.
   … They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both
   of its history and its present situation. … The Hungarian
   Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to
   extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination
   provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. … In 1238 the first
   great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in
   obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was
   devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a
   number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the
   Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In
   1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of
   Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. … About the
   year 1300 Paul of Brebir,  'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ
   dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban
   Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied
   Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and
   under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country
   enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. …
{247}
   Before his death the Turks appeared on the
   frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo
   [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000
   Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the
   conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a
   Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then
   followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of
   civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for
   them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453),
   advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing
   could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men
   were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000
   prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were
   burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land
   confiscated by the conquerors (1463). … A period of struggle
   lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see
   TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. … When the battle of Mohacz (August
   29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D.
   1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence
   had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in
   1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman
   conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of
   magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated
   by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to
   Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers
   of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of
   their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of
   the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the
   present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms
   "against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern
   principles, wrested from the Porte."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Balkan Peninsula,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of Servia, &c._

BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria).
   The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.

   "The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope
   both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they
   reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful
   nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return
   to the north and all progress to the west. … In the
   beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or
   Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple,
   deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians
   [subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still
   rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a
   treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of
   gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty
   inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives
   who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were
   deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was
   left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence
   of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and
   horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the
   Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and
   circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs
   bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the
   duty of revenge."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1007,
      book 2, chapter 2._

      See, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043,
      and ACHRIDA, THE KINGDOM OF.

BALKAN: A. D. 1096 (Bulgaria).
   Hostilities with the First Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BALKAN: 12th Century (Bulgaria).
   The Second Bulgarian or Wallachian Kingdom.

   "The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D.
   1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his
   incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most
   important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian
   and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between
   Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this
   extensive country now separated itself finally from the
   government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies
   ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European
   monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom,
   was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the
   affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to
   the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance
   assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and
   the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had
   previously acted no prominent part in the political events of
   the East, render it necessary to give some account of their
   previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under
   the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great
   Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly,
   particularly the southern and south-western part. White
   Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the
   Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.;
   Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is
   Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the
   present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. … The
   question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the
   lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us,
   extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the
   borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know
   nothing."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 3, section 1._

   "Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh
   origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the
   country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome,
   and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their
   language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms
   and mould of their own language, or whether they were the
   descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA:
   TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are
   all questions which have been much controverted. It is
   remarkable that while no people living on the south of the
   Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth
   century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban,
   near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear
   of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They
   spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly,
   during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia.
   … Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are
   now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia,
   the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in
   Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine
   writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of
   Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester.
   … The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as
   equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a
   dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union
   among the peoples bearing that name. They were all
   occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants
   of the Romans."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 3._

{248}

   "The classical type of feature, so often met with among
   Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman
   extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to
   Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the
   Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be
   seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at
   random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and,
   like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn
   broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good
   choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on
   agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy
   generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the
   melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. … Perhaps
   no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and
   immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the
   Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding
   races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their
   own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own
   dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of
   their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any
   divergence from their own established rules is sinful."

      _E. Gérard,
      Transylvanian Peoples
      (Contemporary Review, March, 1887)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1341-1356 (Servia).
   The Empire of Stephan Dushan.

   "In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at
   Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the
   Servians. Cantacuzenus … went up the mountains and prevailed
   upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom
   he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause."
   As the result of this connection, and by favor of the
   opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the
   Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his
   dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of
   Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard;
   Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points
   his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be
   traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian
   territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria,
   which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in
   the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to
   assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern
   and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by
   either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect
   the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself
   Emperor of the Roumelians—the Macedonian Christ-loving
   Czar—and began to wear the tiara. … Stephan Dushan died
   [December 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he
   had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power
   by the bulwark of national institutions."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _M'me E. L. Mijatovich,
      Kossovo, Int._

BALKAN: A. D. 1389 (Bulgaria).
   Conquest by the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

BALKAN: 14th Century (Bulgaria).
   Subjection to Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia).
   Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.

   "The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its
   limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D.
   1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary,
   conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and
   held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th
   century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian,
   Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit
   we have done with the barbarians. … Until recently the
   historians of Roumania have had little to guide them
   concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which,
   though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to
   recorded and authenticated facts. …. It is admitted that the
   plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by
   communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and
   influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long
   remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty
   voivodes or princes . … and besides these there were
   Khanates, … some of which were petty principalities, whilst
   others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of
   them. … Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not
   only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself
   Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he
   formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by
   the right of conquest. This alliance … had for its objects
   the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against
   Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other;
   for the … Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the
   year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the
   Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in
   stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two,
   "finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of
   Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance
   with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis
   (1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia
   retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and
   to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. … According to
   several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is
   said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of
   the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of
   Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility
   fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more
   to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of
   Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia
   during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He
   ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second
   Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in
   1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad.
{249}
   It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other
   important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the
   neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to
   shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a
   century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at
   first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero],
   the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or
   princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. …
   At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the
   throne. … This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or
   'Good.' … He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and
   reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars
   against Transylvania, Wallachia, … the Turks, and Tartars.
   … In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on
   the river Birlad. … In that year also Stephen … completely
   overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed
   a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his
   gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country
   from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his
   Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible
   defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White
   Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he
   again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. …
   After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the
   Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian
   (Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified
   Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of
   the princes … adding to their own influence, and rendering
   the princes more and more subservient to their will. This
   state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when
   another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored
   tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised
   them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations."
   Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance
   with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode
   of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare,
   November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in
   Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and
   defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595,
   Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which
   Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were
   effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the
   victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded
   Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a
   battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg,
   and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning
   prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He
   subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient
   Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as
   suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his
   reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising
   occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle
   fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a
   fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was
   occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he
   made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been
   slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and
   money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents
   at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled
   soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta,
   and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in
   August, 1601. … The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the
   17th century … possesses little interest for English
   readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power
   [Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was
   eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. …
   In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes,
   Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir
   in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual
   manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes,
   independently of each other, had entered into negotiations
   with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at
   Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their
   suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the
   protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the
   country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found
   himself in a position from which there appeared little chance
   of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the
   Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

   The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The
   Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople,
   and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen
   Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of
   Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the
   honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was
   deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and
   decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native
   princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by
   the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or
   farmers-general of the Porte."

      _J. Samuelson,
      Roumania, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapters 11-13._

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries:
   (Montenegro) The new Servia.

   "The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map
   as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a
   Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The
   last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in
   1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin
   wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of
   that fatal day. … The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo
   found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of
   Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the
   name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. …
   Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created
   in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D.
   1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the
   country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him,
   and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear
   as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy
   of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying
   aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of
   Ivo the Black retired to Venice.
{250}
   From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro
   was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851
   by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th
   and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. …
   Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely
   independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the
   plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the
   mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his
   consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter
   of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre
   took place on Christmas Eve 1703. … The 17th and 18th
   centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the
   19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea.
   The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers
   the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed
   Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of
   the British fleet … took Cattaro from the French, but
   (pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was
   compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power.
   … Peter I. of Montenegro … died in 1830, at the age of 80.
   … His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. … On the death of
   Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince,
   went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The
   czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice;
   and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk
   and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. …
   Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). … He was
   succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."

      _J. G. C. Minchin,
      Servia and Montenegro
      (National Life and Thought, lecture 19)._

   "The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the
   most despotic and the most popular in Europe—despotic,
   because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and
   popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the
   wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so
   firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and
   no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army;
   they are themselves a standing army."

      _J. G. C. Minchin,
      The Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula,
      chapter 1._

      _A. A. Paton,
      Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of Servia, &c.: Slave Provinces of Turkey,
      chapter 2-6._

   "Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in
   which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small
   people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of
   proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one
   place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves
   in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by
   the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure
   from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down
   to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that
   but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of
   limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed
   by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks.
   Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is
   rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits
   reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly
   anything grown on it, only grass—and very good grass—in
   spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has
   scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter,
   while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with
   them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and
   active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty
   which becomes more serious the larger the invading force.
   Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions
   imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those
   circumstances that this handful of people—because the
   Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than
   40,000 or 50,000—have maintained their independence. That
   they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history
   of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet
   to come."

      _J. Bryce,
      Relations of History and Geography
      (Contemporary Review, March, 1886)._

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.—(Servia):
   The long oppression of the Turk.
   Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch.
   Independence achieved.
   The Obrenovitch dynasty.

   "The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune
   to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last
   feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate
   successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of
   strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but
   did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were
   insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws
   to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and
   incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the
   army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted
   212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The
   crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of
   the house of Neman. … Of all the ancient rulers of the
   country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the
   present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of
   Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389, 1402-1451, and 1459;
      also MONTENEGRO.

   "The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion
   or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of
   whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of
   Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. … The
   period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the
   spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684,
   began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years
   afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that
   kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the
   civilization of Germany. … Servia Proper, for a short time
   wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene,
   again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1739.

{251}

   "But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized
   over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at
   the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte.
   Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time
   the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the
   spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these
   brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the
   approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential
   Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with
   indescribable horrors. … Kara Georg [Black George], a
   peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely
   information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled
   into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In
   the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped
   local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The
   Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle
   in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara
   Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the
   Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered
   the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their
   disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000
   Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806,
   cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish
   authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating
   the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more
   severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In
   December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The
   succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla
   warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an
   auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks
   from making the re-conquest of Servia. … Kara Georg was now
   a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost
   unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of
   eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous
   events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of
   affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless
   legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of
   Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a
   separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however,
   was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman
   empire … was now concentrated on the resubjugation of
   Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara
   Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the
   Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814,
   300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and
   every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated
   Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and
   confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period,
   Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis.
   He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and
   during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the
   passes of the Balkans. … He now saw that a favourable
   conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of
   chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in
   making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute,
   to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation
   of the people. … He now displayed singular activity in the
   extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found
   reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to
   destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and
   raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed
   was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and
   Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as
   tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the
   speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out,
   and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed
   in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but
   secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor,
   whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him
   to death."

      _A. A. Paton,
      Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   "In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by
   the National Assembly. … In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was
   at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch
   proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' … If asked why
   the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the
   descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in
   Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty.
   The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant
   proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from
   Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the
   extension of its territory, and the making of its
   railways,—all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch
   rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great
   opportunity of making his people free as well as independent.
   But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of
   freedom. … In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this
   step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia
   and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual
   government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's
   rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. … It was
   anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was
   succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by
   Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in
   which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started
   upon his travels. … When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander
   Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to
   1858 the son of Black George lived—he can scarcely be said to
   have reigned—in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble
   son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country.
   … Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his
   stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere
   presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He
   died peacefully in his bed. … Michael succeeded his father.
   … Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at
   Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan,
   the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was
   barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was
   appointed."

      _J. G. C. Minchin,
      Servia and Montenegro
      (National Life and Thought, lecture 19)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Balkan Peninsula,
      chapter 6._

BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia).
   A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania).
   Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of
   Austrian Wallachia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

{252}

BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia).
   Awakening of a National Spirit.
   The effect of historical teaching.

   "No political fact is of more importance and interest in
   modern continental history than the tenacity with which the
   smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality
   in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of
   large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful
   armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with
   Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as
   separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to
   join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of
   Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of
   the population of the empires of which they form but small
   sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and
   Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to
   distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all
   these questions. … This rekindling of the national spirit is
   the result chiefly of the development of the new historical
   school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in
   ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass
   of legends as containing the true tale of their countries'
   achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the
   works of their great historians what the story of their
   fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of
   their ancestors. These great historians—Herculano, Palacky,
   Széchenyi, and the rest—who made it their aim to tell the
   truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary
   style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest
   aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter
   Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all
   learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from
   Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From
   these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be
   made interesting at the expense of truth. … The vitality of
   the new historical school in Roumania is particularly
   remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that
   kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp
   out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary
   rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself
   in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern
   European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its
   historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously
   proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted
   instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers
   only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots
   Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in
   educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left
   in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first
   endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary
   level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to
   teach the Roumanian people something of their own early
   history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most
   remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian
   province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first
   thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by
   teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of
   his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable
   labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and,
   according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner,
   after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with
   such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the
   creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be
   said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by
   the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the
   Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked
   on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not
   published until 1853, more than forty years after its
   completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still
   proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major,
   was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of
   the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern
   society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed
   at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian
   history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of
   Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter
   Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In
   1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the
   Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was
   necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because
   of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in
   which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their
   own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted
   lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit
   of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in
   1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the
   Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The
   Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian
   history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of
   Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was
   founded, an historical section was formed with the special
   mission of studying and publishing documents connected with
   Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread
   widely throughout the kingdom."

      _H. Morse Stephens,
      Modern Historians and Small Nationalities
      (Contemporary Review, July, 1887)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
   Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople.
   Life Election of the Hospodars.
   Substantial independence of the Turk.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
   Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866.
   (Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia).
   Union of the two provinces under one Crown.
   Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

{253}

BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878.
   The Breaking of the Turkish yoke.
   Bulgarian atrocities.
   Russo-Turkish War.

   In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made
   to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened
   resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no
   longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw
   which broke the back of Turkish solvency. … The hopes of the
   insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe,
   which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the
   Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it
   necessary to be conciliatory, and … they induced him to
   issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of
   taxes, and economical and social reforms. … Europe, however,
   had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for
   some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads
   together, and the result of their consultations was the
   Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th,
   1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had
   signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the
   spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt
   whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count
   Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the
   necessary measures should be placed under the care of a
   special commission, half the members of which should be
   Mussulmans and half Christians. … It concluded with a
   serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow,
   'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had
   great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be
   unable to resist the current.' … It was evident, however,
   that this note would have but little or no effect; it
   contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte
   quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself
   with profuse promises. … So affairs drifted on; the little
   war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by
   Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in
   keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by
   Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was
   unable to accept. … The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by
   the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties
   between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published
   a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal
   conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck,
   Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May.
   … Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and
   Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of
   the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. … While
   the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic
   thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had
   occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices
   and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The
   Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a
   rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was
   beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of
   the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most
   horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish
   irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to
   Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. … On June
   16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office,
   saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be
   unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with
   cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' … A week
   afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News
   … gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from
   18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at
   about a hundred. … That there was much truth in the
   statements of the newspaper correspondents was …
   demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry
   Elliot's despatches were made public. … 'I am satisfied,'
   wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have
   been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians
   upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although
   the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.'
   … Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a
   special commissioner to make an investigation independent of
   official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had
   been one of that journal's correspondents during the
   Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in
   company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the
   Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of
   Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for
   the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at
   Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of
   July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the
   British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in
   collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters
   was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country
   revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the
   populace. … Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in
   men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the
   appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the
   town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among
   the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing.
   There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair
   hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these
   remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally
   covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in
   clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The
   stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was
   more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was
   festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms,
   and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little
   hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and
   girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was
   still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite
   uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. … The town
   had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had
   escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their
   ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a
   mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A
   woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair
   clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did
   this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of
   the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust
   arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible
   news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the
   subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty
   of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in
   which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover,
   the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000
   Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly
   or partially burnt. … Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might
   be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had
   been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was
   ignorant of the Turkish language—which is that chiefly spoken
   in Bulgaria—and was therefore at the mercy of his
   interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected
   Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and
   that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the
   contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little
   or no resistance.
{254}
   In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand.
   … No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No
   Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured.
   No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was
   desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand,
   had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000
   Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak
   was told in language of precisely similar import to that of
   Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never
   seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of
   the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000
   are known to survive'. … Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes
   of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed
   utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell
   into a state of complete anarchy. … As Lord Derby remarked,
   it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and
   bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were
   strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who
   declared war on Turkey on July 1st. … Up to the last Prince
   Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but
   the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some
   small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish
   spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was
   followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his
   brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if
   appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the
   struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness
   in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of
   considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut
   them off from their base of operations. This success was,
   however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish
   Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of
   numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border.
   Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more
   fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not
   sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians
   fell back from all their positions of defence, and on
   September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the
   walls of Alexinatz. … On September 16th the Porte agreed to
   a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be
   acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace
   exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General
   Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of
   Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the
   Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the
   evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's
   proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were
   nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity
   prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to
   prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd.
   This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who
   were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some
   contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for
   their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was
   forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting;
   position after position yielded to them; on October 31st
   Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November
   1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and
   Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must
   perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the
   intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at
   Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting
   all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877,
   Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the
   Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in
   South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

      _Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 22-23._

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

BALKAN: A. D. 1878.
   Treaty of Berlin.
   Transfer of Bosnia to Austria.
   Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania.
   Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.

   "(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria
   for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of
   nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were
   Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans,
   mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the
   Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the
   occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her
   forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to
   keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2)
   Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had
   promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and
   Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off
   the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the
   Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all
   the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered
   by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent
   Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the
   upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her
   independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but
   had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired
   from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth
   of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the
   large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so
   acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria,
   which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an
   independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin
   Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into
   two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides
   the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of
   Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans
   and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north
   of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with
   Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain
   Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte
   with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy
   the passes of the Balkans in time of war."

      _J. H. Rose,
      A Century of Continental History,
      chapter 42._

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

      ALSO IN: _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 4, numbers 518, 524-532._

{255}

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1891.
   Proposed Balkan Confederation and its aims.

   "During the reaction against Russia which followed the great
   war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a
   view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the
   purpose of resisting Russian aggression. … Prince Alexander
   always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was
   to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part
   of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of
   influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia,
   followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of
   Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling
   among the rival races that for many years nothing more was
   heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been
   revived under different auspices and with somewhat different
   aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with
   England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck,
   protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in
   particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also
   acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout
   the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any
   dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most
   remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the
   extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of
   Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as
   a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to
   see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in
   their national independence and consolidation; they have
   recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help
   themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while
   carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might
   again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus.
   They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing
   without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres
   shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days
   in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's
   years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now
   engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his
   accession; the internal development of the country proceeds
   apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the
   country—in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a
   whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides
   in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always
   ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What
   happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the
   Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never
   expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia,
   England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France
   got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The
   Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the
   division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon
   the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many
   Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have
   hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe
   that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not
   forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous
   wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot
   forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
   and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or
   reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported
   article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial
   tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at
   Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless
   ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be
   comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no
   reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from
   the European Conference which will follow it, or from the
   sympathy of the Christian Powers. … What, then, do the
   authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate
   aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of
   the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick
   Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it
   when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for
   the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central
   Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is
   believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will
   plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the
   Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will
   be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a
   portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web
   of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a
   matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate
   successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by
   the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to
   them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse,
   they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the
   moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other
   words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they
   could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what
   is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and
   without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to
   bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her
   European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with
   the position of an Asiatic Power."

      _J. D. Bourchier,
      A Balkan Confederation
      (Fortnightly Review, September, 1891)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria):
   Reunion of the two Bulgarias.
   Hostility of Russia.
   Victorious war with Servia.
   Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.

   "The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces,
   contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter
   disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had
   prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending
   agitation was inevitably bound to spring—a crop which the
   Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On
   either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia,
   the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as
   to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end
   should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the
   course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the
   other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was
   a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting
   with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who
   prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of
   September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported
   by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that
   it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least
   resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one
   drop of blood!
{256}
   Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in
   preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty
   to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in
   a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from
   Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed
   the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte
   protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and
   called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to
   enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of
   October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn
   this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan
   will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign
   rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his
   disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the
   use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to
   employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an
   accomplished fact. … Whilst England and Austria both
   accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered
   necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte
   (although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia
   displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord
   with the feelings of the Russian nation. … In Russia they
   had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the
   Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder
   and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing
   accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country
   was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were
   becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian
   subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of
   the people of Russia—henceforth they would refuse to accept
   the Russian yoke! … If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her
   high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and
   hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every
   means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any
   sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has
   happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in
   the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the
   Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power,
   attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885,
   Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three
   days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The
   Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of
   length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight
   days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the
   Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its
   own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by
   assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his
   victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister,
   under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that
   country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded,
   afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at
   Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia,
   by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for
   the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a
   reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to
   attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the
   victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the
   Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming
   to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated
   Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet
   and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte
   was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his
   being attacked, … From that date the Czar swore that he
   would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that
   Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the
   sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it
   against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to
   the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the
   anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this—that
   he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and
   rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the
   Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord
   Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of
   malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and
   some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together,
   broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August,
   seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to
   Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where
   he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators
   endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose
   against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M.
   Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of
   September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince
   Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the
   acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a
   respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he
   offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that
   potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with
   Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to
   advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander
   decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the
   Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Balkan Peninsula,
      Introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Von Huhn,
      The Struggle of the Bulgarians._

      _J. G. C. Minchin,
      Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula._

      _A. Koch,
      Prince Alexander of Battenberg._

BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia).
   Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia.
   Abdication of the King.

   "In October, 1875. … Milan, then but twenty-one years old,
   married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen
   was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess
   Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been
   born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet
   burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her
   great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her
   ambition and her wealth. … At first all went well, to
   outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of
   his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians,
   on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection
   was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she
   presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the
   domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and
   seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions
   elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent.
{257}
   Further, Servia was then passing through a
   difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing.
   Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought
   home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects
   distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in
   1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom—a fact
   which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they
   merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision
   that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased,
   King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained
   solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues.
   Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her
   husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming
   a political role, for which she believed herself to have great
   aptitude. … As she could not influence the decisions of the
   Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it
   her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread
   throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were
   formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. … Meantime
   Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he
   had almost mortgaged his territory. … While the husband and
   wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave
   events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état
   of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the
   principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth
   had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused
   himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared
   against Bulgaria. … There followed the crushing defeat of
   Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off
   such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and
   precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero
   Nathalie had dreamed, Milan … telegraphed to the Queen,
   busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate
   forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any
   feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth
   she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. … In
   1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen
   taking with her the Crown Prince. … Florence was the goal of
   the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. …
   The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade.
   Milan would not hear of it. … The Queen went to Wiesbaden in
   consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be
   suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. … And
   to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent
   their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. …
   Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in
   Europe, Milan … petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce,
   on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by
   canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen
   refused her consent. … Nor could the divorce have been
   obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian
   Metropolitan Theodore. … Quick vengeance, however, was in
   store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown
   more and more disturbed. … The King, perplexed, afraid,
   storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and
   deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide,
   suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his
   son. … Without regret his people saw depart from among them
   a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit,
   and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a
   difficult political crisis. … After kneeling down before his
   son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889),
   Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe … leaving
   the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. …
   'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy
   King on hearing of his elevation. … Three Regents are
   appointed to aid the King during his minority."

      _"Politikos,"
      The Sovereigns,
      pages 353-363._

----------BALKAN: End----------

BALKH.
   Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).

   From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan
   moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of
   the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested
   the great city of Balkh,—which is thought in the east to be
   the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly
   have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race.
   "Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may
   possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200
   large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths
   for the use of foreign merchants and travellers—though it has
   been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200
   mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm
   and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but
   Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so
   long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry
   the place by force of arms—an achievement of no great
   difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of
   Islam'—as the pious town was called—was razed to the ground.
   In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The
   noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand—its
   spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"

      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.

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

BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

BALNEÆ.

      SEE THERMÆ.

BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.

   "The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings
   of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from
   the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the
   Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented
   themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin
   historians translated into Judex (Judge)."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      introduction, chapter 3._

      See BAUX, LORDS OF.

BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730.
   Founding of the city.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812.
   Rioting of the War Party.
   The mob and the Federalists.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

{258}

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814.
   British attempt against the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814
      (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860.
   The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April).
   The city controlled by the Secessionists.
   The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

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

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Disloyalty put down.

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

----------BALTIMORE: End----------

BALUCHISTAN.

      See Supplement in volume 5.

BAN.
BANAT.

   "Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory
   [Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin,
   and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. … The Banat is
   the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian
   Empire."

      _A. A. Paton,
      Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
      volume 2, page 28._

   Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers
   of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban,
   who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were
   seven of them, each known by the name of the province he
   governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this
   day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if
   that title be preferred) is called the ban."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      page 55._

BAN, The Imperial.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BANBURY, Battle of.

   Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought 
   July 26, 1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian
   insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the
   forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed
   and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.

      _Mrs. Hookham,
      Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

BANDA ORIENTAL, The.

   Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by
   the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La
   Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BANK OF ST. GEORGE.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

BANKS, General Nathaniel P.
   Command in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.

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

   Red River Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

   The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after
   1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded
   in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France
   by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the
   Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.

      _J. J. Lalor, editor.
      Cyclopædia of Political Science._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Gilbart,
      History and Principles of Banking,
      section 1 and 3._

BANKS, Wildcat.

      See WILDCAT BANKS.

BANNACKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

BANNERETS, Knights.

     See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.

BANT, The.

      See GAU.

BANTU TRIBES, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BAPTISTS.

      See article in the Supplement, volume 5.

BAR, A. D. 1659-1735.
   The Duchy ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.

BAR: The Confederation of.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

BARATHRUM, The.

   "The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep
   hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron
   hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in
   pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the
   Lacedæmonians."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 7, section 133, note._

BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660.
   Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1656.
   Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

BARBARIANS.

      See ARYANS.

BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

----------BARBAROSSAS: End----------

BARBARY STATES.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709.
   Mahometan conquest of North Africa.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171.
   The Fatimite Caliphs.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415.
   Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.

{259}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
   Spanish conquests on the coast.
   Oran.
   Bugia.
   Algiers.
   Tripoli.

   In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal
   Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and
   formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly
   opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led
   personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with
   a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest
   of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former,
   was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in
   the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the
   Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the
   Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous
   borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no
   respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves
   to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain
   religious wars above every other. … No less than 4,000 Moors
   were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to
   8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was
   inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes
   left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro
   Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January
   13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he
   routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his
   flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin,
   and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after
   another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as
   vassals of the Catholic king. … They guaranteed, moreover,
   the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions;
   for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify
   themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish
   residents. …On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of
   Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence,
   surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name
   had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of
   Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met
   with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where
   4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in
   the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the
   progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The
   results obtained, however, were of great importance. … Most
   of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later
   times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's
   successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in
   so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for
   their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently
   incorporated with the Spanish empire."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      chapter 21 (volume 3)._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
   Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers.
   Establishment of Turkish sovereignty.
   Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.

   "About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution
   happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable
   to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more
   attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born
   in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such
   illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in
   the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising
   spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a
   crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their
   valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small
   brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct
   and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides
   many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder
   brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard,
   was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost
   equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the
   sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names
   soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to
   those of Gibraltar. … They often carried the prizes which
   they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of
   Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their
   booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were
   welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The
   convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the
   greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made
   the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An
   opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself
   [1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited
   by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish
   fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was
   able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine
   kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne
   which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of
   Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his
   dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued
   to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which
   resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the
   light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel
   devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth—the great Emperor and
   King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign,
   to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with
   troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in
   the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His
   brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa,
   assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and
   abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being
   undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full
   occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated
   with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom,
   carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and
   extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But
   perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his
   government with reluctance, and being afraid that his
   continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of
   the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of
   the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the
   title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers
   sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At
   last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman
   offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. … Barbarossa
   repaired to Constantinople, and … gained the entire
   confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he
   communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself
   master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on
   the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he
   obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution.
   His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the
   intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of
   that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had
   established one of the younger sons on the throne as his
   successor. This young king attempted to put all of his
   brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest,
   escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the
   Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating
   the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried
   out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed.
{260}
   Alraschid himself disappeared—a prisoner, shut up in the
   Seraglio—and was never heard of again. The use of his name,
   however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the
   betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a
   viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now
   possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his
   depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent
   and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints
   of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the
   emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All
   Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and
   most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new
   and odious species of oppression. At the same time
   Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, … applied to Charles
   as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition
   to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in
   1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men
   and ships from every part of his wide dominions—from Spain,
   Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the
   fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above
   30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a
   prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort
   of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the
   corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly
   from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten,
   and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed
   into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making
   it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the
   innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000
   were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a
   throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on
   whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the
   country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under
   which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee
   of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his
   liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He
   also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his
   dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in
   servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his
   kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and
   pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.
   The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

   Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the
   emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the
   reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the
   freebooters of the north African coast. Before his
   preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far
   advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria
   conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction
   almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the
   autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined
   obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. … The force …
   which he had collected … consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000
   horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. …
   Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers
   sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most
   valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition,
   Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the
   invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly
   natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When
   summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and
   haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his
   desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long
   resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated
   Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily
   relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which
   burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's
   debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers
   drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition
   they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped
   a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated
   by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with
   unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on
   which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors,
   dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the
   rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15
   ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished
   before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped
   the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as
   they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria
   sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the
   emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point.
   Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the
   suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat,
   which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the
   whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the
   flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's
   orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a
   few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained
   the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second
   storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his
   Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.

      _M. Russell,
      History of the Barbary States,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 6 (volume 2.)_

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
   The pirate Dragut and his exploits.
   Turkish capture of Tripoli.
   Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.

   Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite
   the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean
   corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted
   the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In
   1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound
   to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,—which did not
   sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was
   ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than
   before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called
   Gelves, by the Spaniards]. … Not content with the rich
   spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa,
   one by one—Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to
   conquer 'Africa.'
{261}
   It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital
   by the same name. … 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province
   of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first
   Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the
   later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian
   writers to the latter city. … This was the city which Dragut
   took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in
   an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to
   betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to
   any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who
   had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's
   protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into
   the city by night. … So easy a triumph roused the emulation
   of Christendom. … Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining
   the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the
   Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria
   took the command. After much delay and consultation a large
   body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June
   28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea,
   devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance
   for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his
   nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned,
   the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in
   attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was
   carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551,
   Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by
   Sinan Pasha. … With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000
   soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out
   of the Dardanelles—whither bound no Christian could tell.
   They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then
   revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But
   the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of
   the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed;
   it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed
   straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the
   natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the
   Knights of St. John—much against their will—inasmuch as the
   Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary
   state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the
   fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the
   Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant,
   was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he
   believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the
   Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was
   in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the
   garrison—all save a few—in chains and carried them off to
   grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more
   into the hands of the Moslems. … The misfortunes of the
   Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet
   appeared in Italian waters. … Unable as they felt themselves
   to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe
   resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli.
   A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain,
   Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the
   Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. …
   Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven
   back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was
   fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited
   it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their
   disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were
   working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000
   corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay
   siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in
   sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to
   Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the
   beautiful island. … In two months a strong castle was built,
   with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to
   carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence.
   Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. … He was about
   to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet
   had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant
   gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. …
   Before they could make out of the strait … the dread Corsair
   [Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them.
   Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description.
   Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the
   panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted
   them, never stopping even to set them on fire. … On rowed
   the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into
   their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their
   scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was
   a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks
   busy in looting men and galleys—and a hideous heap of mangled
   bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina
   … were absolutely lost."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Story of the Barbary Corsairs._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 4, chapter 1._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
   Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
   Capture of Penon de Velez.

   In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt
   was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards
   from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the
   African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce
   and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered
   garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from
   Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors
   retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the
   Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez,
   breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their
   footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year
   following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which
   was a place of refuge for the marauders.

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565.
   Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta.
   Death of Dragut.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1,130-1565.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571.
   War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
   The Battle of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria.
   Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

{262}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579.
   Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal.
   His defeat and death.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
   Wars of France against the piratical powers.
   Destructive bombardments of Algiers.

   "The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman
   Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had
   become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of
   Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both
   of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian
   empire. … Divers plans were proposed in the King's council
   for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for
   repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the
   merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the
   king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the
   best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by
   the Duke de Beaufort … landed 5,000 picked soldiers before
   Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah
   and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty
   (July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his
   officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify
   themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged
   to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of
   Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the
   celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of
   this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the
   course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French
   captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with
   proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission
   failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to
   his oath and returned—to suffer death, as he expected, at the
   hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton
   Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger
   in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the
   guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the
   Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated
   themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to
   respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen
   whom they should capture on foreign ships. …. Rights of
   aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as
   regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape
   Negro was restored to France. … Algiers submitted, six'
   months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by
   Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French
   merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign
   nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000
   French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672,
   Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest
   with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally,
   to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other
   project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained
   on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of
   Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the
   coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels,
   pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took
   refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of
   Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French
   squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the
   town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a
   truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23,
   1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the
   news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan,
   Mahomet IV., fell into a rage … and dispatched the
   Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the
   Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with
   the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if
   satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan
   hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it
   was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end
   there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French
   vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to
   receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another
   squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts
   of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations
   the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley
   Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace
   of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January
   29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution
   of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with
   Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest
   offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery
   there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a
   terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of
   conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the
   king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this
   conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first
   attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to
   embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have
   required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another
   means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval
   construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for
   the purpose. … July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before
   Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and
   Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by
   bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the
   thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The
   effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the
   crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of
   September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the
   bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were
   repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to
   negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind
   shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm;
   Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not
   been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne
   reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven
   bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of
   extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights
   of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of
   houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand
   men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened
   negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by
   his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead.
{263}
   "The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. … The
   Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of
   their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands.
   … The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled
   calamities. … The bombs rained almost without intermission.
   The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was
   … a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had
   exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching.
   Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was
   kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the
   return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed
   their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by
   Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey,
   Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320
   French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other
   Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had
   been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no
   prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to
   assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to
   recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other
   flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their
   submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the
   damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapters 4 and 7._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.
   Piratical depredations upon American commerce.
   Humiliating treaties and tribute.
   The example of resistance given by the United States.

   "It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the
   Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every
   nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless
   they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute
   paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a
   book of travels during the last century without mention being
   made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who
   ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. … The European
   states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice
   either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which
   in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire
   freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums
   yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers,
   was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000
   annually, besides large presents distributed according to
   custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace
   of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five
   millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the
   same time England was paying an annual tribute of about
   $280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on
   the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her
   own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave
   them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of
   other European powers, and even to support them by paying a
   sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make
   peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the
   United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our
   commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was
   therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty
   with France we desired to have an article inserted into the
   treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants
   of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against
   all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It
   was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of
   1778, and instead of that the king agreed to  'employ his good
   offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and
   efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and
   safety of the United States against the princes and the states
   of Barbary or their subjects.'"

   Direct negotiations between the United States and the
   piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr.
   Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter
   announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers,
   and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that
   no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace
   with them.' … The ambassador demanded as the lowest price
   for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and
   £3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the
   same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.
   Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and
   Congress had appropriated only $80,000. … Mr. Adams was
   strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and
   preferred the payment of tribute. … Mr. Jefferson quite as
   decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of
   pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor
   of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time
   to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number
   of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the
   sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were
   allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. … In
   November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers
   amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the
   original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to
   realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January
   2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval
   force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the
   United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be
   provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six
   frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as
   galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in
   September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In
   making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the
   usage of European powers—not only pay a large sum for the
   purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to
   keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total
   cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."

      _E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      part 4._

   "The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated
   during Washington's administration, cost the United States,
   for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's
   forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an
   annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States
   followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the
   payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered
   thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and
   President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had
   to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and
   Denmark.
{264}
   But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain
   Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual
   tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey
   ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine
   dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have
   done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and
   the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because
   you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. … The lesser
   Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of
   Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless
   President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon
   Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the
   new President [Jefferson]. … Jefferson had, while in
   Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method
   hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and,
   availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent
   out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a
   sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of
   Barbary. … Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July,
   1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American
   vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated
   war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while
   Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels
   in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President,
   proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner
   Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of
   14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a
   time overawed, and the United States thus set the first
   example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of
   ransom the rule of security against these commercial
   marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded
   at home by men of all parties."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. L. Playfair,
      The Scourge of Christendom,
      chapter 16._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.
   American War with the pirates of Tripoli.

   "The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no
   nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before.
   Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the
   Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May,
   1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from
   Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired
   his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until
   at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and
   dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore
   Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the
   relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily
   strong. … He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain
   Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August
   24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the
   neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American
   brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been
   seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the
   outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he
   had come to relieve, and with this combined force, … sending
   the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers
   October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On
   both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old
   treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at
   length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the
   Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the
   Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had
   been captured October 21, more than three weeks before.
   Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan
   cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the
   frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every
   effort was made without success to float her; but at last she
   was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck
   his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the
   frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The
   officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300
   or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way
   discreditable to the squadron. … The Tripolitans gained
   nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion
   Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young
   lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured
   Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75
   men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by
   night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle
   guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the
   harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded
   the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove
   the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained
   alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then
   withdrew without losing a man."

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States: Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

   "Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations
   for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli
   with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three
   brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels.
   Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on
   shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two
   schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys.
   Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made,
   and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was
   inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered
   possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not
   because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from
   exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government
   sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron
   which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States
   he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress
   were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and
   faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and
   in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna,
   by a combined land and naval force; the former being under
   command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the
   American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The
   enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the
   shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and
   finally their principal work was carried by the force under
   O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press
   forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores,
   and much of his advantage was lost.
{265}
   All further operations were, however, discontinued in June,
   1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and
   prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which
   provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that
   American vessels should be forever free of his rovers.
   Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact
   remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all
   the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan
   Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome
   sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This
   treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from
   the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began
   to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and
   ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Cooper,
      History of the U. S. Navy,
      volume 1, chapter 18
      and volume 2, chapters 1-7._

      _J. F. Cooper,
      Life of Preble._

      _A. S. Mackenzie,
      Life of Decatur,
      chapter 3-7._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.
   Final War of Algiers with the United States.
   Death-blow to Algerine piracy.

   "Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of
   Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America
   the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had
   unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war,
   and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her
   crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the
   treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated.
   Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old,
   including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed
   squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur
   sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and
   Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the
   Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two
   days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an
   Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine
   navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of
   twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was
   chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by
   the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the
   terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he
   submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all
   prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities,
   renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or
   presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war
   to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and
   obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels
   captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers
   during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash,
   Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of
   liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States, Second Series,
      chapter 30 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. S. Mackenzie,
      Life of Decatur,
      chapter 13-14._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
   Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
   Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and
   Tunis.

   "The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the
   captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still
   languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of
   the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist
   in its very centre. … The conclusion of the war [of the
   Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of
   these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of
   civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down;
   Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved
   upon her to do the work. … Happily for this country the
   Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth]
   whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before
   him. … Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to
   the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize
   the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude
   peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish
   Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the
   two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis
   followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition
   consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war
   as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and
   endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The
   Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte,"
   and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with
   the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked
   attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected
   by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying
   the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste,
   with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No
   answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been
   joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle
   range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships
   to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire
   till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of
   spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved
   his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire.
   They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely
   warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the
   mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire
   broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first
   discharge. … The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock
   in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening.
   By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the
   Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the
   enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their
   principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of
   their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the
   terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of
   September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his
   government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city
   of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the
   commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian
   Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also
   extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he
   would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the
   usages of European nations. In the battle which won these
   important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on
   board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52
   wounded."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years Peace,
      book 1, chapter 6 (volume l)._

      _L. Hertslet,
      Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
      volume 1._

{266}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
   French conquest of Algiers.

   "During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain
   for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants
   of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which
   was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been
   paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own
   figures, while the French government, believing the demand
   excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous
   debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey,
   became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered
   him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the
   insult, even on the formal demand of the French government,
   and consequently there was no alternative but war." The
   expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the
   chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men,
   3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. … The sea-forces
   included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller
   vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops.
   General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition,
   which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830."
   Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of
   Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of
   Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the
   affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and
   without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles
   west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong,
   commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its
   position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the
   French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the
   19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist,
   instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the
   French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet
   them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined
   battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss
   in killed and wounded was about 3,000, … while the French
   loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle
   was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly
   retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine
   camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of
   June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then
   advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in
   position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened,
   on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey
   hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to
   the last moment to retain his country and its independence by
   making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the
   expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian
   slaves in addition to paying them for their services and
   sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis,
   but his offers of mediation were politely declined. … It was
   finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all
   its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire
   wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal
   belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any
   circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers
   in great pomp and took possession of the city. … The spoils
   of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering
   army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign
   are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled
   with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately,
   the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins
   of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of
   the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very
   clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or
   three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast
   pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000
   francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French
   treasury. … The cost of the war was much more than covered
   by the captured property. … Many slaves were liberated. …
   The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day
   Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha
   embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of
   whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained
   for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt."
   In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.

      _T. W. Knox,
      Decisive Battles Since Waterloo,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. L. Playfair,
      The Scourge of Christendom,
      chapter 19._

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
   The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.

   "When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D.
   1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country
   [of Algiers]—though they did not effectually subdue it;
   their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers—from
   Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46'
   West, to Oran, on the west—nearly the entire extent of the
   ancient Libya. … There was always a party in the chamber of
   deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the
   colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants
   of either men or money to be devoted to the African
   enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men
   could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and,
   whilst the young colony languished, the natives became
   emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost
   the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the
   government of the colony, and the supreme command of the
   troops … established a series of fortified posts, which were
   adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the
   garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These
   positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in
   consequence of the home government recalling the greater part
   of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some
   corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first
   regiment of zouaves was raised." … In 1833 we "first hear of
   Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest,
   in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with
   great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the
   standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with
   the fullest confidence of success.
{267}
   His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and,
   encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the
   close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former
   name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the
   west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of
   Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara,
   lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At
   that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a
   very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against
   Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook
   Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834,
   entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties
   were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that
   year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief
   again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered
   the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being
   received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th
   of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against
   him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a
   sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael.
   After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with
   considerable loss. … The French general, finding his
   position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the
   28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and
   before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his
   waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and
   252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded.
   The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by
   the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the
   cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for
   marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the
   government at home complied; at the same time issuing a
   proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned,
   but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained.
   The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he
   landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was
   Abd-el-Kader's capital. … The Arab chieftain advanced to
   meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to
   abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of
   December, and found completely deserted. The streets and
   houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living
   creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some
   mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either
   forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted
   houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they
   marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the
   centre of French power in that district."

      _Thomas Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 3, pages 633-635._

   "A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an
   action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states
   that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the
   enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required
   of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the
   assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge.
   On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat
   on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal
   Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed
   against Constantina. …After the failure of Clauzel, General
   Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the
   30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud
   and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to
   direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being
   formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000
   men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for
   Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on
   the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including
   Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The
   fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old
   Turkish government. … By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes
   had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by
   General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This
   road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22
   leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site
   of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers:
   and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to
   supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the
   province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe
   him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A
   misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of
   the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. …
   When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the
   command of a numerous army, the French, with republican
   charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna
   treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising
   empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been
   recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to
   the river Mijerda. … The war was resumed, and many French
   razzias took place. They once marched a large force from
   Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed
   in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself.
   He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which
   thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000)
   offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with
   the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came
   over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his
   bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own
   hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had
   been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave,
   could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all
   the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were
   fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown
   by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where
   Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole
   population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that,
   having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against
   the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had
   then only two chances,—the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman,
   Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might
   conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had
   replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by
   movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina;
   and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the
   results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective.
{268}
   General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the
   Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière
   in Oran,—carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions
   with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of
   1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier,
   surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part
   of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself
   escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco,
   excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire,
   and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much
   against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war
   very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly,
   with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier
   and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle
   was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of
   Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its
   particulars, save in one instance. … On the night of the
   12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud
   left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head
   of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of
   the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children,
   about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped
   the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as
   they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had
   some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had
   lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up
   quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to
   surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the
   summons. … As there was no other outlet from the cave than
   that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must
   have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the
   imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were
   desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense
   fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously
   during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that
   would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the
   wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the
   cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer
   to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been
   heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less
   smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up
   throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the
   then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a
   sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent
   cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how
   matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and
   they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified,
   hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No
   wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the
   Arabs dead—men, women, children. … St. Arnaud and Pelissier
   were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult
   observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in
   Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' … A
   taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French
   guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. … Morocco
   sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one
   of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of
   coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the
   Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him,
   nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew
   off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the
   emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to
   negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours'
   discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last
   exploits against the French, where he was received with
   military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at
   Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of
   Abd-el-Kader in Ham."

      _J. R. Morell,
      Algeria,
      chapter 22._

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1881.
   Tunis brought under the protectorate of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1875-1889.

----------BARBARY STATES: End----------

BARBES.
BARBETS.

   The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which
   signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied
   to the Waldensian people generally.

      _E. Comba,
      History of the Waldenses of Italy,
      page 147._

BARCA.

      See CYRENE.

BARCELONA: A. D. 713.
   Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1151.
   The County joined to Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

BARCELONA: 12th-16th Centuries.
   Commercial prosperity and municipal freedom.

   "The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the
   county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a
   very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the
   union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the
   latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal
   legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a
   degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the
   Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative
   commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with
   foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in
   the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other
   rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over
   the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls,
   and her commercial factories, were established in every
   considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of
   Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various
   domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of
   export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable
   quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and
   returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of
   commodities the reverse of that existing between the two
   nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of
   having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in
   Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of
   foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the
   glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code,
   among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from
   the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis
   of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle
   Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result
   of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous
   public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange,
   hospitals, and other constructions of general utility.
   Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries,
   expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious
   private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public
   squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the
   amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs.
{269}
   But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her
   municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate
   or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or
   counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four
   to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative,
   the latter with the executive functions of administration. A
   large proportion of these bodies were selected from the
   merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were
   invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of
   the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial
   treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the
   city in time of war; provided for the security of trade;
   granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might
   violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for
   the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such
   commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for
   individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the
   municipality, were complimented with certain honorary
   privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were
   addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their
   heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by
   mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the
   country; and deputies from their body to the court were
   admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign
   ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were
   plebeians,—merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed
   a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      introduction, section 2._

BARCELONA: A. D. 1640.
   Insurrection.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1651-1652.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1705.
   Capture by the Earl of Peterborough.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1706.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French and Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1706.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Betrayal and desertion by the Allies.
   Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1842.
   Rebellion and bombardment.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

----------BARCELONA: End----------

BARCELONA, Treaty of.

      See ITALY: A.D. 1527-1529.

BARCIDES, OR BARCINE FAMILY, The.

   The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father
   of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas,
   given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and
   signified lightning.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthagenians,
      chapter 7._

BARDS.

      See FILI.

BARDULIA, Ancient Cantabria.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

BARÉ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

BAREBONES PARLIAMENT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BARKIAROK, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1092-1104.

BARMECIDES, OR BARMEKIDES, The.

   The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the
   Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the
   stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to
   great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It
   took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose
   father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most
   celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted
   Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the
   conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the
   Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs
   recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya
   succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous
   Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya,
   who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the
   family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much
   greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however,
   among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and
   master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart
   against him, and against all his house. The fall of the
   Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been
   unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning;
   his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members
   of the family are said to have been slain.

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Palmer,
      Haroun Alraschid,
      chapter 3._

BARNABITES.
PAULINES.

   "The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation
   was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two
   Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533,
   and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545
   took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas,
   which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have
   been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines,
   actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy
   and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter Reformation,
      page 29._

BARNBURNERS.

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

BARNET, Battle of (A. D. 1471).

   The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars
   of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England
   and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the
   former returned before six months had passed and made his way
   to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of
   Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter
   Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from
   London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose
   of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick
   was among the slain.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

BARNEVELDT, John of, The religious persecution and death of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

{270}

BARON.

   "The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the
   [Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to
   'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo'
   itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the
   ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and
   the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn
   of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 124._

BARON, Court.

      See MANORS.

BARONET.

   "One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet.
   … Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the
   diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the
   liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore,
   etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor
   admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are
   grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of
   the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the
   larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the
   prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not
   degrade, even in their etymological signification, which
   baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove
   this radical defect. … Independently of these
   considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy
   monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale.
   Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a
   consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of
   Ulster."

      _R. T. Hampson,
      Origines Patriciæ,
      pages 368-369._

BARONS' WAR, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

BARONY OF LAND.

   "Fifteen acres, but in some places twenty acres."

      _N. H. Nicolas,
      Notitia Historica,
      page 134._

BARRIER FORTRESSES, The razing of the.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

BARRIER TREATIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709,
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

BARROW.

   A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial,
   … as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all
   parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the
   coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and
   civilisations. … They abound in Great Britain and Ireland,
   differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and
   are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of
   stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes,
   and tumps."

      _W. Greenwell,
      British Barrows,
      pages 1-2._

      ALSO IN: _Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric TIMES, chapter 5._

BARTENSTEIN, Treaty of.

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

BARWALDE, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY. A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

BASHAN.

      See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.

   For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian
   provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876),
   "besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians,
   great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had
   been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the
   insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are
   called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to
   their being sent out without regular organization and without
   officers at their head."

      _H. O. Dwight,
      Turkish Life in War Time,
      page 15._

BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor
in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.

   Basil, or Vassili, I., Grand Duke of Volodomir, A. D. 1272-1276

   Basil II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1025.

   Basil, or Vassili, II., Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1389-1425.

   Basil III. (The Blind), Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1425-1462.

   Basil IV., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1505-1533.

BASILEUS.

   "From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia
   had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of
   Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first
   distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile
   provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman
   throne."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

BASILIAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

BASILICÆ.

   "Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at
   Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although
   their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman
   creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly
   Roman,—the administration of law and the transaction of
   merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest
   attaches to them from their connection with the first
   Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the
   Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special
   needs of public business. … Generally, however, they took
   the form most adapted to their purposes—a semi-circular apse
   or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades
   and galleries on each side for the transaction of business.
   They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as
   reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. … It
   is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ,
   and not the public edifices, served as the model for the
   Christian Basilica."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. P. Stanley,
      Christian Institutions,
      chapter 9._

BASILIKA, The.

   A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the
   Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil
   I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 1._

BASING HOUSE, The Storming and Destruction of.

   "Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near
   Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal
   castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a
   thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held
   out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and
   blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take
   it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to
   the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring
   incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the
   storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of
   October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting,
   one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put
   to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the
   destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and
   the very ruins carted away."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Civil War,
      chapter 37 (volume 2)._

      _Mrs. Thompson,
      Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

{271}

BASLE, Council of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

BASLE, Treaties of (1795).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY),
      and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BASOCHE.
BASOCHIENS.

   "The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement'
   [Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain.
   … The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302,
   by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la
   Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for
   judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that
   might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against
   them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called
   'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should
   have an annual 'montre' or review. … Under the reign of
   Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche
   amounted to nearly 10,000. … The members of the Basoche took
   upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which
   they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to
   have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in
   Paris. …At the commencement of the Revolution, the
   Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with
   epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards
   disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."

      _History of Paris
      (London: G. B. Whittaker, 1827),
      volume 2, page 106._

BASQUES, The.

   "The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain
   join, gives us a locality … where, although the towns, like
   Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the
   country people are Basques or Biscayans—Basques or Biscayans
   not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper
   Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their
   name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the
   ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they
   designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly
   connected with it. The native name is derived from the root
   Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria
   when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken
   of."

      _H. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 4, section 4._

      See, also, IBERIANS, THE WESTERN, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.

BASSANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER.)

BASSEIN, Treaty of (1802).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BASSORAH.

      See BUSSORAH.

BASTARNÆ, The. See PEUCINI.

BASTILLE, The.

   "The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given
   to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military
   force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of
   Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places
   of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in
   France that of Paris, … which at first was called the
   Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of
   St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of
   melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following
   circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war
   with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was
   considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital
   to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost
   of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other
   defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance
   of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This
   was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They
   were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under
   Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite
   to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of
   the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four
   angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many
   enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to
   perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which,
   according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After
   some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another
   prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the
   insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After
   the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king,
   Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding
   four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form
   it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or
   parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers,
   each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine
   feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four
   on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the
   Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet
   wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on
   one side. … The Bastille was now completed (1383), and
   though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the
   fortress underwent no important change. … Both as a place of
   military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the
   Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."

      History of the Bastille
      (Chambers's Miscellany, number 132, volume 17).

   For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille
   by the people, in 1789,

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY).

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Bingham,
      The Bastille._

      _R. A. Davenport,
      History of the Bastile._

BASTITANI, The.

      See TURDETANI.

BASUTOS, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.

BATAVIA (Java), Origin of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

BATAVIAN REPUBLIC, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

{272}

BATAVIANS, OR BATAVI, The.

   "The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the
   [Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps
   by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on
   the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed
   by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so
   nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and
   southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic—at least the
   local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still
   borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck
   with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were,
   especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts,
   obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive
   position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military
   system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from
   taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely
   than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton
   furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers;
   besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken
   especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions
   was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were
   accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and
   swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true
   soldiers."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4._

   "When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before
   our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early
   inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably
   Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous
   inundation had swept away their miserable homes. … The
   island was deserted of its population. At about the same
   period a civil dissension among the Chatti—a powerful German
   race within the Hercynian forest—resulted in the expatriation
   of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in
   the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,'
   and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or
   Batavians."

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
      section 2._

BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
   Revolt of Civilis.

   "Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the
   suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he
   owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend
   for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight
   Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem
   to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins.
   Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people.
   Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of
   the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was
   the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had
   well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower
   Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who
   had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic
   name has perished. … After a quarter of a century's service
   he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both
   falsely charged with conspiracy. … Desire to avenge his own
   wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew
   that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. …
   By his courage, eloquence and talent for political
   combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all
   the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief
   moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. …
   The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully
   preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most
   elaborate pictures. … The battles, the sieges, the defeats,
   the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly
   when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described
   by the great historian in his most powerful manner. … The
   struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and
   many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. … He accepted the
   offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. …
   A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was
   broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon
   the severed sides. … Here the story abruptly terminates. The
   remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that
   broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears
   forever."

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
      sections 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Tacitus,
      History,
      books 4-5._

----------BATAVIANS: End----------

BATH, The Order of the.

   "The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King
   George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the
   Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with
   various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that
   it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of
   chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the
   ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and
   from that period until the reign of the first George, the old
   institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch,
   however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The
   Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military
   Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued
   for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number
   of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the
   Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has
   since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three
   classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not
   to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second
   Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102
   for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class,
   "Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil
   service.

      _Sir B. Burke,
      Book of Orders of Knighthood,
      page 104._

BATH, in Roman times.

      See AQUÆ: SOLIS.

BATHS OF CARACALLA, Nero, etc.

      See THERMÆ.

BATONIAN WAR, The.

   A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6,
   involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of
   three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from
   the names of two leaders of the insurgents,—Bato the
   Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 1._

BATOUM:
   Ceded to Russia.
   Declared a free port.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

BATTIADÆ, The.

      See CYRENE.

BATTLE ABBEY.

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

BATTLE ABOVE THE CLOUDS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

BATTLE OF THE KEGS, The.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

{273}

BATTLE OF THE NATIONS (Leipsic).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

BATTLE OF THE THREE EMPERORS.
   The battle of Austerlitz

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER)—was so called by
      Napoleon.

BATTLES.

   The battles of which account is given in this work are so
   numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
   references to them under this general heading. They are
   severally indexed under the names by which they are
   historically known.

BAURE, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

BAUTZEN, Battle of.

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

BAUX, Lords of; Gothic Origin of the.

   The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha"
   ("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish
   in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc,
   under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that
   family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30, note.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

BAVARIA:
   The name.
   Bavaria derived its name from the Boii.

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 20._

      See, also, BOIANS.

The Ethnology of.

   "Bavaria … falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the
   Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the
   descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either
   Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman
   superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and
   Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine
   completes the evolution of their present Germanic character.
   Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the
   Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally
   Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population
   of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. …
   In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni
   extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. … The northwestern
   parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning.
   South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place
   the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman
   province. … Its present character has arisen from an
   extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 8._

BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
   Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

   "It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first
   become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at
   what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the
   previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we
   may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained
   independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy.
   The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and
   Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who
   lived still further to the north, was the country of the
   Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by
   the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and
   Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank
   King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost
   surrounded by the Frankish territories. … Whenever they may
   have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the
   time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that
   event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had
   become subjects of the Merovingian kings."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 3._

BAVARIA: A. D. 843-962.
   The ancient Duchy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

BAVARIA: A. D. 876.
   Added to the Austrian March.

      See Austria: A. D. 805-1246.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1071-1178.
   The Dukes of the House of Guelf.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
      and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1101.
   Disastrous Crusade of Duke Welf.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1125-1152.
   The origin of the Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183.
   Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline
   Conflicts.
   The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1156.
   Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct
   Duchy.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.
   The House of Wittelsbach.
   Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine.
   Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.

   When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban
   of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D.
   1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were
   divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the
   Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of
   Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal
   family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the
   sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure
   regained those rights which in former times belonged to his
   ancestors."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, page 276._

   "Otto … was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in
   combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had
   already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in
   Europe is of such ancient extraction. … Bavaria was as yet
   destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into
   consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon,
   already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and
   residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. … A further accession of
   dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the
   acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was
   now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. … His son
   Otto the Illustrious, remaining … true to the imperial
   house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for
   several years under an interdict. … Upon the death of Otto a
   partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became
   to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel
   and of secret or open enmity. … In [the] dark and dreadful
   period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all
   men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing
   appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. … Finally in 1273
   Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the
   long-unoccupied throne. … He won over the Bavarian princes
   by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage.
{274}
   Louis remained faithful and rendered him good
   service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war
   upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote,
   deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of
   the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards,
   for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine
   exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in
   1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D.
   1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine,
   and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      The House of Wittelsbach
      (Studies in European History, chapter 2)._

BAVARIA: A. D. 1314.
   Election of Louis to the imperial throne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1500.
   Formation of the Circle.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1610.
   The Duke at the head of the Catholic League.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1619.
   The Duke in command of the forces of the Catholic League.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1623.
   Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector
   Palatine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1632.
   Occupation by Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
   Ravaged by the Swedes and French.
   Truce made and renounced by the Elector.
   The last campaigns of the war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1648.
   Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of
   Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1689-1696.
   The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY);
      1694; 1695-1696.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1700.
   Claims of the Electoral Prince on the Spanish Crown.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1702.
   The Elector joins France against the Allies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1703.
   Successes of the French and Bavarians.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1704.
   Ravaged, crushed and surrendered by the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1705.
   Dissolution of the Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1714.
   The Elector restored to his Dominions.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1740.
   Claims of the Elector to the Austrian succession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1742.
   The Elector crowned Emperor.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April).
   The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER), and 1743.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June).
   The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive.
   The Austrians in Possession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1745.
   Death of the Emperor-Elector.
   Peace with Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
   The Succession question.

   "With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December,
   1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became
   extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria … came to an end. By
   virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria
   ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented
   by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the
   Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable
   additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the
   west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were
   based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which
   Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law,
   Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had
   since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce
   the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to
   come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who
   had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very
   keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty
   the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty
   (3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put
   forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed
   to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once
   despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of
   Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture.
   … There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be
   expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the
   fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of
   upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters
   except those who were immediately interested, the elector of
   Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of
   Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and
   Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless
   Charles Theodore. … Frederick, left to himself, despatched
   an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been
   joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the
   threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a
   battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed
   negotiation. … France and Russia undertook to mediate, and
   negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was
   signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which
   had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine,
   and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district
   from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the
   succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and
   Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were
   recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off
   by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory
   part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and
   Russia. … On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick
   and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of
   aggrandisement had been foiled."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 20, section 3,_

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

BAVARIA: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

{275}

BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Kingdom.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806,
      and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1809.
   The revolt in the Tyrol.
   Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1813.
   Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation.
   Union with the Allies.

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

BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria.
   Territorial compensations.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF, and FRANCE: A. D. 1814
      (APRIL-JUNE).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March).
   Revolutionary outbreak.
   Expulsion of Lola Montez.
   Abdication of the King.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
   transformed into the German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.

----------BAVARIA: End----------

BAVAY, Origin of.

      See NERVII.

BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BAYARD, The Chevalier: His knightly deeds and his death.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

BAYEUX TAPESTRY.

   A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20
   inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at
   Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman
   invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or
   less of names and explanatory inscriptions. _Mr. E. A.
   Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A)_ says: "It will be
   seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the
   Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not
   hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place
   among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a
   contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I
   entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully
   entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to
   have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably
   designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral
   church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in
   the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the
   room under glass.

BAYEUX, The Saxons of.

      See SAXONS OF BAYEUX

BAYLEN, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

BAYOGOULAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

BAYONNE:
   Conference of Catharine de'Medici and the Duke of Alva (1565).


      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

BEACONSFIELD (Disraeli) Ministries.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859; 1868-1870, and
      1873-1880.

BEAR FLAG, The.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

BEARN: The rise of the Counts.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

BEARN: A. D. 1620.
   Absorbed and incorporated in the Kingdom of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

BEARN: A. D. 1685.
   The Dragonnade.
   Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

----------BEARN: End----------

BEATOUN, Cardinal, The assassination of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

BEAUFORT, N. C., Capture of, by the National forces (1862).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL:
      NORTH CAROLINA).

BEAUGÉ, Battle of.

   The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in
   Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of
   France; the Duke of Clarence slain.

BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

BEAUMONT, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BEAUREGARD, General G. T.
   Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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

   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

   Command in the Potomac district.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

   Command in the West.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL:
      TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   The Defence of Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER:
      SOUTH CAROLINA).

BEAUVAIS, Origin of.

      See BELGÆ.

BEBRYKIANS, The.

      See BITHYNIANS.

BEC, Abbey of.

   One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of
   the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or
   rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious
   knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his
   hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others
   around him and resulted in the formation of a religious
   community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to
   Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of
   Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of
   Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who
   succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The
   teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says _Mr. Green in
   his Short History of the English People,_ into the most
   famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave
   of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to
   the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law
   and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical
   skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace
   their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as
   transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the
   appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be
   enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave
   Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which
   hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 8._

{276}

BECHUANAS, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BECKET, Thomas, and King Henry II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

BED-CHAMBER QUESTION, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.

BED OF JUSTICE.

   "The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the
   registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a
   'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in
   state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken
   his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a
   decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was
   held that this personal interference of the sovereign
   suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior
   magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without
   a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows:
   'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que
   les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the
   decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de
   justice.'"

      _Students' History of France,
      note to chapter 19._

      See, also, PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

   "The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much
   discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there
   justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from
   the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back
   and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."

      _J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 388,
      foot-note._

   An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of
   Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign
   of Louis XV., will be found in the

      _Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon,
      abridged translation of St. John,
      volume 4, chapter 5-7._

BEDR, Battle of.

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

BEDRIACUM, Battles of.

      See ROME: A. D. 69.

BEECHY HEAD, Battle of (A. D. 1690).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).

BEEF-EATERS, The.

      See YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.

BEEF STEAK CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS: THE BEEF STEAK.

BEER-ZATH, Battle of.

   The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas
   Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army
   of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 2._

BEG.

   A Turkish title, signifying prince or lord; whence, also, Bey.

      See BEY.

BEGGARS (Gueux) of the Netherland Revolt.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

BEGGARS OF THE SEA.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BEGUINES.
BEGHINES.
BEGHARDS.
   Weaving Brothers.
   Lollards.
   Brethren of the Free Spirit.
   Fratricelli.
   Bizochi.
   Turlupins.

   "In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly,
   stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le
   Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town.
   Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often
   happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching.
   … This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold
   and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the
   destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life.
   With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square
   of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and
   at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows,
   one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half
   monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was
   very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation
   bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the
   day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other
   hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their
   houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into
   the homes of the townspeople. … Thus these women, though
   pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the
   world. … Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got'
   set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines.
   Different authorities give different origins of this word. …
   Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the
   charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the
   Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards
   or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed
   from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible;
   but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M.
   Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish
   word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had
   been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become.
   With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the
   Netherlands and into France and Germany. … Lambert may have
   lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken;
   but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for
   Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet
   congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad
   in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only
   to pray and do deeds of mercy. … The success of the Beguines
   had made them an example. … Before St. Francis and St.
   Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently
   grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of
   fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse
   of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their
   rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in
   iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and
   stitching together—these men silent, pious, thoughtful,
   joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the
   Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no
   vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly
   life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure
   they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. … Such
   were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres
   Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more
   generally called them."

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages, 1._

{277}

   "The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than
   in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin
   in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for
   the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and
   burying the dead. … Very early, however, an element of a
   different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about
   the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances
   are laid to their charge. …. The charges brought against the
   later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand,
   with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending
   with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and
   Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz.,
   an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a
   propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit
   of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less
   pantheistical mysticism. … They … declared that the time
   of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to
   embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own
   professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the
   divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they
   formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself
   one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of
   this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted
   impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good
   and godly."

      _C. Ullmann,
      Reformers before the Reformation,
      volume 2, pages 14-16._

   "The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be
   used for devotees who, without being members of any regular
   monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness;
   and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of
   sectaries was easy—more especially as many of these found it
   convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in
   the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But
   on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent
   persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad
   to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant
   orders. … In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with
   the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still
   remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their
   origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day.
   … Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of
   the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the
   profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other
   blasphemous names. … Among those who were confounded with
   the beghards—partly because, like them, they abounded along
   the Rhine—were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit.
   These appear in various places under various names. They wore
   a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to
   contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to
   contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they
   lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost
   pantheistic. … The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit
   were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion
   of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of Christian Church,
      book 7, chapter 7 (volume 6)_.

   "Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy
   the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and
   France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface
   VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to
   see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every
   possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in
   Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de
   paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were
   Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of
   Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed
   by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others,
   and therefore possessed no property, either individually or
   collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to
   day by begging. … They predicted a reformation and
   purification of the church. … They extolled Celestine V. as
   the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the
   succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied
   to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its
   associates and dependents, who observed the third rule
   prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious
   observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse,
   cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit
   private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly
   occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also
   the sect of the Fratricelli … had numerous Tertiarii of its
   own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in
   France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the
   Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the
   Fratricelli … only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli
   were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the
   Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. …
   Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were
   the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in
   this century, but now first came into notice. … Concerning
   the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. … The
   origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from
   substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at
   Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the
   Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils
   condemned."

      _J. L. Von Mosheim,
      Inst's of Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41,
      and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
      Fra Dolcino and his Times._

      See, also, PICARDS.

BEGUMS OF OUDE, Warren Hastings and the.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

BEHISTUN, Rock of.

   "This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between
   Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination
   of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for
   sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the
   great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros
   range, as a place where they might conveniently set up
   memorials of their exploits. … The tablet and inscriptions
   of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times,
   are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock,
   and at a considerable elevation."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

   The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the
   district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest
   of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley
   of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 1._

BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY, and Arbitration.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

{278}

BEIRUT, Origin of.

      See BERYTUS.

BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063.
   Bela II.,  A. D. 1131-1141.
   Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196.
   Bela IV.,  A. D. 1235-1270.

BELCHITE, Battle of.

   See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.

   The Roman name of Land's End, England.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

BELFORT.
   Siege by the Germans (1870-1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

BELGÆ, The.

   "This Belgian confederation included the people of all the
   country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic
   on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the
   Mediomatrici and Treviri. … The old divisions of France
   before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some
   degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar,
   and the names of the people are still retained with little
   alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the
   ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the
   Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of
   Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne
   and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci
   were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their
   chief town, which at some time received the name of
   Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on
   the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the
   Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief
   place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old
   division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara):
   their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini,
   or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The
   Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides
   of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of
   the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The
   Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the
   Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus
   (Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and
   Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones:
   their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta
   Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the
   lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the
   name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the
   Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and
   were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 3._

   "Cæsar … informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the
   Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the
   offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. … Strabo
   … by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of
   this … race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German,
   though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central
   region."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticæ,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

BELGÆ: B. C. 57.
   Cæsar's campaign against the confederacy.

   In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he
   led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in
   his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The
   many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a
   great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were
   able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The
   tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and
   placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered
   his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani,
   marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these
   swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the
   banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to
   pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made
   submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii,
   who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci,
   the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a
   struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the
   Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the
   banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his
   veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous
   charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with
   the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over
   the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was
   not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved
   in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans
   long remembered, and never failed to signalize their
   formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient
   prowess became from that day the principal monument of their
   name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh
   annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost
   to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in
   secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the
   conqueror's clemency. … 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we
   have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only
   remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Julius Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 2._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 3._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 5._

BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The.
   Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The
   territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties
   of Wiltshire and Somerset.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

BELGIUM: Ancient and Mediaeval History.

   See BELGÆ, NERVII, FRANKS, LORRAINE, FLANDERS, LIEGE.
   NETHERLANDS.

BELGIUM: Modern History.

      See NETHERLANDS.

BELGRADE:
   Origin.

   During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the
   Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city
   of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube,
   was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the
   extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who
   raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city—the
   Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic
   name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by
   Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba
   Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 46, note.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

BELGIUM: A. D. 1425.
   Acquired by Hungary and fortified against the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

{279}

BELGIUM: A. D. 1442.
   First repulse of the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1456.
   Second repulse of the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
      and TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1521.
   Siege and capture by Solyman the Magnificent.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1688-1690.
   Taken by the Austrians and recovered by the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1717.
   Recovery from the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1739.
   Restored to the Turks.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1789-1791.
   Taken by the Austrians and restored to the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1806.
   Surprised and taken by the Servians.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
      (SERVIA).

BELGIUM: A. D. 1862.
   Withdrawal of Turkish troops.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
      (SERVIA).

----------BELGIUM: End----------

BELGRADE, The Peace of.

   See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

BELIK, Battle on the (Carrhæ—B. C. 53).

      See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

BELISARIUS, Campaigns of.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534,
      and ROME: A. D. 535-553.

BELIZE, or British Honduras.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

BELL ROLAND, The great.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

BELLE ALLIANCE, Battle of La.
   The battle of Waterloo

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE)—is so called by the
      Prussians.

BELLE ISLE PRISON-PEN, The.

      See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

BELLOVACI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

BELLVILLE, Battle, of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BELMONT, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
      (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Bema, The.

      See PNYX.

BEMIS HEIGHTS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BENARES.

   "The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity.
   It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even
   date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself
   over Northern India. … It is certain that the city is
   regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a
   notion derived both from tradition and from their own
   writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in
   ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in
   all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some
   subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the
   religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of
   its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants—of its
   temples and reservoirs—of its wells and streams—of the very
   soil that is trodden—of the very air that is breathed—and of
   everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for
   thousands of years. … Previously to the introduction of the
   Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of
   the land,—the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its
   authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and
   affection with which the native community regard her in the
   present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism
   commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable
   that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation,
   the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread
   religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist
   period in India—a period extending from 700 to 1,000
   years—she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had
   previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that
   era …  clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of
   those days regarded the city with much the same kind of
   veneration as the Hindu does now."

      _M. A. Sherring,
      The Sacred City of the Hindus,
      chapter 1._

   For an account of the English annexation of Benares,

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685.
   Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858.
   Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903.
   Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965.
   Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974.
   Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984.
   Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024.
   Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048.
   Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059.
   Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304.
   Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342.
   Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon).
   Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730.
   Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.

BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
   The rule of St. Benedict.

   "There were many monasteries in the West before the time of
   St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly
   considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only
   founded an order to which many religious houses became
   attached, but he established a rule for their government
   which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of
   monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries,
   or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi.
   Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of
   Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established
   in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a
   superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of
   Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which
   became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according
   to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated
   especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed
   the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable
   communities submitting to that sovereign code. … Neither in
   the East nor in the West were the monks originally
   ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that
   they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the
   ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. … As
   missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in
   extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The
   monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to
   the monastery. … To enable him to work efficiently, it was
   necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of
   Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict
   asceticism."

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Studies in Mediæval History,
      chapter 12._

{280}

   "Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to
   spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he
   made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation
   of his rule. … In order to banish indolence, which he called
   the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of
   every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained
   that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times
   a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and
   two hours to reading. … Those who are skilled in the
   practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the
   permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided
   himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to
   the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had
   humbled himself. … Obedience is also to his eyes a work,
   obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of
   all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the
   sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of
   the will. … Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret
   hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and
   absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and
   without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible
   and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a
   humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted
   to him, was not accepted by his superiors."

      _The Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 4, section 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 2._

      _S. R. Maitland,
      The Dark Ages,
      Number 10._

      _J. H. Newman,
      Mission of St. Benedict
      (Hist. Sketches, volume 2)_.

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 2, chapter 4, sections 43-45._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, number 1._

      See, also, CAPUCHINS.

BENEFICIUM.
COMMENDATION.

   Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources—the
   beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been
   specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a
   subject population which admitted of any amount of extension
   in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system
   originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of
   their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a
   special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by
   landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be
   received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or
   service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the
   protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure
   placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the
   practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put
   himself under the personal care of a lord, but without
   altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his
   estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his
   hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which
   the connexion was formed."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9, section 93._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 1._

      See, also, SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

   "Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the
   church was that which conferred on its members immunity from
   the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the
   jurisdiction of secular tribunals. … So priceless a
   prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute
   struggle. … To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime
   should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that
   civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be
   referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a
   claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be
   lightly accorded. … The persistence of the church, backed up
   by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally
   triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was
   acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of
   Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in
   the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the
   privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the
   benefit of clergy. … The disastrous result of the quarrel
   between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it
   necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. … As time
   passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself.
   That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was
   taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be
   the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a
   free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters.
   … Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared
   felonies without benefit of clergy. … Much legislation
   ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the
   privilege in various offences. … Early in the reign of Anne
   the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by
   abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon
   on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not
   until the present century was well advanced that this remnant
   of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and
   8 Geo. iv. c. 28."

      _H. C. Lea,
      Studies in Church History,
      part 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      sections 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3)_.

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

BENEVENTO, OR GRANDELLA, Battle of (1266).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

BENEVENTUM:
   The Lombard Duchy.

   The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th
   centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the
   Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the
   territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne
   reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty,
   after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was
   afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento,
   Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090;
      also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774,
      and AMALFI.

BENEVENTUM, Battle of (B. C. 275).

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BENEVOLENCES.

   "The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time
   [England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a
   resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II.
   and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under
   Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the
   intervening kings. … Such evidence as exists shows us Edward
   IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts
   of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new
   year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will
   offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings
   of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the
   name and the particular property of every man in the country
   who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such
   meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18, section 696._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

{281}

BENGAL, The English acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757; 1757; and 1757-1772.

BENGAL: "Permanent Settlement."

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BENNINGTON, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BENTINCK, Lord William, The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BENTONSVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

BEOTHUK, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

BERBERS, The.

      See LIBYANS; NUMIDIANS; EGYPT, ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
      PEOPLE; and MAROCCO.

BERENICE, Cities of.

   Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a
   city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave
   the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port
   of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were
   founded at points further south on the same coast, while a
   fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great
   Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 15, section 1._

BERESINA, Passage of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERESTECZKO, Battle of (1651).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

BERGEN, Battles of (1759 and 1799).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST);
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

BERGEN-OP-ZOOM, A. D. 1588.
   The siege raised.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BERGEN A. D. 1622.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BERGEN: A. D. 1747-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------BERGEN: End----------

BERGER.

      See BIRGER.

BERGERAC, Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

BERKELEY, Lord, The Jersey Grant to.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664.-1667, to 1688-1738.

BERKELEY, Sir William, Government of Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1642-1649, to 1660-1677.

BERLIN: A. D. 1631.
   Forcible entry of Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

BERLIN: A. D. 1675.
   Threatened by the Swedes.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

BERLIN: A. D. 1757.
   Dashing Austrian attack.

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

BERLIN: A. D. 1760.
   Taken and plundered by the Austrians and Russians.

      See GERMANY: A.D. 1760.

BERLIN: A. D. 1806.
   Napoleon in possession.

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

BERLIN: A. D. 1848.
   Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens.
   Continued disorder.
   State of siege.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), and 1848-1850.

----------BERLIN: End----------

BERLIN CONFERENCE (1884-5), The.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889;
      and CONGO FREE STATE.

BERLIN, Congress and Treaty of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

BERLIN DECREE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

BERMUDA HUNDRED.

      See HUNDRED, THE.

BERMUDA HUNDRED, Butler's Army at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

BERMUDAS, The.
   English Discovery of the islands (1609).

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

BERMUDO,
   King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791.
   Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999.
   Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.

BERN, Dietrich of.

      See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

BERNADOTTE, Career of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
      1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807;
      SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST),
      (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERNARD, St., and the Second Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BERNE, A. D. 1353.
   Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of
   High Germany.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

BERNE: A. D. 1798.
   Occupation by the French.
   The plundering of the Treasury.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

----------BERNE: End----------

BERNICIA, The Kingdom of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633;
      and SCOTLAND: 7th CENTURY.

BERSERKER.
BÆRSÆRK.

   "The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived
   from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the
   title was applied [among the Northmen] … were stated to be
   in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a
   shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were
   sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of
   Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon.
   The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to
   afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to
   differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear
   to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery.
   They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang,
   or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman
   strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. … After an
   attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman
   influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or
   cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk
   suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."

      _J. F. Vicary,
      Saga Time,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Du Chaillu,
      The Viking Age,
      volume 2, chapter 26._

{282}

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333.
   Conquest by the English.

   At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish
   nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid
   upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made
   his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only
   rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath
   by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss
   of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown
   down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders
   who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were
   burned alive in it. … The town was ruined forever, and the
   great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a
   petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick
   was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat
   Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The
   English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent
   Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in
   which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of
   Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of
   Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown.
   Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the
   realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had
   its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and
   the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England
   'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory
   of its peculiar position."-

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 4, sections 3 and 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 17._

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

BERWICK, Pacification of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

BERWICK, Treaty of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

BERYTUS.

   The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa,
   B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.

BERYTUS: A. D. 551.
   Its Schools.
   Its Destruction by Earthquake.

   The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by
   earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the
   coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil
   law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the
   schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the
   age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might
   have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 43.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

BERYTUS: A. D. 1111.
   Taken by the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

----------BERYTUS: End----------

BESANÇON: Origin.

      See VESONTIO.

BESANÇON: A. D. 1152-1648.
   A Free City of the Empire.

      See FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BESANÇON: A. D. 1674.
   Siege and capture by Vauban.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

BESSI, The.

   The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the
   mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of
   the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the
   conqueror of Mithridates.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 18, section 6._

BESSIN, The.
   The district of Bayeux.

      See SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

BETH-HORON, Battles of.

   The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites"
   who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish
   conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one
   of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so
   profound has been the indifference, first of the religious
   world, and then (through their example or influence) of the
   common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals,
   that the very name of this great battle is far less known to
   most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 11._

   In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the
   brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and
   162.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12._

   Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it
   witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.

BETHSHEMESH, Battle of.

   Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah,
   defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of
   Jerusalem to be thrown down.

      _2 Chronicles, xxv._

BETH-ZACHARIAH, Battle of.

   A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas·
   Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus
   Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12, chapter 9._

BETHZUR, Battle of.

   Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus,
   the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165.

      _Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7._

BEVERHOLT, Battle of (1381).

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BEY.
BEYLERBEY.
PACHA.
PADISCHAH.

   "The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time
   of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation
   organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the
   Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the
   class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office
   obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered
   under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district,
   and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and
   their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to
   us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not
   strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even
   military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally
   the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person
   to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign
   employed. … The title of Pacha was not at first applied
   among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded
   armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas,
   that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary
   men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those
   whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and
   important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost
   synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which
   the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists
   have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is
   an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial
   Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman
   Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or
   banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 6._

{283}

BEYLAN, Battle of (1832).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

BEYROUT, Origin of.

      See BERYTUS.

BEZANT, The.

   The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth
   a little less than ten English shillings—$2.50.

BEZIERES, The Massacre at.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

BHARADARS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

BHONSLA RAJA, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BHURTPORE, Siege of(1805).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BIANCHI AND NERI (The Whites and Blacks).

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

BIANCHI, or White Penitents.

      See WHITE PENITENTS.

BIBERACH, Battles of (1796 and 1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      and A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

BIBRACTE.

      See GAULS.

BIBROCI, The.

   A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is
   suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks
   County.

BICAMERAL SYSTEM, The.

   This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a
   legislative body into two chambers—such as the House of Lords
   and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of
   Representatives in the United States of America.

BICOQUE OR BICOCCA, La, Battle of (1522).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

BIG BETHEL, Battle of.

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

BIG BLACK, Battle of the.

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

BIGERRIONES, The.

      See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

BIGI, OR GREYS, The.

   One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time
   of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the
   partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or
   Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).

BILLAUD-VARENNES and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public
Safety.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
      (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BILOXIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BIMINI, The island of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

BIRAPARACH, Fortress of.

      See JUROIPACH.

BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319.
   Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.

BISHOPS' WAR, The First and Second.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871;
      and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

BISSEXTILE YEAR.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.

   "Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus.
   eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians,
   Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,—all recognized branches of
   the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians
   especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and
   reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of
   as Asiatic Thracians,—while on the other hand various tribes
   among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or
   Thynians,—so little difference was there in the population on
   the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and
   sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called
   Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far
   southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 16._

   The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated
   by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the
   Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an
   independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle
   of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians,
   successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors
   in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed
   until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed
   his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.

BITONTO, Battle of (1734).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

BITURIGES, The.

      See ÆEDUI;
      also BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

BIZOCHI, The.

      See BEGUINES, ETC.

BIZYE.

      See THRACIANS.

BLACK ACTS, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.

BLACK DEATH, The.

   "The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre
   of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was
   accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and
   atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive
   character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the
   first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and
   even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a
   singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive
   character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have
   travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It
   appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place
   of its origin at about the same time in which it made its
   appearance in Europe. … The disease still exists under the
   name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia
   Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a
   disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system
   seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in
   which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood
   thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on
   the skin.
{284}
   Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The
   storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year
   1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical
   phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in
   the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The
   Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of
   the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few
   men of science of the time, to move forward with measured
   steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and
   fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great
   physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the
   disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had
   been projected into the atmosphere. … The Black Death
   appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the
   middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and
   Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden
   in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from
   England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and
   Greenland. … It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after
   it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the
   circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which
   have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was
   checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. …
   Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to
   25,000,000."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      History of Agriculture and Prices,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. C. Hecker,
      Epidemics of the Middle Ages._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348;
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1348;
      JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.

BLACK EAGLE, Order of the.

   A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III.,
   elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.

BLACK FLAGS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BLACK FRIARS.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

BLACK GUELFS (NERI).

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

BLACK HAWK WAR, The.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757:

BLACK PRINCE, The wars of the.

      See POITIERS; FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380;
      and SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.

BLACK ROBE, Counsellors of the.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

BLACK ROD.

   "The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the
   House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms
   to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are
   bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers,
   even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an
   obstreperous member. … His [Black Rod's] most disturbing
   occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the
   Lords to the Commons. … No sooner do the policemen herald
   his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower
   Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for
   admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this
   has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair,
   and then—with repeated acts of obeisance—walks slowly to the
   table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance
   in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's
   speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to
   various bills. … The consequence is nearly always the same.
   The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins
   Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less
   orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's
   Chamber. … No matter what the subject under consideration,
   Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check … till the
   journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus
   caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So
   great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the
   Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-

      _Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
      page 11._

BLACK ROOD, of Scotland.

      See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

BLACKBURN'S FORD, Engagement at.

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

BLACKFEET.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

BLADENSBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BLAIR, Francis P., Sr., in the "Kitchen
Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

BLAIR, General Francis P., Jr.
   Difficulties with General Fremont.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

BLANCHE, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1425-1441.

BLANCO, General Guzman, The dictatorship of.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.

BLAND SILVER BILL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.

BLANII, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BLANKETEERS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

BLENEAU, Battle of (1652).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

BLENHEIM, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

BLENNERHASSET, Harman, and Aaron Burr.

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

BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.

   An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman
   Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a
   charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was
   drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous
   of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the
   treasonable project.

BLOCK BOOKS.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

BLOCK ISLAND, The name.

      See NEW YORK A. D. 1610-1614.

BLOCKADE, Paper.

   This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent
   power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or
   certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade,
   without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the
   declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the
   "Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

{285}

BLOIS, Treaties of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

BLOOD COUNCIL, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

BLOOD, or Kenai Indians.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

BLOODY ANGLE, The.

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

BLOODY ASSIZE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).

BLOODY BRIDGE, Ambuscade at (A. D. 1763).

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BLOODY BROOK, Battle of.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

BLOODY MARSH, The Battle of the.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

BLOREHEATH, Battle of (A. D. 1459).

   Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in
   Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000
   Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that
   number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won
   a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that
   occurred in the Wars of the Roses.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813
      (APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.

BLUE, Boys in.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

BLUE LICKS, Battle of (A. D. 1782).

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

   "An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813]
   occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as
   additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the
   enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the
   winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his
   two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt
   by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy
   Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the
   British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous
   information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he
   stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the
   report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made
   to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were
   burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals
   to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had
   been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty
   persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear
   that Decatur himself was one of the number. … Such a clamor
   was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of
   Congress moved for a committee of investigation. … The
   inquiry was … quashed; but the story spread and grew, and
   the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized
   as 'blue-light Federalists.'"

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 6, page 467._

BLUE PARTY (of Venezuela), The.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

BLUE RIBBON, The Order of the.

      See SERAPHIM.

BLUES, Roman Faction of the.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

BOABDIL, The last Moorish King in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

BOADICEA, Revolt of.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

BOAIRE, The.
   A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the
   ancient Irish.

BOARIAN TRIBUTE, The.

   Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating
   exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster
   by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which
   was maintained for five hundred years.

BOCAGE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL).

BOCASOTI, The.

      See BEGUINES, &c.

BOCLAND.
BOOKLAND.

      See ALOD.

BŒOTARCHS.

      See BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

BŒOTIA.
BŒOTIANS.

   "Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which
   it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the
   other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its
   ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy
   under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them.
   Even of this territory, destined during the second period of
   this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we
   know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We
   first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes
   between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

   In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory,
   subsequently Bœotian—the Copaic valley in the north—was
   occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose
   chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians
   of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in
   legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was
   Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from
   Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus
   (Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the
   Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of
   Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same
   place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos—the
   assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the
   Epigoni—were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of
   the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and
   their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given
   way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name
   Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of
   the Thebes of historic times.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 14;_

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a
   significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the
   locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the
   pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The
   immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country
   derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history,
   destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without
   succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of
   conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious
   development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of
   culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened.
   The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be
   honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount
   Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated.
{286}
   In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work,
   and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with
   Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger
   inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards
   music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the
   flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic
   morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in
   Bœotia. … And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for
   attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in
   such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. … The
   Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor
   was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes,
   which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than
   the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount
   Parnes across to the Bœotian."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

   "The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went,
   seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal
   Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than
   the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over
   the other cities. … The common government was carried on in
   the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important
   magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number,
   whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek
   archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. … Thebes chose
   two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 4, section 2._

BOERS, Boer War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

BOGDANIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-15TH CENTURIES
      (ROUMANIA, ETC.)

BOGESUND, Battle of (1520).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BOGOMILIANS, The.

   A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace
   and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered
   persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They
   sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile
   to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or
   less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their
   name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog,"
   signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that
   "Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct
   designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was
   burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at
   Constantinople, A. D. 1118.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA,
      ETC.)

BOGOTA, The founding of the city (1538).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

BOHEMIA, Derivation of the name.

      See BOIANS.

BOHEMIA:
   Its people and their early history.

   "Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia
   having been politically connected with the empire of the
   Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element
   Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and
   Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic
   population of that kingdom—Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call
   themselves—is either recent in origin or secondary to any
   German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history.
   In other words, at the beginning of the historical period
   Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D.
   550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The
   notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political
   relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account
   is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably,
   from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians,
   or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the
   parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In
   Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky
   derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e.,
   the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo,
   the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder
   of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D.
   624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become
   united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son
   Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad;
   and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no
   sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names
   of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh—Wenceslaus,
   Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian
   connexion and the process of Germanizing began. … The
   history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia,
   except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars,
   and other less important populations may have effected a
   greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh,
   speaking the Tshekh language—the language, probably, of the
   ancient Quadi."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 11._

BOHEMIA: 7th Century.
   The Yoke of the Avars broken.
   The Kingdom of Samo.

      See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

BOHEMIA: 9th Century.
   Subject to the Moravian Kingdom of Svatopluk.

      See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

BOHEMIA: 13th Century.
   The King made a Germanic Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276.
   War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg.
   His defeat and death.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1310.
   Acquisition of the crown by John of Luxembourg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1347.
   Charles IV. elected to the imperial throne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
   The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty.
   Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.

   The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing
   the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in
   definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which
   had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty.
   Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been
   acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz
   (Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces,
   were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom
   of Bohemia."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 11._

{287}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1364.
   Reversion of the crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.
   John Hus, and the movement of Religious Reformation.

   "Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see
   ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as
   remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which
   for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all
   efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif
   who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan
   and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously
   assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed
   not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian
   reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent
   and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper
   forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall
   find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and
   faithful preachers. … John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the
   central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year
   1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of
   Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise
   so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he
   began to deliver lectures there. … He soon signalized
   himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to
   hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high
   places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving
   the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks
   unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support
   and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also
   within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid
   them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury,
   their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon
   him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere
   spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. …
   While matters were in this strained condition, events took
   place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story
   that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in
   bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to
   pass them by. … The University of Prague, though recently
   founded—it only dated back to the year 1348—was now, next
   after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in
   Europe. … This University, like that of Paris, on the
   pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four
   'nations'—four groups, that is, or families of scholars—each
   of these having in academical affairs a single collective
   vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish,
   and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair
   division—two German and two Slavonic; but in practical
   working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and
   other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact
   German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and
   the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on
   every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of
   this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the
   teaching of Wiclif … matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus,
   who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian
   language and literature, had more than a theological interest
   in the matter,—by Jerome [of Prague],—by a large number of
   the Bohemian nobility,—King Wenzel published an edict whereby
   the relations of natives and foreigners were completely
   reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the
   Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a
   shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of
   one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so
   earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students
   alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of
   five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival
   University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand
   students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they
   regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they
   spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of
   him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had
   left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer
   field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend;
   they became more confused and threatening every day; until
   presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality
   which a century later did a still more effectual work, served
   to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of
   his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of
   Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become
   a constant accompaniment of this,—Indulgences to match. But
   to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous
   indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive
   part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which
   should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters
   were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D.
   1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles
   of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian
   difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make
   answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four
   weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and
   Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he
   was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a
   free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect,
   who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect
   him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning
   from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and
   heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise
   and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke,
   threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force;
   but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who
   represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a
   safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a
   region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected
   to be convinced. … More than seven months elapsed before Hus
   could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to
   him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),—if indeed
   such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life,
   and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted
   and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,'
   'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,—he bore
   himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and
   dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought
   against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which
   he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of
   retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned,
   sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415.
   His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the
   following May.

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Mediaeval Church History,
      lecture 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Gillett,
      Life and times of John Hus._

      _A. H. Wratislaw,
      John Hus._

      _A. Neander,
      General History of Christian Religion,
      volume 9, part 2._

{288}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1410.
   Election of King Sigismund to the imperial throne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
   The Hussite Wars.
   The Reformation checked.

   "The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce
   excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them
   against the charge of heresy and protesting against the
   injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or
   500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was
   that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed
   to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be
   reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress
   the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which
   the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united
   in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely
   taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be
   enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia,
   favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all
   priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both
   forms' were driven from the churches. … When the Council of
   Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor]
   hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who
   were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The
   Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize
   themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419,
   assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor,
   and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska,
   'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that
   several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel
   arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the
   spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague,
   marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at
   their head, and took forcible possession of several churches.
   When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release
   of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from
   the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled
   the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears
   of those below. … The Hussites were already divided into two
   parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines,
   from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol
   [referring to their demand for the administration of the
   eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque
   specie'—whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other
   radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed
   their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of
   brotherly equality through which they expected to establish
   the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation
   obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against
   the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen
   years of war which followed; but they always remained
   separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant.
   Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice,
   commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a
   friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man,
   bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow
   across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red
   moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks
   among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy
   and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he
   knew neither tolerance nor mercy. … Sigismund does not
   seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the
   movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months
   afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all
   Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420
   a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund
   marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the
   demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.—The
   word of God to be freely preached; 2.—The sacrament to be
   administered in both forms; 3.—The clergy to possess no
   property or temporal authority; 4.—All sins to be punished by
   the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these
   articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal
   Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of
   November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska,
   and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The
   dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out
   again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail
   among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused
   to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a
   time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition
   through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less
   than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and
   monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. … While
   besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining
   eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before.
   The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout
   Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men,
   commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the
   west. … But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his
   wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors,
   whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought;
   the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and
   lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about
   and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his
   appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at
   Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the
   Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. … A third
   Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the
   Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from
   lack of support.
{289}
   The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer
   than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking
   Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in
   coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city
   in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke
   Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim
   to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the
   German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into
   a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of
   the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as
   their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth
   styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest,
   Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army,
   in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the
   result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius
   the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid
   waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which
   met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the
   Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and
   the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and
   fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and
   munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who
   was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made
   several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one
   religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from
   becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers
   of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions
   into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite
   name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one
   hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned,
   tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such
   quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to
   transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg
   and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to
   the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people
   weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a
   Council for the discussion of the difficulty. … The German
   princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000
   men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under
   the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of
   Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south.
   Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the
   14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won
   another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was
   literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions
   and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the
   field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and
   eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as
   they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were
   invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn
   stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair
   discussion of their demands. … In 1433, finally 300
   Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They
   demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles
   upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of
   talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and
   promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any
   further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course
   compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which
   proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same
   year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands
   were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave
   the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason,
   the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the
   moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to
   suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed,
   but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were
   defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken,
   Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the
   members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was
   never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."

      _B. Taylor,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Peschek,
      Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
      introductory chapter._

      _E. H. Gillett,
      Life and Times of John Hus,
      volume 2, chapters 13-18._

      _E. de Schweinitz,
      History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum,
      chapter 9._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
   Organization of the Utraquist National Church.
   Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
   Regency of George Podiebrad.
   Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.

   "The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the
   Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the
   Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans
   unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who
   became more and more prominent, until he exercised a
   commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. … At the diet of
   1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. … Meantime
   Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made
   demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged
   himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a
   meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the
   market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of
   Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew
   ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the
   mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital
   when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that
   Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near
   Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short
   by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same
   year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor
   and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave
   in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia
   was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a
   posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458.

   "A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most
   powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. … He … called
   an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This
   convention brought about far-reaching results. … Rokycana
   was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of
   ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the
   priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and
   constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation
   of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia.
{290}
   But the Taborites stood aloof. … At last a disputation was
   agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were
   condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns,
   with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their
   membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the
   National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and
   George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league.
   Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the
   sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by
   the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him
   master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all
   Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally
   acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose
   consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found
   that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of
   cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting
   with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in
   1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in
   consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time
   Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown,
   Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of
   Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong
   dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of
   conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and
   eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that
   a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted
   in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called
   itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was
   Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The
   teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter
   Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell
   together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an
   ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village
   of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which
   they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'—'Fratres
   Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to
   the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it
   simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church
   had been completed, they assumed the additional title of
   'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of
   the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant
   appellation of the Church to the present day. …. It was
   often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the
   Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related
   to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia,
   Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian
   Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect.
   The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's
   Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from
   Moravia. … The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place
   in the year 1457."

      _E. De Schweinitz,
      History of the Church known as Unitas Fratrum,
      chapters 10-12._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458.
   Election of George Podiebrad to the throne.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
   Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George
   Podiebrad.
   A crusade.
   War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary.
   Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.

   "George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the
   Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to
   fulfil his coronation oath,  by expelling all heretics from
   the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the
   Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects
   who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a
   decree that all his subjects should become members of the
   Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The
   Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the
   Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the
   compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new
   pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome,
   requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the
   pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused
   his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to
   Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the
   administration of the communion under both kinds. In
   consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which
   the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present.
   The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced,
   he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of
   the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the
   dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the
   kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The
   council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men
   in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and
   pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are
   in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy
   church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood,
   and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' …
   Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king
   ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the
   castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except
   bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled
   the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of
   excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome
   within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull
   occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was
   induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the
   offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance
   which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when
   besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with
   the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of
   excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the
   new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with
   increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite
   commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to
   gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian
   crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of
   Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by
   threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467,
   the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the
   heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors.
{291}
   Although this proposal was rejected by the diet,
   the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad,
   and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade
   throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian
   territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of
   Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude,
   and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration
   by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as
   the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the
   empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of
   Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him
   with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his
   obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown,
   was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of
   German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia.
   At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the
   Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to
   the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour
   and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal
   commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an
   armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of
   April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in
   Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But
   Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact
   should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal
   legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and
   Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the
   Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and
   solemnly crowned by the legate. … Podiebrad, in order to
   baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned
   a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor,
   Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by
   Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal
   was warmly approved by the nation, … as the Catholics were
   desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and
   the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or
   Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The
   states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus
   was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The
   indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment,
   and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two
   armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest
   generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check;
   till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of
   their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on
   the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On
   the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again
   presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still
   fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous
   party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority
   declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed
   king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias,
   and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his
   intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to
   disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to
   drive him from that of Hungary."

      _W. Coxe.
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 18 (volume 1)._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479.
   War with Matthias of Hungary.
   Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1490.
   King Ladislaus elected to the throne of Hungary.

      See Hungary: A. D. 1487-1526.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576.
   Accession of the House of Austria.
   The Reformation and its strength.
   Alternating toleration and persecution.

   In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after
   the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was
   succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor
   son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz
   against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality
   of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman
   Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and
   was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by
   Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526],
   brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister
   of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The
   doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst
   the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism
   gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the
   Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the
   Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the
   defence of the national and religious liberties, which were
   menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the
   battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid
   prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction
   in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others
   imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was
   confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several
   privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were
   carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish,
   and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known
   under the name of the Bloody Diet. … The Jesuits were also
   introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of
   the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist
   Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded
   to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother
   Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign,
   his harsh and despotic character. … He died in 1564,
   sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which
   he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was
   succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of
   noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the
   belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the
   Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all
   parties. … Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was
   educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and
   could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however,
   become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria
   proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means
   were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."

      _V. Krasinski,
      Lectures on the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations,
      lecture 2._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604.
   Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

{292}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
   The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's
   violation of it.
   Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by
   hereditary right.
   The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window.
   Beginning of the Thirty Years War.

   In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown
   of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died,
   and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity
   which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D.
   1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time,
   under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a
   new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz
   [Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better
   acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of
   Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant
   religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as
   an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked
   upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of
   their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on
   this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter,
   the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with
   little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic
   nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At
   length several of the former were incautious enough to speak
   somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to
   awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future
   sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into
   actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves
   to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals
   furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising
   leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia,
   but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his
   zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment
   to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of
   the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important
   posts. … Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved
   tumult because his talents shone in it—rash and thoughtless
   enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer
   temper would not have ventured upon—unscrupulous enough,
   where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to
   sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic
   enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the
   Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in
   the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of
   Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was
   chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to
   him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the
   Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation
   had placed in his hands something far more important—itself
   —with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The
   aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently
   deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to
   leave him his full influence over the living. They took from
   him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which
   had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his
   eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and
   wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his
   ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by
   a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was
   not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had
   extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious
   treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the
   privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were
   conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of
   the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a
   toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian
   Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the
   Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had
   contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These
   alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to
   celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was
   left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to
   determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the
   Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest
   extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the
   ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had
   limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the
   validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the
   religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter
   of Majesty. … In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to
   the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to
   the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the
   Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of
   their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. … By
   the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled
   down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent
   of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among
   the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud
   outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter
   of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and
   particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed
   himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the
   people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague
   from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary
   measures against the common danger. It was resolved to
   petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the
   prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the
   states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his
   viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious,
   justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the
   result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages
   that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail
   to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial
   edict made upon the assembled Estates. … He held it …
   advisable first to direct their indignation against the
   Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a
   report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by
   the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the
   imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred,
   were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron
   Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn,
   Burgrave of Calstein. … Against two characters so unpopular
   the public indignation was easily excited, and they were
   marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation.
{293}
   On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in
   great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into
   the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz,
   Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone
   they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken
   any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation.
   Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata
   with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and
   Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm
   out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to
   a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the
   castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was
   thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally
   excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians
   justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable
   in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up
   again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which
   the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved
   them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the
   obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as
   'the defenestration at Prague.'] … By this brutal act of
   self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance,
   and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a
   series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone,
   nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty
   directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection.
   They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the
   imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal
   functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole
   Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      book 1, pages 51-55._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The Thirty Years' War,
      chapter 2._

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      chapter 1._

      _F. Kohlrausch,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 22._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620.
   Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand.
   His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in
   Bohemia.
   Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector.
   His unsupported situation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620.
   Disappointment in the newly elected King.
   His aggressive Calvinism.
   Battle of the White Mountain before Prague.
   Frederick's flight.
   Annulling of the Royal charter.
   Loss of Bohemian Liberties.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620,
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.
   The Reign of Terror.
   Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades.
   The country a desert.
   Protestantism crushed, but not slain.

   "In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia,
   with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics.
   For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were
   banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated.
   The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there
   could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As
   a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under
   the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially,
   were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and
   schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number
   of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their
   property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that
   no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade,
   enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a
   Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted
   Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and
   whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not
   converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be
   replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his
   opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order
   was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country
   within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was
   ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626,
   must emigrate. … But the real conversions were few;
   thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands
   wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000
   Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the
   aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be
   found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any
   of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not
   or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against
   them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were
   sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till
   they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus
   throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. … No
   succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the
   victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite
   memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was
   extorted. … A respectable Protestant party exists to this
   day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land
   was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had
   4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or
   800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are
   certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country
   the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this
   day."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 32._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Peschek,
      Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
      volume 2._

      _E. de Schweinitz,
      History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum,
      chapter 47-51._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632.
   Temporary occupation by the Saxons.
   Their expulsion by Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645.
   Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
   Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
   Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes.
   Siege of the old city.
   Peace.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   The Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741.
   See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
   Prussian invasion.
   Battle of Chotusitz.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

{294}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
   Expulsion of the French.
   Belleisle's retreat.
   Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757.
   The Seven Years War.
   Frederick's invasion and defeat.
   Battles of Prague and Kolin.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

----------BOHEMIA: End----------

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).

      See GYPSIES.

BOIANS, OR BOII.

   Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the
   powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched
   upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts
   given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the
   subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After
   the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in
   the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled
   them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to
   cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in
   modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are
   thought to have derived their names from these Boian people.
   Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the
   Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He
   settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory,
   between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was
   Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni.
   The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern
   Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which
   probably derived its name from them. Three important names,
   therefore, in European geography and history, viz.—Bourbon,
   Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the
   Boii.

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note._

BOIS-LE-DUC.
   Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).

   "Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of
   the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across
   the river), and it might therefore be supposed that
   Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right
   shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case.
   … From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the
   districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying
   partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been
   looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical
   researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the
   Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part
   of Khorassan. … It is almost impossible in dealing
   geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an
   accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our
   definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of
   Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter
   name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D.
   1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country
   stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert
   of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which
   have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original
   undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical
   times. … Bokhara, the capital from the time of the
   Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical
   reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its
   prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite
   world. … Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city,
   distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the
   principal emporium for the trade between China and Western
   Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades,
   and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of
   gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great
   money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population
   of Eastern and Western Asia. … Sogd … comprised the
   mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the
   extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). … The capital was
   Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they
   specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the
   history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the
   time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond
   the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance
   when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the
   Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and
   become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have
   reached the culminating point of its prosperity."

      _A. Vambery,
      History of Bokhara,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapters 2-3._

BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

BOKHARA: 6th Century.
   Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.

      See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 710.
   The Moslem Conquest.

      See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998.
   Under the Samanides.

      See SAMANIDES.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193.
   The Seldjuk Turks.

      See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220.
   Under the Khuarezmians.

      See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1219.
   Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.

   Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It
   was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name,
   according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from
   Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of
   Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days.
   Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and
   asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the
   house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a
   loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses
   fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to
   plunder. … The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in
   a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more
   easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the
   victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only
   heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who
   were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died
   rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and
   daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the
   wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and
   certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{295}

   "The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of
   rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok
   Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our
   admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce
   this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were
   forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was
   not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of
   men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave
   defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the
   population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance.
   More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were,
   with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced
   to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus
   the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their
   learning, their love of art, and their general refinement,
   were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation
   and scattered to all quarters."

      _A. Vambery,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1868.
   Subjection to Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------BOKHARA: End----------

BOLERIUM.

      See BELERION.

BOLESLAUS I.,      King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025.
   Boleslaus II.,  King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083.
   Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138.
   Boleslaus IV.,  Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173.
   Boleslaus V.,   King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.

BOLEYN, Anne.
   Marriage, trial and execution.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.

BOLGARI.

      See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.

BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830;
      and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

   "With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us,
   a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an
   established rule for every man to build his house, with his
   own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of
   man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow
   citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban
   on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being
   perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured
   out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. …
   The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a
   necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their
   husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated,
   and woman's infidelity severely punished. … The Moxos
   cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of
   agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and
   fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos
   lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last
   named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The
   immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the
   Mormons of our time. … The Canichanas, who lived near
   Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West
   longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the
   Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals.
   …Where Jujuy—the most northern province· of the Argentine
   Republic—joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the
   Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me
   by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to
   agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the
   houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by
   a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male
   descendants only."

      _T. J. Hutchinson,
      The Parana,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.

   In the Empire of the Incas.

      See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559.
   Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.

      See AUDIENCIAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
   The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru.
   The Bolivian Constitution.

   "Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically
   known] … had been detached [in 1776—see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC:
   A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima … to form part
   of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The
   fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary
   one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable
   place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have
   been shed in this terrible struggle. … The Spanish army
   afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and
   thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence
   under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was
   incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it
   as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised
   too great a preponderance in the South American system, and
   the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these
   pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the
   government until a congress could be assembled: and under the
   influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected
   into an independent state by the name of the Republic of
   Bolivar, or Bolivia."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      page 290._

   For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation—the results
   of which embraced Upper Peru—and the adoption of the Bolivian
   constitution by the latter,

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839.
   Confederation with Peru.
   War with Chile.

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884.
   The war with Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

----------BOLIVIA: End----------

BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.

      See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.

   On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new
   Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C.
   189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the
   Bologna of modern Italy.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 41._

BOLOGNA:
   Origin of the name.

      See BOIANS.

{296}

BOLOGNA: B. C. 43.
   Conference of the Triumvirs.

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

BOLOGNA: 11th Century.
   School of Law.
   The Glossators.

   "Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous
   school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
   multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
   from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
   its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers,
   who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending
   over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of
   expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the
   Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in
   which they recorded and handed down the results of their
   studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their
   copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write
   glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These
   glosses came at length to be an immense literature."

      _J. Hadley,
      Introduction to Roman Law,
      lecture 2._

BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries.
   Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275.
   Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447.
   Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
      and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512.
   Acquisition by Pope Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Joined to the Cispadane Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831.
   Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------BOLOGNA: End----------

BOMBAY.
   Cession to England (1661).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS.
   Sea-fight.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
      1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Joseph,
   King of Naples, King of Spain.

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.

      See NAPOLEON III.

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON,
   The career of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
      and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.

BONAPARTE FAMILY,
   The origin of the.

   "About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence
   overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then
   bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very
   strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled
   in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years
   1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with
   the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the
   proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing
   stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to
   Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep
   hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted;
   and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as
   Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure
   that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as
   usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning,
   attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All
   this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in
   the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers
   had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of
   feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of
   the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special
   interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the
   clearing process, when we discover who those noble old
   freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were
   called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical,
   derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del
   Monte,'—the Good Men of the Mountain;—and by abbreviation,
   Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the
   pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of
   their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became
   Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the
   next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed,
   as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the
   one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling
   themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards
   again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San
   Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of
   an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other
   first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the
   coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from
   thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and
   has since been heard of."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      volume 1, pages 50-51._

BONIFACE, ST.,
   The Mission of.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

BONIFACE III.,     Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER.
   Boniface IV.,   Pope, A. D. 608-615.
   Boniface V.,    Pope, A. D. 619-625.
   Boniface VI.,   Pope, A. D. 896.
   Boniface VII.,  Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985.
   Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303.
   Boniface IX.,   Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.

BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

BONNET ROUGE, The.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

BONONIA IN GAUL.

      See GESORIACUM.

BONONIA IN ITALY.

      See BOLOGNA.

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

   "A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms
   composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim
   soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and
   it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the
   perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or
   portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the
   many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this
   day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if
   not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book
   of the Dead."

      _A. B. Edwards,
      Academy, Sept. 10, 1887._

{297}

   M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous
   differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of
   which he had been engaged for ten years.

BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.

BOONVILLE, Battle of.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.

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

BOOTH, John Wilkes.
   Assassination of President Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

BOR-RUSSIA.

      See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.

BORDARII.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.

BORDEAUX: Origin.

      See BURDIGALA.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 732.
   Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650.
   Revolt of the Frondeurs.
   Siege of the city.
   Treaty of Peace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
   The last phase of the Fronde.
   Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée.
   Cromwell's help invoked.
   Siege and submission of the city.

   "The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city
   tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither
   attached to the government nor afraid of it. … There, as at
   Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for
   disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical
   changes in the government. … During the popular emotion
   against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had
   been held under some great elms near the city, and from this
   circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now
   assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the
   slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged,
   were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was
   itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde
   and the Great Fronde—the latter of which was devoted to the
   Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally
   of a small number of active and violent men, and in its
   organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins.
   … Troubles increased between this society and the
   parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended
   by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of
   the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. … The
   offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few
   days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles
   were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée
   was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests
   resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had
   the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and
   left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de
   Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the
   affairs of the city. … Condé decided that he would recognize
   the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by
   his approval. … The restoration of the King's authority at
   Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at
   Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the
   party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the
   overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly
   unsuccessful. … The desire of the people, the nobility, and
   the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could
   the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to
   Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this
   important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action,
   partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and
   money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost
   to the insurgents. … Condé seems to have left Guienne to
   itself. … In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned
   to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them.
   … The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps
   to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged
   the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were
   sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with
   steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the
   siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged,
   soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the
   submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to
   erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made
   powerful enough to check any future turbulence."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791.
   The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.

      See France: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris.
   Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND
      1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814.
   Occupied by the English.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

----------BORDEAUX: End----------

BORDER-RUFFIANS.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

BORGHETTO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A.D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

BORGIAS, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.

BORLA, The.

      See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.

BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

BOROUGH.
CITY.
TOWN.
VILLE.

   "The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly
   organized form of the township. It was probably in a more
   defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the
   quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name;
   and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the
   cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of
   the mighty man—the king, the magistrate, or the noble."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5._

{298}

   "I must freely confess that I do not know what difference,
   except a difference in rank, there is in England between a
   city and a borough. … A city does not seem to have any
   rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by
   every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which
   have any special powers above others are those which are
   counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of
   themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The
   city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the
   United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This
   makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word
   city in common talk which seems a little strange in British
   ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word
   city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or
   rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is
   mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being
   perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very
   well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a
   'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly
   is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect
   degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It
   is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no
   Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various
   spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word
   for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that
   this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely
   displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an
   enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still
   applied to a single house and its surroundings. … In common
   talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word
   city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct
   reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the
   town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town
   which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition,
   though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought
   nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then,
   are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes
   most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for
   using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is
   English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by
   some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no
   means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal
   use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of
   towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as
   burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the
   'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its
   territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any
   other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of
   the tribe. … When Christianity was established, the
   'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's
   diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the
   immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in
   Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but
   we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees
   because they were already cities. But in modern French use no
   distinction is made between these ancient capitals which
   became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and
   spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the
   ancient province, the head of the modern department, the
   smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities,
   are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way
   distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common
   enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often
   distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,'
   from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is
   both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and
   small. It is used just like ville in French."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      City and Borough Macmillan's Magazine,
      May, 1889._

BOROUGH-ENGLISH.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.

   Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England
   during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's
   favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the
   leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried
   and beheaded.

BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.

BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

BORYSTHENES, The.

   The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now
   known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near
   the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,—a
   very early trading settlement of the Milesians.

BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

BOSNIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.

   The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived
   it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly,
   swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the
   name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople
   lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as
   the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.

BOSPHORUS:
   The city and kingdom.

   "Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote
   the same city, though the former name often comprehends the
   whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the
   European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we
   first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from
   Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion
   including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities
   on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been
   governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy—called the
   Archæanaktidæ—for forty-two years (480-438 B. C.) After them
   we have a series of princes standing out individually by name,
   and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.].
   … During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some
   intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion
   not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little
   interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony—but of
   private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good
   offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between
   Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production
   of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had
   in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides
   and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand
   among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens,
   where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and
   other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in
   Bosporus and the other Pontic ports.
{299}
   This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in
   ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean
   maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the
   protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their
   maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens
   went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus),
   to push their fortunes. … We have no means of following [the
   fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know
   that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince,
   Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the
   Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis)
   to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or
   master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from
   whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began—subject,
   however, after no long interval, to the dominion and
   interference of Rome."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 98._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 7._

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

   Acquisition by the Goths.

      See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.

BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.
   Capture by the Turks.

   "During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of
   Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then
   occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The
   city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence
   in the northern regions of the Black Sea."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 4, section 8._

      See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

----------BOSPHORUS: End----------

BOSSISM.

   The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM]
   developed enormously the influence and power of certain
   leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great
   cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of
   "Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented
   was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the
   New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems
   to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss
   Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed
   from him to others of like kind.

BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630.
   The first white inhabitant.
   The founding and naming of the city.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.

BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651.
   The Puritan Theocracy.
   Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the
   Presbyterians.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.

BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution of Quakers.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
   The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.

   "In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground
   that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought
   to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the
   church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political
   rights, even though unqualified for participation in the
   Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what
   was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused
   intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In
   1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the
   principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was
   far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen
   in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the
   great question. The decision of the synod substantially
   confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some
   dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished
   to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was
   Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and
   Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he
   afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two
   tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all
   toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally
   enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was
   the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston.
   Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663,
   and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed
   him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to
   declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the
   synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New
   Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy
   years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his
   colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to
   Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston
   congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which
   he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at
   Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had
   already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church
   had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway
   Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the
   title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house
   was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late
   governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the
   town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known
   as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer
   Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of
   1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As
   this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in
   favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing
   church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased
   so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in
   1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the
   same spot,—a building with a grander history than any other
   on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick
   building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence
   was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Dexter,
      The Congregationalism of the last 300 years,
      lecture 9._

      _B. B. Wisner,
      History of the Old South Church,
      sermon 1._

      _W. Emerson,
      Historical Sketch of the First Church in Boston,
      section 4-7._

BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678.
   King Philip's War.

         See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

BOSTON: A. D. 1689.
   The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

{300}

BOSTON: A. D. 1697.
   Threatened attack by the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.

BOSTON: A. D. 1704.
   The first newspaper.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742.
   The origin of Faneuil Hall.

      See FANEUIL HALL.

BOSTON: A. D. 1761.
   The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's
   speech.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.

BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767.
   The doings under the Liberty Tree.

      See LIBERTY TREE.

BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
   The seizure of the sloop "Liberty."
   Riotous patriotism.

   "For some years these officers [of the customs] had been
   resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were
   frequently rescued from their possession by interested
   parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs
   to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no
   flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's
   sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira
   wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly
   locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was
   removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the
   whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have
   been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she
   was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the
   harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by
   the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and
   they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the
   'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings
   undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to
   Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the
   time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the
   rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if
   not in their measures."

      _M. Chamberlain,
      The Revolution Impending
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 1)._

BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
   The quartering of British troops.

   "Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston,
   two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news
   of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered
   from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New
   York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town
   meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to
   summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to
   do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates
   from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in
   ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war
   with France'—such was the pretence—they advised all persons
   not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once;
   they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be
   observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from
   more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed
   [Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their
   chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court.
   The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but
   denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge,
   the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All
   pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed.
   In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King
   was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which
   the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge
   of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular
   conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole
   political authority of the colonies. The day after the
   adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in
   the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts
   from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the
   two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called
   upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the
   Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full
   there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard
   insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two
   regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be
   considered as already full. The council replied, that, even
   allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the
   provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local
   magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to
   the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied
   by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to
   advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the
   reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The
   governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The
   troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to
   the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand
   an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were
   encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to
   use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a
   part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary
   use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of
   it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the
   council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It
   was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the
   meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in
   front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the
   inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were
   greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the
   marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge
   the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention
   to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As
   the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen
   declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then
   constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required
   them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a
   doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to
   quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose,
   and to procure out of his own military chest the firing,
   bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act,
   the council having declined to order any expenditure for those
   purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money
   belonged exclusively to the General Court."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 29 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 6._

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay,
      1749-1774, pages 202-217._

{301}

BOSTON: A. D. 1769.
   The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
   Soldiers and citizens in collision.
   The "Massacre."
   Removal of the troops.

   "As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th
   regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th
   was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was
   quartered just south of King Street; about midway between
   them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was
   the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had
   been a subject of great annoyance to the people. … One is
   forced to admit … that a good degree of discipline was
   maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers,
   although provocations were constant, the rude element in the
   town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were
   never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists
   were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into
   fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired
   at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the
   workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues
   the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About
   the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred
   near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th,
   between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that
   regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The
   soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated.
   Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out
   arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was
   not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of
   March the symptoms were very ominous. … At length an
   altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless
   boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the
   sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the
   other. … The soldier retreated up the steps of the
   custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was
   at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by
   Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon
   followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the
   ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A
   young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was
   plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in
   number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly
   outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but
   the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms
   except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse
   insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck
   them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of
   ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be
   known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that
   followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most
   contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general,
   at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his
   influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston
   declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was
   full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may
   have been easily understood as commands, and at last the
   discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the
   forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were
   killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom,
   Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers,
   leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in
   the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying
   into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. … A
   wild confusion … took possession of the town. The
   alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of
   the regiments thundered to arms. … What averted a fearful
   battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of
   Hutchinson"—the lieutenant-governor, who made his way
   promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to
   their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the
   nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an
   investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a
   great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the
   surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil
   Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the
   neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the
   troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee
   which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson
   disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding
   officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending
   away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the
   committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through
   the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both
   regiments or none."—"Both regiments or none." So he put into
   the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as
   with one voice when the report of the committee was made to
   them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even
   the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of
   both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the
   affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power
   of the government by the little town, and when Lord North
   received details of these events he always referred to the
   14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 6._

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Sam Adams Regiments
      (Atlantic Monthly, volumes 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63)._

      _J. Q. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 3 (volume l)._

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
      pages 270-280._

      _H. Niles,
      Principles and Acts of the Revolution
      (Centennial edition),
      pages 15-79._

      _F. Kedder,
      History of the Boston Massacre._

BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
   The fair trial of the soldiers.

   "The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had … a sequel
   which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was
   determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public
   feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if
   their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for
   seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided.
   Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who
   was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers
   and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence.
   Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so
   unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty,
   and, though violently opposed to the British government, he
   was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man.
{302}
   In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also
   of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he
   discharged it with consummate ability. … There was abundant
   evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and
   some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a
   smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have
   decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed
   innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and
   honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who
   were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very
   slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had
   accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he
   was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in
   the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears
   to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no
   people have indulged more largely than the Americans in
   violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have
   at every period of their history been more signally free from
   the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political
   excitement has been often shown both in England and France."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Adams,
      Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230)._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England,
      1713-1783, volume 5, page 269._

BOSTON: A. D 1773.
   The Tea Party.

   "News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that
   the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the
   accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the
   Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its
   exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty
   [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was
   intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a
   duty both in England and in America. That in England was six
   pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden
   and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston,
   and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. … On
   the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first
   tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston].
   The following morning the citizens were informed by placard
   that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually
   arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the
   morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united
   and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most
   destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty
   was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called
   together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing
   determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was
   unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old
   South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again
   adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship
   protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch
   of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of
   the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the
   following morning. The throng at that time was as great as
   usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message
   was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering
   them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow
   the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat
   discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person
   importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his
   country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives
   and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and
   its return effected. It was necessary that some positive
   action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days
   from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate
   ships and cargoes. … The twenty days would expire on the
   16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held
   at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a
   clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He
   applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the
   following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th,
   the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before
   the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war
   in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and
   7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with
   a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The
   importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a
   clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass
   to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated
   to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make
   the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New
   England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit,
   but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply
   that no pass could be given him. … It was six o'clock before
   the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to
   relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the
   governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This
   meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an
   instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop
   in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as
   Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards
   Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay.
   The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed
   their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The
   'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes;
   there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of
   precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three
   hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests
   were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians
   marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the
   vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of
   the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next
   day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to
   prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places.
   Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,'
   was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was
   received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by
   ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. … The
   continent was universally stirred at last."

      _A. Gilman,
      The Story of Boston,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Porter,
      The Beginning of the Revolution
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1)._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

{303}

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
      pages 429-440._

      _T. Hutchinson,
      Diary and Letters,
      page 138._

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States.
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, chapter 34._

      _J. Kimball,
      The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of Tea
      (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll.,
      volume 12, number 3)._

BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
   The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
   Commerce interdicted.
   Town Meetings forbidden.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
   The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects.
   Military occupation of the city by General Gage.

   "The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on
   Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain
   General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger
   in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's
   defeat. … He had married in one of the most respectable
   families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of
   the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he
   entered upon his public duties with a large measure of
   popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about
   him. … General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long
   Wharf and was received with much parade. … On the first day
   of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition
   from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in
   carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the
   governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most
   presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people
   to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but
   Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General
   Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer.
   The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. …
   Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On
   the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the
   15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped
   on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th
   and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August
   6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the
   Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation
   amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. … It bore
   severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had
   been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers
   were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of
   bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered
   and sustained by the large contributions sent from every
   quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that
   accompanied them. … The excitement of the public mind was
   intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were
   characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed
   a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods.
   The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider.
   Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the
   suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused.
   … It was while the public mind was in this state of
   excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was
   instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which
   virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade
   town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused
   persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should
   Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies
   see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of
   Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution.
   It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an
   organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the
   governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the
   Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in
   legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies,
   and extending throughout the colonies. … The crisis called
   for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular
   from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the
   duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers,
   were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of
   resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the
   first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such
   councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to
   resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General
   Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon
   and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder
   belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his
   orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces
   were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair,
   spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people
   collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of
   attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential
   patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in
   another direction. … Meantime the fact of the removal of the
   powder became magnified into a report that the British had
   cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on
   the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads
   were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed
   danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor
   to the extent of the popular movement. … General Gage saw no
   hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the
   patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military
   preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested
   in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk
   resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a
   convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] … and
   these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold
   and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental
   Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either
   compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed
   every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor
   or constable. They also made every effort to transport
   ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and
   muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were
   taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard
   is, … silently, at night. … General Gage immediately began
   to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the
   excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a
   movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited
   on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested
   him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that
   his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his
   majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up
   the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do
   anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the
   works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and
   eight nine pounders."

      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 11, and appendix 1
      (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves)._

      _W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      volume 2, pages 164-232._

      _W. Tudor,
      Life of James Otis, chapters 27-29._

{304}

BOSTON: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of war.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The British troops beleaguered in the city.
   Battle of Bunker Hill.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The siege directed by Washington.
   Evacuation of the city by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

----------BOSTON: End----------

BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.

BOTANY BAY.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

BOTOCUDOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

BOUIDES, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;

      Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;

      Also, SAMANIDES.

BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BOULE, The.
   The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 20._

      See, also, AREOPAGUS.

BOULOGNE: Origin.

      See GESORIACUM.

BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801.
   Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England.
   Nelson's attack.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

BOULON, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BOURBON, The Constable:
   His treason and his attack on Rome.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;

      And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.

BOURBON:
   Origin of the name.

      See BOIANS;
      also ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BOURBON, The House of:
   Its origin.

   From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last
   male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the
   House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of
   Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in
   favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name
   which they have retained, that of France being reserved for
   the Royal branch. … The House which had the honour of
   supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But
   our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their
   own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and
   'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France'
   formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne
   by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the
   accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those
   younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung
   from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry
   IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their
   successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in
   conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s
   second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title
   borne by their grandfather. … Possessors of vast territories
   which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to
   the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the
   affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew
   around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the
   'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs
   de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered
   the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the
   profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of
   them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of
   France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of
   the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large
   estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of
   Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the
   rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of
   the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D.
   1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his
   House. … The property of the Connétable was definitely
   alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not
   receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to
   which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March,
   1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous
   descendants. … Five only of his sons obtained their
   majority. … Two of these princes founded families: Antoine
   [Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his
   marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563],
   father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons
   now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was
   the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."

      _Duc d' Aumale,
      History of the Princes of the House of Condé,
      book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

BOURBON: The Spanish House.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.

BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT,
   The First.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

   The Second.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

   The Third.

      See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).

BOURGEOIS.
BOURG.

   In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of
   houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But …
   the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an
   assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word
   Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the
   inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises
   were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense
   corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess;
   that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal
   corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive
   sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of
   collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best
   rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the
   privilege of franchise of being a burgess."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 5._

{305}

BOURGES,
   Origin of.

   The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city
   of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum.
   "As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became
   exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence
   the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 12._

      See, also, ÆDUI,
      and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).

   The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not
   far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one
   of the important battles of European history. On one side were
   the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting
   ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the
   other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of
   Germans, under Otho, the Guelf—one of two rival claimants of
   the imperial crown—and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by
   their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English
   king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers
   of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his
   ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of
   the English crown. A terrible pope—Innocent III.—had
   approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the
   miserable English king, had given provocations to the church
   which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head.
   Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,—the
   latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French
   king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a
   strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate
   and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last
   moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly
   surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back
   as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his
   French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under
   these circumstances, determined to use the army he had
   assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the
   count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was
   overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to
   the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or
   emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to
   antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the
   decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the
   independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter
   consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real
   French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else
   could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of
   glory, dear above all things to the French heart. … The
   battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the
   lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king;
   the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence
   of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of
   Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the
   field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains,
   and there spent the remaining years of his life in private.
   King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the
   year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation
   before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the
   following year at Runnymede."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 3, chapter 7, section 4._

   "The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus
   alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was
   the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants,
   of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of
   Champagne, and of Burgundy. … The victory of Bouvines marked
   the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and
   indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The
   nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose
   out of and above the feudal system."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 18._

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250,
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.

BOVATE, OR OXGANG.

   "Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year.
   Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but
   the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated
   in different records from 8 to 24."

      _N. H. Nicolas,
      Notitia Historica,
      page 134._

BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

BOWIDES, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
      also, SAMANIDES;
      also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.

BOYACA, Battle of (1819).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

BOYARS.

   "In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of
   independent principalities, each reigning prince was
   surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars,
   or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or
   soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the
   time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the
   Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent
   executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in
   his military expeditions. … Under the Tartar domination this
   political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been
   conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and
   arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political
   significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."

      _D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 17._

BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

BOYS IN BLUE.
BOYS IN GRAY.
   Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.

   "During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the
   United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their
   opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863,
   'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The
   nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of
   their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of
   butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have
   originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by
   the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on
   England to get them out of their scrape. … The Union man …
   said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow.
   … The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the
   Confederate soldiers were almost universally called
   'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the
   Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to
   the part of the country they came from. … Other nicknames
   for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue
   Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have
   been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"

      _J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      page 137._

{306}

BOZRA.

      See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.

BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.

      See ANTWERP.

BRABANT: 4th century.
   First settlement of the Franks.

      See TOXANDRIA.

BRABANT: 9th century.
   Known as Basse Lorraine.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099.
   Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom
   of Jerusalem.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
      and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries.
   The county and duchy.

   From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards
   the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes,
   until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under
   the influences which at that time were drawing all the
   Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the
   Burgundian dukes.

BRABANT: A. D. 1430.
   Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.

----------BRABANT: End----------

BRACCATI, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.

      See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.

BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.

      See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

BRADFORD'S PRESS.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729,
      and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640.
   Accession to the throne of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

BRAGG, General Braxton.
   Invasion of Kentucky.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER:
      TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   The Battle of Stone River.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
      (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

   The Tullahoma Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY:
      TENNESSEE).

   Chickamauga.
   The Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,
      and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BRAHMANISM.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.

BRAHMANS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
      Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

BRANCHIDÆ, The.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
   Beginnings of the Margravate.

   "A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs,
   took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention
   in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or
   'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of
   Brenns,—Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or
   Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,—who as little know.
   Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and
   palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of
   the Wends,'—who must have been a good deal surprised at sight
   of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago.
   … That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in
   the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge
   of Brannibor,—he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he
   of Salzwedel westward:—that Brannibor, in time, will itself
   be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of
   Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries
   Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. … In
   old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of
   Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves
   of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether
   uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the
   Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of
   centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern
   Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom
   therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first
   two hundred years in their natural gray state,—perhaps
   sufficiently conceivable by the reader. … The
   Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the
   Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year
   1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy
   still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their
   function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt';
   the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of
   Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. … This
   Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the
   pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient
   Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable)
   on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from
   Aschersleben,—the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to
   speak, a second edition of Ascanien. … The kindred, called
   Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and
   Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History,
   especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had
   intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before
   this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very
   plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway
   shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and
   much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly
   conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about
   two-hundred years."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 3-4._

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
   The Electorate.

   "He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of
   the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;—first wholly
   definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very
   shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough
   again, … got the Northern part of what is still called
   Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg
   Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and
   great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of
   Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally
   acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering
   what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already
   got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events
   for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies
   it has had.
{307}
   A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows
   ever more so in our late times. … He transferred the
   Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his
   wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or
   Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is
   called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck,
   Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New
   Marck.' … Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an
   Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now
   furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially
   'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the
   Seven who have a right (which became about this time an
   exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the
   Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,'
   Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the
   Kaiser's own."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 4._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.
   Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to
   the first of the Hohenzollern.

   Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In
   1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was
   substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to
   describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one
   of the several districts into which it was divided. The city
   and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the
   imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince,
   Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. …
   Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family
   inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming
   involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the
   Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of
   release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the
   prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His
   brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the
   beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the
   Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his
   death. … Very important acquisitions were made during the
   reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of
   Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the
   native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed
   eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and
   the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in
   possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho
   III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an
   extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving
   villages—all this in spite of the division of power and
   authority. … Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later;
   and a new partition of the estate was made between their
   several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the
   title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last
   margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His
   cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but
   a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or
   parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant
   devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to
   her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the
   Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The
   transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the
   Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the
   yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed
   the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz
   sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly
   sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its
   local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere
   worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither
   the duties of his station nor the interests of his house.
   Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a
   vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. … It was not therefore
   contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age,
   when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession
   by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. … During the
   minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered
   by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But
   troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with
   the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on
   the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not
   continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg
   was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched
   the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended
   themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the
   tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the
   citizens had for the time saved the Mark. … The Margrave
   finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his
   unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho.
   In the meantime his father had died. The Electors—or five of
   them—had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles
   of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his
   successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in
   history as Charles IV. … Although he failed in the attempt
   to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had
   naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and
   ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of
   Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. … From
   Louis he procured … a treaty of succession, by which he
   should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that
   Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues
   were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died
   suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge,
   vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and
   spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an
   end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of
   the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In
   1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the
   price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all
   its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378.
   His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the
   plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a
   richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son,
   Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned
   the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into
   great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in
   scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen
   emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count
   Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post
   was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of
   Brandenburg, … issued successfully from the contest. His
   good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence
   and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see
   HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit
   of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other
   vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make
   his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years
   later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the
   sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.

      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia to the Accession of Frederick the Great,
      chapters 1 and 3._

{308}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355.
   Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
   Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family.
   Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.

   On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg,
   Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the
   Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province.
   "Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in
   reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy
   for Sigismund he had begun the task. … During the reign of
   his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick
   Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and
   Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The
   Electorate, which during the preceding century had been
   curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to
   enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the
   days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455]
   bought back from them in their need. … Albert Achilles, the
   brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful
   and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the
   principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been
   separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of
   Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of
   cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of
   territory. … It was already understood that the Electorate
   was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but
   Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for
   younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484,
   his territories were again divided, and remained so for more
   than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was
   to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The
   earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising
   everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486]
   by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by
   Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the
   Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector
   of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of
   Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch
   was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave
   of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524
   to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it
   the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor,
   which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had
   been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and
   was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom
   of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D.
   1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps
   the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his
   family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and
   preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor,
   Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new
   religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of
   Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the
   ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the
   death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was
   able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the
   success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it,
   and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the
   time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim
   Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. …
   Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th
   century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th.
   The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth,
   Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim
   Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to
   younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate,
   their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave,
   George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own
   territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick,
   second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his
   death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and
   claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim
   placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a
   deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568
   from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to
   the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. … Duke Albert
   died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united
   under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy
   had been secured before the storm which was already gathering
   over the Empire had burst. … During the long struggle of the
   Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a
   sufferer rather than an actor. … George William, who died in
   1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was
   Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick the Great.
      book 3 (volume 1)._

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609.
   The Jülich-Cleve contest.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627.
   Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.

      See GERMANY: 1627-1629.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631.
   Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of
   Sweden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632.
   Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634.
   Desertion of the Protestant cause.
   Alliance with the Emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

{309}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
   The Great Elector.
   His development of the strength of the Electorate.
   His successful wars.
   His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia.
   Fehrbellin.

   "Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was
   only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found
   everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses
   garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the
   mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the
   fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the
   Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an
   alliance with Holland; his third—not in order of action, for
   in that respect it took first place—to raise the nucleus of
   an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his
   fortresses. … To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he
   temporised until his armed force had attained the number of
   8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his
   position, and with so much effect that in the discussions
   preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a
   considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part
   of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of
   Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and
   Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. … The Peace once signed,
   Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders
   and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in
   his dominions. … He specially cherished his army. We have
   seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in
   1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of
   Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well
   disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the
   times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654,
   Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus
   Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden
   was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. … The
   right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however,
   contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. … War ensued. In
   that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant,
   and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own
   dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two
   rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near
   not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To
   protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he
   marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a
   force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was
   prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at
   Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer
   to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results
   followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been
   signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an
   Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and
   recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop
   there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great
   Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him
   in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable,
   Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he
   should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen
   and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then
   joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought
   with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three
   days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then,
   thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers—in the
   complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic
   William withdrew his troops. … Again did John Casimir
   recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did
   he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a
   threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of
   Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the
   prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he
   could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him.
   He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to
   return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There
   the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th
   November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty,
   by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the
   latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and
   agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as
   sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed,
   the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every
   side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John
   Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than
   doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether—the new enemies who
   had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself—he
   had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles
   than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself
   affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the
   intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a
   treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute
   sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue,
   with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the
   family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic
   William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war
   against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this
   convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon
   Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the
   Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field,
   pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and
   Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace
   of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still
   further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his
   country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers
   suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove
   thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had
   evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle
   which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at
   Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles
   Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat
   for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January
   1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued,
   and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the
   monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to
   the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy
   of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of
   Brandenburg and Prussia—a union upon which a great man was
   able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German
   Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was
   chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions
   and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia.
{310}
   In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with
   the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic
   William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial
   forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to
   invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in
   January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they
   entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their
   devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The
   Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he
   heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his
   army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by
   forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked
   while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of
   June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict,
   "the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the
   centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin.
   The victors, utterly exhausted—they had scarcely quitted
   their saddles for eleven days—were too worn out to pursue. It
   was not till the following morning that, refreshed and
   recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of
   Mecklenburg. … The Great Elector promptly followed up his
   victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all
   Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the
   border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and
   although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was
   forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the
   less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was
   the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had
   so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the
   Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the
   Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to
   justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years
   later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the
   title of King."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle Fields of Germany,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Loss of part of Pomerania.
   Compensating acquisitions.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679.
   In the Coalition against Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696.
   The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697.
   The Treaty of Ryswick.
   Restitutions by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700.
   The Elector made King of Prussia.

      See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

----------BRANDENBURG: End----------

BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777
      (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
      and (JULY).

BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.

      See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

BRAZIL:
   Origin of the name.

   "As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus
   Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood,
   'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'—called in the Portuguese language
   'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,'
   'coals of fire,'—the land whence it came was termed the 'land
   of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was
   shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera
   Cruz, or Santa Cruz."

      _J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
      Brazil and the Brazilians,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

BRAZIL:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI. GUARANI. TUPUYAS;
      also GUCK or Coco GROUP.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504.
   Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
   Portuguese colonization and agriculture.
   Introduction of Slavery.
   The coming of the Jesuits.
   Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.

   "Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by
   accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities
   of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled,
   though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered,
   and the colonists betook themselves from the first to
   agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast
   were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the
   Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending
   out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of
   Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New
   England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among
   themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but
   this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III.,
   extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in
   Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was
   parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into
   captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the
   interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with
   absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed
   over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native
   Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians,
   nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began
   to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human
   flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of
   Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The
   settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European
   colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and
   brought their households with them to the new country. Thus
   they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the
   chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of
   their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended
   to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came
   to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East;
   and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might
   raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a
   plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the
   culture of the sugar cane.
{311}
   The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in
   the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded
   order of the Jesuits. … John III. in [1549] sent out six of
   the order with the first governor of Brazil. … The Dutch,
   made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to
   win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of
   the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who
   subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated
   in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully
   assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital
   was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one
   half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as
   in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of
   the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design
   was a main cause of its failure. … But … the profits of
   the company … rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The
   visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and
   they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. … The man
   whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince
   John Maurice of Nassau. … In a short time he had greatly
   extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was
   subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the
   States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts
   of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends;
   they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built
   more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile
   community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one
   in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention
   of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of
   Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643,
   they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated
   the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of
   Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was
   therefore supposed to be out of the question. … But the
   recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in
   Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke
   out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645.
   The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic
   Dutch. … John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of
   Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and
   although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received
   no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after
   another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants
   quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but
   in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for
   8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them.
   But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came
   more and more into the hands of the English."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 9 and 15;
      volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      volumes 1-2._

BRAZIL: A. D. 1524.
   Conceded to Portugal.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
   The Republic of St. Paul.
   The Paulistas or Mamelukes.

   "The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually
   denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very
   inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho,
   having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was
   received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga,
   after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa
   some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy
   of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the
   sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his
   having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of
   this establishment were such, that permission was soon after
   given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers
   intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased
   rapidly. … A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of
   civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits
   soon after established themselves with a number of Indians
   they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in
   softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the
   seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast
   to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more
   than nominal. … The mixture produced an improved race, 'the
   European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed
   itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is
   much more likely that the free and popular government which
   they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other
   country. … They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on
   account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The
   Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now
   many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of
   whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard
   with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the
   enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account,
   on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade
   with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian
   slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from
   the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some
   resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in
   Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its
   throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they
   were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the
   new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the
   following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it
   was during this period they displayed that active and
   enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated.
   … While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they
   attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging
   that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. …
   They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. … As they had
   fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold
   of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of
   their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were
   sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the
   king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his
   excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their
   college, and put their principal to death, expelled the
   remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no
   longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence
   of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war,
   the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The
   Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part
   of the Brazils in armed troops. … The foundation was laid of
   enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day,
   although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in
   the year 1756. … When the house of Braganza, in 1640,
   ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging
   him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves.
   They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of
   Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they
   were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not
   until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese
   government."

      _H. M. Brackenridge,
      Voyage to South America,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN: _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

{312}

BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541.
   Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.

      See AMAZONS RIVER.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560.
   Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777.
   The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary
   disputes with Spain.

   "The period of peace which followed these victories [over the
   Dutch] … was used by the Portuguese government only to get
   up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was
   intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In
   consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a
   century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians
   generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother
   country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by
   Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was
   Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was
   looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to
   prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they
   feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened
   to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers
   might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding
   the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer,
   La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly
   after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short
   union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed
   vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494
   [see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. … By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso,
   in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the
   old arrangements were—at least, for their American
   colonies—the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the
   'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect
   knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved
   to be vain. … The unsolved question descended as an evil
   heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South
   American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the
   terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh
   conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."

      _F. Keller,
      The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
      pages 23-24._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      volume 3._

BRAZIL: A. D. 1713.
   The Portuguese title confirmed.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1759.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.
   Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty.
   The founding of the independent Empire.

   "While anarchy and ruin … overspread the greater part of the
   beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an
   independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with
   credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by
   the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The
   country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly
   imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when
   Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL:
   A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at
   once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom.
   The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the
   printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the
   enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign
   settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were
   sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic
   agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life
   was breathed into every department of the state. After a few
   years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI.
   to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the
   integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their
   sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from
   Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National
   Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had
   resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute
   dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more
   impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil
   was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little
   kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies
   of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the
   monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived,
   and that England should be deprived of her free trade to
   Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent
   of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for
   Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed
   the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty
   treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in
   revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld
   their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to
   the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he
   retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid
   economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure
   from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal
   provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became
   mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained
   in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his
   recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his
   noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence,
   his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual
   feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza,
   which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were
   reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the
   quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the
   arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king
   arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a
   constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere
   colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more
   humiliating to the Brazilians.
{313}
   The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew
   more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling
   to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal,
   and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At
   length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent,
   which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which
   evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger:
   he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window,
   where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he
   turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou
   morte':—the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers,
   and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The
   Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of
   Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to
   admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that
   might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of
   Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in
   December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of
   Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a
   modern colony achieving its independence, and separating
   itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."

      _Viscount Bury,
      Exodus of the Western Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Armitage,
      History of Brazil,
      chapters 1-7._

      See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
   Wars with the Argentines.
   Abdication of Dom Pedro I,
   The Guerra dos Cabanos.

   "In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was
   acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner
   commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new
   Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in
   1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other
   Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the
   Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up
   Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed
   and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this
   war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the
   Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor,
   who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable
   families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to
   the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most
   unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his
   daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had
   abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don
   Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom
   Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne
   only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted
   and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro.
   The next period was the most disturbed one that the young
   Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war
   in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande
   do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos
   Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each
   other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred
   up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese,
   without considering that they should not be able to quench the
   fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury
   of the whole colored population turned against all whites,
   Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction.
   More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this
   Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible
   times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians,
   half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe
   in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the
   personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than
   emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against
   Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over
   Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared
   with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the
   stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was
   occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with
   which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on
   the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."

      _F. Keller,
      The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
      pages 25-26._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Armitage,
      History of Brazil,
      1808-1831._

      See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870.
   The war with Paraguay.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

   The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio
   Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it
   through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from
   that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of
   slave women shall be considered of free condition.' … Such
   children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve
   the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the
   name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe
   penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter
   inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed
   to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their
   freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of
   government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a
   certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to
   aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number
   of slaves. … The passage of this law did not prove merely
   prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums
   placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in
   the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed
   to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from
   motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many
   persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves
   without compensation. … I am happy to say that the number
   liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private
   individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer
   first went to Brazil [1852] … it was estimated that there
   were 3,000,000 in slavery. … There were at the beginning of
   1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more
   than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."

      _J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder,
      Brazil and the Brazilians,
      chapter 28._

   "On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the
   province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only
   15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on
   the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November
   greatly accelerated this progress, because it made
   slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less
   than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the
   impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery
   expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the
   Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the
   extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund
   appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and
   by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from
   its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to
   exist in Brazil."

      _H. C. Dent,
      A Year in Brazil,
      pages 281-296._

{314}

   "On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of
   slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of
   $485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent,
   gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the
   first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the
   day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing
   all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to
   consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."

      _Statesman's Year-Book, 1890,
      page 391._

BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
   Revolution.
   Overthrow of the Empire.
   Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
   Religious freedom declared

   "The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November
   [1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his
   banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the
   Government had been credited by the Republican journals with
   the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the
   provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance
   of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the
   Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event
   of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom
   Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant
   province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department
   resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a
   general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a
   revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin
   Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional
   ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement
   seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto
   Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the
   leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so
   very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in
   the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the
   Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a
   self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da
   Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and
   organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da
   Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for
   Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a
   federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire
   constituting the States and each State arranging its own
   constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local
   governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor
   received intimation that he and his family must leave the
   country within twenty-four hours:—'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on
   the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and
   informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the
   members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he
   was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day;
   but after listening to the officer's explanation that a
   conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally
   yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head
   was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of
   night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed,
   the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went
   down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey
   them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the
   gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha
   Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had
   been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. … It was
   said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the
   instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to
   abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his
   daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her
   husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and
   from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the
   people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces
   of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled
   the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to
   take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of
   the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December
   18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in
   it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was
   not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."

      _Annual Register, 1889,
      part 1, pages 444-448._

   "The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only
   conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation
   would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation.
   There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in
   their action. … A coalition of the army officers and the
   constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would
   have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20
   provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would
   readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. … The
   Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of
   the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time.
   … He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits,
   who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be
   said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when
   the record of his public services and of his private virtues
   is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of
   centralization that practically deprived the great series of
   federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the
   privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a
   constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received
   from his father was not modified in any essential respect
   during his long reign."

      _New York Tribune Extra,
      volume 1, number 12 (1889)_.

   "A new Constitution … was ratified by the first National
   Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the
   Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic,
   under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old
   provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be
   administered under a republican form of government, with power
   to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the
   Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or
   the preservation of internal order or for the execution of
   Federal laws.
{315}
   Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal
   communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The
   right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21
   years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of
   the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under
   monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The
   executive authority is vested in the President … elected by
   the people directly for the term of six years, and …. not
   eligible for the succeeding term. … Senators are elected by
   the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each
   State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three
   years. … The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all
   laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three
   years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every
   70,000 inhabitants. … It is declared that no sect or church
   shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In
   1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at
   first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and
   vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the
   President that were voted down by Congress. In November the
   President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the
   Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the
   invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new
   Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution.
   The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against
   this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots
   had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval
   squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned.
   "Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the
   revolutionary committee as President in his stead … and the
   country soon settled down under the new government."

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891,
      pages 91-96._

   "When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the
   factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão
   Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a
   familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy
   collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent
   upon military force, was a good augury for the future of
   Brazil. … In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional
   Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of
   disestablishing the Church. … Fortunately for Brazil there
   was no compromise of the disestablishment question. … Under
   the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to
   hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the
   federal or State governments. … Every church was made free
   in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential.
   … Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress
   and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."

      _I. N. Ford,
      Tropical America,
      chapter 4._

      See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

----------BRAZIL: End----------

BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRECKINRIDGE, John C.
   Defeat in Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BREDA: A. D. 1575.
   Spanish-Dutch Congress.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BREDA: A. D. 1590.
   Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.

   See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BREDA: A. D. 1637.
   Taken by the Prince of Orange.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

BREDA: A. D. 1793.
   Taken and lost by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

----------BREDA: End----------

BREDA, Declaration from.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

BREDA, Treaty of (1666).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).

BREHON LAWS.

   "The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted
   most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was
   withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary
   caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous
   principles which they applied to the decision of the cases
   which came before them. The earlier English writers found no
   terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of
   these native judges, and their contempt for the principles
   upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers
   attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced
   principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. …
   The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books,
   and the translation [publication?] of the most important of
   them by the order of the government, have disposed of the
   arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted,
   that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence
   present no characteristics of any special character, although
   in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not
   found elsewhere; … the laws which existed among the native
   Irish were in substance those which are found to have
   prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of
   social progress; as the social development of the nation was
   prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same
   stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all
   other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for
   centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had
   acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of
   scholastic philosophy and civil law. … The learning of the
   Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute
   ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not
   always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and
   without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator;
   and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and
   precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute
   should be decided."

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir H. Maine,
      Early History of Institutions,
      lecture 2._

BREISACH: A. D. 1638.
   Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

BREISACH: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREITENFELD,
   Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

   The second battle of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

{316}

BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries.
   In the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

BREMEN: A. D. 1525
   Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

BREMEN: A. D. 1648.
   Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREMEN: A. D. 1720.
   The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.

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

BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BREMEN: A. D. 1810.
   Annexed to France.

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

BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815.
   Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

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

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

----------BREMEN: End----------

BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638.
   Taken by the French.
   Recovered by the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

BRENHIN, The Cymric title.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BRENNI, The.

      See RHÆTIANS.

BRENTFORD, Battle of.

   Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut,
   or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1512.
   Capture and pillage by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1849.
   Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian
   Haynau.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------BRESCIA: End----------

BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760.
   In the wars of Frederick the Great.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY);
      1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.

BREST: A. D. 1694.
   Repulse of the English fleet.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.

BRETAGNE.

      See BRITTANY.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.

   "The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see
   BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects
   and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by
   their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or
   been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz.,
   the propensity to religious association, … and, likewise,
   the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable
   the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by
   cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the
   Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. … Here,
   then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. … The
   first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard
   Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of
   glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular
   orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. …
   His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers
   kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting
   the records of Christian antiquity. … Hence, he had long
   before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists,
   thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these
   good theological works, giving profitable employment to the
   youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their
   minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of
   his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from
   day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society.
   Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the
   Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset,
   and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and
   its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and
   utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its
   main objects. … The members were called 'Brethren of the
   Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good
   Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and
   'Gregorians.' … Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and
   prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with
   each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also
   their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the
   community. From this source, and from donations and legacies
   made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a
   certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is
   true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed
   rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world,
   with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a
   way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve
   the principle of individual liberty."

      _C. Ullmann,
      Reformers before the Reformation,
      volume 2, part 2, chapter l._

   "Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of
   teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common
   Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools
   in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and
   almost in every village, so that popular education was the
   rule."

      _W. E. Griffis,
      The Influence of the Netherlands,
      page 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Kettlewell,
      Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life,
      chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._

BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.

      See BEGUINES.

BRETIGNY, Treaty of.

   The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded
   May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of
   France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the
   French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner
   in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne,
   Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and
   Guisnes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

BRETWALDA.

   A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions
   differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and
   Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble
   construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without
   duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in
   England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this
   'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of
   the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia,
   who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of
   Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin,
   Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to
   Kent."

      _O. Elton,
      Origins of English History,
      page 392, note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      volume 1, appendix B._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527,
      and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

{317}

BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617,
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

BREYZAD.
   The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.

BRIAN BORU,
   The reign in Ireland of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

BRIDGE, Battle of the.

   A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in
   their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force
   of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of
   boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of
   them slain or drowned.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIENNE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BRIGANTES, The.

   One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient
   Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original
   pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman
   conquest they held the whole interior northward from the
   Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by
   Agricola.

      _E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES,
      and A. D. 43-53;
      also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BRIGANTINE.
BERGANTIN.

      See CARAVELS.

BRIHUEGA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

BRILL, The capture of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BRISBANE.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793
      (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

BRISSOTINS.

   The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was
   sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its
   leaders.

BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BRISTOL: 12th Century.
   Its slave trade and other commerce.

   "Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been
   in general character and aspect not unlike what it is
   to-day—a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the
   eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen
   from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and
   the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had
   long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty
   current which still kept its heathen name derived from the
   sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them
   into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a
   thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading
   centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the
   kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and
   London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however,
   reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S.
   Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely
   availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men
   for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full
   career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the
   experiences of the canons of Laon."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

BRISTOL: A. D. 1497.
   Cabot's voyage of discovery.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

BRISTOL: A. D. 1645.
   The storming of the city by Fairfax.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1685.
   The commerce and wealth of the city.

   "Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood
   Bristol, then the first English seaport. … Pepys, who
   visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck
   by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high;
   for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in
   Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but
   houses. … A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a
   labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great
   solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was
   danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger
   also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore
   conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by
   dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not
   by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains
   of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with
   good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned,
   and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners
   regaled their visitors. … This luxury was supported by a
   thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with
   the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so
   strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol
   who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia
   or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of
   the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic
   possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this
   demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and
   kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this
   system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol.
   … The number of houses appears, from the returns of the
   hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. …
   The population of Bristol must therefore have been about
   29,000."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

BRISTOL: A. D. 1831.
   The Reform Bill Riots.

   The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the
   action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led
   to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol.
   "The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality;
   and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the
   whole kingdom. …
{318}
   The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a
   worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while
   the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city
   in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society
   proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than
   enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are
   circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots
   being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles
   Wetherell—then at the height of his unpopularity as a
   vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill—was recorder; and there
   he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial
   capacity. … The symptoms of discontent were such as to
   induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for
   military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse,
   which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the
   city. … Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to
   relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by
   the magistrates themselves. … On Saturday, October 29, Sir
   Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he
   reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty
   well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that
   he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the
   special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion
   House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but
   there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion
   House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the
   military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to
   clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was
   'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from
   his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it
   was after violence had been committed, and when the passions
   of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped
   from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were
   heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and
   the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower
   windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings.
   On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion
   House without opposition; and from the time they got into the
   cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the
   necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the
   bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without
   orders, and their officers without that sanction of the
   magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but
   only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers
   naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on
   their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the
   mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six
   hundred. … The mob declared openly what they were going to
   do; and they went to work unchecked—armed with staves and
   bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the
   Mansion House—to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail,
   the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They
   gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in
   the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession,
   till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins.
   The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The
   greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty
   years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday
   scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned
   whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the
   offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning,
   after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last
   made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a
   considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary
   became active; and from that time the city was in a more
   orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it.
   … The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel
   Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of
   the military. The result of that court-martial caused more
   emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and
   burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that
   fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the
   magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of
   the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the
   prosecution of his brother-magistrates."

      _H. Martineau,
      A History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

----------BRISTOL: End----------

BRITAIN, Count and Duke of.
   The military commanders of Roman Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337,
      also ARTHUR, KING.

BRITAIN, The name.

      See BRITANNIA.

BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.

   "It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the
   district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by
   the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's
   time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the
   Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the
   sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ
   occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol
   Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire
   and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district
   extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the
   island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's
   End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the
   Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and
   the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern
   county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending
   northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of
   Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north
   of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of
   Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi
   possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester,
   Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern
   part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes
   last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and
   Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani,
   and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this
   tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these
   were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were
   the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. … The
   interior of the island northward was occupied by the
   Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of
   approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending
   from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of
   Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included
   several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the
   Jugantes and the Cangi].
{319}
   The Brigantes are believed to have been the original
   inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by
   successive invasions. … Wales, also, was inhabited by a
   primitive population. The northern counties … was the
   territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties … were
   held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the
   Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor,
   Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the
   Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of
   the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were
   inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom
   seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little
   above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than
   twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni,
   inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. …
   Next to them were the Gadeni. … The Selgovæ inhabited
   Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the
   East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of
   Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from
   the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward
   to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth
   and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers
   lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali
   or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the
   Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones,
   the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the
   Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part
   of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior,
   known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended
   from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth,
   northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle
   parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which
   appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of
   Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes
   north of the Brigantes."

      _T. Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain._

      _J. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 2._

BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
   Cæsar's invasions.

   Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel
   and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed
   the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in
   Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men.
   Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either
   Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British
   coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed
   his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and
   offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's
   fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their
   submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second
   battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages;
   whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the
   continent, having remained in Britain not more than three
   weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The
   following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on
   making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had
   five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the
   expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He
   sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having
   established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into
   the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at
   a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury.
   A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance,
   compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had
   been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on
   the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose
   kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much
   fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a
   point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he
   pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of
   Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the
   site of the modern town of St. Albans,—but the point is It
   disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus,
   and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should
   pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast,
   reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this
   occasion was about sixty days.

      _Cæsar,
      Gallic War,
      book 4, chapters 20-36,
      and book 7, chapters 7-33._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapters 9 and 11-12._

      _T. Lewin,
      Invasion of Britain by Cæsar._

      _F. T. Vine,
      Cæsar in Kent._

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticæ,
      volume 2._

BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
   Conquests of Claudius.

   Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of
   Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce
   their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the
   imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that
   the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus
   Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four
   legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way
   for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one,
   Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed
   him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman
   history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of
   the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces
   strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they
   summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the
   close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by
   the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or
   stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied
   the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes,
   whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered.
   Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to
   Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in
   command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot,
   into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate
   tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the
   command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and
   Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power
   was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the
   East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of
   South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under
   Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and
   Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and
   Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen
   dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes,
   and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern
   England, were still independent, but distracted by internal
   dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive.
   This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of
   Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A.
   D. 43 and 54.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticæ,
      volume 2, part 2, chapter 13._

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

{320}

BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
   Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.

   From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor
   Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the
   Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus
   came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His
   first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona,
   or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and
   Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable
   hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently,
   though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the
   practice of their unholy superstition. … Here they retained
   their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was
   the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the
   abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night
   or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he
   should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From
   Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai
   Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the
   Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was
   fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers;
   but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment
   the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were
   exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for
   Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman
   commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst
   of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the
   Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of
   Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been
   allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own
   king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king,
   Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and
   children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the
   Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and
   her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the
   insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They
   appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of
   indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and
   general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if
   arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and
   unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the
   intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the
   country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum
   (Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and
   Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than
   70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without
   mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful
   news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great
   highway of Watling Street—gathering up his forces in hand as
   he went—to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had
   collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast
   swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that
   he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once
   more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself
   on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons
   are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The
   insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain
   reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the
   broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was,
   presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific
   commander.

     _C. Merivale,
     History of the Romans,
     chapter 51._

     ALSO IN:
     _H. M. Scarth,
     Roman Britain,
     chapter 5._

     _T. Mommsen,
     History of Rome,
     book 8, chapter 5._

BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
   Campaigns of Agricola.

   For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A.
   D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain.
   The military power in the island suffered great
   demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs
   at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased
   soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who
   had attained first in Britain the footing from which he
   climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of
   his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius
   Agricola was the soldier and statesman—a great man in each
   character—whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made
   prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first
   summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and
   when none even of his own officers expected active service,
   Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in
   whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered,
   drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them
   into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly
   crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another
   summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the
   Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district,
   lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps
   with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the
   Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in
   the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of
   forts from sea to sea. … In the third year of his command,
   Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making
   good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress,
   reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. … Here he
   repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his
   camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt
   of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The
   next two years were spent in strengthening his position and
   organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond
   the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of
   which was made memorable by the famous battle of the
   Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero
   Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet
   northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter
   tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola
   circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and
   saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the
   successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall.
   Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his
   victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was
   envious and afraid of his renown.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 61._

      ALSO IN:
      _Tacitus,
      Agricola._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 5._

{321}

BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries.
   Introduction of Christianity.

      See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.

BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
   Campaigns of Severus.

   A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman
   Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit
   the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons,
   Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those
   troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the
   wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far
   as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities
   for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several
   attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in
   his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till
   his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of
   February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war
   against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the
   northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said;
   above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the
   march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The
   Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were
   soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them
   to extermination, when he died.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 6.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
   Rebellion of Carausius.

   "During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] … the pirate
   fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became
   needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of
   this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by
   birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order
   that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their
   booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself,
   therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A.
   D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast
   number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so
   many that the history of Carausius has been written from his
   medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who
   usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had
   well-nigh established their power over the south portion of
   Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of
   Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive
   battle, in which that usurper was slain. … Allectus held the
   government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are
   found."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 4._

BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
   Constantine's Organization.

   Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and
   amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast
   pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian
   deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a
   'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five
   new provinces. … Britain was under the orders of the Count
   of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of
   Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore,
   governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of
   the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of
   Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the
   opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the
   harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into
   which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:

   1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of
   England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.

   2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of
   Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel
   on the west.

   3. Flavia Cæsariensis,—all the middle portion of Britain,
   from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.

   4. Maxima Cæsariensis,—the Brigantian territory, lying
   between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier
   of the Lower Isthmus.

   5. Valentia,—the most northern portion, lying between the
   barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 10._

Britain: A. D. 367-370.
   Deliverance By Theodosius.

   The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that
   soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by
   Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death,
   proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes
   of Caledonia—the Picts, now beginning to be associated with
   the Scots from Ireland—became bolder from year to year in
   their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent
   of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious,
   that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome
   that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened
   by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other
   provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military
   virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them.
   Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of
   the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was
   charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced
   the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having
   been able to bring them to an engagement."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 5._

   "The splendour of the cities and the security of the
   fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care
   of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling
   Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and
   perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of
   Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 25.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
   Revolt of Maximus.

   In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been
   associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor
   Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous
   Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt
   that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by
   birth, occupying a high official position in that province,
   forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a
   people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the
   standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul,
   attended by a large multitude,—130,000 men and 70,000 women,
   says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling
   in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany,
   which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon
   victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the
   Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who
   divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while
   Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons;
   Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. … Theodosius
   adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew
   Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 27.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{322}

BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
   The Usurpation Of Constantine.

   "The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was
   falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and
   fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their
   dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the
   Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the
   imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social
   position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each
   time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a
   private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other
   reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been
   already borne by a general who had been carried by a British
   army to supreme dominion."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 5._

   The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the
   channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans
   and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed
   with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned
   to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine
   had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German
   invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his
   cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the
   precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made,
   on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during
   two or three years. The seat of his government was established
   at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman
   Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the
   help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a
   curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended
   his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the
   pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped
   royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the
   Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The
   lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became
   for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named
   Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and
   shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius,
   at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general
   Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius,
   approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The
   latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon
   afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the
   great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of
   Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the
   way (A. D. 411).

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 10._

BRITAIN: A. D. 410.
   Abandoned By The Romans.

   "Up to the moment … when the Imperial troops quitted
   Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its
   barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left
   Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor
   Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs
   which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the
   Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and
   the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses.
   But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the
   Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so
   long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth
   century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage
   mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the
   Empire. … The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by
   military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain,
   where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough
   and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and
   followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The
   last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in
   407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and
   the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for
   it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain'
   who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians.
   … They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and
   replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed
   to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade
   Britain provide for its own government and its own defence.
   Few statements are more false than those which picture the
   British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the
   barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact,
   through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and
   so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the
   Empire. … For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the
   legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against
   her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still
   the least formidable. …. It was with this view that Britain
   turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and
   strove to find … troops whom she could use as mercenaries
   against the Pict."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 57-66._

BRITAIN: A. D. 446.
   The Last Appeal To Rome.

   "Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman
   general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446.
   … Ætius was unable to help them."

      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      page 63._

   "The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of
   their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the
   third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea
   casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of
   death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third
   Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the
   West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the
   onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no
   trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and
   our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its
   rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is
   possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the
   whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the
   days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."

      _C. Elton,
      Origins of English History,
      chapter 12._

{323}

BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633.
   The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.

BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.
   The Unsubdued Britons.

   "The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the
   island, where they maintained themselves in several small
   states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more
   to Germanic influence; the others protected by their
   mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually
   decreasing independence. … In the south-west we meet with
   the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur,
   which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later
   period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the
   separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the
   Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas
   (Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of
   Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a
   large British population maintained itself in those parts
   among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long
   after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable
   time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of
   the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the
   present day we call Wales, was divided into several states."
   The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the
   king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these
   latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was
   east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or
   South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and
   laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the
   same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although
   of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the
   Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and
   customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in
   the early part of the 10th century. … The partition of
   Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been
   supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri
   Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. … Of Dyfed,
   during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we
   know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in
   constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information
   is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia,
   frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a
   mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and
   precision in that which we possess. … An obscurity still
   more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to
   the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."

      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, page 119-122._

      See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.

BRITAIN: A. D. 635.
   Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.

      See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

----------BRITAIN: End----------

BRITAIN, GREAT:
   ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And
   Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.

  See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

BRITANNIA,
   The Origin Of The Name.

   "Many are the speculations which have been started as to the
   etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have
   been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one
   of those philological difficulties which we need despair of
   solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is
   connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania,
   Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it
   is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally
   nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word
   Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of
   the three tribes who first colonized Britain. … From the
   Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come
   Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted
   men. … As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to
   be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also
   Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name
   first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a
   question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is
   generally supposed. … The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest
   name we find given to these islands in the classical writers.
   Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection
   with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c.
   3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' … But
   in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named
   work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot
   assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use
   before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first
   occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented
   by him."

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticæ,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

   The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr.
   Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary,
   traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh
   vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes
   that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 6._

BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

{324}

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871.
   Establishment of provincial government.
   Union with the Dominion of Canada.

   "British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces,
   cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until
   1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a
   series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of
   the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not
   within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a
   hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and
   difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the
   gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the
   licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the
   Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the
   government of British Columbia. … Sir James Douglas was
   appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to
   make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order
   and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation
   issued under the public seal of the colony. … The Governor
   continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his
   proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor
   with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. … Up
   to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also
   Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's
   Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia.
   Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to
   Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when
   the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a
   Governor was appointed. … In 1865 the legislature of the
   island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with
   British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i),
   c. 67, the two colonies were united. … By an Order in Council
   dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared
   to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and
   1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 27: British Columbia._

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872.
   Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.

      See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.

----------BRITISH COLUMBIA: End----------

BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

BRITISH HONDURAS.

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

BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.

      See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA;
      and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.

      See CUMBRIA.

BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY:
   In The Roman Period.

      See ARMORICA;
      also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

BRITTANY: A. D. 383.
   Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

BRITTANY: A. D. 409.
   Independence Asserted.

   At the time that the British island practically severed its
   connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the
   Britons of the continent,—of the Armorican province, or
   modern Brittany,—followed the example. "They expelled the
   Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the
   usurper Constantine; and a free government was established
   among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary
   will of a master."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of
   Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not
   entirely disappeared even at the present day."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3._

   The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of
   the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day
   at Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
   The Breyzad Kingdom.
   Subjection To The Norman Dukes.

   "Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared
   to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the
   Caucasian tribes—periods during which the vassals dare not
   claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the
   converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of
   authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of
   the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races
   inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the
   determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided
   into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according
   to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages
   respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here
   the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his
   successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad,
   Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a
   delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of
   the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. …
   The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase
   his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so
   stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. … Nominoë
   assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his
   ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to
   assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political
   argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper
   Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his
   son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a
   conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne.
   Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks,
   and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard
   upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions
   considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and
   his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he,
   too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in
   prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy
   established his lordship over the distracted country.
   "Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which
   also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes,
   Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling
   and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity,
   until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan
   Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of
   William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all
   Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's
   lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John—an unjust
   exercise of justice."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3._

BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237.
   The First Dukes.

   "After the death of Solomon … all these districts or
   territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes,
   and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In
   early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by
   Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes
   acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality
   vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] … must be
   distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted
   himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may
   possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter;
   and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became
   ultimately recognized. … The Counts of Brittany, and the
   Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en
   parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same
   homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the
   Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the
   time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of
   Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 3, page 165._

{325}

BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.
   The Long Civil War.
   Montfort Against Blois.

   Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years
   War of the English kings in France, there broke out a
   malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French
   and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III.
   duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals
   disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois,
   husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France;
   the other, Montfort, … younger brother of the last duke and
   … disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the
   king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew.
   Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest
   places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III.
   of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which
   Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by
   England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and
   presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of
   treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in
   1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was
   slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior,
   was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of
   Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.

      _E. De Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 2, chapters 2 and 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapters 64-227._

BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.
   Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.

   The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy
   of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally
   inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom
   permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the
   conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an
   attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to
   foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges,
   and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments
   of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of
   the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the
   male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His
   daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among
   whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who
   seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a
   member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton
   nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties
   of their country, but whose age rendered him not very
   acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the
   Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482].
   Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the
   regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of
   interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her
   private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her
   father's death, finding no other means of escaping the
   addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This,
   however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was
   resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion.
   And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient
   pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments,
   she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles
   VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry
   the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at
   the French court. But this engagement had not prevented
   several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the
   towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which
   the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the
   heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted
   contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in
   view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair
   part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored
   Artois and Franche-comté. … France was now consolidated into
   a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 2._

   In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of
   Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions
   upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered
   requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with
   France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her
   consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future
   king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir
   of the crown."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 26._

BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.
   Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.

   "Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose
   administration was … shameful, promoted one measure of high
   utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in
   the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to
   unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and
   he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request
   this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the
   breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was
   irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532.
   The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to
   raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States
   Provincial."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      book 1, chapter 2._

BRITTANY: A. D. 1793.
   Resistance To The French Revolution.
   The Vendean War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
      (JULY-DECEMBER).

BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796.
   The Chouans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

----------BRITTANY: End----------

BRIXHAM CAVE.

   A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted
   evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with
   certain extinct animals, have been found.

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Cave Hunting._

{326}

BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.

     See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

BROAD CHURCH, The.

     See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.

     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
     (JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).

     See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).

     See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.

BRONZE AGE.

     See STONE AGE.

BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624.
   The First Settlers.

   "A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on
   Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had
   secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were
   engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India
   Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were
   the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a
   few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a
   village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly
   forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134
   souls."

      _G. W. Schuyler,
      Colonial New York,
      volume 1, page 27._

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646.
   The Town Named And Organized.

   "The occupation of land within the limits of the present city
   of Brooklyn … had steadily progressed, until now (1646)
   nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the
   southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of
   individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. …
   The village … which was located on the present Fulton
   Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith
   streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City
   Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the
   same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town
   of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the
   Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The
   following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.

      _H. R. Stiles,
      History of Brooklyn,
      chapter 1._

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776.
   The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

----------BROOKLYN: End----------

BROTHERS.
BROTHERHOODS.

      See BRETHREN.

BROTHERS' CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS.

BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.

     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
     (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
     1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BROWN, John.
   Attack On Harper's Ferry.
   Trial And Execution.

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

BROWNISTS.

      See INDEPENDENTS.

BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.

BRUCHIUM, The.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.

BRUCTERI, The.

   "After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the
   Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and
   Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and
   utterly exterminated them with the common help of the
   neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or
   from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable
   regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the
   conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms
   and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."

   "The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they
   were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been
   between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe.
   Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as
   Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by
   Claudian."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor works,
      translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany, with geographical notes._

      See, also, FRANKS.

BRUGES: 13th CENTURY.
   The Great Fair.

      See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.

BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES.
   Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUGES: A. D. 1302.
   Massacre Of The French.
   "The Bruges Matins."

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

BRUGES: A. D. 1341.
   Made the Staple for English trade.

      See STAPLE.

BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381.
   Hostilities With Ghent.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BRUGES: A. D. 1382.
   Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.

     See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488.
   At War With Maximilian.

     See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRUGES: A. D. 1584.
   Submission to Philip of Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Taken By The French, And Restored.

   See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
   and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

----------BRUGES: End----------

BRULÉ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER).

BRUNDISIUM:
   Origin.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49.
   Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.

      See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40.
   The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.

   The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own
   soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten
   years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For
   a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of
   Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except
   one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the
   Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 27._

      See also, ROME: B. C. 31.

----------BRUNDISIUM: End----------

BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.

BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF.
   Origin And Name.

   In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the
   reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry
   the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the
   Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by
   Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the
   'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city,
   afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it
   formed the capital."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, book 4._

{327}

BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.

      See HANOVER.

BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK:
   Origin Of The House And Dukedom.

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

BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.

      See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543.
   Expulsion Of Duke Henry By
   The League Of Smalcald.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546.
   Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The
   House.

      See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806.
   The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.

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

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807.
   Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.

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

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830.
   Deposition of the Duke.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

----------BRUNSWICK: End----------

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577.
   The Union Of The Patriots.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585.
   Surrender to the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695.
   BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706.
   Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815.
   The Battle Of Waterloo.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830.
   Riot And Revolution.
   Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------BRUSSELS: End----------

BRUTTII, The.

      See SAMNITES.

BRUTUM FULMEN.

   A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and
   ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a
   contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of
   excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of
   Navarre, in 1585.

      _H. M. Baird,
      The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
      volume 1, page 369._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.

      See ROME: B. C. 510.

BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.

      See ROME: B. C. 44 to 44-42.

BRYTHONS, The.

      See CELTS, THE.

BUBASTIS.

   "On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than
   half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of
   Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and
   preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered
   fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to
   which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers
   to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of
   Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had
   fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short
   space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."

      _R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10._

BUCCANEERS, The.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

BUCENTAUR, The.

      See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.

BUCHANAN, JAMES.
   Presidential Election And Administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.

BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812;
      also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
      (SERVIA).

BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

      See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.

BUCKTAILS.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

BUDA: A. D. 1526.
   Taken And Plundered By The Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567.
   Taken by the Turks.
   Besieged by the Austrians.
   Occupied by the Sultan.
   Becomes the seat of a Pasha.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

BUDA: A. D. 1686.
   Recovery from the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

BUDA: A. D. 1849.
   Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------BUDA: End----------

BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872.
   Union Of The Cities.

   Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left,
   were incorporated in 1872 into one city—Buda-Pesth.

BUDDHISM.

      See INDIA: B. C. 312;
      also LAMAS. LAMAISM;
      and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

BUDGET, The.

   "The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the
   Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways
   and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view
   of the general financial policy of the government, and at the
   same time presents an estimate of the probable income and
   expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement
   of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new
   ones it may be necessary to impose.—To open the budget, to
   lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and
   plans of the executive government."

      _Imp. Dict._

   Mr. Dowell in his _History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5)_
   states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in
   England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a
   reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the
   chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he
   adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The
   following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's
   explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used
   with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which
   ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or
   'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been
   current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon
   taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."

      _Athenæum,
      February 14, 1891,
      page 213._

{328}

BUDINI, The.

   A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently
   inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian
   Sea.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 17._

BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534.
   First and unsuccessful founding of the city.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

BUFFALO, New York:
   The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764.
   Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779.
   The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799.
   The founding and naming of the city.

      See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812.
   At The Opening Of The War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
      (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813.
   Destruction by British and Indians.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825.
   Opening of the Erie Canal.

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

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848.
   The National Free-soil Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

BUFFALO, New York:  A. D. 1866.
   The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------BUFFALO, New York: End----------

BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
      (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

BULGARIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.

      See PAULICIANS.

BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."

   Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding
   "the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under
   penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths,
   twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the
   goods of the churches or their ministers."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4, number 6._

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.

BULL, Golden.

      See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE;
      also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.

   A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one
   Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to
   bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.

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

BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.

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

BULLA, THE.

      See TOGA.

BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

BUNDES-STAAT.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).

BURDIGALA.

   The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a
   town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7._

BURGAGE TENURE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

BURGESS.

      See BOURGEOIS.

BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.

      See BOROUGH.

BURGOS, BATTLE OF.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY);
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BURGRAVES.

      See PALATINE, COUNTS.

BURGUNDIANS:
   Origin And Early History.

   "About the middle of the fourth century, the countries,
   perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe,
   were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians—a
   warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure
   name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has
   finally settled on a flourishing province. … The disputed
   possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the
   Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily
   tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the
   emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent
   from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison
   the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity,
   as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore
   thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine,
   and impatiently required the support and subsidies which
   Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses
   and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation,
   they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of
   the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just
   resentment."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 25.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{329}

   "We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of
   Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on
   either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended
   southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to
   recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of
   them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the
   remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul.
   They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the
   sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them
   lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of
   the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted
   Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that
   they were a most warlike race."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      The Fall of Rome,
      lecture 8._

   "The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the
   Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the
   valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns
   (bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they
   looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of
   mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 3._

   "A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands
   between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following
   expression,—'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks
   for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word
   'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. …
   I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of
   land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the
   one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian
   and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was
   probably, almost wholly political."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 12._

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409.
   Invasion Of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
   Their Savoyan Kingdom.

   "In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many
   wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the
   consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and
   now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than
   the province which was the cradle of the present royal house
   of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of
   Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the
   Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy
   settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the
   lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half
   the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle
   names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the
   terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all
   hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3._

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451.
   At The Battle Of Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
   Extension Of Their Kingdom.

   "Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive
   than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion,
   now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté
   and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of
   Switzerland—in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and
   the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course
   the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the
   mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D.
   500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two
   brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and
   Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired
   with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in
   this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at
   Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But
   Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and
   captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put
   him to death—thereby reuniting the kingdom.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 9._

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534.
   Final Conquest By The Franks.

   "I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the
   Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of
   Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic
   Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but
   the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of
   his innocent son. … It was his humble prayer that Heaven
   would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His
   prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces
   of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks.
   After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond … with
   his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and
   buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons
   of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the
   maxims and examples of their barbarous age. … The rebellious
   Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were
   still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the
   obligation of tribute and military service; and the
   Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose
   glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of
   Clovis."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 38.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN: _W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3._

----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------

BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752.
   The Merovingian Kingdom.

   After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of
   Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the
   neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the
   name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms
   (Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the
   Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the
   east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from
   Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the
   north."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 13._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
   Divisions of the early kingdom.
   The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the
   northwest.

   By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the
   empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of
   Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the
   kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further
   dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence
   was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married
   Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire.
   It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy,
   and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is
   sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The
   kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, … founded by Rudolf in A.
   D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf,
   included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland
   between the Reuss and the Jura."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 6, and appendix, note A._

{330}

   "The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united,
   in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed
   the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le
   Pacifique."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 24._

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,
   such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,
   Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his
   [Conrad the Pacific's] states."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      France Under the Feudal System,
      chapter 2._

   "Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part,
   forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in
   the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or
   the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for
   its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of
   dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then
   at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to
   bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French
   Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal
   Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms
   mentioned above.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032.
   The French Dukedom.
   The Founding Of The First Capetian House.

   Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the
   old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been
   discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have
   become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of
   the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the
   aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the
   early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke
   was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue
   is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a
   brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor
   Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to
   fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South
   (Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,—see above). Richard's son
   Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count
   of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen
   king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King
   Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the
   Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son
   Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his
   taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the
   proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his
   brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven
   years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the
   crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It
   now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on
   the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of
   Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his
   English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name,
   he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion
   wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy
   was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no
   son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a
   brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was
   too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the
   young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the
   larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the
   County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the
   regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he
   now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so
   obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political
   results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier
   bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of
   France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made
   by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing
   the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of
   Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the
   third race [the Capetians] could enjoy—the rival of the
   throne."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, part 2, chapters 1-4._

   Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his
   talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was
   divided between his children, who were yet very young. …
   There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their
   birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his
   three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of
   Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of
   Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho
   succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the
   duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named
   Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who
   succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was
   but the second son."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Carlovingians,
      chapter 15._

   In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the
   lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry
   remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his
   royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the
   Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry
   I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother
   Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      book 1, chapter 2._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
   The Last Kingdom.
   Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.

   The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy—though more
   often called the kingdom of Arles—formed, as stated above,
   by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and
   Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the
   dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent
   king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle
   to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his
   heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf
   attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to
   Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however,
   the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor,
   Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the
   union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled
   almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of
   the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal.
   Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the
   Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now
   German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too
   distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire
   ever really to form a part of it. … Yet Switzerland was
   thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany,
   and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 2, chapter 6-7._

{331}

   "The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made
   Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the
   great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of
   consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to
   remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the
   White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House
   of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of
   Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to
   the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house
   of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count
   of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of
   Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a
   brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was
   sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout
   the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom
   of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that
   of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his
   expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other
   hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance
   under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the
   succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of
   the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the
   barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We
   can still follow the formation of a great number of other
   feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of
   Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts
   of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this
   epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their
   diplomas and their wills."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      France under the Feudal System,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
   The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.
   End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.

   "As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength
   at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to
   make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of
   the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important
   in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an
   easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to
   acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which
   soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to
   maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the
   Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de
   Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an
   adequate account of this struggle. … From the times of the
   mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning
   Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D.
   1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of
   sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate.
   Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors
   exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing
   brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably
   came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the
   county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local
   dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of
   Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III.
   the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the
   Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the
   clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and
   Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look
   upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector
   from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period
   saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England—see
   ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than
   the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance
   between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian
   emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term
   in which they could strive to win back a real hold over
   Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His
   investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the
   kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy
   merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of
   Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the
   Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against
   Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his
   constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in
   the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the
   French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within
   its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see
   ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile
   could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the
   Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of
   St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother,
   Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in
   later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so
   strong that their local interests made them enemies rather
   than friends of the extension of French power on their
   borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the
   merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced
   without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made
   himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of
   Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. … The residence
   of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French
   advance. … Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were
   strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their
   greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the
   Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task.
   Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained
   Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against
   him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the
   French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny,
   henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the
   French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the
   French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of
   Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI.
   of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth
   the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that
   it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the
   theoretical claims of the Empire."

      _The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891,
      reviewing "Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne,"
      par Paul Fournier._

[Image: POSSESSIONS OF CHARLES THE BOLD,
DUKE OF BURGUNDY, ABOUT 1475.]

{332}

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401.
   Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake
   Geneva.

      See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364.
   The French Dukedom.
   The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.

   The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which
   descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December,
   1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de
   Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his
   residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he
   had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at
   the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his
   grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy
   (Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and
   Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the
   young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of
   Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a
   Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the
   young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his
   claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad,
   King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right
   of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the
   original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary
   provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together
   with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of
   Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed
   to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity
   for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the
   powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but
   he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it
   away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son—the
   fourth—the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had
   stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of
   Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a
   deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the
   great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless
   and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the
   young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought
   about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom
   the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of
   Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich
   county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus
   was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal
   power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of
   the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century
   had passed.

      _Froissart (Johnes)
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapter 216._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 22._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383.
   Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453.
   Civil war with the Armagnacs.
   Alliance with the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419;
      1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430.
   Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467.
   Charles The Bold.
   His Position, Between Germany And France.
   His Antagonism To Louis Xi.
   The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.

   Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became
   Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip,
   misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it
   requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to
   take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first
   princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing
   an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some
   superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to
   one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been
   invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that,
   if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among
   the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of
   his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal
   of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of
   his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of
   them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of
   his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French
   Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and
   Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant,
   Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and
   counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His
   dominions were large in positive extent, and they were
   valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other
   prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and
   flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing
   through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of
   his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably
   greater and more prosperous than those of France or England;
   and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were
   not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths,
   acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord;
   Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy
   especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money.
   So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over
   every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his
   dominions were further removed than those of any prince in
   Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one
   kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies,
   counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by
   different titles and of different overlords, speaking
   different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted
   according to different rules of succession. … They lay in
   two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low
   Countries forming the other, so that their common master could
   not go from one capital to another without passing through a
   foreign territory.
{333}
   And, even within these two great masses, there were portions
   of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was
   no hope of annexing by fair means. … The career of Charles
   the Bold … divides itself into a French and a German
   portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry
   of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is
   carried on openly within the French territory, while in the
   second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more
   effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. … As a
   French prince, he joined with other French princes to put
   limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom
   into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be
   of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part
   in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468],
   and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the
   establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent
   Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a
   compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to
   keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as
   Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually
   conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the
   crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief
   of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the
   deadly enemy, of the French King. … Chronologically and
   geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great
   barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to
   call it, between the main divisions of European history and
   European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of
   Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and
   the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They
   connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast
   dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and
   which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in
   the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions
   of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical
   position. They may be said to bind together the whole of
   European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th
   century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely
   gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western
   Kingdoms—in modern language, between Germany and France.
   From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have
   been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle
   state between the two. Over and over again during that long
   period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of
   the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to
   the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. …
   That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never
   seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the
   Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of
   Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his
   frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. … Holding, as he did, parts
   of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no
   doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle
   Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been
   Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as
   others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a
   state which should hold a central position between France,
   Germany and Italy—a state which should discharge, with
   infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age
   has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy.
   … Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest
   of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Charles the Bold
      (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 11)_.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.
   The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois
   and his troubles with Louis XI.

   "Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war
   against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and
   whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to
   interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the
   Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois
   underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him
   to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or
   truce among themselves. … During these wars, and ever since,
   secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The
   king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of
   Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. … The king of
   France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design
   against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a
   more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less
   resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons
   were the people who protected and entertained all his
   malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and
   intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he
   endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by
   several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him
   to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would
   abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his
   malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to
   it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois,
   who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke
   (Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a
   garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000
   strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were
   routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres
   were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable
   strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who
   entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for
   his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer
   the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne
   and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his
   ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely
   anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary
   step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard,
   trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it
   happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne,
   that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced
   beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis
   had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making
   purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained
   from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster
   escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy
   Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally
   assisting the latter to inflict it.
{334}
   "After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at
   Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the
   Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for
   Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was
   the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king
   had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his
   standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join
   him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had
   been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn
   defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate
   sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and
   the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by
   this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a
   grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town
   the next morning—Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day
   almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying
   across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their
   homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King
   Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in
   desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before
   the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures
   who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken,
   and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also
   resolved to burn the city, which had always been very
   populous; and orders were given for firing it in three
   different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of
   Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit
   and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but
   to secure the churches. … All things being thus ordered, the
   Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was
   no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number
   of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night
   four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as
   distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was
   the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river,
   that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke
   marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the
   conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches
   (except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses
   belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which
   was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked
   thither to live with the priests."

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 1, chapters 7-9; book 2._

      _P. F. Willert,
      The Reign of Louis XI._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Quentin Durward._

      See, also, DINANT.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
   Charles The Bold And The Swiss.
   His Defeats And His Death.
   The Effects Of His Fall.

   "Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of
   Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles
   wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland,
   and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to
   recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had
   existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself
   that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick
   III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his
   hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine
   from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in
   order to join his northern states with those in the south. The
   conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the
   Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already
   celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of
   liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the
   Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura,
   besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a
   capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or
   drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed
   the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the
   town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked
   the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months
   later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine,
   despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second
   Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled
   a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy,
   which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers.
   It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his
   mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 2._

   "And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of
   sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss,
   in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not
   forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he
   would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small
   and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the
   Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies
   would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time
   the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the
   world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were
   mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of
   Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value
   of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common
   soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the
   world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold
   quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous
   of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great
   diamond, … with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a
   Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken
   up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a
   priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the
   magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as
   a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous
   Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition
   which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took
   three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another
   large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of
   Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world;
   besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last
   battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of
   that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He
   encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and
   Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect,
   with the help of the king of France and others. It was against
   the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong,
   half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater
   one, and he paid the penalty.
{335}
   It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in
   the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped
   naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was
   found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine
   towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether
   towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the
   field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed
   peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars
   against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon
   account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that
   arose among them. … As I had seen these princes puissant,
   rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I
   think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I
   never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent,
   so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their
   furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in
   their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and
   entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the
   subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have
   exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion
   that I have rather said too little. … In short, I have seen
   this family in all respects the most flourishing and
   celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space
   of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left
   the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as
   regards both prince and subjects."

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 5, chapters 1-9._

   "The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold
   and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and
   encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by
   the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach
   to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side
   with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies
   complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the
   fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not
   Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of
   the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss
   territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the
   beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the
   Confederation. … The mere political accident that the
   country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of
   the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to
   determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat
   are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were
   defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have
   been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss
   side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The
   simple fact that it was only through the result of the
   Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss
   territory at once disposes of this line of argument. … The
   plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war
   declared by Switzerland against Burgundy … and that in the
   campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was
   simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own
   territory and the territory of his allies."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Essays,
      volume 1, number 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 5._

      _L. S. Costello,
      Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
      chapters 14-27._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.
   Permanently restored to the French crown

   Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while
   Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his
   strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of
   the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it
   caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking
   possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had
   reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The
   legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left
   an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as
   well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of
   succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable.
   Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females,
   and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned.
   But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of
   appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to
   the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's
   investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful
   heirs, without designation of sex. The construction,
   therefore, must be left to the established course of law.
   This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's
   daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted
   appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been
   considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed
   it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first
   dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through
   females. Such was this question of succession between Louis
   XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions
   I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only
   observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be
   excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably,
   at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage
   ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of
   Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all
   further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far
   more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of
   Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France."
   The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a
   masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis
   despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all
   events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded
   actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and
   Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which
   were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to
   him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the
   French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess
   married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic—a
   connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was
   impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the
   growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred
   years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left
   one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 2._

{336}

   "The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily
   pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he
   triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his
   enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of
   his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose
   him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. … Although
   God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his
   determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely,
   not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and
   estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right
   measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead
   of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have
   endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he
   had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of
   marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the
   people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which
   he might, without any great difficulty, have effected,
   considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and
   dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not
   only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended
   and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in
   a firm and lasting peace."

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 5, chapter 12._

   "He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of
   Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of
   Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old
   privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his
   successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a
   land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all
   the great lords to come over to him."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 17, chapters 3-4._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482.
   Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands.
   Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

----------BURGUNDY: End----------

BURH, The.

      See BOROUGH.

BURI, The.

   A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in
   the neighborhood of modern Cracow.

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb.
      Geographical notes._

BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.

      See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.

BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

BURMA:
   Rise of the kingdom.
   First war with the English (1824-1826).
   Cession of Assam and Aracan.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BURMA: A. D. 1852.
   Second war with the English.
   Loss of Pegu.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

BURNED CANDLEMAS.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
   Command of the Army of the Potomac.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
   Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
   Deliverance of East Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER:
      TENNESSEE.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
   Defense of Knoxville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
   At the siege of Petersburg.

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

BURR, Aaron.
   Duel with Hamilton.
   Conspiracy.
   Arrest.
   Trial.

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

BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

BUSACO, Battle of (1810).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

BUSHMEN, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUSHWHACKERS.

   A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits
   of the southwest in the American Civil War.

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, page 371._

BUSIRIS.
   Destroyed by Diocletian.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

BUSSORAH AND KUFA,
   The rise and importance of.

   In the first years of their conquest and occupation of
   Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris—as
   early as A. D. 638—the Moslems founded two cities which
   acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these
   cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs
   for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors
   in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah,
   or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said
   to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain
   very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates.
   "Kufa and Bussorah … had a singular influence on the
   destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast
   majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of
   pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families,
   scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into
   Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these
   two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south
   predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew
   into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population
   each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature,
   theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater
   influence than the whole Moslem world besides. … The people
   became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into
   hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element,
   conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and
   impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus
   factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise
   arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually
   rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 18._

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BUTADÆ, The.

      See PHYLÆ.

BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
   In command at Baltimore.

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

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
   In command at Fortress Monroe.

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

{337}

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
   The Hatteras Expedition.

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

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
   Command at New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
   Command of the Army of the James.

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

BUTLER, Walter,
   The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).

BUTTERNUTS.

      See BOYS IN BLUE;

      Also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BYRON, Lord, in Greece.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BYRSA.
   The citadel of Carthage.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYTOWN.

   The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of
   Canada.

      See OTTAWA.

BYZACIUM.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

   The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium
   (modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be
   found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to
   717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the
   Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is
   questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to
   be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some
   discussion of these questions,

      See ROME: A. D. 717-800.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
   Its part in history.
   Its defence of Europe.
   Its civilizing influence.

   "The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the
   oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and
   Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and
   Africanus. … Until the days of the crusades, the German
   nations did not combine with the Empire against the common
   foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success
   of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be
   reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but
   that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When
   there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the
   Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people
   who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few
   there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so
   bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I
   may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by
   victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those
   successes sink into insignificance by the side of the
   achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the
   gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the
   Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone
   knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible
   how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the
   greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the
   real danger lay. …. The Empire was much more than the
   military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended
   but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture.
   We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a
   highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as
   yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse
   of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was
   partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an
   incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice,
   which contributed so much to the growth of western culture,
   was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time
   nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it
   taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the
   Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been
   the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style
   of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any
   other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when
   they needed men of learning, and thither students from western
   countries, who desired a university education, repaired. …
   It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old
   Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were
   preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to
   the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And
   in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The
   Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European
   civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place
   the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained
   European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest
   importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts
   concerning which contemporary historians did not think of
   leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the
   Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages
   speaks for itself. … In the fourth place, the Roman Empire
   preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of
   western European history down to the present day—the idea of
   the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of
   800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself
   into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great
   idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave
   back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her
   five centuries before. … If Constantinople and the Empire
   had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the
   whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans
   really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and
   the system which brought law and order into the political
   relations of the West."

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2)._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717.
   Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.

   "The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of
   Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of
   the Eastern Empire. … When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor
   [A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save
   Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens
   considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains
   of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an
   Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a
   heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the
   victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the
   whole administration so completely in accordance with the new
   exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire
   outlived for many centuries every government contemporary
   with its establishment.
{338}
   The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern
   historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised
   to mark the changes effected in the government, after the
   extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of
   ancient Rome. … The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire
   had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into
   Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he
   recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was
   reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine
   government. The number of themes varied at different periods.
   The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the
   middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic
   portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. … The
   European provinces were divided into eight continental and
   five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the
   exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and
   Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern
   Empire, acted generally as independent cities. … When Leo
   was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with
   immediate ruin. … Every army assembled to encounter the
   Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and
   Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople;
   the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of
   the Bosphorus."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. W. Brooks,
      The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
      (English History Review, April, 1893)._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.
   The Isaurian dynasty.

   The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until
   the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A.
   D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D.
   802. It embraced the following reigns:

   Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775;
   Leo IV., 775-780;
   Constantine VI., 780-797;
   Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751.
   The Iconoclastic Controversy.
   Rupture with the West.
   Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
   End of authority in Italy.

      See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
      and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors:
   Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811;
   Stauracius, A. D. 811;
   Michael I., A. D. 811-813;
   Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803.
   Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
   The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

   Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place;
   Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a
   revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and
   patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to
   his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called
   Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one
   of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the
   Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded
   a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A.
   D. 867 to 1057—a period covering the following reigns:

   Basil I., A. D. 867-886;
   Leo VI., A. D. 886-911;
   Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950;
   Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944;
   Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D. 944;
   Romanus II., A. D. 959-963;
   Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969;
   John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976;
   Basil II., A. D. 963-1025;
   Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028;
   Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034;
   Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041;
   Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042;
   Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056;
   Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054;
   Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043.
   Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

      See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900;
      also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE:  A. D. 870-1016.
   Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
   Recovery of prestige and territory.

   "Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine
   government—and its history is but a series of crimes and
   revolutions—it was never dismembered by intestine war. A
   sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in
   the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the
   allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his
   successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of
   the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the
   Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the
   Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the
   middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly,
   but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from
   its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For
   about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial
   wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors
   seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have
   become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing
   distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers,
   Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual
   recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms
   (one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over
   Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus
   submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient
   boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of
   Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate.
   From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed
   necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were
   permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth
   century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and
   greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of
   Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the
   Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some
   part of Syria and Armenia."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014.
   Recovery of Bulgaria.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043;
      also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054.
   Ecclesiastical division of the
   Eastern from the Roman Church.

      See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY,
      and ORTHODOX CHURCH.

{339}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081.
   Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties.
   A dark period.

   "The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone,
   the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double
   scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the
   empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were
   pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period
   of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius.
   … The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne
   Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an
   able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and
   incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals,
   who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year
   had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a
   conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac
   Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses,
   and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and
   his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of
   his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest
   upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when
   he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired
   to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to
   Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for
   seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

   Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071;
   Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078;
   Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
      chapter 20._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092.
   Disasters in Asia Minor.

      See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073;
      and A. D. 1073-1092.


BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064.
   Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy
   Land.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081.
   The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
   Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

   Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for
   himself a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the
   title of Duke of Apulia,—his duchy coinciding with the
   subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples—conceived the ambitious
   design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His
   conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the
   Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the
   strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged,
   moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the
   imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it
   to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of
   right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young
   daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose
   expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to
   Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To
   promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of
   the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks.
   Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in
   the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making
   himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu),
   and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to
   Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to
   reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery,
   and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard
   gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its
   defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one
   large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the
   relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and
   Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was
   called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son
   Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in
   command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of
   1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus
   was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the
   Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem,
   lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was
   then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an
   important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and
   Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of
   conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards,
   his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with
   the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy
   to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by
   stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had
   recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert
   Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and
   Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received
   important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to
   the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From
   this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the
   kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1185.
   The Comnenian emperors.

   Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118;
   John II., A. D. 1118-1143;
   Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181;
   Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183;
   Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097.
   The passage of the first Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
   Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily.
   Sack of Thebes and Corinth.

   When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in
   Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in
   his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions.
   His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the
   second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more
   than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An
   insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his
   fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and
   Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a
   body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the
   country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the
   way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the
   most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were
   numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely
   productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city
   of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of
   agricultural industry. … All military spirit was now dead,
   and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion
   that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to
   secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors,
   secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at
   their leisure. … When all ordinary means of collecting booty
   were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on
   the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of
   their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away
   captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the
   most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which
   Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet
   to labour at the oar. …
{340}
   Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years
   later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city,
   with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most
   eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece.
   The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior
   quality after this invasion. … From Bœotia the army passed
   to Corinth. … Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men
   of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their
   wives and families, were carried away into captivity. … This
   invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering
   expedition. … Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger
   retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period
   from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The
   century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in
   uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased
   rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian
   population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and
   the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable
   cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on
   the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and
   many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and
   of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of
   the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the
   judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be
   more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive
   financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed
   the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the
   Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection
   of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the
   industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to
   Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers
   in their original occupations. He consequently collected all
   their families together, and settled them at Palermo,
   supplying them with the means of exercising their industry
   with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own
   subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the
   rarest productions of the East. … It is not remarkable that
   the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in
   the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 3._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148.
   Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204.
   The Angeli.
   Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195;
   Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203;
   Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
   Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders.
   Sack of Constantinople.

   The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line—the
   brutal Andronicus I.—perished horribly in a wild
   insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A.
   D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to
   the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before
   his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or
   virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign,
   the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces
   by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac
   was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a
   dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled
   himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure
   the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from
   Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip,
   the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown.
   Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the
   great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at
   Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius
   and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and
   perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are
   related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The
   great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the
   Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore
   was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite
   the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it
   was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers
   guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn—the harbor of
   Constantinople—were captured, the chain removed, the harbor
   occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the
   17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on
   the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the
   Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and
   another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians,
   from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained
   possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the
   city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin
   over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground,
   and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly
   Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and
   blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was
   ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill,
   if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with
   Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present
   excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the
   excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could
   not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was
   increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious
   collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a
   Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their
   capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was
   fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the
   richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of
   the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights,
   sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The
   suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the
   Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the
   two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of
   the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated
   them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public
   feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which
   crowned a new emperor,—one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed
   Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met.
{341}
   A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac
   and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active
   preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th
   that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the
   walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy
   loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the
   attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The
   towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and
   soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy,
   burning without scruple—starting a third appalling
   conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The
   new emperor fled, the troops laid down their
   arms,—Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began
   the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal
   were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right
   to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and
   sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more
   systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army
   of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city
   than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to
   chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and
   bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. …
   'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal
   [Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city.
   Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were
   enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly
   rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver,
   of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of
   furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.'
   … The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of
   the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared
   neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and
   debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and
   the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for
   everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. … A
   large part of the booty had been collected in the three
   churches designated for that purpose. … The distribution was
   made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in
   bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues
   were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they
   were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing
   for the art which had added value to the metal."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapters 14-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 3, section 3._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204.
   Reign of Alexius V.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
   The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.

   "Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on
   Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the
   Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. …
   This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one
   part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other,
   for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in
   the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation
   of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine
   Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it.
   The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were
   carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the
   election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and
   the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he
   received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at
   the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were
   immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry
   into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint
   consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their
   ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the
   Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in
   Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the
   proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that
   formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of
   Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as
   far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia.
   Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed
   districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the
   Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with
   those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire.
   Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several
   smaller islands, also fell to his share."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4, sections 1-2._

   "In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the
   Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No
   more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear
   moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other
   moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and
   Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of
   Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the
   purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and
   glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title
   was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth
   century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of
   one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' … They possessed
   three of the eight quarters of the city. … They had rashly
   accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was
   the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of
   factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast,
   from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the
   Bosphorus. … For the price of 10,000 marks the republic
   purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of
   Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. … In the
   moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of
   Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides
   the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he
   had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was
   compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the
   Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and
   difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or
   Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he
   might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his
   brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. … The lots of the Latin
   pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent
   exchange. … At the head of his knights and archers each
   baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his
   share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But
   the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a
   thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose
   sole umpire was the sword."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 61.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{342}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
   The political shaping of the fragments.

      See
      ROMANIA.
      THE EMPIRE;
      GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
      TREBIZOND;
      EPIRUS:
      NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM
      ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387:
      ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456:
      SALONIKI.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.
   The Greek restoration.
   Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.

   The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at
   Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall
   is told elsewhere.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453.

   "From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun
   finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in
   constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians.
   She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she
   was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest
   still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a
   sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her
   organization. … Of the seventy-six emperors and five
   empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to
   death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed
   and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to
   abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole
   number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the
   history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be
   frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages
   which but for them would be bright with the things which were
   beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to
   justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone
   to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil
   only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form
   a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine
   Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as
   unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing
   but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and
   the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of
   New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the
   contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes
   between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels
   in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of
   the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling
   among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and
   was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. … The most
   deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the
   period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded,
   was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the
   Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe.
   … The Byzantine people, although in every respect the
   superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to
   escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians
   of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the
   deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then
   inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed
   exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills
   were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which
   the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. …
   The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial
   one great work in human history. That work was to preserve
   civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the
   Middle Ages. … Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic
   world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on
   with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain
   that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help.
   'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall
   of Constantinople,' … Up to her last hour she had never
   ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the
   fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns
   and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the
   Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and
   tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the
   eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian
   Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth,
   the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and
   the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The
   wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it
   was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from
   destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed
   the classical world, the civilization of the ancients,
   modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual
   development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine
   Empire, if it be true that this development is the common
   offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity
   upon the other."

      _Demetrios Bikelas,
      The Byzantine Empire
      (Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886)._

----------BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End----------

BYZANTIUM,
   Beginnings of.

   The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of
   the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded,
   according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century
   B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of
   the city to control the important corn supply which came from
   the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of
   wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden
   Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the
   Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were
   successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens
   and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another
   many times during their wars.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478.
   Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440.
   Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408.
   Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340.
   Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336.
   Alliance with Alexander the Great.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194.
   Siege by Severus.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323.
   Siege by Constantine.

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330.
   Transformed into Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE.

{343}
                         C.

ÇA IRA:
   The origin of the cry and the song.

   "When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in
   1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge
   reached France, many good friends to America began to think
   that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin
   never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça
   ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will
   all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers,
   amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words.
   They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by
   the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution,
   were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the
   subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn
   appeared, had no equal in France."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 2, page 89._

      _L. Rosenthal,
      America and France,
      page 263._

   "The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a
   street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the
   time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."

      _Century Dictionary._

   "The original name of the tune to which the words were written
   is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance
   that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie
   Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."

      _J. Oxenford,
      Book of French Songs
      (note to "Ça ira")._

CAABA AT MECCA, The.

   "An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by
   Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel.
   Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it
   several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the
   Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of
   Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia
   and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes
   gained ground. … This temple, whose name 'square house'
   indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and
   of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively
   recent times that it had a door with a lock. … For a long
   time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated
   black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the
   object of Mussulman veneration. … We have already mentioned
   Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba.
   This example was soon copied. … The Caaba thus became a sort
   of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child
   on her knees, eventually found a place there."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Muir,
      Life of Mahomet,
      chapter 2._

CABAL, The.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.

CABALA, The.

   "The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of
   Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at
   what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it
   comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or
   schools, whether on religious or civil points."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 2, book 18._

   "The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and
   transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of,
   but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound
   than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty
   of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true,
   occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and
   of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward
   interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and
   the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the
   most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher
   doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala.
   And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost
   above the comprehension of the wisest. … In its traditional,
   no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala,
   ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and
   more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches
   down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher
   Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be
   derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even
   aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the
   Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs
   to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity,
   became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of
   the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first
   principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still
   more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly
   with the Zendavesta … as to leave no doubt of their kindred
   and affiliation."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 30._

CABILDO. The.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.

CABINET, The American.

   "There is in the government of the United States no such thing
   as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the
   term, not only because it is current in America to describe
   the chief ministers of the President, but also because it
   calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists
   between the great officers of State in America and the similar
   officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only
   reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the
   President is that contained in the power given him to require
   the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the
   executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties
   of their respective offices.' All these departments have been
   created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with
   four only, at the head of whom were the following four
   officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,
   Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a
   Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in
   1849 a Secretary of the Interior. … Each receives a salary
   of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President,
   subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically
   never refused), and may be removed by the President alone.
   Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be
   placed in charge of a department, except that they are
   summoned by the President to his private council. None of them
   can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution
   providing that 'no person holding any office under the United
   States shall be a member of either House during his
   continuance in office.'"

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapter 9._

{344}

   "In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was
   established. … In 1889 the head of the Department became
   Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet
   officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was
   created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate
   department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and
   therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight
   heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.

      _W. W. and W. F. Willoughby,
      Government and Administration of the United States
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series IX.,
      numbers 1-2), chapter 10._

CABINET, The English.

   "Few things in our history are more curious than the origin
   and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an
   early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy
   Council to which the law assigned many important functions and
   duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body
   deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by
   degrees its character changed. It became too large for
   despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often
   bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing
   was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The
   sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for
   advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages
   and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by
   Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not
   till after the Restoration that the interior council began to
   attract general notice. During many years old fashioned
   politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an
   unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it
   constantly became more and more important. It at length drew
   to itself the chief executive power, and has now been
   regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of
   our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be
   altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and
   gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the
   public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor
   has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of
   Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly
   used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a
   whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of
   five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the
   word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and
   Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called
   the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous
   that it has never since their time been used except as a term
   of reproach."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 2._

   "Walpole's work, … the effect of his policy, when it was
   finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a
   definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive
   government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation
   with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and
   to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House
   of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in
   the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William
   called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that
   the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into
   power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists,
   the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the
   earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we
   choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable
   system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in
   the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike
   over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain
   that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were
   first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet
   system received the impression that it bears in our own time.
   … Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between
   the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the
   century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen
   Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself
   present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates
   in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time
   of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of
   the Cabinet since Anne. … This vital change was probably due
   to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the
   language in which its deliberations were carried on. The
   withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was
   essential to the momentous change which has transferred the
   whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a
   committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of
   Parliament, from among other members. … The Prime Minister
   is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all
   its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice,
   and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are
   counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet
   the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies
   a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional
   and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen
   by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is
   pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the
   acclamation of a party majority. … The Prime Minister, once
   appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to
   their respective offices. … The flexibility of the Cabinet
   system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon
   himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided
   always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In
   ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to
   do their own work in their own way. … Just as the Cabinet
   has been described as being the regulator of relations between
   Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the
   regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. …
   Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of
   the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his
   successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time
   earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title,
   and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest
   instance in which I have found, the head of the government
   designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of
   Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."

      _J. Morley,
      Walpole,
      chapter 7._

   "In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy
   Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings;
   and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the
   Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is
   legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of
   every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while
   no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are,
   the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these
   Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that
   while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine
   appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by
   their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such
   responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that,
   to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council
   has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII.
   ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of
   persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take
   part in the contests of political life."

      _A. V. Dicey.
      The Privy Council,
      page 143._

{345}

CABINET, The Kitchen.

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

CABOCHIENS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

CABOT, John and Sebastian.
   American Discoveries.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.

CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841.
   Occupation by the British.
   Successful native rising.
   Retreat and destruction of the British army.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880.
   Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident.
   Second occupation by the English.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

----------CABUL: End----------

CACIQUE.

   "Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives
   of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the
   conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild
   tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is
   the word found."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 210, foot-note._

CADDOAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;
      also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CADE'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.

   This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which
   the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the
   Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its
   dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the
   walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the
   Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates
   and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men,
   under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000
   strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were
   commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The
   battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended
   in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam,
   with 40,000 of his men.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26._

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

CADIZ: Origin.

      See UTICA, and GADES.

CADIZ: A. D. 1596.
   Taken and sacked by the English and Dutch.

         See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

CADIZ: A. D. 1702.
   Abortive English and Dutch expedition against.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

CADIZ: A. D. 1810-1811.
   Siege by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CADIZ: A. D. 1823.
   Siege, bombardment and capture by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

CADMEA (KADMEIA), The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.

      See BŒOTIA.

CADURCI, The.

   The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief
   place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.

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

CADUSIANS, The.

   An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was
   on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,—the district
   of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name
   was "Gaels."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 1._

CADWALLON, Death of.

      See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

CÆLLAN HILL, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

CAERLAVEROCK, Siege of.

   A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of
   Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.

CAERLEON.

   "Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by
   Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the
   second legion, which had been so long established at the
   Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city
   the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened
   to Caerleon."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

CÆSAR, JULIUS, Career and death of.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44;
      GAUL: B. C. 58-51;
      and BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

CÆSAR, The title.

   "Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the
   moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated
   to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most
   familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for
   the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to
   confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian
   dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of
   the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession
   fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their
   own practice in this particular, and applied the name of
   Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son
   Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him,
   and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late
   indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still
   eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third
   century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed
   from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and
   deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and
   perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining
   ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken
   continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still
   retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of
   the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to
   derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the
   Cæsars of Byzantium."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

   One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor
   Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions
   were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in
   modern Saragossa.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Roman,
      chapter 34._

{346}

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: Origin.

      See MAZACA.

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260.
   Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: Massacre of Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: The Church in.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.

   A Roman town identified, generally, with modern Chelmsford.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

CÆSAROMAGUS IN GAUL.
   Modern Beauvais.

      See BELGÆ.

CÆSARS, The Twelve.

      See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

CÆSAR'S TOWER.

      See TOWER OF LONDON.

CAFFA.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CAHORS:
   Origin.

      See CADURCI.

CAHORS: A. D. 1580.
   Siege and capture by Henry of Navarre.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

CAIRN.

      See BARROW.

CAIRO: A. D. 641.
   Origin.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

CAIRO: A. D. 967-1171.
   Capital of the Fatimite Caliphs.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

CAIRO: A. D. 1517.
   Capture, sack and massacre by the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CAIRO: A. D. 1798.
   Occupied by the French under Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

CAIRO: A. D. 1800.
   Revolt suppressed by the French.

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

CAIRO: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Surrender to the English.
   Restoration to Turkey.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

CAIRO: A. D. 1805-1811.
   Massacres of the Mamelukes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883.
   Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control.
   Occupation by the British.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

----------CAIRO: End----------

CAIROAN.

      See KAIRWAN.

CAIUS, called Caligula,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 37-41.

CAKCHIQUELS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

CALABRIA:
   Transfer of the name.

   "After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the
   vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more
   ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to
   have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 45; note.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CALABRIA: A. D. 1080.
   Norman duchy.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

----------CALABRIA: End----------

CALAIS: A. D. 1346-1347.
   Siege and capture by Edward III.

   Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English
   king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He
   built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown
   the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and
   shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and
   hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other
   necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by
   shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and
   angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August,
   1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required
   that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him,
   with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St.
   Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the
   sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of
   Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives.
   He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of
   fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III., Second Decade,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CALAIS: A. D. 1348.
   The Staple for English trade.

      See STAPLE.

CALAIS: A. D. 1558.
   Recovery from the English by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CALAIS: A. D. 1564.
   Final surrender of English claims.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598.
   Surprise and capture by the Spaniards.
   Restoration to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

----------CALAIS: End----------

CALATRAVA AND SANTIAGO, Knights of.

   "It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the
   Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with
   interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the
   early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of
   Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago—or St. James of
   Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order
   was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St.
   Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego
   Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms
   previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the
   cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of
   Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been
   confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in
   1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that
   position against the assailants. The proposal was readily
   accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so
   efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men,
   whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few
   of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the
   order, which took its name from the place, and which in its
   religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and
   wore the same monastic habit,—a white robe and scapulary. [By
   pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the
   knights allowed to marry 'once.'—_Foot-note_.] The other
   order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with
   their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them,
   by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the
   Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez—if the 'don' has not been
   added to give something like respectability to the origin—was
   the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to
   assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary
   obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic
   fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion
   the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody
   sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol.
   These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of
   Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division 2._

{347}

   In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella
   "received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership
   was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of
   nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava
   was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and
   since that time the order has gradually merged into a court
   institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross
   on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed
   since 1540."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 4._

CALAURIA,
   Confederation of.

   A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek
   history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens,
   Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the
   kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point
   of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, V. 1, book 1, chapter 3._

CALCINATO, Battle of (1706).

      See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1698.
   The founding of the city.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1756.
   Capture by Surajah Dowlah.
   The tragedy of the Black Hole.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.

----------CALCUTTA: End----------

CALDERON, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

CALEDONIA, The name.

      See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

CALEDONIA,
   Ancient Tribes.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONIA,
   Wars of the Romans.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

----------CALEDONIA: End----------

CALEDONIA SYLVA.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONII, The.

   One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of
   Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they
   gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of
   the island.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 1._

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALENDAR, The French Republican.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

CALENDAR,
   Gregorian.
   Gregorian Era.

   "This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see
   CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more
   accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or
   tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57
   seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian
   computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11
   minutes, 3 seconds, … which, in the course of 130 years,
   amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore,
   the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell
   back a day behind it. … In the time of Pope Gregory XIII.,
   A. D. 1582, … the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the
   11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order,
   therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the
   21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the
   15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the
   22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583,
   which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this
   correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated
   mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this
   error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar
   was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three
   days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the
   assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should
   be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first,
   second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be
   bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth
   centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D.
   1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common
   years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By
   this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered
   sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and
   even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. … The Gregorian
   or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D.
   1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of
   Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out
   of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d
   day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next
   year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning
   January 1, instead of March 25."

      _W. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume 1, book 1._

   The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates
   according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the
   reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal,
   part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and
   Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587;
   in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584;
   in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700
   and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece,
   and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History._

CALENDAR,
   Julian.
   Julian Era.

   "The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or
   Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the
   Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of
   Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445
   days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365
   days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the
   additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends
   of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called
   Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then
   doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number
   of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar,
   which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in
   most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries.
   … The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were
   eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the
   ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th
   day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in
   March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th
   day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of
   forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of
   January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. …
   Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and
   Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the
   Roman months bore their present names.
{348}
   An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius
   Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year
   a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days,
   8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen
   intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year
   consequently began three days too late: the calendar was,
   therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of
   the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and
   that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or
   A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without
   mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian
   nations, though about the sixth century they began to date
   from the birth of our Saviour."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      page 4._

   "It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would
   have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the
   day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion'
   [i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was
   corrected] was supposed to fall on December 25. But he chose to
   begin his new year on the first of January following, because
   on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun,
   at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means
   he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient
   Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also
   made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."

      _T. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume 1, book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 20._

   For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian
   calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN

CALENDS.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

CALETI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

CALHOUN, John C.,
   And the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

CALHOUN, John C.
   And the Nullification Movement.

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

CALIFORNIA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND
      THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
   Origin of the name.
   Early Spanish exploration and settlement.
   The founding of the Franciscan missions.

   "The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the
   present limits of the State of California date from the first
   foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later
   founded north of San Diego were, with the original
   establishment itself, for a time known merely by some
   collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the
   name California, already long since applied to the country of
   the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the
   new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out
   of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at
   last came, being applied to our present country during the
   whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the
   origin of the name California, no serious question remains
   that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a
   portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed
   romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in
   1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion.
   For, in this romance, the name California was already before
   1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the
   Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.'
   Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered
   peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have
   been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on
   which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper
   California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer
   Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on
   the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. …
   In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D.
   1572-1580]. … It is … almost perfectly sure that he did
   not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort
   of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. … This result of
   the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now
   fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to
   insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The
   name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this
   coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from
   the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast
   near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that
   neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied
   this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown
   to Europeans during all this period. … In 1602-3, Sebastian
   Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the
   California coast. … From this voyage a little more knowledge
   of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth
   geographical researches in the region of California ceased for
   over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we
   reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The
   missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767,
   by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the
   Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was
   attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered
   the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide
   the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of
   supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a
   safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. … Thus began
   the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California.
   The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one
   great disaster occurring,—the destruction of San Diego
   Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was
   quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was
   founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages
   and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San
   Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of
   San Francisco. … After 1775, the old name began to be
   generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the
   name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In
   1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the
   following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and
   in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions,
   however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in
   the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these
   to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The
   next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."

      _J. Royce,
      California,
      chapter 1, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States, volume 13
      (California, volume 1)._

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapters 5-15._

{349}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
   The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.

   "Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about
   200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity,
   enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable
   element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of
   California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000
   Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California
   that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are
   conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were
   obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived
   in California during the period mentioned, and who
   participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians
   appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their
   own government, or, rather, they felt that under the
   influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very
   distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican
   nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this
   contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be
   performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being
   between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the
   territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros,
   etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and
   others, sympathized with the United States, and desired
   annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico,
   then governor of the territory, and other prominent native
   Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul,
   who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to
   bring the country under English domination. … This was the
   state of affairs for two or three years previous to the
   Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities
   between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see
   MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that
   such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout
   the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and
   stimulated the two rivals—the American and English—in their
   efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the
   country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont
   to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had
   passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when,
   in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States
   marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to
   Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to
   Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally
   overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the
   road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his
   dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the
   papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these
   instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been
   promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in
   California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with
   the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur.
   Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short
   time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at
   Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a
   party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command,
   appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag,
   proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to
   Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the
   two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the
   consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected
   captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the
   manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows
   upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes
   started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a
   fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted
   what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being
   artistic in their work … the Mexicans, with their usual
   happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera
   Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of
   the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June,
   1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had
   emigrated to California the year previous, issued a
   proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma.
   This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the
   existing government, and establish in its place the republican
   form. … General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly
   manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid
   movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a
   meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting
   under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country,
   appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico.
   During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star
   floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The
   meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have
   understood. … Just as Fremont, with his company, had started
   for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive
   generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the
   astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at
   Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised
   the American flag and taken possession of the place; also,
   that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of
   the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San
   Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of
   Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of
   course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag
   and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens
   volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes.
   … Commodore Sloat … had heard of the commencement of
   hostilities on the Rio Grande, … sailed from Mazatlan for
   California, took possession of the country and raised the
   American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps
   on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too
   soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war
   Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at
   Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take
   possession of that portion of the country." In August,
   Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific
   squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted
   bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the
   territory. All his available force for land operations was 350
   men—sailors and marines.
{350}
   But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so
   efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop,
   that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847.
   During all this period the people of the United States were
   ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa.
   But the action of Commodore Sloat … and … Commodore
   Stockton … did but anticipate the wishes of the United
   States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched
   General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see
   NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders
   to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the
   governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in
   California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces,
   December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations
   in that region ceased."

      _E. E. Dunbar,
      The Romance of the Age,
      pages 29-42._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States, volume 17
      (California, volume 5), chapters 1-16._

      _J. C. Fremont,
      Memoirs of my Life,
      volume 1, chapters 14-15._

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848.
   Cession to the United States.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.

   "In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California,
   numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San
   Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the
   future. Their government held secure possession of the whole
   territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it
   permanently. … It so happened that at this time one of the
   leading representatives of American interests in California
   was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the
   place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and
   naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent
   residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had
   settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers,
   near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho
   became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he
   planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get
   lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since
   there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be
   in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W.
   Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by
   occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full
   of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business
   sense. … The place for his mill was in the small valley of
   Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles
   from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon
   without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill
   was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race
   to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had
   been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of
   January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its
   rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and
   picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of
   grains of wheat. … He thought they were gold, and went to
   the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine.
   At the time, little importance was attached to his statement.
   It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall
   hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into
   the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or
   become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and
   the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was
   gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to
   Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful
   weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion
   was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of
   about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian'
   and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed
   mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the
   former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold
   mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of
   the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. …
   Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with
   the cry of 'gold'! … Nearly all the men hurried off to the
   mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe
   fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of
   themselves. … 'The reports of the discovery, which began to
   reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little
   credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of
   large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New
   York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all
   doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful
   migration as the world had never seen. In 1849,
   25,000—according to one authority 50,000—immigrants went by
   land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky
   Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the
   world. … The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000;
   that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that
   of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has
   continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is
   about $12,000,000."

      _J. S. Hittell,
      The Discovery of Gold in California
      (Century Magazine, February, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Dunbar,
      The Romance of the Age,
      or the Discovery of Gold in California._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapters 2-4._

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1850.
   Admission to the Union as a free state.
   The Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.
   The San Francisco Vigilance Committee.

   "The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee,
   which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856,
   has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that
   city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of
   the origin and subsequent action of that association will be
   read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts
   of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the
   infamous character of many of the public officials, had been
   the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but
   throughout the State of California. It was evident to the
   honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that … it
   would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by
   reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from
   the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter
   were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times,
   edited by one James P. Casey.
{351}
   The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by
   the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th
   of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street,
   receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and
   intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey
   surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening
   of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which
   had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free
   riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city,
   by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and
   determined the organization of another committee for the same
   purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and
   regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to
   sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of
   San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were
   invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled
   themselves in a few days. … The members of the vigilance
   committee were divided into companies of 100, each company
   having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent
   to the different captains to appear with their companies ready
   for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento
   Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived,
   they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty
   picked men were selected as a guard for the executive
   committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the
   direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had
   collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched
   through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open
   space before the jail. … The houses opposite the jail were
   searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee
   wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead
   to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in
   front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer
   was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and
   complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had
   killed a United States marshal the November previous, was
   taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were
   escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there
   confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King
   died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which
   the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were
   hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in
   front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive
   committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly
   under control, and that there was no danger of any popular
   excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the
   country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time
   managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men
   were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco.
   Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and
   taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined
   until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the
   country. … The governor of California at this time was Mr.
   J. Neely Johnson. … The major-general of the second division
   of state militia (which included the city and county of San
   Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known
   in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his
   commission in the United States army and had become a partner
   in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco.
   … Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson … appealed to
   General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to
   the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in
   command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut
   had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for
   arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of
   war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act
   as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor
   Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his
   request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the
   sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William
   Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance
   committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their
   prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to
   call out the militia of his division to support that officer.
   At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring
   the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General
   Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service,
   and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained
   arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized
   and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to
   arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the
   vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by
   the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others,
   had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general
   meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men
   were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under
   arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order
   party, who were collected in force at the different armories.
   These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and
   delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories
   were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power
   between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order
   and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure
   ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who
   wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a
   butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court.
   Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their
   position was made more precarious by the very fact of their
   having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole
   Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and
   it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington
   to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at
   once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way,
   placing the United States military force in California at the
   disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily
   with their work. … All the important changes which they had
   undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would
   gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had
   it not been for the case of Judge Terry. … At last the
   physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on
   the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. … Having got rid
   of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a
   close, and on the 18th of August the whole association,
   numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal
   streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in
   Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they
   were relieved from duty. … In the following November there
   was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went
   off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of
   thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was
   elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San
   Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best
   governed cities in the United States."

      _T. G. Cary,
      The San Francisco Vigilance Committee
      (Atlantic Monthly, December 1877)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25._

      _General W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

{352}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
   Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.
   The new state constitution.

   "Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express
   sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in
   Pennsylvania. … Some strong language used at this meeting,
   and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men
   into forming a sort of committee of public safety. … The
   chief result of the incident was further irritation of the
   poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of
   them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them.
   Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and
   members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the
   custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and
   other organizations, purporting to represent various parties
   or sections of a party, and among others a body calling
   itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the
   Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the
   election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his
   union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman
   by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but
   accustomed to include his religion among the established
   institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for
   industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into
   stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have
   first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in
   speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the
   Lyceum of Self Culture. … Kearney's tongue, loud and
   abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San
   Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards
   the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out
   for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and
   hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to
   gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first
   he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great
   newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the
   Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in
   this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns
   with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working
   men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. … The
   advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and
   articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take
   it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally
   assured by his being, along with several other speakers,
   arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of
   inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of
   Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco
   the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution
   failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better
   class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though
   many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a
   circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was
   organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of
   California, with Kearney for its President. … The Sand Lot
   party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here,
   as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its
   rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised
   to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats,
   hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus
   it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own
   at city and State elections. It carried most of the city
   offices, and when the question was submitted to the people
   whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it
   threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. … Next
   came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the
   convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The
   Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in
   the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without
   experience or constructive ideas. … However; the working
   men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less
   corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many
   things and produced that surprising instrument by which
   California is now governed. …

   1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of
   the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to
   carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It
   makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator,
   and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.

   2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to
   incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land
   equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in
   the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an
   income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of
   everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.

   3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State
   has power to prevent corporations from conducting their
   business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the
   State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies,
   and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by
   law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the
   transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books
   and accounts of all transportation companies.

   4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars
   them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public
   works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the
   legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which
   shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of
   Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe
   these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall
   constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the
   Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people,
   in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. …
{353}
   The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so
   many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San
   Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the
   entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a
   small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens
   voting. … The next thing was to choose a legislature to
   carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed
   in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional
   Convention, the results might have been serious. But
   fortunately there was a slight reaction. … A series of
   statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the
   Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be
   contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared
   when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills,
   particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and
   one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot
   men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing,
   Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did
   not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the
   legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues,
   especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the
   candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office
   than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the
   Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or
   training to argue the legal, economical, and political
   questions involved in the new Constitution so that the
   prominence of these questions threw him into the background.
   … Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics,
   and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where
   he goes or what he does."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapter 90 (volume 2),
      and appendix to volume 1
      (containing the text of the Constitution of California)._

----------CALIFORNIA: End----------

CALIGULA.

      See CAIUS.

CALIPH, The Title.

   The title Caliph, or Khalifa, simply signifies in the Arabic
   language "Successor." The Caliphs were the successors of
   Mahomet.

CALIPHATE, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

CALIPHS,
   The Turkish Sultan becomes successor to the.

      See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

CALISCH, OR KALISCH, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

CALIXTINES, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

CALLAO: Siege, 1825-1826.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

CALLAO: A. D. 1866.
   Repulse of the Spanish fleet.

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

CALLEVA.

   One of the greater towns of Roman Britain, the walls of which,
   found at Silchester enclose an area of three miles in circuit.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

CALLIAS, Peace of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

CALLINICUS, Battle of.

   Fought in the wars of the Romans with the Persians, on the
   banks of the Euphrates, Easter Eve. A. D. 531. The Romans,
   commanded by Belisarius, suffered an apparent defeat, but they
   checked an intended advance of the Persians on Antioch.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 19._

CALLISTUS II., Pope, A. D. 1119-1124.
   Callistus III., Pope, A. D. 1455-1458.

CALMAR, The Union of.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397, and 1397-1527.

CALPULALPAM, Battle of (1860).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.

CALPURNIAN LAW, The.

   "In this year, B. C. 149, the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso
   Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of annals, proposed
   and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the
   Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third
   Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his
   foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation,
   there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. … But
   these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the
   subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. … The remedy for
   these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of
   Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular
   criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly
   constituted were afterwards established for the trial of
   persons charged with other offences. The Lex Calpurnia defined
   the offence of Repetundæ, as it was briefly named, to be the
   taking of money by irregular means for the use of a governor.
   The name Repetundæ was given to this offence, because the
   object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make
   restitution. … The court consisted of a presiding judge …
   and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The
   number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all
   senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of the
   judices tried all the cases which came before them during one
   year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing
   court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which
   had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not
   know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as
   the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to
   obtain satisfaction."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 2._

CALUSA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

CALVEN, Battle of (1499).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

CAMARCUM.
   The ancient name of the town of Cambrai.

CAMARILLA.

   A circle of irresponsible chamber
   counsellors—courtiers—surrounding a sovereign with
   influences superior to those of his responsible ministers.

CAMBALU, OR CAMBALEC.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

CAMBAS, OR
CAMPA, OR
CAMPO, The.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CAMBORICUM.
   A Roman town in Britain.

   "Camboricum was without doubt a very important town, which
   commanded the southern fens. It had three forts or citadels,
   the principal of which occupied the district called the
   Castle-end, in the modern town of Cambridge, and appears to
   have had a bridge over the Cam, or Granta; of the others, one
   stood below the town, at Chesterton, and the other above it,
   at Granchester. Numerous roads branched off from this town.
   … Bede calls the representative of Camboricum, in his time,
   a 'little deserted city,' and tells us how, when the nuns of
   Ely wanted a coffin for their saintly abbess, Etheldreda, they
   found a beautiful sculptured sarcophagus of white marble
   outside the city walls of the Roman town."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

{354}

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1581.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Prince of Parma.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1595-1598.
   End of the Principality of governor Balagni.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
   Retention under the treaty of Vervins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1677.
   Taken by Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1679.
   Ceded to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

----------CAMBRAI: End----------

CAMBRAI,
   The League of.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

CAMBRAI, Peace of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

CAMBRIA.
   The early name of Wales.

      See KYMRY, and CUMBRIA;
      also, BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

CAMBRIDGE,
   England, Origin of.

      See CAMBORICUM.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts.
   The first settlement.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

CAMBRIDGE, Platform, The:

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

CAMBYSES, OR KAMBYSES,
   King of Persia, B. C. 529-522.

CAMDEN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

CAMERONIAN REGIMENT, The.

   In 1689, when Claverhouse was raising the Highland clans in
   favor of James II., "William Cleland, who had fought with
   distinguished bravery at Bothwell, and was one of the few men
   whom Claverhouse feared, made an offer to the [Scottish]
   Estates to raise a regiment among the Cameronians, under the
   colonelcy of the Earl of Angus, and the offer was accepted.
   Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment. Its first
   lieutenant-colonel was Cleland; its first chaplain was
   Shields. Its courage was first tried at Dunkeld, where these
   800 Covenanted warriors rolled back the tide of Celtic
   invasion; and since that, undegenerate though changed, it has
   won trophies in every quarter of the world."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

CAMERONIANS, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

CAMISARDS, The revolt of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

CAMORRA, OR CAMORRISTI, The.

   "Besides the regular authorities known to and avowed by the
   law … there existed under the Bourbon rule at Naples
   [overthrown by Garibaldi in 1860] a self-constituted authority
   more terrible than either. It was not easy to obtain exact
   proof of the operation of this authority, for it was impatient
   of question, its vengeance was prompt, and the instrument of
   that vengeance was the knife. In speaking of it as one
   authority it is possible to err, for different forms or
   branches of this secret institution at times revealed their
   existence by the orders which they issued. This secret
   influence was that of the Camorra, or Camorristi, a sort of
   combination of the violence of the middle ages, of the trades
   union tyranny of Sheffield, and of the blackmail levy of the
   borders. The Camorristi were a body of unknown individuals who
   subsisted on the public, especially on the smaller
   tradespeople. A man effected a sale of his ware; as the
   customer left his shop a man of the people would enter and
   demand the tax on the sale for the Camorra. None could escape
   from the odious tyranny. It was impalpable to the police. It
   did not confine itself to the industry of illicit taxation. It
   issued its orders. When the Italian Parliament imposed stamp
   duties, that sensibly increased the cost of litigation, that
   indispensable luxury of the Neapolitans, the advocates
   received letters warning them to cease all practice in the
   courts so long as these stamp duties were enforced.
   'Otherwise,' continued the mandate, 'we shall take an early
   opportunity of arranging your affairs.' Signed by 'the Camorra
   of the avvocati.' The arrangement hinted at was to be made by
   the knife. … The Italian government, much to its credit,
   made a great onslaught on the Camorristi. Many were arrested,
   imprisoned or exiled, some even killed one another in prison.
   But the total eradication of so terrible a social vice must be
   [published in 1867] a work of great difficulty, perseverance
   and time."

      _The Trinity of Italy;
      by an English Civilian,
      page 70._

CAMP OF REFUGE AT ELY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

   "'The name of Campania,' says Pelligrini, 'which was first
   applied to the territory of Capua alone, extended itself by
   successive re-arrangements of the Italian provinces over a
   great part of Central Italy, and then gradually shrank back
   again into its birth-place, and at last became restricted to
   the limits of one city only, Naples, and that one of the least
   importance in Italy. What naturally followed was the total
   disuse of the name.' … The term Campania, therefore, became
   obsolete except in the writings of a few mediaeval authors,
   whose statements created some confusion by their ignorance of
   the different senses in which it had at different times been
   used. An impression seems, however, to have prevailed that the
   district of Capua had been so named on account of its flat and
   fertile nature, and hence every similar tract of plain country
   came to be called a campagna in the Italian language. The
   exact time when the name, which had thus become a mere
   appellative, was applied to the Roman Campagna is not
   accurately ascertained. … It will be seen that the term
   Roman Campagna is not a geographical definition of any
   district or province with clearly fixed limits, but that it is
   a name loosely employed in speaking of the tract which lies
   round the city of Rome."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14, note at end._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Gell,
      Topography of Rome,
      volume 1._

CAMPALDINO, Battle of.

      See FLORENCE; A. D. 1289.

CAMPANIANS, The.

      See SABINES;
      also, SAMNITES.

CAMPBELL, Sir Colin (Lord Clyde),
   The Indian Campaign of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

{355}

CAMPBELL'S STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CAMPERDOWN, Naval battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

CAMPO-FORMIO, Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CAMPO SANTO, Battle of (1743).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

CAMPO-TENESE, Battle of (1806).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

CAMPUS MARTIUS AT ROME, The.

   "The history of the Campus Martius presents us with a series
   of striking contrasts. It has been covered in successive ages,
   first by the cornfields of the Tarquinian dynasty, then by the
   parade ground of the great military republic, next by a forest
   of marble colonnades and porticoes, and, lastly, by a confused
   mass of mean and filthy streets, clustering round vast
   mansions, and innumerable churches of every size and
   description. … During the time of the Republic, the whole
   Campus seems to have been considered state property and was
   used as a military and athletic exercise ground and a place of
   meeting for the comitia centuriata."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 13, part 1._

   "We have hitherto employed this name to designate the whole of
   the meadow land bounded by the Tiber on one side, and on the
   other by the Collis Hortulorum, the Quirinal and the
   Capitoline. … But the Campus Martius, strictly speaking, was
   that portion only of the flat ground which lies in the angle
   formed by the bend of the stream. According to the narrative
   of Livy, it was the property of the Tarquins, and upon their
   expulsion was confiscated, and then consecrated to Mars; but
   Dionysius asserts that it had been previously set apart to the
   god and sacrilegiously appropriated by the tyrant. … During
   the republic the Campus Martius was employed specially for two
   purposes. (1.) As a place for holding the constitutional
   assemblies (comitia) especially the Comitia Centuriata, and
   also for ordinary public meetings (conciones). (2.) For
   gymnastic and warlike sports. For seven centuries it remained
   almost entirely open. … In the Comitia, the citizens, when
   their votes were taken, passed into enclosures termed septa,
   or ovilia, which were, for a long period, temporary wooden
   erections."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 1._

CAMULODUNUM.

      See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

CAMUNI, The.

      See RHÆTIANS.

CANAAN.
CANAANITES.

   "Canaan signifies 'the lowlands,' and was primarily the name
   of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were
   built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were
   inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be
   extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as
   Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of
   the Philistines."

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

      See PHŒNICIANS: ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY;

      Also,
      JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,
      and HAMITES.

----------CANAAN: End----------

CANADA.
   (NEW FRANCE.)

CANADA:
   Names.

   "The year after the failure of Verrazano's last enterprise,
   1525, Stefano Gomez sailed from Spain for Cuba and Florida;
   thence he steered northward in search of the long hoped-for
   passage to India, till he reached Cape Race, on the
   southeastern extremity of Newfoundland. The further details of
   his voyage remain unknown, but there is reason to suppose that
   he entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence and traded upon its
   shores. An ancient Castilian tradition existed that the
   Spaniards visited these coasts before the French, and having
   perceived no appearance of mines or riches, they exclaimed
   frequently 'Aca nada' [signifying 'here is nothing']; the
   natives caught up the sound, and when other Europeans arrived,
   repeated it to them. The strangers concluded that these words
   were a designation, and from that time this magnificent
   country bore the name of Canada. … Father Hennepin asserts
   that the Spaniards were the first discoverers of Canada, and
   that, finding nothing there to gratify their extensive desires
   for gold, they bestowed upon it the appellation of Capo di
   Nada, 'Cape Nothing,' whence by corruption its present name.
   … La Potherie gives the same derivation. … This
   derivation would reconcile the different assertions of the
   early discoverers, some of whom give the name of Canada to the
   whole valley of the St. Lawrence; others, equally worthy of
   credit, confine it to a small district in the neighbourhood of
   Stadacona (now Quebec). … Duponceau, in the Transactions of
   the [American] Philosophical Society, of Philadelphia, founds
   his conjecture of the Indian origin of the name of Canada upon
   the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew
   into the Mohawk tongue, made by Brandt, the Indian chief, the
   word Canada is always used to signify a village. The mistake
   of the early discoverers, in taking the name of a part for
   that of the whole, is very pardonable in persons ignorant of
   the Indian language. … The natural conclusion … is, that
   the word Canada was a mere local appellation, without
   reference to the country; that each tribe had their own
   Canada, or collection of huts, which shifted its position
   according to their migrations."

      _E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._

   "Canada was the name which Cartier found attached to the land
   and there is no evidence that he attempted to displace it. …
   Nor did Roberval attempt to name the country, while the
   commission given him by the king does not associate the name
   of Francis or any new name therewith. … There seems to have
   been a belief in New England, at a later day, that Canada was
   derived from William and Emery de Caen (Cane, as the English
   spelled it), who were in New France in 1621, and later. Cf.
   Morton's 'New English Canaan,' Adam's edition, page 235, and
   Josselyn's 'Rarities,' page 5; also, J. Reade, in his history of
   geographical names in Canada, printed in New Dominion Monthly,
   xi. 344."

      _B. F. De Costa,
      Jacques Cartier and his Successors
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 2), and Editor's foot-note._

{356}

   "Cartier calls the St. Lawrence the 'River of Hochelaga,' or
   'the great river of Canada.' He confines the name of Canada to
   a district extending from the Isle aux Coudres in the St.
   Lawrence to a point at some distance above the site of Quebec.
   The country below, he adds, was called by the Indians
   Saguenay, and that above, Hochelaga. In the map of Gerard
   Mercator (1569) the name Canada is given to a town, with an
   adjacent district, on the river Stadin (St. Charles).
   Lescarbot, a later writer, insists that the country on both
   sides of the St. Lawrence, from Hochelaga to its mouth, bore
   the name of Canada. In the second map of Ortelius, published
   about the year 1572; New France, Nova Francia is thus
   divided:—'Canada,' a district on the St. Lawrence above the
   River Saguenay; 'Chilaga' (Hochelaga), the angle between the
   Ottawa and the St. Lawrence; 'Saguenai,' a district below the
   river of that name; 'Moscosa,' south of the St. Lawrence and
   east of the River Richelieu; 'Avacal,' west and south of
   Moscosa; 'Norumbega,' Maine and New Brunswick; 'Apalachen,'
   Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.; 'Terra Corterealis,' Labrador;
   'Florida,' Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Mercator confines
   the name of New France to districts bordering on the St.
   Lawrence. Others give it a much broader application. The use
   of this name, or the nearly allied names of Francisca and La
   Francisane, dates back, to say the least, as far as 1525, and
   the Dutch geographers are especially free in their use of it,
   out of spite to the Spaniards. The derivation of the name of
   Canada has been a point of discussion. It is, without doubt,
   not Spanish, but Indian. … Lescarbot affirms that Canada is
   simply an Indian proper name, of which it is vain to seek a
   meaning. Belleforest also calls it an Indian word, but
   translates it 'Terre,' as does also Thevet."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

CANADA:
   The Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      HURONS; OJIBWAYS; SIOUAN FAMILY;
      ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, AND ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

CANADA: A. D. 1497-1498.
   Coast discoveries of the Cabots.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497 and 1498.

CANADA: A. D. 1500.
   Cortereal on the coast.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

CANADA: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
   banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

CANADA: A. D. 1524.
   The coasting voyage of Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

CANADA: A. D. 1534-1535.
   Possession taken by Jacques Cartier for the King of France.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

CANADA: A. D. 1541-1603.
   Jacques Cartier's last undertaking.
   Unsuccessful French attempts at Colonization.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.

CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
   The Beginning of Champlain's Career in the New World.
   Colonization at Port Royal.
   Exploration of the New England coast.

   In Pontgravé's expedition of 1603 to New France [see AMERICA:
   A. D. 1541-1603], "Samuel de Champlain, a captain in the
   navy, accepted a command …. at the request of De Chatte [or
   De Chastes]; he was a native of Saintonge, and had lately
   returned to France from the West Indies, where he had gained a
   high name for boldness and skill. Under the direction of this
   wise and energetic man the first successful efforts were made
   to found a permanent settlement in the magnificent province of
   Canada, and the stain of the errors and disasters of more than
   seventy years was at length wiped away. Pontgravé and
   Champlain sailed for the St. Lawrence in 1603," explored it as
   far as the rapids of St. Louis, and then returned to France.
   They found that the patron of their undertaking, De Chastes,
   was dead. "Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, had succeeded to
   the powers and privileges of the deceased, with even a more
   extensive commission. De Monts was a Calvinist, and had
   obtained from the king the freedom of religious faith for
   himself and his followers in America, but under the engagement
   that the Roman Catholic worship should be established among
   the natives. … The trading company established by De Chatte
   was continued and increased by his successor. With this
   additional aid De Monts was enabled to fit out a more complete
   armament than had ever hitherto been engaged in Canadian
   commerce. He sailed from Havre on the 7th of March, 1604, with
   four vessels. Of these, two under his immediate command were
   destined for Acadia. Champlain, Poutrincourt, and many other
   volunteers, embarked their fortunes with him, purposing to
   cast their future lot in the New World. A third vessel was
   dispatched under Pontgravé to the Strait of Canso, to protect
   the exclusive trading privileges of the company. The fourth
   steered for Tadoussac, to barter for the rich furs brought by
   the Indian hunters from the dreary wilds of the Saguenay. On
   the 6th of May De Monts reached a harbor on the coast of
   Acadia;" but, for some reason not to be understood, his
   projected colony was quartered on the little islet of St.
   Croix, near the mouth of the river of that name, which became
   subsequently the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick.
   Meantime, the fine harbor, now Annapolis, then named Port
   Royal, had been discovered, and was granted, with a large
   surrounding territory, by De Monts to De Poutrincourt, who
   proposed to settle upon it as its feudal proprietor and lord.
   The colony at St. Croix having been housed and put in order,
   De Poutrincourt sailed for France, intending to bring his
   family and establish himself at Port Royal. De Monts,
   Champlain, and those who remained, suffered a winter of
   terrible hardships, and thirty-five died before spring. De
   Monts now resolved to seek a better site for his infant
   settlement, and, finding no other situation so good he resumed
   possession of that most desirable Port Royal which he had
   granted away to Poutrincourt and removed his colony thither.
   Champlain, meanwhile, in the summer of 1605, had explored the
   coast southward far down the future home of the English
   Puritans, looking into Massachusetts Bay, taking shelter in
   Plymouth harbor and naming it Port St. Louis, doubling Cape
   Cod (which he called Cap Blanc), turning back at Nausett
   Harbor, and gaining on the whole a remarkable knowledge of the
   country and its coast. Soon after Champlain's return from this
   coasting voyage, De Monts was called home to France, by news
   of machinations that were threatening to extinguish his
   patent, and Pontgravé was left in command of the colony at
   Port Royal.

      _E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{357}

   In De Monts' petition to the king for leave to colonize Acadia
   that region was defined "as extending from the 40th to the
   46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond
   Montreal."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Slafter,
      Memoir preface to "Voyages of Samuel de Champlain"
      (Prince Society, 1880), chapters 1-5._

CANADA: A. D. 1606-1608.
   The fortunes of the Acadian colony.

   "De Monts found his pathway in France surrounded with
   difficulties. The Rochelle merchants who were partners in the
   enterprise desired a return for their investments. The Baron
   de Poutrincourt, who was still possessed with the desire to
   make the New World his home, proved of assistance to De Monts.
   De Poutrincourt returned to Acadia and encouraged the
   colonists, who were on the verge of deserting Port Royal. With
   De Poutrincourt emigrated at this time a Parisian advocate,
   named Mark Lescarbot, who was of great service to the colony.
   During the absence of De Poutrincourt on an exploring
   expedition down the coast, Lescarbot drained and repaired the
   colonists' fort, and made a number of administrative changes,
   much improving the condition of the settlers. The following
   winter was one of comfort, indeed of enjoyment. … In May,
   however, the sad news reached the colony that the company of
   the merchants on whom it depended had been broken up. Their
   dependence being gone, on the 30th of July most of the
   colonists left Acadia for France in vessels sent out for them.
   For two years the empty buildings of Port Royal stood, a
   melancholy sight, with not a white person in them, but under
   the safe protection of Memberton, the Micmak chief, who proved
   a trusty friend to the French. The opposition to the company
   of Rochelle arose from various causes. In addition to its
   financial difficulties the fact of De Monts being a Protestant
   was seized on as the reason why nothing was being done in the
   colony to christianize the Indians. Accordingly when De Monts,
   fired with a new scheme for exploring the northwest passage,
   turned over the management of Acadian affairs to De
   Poutrincourt, who was a sincere Catholic, some of the
   difficulties disappeared. It was not, however, till two years
   later that arrangements were made for a new Acadian
   expedition."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 4, section 1._

      ALSO IN: _J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 4._

CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.
   Champlain's third and fourth expeditions.
   His settlement at Quebec, discovery of Lake Champlain, and
   first wars with the Iroquois.

   "De Monts in no way lost heart, and he resolved to continue in
   the career of exploration for settlement. A new, expedition
   was determined on, and De Monts selected the Saint Lawrence as
   the spot where the effort should be made. Champlain counselled
   the change. In Nova Scotia and on the coast of New Brunswick and
   Maine he had been struck by the number of ports affording
   protection to vessels from sea, and by the small number of
   Indians whom he had met. In Nova Scotia he would be exposed to
   rival attempts at settlement, and at the same time he could
   not see the possibility of obtaining Indian allies. In Canada
   the full control would remain with those who first made a
   settlement on the Saint Lawrence, and Champlain counted the
   native tribes as powerful instruments in carrying out his
   policy. We have the key here to his conduct in assisting the
   Hurons in their wars. …. In 1608 Champlain started for the
   St. Lawrence. Pontgravé was with the expedition. A settlement
   was made at Quebec, as the most suitable place. Some ground
   was cleared, buildings were commenced, when a conspiracy was
   discovered. The ringleader was hanged and three of those
   actively implicated were sent back to France with Pontgravé on
   his return in the autumn. Matters now went peaceably on. The
   summer was passed in completing the 'Abitation de Quebec,' of
   which Champlain has left us a sketch. It was situated in the
   present Lower Town on the river bank, in the corner where
   Notre Dame Street meets Sous le Fort Street. It was here
   Champlain laid the foundation for the future city. Winter
   came, the scurvy carrying off twenty of their number. … In
   June, Des Marais, Pontgravé's son-in-law, arrived, telling him
   that Pontgravé was at Tadousac. Champlain proceeded thither.
   The question had then to be discussed, what policy should be
   followed with the Indians? Should they be aided by what force
   Champlain could command, in the expedition which they had
   resolved to make against the Iroquois? It is plain that no
   advance in discovery could have been made without their
   assistance, and that this assistance could only have been
   obtained by rendering them service. … With the view of
   making explorations beyond the points then known by Europeans,
   Champlain in the middle of June ascended the St. Lawrence.
   About a league and a half west of the river Saint Anne, they
   were joined by a party of Algonquins who were to form a part
   of the expedition. Champlain tells us of their mortal feud
   with the Iroquois, a proof that in no way he created it. They
   all returned to Quebec, where there was festivity for some
   days. It was brought to a close and the war parties started;
   Champlain with nine men, Des Marais and a pilot, joined it
   [them?]. With his Indian allies he ascended the Richelieu and
   reached Lake Champlain, the first white man who saw its
   waters: subsequently for 165 years to be the scene of contest
   between the Indian and white man, the French and English, the
   revolted Colonies and the Mother Country. … The advance up
   Lake Champlain was made only by night. They reached Crown
   Point. They were then in the Iroquois domain; very shortly
   they knew of the presence of the enemy." On the 30th of July
   the invaders fought a battle with the Iroquois, who fled in
   terror before the arquebuse of Champlain, which killed two of
   their chiefs and wounded a third. Soon after his return to
   Quebec from this expedition—the beginning of the long war of
   the French with the Iroquois—Champlain was summoned to
   France. The patent of De Monts had been revoked and he could
   not obtain its renewal. "Nevertheless, De Monts, with his
   associates decided to continue their efforts, and, in March,
   1610, Champlain again started for Canada." After reaching
   Quebec his stay this time was short. He joined his Indian
   allies in another expedition of war, and helped them to win
   another victory over the Iroquois, at a place on the
   Richelieu, one league above Sorel. On returning he got news of
   the assassination of Henry IV. and started at once for France.
{358}
   "The death of Henry IV. exercised great influence on the
   fortunes of Canada. He had personally taken interest in
   Champlain's voyages, and his energetic mind was well qualified
   to direct the fortunes of a growing colony. Louis XIII. was
   not then ten years old. Mary of Medecis was under the control
   of her favourites, Leonora Galigai, and her husband, Concino
   Concini. Richelieu had not then appeared on the scene. … The
   Jesuits were becoming all-powerful at Court. … France was
   unsettled and disordered. The Protestants, not without
   provocation, were acting with passion and without judgment.
   The assassination of the King had alarmed them. The whole
   kingdom was threatened with convulsion and anarchy, and Canada
   was to pass out of the notice of those in power: and, in the
   sense of giving aid, half a century was to elapse before the
   French Government could comprehend the duty of taking part in
   the defence of the country, and of protecting the persons of
   those living in New France. The ground was to be regarded
   simply as a field for the active trader, side by side with the
   devoted missionary. Thus the Government fell virtually under
   the control of the Jesuits, who, impatient of contra aimed
   only at the establishment of their authority, which was to
   bring the colony to the verge of destruction." Champlain
   returned to his colony in the spring of 1611, facing its
   prospects with such courage as he found in his own stout
   heart.

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 1, chapters 3, 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. B. O'Callaghan, editor.,
      Doc. History of New York,
      volume 3,  pages 1-9._

CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.
   The Acadian colony revived, but destroyed by the English of
   Virginia.

   Port Royal was left uninhabited till 1610, when Poutrincourt
   returned at the instance of the king to make the new
   settlement a central station for the conversion of the
   Indians,—a work which made some Jesuit missionaries prominent
   in the history of the New World. His son followed in 1611,
   with fathers Pierre Biard, and Enemond Masse. Madame la
   Marquise de Guercheville, a pious Catholic, to whom De Monts
   had ceded his title to Acadia, and to whom afterwards the
   French king granted the whole territory now covered by the
   United States, was the chief patroness of these voyages.
   Desiring to make another settlement, she despatched a vessel
   in 1613 with two more Jesuits, father Quentin and Gilbert Du
   Thet, and forty-eight men under La Saussaye. "When they
   arrived at Port Royal, they only found five persons—fathers
   Biard and Masse, their servant, the apothecary Hébert, and
   another. All the rest were absent, either hunting or trading.
   They showed the Queen's letter to Hébert, who represented
   Biencourt in his absence, and taking the two Jesuits, with
   their servant and luggage aboard, again set sail. It was their
   intention to establish the colony at Pentagoet, which father
   Biard had visited the year previous, but when off Grand Manan
   a thick fog came on, which lasted for two days, and when it
   became clear, they put into a harbor on the eastern side of
   Mount Desert Island, in Maine. The harbor was deep, secure and
   commodious, and they judged this would be a favorable site for
   the colony, and named the place St. Sauveur. … La Saussaye
   was advised by the principal colonists to erect a sufficient
   fortification before commencing to cultivate the soil, but he
   disregarded this advice, and nothing was completed in the way
   of defence, except the raising of a small palisaded structure,
   when a storm burst upon the colony, which was little expected
   by its founders. In 1607 a company of London merchants had
   founded a colony on the James River, in Virginia, where, after
   suffering greatly from the insalubrity of the climate and want
   of provisions, they had attained a considerable degree of
   property. In 1613 they sent a fleet of eleven vessels to fish
   on the coast of Acadia, convoyed by an armed vessel under the
   command of Captain Samuel Argal, who had been connected with
   the colony since 1609. Argal was one of those adventurers
   formed in the school of Drake, who made a trade of piracy, but
   confined themselves to the robbery of those who were so
   unfortunate as not to be their own countrymen. … When Argal
   arrived at Mount Desert, he was told by the Indians that the
   French were there in the harbor with a vessel. Learning that
   they were not very numerous, he at once resolved to attack
   them. All the French were ashore when Argal approached, except
   ten men, most of whom were unacquainted with the working of a
   ship. Argal attacked the French with musketry, and at the
   second discharge Gilbert Du Thet fell hack, mortally wounded;
   four others were severely injured, and two young men, named
   Lemoine and Neveau, jumped overboard and were drowned. Having
   taken possession of the vessel, Argal went ashore and informed
   La Saussaye that the place where they were was English
   territory, and included in the charter of Virginia, and that
   they must remove; but, if they could prove to him that they
   were there under a commission from the crown of France, he
   would treat them tenderly. He then asked La Saussaye to show
   him his commission; but, as Argal, with unparalleled
   indecency, had abstracted it from his chest while the vessel
   was being plundered by his men, the unhappy governor was of
   course unable to produce it. Argal then assumed a very lofty
   tone. … When Argal arrived in Virginia, he found that his
   perfidious theft of the French governor's commission was
   likely to cause his prisoners to be treated as pirates. They
   were put into prison and in a fair way of being executed, in
   spite of Argal's remonstrances, until struck with shame and
   remorse, he produced the commission which he had so
   dishonestly filched from them, and the prisoners were set
   free. But the production of this document, while it saved the
   lives of one set of Frenchmen, brought ruin upon all the
   others who remained in Acadia. The Virginia colonists …
   resolved to send Argal to destroy all the French settlements
   in Acadia, and erase all traces of their power. … The only
   excuse offered for this piratical outrage of Argal—which was
   committed during a period of profound peace—was the claim
   which was made by England to the whole continent of North
   America, founded on the discoveries of the Cabots more than a
   century before. That claim might, perhaps, have been of some
   value if followed by immediate occupancy, as was the case with
   the Spaniards in the South, but that not having been done, and
   the French colony being the oldest, it was entitled to, at
   least, as much consideration as that of Virginia. Singularly
   enough, this act produced no remonstrance from France."

      _J. Hannay,
      History of Acadia,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

{359}

CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.
   The founding of Montreal.
   Champlain's invasion of the Iroquois in New York.

   "In 1611 Champlain again returned to America … and on the
   28th of May proceeded in search of his allies, whom he was to
   meet by appointment. Not finding them he employed his time in
   choosing a site for a new settlement, higher up the river than
   Quebec. After a careful survey, he fixed upon an eligible spot
   in the vicinity of Mont Royal. His choice has been amply
   justified by the great prosperity to which this place, under
   the name of Montreal, has subsequently risen. Having cleared a
   considerable space of ground, he fenced it in by an earthen
   ditch and planted grain in the enclosure. At length, on the
   13th of June, three weeks after the time appointed, a party of
   his Indian friends appeared. … As an evidence of their good
   will they imparted much valuable information respecting the
   geography of this continent, with which they seemed to be
   tolerably well acquainted as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.
   They readily agreed to his proposal to return shortly with 40
   or 50 of his people to prosecute discoveries and form
   settlements in their country if he thought proper. They even
   made a request that a French youth should accompany them, and
   make observations upon their territory and tribe. Champlain
   again returned to France, with a view of making arrangements
   for more extensive operations; but this object was now of very
   difficult accomplishment. De Monts, who had been appointed
   governor of Saintonge, was no longer inclined to take the lead
   in measures of this kind, and excused himself from going to
   court by stating the urgency of his own affairs. He therefore
   committed the whole conduct of the settlement to Champlain,
   advising him, at the same time, to seek some powerful
   protector, whose influence would overcome any opposition which
   might be made to his plans. The latter was so fortunate as to
   win over, almost immediately, the Count de Soissons to aid him
   in his designs. This nobleman obtained the title of
   lieutenant-general of New France; and, by a formal agreement,
   transferred to Champlain all the functions of that high
   office. The Count died soon after, but Champlain found a still
   more influential friend in the Prince of Conde, who succeeded
   to all the privileges of the deceased, and transferred them to
   him in a manner equally ample. These privileges, including a
   monopoly of the fur trade, gave great dissatisfaction to the
   merchants; but Champlain endeavored to remove their principal
   objection, by permitting as many of them as chose to accompany
   him to the New World, and to engage in this traffic. In
   consequence of this permission, three merchants from Normandy,
   one from Rochelle, and one from St. Malo, accompanied him.
   They were allowed the privileges of a free trade on
   contributing six men each to assist in projects of discovery,
   and giving one-twentieth of their profits towards defraying
   the expenses of the settlement. In the beginning of March
   [1613] the expedition sailed from Harfleur, and on the 7th of
   May arrived at Quebec. Champlain now engaged in a new
   project." His new project was a voyage of exploration up the
   Ottawa River, which he accomplished with great difficulty,
   through the aid of his Indian allies, but from which he
   returned disappointed in the hope he had entertained of
   discovering the northern sea and a way to India thereby. The
   next summer found Champlain again in France, where "matters
   still continued favorable for the colony. The Prince of Conde
   retained his influence at Court, and no difficulty was
   consequently found in equipping a small fleet, to carry out
   settlers and supplies from Rouen and St. Malo. On board of
   this fleet came four fathers of the order of the Recollets,
   whose benevolence induced them to desire the conversion of the
   Indians to Christianity. These were the first priests who
   settled in Canada. Champlain arrived safely, on the 25th of
   May, at Tadoussac, whence he immediately pushed forward to
   Quebec, and subsequently to the usual place of Indian
   rendezvous, at the Lachine Rapids. Here he found his Algonquin
   and Huron allies full of projects of war against the Iroquois,
   whom they now proposed to assail among the lakes to the
   westward, with a force of 2,000 fighting men."

      _J. MacMullen,
      History of Canada,
      chapter 1_

   "Champlain found the Hurons and their allies preparing for an
   expedition against their ancient enemies, the Iroquois.
   Anxious to reconnoitre the hostile territory, and also to
   secure the friendship of the Canadian savages, the gallant
   Frenchman resolved to accompany their warriors. After visiting
   the tribes at the head waters of the Ottawa, and discovering
   Lake Huron [at Georgian Bay], which, because of its 'great
   extent,' he named 'La Mer Douce,' Champlain, attended by an
   armed party of ten Frenchmen, accordingly set out toward the
   south, with his Indian allies. Enraptured with the 'very
   beautiful and pleasant country' through which they passed, and
   amusing themselves with fishing and hunting, as they descended
   the chain of 'Shallow Lakes,' which discharge their waters
   through the River Trent, the expedition reached the banks of
   Lake Ontario. Crossing the end of the lake, 'at the outlet of
   the great River of Saint Lawrence,' and passing by many
   beautiful islands on the way, the invaders followed the
   eastern shore of Ontario for fourteen leagues, toward their
   enemy's country. … Leaving the shores of the lake, the
   invaders continued their route inland to the southward, for 25
   or 30 leagues." After a journey of five days, "the expedition
   arrived before the fortified village of the Iroquois, on the
   northern bank of the Onondaga Lake, near the site of the
   present town of Liverpool. The village was inclosed by four
   rows of palisades, made of large pieces of timber closely
   interlaced. The stockade was 30 feet high, with galleries
   running around like a parapet." In the siege which followed
   the Iroquois were dismayed by the firearms of Champlain and
   his men, and by the operation of a moveable tower with which
   he advanced to their stockade and set fire to it. But his
   Indian allies proved incapable of acting in any rational or
   efficient way, or to submit to the least direction, and the
   attack was abortive. After a few days the invading force
   retreated, carrying Champlain with them and forcing him to
   remain in the Huron country until the following spring (1616),
   when he made his way back to Montreal.

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{360}

   The above account, which fixes on Onondaga Lake the site of
   the Iroquois fort to which Champlain penetrated, does not
   agree with the views of Parkman, O'Callaghan, and some other
   historians, who trace Champlain's route farther westward in
   New York; but it accepts the conclusions reached by O. H.
   Marshall, J. V. H. Clark, and other careful students of the
   question. Mr. MacMullen, in the "History of Canada" quoted
   above, finds an extraordinary route for the expedition via
   Lakes Huron and St. Clair, to the vicinity of Detroit.

      _J. V. H. Clark,
      History of Onondaga._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. H. Marshall,
      Champlain's Expedition against the Onondagas.
      Champlain's Voyages (Prince Society). 1880._

      _E. B. O'Callaghan, editor,
      Doc. History of New York,
      volume 3, pages 10-24._

CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
   Champlain and the fur traders.
   The first Jesuit mission.
   Creation of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

   "The exploration in the distant Indian territories which we
   have just described in the preceding pages was the last made
   by Champlain. He had plans for the survey of other regions yet
   unexplored, but the favorable opportunity did not occur.
   Henceforth he directed his attention more exclusively than he
   had hitherto done to the enlargement and strengthening of his
   colonial plantation, without such success, we regret to say,
   as his zeal, devotion and labors fitly deserved. The obstacles
   that lay in his way were insurmountable. The establishment or
   factory, we can hardly call it a plantation, at Quebec, was
   the creature of a company of merchants. They had invested
   considerable sums in shipping, buildings, and in the
   employment of men, in order to carry on a trade in furs and
   peltry with the Indians, and they naturally desired
   remunerative returns. This was the limit of their purpose in
   making the investment. … Under these circumstances,
   Champlain struggled on for years against a current which he
   could barely direct, but by no means control. … He succeeded
   at length in extorting from the company a promise to enlarge
   the establishment to 80 persons, with suitable equipments,
   farming implements, all kinds of seeds, and domestic animals,
   including cattle and sheep. But when the time came, this
   promise was not fulfilled. Differences, bickerings and feuds
   sprang up in the company. Some wanted one thing, and some
   wanted another. The Catholics wished to extend the faith of
   their church into the wilds of Canada, while the Huguenots
   desired to prevent it, or at least not to promote it by their
   own contributions. The company, inspired by avarice and a
   desire to restrict the establishment to a mere trading post,
   raised an issue to discredit Champlain. It was gravely
   proposed that he should devote himself exclusively to
   exploration, and that the government and trade should
   henceforth be under the direction and control of Pont Gravé.
   But Champlain … obtained a decree ordering that he should
   have the command at Quebec, and at all other settlements in
   New France, and that the company should abstain from any
   interference with him in the discharge of the duties of his
   office." In 1620 the Prince de Condé sold his viceroyalty to
   the Duke de Montmorency, then high-admiral of France, who
   commissioned Champlain anew, as his lieutenant, and supported
   him vigorously. Champlain had made voyages to Canada in 1617
   and 1618, and now, in 1620, he proceeded to his post again. At
   Quebec he began immediately the building of a fort, which he
   called fort St. Louis. The company of associates opposed this
   work, and so provoked the Duke of Montmorency by their conduct
   that "in the spring of 1621, he summarily dissolved the
   association of merchants, which he denominated the 'Company of
   Rouen and St. Malo,' and established another in its place. He
   continued Champlain in the office of lieutenant, but committed
   all matters relating to trade to William de Caen, a merchant
   of high standing, and to Émeric de Caen, the nephew of the
   former, a good naval captain." In the course of the following
   year, however, the new and the old trading companies were
   consolidated in one. "Champlain remained at Quebec four years
   before again returning to France. His time was divided between
   many local enterprises of great importance. His special
   attention was given to advancing the work on the unfinished
   fort, in order to provide against incursions of the hostile
   Iroquois, who at one time approached the very walls of Quebec,
   and attacked unsuccessfully the guarded house of the
   Recollects on the St. Charles." In the summer of 1624
   Champlain returned again to France, where the Duke de
   Montmorency was just selling, or had sold, his viceroyalty to
   the Duke de Ventadour. "This nobleman, of a deeply religious
   cast of mind, had taken holy orders, and his chief purpose in
   obtaining the viceroyalty was to encourage the planting of
   Catholic missions in New France. As his spiritual directors
   were Jesuits, he naturally committed the work to them. Three
   fathers and two lay brothers of this order were sent to Canada
   in 1625, and others subsequently joined them. … Champlain
   was reappointed lieutenant, but remained in France two years."
   Returning to Quebec in July, 1626, he found, as usual, that
   everything but trade had suffered neglect in his absence. Nor
   was he able, during the following year, to improve much the
   prospects of the colony. As a colony, "it had never prospered.
   The average number composing it had not exceeded about 50
   persons. At this time it may have been somewhat more, but did
   not reach a hundred. A single family only appears to have
   subsisted by the cultivation of the soil. The rest were
   sustained by supplies sent from France. … The company as a
   mere trading association, was doubtless successful. … The
   large dividends that they were able to make, intimated by
   Champlain to be not far from forty per centum yearly, were, of
   course, highly satisfactory to the company. … Nearly twenty
   years had elapsed since the founding of Quebec, and it still
   possessed only the character of a trading post, and not that
   of a colonial plantation. This progress was satisfactory
   neither to Champlain, to the Viceroy, nor to the Council of
   State. In the view of these several interested parties, the
   time had come for a radical change in the organization of the
   company. Cardinal de Richelieu had risen by his extraordinary
   ability as a statesman, a short time anterior to this, into
   supreme authority. … He lost no time in organizing measures.
   … The company of merchants whose finances had been so
   skilfully managed by the Caens was by him at once dissolved. A
   new one was formed, denominated 'La Compagnie de la
   Nouvelle-France,' consisting of a hundred or more members, and
   commonly known as the Company of the Hundred Associates. It
   was under the control and management of Richelieu himself.
{361}
   Its members were largely gentlemen in official positions. …
   Its authority extended over the whole domain of New France and
   Florida. … It entered into an obligation … within the
   space of 15 years to transport 4,000 colonists to New France.
   … The organization of the company … was ratified by the
   Council of State on the 6th of May, 1628."

      _E. F. Slafter,
      Memoir of Champlain
      (Voyages: Prince Society, 1880, volume 1),
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Père Charlevoix,
      History of New France,
      translated by J. G. Shea,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
   Conquest and brief occupation by the English.
   Restoration to France.

   "The first care of the new Company was to succor Quebec, whose
   inmates were on the verge of starvation. Four armed vessels,
   with a fleet of transports commanded by Roquemont, one of the
   associates, sailed from Dieppe with colonists and supplies in
   April, 1628; but nearly at the same time another squadron,
   destined also for Quebec, was sailing from an English port.
   War had at length broken out in France. The Huguenot revolt
   had come to a head. Rochelle was in arms against the king; and
   Richelieu, with his royal ward, was beleaguering it with the
   whole strength of the kingdom. Charles I. of England, urged by
   the heated passions of Buckingham, had declared himself for
   the rebels, and sent a fleet to their aid. … The attempts of
   Sir William Alexander to colonize Acadia had of late turned
   attention in England towards the New World; and, on the
   breaking out of the war, an expedition was set on foot, under
   the auspices of that singular personage, to seize on the
   French possessions in North America. It was a private
   enterprise, undertaken by London merchants, prominent among
   whom was Gervase Kirke, an Englishman of Derbyshire, who had
   long lived at Dieppe, and had there married a Frenchwoman.
   Gervase Kirke and his associates fitted out three small armed
   ships, commanded respectively by his sons David, Lewis and
   Thomas. Letters of marque were obtained from the king, and the
   adventurers were authorized to drive out the French from
   Acadia and Canada. Many Huguenot refugees were among the
   crews. Having been expelled from New France as settlers, the
   persecuted sect were returning as enemies." The Kirkes reached
   the St. Lawrence in advance of Roquemont's supply ships,
   intercepted the latter and captured or sank the whole. They
   then sailed back to England with their spoils, and it was not
   until the following summer that they returned to complete
   their conquest. Meantime, the small garrison and population at
   Quebec were reduced to starvation, and were subsisting on
   acorns and roots when, in July 1629, Admiral David Kirke, with
   his three ships, appeared before the place. Champlain could do
   nothing but arrange a dignified surrender. For three years
   following, Quebec and New France remained under the control of
   the English. They were then restored, under a treaty
   stipulation to France. "It long remained a mystery why Charles
   consented to a stipulation which pledged him to resign so
   important a conquest. The mystery is explained by the recent
   discovery of a letter from the king to Sir Isaac Wake, his
   ambassador at Paris. The promised dowry of Queen Henrietta
   Maria, amounting to 800,000 crowns, had been but half paid by
   the French government, and Charles, then at issue with his
   Parliament and in desperate need of money, instructs his
   ambassador that, when he receives the balance due, and not
   before, he is to give up to the French both Quebec and Port
   Royal, which had also been captured by Kirke. The letter was
   accompanied by 'solemn instruments under our hand and seal' to
   make good the transfer on fulfilment of the condition. It was
   for a sum equal to about $240,000 that Charles entailed on
   Great Britain and her colonies a century of bloody wars. The
   Kirkes and their associates, who had made the conquest at
   their own cost, under the royal authority, were never
   reimbursed, though David Kirke received the honor of
   knighthood, which cost the king nothing,"—and also the grant
   of Newfoundland. On the 5th of July, 1632, Quebec was
   delivered up by Thomas Kirke to Émery de Caen, commissioned by
   the French king to reclaim the place. The latter held command
   for one year, with a monopoly of the fur trade; then Champlain
   resumed the government, on behalf of the Hundred Associates,
   continuing in it until his death, which occurred on Christmas
   Day, 1635.

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapters 16-17._

      ALSO IN:
      _Calendar of State Papers: Colonial Series, 1574-1660,
      pages 96-143._

      _D. Brymuer,
      Report on Canadian Archives,
      pages xi-xiv, and note D._

      _H. Kirke,
      First English Conquest of Canada._

      See, also,
      NEWFOUNDLAND, A. D. 1610-1655.

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.
   The Jesuit missions and their fate.

   The first of the Jesuit missionaries came to Quebec in 1625,
   as stated above, but it was not until nearly seven years later
   that they made their way into the heart of the Indian country
   and began there their devoted work. "The Father Superior of
   the Mission was Paul le Jeune, a man devoted in every fibre of
   mind and heart to the work on which he had come. He utterly
   scorned difficulty and pain. He had received the order to
   depart for Canada 'with inexpressible joy at the prospect of a
   living or dying martyrdom.' Among his companions was Jean de
   Brébœuf, a man noble in birth and aspect, of strong intellect
   and will, of zeal which knew no limit, and recognized no
   obstacle in the path of duty. … Far in the west, beside a
   great lake of which the Jesuits had vaguely heard, dwelt the
   Hurons, a powerful nation with many kindred tribes over which
   they exercised influence. The Jesuits resolved to found a
   mission among the Hurons. Once in every year a fleet of canoes
   came down the great river, bearing six or seven hundred Huron
   warriors, who visited Quebec to dispose of their furs, to
   gamble and to steal. Brébœuf and two companions took passage
   [1634] with the returning fleet, and set out for the dreary
   scene of their new apostolate. … The Hurons received with
   hospitable welcome the black-robed strangers. The priests were
   able to repay the kindness with services of high value. They
   taught more effective methods of fortifying the town in which
   they lived. They promised the help of a few French musketeers
   against an impending attack by the Iroquois. They cured
   diseases; they bound up wounds. They gave simple instruction
   to the young, and gained the hearts of their pupils by gifts
   of beads and raisins. The elders of the people came to have
   the faith explained to them: they readily owned that it was a
   good faith for the French, but they could not be persuaded
   that it was suitable for the red man.
{362}
   The fathers laboured in hope and the savages learned to love them.
   … Some of their methods of conversion were exceedingly
   rude. A letter from Father Garnier has been preserved in which
   pictures are ordered from France for the spiritual improvement
   of the Indians. Many representations of souls in perdition
   are required, with appropriate accompaniment of
   flames, and triumphant demons tearing them with pincers. One
   picture of saved souls would suffice, and 'a picture of Christ
   without a beard.' They were consumed by a zeal for the baptism
   of little children. At the outset the Indians welcomed this
   ceremonial, believing that it was a charm to avert sickness
   and death. But when epidemics wasted them they charged the
   calamity against the mysterious operations of the fathers,
   and refused now to permit baptism. The fathers recognized
   the hand of Satan in this prohibition, and refused to submit
   to it. They baptized by stealth. … In time, the patient,
   self-denying labour of the fathers might have won those
   discouraging savages to the cross; but a fatal interruption
   was at hand. A powerful and relentless enemy, bent on
   extermination, was about to sweep over the Huron territory,
   involving the savages and their teachers in one common ruin.
   Thirty-two years had passed since those ill judged expeditions
   in which Champlain had given help to the Hurons against the
   Iroquois. The unforgiving savages had never forgotten the
   wrong. … The Iroquois [1648-1649] attacked in
   overwhelming force the towns of their Huron enemies; forced
   the inadequate defences; burned the palisades and wooden
   huts; slaughtered with indescribable tortures the wretched
   inhabitants. In one of these towns they found Brébœuf and one
   of his companions. They bound the ill fated missionaries to
   stakes; they hung around their necks collars of red-hot iron;
   they poured boiling water on their heads; they cut stripes of
   flesh from their quivering limbs and ate them in their sight.
   To the last Brébœuf cheered with hopes of heaven the native
   converts who shared his agony. And thus was gained the crown
   of martyrdom for which in the fervour of their enthusiasm,
   these good men had long yearned. In a few years the Huron
   nation was extinct; famine and small-pox swept off those whom
   the Iroquois spared. The Huron mission was closed by the
   extirpation of the race for whom it was founded. Many of the
   missionaries perished; some returned to France. Their labour
   seemed to have been in vain; their years of toil and suffering
   left no trace."

      _R. Mackenzie,
      America: A History,
      pages 326-332._

   "With the fall of the Hurons, fell the best hope
   of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and populous
   communities around them, had been the rude material from which
   the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire in the
   wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
   uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
   whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
   common ruin. … In a measure, the occupation of the Jesuits
   was gone. Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the
   Father Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound
   of the trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in
   number, several soon fell victims to famine, hardship and the
   Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission.
   Political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
   and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
   civil and military annals."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Jesuits in North America,
      chapter 34._

      ALSO IN:
      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of New France,
      translated by Shea,
      books 5-7 (volume 2)._

      _J. G. Shea,
      The Jesuits, Recollects, and the Indians
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 6)._

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
   Nicolet.
   Marquette.
   Joliet.
   Pioneer exploration in the West and discovery of the Mississippi.

   When Champlain gave up his work, the map of New France was
   blank beyond Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. The first of the
   French explorers who widened it far westward was a Norman
   named Jean Nicolet, who came to America in 1618, and who was
   trained for many years in Champlain's service. "After dwelling
   some time among the Nipissings, he visited the Far West;
   seemingly between the years 1634 and 1640. In a birch-bark
   canoe, the brave Norman voyageur crossed or coasted Lake
   Huron, entered the St. Mary's River, and, first of white men,
   stood at the strait now called Sault Ste Marie. He does not
   seem to have known of Lake Superior, but returned down the St.
   Mary's River, passed from Lake Huron through the western
   detour to Michilimackinac, and entered another fresh-water
   sea, Mitchigannon or Michigan, also afterwards known as the
   Lake of the Illinois, Lake St. Joseph, Lake Dauphin, or even
   Algonquin Lake. Here he visited the Menomonee tribe of
   Indians, and after them the Winnibagoes. … The fierce wrath
   of the Iroquois had driven numbers of the Hurons, Ottawas, and
   several minor Algonquin tribes westward. The Iroquois, like a
   wedge, had split the northern tribes into east and west. Sault
   Ste Marie became a central point for the refugees. … Another
   gathering place for the fugitives had been found very near the
   south-west corner of this great lake. This was La Pointe, one
   of the Apostle Islands, near the present town of Ashland in
   Wisconsin. The Jesuits took up these two points as mission
   centres. … In 1669 the Fathers Dablon and Marquette, with
   their men, had erected a palisaded fort, enclosing a chapel
   and house, at Sault Ste Marie. In the same year Father Allouez
   had begun a mission at Green Bay. In 1670 an intrepid
   explorer, St. Lusson, under orders from Intendant Talon, came
   west searching for copper-mines. He was accompanied by the
   afterwards well-known Joliet. When this party arrived at Sault
   Ste Marie, the Indians were gathered together in great
   numbers, and with imposing ceremonies St. Lusson took
   possession of 'Sainte Marie du Saut, as also of Lakes Huron
   and Superior, the island of Manetoulin, and all countries,
   rivers, lakes, and streams contiguous and adjacent thereunto.'
   … It was undoubtedly the pressing desire of the Jesuit
   fathers to visit the country of the Illinois and their great
   river that led to the discovery of the 'Father of Waters.'
   Father Allouez indeed had already ascended the Fox River from
   Lake Michigan, and seen the marshy lake which is the head of a
   tributary of the Mississippi. At last on June 4th, 1672, the
   French minister, Colbert, wrote to Talon: 'As after the
   increase of the colony there is nothing more important for the
   colony than the discovery of a passage to the South Sea, his
   Majesty wishes you to give it your attention.'
{363}
   This message to the Intendant came as he was leaving for
   France, and he recommended the scheme and the explorer he had
   in view for carrying it out to the notice of the Governor,
   Frontenac, who had just arrived. Governor Frontenac approved
   and the explorer started. The man chosen for the enterprise
   was Louis Joliet, who had already been at Sault Ste Marie. He
   was of humble birth, and was a native of New France. … The
   French Canadian explorer was acceptable to the missionaries,
   and immediately journeyed west to meet Marquette, who was to
   accompany him. … M. Joliet met the priest Marquette at St.
   Ignace Mission, Michilimackinac. Jacques Marquette, of whom we
   have already heard, was born in 1637 at Laon, Champagne, in
   France. He sprang of an ancient and distinguished family. …
   On May 17th, 1673, with deepest religious emotion, the trader
   and missionary launched forth on Lake Michigan their two
   canoes, containing seven Frenchmen in all, to make the
   greatest discovery of the time. They hastened to Green Bay,
   followed the course of Father Allouez up the Fox River, and
   reached the tribe of the Mascoutins or Fire Nation on this
   river. These were new Indians to the explorers. They were
   peaceful, and helped the voyagers on their way. With guides
   furnished, the two canoes were transported for 2,700 paces,
   and the head waters of the Wisconsin were reached. After an
   easy descent of 30 or 40 leagues, on June 17th, 1673, the feat
   was accomplished, the Mississippi was discovered by white men,
   and the canoes shot out upon its surface in latitude 43°.
   Sailing down the great river for a month, the party reached
   the village of Akansea, on the Arkansas River, in latitude
   34°, and on July 17th began their return journey. It is but
   just to say that some of the Recollet fathers, between whom
   and the Jesuits jealousy existed, have disputed the fact of
   Joliet and Marquette ever reaching this point. The evidence
   here seems entirely in favour of the explorers. On their
   return journey the party turned from the Mississippi into a
   tributary river in latitude 38°. This was the Illinois.
   Ascending this, the Indian town of Kaskaskia was reached, and
   here for a time Father Marquette remained. Joliet and his
   party passed on," arriving at Montreal in due time, but losing
   all their papers in the rapids of the St. Lawrence. Father
   Marquette established a mission among the Illinois Indians,
   but his labors were cut short. He died while on a journey to
   Green Bay, May 18, 1675. "High encomiums of Father Marquette
   fill—and deservedly so—the 'Jesuit Relations.' We have his
   autograph map of the Mississippi. This great stream he desired
   to call 'Conception River,' but the name, like those of
   'Colbert' and 'Buade' [the family name of Count Frontenac],
   which were both bestowed upon it, have failed to take the
   place of the musical Indian name."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 5, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West,
      chapters 2-5._

      _C. W. Butterfield,
      History of the Discovery of the Northwest by Nicolet._

      _J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and settlement of the
      Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume l)._

      _S. S. Hebberd,
      History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France,
      chapters 1-2._

CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.
   The Sulpician settlement of Montreal and religious activity at
   Quebec.

   Champlain was succeeded as governor of New France by M. de
   Châteaufort, of whose brief administration little is known,
   and the latter was followed by M. de Montmagny, out of the
   translation of whose name the Indians formed the title
   Onontio, signifying "Great Mountain," which they afterwards
   applied to all the French governors. Montmagny entered with
   zeal into the plans of Champlain, "but difficulties
   accumulated on all sides. Men and money were wanting, trade
   languished, and the Associated Company in France were daily
   becoming indifferent to the success of the colony. Some few
   merchants and inhabitants of the outposts, indeed, were
   enriched by the profitable dealings of the fur-trade, but
   their suddenly-acquired wealth excited the jealousy rather
   than increased the general prosperity of the settlers. The
   work of religious institutions was alone pursued with vigor
   and success in those times of failure and discouragement. At
   Sillery, one league from Quebec, an establishment was founded
   for the instruction of the savages and the diffusion of
   Christian light [1637]. The Hotel Dieu owed its existence to
   the Duchesse d'Aiguillon two years afterward, and the convent
   of the Ursulines was founded by the pious and high-born Madame
   de la Peltrie. The partial success and subsequent failure of
   Champlain and his Indian allies in their encounters with the
   Iroquois had emboldened these brave and politic savages. They
   now captured several canoes belonging to the Hurons, laden
   with furs, which that friendly people were conveying to
   Quebec. Montmagny's military force was too small to allow of
   his avenging this insult; he, however, zealously promoted an
   enterprise to build a fort and effect a settlement on the
   island of Montreal, which he fondly hoped would curb the
   audacity of his savage foes. The Associated Company would
   render no aid whatever to this important plan, but the
   religious zeal of the Abbé Olivier overcame all difficulties.
   He obtained a grant of Montreal from the king, and dispatched
   the Sieur de Maisonneuve and others to take possession. On the
   17th of May, 1641, the place destined for the settlement was
   consecrated by the superior of the Jesuits. At the same time
   the governor erected a fort at the entrance of the River
   Richelieu," which so far checked the Iroquois that they
   entered into a treaty of peace and respected it for a brief
   period.

      _E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

   The settlement of Montreal was undertaken by an association of
   thirty-five rich and influential persons in France, among whom
   was the Duke de Liancourt de la Hoche Guyon. "This company
   obtained a concession of the island in 1640, and a member of
   the association arrived at Quebec from France with several
   immigrating families, some soldiers, and an armament valued at
   25,000 piastres." In 1642 "a reinforcement of colonists
   arrived, led by M. d'Ailleboust de Musseau. During the
   following year, a second party came. At this time the European
   population resident in Canada did not exceed 200 souls. The
   immigrants who now entered it had been selected with the
   utmost care."

      _A. Bell,
      History of Canada,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   In 1657 the seigniority of Montreal was ceded to the Seminary
   of St. Sulpice in Paris, where the reins of its government
   were held until 1692.

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of New France,
      translated by Shea,
      volume 3, page 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      The Jesuits in North America,
      chapters 13-15._

{364}

CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.
   The wars with the Iroquois.

   "From about the year 1640 to the year 1700, a constant warfare
   was maintained between the Iroquois and the French,
   interrupted occasionally by negotiations and brief intervals
   of peace. As the former possessed both banks of the St.
   Lawrence, and the circuits of lakes Erie and Ontario, they
   intercepted the fur trade, which the French were anxious to
   maintain with the western nations. … The war parties of the
   League ranged through these territories so constantly that it
   was impossible for the French to pass in safety through the
   lakes, or even up the St. Lawrence above Montreal. … So
   great was the fear of these sudden attacks, that both the
   traders and the missionaries were obliged to ascend the Ottawa
   river to near its source, and from thence to cross over to the
   Sault St. Marie, and the shores of Lake Superior. … To
   retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their
   recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by
   the French. … In 1665, M. Courcelles, governor of Canada,
   led a strong party into the country of the Mohawks; but the
   hardships they encountered rendered it necessary for them to
   return without accomplishing their purpose. The next year, M.
   de Tracy, Viceroy of New France, with 1,200 French and 600
   Indians, renewed the invasion with better success. He captured
   Te-ä-ton-ta-ló-ga, one of the principal villages of the
   Mohawks, situated at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek; but
   after destroying the town, and the stores of corn, which they
   found in caches, they were obliged to retire without meeting
   an opposing force. Again, in 1684. M. De La Barre, then
   governor of Canada, entered the country of the Onondagas, with
   about 1,800 men. Having reached Hungry Bay, on the east shore
   of lake Ontario, a conference was had with a delegation of
   Iroquois chiefs. … A species of armistice was finally agreed
   upon, and thus the expedition ended. A more successful
   enterprise was projected and carried into execution in 1687 by
   M. De Nonville, then governor of Canada. Having raised a force
   of 2,000 French and 600 Indians, he embarked them in a fleet
   of 200 bateau, and as many birch bark canoes. After coasting
   lake Ontario from Kingston to Irondequoit bay, in the
   territory of the Senecas, he landed at the head of this bay,
   and found himself within a few miles of the principal villages
   of the Senecas, which were then in the counties of Ontario and
   Monroe." After one battle with about 500 of the Senecas, the
   latter retreated into the interior, and the French destroyed
   four of their villages, together with the surrounding fields
   of growing corn. "To retaliate for this invasion, a formidable
   party of the Iroquois, in the fall of the same year, made a
   sudden descent upon Fort Chambly, on the Sorel River, near
   Montreal. Unable to capture the fort, which was resolutely
   defended by the garrison, they ravaged the settlements
   adjacent, and returned with a number of captives. About the
   same time, a party of 800 attacked Frontenac, on the site of
   Kingston, and destroyed and laid waste the plantations and
   establishments of the French without the fortification. In
   July of the ensuing year the French were made to feel still
   more sensibly the power of their revenge. A band of 1,200
   warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a
   descent upon the island of Montreal. … All that were without
   the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless
   tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged,
   and the whole island covered with desolation. About 1,000 of
   the French, according to some writers, perished in this
   invasion, or were carried into captivity. … Overwhelmed by
   this sudden disaster, the French destroyed their forts at
   Niagara and Frontenac, and thus yielded the whole country west
   of Montreal to the possession of the Iroquois. At this
   critical period Count Frontenac again became governor of
   Canada, and during the short residue of his life devoted
   himself, with untiring energy, to restore its declining
   prosperity."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      League of the Iroquois,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      books 2-4 (volumes 1-2)._

      _E. B. O'Callaghan, editor,
      Doc. History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 57-278._

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 3 and 8._

      _O. H. Marshall,
      Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against the Senecas
      (Historical Writings, pages 123-186)._

CANADA: A. D. 1660-1688.
   French encroachments and English concessions in Newfoundland.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

CANADA: A.D. 1663-1674.
   Erected by Colbert into a Royal Province.
   Brief career of the French West India Company.

   "In 1663 the proceedings of the company [of the hundred
   associates] became so obnoxious that the king of France
   decided upon the immediate resumption of his rights, and the
   erecting of Canada into a royal government: Monsieur de Mésy
   was appointed governor, and proceeded from France to Quebec
   with 400 regular troops, and 100 families as settlers, with
   cattle, horses and implements of agriculture. Under the royal
   jurisdiction, the governor, a king's commissioner, an
   apostolical vicar, and four other gentlemen, were formed into
   a sovereign council, to whom were confided the powers of
   cognizance in all causes, civil and criminal, to judge in the
   last resort according to the laws and ordinances of France,
   and the practice of the Parliament of Paris, reserving the
   general legislative powers of the Crown, to be applied
   according to circumstances. This Council was further invested
   with the regulation of commerce, the expenditure of the public
   monies, and the establishment of inferior courts at Three
   Rivers and Montreal. This change of Canada from an
   ecclesiastical mission to a secular government was owing to
   the great Colbert, who was, animated by the example of Great
   Britain, to improve the navigation and commerce of his country
   by colonial establishments. The enlightened policy of this
   renowned financial minister of Louis XIV. was followed by the
   success which it deserved. To a regulated civil government was
   added increased military protection against the Iroquois
   Indians; the emigration of French settlers to New France was
   promoted by every possible means, and a martial spirit was
   imparted to the population, by the location in the colony of
   the disbanded soldiers of the Carignan regiment … and other
   troops, whose officers became the principal Seigneurs of the
   colony, on condition of making cessions of land under the
   feudal tenure, as it still exists, to the soldiers and other
   inhabitants." The ambitious projects of Louis XIV. soon led,
   however, to a new measure which proved less satisfactory in
   its working.
{365}
   "The French West India Company was remodelled [1664], and
   Canada added to their possessions, subordinate to the crown of
   France, with powers controlled by his Majesty's governors and
   Intendants in the different colonies." The domain of the
   company embraced all the possessions of France in the New
   World and its islands and on the African coast. "The company
   was to enjoy a monopoly of the territories and the trade of
   the colonies thus conceded for 40 years; it was not only to
   enjoy the exclusive navigation, but his Majesty conferred a
   bounty of 30 livres on every ton of goods exported to France.
   …  The company was not only endowed as Seigneur with all
   unconceded lands, but invested with the right of extinguishing
   the titles of seigniories granted or sold by previous
   companies, on condition of reimbursing the grantees and
   purchasers for their costs and improvements." The West India
   Company's management soon showed evil effects, and came to an
   end after ten years of unsatisfactory trial. "Monsieur De
   Talon, the Intendant, a man of profound views, … perceived
   that it was the natural interest of the Company to discourage
   colonization. He represented to the minister Colbert the
   absolute necessity of the total resumption of the rights of
   the crown; drew his attention to the means of obtaining
   abundance of warlike instruments and naval stores within the
   colony … and, in fact, at last prevailed; so that, in 1674,
   the king of France resumed his rights to all the territories
   conceded to the West India Company, assumed their debts and
   the current value of their stock, and appointed a governor,
   council and judges for the direction of the Canadian colonies.
   … From this period (1674), when the population, embracing
   converted Indians, did not exceed 8,000, the French settlement
   in Canada rapidly progressed, and as it rose in power, and
   assumed offensive operations on the New England frontier, the
   jealousy of the British colonies became roused, and both
   parties, aided alternately by the Indians, carried on a
   destructive and harassing border warfare."

      _R. M. Martin,
      History of Upper and Lower Canada,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Bell,
      History of Canada,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _F. Parkman,
      The Old Regime in Canada,
      chapters 10-17._

CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
   La Salle and the acquisition of Louisiana.

   "Second only to Champlain among the heroes of Canadian history
   stands Robert Cavelier de la Salle—a man of iron if ever
   there was one—a man austere and cold in manner, and endowed
   with such indomitable pluck and perseverance as have never
   been surpassed in this world. He did more than any other man
   to extend the dominion of France in the New World. As
   Champlain had founded the colony of Canada and opened the way
   to the great lakes, so La Salle completed the discovery of the
   Mississippi, and added to the French possessions the vast
   province of Louisiana. … In 1669 La Salle made his first
   journey to the west, hoping to find a northwest passage to
   China, but very little is known about this expedition, except
   that the Ohio river was discovered, and perhaps also the
   Illinois. La Salle's feudal domain of St. Sulpice, some eight
   miles from Montreal, bears to-day the name of La Chine, or
   China, which is said to have been applied to it in derision of
   this fruitless expedition. In 1673 the priest Marquette and
   the fur-trader Joliet actually reached the Mississippi by way
   of the Wisconsin, and sailed down the great river as far as
   the mouth of the Arkansas; and now the life-work of La Salle
   began in earnest. He formed a grand project for exploring the
   Mississippi to its mouth, and determining whether it, flowed
   into the Gulf of California or the Gulf of Mexico. The advance
   of Spain on the side of Mexico was to be checked forever, the
   English were to be confined to the east of the Alleghanies,
   and such military posts were to be established as would
   effectually confirm the authority of Louis XIV. throughout the
   centre of this continent. La Salle had but little ready money,
   and was surrounded by rivals and enemies; but he had a
   powerful friend in Count Frontenac, the Viceroy of Canada. …
   At length, after surmounting innumerable difficulties, a
   vessel [the Griffon or Griffin] was built and launched on the
   Niagara river [1679], a small party of 30 or 40 men were
   gathered together, and La Salle, having just recovered from a
   treacherous dose of poison, embarked on his great enterprise.
   His departure was clouded by the news that his impatient
   creditors had laid hands upon his Canadian estates; but,
   nothing daunted, he pushed on through Lakes Erie and Huron,
   and after many disasters reached the southern extremity of
   Lake Michigan. The vessel was now sent back, with half the
   party, to Niagara, carrying furs to appease the creditors and
   purchase additional supplies for the remainder of the journey,
   while La Salle with his diminished company pushed on to the
   Illinois, where a fort was built, and appropriately named Fort
   Crèvecœur, or, as we might translate it, the 'fort of the
   breaking heart.' Here, amid perils of famine, mutiny, and
   Indian attack, and exposed to death from the wintry cold, they
   waited until it became evident to all that their vessel must
   have perished. She never was heard from again, and most likely
   had foundered on her perilous voyage. To add to the trouble,
   La Salle was again poisoned; but his iron constitution, aided
   by some lucky antidote, again carried him safely through the
   ordeal, and about the 1st of March, 1680, he started on foot
   for Montreal. Leaving Fort Crèveœur and its tiny garrison
   under command of his faithful lieutenant, Tonty, he set out
   with four Frenchmen and one Mohegan guide. … They made their
   way for a thousand miles across Michigan and Western Canada to
   Niagara, and so on to Montreal. … At Niagara La Salle
   learned that a ship from France, freighted for him with a
   cargo worth more than 20,000 livres, had been wrecked in the
   Gulf of St. Lawrence, and nothing had been saved. In spite of
   this dreadful blow he contrived to get together supplies and
   reenforcements at Montreal, and had returned to Fort
   Frontenac, at the lower end of Lake Ontario, when still more
   woful tidings were received. Here, toward the end of July, a
   message came from the fortress so well named Crèvecœur. The
   garrison had mutinied and destroyed the fort, and made their
   way back through Michigan." The indomitable La Salle promptly
   hunted down the deserters, and sent them in chains to Quebec.
   He then "proceeded again to the Illinois to reconstruct his
   fort, and rescue, if possible, his lieutenant Tonty and the
   few faithful followers who had survived the mutiny. This
   little party, abandoned in the wilderness, had found shelter
   among the Illinois Indians; but during the summer of 1680 the
   great village or town of the Illinois was destroyed by the
   Iroquois, and the hard-pressed Frenchmen retreated up the
   western shore of Lake Michigan to Green Bay.-
{366}
   On arriving at the Illinois, therefore, La Salle found nothing
   but the terrible traces of fire and massacre and cannibal
   orgies; but he spent the following winter to good purpose in
   securing the friendship of the western Indians, and in making
   an alliance with them against the Iroquois. Then, in May,
   1681, he set out again for Canada, to look after his creditors
   and obtain new resources. On the way home, at the outlet of
   Lake Michigan, he met his friend Tonty, and together they
   paddled their canoes a thousand miles and came to Fort
   Frontenac. So, after all this hardship and disaster, the work
   was to be begun anew; and the enemies of the great explorer
   were exulting in what they imagined must be his despair. But
   that was a word of which La Salle knew not the meaning, and
   now his fortunes began to change. In Mr. Parkman's words,
   'Fate at length seemed tired of the conflict with so stubborn
   an adversary.' At this third venture everything went smoothly.
   The little fleet passed up the great lakes, from the outlet of
   Ontario to the head of Michigan, and gained the Chicago River.
   Crossing the narrow portage, they descended the Illinois and
   the Mississippi, till they came out upon the Gulf of Mexico;
   and on the 9th of April, 1682, the fleurs-de-lis were planted
   at the mouth of the great river, and all the country drained
   by its tributaries, from the Alleghanies to the Rocky
   Mountains, was formally declared to be the property of the
   king of France, and named after him Louisiana. Returning up
   the river after his triumph, La Salle founded a station or
   small colony on the Illinois, which he called St. Louis, and
   leaving Tonty in command, kept on to Canada, and crossed to
   France for means to circumvent his enemies and complete his
   far-reaching schemes. A colony was to be founded at the mouth
   of the Mississippi, and military stations were to connect this
   with the French settlements in Canada. At the French court La
   Salle was treated like a hero, and a fine expedition was soon
   fitted out, but everything was ruined by jealousy and ill-will
   between La Salle and the naval commander, Beaujeu. The fleet
   sailed beyond the mouth of the Mississippi, the colony was
   thrown upon the coast of Texas, some of the vessels were
   wrecked, and Beaujeu—though apparently without sinister
   design—sailed away with the rest, and two years of terrible
   suffering followed. At last, in March, 1687, La Salle started
   to find the Mississippi, hoping to ascend it to Tonty's fort
   on the Illinois, and obtain relief for his followers. But he
   had scarcely set out on this desperate enterprise when two or
   three mutinous wretches of his party laid an ambush for him in
   the forest, and shot him dead. Thus, at the early age of
   forty-three, perished this extraordinary man, with his
   life-work but half accomplished. Yet his labors had done much
   towards building up the imposing dominion with which New
   France confronted New England in the following century."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Romance of the Spanish and French Explorers
      (Harper's Magazine, volume 64, pages 446-448.)_

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West._

      _Chevalier Tonti,
      Account of M. de la Salle's last Expedition
      (New York Historical Society Collections, volume 2)._

      _J. G. Shea,
      Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi Valley._

      _C. Le Clercq,
      First Establishment of the Faith in New France,
      translated by Shea,
      chapters 21-25 (volume 2)._

CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
   The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
   The Schenectady Massacre.
   Montreal threatened, Quebec attacked, and Port Royal taken by
   the English.

   The Revolution of 1688, in England, which drove James II. from
   the throne, and called to it his daughter Mary with her able
   husband, William of Orange, produced war between England and
   France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690). The French and English
   colonies in America were soon involved in the contest, and so
   far as it troubled American history, it bears in New England
   annals 'the name of King William's War. "If the issue had
   depended on the condition of the colonies, it could hardly
   have seemed doubtful. The French census for the North American
   continent, in 1688, showed but 11,249 persons, scarcely a
   tenth part of the English population on its frontiers; about a
   twentieth part of English North America. West of Montreal, the
   principal French posts, and those but inconsiderable ones,
   were at Frontenac, at Mackinaw, and on the Illinois. At,
   Niagara, there was a wavering purpose of maintaining a post,
   but no permanent occupation. So weak were the garrisons that
   English traders, with an escort of Indians, had ventured even
   to Mackinaw. … France, bounding its territory next New
   England by the Kennebec, claimed the whole eastern coast, Nova
   Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Hudson's Bay;
   and to assert and defend this boundless region, Acadia and its
   dependencies counted but 900 French inhabitants. The
   missionaries, swaying the minds of the Abenakis, were the sole
   source of hope. On the declaration of war by France against
   England, Count Frontenac, once more governor of Canada, was
   charged to recover Hudson's Bay; to protect Acadia; and, by a
   descent from Canada, to assist a fleet from France in making
   conquest of New York. Of that province De Callieres was, in
   advance, appointed governor; the English Catholics were to be
   permitted to remain,—other inhabitants to be sent into
   Pennsylvania or New England. … In the east, blood was first
   shed at Cocheco, where, thirteen years before, an unsuspecting
   party of 350 Indians had been taken prisoners and shipped for
   Boston, to be sold into foreign slavery. The memory of the
   treachery was indelible, and the Indian emissaries of Castin
   easily excited the tribe of Penacook to revenge. On the
   evening of the 27th of June [1689] two squaws repaired to the
   house of Richard Waldron, and the octogenarian magistrate bade
   them lodge on the floor. At night, they rise, unbar the gates,
   and summon their companions," who tortured the aged Waldron
   until he died. "The Indians, burning his house and others that
   stood near it, having killed three-and-twenty, returned to the
   wilderness with 29 captives." In August, the stockade at
   Pemaquid was taken by 100 Indians from the French mission on
   the Penobscot. "Other inroads were made by the Penobscot and
   St. John Indians, so that the settlements east of Falmouth
   were deserted. In September, commissioners from New England
   held a conference with the Mohawks at Albany, soliciting an
   alliance. 'We have burned Montreal,' said they; 'we are the
   allies of the English; we will keep the chain unbroken.'
{367}
   But they refused to invade the Abenakis. … Frontenac … now
   used every effort to win the Five Nations [the Iroquois] to
   neutrality or to friendship. To recover esteem in their eyes;
   to secure to Durantaye, the commander at Mackinaw, the means
   of treating with the Hurons and the Ottawas; it was resolved
   by Frontenac to make a triple descent into the English
   provinces. From Montreal, a party of 110, composed of French
   and of the Christian Iroquois,—having De Mantet and Sainte
   Helene as leaders … —for two and twenty days waded through
   snows and morasses, through forests and across rivers, to
   Schenectady. The village had given itself calmly to slumber:
   through open and unguarded gates the invaders entered silently
   [February 8, 1690], and having, just before midnight, reached its
   heart, the war-whoop was raised (dreadful sound to the mothers
   of that place and their children!), and the dwellings set on
   fire. Of the inhabitants, some, half clad, fled through the
   snows to Albany; 60 were massacred, of whom 17 were children
   and 10 were Africans. … The party from Three Rivers, led by
   Hertel, and consisting of but 52 persons … surprised the
   settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, and, after a
   bloody engagement, burned houses, barns, and cattle in the
   stalls, and took 54 prisoners, chiefly women and children. …
   Returning from this expedition, Hertel met the war party,
   under Portneuf, from Quebec, and, with them and a
   reenforcement from Castin, made a successful attack on the
   fort and settlement in Casco Bay. Meantime, danger taught the
   colonies the necessity of union, and, on the 1st day of May,
   1690, New York beheld the momentous example of an American
   congress [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690]. … At
   that congress it was resolved to attempt the conquest of
   Canada by marching an army, by way of Lake Champlain, against
   Montreal, while Massachusetts should, with a fleet, attack
   Quebec."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 3),
      (part 3, chapter 11, volume 2,
      in the "Author's last Revision")_.

   Before the end of the month in which the congress was held,
   Port Royal and the whole of Acadia had already been conquered,
   having surrendered to an expedition sent out by Massachusetts,
   in eight small vessels, under Sir William Phips. The larger fleet
   (consisting of 32 ships and carrying 2,000 men) directed
   against Quebec, sailed in August from Nastasket, and was,
   likewise, commanded by Phips. "The plan of the campaign
   contemplated a diversion to be made by an assault on Montreal,
   by a force composed of English from Connecticut and New York,
   and of Iroquois Indians, at the same time with the attack on
   Quebec by the fleet. And a second expedition into Maine under
   Captain Church was to threaten the Eastern tribes whose
   incursions had, during the last summer, been so disastrous.
   … As is so apt to happen when a plan involves the
   simultaneous action of distant parties, the condition of
   success failed. The movement of Church, who had with him but
   300 men, proved ineffective as to any contribution to the
   descent upon Canada. … It was not till after a voyage of
   more than six weeks that the fleet from Boston cast anchor
   within the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and meanwhile the
   overland expedition against Montreal had miscarried. The
   commanders respectively of the Connecticut and the New York
   troops had disagreed, and could not act effectively together.
   … The supply, both of boats and of provisions, was found to
   be insufficient. The disastrous result was that a retreat was
   ordered, without so much as an embarkation of the troops on
   Lake Champlain. Frontenac was at Montreal, whither he had gone
   to superintend the defence, when the intelligence, so
   unexpected, reached him from Quebec; and presently after came
   the tidings of Phips's fleet being in the St. Lawrence.
   Nothing could have been more opportune than this coincidence,
   which gave the Governor liberty to hasten down to direct his
   little force of 200 soldiers at the capital. The French
   historian says that, if he had been three days later, or if
   the English fleet had not been delayed by contrary winds, or
   had had better pilots in the river, where it was nearly a
   fortnight more in making its slow way, Frontenac would have
   come down from the upper country only to find the English
   commander in his citadel. As it was, there ensued a crushing
   mortification and sorrow to Massachusetts. New France was made
   much more formidable than ever." The fleet arrived before
   Quebec Oct. 6, and retreated on the 11th, after considerable
   cannonading and an assault which the French repelled. It
   suffered storms and disasters on the return voyage, and lost
   altogether some 200 men.

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapters 10-13_.

      _Doc. History of New York,
      volumes 1-2._

      _F. Bowen,
      Life of Sir W. Phips,
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 7),
      chapters 2-3._

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      _J. Pearson, et al,
      History of the Schenectady Patent,
      chapters 8-10._

CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.
   The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
   Abortive plans of invasion on both sides.
   French recovery of Acadia.

   "The defeat of the expedition of 1690 was probably
   attributable to the want of concert on the part of the troops
   from Connecticut and New York and those from Massachusetts,
   and the failure of the supplies which were sought from
   England. … But there was mismanagement on all hands in the
   conduct of the expedition; and it seems to have been
   predestinated that New England should not be delivered from
   the presence of the French at the north, until time had
   wrought the necessary changes which were to render the
   conquest of that country available for the promotion of still
   more important ends. Hence a new expedition, projected two
   years later, and resolved to be prosecuted in the following
   year [1693], was attended with the like circumstances of
   mortification and defeat. England herself participated in this
   enterprise, and … the government was informed that it had
   'pleased the king, out of his great goodness and disposition
   for the welfare of all his subjects, to send a considerable
   strength of ships and men into the West Indies, and to direct
   Sir Francis Wheeler, the admiral, to sail to New England from
   the Caribbee Islands, so as to be there by the last of May or
   the middle of June at furthest, with a strength sufficient to
   overcome the enemy, if joined and seconded by the forces of
   New England.' … Unfortunately for the success of these
   plans, the letter, which should have reached Boston by the
   first of April, did not arrive until July; and the mortality
   which prevailed in the fleet during its stay in the West
   Indies was so great that, when the commander-in-chief, Sir
   Francis Wheeler, anchored off Nantasket,—bringing himself the
   news of the projected invasion,—he had lost 1,300 out of
   2,100 sailors, and 1,800 out of 2,400 soldiers.
{368}
   All thoughts of reducing Canada were therefore abandoned; but
   a plan for another year was settled with the governor, the
   details of which were that 2,000 land forces should be sent
   from England to Canseau by the first of June, to be joined by
   2,000 from the colonies, and that the whole force should go up
   the St. Lawrence, divide and simultaneously attack Montreal
   and Quebec. Changes in the government of the province,
   however, and other causes, prevented the execution of this
   plan, whose success was problematical even if it had been
   attempted. But if the plans of the English for the reduction
   of Canada were doomed to disappointment, the plans of the
   French for the recovery of Acadia were more successful. For
   the first year after the conquest of that country, indeed, the
   French were as little concerned to regain, as the English were
   to retain, the possession of its territory; nor was
   Massachusetts able to bear the charge of a sufficient military
   force to keep its inhabitants in subjection, though she issued
   commissions to judges and other officers, and required the
   administration of the oath of fidelity. In the course of that
   year [1691], authority was given to Mr. John Nelson, of
   Boston, who had taken an active part in the overthrow of
   Andros, and who was bound thither on a trading voyage, to be
   commander-in-chief of Acadia; but as he neared the mouth of
   the St. John's, he was taken by Monsieur Villebon, who, under
   a commission from the French king, had touched at Port Royal,
   and ordered the English flag to be struck, and the French flag
   to be raised in its place. The next year an attempt was made
   to dislodge Villebon, but without success. … In the summer
   of 1696, Pemaquid was taken by the French, under D'Iberville
   and Castine, and the frontier of the dominion of France was
   extended into Maine; and by the treaty of the following year
   Acadia was receded to France, and the English relinquished
   their claims to the country. The last year of King William's
   War, as it was long termed in New England, was a year of
   especial alarm to the province [Massachusetts] and rumors were
   rife that the French were on the eve of fitting out a
   formidable fleet for the invasion of the colonies and the
   conquest of New York." According to the plan of the French
   undertaking, a powerful fleet from France was to be joined by
   a force of 1,500 men, raised by Count Frontenac, in Canada,
   and make, first, a conquest of Boston. "When that town was
   taken, they were to range the coast to Piscataqua, destroying
   the settlements as far back into the country as possible.
   Should there be time for further acquisitions, they were next
   to go to New York, and upon its reduction the Canadian troops
   were to march overland to Quebec, laying waste the country as
   they proceeded." This project was frustrated by happenings
   much the same in kind as those which thwarted the designs of
   the English against Quebec. The fleet was delayed by contrary
   winds, and by certain bootless undertakings in Newfoundland,
   until the season was too far advanced for the enterprise
   contemplated. "The peace of Ryswick, which soon followed, led
   to a temporary suspension of hostilities. France, anxious to
   secure as large a share of territory in America as possible,
   retained the whole coast and adjacent islands from Maine to
   Labrador and Hudson's Bay, with Canada, and the Valley of the
   Mississippi. The possessions of England were southward from
   the St. Croix. But the bounds between the nations were
   imperfectly defined, and were, for a long time, a subject of
   dispute and negotiation.".

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapters 16-19._

      _J. Hannay,
      History of Acadia,
      chapter 14._

      See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

CANADA: A. D. 1696.
   Frontenac's expedition against the Iroquois.

   The war with the "Bastonnais" or "Bostonnais," as he called
   the New Englanders, did not divert Frontenac's attention from
   "the grand castigation which at last he was planning for the
   Iroquois. He had succeeded, in 1694, in inducing them to meet
   him in general council at Quebec, and had framed the
   conditions of a truce; but the English at Albany intrigued to
   prevent the fulfilment, and war was again imminent. Both sides
   were endeavoring to secure the alliance of the tribes of the
   upper lakes. These wavered, and Frontenac saw the peril and
   the remedy. His recourse was to attack the Iroquois in their
   villages at once, and conquer on the Mohawk the peace he
   needed at Michilimackinac. It was Frontenac's last campaign.
   Early in July [1696] he left Montreal with 2,200 men. He went
   by way of Fort Frontenac, crossed Lake Ontario, landed at
   Oswego, and struggled up its stream, and at last set sails to
   his canoes on Lake Onondaga. Then his force marched again, and
   Frontenac, enfeebled by his years, was borne along in an
   arm-chair. Eight or nine miles and a day's work brought them
   to the Onondaga village; but its inhabitants had burned it and
   fled. Vaudreuil was sent with a detachment which destroyed the
   town of the Oneidas. After committing all the devastation of
   crops that he could, in hopes that famine would help him,
   Frontenac began his homeward march before the English at
   Albany were aroused at all. The effect was what Frontenac
   wished. The Iroquois ceased their negotiations with the
   western tribes, and sued for peace."

      _G. Stewart, Jr.,
      Frontenac and His Times
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4,
      chapter 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapters 18-19._

CANADA: A. D. 1698-1710.
   Colonization of Louisiana and the organization of its separate
   government.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
   The spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
   on the Lakes.

   "From the time of La Salle's visit in 1679, we can trace a
   continuous French occupation of Illinois. … He planted his
   citadel of St. Louis on the summit of  'Starved Rock,'
   proposing to make that the centre of his colony. … At first
   his colony was exceedingly feeble, but it was never
   discontinued. 'Joutel found a garrison at Fort St. Louis …
   in 1687, and in 1689 La Hontan bears testimony that it still
   continued. In 1696 a public document proves its existence; and
   when Tonty, in 1700, again descended the Mississippi, he was
   attended by twenty Canadians, residents on the Illinois.'
{369}
   Even while the wars named after King William and Queen Anne
   were going on, the French settlements were growing in numbers
   and increasing in size; those wars over, they made still more
   rapid progress. Missions grew into settlements and parishes.
   Old Kaskaskia was begun in what La Salle called the
   'terrestrial paradise' before the close of the seventeenth
   century. The Wabash Valley was occupied about 1700, the first
   settlers entering it by the portage leading from the Kankakee.
   Later the voyageurs found a shorter route to the fertile
   valley. … The French located their principal missions and
   posts with admirable judgment. There is not one of them in
   which we cannot see the wisdom of the priest, of the soldier,
   and the trader combined. The triple alliance worked for an
   immediate end, but the sites that they chose are as important
   to-day as they were when they chose them. … La Salle's
   colony of St. Louis was planted in one of the gardens of the
   world, in the midst of a numerous Indian population, on the
   great line of travel between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi
   River. Kaskaskia and the neighboring settlements held the
   centre of the long line extending from Canada to Louisiana.
   'The Wabash colony commanded that valley and the Lower Ohio.
   Detroit was a position so important that, securely held by the
   French, it practically banished from the English mind for
   fifty years the thought of acquiring the Northwest. … Then
   how unerringly were the French guided to the carrying places
   between the Northern and the Southern waters, viz., Green Bay,
   Fox River, and the Wisconsin; the Chicago River and the
   Illinois; the St. Joseph and the Kankakee; the St. Joseph and
   the Wabash; the Maumee and the Wabash; and, later, on the eve
   of the war that gave New France to England, the Chautauqua and
   French Creek routes from Lake Erie to the Ohio. … In due
   time the French began to establish themselves on the Northern
   frontier of the British colonies. They built Fort Niagara in
   1726, four years' after the English built Fort Oswego.
   Following the early footsteps of Champlain, they ascended to
   the head of the lake that bears his name, where they fortified
   Crown Point in 1727, and Ticonderoga in 1731. Presque Isle,
   the present site of the city of Erie, was occupied about the
   time that Vincennes was founded in the Wabash Valley [1735].
   Finally, just on the eve of the last struggle between England
   and France, the French pressed into the valleys of the
   Alleghany and the Ohio, at the same time that the English also
   began to enter them."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 4._

CANADA: A. D. 1702-1710.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War (Queen Anne's War):
   Border ravages in New England and Acadia.
   English Conquest of Acadia.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War.
   Walker's Expedition against Quebec.
   Massacre of Fox Indians.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

   After the reduction of Port Royal, which was practically the
   conquest of Acadia, Colonel Nicholson, who bore the honors of
   that achievement, repaired to England and prevailed with the
   government to fit out an adequate expedition for the Conquest
   of Canada. "The fleet, consisting of 15 ships of war and 40
   transports, was placed under the command of Sir Hovenden
   Walker; seven veteran regiments from Marlborough's army, with
   a battalion of marines, were intrusted to Mrs. Masham's second
   brother, whom the queen had pensioned and made a
   brigadier-general, whom his bottle companions called honest
   Jack Hill. … From June 25th to the 30th day of July 1711,
   the fleet lay at Boston, taking in supplies and the colonial
   forces. At the same time, an army of men from Connecticut, New
   Jersey, and New York, Palatine emigrants, and about 600
   Iroquois, assembling at Albany, prepared to burst upon
   Montreal; while in Wisconsin the English had allies in the
   Foxes, who were always wishing to expel the French from
   Michigan. In Quebec, measures of defence began by a renewal of
   friendship with the Indians. To deputies from the Onondagas
   and Senecas, the governor spoke of the fidelity with which the
   French had kept their treaty; and he reminded them of their
   promise to remain quiet upon their mats. A war festival was
   next held, at which were present all the savages domiciliated
   near the French settlements, and all the delegates of their
   allies who had come down to Montreal. In the presence of 700
   or 800 warriors, the war song was sung and the hatchet
   uplifted. The savages of the remote west were wavering, till
   twenty Hurons from Detroit took up the hatchet, and swayed all
   the rest by their example. By the influence of the Jesuits
   over the natives, an alliance extending to the Ojibways
   constituted the defence of Montreal. Descending to Quebec,
   Vaudreuil found Abenaki volunteers assembling for his
   protection. Measures for resistance had been adopted with
   heartiness; the fortifications were strengthened; Beauport was
   garrisoned; and the people were resolute and confiding; even
   women were ready to labor for the common defence. Toward the
   last of August, it was said that peasants at Matanes had
   descried 90 or 96 vessels with the English flag. Yet September
   came, and still from the heights of Cape Diamond no eye caught
   one sail of the expected enemy. The English squadron, leaving
   Boston on the 30th of July [1711], after loitering near the
   bay of Gaspé, at last began to ascend the St. Lawrence, while
   Sir Hovenden Walker puzzled himself with contriving how he
   would secure his vessels during the winter at Quebec." At the
   same time, the present and actual difficulties of the
   expedition were so heedlessly and ignorantly dealt with that
   eight ships of the fleet were wrecked among the rocks and
   shoals near the Egg Islands, and 884 men were drowned. The
   enterprise was then abandoned. "'Had we arrived safe at
   Quebec,' wrote the admiral, 'ten or twelve thousand men must
   have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a
   part, Providence saved all the rest.' Such was the issue of
   hostilities in the north-east. Their total failure left the
   expedition from Albany no option but to return, and Montreal
   was unmolested. Detroit, in 1712, almost fell before the valor
   of a party of the Ottagamies, or Foxes. … Resolving to burn
   Detroit, they pitched their lodgings near the fort, which Du
   Buisson, with but twenty Frenchmen, defended. Aware of their
   intention, he summoned his Indian allies from the chase; and,
   about the middle of May, Ottawas and Hurons and
   Pottawottamies, with one branch of the Sacs, Illinois,
   Menomonies, and even Osages and Missouris, each nation with
   its own ensign, came to his relief.
{370}
   So wide was the influence of the missionaries in the
   West. … The warriors of the Fox nation, far from destroying
   Detroit, were themselves besieged, and at last were compelled
   to surrender at discretion. Those Who bore arms were
   ruthlessly murdered; the rest distributed among the
   confederates, to be enslaved or massacred at the will of their
   masters. Cherished as the loveliest spot in Canada, the
   possession of Detroit secured for Quebec a great highway to
   the upper Indian tribes and to the Mississippi. … In the
   meantime, the preliminaries of a treaty had been signed
   between France and England; and the war … was suspended by
   negotiations that were soon followed by the uncertain peace of
   Utrecht [April 11, 1713]. … England, by the peace of
   Utrecht, obtained from France large concessions of territory
   in America. The assembly of New York had addressed the queen
   against French settlements in the West; William Penn advised
   to establish the St. Lawrence as the boundary on the north,
   and to include in our colonies the valley of the Mississippi.
   'It will make a glorious country'; such were his prophetic
   words. … The colony of Louisiana excited in Saint-John
   'apprehensions of the future undertakings of the French in
   North America.' The occupation of the Mississippi valley had
   been proposed to Queen Anne; yet, at the peace, that immense
   region remained to France. But England obtained the bay of
   Hudson and its borders; Newfoundland, subject to the rights of
   France in its fisheries; and all Nova Scotia, or Acadia,
   according to its ancient boundaries. It was agreed that
   'France should never molest the Five Nations subject to the
   dominion of Great Britain.' But Louisiana, according to French
   ideas, included both banks of the Mississippi. Did the treaty
   of Utrecht assent to such an extension of French territory?
   And what were the ancient limits of Acadia? Did it include all
   that is now New Brunswick? or had France still a large
   territory on the Atlantic between Acadia and Maine? And what
   were the bounds of the territory of the Five Nations, which
   the treaty appeared to recognize as a part of the English
   dominions? These were questions which were never to be
   adjusted amicably."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the U. S. (Author's Last Revision),
      part 3, chapter 12 (volume 2)._

   With reference to the destruction of the Fox Indians at
   Detroit, a recent writer says: "The French official reports
   pretend that the Wisconsin Indians, being in secret alliance
   with the Iroquois and the English, had come to Detroit with
   the express purpose of besieging the fort and reducing it to
   ruins; and their statement has heretofore been unsuspectingly
   accepted by all historians. But there is little doubt that the
   charge is a shameful falsehood. The Fox Indians had rendered
   themselves very obnoxious to the French. Firmly lodged on the
   Fox River, they controlled the chief highway to the West; a
   haughty, independent and intractable people, they could not be
   cajoled into vassalage. It was necessary for the success of
   the French policy to get them out of the way. They were
   enticed to Detroit in order that they might be slaughtered."

      _S. S. Hebberd,
      History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France,
      chapters 5-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 5._

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 6, chapters 5-6 (volume 2)._

      _R. Brown,
      History of the Island of Cape Breton,
      letters 8-9._

      See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714,
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D.1713.

CANADA: A. D. 1720.
   The fortifying of Louisbourg.

      See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

CANADA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   The Third Inter-Colonial War (King George's War).
   Loss and recovery of Louisbourg and Cape Breton.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CANADA: A. D. 1748-1754.
   Active measures to fortify possession of the Ohio Valley and
   the West.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.
   Boundaries disputes with England.
   Futile negotiations at Paris.

   "For the past three years [1750-1753] the commissioners
   appointed under the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle to settle the
   question of boundaries between France and England in America
   had been in session at Paris, waging interminable war on
   paper; La Galissonière and Silhouette for France, Shirley and
   Mildmay for England. By the treaty of Utrecht, Acadia belonged
   to England; but what was Acadia? According to the English
   commissioners, it comprised not only the peninsula called Nova
   Scotia, but all the immense tract of land between the River
   St. Lawrence on the north, the Gulf of the same name on the
   east, the Atlantic on the south, and New England on the west.
   The French commissioners, on their part, maintained that the
   name Acadia belonged of right only to about a twentieth part
   of this territory, and that it did not even cover the whole of
   the Acadian peninsula, but only its southern coast, with an
   adjoining belt of barren wilderness. When the French owned
   Acadia, they gave it boundaries as comprehensive as those
   claimed for it by the English commissionaries; now that it
   belonged to a rival, they cut it down to a paring of its
   former self. … Four censuses of Acadia while it belonged to
   the French had recognized the mainland as included in it; and
   so do also the early French maps. Its prodigious shrinkage was
   simply the consequence of its possession by an alien. Other
   questions of limits, more important and equally perilous,
   called loudly for solution. What line should separate Canada
   and her western dependencies from the British colonies?
   Various principles of demarcation were suggested, of which the
   most prominent was a geographical one. All countries watered
   by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and
   the Mississippi were to belong to her. This would have planted
   her in the heart of New York and along the crests of the
   Alleghanies, giving her all the interior of the continent, and
   leaving nothing to England but a strip of sea-coast. Yet in
   view of what France had achieved; of the patient gallantry of
   her explorers, the zeal of her missionaries, the adventurous
   hardihood of her bushrangers, revealing to civilized mankind
   the existence of this wilderness world, while her rivals
   plodded at their workshops, their farms, or their
   fisheries,—in view of all this, her pretensions were moderate
   and reasonable compared with those of England. The treaty of
   Utrecht had declared the Iroquois, or Five Nations, to be
   British subjects; therefore it was insisted that all countries
   conquered by them belonged to the British Crown. But what was
   an Iroquois conquest? The Iroquois rarely occupied the
   countries they overran. … But the range of their war-parties
   was prodigious; and the English laid claim to every mountain,
   forest or prairie where an Iroquois had taken a scalp.
{371}
   This would give them not only the country between the
   Alleghanies and the Mississippi, but also that between Lake
   Huron and the Ottawa, thus reducing Canada to the patch on the
   American map now represented by the province of Quebec,—or
   rather by a part of it, since the extension of Acadia to the
   St. Lawrence would cut off the present counties of Gaspé,
   Rimouski and Bonaventure. Indeed, among the advocates of
   British claims there were those who denied that France had any
   rights whatever on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Such
   being the attitude of the two contestants, it was plain there
   was no resort but the last argument of kings. Peace must be
   won with the sword."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Account of Nova Scotia,
      volume 1, pages 143-149._

      See, also, NOVA SCOTIA:

CANADA: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Relative to the very dubious English claim based on treaties
   with the Iroquois,

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (April).
   Plans of the English against the French.

   "While the negotiations [between England and France, at Paris]
   were pending, Braddock arrived in the Chesapeake. In March
   [1755] he reached Williamsburgh, and visited Annapolis; on the
   14th of April, he, with Commodore Keppel, held a congress at
   Alexandria. There were present, of the American governors,
   Shirley, next to Braddock in military rank; Delancey, of New
   York; Morris, of Pennsylvania; Sharpe, of Maryland; and
   Dinwiddie, of Virginia. … Between England and France peace
   existed under ratified treaties; it was proposed not to invade
   Canada, but to repel encroachments on the frontier. For this
   end, four expeditions were concerted by Braddock at
   Alexandria. Lawrence, the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia,
   was to reduce that province according to the English
   interpretation of its boundaries; Johnson [afterwards Sir
   William Johnson, of New York] from his long acquaintance with
   the Six Nations, was selected to enroll Mohawk warriors in
   British pay and lead them with provincial militia against
   Crown Point; Shirley proposed to drive the French from
   Niagara; the commander-in-chief was to recover the Ohio
   valley."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      volume 2, pages 416-419._

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (June).
   French disaster at Sea.
   Frustrated attempt against Nova Scotia.
   The arrival of Dieskau at Quebec.

   "In 1754, France fully awakened to the fact that England not
   only intended to maintain her position in the wilds of
   America, but likewise by sea. She equipped an armament under
   the command of admirals Macnamara and Bois de la Mothe, of 18
   ships of the line and 9 frigates, having on board, ostensibly
   for Canada, eleven battalions of troops under General Dieskau,
   an 'élève' of Marshal Saxe. England, apprised of this force
   being sent, despatched Vice-Admiral Boscawen with 11 ships of
   the line and one frigate to intercept it en route. Both sailed
   about the same time, the 22d of April, 1755. The French
   ambassador at London being duly notified, replied: 'That his
   royal master would consider the first gun fired at sea in a
   hostile manner to be a declaration of war.' The esoteric
   instructions of the French fleet were to rendezvous at
   Chebuctou Harbour, destroy Halifax, and then proceed to
   Annapolis for the same purpose. While the instructions were of
   necessity secret, it was well known in Acadia that an attempt
   would be made by France to recover possession of the province.
   It was this fleet, so eagerly expected by the Acadians, that
   gave rise to the insolent manner in which they addressed the
   Council at Halifax, and which led to an immediate removal of
   their arms and subsequent dispersal. Owing to misadventure,
   some of the French fleet under Macnamara had to put back to
   Brest; the remainder met the English off the coast of
   Newfoundland [June 8] in a dense fog; avoiding an engagement,
   several of them escaped by taking the northern route via
   Belleisle … successfully reaching their 'harbour of refuge,'
   Louisbourg. The 'Lys' and the 'Alcyde' were sufficiently
   unfortunate to be compelled to face the guns of the English
   frigates 'Dunkirk' and 'Defiance,' and after five hours close
   engagement the 'Lys' struck its colors … followed by the
   'Alcyde,' when Hocquart in command became Boscawen's prisoner
   by sea for the third time, together with £76,000 sterling in
   money, eight companies of soldiers and several officers and
   engineers. The unexpected rencontre with Boscawen's fleet, the
   loss of two of their vessels, and the knowledge that the
   garrison at Halifax was considerably reinforced by the forces
   brought out by Boscawen, caused the abandonment of all
   attempts to recover Acadia. Dieskau, after landing a few
   regiments at Louisbourg, proceeded to Quebec."

      _G. E. Hart,
      The Fall of New France,
      pages 51-54._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Campbell,
      Naval History of Great Britain,
      volume 5, pages 104-106._

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (July).
   Defeat of Braddock's Expedition against Fort Duquesne.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (August-October):
   The abortive expedition against Niagara.

   According to the English plan of campaign, concerted with
   Braddock at Alexandria, Governor Shirley was to lead an army
   for the conquest of Niagara; but his march westward ended at
   Oswego. "Colonel Philip Schuyler led the first regiment of the
   expedition. Boats were built at Oswego to convey 600 men by
   lake. Shirley followed by way of the Mohawk, and reached
   Oswego August 21. He was delayed from various causes, and in
   October a council of war decided that the attack on Niagara
   should be postponed for a year. Shirley was to have met
   Braddock in victory at Niagara. Both branches of the plan had
   been shattered. The great western scheme sank to a mere
   strengthening of the defences of Oswego. Colonel Mercer was
   left in command of a garrison of 700 men, with instructions to
   build two new forts, and General Shirley took the remainder of
   his force back to Albany. The pitiful failure led to
   recriminations relative to the causes of the fatal delays."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 26 (volume 2)._

{372}

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (September).
   The Battle of Lake George and defeat of Dieskau.

   "The expedition against Crown Point on Lake Champlain, had
   been intrusted to General William Johnson. His troops were
   drawn principally from Massachusetts and Connecticut; a
   regiment from New Hampshire joined them at Albany. At the head
   of boat navigation on the Hudson, a fort was built which, in
   honor of their commander, whom they reverenced as 'a brave and
   virtuous man,' the soldiers named Fort Lyman. But when Johnson
   assumed the command he ungenerously changed the name to Fort
   Edward. Leaving a garrison in this fort; Johnson moved with
   about 5,000 men to the head of Lake George, and there formed a
   camp, intending to descend into Lake Champlain. Hendrick, the
   celebrated Mohawk chief, with his warriors, were among these
   troops. Israel Putnam, too, was there, as a captain, and John
   Stark as a lieutenant, each taking lessons in warfare. The
   French were not idle; the district of Montreal made the most
   strenuous exertions to meet the invading foe. All the men who
   were able to bear arms were called into active service; so
   that, to gather in the harvest, their places were supplied by
   men from other districts. The energetic Baron Dieskau
   resolved, by a bold attack, to terrify the invaders. Taking
   with him 200 regulars, and about 1,200 Canadians and Indians,
   he set out to capture Fort Edward; but, as he drew near, the
   Indians heard that it was defended by cannon, which they
   greatly dreaded, and they refused to advance. He now changed
   his plan, and resolved to attack Johnson's camp, which was
   supposed to be without cannon. Meantime scouts had reported to
   Johnson that they had seen roads made through the woods in the
   direction of Fort Edward. Not knowing the movements of
   Dieskau, a detachment of 1,000 men, under Colonel Ephraim
   Williams, of Massachusetts, and 200 Mohawks, under Hendrick,
   marched to relieve that post. The French had information of
   their approach and placed themselves in ambush. They were
   concealed among the thick bushes of a swamp, on the one side,
   and rocks and trees on the other. The English recklessly
   marched into the defile. They were vigorously attacked [Sept.
   5] and thrown into confusion. Hendrick was almost instantly
   killed, and in a short time Williams fell also. The detachment
   commenced to retreat, occasionally halting to check their
   pursuers. The firing was heard in the camp; as the sound drew
   nearer and nearer, it was evident the detachment was
   retreating. The drums beat to arms, trees were hastily felled
   and thrown together to form a breastwork, upon which were
   placed a few cannon, just arrived from the Hudson. Scarcely
   were these preparations made when the panting fugitives
   appeared in sight, hotly pursued by the French and Indians.
   Intending to enter the camp with the fugitives, Dieskau urged
   forward his men with the greatest impetuosity. The moment the
   fugitives were past the muzzles of the cannon they opened with
   a tremendous shower of grape, which scattered the terrified
   Indians and checked the Canadians, but the regulars pushed on.
   A determined contest ensued, which lasted five hours, until
   the regulars were nearly all slain, while the Indians and
   Canadians did but little execution; they remained at a
   respectful distance among the trees. At length the enemy began
   to retreat, and the Americans leaped over the breastworks and
   pursued them with great vigor. That same evening, after the
   pursuit had ceased, as the French were retreating, they were
   suddenly attacked with great spirit by the New Hampshire
   regiment, which was on its way from Fort Edward. They were so
   panic stricken by this new assault that they abandoned
   everything and fled for their lives. Dieskau had been wounded
   once or twice at the commencement of the battle, but he never
   left his post. … He was taken prisoner, kindly treated, and
   sent to England, where he died. Johnson was slightly wounded
   at the commencement of the battle, and prudently retired from
   danger. To General Lyman belongs the honor of the victory, yet
   Johnson, in his report of the battle, did not even mention his
   name. Johnson, for his exertions on that day, was made a
   baronet, and received from royal favor a gift of $25,000. He
   had friends at court, but Lyman was unknown. Colonel Ephraim
   Williams, who fell in this battle, while passing through
   Albany, had taken the precaution to make his will, in which he
   bequeathed property to found a free school in western
   Massachusetts. That school has since grown into Williams
   College."

      _J. H. Patton,
      Concise History of the American People,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (October-November).
   Removal and dispersion in exile of the French Acadians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

CANADA: A. D. 1756.
   Formal declarations of war.
   The "Seven Years War" of Europe, called the "French and Indian
   War" in British America.
   Montcalm sent from France.

   "On the 18th of May, 1756, England, after a year of open
   hostility, at length declared war. She had attacked France by
   land and sea, turned loose her ships to prey on French
   commerce, and brought some 300 prizes into her ports. It was
   the act of a weak government, supplying by spasms of violence
   what it lacked in considerate resolution. France, no match for
   her amphibious enemy in the game of marine depredation, cried
   out in horror; and to emphasize her complaints and signalize a
   pretended good faith which her acts had belied, ostentatiously
   released a British frigate captured by her cruisers. She in
   her turn declared war on the 9th of June: and now began the
   most terrible conflict of the 18th century; one that convulsed
   Europe and shook America, India, the coasts of Africa, and the
   islands of the sea."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755, and after;
      also GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after.

   "Henceforth France was to turn her strength against her
   European foes; and the American war, the occasion of the
   universal outbreak, was to hold in her eyes a second place.
   … Still, something must be done for the American war; at
   least there must be a new general to replace Dieskau. None of
   the court favorites wanted a command in the backwoods, and the
   minister of war was free to choose whom he would. His choice
   fell on Louis Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm-Gozon de Saint
   Véran. … The Chevalier de Lévis, afterwards Marshal of
   France, was named as his second in command. … The troops
   destined for Canada were only two battalions, one belonging to
   the regiment of La Sarre, and the other to that of Royal
   Roussillon. Louis XV. and Pompadour sent 100,000 men to fight
   the battles of Austria, and could spare but 1,200 to
   reinforce. New France." Montcalm, who reached Quebec in May,
   was placed in difficult relations with the governor-general,
   Vaudreuil, by the fact that the latter held command of the
   colonial troops. The forces in New France, were of three
   kinds,—"the 'troupes de terre,' troops of the line, or
   regulars from France; the 'troupes  de la marine,' or colony
   regulars; and lastly the militia.
{373}
   The first consisted of the four battalions that had come over with
   Dieskau and the two that had come with Montcalm, comprising in
   all a little less than 3,000 men. Besides these, the
   battalions of Artois and Bourgogne, to the number of 1,100
   men, were in garrison at Louisbourg." This constituted
   Montcalm's command. The colony regulars and the militia
   remained subject to the orders of the governor, who manifested
   an early jealousy of Montcalm. The former troops numbered less
   than 2,000 men. "All the effective male population of Canada,
   from 15 years to 60, was enrolled in the militia. … In 1750
   the militia of all ranks counted about 13,000; and eight years
   later the number had increased to about 15,000. Until the last
   two years of the war, those employed in actual warfare were
   but few. … To the white fighting force of the colony are to
   be added the red men. … The military situation was somewhat
   perplexing. Iroquois spies had brought reports of great
   preparations on the part of the English. As neither party
   dared offend these wavering tribes, their warriors could pass
   with impunity from one to the other, and were paid by each for
   bringing information, not always trustworthy. They declared
   that the English were gathering in force to renew the attempt
   made by Johnson the year before against Crown Point and
   Ticonderoga, as well as that made by Shirley against Forts
   Frontenac and Niagara. Vaudreuil had spared no effort to meet
   the double danger. Lotbinière, a Canadian engineer, had been
   busied during the winter in fortifying Ticonderoga, while
   Pouchot, a captain in the battalion of Béarn, had rebuilt
   Niagara, and two French engineers were at work in
   strengthening the defenses of Frontenac. … Indians presently
   brought word that 10,000 English were coming to attack
   Ticonderoga." Both Montcalm and Lévis, with troops, "hastened
   to the supposed scene of danger … and reached Ticonderoga at
   the end of June. They found the fort … advanced towards
   completion. It stood on the crown of the promontory. … The
   rampart consisted of two parallel walls ten feet apart, built
   of the trunks of trees, and held together by transverse logs
   dovetailed at both ends, the space between being filled with
   earth and gravel well packed. Such was the first Fort
   Ticonderoga, or Carillon,—a structure quite distinct from the
   later fort of which the ruins still stand on the same spot.
   … Ticonderoga was now the most advanced position of the
   French, and Crown Point, which had before held that perilous
   honor, was in the second line. … The danger from the English
   proved to be still remote. … Meanwhile, at the head of Lake
   George, the raw bands of ever-active New England, were
   mustering for the fray."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 11, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
   French successes.
   Capture of Oswego and Fort William Henry.
   Bloody work of the savage allies.

   On the death of Braddock, Governor Shirley became
   commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, "a
   position for which he was not adapted by military knowledge.
   … His military schemes for the season of 1756 were grand in
   conception and theory, but disastrous failures in practice.
   Ten thousand men were to advance against Crown Point—6, 000
   for service on Lake Ontario, 3,000 for an attack on Fort
   Duquesne, and 2,000 to advance up the river Kennebec, destroy
   the settlement adjoining the Chaudière and descending the
   mouth of that river within three miles of Quebec, keep all
   that part of Canada in alarm. While each of these armies was
   being put into motion, the season had become too far advanced
   for action at any one point. Moreover, the British Government,
   dissatisfied with a Provincial officer being at the head of its
   army in America, determined upon sending out General Lord
   Loudoun. While Shirley was preparing, Montcalm advanced
   against the three forts at Oswego, the terror of the French in
   the Iroquois country and which it had been their desire to
   destroy for many years back; they likewise commanded the
   entrance to Lake Ontario. The English had a garrison of 1,800
   men in these divided between Fort Ontario … Fort Oswego …
   and Fort George, or Rascal … about a mile distant from each
   other." Montcalm took all three of the forts without much
   difficulty, and demolished them. "Shirley was much blamed for
   this defeat and the failure of his projects, and lost both his
   government and command, being succeeded by John Campbell,
   fourth Earl of Loudoun, Baron Mauchlaw, one of the sixteen
   peers of Scotland, with General Abercromby as second in
   command—both notorious for previous incompetency. … They
   were sent out with considerable reinforcements, and had
   transferred to them by Shirley 16,000 men in the field, of
   whom 6,000 were regulars; but, with that masterly inactivity
   and indecision for which Loudoun was most renowned, no further
   movement was made this year. The year 1757 was not
   distinguished by any military movements of much moment." An
   intended attack on Louisbourg was postponed because of news
   that a powerful French fleet held possession of its harbor and
   that the garrison was very strong. "Montcalm, finding himself
   free from attack, penetrated with his army of 7,606 men to
   Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. Included were
   2,000 Indians. The fort was garrisoned by 2,264 regulars under
   Colonel Munroe of the 35th Regiment, and in the neighborhood
   there was an additional force of 4,600 men under General Webb.
   On the 3d of August the fort was invested and, after a summons
   to surrender was rejected, the attack was begun and continued
   with undiminished fervor until the 9th at noon, when a
   capitulation was signed. General Webb did not join Munroe, as
   he was instructed to do by Abercromby's plans, some cowardice
   being attributed to him by contemporary writers. An incident
   of the war which has given rise to a great deal of controversy
   and ill-feeling up to the present moment, was the so-called
   massacre at Fort William Henry, the outcome of the numerous
   horde of savages the French allies had in the engagement. …
   On the morning following the surrender, the garrison was to
   march out under a proper escort to protect them from injury at
   the hands of the Indians. The evacuation had barely commenced,
   when a repetition of the looting of the day previous, which
   ensued immediately after the capitulation had been signed, was
   attempted.
{374}
   An effort being made by the escort to stop it, some drunken
   Indians attacked the defile, which resulted in the murdering
   and scalping of some 60 or 70 of the prisoners; maltreating
   and robbing a large number of others. Upon a careful
   investigation of the contemporary authorities, no blame
   whatever can be attached to the good fame of the brave and
   humane Montcalm or De Lévis. … Fort George, or William
   Henry, as it was indifferently called, like its compeer Fort
   Oswego, was razed to the ground and the army retreated into
   their winter quarters at Montreal. The termination of the year
   left the French masters of Lakes Champlain and George,
   together with the chain of great lakes connecting the St.
   Lawrence with the Mississippi; also the undisturbed possession
   of all the country in dispute west of the Alleghany
   Mountains."

      _G. E. Hart,
      The Fall of New France,
      pages 70-79._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Warburton,
      Conquest of Canada,
      volume 2, chapters 2-3._

CANADA: A. D. 1758.
   The loss of Louisbourg and Fort Du Quesne.
   Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.

   "The affairs of Great Britain in North America wore a more
   gloomy aspect, at the close of the campaign of 1757, than at
   any former period. By the acquisition of fort William Henry,
   the French had obtained complete possession of the lake
   Champlain, and George. By the destruction of Oswego, they had
   acquired the dominion of those lakes which connect the St.
   Lawrence with the waters of the Mississippi, and unite Canada
   to Louisiana. By means of fort Du Quêsne, they maintained
   their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed
   possession of the country west of the Allegheny mountains;
   while the English settlers were driven to the blue ridge. The
   great object of the war in that quarter was gained, and France
   held the country for which hostilities had been commenced. …
   But this inglorious scene was about to be succeeded by one of
   unrivalled brilliancy. … The brightest era of British
   history was to commence. … The public voice had, at length,
   made its way to the throne, and had forced, on the unwilling
   monarch, a minister who has been justly deemed one of the
   greatest men of the age in which he lived. … In the summer
   of 1757, an administration was formed, which conciliated the
   great contending interests in parliament; and Mr. Pitt was
   placed at its head. … Possessing the public confidence
   without limitation, he commanded all the resources of the
   nation, and drew liberally from the public purse. … In no
   part of his majesty's dominions was the new administration
   more popular than in his American colonies. … The circular
   letter of Mr. Pitt assured the several governors that, to
   repair the losses and disappointments of the last inactive
   campaign, the cabinet was determined to send a formidable
   force, to operate by sea and land, against the French in
   America; and he called upon them to raise as large bodies of
   men, within their respective governments, as the number of
   inhabitants might allow. … The legislature of Massachusetts
   agreed to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut 5,000; and New
   Hampshire 3,000. … Three expeditions were proposed. The
   first was against Louisbourg; the second against Ticonderoga
   and Crown Point; and the third against fort Du Quêsne. The
   army destined against Louisbourg, consisting of 14,000 men,
   was commanded by major general Amherst. [The expedition was
   successful and Louisbourg fell, July 26, 1758.]"

      See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

   "The expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was
   conducted by General Abercrombie in person. His army,
   consisting of near 16,000 effectives, of whom 9,000 were
   provincials, was attended by a formidable train of artillery,
   and possessed every requisite to ensure success. On the 5th of
   July he embarked on lake George, and reached the landing place
   early the next morning. A disembarkation being effected
   without opposition, the troops were immediately formed in four
   columns, the British in the centre, and the provincials on the
   flanks; in which order they marched towards the advanced guard
   of the French, composed of' one battalion posted in a log
   camp, which, on the approach of the English, made a
   precipitate retreat. Abercrombie continued his march towards
   Ticonderoga, with the intention of investing that place; but,
   the woods being thick, and the guides unskilful, his columns
   were thrown into confusion, and, in some measure, entangled
   with each other. In this situation Lord Howe, at the head of
   the right centre column, fell in with a part of the advanced
   guard of the French; which, in retreating from lake George,
   was likewise lost in the wood. He immediately attacked and
   dispersed them; killing several, and taking 148 prisoners,
   among whom were five officers. This small advantage was
   purchased at a dear rate. Though only two officers, on the
   side of the British, were killed, one of these was Lord Howe
   himself, who fell on the first fire. This gallant young
   nobleman had endeared himself to the whole army. … Without
   farther opposition, the English army took possession of the
   post at the Saw Mills, within two miles of Ticonderoga. This
   fortress [called Carillon by the French], which commands the
   communication between the two lakes, is encompassed on three
   sides by water, and secured in front by a morass. The ordinary
   garrison amounting to 4,000 men, was stationed under the
   cannon of the place, and covered by a breast-work, the
   approach to which had been rendered extremely difficult by
   trees felled in front, with their branches outward, many of
   which were sharpened so as to answer the purpose of
   chevaux-de-frize. This body of troops was rendered still more
   formidable by its general than by its position. It was
   commanded by the marquis de Montcalm. Having learned from his
   prisoners the strength of the army under the walls of
   Ticonderoga, and that a reinforcement of 3,000 men was daily
   expected, general Abercrombie thought it advisable to storm
   the place before this reinforcement should arrive. The troops
   marched to the assault with great intrepidity; but their
   utmost efforts could make no impression on the works. …
   After a contest of near four hours, and several repeated
   attacks, general Abercrombie ordered a retreat. The army
   retired to the camp from which it had marched in the morning;
   and, the next day, resumed its former position on the south
   side of lake George. In this rash attempt, the killed and
   wounded of the English amounted to near 2,000 men, of whom not
   quite 400 were provincials. The French were covered during the
   whole action, and their loss was inconsiderable. Entirely
   disconcerted by this unexpected and bloody repulse, General
   Abercrombie relinquished his designs against Ticonderoga
   and Crown Point.
{375}
   Searching however for the means of repairing the misfortune,
   if not the disgrace, sustained by his arms, he readily acceded
   to a proposition made by colonel Bradstreet, for an expedition
   against fort Frontignac. This fortress stands on the north
   side of Ontario. … Colonel Bradstreet embarked on the
   Ontario at Oswego, and on the 25th of August, landed within
   one mile of the fort. In two days, his batteries were opened
   at so short a distance that almost every shell took effect;
   and the governor, finding the place absolutely untenable,
   surrendered at discretion. … After destroying the fort and
   vessels, and such stores as could not be brought off, colonel
   Bradstreet returned to the army which undertook nothing
   farther during the campaign. The demolition of Fort Frontignac
   and of the stores which had been collected there, contributed
   materially to the success of the expedition against fort Du
   Quêsne. The conduct of this enterprise had been entrusted to
   General Forbes, who marched from Philadelphia, about the
   beginning of July, at the head of the main body of the army,
   destined for this service, in order to join colonel Bouquet at
   Raystown. So much time was employed in preparing to move from
   this place, that the Virginia regulars, commanded by Colonel
   Washington, were not ordered to join the British troops until
   the month of September. … Early in October general Forbes
   moved from Raystown; but the obstructions to his march were so
   great that he did not reach fort Du Quêsne until late in
   November. The garrison, being deserted by the Indians, and too
   weak to maintain the place against the formidable army which
   was approaching, abandoned the fort the evening before the
   arrival of the British, and escaped down the Ohio in boats.
   The English placed a garrison in it, and changed its name to
   Pittsburg, in compliment to their popular minister. The
   acquisition of this post was of great importance to
   Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia."

      _J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

      _B. Fernow,
      The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,
      chapter 7._

      _Major R. Rogers,
      Journals,
      edited by Hough,
      pages 115-123._

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 24._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 177-200._

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (June-September).
   The Fall of Quebec.

   "Wolfe's name stood high in the esteem of all who were
   qualified to judge, but, at the same time, it stood low in the
   column of colonels in the Army List. The great minister [Pitt]
   thought that the former counterbalanced the latter. … One of
   the last gazettes in the year 1758 announced the promotion of
   Colonel James Wolfe to the rank of major-general, and his
   appointment to the chief command of the expedition against
   Quebec. About the middle of February, 1759, the squadron
   sailed from England to Louisbourg, where the whole of the
   British force destined for the River St. Lawrence was ordered
   to assemble. … Twenty-two ships of the line, five frigates,
   and nineteen smaller vessels of war, with a crowd of
   transports, were mustered under the orders of the admiral
   [Saunders], and a detachment of artillery and engineers, and
   ten battalions of infantry, with six companies of Rangers,
   formed Wolfe's command; the right flank companies of the three
   regiments which still garrisoned Louisbourg soon after joined
   the army, and were formed into a corps called the Louisbourg
   Grenadiers. The total of the land forces embarked were
   somewhat under 8,000."

      _E. Warburton,
      Conquest of Canada,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

   "Wolfe, with his 8,000 men, ascended the St. Lawrence in the
   fleet in the month of June. With him came Brigadiers Monckton,
   Townshend and Murray, youthful and brave like himself, and,
   like himself, already schooled to arms. … The Grenadiers of
   the army were commanded by Colonel Guy Carleton, and part of
   the light infantry by Lieutenant-Colonel William Howe, both
   destined to celebrity in after years, in the annals of the
   American revolution. Colonel Howe was brother of the gallant
   Lord Howe, whose fall in the preceding year was so generally
   lamented. Among the officers of the fleet was Jervis, the
   future admiral, and ultimately Earl St. Vincent; and the
   master of one of the ships was James Cook, afterwards renowned
   as a discoverer. About the end of June, the troops debarked on
   the large, populous, and well-cultivated Isle of Orleans, a
   little below Quebec, and encamped in its fertile fields.
   Quebec, the citadel of Canada, was strong by nature. It was
   built round the point of a rocky promontory, and flanked by
   precipices. … The place was tolerably fortified, but art had
   not yet rendered it, as at the present day, impregnable.
   Montcalm commanded the post. His troops were more numerous
   than the assailants; but the greater part of them were
   Canadians, many of them inhabitants of Quebec; and he had a
   host of savages. His forces were drawn out along the northern
   shore below the city, from the River St. Charles to the Falls
   of Montmorency, and their position was secured by deep
   intrenchments. … After much resistance, Wolfe established
   batteries at the west point of the Isle of Orleans, and at
   Point Levi, on the right (or south) bank of the St. Lawrence,
   within cannon range of the city. … Many houses were set on
   fire in the upper town, the lower town was reduced to rubbish;
   the main fort, however, remained unharmed. Anxious for a
   decisive action, Wolfe, on the 9th of July, crossed over in
   boats from the Isle of Orleans to the north bank of the St.
   Lawrence, and encamped below the Montmorency. It was an
   ill-judged position. … On the 18th of July, Wolfe made a
   reconnoitering expedition up the river, with two armed sloops,
   and two transports with troops. He passed Quebec unharmed and
   carefully noted the shores above it. Rugged cliffs rose almost
   from the water's edge. … He returned to Montmorency
   disappointed, and resolved to attack Montcalm in his camp,
   however difficult to be approached, and however strongly
   posted. Townshend and Murray, with their brigades, were to
   cross the Montmorency at low tide, below the falls, and storm
   the redoubt thrown up in front of the ford. Monckton, at the
   same time, was to cross, with part of his brigade in boats
   from Point Levi. … As usual in complicated orders, part were
   misunderstood, or neglected, and confusion was the
   consequence." The assault was repelled and Wolfe fell back
   across the river, having lost four hundred men, with two
   vessels, which run aground and were burned. He felt the
   failure deeply, and his chagrin was increased by news of the
   successes of his coadjutors at Ticonderoga and Niagara.
{376}
   "The difficulties multiplying around him, and the delay of
   General Amherst in hastening to his aid, preyed incessantly on
   his spirits. … The agitation of his mind, and his acute
   sensibility, brought on a fever, which for some time
   incapacitated him from taking the field. In the midst of his
   illness he called a council of war, in which the whole plan of
   operations was altered. It was determined to convey troops
   above the town, and endeavor to make a diversion in that
   direction, or draw Montcalm into the open field. … The brief
   Canadian summer was over; they were in the month of September.
   The camp at Montmorency was broken up. The troops were
   transported to Point Levi, leaving a sufficient number to man
   the batteries on the Isle of Orleans. On the 5th and 6th of
   September the embarkation took place above Point Levi, in
   transports which had been sent for the purpose. Montcalm
   detached De Bougainville with 1,500 men to keep along the
   north shore above the town, watch the movements of the
   squadron, and prevent a landing. To deceive him, Admiral
   Holmes moved with the ships of war three leagues beyond the
   place where the landing was to be attempted. He was to drop
   down, however, in the night, and protect the landing. … The
   descent was made in flat-bottomed boats, past midnight, on the
   13th of September. They dropped down silently, with the swift
   current. 'Qui va la?' (who goes there?) cried a sentinel from
   the shore. 'La France,' replied a captain in the first boat,
   who understood the French language. 'A quel regiment?' was the
   demand. 'De la Reine' (the queen's) replied the captain,
   knowing that regiment was in De Bougainville's detachment.
   Fortunately, a convoy of provisions was expected down from De
   Bougainville's, which the sentinel supposed this to be.
   'Passe,' cried he, and the boats glided on without further
   challenge. The landing took place in a cove near Cape Diamond,
   which still bears Wolfe's name. He had marked it in
   reconnoitering, and saw that a cragged path straggled up from
   it to the Heights of Abraham, which might be climbed, though
   with difficulty, and that it appeared to be slightly guarded
   at top. Wolfe was among the first that landed and ascended up
   the steep and narrow path, where not more than two could go
   abreast, and which had been broken up by cross ditches.
   Colonel Howe, at the same time, with the light infantry and
   Highlanders, scrambled up the woody precipices, helping
   themselves by the roots and branches, and putting to flight a
   sergeant's guard posted at the summit. Wolfe drew up the men
   in order as they mounted; and by the break of day found
   himself in possession of the fateful Plains of Abraham.
   Montcalm was thunderstruck when word was brought to him in his
   camp that the English were on the heights threatening the
   weakest part of the town. Abandoning his intrenchments, he
   hastened across the river St. Charles and ascended the
   heights, which slope up gradually from its banks. His force
   was equal in number to that of the English, but a great part
   was made up of colony troops and savages. When he saw the
   formidable host of regulars he had to contend with, he sent
   off swift messengers to summon De Bougainville with his
   detachment to his aid; and De Vaudreil to reinforce him with
   1,500 men from the camp. In the meantime he prepared to flank
   the left of the English line and force them to the opposite
   precipices." In the memorable battle which ensued, Wolfe, who
   led the English line, received, first, a musket ball in his
   wrist, and soon afterward was struck by a second in the
   breast. He was borne mortally wounded to the rear, and lived
   just long enough to hear a cry from those around him that the
   enemy ran. Giving a quick order for Webb's regiment to be
   hurried down to the Charles River bridge and there obstruct
   the French retreat, he turned upon his side, saying, "Now, God
   be praised, I will die in peace," and expired. In the meantime
   the French commander, Montcalm, had received his death-wound,
   while striving to rally his flying troops. The victory of the
   English was complete, and they hastened to fortify their
   position on the Plains of Abraham, preparing to attack the
   citadel. But, Montcalm dying of his wound the following
   morning, no further defence of the place was undertaken. It
   was surrendered on the 17th of September to General Townshend,
   who had succeeded to the command.

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapter 27-28 (volume 2)._

      _R. Wright,
      Life of Wolfe,
      chapters 21-23._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England,
      1713-1783, chapter 35 (volume 4)._

      _W. Smith,
      History of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      _J. Knox,
      Historical Journal,
      volume 1, pages 255-360;
      volume 2, pages 1-132._

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (July-August).
   The fall of Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

   "For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal
   supplies of men and money, and the American colonies,
   encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised
   large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as
   commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three
   expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux,
   assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his
   force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to
   be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders.
   Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to
   descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army
   before Quebec. … Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received
   warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a
   small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not
   expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to
   sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more
   important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the
   alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from
   Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of
   two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two
   battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined
   by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their
   march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a
   difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under
   Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post,
   and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and
   on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles
   east of the mouth of the Niagara. … Prideaux began his
   trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from
   the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle,
   and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily
   advancing the work … when, on the 19th, he was killed by the
   bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the
   trenches, where he had gone to issue orders.
{377}
   Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but
   before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General
   Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of
   Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and
   Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the
   beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the
   French officers and men being slain or captured. This took
   from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following
   day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut
   off from communication with the east, and had given up a large
   part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve
   Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu'
   Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel
   Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The
   detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked
   by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation
   (Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the
   forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat
   more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at
   Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining
   the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his
   army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved
   down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats,
   bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men
   had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats
   nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard,
   pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a
   detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and
   scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed
   on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was
   learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400
   men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their
   outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for
   several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion,
   during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the
   burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the
   French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and
   Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops,
   and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder.
   … After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost
   about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and
   complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were
   raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to
   attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to
   reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the
   French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that
   Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the
   northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance
   to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small
   detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his
   time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts,"
   until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the
   help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate
   and useless preparations."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the French War,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Warburton,
      Conquest of Canada,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

CANADA: A. D. 1760.
   The completion of the English conquest.
   The end of "New France."

   "Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet
   completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken
   Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure
   to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and
   the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm,
   gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made
   preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. … After
   several fruitless attacks had been made on the British
   outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels
   yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores
   still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of
   April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the
   river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole
   amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in
   charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery,
   and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men
   had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered
   in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten
   miles away. Their position, however, had been very much
   strengthened. … De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the
   27th advanced to within three miles of the city."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the French War,
      chapter 21._

   "On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city,
   left the advantageous ground which he first occupied,  and
   hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under
   Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being
   surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine
   train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear
   to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it
   more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis]
   opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the
   works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men,
   labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to
   light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened
   to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and
   prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the
   city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my
   love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the
   Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the
   15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or
   seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every
   happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing;
   abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and
   hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had
   no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada
   but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from
   a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six
   battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited
   from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army
   of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting
   there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon
   Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking
   possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the
   helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives
   except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760,
   he met before Montreal the army of Murray.
{378}
   The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point;
   and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George
   was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. … The
   capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor,
   against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was
   said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes
   Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the
   Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the
   terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was
   thought of.  … On the fifth day after the capitulation,
   Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to
   the upper posts. … The Indians on the lakes were at peace,
   united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in
   a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The
   Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of
   Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the
   country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac
   and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you
   dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied
   the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to
   remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the
   calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter
   then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following
   spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States.
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 2, pages 522-524._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Smith,
      History of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 7
      (giving the Articles of Capitulation in full)._

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapters 29-30 (volume 2)._

CANADA: A. D. 1763.
   Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
   The Province of Quebec created.
   Eleven years of military rule.
   The Quebec Act of 1774.
   Extension of Quebec Province to the
   Ohio and the Mississippi.

   "For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada
   was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec,
   Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three
   departments into which General Amherst divided the country.
   Military councils were established to administer law, though,
   as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but
   settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the
   king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new
   governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St.
   John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen
   Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland,
   and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it
   was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the
   smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government
   of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in
   the letters-patent by which these governments were
   constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and
   consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as
   was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the
   King's immediate government.' … No assembly, however, ever
   met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take
   the test oath, and the government of the province was carried
   on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an
   executive council, composed in the first instance of the two
   lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief
   justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others
   chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to
   1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly
   on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws
   actually in force. … The province of Quebec remained for
   eleven years under the system of government established by the
   proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the
   first time in Canadian affairs and made important
   constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been
   created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great
   Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed
   prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old
   possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States
   of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a
   system of government was granted to Canada by the express
   authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the
   Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the
   province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On
   one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New
   England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the
   left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's
   Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to
   Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of
   the province of Quebec. … The Act of 1774 was exceedingly
   unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies,
   then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament,
   however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust
   the government of the province so as to conciliate the
   majority of the people. … The new constitution came into
   force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons
   for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation
   of 1763 were  'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of
   the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the
   conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of
   the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of
   constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and
   property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long
   series of years, from the first establishment of the
   province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics
   should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only
   the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was
   entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed
   by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an
   assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than
   twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the
   power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief
   for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare,
   and good government of the province. They had no authority,
   however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the
   inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to
   assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary
   local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a
   majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted
   within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for
   approval or disallowance.
{379}
   It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy,
   relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had
   to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of
   England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal
   code which might have prevailed before 1764. … Roman
   Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with
   perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their
   'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as
   professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic
   population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many
   years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and
   Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was
   inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord
   Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of
   twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."

      _J. G. Bourinot,
      Manual of Constitutional History of Canada,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Houston,
      Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
      pages 90-96._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Invasion by the revolting American colonists.
   Loss and recovery of Montreal.
   Successful defence of Quebec.

   At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which
   subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain,
   the United States of America, it was believed among them that
   Canada would join their movement if the British troops which
   occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief,
   the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775,
   adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair
   without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and
   taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green
   Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would
   not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take
   possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other
   measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the
   peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found
   it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected
   expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was
   prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was General
   Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British
   service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be
   supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by
   Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go
   down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold,
   with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River,
   cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the
   very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been
   with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of
   Canada—if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia
   might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his
   small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to
   Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by
   defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the
   Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River
   Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St.
   Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent
   intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now
   defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of
   November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy.
   It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has
   been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth
   is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the
   outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada
   had been laid. … General Carleton escaped from Montreal,
   and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars
   under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in
   time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St.
   Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The
   energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec
   is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over
   dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached
   consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The
   Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current
   being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks.
   Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of
   food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied
   them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St.
   Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at
   Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of
   Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec
   men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men,
   supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the
   defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few
   seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity
   of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the
   citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in
   companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count
   upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were,
   however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of
   December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by
   escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought
   to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and
   Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St.
   Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the
   Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have
   forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both
   cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie
   the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He
   escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second
   entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in
   confusion. The American generals have been criticized by
   experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing
   on the Plains of Abraham. … General Arnold remained before
   Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men.
   General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the
   defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest
   success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the
   French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success.
   Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early
   in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and
   Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men
   of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides
   artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to
   Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade
   encamped at Three Rivers.
{380}
   The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers,
   but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back
   from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain,
   and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying
   Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been
   before the first attack in the year before."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 6, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapters 19-29,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _J. Sparks,
      Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold,
      chapters 3-5,
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 3)._

      _J. Armstrong,
      Life of Richard Montgomery
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

      _C. H. Jones,
      History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776._

      _J. J. Henry,
      Arnold's Campaign against Quebec._

CANADA: A. D. 1776.
   General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CANADA: A. D. 1777.
   Burgoyne's disastrous invasion of New York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D 1783.
   Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great
   Britain and the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784.
   Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United
   States.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

CANADA: A. D. 1791
   The Constitutional Act.
   Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.

   "In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province
   into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so
   drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in
   Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in
   Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who
   urged that the separation of the English and French
   inhabitants was most undesirable. … The act was passed, and
   is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. … In each
   province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a
   Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor
   had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to
   reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon,
   prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to
   convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative
   Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in
   Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King
   for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General.
   The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s,
   freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly
   value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The
   number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the
   Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16
   members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new
   Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences
   arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative
   Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies,
   differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still
   went on between the French and English races. … The
   discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Houston,
      Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
      pages 112-133._

      _D. Brymner,
      Report on Canadian Archives, 1890,
      appendix B._

CANADA: A. D. 1812-1815.
   The War of Great Britain with the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1815 (JANUARY).

CANADA: A. D. 1818.
   Convention between Great Britain and the United States
   relating to Fisheries, etc.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
   The Family Compact.

   "The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of
   the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the
   loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada,
   heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have
   admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E.
   loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its
   political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its
   prominent members belonged to the class which in the American
   colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson,
   and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to
   destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the
   American revolution. … By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or
   cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly
   combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its
   best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather
   set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of
   religion."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 10, section 2._

   "Upper Canada … has long been entirely governed by a party
   commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family
   Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party
   designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very
   little of family connection among the persons thus united. For
   a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to
   its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices,
   by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive
   Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it
   maintained influence in the legislature by means of its
   predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a
   large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the
   Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as
   they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted
   quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing
   struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the
   real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high
   offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal
   profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by
   grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the
   waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the
   chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves
   almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk
   of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born
   inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it
   before the last war with the United States; the principal
   members of it belong to the church of England, and the
   maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one
   of its distinguishing characteristics."

      _Earl of Durham,
      Report on the Affairs of British North America,
      page 105._

   "The influences which produced the Family Compact were not
   confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in
   Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar
   results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or
   another been a familiar one in all the British North American
   colonies. … The designation Family Compact, however, did not
   owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists,
   but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."

      _J. C. Dent,
      The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion,
      chapter 3._

{381}

CANADA: A. D. 1837.
   The Causes of discontent which produced rebellion.

   "It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose.
   A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the
   legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the
   majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by
   the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The
   home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious
   and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management
   of a colony—a 'British party' devoted to the so-called
   interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of
   command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority
   in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions
   of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as
   to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their
   service officials whom the representative' assembly had
   condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their
   salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The
   representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the
   Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by
   appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to
   be within their reach at the time. The colony—for indeed on
   these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong,
   was so near to being of one mind that we may take the
   declarations of public meetings as representing the
   colony—demanded that the legislative council should be made
   elective, and that the colonial government should not be
   allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their
   pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied
   by refusing to listen to the proposal. … It is not necessary to
   suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were
   in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt
   that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the
   mere differences of race. … At last the representative
   assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on
   any further business. They formulated their grievances against
   the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary
   conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition
   of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be
   elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and
   violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the
   leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion
   in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had
   risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his
   undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal
   in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he
   afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader
   of the movement to protest against the policy of the
   governors, and that of the Government by whom they were
   sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which
   undoubtedly rather strong language was used. … Lord Gosford,
   the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who
   had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau
   himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued
   warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular
   Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once
   left the country; others against whom warrants were issued
   were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their
   friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who
   have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements,
   the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed
   itself into open rebellion."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our own Times,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both
   Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic
   grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set
   apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant
   Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to
   Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to
   2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the
   Province. Three objections were made against continuing these
   Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart.
   The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive
   Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these
   lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for
   'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the
   Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively
   the Church of England, which was established by law in the
   mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all
   Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second
   objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for
   the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in
   which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did
   not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made,
   every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not
   cleared for years the people complained that they were not
   utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform
   civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and
   people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. … An
   additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the
   government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into
   the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a
   Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. … But the
   Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and
   it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. … Altogether the
   issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley
   Provinces and the Maritime Provinces … and so it is not to
   be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a
   class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a
   race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was
   tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. …
   The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of
   Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with
   or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William
   Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr.
   Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McMullen,
      History of Canada,
      chapters 19-20._

      _Earl of Durham,
      Report and Dispatches._

      _Sir F. B. Head,
      Narrative._

      _Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the
      grievances complained of in Lower Canada,
      (House of Commons, February 20, 1837)._

{382}

CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
   The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression.
   The Burning of the Caroline.

   "Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the
   constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put
   down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak
   in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of
   the population was disaffected to the government, there were
   some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was
   completely trodden out. … On the night of the 4th of
   December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the
   policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall,
   and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the
   Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm
   came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the
   command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque
   figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar
   to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours
   had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among
   the disaffected in the Home and London districts. … The
   alarm threw Toronto into commotion. … The volunteers were
   formed in the market square during the night and well armed.
   In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were
   not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and
   discharged men from both the naval and military services. …
   Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had
   occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were
   driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day
   and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of
   the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the
   House of Assembly … raised a body of his friends and
   adherents in the course of the night and following day, and,
   seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to
   Toronto. … The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day,
   at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the
   Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept
   during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and
   till all danger was over. … Mackenzie soon rallied his
   scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above
   Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of
   American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of
   a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence,
   the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford
   (where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the
   command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel
   Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at
   Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in
   length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the
   Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides
   with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over
   the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous
   leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the
   Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an
   American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A
   small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the
   insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy
   Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other
   military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide
   whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to
   destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United
   States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American
   port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel
   Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at
   night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf,
   fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over
   the Falls.

      _Viscount Bury,
      Exodus of the Western Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

   "On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled
   with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some
   of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's
   Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth.
   But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and
   after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even
   Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were
   allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected
   to seats in the Canadian Assembly."

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada.
      chapter 16, section 15._

   On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was
   very commonly called "the Patriot War."

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Lindsey,
      Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie,
      volume 2._

      _J. C. Dent,
      Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
   International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the
   Caroline.
   The McLeod Case.

   The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A. D.
   1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great
   Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an
   American named Durfree was killed. The British government
   avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary
   measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van
   Buren [President of the United States] went out of office
   whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. …
   In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to
   New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree,
   and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and
   thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and
   the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause
   immediate war. … Our [the American] government was, of
   course, greatly hampered in action … by the fact that McLeod
   was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York
   courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States.
   … Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President
   Taylor] … was hardly in office before he received a demand
   from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal
   was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act.
   Mr. Webster determined that … the only way to dispose of
   McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him,
   diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and
   then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with
   the British government. … His first step was to instruct the
   Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was
   imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence,
   furnishing them with authentic information that the
   destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that
   therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. …
{383}
   This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent
   peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities,
   who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general
   government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York
   in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to
   release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's
   instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for
   trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our
   government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when
   McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was
   a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was
   killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the
   way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened
   at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions
   between England and the United States.

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      chapter 2, pages 547-588._

      _D. Webster,
      Works,
      volume 6, pages 247-269._

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
   Reunion of the provinces.
   The opposition of races.
   Clear Grits and Conservatives.

   "The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before:
   it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province;
   and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought
   into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly
   opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as
   much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the
   author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the
   measure was directed against their nationality. But since the
   Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been
   superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the
   protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to
   the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed
   under a Governor-General with a single legislature,
   consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before,
   of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House
   elected by the people. Each province was to have the same
   number of representatives, although the population of the
   French Province was at that time much larger than that of the
   British Province. The French language was proscribed in
   official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent,
   constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes,
   necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only
   weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and
   even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most
   likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of
   organised party. … The French … 'had the wisdom,' as their
   manual of history … complacently observes, 'to remain united
   among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a
   happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.'
   Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to
   their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to
   their leaders, became politically dominant. The British
   factions began to bid against each other for their support,
   and were presently at their feet. … The statute proscribing
   the use of the French language in official proceedings was
   repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual.
   The Premiership was divided between the English and the French
   leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double
   name—'the Lafontaine—Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The
   French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of
   patronage; of public funds they got more than their full
   share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods
   they contributed far less than their quota to the public
   revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper
   Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in
   contravention of the principle of religious equality and
   severance of the Church from the State. In time it was
   recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have
   a majority from each section of the Province. This practically
   almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French
   nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually
   the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since
   been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party,
   playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege,
   by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing
   the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common
   treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going
   Reformers from the Moderates … gave birth to the party of
   the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a
   Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the
   secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that
   question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to
   French and Roman Catholic influence. … A change had thus
   come over the character and relations of parties. French
   Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis
   of the Conservative party. British Canada became the
   stronghold of the Liberals. … A period of tricky
   combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now
   commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was
   its fruit."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      Canada and the Canadian Question,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Houston,
      Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
      pages 149-185._

      _J. G. Bourinot,
      Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada,
      chapter 5._

CANADA: A. D. 1842.
   Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the
   Ashburton Treaty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its
   abrogation.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
      A. D. 1854-1866.

CANADA: A. D. 1864.
   The St. Albans Raid.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
   Fenian invasions.

   The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its
   most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from
   the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian
   volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866,
   expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an
   insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900
   men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on
   the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at
   destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the
   Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th
   battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway.
   Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the
   Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian
   forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with
   a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded.
{384}
   Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching
   to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee
   to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men,
   was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the
   skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie,
   and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian
   expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital
   at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border
   from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back.
   The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against
   the American authorities. … A Fenian attack was led by Colonel
   O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was
   easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to
   arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again
   made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against
   Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American
   commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed
   the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and,
   though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota,
   the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure.
   These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in
   effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the
   maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different
   points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of
   citizen soldiery however resulted."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      pages 468-470._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. T. Denison, Jr.,
      The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie.
      Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion.
      Official Report of General John O'Neill._

CANADA: A. D. 1867.
   Federation of the provinces of British North America in the
   Dominion of Canada.
   The constitution of the Dominion.

   "The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867,
   when the provinces of British North America were brought more
   closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in
   their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865,
   the administration of government in Canada had become
   surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing
   character. … Parties at last were so equally balanced on
   account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the
   vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration,
   and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years.
   From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there
   were no less than five different ministries in charge of the
   public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically
   at a dead-lock. … It was at this critical juncture of
   affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in
   the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the
   most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition
   government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all
   the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case
   of the failure of the larger scheme. … It was a happy
   coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were
   about considering a maritime union at the time the leading
   statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling
   their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once
   availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates
   at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the
   decision to consider the question of the larger union at
   Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates
   from all the British North American provinces assembled in
   conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample
   deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions,
   which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions
   were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in
   January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended
   from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses
   agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty
   praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for
   the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the
   provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had
   to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in
   consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited
   itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the
   financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the
   terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and
   "the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
   being at last in full accord, through the action of their
   respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on
   the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where
   it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties,
   and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the
   royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new
   constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually
   celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first
   parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same
   year. … The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted
   only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec
   [Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th
   section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the
   admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament
   of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of
   Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia.
   Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any
   time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian
   Parliament. … The title of Dominion did not appear in the
   Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her
   Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the
   federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was
   arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the
   union bill was finally drafted."

      _T. G. Bourinot,
      Manual of Constitutional History of Canada,
      chapter 6-7 (with foot-note)._

   "The Federal Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is
   contained in the British North America Act, 1867, a statute of
   the British Parliament (30 Vict., c. 3). I note a few of the
   many points in which it deserves to be compared with that of
   the United States. The Federal or Dominion Government is
   conducted on the so-called 'Cabinet system' of England, i. e.,
   the Ministry sit in Parliament, and hold office at the
   pleasure of the House of Commons. The Governor-General
   [appointed by the Crown] is in the position of an
   irresponsible and permanent executive similar to that of the
   Crown of Great Britain, acting on the advice of responsible
   ministers.
{385}
   He can dissolve Parliament. The Upper House or Senate, is
   composed of 78 persons, nominated for life by the
   Governor-General, i. e., the Ministry. The House of Commons
   has at present 210 members, who are elected for five years.
   Both senators and members receive salaries. The Senate has
   very little power or influence. The Governor-General has a
   veto but rarely exercises it, and may reserve a bill for the
   Queen's pleasure. The judges, not only of the Federal or
   Dominion Courts, but also of the provinces, are appointed by
   the Crown, i. e., by the Dominion Ministry, and hold for good
   behaviour. Each of the Provinces, at present [1888] seven in
   number, has a legislature of its own, which, however, consists
   in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba, of one House only,
   and a Lieutenant-Governor, with a right of veto on the acts of
   the legislature, which he seldom exercises. Members of the
   Dominion Parliament cannot sit in a Provincial legislature.
   The Governor-General has a right of disallowing acts of a
   Provincial legislature, and sometimes exerts it, especially
   when a legislature is deemed to have exceeded its
   constitutional competence. In each of the Provinces there is a
   responsible Ministry, working on the Cabinet system of
   England. The distribution of matters within the competence of
   the Dominion Parliament and of the Provincial legislatures
   respectively, bears a general resemblance to that existing in
   the United States; but there is this remarkable distinction,
   that whereas in the United States, Congress has only the
   powers actually granted to it, the State legislatures
   retaining all such powers as have not been taken from them,
   the Dominion Parliament has a general power of legislation,
   restricted only by the grant of certain specific and exclusive
   powers to the Provincial legislatures. Criminal law is
   reserved for the Dominion Parliament; and no Province has the
   right to maintain a military force. Questions as to the
   constitutionality of a statute, whether of the Dominion
   Parliament or of a Provincial legislature, come before the
   courts in the ordinary way, and if appealed, before the
   Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The
   Constitution of the Dominion was never submitted to a popular
   vote, and can be altered only by the British Parliament,
   except as regards certain points left to its own legislature.
   … There exists no power of amending the Provincial
   constitutions by popular vote similar to that which the
   peoples of the several States exercise in the United States."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      volume 1, appendix., note (B) to chapter 80._

      See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada
      (with text of Act in appendix)
      Parl. Debate on Confederation, 3d Sess., 8th Prov.
      Parliament of Canada._

      _W. Houston,
      Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
      pages 186-224._

CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
   Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Territory.
   Admission or Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward's
   Island to the Dominion.

   "In 1869 … the Dominion was enlarged by the acquisition of
   the famous Hudson's Bay Territory. When the charter of the
   Hudson's Bay Company expired in 1869, Lord Granville, then
   Colonial Secretary, proposed that the chief part of the
   Company's territories should be transferred to the Dominion
   for £300,000; and the proposition was agreed to on both sides.
   The Hudson's Bay Charter dated from the reign of Charles II.
   The region to which it referred carries some of its history
   imprinted in its names. Prince Rupert was at the head of the
   association incorporated by the Charter into the Hudson's Bay
   Company. The name of Rupert's Land perpetuates his memory. …
   The Hudson's Bay Company obtained from King Charles, by virtue
   of the Charter in 1670, the sole and absolute government of
   the vast watershed of Hudson's Bay, the Rupert's Land of the
   Charter, on condition of paying yearly to the King and his
   successors 'two elks and two black beavers,' 'whensoever and
   all often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to
   enter into the said countries, territories and regions.' The
   Hudson's Bay Company was opposed by the North West Fur Company
   in 1788, which fought them for a long time with Indians and
   law, with the tomahawk of the red man and the legal judgment
   of a Romilly or a Keating. In 1812 Lord Selkirk founded the
   Red River Company. This interloper on the battle field was
   harassed by the North West Company, and it was not until 1821,
   when the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies—impoverished
   by their long warfare-amalgamated their interests, that the
   Red River settlers were able to reap their harvests in peace,
   disturbed only by occasional plagues of locusts and
   blackbirds. In 1885, on Lord Selkirk's death, the Hudson's Bay
   Company bought the settlement from his executors. It had been
   under their sway before that, having been committed to their
   care by Lord Selkirk during his lifetime. The privilege of
   exclusive trading east of the Rocky Mountains was conferred by
   Royal license for twenty-one years in May 1888, and some ten
   years later the Company received a grant of Vancouver's Island
   for the term of ten years from 1849 to 1859. The Hudson's Bay
   Company were always careful to foster the idea that their
   territory was chiefly wilderness, and discountenanced the
   reports of its fertility and fitness for colonisation which
   were from time to time brought to the ears of the English
   Government. In 1857, at the instance of Mr. Labouchere, a
   Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to
   enquire into the state of the British possessions under the
   Company's administration. Various Government expeditions, and
   the publication of many Blue Books, enlightened the public
   mind as to the real nature of those tracts of land which the
   council from the Fenchurch Street house declared to be so
   desolate. … During the sittings of the Committee there was
   cited in evidence a petition from 575 Red River settlers to
   the Legislative Assembly of Canada demanding British
   protection. This appeal was a proceeding curiously at variance
   with the later action of the settlement. When in 1869 the chief
   part of the territories was transferred to Canada, on the
   proposition of Earl Granville, the Red River country rose in
   rebellion, and refused to receive the new Governor. Louis
   Riel, the insurgent chief, seized on Fort Garry and the
   Company's treasury, and proclaimed the independence of the
   settlement. Sir Garnet, then Colonel, Wolseley, was sent in
   command of an expedition which reached Fort Garry on August
   28, when the insurgents submitted without resistance, and the
   district received the name of Manitoba."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of our own Times,
      chapter 55 (volume 4)._

{386}

   Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were admitted to the
   Dominion Confederation May 12, 1870; British Columbia, July
   20, 1871; Prince Edward Island, July 1, 1873.

      _J. McCoun,
      Manitoba and the Great North West._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. M. Adam,
      The Canadian Northwest,
      chapters 1-13_

      _G. L. Huyshe,
      The Red River Expedition._

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada,
      page 313._

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Hudson Bay Company
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8)._

      See, also, BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871,
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORIES of CANADA.

CANADA: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

CANADA: A. D. 1877.
   The Halifax Fishery Award.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed controversies.
   The rejected Treaty.

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

CANAI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CANARES, The.

      See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANARY ISLANDS, Discovery of the.

   The first great step in African exploration "was the discovery
   of the Canary Islands. These were the 'Elysian fields' and
   'Fortunate islands' of antiquity. Perhaps there is no country
   in the world that has been so many times discovered,
   conquered, and invaded, or so much fabled about, as these
   islands. There is scarcely a nation upon earth of any maritime
   repute that has not had to do with them. Phœnicians,
   Carthaginians, Romans, Moors, Genoese, Normans, Portuguese,
   and Spaniards of every province (Aragonese, Castilians,
   Gallicians, Biscayans, Andalucians) have all made their
   appearance in these islands. The Carthaginians are said to
   have discovered them, and to have reserved them as an asylum
   in case of extreme danger to the state. Sertorius, the Roman
   general who partook the fallen fortunes of Marius is said to
   have meditated retreat to these 'islands of the blessed,' and
   by some writers is supposed to have gone there. Juba, the
   Mauritanian prince, son of the Jupa celebrated by Sallust,
   sent ships to examine them, and has left a description of
   them. Then came the death of empires, and darkness fell upon
   the human race, at least upon the records of their history.
   When the world revived, and especially when the use of the
   loadstone began to be known among mariners, the Canary Islands
   were again discovered. Petrarch is referred to by Viera to
   prove that the Genoese sent out an expedition to these
   islands. Las Casas mentions that an English or French vessel
   bound from France or England to Spain was driven by contrary
   winds to the Canary Islands, and on its return spread abroad
   in France an account of the voyage."

      _A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, note E._

CANAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANCELLARIUS.

      See CHANCELLOR.

CANDAHAR.
   Siege and relief of English forces (1880).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

CANDIA.

   This is the name of the principal town in the island of Crete,
   but has been often applied to Crete itself.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669, where an account is given of
      the so-called "War of Candia";
      also CRETE: A. D. 823.

CANDRAGUPTA, OR CHANDRAGUPTA,
   The empire of.

      See INDIA.: B. C. 327-312, and 312-.

CANGI, The.

   A tribe in early Britain which occupied the westerly part of
   Modern Carnarvonshire.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CANICHANAS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANIENGAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

CANNÆ Battles of (B. C. 216).

      See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND. (B. C. 88).
      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CANNENEFATES, The.

   "On the other bank of the Rhine [on the right bank] next to
   the Batavi, in the modern Kennemer district (north Holland,
   beyond Amsterdam) dwelt the Cannenefates, closely related to
   them but less numerous; they are not merely named among the
   tribes subjugated by Tiberius, but were also treated like the
   Batavi in the furnishing of soldiers."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4._

CANNING, Lord, The Indian administration of, A. D. 1856-1862.

CANNING MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CANOPUS, Decree of.

   An important inscribed stone found in 1865 at San, or Tanis,
   in Egypt, which is a monument of the reign of Ptolemy
   Euergetes, who ascended the throne in 246 B. C. It gives "in
   hieroglyphics and Greek (the demotic version is on the edge) a
   decree of the priests assembled at Canopus for their yearly
   salutation of the king. When they were so assembled, in his
   ninth year, his infant daughter Berenice, fell sick and died,
   and there was great lamentation over her. The decree first
   recounts the generous conduct and prowess of the king, who had
   conquered all his enemies abroad, and had brought back from
   Persia all the statues of the gods carried off in old time
   from Egypt by foreign kings. He had also, in a great
   threatening of famine, when the Nile had failed to rise to its
   full amount, imported vast quantities of corn from Cyprus,
   Phœnicia, &c., and fed his people. Consequently divine honours
   are to be paid to him and his queen as 'Benefactor-Gods' in
   all the temples of Egypt, and feasts are to be held in their
   honour. … This great inscription, far more perfect and
   considerably older than the Rosetta Stone, can now be cited as
   the clearest proof of Champollion's reading of the
   hieroglyphics."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 15, note._

{387}

CANOSSA, Henry IV. at.

   In the conflict which arose between the German Emperor, Henry
   IV. (then crowned only as King of the Romans) and Pope Gregory
   VII. (the inflexible Hildebrand), the former was placed at a
   great disadvantage by revolts and discontents in his own
   Germanic dominions. When, therefore, on the 22d of February,
   A. D. 1076, the audacious pontiff pronounced against the king
   his tremendous sentence, not only of excommunication, but of
   deposition, releasing all Christians from allegiance to him,
   he addressed a large party, both in Germany and Italy, who
   were more than willing to accept an excuse for depriving Henry
   of his crown. This party controlled a diet held at Tribur, in
   October, which declared that his forfeiture of the throne
   would be made irrevocable if he did not procure from the pope
   a release from his excommunication before the coming
   anniversary of its pronunciation, in February. A diet to be
   held then at Augsburg, under the presidency of the pope, would
   determine the affairs of the Empire. With characteristic
   energy, Henry resolved to make his way to the pope, in person,
   and to become reconciled with him, before the Augsburg
   meeting. Accompanied by the queen, her child, and a few
   attendants, he crossed the Alps, with great hardship and
   danger, in the midst of an uncommonly cold and snowy winter.
   Meantime, the pope had started upon his journey to Augsburg.
   Hearing on the way of Henry's movement to meet him, not
   desiring the encounter, and distrusting, moreover, the
   intentions of his enemy, he took refuge in the strong fortress
   of Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the Apennines. To
   that mountain retreat the desperate king pressed his way. "It
   was January 21, 1077, when Henry arrived at Canossa; the cold
   was severe and the snow lay deep. He was lodged at the foot of
   the castle-steep, and had an interview with the countess
   Matilda [mistress of the castle, and devoted friend of the
   pope], Hugh, abbot of Clugny, and others, in the Chapel of St.
   Nicolas, of which no traces now remain. Three days were spent
   in debating terms of reconciliation; Matilda and Hugh
   interceded with the pope on the king's behalf, but Gregory was
   inexorable; unless Henry surrendered the crown into the pope's
   hands the ban should not be taken off. Henry could not stoop
   so low as this, but he made up his mind to play the part of a
   penitent suppliant. Early on the morning of January 25 he
   mounted the winding, rocky path, until he reached the
   uppermost of the three walls, the one which enclosed the
   castle yard. And here, before the gateway which still exists,
   and perpetuates in its name, 'Porta di penitenza,' the memory
   of this strange event, the king, barefoot, and clad in a
   coarse woolen shirt, stood knocking for admittance. But he
   knocked in vain: from morning till evening the heir of the
   Roman Empire stood shivering outside the fast-closed door. Two
   more days he climbed the rugged path and stood weeping and
   imploring to be admitted." At last, the iron-willed pontiff
   consented to a parley, and an agreement was brought about by
   which Henry was released from excommunication, but the
   question of his crown was left for future settlement. In the
   end he gained nothing by his extraordinary abasement of
   himself. Many of his supporters were alienated by it; a rival
   king was elected. Gathering all his energies, Henry then stood
   his ground and made a fight in which even Gregory fled before
   him; but it was all to no avail. The triumph remained with the
   priests.

      _W. R. W. Stephens,
      Hildebrand and His Times,
      chapters 11-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      book 5._

      See, also,
      PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      ROME: 1081-1084.

CANTABRIA, Becomes Bardulia and Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

CANTABRIANS AND ASTURIANS, The.

   The Cantabrians were an ancient people in the north of Spain,
   inhabiting a region to the west of the Asturians. They were
   not conquered by the Romans until the reign of Augustus, who
   led an expedition against them in person, B. C. 27, but was
   forced by illness to commit the campaign to his lieutenants.
   The Cantabrians submitted soon after being defeated in a great
   battle at Vellica, near the sources of the Ebro; but in 22 B.
   C. they joined the Asturians in a desperate revolt, which was
   not subdued until three years later.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 34._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 2._

      See APPENDIX A, volume 1.

CANTÆ, The.

   A tribe in ancient Caledonia.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CANTERBURY. The murder of Becket (1170).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CANTERBURY PRIMACY, Origin of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.

CANTII, The.

   The tribe of ancient Britons which occupied the region of Kent.

      See BRITAIN. CELTIC TRIBES.

CANTON: A. D. 1839-1842.
   The Opium War.
   Ransom of the city from English assault.
   Its port opened to British trade.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

CANTON: A. D. 1856-1857.
   Bombardment by the English.
   Capture by the English and French.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

CANTONS, Latin.

      See GENS, ROMAN;
      also ALBA.

CANTONS, Swiss.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

CANULEIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 445.

CANUTE, OR CNUT,
   King of England, A. D.1017-1035,
   and King of Denmark, A. D. 1018-1035.
   Canute II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1080-1086.
   Canute III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1147-1156.
   Canute IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1182-1202.

CANZACA.

      See ECBATANA.

CANZACA, OR SHIZ, Battle of.

   A battle fought A. D. 591, by the Romans, under Narses,
   supporting the cause of Chosroës II. king of Persia, against a
   usurper Bahram, who had driven him from his throne. Bahram was
   defeated and Chosroës restored.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 23._

CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1497.
   Discovery by John Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1504.
   Named by the fishermen from Brittany.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1713.
   Possession confirmed to France.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

{388}

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.
   The fortification of Louisbourg.

   After the surrender of Placentia or Plaisance, in
   Newfoundland, to England, under the treaty of Utrecht (see
   NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713), the French government determined to
   fortify strongly some suitable harbor on the island of Cape
   Breton for a naval station, and especially for the protection
   of the fisheries of France on the neighboring coasts. The
   harbor known previously as Havre a l' Anglois was chosen for
   the purpose. "When the French government decided in favour of
   Havre a l' Anglois its name was changed to Louisbourg, in
   honour of the king; and, to mark the value set upon Cape
   Breton it was called Isle Royale, which it retained until its
   final conquest in 1758, when its ancient name was resumed." In
   1720 the fortifications were commenced, and the work of their
   construction was prosecuted with energy and with unstinted
   liberality for more than twenty years. "Even the English
   colonies contributed a great proportion of the materials used
   in their construction. When Messrs. Newton and Bradstreet, who
   were sent to confer with M. de St. Ovide [to remonstrate
   against the supplying of arms to the Indians in Nova Scotia]
   … returned to Annapolis, they reported that during their
   short stay at Louisbourg, in 1725, fourteen colonial vessels,
   belonging chiefly to New England, arrived there with cargoes
   of boards, timber and bricks. … Louisbourg [described, with
   a plan, in the work here quoted] … had, between the years
   1720 and 1745, cost the French nation the enormous sum of
   30,000,000 livres, or £1,200,000 sterling; nevertheless, as
   Dussieux informs us, the fortifications were still unfinished,
   and likely to remain so, because the cost had far exceeded the
   estimates; and it was found such a large garrison would be
   required for their defence that the government had abandoned
   the idea of completing them according to the original design."

      _R. Brown,
      History of the Island of Cape Breton,
      letters 9-11._

   "The fort was built of stone, with walls more than 30 feet
   high, and a ditch 80 feet wide, over which was a communication
   with the town by a drawbridge. It had six bastions and three
   batteries, with platforms for 148 cannon and six mortars. On
   an islet, which was flanked on one side by a shoal, a battery
   of 30 guns, 28 pounders, defended the entrance of the harbor,
   which was about 400 yards wide, and was also commanded from
   within by the Grand or Royal Battery, mounting as many guns,
   of the calibre of 42 pounds. The fort … was a safe
   rendezvous and refuge for French fleets and privateers,
   sailing in the Western Hemisphere. It commanded the maritime
   way into Canada, and it watched the English settlements all
   along the coast. It was a standing threat to the great
   business of New England seamen, which was the fishery on the
   banks."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5)._

   "'So great was its strength that it was called the Dunkirk of
   America. It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens.
   That such a city rose upon a low and desolate island in the
   infancy of American colonization appears incredible;
   explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the
   period.'"

      _C. B. Elliott,
      The United States and the New England Fisheries,
      page 18._

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1744.
   Outbreak of the Third Inter-Colonial War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1745.
   Conquest by the New Englanders.
   Fall of Louisbourg.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1748.
   Restored to France.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
   The final capture and destruction of Louisbourg, by the English.

   "In May, 1758 [during the Seven Years War,—see CANADA: A. D.
   1750-1753 and after], a powerful fleet, under command of
   Admiral Boscawen, arrived at Halifax for the purpose of
   recapturing a place [Louisbourg] which ought never to have
   been given up. The fleet consisted of 23 ships of the line and
   18 frigates, besides transports, and when it left Halifax it
   numbered 157 vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery
   Amherst, of upward of 12,000 men. The French forces at
   Louisbourg were much inferior, and consisted of only 8 ships
   of the line and 3 frigates, and of about 4,000 soldiers. The
   English fleet set sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on
   the 8th of June a landing was effected in Gabarus Bay. The
   next day the attack began, and after a sharp conflict the
   French abandoned and destroyed two important batteries. The
   siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was not
   until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the
   terms of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners
   of war and to be sent to England, and the English acquired 218
   cannon and 18 mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition
   and military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured
   or destroyed; but their crews, to the number of upward of
   2,600 men, were included in the capitulation. Two years later,
   at the beginning of 1760, orders were sent from England to
   demolish the fortress, render the harbor impracticable, and
   transport the garrison and stores to Halifax. These orders
   were carried out so effectually that few traces of its
   fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by
   fishermen."

      _C. C. Smith,
      The Wars on the Seaboard
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

      See, also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.
   Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.
   Added to the government of Nova Scotia.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

----------CAPE BRETON ISLAND: End----------

CAPE COLONY.

      See SOUTH AFRICA.

CAPE ST. VINCENT, Naval battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

CAPETIANS,
   Origin and crowning of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 861, and 877-987.

CAPHARSALAMA, Battle of.
   One of the victories of the Jewish patriot, Judas Maccabæus
   over the Syrian general Nicanor, B. C. 162.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12, chapter 10._

CAPHTOR.

   An ancient Phœnician settlement on the coast of the Nile
   Delta. "From an early period the whole of this district had
   been colonised by the Phœnicians, and as Phœnicia itself was
   called Keft by the Egyptians, the part of Egypt in which they
   had settled went by the name of Keft-ur, or 'Greater
   Phœnicia.'"

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

   On the other hand, Ewald and other writers say that "the
   Philistines came from Caphtor," and that "this now obsolete
   name probably designated either the whole or a part of Crete."

CAPHYÆ, Battle of.

   Fought B. C. 220 in the Social War of the Achæan and Ætolian
   Leagues. The forces of the former were totally routed.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 63._

{389}

CAPITOLINE HILL AT ROME.
   The Capitol.

   "In prehistoric times this hill was called the Mons Saturnius,
   see Varro, Lin. Lat., volume 41; its name being connected with
   that legendary 'golden age' when Saturn himself reigned in
   Italy. … This hill, which, like the other hills of Rome, has
   had its contour much altered by cutting away and levelling,
   consists of a mass of tufa rock harder in structure than that
   of the Palatine hill. It appears once to have been surrounded
   by cliffs, very steep at most places, and had only approaches
   on one side—that towards the Forum. … The top of the hill
   is shaped into two peaks of about equal height, one of which
   was known as the Capitolium, and the other as the Arx, or
   Citadel. … The Capitolium was also in early time known as
   the 'Mars Tarpeius,' so called from the familiar legend of the
   treachery of Tarpeia. … In later times the name 'rupes
   Tarpeia' was applied, not to the whole peak, but to a part of
   its cliff which faced towards the 'Vicus Jugarius' and the
   'Forum Magnum.' The identification of that part of the
   Tarpeian rock, which was used for the execution of criminals,
   according to a very primitive custom, is now almost
   impossible. At one place the cliff of the Capitolium is quite
   perpendicular, and has been cut very carefully into an upright
   even surface; a deep groove, about a foot wide, runs up the
   face of this cutting, and there are many rock-cut chambers
   excavated in this part of the cliff, some openings into which
   appear in the face of the rock. This is popularly though
   erroneously known as the Tarpeian rock. … The perpendicular
   cliff was once very much higher than it is at present, as
   there is a great accumulation of rubbish at its foot. … That
   this cliff cannot be the Tarpeian rock where criminals were
   executed is shown by Dionysius (viii. 78, and vii. 35), who
   expressly says that this took place in the sight of people in
   the Forum Magnum, so that the popular Rupes Tarpeia is on the
   wrong side of the hill."

      _J. H. Middleton,
      Ancient Rome in 1885,
      chapter 7._

      See, also, SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, and GENS, ROMAN.

CAPITULARIES.

   "It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies
   only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word
   'capitula,' 'little chapters,' equally applies to all the laws
   of the Frank kings. … Charlemagne, in his capitularies, did
   anything but legislate. Capitularies are, properly speaking,
   the whole acts of his government, public acts of all kinds by
   which he manifested his authority."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2._

CAPITULATION OF CHARLES V.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.

CAPO D'ISTRIA, Count, The Assassination of.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

CAPPADOCIA.

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

CAPS, Party of the.

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

CAPTAL.
   A title, derived from "capitalis," originally equivalent to
   count, and anciently borne by several lords in Aquitaine.
   "Towards the 14th century there were no more than two captals
   acknowledged, that of Buch and that of Franc."

      _Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapter 158, note._

CAPTIVITY, Prince of the.

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

CAPTIVITY OF THE JEWS, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 604-536.

CAPUA.

   Capua, originally an Etruscan city, called Vulturnum, was
   taken by the Samnites, B. C. 424, and was afterwards a city in
   which Etruscan and neighboring Greek influences were mixed in
   their effect on a barbarous new population. "Capua became by
   its commerce and agriculture the second city in Italy in point
   of size—the first in point of wealth and luxury. The deep
   demoralization in which, according to the accounts of the
   ancients, that city surpassed all others in Italy, is
   especially reflected in the mercenary recruiting and in the
   gladiatorial sports, both of which pre-eminently flourished in
   Capua. Nowhere did recruiting officers find so numerous a
   concourse as in this metropolis of demoralized civilization.
   … The gladiatorial sports … if they did not originate,
   were at any rate carried to perfection in Capua. There, sets
   of gladiators made their appearance even during banquets."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 5._

CAPUA: B. C. 343.
   Surrender to the Romans.

         See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

CAPUA: B. C. 216-211.
   Welcome to Hannibal.
   Siege and capture by the Romans.
   The city repeopled.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

CAPUA: A. D. 800-1016.
   The Lombard principality.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CAPUA: A. D. 1501.
   Capture, sack and massacre by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

----------CAPUA: End----------

CAPUCHINS, The.

   "The Capuchins were only a branch of the great Franciscan
   order, and their mode of life a modification of its Rule.
   Among the Franciscans the severity of their Rule had early
   become a subject of discussion, which finally led to a
   secession of some of the members, of whom Matteo de' Bassi, of
   the convent of Montefalcone was the leading spirit. These were
   the rigorists who desired to restore the primitive austerities
   of the Order. They began by a change of dress, adding to the
   usual monastic habit a 'cappuccio,' or pointed hood, which
   Matteo claimed was of the same pattern as that worn by St.
   Francis. By the bull 'Religionis zelus' (1528), Matteo
   obtained from Pope Clement VII. leave for himself and his
   companions to wear this peculiar dress; to allow their beards
   to grow; to live in hermitages, according to the rule of St.
   Francis, and to devote themselves chiefly to the reclaiming of
   great sinners. Paul III. afterwards gave them permission to
   settle wheresoever they liked. Consistently with the austerity
   of their professions, their churches were unadorned, and their
   convents built in the simplest style. They became very
   serviceable to the Church, and their fearlessness and
   assiduity in waiting upon the sick during the plague, which
   ravaged the whole of Italy, made them extremely popular."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 455._

CAPUCHONS, OR CAPUTIATI.

      See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

CARABOBO, Battles of (1821-1822).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

CARACALLA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-217.

CARACCAS: A. D. 1812.
   Destruction by earthquake.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

CARAFFA, Cardinal (Pope Paul IV.) and the Counter Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563, and 1555-1603.

{390}

CARAS, OR CARANS, OR CARANQUIS, The.

      See ECUADOR.

CARAUSIUS, Revolt of.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

CARAVELS.
GALEONS, Etc.

   "The term caravel was originally given to ships navigated
   wholly by sails as distinguished from the galley propelled by
   oars. It has been applied to a great variety of vessels of
   different size and construction. The caravels of the New World
   discoverers may be generally described as long narrow boats of
   from 20 to 100 tons burden, with three or four masts of about
   equal height carrying sometimes square and sometimes lateen
   sails, the fourth mast set at the heel of the bow-sprit
   carrying square sails. They were usually half-decked, and
   adorned with the lofty forecastle and loftier poop of the day.
   The latter constituted over that part of the vessel a double
   or treble deck, which was pierced for cannon. … The galera
   was a vessel of low bulwarks, navigated by sails and oars,
   usually twenty or thirty oars on either side, four or five
   oarsmen to a bench. … The galeaza was the largest class of
   galera, or craft propelled wholly or in part by oars. … A
   galeota was a small galera, having only 16 or 20 oarsmen on a
   side, and two masts. The galeon was a large armed merchant
   vessel with high bulwarks, three or four decks, with two or
   three masts, square rigged, spreading courses and top-sails,
   and sometimes top-gallant sails. … Those which plied between
   Acapulco and Manila were from 1,200 to 2,000 tons burden. A
   galeoncillo was a small galeon. The carac was a large carrying
   vessel, the one intended for Columbus' second voyage being
   1,250 toneles or 1,500 tons. A nao, or navio, was a large ship
   with high bulwarks and three masts. A nave was a vessel with
   deck and sails, the former distinguishing it from the barca,
   and the absence of oars from a galera. The bergantin, or brig,
   had low bulwarks. … The name brigantine was applied in
   America also to an open flat-bottomed boat, which usually
   carried one sail and from 8 to 16 men."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 187, foot-note._

      See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

CARBERRY, Mary Stuart's surrender at.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

CARBONARI, Origin and character of the.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1808-1809.

CARCHEMISH.

      See HITTITES, THE.

CARCHEMISH, Battle of.

   Fought, B. C. 604, between the armies of Necho, the Egyptian
   Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince of Babylon.
   Necho, being defeated, was driven back to Egypt and stripped
   of all his Syrian conquests.

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 2, chapter 4._

CARDADEN, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

CARDINAL INFANT, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

CARDINALS, College of.

      See CURIA, THE ROMAN (PAPAL),
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1059.

CARDUCHI, The.

      "South of the lake [Lake of Van, in Asia Minor] lay the
      Carduchi, whom the later Greeks call the Gordyæans and
      Gordyenes; but among the Armenians they were known as
      Kordu, among the Syrians as Kardu. These are the ancestors
      of the modern Kurds, a nation also of the Aryan stock."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 12._

      See, also, GORDYENE.

   Under Saladin and the Ayonbite dynasty the Kurds played an
   important part in mediæval history.

      See SALADIN, EMPIRE OF.

CARGILLITES, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

CARHAM, Battle of.

   Fought and won by an army of Scots, under King Malcolm,
   invading the then English earldom of Bernicia, A. D. 1018, and
   securing the annexation of Lothian to the Scottish kingdom.
   The battlefield was near that on which Flodden was afterwards
   fought.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 6, section 2._

CARIANS, The.

   "The Carians may be called the doubles of the Leleges. They
   are termed the 'speakers of a barbarous tongue,' and yet, on
   the other hand, Apollo is said to have spoken Carian. As a
   people of pirates clad in bronze they once upon a time had
   their day in the Archipelago, and, like the Normans of the
   Middle Ages, swooped down from the sea to desolate the coasts;
   but their real home was in Asia Minor, where their settlements
   lay between those of Phrygians and Pisidians, and community of
   religion united them with the Lydians and Mysians."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2._

   The country of the Carians was the mountainous district in the
   southwestern angle of Asia Minor, the coast of which is
   indented with gulfs and frayed with long-projecting rocky
   promontories. The island of Rhodes lies close to it on the
   south. The Carians were subjugated by the Lydian King Crœsus,
   and afterwards passed under the Persian yoke. The Persians
   permitted the establishment of a vassal kingdom, under a
   dynasty which fixed its capital at Halicarnassus, and made
   that city one of the splendid Asiatic outposts of Greek art
   and civilization, though always faithfully Persian in its
   politics. It was to the memory of one of the Carian kings at
   Halicarnassus, Mausolus, that the famous sepulchral monument,
   which gave its name to all similar edifices, and which the
   ancients counted among the seven wonders of the world, was
   erected by his widow. Halicarnassus offered an obstinate
   resistance to Alexander the Great and was destroyed by that
   ruthless conqueror after it had succumbed to his siege.
   Subsequently rebuilt, it never gained importance again. The
   Turkish town of Budrum now occupies the site.

      _C. T. Newton,
      Travels and Discoveries in the Levant,
      volume 2._

      See, also, HAMITES and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

CARIAY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

CARIBBEAN ISLANDS, The.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496, and WEST INDIES.

CARIBS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

CARILLON.
   The French name of Fort Ticonderoga.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.

CARINTHIA,
   Early mediaeval history.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH-7TH CENTURIES,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

CARINUS, Roman Emperor. A. D. 283-284.

CARIPUNA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

CARISBROOK CASTLE, The flight of King Charles to.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

CARIZMIANS.

      See KHUAREZM.

CARL, OR KARL.

      See ETHEL. ETHELING.

{391}

CARLINGS.

      See FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARLISLE, Origin of.

      See LUGUVALLIUM.

CARLISTS AND CHRISTINOS.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846, and 1873-1885.

CARLOMAN,
   King of the Franks (East Franks-Germany-in association with
   Louis III.), A. D. 876-881;

   (Burgundy and Aquitaine), A. D. 879-894.

   Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Franks, A. D. 741-747.

CARLOS.

      See CHARLES.

CARLOVINGIANS.

      See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

CARLSBAD, Congress of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

CARMAGNOLE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

CARMANIANS, The.

   "The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later
   Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though
   closely allied to the Persians and Medes. They wandered to and
   fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 8, chapter 3._

CARMATHIANS, The.

   "In the 277th year of the Hegira [A. D. 890], and in the
   neighbourhood of Cufa, an Arabian preacher of the name of
   Carmath assumed the lofty and incomprehensible style of the
   Guide, the Director, the Demonstration, the Word, the Holy
   Ghost, the Camel, the Herald of the Messiah, who had conversed
   with him in a human shape, and the representative of Mohammed
   the son of Ali, of St. John the Baptist, and of the Angel
   Gabriel." Carmath was one of the eastern proselytes of the
   sect of the Ishmaileans or Ishmailites—the same from which
   sprang the terrible secret order of the Assassins. He founded
   another branch of the Ishmaileans, which, taking his name,
   were called the Carmathians. The sect made rapid gains among
   the Bedouins and were soon a formidable and uncontrollable
   body. "After a bloody conflict they prevailed in the province
   of Bahrein, along the Persian Gulf. Far and wide the tribes of
   the desert were subject to the sceptre, or rather to the
   sword, of Abu Said and his son Abu Taher; and these rebellious
   imams could muster in the field 107,000 fanatics. … The
   cities of Racca and Baalbec, of Cufa and Bassorah, were taken
   and pillaged; Bagdad was filled with consternation; and the
   caliph trembled behind the veils of his palace. … The rapine
   of the Carmathians was sanctified by their aversion to the
   worship of Mecca. They robbed a caravan of pilgrims, and
   20,000 devout Moslems were abandoned on the burning sands to a
   death of hunger and thirst. Another year [A. D. 929] they
   suffered the pilgrims to proceed without interruption; but, in
   the festival of devotion, Abu Taher stormed the holy city and
   trampled on the most venerable relics of the Mahometan faith.
   Thirty thousand citizens and strangers were put to the sword;
   the sacred precincts were polluted by the burial of 3,000 dead
   bodies; the well of Zemzen overflowed with blood; the golden
   spout was forced from its place; the veil of the Caaba was
   divided among these impious sectaries; and the black stone,
   the first monument of the nation, was borne away in triumph to
   their capital. After this deed of sacrilege and cruelty they
   continued to infest the confines of Irak, Syria and Egypt; but
   the vital principle of enthusiasm had withered at the root.
   … It is needless to enquire into what factions they were
   broken, or by whose swords they were finally extirpated. The
   sect of the Carmathians may be considered as the second
   visible cause of the decline and fall of the empire of the
   caliphs."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52,
      and note by Dr. Smith.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See, also, ASSASSINS.

CARMELITE FRIARS.

   "About the middle of the [12th] century, one Berthold, a
   Calabrian, with a few companions, migrated to Mount Carmel
   [Palestine], and in the place where the prophet Elias of old
   is said to have hid himself, built a humble cottage with a
   chapel, in which he and his associates led a laborious and
   solitary life. As others continued to unite themselves with
   these residents on Mount Carmel, Albert the patriarch of
   Jerusalem, near the commencement of the next century,
   prescribed for them a rule of life; which the Pontiffs
   afterwards sanctioned by their authority, and also changed in
   various respects, and when it was found too rigorous and
   burdensome, mitigated considerably. Such was the origin of the
   celebrated order of Carmelites, or as it is commonly called
   the order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel [and known in England as
   the White Friars]; which subsequently passed from Syria into
   Europe, and became one of the principal mendicant orders. The
   Carmelites themselves reject with disdain this account of
   their origin, and most strenuously contend that the holy
   prophet Elias of the Old Testament, was the parent and founder
   of their society. But they were able to persuade very few, (or
   rather none out of their society), that their origin was so
   ancient and illustrious."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, century 12, part 2, chapter 2, section 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Church,
      chapter 19, section 5._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 244 (volume 2)._

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

CARMIGNANO, Battle of (1796).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

CARNABII, OR CORNABII, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CARNAC.

      See ABURY.

CARNATES, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

CARNEIAN FESTIVAL, The.

   A Spartan festival, said to have been instituted B. C. 676.
   "The Carneian festival fell in the Spartan month Carneius, the
   Athenian Metageitnon, corresponding nearly to our August. It
   was held in honour of Apollo Carneius, a deity worshipped from
   very ancient times in the Peloponnese, especially at Amyclæ.
   … It was of a warlike character, like the Athenian
   Boedrömia."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Note to Herodotus,
      book 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1._

CARNIANS, The.

      See RHÆTIANS.

CARNIFEX FERRY, Battle of:

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
      (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

CARNONACÆ, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CARNOT, Lazare N. M., and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
      to 1797 (SEPTEMBER), and 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

CARNOT, Sadi, President of the French Republic, 1887-.


{392}

CARNUTES, The.

   The Carnutes were a tribe who occupied a region supposed to be
   the center of Gaul. The modern city of Chartres stands in the
   midst of it. The sacred general meeting place of the Druids
   was in the country of the Carnutes.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 22._

      See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

CAROLINAS, The.

      See NORTH CAROLINA, and SOUTH CAROLINA.

CAROLINE, Queen, Trial of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CAROLINE, The Burning of the.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1887-1838, and 1840-1841.

CAROLINE BOOKS, The.

   A work put forth by Charlemagne against image-worship, in
   considerable sympathy with the views of the Eastern
   Iconoclasts and against the decrees of the Second Council of
   Nicaea (A. D. 787), is known as the Caroline Books. It is
   supposed to have been chiefly the composition of the king’s
   learned friend and counsellor; Alcuin, the Englishman.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 12._

CAROLINGIA.

   On the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three
   grandsons, A. D. 843, the western kingdom, which fell to
   Charles, took for a time the name of Carolingia, as part of
   Lothar’s middle kingdom took the name of Lotharingia, or
   Lorraine. But the name died out, or was slowly superseded by
   that of France.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1._

CAROLINGIANS.

      See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARPET-BAGGERS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

CARR DIKE.

   A Roman work in Britain, formed for the draining of the
   Lincolnshire Fens, and used, also, as a road.

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 16._

CARRACKS, OR CARACS.

   "A large species of merchant vessel, principally used in
   coasting trade," among the Spaniards of the 15th and 16th
   centuries.

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 1), foot-note._

      See, also, CARAVELS.

CARRARA FAMILY, The:
   Its rise to sovereignty at Padua and its struggle with the
   Visconti of Milan.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1838,
      and MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

CARRHÆ, Battles of (B. C. 53).

      See ROME: B. C. 57-52. (A. D. 297).
      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CARRICK’S FORD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE—JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

CARROCCIO, The.

   "The militia of every city [in Lombardy, or northern Italy,
   eleventh and twelfth centuries] was divided into separate
   bodies, according to local partitions, each led by a
   Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer. They fought on foot, and
   assembled round the carroccio, a heavy car drawn by oxen, and
   covered with the flags and armorial bearings of the city. A
   high pole rose in the middle of this car, bearing the colours
   and a Christ, which seemed to bless the army, with both arms
   extended. A priest said daily mass at an altar placed in the
   front of the car. The trumpeters of the community, seated on
   the back part, sounded the charge and the retreat. It was
   Heribert, archbishop of Milan, contemporary of Conrad the
   Salic, who invented this car in imitation of the ark of
   alliance, and caused it to be adopted at Milan. All the free
   cities of Italy followed the example: this sacred car,
   intrusted to the guardianship of the militia, gave them weight
   and confidence."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 1._

CARTERET, Sir George, The Jersey Grant to.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667, to 1688-1738.

CARTERET’S MINISTRY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

CARTHAGE, The founding of.

   Ethbaal, or Ithobaal, a priest of Astarte, acquired possession
   of the throne of Tyre B. C. 917, deposing and putting to death
   the legitimate prince, a descendant of Hiram, Solomon’s ally
   and friend. The Jezebel of Jewish history, who married Ahab,
   king of Israel, was the daughter of this king Ethbaal.
   "Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877 B.  C.).
   After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and
   Sicharbaal, both under age. … Mutton died in the year 853 B.
   C. and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a
   daughter, Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to
   his brother Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth.
   Mutton had intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign
   together, and thus the power really passed into the hands of
   Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa. When Pygmalion reached his
   sixteenth year the people transferred to him the sovereignty
   of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death … (846
   B. C.). Elissa [or Dido, as she was also called] fled from
   Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others who would
   not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion. The exiles … are
   said … to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the
   neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and
   there to have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be
   covered by the skin of an ox. By dividing this into very thin
   strips they obtained a piece of land sufficient to enable them
   to build a fortress. This new dwelling-place, or the city
   which grew up round this fortress, the wanderers called, in
   reference to their old home, Karthada (Karta hadasha), i. e.,
   'the new city,' the Karchedon of the Greeks, the Carthage of
   the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have
   arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid
   tribute to the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their
   soil."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 3, chapter 11._

CARTHAGE:
   Divisions, Size and Population.

   "The city proper, at the time at which it is best known to us,
   the period of the Punic wars, consisted of the Byrsa or
   Citadel quarter, a Greek word corrupted from the Canaanitish
   Bozra, or Bostra, that is, a fort, and of the Cothon or
   harbour quarter, so important in the history of the final
   siege. To the north and west of these, and occupying all the
   vast space between them and the isthmus behind, were the
   Megara (Hebrew, Magurim), that is, the suburbs and gardens of
   Carthage, which, with the city proper, covered an area of 23
   miles in circumference. Its population must have been fully
   proportioned to its size. Just before the third Punic war,
   when its strength had been drained … it contained 700,000
   inhabitants."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Carthage
      (Hist. Essays, 4th series)._

{393}

CARTHAGE:
   The Dominion of.

   "All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage
   and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second
   centuries B. C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive
   conclusions as to the fifth century B. C., especially in
   reference to the general system pursued. The maximum of her
   power was attained before her first war with Rome, which began
   in 264 B. C.; the first and second Punic wars both of them
   greatly reduced her strength and dominion. Yet in spite of
   such reduction we learn that about 150 B. C. shortly before
   the third Punic war, which ended in the capture and
   depopulation of the city, not less than 700,000 souls were
   computed in it, as occupants of a fortified circumference of
   above twenty miles, covering a peninsula with its isthmus.
   Upon this isthmus its citadel Byrsa was situated, surrounded
   by a triple wall of its own, and crowned at its summit by a
   magnificent temple of Æsculapius. The numerous population is
   the more remarkable, since Utica (a considerable city,
   colonized from Phœnicia more anciently than even Carthage
   itself, and always independent of the Carthaginians, though in
   the condition of an inferior and discontented ally) was within
   the distance of seven miles from Carthage on the one side, and
   Tunis seemingly not much further off on the other. Even at
   that time, too, the Carthaginians are said to have possessed
   300 tributary, cities in Libya. Yet this was but a small
   fraction of the prodigious empire which had belonged to them
   certainly in the fourth century B. C. and in all probability
   also between 480-410 B. C. That empire extended eastward as
   far as the Altars of the Philæni, near the Great
   Syrtis,—westward, all along the coast to the Pillars of
   Herakles and the western coast of Morocco. The line of coast
   southeast of Carthage, as far as the bay called the Lesser
   Syrtis, was proverbial (under the name of Byzacium and the
   Emporia) for its fertility. Along this extensive line were
   distributed indigenous Libyan tribes, living by agriculture;
   and a mixed population called Liby-Phœnician. … Of the
   Liby-Phœnician towns the number is not known to us, but it
   must have been prodigiously great. … A few of the towns
   along the coast,—Hippo, Utica, Adrumetum, Thapsus. Leptis,
   &c.—were colonies from Tyre, like Carthage itself. … Yet
   the Carthaginians contrived in time to render every town
   tributary, with the exception of Utica. … At one time,
   immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the
   rural cultivators as much as one-half of their produce, and
   doubled at one stroke the tribute levied upon the towns. …
   The native Carthaginians, though encouraged by honorary marks
   to undertake … military service were generally averse to it,
   and sparingly employed. … A chosen division of 2,500
   citizens, men of wealth and family, formed what was called the
   Sacred Band of Carthage distinguished for their bravery in the
   field as well as for the splendour of their arms, and the gold
   and silver plate which formed part of their baggage. We shall
   find these citizen troops occasionally employed on service in
   Sicily: but most part of the Carthaginian army consists of
   Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, &c., a mingled host got together for
   the occasion, discordant in language as well as in customs."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 81._

CARTHAGE: B. C. 480.
   Invasion of Sicily.
   Great defeat at Himera.

      See SICILY: B. C. 480.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 409-405.
   Invasions of Sicily.
   Destruction of Selinus, Himera and Agrigentum.

      See Sicily: B. C. 409-405.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 396.
   Siege of Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 383.
   War with Syracuse.

      See SICILY: B. C. 383.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 310-306.
   Invasion by Agathokles.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 264-241.
   The first war with Rome.
   Expulsion from Sicily.
   Loss of maritime supremacy.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
   Revolt of the mercenaries.

   At the close of the First Punic War, the veteran army of
   mercenaries with which Hamilcar Barca had maintained himself
   so long in Sicily—a motley gathering of Greeks, Ligurians,
   Gauls, Iberians, Libyans and others—was sent over to Carthage
   for the long arrears of pay due them and for their discharge.
   The party in power in Carthage, being both incapable and mean,
   and being also embarrassed by an empty treasury, exasperated
   this dangerous body of men by delays and by attempts at
   bargaining with them for a reduction of their claims, until a
   general mutiny was provoked. The mercenaries, 20,000 strong,
   with Spendius, a runaway Campanian slave, Matho, an African,
   and Autaritus, a Gaul, for their leaders, marched from the
   town of Sicca, where they were quartered, and camped near
   Tunis, threatening Carthage. The government became
   panic-stricken and took no measures which did not embolden the
   mutineers and increase their demands. All the oppressed
   African peoples in the Carthaginian domain rose to join the
   revolt, and poured into the hands of the mercenaries the
   tribute money which Carthage would have wrung from them. The
   latter was soon brought to a state of sore distress, without
   an army, without ships, and with its supplies of food mostly
   cut off. The neighboring cities of Utica and Hippo Zarytus
   were besieged. At length the Carthaginian government,
   controlled by a party hostile to Hamilcar, was obliged to call
   him to the command, but associated with him Hanno, his
   bitterest personal enemy and the most incompetent leader of
   the ruling faction. Hamilcar succeeded, after a desperate and
   long struggle, in destroying the mutineers to almost the last
   man, and in saving Carthage. But the war, which lasted more
   than three years (B. C. 241-238), was merciless and horrible
   beyond description. It was known to the ancients as the
   "Truceless War" and the "Inexpiable War." The scenes and
   circumstances of it have been extraordinarily pictured in
   Flaubert's "Salammbo," which is one of the most revolting but
   most powerful of historical romances.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 4._

CARTHAGE: B. C. 237-202.
   Hamilcar in Spain.
   The second war with Rome.
   Hannibal in Italy and Sicily.
   Scipio in Africa.
   The great defeat at Zama.
   Loss of naval dominion and of Spain.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

{394}

CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.
   Destruction by Scipio.

   Carthage existed by Roman sufferance for fifty years after the
   ending of the Second Punic War, and even recovered some
   considerable prosperity in trade, though Rome took care that
   her chances for recovery should be slight. When Hannibal gave
   signs of being able to reform the government of the city and
   to distinguish himself in statesmanship as he had immortalized
   himself in war, Rome demanded him, and he escaped her chains
   only by flight. When, even without Hannibal, Carthage slowly
   repaired the broken fortunes of her merchants, there was an
   enemy at her door always ready, at the bidding of Rome, to
   plunder them afresh. This was Massinissa, the Numidian prince,
   client and obedient servant of the Roman state. Again and
   again the helpless Carthaginians appealed to Rome to protect
   them from his depredations, and finally they ventured to
   attempt the protection of themselves. Then the patient perfidy
   of Roman statecraft grasped its reward. It had waited many
   years for the provocations of Massinissa to work their effect;
   the maddened Carthaginians had broken, at last, the hard
   letter of the treaty of 201 by assailing the friend and ally
   of Rome. The pretext sufficed for a new declaration of war,
   with the fixed purpose of pressing it to the last extreme. Old
   Cato, who had been crying in the ears of the Senate, "Carthago
   delenda est," should have his wish. The doomed Carthaginians
   were kept in ignorance of the fate decreed, until they had
   been foully tricked into the surrender of their arms and the
   whole armament of their city. But when they knew the dreadful
   truth, they threw off all cowardice and rose to such a majesty
   of spirit as had never been exhibited in their history before.
   Without weapons, or engines or ships, until they made them
   anew, they shut their gates and kept the Roman armies out for
   more than two years. It was another Scipio, adopted grandson
   and namesake of the conqueror of Hannibal, who finally entered
   Carthage (B. C. 146), fought his way to its citadel, street by
   street, and, against his own wish, by command of the
   implacable senate at Rome, levelled its last building to the
   earth, after sending the inhabitants who survived to be sold
   as slaves.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 46._

CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.
   Restoration by Cæsar.

   "A settlement named Junonia, had been made at Carthage by C.
   Gracchus [which furnished his enemies one of their weapons
   against him, because, they said, he had drawn on himself the
   curse of Scipio] and it appears that the city of Gracchus
   still existed. Cæsar restored the old name, and, as Strabo
   says, rebuilt the place: many Romans who preferred Carthage to
   Rome were sent there, and some soldiers; and it is now, adds
   Strabo [reign of Augustus] more populous than any town in
   Libya."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 32._

CARTHAGE: 2d-4th Centuries.
   The Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 439.
   Taken by the Vandals.

   Carthage was surprised and captured by the Vandals on the 9th
   of Oct., A. D. 439,—nine years after the conquest and
   destruction of the African provinces by Genseric began;—585
   years after the ancient Carthage was destroyed by Scipio. "A
   new city had risen from its ruins, with the title of a colony;
   and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of
   Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria or the
   splendour of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in
   the West—as the Rome (if we may use the style of
   contemporaries) of the African world. … The buildings of
   Carthage were uniform and magnificent. A shady grove was
   planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure
   and capacious harbour, was subservient to the commercial
   industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of
   the circus and theatre were exhibited almost in the presence
   of the barbarians. The reputation of the Carthaginians was not
   equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic
   faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character.
   The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted
   their manners. … The King of the Vandals severely reformed
   the vices of a voluptuous people. … The lands of the
   proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of
   Carthage, were accurately measured and divided among the
   barbarians."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 533.
   Taken by Belisarius.

      See VANDALS. A. D. 533-534.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 534-558.

   The Province of Africa after Justinian's conquest. "Successive
   inroads [of the Moorish tribes] had reduced the province of
   Africa to one-third of the measure of Italy; yet the Roman
   emperors continued to reign above a century over Carthage and
   the fruitful coast of the Mediterranean. But the victories and
   the losses of Justinian were alike pernicious to mankind; and
   such was the desolation of Africa that a stranger might wander
   whole days without meeting the face either of a friend or an
   enemy. The nation of the Vandals had disappeared. … Their
   numbers were infinitely surpassed by the number of the Moorish
   families extirpated in a relentless war; and the same
   destruction was retaliated on the Romans and their allies, who
   perished by the climate, their mutual quarrels, and the rage
   of the barbarians. When Procopius first landed [with
   Belisarius, A. D. 533] he admired the populousness of the
   cities and country, strenuously exercised in the labours of
   commerce and agriculture. In less than twenty years that busy
   scene was converted into a silent solitude; the wealthy
   citizens escaped to Sicily and Constantinople; and the secret
   historian has confidently affirmed that five millions of
   Africans were consumed by the wars and government of the
   Emperor Justinian."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 43.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{395}

CARTHAGE: A. D. 698.
   Destruction by the Arabs.

   "In the 77th year of the Hegira [A. D. 698] … Abd'almalec
   [the Caliph] sent Hossan Ibn Anno'man, at the head of 40,000
   choice troops, to carry out the scheme of African conquest
   [which had languished for some years, during the civil wars
   among the Moslems]. That general pressed forward at once with
   his troops against the city of Carthage, which, though
   declined from its ancient might and glory, was still an
   important seaport, fortified with lofty walls, haughty towers
   and powerful bulwarks, and had a numerous garrison of Greeks
   and other Christians. Hossan proceeded according to the old
   Arab mode; beleaguering and reducing it by a long siege; he
   then assailed it by storm, scaled its lofty walls with
   ladders, and made himself master of the place. Many of the
   inhabitants fell by the edge of the sword; many escaped by sea
   to Sicily and Spain. The walls were then demolished; the city
   was given up to be plundered by the soldiery, the meanest of
   whom was enriched by booty. … The triumph of the Moslem host
   was suddenly interrupted. While they were revelling in the
   ravaged palaces of Carthage, a fleet appeared before the port;
   snapped the strong chain which guarded the entrance, and
   sailed into the harbor. It was a combined force of ships and
   troops from Constantinople and Sicily; reinforced by Goths
   from Spain; all under the command of the prefect John, a
   patrician general of great valor and experience. Hossan felt
   himself unable to cope with such a force; he withdrew, however
   in good order, and conducted his troops laden with spoils to
   Tripoli and Caerwan, and, having strongly posted them, he
   awaited reinforcements from the Caliph. These arrived in
   course of time by sea and land. Hossan again took the field;
   encountered the prefect John, not far from Utica, defeated him
   in a pitched battle and drove him to embark the wrecks of his
   army and make all sail for Constantinople. Carthage was again
   assailed by the victors, and now its desolation was complete,
   for the vengeance of the Moslems gave that majestic city to
   the flames. A heap of ruins and the remains of a noble
   aqueduct are all the relics of a metropolis that once
   valiantly contended for dominion with Rome."

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 54._

      ALSO IN:
      _N. Davis,
      Carthage and Her Remains._

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

----------CARTHAGE: End----------

CARTHAGE, Missouri, Battle of.

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

CARTHAGENA (NEW CARTHAGE).
   The founding of the city.

   Hasdrubal, son-in-law and successor of Hamilcar Barca in Spain,
   founded New Carthage—modern Carthagena—some time between 229
   and 221 B. C. to be the capital of the Carthaginian dominion
   in the Spanish peninsula.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 9._

Capture by Scipio.

      See PUNIC WAR. THE SECOND.

Settlement of the Alans in.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

----------CARTHAGENA: End----------

CARTHAGENA (South America): A. D. 1697.
   Taken and sacked by the French.

   One of the last enterprises of the French in the war which was
   closed by the Peace of Ryswick—undertaken, in fact, while the
   negotiations at Ryswick were in progress—was the storming and
   sacking of Carthagena by a privateer squadron, from Brest,
   commanded by rear-admiral Pointis, April, 1697. "The
   inhabitants were allowed to carry away their effects; but all
   the gold, silver, and precious stones were the prey of the
   conqueror. Pointis … reentered Brest safe and sound,
   bringing back to his ship-owners more than ten millions. The
   officers of the squadron and the privateers had well provided
   for themselves besides, and the Spaniards had probably lost
   more than twenty millions."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 2._

CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1741.
   Attack and repulse of the English.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

CARTHAGENA A. D. 1815.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

----------CARTHAGENA (South America): End----------

CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
   La Grande Chartreuse.

   "St. Bruno, once a canon of St. Cunibert's, at Cologne, and
   afterward chancellor of the metropolitan church of Rheims,
   followed by six companions, founded a monastery near Grenoble,
   amid the bleak and rugged mountains of the desert of Chartreuse
   (A. D. 1084). The rule given by St. Bruno to his disciples was
   founded upon that of St. Benedict, but with such modifications as
   almost to make of it a new and particular one. The Carthusians
   were very nearly akin to the monks of Vallis-Umbrosa and
   Camaldoli; they led the same kind of life—the eremitical
   joined to the cenobitic. Each religious had his own cell,
   where he spent the week in solitude, and met the community
   only on Sunday. … Never, perhaps, had the monastic life
   surrounded itself with such rigors and holy austerities. …
   The religious were bound to a life-long silence, having
   renounced the world to hold converse with Heaven alone. Like
   the solitaries of Thebais they never eat meat, and their
   dress, as an additional penance, consisted only of a
   sack-cloth garment. Manual labors, broken only by the exercise
   of common prayer; a board on the bare earth for a couch; a
   narrow cell, where the religious twice a day receives his
   slight allowance of boiled herbs;—such is the life of pious
   austerities of which the world knows not the heavenly
   sweetness. For 800 years has this order continued to edify and
   to serve the Church by the practice of the most sublime
   virtue; and its very rigor seems to hold out a mysterious
   attraction to pious souls. A congregation of women has
   embraced the primitive rule."

      _J. E. Darras,
      History of the Catholic Church,
      volume 3, chapter 4, par. 26,
      and chapter 10, par. 11._

   From the account of a visit to the Grande Chartreuse, the
   parent monastery, near Grenoble, made in 1667, by Dom Claude
   Lancelot, of Port Royal, the following is taken: "All I had
   heard of this astonishing seclusion falls infinitely short of
   the reality. No adequate description can be given of the awful
   magnificence of this dreary solitude. … The desert of the
   Chartreuse is wholly inaccessible but by one exceedingly
   narrow defile. This pass, which is only a few feet wide, is
   indeed truly tremendous. It winds between stupendous granite
   rocks, which overhang above. … The monastery itself is as
   striking as the approach. … On the west … there is a
   little space which … is occupied by a dark grove of pine
   trees; on every other side the rocks, which are as steep as so
   many walls, are not more than ten yards from the convent. By
   this means a dim and gloomy twilight perpetually reigns
   within."

      _M. A. Schimmelpenninck,
      A tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,
      volume 1, pages 6-13._

CARTIER, Jacques,
   Exploration of the St. Lawrence by.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and 1541-1603.

{396}

CARTOUCHE.

   "It is impossible to travel in Upper Egypt without knowing
   what is meant by a cartouche. A cartouche is that elongated
   oval terminated by a straight line which is to be seen on
   every wall of the Egyptian temples, and of which other
   monuments also afford us numerous examples. The cartouche
   always contains the name of a king or of a queen, or in
   some cases the names of royal princesses. To designate a king
   there are most frequently two cartouches side by side. The
   first is called the prænomen, the second the nomen."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 43._

CARTWRIGHT'S POWER LOOM, The invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

CARUCATE.

      See HIDE OF LAND.

CARUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 282-283.

CASA MATA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CASALE: A. D. 1628-1631.
   Siege by the Imperialists.
   Final acquisition by France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

CASALE: A. D. 1640.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

CASALE: A. D. 1697.
   Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.

----------CASALE: End----------

CASALSECCO, Battle of (1427).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

CASAS, Bartolomé de las,
   The humane labors of.

      See SLAVERY: MODERN—OF THE INDIANS.

CASDIM.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

CASENA, Massacre at.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

CASHEL, Psalter of.

      See TARA, THE HILL AND THE FEIS OF.

CASHEL, Synod of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
   Conquest by Runjet Singh.

      See SIKHS.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1846.
   Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
   Gholab Singh.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

----------CASHMERE: End----------

CASIMIR I.,    King of Poland, A. D. 1037-1058.
Casimir II.,   Duke of Poland, A. D. 1177-1194.
Casimir III.   (called The Great), King of Poland, A. D. 1333-1370.
Casimir IV.,   King of Poland, A. D. 1445-1492.
Casimir, John, King of Poland, A. D. 1648-1668.

CASKET GIRLS, The.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.

CASKET LETTERS, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

CASPIAN GATES (PYLÆ CASPIÆ).

   An important pass in the Elburz Mountains, so called by the
   Greeks. It is identified with the pass known to the modern
   Persians as the Girduni Sunlurmh, some fifty miles or more
   eastward, or northeastward, from Teheran. "Through this pass
   alone can armies proceed from Armenia, Media, or Persia
   eastward, or from Turkestan, Khorasan and Afghanistan into the
   more western parts of Asia. The position is therefore one of
   primary importance. It was to guard it that Rhages was built
   so near to the eastern end of its territory."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

CASSANDER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280;
      also Greece: B. C. 321-312.

CASSANO, Battles of (1705 and 1799).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
      and France: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

CASSEL: A. D. 1383.
   Burned by the French.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

CASSEL, Battles of (1328 and 1677).

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1328,
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

CASSIAN ROAD.

   One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from
   Rome, by way of Sutrium and Clusium to Arretium and Florentia.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 11._

CASSII, The.

   A tribe of ancient Britons whose territory was near the Thames.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CASSITERIDES, The.

   The "tin islands," from which the Phœnicians and Carthaginians
   obtained their supply of tin. Some archæologists identify them
   with the British islands, some with the Scilly islands, and
   some with the islands in Vigo Bay, on the coast of Spain.

      _Charles Elton,
      Origins of English History._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain._

CASSOPIANS.

      See EPIRUS.

CASTALIAN SPRING.

   A spring which issued from between two peaks or cliffs of
   Mount Parnassus and flowed downward in a cool stream past the
   temple of Apollo at Delphi.

CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA, The.

   "The caste system of India is not based upon an exclusive
   descent as involving a difference of rank and culture, but
   upon an exclusive descent as involving purity of blood. In the
   old materialistic religion which prevailed so largely in the
   ancient world, and was closely associated with sexual ideas,
   the maintenance of purity of blood was regarded as a sacred
   duty. The individual had no existence independent of the
   family. Male or female, the individual was but a link in the
   life of the family; and any intermixture would be followed by
   the separation of the impure branch from the parent stem. In a
   word, caste was the religion of the sexes, and as such exists
   in India to this day. … The Hindus are divided into an
   infinite number of castes, according to their hereditary
   trades and professions; but in the present day they are nearly
   all comprehended in four great castes, namely, the Brahmans,
   or priests; the Kshatriyas, or soldiers; the Vaisyas, or
   merchants; and the Sudras, or servile class. The Brahmans are
   the mouth of Brahma; the Kshatriyas are his arms; the Vaisyas
   are his thighs; and the Sudras are his feet. The three first
   castes of priests, soldiers, and merchants, are distinguished
   from the fourth caste of Sudras by the thread, or paita, which
   is worn depending from the left shoulder and resting on the
   right side below the loins. The investiture usually takes
   place between the eighth and twelfth year, and is known as the
   second birth, and those who are invested are termed the 'twice
   born.' It is difficult to say whether the thread indicates a
   separation between the conquerors and the conquered; or
   whether it originated in a religious investiture from which
   the Sudras were excluded."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 3, pages 114 and 64._

{397}

   "Among the delusions about modern India which it seems
   impossible to kill, the belief still survives that, although
   there have been many changes in the system of caste, it
   remains true that the Hindu population is divided into the
   four great classes described by Mann: Brahmans, Kshatriyas,
   Vaisyas, and Sudras. In India itself this notion is fostered
   by the more learned among the Brahmans, who love to make
   themselves and others believe in the continuous existence of a
   divinely constituted organization. To what extent the
   religious and social systems shadowed forth in the ancient
   Brahmanical literature had an actual existence it is difficult
   to say, but it is certain that little remains of them now. The
   Brahmans maintain their exceptional position; but no one can
   discern the other great castes which Manu described. Excluding
   the Brahmans, caste means for the most part hereditary
   occupation, but it also often signifies a common origin of
   tribe or race. India, in the words of Sir Henry Maine, is
   divided into a vast number of independent, self-acting,
   organised social groups—trading, manufacturing, cultivating.
   In the enormous majority of instances, caste is only the name
   for a number of practices which are followed by each one of a
   multitude of groups of men, whether such a group be ancient
   and natural or modern and artificial. As a rule, every trade,
   every profession, every guild, every tribe, every class, is
   also a caste; and the members of a caste not only have their
   special objects of worship, selected from the Hindu Pantheon,
   or adopted into it, but they exclusively eat together, and
   exclusively intermarry.' Mr. Kitts, in his interesting
   'Compendium of the Castes and Tribes of India,' compiled from
   the Indian Census reports of 1881, enumerates 1929 different
   castes. Forty-seven of these have each more than 1,000,000
   members; twenty-one have 2,000,000 and upwards. The Brahmans,
   Kunbis (agriculturists), and Chumars (workers in leather), are
   the only three castes each of which has more than 10,000,000;
   nearly 15 per cent. of the inhabitants of India are included
   in these three castes. The distinctions and subdivisions of
   caste are innumerable, and even the Brahmans, who have this in
   common, that they are reverenced by the members of all other
   castes, are as much divided among themselves as the rest.
   There are nearly 14,000,000 Brahmans; according to Mr.
   Sherring, in his work on 'Hindu Tribes and Castes,' there are
   more than 1,800 Brahmanical subdivisions; and it constantly
   happens that to a Brahman of some particular class or district
   the pollution of eating with other Brahmans would be ruinous.
   … The Brahmans have become so numerous that only a small
   proportion can be employed in sacerdotal functions, and the
   charity which it is a duty to bestow upon them could not,
   however profuse, be sufficient for their support. They are
   found in almost every occupation. They are soldiers,
   cultivators, traders, and servants; they were very numerous in
   the old Sepoy army, and the name of one of their subdivisions,
   'Pande,' became the generic term by which the mutineers of
   1857 were commonly known by the English in India. … Mr.
   Ibbetson, in his report on the census in the Punjab, shows how
   completely it is true that caste is a social and not a
   religious institution. Conversion to Mohammedanism, for
   instance, does not necessarily affect the caste of the
   convert."

      _Sir J. Strachey,
      India,
      lecture 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Williams,
      Religious Thought and Life in India,
      chapter 18._

      _Sir A. C. Lyall,
      Asiatic Studies,
      chapter 7._

      _Sir H. S. Maine,
      Village Communities,
      chapter 2._

CASTEL

      See MOGONTIACUM.

CASTELAR AND REPUBLICANISM IN SPAIN.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873, and 1873-1885.

CASTELFIDARDO, Battle of (1860).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

CASTELLANO.

      See SPANISH COINS.

CASTIGLIONE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

CASTILE:
      Early inhabitants of.

      See CELTIBERIANS.

CASTILE: A. D. 713-1230.
   Origin and rise of the kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737, and 1026-1230.

CASTILE: A. D. 1140.
   Separation of Portugal as an independent kingdom.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

CASTILE: A. D. 1169.
   The first Cortes.
   The old monarchical constitution.

      See CORTES.

CASTILE: A. D. 1212-1238.
   Progress of arms.
   Permanent union of the crown with that of Leon.
   Conquest of Cordova.
   Vassalage imposed on Granada and Murcia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

CASTILE: A. D. 1248-1350.
   Reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned, and their three
   successors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

CASTILE: A. D. 1366-1369.
   Pedro the Cruel and the invasion of the English Black Prince.

      See SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.

CASTILE: A. D. 1368-1476.
   Under the house of Trastamare.
   Discord and civil war.
   The triumph of Queen Isabella and her marriage to
   Ferdinand of Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

CASTILE: A. D. 1515.
   Incorporation of Navarre with the kingdom.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

CASTILE: A. D. 1516.
   The crown united with that of Aragon, by Joanna, mother of
   Charles V.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

----------CASTILE: End----------

CASTILLA DEL ORO.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

CASTILLON, Battle of (1450).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

   The Mausoleum of Hadrian, begun by the emperor Hadrian, A. D.
   135, and probably completed by Antoninus Pius, "owes its
   preservation entirely to the peculiar fitness of its site and
   shape for the purposes of a fortress, which it has served
   since the time of Belisarius. … After the burial of Marcus
   Aurelius, the tomb was closed until the sack of Rome by Alaric
   in 410 A. D., when his barbarian soldiers probably broke it
   open in search of treasure, and scattered the ashes of the
   Antonines to the winds. From this time, for a hundred years,
   the tomb was turned into a fortress, the possession of which
   became the object of many struggles in the wars of the Goths
   under Vitiges (537 A. D.) and Totilas (killed 552). From the
   end of the sixth century, when Gregory the Great saw on its
   summit a vision of St. Michael sheathing his sword, in token
   that the prayers of the Romans for preservation from the
   plague were heard, the Mausoleum of Hadrian was considered as
   a consecrated building, under the name of 'S. Angelus inter
   Nubes,' 'Usque ad Cœlos,' or 'Inter Cœlos,' until it was
   seized in 923 A. D. by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the
   infamous Marozia, and again became the scene of the fierce
   struggles between Popes, Emperors, and reckless adventurers
   which marked those miserable times. The last injuries appear
   to have been inflicted upon the building in the contest
   between the French Pope Clemens VII. and the Italian Pope
   Urban VIII. [see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417]. The exterior was
   then finally dismantled and stripped. Partial additions and
   restorations soon began to take place. Boniface IX., in the
   beginning of the fifteenth century, erected new battlements
   and fortifications on and around the building; and since his
   time it has remained in the possession of the Papal
   government. The strange medley of Papal reception rooms,
   dungeons and military magazines which now encumbers the top,
   was chiefly built by Paul III. The corridor connecting it with
   the Vatican dates from the time of Alexander Borgia (1494 A.
   D.), and the bronze statue of St. Michael on the summit, which
   replaced an older marble statue, from the reign of Benedict
   XIV."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Story,
      Castle St. Angelo._

{398}

CASTLENAUDARI, Battle of (1632).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.

CASTLEREAGH, Lord, and the union of Ireland with Great Britain:

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

CASTOR WARE.

   "Durobrivian or Castor ware, as it is variously called, is the
   production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the
   River Nen in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, which, with
   settlements, are computed to have covered a district of some
   twenty square miles in extent. … There are several varieties
   … and two especially have been remarked; the first, blue, or
   slate-coloured, the other reddish-brown, or of a dark copper
   colour."

      _L. Jewett,
      Grave Mounds,
      page 152._

CASTRA, Roman.

   "When a Roman army was in the field it never halted, even for
   a single night, without throwing up an entrenchment capable of
   containing the whole of the troops and their baggage. This
   field-work was termed Castra. … The form of the camp was a
   square, each side of which was 2,017 Roman feet in length. The
   defences consisted of a ditch, (fossa,) the earth dug out,
   being thrown inwards so as to form a rampart, (agger,) upon
   the summit of which a palisade (vallum) was erected of wooden
   stakes, (valli-sudes,) a certain number of which were carried
   by each soldier, along with his entrenching tools."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

CASTRICUM, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

CASTRIOTS, The.

      See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

CASTRUCCIO CASTRACANI, The despotism of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

CAT NATION, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

CATACOMBS OF ROME, The.

   "The Roman Catacombs—a name consecrated by long usage, but
   having no etymological meaning, and not a very determinate
   geographical one—are a vast labyrinth of galleries excavated
   in the bowels of the earth in the hills around the Eternal
   City; not in the hills on which the city itself was built, but
   in those beyond the walls. Their extent is enormous, not as to
   the amount of superficial soil which they underlie, for they
   rarely, if ever, pass beyond the third milestone from the
   city, but in the actual length of their galleries; for these
   are often excavated on various levels, or piani, three, four,
   or even five, one above the other, and they cross and recross
   one another, some times at short intervals, on each of these
   levels; so that, on the whole, there are certainly not less
   that 350 miles of them; that is to say, if stretched out in
   one continuous line, they would extend the whole length of
   Italy itself. The galleries are from two to four feet in
   width, and vary in height according to the nature of the rock
   in which they are dug. The walls on both sides are pierced
   with horizontal niches, like shelves in a book-case, or berths
   in a steamer, and every niche once contained one or more dead
   bodies. At various intervals this succession of shelves is
   interrupted for a moment, that room may be made for a doorway
   opening into a small chamber; and the walls of these chambers
   are generally pierced with graves in the same way as the
   galleries. These vast excavations once formed the ancient
   Christian cemeteries of Rome; they were begun in apostolic
   times, and continued to be used as burial-places of the
   faithful until the capture of the city by Alaric in the year
   410. In the third century, the Roman Church numbered
   twenty-five or twenty-six of them, corresponding to the number
   of her titles or parishes within the city; and besides these,
   there are about twenty others, of smaller dimensions, isolated
   monuments of special martyrs, or belonging to this or that
   private family. Originally they all belonged to private
   families or individuals, the villas or gardens in which they
   were dug being the property of wealthy citizens who had
   embraced the faith of Christ, and devoted of their substance
   to His service. Hence their most ancient titles were taken
   merely from the names of their lawful owners, many of which
   still survive. … It has always been agreed among men of
   learning who have had an opportunity of examining these
   excavations, that they were used exclusively by the Christians
   as places of burial and of holding religious assemblies.
   Modern research has placed it beyond a doubt, that they were
   also originally designed for this purpose and for no other."

      _J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow,
      Roma Sotterranea,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. P. Stanley,
      Christian Institutions,
      chapter 13._

CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, The.

   The Catalan Grand Company was a formidable body of military
   adventurers—mercenary soldiers—formed in Sicily during the
   twenty years of war that followed the Sicilian Vespers. "High
   pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia and
   Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily and induced
   them to submit to the severest discipline." The conclusion of
   peace in 1302 threw this trained army out of employment, and
   the greater part of its members were enlisted in the service
   of Andronicus II., of the restored Greek empire at
   Constantinople. They were under the command of one Roger de
   Flor, who had been a Templar, degraded from his knighthood for
   desertion, and afterwards a pirate; but whose military talents
   were undoubted. The Grand Company soon quarrelled with the
   Greek emperor; its leader was assassinated, and open war
   declared. The Greek army was terribly defeated in a battle at
   Apros, A. D. 1307, and the Catalans plundered Thrace for two
   years without resistance. Gallipoli, their headquarters, to
   which they brought their captives, became one of the great
   slave marts of Europe. In 1310 they marched into the heart of
   Greece, and were engaged in the service of Walter de Brienne,
   Duke of Athens.
{399}
   He, too, found them dangerous servants. Quarrels were followed
   by war; the Duke perished in a battle (A. D. 1311) with his
   Catalan mercenaries on the banks of the Cephissus; his
   dukedom, embracing Attica and Bœotia, was the prize of their
   victory. The widows and daughters of the Greek nobles who had
   fallen were forced to marry the officers of the Catalans, who
   thus settled themselves in family as well as estate. They
   elected a Duke of Athens; but proceeded afterwards to make the
   duchy an appanage of the House of Aragon. The title was held
   by sons of the Aragonese kings of Sicily until 1377, when it
   passed to Alphonso V., king of Aragon, and was retained by the
   kings of Spain after the union of the crowns of Aragon and
   Castile. The titular dukes were represented at Athens by
   regents. "During the period the duchy of Athens was possessed
   by the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, the Catalans
   were incessantly engaged in wars with all their neighbours."
   But, gradually, their military vigor and discipline were lost,
   and their name and power in Greece disappeared about 1386,
   when Athens and most of the territory of its duchy was
   conquered by Nero Acciainoli, a rich and powerful Florentine,
   who had become governor of Corinth, but acted as an
   independent prince, and who founded a new ducal family.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 7, section 3._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 62.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CATALANS: A. D. 1151.

   The County of Barcelona united by marriage to Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

CATALANS: A. D. 12th-15th Centuries.
   Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

      See BARCELONA: 12th-16th CENTURIES.

CATALANS: A. D. 1461-1472.
   Long but unsuccessful revolt against John II. of Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

CATALANS: A. D. 1639-1640.
   Causes of disaffection and revolt.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

CATALANS: A. D. 1640-1652.
   Revolt.
   Renunciation of allegiance to the Spanish crown.
   Annexation to France offered and accepted.
   Re-subjection to Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642; 1644-1646; 1648-1652.

CATALANS: A. D. 1705.
   Adhesion to the Allies in the War of the Spanish Succession.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

CATALANS: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Betrayed and deserted by the Allies.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

----------CATALANS: End----------

CATALAUNIAN PLAINS.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

CATALONIA.

      See CATALANS.

CATANA, OR KATANA, Battle of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

CATANIA.
   Storming and capture by King Ferdinand (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

CATAPAN.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CATAWBAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CATEAU-CAMBRESIS, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CATERANS.

   "In 1384 an act was passed [by the Scotch parliament] for the
   suppression of masterful plunderers, who get in the statute
   their Highland name of 'cateran.' … This is the first of a
   long succession of penal and denunciatory laws against the
   Highlanders."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapter 27._

CATHARISTS, OR PATARENES.

   "Among all the sects of the Middle Ages, very far the most
   important in numbers and in radical antagonism to the Church,
   were the Cathari, or the Pure, as with characteristic
   sectarian assumption they styled themselves. Albigenses they
   were called in Languedoc; Patarenes in North Italy; Good Men
   by themselves. Stretching through central Europe to Thrace and
   Bulgaria, they joined hands with the Paulicians of the East
   and shared their errors. Whether these Cathari stood in lineal
   historical descent from the old Manichæans, or had generated a
   dualistic scheme of their own, is a question hard to answer,
   and which has been answered in very different ways. This much,
   however, is certain, that in all essentials they agreed with
   them."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
      lecture 15._

   "In Italy, men supposed to hold the same belief [as that of
   the Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.] went by the name of the
   Paterini, a word of uncertain derivation, perhaps arising from
   their willingness meekly to submit to all sufferings for
   Christ's sake (pati), perhaps from a quarter in the city of
   Milan named 'Pataria'; and more lately by that of Cathari (the
   Pure, Puritans), which was soon corrupted into Gazari, whence
   the German 'Ketzer,' the general word for a heretic."

      _L. Mariotti,
      Frà Dolcino and his Times,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, PAULICIANS, and ALBIGENSES.

CATHAY.

   See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

CATHELINEAU AND, THE INSURRECTION IN LA VENDEE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL);
      (JUNE); and (JULY-DECEMBER).

CATHERINE I., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1725-1727.

CATHERINE II., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1762-1796.

CATHERINE and Jean d'Albret,
   Queen and King of Navarre, A. D. 1503-1512.

CATHERINE de Medici: her part in French history.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, to 1584-1589.

CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CATHOLIC RENT IN IRELAND.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE IN FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585 and after.

CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1572-1679.
   Persecutions.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587; 1587-1588; 1678-1679.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1691-1782.
   Oppression of the Penal Laws.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1778-1780.
   Repeal of Penal laws.
   No-Popery Riots.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1795-1796.
   Persecution by Protestant mobs.
   Formation of the Orange Society.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1801.
   Pitt's promises broken by the King.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

CATHOLICS (England and Ireland): A. D. 1829.
   Emancipation from civil disabilities.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

{400}

CATHOLICS, Old.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

CATILINE, The Conspiracy of.

      See ROME: B. C. 63.

CATINI, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CATO THE YOUNGER,
   and the last years of the Roman Republic.

      See ROME: B. C. 63-58, to 47-46.

CATO STREET CONSPIRACY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CATRAIL, The.

   An ancient rampart, the remains of which are found in southern
   Scotland, running from the south-east corner of Peeblesshire
   to the south side of Liddesdale. It is supposed to have marked
   the boundary between the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia and
   the territory of the British kings of Alcluith (Dumbarton).

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 1._

CATTANI.
VASSALI.
MASNADA.
SERVI.

   The feudal barons of northern Italy were called Cattani. In
   the Florentine territory, "many of these Cattani, after having
   been subdued and made citizens of Florence, still maintained
   their feudal following, and were usually attended by troops of
   retainers, half slaves, half freedmen, called 'Uomini di
   Masnada,' who held certain possessions of them by the tenure
   of military service, took oaths of fidelity, and appear to
   have included every rank of person in the different Italian
   states according to the quality of the chief; but without any
   degradation of character being attached to such employment.
   This kind of servitude, which could not be thrown off without
   a formal act of manumission, was common in the north of Italy,
   and began in the 11th century, when innumerable chieftains
   started up owning no superior but the emperor. Being at
   constant war with each other they sought every means of
   creating a military following by granting lands to all ranks
   of people, and it is probable that many slaves were then
   partly emancipated for the purpose: such a condition, though
   not considered dishonourable, was thus essentially tinged with
   the colours of slavery, and so far differed from the 'Vassi'
   and 'Vassali,' as well as from the 'Vavasours.' … Some
   slight, perhaps unnecessary distinction is made between the
   'Vassi,' who are supposed to have been vassals of the crown,
   and the 'Vassali,' who were the vassals of great lords. The
   'Vavasours' were the vassals of great vassals. … This union
   [as described above] of 'Servi,' slaves, or vassals of one
   chief, was called 'Masnada,' and hence the name 'Masnadieri,'
   so often recurring in early Italian history; for the
   commanders of these irregular bands were often retained in the
   pay of the republic and frequently kept the field when the
   civic troops had returned to their homes, or when the war was
   not sufficiently important to bring the latter out with the
   Carroccio. … Besides these military Villains, who were also
   called 'Fedeli,' there were two other kinds of slaves amongst
   the early Italians, namely prisoners of war and the labourers
   attached to the soil, who were considered as cattle in every
   respect except that of their superior utility and value: the
   former species of slavery was probably soon dissolved by the
   union of self-interest and humanity: the latter began to
   decline in the 12th century, partly continued through the
   13th, and vanished entirely in the 14th century."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      volume 1, page 624._

CATTI, The.

      See CHATTI.

CATUVELLANI, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CAUCASUS AND THE CIRCASSIANS.
   The Russian conquest.

   "The Caucasus has always possessed a certain fascination not
   for the Russians only, but also for western nations, and is
   peculiarly rich in historical traditions, and in memories of
   ancient times and ancient nations. Here to the rocks of
   Elbruz, Prometheus lay chained; and to Colchis, where the
   Phasis flowed towards the sea, through ever green woods, came
   the Argonauts. The present Kutais is the old capital of King
   Æetes, near which, in the sacred grove of Ares, hung the
   golden fleece. The gold mines which the Russians discovered in
   1864 were apparently known to the Greeks, whose colony,
   Dioscurias, was an assemblage of 300 diverse nationalities.
   … Here on the coasts of the stormy and dangerous Black Sea
   arose the famous Pontine kingdom [see MITHRIDATIC WARS] which
   in spite of its valiant resistance under Mithridates, fell a
   victim to Roman aggression. Along the rivers Kura and Rion ran
   the old commercial road from Europe to Asia, which enriched
   the Venetians and the Genoese in the middle ages. Up to recent
   times this trade consisted not only of all sorts of other
   merchandise, but of slaves; numberless girls and women were
   conveyed to Turkish harems and there exercised an important
   influence on the character of the Tartar and Mongol races. In
   the middle ages the Caucasus was the route by which the wild
   Asiatic hordes, the Goths, Khasars, Huns, Avars, Mongols,
   Tartars, and Arabs crossed from Asia into Europe; and
   consequently its secluded valleys contain a population
   composed of more different and distinct races than any other
   district in the world. … It was in the 16th century, under
   Ivan the Terrible, that Russia first turned her attention to
   the conquest of the Caucasus; but it was not till 1859 that
   the defeat and capture of the famous Schamyl brought about the
   final subjugation of the country. … In 1785 [after the
   partial conquest of 1784—see TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792] the
   mountaineers had been incited to take arms by a so-called
   prophet Scheick Mansur, but he was seized and banished to
   Solovetsk, on the White Sea. In 1820 a Mollah, Kasi by name,
   made his appearance in Daghestan, and began to preach the
   'Kasawat,' that is, holy war against the Russians. To him
   succeeded another equally fanatical adventurer, Hamset Beg.
   The work which they had begun was carried on by Schamyl, who
   far surpassed his predecessors in all the qualities which make
   up a successful guerilla chief, and who maintained the unequal
   conflict against the enemies of his country for 25 years with
   singular good fortune, undaunted courage, untiring energy, and
   conspicuous ability. He was of the tribe of the Lesghians in
   Daghestan, and was born in 1796, in the village of Gimri, of
   poor shepherd parents. In spite of his humble origin he raised
   himself to the rank of an Imaum, surrounded himself with a
   strong body-guard of devoted adherents, whom he named Murides,
   and succeeded in fanning to a flame the patriotic ardour of
   his fellow-countrymen. The capture of the mountain fastness of
   Achulgo in 1839 seemed to be the death-blow of Schamyl's
   cause, for it brought about the loss of the whole of
   Daghestan, the very focus of the Murides' activity.
{401}
   Schamyl barely escaped being made a prisoner, and was forced
   to yield up his son, Djammel-Edden, only nine years of age as
   a hostage. The boy was sent to St. Petersburg and placed in a
   cadet corps, which he left at the conclusion of his military
   education somewhere about 1850 and returned to his native
   country in 1854 where he died a few years later. In 1840 the
   Tchetchens, who had previously been pacified, rose in arms
   once more, and Daghestan and other parts of the country
   followed their example. The country of the Tchetchens was a
   specially favourable theatre for the conflict with the
   Russians; its long mountain chains, rocky fastnesses,
   impenetrable forests, and wild precipices and gorges rendered
   ambuscades and surprises of constant and, to the Russians,
   fatal occurrence. During the earlier stages of the war, Russia
   had ransomed the officers taken prisoners by the mountaineers,
   but, subsequently, no quarter was given on either side. At
   last, by means of a great concentration of troops on all the
   threatened points, by fortifying the chief central stations,
   find by forming broad military roads throughout the district,
   the Russians succeeded in breaking down Schamyl's resistance.
   He now suffered one reverse after another. His chief
   fastnesses, Dargo, Weden, and Guni, were successively stormed
   and destroyed; and, finally, he himself and his family were
   taken prisoners. He was astonished and, it is said, not
   altogether gratified to find that a violent death was not to
   close his romantic career. He and his family were at first
   interned at Kaluga in Russia, both a house and a considerable
   sum of money for his maintenance being assigned to him. But
   after a few years he was allowed to remove to Mecca, where he
   died. His sons and grandsons, who have entirely adopted the
   manners of the Russians, are officers in the Circassian guard.
   In 1864 the pacification of the whole country was
   accomplished, and a few years later the abolition of serfdom
   was proclaimed at Tifiis. After the subjugation of the various
   mountain tribes, the Circassians had the choice given them by
   the Government of settling on the low country along the Kuban,
   or of emigrating to Turkey. The latter course was chosen by
   the bulk of the nation, urged, thereto, in great measure, by
   envoys from Turkey. As many as 400,000 are said to have come
   to the ports, where the Sultan had promised to send vessels to
   receive them; but delays took place, and a large number died
   of want and disease. Those who reached Turkey were settled on
   the west coasts of the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and near Varna,
   and proved themselves most troublesome and unruly subjects.
   Most of those who at first remained in Circassia followed
   their fellow-countrymen in 1874."

      _H. M. Chester,
      Russia,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Mayne,
      Life of Nicholas I.,
      part 1, chapters 11 and 14._

      _S. M. Schmucker,
      Life and Reign of Nicholas I.,
      chapter 21._

CAUCASUS, The Indian.

   "The real Caucasus was the most lofty range of mountains known
   to the Greeks before [Alexander's conquests], and they were
   generally regarded as the highest mountains in the world.
   Hence when the army of Alexander came in sight of the vast
   mountain barrier [of the Hindoo Koosh] that rose before them
   as they advanced northward from Arachosia, they seem to have
   at once concluded that this could be no other than the
   Caucasus." Hence the name Caucasus given by the Greeks to
   those mountains; "for the name of Hindoo Koosh, by which they
   are still known, is nothing more than a corruption of the
   Indian Caucasus."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 12, note Q._

CAUCI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

CAUCUS.
   In 1634—the fourth year of the colony of Massachusetts
   Bay—the freemen of the colony chose Dudley instead of
   Winthrop for governor. The next year they "followed up the
   doctrine of rotation in office by choosing Haynes as governor,
   a choice agreed upon by deputies from the towns, who came
   together for that purpose previously to the meeting of the
   court—the first instance of 'the caucus system' on record."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 224._

      See also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

CAUDINE FORKS, The Romans at the.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

CAUSENNÆ, OR ISINÆ.

   A town of some importance in Roman Britain. "There can be no
   doubt that this town occupied the site of the modern Ancaster,
   which has been celebrated for its Roman antiquities since the
   time of Leland."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

CAVALIERS, The party of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
      also, ROUNDHEADS.

CAVE DWELLERS.

   "We find a hunting and fishing race of cave-dwellers, in the
   remote pleistocene age, in possession of France, Belgium,
   Germany, and Britain, probably of the same stock as the
   Eskimos, living and forming part of a fauna in which northern
   and southern, living and extinct, species are strangely
   mingled with those now living in Europe. In the neolithic age
   caves were inhabited, and used for tombs, by men of the
   Iberian or Basque race, which is still represented by the
   small dark-haired peoples of Europe."

      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Cave Hunting,
      page 430._

CAVE OF ADULLAM.

      See ADULLAM, CAVE OF.

CAVOUR, Count, and the unification of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

CAVOUR, Treaty of (1561).

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

CAWNPUR, OR CAWNPORE: A. D. 1857.
   Siege by the Sepoy mutineers.
   Surrender and massacre of the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
      and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

CAXTON PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.

CAYENNE, Colonization of.

      See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

CAYUGAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

CEADAS, The.

      See BARATHRUM.

CEBRENES, The.

      See TROJA.

CECIL, Sir William (Lord Burleigh),
   The reign of Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

CECORA, Battle of (1621).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CECROPIA.
CECROPIAN HILL.
   The Acropolis of Athens.

      See ATTICA.

{402}

CEDAR CREEK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

CEDAR MOUNTAIN OR CEDAR RUN, Battle of.

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

CELESTINE II.,  Pope, A. D. 1143-1144.

CELESTINE III., Pope, A. D. 1191-1198.

CELESTINE IV.,  Pope, A. D. 1241.

CELESTINE V.,   Pope, A. D. 1294, July to December.

CELTIBERIANS, The.

   "The Celtiberi occupied the centre of Spain, and a large part
   of the two Castiles, an elevated table land bordered and
   intersected by mountains. They were the most warlike race in
   the Spanish peninsula."

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

   "The appellation Celtiberians indicates that in the
   north-eastern part of the peninsula [Spain] there was a
   mixture of Celts and Iberians. Nevertheless the Iberians must
   have been the prevailing race, for we find no indications of
   Celtic characteristics in the people."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 6, note._

      See, also, NUMANTIAN WAR.

CELTS, The.

   "The Celts form a branch of the great family of nations which
   has been variously called Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic,
   Indo-Celtic and Japhetic, its other branches being represented by
   the Italians, the Greeks, the Litu-Slaves, the Armenians, the
   Persians and the chief peoples of Hindustan. … The Celts of
   antiquity who appeared first and oftenest in history were
   those of Gallia, which, having been made by the French into
   Gaule, we term Gaul. It included the France and Switzerland of
   the present day, and much territory besides. This people had
   various names. One of them was Galli, which in their language
   meant warriors or brave men; … but the Gauls themselves in
   Cæsar's time appear to have preferred the name which he wrote
   Celtæ. This was synonymous with the other and appears to have
   meant warriors. … The Celtic family, so far back as we can
   trace it into the darkness of antiquity consisted of two
   groups or branches, with linguistic features of their own
   which marked them off from one another. To the one belonged
   the ancestors of the people who speak Gaelic in Ireland, the
   Isle of Man and the Highlands of the North. … The national
   name which the members of this group have always given
   themselves, so far as one knows, is that of Gaidhel,
   pronounced and spelt in English Gael, but formerly written by
   themselves Goidel. … The other group is represented in point
   of speech by the people of Wales and the Bretons. … The
   national name of those speaking these dialects was that of
   Briton; but, since that word has now no precise meaning, we
   take the Welsh form of it, which is Brython, and call this
   group Brythons and Brythonic, whenever it is needful to be
   exact. The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them,
   since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to
   settle in Britain."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, ARYANS, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.

CELTS:
   Origin and first meaning of the name.

   "Who were the Keltre of Spain? the population whose name
   occurs in the word Celtici and Celtiberi, Keltic Iberians or
   Iberian Kelts? … I think, that though used to denominate the
   tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it [the word Celt or
   Kelt] was, originally, no Gallic word—as little native as
   Welsh is British. I also think that even the first populations
   to which it was applied were other than Keltic in the modern
   sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word
   belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of
   Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. … By the time of
   Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were
   included under the name Celtæ: in other words, the Iberian
   name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks
   as the name for all the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and
   it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the
   populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians."

      _R G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 2._

----------CELTS:  Origin: End----------

CELTS.

   A name given among archæologists to certain prehistoric
   implements, both stone and bronze, of the wedge, chisel and
   axe kind. Mr. Thomas Wright, contends that the term is
   properly applied only to the bronze chisels, which the old
   antiquary Hearne identified with the Roman celtis, or
   chisel—whence the name. It has evidently no connection with
   the word Celt used ethnologically.

CELYDDON, Forest of (or Coed Celydon).

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CENABUM.

      See GENABUM.

CENOMANIANS, The.

      See INSUBRIANS.

CENSORS, The Roman.

   "The censorship was an office so remarkable that, however
   familiar the subject may be to many readers, it is necessary
   here to bestow some notice on it. Its original business was to
   take a register of the citizens and of their property; but
   this, which seems at first sight to be no more than the
   drawing up of a mere statistical report, became in fact, from
   the large discretion allowed to every Roman officer, a
   political power of the highest importance. The censors made
   out the returns of the free population; but they did more;
   they divided it according to its civil distinctions, and drew
   up a list of the senators, a list of the equites, a list of
   the members of the several tribes, or of those citizens who
   enjoyed the right of voting, and a list of the ærarians,
   consisting of those freedmen, naturalized strangers, and
   others, who, being enrolled in no tribe, possessed no vote in
   the comitia, but still enjoyed all the private rights of Roman
   citizens. Now the lists thus drawn up by the censors were
   regarded as legal evidence of a man's condition. … From
   thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to
   the decision of questions of right; such as whether a citizen
   was really worthy of retaining his rank. … If a man behaved
   tyrannically to his wife or children, if he was guilty of
   excessive cruelty even to his slaves, if he neglected his
   land, if he indulged in habits of extravagant expense, or
   followed any calling which was regarded as degrading, the
   offence was justly noted by the censors, and the offender was
   struck off from the list of senators, if his rank was so high;
   or, if he were an ordinary citizen, he was expelled from his
   tribe, and reduced to the class of the ærarians. … The
   censors had the entire management of the regular revenues of
   the state, or of its vectigalia. They were the commonwealth's
   stewards, and to their hands all its property was entrusted.
   … With these almost kingly powers, and arrayed in kingly
   state, for the censor's robe was all scarlet … the censors
   might well seem too great for a free commonwealth."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 17._

      See, also, LUSTRUM.

{403}

CENTRAL AMERICA:
   Ruins of ancient civilization.

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

CENTRAL AMERICA: Discovery and early settlement.

      See AMERICAN: A. D. 1498-1505; 1500-1511; 1513-1517.

CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain, and Independence.
   Attempted federation and its failures.
   Wars and revolutions of the five Republics.

   "The central part of the American continent, extending from
   the southern boundary of Mexico to the Isthmus of Panama,
   consisted in the old colonial times of several Intendancies,
   all of which were united in the Captaincy-General of
   Guatemala. Like the West Indian Islands, it was a neglected
   part of the Spanish Empire. … Central America has no history
   up to the epoch of independence. … It was not until the
   success of the Revolution had become certain on both sides of
   them, both in Mexico and New Granada, that the Intendancies
   which made up the Captaincy-General of Guatemala declared
   themselves also independent of Spain. The cry of liberty had
   indeed been raised in Costa Rica in 1813, and in Nicaragua in
   1815; but the Revolution was postponed for six years longer.
   Guatemala, the seat of government, published its declaration
   in September, 1821, and its example was speedily followed by
   San Salvador and Honduras. Nicaragua, on proclaiming its
   independence, together with one of the departments of
   Guatemala, declared its adhesion to what was known in Mexico
   as the plan of Ignala [see MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826]. As there
   were no Spanish troops in Central America, the recusant
   Spanish official party could make no resistance to the popular
   movement; and many of them crossed the sea to Cuba or returned
   to Spain. … The Revolution of Central America thus stands
   alone in the history of independence, as having been
   accomplished without the shedding of blood." During the brief
   empire of Iturbide in Mexico [see as above] the Central
   American states were annexed to it, though with strong
   resistance on the part of all except Guatemala. "On the
   proclamation of the Federal Republic in Mexico [1824], the
   whole of Central America, except the district of Chiapas,
   withdrew from the alliance, and drove out the Mexican
   officials as only a year before they had driven out the
   Spanish officials. The people now had to face the task of
   forming a government for themselves: and … they now resolved
   on combining in a federation, in imitation of the great United
   States of North America. Perhaps no states were ever less
   suited to form a federal union. The petty territories of
   Central America lie on two Oceans, are divided by lofty
   mountains, and have scarcely any communication with each
   other: and the citizens of each have scarcely any common
   interest. A Central American federation, however,  was an
   imposing idea, and the people clung to it with great
   pertinacity. The first effort for federation was made under
   the direction of General Filisola. All the Intendancies
   combined in one sovereign state; first under the name of the
   'United Provinces,' afterwards (November 22, 1823) under that
   of the 'Federal Republic' of Central America. … A
   constitution of the most liberal kind was voted. This
   constitution is remarkable for having been the first which
   abolished slavery at once and absolutely and declared the
   slave trade to be piracy. … The clerical and oligarchic
   party set their faces stubbornly against the execution of the
   constitution, and began the revolt at Leon in Nicaragua. The
   union broke down in 1826, and though Morazan [of Honduras]
   reconstituted it in 1829, its history is a record of continual
   rebellion and reaction on the part of the Guatemaltec
   oligarchy. Of all South American conservative parties this
   oligarchy was perhaps the most despicable. They sank to their
   lowest when they raised the Spanish flag in 1832. But in doing
   this they went too far. Morazan's successes date from this
   time, and having beaten the Guatemaltecs, he transferred the
   Federal government in 1834 to San Salvador. But the Federal
   Republic of Central America dragged on a precarious existence
   until 1838, when it was overthrown by the revolt of Carrera in
   Guatemala. From the first the influence of the Federalists in
   the capital began to decay, and it was soon apparent that they
   had little power except in Honduras, San Salvador and
   Nicaragua. The Costa Ricans, a thriving commercial community,
   but of no great political importance, and separated by
   mountainous wastes from all the rest, soon ceased to take any
   part in public business. A second Federal Republic, excluding
   Costa Rica, was agreed to in 1842; but it fared no better than
   the first. The chief representative of the Federalist
   principle in Central America was Morazan, of Honduras, from
   whose government Carrera had revolted in 1838. On the failure
   of the Federation Morazan had fled to Chile, and on his return
   to Costa Rica he was shot at San José by the Carrerists. This
   was a great blow to the Liberals, and it was not until 1847
   that a third Federation, consisting of Honduras, San Salvador,
   and Nicaragua, was organized. For some years Honduras, at the
   head of these states, carried on a war against Guatemala to
   compel it to join the union. Guatemala was far more than their
   match: San Salvador and Nicaragua soon failed in the struggle,
   and left Honduras to carry on the war alone. Under General
   Carrera Guatemala completely defeated its rival; and to his
   successes are due the revival of the Conservative or Clerical
   party all over Central America. … The government of each
   state became weaker and weaker: revolutions were everywhere
   frequent: and ultimately … the whole country was near
   falling into the hands of a North American adventurer [see
   NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860]. In former times the English
   government had maintained some connection with the country
   [originating with the buccaneers and made important by the
   mahogany-cutting] through the independent Indians of the
   Mosquito coast, over whom, for the purposes of their trade
   with Jamaica, it had maintained a protectorate: and even a
   small English commercial colony, called Greytown, had been
   founded on this coast at the mouth of the river San Juan.
   Towards the close of Carrera's ascendancy this coast was
   resigned to Nicaragua, and the Bay Islands, which lie off the
   coast, to Honduras: and England thus retained nothing in the
   country but the old settlement of British Honduras, with its
   capital, Belize. After Carrera's death in 1865, the Liberal
   party began to reassert itself: and in 1871 there was a
   Liberal revolution in Guatemala itself."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States._

----------CENTRAL AMERICA: End----------

{404}

CENTRAL ASIA.

      See ASIA, CENTRAL.

CENTRE, The.

      See RIGHT, &c.

CENTREVILLE, Evacuation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

CENTURIES, Roman.

      See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

CENTURION.

   The officer commanding one of the fifty-five centuries or
   companies in a Roman legion of the empire.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

CENWULF, King of Mercia, A. D. 794-819.

CEORL.

      See EORL, and ETHEL.

CEPEDA, Battle of(1859).

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

CEPHISSUS, Battle of the (A. D. 1311).

      See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

   The Ceramicus was originally the most important of the
   suburban districts of Athens and derived its name from the
   potters. "It is probable that about the time of Pisistratus
   the market of the ancient suburb called the Ceramicus (for
   every Attic district possessed its own market) was constituted
   the central market of the city. … They [the Pisistratidæ]
   connected Athens in all directions by roadways with the
   country districts: these roads were accurately measured, and
   all met on the Ceramicus, in the centre of which an altar was
   erected to the Twelve Gods. From this centre of town and
   country were calculated the distances to the different country
   districts, to the ports, and to the most important sanctuaries
   of the common fatherland. … [In the next century—in the age
   of Pericles—the population had extended to the north and west
   and] part of the ancient potters' district or Ceramicus had
   long become a quarter of the city [the Inner Ceramicus]; the
   other part remained suburb [the Outer Ceramicus]. Between the
   two lay the double gate or Dipylum, the broadest and most
   splendid gate of the city. … Here the broad carriage-road
   which, avoiding all heights, ascended from the market-place of
   Hippodamus directly to the city-market of the Ceramicus,
   entered the city; from here straight to the west led the road
   to Eleusis, the sacred course of the festive processions. …
   From this road again, immediately outside the gate, branched
   off that which led to the Academy. … The high roads in the
   vicinity of the city gates were everywhere bordered with
   numerous and handsome sepulchral monuments, in particular the
   road leading through the outer Ceramicus. Here lay the public
   burial-ground for the citizens who had fallen in war; the vast
   space was divided into fields, corresponding to the different
   battle-fields at home and abroad."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 2,
      and book 3, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 3._

CERESTES, OR KERESTES, Battle of (1596).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

CERIGNOLA, Battle of (1503).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

CERISOLES, Battle of (1544).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CERONES, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CERRO GORDO, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CESS.

   A word, corrupted from "assess," signifying a rate, or tax;
   used especially in Scotland, and applied more particularly to
   a tax imposed in 1678, for the maintenance of troops, during
   the persecution of the Covenanters.

      _J. H. Thompson,
      A Cloud of Witnesses,
      page 67._

      _The Imp. Diet._

CEUTA, A. D. 1415.
   Siege and capture by the Portuguese.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

CEUTA: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to Spain.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

----------CEUTA: End----------

CÉVENNES,
   The prophets of the (or the Cévenol prophets).
   The Camisards.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

CEYLON,
   3d Century B. C.
   Conversion to Buddhism.

      See INDIA: B. C. 312-.

CEYLON: A. D. 1802.
   Permanent acquisition by England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

----------CEYLON: End----------

CHACABUCO, Battle of (1817).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

CHACO, The Gran.

      See GRAN CHACO.

CHÆRONEA, Battles of (B. C. 338).

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

CHÆRONEA:(B. C. 86).

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

CHAGAN.

      See KUAN.

CHA'HTAS, OR CHOCTAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHALCEDON.

   An ancient Greek city, founded by the Megarians on the Asiatic
   side of the Bosphorus, nearly opposite to Byzantium, like
   which city it suffered in early times many changes of masters.
   It was bequeathed to the Romans by the last king of Bithynia.

CHALCEDON: A. D. 258.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

CHALCEDON: A. D. 616-625.
   The Persians in possession.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

----------CHALCEDON: End----------

CHALCEDON, The Council of (A. D. 451).

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.

   "The most dangerous rivals of Ionia were the towns of Eubœa,
   among which, in the first instance, Cyme, situated in an
   excellent bay of the east coast, in a district abounding in
   wine, and afterwards the two sister-towns on the Euripus,
   Chalcis and Eretria, distinguished themselves by larger
   measures of colonization. While Eretria, the 'city of rowers,'
   rose to prosperity especially by means of purple-fisheries and
   a ferry-navigation conducted on a constantly increasing scale,
   Chalcis, the 'bronze city,' on the double sea of the Bœotian
   sound, contrived to raise and employ for herself the most
   important of the many treasures of the island—its copper. …
   Chalcis became the Greek centre of this branch of industry; it
   became the Greek Sidon. Next to Cyprus there were no richer
   stores of copper in the Greek world than on Eubœa, and in
   Chalcis were the first copper-works and smithies known in
   European Greece."

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

   The Chalcidians were enterprising colonists, particularly in
   Thrace, in the Macedonian peninsula, where they are said to
   have founded thirty-two towns, which were collectively called
   the Chalcidice, and in southern Italy and Sicily. It was the
   abundant wealth of Thrace in metallic ores which drew the
   Chalcidians to it. About 700 B. C. a border feud between
   Chalcis and Eretria, concerning certain "Lelantian fields"
   which lay between them, grew to such proportions and so many
   other states came to take part in it, that, "according to
   Thucydides no war of more universal importance for the whole
   nation was fought between the fall of Troja and the Persian
   war."

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

   Chalcis was subdued by the Athenians in B. C. 506.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506;
      also KLERUCHS, and EUBŒA.

{405}

CHALCUS.

      See TALENT.

CHALDEA.
CHALDEES.

      See BABYLONIA.

CHALDEAN CHURCH.

      See NESTORIANS.

CHALDIRAN, Battle of (1514).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CHALGROVE FIELD, Fall of Hampden at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

CHALONS, Battles at (A. D. 271).

   Among the many pretenders to the Roman imperial throne—"the
   thirty tyrants," as they were called—of the distracted reign
   of Gallienus, was Tetricus, who had been governor of
   Aquitaine. The dangerous honor was forced upon him, by a
   demoralized army, and he reigned against his will for several
   years over Gaul, Spain and Britain. At length, when the
   iron-handed Aurelian had taken the reins of government at
   Rome, Tetricus secretly plotted with him for deliverance from
   his own uncoveted greatness. Aurelian invaded Gaul and
   Tetricus led an army against him, only to betray it, in a
   great battle at Chalons (271), where the rebels were cut to
   pieces.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 11.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CHALONS: A. D. 366.

      See ALEMANNI, INVASION OF GAUL BY THE.

CHALONS: A. D. 451.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451, ATTILA'S INVASION OF GAUL.

----------CHALONS: End----------

CHALYBES, The.

   The Chalybes, or Chalybians, were an ancient people in Asia
   Minor, on the coast of the Euxine, probably east of the Halys,
   who were noted as workers of iron.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 22, note A._

CHAMAVI, The.

      See BRUCTERI;
      also, FRANKS;
      also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

CHAMBERS OF REANNEXATON, French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

CHAMBERSBURG, Burning of.

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

CHAMPAGNE:
   Origin of the county.

   In the middle years of the revolt that dethroned the
   Carlovingians and raised the Capetians to a throne which they
   made the throne of a kingdom of France, Count Herbert of
   Vermandois allied himself with the party of the latter, and
   began operations for the expanding of his domain. "The
   Champaign of Rheims, the 'Campania Remensis'—a most
   appropriate descriptive denomination of the region—an
   extension of the plains of Flanders—but not yet employed
   politically as designating a province—was protected against
   Count Herbert on the Vermandois border by the Castrum
   Theodorici—Château Thierry. … Herbert's profuse promises
   induced the commander to betray his duty. … Herbert, through
   this occupation of Château Thierry, obtained the city of
   Troyes and all the 'Campania Remensis,' which, under his
   potent sway, was speedily developed into the magnificent
   County of Champagne. Herbert and his lineage held Champagne
   during three generations, until some time after the accession
   of the Capets, when the Grand Fief passed from the House of
   Vermandois to the House of Blois."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 2, page 192._

CHAMPEAUBERT, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHAMPIGNY, Sortie of(1870).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

CHAMPION'S HILL, Battle of.

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

CHAMPLAIN, Samuel.
   Explorations and Colonizations.

   See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605; 1608-1611;
   and 1611-1616.

CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1776.
   Arnold's naval battle with Carleton.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1814.
   Macdonough's naval victory.

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

----------CHAMPLAIN, End----------

CHAMPS DE MARS.
CHAMPS DE MAI.

   When the Merovingian kings of the Franks summoned their
   captains to gather for the planning and preparing of
   campaigns, the assemblies were called at first the Champs de
   Mars, because the meeting was in earliest spring—in March.
   "But as the Franks, from serving on foot, became cavaliers
   under the second [the Carlovingian] race, the time was changed
   to May, for the sake of forage, and the assemblies were called
   Champs de Mai."

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of France,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, MALLUM,
      and PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

CHANCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CHANCELLOR, The.

   "The name [of the Chancellor], derived probably from the
   cancelli or screen behind which the secretarial work of the
   royal household was carried on, claims a considerable
   antiquity; and the offices which it denotes are various in
   proportion. The chancellor of the Karolingian sovereigns,
   succeeding to the place of the more ancient referendarius, is
   simply the royal notary; the archi-cancellarius is the chief
   of a large body of such officers associated under the name of
   the chancery, and is the keeper of the royal seal. It is from
   this minister that the English chancellor derives his name and
   function. Edward the Confessor, the first of our sovereigns
   who had a seal, is also the first who had a chancellor; from
   the reign of the Conqueror the office has descended in regular
   succession. It seems to have been to a comparatively late
   period, generally if not always, at least in England, held by
   an ecclesiastic who was a member of the royal household and on
   a footing with the great dignitaries. The chancellor was the
   most dignified of the royal chaplains, if not the head of that
   body. The whole secretarial work of the household and court
   fell on the chancellor and the chaplains. … The chancellor
   was, in a manner, the secretary of state for all departments."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 121._

{406}

   "In the reign of Edward I. we begin to perceive signs of the
   rise of the extraordinary or equitable jurisdiction of the
   Chancellor. The numerous petitions addressed to the King and
   his Council, seeking the interposition of the royal grace and
   favour either to mitigate the harshness of the Common Law or
   supply its deficiencies, had been in the special care of the
   Chancellor, who examined and reported upon them to the King.
   … At length, in 1348, by a writ or ordinance of the 22d year
   of Edward III. all such matters as were 'of Grace' were
   directed to be dispatched by the Chancellor or by the Keeper
   of the Privy Seal. This was a great step in the recognition of
   the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as
   distinct from the legal jurisdiction of the Chancellor and of
   the Courts of Common Law; although it was not until the
   following reign that it can be said to have been permanently
   established."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      pages 173-174._

   "The Lord Chancellor is a Privy Councillor by his office; a
   Cabinet Minister; and, according to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere,
   prolocutor [chairman, or Speaker] of the House of Lords by
   prescription."

      _A. C. Ewald,
      The Crown and its Advisers,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      book 5, chapter 7._

CHANCELLOR'S ROLLS.

      See EXCHEQUER. EXCHEQUER ROLLS.

CHANCELLORSVILLE, Battles of.

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

CHANCERY.

      See CHANCELLOR.

CHANDRAGUPTA, OR CANDRAGUPTA, The empire of.

      See INDIA: B. C. 327-312, and 312.

CHANEERS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CHANTILLY, Battle of.

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

CHANTRY PRIESTS.

   "With the more wealthy and devout [in the 14th, 15th and 16th
   centuries] it was the practice to erect little chapels, which
   were either added to churches or enclosed by screens within
   them, where chantry priests might celebrate mass for the good
   of their souls in perpetuity. … Large sums of money were …
   devoted to the maintenance of chantry priests, whose duty it
   was to say mass for the repose of the testator's soul. … The
   character and conduct of the chantry priests must have become
   somewhat of a lax order in the 16th century."

      _R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to
      "Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, London,"
      volume 2, page viii._

CHAOUANONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

CHAPAS, OR CHAPANECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, &c.

CHAPULTEPEC, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CHARCAS, Las.

   The Spanish province which now forms the Republic of Bolivia.
   Also called, formerly, Upper Peru, and sometimes the province
   of Potosi.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
      and BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.

CHARIBERT I.,
   King of Aquitaine, A. D. 561-567.
   Charibert II., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 628-631.

CHARITON RIVER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

      See
      FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814;
      ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800;
      LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
      SAXONS: A. D. 772-804;
      AVARS: 791-805;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 778.

CHARLEMAGNE'S SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

      See SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1679.
   Restored to Spain.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1693.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by French and ceded to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------CHARLEROI: End----------

CHARLES
   (called The Great—Charlemagne),
   King of Neustria, A. D. 768;
   of all the Franks, A. D. 771;
   of Franks and Lombardy, 774;
   Emperor of the West, 800-814.

Charles of Austria, Archduke, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      1797 (APRIL-MAY);
      1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
      also GERMANY: 1809 (JANUARY-.JUNE), (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

Charles of Bourbon,
   King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1734-1759.

Charles
   (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1467-1477.

Charles I.,
   King of England, 1625-1649.
   Trial and execution.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.1649 (JANUARY).

Charles I. (of Anjou),
   King of Naples and Sicily, 1266-1282;
   King of Naples, 1282-1285.

Charles I.,
   King of Portugal, 1889-.

Charles II. (called The Bald),
   Emperor, and King of Italy, A. D. 875-877;
   King of Neustria and Burgundy, 840-877.

Charles II.,
   King of England, 1660-1685.
   (By a loyal fiction, supposed to have
   reigned from 1649, when his father was beheaded;
   though the throne was in Cromwell's possession).

Charles II., King of Naples, 1285-1309.

Charles II., King of Navarre, 1349-1387.

Charles II., King of Spain, 1665-1700.

Charles III. (called The Fat),
   Emperor, King of the East Franks (Germany),
   and King of Italy, A. D. 881-888;
   King of the West Franks (France), 884-888.

Charles III. (called The Simple),
   King of France, A. D. 892-929.

Charles III., King of Naples, 1381-1386.

Charles III., King of Navarre, 1387-1425.

Charles III., King of Spain, 1759-1788.

Charles IV.,
   Emperor, and King of Italy, 1355-1378;
   King of Bohemia, 1346-1378;
   King of Germany, 1347-1378;
   King of Burgundy, 1365-1378.

Charles IV.,
   King of France, and of Navarre (Charles I.), 1322-1328.

Charles IV., King of Spain, 1788-1808.

Charles V.,
   Emperor, 1519-1558;
   Duke of Burgundy, 1506-1555;
   King of Spain (as Charles I.) and of Naples,
   or the Two Sicilies, 1516-1556.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

Charles V. (called The Wise), King of France, 1364-1380.

Charles VI.,
   Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1711-1740.

Charles VI. (called The Well-loved), King of France, 1380-1422.

Charles VII. (of Bavaria) Germanic Emperor, 1742-1745.

Charles VII., King of France, 1422-1461.

{407}

Charles VIII., King of France, 1483-1498.

Charles IX., King of France, 1560-1574.

Charles IX., King of Sweden, 1604-1611.

Charles X., King of France
   (the last of the House of Bourbon), 1824-1830.

Charles X., King of Sweden, 1654-1660.

Charles XI., King of Sweden, 1660-1697.

Charles XII., King of Sweden, 1697-1718.

Charles XIII., King of Sweden, 1809-1818.

Charles XIV. (Bernadotte), King of Sweden, 1818-1844.

Charles XV., King of Sweden, 1859-1872.

Charles Albert, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1831-1849.

Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, 1580-1630.

Charles Emanuel II., Duke of Savoy, 1638-1675.

Charles Emanuel III., Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1730-1773.

Charles Emanuel IV.,
   Duke of Savoy
   and King of Sardinia, 1796-1802.

Charles Felix,
   Duke of Savoy
   and King of Sardinia, 1821-1831.

Charles Martel,
   Duke of Austrasia and Mayor of the Palace
   (of the King of the Franks), A. D. 715-741.

Charles Robert, or Charobert, or Caribert,
   King of Hungary, 1308-1342.

Charles Swerkerson,
   King of Sweden, 1161-1167.


CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
   The founding of the city.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1706.
   Unsuccessful attack by the French.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Revolutionary proceedings.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 and 1776.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
   Sir Henry Clinton's attack and repulse.

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

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
   Siege by the British.
   Surrender of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
   The splitting of the National Democratic Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
   The adoption of the Ordinance of Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860
      (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
   Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   The Beginning of war.
   Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
   The attack and repulse of the Monitor fleet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH
      CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
   The Union troops on Morris Island.
   Assault on Fort Wagner.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).
   Siege of Fort Wagner.
   Bombardment of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
   Evacuation by the Confederates.
   Occupation by Federal troops.

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

----------CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: End----------

CHARLESTOWN, Massachusetts: A. D. 1623.
   The first settlement.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

CHARTER OAK, The.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

CHARTER OF FORESTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

CHARTERHOUSE, OR CHARTREUSE.

      See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

CHARTISTS.
CHARTISM.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842 and 1848.

CHARTRES, Defeat of the Normans at.

   The Norman, Rollo, investing the city of Chartres, sustained
   there, on the 20th of July, A. D. 911, the most serious
   defeat which he and his pirates ever suffered.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5._

CHARTREUSE, La Grande.

      See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

CHASIDIM, OR CHASIDEES, OR ASSIDEANS, The.

   A name, signifying the godly or pious, assumed by a party
   among the Jews, in the second century B. C., who resisted the
   Grecianizing tendencies of the time under the influence of the
   Græco-Syrian domination, and who were the nucleus of the
   Maccabean revolt. The later school of the Pharisees is
   represented by Ewald (_History of Israel, book 5, section
   2_) to have been the product of a narrowing transformation
   of the school of the Chasidim; while the Essenes, in his view,
   were a purer residue of the Chasidim "who strove after piety,
   yet would not join the Pharisees"; who abandoned "society as
   worldly and incurably corrupt," and in whom "the conscience of
   the nation, as it were, withdrew into the wilderness."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 2._

   A modern sect, borrowing the name, founded by one Israel Baal
   Schem, who first appeared in Podolia, in 1740, is said to
   embrace most of the Jews in Galicia, Hungary, Southern Russia,
   and Wallachia.

      _H. C. Adams,
      History of the Jews,
      page 333._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 5, chapter 9._

CHASUARII, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

CHÂTEAU CAMBRESIS, Treaty of (1559):

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CHÂTEAU GALLAIRD.

   This was the name given to a famous castle, built by Richard
   Cœur de Lion in Normandy, and designed to be the key to the
   defences of that important duchy. "As a monument of warlike
   skill, his 'Saucy Castle,' Château Gaillard, stands first
   among the fortresses of the Middle Ages. Richard fixed its
   site where the Seine bends suddenly at Gaillon in a great
   semicircle to the north, and where the Valley of Les Andèlys
   breaks the line of the chalk cliffs along its bank. The castle
   formed part of an intrenched camp which Richard designed to
   cover his Norman capital. … The easy reduction of Normandy
   on the fall of Chateau Gaillard at a later time [when it was
   taken by Philip Augustus, of France] proved Richard's
   foresight."


      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 2, section 9._

CHATEAU THIERRY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHATEAUVIEUX, Fête to the soldiers of.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

CHATHAM, Lord; Administration of.

     See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763, and 1765-1768.

   And the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHATILLON, Battles of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CHATILLON-SUR-SEINE,
   Congress of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

{408}

CHATTANOOGA:
   The name.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1862.
   Secured by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (August).
   Evacuation by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
   The siege.
   The battle on Lookout Mountain.
   The assault of Missionary Ridge.
   The Routing of Bragg's army.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

----------CHATTANOOGA: End----------

CHATTI, OR CATTI, The.

   "Beyond [the Mattiaci] are the Chatti, whose settlements begin
   at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and
   marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches.
   They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less
   frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has
   seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit
   limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage,
   mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and
   sagacity. … Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti
   to a campaign."

   "The settlements of the Chatti, one of the chief German
   tribes, apparently coincide with portions of Westphalia,
   Nassau, Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Dr. Latham assumes
   the Chatti of Tacitus to be the Suevi of Cæsar. The fact that
   the name Chatti does not occur in Cæsar renders this
   hypothesis by no means improbable."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      and note._

      See, also, SUEVI.

CHAUCER, and his times.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.

CHAUCI AND CHERUSCI, The.

   "The tribe of the Chauci … beginning at the Frisian
   settlements and occupying a part of the coast, stretches along
   the frontier of all the tribes which I have enumerated, till
   it reaches with a bend as far as the Chatti. This vast extent
   of country is not merely possessed but densely peopled by the
   Chauci, the noblest of the German races, a nation who would
   maintain their greatness by righteous dealing. Without
   ambition, without lawless violence, … the crowning proof of
   their valour and their strength is, that they keep up their
   superiority without harm to others. … Dwelling on one side
   of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished,
   unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This
   was more pleasant than safe, … and so the Cherusci, ever
   reputed good and just, are now called cowards and fools, while
   in the case of the victorious Chatti success has been
   identified with prudence. The downfall of the Cherusci brought
   with it also that of the Fosi, a neighbouring tribe."

   "The settlements of the Chauci … must have included almost
   the entire country between the Ems and the Weser—that is,
   Oldenburg and part of Hanover—and have taken in portions of
   Westphalia about Munster and Paderborn. The Cherusci …
   appear to have occupied Brunswick and the south part of
   Hanover. Arminius who destroyed the Roman army under Varus,
   was a Cheruscan chief. … The Fosi … must have occupied
   part of Hanover."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor Works,
      translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany, with Geographical notes._

   Bishop Stubbs conjectures that the Chauci, Cherusci, and some
   other tribes may have been afterwards comprehended under the
   general name "Saxon."

      See SAXONS.

CHAZARS, The.

      See KHAZARS.

CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

CHEBUCTO.

   The original name of the harbor chosen for the site of the
   city of Halifax.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and
      HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.

CHEIROTONIA.

   A vote by show of hands, among the ancient Greeks.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

CHEMI.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

CHEMNITZ, Battle of (1639).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

CHERBOURG.
   Destroyed by the English.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-AUGUST).

CHEROKEE WAR, The.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

CHEROKEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHEROKEES.

CHERRONESUS, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

CHERRY VALLEY, The massacre at.
      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)

CHERSON.

      See BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.

CHERSON: A. D. 988.
   Taken by the Russians.

   "A thousand years after the rest of the Greek nation was sunk
   in irremediable slavery, Cherson remained free. Such a
   phenomenon as the existence of manly feeling in one city, when
   mankind everywhere else slept contented in a state of
   political degradation, deserved attentive consideration. …
   Cherson retained its position as an independent State until
   the reign of Theophilus [Byzantine emperor A. D. 829-842], who
   compelled it to receive a governor from Constantinople; but,
   even under the Byzantine government, it continued to defend
   its municipal institutions, and, instead of slavishly
   soliciting the imperial favour, and adopting Byzantine
   manners, it boasted of its constitution and self government.
   But it gradually lost its former wealth and extensive trade,
   and when Vladimir, the sovereign of Russia, attacked it in
   988, it was betrayed into his hands by a priest, who informed
   him how to cut off the water. … Vladimir obtained the hand
   of Anne, the sister of the emperors Basil II. and Constantine
   VIII., and was baptised and married in the church of the
   Panaghia at Cherson. To soothe the vanity of the Empire, he
   pretended to retain possession of his conquest as the dowry of
   his wife. Many of the priests who converted the Russians to
   Christianity, and many of the artists who adorned the earliest
   Russian churches with paintings and mosaics, were natives of
   Cherson."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057._

CHERSONESE, The Golden.

      See CHRYSE.

CHERSONESUS.

   The Greek name for a peninsula, or "land-island," applied most
   especially to the long tongue of land between the Hellespont
   and the Gulf of Melas.

CHERUSCI, The.

      See CHAUCI.

{409}

CHESAPEAKE AND SHANNON, The fight of the.

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

CHESS, Origin of the game of.

   "If we wished to know, for instance, who has taught us the
   game of chess, the name of chess would tell us better than
   anything else that it came to the West from Persia. In spite
   of all that has been written to the contrary, chess was
   originally the game of Kings, the game of Shahs. This word
   Shah became in Old French eschac, Italian scacco, German
   Schach; while the Old French eschecs was further corrupted
   into chess. The more original form chec has likewise been
   preserved, though we little think of it when we draw a cheque,
   or when we suffer a check, or when we speak of the Chancellor
   of the Exchequer. The great object of the chess-player is to
   protect the king, and when the king is in danger, the opponent
   is obliged to say 'check,' i. e., Shah, the king. … After
   this the various meanings of check, cheque, or exchequer
   become easily intelligible, though it is quite true that if
   similar changes of meaning, which in our case we can watch by
   the light of history, had taken place in the dimness of
   prehistoric ages, it would be difficult to convince the
   sceptic that exchequer, or scaccarium, the name of the
   chess-board was afterwards used for the checkered cloth on
   which accounts were calculated by means of counters, and that
   a checkered career was a life with many cross-lines."

      _F. Max Müller,
      Biography of Words,
      chapter 4._

CHESTER, Origin of.

      See DEVA.

CHESTER, The Palatine Earldom.

      See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES;
      also WALES, PRINCE OF.

CHESTER, Battle of.

   One of the fiercest of the battles fought between the Welsh
   and the Angles, A. D. 613. The latter were the victors.

CHEVY CHASE.

      See OTTER BURN, BATTLE OF.

CHEYENNES, OR SHEYENNES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CHIAPAS: Ruins of ancient civilization in.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS; and MEXICO, ANCIENT.

CHIARI, Battle Of(1701).

      See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

CHIBCHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1812.

   Evacuation of the Fort Dearborn Post, and massacre of most of
   the retreating garrison.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

CHICAGO: A. D. 1860.
   The Republican National Convention.
   Nomination of Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CHICAGO: A. D. 1871.
   The great Fire.

   "The greatest event in the history of Chicago was the Great
   Fire, as it is termed, which broke out on the evening of Oct.
   8, 1871. Chicago was at that time [except in the business
   centre] a city of wood. For a long time prior to the evening
   referred to there had been blowing a hot wind from the
   southwest, which had dried everything to the inflammability of
   tinder, and it was upon a mass of sun and wind-dried wooden
   structures that the fire began its work. It is supposed to
   have originated from the accidental upsetting of a kerosene
   lamp in a cow barn [Mrs. O'Leary's] on De Koven Street, near
   the corner of Jefferson, on the west side of the river. This
   region was composed hugely of shanties, and the fire spread
   rapidly, very soon crossing the river to the South Side, and
   fastening on that portion of the city which contained nearly
   all the leading business houses, and which was built up very
   largely with stone and brick. But it seemed to enkindle as if
   it were tinder. Some buildings were blown up with gunpowder,
   which, in connection with the strong southwest gale, prevented
   the extension of the flames to the south. The fire swept on
   Monday steadily to the north, including everything from the
   lake to the South Branch, and then crossed to the North Side,
   and, taking in everything from the lake to the North Branch,
   it burned northward for a distance of three miles, where it
   died out at the city limits, when there was nothing more to
   burn. In the midst of this broad area of devastation, on the
   north side of Washington Square, between Clark Street and
   Dearborn Avenue, the well-known Ogden house stands amid trees
   of the ancient forest and surrounded by extensive grounds, the
   solitary relic of that section of the city before the fiery
   flood. The total area of the land burned over was 2,100 acres.
   Nearly 20,000 buildings were consumed; 100,000 people were
   rendered homeless; 200 lives were lost, and the grand total of
   values destroyed is estimated at $200,000,000. Of this vast
   sum, nearly one-half was covered by insurance, but under the
   tremendous losses many of the insurance companies were forced
   to the wall, and went into liquidation, and the victims of the
   conflagration recovered only about one-fifth of their aggregate
   losses. Among the buildings which were burned were the
   court-house, custom-house and post office, chamber of
   commerce, three railway depots, nine daily newspaper offices,
   thirty-two hotels, ten theatres and halls, eight public
   schools and some branch school buildings, forty-one churches,
   five elevators, and all the national banks. If the Great Fire
   was an event without parallel in its dimensions and the
   magnitude of its dire results, the charity which followed it
   was equally unrivalled in its extent. … All the civilized
   world appeared to instantly appreciate the calamity. Food,
   clothing, supplies of every kind, money, messages of
   affection, sympathy, etc., began pouring in at once in a
   stream that appeared endless and bottomless. In all, the
   amount contributed reached over $7,000,000. … It was
   believed by many that the fire had forever blotted out Chicago
   from the list of great American cities, but the spirit of her
   people was undaunted by calamity, and, encouraged by the
   generous sympathy and help from all quarters, they set to work
   at once to repair their almost ruined fortunes. … Rebuilding
   was at once commenced, and, within a year after the fire, more
   than $40,000,000 were expended in improvements. The city came
   up from its ruins far more palatial, splendid, strong and
   imperishable than before. In one sense the fire was a benefit.
   Its consequence was a class of structures far better, in every
   essential respect, than before the conflagration. Fire-proof
   buildings became the rule, the limits of wood were carefully
   restricted, and the value of the reconstructed portion
   immeasurably exceeded that of the city which had been
   destroyed."

      _Marquis' Handbook of Chicago,
      page 22._

{410}

   "Thousands of people on the North Side fled far out on the
   prairie, but other thousands, less fortunate, were
   hemmed in before they could reach the country, and were driven
   to the Sands, a group of beach-hillocks fronting on Lake
   Michigan. These had been covered with rescued merchandise and
   furniture. The flames fell fiercely upon the heaps of goods,
   and the miserable refugees were driven into the black waves,
   where they stood neck-deep in chilling water, scourged by
   sheets of sparks and blowing sand. A great number of horses
   had been collected here, and they too dashed into the sea,
   where scores of them were drowned. Toward evening the Mayor
   sent a fleet of tow-boats which took off the fugitives at the
   Sands. When the next day [Tuesday, October 10] dawned, the
   prairie was covered with the calcined ruins of more than
   17,000 buildings. … This was the greatest and most
   disastrous conflagration on record. The burning of Moscow, in
   1812, caused a loss amounting to £30,000,000; but the loss at
   Chicago was in excess of this amount. The Great Fire of
   London, in 1006, devastated a tract of 430 acres, and
   destroyed 13,000 buildings; but that of Chicago swept over
   1,900 acres, and burned more than 17,000 buildings."

      _M. F. Sweetser,
      Chicago ("Cities of the World," volume 1)._

   The following is the statement of area burned over, and of
   property destroyed, made by the Chicago Relief and Aid
   Society, and which is probably authoritative: "The total area
   burned over in the city, including streets, was 2,124 acres,
   or nearly three and one-third square miles. This area
   contained about 73 miles of streets, 18,000 buildings, and the
   homes of 100,000 people."

      _A. T. Andreas,
      History of Chicago,
      volume 2, page 760._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Colbert and E. Chamberlain,
      Chicago and the Great Conflagration._

CHICAGO: A. D. 1886-1887.
   The Haymarket Conspiracy.
   Crime of the Anarchists.
   Their trial and execution.

   "In February, 1886, Messrs. McCormick, large
   agricultural-machine makers of Chicago, refusing to yield to
   the dictation of their workmen, who required them to discharge
   some non-Union hands they had taken on, announced a
   'lock-out,' and prepared to resume business as soon as
   possible with a new staff. Spies, Lingg, and other German
   Anarchists saw their opportunity. They persuaded the ousted
   workmen to prevent the 'scabs,'—anglicé, 'blacklegs,'—from
   entering the works on the day of their reopening. Revolvers,
   rifles, and bombs were readily found, the latter being
   entrusted principally to the hands of professional 'Reds.' The
   most violent appeals were made to the members of Unions and
   the populace generally; but though a succession of riots were
   got up, they were easily quelled by the resolute action of the
   police, backed by the approval of the immense majority of the
   people of Chicago. Finally, a mass meeting in arms was called
   to take place on May 4th, 1886, at 7.30 p.m., in the
   Haymarket, a long and recently widened street of the town, for
   the express purpose of denouncing the police. But the
   intention of the Anarchists was not merely to denounce the
   police: this was the pretext only. The prisons were to be
   forced, the police-stations blown up, the public buildings
   attacked, and the onslaught on property and capital to be
   inaugurated by the devastation of one of the fairest cities of
   the Union. By 8 p. m. a mob of some three or four thousand
   persons had been collected, and were regaled by speeches that
   became more violent as the night wore on. At 10 p. m. the
   police appeared in force. The crowd were commanded to disperse
   peaceably. A voice shouted: 'We are peaceable.' Captain
   Schaack says this was a signal. The words were hardly uttered
   when a spark flashed through the air. It looked like the
   lighted remnant of a cigar, but hissed like a miniature
   sky-rocket.' It was a bomb, and fell amid the ranks of the
   police. A terrific explosion followed, and immediately
   afterwards the mob opened fire upon the police. The latter,
   stunned for a moment, soon recovered themselves, returned the
   fire, charged the mob, and in a couple of minutes dispersed it
   in every direction. But eight of their comrades lay dead upon
   the pavement, and scores of others were weltering in their
   blood around the spot. Such was the Chicago outrage of May
   4th, 1886."

      _The Spectator, April 19, 1890
      (reviewing Shaack's "Anarchy and Anarchists")._

   The Anarchists who were arrested and brought to trial for this
   crime were eight in number,—August Spies, Michael Schwab,
   Samuel Fielden, Albert H. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George
   Engel, Louis Lingg, and Oscar W. Neebe. The trial began July
   14, 1886. The evidence closed on the 10th of August; the
   argument of council consumed more than a week, and on the 20th
   of August the jury brought in a verdict which condemned Neebe
   to imprisonment for fifteen years, and all the other prisoners
   to death. Lingg committed suicide in prison; the sentences of
   Schwab and Fielding were commuted by the Governor to
   imprisonment for life; the remaining four were hanged on the
   11th of November, 1887.

      _Judge Gary,
      The Chicago Anarchists of 1886
      (Century Magazine, April, 1893)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. T. Schaack,
      Anarchy and Anarchists._

CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.
   The World's Columbian Exposition.

   "As a fitting mode of celebrating the four hundredth
   anniversary of the landing of Columbus on Oct. 12, 1492, it
   was proposed to have a universal exhibition in the United
   States, The idea was first taken up by citizens of New York,
   where subscriptions to the amount of $5,000,000 were obtained
   from merchants and capitalists before application was made for
   the sanction and support of the Federal Government. When the
   matter came up in Congress the claims of Chicago were
   considered superior, and a bill was passed and approved on
   April 25, 1890, entitled 'An Act to provide for celebrating
   the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by
   Christopher Columbus, by holding an international exhibition
   of arts, industries, manufactures, and the products of the
   soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of
   Illinois.' The act provided for the appointment of
   commissioners who should organize the exposition. … When the
   organization was completed and the stipulated financial
   support from the citizens and municipality of Chicago assured,
   President Harrison, on December 24, 1890, issued a proclamation
   inviting all the nations of the earth to participate in the
   World's Columbian Exposition. Since the time was too short to
   have the grounds and buildings completed for the summer of
   1892, as was originally intended, the opening of the
   exposition was announced for May, 1893. When the work was
   fairly begun it was accelerated, as many as 10,000 workmen
   being employed at one time, in order to have the buildings
   ready to be dedicated with imposing ceremonies on Oct. 12.
   1892. in commemoration of the exact date of the discovery of
   America."

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1891,
      page 837._

      SEE ALSO
      _C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham,
      Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847_

   On May 1, 1893, the Fair was opened with appropriate
   ceremonies by President Cleveland.

{411}

CHICASAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

CHICHIMECS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

CHICKAHOMINY,
   Battles on the (Gaines' Mill, 1862; Cold Harbor, 1864).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
      and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

CHICKAMAUGA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHICORA.

   The name given to the region of South Carolina by its Spanish
   discoverers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

CHILDEBERT I.
   King of the Franks, at Paris, A. D. 511-558.

   Childebert II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 575-596;

   (Burgundy), 593-596.

   Childebert III., King of the Franks
   (Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 695-711.

CHILDERIC II.,
   King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 660-673.
   Childeric III., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 742-752.

CHILDREN OF REBECCA.

      See REBECCAITES.

CHILDREN'S CRUSADE, The.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

CHILE:
   The Araucanians.

   "The land of Chili, from 30° Ssouth latitude, was and is still
   in part occupied by several tribes who speak the same
   language. They form the fourth and most southern group of the
   Andes people, and are called Araucanians. Like almost all
   American tribal names, the term Araucanian is indefinite;
   sometimes it is restricted to a single band, and sometimes so
   extended as to embrace a group of tribes. Some regard them as
   a separate family, calling them Chilians, while others, whom
   we follow, regard them as the southern members of the Andes
   group, and still others class them with the Pampas Indians.
   The name Araucanian is an improper one, introduced by the
   Spaniards, but it is so firmly fixed that it cannot be
   changed. The native names are Moluche (warriors) and Alapuche
   (natives). Originally they extended from Coquimbo to the
   Chonos Archipelago and from ocean to ocean, and even now they
   extend, though not very far, to the east of the Cordilleras.
   They are divided into four (or, if we include the Picunche,
   five) tribes, the names of which all end in 'tche' or 'che,'
   the word for man. Other minor divisions exist. The entire
   number of the Araucanians is computed at about 30,000 souls,
   but it is decreasing by sickness as well as by vice. They are
   owners of their land and have cattle in abundance, pay no
   taxes, and even their labor in the construction of highways is
   only light. They are warlike, brave, and still enjoy some of
   the blessings of the Inca civilization; only the real, western
   Araucanians in Chili have attained to a sedentary life. Long
   before the arrival of the Spaniards the government of the
   Araucanians offered a striking resemblance to the military
   aristocracy of the old world. All the rest that has been
   written of their high stage of culture has proved to be an
   empty picture of fancy. They followed agriculture, built fixed
   houses, and made at least an attempt at a form of government,
   but they still remain, as a whole, cruel, plundering savages."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 232-234._

   "The Araucanians inhabit the delightful region between the
   Andes and the sea, and between the rivers Bio-bio and
   Valdivia. They derive the appellation of Araucanians from the
   province of Arauco. …. The political division of the
   Araucanian state is regulated with much intelligence. It is
   divided from north to south into four governments. … Each
   government is divided into five provinces, and each province
   into nine counties. The state consists of three orders of
   nobility, each being subordinate to the other, and all having
   their respective vassals. They are the Toquis, the
   Apo-Ulmenes, and the Ulmenes. The Toquis, or governors, are
   four in number. They are independent of each other, but
   confederated for the public welfare. The Arch-Ulmenes govern
   the provinces under their respective Toquis. The Ulmenes
   govern the counties. The upper ranks, generally, are likewise
   comprehended under the term Ulmenes."

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Molina,
      Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,
      volume 2, book 2._

CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
   The Spanish conquest.
   The Araucanian War of Independence.

   "In the year 1450 the Peruvian Inca, Yupanqui, desirous of
   extending his dominions towards the south, stationed himself
   with a powerful army at Atacama. Thence he dispatched a force
   of 10,000 men to Chili, under the command of Chinchiruca, who,
   overcoming almost incredible obstacles, marched through a
   sandy desert as far as Copiapo, a distance of 80 leagues. The
   Copiapins flew to arms, and prepared to resist this invasion.
   But Chinchiruca, true to the policy which the Incas always
   observed, stood upon the defensive, trusting to persuasion
   rather than to force for the accomplishment of his designs.
   … While he proffered peace, he warned them of the
   consequences of resisting the 'Children of the Sun.'" After
   wavering for a time, the Copiapins submitted themselves to the
   rule of the Incas. "The adjoining province of Coquimbo was
   easily subjugated, and steadily advancing, the Peruvians, some
   six years after their first entering the country, firmly
   established themselves in the valley of Chili, at a distance
   of more than 200 leagues from the frontier of Atacama. The
   'Children of the Sun' had met thus far with little resistance,
   and, encouraged by success, they marched their victorious
   armies against the Purumancians, a warlike people living
   beyond the river Rapel." Here they were desperately resisted,
   in a battle which lasted three days, and from which both
   armies withdrew, undefeated and unvictorious. On learning this
   result, the Inca Yupanqui ordered his generals to relinquish
   all attempts at further conquest, and to "seek, by the
   introduction of wise laws, and by instructing the people in
   agriculture and the arts, to establish themselves more firmly
   in the territory already acquired. To what extent the
   Peruvians were successful in the endeavor to ingraft their
   civilization, religion, and customs upon the Chilians, it is
   at this distant day impossible to determine, since the
   earliest historians differ widely on the subject.
{412}
   Certain it is, that on the arrival of the Spaniards the Incas,
   at least nominally, ruled the country, and received an annual
   tribute of gold from the people. In the year 1535, after the
   death of the unfortunate Inca Atahuallpa, Diego Almagro, fired
   by the love of glory and the thirst for gold, yielded to the
   solicitations of Francisco Pizarro, the conqueror of Peru, and
   set out for the subjection of Chili, which, as yet, had not
   been visited by any European. His army consisted of 570
   Spaniards, well equipped, and 15,000 Peruvian auxiliaries.
   Regardless of difficulties and dangers this impetuous soldier
   selected the near route that lay along the summits of the
   Andes, in preference to the more circuitous road passing
   through the desert of Atacama. Upon the horrors of this march,
   of which so thrilling an account is given by Prescott in the
   'Conquest of Peru,' it is unnecessary for us to dwell; suffice
   it to state that, on reaching Copiapo no less than one-fourth
   of his Spanish troops, and two-thirds of his Indian
   auxiliaries, had perished from the effects of cold, fatigue
   and starvation. … Everywhere the Spaniards met with a
   friendly reception from the natives, who regarded them as a
   superior race of beings, and the after conquest of the country
   would probably have been attended with no difficulty had a
   conciliatory policy been adopted; but this naturally
   inoffensive people, aroused by acts of the most barbarous
   cruelty, soon flew to arms. Despite the opposition of the
   natives, who were now rising in every direction to oppose his
   march, Almagro kept on, overcoming every obstacle, until he
   reached the river Cachapoal, the northern boundary of the
   Purumancian territory." Here he met with so stubborn and
   effective a resistance that he abandoned his expedition and
   returned to Peru, where, soon after, he lost his life [see
   PERU: A. D. 1533-1548] in a contest with the Pizarros.
   "Pizarro, ever desirous of conquering Chili, in 1540
   dispatched Pedro Valdivia for that purpose, with some 200
   Spanish soldiers and a large body of Peruvians;" The invasion
   of Valdivia was opposed from the moment he entered the
   country; but he pushed on until he reached the river Mapoclio,
   and "encamped upon the site of the present capital of Chili.
   Valdivia, finding the location pleasant, and the surrounding
   plain fertile, here founded a city on the 24th of February,
   1541. To this first European settlement in Chili he gave the
   name of Santiago, in honor of the patron saint of Spain. He
   laid out the town in Spanish style; and as a place of refuge
   in case of attack, erected a fort upon a steep rocky hill,
   rising some 200 feet above the plain." The Mapochins soon
   attacked the infant town, drove its people to the fort and
   burned their settlement; but were finally repulsed with
   dreadful slaughter. "On the arrival of a second army from
   Peru, Valdivia, whose ambition had always been to conquer the
   southern provinces of Chili, advanced into the country of the
   Purumancians. Here history is probably defective, as we have
   no account of any battles fought with these brave people. …
   We simply learn that the Spanish leader eventually gained
   their good-will, and established with them an alliance both
   offensive and defensive. … In the following year (1546) the
   Spanish forces crossed the river Maulé, the southern boundary
   of the Purumancians, and advanced toward the Itata. While
   encamped near the latter river, they were attacked at dead of
   night by a body of Araucanians. So unexpected was the approach
   of this new enemy, that many of the horses were captured, and
   the army with difficulty escaped total destruction. After this
   terrible defeat, Valdivia finding himself unable to proceed,
   returned to Santiago." Soon afterwards he went to Peru for
   reinforcements and was absent two years; but came back, at the
   end of that time, with a large band of followers, and marched
   to the South. "Reaching the bay of Talcahuano without having
   met with any opposition, on the 5th of October, 1550, he
   founded the city of Concepcion on a site at present known as
   Penco." The Araucanians, advancing boldly upon the Spaniards
   at Concepcion, were defeated in a furious battle which cost
   the invaders many lives. Three years later, in December, 1553,
   the Araucanians had their revenge, routing the Spaniards
   utterly and pursuing them so furiously that only two of their
   whole army escaped. Valdivia was among the prisoners taken and
   was slain. Again and again, under the lead of a youthful hero,
   Lautaro, and a vigorous toqui, or chief, named Caupolican, the
   Araucanians assailed the invaders of their country with
   success; but the latter increased in numbers and gained
   ground, at last, for a time, building towns and extending
   settlements in the Araucanian territory. The indomitable
   people were not broken in spirit, however; and in 1598, by an
   universal and simultaneous rising, they expelled the Spaniards
   from almost every settlement they had made. "In 1602 … of
   the numerous Spanish forts and settlements south of the
   Bio-Bio, Nacimiento and Arauco only had not fallen. Valdivia
   and Osorno were afterward rebuilt. About the same time a fort
   was erected at Boroa. This fort was soon after abandoned.
   Valdivia, Osorno, Nacimiento, and Arauco still remain. But of
   all the 'cities of the plain' lying within the boundaries of
   the haughty Araucanians, not one ever rose from its ashes;
   their names exist only in history; and the sites where they
   once flourished are now marked by ill-defined and grass-grown
   ruins. From the period of their fall dates the independence of
   the Araucanian nation; for though a hundred years more were
   wasted in the vain attempt to reconquer the heroic people …
   the Spaniards, weary of constant war, and disheartened by the
   loss of so much blood and treasure, were finally compelled to
   sue for peace; and in 1724 a treaty was ratified,
   acknowledging their freedom, and establishing the limits of
   their territory."

      _E. H. Smith,
      The Araucanians,
      chapters 11-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 12-14._

      _J. I. Molina;
      Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,
      volume 2, books 1, 3-4._

CHILE: A. D. 1568.
   The Audiencia established.

      See AUDIENCIAS.

{413}

CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
   The achievement of independence.
   San Martin, the Liberator.

   "Chili first threw off the Spanish yoke in September, 1810 [on
   the pretext of fidelity to the Bourbon king dethroned by
   Napoleon], but the national independence was not fully
   established till April 1818. During the intermediate period,
   the dissensions of the different parties; their disputes as to
   the form of government and the law of election; with other
   distracting causes, arising out of the ambition of turbulent
   individuals, and the inexperience of the whole nation in
   political affairs; so materially retarded the union of the
   country, that the Spaniards, by sending expeditions from Peru,
   were enabled, in 1814, to regain their lost authority in
   Chili. Meanwhile the Government of Buenos Ayres, the
   independence of which had been established in 1810 [see
   ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820], naturally dreaded that
   the Spaniards would not long be confined to the western side
   of the Andes; but would speedily make a descent upon the
   provinces of the River Plate, of which Buenos Ayres is the
   capital. In order to guard against this formidable danger,
   they bravely resolved themselves to become the invaders, and
   by great exertions equipped an army of 4,000 men. The command
   of this force was given to General Don José de San Martin, a
   native of the town of Yapeyu in Paraguay; a man greatly
   beloved by all ranks, and held in such high estimation by the
   people, that to his personal exertions the formation of this
   army is chiefly due. With these troops San Martin entered
   Chili by a pass over the Andes heretofore deemed inaccessible,
   and on the 12th of February, 1817, attacked and completely
   defeated the royal army at Chacabuco. The Chilians, thus freed
   from the immediate presence of the enemy, elected General
   O'Higgins [see PERU: A. D. 1550-1816] as Director; and he, in
   1818, offered the Chilians a constitution, and nominated five
   senators to administer the affairs of the country. This
   meritorious officer, an Irishman by descent, though born in
   Chili, has ever since [1825] remained at the head of the
   government. It was originally proposed to elect General San
   Martin as Director; but this he steadily refused, proposing
   his companion in arms, O'Higgins, in his stead. The remnant of
   the Spanish army took refuge in Talcuhuana, a fortified
   sea-port near Conception, on the southern frontier of Chili.
   Vigorous measures were taken to reduce this place, but, in the
   beginning of 1818, the Viceroy of Peru, by draining that
   province of its best troops, sent off a body of 5,000 men
   under General Osorio, who succeeded in joining the Spaniards
   shut up in Talcuhuana. Thus reinforced, the Royal army,
   amounting in all to 8,000, drove back the Chilians, marched on
   the capital, and gained other considerable advantages;
   particularly in a night attack at Talca, on the 19th of March
   1818, where the Royalists almost entirely dispersed the
   Patriot forces. San Martin, however, who, after the battle of
   Chacabuco, had been named Commander-in-chief of the united
   armies of Chili and Buenos Ayres," rallied his army and
   equipped it anew so quickly that, "on the 5th of April, only
   17 days after his defeat, he engaged, and, after an obstinate
   and sanguinary conflict, completely routed the Spanish army on
   the plains of Maypo. From that day Chili may date her complete
   independence; for although a small portion of the Spanish
   troops endeavoured to make a stand at Conception, they were
   soon driven out and the country left in the free possession of
   the Patriots. Having now time to breathe, the Chilian
   Government, aided by that of Buenos Ayres, determined to
   attack the Royalists in their turn, by sending an armament
   against Peru [see PERU; A. D. 1820-1826]—a great and bold
   measure, originating with San Martin."

      _Captain B. Hall,
      Extracts from a Journal,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miller,
      Memoirs of General Miller,
      chapters 4-7 (volume 1)._

      _T. Sutcliffe,
      Sixteen Years in Chili and Peru,
      chapters 2-4._

      _General B. Mitre,
      The Emancipation of South America:
      History of San Martin._

CHILE: A. D. 1820-1826.
   Operations in Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
   A successful oligarchy and its constitution.
   The war with Peru and Bolivia.

   "After the perfection of its national independence, the
   Chilean government soon passed into the permanent control of
   civilians, 'while the other governments of the west coast
   remained prizes for military chieftains.' Its present
   constitution was framed in 1833, and though it is only half a
   century old 'it is the oldest written national constitution in
   force in all the world except our own, unless the Magna Charta
   of England be included in the category.' The political history
   of Chile during the fifty years of its life has been that of a
   well ordered commonwealth, but one of a most unusual and
   interesting sort. Its government has never been forcibly
   overthrown, and only one serious attempt at revolution has
   been made. Chile is in name and in an important sense a
   republic, and yet its government is an oligarchy. Suffrage is
   restricted to those male citizens who are registered, who are
   twenty-five years old if unmarried and twenty-one if married,
   and who can read and write; and there is also a stringent
   property qualification. The consequence is that the privilege
   of voting is confined to an aristocracy: in 1876, the total
   number of ballots thrown for president was only 46,114 in a
   population of about two and a quarter millions. The president
   of Chile has immense powers of nomination and appointment, and
   when he is a man of vigorous will he tyrannically sways public
   policy, and can almost always dictate the name of his
   successor. The government has thus become practically vested
   in a comparatively small number of leading Chilean families.
   There is no such thing as 'public opinion' in the sense in
   which we use the phrase, and the newspapers, though ably
   conducted, do not attempt, as they do not desire, to change
   the existing order of things. 'History,' says Mr. Browne,
   'does not furnish an example of a more powerful political
   "machine" under the title of republic; nor, I am bound to say,
   one which has been more ably directed so far as concerns the
   aggrandizement of the country, or more honestly administered
   so far as concerns pecuniary corruption.' The population of
   Chile doubled between 1843 and 1875; the quantity of land
   brought under tillage was quadrupled; … more than 1,000
   miles of railroad were built; a foreign export trade of
   $31,695,039 was reported in 1878; and two powerful iron-clads,
   which were destined to playa most important part in Chilean
   affairs, were built in England. Meanwhile, the constitution
   was officially interpreted so as to guarantee religious
   toleration, and the political power of the Roman Catholic
   priesthood diminished. Almost everything good, except home
   manufactures and popular education, flourished. The
   development of the nation in these years was on a wonderful
   scale for a South American state, and the contrast between
   Chile and Peru was peculiarly striking. … Early in 1879
   began the great series of events which were to make the
   fortune of Chile. We use the word 'great,' in its low,
   superficial sense, and without the attribution of any moral
   significance to the adjective.
{414}
   The aggressor in the war between Chile and Peru was inspired
   by the most purely selfish motives, and it remains to be seen
   whether the just gods will not win in the long run, even
   though the game of their antagonists be played with heavily
   plated iron-clads. … At the date last mentioned Chile was
   suffering, like many other nations, from a general depression
   in business pursuits. Its people were in no serious trouble,
   but as a government it was in a bad way. … The means to keep
   up a sinking fund for the foreign debt had failed, and the
   Chilean five per cents were quoted in London at sixty-four. 'A
   political cloud also was darkening again in the north, in the
   renewal of something like a confederation between Peru and
   Bolivia.' In this state of things the governing oligarchy of
   Chile decided, rather suddenly, Mr. Browne thinks, upon a
   scheme which was sure to result either in splendid prosperity
   or absolute ruin, and which contemplated nothing less than a
   war of conquest against Peru and Bolivia, with a view to
   seizing the most valuable territory of the former country.
   There is a certain strip of land bordering upon the Pacific
   and about 400 miles long, of which the northern three quarters
   belonged to Peru and Bolivia, the remaining one quarter to
   Chile. Upon this land a heavy rain never falls, and often
   years pass in which the soil does not feel a shower. … Its
   money value is immense. 'From this region the world derives
   almost its whole supply of nitrates—chiefly saltpetre—and
   of iodine;' its mountains, also, are rich in metals, and great
   deposits of guano are found in the highlands bordering the
   sea. The nitrate-bearing country is a plain, from fifty to
   eighty miles wide, the nitrate lying in layers just below a
   thin sheet of impacted stones, gravel, and sand. The export of
   saltpetre from this region was valued in 1882 at nearly
   $30,000,000, and the worth of the Peruvian section, which is
   much the largest and most productive, is estimated, for
   government purposes, at a capital of $600,000,000. Chile was,
   naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her
   own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus to
   rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to
   war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first
   attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta,
   with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate
   works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good
   pretext; and when Peru attempted intervention her envoy was
   confronted with Chile's knowledge of a secret treaty between
   Peru and Bolivia, and war was formally declared by Chile upon
   Peru, April 5, 1879. This war lasted, with some breathing
   spaces, for almost exactly five years. At the outset the two
   belligerent powers—Bolivia being soon practically out of the
   contest—seemed to be about equal in ships, soldiers, and
   resources; but the supremacy which Chile soon gained upon the
   seas substantially determined the war in her favor. Each
   nation owned two powerful iron-clads, and six months were
   employed in settling the question of naval superiority. … On
   the 21st of May, 1879, the Peruvian fleet attacked and almost
   destroyed the Chilean wooden frigates which were blockading
   Iquique; but in chasing a Chilean corvette the larger Peruvian
   iron-clad—the Independencia—ran too near the shore, and was
   fatally wrecked. 'So Peru lost one of her knights. The game
   she played with the other—the Huascar—was admirable, but a
   losing one;' and on the 8th of October of the same year the
   Huascar was attacked by the Chilean fleet, which included two
   iron-clads, and was finally captured' after a desperate
   resistance.'… From this moment the Peruvian coast was at
   Chile's mercy: the Chilean arms prevailed in every pitched
   battle, at San Francisco [November 16, 1879], at Tacna [May
   26, 1880], at Arica [June 7, 1880]; and finally, on the 17th
   of January, 1881, after a series of actions which resembled in
   some of their details the engagements that preceded our
   capture of the city of Mexico [ending in what is known as the
   Battle of Miraflores], the victorious army of Chile took
   possession of Lima, the capital of Peru. … The results of
   the war have thus far exceeded the wildest hopes of Chile. She
   has taken absolute possession of the whole nitrate region, has
   cut Bolivia off from the sea, and achieved the permanent
   dissolution of the Peru-Bolivian confederation. As a
   consequence, her foreign trade has doubled, the revenue of her
   government has been trebled, and the public debt greatly
   reduced. The Chilean bonds, which were sold at 64 in London in
   January, 1879, and fell to 60 in March of that year, at the
   announcement of the war, were quoted at 95 in January, 1884."

      _The Growing Power of the Republic of Chile
      (Atlantic Monthly, July, 1884)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Birkedal,
      The late War in South America
      (Overland Monthly, January, February, and March, 1884)._

      _C. R. Markham,
      The War between Peru and Chile._

      _R. N. Boyd,
      Chile,
      chapters 16-17._

      _Message of the President of the United States,
      transmitting Papers relating to the War in South America,
      January 26, 1882._

      _T. W. Knox,
      Decisive Battles since Waterloo;
      chapter 23._

      See, also, PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
   The presidency and dictatorship of Balmaceda.
   His conflict with the Congress.
   Civil war.

   "Save in the one struggle in which the parties resorted to
   arms, the political development of Chili was free from civil
   disturbances, and the ruling class was distinguished among the
   Spanish-American nations not only for wealth and education,
   but for its talent for government and love of constitutional
   liberty. The republic was called 'the England of South
   America,' and it was a common boast that in Chili a
   pronunciamiento or a revolution was impossible. The spirit of
   modern Liberalism became more prevalent, … As the Liberal
   party became all-powerful it split into factions, divided by
   questions of principle and by struggles for leadership and
   office. … The patronage of the Chilian President is
   enormous, embracing not only the general civil service, but
   local officials, except in the municipalities, and all
   appointments in the army and navy and in the telegraph and
   railroad services and the giving out of contracts. The
   President has always been able to select his successor, and
   has exercised this power, usually in harmony with the wishes
   of influential statesmen, sometimes calling a conference of
   party chiefs to decide on a candidate. In the course of time
   the more advanced wing of the Liberals grew more numerous than
   the Moderates. The most radical section had its nucleus in a
   Reform Club in Santiago, composed of young university men, of
   whom Balmaceda was the finest orator. Entering Congress in
   1868, he took a leading part in debates. …
{415}
   In 1885 he was the most popular man in the country; but his
   claim to the presidential succession was contested by various
   other aspirants—older politicians and leaders of factions
   striving for supremacy in Congress. He was elected by an
   overwhelming majority, and as President enjoyed an unexampled
   degree of popularity. For two or three years the politicians
   who had been his party associates worked in harmony with his
   ideas. … At the flood of the democratic tide he was the most
   popular man in South America. But when the old territorial
   families saw the seats in Congress and the posts in the civil
   service that had been their prerogative filled by new men, and
   fortunes made by upstarts where all chances had been at their
   disposal, then a reaction set in, corruption was scented, and
   Moderate Liberals, joining hands with the Nationalists and the
   reviving Conservative party, formed an opposition of
   respectable strength. In the earlier part of his
   administration Balmaceda had the co-operation of the
   Nationalists, who were represented in the Cabinet. In the last
   two years of his term, when the time drew near for selecting
   his successor, defection and revolt and the rivalries of
   aspirants for the succession threw the party into disorder and
   angered its hitherto unquestioned leader. … In January,
   1890, the Opposition were strong enough to place their
   candidate in the chair when the House of Representatives
   organized. The ministry resigned, and a conflict between the
   Executive and legislative branches of the Government was
   openly begun when the President appointed a Cabinet of his own
   selection. … This ministry had to face an overwhelming
   majority against the President, which treated him as a
   dictator and began to pass hostile laws and resolutions that
   were vetoed, and refused to consider the measures that he
   recommended. The ministers were cited before the Chambers and
   questioned about the manner of their appointment. They either
   declined to answer, or answered in a way that increased the
   animosity of Congress, which finally passed a vote of censure,
   in obedience to which, as was usual, the Cabinet resigned.
   Then Balmaceda appointed a ministry in open defiance of
   Congress, with Sanfuentes at its head, the man who was already
   spoken of as his selected candidate for the presidency. He
   prepared for the struggle that he invited by removing the
   chiefs of the administration of the departments and replacing
   them with men devoted to himself and his policy, and making
   changes in the police, the militia, and, to some extent, in
   the army and navy commands. The press denounced him as a
   dictator, and indignation meetings were held in every town.
   Balmaceda and his supporters pretended to be not only the
   champions of the people against the aristocracy, but of the
   principle of Chili for the Chilians."

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclop., 1891,
      pages 123-124._

   "The conflict between President Balmaceda and Congress ripened
   into revolution. On January 1, 1891, the Opposition members of
   the Senate and House of Deputies met, and signed an Act
   declaring that the President was unworthy of his post, and
   that he was no longer head of the State nor President of the
   Republic, as he had violated the Constitution. On January 7
   the navy declared in favour of the Legislature, and against
   Balmaceda. The President denounced the navy as traitors,
   abolished all the laws of the country, declared himself
   Dictator, and proclaimed martial law. It was a reign of
   terror. The Opposition recruited an army in the Island of
   Santa Maria under General Urrutia and Commander Canto. On
   February 14 a severe fight took place with the Government
   troops in Iquique, and the Congressional army took possession
   of Pisagua. In April, President Balmaceda … delivered a long
   message, denouncing the navy. … The contest continued, and
   April 7, Arica, in the province of Tarapaca, was taken by the
   revolutionists. Some naval fights occurred later, and the
   iron-clad Blanco Encalada was blown up by the Dictator's
   torpedo cruisers. Finally, on August 21, General Canto landed
   at Concon, ten miles north of Valparaiso. Balmaceda's forces
   attacked immediately and were routed, losing 3,500 killed and
   wounded. The Congress army lost 600. On the 28th a decisive
   battle was fought at Placilla, near Valparaiso. The Dictator
   had 12,000 troops, and the opposing army 10,000. Balmaceda's
   forces were completely routed after five hours' hard fighting,
   with a loss of 1,500 men. Santiago formally surrendered, and
   the triumph of the Congress party was complete. A Junta,
   headed by Señor Jorge Montt, took charge of affairs at
   Valparaiso August 30. Balmaceda, who had taken refuge at the
   Argentine Legation in Santiago, was not able to make his
   escape, and to avoid capture, trial, and punishment, committed
   suicide, September 20, by shooting himself. On the 19th
   November Admiral Jorge Montt was chosen by the Electoral
   College, at Santiago, President of Chili, and on December 26
   he was installed with great ceremony and general rejoicings."

      _Annual Register, 1891,
      page 420._

CHILIARCHS.

   Captains of thousands, in the army of the Vandals.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2._

CHILLIANWALLAH, Battle of (1849).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

CHILPERIC I.

   King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 561-584.

   Chilperic II., King of the Franks, A. D. 715-720.

CHILTERN HUNDREDS,
   Applying for the Stewardship of the.

   A seat in the British House of Commons "cannot be resigned,
   nor can a man who has once formally taken his seat for one
   constituency throw it up and contest another. Either a
   disqualification must be incurred, or the House must declare
   the seat vacant." The necessary disqualification can be
   incurred by accepting an office of profit under the
   Crown,—within certain official categories. "Certain old
   offices of nominal value in the gift of the Treasury are now
   granted, as of course, to members who wish to resign their
   seats in order to be quit of Parliamentary duties or to
   contest another constituency. These offices are the
   Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds [Crown property in
   Buckinghamshire], of the manors of East Hendred, Northstead,
   or Hempholme, and the escheatorship of Munster. The office is
   resigned as soon as it has operated to vacate the seat and
   sever the tie between the member and his constituents."

      _Sir W. R. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Const.,
      volume 1, page 84._

CHIMAKUAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.

CHIMARIKAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.


{416}

CHINA:
   The names of the Country.

   "That spacious seat of ancient civilization which we call
   China has loomed always so large to western eyes, … that, at
   eras far apart, we find it to have been distinguished by
   different appellations according as it was regarded as the
   terminus of a southern sea-route coasting the great peninsulas
   and islands of Asia, or as that of a northern land route
   traversing the longitude of that continent. In the former
   aspect the name applied has nearly always been some form of
   the name Sin, Chin, Sinæ, China. In the latter point of view
   the region in question was known to the ancients as the land
   of the Seres; the middle ages as the Empire of Cathay. The
   name of China has been supposed, like many another word and
   name connected with trade and geography of the far east, to
   have come to us through the Malays, and to have been applied
   by them to the great eastern monarchy from the style of the
   dynasty of Thsin, which a little more than two centuries
   before our era enjoyed a brief but very vigorous existence.
   … There are reasons however for believing that the name of
   China must have been bestowed at a much earlier date, for it
   occurs in the laws of Manu, which assert the Chinas to have
   been degenerate Kshatryas, and in the Mahabharat, compositions
   many centuries older than the imperial dynasty of Thsin. …
   This name may have yet possibly been connected with the Thsin,
   or some monarchy of like dynastic title; for that dynasty had
   reigned locally in Shensi from the 9th century before our era;
   and when, at a still earlier date, the empire was partitioned
   into many small kingdoms, we find among them the dynasties of
   the Tcin and the Ching. … Some at least of the circumstances
   which have been collected … render it the less improbable that
   the Sinim of the prophet Isaiah … should be truly
   interpreted as indicating the Chinese. The name of China in
   this form was late in reaching the Greeks and Romans, and to
   them it probably came through people of Arabian speech, as the
   Arabs, being without the sound of 'ch,' made the China of the
   Hindus and Malays into Sin, and perhaps sometimes into Thin.
   Hence the Thin of the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean
   Sea, who appears to be the first extant author to employ the
   name in this form; hence also the Sinæ and Thinæ of Ptolemy.
   … If we now turn to the Seres we find this name mentioned
   by classic authors much more frequently and at an earlier date
   by at least a century. The name is familiar enough to the
   Latin poets of the Augustan age, but always in a vague way.
   … The name of Seres is probably from its earliest use in the
   west identified with the name of the silkworm and its produce,
   and this association continued until the name ceased entirely
   to be used as a geographical expression. … It was in the
   days of the Mongols … that China first became really known
   to Europe, and that by a name which, though especially applied
   to the northern provinces, also came to bear a more general
   application, Cathay. This name, Khitai, is that by which China
   is styled to this day by all, or nearly all, the nations which
   know it from an inland point of view, including the Russians,
   the Persians, and the nations of Turkestan; and yet it
   originally belonged to a people who were not Chinese at all.
   The Khitans were a people of Manchu race, who inhabited for
   centuries a country to the north-east of China." During a
   period between the 10th and 12th centuries, the Khitans
   acquired supremacy over their neighbours and established an
   empire which embraced Northern China and the adjoining regions
   of Tartary. "It must have been during this period, ending with
   the overthrow of the dynasty [called the Leao or Iron Dynasty]
   in 1123, and whilst this northern monarchy was the face which
   the Celestial Empire turned to Inner Asia, that the name of
   Khitan, Khitat, or Khitaï, became indissolubly associated with
   China."

      _H. Yule,
      Cathay and the Way Thither: Preliminary Essay._

CHINA:
   The Origin of the People and their early History.

   "The origin of the Chinese race is shrouded in some obscurity.
   The first records we have of them represent them as a band of
   immigrants settling in the north-eastern provinces of the
   modern empire of China, and fight their way amongst the
   aborigines, much as the Jews of old forced their way into
   Canaan against the various tribes which they found in
   possession of the land. It is probable that though they all
   entered China by the same route, they separated into bands
   almost on the threshold of the empire, one body, those who
   have left us the records of their history in the ancient
   Chinese books, apparently followed the course of the Yellow
   River, and, turning south-ward with it from its northernmost
   bend, settled themselves in the fertile districts of the
   modern provinces of Shansi and Honan. But as we find also that
   at about the same period a large settlement was made as far
   south as Annam, of which there is no mention in the books of
   the northern Chinese, we must assume that another body struck
   directly southward through the southern provinces of China to
   that country. The question then arises, where did these people
   come from? and the answer which recent research [see BABYLONIA
   PRIMITIVE] gives to this question is, from the south of the
   Caspian Sea. … In all probability, the outbreak in Susiana
   of, possibly, some political disturbance, in about the 24th or
   23rd century B. C., drove the Chinese from the land of their
   adoption, and that they wandered eastward until they finally
   settled in China and the countries south of it. … It would
   appear also that the Chinese came into China possessed of the
   resources of Western Asian culture. They brought with them a
   knowledge of writing and astronomy, as well as of the arts
   which primarily minister to the wants and comfort of mankind.
   The invention of these civilising influences is traditionally
   attributed to the Emperor Hwang-te, who is said to have
   reigned from B. C. 2697-2597. But the name of this sovereign
   leads us to suppose that he never sat on the throne in China.
   One of his names, we are told, was Nai, anciently Nak, and in
   the Chinese paleographical collection he is described by a
   character composed of a group of phonetics which read
   Nak-kon-ti. The resemblance between this name and that of
   Nak-hunte, who, according to the Susian texts, was the chief
   of the gods, is sufficiently striking, and many of the
   attributes belonging to him are such as to place him on an
   equality with the Susian deity.
{417}
   In exact accordance also with the system of Babylonian
   chronology he established a cycle of twelve years, and fixed
   the length of the year at 360 days composed of twelve months,
   with an intercalary month to balance the surplus time. He
   further, we are told, built a Ling tai, or observatory,
   reminding us of the Babylonian Zigguratu, or house of
   observation, 'from which to watch the movements of the
   heavenly bodies.' The primitive Chinese, like the Babylonians,
   recognised five planets besides the sun and moon, and, with
   one exception, knew them by the same names. … The various
   phases of these planets were carefully watched, and portents
   were derived from every real and imaginary change in their
   relative positions and colours. A comparison between the
   astrological tablets translated by Professor Sayce and the
   astrological chapter (27th) in the She ke, the earliest of the
   Dynastic Histories, shows a remarkable parallelism, not only
   in the general style of the forecasts, but in particular
   portents which are so contrary to Chinese prejudices, as a
   nation, and the train of thought of the people that they would
   be at once put down as of foreign origin, even if they were
   not found in the Babylonian records. … In the reign of Chwan
   Hu (2513-2435 B. C.), we find according to the Chinese
   records, that the year, as among the Chaldeans, began with the
   third month of the solar year, and a comparison between the
   ancient names of the months given in the Urh ya, the oldest
   Chinese dictionary, with the Accadian equivalents, shows, in
   some instances, an exact identity. … These parallelisms,
   together with a host of others which might be produced, all
   point to the existence of an early relationship between
   Chinese and Mesopotamian culture; and, armed with the
   advantages thus possessed, the Chinese entered into the empire
   over which they were ultimately to overspread themselves. But
   they came among tribes who, though somewhat inferior to them
   in general civilisation, were by no means destitute of
   culture. … Among such people, and others of a lower
   civilisation, such as the Jungs of the west and the Teks, the
   ancestors of the Tekke Turcomans, in the north, the Chinese
   succeeded in establishing themselves. The Emperor Yaou
   (2356-2255 B. C.) divided his kingdom into twelve portions,
   presided over by as many Pastors, in exact imitation of the
   duodenary feudal system of Susa with their twelve Pastor
   Princes. To Yaou succeeded Shun, who carried on the work of
   his predecessor of consolidating the Chinese power with energy
   and success. In his reign the first mention is made of
   religious worship. … In Shun's reign occurred the great
   flood which inundated most of the provinces of the existing
   empire. The waters, we are told, rose to so great a height,
   that the people had to betake themselves to the mountains to
   escape death. The disaster arose, as many similar disasters,
   though of a less magnitude, have since arisen, in consequence
   of the Yellow River bursting its bounds, and the 'Great Yu'
   was appointed to lead the waters back to their channel. With
   unremitting energy he set about his task, and in nine years
   succeeded in bringing the river under control. … As a reward
   for the services he had rendered to the empire, he was
   invested with the principality of Hea, and after having
   occupied the throne conjointly with Shun for some years, he
   succeeded that sovereign on his death, in 2208 B. C. With Yu
   began the dynasty of Hea, which gave place, in 1766 B. C., to
   the Shang Dynasty. The last sovereign of the Hea line, Kieh
   kwei, is said to have been a monster of iniquity, and to have
   suffered the just punishment for his crimes at the hands of
   T'ang, the prince of the State of Shang, who took his throne
   from him. In like manner, 640 years later, Woo Wang, the
   prince of Chow, overthrew Chow Sin, the last of the Shang
   Dynasty, and established himself as the chief of the sovereign
   state of the empire. By empire it must not be supposed that
   the empire, as it exists at present, is meant. The China of
   the Chow Dynasty lay between the 33rd and 38th parallels of
   latitude, and the 106th and 119th of longitude only, and
   extended over no more than portions of the provinces of Pih
   chih-li, Shanse, Shense, Honan, Keang-se, and Shan-tung. This
   territory was re-arranged by Woo Wang into the nine
   principalities established by Yu. … Woo is held up in
   Chinese history as one of the model monarchs of antiquity. …
   Under the next ruler, K'ang (B. C. 1078-1053), the empire was
   consolidated, and the feudal princes one and all acknowledged
   their allegiance to the ruling house of Chow. … From all
   accounts there speedily occurred a marked degeneracy in the
   characters of the Chow kings. … Already a spirit of
   lawlessness was spreading far and wide among the princes and
   nobles, and wars and rumours of wars were creating misery and
   unrest throughout the country. … The hand of every man was
   against his neighbour, and a constant state of internecine war
   succeeded the peace and prosperity which had existed under the
   rule of Woo-wang. … As time went on and the disorder
   increased, supernatural signs added their testimony to the
   impending crisis. The brazen vessels upon which Yu had
   engraved the nine divisions of the empire were observed to
   shake and totter as though foreshadowing the approaching
   change in the political position. Meanwhile Ts'in on the
   northwest, Ts'oo on the south, and Tsin on the north, having
   vanquished all the other states, engaged in the final struggle
   for the mastery over the confederate principalities. The
   ultimate victory rested with the state of Ts'in, and in 255 B.
   C., Chaou-seang Wang became the acknowledged ruler over the
   'black-haired' people. Only four years were given him to reign
   supreme, and at the end of that time he was succeeded by his
   son, Heaou-wan Wang, who died almost immediately on ascending
   the throne. To him succeeded Chwang-seang Wang, who was
   followed in 246 B. C. by Che Hwang-te, the first Emperor of
   China. The abolition of feudalism, which was the first act of
   Che Hwang-to raised much discontent among those to whom the
   feudal system had brought power and emoluments, and the
   countenance which had been given to the system by Confucius
   and Mencius made it desirable—so thought the emperor—to
   demolish once for all their testimony in favour of that
   condition of affairs, which he had decreed should be among the
   things of the past. With this object he ordered that the whole
   existing literature, with the exception of books on medicine,
   agriculture, and divination should be burned. The decree was
   obeyed as faithfully as was possible in the case of so
   sweeping an ordinance, and for many years a night of ignorance
   rested on the country. The construction of one gigantic
   work—the Great Wall of China—has made the name of this
   monarch as famous as the destruction of the books has made it
   infamous.
{418}
   Finding the Heung-nu Tartars were making dangerous inroads
   into the empire, he determined with characteristic
   thoroughness to build a huge barrier which should protect the
   northern frontier of the empire through all time. In 214 B. C.
   the work was begun under his personal supervision, and though
   every endeavor was made to hasten its completion he died (209)
   leaving it unfinished. His death was the signal for an
   outbreak among the dispossessed feudal princes, who, however,
   after some years of disorder, were again reduced to the rank
   of citizens by a successful leader, who adopted the title of
   Kaou-te, and named his dynasty that of Han (206). From that
   day to this, with occasional interregnums, the empire has been
   ruled on the lines laid down by Che Hwang-te. Dynasty has
   succeeded dynasty, but the political tradition has remained
   unchanged, and though Mongols and Manchoos have at different
   times wrested the throne from its legitimate heirs, they have
   been engulfed in the homogeneous mass inhabiting the empire,
   and instead of impressing their seal on the country have
   become but the reflection of the vanquished. The dynasties
   from the beginning of the earlier Han, founded, as stated
   above, by Kaou-te, are as follows:

   The earlier Han Dynasty B. C. 206-A. D. 25;
   the late Han A. D. 25-220;
   the Wei 220-280;
   the western Tsin 265-317;
   the eastern Tsin 317-420;
   the Sung 420-479;
   the Ts'e 479-502;
   the Leang 502-557;
   the Ch'in 557-589.
   Simultaneously with these—
   the northern Wei A. D. 386-534;
   the western Wei 535-557;
   the eastern Wei 534-550;
   the northern Ts'e 550-577;
   the northern Chow 557-589.
   The Suy 589-618;
   the T'ang 618-907;
   the later Leang 907-923;
   the later T'ang 923-936;
   the later Tsin 936-947;
   the later Han 947-951;
   the later Chow 951-960,
   the Sung 960-1127;
   the southern Sung 1127-1280;
   the Yuen 1280-1368;
   the Ming 1368-1614;
   the Ts'ing 1644.
   Simultaneously with some of these—
   the Leaou 907-1125;
   the western Leaou 1125-1168;
   the Kin 1115-1280.

      _R. K. Douglas,
      China,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _D.C. Boulger,
      History of China,
      volumes 1-2._

CHINA:
   The Religions of the People.
   Confucianism.
   Taouism.
   Buddhism.

   "The Chinese describe themselves as possessing three
   religions, or more accurately, three sects, namely Joo keaou,
   the sect of Scholars; Fuh keaou, the sect of Buddha; and Taou
   keaou, the sect of Taou. Both as regards age and origin, the
   sect of Scholars, or, as it is generally called, Confucianism,
   represents pre-eminently the religion of China. It has its root
   in the worship of Shang-te, a deity which is associated with
   the earliest traditions of the Chinese race. Hwang-te (2697 B.
   C.) erected a temple to his honour, and succeeding emperors
   worshipped before his shrine. … During the troublous times
   which followed after the reign of the few first sovereigns of
   the Chow Dynasty, the belief in a personal deity grew
   indistinct and dim, until, when Confucius [born B. C. 551]
   began his career, there appeared nothing strange in his
   atheistic doctrines. He never in any way denied the existence
   of Shang-te, but he ignored him. His concern was with man as a
   member of society, and the object of his teaching was to lead
   him into those paths of rectitude which might best contribute
   to his own happiness, and to the well-being of that community
   of which he formed part. Man, he held, was born good, and was
   endowed with qualities which, when cultivated and improved by
   watchfulness and self-restraint, might enable him to acquire
   godlike wisdom and to become 'the equal of Heaven.' He divided
   mankind into four classes, viz., those who are born with the
   possession of knowledge; those who learn, and so readily get
   possession of knowledge; those who are dull and stupid, and
   yet succeed in learning; and, lastly, those who are dull and
   stupid, and yet do not learn. To all these, except those of
   the last class, the path to the climax reached by the 'Sage'
   is open. Man has only to watch, listen to, understand, and
   obey the moral sense implanted in him by Heaven, and the
   highest perfection is within his reach. … In this system
   there is no place for a personal God. The impersonal Heaven,
   according to Confucius, implants a pure nature in every being
   at his birth, but, having done this, there is no further
   supernatural interference with the thoughts and deeds of men.
   It is in the power of each one to perfect his nature, and
   there is no divine influence to restrain those who take the
   downward course. Man has his destiny in his own hands, to make
   or to mar. Neither had Confucius any inducement to offer to
   encourage men in the practice of virtue, except virtue's self.
   He was a matter-of-fact, unimaginative man, who was quite
   content to occupy himself with the study of his fellow-men,
   and was disinclined to grope into the future or to peer
   upwards. No wonder that his system, as he enunciated it,
   proved a failure. Eagerly he sought in the execution of his
   official duties to effect the regeneration of the empire, but
   beyond the circle of his personal disciples he found few
   followers, and as soon as princes and statesmen had satisfied
   their curiosity about him they turned their backs on his
   precepts and would [have] none of his reproofs. Succeeding
   ages, recognising the loftiness of his aims, eliminated all
   that was impracticable and unreal in his system, and held fast
   to that part of it that was true and good. They were content
   to accept the logic of events, and to throw overboard the
   ideal 'sage,' and to ignore the supposed potency of his
   influence; but they clung to the doctrines of filial piety,
   brotherly love, and virtuous living. It was admiration for the
   emphasis which he laid on these and other virtues which has
   drawn so many millions of men unto him; which has made his
   tomb at Keo-foo heen to be the Mecca of Confucianism, and has
   adorned every city of the empire with temples built in his
   honour. … Concurrently with the lapse of pure Confucianism,
   and the adoption of those principles which find their earliest
   expression in the pre-Confucian classics of China, there is
   observable a return to the worship of Shang-te. The most
   magnificent temple in the empire is the Temple of Heaven at
   Peking, where the highest object of Chinese worship is adored
   with the purest rites. … What is popularly known in Europe
   as Confucianism is, therefore, Confucianism with the
   distinctive opinions of Confucius omitted. … But this
   worship of Shang-te is confined only to the emperor. The
   people have no lot or heritage in the sacred acts of worship
   at the Altar of Heaven. … Side by side with the revival of
   the Joo keaou, under the influence of Confucius, grew up a
   system of a totally different nature, and which, when divested
   of its esoteric doctrines, and reduced by the
   practically-minded Chinamen to a code of morals, was destined
   in future ages to become affiliated with the teachings of the Sage.
{419}
   This was Taouism, which was founded by Laou-tsze, who was a
   contemporary of Confucius. An air of mystery hangs over the
   history of Laou-tsze. Of his parentage we know nothing, and
   the historians, in their anxiety to conceal their ignorance of
   his earlier years, shelter themselves behind the legend that
   he was born an old man. … The primary meaning of Taou is
   'The way,' 'The path,' but in Laou-tsze's philosophy it was
   more than the way, it was the way-goer as well. It was an
   eternal road; along it all beings and things walked; it was
   everything and nothing, and the cause and effect of all. All
   things originated from Taou, conformed to Taou, and to Taou at
   last returned. … 'If, then, we had to express the meaning of
   Taou, we should describe it as the Absolute; the totality of
   Being and Things; the phenomenal world and its order; and the
   ethical nature of the good man, 'and the principle of his
   action.' It was absorption into this 'Mother of all things'
   that Laou-tsze aimed at. And this end was to be attained to by
   self-emptiness, and by giving free scope to the uncontaminated
   nature which, like Confucius, he taught was given by Heaven to
   all men. … But these subtleties, like the more abstruse
   speculations of Confucius, were suited only to the taste of
   the schools. To the common people they were foolishness, and,
   before long, the philosophical doctrine of Laou-tsze of the
   identity of existence and non-existence, assumed in their eyes
   a warrant for the old Epicurean motto, 'Let us eat and drink,
   for to-morrow we die.' The pleasures of sense were substituted
   for the delights of virtue, and the next step was to desire
   prolongation of the time when those pleasures could be
   enjoyed. Legend said that Laou-tsze had secured to himself
   immunity from death by drinking the elixir of immortality, and
   to enjoy the same 'privilege became the all-absorbing object
   of his followers. The demand for elixirs and charms produced a
   supply, and Taouism quickly degenerated into a system of
   magic. … The teachings of Laou-tsze having familiarised the
   Chinese mind with philosophical doctrines, which, whatever
   were their direct source, bore a marked resemblance to the
   musings of Indian sages, served to prepare the way for the
   introduction of Buddhism. The exact date at which the Chinese
   first became acquainted with the doctrines of Buddha was,
   according to an author quoted in K'ang-he's Imperial
   Encyclopædia, the thirtieth year of the reign of She Hwang-te,
   i. e., B. C. 216. The story this writer tells of the
   difficulties which the first missionaries encountered is
   curious, and singularly suggestive of the narrative of St.
   Peter's imprisonment."

      _R. K. Douglas,
      China,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. K. Douglas,
      Confucianism and Taouism._

   "Buddhism … penetrated to China along the fixed route from
   India to that country, round the north-west corner of the
   Himalayas and across Eastern Turkestan. Already in the 2nd
   year B. C., an embassy, perhaps sent by Huvishka [who reigned
   in Kabul and Kashmere] took Buddhist books to the then Emperor
   of China, A-ili; and the Emperor Ming-ti, 62 A. D., guided by
   a dream, is said to have sent to Tartary and Central India and
   brought Buddhist books to China. From this time Buddhism
   rapidly spread there. … In the fourth century Buddhism
   became the state religion."

      _T. W. Rhys Davids,
      Buddhism,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Legge,
      The Religions of China._

      _J. Edkins,
      Religion in China._

      _J. Edkins,
      Chinese Buddhism._

      _S. Beals,
      Buddhism in China._

      _S. Johnson,
      Oriental Religions: China._

CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234.
   Conquest by Jingis Khan and his son.

   "The conquest of China was commenced by Chinghiz [or Jingis
   Khan], although it was not completed for several generations.
   Already in 1205 he had invaded Tangut, a kingdom occupying the
   extreme northwest of China, and extending beyond Chinese
   limits in the same direction, held by a dynasty of Tibetan
   race, which was or had been a vassal to the Kin. This invasion
   was repeated in succeeding years; and in 1211 his attacks
   extended to the Empire of the Kin itself. In 1214 he ravaged
   their provinces to the Yellow River, and in the following year
   took Chungtu or Peking. In 1219 he turned his arms against
   Western Asia; … but a lieutenant whom he had left behind him
   in the East continued to prosecute the subjection of Northern
   China. Chinghiz himself on his return from his western
   conquests renewed his attack on Tangut, and died on that
   enterprise, 18th August. Okkodai, the son and successor of
   Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
   the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his Empire all
   the provinces north of the Great Kiang. The Southern provinces
   remained for the present subject to the Chinese dynasty of the
   Sung, reigning now at Kingssé or Hangcheu. This kingdom was
   known to the Tartars as Nangkiass, and also by the
   quasi-Chinese title of Mangi or Manzi, made so famous by Marco
   Polo and the travellers of the following age."

      _H. Yule,
      Cathay and the Way Thither.
      Preliminary Essay, sections 91-92._

      See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
   The Empire of Kublai Khan.

   Kublai, or Khubilai Khan, one of the grandsons of Jingis Khan,
   who reigned as the Great Khan or Supreme lord of the Mongols
   from 1259 until 1294, "was the sovereign of the largest empire
   that was ever controlled by one man. China, Corea, Thibet,
   Tung-King, Cochin China, a great portion of India beyond the
   Ganges, the Turkish and Siberian realms from the Eastern Sea
   to the Dnieper, obeyed his commands; and although the chief of
   the Hordes of Jagatai and Ogatai refused to acknowledge him,
   the Ilkhans of Persia … were his feudatories. … The
   Supreme Khan had immediate authority only in Mongolia and
   China. … The capital of the Khakan, after the accession of
   Khubilai, was a new city he built close to the ancient
   metropolis of the Liao and Kin dynasties."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 216-283._

   "Khan-Bálig (Mong., 'The Khan's city'), the Cambalu of Marco,
   Peking … was captured by Chinghiz in 1215, and in 1264
   Kublai made it his chief residence. In 1267 he built a new
   city, three 'li' to the north-east of the old one, to which
   was given the name of Ta-tu or 'Great Court,' called by the
   Mongols Daïdu, the Taydo of Odoric and Taidu of Polo, who
   gives a description of its dimensions, the number of its
   gates, etc., similar to that in the text. The Chinese accounts
   give only eleven gates. This city was abandoned as a royal
   residence on the expulsion of the Mongol dynasty in 1368, but
   re-occupied in 1421 by the third Ming Emperor, who built the
   walls as they now exist, reducing their extent and the number
   of the gates to nine. This is what is commonly called the
   'Tartar city' of the present day (called also by the Chinese
   Lau-Chhing or 'Old Town'), which therefore represents the
   Taydo of Odoric."

      _H. Yule,
      Cathay and the Way Thither,
      volume 1, page 127, footnote._

      ALSO IN
      _Marco Polo,
      Travels, with Notes by Sir H. Yule,
      book 2._

      See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294,
      and POLO, MARCO.

{420}

CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
   Dissolution of the Empire of Kublai Khan.
   The Ming dynasty and its fall.
   The enthronement of the present Manchu Tartar Dynasty, of the
   Tsings or Ch'ings.
   The appearance of the Portuguese and the Jesuit Missionaries.

   "The immediate successors of Kublai, brought up in the
   luxuries of the imperial palace, the most gorgeous at that
   time in the world, relied upon the prestige with which the
   glory of the late emperor invested them, and never dreamed
   that change could touch a dominion so vast and so solid. Some
   devoted themselves to elegant literature and the improvement
   of the people; later princes to the mysteries of Buddhism,
   which became, in some degree, the state religion; and as the
   cycle went round, the dregs of the dynasty abandoned
   themselves, as usual, to priests, women, and eunuchs. … The
   distant provinces threw off their subjection; robbers ravaged
   the land, and pirates the sea; a minority and a famine came at
   the same moment; and in less than ninety years after its
   commencement, the fall of the dynasty was only illumined by
   some few flashes of dying heroism, and every armed Tartar, who
   could obtain a horse to aid his flight, spurred back to his
   native deserts. Some of them, of the royal race, turning to
   the west, took refuge with the Manchows, and in process of
   time, marrying with the families of the chiefs, intermingled
   the blood of the two great tribes. The proximate cause of this
   catastrophe was a Chinese of low birth, who, in the midst of
   the troubles of the time, found means to raise himself by his
   genius from a servile station to the leadership of a body of
   the malcontents, and thence to step into the imperial throne.
   The new dynasty [the Ming] began their reign with great
   brilliance. The emperor carried the Tartar war into their own
   country, and at home made unrelenting war upon the abuses of
   his palace. He committed the mistake, however, of granting
   separate principalities to the members of his house, which in
   the next reign caused a civil war, and the usurpation of the
   throne by an uncle of the then emperor. The usurper found it
   necessary to transfer the capital to Peking, as a post of
   defence against the eastern Tartars, who now made their
   appearance again on this eventful stage. He was successful,
   however, in his wars in the desert, and he added Tonquin and
   Cochin China to the Chinese dominions. After him the fortunes
   of the dynasty began to wane. The government became weaker,
   the Tartars stronger, some princes attached themselves to
   literature, some to Buddhism or Taoism: Cochin China revolted,
   and was lost to the empire, Japan ravaged the coasts with her
   privateers; famine came to add to the horrors of misrule."

      _Leitch Ritchie,
      History of the Oriental Nations,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   "From without, the Mings were constantly harassed by the
   encroachments of the Tartars; from within, the ceaseless
   intriguing of the eunuchs (resulting in one case in the
   temporary deposition of an Emperor) was a fertile cause of
   trouble. Towards the close of the 16th century the Portuguese
   appeared upon the scene, and from their 'concession' at Macao,
   some time the residence of Camoens, opened commercial
   relations between China and the West. They brought the
   Chinese, among other things, opium, which had previously been
   imported overland from India. They possibly taught them how to
   make gunpowder, to the invention of which the Chinese do not
   seem, upon striking a balance of evidence, to possess an
   independent claim. About the same time [1580] Rome contributed
   the first instalment of those wonderful Jesuit fathers, whose
   names may truly be said to have filled the empire 'with sounds
   that echo still,' the memory of their scientific labours and
   the benefits they thus conferred upon China having long
   survived the wreck and discredit of the faith to which they
   devoted their lives. And at this distance of time it does not
   appear to be a wild statement to assert that had the Jesuits,
   the Franciscans, and the Dominicans, been able to resist
   quarrelling among themselves, and had they rather united to
   persuade Papal infallibility to permit the incorporation of
   ancestor worship with the rites and ceremonies of the Romish
   church—China would at this moment be a Catholic country, and
   Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism would long since have
   receded into the past. Of all these Jesuit missionaries, the
   name of Matteo Ricci [who died in 1610] stands by common
   consent first upon the long list. … The overthrow of the
   Mings [A. D. 1644], was brought about by a combination of
   events, of the utmost importance to those who would understand
   the present position of the Tartars as rulers of China. A
   sudden rebellion had resulted in the capture of Peking by the
   insurgents, and in the suicide of the Emperor who was fated to
   be the last of his line. The Imperial Commander-in-chief, Wu
   San-kuei, at that time away on the frontiers of Manchuria,
   engaged in resisting the incursions of the Manchu Tartars, now
   for a long time in a state of ferment, immediately hurried
   back to the capital, but was totally defeated by the insurgent
   leader, and once more made his way, this time as a fugitive
   and a suppliant, towards the Tartar camp. Here he obtained
   promises of assistance, chiefly on condition that he would
   shave his head and grow a tail in accordance with Manchu
   custom, and again set off with his new auxiliaries towards
   Peking, being reinforced on the way by a body of Mongol
   volunteers. As things turned out Wu San-kuei arrived at Peking
   in advance of these allies, and actually succeeded, with the
   remnant of his own scattered forces, in routing the troops of
   the rebel leader before the Tartars and the Mongols came up.
   He then started in pursuit of the flying foe. Meanwhile the
   Tartar contingent arrived; and on entering the capital, the
   young Manchu prince in command was invited by the people of
   Peking to ascend the vacant throne. So that by the time Wu
   San-kuei re-appeared he found a new dynasty [the Ch'ing or
   Tsing dynasty of the present day] already established, and his
   late Manchu ally at the head of affairs. His first intention
   had doubtless been to continue the Ming line of Emperors; but
   he seems to have readily fallen in with the arrangement
   already made, and to have tendered his formal allegiance on
   the four following conditions:

{421}

   (1.) That no Chinese woman should be taken into the Imperial
   seraglio.

   (2.) That the first place at the great triennial examination
   for the highest literary degrees should never be given to a
   Tartar.

   (3.) That the people should adopt the national costume of the
   Tartars in their everyday life; but that they should be
   allowed to bury their corpses in the dress of the late
   dynasty.

   (4.) That this condition of costume should not apply to the
   women of China, who were not to be compelled either to wear
   the hair in a tail before marriage (as the Tartar girls do) or
   to abandon the custom of compressing' their feet.

   The great Ming dynasty was now at an end, though not destined
   wholly to pass away. A large part of it may be said to remain
   in the literary monuments which were executed during its three
   centuries of existence. The dress of the period survives upon
   the modern Chinese stage; and when occasionally the present
   alien yoke is found to gall, seditious whispers of
   'restoration' are not altogether unheard. … The age of the
   Ch'ings is the age in which we live; but it is not so familiar
   to some persons as it ought to be, that a Tartar, and not a
   Chinese sovereign, is now seated upon the throne of China. For
   some time after the accession of the first Manchu Emperor
   there was considerable friction between the two races, due,
   among other natural causes, to the enforced adoption of the
   peculiar coiffure in vogue among the Manchus—i. e., the tail,
   or plaited queue of hair, which now hangs down every
   Chinaman's back. This fashion was for a long time vigorously
   resisted by the inhabitants of southern China, though now
   regarded by all alike as one of the most sacred
   characteristics of the 'black-haired people.' … The
   subjugation of the empire by the Manchus was followed by a
   military occupation of the country, which has survived the
   original necessity, and is part of the system of government at
   the present day. Garrisons of Tartar troops were stationed at
   various important centres of population. … Those Tartar
   garrisons still occupy the same positions; and the descendants
   of the first battalions, with occasional reinforcements from
   Peking, live side by side and in perfect harmony with the
   strictly Chinese populations. These Bannermen, as they are
   called, may be known by their square, heavy faces, which
   contrast strongly with the sharper and more astute
   physiognomies of the Chinese. They speak the dialect of
   Peking, now recognised as the official language par
   excellence. They do not use their family or surnames—which
   belong rather to the clan than to the individual—but in order
   to conform to the requirements of Chinese life, the personal
   name is substituted. Their women do not compress their feet,
   and the female coiffure and dress are wholly Tartar in
   character. Intermarriage between the two races is not
   considered desirable, though instances are not unknown. In
   other respects, it is the old story of 'vida victrix;' the
   conquering Tartars have been themselves conquered by the
   people over whom they set themselves to rule. They have
   adopted the language, written and colloquial, of China. …
   Manchu, the language of the conquerors, is still kept alive at
   the Court of Peking. By a State fiction, it is supposed to be
   the language of the sovereign. … Eight emperors of this line
   have already occupied the throne, and 'become guests on high;'
   the ninth is yet [in 1882] a boy less than ten years of age.
   Of these eight, the second in every way fills the largest
   space in Chinese history. K'ang Hsi (or Kang Hi) reigned for
   sixty-one years. … Under the third Manchu Emperor, Yung
   Cheng [A. D. 1723-1736], began that violent persecution of the
   Catholics which has continued almost to the present day. The
   various sects—Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans—had been
   unable to agree about the Chinese equivalent for God, and the
   matter had been finally referred to the Pope. Another
   difficulty had arisen as to the toleration of ancestral
   worship by Chinese converts professing the Catholic faith. …
   As the Pope refused to permit the embodiment of this ancient
   custom with the ceremonies of the Catholic church, the new
   religion ceased to advance, and by-and-by fell into
   disrepute."

      _H. A. Giles,
      Historic China,
      chapters 5-6._

      ALSO IN
      _S. W. Williams,
      The Middle Kingdom,
      chapters 17, and 19-20 (volume 2)._

      _C. Gutzlaff,
      Sketch of Chinese History,
      volume 1, chapter 16, volume 2._

      _J. Ross,
      The Manchus._

      _Abbé Hue,
      Christianity in China,
      volumes 2-3._

CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
   The Opium War with England.
   Treaty of Nanking.
   Opening of the Five Ports.

   "The first Chinese war [of England] was in one sense directly
   attributable to the altered position of the East India Company
   after 1833. [See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.] Up to that year
   trade between England and China had been conducted in both
   countries on principles of strict monopoly. The Chinese trade
   was secured to the East India Company, and the English trade
   was confined to a company of merchants specially nominated for
   the purpose by the Emperor. The change of thought which
   produced the destruction of monopolies in England did not
   penetrate to the conservative atmosphere of the Celestial
   Empire, and, while the trade in one country was thrown open to
   everyone, trade in the other was still exclusively confined to
   the merchants nominated by the Chinese Government. These
   merchants, Hong merchants as they were called, traded
   separately, but were mutually liable for the dues to the
   Chinese Government and for their debts to the foreigners. Such
   conditions neither promoted the growth of trade nor the
   solvency of the traders; and, out of the thirteen Hong
   merchants in 1837, three or four were avowedly insolvent.
   (State Papers, volume 27, page 1310.) Such were the general
   conditions on which the trade was conducted. The most
   important article of trade was opium. The importation of opium
   into China had, indeed, been illegal since 1796. But the
   Chinese Government had made no stringent efforts to prohibit
   the trade, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had
   declared that it was inadvisable to abandon an important
   source of revenue to the East India Company. (State Papers, volume
   29, page 1020.) The opium trade consequently throve, and grew
   from 4,100 chests in 1796 to 30,000 chests in 1837, and the
   Chinese connived at or ignored the growing trade. (Ibid., p.
   1019). … In 1837 the Chinese Government adopted a fresh policy.
{422}
   It decided on rigourously stopping the trade at which it had
   previously tacitly connived. … Whether the Chinese
   Government was really shocked at the growing use of the drug
   and the consequences of its use, or whether it was alarmed at
   a drain of silver from China which disturbed what the
   political arithmeticians of England a hundred years before
   would have called the balance of trade, it undoubtedly
   determined to check the traffic by every means at its
   disposal. With this object it strengthened its force on the
   coast and sent Lin, a man of great energy, to Canton [March,
   1839] with supreme authority. (State Papers, volume 29, page
   934, and Autobiography of Sir H. Taylor, volume 1, appendix,
   page 343.) Before Lin's arrival cargoes of opium had been
   seized by the Custom House authorities. On his arrival Lin
   required both the Hong merchants and the Chinese merchants to
   deliver up all the opium in their possession in order that it
   might be destroyed. (State Papers, volume 29, page 936.) The
   interests of England in China were at that time entrusted to
   Charles Elliot. … But Elliot occupied a very difficult
   position in China. The Chinese placed on their communications
   to him the Chinese word 'Yu,' and wished him to place on his
   despatches to them the Chinese word 'Pin.' But Yu signifies a
   command, and Pin a humble address, and a British
   Plenipotentiary could not receive commands from, or humble
   himself before, Chinese officials. (State Papers, volume 29,
   pages 881, 886, 888.) And hence the communications between him
   and the Chinese Government were unable to follow a direct
   course, but were frequently or usually sent through the Hong
   merchants. Such was the state of things in China when Lin,
   arriving in Canton, insisted on the surrender and destruction
   of all the opium there. Elliot was at Macao. He at once
   decided on returning to the post of difficulty and danger;
   and, though Canton was blockaded by Chinese forces and its
   river guarded by Chinese batteries, he made his way up in a
   boat of H. M. S. 'Larne,' and threw himself among his
   imprisoned countrymen. After his arrival he took the
   responsibility of demanding the surrender into his own hands,
   for the service of his Government, of all the British opium in
   China, and he surrendered the opium which he thus obtained,
   amounting to 20,283 chests, to the Chinese authorities, by
   whom it was destroyed. (Ibid., pages 945, 967.) The imminent
   danger to the lives and properties of a large number of
   British subjects was undoubtedly removed by Elliot's action.
   Though some difficulty arose in connection with the surrender,
   Lin undertook gradually to relax the stringency of the
   measures which he had adopted (ibid., page 977), and Elliot
   hoped that his own zealous efforts to carry out the
   arrangement which he had made would lead to the raising of the
   blockade. He was, however, soon undeceived. On the 4th of
   April Lin required him, in conjunction with the merchants, to
   enter into a bond under which all vessels hereafter engaged in
   the opium traffic would have been confiscated to the Chinese
   Government, and all persons connected with the trade would
   'suffer death at the hands of the Celestial Court.' (Ibid.,
   page 989.) This bond Elliot steadily refused to sign (ibid.,
   page 992); and feeling that 'all sense of security was broken
   to pieces' (ibid., page 978), he ordered all British subjects
   to leave Canton (ibid., page 1004), he himself withdrew to the
   Portuguese settlement at Macao (ibid., page 1007), and he
   wrote to Auckland, the Governor-General of India, for armed
   assistance. (Ibid., page 1009.) These grave events naturally
   created profound anxiety. A Select Committee of the House of
   Commons had formally declined to interfere with the trade. The
   opium monopoly at that time was worth some £1,000,000 or
   £1,500,000 a year to British India (ibid., page 1020); and
   India, engaged in war with Afghanistan and already involved in
   a serious deficit, could not afford to part with so large an
   amount of its revenue (ibid., page 1020). Nine-tenths of the
   British merchants in China were engaged in the illegal trade
   (ibid., page 1030), while Elliot, in enforcing the surrender
   of the opium, had given the merchants bonds on the British
   Government for its value, and the 20,000 chests surrendered
   were supposed to be worth from 600 to 1,200 dollars a chest
   (ibid., page 987), or say from £2,400,000 to £4,800,000. …
   As the summer advanced, moreover, a fresh outrage increased
   the intensity of the crisis. On the 7th July some British
   seamen landed near Hong Kong, and engaged in a serious riot. A
   native was unfortunately killed on the occasion, and though
   Elliot, at his own risk, gave the relations of the victim a
   large pecuniary compensation, and placed the men engaged in
   the riot on their trial, Lin was not satisfied. He moved down
   to the coast, cut off the supplies of British subjects, and
   threatened to stop the supplies to Macao if the Portuguese
   continued to assist the British. (Ibid., pages 1037-1039.) The
   British were in consequence forced to leave Macao; and about the
   same time a small schooner, the 'Black Joke,' was attacked by
   the Chinese, and a British subject on board of her seriously
   wounded. Soon afterwards, however, the arrival of a ship of
   war, the 'Volage,' in Chinese waters enabled Elliot to assume
   a bolder front. He returned to Macao; he even attempted to
   procure supplies from the mainland. But, though he succeeded
   in purchasing food, 'the Mandarin runners approached and
   obliged the natives to take back their provisions,' and
   Elliot, exasperated at their conduct, fired on some war junks
   of the Chinese, which returned the fire. A week afterwards
   Elliot declared the port and river of Canton to be in a state
   of blockade. (Ibid., page 1066.) The commencement of the
   blockade, however, did not lead to immediate war. On the
   contrary, the Chinese showed considerable desire to avert
   hostilities. They insisted, indeed, that some British sailor
   must be surrendered to them to suffer for the death of the
   Chinaman who had fallen in the riot of Hong Kong. But they
   showed so much anxiety to conclude an arrangement on this
   point that they endeavoured to induce Elliot to declare that a
   sailor who was accidentally drowned in Chinese waters, and whose
   body they had found, was the actual murderer. (State Papers,
   volume 30, page 27.) And in the meanwhile the trade which Lin
   had intended to destroy went on at least as actively as ever.
   Lin's proceedings had, indeed, the effect of stimulating it to
   an unprecedented degree. The destruction of vast stores of
   opium led to a rise in the price of opium in China. The rise
   in price produced the natural consequence of an increased
   speculation; and, though British shipping was excluded from
   Chinese waters, and the contents of British vessels had to be
   transferred to American bottoms for conveyance into Chinese
   ports, British trade had never been so large or so
   advantageous as in the period which succeeded Lin's arbitrary
   proceedings.
{423}
   Elliot was, of course, unable to prevent war either by the
   surrender of a British sailor to the Chinese, or by even
   assuming that a drowned man was the murderer; and war in
   consequence became daily more probable. In January, 1840,
   operations actually commenced. Elliot was instructed to make
   an armed demonstration on the northern coasts of China, to
   take possession of some island on the coast, and to obtain
   reparation and indemnity, if possible by a mere display of
   force, but otherwise to proceed with the squadron and thence
   send an ultimatum to Pekin. In accordance with these orders
   the Island of Chusan was occupied in July, and the fleet was
   sent to the mouth of the Peiho with orders to transmit a
   letter to Pekin. But the sea off the Peiho is shallow, the
   ships could not approach the coasts, and the Chinese naturally
   refused to yield to an empty demonstration. The expedition was
   forced to return to Chusan, where it found that the troops
   whom they had left behind were smitten by disease, that one
   out of every four men were dead, and that more than one-half
   of the survivors were invalided. Thus, throughout 1840, the
   Chinese war was only attended with disaster and distress.
   Things commenced a little more prosperously in 1841 by the
   capture of the Chinese position at the mouth of the Canton
   river. Elliot, after this success, was even able to conclude a
   preliminary treaty with the Chinese authorities. But this
   treaty did not prove satisfactory either to the British
   Government or to the Chinese. The British saw with dismay that
   the treaty made no mention of the trade in opium which had
   been the ostensible cause of the war. The Whig Government
   accordingly decided on superseding Elliot. He was recalled and
   replaced by Henry Pottinger. Before news of his recall reached
   him, however, the treaty which had led to his supersession had
   been disavowed by the Chinese authorities, and Elliot had
   commenced a fresh attack on the Chinese force which guarded
   the road to Canton. British sailors and British troops, under
   the command of Bremer and Gough, won a victory which placed
   Canton at their mercy. But Elliot, shrinking from exposing a
   great town to the horrors of an assault, stopped the advance
   of the troops and admitted the city to a ransom of £1,250,000.
   (Sir H. Taylor's Autobiography, volume 1, appendix, pages
   353-363.) His moderation was naturally unacceptable to the
   troops and not entirely approved by the British Government. It
   constituted, however, Elliot's last action as agent in China. The
   subsequent operations were conducted under Pottinger's
   advice."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      Note, volume 5, pages 287-291._

   "Sir Henry Pottinger, who arrived as Plenipotentiary on the
   10th of August, took the chief direction of the affairs. …
   To the end of 1841 there were various successes achieved by
   the land and naval forces, which gave the British possession
   of many large fortified towns, amongst which were Amoy,
   Ting-hai, Chin-hai, Ning-po, and Shang-hai. The Chinese were
   nevertheless persevering in their resistance, and in most
   cases evinced a bravery which showed how mistaken were the
   views which regarded the subjection of this extraordinary
   people as an easy task. … The British fleet on the 13th of
   June [1842] entered the great river Kiang, and on the 6th of
   July advanced up the river, and cut off its communication with
   the Grand Canal, by which Nanking, the ancient capital of
   China, was supplied with grain. The point where the river
   intersects the canal is the city of Chin-Kiang-foo. … On the
   morning of the 21st the city was stormed by the British, in
   three brigades. The resistance of the Tartar troops was most
   desperate. Our troops fought under a burning sun, whose
   overpowering heat caused some to fall dead. The obstinate
   defence of the place prevented its being taken till six
   o'clock in the evening. When the streets were entered, the
   houses were found almost deserted. They were filled with
   ghastly corpses, many of the Tartar soldiers having destroyed
   their families and then committed suicide. The city, from the
   number of the dead, had become uninhabitable."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 25._

   "The destruction of life was appalling. … Every Manchu
   preferred resistance, death, suicide, or flight, to surrender.
   Out of a Manchu population of 4,000, it was estimated that not
   more than 500 survived, the greater part having perished by
   their own hands. … Within twenty-four hours after the troops
   landed, the city and suburbs of Chinkiang were a mass of ruin
   and destruction. … The total loss of the English was 37
   killed and 131 wounded. … Some of the large ships were towed
   up to Nanking, and the whole fleet reached it August 9th, at
   which time preparations had been made for the assault. …
   Everything was ready for the assault by daylight of August
   15th;" but on the night of the 14th the Chinese made overtures
   for the negotiation of peace, and the important Treaty of
   Nanking was soon afterwards concluded. Its terms were as
   follows: "1. Lasting peace between the two nations. 2. The
   ports of Canton, Amoy, Fuhchau, Ningpo, and Shanghai [known
   afterwards as the Treaty Ports] to be opened to British trade
   and residence, and trade conducted according to a
   well-understood tariff. 3. 'It being obviously necessary and
   desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat
   they may careen and refit their ships when required,' the
   island of Hongkong to be ceded to her Majesty. 4. Six millions
   of dollars to be paid as the value of the opium which was
   delivered up 'as a ransom for the lives of H. B. M.
   Superintendent and subjects,' in March, 1839. 5. Three
   millions of dollars to be paid for the debts due to British
   merchants. 6. Twelve millions to be paid for the expenses
   incurred in the expedition sent out 'to obtain redress for the
   violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese high
   authorities.' 7. The entire amount of $21,000,000 to be paid
   before December 31, 1845. 8. All prisoners of war to be
   immediately released by the Chinese. 9. The Emperor to grant
   full and entire amnesty to those of his subjects who had aided
   the British." Articles 10 to 13 related to the tariff of
   export and import dues that should be levied at the open
   ports; to future terms of official correspondence, etc. The
   Treaty was signed by the Commissioners on the 29th of August,
   1842, and the Emperor's ratification was received September
   15th.

      _S. W. Williams,
      The Middle Kingdom,
      chapters 22-23._

      ALSO IN
      _D. C. Boulger,
      History of China,
      volume 3, chapters 5-7._

      _E. H. Parker,
      Chinese Account of the Opium War._

{424}

CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.
   The Taiping Rebellion.

   "The phrase 'Taiping Rebellion is wholly of foreign
   manufacture; at Peking and everywhere among those loyal to the
   government the insurgents were styled 'Chang-mao tseh,' or
   'Long-haired rebels,' while on their side, by a whimsical
   resemblance to English slang, the imperialists were dubbed
   'imps.' When the chiefs assumed to be aiming at independence
   in 1850, in order to identify their followers with their cause
   they took the term 'Ping Chao,' or 'Peace Dynasty,' as the
   style of their sway, to distinguish it from the 'Tsing Chao,'
   or 'Pure Dynasty' of the Manchus. Each of them prefixed the
   adjective 'Ta' (or 'Tai,' in Cantonese), 'Great,' as is the
   Chinese custom with regard to dynasties and nations; thus the
   name Tai-ping became known to foreigners."

      _S. W. Williams,
      The Middle Kingdom,
      chapter 24 (volume 2)._

   "This remarkable movement, which at one time excited much
   interest in Western lands, originated with a man named Hung
   Sew-tseuen [or Hung Siu-tseuen], son of a humble peasant
   residing in a village near Canton. On the occasion of one of
   his visits to the provincial city, probably in the year 1833,
   he appears to have seen a foreign Protestant missionary
   addressing the populace in the streets, assisted by a native
   interpreter. Either then or on the following day he received
   from some tract-distributor a book entitled 'Good Words for
   Exhorting the Age,' which consisted of essays and sermons by
   Leang A-fah, a well-known convert and evangelist. Taking the
   volume home with him, he looked it over with some interest,
   but carelessly laid it aside in his book-case. A few years
   afterward he attended for the second time the competitive
   literary examination with high hopes of honor and distinction,
   having already passed with much credit the lower examination
   in the district city. His ambitious venture, however, met with
   severe disappointment, and he returned to his friends sick in
   mind and body. During this state of mental depression and
   physical infirmity, which continued for some forty days, he
   had certain strange visions, in which he received commands
   from heaven to destroy the idols. These fancied revelations
   seem to have produced a deep impression on his mind, and led
   to a certain gravity of demeanor after his recovery and return
   to his quiet occupation as a student and village schoolmaster.
   When the English war broke out, and foreigners swept up Canton
   River with their wonderful fire-ships, … it is not
   surprising that Hung should have had his attention again
   attracted to the Christian publication which had lain so long
   neglected in his library. … The writings of Leang A-fah
   contained chapters from the Old and New Testament Scriptures,
   which he found to correspond in a striking manner with the
   preternatural sights and voices of that memorable period in
   his history [during his sickness, six years before]; and this
   strange coincidence convinced him of their truth, and of his
   being divinely appointed to restore the world, that is China,
   to the worship of the true God. Hung Sew-tseuen accepted his
   mission and began the work of propagating the faith he had
   espoused. Among his first converts was one Fung Yun-san, who
   became a most ardent missionary and disinterested preacher.
   These two leaders of the movement traveled far and near
   through the country, teaching the people of all classes and
   forming a society of God-worshippers. All the converts
   renounced idolatry and gave up the worship of Confucius. Hung,
   at this time apparently a sincere and earnest seeker after
   truth, went to Canton and placed himself under the
   instructions of the Reverend Mr. Roberts, an American missionary,
   who for some cause fearing that his novitiate might be
   inspired by mercenary motives, denied him the rite of baptism.
   But, without being offended at this cold and suspicious
   treatment, he went home and taught his converts how to baptize
   themselves. The God-worshippers rapidly increased in numbers,
   and were known and feared as zealous iconoclasts. … For a
   year after Hung Sew-tseuen had rejoined the God-worshippers
   that society retained its exclusively religious nature, but in
   the autumn of 1850 it was brought into direct collision with
   the civil magistrates, when the movement assumed a political
   character of the highest aims." It was soon a movement of
   declared rebellion, and allied with a rebel army of bandits
   and pirates which had taken arms against the government in
   south-eastern China.

      _L. N. Wheeler,
      The Foreigner in China,
      chapter 13._

   "The Hakka schoolmaster proclaimed his 'mission' in 1850. A
   vast horde gathered to him. He nominated five 'Wangs' or
   soldier sub-kings from out of his clan, and commenced his
   northward movement from Woosewen in January, 1851. Through the
   rich prosperous provinces his desultory march, interspersed
   with frequent halts, spread destruction and desolation. The
   peaceful fled shudderingly before this wave of fierce,
   stalwart ruffianhood, with its tatterdemalian tawdriness, its
   flaunting banners, its rusty naked weapons. Everywhere it
   gathered in the local scoundrelism. The pirates came from the
   coast; the robbers from the interior mountains rallied to an
   enterprise that promised so well for their trade. In the
   perturbed state of the Chinese population the horde grew like
   an avalanche as it rolled along. The Heavenly King [as Hung
   now styled himself] met with no opposition to speak of, and in
   1853 his promenade ended under the shadow of the Porcelain
   Tower, in the city of Nanking, the second metropolis of the
   Chinese Empire, where, till the rebellion and his life ended
   simultaneously, he lived a life of licentiousness, darkened
   further by the grossest cruelties. The rebellion had lasted
   nearly ten years when the fates brought it into collision with
   the armed civilization of the West. The Imperialist forces had
   made sluggishly some head against it. Nanking had been
   invested after a fashion for years on end. 'The prospects of
   the Tai-pings,' says Commander Brine, 'in the early spring of
   1860, had become very gloomy.' The Imperialist generals had
   hemmed Tai-pingdom within certain limits in the lower valley
   of the Yantsze, and the movement languished further 'from its
   destructive and exhausting nature, which for continued
   vitality constantly required new districts of country to
   exhaust and destroy.' But in 1859 China and the West came into
   collision. … The rebellion had opportunity to recover lost
   ground. For the sixth time the 'Faithful King' relieved
   Nanking. The Imperialist generals fell back, and then the
   Tai-pings took the offensive, and as the result of sundry
   victories, the rebellion regained an active and flourishing
   condition. … Shanghai, one of the treaty ports, was
   threatened."

      _A. Forbes,
      Chinese Gordon,
      chapter 2._

{425}

   "Europe … has known evil days under the hands of fierce
   conquerors, plundering and destroying in religion's name; but
   its annals may be ransacked in vain, without finding any
   parallel to the miseries endured in those provinces of China
   over which 'The Heavenly King,' the Tai-ping prophet, extended
   his fell sway for ten sad years. Hung Sew-tsuen (better known
   in China by his assumed title, Tien Wang) … had read
   Christian tracts, had learnt from a Christian missionary; and
   when he announced publicly three years afterwards that part of
   his mission was to destroy the temples and images, and showed
   in the jargon of his pretended visions some traces of his New
   Testament study, the conclusion was instantly seized by the
   sanguine minds of a section set upon evangelizing the East,
   that their efforts had produced a true prophet, fit for the
   work. Wedded to this fancy, they rejected as the inventions of
   the enemies of missions the tales of Taiping cruelty which
   soon reached Europe: and long after the details of the
   impostor's life at Nankin, with its medley of visions,
   executions, edicts, and harem indulgence, became notorious to
   the world, prayers were offered for his success by devotees in
   Great Britain as bigoted to his cause as the bloodiest
   commander, or 'Wang,' whom he had raised from the ranks of his
   followers to carry out his 'exterminating decrees.' The
   Taiping cause was lost in China before it was wholly abandoned
   by these fanatics in England, and their belief in its
   excellence so powerfully reacted on our policy, that it might
   have preserved us from active intervention down to the present
   time, had not certain Imperialist successes elsewhere, the
   diminishing means of their wasted possessions, and the
   rashness of their own chiefs, brought the Taiping arms into
   direct collision with us. And with the occasion there was
   happily raised up the man whose prowess was to scatter their
   blood-cemented empire to pieces far more speedily than it had
   been built up."

      _C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biography,
      chapter 10_

   "The Taiping rebellion was of so barbarous a nature that its
   suppression had become necessary in the interests of
   civilization. A force raised at the expense of the Shanghai
   merchants, and supported by the Chinese government, had been
   for some years struggling against its progress. This force,
   known as the 'Ever Victorious Army,' was commanded at first by
   Ward, an American, and, on his death, by Burgevine, also an
   American, who was summarily dismissed; for a short time the
   command was held by Holland, an English marine officer, but he
   was defeated at Taitsan 22 February, 1863, Li Hung Chang,
   governor-general of the Kiang provinces, then applied to the
   British commander-in-chief for the services of an English
   officer, and Gordon [Charles George, subsequently known as
   'Chinese Gordon'] was authorised to accept the command. He
   arrived at Sung-Kiong and entered on his new duties as a
   mandarin and lieutenant-colonel in the Chinese service on 24
   March 1863. His force was composed of some three to four
   thousand Chinese, officered by 150 Europeans of almost every
   nationality and often of doubtful character. By the
   indomitable will of its commander this heterogeneous body was
   moulded into a little army whose high-sounding title of
   'ever-victorious' became a reality, and in less than two
   years, after 33 engagements, the power of the Taipings was
   completely broken and the rebellion stamped out. The theatre
   of operations was the district of Kiangsoo, lying between the
   Yang-tze-Kiang river in the north and the bay of Hang-chow in
   the south." Before the summer of 1863 was over, Gordon had
   raised the rebel siege of Chanzu, and taken from the Taipings
   the towns of Fushan, Taitsan, Quinsan, Kahpoo, Wokong,
   Patachiaow, Leeku, Wanti, and Fusaiqwan. Finally, in December,
   the great city of Soo-chow was surrendered to him, Gordon was
   always in front of all his storming parties, "carrying no
   other weapon than a little cane. His men called it his 'magic
   wand,' regarding it as a charm that protected his life and led
   them on to victory. When Soo-chow fell Gordon had stipulated
   with the Governor-general Li for the lives of the Wangs (rebel
   leaders). They were treacherously murdered by Li's orders.
   Indignant at this perfidy, Gordon refused to serve any longer
   with Governor Li, and when on 1 Jan, 1864 money anti rewards
   were heaped upon him by the Emperor, declined them all. …
   After some [two] months of inaction it became evident that if
   Gordon did not again take the field the Taipings would regain
   the rescued country," and he was prevailed upon to resume his
   campaign, which, although badly wounded in one of the battles,
   he brought to an end in the following April (1864), by the
   capture of Chan-chu-fu, "This victory not only ended the
   campaign but completely destroyed the rebellion, and the
   Chinese regular forces were enabled to occupy Nankin in the
   July following. The large money present offered to Gordon by
   the emperor was again declined, although he had spent his pay
   in promoting the efficiency of his force, so that he wrote
   home: 'I shall leave China as poor as when I entered it.'"

      _Colonel R. H. Veitch, Charles George Gordon
      (Dictionary of Nat. Biog.)_

      ALSO IN:
      _A. E. Hake,
      The Story of Chinese Gordon,
      chapters 3-8._

      _W. F. Butler,
      Charles George Gordon,
      chapter 2._

      _S. Mossman,
      General Gordon in China._

      _Private Diary of General Gordon in China._

      _Mm. Callery and Yvan,
      History of the Insurrection in China._

CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860,
   War with England and France.
   Bombardment and capture of Canton.
   The Allies in Pekin.
   Their destruction of the Summer Palace.
   Terms of peace.

   The speech from the throne at the opening of the English
   Parliament, on February 3, 1857, "stated that acts of
   violence, insults to the British flag, and infractions of
   treaty rights, committed by the local authorities at Canton,
   and a pertinacious refusal of redress, had rendered it
   necessary for her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse
   to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. The alleged
   offences of the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their
   single victim the lorcha 'Arrow.' The lorcha 'Arrow' was a
   small boat built on the European model. The word 'Lorcha' is
   taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at the mouth of
   the Canton river. It often occurs in treaties with the Chinese
   authorities. On October 8, 1856, a party of Chinese in charge
   of an officer boarded the 'Arrow,' in the Canton river. They
   took off twelve men on a charge of piracy, leaving two men in
   charge of the lorcha, The 'Arrow' was declared by its owners
   to be a British vessel.
{426}
   Our consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from Yeh, the
   Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the men, basing his
   demand upon the Treaty of 1843, supplemental to the Treaty of
   1842. This treaty did not give the Chinese authorities any
   right to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on
   board an English vessel. It merely gave them a right to
   require the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the
   English. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, contended, however, that
   the lorcha was a Chinese pirate vessel, which had no right
   whatever to hoist the flag of England. It may be plainly
   stated at once that the 'Arrow' was not an English vessel, but
   only a Chinese vessel which had obtained by false pretences
   the temporary possession of a British flag. Mr. Consul Parkes,
   however, was fussy, and he demanded the instant restoration of
   the captured men, and he sent off to our Plenipotentiary at
   Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, for authority and assistance in
   the business. Sir John Bowring … ordered the Chinese
   authorities to surrender all the men taken from the 'Arrow,'
   and he insisted that an apology should be offered for their
   arrest, and a formal pledge given that no such act should ever
   be committed again. If this were not done within forty-eight
   hours, naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese.
   The Chinese Governor, Yeh, sent back all the men, and
   undertook to promise that for the future great care should be
   taken that no British ships should be visited improperly by
   Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for the
   particular case of the 'Arrow,' for he still maintained, as
   was indeed the fact, that the 'Arrow' was a Chinese vessel,
   and that the English had nothing to do with her. Accordingly
   Sir John Bowring carried out his threat, and had Canton
   bombarded by the fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour
   commanded. From October 23 to November 13 naval and military
   operations were kept up continuously. Commissioner Yeh
   retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the head of
   every Englishman. This news from China created a considerable
   sensation in England. On February 24, 1857, Lord Derby brought
   forward in the House of Lords a motion, comprehensively
   condemning the whole of the proceedings of the British
   authorities in China. The debate would have been memorable if
   only for the powerful speech in which the venerable Lord
   Lyndhurst supported the motion, and exposed the utter
   illegality of the course pursued by Sir John Bowring. The
   House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby by a majority
   of 146 to 110. On February 26 Mr. Cobden brought forward a
   similar motion in the House of Commons. … Mr. Cobden had
   probably never dreamed of the amount or the nature of the
   support his motion was destined to receive. The vote of
   censure was carried by 263 votes against 247—a majority of
   16. Lord Palmerston announced two or three days after that the
   Government had resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the
   country. Lord Palmerston understood his countrymen." In the
   ensuing elections his victory was complete. "Cobden, Bright,
   Milner Gibson, W. J. Fox, Layard, and many other leading
   opponents of the Chinese policy, were left without seats. Lord
   Palmerston came back to power with renewed and redoubled
   strength." He "had the satisfaction before he left office [in
   1858] of being able to announce the capture of Canton. The
   operations against China had been virtually suspended … when
   the Indian Mutiny broke out. England had now got the
   cooperation of France. France had a complaint of long standing
   against China on account of the murder of some missionaries,
   for which redress had been asked in vain. There was,
   therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton [December, 1857],
   and of course the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh
   himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought for
   and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was found at
   last hidden away in some obscure part of a house. He was known
   by his enormous fatness. … He was put on board an English
   man-of-war, and afterwards sent to Calcutta, where he died
   early in the following year. Unless report greatly belied him
   he had been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official.
   The English and French Envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros,
   succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the conditions of
   the treaty, England and France were to have ministers at the
   Chinese Court, on certain special occasions at least, and
   China was to be represented in London and Paris; there was to
   be toleration of Christianity in China, and a certain freedom
   of access to Chinese rivers for English and French mercantile
   vessels, and to the interior of China for English and French
   subjects. China was to pay the expenses of the war. It was
   further agreed that the term 'barbarian' was no longer to be
   applied to Europeans in China. There was great congratulation
   in England over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a
   lasting peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted in
   fact exactly a year. … The treaty of Tien-tsin, which had
   been arranged by Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, contained a clause
   providing for the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin
   within a year from the date of the signature, which took place
   in June 1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother,
   Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March 1859 Envoy
   Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Mr. Bruce
   was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to Tien-tsin, and
   thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications of the treaty.
   Lord Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary … impressed
   upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to be put off from going to the
   capital. Instructions were sent out from England at the same
   time to Admiral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China,
   to provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the
   mouth of the Peiho. The Peiho river flows from the highlands
   on the west into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the north-cast corner
   of the Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about
   100 miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho. It does not
   stand on that river, which flows past it at some distance
   westward, but it is connected with the river by means of a
   canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on the Peiho near its
   junction with one of the many rivers that flow into it, and
   about forty miles from the mouth. The entrance to the Peiho
   was defended by the Taku forts. On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce
   and the French Envoy reached the mouth of the Peiho with
   Admiral Hope's fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort
   them. They found the forts defended; some negotiations and
   inter-communications took place, and a Chinese official from
   Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and endeavoured to obtain some
   delay or compromise.
{427}
   Mr. Bruce became convinced that the condition of things
   predicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that the
   Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his purpose. He
   called on Admiral Hope to clear a passage for the vessels.
   When the Admiral brought up his gunboats the forts opened
   fire. The Chinese artillerymen showed unexpected skill and
   precision. Four of the gunboats were almost immediately
   disabled. All the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope
   attempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete
   failure. Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the
   commander of the French vessel which had contributed a
   contingent to the storming party. The attempt to force a
   passage of the river was given up and the mission to Pekin was
   over for the present. It seems only fair to say that the
   Chinese at the mouth of the Peiho cannot be accused of
   perfidy. They had mounted the forts and barricaded the river
   openly and even ostentatiously. … It will be easily imagined
   that the news created a deep sensation in England. People in
   general made up their minds at once that the matter could not
   be allowed to rest there, and that the mission to Pekin must
   be enforced. … Before the whole question came to be
   discussed in Parliament the Conservatives had gone out and the
   Liberals had come in. The English and French Governments
   determined that the men who had made the treaty of
   Tien-tsin—Lord Elgin and Baron Gros—should be sent back to
   insist on its reinforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to
   the military command of our land forces, and General Cousin de
   Montauban, afterwards Count Palikao, commanded the soldiers of
   France. The Chinese, to do them justice, fought very bravely,
   but of course they had no chance whatever against such forces
   as those commanded by the English and French generals. The
   allies captured the Taku forts [August, 1860], occupied
   Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese Government
   endeavoured to negotiate for peace, and to interpose any
   manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise, between the allies
   and their progress to the capital. Lord Elgin consented at
   last to enter into negotiations at Tungchow, a walled town ten
   or twelve miles nearer than Pekin. Before the negotiations
   took place, Lord Elgin's secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch,
   some English officers, Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent of the
   'Times,' and some members of the staff of Baron Gros, were
   treacherously seized by the Chinese while under a flag of
   truce and dragged off to various prisons. Mr. Parkes and Mr.
   Loch, with eleven of their companions, were afterwards
   released, after having been treated with much cruelty and
   indignity, but thirteen of the prisoners died of the horrible
   ill-treatment they received. Lord Elgin refused to negotiate
   until the prisoners had been returned, and the allied armies
   were actually at one of the great gates of Pekin, and had
   their guns in position to blow the gate in, when the Chinese
   acceded to their terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies
   entered the city, and the English and French flags were
   hoisted side by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after
   entering the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the
   captives. He then determined that the Summer Palace should be
   burnt down as a means of impressing the mind of the Chinese
   authorities generally with some sense of the danger of
   treachery and foul play. Two days were occupied in the
   destruction of the palace. It covered an area of many miles.
   Gardens, temples, small lodges, and pagodas, groves, grottoes,
   lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the
   vast space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities,
   archaeological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese
   taste, such as it was, could bring together, had been
   accumulated in this magnificent pleasaunce. The surrounding
   scenery was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted
   one side of the enclosure. The buildings were set on fire; the
   whole place was given over to destruction. A monument was
   raised with an inscription in Chinese, setting forth that such
   was the reward of perfidy and cruelty. Very different opinions
   were held in England as to the destruction of the Imperial
   palace. To many it seemed an act of unintelligible and
   unpardonable vandalism. Lord Elgin explained, that if he did
   not demand the surrender of the actual perpetrators, it was
   because he knew full well that no difficulty would have been
   made about giving him a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese
   Government would have selected for vicarious punishment, in
   all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortunate wretches who
   had nothing to do with the murders. … It is somewhat
   singular that so many persons should have been roused to
   indignation by the destruction of a building who took with
   perfect composure the unjust invasion of a country. The allied
   powers now of course had it all their own way. England
   established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether the
   Chinese liked it or not. China had to pay a war indemnity, and
   a large sum of money as compensation to the families of the
   murdered prisoners and to those who had suffered injuries, and
   to make an apology for the attack by the garrison of the Taku
   forts. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe from the war
   was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so large a
   city as we had all imagined it to be, and that it was on the
   whole rather a crumbling and tumble-down sort of place."

      _J. McCarthy,
      Short History of our own Time,
      chapters 12, 15, 17
      (chapters 30 and 42, volume 3, of larger work)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Oliphant,
      Narrative of the Earl of Elgin's Mission,
      volume 1._

      _H. B. Loch,
      Personal Narrative._

      _S. W. Williams,
      The Middle Kingdom,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

      _Colonel Sir W. F. Butler,
      Charles George Gordon,
      chapter 3._

CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
   Treaty with the United States.
   The Burlingame Embassy and the Burlingame Treaties.

   "The government of the United States viewed with anxiety the
   new breaking out of hostilities between Great Britain,
   supported by France as an ally, and China, in the year 1856.
   President Buchanan sent thither the Honorable William B. Reed to
   watch the course of events, and to act the part of a mediator
   and peacemaker when opportunity should offer. In this he was
   sustained by the influence of Russia. Mr. Reed arrived in Hong
   Kong, on the fine war steamer Minnesota, November 7, 1857. He
   at once set himself to remove the difficulties between the
   English and Chinese, and save if possible the future effusion
   of blood. He endeavored in vain to persuade the proud and
   obstinate governor Yeh to yield, and save Canton from
   bombardment.
{428}
   He proceeded to the north, and made on behalf of his
   government a treaty of peace with China which was signed June
   18. The first article of the treaty contains a significant
   reference to the posture of the United States in relation to
   the war then in progress, as well as to any which might
   thereafter arise. The article says: 'There shall be, as there
   have always been, peace and friendship between the United
   States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire, and between their
   people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each
   other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement
   between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or
   oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices,
   on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable
   arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly
   feelings.' A subsequent article of this treaty is to be
   interpreted by keeping in view the bitter root of the
   difficulties between Great Britain and China which led to the
   previous war of 1839 to '42, and to this war. After stating
   the ports where Americans shall be permitted to reside and
   their vessels to trade, it continues in the following
   language: 'But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine
   and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to
   be legal, or along the coasts thereof; and any vessel under
   the American flag violating this provision shall, with her
   cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese government;
   and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any
   contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt
   with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any
   countenance or protection from that of the United States; and
   the United States will take measures to prevent their flag
   from being abused by the subjects of other nations as a cover
   for the violation of the laws of the empire.'… The
   development of the foreign trade with China during the brief
   time which has passed [1870] since the last war has been very
   great. … The American government has been represented most
   of the time by the Honorable Anson Burlingame, who has taken the
   lead, with remarkable ability and success, in establishing the
   policy of peaceful co-operation between the chief
   treaty-powers, in encouraging the Chinese to adopt a more wise
   and progressive policy in their entercourse with foreign
   nations and in the introduction of the improvements of the
   age. … Mr. Burlingame, who had been in China six years,
   determined [in 1867] to resign his post and return to America.
   The news of it excited much regret among both Chinese and
   foreign diplomatists. The former endeavored in vain to
   dissuade him from his purpose. Failing to accomplish this, he
   was invited by Prince Kung to a farewell entertainment, at
   which were present many of the leading officers of the
   government. During it they expressed to him their gratitude
   for his offices to them as an intelligent and disinterested
   counselor and friend. And they seem to have conceived at this
   time the thought of putting the relations of the empire with
   foreign countries upon a more just and equal basis, by sending
   to them an imperial embassy of which he should be the head.
   They promptly consulted some of their more reliable friends
   among the foreign gentlemen at the capital, and in two days
   after they tendered to Mr. Burlingame, much to his surprise,
   the appointment of minister plenipotentiary of China to the
   Western powers. … Mr. Burlingame left the Chinese capital on
   the 25th of November, 1867. The embassy consisted, besides the
   principal, of Chih-kang and Sun Chia-ku, a Manchu and a
   Chinese officer, each wearing the red ball on his cap which
   indicates an official of a rank next to the highest in the
   empire; J. McLeary Brown, formerly of the British legation,
   and M. Deschamps, as secretaries; Teh Ming and Fung I as
   Chinese attachés, and several other persons in subordinate
   positions. … It went to Shanghai, thence to San Francisco,
   where it was most cordially welcomed by both the American and
   Chinese mercantile communities. It reached Washington in May,
   1868. The embassy was treated with much distinction at the
   American capital. No American statesman was so capable and
   disposed to enter cordially into its objects as the Secretary
   of State at that time, the Honorable William H. Seward, whose mind
   had long apprehended the great features of the policy which
   American and foreign nations should pursue in relation to the
   Chinese empire. On the 16th of July the Senate of the United
   States ratified a treaty which he had made in behalf of this
   country with the representative of the Chinese government. The
   treaty defines and fixes the principles of the intercourse of
   Western nations with China, of the importance of which I have
   already spoken. It secures the territorial integrity of the
   empire, and concedes to China the rights which the civilized
   nations of the world, accord to each other as to eminent
   domain over land and waters, and jurisdiction over persons and
   property therein. It takes the first step toward the
   appointment of Chinese consuls in our seaports—a measure
   promotive of both Chinese and American interests. It secures
   exemption from all disability or persecution on account of
   religious faith in either country. It recognizes the right of
   voluntary emigration and makes penal the wrongs of the coolie
   traffic. It pledges privileges as to travel or residence in
   either country such as are enjoyed by the most favored nation.
   It grants to the Chinese permission to attend our schools and
   colleges, and allows us to freely establish and maintain
   schools in China. And while it acknowledges the right of the
   Chinese government to control its own whole interior
   arrangements, as to railroads, telegraphs and other internal
   improvements, it suggests the willingness of our government to
   afford aid toward their construction by designating and
   authorizing suitable engineers to perform the work, at the
   expense of the Chinese government. The treaty expressly leaves
   the question of naturalization in either country an open one.
   … It is not necessary to follow in detail the progress of
   this first imperial Chinese embassy. In England it was
   received at first very coldly, and it was some months before
   proper attention could be secured from the government to its
   objects. At length, however, on November 20, it was presented
   to the queen at Windsor Castle. … What heart is there that
   will not join in the cordial wish that the treaties made by
   the embassy with Great Britain, France, Prussia and other
   European powers may be the commencement of a new era in the
   diplomatic and national intercourse of China with those and
   all other lands of the West!"

      _W. Speer,
      The Oldest and the Newest Empire,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the
      United States and other Powers (1889),
      page 159 and 179._

{429}

CHINA: A. D. 1884-1885.
   War with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

CHINA: A. D. 1892.
   Exclusion of Chinese from the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CHINA: A. D. 1893.
   The future of the Chinese.
   A speculation.

   "China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can
   fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and
   the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor
   Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the
   race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view.
   On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from
   Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating
   the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in
   Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for
   sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of
   Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very
   formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia.
   Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now
   tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up
   and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried
   into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished
   with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case
   the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still
   claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah,
   and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious
   discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the
   expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the
   world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no
   European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was
   so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of
   office. … 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in
   this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only
   people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised
   territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of
   our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how
   the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the
   population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best
   observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own
   against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and
   Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the
   small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of
   all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to
   governments and employers by their power of steady industry;
   and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women
   of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet
   not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have
   retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have
   mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish
   in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the
   government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration;
   English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in
   their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang
   that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre;
   and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil
   of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the
   emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing.
   … Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not
   work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have
   to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives
   who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will
   be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo
   is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled
   like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000.
   … In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as
   sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who
   organise where they can in a way that precludes competition,
   are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not
   destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the
   position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in
   Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its
   inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world,
   and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly
   Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger
   part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands?
   or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or
   diplomacy, into the possession of China? … There are those
   who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the
   Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without
   assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be
   realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a
   people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural
   resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and
   spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      National Life and Character,
      pages 45-51._

----------CHINA: End----------

CHINANTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

CH'ING OR TSING DYNASTY, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

CHINGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

CHINOOK, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY.

CHIOGGIA, The War of.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

CHIOS.

   The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in
   modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's
   birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait
   only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of
   Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at
   the present day. The island was an important member of the
   Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from
   which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in
   consequence.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CHIOS: B. C. 413.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

CHIOS: A. D. 1346.
   Taken by the Genoese.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

CHIOS: A. D. 1681.
   Blockade and attack by the French.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

CHIOS: A. D. 1770.
    Temporary possession by the Russians.

       See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

CHIOS: A. D. 1822.
   Turkish massacre of Christians.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------CHIOS: End----------

CHIPPEWA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{430}

CHIPPEWAS, OR OJIBWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      AND OJIBWAS.

CHIPPEWYANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

CHITON, The.

   "The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of
   cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through
   a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being
   fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or
   clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was
   completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of
   which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched
   together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon
   or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as
   required by pulling it through this girdle. … Frequently
   sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or
   continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. … The
   short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children
   on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both
   shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free
   citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton
   with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the
   chest remaining quite uncovered. … It appears clearly that
   the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open
   and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed
   double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of
   cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on
   both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as
   in a cylinder."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      part 1, section 41._

   "The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian
   maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and
   without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large
   clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This
   sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to
   the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both
   sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they
   walked, entirely exposed their limbs. … The married women,
   however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,'
   but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to
   have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 3, chapter 6._

CHITTIM.

      See KITTIM.

CHIVALRY.

   "The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the
   French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of
   soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that
   general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and
   modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present
   article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in
   modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood,
   established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages,
   and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed.
   Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their
   effects may still be traced in European manners; and,
   excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction
   of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced
   such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and
   moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of
   chivalry. … From the time that cavalry becomes used in war,
   the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in
   all countries, into a person of superior importance to the
   mere foot-soldier. … In various military nations, therefore,
   we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the
   state. … But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed
   to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and
   imposing character. They were not merely respected on account
   of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by
   a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were
   ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and
   governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the
   military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated
   with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to
   assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long
   and severe probation, during which they practised, as
   acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry.
   Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble
   youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at
   least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and
   the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time
   in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of
   eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in
   future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of
   humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to
   display those of a higher order. … In the general and
   abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body
   of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were
   invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with
   reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions
   and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either
   original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was
   in the singular tenets of Chivalry,—in the exalted,
   enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with
   its duties,—in the singular balance which its institutions
   offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose,
   that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so
   worthy of our attention. … The education of the future
   knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after
   the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too
   tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too
   effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of
   chivalry. … To counteract these habits of indulgence, the
   first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page.
   The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth
   year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some
   baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious
   parent as that which had the best reputation for good order
   and discipline. … When advancing age and experience in the
   use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and
   dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the
   second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire,
   or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much
   contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from
   its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the
   shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to
   engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more
   remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the
   knight being under the especial care of the squire.
{431}
   Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to
   the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and
   to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times,
   became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the
   appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means
   anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms.
   There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning
   of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a
   title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in
   1579. … In actual war the page was not expected to render
   much service, but that of the squire was important and
   indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of
   the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal
   fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led
   in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney.
   The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an
   armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his
   cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which
   the various pieces were united to each other. … In the
   actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the
   banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a
   knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was
   at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve
   him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners
   they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself
   fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. … A
   youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier,
   and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until
   he was one-and-twenty. … Knighthood was, in its origin, an
   order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature;
   arising … from the customs of the free tribes of Germany
   [see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the
   sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could
   confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory
   noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest
   potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the
   honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose
   achievements had dignified the period. … Though no positive
   regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of
   the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign
   princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the
   latter the power of conferring knighthood. … Knights were
   usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory
   had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of
   some solemn warning or grand festival. … The spirit of
   chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and
   moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually
   introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally
   great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of
   thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end
   of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed
   forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may
   be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or
   general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which
   actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But
   its most brilliant period was during the wars between France
   and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that
   the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered
   by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity
   for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer
   terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently
   makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and
   English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons
   to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain
   and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every
   kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a
   greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the
   emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the
   Christians. But even during this splendid period, various
   causes were silently operating the future extinction of the
   flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important
   discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and
   was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its
   highest glory. … Another change, of vital importance, arose
   from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at
   arms in France, constituted … expressly as a sort of
   standing army. … A more fatal cause had, however, been for
   some time operating in England, as well as France, for the
   destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York
   and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of
   the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was
   utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and
   gentleness, proper to chivalry. … The civil wars not only
   operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting
   and destroying the particular class of society from which its
   votaries were drawn."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Essay on Chivalry._

      ALSO IN: G
      _P. R. James,
      History of Chivalry._

      _H. Hallam,
      State of Europe during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3)._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Civilization in France,
      6th lecture, 2d course (volume 4)._

      _C. Mills,
      History of Chivalry._

      _H. Stebbing,
      History of Chivalry and the Crusades._

      _L. Gautier,
      Chivalry._

      _K. H. Digby,
      The Broadstone of Honour._

      _Dr. Doran,
      Knights and their Days._

      See, also, KNIGHTHOOD, ORDERS OF.

CHLAMYS, The.

   "The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] … was an oblong
   piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends
   being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp;
   the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept
   straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was
   principally used by travellers and soldiers."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      part 1, section 42._

CHOCIM.

      See CHOCZIM.

CHOCTAWS, OR CHA'HTAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622.
   Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672.
   Taken by Sobieska and the Poles.
   Great defeat of the Turks.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1739.
   Captured by the Russians and restored to the Turks.

      See Russia: A. D.1725-1739.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1769.
   Taken by the Russians.
   Defeat of the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

{432}

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1790.
   Defeat of the Turks by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

----------CHOCZIM: End----------

CHOLET, Battles of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CHOLULA: Pyramids at.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

CHOLULA: A. D. 1519.
   The Massacre at.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (OCTOBER).

----------CHOLULA: End----------

CHONTALS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

CHONTAQUIROS, OR PIRU, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CHORASMIA.

      See KHUAREZM.

CHOREGIA.

      See LITURGIES.

CHOTUSITZ, OR CZASLAU, Battle of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

CHOTYN.

      See CHOCZIM.

CHOUANS.
CHOUANNERIE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

CHOUT.
   The blackmail levied by the Mahrattas.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

CHOWANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

CHREMONIDEAN WAR, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.

CHRIST, Knights of the Order of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

CHRISTIAN I.,
   King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, A. D. 1448-1481.

   Christian II., A. D. 1513-1523.

   Christian III., King of Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1534-1558.

   Christian IV., A. D. 1588-1648.

   Christian V., A. D. 1670-1699.

   Christian VI., A. D. 1730-1746.

   Christian VII., A. D. 1766-1808.

   Christian VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1839-1848.

   Christian IX., A. D. 1863-.

CHRISTIAN COMMISSION, The United States.

      See SANITARY COMMISSION.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

      See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

[image: DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.]

[image: DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.]

CHRISTIANITY:

   "Historical geography has of late years become an integral
   part of the historical science. Recent investigations have
   opened up the subject and a solid beginning has been made—but
   it is only a beginning. It is clearly recognized that the land
   itself as it appears at different periods is one of those
   invaluable original documents upon which history is built, and
   no stone is being left unturned to clear away mysteries and to
   bring to our aid a realism hitherto unknown to the science.
   … But the special branch of this vast and complicated theme
   of historical geography which interests us most and which I
   desire briefly to bring to your attention is that which deals
   with the Christian Church. … Our eyes first rest upon that
   little group at Jerusalem that made up the Pentecostal Church.
   Its spread was conditioned by the extent and character of the
   Roman Empire, by the municipal genius of that empire, its
   great highways by land and sea; conditioned by the commercial
   routes and the track of armies outside the bounds of
   civilization; conditioned by the spread of languages—
   Aramaic, Greek, and Latin,—and, most important of all,
   conditioned by the whereabouts of the seven million Jews
   massed in Syria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and scattered
   everywhere throughout the Empire and far beyond its
   boundaries."

      _H. W. Hulbert,
      The Historical Geography of the Christian Church
      (American Society of Church History, volume 3)._

   "When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that
   in the West, we seem in quite a different atmosphere. Despite
   their intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves,
   their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the
   opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of
   the East rested the future of Judaism; with them of the West,
   in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old Israel
   groping back into the darkness of the past; the other young
   Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new
   day was about to break. These Jews of the West are known by
   the term Hellenists. … The translation of the Old Testament
   into Greek may be regarded as the starting point of Hellenism.
   It rendered possible the hope that what in its original form
   had been confined to the few, might become accessible to the
   world at large. … In the account of the truly representative
   gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks,
   the division of the 'dispersion' into two grand sections—the
   Eastern or Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or
   Hellenist—seems clearly marked. In this arrangement the
   former would include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and
   dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judæa standing, so to speak, in the
   middle, while 'the Cretes and Arabians' would typically
   represent the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western
   and Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New
   Testament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of the
   'dispersion of the Greeks', and of 'Hellenists' or 'Grecians.'
   On the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited
   Babylon and many of the other satrapies,' were included with
   the Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,'
   from the common language which they spoke. But the difference
   between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews' was far deeper than
   merely of language, and extended to the whole direction of
   thought."

      _A. Edersheim.
      The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
      volume 1, book 1, chapters 2-3, and 1._

   "Before Pentecost an assembly of the believers took place, at
   which the post vacated in the number of the apostles by the
   suicide of the traitor Judas of Kerioth, was filled up by the
   election of Matthias by lot. On this occasion the number of
   the assembled brethren amounted to about 120 men. … At the
   feast of Pentecost … a very considerable accession was made
   to the formerly moderate band of believers in Jerusalem; …
   about 3,000 souls received the word and were joined to the
   Church by baptism (Acts ii. 41). We must not, however, at once
   credit the Church in Jerusalem with this increase. For among
   the listeners to the apostolic discourse there were
   Israelitish guests and proselytes from near and distant
   countries (ii. 5, 9-11, 14), whence we may infer that of those
   newly converted many were not living in Jerusalem itself, but
   partly in Judæa and Galilee, partly in countries beyond
   Palestine, who therefore returned home after the feast days
   were ended.
{433}
   Some of these might, under certain circumstances, form
   the centre of a small Church in the dispersion, so that
   gradually Churches may have arisen to which also James may
   possibly have addressed his Epistle. … So abundantly did God
   bless with success the activity of the early apostles though
   limited to the nation of Israel and the land of Canaan, and
   their fidelity within a circumscribed sphere. Hence there
   existed at the end of the period of which we treat numerous
   Christian Churches in Jerusalem and the whole country of Judæa
   (comp. Galatians i. 22, etc.: Acts xi. 1), also on the coast (Acts
   ix. 32-35, etc.) in Samaria and Galilee, and finally in Syria,
   Phenicia, and Cyprus, (Acts ix. 2, 10, 25, xi. 19), some of
   which were directly, some indirectly, founded by the Twelve,
   and were, in any case, governed and guided by them.' In the
   above named districts outside Palestine, it might not, indeed,
   have been easy to find a Christian Church consisting
   exclusively of believing Jews, for as a rule they consisted of
   believing Jews and individual Gentiles. On the other hand, we
   shall scarcely be wrong in regarding the Christian Churches
   within Palestine itself as composed entirely of believing
   Israelites. But even among these there were many distinctions,
   e. g., between Palestinians and Hellenists."

      _G. V. Lechler,
      The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
      volume 1, pages 30-35._

   "We find the early [Jewish] Christians observing the national
   feasts and holidays (Acts ii. 1: xviii. 21: xx. 6, 16: Romans
   xiv. 5). They take part in the worship of the temple and the
   synagogue; they pray at the customary hours (chapters ii. 46;
   iii. 1; volume 42; x. 9). They observe the fasts, and undergo
   voluntary abstinence, binding themselves by special vows like
   all pious Jews (xiii. 2: xvii. 18; xxi. 23). They scrupulously
   avoid unlawful food, and all legal defilement (x. 14). They
   have their children circumcised (xv. 5; xvi. 3; 65493 volume 2).
   … This scrupulous piety won for them the esteem and
   admiration of the people (chap. volume 13)." At first their creed
   was "comprised in a single dogma: 'Jesus is the Messiah.' …
   Their preaching of the Gospel strictly followed the lines of
   Messianic tradition (i. 7; ii. 36; iii. 20). … But in
   reality all this formed only the outside of their life and
   creed. … Herein lies the profound significance of the
   miracle of Pentecost. That day was the birthday of the Church,
   not because of the marvelous success of Peter's preaching, but
   because the Christian principle, hitherto existing only
   objectively and externally in the person of Jesus, passed from
   that moment into the souls of His disciples. … And thus in
   the very midst of Judaism we see created and unfolded a form
   of religious life essentially different from it—the Christian
   life."

      _A. Sabatier,
      The Apostle Paul,
      pages 35-36._

   "By the two parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,
   Christ marked out the two sides or aspects of His truth—its
   external growth from the least to the greatest, and its
   internal action on society at large—as setting up a ferment,
   and making a new lump out of the unkneaded mass of the old
   humanity. With these two symbols in view we may gauge what the
   gospel was designed to be and to do. It was to grow into a
   great outward society—the tree of the Church; but it was also
   to do a work on secular society as such, corresponding to the
   action of leaven on flour. The history of Christianity has
   been the carrying out of these two distinct and contrasted
   conceptions; but how imperfectly, and under what drawbacks."

      _Reverend J. B. Heard,
      Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted,
      page 186._

   "The organic connection of Jewish Christians with the
   synagogue, which must, in accordance with the facts before us,
   be regarded as a rule, is certainly not to be taken as a mere
   incidental phenomenon, a customary habit or arbitrary
   accommodation, but as a moral fact resting upon an internal
   necessity, having its foundation in the love of Jewish
   Christians to their nation, and in the adhesion of their
   religious consciousness to the old covenant. To mistake this
   would be to underrate the wide bearing of the fact. But lest
   we should over-estimate its importance, we must at once
   proceed to another consideration. Within Judaism we must
   distinguish not only the Rabbinical or Pharisaic tradition of
   the original canonical revelation, but also within the canon
   itself we have to distinguish the Levitical element from the
   prophetic, … taking the latter not in a close but a wide
   sense as the living spiritual development of the theocracy."

      _G. V. Lechler,
      The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
      volume 1, page 54._

   "Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly
   independent of his religious obligations. To him it was a
   national institution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the
   Gospel he might consider his relations to it in this latter
   character altered, but as embodying the decrees and usages of
   his country it still demanded his allegiance. To be a good
   Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen. On these
   grounds the more enlightened members of the mother-church
   would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor is
   there any reason to suppose that St. Paul himself took a
   different view of their obligations."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      page 67._

   "The term 'Jewish-Christianity' is applicable exclusively to
   those Christians who really retained, entirely or in the
   smallest part, the national and political forms of Judaism and
   insisted upon the observance of the Mosaic Law without
   modification as essential to Christianity, at least to the
   Christianity of the Jewish-born converts, or who indeed
   rejected these forms, but acknowledged the prerogative of the
   Jewish people also in Christianity."

      _A. Harnack,
      Outlines of the History of Dogma,
      page 75._

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.
   The Rise of the Churches.
   Jerusalem.

   "After the miraculous healing of the cripple and the discourse
   of the Apostle Peter on that occasion, the historian goes on
   to say, Many of them which heard the word believed, and the
   number of the men was about 5,000' (iv. 4). It seems as if in
   consequence of this event, which made no little stir, a larger
   number joined themselves to the Church. Nor is it probable
   that this healing took place until a long time after the
   beginning of the Church. The miracle, with the effect which it
   had, serves as a resting place at which the result of the
   previous growth of the Church may be ascertained. And here the
   number again incidentally mentioned refers without doubt to
   the Church at Jerusalem."

      _G. V. Lechler,
      The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
      volume 1, page 32._

{434}

   The early history of the Churches "falls into three periods
   which mark three distinct stages in its progress:
   (1) The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles;
   (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty;
   (3) The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches.
   … And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt.
   The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of
   Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power of
   Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria,
   attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia,
   swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and
   court of the Cæsars, these outlying members of the chosen race
   had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than
   their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible
   gradations—proselytes of the covenant—proselytes of the
   gate—superstitious devotees who observed the rites without
   accepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation—curious
   lookers-on who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as
   they would in the worship of Isis or of Astarte—the most
   stubborn zealot of the law was linked to the idolatrous
   heathen whom he abhorred and who despised him in turn. Thus
   the train was unconsciously laid, when the spark fell from
   heaven and fired it. … Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years
   passed away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The
   Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined
   their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the
   proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach was made, and
   the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. The first
   step towards the creation of an organized ministry was also
   the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The
   Jews of Judæa, 'Hebrews of the Hebrews' had ever regarded
   their Hellenist brethren with suspicion and distrust; and this
   estrangement reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The
   interests of the Hellenist widows had been neglected in the
   daily distribution of alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of the
   Hellenists against the Hebrews' (Acts vi. 1), which was met by
   the appointment of seven persons specially charged with
   providing for the wants of these neglected poor. If the
   selection was made, as St. Luke's language seems to imply, not
   by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church at large (vi.
   2), the concession when granted was carried out in a liberal
   spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to a
   Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is
   especially described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to
   represent a hitherto small but growing section of the
   community. By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained
   a status in the Church; and the effects of this measure soon
   became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently forward
   as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and
   martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      pages 50-52._

   "The Hellenist Stephen roused deep-stirring movements chiefly
   in Hellenist circles. … The persecution of the Jerusalem
   community—perhaps specially of its Hellenist part—which
   followed the stoning of Stephen, became a means of promoting
   the spread of the Christian faith to … Cyprus, at last to so
   important a centre as Antioch, the imperial capital of the
   East. To the winning of the Jews to faith in Jesus there is
   already added the reception into the Christian community of
   the pious Gentile Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate. …
   Though this appears in tradition as an individual case
   sanctioned by special Divine guidance, in the meantime
   Hellenist Christians had already begun to preach the Gospel to
   born Greeks, also at Antioch in Syria, and successfully (Acts
   xi. 19-26), Barnabas is sent thither from Jerusalem."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 53-54._

   "Philip, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached
   Christ to the Samaritans. … The Apostles who had remained at
   Jerusalem, hearing of the success of Philip's preaching, sent
   two of their number into this new and fruitful field of labor.
   … Peter and John return to Jerusalem while the Deacon Philip
   is called, by a new manifestation of the will of God, yet
   further to extend the field of Christian missions. It is not a
   Samaritan but a pagan, whom he next instructs in the truth.
   … He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the court
   of Meroë, treasurer of the Queen. … This man, a pagan by
   birth, had taken a long journey to worship the true God in the
   temple of Jerusalem."

      _E. De Pressensé,
      The Early Years of Christianity,
      pages 71-74._

   "For the sake of the popular feeling Herod Agrippa laid hands
   on members of the community, and caused James the brother of
   John (the sons of Zebedee) to be put to death by the sword, in
   the year 44, for soon thereafter Herod Agrippa died. Peter
   also was taken prisoner, but miraculously escaped and
   provisionally left Jerusalem. From this time on James the
   brother of the Lord appears ever more and more as really
   bearing rank as head of the Jerusalem community, while Peter
   more and more devotes himself to the apostolic mission abroad,
   and indeed, more accurately, to the mission in Israel."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 55._

   "The accounts which we have regarding the apostle Peter,
   represent him as preaching the gospel from the far east to
   distant parts of the west. … According to his own words, he
   founded churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
   Bithynia, and according to the testimony of ancient historians
   of the Church in the east also; in Syria, Babylon,
   Mesopotamia, Chaldaea, Arabia, Phoenicia and Egypt, and in the
   west, at Rome, in Britain, Ireland, Helvetia and Spain."

      _J. E. T. Wiltsch,
      Hand Book of the Geography and Statistics of The Church,
      volume 1, pages 19-20._

   "Three and three only of the personal disciples and immediate
   followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the
   Apostolic records—James, Peter, and John; the first the
   Lord's brother, the two latter the foremost members of the
   Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of
   James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single
   sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the
   last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. Thenceforward
   they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. And this
   silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. We
   read indeed of St. Thomas in India, of St. Andrew in Scythia;
   but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as
   trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church
   could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured
   zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel; but, so
   far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual
   mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the
   foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early
   ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St. Paul,
   and the three Apostles of the Circumcision."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      page 46._

{435}

   "While Peter (as it appears) is occupied with the work of
   preaching to the Jews outside of Palestine, the community at
   Jerusalem, and indeed the Palestinian communities in general,
   stand under the leadership of the brother of the Lord, James,
   as their recognised head. They remain strictly in the life of
   the law, and still hold securely to the hope of the conversion
   of the whole of God's people (which Paul had for the present
   given up). The mission to the Gentiles is indeed recognised,
   but the manner of its conduct by Paul and the powerful
   increase of Pauline communities excite misgivings and
   dissensions. For in these mixed communities, in the presence
   of what is often a preponderating Gentile element, it becomes
   ever clearer in what direction the development is pressing;
   that, in fact, for the sake of the higher Christian communion
   the legal customs even of the Jewish Christians in these
   communities must inevitably be broken down, and general
   Christian freedom, on principle, from the commands of the law,
   gain recognition."

      _Dr. Wilhelm Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 73._

   "The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the Autumn of the year 70
   [see JEWS: A. D. 66-70]. And soon the catastrophe came which
   solved the difficult problem. … Jerusalem was razed to the
   ground, and the Temple-worship ceased, never again to be
   revived. The Christians foreseeing the calamity had fled
   before the tempest. … Before the crisis came, they had been
   deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading apostles.
   Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia
   Minor; James, the Lord's brother, was slain not long before
   the great catastrophe. … He was succeeded by his cousin
   Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew of Joseph. Under these
   circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. Its history in
   the ages following is a hopeless blank."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      page 68._

   "While Cæsarea succeeded Jerusalem as the political capital of
   Palestine, Antioch succeeded it as the centre of Christendom."

      _A. Plummer,
      Church of the Early Fathers,
      chapter 3._

CHRISTIANITY: Antioch.

   "Under Macedonian rule the Greek intellect had become the
   leading intellectual power of the world. The great
   Greek-speaking towns of the East were alike the strongholds of
   intellectual power, the battlefields of opinion and systems,
   and the laboratories of scientific research, where discoveries
   were made and literary undertakings requiring the combination
   of forces were carried out. Such was Antioch on the Orontes,
   the meeting point of Syrian and Greek intellect; such, above
   all, was Alexandria."

      _J. J. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      page 165._

   "The chief line along which the new religion developed was
   that which led from Syrian Antioch through the Cilician Gates,
   across Lycaonia to Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. One subsidiary
   line followed the land route by Philadelphia, Troas, Philippi,
   and the Egnatian Way to Brindisi and Rome; and another went
   north from the Gates by Tyana and Cæsareia of Cappadocia to
   Amisos in Pontus, the great harbour of the Black Sea, by which
   the trade of Central Asia was carried to Rome. The maintenance
   of close and constant communication between the scattered
   congregations must be presupposed, as necessary to explain the
   growth of the Church and the attitude which the State assumed
   towards it. Such communication was, on the view advocated in
   the present work, maintained along the same lines on which the
   general development of the Empire took place; and politics,
   education and religion grew side by side."

      _W. M. Ramsay,
      The Church in the Roman Empire,
      page 10._

   "The incitement to the wider preaching of the Gospel in the
   Greek world starts from the Christian community at Antioch.
   For this purpose Barnabas receives Paul as a companion (Acts
   xiii., and xiv.) Saul, by birth a Jew of the tribe of
   Benjamin, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, educated as a Pharisee;
   and although indeed as a Hellenist, he had command of Greek
   and had come into contact with Greek culture and Greek life,
   yet had not actually passed through the discipline of Greek
   culture, was introduced by Gamaliel to the learned study of
   the law, and his whole soul was seized with fiery zeal for the
   Statutes of the fathers. … After [his conversion and] his
   stay in Damascus and in Arabia and the visit to Peter (and
   James) at Jerusalem, having gone to Syria and Cilicia, he was
   taken to Antioch by Barnabas."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 57._

   "The strength and zeal of the Antioch Christian society are
   shown in the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas, with Mark, a
   cousin of Barnabas, for their companion for a part of the way,
   on a preaching tour in the eastern districts of Asia Minor.
   First they visited Cyprus, where Sergius Paulus, the
   proconsul, was converted. Thence they sailed to Attalia, on
   the southern coast of Pamphylia, and near Perga; from Perga
   they proceeded to Antioch in Pisidia, and from there eastward
   to Iconium, and as far as Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia.
   Retracing their steps, they came back to Attalia, and sailed
   directly to Antioch. … This was the first incursion of Paul
   into the domain of heathenism."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 22._

   "How then should Paul and Barnabas proceed? To leave Syria
   they must go first to Seleuceia, the harbour of Antioch, where
   they would find ships going south to the Syrian coast and
   Egypt, and west either by way of Cyprus or along the coast of
   Asia Minor. The western route led toward the Roman world, to
   which all Paul's subsequent history proves that he considered
   himself called by the Spirit. The Apostles embarked in a ship
   for Cyprus, which was very closely connected by commerce and
   general intercourse with the Syrian coast. After traversing
   the island from east to west, they must go onward. Ships going
   westward naturally went across the coast of Pamphylia, and the
   Apostles, after reaching Paphos, near the west end of Cyprus,
   sailed in one of these ships, and landed at Attalia in
   Pamphylia."

      _W. M. Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire, page 60._

   "The work starting from Antioch, by which access to the faith
   is opened to the Gentiles, the formation of (preponderatingly)
   Gentile Christian communities, now introduces into the
   original Christian development an important problem, which
   (about the year 52, probably not later), (Galatians ii.; Acts xv.)
   leads to discussions and explanations at the so-called
   Apostolic Council [at Jerusalem]. … For Paul, who has risen
   to perfect independence by the energy of his own peculiar
   stamp of gospel, there now begin the years of his powerful
   activity, in which he not only again visits and extends his
   former missionary field in Asia Minor, but gains a firm
   footing in Macedonia (Philippi), Athens, and Achaia (Corinth);
   then on the so-called third missionary journey he exercises a
   comprehensive influence during a stay of nearly three years at
   Ephesus, and finally looks from Achaia towards the metropolis
   of the world."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 57-59._

{436}

   "If the heathen whom he (Paul) had won to the faith and
   received into the Church were to be persuaded to adopt
   circumcision and the law before they could attain to full
   participation in the Christian salvation, his preaching had
   fallen short of his aim, it had been in vain, since it was
   very doubtful whether the Gentiles gained over to believe in
   the Messiah would submit to the condition. Paul could only
   look on those who made such a demand as false brethren, who
   having no claim to Christian brotherhood had forced themselves
   into the Church at Antioch in an unauthorized way (Galatians ii.
   4), and was persuaded that neither the primitive Church as
   such, nor its rulers, shared this view. In order therefore to
   prevent the Gentile Christians from being disturbed on this
   point, he determined to go to Jerusalem and there to challenge
   a decision in the matter that should put an end to the strife
   (ii. 2). The Church at Antioch also recognized this necessity;
   hence followed the proceedings in Jerusalem [about A. D. 52],
   whither Paul and Barnabas repaired with other associates (Galatians
   ii. 1, Acts xv. 2 ff). … It is certain that when Paul laid
   his (free) gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem, they
   added nothing to it (Galatians ii. 2-6). i. e., they did not
   require that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles should,
   besides the sole condition of faith which he laid down, impose
   Judaism upon them as a condition of participation in
   salvation. … Paul's stipulations with the authorities in
   Jerusalem respecting their future work were just as important
   for him as the recognition of his free gospel (Galatians ii. 7-10).
   They had for their basis a recognition on the part of the
   primitive apostles that he was entrusted with the gospel of
   the uncircumcision, to which they could add nothing (ii. 6),
   just as Peter (as admittedly the most prominent among the
   primitive apostles) was entrusted with that of the
   circumcision."

      _Bernhard Weiss,
      A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament,
      volume 1, pages 172-175, 178._

   "It seems clear that the first meetings of the Christians as a
   community apart—meetings that is of a private rather than a
   proselytising character—took place, as we see from Acts i.
   13-15, in private apartments, the upper rooms or large
   guest-chambers in the houses of individual members. Such a
   room was doubtless provided by the liberality of Titus Justus
   (Acts xviii. 7), such a room again was the upper chamber in
   which St. Paul preached at Troas (Acts xx. 7, 8); in such
   assembled the converts saluted by the Apostle as the church
   which is in the house of Aquila and Prisca, of Nymphas and of
   Philemon. … The primitive Roman house had only one story,
   but as the cities grew to be more densely populated upper
   stories came into use, and it was the custom to place in these
   dining apartments, which were called cenacula. Such apartments
   would answer to the 'upper rooms' … associated with the
   early days of Christianity. … The Christian communities
   contained from an early period members of wealth and social
   position, who could accommodate in their houses large
   gatherings of the faithful; and it is interesting to reflect
   that while some of the mansions of an ancient city might be
   witnessing in suppers of a Trimalchio or a Virro, scenes more
   revolting to modern taste than almost anything presented by
   the pagan world, others, perhaps in the same street, might be
   the seat of Christian worship or of the simple Christian
   meal."

      _G. B. Brown,
      From Schola to Cathedral,
      pages 38-43._

CHRISTIANITY: Asia Minor and Greece.

   "Our knowledge of the Apostle Paul's life is far from being
   complete. We have only a brief sketch of journeys and toils
   that extended over a period of thirty years. Large spaces are
   passed over in silence. For example, in the catalogue of his
   sufferings, incidentally given, he refers to the fact that he
   had been shipwrecked three times, and these disasters were all
   prior to the shipwreck on the Island of Malta described by
   Luke. Shortly after the conference at Jerusalem he started on
   his second missionary tour. He was accompanied by Silas, and
   was joined by Timothy at Lystra. He revisited his converts in
   Eastern Asia Minor, founded churches in Galatia and Phrygia,
   and from Troas, obedient to a heavenly summons, crossed over
   to Europe. Having planted at Philippi a church that remained
   remarkably devoted and loyal to him, he followed the great
   Roman road to Thessalonica, the most important city in
   Macedonia. Driven from there and from Berea, he proceeded to
   Athens [see ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?)]. In that renowned and
   cultivated city he discoursed on Mars Hill to auditors eager
   for new ideas in philosophy and religion, and in private
   debated with Stoics and Epicureans. At Corinth, which had
   risen from its ruins and was once more rich and prosperous, he
   remained for a year and a half. It was there, probably, that
   he wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonian Christians.
   After a short stay at Ephesus he returned to Antioch by way of
   Cesarea and Jerusalem. It was not long before Paul—a second
   Alexander, but on a peaceful expedition—began his third great
   missionary journey. Taking the land route from Antioch, he
   traversed Asia Minor to Ephesus, a flourishing commercial
   mart, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. There, with
   occasional absences, he made his abode for upwards of two
   years. From Ephesus, probably, he wrote the Epistle to the
   Galatians. … From Ephesus Paul also wrote the First Epistle
   to the Corinthians. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians he
   probably wrote from Philippi. … Coming down through Greece,
   he remained there three months. There he composed his Epistle
   to the Romans. … The untiring Apostle now turned his face
   towards Jerusalem. He desired to be present at the festival of
   the Pentecost. In order to save time, he sailed past Ephesus,
   and at Miletus bade a tender farewell to the Ephesian elders.
   He had fulfilled his pledge given at the conference, and he
   now carried contributions from the Christians of Macedonia and
   Achaia for the poor at Jerusalem."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 27-28._

   "We may safely say that if Saul had been less of a Jew, Paul
   the Apostle would have been less bold and independent. His
   work would have been more superficial, and his mind less
   unfettered. God did not choose a heathen to be the apostle for
   the heathen; for he might have been ensnared by the traditions
   of Judaism, by its priestly hierarchy and the splendours of
   its worship, as indeed it happened with the church of the
   second century. On the contrary God chose a Pharisee. But this
   Pharisee had the most complete experience of the emptiness of
   external ceremonies and the crushing yoke of the law. There
   was no fear that he would ever look back, that he would be
   tempted to set up again what the grace of God had justly
   overthrown (Galatians ii. 18). Judaism was wholly vanquished
   in his soul, for it was wholly displaced."

      _A. Sabatier,
      The Apostle Paul,
      page 69._

{437}

   "Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen, in
   spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which he
   derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending
   daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among the
   Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. … The most ardent
   patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the glories of
   the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the Romans. His
   care for the poor in Judæa is a touching proof of the strength
   of this national feeling. His attendance at the great annual
   festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant. 'I must
   spend the coming feast at Jerusalem.' This language becomes
   the more striking when we remember that he was then intending
   to open out a new field of missionary labour in the far West,
   and was bidding perhaps his last farewell to the Holy City,
   the joy of the whole earth."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Biblical Essays,
      pages 209-210._

   "The Macedonian Churches are honorably distinguished above all
   others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affectionate
   regard for St. Paul himself. While the Church of Corinth
   disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the
   Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow
   formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the
   wildest speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the
   brethren of Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian
   congregations that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the
   midst of his severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to
   have chilled these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle
   to the Philippians was written about ten years after the
   Thessalonian letters. It is the more surprising therefore that
   they should resemble each other so strongly in tone. In both
   alike St. Paul drops his official title at the outset, … and
   in both he adopts throughout the same tone of confidence and
   affection. In this interval of ten years we meet with one
   notice of the Macedonian Churches. It is conceived in terms of
   unmeasured praise. The Macedonians had been called upon to
   contribute to the wants of their poorer brethren in Judæa, who
   were suffering from famine. They had responded nobly to the
   call. Deep-sunk in poverty and sorely tried by persecution,
   they came forward with eager joy and poured out the riches of
   their liberality, straining their means to the utmost in order
   to relieve the sufferers. … We may imagine that the people
   still retained something of those simpler habits and that
   sturdier character, which triumphed over Greeks and Orientals
   in the days of Philip and Alexander, and thus in the early
   warfare of the Christian Church the Macedonian phalanx offered
   a successful resistance to the assaults of an enemy, before
   which the lax and enervated ranks of Asia and Achaia had
   yielded ignominiously."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Biblical Essays,
      pages 249-250._

   At Jerusalem, "the Apostle was rescued by a detachment of the
   Roman garrison from a mob of Jewish malignants, was held in
   custody for two years at Cesarea, and was finally enabled to
   accomplish a long-cherished intention to go to Rome, by being
   conveyed there as a prisoner, he having made an appeal to
   Cæsar. After being wrecked on the Mediterranean and cast
   ashore on the Island of Malta, under the circumstances related
   in Luke's graphic and accurate description of the voyage, he
   went on his way in safety to the capital."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 29._

   "Paul's apostolic career, as known to us, lasted …
   twenty-nine or thirty years; and it falls into three distinct
   periods which are summarized in the following chronological
   table:

   First Period
      Essentially Missionary:
      35 A. D.,
         Conversion of Paul, Journey to Arabia;
      38,
         First visit to Jerusalem;
      38-49,
         Mission in Syria and Cilicia-Tarsus and Antioch;
      50-51,
         First missionary journey Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia
         (Acts xiii., xiv.);
      52,
         Conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Galatians ii.);
      52-55,
         Second missionary journey
         Epistles to the Thessalonians (from Corinth).

   Second Period
      The Great Conflicts, and the Great Epistles:
      54,
         Return to Antioch
         Controversy with Peter (Gal. ii. 12-22);
      55-57,
         Mission to Ephesus and Asia;
      56,
         Epistle to the Galatians;
      57 or 58 (Passover),
         First Epistle to the Corinthians
         (Ephesus);
      57 or 58 (Autumn),
         Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
         (Macedonia);
      58 (Winter),
         Epistle to the Romans.

   Third Period
      The Captivity:
      58 or 59 (Pentecost),
         Paul is arrested at Jerusalem;
      58-60, or 59-61,
         Captivity at Cæsarea
         Epistles to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians;
      60 or 61 (Autumn),
         Departure for Rome;
      61 or 62 (Spring),
         Arrival of Paul in Rome;
      62-63,
         Epistle to the Philippians;
      63 or 64,
         End of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles."

      _A. Sabatier,
      The Apostle Paul,
      pages 21-22._

   "The impression that we get from Acts is, that the
   evangelisation of Asia Minor originated from St. Paul; and
   that from his initiative the new religion gradually spread
   over the country through the action of many other missionaries
   (Acts xix. 10). Moreover, missionaries not trained by him,
   were at work in South Galatia and in Ephesus as early as 54-56
   A. D. (Gal. volume 7-10; Acts xviii. 25). … The Christian Church
   in Asia Minor was always opposed to the primitive native
   character. It was Christianity, and not the Imperial
   government, which finally destroyed the native languages, and
   made Greek the universal language of Asia Minor. The new
   religion was strong in the towns before it had any hold of the
   country parts. The ruder and the less civilised any district
   was, the slower was Christianity in permeating it.
   Christianity in the early centuries was the religion of the
   more advanced, not of the 'barbarian' peoples; and in fact it
   seems to be nearly confined within the limits of the Roman
   world, and practically to take little thought of any people
   beyond, though in theory, 'Barbarian and Scythian' are
   included in it. … The First Epistle of John was in all
   probability 'addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic
   Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre.'"

      _W. M. Ramsay,
      The Church in the Roman Empire,
      pages 284, 44, 303._

{438}

   "Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the
   traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that
   the latest years of the Apostle St. John were spent in the
   Roman province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital.
   This tradition is singularly full, consistent and
   well-authenticated. Here he gathered disciples about him,
   organized churches, appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole
   chorus of voices unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One
   who passed his earlier life in these parts and had heard his
   aged master, a disciple of St. John himself, recount his
   personal reminiscences of the great Apostle; another, who held
   this very see of Ephesus, and writing less than a century
   after the Apostle's death was linked with the past by a chain
   of relatives all bishops in the Christian Church; a third who
   also flourished about the close of the century and numbered
   among his teachers an old man from this very district—are the
   principal, because the most distinct; witnesses to a fact
   which is implied in several other notices of earlier or
   contemporary writers. As to the time at which St. John left
   his original home and settled in this new abode no direct
   account is preserved; but a very probable conjecture may be
   hazarded. The impending fall of the Holy City was the signal
   for the dispersion of the followers of Christ. About this same
   time the three other great Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul and
   St. James, died a martyr's death; and on St. John, the lust
   surviving of the four great pillars of the Church, devolved
   the work of developing the theology of the Gospel and
   completing the organization of the Church. It was not
   unnatural that at such a crisis he should fix his residence in
   the centre of a large and growing Christian community, which
   had been planted by the Apostle of the Gentiles, and watered
   by the Apostle of the Circumcision. The missionary labours of
   St. Paul and St. Peter in Asia Minor were confirmed and
   extended by the prolonged residence of their younger
   contemporary. At all events such evidence as we possess is
   favourable to this view of the date of St. John's settlement
   at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the work of the
   beloved Apostle, and accepting the view which assigns it to
   the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find him now for
   the first time in the immediate neighbourhood of Asia Minor
   and in direct communication with Ephesus and the neighbouring
   Churches. St. John however was not alone. Whether drawn
   thither by the attraction of his presence or acting in
   pursuance of some common agreement, the few surviving personal
   disciples of the Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as
   their permanent abode, or at all events as their recognised
   headquarters. Here at least we meet with the friend of St.
   John's youth and perhaps his fellow-townsman, Andrew of
   Bethsaida, who with him had first listened to John the
   Baptist, and with him also had been the earliest to recognise
   Jesus as the Christ. Here too we encounter Philip the
   Evangelist with his daughters, and perhaps also Philip of
   Bethsaida, the Apostle. Here also was settled the Apostle's
   namesake, John the Presbyter, also a personal disciple of
   Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise known to us, who
   likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly also other Apostles
   whose traditions Papias recorded [see _J. B. Lightfoot,
   Apostolic Fathers, page 527_], Matthew and Thomas and James,
   may have had some connexion, temporary or permanent, with this
   district. Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the
   Lord, by bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by
   the pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for
   instruction, St. John was the focus of a large and active
   society of believers. In this respect he holds a unique
   position among the great teachers of the new faith. St. Peter
   and St. Paul converted disciples and organized congregations;
   St. John alone was the centre of a school. His life prolonged
   till the close of the century, when the Church was firmly
   rooted and widely extended, combined with his fixed abode in
   the centre of an established community to give a certain
   definiteness to his personal influence which would be wanting
   to the wider labours of these strictly missionary preachers.
   Hence the notices of St. John have a more solid basis and
   claim greater attention than stories relating to the other
   Apostles."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Biblical Essays,
      pages 51-53._

   "In the parable of Jesus, of which we are speaking, it is said
   that 'the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself;'—that is,
   to transfer the Greek term into English, 'automatically.' That
   epithet is chosen which denotes most precisely a self-acting,
   spontaneous energy, inherent in the seed which Jesus, through
   his discourses, his acts of mercy and power, and his patience
   unto death, was sowing in the world. This grand prophetic
   declaration, uttered in a figure so simple and beautiful, in
   the ears of a little company of Galileans, was to be
   wonderfully verified in the coming ages of Christian history."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Nature and Method of Revelation,
      page 47._

CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.

   "Plutarch looked upon it as the great mission of Alexander to
   transplant Grecian culture into distant countries, and to
   conciliate Greeks and barbarians, and to fuse them into one.
   He says of him, not without reason, that he was sent of God
   for this purpose; though the historian did not divine that
   this end itself was only subsidiary to, and the means of, one
   still higher—the making, viz., the united peoples of the East
   and West more accessible to the new creation which was to
   proceed from Christianity, and by the combination of the
   elements of Oriental and Hellenic culture the preparing for
   Christianity a material in which it might develop itself. If
   we overlook this ulterior end, and do not fix our regards on
   the higher quickening spirit destined to reanimate, for some
   new end, that combination which already bore within itself a
   germ of corruption, we might well doubt whether that union was
   really a gain to either party; whether, at least, it was not
   everywhere attended with a correspondent loss. For the fresh
   vigour which it infused into the old national spirit must have
   been constantly repressed by the violence which the foreign
   element did to it. To introduce into that combination a new
   living principle of development, and, without prejudice to
   their original essence, to unite peculiarities the most
   diverse into a whole in which each part should be a complement
   to the other, required something higher than any element of
   human culture. The true living communion between the East and
   the West, which should combine together the two peculiar
   principles that were equally necessary for a complete
   exhibition of the type of humanity, could first come only from
   Christianity. But still, as preparatory thereto, the influence
   which, for three centuries, went forth from Alexandria, that
   centre of the intercourse of the world, was of great
   importance."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 1, introduction._

{439}

   "The Greek version [of the Old Testament, the Septuagint],
   like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in
   the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the
   Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we
   find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of
   the Pentateuch. But this, of course, could not suffice. On the
   other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural
   curiosity on the part of the students, specially in
   Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish population, to know
   the sacred books on which the religion and history of Israel
   were founded. Even more than this, we must take into account
   the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors
   in Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour
   which the Jews for a time enjoyed."

      _A. Edersheim,
      Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
      volume 1, page 24._

CHRISTIANITY: Rome.

   "Alongside of the province of Asia Minor, Rome very early
   attains to an outstanding importance for young Christianity.
   If, as we have supposed, the community here which emancipated
   itself from the synagogue was mainly recruited from among the
   proselyte circles which had formed themselves around the
   Jewish synagogue, if Paul during the years of his captivity,
   and Peter also, influenced this preponderatingly
   Gentile-Christian community, we must, however, by no means
   undervalue for the Christian community the continuous
   influence of Judaism on the Roman world, an influence which
   was not lessened but rather increased by the destruction of
   Jerusalem. Many thousands of Jewish captives had arrived here
   and been sold as slaves—Rome was the greatest Jewish city in
   the Empire, … and in part it was an enlightened and liberal
   Judaism. Jewish Hellenism had already long availed itself of
   the weapons of Hellenic philosophy and science … in order to
   exalt the Jewish faith. … Under this stimulus there was …
   developed a proselytism which was indeed attracted by that
   monotheism and the belief in providence and prophecy and the
   moral ideas allied therewith, and which also had a strong
   tendency to Jewish customs and festivals—especially the
   keeping of the Sabbath—but which remained far from binding
   itself to a strictly legal way of life in circumcision, etc.
   We may suppose that Roman Christianity not only appeared in
   the character of such a proselytism, but also retained from it
   a certain Jewish colouring."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church: A. D. 1-600,
      pages 83-84._

   "The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic writings
   seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church
   and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in
   the metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the
   separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with
   their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence
   of St. Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and
   influence of the more liberal and Catholic party; while the
   Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in
   making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes
   to the law."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      page 94._

   "Historical information of any certainty on the latter period
   of Paul's life is entirely wanting. While the epistles require
   this unknown period, and a second captivity, as a basis for
   their apostolic origin, on the other hand, the hypothesis of a
   second captivity scarcely finds any real foundations except in
   the three Pastoral letters."

      _A. Sabatier,
      The Apostle Paul,
      page 269._

   It only remains for us, returning to the close of the
   apostle's life, to put together the slender indications that
   we have of its date. He embarked for Rome in the autumn of 60
   (or 61) A. D.; but was compelled by shipwreck to winter in the
   island of Malta, and only reached the Eternal City in the
   spring of 61 (62). Luke adds that he remained there as a
   prisoner for two years, living in a private house under the
   guard of a soldier; then his narrative breaks off abruptly,
   and we are confronted with the unknown (Acts, xxviii. 30).
   Paul is supposed to have perished in the frightful persecution
   caused by the fire of Rome in July 64 A. D. All that is
   certain is that he died a martyr at Rome under Nero
   (Sabatier).

   [The purpose of what follows in this article is to give a
   brief history of Christianity in some of its relations to
   general history by the method of this work, and in the light
   of some of the best thought of our time. The article as a
   combination of quotations from many authors attempts a
   presentation of historic facts, and also a positive and
   representative view, so far as this may be obtained under the
   guidance of ideas common to many of the books used. Some of
   these books have had more influence on the development of the
   article than others: entire harmony and a full presentation of
   any author's view would manifestly be impossible.
   Nevertheless, the reader may discover in the article
   principles and elements of unity derived from the literature
   and representing it. Unfortunately, one of the essential parts
   of such a history must be omitted—biography.]

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
   The Period of Growth and Struggle.

   "Christian belief, Christian morality, the Christian view of
   the world, of which the church as a religious society and
   institution is the focus, as fluid spiritual elements permeate
   humanity as it becomes Christian, far beyond the sphere of the
   church proper; while conversely the church is not assured
   against the possibility that spiritual elements originally
   alien to her may dominate and influence her in their turn. …
   In this living interaction the peculiar life of the church is
   unfolded, in accordance with its internal principles of
   formation, into an extraordinarily manifold and complicated
   object of historical examination. … For this purpose it is
   necessary to elucidate the general historical movement of the
   church by the relative separation of certain of its aspects,
   without loosening the bond of unity."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church:
      A. D. 1-600, pages 1-3._

   "Such, in fact, has been the history of the Faith: a sad and
   yet a glorious succession of battles, often hardly fought, and
   sometimes indecisive, between the new life and the old life.
   … The Christian victory of common life was wrought out in
   silence and patience and nameless agonies. It was the victory
   of the soldiers and not of the captains of Christ's army. But
   in due time another conflict had to be sustained, not by the
   masses, but by great men, the consequence and the completion
   of that which had gone before. … The discipline of action
   precedes the effort of reason. … So it came to pass that the
   period during which this second conflict of the Faith was
   waged was, roughly speaking, from the middle of the second
   to the middle of the third century."

      _B. F. Westcott,
      Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West,
      pages 194-197._

{440}

   "Philosophy went on its way among the higher classes, but laid
   absolutely no hold on men at large. The reformation which it
   wrought in a few elect spirits failed utterly to spread
   downward to the mass of mankind. The poor were not touched by
   it; society was not helped by it; its noblest men, and they
   grew fewer and fewer, generation by generation, bewailed
   bitterly the universal indifference. The schools dwindled into
   a mere university system of culture; Christianity developed
   into a religion for the civilised world. … New ideas it had
   in abundance, but new ideas were not the secret of its power.
   The essential matter in the Gospel was that it was the history
   of a Life. It was a tale of fact that all could understand,
   that all could believe, that all could love. It differed
   fundamentally from Philosophy, because it appealed not to
   culture, but to life. … It was the spell of substantial
   facts, living facts, … the spell of a loyalty to a personal
   Lord; and those who have not mastered the difference between a
   philosopher's speculations about life, and the actual record
   of a life which, in all that makes life holy and beautiful,
   transcended the philosopher's most pure and lofty dreams, have
   not understood yet the rudiments of the reason why the Stoic
   could not, while Christianity could and did, regenerate
   society."

      _J. B. Brown,
      Stoics and Saints,
      pages 85-86._

   The "period, from the accession of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161)
   to the accession of Valerian (A. D. 253) was for the Gentile
   world a period of unrest and exhaustion, of ferment and of
   indecision. The time of great hopes and creative minds was
   gone. The most conspicuous men were, with few exceptions,
   busied with the past. … Local beliefs had lost their power.
   Even old Rome ceased to exercise an unquestioned moral
   supremacy. Men strove to be cosmopolitan. They strove vaguely
   after a unity in which the scattered elements of ancient
   experience should be harmonized. The effect can be seen both
   in the policy of statesmen and in the speculations of
   philosophers, in Marcus Aurelius, or Alexander Severus, or
   Decius, no less than in Plotinus or Porphyry. As a necessary
   consequence, the teaching of the Bible accessible in Greek
   began to attract serious attention among the heathen. The
   assailants of Christianity, even if they affected contempt,
   shewed that they were deeply moved by its doctrines. The
   memorable  saying of Numenius, 'What is Plato but Moses
   speaking in the language of Athens?' shews at once the feeling
   after spiritual sympathy which began to be entertained, and
   the want of spiritual insight in the representatives of
   Gentile thought."

      _B. F. Westcott,
      Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West,
      pages 196-197._

   "To our minds it appears that the preparation of philosophy
   for Christianity was complete. … The time was ripe for that
   movement of which Justin is the earliest [complete]
   representative."

      _G. T. Purves,
      The Testimony of Justin Martyr,
      page 135._

   "The writing in defense of Christianity is called the apology,
   and the writer an apologist. … There were two classes of
   apologists, the Greek and the Latin, according to the
   territory which they occupied, and the language in which they
   wrote. But there were further differences. The Greeks belonged
   mostly to the second century, and their writings exhibited a
   profound intimacy with the Greek philosophy. Some of them had
   studied in the Greek schools, and entered the church only in
   mature life. They endeavored to prove that Christianity was
   the blossom of all that was valuable in every system. They
   stood largely on the defensive. The Latins, on the other hand,
   were aggressive. They lived mostly in the third century. …
   The principal Greek apologists [were] Aristo, Quadratus,
   Aristides [A. D. 131], Justin [A. D. 160], Melito [A. D. 170],
   Miltiades, Irenaeus, Athenagoras [A. D. 178], Tatian, Clement
   of Alexandria [A. D. 200], Hippolytus, and Origen [A. D. 225]."

      _J. F. Hurst,
      Short History of the Christian Church,
      page 33._

   Lightfoot assigns to about A. D. 150 (?) the author of the
   Epistle to Diognetus. "Times without number the defenders of
   Christianity appeal to the great and advantageous change
   wrought by the Gospel in all who embraced it. … 'We who
   hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their
   different manners would not receive into our houses men of a
   different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live
   familiarly with them. We pray for our enemies, we endeavor to
   persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the
   beautiful precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become
   partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from
   God, the Ruler of all.' This distinction between Christians
   and heathen, this consciousness of a complete change in
   character and life, is nowhere more beautifully described than
   in the noble epistle … to Diognetus."

      _Gerhard Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      page 166._

   "For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind
   either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell
   not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some
   different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of
   life. … But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and
   barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native
   customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life,
   yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set
   forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation.
   They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners;
   they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they
   endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a
   fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. … Their
   existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.
   They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in
   their own lives. They love all men and they are persecuted by
   all. … War is urged against them as aliens by the Jews, and
   persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet
   those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their
   hostility."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Translation of the Epistle to Diognetus
      (The Apostolic Fathers, pages 505-506)._

   "These apologists rise against philosophy also, out of which
   they themselves had arisen, in the full consciousness of their
   faith open to all and not only to the cultured few, the
   certainty of which, based upon revelation, cannot be replaced
   by uncertain human wisdom, which, moreover, is
   self-contradictory in its most important representatives. On
   the other hand, they willingly recognise in the philosophy by
   means of which they had themselves been educated, certain
   elements of truth, which they partly derive from the
   seed-corns of truth, which the divine Logos had scattered
   among the heathen also, partly externally from a dependence of
   Greek wisdom on the much older wisdom of the East, and
   therefore from the use of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
   To the reproach that they had deserted the religion which had
   been handed down from their ancestors and thereby made sacred,
   they oppose the right of recognised truth, the right of
   freedom of conscience; religion becomes the peculiar affair of
   personal conviction, against which methods of force do not
   suffice: God is to be obeyed rather than man."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church: A. D. 1-600,
      page 179._

{441}

   "Such a morality, as Roman greatness was passing away, took
   possession of the ground. Its beginnings were scarcely felt,
   scarcely known of, in the vast movement of affairs in the
   greatest of empires. By and by its presence, strangely
   austere, strangely gentle, strangely tender, strangely
   inflexible, began to be noticed. But its work was long only a
   work of indirect preparation. Those whom it charmed, those
   whom it opposed, those whom it tamed, knew not what was being
   done for the generations which were to follow."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Gifts of Civilization,
      page 159._

   "The more spiritual and profound historians of the Church
   recognize it as a manifestation of this divine life flowing
   into human history. But this is true of the organized church
   only with important qualifications. The life must manifest
   itself in an organization; but the organization is neither the
   only nor the complete exposition of the life. … The life
   which creates the organization penetrates and purifies also
   the family and the state, renovates individuals, and blooms
   and fructifies in Christian civilizations; and these are also
   historical manifestations."

      _S. Harris,
      The Kingdom of Christ on Earth,
      page 87._

   It was the great formative period of the world's new life, and
   all streams tended to flow together. The influence of Greek
   thought on Roman law had led, under the circumstances of Roman
   commercial life, to the development of an ideal "jus gentium,"
   a kind of natural law discovered by the reason. This
   conception transformed the Roman law and brought it into touch
   with the new sense of human relations. "It was by means of
   this higher conception of equity which resulted from the
   identification of the jus gentium with the jus naturale—that
   the alliance between law and philosophy was really made
   efficient."

      _W. C. Morey,
      Outlines from Roman Law,
      page 114._

   "There were three agencies whose influence in working
   simultaneously and successively at this identical task, the
   developing and importing of the jus gentium, was decisive of
   the ultimate result. These were the praetorian edict [which
   reached its climax under the Republic and was completed under
   Hadrian], Roman scientific jurisprudence [which developed its
   greatest ability about A. D. 200] and imperial legislation."

      _R. Sohm,
      Institutes of Roman Law,
      page 46._

   "The liberal policy of Rome gradually extended the privileges
   of her citizenship till it included all her subjects; and
   along with the 'Jus suffragii,' went of course the 'Jus
   honorum.' Even under Augustus we find a Spaniard consul at
   Rome; and under Galba an Egyptian is governor of Egypt. It is
   not long before even the emperor himself is supplied by the
   provinces. It is easy to comprehend therefore how the
   provincials forgot the fatherland of their birth for the
   fatherland of their citizenship. Once win the franchise, and
   to great capacity was opened a great: career. The Roman Empire
   came to be a homogeneous mass of privileged persons, largely
   using the same language, aiming at the same type of
   civilisation, equal among themselves, but all alike conscious
   of their superiority to the surrounding barbarians."

      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      page 37._

   "As far as she could, Rome destroyed the individual genius of
   nations; she seems to have rendered them unqualified for a
   national existence. When the public life of the Empire ceased,
   Italy, Gaul, and Spain were thus unable to become nations.
   Their great historical existence did not commence until after
   the arrival of the barbarians, and after several centuries of
   experiments amid violence and calamity, But how does it happen
   that the countries which Rome did not conquer, or did not long
   have under her sway, now hold such a prominent place in the
   world—that they exhibit so much originality and such complete
   confidence in their future? Is it only because, having existed
   a shorter time, they are entitled to a longer future? Or,
   perchance, did Rome leave behind her certain habits of mind,
   intellectual and moral qualities, which impede and limit
   activity?"

      _E. Lavisse,
      Political History of Europe,
      page 6._

   Patriotism was a considerable part of both the ancient
   religion and the old morality. The empire weakened the former
   and deeply injured the latter by conquest of the individual
   states. It had little to offer in place of these except that
   anomaly, the worship of the emperor; and a law and justice
   administered by rulers who, to say the least, grew very rich.
   "The feeling of pride in Roman citizenship … became much
   weaker as the citizenship was widened. … Roman citizenship
   included an ever growing proportion of the population in every
   land round the Mediterranean, till at last it embraced the
   whole Roman world. … Christianity also created a religion
   for the Empire, transcending all distinctions of nationality.
   … The path of development for the Empire lay in accepting
   the religion offered it to complete its organisation. Down to
   the time of Hadrian there was a certain progress on the part
   of the Empire towards a recognition of this necessity."

      _W. M. Ramsay,
      The Church in the Roman Empire,
      pages 373, 191-192._

   The relations of the laws of the Empire to Christianity may be
   briefly stated, but there are differences of opinion which
   cannot be noted here: "A. D. 30 to 100, Christians treated as
   a sect of the Jews and sharing in the general toleration
   accorded to them. A. D. 100 to 250, Christians recognized, …
   and rendered liable to persecution: (1st) For treason and
   impiety. (2nd) As belonging to illegal associations, but at
   the same time protected in their capacity of members of
   Friendly or Burial Societies of a kind allowed by the law. A.
   D. 250 to 260, Christianity recognized as a formidable power
   by the State. Commencement of an open struggle between
   Christianity and the secular authority. … The cemeteries of
   the Christians now for the first time interfered with and
   become places of hiding and secret assembly. A. D. 260 to 300,
   Persecutions cease for a time, 40 years Peace for the Church.
   Time of much prosperity when, as Eusebius writes, 'great
   multitudes flocked to the religion of Christ.' A. D. 300 to
   313, Last decisive struggle under Diocletian."

      _G. B. Brown,
      From Schola to Cathedral._

{442}

   "The judges decided simply in accordance with the laws, and,
   in the great majority of cases, did so coolly, calmly, without
   passion, as men who were simply discharging their duty. …
   Not the priests, but the Emperors led the attack. … It is
   true the Christians never rebelled against the State. They
   cannot be reproached with even the appearance of a
   revolutionary spirit. Despised, persecuted, abused, they still
   never revolted, but showed themselves everywhere obedient to
   the laws, and ready to pay to the Emperors the honor which was
   their due. Yet in one particular they could not obey, the
   worship of idols, the strewing of incense to the Cæsar-god.
   And in this one thing it was made evident that in Christianity
   lay the germ of a wholly new political and social order. This
   is the character of the conflict which we are now to review.
   It is a contest of the spirit of Antiquity against that of
   Christianity, of the ancient heathen order of the world
   against the new Christian order. Ten persecutions are commonly
   enumerated, viz., under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian,
   Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximinus the Thracian,
   Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. This traditional enumeration
   is, however, very superficial, and leaves entirely
   unrecognized the real course of the struggles. … Though
   times of relative tranquillity occurred, Christianity
   remained, notwithstanding, a prohibited religion. This being
   the case, the simple arrangement of the persecutions in a
   series makes the impression that they were all of the same
   character, while in fact the persecution under Nero was wholly
   different from that under Trajan and his successors, and this
   again varied essentially from those under Decius and
   Diocletian. The first persecution which was really general and
   systematically aimed at the suppression of the Church, was the
   Decian [see ROME: A. D. 192-284]. That under Trajan and his
   successors [see ROME: A. D. 96-138, 138-180, and 303-305]
   consisted merely of more or less frequent processes against
   individual Christians, in which the established methods of
   trial were employed, and the existing laws were more or less
   sharply used against them. Finally, the persecutions under
   Nero and Domitian [see ROME: A. D. 64-68, and 70-96] were mere
   outbreaks of personal cruelty and tyrannical caprice. …
   Christianity is the growing might; with the energy of youth it
   looks the future in the face, and there sees victory beckoning
   onward. And how changed are now its ideas of that triumph! The
   earlier period had no thought of any victory but that which
   Christ was to bring at his coming. … But in the time of
   Cyprian the hopes of the Christians are directed towards
   another victory: they begin to grasp the idea that
   Christianity will vanquish heathenism from within, and become
   the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. … It is true that
   the Christians were still greatly in the minority. It is
   generally assumed that they formed about one-twelfth of the
   whole population in the East, and in the West about
   one-fifteenth. Even this is perhaps too high an estimate. But
   there were two things which gave a great importance to this
   minority. First, that no single religion of the much divided
   Heathenism had so many adherents as the Christian. Over
   against the scattered forces of Heathenism, the Christians
   formed a close phalanx; the Church was a compact and strongly
   framed organization. Second, the Christians were massed in the
   towns, while the rural population was almost exclusively
   devoted to Heathenism. There existed in Antioch, for instance,
   a Christian church of fifty thousand souls."

      _G. Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      book 2._

   "The Encyclopedia of Missions" on the authority of the late
   Professor R. D. Hitchcock states that there are on record "the
   names of churches existing at this period [at the close of the
   persecutions] in 525 cities: cities of Europe 188, of Asia
   214, of Africa 123." (See Appendix D.) There were tendencies
   at work in many of these against that toward general catholic
   (universal) organization, but in suffering and sympathy the
   Christian Churches formed a vast body of believers. "Such a
   vast organisation of a perfectly new kind, with no analogy in
   previously existing institutions, was naturally slow in
   development. … The critical stage was passed when the
   destruction of Jerusalem annihilated all possibility of a
   localised centre for Christianity, and made it clear that the
   centralisation of the Church could reside only in an
   idea—viz., a process of intercommunication, union and
   brotherhood. It would be hardly possible to exaggerate the
   share which frequent intercourse from a very early stage
   between the separate congregations had in moulding the
   development of the Church. Most of the documents in the New
   Testament are products and monuments of this intercourse; all
   attest in numberless details the vivid interest which the
   scattered communities took in one another. From the first the
   Christian idea was to annihilate the separation due to space,
   and hold the most distant brother as near as the nearest. A
   clear consciousness of the importance of this idea first
   appears in the Pastoral Epistles, and is still stronger in
   writings of A. D. 80-100. … The close relations between
   different congregations is brought into strong relief by the
   circumstances disclosed in the letters of Ignatius: the
   welcome extended everywhere to him; the loving messages sent
   when he was writing to other churches; the deputations sent
   from churches off his road to meet him and convoy him; the
   rapidity with which news of his progress was sent round, so
   that deputations from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles were
   ready to visit him in Smyrna; the news from Antioch which
   reached him in Troas, but which was unknown to him in Smyrna;
   the directions which he gave to call a council of the church
   in Smyrna, and send a messenger to congratulate the church in
   Antioch; the knowledge that his fate is known to and is
   engaging the efforts of the church in Rome."

      _W. M. Ramsay,
      The Church in the Roman Empire,
      pages 364-366._

   "The fellowship … thus strongly impressed by apostolic hands
   on the infant Church, is never wholly lost sight of throughout
   all the ages, and its permanent expression is found in the
   synod, whether œcumenic, provincial, or diocesan. This becomes
   fainter as we reach the age in which a presbyter, told off
   from the body to a distinct parish, attains gradual isolation
   from his brethren. But this comes some centuries later. …
   Everywhere, till that decline, the idea is that of a
   brotherhood or corporate office, a unity of function pervaded
   by an energy of brotherly love. … It is no mere confluence
   of units before distinct."

      _H. Hayman,
      Diocesan Synods
      (Contemporary Review, October, 1882)._

{443}

   "It is the age when the New Testament writings begin to come
   together to form a generally recognized canon. The opposition
   too to the sovereign spirit of Montanist prophecy undoubtedly
   increased the need for it. … After the example of the
   Gnostics, a beginning is also made with exegetical explanation
   of New Testament writings; Melito with one on the Revelation
   of John, a certain Heraclitus with one on the Apostles. …
   Finally, in this same opposition to the heretics, it is sought
   to secure the agreement of the different churches with one
   another, and in this relation importance is gained by the idea
   of a universal (Catholic) Church. So-called catholic Epistles
   of men of repute in the church to different communities are
   highly regarded. As illustrations take those of Bishop
   Dionysius of Corinth to Lacedæmon, Athens, Crete, Paphlagonia,
   Pontus, Rome (Euseb. 4, 23)."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 183-184._

   "This period [100-312] may be divided into the Post-Apostolic
   Age which reaches down to the middle of the second century,
   and the Age of the Old Catholic Church which ends with the
   establishment of the Church under Constantine. … The point
   of transition from one Age to the other may be unhesitatingly
   set down at A. D. 170. The following are the most important
   data in regard thereto. The death about A. D. 165 of Justin
   Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the
   Post-Apostolic Age and forms also the transition to the Old
   Catholic Age; and Irenaeus, flourishing somewhere about A. D.
   170, who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides
   these we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian
   controversies about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of
   Montanism from the universal Catholic Church was effected
   about the year 170 by means of the synodal institution called
   into existence for that purpose."

      _J. H. Kurtz,
      Church History,
      volume 1, page 70._

   "If every church must so live in the world as to be a part of
   its collective being, then it must always be construed in and
   through the place and time in which it lives."

      _A. M. Fairbairn,
      The Place of Christ in Modern Theology._

   "The Church of the first three centuries was never, except
   perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal
   condition. But yet during the ages of persecution, the Church
   as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a
   spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the
   world-empire."

      _F. W. Puller,
      The Primitive Saints and The See of Rome,
      page 153._

   All the greater forces of the age, political and legal, and
   commercial, aided those working within the church to create an
   organic unity. "Speaking with some qualifications, the
   patristic church was Greek, as the primitive church had been
   Jewish, and the mediæval church was to be Latin. Its unity,
   like that of the Greek nation, was federative; each church,
   like each of the Grecian states, was a little commonwealth. As
   the Greece which resisted the Persians was one, not by any
   imperial organization, but by common ideas and a common love
   of liberty, so the church of the fathers was one, not by any
   organic connection, but by common thoughts and sympathies,
   above all by a common loyalty to Christ. Naturally the
   questions which agitated such a church were those which
   concern the individual soul rather than society. Its members
   made much of personal beliefs and speculative opinions; and so
   long as the old free spirit lasted they allowed one another
   large freedom of thought, only requiring that common instinct
   of loyalty to Christ. Happily for the world, that free spirit
   did not die out from the East for at least two centuries after
   Paul had proclaimed the individual relationship of the soul to
   God. … The genius of the Greek expressing itself in thought,
   of the Latin in ruling power, the Christianity which was to
   the former a body of truth, became to the latter a system of
   government."

      _G. A. Jackson,
      The Fathers of the Third Century,
      pages 154-156._

   The Apostolic ideal was set forth, and within a few
   generations forgotten. The vision was only for a time and then
   vanished. "The kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this
   world, is not limited by the restrictions which fetter other
   societies, political or religious. It is in the fullest sense
   free, comprehensive, universal. … It is most important that
   we should keep this ideal definitely in view, and I have
   therefore stated it as broadly as possible. Yet the broad
   statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false
   impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It
   must be evident that no society of men could hold together
   without officers, without rules, without institutions of any
   kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this
   universal law. The conception in short is strictly an ideal,
   which we must ever hold before our eyes. … Every member of
   the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and,
   as such, a priest of God. … It will hardly be denied, I
   think, by those who have studied the history of modern
   civilization with attention, that this conception of the
   Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the
   emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of
   artificial barriers between class and class, and in the
   diffusion of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the
   fetters of party or race; in short, that to it mainly must be
   attributed the most important advantages which constitute the
   superiority of modern societies over ancient. Consciously or
   unconsciously, the idea of an universal priesthood, of the
   religious equality of all men, which, though not untaught
   before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has worked
   and is working untold blessings in political institutions and
   in social life. But the careful student will also observe that
   this idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that
   throughout the history of the Church it has been struggling
   for recognition, at most times discerned in some of its
   aspects but at all times wholly ignored in others; and that
   therefore the actual results are a very inadequate measure of
   its efficacy, if only it could assume due prominence and were
   allowed free scope in action. … It may be a general rule, it
   may be under ordinary circumstances a practically universal
   law, that the highest acts of congregational worship shall be
   performed through the principal officers of the congregation.
   But an emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter
   must decide, The Christian ideal will then … interpret our
   duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priesthood will
   overrule all special limitations. The layman will assume
   functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained
   minister."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      pages 137-140, 237._

   "No Church now existing is an exact counterpart of the
   Apostolic Church. … Allusions bear out the idea that the
   Church at Corinth was as yet almost struetureless—little more
   than an aggregate of individuals—with no bishop, presbyter or
   deacon."

      _J. W. Cunningham,
      The Growth of the Church in its Organization and Institutions,
      pages 73, 18._

{444}

   "Some time before the middle of the second century heresy
   began sadly to distract the Christian community; and to avoid
   imminent danger of schism, it was deemed expedient in a few
   great towns to arm the chairman of the eldership with
   additional power. A modified form of prelacy was thus
   introduced."

      _W. D. Killen,
      The Old Catholic Church,
      page 51._

   Respecting the rise of the Episcopate as a distinct office
   there is a difference of opinion among scholars,—some
   holding that it was expressly ordained by the Apostles, others
   that it arose quite independently of them; a third class think
   that it was developed gradually out of the eldership, but not
   without the sanction of one or more of the Apostles. "For the
   Church is a catholic society, that is, a society belonging to
   all nations and ages. As a catholic society it lacks the bonds
   of the life of a city or a nation—local contiguity, common
   language, common customs. We cannot then very well conceive
   how its corporate continuity could have been maintained
   otherwise than through some succession of persons such as,
   bearing the apostolic commission for ministry, should be in
   each generation the necessary centres of the Church's life."

      _C. Gore,
      The Mission of the Church,
      pages 10, 11._

   "Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal
   cities of the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would
   early occupy a not less wide area. … The name of the
   presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what must be said
   of the term bishop? … But these notices, besides
   establishing the general prevalence of episcopacy, also throw
   considerable light on its origin. They indicate that the
   relation suggested by the history of the word 'bishop' and its
   transference from the lower to the higher office is the true
   solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the
   presbytery. … They seem to hint also that, so far as this
   development was affected at all by national temper and
   characteristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences
   were more purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome,
   and more rapid where an Oriental spirit predominated, as at
   Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish
   this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in
   those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more
   especially St. John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its
   prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence or their
   sanction."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
      pages 151, 190, 191._

   "Since then in the constitution of the church two elements met
   together—the aristocratic and the monarchical—it could not
   fail to be the case that a conflict would ensue between them.
   … These struggles between the presbyterial and episcopal
   systems belong among the most important phenomena connected
   with the process of the development of church life in the
   third century. Many presbyters made a capricious use of their
   power, hurtful to good discipline and order in the
   communities."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 1, section 2._

   "As a rule Christianity would get a footing first in the
   metropolis of its region. The lesser cities would be
   evangelized by missions sent from thence; and so the suffragan
   sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitan
   see. The metropolitan bishop is the natural center of unity
   for the bishops of the province. … The bishops of the
   metropolitan sees acquired certain rights which were delegated
   to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most
   important churches a certain order of precedence grew up which
   corresponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which
   those churches existed; and finally the churches which were
   founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence."

      _F. W. Puller,
      The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome,
      pages 11 and 18._

   "The triumph of the episcopal system undoubtedly promoted
   unity, order, and tranquillity. But, on the other hand, it was
   unfavourable to the free development of the life of the
   church; and while the latter promoted the formation of a
   priesthood foreign to the essence of that development of the
   kingdom of God which the New Testament sets forth, on the
   other hand a revolution of sentiment which had already been
   prepared—an altered view of the idea of the priesthood—had
   no small influence on the development of the episcopal system.
   Thus does this change of the original constitution of the
   Christian communities stand intimately connected with another
   and still more radical change,—the formation of a sacerdotal
   caste in the Christian church. … Out of the husk of Judaism
   Christianity had evolved itself to freedom and
   independence,—had stripped off the forms in which it first
   sprang up, and within which the new spirit lay at first
   concealed, until by its own inherent power it broke through
   them. This development belonged more particularly to the
   Pauline position, from which proceeded the form of the church
   in the Gentile world. In the struggle with the Jewish elements
   which opposed the free development of Christianity, this
   principle had triumphantly made its way. In the churches of
   pagan Christians the new creation stood forth completely
   unfolded; but the Jewish principle, which had been vanquished,
   pressed in once more from another quarter. Humanity was as yet
   incapable of maintaining itself at the lofty position of pure
   spiritual religion. The Jewish position was better adapted to
   the mass, which needed first to be trained before it could
   apprehend Christianity in its purity,—needed to be disabused
   from paganism. Out of Christianity, now become independent, a
   principle once more sprang forth akin to the principles of the
   Old Testament,—a new outward shaping of the kingdom of God, a
   new discipline of the law which one day was to serve for the
   training of rude nations, a new tutorship for the spirit of
   humanity, until it should arrive at the maturity of the
   perfect manhood in Christ. This investiture of the Christian
   spirit in a form nearly akin to the position arrived at in the
   Old Testament, could not fail, after the fruitful principle
   had once made its appearance, to unfold itself more and more,
   and to bring to light one after another all the consequences
   which it involved; but there also began with it a reaction of
   the Christian consciousness as it yearned after freedom, which
   was continually bursting forth anew in an endless variety of
   appearances, until it attained its triumph at the
   Reformation."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 1, section 2, B._

{445}

   "Though the forms of [pagan] religion had broken away, the
   spirit of religion was still quick; it had even developed: the
   sense of sin, an almost new phenomenon, began to invade
   Society and Philosophy; and along with this, an almost
   importunate craving after a revelation. The changed tone of
   philosophy, the spread of mysticism, the rapid growth of
   mystery-worship, the revived Platonism, are all articulate
   expressions of this need. The old Philosophy begins not only
   to preach but to pray: the new strives to catch the revealed
   voice of God in the oracles of less unfaithful days. … In
   the teeth of an organised and concentrated despotism a new
   society had grown up, self-supporting, self-regulated, a State
   within the State. Calm and assured amid a world that hid its
   fears only in blind excitement, free amid the servile,
   sanguine amid the despairing, Christians lived with an object.
   United in loyal fellowship by sacred pledges more binding than
   the sacramentum of the soldier, welded together by a stringent
   discipline, led by trained and tried commanders, the Church
   had succeeded in attaining unity. It had proved itself able to
   command self-devotion even to the death. It had not feared to
   assimilate the choicest fruits of the choicest intellects of
   East and West. … Yet the centripetal forces were stronger;
   Tertullian had died an heresiarch, and Origen but narrowly and
   somewhat of grace escaped a like fate. If rent with schisms
   and threatened with disintegration, the Church was still an
   undivided whole."

      _G. H. Rendall,
      The Emperor Julian, Paganism and Christianity,
      pages 21-22._

   "The designation of the Universal Christian Church as Catholic
   dates from the time of Irenaeus. … At the beginning of this
   age, the heretical as well as the non-heretical Ebionism may
   be regarded as virtually suppressed, although some scanty
   remnants of it might yet be found. The most brilliant period
   of Gnosticism, too, … was already passed. But in Manichæism
   there appeared, during the second half of the third century, a
   new peril of a no less threatening kind inspired by Parseeism
   and Buddhism. … With Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside of
   Christianity as embodied in the Roman State, begins the war of
   extermination against the Church that was ever more and more
   extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility,
   however, was not able to subdue the Church. … During the
   same time the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization
   of the church was more fully developed by the introduction of
   an order of Metropolitans, and then in the following period it
   reached its climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of
   Patriarchs, and in the institution of œcumenical Synods."

      _J. H. Kurtz,
      Church History,
      volume l, pages 72-73;_

   to which the reader is also referred for all periods
   of church history.

      See, also,
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church;_

      For biography,
      _W. Smith and H. Wace,
      A Dictionary of Christian Biography._

   "Missionary effort in this period was mainly directed to the
   conversion of the heathen. On the ruins of Jerusalem,
   Hadrian's colony of Ælia Capitolina was planted; so that even
   there the Church, in its character and modes of worship, was a
   Gentile community. Christianity was early carried to Edessa,
   the capital of the small state of Osrhene, in Mesopotamia.
   After the middle of the second century, the Church at Edessa
   was sufficiently flourishing to count among its members the
   king, Abgar Bar Manu. At about this time the gospel was
   preached in Persia, Media, Parthia, and Bactria. We have
   notices of churches in Arabia in the early part of the third
   century. They were visited several times by Origen, the
   celebrated Alexandrian Church teacher (185-254). In the middle
   of the fourth century a missionary, Theophilus, of Diu, found
   churches in India. In Egypt, Christianity made great progress,
   especially at Alexandria, whence it spread to Cyrene and other
   neighboring places. In upper Egypt, where the Coptic language
   and the superstition of the people were obstacles in its path,
   Christianity had, nevertheless, gained a foothold as early as
   towards the close of the second century. At this time the
   gospel had been planted in proconsular Africa, being conveyed
   thither from Rome, and there was a flourishing church at
   Carthage. In Gaul, where the Druidical system, with its
   priesthood and sacrificial worship, was the religion of the
   Celtic population, several churches were founded from Asia
   Minor. At Lyons and Vienne there were strong churches in the
   last quarter of the second century. At this time Irenæus,
   Bishop of Lyons, speaks of the establishment of Christianity
   in Germany, west of the Rhine, and Tertullian, the North
   African presbyter, speaks of Christianity in Britain. The
   fathers in the second century describe in glowing terms, and
   not without rhetorical exaggeration, the rapid conquests of
   the Gospel. The number of converts in the reign of Hadrian
   must have been very large. Otherwise we cannot account for the
   enthusiastic language of Justin Martyr respecting the
   multitude of professing Christians. Tertullian writes in a
   similar strain. Irenæus refers to Barbarians who have believed
   without having a knowledge of letters, through oral teaching
   merely."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 45-46._

CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.

   "Christianity first began its activity in the country among
   the Jewish and Greek population of the Delta, but gradually
   also among the Egyptians proper (the Copts) as may be inferred
   from the Coptic (Memphytic) translation of the New Testament
   (third century). In the second century, Gnosticism [see
   GNOSTICS], which had its chief seat here as well as in Syria,
   and, secondly, towards the close of the century, the
   Alexandrian Catechetical School, show the importance of this
   centre of religious movement and Christian education."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 105._

   "Never perhaps has the free statement of the Christian idea
   had less prejudice to encounter than at Alexandria at the
   close of the second century. Never has it more successfully
   vindicated by argument its right to be the great interpreter
   of the human spirit. The institutions of the great metropolis
   were highly favourable to this result. The Museum, built by
   the Ptolemies, was intended to be, and speedily became, the
   centre of an intense intellectual life. The Serapeum, at the
   other end of the town, rivalled it in beauty of architecture
   and wealth of rare MSS. The Sebastion, reared in honour of
   Augustus, was no unworthy companion to these two noble
   establishments. In all three, splendid endowments and a rich
   professoriate attracted the talent of the world. If the
   ambition of a secured reputation drew many eminent men away to
   Rome, the means of securing such eminence were mainly procured
   at Alexandria. … The Christian Church in this city rose to
   the height of its grand opportunity. It entered the lists
   without fear and without favour, and boldly proclaimed its
   competence to satisfy the intellectual cravings of man.
   Numbers of restless and inquiring spirits came from all parts
   of the world, hoping to find a solution of the doubts that
   perplexed them. And the Church, which had already brought
   peace to the souls of the woman and the slave, now girded
   herself to the harder task of convincing the trained
   intelligence of the man of letters and the philosopher."

      _C. T. Cruttwell,
      A Literary History of Early Christianity,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

{446}

   "The question … came up for decision towards the close of
   the sub-apostolic age, as to what shape the Church was finally
   to take. Two types were set before her to choose from—one the
   Hebrew-Latin type, as we may call it, into which … she
   finally settled down; the other the Hellenist type of a Demos,
   or commonwealth of free citizens, all equal, all alike kings
   and priests unto God, and whose moral and spiritual growth was
   left very much to the initiative of each member of the
   community. In Alexandria, as the meeting-point of all
   nationalities, and where Judaism itself had tried to set up a
   new type of thought, eclectic between Hebraism and Hellenism,
   and comprehending what was best in both, naturally enough
   there grew up a Christian type of eclecticism corresponding to
   that of Philo. … Into this seething of rival sects and races
   the Alexandrian school of catechists threw themselves, and
   made a noble attempt to rescue the Church, the synagogue, and
   the Stoics alike from the one bane common to all—the
   dangerous delusion that the truth was for them, not they for
   the truth. Setting out on the assumption that God's purpose
   was the education of the whole human family, they saw in the
   Logos doctrine of St. John the key to harmonise all truth,
   whether of Christian sect, Hebrew synagogue, or Stoic
   philosophy. … To educate all men up to this standard seemed
   to them the true ideal of the Church. True Gnosis was their
   keynote; and the Gnostic, as Clemens loves to describe
   himself, was to them the pattern philosopher and Christian in
   one. They regarded, moreover, a discipline of at least three
   years as imperative; it was the preliminary condition of
   entrance into the Christian Church."

      _J. B. Heard,
      Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted,
      pages 37-38._

   The two great Christian writers of Alexandria were Clement and
   Origen. "The universal influence of Origen made itself felt in
   the third century over the whole field of Greek theology. In
   him, as it were, everything which had hitherto been striven
   after in the Greek field of theology, had been gathered
   together, so as, being collected here in a centre, to give an
   impulse in the most various directions; hence also the further
   development of theology in subsequent times is always
   accustomed to link itself on to one side or the other of his
   rich spiritual heritage. … And while this involves that
   Christianity is placed on friendly relations with the previous
   philosophical development of the highest conceptions of God
   and the world, yet on the other hand Christian truth also
   appears conversely as the universal truth which gathers
   together in itself all the hitherto isolated rays of divine
   truth. … In the great religious ferment of the time there
   was further contained the tendency to seek similar religious
   ideas amid the different mythological religious forms and to
   mingle them syncretistically. This religious ferment was still
   further increased by the original content of Christianity,
   that mighty leaven, which announced a religion destined to the
   redemption and perfecting of the world, and by this means a like
   direction and tendency was imparted to various other religious
   views likewise. The exciting and moving effect of Gnosticism
   on the Church depended at the same time on the fact, that its
   representatives practically apprehended Christianity in the
   manner of the antique religious mysteries, and in so doing
   sought to lean upon the Christian communities and make
   themselves at home in them, according as their religious life
   and usages seemed to invite them, and to establish in them a
   community of the initiated and perfect; an endeavour which the
   powerful ascetic tendency in the church exploited and
   augmented in its own sense, and for which the institution of
   prophecy, which was so highly respected and powerful in the
   communities, afforded a handle. In this way the initiated were
   able to make for themselves a basis in the community on which
   they could depend, while the religio-philosophical
   speculations, which are always intelligible only to a few, at
   the same time propagated themselves and branched out
   scholastically."

      _W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,
      pages 215, 213, 130-131._

   "At Alexandria, Basilides (A. D. 125) and Valentine exerted in
   turn an extraordinary influence; the latter endeavored to
   establish his school at Rome about the year 140. The Gnostics
   of Syria professed a more open dualism than those of Egypt.
   The Church of Antioch had to resist Saturnin, that of Edessa
   to oppose Bordesanes and Tatian."

      _E. De Pressensé,
      The Early Years of Christianity;
      The Martyrs and Apologists,
      page 135._

   "There was something very imposing in those mighty systems,
   which embraced heaven and earth. How plain and meagre in
   comparison seemed simple Christianity! There was something
   remarkably attractive in the breadth and liberality of
   Gnosticism. It seemed completely to have reconciled
   Christianity with culture. How narrow the Christian Church
   appeared! Even noble souls might be captivated by the hope of
   winning the world over to Christianity in this way. … Over
   against the mighty systems of the Gnostics, the Church stood,
   in sober earnestness and childlike faith, on the simple
   Christian doctrine of the Apostles. This was to be sought in
   the churches founded by the apostles themselves, where they
   had defined the faith in their preaching."

      _G. Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      book 2, chapter 3._

   "Greek philosophy had joined hands with Jewish theosophy, and
   the Church knew not where to look for help. So serious did the
   danger seem, when it was assailed at once and from opposite
   sides by Jewish and Greek types of Gnosticism, the one from
   the monotheistic point of view impugning the Godhead, the
   other for the Docetic side explaining away [us a spiritual
   illusion] the manhood of Christ, that the Church, in despair
   of beating error by mere apology, fell back on the method of
   authority. The Church was the only safe keeper of the deposit
   of sacred tradition; whoever impugned that tradition, let him
   be put out of the communion of saints."

      _Reverend J. B. Heard,
      Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted,
      page 41._

{447}

   "The interest, the meaning, of Gnosticism rest entirely upon
   its ethical motive. It was an attempt, a serious attempt, to
   fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that
   spectral doubt, which is mostly crushed down by force—Can the
   world as we know it have been made by God? 'Cease,' says
   Basilides, 'from idle and curious variety, and let us rather
   discuss the opinions, which even barbarians have held, on the
   subject of good and evil.' 'I will say anything rather than
   admit that Providence is wicked.' Valentinus describes in the
   strain of an ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. 'I
   durst not affirm,' he concludes, 'that God is the author of
   all this.' So Tertullian says of Marcion, 'like many men of
   our time, and especially the heretics, he is bewildered by the
   question of evil.' They approach the problem from a
   non-Christian point of view, and arrive therefore at a
   non-Christian solution. … Many of them, especially the later
   sectaries, accepted the whole Christian Creed, but always with
   reserve. The teaching of the Church thus became in their eyes
   a popular exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or
   Knowledge, which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from all but
   the chosen few."

      _C. Bigg;
      The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,
      pages 28-29._

CHRISTIANITY: Cæsarea.

   "The chief points of interest in the history of the Church of
   Cæsarea during this period are the residence of Origen there
   (first between A. D. 215 and 219 and again after his final
   departure from Alexandria in 231), the education of Eusebius,
   the foundation of the great library by Pamphilus, and the
   martyrdoms during the Diocletian persecution. Most of these
   will come before us again in other connexions, but they
   require mention here. It would be difficult to over-estimate
   the effect of what they imply on the Church at large. Had the
   work of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius at Cæsarea remained
   unrecorded, there would be a huge blank in ecclesiastical
   history, rendering much that is otherwise known scarcely
   intelligible. Had that work never been done, the course of
   ecclesiastical history would have been very different. In the
   whole of the second and third centuries it would be difficult
   to name two more influential Christians than Origen and
   Eusebius; and Pamphilus laboured earnestly to preserve and
   circulate the writings of the one and to facilitate those of
   the other. It was from the libraries of Pamphilus at Cæsarea
   and of Alexander at Jerusalem that Eusebius obtained most of
   his material" for his "Ecclesiastical History," which has
   preserved titles and quotations from many lost books of
   exceeding value.

      _A. Plummer,
      The Church of the Early Fathers,
      chapter 3._

CHRISTIANITY: Edessa.

   "Edessa (the modern Urfa) was from the beginning of the third
   century one of the chief centres of Syrian Christian life and
   theological study. For many years, amid the vicissitudes of
   theological persecution, a series of flourishing theological
   schools were maintained there, one of which (the 'Persian
   school') is of great importance as the nursery of Nestorianism
   in the extreme East. It was as bishop of Edessa, also, that
   Jacob Baradæus organized the monophysite churches into that
   Jacobite church of which he is the hero. From the scholars of
   Edessa came many of the translations which carried Greek
   thought to the East, and in the periods of exciting
   controversy Edessa was within the range of the theological
   movements that stirred Alexandria and Constantinople. The
   'Chronicle of Edessa,' as it is called because the greater
   number of its notices relate to Edessene affairs, is a brief
   document in Syriac contained in a manuscript of six leaves in
   the Vatican library. It is one of the most important
   fundamental sources for the history of Edessa, contains a long
   official narrative of the flood of A. D. 201, which is perhaps
   the only existing monument of heathen Syriac literature, and
   includes an excellent and very carefully dated list of the
   bishops of Edessa from A. D. 313 to 543."

      _Andover Review,
      volume 19, page 374._

   The Syriac Versions (of the Gospel) form a group of which
   mention should undoubtedly be made. The Syriac versions of the
   Bible (Old Testament) are among the most ancient remains of
   the language, the Syriac and the Chaldee being the two
   dialects of the Aramaean spoken in the North. Of versions of
   the New Testament, "the 'Peshito' or the 'Simple,' though not
   the oldest text, has been the longest known. … The
   'Curetonian' … was discovered after its existence had been
   for a long time suspected by sagacious scholars [but is not
   much more than a series of fragments]. … Cureton, Tregelles,
   Alford, Ewald, Bleek, and others, believe this text to be
   older than the Peshito [which speaks for the Greek text of the
   second century, though its own date is doubtful]. … Other
   valuable Syriac versions are 'Philoxenian' … and the
   'Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary' … a service-book with lessons
   from the Gospels for Sundays and feast days throughout the
   year … written at Antioch in 1030 in a dialect similar to
   that in use in Jerusalem and from a Greek text of great
   antiquity." A recent discovery renders these facts and
   statements of peculiar interests.

      _G. E. Merrill,
      The Story of the Manuscripts,
      chapter 10._

CHRISTIANITY: Rural Palestine.

   "If Ebionism [see EBIONISM] was not primitive Christianity,
   neither was it a creation of the second century. As an
   organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we
   may suppose, in the reign of Trajan: but as a sentiment, it
   had been harboured within the Church from the very earliest
   days. Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles,
   soothed by the general practice of their church, not yet
   forced into declaring themselves by the turn of events, though
   scarcely tolerant of others, these Judaizers were tolerated
   for a time themselves. The beginning of the second century was
   a winnowing season in the Church of the Circumcision. … It
   is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of
   Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement
   in the neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large
   accessions to their numbers from this sect, which thus
   inoculated the Church with its peculiar views. It is at least
   worthy of notice, that in a religious work emanating from this
   school of Ebionites the 'true Gospel' is reported to have been
   first propagated 'after the destruction of the holy place.'"

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Dissertation on the Apostolic Age,
      pages 78-80._

{448}

CHRISTIANITY: Carthage.

   "If the world is indebted to Rome for the organisation of the
   Church, Rome is indebted to Carthage for the theory on which
   that organisation is built. The career of Carthage as a
   Christian centre exemplifies the strange vicissitudes of
   history. The city which Rome in her jealousy had crushed,
   which, not content with crushing, she had obliterated from the
   face of the earth, had at the bidding of Rome's greatest son
   risen from her ashes, and by her career almost verified the
   poet's taunt that the greatness of Carthage was reared on the
   ruin of Italy. For in truth the African capital was in all but
   political power no unworthy rival of Rome. It had steadily
   grown in commercial prosperity. Its site was so advantageous
   as to invite, almost to compel, the influx of trade, which
   ever spontaneously moves along the line of least resistance.
   And the people were well able to turn this natural advantage
   to account. A mixed nationality, in which the original Italian
   immigration lent a steadying force to the native Punic and
   kindred African elements that formed its basis, with its
   intelligence enriched by large accessions of Greek settlers
   from Cyrene and Alexandria—Carthage had developed in the
   second century of our era into a community at once wealthy,
   enterprising and ambitious. … It was no longer in the sphere
   of profane literature, but in her contributions to the cause
   of Christianity and the spiritual armoury of the Church, that
   the proud Queen of Africa was to win her second crown of fame.
   … The names of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, at once
   suggest the source from which Papal Rome drew the principles
   of Church controversy, Church organisation, and Church
   doctrine, which have consolidated her authority, and to some
   extent justified her pretensions to rule the conscience of
   Christendom."

      _C. T. Cruttwell,
      A Literary History of Early Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

   "At the end of the second century the African Tertullian first
   began to wrestle with the difficulties of the Latin language
   in the endeavour to make it a vehicle for the expression of
   Christian ideas. In reading his dogmatic writings the struggle
   is so apparent that it seems as though we beheld a rider
   endeavouring to discipline an unbroken steed. Tertullian's
   doctrine is, however, still wholly Greek in substance, and
   this continued to be the case in the church of the Latin
   tongue until the end of the fourth century. Hilary, Ambrose,
   even Jerome, are essentially interpreters of Greek philosophy
   and theology to the Latin West. With Augustine learning begins
   to assume a Latin form, partly original and
   independent—partly, I say, for even later compositions are
   abundantly interwoven with Greek elements and materials. Very
   gradually from the writings of the African fathers of the
   church does the specific Latin element come to occupy that
   dominant position in Western Christendom, which soon, partly
   from self-sufficient indifference, partly from ignorance, so
   completely severed itself from Greek influences that the old
   unity and harmony could never be restored. Still the Biblical
   study of the Latins is, as a whole, a mere echo and copy of
   Greek predecessors."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      pages 170-171._

   From Carthage which was afterward the residence of "the
   primate of all Africa … the Christian faith soon
   disseminated throughout Numidia, Mauritania and Getulia, which
   is proved by the great number of bishops at two councils held
   at Carthage in 256 and 308. At the latter there were 270
   bishops, whose names are not given, but at the former were
   bishops from (87) … cities."

      _J. E. T. Wiltsch,
      Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church._

CHRISTIANITY: Rome.

   "In the West, Rome remains and indeed becomes ever more and
   more the 'sedes Apostolica,' by far the most important centre
   where, alongside of the Roman element, there are to be found
   elements streaming together from all points of the Empire.
   Greek names, and the long lasting (still dominant in the
   second century) maintenance of Greek as the written language
   of Roman Christianity are here noteworthy. … Rome was the
   point of departure not only for Italy and the Western
   Provinces, but without doubt also for Proconsular Africa,
   where in turn Carthage becomes the centre of diffusion. …
   The diffusion in the Græco-Roman world as a whole goes first
   to the more important towns and from these gradually over the
   country. … The instruments however of this mission are by no
   means exclusively apostolic men, who pursue missions as their
   calling; … every Christian becomes a witness in his own
   circle, and intercourse and trade bring Christians hither and
   thither, and along with them their Christian faith."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 105-107._

   "It has been contended, and many still believe, that in
   ancient Rome the doctrines of Christ found no proselytes,
   except among the lower and poorer classes of citizens. … The
   gospel found its way also to the mansions of the masters, nay,
   even to the palace of the Cæsars. The discoveries lately made
   on this subject are startling, and constitute a new chapter in
   the history of imperial Rome. … A difficulty may arise in
   the mind of the reader: how was it possible for these
   magistrates, generals, consuls, officers, senators, and
   governors of provinces, to attend to their duties without
   performing acts of idolatry? … The Roman emperors gave
   plenty of liberty to the new religion from time to time; and
   some of them, moved by a sort of religious syncretism, even
   tried to ally it with the official worship of the empire, and
   to place Christ and Jupiter on the steps of the same
   'lararium.' … We must not believe that the transformation of
   Rome from a pagan into a Christian city was a sudden and
   unexpected event, which took the world by surprise. It was the
   natural result of the work of three centuries, brought to
   maturity under Constantine by an inevitable reaction against
   the violence of Diocletian's rule. It was not a revolution or
   a conversion in the true sense of these words; it was the
   official recognition of a state of things which had long
   ceased to be a secret. The moral superiority of the new
   doctrines over the old religions was so evident, so
   overpowering, that the result of the struggle had been a
   foregone conclusion since the age of the first apologists. The
   revolution was an exceedingly mild one, the transformation
   almost imperceptible. … The transformation may be followed
   stage by stage in both its moral and material aspect. There is
   not a ruin of ancient Rome that does not bear evidence of the
   great change. … Rome possesses authentic remains of the
   'houses of prayer' in which the gospel was first announced in
   apostolic times. … A very old tradition, confirmed by the
   'Liber Pontificalis,' describes the modern church of S.
   Pudentiana as having been once the private house of the same
   Pudens who was baptized by the apostles, and who is mentioned
   in the epistles of S. Paul. … The connection of the house
   with the apostolate of SS. Peter and Paul made it very popular
   from the beginning. … Remains of the house of Pudens were
   found in 1870. They occupy a considerable area under the
   neighboring houses. …
{449}
   Among the Roman churches whose origin can be traced to the
   hall of meeting, besides those of Pudens and Prisca already
   mentioned, the best preserved seems to be that built by
   Demetrias at the third mile-stone of the Via Latina, near the
   'painted tombs.'… The Christians took advantage of the
   freedom accorded to funeral colleges, and associated
   themselves for the same purpose, following as closely as
   possible their rules concerning contributions, the erection of
   lodges, the meetings, and the … love feasts; and it was
   largely through the adoption of these well-understood and
   respected customs that they were enabled to hold their
   meetings and keep together as a corporate body through the
   stormy times of the second and third centuries. Two excellent
   specimens of scholæ connected with Christian cemeteries and
   with meetings of the faithful have come down to us, one above
   the Catacombs of Callixtus, the other above those of Soter."
   This formation of Christian communities into colleges is an
   important fact, and connects these Christian societies with
   one of the social institutions of the Empire which may have
   influenced the church as an organization. "The experience
   gained in twenty-five years of active exploration in ancient
   Rome, both above and below ground, enables me to state that
   every pagan building which was capable of giving shelter to a
   congregation was transformed, at one time or another, into a
   church or a chapel. … From apostolic times to the
   persecution of Domitian, the faithful were buried, separately
   or collectively, in private tombs which did not have the
   character of a Church institution. These early tombs, whether
   above or below ground, display a sense of perfect security,
   and an absence of all fear or solicitude. This feeling arose
   from two facts: the small extent of the cemeteries, which
   secured to them the rights of private property, and the
   protection and freedom which the Jewish colony in Rome enjoyed
   from time immemorial. … From the time of the apostles to the
   first persecution of Domitian, Christian tombs, whether above
   or below ground, were built with perfect impunity and in
   defiance of public opinion. We have been accustomed to
   consider the catacombs of Rome as crypts plunged in total
   darkness, and penetrating the bowels of the earth at
   unfathomable depths. This is, in a certain measure, the case
   with those catacombs, or sections of catacombs, which were
   excavated in times of persecution; but not with those
   belonging to the first century. The cemetery of these members
   of Domitian's family who had embraced the gospel—such as
   Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, Plautilla, Petronilla, and
   others-reveals a bold example of publicity. … How is it
   possible to imagine that the primitive Church did not know the
   place of the death of its two leading apostles? In default of
   written testimony let us consult monumental evidence. There is
   no event of the imperial age and of imperial Rome which is
   attested by so many noble structures, all of which point to
   the same conclusion,—the presence and execution of the
   apostles in the capital of the empire."

      _R. Lanciani,
      Pagan and Christian Rome,
      chapter 1, 3 and 7._

   The Church at Rome "gave no illustrious teachers to ancient
   Christianity. … All the greatest questions were debated
   elsewhere. … By a sort of instinct of race, [it] occupied
   itself far more with points of government and organization
   than of speculation. Its central position, in the capital of
   the empire, and its glorious memories, guaranteed to it a
   growing authority."

      _E. De Pressensé,
      The Early Years of Christianity:
      The Martyrs and Apologists,
      page 41._

CHRISTIANITY: Gaul.

   "Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of
   the second century we have no certain information. It seems
   fairly probable indeed that, when we read in the Apostolic age
   of a mission of Crescens to 'Galatia' or 'Gaul,' the western
   country is meant rather than the Asiatic settlement which bore
   the same name; and, if so, this points to some relations with
   St. Paul himself. But, even though this explanation should be
   accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later tradition
   indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is
   impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies
   these comparatively recent stories. The connection between the
   southern parts of Gaul and the western districts of Asia Minor
   had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul was indebted
   for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like
   Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six
   centuries before the Christian era; and close relations appear
   to have been maintained even to the latest times. During the
   Roman period the people of Marseilles still spoke the Greek
   language familiarly along with the vernacular Celtic of the
   native population and the official Latin of the dominant
   power. When therefore Christianity had established her
   headquarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the
   Gospel should flow in the same channels which already
   conducted the civilization and the commerce of the Asiatic
   Greeks westward. At all events, whatever we may think of the
   antecedent probabilities, the fact itself can hardly be
   disputed. In the year A. D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, a
   severe persecution broke out on the banks of the Rhone in the
   cities of Vienne and Lyons—a persecution which by its extent
   and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the
   Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest
   extant historical notice of Christianity in Gaul."

      _J. B. Lightfoot,
      Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion,
      pages 251-252._

   "The Churches of proconsular Africa, of Spain, of Italy, and
   of Southern Gaul constitute, at this period, the Western
   Church, so different in its general type from the Eastern.
   With the exception of Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons] and
   Hippolytus [the first celebrated preacher of the West, of
   Italy and, for a period, Lyons] who represent the oriental
   element in Gaul and at Rome, the Western Fathers are broadly
   distinguished from those of the East. … They affirm rather
   than demonstrate; … they prefer practical to speculative
   questions. The system of episcopal authority is gradually
   developed with a larger amount of passion at Carthage, with
   greater prudence and patience in Italy."

      _E. De Pressensé,
      The Early Years of Christianity:
      the Martyrs and Apologists._

CHRISTIANITY: Spain.

   "Christians are generally mentioned as having existed in all
   parts of Spain at the close of the second century; before the
   middle of the third century there is a letter of the Roman
   bishop Anterus (in 237) to the bishops of the provinces of
   Bœtica and Toletana; … and after the middle of the same
   century a letter of Cyprian's was addressed to … people …
   in the north … as well as … in the south of that country."

      _J. E. T. Wiltsch,
      Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
      pages 40-41._

{450}

CHRISTIANITY: Britain.

   "All that we can safely assert is that there is some reason
   for believing that there were Christians in Britain before A.
   D. 200. Certainly there was a British Church with bishops of
   its own soon after A. D. 300, and possibly some time before
   that. Very little can be known about this Celtic Church; but
   the scanty evidence tends to establish three points, (1) It
   had its origin from, and remained largely dependent upon, the
   Gallic Church. (2) It was confined almost exclusively to Roman
   settlements. (3) Its numbers were small and its members were
   poor. … That Britain may have derived its Christianity from
   Asia Minor cannot be denied; but the peculiar British custom
   respecting Easter must not be quoted in evidence of it. It
   seems to have been a mere blunder, and not a continuation of
   the old Quarta-deciman practice. Gaul is the more probable
   parent of the British Church. … At the Council of Rimini in
   359 Constantius offered to pay out of the treasury the
   travelling expenses of all the bishops who attended. Out of
   more than four hundred bishops, three from Britain were the
   only clergy who availed themselves of this offer. Neither at
   Rimini, any more than at Arles, do the British representatives
   make any show: they appear to be quite without influence."

      _A. Plummer,
      The Church of the Early Fathers,
      chapter 8._

CHRISTIANITY: Goths.

   "It has been observed that the first indisputable appearance
   of the Goths in European history must be dated in A. D. 238,
   when they laid waste the South-Danubian province of Moesia as
   far as the Black Sea. In the thirty years (238-269) that
   followed, there took place no fewer than ten such inroads. …
   From these expeditions they returned with immense booty,—corn
   and cattle, silks and fine linen, silver and gold, and
   captives of all ranks and ages. It is to these captives, many
   of whom were Christians, and not a few clergy, that the
   introduction of Christianity among the Goths is primarily due.
   … The period of the inroads, which so strangely formed a
   sowing-time for Christianity, was followed by a long period of
   tranquillity, during which the new faith took root and spread.
   … It is to the faithful work and pure lives of [Christian]
   men … who had fled from Roman civilisation for conscience
   sake, to the example of patience in misfortune and high
   Christian character displayed by the captives, and to the
   instruction of the presbyters sprinkled among them, that we
   must look, as the source of Christianity among the Goths. …
   The fact (to which we shall have to refer later), that, of all
   the sea raids undertaken by the Goths between the years 238
   and 269, the Visigoths took part in only two, while the
   Ostrogoths, who were settled in Southern Russia along the
   coast of the Euxine from the Crimea to the Dneister, were
   engaged probably in all of them, makes it very unlikely that
   the captives mentioned by Philostorgius were carried anywhere
   else than the eastern settlements. To the influence of these
   Asian Christians, exerted mainly, if not entirely upon the
   Ostrogoths, must be added the ever-increasing intercourse
   carried on by sea between the Crimea and both the southern
   shore of the Euxine and Constantinople. To these probabilities
   has now to be added the fact that the only traces of an
   organised Gothic Church existing before the year 341 are
   clearly to be referred to a community in this neighbourhood.
   Among the bishops who were present at the Council of Nicaea
   (A. D. 325), and who signed the symbol which was then
   approved, we find a certain Theophilus, before whose name
   stand the words, 'de Gothis,' and after it the word
   'Bosphoritanus.' There can be little doubt that this was a
   bishop representing a Gothic Church on the Cimmerian
   Bosphorus; and if, following the Paris MSS., we read further
   down the list the name Domnus Bosphorensis or Bosphoranus, we
   may find here another bishop from this diocese, and regard
   Theophilus as chief or arch-bishop of the Crimean churches.
   The undoubted presence at this council of at least one bishop
   of the Goths, and the conclusion drawn therefrom in favour of
   the orthodoxy of the Gothic Church in general, led afterwards
   to the greatest confusion. Failing to distinguish between the
   Crimean and Danubian communities, the historians often found
   their information contradictory, and altered it in the
   readiest way to suit the condition of the Church which they
   had specially in view. … The conversion of that section of
   the nation, which became the Gothic Church, was due to the
   apostolic labours of one of their own race,—the great
   missionary bishop Ulfilas [see GOTHS: A. D. 341-381]. But to
   him too was to be traced the heresy in which they stopped
   short on the way from heathenism to a complete Christian
   faith."

      _C. A. A. Scott,
      Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths,
      pages 19-30._

   "The superstitions of the barbarians, who had found homes in
   the empire, had been exchanged for a more wholesome belief.
   But Christianity had done more than this. It had extended its
   influence to the distant East and South, to Abyssinia, and the
   tribes of the Syrian and Lybian deserts, to Armenia, Persia,
   and India."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 98._

   "We have before us many significant examples of the facility
   with which the most intelligent of the Pagans accepted the
   outward rite of Christian baptism, and made a nominal
   profession of the Faith, while they retained and openly
   practiced, without rebuke, without remark, with the indulgence
   even of genuine believers, the rites and usages of the
   Paganism they pretended to have abjured. We find abundant
   records of the fact that personages high in office, such as
   consuls and other magistrates, while administering the laws by
   which the old idolatries were proscribed, actually performed
   Pagan rites and even erected public statues to Pagan
   divinities. Still more did men, high in the respect of their
   fellow-Christians, allow themselves to cherish sentiments
   utterly at variance with the definitions of the Church."

      _C. Merivale,
      Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      page 150._

   "We look back to the early acts and policy of the Church
   towards the new nations, their kings and their people; the
   ways and works of her missionaries and lawgivers, Ulfilas
   among the Goths, Augustine in Kent, Remigius in France,
   Boniface in Germany, Anschar in the North, the Irish Columban
   in Burgundy and Switzerland, Benedict at Monte Cassino; or the
   reforming kings, the Arian Theodoric, the great German
   Charles, the great English Alfred. Measured by the light and
   the standards they have helped us to attain to, their methods
   no doubt surprise, disappoint—it may be, revolt us; and all
   that we dwell upon is the childishness, or the imperfect
   morality, of their attempts.
{451}
   But if there is anything certain in history, it is
   that in these rough communications of the deepest truths, in
   these [for us] often questionable modes of ruling minds and
   souls, the seeds were sown of all that was to make the hope
   and the glory of the foremost nations. … I have spoken of
   three other groups of virtues which are held in special regard
   and respect among us—those connected with manliness and hard
   work, with reverence for law and liberty, and with pure family
   life. The rudiments and tendencies out of which these have
   grown appear to have been early marked in the German races;
   but they were only rudiments, existing in company with much
   wilder and stronger elements, and liable, amid the changes and
   chances of barbarian existence, to be paralysed or trampled
   out. No mere barbarian virtues could by themselves have stood
   the trial of having won by conquest the wealth, the lands, the
   power of Rome. But their guardian was there. What Christianity
   did for these natural tendencies to good was to adopt them, to
   watch over them, to discipline, to consolidate them. The
   energy which warriors were accustomed to put forth in their
   efforts to conquer, the missionaries and ministers of
   Christianity exhibited in their enterprises of conversion and
   teaching. The crowd of unknown saints whose names fill the
   calendars, and live, some of them, only in the titles of our
   churches, mainly represent the age of heroic spiritual
   ventures, of which we see glimpses in the story of St.
   Boniface, the apostle of Germany; of St. Columban and St.
   Gall, wandering from Ireland to reclaim the barbarians of the
   Burgundian deserts and of the shores of the Swiss lakes. It
   was among men like these—men who were then termed
   emphatically 'men of religion'—that the new races saw the
   example of life ruled by a great and serious purpose, which
   yet was not one of ambition or the excitement of war; a life
   of deliberate and steady industry, of hard and uncomplaining
   labour; a life as full of activity in peace, of stout and
   brave work, as a warrior's was wont to be in the camp, on the
   march, in the battle. It was in these men and in the
   Christianity which they taught, and which inspired and
   governed them, that the fathers of our modern nations first
   saw exemplified the sense of human responsibility, first
   learned the nobleness of a ruled and disciplined life, first
   enlarged their thoughts of the uses of existence, first were
   taught the dignity and sacredness of honest toil. These great
   axioms of modern life passed silently from the special homes
   of religious employment to those of civil; from the cloisters
   and cells of men who, when they were not engaged in worship,
   were engaged in field-work or book-work,—clearing the forest,
   extending cultivation, multiplying manuscripts—to the guild
   of the craftsman, the shop of the trader, the study of the
   scholar. Religion generated and fed these ideas of what was
   manly and worthy in man."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Gifts of Civilisation,
      pages 279-283._

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.
   The Church and the Empire.

   "Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there
   occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of
   Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy.
   It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor
   to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous
   importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman
   empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church,
   thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church
   entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove
   fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the
   subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the
   advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship
   of earthly rulers and from a close connection with the civil
   authority. Constantine was born in 274. He was the son of
   Constantius Chlorus. His mother, Helena, was of obscure birth.
   She became a Christian—whether before or after his
   conversion, is doubtful. … After the death of Constantine's
   father, a revolt against Galerius augmented the number of
   emperors, so that, in 308, not less than six claimed to
   exercise rule. The contest of Constantine was at first in the
   West, against the tyrannical and dissolute Maxentius. It was
   just before his victory over this rival at the Milvian Bridge,
   near Rome, that he adopted the Christian faith. That there
   mingled in this decision, as in most of the steps of his
   career, political ambition, is highly probable. The strength
   of the Christian community made it politic for him to win its
   united support. But he sincerely believed in the God whom the
   Christians worshipped, and in the help which, through his
   providence, he could lend to his servants. … Shortly before
   his victory over Maxentius there occurred what he asserted to
   be the vision of a flaming cross in the sky, seen by him at
   noonday, on which was the inscription, in Greek, 'By this
   conquer.' It was, perhaps, an optical illusion, the effect of
   a parhelion beheld in a moment when the imagination … was
   strongly excited. He adopted the labarum, or the standard of
   the cross, which was afterwards carried in his armies. [See
   ROME: A. D. 323.] In later contests with Licinius, the ruler
   in the East, who was a defender of paganism, Constantine
   became more distinctly the champion of the Christian cause.
   The final defeat of Licinius, in 323, left him the master of
   the whole Roman world. An edict signed by Galerius,
   Constantine, and Licinius, in 311, had proclaimed freedom and
   toleration in matters of religion. The edict of Milan, in 312,
   emanating from the two latter, established unrestricted
   liberty on this subject. If we consider the time when it was
   issued, we shall be surprised to find that it alleges as a
   motive for the edict the sacred rights of conscience."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 87-88._

   "Towards the end of the year Constantine left Rome for Milan,
   where he met Licinius. This meeting resulted in the issue of
   the famous edict of Milan. Up to that hour Christianity had
   been an 'illicita religio,' and it was a crime to be a
   Christian. Even in Trajan's answer to Pliny this position is
   assumed, though it forms the basis of humane regulations. The
   edict of Milan is the charter of Christianity; it proclaims
   absolute freedom in the matter of religion. Both Christians
   and all others were to be freely permitted to follow
   whatsoever religion each might choose. Moreover, restitution
   was to be made to the Christian body of all churches and other
   buildings which had been alienated from them during the persecution.
{452}
   This was in 313 A. D. … But the causes of dissension
   remained behind. Once more (323) the question between paganism
   and Christianity was to be tried on the field of battle, and
   their armies confronted one another on the plains of
   Hadrianople. Again the skill of Constantine and the trained
   valour of his troops proved superior to the undisciplined
   levies of Licinius; while at sea Crispus, the eldest and
   ill-fated son of Constantine, destroyed the enemy's fleet in
   the crowded waters of the Hellespont, sowing thereby the seeds
   of his father's jealousy. Byzantium fell, but not without a
   vigorous resistance; and, after one more crushing defeat on
   the site of the modern Scutari, Licinius submitted himself to
   the mercy of Constantine. … What we notice in the whole of
   these events is the enormous power which still belonged to
   paganism. The balance still wavered between paganism and
   Christianity. … Constantine had now, by a marvellous
   succession of victories, placed himself in a position of
   supreme and undisputed power. At this juncture it is of
   interest to observe that … the divided empire, which
   followed the reign of Constantine, served to sustain
   Catholicity at least in one half of the world. … The
   foundation of Constantinople was the outward symbol of the new
   monarchy and of the triumph of Christianity. … The choice of
   this incomparable position for the new capital of the world
   remains the lasting proof of Constantine's genius. … The
   magnificence of its public buildings, its treasures of art,
   its vast endowments, the beauty of its situation, the rapid
   growth of its commerce, made it worthy to be 'as it were a
   daughter of Rome herself.' But the most important thought for
   us is the relation of Constantinople to the advance of
   Christianity. That the city which had sprung into supremacy
   from its birth and had become the capital of the conquered
   world, should have excluded from the circuit of its walls all
   public recognition of polytheism, and made the Cross its most
   conspicuous ornament, and the token of its greatness, gave a
   reality to the religious revolution. … The imperial centre
   of the world had been visibly displaced."

      _A. Carr,
      The Church and the Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

   With the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicæa,
   A. D. 325 (see NICÆA), "the decisions … of which received
   the force of law from the confirmation of the Emperor, a
   tendency was entered upon which was decisive for the further
   development; decisive also by the fact that the Emperor held
   it to be his duty to compel subordination to the decisions of
   the council on penalty of banishment, and actually carried out
   this banishment in the case of Arius and several of his
   adherents. The Emperor summoned general synods, the fiscus
   provided the cost of travel and subsistence (also at other
   great synods), an imperial commissioner opened them by reading
   the imperial edict, and watched over the course of business.
   Only the bishops and their appointed representatives had
   votes. Dogmatic points fixed … were to be the outcome of
   unanimous agreement, the rest of the ordinances (on the
   constitution, discipline and worship) of a majority of votes."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 337._

   "The direct influence of the emperor, however, does not appear
   until the Emperor Marcian procured from the Council of
   Chalcedon the completion of the Patriarchal system. Assuming
   that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were Patriarchates by the
   recognition of their privileges at the Council of Nicæa
   (though the canon of that council does not really admit that
   inference), the Council of Chalcedon, by its ninth,
   seventeenth and twenty-eighth canons, enlarged and fixed the
   patriarchal jurisdiction and privileges of the Church of
   Constantinople, giving it authority over the Dioceses of
   Thrace, Asia and Pontus, with the power of ordaining and
   requiring canonical obedience from the metropolis of those
   Dioceses, and also the right to adjudicate appeals in causes
   ecclesiastical from the whole Eastern Church. The Bishop of
   Jerusalem also obtained in this council patriarchal authority
   over Palestine. The organization of the Church was thus
   conformed to that of the empire, the patriarchs corresponding
   to the Prætorian Prefects, the exarchs, to the governors of
   the Dioceses, and the metropolitans to the governors of the
   provinces—the Bishop of Rome being given by an edict of
   Valentinian III., of the year 445, supreme appellate
   jurisdiction in the West, and the Bishop of Constantinople, by
   these canons of Chalcedon, supreme appellate jurisdiction in
   the East. … Dean Milman remarks that the Episcopate of St.
   John Chrysostom was the last attempt of a bishop of
   Constantinople to be independent of the political power, and
   that his fate involved the freedom of the Church of that
   city."

      _J. H. Egar,
      Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political,
      from Constantine to the Reformation,
      pages 25-27._

   "The name of patriarch, probably borrowed from Judaism, was
   from this period the appellation of the highest dignitaries of
   the church, and by it were more immediately, but not
   exclusively, designated the bishops of Constantinople,
   Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One patriarch accordingly
   presided over several provinces, and was distinguished from
   the metropolitan in this, that the latter was subordinate to
   him, and had only the superintendence of one province or a
   small district. However the designation applied only to the
   highest rulers of the church in the east, and not to those in
   the west, for here the title of patriarch was not unfrequently
   given, even in later times, to the metropolitan. The first
   mention of this title occurs in the second letter of the Roman
   bishop, Anacletus at the beginning of the second century, and
   it is next spoken of by Socrates; and after the Council of
   Chalcedon, in 451, it came into general use. The bishop of
   Constantinople bore the special title of œcumenical bishop or
   patriarch; there were also other titles in use among the
   Nestorians and Jacobites. The Primates and Metropolitans or
   Archbishops arose contemporaneously. The title of Eparch is
   also said to have been given to primates about the middle of
   the fifth century. The metropolitan of Ephesus subscribed
   himself thus in the year 680, therefore in the succeeding
   period. There was no particular title of long continuance for
   the Roman bishop until the sixth century; but from the year
   536 he was usually called Papa, and from the time of Gregory
   the Great he styled himself Servus Servorum Dei."

      _J. E. T. Wiltsch,
      Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
      pages 70, 71 and 72._

{453}

   "Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial
   throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period
   the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the
   Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity
   almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the
   change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a
   dominant power in the state; and the change in the condition
   of mankind up to this period, attributable to the direct
   authority or indirect influence of the new religion. By
   ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by advancing its
   pretentions to influence the general government of mankind,
   Christianity to a certain extent, forfeited its independence.
   It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might
   seem, with its own concurrent voice. It was no longer a
   republic, governed exclusively—as far, at least, as its
   religious concerns—by its own internal polity. The
   interference of the civil power in some of its most private
   affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even, in some
   cases, the election of its bishops by the state, was the price
   which it must inevitably pay for its association with the
   ruling power. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity
   had made a rapid advance, no doubt, in the number of its
   proselytes as well as in its external position. It was not yet
   the established religion of the empire. It did not as yet
   stand forward as the new religion adapted to the new order of
   things, as a part of the great simultaneous change which gave
   to the Roman world a new capital, a new system of government,
   and, in some important instances, anew jurisprudence. … The
   religion of the emperor would soon become that of the court,
   and, by somewhat slower degrees, that of the empire. At
   present, however, as we have seen, little open aggression took
   place upon paganism. The few temples which were closed were
   insulated cases, and condemned as offensive to public
   morality. In general the temples stood in all their former
   majesty, for as yet the ordinary process of decay from neglect
   or supineness could have produced little effect. The
   difference was, that the Christian churches began to assume a
   more stately and imposing form. In the new capital they
   surpassed in grandeur, and probably in decoration, the pagan
   temples, which belonged to old Byzantium. The immunities
   granted to the Christian clergy only placed them on the same
   level with the pagan priesthood. The pontifical offices were
   still held by the distinguished men of the state: the emperor
   himself was long the chief pontiff; but the religious office
   had become a kind of appendage to the temporal dignity. The
   Christian prelates were constantly admitted, in virtue of
   their office, to the imperial presence."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Christianity,
      book 3, chapter 4._

   "As early as Constantine's time the punishment of crucifixion
   was abolished; immoral practices, like infanticide, and the
   exhibition of gladiatorial shows, were discouraged, the latter
   of these being forbidden in Constantinople; and in order to
   improve the relation of the sexes, severe laws were passed
   against adultery, and restrictions were placed on the facility
   of divorce. Further, the bishops were empowered, in the name
   of religion, to intercede with governors, and even with the
   emperor, in behalf of the unfortunate and oppressed. And
   gradually they obtained the right of exercising a sort of
   moral superintendence over the discharge of their official
   duties by the judges, and others, who belonged to their
   communities. The supervision of the prisons, in particular,
   was entrusted to them; and, whereas in the first instance
   their power of interference was limited to exhortations
   addressed to the judges who superintended them, in Justinian's
   reign the bishops were commissioned by law to visit the
   prisons on two days of each week in order to inquire into,
   and, if necessary, report upon, the treatment of the
   prisoners. In all these and many other ways, the influence of
   the State in controlling and improving society was advanced by
   its alliance with the Church."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      pages 56-57._

   "The Christians were still a separate people. … It can
   scarcely be doubted that the stricter moral tone of
   Constantine's legislation more or less remotely emanated from
   Christianity. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity
   continued to advance beyond the borders of the Roman empire,
   and in some degree to indemnify herself for the losses which
   she sustained in the kingdom of Persia. The Ethiopians appear
   to have attained some degree of civilization; a considerable
   part of the Arabian commerce was kept up with the other side
   of the Red Sea through the port of Adulis; and Greek letters
   appear, from inscriptions recently discovered, to have made
   considerable progress among this barbarous people. … The
   theological opinions of Christianity naturally made more rapid
   progress than its moral influence. The former had only to
   overpower the resistance of a religion which had already lost
   its hold upon the mind, or a philosophy too speculative for
   ordinary understandings and too unsatisfactory for the more
   curious and inquiring; it had only to enter, as it were, into
   a vacant place in the mind of man. But the moral influence had
   to contest, not only with the natural dispositions of man, but
   with the barbarism and depraved manners of ages. While, then,
   the religion of the world underwent a total change, the Church
   rose on the ruins of the temple, and the pontifical
   establishment of paganism became gradually extinct or suffered
   violent suppression; the moral revolution was far more slow
   and far less complete. … Everywhere there was exaggeration
   of one of the constituent elements of Christianity; that
   exaggeration which is the inevitable consequence of a strong
   impulse upon the human mind. Wherever men feel strongly, they
   act violently. The more speculative Christians, therefore, who
   were more inclined, in the deep and somewhat selfish
   solicitude for their own salvation, to isolate themselves from
   the infected class of mankind, pressed into the extreme of
   asceticism; the more practical, who were in earnest in the
   desire of disseminating the blessings of religion throughout
   society, scrupled little to press into their service whatever
   might advance their cause. With both extremes the dogmatical
   part of the religion predominated. … In proportion to the
   admitted importance of the creed, men became more sternly and
   exclusively wedded to their opinions. … While they swept in
   converts indiscriminately from the palace and the public
   street, while the emperor and the lowest of the populace were
   alike admitted on little more than the open profession of
   allegiance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this
   respect was blind and complete. Hence a far larger admixture
   of human passions, and the common vulgar incentives of action,
   were infused into the expanding Christian body.
{454}
   Men became Christians, orthodox Christians, with little
   sacrifice of that which Christianity aimed chiefly to
   extirpate. Yet, after all, this imperfect view of Christianity
   had probably some effect in concentrating the Christian
   community, and holding it together by a new and more
   indissoluble bond. The world divided into two parties. …
   All, however, were enrolled under one or the other standard,
   and the party which triumphed eventually would rule the whole
   Christian world."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Christianity,
      book 3, chapter 4-5._

   "Of this deterioration of morals we have abundant evidence.
   Read the Canons of the various Councils and you will learn
   that the Church found it necessary to prohibit the commission
   of the most heinous and abominable crimes not only by the
   laity, but even by the clergy. Read the homilies of such
   preachers as Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory, and you may infer
   what the moral tone of a Christian congregation must have been
   to which such reproofs could be addressed. Read, above all,
   the treatise on Providence, or De Gubernatione Dei, written at
   the close of our period by Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles.
   The barbarians had over-spread the West, and Christians had
   suffered so many hardships that they began to doubt whether
   there was any Divine government of human affairs. Salvian
   retorted that the fact of their suffering was the best
   evidence of the doctrine of Providence, for the miseries they
   endured were the effects of the Divine displeasure provoked by
   the debauchery of the Church. And then he proceeds to draw up
   an indictment and to lend proof which I prefer not to give in
   detail. After making every allowance for rhetorical
   exaggeration, enough remains to show that the morality of the
   Church had grievously declined, and that the declension was
   due to the inroads of Pagan vice. … Under this head, had
   space permitted, some account would have been given of the
   growth of the Christian literature of this period, of the
   great writers and preachers, and of the opposing schools of
   interpretation which divided Christendom. In the Eastern
   Church we should have had to notice [at greater length the
   work of] Eusebius of Cæsarea, the father of Church History and
   the friend of Constantine; Ephrem the Syrian, the
   poet-preacher; the three Cappadocians, Basil of Cæsarea,
   Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, each great in his
   own way, the first as a preacher and administrator, the second
   as a thinker, the third as a poet and panegyrist; Chrysostom,
   the orator and exegete; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret
   of Kyros, along with Chrysostom the most influential
   representatives of the School of Antioch. In the Western
   Church we should have had to speak of Ambrose, the eloquent
   preacher and voluminous writer; of Jerome, the biblical
   critic; and of Augustine, the philosopher and
   controversialist, whose thoughts live among us even at the
   present day."

      _W. Stewart,
      The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries
      (St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series)._

      See ROME: A. D. 323, to 391-395.

   "Hitherto Christian asceticism had been individualistic in its
   character. … In the third century hermits began to form a
   class by themselves in the East and in Africa; in the fourth
   they began to be organized into communities. After the
   institution of monastic societies, this development of
   Christian asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts of
   the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; Basil, Jerome, Athanasius,
   Augustine, Ambrose, were foremost among its earliest advocates
   and propagators; Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict, and others,
   crowned the labours of their predecessors by a more elaborate
   organization."

      _I. Gregory Smith,
      Christian Monasticism,
      pages 23-25._

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 318-325.
   The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

      See ARIANISM:
      and NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL OF.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
   The Eastern (Greek, or Orthodox) Church.

   "'The Eastern Church,' says a well-known writer, 'was like the
   East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West,
   progressive and flexible. This distinction is the more
   remarkable, because at certain periods of their course, there
   can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church
   was far higher than that of the Western.'"

      _G. F. Maclear,
      The Slavs,
      page 25._

   It is the more remarkable because this long-continuing
   uniformity, while peculiarly adapted to a people and a church
   which should retain and transmit an inheritance of faith and
   culture, stands in singular contrast to the reputed character
   of the Greek-speaking peoples of the East. The word Greek,
   however, has, as an adjective, many meanings, and there is
   danger of wrong inference through inattention to these; some
   of its distinctive characters are therefore indicated in
   brackets in various places in the following matter. "The New
   Rome at the time of its foundation was Roman. … But from the
   first it was destined to become Greek; for the Greeks, who now
   began to call themselves Romans—an appellation which they
   have ever since retained—held fast to their language,
   manners, and prejudices, while they availed themselves to the
   full of their rights as Roman citizens. The turning-point in
   this respect was the separation of the empires of the East and
   the West in the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and in
   Justinian's time we find all the highest offices in the hands
   of the Greeks, and Greek was the prevailing language. But the
   people whom we call by this name were not the Hellenes of
   Greece proper, but the Macedonian Greeks. This distinction
   arose with the establishment of Greek colonies with municipal
   government throughout Asia by Alexander the Great and his
   successors. The type of character which was developed in them
   and among those who were Hellenised by their influence,
   differed in many respects from that of the old Greeks. The
   resemblance between them was indeed maintained by similarity
   of education and social feelings, by the possession of a
   common language and literature, and by their exclusiveness,
   which caused them to look down on less favoured races; but
   while the inhabitants of Greece retained more of the
   independent spirit and of the moral character and patriotism
   of their forefathers, the Macedonian Greeks were more
   cosmopolitan, more subservient, and more ready to take the
   impress of those among whom they were thrown: and the
   astuteness and versatility which at all times had formed one
   element in the Hellenic character, in them became the leading
   characteristic. The influence of this type is traceable in the
   policy of the Eastern Empire, varying in intensity in
   different ages in proportion to the power exercised by the
   Greeks: until, during the later period of the history—in the
   time of the Comneni, and still more in that of the
   Palæologi—it is the predominant feature."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      pages 9-10._

{455}

   "What have been the effects of Christianity on what we call
   national character in Eastern Christendom? … The Greeks of
   the Lower Empire are taken as the typical example of these
   races, and the Greeks of the Lower Empire have become a byword
   for everything that is false and base. The Byzantine was
   profoundly theological, we are told, and profoundly vile. …
   Those who wish to be just to [it] … will pass … to the …
   equitable and conscientious, but by no means, indulgent,
   judgments of Mr. Finlay, Mr. Freeman, and Dean Stanley. One
   fact alone is sufficient to engage our deep interest in this
   race. It was Greeks [Hellenist Jews] and people imbued with
   Greek ideas who first welcomed Christianity. It was in their
   language that it first spoke to the world, and its first home
   was in Greek households and in Greek cities. It was in Greek
   [Hellenistic] atmosphere that the Divine Stranger from the
   East, in many respects so widely different from all that
   Greeks were accustomed to, first grew up to strength and
   shape; first showed its power of assimilating and reconciling;
   first showed what it was to be in human society. Its earliest
   nurslings were Greeks; Greeks [Hellenist Jews] first took in
   the meaning and measure of its amazing and eventful
   announcements; Greek sympathies first awoke and vibrated to
   its appeals; Greek obedience, Greek courage, Greek suffering
   first illustrated its new lessons. Had it not first gained
   over Greek mind and Greek belief, it is hard to see how it
   would have made its further way. … The Roman conquest of the
   world found the Greek race, and the Eastern nations which it
   had influenced, in a low and declining state—morally,
   socially, politically. The Roman Empire, when it fell, left
   them in the same discouraging condition, and suffering besides
   from the degradation and mischief wrought on all its subjects
   by its chronic and relentless fiscal oppression. … These
   were the men in whose childish conceit, childish frivolity,
   childish self-assertion, St. Paul saw such dangers to the
   growth of Christian manliness and to the unity of the
   Christian body—the idly curious and gossiping men of Athens;
   the vain and shamelessly ostentatious Corinthians, men in
   intellect, but in moral seriousness babes; the Ephesians,
   'like children carried away with every blast of vain
   teaching,' the victims of every impostor, and sport of every
   deceit; the Cretans, proverbially, 'ever liars, evil beasts,
   slow bellies;' the passionate, volatile, Greek-speaking, Celts
   of Asia, the 'foolish' Galatians. … The Greek of the Roman
   times is portrayed in the special warnings of the Apostolic
   Epistles. After Apostolic times he is portrayed in the same
   way by the heathen satirist Lucian, and by the Christian
   preacher Chrysostom; and such, with all his bad tendencies,
   aggravated by almost uninterrupted misrule and oppression, the
   Empire, when it broke up, left him. The prospects of such a
   people, amid the coming storms, were dark. Everything, their
   gifts and versatility, as well as their faults, threatened
   national decay and disintegration. … These races whom the
   Empire of the Cæsars left like scattered sheep to the mercy of
   the barbarians, lived through a succession of the most
   appalling storms, and kept themselves together, holding fast,
   resolute and unwavering, amid all their miseries and all their
   debasement, to the faith of their national brotherhood. …
   This, it seems to me, Christianity did for a race which had
   apparently lived its time, and had no future before it—the
   Greek race in the days of the Cæsars. It created in them, in a
   new and characteristic degree, national endurance, national
   fellowship and sympathy, national hope. … It gave them an
   Empire of their own, which, undervalued as it is by those
   familiar with the ultimate results of Western history, yet
   withstood the assaults before which, for the moment, Western
   civilisation sank, and which had the strength to last a
   life—a stirring and eventful life—of ten centuries. The
   Greek Empire, with all its evils and weaknesses, was yet in
   its time the only existing image in the world of a civilised
   state. … The lives of great men profoundly and permanently
   influence national character; and the great men of later Greek
   memory are saints. They belong to the people more than
   emperors and warriors; for the Church is of the people. …
   The mark which such men left on Greek society and Greek
   character has not been effaced to this day, even by the
   melancholy examples of many degenerate successors. … Why, if
   Christianity affected Greek character so profoundly, did it
   not do more? Why, if it cured it of much of its instability
   and trifling, did it not also cure it of its falsehood and
   dissimulation? Why, if it impressed the Greek mind so deeply
   with the reality of the objects of faith, did it not also
   check the vain inquisitiveness and spirit of disputatiousness
   and sophistry, which filled Greek Church history with furious
   wranglings about the most hopeless problems? Why, if it could
   raise such admiration for unselfishness and heroic nobleness,
   has not this admiration borne more congenial fruit? Why, if
   heaven was felt to be so great and so near, was there in real
   life such coarse and mean worldliness? Why, indeed? …
   Profoundly, permanently, as Christianity affected Greek
   character, there was much in that character which Christianity
   failed to reach, much that it failed to correct, much that was
   obstinately refractory to influences which, elsewhere, were so
   fruitful of goodness and greatness. The East, as well as the
   West, has still much to learn from that religion, which each
   too exclusively claims to understand, to appreciate, and to
   defend."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Gifts of Civilisation,
      pages 188-216._

   "The types of character that were developed in the Eastern
   Church, as might be expected, were not of the very highest.
   There was among them no St. Francis, no St. Louis. The
   uniformity which pervades everything Byzantine prevented the
   development of such salient characters as are found in the
   West. It is difficult, no doubt, to form a true estimate of
   the influence of religion on men's lives in Eastern countries,
   just as it is of their domestic relations, and even of the
   condition of the lower classes, because such matters are
   steadily ignored by the contemporary historians. But all the
   evidence tends to show that individual rather than heroic
   piety was fostered by the system which prevailed there. That
   at certain periods a high tone of spirituality prevailed among
   certain classes is sufficiently proved by the beautiful hymns
   of the Eastern Church, many of which, thanks to Dr. Neale's
   singular felicity in translation, are in use among ourselves.
   But the loftier development of their spirit took the form of
   asceticism, and the scene of this was rather the secluded
   monastery, or the pillar of the Stylite, than human society at
   large. But if the Eastern Church did not rise as high as her
   sister of the West, she never sank as low."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      pages 45-46._

{456}

   "The Greek Church, or, as it calls itself, the Holy Orthodox,
   Catholic, Apostolic, Oriental Church, has a venerable if not
   an eventful history. Unlike the Church of the West, it has not
   been moulded by great political movements, the rise and fall
   of kingdoms, and the convulsions which have passed over the
   face of modern society. Its course has been out of the sight
   of European civilisation, it has grown up among peoples who
   have been but slightly affected, if they have been affected at
   all, by the progressive movements of mankind. It has no middle
   ages. It has no renaissance. It has no Reformation. It has
   given birth to no great universities and schools of learning.
   It has no Protestantism. It remains very much as the fourth
   and fifth centuries left it. … When the royal throne in the
   days of the first Christian Emperor was removed from Rome to
   Constantinople, there arose at once a cause of strife between
   the bishops of old and new Rome, as Byzantium or
   Constantinople was named. Each claimed pre-eminence, and each
   alternately received it from the governing powers, in Church
   and State. One Council decreed (A. D. 381) that the Bishop of
   the new Rome should be inferior only to that of the old;
   another declared (A. D. 451) the equality of both prelates.
   The Patriarch of Constantinople at the close of the sixth
   century claimed superiority over all Christian Churches,—a
   claim which might have developed, had circumstances favoured
   it, into an Eastern Papacy. The assumption was, however, but
   short-lived, and the Bishop of Rome, Boniface, obtained from
   the Emperor Phocas in 606 the much-coveted position. The
   Eastern Church submitted, but from this time looked with a
   jealous eye on her Western sister. She noted and magnified
   every point of divergence between them. Differences or
   apparent differences in doctrine and ritual were denounced as
   heresies. Excommunications fulminated between the Eastern and
   Western city, and ecclesiastical bitterness was intensified by
   political intrigue. … In the ninth century the contest grew
   very fierce. The holder of the Eastern see, Photius,
   formulated and denounced the terrible doctrinal and other
   defections of the Western prelate and his followers. The list
   is very formidable. They, the followers of Rome, deemed it
   proper to fast on the seventh day of the week—that is on the
   Jewish Sabbath; in the first week of Lent they permitted the
   use of milk and cheese; they disapproved wholly of the
   marriage of priests; they thought none but bishops could
   anoint with the holy oil or confirm the baptized, and that
   they therefore anointed a second time those who had been
   anointed by presbyters; and fifthly, they had adulterated the
   Constantinopolitan Creed by adding to it the words Filioque,
   thus teaching that the Holy Spirit did not proceed only from
   the Father, but also from the Son. This last was deemed, and
   has always been deemed by the Greek Church the great heresy of
   the Roman Church. … The Greek Church to-day in all its
   branches—in Turkey, Greece, and Russia—professes to hold
   firmly by the formulas and decisions of the seven Œcumenical
   or General Councils, regarding with special honour that of
   Nice. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are the symbols of its
   faith, the Filioque clause being omitted from the former, and
   the eighth article reading thus: 'And in the Holy Ghost, the
   Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and
   with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.'
   … The Greek Church, unlike the Latin, denounces the use of
   images as objects of devotion, and holds in abhorrence every
   form of what it terms 'image worship.' Its position in this
   manner is very curious. It is true, no figures of our Lord, of
   the Virgin, or saints, such as one sees in churches, wayside
   chapels, and in the open fields in countries where the Roman
   Church is powerful, are to be seen in Russia, Greece, or any
   of those lands where the Eastern Church is supreme. On the
   other hand, pictures of the plainest kind everywhere take
   their place, and are regarded with the deepest veneration."

      _J. C. Lees,
      The Greek Church, (in the Churches of Christendom).
      lecture 4._

      See, also,
      FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 337-476.
   The fall of Imperial Rome.
   The rise of Ecclesiastical Rome.

   The political and religious history of the Empire from the
   death of Constantine is so fully narrated under Rome that mere
   mention here of a few events will suffice, viz.: the revival
   of Paganism under the Emperor Julian; the reascendency of
   Christianity; the formal establishment of Christianity as the
   religion of the Romans, by the suffrages of the senate; the
   final division of the Empire into East and West between the
   sons of Theodosius; the three sieges and the sacking of Rome
   by Alaric; the legal separation of the Eastern and Western
   Empires; the pillage of Rome by the Vandals and its final
   submission to the barbarians.

      See ROME: A. D. 337-361, to 445-476.

      For an account of the early bishops of Rome, see PAPACY.

   "A heathen historian traces the origin of the calamities which
   he records to the abolition of sacrifice by Theodosius, and
   the sack of Rome to the laws against the ancient faith passed
   by his son. This objection of the heathens that the overthrow
   of idolatry and the ascendency of Christianity were the cause
   of the misfortunes of the empire was so wide spread, and had
   such force with those, both Pagans and Christians, who
   conceived history to be the outcome of magical or demonic
   powers, that Augustine devoted twelve years of his life to its
   refutation. His treatise, 'De Civitate Dei,' was begun in 413,
   and was not finished till 426, within four years of his death.
   Rome had once been taken; society, consumed by inward
   corruption, was shaken to its foundations by the violent onset
   of the Teutonic tribes; men's hearts were failing them for
   fear; the voice of calumny cried aloud, and laid these woes to
   the charge of the Christian faith. Augustine undertook to
   refute the calumny, and to restore the courage of his
   fellow-Christians. Taking a rapid survey of history, he asks
   what the gods had ever done for the well-being of the state or
   for public morality. He maintains that the greatness of Rome
   in the past was due to the virtues of her sons, and not to the
   protection of the gods. He shows that, long before the rise of
   Christianity, her ruin had begun with the introduction of
   foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage, and declares
   that much in the ancient worship, instead of preventing, had
   hastened that ruin. He rises above the troubles of the
   present, and amid the vanishing glories of the city of men he
   proclaims the stability of the city of God. At a time when the
   downfall of Rome was thought to presage approaching doom,
   Augustine regarded the disasters around him as the
   birth-throes of a new world, as a necessary moment in the
   onward movement of Christianity."

      _W. Stewart,
      The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries
      (St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series)._

{457}

   "There is as little ground for discovering a miraculous, as
   there is for disowning a providential element in the course of
   events. The institutions of Roman authority and law had been
   planted regularly over all the territory which the conquering
   hordes coveted and seized; alongside of every magistrate was
   now placed a minister of Christ, and by every Hall of Justice
   stood a House of Prayer. The Representative of Cæsar lost all
   his power and dignity when the armies of Cæsar were scattered
   in flight; the minister of Christ felt that behind him was an
   invisible force with which the hosts of the alien could not
   cope, and his behaviour impressed the barbarian with the
   conviction that there was reality here. That beneficent
   mission of Leo, A. D. 452, of which Gibbon says: 'The pressing
   eloquence of Leo, his majestic aspect and sacerdotal robes,
   excited the veneration of Attila for the spiritual father of
   the Christians'—would be but an instance of what many
   nameless priests from provincial towns did, 'not counting
   their lives dear to them.' The organisation of the Latin state
   vitalised by a new spiritual force vanquished the victors. It
   was the method and the discipline of this organisation, not
   the subtlety of its doctrine, nor the fervour of its
   officials, that beat in detail one chief with his motley
   following after another. Hence too it came about that the
   Christianity which was adopted as the religion of Europe was
   not modified to suit the tastes of the various tribes that
   embraced it, but was delivered to each as from a common
   fountain-head. … It was a social triumph, proceeding from
   religious motives which we may regard with unstinted
   admiration and gratitude."

      _J. Watt,
      The Latin Church
      (St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series.)_

   "The temporal fall of the Imperial metropolis tended to throw
   a brighter light upon her ecclesiastical claims. The
   separation of the East and the West had already enhanced the
   religious dignity of the ancient capital. The great Eastern
   patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had up to
   that time all held themselves equal, if not superior to Rome.
   Constantinople had even assumed certain airs of supremacy over
   all. The General Councils which had defined the Faith at Nicæa
   and Constantinople had been composed almost wholly of
   Orientals. The great Doctors of the Church, the men who had
   defended or diffused the common Faith, had been mostly Greeks
   by origin and language. None had been Romans, and it was
   rarely, till the fourth century, that any of them had written
   in the Latin tongue. When Athanasius, exiled from Alexandria,
   came to Italy and Gaul, it was three years before he could
   learn enough of the language of the West to address its
   congregations in public. But this curious fact shows that the
   Western Christians were now no longer the little Greek colony
   of the first and second centuries. Christianity had become the
   national religion of the native races. The Romans might now
   feel that they were becoming again a people; that their
   glorious career was assuming, as it were, a new point of
   departure. … For at this moment the popular instinct could
   not fail to perceive how strongly the conscience of the
   barbarians had been affected by the spiritual majesty of
   Christian Rome. The Northern hordes had beaten down all armed
   resistance. They had made a deep impression upon the strength
   of the Eastern Empire; they had, for a moment at least,
   actually overcome the Western; they had overrun many of the
   fairest provinces, and had effected a permanent lodgement in
   Gaul and Spain, and still more recently in Africa. Yet in all
   these countries, rude as they still were, they had submitted
   to accept the creed of the Gospel. There was no such thing as
   a barbarian Paganism established within the limits of the
   Empire anywhere, except perhaps in furthest Britain."

      _C. Merivale,
      Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      pages 130-136._

   "When the surging tides of barbarian invasion swept over
   Europe, the Christian organization was almost the only
   institution of the past which survived the flood. It remained
   as a visible monument of what had been, and, by so remaining,
   was of itself an antithesis to the present. The chief town of
   the Roman province, whatever its status under barbarian rule,
   was still the bishop's see. The limits of the old 'province,'
   though the boundary of a new kingdom might bisect them, were
   still the limits of his diocese. The bishop's tribunal was the
   only tribunal in which the laws of the Empire could be pleaded
   in their integrity. The bishop's dress was the ancient robe of
   a Roman magistrate. The ancient Roman language which was used
   in the Church services was a standing protest against the
   growing degeneracy of the 'vulgar tongue.' … As the forces
   of the Empire became less and less, the forces of the Church
   became more and more. The Churches preserved that which had
   been from the first the secret of Imperial strength. For
   underneath the Empire which changed and passed, beneath the
   shifting pageantry of Emperors who moved across the stage and
   were seen no more, was the abiding empire of law and
   administration,—which changed only as the deep sea changes
   beneath the windswept waves. That inner empire was continued
   in the Christian Churches. In the years of transition from the
   ancient to the modern world, when all civilized society seemed
   to be disintegrated, the confederation of the Christian
   Churches, by the very fact of its existence upon the old
   imperial lines, was not only the most powerful, but the only
   powerful organization in the civilized world. It was so vast,
   and so powerful, that it seemed to be, and there were few to
   question its being, the visible realization of that Kingdom of
   God which our Lord Himself had preached."

      _E. Hatch;
      The Organization of the Christian Churches,
      pages 160-178._

{458}

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 347-412.
   The Syrian Churches.

   "St. Chrysostom was born there A. D. 347; and it was in his
   time that Antioch, with its hundred thousand Christians,
   became the leading Church in Asia, especially in the Arian
   controversy [see ARIANISM], for Arianism was very prevalent
   there. But all this lies outside our period. The so-called
   'School of Antioch' has its origin just before … our period
   [311, Wiltsch]. Dorotheus, … and the martyr Lucian may be
   regarded as its founders. In contrast to the allegorising
   mysticism of the School of Alexandria, it was distinguished by
   a more sober and critical interpretation of Scripture. It
   looked to grammar and history for its principles of exegesis.
   But we must not suppose that there was at Antioch an
   educational establishment like the Catechetical School at
   Alexandria, which, by a succession of great teachers, kept up
   a traditional mode of exegesis and instruction. It was rather
   an intellectual tendency which, beginning with Lucian and
   Dorotheus, developed in a definite direction in Antioch and
   other Syrian Churches. … These notices of the Churches of
   Jerusalem, Cæsarea in Palestine, and Antioch must suffice as
   representative of the Syrian Churches. The number of these
   Churches was considerable even in the second century, and by
   the beginning of the fourth was very large indeed, as is seen
   by the number of bishops who attend local Councils."

      _A. Plummer,
      The Church of the Early Fathers,
      chapter 3._

   "It has often astonished me that no one has ever translated
   the letters of St. Jerome. The letters of St. Augustine have
   been translated, and are in many parts very entertaining
   reading, but they are nothing in point of living interest when
   compared with St. Jerome's. These letters illustrate life
   about the year 400 as nothing else can. They show us, for
   instance, what education then was, what clerical life
   consisted in; they tell us of modes and fashions, and they
   teach us how vigorous and constant was the communication at
   that same period between the most distant parts of the Roman
   empire. We are apt to think of the fifth century as a time
   when there was very little travel, and when most certainly the
   East and West—Ireland, England, Gaul and Palestine—were much
   more widely and completely separated than now, when steam has
   practically annihilated time and space. And yet such an idea
   is very mistaken. There was a most lively intercourse existing
   between these regions, a constant Church correspondence kept up
   between them, and the most intense and vivid interest
   maintained by the Gallic and Syrian churches in the minutest
   details of their respective histories. Mark now how this
   happened. St. Jerome at Bethlehem was the centre of this
   intercourse. His position in the Christian world in the
   beginning of the fifth century can only be compared to, but
   was not at all equalled by, that of John Calvin at the time of
   the Reformation. Men from the most distant parts consulted
   him. Bishops of highest renown for sanctity and learning, like
   St. Augustine, and Exuperius of Toulouse in southern France,
   deferred to his authority. The keen interest he took in the
   churches of Gaul, and the intimate knowledge he possessed of
   the most petty local details and religious gossip therein, can
   only be understood by one who has studied his very abusive
   treatise against Vigilantius or his correspondence with
   Exuperius. … But how, it may be asked, was this
   correspondence carried on when there was no postal system?
   Here it was that the organization of monasticism supplied a
   want. Jerome's letters tell us the very name of his postman.
   He was a monk named Sysinnius. He was perpetually on the road
   between Marseilles and Bethlehem. Again and again does Jerome
   mention his coming and his going. His appearance must indeed
   have been the great excitement of life at Bethlehem.
   Travelling probably via Sardinia, Rome, Greece, and the
   islands of the Adriatic, he gathered up all kinds of clerical
   news on the way—a piece of conduct on his part which seems to
   have had its usual results. As a tale-bearer, he not only
   revealed secrets, but also separated chief friends, and this
   monk Sysinnius with his gossips seems to have been the
   original cause of the celebrated quarrel between Augustine and
   Jerome."

      _G. T. Stokes,
      Ireland and the Celtic Church,
      pages 170-172._

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
   The Frankish Church to the Empire of Charlemagne.

   "The baptism of Chlodovech [Clovis—see FRANKS: A. D. 481-
   511] was followed by the wholesale conversion of the Franks.
   No compulsion was used to bring the heathen into the Church.
   As a heathen, Chlodovech had treated the Church with
   forbearance; he was equally tolerant to heathenism when he was
   a Christian. But his example worked, and thousands of noble
   Franks crowded to the water of regeneration. Gregory of Tours
   reckons the Franks as Christians after the baptism of their
   king, which took place at Christmas, A. D. 496. His conversion
   made no alteration in the policy and conduct of Chlodovech; he
   remained the same mixture of cunning and audacity, of cruelty
   and sensuality, that he was before. … But, though his
   baptism was to him of no moral import, its consequences were
   wide spreading. When Gregory of Tours compares the conversion
   of Chlodovech with that of Constantine the Great, he was fully
   in the right. … And the baptism of Chlodovech declared to
   the world that the new blood being poured into the veins of
   the old and expiring civilization, had been quickened by the
   same elements, and would unite with the old in the new
   development. … That many of those who were baptized carried
   with them into their new Christianity their old heathen
   superstitions as well as their barbarism is certain; and the
   times were not those in which the growth of the great
   Christian graces was encouraged; the germs, however, of a new
   life were laid."

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Church in Germany,
      chapter 3._

   "The details of the history of the Merovingian period of
   Frankish history are extraordinarily complicated; happily, it
   is not at all necessary for our purpose to follow them. … In
   the earlier years after the conquest, all ranks of the clergy
   were filled by Gallo-Romans. The Franks were the dominant
   race, and were Christian, but they were new converts from a
   rude heathenism, and it would take some generations to raise
   up a 'native ministry' among them. Not only the literature of
   the (Western) Church, but all its services, and, still more,
   the conversational intercourse of all civilized and Christian
   people, was in Latin. Besides, the Franks were warriors, a
   conquering caste, a separate nation; and to lay down the
   battle-axe and spear, and enter into the peaceful ranks of the
   Romano-Gallic Church, would have seemed to them like changing
   their nationality for that of the more highly cultured,
   perhaps, but, in their eyes, subject race. The Frank kings did
   not ignore the value of education. Clovis is said to have
   established a Palatine school, and encouraged his young men to
   qualify themselves for the positions which his conquests had
   opened out to them.
{459}
   His grandsons, we have seen, prided themselves on
   their Latin culture. After a while, Franks aspired to the
   magnificent positions which the great sees of the Church
   offered to their ambition; and we find men with Teutonic
   names, and no doubt of Teutonic race, among the bishops. …
   For a still longer period, few Franks entered into the lower
   ranks of the Church. Not only did the priesthood offer little
   temptation to them, but also the policy of the kings and
   nobles opposed the diminution of their military strength, by
   refusing leave to their Franks to enter into holy orders or
   into the monasteries. The cultured families of the cities
   would afford an ample supply of men for the clergy, and
   promising youths of a lower class seem already not
   infrequently to have been educated for the service of the
   Church. It was only in the later period, when some approach
   had been made to a fusion of the races, that we find Franks
   entering into the lower ranks of the Church, and
   simultaneously we find Gallo-Romans in the ranks of the
   armies. … Monks wielded a powerful spiritual influence. But
   the name of not a single priest appears in the history of the
   times as exercising any influence or authority. … Under the
   gradual secularization of the Church in the Merovingian
   period, the monasteries had the greatest share in keeping
   alive a remnant of vital religion among the people; and in the
   gradual decay of learning and art, the monastic institution
   was the ark in which the ancient civilization survived the
   deluge of barbarism, and emerged at length to spread itself
   over the modern world."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Charlemagne,
      chapters 5 and 7._

   "Two Anglo-Saxon monks, St. Wilfrid, bishop of York, and St.
   Willibrord undertook the conversion of the savage fishermen of
   Friesland and Holland at the end of the seventh and beginning
   of the eighth century; they were followed by another
   Englishman, the most renowned of all these missionaries,
   Winfrith, whose name was changed to Boniface, perhaps by the
   Pope, in recognition of his active and beneficent apostleship.
   When Gregory II. appointed him bishop of Germany (723), he
   went through Bavaria and established there the dioceses of
   Frisingen, Passau, and Ratisbon. When Pope Zacharias bestowed
   the rank of metropolitan upon the Church of Mainz in 748, he
   entrusted its direction to St. Boniface, who from that time
   was primate, as it were, of all Germany, under the authority
   of the Holy See. St. Boniface was assassinated by the Pagans
   of Friesland in 755."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, chapter 8._

   "Boniface, whose original name was Winfrid, was of a noble
   Devonshire family (A. D. 680), educated at the monastery of
   Nutcelle, in Hampshire, and at the age of thirty-five years
   had obtained a high reputation for learning and ability, when
   (in A. D. 716), seized with the prevalent missionary
   enthusiasm, he abandoned his prospects at home, and set out
   with two companions to labour among the Frisians. … Winfrid
   was refused permission by the Duke to preach in his dominions,
   and he returned home to England. In the following spring he
   went to Rome, where he remained for some months, and then,
   with a general authorization from the pope to preach the
   gospel in Central Europe, he crossed the Alps, passed through
   Bavaria into Thuringia, where he began his work. While here
   the death of Radbod, A. D. 719, and the conquest of Frisia by
   Charles Martel, opened up new prospects for the evangelization
   of that country, and Boniface went thither and laboured for three
   years among the missionaries, under Willibrord of Utrecht.
   Then, following in the track of the victorious forces of
   Charles Martel, he plunged into the wilds of Hessia, converted
   two of its chiefs whose example was followed by multitudes of
   the Hessians and Saxons, and a monastery arose at Amöneburg as
   the head-quarters of the mission. The Bishop of Rome being
   informed of this success, summoned Boniface to Rome, A. D.
   723, and consecrated him a regionary bishop, with a general
   jurisdiction over all whom he should win from paganism into
   the Christian fold, requiring from him at the same time the
   oath which was usually required of bishops within the
   patriarchate of Rome, of obedience to the see. … Boniface
   was not only a zealous missionary, an earnest preacher, a
   learned scholar, but he was a statesman and an able
   administrator. He not only spread the Gospel among the
   heathen, but he organized the Church among the newly converted
   nations of Germany; he regulated the disorder which existed in
   the Frankish Church, and established the relations between
   Church and State on a settled basis. The mediæval analysts
   tell us that Boniface crowned Pepin king, and modern writers
   have usually reproduced the statement. 'Rettberg, and the able
   writer of the biography of Boniface in Herzog (Real Ecyk, s.
   v.), argue satisfactorily from Boniface's letters that he took
   no part in Pepin's coronation.' When Boniface withdrew from
   the active supervision of the Frankish Churches, it is
   probable that his place was to some extent supplied in the
   councils of the mayor and in the synods of the Church by
   Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, a man whose character and
   influence in the history of the Frank Church have hardly
   hitherto been appreciated."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Charlemagne,
      chapter 12._

   "Both Karlmann and Pippin tried to reform certain abuses that
   had crept into the Church. Two councils, convoked by Karlmann,
   the one in Germany (742), the other in the following year at
   Lestines (near Charleroi, in Belgium), drew up decrees which
   abolished superstitious rites and certain Pagan ceremonies,
   still remaining in force; they also authorized grants of
   Church lands by the 'Prince' for military purposes on
   condition of a payment of an annual rent to the Church; they
   reformed the ecclesiastical life, forbade the priests to hunt
   or to ride through the woods with dogs, falcons, or
   sparrow-hawks; and, finally, made all priests subordinate to
   their diocesan bishops, to whom they were obliged to give
   account each year of their faith and their ministry—all of
   which were necessary provisions for the organization of the
   ecclesiastical hierarchy and for the regulation of church
   government. Similar measures were taken by the Council of
   Soissons, convoked by Pippin in 744. In 747, Karlmann
   renounced the world and retired to the celebrated Italian
   monastery of Monte Cassino. As he left he entrusted his
   children to the care of their uncle, Pippin, who robbed them
   of their inheritance and ruled alone over the whole Frankish
   Empire. … Charlemagne enlarged and completed the work which
   had only been begun by Charles Martel and Pippin. … The
   Middle Ages acknowledged two Masters, the Pope and the
   Emperor, and these two powers came, the one from Rome, and the
   other from Austrasian France. … The mayors of Austrasia,
   Pippin of Heristal, and Charles Martel, rebuilt the Frankish
   monarchy and prepared the way for the empire of Charlemagne;
   … the Roman pontiffs … gathered around them all the
   churches of the West, and placed themselves at the head of the
   great Catholic society, over which one day Gregory VII. and
   Innocent III. should claim to have sole dominion."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      pages 119-122, 108._

      See MAYORS OF THE PALACE;
      FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and 774.

{460}

   The coronation of Charlemagne at Rome by Pope Leo III. (see
   ROMAN EMPIRE, A. D. 800) gave the Western Church the place in
   the state it had held under the earlier Roman emperors. The
   character of so great a man, the very books he read and all
   that fed the vigorous ideal element in so powerful a spirit
   are worthy of interest; for this at least he sought to
   accomplish—to give order to a tumultuous and barbarian
   world, and to establish learning, and purify the church:
   "While at table, he liked to hear a recital or a reading, and
   it was histories and the great deeds of past times which were
   usually read to him. He took great pleasure, also, in the
   works of St. Augustine, and especially in that whose title is
   'De Civitate Dei.' … He practiced the Christian religion in
   all its purity and with great fervour, whose principles had
   been taught him from his infancy. … He diligently attended
   … church in the evening and morning, and even at night, to
   assist at the offices and at the holy sacrifice, as much as
   his health permitted him.' He watched with care that nothing
   should be done but with the greatest propriety, constantly
   ordering the guardians of the church not to allow anything to
   be brought there or left there inconsistent with or unworthy
   of the sanctity of the place. … He was always ready to help
   the poor, and it was not only in his own country, or within
   his own dominions that he dispensed those gratuitous
   liberalities which the Greeks call 'alms,' but beyond the
   seas—in Syria, in Egypt, in Africa, at Jerusalem, at
   Alexandria, at Carthage, everywhere where he learned that
   Christians were living in poverty—he pitied their misery and
   loved to send them money. If he sought with so much care the
   friendship of foreign sovereigns, it was, above all, to
   procure for the Christians living under their rule help and
   relief. Of all the holy places, he had, above all, a great
   veneration for the Church of the Apostle St. Peter at Rome."

      _Eginhard,
      Life of Charlemagne._

   "The religious side of Charles' character is of the greatest
   interest in the study of his remarkable character as a whole
   and his religious policy led to the most important and durable
   results of his reign. He inherited an ecclesiastical policy
   from his father; the policy of regulating and strengthening
   the influence of the Church in his dominions as the chief
   agent of civilization, and a great means of binding the
   various elements of the empire into one; the policy of
   accepting the Bishop of Rome as the head of Western
   Christianity, with patriarchal authority over all its
   Churches."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Charlemagne,
      chapter 23._

   The following is a noteworthy passage from Charlemagne's
   Capitulary of 787: "It is our wish that you may be what it
   behoves the soldiers of the church to be;—religious in
   heart, learned in discourse, pure in act, eloquent in speech;
   so that all who approach your house in order to invoke the
   Divine Master, or to behold the excellence of the religious
   life, may be edified in beholding you, and instructed in
   hearing you discourse or chant, and may return home rendering
   thanks to God most High. Fail not, as thou regardest our
   favour, to send a copy of this letter to all thy suffragans
   and to all the monasteries; and let no monk go beyond his
   monastery to administer justice or to enter the assemblies and
   the voting-places. Adieu."

      _J. B. Mullinger,
      The Schools of Charles the Great._

CHRISTIANITY: 5th-7th Centuries.
   The Nestorian, Monophysite and Monothelite Controversies.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE, and MONOTHELITE.

CHRISTIANITY: 5th-9th Centuries.
   The Irish Church and its missions.

   The story of the conversion of Ireland by St. Patrick, and of
   the missionary labors of the Church which he founded, is
   briefly told elsewhere.

      See IRELAND: 5TH-8TH CENTURIES.

   "The early Church worked her way, in the literal sense of the
   word, 'underground,' under camp and palace, under senate and
   forum. But turn where we will in these Celtic missions, we
   notice how different were the features that marked them now.
   In Dalaradia St. Patrick obtains the site of his earliest
   church from the chieftain of the country, Dichu. At Tara, he
   obtains from King Laoghaire a reluctant toleration of his
   ministry. In Connaught he addresses himself first to the
   chieftains of Tirawley, and in Munster baptizes Angus, the
   king, at Cashel, the seat of the kings. What he did in Ireland
   reproduces itself in the Celtic missions of Wales and
   Scotland, and we cannot but take note of the important
   influence of Welsh and Pictish chiefs. … The people may not
   have adopted the actual profession of Christianity, which was
   all perhaps that in the first instance they adopted from any
   clear or intelligent appreciation of its superiority to their
   former religion. But to obtain from the people even an actual
   profession of Christianity was an important step to ultimate
   success. It secured toleration at least for Christian
   institutions. It enabled the missionaries to plant in every
   tribe their churches, schools, and monasteries, and to
   establish among the half pagan inhabitants of the country
   societies of holy men, whose devotion, usefulness, and piety
   soon produced an effect on the most barbarous and savage
   hearts.'"

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Celts,
      chapter 11._

   "The Medieval Church of the West found in the seventh century
   an immense task before it to fulfil. … The missionaries who
   addressed themselves to the enormous task of the conversion of
   Germany may be conveniently divided into three groups—the
   British, the Frankish, and, entering somewhat later into an
   honourable rivalry with these, the Anglo-Saxon. A word or two
   upon each of these groups. The British—they include Irish and
   Scotch—could no longer find a field for the exercise of their
   ministry in England, now that there the Roman rule and
   discipline, to which they were so little disposed to submit,
   had everywhere won the day. Their own religious houses were
   full to overflowing. At home there was little for them to do,
   while yet that divine hunger and thirst for the winning of
   souls, which had so possessed the heart of St. Patrick, lived
   on in theirs. To these so minded, pagan Germany offered a welcome
   field of labour, and one in which there was ample room for all.
{461}
   Then there were the Frankish missionaries, who enjoyed the support
   of the Frankish kings, which sometimes served them in good
   stead; while at other times this protection was very far from
   a recommendation in their eyes who were easily persuaded to
   see in these missionaries the emissaries of a foe. Add to
   these the Anglo-Saxons; these last, mindful of the source from
   which they had received their own Christianity, making it a
   point to attach their converts to Rome, even as they were
   themselves bound to her by the closest ties. The language
   which these spoke—a language which as yet can have diverged
   very little from the Low German of Frisia, must have given to
   them many facilities which the Frankish missionaries possessed
   in a far slighter degree, the British not at all; and this may
   help to account for a success on their parts far greater than
   attended the labours of the others. To them too it was mainly
   due that the battle of the Creeds, which had been fought and
   lost by the Celtic missionaries in England, and was presently
   renewed in Germany, had finally the same issues there as in
   England. … At the same time, there were differences in the
   intensity and obstinacy of resistance to the message of truth,
   which would be offered by different tribes. There was ground,
   which at an early day had been won for the Gospel, but which
   in the storms and confusion of the two preceding centuries had
   been lost again; the whole line, that is, of the Danube and
   the Rhine, regions fair and prosperous once, but in every
   sense wildernesses now. In these we may note a readier
   acceptance of the message than found place in lands which in
   earlier times that message had never reached; as though
   obscure reminiscences and traditions of the past, not wholly
   extinct, had helped to set forward the present work."

      _R C. Trench,
      Lectures on Medieval Church History,
      lecture 5._

   "From Ireland came Gallus, Fridolin, Kilian, Trutbert and
   Levin. … The order in which these men succeeded one another
   cannot always be established, from the uncertainty of the
   accounts. … We know thus much, that of all those
   above-mentioned, Gallus was the first, for his labours in
   Helvetia (Switzerland) were continued from the preceding into
   the period of which we are now treating. On the other hand, it
   is uncertain as to Fridolin whether he had not completed his
   work before Gallus, in the sixth century, for in the opinion
   of some he closed his career in the time of Clodoveus I., but,
   according to others, he is said to have lived under Clodoveus
   II., or at another period. His labours extended over the lands
   on the Moselle, in the Vosges Mountains, over Helvetia, Rhætia
   and Nigra Silva (the Black Forest). He built the monastery of
   Sekkinga on the Rhine. Trutbert was a contemporary and at the
   same time a countryman of Gallus. His sphere of action is said
   to have been Brisgovia (Breisgau) and the Black Forest. Almost
   half a century later Kilian proclaimed the gospel in Franconia
   and Wirtzburg, with two assistants, Colonatus and Totnanus. In
   the latter place they converted duke Gozbert, and were put to
   death there in 688. After the above mentioned missionaries
   from Ireland, in the seventh century, had built churches and
   monasteries in the southern Germany, the missionaries from
   Britain repaired with a similar purpose, to the northern
   countries. … Men from other nations, as Willericus, bishop
   of Brema, preached in Transalbingia at the beginning of the
   ninth century. Almost all the missionaries from the kingdom of
   the Franks selected southern Germany as their sphere of
   action: Emmeran, about 649, Ratisbona, Rudbert, about 696,
   Bajoaria (Bavaria), Corbinian the country around Frisinga,
   Otbert the Breisgau and Black Forest, and Pirminius the
   Breisgau, Bajoaria, Franconia, Helvetia, and Alsatis."

      _J. E. T. Wiltsch,
      Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
      volume 1, pages 365-367._

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800.
   The Western Church.
   Rise of the Papacy.

   "Though kindly treated, the Church of Rome did not make any
   progress under the Ostrogoths. But when their power had been
   broken (553), and Rome had been placed again under the
   authority of the Emperor of Constantinople [see ROME: A. D.
   535-553], the very remoteness of her new master insured to the
   Church a more prosperous future. The invasion of the Lombards
   drove a great many refugees into her territory, and the Roman
   population showed a slight return of its old energy in its
   double hatred toward them, as barbarians and as Arians. … It
   was at this favorable point in the state of affairs, though
   critical in some respects, that Gregory the Great made his
   appearance (590-604). He was a descendant of the noble Anicia
   family, and added to his advantages of birth and position the
   advantages of a well-endowed body and mind. He was prefect of
   Rome when less than thirty years old, but after holding this
   office a few months he abandoned the honors and cares of
   worldly things for the retirement of the cloister. His
   reputation did not allow him to remain in the obscurity of
   that life. Toward 579 he was sent to Constantinople by Pope
   Pelagius II. as secretary or papal nuncio, and he rendered
   distinguished services to the Holy See in its relations with
   the Empire and in its struggles against the Lombards. In 590
   the clergy, the senate, and the people raised him with one
   accord to the sovereign pontificate, to succeed Pelagius. As
   it was still necessary for every election to be confirmed by
   the Emperor at Constantinople, Gregory wrote to him to beg him
   not to sanction this one; but the letter was intercepted and
   soon orders arrived from Maurice ratifying the election.
   Gregory hid himself, but he was discovered and led back to
   Rome. When once Pope, though against his will, he used his
   power to strengthen the papacy, to propagate Christianity, and
   to improve the discipline and organization of the Church. …
   Strengthened thus by his own efforts, he undertook the
   propagation of Christianity and orthodoxy both within and
   without the limits of the old Roman Empire. Within those
   limits there were still some who clung to paganism, in Sicily,
   Sardinia, and even at the very gates of Rome, at Terracina,
   and doubtless also in Gaul, as there is a constitution of
   Childebert still extant dated 554, and entitled: 'For the
   abolition of the remains of idolatry.' There were Arians very
   near to Rome—namely, the Lombards; but through the
   intervention of Theudalinda, their queen, Gregory succeeded in
   having Adelwald, the heir to the throne, brought up in the
   Catholic faith; as early as 587 the Visigoths in Spain, under
   Reccared, were converted. … The Roman Empire had perished,
   and the barbarians had built upon its ruins many slight
   structures that were soon overthrown.
{462}
   Not even had the Franks, who were destined to be perpetuated
   as a nation, as yet succeeded in founding a social state of
   any strength; their lack of experience led them from one
   attempt to another, all equally vain; even the attempt of
   Charlemagne met with no more permanent success. In the midst
   of these successive failures one institution alone, developing
   slowly and steadily through the centuries, following out the
   spirit of its principles, continued to grow and gain in power,
   in extent and in unity. … The Pope had now become, in truth,
   the ruler of Christendom. He was, however, still a subject of
   the Greek Emperor; but a rupture was inevitable, as his
   authority, on the one hand, was growing day by day, and the
   emperor's on the contrary, was declining."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      pages 114-115, 108-109, 117._

   "The real power which advanced the credit of the Roman see
   during these ages was the reaction against the Byzantine
   despotism over the Eastern Church; and this is the explanation
   of the fact that although the new map of Europe had been
   marked out, in outline at least, by the year 500, the Roman
   see clung to the eastern connection until the first half of
   the eighth century. … In the political or diplomatic
   struggle between the Church and the Emperors, in which the
   Emperors endeavored to make the Church subservient to the
   imperial policy, or to adjust the situation to the necessities
   of the empire, and the Church strove to retain its autonomy as
   a witness to the faith and a legislator in the affairs of
   religion, the Bishop of Rome became, so to speak, the
   constitutional head of the opposition; and the East was
   willing to exalt his authority, as a counterpoise to that of
   the Emperor, to any extent short of acknowledging that the
   primacy implied a supremacy."

      _J. H. Egar,
      Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political,
      from Constantine to the Reformation,
      page 99._

   "The election system was only used for one degree of the
   ecclesiastical dignitaries, for the bishopric. The lower
   dignitaries were chosen by the bishop. They were divided into
   two categories of orders—the higher and the lower orders.
   There were three higher orders, namely, the priests, the
   deacons, and the sub-deacons, and four lower orders, the
   acolytes, the door-keepers, the exorcists, and the readers.
   The latter orders were not regarded as an integral part of the
   clergy, as their members were the servants of the others. As
   regards the territorial divisions, the bishop governed the
   diocese, which at a much later date was divided into parishes,
   whose spiritual welfare was in the hands of the parish priest
   or curate (curio). The parishes, taken together, constituted
   the diocese; the united dioceses, or suffragan bishoprics,
   constituted the ecclesiastical province, at whose head stood
   the metropolitan or archbishop. When a provincial council was
   held, it met in the metropolis and was presided over by the
   metropolitan. Above the metropolitans were the Patriarchs, in
   the East, and the Primates in the West, bishops who held the
   great capitals or the apostolic sees, Constantinople,
   Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, Cesarea in Cappadocia,
   Carthage in Africa, and Heraclius in Thrace; among them Rome
   ranked higher by one degree, and from this supreme position
   exercised a supreme authority acknowledged by all the Church."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      pages 109-110._

   "The divergence of the two Churches, Eastern and Western, was
   greater in reality than it appears to be from a superficial
   view. It was based on essential variations in the character
   and disposition of the people in the East and in the West, on
   the nature of their civilization, and on the different, almost
   antagonistic, development of the Christian idea in one Church
   and in the other. … The Eastern Church rejoiced in its
   direct affiliation with apostolic times, in its careful
   preservation of traditions, and was convinced of its especial
   right to be considered the true heir and successor of Christ.
   … The letter of the law superseded the spirit; religion
   stiffened into formalism; piety consisted in strict observance
   of ceremonial rites; external holiness replaced sincere and
   heartfelt devotion. … Throughout the West the tendency was
   in a contrary direction—towards the practical application of
   the religious idea. The effete, worn-out civilization of the
   past was there renovated by contact and admixture with young
   and vigorous races, and gained new strength and vitality in
   the struggle for existence. The Church, freed from control,
   became independent and self-asserting; the responsibility of
   government, the preservation of social order, devolved upon
   it, and it rose proudly to the task."

      _A. F. Heard,
      The Russian Church and Russian Dissent,
      pages 6-10._

   "On the overthrow of the Western Empire, and the
   demonstration, rendered manifest to all, that with the
   complete triumph of the new world of secular polities a new
   spiritual development, a new phase of Divine guidance, was
   opening, the conscience of the believers was aroused to a
   sense of the sinfulness of their cowardly inactivity. 'Go ye
   into all nations, and baptize them,' had been the last words
   of their blessed Master. … It is to this new or revived
   missionary spirit which distinguished the sixth century, of
   which I would place Pope Gregory the First, or the Great, as
   the central figure, that I desire now to introduce you.
   Remember that the Empire, which had represented the unity of
   mankind, had become disintegrated and broken into fragments.
   Men were no longer Romans, but Goths and Sueves, Burgundians
   and Vandals, and beyond them Huns, Avars, Franks, and
   Lombards, some with a slight tincture of Christian teaching,
   but most with none. … Let but the Gospel be proclaimed to
   all, and leave the issue in God's hands! Such was the contrast
   between the age of Leo and the age of Gregory! … The
   conversion of Clovis and the Franks is, I suppose, the
   earliest instance of a Christian mission carried out on a
   national scale by the common action of the Church represented
   by the Pope and See of Rome. It becomes accordingly a great
   historical event, deserving the earnest consideration not of
   Churchmen only, but of all political enquirers."

      _C. Merivale,
      Four Lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      pages 172-177._

{463}

   "Christianity thus renewed its ardor for proselytism, and
   Gregory contributed to its success most wisely by enjoining
   precepts of moderation upon his missionaries, and by the
   skillful manner in which he made the transition to Catholicism
   easy to the pagans; he wrote to Augustine: 'Be careful not to
   destroy the pagan temples; it is only necessary to destroy the
   idols, then to sprinkle the edifice with holy water, and to
   build altars and place relics there. If the temples are well
   built, it is a wise and useful thing for them to pass from the
   worship of demons to the worship of the true God; for while
   the nation sees its old places of worship still standing, it
   will be the more ready to go there, by force of habit, to
   worship the true God.' In the interior Gregory succeeded in
   arranging the different degrees of power in the Church, and in
   forcing the recognition of the supreme power of the Holy See.
   We find him granting the title of Vicar of Gaul to the bishop
   of Arles, and corresponding with Augustine, archbishop of
   Canterbury, in regard to Great Britain, with the archbishop of
   Seville in regard to Spain, with the archbishop of
   Thessalonica in regard to Greece, and, finally, sending
   legates 'a latere' to Constantinople. In his Pastoral, which
   he wrote on the occasion of his election, and which became an
   established precedent in the West, he prescribed to the
   bishops their several duties, following the decisions of many
   councils. He strengthened the hierarchy by preventing the
   encroachments of the bishops upon one another: 'I have given
   to you the spiritual direction of Britain,' he wrote to the
   ambitious Augustine, 'and not that of the Gauls.' He
   rearranged the monasteries, made discipline the object of his
   vigilant care, reformed Church music, and substituted the
   chant that bears his name for the Ambrosian chant, 'which
   resembled,' according to a contemporary, 'the far-off noise of
   a chariot rumbling over pebbles.' Rome, victorious again with
   the help of Gregory the Great, continued to push her conquests
   to distant countries after his death."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      page 116._

      See,
      CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800,
      and ROME: A. D. 590-640.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 597-800.
   The English Church.

   "It seems right to add a word of caution against the common
   confusion between the British Church and the English Church.
   They were quite distinct, and had very little to do with one
   another. To cite the British bishops at the Councils of Arles
   and Rimini as evidence of the antiquity of the English Church
   is preposterous. There was then no England; and the ancestors
   of English Churchmen were heathen tribes on the continent. The
   history of the Church of England begins with the episcopate of
   Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668), or at the very earliest with
   the landing of Augustine (A. D. 597). By that time the British
   Church had been almost destroyed by the heathen English. …
   Bede tells us that down to his day the Britons still treated
   English Christians as pagans."

      _A. Plummer,
      The Church of the Early Fathers,
      chapter 8._

   "About the year 580, in the pontificate of Pelagius, Gregory
   occupied the rank of a deacon among the Roman clergy. He was
   early noted for his zeal and piety; coming into large
   possessions, as an off-shoot of an ancient and noble family,
   he had expended his wealth in the foundation of no less than
   seven monasteries, and had become himself the abbot of one of
   them, St. Andrew's, at Rome. Devoted as he was from the first
   to all the good works to which the religious profession might
   best apply itself, his attention was more particularly turned
   to the cause of Christian missions by casually remarking a
   troop of young slaves exhibited for sale in the Roman market.
   Struck with the beauty or fresh complexion of these strangers,
   he asked whether they were Christians or Pagans. They were
   Pagans, it was replied. How sad, he exclaimed, that such fair
   countenances should lie under the power of demons. 'Whence came
   they?'—'From Anglia.'—'Truly they are Angels. What is the
   name of their country?'—'Deira.'—'Truly they are subject to
   the wrath of God: ira Dei. And their king?'—'Is named
   Ælla.'—'Let them learn to sing Allelujah.' Britain had lately
   fallen under the sway of the heathen Angles. Throughout the
   eastern section of the island, the faith of Christ, which had
   been established there from early times, had been, it seems,
   utterly extirpated. The British church of Lucius and Albanus
   still lingered, but was chiefly confined within the ruder
   districts of Cornwall, Wales, and Cumbria. The reported
   destruction of the people with all their churches, and all
   their culture, begun by the Picts and Scots, and carried on by
   the Angles and their kindred Saxons, had made a profound
   impression upon Christendom. The 'Groans of the Britons' had
   terrified all mankind, and discouraged even the brave
   missionaries of Italy and Gaul. … Gregory determined to make
   the sacrifice himself. He prevailed on the Pope to sanction
   his enterprise; but the people of Rome, with whom he was a
   favourite, interposed, and he was constrained reluctantly to
   forego the peril and the blessing. But the sight he had
   witnessed in the market-place still retained its impression
   upon him. He kept the fair-haired Angles ever in view; and
   when, in the year 592, he was himself elevated to the popedom,
   he resolved to send a mission, and fling upon the obscure
   shores of Britain the full beams of the sun of Christendom, as
   they then seemed to shine so conspicuously at Rome. Augustine
   was the preacher chosen from among the inmates of one of
   Gregory's monasteries, for the arduous task thus imposed upon
   him. He was to be accompanied by a select band of twelve
   monks, together with a certain number of attendants. … There
   is something very remarkable in the facility with which the
   fierce idolaters, whose name had struck such terror into the
   Christian nations far and near, yielded to the persuasions of
   this band of peaceful evangelists."

      _C. Merivale,
      Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      pages 192-198._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.

   The Roman missionaries in England landed in Kent and appear to
   have had more influence with the petty courts of the little
   kingdoms than with the people. The conversion of the North of
   England must be credited to the Irish monastery on the island
   of Iona. "At the beginning of the sixth century these Irish
   Christians were seized with an unconquerable impulse to wander
   afar and preach Christianity to the heathen. In 563 Columba,
   with twelve confederates, left Ireland and founded a monastery
   on a small island off the coast of Scotland (Iona or Hy),
   through the influence of which the Scots and Picts of Britain
   became converted to Christianity, twenty-three missions among
   the Scots and eighteen in the country of the Picts having been
   established at the death of Columba (597). Under his third
   successor the heathen Saxons were converted; Aedan, summoned
   by Osward of Northumbria, having labored among them from 635
   to 651 as missionary, abbot, and bishop. His successors,
   Finnan and Colman, worthily carried on his work, and
   introduced Christianity into other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms near
   East Anglia, Mercia, and Essex."

      _H. Zimmer,
      The Irish Element in Mediæval Culture,
      pages 19-21._

{464}

   "Two bands of devoted men had hitherto been employed in the
   conversion of England, the Roman, assisted by their converts
   and some teachers from France, and the Irish, who were plainly
   the larger body. Between the two there were the old
   differences as to the time of keeping Easter and the form of
   the clerical tonsure. … Thus, while Oswy [King of Mercia]
   was celebrating Easter according to the custom he had learnt
   at Iona, his queen Earfleda observed it according to the rule
   which she had learnt in Kent, and was still practising the
   austerities of Lent. These differences were tolerated during
   the Episcopate of Aidan and Finan, but when Finan died and was
   succeeded by Colman, the controversy" was terminated by Oswy,
   after much debate, with the words—"'I will hold to St. Peter,
   lest, when I present myself at the gates of Heaven, he should
   close them against me.' … Colman, with all his Irish
   brethren, and thirty Northumbrians who had joined the
   monastery, quitted Lindisfarne and sailed to Iona."

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The English,
      pages 81-85._

   The impartial historian to whom we owe all the early history
   of the English Church, thus records the memory of these
   devoted men as it remained in the minds of Englishmen long
   after their departure. It is a brief passage, one like those
   in the greater Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which must
   stand for much we do not know. Referring to their devoted
   lives—"For this reason the religious habit was at that time
   in great veneration; so that wheresoever any clergyman or monk
   happened to come, he was joyfully received by all persons, as
   God's servant; and if they chanced to meet him upon the way,
   they ran to him, and bowing, were glad to be signed with his
   hand, or blessed with his mouth. Great attention was also paid
   to their exhortations; and on Sundays they flocked eagerly to
   the church, or the monasteries, not to feed their bodies, but
   to hear the word of God; and if any priest happened to come
   into a village, the inhabitants flocked together to hear from
   him the word of life; for the priests and clergymen went into
   the village on no other account than to preach, baptize, visit
   the sick, and, in few words, to take care of souls; and they
   were so free from worldly avarice, that none of them received
   lands and possessions for building monasteries, unless they
   were compelled to do so by the temporal authorities; which
   custom was for some time after observed in all the churches of
   the Northumbrians. But enough has now been said on this
   subject."

      _The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England;
      edited by J. A. Giles,
      book 3, chapter 26._

   The English Church passed through several stages during this
   period. A notable one was the rise and fall of a loose
   monastic system which attracted men and women of the better
   classes, but for lack of a strict rule brought itself into
   disrepute. Another was the development of classical learning
   and the foundation of the school at Jarrow in Northumberland
   resulting in making England the intellectual centre of the
   world. Venerable Bede, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of
   the English Church, was the greatest teacher of this epoch;
   and Alcuin, a Northumbrian by birth, and of the school at
   York, of the next. Invited by Charlemagne to the Frankish
   Court, he carried English learning to the Continent, and
   although he died at the time of the foundation of the Empire,
   left his influence in many ways on the development of European
   culture. A single fact of interest will suffice, to show the
   close connection of this early history with that of Rome and
   the continent—viz., to Alcuin we are largely indebted for the
   parent script which formed our Roman letters. (_I. Taylor,
   The Alphabet, volume 2, page 180._) Northumbrian learning and the
   rich libraries of ancient and Anglo-Saxon literature were
   destroyed by the Danes, who, in their incursions, showed for a
   long time peculiar animosity to monks and monasteries.
   Although the service of this early Anglo-Saxon Church was
   partly in the vernacular, and large portions, if not all, of
   the Gospels had been translated, little remains to us of its
   early religious literature. The translations of the Gospel
   into Anglo-Saxon that have come down to us are to be
   attributed to a late period.

CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.
   The Bulgarian Church.

   "In the beginning of this 9th century, a sister of the
   reigning Bulgarian king, Bogoris, had fallen as a captive into
   the keeping of the Greek emperor. For thirty-eight years she
   lived at Constantinople, and was there instructed in the
   doctrines of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile, the
   administration passed into the hands of the empress Regent,
   Theodora. She was interested in a certain monk named Cupharas,
   who had been taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, and with a view
   to his redemption, she opened negotiations with Bogoris. An
   exchange of prisoners was finally effected. The sister of
   Bogoris was restored to him, while Cupharas was permitted to
   return to Constantinople. Before the release of the pious
   monk, however, he had striven, though quite unavailingly, to
   win the Bulgarian prince to the service of the Cross. These
   fruitless endeavors were supplemented by the entreaties of the
   king's sister, on her return from Constantinople. … At last,
   fear snapped the fetters which love had failed to disengage.
   … His baptism was celebrated at midnight with profoundest
   secrecy. The rite was administered by no less a personage than
   the patriarch Photius. He emphasized the solemnity of the
   occasion by presenting the neophyte with a lengthy treatise on
   Christianity, theoretical and practical, considered mainly in
   its bearings on the duties of a monarch. The emperor Michael
   stood sponsor by proxy, and the Bulgarian king received, as
   his Christian name, that of his imperial god-father. … The
   battle-cries of theology rang over Christendom, and the world
   was regaled with the spectacle of a struggle between the rival
   Churches for the possession of Bulgaria, a country till
   recently so conspicuously destitute of dogma of any kind. The
   Bulgarians themselves, doubtless much astonished at the uproar
   for their sake, and, surely, more perplexed than ever by the
   manners and customs of Christianity, began to waver in their
   adherence to the Western Church, and to exhibit symptoms of an
   inclination to transfer their allegiance to Constantinople.
   The strife went on for years. At last, A. D. 877, the Latin
   clergy having been dismissed from the country, Pope John VIII.
   solemnly expostulated, protesting against the Greek
   proclivities of the Bulgarians, and predicting dire results
   from their identity with a Church which was rarely free from
   heresy in one form or another. Nevertheless, the Byzantine
   leanings of Bulgaria did culminate in union with the Eastern Church.
{465}
   A Greek archbishop and bishops of the same communion, settled
   in the country. … 'The Eastern branch' of the Slavonic
   languages, properly so called, 'comprehends the Russian, with
   various local dialects, the Bulgarian, and the Illyrian. The
   most ancient document of this Eastern branch is the so-called
   ecclesiastical Slavonic, i. e., the ancient Bulgarian, into
   which Cyrillus and Methodius translated the Bible in the
   middle of the 9th century. This is still the authorized
   version of the Bible for the whole Slavonic race, and to the
   student of the Slavonic languages it is what Gothic is to the
   student of German.'"

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
      pages 54-69._

CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.
   Conversion of Moravia.

   "In the opening years of the 9th century, Moravia stretched
   from the Bavarian borders to the Hungarian river Drina, and
   from the banks of the Danube, beyond the Carpathian mountains,
   to the river Stryi in Southern Poland. Into this territory
   Christianity had been ushered as early as A. D. 801, by
   Charlemagne, who, as his custom was, enforced baptism at the
   point of the sword, at least as far as the king was concerned.
   Efforts were subsequently made by the archbishops of Salzburg
   and Passau to fan this first feeble flicker into something
   like a flame. But no success attended their exertions.
   Paganism was overpoweringly strong, and Christianity not only
   weak, but rude and uncouth in type. … The story of this
   country, during the process of emancipation from paganism, is
   but a repetition of the incidents with which, in neighbouring
   states, we have already become familiar. Ramifications of the
   work of Cyril and Methodius extended into Servia. The Slavonic
   alphabet made way there, as in Bohemia and Moravia, for
   Christianity. The Servians 'enjoyed the advantage of a liturgy
   which was intelligible to them; and we find that, early in the
   10th century, a considerable number of Slavonian priests from
   all the dioceses were ordained by the bishop of Nona, who was
   himself a Slavonian by descent.'"

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
      chapter 4._

CHRISTIANITY: 9th-10th Centuries.
   The Eastern Church as a missionary Church.

   "If the missionary spirit is the best evidence of vitality in
   a church, it certainly was not wanting in the Eastern Church
   during the ninth and tenth centuries of our era. This period
   witnessed the conversion to Christianity of the principal
   Slavonic peoples, whereby they are both linked with
   Constantinople, and bound together by those associations of
   creed, as well as race, which form so important a factor in
   the European politics of the present day. The Moravians, the
   Bulgarians, and the Russians were now brought within the fold
   of the Church; and the way was prepared for that vast
   extension of the Greek communion by which it has spread, not
   only throughout the Balkan peninsula and the lands to the
   north of it, but wherever Russian influence is found—as far
   as the White Sea on the one side, and Kamtchatka on the other,
   and into the heart of Central Asia. The leaders in this great
   work were the two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who in
   consequence of this, have since been known as the Apostles of
   the Slavonians. What Mezrop did for the Armenians, what
   Ulfilas did for the Goths, was accomplished for that race by
   Cyril in the invention of a Slavonic alphabet, which from this
   cause is still known by the name of the Cyrillic. The same
   teacher, by his translation of the Scriptures into their
   tongue, provided them with a literary language, thereby
   producing the same result which Luther's Bible subsequently
   effected for Germany, and Dante's Divina Commedia for Italy.
   It is no matter for surprise that, throughout the whole of
   this great branch of the human race—even amongst the
   Russians, who owed their Christianity to another source—the
   names of these two brothers should occupy the foremost place
   in the calendar of Saints. It is not less significant that
   their names are not even mentioned by the Byzantine
   historians."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 7._

CHRISTIANITY: 9th-11th Centuries.
   The Western Church as a missionary Church.

   The earlier missions of the Western Church have been
   described, but it is noteworthy that again and again missions
   to the same regions are necessary. It requires such a map as
   the one accompanying this article to make plain the slowness
   of its diffusions and the long period needed to produce even a
   nominally Christian Europe. "The views of Charlemagne for the
   conquest and conversion of the Northern heathens [see SAXONS:
   A. D. 772-804], were not confined to the limits, wide as they
   were, of Saxony. The final pacification effected at Salz,
   seemed to open his eyes to more extensive enterprises in
   prospect. Political may have combined with religious motives
   in inducing him to secure the peace of his new frontiers, by
   enlisting the tribes of Denmark under the banner of the Cross,
   and he conceived the idea of planting a church in the
   neighbourhood of Hamburg, which should become a missionary
   centre. This plan, though interrupted by his death, was not
   neglected by his son Louis le Debonnaire, or 'the Pious.' …
   But it is easier to propose such a plan than find one willing
   to carry it out. The well-known ferocity of the Northmen long
   deterred anyone from offering himself for such a duty. At
   length he received intelligence from Wala, the abbot of
   Corbey, near Amiens, that one of his monks was not unwilling
   to undertake the perilous enterprise, The intrepid volunteer
   was Anskar."

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Northmen,
      chapter 2._

   "In 822, Harold, the king of Jutland, and claimant of the
   crown of Denmark, came to seek the help of Louis the Pious,
   the son, and one of the successors, of Charlemagne. … On
   Harold's return to Denmark he was accompanied by Anskar, who
   well deserves to be called the apostle of Scandinavia. …
   Thus Anskar and Autbert set out in the train of Harold, and
   during the journey and voyage a kindly feeling sprang up
   between the royal and the missionary families. Harold got no
   cordial greeting from his proud heathen subjects when he
   announced to them that he had done homage to the emperor, and
   that he had embraced the gospel. He seems to have been very
   sincere and very earnest in his endeavours to induce his
   nobles and subjects to abandon idolatry and embrace
   Christianity. To expect that he was altogether judicious in
   these efforts would be to suppose that he had those views
   regarding the relation that ought to subsist between rulers
   and subjects, … views regarding liberty of conscience and
   the right of private judgment. …
{466}
   The result was that after two years, in 828, he was compelled
   to abdicate the throne. … The position of Anskar, difficult
   as it was while Harold was on the throne, became still more
   difficult after his abdication. … But just at the time when
   the door was shut against him in Denmark, another was opened
   in Sweden, which promised to be wider and more effectual. …
   He was kindly received by the Swedish king, who gave him
   permission to preach, and his subjects freedom to accept and
   profess the gospel of Christ. As Anskar had been led to
   expect, so he found, many Christian captives, who had been
   brought from other countries,—France, Germany, Britain,
   Ireland,—and who, having been as sheep without a shepherd,
   gladly received from Anskar those consolations and
   exhortations which were fitted to alleviate the sorrows of
   their captivity. … After a year and a half's stay in Sweden,
   Anskar returned home, and gladdened the heart of the good
   emperor, and doubtless of many others, by the cheering
   prospect he was able to present of the acceptance of the
   gospel by the Swedes. He was now made nominally bishop of
   Hamburg, but with the special design of superintending and
   conducting missionary operations both in Denmark and
   Sweden…. Horik, king of Denmark, who had driven Harold from
   his throne, … had been hitherto an uncompromising enemy of
   the gospel. Anskar undertook the management of some political
   negotiations with him, and in the conduct of them made so
   favourable an impression on him that he refused to have any
   other negotiator or ambassador of the German king at his
   court. He treated him as a personal friend, and gave him full
   liberty to conduct missionary operations. These operations he
   conducted with his usual zeal, and by God's blessing, with
   much success. Many were baptized. The Christians of Germany
   and Holland traded more freely with the Danes than before, and
   the Danes resorted in larger numbers as traders to Holland and
   Germany; and in these and other ways a knowledge of the
   gospel, and some apprehension of the blessings which it brings
   with it, were diffused among the people. … Although the
   Norwegians were continually coming into contact, in the
   varying relations of war and peace, with the Swedes and the
   Danes, the French and the Germans, the English and the Irish,
   and although in this way some knowledge of the Christian
   system must have been diffused among them, yet the formal
   introduction of it into their country was a full century later
   than its introduction into Denmark and Sweden."

      _Thomas Smith,
      Mediæval Missions,
      pages 122-138._

   "The conversions in Denmark were confined to the mainland. The
   islands still remained pagan, while human victims continued to
   be offered till the Emperor Henry I. extorted from Gorm, the
   first king of all Denmark, in A. D. 934, protection for the
   Christians throughout his realm, and the abolition of human
   sacrifices. In Sweden, for seventy years after Anskar's death,
   the nucleus of a Christian Church continued to be restricted
   to the neighbourhood of Birka, and the country was hardly
   visited by Christian missionaries."

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Northmen,
      chapter 2._

   "It is very remarkable that, in the whole history of the
   introduction of Christianity into Norway and Iceland,
   extending over a period of a century and a half, we meet not
   with the name of any noted bishop, or ecclesiastic, or
   missionary. There were, no doubt, ecclesiastics employed in
   the work, and these would appear to have been generally
   Englishmen; but they occupied a secondary place, almost their
   only province being to baptize those whom the kings compelled
   to submit to that ordinance. The kings were the real
   missionaries; and one cannot help feeling a kind of admiration
   for the ferocious zeal which one and another of them
   manifested in the undertaking,—even as the Lord commended the
   unjust steward because he had done wisely, although his wisdom
   was wholly misdirected. The most persistent and the most
   successful of these missionary kings was Olaf the Thick, who
   came from England in 1017, and set himself with heart and soul
   to the work of the demolition of heathenism, and the
   substitution of Christianity as the national religion."

      _Thomas Smith,
      Mediæval Missions,
      pages 140-141._

CHRISTIANITY: 10th Century.
   The Russian Church.

   "In the middle of the 10th century, the widowed Princess Olga,
   lately released from the cares of regency, travelled from Kief
   to Constantinople. Whether her visit had political objects, or
   whether she was prompted to pay it solely, as some say, by a
   desire to know more of the holy faith of which only glimpses
   had been vouchsafed her at home, cannot be positively decided.
   But her sojourn in the imperial city was a turning-point in
   her career. Baptism was administered to her by the patriarch
   Polyeuctes, the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus
   officiating as sponsor. Polyeuctes then solemnly addressed the
   princess, predicting that through her instrumentality Russia
   should be richly blessed. 'Olga,' writes M. Mouravieff, 'now
   become Helena by baptism, that she might resemble both in name
   and deed the mother of Constantine the Great, stood meekly
   bowing down her head, and drinking in, as a sponge that is
   thirsty of moisture, the instructions of the prelate.' …
   Some latent impressions favourable to Christianity her
   youngest grandson, Vladimir, doubtless owed to her.
   Nevertheless when, at the death of his brother Yarapolk, for
   which indeed he was held responsible, he mounted the throne,
   no signs of a gracious character revealed themselves. He was,
   on the contrary, a bitter and bigoted pagan. … It seems to
   have occurred to many missionaries of varying types, that a
   chief of such mark should not be left at the mercy of his own
   violent passions. The spiritual well-being of Vladimir
   accordingly became the object of laborious journeys, of much
   exertion, and of redundant eloquence. … Last of all came a
   Greek emissary. He was neither 'a priest nor a missionary, but
   a philosopher.' … Like Bogoris, the wild Russian chief was
   greatly moved. … The following year the king laid before the
   elders of his council the rival pleas of these variously
   recommended forms of faith, and solicited their advice. The
   nobles mused awhile, and then counselled their master to
   ascertain how each religion worked at home. This, they
   thought, would be more practical evidence than the plausible
   representations of professors. On this suggestion Vladimir
   acted. Envoys were chosen,—presumably, for their powers of
   observation,—and the embassy of inquiry started. 'This public
   agreement,' says the historian of the Russian Church,
   'explains in some degree the sudden and general acceptance of
   Christianity which shortly after followed in Russia.
{467}
   It is probable that not only the chiefs, but the common people
   also, were expecting and ready for the change.' A report, far
   from encouraging, was in due time received from the
   ambassadors. Of the German and Roman, as well as the Jewish,
   religions in daily life, they spoke in very disparaging terms,
   while they declared the Mussulman creed, when reduced to
   practice, to be utterly out of the question. Disappointed in
   all these quarters, they now proceeded, by command, to
   Constantinople, or, as the Russians called it, Tzaragorod. …
   Singularly enough, the Russian envoys, accustomed, as we must
   suppose them to have been, only to the barest simplicity of
   life, had complained not only of the paucity of decoration in
   the Latin churches, but of a lack of beauty in their
   appointments. Thus the preparations of the patriarch were
   accurately fitted to their expectant frame of mind. They were
   led into the church of S. Sophia, gleaming with variegated
   marbles, and porphyries, and jasper, at that time 'the
   masterpiece of Christian architecture.' The building glittered
   with gold, and rich mosaics. The service was that of a high
   festival, either of St. John Chrysostom, or of the Death of
   the Virgin, and was conducted by the patriarch in person, clad
   in his most gorgeous vestments. … On their return to
   Vladimir, they dilated with eager delight on the wonders they
   had seen. The king listened gravely to their glowing account
   of 'the temple, like which there was none upon earth.' After
   sweetness, they protested, bitterness would be unbearable, so
   that—whatever others might do—they at all events should at
   once abandon heathenism. While the king hesitated, his boyers
   turned the scale by reminding him that if the creed of the
   Greeks had not indeed had much to recommend it, his pious and
   sagacious grandmother, Princess Olga, would not have loved and
   obeyed it. Her name acted like a talisman. Vladimir resolved
   to conform to Christianity. But still, fondly clinging to the
   habits of his forefathers, he cherished the idea of wooing and
   winning his new religion by the sword. … Under the auspices
   of the sovereign, the stately church of St. Basil soon arose,
   on the very spot recently occupied by the temple of Perun.
   Kief became the centre of Christian influence, whence
   evangelizing energies radiated in all directions. Schools and
   churches were built, while Michael, the first metropolitan,
   attended by his bishops, 'made progresses into the interior of
   Russia, everywhere baptizing and instructing the people.' The
   Greek canon law came into force, and the use of the
   service-book and choral music of the Greek communion became
   general, while, in the Slavonic Scriptures and Liturgy of
   Cyril and Methodius, a road was discovered which led straight
   to the hearts of the native population. 'Cyril and Methodius,
   if anyone, must be considered by anticipation as the first
   Christian teachers of Russia; their rude alphabet first
   instructed the Russian nation in letters, and, by its quaint
   Greek characters, still testifies in every Russian book, and
   on every Russian house or shop, the Greek source of the
   religion and literature of the empire.'"

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
      chapter 5._

   "As in the first centuries it was necessary that the leaven of
   Christianity should gradually penetrate the entire
   intellectual life of the cultivated nations, before a new
   spiritual creation, striking its root in the forms of the
   Grecian and Roman culture, which Christianity appropriated,
   could in these forms completely unfold itself; so after the
   same manner it was necessary that the leaven of Christianity
   which … had been introduced into the masses of the untutored
   nations, should gradually penetrate their whole inward life,
   before a new and peculiar spiritual creation could spring out
   of it, which should go on to unfold itself through the entire
   period of the middle ages. And the period in which we now are
   must be regarded as still belonging to the epoch of transition
   from that old spiritual creation which flourished on the basis
   of Grecian and Roman culture to the new one."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 3, page 456._

   We leave the author's sentence incomplete, that it may
   express the more fully all the subsequent history of
   Christianity.

----------CHRISTIANITY: End----------

CHRISTINA, Queen-regent of Spain, A. D. 1833-1841.

  Christina, Queen of Sweden, A. D. 1633-1654.

CHRISTINOS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

CHRISTOPHER I., King of Denmark. A. D. 1252-1259.

   Christopher II., A. D. 1319-1334.

   Christopher III., King of Denmark,
   Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1439-1448.

CHRYSE.

   Vague reports of a region called Chryse (the Golden),
   somewhere beyond the Ganges, and of an island bearing the same
   name, off the mouths of the Ganges, as well as of another
   island called Argyre (the Silver Island), were prevalent among
   the early Roman geographical writers. They probably all had
   reference to the Malay peninsula, which Ptolemy called the
   Golden Chersonese.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 25._

CHRYSLER'S FARM, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

CHRYSOBULUM.

      See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE.


CHRYSOPOLlS.

   Modern Scutari, opposite Constantinople; originally the port
   of the city of Chalcedon.

CHRYSOPOLIS, Battle of (A. D. 323).

      See Rome: A. D. 305-323.

CHUMARS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

CHUMASHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHUMASHAN FAMILY.

CHUR, The Bishopric of.

      See TYROL,
      and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

CHURCH, The Armenian.

      See ARMENIAN CHURCH.

CHURCH OF BOHEMIA, The Utraquist National.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.

CHURCH IN BRAZIL, Disestablishment of the.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Origin and Establishment.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; 1531-1563; and 1535-1539.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The Six Articles.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The completed Church-reform under Edward VI.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The doubtful conflict of religions.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.

{468}

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   Romanism restored by Mary.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   Recovery of Protestantism under Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   Rise of Puritanism.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1564-1565 (?).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Despotism of Laud.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   Rise of the Independents.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Root and Branch Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Westminster Assembly.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY), and 1646 (MARCH).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Solemn League and Covenant.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Restoration.
   The Savoy Conference.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Act of Uniformity and persecution of Nonconformists.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   Charles' Declaration of Indulgence, and the Test Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673, and 1687.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   James' Declaration of Indulgence.
   Trial of the seven Bishops.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
   The Church and the Revolution.
   The Non-Jurors.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1704.
   Queen Anne's Bounty.

      See QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
   The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
   The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.

      See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

----------CHURCH OF ENGLAND: End----------

CHURCH OF FRANCE.

      See GALLICAN CHURCH.

CHURCH, The Greek or Eastern.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

CHURCH OF IRELAND, Disestablishment of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

CHURCH OF ROME.

      See PAPACY.

CHURCH, The Russian.
   The great schism known as Raskol.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Its birth.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The First Covenant.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Restoration of Episcopacy.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The First National Covenant.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Black Acts.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Appropriation of Church lands.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Five Articles of Perth.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Laud's liturgy and Jenny Geddes' stool.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The signing of the National Covenant.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The First Bishops' War.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Second Bishops' War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Westminster Assembly.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Solemn League and Covenant.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Montrose and the Covenanters.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The restored king and restored prelacy.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   Persecutions of the Covenanters.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679: 1679; 1681-1689.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Revolution and re-establishment of the Presbyterian
   Church.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
   The Disruption.
   Formation of the Free Church.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

----------CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: End----------

CHURUBUSCO, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CIBALIS, Battle of (A. D. 313).

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

CIBOLA, The Seven Cities of.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

CICERO, and the last years of the Roman Republic.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44-42.

CILICIA.-KILIKIA.

   An ancient district in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor,
   bordering on Syria. It was a satrapy of the Persian Empire,
   then a part of the kingdom of the Selucidæ, and afterwards a
   Roman province. The chief city of Cilicia was Tarsus, a very
   ancient commercial emporium, whose people were noted for
   mental acuteness. The Apostle Paul is to be counted among the
   distinguished natives of Tarsus, and a quite remarkable number
   of eminent teachers of philosophy were from the same
   birthplace.

CILICIA, Pirates of.

   During the Mithridatic wars piracy was developed to alarming
   proportions in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea.
   Distracted by civil conflicts and occupied by foreign ones,
   simultaneously, the Romans, for a considerable period, gave no
   proper heed to the growth of this lawlessness, until they
   found their commerce half destroyed and Rome and Italy
   actually threatened with starvation by the intercepting of
   their supplies from abroad. The pirates flourished under the
   protection and encouragement of the king of Pontus, at whose
   instance they established their chief headquarters, their
   docks, arsenals and magazines, at various points on the coast
   of Cilicia. Hence the name Cilician came to be applied to all
   the pirates of the time. This era of piracy was brought to an
   end, at last, by Pompey, who was sent against them, B. C. 67,
   with extraordinary powers conferred by the law known as the
   Lex Gabinia. He proceeded to his undertaking with remarkable
   energy and ability, and his hunting down of the freebooters
   which he accomplished effectually within three months from the
   day his operations began, was really the most brilliant
   exploit of his life.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 63._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 1._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 6-7._

{469}

CILICIAN GATES.

   A pass through the Taurus range of mountains, opening from
   Cappadocia into Cilicia, was anciently called the Pylæ Ciliciæ
   or Cilician Gates. The city of Tyana was situated at the
   entrance to the pass. Both Xenophon and Alexander, who
   traversed it, seem to have regarded the pass as one which no
   army could force if properly defended.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 10, section 2,
      and chapter 12, section 1._

CILURNUM.

   A Roman city in Britain, "the extensive ruins of which, well
   described as a British Pompeii, are visible near the modern
   hamlets of Chesters."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

CIMARRONES, The.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580,
      and JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

CIMBRI AND TEUTONES, The.

   "For a considerable period [second century, B. C.] an
   'unsettled people' had been wandering along the northern verge
   of the country occupied by the Celts on both sides of the
   Danube. They called themselves the Cimbri, that is, the
   Chempho, the champions, or, as their enemies translated it,
   the robbers; a designation, however, which to all appearance
   had become the name of the people even before their migration.
   They came from the north, and the first Celtic people with
   whom they came in contact were, so far as is known, the Boii,
   probably in Bohemia. More exact details as to the cause and
   the direction of their migration have not been recorded by
   contemporaries and cannot be supplied by conjecture. … But
   the hypothesis that the Cimbri, as well as the similar horde
   of the Teutones which afterwards joined them, belonged in the
   main not to the Celtic nation, to which the Romans at first
   assigned them, but to the Germanic, is supported by the most
   definite facts: viz., by the existence of two small tribes of
   the same name—remnants left behind to all appearance in their
   primitive seats—the Cimbri in the modern Denmark, the
   Teutones in the north-east of Germany in the neighbourhood of
   the Baltic, where Pytheas, a contemporary of Alexander the
   Great, makes mention of them thus early in connection with the
   amber trade; by the insertion of the Cimbri and Teutones in
   the list of the Germanic peoples among the Ingævones alongside
   of the Chauci; by the judgment of Cæsar, who first made the
   Romans acquainted with the distinction between the Germans and
   the Celts, and who includes the Cimbri, many of whom he must
   himself have seen, among the Germans; and lastly, by the very
   names of the people and the statements as to their physical
   appearance and habits. … On the other hand it is conceivable
   enough that such a horde, after having wandered perhaps for
   many years, and having doubtless welcomed every
   brother-in-arms who joined it in its movements near to or
   within the land of the Celts, would include a certain amount
   of Celtic elements. … When men afterwards began to trace the
   chain, of which this emigration, the first Germanic movement
   which touched the orbit of ancient civilization, was a link,
   the direct and living knowledge of it had long passed away."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 5._

   "The name Kymri, or Cymri, still exists. It is the name that
   the Welsh give themselves, but I am not aware that any other
   people have called them by that name. These Kymri are a branch
   of the great Celtic people, and this resemblance of the words
   Kymri and Cimbri has led many modern writers to assume that
   the Cimbri were also a Celtic people, as many of the ancient
   writers name them. But these ancient writers are principally
   the later Greeks, who are no authority at all on such a
   matter. … The name Cimbri has perished in Germany, while
   that of the Teutones, by some strange accident, is now the
   name of the whole Germanic population."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 9._

CIMBRI: B. C. 113-102.
   Battles with the Romans.

   The Cimbri and the Teutones made their first appearance on the
   Roman horizon in the year 113 B. C. when they entered Noricum.
   The Noricans were an independent people, as yet, but accepted
   a certain protection from Rome, and the latter sent her
   consul, Carbo, with an army, to defend them. Carbo made an
   unfortunate attempt to deal treacherously with the invaders
   and suffered an appalling defeat. Then the migrating
   barbarians, instead of pressing into Italy, on the heels of
   the flying Romans, turned westward through Helvetia to Gaul,
   and occupied themselves for four years in ravaging that
   unhappy country. In 109 B. C., having gathered their plunder
   into the fortified town of Aduatuca and left it well
   protected, they advanced into the Roman province of Narbo,
   Southern Gaul, and demanded land to settle upon. The Romans
   resisted and were again overwhelmingly beaten. But even now
   the victorious host did not venture to enter Italy, and
   nothing is known of its movements until 105 B. C., when a
   third Roman army was defeated in Roman Gaul and its commander
   taken prisoner and slain. The affrighted Romans sent strong
   re-enforcements to the Rhone; but jealousy between the consul
   who commanded the new army and the proconsul who retained
   command of the old delivered both of them to destruction. They
   were virtually annihilated, Oct. 6, B. C. 105, at Arausio
   (Orange), on the left bank of the Rhone. It is said that
   80,000 Roman soldiers perished on that dreadful field, besides
   half as many more of camp followers. "This much is certain,"
   says Mommsen, "that only a few out of the two armies succeeded
   in escaping, for the Romans had fought with the river in their
   rear. It was a calamity which materially and morally far
   surpassed the day of Cannæ." In the panic which this disaster
   caused at Rome the constitution of the Republic was broken
   down. Marius, conqueror of Jugurtha, was recalled from Africa
   and not only re-elected to the Consulship, but invested with
   the office for five successive years. He took command in Gaul
   and found that the formidable invaders had moved off into
   Spain. This gave him time, fortunately, for the organizing and
   disciplining of his demoralized troops. When the barbarians
   reappeared on the Rhone, in the summer of 102 B. C., he faced
   them with an army worthy of earlier Roman times. They had now
   resolved, apparently, to force their way, at all hazards, into
   Italy, and had divided their increasing host, to move on Rome
   by two routes. The Cimbri, reinforced by the Tigorini, who had
   joined them, made a circuit to the Eastern Alps, while the
   Teutones, with Ambrones and Tougeni for confederates crossed
   the Rhone and attacked the defenders of the western passes.
   Failing to make any impression on the fortified camp of Marius
   the Teutones rashly passed it, marching straight for the coast
   road to Italy.
{470}
   Marius cautiously followed and after some days gave battle to
   the barbarians, in the district of Aquæ Sextiæ, a few miles
   north of Massilia. The Romans that day took revenge for
   Arausio with awful interest. The whole barbaric horde was
   annihilated. "So great was the number of dead bodies that the
   land in the neighborhood was made fertile by them, and the
   people of Massilia used the bones for fencing their
   vineyards." Meantime the Cimbri and their fellows had reached
   and penetrated the Brenner pass and were in the valley of the
   Adige. The Roman army stationed there had given way before
   them, and Marius was needed to roll the invasion back. He did
   so, on the 30th of July B. C. 101, when the Cimbri were
   destroyed, at a battle fought on the Raudine Plain near
   Vercellæ, as completely as the Teutones had been destroyed at
   Aquæ Sextiæ.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 9._

CIMBRIAN CHERSONESUS.

   The modern Danish promontory of Jutland; believed to have been
   the home of the Cimbri before they migrated southwards and
   invaded Gaul.

CIMINIAN FOREST, The.

   The mountains of Viterbo, which formed anciently the frontier
   of Rome towards Etruria, were then covered with a thick
   forest—"the 'silva Ciminia' of which Livy gives so romantic a
   description. It was, however, nothing but a natural division
   between two nations which were not connected by friendship,
   and wished to have little to do with each other. … This
   forest was by no means like the 'silva Hercynia' with which
   Livy compares it, but was of just such an extent that,
   according to his own account, the Romans only wanted a couple
   of hours to march through it."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 44._

CIMMERIANS, The.

   "The name Cimmerians appears in the Odyssey,—the fable
   describes them as dwelling beyond the ocean-stream, immersed
   in darkness and unblessed by the rays of Helios. Of this
   people as existent we can render no account, for they had
   passed away, or lost their identity and become subject,
   previous to the commencement of trustworthy authorities: but
   they seem to have been the chief occupants of the Tauric
   Chersonese (Crimea) and of the territory between that
   peninsula and the river Tyras (Dneister) at the time when the
   Greeks first commenced their permanent settlements on those
   coasts in the seventh century B. C. The numerous localities
   which bore their name, even in the time of Herodotus, after
   they had ceased to exist as a nation,—as well as the tombs of
   the Cimmerian kings then shown near the Tyras,—sufficiently
   attest the fact; and there is reason to believe that they
   were—like their conquerors and successors the Scythians—a
   nomadic people, mare-milkers, moving about with their tents
   and herds, suitably to the nature of those unbroken steppes
   which their territory presented, and which offered little
   except herbage in profusion. Strabo tells us—on what
   authority we do not know—that they, as well as the Trêres and
   other Thracians, had desolated Asia Minor more than once
   before the time of Ardys [King of Lydia, seventh century B.
   C.] and even earlier than Homer."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 17._

      See, also, CUMÆ.

CIMON, Career of.

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

CIMON, Peace of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.
   The founding and naming of the city.

   In 1787 "an offer was made to Congress by John Cleve Symmes
   [afterwards famous for his theory that the earth is hollow,
   with openings at the poles], to buy two millions of acres
   between the Little and the Great Miamis. Symmes was a
   Jerseyman of wealth, had visited the Shawanese country, had
   been greatly pleased with its fertility, and had come away
   declaring that every acre in the wildest part was worth a
   silver dollar. It was too, he thought, only a question of
   time, and a very short time, when this value would be doubled
   and tripled. Thousands of immigrants were pouring into this
   valley each year, hundreds of thousands of acres were being
   taken up, and the day would soon come when the rich land along
   the Miamis and the Ohio would be in great demand. There was
   therefore a mighty fortune in store for the lucky speculator
   who should buy land from Congress for five shillings an acre
   and sell it to immigrants for twenty. But … his business
   lagged, and though his offer to purchase was made in August,
   1787, it was the 15th of May, 1788, before the contract was
   closed. In the meantime he put out a pamphlet and made known
   his terms of sale. A copy soon fell into the hands of Matthias
   Denman. He became interested in the scheme and purchased that
   section on which now stands the city of Cincinnati. One third
   he kept, one third he sold to Robert Patterson, and the
   remainder to John Filson. The conditions of the purchase from
   Symmes gave them two years in which to begin making clearings
   and building huts. But the three determined to lose no time,
   and at once made ready to layout a city directly opposite that
   spot where the waters of the Licking mingled themselves with
   the Ohio. Denman and Patterson were no scholars. But Filson
   had once been a schoolmaster, knew a little of Latin and
   something of history, and to him was assigned the duty of
   choosing a name for the town. … He determined to make one,
   and produced a word that was a most absurd mixture of Latin,
   Greek and French. He called the place Losantiville, which,
   being interpreted, means the city opposite the mouth of the
   Licking. A few weeks later the Indians scalped him."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, page 516._

   The name given a little later to Filson's settlement was
   conferred on it by General St. Clair, Governor of the
   Territory, in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1788-1802.

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Miller, Cincinnati's Beginnings._

CINCINNATI: A. D. 1863.
   Threatened by John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

----------CINCINNATI: End----------

{471}

CINCINNATI, The Society of the.

   "Men of the present generation who in childhood rummaged in
   their grandmothers' cosy garrets cannot fail to have come
   across scores of musty and worm-eaten pamphlets, their yellow
   pages crowded with italics and exclamation points, inveighing
   in passionate language against the wicked and dangerous
   Society of the Cincinnati. Just before the army [of the
   American Revolution] was disbanded, the officers, at the
   suggestion of General Knox, formed themselves [April, 1783]
   into a secret society, for the purpose of keeping up their
   friendly intercourse and cherishing the heroic memories of the
   struggle in which they had taken part. With the fondness for
   classical analogies which characterized that time, they
   likened themselves to Cincinnatus, who was taken from the plow
   to lead an army, and returned to his quiet farm so soon as his
   warlike duties were over. They were modern Cincinnati. A
   constitution and by-laws were established for the order, and
   Washington was unanimously chosen to be its president. Its
   branches in the several states were to hold meetings each
   Fourth of July, and there was to be a general meeting of the
   whole society every year in the month of May. French officers
   who had taken part in the war were admitted to membership, and
   the order was to be perpetuated by descent through the eldest
   male representatives of the families of the members. It was
   further provided that a limited membership should from time to
   time be granted, as a distinguished honour, to able and worthy
   citizens, without regard to the memories of the war. A golden
   American eagle attached to a blue ribbon edged with white was
   the sacred badge of the order; and to this emblem especial
   favour was shown at the French court, where the insignia of
   foreign states were generally, it is said, regarded with
   jealousy. No political purpose was to be subserved by this
   order of the Cincinnati, save in so far as the members pledged
   to one another their determination to promote and cherish the
   union between the states. In its main intent the society was
   to be a kind of masonic brotherhood, charged with the duty of
   aiding the widows and the orphan children of its members in
   time of need. Innocent as all this was, however, the news of
   the establishment of such a society was greeted with a howl of
   indignation all over the country. It was thought that its
   founders were inspired by a deep-laid political scheme for
   centralizing the government and setting up a hereditary
   aristocracy. … The absurdity of the situation was quickly
   realized by Washington, and he prevailed upon the society, in
   its first annual meeting of May, 1784, to abandon the
   principle of hereditary membership. The agitation was thus
   allayed, and in the presence of graver questions the
   much-dreaded brotherhood gradually ceased to occupy popular
   attention."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      chapter 3._

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "The hereditary succession was never abandoned. A
   recommendation to that effect was indeed made to the several
   State Societies, at the first General Meeting in Philadelphia.
   … But the proposition, unwillingly urged, was accepted in
   deprecatory terms by some, and by others it was totally
   rejected. … At the second General Meeting, it was resolved
   'that the alterations could not take effect until they had
   been agreed to by all the State Societies.' They never were so
   agreed to, and consequently the original Institution remains
   in full force. Those Societies that accepted the proposed
   alterations unconditionally, of course perished with their own
   generation."

      _A. Johnston,
      Some Accounts of the Society of the Cincinnati
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
      volume 6, pages 51-53)._

   "The claim to membership has latterly been determined not by
   strict primogeniture, but by a 'just elective preference,
   especially in the line of the first-born,' who has a moral but
   not an absolutely indisputable right; and membership has
   always been renewed by election. … Six only of the original
   thirteen states—Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
   Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina—are still [in
   1873] represented at the General Meetings. The largest
   society, that of Massachusetts, consisting originally of 343
   members, now [1873] numbers less than 80; that of New York,
   from 230 had in 1858 decreased to 73; the 268 of Pennsylvania
   to about 60; the 110 of New Jersey, in 1866, to 60; and the
   131 of South Carolina was, in 1849, reduced to 71."

      _F. S. Drake,
      Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati of Massachusetts,
      page 37._

CINCO DE MAYO, Battle of (1862).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

CINE, The.

   Kinsfolk of the head of the tribe, among the ancient Irish.

CINQ MARS, Conspiracy of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

CINQUE PORTS, The.

   "Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe—this is the order
   in which the Cinque Ports were ranked in the times when they
   formed a flourishing and important confederation. Winchelsea
   and Rye were added to these five … soon after the Norman
   Conquest. … The new comers were officially known as 'the two
   Ancient Towns.' When therefore we wish to speak of this famous
   corporation with strict accuracy we say, 'The five Cinque
   Ports and two Ancient Towns.' The repetition of the number
   'five' in this title probably never struck people so much as
   we might expect, since it very soon came to be merely a
   technical term, the French form of the word being pronounced,
   and very often spelt 'Synke' or 'Sinke,' just as if it was the
   English 'Sink.' … The difference between the Cinque Ports
   and the rest of the English coast towns is plainly indicated
   by mediæval custom, since they were generally spoken of
   collectively as 'The Ports.' … Most writers upon this
   subject … have been at pains to connect the Cinque Ports by
   some sort of direct descent with the five Roman stations and
   fortresses which, under the Comes Littoris Saxonici [see SAXON
   SHORE, COUNT OF], guarded the south-eastern shores of
   Britain."

      _M. Burrows,
      The Cinque Ports,
      chapters 1-3._

   "Our kings have thought them [the Cinque Ports] worthy a
   peculiar regard; and, in order to secure them against
   invasions, have granted them a particular form of government.
   They are under a keeper, who has the title of Lord Warden of
   the Cinque Ports (an officer first appointed by William the
   Conqueror), who has the authority of an admiral among them,
   and issues out writs in his own name. The privileges anciently
   annexed to these ports and their dependents were [among
   others]: An exemption from all taxes and tolls. … A power to
   punish foreigners, as well as natives, for theft. … A power
   to raise mounds or banks in any man's land against breaches of
   the sea. … To convert to their own use such goods as they
   found floating on the sea; those thrown out of ships in a
   storm; and those driven ashore when no wreck or ship was to be
   seen. To be a guild or fraternity, and to be allowed the
   franchises of court-leet and court-baron. A power to assemble
   and keep a portmote or parliament for the Cinque Ports.
{472}
   … Their barons to have the privilege of supporting the
   canopy over the king's head at his coronation. In return for
   these privileges the Cinque Ports were required to fit out 57
   ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, with which they were
   to attend the king's service for 15 days at their own expense;
   but if the state of affairs required their assistance any
   longer they were to be paid by the crown. … As the term
   baron occurs continually throughout all the charters of the
   Ports, it may not be improper to inform our readers that it is
   of the same import as burgess or freeman. … The
   representatives of the Ports in parliament are to this day
   styled barons." The post of Warden of the Cinque Ports,
   "formerly considered of so much honour and consequence, is now
   converted into a patent sinecure place, for life, with a
   salary of £4,000 a year."

      _History of the Boroughs of Great Britain;
      together with the Cinque Ports, volume 3._

   The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during
   the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the
   Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount
   Palmerston, and Earl Granville.

CINTRA, Convention of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CIOMPI, Tumult of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS, The northern.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

CIRCASSIANS.

      See CAUCASUS.

CIRCLES OF GERMANY, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

CIRCUMCELLIONES, The.

      See DONATISTS.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522.
   Magellan's voyage: the first in history.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1577-1580.
   Drake's voyage.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

----------CIRCUMNAVIGATION: End----------

CIRCUS, Factions of the Roman.

   "The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a
   simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were
   distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional
   colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards
   introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times,
   one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp
   of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal
   establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful
   colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in
   the four seasons of the year. … Another interpretation
   preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the
   green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the
   earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a
   plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the
   hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less
   absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted
   their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had
   espoused. … Constantinople adopted the follies, though not
   the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had
   agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the
   hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this
   popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens,
   who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under
   baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of
   their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was
   diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the
   sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and
   irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a
   feeble government. … A sedition, which almost laid
   Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and
   momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful
   tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the
   cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in
   connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of
   January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the
   mob and large districts in it were burned, including many
   churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian
   would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic
   opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the
   imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier,
   Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the
   hippodrome and in the streets.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 40.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CIRCUS MAXIMUS AT ROME, The.

   "The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the
   most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the
   buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly
   equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus
   Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the
   spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was
   successively restored and ornamented by the republican
   government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus,
   Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building
   which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum,
   but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a
   vestige of it now being left."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction and chapter 12._

      See, also, FORUM BOARIUM.

CIRENCESTER, Origin of.

      See CORINIUM.

CIRRHA.

      See DELPHI.

CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.

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

CIRTA.

   An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in
   Algeria is on its site.

      See NUMIDIANS.

CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

CISALPINE REPUBLIC.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      1797 (MAY-OCTOBER);
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.

CISLEITHANIA.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

CISPADANE GAUL.
   Cisalpine Gaul south of the Padus, or Po.

      See PADUS.

CISPADANE REPUBLIC, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL),
      and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CISSIA (KISSIA).

      See ELAM.

{473}

CISTERCIAN ORDER.
   The Monastery of Citeaux.

   "Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the
   monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a
   passion for wandering and for study which led him first to
   Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that
   on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy,
   he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and
   habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the
   monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life
   which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother
   of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began
   to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he
   perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most
   other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of
   S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had
   no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates
   in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the
   matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was
   equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original
   rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their
   investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a
   schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their
   accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the
   zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding
   himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen
   others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left
   Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site
   which they chose—in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far
   from Dijon—was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as
   the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It
   was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn,
   dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new
   house took its name of 'the Cistern'—Cistellum, commonly
   called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to
   carry into practice their views of monastic duty. …
   Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion
   during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was
   Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to
   become inseparably associated with the name of another English
   saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony,
   whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house
   itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the
   place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and
   Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called
   from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and
   Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance
   into their founder's native land."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN: _S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, 21._

CITEAUX, The Monastery of.

      See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CITIES, Chartered.

      See COMMUNE;
      also BOROUGHS, and GUILDS.

CITIES, Free, of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

CITIES, Imperial and Free, of Germany

   "The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH
   CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the
   national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free
   cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in
   immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically
   independent republics; and those which, while owning some
   dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet
   conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government.
   The local distribution of the former, which is curiously
   unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the
   dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful
   house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were
   few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in
   abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a
   hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and
   five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while
   in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. … The Imperial free
   cities … were self-governed, under constitutions in which
   the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in
   various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they
   were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will
   of the ruler counted for more and more. … In these cities
   the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes
   were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory
   war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the
   cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial
   feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land,
   retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak,
   directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection
   against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that
   their liberties and privileges were bound up with the
   maintenance of the general order. … In them, too, as we
   might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation,
      page 16._

   "Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133
   free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas
   imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the
   Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a
   Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas
   imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor
   Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a
   'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year
   1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places
   'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg,
   Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities
   subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the
   Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of
   Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347]
   Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial
   towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course
   of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or
   conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there
   were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne,
   Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns
   appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:—1. They were
   exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They
   were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition
   beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and
   duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were
   distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the
   imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon."
   Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing
   as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was
   disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands
   of a military and civil governor. … On the imperial towns
   becoming independent, the administration of the town was
   entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons,
   according to the population, and the members of this kind of
   town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or
   Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser.
{474}
   The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of
   their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister,
   Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. … Many of the imperial towns
   gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In
   like manner we find that others either lost their privileges
   or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or
   ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires
   placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective
   archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were
   seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the
   Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and
   Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the
   Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the
   circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and,
   in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at
   length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction
   should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To
   accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or
   confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in
   forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their
   representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet.
   The principal confederations brought into existence by the
   struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian
   Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] … At the Diet held
   at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial
   towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of
   Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally
   recognized, they were formed into a separate college. … By
   the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz.,
   Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to
   France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy
   with the exception of the following six:—Augsburg, Nuremberg,
   Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first
   three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in
   1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and
   Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as
   members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to
   the year 1866."

      _W. J. Wyatt,
      History of Prussia,
      volume 2, pages 427-432._

   "According to the German historians the period of the greatest
   splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th
   centuries. … In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same
   prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The
   Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them
   escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless,
   the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts
   their position as immediate states, that is to say, states
   which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the
   neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the
   Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the
   Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the
   empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and
   narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in
   existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an
   independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised
   any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home
   they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because
   they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate
   suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own
   administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this
   bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret
   disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the
   form of their constitution. … Their population decreased,
   and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes
   of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine
   in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing
   modern society. Trade forsook them—their ancient energy and
   patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still
   remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this
   was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."

      _A. de Tocqueville,
      State of Society in France before 1789,
      note C._

      See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

   Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were
   then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the
   Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the
   Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg,
   Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were
   annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.

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

   The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and
   to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the
   Germanic Confederation then formed.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS of.

   Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining
   the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in
   1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last
   of the "free cities."

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

CITY.

      See BOROUGH.

CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.

   "Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,'
   with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to
   which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for
   violet."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.

   "Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only
   two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by
   a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and
   Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and
   the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives
   Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman
   colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had
   received the Roman citizenship."

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

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,
   The First.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-

   The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

{475}

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

   "It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of
   the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil
   service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people.
   When that result was attained, the final struggle with
   patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a
   large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the
   best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan
   agency. They began to see the need of some method by which
   fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than
   by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the
   Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of
   the great problems of the future. No government had then
   solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of
   any political action, or mere official influence, became more
   and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great
   parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of
   such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously
   threatened their power, unless the party system itself could
   be made more acceptable to the people. … There was an
   abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his
   patronage—no way was opened by which a person of merit could
   get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party
   or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of
   every port of entry to the public service, which made it
   tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin
   of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a
   poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as
   before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in
   its ranks—subserviency to members and to ministers—and
   electioneering on their behalf—these were the virtues before
   which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were
   opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole
   system increased. … During the Melbourne administration,
   between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a
   condition for admission to the service, came from two very
   different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared
   that they could not do the public work with such poor servants
   as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more
   independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to
   be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament
   and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who
   might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so
   far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of
   the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive
   examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation
   to attempt at once. These examinations—several of them being
   competitive—introduced by public officers in self-defence
   many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced
   striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example,
   they had brought about a reform that arrested public
   attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused
   the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher
   salaries were bidden for them for private service.' … These
   examinations were steadily extended from office to office down
   to the radical change made in 1853. … It had been provided,
   long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of
   India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but
   should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course
   of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil
   West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent
   instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the
   patronage of nomination for such instruction. … If it seems
   strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a
   college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which
   patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same
   influence which sent them there was used to keep them there.
   … Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852
   and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a
   condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction
   of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly
   made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was
   disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the
   government to command the respect of the more intelligent
   portion of the people of India, and there was a still more
   alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad
   in the army as in the civil offices. … There was, in short,
   a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused
   the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was
   decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to
   save British supremacy in India. A change of system was
   entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India
   act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and
   privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company
   to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students …
   shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be
   made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty,
   who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be
   admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be
   seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same
   blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India
   to every British citizen. … In 1853, the British Government
   had reached a final decision that the partisan system of
   appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial
   control of nominations by members of Parliament, however
   guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass
   examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect
   upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and
   fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. … The
   administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly
   decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. … It
   was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made
   to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English
   Executive … for the time being. The first step decided upon
   was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service.
   Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the
   Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to
   make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in
   November of the same year. … A system of competitive
   examinations … [was] recommended. … The report was
   accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into
   effect, from which quote the following passages.
{476}
   … 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in
   the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting
   by the surest of all motives—the desire a man has of
   bettering himself in life. … They will have attained their
   situations in an independent manner through their own merits.
   The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and
   diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the
   higher classes of official men. … The effect of it in giving
   a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be
   overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was
   the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an
   English administration for the home government. I hardly need
   repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were
   (with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the
   new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations.
   … But the great feature of the report, which made it really
   a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its
   advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put
   on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was
   as theoretical as it was radical. … A chorus of ridicule,
   indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the
   official and partisan places of politics. The government saw
   that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear
   than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in
   which to trust the tender years of such a reform. … The
   executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the
   people, and also requested the written opinions of a large
   number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of
   office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon
   it was requested. … About the time that English public
   opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official
   report, and before any final action had been taken upon it,
   the Aberdeen administration went out. … Lord Palmerston came
   into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of
   nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical
   statesman. … Upon his administration fell the duty of
   deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report.
   … He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more
   by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of
   patronage. … Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and
   trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's
   administration advised that an order should be made by the
   Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such
   an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."

      _D. B. Eaton,
      Civil Service in Great Britain._

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

   "The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States]
   arises from the fact that the president has the power of
   appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly
   postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the
   federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do
   with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or
   servants of the national government in conducting its
   business; and if the business of the national government is to
   be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail
   in the management of private business, such servants ought to
   be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during
   good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to
   regard the management of the public business in any other
   light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present
   century a vicious system was growing up in New York and
   Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to
   be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By
   securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little
   in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain
   some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to
   him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent
   than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make
   room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens
   'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the
   front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. … The
   civil service of these states was seriously damaged in
   quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for
   offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public
   service in return, and the line which separates taxation from
   robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up
   an idea that there is something especially democratic, and
   therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the
   change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson
   to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and
   Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson
   cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his
   predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of
   office with a keen zest. During the forty years between
   Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number
   of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were
   defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's 
   administration the number of changes made in the civil service
   was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a
   national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase
   originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in
   the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the
   spoils.' … In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to
   reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many
   Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they
   followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same
   way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary
   at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the
   offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system
   began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful
   people."

      _J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the United States,
      pages 261-264._

   "It was not until 1867 that any important move was made
   [toward a reform]. … This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode
   Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several
   speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end
   to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But
   the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so
   awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in
   his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it,
   and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized
   the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil
   Service, such regulations as would best promote its
   efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for
   the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may
   'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may
   prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the
   conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil
   Service.'
{477}
   In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil
   Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made
   chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an
   appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its
   expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that
   nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000
   asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly
   appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in
   New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject
   of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been
   the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before
   the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an
   examination in his office. … Under Grant's commission, open
   competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at
   Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in
   the New York Post office. Although this commission labored
   under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was
   able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by
   the President and his cabinet. … The rules adopted by
   Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis.
   They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served
   as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest
   taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of
   his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the
   Reform. … Other able men took an active part in the
   movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment
   did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further
   appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a
   consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere
   suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this
   method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after
   the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. … President
   Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged
   it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not
   consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little
   attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual
   aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March,
   1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New
   York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to
   Mr. Burt by the Collector. … In 1880, Postmaster James
   revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office.
   … When the President, desiring that these examinations
   should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an
   appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this,
   competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York
   Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform
   Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the
   methods and progress of reform in other countries, President
   Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit
   England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton
   spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and
   his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by
   the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate
   and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report
   was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great
   Britain.' … For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received
   no compensation from the Government, not even his personal
   expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due,
   also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform
   Associations."

      _H. Lambert,
      The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States,
      pages 6-10._

   "The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at
   Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result
   of a conference among members of civil service reform
   associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of
   the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in
   the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our
   fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children.
   The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty
   approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the
   Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil
   Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of
   38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House
   only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87
   members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its
   passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes
   for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due,
   undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a
   panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent
   election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it
   was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition
   that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by
   reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was
   that of a Congress of which probably the members had very
   little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject.
   But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was
   undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which
   always commands the future. … The passage of the law was the
   first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement.
   The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability
   of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of
   administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy
   departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and
   other important custom houses and post offices, without the
   least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable
   class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is
   conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party
   independence, that, in these chief branches of the public
   service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed
   system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these
   offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform
   principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the
   public service to which the reformed methods apply are now
   included within those methods."

      _G. W. Curtis,
      Address at Annual Meeting of the National
      Civil-Service Reform League. 1891._

CIVILIS, Revolt of.

      See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799(AUGUST-APRIL).

CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

{478}

CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.

   St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the
   monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D.
   1091-1153] … revived the practice in the monastery of
   Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux,
   which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which
   had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of
   the perfect monk. … He was not a Pope, but he was greater
   than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the
   history of the Christian Church is the history of the
   influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Studies in Mediæval History,
      chapter 12._

   "The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of
   persons who desired to join the society which could boast of
   so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard
   proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose
   for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known
   as the Valley of Wormwood. … The district pertained to the
   bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed
   abbey of Clairvaux."

      _H. Stebbing,
      History of Christ's Universal Church,
      chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Butler,
      Lives of the Saints,
      volume 8._

      _W. F. Hook,
      Ecclesiastical Biographies,
      volume 2._

      _J. C. Morison,
      Life and Times of St. Bernard._

      See, also, CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CLANS, Highland.

   "The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and
   the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were
   supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus,
   and they were distinguished from each other by their
   patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being
   unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] … In considering the
   genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in
   the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the
   sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very
   important meaning. Their rights were derived through the
   common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to
   each other, indicated their position in the succession, as
   well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In
   such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same
   position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the
   Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of
   families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. … During the
   16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with
   the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were
   made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over
   them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; … but
   they were followed in a few years by an important Statute,
   which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans,
   and led to another great change in the theory of their
   descent. … The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves
   compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could
   compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to
   maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the
   Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device
   necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate
   to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and
   to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to
   maintain their position when a native descent had lost its
   value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this
   period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to
   be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and
   spurious charters inserted. … The form which these
   pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus
   or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or
   a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the
   chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with
   the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line,
   thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete
   with that of the great Norman families with a feudal
   succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan
   genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form
   where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or
   patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. … The
   conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees
   which have been popularly accepted at different times has
   brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin
   of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and
   untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted
   as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or
   founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations
   beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be
   rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious
   pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited
   by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such
   prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung;
   but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector
   Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine
   annals of the national history, and became rooted in those
   parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as
   local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure
   usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious
   king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line
   of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their
   eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now
   implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible,
   however, from these genealogies, and from other indications,
   to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having
   apparently a closer connection with each other, and these
   groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into
   which the Gaelic population was divided before they became
   broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the
   greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in
   the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and
   the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the
   Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the
   clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and
   Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their
   respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the
   clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of
   Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of
   Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old
   Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of
   Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to
   Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group
   containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to
   have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with
   the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called,
   were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and
   partly of foreign descent."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 3, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

{479}

CLARENDON, The Constitutions and the Assize of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CLARIAN ORACLE, The.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

CLARK, George Rogers, and the conquest of the Northwest.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CLAUDIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 41-54.
   Claudius II., A. D. 268-270.

CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.

   See SCOTLAND: A. D.1679; 1681-1689, and 1689 (JULY).

CLAY, Henry,
   The war of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

   Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

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

   The Tariff question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824,
      and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   The Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

   In the Cabinet of President John Quincy Adams.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

   Defeat in the Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.

   The Compromise Measures of 1850.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

   During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical
   factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and
   Charcoals.

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, page 204._

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, The.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

CLEAR GRITS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

CLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

CLEMENT II.,      Pope, A. D. 1046-1047.
   Clement III.,  Pope, A. D. 1187-1191.
   Clement IV.,   Pope, A. D. 1265-1268.
   Clement V.,    Pope, A. D. 1305-1314.
   Clement VI.,   Pope, A. D. 1342-1352.
   Clement VII.,  Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon).
   Clement VII.,  Pope, A. D. 1523-1534.
   Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605.
   Clement IX.,   Pope, A. D. 1667-1669.
   Clement X.,    Pope, A. D. 1670-1676.
   Clement XI.,   Pope, A. D. 1700-1721.
   Clement XII.,  Pope, A. D. 1730-1740.
   Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769.
   Clement XIV.,  Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.

CLEOMENIC (KLEOMENIC) WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

   And Mark Antony.

      See ROME: B. C. 31.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.

   "The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally
   set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred
   them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At
   present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment
   [London] while the other is on its way to the United States of
   America."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 20, note._

   The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New
   York, having been brought over and erected by Commander
   Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.

      _H. H. Gorringe,
      Egyptian Obelisks._

      See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

CLEPHES, King of the Lombards, A. D. 573-586.

CLERGY, Benefit of.

      See BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

CLERGY RESERVES.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837.

CLERMONT.

      See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

CLERMONT, The Council of.

      Speech of Pope Urban.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

CLERUCHI.

      See KLERUCHS.

CLEVELAND, Grover:
   First Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884 to 1889.

   Defeat in Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.

   Second Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CLEVELAND:

   The founding and naming of the City (1796).

      See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CLICHY CLUB.
CLICHYANS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

CLIENTES, Roman.

   "To [the Roman] family or household united under the control
   of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the
   breaking up of such households, there further belonged the
   dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term
   denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar
   circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household
   than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon
   in law as the property of the household and not as members of
   it, but those individuals who, while they were not free
   burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a
   condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees
   who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those
   slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being
   waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them
   practical freedom. This relation had not properly the
   character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man
   to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free,
   although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case
   the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the
   household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly
   so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent
   on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Fustel De Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 4, chapters 1 and 6._

CLINTON, Dewitt, and the Erie Canal.

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

CLINTON, George, The first Governor of New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

CLINTON, General Sir Henry,
   and the war of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST);
      1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST);
      1781 (JANUARY).

CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

CLISSAU OR CLISSOW, Battle of (1702).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752, to 1757-1772.

{480}

CLOACA MAXIMA OF ROME, The.

   "Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great
   sewer, the 'cloaca maxima,' the object of which, it may be
   observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city,
   but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the
   Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine and Palatine, then
   extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a
   swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Viminal.
   This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square
   blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day
   moved a knife's breadth from one another … equalling the
   pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the
   difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more
   one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a
   large and powerful state could have executed it. … Whether
   the cloaca maxima was actually executed by Tarquinus Priscus
   or by his son Superbus is a question about which the ancients
   themselves are not agreed, and respecting which true
   historical criticism cannot presume to decide. But this much
   may be said, that the structure must have been completed
   before the city encompassed the space of the seven hills and
   formed a compact whole. … But such a work cannot possibly
   have been executed by the powers of a state such as Rome is
   said to have been in those times."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 5 and 8._

CLODOMIR, King of the Franks, at Orleans, A. D. 511-524.

CLONARD, Monastery of.

   A great monastery founded in Meath, Ireland, by St. Finnian,
   in the sixth century, "which is said to have contained no
   fewer than 3,000 monks and which became a great
   training-school in the monastic life." The twelve principal
   disciples of Finnian were called the "Twelve Apostles of
   Ireland," St. Columba being the chief.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 2, chapter 2._

CLONTARF, Battle of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

CLONTARF MEETING, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

CLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1758.

CLOTHAIRE I., King of the Franks, A. D. 511-561.

   Clothaire II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 584-628;
   (Austrasia), 613-622; Burgundy, 613-628.

   Clothaire III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),
   A. D. 660-670.

   Clothaire IV., King of the Franks
   (Austrasia), A. D. 717-719.

CLOVIS, King of the Franks, A. D. 481-511.

   Clovis II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 638-654;
   (Austrasia), 650-654; (Burgundy), 638-654.

   Clovis III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),
   A. D. 691-695.

CLUBS, Ancient Greek.

      See LESCHE, HETÆRIES, ERANI and THIASI.

CLUBS: The Beef Steak.

    "In 1735 there was formed in the capital [London] the
    celebrated Beef Steak Club, or 'Sublime Society of Beef
    Steaks,' as its members always desired to be designated. The
    origin of this club is singular, and was in this wise. Rich,
    a celebrated harlequin, and patentee of Covent Garden Theatre
    in the time of George II., while engaged during the daytime
    in directing and controlling the arrangements of the stage
    scenery was often visited by his friends, of whom he had a
    very numerous circle. One day, while the Earl of Peterborough
    was present, Rich felt the pangs of hunger so keenly that he
    cooked a beef-steak and invited the earl to partake of it,
    which he did, relishing it so greatly that he came again,
    bringing some friends with him on purpose to taste the same
    fare. In process of time the beef-steak dinner became an
    institution. Some of the chief wits and greatest men of the
    nation, to the number of 24, formed themselves into a
    society, and took as their motto 'Steaks and Liberty.' Among
    its early celebrities were Bubb Doddington, Aaron Hill, Dr.
    Hoadley, Richard Glover, the two Colmans, Garrick and John
    Beard. The number of the 'steaks' remained at its original
    limit until 1785, when it was augmented by one, in order to
    secure the admission of the Heir-Apparent."

      _W. C. Sydney,
      England and the English in the 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

CLUBS: The Brothers'.

   In 1711, a political club which took this name was founded in
   London by Henry St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, to
   counteract the "extravagance of the Kit Cat" and "the
   drunkenness of the Beefsteak." "This society … continued for
   some time to restrain the outburst of those elements of
   disunion with which the Harley ministry was so rife. To be a
   member of this club was esteemed a distinguished honour. They
   addressed each other as 'brother'; and we find their ladies in
   their correspondence claiming to be enrolled as sisters. The
   members of this club were the Dukes of Ormond, Shrewsbury,
   Beaufort; the Earls of Oxford, Arran, Jersey, Orrery,
   Bathurst; Lords Harley, Duplin, Masham; Sir Robert Raymond,
   Sir William Windham, Colonel Hill, Colonel Desney, St. John,
   Granville, Arbuthnot, Prior, Swift, and Friend."

      _G. W. Cooke,
      Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

CLUBS:
   The Clichy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

CLUBS:
   The French Revolutionary.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

CLUBS:
   The Hampden.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

CLUBS:
   Dr. Johnson's.

   "During his literary career Dr. Johnson assisted in the
   foundation of no fewer than three clubs, each of which was
   fully deserving of the name. In 1749 he established a club at
   a house in Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row, and only the year before
   he died he drafted a code of rules for a club, of which the
   members should hold their meetings, thrice in each week, at
   the Essex Head in the Strand; an establishment which was then
   kept by a former servant of his old friends the Thrales. Those
   members who failed to put in an appearance at the club were
   required to forfeit the sum of two pence. There is an
   interesting account of one of the meetings of the Ivy Lane
   Club, at which Johnson presided, in Sir John Hawkins's
   biography of him. … The next club with which Johnson became
   acquainted was the most influential of them all, and was the
   one which is now chiefly remembered in connection with his
   name. It was, however, a plant of slow and gradual growth. The
   first meeting of its members, who exulted in the designation
   of 'The Club,' was held in 1763 at a hostelry called the
   Turk's Head, situated in Gerard Street, Soho.
{481}
   'The Club' retained that title until after the funeral of Garrick,
   when it was always known as 'The Literary Club.' As its
   numbers were small and limited, the admission to it was an
   honour greatly coveted in political, legal, and literary
   circles. 'The Club' originated with Sir Joshua Reynolds, then
   President of the Royal Academy, who at first restricted its
   numbers to nine, these being Reynolds himself, Samuel Johnson,
   Edmund Burke, Dr. Christopher Nugent (an accomplished Roman
   Catholic physician), Bennet Langton, Topham Beauclerk, Sir
   John Hawkins, Oliver Goldsmith, and M. Chamier, Secretary in
   the War Office. The members assembled every Monday evening
   punctually at seven o'clock, and, having partaken of an
   inexpensive supper, conversed on literary, scientific and
   artistic topics till the clock indicated the hour of retiring.
   The numbers of the Literary Club were subsequently augmented
   by the enrolment of Garrick, Edward Gibbon, Lord Charlemont,
   Sir William Jones, the eminent Oriental linguist, and James
   Boswell, of biographical fame. Others were admitted from time
   to time, until in 1791 it numbered 35. In December, 1772, the
   day of meeting was altered to Friday, and the weekly suppers
   were commuted to fortnightly dinners during the sitting of
   parliament. Owing to the conversion of the original tavern
   into a private house, the club moved, in 1783, first to
   Prince's, in Sackville Street; next to Le Telier's in Dover
   Street; then, in 1792, to Parsloe's in St. James's Street; and
   lastly, in February, 1799, to the Thatched House Tavern in St.
   James's Street, where it remained until long after 1848."

      _W. C. Sydney,
      England and the English in the 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

CLUBS:
   The King's Head.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

CLUBS:
   The Kit Cat.
   "The Kit Cat Club was instituted in 1699. Its most illustrious
   members were Congreve, Prior, Sir John Vanbrugh, the Earl of
   Orrery, and Lord Somers; but the members becoming more
   numerous, the most violent party obtained the majority, and
   the Earl and his friends were less regular in their
   attendance. … The Kit Cat took its name from a pastry-cook
   [Christopher Katt], whose pies formed a regular dish at the
   suppers of the club."

      _G. W. Cooke,
      Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
      volume 1, chapter 10, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Timbs,
      Clubs and Club Life in London,
      pages 47-53._

      _W. C. Sydney,
      England and the English in the 18th century,
      chapter 6._

CLUBS:
   The Mohocks.

      See MOHOCKS.

CLUBS:
   The October and the March.

   "The October Club came first into importance in the latest
   years of Anne, although it had existed since the last decade
   of the 17th century. The stout Tory squires met together in
   the 'Bell' Tavern, in narrow, dirty King Street, Westminster,
   to drink October ale, under Dahl's portrait of Queen Anne, and
   to trouble with their fierce uncompromising Jacobitism the
   fluctuating purposes of Harley and the crafty counsels of St.
   John. The genius of Swift tempered their hot zeal with the
   cool air of his 'advice.' Then the wilder spirits seceded, and
   formed the March Club, which retained all the angry Jacobitism
   of the parent body, but lost all its importance."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Sydney,
      England and the English in the 18th century,
      chapter 6._

CLUBMEN.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).

CLUGNY, OR CLUNY, The Monastery of.

   The famous monastery of Clugny, or Cluny, was founded A. D.
   910, at Cluny, near Macon, in Burgundy, by the abbot Count
   Berno, who had previously established and ruled the monastery
   of Gigni, near Lyons. It was founded under the auspices and at
   the expense of William, Count of Auvergne, commonly called
   William the Pious. "In the disastrous times which followed the
   death of Charles the Great and the failure of his scheme to
   reorganize the Western world under a single head, the
   discipline of the religious houses fell with everything else;
   fell, not perhaps quite so soon, yet by the end of the ninth
   century had fallen almost as low as it was possible to fall.
   But here symptoms of a moral reaction showed themselves
   earlier than elsewhere. The revival dates from 910, the year
   of the foundation of the Monastery of Clugny in Burgundy,
   which was destined to exercise an enormous influence on the
   future of the Church. While matters at Rome were at their
   worst, there were silently training there the men who should
   inaugurate a new state of things [notably Hildebrand,
   afterwards Pope Gregory VII.] Already, so one said at the
   time, the whole house of the Church was filled with the sweet
   savour of the ointment there poured out. It followed that
   wherever in any religious house there were any aspirations
   after a higher life, any longings for reformation, that house
   affiliated itself to Clugny; thus beginning to constitute a
   Congregation, that is a cluster of religious houses, scattered
   it might be over all Christendom, but owning one rule,
   acknowledging the superiority of one mother house, and
   receiving its abbots and priors from thence. In the Clugnian
   Congregation, for example, there were about two thousand
   houses in the middle of the twelfth century—these mostly in
   France; the Abbot, or Arch-Abbot, as he was called, of Clugny,
   being a kind of Pope of Monasticism, and for a long time, the
   Pope excepted, quite the most influential Church-ruler in
   Christendom."

      _R. C, Trench,
      Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Maitland,
      The Dark Ages,
      chapters 18-26._

      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory, VII.
      book 1._

      _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      chapter 3, section 8._

      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, number 4.

CLUNIAC MONKS.

      See CLUGNY.

CLUSIUM, Battle of (B. C. 83).

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

CLYPEUS, The.

   The round iron shield of the Romans.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107._

CNOSSUS.

      See CRETE.

CNUT.

      See CANUTE.

CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

COAHUILTECAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.

COAJIRO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

COALITION MINISTRY OF FOX AND LORD NORTH.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783; and 1783-1787.

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL);

{482}

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON:
   GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1813 (MAY-AUGUST),
   and FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

COALITIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER);
      1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

COBBLER'S LEAGUE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

COBDEN, Richard, and the Free Trade movement.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
      A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846;
      and TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COBDEN-CHEVALIER COMMERCIAL TREATY, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COBURG, Origination of the Dukedom of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

COCCIUM.

   An important Roman town in Britain, the remains of which are
   supposed to be found at Ribchester.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

COCHIBO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COCHIQUIMA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COCO TRIBES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

COCONOONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

COCOSATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1602.
   Named by Bartholomew Gosnold.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1605.
   Called Cap Blanc by Champlain.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1609.
   Named New Holland by Hudson.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

----------COD, Cape: End----------

CODE NAPOLEON, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

CODES.

      See LAWS, &c.

CODS, The.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      and 1482-1493.

CŒLE-SYRIA.

   "Hollow Syria"—the long, broad, fertile and beautiful valley
   which lies between the Libanus and Antilibanus ranges of
   mountains, and is watered by the Orontes and the Leontes or
   Littany rivers. "Few places in the world are more remarkable,
   or have a more stirring history, than this wonderful vale."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
      chapter 1._

CŒNOBIUM.
CŒNOBITES.

   "The word 'Cœnobium' is equivalent to 'monasterium' in the
   later sense of that word. Cassian distinguishes the word thus.
   'Monasterium,' he says, 'may be the dwelling of a single monk,
   Cœnobium must be of several; the former word,' he adds,
   'expressed only the place, the latter the manner of living.'"

      _I. G. Smith,
      Christian Monasticism,
      page 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquity of the Christian Church,
      book 7, chapter 2, section 3._

COFAN, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COGNOMEN, NOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.

      See GENS, ROMAN.

COHORTS.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

COIMBRA: Early history.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

COLBERT, The System of.
   Colbertism.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).

      Also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

COLCHESTER, Origin of.

   When Cæsar first opened to the Romans some knowledge of
   Britain, the site of modern Colchester was occupied by an
   "oppidum," or fastness of the Trinobantes, which the Romans
   called Camulodunum. A little later, Camulodunum acquired some
   renown as the royal town of the Trinobantine king, or prince,
   Cunobelin,—the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. It was after the
   death of Cunobelin, and when his son Caractacus was king,
   during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that the Romans
   began their actual conquest of Britain. Claudius was present,
   in person, when Camulodunum was taken, and he founded there
   the first Roman colony in the island, calling it Claudiana
   Victricensis. That name was too cumbrous to be preserved; but
   the colonial character of the town caused it to be called
   Colonia-ceaster, the Colonia fortress,—abbreviated, in time,
   to Colne-ceaster, and, finally, to Colchester. The colony was
   destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of their rising, under
   Boadicea, but was reconstituted and grew into an important
   Roman town.

      _C. L. Cutts,
      Colchester,
      chapters 1-6._

COLCHESTER: A. D. 1648.
   The Roundhead siege and capture.

   On the collapse of the Royalist rising of 1648, which produced
   what is called the Second Civil War of the Puritan
   revolutionary period, Colchester received the "wreck of the
   insurrection," so far as London and the surrounding country
   had lately been threatened by it. Troops of cavaliers, under
   Sir Charles Lucas and Lord Capel, having collected in the
   town, were surrounded and beleaguered there by Fairfax, and
   held out against their besiegers from June until late in
   August. "After two months of the most desperate resistance,
   Colchester, conquered by famine and sedition, at last
   surrendered (Aug. 27); and the next day a court-martial
   condemned to death three of its bravest, defenders, Sir
   Charles Lucas, Sir George Lisle, and Sir Bernard Gascoign, as
   an example, it was said, to future rebels who might be tempted
   to imitate them. In vain did the other prisoners, Lord Capel
   at their head, entreat Fairfax to suspend the execution of the
   sentence, or at least that they should all undergo it, since
   all were alike guilty of the offence of these three. Fairfax,
   excited by the long struggle, or rather intimidated by Ireton,
   made no answer, and the condemned officers were ordered to be
   shot on the spot." Gascoign, however, was reprieved at the
   last moment.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of the English Revolution,
      book 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapters 26-27._

----------COLCHESTER: End----------

COLCHIANS, The.

   "The Colchians appear to have been in part independent, in
   part subject to Persia. Their true home was evidently that
   tract of country [on the Euxine] about the river Phasis. …
   Here they first became known to the commercial Greeks, whose
   early dealings in this quarter seem to have given rise to the
   poetic legend of the Argonauts. The limits of Colchis varied
   at different times, but the natural bounds were never greatly
   departed from. They were the Euxine on the east, the Caucasus
   on the north, the mountain range which forms the watershed
   between the Phasis (Rion) and the Cyrus (Kur) on the west, and
   the high ground between Batoum and Kars (the Moschian
   mountains) on the south. … The most interesting question
   connected with the Colchians is that connected with their
   nationality. They were a black race dwelling in the midst of
   whites, and in a country which does not tend to make its
   inhabitants dark complexioned. That they were comparatively
   recent immigrants from a hotter climate seems therefore to be
   certain. The notion entertained by Herodotus of their Egyptian
   extraction appears to have been a conjecture of his own. …
   Perhaps the modern theory that the Colchians were immigrants
   from India is entitled to some share of our attention. … If
   the true Colchi were a colony of blacks, they must have become
   gradually absorbed in the white population proper to the
   country."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 7, appendix. 1._

      See, also, ALARODIANS.

{483}

COLD HARBOR, First and second battles of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
      and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

COLDEN, Cadwallader, The lieutenant-governorship of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774 to 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

COLIGNY, Admiral de,
   The religious wars in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563 to 1572.

   American Colonies.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, 1564-1565, and 1565.

COLLAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

COLLEGIA.

   Numerous associations called "collegia" existed in ancient
   Rome, having various purposes. Some were religious
   associations (collegia templorum); some were organizations of
   clerks or scribes; some were guilds of workmen; some appear to
   have had a political character, although the political clubs
   were more commonly called "sodalitates."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

COLLINE GATE, D'HERBOIS Battle of the (B. C. 83).

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

COLLOT, and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to
      1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

COLMAR, Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

COLMAR, Battle of (1674).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

COLOGNE: Origin.

      See COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.

COLOGNE: The Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

COLOGNE: In the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

----------COLOGNE: End----------

COLOMAN.

      See KOLOMAN.

COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, OR BORNY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

COLOMBIA, United States of.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES.

COLOMBIAN STATES, The.

   This general title will be used, for convenience, to cover,
   for considerable periods of their history, the territory now
   divided between the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and the
   United States of Colombia (formerly New Granada), the latter
   embracing the Isthmus of Panama. The history of these
   countries being for a long time substantially identical in the
   main, and only distinguishable at intervals, it seems to be
   difficult to do otherwise than hold it, somewhat arbitrarily,
   under one heading, until the several currents of events part
   company distinctly.

COLOMBIAN STATES:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHA.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
   The Spanish conquest of New Granada.
   Creation of the new vice-royalty.

   "For some time after the disastrous failure of the attempt of
   Las Casas to found a colony on the Pearl coast of Cumaná, the
   northern portion of Spanish South America, from the Orinoco
   westwards, is almost lost to history. The powers working for
   good had signally failed, and the powers of evil seemed to
   have it almost all their own way. … Lying behind these
   extensive coasts to the westward in the interior, is the
   region to which the Spaniards gave the name of the kingdom of
   New Granada, the name being applied in consequence of a
   resemblance which was detected between the plain around Santa
   Fe de Bogotá and the royal Vega which adjoins the historical
   Moorish capital. New Granada was a most extensive region,
   comprising as it did the entire country from sea to sea in the
   north, lying between 60° and 78° longitude, and from 6° to 15°
   of latitude." The Spanish conquest of New Granada was achieved
   in the main by Ximenes de Quesada, who invaded the country
   from the north, although the governor of Quito, Benalcazar,
   entered it likewise from the south. "Ximenes de Quesada came
   to America about the year 1535, in the suite of the Governor
   of Santa Marta, by whom he was selected to lead an expedition
   against the Chibchas, who dwelt on the plain of Bogotá and
   around the headwaters of the Magdalena. Setting out in April
   1536 with 800 men, he succeeded in pushing his way through the
   forest and across innumerable streams. He contrived to subsist
   for eight months, during which he traversed 450 miles,
   enduring meanwhile the very utmost exertions and privations
   that human nature could support. … When he had surmounted
   the natural difficulties in his path, his remaining force
   consisted of but 166 men, with 60 horses. On March 2d, 1537,
   he resumed his advance; and, as usually happened, the mere
   sight of his horsemen terrified the Indians into submission.
   At Tunja, according to the Spanish historians, he was
   treacherously attacked whilst resting in the palace of one of
   the chiefs. … In any case, the chief was taken, and, after
   much slaughter, Ximenes found himself the absolute possessor
   of immense riches, one golden lantern alone being valued at
   6,000 ducats. From Tunja Ximenes marched upon the sacred city
   of Iraca, where two Spanish soldiers accidentally set fire to
   the great Temple of the Sun. The result was that, after a
   conflagration which lasted several days, both the city and the
   temple were utterly destroyed. … On the 9th of August, 1538,
   was founded the city of Bogotá. Ximenes was soon here joined
   by Frederman, a subject of the Emperor Charles V., with 160
   soldiers, with whom he had been engaged in conquering
   Venezuela; and likewise by Benalcazar, the conqueror of Quito.
   This latter warrior had crossed the continent in triumph at
   the head of 150 Spaniards, together with a multitude of native
   followers."
{484}
   In the intrigues and jealous rivalries between the three which
   followed, Ximenes de Quesada was pushed aside, at first, and
   even fined and banished by the Emperor; but in the end he
   triumphed and was appointed marshal of the kingdom of New
   Granada. "On his return to Bogotá in 1551, he, to his credit,
   exhibited an energy in protecting the people of the country
   against their invaders, equal to that which he had displayed
   in effecting their conquest. Ten years later he commanded a
   force organized to repel an attack from the ruler of
   Venezuela; shortly after which he was appointed Adelantado of
   the Kingdom of New Granada. He devoted three years, and an
   enormous amount of toil and money, to an absurd expedition in
   quest of the fabled El Dorado [see EL DORADO]." Quesada died
   of leprosy in 1572. Until 1718 the kingdom of New Granada
   remained subject to the Viceroy of Peru. In that year the
   Viceroyalty of Peru "was divided into two portions, the
   northern region, from the frontiers of Mexico as far as to the
   Orinoco, and on the Southern Sea from Veragua to Tumbez,
   forming the Viceroyalty of New Granada, of which the capital
   was Bogota. To this region, likewise, was assigned the inland
   province of Quito. The Viceroyalty of New Granada, in fact,
   comprised what now [1884] forms the Republic of Venezuela, the
   United States of Columbia, and the Republic of Equador." In
   1731 "it was deemed expedient to detach from the Viceroyalty
   of New Granada the provinces of Venezuela, Maracaibo, Varinas,
   Cumaná, and Spanish Guyana, and to form them into a separate
   Captain-Generalship, the residence of the ruler being fixed at
   Caracas in Venezuela."

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The struggle for independence and its achievement.
   Miranda and Simon Bolivar.
   The Earthquake in Venezuela.
   The founding of the Republic of Colombia.

   "The Colombian States occupy the first place in the history of
   South American independence. … The Colombian States were
   first in the struggle because they were in many ways nearest
   to Europe. It was through them that intercourse between the
   Pacific coast and Europe was mainly carried on: Porto Bello
   and Carthagena were thus the main inlets of European ideas.
   Besides, there was here constant communication with the West
   Indies; and government, population and wealth were less
   centralised than in the more important viceroyalties of Mexico
   and Peru. The Indians of New Granada had always been a
   restless race, and the increase of taxation which was resorted
   to for the defence of the coast in the war with Great Britain
   (1777-1783) produced discontents among the whole population,
   both red and white. … The French Revolution, coming soon
   afterwards, was another link in the chain of causes. … In
   Venezuela, which the industry of its inhabitants had raised
   from a poor mission district to a thriving commercial
   province, the progress of modern ideas was yet faster. … The
   conquest of Trinidad by England in 1797 gave a new turn to the
   movement. … It was from Trinidad that the first attempts
   were made to excite the Spanish colonists to revolution.
   Francis Miranda, by whom this was done, was a type of many
   other men to whom is due the credit of leading the South
   American peoples to independence. He was a native of Caraccas,
   and when a young man had held a French commission in the
   American War of Independence. On his return to Venezuela in
   1783 he found the populace, as we have already mentioned, in
   an excited state, and finding that he was suspected of designs
   for liberating his own country, he went to Europe, and again
   attached himself to the French service. … Being proscribed
   by the Directory, he turned to England, and … when the war
   [between England and Spain] broke out afresh in 1804, and
   England sent out an expedition to invade Buenos Ayres, Miranda
   believed that his opportunity was come. In 1806, by English
   and American aid, he sailed from Trinidad and landed with 500
   men on the coast of Venezuela. But the 'Colombian Army,' as
   Miranda named it, met with a cool reception among the people.
   His utter inability to meet the Spanish forces compelled him
   to retreat to Trinidad, nor did he reappear on the continent
   until after the revolution of 1810. The principal inhabitants
   of Caraccas had been meditating the formation of a provisional
   government, on the model of the juntas of Spain, ever since
   the abdication of the king [see SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808]; but
   it was not until 1810, when the final victory of Napoleon in
   Spain appeared certain, that they made a decisive movement in
   favour of independence. Spain, for the time at least, was now
   blotted out of the list of nations. Acting, therefore, in the
   name of Ferdinand VII., they deposed the Spanish colonial
   officers, and elected a supreme junta or council. Similar
   juntas were soon established in New Granada, at Santa Fe,
   Quito, Carthagena, and the other chief towns of the
   Viceroyalty … and the fortune of the patriot party in new
   Granada, from their close neighbourhood, was closely linked
   with that of the Venezuelans. The Regency of Cadiz, grasping
   for itself all the rights and powers of the Spanish nation,
   determined to reduce the colonists to subjection. They
   therefore declared the port of Caraccas in a state of
   blockade, as the British government had done in the previous
   generation with that of Boston; and, as in the case of Boston,
   this resolution of the Regency amounted to a declaration of
   war. … A congress of all the provinces of Venezuela now met
   at Caraccas, and published a declaration of independence on
   the 5th of July, 1811, and those of Mexico and New Granada
   soon followed. … The powers of nature seemed to conspire
   with the tyranny of Europe to destroy the young South American
   Republic. On the 26th of March, 1812, Venezuela was visited by
   a fearful earthquake, which destroyed the capital [Caraccas]
   and several other towns, together with 20,000 people, and many
   others perished of hunger and in other ways. This day was Holy
   Thursday; and the superstitious people, prompted by their
   priests, believed this awful visitation to be a judgment from
   God for their revolt. The Spanish troops, under Monteverde,
   now began a fresh attack on the disquieted Venezuelans.
   Miranda, who on his return had been placed at the head of the
   army, had in the meantime overrun New Granada, and laid the
   foundation of the future United States of Colombia. But the
   face of affairs was changed by the news of the earthquake.
   Smitten with despair, his soldiers now deserted to the
   royalists; he lost ground everywhere; the fortress of Puerto
   Cavello, commanded by the great Bolivar, then a colonel in the
   service of the Republic, was surrendered through treachery.
{485}
   On the 25th of June Miranda himself capitulated, with all his
   forces; and Venezuela fell once more into the hands of the
   royalists. Miranda himself was arrested, in defiance of the
   terms of the surrender, and perished in an European dungeon,
   as Toussaint had perished a few years before. … Monteverde
   emptied the prisons of their occupants, and filled them with
   the families of the principal citizens of the republic; and
   Caraccas became the scene of a Reign of Terror. After
   Miranda's capitulation, Bolivar had gone to New Granada, which
   still maintained its independence, and entered into the
   service of that republic. Bolivar now reappeared in a new
   character, and earned for himself a reputation in the history
   of the new world which up to a certain point ranks with that
   of Washington. Simon Bolivar, like Miranda, was a native of
   Caraccas. … Like Miranda, he had to some extent learned
   modern ideas by visiting the old world and the United States.
   When the cruelties of Monteverde had made Venezuela ripe for a
   new revolt, Bolivar reappeared on his native soil at the head
   of a small body of troops from the adjacent republic. The
   successes which he gained so incensed the royalists that they
   refused quarter to their prisoners, and war to the death
   ('guerra a muerte') was proclaimed. All obstacles disappeared
   before Bolivar's generalship, and on the 4th of August, 1813,
   he publicly entered Caraccas, the fortress of Puerto Cavello
   being now the only one in the possession of the royalists.
   Bolivar was hailed with the title of the liberator of
   Venezuela. He was willing to see the republic restored; but
   the inhabitants very properly feared to trust at this time to
   anything but a military government, and vested the supreme
   power in him as dictator (1814). The event indeed proved the
   necessity of a military government. The defeated royalists
   raised fresh troops, many thousands of whom were negro slaves,
   and overran the whole country; Bolivar was beaten at La
   Puerta, and forced to take refuge a second time in New
   Granada; and the capital fell again into the hands of the
   royalists. … The War of Independence had been undertaken
   against the Regency; and had Ferdinand, on his restoration to
   the throne in 1814, shown any signs of conciliation, he might
   yet have recovered his American provinces. But the government
   persisted in its course of absolute repression. … New
   Granada, where Bolivar was general in chief of the forces, was
   the only part where the insurrection survived; and in 1815 a
   fleet containing 10,000 men under General Morillo arrived off
   Carthagena, its principal port. … Carthagena was only
   provisioned for a short time: and Bolivar, overpowered by
   numbers, quitted the soil of the continent and went to the
   West Indies to seek help to relieve Carthagena, and maintain
   the contest for liberty." Obtaining assistance in Hayti, he
   fitted out an expedition "which sailed in April from the port
   of Aux Cayes. Bolivar landed near Cumana, in the eastern
   extremity of Venezuela, and from this point he gradually
   advanced westwards, gaining strength by slow degrees. In the
   meantime, after a siege of 116 days, Carthagena surrendered;
   5,000 of its inhabitants had perished of hunger. Both
   provinces were now in Morillo's hands. Fancying himself
   completely master of the country, he proceeded to wreak a
   terrible vengeance on the Granadines. But at the news of
   Bolivar's reappearance, though yet at a distance, the face of
   affairs changed. … His successes in the year 1817 were sure,
   though slow: in 1818, after he had been joined by European
   volunteers, they were brilliant. Bolivar beat the royalists in
   one pitched battle after another [Sagamoso, July 1, 1819, and
   Pantano de Bargas, July 25]: and at length a decisive victory
   was won by his lieutenant, Santander, at Boyaca, in New
   Granada, August 1, 1819. This battle, in which some hundreds
   of British and French auxiliaries fought on the side of
   liberty, completely freed the two countries from the yoke of
   Spain."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. S. Cochrane,
      Journal of a Residence in Colombia,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8._

      _H. Brownell,
      North and South America Illustrated,
      pages 316-334._

      _C. Cushing,
      Simon Bolivar
      (North American Review, January, 1829, and January, 1830)._

      _H. L. V. D. Holstein,
      Memoirs of Bolivar,
      chapters 3-20._

      _Major Flintner,
      History of the Revolution of Caraccas._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
   The glory and the fall of Bolivar.
   Dissolution of the Colombian Federation.
   Tyranny under the Liberator, and monarchical schemes.

   Three days after the battle of Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota
   in triumph. "A congress met in December and decided that
   Venezuela and Nueva Granada should form one republic, to be
   called Colombia. Morillo departed for Europe in 1820, and the
   victory gained by Bolivar at Carabobo on June 24, 1821,
   decided the fate of Colombia. In the following January General
   Bolivar assembled an army at Popayan to drive the Spaniards
   out of the province of Quito. His second in command, General
   Sucre, led an advanced guard, which was reinforced by a
   contingent of volunteers from Peru, under Santa Cruz. The
   Spanish General Ramirez was entirely defeated in the battle of
   Pichincha, and Quito was incorporated with the new republic of
   Colombia."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Colonial History of South America
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, chapter 5)._

   "The provinces of New Granada and Venezuela, together with the
   Presidency of Quito, now sent delegates to the convention of
   Cucuta, in 1821, and there decreed the union of the three
   countries as a single state by the name of the Republic of
   Colombia. The first Colombian federal constitution was
   concocted by the united wisdom of the delegates; and the
   result might easily have been foreseen. It was a farrago of
   crude and heterogeneous ideas. Some of its features were
   imitated from the American political system, some from the
   English, some from the French. … Bolivar of course became
   President: and the Republic had need of him. The task of
   liberation was not yet completed. Carthagena, and many other
   strong places, remained in Spanish hands. Bolivar reduced
   these one by one, and the second decisive victory of Carabobo,
   in 1822, finally secured Colombian freedom. The English claim
   the chief share in the battle of Carabobo: for the British
   legion alone carried the main Spanish position, losing in the
   feat two-thirds of its numbers. The war now fast drew to its
   close. The republic was able to contest with the invaders the
   dominion of the sea: General Padilla, on the 23rd of July,
   1823, totally destroyed the Spanish fleet: and the Spanish
   commander finally capitulated at Puerto Cavello in December.
{486}
   All these hard-won successes were mainly owing to the bravery
   and resolution of Bolivar. Bolivar deserves to the full the
   reputation of an able and patriotic soldier. He was now set
   free … to render important services to the rest of South
   America: and among the heroes of independence perhaps his name
   will always stand first. But Bolivar the statesman was a man
   very different from Bolivar the general. He was alternately
   timid and arbitrary. He was indeed afraid to touch the
   problems of statesmanship which awaited him: but instead of
   leading the Colombian people through independence to liberty,
   he stubbornly set his face against all measures of political
   or social reform. His fall may be said to have begun with the
   moment when his military triumphs were complete. The
   disaffection to the constitution of the leading people in
   Venezuela and Ecuador [the new name given to the old province
   of Quito, indicating its position at the equator] in 1826 and
   1827, was favoured by the Provincial governors, Paez and
   Mosquera; and Bolivar, instead of resisting the disintegration
   of the state, openly favoured the military dictatorships which
   Paez and Mosquera established. This policy foreshadowed the
   reign of absolutism in New Granada itself. Bolivar … had now
   become not only the constitutional head of the Colombian
   federation, but also the military head of the Peruvian
   republics [see PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and
   1826-1876]: and there can be no doubt that he intended the
   Colombian constitution to be reduced to the Peruvian model. As
   a first step towards reuniting all the South American nations
   under a military government, Paez, beyond reasonable doubt,
   with Bolivar's connivance, proclaimed the independence of
   Venezuela, April 30th, 1826. This practically broke up the
   Colombian federation: and the destruction of the constitution,
   so far as it regarded New Granada itself, soon followed.
   Bolivar had already resorted to the usual devices of military
   tyranny. The terrorism of Sbirri, arbitrary arrests, the
   assumption of additional executive powers, and, finally, the
   suppression of the vice-presidency, all pointed one way. …
   At length, after the practical secession of Venezuela and
   Ecuador under their military rulers, Congress decreed a
   summons for a Convention, which met at Ocaña in March, 1828.
   … The liberals, who were bent on electoral reform and
   decentralization, were paralyzed by the violent bearing of the
   Bolivian leaders: and Bolivar quartered himself in the
   neighbourhood, and threatened the Convention at the head of an
   army of 3,000 veterans. He did not, however, resort to open
   force. Instead of this, he ordered his party to recede from
   the Convention: and this left the Convention without the means
   of making a quorum. From this moment the designs of Bolivar
   were unmistakable. The dissolution of the Convention, and the
   appointment of Bolivar as Dictator, by a junta of notables,
   followed as a matter of course; and by the 'Organic decree' of
   August 1828, Bolivar assumed the absolute sovereignty of
   Colombia. A reign of brute force now followed: but the triumph
   of Bolivar was only ephemeral. … The Federation was gone:
   and it became a question of securing military rule in the
   separate provinces. A portentous change now occurred in
   Ecuador. The democratic party under Flores triumphed over the
   Bolivians under Mosquera: and Paez assured his chief that no
   help was to be expected from Venezuela. At the Convention of
   Bogota, in 1830, though it was packed with Bolivar's nominees,
   it became clear that the liberator's star had set at last. …
   This convention refused to vote him President. Bolivar now
   withdrew from public life: and a few months later, December
   17, 1830, he died broken-hearted at San Pedro, near Santa
   Martha. Bolivar, though a patriot as regarded the struggle
   with Spain, was in the end a traitor to his fellow citizens.
   Recent discoveries leave little doubt that he intended to
   found a monarchy on the ruins of the Spanish dominion. England
   and France, both at this time strongly conservative powers,
   were in favour of such a scheme; and a Prince of the House of
   Bourbon had already been nominated to be Bolivar's successor."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 16._

   "About one month before his death, General Bolivar, the
   so-called 'Liberator' of South America, wrote a letter to the
   late General Flores of Ecuador, in which the following
   remarkable passages occur, which have never before been
   published in the English language: 'I have been in power for
   nearly 20 years, from which I have gathered only a few
   definite results: 1. America, for us, is ungovernable. 2. He
   who dedicates his services to a revolution, plows the sea. 3.
   The only thing that can be done in America, is to emigrate. 4.
   This country will inevitably fall into the hands of the
   unbridled rabble, and little by little become a prey to petty
   tyrants of all colors and races.'"

      _F. Hassaurek,
      Four Years among Spanish-Americans,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Spence,
      The Land of Bolivar,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _E. B. Eastwick,
      Venezuela,
      chapter 11 (Battle of Carabobo)._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
   Emancipation of slaves.

   The abolition of slavery in the three republics of New
   Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador was initiated in the Republic
   of Colombia, while it embraced them all. "By a law of the 21st
   of July, 1821, it was provided that the children of slaves,
   born after its publication in the principal cities of the
   republic, should be free. … Certain revenues were
   appropriated to the creation of an emancipation fund in each
   district. … Aside from a certain bungling looseness with
   which almost all Spanish-American laws are drawn, it [the act
   of 1821] contains some very sensible regulations, and served
   to lay a solid foundation for the work of emancipation, since
   completed by the three republics which then constituted
   Colombia." In Ecuador the completion of emancipation was
   reached in 1854.

      _F. Hassaurek,
      Four Years among Spanish-Americans,
      pages 330-333._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
   The Congress of Panama.

   "The proposition for assembling this body emanated from
   Bolivar, who, in 1823, as president of Colombia, invited the
   governments of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Buenos Ayres, to form
   a confederacy of the Spanish-American states, by means of
   plenipotentiaries to be convened, in the spirit of classic
   analogy, in the isthmus of Panama. To this invitation the
   governments of Peru and Mexico promptly acceded, Chile and
   Buenos Ayres neglected or declined to be represented in the
   assembly, for the reasons which we shall presently state.
{487}
   This magnificent idea of a second Achæan League seized on the
   imaginations of many speculative and of some practical men in
   America and Europe, as destined to create a new era in the
   political history of the world by originating a purer system
   of public law, and almost realizing Bernardin de Saint
   Pierre's league of the modern nations. In its original shape,
   it was professedly a plan of a belligerent nature, having for
   its main object to combine the revolutionized states against
   the common enemy. But time was required for carrying it into
   effect. Meanwhile the project, magnified by the course of
   events, began to change its complexion. The United States were
   invited to participate in the Congress, so as to form an
   American policy, and a rallying point for American interests,
   in opposition to those of Europe; and, after the discussions
   which are so familiar to all, the government of the United
   States accepted the invitation, and despatched its
   representatives to Panama. … In the interval, between the
   proposal of the plan and its execution, Central America was
   added to the family of American nations, and agreed to take
   part in the Congress. At length, after many delays, this
   modern Amphictyonic Council, consisting of plenipotentiaries
   from Colombia, Central America, Peru and Mexico, assembled in
   the city of Panama, June 22, 1826, and in a session of three
   weeks concluded various treaties; one of perpetual union,
   league, and confederation; others relating to the contingents
   which the confederates should contribute for the common
   defence; and another for the annual meeting of the Congress in
   time of war. Having thus promptly despatched their private
   affairs, the assembly adjourned to Tacubaya in Mexico, on
   account of the insalubrious climate of Panama, before the
   delegation of the United States had arrived; since when it has
   justly acquired the epithet of 'introuvable,' and probably
   never will reassemble in its original form. Is there not a
   secret history of all this? Why did Chile and Buenos Ayres
   refuse to participate in the Congress? Why has it now vanished
   from the face of the earth? The answer given in South America
   is, that Bolivar proposed the assembly as part of a grand
   scheme of ambition,—ascribed to him by the republican party,
   and not without some countenance from his own conduct,—for
   establishing a military empire to embrace the whole of
   Spanish-America, or at least an empire uniting Colombia and
   the two Perus. To give the color of plausibility to the
   projected assembly, the United States were invited to be
   represented; and it is said Bolivar did not expect, nor very
   graciously receive, their acceptance of the invitation."

      _C. Cushing,
      Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
      (North American Review, January, 1830)._

   In the United States "no question, in its day, excited more
   heat and intemperate discussion, or more feeling between a
   President and Senate, than this proposed mission to the
   Congress of American nations at Panama; and no heated question
   ever cooled off and died out so suddenly and completely. …
   Though long since sunk into oblivion, and its name almost
   forgotten, it was a master subject on the political theatre
   during its day; and gave rise to questions of national and of
   constitutional law, and of national policy, the importance of
   which survive the occasion from which they sprung; and the
   solution of which (as then solved), may be some guide to
   future action, if similar questions again occur. Besides the
   grave questions to which the subject gave rise, the subject
   itself became one of unusual and painful excitement. It
   agitated the people, made a violent debate in the two Houses
   of Congress, inflamed the passions of parties and individuals,
   raised a tempest before which Congress bent, made bad feeling
   between the President [John Quincy Adams] and the Senate; and
   led to the duel between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay. It was an
   administration measure, and pressed by all the means known to
   an administration. It was evidently relied upon as a means of
   acting upon the people—as a popular movement which might have
   the effect of turning the tide which was then running high
   against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. … Now, the chief benefit to
   be derived from its retrospect—and that indeed is a real
   one—is a view of the firmness with which was then maintained,
   by a minority, the old policy of the United States, to avoid
   entangling alliances and interference with the affairs of
   other nations;—and the exposition of the Monroe doctrine,
   from one so competent to give it as Mr. Adams."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      chapter 25 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Tucker,
      The Monroe Doctrine,
      chapter 3._

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      _International American Conference (of 1889):
      Reports and Discussions,
      volume 4, History appendix._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.
   Revolutions and civil wars.
   The New Confederation (1863) of the United States of Colombia.
   The Republic of Colombia.

   "New Granada was obliged in 1830 to recognize the disruption
   of Colombia, which had long been an accomplished fact. From
   this date the three states have a separate history, which is
   very much of a piece, though Venezuela was for some years
   preserved from the intestine commotions which have from the
   beginning distracted New Granada and Ecuador. … Mosquera,
   who had won the election which decided the fate of Bolivar did
   not long occupy the presidency. … Mosquera was soon driven
   out by General Urdanete, who was now at the head of the
   conservative or Bolivian party. But after the death of their
   leader, this party suffered a natural relapse, and Urdanete
   was overthrown early in 1831. The history of New Granada may
   be said really to commence with the presidency of Bolivar's
   old rival and companion in arms, Santander, who was elected
   under the constitution of 1832. … His presidency … was a
   comparatively bright episode: and with its termination in 1836
   begins the dark and troubled period which the Granadines
   emphatically designate by the name of the 'Twelve Years.' The
   scanty measure of liberalism which Santander had dealt out to
   the people was now withdrawn. Marquez, his successor, was a
   sceptic in politics and a man of infirm will. … Now began
   the ascendancy of clericalism, of absolutist oligarchy, and of
   government by the gallows. This same system continued under
   President Herran, who was elected in 1841; and then appeared
   on the scene, as his chief minister, the famous Dr. Ospina,"
   who brought back the Jesuits and curtailed the constitution.
   Liberalism again gained ground, electing General Lopez to the
   presidency in 1849 find once more expelling the Jesuits. In
   April 1854 a radical revolution overturned the constitution
   and President Obando was declared dictator. The conservatives
   rallied, however, and regained possession of the government
   before the close of the year.
{488}
   In 1857 Ospina entered on the presidency and civil war soon
   raged throughout the country. "After a hundred fights the
   revolution triumphed in July, 1861. … Mosquera, who was now
   in possession of the field, was a true pupil of Bolivar's, and
   he thought the time had come for reviving Bolivar's plans. …
   In 1863 Mosquera's new Federal Constitution was proclaimed.
   Henceforth each State [of the eight federal States into which
   the 44 provinces of New Granada were divided] became
   practically independent under its own President; and to mark
   the change the title of the nation was altered. At first it
   was called the Granadine Confederation: but it afterwards took
   the name of Colombia [the United States of Colombia], which
   had formerly been the title of the larger Confederation under
   Bolivar. Among the most important facts in recent Colombian
   history is the independence of the State of Panama, which has
   become of great importance through the construction of the
   railway connecting the port of Colon, or Aspinwall, as it was
   named by the Americans, on the Atlantic, with that of Panama
   on the Pacific. This rail way was opened in 1855; and in the
   same year Panama declared itself a sovereign state. The State
   of Panama, after many years of conservative domination, has
   now perhaps the most democratic government in the world. The
   President is elected for two years only, and is incapable of
   re-election. Panama has had many revolutions of its own; nor
   has the new Federal Constitution solved all the difficulties
   of the Granadine government. In 1867 Mosquera was obliged to
   have recourse to a coup d'état, and declared himself dictator,
   but he was soon afterwards arrested; a conservative revolution
   took place; Mosquera was banished; and Gutierrez became
   President. The liberals, however, came back the next year,
   under Ponce. Since 1874 [the date of writing being 1879],
   General Perez has been President of Colombia."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 16._

   "The federal Constitution of 1863 was clearly formed on the
   model of the Constitution of the United States of America. It
   remained in force until 1886, when it was superseded by a law
   which gave the State a centralized organization and named it
   the 'Republic of Colombia.'"

      _Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, with
      Historical Introduction by B. Moses (Supplement to Annals
      of American Academy of Political and Social Science,
      January, 1893)._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1885-1891.
   The Revolution of 1885.
   The constitution of 1886.
   The presidency of Dr. Nuñez.

   "Cartagena is virtually the centre of political power in
   Colombia, for it is the residence of President Nuñez, a
   dictator without the name. Before the revolution of 1885,
   during which Colon was burned and the Panama Railway protected
   by American marines, the States enjoyed a large measure of
   home rule. The insurgents who were defeated in that struggle
   were Radicals and advanced Liberals. They were making a stand
   against centralized government, and they were overthrown. When
   the followers of Dr. Nuñez were victorious, they transformed
   the constitutional system of the country. … Dr. Nuñez, who
   had entered public life as a Radical agitator, swung
   completely around the circle. As the leader of the National
   party he became the ally of Clericalism, and the defender of
   ecclesiastical privilege. Being a man of unrivalled capacity
   for directing public affairs and enforcing party discipline,
   he has established a highly centralized military government
   without incurring unpopularity by remaining constantly in
   sight and openly exercising authority. … Strong government
   has not been without its advantages; but the system can hardly
   be considered either republican or democratic. … Of all the
   travesties of popular government which have been witnessed in
   Spanish America, the political play enacted in Bogotá and
   Cartagena is the most grotesque. Dr. Nuñez is known as the
   titular President of the Republic. His practice is to go to
   the capital at the beginning of the presidential term, and
   when he has taken the oath of office to remain there a few
   weeks until all matters of policy and discipline are arranged
   among his followers. He then retires to his country-seat in
   Cartagena, leaving the vice-President to bear the burdens of
   state."

      _I. N. Ford,
      Tropical America,
      chapter 12._

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1892.
   Re-election of President Nuñez.

   In 1892, Dr. Rafael Nuñez was elected President for a fourth
   term, the term of office being six years.

      _Statesman's Year-book, 1893._

----------COLOMBIAN STATES: End----------

COLONI.

      See DEDITITIUS.

COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.

   Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus and the mother of Nero,
   founded on the Rhine the Colonia Agrippinensis (modern
   Cologne)—probably the only colony of Roman veterans ever
   established under female auspices. The site had been
   previously occupied by a village of the Ubii. "It is curious
   that this abnormal colony has, alone, of all its kindred
   foundations, retained to the present day the name of Colonia."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 50._

COLONIA, URUGUAY.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

COLONIZATION SOCIETY, The American.

      See SLAVERY, Negro: A. D. 1816-1847.

COLONNA, The.

      See Roman: 13TH-14TH CENTURIES,
      and A. D. 1347-1354;
      also PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

COLONUS, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

COLORADO: A. D. 1803-1848.
   Acquisition of the eastern part in the Louisiana Purchase and
   the western part from Mexico.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803; and MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.
   Early explorations.
   Gold discoveries.
   Territorial and state organization.

   The first American explorer to penetrate to the mountains of
   Colorado was Lieutenant Zebulon Pike, sent out with a small
   party by General Wilkinson, in 1806. He approached within 15
   miles of the Rocky Mountain Peak which bears his name. A more
   extensive official exploration of the country was made in 1819
   by Major Stephen H. Long, whose report upon the whole region
   drained by the Missouri, Arkansas and Platte rivers and their
   tributaries was unfavorable and discouraging. Fremont's
   explorations, which touched Colorado, were made in 1843-44.
   "The only persons encountered in the Rocky mountains by
   Frémont at this time were the few remaining traders and their
   former employees, now their colonists, who lived with their
   Mexican and Indian wives and half-breed children in a
   primitive manner of life, usually under the protection of some
   defensive structure called a fort.
{489}
   The first American families in Colorado were a part of the
   Mormon battalion of 1846, who, with their wives and children,
   resided at Pueblo from September to the spring and summer of
   the following year, when they joined the Mormon emigration to
   Salt Lake. … Measures were taken early in March, 1847, to
   select locations for two United States forts between the
   Missouri and the Rocky mountains, the sites selected being
   those now occupied by Kearney City and Fort Laramie. … Up to
   1853 Colorado's scant population still lived in or near some
   defensive establishment, and had been decreasing rather than
   increasing for the past decade, owing to the hostility of the
   Indians." In 1858 the first organized searching or prospecting
   for gold in the region was begun by a party of Cherokee
   Indians and whites. Other parties soon followed; the search
   succeeded; and the Pike's Peak mining region was speedily
   swarming with eager adventurers. In the fall of 1858 two rival
   towns were laid out on the opposite sides of Cherry Creek.
   They were named respectively Auraria and Denver. The struggle
   for existence between them was bitter, but brief. Auraria
   succumbed and Denver survived, to become the metropolis of the
   Mountains. The first attempt at political organization was
   made at the Auraria settlement, in November, 1858, and took
   the form of a provisional territorial organization, under the
   name of the Territory of Jefferson; but the provisional
   government did not succeed in establishing its authority,
   opposed as it was by conflicting claims to territorial
   jurisdiction on the part of Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,
   Nebraska, and Dakota. At length, on the 28th of February,
   1861, an act of Congress became law, by which the proposed new
   territory was duly created, but not bearing the name of
   Jefferson. "The name of Colorado was given to it at the
   suggestion of the man selected for its first governor. …
   'Some,' says Gilpin, 'wanted it called Jefferson, some
   Arcadia. … I said the people have to a great extent named
   the States after the great rivers of the country … and the
   great feature of that country is the great Colorado river.'"
   Remaining in the territorial condition until July 1876,
   Colorado was then admitted to the Union as a state.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 20: Colorado, chapter 2-6._

----------COLORADO: End----------

COLOSSEUM, OR COLISEUM, The.

   "The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, was built by
   Vespasian and Titus in the lowest part of the valley between
   the Cælean and Esquiline Hills, which was then occupied by a
   large artificial pool for naval fights ('Naumachia'). … The
   exact date of the commencement of the Colosseum is doubtful,
   but it was opened for use in A. D. 80. … As built by the
   Flavian Emperors the upper galleries ('mœniani') were of wood,
   and these, as in the case of the Circus Maximus, at many times
   caught fire from lightning and other causes, and did much
   damage to the stone-work of the building."

      _J. H. Middleton,
      Ancient Rome in 1885,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Parker,
      Archaeology of Rome,
      part 7._

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 9, part 2._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 70-96.

COLOSSUS OF RHODES.

      See RHODES.

COLUMBAN CHURCH, The.

   The church, or the organization of Christianity, in Scotland,
   which resulted from the labors of the Irish missionary,
   Columba, in the sixth century, and which spread from the great
   monastery that he founded on the little island of Iona, or Ia,
   or Hii, near the greater island of Mull. The church of
   Columba, "not only for a time embraced within its fold the
   whole of Scotland north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and
   was for a century and a half the national church of Scotland,
   but was destined to give to the Angles of Northumbria the same
   form of Christianity for a period of thirty years." It
   represented some differences from the Roman church which two
   centuries of isolation had produced in the Irish church, from
   which it sprang.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 9 (volume 3)._

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Celts,
      chapters 7-10._

      See CHRISTIANITY: 5TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 597-800.

COLUMBIA, The District of.

      See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1850.
   Abolition of slave-trade in.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1867.
   Extension of suffrage to the Negroes.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (JANUARY).

----------COLUMBIA, The District of: End----------

COLUMBIA, S. C., The burning of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

COLUMBIA, Tennessee., Engagement at.

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

COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, The World's.

      See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.
      also  _C. D. Arnold, Author H. D. Higinbotham,
      Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition,
      http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847_

COLUMBIAN ORDER, The.

      See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

COLUMBUS, Voyages of.

      See AMERICA: A. D.1484-1492; 1492; 1493-1496; 1498-1505.

COMANA.

   Comana, an ancient city of Cappadocia, on the river Sarus
   (Sihoon) was the seat of a priesthood, in the temple of Enyo,
   or Bellona, so venerated, so wealthy and so powerful that the
   chief priest of Comana counted among the great Asiatic
   dignitaries in the time of Cæsar.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 22._

COMANCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      SNOSHONEAN FAMILY, and KIOWAN FAMILY,
      and APACHE GROUP.

COMANS, The.

      See KIPCHAKS; PATCHINAKS; COSSACKS,
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

COMBAT, Judicial.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

COMES LITTORIS SAXONICI.

      See SAXON SHORE, COUNT OF.

COMES PALATII.

      See PALATINE COUNTS.

COMITATUS.
COMITES.
GESITHS.
THEGNS.

   Comitatus is the name given by Tacitus to a body of warlike
   companions among the ancient Germans "who attached themselves
   in the closest manner to the chieftain of their choice. They
   were in many cases the sons of the nobles who were ambitious
   of renown or of a perfect education in arms. The princeps
   provided for them horses, arms, and such rough equipment as
   they wanted. These and plentiful entertainment were accepted
   instead of wages. In time of war the comites fought for their
   chief, at once his defenders and the rivals of his prowess.
   … In the times of forced and unwelcome rest they were
   thoroughly idle; they cared neither for farming nor for
   hunting, but spent the time in feasting and in sleep. …
{490}
   Like the Frank king, the Anglo-Saxon king seems to have
   entered on the full possession of what had been the right of
   the elective principes [to nominate and maintain a comitatus,
   to which he could give territory and political power]: but the
   very principle of the comitatus had undergone a change from
   what it was in the time of Tacitus, when it reappears in our
   historians, and it seems to have had in England a peculiar
   development and a bearing of special importance on the
   constitution. In Tacitus the comites are the personal
   following of the princeps; they live in his house, are
   maintained by his gifts, fight for him in the field. If there
   is little difference between companions and servants, it is
   because civilization has not yet introduced voluntary
   helplessness. … Now the king, the perpetual princeps and
   representative of the race, conveys to his personal following
   public dignity and importance. His gesiths and thegns are
   among the great and wise men of the land. The right of having
   such dependents is not restricted to him, but the gesith of
   the ealdorman or bishop is simply a retainer, a pupil or a
   ward: the free household servants of the ceorl are in a
   certain sense his gesiths also. But the gesiths of the king
   are his guard and private council; they may be endowed by him
   from the folkland and admitted by him to the witenagemot. …
   The Danish huscarls of Canute are a late reproduction of what
   the familia of the Northumbrian kings must have been in the
   eighth century. … The development of the comitatus into a
   territorial nobility seems to be a feature peculiar to English
   history. … The Lombard gasind, and the Bavarian sindman were
   originally the same thing as the Anglo-Saxon gesith. But they
   sank into the general mass of vassalage as it grew up in the
   ninth and tenth centuries. … Closely connected with the
   gesith is the thegn; so closely that it is scarcely possible
   to see the difference except in the nature of the employment.
   The thegn seems to be primarily the warrior gesith; in this
   idea Alfred uses the word as translating the 'miles' of Bede.
   He is probably the gesith who has a particular military duty
   in his master's service: But he also appears as a landowner.
   The ceorl who has acquired five hides of land, and a special
   appointment in the king's hall, with other judicial rights,
   becomes thegn-worthy. … And from this point, the time of
   Athelstan, the gesith is lost sight of, except very
   occasionally; the more important members of the class having
   become thegns, and the lesser sort sinking into the ranks of
   mere servants to the king. The class of thegns now widens; on
   the one hand the name is given to all who possess the proper
   quantity of land, whether or no they stand in the old relation
   to the king; on the other the remains of the old nobility
   place themselves in the king's service. The name of thegn
   covers the whole class which after the Conquest appears under
   the name of knights, with the same qualification in land and
   nearly the same obligations. It also carried so much of
   nobility as is implied in hereditary privilege. The thegn-born
   are contrasted with the ceorl-born; and are perhaps much the
   same as the gesithcund. … Under the name of thegn are
   included however various grades of dignity. The class of
   king's thegns is distinguished from that of the medial thegns,
   and from a residuum that falls in rank below the latter. …
   The very name, like that of the gesith, has different senses
   in different ages and kingdoms; but the original idea of
   military service runs through all the meanings of thegn, as
   that of personal association is traceable in all the
   applications of gesith."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 2, section 14
      and chapter 6, sections 63-65._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 7._

      See, also, COUNT AND DUKE.

COMITIA CENTURIATA.

   "Under the original constitution of Rome, the patricians alone
   … enjoyed political rights in the state, but at the same
   time they were forced to bear the whole burden of political
   duties. In these last were included, for example, the tilling
   of the king's fields, the construction of public works and
   buildings; … citizens alone, also, were liable to service in
   the army. … The political burdens, especially those
   connected with the army, grew heavier, naturally, as the power
   of Rome increased, and it was seen to be an injustice that one
   part of the people, and that, too, the smaller part, should
   alone feel their weight. This led to the first important
   modification of the Roman constitution, which was made even
   before the close of the regal period. According to tradition,
   its author was the king Servius Tullius, and its general
   object was to make all men who held land in the state liable
   to military service. It thus conferred no political rights on
   the plebeians, but assigned to them their share of political
   duties. … According to tradition, all the freeholders in the
   city between the ages of 17 and 60, with some exceptions, were
   divided, without distinction as to birth, into five classes
   ('classis,' 'a summoning,' 'calo') for service in the infantry
   according to the size of their estates. Those who were
   excepted served as horsemen. These were selected from among
   the very richest men in the state. … Of the five classes of
   infantry, the first contained the richest men. … The members
   of the first class were required to come to the battle array
   in complete armor, while less was demanded of the other four.
   Each class was subdivided into centuries or bodies of a
   hundred men each, for convenience in arranging the army. There
   were in all 193 centuries. … This absolute number and this
   apportionment were continued, as the population increased and
   the distribution of wealth altered, until the name century
   came to have a purely conventional meaning, even if it had any
   other in the beginning. Henceforth a careful census was taken
   every fourth year, and all freeholders were made subject to
   the 'tributum.' The arrangement of the people thus described
   was primarily made simply for military purposes. …
   Gradually, however, this organization came to have political
   significance, until finally these men, got together for what
   is the chief political duty in a primitive state, enjoyed what
   political privileges there were. … In the end, this
   'exercitus' of Servius Tullius formed another popular
   assembly, the Comitia Centuriata, which supplanted the comitia
   curiata entirely, except in matters connected with the
   religion of the family and very soon of purely formal
   significance. This organization, therefore, became of the
   highest civil importance, and was continued for civil purposes
   long after the army was marshalled on quite another plan."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 1_

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 4._

{491}

COMITIA CURIATA.

   "In the beginning, any member of any one of the clans which
   were included in the three original Roman tribes, was a Roman
   citizen. So, too, were his children born in lawful wedlock,
   and those who were adopted by him according to the forms of
   law. Illegitimate children, on the other hand, were excluded
   from the number of citizens. These earliest Romans called
   themselves patricians (patricii, children of their fathers'),
   for some reason about which we cannot be sure. Perhaps it was
   in order to distinguish themselves from their illegitimate
   kinsmen and from such other people as lived about, having no
   pretense of blood connection with them, and who were,
   therefore, incapable of contracting lawful marriages,
   according to the patrician's view of this religious ceremony.
   The patricians … were grouped together in families, clans
   and tribes, partly on the basis of blood relationship, but
   chiefly on the basis of common religious worship. Besides
   these groups, there was still another in the state, the curia,
   or 'ward,' which stood between the clan and the tribe. In the
   earliest times, tradition said, ten families formed a clan,
   ten clans a curia and ten curiæ a tribe. These numbers, if
   they ever had any historical existence, could not have
   sustained themselves for any length of time in the case of the
   clans and families, for such organisms of necessity would
   increase and decrease quite irregularly. About the nature of
   the curia we have practically no direct information. The
   organization had become a mere name at an early period in the
   city's history. Whether the members of a curia thought of
   themselves as having closer kinship with one another than with
   members of other curiæ is not clear. We know, however, that
   the curiæ were definite political sub-divisions of the city,
   perhaps like modern wards, and that each curia had a common
   religious worship for its members' participation. Thus much,
   at any rate, is significant, because it has to do with the
   form of Rome's primitive popular assembly. When the king
   wanted to harangue the people ('populus,' cf. 'populor,' 'to
   devastate') he called them to a 'contio' (compounded of 'co'
   and 'venio'). But if he wanted to propose to them action which
   implied a change in the organic law of the state, he summoned
   them to a comitia (compounded of 'con' and 'eo'). To this the
   name comitia curiata was given, because its members voted by
   curiæ. Each curia had one vote, the character of which was
   determined by a majority of its members, and a majority of the
   curiæ decided the matter for the comitia."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      _F. De Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 3, chapter 1,
      and book 4 chapter 1._

      See, also, COMITIA CENTURIATA, and CONTIONES.

COMITIA TRIBUTA, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

COMMAGENE, Kingdom of.

   A district of northern Syria, between Cilicia and the
   Euphrates, which acquired independence during the disorders
   which broke up the empire of the Seleucidæ, and was a separate
   kingdom during the last century B. C. It was afterwards made a
   Roman province. Its capital was Samosata.

COMMENDATION.

      See BENEFICIUM

COMMERCIUM.

      See MUNICIPIUM.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
   The French Revolutionary.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
      and (JUNE-OCTOBER).

COMMITTEE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MATCH: VIRGINIA).

COMMODUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 180-192.

COMMON LAW, English.

   "The municipal law of England, or the rule of civil conduct
   prescribed to the inhabitants of this kingdom, may with
   sufficient propriety be divided into two kinds; the 'lex non
   scripta,' the unwritten or common law; and the 'lex scripta,'
   the written or statute law. The 'lex non scripta,' or
   unwritten law, includes not only general customs, or the
   common law properly so called, but also the particular customs
   of certain parts of the kingdom; and likewise those particular
   laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and
   jurisdictions. When I call these parts of our law 'leges non
   scriptre,' I would not be understood as if all those laws were
   at present merely oral, or communicated from the former ages
   to the present solely by word of mouth. … But, with us at
   present, the monuments and evidences of our legal customs are
   contained in the records of the several courts of justice, in
   books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises
   of learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down
   to us from the times of highest antiquity. However, I
   therefore style these parts of our law 'leges non scriptre,'
   because their original institution and authority are not set
   down in writing, as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive
   their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and
   immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout
   the kingdom."

      _Sir W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries on the Laws of England.
      introduction, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. S. Maine,
      Ancient Law,
      chapter 1._

      _J. N. Pomeroy,
      Introduction to Municipal Law,
      sections 37-42._

COMMON LOT, OR COMMON LIFE, Brethren of the.

      See BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT.

"COMMON SENSE" (Paine's Pamphlet),
   The influence of.

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

COMMONS, The.

      See ESTATES, THE THREE.

COMMONS, House of.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,
      and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND, Establishment of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

COMMUNE, The.

   The commonalty; the commons. In feudal usage, the term
   signified, as defined by Littré, the body of the bourgeois or
   burghers of a town who had received a charter which gave them
   rights of self-government. "In France the communal
   constitution was during this period (12th century) encouraged,
   although not very heartily, by Lewis VI., who saw in it one
   means of fettering the action of the barons and bishops and
   securing to himself the support of a strong portion of his
   people. In some cases the commune of France is, like the
   guild, a voluntary association, but its objects are from the
   first more distinctly political. In some parts of the kingdom
   the towns had risen against their lords in the latter half of
   the eleventh century, and had retained the fruits of their
   hard-won victories.
{492}
   In others, they possessed, in the
   remaining fragments of the Karolingian constitution, some
   organisation that formed a basis for new liberties. The great
   number of charters granted in the twelfth century shows that
   the policy of encouraging the third estate was in full sway in
   the royal councils, and the king by ready recognition of the
   popular rights gained the affections of the people to an
   extent which has few parallels in French history. The French
   charters are in both style and substance very different from
   the English. The liberties which are bestowed are for the most
   part the same, exemption from arbitrary taxation, the right to
   local jurisdiction, the privilege of enfranchising the villein
   who has been for a year and a day received within the walls,
   and the power of electing the officers. But whilst all the
   English charters contain a confirmation of free and good
   customs, the French are filled with an enumeration of bad
   ones. … The English have an ancient local constitution the
   members of which are the recipients of the new grant, and
   guilds of at least sufficient antiquity to render their
   confirmation typical of the freedom now guaranteed; French
   communia is a new body which, by the action of a sworn
   confederacy, has wrung from its oppressors a deliverance from
   hereditary bondage. … The commune lacks too the ancient
   element of festive religious or mercantile association which
   is so conspicuous in the history of the guild. The idea of the
   latter is English, that of the former is French or Gallic. Yet
   notwithstanding these differences, the substantial identity of
   the privileges secured by these charters seems to prove the
   existence of much international sympathy. The ancient
   liberties of the English were not unintelligible to the
   townsmen of Normandy; the rising freedom of the German cities
   roused a corresponding ambition in the towns of Flanders; and
   the struggles of the Italian municipalities awoke the energies
   of the cities of Provence. All took different ways to win the
   same liberties. … The German Hansa may have been derived
   from England; the communa of London was certainly derived from
   France. … The communa of London, and of those other English
   towns which in the twelfth century aimed at such a
   constitution, was the old English guild in a new French garb:
   it was the ancient association, but directed to the attainment
   of municipal rather than mercantile privileges."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional  History of England,
      chapter 11._

   "Oppression and insurrection were not the sole origin of the
   communes. … Two causes, quite distinct from feudal
   oppression, viz., Roman traditions and Christian sentiments,
   had their share in the formation of the communes and in the
   beneficial results thereof. The Roman municipal regimen, which
   is described in M. Guizot's 'Essais sur l'Histoire de France'
   (1st Essay, pages 1-44), [also in 'History of Civilization,' volume
   2, lecture 2] did not every where perish with the Empire; it
   kept its footing in a great number of towns, especially in
   those of Southern Gaul."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 5._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125;
      also, CURIA, MUNICIPAL,
      and GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

COMMUNE, The Flemish.

      See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

COMMUNE OF PARIS,
   The Revolutionary, of 1792.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST).

   The rebellion of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

----------COMMUNE OF PARIS: End----------

COMMUNE, The Russian.

      See MIR.

COMMUNE, The Swiss.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

COMMUNEROS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

COMNENIAN DYNASTY.

   The dynasty of Byzantine emperors founded, A. D. 1081, by
   Alexius Comnenos, and consisting of Alexius I., John II.,
   Manuel 1., Alexius II., and Andronicus I., who was murdered A.
   D. 1185.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

COMPAGNACCI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

COMPASS, Introduction of the Mariner's.

   "It is perhaps impossible to ascertain the epoch when the
   polarity of the magnet was first known in Europe. The common
   opinion which ascribes its discovery to a citizen of Amalfi in
   the 14th century, is undoubtedly erroneous. Guiot de Provins,
   a French poet who lived about the year 1200, or, at the
   latest, under St. Louis, describes it in the most unequivocal
   language. James de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine, before the
   middle of the 13th century, and Guido Guinizzelli, an Italian
   poet of the same time, are equally explicit. The French, as
   well as Italians, claim the discovery as their own; but
   whether it were due to either of these nations, or rather
   learned from their intercourse with the Saracens, is not
   easily to be ascertained. … It is a singular circumstance,
   and only to be explained by the obstinacy with which men are
   apt to reject improvements, that the magnetic needle was not
   generally adopted in navigation till very long after the
   discovery of its properties, and even after their peculiar
   importance had been perceived. The writers of the 13th
   century, who mention the polarity of the needle, mention also
   its use in navigation; yet Capmany has found no distinct proof
   of its employment till 1403, and does not believe that it was
   frequently on board Mediterranean ships at the latter part of
   the preceding age."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 2, with note._

   "Both Chaucer, the English, and Barbour, the Scottish, poet,
   allude familiarly to the compass in the latter part of the
   14th century."

      _G. L. Craik,
      History of British Commerce,
      volume 1, page 138._

   "We have no certain information of the directive tendency of
   the natural magnet being known earlier than the middle or end
   of the 11th century (in Europe, of course). … That it was
   known at this date and its practical value recognized, is
   shown by a passage from an Icelandic historian, quoted by
   Hanstien in his treatise of Terrestrial Magnetism. In this
   extract an expedition from Norway to Iceland in the year 868
   is described; and it is stated that three ravens were taken as
   guides, for, adds the historian, 'in those times seamen had no
   loadstone in the northern countries.' This history was written
   about the year A. D. 1068, and the allusion I have quoted
   obviously shows that the author was aware of natural magnets
   having been employed as a compass. At the same time it fixes a
   limit of the discovery in northern countries. We find no
   mention of artificial magnets being so employed till about a
   century later."

      _Sir W. Thompson,
      quoted by R. F. Burton in Ultima Thule,
      volume 1, page 312._

{493}

COMPIEGNE: Capture of the Maid of Orleans (1430).

      See FRANCE. A. D. 1429-1431.

COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

COMPROMISE, The Crittenden.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

COMPROMISE, The Flemish, of 1565.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

COMPROMISE, The Missouri.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

COMPROMISE TARIFF OF 1833, The.

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

COMPURGATION.

   Among the Teutonic and other peoples, in early times, one
   accused of a crime might clear himself by his own oath,
   supported by the oaths of certain compurgators, who bore
   witness to his trustworthiness.

      See WAGER OF LAW.

COMSTOCK LODE, Discovery of the.

      See NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.

COMUM, Battle of (B. C. 196).

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

CONCIONES, The Roman.

      See CONTIONES, THE.

CONCON, Battle of (1891).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

CONCORD.
   Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

CONCORDAT OF NAPOLEON, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

CONCORDAT OF 1813, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

CONDÉ, The first Prince Louis de, and the French wars of religion.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, and 1563-1570.

CONDÉ, The Second Prince Louis de (called The Great).
   Campaigns in the Thirty Years War, and the war with Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; 1643;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644.

   In the wars of the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.

   Campaigns against France in the service of Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656, and 1655-1658.

   Last campaigns.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674 and 1674-1678.

CONDÉ, The House of.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

CONDÉ: A. D. 1793.-Siege and capture by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CONDÉ: A. D. 1794.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

----------CONDÉ: End----------

CONDORE, OR KONDUR, Battle of (1758).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

CONDOTTIERE.

   In the general meaning of the word, a conductor or leader;
   applied specially, in Italian history, to the professional
   military leaders of the 13th and 14th centuries, who made a
   business of war very much as a modern contractor makes a
   business of railroad construction, and who were open to
   engagement, with the troops at their command, by any prince,
   or any free city whose offers were satisfactory.

CONDRUSI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

CONESTOGAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

CONFEDERACY OF DELOS, OR THE DELIAN.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477,
      and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
   Constitution and organization of the government.

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

CONFEDERATION, Articles of (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.

CONFEDERATION, Australian.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.

CONFEDERATION, The Germanic,
   of 1814.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

   Of 1870.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONFEDERATION, The North German.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

CONFEDERATION, The Swiss.

      See SWITZERLAND.

CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH AMERICAN PROVINCES.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

CONFEDERATION OF THE RHINE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
      and 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      also, FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

CONFLANS, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

CONFUCIANISM.

      See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

CONGO FREE STATE, The Founding of the.

   "Since Leopold II.'s accession to the throne [of Belgium], his
   great object has been to secure colonial possessions to
   Belgium for her excess of population and production. To this
   end he founded, in October, 1876, with the aid of eminent
   African explorers, the International African Association. Its
   object was to form committees in several countries, with a
   view to the collection of funds, and to the establishment of a
   chain of stations across Africa, passing by Lake Tanganyika,
   to assist future explorers. Accordingly committees were
   formed, whose presidents were as follows: in England, the
   Prince of Wales; in Germany the Crown Prince; in Italy the
   King's brother; in France, M. de Lesseps; and in Belgium, King
   Leopold. Sums of money were subscribed, and stations were
   opened from Bagomoyo (just south of Zanzibar) to Lake
   Tanganyika; but when toward the close of 1877, Stanley
   reappeared on the Atlantic coast and revealed the immense
   length of the marvelous Congo River, King Leopold at once
   turned his attention in that direction. That he might not put
   himself forward prematurely, he acted under cover of an
   association and a committee of exploration, which were in
   reality formed and entirely supported by the King's energy and
   by the large sums of money that he lavished upon them. Through
   this association King Leopold maintained Stanley for five
   years on the Congo. During this time a road was made from the
   coast to Stanley Pool, where the navigable portion of the
   Upper Congo commences; and thus was formed the basis of the
   future empire. During this period Stanley signed no less than
   four thousand treaties or concessions of territory, on which
   upward of two thousand chiefs had placed their marks in sign
   of adhesion.
{494}
   At a cost of many months of transportation, necessitating the
   employment of thousands of porters, light steamers were placed
   on the upper river which was explored as far as Stanley Falls.
   Its numerous tributaries also were followed up as far as the
   rapids that interrupt their courses. Many young Belgian
   officers and other adventurous explorers established
   themselves on the banks of the Congo and the adjoining river,
   the Kouiliou, and founded a series of stations, each occupied
   by one or two Europeans and by a few soldiers from Zanzibar.
   In this way the country was insensibly taken possession of in
   the most pacific manner, without a struggle and with no
   bloodshed whatever; for the natives, who are of a very gentle
   disposition, offered no resistance. The Senate of the United
   States, which was called upon, in 1884, to give an opinion on
   the rights of the African Association, made a careful
   examination of the matter, and recognized the legality of the
   claims and title deeds submitted to them. A little later, in
   order to mark the formation of a state, the Congo Association
   adopted as its flag a gold star on a blue ground. A French
   lawyer. M. Deloume, in a very well-written pamphlet entitled
   'Le Droit des Gens dans l'Afrique Equatoriale,' has proved
   that this proceeding was not only legitimate, but necessary.
   The embryo state, however, lacked one essential thing, namely,
   recognition by the civilized powers. It existed only as a
   private association, or, as a hostile publicist expressed it,
   as 'a state in shares, indulging in pretensions of
   sovereignty.' Great difficulties stood in the way of realizing
   this essential condition. Disputes, on the one hand with
   France and on the other with Portugal, appeared inevitable.
   … King Leopold did not lose heart. In 1882 he obtained from
   the French government an assurance that, while maintaining its
   rights to the north of Stanley Pool, it would give support to
   the International Association of the Congo. With Portugal it
   seemed very difficult to come to an understanding. … Prince
   Bismarck took part in the matter, and in the German Parliament
   praised highly the work of the African Association. In April,
   1884, he proposed to France to come to an understanding, and
   to settle all difficulties by general agreement. From this
   proposition sprang the famous Berlin conference, the
   remarkable decisions of which we shall mention later. At the
   same time, before the conference opened, Germany signed an
   agreement with the International Association of the Congo, in
   which she agreed to recognize its flag as that of a state, in
   exchange for an assurance that her trade should be free, and
   that German subjects should enjoy all the privileges of the
   most favored nations. Similar agreements were entered upon
   with nearly all the other countries of the globe. The
   delegates of the Association were accepted at the conference
   on the same footing as those of the different states that were
   represented there, and on February 26, the day on which the
   act was signed, Bismarck expressed himself as follows: 'The
   new State of the Congo is destined to be one of the chief
   safe-guards of the work we have in view, and I sincerely trust
   that its development will fulfill the noble aspirations of its
   august founder.' Thus the Congo International Association,
   hitherto only a private enterprise, seemed now to be
   recognized as a sovereign state, without having, however, as
   yet assumed the title. But where were the limits of its
   territory. … Thanks to the interference of France, after
   prolonged negotiations an understanding was arrived at on
   February 15, 1885, by which both parties were satisfied. They
   agreed that Portugal should take possession of the southern
   bank of the Congo, up to its junction with the little stream
   Uango, above Nokki, and also of the district of Kabinda
   forming a wedge that extends into the French territory on the
   Atlantic Ocean. The International Congo Association—for such
   was still its title—was to have access to the sea by a strip
   of land extending from Manyanga (west of Leopoldville) to the
   ocean, north of Banana, and comprising in addition to this
   port, Boma and the important station of Vivi. These treaties
   granted the association 931,285 square miles of territory,
   that is to say, a domain eighty times the size of Belgium,
   with more than 7,500 miles of navigable rivers. The limits
   fixed were, on the west, the Kuango, an important tributary of
   the Congo; on the south, the sources of the Zambesi; on the
   east, the Lakes Bangweolo, Moero, and Tanganyika, and a line
   passing through Lake Albert Edward to the river Ouelle; on the
   north, a line following the fourth degree of latitude to the
   Mobangi River on the French frontier. The whole forms one
   eleventh part of the African continent. The association became
   transformed into a state in August 1885, when King Leopold,
   with the authorization of the Belgian Chambers, notified the
   powers that he should assume the title of Sovereign of the
   Independent State of the Congo, the union of which with
   Belgium was to be exclusively personal. The Congo is,
   therefore, not a Belgian colony, but nevertheless the Belgian
   Chambers have recently given valuable assistance to the King's
   work; first, in taking, on July 26, 1889, 10,000,000 francs'
   worth of shares in the railway which is to connect the seaport
   of Matadi with the riverport of Leopoldville, on Stanley Pool,
   and secondly by granting a loan of 25,000,000 francs to the
   Independent State on August 4, 1890. The King, in a will laid
   before Parliament, bequeaths all his African possessions to
   the Belgian nation, authorizing the country to take possession
   of them after a lapse of ten years."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Division of Africa
      (The Forum, January, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stanley,
      The Congo, and the Founding of its Free State._

CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY, The.

   "Philip of Neri, a young Florentine of good birth (1515-1595;
   canonised 1622) … in 1548 instituted at Rome the Society of
   the Holy Trinity, to minister to the wants of the pilgrims at
   Rome. But the operations of his mission gradually extended
   till they embraced the spiritual welfare of the Roman
   population at large, and the reformation of the Roman clergy
   in particular. No figure is more serene and more sympathetic
   to us in the history of the Catholic reaction than that of
   this latter-day 'apostle of Rome.' From his association, which
   followed the rule of St. Augustine, sprang in 1575 the
   Congregation of the Oratory at Rome, famous as the seminary of
   much that is most admirable in the labours of the Catholic
   clergy."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter-Reformation,
      page 30._

{495}

   "In the year 1766, there were above a hundred Congregations of
   the Oratory of S. Philip in Europe and the East Indies; but
   since the revolutions of the last seventy years many of these
   have ceased to exist, while, on the contrary, within the last
   twelve years two have been established in England."

      _Mrs. Hope,
      Life of S. Philip Neri,
      chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. L. S. Lear,
      Priestly Life in France,
      chapter 4._

CONGREGATIONALISM.

      See INDEPENDENTS.

CONGRESS, Colonial, at Albany.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

CONGRESS, Continental,
   The First.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

   The Second.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).

CONGRESS, The First American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONGRESS, The Pan-American.

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

CONGRESS, The Stamp Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, The.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS AND TREATY.

CONGRESS OF BERLIN.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

CONGRESS OF PANAMA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

CONGRESS OF PARIS.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856,
      and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

CONGRESS OF RASTADT, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

CONGRESS OF VERONA, The.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

CONGRESS OF VIENNA.

      See VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

   "The Constitution created Congress and conferred upon it
   powers of legislation for national purposes, but made no
   provision as to the method by which these powers should be
   exercised. In consequence Congress has itself developed a
   method of transacting its business by means of committees. The
   Federal Legislature consists of two Houses—the Senate, or
   Upper and less numerous branch, and the House of
   Representatives, or the Lower and more numerous popular
   branch. The Senate is composed of two members from each State
   elected by the State legislatures for a term of six years, one
   third of whom retire every two years. The presiding officer is
   the Vice-President. Early in each session the Senate chooses a
   President pro tempore, so as to provide for any absence of the
   Vice-President, whether caused by death, sickness, or for
   other reasons. The House of Representatives is at present
   [1891] composed of 332 members and four delegates from the
   Territories. These delegates, however, have no vote, though
   they may speak. The House is presided over by a Speaker,
   elected at the beginning of each [Congress]. A quorum for
   business is, in either House, a majority. Congress meets every
   year in the beginning of December. Each Congress lasts two
   years and holds two sessions—a long and a short session. The
   long session lasts from December to midsummer [or until the
   two Houses agree upon an adjournment]. The short session lasts
   from December, when Congress meets again, until the 4th of
   March. The term of office then expires for all the members of
   the House and for one-third of the Senators. The long session
   ends in even years (1880 and 1882, etc.), and the short
   session in odd years (1881 and 1883). Extra sessions may be
   called by the President for urgent business. In the early part
   of the November preceding the end of the short session of
   Congress occurs the election of Representatives. Congressmen
   then elected do not take their seats until thirteen months
   later, that is, at the reassembling of Congress in December of
   the year following, unless an extra session is called. The
   Senate frequently holds secret, or, as they are called,
   executive sessions, for the consideration of treaties and
   nominations of the President, in which the House of
   Representatives has no voice. It is then said to sit with
   closed doors. An immense amount of business must necessarily
   be transacted by a Congress that legislates for nearly
   63,000,000 of people. … Lack of time, of course, prevents a
   consideration of each bill separately by the whole
   legislature. To provide a means by which each subject may
   receive investigation and consideration, a plan is used by
   which the members of both branches of Congress are divided
   into committees. Each committee busies itself with a certain
   class of business, and bills when introduced are referred to
   this or that committee for consideration, according to the
   subjects to which the bills relate. … The Senate is now
   divided between 50 and 60 committees, but the number varies
   from session to session. … The House of Representatives is
   organized into 60 committees [appointed by the Speaker],
   ranging, in their number of members, from thirteen down. …
   The Committee of Ways and Means, which regulates customs
   duties and excise taxes, is by far the most important. …
   Congress ordinarily assembles at noon and remains in session
   until 4 or 5 P. M., though towards the end of the term it
   frequently remains in session until late in the night. …
   There is still one feature of Congressional government which
   needs explanation, and that is the caucus. A caucus is the
   meeting of the members of one party in private, for the
   discussion of the attitude and line of policy which members of
   that party are to take on questions which are expected to
   arise in the legislative halls. Thus, in Senate caucus, is
   decided who shall be members of the various committees. In
   these meetings is frequently discussed whether or not the
   whole party shall vote for or against this or that important
   bill, and thus its fate is decided before it has even come up
   for debate in Congress."

      _W. W. and W. F. Willoughby,
      Government and Administration of the United States
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series ix., numbers 1-2),
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Wilson,
      Congressional Government,
      chapters 2-4._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      part 1, chapters 10-21 (volume 1)._

      _A. L. Dawes,
      How we are Governed,
      chapter 2._

      _The Federalist,
      numbers 51-65._

      _J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 3, chapters 8-31 (volumes 2-3)._

CONI.
   Sieges (1744 and 1799).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

CONIBO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CONNAUGHT, Transplantation of the Irish people into.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.

{496}

CONNECTICUT: The River and the Name.

   "The first discoveries made of this part of New England were
   of its principal river and the fine meadows lying upon its
   bank. Whether the Dutch at New Netherlands, or the people of
   New Plymouth, were the first discoverers of the river is not
   certain. Both the English and the Dutch claimed to be the
   first discoverers, and both purchased and made a settlement of
   the lands upon it nearly at the same time. … From this fine
   river, which the Indians call Quonehtacut, or Connecticut, (in
   English the long river) the colony originally took its name."

      _B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, chapter 2._

   According to Dutch accounts, the river was entered by Adriaen
   Block, ascended to latitude 41° 48', and named Fresh River, in
   1614.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

CONNECTICUT: The Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.
   The grant to Lord Say and Sele, and others.

   In 1631, the Earl of Warwick granted to Lord Say and Sele,
   Lord Brooke, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, "the
   territory between Narragansett River and southwest towards New
   York for 120 miles and west to the Pacific Ocean, or,
   according to the words of President Clap of Yale College,
   'from Point Judith to New York, and from thence a west line to
   the South Sea, and if we take Narragansett River in its whole
   length the tract will extend as far north as Worcester. It
   comprehends the whole of the colony of Connecticut and more.
   This was called the old patent of Connecticut, and had been
   granted the previous year, 1630, by the Council of Plymouth
   [or Council for New England] to the Earl of Warwick. Yet
   before the English had planted settlements in Connecticut the
   Dutch had purchased of the Pequots land where Hartford now
   stands and erected a small trading fort called 'The House of
   Good Hope.'"

      _C. W. Bowen,
      Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
      page 15._

   In 1635, four years after the Connecticut grant, said to have
   been derived originally from the Council for New England, in
   1630, had been transferred by the Earl of Warwick to Lord Say
   and Seal and others, the Council made an attempt, in
   connivance with the English court, to nullify all its grants,
   to regain possession of the territory of New England and to
   parcel it out by lot among its own members. In this attempted
   parcelling, which proved ineffectual, Connecticut fell to the
   lot of the Earl of Carlisle, the Duke of Lennox, and the Duke
   of Hamilton. Modern investigation seems to have found the
   alleged grant from the Council of Plymouth, or Council for New
   England, to the Earl of Warwick, in 1630, to be mythical. "No
   one has ever seen it, or has heard of anyone who claims to
   have seen it. It is not mentioned even in the grant from
   Warwick to the Say and Sele patentees in 1631. … The deed is
   a mere quit-claim, which warrants nothing and does not even
   assert title to the soil transferred. … Why the Warwick
   transaction took this peculiar shape, why Warwick transferred,
   without showing title, a territory which the original owners
   granted anew to other patentees in 1635, are questions which
   are beyond conjecture."

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 2._

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
   The pioneer settlements.

   "In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led by William
   Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandying
   threats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the
   site of Hartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the
   site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company
   of seventy men to drive away these intruders, but after
   reconnoitering the situation the Dutchmen thought it best not
   to make an attack. Their little stronghold at Hartford
   remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to secure
   the communication between this advanced outpost and New
   Amsterdam, Van Twiller decided to build another fort at the
   mouth of the river, but this time the English were beforehand.
   Rumours of Dutch designs may have reached the ears of Lord Say
   and Sele and Lord Brooke—'fanatic Brooke,' as Scott calls him
   in 'Marmion'—who had obtained from the Council for New
   England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These
   noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son
   of the Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon
   the scene just in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and
   build an English fort which in honour of his two patrons he
   called 'Say-Brooke.' Had it not been for seeds of discontent
   already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the
   Connecticut valley might perhaps have been for a few years
   confined to these two military outposts at Windsor and
   Saybrooke. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not
   look with favour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features
   of its polity. The provision that none but church-members
   should vote or hold office was by no means unanimously
   approved. … Cotton declared that democracy was no fit
   government either for church or for commonwealth, and the
   majority of the ministers agreed with him. Chief among those
   who did not was the learned and eloquent Thomas Hooker, pastor
   of the church at Newtown. … There were many in Newtown who
   took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, as also in
   Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative in
   framing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition
   was shown to evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While
   such things were talked about, in the summer of 1633, the
   adventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest
   and over the mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when
   he returned to the coast his glowing accounts set some people
   to thinking. Two years afterward, a few pioneers from
   Dorchester pushed through the wilderness as far as the
   Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party from Watertown
   went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield.
   A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could
   carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching
   Windsor. … In the next June, 1636, the Newtown congregation,
   a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and
   bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to
   the Connecticut valley. Women and children took part in this
   pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being
   too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the
   memorable year in which our great university was born, did
   Cambridge become, in the true Greek sense of a much-abused
   word, the metropolis or 'mother town' of Hartford. The
   migration at once became strong in numbers.
{497}
   During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from
   England to Massachusetts more than 3,000 souls, and so great
   an accession made further movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims
   were soon followed by the Dorchester and Watertown
   congregations, and by the next May 800 people were living in
   Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of these
   movements, not of individuals, but of organic communities,
   united in allegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid
   with the instinct of self-government, we seem to see Greek
   history renewed, but with centuries of added political
   training. For one year a board of commissioners from
   Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the end of that
   time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court
   at Hartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut
   was begun. As for Springfield, which was settled about the
   same time by a party from Roxbury, it remained for some years
   doubtful to which state it belonged."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

      _G. L. Walker,
      History of the First Church in Hartford,
      chapters 4-5._

      _M. A. Green,
      Springfield, 1636-1886,
      chapter 1._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
   The constitutional evolution.

   "It must be noted that [the] Newtown, Watertown, and
   Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple
   transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. In
   each of these migrations a part of the people was left behind,
   so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to exist. And
   yet each of them brought its Massachusetts magistrates, its
   ministers (except Watertown), and all the political and
   ecclesiastical machinery of the town; and at least one of them
   (Dorchester) had hardly changed its structure since its
   members first organized in 1630 at Dorchester in England. The
   first settlement of Connecticut was thus the migration of
   three distinct and individual town organizations out of the
   jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into absolute freedom. It
   was the Massachusetts town system set loose in the wilderness.
   At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts
   names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, February
   21 1636 (7), that it was decided that the plantacon [c tilde]
   nowe called Newtowne slalbe called & named by the name of
   Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called
   'Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild,' and the
   plantacon [c tilde] called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor.'
   On the same day the boundaries between the three towns were
   'agreed' upon, and thus the germ of the future State was the
   agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, the
   subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637, for the
   first time took the name of the 'Genrall Corte,' and was
   composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had
   previously held it, of 'comittees' of three from each town. So
   simply and naturally did the migrated town system evolve, in
   this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the Senate and
   House of Representatives of the future State of Connecticut.
   The Assembly further showed its consciousness of separate
   existence by declaring 'an offensive warr ag' the Pequoitt,'
   assigning the proportions of its miniature army and supplies
   to each town, and appointing a commander. … So complete are
   the features of State-hood, that we may fairly assign May 1,
   1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. No king, no
   Congress, presided over the birth: its seed was in the towns.
   January 14, 1638 (9), the little Commonwealth formed the first
   American Constitution at Hartford. So far as its provisions
   are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth Council,
   the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might as well have
   been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. … This
   constitution was not only the earliest but the longest in
   continuance of American documents of the kind, unless we
   except the Rhode Island charter. It was not essentially
   altered by the charter of 1662, which was practically a royal
   confirmation of it; and it was not until 1818 that the
   charter, that is the constitution of 1639, was superseded by
   the present constitution. Connecticut was as absolutely a
   state in 1639 as in 1776."

      _A. Johnston,
      The Genesis of a New England State
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11)._

   The following is the text of those "Fundamental Orders"
   adopted by the people dwelling on Connecticut River, January
   14, 1638 (9), which formed the first of written constitutions:
   "FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise
   disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of
   things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor,
   Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in
   and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto
   adioyueing; And well knowing where a people are gathered
   togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace
   and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and
   decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and
   dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as
   occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne
   our selues to be as one Publike State or ComonweIth; and doe,
   for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be
   adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination
   and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and prsearue the
   liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now
   prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according
   to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs;
   As also in or Ciuell Affaires to be guided and gouerned
   according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be
   made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:—1. It is Ordered,
   sentenced and decreed, that there shall be yerely two generall
   Assemblies or Courts, the one the second thursday in Aprill,
   the other the second thursday in September following; the
   first shall be called the Courte of Election, wherein shall be
   yerely Chosen fro tyme to tyme soe many Magestrats and other
   publike Officers as shall be found requisitte: Whereof one to
   be chosen Gouernour for the yeare ensueing and vntill another
   be chosen, and noe other Magestrate to be chosen for more than
   one yeare; pruided allwayes there be sixe chosen besids the
   Gouernour; wch being chosen and sworne according to an Oath
   recorded for that purpose shall haue power to administer
   iustice according to the Lawes here established, and for want
   thereof according to the rule of the word of God; wch choise
   shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken
   the Oath of Fidellity, and doe cohabitte wthin this
   Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted Inhabitants by the maior
   prt of the Towne wherein they liue,) or the mayor prte of such
   as shall be then prsent.
{498}
   2. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Election of
   the aforesaid Magestrats shall be on this manner: euery prson
   prsent and quallified for choyse shall bring in (to the prsons
   deputed to receaue the) one single papr wth the name of him
   written in yt whom he desires to haue Gouernour, and he that
   hath the greatest nuber of papers shall be Gouernor for that
   yeare. And the rest of the Magestrats or publike Officers to
   be chosen in this manner: The Secretary for the tyme being
   shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choise
   and then shall seuerally nominate them distinctly, and euery
   one that would haue the prson nominated to be chosen shall
   bring in one single paper written vppon, and he that would not
   haue him chosen shall bring in a blanke: and euery one that
   hath more written papers then blanks shall be a Magistrat for
   that yeare; wth papers shall be receaued and told by one or
   more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworne to be
   faythfull therein: but in case there should not be sixe chosen
   as aforesaid, besids the Gouernor, out of those wch are
   nominated, then he or they wch haue the most written paprs
   shall be a Magestrate or Magestrats for the ensueing yeare, to
   make up the foresaid nuber. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced and
   decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any prson, nor
   shall any prson be chosen newly into the Magestraey wch was
   not prpownded in some Generall Courte before, to be nominated
   the next Election; and to that end yt shall be lawfull for ech
   of the Townes aforesaid by their deputyes to nominate any two
   who they conceaue fitte to be put to election; and the Courte
   may ad so many more as they, iudge requisitt. 4. It is
   Ordered, sentenced and decreed that noe prson be chosen
   Gouernor aboue once in two yeares, and that the Gouernor be
   always a meber of some approved congregation, and formerly of
   the Magestracy wthin this Jurisdiction; and all the Magestrats
   Freemen of this Comonwelth: and that no Magestrate or other
   publike officer shall execute any prte of his or their Office
   before they are seuerally sworne, wch shall be done in the
   face of the Courte if they be prsent, and in case of absence
   by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, senteneed
   and decreed, that to the aforesaid Courte of Election the
   seurall Townes shall send their deputyes, and when the
   Elections are ended they may prceed in any publike searuice as
   at other Courts. Also the other Generall Courte in Septemher
   shall be for makeing of lawes, and any other publike occation,
   wch conserns the good of the Comonwelth. 6. It is Ordered,
   sentenced and decreed, that the Gournor shall, ether by
   himselfe or by the secretary, send out sumons to the
   Constables of eur Towne for the cauleing of these two standing
   Courts, on month at lest before their seu'all tymes: And also
   if the Gournor and the gretest prte of the Magestmts see cause
   vppon any spetiall occation to call a generall Courte, they
   may giue order to the secretary soe to doe wthin fowerteene
   dayes warneing; and if vrgent necessity so require, vppon a
   shorter notice, giueing sufficient grownds for yt to the
   deputyes when they meete, or els be questioned for the same;
   And if the Gournor and Mayor prte of Magestrats shall ether
   neglect or refuse to call the two Generall standing Courts or
   ether of the, as also at other tymes when the occutions of the
   Comonwelth require, the Freemen thereof, or the Mayor prte of
   them, shall petition to them soe to doe: if then yt be ether
   denyed or neglected the said Freemen or the Mayor prte of them
   shall haue power to giue order to the Constables of the
   seuerall Townes to doe the same, and so may meete togather,
   and chuse to themselues a Moderator, and may prceed to do any
   Acte of power, wch any other Generall Courte may. 7. It is
   Ordered, sentenced and decreed that after there are warrants
   giuen out for any of the suid Generall Courts, the Constable
   or Constables of ech Towne shall forthwth give notice
   distinctly, to the inhabitants of the same, in some Pubhke
   Assembly or by goeing or sending fro howse to howse, that at a
   place and tyme by him or them lymited and sett, they meet and
   assemble the selues togather to elect and chuse certen
   deputyes to be att the Generall Courte then following to
   agitate the afayres of the comonwelth; wch said Deputyes shall
   be choseu by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seurall
   Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity; pruided that non
   be chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte wch is not a
   Freeman of this Comonwelth. The foresaid deputyes shall be
   chosen in manner following; euery prson that is prsent and
   quallified as before exprssed, shall bring thr names of such,
   written in seurrall papers, as they desire to haue chosen for
   that Imployment, and these 3 or 4, more or lesse, being the
   nuber agreed on to be chosen for that tyme, that haue greatest
   nuber of papers written for the shall be deputyes for that
   Courte; whose names shall be endorsed on the backe side of the
   warrant and returned into the Courte, wth the Constable or
   Constables hand vnto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced and
   decreed, that Wyndsor, Hartford and Wethersfield shall haue
   power, ech Towne, to send fower of their freemen as deputyes
   to euery Generall Courte; and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be
   hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many
   deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable
   prportion to the nuber of Freemen that are in the said Townes
   being to be attended therein; wch deputyes shall have the
   power of the whole Towne to giue their voats and alowance to
   all such lawes and orders as may be for the publike good, and
   unto wch the said Townes are to be bownd. 9. It is ordered and
   decreed, that the deputyes thus chosen shall haue power and
   liberty to appoynt a tyme and a place of meeting togather
   before any Generall Courte to aduise and consult of all such
   things as may concerne the good of the publike, as also to
   examine their owne Elections, whether according to the order,
   and if they or the gretest prte of them find any election to
   be illegall they may seclud such for prsent fro their meeting,
   and returne the same and their resons to the Courte; and if yt
   proue true, the Courte may fyne the prty or prtyes so
   intruding and the Towne, if they see cause, and giue out a
   warrant to goe to a newe election in a legall way, either in
   prte or in whole. Also the said deputyes shall haue power to
   fyne any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for
   not coming in due tyme or place according to appoyntment; and
   they may returne the said fynes into the Courte if yt be
   refused to be paid, and the tresurer to take notice of yt, and
   to estreete or levy the same as he doth other fynes.
{499}
   10. It is Ordered, sentenceJ and decreed, that euery Generall
   Courte, except such as through neglecte of the Gou'nor and the
   greatest prte of Magestrats the Freemen themselves doe call,
   shall consist of the Gouernor, or some one chosen to moderate
   the Court, and 4 other Magestruts at lest, wth the mayor prte
   of the deputyes of the seuerall Townes legally chosen; and in
   case the Freemen or mayor prte of the, through neglect or
   refusall of the Gouernor and mayor prte of the magestrats,
   shall call a Courte, yt shall consist of the mayor prte of
   Freemen that are prsent or their deputyes, wty a Moderator
   chosen by the: In wch said Generall Courts shall consist the
   supreme power of the Comonwelth, and they only shall haue
   power to make laws or repeale the, to graunt leuyes, to admitt
   of Freemen, dispose of lands vndisposed of, to seuerall Townes
   or prsons, and also shall haue power to call ether Courte or
   Magestrate or any other prson whatsoeuer into question for any
   misdemeanour, and may for just causes displace or deale
   otherwise according to the nature of the offence; and also may
   deale in any other matter that concerns the good of this comon
   welth, excepte election of Magestrats, wch shall be done by
   the whole boddy of Freemen. In wch Courte the Gouernour or
   Moderator shall haue power to order the Courte to giue liberty
   of spech, and silence vncensonable and disorderly speakeings,
   to put all things to voate, and in case the voate be equall to
   haue the casting voice. But non of these Courts shall be
   adiorned or dissolued wthout the consent of the maior prte of
   the Court. 11. It is ordered, sentenced and decreed, that when
   any Gemerall Courte vppon the occations of the Comonwelth haue
   agreed vppon any sume or somes of mony to be leuyed vppon the
   seuerall Townes wthin this Jurisdiction, that a Comittee be
   chosen to sett out and appoynt wt shall be the prportion of
   euery Towne to pay of the said leuy, prvided the Comittees be
   made vp of an equall nuber out of each Towne. 14th January,
   1638, the 11 Orders abouesaid are voted."

      _Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut,
      volume 1._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
   The planting of New Haven Colony.

   "In the height of the Hutchinson controversy [see
   MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638], John Davenport, an eminent
   nonconformist minister from London, had arrived at Boston, and
   with him a wealthy company, led by two merchants, Theophilus
   Eaton and Edward Hopkins. Alarmed at the new opinions and
   religious agitations of which Massachusetts was the seat,
   notwithstanding very advantageous offers of settlement there,
   they preferred to establish a separate community of their own,
   to be forever free from the innovations of error and
   licentiousness. Eaton and others sent to explore the coast
   west of the Connecticut, selected a place for settlement near
   the head of a spacious bay at Quinapiack [or Quinnipiack], or,
   as the Dutch called it, Red Hill, where they built a hut and
   spent the winter. They were joined in the spring [April, 1638]
   by the rest of their company, and Davenport preached his first
   sermon under the shade of a spreading oak. Presently they
   entered into what they called a 'plantation covenant,' and a
   communication being opened with the Indians, who were but few
   in that neighborhood, the lands of Quinapiack were purchased,
   except a small reservation on the east side of the bay, the
   Indians receiving a few presents and a promise of protection.
   A tract north of the bay, ten miles in one direction and
   thirteen in the other, was purchased for ten coats; and the
   colonists proceeded to lay out in squares the ground-plan of a
   spacious city, to which they presently gave the name of New
   Haven."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "They formed their political association by what they called a
   'plantation covenant,' 'to distinguish it from a church
   covenant, which could not at that time be made.' In this
   compact they resolved, 'that, as in matters that concern the
   gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public
   offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates
   and officers, making and repealing of laws; dividing
   allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,'
   they would 'be ordered by the rules which the Scriptures hold
   forth.' It had no external sanction, and comprehended no
   acknowledgment of the government of England. The company
   consisted mostly of Londoners, who at home had been engaged in
   trade. In proportion to their numbers, they were the richest
   of all the plantations. Like the settlers on Narragansett Bay,
   they had no other title to their lands than that which they
   obtained by purchase from the Indians."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      chapter 1._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
   The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

   "In June, 1639, the whole body of settlers [at Quinnipiack, or
   New Haven] came together to frame a constitution. A tradition,
   seemingly well founded, says that the meeting was held in a large
   barn. According to the same account, the purpose for which
   they had met and the principles on which they ought to proceed
   were set forth by Davenport in a sermon. 'Wisdom hath builded
   her house, she hath hewn out seven pillars,' was the text.
   There is an obvious connection between this and the subsequent
   choice of seven of the chief men to lay the foundation of the
   constitution. … Davenport set forth the general system on
   which the constitution ought to be framed. The two main
   principles which he laid down were, that Scripture is a
   perfect and sufficient rule for the conduct of civil affairs,
   and that church-membership must be a condition of citizenship.
   In this the colonists were but imitating the example of
   Massachusetts. … After the sermon, five resolutions
   [followed by a sixth, constituting together what was called
   the 'fundamental agreement' of New Haven Colony], formally
   introducing Davenport's proposals, were carried. If a church
   already existed, it was not considered fit to form a basis for
   the state. Accordingly a fresh one was framed by a curiously
   complicated process. As a first step, twelve men were elected.
   These twelve were instructed, after a due interval for
   consideration, to choose seven out of their own number, who
   should serve as a nucleus for the church. At the same time an
   oath was taken by the settlers, which may be looked on as a
   sort of preliminary and provisional test of citizenship,
   pledging them to accept the principles laid down by Davenport.
   Sixty-three of the inhabitants took the oath, and their
   example was soon followed by fifty more. By October, four
   months after the original meeting, the seven formally
   established the new commonwealth. They granted the rights of a
   freeman to all who joined them, and who were recognized
   members either of the church at New Haven or of any other
   approved church. The freemen thus chosen entered into an
   agreement to the same effect as the oath already taken. They
   then elected a Governor and four Magistrates, or, as they were
   for the present called, a Magistrate and four Deputies. …
   The functions of the Governor and Magistrates were not
   defined. Indeed, but one formal resolution was passed as to
   the constitution of the colony, namely, 'that the Word of God
   shall be the only rule attended unto in ordering the affairs
   of government.'"

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

{500}

   "Of all the New England colonies, New Haven was most purely a
   government by compact, by social contract. … The free
   planters … signed each their names to their voluntary
   compact, and ordered that 'all planters hereafter received in
   this plantation should submit to the said foundamentall
   agreement, and testifie the same by subscribing their names.'
   It is believed that this is the sole instance of the formation
   of an independent civil government by a general compact
   wherein all the parties to the agreement were legally required
   to be actual signers thereof. When this event occurred, John
   Locke was in his seventh year, and Rousseau was a century
   away."

      _C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      page 23._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1640-1655.
   The attempted New Haven colonization on the Delaware.
   Fresh quarrels with the Dutch.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1643.
   The confederation of the colonies.
   The progress and state of New Haven and the River Colony.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
   Settlement of boundaries with the Dutch of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution of Quakers.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1663.
   The beginning of boundary conflicts with Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
   The protection of the regicides at New Haven.

   "Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special
   grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the
   tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in
   1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high
   position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden.
   … The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in
   Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some
   who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord
   Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's
   daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal
   order for their arrest was sent to Boston. … The king's
   detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of
   New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the
   aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their
   hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a
   mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly
   cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a
   wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by
   overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or
   three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel
   Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to
   take possession of the American grant lately made by the king
   to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded
   hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the
   Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
   Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned,
   and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people
   of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the
   fugitives. … The colony, moreover, did not officially
   recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until
   that event had been commonly known in New England for more
   than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was
   specially roused against New Haven."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      pages 192-194._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Hollister,
      History of Connecticut,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
   The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.

   "The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a
   cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy
   and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been
   especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels,
   Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would
   have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut
   was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor,
   John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of
   Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the
   new King. … In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly
   declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to
   England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a
   charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was
   successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The
   acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to
   the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it
   was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation.
   Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and
   allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It
   incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate
   and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of
   the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.'
   … The people were to have all the liberties and immunities
   of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within
   the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that
   part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west
   of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to
   the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' …
   It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the
   charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in
   1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and
   the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival
   colony of New Haven. … New Haven did not submit without a
   struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the
   supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three
   years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the
   General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New
   Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' …
{501}
   In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the
   New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with
   magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local
   officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion
   for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford
   having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General
   Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held
   its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of
   our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet
   been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New
   Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to
   the General Court at Hartford. … In 1701 the General Court
   … voted that its annual October session should thereafter be
   held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was
   incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued
   until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."

      _A. Johnston,
      The Genesis of a New England State,
      pages 25-28._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Trumbull,
      History of Connecticut,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-78._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664.
   Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1666.
   The New Haven migration to Newark, N. J.

   See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
   Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the
   Duke of York.

   In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the
   Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a
   new patent for the province, in which he not only included
   Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River,
   which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal
   commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted,
   but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall
   of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose
   only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one
   corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the
   mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was
   made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war
   had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the
   authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook
   that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the
   Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people
   against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather
   preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros,
   if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all
   precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the
   actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any
   armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors
   standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor
   of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you
   are not to suffer them to stand. … But you are in his
   majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but
   if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your
   best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the
   whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came
   and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to
   reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the
   Connecticut representatives."

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 12._

      _Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of
      the State of New York,
      page 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. W. Bowen,
      The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
      pages 70-72._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1678.
   King Philip's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
   The hostile king and the hidden charter.
   Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.

   "During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king
   had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he
   did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the
   charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the
   friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have
   seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even
   after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles
   demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted
   brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to
   contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been
   affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law
   of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th
   day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the
   honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo
   warranto was issued against the governor and company of
   Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within
   eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor
   they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was
   quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by
   Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The
   day of appearance named in them was passed long before the
   writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the
   agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be
   brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous
   intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the
   28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon
   the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date
   the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear
   before the king' within eight days of the purification of the
   Blessed Virgin.' … Of course, the day named was not known to
   the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal
   contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had
   been brought under a provisional general government, by
   commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president.
   President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and
   council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's
   hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in
   behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply
   with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before
   the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted,
   superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of
   New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of
   December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission
   and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he
   established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and
   company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment,
   and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to
   receive their charter if they would give it up to him."

      _G. H. Hollister,
      History of Connecticut,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

{502}

   On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General
   Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was
   addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly
   pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been
   granted to them. For the first time they admitted the
   possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that
   case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was
   construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the
   days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and
   purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person
   to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of
   October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers.
   The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward
   mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir
   Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the
   colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor
   Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this
   action. … The debate was continued until the shadows of the
   early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted,
   the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box
   supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and
   placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished.
   Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the
   building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had
   disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be
   found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under
   cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden
   by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree
   standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion.
   The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the
   duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several
   years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the
   coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been
   carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it
   probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from
   the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a
   safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always
   be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have
   been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the
   Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for
   centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn.
   When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the
   time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly
   states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's
   seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been
   commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of
   Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it
   was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and
   Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary
   handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote
   these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund
   Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's
   Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his
   Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of
   October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this
   colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the
   Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's
   government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel
   beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair
   promises."

      _E. B. Sanford,
      History of Connecticut,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3)._

      See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686,
      and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.
   The reinstatement of the charter government.

   "April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first
   news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody.
   May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their
   functions, and called the assembly together for the following
   month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not
   a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the
   charter; but the charter government was put into full effect
   again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was
   sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further
   interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No
   decided action was taken by the home government for some
   years, except that its appointment of the New York governor,
   Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a
   decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded.
   Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent
   to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an
   emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by
   those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid,
   Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the
   same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no
   ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the
   charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not
   been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had
   any judgment of record been entered against it; that its
   operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering
   force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the
   peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an
   illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the
   passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed
   Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to
   forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical
   moment, secured all that could be secured under the
   circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all
   possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing
   the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in
   this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion
   in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last,
   and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a
   real democracy. … Democracy had done more for Connecticut
   than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 12._

{503}

   "The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut
   included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the
   portion of the British empire distinguished above all others
   by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy
   under the shelter of a monarchy. … The crown, by reserving
   to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of
   interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both
   of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of
   trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of
   the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701,
   was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all
   American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate
   that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and
   contended that its liberties were held by contract in return
   for services that had been performed; that the taking away of
   so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal
   promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the
   chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a
   second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was
   advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in
   England. The impending war with the French postponed the
   purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711.
   Queen Anne's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799.
   Western territorial claims.
   Settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
   Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

      See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756;
      1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
      Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.
   The revolt against the Stamp Act.

   "The English government understood very well that the colonies
   were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no
   thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would
   arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public
   affairs in America. … Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll,
   with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power
   to oppose the scheme of taxation … counselled submission.
   They mistook the feeling of the people. … The clergy were
   still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in
   denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized
   under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of
   which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if
   necessary. … Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to
   oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the
   position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to
   take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting
   it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with
   this action. … He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who
   inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them
   off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was
   a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New
   London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a
   heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at
   Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly
   earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the
   intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt
   that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A
   formal resignation was given him to sign. … After he had
   signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged
   to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and
   Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had
   no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he
   repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now
   hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted
   to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the
   court-house.

      _E. B. Sanford,
      History of Connecticut,
      chapter 29._

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act.
   The Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784.
   The ending of slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill.
   The Massachusetts Act.
   The Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   New England in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.
   Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."

   "In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from
   their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general
   assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The
   important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That
   the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter
   from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the
   people of this State, shall be and remain the civil
   Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the
   people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.
   And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a
   free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the
   State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was
   doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter
   derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from
   the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last
   sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a
   free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate
   something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless
   presented to the Americans of 1776-89."

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 16._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

{504}

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The war and the victory.
   Independence achieved.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778.
    The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779.
   Tryon's marauding expeditions.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786.
   Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States.
   The Western Reserve in Ohio.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
      and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788.
   Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

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

----------CONNECTICUT: End----------

CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CONNUBIUM.

      See MUNICIPIUM.

CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.

CONOYS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONRAD I.,
   King of the East Franks (Germany),
   (the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.

   Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039;
   King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039;
   Emperor, 1027-1039.

   Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or
   Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.

   Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.

CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

   The Roman senators were so called,—"Patres Conscripti." The
   origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the
   explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that
   when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new
   creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were
   called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones
   were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole
   senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed
   finally into "Patres-Conscripti."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4._

CONSCRIPTION, The first French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).

CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.

   The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND:
   A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party
   designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson
   Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept
   slowly into general favour, although some few there were who
   always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the
   late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at
   all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr.
   Croker's mark upon it."

      _L. J. Jennings,
      The Croker Papers,
      volume 2, page 198._

CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CONSISTORY, The Papal.

      See CURIA, PAPAL.

CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.

   "The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in
   theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In
   the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the
   common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for
   sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties
   the breach of the moral law. … The administration of such a
   discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. … Thus
   arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance
   over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the
   cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of
   all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and
   profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by
   which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of
   Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts,
   perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to
   aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and
   weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints
   become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to
   wield them. … The Consistory Courts had continued into the
   sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although
   they had been for generations merely perennially flowing
   fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral
   conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to
   them. … But between the original design and the degenerate
   counterfeit there was this vital difference,—that the
   censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in
   various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence
   against morality was rated at its specific money value in the
   Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as
   ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel
   unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The
   misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were
   'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding
   thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,'
   'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,'
   'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment
   of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal
   definition."

      _J. A. Froude.
      History of England,
      chapter 3._

CONSPIRACY BILL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

CONSTABLE, The.

   "The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine
   court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory
   of Tours. The duties of the constables of France … and those
   of the constables of Naples … are not exactly parallel with
   [those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable
   kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the
   quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the
   sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his
   subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In
   England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the
   constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties
   which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The
   marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the
   constable one of the castle or army. … The constable …
   exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and
   army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 122, and note._

{505}

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.

   "No other dignity in the world has been held by such a
   succession of great soldiers as the office of Constable of
   France. The Constable was originally a mere officer of the
   stables, but his power had increased by the suppression of the
   office of Grand Seneschal, and by the time of Philip Augustus
   he exercised control over all the military forces of the
   crown. He was the general in chief of the army and the highest
   military authority in the kingdom. The constables had for four
   centuries been leaders in the wars of France, and they had
   experienced strange and varied fortunes. The office had been
   bestowed on the son of Simon de Montfort, and he for this
   honor had granted to the king of France his rights over those
   vast domains which had been given his father for his pious
   conquests. [See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.] It had been
   bestowed on Raoul de Nesle, who fell at Courtrai, where the
   French nobility suffered its first defeat from Flemish boors;
   on Bertrand de Guesclin, the last of the great warriors, whose
   deeds were sung with those of the paladins of Charlemagne; on
   Clisson, the victor of Roosebeck [or Rosebecque]; on Armagnac,
   whose name has a bloody preeminence among the leaders of the
   fierce soldiery who ravaged France during the English wars; on
   Buchan, whose Scotch valor and fidelity gained him this great
   trust among a foreign people; on Richemont, the companion of
   Joan Darc; on Saint Pol, the ally of Charles the Bold, the
   betrayer and the victim of Louis XI.; on the Duke of Bourbon,
   who won the battle of Pavia against his sovereign, and led his
   soldiers to that sack of Rome which made the ravages of
   Genseric and Alaric seem mild; on Anne of Montmorenci, a
   prominent actor in every great event in France from the battle
   of Pavia against Charles V. to that of St. Denis against
   Coligni; on his son, the companion of Henry IV. in his youth,
   and his trusted adviser in his age. … The sword borne by
   such men had been bestowed [1621] on Luines, the hero of an
   assassination, who could not drill a company of infantry; it
   was now [1622] given to the hero of many battles [the Duke of
   Lesdeguières], and the great office was to expire in the hands
   of a great soldier."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      volume 1, page 94._

CONSTANCE, The Council of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

CONSTANCE, Peace of (1183).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

CONSTANS I.,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-350.

   Constans II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641-668.

CONSTANTINA, The taking of (1837).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

CONSTANTINE, Pope, A. D. 708-715.
   Constantine I. (called The Great), Roman Emperor, A. D. 306-337.

   The Conversion.

      See ROME: A. D. 323.

   The Forged Donation of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).

   Constantine II., Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-340.

   Constantine III., Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 641.

   Constantine IV. (called Pogonatus),
   Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 668-685.

   Constantine V. (called Copronymus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 741-775.

   Constantine VI., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 780-797.

   Constantine VII. (called Porphyrogenitus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 911-950.

   Constantine VIII. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 944.

   Constantine IX., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1028.

   Constantine X., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1042-1054.

   Constantine XI., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1059-1067.

   Constantine XII., nominal Greek Emperor in the East,
   about A. D. 1071.

   Constantine XIII. (Polæologus), Greek Emperor
   of Constantinople, A. D. 1448-1453.

   Constantine the Usurper.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.
   Transformation of Byzantium.

   "Constantine had for some time contemplated the erection of a
   new capital. The experience of nearly half a century had
   confirmed the sagacity of Diocletian's selection of a site on
   the confines of Europe and Asia [Nicomedia] as the whereabouts
   in which the political centre of gravity of the Empire rested.
   At one time Constantine thought of adopting the site of
   ancient Troy, and is said to have actually commenced building
   a new city there. … More prosaic reasons ultimately
   prevailed. The practical genius of Constantine recognized in
   the town of Byzantium, on the European side of the border line
   between the two continents, the site best adapted for his new
   capital. All subsequent ages have applauded his discernment,
   for experience has endorsed the wisdom of the choice. By land,
   with its Asian suburb of Chrysopolis [modern Scutari], it
   practically spanned the narrow strait and joined Europe and
   Asia: by sea, it was open on one side to Spain, Italy, Greece,
   Africa, Egypt, Syria; on the other to the Euxine, and so by
   the Danube it had easy access to the whole of that important
   frontier between the Empire and the barbarians; and round all
   the northern coasts of the sea it took the barbarians in
   flank. … The city was solemnly dedicated with religious
   ceremonies on the 11th of May, 330, and the occasion was
   celebrated, after the Roman fashion, by a great festival,
   largesses and games in the hippodrome, which lasted forty
   days. The Emperor gave to the city institutions modelled after
   those of the ancient Rome."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapter 29._

   "The new walls of Constantine stretched from the port to the
   Propontis … at the distance of fifteen stadia from the
   ancient fortification, and, with the city of Byzantium, they
   enclosed five of the seven hills which, to the eyes of those
   who approach Constantinople, appear to rise above each other
   in beautiful order. About a century after the death of the
   founder, the new buildings … already covered the narrow
   ridge of the sixth and the broad summit of the seventh hill.
   … The buildings of the new city were executed by such
   artificers as the reign of Constantine could afford; but they
   were decorated by the hands of the most celebrated masters of
   the age of Pericles and Alexander. … By his commands the
   cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most
   valuable ornaments."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{506}

   "The new city was an exact copy of old Rome. … It was
   inhabited by senators from Rome. Wealthy individuals from the
   provinces were likewise compelled to keep up houses at
   Constantinople, pensions were conferred upon them, and a right
   to a certain amount of provisions from the public stores was
   annexed to these dwellings. Eighty thousand loaves of bread
   were distributed daily to the inhabitants of Constantinople.
   … The tribute of grain from Egypt was appropriated to supply
   Constantinople, and that of Africa was left for the
   consumption of Rome."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the later Roman Empire,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 363-518.
   The Eastern Court from Valens to Anastatius.
   Tumults at the capital.

      See ROME: A. D. 363-379 to 400-518.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 378.
   Threatened by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 400.
   Popular rising against the Gothic soldiery.
   Their expulsion from the city.

      See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.
   Tumults concerning the Trisagion.

   During the reign of Anastatius, at Constantinople, the fierce
   controversy which had raged for many years throughout the
   empire, between the Monophysites (who maintained that the
   divine and the human natures in Christ were one), and the
   'adherents of the Council of Chalcedon (which declared that
   Christ possessed two natures in one person), was embittered at
   the imperial capital by opposition between the emperor, who
   favored the Monophysites, and the patriarch who was strict in
   Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 511, and again in 512, it gave rise
   to two alarming riots at Constantinople. On the first
   occasion, a Monophysite or Eutychian party "burst into the
   Chapel of the Archangel in the Imperial Palace and dared to
   chant the Te Deum with the addition of the forbidden words,
   the war-cry of many an Eutychian mob, 'Who wast crucified for
   us.' The Trisagion, as it was called, the thrice-repeated cry
   to the Holy One, which Isaiah in his vision heard uttered by
   the seraphim, became, by the addition of these words, as
   emphatic a statement as the Monophysite party could desire of
   their favourite tenet that God, not man, breathed out his soul
   unto death outside the gates of Jerusalem. … On the next
   Sunday the Monophysites sang the verse which was their war-cry
   in the great Basilica itself." The riot which ensued was
   quieted with difficulty by the patriarch, to whom the emperor
   humbled himself. But in the next year, on a fast-day (Nov. 6)
   the Monophysites gave a similar challenge, singing the
   Trisagion with the prohibited words added, and "again psalmody
   gave place to blows; men wounded and dying lay upon the floor
   of the church. … The orthodox mob streamed from all parts
   into the great forum. There they swarmed and swayed to and fro
   all that day and all that night, shouting forth, not the
   greatness of the Ephesian Diana, but 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'
   without the words' 'Who wast crucified.' They hewed down the
   monks,—a minority of their class,—who were on the side of
   the imperial creed, and burned their monasteries with fire."
   After two days of riot, the aged emperor humbled himself to
   the mob, in the great Circus, offered to abdicate the throne
   and made peace by promises to respect the decrees of
   Chalcedon.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 10._

      See, also, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 532.
   The Sedition of Nika.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 542.
   The Plague.

      See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 553.
   General Council.

      See THREE CHAPTERS, THE DISPUTE OF THE.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 626.
   Attacked by the Avars and Persians.

      See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.
   First siege by the Saracens.

   "Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca his
   disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople.
   They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the
   prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of
   the Cæsars, their sins were forgiven. … No sooner had the
   Caliph Moawiyah [the first of the Ommiade caliphs, seated at
   Damascus,] suppressed his rivals and established his throne,
   than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the
   success of this holy expedition; his preparations by sea and
   land were adequate to the importance of the object; his
   standard was entrusted to Sophian, a veteran warrior. … The
   Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons
   of fear, from the courage and vigilance of the reigning
   Emperor, who disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated
   only the inglorious years of his grandfather Heraclius.
   Without delay or opposition, the naval forces of the Saracens
   passed through the unguarded channel of the Hellespont, which
   even now, under the feeble and disorderly government of the
   Turks, is maintained as the natural bulwark of the capital.
   The Arabian fleet cast anchor and the troops were disembarked
   near the palace of Hebdomon, seven miles from the city. During
   many days, from the dawn of light to the evening, the line of
   assault was extended from the golden gate to the Eastern
   promontory. … But the besiegers had formed an insufficient
   estimate of the strength and resources of Constantinople. The
   solid and lofty walls were guarded by numbers and discipline;
   the spirit of the Romans was rekindled by the last danger of
   their religion and empire; the fugitives from the conquered
   provinces more successfully renewed the defence of Damascus
   and Alexandria; and the Saracens were dismayed by the strange
   and prodigious effects of artificial fire. This firm and
   effectual resistance diverted their arms to the more easy
   attempts of plundering the European and Asiatic coasts of the
   Propontis; and, after keeping the sea from the month of April
   to that of September, on the approach of winter they retreated
   four score miles from the capital, to the isle of Cyzicus, in
   which they had established their magazine of spoil and
   provisions. So patient was their perseverance, or so languid
   were their operations, that they repeated in the six following
   summers the same attack and retreat, with a gradual abatement
   of hope and vigour, till the mischances of shipwreck and
   disease, of the sword and of fire, compelled them to
   relinquish the fruitless enterprise. They might bewail the
   loss, or commemorate the martyrdom, of 30,000 Moslems who fell
   in the siege of Constantinople. … The event of the siege
   revived, both in the East and West, the reputation of the
   Roman arms, and cast a momentary shade over the glories of the
   Saracens. … A peace, or truce of thirty years was ratified
   between the two Empires; and the stipulation of an annual
   tribute, fifty horses of a noble breed, fifty slaves, and
   3,000 pieces of gold, degraded the majesty of the commander of
   the faithful."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{507}

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 680.
   General Council.

      See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.
   The second siege by the Saracens.

   "When Leo [the Isaurian] was raised to the [Byzantine] throne
   [A. D. 717], the empire was threatened with immediate ruin.
   Six emperors had been dethroned within the space of twenty-one
   years. … The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to
   the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of
   Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus. … The Caliph
   Suleiman, who had seen one private adventurer succeed the
   other in quick succession on the imperial throne, deemed the
   moment favourable for the final conquest of the Christians;
   and, reinforcing his brother's army [in Asia Minor], he
   ordered him to lay siege to Constantinople. The Saracen empire
   had now reached its greatest extent. From the banks of the
   Sihun and the Indus to the shores of the Atlantic in
   Mauretania and Spain, the order of Suleiman was implicitly
   obeyed. … The army Moslemah led against Constantinople was
   the best-appointed that had ever attacked the Christians: it
   consisted of 80,000 warriors. The Caliph announced his
   intention of taking the field in person with additional
   forces, should the capital of the Christians offer a
   protracted resistance to the arms of Islam. The whole
   expedition is said to have employed 180,000 men. … Moslemah,
   after capturing Pergamus, marched to Abydos, where he was
   joined by the Saracen fleet. He then transported his army
   across the Hellespont, and marching along the shore of the
   Propontis, invested Leo in his capital both by land and sea.
   The strong walls of Constantinople, the engines of defence
   with which Roman and Greek art had covered the ramparts, and
   the skill of the Byzantine engineers, rendered every attempt
   to carry the place by assault hopeless, so that the Saracens
   were compelled to trust to the effect of a strict blockade for
   gaining possession of the city. … The besiegers encamped
   before Constantinople on the 15th August 717. The Caliph
   Suleiman died before he was able to send any reinforcements to
   his brother. The winter proved unusually severe." Great
   numbers of the warriors from the south were destroyed by the
   inclemency of a climate to which they had not become inured;
   many more died of famine in the Moslem camp, while the
   besieged city was plentifully supplied. The whole undertaking
   was disastrous from its beginning to its close, and, exactly
   one year from the pitching of his camp under the Byzantine
   walls, "on the 15th of August 718, Moslemah raised the siege,
   after ruining one of the finest armies the Saracens ever
   assembled. … Few military details concerning Leo's defence
   of Constantinople have been preserved, but there can be no
   doubt that it was one of the most brilliant exploits of a
   warlike age. … The vanity of Gallic writers has magnified
   the success of Charles Martel over a plundering expedition of
   the Spanish Arabs into a marvellous victory, and attributed
   the deliverance of Europe from the Saracen yoke to the valour
   of the Franks. A veil has been thrown over the talents and
   courage of Leo, a soldier of fortune, just seated on the
   imperial throne, who defeated the long-planned schemes of
   conquest of the Caliphs Welid and Suleiman. It is unfortunate
   that we have no Isaurian literature. … The war was languidly
   carried on for some years and the Saracens were gradually
   expelled from most of their conquests beyond Mount Tauris."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
      chapter 1._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 747.
   The Great Plague.

      See PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 754.
   The Iconoclastic Council.

      See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.
   First attack by the Russians.

   "In the year 865, a nation hitherto unknown made its first
   appearance in the history of the world, where it was destined
   to act no unimportant part. Its entrance into the political
   system of the European nations was marked by an attempt to
   take Constantinople, a project which it has often revived. …
   In the year 862, Rurik, a Scandinavian or Varangian chief,
   arrived at Novgorod, and laid the first foundation of the
   state which has grown into the Russian empire. The Russian
   people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in
   power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. …
   From what particular circumstance the Russians were led to
   make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The
   Emperor Michael [III.] had taken the command of an army to act
   against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted
   as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the
   Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of 200
   Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a
   favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and
   anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis,
   about 18 miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition
   had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from
   its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about
   Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging
   the monasteries and slaying the monks as well as the other
   inhabitants. The Emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on
   his capital hastened to its defence. … It required no great
   exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a
   force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders;
   but the horrid cruelty of the barbarians, and the wild daring
   of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the
   people of Constantinople."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 3, section 3._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.
   Repeated attacks by the Russians.

   Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial
   intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians,
   Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part
   of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful
   Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of
   2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and
   laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople.
   "It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to
   obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by
   imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of
   the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves
   with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner.
{508}
   At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a
   large sum of money. … These hostilities were terminated by a
   commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty
   until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by
   Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the
   Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result
   was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the
   Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt
   on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria;
   which would have brought them into the same dangerous
   neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day
   has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John
   Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian
   invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was
   reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the
   Danube, once more. For more than half a century,
   Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her
   Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus
   again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was
   wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000
   men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but
   a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople
   placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of
   the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted;
   and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with
   ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin
   nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol
   of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the
   Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them
   from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most
   Christian nation."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 3, section 2._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
   Sacked by the rebel army of Alexius Comnenus.

   Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine
   throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became
   historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown
   by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family
   of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in
   1057-1059,—he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the
   product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years
   had seen four emperors come and go—two to the grave and two
   into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these—Nicephorus
   III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of
   an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of
   the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he
   gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor
   consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery.
   Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army
   commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and
   mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No
   class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and
   the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike
   plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the
   Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the
   families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept
   treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its
   sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From
   this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius
   Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic
   supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. … The
   power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a
   century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated
   populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family,
   Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April,
   1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 1._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204.
   Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.

   See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;
   and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261.
   The Latin Empire and its fall.
   Recovery by the Greeks.

      See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF,
      and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261.
   Great privileges conceded to the Genoese.
   Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.
   The restored Greek Empire.

   On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised
   and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of
   Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK
   EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal
   entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport
   of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of
   solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt
   and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had
   been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of
   time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their
   ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching
   exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the
   work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the
   pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of
   inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It
   was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the
   nobles in the palaces of their fathers. … He repeopled
   Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and
   the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had
   been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the
   factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent
   conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged
   their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to
   live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of
   these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their
   respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of
   the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of
   Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and
   the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first
   planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were
   speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of
   the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they
   revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine
   Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the
   era of a new Empire."
{509}
   The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital
   of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael
   Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest
   islands of the Archipelago—Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His
   brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and
   Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and
   Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. … But
   in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries
   beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their
   depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that
   the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not
   only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish
   conquerors—the Ottomans—but those most aggressive of the
   proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to
   cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a
   Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they
   devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece,
   until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long
   before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In
   the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at
   Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the
   rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their
   battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference,
   almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of
   the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt
   in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. …
   The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon
   have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the
   republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and
   naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the
   triumph of Venice. … Yet the spirit of commerce survived
   that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the
   capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the
   Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 62-63.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
      1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
   War with the Genoese.
   Alliance with Venice and Aragon.

   John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not
   reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the
   Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm
   partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by
   Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town,
   and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the
   civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency
   with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the
   revenue which the imperial government derived from the port.
   … The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their
   profits. … The increased industry of the Greeks, and the
   jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The
   colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner,
   without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With
   a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they
   attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the
   capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of
   the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who
   administered the government in the absence of her husband,
   behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold
   attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital,
   where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had
   sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the
   Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill
   would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of
   his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover,
   to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land
   side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly
   conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his
   plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and
   his army retreated without making a serious attack.
   Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received
   an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. … Their
   victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep
   possession of some land they had seized, and on which they
   soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly
   disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced
   Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the
   restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered
   by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded,
   by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor
   of Constantinople in ten years. … But this treaty was never
   carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the
   republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and
   retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short
   duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese
   from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the
   Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to
   accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had
   drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the
   Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great
   commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and
   China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses.
   The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had
   been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the
   Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had
   extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of
   the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and
   capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the
   two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351,
   Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined
   his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded
   an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon.
   Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age,
   appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but
   his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his
   principal object was attained when he had convoyed the
   merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos,
   however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to
   receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese
   colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in
   consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness
   of the Venetians.
{510}
   Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the
   Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a
   superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter,
   stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where
   Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and
   carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were
   compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these
   captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, …
   The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city,
   indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the
   Black Sea. … Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to
   Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da
   Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies
   and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata.
   The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it
   received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of
   which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The
   honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese.
   … Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople,
   and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the
   Venetian alliance … concluded a peace with the republic of
   Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek
   empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to
   all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the
   previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata
   and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 4._

   The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check
   the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the
   latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were
   defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a
   great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of
   Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They
   obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November,
   when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at
   Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was
   preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained
   not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed;
   an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000,
   and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken."
   In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded
   Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.

      _W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapters 18-19 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. A. Parker,
      The Fleets of the World,
      pages 88-94._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.
   Conquest by the Turks.

   Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at
   the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of
   Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were
   fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which
   he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply
   to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he
   would renounce the project of building a fort on the European
   shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five
   miles from the capital, would give him the command of the
   Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to
   flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message
   again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned
   with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that
   passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan.
   Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor]
   made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he
   could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid
   from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself
   with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to
   his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in
   manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when,
   in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was
   said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in
   the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered
   with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly
   resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final
   assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May,
   1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of
   the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead
   body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman
   capital. "The despairing people—senators, priests, monks,
   nuns, husbands, wives and children—sought safety in the
   church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here
   the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a
   drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in
   the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed,
   sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the
   street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes,
   and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a
   frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons
   could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves
   among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and
   hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the
   glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of
   the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were
   plundered by other divisions of the army. … About noon the
   Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos,
   passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among
   the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend
   the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was
   now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true
   believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought,
   his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be
   sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal
   cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was
   given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the
   license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished
   during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to
   slavery."

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern: Fourth course,
      lecture 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 68.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481.
   The city repopulated and rebuilt.
   Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.

{511}

   "It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople,
   in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The
   installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the
   Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually
   returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their
   property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a
   sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the
   Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the
   greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly
   exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and
   population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed
   compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to
   Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build
   their houses. … Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians,
   Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick
   succession, and long before the end of his reign
   Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active
   population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it
   had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of
   his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. …
   Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of
   architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were
   constructed in every quarter of the city. … The picturesque
   beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its
   artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a
   Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire
   disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The
   traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine
   capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine
   architecture, must continue his travels eastward to
   Trebizond."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 7._

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1807.
   Threatened by a British fleet.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

----------CONSTANTINOPLE: End----------

CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

CONSTANTIUS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-306.

    Constantius II., A. D. 337-361.

CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1814.

CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

----------CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

   The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine
   Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868,"
   taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic,"
   prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary
   Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's
   Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since
   1860:

Part I.

Article I.
   The Argentine Nation adopts the federal-republican, and
   representative form of Government, as established by the
   present Constitution.

Article 2.
   The Federal Government shall maintain the Apostolic Roman
   Catholic Faith.

Article 3.
   The authorities of the Federal Government shall reside in the
   city which a special law of Congress may declare the capital
   of the Republic, subsequently to the cession by one or more of
   the Provincial Legislatures, of the territory about to be
   federalized.

Article 4.
   The Federal Government shall administer the expenses of the
   Nation out of the revenue in the National Treasury, derived
   from import and export duties; from the sale and lease of the
   public lands; from postage; and from such other taxes as the
   General Congress may equitably and proportionably lay upon the
   people; as also, from such loans and credits as may be decreed
   by it in times of national necessity, or for enterprises of
   national utility.

Article 5.
   Each Province shall make a Constitution for itself, according
   to the republican representative system, and the principles,
   declarations and guarantees of this Constitution; and which
   shall provide for (secure) Municipal Government, primary
   education and the administration of justice. Under these
   conditions the Federal Government shall guarantee to each
   Province the exercise and enjoyment of its institutions.

Article 6.
   The Federal Government shall intervene in the Provinces to
   guarantee the republican form of Government, or to repel
   foreign invasion, and also, on application of their
   constituted authorities, should they have been deposed by
   sedition or by invasion from another Province, for the purpose
   of sustaining or re-establishing them.

Article 7.
   Full faith shall be given in each Province to the pubic acts,
   and judicial proceedings of every other Province; and Congress
   may by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts
   and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article 8.
   The citizens of each Province shall be entitled to all the
   rights, privileges and immunities, inherent to the citizens of
   all the several Provinces. The reciprocal extradition of
   criminals between all the Provinces, is obligatory.

Article 9.
   Throughout the territory of the Nation, no other than the
   National Custom-Houses shall be allowed, and they shall be
   regulated by the tariffs sanctioned by Congress.

Article 10.
   The circulation of all goods produced or manufactured in the
   Republic, is free within its borders, as also, that of all
   species of merchandise which may be dispatched by the
   Custom-Houses of entry.

Article 11.
   Such articles of native or foreign production, as well as
   cattle of every kind, which pass from one Province to another,
   shall be free from all transit-duties, and also the vehicles,
   vessels or animals, which transport them; and no tax, let it
   be what it may, can be henceforward imposed upon them on
   account of such transit.

Article 12.
   Vessels bound from one Province to another, shall not be
   compelled to enter, anchor, or pay transit-duties; nor in any
   case can preferences be granted to one port over another, by
   any commercial laws or regulations.

Article 13.
   New Provinces may be admitted into the Nation; but no Province
   shall be erected within the territory of any other Province,
   or Provinces, nor any Province be formed by the junction of
   various Provinces, without the consent of the legislatures of
   the Provinces concerned, as well as of Congress.

{512}

Article 14.
   All the inhabitants of the Nation shall enjoy the following
   rights, according to the laws which regulate their exercise:
   viz. to labor and to practice all lawful industry; to trade
   and navigate; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain
   in, travel over and leave, Argentine territory; to publish
   their ideas in the public-press without previous censure; to
   enjoy and dispose of their property; to associate for useful
   purposes; to profess freely their religion; to teach and to
   learn.

Article 15.
   In the Argentine Nation there are no slaves; the few which now
   exist shall be free from the date of the adoption of this
   Constitution, and a special law shall regulate the indemnity
   acknowledged as due by this declaration. All contracts for the
   purchase and sale of persons is a crime, for which those who
   make them, as well as the notary or functionary which
   authorizes them, shall be responsible, and the slaves who in
   any manner whatever may be introduced, shall be free from the
   sole fact that they tread the territory of the Republic.

Article 16.
   The Argentine Nation does not admit the prerogatives of blood
   nor of birth; in it, there are no personal privileges or
   titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal in presence
   of the law, and admissible to office without other condition
   than that of fitness. Equality is the basis of taxation as
   well as of public-posts.

Article 17.
   Property is inviolable, and no inhabitant of the Nation can be
   deprived of it, save by virtue of a sentence based on law. The
   expropriation for public utility must be authorized by law and
   previously indemnified. Congress alone shall impose the
   contributions mentioned in Article 4. No personal service
   shall be exacted save by virtue of law, or of a sentence
   founded on law. Every author or inventor is the exclusive
   proprietor of his work, invention or discovery, for the term
   which the law accords to him. The confiscation of property is
   henceforward and forever, stricken from the Argentine
   penal-code. No armed body can make requisitions, nor exact
   assistance of any kind.

Article 18.
   No inhabitant of the Nation shall suffer punishment without a
   previous judgment founded on a law passed previously to the
   cause of judgment, nor be judged by special commissions, or
   withdrawn from the Judges designated by law before the opening
   of the cause. No one shall be obliged to testify against
   himself; nor be arrested, save by virtue of a written order
   from a competent authority. The defense at law both of the
   person and his rights, is inviolable. The domicil, private
   papers and epistolary correspondence, are inviolable; and a
   law shall determine in what cases, and under what imputations,
   a search-warrant can proceed against and occupy them. Capital
   punishment for political causes, as well as every species of
   torture and whippings, are abolished for ever. The prisons of
   the Nation shall be healthy and clean, for the security, and
   not for the punishment, of the criminals detained in them, and
   every measure which under pretext of precaution may mortify
   them more than such security requires, shall render
   responsible the Judge who authorizes it.

Article 19.
   Those private actions of men that in nowise offend public
   order and morality, or injure a third party, belong alone to
   God, and are beyond the authority of the magistrates. No
   inhabitant of the Nation shall be compelled to do what the law
   does not ordain, nor be deprived of anything which it does not
   prohibit.

Article 20.
   Within the territory of the Nation, foreigners shall enjoy all
   the civil rights of citizens; they can exercise their
   industries, commerce or professions, in accordance with the
   laws; own, buy and sell real-estate; navigate the rivers and
   coasts; freely profess their religion, and testate and marry.
   They shall not be obliged to become citizens, nor to pay
   forced contributions. Two years previous residence in the
   Nation shall be required for naturalization, but the
   authorities can shorten this term in favour of him who so
   desires it, under the allegation and proof of services
   rendered to the Republic.

Article 21.
   Every Argentine citizen is obliged to arm himself in defense
   of his country and of this Constitution, according to the laws
   which Congress shall ordain for the purpose, and the decrees
   of the National Executive. For the period of ten years from
   the day on which they may have obtained their citizenship,
   this service shall be voluntary on the part of the
   naturalized.

Article 22.
   The people shall not deliberate nor govern save by means of
   their Representatives and Authorities, created by this
   Constitution. Every armed force or meeting of persons which
   shall arrogate to itself the rights of the people, and
   petition in their name, is guilty of sedition.

Article 23.
   In the event of internal commotion or foreign attack which
   might place in jeopardy the practice of this Constitution, and
   the free action of the Authorities created by it, the Province
   or territory where such disturbance exists shall be declared
   in a state of siege, all constitutional guarantees being
   meantime suspended there. But during such suspension the
   President of the Republic cannot condemn nor apply any
   punishment per se. In respect to persons, his power shall be
   limited to arresting and removing them from one place to
   another in the Nation, should they not prefer to leave Argentine
   territory.

Article 24.
   Congress shall establish the reform of existing laws in all
   branches, as also the trial by Jury.

Article 25.
   The Federal Government shall foment European immigration; and
   it cannot restrict, limit, nor lay any impost upon, the entry
   upon Argentine territory, of such foreigners as come for the
   purpose of cultivating the soil, improving manufactures, and
   introducing and teaching the arts and sciences.

Article 26.
   The navigation of the interior rivers of the Nation is free to
   all flags, subject only to such regulations as the National
   Authority may dictate.

Article 27.
   The Federal Government is obliged to strengthen the bonds of
   peace and commerce with foreign powers, by means of treaties
   which shall be in conformity with the principles of public law
   laid down in this Constitution.

Article 28.
   The principles, rights and guarantees laid down in the
   foregoing articles, cannot be altered by any laws intended to
   regulate their practice.

Article 29.
   Congress cannot grant to the Executive, nor the provincial
   legislatures to the Governor of Provinces, any "extraordinary
   faculties," nor the "sum of the public power," nor
   "renunciations or supremacies" by which the lives, honor or
   fortune of the Argentines shall be at the mercy of any
   Government or person whatever. Acts of this nature shall be
   irremediably null and void, and shall subject those who frame,
   vote, or sign them, to the pains and penalties incurred by
   those who are infamous traitors to their country.

{513}

Article 30.
   This Constitution can be reformed in whole or in part. The
   necessity for the reform shall be declared by Congress by at
   least a two-thirds vote; but it can only be accomplished by a
   convention called ad hoc.

Article 31.
   This Constitution, and the laws of the Nation which shall be
   made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which
   shall be made with Foreign Powers, shall be the supreme law of
   the land; and the authorities of every Province shall be bound
   thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any Province
   to the contrary notwithstanding, excepting in the case of
   Buenos-Aires, in the treaties ratified after the compact of
   November 11th, 1859.

Article 32.
   The Federal Congress shall not dictate laws restricting the
   liberty of the press, nor establish any federal jurisdiction
   over it.

Article 33.
   The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights and
   guarantees, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other
   rights and guarantees, not enumerated; but which spring from
   the principle of popular sovereignty, and the republican form
   of Government.

Article 34.
   The Judges of the Federal courts shall not be Judges of
   Provincial tribunals at the same time; nor shall the federal
   service, civil as well as military, constitute a domicil in
   the Province where it may be exercised, if it be not
   habitually that of the employé; it being understood by this,
   that all Provincial public-service is optional in the Province
   where such employé may casually reside.

Article 35.
   The names which have been successively adopted for the Nation,
   since the year 1810 up to the present time; viz., the United
   Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, Argentine Republic and
   Argentine Confederation, shall henceforward serve without
   distinction, officially to designate the Government and
   territory of the Provinces, whilst the words Argentine Nation
   shall be employed in the making and sanction of the laws.

Part II.—Section I.

Article 36.
   All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
   Congress composed of two Chambers, one of National Deputies,
   and the other of Senators of the Provinces and of the capital.

Chapter I.

Article 37.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of representatives
   elected directly by the people of the Provinces, for which
   purpose each one shall be considered as a single electoral
   district, and by a simple plurality of votes in the ratio of
   one for each 20,000 inhabitants, or for a fraction not less
   than 10,000.

Article 38.
   The deputies for the first Legislature shall be nominated in
   the following proportion: for the Province of Buenos-Aires,
   twelve; for that of Córdoba, six; for Catamarca, three;
   Corrientes, four; Entre-Rios, two; Jujui, two; Mendoza, three;
   Rioja, two; Salta, three; Santiago, four; San Juan, two;
   Santa-Fé, two; San Luis, two; and for that of Tucumán, three.

Article 39.
   For the second Legislature a general census shall be taken,
   and the number of Deputies be regulated by it; thereafter,
   this census shall be decennial.

Article 40.
   No person shall be a Deputy who shall not have attained the
   age of twenty-five years, have been four years in the exercise
   of citizenship, and be a native of the Province which elects
   him, or a resident of it for the two years immediately
   preceding.

Article 41.
   For the first election, the provincial Legislatures shall
   regulate the method for a direct election of the National
   Deputies. Congress shall pass a general law for the future.

Article 42.
   The Deputies shall hold their place for four years, and are
   re-eligible; but the House shall be renewed each biennial, by
   halves; for which purpose those elected to the first
   Legislature, as soon as the session opens, shall decide by lot
   who shall leave at the end of the first period.

Article 43.
   In case of vacancy, the Government of the Province or of the
   capital, shall call an election for a new member.

Article 44.
   The origination of the tax-laws and those for the recruiting
   of troops, belongs exclusively to the House of Deputies.

Article 45.
   It has the sole right of impeaching before the Senate, the
   President, Vice-President, their Ministers, and the members of
   the Supreme Court and other inferior Tribunals of the Nation,
   in suits which may be undertaken against them for the improper
   discharge of, or deficiency in, the exercise of their
   functions; or for common crimes, after having heard them, and
   declared by a vote of two thirds of the members present, that
   there is cause for proceeding against them.


Chapter II.

Article 46.
   The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each
   Province, chosen by the Legislatures thereof by plurality of
   vote, and two from the capital elected in the form prescribed
   for the election of the President of the Nation. Each Senator
   shall have one vote.

Article 47.
   No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the
   age of thirty years, been six years a citizen of the Nation,
   enjoy an annual rent or income of two thousand hard-dollars,
   and be a native of the Province which elects him, or a
   resident of the same for the two years immediately preceding.

Article 48.
   The Senators shall enjoy their trust for nine years, and are
   indefinitely re-eligible; but the Senate shall be renewed by
   thirds each three years, and shall decide by lot, as soon as
   they be all re-united, who shall leave at the end of the first
   and second triennial periods.

Article 49.
   The Vice-President of the Nation shall be President of the
   Senate; but shall have no vote, except in a case of a tie.

Article 50.
   The Senate shall choose a President pro-tempore who shall
   preside during the absence of the Vice-President, or when he
   shall exercise the office of President of the Nation.

Article 51.
   The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments
   presented by the House of Deputies. When sitting for that
   purpose they shall be under oath. When the President of the
   Nation is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. No person
   shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of
   the members present.

Article 52.
   Judgment in case of impeachment, shall not extend farther than
   to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
   any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Nation. But
   the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to
   indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law,
   before the ordinary tribunals.

{514}

Article 53.
   It belongs, moreover, to the Senate, to authorize the
   President to declare martial law in one or more points of the
   Republic, in case of foreign aggression.

Article 54.
   When any seat of a Senator be vacant by death, resignation or
   other reason, the Government to which the vacancy belongs,
   shall immediately proceed to the election of a new member.


Chapter III.

Article 55.
   Both Chambers shall meet in ordinary session, every year from
   the 1st May until the 30th September. They can be
   extraordinarily convoked, or their session be prolonged by the
   President of the Nation.

Article 56.
   Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
   qualifications of its own members. Neither of them shall enter
   into session without an absolute Majority of its members; but
   a smaller number may compel absent members to attend the
   sessions, in such terms and under such penalties as each House
   may establish.

Article  57.
   Both Houses shall begin and close their sessions
   simultaneously. Neither of them whilst in sessions can suspend
   its meetings for more than three days, without the consent of
   the other.

Article 58.
   Each House may make its rules of proceeding, and with the
   concurrence of two-thirds punish its members for disorderly
   behavior in the exercise of their functions, or remove, and
   even expel them from the House, for physical or moral
   incapacity occurring after their incorporation; but a majority
   of one above one half of the members present, shall suffice to
   decide questions of voluntary resignation.

Article  59.
   In the act of their incorporation the Senators and Deputies
   shall take an oath to properly fulfil their charge, and to act
   in all things in conformity to the prescriptions of this
   Constitution.

Article 60.
   No member of Congress can be indicted, judicially
   interrogated, or molested for any opinion or discourse which
   he may have uttered in fulfilment of his Legislative duties.

Article 61.
   No Senator or Deputy, during the term for which he may have
   been elected, shall be arrested, except when taken 'in
   flagrante' commission of some crime which merits capital
   punishment or other degrading sentence; an account thereof
   shall be rendered to the Chamber he belongs to, with a verbal
   process of the facts.

Article 62.
   When a complaint in writing be made before the ordinary courts
   against any Senator or Deputy, each Chamber can by a
   two-thirds vote, suspend the accused in his functions and
   place him at the disposition of the competent judge for trial.

Article 63.
   Each of the Chambers can cause the Ministers of the Executive
   to come to their Hall, to give such explanations or
   information as may be considered convenient.

Article 64.
   No member of Congress can receive any post or commission from
   the Executive, without the previous consent of his respective
   Chamber, excepting such as are in the line of promotion.

Article 65.
   The regular ecclesiastics cannot be members of Congress, nor
   call the Governors of Provinces represent the Province which
   they govern.

Article 66.
   The Senators and Deputies shall be remunerated for their
   services, by a compensation to be ascertained by law.


Chapter IV.

Article 67.
   The Congress shall have power:

   1. To legislate upon the Custom-Houses and establish import
   duties; which, as well as all appraisements for their
   collection, shall be uniform throughout the Nation, it being
   clearly understood that these, as well as all other national
   contributions, can be paid in any money at the just value
   which may be current in the respective Provinces. Also, to
   establish export duties.

   2. To lay direct taxes for determinate periods, whenever the
   common defense and general welfare require it, which shall be
   uniform throughout the territory of the Nation.

   3. To borrow money on the credit of the Nation.

   4. To determine the use and sale of the National lands.

   5. To establish and regulate a National Bank in the capital,
   with branches in the Provinces, and with power to emit bills.

   6. To regulate the payment of the home and foreign debts of
   the Nation.

   7. To annually determine the estimates of the National
   Administration, and approve or reject the accounts of
   expenses.

   8. To grant subsidies from the National Treasury to those
   Provinces, whose revenues, according to their budgets, do not
   suffice to cover the ordinary expenses.

   9. To regulate the free navigation of the interior rivers,
   open such ports as may be considered necessary, create and
   suppress Custom-Houses, but without suppressing those which
   existed in each Province at the time of its incorporation.

   10. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign
   coin, and adopt a uniform system of weights and measures for
   the whole Nation.

   11. To decree civil, commercial, penal and mining Codes, but
   such Codes shall have no power to change local jurisdiction;
   their application shall belong to the Federal or Provincial
   courts, in accordance with such things or persons as may come
   under their respective jurisdiction; especially, general laws
   embracing the whole Nation, shall be passed upon
   naturalization and citizenship, subject to the principle of
   native citizenship; also upon bankruptcy, the counterfeiting
   of current-money and public State documents; and such laws as
   may be required for the establishment of trial by Jury.

   12. To regulate commerce by land and sea with foreign nations,
   and between the Provinces.

   13. To establish and regulate the general post-offices and
   post-roads of the Nation.

   14. To finally settle the National boundaries, fix those of
   the Provinces, create new Provinces, and determine by a
   special legislation, the organization and governments, which
   such National territories as are beyond the limits assigned to
   the Province, should have.

   15. To provide for the security of the frontiers; preserve
   peaceful relations with the Indians, and promote their
   conversion to Catholicism.

   16. To provide all things conducive to the prosperity of the
   country, to the advancement and happiness of the Provinces,
   and to the increase of enlightenment, decreeing plans for
   general and university instruction, promoting industry,
   immigration, the construction of railways, and navigable
   canals, the peopling of the National lands, the introduction
   and establishment of new industries, the importation of
   foreign capital and the exploration of the interior rivers, by
   protection laws to these ends, and by temporary concessions
   and stimulating recompenses.

{515}

   17. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,
   create and suppress public offices, fix their attributes,
   grant pensions, decree honors and general amnesties.

   18. To accept or reject the resignation of the President or
   Vice-President of the Republic, and declare new elections; to
   make the scrutiny and rectification of the same.

   19. To ratify or reject the treaties made with other Nations
   and the Concordats with the Apostolic See, and regulate the
   patronage of advowsons throughout the Nation.

   20. To admit religious orders within the Nation, other than
   those already existing.

   21. To authorize the Executive to declare war and make peace.

   22. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules
   concerning prizes.

   23. To fix the land and sea forces in time of peace and war:
   and to make rules and regulations for the government of said
   forces.

   24. To provide for calling forth the militia of all, or a part
   of, the Provinces, to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress
   insurrections or repel invasions. To provide for organizing,
   arming, and disciplining said militia, and for governing such
   part of them as may be employed in the service of the Nation,
   reserving to the Provinces respectively, the appointment of
   the corresponding chiefs and officers, and the authority of
   training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
   Congress.

   25. To permit the introduction of foreign troops within the
   territory of the Nation, and the going beyond it of the
   National forces.

   26. To declare martial law in any or various points of the
   Nation in case of domestic commotion, and ratify or suspend
   the declaration of martial law made by the executive during
   the recess.

   27. To exercise exclusive legislation over the territory of
   the National capital, and over such other places acquired by
   purchase or cession in any of the Provinces, for the purpose
   of establishing forts, arsenals, warehouses, or other needful
   national buildings.

   28. To make all laws and regulations which shall be necessary
   for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all
   others vested by the present Constitution in the Government of
   the Argentine Nation.


Chapter V.

Article 68.
   Laws may originate in either of the Houses of Congress, by
   bills presented by their members or by the Executive,
   excepting those relative to the objects treated of in Article
   44.

Article 69.
   A bill being approved by the House wherein it originated,
   shall pass for discussion to the other House. Being approved
   by both, it shall pass to the Executive of the Nation for his
   examination; and should it receive his approbation he shall
   publish it as law.

Article 70.
   Every bill not returned within ten working-days by the
   Executive, shall be taken as approved by him.

Article 71.
   No bill entirely rejected by one House, can be presented again
   during that year. But should it be only amplified or corrected
   by the revising House, it shall return to that wherein it
   originated; and if there the additions or corrections be
   approved by an absolute majority, it shall pass to the
   Executive. If the additions or corrections be rejected, it
   shall return to the revising House, and if here they be again
   sanctioned by a majority of two-thirds of its members, it
   shall pass to the other House, and it shall not be understood
   that the said additions and corrections are rejected, unless
   two-thirds of the members present should so vote.

Article 72.
   A bill being rejected in whole or in part by the Executive, he
   shall return it with his objections to the House in which it
   originated; here it shall be debated again; and if it be
   confirmed by a majority of two-thirds, it shall pass again to
   the revising House. If both Houses should pass it by the same
   majority, it becomes a law, and shall be sent to the Executive
   for promulgation. In such case the votes of both Houses shall
   be by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons so voting
   shall be recorded, as well as the objections of the Executive,
   and shall be immediately published in the daily-press. If the
   Houses differ upon the objections, the bill cannot be renewed
   during that year.

Article 73.
   The following formula shall be used in the passage of the
   laws: "The Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine
   Nation in Congress assembled, etc. decree, or sanction, with
   the force of law."


Section II.—Chapter I.

Article 74.
   The Executive power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
   citizen, with the title of "President of the Argentine
   Nation."

Article 75.
   In case of the sickness, absence from the capital, death,
   resignation or dismissal of the President, the Executive power
   shall be exercised by the Vice-President of the Nation. In
   case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the
   President and Vice-President of the Nation, Congress will
   determine which public functionary shall then fill the
   Presidency, until the disability be removed or a new President
   be elected.

Article 76.
   No person except a natural-born citizen or a son of a
   natural-born citizen brought forth abroad, shall be eligible
   as President or Vice-President of the Nation; he is required
   to belong to the Apostolic-Roman-Catholic communion, and
   possess the other qualifications required to be elected
   Senator.

Article 77.
   The President and Vice-President shall hold office during the
   term of six years; and cannot be re-elected except after an
   interval of an equal period.

Article 78.
   The President of the Nation shall cease in his functions the
   very day on which his period of six years expires, and no
   event whatever which may have interrupted it, can be a motive
   for completing it at a later time.

Article 79.
   The President and Vice-President shall receive a compensation
   from the National Treasury, which cannot be altered during the
   period for which they shall have been elected. During the same
   period they cannot exercise any other office nor receive any
   other emolument from the Nation, or any of its Provinces.

Article 80.
   The President and Vice-President before entering upon the
   execution of their offices, shall take the following oath
   administered by the President of the Senate (the first time by
   the President of the Constituent Congress) in Congress
   assembled: "I (such an one) swear by God our Lord, and by
   these Holy Evangelists, that I will faithfully and
   patriotically execute the office of President (or
   Vice-President) of the Nation, and observe and cause to be
   faithfully observed, the Constitution of the Argentine Nation.
   If I should not do so, let God and the Nation indict me."

{516}

Chapter II.

Article 81.
   The election of the President and Vice-President of the
   Nation, shall be made in the following manner:-The capital and
   each of the Provinces shall by direct vote nominate a board of
   electors, double the number of Deputies and Senators which
   they send to Congress, with the same qualifications and under
   the same form as those prescribed for the election of
   Deputies. Deputies or Senators, or officers in the pay of the
   Federal Government cannot be electors. The electors being met
   in the National-capital and in that of their respective
   Provinces, four months prior to the conclusion of the term of
   the out-going President, they shall proceed by signed ballots,
   to elect a President, and Vice-President, one of which shall
   state the person as President, and the other the person as
   Vice-President, for whom they vote. Two lists shall be made of
   all the individuals elected as President, and other two also,
   of those elected as Vice-President, with the number of votes
   which each may have received. These lists shall be signed by
   the electors, and shall be remitted closed and sealed, two of
   them (one of each kind) to the President of the Provincial
   Legislature, and to the President of the Municipality in the
   capital, among whose records they shall remain deposited and
   closed; the other two shall be sent to the President of the
   Senate (the first time to the President of the Constituent
   Congress).

Article 82.
   The President of the Senate (the first time that of the
   Constituent Congress) all the lists being received, shall open
   them in the presence of both Houses. Four members of Congress
   taken by lot and associated to the Secretaries, shall
   immediately proceed to count the votes, and to announce the
   number which may result in favor of each candidate for the
   Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the Nation. Those who have
   received an absolute majority of all the votes in both cases,
   shall be immediately proclaimed President and Vice-President.

Article 83.
   In case there be no absolute majority, on account of a
   division of the votes, Congress shall elect one of the two
   persons who shall have received the highest number of votes.
   If the first majority should have fallen to a single person,
   and the second to two or more, Congress shall elect among all
   the persons who may have obtained the first and second
   majorities.

Article 84.
   This election shall be made by absolute plurality of votes,
   and voting by name. If, on counting the first vote, no
   absolute majority shall have been obtained, a second trial
   shall be made, limiting the voting to the two persons who
   shall have obtained the greatest number of suffrages at the
   first trial. In case of an equal number of votes, the
   operation shall be repeated, and should the result be the
   same, then the President of the Senate (the first time that of
   the Constituent Congress) shall decide it. No scrutiny or
   rectification of these elections can be made, unless
   three-fourth parts of all the members of the Congress be
   present.

Article 85.
   The election of the President and Vice-President of the
   Nation, shall be concluded in a single meeting of the
   Congress, and thereafter, the result and the electoral lists
   shall be published in the daily-press.


Chapter III.

Article 86.
   The President of the Nation has the following attributes:

   1. He is the supreme chief of the Nation, and is charged with
   the general administration of the country.

   2. He issues such instructions and regulations as may be
   necessary for the execution of the laws of the Nation, taking
   care not to alter their spirit with regulative exceptions.

   3. He is the immediate and local chief of the National
   capital.

   4. He participates in making the laws according to the
   Constitution; and sanctions and promulgates them.

   5. He nominates the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the
   Inferior Federal tribunals, and appoints them by and with the
   consent and advice of the Senate.

   6. He has power to pardon or commute penalties against
   officers subject to Federal jurisdiction, preceded by a report
   of the proper Tribunal, excepting in case of impeachment by
   the House of Deputies.

   7. He grants retiring-pensions, leaves of absence and
   pawnbrokers' licences, in conformity to the laws of the
   Nation.

   8. He exercises the rights of National Patronage in the
   presentation of Bishops for the cathedrals, choosing from a
   ternary nomination of the Senate.

   9. He grants letters-patent or retains the decrees of the
   Councils, the bulls, briefs and rescripts of the Holy Roman
   Pontiff, by and with the consent of the Supreme Court, and
   must require a law for the same when they contain general and
   permanent dispositions.

   10. He appoints and removes Ministers Plenipotentiary and
   Chargé d'Affaires, by and with the consent and advice of the
   Senate; and himself alone appoints and removes the Ministers
   of his Cabinet, the officers of the Secretary-ships, Consular
   Agents, and the rest of the employés of the Administration
   whose nomination is not otherwise ordained by this
   Constitution.

   11. He annually opens the Sessions of Congress, both Houses
   being united for this purpose in the Senate Chamber, giving an
   account to Congress on this occasion of the state of the
   Nation, of the reforms provided by the Constitution, and
   recommending to its consideration such measures as may be
   judged necessary and convenient.

   12. He prolongs the ordinary meetings of Congress or convokes
   it in extra session, when a question of progress or an
   important interest so requires.

   13. He collects the rents of the Nation and decrees their
   expenditure in conformity to the law or estimates of the
   Public expenses.

   14. He negotiates and signs those treaties of peace, of
   commerce, of navigation, of alliance, of boundaries and of
   neutrality, requisite to maintain good relations with foreign
   powers; he receives their Ministers and admits their Consuls.

   15. He is commander in chief of all the sea and land forces of
   the Nation.

   16. He confers, by and with the consent of the Senate, the
   high military grades in the army and navy of the Nation; and
   by himself on the field of battle.

   17. He disposes of the land and sea forces, and takes charge
   of their organization and distribution according to the
   requirements of the Nation.

   18. By the authority and approval of Congress, he declares war
   and grants letters of marque and reprisal.

{517}

   19. By and with the consent of the Senate, in case of foreign
   aggression and for a limited time, he declares martial law in
   one or more points of the Nation. In case of internal
   commotion he has this power only when Congress is in recess,
   because it is an attribute which belongs to this body. The
   President exercises it under the limitations mentioned in
   Article 23.

   20. He may require from the chiefs of all the branches and
   departments of the Administration, and through them from all
   other employés, such reports as he may believe necessary, and
   they are compelled to give them.

   21. He cannot absent himself from the capital of the Nation
   without permission of Congress. During the recess he can only
   do so without permission on account of important objects of
   public service.

   22. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that
   may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
   commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next
   session.


Chapter IV.

Article 87.
   Five Minister-Secretaries; to wit, of the Interior; of Foreign
   Affairs; of Finance; of Justice, Worship and Public
   Instruction; and of War and the Navy; shall have under their
   charge the dispatch of National affairs, and they shall
   counter-sign and legalize the acts of the President by means
   of their signatures, without which requisite they shall not be
   efficacious. A law shall determine the respective duties of
   the Ministers.

Article 88.
   Each Minister is responsible for the acts which he legalizes,
   and collectively, for those which he agrees to with his
   colleagues.

Article 89.
   The Ministers cannot determine anything whatever, by
   themselves, except what concerns the economical and
   administrative regimen of their respective Departments.

Article 90.
   As soon as Congress opens, the Ministers shall present to it a
   detailed report of the State of the Nation, in all that
   relates to their respective Departments.

Article 91.
   They cannot be Senators or Deputies without resigning their
   places as Ministers.

Article 92.
   The Ministers can assist at the meetings of Congress and take
   part in its debates, but they cannot vote.

Article 93.
   They shall receive for their services a compensation
   established by law, which shall not be increased or
   diminished, in favor or against, the actual incumbents.


Section III.—Chapter I.

Article 94.
   The Judicial Power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
   Supreme Court of Justice, and by such other inferior Tribunals
   as Congress may establish within the dominion of the Nation.

Article 95.
   The President of the Nation cannot in any case whatever,
   exercise Judicial powers, arrogate to himself any knowledge of
   pending causes, or reopen those which have terminated.

Article 96.
   The Judges of the Supreme Court and of the lower
   National-Tribunals, shall keep their places quamdiu se bene
   gesserit, and shall receive for their services a compensation
   determined by law, which shall not be diminished in any manner
   whatever during their continuance in office.

Article 97.
   No one can be a member of the Supreme Court of Justice, unless
   he shall have been an attorney at law of the Nation for eight
   years, and shall possess the qualifications required for a
   Senator.

Article 98.
   At the first installation of the Supreme Court, the
   individuals appointed shall take an oath administered by the
   President of the Nation, to discharge their functions, by the
   good and legal administration of Justice according to the
   prescriptions of this Constitution. Thereafter, the oath shall
   be taken before the President of the Court itself.

Article 99.
   The Supreme Court shall establish its own internal and
   economical regulations, and shall appoint its subaltern
   employés.


Chapter II.

Article 100.
   The Judicial power of the Supreme Court and the lower
   National-Tribunals, shall extend to all cases arising under
   this Constitution, the laws of the Nation with the reserve
   made in clause 11 of Article 67, and by treaties with foreign
   nations; to all cases affecting ambassadors, public Ministers
   and foreign Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
   jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Nation shall be
   party; to controversies between two or more Provinces; between
   a Province and the citizens of another; between the citizens
   of different Provinces; and between a Province or its
   citizens, against a foreign State or citizen.

Article 101.
   In these cases the Supreme Court shall exercise an appelate
   jurisdiction according to such rules and exceptions as
   Congress may prescribe; but in all cases affecting
   ambassadors, ministers and foreign consuls, or those in which
   a Province shall be a party, it shall exercise original and
   exclusive jurisdiction.

Article 102.
   The trial of all ordinary crimes except in cases of
   impeachment, shall terminate by jury, so soon as this
   institution be established in the Republic. These trials shall
   be held in the same Province where the crimes shall have been
   committed, but when not committed within the frontiers of the
   Nation, but against International Law, Congress shall
   determine by a special law the place where the trial shall
   take effect.

Article 103.
   Treason against the Nation shall only consist in levying war
   against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and
   comfort. Congress shall fix by a special law the punishment of
   treason; but it cannot go beyond the person of the criminal,
   and no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood to
   relatives of any grade whatever.

Article 104.
   The Provinces keep all the powers not delegated by this
   Constitution to the Federal Government, and those which were
   expressly reserved by special compacts at the time of their
   incorporation.

Article 105.
   They create their own local institutions and are governed by
   these. They elect their own Governors, their Legislators and
   other Provincial functionaries, without intervention from the
   Federal Government.

Article 106.
   Each Province shall make its own Constitution in conformity
   with the dispositions of Article 5.

Article 107.
   The Provinces with the consent of Congress can celebrate
   contracts among themselves for the purposes of administering
   justice and promoting economical interests and works of common
   utility, and also, can pass protective laws for the purpose
   with their own resources, of promoting manufactures,
   immigration, the building of railways and canals, the peopling
   of their lands, the introduction and establishment of new
   industries, the import of foreign-capital and the exploration
   of their rivers.

{518}

Article 108.
   The Provinces cannot exercise any powers delegated to the
   Nation. They cannot celebrate compacts of a political
   character, nor make laws on commerce or internal or external
   navigation; nor establish Provincial Custom-Houses, nor coin
   money, nor establish Banks of emission, without authority of
   Congress; nor make civil, commercial, penal or mining Codes
   after Congress shall have sanctioned those provided for in
   this Constitution; nor pass laws upon citizenship or
   naturalization; bankruptcy, counterfeiting money or public
   State-documents; nor lay tonnage dues; nor arm vessels of war
   or raise armies, save in the case of foreign invasion, or of a
   danger so imminent that it admits of no delay, and then an
   account thereof must be immediately given to the Federal
   Government; or name or receive foreign agents; or admit new
   religious orders.

Article 109.
   No Province can declare or make war to another Province. Its
   complaints must be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice
   and be settled by it. Hostilities de facto are acts of
   civil-war and qualified as seditious and tumultuous, which the
   General Government must repress and suffocate according to
   law.

Article 110.
   The Provincial Governors are the natural agents of the Federal
   Government to cause the fulfilment of the laws of the Nation.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.

----------CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.
   Introduced in 1867.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and 1866-1887.

CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

CONSTITUTION OF BOLIVIA.

      See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

----------End----------

CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

   The following text of the Constitution of the United States of
   Brazil, adopted February 24, 1891, is taken from a translation
   published in Bulletin No. 7 of the Bureau of American
   Republics, Washington:

   We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, united in
   constitutional congress, to organize a free and democratic
   regime, do establish, decree and promulgate the following
   constitution of the Republic of the United States of Brazil:

Article 1.
   The Brazilian nation, adopting as a form of government the
   Federal Republic proclaimed November 15, 1889, constitutes
   itself, by the perpetual and indissoluble union of its former
   provinces, the United States of Brazil.

Article 2.
   Each of the former provinces shall constitute a State, and the
   former municipal district shall form the Federal District,
   continuing to be the capital of the Union until the following
   article shall be carried in to effect.

Article 3.
   In the center there is allotted as the property of the Union a
   zone of 14,400 square kilometres, which in due time shall be
   laid off for the establishment of the future federal capital.
   _Sole paragraph._—After the change of site of the
   capital, the present Federal District shall constitute a
   State.

Article 4.
   The States shall have the right to incorporate themselves one
   with another, sub-divide themselves, dismember themselves to
   join with others or form new States, with the consent of the
   respective local legislatures in two successive annual
   sessions and the approval of the national Congress.

Article 5.
   It shall be the duty of each State to provide, at its own
   expense, for the necessities of its government and
   administration; but the Union shall extend assistance to any
   State which, in case of public calamity, shall demand it.

Article 6.
   The Federal Government shall not interfere in matters
   pertaining peculiarly to the States, save:
   (1) To repel foreign invasion, or the invasion of one State by
   another.
   (2) To maintain the federative republican form of government.
   (3) To reestablish order and tranquillity in the States at the
   request of the respective governments.
   (4) To assure the execution of the laws and federal decrees.

Article 7.
   It is the exclusive prerogative of the Union to decree:
   (1) Duties on imports from foreign countries.
   (2) Duties of entry, departure, and stay of vessels; the
   coasting trade for national articles being free of duties, as
   well as for foreign merchandise that has already paid an
   import duty.
   (3) Stamp duties, save the restrictions imposed by article 9,
   §1. No.1.
   (4) Postal and federal telegraphic taxes.
   §1. The Union alone shall have the power:
   (1) To establish banks of emission.
   (2) To create and maintain custom-houses.
   §2. The taxes decreed by the Union shall be uniform for all
   the States.
   §3. The laws of the Union and the acts and decisions of its
   authorities shall be executed throughout the country by
   federal officials, except that the enforcement of the former
   may be committed to the governments of the States, with the
   consent of the said States.

Article 8.
   The Federal Government is forbidden to make distinctions and
   preferences in favor of the ports of any of the States against
   those of others.

Article 9.
   The States alone are competent to decree taxes:
   (1) On the exportation of merchandise of their own production.
   (2) On landed property.
   (3) On the transmission of property.
   (4) On industries and professions.
   § 1. The States also have the exclusive right to decree:
   (1) Stamp duties on instruments emanating from their
   respective governments and business of their internal economy.
   (2) Contributions touching their own telegraphs and postal
   service.
   § 2. The products of the other States are exempt from imposts
   in the State whence they are exported.
   §3. It is lawful for a State to levy duties on imports of
   foreign goods only when intended for consumption in its own
   territory; but it shall, in such case, cover into the federal
   treasury the amount of duties collected.
   §4. The right is reserved to the States of establishing
   telegraph lines between the different points of their own
   territory, and between these and those of other States not
   served by federal lines; but the Union may take possession of
   them when the general welfare shall require.

{519}

Article 10.
   The several States are prohibited from taxing the federal
   property or revenue, or anything in the service of the Union,
   and vice versa.

Article 11.
   It is forbidden to the States, as well as to the Unions:
   (1) To impose duties on the products of the other States, or
   of foreign countries, in transit through the territory of any
   State, or from one State to another, as also on the vehicles,
   whether by land or water, by which they are transported.
   (2) To establish, aid, or embarrass the exercise of religious
   worship.
   (3) To enact ex post facto laws.

Article 12.
   In addition to the sources of revenue set forth in articles 7
   and 9, it shall be lawful for the Union, as well as for the
   States, cumulatively or otherwise, to create any others
   whatsoever which may not be in contravention of the terms of
   articles 7, 9, and 11, § 1.

Article 13.
   The right or the Union and of the States to legislate in
   regard to railways and navigation of internal waters shall be
   regulated by federal law. _Sole paragraph_.—The
   coastwise trade shall be carried on in national vessels.

Article 14.
   The land and naval forces are permanent national institutions,
   intended for the defense of the country from foreign attack
   and the maintenance of the laws of the land. Within the limits
   of the law, the armed forces are from their nature held to
   obedience, each rank to its superior, and bound to support all
   constitutional institutions.

Article 15.
   The legislative, executive, and judicial powers are organs of
   the national sovereignty, harmonious and independent among
   themselves.

Article 16.
   The legislative power is vested in the national Congress, with
   the sanction of the President of the Republic.
   § 1. The national Congress is composed of two branches, the
   Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
   § 2. The elections for senators and for deputies shall be held
   simultaneously throughout the country.
   § 3. No person shall be senator and deputy at the same time.

Article 17.
   The Congress shall assemble in the federal capital on the 3d
   day of May of each year, unless some other day shall be fixed
   by law, without being convoked, and shall continue in session
   4 months from the date of the opening, and may be prorogued,
   adjourned, or convoked in extraordinary session.
   § 1. The Congress alone shall have the power to deliberate on
   the prorogation or extension of its session.
   § 2. Each legislature shall last for 3 years.
   § 3. The governor of any State in which there shall be a
   vacancy in the representation, including the case of
   resignation, shall order a new election to be held at once.

Article 18.
   The Chamber and the Senate shall hold their sessions apart and
   in public, unless otherwise resolved by a majority vote, and
   shall deliberate only when, in each of the chambers, there
   shall be present an absolute majority of its members. _Sole
   paragraph_.—To each of the chambers shall belong the right
   to verify and recognize the powers of its members, to choose
   its own presiding officers, to organize its internal
   government, to regulate the service of its own police rules,
   and to choose its own secretaries.

Article 19.
   The deputies and senators can not be held to account for their
   opinions, expressions, and votes in the discharge of their
   mandate.

Article 20.
   Deputies and senators, from the time of receiving their
   certificate of election until a new election, can not be
   arrested or proceeded against criminally without the
   permission of their respective chambers, except in the case of
   a flagrant crime, in which bail is inadmissible. In such case,
   the prosecution being carried to exclusive decision, the
   prosecuting authority shall send the court records to the
   respective chamber for its decision on the prosecution of the
   charge, unless the accused shall prefer immediate judgment.

Article 21.
   The members of the two chambers, on taking their seats, shall
   take a formal obligation, in public session, to perform their
   duties faithfully.

Article 22.
   During the sessions the senators and deputies shall receive an
   equal pecuniary salary and mileage, which shall be fixed by
   Congress at the end of each session for the following one.

Article 23.
   No member of the Congress, from the time of his election, can
   make contracts with the executive power or receive from it any
   paid commission or employment.
   § 1. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
   (1) Diplomatic missions.
   (2) Commissions or military commands.
   (3) Advancement in rank and legal promotion.

   § 2.
   No deputy or senator, however, can accept an appointment for
   any mission, commission, or command mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2
   of the preceding paragraph, without the consent of the chamber
   to which he belongs, when such acceptance would prevent the
   exercise of his legislative duties, except in case of war or
   such as involve the honor or integrity of the nation.

Article 24.
   No deputy or senator can be president or form part of a
   directory of any bank, company, or enterprise which enjoys the
   favors of the Federal Government defined in and by law.
   _Sole paragraph._—Nonobservance of the provisions of the
   foregoing article by any deputy or senator shall involve the
   loss of his seat.

Article 25.
   The legislative commission shall be incompatible with the
   exercise of any other functions during the sessions.

Article 26.
   The conditions for eligibility to the national Congress are:
   (1) To be in possession of the rights of Brazilian citizenship
   and to be registered as a voter.
   (2) For the Chamber, to have been for more than 4 years a
   Brazilian citizen; and for the Senate, for more than 6 years.
   This provision does not include those citizens referred to in
   No.4, article 69.

Article 27.
   The Congress shall by special legislation declare the cases of
   electoral incompetency.

Article 28.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of the
   representatives of the people, elected by the States and the
   Federal District by direct suffrage, the representation of the
   minority being guarantied.

   § 1. The number of the deputies shall be fixed by law in such
   a way as not to exceed one for each 70,000 inhabitants, and
   that there shall not be less than four for each State.
   § 2. To this end the Federal Government shall at once order a
   census to be taken of the population of the Republic, which
   shall be revised every 10 years.

Article 29.
   To the Chamber belongs the initiative in the adjournment of
   the legislative sessions and in all legislation in regard to
   taxation, to the determination of the size of the army and
   navy, in the discussion of propositions from the executive
   power, and in the decision to proceed or not in charges
   against the President of the Republic under the terms of
   article 53, and against the ministers of state in crimes
   connected with those of the said President.

{520}

Article 30.
   The Senate shall be composed of citizens eligible under the
   terms of article 26 and more than 35 years of age, to the
   number of three senators for each State and three for the
   Federal District, chosen in the same manner as the deputies.

Article 31.
   The mandate of a senator shall continue for 9 years, and
   one-third of the Senate shall be renewed every 3 years.
   _Sole paragraph_.—A senator elected in place of another
   shall exercise his mandate during the remainder of
   the term of the latter.

Article 32.
   The Vice President of the Republic shall be the president of
   the Senate, where he shall vote only in case of tie, and shall
   be replaced in case of absence or impediment by the vice
   president of that body.

Article 33.
   The Senate alone shall have the power to try and sentence the
   President of the Republic and the other federal officers
   designated by the constitution, under the conditions and in
   the manner which it prescribes.
   § 1. The Senate, when sitting as a tribunal of justice, shall
   be presided over by the president of the federal supreme
   court.
   § 2. It shall not pass sentence of condemnation unless
   two-thirds of its members be present.
   § 3. It shall not impose other penalties than the loss of
   office and prohibition from holding any other, without
   prejudice to the action of ordinary justice against the
   condemned.

Article 34.
   The national Congress shall have exclusive power:
   (1) To estimate the revenue, and fix the expenditures of the
   Federal Government annually, and take account of the receipts
   and expenditures of each financial budget.
   (2) To authorize the executive to contract loans and make
   other operations of credit.
   (3) To legislate in regard to the public debt and furnish
   means for its payment.
   (4) To control the collection and disposition of the national
   revenue.
   (5) To regulate international commerce, as well as that of the
   States with each other and with the Federal District; to
   establish and regulate the collection of customs duties in the
   ports, create or abolish warehouses of deposit.
   (6) To legislate in regard to navigation of rivers running
   through more than one State, or through foreign territory.
   (7) To determine the weight, value, inscription, type, and
   denomination of the currency.
   (8) To create banks of emission, legislate in regard to this
   emission and to tax it.
   (9) To fix the standard of weights and measures.
   (10) To determine definitely the boundaries of the States
   between each other, those of the Federal District, and those
   of the national territory with the adjoining nations.
   (11) To authorize the Government to declare war, if there be
   no recourse to arbitration or in case of failure of this, and
   to make peace.
   (12) To decide definitively in regard to treaties and
   conventions with foreign nations.
   (13) To remove the capital of the Union.
   (14) To extend aid to the States in the case referred to in
   article 5.
   (15) To legislate in regard to federal postal and telegraph
   service.
   (16) To adopt the necessary measures for the protection of the
   frontiers.
   (17) To fix every year the number of the land and naval
   forces.
   (18) To make laws for the organization of the army and navy.
   (19) To grant or refuse to foreign forces passage through the
   territory of the country to carry on military operations.
   (20) To mobilize and make use of the national guard or local
   militia in the cases designated by the Constitution.
   (21) To declare a state of siege at one or more points in the
   national territory, in the emergency of an attack by foreign
   forces, or internal disturbance, and to approve or suspend the
   state of siege proclaimed by the executive power or its
   responsible agents in the absence of the Congress.
   (22) To regulate the conditions and methods of elections for
   federal offices throughout the country.
   (23) To legislate upon the civil, criminal, and commercial
   laws and legal procedures of the federal judiciary.
   (24) To establish uniform naturalization laws.
   (25) To create and abolish federal public offices, to fix the
   duties of the same, and designate their salaries.
   (26) To organize the federal judiciary according to the terms
   of article 55 and the succeeding, section 3.
   (27) To grant amnesty.
   (28) To commute and pardon penalties imposed upon federal
   officers for offenses arising from their responsibility.
   (29) To make laws regarding Government lands and mines.
   (30) To legislate in regard to the municipal organization of
   the Federal District, as well as to the police, the superior
   instruction and other services which in the capital may be
   reserved for the Government of the Union.
   (31) To govern by special legislation those points of the
   territory of the Republic needed for the establishment of
   arsenals, other establishments or institutions for federal
   uses.
   (32) To settle cases of extradition between the States.
   (33) To enact such laws and resolutions as may be necessary
   for the exercise of the powers belonging to the Union.
   (34) To enact the organic laws necessary for the complete
   execution of the requirements of the Constitution.
   (35) To prorogue and adjourn its own sessions.

Article 35.
   It shall belong likewise to the Congress, but not exclusively:
   (1) To watch over the Constitution and the laws, and provide
   for necessities of a federal character.
   (2) To promote in the country the development of literature,
   the arts, and sciences, together with immigration,
   agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, without privileges
   such as would obstruct the action of the local governments.
   (3) To create institutions of higher instruction and of high
   school education in the States.
   (4) To provide for high school instruction in the Federal
   District.

Article 36.
   Save the exceptions named in article 27, all bills may
   originate, indifferently, in the Chamber or in the Senate, and
   may be introduced by any of their members.

Article 37.
   A bill, after being passed in one of the chambers, shall be
   submitted to the other, and, if the latter shall approve the
   same, it shall send it to the executive, who, if he approve
   it, shall sanction and promulgate it.
   § 1. If, however, the President of the Republic shall consider
   it unconstitutional, or contrary to the good of the nation, he
   shall refuse his sanction to the same within 10 working days,
   counted from that on which he received it (the bill), and
   shall return it, within the same period, to the chamber in
   which it originated, with his reasons for his refusal.
   § 2. The failure of the executive to signify his disapproval
   within the above-named 10 days shall be considered as an
   approval, and in case his sanction be refused after the close
   of the session of the Congress, the President shall make
   public his reasons therefor.

{521}

   § 3. The bill sent back to the chamber where it originated
   shall be discussed and voted upon by call of names, and shall
   be considered as passed if it obtain two-thirds of the votes
   of the members present; and, in this case, it shall be sent to
   the other chamber, whence, if it receive the same majority, it
   shall return, as a law, to the executive to be formally
   promulgated.
   § 4. The sanction and promulgation shall be effected in the
   following forms:
   (1) "The national Congress enacts and I sanction the following
   law (or resolution)."
   (2) "The national Congress enacts and I promulgate the
   following law (or resolution)."

Article 38.
   If the law be not promulgated by the President of the Republic
   within 48 hours, in the cases provided for in §§ 2 and 3 of
   the preceding article, the president of the Senate, or the
   vice president, if the former shall not do so in the same
   space of time, shall promulgate it, making use of the
   following formula: "I, president (or vice president) of the
   Senate, make known to whomsoever these presents may come, that
   the national Congress enacts and promulgates the following law
   (or resolution)."

Article. 39.
   A bill from one chamber, amended in the other, shall return to
   the former, which, if it accept the amendments, shall send it,
   changed to conform with the same, to the executive.
   § 1. In the contrary case, it shall go back to the amending
   chamber, where the alterations shall be considered as
   approved, if they receive the vote of two-thirds of the
   members present; in the latter case, the bill shall return to
   the chamber where it originated, and there the amendments can
   be rejected only by a two-thirds vote.
   § 2. If the alterations be rejected by such vote, the bill
   shall be submitted without them to the approval of the
   executive.

Article 40.
   Bills finally rejected or not approved, shall not be presented
   again in the same legislative session.

Article 41.
   The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the
   United States of Brazil, as elective chief of the nation.
   § 1. The Vice President, elected simultaneously with the
   President, shall serve in place of the latter in case of
   impediment and succeed him in case of vacancy in the
   Presidency.
   § 2. In case of impediment or vacancy in the Vice Presidency,
   the following officers, in the order named, shall be called to
   the Presidency: The vice president of the Senate, the
   president of the Chamber of Deputies, the president of the
   federal supreme court.
   § 3. The following are the conditions of eligibility to the
   Presidency or Vice Presidency of the Republic:
   (1) Must be a native of Brazil.
   (2) Must be in the exercise of political rights.
   (3) Must be more than 35 years of age.

Article 42.
   In case of vacancy from any cause in the Presidency or Vice
   Presidency before the expiration of the first 2 years of the
   Presidential term, a new election shall be held.

Article 43.
   The President shall hold his office during 4 years, and is not
   eligible for reelection for the next succeeding term.
   § 1. The Vice President who shall fill the Presidency during
   the last year of the Presidential term shall not be eligible
   to the Presidency for the next term of that office.
   § 2. On the same day on which his Presidential term shall
   cease the President shall, without fail, cease to exercise the
   functions of his office, and the newly elected President shall
   at once succeed him.
   § 3. If the latter should be hindered or should fail to do so,
   the succession shall be effected in accordance with §§ 1 and 2
   of article 41.
   § 4. The first Presidential term shall expire on the 15th of
   November, 1894.

Article 44.
   On taking possession of his office, the President, in a
   session of the Congress, or, if it be not assembled, before
   the federal supreme court, shall pronounce the following
   affirmation: "I promise to maintain the federal Constitution
   and comply with its provisions with perfect loyalty, to
   promote the general welfare of the Republic, to observe its
   laws, and support the union, integrity, and independence of
   the nation."

Article 45.
   The President and Vice President shall not leave the national
   territory without the permission of the Congress, under
   penalty of loss of office.

Article 46.
   The President and Vice President shall receive the salary
   fixed by the Congress in the preceding Presidential term.

Article 47.
   The President and Vice President shall be chosen by direct
   suffrage of the nation and an absolute majority of the votes.
   § 1. The election shall take place on the first day of March
   in the last year of the Presidential term, and the counting of
   the votes cast at the different precincts shall at once be
   made in the respective capitals of the States and in the
   federal capital. The Congress shall make the count at its
   first session of the same year, with any number of members
   present.
   § 2. If none of those voted for shall have received an
   absolute majority, the Congress shall elect, by a majority of
   votes of those present, one of the two who, in the direct
   election, shall have received the highest number of votes. In
   case of a tie the older shall be considered elected.
   § 3. The manner of the election and of the counting of the
   votes shall be regulated by ordinary legislation.
   § 4. The relatives, both by consanguinity and by marriage, in
   the first and second degrees, of the President and Vice
   President shall be ineligible for the offices of President and
   Vice President, provided the said officials are in office at
   the time of the election or have left the office even 6 months
   before.

Article 48.
   To the President of the Republic shall belong the exclusive
   right to:
   (1) Sanction, promulgate, and make public the laws and
   resolutions of the Congress; issue decrees, instructions, and
   regulations for their faithful execution.
   (2) Choose and dismiss at will the cabinet officers.
   (3) Exercise or appoint some one to exercise supreme command
   over the land and naval forces of the United States of Brazil,
   as well as over the local police, when called to arms for the
   internal or external defense of the Union.
   (4) Govern and distribute, under the laws of the Congress,
   according to the necessities of the National Government, the
   land and naval forces.
   (5) Dispose of the offices, both military and civil, of a
   federal character, with the exceptions specified in the
   Constitution.
   (6) Pardon crimes and commute penalties for offenses subject
   to federal jurisdiction, save in the cases mentioned in
   article 34, No. 28, and article 52, § 2.
   (7) Declare war and make peace, under the provisions of
   article 34, No. 11.
   (8) Declare war at once in case of foreign invasion or
   aggression.

{522}

   (9) Give an annual statement to the national Congress of the
   condition of the country, with a recommendation
   of pressing provisions and reforms, through a message,
   which he shall send to the secretary of the Senate on the day
   of the opening of the legislative session.
   (10) Convoke the Congress in extra session.
   (11) Appoint the federal judges when proposed by the supreme
   court.
   (12) Appoint the members of the federal supreme court and
   ministers of the diplomatic corps, with the approval of the
   senate; and, in the absence of the Congress, appoint them in
   commission until considered by the senate.
   (13) Appoint the other members of the diplomatic corps and
   consular agents.
   (14) Maintain relations with foreign states.
   (15) Declare, directly, or through his responsible agents, a
   state of siege at any point of the national territory, in case
   of foreign aggression or serious internal disturbance.
   (Article 6, No.3; article 34, No. 21; and article 80.)
   (16)  Set on foot international negotiations, celebrate
   agreements, conventions, and treaties, always ad referendum to
   the Congress, and approve those made by the States in
   conformity with article 65, submitting them when necessary to
   the authority of the Congress.

Article 49.
   The President of the Republic shall be assisted by the
   ministers of state (cabinet officers), agents of his
   confidence, who sign the acts and preside over their
   respective departments into which the federal administration
   is divided.

Article 50.
   The cabinet ministers shall not exercise any other employment
   or function of a public nature, be eligible to the Presidency
   or Vice Presidency of the Union, or be elected deputy or
   senator. _Sole paragraph._—Any deputy or senator, who
   shall accept the position of cabinet minister, shall lose his
   seat in the respective chamber, and a new election shall at
   once be held, in which he shall not be voted for.

Article 51.
   The cabinet ministers shall not appear at the sessions of the
   Congress, and shall communicate with that body in writing only
   or by personal conference with the committees of the chambers.
   The annual report of the ministers shall be addressed to the
   President of the Republic, and distributed to all the members
   of the Congress.

Article 52.
   The cabinet ministers shall not be responsible to the Congress
   or to the courts for advice given to the President of the
   Republic.
   § 1. They shall be responsible, nevertheless, with respect to
   their acts, for crimes defined in the law.
   § 2. For common crimes and those for which they are
   responsible they shall be prosecuted and tried by the federal
   supreme court, and for those committed jointly with the
   President of the Republic, by the authority competent to judge
   this latter.

Article 53.
   The President of the United States of Brazil shall be brought
   to trial and judgment, after the Chamber of Deputies shall
   have decided that he should be tried on the charges made
   against him, in the federal supreme court, in the case of
   common crimes, and in those of responsibility, in the Senate.
   _Sole paragraph_.—As soon as it shall be decided to try
   him on the charges brought, the President shall be suspended
   in the exercise of the duties of his office.

Article 54.
   Crimes of responsibility on the part of the President of the
   Republic are such as are directed against:
   (1) The political existence of the Union.
   (2) The Constitution and the form of the Federal Government.
   (3) The free exercise of the political powers.
   (4) The legal enjoyment and exercise of political or
   individual rights.
   (5) The internal security of the country.
   (6) The purity of the administration.
   (7) The constitutional keeping and use of the public funds.
   (8) The financial legislation enacted by the Congress.
   § 1. These offenses shall be defined in a special law.
   § 2. Another law shall provide for the charges, the trial, and
   the judgment.
   § 3. Both these laws shall be enacted in the first session of
   the first Congress.

Article 55.
   The judicial power of the Union shall be lodged in a federal
   supreme court, sitting in the capital of the Republic, and as
   many inferior federal courts and tribunals, distributed
   through the country, as the Congress shall create.

Article 56.
   The federal supreme court shall be composed of fifteen
   justices, appointed under the provisions of article 48, No.
   12, from among the oldest thirty citizens of well-known
   knowledge and reputation who may be eligible to the Senate.

Article 57.
   The federal justices shall hold office for life, being
   removable solely by judicial sentence.
   § 1. Their salaries shall be fixed by law of the Congress, and
   can not be diminished.
   § 2. The Senate shall try the members of the federal supreme
   court for crimes of responsibility, and this latter the lower
   federal judges.

Article 58.
   The federal courts shall choose their presidents from among
   their own members, and shall organize their respective
   clerical corps.
   § 1. In these corps the appointment and dismissal of the
   respective clerks, as well as the filling of the judicial
   offices in the respective judicial districts, shall belong to
   the presidents of the respective courts.
   § 2. The President of the Republic shall appoint from among
   the members of the federal supreme court the attorney-general
   of the Republic, whose duties shall be defined by law.

Article 59.
   To the federal supreme court shall belong the duty of:
   (1) Trying and judging by original and exclusive
   jurisdiction:
   (a) The President of the Republic for common crimes, and the
   cabinet ministers in the cases specified in article 52.
   (b) The ministers of the diplomatic corps for common crimes
   and those of responsibility.
   (c) Cases and disputes between the States and the Union, or
   between the States one with another.
   (d) Disputes and claims between foreign states and the Union,
   or between foreign nations and the States.
   (e) Conflicts between the federal courts one with another, or
   between these and those of the States, as well as those
   between the courts of one State and those of another.
   (2) Deciding, on appeal, questions pronounced upon by the
   lower federal courts and tribunals, as well as those mentioned
   in § 1 of the present article and in article 60.
   (3) Reviewing the proceedings of finished trials, under the
   provisions of article 81.
   § 1. Decisions of State courts in last appeal can be carried
   to the federal supreme court:
   (a) When the validity or application of the federal laws or
   treaties is called in question and the decision of the State
   court shall be against the same.
   (b) When the validity of laws or acts of the governments of
   the States in respect to the Constitution or of the federal
   laws is contested and the State court shall have decided in
   favor of the validity of the acts or laws in question.
   § 2. In the cases which involve the application of the laws of
   the States, the federal court shall consult the jurisprudence
   of the local tribunals, and vice versa, the State court shall
   consider that of the federal tribunals when the interpretation
   of the laws of the Union is involved.

{523}

Article 60.
   It shall belong to the federal courts to decide:
   (a) Cases in which the plaintiff or the defendant shall rest
   the case on some provision of the federal Constitution.
   (b) All suits brought against the Government of the Union or
   the national treasury based on constitutional provisions, on
   the laws and regulations of the executive power, or on
   contracts made with the said Government.
   (c) Suits arising from compensations, claims, indemnification
   of damages, or any others whatsoever brought by the Government
   of the Union against private individuals, and vice versa.
   (d) Litigations between a State and the citizens of another,
   or between citizens of different States having differences in
   their laws.
   (e) Suits between foreign states and Brazilian citizens.
   (f) Actions begun by foreigners, and based either on contracts
   with the Federal Government or on conventions or treaties of
   the Union with other nations.
   (g) Questions of maritime law and navigation, whether on the
   sea or on the rivers and lakes of the country.
   (h) Questions of international law, whether criminal or civil.
   (i) Political crimes.
   § 1. Congress is forbidden to commit any part of the federal
   jurisdiction to the State courts.
   § 2. Sentences and orders of the federal judges will be
   executed by federal court officers, and the local police shall
   assist them when called upon by the same.

Article 61.
   The decisions of the State courts or tribunals in matters
   within their competence shall put an end to the suits and
   questions, except as to
   (1) habeas corpus, or
   (2) effects of a foreigner deceased in cases not provided for
   by convention or treaty. In such cases there shall be
   voluntary recourse to the federal supreme court.

Article 62.
   The State courts shall not have the power to intervene in
   questions submitted to the federal tribunals, or to annul,
   alter, or suspend the sentences or orders of these latter;
   and, reciprocally, the federal judiciary can not interfere in
   questions submitted to the State courts, or annul, alter, or
   suspend their decisions or orders, except in the cases
   provided in this Constitution.

Article 63.
   Each State shall be governed by the constitution and laws
   which it shall adopt, respect being observed for the
   constitutional principles of the Union.

Article 64.
   The unexplored mines and wild lands lying within the States
   shall belong to these States respectively; and to the Union
   only as much territory as may be necessary for the defense of
   the frontiers, for fortifications, military works, and federal
   railways. _Sole paragraph_.—The national properties,
   not necessary for the service of the Union, shall pass to the
   domain of the States in whose territory they may be situated.

Article 65.
   The States shall have the right to:
   (1) Conclude agreements and conventions among themselves, if
   such be not of a political character. (Article 48, No. 16.)
   (2) Exercise in general any and every power or right not
   denied expressly by the Constitution, or implicitly in its
   express terms.

Article 66.
   It is forbidden to the States to:
   (1) Refuse to recognize public documents of the Union, or of
   any of the States, of a legislative, administrative, or
   judicial character.
   (2) Reject the currency or notes issued by banks, which
   circulate by act of the Federal Government.
   (3) Make or declare war, one with another, or make reprisals.
   (4) Refuse the extradition of criminals demanded by the
   justice of other States, or of the Federal District, in
   conformity with the laws of Congress which relate to this
   subject. (Article 41, No. 32.)

Article 67.
   Save the restrictions specified in the Constitution, and the
   federal laws, the Federal District shall be governed directly
   by the municipal authorities. _Sole paragraph_.—Expenses
   of a local character in the capital of the Republic must be
   provided for exclusively by the municipal authorities.

Article 68.
   The States shall organize themselves in such a manner as to
   assure the autonomy of the municipalities in everything that
   concerns their peculiar interests.

Article 69.
   The following shall be Brazilian citizens:
   (1) Natives of Brazil, though of foreign parentage (father),
   provided he be not in the service of his nation.
   (2) Sons of a Brazilian father, and illegitimate sons of a
   Brazilian mother, born in foreign parts, if they take up their
   residence (domicile) in the republic.
   (3) Sons of a Brazilian father who may be in another country
   in the service of the Republic, although they do not make
   their domicile in Brazil.
   (4) Foreigners, who, being in Brazil on the 15th of November,
   1889, shall not declare, within 6 months from the time when
   the Constitution enters into force, their desire to preserve
   their original nationality.
   (5) Foreigners who possess property (real estate) in Brazil
   and are married to Brazilian women, or have Brazilian
   children, provided they reside in Brazil, unless they shall
   declare their intention of not changing their nationality.
   (6) Foreigners naturalized in any other way.

Article 70.
   Citizens of more than 21 years of age, and registered
   according to law, shall be electors.
   § 1. The following shall not be registered as electors for
   federal or State elections:
   (1) Beggars.
   (2) Persons ignorant of the alphabet.
   (3) Soldiers on pay, except alumni of the military schools of
   higher instruction.
   (4) Members of monastic orders, companies, congregations, or
   communities of whatsoever denomination, who are subject to
   vows of obedience, rule, or statute, which implies the
   surrender of individual liberty.
   § 2. Citizens who can not be registered shall not be eligible.

Article 71.
   The rights of the Brazilian citizen can be suspended or lost
   only in the following cases:
   § 1. The rights may be suspended:
   (a) For physical or moral incapacity.
   (b) For criminal conviction, during the operation of the
   sentence.
   § 2. They may be lost:
   (a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
   (b) By acceptance of employment or pension from a foreign
   power, without permission of the federal executive.
   § 3. The means of reacquiring lost rights of the Brazilian
   citizen shall be specified by federal law.

Article 72.
   The Constitution secures to Brazilians and foreigners residing
   in the country the inviolability of their rights touching
   individual liberty, and security, and property, in the
   following terms:
   § 1. No person shall be forced to do, or leave undone,
   anything whatever, except by virtue of law.
   § 2. Before the law all persons are equal. The Republic does
   not recognize privileges of birth, or titles of nobility, and
   abolishes all existing honorary orders, with all their
   prerogatives and decorations, as well as all hereditary and
   conciliar titles.
{524}
   § 3. All persons and religious professions may exercise,
   publicly and freely, the right of worship, and may associate
   themselves for that purpose, acquire property, observance
   being had to the provisions of the common law.
   § 4. The Republic recognizes only the civil marriage, the
   celebration of which shall be gratuitous.
   § 5. The cemeteries shall be secular in character, and be
   managed by the municipal authorities, being free to all
   religious sects for the exercise of their respective rites as
   regards their members, provided they do not offend public
   morals or the laws.
   § 6. The instruction given in the public institutions shall be
   secular.
   § 7. No sect or church shall receive official aid, nor be
   dependent on, nor connected with, the Government of the Union,
   or of the States.
   § 8. All persons have the right of free association and
   assembly, without arms; and the police force shall not
   intervene, except to maintain the public order.
   § 9. Any person whatsoever shall have the right to address, by
   petition, the public powers, denounce abuses of the
   authorities, and appeal to the responsibility of the accused.
   § 10. In time of peace any person may, without passport, enter
   or leave the territory of the Republic, with his fortune and
   goods, whenever and however he may choose.
   § 11. The house is the inviolable asylum of the person; no one
   can enter it at night without the consent of the inhabitant,
   except to aid the victims of a crime or disaster; nor by day,
   unless in the cases and in the form prescribed by law.
   § 12. The expression of opinion shall be free, in respect to
   whatever subject, through the press or through the tribune,
   without subjection to censorship, each one being responsible
   for the abuses he may commit, in the cases and in the form
   prescribed by law. Anonymous publications are forbidden.
   § 13. Cases of flagrante delicto alone excepted, no arrest
   shall be made, unless after declaration of the charge (save in
   cases determined by law), and by written order of the
   competent authorities.
   § 14. No person shall be kept in prison without charge
   formally made, save the exceptions mentioned in the law, or
   taken to prison, or detained there, if he give bail, in cases
   where such is lawful.
   § 15. No person shall be condemned, except by competent
   authority, and in virtue of law already existing and in the
   form prescribed by it.
   § 16. The law shall secure to the accused the fullest defense
   by all the recourses and means essential to the same,
   including the notice of the charge, delivered to the prisoner
   within 24 hours and signed by the proper authority along with
   the names of the accusers and witnesses.
   § 17. The rights of property are maintained in all their
   plenitude, and no disappropriation shall be made, except from
   necessity or public utility, and indemnity shall, in such
   cases, be made beforehand. Mines belong to the owners of the
   soil, under the limitations to be established by the law to
   encourage the development of this branch of industry.
   § 18. Correspondence under seal is inviolable.
   § 19. No penalty shall extend beyond the person of the
   delinquent.
   § 20. The penalty of the galleys is abolished, as also
   judicial banishment.
   § 21. The death penalty is abolished, except in the cases
   under military law in time of war.
   § 22. The habeas corpus shall always be granted when the
   individual suffers violence or compulsion, through illegality
   or abuse of power, or considers himself in imminent danger of
   the same.
   § 23. There shall be no privileged tribunal, except in such
   cases as, from their nature, belong to special courts.
   § 24. The free exercise of any profession, moral,
   intellectual, or industrial, is guarantied.
   § 25. Industrial inventions belong to their authors, to whom
   the law will grant a temporary privilege, or to whom the
   Congress will give a reasonable premium, when it is desirable
   to make the invention public property.
   § 26. To authors of literary and artistic works is guarantied
   the exclusive right of reproducing them through the press or
   by any other mechanical process, and their heirs shall enjoy
   the same right during the space of time determined by the law.
   § 27. The law shall also secure the rights of property in
   trade-marks.
   § 28. No Brazilian can be deprived of his civil and political
   rights on account of religious belief or duty, nor be exempted
   from the performance of any civic duty.
   § 29. Those who shall claim exemption from any burden imposed
   by the laws of the Republic on its citizens, on account of
   religious belief, or who shall accept any foreign decoration
   or title of nobility, shall lose all their political rights.
   § 30. No tax of any kind shall be collected except in virtue
   of a law authorizing the same.
   § 31. The institution of trial by jury is maintained.

Article 73.
   Public offices, civil or military, are accessible to all
   Brazilian citizens, always observing the conditions of
   particular capacity fixed by the law; but the accumulation of
   remunerations is forbidden.

Article 74.
   Commissions, offices, and positions not subject to removal are
   guarantied in all their plenitude.

Article 75.
   Only such public officials as have become infirm in the
   service of the nation shall be retired on pay.

Article 76.
   Officers of the army and navy shall lose their commissions
   only in case of condemnation to more than 2 years in prison,
   pronounced in judgment by the competent tribunals.

Article 77.
   There shall be a special court for the trial of military
   offenses committed by soldiers or marines.
   § 1. This court shall be composed of a supreme military
   tribunal, whose members shall hold their seats for life, and
   of the councils necessary for the formulation of the charge
   and the judgment of the crimes.
   § 2. The organization and powers of the supreme military
   tribunal shall be determined by law.

Article 78.
   The enumeration of the rights and guaranties expressed in the
   Constitution does not exclude other guaranties and rights, not
   enumerated, but resulting from the form of government
   established and principles settled by said Constitution.

Article 79.
   The citizen vested with the functions of either of these three
   federal powers shall not exercise those of another.

Article 80.
   Any part of the territory of the Union may be declared in
   state of siege, and the constitutional guaranties suspended
   for a determined period, whenever the security of the Republic
   so demands in case of foreign aggression or intestine
   disturbance. (Article 34, No. 21.)
   § 1. The power to execute the above provision may, if the
   Congress be not in session and the country be in imminent
   peril, be used by the federal executive. (Article 48, No. 15.)
   § 2. In the exercise of this power, during the state of siege,
   the executive shall be restricted to the following
   measures of repression against persons:
{525}
   (1) To their detention in a place not allotted to persons
   accused of common crimes.
   (2) To banishment to other parts of the national territory.
   § 3. As soon as the Congress shall have assembled, the
   President of the Republic shall make a report to that body of
   the exceptional measures which may have been taken.
   § 4. The authorities who shall have ordered such measures
   shall be responsible for any abuses that may have been
   committed.

Article 81.
   In criminal cases, trials concluded may be reviewed at any
   time, in favor of the condemned parties, by the federal
   supreme court, for the purpose of correcting or of confirming
   the sentence.
   § 1. The law shall determine the cases and the form of such
   revision, which may be asked for by the condemned, by anyone
   of the people, or by the attorney-general of the Republic, ex
   officio.
   § 2. In such revision the penalties imposed by the sentence
   reviewed can not be increased.
   § 3. The provisions of the present article are applicable to
   military trials.

Article 82.
   Public officers shall be strictly responsible for the abuses
   and omissions that occur in the exercise of the duties of
   their offices, as well as for the indulgences and negligences
   for which they do not hold their subordinates responsible.
   _Sole paragraph_.—They shall all be bound by formal
   obligation, on taking possession of their offices, to
   discharge the lawful duties of the same.

Article 83.
   Until revoked, the laws of the ancien regime shall remain in
   force, in as far as they are not, explicitly or implicitly,
   contrary to the system of government established by the
   Constitution, and to the principles laid down in the same.

Article 84.
   The federal government guaranties the payment of the public
   debt, both internal and foreign.

Article 85.
   The officers of the line and of the annexed classes of the
   navy shall have the same commissions and advantage as those of
   the army of corresponding rank.

Article 86.
   Every Brazilian shall be bound to military service in defense
   of the country and the Constitution, as provided by the
   federal laws.

Article 87.
   The federal army shall be made up of contingents which the
   states and the Federal District are bound to furnish,
   constituted in conformity with the annual law regulating the
   number of the forces.
   § 1. The general organization of the army shall be determined
   by a federal law, in accordance with No. 18 of article 34.
   § 2. The Union shall have charge of the military instruction
   of the troops and of the higher military instruction.
   § 3. Compulsory recruiting for military purposes is abolished.
   § 4. The army and navy shall be made up by volunteering
   without bounties, or, if this means be not sufficient, by lot
   previously determined. The crews for the navy shall be made up
   from the naval school, the schools of marine apprentices, and
   the merchant marine, by means of lot.

Article 88.
   In no case, either directly or indirectly, alone or in
   alliance with another nation, shall the United States of
   Brazil engage in a war of conquest.

Article 89.
   A tribunal of accounts shall be instituted for the auditing of
   the receipt and expense accounts and examining into their
   legality before their presentation to the Congress. The
   members of this tribunal shall be appointed by the President
   of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, and can lose
   their seats only by sentence.

Article 90.
   The Constitution may be amended, at the initiative of the
   national Congress, or of the legislatures of the States.
   § 1. An amendment shall be considered as proposed, when,
   having been presented by one-fourth, at least, of the members
   of either house of the Congress, it shall have been accepted
   in three readings (discussions) by two-thirds of the votes in
   both houses of the Congress, or when it shall have been asked
   for by two-thirds of the States represented, each one by a
   majority of the votes of its legislature, said votes to be
   taken in the course of 1 year.
   § 2. The proposed amendment shall be considered approved, if,
   in the following year, after three discussions, it shall have
   been adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the votes in the
   two houses of the Congress.
   § 3. The amendment adopted shall be published with the
   signatures of the presidents and clerks of the two chambers,
   and be incorporated into the Constitution as a part of the
   same.
   § 4. No project having a tendency to abolish the federative
   republican form, or the equal representation of the States in
   the Senate, shall be admitted for consideration in the
   Congress.

Article 91.
   This Constitution, after approval, shall be promulgated by the
   president of the Congress and signed by the members of the
   same.

Temporary Provisions.

Article I.
   After the promulgation of this Constitution, the Congress, in
   joint assembly, shall choose consecutively, by an absolute
   majority of votes in the first balloting, and, if no candidate
   shall receive such, by a plurality in the second balloting,
   the President and Vice President of the United States of
   Brazil.
   § 1. This election shall be in two distinct ballotings, for
   the President and Vice President respectively, the ballots for
   President being taken and counted, in the first place, and
   afterwards for Vice President.
   § 2. The President and Vice President, thus elected, shall
   occupy the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the Republic
   during the first Presidential term.
   § 3. For said election there shall be no incompatibilities
   admitted.
   § 4. As soon as said election shall be concluded, the Congress
   shall consider as terminated its mission in joint session and,
   separating into Chamber and Senate, shall enter upon the
   exercise of its functions as defined by law, on the 15th of
   June of the present year, and can not in any case be
   dissolved.
   § 5. In the first year of the first legislature, among its
   preparatory measures, the Senate shall designate the first and
   second third of its members, whose term of office shall cease
   at the end of the first and second 3-year terms.
   § 6. The discrimination shall be made in three lists,
   corresponding to the three classes, allotting to them the
   senators of each State and of the Federal District according
   to the number of votes received by them respectively, so as to
   allot to the third for the last 3 years the one receiving the
   highest number of votes in the Federal District and in each
   State, and to the other two-thirds the remaining two names in
   the order of the number of votes received by them
   respectively.
   § 7. In case of tie, the oldest shall be preferred, and if the
   ages are equal, the choice shall be made by lot.

{526}

Article 2.
   The State which, by the end of the year 1892, shall not have
   adopted its constitution, shall, by act of the federal
   legislative power, be placed under that of one of the other
   States, which it shall judge most suitable, until the State
   thus subjected to said constitution, shall amend it in the
   manner provided in the same.

Article 3.
   As fast as the States shall be organized, the Federal
   Government shall deliver to them the administration of the
   services which belong to them, and shall settle the
   responsibility of the federal administration in all that
   relates to said services and to the payment of the respective
   officials.

Article 4.
   While, during the period of organization of their services,
   the States shall be engaged in regulating their expenses, the
   Federal Government shall, for this purpose, open special
   credits to them, under conditions determined by the Congress.

Article 5.
   In the States which shall become organized the classification
   of the revenues established in the Constitution shall enter
   into force.

Article 6.
   In the first appointments for the federal magistracy and for
   that of the States, the preference shall be given to the
   justices and magistrates of the higher courts of the greatest
   note. Such as are not admitted into the new organization of
   the judiciary, and have served 30 years, shall be retired on
   full pay. Those who have served for less than 30 years shall
   continue to receive their salaries until they shall be
   employed, or retired with pay corresponding to their length of
   service. The payment of salaries of magistrates retired or set
   aside shall be made by the Federal Government.

Article 7.
   To D. Pedro de Alcantara, ex-Emperor of Brazil, a pension is
   granted, to run from the 15th of November, 1889, sufficient to
   guaranty him a decent subsistence during his lifetime. The
   Congress, at its first session, shall fix the amount of said
   pension.

Article 8.
   The Federal Government shall acquire for the nation the house
   in which Dr. Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhães died, and
   shall have placed on it a memorial slab in memory of that
   great patriot, the founder of the Republic. _Sole
   paragraph_.—The widow of the said Dr. Benjamin Constant
   shall have, during her lifetime, the usufruct of the said
   house. We order, then, all the authorities to whom the
   recognition and execution of this Constitution belongs, to
   execute it and have it executed and observed faithfully and
   fully in all its provisions. Let the same be published and
   observed throughout the territory of the nation.

   Hall of the sessions of the National Constitutional Congress,
   in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in the year 1891, and the third
   of the Republic.

      See BRAZIL: 1889-1891.

----------CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA.
   For an account of the main features of this singular
   constitution,

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

----------CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1774.
   The Quebec Act.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1791.
   The Constitutional Act.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1791.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1840.
   The Union Act.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1867.
   The British North America Act.

   The history of the Confederation of the provinces of British
   North America, forming the Dominion of Canada, is given
   briefly under CANADA: A. D. 1867. The following is the text of
   the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain by which the
   Confederation was formed and its constitution established:

   An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
   Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for purposes
   connected therewith.
   29TH MARCH, 1867.

   WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
   Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united
   into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
   Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in
   principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a
   Union would conduce to the welfare of the Provinces and
   promote the interests of the British Empire; And whereas on
   the establishment of the Union by authority of Parliament it
   is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the
   Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but
   also that the nature of the Executive Government therein be
   declared: And whereas it is expedient that provision be made
   for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of
   British North America: Be it therefore enacted and declared by
   the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
   consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in
   this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
   same, as follows:

   1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act,
   1867.
   2. The provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the
   Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty,
   Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
   Ireland.
   3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of
   Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by
   Proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not
   being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the
   Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form
   and be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after
   that day those three Provinces shall form and be one Dominion
   under that name accordingly.
   4. The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is
   otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on
   and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the day
   appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's
   Proclamation; and in the same provisions, unless it is
   otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken
   to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

   5. Canada shall be divided into four Provinces, named Ontario,
   Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

{527}

   6. The parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the
   passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively
   the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed
   to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The part
   which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall
   constitute the Province of Ontario; and the part which
   formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall
   constitute the Province of Quebec.

   7. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have
   the same limits as at the passing of this Act.

   8. In the general census of the population of Canada, which is
   hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight
   hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereafter,
   the respective populations of the four Provinces shall be
   distinguished.

   9. The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada
   is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

   10. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
   General extend and apply to the Governor General for the time
   being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or
   Administrator, for the time being carrying on the Government
   of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen, by whatever
   title he is designated.

   11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the
   Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council
   for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that
   Council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the
   Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and
   members thereof may be from time to time removed by the
   Governor General.

   12. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act
   of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of
   the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the
   Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
   Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or
   exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant
   Governors of those Provinces, with the advice, or with the
   advice and consent, of the respective Executive Councils
   thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any
   number of members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant
   Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in
   existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in
   relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and
   exerciseable by the Governor General, with the advice or with
   the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's
   Privy Council for Canada, or any members thereof, or by the
   Governor General individually, as the case requires, subject
   nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts
   of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the
   United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished
   or altered by the Parliament of Canada.

   13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
   General in Council shall be construed as referring to the
   Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's
   Privy Council for Canada.

   14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks
   fit, to authorize the Governor General from time to time to
   appoint any person or any persons, jointly or severally, to be
   his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and
   in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the
   Governor General such of the powers, authorities, and
   functions of the Governor General as the Governor General
   deems it necessary and expedient to assign to him or them,
   subject to any limitations or directions expressed or given by
   the Queen; but the appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies
   shall not affect the exercise by the Governor General himself
   of any power, authority or function.

   15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of
   all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby
   declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

   16. Until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat of Government
   of Canada shall be Ottawa.

   17. There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of
   the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of
   Commons.

   18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held,
   enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of
   Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be
   such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament
   of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at
   the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the
   Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
   Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof.

   19. The Parliament of Canada shall be called together not
   later than six months after the Union.

   20. There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Canada once
   at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not
   intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one
   Session and its first sitting in the next Session.

   21. The Senate shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
   consist of seventy-two members, who shall be styled Senators.

   22. In relation to the constitution of the Senate, Canada
   shall be deemed to consist of three divisions—1. Ontario; 2.
   Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New
   Brunswick; which three divisions shall (subject to the
   provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate
   as follows: Ontario by twenty-four Senators; Quebec by
   twenty-four Senators; and the Maritime Provinces by
   twenty-four Senators, twelve thereof representing Nova Scotia,
   and twelve thereof representing New Brunswick. In the case of
   Quebec each of the twenty-four Senators representing that
   Province shall be appointed for one of the twenty-four
   Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A.
   to chapter one of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.

   23. The qualification of a Senator shall be as follows:
   (l) He shall be of the full age of thirty years:
   (2) He shall be either a natural born subject of the Queen, or
   a subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament
   of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
   of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of one of
   the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
   Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the
   Parliament of Canada after the Union:
   (3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of freehold for
   his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and
   common socage, or seised or possessed for his own use and
   benefit of lands or tenements held in franc-alleu or in
   roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the
   value of four thousand dollars, over and above all rents,
   dues, debts, charges, mortgages, and incumbrances due or
   payable out of or charged on or affecting the same:
{528}
   (4) His real and personal property shall be together worth
   $4,000 over and above his debts and liabilities:
   (5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is
   appointed:
   (6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property
   qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is
   appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

   24. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the
   Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,
   summon qualified persons to the Senate; and, subject to the
   provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become
   and be a member of the Senate and a Senator.

   25. Such persons shall be first summoned to the Senate as the
   Queen by warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual thinks
   fit to approve, and their names shall be inserted in the
   Queen's Proclamation of Union.

   26. If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor
   General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six
   members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by
   summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may
   be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add
   to the Senate accordingly.

   27. In case of such addition being at any time made the
   Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate,
   except on a further like direction by the Queen on the like
   recommendation, until each of the three divisions of Canada is
   represented by twenty-four Senators and no more.

   28. The number of Senators shall not at any time exceed
   seventy-eight.

   29. A Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
   hold his place in the Senate for life.

   30. A Senator may by writing under his hand addressed to the
   Governor General resign his place in the Senate, and thereupon
   the same shall be vacant.

   31. The place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the
   following cases:
   (1) If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails
   to give his attendance in the Senate:
   (2) If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or
   acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
   foreign power, or does an act whereby he becomes a subject or
   citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject
   or citizen of a foreign power:
   (3) If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or applies for
   the benefit of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or
   becomes a public defaulter:
   (4) If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of
   any infamous crime:
   (5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of
   residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to
   have ceased to be qualified in respect of residence by reason
   only of his residing at the seat of the Government of Canada
   while holding an office under that Government requiring his
   presence there.

   32. When a vacancy happens in the Senate by resignation,
   death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by summons to
   a fit and qualified person fill the vacancy.

   33. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a
   Senator or a vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and
   determined by the Senate.

   34. The Governor General may from time to time, by instrument
   under the Great Seal of Canada, appoint a Senator to be
   Speaker of the Senate, and may remove him and appoint another
   in his stead.

   35. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the
   presence of at least fifteen Senators, including the Speaker,
   shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for
   the exercise of its powers.

   36. Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a
   majority of voices, and the Speaker shall in all cases have a
   vote, and when the voices are equal the decision shall be
   deemed to be in the negative.

   37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of
   this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of
   whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for
   Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New
   Brunswick.

   38. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the
   Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,
   summon and call together the House of Commons.

   39. A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of
   sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons.

   40. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides,
   Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall, for the
   purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of
   Commons, be divided into Electoral Districts as follows:
   (1) Ontario shall be divided into the Counties, Ridings of
   Counties, Cities, parts of Cities, and Towns enumerated in the
   first Schedule to this Act, each whereof shall be an Electoral
   District, each such District as numbered in that Schedule
   being entitled to return one member.
   (2) Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five Electoral
   Districts, composed of the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into
   which Lower Canada is at the passing of this Act divided under
   chapter two of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter
   seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada,
   and the Act of the Province of Canada of the twenty-third year
   of the Queen, chapter one, or any other Act amending the same
   in force at the Union, so that each such Electoral Division
   shall be for the purposes of this Act an Electoral District
   entitled to return one member.
   (3) Each of the eighteen Counties of Nova Scotia shall be an
   Electoral District. The County of Halifax shall be entitled to
   return two members, and each of the other Counties one member.
   (4) Each of the fourteen Counties into which New Brunswick is
   divided, including the City and County of St. John, shall be
   an Electoral District; the City of St. John shall also be a
   separate Electoral District. Each of those fifteen Electoral
   Districts shall be entitled to return one member.

{529}

   41. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all
   laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative
   to the following matters or any of them, namely,—the
   qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be elected
   or to sit or vote as members of the House of Assembly or
   Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the voters at
   elections of such members, the oaths to be taken by voters,
   the returning officers, their powers and duties, the
   proceedings at elections, the periods during which elections
   may be continued, the trial of controverted elections, and
   proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of seats of
   members, and the execution of new writs in case of seats
   vacated otherwise than by dissolution,—shall respectively
   apply to elections of members to serve in the House of Commons
   for the same several Provinces. Provided that, until the
   Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, at any election for a
   Member of the House of Commons for the District of Algoma, in
   addition to persons qualified by the law of the Province of
   Canada to vote, every male British subject aged twenty-one
   years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.

   42. For the first election of members to serve in the House of
   Commons the Governor General shall cause writs to be issued by
   such person, in such form, and addressed to such returning
   officers as he thinks fit. The person issuing writs under this
   section shall have the like powers as are possessed at the
   Union by the officers charged with the issuing of writs for
   the election of members to serve in the respective House of
   Assembly or Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada,
   Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick; and the Returning Officers to
   whom writs are directed under this section shall have the like
   powers as are possessed at the Union by the officers charged
   with the returning of writs for the election of members to
   serve in the same respective House of Assembly or Legislative
   Assembly.

   43. In case a vacancy in the representation in the House of
   Commons of any Electoral District happens before the meeting
   of the Parliament, or after the meeting of the Parliament
   before provision is made by the Parliament in this behalf, the
   provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall
   extend and apply to the issuing and returning of a writ in
   respect of such vacant District.

   44. The House of Commons on its first assembling after a
   general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to
   elect one of its members to be Speaker.

   45. In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by
   death, resignation or otherwise, the House of Commons shall
   with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its
   members to be Speaker.

   46. The Speaker shall preside at all meetings of the House of
   Commons.

   47. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, in case
   of the absence for any reason of the Speaker from the chair of
   the House of Commons for a period of forty-eight consecutive
   hours, the House may elect another of its members to act as
   Speaker, and the member so elected shall during the
   continuance of such absence of the Speaker have and execute
   all the powers, privileges, and duties of Speaker.

   48. The presence of at least twenty members of the House of
   Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the
   House for the exercise of its powers, and for that purpose the
   Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.

   49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided
   by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and
   when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker
   shall have a vote.

   50. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from
   the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House
   (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and
   no longer.

   51. On the completion of the census in the year one thousand
   eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent
   decennial census, the representation of the four Provinces
   shall be re-adjusted by such authority, in such manner and
   from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time
   provides, subject and according to the following rules:
   (1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:
   (2) There shall be assigned to each of the other Provinces
   such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to
   the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as
   the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of
   Quebec (so ascertained):
   (3) In the computation of the number of members for a Province
   a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number
   requisite for entitling the Province to a member shall be
   disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that
   number shall be equivalent to the whole number:
   (4) On any such re-adjustment the number of members for a
   Province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the
   number of the population of the Province bore to the number of
   the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding
   re-adjustment of the number of members for the Province is
   ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by
   one-twentieth part or upwards: (5) Such re-adjustment shall
   not take effect until the termination of the then existing
   Parliament.

   52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from
   time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided
   the proportionate representation of the Provinces prescribed
   by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

   53. Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or
   for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House
   of Commons.

   54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt
   or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the
   appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax
   or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended
   to that House by message of the Governor General in the
   Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is
   proposed.

   55. Where a bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is
   presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent, he
   shall declare according to his discretion, but subject to the
   provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's instructions,
   either that he assents thereto in the Queen's name, or that he
   withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the bill for
   the signification of the Queen's pleasure.

   56. Where the Governor General assents to a bill in the
   Queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity
   send an authentic copy of the Act to one of Her Majesty's
   Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council
   within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of
   State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such disallowance (with
   a certificate of the Secretary of State of the day on which
   the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor
   General, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
   Parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the Act from and
   after the day of such signification.

{530}

   57. A bill reserved for the signification of the Queen's
   pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two
   years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor
   General for the Queen's assent, the Governor General
   signifies, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
   Parliament or by proclamation, that it has received the assent
   of the Queen in Council. An entry of every such speech,
   message, or proclamation shall be made in the Journal of each
   House, and a duplicate thereof duly attested shall be
   delivered to the proper officer to be kept among the Records
   of Canada.

   58. For each Province there shall be an officer, styled the
   Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General in
   Council by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada.

   59. A Lieutenant Governor shall hold office during the
   pleasure of the Governor General; but any Lieutenant Governor
   appointed after the commencement of the first Session of the
   Parliament of Canada shall not be removable within five years
   from his appointment, except for cause assigned, which shall
   be communicated to him in writing within one month after the
   order for his removal is made, and shall be communicated by
   message to the Senate and to the House of Commons within one
   week thereafter if the Parliament is then sitting, and if not
   then within one week after the commencement of the next
   Session of the Parliament.

   60. The salaries of the Lieutenant Governors shall be fixed
   and provided by the Parliament of Canada.

   61. Every Lieutenant Governor shall, before assuming the
   duties of his office, make and subscribe before the Governor
   General, or' some person authorized by him, oaths of
   allegiance and office similar to those taken by the Governor
   General.

   62. The provisions of this Act referring to the Lieutenant
   Governor extend and apply to the Lieutenant Governor for the
   time being of each Province or other the chief executive
   officer or administrator for the time being carrying on the
   government of the Province, by whatever title he is
   designated.

   63. The Executive Council of Ontario and of Quebec shall be
   composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from to
   time thinks fit, and in the first instance of the following
   officers, namely:—The Attorney-General, the Secretary and
   Registrar of the Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the
   Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Commissioner of
   Agriculture and Public Works, with in Quebec the Speaker of
   the Legislative Council and the Solicitor General.

   64. The Constitution of the Executive Authority in each of the
   Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to
   the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union
   until altered under the authority of this Act.

   65. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act
   of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of
   the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the
   Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, were or
   are before or at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the
   respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those
   Provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of
   the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction
   with those Councils, or with any number of members thereof, or
   by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually,
   shall, as far as the same are capable of being exercised after
   the Union in relation to the Government of Ontario and Quebec,
   respectively, be vested in, and shall or may be exercised by
   the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and Quebec respectively,
   with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in
   conjunction with the respective Executive Councils, or any
   members thereof, or by the Lieutenant Governor individually,
   as the case requires, subject nevertheless (except with
   respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great
   Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
   Britain and Ireland), to be abolished or altered by the
   respective Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec.

   66. The provisions of this Act, referring to the Lieutenant
   Governor in Council shall be construed as referring to the
   Lieutenant Governor of the Province acting by and with the
   advice of the Executive Council thereof.

   67. The Governor General in Council may from time to time
   appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions
   of Lieutenant Governor during his absence, illness, or other
   inability.

   68. Unless and until the Executive Government of any Province
   otherwise directs with respect to the Province, the seats of
   Government of the Provinces shall be as follows, namely,—of
   Ontario, the City of Toronto; of Quebec, the City of Quebec;
   of Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax; and of New Brunswick, the
   City of Fredericton.

   69. There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the
   Lieutenant Governor and of one House, styled the Legislative
   Assembly of Ontario.

   70. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario shall be composed of
   eighty-two members, to be elected to represent the eighty-two
   Electoral Districts set forth in the first Schedule to this
   Act.

   71. There shall be a Legislature for Quebec consisting of the
   Lieutenant Governor and of two Houses, styled the Legislative
   Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.

   72. The Legislative Council of Quebec shall be composed of
   twenty-four members, to be appointed by the Lieutenant
   Governor in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great
   Seal of Quebec, one being appointed to represent each of the
   twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada in this Act
   referred to, and each holding office for the term of his life,
   unless the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides under the
   provisions of this Act.

   73. The qualifications of the Legislative Councillors of
   Quebec shall be the same as those of the Senators for Quebec.

   74. The place of a Legislative Councillor of Quebec shall
   become vacant in the cases, 'mutatis mutandis' in which the
   place of Senator becomes vacant.

{531}

   75. When a vacancy happens in the Legislative Council of
   Quebec, by resignation, death, or otherwise, the Lieutenant
   Governor, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great
   Seal of Quebec, shall appoint a fit and qualified person to
   fill the vacancy.

   76. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a
   Legislative Councillor of Quebec, or a vacancy in the
   Legislative Council of Quebec, the same shall be heard and
   determined by the Legislative Council.

   77. The Lieutenant Governor may from time to time, by
   instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, appoint a member of
   the Legislative Council of Quebec to be Speaker thereof, and
   may remove him and appoint another in his stead.

   78. Until the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides, the
   presence of at least ten members of the Legislative Council,
   including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a
   meeting for the exercise of its powers.

   79. Questions arising in the Legislative Council of Quebec
   shall be decided by a majority of voices, and the Speaker
   shall in all cases have a vote, and when the voices are equal
   the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.

   80. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of
   sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixty-five
   Electoral Divisions or Districts of Lower Canada in this Act
   referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature
   of Quebec: Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to
   the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec for assent any bill for
   altering the limits of any of the Electoral Divisions or
   Districts mentioned in the second Schedule to this Act, unless
   the second and third readings of such bill have been passed in
   the Legislative Assembly with the concurrence of the majority
   of the members representing all those Electoral Divisions or
   Districts, and the assent shall not be given to such bills
   unless an address has been presented by the Legislative
   Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor stating that it has been
   so passed.

   81. The Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively shall
   be called together not later than six months after the Union.

   82. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and of Quebec shall
   from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under
   the Great Seal of the Province, summon and call together the
   Legislative Assembly of the Province.

   83. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise
   provides, a person accepting or holding in Ontario or in
   Quebec any office, commission, or employment, permanent or
   temporary, at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor, to
   which an annual salary, or any fee, allowance, emolument, or
   profit of any kind or amount whatever from the Province is
   attached, shall not be eligible as a member of the Legislative
   Assembly of the respective Province, nor shall he sit or vote as
   such; but nothing in this section shall make ineligible any
   person being a member of the Executive Council of the
   respective Province, or holding any of the following offices,
   that is to say, the offices of Attorney-General, Secretary and
   Registrar of the Province, Treasurer of the Province,
   Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Commissioner of Agriculture
   and Public Works and, in Quebec, Solicitor-General, or shall
   disqualify him to sit or vote in the House for which he is
   elected, provided he is elected while holding such office.

   84. Until the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively
   otherwise provide, all laws which at the Union are in force in
   those Provinces respectively, relative to the following
   matters, or any of them, namely,—the qualifications and
   disqualifications of persons to be elected or to sit or vote
   as members of the Assembly of Canada, the qualifications or
   disqualifications of voters, the oaths to be taken by voters,
   the Returning Officers, their powers and duties, the
   proceedings at elections, the periods during which such
   elections may be continued, and the trial of controverted
   elections and the proceedings incident thereto, the vacating
   of the seats of members and the issuing and execution of new
   writs in case of seats vacated otherwise than by dissolution,
   shall respectively apply to elections of members to serve in
   the respective Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec.
   Provided that until the Legislature of Ontario otherwise
   provides, at any election for a member of the Legislative
   Assembly of Ontario for the District of Algoma, in addition to
   persons qualified by the law of the Province of Canada to
   vote, every male British subject, aged twenty-one years or
   upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.

   85. Every Legislative Assembly of Ontario and every
   Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall continue for four years
   from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the same
   (subject nevertheless to either the Legislative Assembly of
   Ontario or the Legislative Assembly of Quebec being sooner
   dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province), and no
   longer.

   86. There shall be a session of the Legislature of Ontario and
   of that of Quebec once at least in every year, so that twelve
   months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the
   Legislature in each Province in one session and its first
   sitting in the next session.

   87. The following provisions of this Act respecting the House
   of Commons of Canada, shall extend and apply to the
   Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec, that is to
   say,—the provisions relating to the election of a Speaker
   originally and on vacancies, the duties of the Speaker, the
   absence of the Speaker, the quorum, and the mode of voting, as
   if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable
   in terms to each such Legislative Assembly.

   88. The constitution of the Legislature of each of the
   Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to
   the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union
   until altered under the authority of this Act; and the House
   of Assembly of New Brunswick existing at the passing of this
   Act shall, unless sooner dissolved, continue for the period
   for which it was elected.

   89. Each of the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario, Quebec, and
   Nova Scotia shall cause writs to be issued for the first
   election of members of the Legislative Assembly thereof in
   such form and by such person as he thinks fit, and at such
   time and addressed to such Returning Officer as the Governor
   General directs, and so that the first election of member of
   Assembly for any Electoral District or any subdivision thereof
   shall be held at the same time and at the same places as the
   election for a member to serve in the House of Commons of
   Canada for that Electoral District.

{532}

   90. The following provisions of this Act respecting the
   Parliament of Canada, namely,—the provisions relating to
   appropriation and tax bills, the recommendation of money
   votes, the assent to bills, the disallowance of Acts. and the
   signification of pleasure on bills reserved,—shall extend and
   apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those
   provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms
   to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with
   the substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province
   for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the
   Queen and for a Secretary of State, of one year for two years,
   and of the Province for Canada.

   91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice
   and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws
   for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in
   relation to all matters not coming within the classes of
   subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures
   of the Provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to
   restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this
   section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything
   in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the
   Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the
   classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to
   say,—
   1. The Public Debt and Property.
   2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.
   3. The raising of money by any mode or system of Taxation.
   4. The borrowing of money on the public credit.
   5. Postal service.
   6. The Census and Statistics.
   7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
   8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances
   of civil and other officers of the Government of Canada.
   9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
   10. Navigation and Shipping.
   11. Quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of Marine
   Hospitals.
   12. Sea coast and inland Fisheries.
   13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign
   country, or between two Provinces.
   14. Currency and Coinage.
   15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper
   money.
   16. Savings Banks.
   17. Weights and Measures.
   18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
   19. Interest.
   20. Legal tender.
   21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
   22. Patents of invention and discovery.
   23. Copyrights.
   24. Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.
   25. Naturalization and Aliens.
   26. Marriage and Divorce.
   27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of
   Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal
   Matters.
   28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of
   Penitentiaries.
   29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the
   enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned
   exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any
   matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated
   in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class
   of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the
   enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned
   exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

   92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws
   in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects
   next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,—
   1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything
   in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as
   regards the office of Lieutenant Governor.
   2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising
   of a Revenue for Provincial purposes.
   3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the Province.
   4. The establishment and tenure of Provincial offices and the
   appointment and payment of Provincial officers.
   5. The management and sale of the Public Lands belonging to
   the Province and of the timber and wood thereon.
   6. The establishment, maintenance, and management of public
   and reformatory prisons in and for the Province.
   7. The establishment, maintenance, and management of
   hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions
   in and for the Province, other than marine hospitals.
   8. Municipal institutions in the Province.
   9. Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses in
   order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial, local, or
   municipal purposes.
   10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the
   following classes,
   _a._ Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals,
   telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the
   Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or
   extending beyond the limits of the Province:
   _b._ Lines of steamships between the Province and any
   British or foreign country.
   _c._ Such works as, although wholly situate within the
   Province, are before or after their execution declared by the
   Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada
   or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces.
   11. The incorporation of companies with Provincial objects.
   12. The solemnization of marriage in the Province.
   13. Property and civil rights in the Province.
   14. The administration of justice in the Province, including
   the constitution, maintenance, and organization of Provincial
   Courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and
   including procedure in Civil matters in those Courts.
   15. The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or
   imprisonment for enforcing any law of the Province made in
   relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of
   subjects enumerated in this section.
   16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature
   in the Province.

   93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively
   make laws in relation to education, subject and according to
   the following provisions:
   (1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any
   right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
   which any class of persons have by law in the Province at the
   Union.
   (2) All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union by law
   conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools
   and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects
   shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient
   schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects
   in Quebec.
   (3) Where in any Province a system of separate or dissentient
   schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter,
   established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal
   shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or
   decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or
   privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the
   Queen's subjects in relation to education:
{533}
   (4) In case any such Provincial law as from time to time seems
   to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due
   execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in
   case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any
   appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper
   Provincial authority in that behalf, then find in every such
   case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case
   require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for
   the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any
   decision of the Governor General in Council under this
   section.

   94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of
   Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of
   the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario,
   Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or
   any of the Courts in those three Provinces; and from and after
   the passing of any Act in that behalf the power of the
   Parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter
   comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in
   this Act, be unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of
   Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have
   effect in any Province unless and until it is adopted and
   enacted as law by the Legislature thereof.

   95. In each Province the Legislature may make laws in relation
   to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the
   Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of
   Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
   Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration
   into all or any of the Provinces; and any law of the
   Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to
   Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long
   and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the
   Parliament of Canada.

   96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the
   Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except
   those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New
   Brunswick.

   97. Until the laws relative to property and civil rights in
   Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the procedure of
   the Courts in those Provinces, are made uniform, the Judges of
   the Courts of those Provinces appointed by the Governor
   General shall be selected from the respective Bars of those
   Provinces.

   98. The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from
   the Bar of that Province.

   99. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold office during
   good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General
   on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

   100. The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the Judges of
   the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts
   of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the
   Admiralty Courts in cases where the Judges thereof are for the
   time being paid by salary, shall be fixed and provided by the
   Parliament of Canada.

   101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in
   this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution,
   maintenance, and organization of a general Court of Appeal for
   Canada, and for the establishment of any additional Courts for
   the better administration of the Laws of Canada.

   102. All duties and revenues over which the respective
   Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick before
   and at the Union had and have power of appropriation, except
   such portions thereof as are by this Act reserved to the
   respective Legislatures of the Provinces, or are raised by
   them in accordance with the special powers conferred on them
   by this Act, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be
   appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner
   and subject to the charges in this Act provided.

   103. The Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada shall be
   permanently charged with the costs, charges, and expenses
   incident to the collection, management, and receipt thereof,
   and the same shall form the first charge thereon, subject to
   be reviewed and audited in such manner as shall be ordered by
   the Governor General in Council until the Parliament otherwise
   provides.

   104. The annual interest of the public debts of the several
   Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the
   Union shall form the second charge on the Consolidated Revenue
   Fund of Canada.

   105. Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of
   the Governor General shall be ten thousand pounds sterling
   money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
   payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and
   the same shall form the third charge thereon.

   106. Subject to the several payments by this Act charged on
   the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the same shall be
   appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public
   service.

   107. All stocks, cash, banker's balances, and securities for
   money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union,
   except as in this Act mentioned, shall be the property of
   Canada, and shall be taken in reduction of the amount of the
   respective debts of the Provinces at the Union.

   108. The public works and property of each Province,
   enumerated in the third schedule to this Act, shall be the
   property of Canada.

   109. All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to
   the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
   at the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands,
   mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several
   Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in
   which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts
   existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than
   that of the Province in the same.

   110. All assets connected with such portions of the public
   debt of each Province as are assumed by that Province shall
   belong to that Province.

   111. Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of
   each Province existing at the Union.

   112. Ontario and Quebec conjointly shall be liable to Canada
   for the amount (if any) by which the debt of the Province of
   Canada exceeds at the Union sixty-two million five hundred
   thousand dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
   rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

   113. The assets enumerated in the fourth Schedule to this Act
   belonging at the Union to the Province of Canada shall be the
   property of Ontario and Quebec conjointly.

{534}

   114. Nova Scotia shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if
   any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union eight
   million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
   rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

   115. New Brunswick shall be liable to Canada for the amount
   (if any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union seven
   million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
   rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

   116. In case the public debt of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
   do not at the Union amount to eight million dollars and seven
   million dollars respectively, they shall respectively receive
   by half-yearly payments in advance from the Government of
   Canada interest at five per centum per annum on the difference
   between the actual amounts of their respective debts and such
   stipulated amounts.

   117. The several provinces shall retain all their respective
   public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject
   to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property
   required for fortifications or for the defence of the country.

   118. The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the
   several Provinces for the support of their Governments and
   Legislatures: Ontario, eighty thousand dollars; Quebec,
   seventy thousand dollars; Nova Scotia, sixty thousand dollars;
   New Brunswick, fifty thousand dollars; [total] two hundred and
   sixty thousand dollars; and an annual grant in aid of each
   Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head, of the
   population us ascertained by the census of one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New
   Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the
   population of each of those two Provinces amounts to four
   hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall
   thereafter remain. Such grant shall be in full Settlement of
   all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in
   advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall
   deduct from such grants, as against any Province, all sums
   chargeable as interest on the Public Debt of that Province in
   excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.

   119. New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in
   advance from Canada, for the period of ten years from the
   Union, an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars
   per annum; but as long as the Public Debt of that Province
   remains under seven million dollars a deduction equal to the
   interest at five per centum per annum on such deficiency shall
   be made from that allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars.

   120. All payments to be made under this Act, or in discharge
   of liabilities created under any Act of the Provinces of
   Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, and
   assumed by Canada, shall, until the Parliament of Canada
   otherwise directs, be made in such form and manner as may from
   time to time be ordered by the Governor General in Council.

   121. All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of
   anyone of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be
   admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

   122. The Customs and Excise Laws of each Province shall,
   subject to the provisions of this Act, continue in force until
   altered by the Parliament of Canada.

   123. Where Customs duties are, at the Union, leviable on any
   goods, wares or merchandises in any two Provinces, those
   goods, wares and merchandises may, from and after the Union,
   be imported from one of those Provinces into the other of them
   on proof of payment of the Customs duty leviable thereon in
   the Province of exportation, and on payment of such further
   amount (if any) of Customs duty as is leviable thereon in the
   Province of importation.

   124. Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of New
   Brunswick to levy the lumber dues provided in chapter fifteen,
   of title three, of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, or
   in any Act amending that act before or after the Union, and
   not increasing the amount of such dues; but the lumber of any
   of the Provinces other than New Brunswick stall not be
   subjected to such dues.

   125. No lands or property belonging to Canada or any Province
   shall be liable to taxation.

   126. Such portions of the duties and revenues over which the
   respective Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
   Brunswick had before the Union power of appropriation as are
   by this Act reserved to the respective Governments or
   Legislatures of the Provinces, and all duties and revenues
   raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred
   upon them by this act, shall in each Province form one
   Consolidated Revenue Fund to be appropriated for the public
   service of the Province.

   127. If any person being at the passing of this Act a member
   of the Legislative Council of Canada, Nova Scotia, or New
   Brunswick, to whom a place in the Senate is offered, does not
   within thirty days thereafter, by writing under his hand,
   addressed to the Governor General of the Province of Canada,
   or to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick
   (as the case may be), accept the same, he shall be deemed to
   have declined the same; and any person who, being at the
   passing of this Act a member of the Legislative Council of
   Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, accepts a place in the Senate,
   shall thereby vacate his seat in such Legislative Council.

   128. Every member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada
   shall before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe
   before the Governor General or some person authorized by him,
   and every member of a Legislative Council or Legislative
   Assembly of any Province shall before taking his seat therein,
   take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the
   Province, or some person authorized by him, the oath of
   allegiance contained in the fifth Schedule to this Act; and
   every member of the Senate of Canada and every member of the
   Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his
   seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General,
   or some person authorized by him, the declaration of
   qualification contained in the same Schedule.

{535}

   129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in
   force in Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick at the Union,
   and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all
   legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers,
   judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing therein at
   the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and
   New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made,
   subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as are
   enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great
   Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
   Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished or altered by
   the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the
   respective Province, according to the authority of the
   Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act.

   130. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all
   officers of the several Provinces having duties to discharge
   in relation to matters other than those coming within the
   classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the
   Legislatures of the Provinces shall be officers of Canada, and
   shall continue to discharge the duties of their respective
   offices under the same liabilities, responsibilities and
   penalties as if the Union had not been made.

   131. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the
   Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint such
   officers as the Governor General in Council deems necessary or
   proper for the effectual execution of this Act.

   132. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all
   powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of
   Canada or of any Province thereof, as part of the British
   Empire towards foreign countries, arising under treaties
   between the Empire and such foreign countries.

   133. Either the English or the French language may be used by
   any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of
   Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and
   both those languages shall be used in the respective records
   and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages
   may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or
   issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act,
   and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. The Acts of
   the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec
   shall be printed and published in both those languages.

   134. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise
   provides, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Que bee may
   each appoint under the Great Seal of the Province the
   following officers, to hold office during pleasure, that is to
   say,—the Attorney General, the Secretary and Registrar of the
   Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the Commissioner of
   Crown Lands and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public
   Works, and, in the case of Quebec, the Solicitor General; and
   may, by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from time
   to time prescribe the duties of those officers and of the
   several departments over which they shall preside or to which
   they shall belong, and of the officers and clerks thereof; and
   may also appoint other and additional officers to hold office
   during pleasure, and may from time to time prescribe the
   duties of those officers, and of the several departments over
   which they shall preside or to which they shall belong, and of
   the officers and clerks thereof.

   130. Until the Legislature of Ontario or Quebec otherwise
   provides, all rights, powers, duties, functions,
   responsibilities or authorities at the passing of this Act
   vested in or imposed on the Attorney General, Solicitor
   General, Secretary and Registrar of the Province of Canada,
   Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Commissioner
   of Public Works, and Minister of Agriculture and Receiver
   General, by any law, statute or ordinance of Upper Canada,
   Lower Canada, or Canada, and not repugnant to this Act, shall
   be vested in or imposed on any officer to be appointed by the
   Lieutenant Governor for the discharge of the same or any of
   them; and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works
   shall perform the duties and functions of the office of
   Minister of Agriculture at the passing of this Act imposed by
   the law of the Province of Canada as well as those of the
   Commissioner of Public Works.

   136. Until altered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the
   Great Seals of Ontario and Quebec respectively, shall be the
   same or of the same design, as those used in the Provinces of
   Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively before their Union
   as the Province of Canada.

   137. The words "and from thence to the end of the then next
   ensuing Session of the Legislature," or words to the same
   effect, used in any temporary Act of the Province of Canada
   not expired before the Union, shall be construed to extend and
   apply to the next Session of Parliament of Canada, if the
   subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as
   defined by this Act, or to the next Sessions of the
   Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively, if the
   subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as
   defined by this Act.

   138. From and after the Union, the use of the words "Upper
   Canada," instead of "Ontario," or "Lower Canada" instead of
   "Quebec," in any deed, writ, process, pleading, document,
   matter or thing, shall not invalidate the same.

   139. Any Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province of
   Canada, issued before the Union to take effect at a time which
   is subsequent to the Union, whether relating to that Province
   or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and the several
   matters and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of
   like force and effect as if the Union had not been made.

   140. Any proclamation which is authorized by any Act of the
   Legislature of the Province of Canada to be issued under the
   Great Seal of the Province of Canada, whether relating to that
   Province or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and which is
   not issued before the Union, may be issued by the Lieutenant
   Governor of Ontario or of Quebec, as its subject matter
   requires, under the Great Seal thereof; and from and after the
   issue of such Proclamation the same and the several matters
   and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of the
   like force and effect in Ontario or Quebec as if the Union had
   not been made.

   141. The Penitentiary of the Province of Canada shall, until
   the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, be and continue
   the Penitentiary of Ontario and of Quebec.

   142. The division and adjustment of the debts, credits,
   liabilities, properties and assets of Upper Canada and Lower
   Canada shall be referred to the arbitrament of three
   arbitrators, one chosen by the Government of Ontario, one by
   the Government of Quebec, and one by the Government of Canada;
   and the selection of the Arbitrators shall not be made until
   the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of Ontario and
   Quebec have met; and the arbitrator chosen by the Government
   of Canada shall not be a resident either in Ontario or in
   Quebec.

{536}

   143. The Governor General in Council may from time to time
   order that such and so many of the records, books, and
   documents of the Province of Canada as he thinks fit shall be
   appropriated and delivered either to Ontario or to Quebec, and
   the same shall henceforth be the property of that Province:
   and any copy thereof or extract therefrom, duly certified by
   the officer having charge of the original thereof shall be
   admitted as evidence.

   144. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec may from time to time,
   by Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province, to take
   effect from a day to be appointed therein, constitute
   townships in those parts of the Province of Quebec in which
   townships are not then already constituted, and fix the metes
   and bounds thereof.

   145. Inasmuch as the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
   Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction
   of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation
   of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto
   of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed
   that provision should be made for its immediate construction
   by the Government of Canada: Therefore, in order to give
   effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the
   Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the
   commencement, within six months after the Union, of a railway
   connecting the River St. Lawrence with the City of Halifax in
   Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without
   intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable
   speed.

   146. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice
   of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on Addresses
   from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the
   Houses of the respective Legislatures of the Colonies or
   Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British
   Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of
   them, into the Union, and on Address from the Houses of the
   Parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the
   North-western Territory, or either of them, into the Union, on
   such terms and conditions in each case as are in the Addresses
   expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to
   the provisions of this Act, and the provisions of any Order in
   Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been
   enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
   Britain and Ireland.

   147. In case of the admission of Newfoundland and Prince
   Edward Island, or either of them, each shall be entitled to a
   representation in the Senate of Canada of four members, and
   (notwithstanding anything in this Act) in case of the
   admission of Newfoundland the normal number of Senators shall
   be seventy-six and their maximum number shall be eighty-two;
   but Prince Edward Island when admitted shall be deemed to be
   comprised in the third of the three divisions into which
   Canada is, in relation to the constitution of the Senate,
   divided by this Act, and accordingly, after the admission of
   Prince Edward Island, whether Newfoundland is admitted or not,
   the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the
   Senate shall, as vacancies occur, be reduced from twelve to
   ten members respectively; and the representation of each of
   those Provinces shall not be increased at any time beyond ten,
   except under the provisions of this Act for the appointment of
   three or six additional Senators under the direction of the
   Queen.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA:  A. D. 1871.
   British North America Act, 1871.

   An Act respecting the Establishment of Provinces in the
   Dominion of Canada. [29TH JUNE, 1871.]

   WHEREAS doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of
   the Parliament of Canada to establish Provinces in territories
   admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted, into the
   Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of
   such Provinces in the said Parliament, and it is expedient to
   remove such doubts, and to vest such powers in the said
   Parliament: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent
   Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords,
   Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament
   assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

   1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as The British North
   America Act, 1871.

   2. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish
   new Provinces in any territories forming for the time being
   part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
   Province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,
   make provision for the constitution and administration of any
   such Province, and for the passing of laws for the peace,
   order and good government of such Province, and for its
   representation in the said Parliament.

   3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the
   consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said
   Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of
   such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed
   to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent,
   make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such
   increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation
   to any Province affected thereby.

   4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make
   provision for the administration, peace, order, and good
   government of any territory not for the time being included in
   any Province.

   5. The following Acts passed by the said Parliament of Canada,
   and intituled respectively: "An Act for the temporary
   government of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory
   when united with Canada;" and "An Act to amend and continue
   the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three,
   and to establish and provide for the government of the
   Province of Manitoba," shall be and be deemed to have been
   valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date
   at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's
   name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada.

   6. Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it
   shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to alter
   the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said
   Parliament in so far as it relates to the Province of
   Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new
   Provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of
   the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to alter from time
   to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification
   of electors and members of the Legislative Assembly, and to
   make laws respecting elections in the said Province.

{537}

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1875.
   Parliament of Canada Act, 1875.

   An Act to remove certain doubts with respect to the powers of
   the Parliament of Canada, under Section 18 of the British
   North America Act, 1867. [19TH JULY, 1875.]

   WHEREAS by section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867,
   it is provided as follows:-

   "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed,
   and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and
   by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from
   time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but
   so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of
   this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of
   Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
   and by the members thereof." And whereas doubts have arisen
   with regard to the power of defining by an Act of the
   Parliament of Canada, in pursuance of the said section, the
   said privileges, powers or immunities; and it is expedient to
   remove such doubts: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's
   Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
   the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
   Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
   follows:-

   1. Section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867, is
   hereby repealed, without prejudice to anything done under that
   section, and the following section shall be substituted for
   the section so repealed:—The privileges, immunities, and
   powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by
   the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively,
   shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the
   Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of
   Canada defining such privileges, immunities and powers shall
   not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding
   those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised
   by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of
   Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.

   2. The Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in the
   thirty-first year of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter
   twenty-four, intituled An Act to provide for oaths to
   witnesses being administered in certain cases for the purposes
   of either House of Parliament, shall be deemed to be valid,
   and to have been valid as from the date at which the royal
   assent was given thereto by the Governor General of the
   Dominion of Canada.

   3. This Act may be cited as The Parliament of Canada Act,
   1875.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1886.
   British North America Act, 1886.

   An Act respecting the Representation in the Parliament of
   Canada of Territories which for the time being form part of
   the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province.
   [25TH JUNE, 1886.]

   WHEREAS it is expedient to empower the Parliament of Canada to
   provide for the representation in the Senate and House of
   Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which
   for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but
   is not included in any Province: Be it therefore enacted by
   the Queen's. Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
   and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
   in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of
   the same, as follows:

   1. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make
   provision for the representation in the Senate and House of
   Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories
   which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada,
   but are not included in any Province thereof.

   2. Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the
   passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act
   shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed
   to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it
   received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the
   Governor-General of Canada. It is hereby declared that any Act
   passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after
   the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this
   Act, or in The British North America Act, 1871, has effect,
   notwithstanding anything in The British North America Act,
   1867, and the number of Senators or the number of Members of
   the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is
   increased by the number of Senators or of Members, as the case
   may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada
   for the representation of any provinces or territories of
   Canada.

   3. This Act maybe cited as The British North America Act,
   1886. This Act and The British North America Act, 1867, and
   The British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed
   together, and may be cited together as The British North
   America Acts, 1861 to 1886.

----------CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF (OR FOR) THE CAROLINAS (Locke's).

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

CONSTITUTION OF CHILE.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884, and 1885-1891.

CONSTITUTION OF CLEISTHENES.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

CONSTITUTION OF COLOMBIA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886, and 1885-1891.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

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

CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT
   (1639—the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven).

      See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1636-1639, and 1639.

CONSTITUTION OF DENMARK.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

CONSTITUTION OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC, or the United Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

{538}

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND.

   "Our English Constitution was never made, in the sense in
   which the Constitutions of many other countries have been
   made. There never was any moment when Englishmen drew out
   their political system in the shape of a formal document,
   whether as the carrying out of any abstract political theories
   or as the imitation of the past or present system of any other
   nation. There are indeed certain great political documents,
   each of which forms a landmark in our political history. There
   is the Great Charter [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215], the Petition
   of Rights [ENGLAND:  A. D. 1625-1628, and 1628], the Bill of
   Rights [ENGLAND:  A. D. 1689 (October)]. But not one of these
   gave itself out as the enactment of anything new. All claimed
   to set forth, with new strength, it might be, and with new
   clearness, those rights of Englishmen which were already old.
   …  The life and soul of English law has ever been precedent;
   we have always held that whatever our fathers once did their
   sons have a right to do again."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Growth of the English Constitution,
      chapter 2._

   "It is, in the first place, necessary to have a clear
   understanding of what we mean when we talk about 'the English
   Constitution.' Few terms in our language have been more laxly
   employed. …  Still, the term, 'the English Constitution' is
   susceptible of full and accurate explanation: though it may
   not be easy to set it lucidly forth, without first
   investigating the archaeology of our history, rather more
   deeply than may suit hasty talkers and superficial thinkers.
   … Some furious Jacobins, at the close of the last century,
   used to clamour that there was no such thing as the English
   Constitution, because it could not be produced in full written
   form, like that of the United States. … But an impartial and
   earnest investigator may still satisfy himself that England
   has a constitution, and that there is ample cause why she
   should cherish it. And by this it is meant that he will
   recognise and admire, in the history, the laws and the
   institutions of England, certain great leading principles,
   which have existed from the earliest period of our nationality
   down to the present time; expanding and adapting themselves to
   the progress of society and civilization, advancing and
   varying in development, but still essentially the same in
   substance and spirit. These great primeval and enduring
   principles are the principles of the English Constitution. And
   we are not obliged to learn them from imperfect evidences or
   precarious speculation; for they are imperishably recorded in
   the Great Charter, and in Charters and Statutes connected with
   and confirmatory of Magna Charta [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215].
   … These great primeval and enduring principles of our
   Constitution are as follows: The government of the country by
   an hereditary sovereign, ruling with limited powers, and bound
   to summon and consult a parliament of the whole realm,
   comprising hereditary peers and elective representatives of
   the commons. That without the sanction of parliament no tax of
   any kind can be imposed; and no law can be made, repealed, or
   altered. That no man be arbitrarily fined or imprisoned, that
   no man's property or liberties be impaired, and that no man be
   in any way punished, except after a lawful trial. Trial by jury.
   That justice shall not be sold or delayed. These great
   constitutional principles can all be proved, either by express
   terms or by fair implication, from Magna Carta, and its …
   supplement [the statute 'Confirmatio Cartarum ']. Their
   vigorous development was aided and attested in many subsequent
   statutes, especially in the Petition of Rights and the Bill of
   Rights. … Lord Chatham called these three 'The Bible of the
   English Constitution,' to which appeal is to be made on every
   grave political question."

      _E. S. Creasy,
      Rise and Progress of the English Constitution,
      chapter 1._

   "The fact that our constitution has to be collected from
   statutes, from legal decisions, from observation of the course
   of conduct of the business of politics; that much of what is
   written is of a negative sort, stating what the Crown and its
   ministers cannot do; that there is no part of it which an
   omnipotent Parliament may not change at will; all this is a
   puzzle not only to foreign jurists who are prepared to say,
   with De Tocqueville, that the English constitution does not
   exist, but to ourselves who are prepared to maintain that it
   is a monument, if only we can find it, of political sagacity.
   Those who praise it call it flexible; those who criticise it
   unstable."

      _Sir W. R. Anson,
      The Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      part 1, page 35._

      ALSO IN:
      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England
      in its Origin and Development._

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England: Henry VII. to George II._

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860._

      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution._

      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution._

      _W. Bagehot,
      The English Constitution._

      _E. Boutmy,
      The English Constitution._

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,
      and CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

----------CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1791.
   The Constitution accepted by Louis XVI.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791,
      and 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (or the Year One).
   The Jacobin Constitution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (or the Year Three).
   The Constitution of the Directory.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1799.
   The Constitution of the Consulate.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1814.
   The Constitution of the Restoration.

         See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1848.
   The Constitution of the Second Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1852.-
   The Constitution of the Second Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
   The Constitution of the Third Republic.

   The circumstances of the framing and adoption in 1875 of the
   Constitution of the Third Republic will be found narrated
   under  FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

   The following is the text of the organic law of 1875, with the
   later amendatory and supplemental enactments, down to July 17,
   1889, as translated and edited, with an historical
   introduction, by Mr. Charles F. A. Currier, and published in
   the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
   Science, March, 1893. It is reproduced here with the kind
   permission of the President of the Academy, Professor Edmund
   J. James:

{539}

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
   Law on the Organization of the Public Powers. February 25.

ARTICLE 1.
   The legislative power is exercised by two assemblies: the
   Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies is
   elected by universal suffrage, under the conditions determined
   by the electoral law.

   [Footnote: See law of November 30, 1875, infra.]

   The composition, the method of election, and the powers of the
   Senate shall be regulated by a special law.

   [Footnote: See laws of February 24, and August 2, 1875, infra.]

ARTICLE  2.
   The President of the Republic is chosen by an absolute
   majority of votes of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies united
   in National Assembly. He is elected for seven years. He is
   re-eligible.

ARTICLE 3.
   The President of the Republic has the initiative of the laws,
   concurrently with the members of the two Chambers. He
   promulgates the laws when they have been voted by the two
   Chambers; he looks after and secures their execution. He has
   the right of pardon; amnesty can be granted by law only. He
   disposes of the armed force. He appoints to all civil and
   military positions. He presides over national festivals;
   envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to
   him. Every act of the President of the Republic must be
   countersigned by a Minister.

ARTICLE  4.
   As vacancies occur on and after the promulgation of the
   present law, the President of the Republic appoints, in the
   Council of Ministers, the Councilors of State in ordinary
   service. The Councilors of State thus chosen may be dismissed
   only by decree rendered in the Council of Ministers. The
   Councilors of State chosen by virtue of the law of May 24,
   1872, cannot, before the expiration of their powers, be
   dismissed except in the manner determined by that law. After
   the dissolution of the National Assembly, revocation may be
   pronounced only by resolution of the Senate.

ARTICLE  5.
   The President of the Republic may, with the advice of the
   Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the legal
   expiration of its term. [In that case the electoral colleges
   are summoned for new elections within the space of three
   months.]

   [Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of
   August 14, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE 6.
   The Ministers are jointly and severally ('solidairement')
   responsible to the Chambers for the general policy of the
   government, and individually for their personal acts. The
   President of the Republic is responsible in case of high
   treason only.

   [Footnote:  See ARTICLE 12, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]

ARTICLE 7.
   In case of vacancy by death or for any other reason, the two
   Chambers assembled together proceed at once to the election of
   a new President. In the meantime the Council of Ministers is
   invested with the executive power.

   [Footnote:  See ARTICLES. 3 and 11, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]

ARTICLE 8.
   The Chambers shall have the right by separate resolutions,
   taken in each by an absolute majority of votes, either upon
   their own initiative or upon the request of the President of
   the Republic, to declare a revision of the Constitutional Laws
   necessary. After each of the two Chambers shall have come to
   this decision, they shall meet together in National Assembly
   to proceed with the revision. The acts effecting revision of
   the constitutional laws, in whole or in part, must be by an
   absolute majority of the members composing the National
   Assembly. [During the continuance, however, of the powers
   conferred by the law of November 20, 1873, upon Marshal de
   MacMahon, this revision can take place only upon the
   initiative of the President of the Republic.]

   [Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of
   August 14, 1884, _infra_.]

[ARTICLE  9.
   The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
   Versailles.]

   [Footnote: Repealed by constitutional law
   of June 21, 1879, _infra._]

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
   Law on the Organization of the Senate. February 24.

   [Footnote: By the constitutional law of
   August 14, 1884, it was provided that Articles 1 to 7
   of this law should no longer have a constitutional
   character; and they were repealed
   by the law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]

[ARTICLE 1.
   The Senate consists of three hundred members: Two hundred and
   twenty-five elected by the departments and colonies, and
   seventy-five elected by the National Assembly.]

[ARTICLE  2.
   The departments of the Seine and Nord elect each five
   senators. The following departments elect four senators each:
   Seine-Inférieure, Pas-dc-Calais, Gironde, Rhône, Finistère,
   Côtes-du-Nord. The following departments elect three senators
   each: Loire-Inférieure, Saône-et-Loire, Ille-et-Vilaine,
   Seine-et-Oise, Isère, Puy-de-Dôme, Somme, Bouches-du-Rhône,
   Aisne, Loire, Manche, Maine-et-Loire, Morbihan, Dordogne,
   Haute-Garonne, Charente-Inférieure, Calvados, Sarthe, Hérault,
   Basses-Pyrénées, Gard, Aveyron, Vendée, Orne, Oise, Vosges,
   Allier. All the other departments elect two senators each. The
   following elect one senator each: The Territory of Belfort,
   the three departments of Algeria, the four colonies:
   Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion and the French Indies.]

[ARTICLE  3.
   No one can be senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
   years of age at least, and enjoying civil and political
   rights.]

[ARTICLE  4.
   The senators of the departments and colonies are elected by an
   absolute majority and by 'scrutin de liste', by a college
   meeting at the capital of the department or colony and
   composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the general councilors;
   (3) of the arrondissement councilors; (4) of delegates
   elected, one by each municipal council, from among the voters
   of the commune. In the French Indies the members of the
   colonial council or of the local councils are substituted for
   the general councilors, arrondissement councilors and
   delegates from the municipal councils. They vote at the
   capital of each district.]

[ARTICLE  5.
   The senators chosen by the Assembly are elected by 'scrutin de
   liste' and by an absolute majority of votes.]

[ARTICLE 6.
   The senators of the departments and colonies are elected for
   nine years and renewable by thirds every three years. At the
   beginning of the first session the departments shall be
   divided into three series containing an equal number of
   senators each. It shall be determined by lot which series
   shall be renewed at the expiration of the first and second
   triennial periods.]

[ARTICLE  7.
   The senators elected by the Assembly are irremovable.
   Vacancies by death, by resignation, or for any other reason,
   shall, within the space of two months, be filled by the Senate
   itself.]

{540}

ARTICLE  8.
   The Senate has, concurrently with the Chamber of Deputies, the
   initiative and passing of laws. Money bills, however, must
   first be introduced in, and passed by the Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE  9.
   The Senate may be constituted a Court of Justice to judge
   either the President of the Republic or the Ministers, and to
   take cognizance of attacks made upon the safety of the State.

ARTICLE  10.
   Elections to the Senate shall take place one month before the
   time fixed by the National Assembly for its own dissolution.
   The Senate shall organize and enter upon its duties the same
   day that the National Assembly is dissolved.

ARTICLE  11.
   The present law shall be promulgated only after the
   passage of the law on the public powers.

   [Footnote: i. e., the law of February 25, 1875, _supra_.]

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE; 1875.
   Law on the Relations of the Public Powers. July 16.

ARTICLE 1.
   The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies shall assemble each
   year the second Tuesday of January, unless convened earlier by
   the President of the Republic. The two Chambers continue in
   session at least five months each year. The sessions of each
   begin and end at the same time. [On the Sunday following the
   opening of the session, public prayers shall be addressed to
   God in the churches and temples, to invoke His aid in the
   labors of the Chambers.]

   [Footnote: Repealed by law of August 14, 1884, _infra_.]

ARTICLE  2.
   The President of the Republic pronounces the closure of the
   session. He may convene the Chambers in extra session. He must
   convene them if, during the recess, an absolute majority of
   the members of each Chamber request it. The President may
   adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however, must not
   exceed one month, nor take place more than twice in the same
   session.

ARTICLE  3.
   One month at least before the legal expiration of the powers
   of the President of the Republic, the Chambers must be called
   together in National Assembly and proceed to the election of a
   new President. In default of a summons, this meeting shall
   take place, as of right, the fifteenth day before the
   expiration of those powers. In case of the death or
   resignation of the President of the Republic, the two Chambers
   shall reassemble immediately, as of right. In case the Chamber
   of Deputies, in consequence of Article 5 of the law of
   February 25, 1875, is dissolved at the time when the
   presidency of the Republic becomes vacant, the electoral
   colleges shall be convened at once, and the Senate shall
   reassemble as of right.

ARTICLE  4.
   Every meeting of either of the two Chambers which shall be
   held at a time other than the common session of both is
   illegal and void, except the case provided for in the
   preceding article, and that when the Senate meets as a court
   of justice; and in this last case, judicial duties alone shall
   be performed.

ARTICLE  5.
   The sittings of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies are
   public. Nevertheless each Chamber may meet in secret session,
   upon the request of a fixed number of its members, determined
   by the rules. It decides by absolute majority whether the
   sitting shall be resumed in public upon the same subject.

ARTICLE 6.
   The President of the Republic communicates with the Chambers
   by messages, which are read from the tribune by a Minister.
   The Ministers have entrance to both Chambers, and must be
   heard when they request it. They may be represented, for the
   discussion of a specific bill, by commissioners designated by
   decree of the President of the Republic.

ARTICLE 7.
   The President of the Republic promulgates the laws within the
   month following the transmission to the Government of the law
   finally passed. He must promulgate, within three days, laws
   whose promulgation shall have been declared urgent by an
   express vote in each Chamber. Within the time fixed for
   promulgation the President of the Republic may, by a message
   with reasons assigned, request of the two Chambers a new
   discussion, which cannot be refused.

ARTICLE  8.
   The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies
   treaties. He communicates them to the Chambers as soon as the
   interests and safety of the State permit. Treaties of peace,
   and of commerce, treaties which involve the finances of the
   State, those relating to the persons and property of French
   citizens in foreign countries, shall become definitive only
   after having been voted by the two Chambers. No cession, no
   exchange, no annexation of territory shall take place except
   by virtue of a law.

ARTICLE 9.
   The President of the Republic cannot declare war except by the
   previous assent of the two Chambers.

ARTICLE  10.
   Each Chamber is the judge of the eligibility of its members,
   and of the legality of their election; it alone can receive
   their resignation.

ARTICLE 11.
   The bureau of each Chamber is elected each year for the entire
   session, and for every extra session which may be held before
   the ordinary session of the following year. When the two
   Chambers meet together as a National Assembly, their bureau
   consists of the President, Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of
   the Senate.

   [Footnote: The bureau of the Senate consists of a president,
   four vice-presidents, six secretaries and three questors; the
   bureau of the Chamber of Deputies is the same, except that
   there are eight secretaries instead of six.]

ARTICLE 12.
   The President of the Republic may be impeached by the Chamber
   of Deputies only, and tried by the Senate only. The Ministers
   may be impeached by the Chamber of Deputies for offences
   committed in the performance of their duties. In this case
   they are tried by the Senate. The Senate may be constituted a
   court of Justice, by a decree of the President of the
   Republic, issued in the Council of Ministers, to try all
   persons accused of attempts upon the safety of the State. If
   procedure is begun by the ordinary courts, the decree
   convening the Senate may be issued any time before the
   granting of a discharge. A law shall determine the method of
   procedure for the accusation, trial and judgment.

   [Footnote: Fixed by law of April 10, 1880.]

ARTICLE 13.
   No member of either Chamber shall be prosecuted or held
   responsible on account of any opinions expressed or votes cast
   by him in the performance of his duties.

{541}


ARTICLE  14.
   No member of either Chamber shall, during the session, be
   prosecuted or arrested for any offence or misdemeanor, except
   on the authority of the Chamber of which he is a member,
   unless he be caught in the very act. The detention or
   prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended for the
   session, and for its [the Chamber's] entire term, if it
   demands it.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
   Law Revising Article 9 of the Constitutional Law of
   February 25, 1875, June 21.

   Article 9 of the constitutional law of February 25, 1875, is
   repealed.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
   Law Partially Revising the Constitutional Laws, August 14.

ARTICLE 1.
   Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the constitutional law of February
   25, 1875, on the Organization of the Public Powers, is amended
   as follows: "In that case the electoral colleges meet for new
   elections within two months, and the Chamber within the ten
   days following the close of the elections."

ARTICLE  2.
   To Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the same law of February 25,
   1875, is added the following: "The Republican form of the
   Government cannot be made the subject of a proposed revision.
   Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
   to the presidency of the Republic."

ARTICLE  3.
   Articles 1 to 7 of the constitutional law of February 24,
   1875, on the Organization of the Senate, shall no longer have
   a constitutional character.

   [Footnote: And may therefore be amended by ordinary
   legislation. See the law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]

ARTICLE  4.
   Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the constitutional law of July 16,
   1875, on the Relation of the Public Powers, is repealed.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
   Law on the Election of Senators. August 2.

ARTICLE 1.
   A decree of the President of the Republic, issued at least six
   weeks in advance, determines the day for the elections to the
   Senate, and at the same time that for the choice of delegates
   of the municipal councils. There must be an interval of at
   least one month between the choice of delegates and the
   election of senators.

ARTICLE 2.
   Each municipal council elects one delegate. The election is
   without debate, by secret ballot, and by an absolute majority
   of votes. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and in
   case of an equality of votes, the oldest is declared elected.
   If the Mayor is not a member of the municipal council, he
   presides, but shall not vote.

   [Footnote: Amended by Article 8, law of December 9, 1884,
   _infra_.]

   On the same day and in the same way an alternate is elected,
   who takes the place of the delegate in case of refusal or
   inability to serve.

   [Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, _supra._]

   The choice of the municipal councils shall not extend to a
   deputy, a general councilor, or an arrondissement councilor.

   [Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, _supra._ ]

   All communal electors, including the municipal councilors, are
   eligible without distinction.

ARTICLE 3.
   In the communes where a municipal committee exists, the
   delegate and alternate shall be chosen by the old council.

   [Footnote: Amended by Article 8,
   law of December 9, 1884, _infra_. ]

ARTICLE 4.
   If the delegate was not present at the election, the Mayor
   shall see to it that he is notified within twenty-four hours.
   He must transmit to the Prefect, within five days, notice of
   his acceptance. In case of refusal or silence, he is replaced
   by the alternate, who is then placed upon the list as the
   delegate of the commune.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]

ARTICLE 5.
   The official report of the election of the delegate and
   alternate is transmitted at once to the Prefect; it states the
   acceptance or refusal of the delegates and alternates, as well
   as the protests raised, by one or more members of the
   municipal council, against the legality of the election. A
   copy of this official report is posted on the door of the town
   hall.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]

ARTICLE 6.
   A statement of the results of the election of delegates and
   alternates is drawn up within a week by the Prefect; this is
   given to all requesting it, and may be copied and published.
   Every elector may, at the bureaux of the prefecture, obtain
   information and a copy of the list, by communes, of the
   municipal councilors of the department, and, at the bureaux of
   the sub-prefectures a copy of the list, by communes, of the
   municipal councilors of the arrondissement.

ARTICLE 7.
   Every communal elector may, within three days, address
   directly to the Prefect a protest against the legality of the
   election. If the Prefect deems the proceedings illegal, he may
   request that they be set aside.

ARTICLE 8.
   Protests concerning the election of the delegate or alternate
   are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
   the council of the prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
   privy council. A delegate whose election is annulled because
   he does not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or on
   account of informality, is replaced by the alternate. In case
   the election of the delegate and alternate is rendered void,
   as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
   elections are held by the municipal council on a day fixed by
   an order of the Prefect.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_.]

ARTICLE 9.
   Eight days, at the latest, before the election of senators,
   the Prefect, and, in the colonies, the Director of the
   Interior, arranges the list of the electors of the department
   in alphabetical order. The list is communicated to all
   demanding it, and may be copied and published. No elector has
   more than one vote.

ARTICLE 10.
   The deputies, the members of the general council, or of the
   arrondissement councils, who have been announced by the
   returning committees, but whose powers have not been verified,
   are enrolled upon the list of electors and are allowed to
   vote.

ARTICLE 11.
   In each of the three departments of Algeria the electoral
   college is composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the members
   of the general councils, of French citizenship; (3) of
   delegates elected by the French members of each municipal
   council from among the communal electors of French
   citizenship.

ARTICLE 12.
   The electoral college is presided over by the President of the
   civil tribunal of the capital of the department or colony. The
   President is assisted by the two oldest and two youngest
   electors present at the opening of the meeting. The bureau
   thus constituted chooses a secretary from among the electors.
   If the President is prevented [from presiding] his place is
   taken by the Vice-President [of the civil tribunal], and, in
   his absence, by the oldest justice.

{542}

ARTICLE 13.
   The bureau divides the electors in alphabetical order into
   sections of at least one hundred voters each. It appoints the
   President and Inspectors of each of these sections. It decides
   all questions and contests which may arise in the course of
   the election, without, however, power to depart from the
   decisions rendered by virtue of Article 8 of the present law.

ARTICLE 14.
   The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
   closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
   four o'clock. The third, if it takes place, begins at six
   o'clock and closes at eight o'clock. The results of the
   ballotings are determined by the bureau and announced the same
   day by the President of the electoral college.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE 15.
   No one is elected senator on either of the first two ballots
   unless he receives: (1) an absolute majority of the votes
   cast; and (2) a number of votes equal to one-fourth of the
   total number of electors registered. On the third ballot a
   plurality is sufficient, and, in case of an equality of votes,
   the oldest is elected.

ARTICLE 16.
   Political meetings for the nomination of senators may take
   place conformably to the rules laid down by the law of June 6,
   1868 subject to the following conditions:

   [Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial
   districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are
   similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de
   Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,
   Algeria and the colonies.]

   I. These meetings may be held from the date of the election of
   delegates up to the day of the election [of senators]
   inclusive;

   II. They must be preceded by a declaration made, at latest,
   the evening before, by seven senatorial electors of the
   arrondissement, and indicating the place, the day and the hour
   the meeting is to take place, and the names, occupation and
   residence of the candidates to be presented;

   III. The municipal authorities will see to it that no one is
   admitted to the meeting unless he is a deputy, general
   councilor, arrondissement councilor, delegate or candidate.
   The delegate will present, as a means of identification, a
   certificate from the Mayor of his commune, the candidate a
   certificate from the official who shall have received the
   declaration mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE 17.
   Delegates who take part in all the ballotings shall, if they
   demand it, receive from the State, upon the presentation of
   their letter of summons, countersigned by the President of the
   electoral college, a remuneration for traveling expenses,
   which shall be paid to them upon the same basis and in the
   same manner as that given to jurors by Articles 35, 90 and
   following, of the decree of June 18, 1811. A public
   administrative regulation shall determine the method of fixing
   the amount and the method of payment of this remuneration.

   [Footnote: Done by decree of December 26, 1875.]

ARTICLE 18.
   Every delegate who, without lawful reason, shall not take part
   in all the ballotings, or, having been hindered, shall not
   have given notice to the alternate in sufficient season,
   shall, upon the demand of the public prosecutor, be punished
   by a fine of fifty francs by the civil tribunal of the
   capital.

   [Footnote: Of the department.] The same penalty may be
   imposed upon the alternate who, after having been notified by
   letter, telegram, or notice personally delivered in due
   season, shall not have taken part in the election.

ARTICLE 19.
   Every attempt at corruption by the employment of means
   enumerated in Articles 177 and following, of the Penal Code,
   to influence the vote of an elector, or to keep him from
   voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
   to two years, and a fine of from fifty to five hundred francs,
   or by one of these two penalties alone. Article 463 of the
   Penal Code shall apply to the penalties imposed by the present
   article.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, Jaw of December 9, 1884,
   _infra_. ]

ARTICLE 20.
   It is incompatible for a senator to be:
   I. Councilor of State, Maitre de Requêtes, Prefect or
   Sub-Prefect, except Prefect of the Seine and Prefect of
   Police;
   II. Member of the courts of appeal ("appel, ") or of the
   tribunals of first instance, except public prosecutor at the
   court of Paris;

   [Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial
   districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are
   similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de
   Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,
   Algeria and the colonies.]

   III. General Paymaster, Special Receiver, official or employé
   of the central administration of the ministries.

ARTICLE 21.
   The following shall not be elected by the department or the
   colony included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction,
   during the exercise of their duties and during the six months
   following the cessation of their duties by resignation,
   dismissal, change of residence, or other cause:

   I. The First Presidents, Presidents, and members of the courts
   of appeal ("appel");

   II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Examining Magistrates,
   and members of the tribunals of first instance;

   III. The Prefect of Police; Prefects and Sub-Prefects, and
   Prefectorial General Secretaries; the Governors, Directors of
   the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;

   V. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief Arrondissement
   Road-Surveyors;

   V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;

   VI. The Primary School Inspectors;

   VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;

   VIII. The officers of all grades of the land and naval force;

   IX. The Division Commissaries and the Military Deputy
   Commissaries;

   X. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;

   XI. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
   Registration of Lands and of Posts;

   XII. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests.

ARTICLE 22.
   A senator elected in several departments, must let his choice
   be known to the President of the senate within ten days
   following the verification of the elections. If a choice is
   not made in this time, the question is settled by lot in open
   session. The vacancy shall be filled within one month and by
   the same electoral body. The same holds true in case of an
   invalidated election.

ARTICLE 23.
   If by death or resignation the number of senators of a
   department is reduced by one·half, the vacancies shall be
   filled within the space of three months, unless the vacancies
   occur within the twelve months preceding the triennial
   elections. At the time fixed for the triennial elections, all
   vacancies shall be filled which have occurred, whatever their
   number and date.

   [Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, _infra_. ]

[ARTICLE 24.
   The election of senators chosen by the National Assembly takes
   place in public sitting, by "scrutin de liste," and by an
   absolute majority of votes, whatever the number of ballotings.]

{543}

[ARTICLE 25.
   When it is necessary to elect successors of senators chosen by
   virtue of Article 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, the
   Senate proceeds in the manner indicated in the preceding
   article].

   [Footnote: Articles 24 and 25 repealed by law of December 9,
   1584, _infra._]

ARTICLE 26.
   Members of the Senate receive the same salary as members of
   the Chamber of Deputies.
   [Footnote: See Article 17, law of November 30, 1875, _infra_. ]

ARTICLE 27.
   There are applicable to elections to the Senate all the
   provisions of the electoral law relating:
   I. to cases of unworthiness and incapacity;
   II. to offences, prosecutions, and penalties;
   III. to election proceedings, in all respects not contrary to
   the provisions of the present law.

Temporary Provisions.

ARTICLE 28.
   For the first election of members of the Senate, the law which
   shall determine the date of the dissolution of the National
   Assembly shall fix, without regard to the intervals
   established by Article 1, the date on which the municipal
   councils shall meet for the election of delegates and the day
   for the election of Senators. Before the meeting of the
   municipal councils, the National Assembly shall proceed to the
   election of those Senators whom it is to choose.

ARTICLE 29.
   The provisions of Article 21, by which an interval of six
   months must elapse between the cessation of duties and
   election, shall not apply to officials, except Prefects and
   Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased either before the
   promulgation of the present law or within twenty days
   following.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
   Law on the Election of Deputies. November 30.

   [Footnote: See _infra_, the laws of June 10, 1885, and
   February 13, 1889, amending the electoral law. ]

ARTICLE 1.
   The deputies shall be chosen by the voters registered:
   I. upon the lists drawn up in accordance with the law of July 7, 1874;
   II. upon the supplementary list including those who have lived
   in the commune six months. Registration upon the supplementary
   list shall take place conformably to the laws and regulations
   now governing the political electoral lists, by the committees
   and according to the forms established by Articles 1, 2 and 3
   of the law of July 7, 1874. Appeals relating to the formation
   and revision of either list shall be carried directly before
   the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal ("Cassation"). The
   electoral lists drawn up March 31, 1875, shall serve until
   March 31, 1876.

ARTICLE 2.
   The soldiers of all ranks and grades, of both the land and
   naval forces, shall not vote when they are with their
   regiment, at their post or on duty. Those who, on election
   day, are in private residence, in non-activity or in
   possession of a regular leave of absence, may vote in the
   commune on the lists of which they are duly registered. This
   last provision applies equally to officers on the unattached
   list or on the reserve list.

ARTICLE 3.
   During the electoral period, circulars and platforms
   ("professions de foi") signed by the candidates, placards and
   manifestoes signed by one or more voters, may, after being
   deposited with the public prosecutor, be posted and
   distributed without previous authorization. The distribution
   of ballots is not subjected to this deposit.

   [Footnote: See, however, a law of December 20, 1878, by which
   deposit is made necessary.]

   Every public or municipal official is forbidden to distribute
   ballots, platforms and circulars of candidates. The provisions
   of Article 19 of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the
   elections of Senators, shall apply to the elections of
   deputies.

ARTICLE 4.
   Balloting shall continue one day only. The voting occurs at
   the chief place of the commune; each commune may nevertheless
   be divided, by order of the Prefect, into as many sections as
   may be demanded by local circumstances and the number of
   voters. The second ballot shall take place the second Sunday
   following the announcement of the first ballot, according to
   the provisions of Article 65, of the law of March 15, 1849.

ARTICLE 5.
   The method of voting shall be according to the provisions of
   the organic and regulating decrees of February 2, 1852. The
   ballot is secret. The voting lists used at the elections in
   each section, signed by the President and Secretary, shall
   remain deposited for eight days at the Secretary's office at
   the town hall, where they shall be communicated to every voter
   requesting them.

ARTICLE 6.
   Every voter is eligible, without any tax qualification, at the
   age of twenty-five years.

ARTICLE 7.
   No soldier or sailor forming part of the active forces of land
   or sea may, whatever his rank or position, be elected a member
   of the Chamber of Deputies. This provision applies to soldiers
   and sailors on the unattached list or in non-activity, but
   does not extend to officers of the second section of the list
   of the general staff, nor to those who, kept in the first
   section for having been commander-in-chief in the field, have
   ceased to be employed actively, nor to officers who, having
   privileges acquired on the retired list, are sent to or
   maintained at their homes while awaiting the settlement of
   their pension. The decision by which the officer shall have
   been permitted to establish his rights on the retired list
   shall become, in this case, irrevocable. The rule laid down in
   the first paragraph of the present Article shall not apply to
   the reserve of the active army nor to the territorial army.

ARTICLE 8.
   The exercise of public duties paid out of the treasury of the
   State is incompatible with the office of deputy. Consequently
   every official elected deputy shall be superseded in his
   duties if, within the eight days following the verification of
   powers, he has not signified that he does not accept the
   office of deputy. There are excepted from the preceding
   provisions the duties of Minister, Under Secretary of State,
   Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Prefect of the Seine,
   Prefect of Police, First President of the Court of Appeal
   ("cassation,") First President of the Court of Accounts, First
   President of the Court of Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Attorney
   General at the Court of Appeal ("cassation,") Attorney General
   at the Court of Accounts, Attorney General at the Court of
   Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Archbishop and Bishop, Consistorial
   Presiding Pastor in consistorial districts whose capital has
   two or more pastors, Chief Rabbi of the Central consistory,
   Chief Rabbi of the Consistory of Paris.

ARTICLE 9.
   There are also excepted from the provisions of Article 8:
   I. titular professors of chairs which are filled by
   competition or upon the nomination of the bodies where the
   vacancy occurs;
   II. persons who have been charged with a temporary mission.
   All missions continuing more than six months cease to be
   temporary and are governed by Article 8 above.

{544}

ARTICLE 10.
   The official preserves the rights which he has acquired to a
   retiring pension, and may, after the expiration of his term of
   office, be restored to active service. The civil official who,
   having had twenty years of service at the date of the
   acceptance of the office of deputy, and shall be fifty years
   of age at the time of the expiration of this term of office,
   may establish his rights to an exceptional retiring pension.
   This pension shall be regulated according to the third
   Paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853. If the
   official is restored to active service after the expiration of
   his term of office, the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 2,
   and Article 28 of the law of June 9, 1853, shall apply to him.
   In duties where the rank is distinct from the employment, the
   official, by the acceptance of the office of deputy, loses the
   employment and preserves the rank only.

ARTICLE 11.
   Every deputy appointed or promoted to a salaried public
   position ceases to belong to the Chamber by the very fact of
   his acceptance; but he may be re-elected, if the office which
   he occupies is compactible with the office of deputy. Deputies
   who become Ministers or Under-Secretaries of State are not
   subjected to a re-election.

ARTICLE 12.
   There shall not be elected by the arrondissement or the colony
   included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction, during the
   exercise of their duties or for six months following the
   expiration of their duties due to resignation, dismissal,
   change of residence, or any other cause:
   I. The First-Presidents, Presidents, and members of the Courts
   of Appeal ("appel");
   II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Titular Judges, Examining
   Magistrates, and members of the tribunals of first instance;
   III. The Prefect of Police; the Prefects and General
   Secretaries of the Prefectures; the Governors, Directors of
   the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;
   IV. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief
   Arrondissement Road-Surveyors;
   V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;
   VI. The Primary School Inspectors;
   VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;
   VIII. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;
   IX. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
   Registration of Lands, and of Posts;
   X. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests. The Sub-Prefects
   shall not be elected in any of the arrondissements of the
   department where they perform their duties.

ARTICLE 13.
   Every imperative mandate is null and void.

ARTICLE 14.
   Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
   districts. Each administrative arrondissement shall elect one
   deputy. Arrondissements having more than 100,000 inhabitants
   shall elect one deputy in addition for every additional
   100,000 inhabitants or fraction of 100,000. Arrondissements of
   this kind shall be divided into districts whose boundaries
   shall be established by law and may be changed only by law.

ARTICLE 15.
   Deputies shall be chosen for four years. The Chamber is
   renewable integrally.

ARTICLE 16.
   In ease of vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise, a new
   election shall be held within three months of the date when
   the vacancy occurred. In case of option,  the vacancy shall be
   filled within one month.

   [Footnote: i. e., when a deputy had been elected from two or
   more districts.]

ARTICLE 17.
   The deputies shall receive a salary. This salary is regulated
   by Articles 96 and 97 of the law of March 15, 1849, and by the
   provisions of the law of February 16, 1872.

ARTICLE 18.
   No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
   an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
   equal to one-fourth of the number of voters registered. On the
   second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an equality
   of votes, the oldest is declared elected.

ARTICLE 19.
   Each department of Algeria elects one deputy.

ARTICLE 20.
   The voters living in Algeria in a place not yet made a
   commune, shall be registered on the electoral list of the
   nearest commune. When it is necessary to establish electoral
   districts, either for the purpose of grouping mixed communes
   in each of which the number of voters shall be insufficient,
   or to bring together voters living in places not formed into
   communes the decrees for fixing the seat of these districts
   shall be issued by the Governor-General, upon the report of
   the Prefect or of the General commanding the division.

ARTICLE 21.
   The four colonies to which senators have been assigned by the
   law of February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate,
   shall choose one deputy each.

ARTICLE 22.
   Every violation of the prohibitive provisions of Article 3,
   Paragraph 3, of the present law shall be punished by a fine of
   from sixteen francs to three hundred francs. Nevertheless the
   criminal courts may apply Article 463 of the Penal Code. The
   provisions of Article 6 of the law of July 7, 1874, shall
   apply to the political electoral lists. The decree of January
   29, 1871, and the laws of April 10, 1871, May 2, 1871, and
   February 18, 1873, are repealed. Paragraph 11 of Article 15 of
   the organic decree of February 2, 1852, is also repealed, in
   so far as it refers to the law of May 21, 1836, on lotteries,
   reserving, however, to the courts the right to apply to
   convicted persons Article 42 of the Penal Code. The provisions
   of the laws and decrees now in force, with which the present
   law does not conflict, shall continue to be applied.

ARTICLE 23.
   The provision of Article 12 of the present law by which an
   interval of six months must elapse between the expiration of
   duties and election, shall not apply to officials, except
   Prefects and Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased
   either before the promulgation of the present law or within
   the twenty days following it.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
   Law Relating to the Seat of the Executive Power and of the
   Chambers at Paris. July 22.

ARTICLE 1.
   The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
   Paris.

ARTICLE 2.
   The Palace of the Luxemburg and the Palais-Bourbon are
   assigned, the first to the use of the Senate, the second to
   that of the Chamber of Deputies. Nevertheless each of the
   Chambers is authorized to choose, in the city of Paris, the
   palace which it wishes to occupy.

{545}

ARTICLE 3.
   The various parts of the palace of Versailles now occupied by
   the Senate and Chamber of Deputies preserve their
   arrangements. Whenever, according to Articles 7 and 8 of the
   law of February 25, 1875, on the organization of the public
   powers, a meeting of the National Assembly takes place, it
   shall sit at Versailles, in the present hall of the Chamber of
   Deputies. Whenever, according to Article 9 of the law of
   February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate, and
   Article 12 of the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, on the
   relations of the public powers, the Senate shall be called
   upon to constitute itself a Court of Justice, it shall
   indicate the town and place where it proposes to sit.

ARTICLE 4.
   The Senate and Chamber of Deputies will sit at Paris on and
   after November 3 next.

ARTICLE 5.
   The Presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies are
   charged with the duty of securing the external and internal
   safety of the Chambers over which they preside. To this end
   they have the right to call upon the armed force and every
   authority whose assistance they judge necessary. The demands
   may be addressed directly to all officers, commanders, or
   officials, who are bound to obey immediately, under the
   penalties established by the laws. The Presidents of the
   Senate and Chamber of Deputies may delegate to the questors or
   to one of them their right of demanding aid.

ARTICLE 6.
   Petitions to either of the Chambers can be made and presented
   in writing only. It is forbidden to present them in person or
   at the bar.

ARTICLE 7.
   Every violation of the preceding article, every provocation,
   by speeches uttered publicly, or by writings, or printed
   matter, posted or distributed, to a crowd upon the public
   ways, having for an object the discussion, drawing up, or
   carrying to the Chambers or either of them, of petitions,
   declarations, or addresses—whether or not any results follow
   such action—shall be punished by the penalties enumerated in
   Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the law of June 7, 1848.

ARTICLE 8.
   The preceding provisions do not diminish the force of the law
   of June 7, 1848, on riotous assemblies.

ARTICLE 9.
   Article 463 of the Penal Code applies to the offences
   mentioned in the present law.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
   Law Amending the Organic Laws on the Organization of the
   Senate and the Elections of Senators. December 9.

ARTICLE 1.
   The Senate consists of three hundred members, elected by the
   departments and the colonies. The present members, without any
   distinction between senators elected by the National Assembly
   or the Senate and those elected by the departments and
   colonies, maintain their term of office during the time for
   which they have been chosen.

ARTICLE 2.
   The department of the Seine elects ten senators. The
   department of the Nord elects eight senators. The following
   departments elect five senators each: Côtes-du-Nord,
   Finistère, Gironde. Ille-et-Vilaine, Loire, Loire-Inférieure,
   Pas-de-Calais, Rhône, Saône-et-Loire, Seine-Inférieure. The
   following departments elect four senators each: Aisne,
   Bouches-du-Rhône, Charente-Inférieure, Dordogne,
   Haute-Garonne, Isère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Morbihan,
   Puy-de-Dome, Seine-et-Oise, Somme. The following departments
   elect three senators each: Ain, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes,
   Aube, Aude, Aveyron, Calvados, Charente, Cher, Corrèze, Corse,
   Côte·d'Or, Creuse, Doubs, Drôme, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Gard,
   Gers, Hérault, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Landes,
   Loir-et-Cher, Haute-Loire, Loiret, Lot, Lot-et-Garonne, Marne,
   Haute-Marne, Mayenne, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Nièvre, Oise,
   Orne, Basses-Pyréneées, Haute-Saône, Sarthe, Savoie,
   Haute-Savoie, Seine-et-Marne, Deux-Sèvres, Tarn, Var, Vendée,
   Vienne, Haute-Vienne, Vosges, Yonne. The following departments
   elect two senators each: Basses-Alpes, Hautes-Alpes,
   Alpes-Maritimes, Ariège, Cantal, Lozère, Hautes-Pyrénées,
   Pyrénées-Orientales, Tarn-et-Garonne, Vancluse. The following
   elect one senator each: the Territory of Belfort, the three
   departments of Algeria, the four colonies: Martinique,
   Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Indies.

ARTICLE 3.
   In the departments where the number of senators is increased
   by the present law, the increase shall take effect as
   vacancies occur among the life senators. To this end, within
   eight days after the vacancy occurs, it shall be determined by
   lot what department shall be called upon to elect a senator.
   This election shall take place within three months of the
   determination by lot. Furthermore, if the vacancy occurs
   within six months preceding the triennial election, the
   vacancy shall be filled at that election. The term of office
   in this case shall expire at the same time as that of the
   other senators belonging to the same department.

ARTICLE 4.
   No one shall be a senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
   years of age, at least, and enjoying civil and political
   rights. Members of families that have reigned in France are
   ineligible to the Senate.

ARTICLE 5.
   The soldiers of the land and naval forces cannot be elected
   senators. There are excepted from this provision:
   I. The Marshals and Admirals of France;
   II. The general officers maintained without limit of age in
   the first section of the list of the general staff and not
   provided with a command;
   III. The general officers placed in the second section of the
   list of the general staff;
   IV. Soldiers of the land and naval forces who belong either to
   the reserve of the active army or to the territorial army.

ARTICLE 6.
   Senators are elected by "scrutin de liste," by a college
   meeting at the capital of the department or colony, and
   composed:
   (1) of the Deputies;
   (2) of the General Councilors;
   (3) of the Arrondissement Councilors;
   (4) of delegates elected from among the voters of the commune,
   by each Municipal Council.

   Councils composed of ten members shall elect one delegate.
   Councils composed of twelve members shall elect two delegates.
   Councils composed of sixteen members shall elect three
   delegates. Councils composed of twenty-one members shall elect
   six delegates. Councils composed of twenty-three members shall
   elect nine delegates. Councils composed of twenty-seven
   members shall elect twelve delegates. Councils composed of
   thirty members shall elect fifteen delegates. Councils
   composed of thirty-two members shall elect eighteen delegates.
   Councils composed of thirty-four members shall elect
   twenty-one delegates. Councils composed of thirty-six members
   or more shall elect twenty-four delegates. The Municipal
   Council of Paris shall elect thirty delegates. In the French
   Indies the members of the local councils take the place of
   Arrondissement Councilors. The Municipal Council of Pondichéry
   shall elect five delegates.  The Municipal Council of Karikal
   shall elect three delegates. All the other communes shall
   elect two delegates each. The balloting takes place at the
   capital of each district.

{546}

ARTICLE 7.
   Members of the Senate are elected for nine years. The Senate
   is renewed every three years according to the order of the
   present series of departments and colonies.

ARTICLE 8.
   Articles 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, 19 and 23
   of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the Elections of
   Senators are amended as follows:

   "Article 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). In each Municipal Council the
   election of delegates takes place without debate and by secret
   ballot, by "scrutin de liste" and by an absolute majority of
   votes cast. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and
   in case of an equality of votes the oldest is elected. The
   procedure and method is the same for the election of
   alternates. Councils having one, two, or three delegates to
   choose shall elect one alternate. Those choosing six or nine
   delegates elect two alternates. Those choosing twelve or
   fifteen delegates elect three alternates. Those choosing
   eighteen or twenty-one delegates elect four alternates. Those
   choosing twenty-four delegates elect five alternates. The
   Municipal Council of Paris elects eight alternates; The
   alternates take the place of delegates in case of refusal or
   inability to serve, in the order determined by the number of
   votes received by each of them.

   Article 3.
   In communes where the duties of a Municipal Council are
   performed by a special delegation organized by virtue of
   Article 44 of' the law of April 5, 1884, the senatorial
   delegates and alternates shall be chosen by the old council.

   Article 4.
   If the delegates were not present at the election, notice is
   given them by the Mayor within twenty-four hours. They must
   within five days notify the Prefect of their acceptance. In
   case of declination or silence they shall be replaced by the
   alternates, who are then placed upon the list as the delegates
   of the commune.

   Article 5.
   The official report of the election of delegates and
   alternates is transmitted at once to the Prefect. It indicates
   the acceptance or declination of the delegates and alternates,
   as well as the protests made by one or more members of the
   Municipal Council against the legality of the election. A copy
   of this official report is posted on the door of the town
   hall.

   Article 8.
   Protests concerning the election of delegates or alternates
   are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
   the Council of the Prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
   Privy Council. Delegates whose election is set aside because
   they do not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or because
   of informality, are replaced by the alternates. In case the
   election of a delegate and of an alternate is rendered void,
   as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
   elections are held by the Municipal Council on a day fixed by
   decree of the Prefect.

   Article 14.
   The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
   closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
   four o'clock. The third begins at seven o'clock and closes at
   ten o'clock. The results of the ballotings are determined by
   the bureau and announced immediately by the President of the
   electoral college.

   Article 16.
   Political meetings for the nomination of senators may be held
   from the date of the promulgation of the decree summoning the
   electors up to the day of the election inclusive. The
   declaration prescribed by Article 2 of the law of June 30,
   1881, shall be made by two voters, at least. The forms and
   regulations of this Article, as well as those of Article 3,
   shall be observed. The members of Parliament elected or
   electors in the department, the senatorial electors, delegates
   and alternates, and the candidates, or their representatives,
   may alone be present at these meetings. The municipal
   authorities will see to it that no other person is admitted.
   Delegates and alternates shall present as a means of
   identification a certificate from the Mayor of the commune;
   candidates or their representatives a certificate from the
   official who shall have received the declaration mentioned in
   Paragraph 2.

   Article 19.
   Every attempt at corruption or constraint by the employment of
   means enumerated in Articles 177 and following of the Penal
   Code, to influence the vote of an elector or to keep him from
   voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
   to two years, and by a fine of from fifty francs to five
   hundred francs, or by one of these penalties alone. Article
   463 of the Penal Code is applicable to the penalties provided
   for by the present article.

   Article 23.
   Vacancies caused by the death or resignation of senators shall
   be filled within three months; moreover, if the vacancy occurs
   within the six months preceding the triennial elections, it
   shall be filled at those elections."

ARTICLE 9.
   There are repealed:
   (1) Articles 1 to 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, on the
   organization of the Senate;
   (2) Articles 24 and 25 of the law of August 2, 1875, on the
   elections of senators.

Temporary Provision.

   In case a special law on parliamentary incompatibilities shall
   not have been passed at the date of the next senatorial
   elections, Article 8, of the law of November 30, 1875, shall
   apply to those elections. Every official affected by this
   provision, who has had twenty years of service and is fifty
   years of age at the date of his acceptance of the office [of
   senator], may establish his right to a proportional retiring
   pension, which shall be governed by the third paragraph of
   Article 12, of the law of June 9, 1853.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1885.
   Law Amending the Electoral Law. June 16.

   [Footnote: Articles 1, 2 and 3 repealed
   by the law of February 13 1889, _infra._]

[ARTICLE 1.
   The members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by "scrutin
   de liste."]

[ARTICLE 2.
   Each department elects the number
   of deputies assigned to it in the table
   (Footnote: This table may be found in the Bulletin des Lois,
   twelfth series, No. 15,518; and in the Journal Officiel for
   June 17, 1885, page 3074.)
   annexed to the present law, on the basis of one deputy for
   seventy thousand inhabitants, foreign residents not included.
   Account shall be taken, nevertheless, of every fraction
   smaller than seventy thousand.
   (Footnote: i. e., fractions of less than 70,000 are entitled
   to a deputy.)
   Each department elects at least three deputies. Two deputies
   are assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to Algeria, and
   ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the table. This table
   can be changed by law only.]

[ARTICLE 3.
   The department forms a single electoral district.]

ARTICLE 4.
   Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
   to the Chamber of Deputies.

{547}

ARTICLE 5.
   No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
   an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
   equal to one-fourth of the total number of voters registered.
   On the second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an
   equality of votes, the oldest of the candidates is declared
   elected.

ARTICLE 6.
   Subject to the case of a dissolution foreseen and regulated by
   the Constitution, the general elections take place within
   sixty days preceding the expiration of the powers of the
   Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE 7.
   Vacancies shall not be filled which occur in the six months
   preceding the renewal of the Chamber.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1887.
   Law on Parliamentary Incompatibilities. December 26.

   Until the passage of a special law on parliamentary
   incompatibilities,  Articles 8 and 9 of the law of November
   30, 1875, shall apply to senatorial elections. Every official
   affected by this provision who has had twenty years of service
   and is fifty years of age at the time of his acceptance of the
   office [of senator]. may establish his rights to a
   proportional retiring pension, which shall be governed by the
   third paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
   Law Re-establishing Single Districts for the Election of
   Deputies. February 13.

ARTICLE 1.
   Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the law of June 16, 1885, are repealed.

ARTICLE 2.
   Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
   districts. Each administrative arrondissement in the
   departments, and each municipal arrondissement at Paris and at
   Lyons, elects one deputy. Arrondissements whose population
   exceeds one hundred thousand inhabitants elect an additional
   deputy for every one hundred thousand or fraction of one
   hundred thousand inhabitants. The arrondissements are in this
   case divided into districts, a table of which is annexed to
   the present law and can be changed by a law only.

   [Footnote: This table may be found in the _Journal
   Officiel_ for February 14, 1889. pages 76 and following; and
   in the _Bulletin des Lois_, twelfth series, No. 20,475.]

ARTICLE 3.
   One deputy is assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to
   Algeria, and ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the
   table.

ARTICLE 4.
   On and after the promulgation of the present law, until the
   renewal of the Chamber of Deputies, vacancies occurring in the
   Chamber of Deputies shall not be filled.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
   Law on Multiple Candidatures. July 17.

ARTICLE 1.
   No one may be a candidate in more than one district.

ARTICLE 2.
   Every citizen who offers himself or is offered at the general
   or partial elections must, by a declaration signed or
   countersigned by himself, and duly legalized, make known in
   what district he means to be a candidate. This declaration is
   deposited, and a provisional receipt obtained therefor, at the
   Prefecture of the department concerned, the fifth day, at
   latest, before the day of election. A definitive receipt shall
   be delivered within twenty-four hours.

ARTICLE 3.
   Every declaration made in violation of Article 1 of the
   present law is void and not to be received. If declarations
   are deposited by the same citizen in more than one district,
   the earliest in date is alone valid. If they bear the same
   date, all are void.

ARTICLE 4.
   It is forbidden to sign or post placards, to carry or
   distribute ballots, circulars, or platforms in the interest of
   a candidate who has not conformed to the requirements of the
   present law.

ARTICLE 5.
   Ballots bearing the name of a citizen whose candidacy is put
   forward in violation of the present law shall not be included
   in the return of votes. Posters, placards, platforms, and
   ballots posted or distributed to support a candidacy in a
   district where such candidacy is contrary to the law, shall be
   removed or seized.

ARTICLE 6.
   A fine of ten thousand francs shall be imposed on the
   candidate violating the provisions of the present law, and one
   of five thousand francs on all persons acting in violation of
   Article 4 of the present law.

----------CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: 13th-17th Centuries.
   The Old (Holy Roman) Empire.
   The Golden Bull.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152; 1347-1493;
      and DIET, THE GERMANIC.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1815.-
   The Confederation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1871.
   The New Empire.

   On the 18th day of January, 1871, at Versailles, King William
   of Prussia assumed the title of German Emperor. On the 16th of
   April following the Emperor issued a proclamation, by and with
   the consent of the Council of the German Confederation, and of
   the Imperial Diet, decreeing the adoption of a constitution
   for the Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY) and (APRIL).

The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution,
as transmitted by the American Minister at Berlin to his
Government:

   His Majesty the King of Prussia, in the name of the North
   German Union, His Majesty the King of Bavaria, His Majesty the
   King of Würtemberg, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of
   Baden, and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, and by
   Rhine for those parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse which are
   situated south of the Main, conclude an eternal alliance for
   the protection of the territory of the confederation, and of
   the laws of the same, as well as for the promotion of the
   welfare of the German people. This confederation shall bear
   the name of the German Empire, and shall have the following
   constitution.

I. Territory.

Article I.
   The territory of the confederation shall consist of the States
   of Prussia, with Lauenburg, Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg,
   Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar,
   Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen,
   Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Anhalt,
   Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershnusen, Waldeck,
   Reuss of the elder branch, Reuss of the younger branch,
   Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe, Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg.

{548}

II. Legislation of the Empire.

Article 2.
   Within this territory the Empire shall have the right of
   legislation according to the provisions of this constitution,
   and the laws of the Empire shall take precedence of those of
   each individual state. The laws of the Empire shall be
   rendered binding by imperial proclamation, such proclamation
   to be published in a journal devoted to the publication of the
   laws of the Empire, (Reichsgesetzblatt.) If no other period
   shall be designated in the published law for it to take
   effect, it shall take effect on the fourteenth day after the
   day of its publication in the law-journal at Berlin.

Article 3.
   There is one citizenship for all Germany, and the citizens or
   subjects of each state of the federation shall be treated in
   every other state thereof as natives, and shall have the right
   of becoming permanent residents, of carrying on business, of
   filling public offices, and may acquire all civil rights on
   the same conditions as those born in the state, and shall also
   have the same usage as regards civil prosecutions and the
   protection of the laws. No German shall be limited, in the
   exercise of this privilege, by the authorities of his native
   state, or by the authorities of any other state of the
   confederation. The regulations governing the care of paupers,
   and their admission into the various parishes, are not
   affected by the principle enunciated in the first paragraph.
   In like manner those treaties shall remain in force which have
   been concluded between the various states of the federation in
   relation to the custody of persons who are to be banished, the
   care of sick, and the burial of deceased citizens. With regard
   to the rendering of military service to the various states,
   the necessary laws will be passed hereafter. All Germans in
   foreign countries shall have equal claims upon the protection
   of the Empire.

Article 4.
   The following matters shall be under the supervision of the
   Empire and its legislature:

   1. The privilege of carrying on trade in more than one place;
   domestic affairs and matters relating to the settlement of
   natives of one state in the territory of another; the right of
   citizenship; the issuing and examination of passports;
   surveillance of foreigners and of manufactures, together with
   insurance business, so far as these matters are not already
   provided for by article 3 of this constitution, (in Bavaria,
   however, exclusive of domestic affairs and matters relating to
   the settlement of natives of one state in the territory of
   another;) and likewise matters relating to colonization and
   emigration to foreign countries.

   2. Legislation concerning customs duties and commerce, and
   such imposts as are to be applied to the uses of the Empire.

   3. Regulation of weights and measures of the coinage, together
   with the emission of funded and unfunded paper money.

   4. Banking regulations in general.

   5. Patents for inventions.

   6. The protection of literary property.

   7. The organization of a general system of protection for
   German trade in foreign countries; of German navigation, and
   of the German flag on the high seas; likewise the organization
   of a general consular representation of the Empire.

   8. Railway matters, (subject in Bavaria to the provisions of
   article 46,) and the construction of means of communication by
   land and water for the purposes of home defense and of general
   commerce.

   9. Rafting and navigation upon those waters which are common
   to several States, and the condition of such waters, as
   likewise river and other water dues.

   10. Postal and telegraphic affairs; but in Bavaria and Hungary
   these shall be subject to the provisions of article 52.

   11. Regulations concerning the execution of judicial sentences
   in civil matters, and the fulfillment of requisitions in
   general.

   12. The authentication of public documents.

   13. General legislation regarding the law of obligations,
   criminal law, commercial law, and the law of exchange;
   likewise judicial proceedings.

   14. The imperial army and navy.

   15. The surveillance of the medical and veterinary
   professions.

   16. The press, trades' unions, &c.

Article 5.
   The legislative power of the Empire shall be exercised by the
   federal council and the diet. A majority of the votes of both
   houses shall be necessary and sufficient for the passage of a
   law. When a law is proposed in relation to the army or navy,
   or to the imposts specified in article 35, the vote of the
   presiding officer shall decide; in case of a difference of
   opinion in the federal council, if said vote shall be in favor
   of the retention of the existing arrangements.

III. Federal Council.

Article 6.
   The federal council shall consist of the representatives of
   the states of the confederation, among whom the votes shall be
   divided in such a manner that Prussia, including the former
   votes of Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau,
   and Frankfort shall have 17 votes; Bavaria, 6 votes; Saxony, 4
   votes; Würtemberg, 4 votes; Baden, 3 votes; Hesse, 3 votes;
   Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 2 votes; Saxe-Weimar, 1 vote;
   Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1 vote; Oldenburg, 1 vote; Brunswick, 2
   votes; Saxe-Meiningen, 1 vote; Saxe-Altenburg, 1 vote;
   Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1 vote; Anhalt, 1 vote;
   Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Sondershansen, 1
   vote; Waldeck, 1 vote; Reuss, elder branch, 1 vote; Reuss,
   younger branch, 1 vote; Schaumburgh-Lippe, 1 vote; Lippe, 1
   vote; Lubeck, 1 vote; Bremen, 1 vote; Hamburgh, 1 vote; total
   58 votes. Each member of the confederation shall appoint as
   many delegates to the federal council as it has votes; the
   total of the votes of each state shall, however, be cast by
   only one delegate.

Article 7.
   The federal council shall take action upon:
   1. The measures to be proposed to the diet and the resolutions
   passed by the same.
   2. The general provisions and regulations necessary for the
   execution of the laws of the Empire, so far as no other
   provision is made by said laws.
   3. The defects which may be discovered in the execution of the
   laws of the Empire, or of the provisions and regulations
   heretofore mentioned. Each member of the confederation shall
   have the right to introduce motions, and it shall be the duty
   of the presiding officer to submit them for deliberation.
   Legislative action shall take place by simple majority, with
   the exceptions of the provisions in articles 5, 37, and 78.
   Votes not represented or instructed shall not be counted. In
   the case of a tie, the vote of the presiding officer shall
   decide. When legislative action upon a subject which does not
   affect, according to the provisions of this constitution, the
   whole Empire is taken, the votes of only those states of the
   confederation shall be counted which shall be interested in
   the matter in question.

{549}

Article 8.
   The federal council shall appoint from its own members
   permanent committees:
   1. On the army and the fortifications.
   2. On naval affairs.
   3. On duties and taxes.
   4. On commerce and trade.
   5. On railroads, post  offices, and telegraphs.
   6. On the judiciary.
   7. On accounts.

   In each of these committees there shall be representatives of
   at least four states of the confederation, beside the
   presiding officer, and each state shall be entitled to only
   one vote in the same. In the committee on the army and
   fortifications Bavaria shall have a permanent seat; the
   remaining members of it, as well as the members of the
   committee on naval affairs, shall be appointed by the Emperor;
   the members of the other committees shall be elected by the
   federal council. These committees shall be newly formed at
   each session of the federal council, i. e., each year, when
   the retiring members shall again be eligible. Besides, there
   shall be appointed in the federal council a committee on
   foreign affairs, over which Bavaria shall preside, to be
   composed of the plenipotentiaries of the Kingdoms of Bavaria,
   Saxony, and Würtemberg, and of two plenipotentiaries of the
   other states of the Empire, who shall be elected annually by
   the federal council. Clerks shall be placed at the disposal of
   the committees to perform the necessary work appertaining
   thereto.

Article 9.
   Each member of the federal council shall have the right to
   appear in the diet, and shall be heard there at any time when
   he shall so request, to represent the views of his government,
   even when the same shall not have been adopted by the majority
   of the council. Nobody shall be at the same time a member of
   the federal council and of the diet.

Article 10.
   The Emperor shall afford the customary diplomatic protection
   to the members of the federal council.

IV. Presidium.

Article II.
   The King of Prussia shall be the president of the
   confederation, and shall have the title of German Emperor. The
   Emperor shall represent the Empire among nations, declare war,
   and conclude peace in the name of the same, enter into
   alliances and other conventions with foreign countries,
   accredit embassadors, and receive them. For a declaration of
   war in the name of the Empire, the consent of the federal
   council shall be required, except in case of an attack upon
   the territory of the confederation or its coasts. So far as
   treaties with foreign countries refer to matters which,
   according to article 4, are to be regulated by the legislature
   of the Empire, the consent of the federal council shall be
   required for their ratification, and the approval of the diet
   shall be necessary to render them valid.

Article 12.
   The Emperor shall have the right to convene the federal
   council and the diet, and to open, adjourn, and close them.

Article 13.
   The convocation of the federal council and the diet shall take
   place annually, and the federal council may be called together
   for the preparation of business without the diet; the latter,
   however, shall not be convoked without the federal council.

Article 14.
   The convocation of the federal council shall take place as
   soon as demanded by one-third of its members.

Article 14.
   The chancellor of the Empire, who shall be appointed by the
   Emperor, shall preside in the federal council, and supervise
   the conduct of its business. The chancellor of the Empire
   shall have the right to delegate the power to represent him to
   any member of the federal council.

Article 16.
   The necessary bills shall be laid before the diet in the name
   of the Emperor, in accordance with the resolutions of the
   federal council, and they shall be represented in the diet by
   members of the federal council or by special commissioners
   appointed by said council.

Article 17.
   To the Emperor shall belong the right to prepare and publish
   the laws of the Empire. The laws and regulations of the
   Emperor shall be published in the name of the Empire, and
   require for their validity the signature of the chancellor of
   the Empire, who thereby becomes responsible for their
   execution.

Article 18.
   The Emperor shall appoint the officers of the Empire, require
   them to take the oath of allegiance, and dismiss them when
   necessary. Officials appointed to an office of the Empire from
   one of the states of the confederation shall enjoy the same
   rights to which they were entitled in their native states by
   their official position, provided no other legislative
   provision shall have been made previously to their entrance
   into the service of the Empire.

Article 19.
   If states of the confederation shall not fulfill their
   constitutional duties, proceedings may be instituted against
   them by military execution. This execution shall be ordered by
   the federal council, and enforced by the Emperor.

V. Diet.

Article 20.
   The members of the diet shall be elected by universal
   suffrage, and by direct secret ballot. Until regulated by law,
   which is reserved by section 5 of the election law of May 31,
   1869 (Bundesgesetzblatt, 1869, section 145,) 48 delegates
   shall be elected in Bavaria, 17 in Würtemberg, 14 in Baden, 6
   in Hesse, south of the river Main, and the total number of
   delegates shall be 382.

Article 21.
   Officials shall not require a leave of absence in order to
   enter the diet. When a member of the diet accepts a salaried
   office of the Empire, or a salaried office in one of the
   states of the confederation, or accepts any office of the
   Empire, or of a state, with which a high rank or salary is
   connected, he shall forfeit his seat and vote in the diet, but
   may recover his place in the same by a new election.

Article 22.
   The proceedings of the diet shall be public. Truthful reports
   of the proceedings of the public sessions of the diet shall
   subject those making them to no responsibility.

Article 23.
   The diet shall have the right to propose laws within the
   jurisdiction of the Empire, and to refer petitions addressed
   to it to the federal council or the chancellor of the Empire.

Article 24.
   Each legislative period of the diet shall last three years.
   The diet may be dissolved by a resolution of the federal
   council, with the consent of the Emperor.

Article 25.
   In the case of a dissolution of the diet, new elections shall
   take place within a period of 60 days, and the diet shall
   reassemble within a period of 90 days after the dissolution.

Article 26.
   Unless by consent of the diet, an adjournment of that body
   shall not exceed the period of 30 days, and shall not be
   repeated during the same session, without such consent.

Article 27.
   The diet shall examine into the legality of the election of
   its members and decide thereon. It shall regulate the mode of
   transacting business, and its own discipline, by establishing
   rules therefor, and elect its president, vice-presidents, and
   secretaries.

{550}

Article 28.
   The diet shall pass laws by absolute majority. To render the
   passage of laws valid, the presence of the majority of the
   legal number of members shall be required. When passing laws
   which do not affect the whole Empire, according to the
   provisions of this constitution, the votes of only those
   members shall be counted who shall have been elected in those
   states of the confederation which the laws to be passed shall
   affect.

Article 29.
   The members of the diet shall be the representatives of the
   entire people, and shall not be subject to orders and
   instructions from their constituents.

Article 30.
   No member of the diet shall at any time suffer legal
   prosecution on account of his vote, or on account of
   utterances made while in the performance of his functions, or
   be held responsible outside of the diet for his actions.

Article 31.
   Without the consent of the diet, none of its members shall be
   tried or punished, during the session, for any offense
   committed, except when arrested in the act of committing the
   offense, or in the course of the following day. The same rule
   shall apply in the case of arrests for debt. At the request of
   the diet, all legal proceedings instituted against one of its
   members, and likewise imprisonment, shall be suspended during
   its session.

Article 32.
   The members of the diet shall not be allowed to draw any
   salary, or be compensated as such.

VI. Customs and Commerce.

Article 33.
   Germany shall form a customs and commercial union, having a
   common frontier for the collection of duties. Such territories
   as cannot, by reason of their situation, be suitably embraced
   within the said frontier, shall be excluded. It shall be
   lawful to introduce all articles of commerce of a state of the
   confederation into any other state of the confederation,
   without paying any duty thereon, except so far as such
   articles are subject to taxation therein.

Article 34.
   The Hanseatic towns, Bremen and Hamburg, shall remain free
   ports outside of the common boundary of the customs union,
   retaining for that purpose a district of their own, or of the
   surrounding territory, until they shall request to be admitted
   into the said union.

Article 35.
   The Empire shall have the exclusive power to legislate
   concerning everything relating to the customs, the taxation of
   salt and tobacco manufactured or raised in the territory of
   the confederation; concerning the taxation of manufactured
   brandy and beer, and of sugar and sirup prepared from beets or
   other domestic productions. It shall have exclusive power to
   legislate concerning the mutual protection of taxes upon
   articles of consumption levied in the several states of the
   Empire; against embezzlement; as well as concerning the
   measures which are required, in granting exemption from the
   payment of duties, for the security of the common customs
   frontier. In Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, the matter of
   imposing duties on domestic brandy and beer is reserved for
   the legislature of each country. The states of the
   confederation shall, however, endeavor to bring about uniform
   legislation regarding the taxation of these articles.

Article 36.
   The imposing of duties and excises on articles of consumption,
   and the collection of the same (article 35,) is left to each
   state of the confederation within its own territory, so far as
   this has been done by each state heretofore. The Emperor shall
   have the supervision of the institution of legal proceedings
   by officials of the empire, whom he shall designate as
   adjuncts to the custom or excise offices, and boards of
   directors of the several states, after hearing the committee
   of the Confederate Council on customs and revenues. Notices
   given by these officials as to defects in the execution of the
   laws of the Empire (article 35) shall be submitted to the
   confederate council for action.

Article 37.
   In taking action upon the rules and regulations for the
   execution of the laws of the Empire, (article 35,) the vote of
   the presiding officer shall decide, whenever he shall
   pronounce for upholding the existing rule or regulation.

Article 38.
   The amounts accruing from customs and other revenues
   designated in article 35 of the latter, so far as they are
   subject to legislation by the diet, shall go to the treasury
   of the Empire. This amount is made up of the total receipts
   from the customs and other revenues, after deducting
   therefrom:
   I. Tax compensations and reductions in conformity with
   existing laws or regulations.
   2. Reimbursements for taxes unduly imposed.
   3. The costs for collection and administration, viz.:
   _a_. In the department of customs, the costs which are
   required for the protection and collection of customs on the
   frontiers and in the frontier districts.
   _b._ In the department of the duty on salt, the costs
   which are used for the pay of the officers charged with
   collecting and controlling these duties in the salt mines.
   _c_. In the department of duties on beet-sugar and
   tobacco, the compensation which is to be allowed, according to
   the resolutions of the confederate council, to the several
   state governments for the costs of the collection of these
   duties.
   _d_. Fifteen per cent. of the total receipts in the
   departments of the other duties.

   The territories situated outside of the common customs
   frontier shall contribute to the expenses of the Empire by
   paying an 'aversum,' (a sum of acquittance.) Bavaria,
   Würtemberg, and Baden shall not share in the revenues from
   duties on liquors and beer, which go into the treasury of the
   Empire, nor in the corresponding portion of the aforesaid
   'aversum.'

Article 39.
   The quarterly statements to be regularly made by the revenue
   officers of the federal states at the end of every quarter,
   and the final settlements (to be made at the end of the year,
   and after the closing of the account-books) of the receipts
   from customs, which have become due in the course of the
   quarter, or during the fiscal year, and the revenues of the
   treasury of the Empire, according to article 38, shall be
   arranged by the boards of directors of the federal states,
   after a previous examination in general summaries in which
   every duty is to be shown separately; these summaries shall be
   transmitted to the federal committee on accounts. The latter
   provisionally fixes, every three months, taking as a basis
   these summaries, the amount due to the treasury of the Empire
   from the treasury of each state, and it shall inform the
   federal council and the federal States of this act;
   furthermore, it shall submit to the federal council, annually,
   the final statement of these amounts, with its remarks. The
   federal council shall act upon the fixing of these amounts.

{551}

Article 40.
   The terms of the customs-union treaty of July 8, 1867, remain
   in force, so far as they have not been altered by the
   provisions of this constitution, and as long as they are not
   altered in the manner designated in articles 7 and 78.

VII. Railways.

Article 41.
   Railways, which are considered necessary for the defense of
   Germany or for purposes of general commerce, may be built for
   the account of the Empire by a law of the Empire, even in
   opposition to the will of those members of the confederation
   through whose territory the railroads run, without detracting
   from the rights of the sovereign of that country; or private
   persons may be charged with their construction and receive
   rights of expropriation. Every existing railway company is
   bound to permit new railroad lines to be connected with it, at
   the expense of these latter. All laws granting existing
   railway companies the right of injunction against the building
   of parallel or competition lines are hereby abolished
   throughout the Empire, without detriment to rights already
   acquired. Such right of injunction can henceforth not be
   granted in concessions to be given hereafter.

Article 42.
   The governments of the federal states bind themselves, in the
   interest of general commerce, to have the German railways
   managed as a uniform net-work, and for this purpose to have
   the lines constructed and equipped according to a uniform
   system.

Article 43.
   Accordingly, as soon as possible, uniform arrangements as to
   management, shall be made, and especially shall uniform
   regulations be instituted for the police of the railroads. The
   Empire shall take care that the administrative officers of the
   railway lines keep the roads always in such a condition as is
   required for public security, and that they be equipped with
   the necessary rolling stock.

Article 44.
   Railway companies are bound to establish such passenger trains
   of suitable velocity as may be required for ordinary travel,
   and for the establishment of harmonizing schedules of travel;
   also, to make provision for such freight trains as may be
   necessary for commercial purposes, and to establish, without
   extra remuneration, offices for the direct forwarding of
   passengers and freight trains, to be transferred, when
   necessary, from one road to another.

Article 45.
   The Empire shall have control over the tariff of fares. The
   same shall endeavor to cause:
   1. Uniform regulations to be speedily introduced on all German
   railway lines.
   2. The tariff to be reduced and made uniform as far as
   possible, and particularly to cause a reduction of the tariff
   for the transport of coal, coke, wood, minerals, stone, salt,
   crude iron, manure, and similar articles, for long distances,
   as demanded by the interests of agriculture and industry, and
   to introduce a one-penny tariff as soon as practicable.

Article 46.
   In case of distress, especially in case of an extraordinary
   rise in the price of provisions, it shall be the duty of the
   railway companies to adopt temporarily a low special tariff,
   to be fixed by the Emperor, on motion of the competent
   committee, for the forwarding of grain, flour, vegetables, and
   potatoes. This tariff shall, however, not be less than the
   lowest rate for raw produce existing on the said line. The
   foregoing provisions, and those of articles 42 to 45, shall
   not apply to Bavaria. The imperial government has, however,
   the power, also with regard to Bavaria, to establish, by way
   of legislation, uniform rules for the construction and
   equipment of such railways as may be of importance for the
   defense of the country.

Article 47.
   The managers of all railways shall be required to obey,
   without hesitation, requisitions made by the authorities of
   the Empire for the use of their roads for the defense of
   Germany. Particularly shall the military and all material of
   war be forwarded at uniform reduced rates.

VIII. Mails and Telegraphs.

Article 48.
   The mails and telegraphs shall be organized and managed as
   state institutions throughout the German Empire. The
   legislation of the empire in regard to postal and telegraphic
   affairs, provided for in article 4, does not extend to those
   matters whose regulation is left to the managerial
   arrangement, according to the principles which have controlled
   the North German administration of mails and telegraphs.

Article 49.
   The receipts of mails and telegraphs are a joint affair
   throughout the Empire. The expenses shall be paid from the
   general receipts. The surplus goes into the treasury of the
   Empire. (Section 12.).

Article 50.
   The Emperor has the supreme supervision of the administration
   of mails and telegraphs. The authorities appointed by him are
   in duty bound and authorized to see that uniformity be
   established and maintained in the organization of the
   administration and in the transaction of business, as also in
   regard to the qualifications of employés. The Emperor shall
   have the power to make general administrative regulations, and
   also exclusively to regulate the relations which are to exist
   between the post and telegraph offices of Germany and those of
   other countries. It shall be the duty of all officers of the
   post-office and telegraph department to obey imperial orders.
   This obligation shall be included in their oath of office. The
   appointment of superior officers (such as directors,
   counselors, and superintendents,) as they shall be required
   for the administration of the mails and telegraphs, in the
   various districts; also the appointment of officers of the
   posts and telegraphs (such as inspectors or comptrollers,)
   acting for the aforesaid authorities in the several districts,
   in the capacity of supervisors, shall be made by the Emperor
   for the whole territory of the German Empire, and these
   officers shall take the oath of fealty to him as a part of
   their oath of office. The governments of the several states
   shall be informed in due time, by means of imperial
   confirmation and official publication, of the aforementioned
   appointments, so far as they may relate to their territories.
   Other officers required by the department of mails and
   telegraphs, as also all officers to be employed at the various
   stations, and for technical purposes, and hence officiating at
   the actual centers of communication, &c., shall be appointed
   by the respective governments of the states. Where there is no
   independent administration of inland mails or telegraphs, the
   terms of the various treaties are to be enforced.

{552}

Article 51.
   In assigning the surplus of the post-office department to the
   treasury of the Empire for general purposes, (article 49,) the
   following proceeding is to be observed in consideration of the
   difference which has heretofore existed in the clear receipts
   of the post-office departments of the several territories, for
   the purpose of securing a suitable equalization during the
   period of transition below named. Of the post-office surplus,
   which accumulated in the several mail districts during the
   five years from 1861 to 1865, an average yearly surplus shall
   be computed, and the share which every separate mail district
   has had in the surplus resulting therefrom for the whole
   territory of the Empire shall be fixed upon by a percentage.
   In accordance with the proportion thus made, the several
   states shall be credited on the account of their other
   contributions to the expenses of the empire with their quota
   accruing from the postal surplus in the Empire, for a period
   of eight years subsequent to their entrance into the
   post-office department of the Empire. At the end of the said
   eight years this distinction shall cease, and any surplus in
   the post-office department shall go, without division, into
   the treasury of the Empire, according to the principle
   enunciated in article 49. Of the quota of the post-office
   department surplus resulting during the aforementioned period
   of eight years in favor of the Hanseatic towns, one-half shall
   every year be placed at the disposal of the Emperor, for the
   purpose of providing for the establishment of uniform
   post-offices in the Hanseatic towns.

Article 52.
   The stipulations of the foregoing articles 48 to 51 do not
   apply to Bavaria and Würtemberg. In their stead the following
   stipulation shall be valid for these two states of the
   confederation. The Empire alone is authorized to legislate
   upon the privileges of the post-office and telegraph
   departments, on the legal position of both institutions toward
   the public, upon the franking privilege and rates of postage,
   and upon the establishment of rates for telegraphic
   correspondence into Hanseatic towns. Exclusive, however, of
   managerial arrangements, and the fixing of tariffs for
   internal communication within Bavaria and Würtemberg. In the
   same manner the Empire shall regulate postal and telegraphic
   communication with foreign countries, excepting the immediate
   communication of Bavaria and Würtemberg with their neighboring
   states, not belonging to the Empire, in regard to which
   regulation the stipulations in article 49 of the postal treaty
   of November 23, 1867, remains in force. Bavaria and Würtemberg
   shall not share in the postal and telegraphic receipts which
   belong to the treasury of the Empire.

IX. Marine and Navigation.

Article 53.
   The navy of the Empire is a united one, under the supreme
   command of the Emperor. The Emperor is charged with its
   organization and arrangement, and he shall appoint the
   officers and officials of the navy, and in his name these and
   the seamen are to be sworn in. The harbor of Kiel and the
   harbor of the Iade are imperial war harbors. The expenditures
   required for the establishment and maintenance of the navy and
   the institutions connected therewith shall be defrayed from
   the treasury of the Empire. All sea-faring men of the Empire,
   including machinists and hands employed in ship-building, are
   exempt from service in the army, but obliged to serve in the
   imperial navy. The apportionment of men to supply the wants of
   the navy shall be made according to the actual sea-faring
   population, and the quota furnished in accordance herewith by
   each state shall be credited to the army account.

Article 54.
   The merchant vessels of all states of the confederation shall
   form a united commercial marine. The Empire shall determine
   the process for ascertaining the tonnage of sea-going vessels,
   shall regulate the issuing of tonnage-certificates and
   sea-letters, and shall fix the conditions to which a permit
   for commanding a sea-going vessel shall be subject. The
   merchant vessels of all the states of the confederation shall
   be admitted on an equal footing to the harbors, and to all
   natural and artificial water-courses of the several states of
   the confederation, and shall receive the same usage therein.
   The duties which shall be collected from sea-going vessels, or
   levied upon their freights, for the use of naval institutions
   in the harbors, shall not exceed the amount required for the
   maintenance and ordinary repair of these institutions. On all
   natural water-courses, duties are only to be levied for the
   use of special establishments, which serve for facilitating
   commercial intercourse. These duties, as well as the duties
   for navigating such artificial channels, which are property of
   the state, are not to exceed the amount required for the
   maintenance and ordinary repair of the institutions and
   establishments. These rules apply to rafting, so far as it is
   carried on on navigable water-courses. The levying of other or
   higher duties upon foreign vessels or their freights than
   those which are paid by the vessels of the federal states or
   their freights does not belong to the various states, but to
   the Empire.

Article 55.
   The flag of the war and merchant navy shall be black, white,
   and red.

X. Consular Affairs.

Article 56.
   The Emperor shall have the supervision of all consular affairs
   of the German Empire, and he shall appoint consuls, after
   hearing the committee of the federal council on commerce and
   traffic. No new state consulates are to be established within
   the jurisdiction of the German consuls. German consuls shall
   perform the functions of state consuls for the states of the
   confederation not represented in their district. All the now
   existing state consulates shall be abolished, as soon as the
   organization of the German consulates shall be completed, in
   such a manner that the representation of the separate
   interests of all the federal states shall be recognized by the
   federal council as secured by the German consulates.

XI. Military Affairs of the Empire.

Article 57.
   Every German is subject to military duty, and in the discharge
   of this duty no substitute can be accepted.

Article 58.
   The costs and the burden of all the military system of the
   Empire are to be borne equally by all the federal states and
   their subjects, and no privileges or molestations to the
   several states or classes are admissible. Where an equal
   distribution of the burdens cannot be effected 'in natura'
   without prejudice to the public welfare, affairs shall be
   equalized by legislation in accordance with the principles of
   justice.

{553}

Article 59.
   Every German capable of bearing arms shall serve for seven
   years in the standing army, ordinarily from the end of his
   twentieth to the beginning of his twenty-eighth year; the
   first three years in the army of the field, the last four
   years in the reserve; during the next five years he shall
   belong to the militia. In those states of the confederation in
   which heretofore a longer term of service than twelve years
   was required by law, the gradual reduction of the required
   time of service shall take place in such a manner as is
   compatible with the interests and the war-footing of the army
   of the Empire. As regards the emigration of men belonging to
   the reserve, only those provisions shall be in force which
   apply to the emigration of members of the militia.

Article 60.
   The strength of the German army in time of peace shall be,
   until the 31st December, 1871, one per cent. of the population
   of 1867, and shall be furnished by the several federal states
   in proportion to their population. In future the strength of
   the army in time of peace shall be fixed by legislation.

Article 61.
   After the publication of this constitution the full Prussian
   military system of legislation shall be introduced without
   delay throughout the Empire, as well the statutes themselves
   as the regulations, instructions, and ordinances issued for
   their execution, explanation, or completion; thus, in
   particular, the military penal code of April 3, 1845; the
   military orders of the penal court of April 3, 1845; the
   ordinance concerning the courts of honor of July 20, 1843; the
   regulations with respect to recruiting, time of service,
   matters relating to the service and subsistence, to the
   quartering of troops, claims for damages, mobilizing, &c., for
   times of peace and war. Orders for the attendance of the
   military upon religious services is, however, excluded. When a
   uniform organization of the German army shall have been
   established, a comprehensive military law for the Empire shall
   be submitted to the diet and the federal council for their
   action in accordance with the constitution.

Article 62.
   For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the whole German
   army, and the institutions connected therewith, the sum of 225
   (two hundred and twenty-five) thalers, shall be placed at the
   disposal of the Emperor until the 31st of December, 1871, for
   each man in the army on the peace-footing, according to
   article 60. (See section 12.) After the 31st of December,
   1871, the payment of these contributions of the several states
   to the imperial treasury must be continued: The strength of
   the army in time of peace, which has been temporarily fixed in
   article 60, shall be taken as a basis for calculating these
   amounts until it shall be altered by a law of the Empire. The
   expenditure of this sum for the whole army of the Empire and
   its establishments shall be determined by a budget law. In
   determining the budget of military expenditures, the lawfully
   established organization of the imperial army, in accordance
   with this constitution, shall be taken as a basis.

Article 63.
   The total land force of the Empire shall form one army, which,
   in war and in peace, shall be under the command of the
   Emperor. The regiments, &c., throughout the whole German army
   shall bear continuous numbers. The principal colors and the
   cut of the garments of the Royal Prussian army shall serve as
   a pattern for the rest of the army. It is left to commanders
   of contingent forces to choose the external badges, cockades,
   &c. It shall be the duty and the right of the Emperor to take
   care that, throughout the German army, all divisions be kept
   full and well equipped, and that unity be established and
   maintained in regard to organization and formation, equipment,
   and command in the training of the men, as well as in the
   qualification of the officers. For this purpose the Emperor
   shall be authorized to satisfy himself at any time of the
   condition of the several contingents, and to provide remedies
   for existing defects. The Emperor shall determine the
   strength, composition, and division of the contingents of the
   imperial army, and also the organization of the militia, and
   he shall have the right to designate garrisons within the
   territory of the confederation, as also to call any portion of
   the army into active service. In order to maintain the
   necessary unity in the care, arming, and equipment of all
   troops of the German army, all orders hereafter to be issued
   for the Prussian army shall be communicated in due form to the
   commanders of the remaining contingents by the committee on
   the army and fortifications, provided for in article 8, No. 1.

Article 64.
   All German troops are bound implicitly to obey the orders of
   the Emperor. This obligation shall be included in the oath of
   allegiance. The commander-in-chief of a contingent, as well as
   all officers commanding troops of more than one contingent,
   and all commanders of fortresses, shall be appointed by the
   Emperor. The officers appointed by the Emperor shall take the
   oath of fealty to him. The appointment of generals, or of
   officers performing the duties of generals, in a contingent
   force, shall be in each case subject to the approval of the
   Emperor. The Emperor has the right with regard to the transfer
   of officers, with or without promotion, to positions which are
   to be filled in the service of the Empire, be it in the
   Prussian army or in other contingents, to select from the
   officers of all the contingents of the army of the Empire.

Article 65.
   The right to build fortresses within the territory of the
   Empire shall belong to the Emperor, who, according to section
   12, shall ask for the appropriation of the necessary means
   required for that purpose, if not already included in the
   regular appropriation.

Article 66.
   If not otherwise stipulated, the princes of the Empire and the
   senates shall appoint the officers of their respective
   contingents, subject to the restriction of article 64. They
   are the chiefs of all the troops belonging to their respective
   territories, and are entitled to the honors connected
   therewith. They shall have especially the right to hold
   inspections at any time, and receive, besides the regular
   reports and announcements of changes for publication, timely
   information of all promotions and appointments concerning
   their respective contingents. They shall also have the right
   to employ, for police purposes, not only their own troops but
   all other contingents of the army of the Empire who are
   stationed in their respective territories.

Article 67.
   The unexpended portion of the military appropriation shall,
   under no circumstances, fall to the share of a single
   government, but at all times to the treasury of the Empire.

Article 68.
   The Emperor shall have the power, if the public security of
   the Empire demands it, to declare martial law in any part
   thereof, until the publication of a law regulating the
   grounds, the form of announcement, and the effects of such a
   declaration, the provisions of the Prussian law of June 4,
   1851, shall be substituted therefor. (Laws of 1851, page 451.)

{554}

Addition to section XI.

   The provisions contained in this section shall go into effect
   in Bavaria as provided for in the treaty of alliance of
   November 23, 1870, ( Bundesgesetzblatt, 1871, section 9,)
   under III, section 5, in Würtemberg, as provided for in the
   military convention of November 21-25, 1870, (
   Bundesgesetzblatt, 1870, section 658.)

XII. Finances of the Empire.

Article 69.
   All receipts and expenditures of the Empire shall be estimated
   yearly, and included in the financial estimate. The latter
   shall be fixed by law before the beginning of the fiscal year,
   according to the following principles:

Article 70.
   The surplus of the previous year, as well as the customs
   duties, the common excise duties, and the revenues derived
   from the postal and telegraph service, shall be applied to the
   defrayal of all general expenditure. In so far as these
   expenditures are not covered by the receipts, they shall be
   raised, as long as no taxes of the Empire shall have been
   established, by assessing the several states of the Empire
   according to their population, the amount of the assessment to
   be fixed by the Chancellor of the Empire in accordance with
   the budget agreed upon.

Article 71.
   The general expenditure shall be, as a rule, granted for one
   year; they may, however, in special cases, be granted for a
   longer period. During the period of transition fixed in
   Article 60, the financial estimate, properly classified, of
   the expenditures of the army shall be laid before the federal
   council and the diet for their information.

Article 72.
      An annual report of the expenditure of all the receipts of
      the Empire shall be rendered to the federal council and the
      diet, through the Chancellor of the Empire.

Article 73.
   In cases of extraordinary requirements, a loan may be
   contracted in accordance with the laws of the Empire, such
   loan to be granted by the Empire.

Addition to section XII.

   Articles 69 and 71 apply to the expenditures for the Bavarian
   army only according to the provisions of the addition to
   section XI of the treaty of November 23, 1870; and article 72
   only so far as is required to inform the federal council and
   the diet of the assignment to Bavaria of the required sum for
   the Bavarian army.

XIII. Settlement of Disputes and Modes of Punishment.

Article 74.
   Every attempt against the existence, the integrity, the
   security, or the constitution of the German Empire; finally,
   any offense committed against the federal council, the diet, a
   member of the federal council, or of the diet, a magistrate or
   public official of the Empire, while in the execution of his
   duty, or with reference to his official position, by word,
   writing, printing, signs, or caricatures, shall be judicially
   investigated, and upon conviction punished in the several
   states of the Empire, according to the laws therein existing,
   or which shall hereafter exist in the same, according to which
   laws a similar offense against anyone of the states of the
   Empire, its constitution, legislature, members of its
   legislature, authorities or officials is to be judged.

Article 75.
   For those offenses, specified in Article 74, against the
   German Empire, which, if committed against one of the states
   of the Empire, would be deemed high treason, the superior
   court of appeals of the three free Hanseatic towns at Lubeck
   shall be the competent deciding tribunal in the first and last
   resort. More definite provisions as to the competency and the
   proceedings of the superior court of appeals shall be adopted
   by the Legislature of the Empire. Until the passage of a law
   of the Empire, the existing competency of the courts in the
   respective states of the Empire, and the provisions relative
   to the proceedings of those courts, shall remain in force.

Article 76.
   Disputes between the different states of the confederation, so
   far as they are not of a private nature, and therefore to be
   decided by the competent authorities, shall be settled by the
   federal council, at the request of one of the parties.
   Disputes relating to constitutional matters in those of the
   states of the confederation whose constitution contains no
   provision for the settlement of such differences, shall be
   adjusted by the federal council, at the request of one of the
   parties, or, if this cannot be done, they shall be settled by
   the legislative power of the confederation.

Article 77.
   If in one of the states of the confederation justice shall be
   denied, and no sufficient relief can be procured by legal
   measures, it shall be the duty of the federal council to
   receive substantiated complaints concerning denial or
   restriction of justice, which are to be judged according to
   the constitution and the existing laws of the respective
   states of the confederation, and thereupon to obtain judicial
   relief from the confederate government in the matter which
   shall have given rise to the complaint.

XIV. General Provision.

   Amendments of the constitution shall be made by legislative
   enactment. They shall be considered as rejected when 14 votes
   are cast against them in the federal council. The provisions
   of the constitution of the Empire, by which fixed rights of
   individual states of the confederation are established in
   their relation to the whole, shall only be modified with the
   consent of that state of the confederation which is
   immediately concerned.

----------CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

   The following text of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan,
   promulgated by the Emperor, February 11, 1889, is from a
   pamphlet published at Johns Hopkins University on the occasion
   of a meeting of professors, students and guests, April 17,
   1889, to celebrate its promulgation:

{555}

   Having, by virtue of the glories of Our Ancestors, ascended
   the throne of a lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal;
   desiring to promote the welfare of, and to give development to
   the moral and intellectual faculties of Our beloved subjects,
   the very same that have been favoured with the benevolent care
   and affectionate vigilance of Our Ancestors; and hoping to
   maintain the prosperity of the State, in concert with Our
   people and with their support, We hereby promulgate, in
   pursuance of Our Imperial Rescript of the 14th day of the 10th
   month of the 14th year of Meiji, a fundamental law of State,
   to exhibit the principles, by which We are to be guided in Our
   conduct, and to point out to what Our descendants and Our
   subjects and their descendants are forever to conform. The
   rights of sovereignty of the State, We have inherited from Our
   Ancestors, and We shall bequeath them to Our descendants.
   Neither We nor they shall in future fail to wield them, in
   accordance with the provisions of the Constitution hereby
   granted. We now declare to respect and protect the security of
   the rights and of the property of Our people, and to secure to
   them the complete enjoyment of the same, within the extent of
   the provisions of the present Constitution and of the law. The
   Imperial Diet shall first be convoked for the 23d year of
   Meiji, and the time of its opening shall be the date, when the
   present Constitution comes into force. When in the future it
   may become necessary to amend any of the provisions of the
   present Constitution, We or Our successors shall assume the
   initiative right, and submit a project for the same to the
   Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet shall pass its vote upon it,
   according to the conditions imposed by the present
   Constitution, and in no otherwise shall Our descendants or Our
   subjects be permitted to attempt any alteration thereof. Our
   Ministers of State, on Our behalf, shall be held responsible
   for the carrying out of the present Constitution, and Our
   present and future subjects shall forever assume the duty of
   allegiance to the present Constitution. [His Imperial
   Majesty's Sign-Manual.] The 11th day of the 2nd month of the
   22nd year of Meiji. [Countersigned by Ministers.]

Chapter I.

Article I.
   The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a
   line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.

Article II.
   The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial male
   descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House
   Law.

Article III.
   The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.

Article IV.
   The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself
   the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to
   the provisions of the present Constitution.

Article V.
   The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent
   of the Imperial Diet.

Article VI.
   The Emperor gives sanction to laws, and orders them to be
   promulgated and executed.

Article VII.
   The Emperor convokes the Imperial Diet, opens, closes, and
   prorogues it, and dissolves the House of Representatives.

Article VIII.
   The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain
   public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the
   Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place
   of law. Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the
   Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not
   approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them
   to be invalid for the future.

Article IX.
   The Emperor issues, or causes to be issued, the Ordinances
   necessary for the carrying out of the laws, or for the
   maintenance of the public peace and order, and for the
   promotion of the welfare of the subjects. But no Ordinance
   shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.

Article X.
   The Emperor determines the organization of the different
   branches of the administration, and the salaries of all civil
   and military officers, and appoints and dismisses the same.
   Exceptions especially provided for in the present Constitution
   or in other laws, shall be in accordance with the respective
   provisions (bearing thereon).

Article XI.
   The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and Navy.

Article XII.
   The Emperor determines the organization and peace standing of
   the Army and Navy.

Article XIII.
   The Emperor declares war, makes peace, and concludes treaties.

Article XIV.
   The Emperor proclaims the law of siege. The conditions and
   effects of the law of siege shall be determined by law.

Article XV
   The Emperor confers titles of nobility, rank, orders, and
   other marks of honor.

Article XVI.
   The Emperor orders amnesty, pardon, commutation of punishment,
   and rehabilitation.

Article XVII.
   A Regency shall be instituted in conformity with the
   provisions of the Imperial House Law. The Regent shall
   exercise the powers appertaining to the Emperor in His name.


Chapter II.

Article XVIII.
   The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject shall be
   determined by law.

Article XIX.
   Japanese subjects may, according to qualifications determined
   in law or ordinances, be appointed to civil or military
   offices equally, and may fill any other public offices.

Article XX.
   Japanese subjects are amenable to service in the Army or Navy,
   according to the provisions of law.

Article XXI.
   Japanese subjects are amenable to the duty of paying taxes,
   according to the provisions of law.

Article XXII.
   Japanese subjects shall have the liberty of abode and of
   changing the same within the limits of law.

Article XXIII.
   No Japanese subject shall be arrested, detained, tried, or
   punished, unless according to law.

Article XXIV.
   No Japanese subject shall be deprived of his right of being
   tried by the judges determined by law.

Article XXV.
   Except in the cases provided for in the law, the house of no
   Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his
   consent.

Article XXVI.
   Except in the cases mentioned in the law, the secrecy of the
   letters of every Japanese subject shall remain inviolate.

Article XXVII.
   The right of property of every Japanese subject shall remain
   inviolate. Measures necessary to be taken for the public
   benefit shall be provided for by law.

Article XXVIII.
   Japanese subjects shall, within limits not prejudicial to
   peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as
   subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief.

{556}

Article XXIX.
   Japanese subjects shall, within the limits of law, enjoy the
   liberty of speech, writing, publication, public meetings, and
   associations.

Article XXX.
   Japanese subjects may present petitions, by observing the
   proper forms of respect, and by complying with the rules
   specially provided for the same.

Article XXXI.
   The provisions contained in the present Chapter shall not
   affect the exercise of the powers appertaining to the Emperor
   in times of war or in cases of a national emergency.

Article XXXII.
   Each and everyone of the provisions contained in the preceding
   Articles of the present Chapter, that are not in conflict with
   the laws or the rules and discipline of the Army and Navy,
   shall apply to the officers and men of the Army and of the
   Navy.


Chapter III.

Article XXXIII.
   The Imperial Diet shall consist of two Houses, a House of
   Peers and a House of Representatives.

Article XXXIV.
   The House of Peers shall, in accordance with the Ordinance
   concerning the House of Peers, be composed of the members of
   the Imperial Family, of the orders of nobility, and of those
   persons who have been nominated thereto by the Emperor.

Article XXXV.
   The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
   elected by the people according to the provisions of the Law
   of Election.

Article XXXVI.
   No one can at one and the same time be a member of both
   Houses.

Article XXXVII.
   Every law requires the consent of the Imperial Diet.

Article XXXVIII.
   Both Houses shall vote upon projects of law submitted to it by
   the Government, and may respectively initiate projects of law.

Article XXXIX.
   A Bill, which has been rejected by either the one or the other
   of the two houses, shall not be again brought in during the
   same session.

Article XL.
   Both Houses can make representations to the Government, as to
   laws or upon any other subject. When, however, such
   representations are not accepted, they cannot be made a second
   time during the same session.

Article XLI.
   The Imperial Diet shall be convoked every year.

Article XLII.
   A session of the Imperial Diet shall last during three months.
   In case of necessity, the duration of a session may be
   prolonged by Imperial Order.

Article XLI II.
   When urgent necessity arises, an extraordinary session may be
   convoked, in addition to the ordinary one. The duration of an
   extraordinary session shall be determined by Imperial Order.

Article XLIV.
   The opening, closing, prolongation of session, and prorogation
   of the Imperial Diet, shall be effected simultaneously for
   both Houses. In case the House of Representatives has been
   ordered to dissolve, the House of Peers shall at the same time
   be prorogued.

Article XLV.
   When the House of Representatives has been ordered to
   dissolve, Members shall be caused by Imperial Order to be
   newly elected, and the new House shall be convoked within five
   months from the day of dissolution.

Article XLVI.
   No debate can be opened and no vote can be taken in either
   House of the Imperial Diet, unless not less than one-third of
   the whole number of the members thereof is present.

Article XLVII.
   Votes shall be taken in both Houses by absolute majority. In
   the case of a tie vote, the President shall have the casting
   vote.

Article XLVIII.
   The deliberations of both Houses shall be held in public. The
   deliberations may, however, upon demand of the Government or
   by resolution of the House, be held in secret sitting.

Article XLIX.
   Both Houses of the Imperial Diet may respectively present
   addresses to the Emperor.

Article L.
   Both Houses may receive petitions presented by subjects.

Article LI.
   Both Houses may enact, besides what is provided for in the
   present Constitution and in the Law of the Houses, rules
   necessary for the management of their internal affairs.

Article LII.
   No member of either House shall be held responsible outside
   the respective Houses, for any opinion uttered or for any vote
   given in the House. When, however, a Member himself has given
   publicity to his opinions by public speech, by documents in
   printing or in writing, or by any other similar means he
   shall, in the matter, be amenable to the general law.

Article LIII.
   The members of both Houses shall, during the session, be free
   from arrest, unless with the consent of the House, except in
   cases of flagrant delicts, or of offences connected with a
   state of internal commotion or with a foreign trouble.

Article LIV.
   The Ministers of State and the Delegates of the Government
   may, at any time, take seats and speak in either House.


Chapter IV.

Article LV.
   The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to
   the Emperor, and be responsible for it. All Laws, Imperial
   Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that
   relate to the affairs of the State, require the
   countersignature of a Minister of State.

Article LVI.
   The Privy Council shall, in accordance with the provisions for
   the organization of the Privy Council, deliberate upon
   important matters of State, when they have been consulted by
   the Emperor.


Chapter V.

Article LVII.
   The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law
   according to law, in the name of the Emperor. The organization
   of the Courts of Law shall be determined by law.

Article LVIII.
   The judges shall be appointed from among those, who possess
   proper qualifications according to law. No judge shall be
   deprived of his position, unless by way of criminal sentence
   or disciplinary punishment. Rules for disciplinary punishment
   shall be determined by law.

Article LIX.
   Trials and judgments of a Court shall be conducted publicly.
   When, however, there exists any fear that such publicity may
   be prejudicial to peace and order, or to the maintenance of
   public morality, the public trial may be suspended by
   provision of law or by the decision of the Court of Law.

Article LX.
   All matters, that fall within the competency of a special
   Court, shall be specially provided for by law.

{557}

Article LXI.
   No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been
   infringed by the legal measures of the executive authorities,
   and which shall come within the competency of the Court of
   Administrative Litigation specially established by law, shall
   be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law.


Chapter VI.

Article LXII.
   The imposition of a new tax or the modification of the rates
   (of an existing one) shall be determined by law. However, all
   such administrative fees or other revenue having the nature of
   compensation shall not fall within the category of the above
   clause. The raising of national loans and the contracting of
   other liabilities to the charge of the National Treasury,
   except those that are provided in the Budget, shall require
   the consent of the Imperial Diet.

Article LXIII.
   The taxes levied at present shall, in so far as they are not
   remodelled by new law, be collected according to the old
   system.

Article LXIV.
   The expenditure and revenue of the State require the consent
   of the Imperial Diet by means of an annual Budget. Any and all
   expenditures overpassing the appropriations set forth in the
   Titles and Paragraphs of the Budget, or that are not provided
   for in the Budget, shall subsequently require the approbation
   of the Imperial Diet.

Article LXV.
   The Budget shall be first laid before the House of
   Representatives.

Article LXVI.
   The expenditures of the Imperial House shall be defrayed every
   year out of the National Treasury, according to the present
   fixed amount for the same, and shall not require the consent
   thereto of the Imperial Diet, except in case an increase
   thereof is found necessary.

Article LXVII.
   Those already fixed expenditures based by the Constitution
   upon the powers appertaining to the Emperor, and such
   expenditures as may have arisen by the effect of law, or that
   appertain to the legal obligations of the Government, shall be
   neither rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet, without the
   concurrence of the Government.

Article LXVIII.
   In order to meet special requirements, the Government may ask
   the consent of the Imperial Diet to a certain amount as a
   Continuing Expenditure Fund, for a previously fixed number of
   years.

Article LXIX.
   In order to supply deficiencies which are unavoidable, in the
   Budget, and to meet requirements unprovided for in the same, a
   Reserve Fund shall be provided in the Budget.

Article LXX.
   When the Imperial Diet cannot be convoked, owing to the
   external or internal condition of the country, in case of
   urgent need for the maintenance of public safety, the
   Government may take all necessary financial measures, by means
   of an Imperial Ordinance. In the case mentioned in the
   preceding clause, the matter shall be submitted to the
   Imperial Diet at its next session, and its approbation shall
   be obtained thereto.

Article LXXI.
   When the Imperial Diet has not voted on the Budget, or when
   the Budget has not been brought into actual existence, the
   Government shall carry out the Budget of the preceding year.

Article LXXII.
   The final account of the expenditures and revenue of the State
   shall be verified and confirmed by the Board of Audit, and it
   shall be submitted by the Government to the Imperial Diet,
   together with the report of verification of the said Board.
   The organization and competency of the Board of Audit shall be
   determined by law separately.


Chapter VII.

Article LXXIII.
   When it has become necessary in future to amend the provisions
   of the present Constitution, a project to that effect shall be
   submitted to the Imperial Diet by Imperial Order. In the above
   case, neither House can open the debate, unless not less than
   two-thirds of the whole number of Members are present, and no
   amendment can be passed, unless a majority of not less than
   two-thirds of the Members present is obtained.

Article LXXIV.
   No modification of the Imperial House Law shall be required to
   be submitted to the deliberation of the Imperial Diet. No
   provision of the present Constitution can be modified by the
   Imperial House Law.

Article LXXV.
   No modification can be introduced into the Constitution, or
   into the Imperial House Law, during the time of a Regency.

Article LXXVI.
   Existing legal enactments, such as laws, regulations,
   Ordinances, or by whatever names they may be called, shall, so
   far as they do not conflict with the present Constitution,
   continue in force. All existing contracts or orders, that
   entail obligations upon the Government, and that are connected
   with expenditure shall come within the scope of Article LXVII.

----------CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF LYCURGUS.
   "The constitution of Lykourgos was especially adapted to make
   heroes, and it made them. To serve his country and die for
   her, this was the Spartan's chief ambition. 'Victory or
   death!' was their war-cry; honor, their supreme law. 'That
   most to be admired in Lykourgos,' says Xenophon, 'is that he
   was able to make a noble death seem preferable to a dishonored
   life. This great lawgiver provided for the happiness of the
   brave man, and devoted the coward to infamy. … At Sparta men
   would be ashamed to sit at table with the coward, to touch his
   weapons or his hand: in the games neither party will receive
   him. He has the lowest place at the dances and the dramatic
   representations. In the street he is pushed aside by younger
   men. His daughters share in his disgrace; they are excluded
   from public feasts, and can obtain no husbands.'"

      _V. Duruy, History of Greece, volume 1, section 2, page 467._

   Mr. Grote remarks upon the "unparalleled steadiness" of the
   Spartan constitution ascribed to Lycurgus, which was
   maintained "for four or five successive centuries, in the
   midst of governments like the Grecian, all of which had
   undergone more or less of fluctuation. No considerable
   revolution—not even any palpable or formal change—occurred
   in it from the days of the Messenian war down to those of Agis
   III.: in spite of the irreparable blow which the power and
   territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas and the
   Thebans, the form of government nevertheless remained
   unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could
   trace an unbroken peaceable descent from a high antiquity and
   from its real or supposed founder."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      See SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION.

{558}

CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

   The following translated text of the Constitution of Mexico is
   from Bulletin No. 9 of the Bureau of the American Republics,
   published in July, 1891:

Preamble.
   In the name of God and with the authority of the Mexican
   people. The representatives of the different States, of the
   District and Territories which compose the Republic of Mexico,
   called by the Plan proclaimed in Ayutla the 1st of March,
   1854, amended in Acapulco the 11th day of the same month and
   year, and by the summons issued the 17th of October, 1855, to
   constitute the nation under the form of a popular,
   representative, democratic republic, exercising the powers
   with which they are invested, comply with the requirements of
   their high office, decreeing the following political
   Constitution of the Mexican Republic, on the indestructible
   basis of its legitimate independence, proclaimed the 16th of
   September, 1810, and completed the 27th of September, 1821.

Article I.
   The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the
   basis and the object of social institutions. Consequently they
   declare that all the laws and all the authorities of the
   country must respect and maintain the guarantees which the
   present Constitution establishes.

Article 2.
   In the Republic all are born free. Slaves who set foot upon
   the national territory recover, by that act alone, their
   liberty, and have a right to the protection of the laws.

Article 3.
   Instruction is free. The law shall determine what professions
   require a diploma for their exercise, and with what requisites
   they must be issued.

Article 4.
   Every man is free to adopt the profession, industrial pursuit,
   or occupation which suits him, the same being useful and
   honorable, and to avail himself of its products. Nor shall
   anyone be hindered in the exercise of such profession,
   industrial pursuit, or occupation, unless by judicial sentence
   when such exercise attacks the rights of a third party, or by
   governmental resolution, dictated in terms which the law marks
   out, when it offends the rights of society.

Article 5.
   No one shall be obliged to give personal services without just
   compensation, and without his full consent. The state shall
   not permit any contract, pact, or agreement to be carried into
   effect which has for its object the diminution, loss, or
   irrevocable sacrifice of the liberty of man, whether it be for
   the sake of labor, education, or a religious vow. The law,
   consequently, may not recognize monastic orders, nor may it
   permit their establishment, whatever may be the denomination
   or object with which they claim to be formed.

      [Footnote: This sentence was introduced into the original
      article September 25, 1873, with other less important
      amendments.]

   Neither may an agreement be permitted in which anyone
   stipulates for his proscription or banishment.

Article 6.
   The expression of ideas shall not be the object of any
   judicial or administrative inquisition, except in case it
   attacks morality, the rights of a third party, provokes some
   crime or misdemeanor, or disturbs public order.

Article 7.
   The liberty to write and to publish writings on any subject
   whatsoever is inviolable. No law or authority shall establish
   previous censure, nor require security from authors or
   printers, nor restrict the liberty of the press, which has no
   other limits than respect of private life, morality, and the
   public peace. The crimes which are committed by means of the
   press shall be judged by the competent tribunals of the
   Federation, or by those of the States, those of the Federal
   District and the Territory of Lower California, in accordance
   with their penal laws.

   [Footnote: This article was amended May 15, 1883, by
   introducing the last sentence as a substitute for the
   following: "The crimes of the press shall be judged by one
   jury which attests the fact and by another which applies the
   law and designates the punishment."]

Article 8.
   The right of petition, exercised in writing in a peaceful and
   respectful manner, is inviolable; but in political matters
   only citizens of the Republic may exercise it. To every
   petition must be returned a written opinion by the authority
   to whom it may have been addressed, and the latter is obliged
   to make the result known to the petitioner.

Article 9.
   No one may be deprived of the right peacefully to assemble or
   unite with others for any lawful object whatsoever, but only
   citizens of the Republic may do this in order to take part in
   the political affairs of the country. No armed assembly has a
   right to deliberate.

Article 10.
   Every man has a right to possess and carry arms for his
   security and legitimate defence. The law shall designate what
   arms are prohibited and the punishment which those shall incur
   who carry them.

Article 11.
   Every man has a right to enter and to go out of the Republic,
   to travel through its territory and change his residence,
   without the necessity of a letter of security, passport,
   safe-conduct, or other similar requisite. The exercise of this
   right shall not prejudice the legitimate faculties of the
   judicial or administrative authority in cases of criminal or
   civil responsibility.

Article 12.
   There are not, nor shall there be recognized in the Republic,
   titles of nobility, or prerogatives, or hereditary honors.
   Only the people, legitimately represented, may decree
   recompenses in honor of those who may have rendered or may
   render eminent services to the country or to humanity.

Article 13.
   In the Mexican Republic no one may be judged by special law
   nor by special tribunals. No person or corporation may have
   privileges, or enjoy emoluments, which are not compensation
   for a public service and are established by law. Martial law
   may exist only for crimes and offences which have a definite
   connection with military discipline. The law shall determine
   with all clearness the cases included in this exception.

Article 14.
   No retroactive law shall be enacted. No one may be judged or
   sentenced except by laws made prior to the act, and exactly
   applicable to it, and by a tribunal which shall have been
   previously established by law.

Article 15.
   Treaties shall never be made for the extradition of political
   offenders, nor for the extradition of those violators of the
   public order who may have held in the country where they
   committed the offence the position of slaves; nor agreements
   or treaties in virtue of which may be altered the guarantees
   and rights which this Constitution grants to the man and to
   the citizen.

{559}

Article 16.
   No one may be molested in his person, family, domicile, papers
   and possessions, except in virtue of an order written by the
   competent authority, which shall establish and assign the
   legal cause for the proceedings. In the case of in flagrante
   delicto any person may apprehend the offender and his
   accomplices, placing them without delay at the disposal of the
   nearest authorities.

Article 17.
   No one may be arrested for debts of a purely civil character.
   No one may exercise violence in order to reclaim his rights.
   The tribunals shall always be prompt to administer justice.
   This shall be gratuitous, judicial costs being consequently
   abolished.

Article 18.
   Imprisonment shall take place only for crimes which deserve
   corporal punishment. In any state of the process in which it
   shall appear that such a punishment might not be imposed upon
   the accused, he shall be set at liberty under bail. In no case
   shall the imprisonment or detention be prolonged for default
   of payment of fees, or of any furnishing of money whatever.

Article 19.
   No detention shall exceed the term of three days, unless
   justified by a writ showing cause of imprisonment and other
   requisites which the law establishes. The mere lapse of this
   term shall render responsible the authority that orders or
   consents to it, and the agents, ministers, wardens, or jailers
   who execute it. Any maltreatment in the apprehension or in the
   confinement of the prisoners, any injury which may be
   inflicted without legal ground, any tax or contribution in the
   prisons, is an abuse which the laws must correct and the
   authorities severally punish.

Article 20.
   In every criminal trial the accused shall have the following
   guarantees:
   I. That the grounds of the proceedings and the name of the
   accuser, if there shall be one, shall be made known to him.
   II. That his preparatory declaration shall be taken within
   forty-eight hours, counting from the time he may be placed at
   the disposal of the judge.
   III. That he shall be confronted with the witnesses who
   testify against him.
   IV. That he shall be furnished with the data which he requires
   and which appear in the process, in order to prepare for his
   defence.
   V. That he shall be heard in defence by himself or by counsel,
   or by both, as he may desire. In case he should have no one to
   defend him, a list of official defenders shall be presented to
   him, in order that he may choose one or more who may suit him.

Article 21.
   The application of penalties properly so called belongs
   exclusively to the judicial authority. The political or
   administrative authorities may only impose fines, as
   correction, to the extent of five hundred dollars, or
   imprisonment to the extent of one month, in the cases and
   manner which the law shall expressly determine.

Article 22.
   Punishments by mutilation and infamy, by branding, flogging,
   the bastinado, torture of whatever kind, excessive fines,
   confiscation of property, or any other unusual or
   extraordinary penalties, shall be forever prohibited.

Article 23.
   In order to abolish the penalty of death, the administrative
   power is charged to establish, as soon as possible, a
   penitentiary system. In the meantime the penalty of death
   shall be abolished for political offences, and shall not be
   extended to other cases than treason during foreign war,
   highway robbery, arson, parricide, homicide with treachery,
   premeditation or advantage, to grave offences of the military
   order, and piracy, which the law shall define.

Article 24.
   No criminal proceeding may have more than three instances. No
   one shall be tried twice for the same offence, whether by the
   judgment he be absolved or condemned. The practice of
   absolving from the instance is abolished.

Article 25.
   Sealed correspondence which circulates by the mails is free
   from all registry. The violation of this guarantee is an
   offence which the law shall punish severely.

Article 26.
   In time of peace no soldier may demand quarters, supplies, or
   other real or personal service without the consent of the
   proprietor. In time of war he shall do this only in the manner
   prescribed by the law.

Article 27.
   Private property shall not be appropriated without the consent
   of the owner, except for the sake of public use, and with
   previous indemnification. The law shall determine the
   authority which may make the appropriation and the conditions
   under which it may be carried out. No corporation, civil or
   ecclesiastical, whatever may be its character, denomination,
   or object, shall have legal capacity to acquire in
   proprietorship or administer for itself real estate, with the
   single exception of edifices destined immediately and directly
   to the service and object of the institution.

      [Footnote: See Article 3 of Additions to the Constitution.]

Article 28.
   There shall be no monopolies, nor places of any kind for the
   sale of privileged goods, nor prohibitions under titles of
   protection to industry. There shall be excepted only those
   relative to the coining of money, to the mails, and to the
   privileges which, for a limited time, the law may concede to
   inventors or perfectors of some improvement.

Article 29.
   In cases of invasion, grave disturbance of the public peace,
   or any other cases whatsoever which may place society in great
   danger or conflict, only the President of the Republic in
   concurrence with the Council of Ministers and with the
   approbation of the Congress of the Union, and, in the recess
   thereof, of the permanent deputation, may suspend the
   guarantees established by this Constitution, with the
   exception of those which assure the life of man; but such
   suspension shall be made only for a limited time, by means of
   general provisions, and without being limited to a determined
   person. If the suspension should take place during the session
   of Congress, this body shall concede the authorizations which
   it may esteem necessary in order that the Executive may meet
   properly the situation. If the suspension should take place
   during the recess, the permanent deputation shall convoke the
   Congress without delay in order that it may make the
   authorizations.

Article 30.
   Mexicans are:
   I. All those born, within or without the Republic, of Mexican
   parents.
   II. Foreigners who are naturalized in conformity with the laws
   of the Federation.
   III. Foreigners who acquire real estate in the Republic or
   have Mexican children; provided they do not manifest their
   resolution to preserve their nationality.

Article 31.
   It is an obligation of every Mexican:
   I. To defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the
   rights and interests of his country.
   II. To contribute for the public expenses, as well of the
   Federation as of the State and municipality in which he
   resides, in the proportional and equitable manner which the
   laws may provide.

{560}

Article 32.
   Mexicans shall be preferred to foreigners in equal
   circumstances, for all employments, charges, or commissions of
   appointment by the authorities, in which the condition of
   citizenship may not be indispensable. Laws shall be issued to
   improve the condition of Mexican laborers, rewarding those who
   distinguish themselves in any science or art, stimulating
   labor, and founding practical colleges and schools of arts and
   trades.

Article 33.
   Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications
   determined in Article 30. They have a right to the guarantees
   established by … [Articles 1-29] of the present
   Constitution, except that in all cases the Government has the
   right to expel pernicious foreigners. They are under
   obligation to contribute to the public expenses in the manner
   which the laws may provide, and to obey and respect the
   institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, subjecting
   themselves to the judgments and sentences of the tribunals,
   without power to seek other protection than that which the
   laws concede to Mexican citizens.

Article 34.
   Citizens of the Republic are all those who, having the quality
   of Mexicans, have also the following qualifications:
   I. Eighteen years of age if married, or twenty-one if not
   married.
   II. An honest means of livelihood.

Article 35.
   The prerogatives of the citizen are:
   I. To vote at popular elections.
   II. The privilege of being voted for for any office subject to
   popular election, and of being selected for any other
   employment or commission, having the qualifications
   established by law.
   III. To associate to discuss the political affairs of the
   country.
   IV. To take up arms in the army or in the national guard for
   the defence of the Republic and its institutions.
   V. To exercise in all cases the right of petition.

Article 36.
   Every citizen of the Republic is under the following
   obligations:
   I. To be inscribed on the municipal roll, stating the property
   which he has, or the industry, profession, or labor by which
   he subsists.
   II. To enlist in the national guard.
   III. To vote at popular elections in the district to which he
   belongs.
   IV. To discharge the duties of the offices of popular election
   of the Federation, which in no case shall be gratuitous.

Article 37.
   The character of citizen is lost:
   I. By naturalization in a foreign country.
   II. By serving officially the government of another country or
   accepting its decorations, titles, or employments without
   previous permission from the Federal Congress; excepting
   literary, scientific, and humanitarian titles, which may be
   accepted freely.

Article 38.
   The law shall prescribe the cases and the form in which may be
   lost or suspended the rights of citizenship and the manner in
   which they may be regained.

Article 39.
   The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally in
   the people. All public power emanates from the people, and is
   instituted for their benefit. The people have at all times the
   inalienable right to alter or modify the form of their
   government.

Article 40.
   The Mexican people voluntarily constitute themselves a
   democratic, federal, representative republic, composed of
   States free and sovereign in all that concerns their internal
   government, but united in a federation established according
   to the principles of this fundamental law.

Article 41.
   The people exercise their sovereignty by means of Federal
   officers in cases belonging to the Federation, and through
   those of the States in all that relates to the internal
   affairs of the States within the limits respectively
   established by this Federal Constitution, and by the special
   Constitutions of the States, which latter shall in no case
   contravene the stipulations of the Federal Compact.

Article 42.
   The National Territory comprises that of the integral parts of
   the Federation and that of the adjacent islands in both
   oceans.

Article 43.
   The integral parts of the Federation are: the States of
   Aguascalientes, Colima, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
   Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon
   and Coahuila, Oajaca, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosi,
   Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlascala, Valle de
   Mexico, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas, and the Territory of
   Lower California.

Article 44.
   The States of Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
   Guerrero, Mexico, Puebla, Queretaro, Sinaloa, Sonora,
   Tamaulipas, and the Territory of Lower California shall
   preserve the limits which they now have.

Article 45.
   The States of Colima and Tlascala shall preserve in their new
   character of States the limits which they have had as
   Territories of the Federation.

Article 46.
   The State of the Valley of Mexico shall be formed of the
   territory actually composing the Federal District, but the
   erection into a State shall only have effect when the supreme
   Federal authorities are removed to another place.

Article 47.
   The State of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila shall comprise the
   territory which has belonged to the two distinct States of
   which it is now formed, except the part of the hacienda of
   Bonanza, which shall be reincorporated in Zacatecas, on the
   same terms in which it was before its incorporation in
   Coahuila.

Article 48.
   The States of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Oajaca, San Luis
   Potosi, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan, and Zacatecas shall
   recover the extension and limits which they had on the 31st of
   December, 1852, with the alterations the following Article
   establishes.

Article 49.
   The town of Contepec, which has belonged to Guanajuato, shall
   be incorporated in Michoacan. . The municipality of Ahualulco,
   which has belonged to Zacatecas, shall be incorporated in San
   Luis Potosi. The municipalities of Ojo-Caliente and San
   Francisco de los Adames, which have belonged to San Luis, as
   well as the towns of Nueva Tlascala and San Andres del Teul,
   which have belonged to Jalisco, shall be incorporated in
   Zacatecas. The department of Tuxpan shall continue to form a
   part of Veracruz. The canton of Huimanguillo, which has
   belonged to Veracruz, shall be incorporated in Tabasco.

   [Footnote: Besides the twenty-four States which are mentioned
   in this section there have been created subsequently,
   according to executive decrees issued in accordance with the
   Constitution, the four following:
   XXV. That of Campeche, separated from Yucatan.
   XXVI. That of Coahuila, separated from Nuevo Leon.
   XXVII. That of Hidalgo, in territory of the ancient State
   of Mexico, which formed the second military district.
   XXVIII. That of Morelos, in territory also of the ancient
   State of Mexico, which formed the third military district.]

{561}

Article 50.
   The supreme power of the Federation is divided for its
   exercise into legislative, executive, and judicial. Two or
   more of these powers shall never be united in one person or
   corporation, nor the legislative power be deposited in one
   individual.

Article 51.
   The legislative power of the nation is deposited in a general
   Congress, which shall be divided into two houses, one of
   Deputies and the other of Senators.

   [Footnote: The original form of this article was as
   follows: "The exercise of the supreme legislative power is
   vested in one assembly, which shall be denominated Congress of
   the Union."]

Article 52.
   The House of Deputies shall be composed of representatives of
   the nation, elected in their entire number every two years by
   Mexican citizens.

Article 53.
   One deputy shall be elected for each forty thousand
   inhabitants, or for a fraction which exceeds twenty thousand.
   The territory in which the population is less than that
   determined in this article shall, nevertheless, elect one
   deputy.

Article 54.
   For each deputy there shall be elected one alternate.

Article 55.
   The election for deputies shall be indirect in the first
   degree, and by secret ballot, in the manner which the law
   shall prescribe.

Article 56.
   In order to be eligible to the position of a deputy it is
   required that the candidate be a Mexican citizen in the
   enjoyment of his rights; that he be fully twenty-five years of
   age on the day of the opening of the session; that he be a
   resident of the State or Territory which makes the election,
   and that he be not an ecclesiastic. Residence is not lost by
   absence in the discharge of any public trust bestowed by
   popular election.

Article 57.
   The positions of Deputy and of Senator are incompatible with
   any Federal commission or office whatsoever for which a salary
   is received.

Article 58.
   The Deputies and the Senators from the day of their election
   to the day on which their trust is concluded, may not accept
   any commission or office offered by the Federal Executive, for
   which a salary is received, except with the previous license
   of the respective house. The same requisites are necessary for
   the alternates of Deputies and Senators when in the exercise
   of their functions.

   A. The Senate is composed of two Senators for each State and
   two for the Federal District. The election of Senators shall
   be indirect in the first degree. The Legislature of each State
   shall declare elected the person who shall have obtained the
   absolute majority of the votes cast, or shall elect from among
   those who shall have obtained the relative majority in the
   manner which the electoral law shall prescribe. For each
   Senator there shall be elected an alternate.

   B. The Senate shall be renewed one-half every two years. The
   Senators named in the second place shall go out at the end of
   the first two years, and thereafter the half who have held
   longer.

   C. The same qualifications are required for a Senator as for a
   Deputy, except that of age, which must be at least thirty
   years on the day of the opening of the session.

Article 59.
   The Deputies and Senators are privileged from arrest for their
   opinions manifested in the performance of their duties, and
   shall never be liable to be called to account for them.

Article 60.
   Each house shall judge of the election of its members, and
   shall solve the doubts which may arise regarding them.

Article 61.
   The houses may not open their sessions nor perform their
   functions without the presence in the Senate of at least
   two-thirds, and in the House of Deputies of more than one-half
   of the whole number of their members, but those present of one
   or the other body must meet on the day indicated by the law
   and compel the attendance of absent members under penalties
   which the law shall designate.

Article 62.
   The Congress shall have each year two periods of ordinary
   sessions: the first, which may be prorogued for thirty days,
   shall begin on the 16th of September and end on the 15th of
   December, and the second, which may be prorogued for fifteen
   days, shall begin the 1st of April and end the last day of
   May.

Article 63.
   At the opening of the sessions of the Congress the President
   of the Union shall be present and shall pronounce a discourse
   in which he shall set forth the state of the country. The
   President of the Congress shall reply in general terms.

Article 64.
   Every resolution of the Congress shall have the character of a
   law or decree. The laws and decrees shall be communicated to
   the Executive, signed by the Presidents of both houses and by
   a Secretary of each of them, and shall be promulgated in this
   form: "The Congress of the United States of Mexico decrees:"
   (Text of the law or decree.)

Article 65.
   The right to initiate laws or decrees belongs:
   I. To the President of the Union.
   II. To the Deputies and Senators of the general Congress.
   III. To the Legislatures of the States.

Article 66.
   Bills presented by the President of the Republic, by the
   Legislatures of the States, or by deputations from the same,
   shall pass immediately to a committee. Those which the
   Deputies or the Senators may present shall be subjected to the
   procedure which the rules of debate may prescribe.

Article 67.
   Every bill which shall be rejected in the house where it
   originated, before passing to the other house, shall not again
   be presented during the sessions of that year.

Article 68.
   The second period of sessions shall be destined, in all
   preference, to the examination of and action upon the
   estimates of the following fiscal year, to passing the
   necessary appropriations to cover the same, and to the
   examination of the accounts of the past year, which the
   Executive shall present.

Article 69.
   The last day but one of the first period of sessions the
   Executive shall present to the House of Deputies the bill of
   appropriations for the next year following and the accounts of
   the preceding year. Both shall pass to a committee of five
   Representatives appointed on the same day, which shall be
   under obligation to examine said documents, and present a
   report on them at the second session of the second period.

Article 70.
   The formation of the laws and of the decrees may begin
   indiscriminately in either of the two houses, with the
   exception of bills which treat of loans, taxes, or imposts, or
   of the recruiting of troops, all of which must be discussed
   first in the House of Deputies.

{562}

Article 71.
   Every bill, the consideration of which does not belong
   exclusively to one of the houses, shall be discussed
   successively in both, the rules of debate being observed with
   reference to the form, the intervals, and manner of proceeding
   in discussions and voting.

   A. A bill having been approved in the house where it
   originated, shall pass for its discussion to the other house.
   If the latter body should approve it, it will be remitted to
   the Executive, who, if he shall have no observations to make,
   shall publish it immediately.

   B. Every bill shall be considered as approved by the Executive
   if not returned with observations to the house where it
   originated within ten working days, unless during this term
   Congress shall have closed or suspended its sessions, in which
   case the return must be made the first working day on which it
   shall meet.

   C. A bill rejected wholly or in part by the Executive must be
   returned with his observations to the house where it
   originated. It shall be discussed again by this body, and if
   it should be confirmed by an absolute majority of votes, it
   shall pass again to the other house. If by this house it
   should be sanctioned with the same majority, the bill shall be
   a law or decree, and shall be returned to the Executive for
   promulgation. The voting on the law or decree shall be by
   name.

   D. If any bill should be rejected wholly in the house in which
   it did not originate, it shall be returned to that in which it
   originated with the observations which the former shall have
   made upon it. If having been examined anew it should be
   approved by the absolute majority of the members present, it
   shall be returned to the house which rejected it, which shall
   again take it into consideration, and if it should approve it
   by the same majority it shall pass to the Executive, to be
   treated in accordance with division A; but, if it should
   reject it, it shall not be presented again until the following
   sessions.

   E. If a bill should be rejected only in part, or modified, or
   receive additions by the house of revision, the new discussion
   in the house where it originated shall treat only of the
   rejected part, or of the amendments or additions, without
   being able to alter in any manner the articles approved. If
   the additions or amendments made by the house of revision
   should be approved by the absolute majority of the votes
   present in the house where it originated, the whole bill shall
   be passed to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with
   division A. But if the additions or amendments made by the
   house of revision should be rejected by the majority of the
   votes in the house where it originated, they shall be returned
   to the former, in order that the reasons of the latter may be
   taken into consideration; and if by the absolute majority of
   the votes present said additions or amendments shall be
   rejected in this second revision, the bill, in so far as it
   has been approved by both houses, shall be passed to the
   Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A; but if
   the house of revision should insist, by the absolute majority
   of the votes present, on said additions or amendments, the
   whole bill shall not be again presented until the following
   sessions, unless both houses agree by the absolute majority of
   their members present that the law or decree shall be issued
   solely with the articles approved, and that the parts added or
   amended shall be reserved to be examined and voted in the
   following sessions.

   F. In the interpretation, amendment, or repeal of the laws or
   decrees, the rules established for their formation shall be
   observed.

   G. Both houses shall reside in the same place, and they shall
   not remove to another without first agreeing to the removal
   and on the time and manner of making it, designating the same
   point for the meeting of both. But if both houses, agreeing to
   the removal, should differ as to time, manner, or place, the
   Executive shall terminate the difference by choosing one of
   the places in question. Neither house shall suspend its
   sessions for more than three days without the consent of the
   other.

   H. When the general Congress meets in extra sessions, it shall
   occupy itself exclusively with the object or objects
   designated in the summons; and if the special business shall
   not have been completed on the day on which the regular
   session should open, the extra sessions shall be closed
   nevertheless, leaving the points pending to be treated of in
   the regular sessions. The Executive of the Union shall not
   make observations on the resolutions of the Congress when this
   body prorogues its sessions or exercises functions of an
   electoral body or a jury.

Article 72.
   The Congress has power:
   I. To admit new States or Territories into the Federal Union,
   incorporating them in the nation.
   II. To erect Territories into States when they shall have a
   population of eighty thousand inhabitants and the necessary
   elements to provide for their political existence.
   III. To form new States within the limits of those existing,
   it being necessary to this end:
   1. That the fraction or fractions which asked to be erected
   into a State shall number a population of at least one hundred
   and twenty thousand inhabitants.
   2. That it shall be proved before Congress that they have
   elements sufficient to provide for their political existence.
   3. That the Legislatures of the States, the territories of
   which are in question, shall have been heard on the expediency
   or inexpediency of the establishment of the new State, and
   they shall be obliged to make their report within six months,
   counted from the day on which the communication relating to it
   shall have been remitted to them.
   4. That the Executive of the Federation shall likewise be
   heard, who shall send his report within seven days, counted
   from the date on which he shall have been asked for it.
   5. That the establishment of the new State shall have been
   voted for by two-thirds of the Deputies and Senators present
   in their respective houses.
   6. That the resolution of Congress shall have been ratified by
   the majority of the Legislatures of the States, after
   examining a copy of the proceedings; provided that the
   Legislatures of the States whose territory is in question
   shall have given their consent.
   7. If the Legislatures of the States whose territory is in
   question shall not have given their consent, the ratification
   mentioned in the preceding clause must be made by two-thirds
   of the Legislatures of the other States.

   A. The exclusive powers of the House of Deputies are:
   I. To constitute itself an Electoral College in order to
   exercise the powers which the law may assign to it, in respect
   to the election of the Constitutional President of the
   Republic, Magistrates of the Supreme Court, and Senators for
   the Federal District.

   II. To judge and decide upon the resignations which the
   President of the Republic or the Magistrates of the Supreme
   Court of Justice may make. The same power belongs to it in
   treating of licenses solicited by the first.

   III. To watch over, by means of an inspecting committee from
   its own body, the exact performance of the business of the
   chief auditorship.

   IV. To appoint the principal officers and other employés of
   the same.

   V. To constitute itself a jury of accusation, for the high
   functionaries of whom Article 103 of this Constitution treats.

   VI. To examine the accounts which the Executive must present
   annually, to approve the annual estimate of expenses, and to
   initiate the taxes which in its judgment ought to be decreed
   to cover these expenses.

{563}

   B. The exclusive powers of the Senate are:

      I. To approve the treaties and diplomatic conventions which
      the Executive may make with foreign powers.

      II. To ratify the appointments which the President of the
      Republic may make of ministers, diplomatic agents,
      consuls-general, superior employés of the Treasury,
      colonels and other superior officers of the national army
      and navy, on the terms which the law shall provide.

      III. To authorize the Executive to permit the departure of
      national troops beyond the limits of the Republic, the
      passage of foreign troops through the national territory,
      the station of squadrons of other powers for more than a
      month in the waters of the Republic.

      IV. To give its consent in order that the Executive may
      dispose of the national guard outside of their respective
      States or Territories, determining the necessary force.

      V. To declare, when the Constitutional legislative and
      executive powers of a State shall have disappeared, that
      the case has arrived for appointing to it a provisional
      Governor, who shall call elections in conformity with the
      Constitutional laws of the said State. The appointment of
      Governor shall be made by the Federal Executive with the
      approval of the Senate, and in its recesses with the
      approval of the Permanent Commission. Said functionary
      shall not be elected Constitutional Governor at the
      elections which are had in virtue of the summons which he
      shall issue.

      VI. To decide political questions which may arise between
      the powers of a State, when any of them may appear with
      this purpose in the Senate, or when on account of said
      questions Constitutional order shall have been interrupted
      during a conflict of arms. In this case the Senate shall
      dictate its resolution, being subject to the general
      Constitution of the Republic and to that of the State. The
      law shall regulate the exercise of this power and that of
      the preceding.

      VII. To constitute itself a jury of judgment in accordance
      with Article 105 of this Constitution.

   C. Each of the houses may, without the intervention of the
   other:

      I. Dictate economic resolutions relative to its internal
      regimen.

      II. Communicate within itself, and with the Executive of
      the Union, by means of committees from its own body.

      III. Appoint the employés of its secretaryship, and make
      the internal regulations for the same.

      IV. Issue summons for extraordinary elections, with the
      object of filling the vacancies of their respective
      members.

      IV. To regulate definitely the limits of the States,
      terminating the differences which may arise between them
      relative to the demarcation of their respective
      territories, except when these difficulties have a
      contentious character.

      V. To change the residence of the supreme powers of the
      Federation.

      VI. To establish the internal order of the Federal District
      and Territories, taking as a basis that the citizens shall
      choose by popular election the political, municipal, and
      judicial authorities, and designating the taxes necessary
      to cover their local expenditure.

      VII. To approve the estimates of the Federal expenditure,
      which the Executive must annually present to it, and to
      impose the necessary taxes to cover them.

      VIII. To give rules under which the Executive may make
      loans on the credit of the nation; to approve said loans,
      and to recognize and order the payment of the national
      debt.

      IX. To establish tariffs on foreign commerce, and to
      prevent, by means of general laws, onerous restrictions
      from being established with reference to the commerce
      between the States.

      X. To issue codes, obligatory throughout the Republic, of
      mines and commerce, comprehending in this last banking
      institutions.

      XI. To create and suppress public Federal employments and
      to establish, augment, or diminish their salaries.

      XII. To ratify the appointments which the Executive may
      make of ministers, diplomatic agents, and consuls, of the
      higher employés of the Treasury, of the colonels and other
      superior officers of the national army and navy.

      XIII. To approve the treaties, contracts, or diplomatic
      conventions which the Executive may make.

      XIV. To declare war in view of the data which the Executive
      may present to it.

      XV. To regulate the manner in which letters of marque may
      be issued; to dictate laws according to which must be
      declared good or bad the prizes on sea and land, and to
      issue laws relating to maritime rights in peace and war.

      XVI. To permit or deny the entrance of foreign troops into
      the territory of the Republic, and to consent to the
      station of squadrons of other powers for more than a month
      in the waters of the Republic.

      XVII. To permit the departure of national troops beyond the
      limits of the Republic.

      [Footnote:  Amended by Section B, Clause III., Article 72,
      of the law of the 13th of November, 1874.]

      XVIII. To raise and maintain the army and navy of the
      Union, and to regulate their organization and service.

      XIX. To establish regulations with the purpose of
      organizing, arming, and disciplining the national guard,
      reserving respectively to the citizens who compose it the
      appointment of the commanders and officers, and to the
      States the power of instructing it in conformity with the
      discipline prescribed by said regulations.

      XX. To give its consent in order that the Executive may
      control the national guard outside of its respective States
      and Territories, determining the necessary force.

      XXI. To dictate laws on naturalization, colonization, and
      citizenship.

      XXII. To dictate laws on the general means of communication
      and on the post-office and mails.

      XXIII. To establish mints, fixing the conditions of their
      operation, to determine the value of foreign money, and
      adopt a general system of weights and measures.

      XXIV. To fix rules to which must be subject the occupation
      and sale of public lands and the price of these lands.

      XXV. To grant pardons for crimes cognizable by the
      tribunals of the Federation.

      XXVI. To grant rewards or recompense for eminent services
      rendered to the country or humanity.

      XXVII. To prorogue for thirty working days the first period
      of its ordinary sessions.

      XXVIII. To form rules for its internal regulation, to take
      the necessary measures to compel the attendance of absent
      members, and to correct the faults or omissions of those
      present.

      XXIX. To appoint and remove freely the employés of its
      secretaryship and those of the chief auditorship, which
      shall be organized in accordance with the provisions of the
      law.

      XXX. To make all laws which may be necessary and proper to
      render effective the foregoing powers and all others
      granted by this Constitution and the authorities of the
      Union.

      [Footnote: See respecting this Article the additions A, B,
      and C to Article 72 of the law of the 13th of November,
      already cited.]

{564}

Article 73.
   During the recess of Congress there shall be a Permanent
   Deputation composed of twenty-nine members, of whom fifteen
   shall be Deputies and fourteen Senators, appointed by their
   respective houses the evening before the close of the
   sessions.

Article 74.
   The attributes of the Permanent Deputation are:

   I. To give its consent to the use of the national guard in the
   cases mentioned in Article 72, Clause XX.

   II. To determine by itself, or on the proposal of the
   Executive, after hearing him in the first place, the summons
   of Congress, or of one house alone, for extra sessions, the
   vote of two-thirds of the members present being necessary in
   both cases. The summons shall designate the object or objects
   of the extra sessions.

   III. To approve the appointments which are referred to in
   Article 85, Clause III.

   IV. To administer the oath of office to the President of the
   Republic, and to the Justices of the Supreme Court, in the
   cases provided by this Constitution.

    [Footnote: See the Amendment of September 25, 1873,
    Article 4.]

   V. To report upon all the business not disposed of, in order
   that the Legislature which follows may immediately take up
   such unfinished business.

Article 75.
   The exercise of the supreme executive power of the Union is
   vested in a single individual, who shall be called "President
   of the United States of Mexico."

Article 76.
   The election of President shall be indirect in the first
   degree, and by secret ballot, in such manner as may be
   prescribed by the electoral law.

Article 77.
   To be eligible to the position of President, the candidate
   must be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his
   rights, be fully thirty-five years old at the time of the
   election, not belong to the ecclesiastical order, and reside
   in the country at the time the election is held.

Article 78.
   The President shall enter upon the performance of the duties
   of his office on the first of December, and shall continue in
   office four years, being eligible for the Constitutional
   period immediately following; but he shall remain incapable
   thereafter to occupy the presidency by a new election until
   four years shall have passed, counting from the day on which
   he ceased to perform his functions.

Article 79.
   In the temporary default of the President of the Republic, and
   in the vacancy before the installation of the newly-elected
   President, the citizen who may have performed the duties of
   President or Vice-President of the Senate, or of the Permanent
   Commission in the periods of recess, during the month prior to
   that in which said default may have occurred, shall enter upon
   the exercise of the executive power of the Union.

   A. The President and Vice-President of the Senate and of the
   Permanent Commission shall not be reëlected to those offices
   until a year after having held them.

   B. If the period of sessions of the Senate or of the Permanent
   Commission shall begin in the second half of a month, the
   default of the President of the Republic shall be covered by
   the President or Vice-President who may have acted in the
   Senate or in the Permanent Commission during the first half of
   the said month.

   C. The Senate and the Permanent Commission shall renew, the
   last day of each month, their Presidents and Vice-Presidents.
   For these offices the Permanent Commission shall elect,
   alternatively, in one month two Deputies and in the following
   month two Senators.

   D. When the office of President of the Republic is vacant, the
   functionary who shall take it constitutionally as his
   substitute must issue, within the definite term of fifteen
   days, the summons to proceed to a new election, which shall be
   held within the term of three months, and in accordance with
   the provisions of Article 76 of this Constitution. The
   provisional President shall not be eligible to the presidency
   at the elections which are held to put an end to his
   provisional term.

   E. If, on account of death or any other reason, the
   functionaries who, according to this law, should take the
   place of the President of the Republic, might not be able in
   any absolute manner to do so, it shall be taken, under
   predetermined conditions, by the citizen who may have been
   President or Vice-President of the Senate or the Permanent
   Commission in the month prior to that in which they discharged
   those offices.

   F. When the office of President of the Republic shall become
   vacant within the last six months of the constitutional
   period, the functionary who shall take the place of the
   President shall terminate this period.

   G. To be eligible to the position of President or
   Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission,
   one must be a Mexican citizen by birth.

   H. If the vacancy in the office of President of the Republic
   should occur when the Senate and Permanent Commission are
   performing their functions in extra sessions, the President of
   the Commission shall fill the vacancy, under conditions
   indicated in this article.

   I. The Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent
   Commission shall enter upon the performance of the functions
   which this Article confers upon them, in the vacancies of the
   office of President of the Senate or of the Permanent
   Commission, and in the periods only while the impediment
   lasts.

   J. The newly-elected President shall enter upon the discharge
   of his duties, at the latest, sixty days after that of the
   election. In case the House of Deputies shall not be in
   session, it shall be convened in extra session, in order to
   make the computation of votes within the term mentioned.

Article 80.
   In the vacancy of the office of President, the period of the
   newly-elected President shall be computed from the first of
   December of the year prior to that of his election, provided
   he may not have taken possession of his office on the date
   which Article 78 determines.

Article 81.
   The office of President of the Union may not be resigned,
   except for grave cause, approved by Congress, before whom the
   resignation shall be presented.

Article 82.
   If for any reason the election of President shall not have
   been made and published by the first of December, on which the
   transfer of the office should be made, or the President-elect
   shall not have been ready to enter upon the discharge of his
   duties, the term of the former President shall end
   nevertheless, and the supreme executive power shall be
   deposited provisionally in the functionary to whom it belongs
   according to the provisions of the reformed Article 79 of this
   Constitution.

{565}

Article 83.
   The President, on taking possession of his office, shall take
   an oath before Congress, and in its recess before the
   Permanent Commission, under the following formula: "I swear to
   perform loyally and patriotically the duties of President of
   the United States of Mexico, according to the Constitution,
   and seek in everything for the welfare and prosperity of the
   Union."

      [Footnote: See the Amendments and Additions of September 25,
      1873.]

Article 84.
   The President may not remove from the place of the residence
   of the Federal powers, nor lay aside the exercise of his
   functions, without grave cause, approved by the Congress, and
   in its recesses by the Permanent Commission.

Article 85.
   The powers and obligations of the President are the following:

   I. To promulgate and execute the laws passed by the Congress
   of the Union, providing, in the administrative sphere, for
   their exact observance.

   II. To appoint and remove freely the Secretaries of the
   Cabinet, to remove the diplomatic agents and superior employés
   of the Treasury, and to appoint and remove freely the other
   employés of the Union whose appointment and removal are not
   otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in the laws.

   III. To appoint ministers, diplomatic agents, consuls-general,
   with the approval of Congress, and, in its recess, of the
   Permanent Commission.

   IV. To appoint, with the approval of Congress, the colonels
   and other superior officers of the national army and navy, and
   the superior employés of the treasury.

   V. To appoint the other officers of the national army and
   navy, according to the laws.

   VI. To control the permanent armed force by sea and land for
   the internal security and external defence of the Federation.

   VII. To control the national guard for the same objects within
   the limits established by Article 72, Clause XX.

   VIII. To declare war in the name of the United States of
   Mexico, after the passage of the necessary law by the Congress
   of the Union.

   IX. To grant letters of marque, subject to bases fixed by the
   Congress.

   X. To direct diplomatic negotiations and make treaties with
   foreign powers, submitting them for the ratification of the
   Federal Congress.

   XI. To receive ministers and other envoys from foreign powers.

   XII. To convoke Congress in extra sessions when the Permanent
   Commission shall consent to it.

   XIII. To furnish the judicial power with that assistance which
   may be necessary for the prompt exercise of its functions.

   XIV. To open all classes of ports, to establish maritime and
   frontier custom-houses and designate their situation.

   XV. To grant, in accordance with the laws, pardons to
   criminals sentenced for crimes within the jurisdiction of the
   Federal tribunals.

   XVI. To grant exclusive privileges, for a limited time and
   according to the proper law, to discoverers, inventors, or
   perfecters of any branch of industry.

Article 86.
   For the dispatch of the business of the administrative
   department of the Federation there shall be the number of
   Secretaries which the Congress may establish by a law, which
   shall provide for the distribution of business and prescribe
   what shall be in charge of each Secretary.

Article 87.
   To be a Secretary of the Cabinet it is required that one shall
   be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights,
   and fully twenty-five years old.

Article 88.
   All the regulations, decrees, and orders of the President must
   be signed by the Secretary of the Cabinet who is in charge of
   the department to which the subject belongs. Without this
   requisite they shall not be obeyed.

Article 89.
   The Secretaries of the Cabinet, as soon as the sessions of the
   first period shall be opened, shall render an account to the
   Congress of the state of their respective departments.

Article 90.
   The exercise of the judicial power of the Federation is vested
   in a Supreme Court of Justice and in the district and circuit
   courts.

Article 91.
   The Supreme Court of Justice shall be composed of eleven
   judges, four supernumeraries, one fiscal, and one
   attorney-general.

Article 92.
   Each of the members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall
   remain in office six years, and his election shall be indirect
   in the first degree, under conditions established by the
   electoral law.

Article 93.
   In order to be elected a member of the Supreme Court of
   Justice it is necessary that one be learned in the science of
   the law in the judgment of the electors, more than thirty-five
   years old, and a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of
   his rights.

Article 94.
   The members of the Supreme Court of Justice, on entering upon
   the exercise of their charge, shall take an oath before
   Congress, and, in its recesses, before the Permanent
   Commission, in the following form: "Do you swear to perform
   loyally and patriotically the charge of Magistrate of the
   Supreme Court of Justice, which the people have conferred upon
   you in conformity with the Constitution, seeking in everything
   the welfare and prosperity of the Union?"

      [Footnote: See Additions to the Constitution,
      September 25, 1873. ]

Article 95.
   A member of the Supreme Court of Justice may resign his office
   only for grave cause, approved by the Congress, to whom the
   resignation shall be presented. In the recesses of the
   Congress the judgment shall be rendered by the Permanent
   Commission.

Article 96.
   The law shall establish and organize the circuit and district
   courts.

Article 97.
   It belongs to the Federal tribunals to take cognizance of:

   I. All controversies which may arise in regard to the
   fulfilment and application of the Federal laws, except in the
   case in which the application affects only private interests;
   such a case falls within the competence of the local judges
   and tribunals of the common order of the States, of the
   Federal District, and of the Territory of Lower California.

   II. All cases pertaining to maritime law.

   III. Those in which the Federation may be a party.

   IV. Those that may arise between two or more States.

   V. Those that may arise between a State and one or more
   citizens of another State.

   VI. Civil or criminal cases that may arise under treaties with
   foreign powers.

   VII. Cases concerning diplomatic agents and consuls.

Article 98.
   It belongs to the Supreme Court of Justice, in the first
   instance, to take cognizance of controversies which may arise
   between one State and another, and of those in which the Union
   may be a party.

Article 99.
   It belongs also to the Supreme Court of Justice to determine
   the questions of jurisdiction which may arise between the
   Federal tribunals, between these and those of the States, or
   between the courts of one State and those of another.

Article 100.
   In the other cases comprehended in Article 97, the Supreme
   Court of Justice shall be a court of appeal or, rather, of
   last resort, according to the graduation which the law may
   make in the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts.

{566}

Article 101.
   The tribunals of the Federation shall decide all questions
   which arise:

   I. Under laws or acts of whatever authority which violate
   individual guarantees.

   II. Under laws or acts of the State authority which violate or
   restrain the sovereignty of the States.

   III. Under laws or acts of the State authority which invade
   the sphere of the Federal authority.

Article 102.
   All the judgments which the preceding article mentions shall
   be had on petition of the aggrieved party, by means of
   judicial proceedings and forms which shall be prescribed by
   law. The sentence shall be always such as to affect private
   individuals only, limiting itself to defend and protect them
   in the special case to which the process refers, without
   making any general declaration respecting the law or act which
   gave rise to it.

Article 103.
   The Senators, the Deputies, the members of the Supreme Court
   of Justice, and the Secretaries of the Cabinet are responsible
   for the common crimes which they may commit during their terms
   of office, and for the crimes, misdemeanors, and negligence
   into which they may fall in the performance of the duties of
   said office. The Governors of the States are likewise
   responsible for the infraction of the Constitution and Federal
   laws. The President of the Republic is also responsible; but
   during the term of his office he may be accused only for the
   crimes of treason against the country, express violation of
   the Constitution, attack on the freedom of election, and grave
   crimes of the common order. The high functionaries of the
   Federation shall not enjoy any Constitutional privilege for
   the official crimes, misdemeanors, or negligence into which
   they may fall in the performance of any employment, office, or
   public commission which they may have accepted during the
   period for which, in conformity with the law, they shall have
   been elected. The same shall happen with respect to those
   common crimes which they may commit during the performance of
   said employment, office, or commission. In order that the
   cause may be initiated when the high functionary shall have
   returned to the exercise of his proper functions, proceeding
   should be undertaken in accordance with the provision of
   Article 104 of this Constitution.

Article 104.
   If the crime should be a common one, the House of
   Representatives, formed into a grand jury, shall declare, by
   an absolute majority of votes, whether there is or is not
   ground to proceed against the accused. In the negative case,
   there shall be no ground for further proceedings; in the
   affirmative, the accused shall be, by the said act, deprived
   of his office, and subjected to the action of the ordinary
   tribunals.

Article 105.
   The houses shall take cognizance of official crimes, the House
   of Deputies as a jury of accusation, the Senators as a jury of
   judgment. The jury of accusation shall have for its object to
   declare, by an absolute majority of votes, whether the accused
   is or is not culpable. If the declaration should be
   absolutory, the functionary shall continue in the exercise of
   his office; if it should be condemnatory, he shall be
   immediately deprived of his office, and shall be placed at the
   disposal of the Senate. The latter, formed into a jury of
   judgment, and, with the presence of the criminal and of the
   accuser, if there should be one, shall proceed to apply, by an
   absolute majority of votes, the punishment which the law
   designates.

Article 106.
   A judgment of responsibility for official crimes having been
   pronounced, no favor of pardon may be extended to the
   offender.

Article 107.
   The responsibility for official crimes and misdemeanors may be
   required only during the period in which the functionary
   remains in office, and one year thereafter.

Article 108.
   With respect to demands of the Civil order, there shall be no
   privilege or immunity for any public functionary.

Article 109.
   The States shall adopt for their internal regimen the popular,
   representative, republican form of government, and may provide
   in their respective Constitutions for the reelection of the
   Governors in accordance with what Article 78 provides for the
   President of the Republic.

Article 110.
   The States may regulate among themselves, by friendly
   agreements, their respective boundaries; but those regulations
   shall not be carried into effect without the approval of the
   Congress of the Union.

Article 111.
   The States may not in any case:

   1. Form alliances, treaties, or coalitions with another State,
   or with foreign powers, excepting the coalition which the
   frontier States may make for offensive or defensive war
   against the Indians.

   II. Grant letters of marque or reprisal.

   III. Coin money, or emit paper money or stamped paper.

Article 112.
   Neither may any State, without the consent of the Congress of
   the Union:

   I. Establish tonnage duties, or any port duty, or impose taxes
   or duties upon importations or exportations.

   II. Have at any time permanent troops or vessels of war.

   III. Make war by itself on any foreign power except in cases
   of invasion or of such imminent peril as to admit of no delay.
   In these cases the State shall give notice immediately to the
   President of the Republic.

Article 113.
   Each State is under obligation to deliver without delay the
   criminals of other States to the authority that claims them.

Article 114.
   The Governors of the States are obliged to publish and cause
   to be obeyed the Federal laws.

Article 115.
   In each State of the Federation entire faith and credit shall
   be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings
   of all the other States. The Congress may, by means of general
   laws, prescribe the manner of proving said acts, records, and
   proceedings, and the effect thereof.

Article 116.
   The powers of the Union are bound to protect the States
   against all invasion or external violence. In case of
   insurrection or internal disturbance they shall give them like
   protection, provided the Legislature of the State, or the
   Executive, if the Legislature is not in session, shall request
   it.

Article 117.
   The powers which are not expressly granted by this
   Constitution to the Federal authorities are understood to be
   reserved to the States.

Article 118.
   No person may at the same time hold two Federal elective
   offices; but if elected to two, he may choose which of them he
   will fill.

Article 119.
   No payment shall be made which is not comprehended in the
   budget or determined by a subsequent law.

Article 120.
   The President of the Republic, the members of the Supreme
   Court of Justice, the Deputies, and other public officers of
   the Federation, who are chosen by popular election, shall
   receive a compensation for their services, which shall be
   determined by law and paid by the Federal Treasury. This
   compensation may not be renounced, and any law which augments
   or diminishes it shall not have effect during the period for
   which a functionary holds the office.

{567}

Article 121.
   Every public officer, without any exception, before taking
   possession of his office, shall take an oath to maintain this
   Constitution and the laws which emanate from it.

   [Footnote: See the Additions of September 25, 1873.]

Article 122.
   In time of peace no military authority may exercise more
   functions than those which have close connection with military
   discipline. There shall be fixed and permanent military
   commands only in the castles, fortresses, and magazines which
   are immediately under the government of the Union; or in
   encampments, barracks, or depots which may be established
   outside of towns for stationing troops.

Article 123.
   It belongs exclusively to the Federal authorities to exercise,
   in matters of religious worship and external discipline, the
   intervention which the laws may designate.

Article 124.
   The States shall not impose any duty for the simple passage of
   goods in the internal commerce. The Government of the Union
   alone may decree transit duties, but only with respect to
   foreign goods which cross the country by international or
   interoceanic lines, without being on the national territory
   more time than is necessary to traverse it and depart to the
   foreign country. They shall not prohibit, either directly or
   indirectly, the entrance to their territory, or the departure
   from it, of any merchandise, except on police grounds; nor
   burden the articles of national production on their departure
   for a foreign country or for another State. The exemptions
   from duties which they concede shall be general; they may not
   be decreed in favor of the products of specified origin. The
   quota of the import for a given amount of merchandise shall be
   the same, whatever may have been its origin, and no heavier
   burden may be assigned to it than that which the similar
   products of the political entity in which the import is
   decreed bear. The national merchandise shall not be submitted
   to definite route nor to inspection or registry on the ways,
   nor any fiscal document be demanded for its internal
   circulation. Nor shall they burden foreign merchandise with a
   greater quota than that which may have been permitted them by
   the Federal law to receive.

Article 125.
   The forts, military quarters, magazines, and other edifices
   necessary to the government of the Union shall be under the
   immediate inspection of the Federal authorities.

Article 126.
   This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union which
   emanate from it, and all the treaties made or which shall be
   made by the President of the Republic, with the approval of
   Congress, shall be the supreme law of the whole Union. The
   judges of each State shall be guided by said Constitution,
   law, and treaties in spite of provisions to the contrary which
   may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States.

Article 127.
   The present Constitution may be added to or reformed. In order
   that additions or alterations may become part of the
   Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union,
   by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, shall agree to
   the alterations or additions, and that these shall be approved
   by the majority of the Legislatures of the States. The
   Congress of the Union shall count the votes of the
   Legislatures and make the declaration that the reforms or
   additions have been approved.

Article 128.
   This Constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even if
   its observance be interrupted by a rebellion. In case that by
   any public disturbance a government contrary to the principles
   which it sanctions shall be established, as soon as the people
   recover their liberty its observance shall be reestablished,
   and in accordance with it and the laws which shall have been
   issued in virtue of it, shall be judged not only those who
   shall have figured in the government emanating from the
   rebellion, but also those who shall have cooperated with it.


Additions.

Article 1.
   The State and the Church are independent of one another. The
   Congress may not pass laws establishing or prohibiting any
   religion.

Article 2.
   Marriage is a civil contract. This and the other acts relating
   to the civil state of persons belong to the exclusive
   jurisdiction of the functionaries and authorities of the civil
   order, within limits provided by the laws, and they shall have
   the force and validity which the same attribute to them.

Article 3.
   No religious institution may acquire real estate or capital
   fixed upon it, with the single exception established in
   Article 27 of this Constitution.

Article 4.
   The simple promise to speak the truth and to comply with the
   obligations which have been incurred, shall be substituted for
   the religious oath, with its effects and penalties.

----------CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF NETHERLANDS KINGDOM.
   After 1830, this became the Kingdom of Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1830-1884.

----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

   "On May 17, 1814,  … a constitution was granted to Norway.
   The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which
   almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up
   in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of
   November 1814."

      _C. F. Keary, Norway and the Norwegians,  chapter 13._

   The following the text of the constitution as granted in 1814:

Title I.

Article 1.
   The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, undivisible, and
   inalienable state, united to Sweden under the same king. The
   form of its government is limited, hereditary, and
   monarchical.

{568}

Article 2.
   The Lutheran evangelical religion shall continue to be the
   ruling religion of the kingdom; those of the inhabitants which
   profess it are bound to bring up their children in its tenets;
   Jesuits and monastic orders shall not be prohibited in the
   kingdom. The admission of Jews into the kingdom shall always
   be, as formerly, prohibited.


Title II.

Article 1.
   The executive power is declared to be in the person of the
   king.

Article 2.
   The king shall always profess the evangelical Lutheran
   religion, which he shall maintain and protect.

Article 3.
   The person of the king is sacred: he can neither be blamed or
   accused.

Article 4.
   The succession is lineal, and collateral, such as it is
   determined by the order of succession decreed by the general
   estates of Sweden, and sanctioned by the king in the Act of
   the 26th September 1810, of which a translation is annexed to
   this Constitution. Of the number of legitimate heirs, is
   comprehended the child in its mother's womb, which, as soon as
   it shall be born, after the death of its father, takes the
   place which is due to him in the line of succession. When a
   Prince, heir of the re-united crowns of Norway and Sweden,
   shall be born, his name, and the day of his birth shall be
   announced at the first Storthing, and inscribed in the
   registers.

Article 5.
   Should there not be found any prince, a legitimate heir to the
   throne, the king can propose his successor at the Storthing of
   Norway, and at the same time to the states general of Sweden.
   As soon as the king shall have made the proposition, the
   representatives of the two nations shall choose from among
   them a committee, invested with the right of determining the
   election, in case the king's proposition should not, by the
   plurality of voices, be approved of separately by the
   representatives of each of the countries. The number of
   members of this committee, shall be composed of an equal
   number of Norwegians and Swedes, so that the step to follow in
   the election shall be regulated by a law which the king shall
   propose at the same time to the next Storthing, and the states
   general of Sweden. They shall draw by lot one out of the
   committee for its member.

Article 6.
   The Storthing of Norway, and the states general of Sweden
   shall concert to fix by a law the king's majority; if they
   cannot agree, a committee, taken from the representatives of
   the two nations, shall decide it in the manner established by
   article 5th, title 2nd. As soon as the king shall have
   attained the years of majority fixed by the law, he shall
   publicly declare that he is of age.

   [Footnote: Storthing is the national assembly, or general
   estates of the kingdom.]

   [Footnote: A law of the Storthing, 13th July 1815, and
   sanctioned by the king, declared that the king is major on
   arriving at the age of eighteen years.]

Article 7.
   When the king comes of age he shall take into his hands the
   reins of government, and make the following oath to the
   Storthing: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern the
   kingdom of Norway conformably to its constitution and laws."
   If the Storthing is not then assembled, this oath shall be
   deposited in writing in the council, and solemnly repeated by
   the king at the first Storthing, either vivâ voce or by
   writing, by the person whom he shall have appointed to this
   effect.

Article 8.
   The coronation of the king shall take place when he is of age,
   in the cathedral of Drontheim, at the time and with those
   ceremonies that shall be fixed by himself.

Article 9.
   The King shall pass some time in Norway yearly, unless this is
   prevented by urgent circumstances.

Article 10.
   The king shall exclusively choose a council of Norwegians,
   citizens, who shall have attained the seventieth year of their
   age. This council shall be composed at least of a minister of
   state, and seven other members. In like manner the king can
   create a viceroy or a government. The king shall arrange the
   affairs between the members of the council, in such manner as
   he shall consider expedient. Besides these ordinary members of
   council, the king, or in his absence the viceroy (or the
   government jointly with the ordinary members of council) may
   on particular occasions, call other Norwegians, citizens, to
   sit there, provided they are not members of the Storthing. The
   father and son, or two brothers, shall not, at the same time,
   have a seat in the council.

Article 11.
   The king shall appoint a governor of the kingdom in his
   absence, and on failure it shall be governed by the viceroy or
   a governor, with five at least of the members of council. They
   shall govern the kingdom in the name and behalf of the king;
   and they shall observe inviolably, as much the principles
   contained in this fundamental law as those relative precepts
   the king shall lay down in his instructions. They shall make a
   humble report to the king upon those affairs they have
   decided. All matters shall be decided by plurality of votes.
   If the votes happen to be equal, the viceroy or governor, or
   in their absence the first member of council, shall have two.

Article 12.
   The prince royal or his eldest son can be viceroy; but this
   can only occur when they have attained the majority of the
   king. In the case of a governor, either a Norwegian or a Swede
   may be nominated. The viceroy shall remain in the kingdom, and
   shall not be allowed to reside in a foreign one beyond three
   months each year. When the king shall be present, the
   viceroy's functions shall cease. If there is no viceroy, but
   only a governor, the functions of the latter shall also cease,
   in which event he is only the first member of council.

Article 13.
   During the residence of the king in Sweden, he shall always
   have near him the minister of state of Norway, and two of the
   members of the Norwegian council, when they shall be annually
   changed. These are charged with similar duties, and the same
   constitutional responsibility attaches to them as to the
   sitting council in Norway; and it is only in their presence
   that state affairs shall be decided by the king. All petitions
   addressed to the king by Norwegian citizens ought, first, to
   be transmitted to the Norwegian council, that they may be duly
   considered previously to decisions being pronounced. In
   general, no affairs ought to be decided before the council has
   expressed an opinion, in case it should be met with important
   objections. The minister of state of Norway ought to report
   the affairs, and he shall be responsible for expedition in the
   resolutions which shall have been taken.

Article 14.
   The king shall regulate public worship and its rites, as well
   as all assemblies that have religion for their object, so that
   ministers of religion may observe their forms prescribed to
   them.

{569}

Article 15.
   The king can give and abolish ordinances which respect
   commerce, the custom-house, manufactures, and police. They
   shall not, however, be contrary to the constitution nor the
   laws adopted by the Storthing. They shall have provisional
   force until the next Storthing.

Article 16.
   The king shall in general regulate the taxes imposed by the
   Storthing. The public treasurer of Norway shall remain in
   Norway, and the revenues shall only be employed towards the
   expenses of Norway.

Article 17.
   The king shall superintend the manner in which the domains and
   crown property of the state are employed and governed, in the
   manner fixed by the Storthing, and which shall be most
   advantageous to the country.

Article 18.
   The king in council has the right to pardon criminals when the
   supreme tribunal has pronounced its opinion. The criminal has
   the choice of receiving pardon from the king or of submitting
   to the punishment to which he is condemned. In the causes
   which the Odelsthing would have ordered to be carried to the
   Rigsret, there can be no other pardon but that which shall
   liberate from a capital punishment.

Article 19.
   The king, after having heard his Norwegian council, shall
   dispose of all the civil, ecclesiastic, and military
   employments. Those who assist in the functions shall swear
   obedience and fidelity to the constitution and to the king.
   The princes of the royal family cannot be invested with any
   civil employment; yet the prince royal, or his eldest son, may
   be nominated viceroy.

Article 20.
   The governor of the kingdom, the minister of state, other
   members of council, and those employed in the functions
   connected with these offices, the envoys and consuls, superior
   magistrates, civil and ecclesiastic commanders of regiments,
   and other military bodies, governors of fortresses, and
   commanders-in-chief of ships of war, shall, without previous
   arrest, be deposed by the king and his Norwegian council. As
   to the pension to be granted to those employed they shall be
   decided by the first Storthing. In the mean time, they shall
   enjoy two-third parts of their former salary. The others
   employed can only be suspended by the king, and they shall
   afterwards be brought before the tribunals, but cannot be
   deposed excepting by order of an arrest, and the king cannot
   make them change their situations contrary to their will.

Article 21.
   The king can confer orders of knighthood on whomsoever he
   chooses, in reward of distinguished services, which shall be
   published; but he can confer no other rank, with the title,
   than that which is attached to every employment. An order of
   knighthood does not liberate the person on whom it is
   conferred from those duties common to all citizens, and
   particular titles are not conferred in order to obtain
   situations in the state. Such persons shall preserve the title
   and rank attached to those situations which they have
   occupied. No person can, for the future, obtain personal,
   mixed, or hereditary privileges.

Article 22.
   The king elects and dismisses, whenever he thinks proper, all
   the officers attached to his court.

Article 23.
   The king is commander-in-chief of all the forces, by sea and
   land, in the kingdom, and these cannot be increased or
   diminished without the consent of the Storthing. They will not
   be ceded to the service of any foreign power, and troops
   belonging to a foreign power (except auxiliary troops in case
   of a hostile invasion,) cannot enter the country without the
   consent of the Storthing. During peace, the Norwegian troops
   shall be stationed in Norway, and not in Sweden.
   Notwithstanding this the king may have in Sweden a Norwegian
   guard, composed of volunteers, and may for a short time, not
   exceeding six weeks in a year, assemble troops in the environs
   of the two countries, for exercising; but in case there are
   more than 3,000 men, composing the army of one of the two
   countries, they cannot in time of peace enter the other.

      [Footnote: The law of the Storthing, 5th July 1816, bears,
      that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the frontiers
      of the kingdom, and the interpretation given by it to that law
      is, that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the
      frontiers of the two kingdoms.]

   The Norwegian army and gun-boats shall not be employed without
   the consent of the Storthing. The Norwegian fleet shall have
   dry docks, and during peace its stations and harbours in
   Norway. Ships of war of both countries shall be supplied with
   the seamen of the other, so long as they shall voluntarily
   engage to serve. The landwehr, and other Norwegian forces,
   which are not calculated among the number of troops, of the
   line, shall never be employed beyond the frontiers of the
   kingdom of Norway.

Article 24.
   The king has the right of assembling troops, commencing war,
   making peace, concluding and dissolving treaties, sending
   ministers to, and receiving those of, foreign courts. When he
   begins war he ought to advise the council of Norway, consult
   it, and order it to prepare an address on the state of the
   kingdom, relative to its finances, and proper means of
   defence. On this the king shall convoke the minister of state
   of Norway, and those of the council of Sweden, at an
   extraordinary assembly, when he shall explain all those
   relative circumstances that ought to be taken into
   consideration; with a representation of the Norwegian council,
   and a similar one on the part of Sweden, upon the state of the
   kingdom, shall then be presented. The king shall then require
   advice upon these objects; and each shall be inserted in a
   register, under the responsibility imposed by the
   constitution, when the king shall then adopt that resolution
   which he judges most, proper for the benefit of the state.

Article 25.
   On this occasion all the members of council must be present,
   if not prevented by some lawful cause, and no resolution ought
   to be adopted unless one half of the members are present. In
   Norwegian affairs, which, according to the fifteenth article,
   are decided in Sweden, no resolution shall be taken unless the
   minister of state of Norway and one of the members of council,
   or two members, are present.

Article 26.
   The representations respecting employments, and other
   important acts, excepting those of a diplomatic and military
   nature, properly so called, shall be referred to the council
   by him who is one of the members in the department charged
   with it, who shall accordingly draw up the resolution adopted
   in council.

Article 27.
   If any member of council is prevented from appearing, and
   referring the affairs which belong to his peculiar department,
   he shall be replaced in this office by one of the others
   appointed to this purpose, either by the king, if personally
   present, and if not, by him who has precedence in the council,
   jointly with the other members composing it. Should several of
   these be prevented from appearing, so that only one half of
   the ordinary number is present, the other employed in the
   offices shall in like manner have right to sit in council; and
   in that event it shall be afterwards referred to the king, who
   decides if they ought to continue to exercise this office.

{570}

Article 28.
   The council shall keep a register of all affairs that may come
   under its consideration. Every individual who sits in it shall
   be at liberty to give his opinion freely, which the king is
   obliged to hear; but it is reserved to his majesty to adopt
   resolutions after he has consulted his own mind. If a member
   of council finds that the king's resolution is contrary to the
   form of government, the laws of the kingdom, or injurious to
   the state, he shall consider it his duty to oppose it, and
   record his opinion in the register accordingly; but he who
   remains silent shall be presumed to have agreed with the king,
   and shall be responsible for it, even in the case of being
   referred to at a future period; and the Odelsthing is
   empowered to bring him before the Rigsret.

Article 29.
   All the orders issued by the king (military affairs excepted)
   shall be countersigned by the Norwegian minister of state.

Article 30.
   Resolutions made in absence of the king, by the council in
   Norway, shall be publicly proclaimed and signed by the
   viceroy, or the governor and council, and countersigned by him
   who shall have referred them, and he is further responsible
   for the accuracy and dispatch with the register in which the
   resolution is entered.

Article 31.
   All representations relative to the affairs of this country,
   as well as writings concerning them, must be in the Norwegian
   language.

Article 32.
   The heir-apparent to the throne, if a son of the reigning
   king, shall have the title of prince royal, the other
   legitimate heirs to the crown shall be culled princes, and the
   king's daughters princesses.

Article 33.
   As soon as the heir shall have attained the age of eighteen,
   he shall have a right to sit in council, without, however,
   having a vote, or any responsibility.

Article 34.
   No prince of the blood shall marry without permission of the
   king, and in case of contravention, he shall forfeit his right
   to the crown of Norway.

Article 35.
   The princes and princesses of the royal family, shall not, so
   far as respects their persons, be bound to appear before other
   judges, but before the king or whomsoever he shall have
   appointed for that purpose.

Article 36.
   The minister of state of Norway, as well as the two members of
   council who are near the king, shall have a seat and
   deliberative voice in the Swedish council, where objects
   relative to the two kingdoms shall be treated of. In affairs
   of this nature the advice of the council ought also to be
   understood, unless these require quick dispatch, so as not to
   allow time.

Article 37.
   If the king happens to die, and the heir to the throne is
   under age, the council of Norway, and that of Sweden, shall
   assemble, and mutually call a convocation of the Storthing in
   Norway and Diet of Sweden.

Article 38.
   Although the representatives of the two kingdoms should have
   assembled, and regulated the administration during the king's
   minority, a council composed of an equal number of Norwegian
   and Swedish members shall govern the kingdoms, and follow
   their fundamental reciprocal laws. The minister of state of
   Norway who sits in this council, shall draw by ballot in order
   to decide on which of its members the preference shall happen
   to fall.

Article 39.
   The regulations contained in the two last articles shall be
   always equally adopted after the constitution of Sweden. It
   belongs to the Swedish council, in this quality, to be at the
   head of government.

Article 40.
   With respect to more particular and necessary affairs that
   might occur in cases under the three former articles, the king
   shall propose to the first Storthing in Norway, and at the
   first Diet in Sweden, a law having for its basis the principle
   of a perfect equality existing between the two kingdoms.

Article 41.
   The election of guardians to be at the head of government
   during the king's minority, shall be made after the same rules
   and manner formerly prescribed in the second title, Article
   5th, concerning the election of an heir to the throne.

Article 42.
   The individuals who in the cases under the 38th and 39th
   articles, are at the head of government, shall be, the
   Norwegians at the Storthing of Norway, and shall take the
   following oath: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern
   the kingdom conformably to its constitution and laws;" and the
   Swedes shall also make a similar oath. If there is not a
   Storthing or Diet, it shall be deposited in writing in the
   council, and afterwards repeated at the first of these when
   they happen to assemble.

Article 43.
   As soon as the governments have ceased, they shall be restored
   to the king, and the Storthing.

Article 44.
   If the Storthing is not convoked, agreeably to what is
   expressed in the 38th and 39th articles, the supreme tribunal
   shall consider it as an imperious duty, at the expiration of
   four weeks, to call a meeting.

Article 45.
   The charge of the education of the king, in case his father
   may not have left in writing instructions regarding it, shall
   be regulated in the manner laid down under the 5th and 41st
   articles. It is held to be an invariable rule, that the king
   during his minority shall learn the Norwegian language.

Article 46.
   If the masculine line of the royal family is extinct, and
   there has not been elected a successor to the throne, the
   election of a new dynasty shall be proceeded in, and after the
   manner prescribed under the 5th article. In the mean time the
   executive power shall be exercised agreeably to the 41st
   article.


Title III.

Article 1.
   Legislative power is exercised by the Storthing, which is
   constituted of two houses, namely, the Lagthing and
   Odelsthing.

Article 2.
   None shall have a right to vote but Norwegians, who have
   attained twenty·five years, and resided in the country during
   five years.
   1. Those who are exercising, or who have exercised functions.
   2. Possess land in the country, which has been let for more
   than five years.
   3. Are burgesses of some city, or possess either in it, or
   some village, a house, or property of the value of at least
   three hundred bank crowns in silver.

{571}

Article 3.
   There shall be drawn up in cities by the magistrates, and in
   every parish by the public authority and the priest, a
   register of all the inhabitants who are voters. They shall
   also note in it without delay, those changes which may
   successively take place. Before being inscribed in the
   register, everyone shall take an oath, before the tribunal, of
   fidelity to the constitution.

   4. Right of voting is suspended in the following cases:

      1. By the accusation of crime before a tribunal;
      2. By not attaining the proper age;
      3. By insolvency or bankruptcy, until creditors have
      obtained their payment in whole, unless it can be proved
      that the former has arisen from fire, or other unforeseen
      events.

   5. The right of voting is forfeited definitively:

      1. By condemnation to the house of correction, slavery, or
      punishment for defamatory language;
      2. By acceptance of the service of a foreign power, without
      the consent of government.
      3. By obtaining the right of citizen in a foreign country.
      4. By conviction of having purchased and sold votes, and
      having voted in more than one electoral assembly.

   6. The electoral assemblies and districts are held every three
   years, and shall finish before the end of the month of
   December.

   7. Electoral assemblies shall be held for the country, at the
   manor-house of the parish, the church, town-hall, or some
   other fit place. In the country they shall be directed by the
   first minister and assistants; and in towns, by magistrates
   and sheriffs; election shall be made in the order appointed by
   the registers. Disputes concerning the right of voting shall
   be decided by the directors of the assembly, from whose
   judgment an appeal may be made to the Storthing.

   8. Before proceeding to the election, the constitution shall
   be read with a loud voice in the cities, by the first
   magistrate, and in the country by the curate.

   9. In cities, an elector shall be chosen by fifty eligible
   inhabitants. They shall assemble eight days after, in the
   place appointed by the magistrate, and choose, either from
   amongst themselves, or from others who are eligible in the
   department of their election, a fourth of their number to sit
   at the Storthing, that is after the manner of three to six in
   choosing one; seven to ten in electing two; eleven to fourteen
   in choosing three, and fifteen to eighteen in electing four;
   which is the greatest number permitted to a city to send. If
   these consist of less than 150 eligible inhabitants, they
   shall send the electors to the nearest city, to vote
   conjointly with the electors of the former, when the two shall
   only be considered as forming one district.

      [Footnote: A law passed 8th February 1816, contains this
      amendment. Twenty-five electors and more shall not elect
      more than three representatives, which shall be, ad
      interim, the greatest number which the bailiwick can send:
      and, consequently, out of which the number of
      representatives in the county, which are sixty-one, shall
      be diminished from fifty to fifty-three.]

   10. In each parish in the country the eligible inhabitants
   shall choose in proportion to their number electors in the
   following manner; that is to say, a hundred may choose one;
   two to three hundred, three; and so on in the same proportion.

      [Footnote: If future Storthings discover the number of
      representatives of towns from an increase of population
      should amount to thirty, the same Storthing shall have
      right to augment of new the number of representatives of
      the country, in the manner fixed by the principles of the
      constitution, which shall be held as a rule in future.]

   Electors shall assemble a month after, in the place appointed
   by the bailiff, and choose, either from amongst themselves or
   the others of the bailiwick eligible, a tenth of their own
   number to sit at the Storthing, so that five to fourteen may
   choose one; fifteen to twenty-four may choose two of them;
   twenty-five to thirty-four, three; thirty-five and beyond it,
   four. This is the greatest number.

   11. The powers contained in the 9th and 10th articles shall
   have their proper force and effect until next Storthing. If it
   is found that the representatives of cities constitute more or
   less than one-third of those of the kingdom, the Storthing, as
   a rule for the future, shall have right to change these powers
   in such a manner that representatives of the cities may join
   with those of the country, as one to two; and the total number
   of representatives ought not to be under seventy-five, nor
   above one hundred.

   12. Those eligible, who are in the country, and are prevented
   from attending by sickness, military service, or other proper
   reasons, can transmit their votes in writing to those who
   direct the electoral assemblies, before their termination.

   13. No person can be chosen a representative, unless he is
   thirty years of age, and has resided ten years in the country.

   14. The members of council, those employed in their offices,
   officers of the court, and its pensioners, shall not be chosen
   as representatives.

   15. Individuals chosen to be representatives, are obliged to
   accept of the election, unless prevented by motives considered
   lawful by the electors, whose judgment may be submitted to the
   decision of the Storthing. A person who has appeared more than
   once as representative at an ordinary Storthing, is not
   obliged to accept of the election for the next ordinary
   Storthing. If legal reasons prevent a representative from
   appearing at the Storthing, the person who after him has most
   votes shall take his place.

   16. As soon as representatives have been elected, they shall
   receive a writing in the country from the superior magistrate,
   and in the cities from the magistrate, also from all the
   electors, as a proof that they have been elected in the manner
   prescribed by the constitution. The Storthing shall judge of
   the legality of this authority.

   17. All representatives have a right to claim an
   indemnification in travelling to and returning from the
   Storthing; as well as subsistence during the period they shall
   have remained there.

   18. During the journey, and return of representatives, as well
   as the time they may have attended the Storthing, they are
   exempted from arrest; unless they are seized in some flagrant
   and public act, and out of the Storthing they shall not be
   responsible for the opinions they may have declared in it.
   Everyone is bound to conform himself to the order established
   in it.

   19. Representatives, chosen in the manner above declared,
   compose the Storthing of the kingdom of Norway.

   20. The opening of the Storthing shall be made the first
   lawful day in the month of February, every three years, in the
   capital of the kingdom, unless the king, in extraordinary
   circumstances, by foreign invasion or contagious disease,
   fixes on some other city of the kingdom. Such change ought
   then to be early announced.

   21. In extraordinary cases, the king has the right of
   assembling the Storthing, without respect to the ordinary
   time. The king will then cause to be issued a proclamation,
   which is to be read in all the principal churches six weeks at
   least previous to the day fixed for the assembling of members
   of the Storthing at the place appointed.

{572}

   22. Such extraordinary Storthing may be dissolved by the king
   when he shall judge fit.

   23. Members of the Storthing shall continue in the exercise of
   their office during three consecutive years, as much during an
   extraordinary as any ordinary Storthing that might be held
   during this time.

   24. If an extraordinary Storthing is held at a time when the
   ordinary Storthing ought to assemble, the functions of the
   first will cease, as soon as the second shall have met.

   25. The extraordinary Storthing, no more than the ordinary,
   can be held if two-thirds of the members do not happen to be
   present.

   26. As soon as the Storthing shall be organized, the king, or
   the person who shall be appointed by him for that purpose,
   shall open it by an address, in which he is to describe the
   state of the kingdom, and those objects to which he directs
   the attention of the Storthing. No deliberation ought to take
   place in the king's presence. The Storthing shall choose from
   its members one-fourth part to form the Lagthing, and the
   other three-fourths to constitute the Odelsthing. Each of
   these houses shall have its private meetings, and nominate its
   president and secretary.

   27. It belongs to the Storthing,

      1. To make and abolish laws, establish imposts, taxes,
      custom-houses, and other public acts, which shall, however,
      only exist until the 1st of July of that year, when a new
      Storthing shall be assembled, unless this last is expressly
      renewed by them.

      2. To make loans, by means of the credit of the state.

      3. To watch over the finances of the state.

      4. To grant sums necessary for its expenses.

      5. To fix the yearly grant for the maintenance of the king
      and viceroy, and also appendages of the royal family; which
      ought not, however, to consist in landed property.

      6. To exhibit the register of the sitting council in
      Norway, and all the reports, and public documents (the
      affairs of military command excepted), and certified
      copies, or extracts of the registers kept by the ministers
      of state and members of council near the king, or the
      public documents, which shall have been produced.

      7. To communicate whatever treaties the king shall have
      concluded in the name of the state with foreign powers,
      excepting secret articles, provided these are not in
      contradiction with the public articles.

      8. To require all individuals to appear before the
      Storthing on affairs of state, the king and royal family
      excepted. This is not, however, applicable to the princes
      of the royal family, as they are invested with other
      offices than that of viceroy.

      9. To examine the lists of provisional pensions; and to
      make such alterations as shall be judged necessary.

      10. To name five revisers, who are annually to examine the
      accounts of the state, and publish printed extracts of
      these, which are to be remitted to the revisers also every
      year before the 1st of July. 11. To naturalize foreigners.

   28. Laws ought first to be proposed to the Odelsthing, either
   by its own members or the government, through one of the
   members of council. If the proposition is accepted, it shall
   be sent to the Lagthing, who approve or reject it; and in the
   last case return it accompanied with remarks. These shall be
   weighed by the Odelsthing, which sets the proposed law aside,
   or remits it to the Lagthing, with or without alterations.
   When a law shall have been twice proposed by the Odelsthing to
   the Lagthing, and the latter shall have rejected it a second
   time, the Storthing shall assemble, when two-thirds of the
   votes shall decide upon it. Three days at least ought to pass
   between each of those deliberations.

   29. When a resolution proposed by the Odelsthing shall be
   approved by the Lagthing, or by the Storthing alone, a
   deputation of these two houses to the Storthing shall present
   it to the king if he is present, and if not, to the viceroy,
   or Norwegian council, and require it may receive the royal
   sanction.

   30. Should the king approve of the resolution, he subscribes
   to it, and from that period it is declared to pass into a
   public law. If he disapproves he returns it to the Odelsthing,
   declaring that at this time he does not give it his sanction.

   31. In this event, the Storthing, then assembled, ought to
   submit the resolution to the king, who may proceed in it in
   the same manner if the first ordinary Storthing presents again
   to him the same resolution. But if, after reconsideration, it
   is still adopted by the two houses of the third ordinary
   Storthing, and afterwards submitted to the king, who shall
   have been intreated not to withhold his sanction to a
   resolution that the Storthing, after the most mature
   deliberations, believes to be useful; it shall acquire the
   strength of a law, even should it not receive the king's
   signature before the closing of the Storthing.

   32. The Storthing shall sit as long as it shall be judged
   necessary, but not beyond three months, without the king's
   permission. When the business is finished, or after it has
   assembled for the time fixed, it is dissolved by the king. His
   Majesty gives, at the same time, his sanction to the decrees
   not already decided, either in corroborating or rejecting
   them. All those not expressly sanctioned are held to be
   rejected by him.

   33. Laws are to be drawn up in the Norwegian language, and
   (those mentioned in 31st article excepted) in name of the
   king, under the seal of the kingdom, and in these terms:—"We,
   &c. Be it known, that there has been submitted to us a decree
   of the Storthing (of such a date) thus expressed (follows the
   resolution); We have accepted and sanctioned as law the said
   decree, in giving it our signature, and seal of the kingdom."

   34. The king's sanction is not necessary to the resolutions of
   the Storthing, by which the legislative body,

      1. Declares itself organized as the Storthing, according to
      the constitution.

      2. Regulates its internal police.

      3. Accepts or rejects writs of present members.

      4. Confirms or rejects judgments relative to disputes
      respecting elections.

      5. Naturalizes foreigners.

      6. And in short, the resolution by which the Odelsthing
      orders some member of council to appear before the
      tribunals.

   35. The Storthing can demand the advice of the supreme
   tribunal in judicial matters.

   36. The Storthing will hold its sittings with open doors, and
   its acts shall be printed and published, excepting in cases
   where a contrary measure shall have been decided by the
   plurality of votes.

   37. Whoever molests the liberty and safety of the Storthing,
   renders himself guilty of an act of high treason towards the
   country.

{573}

Title IV.

Article 1.
   The members of the Lagthing and supreme tribunal composing the
   Rigsret, judge in the first and last instance of the affairs
   entered upon by the Odelsthing, either against the members of
   council or supreme tribunal for crimes committed in the
   exercise of their offices, or against the members of Storthing
   for acts committed by them in a similar capacity. The
   president of the Lagthing has the precedence in the Rigsret.

   2. The accused can, without declaring his motive for so doing,
   refuse, even a third part of the members of the Rigsret,
   provided, however, that the number of persons who compose this
   tribunal be not reduced to less than fifteen.

   3. The supreme tribunal shall judge in the last instance, and
   ought not to be composed of a lesser number than the resident
   and six assessors.

   4. In time of peace the supreme tribunal, with two superior
   officers appointed by the king, constitutes a tribunal of the
   second and last resort in all military affairs which respect
   life, honour, and loss of liberty for a time beyond the space
   of three months.

   5. The arrests of the supreme tribunal shall not in any case
   be called upon to be submitted to revisal.

   6. No person shall be named member of the supreme tribunal, if
   he has not attained at least thirty years of age.


Title V.

Article 1.
   Employments in the states shall be conferred only on Norwegian
   citizens, who profess the Evangelical Lutheran religion—have
   sworn fidelity to the constitution and king, speak the
   language of the country, and are,—

      1. Either born in the kingdom of parents who were then
      subjects of the state.

      2. Or born in a foreign country, their father and mother
      being Norwegians, and at that period not the subjects of
      another state.

      3. Or, who on the 17th May, 1814, had a permanent residence
      in the kingdom, and did not refuse to take an oath to
      maintain the independence of Norway.

      4. Or who in future shall remain ten years in the kingdom.

      5. Or who have been naturalized by the Storthing.
      Foreigners, however, may be nominated to these official
      situations in the university and colleges, as well as to
      those of physicians, and consuls in a foreign country. In
      order to succeed to an office in the superior tribunal, the
      person must be thirty years old; and to fill a place in the
      inferior magistracy,—a judge of the tribunal of first
      instance, or a public receiver, he must be twenty-five.

      2. Norway does not acknowledge herself owing any other debt
      than that of her own.

      3. A new general code, of a civil and criminal nature,
      shall first be published; or, if that is impracticable, at
      the second ordinary Storthing. Meantime, the laws of the
      state, as at present existing, shall preserve their effect,
      since they are not contrary to this fundamental law, or
      provisional ordinances published in the interval. Permanent
      taxes shall continue to be levied until next Storthing.

   4. No protecting dispensation, letter of respite, or
   restitutions, shall be granted after the new general code
   shall be published.

   5. No persons can be judged but in conformity to the law, or
   be punished until a tribunal shall have taken cognizance of
   the charges directed against them. Torture shall never take
   place.

   6. Laws shall have no retro-active effect.

   7. Fees due to officers of justice are not to be combined with
   rents payable to the public treasury.

   8. Arrest ought not to take place excepting in cases and in
   the manner fixed by law. Illegal arrests, and unlawful delays,
   render him who occasions them responsible to the person
   arrested. Government is not authorized to employ military
   force against the members of the state, but under the forms
   prescribed by the laws, unless an assembly which disturbs the
   public tranquillity does not instantly disperse after the
   articles of the code concerning sedition shall have been read
   aloud three times by the civil authorities.

   9. The liberty of the press shall be established. No person
   can be punished for a writing he has ordered to be printed or
   published, whatever may be the contents of it, unless he has,
   by himself or others, wilfully declared, or prompted others
   to, disobedience of the laws, contempt for religion, and
   constitutional powers, and resistance to their operations; or
   has advanced false and defamatory accusations against others.
   It is permitted to everyone to speak freely his opinion on the
   administration of the state, or on any other object whatever.

   10. New and permanent restrictions on the freedom of industry
   are not to be granted in future to anyone.

   11. Domiciliary visits are prohibited, excepting in the cases
   of criminals.

   12. Refuge will not be granted to those who shall be
   bankrupts.

   13. No person can in any case forfeit his landed property, and
   fortune.

   14. If the interest of the state requires that anyone should
   sacrifice his moveable or immovable property for the public
   benefit, he shall be fully indemnified by the public treasury.

   15. The capital, as well as the revenues of the domains of the
   church, can be applied only for the interests of the clergy,
   and the prosperity of public instruction. The property of
   benevolent institutions shall be employed only for their
   profit.

   16. The right of the power of redemption called Odelsret*, and
   that of possession, called Afædesret (father's right), shall
   exist. Particular regulations, which will render these of
   utility to the states and agriculture, shall be determined by
   the first or second Storthing.

      [Footnote: In virtue of the right of "Odelsret," members
      of a family to whom certain lands originally pertained, can
      reclaim and retake possession of the same, even after the lapse
      of centuries, provided these lands are representative of
      the title of the family; that is, if for every ten years
      successively they shall have judicially made reservation of
      their right. This custom, injurious perhaps to the progress of
      agriculture, does, however, attach the peasants to their
      native soil.]

   17. No county, barony, majorat or "fidei commis"  shall be
   created for the future.

      [Footnote: "fidei commis"—Entail.]

   18. Every citizen of the state, without regard to birth or
   fortune, shall be equally obliged, during a particular period,
   to defend his country. [Footnote:  Every person is obliged to
   serve from twenty-one to twenty-three, and not after.] The
   application of this principle and its restrictions, as well as
   the question of ascertaining to what point it is of benefit to
   the country, that this obligation should cease at the age of
   twenty-five,—shall be abandoned to the decision of the first
   ordinary Storthing, after they shall have been discharged by a
   committee; in the meantime, vigorous efforts shall preserve
   their effect.

{574}

   19. Norway shall retain her own language, her own finances and
   coin: institutions which shall be determined upon by laws.

   20. Norway has the right of having her own flag of trade and
   war, which shall be an union flag.

   21. If experience should show the necessity of changing some
   part of this fundamental law, a proposition to this purpose
   shall be made to an ordinary Storthing, published and printed;
   and it only pertains to the next ordinary Storthing to decide
   if the change proposed ought to be effectual or not. Such
   alteration, however, ought never to be contrary to the
   principles of this fundamental law; and should only have for
   its object those modifications in which particular regulations
   do not alter the spirit of the constitution. Two-thirds of the
   Storthing ought to agree upon such a change.

   Christiana, 4th November, 1814.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

----------CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY
   (Compact of the Pilgrim Fathers).

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

CONSTITUTION OF POLAND (The old).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1573, and 1578-1652.

CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: (of 1891).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

----------CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.

   The following text of the Constitution granted by Frederick
   William, King of Prussia, on the 31st of January, 1850, with
   subsequent alterations, is a translation made by Mr. Charles
   Lowe, and published in the appendix to his Life of Prince
   Bismarck, 1885.

   We, Frederick William, &c., hereby proclaim and give to know
   that, whereas the Constitution of the Prussian State,
   promulgated by us on the 5th December, 1848, subject to
   revision in the ordinary course of legislation, and recognised
   by both Chambers of our Kingdom, has been submitted to the
   prescribed revision; we have finally established that
   Constitution in agreement with both Chambers. Now, therefore,
   we promulgate, as a fundamental law of the State, as
   follows:—

Article 1.
   All parts of the Monarchy in its present extent form the
   Prussian State Territory.

Article 2.
   The limits of this State Territory can only be altered by law.

Article 3.
   The Constitution and the laws determine under what conditions
   the quality and civil rights of a Prussian may be acquired,
   exercised, and forfeited.

Article 4.
   All Prussians are equal before the law. Class privileges there
   are none. Public offices, subject to the conditions imposed by
   law, are equally accessible to all who are competent to hold
   them.

Article 5.
   Personal freedom is guaranteed. The forms and conditions under
   which any limitation thereof, especially arrest, is
   permissible, will be determined by law.

Article 6.
   The domicile is inviolable. Intrusion and search therein, as
   well as the seizing of letters and papers, are only allowed in
   legally settled cases.

Article 7.
   No one may be deprived of his lawful judge. Exceptional
   tribunals and extraordinary commissions are inadmissible.

Article 8.
   Punishments can only be threatened or inflicted according to
   the law.

Article 9.
   Property is inviolable. It can only be taken or curtailed from
   reasons of public weal and expediency, and in return for
   statutory compensation which, in urgent cases at least, shall
   be fixed beforehand.

Article 10.
   Civil death and confiscation of property, as punishments, are
   not possible.

Article 11.
   Freedom of emigration can only be limited by the State, with
   reference to military service. Migration fees may not be
   levied.

Article 12.
   Freedom of religious confession, of meeting in religious
   societies (Art. 30 and 31), and of the common exercise of
   religion in private and public, is guaranteed. The enjoyment
   of civil and political rights is independent of religious
   belief, yet the duties of a citizen or a subject may not be
   impaired by the exercise of religious liberty.

Article 13.
   Religious and clerical societies, which have no corporate
   rights, can only acquire those rights by special laws.

Article 14.
   The Christian religion is taken as the basis of those State
   institutions which are connected with the exercise of
   religion—all religious liberty guaranteed by Art. 12
   notwithstanding.

Article 15.
   [Footnote: Affected by the Falk laws of 1875, and by
   the act of 1887 which repealed them.
   See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.]

   The Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as every
   other religious society, regulate and administer their own
   affairs in an independent manner, and remain in possession and
   enjoyment of the institutions, foundations, and moneys
   intended for their purposes of public worship, education, and
   charity.

Article 16.
   [Footnote: See Article 15.]

   Intercourse between religious societies and their superiors
   shall be unobstructed. The making public of Church ordinances
   is only subject to those restrictions imposed on all other
   publications.

Article 17.
   A special law will be passed with respect to Church patronage,
   and to the conditions on which it may be abolished.

Article 18.
   [Footnote:  See Article 15.]

   Abolished is the right of nominating, proposing, electing, and
   confirming, in the matter of appointments to ecclesiastical
   posts, in so far as it belongs to the State, and is not based
   on patronage or special legal titles.

Article 19.
   Civil marriage will be introduced in accordance with a special
   law, which shall also regulate the keeping of a civil
   register.

Article 20.
   Science and its doctrines are free.

Article 21.
   The education of youth shall be sufficiently cared for by
   public schools. Parents and their substitutes may not leave
   their children or wards without that education prescribed for
   the public folk-schools.

{585}

Article 22.
   Every one shall be at liberty to give instruction, and
   establish institutions for doing so, providing he shall have
   given proof of his moral, scientific, and technical capacity
   to the State authorities concerned.

Article 23.
   All public and private institutions of an educational kind are
   under the supervision of authorities appointed by the State.
   Public teachers have the rights and duties of State servants.

Article 24.
   [Footnote: We cannot translate "Volkschule" better
   than by "folk-school."]

   In the establishment of public folk-schools, confessional
   differences shall receive the greatest possible consideration.
   Religious instruction in the folk-schools will be
   superintended by the religious societies concerned. Charge of
   the other (external) affairs of the folk-schools belongs to
   the Parish (Commune). With the statutory co-operation of the
   Commune, the State shall appoint teachers in the public
   folk-schools from the number of those qualified (for such
   posts).

Article 25.
   The means for establishing, maintaining, and enlarging the
   public folk-schools shall be provided by the Communes, which
   may, however, be assisted by the State in proven cases of
   parochial inability. The obligations of third persons—based
   on special legal titles—remain in force. The State,
   therefore, guarantees to teachers in folk-schools a steady
   income suitable to local circumstances. In public folk-schools
   education shall be imparted free of charge.

Article 26.
   A special law will regulate all matters of education.

Article 27.
   Every Prussian is entitled to express his opinion freely by
   word, writing, print, or artistic representation. Censorship
   may not be introduced; every other restriction on freedom of
   the Press will only be imposed by law.

Article 28.
   Offences committed by word, writing, print, or artistic
   representation will be punished in accordance with the general
   penal code.

Article 29.
   All Prussians are entitled to meet in closed rooms, peacefully
   and unarmed, without previous permission from the authorities.
   But this provision does not apply to open-air meetings, which
   are subject to the law with respect to previous permission
   from the authorities.

Article 30.
   All Prussians have the right to assemble (in societies) for
   such purposes as do not contravene the penal laws. The law
   will regulate, with special regard to the preservation of
   public security, the exercise of the right guaranteed by this
   and the preceding article.

Article 31.
   The law shall determine the conditions on which corporate
   rights may be granted or refused.

Article 32.
   The right of petitioning belongs to all Prussians. Petitions
   under a collective name are only permitted to authorities and
   corporations.

Article 33.
   The privacy of letters is inviolable. The necessary
   restrictions of this right, in cases of war and of criminal
   investigation, will be determined by law.

Article 34.
   All Prussians are bound to bear arms. The extent and manner of
   this duty will be fixed by law.

Article 35.
   The army comprises all sections of the standing army and the
   Landwehr (territorial forces). In the event of war, the King
   can call out the Landsturm in accordance with the law.

Article 36.
   The armed force (of the nation) can only be employed for the
   suppression of internal troubles, and the execution of the
   laws, in the cases and manner specified by statute, and on the
   requisition of the civil authorities. In the latter respect
   exceptions will have to be determined by law.

Article 37.
   The military judiciary of the army is restricted to penal
   matters, and will be regulated by law. Provisions with regard
   to military discipline will remain the subject of special
   ordinances.

Article 38.
   The armed force (of the nation) may not deliberate either when
   on or off duty; nor may it otherwise assemble than when
   commanded to do so. Assemblies and meetings of the Landwehr
   for the purpose of discussing military institutions, commands
   and ordinances, are forbidden even when it is not called out.

Article 39.
   The provisions of Arts. 5, 6, 29, 30, and 32 will only apply
   to the army in so far as they do not conflict with military
   laws and rules of discipline.

Article 40.
   The establishment of feudal tenures is forbidden. The Feudal
   Union still existing with respect to surviving fiefs shall be
   dissolved by law.

Article 41.
   The provisions of Art. 40 do not apply to Crown fiefs or to
   non-State fiefs.

Article 42.
   Abolished without compensation, in accordance with special
   laws passed, are:

   1. The exercise or transfer of judicial power connected with
   the possession of certain lands, together with the dues and
   exemptions accruing from this right;

   2. The obligations arising from patriarchal jurisdiction,
   vassalage, and former tax and trading institutions. And with
   these rights are also abolished the counter-services and
   burdens hitherto therewith connected.

Article 43.
   The person of the King is inviolable.

Article 44.
   The King's Ministers are responsible. All Government acts
   (documentary) of the King require for their validity the
   approval of a Minister, who thereby assumes responsibility for
   them.

Article 45.
   The King alone is invested with executive power. He appoints
   and dismisses Ministers. He orders the promulgation of laws,
   and issues the necessary ordinances for their execution.

Article 46.
   The King is Commander-in-Chief of the army.

Article 47.
   The King fills all posts in the army, as well as in other
   branches of the State service, in so far as not otherwise
   ordained by law.

Article 48.
   The King has the right to declare war and make peace, and to
   conclude other treaties with foreign governments. The latter
   require for their validity the assent of the Chambers in so
   far as they are commercial treaties, or impose burdens on the
   State, or obligations on its individual subjects.

Article 49.
   The King has the right to pardon, and to mitigate punishment.
   But in favour of a Minister condemned for his official acts,
   this right can only be exercised on the motion of that Chamber
   whence his indictment emanated. Only by special law can the
   King suppress inquiries already instituted.

{576}

Article 50.
   The King may confer orders and other distinctions, not
   carrying with them privileges. He exercises the right of
   coinage in accordance with the law.

Article 51.
   The King convokes the Chambers, and closes their sessions. He
   may dissolve both at once, or only one at a time. In such a
   case, however, the electors must be assembled within a period
   of 60 days, and the Chambers summoned within a period of 90
   days respectively after the dissolution.

Article 52.
   The King can adjourn the Chambers. But without their assent
   this adjournment may not exceed the space of 30 days, nor be
   repeated during the same session.

Article 53.
   The Crown, according to the laws of the Royal House, is
   hereditary in the male line of that House in accordance with
   the law of primogeniture and agnatic succession.

Article 54.
   The King attains his majority on completing his 18th year. In
   presence of the united Chambers he will take the oath to
   observe the Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and
   inviolably, and to rule in accordance with it and the laws.

Article 55.
   Without the consent of both Chambers the King cannot also be
   ruler of foreign realms (Reiche).

Article 56.
   If the King is a minor, or is otherwise lastingly prevented
   from ruling himself, the Regency will be undertaken by that
   agnate (Art. 53) who has attained his majority and stands
   nearest the Crown. He has immediately to convoke the Chambers,
   which, in united session, will decide as to the necessity of
   the Regency.

Article 57.
   If there be no agnate of age, and if no legal provision has
   previously been made for such a contingency, the Ministry of
   State will convoke the Chambers, which shall then elect a
   Regent in united session. And until the assumption of the
   Regency by him, the Ministry of State will conduct the
   Government.

Article 58.
   The Regent will exercise the powers invested in the King in
   the latter's name; and, after institution of the Regency, he
   will take an oath before the united Chambers to observe the
   Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and inviolably, and
   to rule in accordance with it and the laws. Until this oath is
   taken, the whole Ministry of State for the time being will
   remain responsible for all acts of the Government.

Article 59.
   To the Crown Trust Fund appertains the annuity drawn from the
   income of the forests and domains.

Article 60.
   The Ministers, as well as the State officials appointed to
   represent them, have access to each Chamber, and must at all
   times be listened to at request. Each Chamber can demand the
   presence of the Ministers. The Ministers are only entitled to
   vote in one or other of the Chambers when members of it.

Article 61.
   On the resolution of a Chamber the Ministers may be impeached
   for the crime of infringing the Constitution, of bribery, and
   of treason. The decision of such a case lies with the Supreme
   Tribunal of the Monarchy sitting in United Senates. As long as
   two Supreme Tribunals co-exist, they shall unite for the above
   purpose. Further details as to matters of responsibility,
   (criminal) procedure (thereupon), and punishments, are
   reserved for a special law.

Article 62.
   The legislative power will be exercised in common by the King
   and by two Chambers. Every law requires the assent of the King
   and the two Chambers. Money bills and budgets shall first be
   laid before the Second Chamber; and the latter (i. e.,
   budgets) shall either be wholly approved by the First Chamber,
   or rejected altogether.

Article 63.
   In the event only of its being urgently necessary to maintain
   public security, or deal with an unusual state of distress
   when the Chambers are not in session, ordinances, which do not
   contravene the Constitution, may be issued with the force of
   law, on the responsibility of the whole Ministry. But these
   must be laid for approval before the Chambers at their next
   meeting.

Article 64.
   The King, as well as each Chamber, has the right of proposing
   laws. Bills that have been rejected by one of the Chambers, or
   by the King, cannot be re-introduced in the same session.

Articles 65-68.
   The First Chamber is formed by royal ordinance, which can only
   be altered by a law to be issued with the approval of the
   Chambers. The First Chamber is composed of members appointed
   by the King, with hereditary rights, or only for life.

Article 69.
   The Second Chamber consists of 430 members. The electoral
   districts are determined by law. They may consist of one or
   more Circles (Arrondissements), or of one or more of the
   larger towns.

   [Footnote: Originally 350 only—a number which, in 1851, was
   increased by 2, for the Principality of Hohenzollern, and in
   1867 by 80 for the annexed provinces.]

Article 70.
   Every Prussian who has completed his 25th year (i. e.,
   attained his majority), and is capable of taking part in the
   elections of the Commune where he is domiciled, is entitled to
   act as a primary voter (Urwähler). Anyone who is entitled to
   take part in the election of several Communes, can only
   exercise his right as primary voter in one Commune.

Article 71.
   For every 250 souls of the population, one (secondary) elector
   (Wahlmann) shall be chosen. The primary voters fall into three
   classes, in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they
   pay—and in such a manner as that each class will represent a
   third of the sum-total of the taxes paid by the primary
   voters. This sum-total is reckoned:—

   (a) by Parishes, in case the Commune does not form of itself a
   primary electoral district.

   (b) by (Government) Districts (Bezirke), in case the primary
   electoral district consists of several Communes.

   The first class consists of those primary voters, highest in
   the scale of taxation, who pay a third of the total. The
   second class consists of those primary voters, next highest in
   the scale, whose taxes form a second third of the whole; and
   the third class is made up of the remaining tax-payers (lowest
   in the scale) who contribute the other third of the whole.
   Each class votes apart, and for a third of the secondary
   electors. These classes may be divided into several voting
   sections, none of which, however, must include more than 500
   primary voters. The secondary voters are elected in each class
   from the number of the primary voters in their district,
   without regard to the classes.

Article 72.
   The deputies are elected by the secondary voters. Details will
   be regulated by an electoral law, which must also make the
   necessary provision for those cities where flour and slaughter
   duties are levied instead of direct taxes.

{577}

Article 73.
   The legislative period of the Second Chamber is fixed at three
   years.

Article 74.
   Eligible as deputy to the Second Chamber is every Prussian who
   has completed his thirtieth year, has forfeited none of his
   civil rights in consequence of a valid judicial sentence, and
   has been a Prussian subject for three years. The president and
   members of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts cannot sit in
   either House of the Diet (Landtag).

Article 75.
   After the lapse of a legislative period the Chambers will be
   elected anew, and the same in the event of dissolution. In
   both cases, previous members are re-eligible.

Article 76.
   Both Houses of the Diet of the Monarchy shall be regularly
   convened by the King in the period from the beginning of
   November in each year till the middle of the following
   January, and otherwise as often as circumstances require.

Article 77.
   The Chambers will be opened and closed by the King in person,
   or by a Minister appointed by him to do so, at a combined
   sitting of the Chambers. Both Chambers shall be simultaneously
   convened, opened, adjourned, and closed. If one Chamber is
   dissolved, the other shall be at the same time prorogued.

Article 78.
   Each Chamber will examine the credentials of its members, and
   decide thereupon. It will regulate its own order of business
   and discipline by special ordinances, and elect its president,
   vice-presidents, and office-bearers. Civil servants require no
   leave of absence in order to enter the Chamber. If a member of
   the Chamber accepts a salaried office of the State, or is
   promoted in the service of the State to a post involving
   higher rank or increase of pay, he shall lose his seat and
   vote in the Chamber, and can only recover his place in it by
   re-election. No one can be member of both Chambers.

Article 79.
   The sittings of both Chambers are public. On the motion of its
   president, or of ten members, each Chamber may meet in private
   sitting—at which this motion will then have to be discussed.

Article 80.
   Neither of the Chambers can pass a resolution unless there be
   present a majority of the legal number of its members. Each
   Chamber passes its resolutions by absolute majority of votes,
   subject to any exceptions that may be determined by the order
   of business for elections.

Article 81.
   Each Chamber has the separate right of presenting addresses to
   the King. No one may in person present to the Chambers, or to
   one of them, a petition or address. Each Chamber can transmit
   the communications made to it to the Ministers, and demand of
   them an answer to any grievances thus conveyed.

Article 82.
   Each Chamber is entitled to appoint commissions of inquiry
   into facts—for its own information.

Article 83.
   The members of both Chambers are representatives of the whole
   people. They vote according to their simple convictions, and
   are not bound by commissions or instructions.

Article 84.
   For their votes in the Chamber they can never be called to
   account, and for the opinions they express therein they can
   only be called to account within the Chamber, in virtue of the
   order of business. No member of a Chamber can, without its
   assent, be had up for examination, or be arrested during the
   Parliamentary session for any penal offence, unless he be
   taken in the act, or in the course of the following day. A
   similar assent shall be necessary in the case of arrest for
   debts. All criminal proceedings against a member of the
   Chamber, and all arrests for preliminary examination, or civil
   arrest, shall be suspended during the Parliamentary session on
   demand from the Chamber concerned.

Article 85.
   The members of the Second Chamber shall receive out of the
   State Treasury travelling expenses and daily fees, according
   to a statutory scale; and renunciation thereof shall be
   inadmissible.

Article 86.
   The judicial power will be exercised in the name of the King,
   by independent tribunals subject to no other authority but
   that of the law. Judgment shall be executed in the name of the
   King.

Article 87.
   The judges will be appointed for life by the King, or in his
   name. They can only be removed or temporarily suspended from
   office by judicial sentence, and for reasons foreseen by the
   law. Temporary suspension from office (not ensuing on the
   strength of a law), and involuntary transfer to another place,
   or to the retired list, can only take place from the causes
   and in the form mentioned by law, and in virtue of a judicial
   sentence. But these provisions do not apply to cases of
   transfer, rendered necessary by changes in the organisation of
   the courts or their districts.

Article 88.
   (abolished).

Article 89.
   The organisation of the tribunals will only be determined by
   law.

Article 90.
   To the judicial office only those can be appointed who have
   qualified themselves for it as prescribed by law.

Article 91.
   Courts for special kinds of affairs, and, in particular,
   tribunals for trade and commerce, shall be established by
   statute in those places where local needs may require them.
   The organisation and jurisdiction of such courts, as well as
   their procedure and the appointment of their members, the
   special status of the latter, and the duration of their
   office, will be determined by law.

Article 92.
   In Prussia there shall only be one supreme tribunal.

Article 93.
   The proceedings of the civil and criminal courts shall be
   public. But the public may be excluded by an openly declared
   resolution of the court, when order or good morals may seem
   endangered (by their admittance). In other cases publicity of
   proceedings can only be limited by law.

Article 94.
   In criminal cases the guilt of the accused shall be determined
   by jurymen, in so far as exceptions are not determined by a
   law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers. The
   formation of a jury-court shall be regulated by a law.

Article 95.
   By a law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers,
   there may be established a special court whereof the
   jurisdiction shall include the crimes of high treason, as well
   as those crimes against the internal and external security of
   the State, which may be assigned to it by law.

Article 96.
   The competence of the courts and of the administrative
   authorities shall be determined by law. Conflicts of authority
   between the courts and the administrative authorities shall be
   settled by a tribunal appointed by law.

{578}

Article 97.
   A law shall determine the conditions on which public, civil,
   and military officials may be sued for wrongs committed by
   them in exceeding their functions. But the previous assent of
   official superiors need not be requested.

Article 98.
   The special legal status (Rechtsverhältnisse) of State
   officials (including advocates and solicitors) not belonging
   to the judicial class, shall be determined by a law, which,
   without restricting the Government in the choice of its
   executive agents, will grant civil servants proper protection
   against arbitrary dismissal from their posts or diminution of
   their pay.

Article 99.
   All income and expenditure of the State must be pre-estimated
   for every year, and be presented in the Budget, which shall be
   annually fixed by a law.

Article 100.
   Taxes and dues for the State Treasury may only be raised in so
   far as they shall have been included in the Budget or ordained
   by special laws.

Article 101.
   In the matter of taxes there must be no privilege of persons.
   Existing tax-laws shall be subjected to a revision, and all
   such privileges abolished.

Article 102.
   State and Communal officers can only levy dues on the strength
   of a law.

Article 103.
   The contracting of loans for the State Treasury can only be
   effected on the strength of a law; and the same holds good of
   guarantees involving a burden to the State.

Article 104.
   Budget transgressions require subsequent approval by the
   Chambers. The Budget will be examined and audited by the
   Supreme Chamber of Accounts. The general Budget accounts of
   every year, including tabular statistics of the National Debt,
   shall, with the comments of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts,
   be laid before the Chambers for the purpose of exonerating the
   Government. A special law will regulate the establishment and
   functions of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts.

Article 105.
   The representation and administration of the Communes,
   Arrondissements and Provinces of the Prussian State, will be
   determined in detail by special laws.

Article 106.
   Laws and ordinances become binding after having been published
   in the form prescribed by law. The examination of the validity
   of properly promulgated Royal ordinances is not within the
   competence of the authorities, but of the Chambers.

Article 107.
   The Constitution may be altered by ordinary legislative means;
   and such alteration shall merely require the usual absolute
   majority in both Chambers on two divisions (of the House),
   between which there must elapse a period of at least
   twenty-one days.

Article 108.
   The members of both Chambers, and all State officials, shall
   take the oath of fealty and obedience to the King, and swear
   conscientiously to observe the Constitution. The army will not
   take the oath to the Constitution.

Article 109.
   Existing taxes and dues will continue to be raised; and all
   provisions of existing statute-books, single laws, and
   ordinances, which do not contravene the present Constitution,
   will remain in force until altered by law.

Article 110.
   All authorities holding appointments in virtue of existing
   laws will continue their activity pending the issue of organic
   laws affecting them.

Article 111.
   In the event of war or revolution, and pressing danger to
   public security therefrom ensuing, Articles 5, 6, 7, 27, 28,
   29, 30, and 36 of the Constitution may be suspended for a
   certain time, and in certain districts—the details to be
   determined by law.

Article 112.
   Until issue of the law contemplated in Article 26, educational
   matters will be controlled by the laws at present in force.

Article 113.
   Prior to the revision of the criminal code, a special law will
   deal with offences committed by word, writing, print, or
   artistic representation.

Article 114
   (_abolished_).

Article 115.
   Until issue of the electoral law contemplated in Article 72,
   the ordinance of 30th May, 1849, touching the return of
   deputies to the Second Chamber, will remain in force; and with
   this ordinance is associated the provisional electoral law for
   elections to the Second Chamber in the Hohenzollern
   Principalities of 30th April, 1851.

Article 116.
   The two supreme tribunals still existing shall be combined
   into one-to be organised by a special law.

Article 117.
   The claims of State officials appointed before the
   promulgation of the Constitution shall be taken in to special
   consideration by the Civil Servant Law.

Article 118.
   Should changes in the present Constitution be rendered
   necessary by the German Federal Constitution to be drawn up on
   the basis of the Draft of 26th May, 1849, such alterations
   will be decreed by the King; and the ordinances to this effect
   laid before the Chambers, at their first meeting. The Chambers
   will then have to decide whether the changes thus
   provisionally ordained harmonise with the Federal Constitution
   of Germany.

Article 119.
   The Royal oath mentioned in Article 54, as well as the oath
   prescribed to be taken by both Chambers and all State
   officials, will have to be tendered immediately after the
   legislative revision of the present Constitution (Articles 62
   and 108).

   In witness whereof we have hereunto set our signature and
   seal.

   Given at Charlottenburg, the 31st January, 1850.
   (Signed) FRIEDRICH WILHELM.

   In connection with Article 44 the course of domestic and
   parliamentary politics drew forth the following Declaratory
   Rescript from the German Emperor and King of Prussia, in
   1882:—

   "The right of the King to conduct the Government and policy of
   Prussia according to his own discretion is limited by the
   Constitution (of January 31, 1850), but not abolished. The
   Government acts (documentary) of the King require the
   counter-signature of a Minister, and, as was also the case
   before the Constitution was issued, have to be represented by
   the King's Ministers; but they nevertheless remain Government
   acts of the King, from whose decisions they result, and who
   thereby constitutionally expresses his will and pleasure. It
   is therefore not admissible, and leads to obscuration of the
   constitutional rights of the King, when their exercise is so
   spoken of as if they emanated from the Ministers for the time
   being responsible for them, and not from the King himself. The
   Constitution of Prussia is the expression of the monarchical
   tradition of this country, whose development is based on the
   living and actual relations of its Kings to the people. These
   relations, moreover, do not admit of being transferred to the
   Ministers appointed by the King, for they attach to the person
   of the King. Their preservation, too, is a political necessity
   for Prussia. It is, therefore, my will that both in Prussia
   and in the Legislative Bodies of the realm (or Reich), there
   may be no doubt left as to my own constitutional right and
   that of my successors to personally conduct the policy of my
   Government; and that the theory shall always be gainsaid that
   the [doctrine of the] inviolability of the person of the King,
   which has always existed in Prussia, and is enunciated by
   Article 43 of the Constitution, or the necessity of a
   responsible counter-signature of my Government acts, deprives
   them of the character of Royal and independent decisions. It
   is the duty of my Ministers to support my constitutional
   rights by protecting them from doubt and obscuration, and I
   expect the same from all State servants (Beamten) who have
   taken to me the official oath. I am far from wishing to impair
   the freedom of elections, but in the case of those officials
   who are intrusted with the execution of my Government acts,
   and may, therefore, in conformity with the disciplinary law
   forfeit their situations, the duty solemnly undertaken by
   their oath of service also applies to the representation by
   them of the policy of my Government during election times. The
   faithful performance of this duty I shall thankfully
   acknowledge, and I expect from all officials that, in view of
   their oath of allegiance, they will refrain from all agitation
   against my Government also during elections.

      Berlin, January 4, 1882.
      WILHELM. VON BISMARCK. To the Ministry of State."

----------CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA: End----------

{579}

CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14, and A. D. 284-305.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC.

      See ROME: B. C. 509, to B. C. 286;
      also COMITIA CENTURIATA;
      COMITIA CURIATA;
      CONSULS, ROMAN;
      CONSULAR TRIBUNES;
      SENATE, ROMAN;
      PLEBEIANS.

CONSTITUTION OF SOLON.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

CONSTITUTION OF SPAIN (1812).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
      (1869). See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
      (The Early Kingdoms.) See CORTES.

CONSTITUTION OF SULLA.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

----------End----------

CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

   "Four fundamental laws account for the present political
   constitution of Sweden: the law concerning the form of
   government (regerings-formen) dated June 6, 1809; the law on
   representation (riksdags-ordningen), June 22, 1866; the order
   of succession (successions-ordningen), September 26, 1810; and the
   law on the liberty of the press (tryckfrihets-forordningen),
   July 16, 1812. The union with Norway is regulated by the act
   of union (riks-akten), Aug. 6, 1815. … The representation of
   the nation, since the law of June 22, 1866, rests not as
   formerly on the division of the nation into four orders, but
   on election only. Two chambers, having equal authority,
   compose the diet. The members of the first chamber are elected
   for nine years by the 'landstingen' (species of provincial
   assemblies) and by the 'stadsfullmäktige' (municipal
   counsellors) of cities which do not sit in the 'landsting.'"

      _Lalor's Cyclopedia of Political Science,
      volume 3, pages 834-835._

   "The First Chamber consists (1892) of 147 members, or one
   deputy for every 30,000 of the population. The election of the
   members takes place by the 'Landstings,' or provincial
   representations, 25 in number, and the municipal corporations
   of the towns, not already represented in the 'Landstings,'
   Stockholm, Göteberg, Malmö and Norrköping. All members of the
   First Chamber must be above 35 years of age, and must have
   possessed for at least three years previous to the election
   either real property to the taxed value of 80,000 kroner, or
   4,444 l., or an annual income of 4,000 kroner, or 223 l. They
   are elected for the term of nine years, and obtain no payment
   for their services. The Second Chamber consists (Autumn 1892)
   of 228 members, of whom 76 are elected by the towns and 146 by
   the rural districts, one representative being returned for
   every 10,000 of the population of towns, one for every
   'Domsaga,' or rural district, of under 40,000 inhabitants, and
   two for rural districts of over 40,000 inhabitants. All
   natives of Sweden, aged 21, possessing real property to the
   taxed value of 1,000 kroner, or 56 l., or farming, for a
   period of not less than five years, landed property to the
   taxed value of 6,000 kroner, or 333 l., or paying income tax
   on an annual income of 800 kroner, or 45 l., are electors; and
   all natives, aged 25, possessing, and having possessed at
   least one year previous to the election, the same
   qualifications, may be elected members of the Second Chamber.
   The number of qualified electors to the Second Chamber in 1890
   was 288,096, or 6.0 of the population; only 110,896, or 38.5
   of the electors actually voted. In the smaller towns and
   country districts the election may either be direct or
   indirect, according to the wish of the majority. The election
   is for the term of three years, and the members obtain
   salaries for their services, at the rate of 1,200 kroner, or
   67 l., for each session of four months, besides travelling
   expenses. … The members of both Chambers are elected by
   ballot, both in town and country."

      _Statesman's Year-book, 1893,
      page 965._

   "The Diet, or Riksdag, assembles every year, in ordinary
   session, on the 15th of January, or the day following, if the
   15th is a holiday. It may be convoked in extraordinary session
   by the king. In case of the decease, absence, or illness of
   the king, the Diet may be convoked extraordinarily by the
   Council of State, or even, if this latter neglects to do so,
   by the tribunals of second instance. The king may dissolve the
   two chambers simultaneously, or one of them alone, during the
   ordinary sessions, but the new Diet assembles after the three
   months of the dissolution, and can only be dissolved again
   four months after resuming its sitting. The king dissolves the
   extraordinary session when he deems proper. … The Diet
   divides the right of initiative with the king: the consent of
   the synod is necessary for ecclesiastical Laws.  … Every
   three years the Diet names a commission of twenty-four members
   (twelve from each chamber), charged with the duty of electing
   six persons who are commissioned under the presidency of the
   Procureur general of the Diet to watch over the liberty of the
   press."

      _G. Demombynes,
      Constitutions Européennes,
      volume 1, pages 84-90._

{580}

   The following is the text of the Constitution as adopted in
   1809, the subsequent modifications of which are indicated
   above:

   Form of government adopted by the King and the Estates of the
   Swedish Realm, at Stockholm, on the 6th of June, 1809;
   together with the Alterations afterwards introduced.

   We Charles, by the Grace of God, King of the Swedes, the
   Goths, and the Vandals, &c. &e. &e. Heir to Norway, Duke of
   Sleswick-Holstein; Stormarn, and Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg
   and Delmenhorst, &c. &c. &c. make known, that having unlimited
   confidence in the estates of the realm, charged them with
   drawing up a new form of government, as the perpetual
   groundwork of the prosperity and independence of our common
   native land, We do hereby perform a dear and pleasing duty in
   promulgating the fundamental law (which has been) upon mature
   deliberation, framed and adopted by the estates of the realm,
   and presented unto Us this day, together with their free and
   unanimous offer of the Swedish crown. Having with deep emotion
   and an affectionate interest in the prosperity of a nation
   which has afforded Us so striking a proof of confidence and
   attachment, complied with their request, We trust to our
   endeavors to promote its happiness, as the reciprocal rights
   and duties of the monarch and the subjects have been marked so
   distinctly, that, without encroachment on the sacred nature
   and power of majesty, the constitutional liberty of the people
   is protected. We do therefore hereby adopt, sanction, and
   ratify this form of government, such as it follows here:—

   We the underwritten representatives of the Swedish realm,
   counts, barons, bishops, knights, nobles, clergymen, burghers,
   and peasants, assembled at a general Diet, in behalf of
   ourselves and our brethren at home, Do hereby make known,
   that, having by the late change of government, to which we,
   the deputies of the Swedish people, gave our unanimous assent,
   exercised our rights of drawing up a new and improved
   constitution, we have, in repealing those fundamental laws,
   which down to this day have been in force more or less;
   viz.,—The Form of Government of the 21st of August 1772, the
   Act of Union and Security, of the 21st of February and the 3d
   of April 1789, the Ordinance of Diet, of the 24th of January
   1617, as well as all those laws, acts, statutes, and
   resolutions comprehended under the denomination of fundamental
   laws;—We have Resolved to adopt for the kingdom of Sweden and
   its dependencies the following constitution, which from
   henceforth shall be the chief fundamental law of the realm,
   reserving to Ourselves, before the expiration of the present
   Diet, to consider the other fundamental laws, mentioned in the
   85th article of this constitution.

Article 1.
   The kingdom of Sweden shall be governed by a king, who shall
   be hereditary in that order of succession which the estates
   will further hereafter determine.

Article 2.
   The king shall profess the pure evangelical faith, such as is
   contained and declared m the Augsburgian Confession, and
   explained in the Decree of the Diet at Upsala in the year
   1593.

Article 3.
   The majesty of the king shall be held sacred and inviolable;
   and his actions shall not be subject to any censure.

Article 4.
   The king shall govern the realm alone, in the manner
   determined by this constitution. In certain cases, however,
   (to be specified) he shall take the opinion of a council of
   state, which shall be constituted of well-informed,
   experienced, honest, and generally-esteemed native Swedes,
   noblemen and commoners, who profess the pure evangelical
   faith.

Article 5.
   The council of state shall consist of nine members, viz., the
   minister of state and justice, who shall always be a member of
   the king's supreme court of judicature, the minister of state
   for foreign affairs, six counsellors of state, three of whom
   at least must have held civil offices, and the chancellor of
   the court, or aulic chancellor. The secretaries of state shall
   have a seat and vote in the council, when they have to report
   matters there, and in cases that belong to their respective
   departments. Father and son, or two brothers, shall not be
   permitted to be constant members of the council of state.

Article 6.
   The secretaries of state shall be four, viz.—One for
   military affairs; a second for public economy, mining, and all
   other affairs connected with the civil and interior
   administration; a third for the finances of the realm, inland
   and foreign commerce, manufactures, &c.; and the fourth, for
   affairs relating to religion, public education, and charities.

Article 7.
   All affairs of government shall be laid before the king, and
   decided in a council of state: those of a ministerial nature,
   however, excepted, concerning the relations of the realm with
   foreign powers, and matters of military command, which the
   king decides in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the land
   and naval forces.

Article 8.
   The king can make no decision in matters in which the council
   of state are to be heard, unless at least three counsellors of
   state, and the secretary of state whom it concerns, or his
   deputy-secretary, are present.—All the members of the council
   shall, upon due notice, attend all deliberations deemed of
   importance, and which concern the general administration of
   the affairs of the kingdom; such as questions for adopting new
   statutes, repealing or altering those in existence,
   introducing new institutions in the different branches of the
   administration, &c.

Article 9.
   Minutes shall be kept of all matters which shall come before
   the king in his council of state. The ministers of state, the
   counsellors of state, the aulic chancellor, and the
   secretaries of state or deputy-secretaries, shall be
   peremptorily bound to deliver their opinions: it is, however,
   the prerogative of the king to decide. Should it, however,
   unexpectedly occur, that the decisions of the king are
   evidently contrary to the constitution and the common law of
   the realm, it shall in that case be the duty of the members of
   the council of state to make spirited remonstrances against
   such decision or resolution. Unless a different opinion has
   been recorded in the minutes (for then the counsellors present
   shall be considered as having advised the king to the adopted
   measure), the members of the council shall be responsible for
   their advices, as enacted in the 106th article.

{581}

Article 10.
   Necessary informations having been demanded and obtained from
   the proper boards, authorities, and functionaries, the affairs
   for deliberation shall be prepared by the secretary of state
   and eight skilful and impartial men, consisting of four nobles
   and four commoners, in order to their being laid before the
   king in the council of state.—The secretary, as well as all
   the other members of this committee (which are nominated by
   the king) for preparing the general affairs of the kingdom,
   shall upon all occasions, when so met, deliver their opinions
   to the minutes, which shall afterwards be reported to the king
   and the council of state.

Article 11.
   As to the management of the ministerial affairs, they may be
   prepared and conducted in the manner which appears most
   suitable to the king. It appertains to the minister for
   foreign affairs to lay such matters before him in the presence
   of the aulic chancellor, or some other member of the council,
   if the chancellor cannot attend. In the absence of the
   minister of state this duty devolves upon the aulic
   chancellor, or any other member of the council of state, whom
   his majesty may appoint. After having ascertained the opinions
   of these official persons entered in the minutes, and for
   which they shall be responsible, the king shall pronounce his
   decision in their presence. It shall be the duty of the aulic
   chancellor to keep the minutes on these occasions. The king
   shall communicate to the council of state the information on
   these topics as may be necessary, in order that they may have
   a general knowledge even of this branch of the administration.

Article 12.
   The king can enter into treaties and alliances with foreign
   powers, after having ascertained, as enacted in the preceding
   article, the opinion of the minister of state for foreign
   affairs, and of the aulic chancellor.

Article 13.
   When the king is at liberty to commence war, or conclude
   peace, he shall convoke an extraordinary council of state; the
   ministers of state, the counsellors of state, the aulic
   chancellor, and the secretaries of state; and, after having
   explained to them the circumstances which require their
   consideration, he shall desire their opinions thereon, which
   each of them shall individually deliver, on the responsibility
   defined in the 107th article. The king shall thereafter have a
   right to adopt the resolutions, or make such decision as may
   appear to him most beneficial for the kingdom.

Article 14.
   The king shall have the supreme command of the military forces
   by sea and land.

Article 15.
   The king shall decide in all matters of military command, in
   the presence of that minister or officer to whom he has
   entrusted the general management thereof. It shall be the duty
   of this person to give his opinion, under responsibility, upon
   the resolutions taken by the king, and in case of these being
   contrary to his advice, he shall be bound to enter his
   objections and counsel in the minutes, which the king must
   confirm by his own signature. Should this minister or official
   person find the resolutions of the king to be of a dangerous
   tendency, or founded on mistaken or erroneous principles, he
   shall advise his majesty to convoke two or more military
   officers of a superior rank into a council of war. The king
   shall, however, be at liberty to comply with or to reject this
   proposition for a council of war; and if approved of, he may
   take what notice he pleases of the opinions of such council,
   which shall, however, be entered in the minutes.

Article 16.
   The king shall promote the exercise of justice and right, and
   prevent partiality and injustice. He shall not deprive any
   subject of life, honour, liberty, and property, without
   previous trial and sentence, and in that order which the laws
   of the country prescribe. He shall not disturb, or cause to be
   disturbed, the peace of any individual in his house. He shall
   not banish any from one place to another, nor constrain, or
   cause to be constrained, the conscience of any; but shall
   protect everyone in the free exercise of his religion,
   provided he does not thereby disturb the tranquillity of
   society, or occasion public offence. The king shall cause
   everyone to be tried in that court to which he properly
   belongs.

Article 17.
   The king's prerogative of justice shall be invested in twelve
   men, learned in the law, six nobles, and six commoners, who
   have shown knowledge, experience, and integrity in judicial
   matters. They shall be styled counsellors of justice, and
   constitute the king's supreme court of justice.

Article 18.
   The supreme court of justice shall take cognizance of
   petitions to the king for cancelling sentences which have
   obtained legal force, and granting extension of time in
   lawsuits, when it has been, through some circumstances,
   forfeited.

Article 19.
   If information be sought by judges or courts of justice
   concerning the proper interpretation of the law, the
   explanation thus required shall be given by the said supreme
   court.

Article 20.
   In time of peace, all cases referred from the courts martial
   shall be decided in the supreme court of justice. Two military
   officers of a superior degree, to be nominated by the king,
   shall, with the responsibility of judges, attend and have a
   vote in such cases in the supreme court. The number of judges
   may not, however, exceed eight. In time of war, all such cases
   shall be tried as enacted by the articles of war.

Article 21.
   The king, should he think fit to attend, shall have right to
   two votes in causes decided by the supreme court. All
   questions concerning explanations of the law shall be reported
   to him, and his suffrages counted, even though he should not
   have attended the deliberations of the court.

Article 22.
   Causes of minor importance may be decided in the supreme court
   by five members, or even four, if they are all of one opinion;
   but in causes of greater consequence seven counsellors, at
   least, must attend. More than eight members of the supreme
   court, or four noblemen and four commoners, may not be at one
   time in active service.

Article 23.
   All the decrees of the supreme court of justice shall issue in
   the king's name, and under his hand and seal.

Article 24.
   The cases shall be prepared in the "king's inferior court for
   revision of judiciary affairs," in order to be laid before, or
   produced in the supreme court.

Article 25.
   In criminal cases the king has a right to grant pardon, to
   mitigate capital punishment, and to restore property forfeited
   to the crown. In applications, however, of this kind, the
   supreme court shall be heard, and the king give his decision
   in the council of state.

Article 26.
   When matters of justice are laid before the council of state,
   the minister of state and justice, and, at least, two
   counsellors of state, two members of the supreme court, and
   the chancellor of justice shall attend, who must all deliver
   their opinions to the minutes, according to the general
   instruction for the members of the council of state, quoted in
   the 91st article.

{582}

Article 21.
   The king shall nominate, as chancellor of justice, a
   juris-consult, an able and impartial man, who has previously
   held the office of a judge. It shall be his chief duty, as the
   highest legal officer or attorney general of the king, to
   prosecute, either personally or through the officers or
   fiscals under him, in all such cases as concern the public
   safety and the rights of the crown, on the king's behalf, to
   superintend the administration of justice, and to take
   cognizance of, and correct, errors committed by judges or
   other legal officers in the discharge of their official
   duties.

Article 28.
   The king, in his council of state, has a right to appoint
   native Swedes to all such offices and places within the
   kingdom for which the king's commissions are granted. The
   proper authorities shall, however, send in the names of the
   candidates to be put in nomination for such employments. The
   king may, likewise, appoint foreigners of eminent talents to
   military offices, without, however, entrusting to them the
   command of the fortresses of the realm. In preferments the
   king shall only consider the merits and the abilities of the
   candidates, without any regard to their birth. Ministers and
   counsellors of state and of justice, secretaries of state,
   judges, and all other civil officers, must always be of the
   pure evangelical faith.

Article 29.
   The archbishop and bishops shall be elected as formerly, and
   the king nominates one of the three candidates proposed to
   him.

Article 30.
   The king appoints, as formerly, the incumbents of rectories in
   the gift of the crown. As to the consistorial benefices, the
   parishioners shall be maintained in their usual right of
   election.

Article 31.
   Citizens, who are freemen of towns, shall enjoy their
   privilege as heretofore, of proposing to the king three
   candidates for the office of burgomaster or mayor, one of whom
   the king selects. The aldermen and secretaries of the
   magistracy of Stockholm shall be elected in the same manner.

Article 32.
   The king appoints envoys to foreign courts and the officers of
   the embassies, in the presence of the minister of state for
   foreign affairs and the aulic chancellor.

Article 33.
   When offices, for which candidates are proposed, are to be
   filled up, the members of the council of state shall deliver
   their opinions on the qualifications and merits of the
   applicants. They shall also have right to make respectful
   remonstrances against the nomination of the king respecting
   other offices.

Article 34.
   The new functionaries created by this constitution, viz.—the
   ministers and counsellors of state and counsellors of justice,
   shall be paid by the crown, and may not hold any other civil
   offices. The two ministers of state are the highest
   functionaries of the realm. The counsellors of state shall
   hold the rank of generals, and the counsellors of justice that
   of lieutenant-generals.

Article 35.
   The minister of state for foreign affairs, the counsellors of
   state, the presidents of the public boards, the grand governor
   of Stockholm, the deputy governor, and the chief magistrate of
   police in the city, the aulic chancellor, the chancellor of
   justice, the secretaries of state, the governors or
   lord-lieutenants of provinces, field marshals, generals and
   admirals of all degrees, adjutant generals, adjutant in chief,
   adjutants of the staff, the governors of fortresses, captain
   lieutenants, and officers of the king's life guards, colonels
   of the regiments, and officers second in command in the foot
   and horse guards, lieutenant-colonels in the brigade of the
   life regiments, chiefs of the artillery of the royal
   engineers, ministers, envoys, and commercial agents with
   foreign powers, and official persons employed in the king's
   cabinet for the foreign correspondence, and at the embassies,
   as holding places of trust, can be removed by the king, when
   he considers it necessary for the benefit of the realm. The
   king shall, however, signify his determination in the council
   of state, the members whereof shall be bound to make
   respectful remonstrances, if they see it expedient.

Article 36.
   Judges, and all other official persons, not included in the
   preceding article, cannot be suspended from their situations
   without legal trial, nor be translated or removed to other
   places, without having themselves applied for these.

Article 31.
   The king has power to confer dignities on those who have
   served their country with fidelity, bravery, virtue, and zeal.
   He may also promote to the order of counts and barons,
   persons, who by eminent merits have deserved such an honour.
   Nobility and the dignity of a count and baron, granted from
   this time, shall no longer devolve to any other than the
   individual himself thus created a noble, and after him, to the
   oldest of his male issue in a direct descending line, and this
   branch of the family being extinct, to the nearest male
   descendant of the ancestor.

Article 38.
   All despatches and orders emanating from the king, excepting
   such as concern military affairs, shall be countersigned by
   the secretary who has submitted them to the council, and is
   responsible for their being conformable to the minutes. Should
   the secretary find any of the decisions made by the king to be
   contrary to the spirit of the constitution, he shall make his
   remonstrances respecting the same, in the council of state.
   Should the king still persist in his determination, it shall
   then be the duty of the secretary to refuse his countersign,
   and resign his place, which he may not resume until the
   estates of the realm shall have examined and approved of his
   conduct. He shall, however, in the mean time, receive his
   salary, and all the fees of his office as formerly.

Article 39.
   If the king wishes to go abroad, he shall communicate his
   resolution to the council of state, in a full assembly, and
   take the opinion of all its members, as enacted in the ninth
   article. During the absence of the king he may not interfere
   with the government, or exercise the regal power, which shall
   be carried on, in his name, by the council of state; the
   council of state cannot, however, confer dignities or create
   counts, barons, and knights; and all officers appointed by the
   council shall only hold their places ad interim.

Article 40.
   Should the king be in such a state of health as to be
   incapable of attending to the affairs of the kingdom, the
   council of state shall conduct the administration, as enacted
   in the preceding article.

Article 41.
   The king shall be of age after having completed eighteen
   years. Should the king die before the heir of the crown has
   attained this age, the government shall be conducted by the
   council of state, acting with regal power and authority, in
   the name of the king, until the estates of the realm shall
   have appointed a provisional government or regency; and the
   council of state is enjoined strictly to conform to the
   enactments of this constitution.

{583}

Article 42.
   Should the melancholy event take place, that the whole royal
   family became extinct on the male side, the council of state
   shall exercise the government with regal power and authority,
   until the estates have chosen another royal house, and the new
   king has taken upon himself the government. All occurrences or
   things having reference to the four last articles, shall be
   determined by the whole council of state and the secretaries
   of state.

Article 43.
   When the king takes the field of battle, or repairs to distant
   parts of the kingdom, he shall constitute four of the members
   of the council of state to exercise the government in those
   affairs which he is pleased to prescribe.

Article 44.
   No prince of the royal family shall be permitted to marry
   without having obtained the consent of the king, and in the
   contrary case shall forfeit his right of inheritance to the
   kingdom, both for himself and descendants.

Article 45.
   Neither the crown prince, or any other prince of the royal
   family, shall have any appanage or civil place. The princes of
   the blood may, however, bear titles of dukedoms and
   principalities, as heretofore, but without any claims upon
   those provinces.

Article 46.
   The kingdom shall remain divided, as heretofore, into
   governments, under the usual provincial administrations. No
   governor-general shall, from this time, be appointed within
   the kingdom.

Article 47.
   The courts of justice, superior as well as inferior, shall
   administer justice according to the laws and statutes of the
   realm. The provincial governors, and all other public
   functionaries, shall exercise the offices entrusted to them
   according to existing regulations; they shall obey the orders
   of the king, and be responsible to him if any act is done
   contrary to law.

Article 48.
   The court of the king is under his own management, and he may
   at his own pleasure appoint or discharge all his officers and
   attendants there.

Article 49.
   The estates of the realm shall meet every fifth year. In the
   decree of every Diet the day shall be fixed for the next
   meeting of the estates. The king may, however, convoke the
   estates to an extraordinary Diet before that time.

Article 50.
   The Diets shall be held in the capital, except when the
   invasion of an enemy, or some other important impediment, may
   render it dangerous for the safety of the representatives.

Article 51.
   When the king or council convokes the estates, the period for
   the commencement of the Diet shall be subsequent to the
   thirtieth, and within the fiftieth day, to reckon from that
   day when the summons has been proclaimed in the churches of
   the capital.

Article 52.
   The king names the speakers of the nobles, the burghers and
   the peasants: the archbishop is, at all times, the constant
   speaker of the clergy.

Article 53.
   The estates of the realm shall, immediately after the opening
   of the Diet, elect the different committees, which are to
   prepare the affairs intended for their consideration. Such
   committees shall consist in,

      a constitutional committee, which shall take cognizance of
      questions concerning proposed alterations in the
      fundamental laws, report thereupon to the representatives,
      and examine the minutes held in the council of state;

      a committee of finances, which shall examine and report
      upon the state and management of the revenues;

      a committee of taxation, for regulating the taxes;

      a committee of the bank for inquiring into the
      administration of the affairs of the national bank;

      a law committee for digesting propositions concerning
      improvements in the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical
      laws;

      a committee of public grievances and matters of economy, to
      attend to the defects in public institutions, suggest
      alterations, &c.

Article 54.
   Should the king desire a special committee for deliberating
   with him on such matters as do not come within the cognizance
   of any of the other committees, and are to be kept secret, the
   estates shall select it. This committee shall, however, have
   no right to adopt any resolutions, but only to give their
   opinion on matters referred to them by the king.

Article 55.
   The representatives of the realm shall not discuss any subject
   in the presence of the king, nor can any other committee than
   the one mentioned in the above article hold their
   deliberations before him.

Article 56.
   General questions started at the meetings or the orders of the
   estates, cannot be immediately discussed or decided, but shall
   be referred to the proper committees, which are to give their
   opinion thereupon. The propositions or report of the
   committees shall, in the first instance, without any
   alteration or amendment, be referred to the estates at the
   general meetings of all the orders. If at these meetings,
   observations should be made which may prevent the adoption of
   the proposed measure, these objections shall be communicated
   to the committee, in order to its being examined and revised.
   A proposition thus prepared having been again referred to the
   estates, it shall remain with them to adopt it, with or
   without alterations, or to reject it altogether. Questions
   concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, shall be thus
   treated:

      If the constitutional committee approves of the suggestion
      of one of the representatives, or the committee reports in
      favour of or against a measure proposed by the king, the
      opinion of the committee shall be referred to the estates,
      who may discuss the topic, but not come to any resolution
      during that Diet.

      If at the general meetings of the orders no observations
      are made against the opinion of the committee, the question
      shall be postponed till the Diet following, and then be
      decided solely by yes or no, as enacted in the 75th article
      of the ordinance of Diet.

      If, on the contrary, objections are urged at the general
      meetings of the orders against the opinion of the
      committee, these shall be referred back for its
      reconsideration. If all the orders be of one opinion, the
      question shall be postponed for final decision, as enacted
      above. Should again a particular order differ from the
      other orders, twenty members shall be elected from among
      every order, and added to the committee, for adjusting the
      differences. The question being thus prepared, shall be
      decided at the following Diet.

Article 57.
   The ancient right of the Swedish people, of imposing taxes on
   themselves, shall be exercised by the estates only at a
   general Diet.

Article 58.
   The king shall at every Diet lay before the committee of
   finances the state of the revenues in all their branches.
   Should the crown have obtained subsidies through treaties with
   foreign powers, these shall be explained in the usual way.

{584}

Article 59.
   The king shall refer to the decision of this committee to
   determine what the government may require beyond the ordinary
   taxation, to be raised by an extraordinary grant.

Article 60.
   No taxes of any description whatever can be increased without
   the express consent of the estates. The king may not farm or
   let on lease the revenues of state, for the sake of profit to
   himself and the crown; nor grant monopolies to private
   individuals, or corporations.

Article 61.
   All taxes shall be paid to the end of that term for which they
   have been imposed. Should, however, the estates meet before
   the expiration of that term, new regulations shall take place.

Article 62.
   The funds required by government having been ascertained by
   the committee of finances, it shall rest with the estates
   whether to assign proportionate means, and also to determine
   how the various sums granted shall be appropriated.

Article 63.
   Besides these means, two adequate sums shall be voted and set
   apart for the disposal of the king, after he has consulted the
   council of state,—for the defence of the kingdom, or some
   other important object;—the other sum to be deposited in the
   national bank, in case of war, after the king has ascertained
   the opinion of the council and convened the estates. The seal
   of the order for this latter sum may not be broken, nor the
   money be paid by the commissioners of the bank, till the
   summons to Diet shall have been duly proclaimed in the
   churches of the capital.

Article 64.
   The ordinary revenues of the land, as well as the
   extraordinary grants which may be voted by the estates, shall
   be at the disposal of the king for the civil list and other
   specified purposes.

Article 65.
   The above means may not be applied but for the assigned
   purposes, and the council of state shall be responsible if
   they permit any deviation in this respect, without entering
   their remonstrances in the minutes, and pointing out what the
   constitution in this case ordains.

Article 66.
   The funds of amortissement or national debt, shall remain, as
   heretofore, under the superintendence and direction of the
   estates, who have guaranteed or come under a responsibility
   for the national debt; and after having received the report of
   the committee of finances on the affairs of that
   establishment, the estates will provide, through a special
   grant, the requisite means for paying the capital as well as
   the interest of this debt, in order that the credit of the
   kingdom may be maintained.

Article 67.
   The deputy of the king shall not attend the meetings of the
   directors or commissioners of the funds of amortissement, on
   any other occasion than when the directors are disposed to
   take his opinion.

Article 68.
   The means assigned for paying off the national debt shall not,
   under any pretence or condition, be appropriated to other
   purposes.

Article 69.
   Should the estates, or any particular order, entertain doubts
   either in allowing the grant proposed by the committee of
   finances, or as to the participation in the taxes, or the
   principles of the management of the funds of amortissement,
   these doubts shall be communicated to the committee for their
   further consideration.—If the committee cannot coincide in
   the opinions of the estates, or a single order, it shall
   depute some members to explain circumstances. Should this
   order still persist in its opinion, the question shall be
   decided by the resolution of three orders. If two orders be of
   one, and the other two of a different opinion, thirty new
   members of every order shall be added to the committee—the
   committee shall then vote conjointly, and not by orders, with
   folded billets, for adopting, or rejecting, unconditionally
   the proposition of the committee.

Article 70.
   The committee of taxation shall at every Diet suggest general
   principles for dividing the future taxes, and the amount
   having been fixed, the committee shall also propose how these
   are to be paid, referring their proposition to the
   consideration and decision of the states.

Article 71.
   Should a difference of opinion arise between the orders, as to
   these principles and the mode of applying them, and dividing
   the taxes; or, what hardly can be presumed, any order decline
   participating in the proposed taxation, the order, which may
   thus desire some alteration, shall communicate their views to
   the other representatives, and suggest in what mode this
   alteration may be effected without frustrating the general
   object. The committee of taxation having again reported
   thereon to the estates, they, the estates, shall decide the
   question at issue. If three orders object to the proposition
   of the committee, it shall be rejected. If, again, three
   orders oppose the demands of a single order, or if two be of
   an opinion contrary to that of the other two, the question
   shall be referred to the committee of finances, with an
   additional number of members, as enacted in the above article.
   If the majority of this committee assent to the proposition of
   the committee of taxation, in those points concerning which
   the representatives have disagreed, the proposition shall be
   considered as the general resolution of the estates. Should
   it, on the contrary, be negatived by a majority of votes, or
   be rejected by three orders, the committee of taxation shall
   propose other principles for levying and dividing the taxes.

Article 72.
   The national bank shall remain, as formerly, under the
   superintendence and guarantee of the estates, and the
   management of directors selected from among all the orders,
   according to existing regulations. The states alone can issue
   bank-notes, which are to be recognized as the circulating
   medium of the realm.

Article 73.
   No troops, new taxes or imposts, either in money or kind, can
   be levied without the voluntary consent of the estates, in the
   usual order, as aforesaid.

Article 74.
   The king shall have no right to demand or levy any other aid
   for carrying on war, than that contribution of provisions
   which may be necessary for the maintenance of the troops
   during their march through a province. These contributions
   shall, however, be immediately paid out of the treasury,
   according to the fixed price-current of provisions, with an
   augmentation of a moiety, according to this valuation. Such
   contributions may not be demanded for troops which have been
   quartered in a place, or are employed in military operations,
   in which case they shall be supplied with provisions from the
   magazines.

Article 75.
   The annual estimation of such rentes as are paid in kind shall
   be fixed by deputies elected from among all the orders of the
   estates.

Article 76.
   The king cannot, without the consent of the estates, contract
   loans within or without the kingdom, nor burthen the land with
   any new debts.

{585}

Article 77.
   He cannot also, without the consent of the estates, vend,
   pledge, mortgage, or in any other way alienate domains, farms,
   forests, parks, preserves of game, meadows, pasture-land,
   fisheries, and other appurtenances of the crown. These shall
   be managed according to the instructions of the estates.

Article 78.
   No part of the kingdom can be alienated through sale,
   mortgage, donation, or in any other way whatever.

Article 79.
   No alteration can be effected in the standard value of the
   coin, either for enhancing or deteriorating it, without the
   consent of the estates.

Article 80.
   The land and naval forces of the realm shall remain on the
   same footing, till the king and the estates may think proper
   to introduce some other principles. No regular troops can be
   raised, without the mutual consent of the king and the
   estates.

Article 81.
   This form of government and the other fundamental laws cannot
   be altered or repealed, without the unanimous consent of the
   king and the estates. Questions to this effect cannot be
   brought forward at the meetings of the orders, but must be
   referred to the constitutional committee, whose province it is
   to suggest such alterations in the fundamental laws, as may be
   deemed necessary, useful, and practicable. The estates may not
   decide on such proposed alterations at the same Diet. If all
   the orders agree about the alteration, it shall be submitted
   to the king, through the speakers, for obtaining his royal
   sanction, After having ascertained the opinion of the council,
   the king shall take his resolution, and communicate to the
   estates either his approbation or reasons for refusing it. In
   the event of the king proposing any alteration in the
   fundamental laws, he shall, after having taken the opinion of
   the council, deliver his proposition to the estates, who
   shall, without discussing it, again refer it to the
   constitutional committee. If the committee coincide in the
   proposition of the king, the question shall remain till next
   Diet. If again the committee is averse to the proposition of
   the king, the estates may either reject it immediately or
   adjourn it to the following Diet. In the case of all the
   orders approving of the proposition, they shall request that a
   day be appointed to declare their consent in the presence of
   his majesty, or signify their disapprobation through their
   speakers.

Article 82.
   What the estates have thus unanimously resolved and the king
   sanctioned, concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, or
   the king has proposed and the estates approved of, shall for
   the future have the force and effect of a fundamental law.

Article 83.
   No explanation of the fundamental laws may be established by
   any other mode or order, than that prescribed by the two
   preceding articles. Laws shall be applied according to their
   literal sense.

Article 84.
   When the constitutional committee find no reason for approving
   of the proposition, made by a representative concerning
   alterations or explanations of the fundamental laws, it shall
   be the duty of the committee to communicate to him, at his
   request, their opinion, which the proposer of the resolution
   may publish, with his own motion, and under the usual
   responsibility of authors.

Article 85.
   As fundamental laws of the present form of government, there
   shall be considered the ordinance of Diet, the order of
   succession, and the act concerning universal liberty of the
   press.

Article 86.
   By the liberty of the press is understood the right of every
   Swedish subject to publish his writings, without any
   impediment from the government, and without being responsible
   for them, except before a court of justice, or liable to
   punishment, unless their contents be contrary to a clear law,
   made for the preservation of public peace. The minutes, or
   protocols, or the proceedings, may be published in any case,
   excepting the minutes kept in the council of state and before
   the king in ministerial affairs, and those matters of military
   command; nor may the records of the bank, and the office of
   the funds of amortissement, or national debt, be printed.

Article 87.
   The estates, together with the king, have the right to make
   new and repeal old laws. In this view such questions must be
   proposed at the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
   and shall be decided by them, after having taken the opinion
   of the law committee, as laid down in the 56th article. The
   proposition shall be submitted, through the speakers, to the
   king, who, after having ascertained the opinion of the council
   of state and supreme court, shall declare either his royal
   approbation, or motives for withholding it. Should the king
   desire to propose any alteration in the laws, he shall, after
   having consulted the council of state and supreme court, refer
   his proposition, together with their opinion, to the
   deliberation of the states, who, after having received the
   report of the law committee, shall decide on the point. In all
   such questions the resolution of three orders shall be
   considered as the resolution of the estates of the realm. If
   two orders are opposed to the other two, the proposition is
   negatived, and the law is to remain as formerly.

Article 88.
   The same course, or mode of proceeding, shall be observed in
   explaining the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical laws, as in
   making these. Explanations concerning the proper sense of the
   law given by the supreme court in the name of the king, in the
   interval between the Diets, may be rejected by the states, and
   shall not afterwards be valid, or cited by the courts of
   judicature.

Article 89.
   At the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
   questions may be proposed for altering, explaining, repealing,
   and issuing acts concerning public economy; and the principles
   of public institutions of any kind may be discussed. These
   questions shall afterwards be referred to the committee of
   public grievances and economical affairs, and then be
   submitted to the decision of the king, in a council of state.
   When the king is pleased to invite the estates to deliberate
   with him on questions concerning the general administration,
   the same course shall be adopted as is prescribed for
   questions concerning the laws.

Article 90.
   During the deliberations of the orders, or their committees,
   no questions shall be proposed but in the way expressly
   prescribed by this fundamental law, concerning either
   appointing or removing of officers, decisions and resolutions
   of the government and courts of law, and the conduct of
   private individuals and corporations.

Article 91.
   When the king, in such cases as those mentioned in the 39th
   article, is absent from the kingdom longer than twelve months,
   the council shall convoke the estates to a general Diet, and
   cause the summons to be proclaimed within fifteen days from
   the above time, in the churches of the capital, and speedily
   afterwards in the other parts of the kingdom. If the king,
   after being informed thereof, does not return to the kingdom,
   the estates shall adopt such measures as they deem most
   beneficial for the country.

{586}

Article 92.
   The same shall be enacted in case of any disease or ill health
   of the king, which might prevent him from attending to the
   affairs of the kingdom for more than twelve months.

Article 93.
   When the heir of the crown, at the decease of the king, is
   under age, the council of state shall issue summons to the
   representatives to meet. The estates of the realm shall have
   the right, without regard to the will of a deceased king
   concerning the administration, to appoint one or several
   guardians, to rule in the king's name, according to this
   fundamental law, till the king becomes of age.

Article 94.
   Should it ever happen that the royal family become extinct in
   the male line, the council of state shall convene the estates,
   to elect another royal family to rule conformably to this
   fundamental law.

Article 95.
   Should, contrary to expectation, the council of state fail to
   convoke the estates, in the cases prescribed by the 91st, 93d,
   and 94th articles, it shall be the positive duty of the
   directors of the house of nobles, the chapters throughout the
   kingdom, the magistrates in the capital, and the governors in
   the provinces, to give public notice thereof, in order that
   elections of deputies to the Diet may forthwith take place,
   and the estates assemble to protect their privileges and
   rights of the kingdom. Such a Diet shall be opened on the
   fiftieth day from that period when the council of state had
   proclaimed the summons in the churches of the capital.

Article 96.
   The estates shall at every Diet appoint an officer,
   distinguished for integrity and learning in the law, to watch
   over, as their deputy, the conduct of the judges and other
   official men, and who shall, in legal order and at the proper
   court, arraign those who in the performance of their offices
   have betrayed negligence and partiality, or else have
   committed any illegal act. He shall, however, be liable to the
   same responsibility as the law prescribes for public
   prosecutors in general.

Article 97.
   This deputy or attorney-general of the estates shall be chosen
   by twelve electors out of every order.

Article 98.
   The electors shall at the same time they choose the said
   attorney-general, elect a person possessing equal or similar
   qualities to succeed him, in case of his death before the next
   Diet.

Article 99.
   The attorney-general may, whenever he pleases, attend the
   sessions of all the superior and inferior courts, and the
   public offices, and shall have free access to their records
   and minutes; and the king's officers shall be bound to give
   him every assistance.

Article 100.
   The attorney-general shall at every Diet present a report of
   the performance of his office, explaining the state of the
   administration of justice in the land, noticing the defects in
   the existing laws, and suggesting new improvements. He shall
   also, at the end of each year, publish a general statement
   concerning these.

Article 101.
   Should the supreme court, or any of its members, from
   interest, partiality, or negligence, judge so wrong that an
   individual, contrary to law and evidence, did lose or might
   have lost life, liberty, honour, or property, the
   attorney-general shall be bound, and the chancellor of justice
   authorised, to arraign the guilty, according to the laws of
   the realm, in the court after mentioned.

Article 102.
   This court is to be denominated the court of justice for the
   realm, and shall be formed by the president in the superior
   court of Swea, the presidents of all the public boards, four
   senior members of the council of state, the highest commander
   of the troops within the capital, and the commander of the
   squadron of the fleet stationed at the capital, two of the
   senior members of the superior court of Swea, and the senior
   member of all the public boards. Should any of the officers
   mentioned above decline attending this court, he shall be
   legally responsible for such a neglect of duty. After trial,
   the judgment shall be publicly announced: no one can alter
   such a sentence. The king may, however, extend pardon to the
   guilty, but not admitting him any more into the service of the
   kingdom.

Article 103.
   The estates shall at every Diet nominate a jury of twelve
   members from out of each order, for deciding if the members of
   the supreme court of justice have deserved to fill their
   important places, or if any member, without having been
   legally convicted for the faults mentioned in the above
   articles, yet ought to be removed from office.

Article 104.
   The estates shall not resolve themselves into a court of
   justice, nor enter into any special examination of the
   decrees, verdicts, resolutions of the supreme court.

Article 105.
   The constitutional committee shall have right to demand the
   minutes of the council of state, except those which concern
   ministerial or foreign affairs, and matters of military
   command, which may only be communicated as far as these have a
   reference to generally known events, specified by the
   committee.

Article 106.
   Should the committee find from these minutes that any member
   of the council of state has openly acted against the clear
   dictates of the constitution, or advised any infringement
   either of the same or of the other laws of the realm, or that
   he had omitted to remonstrate against such a violation, or
   caused and promoted it by wilfully concealing any information,
   the committee shall order the attorney-general to institute
   the proper proceedings against the guilty.

Article 107.
   If the constitutional committee should find that any or all
   the members of the council of state have not consulted the
   real interest of the kingdom, or that any of the secretaries
   of state have not performed his or their official duties with
   impartiality, activity, and skill, the committee shall report
   it to the estates, who, if they deem it necessary, may signify
   to the king their wish of having those removed, who may thus
   have given dissatisfaction. Questions to this effect may be
   brought forward at the general meetings of the orders, and
   even be proposed by any of the committees. These cannot,
   however, be decided until the constitutional committee have
   delivered their opinion.

Article 108.
   The estates shall at every Diet appoint six individuals, two
   of whom must be learned in the law, besides the
   attorney-general, to watch over the liberty of the press.
   These deputies shall be bound to give their opinion as to the
   legality of publications, if such be requested by the authors.
   These deputies shall be chosen by six electors out of every
   order.

{587}

Article 109.
   Diets may not last longer than three months from the time that
   the king has informed the representatives of the state of the
   revenues. Should, however, the estates at the expiration of
   that time not have concluded their deliberations, they may
   demand the Diet to be prolonged for another month, which the
   king shall not refuse. If again, contrary to expectation, the
   estates at the expiration of this term have not regulated the
   civil list, the king shall dissolve the Diet, and taxation
   continue in its former state till the next meeting of
   representatives.

Article 110.
   No representative shall be responsible for any opinion uttered
   at meetings of the orders, or of the committees, unless by the
   express permission of at least five-sixths of his own order:
   nor can a representative be banished from the Diet. Should any
   individual or body, either civil or military, endeavour to
   offer violence to the estates, or to any individual
   representative, or presume to interrupt and disturb their
   deliberations, it shall be considered as an act of treason,
   and it rests with the estates to take legal cognizance of such
   an offence.

Article 111.
   Should any representative, after having announced himself as
   such, be insulted, either at the Diet or on his way to or from
   the same, it shall be punished as a violation of the peace of
   the king.

Article 112.
   No official person may exercise his official authority (his
   authority in that capacity) to influence the elections of
   deputies to the Diet, under pain of losing his place.

Article 113.
   Individuals elected for regulating the taxation shall not be
   responsible for their lawful deeds in this their capacity.

Article 114.
   The king shall leave the estates in undisturbed possession of
   their liberties, privileges, and immunities. Modifications
   which the prosperity of the realm may demand can only be done
   with the general concurrence and consent of the estates and
   the sanction of the king. Nor can any new privileges be
   granted to one order, without the consent of the other, and
   the sanction of the sovereign.

   This we have confirmed by our names and seals, on the sixth
   day of the month of June, in the year after the birth of our
   Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine.

   On behalf of the Nobles, M. Ankarsvard.
   On behalf of the Clergy, Jac. Ax. Lindblom.
   On behalf of the Burghers, H. N. Schwan.
   On behalf of the Peasantry, Lars Olsson, Speakers.

   The above form of government we have not only acknowledged
   Ourselves, but do also command all our faithful subjects to
   obey it; in confirmation of which, we have thereto affixed our
   manual signature and the seal of the realm. In the city of our
   royal residence, Stockholm, on the sixth day of the month of
   June, in the year after the birth of our Lord one thousand
   eight hundred and nine.

CHARLES.

----------CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

   After the Sonderbund secession and war of 1847 (see
   SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848), the task of drawing up a
   Constitution for the Confederacy was confided to a committee
   of fourteen members, and the work was finished on the 14th of
   April, 1848. "The project was submitted to the Cantons, and
   accepted at once by thirteen and a half; others joined during
   the summer, and the new Constitution was finally promulgated
   with the assent of all on the 12th September. Hence arose the
   seventh and last phase of the Confederation, by the adoption
   of a Federal Constitution for the whole of Switzerland, being
   the first which was entirely the work of Swiss, without any
   foreign influence, although its authors had studied that of
   the United States. … It was natural that, as in process of
   time commerce and industry were developed, and as the
   differences between the legislation of the various Cantons
   became more apparent, a revision of the first really Swiss
   Confederation should be necessary. This was proposed both in
   1871 and 1872, but the partisans of a further centralization,
   though successful in the Chambers, were defeated upon an
   appeal to the popular vote on the 12th of May 1872, by a
   majority of between five and six thousand, and by thirteen
   Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no means
   settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision more acceptable
   to the partisans of cantonal independence, was adopted by the
   people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013. The Cantons
   were about two to one in favour of the revision, 14½ declaring
   for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears date the 29th
   May, 1874, and has since been added to and altered in certain
   particulars."

      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation,
      chapter 1._

   "Since 1848, … Switzerland has been a federal state,
   consisting of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and
   six half states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents
   an united front, while her internal policy allows to each
   Canton a large amount of independence. … The basis of all
   legislative division is the Commune or Gemeinde; corresponding
   in some slight degree to the English Parish. The Commune in
   its legislative and administrative aspect or
   'Einwohnergemeinde' is composed of all the inhabitants of a
   Commune. It is self-governing and has the control of the local
   police; it also administers all matters connected with
   pauperism, education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the
   fire brigade, the maintenance of public peace and
   trusteeships. … At the head of the Commune is the
   Gemeinderath, or Communal Council, whose members are elected
   from the inhabitants for a fixed period. It is presided over
   by an Ammann, or Mayor, or President. … Above the Commune on
   the ascending scale comes the Canton. … Each of the 19
   Cantons and 6 half Cantons is a sovereign state, whose
   privileges are nevertheless limited by the Federal
   Constitution, particularly as regards legal and military
   matters; the Constitution also defines the extent of each
   Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed to secede and
   join itself to another Canton. … Legislative power is in the
   hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of the word the
   'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the Canton, who
   have passed their 20th year and are not under disability from
   crime or bankruptcy.
{588}
   The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
   alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
   decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
   100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
   considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
   determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
   new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
   such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
   voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
   political and administrative power of the Canton. It
   corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
   inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
   Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
   'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
   three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
   Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
   cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
   … The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
   together the Swiss Confederation."

      _P. Hauri,
      Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
      (in Strickland's The Engadine)._

   The following text of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss
   Confederation is a translation from parallel French and German
   texts, by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard College.
   It appeared originally in "Old South Leaflets," No. 18, and is
   now reprinted under permission from Professor Hart, who has
   most kindly revised his translation throughout and introduced
   the later amendments, to July, 1893.

   In the Name of Almighty God.
   The Swiss Confederation, desiring to confirm the alliance of
   the Confederates, to maintain and to promote the unity,
   strength, and honor of the Swiss nation, has adopted the
   Federal Constitution following:

Chapter I. General Provisions.

ARTICLE 1.
   The peoples of the twenty-two sovereign Cantons of
   Switzerland, united by this present alliance, viz.: Zurich,
   Bern, Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (Upper and Lower),
   Glarus, Zug, Freiburg, Solothurn, Basel (urban and rural),
   Schaffhausen, Appenzell (the two Rhodes), St. Gallen, Grisons,
   Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, and Geneva,
   form in their entirety the Swiss Confederation.

ARTICLE 2.
   The purpose of the Confederation is, to secure the
   independence of the country against foreign nations, to
   maintain peace and order within, to protect the liberty and
   the rights of the Confederates, and to foster their common
   welfare.

ARTICLE 3.
   The Cantons are sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
   limited by the Federal Constitution; and, as such, they
   exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the federal
   government.

ARTICLE 4.
   All Swiss are equal before the law. In Switzerland there are
   neither political dependents, nor privileges of place, birth,
   persons, or families.

ARTICLE 5.
   The Confederation guarantees to the Cantons their territory,
   their sovereignty, within the limits fixed by Article 3, their
   Constitutions, the liberty and rights of the people, the
   constitutional rights of citizens, and the rights and powers
   which the people have conferred on those in authority.

ARTICLE 6.
   The Cantons are bound to ask of the Confederation the guaranty
   of their Constitutions. This guaranty is accorded, provided:

   (a) that the Constitutions contain nothing contrary to the
   provisions of the Federal Constitution.

   (b) That they assure the exercise of political rights,
   according to republican forms, representative or democratic.

   (c) That they have been ratified by the people, and may be
   amended whenever the majority of all the citizens demand it.

ARTICLE 7.
   All separate alliances and all treaties of a political
   character between the Cantons are forbidden. On the other hand
   the Cantons have the right to make conventions among
   themselves upon legislative, administrative or judicial
   subjects; in all cases they shall bring such conventions to
   the attention of the federal officials, who are authorized to
   prevent their execution, if they contain anything contrary to
   the Confederation, or to the rights of other Cantons. Should
   such not be the case, the covenanting Cantons are authorized
   to require the cooperation of the federal officials in
   carrying out the convention.

ARTICLE 8.
   The Confederation has the sole right of declaring war, of
   making peace, and of concluding alliances and treaties with
   foreign powers, particularly treaties relating to tariffs and
   commerce.

ARTICLE 9.
   By exception the Cantons preserve the right of concluding
   treaties with foreign powers, respecting the administration of
   public property, and border and police intercourse; but such
   treaties shall contain nothing contrary to the Confederation
   or to the rights of other Cantons.

ARTICLE 10.
   Official intercourse between Cantons and foreign governments,
   or their representatives, shall take place through the Federal
   Council. Nevertheless, the Cantons may correspond directly
   with the inferior officials and officers of a foreign State,
   in regard to the subjects enumerated in the preceding article.

ARTICLE 11.
   No military capitulations shall be made.

ARTICLE 12.
   No members of the departments of the federal government, civil
   and military officials of the Confederation, or federal
   representatives or commissioners, shall receive from any
   foreign government any pension, salary, title, gift, or
   decoration. Such persons, already in possession of pensions,
   titles, or decorations, must renounce the enjoyment of
   pensions and the bearing of titles and decorations during
   their term of office. Nevertheless, inferior officials may be
   authorized by the Federal Council to continue in the receipt
   of pensions. No decoration or title conferred by a foreign
   government shall be borne in the federal army. No officer,
   non-commissioned officer, or soldier shall accept such
   distinction.

ARTICLE 13.
   The Confederation has no right to keep up a standing army. No
   Canton or Half-Canton shall, without the permission of the
   federal government keep up a standing force of more than three
   hundred men; the mounted police [gendarmerie] is not included
   in this number.

ARTICLE 14.
   In case of differences arising between Cantons, the States
   shall abstain from violence and from arming themselves; they
   shall submit to the decision to be taken upon such differences
   by the Confederation.

ARTICLE 15.
   In case of sudden danger of foreign attack, the authorities of
   the Cantons threatened shall request the aid of other members
   of the Confederation and shall immediately notify the federal
   government; the subsequent action of the latter shall not
   thereby be precluded. The Cantons summoned are bound to give
   aid. The expenses shall be borne by the Confederation.

{589}

Article 16.
   In case of internal disturbance, or if the danger is
   threatened by another Canton, the authorities of the Canton
   threatened shall give immediate notice to the Federal Council,
   in order that that body may take the measures necessary,
   within the limits of its power (Article 102, §§ 3, 10, 11), or
   may summon the Federal Assembly. In extreme cases the
   authorities of the Canton are authorized, while giving
   immediate notice to the Federal Council, to ask the aid of
   other Cantons, which are bound to afford such aid. If the
   executive of the Canton is unable to call for aid, the federal
   authority having the power may, and if the safety of
   Switzerland is endangered shall, intervene without
   requisition. In case of federal intervention, the federal
   authorities shall take care that the provisions of Article 5
   be observed. The expenses shall be borne by the Canton asking
   aid or occasioning federal intervention, except when the
   Federal Assembly otherwise decides on account of special
   circumstances.

Article 17.
   In the cases mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, every Canton is
   bound to afford undisturbed passage for the troops. The troops
   shall immediately be placed under federal command.

Article 18.
   Every Swiss is bound to perform military service. Soldiers who
   lose their lives or suffer permanent injury to their health,
   in consequence of federal service, are entitled to aid from
   the Confederation for themselves or their families, in case of
   need. Each soldier shall receive without expense his first
   equipment, clothing, and arms. The weapon remains in the hands
   of the soldier, under conditions which shall be prescribed by
   federal legislation. The Confederation shall enact uniform
   provisions as to an exemption tax.

Article 19.
   The federal army is composed:
   (a) Of the cantonal military corps.
   (b) Of all Swiss who do not belong to such military corps, but
   are nevertheless liable to military service.

   The Confederation exercises control over the army and the
   material of war provided by law. In cases of danger, the
   Confederation has also the exclusive and direct control of men
   not included in the federal army, and of all other military
   resources of the Cantons. The Cantons have authority over the
   military forces of their territory, so far as this right is
   not limited by the Federal Constitution or laws.

Article 20.
   The laws on the organization of the army are passed by the
   Confederation. The enforcement of military laws in the Cantons
   is intrusted to the cantonal officials, within limits which
   shall be fixed by federal legislation, and under the
   supervision of the Confederation. Military instruction of
   every kind pertains to the Confederation. The same applies to
   the arming of troops. The furnishing and maintenance of
   clothing and equipment is within the power of the Cantons; but
   the Cantons shall be credited with the expenses therefor,
   according to a regulation to be established by federal
   legislation.

Article 21.
   So far as military reasons do not prevent, bodies of troops
   shall be formed out of the soldiers of the same Cantons. The
   composition of these bodies of troops, the maintenance of
   their effective strength, the appointment and promotion of
   officers of these bodies of troops, belong to the Cantons,
   subject to general provisions which shall be established by
   the Confederation.

Article 22.
   On payment of a reasonable indemnity, the Confederation has
   the right to use or acquire drill-grounds and buildings
   intended for military purposes, within the Cantons, together
   with the appurtenances thereof. The terms of the indemnity
   shall be settled by federal legislation.

Article 23.
   The Confederation may construct at its own expense, or may aid
   by subsidies, public works which concern Switzerland or a
   considerable part of the country. For this purpose it may
   expropriate property, on payment of a reasonable indemnity.
   Further enactments upon this matter shall be made by federal
   legislation. The Federal Assembly may forbid public works
   which endanger the military interests of the Confederation.

Article 24.
   The Confederation has the right of superintendence over dike
   and forest police in the upper mountain regions. It may
   cooperate in the straightening and embankment of torrents as
   well as in the afforesting of the districts in which they
   rise. It may prescribe the regulations necessary to assure the
   maintenance of these works, and the preservation of existing
   forests.

Article 25.
   The Confederation has power to make legislative enactments for
   the regulation of the right of fishing and hunting,
   particularly with a view to the preservation of the large game
   in the mountains, as well as for the protection of birds
   useful to agriculture and forestry.

Article 26.
   Legislation upon the construction and operation of railroads
   is in the province of the Confederation.

Article 27.
   The Confederation has the right to establish, besides the
   existing Polytechnic School, a Federal University and other
   institutions of higher instruction, or to subsidize
   institutions of such nature. The Cantons provide for primary
   instruction, which shall be sufficient, and shall be placed
   exclusively under the direction of the secular authority. It
   is compulsory and, in the public schools, free. The public
   schools shall be such that they may be frequented by the
   adherents of all religious sects, without any offense to their
   freedom of conscience or of belief. The Confederation shall
   take the necessary measures against such Cantons as shall not
   fulfill these duties.

Article 28.
   The customs are in the province of the Confederation. It may
   levy export and import duties.

Article 29.
   The collection of the federal customs shall be regulated
   according to the following principles:
   1. Duties ou imports:
   (a) Materials necessary for the manufactures and agriculture
   of the country shall be taxed as low as possible.
   (b) It shall be the same with the necessities of life.
   (c) Luxuries shall be subjected to the highest duties.

   Unless there are imperative reasons to the contrary, these
   principles shall be observed also in the conclusion of
   treaties of commerce with foreign powers.

   2. The duties on exports shall also be as low as possible.

   3. The customs legislation shall include suitable provisions
   for the continuance of commercial and market intercourse
   across the frontier. The above provisions do not prevent the
   Confederation from making temporary exceptional provisions,
   under extraordinary circumstances.

{590}

Article 30.
   The proceeds of the customs belong to the Confederation. The
   indemnity ceases which hitherto has been paid to the Cantons
   for the redemption of customs, for road and bridge tolls,
   customs duties and other like dues. By exception, and on
   account of their international alpine roads, the Cantons of
   Uri, Grisons, Ticino, and Valais receive an annual indemnity,
   which, considering all the circumstances, is fixed as follows:
   Uri, 80,000 francs. Grisons, 200,000 francs. Ticino, 200,000
   francs. Valais, 50,000 francs. The Cantons of Uri and Ticino
   shall receive in addition, for clearing the snow from the
   Saint Gotthard road, an annual indemnity of 40,000 francs, so
   long as that road shall not be replaced by a railroad.

Article 31.
   The freedom of trade and of industry is guaranteed throughout
   the whole extent of the Confederation. The following subjects
   are excepted:

   (a) The salt and gunpowder monopoly, the federal customs,
   import duties on wines and other spirituous liquors, and other
   taxes on consumption expressly permitted by the Confederation,
   according to article 32.

   (b) [_Added by Amendment of December_ 22, 1885.] The
   manufacture and sale of alcohol, under Article 32 (ii).

   (c) [_Added by Amendment of December_ 22, 1885.] Drinking
   places, and the retail trade in spirituous liquors; but
   nevertheless the Cantons may by legislation subject the
   business of keeping drinking places, and the retail trade in
   spirituous liquors, to such restrictions as are required for
   the public welfare.

   (d) [Originally (b)] Measures of sanitary police against
   epidemics and cattle diseases.

   (e) [Originally (c)] Provisions in regard to the exercise of
   trades and manufactures, in regard to taxes imposed thereon,
   and in regard to the police of the roads. These provisions
   shall not contain anything contrary to the principle of
   freedom of trade and manufacture.

Article 32.
   The Cantons are authorized to collect the import duties on
   wines and other spirituous liquors, provided in Article 31
   (a), always under the following restrictions:

   (a) The collection of these import duties shall in no wise
   impede transportation: commerce shall be obstructed as little
   as possible and shall not be burdened with any other dues.

   (b) If the articles imported for consumption are reexported
   from the Canton, the duties paid on importation shall be
   refunded, without further charges.

   (c) Products of Swiss origin shall be less burdened than those
   of foreign countries.

   (d) The existing import duties on wines and other spirituous
   liquors of Swiss origin shall not be increased by the Cantons
   which already levy them. Such duties shall not be established
   upon such articles by Cantons which do not at present collect
   them.

   (e) The laws and ordinances of the Cantons on the collection
   of import duties shall, before their going into effect, be
   submitted to the federal government for approval, in order
   that it may, if necessary, cause the enforcement of the
   preceding provisions. All the import duties now levied by the
   Cantons, as well as the similar duties levied by the Communes,
   shall cease without indemnity, at the end of the year 1890.

Article 32 (ii).
   [_Amendment of_ December 22, 1885.]
   The Confederation is authorized by legislation to make
   regulations for the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In this
   legislation those products which are intended for exportation,
   or which have been subjected to a process excluding them from
   use as a beverage, shall be subjected to no tax. Distillation
   of wine, fruit, and their by-products, of gentian root,
   juniper berries, and similar products, is not subject to
   federal legislation as to manufacture or tax. After the
   cessation of the import duties on spirituous liquors, provided
   for in Article 32 of the Constitution, the trade in liquors
   not distilled shall not be subjected by the Cantons to any
   special taxes or to other limitations than those necessary for
   protection against adulterated or noxious beverages.
   Nevertheless, the powers of the Cantons, defined in Article
   31, are retained over the keeping of drinking places, and the
   sale at retail of quantities less than two liters. The net
   proceeds resulting from taxation on the sale of alcohol belong
   to the Cantons in which the tax is levied. The net proceeds to
   the Confederation from the internal manufacture of alcohol,
   and the corresponding addition to the duty on imported
   alcohol, are divided among all the Cantons, in proportion to
   the actual population as ascertained from time to time by the
   next preceding federal census. Out of the receipts therefrom
   the Cantons must expend not less than one tenth in combating
   drunkenness in its causes and effects. [_For additional
   articles of this Amendment see Temporary Provisions, Article
   6, at the end of this Constitution. _]

Article 33.
   The Cantons may require proofs of competency from those who
   desire to practice a liberal profession. Provision shall be
   made by federal legislation by which such persons may obtain
   certificates of competency which shall be valid throughout the
   Confederation.

Article 34.
   The Confederation has power to enact uniform provisions as to
   the labor of children in factories, and as to the duration of
   labor fixed for adults therein, and as to the protection of
   workmen against the operation of unhealthy and dangerous
   manufactures. The transactions of emigration agents and of
   organizations for insurance, not instituted by the State, are
   subject to federal supervision and legislation.

Article 34 (ii).
   [_Amendment of December _17, 1890.]
   The Confederation shall by law provide for insurance against
   sickness and accident, with due regard for existing
   sick-benefit funds. The Confederation may require
   participation therein, either by all persons or by particular
   classes of the population.

Article 35.
   The opening of gaming houses is forbidden. Those which now
   exist shall be closed December 31, 1877. The concessions which may
   have been granted or renewed since the beginning of the year
   1871 are declared invalid. The Confederation may also take
   necessary measures concerning lotteries.

Article 36.
   The posts and telegraphs in all Switzerland are controlled by
   the Confederation. The proceeds of the posts and telegraphs
   belong to the federal treasury. The rates shall, for all parts
   of Switzerland, be fixed according to the same principle and
   as fairly as possible. Inviolable secrecy of letters and
   telegrams is guaranteed.

Article 37.
   The Confederation exercises general oversight over those roads
   and bridges in the maintenance of which it is interested. The
   sums due to the Cantons mentioned in Article 30, on account of
   their international alpine roads, shall be retained by the
   federal government if such roads are not kept by them in
   suitable condition.

{591}

Article 38.
   The Confederation exercises all the exclusive rights
   pertaining to coinage. It has the sole right of coining money.
   It establishes the monetary system, and may enact provisions,
   if necessary, for the rate of exchange of foreign coins.

[Article 39.
   (_Abrogated by the article following it_).
   _The Confederation has the power to make by law general
   provisions for the issue and redemption of bank notes. But it
   shall not create any monopoly for the issue of bank notes, nor
   make such notes a legal tender_.]

Article 39.
   [_Substitute for former Article 39, adopted October_ 18,
   1891.] The Confederation has the exclusive power to issue bank
   notes and other like currency. The Confederation may exercise
   the exclusive power over the issue of bank notes through a
   National Bank carried on under a special department of
   administration; or it may assign the right to a central joint
   stock bank hereafter to be created, which shall be
   administered under the coöperation and supervision of the
   Confederation; but the privilege to take over the bank, by
   paying a compensation, shall be retained. The bank possessed
   of the exclusive right to issue notes shall have for its chief
   function to regulate the circulation of money in Switzerland
   and to facilitate exchange. To the Cantons shall be paid at
   least two-thirds of the net profits of the bank beyond a
   reasonable interest or a reasonable dividend to the
   stockholders, and the necessary transfers to the reserve fund.
   The bank and its branches shall not be subjected to taxation
   by the Cantons. The Confederation shall not make bank notes
   and other like currency legal tender, except in urgent need in
   time of war. The principal office of the bank and the details
   of its organization, as well as in general the carrying into
   effect this article, shall be determined by federal law.

Article 40.
   The Confederation fixes the standard of weights and measures.
   The Cantons, under the supervision of the Confederation,
   [shall] enforce the laws relating thereto.

Article 41.
   The manufacture and the sale of gunpowder throughout
   Switzerland pertain exclusively to the Confederation. Powders
   used for blasting and not suitable for shooting are not
   included in the monopoly.

Article 42.
   The expenditures of the Confederation are met as follows:
   (a) Out of the income from federal property.
   (b) Out of the proceeds of the federal customs levied at the
   Swiss frontier.
   (c) Out of the proceeds of the posts and telegraphs.
   (d) Out of the proceeds of the powder monopoly.
   (e) Out of half of the gross receipts from the tax on military
   exemptions levied by the Cantons.
   (f) Out of the contributions of the Cantons, which shall be
   determined by federal legislation, with special reference to
   their wealth and taxable resources.

Article  43.
   Every citizen of a Canton is a Swiss citizen. As such he may
   participate, in the place where he is domiciled, in all
   federal elections and popular votes, after having duly proven
   his qualification as a voter. No person can exercise political
   rights in more than one Canton. The Swiss settled as a citizen
   outside his native Canton enjoys in the place where he is
   domiciled, all the rights of the citizens of the Canton,
   including all the rights of the communal citizen.
   Participation in municipal and corporate property, and the
   right to vote upon purely municipal affairs, are excepted from
   such rights, unless the Canton by legislation has otherwise
   provided. In cantonal and communal affairs, he gains the right
   to vote after a residence of three months. Cantonal laws
   relating to the right of Swiss citizens to settle outside the
   Cantons in which they were born, and to vote on communal
   questions, are submitted for the approval of the Federal
   Council.

Article 44.
   No Canton shall expel from its territory one of its own
   citizens, nor deprive him of his rights, whether acquired by
   birth or settlement. [Origine ou cité.] Federal legislation
   shall fix the conditions upon which foreigners may be
   naturalized, as well as those upon which a Swiss may give up
   his citizenship in order to obtain naturalization in a foreign
   country.

Article 45.
   Every Swiss citizen has the right to settle anywhere in Swiss
   territory, on condition of submitting a certificate of origin,
   or a similar document. By exception, settlement may be refused
   to or withdrawn from, those who, in consequence of a penal
   conviction, are not entitled to civil rights. In addition,
   settlement may be withdrawn from those who have been
   repeatedly punished for serious offenses, and also from those
   who permanently come upon the charge of public charity, and to
   whom their Commune or Canton of origin, as the case may be,
   refuses sufficient succor, after they have been officially
   asked to grant it. In the Cantons where the poor are relieved
   in their place of residence the permission to settle, if it
   relates to citizens of the Canton, may be coupled with the
   condition that they shall be able to work, and that they shall
   not, in their former domicile in the Canton of origin, have
   permanently become a charge on public charity. Every expulsion
   on account of poverty must be approved by the government of
   the Canton of domicile, and previously announced to the
   government of the Canton of origin. A Canton in which a Swiss
   establishes his domicile may not require security, nor impose
   any special obligations for such establishment. In like manner
   the Communes cannot require from Swiss domiciled in their
   territory other contributions than those which they require
   from their own subjects. A federal law shall establish the
   maximum fee to be paid the Chancery for a permit to settle.

Article 46.
   Persons settled in Switzerland are, as a rule, subjected to
   the jurisdiction and legislation of their domicile, in all
   that pertains to their personal status and property rights.
   The Confederation shall by law make the provisions necessary
   for the application of this principle and for the prevention
   of double taxation of a citizen.

Article 47.
   A federal law shall establish the distinction between
   settlement and temporary residence, and shall at the same time
   make the regulations to which Swiss temporary residents shall
   be subjected as to their political rights and their civil
   rights.

Article 48.
   A federal law shall provide for the regulation of the expenses
   of the illness and burial of indigent persons amenable to one
   Canton, who have fallen ill or died in another Canton.

{592}

Article  49.
   Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable. No person can
   be constrained to take part in a religious society, to attend
   religious instruction, to perform a religious rite, or to
   incur penalties of any kind whatever on account of religious
   opinion. The person who exercises the parent's or guardian's
   authority has the right, conformably to the principles above
   stated, to regulate the religious education of children up to
   the age of sixteen completed years. The exercise of civil or
   political rights shall not be abridged by any provisions or
   conditions whatever of an ecclesiastical or religious kind. No
   person shall, on account of a religious belief, release
   himself from the accomplishment of a civil duty. No person is
   bound to pay taxes of which the proceeds are specifically
   appropriated to the actual expenses of the worship of a
   religious body to which he does not belong. The details of the
   carrying out of this principle are reserved for federal
   legislation.

Article 50.
   The free exercise of religious worship is guaranteed within
   the limits compatible with public order and good morals. The
   Cantons and the Confederation may take suitable measures for
   the preservation of public order and of peace between the
   members of different religious bodies, and also against
   encroachments of ecclesiastical authorities upon the rights of
   citizens and of the State. Contests in public and private law,
   which arise out of the formation or the division of religious
   bodies, may be brought by appeal before the competent federal
   authorities. No bishopric shall be created upon Swiss
   territory without the consent of the Confederation.

Article 51.
   The order of the Jesuits, and the societies affiliated with
   them, shall not be received into any part of Switzerland; and
   all action in church and school is forbidden to its members.
   This prohibition may be extended also, by federal ordinance,
   to other religious orders, the action of which is dangerous to
   the state or disturbs the peace between sects.

Article 52.
   The foundation of new convents or religious orders, and the
   reestablishment of those which have been suppressed, are
   forbidden.

Article 53.
   The civil status and the keeping of records thereof is subject
   to the civil authority. The Confederation shall by law enact
   detailed provisions upon this subject. The control of places o
   burial is subject to the civil authority. It shall take care
   that every deceased person may be decently interred.

Article 54.
   The right of marriage is placed under the protection of the
   Confederation. No limitation upon marriage shall be based upon
   sectarian grounds, nor upon the poverty of either of the
   contractants, nor on their conduct, nor on any other
   consideration of good order. A marriage contracted in a Canton
   or in a foreign country, conformably to the law which is there
   in force, shall be recognized as valid throughout the
   Confederation. By marriage the wife acquires the citizenship
   of her husband. Children born before the marriage are made
   legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents. No tax
   upon admission or similar tax shall be levied upon either
   party to a marriage.

Article 55.
   The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless the
   Cantons by law enact the measures necessary for the
   suppression of abuses. Such laws are submitted for the
   approval of the Federal Council. The Confederation may enact
   penalties for the suppression of press offenses directed
   against it or its authorities.

Article 56.
   Citizens have the right of forming associations, provided that
   there be in the purpose of such associations, or in the means
   which they employ, nothing unlawful or dangerous to the state.
   The Cantons by law take the measures necessary for the
   suppression of abuses.

Article 57.
   The right of petition is guaranteed.

Article 58.
   No person shall be deprived of his constitutional judge.
   Therefore no extraordinary tribunal shall be established.
   Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished.

Article 59.
   Suits for personal claims against a solvent debtor having a
   domicile in Switzerland, must be brought before the judge of
   his domicile; in consequence, his property outside the Canton
   in which he is domiciled may not be attached in suits for
   personal claims. Nevertheless, with reference to foreigners,
   the provisions of international treaties shall not thereby be
   affected. Imprisonment for debt is abolished.

Article 60.
   All the Cantons are bound to treat the citizens of the other
   confederated States like those of their own State in
   legislation and in all judicial proceedings.

Article 61.
   Civil judgments definitely pronounced in any Canton may be
   executed anywhere in Switzerland.

Article 62.
   The exit duty on property [traite foraine] is abolished in the
   interior of Switzerland, as well as the right of redemption
   [droit de retrait] by citizens of one Canton against those of
   other confederated States.

Article  63.
   The exit duty on property is abolished as respects foreign
   countries, provided reciprocity be observed.

Article 64.
   The Confederation has power to make laws:
   On legal competency.
   On all legal questions relating to commerce and to
   transactions affecting chattels (law of commercial
   obligations, including commercial law and law of exchange).
   On literary and artistic copyright.
   On the protection of new patterns and forms, and of inventions
   which are represented in models and are capable of industrial
   application. [Amendment of December 20, 1887.]
   On the legal collection of debts and on bankruptcy. The
   administration of justice remains with the Cantons, save as
   affected by the powers of the Federal Court.

Article 65.
   [(_Abrogated by Amendment of June_ 20, 1879.) _The
   death penalty is abolished; nevertheless the provisions of
   military law in time of war shall be observed. Corporal
   punishment is abolished_.]

Article 65.
   [Amendment of June 20, 1879.]
   No death penalty shall be pronounced for a political crime.
   Corporal punishment is abolished.

Article 66.
   The Confederation by law fixes the limits within which a Swiss
   citizen may be deprived of his political rights.

Article 67.
   The Confederation by law provides for the extradition of
   accused persons from one Canton to another; nevertheless,
   extradition shall not be made obligatory for political
   offenses and offenses of the press.

Article 68.
   Measures are taken by federal law for the incorporation of
   persons without country (Heimathlosen), and for the prevention
   of new cases of that nature.

Article 69.
   Legislation concerning measures of sanitary police against
   epidemic and cattle diseases, causing a common danger, is
   included in the powers of the Confederation.

Article 70.
   The Confederation has power to expel from its territory
   foreigners who endanger the internal or external safety of
   Switzerland.

{593}

Chapter II.

Article 71.
   With the reservation of the rights of the people and of the
   Cantons (Articles 89 and 121), the supreme authority of the
   Confederation is exercised by the Federal Assembly, [Assemblée
   fédérale; Bundesversammlung] which consists of two sections or
   councils, to wit:
   (A) The National Council.
   (B) The Council of States.

Article 72.
   The National Council [Conseil National; Nationalrath] is
   composed of representatives of the Swiss people, chosen in the
   ratio of one member for each 20,000 persons of the total
   population. Fractions of upwards of 10,000 persons are
   reckoned as 20,000. Every Canton, and in the divided Cantons
   every Half-Canton, chooses at least one representative.

Article 73.
   The elections for the National Council are direct. They are
   held in federal electoral districts, which in no case shall be
   formed out of parts of different Cantons.

Article 74.
   Every Swiss who has completed twenty years of age, and who in
   addition is not excluded from the rights of a voter by the
   legislation of the Canton in which he is domiciled, has the
   right to vote in elections and popular votes. Nevertheless,
   the Confederation by law may establish uniform regulations for
   the exercise of such right.

Article 75.
   Every lay Swiss citizen who has the right to vote is eligible
   for membership in the National Council.

Article 76.
   The National Council is chosen for three years, and entirely
   renewed at each general election.

Article 77.
   Representatives to the Council of States, members of the
   Federal Council, and officials appointed by that Council,
   shall not at the same time be members of the National Council.

Article 78.
   The National Council chooses out of its own number, for each
   regular or extraordinary session, a President and a
   Vice-President. A member who has held the office of President
   during a regular session is ineligible either as President, or
   Vice-President at the next regular session. The same member
   may not be Vice-President during two consecutive regular
   sessions. When the votes are equally divided the President has
   a casting vote; in elections he votes in the same manner as
   other members.

Article 79.
   The members of the National Council receive a compensation out
   of the federal treasury.

Article 80.
   The Council of States [Conseil des États; Ständerath] consists
   of forty-four representatives of the Cantons. Each Canton
   appoints two representatives; in the divided Cantons, each
   Half-State chooses one.

Article 81.
   The members of the National Council and those of the Federal
   Council may not be representatives in the Council of States.

Article 82.
   The Council of States chooses out of its own number for each
   regular or extraordinary session a President and a
   Vice-President. Neither the President nor the Vice-President
   can be chosen from among the representatives of the Canton
   from which the President has been chosen for the regular
   session next preceding. Representatives of the same Canton
   cannot occupy the position of Vice-President during two
   consecutive regular sessions. When the votes are equally
   divided the President has a casting vote; in elections he
   votes in the same manner as the other members.

Article 83.
   Representatives in the Council of States receive a
   compensation from the Cantons.

Article 84.
   The National Council and the Council of States consider all
   the subjects which the present Constitution places within the
   competence of the Confederation, and which are not assigned to
   any other federal authority.

Article 85.
   The subjects within the competence of the two Councils are
   particularly the following:

   1. Laws on the organization of and election of federal
   authorities.

   2. Laws and ordinances on subjects which by the Constitution
   are placed within the federal competence.

   3. The salary and compensation of members of the federal
   governing bodies and of the Federal Chancery; the creation of
   federal offices and the determination of salaries therefor.

   4. The election of the Federal Council, of the Federal Court,
   and of the Chancellor, and also of the Commander-in-chief of
   the federal army. The Confederation may by law assign to the
   Federal Assembly other powers of election or of confirmation.

   5. Alliances and treaties with foreign powers, and also the
   approval of treaties made by the Cantons between themselves or
   with foreign powers; nevertheless the treaties made by the
   Cantons shall be brought before the Federal Assembly only in
   case the Federal Council or another Canton protests.

   6. Measures for external safety and also for the maintenance
   of the independence and neutrality of Switzerland; the
   declaration of war and the conclusion of peace.

   7. The guaranty of the Constitution and of the territory of
   the Cantons; intervention in consequence of such guaranty;
   measures for the internal safety of Switzerland, for the
   maintenance of peace and order; amnesty and pardon.

   8. Measures for the preservation of the Constitution, for
   carrying out the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, and
   for fulfilling federal obligations.

   9. The power of controlling the federal army.

   10. The determination of the annual budget, the audit of
   public accounts, and federal ordinances authorizing loans.

   11. The superintendence of federal administration and of
   federal courts.

   12. Protests against the decisions of the Federal Council upon
   administrative conflicts. (Article 113.)

   13. Conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities.

   14. The amendment of the federal Constitution.

Article 86.
   The two Councils assemble annually in regular session upon a
   day to be fixed by the standing orders. They are convened in
   extra session by the Federal Council upon the request either
   of one fourth of the members of the National Council, or of
   five Cantons.

Article 87.
   In either Council a quorum is a majority of the total number
   of its members.

Article 88.
   In the National Council and in the Council of States a
   majority of those voting is required.

Article 89.
   Federal laws, enactments, and resolutions shall be passed only
   by the agreement of the two Councils. Federal laws shall be
   submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people, if the
   demand is made by 30,000 voters or by eight Cantons. The same
   principle applies to federal resolutions which have a general
   application, and which are not of an urgent nature.

Article 90.
   The Confederation shall by law establish the forms and
   intervals to be observed in popular votes.

{594}

Article 91.
   Members of either Council vote without instructions.

Article 92.
   Each Council takes action separately. But in the case of the
   elections specified in Article 85, § 4, of pardons, or of
   deciding a  conflict of jurisdiction (Art. 85, § 13), the two
   Councils meet in joint session, under the direction of the
   President of the National Council, and a decision is made by
   the majority of the members of both Councils present and
   voting.

Article 93.
   Measures may originate in either Council, and may be
   introduced by any of their members. The Cantons may by
   correspondence exercise the same right.

Article 94.
   As a rule, the sittings of the Councils are public.

Article 95.
   The supreme direction and executive authority of the
   Confederation is exercised by a Federal Council [Conseil
   fédéral; Bundesrath], composed of seven members.

Article 96.
   The members of the Federal Council are chosen for three years
   by the Councils in joint session from among all the Swiss
   citizens eligible to the National Council. But not more than
   one member of the Federal Council shall be chosen from the
   same Canton. The Federal Council is chosen anew after each
   election of the National Council. Vacancies which occur in the
   course of the three years are filled at the first ensuing
   session of the Federal Assembly, for the remainder of the term
   of office.

Article 97.
   The members of the Federal Council shall not, during their
   term of office, occupy any other office, either in the service
   of the Confederation or in a Canton, or follow any other
   pursuit, or exercise a profession.

Article 98.
   The Federal Council is presided over by the President of the
   Confederation. There is a Vice-President. The President of the
   Confederation and the Vice-President of the Federal Council
   are chosen for one year by the Federal Assembly from among the
   members of the Council. The retiring President shall not be
   chosen as President or Vice-President for the year ensuing.
   The same member shall not hold the office of Vice-President
   during two consecutive years.

Article 99.
   The President of the Confederation and the other members of
   the Federal Council receive an annual salary from the federal
   treasury.

Article 100.
   A quorum of the Federal Council consists of four members.

Article 101.
   The members of the Federal Council have the right to speak but
   not to vote in either house of the Federal Assembly, and also
   the right to make motions on the subject under consideration.

Article 102.
   The powers and the duties of the Federal Council, within the
   limits of this Constitution, are particularly the following:

   1. It conducts federal affairs, conformably to the laws and
   resolutions of the Confederation.

   2. It takes care that the Constitution, federal laws and
   ordinances, and also the provisions of federal concordats, be
   observed; upon its own initiative or upon complaint, it takes
   measures necessary to cause these instruments to be observed,
   unless the consideration of redress be among the subjects
   which should be brought before the Federal Court, according to
   Article 113.

   3. It takes care that the guaranty of the cantonal
   constitutions be observed.

   4. It introduces bills or resolutions into the Federal
   Assembly, and gives its opinion upon the proposals submitted
   to it by the Councils or the Cantons.

   5. It executes the laws and resolutions of the Confederation
   and the judgments of the Federal Court, and also the
   compromises or decisions in arbitration upon disputes between
   Cantons.

   6. It makes those appointments which are not assigned to the
   Federal Assembly, Federal Court, or other authority.

   7. It examines the treaties made by Cantons with each other,
   or with foreign powers, and approves them, if proper. (Article
   85, § 5.)

   8. It watches over the external interests of the
   Confederation, particularly the maintenance of its
   international relations, and is, in general, intrusted with
   foreign relations.

   9. It watches over the external safety of Switzerland, over
   the maintenance of independence and neutrality.

   10. It watches over the internal safety of the Confederation,
   over the maintenance of peace and order.

   11. In cases of urgency, and when the Federal Assembly is not
   in session, the Federal Council has power to raise the
   necessary troops and to employ them, with the reservation that
   it shall immediately summon the Councils if the number of
   troops exceeds two thousand men, or if they remain in arms
   more than three weeks.

   12. It administers the military establishment of the
   Confederation, and all other branches of administration
   committed to the Confederation.

   13. It examines such laws and ordinances of the Cantons as
   must be submitted for its approval; it exercises supervision
   over such departments of the cantonal administration as are
   placed under its control.

   14. It administers the finances of the Confederation,
   introduces the budget, and submits accounts of receipts and
   expenses.

   15. It supervises the conduct of an the officials and
   employees of the federal administration.

   16. It submits to the Federal Assembly at each regular session
   an account of its administration and a report of the condition
   of the Confederation, internal as well as external, and calls
   attention to the measures which it deems desirable for the
   promotion of the general welfare. It also makes special
   reports when the Federal Assembly or either Council requires
   it.

Article 103.
   The business of the Federal Council is distributed by
   departments among its members. This distribution has the
   purpose only of facilitating the examination and despatch of
   business; decisions emanate from the Federal Council as a
   single authority.

Article 104.
   The Federal Council and its departments have power to call in
   experts on special subjects.

Article 105.
   A Federal Chancery [Chancellerie fédérale; Bundeskanzlei], at
   the head of which is placed the Chancellor of the
   Confederation, conducts the secretary's business for the
   Federal Assembly and the Federal Council. The Chancellor is
   chosen by the Federal Assembly for the term of three years, at
   the same time as the Federal Council. The Chancery is under
   the special supervision of the Federal Council. A federal law
   shall provide for the organization of the Chancery.

Article 106.
   There shall be a Federal Court [Tribunal fédéral;
   Bundesgericht] for the administration of justice in federal
   concerns. There shall be, moreover, a jury for criminal cases.
   (Article 112.)

{595}

Article 107.
   The members and alternates of the Federal Court shall be
   chosen by the Federal Assembly, which shall take care that all
   three national languages are represented therein. A law shall
   establish the organization of the Federal Court and of its
   sections, the number of judges and alternates, their term of
   office, and their salary.

Article 108.
   Any Swiss citizen eligible to the National Council may be
   chosen to the Federal Court. The members of the Federal
   Assembly and of the Federal Council, and officials appointed
   by those authorities, shall not at the same time belong to the
   Federal Court. The members of the Federal Court shall not,
   during their term of office, occupy any other office, either
   in the service of the Confederation or in a Canton, nor engage
   in any other pursuit, nor practice a profession.

Article 109.
   The Federal Court organizes its own Chancery and appoints the
   officials thereof.

Article 110.
   The Federal Court has jurisdiction in civil suits:

   1. Between the Confederation and the Cantons.

   2. Between the Confederation on one part and corporations or
   individuals on the other part, when such corporations or
   individuals are plaintiffs, and when the amount involved is of
   a degree of importance to be determined by federal
   legislation.

   3. Between Cantons.

   4. Between Cantons on one part and corporations or individuals
   on the other part, when one of the parties demands it, and the
   amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
   by federal legislation. It further has jurisdiction in suits
   concerning the status of persons not subjects of any
   government (heimathlosat), and the conflicts which arise
   between Communes of different Cantons respecting the right of
   local citizenship. [Droit de cité.]

Article 111.
   The Federal Court is bound to give judgment in other cases
   when both parties agree to abide by its decision, and when the
   amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
   by federal legislation.

Article 112.
   The Federal Court, assisted by a jury to decide upon questions
   of fact, has criminal jurisdiction in:

   1. Cases of high treason against the Confederation, of
   rebellion or violence against federal authorities.

   2. Crimes and misdemeanors against the law of nations.

   3, Political crimes and misdemeanors which are the cause or
   the result of disturbances which occasion armed federal
   intervention.

   4. Cases against officials appointed by a federal authority,
   where such authority relegates them to the Federal Court.

Article 113.
   The Federal Court further has jurisdiction:

   1. Over conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities
   on one part and cantonal authorities on the other part.

   2. Disputes between Cantons, when such disputes are upon
   questions of public law.

   3. Complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of
   citizens, and complaints of individuals for the violation of
   concordats or treaties. Conflicts of administrative
   jurisdiction are reserved, and are to be settled in a manner
   prescribed by federal legislation. In all the fore-mentioned
   cases the Federal Court shall apply the laws passed by the
   Federal Assembly and those resolutions of the Assembly which
   have a general import. It shall in like manner conform to
   treaties which shall have been ratified by the Federal
   Assembly.

Article 114.
   Besides the cases specified in Articles 110, 112, and 113, the
   Confederation may by law place other matters within the
   jurisdiction of the Federal Court; in particular, it may give
   to that court powers intended to insure the uniform
   application of the laws provided for in Article 64.

Article 115.
   All that relates to the location of the authorities of the
   Confederation is a subject for federal legislation.

Article 116.
   The three principal languages spoken in Switzerland, German,
   French, and Italian, are national languages of the
   Confederation.

Article  117.
   The officials of the Confederation are responsible for their
   conduct in office. A federal law shall enforce this
   responsibility.

Chapter III.
   (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following
   them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at
   any time be amended.

[Article 119.
   _Amendment is secured through the forms required for passing
   federal laws._]

[Article 120.
   _When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
   resolution for amendment of the Federal Constitution and the
   other Council does not agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss
   voters demand amendment, the question whether the Federal
   Constitution ought to be amended is, in either case, submitted
   to a vote of the Swiss people, voting yes or no. If in either
   case the majority of the Swiss citizens who vote pronounce in
   the affirmative, there shall be a new election of both
   Councils for the purpose of preparing amendments._]

[Article 121.
   _The amended Federal Constitution shalt be in force when it
   has been adopted by the majority of Swiss citizens who take
   part in the vote thereon and by a majority of the States. In
   making up a majority of the States the vote of a Half-Canton
   is counted as half a vote. The result of the popular vote in
   each Canton is considered to be the vote of the State._]

Article 118.
   [_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] The Federal Constitution
   may at any time be amended as a whole or in part.

Article 119.
   [_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] General revision is
   secured through the forms required for passing the federal
   laws.

Article 120.
   When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
   resolution for general revision and the other Council does not
   agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss voters demand general
   revision the question whether there shall be such a revision
   must, in either case, be submitted to the popular vote of the
   Swiss people. If, in either case, the majority of the Swiss
   citizens who vote on the question pronounce in the
   affirmative, there shall be a new election of both Councils
   for the purpose of preparing a general revision.

Article 121.
   [_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] Specific amendments may be
   brought forward either through a Proposition of the People
   [Volksanregung] (Initiative) or by Federal legislation. A
   Proposition of the People means a demand supported by fifty
   thousand Swiss voters, either for suspension, repeal, or
   alteration of specified articles of the Federal Constitution.
   If by means of the method of Proposition of the People several
   different subjects are brought forward either for alteration
   or for incorporation into the Federal Constitution, each one
   of those separate subjects must be presented in a separate
   demand for a popular vote [Initintivbegehren]. The demand for
   a popular vote may take the form either of a request in
   general terms, or of a definite draft. If such a demand be
   made in the form of a request in general terms and the
   Councils of the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the said
   Councils shall thereupon prepare a specific amendment of the
   purport indicated by those asking amendment; and such specific
   amendment shall be submitted to the people and to the states
   for their acceptance or rejection. In case the Councils of the
   Federal Assembly do not agree thereto, the question of
   specific amendment shall then be subjected to the people for a
   popular vote; and in case the majority of the Swiss voters
   vote therefor, an amendment of the purport indicated by the
   vote of the people shall then be prepared by the Federal
   Assembly. In case the request shall take the form of a
   specific draft and the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the
   draft is then to be submitted to the people and the States for
   acceptance or rejection. If the Federal Assembly shall not
   agree thereto it may either prepare a substitute draft for
   itself, or it may propose the rejection of the proposition.
   The proposition to reject such substitute draft or proposition
   shall be submitted to the vote of the people and of the States
   at the same time with the general Proposition of the People.

{596}

Article 122.
   [_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] The procedure upon the
   Proposition of the People and the popular votes concerning
   amendment of the Federal Constitution, shall be regulated in
   detail by a Federal Law.

Article 123.
   [_Amendment of July_ 5, 1891.] The amended Federal
   Constitution or the specific amendments proposed, as the case
   may be, shall be in force when adopted by the majority of the
   Swiss citizens who take part in the vote thereon and by a
   majority of the Cantons. In making up the majority of the
   States the vote of a half of each Canton is counted as half a
   vote. The result of the popular vote in each Canton is
   considered to be the vote of the state.

Temporary Provisions.

Article 1.
   The proceeds of the posts and customs shall be divided upon
   the present basis, until such time as the Confederation shall
   take upon itself the military expenses up to this time borne
   by the Cantons. Federal legislation shall provide, besides,
   that the loss which may be occasioned to the finances of
   certain Cantons by the sum of the charges which result from
   Articles 20, 30, 36 (§ 2), and 42 (e), shall fall upon such
   Cantons only gradually, and shall not attain its full effect
   till after a transition period of some years. Those Cantons
   which, at the going into effect of Article 20 of the
   Constitution, have not fulfilled the military obligations
   which are imposed upon them by the former Constitution, or by
   federal laws, shall be bound to carry them out at their own
   expense.

Article 2.
   The provisions of the federal laws and of the cantonal
   concordats, constitutions or cantonal laws, which are contrary
   to this Constitution, cease to have effect by the adoption of
   the Constitution or the publication of the laws for which it
   provides.

Article 3.
   The new provisions relating to the organization and
   jurisdiction of the Federal Court take effect only after the
   publication of federal laws thereon.

Article 4.
   A delay of five years is allowed to Cantons for the
   establishment of free instruction in primary public education.
   (Art. 27.)

Article 5.
   Those persons who practice a liberal profession, and who,
   before the publication of the federal law provided for in
   Article 33, have obtained a certificate of competence from a
   Canton or a joint authority representing several Cantons, may
   pursue that profession throughout the Confederation.

Article 6.
   [_Amendment of December_ 22, 1885. _For the remainder of
   this amendment see article 32 (ii)._] If a federal law for
   carrying out Article 32 (ii) be passed before the end of 1890,
   the import duties levied on spirituous liquors by the Cantons
   and Communes, according to Article 32, cease on the going into
   effect of such law. If, in such case, the shares of any Canton
   or Commune, out of the sums to be divided, are not sufficient
   to equal the average annual net proceeds of the taxes they
   have levied on spirituous liquors in the years 1880 to 1884
   inclusive, the Cantons and Communes affected shall, till the
   end of 1890, receive the amount of the deficiency out of the
   amount which is to be divided among the other Cantons
   according to population; and the remainder only shall be
   divided among such other Cantons and Communes, according to
   population. The Confederation shall further provide by law
   that for such Cantons or Communes as may suffer financial loss
   through the effect of this amendment, such loss shall not come
   upon them immediately in its full extent, but gradually up to
   the year 1895. The indemnities thereby made necessary shall be
   previously taken out of the net proceeds designated in Article
   32 (ii), paragraph 4.

   Thus resolved by the National Council to be submitted to the
   popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
   January 31, 1874. Ziegler, President. Schiess, Secretary.

   Thus resolved by the Council of States, to be submitted to the
   popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
   January 31, 1874. A. Kopp, President. J. L. Lutscher,
   Secretary.

----------CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781.
   The Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781,
      and 1783-1787.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787-1789, and 1791-1870.
   A sketch of the history of the framing and adoption of the
   Federal Constitution of the United States will be found under

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

   The following text of the original instrument, with the
   subsequent amendments to it, is one prepared by Professor
   Albert Bushnell Hart, and is the result of a careful
   comparison with the original manuscripts, preserved in the
   State Department at Washington. "It is intended to be
   absolutely exact in word, spelling, capitalization and
   punctuation. A few headings and paragraph numbers, inserted
   for convenience of reference, are indicated by brackets."
   "Those parts of the Constitution which were temporary in
   their nature, or which have been superseded or altered by
   later amendments, are included within the signs []." This
   text, originally printed in the "American History Leaflets,"
   is reproduced with Professor Hart's consent. The paragraphing
   has been altered, to economize space, but it is otherwise
   exactly reproduced:

{597}

   "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more
   perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
   provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
   and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
   Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
   United States of America.

Article I.
   _Section_ 1.
   All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
   Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
   and House of Representatives.

   _Section_ 2
   [§ 1.]
   The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
   chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
   and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
   requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the
   State Legislature.

      [Footnote: Modified by Fourteenth Amendment.]

   [§ 2.]
   No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
   attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years
   a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
   elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
   chosen.

   [§ 3.]
   Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
   the several States which may be included within this Union,
   according to their respective Numbers, [which shall be
   determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
   including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
   excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
   Persons.]

      [Footnote: Superseded by Fourteenth Amendment.]

   The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after
   the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
   within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
   they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall
   not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall
   have at Least one Representative; [and until such enumeration
   shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to
   chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
   Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey
   four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia
   ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
   three.]

   [Footnote: Temporary clause.]

   [§ 4.]
   When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,
   the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election
   to fill such Vacancies.

   [§ 5.]
   The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and
   other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

   _Section_ 3.
   [§ 1.]
   The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
   Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
   for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

   [§ 2.]
   Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of
   the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be
   into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first
   Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year,
   of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and
   of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so
   that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
   Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the
   Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof
   may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the
   Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

   [§ 3.]
   No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to
   the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
   United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
   Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

   [§ 4.]
   The Vice President of the United States shall be President of
   the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally
   divided.

   [§ 5.]
   The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
   President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
   or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the
   United States.

   [§ 6.]
   The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
   When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
   Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
   the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
   convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members
   present.

   [§ 7.]
   Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
   to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
   any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
   but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
   subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
   according to Law.

   _Section_ 4.
   [§ 1.]
   The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
   and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
   Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
   make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
   chusing Senators.

   [§ 2.]
   The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and
   such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless
   they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

   _Section_ 5.
   [§ 1.]
   Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
   Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
   shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number
   may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel
   the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under
   such Penalties as each House may provide.

   [§ 2.]
   Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish
   its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
   Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

   [§ 3.]
   Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from
   time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in
   their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the
   Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire
   of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

   [§ 4.]
   Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without
   the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,
   nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall
   be sitting.

   _Section_ 6.
   [§ 1.]
   The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation
   for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of
   the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases,
   except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged
   from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
   respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the
   same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
   not be questioned in any other Place.

{598}

   [§ 2.]
   No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which
   he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the
   Authority of the United States, which shall have been created,
   or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during
   such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United
   States, shall be a Member of either House during his
   Continuance in Office.

   _Section_ 7.
   [§ 1.]
   All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
   Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
   Amendments as on other Bills.

   [§ 2.]
   Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
   Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,
   be presented to the President of the United States; If he
   approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with
   his Objections to that House in which it shall have
   originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
   Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
   Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass
   the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to
   the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
   and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a
   Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
   determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
   voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the
   Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be
   returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)
   after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a
   Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the
   Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
   Case it shall not be a Law.

   [§ 3.]
   Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of
   the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary
   (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to
   the President of the United States; and before the same shall
   take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
   him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House
   of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
   prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

   _Section_ 8.
   The Congress shall have Power
   [§ 1.]
   To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay
   the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
   Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
   Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

   [§ 2.]
   To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

   [§ 3.]
   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
   several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

   [§ 4.]
   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
   Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United
   States;

   [§ 5.]
   To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
   Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

   [§ 6.]
   To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
   and current Coin of the United States;

   [§ 7.]
   To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

   [§ 8.]
   To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
   securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
   exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

   [§ 9.]
   To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

   [§ 10.]
   To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
   high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

   [§ 11.]
   To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
   Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

   [§ 12.]
   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
   that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

   [§ 13.]
   To provide and maintain a Navy;

   [§ 14.]
   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
   and naval Forces;

   [§ 15.]
   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
   of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

   [§ 16.]
   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
   Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
   employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
   States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
   Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
   prescribed by Congress;

   [§ 17.]
   To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
   over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
   Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
   become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
   exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
   Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same
   shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
   dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

   [§ 18.]
   To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
   carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
   Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
   United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

   _Section_ 9.
   [§ 1.]
   [The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
   States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
   prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
   eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on
   such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.]

   [Footnote: Temporary provision.]

   [§ 2.]
   The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
   suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
   public Safety may require it.

   [§ 3.]
   No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

   [Footnote: Extended by the first eight Amendments.]

   [§ 4.]
   No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
   Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed
   to be taken.

   [§ 5.]
   No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
   State.

   [§ 6.]
   No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or
   Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
   shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to
   enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

   [§ 7.]
   No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
   of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and
   Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
   shall be published from time to time.

   [§ 8.]
   No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
   And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
   them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
   any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
   whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

   [Footnote: Extended by Ninth and Tenth Amendments.]

   _Section_ 10.
   [§ 1.]
   No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
   Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
   Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
   silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
   Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation
   of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

{599}

   [§ 2.]
   No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
   Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be
   absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and
   the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State
   on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of
   the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the
   Revision and Control of the Congress.

   [§ 3.]
   No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty
   of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
   enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or
   with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
   invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of
   delay.

   [Footnote: Extended by Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
   Amendments.]

Article II.

   Section 1.
   [§ 1.]
   The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
   United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the
   Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President,
   chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

   [§ 2.]
   Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
   thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
   Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may
   be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
   or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the
   United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [The Electors
   shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
   two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant
   of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List
   of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for
   each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit
   sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States,
   directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the
   Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
   Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
   shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number
   of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
   of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be
   more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number
   of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
   chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person
   have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
   said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in
   chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
   Representation from each State having one Vote: A quorum for
   this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two
   thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
   be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of
   the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes
   of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
   should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
   shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]

   [Footnote: Superseded by Twelfth Amendment.]

   [§ 3.]
   The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
   and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day
   shall be the same throughout the United States.

   [§ 4.]
   No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
   United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
   Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
   neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
   not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
   fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

   [§ 5.]
   In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his
   Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
   Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
   President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
   Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the
   President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall
   then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly,
   until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
   elected.

   [§ 6.]
   The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his
   Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor
   diminished during the Period for which he shall have been
   elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
   Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

   [§ 7.]
   Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
   the following Oath or Affirmation:—
      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
      execute the Office of President of the United States, and
      will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
      defend the Constitution of the United States."

   Section 2.
   [§ 1.]
   The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
   of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
   States, when called into the actual Service of the United
   States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
   principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon
   any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
   Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
   Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in
   Cases of Impeachment.

   [§ 2.]
   He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
   Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
   present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
   Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
   other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
   Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
   Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
   shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
   the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
   proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
   the Heads of Departments.

   [§ 3.]
   The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that
   may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
   Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
   Session.

   _Section_ 3.
   He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
   the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration
   such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he
   may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or
   either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
   Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
   such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
   Ambassadors and other public Ministers: he shall take Care
   that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
   the Officers of the United States.

{600}

   _Section_ 4.
   The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
   United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
   for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
   and Misdemeanors.

Article III.
   _Section_ 1.
   The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
   one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
   may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both
   of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
   during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
   their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
   during their Continuance in Office.

   _Section_ 2.
   [§ 1.]
   The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
   Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
   United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
   under their Authority;
   —to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
   and Consuls;
   —to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
   —to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
   Party;
   —to Controversies between two or more States;
   —between a State and Citizens of another State;

   [Footnote: Limited by Eleventh Amendment.]

   —between Citizens of different States,
   —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
   Grants of different States, and between a State, or the
   Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

   [§ 2.]
   In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
   Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the
   supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
   other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
   appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
   Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
   make.

   [§ 3.]
   The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall
   be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where
   the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not
   committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place
   or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

   Section 3.
   [§ 1.]
   Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
   levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
   giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
   Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same
   overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

   [§ 2.]
   The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
   Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
   Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
   attainted.

Article IV.
   _Section_ 1.
   Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
   public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
   State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
   Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
   proved, and the Effect thereof.

   Section 2.
   [§ 1.]
   The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
   and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

   [Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment.]

   [§ 2.]
   A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
   Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another
   State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State
   from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
   State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

   [§ 3.]
   [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the
   Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of
   any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service
   or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
   whom such Service or Labour may be due.]

   [Footnote: Superseded by Thirteenth Amendment.]

   _Section_ 3.
   [§ 1.]
   New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
   but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
   Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by
   the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
   without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
   concerned as well as of the Congress.

   [§ 2.]
   The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
   needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
   other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in
   this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
   Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

   _Section_ 4.
   The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
   a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
   them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature,
   or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
   against domestic Violence.

Article V.
   The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
   necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,
   on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
   several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
   Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
   Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
   ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
   States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
   or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
   Congress; Provided that [no Amendment which may be made prior
   to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
   Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
   Section of the first Article; and] that no State, without its
   Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
   Senate.

   [Footnote: "[no amendment…]" is a Temporary provision.]

Article VI.
   [§ 1.]
   All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
   Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
   United States under this Constitution, as under the
   Confederation.

   [Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.]

   [§ 2.]
   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
   shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
   which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
   shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
   State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
   Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

   [§ 3.]
   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
   Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
   and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
   several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
   support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
   required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
   under the United States.

Article VII.
   The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
   sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
   the States so ratifying the Same.

{601}

   DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States
   present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our
   Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the
   Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In
   Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names.

   Go WASHINGTON—Presidt and deputy from Virginia.

   DELAWARE.
      Geo: Read
      John Dickinson
      Gunning Bedford jun
      Richard Bassett
      Jaco: Broom

   NEW HAMPSHIRE.
      John Langdon
      Nicholas Gilman

   MASSACHUSETTS.
      Nathaniel Gorham
      Rufus King

   MARYLAND.
      James McHenry
      Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer
      Danl Carroll

   CONNECTICUT.
      Wm. Sami. Johnson
      Roger Sherman

   VIRGINIA.
      John Blair
      James Madison Jr.

   NEW YORK.
      Alexander Hamilton

   NORTH CAROLINA.
      Wm. Blount
      Richd. Dobbs Spaight
      Hu Williamson

   NEW JERSEY.
      Wil: Livingston
      Wm: Paterson.
      David Brearley
      Jona: Dayton

   SOUTH CAROLINA.
      J. Rutledge,
      Charles Pinckney
      Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
      Pierce Butler.

   PENNSYLVANIA.
      B Franklin
      Thos. Fitz Simons
      Thomas Mifflin
      Jared Ingersoll
      Robt. Morris
      James Wilson.
      Geo. Clymer
      Gouv Morris

   GEORGIA.
      William Few
      Abr Baldwin

   [Footnote: These signatures have no other legal force than
   that of attestation.]



   ARTICLES in addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of
   the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and
   ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant
   to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

   [Footnote: This heading appears only in the joint resolution
   submitting the first ten amendments.]

[Article 1.]
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
   religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
   abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
   of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
   Government for a redress of grievances.

[Article II.]
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
   free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
   shall not be infringed.

[Article III.]
   No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
   without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
   manner to be prescribed by law.

[Article IV.]
   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
   papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
   seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
   but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
   particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
   persons or things to be seized.

[Article V.]
   No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
   infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
   Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
   forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
   War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
   same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
   shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
   against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
   property, without due process of law; nor shall private
   property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Article VI.]
   In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
   to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
   State and district wherein the crime shall have been
   committed, which district shall have been previously
   ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
   of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
   him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
   favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Article VII.]
   In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
   exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
   preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise
   re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according
   to the rules of the common law.

[Article VIII.]
   Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
   imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Article IX.]
   The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
   not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
   people.

[Article X.]
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
   to the States respectively, or to the people.

   [Footnote: Amendments First to Tenth appear to have been in
   force from November 3, 1791. (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
   1791.)]

[Article XI.]
   The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
   to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
   prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
   another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
   State.

   [Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force January 8, 1798.]

{602}

[Article XII.]
   The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote
   by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at
   least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
   themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted
   for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for
   as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all
   persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for
   as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which
   lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the
   seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
   President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall,
   in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
   open all the certificates and the votes shall then be
   counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for
   President, shall be the President, if such number be a
   majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no
   person have such majority, then from the persons having the
   highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted
   for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
   immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the
   President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
   representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for
   this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
   two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states
   shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of
   Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the
   right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day
   of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
   President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
   disability of the President.—The person having the greatest
   number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
   Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
   number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a
   majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
   Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the
   purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of
   Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
   necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally
   ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to
   that of Vice-President of the United States.

      [Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force September 25, 1804.]

Article XIII.
   _Section_ 1.
   Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
   punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
   convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
   subject to their jurisdiction.

   _Section_ 2.
   Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
   appropriate legislation.

   [Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force December 18, 1865.
   [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).]]

Article XIV.
   _Section_ 1.
   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
   subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
   United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
   shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
   shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
   property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
   within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

   _Section_ 2.
   Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
   according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
   number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
   But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
   electors for President and Vice President of the United
   States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and
   Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
   Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
   of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
   the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
   participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
   representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
   which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
   number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


   _Section_ 3.
   No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
   elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
   civil or military, under the United States, or under any
   State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
   Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
   member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
   judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
   the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
   rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
   enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
   each House, remove such disability.

   _Section_ 4.
   The validity of the public debt of the United States,
   authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
   pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection
   or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
   States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or
   obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
   against the United States, or any claim for the loss or
   emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
   claims shall be held illegal and void.

   _Section_ 5.
   The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
   legislation, the provisions of this article.

   [Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force July 28. 1868.
   [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866
   (DECEMBER-APRIL); 1866 (JUNE),
   and 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).]]

Article XV.
   _Section_ 1.
   The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
   be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
   account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

   _Section_ 2.
   The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
   appropriate legislation."

   [Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force March 30, 1870.
   [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.]]

----------CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End------

CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.

   The following text is taken from Bulletin No. 34 of the Bureau
   of the American Republics:

Article I.
   The States that the constitution of March 28, 1864, declared
   independent and united to form the Venezuelan Federation, and
   that on April 27, 1881, were denominated Apure, Bolivar,
   Barquisimeto, Barcelona, Carabobo, Cojedes, Cumamá, Falcón,
   Guzmán Blanco, Guárico, Gunynna, Guzmán, Maturin, Nuevn
   Esparta, Portuguesa, Táchira, Trujillo, Yaracay, Zamora, and
   Zulia are constituted into nine grand political bodies, viz:
   The State of Bermudez, composed of Barcelona, Cumaná, and
   Maturin; the State of Miranda, composed of Bolivar, Guzman
   Blanco, Guárico, and Nueva Esparta; the State of Carabobo,
   composed of Carabobo and Nirgua; the State of Zamora, composed
   of Cojedes, Portuguesa, and Zamora; the State of Lara,
   composed of Barquisimeto and Yaracuy, except the department of
   Nirgua; the State of Los Andes, composed of Guzman, Trujillo,
   and Táchira; the State of Bolivar, composed of Guayana and
   Apure; the State of Zulia, and also the State of Falcón. And
   they are thus constituted to continue one only nation, free,
   sovereign, and independent, under the title of the United
   States of Venezuela.

{603}

Article. 2.
   The boundaries of these great States are determined by those
   that the law of April 28, 1856, that arranged the last
   territorial division, designated for the ancient provinces
   until it shall be re-formed.

Article. 3.
   The boundaries of the United States of the Venezuelan
   Federation are the same that in 1810 belonged to the old
   Captaincy-General of Venezuela.

Article. 4.
   The States that are grouped together to form the grand
   political bodies will be called Sections. These are equal
   among themselves; the constitutions prescribed for their
   internal organism must be harmonious with the federative
   principles established by the present compact, and the
   sovereignty not delegated resides in the State without any
   other limitations than those that devolve from the compromise
   of association.

Article. 5.
   These are Venezuelans, viz:

   1st, All persons that may have been or may be born on
   Venezuelan soil, whatever may be the nationality of their
   parents;

   2d, The children of a Venezuelan father or mother that may
   have been born on foreign soil, if they should come to take up
   their domicile in the country and express the desire to become
   citizens;

   3d, Foreigners that may have obtained naturalization papers; and,

   4th, Those born or that shall be born in any of the
   Spanish-American republics or in the Spanish Antilles,
   provided that they may have taken up their residence in the
   territory of the Republic and express a willingness to become
   citizens.

Article. 6.
   Those that take up their residence and acquire nationality in
   a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.

Article. 7.
   Males over twenty-one years of age are qualified Venezuelan
   citizens, with only the exceptions contained in this
   constitution.

Article. 8.
   All Venezuelans are obliged to serve the nation according to
   the prescriptions of the laws, sacrificing his property and
   his life, if necessary, to defend the country.

Article. 9.
   Venezuelans shall enjoy, in all the States of the Union, the
   rights and immunities inherent to their condition as citizens
   of the Federation, and they shall also have imposed upon them
   there the same duties that are required of those that are
   natives or domiciled there.

Article. 10.
   Foreigners shall enjoy the same civil rights as Venezuelans
   and the same security in their persons and property. They can
   only take advantage of diplomatic means in accordance with
   public treaties and in cases when right permits it.

Article. 11.
   The law will determine the right applicable to the condition
   of foreigners, according as they may be domiciled or in
   transit.

Article. 12.
   The States that form the Venezuelan Federation reciprocally
   recognize their respective autonomies; they are declared equal
   in political entity, and preserve, in all its plenitude, the
   sovereignty not expressly delegated in this constitution.

Article. 13.
   The States of the Venezuelan Federation oblige themselves:

   1st, To organize themselves in accord with the principles of
   popular, elective, federal, representative, alternative, and
   responsible government;

   2d, To establish the fundamental regulations of their interior
   regulation and government in entire conformity with the
   principles of this constitution;

   3d, To defend themselves against all violence that threatens
   the sectional independence or the integrity of the Venezuelan
   Federation;

   4th, To not alienate to a foreign power any part of their
   territory, nor to implore its protection, nor to establish or
   cultivate political or diplomatic relations with other
   nations, since this last is reserved to the Federal power;

   5th, To not combine or ally themselves with another nation,
   nor to separate themselves to the prejudice of the nationality
   of Venezuela and her territory;

   6th, To cede to the nation the territory that may be necessary
   for the Federal district;

   7th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the territory
   necessary for the erection of forts, warehouses, shipyards,
   and penitentiaries, and for the construction of other edifices
   indispensable to the general administration;

   8th, To leave to the Government of the Federation the
   administration of the Amazonas and Goajira territories and
   that of the islands which pertain to the nation, until it may
   be convenient to elevate them to another rank;

   9th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation all
   legislative or executive jurisdiction concerning maritime,
   coastwise, and fluvial navigation, and the national roads,
   considering as such those that exceed the limits of a State
   and lead to the frontiers of others and to the Federal
   district;

   10th, To not subject to contributions the products or articles
   upon which national taxes are imposed, or those that are by
   law exempt from tax before they have been offered for
   consumption;

   11th, To not impose contributions on cattle, effects, or any
   class of merchandise in transit for another State, in order
   that traffic may be absolutely free, and that in one section
   the consumption of others may not be taxed;

   12th, To not prohibit the consumption of the products of other
   States nor to tax their productions with greater general or
   municipal taxes than those paid on products raised in the
   locality;

   13th, To not establish maritime or territorial custom-houses
   for the collection of imports, since there will be national
   ones only;

   14th, To recognise the right of each State to dispose of its
   natural products;

   15th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the
   administration of mines, public lands, and salt mines, in
   order that the first may be regulated by a system of uniform
   working and that the latter may be applied to the benefit of
   the people;

   16th, To respect the property, arsenals, and forts of the
   nation;

   17th, To comply with and cause to be complied with and
   executed the Constitution and laws of the federation and the
   decrees and orders that the federal power, the tribunals, and
   courts may expedite in use of their attributes and legal
   faculties;

   18th, To give entire faith to and to cause to be complied with
   and executed the public acts and judicial procedures of the
   other States;

   19th, To organize their tribunals and courts for the
   administration of justice in the State and to have for all of
   them the same substantive civil and criminal legislation and
   the same laws of civil and criminal procedure;

   20th, To present judges for the court of appeals and to submit
   to the decision of this supreme tribunal of the States;

   21st, To incorporate the extradition of criminals as a
   political principle in their respective Constitutions;

   22d, To establish direct and public suffrage in popular
   elections, making it obligatory and endorsing it in the
   electoral registry. The vote of the suffragist must be cast in
   full and public session of the respective board; it will be
   inscribed in the registry books that the law prescribes for
   elections, which can not be substituted in any other form, and
   the elector, for himself or by another at his request in case
   of impediment or through ignorance, will sign the memorandum
   entry of his vote, and without this requisite it can not be
   claimed that in reality he has voted;

{604}

   23d, To establish a system of primary education and that of
   arts and trades;

   24th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation the laws and
   provisions necessary for the creation, conservation, and
   progress of general schools, colleges, or universities
   designed for the teaching of the sciences;

   25th, To not impose duties upon the national employés, except
   in the quality of citizens of the State and insomuch as these
   duties may not be incompatible with the national public
   service;

   26th, To furnish the proportional contingent that pertains to
   them to compose the national public forces in time of peace or
   war;

   27th, To not permit in the States of the Federation forced
   enlistments and levies that have or may have for their object
   an attack on liberty or independence or a disturbance of the
   public order of the Nation, of other States, or of another
   Nation;

   28th, To preserve a strict neutrality in the contentions that
   may arise in other States;

   29th, To not declare or carry on war in any case, one State
   with another;

   30th, To defer and submit to the decision of the Congress or
   the High Federal Court in all the controversies that may arise
   between two or more States when they can not, between
   themselves and by pacific measures, arrive at an agreement.
   If, for any cause, they may not designate the arbiter to whose
   decision they may submit, they leave it, in fact, to the High
   Federal Court;

   31st, To recognize the competency of Congress and of the court
   of appeals to take cognizance of the causes that, for treason
   to the country or for the infraction of the Constitution and
   laws of the Federation, may be instituted against those that
   exercise executive authority in the States, it being their
   duty to incorporate this precept in their constitutions. In
   these trials the modes of procedure that the general laws
   prescribe will be followed and they will be decided in
   consonance with those laws;

   32d, To have as the just income of the States, two-thirds of
   the total product of the impost collected as transit tax in
   all the custom-houses of the Republic and two-thirds of that
   collected from mines, public lands, and salt mines
   administered by the Federal Power and to distribute this
   income among all the States of the Federation in proportion to
   the population of each;

   33d, To reserve to the Federal Power the amount of the third
   part of the income from transit tax, the production of mines,
   public lands, and salt mines, to be invested in the
   improvement of the country;

   34th, To keep far away from the frontier those individuals
   that, through political motives, take refuge in a State,
   provided that the State interested requests it.

Article. 14.
   The nation guarantees to Venezuelans:

   1st, The inviolability of life, capital punishment being
   abolished in spite of any law that establishes it;

   2d, Property, with all its attributes, rights and privileges,
   will only be subjected to contributions decreed by legislative
   authority, to judicial decision, and to be taken for public
   works after indemnity and condemnation;

   3d, The inviolability and secrecy of correspondence and other
   private papers;

   4th, The domestic hearth, that can not be approached except to
   prevent the perpetration of crime, and this itself must be
   done in accordance with law;

   5th, Personal liberty, and consequently
      (1) forced recruiting for armed service is abolished,
      (2) slavery is forever proscribed,
      (3) slaves that tread the soil of Venezuela are free, and
      (4) nobody is obliged to do that which the law does not
          command, nor is impeded from doing that which it does not
          prohibit;

   6th, The freedom of thought, expressed by word or through the
   press, is without any restriction to be submitted to previous
   censure. In cases of calumny or injury or prejudice to a third
   party, the aggrieved party shall have every facility to have
   his complaints investigated before competent tribunals of
   justice in accordance with the common laws;

   7th, The liberty of traveling without passport, to change the
   domicil, observing the legal formalities, and to depart from
   and return to the Republic, carrying off and bringing back his
   or her property;

   8th, The liberty of industry and consequently the
   proprietorship of discoveries and productions. The law will
   assign to the proprietors a temporary privilege or the mode of
   indemnity in case that the author agrees to its publication;

   9th, The liberty of reunion and assembling without arms,
   publicly or privately, the authorities being prohibited from
   exercising any act of inspection or coercion;

   10th, The liberty of petition, with the right of obtaining
   action by resolution; petition can be made by any functionary,
   authority or corporation. If the petition shall be made in the
   name of various persons, the first five will respond for the
   authenticity of the signatures and all for the truth of the
   assertions;

   11th, The liberty of suffrage at popular elections without any
   restriction except to males under eighteen years of age;

   12th, The liberty of instruction will be protected to every
   extent. The public power is obliged to establish gratuitous
   instruction in primary schools, the arts, and trades;

   13th, Religious liberty;

   14th, Individual security, and, therefore
      (1) no Venezuelan can be imprisoned or arrested in
      punishment for debts not founded in fraud or crime;
      (2) nor to be obliged to lodge or quarter soldiers in his
      house;
      (3) nor to be judged by special commissions or tribunals,
      but by his natural judges and by virtue of laws dictated
      before the commission of the crime or act to be judged;
      (4) nor to be imprisoned nor arrested without previous
      summary information that a crime meriting corporal
      punishment has been committed, and a written order from the
      functionary that orders the imprisonment, stating the cause
      of arrest, unless the person may be caught in the
      commission of the crime;
      (5) nor to be placed in solitary confinement for any cause;
      (6) nor to be obliged to give evidence, in criminal causes,
      against himself or his blood relations within the fourth
      degree of consanguinity or against his relations by
      marriage within the second degree, or against husband or
      wife;
      (7) nor to remain in prison when the reasons that caused
      the imprisonment have been dissipated;
      (8) nor to be sentenced to corporal punishment for more
      than ten years;
      (9) nor to remain deprived of his liberty for political
      reasons when order is reestablished.

{605}

Article. 15.
   Equality: in virtue of which
      (1) all must be judged by the very same laws and subject to
      equal duty, service and contributions;
      (2) no titles of nobility, hereditary honors, and
      distinctions will be conceded, nor employments or offices
      the salaries or emoluments of which continue after the
      termination of service;
      (3) no other official salutation than "citizen" and "you"
      will be given to employés and corporations. The present
      enumeration does not impose upon the States the obligation
      to accord other guarantees to their inhabitants.

Article 16.
   The laws in the States will prescribe penalties for the
   infractions of these guarantees, establishing modes of
   procedure to make them effective.

Article 17.
   Those who may issue, sign, or execute, or order executed any
   decrees, orders, or resolutions that violate or in any manner
   infringe upon the guarantees accorded to Venezuelans are
   culpable and must be punished according to the law. Every
   citizen is empowered to bring charges.

Article 18.
   The National Legislature will be composed of two chambers, one
   of Senators and another of Deputies.

Article 19.
   The States will determine the mode of election of Deputies.

Article 20.
   To form the Chamber of Deputies, each State will name, by
   popular election in accordance with paragraph 22 of Article 13
   of this Constitution, one Deputy for each thirty-five thousand
   inhabitants and another for an excess not under fifteen
   thousand. In the same manner it will elect alternates in equal
   number to the principals.

Article 21.
   The Deputies will hold office for four years, when they will
   be renewed in their entirety.

Article 22.
   The prerogatives of the chamber of Deputies are:

   First, to examine the annual account that the President of the
   United States of Venezuela must render;

   Second, to pass a vote of censure of the Ministers of the
   Cabinet, in which event their posts will be vacant;

   Third, to hear charges against the persons in charge of the
   office of the National Executive for treason to the country,
   for infraction of the constitution, or for ordinary crimes;
   against the ministers and other National employés for
   infraction of the Constitution and laws and for fault in the
   discharge of their duties according to article 75 of this
   constitution and of the general laws of the Republic. This
   attribute is preventative and neither contracts nor diminishes
   those that other authorities have to judge and punish.

Article 23.
   When a charge is instituted by a Deputy or by any corporation
   or individual the following rules will be observed:

   (1) there will be appointed, in secret session, a commission
   of three deputies;

   (2) the commission will, within three days, render an opinion,
   declaring whether or not there is foundation for instituting a
   cause;

   (3) the Chamber will consider the information and decide upon
   the cause by the vote of an absolute majority of the members
   present, the accusing Deputy abstaining from voting.

Article 24.
   The declaration that there is foundation for the cause
   operates to suspend from office the accused and incapacitates
   him for the discharge of any public function during the trial.

Article 25.
   To form this Chamber each State, through its respective
   legislature, will elect three principal Senators and an equal
   number of alternates to supply the vacancies that may occur.

Article 26.
   To be a Senator it is required that he shall be a Venezuelan
   by birth and thirty years of age.

Article 27.
   The Senators will occupy their posts for four years and be
   renewed in their entirety.

Article 28.
   It is the prerogative of the Senate to substantiate and decide
   the causes initiated in the Chamber of Deputies.

Article 29.
   If the cause may not have been concluded during the sessions,
   the Senate will continue assembled for this purpose only until
   the cause is finished.

Article 30.
   The National Legislature will assemble on the 20th day of
   February of each year or as soon thereafter as possible at the
   capital of the United States without the necessity of previous
   notice. The sessions will last for seventy days to be
   prolonged until ninety days at the judgment of the majority.

Article 31.
   The Chambers will open their sessions with two-thirds of their
   number at least; and, in default of this number, those present
   will assemble in preparatory commission and adopt measures for
   the concurrence of the absentees.

Article 32.
   The sessions having been opened, they may be continued by
   two-thirds of those that may have installed them, provided
   that the number be not less than half of all the members
   elected.

Article 33.
   Although the Chambers deliberate separately, they may assemble
   together in the Congress when the constitution and laws
   provide for it or when one of the two Chambers may deem it
   necessary. If the Chamber that is invited shall agree, it
   remains to it to fix the day and the hour of the joint
   session.

Article 34.
   The sessions will be public and secret at the will of the
   Chamber.

Article 35.
   The Chambers have the right:

   (1) to make rules to be observed in the sessions and to
   regulate the debates;

   (2) to correct infractors;

   (3) to establish the police force in the hall of sessions;

   (4) to punish or correct spectators who create disorder;

   (5) to remove the obstacles to the free exercise of their
   functions;

   (6) to command the execution of their private resolutions;

   (7) to judge of the qualifications of their members and to
   consider their resignations.

Article 36.
   One of the Chambers cannot suspend its sessions nor change its
   place of meeting without the consent of the other; in case of
   disagreement they will reassemble together and execute that
   which the majority resolves.

Article 37.
   The exercise of any other public function, during the
   sessions, is incompatible with those of a Senator or Deputy.
   The law will specify the remunerations that the members of the
   national Legislature shall receive for their services. And
   whenever an increase of said remunerations is decreed, the law
   that sanctions it will not begin to be in force until the
   following period when the Chambers that sanctioned it shall
   have been renewed in their entirety.

Article 38.
   The Senators and Deputies shall enjoy immunity from the 20th
   day of January of each year until thirty days after the close
   of the sessions and this consists in the suspension of all
   civil or criminal proceeding, whatever may be its origin or
   nature; when anyone shall perpetrate an act that merits
   corporal punishment the investigation shall continue until the
   end of the summing up and shall remain in this state while the
   term of immunity continues.

Article 39.
   The Congress will be presided over by the President of the
   Senate and the presiding officer of the Chamber of Deputies
   will act as Vice-President.

{606}

Article 40.
   The members of the Chambers are not responsible for the
   opinions they express or the discourses they pronounce in
   session.

Article 41.
   Senators and deputies that accept office or commission from
   the National Executive thereby leave vacant the posts of
   legislators in the Chambers to which they were elected.

Article 42.
   Nor can senators and deputies make contracts with the general
   Government or conduct the prosecution of claims of others
   against it.

Article 43.
   The National Legislature has the following prerogatives:

   (1) to dissolve the controversies that may arise between two
   or more States;

   (2) to locate the Federal District in an unpopulated territory
   not exceeding three miles square, where will be constructed
   the capital city of the Republic. This district will be
   neutral territory, and no other elections will be there held
   than those that the law determines for the locality, The
   district will be provisionally that which the constituent
   assembly designated or that which the National Legislature may
   designate;

   (3) to organize everything relating to the custom-houses,
   whose income will constitute the treasure of the Union until
   these incomes are supplied from other sources;

   (4) to dispose in everything relating to the habitation and
   security of ports and seacoasts;

   (5) to create and organize the postal service and to fix the
   charges for transportation of correspondence;

   (6) to form the National Codes in accordance with paragraph
   19, article 13 of this Constitution;

   (7) to fix the value, type law, weight, and coinage of
   national money, and to regulate the admission and circulation
   of foreign money;

   (8) to designate the coat-of-arms and the national flag which
   will be the same for all the States;

   (9) to create, abolish, and fix salaries for national offices;

   (10) to determine everything in relation to the national debt;

   (11) to contract loans upon the credit of the nation;

   (12) to dictate necessary measures to perfect the census of
   the current population and the national statistics;

   (13) to annually fix the armed forces by sea and land and to
   dictate the army regulations;

   (14) to decree rules for the formation and substitution of the
   forces referred to in the preceding clause;

   (15) to declare war and to require the National Executive to
   negotiate peace;

   (16) to ratify or reject the contracts for national public
   works made by the President with the approval of the Federal
   Council, without which requisite they will not be carried into
   effect;

   [Transcriber's note: (17) is missing.]

   (18) to annually fix the estimates for public expenses;

   (19) to promote whatever conduces to the prosperity of the
   country and to its advancement in the general knowledge of the
   arts and sciences;

   (20) to fix and regulate the national weights and measures;

   (21) to grant amnesties;

   (22) to establish, under the names of territories, special
   regulations for the government of regions inhabited by
   unconquered and uncivilized Indians. Such territories will be
   under the immediate supervision of the Executive of the Union;


   (23) to establish the modes of procedure and to designate the
   penalties to be imposed by the Senate in the trials originated
   in the Chamber of Deputies;

   (24) to increase the basis of population for the election of
   deputies;

   (25) to permit or refuse the admission of foreigners into the
   service of the Republic;

   (26) to make laws in respect to retirements from the military
   service and army pensions;

   (27) to dictate the law of responsibility on the part of all
   national employés and those of the States for infraction of
   the constitution and the general laws of the Union;

   (28) to determine the mode of conceding military rank or
   promotion;

   (29) to elect the Federal Council provided for in this
   constitution and to convoke the alternates of the senators and
   deputies who may have been chosen for it.

Article 44.
   Besides the preceding enumeration the National Legislature may
   pass such laws of general character as may be necessary, but
   in no case can they be promulgated, much less executed, if
   they conflict with this constitution, which defines the
   prerogatives of the public powers in Venezuela.

Article 45.
   The laws and decrees of the National Legislature may be
   proposed by the members of either chamber, provided that the
   respective projects are conformed to the rules established for
   the Parliament of Venezuela.

Article 46.
   After a project may have been presented, it will be read and
   considered in order to be admitted; and if it is, it must
   undergo three discussions, with an interval of at least one
   day between each, observing the rules established for debate.

Article 47.
   The projects approved in the chamber in which they were
   originated will be passed to the other for the purposes
   indicated in the preceding article, and if they are not
   rejected they will be returned to the chamber whence they
   originated, with the amendments they may have undergone.

Article 48.
   If the chamber of their origin does not agree to the
   amendments, it may insist and send its written reasons to the
   other. They may also assemble together in Congress and
   deliberate, in general commission, over the mode of agreement,
   but if this can not be reached, the project will be of no
   effect after the chamber of its origin separately decides upon
   the ratification of its insistence.

Article 49.
   Upon the passing of the projects from one to the other
   chamber, the days on which they have been discussed will be
   stated.

Article 50.
   The law reforming another law must be fully engrossed and the
   former law, in all its parts, will be annulled.

Article 51.
   In the laws this form will be used: "The Congress of the
   United States of Venezuela decrees."

Article 52.
   The projects defeated in one legislature cannot be
   reintroduced except in another.

Article 53.
   The projects pending in a chamber at the close of the sessions
   must undergo the same three discussions in succeeding
   legislatures.

Article 54.
   Laws are annulled with the same formalities established for
   their sanction.

Article 55.
   When the ministers of Cabinet may have sustained, in a
   chamber, the unconstitutionality of a project by word or in
   writing, and, notwithstanding this, it may have been
   sanctioned as law, the National Executive, with the
   affirmative vote of the Federal Council, will suspend its
   execution and apply to the legislatures of the States, asking
   their vote in the matter.

Article 56.
   In case of the foregoing article, each State will represent
   one vote expressed by the majority of the members of the
   legislature present, and the result will be sent to the High
   Federal Court in this form: "I confirm" or "I reject."

{607}

Article 57.
   If a majority of the legislatures of the States agree with the
   Federal Executive, the High Federal Court will confirm the
   suspension, and the Federal Executive himself will render an
   account to the next Congress relative to all that has been
   done in the matter.

Article  58.
   The laws will not be observed until after being published in
   the solemn form established.

Article 59.
   The faculty conceded to sanction a law is not to be delegated.

Article  60.
   No legislative disposition will have a retroactive effect,
   except in matters of judicial procedure and that which imposes
   a lighter penalty.

Article 61.
   There will be a Federal Council composed of one senator and
   one deputy for each State and of one more deputy for the
   Federal District, who will be elected by the Congress each two
   years from among the respective representations of the States
   composing the Federation and from that of the Federal
   District. This election will take place in the first fifteen
   days of the meeting of Congress, in the first and third year
   of the constitutional period.

Article 62.
   The Federal Council elects from its members the President of
   the United States of Venezuela, and in the same manner the
   person who shall act in his stead in case of his temporal or
   permanent disability during his term. The election of a person
   to be President of the United States of Venezuela who is not a
   member of the Federal Council, as well as of those who may
   have to act in his stead in case of his temporal or permanent
   disability, is null of right and void of efficacy.

Article 63.
   The members of the Federal Council hold office for two years,
   the same as the President of the United States of Venezuela,
   whose term is of equal duration; and neither he nor they can
   be reëlected for the term immediately succeeding, although
   they may return to occupy their posts as legislators in the
   chambers to which they belong.

Article 64.
   The Federal Council resides in the district and exercises the
   functions prescribed in this constitution. It cannot
   deliberate with less than an absolute majority of all its
   members; it dictates the interior regulations to be observed
   in its deliberations, and annually appoints the person who
   shall preside over its sessions.

Article  65.
   The prerogatives of the President of Venezuela are:

   (1) To appoint and remove the cabinet ministers;

   (2) to preside over the cabinet, in whose discussions he will
   have a vote, and to inform the Council of all the matters that
   refer to the General Administration;

   (3) to receive and welcome public ministers;

   (4) to sign the official letters to the Sovereigns or
   Presidents of other countries;

   (5) to order the execution of the laws and decrees of the
   National Legislature, and to take care that they are complied
   with and executed;

   (6) to promulgate the resolutions and decrees that may have
   been proposed and received the approbation of the Federal
   Council, in conformity with article 66 of this constitution;

   (7) to organize the Federal District and to act therein as the
   chief civil and political authority established by this
   constitution;

   (8) to issue registers of navigation to national vessels;

   (9) to render an account to Congress, within the first eight
   days of its annual session, of the cases in which, with the
   approval of the Federal Council, he may have exercised all or
   any of the faculties accorded to him in article 66 of this
   compact;

   (10) to discharge the other functions that the national laws
   entrust to him.

Article 66.
   Besides the foregoing prerogatives, that are personal to the
   president of the United States of Venezuela, he can, with the
   deliberate vote of the Federal Council, exercise the
   following:

   (1) To protect the Nation from all exterior attack;

   (2) to administer the public lands, mines, and salt mines of
   the States as their delegate;

   (3) to convoke the National Legislature in its regular
   sessions, and in extraordinary session when the gravity of any
   subject demands it;

   (4) to nominate persons for diplomatic positions,
   consuls-general, and consuls; those named for the first and
   second positions must be Venezuelans by birth;

   (5) to direct negotiations and celebrate all kinds of treaties
   with other nations, submitting these to the National
   Legislature;

   (6) to celebrate contracts of national interest in accordance
   with the laws and to submit them the legislatures for their
   approval;

   (7) to nominate the employés of hacienda, which nominations
   are not to be made by any other authority. It is required that
   these employés shall be Venezuelan by birth;

   (8) to remove and suspend employés of his own free motion,
   ordering them to be tried if there should be cause for it;

   (9) to declare war in the name of the Republic when Congress
   shall have decreed it;

   (10) in the case of foreign war he can,

      first, demand from the States the assistance necessary for
      the national defense;

      second, require, in anticipation, the contributions and
      negotiate the loans decreed by the National Legislature;

      third, arrest or expel persons who pertain to the nation
      with which war is carried on and who may be opposed to the
      defense of the country;

      fourth, to suspend the guaranties that may be incompatible
      with the defense of the country, except that of life;

      fifth, to select the place to which the General Power of
      the Federation may be provisionally translated when there
      may be grave reasons for it;

      sixth, to bring to trial for treason to the country those
      Venezuelans who may be, in any manner, hostile to the
      national defense;

      seventh, to issue registers to corsairs and privateers and
      to prescribe the laws that they must observe in cases of
      capture;

   (11) to employ the public force and the powers contained in
   numbers 1, 2, and 5 of the preceding clause with the object of
   reëstablishing constitutional order in case of armed
   insurrection against the institutions of the Nation;

   (12) to dispose of the public force for the purpose of
   quelling every armed collision between two or more States,
   requiring them to lay down their arms and submit their
   controversies to the arbitration to which they are pledged by
   number 30, article 14 of this constitution;

   (13) to direct the war and to appoint the person who shall
   command the army;

   (14) to organize the national force in time of peace;

   (15) to concede general or particular exemptions;

   (16) to defend the territory designated for the Federal
   District when there may be reasons to apprehend that it will
   be invaded by hostile forces.

Article 67.
   The President of the United States of Venezuela shall have the
   ministers for his cabinet that the law designates. It will
   determine their functions and duties and will organize their
   bureaus.

Article 68.
   To be a minister of the cabinet it is required that the person
   shall be twenty-five years of age, a Venezuelan by birth or
   five years of naturalization.

{608}

Article 69.
   The ministers are the natural and proper organs of the
   President of the United States of Venezuela. All his acts must
   be subscribed by them and without such requisite they will not
   be complied with nor executed by the authorities, employees,
   or private persons.

Article 70.
   All the acts of the ministers must be conformed to this
   Constitution and the laws; their personal responsibility is
   not saved, although they may have the written order of the
   President.

Article 71.
   The settlement of all business, except the fiscal affairs of
   the bureaus, will be determined in the council of ministers,
   and their responsibility is collective and consolidated.

Article 72.
   The ministers, within the five first sessions of each year,
   will render an account to the Chambers of what they may have
   done or propose to do in their respective branches. They will
   also render written or verbal reports that may be requested of
   them, reserving only that which, in diplomatic affairs, it may
   not be convenient to publish.

Article 73.
   Within the same period, they will present to the National
   Legislature the estimates of public expenditures and the
   general account of the past year.

Article 74.
   The ministers have the right to be heard in the Chambers, and
   are obliged to attend when they may be called upon for
   information.

Article 75.
   The ministers are responsible:

   (1) for treason to the country;

   (2) for infraction of this Constitution or the laws;

   (3) for malversation of the public funds;

   (4) for exceeding the estimates in their expenditures;

   (5) for subornation or bribery in the affairs under their
   charge or in the nominations for public employees;

   (6) for failure in compliance with the decisions of the
   Federal Council.

Article 76.
   The High Federal Court will be composed of as many judges as
   there may be States of the Federation and with the following
   qualities:

   (1) A judge must be a Venezuelan by birth;

   (2) he must be thirty years of age.

Article 77.
   For the nomination of judges of the High Federal Court the
   Congress will convene on the fifteenth day of its regular
   sessions and will proceed to group together the representation
   of each State from which to form a list of as many candidates
   for principal judges and an equal number of alternates as
   there may be States of the Federation. The Congress, in the
   same or following session, will elect one principal and one
   alternate for each State, selecting them from the respective
   lists.

Article 78. The law will determine the different functions of the
judges and other officers of the High Federal Court.

Article 79.
   The judges and their respective alternates will hold office
   for four years. The principals and their alternates in office
   can not accept during this period any office in the gift of
   the executive without previous resignation and lawful
   acceptance. The infraction of this disposition will be
   punished with four years of disability to hold public office
   in Venezuela.

Article 80.
   The matters within the competence of the High Federal Court
   are:

   (1) to take cognizance of civil or criminal causes that may be
   instituted against diplomatic officers in those cases
   permitted by the law of nations;

   (2) to take cognizance of causes ordered by the President to
   be instituted against cabinet ministers when they may be
   accused according to the cases provided for in this
   Constitution. In the matter of the necessity of suspension
   from office, they will request the President to that effect
   and he will comply;

   [Transcriber's note: (3) is absent.]

   (4) to have jurisdiction of the causes of responsibility
   instituted against diplomatic agents accredited to another
   nation for the wrong discharge of their functions;

   (5) to have jurisdiction in civil trials when the nation is
   defendant and the law sanctions it;

   (6) to dissipate the controversies that may arise between the
   officials of different States in political order in the matter
   of jurisdiction or competence;

   (7) to take cognizance of all matters of political nature that
   the States desire to submit for their consideration;

   (8) to declare which may be the law in force when the national
   and State laws may be found to conflict with each other;

   (9) to have jurisdiction in the controversies that may result
   from contracts or negotiations celebrated by the president of
   the federation;

   (10) to have jurisdiction in causes of imprisonment;

   (11) to exercise other prerogatives provided for by law.

Article 81.
   The Court of Appeals referred to in paragraph 20, article 13
   of this Constitution, is the tribunal of the states; it will
   be composed of as many judges as there are states of the
   federation, and their terms of office will last for four
   years.

Article 82.
   A judge of the Court of Appeals must have the following
   qualifications:

   (1) he must be an attorney at law in the exercise of his
   profession, and must have had at least six years practice;

   (2) he must be a Venezuelan, thirty years of age.

Article 83.
   Every four years the legislature of each State will form a
   list of as many attorneys, with the qualifications expressed
   in the preceding article, as there are States, and will remit
   it, duly certified, to the Federal Council in order that this
   body, from the respective lists, may select a judge for each
   State in the organization of this high tribunal.

Article 84.
   After the Federal Council may have received the lists from all
   the States, it will proceed, in public session, to verify the
   election; forming thereafter a list of the attorneys not
   elected, in order that from this general list, which will be
   published in the official paper, the permanent vacancies that
   may occur in the Court of Appeals may be filled by lot. The
   temporary vacancies will be filled according to law.

Article 85.
   The Court of Appeals will have the following prerogatives:

   (1) to take cognizance of criminal causes or those of
   responsibility that may be instituted against the high
   functionaries of the different States, applying the laws of
   the States themselves in matters of responsibility, and in
   case of omission of the promulgation of a law of
   constitutional precept, it will apply to the cause in question
   the general laws of the land;

   (2) to take cognizance and to decide in cases of appeal in the
   form and terms directed by law;

   (3) to annually report to the National Legislature the
   difficulties that stand in the way of uniformity in the matter
   of civil or criminal legislation;

   (4) to dispose of the rivalries that may arise between the
   officers or functionaries of judicial order in the different
   States of the federation and amongst those of a single State,
   provided that the authority to settle them does not exist in
   the State.

{609}

Article 86.
   The National Executive is exercised by the Federal Council,
   the President of the United States of Venezuela, or the person
   who fills his vacancies, in union with the cabinet ministers
   who are his organs. The President of Venezuela must be a
   Venezuelan by birth.

Article 87.
   The functions of National Executive can not be exercised
   outside of the federal district except in the case provided
   for in number 5, paragraph 10, article 66 of the Constitution.
   When the President, with the approval of the Council, shall
   take command of the army or absent himself from the district
   on account of matters of public interest that demand it, he
   can not exercise any functions and will be replaced by the
   Federal Council in accordance with article 62 of this
   Constitution.

Article 88.
   Everything that may not be expressly assigned to the general
   administration of the nation in this Constitution is reserved
   to the States.

Article 89.
   The tribunals of justice in the States are independent; the
   causes originated in them will be concluded in the same States
   without any other review than that of the Court of Appeals in
   the cases provided for by law.

Article 90.
   Every act of Congress and of the National Executive that
   violates the rights guaranteed to the States in this
   Constitution, or that attacks their independence, must be
   declared of no effect by the High Court, provided that a
   majority of the legislatures demands it.

Article 91.
   The public national force is divided into naval and land
   troops, and will be composed of the citizen militia that the
   States may organize according to law.

Article 92.
   The force at the disposal of the federation will be organized
   from citizens of a contingent furnished by each State in
   proportion to its population, calling to service those
   citizens that should render it according to their internal
   laws.

Article 93.
   In case of war the contingent can be augmented by bodies of
   citizen militia up to the number of men necessary to fill the
   draft of the National Government.

Article 94.
   The National Government may change the commanders of the
   public force supplied by the States in the cases and with the
   formalities provided for in the national military law and then
   their successors will be called for from the States.

Article 95.
   The military and civil authority can never be exercised by the
   same person or corporation.

Article 96.
   The nation, being in possession of the right of ecclesiastical
   patronage, will exercise it as the law upon the subject may
   direct.

Article 97.
   The Government of the Federation will have no other resident
   employees with jurisdiction or authority in the States than
   those of the States themselves. The officers of hacienda,
   those of the forces that garrison national fortresses,
   arsenals created by law, navy-yards, and habilitated ports,
   that only have jurisdiction in matters peculiar to their
   respective offices and within the limits of the forts and
   quarters that they command, are excepted; but even these must
   be subject to the general laws of the State in which they
   reside. All the elements of war now existing belong to the
   National Government; nevertheless it is not to be understood
   that the States are prohibited from acquiring those that they
   may need for domestic defense.

Article 98.
   The National Government can not station troops nor military
   officers with command in a State, although they may be from
   that or another State, without permission of the government of
   the State in which the force is to be stationed.

Article 99.
   Neither the National Executive nor those of the States can
   resort to armed intervention in the domestic contentions of a
   State; it is only permitted to them to tender their good
   offices to bring about a pacific solution in the case.

Article 100.
   In case of a permanent or temporary vacancy in the office of
   President of the United States of Venezuela, the States will
   be immediately informed as to who has supplied the vacancy.

Article 101.
   Exportation in Venezuela is free and no duty can be placed
   upon it.

Article 102.
   All usurped authority is without effect and its acts are null.
   Every order granted for a requisition, direct or indirect, by
   armed force or by an assemblage of people in subversive
   attitude is null of right and void of efficacy.

Article 103.
   The exercise of any function not conferred by the constitution
   or laws is prohibited to every corporation or authority.

Article 104.
   Any citizen may accuse the employees of the nation or the
   States before the chamber of deputies, before their respective
   superiors in office, or before the authorities designated by
   law.

Article 105.
   No payment shall be made from the National Treasury for which
   Congress has not expressly provided in the annual estimate,
   and those that may infringe this rule will be civilly
   responsible to the National Treasury for the sums they have
   paid out. In every payment from the public Treasury the
   ordinary expenses will be preferred to the extraordinary
   charges.

Article 106.
   The offices of collection and disbursement of the national
   taxes shall be always separate, and the officers of collection
   may disburse only the salaries of their respective employees.

Article 107.
   When, for any reason, the estimate of appropriations for a
   fiscal period have not been made, that of the immediately
   preceding period will continue in force.

Article 108.
   In time of elections, the public national force or that of the
   States themselves will remain closely quartered during the
   holding of popular elections.

Article 109.
   In international treaties of commerce and friendship this
   clause will be inserted, to wit: "all the disagreements
   between the contracting parties must be decided without an
   appeal to war, by the decision of a power or friendly powers."

Article 110.
   No individual can hold more than one office within the gift of
   Congress and the National Executive. The acceptance of any
   other is equivalent to resignation of the first. Officials
   that are removable will cease to hold office upon accepting
   the charge of a Senator or Deputy when they are dependents of
   the National Executive.

Article 111.
   The law will create and designate other national tribunals
   that may be necessary.

Article 112.
   National officers can not accept gifts, commissions, honors,
   or emoluments from a foreign nation without permission from
   the National Legislature.

Article 113.
   Armed force can not deliberate; it is passive and obedient. No
   armed body can make requisitions nor demand assistance of any
   kind, but from the civil authorities, and in the mode and form
   prescribed by law.

{610}

Article 114.
   The Nation and the States will promote foreign immigration and
   colonization in accordance with their respective laws.

Article 115.
   A law will regulate the manner in which national officers,
   upon taking charge of their posts, shall take the oath to
   comply with their duties.

Article 116.
   The National Executive will negotiate with the Governments of
   America over treaties of alliance or confederation.

Article 117.
   The law of Nations forms a part of the National Legislation;
   its dispositions will be specially in force in cases of civil
   war, which can be terminated by treaties between the
   belligerents who will have to respect the humanitarian customs
   of Christians and civilized nations, the guarantee of life being,
   in every case, inviolable.

Article 118.
   This constitution can be reformed by the National Legislature
   if the legislatures of the States desire it, but there shall
   never be any reform except in the parts upon which the
   majority of the States coincide; also a reform can be made
   upon one or more points when two-thirds of the members of the
   National Legislature, deliberating separately and by the
   proceedings established to sanction the laws, shall accord it;
   but, in this second case, the amendment voted shall be
   submitted to the legislatures of the States, and it will stand
   sanctioned in the point or points that may have been ratified
   by them.

Article 119.
   This constitution will take effect from the day of its
   official promulgation in each State, and in all public acts
   and official documents there will be cited the date of the
   Federation to begin with February 20, 1859, and the date of
   the law to begin with March 28, 1864.

Article 120.
   The constitutional period for the offices of the General
   Administration of the Republic will continue to be computed
   from February 20, 1882, the date on which the reformed
   constitution took effect.

Article 121.
   For every act of civil and political life of the States of the
   Federation, its basis of population is that which is
   determined in the last census approved by the National
   Legislature.

Article 122.
   The Federal Constitution of April 27, 1881, is repealed. Done
   in Caracas, in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Corps,
   and sealed with the seal of Congress on the 9th day of April,
   1891. The 28th year of the Law and the 33rd year of the
   Federation.

   (Here follow the signatures of the Presidents,
   Vice-Presidents, and Second Vice-Presidents of the Senate and
   Chamber of Deputies, together with those of the Senators and
   Deputies of the various States, followed by those of the
   President and the ministers of his cabinet.)

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.

----------CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE WATAUGA ASSOCIATION
   (the first Western American Commonwealth).

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.

   The "Constitutions of Clarendon" were a series of declarations
   drawn up by a council which King Henry II. of England convened
   at Clarendon, near Winchester, in 1164, and which were
   intended to determine the law on various points in dispute
   between the Crown and the laity, on one side, and the Church
   on the other. The issues in question were those which brought
   Henry into collision with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of
   Canterbury. The general provisions embodied in the
   Constitutions of Clarendon "would now be scarcely challenged
   in the most Catholic country in the world.

   1. During the vacancy of any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey,
   or priory of royal foundation, the estates were to be in the
   custody of the Crown. Elections to these preferments were to
   be held in the royal chapel, with the assent of the king and
   council.

   2. In every suit to which a clerk was a party, proceedings
   were to commence before the king's justices, and these
   justices were to decide whether the case was to be tried
   before a spiritual or a civil court. If it was referred to a
   spiritual court, a civil officer was to attend to watch the
   trial, and if a clerk was found guilty of felony the Church
   was to cease to protect him.

   3. No tenant-in-chief of the king, or officer of his
   household, was to be excommunicated, or his lands laid under
   an interdict, until application had been first made to the
   king, or, in his absence, to the chief justice.

   4. Laymen were not to be indicted in a bishop's court, either
   for perjury or other similar offence, except in the bishop's
   presence by a lawful prosecutor and with lawful witnesses. If
   the accused was of so high rank that no prosecutor would
   appear, the bishop might require the sheriff to call a jury to
   inquire into the case.

   5. Archbishops, bishops, and other great persons were
   forbidden to leave the realm without the king's permission.

   6. Appeals were to be from the archdeacon to the bishop, from
   the bishop to the archbishop, from the archbishop to the king,
   and no further; that, by the king's mandate, the case might be
   ended in the archbishop's court.

   The last article the king afterwards explained away. It was
   one of the most essential, but he was unable to maintain it;
   and he was rash, or he was ill-advised, in raising a second
   question, on which the pope would naturally be sensitive,
   before he had disposed of the first."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Life and Times of Becket,
      pages 31-32._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CONSTITUTIONS, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CONSUL, Roman.

   When the Romans had rid themselves of their kings and
   established a republic, or, rather, an aristocratic
   government, "the civil duties of the king were given to two
   magistrates, chosen for a year, who were at first called
   'prætores' or generals, 'judices' or judges, or consules (cf.
   con 'together' and salio 'to leap') or 'colleagues.' In the
   matter of their power, no violent departure was made from the
   imperium of the king. The greatest limitation on the consuls
   was the short period for which they were at the head of the
   state; but even here they were thought of, by a fiction, as
   voluntarily abdicating at the expiration of their term, and as
   nominating their successors, although they were required to
   nominate the men who had already been selected in the 'comitia
   centuriata.' Another limitation was the result of the dual
   character of the magistracy. The imperium was not divided
   between the consuls, but each possessed it in full, as the
   king had before. When, therefore, they did not agree, the veto
   of the one prevailed over the proposal of the other, and there
   was no action."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 4._

{611}

   "As judges, the consuls occupied altogether the place of the
   kings. They decided the legal disputes of the citizens either
   personally or by deputy. Their criminal jurisdiction was
   probably limited to the most important cases. … In the
   warlike state of the Romans the military character of the
   consuls was no doubt most prominent and most important. When
   the consul led the army into the field he possessed the
   unlimited military power of the kings (the imperium). He was
   entrusted with the direction of the war, the distribution of
   the booty, and the first disposal of the conquered land. …
   The oldest designation for the consuls, therefore, was derived
   from their military quality, for they were called prætors,
   that is, commanders. It was, however, precisely in war that
   the division of power among two colleagues must often have
   proved prejudicial … and the necessity of unity in the
   direction of affairs was felt to be indispensable. The
   dictatorship served this purpose. By decree of the senate one
   of the consuls could be charged with naming a dictator for six
   months, and in this officer the full power of the king was
   revived for a limited period. The dictatorship was a formal
   suspension of the constitution of the republic. … Military
   was substituted for common law, and Rome, during the time of
   the dictatorship, was in a state of siege."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 1,
      and book 6, chapters 3-5._

   In the later years of the Roman empire, "two consuls were
   created by the sovereigns of Rome and Constantinople for the
   sole purpose of giving al date to the year and a festival to
   the people. But the expenses of this festival, in which the
   wealthy and the vain aspired to surpass their predecessors,
   insensibly arose to the enormous sum of four score thousand
   pounds; the wisest senators declined a useless honour which
   involved the certain ruin of their families, and to this
   reluctance I should impute the frequent chasms in the last age
   of the consular Fasti. … The succession of consuls finally
   ceased in the thirteenth year of Justinian [A. D. 541] whose
   despotic temper might be gratified by the final extinction of
   a title which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom.
   Yet the annual consulship still lived in the minds of the
   people; they fondly expected its speedy restoration … and
   three centuries elapsed after the death of Justinian before
   that obsolete dignity, which had been suppressed by custom,
   could be abolished by law. The imperfect mode of
   distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate was
   usefully supplied by the date of a permanent era."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 40.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "There were no consuls in 531 and 532. The Emperor held the
   office alone in 533, and with a colleague in 534. Belisarius
   was sole consul in 535. The two following years, having no
   consuls of their own, were styled the First and Second after
   the Consulship of Belisarius. John of Cappadocia gave his name
   to the year 538, and the years 539 and 540 had again consuls,
   though one only for each year. In 541 Albinus Basilius sat in
   the curule chair, and he was practically the last of the long
   list of warriors, orators, demagogues, courtiers, which began
   (in the year 500 B. C.) with the names of Lucius Junius Brutus
   and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. All the rest of the years of
   Justinian, twenty-four in number, were reckoned as Post
   Consulatum Basilii."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders.
      book 5, chapter 14._

      See, also, ROME B. C. 500.

CONSULAR TRIBUNES, Roman.

   The plebeians of Rome having demanded admission for their
   order to the consulship, a compromise was arranged, B. C. 444,
   which settled that, thereafter, "the people should be free to
   elect either consuls—that is, patricians according to the old
   law—or in their place other officers under the title of
   'military tribunes with consular power,' consisting of
   patricians and plebeians. … It is not reported in what
   respect the official competency of the consular tribunes was
   to differ from that of the consuls. Still, so much is plain,
   that the difference consisted not alone in name. The number of
   the consular tribunes was in the beginning fixed at three."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 11._

CONSULATE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONTINENTAL ARMY.
   "The Continentals" of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).

CONTINENTAL CURRENCY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

CONTINENTAL SYSTEM OF NAPOLEON, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802, and 1806-1810.

CONTIONES, OR CONCIONES.

   The contiones, or conciones, at Rome, were assemblies of the
   people, "less formal than the comitia," held for the mere
   purpose of discussing public questions, and incapable of
   passing any binding resolution. "They could not be called
   together by anybody except the magistrates, neither had every
   man the liberty of speaking in them, of making proposals or of
   declaring his opinion; … but even in this limited manner
   public questions could be discussed and the people could be
   enlightened. … The custom of discussing public questions in
   the contiones became general after the comitia of the tribes
   had obtained full legislative competency."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      See, also, COMITIA CURIATA.

CONTRABANDS.

   In the early part of the American civil war of 1861-65, the
   escaped slaves of the Confederates, who came within the Union
   lines, were called contrabands, General Butler having supplied
   the term by declaring them to be "contraband of war."

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

CONTRERAS, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CONVENT.

   See MONASTERY.

CONVENTICLE ACT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

CONVENTION,
   The French National, of the great Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST),
      and 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1705 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

CONVOCATION.

   The assemblies of the clergy in the two ecclesiastical
   provinces of England are called the Convocation of Canterbury
   and the Convocation of York. The former, which is the superior
   body, frequently receives the name of Convocation, simply. It
   is constituted upon the model of Parliament, and is, in fact,
   the Parliament of the Church of England. It has two Houses:
   the upper one consisting of the Archbishop and his Bishops;
   the lower one composed of deans, archdeacons and proctors,
   representing the inferior clergy. The Convocation of York has
   but one House. Since 1716 Convocation has possessed slight
   powers.

{612}

CONWAY CABAL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.

COOMASSIE, Burning of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.

COPAIC REEDS.

      See BŒOTIA.

COPAN, Ruins of.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
      and MEXICO, ANCIENT.

COPEHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COPEHAN FAMILY.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1362.
   Taken and pillaged by the Hanseatic League.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1658-1660.
   Sieges by Charles X. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1700.
   Surrender to Charles XII. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1801.
   Bombardment by the English fleet.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1807.
   Bombardment of the city by the English.
   Seizure of the fleet.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

----------COPENHAGEN: End----------

COPPERHEADS.

   During the American Civil War, the Democratic Party in the
   Northern States "comprised two well-recognized classes: The
   Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called 'Copperheads,'
   who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for
   the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a
   vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the
   Union."

      _J. A. Logan,
      The Great Conspiracy,
      page 574, foot-note._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

COPREDY BRIDGE, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

COPTS, The.

   The descendants of the ancient Egyptian race, who form to this
   day the larger part of the population of Egypt.

      See EGYPT: ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE.

COPTOS.
   Destroyed by Diocletian.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

COR, The.

      See EPHAH.

CORBIE,
   Spanish capture of (1636).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

CORCYRA.

      See KORKYRA.

CORDAY, Charlotte, and the assassination of Marat.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

CORDELIERS.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

CORDELIERS, Club of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

CORDOVA (Spain): A. D. 711.
   Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

CORDOVA: A. D. 756-1031.
   The Caliphate at.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 756-1031.

CORDOVA: A. D. 1235.
   Capture by the King of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

----------CORDOVA: End----------

CORDOVA (Mexico), Treaty of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

CORDYENE.

   See GORDYENE.

COREA.

      See COREA in Supplement (volume 5).

COREISH, KOREISH.

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

COREY, Martha and Giles,
   The execution for witchcraft of.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

CORFINIUM, Cæsar's Capture of.

      See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

CORFU, Ancient.

      See KORKYRA.

CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880.
   Since the fall of the Greek Empire.

   Corfu was won by the Venetians in the early years of the Latin
   conquest of the Greek empire (1216), but was presently lost,
   to come back again into the possession of the republic 170
   years later. "No part of Greece has been so often cutoff from
   the Greek body. Under Pyrrhos and Agathoklês, no less than
   under Michael Angelos and Roger, it obeyed an Epeirot or
   Sicilian master. … At last, after yet another turn of
   Sicilian rule, it passed for 400 years [1386-. 1797] to the
   great commonwealth [of Venice]. In our own day Corfu was not
   added to free Greece till long after the deliverance of Attica
   and Peloponnesos. But, under so many changes of foreign
   masters, the island has always remained part of Europe and of
   Christendom. Alone among the Greek lands, Corfu has never
   passed under barbarian rule. It has seen the Turk only, for
   one moment, as an invader [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718], for
   another moment as a nominal overlord."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 408._

      See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

----------CORFU: End----------

CORINIUM.

   A Roman city in Britain, on the site of which is the modern
   city of Cirencester. Some of the richest mosaic pavements
   found in England have been uncovered there.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

CORINTH.

   Corinth, the chief city and state, in ancient times, of the
   narrow isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with northern
   Greece, "owed everything to her situation. The double sea by
   the isthmus, the confluence of the high road of the whole of
   Hellas, the rocky citadel towering aloft over land and sea,
   through which rushed—or around which flowed—an abundance of
   springs; all these formed so extraordinary a commixture of
   advantages, that, if the intercourse with other countries
   remained undisturbed, they could not but call forth an
   important city. As in Argolis, so on the isthmus also, other
   besides Dorian families had in the days of the migration
   helped to found the new state. … By the side of the Dorian,
   five non-Dorian tribes existed in Corinth, attesting the
   multitude and variety of population, which were kept together
   as one state by the royal power of the Heraclidæ, supported by
   the armed force of the Dorians. In the ninth century [B. C.]
   the royal power passed into the hands of a branch of the
   Heraclidæ deriving its descent from Bacchis [one of the
   earliest of the kings]; and it was in the extraordinary genius
   of this royal line that the greatness of the city originated.
   The Bacchiadæ opened the city to the immigration of the
   industrious settlers who hoped to make their fortunes more
   speedily than elsewhere at this meeting point of all Greek
   high-roads of commerce. They cherished and advanced every
   invention of importance. … They took commerce into their own
   hands, and established the tramway on the isthmus, along which
   ships were, on rollers, transported from one gulf to the
   other. … They converted the gulf which had hitherto taken
   its name from Crisa into the Corinthian, and secured its
   narrow inlet by means of the fortified place of Molycria. …
   They continued their advance along the coast and occupied the
   most important points on the Achelous."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1._

{613}

CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
   Constitutional Revolution.
   End of Monarchy.
   The prytanes.
   Commercial progress.

   A violent contention which arose between two branches of the
   Bacchiadæ "no doubt gave the nobles of Corinth power and
   opportunity to end the struggle by a change in the
   constitution, and by the discontinuance of the monarchy; this
   occurred in the year 745 B. C., after eight generations of
   kings. … Yet the place at the head of the commonwealth was
   not to be entirely taken away from the ancient royal house. A
   presiding chief (a prytanis), newly elected each year by the
   whole nobility from the members of the royal race, was
   henceforward to conduct the government [see PRYTANIS]. It was
   a peculiar arrangement which this change introduced into
   Corinth. We may assume that the sovereignty was transferred to
   the nobles collectively, or to their representative. This
   representation seems to have been so regulated that each of
   the eight tribes sent an equal number of members to the
   Gerousia, i. e. the council of elders. … But the first of
   these eight tribes, to which belonged the royal family, was
   privileged. From it was chosen the head of the state, an
   office for which only a Bacchiad was eligible—that is, only a
   member of the old royal house, which took the foremost place
   in the first tribe. This clan of the Bacchiadæ is said to have
   contained 200 men. 'They were numerous and wealthy,' says
   Strabo. Accordingly the royal house did not exclusively retain
   the first rank in the state, but only in conjunction with the
   families connected with it by kindred and race. … The new
   constitution of Corinth, the government by nobles, under the
   dynastic presidency of one family, became a type for other
   cantons. It was a Corinthian of the Bacchiadæ who, twenty or
   thirty years after the introduction of the prytanes, regulated
   the oligarchy of the Thebans and gave them laws (about 725 B.
   C.) … The fall of the monarchy in Corinth at first brought
   with it disastrous consequences for the power and prestige of
   the commonwealth. The communities of the Megarians—either
   because the new government made increased demands upon them,
   or because they considered their allegiance had ceased with
   the cessation of monarchy, and thought the moment was
   favourable—deserted Corinth and asserted their freedom. The
   five communities on the isthmus united together around the
   territory of Megara, lying in the plain by the Saronic Gulf,
   where the majority of the Doric tribes had settled; the city
   of Megara, in the vicinity of two ancient fortresses …
   became the chief centre of the communities, now associated in
   one commonwealth. … The important progress of Corinth under
   the prytany of the Bacchiadæ was not due to successes upon the
   mainland, but in another sphere. For navigation and commerce
   no canton in Hellas was more favourably situated. Lying on the
   neck of the isthmus, it extended from sea to sea, an
   advantageous position which had indeed first attracted the
   Phœnicians thither in ancient times. … Corinth, says
   Thucydides, was always from the first a centre of commerce,
   and abounded in wealth; for the population within and without
   the Peloponnesus communicated with each other more in ancient
   times by land across the isthmus than by sea. But when the
   Hellenes became more practised in navigation, the Corinthians
   with their ships put down piracy and established marts on both
   sides; and through this influx of riches their city became
   very powerful."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

CORINTH: B. C. 509-506.
   Opposition to the desire of Sparta to restore tyranny at
   Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

CORINTH: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress and organized Hellenic union against Persia.

      See GREECE: B. C.481-479.

CORINTH: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance with Ægina in unsuccessful war with Athens and Megara.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

CORINTH: B. C. 440.
   Opposition to Spartan interference with Athens in Samos.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

CORINTH: B. C. 435-432.
   Quarrel with Korkyra.
   Interference of Athens.
   Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

CORINTH: B. C. 432.
   Great sea-fight with the Korkyrians and Athenians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432.

CORINTH: B. C. 429-427.
   The Peloponnesian War: sea-fights and defeats.
   Fruitless aid to the Mitylenæans.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

CORINTH: B. C. 421.
   Opposition to the Peace of Nicias.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

CORINTH: B. C. 415-413.
   Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

CORINTH: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Battle on the Nemea.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

CORINTH: B. C. 368-365.
   Attempt of Epaminondas to surprise the city.
   Attempt of the Athenians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

CORINTH: B. C. 337.
   Congress of Greek states to acknowledge the hegemony of Philip
   of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

CORINTH: B. C. 244.
   Capture by Antigonus Gonatus, king of Macedon.

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

CORINTH: B. C. 243-146.
   In the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CORINTH: B. C. 146.
   Sack by the Romans.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CORINTH: B. C. 44.
   Restoration by Cæsar.

   "In the desolate land of Greece, Cæsar, besides other plans,
   … busied himself above all with the restoration of Corinth.
   Not only was a considerable burgess-colony conducted thither,
   but a plan was projected for cutting through the isthmus, so
   as to avoid the dangerous circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus
   and to make the whole traffic between Italy and Asia pass
   through the Corintho-Saronic gulf."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 11._

   "Cæsar sent to Corinth a large number of freedmen, and other
   settlers were afterwards sent by Augustus; but it is certain
   that many Greeks came to live in the new Corinth, for it
   became a Greek town. Corinth was a mass of ruins when the new
   settlers came, and while they were removing the rubbish, they
   grubbed up the burial places, where they found a great number
   of earthen figures and bronze urns, which they sold at a high
   price and filled Rome with them."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 32._

{614}

   "Corinth rapidly rose under these auspices, became a centre of
   commerce and art, and took the lead among the cities of
   European Hellas. Here was established the seat of the Roman
   government of Achaia, and its population, though the
   representations we have received of it are extravagant,
   undoubtedly exceeded that of any Grecian rival."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

CORINTH: A. D. 267.
   Ravaged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

CORINTH: A. D. 395.
   Plundered by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

CORINTH: A. D. 1146.
   Sacked by the Normans of Sicily.
   Abduction of silk weavers.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

CORINTH: A. D. 1445.
   Destruction by the Turks.

   The fortifications of the isthmus of Corinth were stormed and
   the Peloponnesus invaded by Amurath II. in 1445. "Corinth
   itself, a city sanctified by its antiquity, by its gods, by
   its arts, by the beauty of its women, by its fountains, its
   cypresses, its very ruins themselves, whence its unrivalled
   situation had always restored it, fell anew, buried in its
   flames, by the hands of Tourakhan, that ancient and ambitious
   vizier of Amurath. Its flames were seen from Athens, from
   Ægina, from Lepanto, from Cytheron, from Pindus. The
   inhabitants, as also those of Patras, were led into slavery in
   Asia, to the number of 60,000."

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 11, section 10._

CORINTH: A. D. 1463-1464.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Venetians.
   Fortification of the Isthmus.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

CORINTH: A. D. 1687.
   Taken by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

CORINTH: A. D. 1822.
   Revolt, siege and capture by the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------CORINTH: End----------

CORINTH, Mississippi, Siege and Battle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

CORINTH CANAL, The.

   "On Sunday [August 6, 1893] the canal across the Isthmus of
   Corinth—[projected by Cæsar—see ROME: B. C. 45-44] begun by
   Nero, and completed, nearly 2,000 years later, by a Greek
   engineer, M. Matsas—was opened by the King of Greece, who
   steamed through the canal in his yacht, accompanied by a
   procession consisting of four Greek torpedo-boats and other
   vessels, including three English men-of-war and an English
   despatch-boat. The canal … will be practicable for all but
   the largest vessels."

      _The Spectator, Aug. 12, 1893._

      [Transcriber's note: "It was planned by the Hungarian
      architects István Türr and Béla Gerster… Its
      construction was started by a French company, which ceased
      works only after the two ends had been dug, due to
      financial difficulties. A Greek company took over, the main
      contractor being Antonis Matsas, and continued (and
      completed) the project."
      http://wiki.phantis.com]

CORINTHIAN TALENT.

      See TALENT.

CORINTHIAN WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

CORIONDI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.

CORITANI, OR CORITAVI.
   A British tribe which occupied the lower valley of the Trent
   and its vicinity.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CORN LAWS (English) and their repeal.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
      A. D. 1815-1828; 1836-1839; 1842; and 1845-1846.

CORNABII, OR CORNAVII, The.

   An ancient British tribe which dwelt near the mouths of the
   Dee and the Mersey.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CORNWALL, Duchy of.

   In the division of the spoils of his conquest of England,
   William the Conqueror gave to his brother Robert almost the
   whole shire of Cornwall, besides other vast estates. "Out of
   those possessions," says Mr. Freeman, "arose that great
   Earldom, and afterwards Duchy, of Cornwall, which was deemed
   too powerful to be trusted in the hands of any but men closely
   akin to the royal house, and the remains of which have for
   ages formed the appanage of the heir-apparent to the Crown."

      See, also, WALES, PRINCE OF.

CORNWALLIS, Charles, Lord.
   In the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;
      1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

   Indian administration.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

   Irish administration.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

CORON, Battle of (B. C. 281).

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.

CORONADO, Expedition of.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

CORONATION.

   "The royal consecration in its most perfect form included both
   coronation and unction. The wearing of a crown was a most
   ancient sign of royalty, into the origin of which it is
   useless now to inquire; but the solemn rite of crowning was
   borrowed from the Old Testament by the Byzantine Cæsars; the
   second Theodosius was the first emperor crowned with religious
   ceremonies in Christian times. The introduction of the rite of
   anointing is less certainly ascertained. It did not always
   accompany coronation, and, although usual with the later
   emperors is not recorded in the case of the earlier ones."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 6, section 60._

CORONATION STONE.

      See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
      also, LIA FAIL.

CORONEIA, Battles of (B. C. 447 and B. C. 394).

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445; and B. C. 399-387.

CORPS DE BELGIQUE.

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

CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, The.

   "The Corpus Juris Civilis represents the Roman law in the form
   which it assumed at the close of the ancient period (a
   thousand years after the decemviral legislation of the Twelve
   Tables), and through which mainly it has acted upon modern
   times. It was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (the
   Western ceased in 476 A. D.) under the Emperor Justinian, …
   who reigned 527-565 A. D. The plan of the work, as laid out
   by [his great law-minister] Tribonian, included two principal
   parts, to be made from the constitutions of the Roman
   emperors, and from the treatises of the Roman lawyers. The
   constitutiones' (law-utterances) of the emperors consisted
   of:
   1. 'Orationes,' proposals of law, submitted to and adopted by
   the Senate;
   2. 'Edicta,' laws issued directly by the emperor as head of
   the state;
   3. 'Mandata,' instructions addressed by the emperor to high
   officers of law and justice;
   4. 'Decreta,' decisions given by the emperor in cases brought
   before him by appeal or otherwise;
   5. 'Rescripta,' answers returned by the emperor when consulted
   on questions of law by parties in a suit or by magistrates.
{615}
   … Three or four collections had
   already been made, in which the most important constitutions
   were selected from the mass, presented in a condensed form,
   and arranged according to their subjects. The last and most
   elaborate of these collections was the Theodosian Code,
   compiled about a century before the accession of Justinian; it
   is still in great part extant. … The new Codex
   Constitutionem, prepared in little more than a year, was
   published in April, 529. The next work was to digest the
   treatises of the most eminent law writers. Thirty-nine were
   selected, nearly all of whom lived between 100 B. C. and 250
   A. D. Their books (2,000 in number) were divided among a body
   of collaborators (sixteen besides Tribonian), each of whom
   from the books assigned to him extracted what he thought
   proper. … and putting the extracts (9,000 in all) under an
   arranged series of heads. … The Digest—or Pandects
   (all-receiving), as it is also called from the multiplicity of
   its sources—was issued with authority of law, in December,
   533. … While the Digest or Pandects forms much the largest
   fraction of the Corpus Juris, its relative value and
   importance are far more than proportionate to its extent. The
   Digest is, in fact, the soul of the Corpus. … To bring the
   Codex Constitutionem into better conformity with the Digest,
   it was revised in 534 and issued as we now have it in November
   of that year. … The Corpus Juris includes also an elementary
   text-book, the Institutiones (founded on the 'institutiones' of
   Gaius, who flourished about 150). … The Institutes, Digest
   and Codex were given, as a complete body of law, to the
   law-schools at Constantinople, Rome, Berytus, Alexandria,
   Cæsarea, to be studied in their five years' curriculum. In the
   courts it was to supersede all earlier authorities. … Later
   statutes of Justinian, arranged in order of time, form the
   Novels ('novellae constitutione,' most of them in Greek), the
   last component of the Corpus Juris."

      _J. Hadley,
      Introduction to Roman Law,
      lecture 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Goudsmit,
      The Pandects._

CORREGIDOR.

      See ALCALDE.

CORSICA: Early history.

   "The original inhabitants of Corsica are supposed to have been
   Ligurians, but at a very early period the people had
   commercial intercourse with Spain, Ionia and Tuscany. The
   island was subsequently occupied by the Carthaginians, who,
   however, were expelled by the Romans during the first Punic
   war. A few years later Corsica came under the dominion of
   Rome, and that sway was nominally maintained until the
   downfall of the Empire. It then fell under the dominion of the
   Vandals, and after their expulsion owned successively the rule
   of the Goths, the Saracens and the Pisans, and finally of the
   Genoese. It came into the possession of the latter people in
   the year 1120. Pisa subsequently made several attempts to
   drive out her rivals, but they were in the end void of
   results. But in 1448, Genoa, having sustained great losses in
   the constant wars in which she was engaged, was induced to
   surrender the administration of Corsica and of her colonies in
   the Levant to a corporation known as the Bank of St George.
   From that time the island was administered by governors
   appointed by the Bank of St George, almost precisely in the
   manner in which, in England, up to 1859, the East Indies were
   administered by an 'imperium in imperio.'"

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Studies from Genoese History,
      chapter 3._

CORSICA: A. D. 1558-1559.
   Revolt against the Genoese rule, and re-subjection.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
   The Struggle for independence.
   Romance of King Theodore.
   The Paolis.
   Cession to France.

   The revolt of 1558 was renewetl in 1564, but ended in 1567,
   upon the death of its leader, Sampiero. For the next century
   and a half, Corsica remained inactive; "depressed and
   miserable under renewed Genoese exactions and tyrannies, but
   too exhausted to resume hostilities. In 1729, however,
   fighting again broke out, suddenly roused by one of the many
   private wrongs then pressing upon the lower orders, and the
   rebellion soon spread over the whole island. It was well
   organized under two leaders of energy and ability, and was
   more determined in its measures than ever. … Genoa had
   recourse to the emperor of Germany, from whom she bought
   several thousand mercenaries, who were sent across the sea to
   try their skill upon these unconquerable islanders. … The
   courage and chivalry of his insular foes … won for them the
   regard of the opposing General Wachtendonk; and, chiefly
   through his mediation, a treaty, supposed to be favourable to
   the islanders, was concluded between Genoa and the Corte
   legislative assembly in 1732. Wachtendonk remained in the
   island another year to see the treaty carried out, and in
   June, 1734, the German general returned to his own country.
   … But he had scarcely retired before the treaty was broken.
   Genoa began anew her system of illegal arrests and attempted
   assassinations; and, once more, the people arose under
   Hyacinth Paoli, an obscure native of the little village of
   Morosaglia, but a man of spirit and talent, and a scholar.
   Under the direction of this man, and of Giafferi, his
   colleague, a democratic constitution, in the highest degree
   prudent and practical, was framed for the Corsican people. …
   Early in the next year occurred a strange and romantic
   adventure in this adventureful country. A man, handsome and
   well-dressed, surrounded by obsequious courtiers, and attended
   by every luxury, landed in the island from a vessel
   well-furnished with gold, ammunition, and arms. This man was a
   German adventurer, Baron Theodore von Neuhoff, who, after a
   romantic youth, had suddenly conceived a desire to become king
   of Corsica. He was a man of great talent and personal
   fascination, of good judgment, and enthusiastic disposition.
   He had fallen in love with the bravery and determination of
   the Corsicans, and longed to head such a nation. He had put
   himself into communication with the leading islanders; and,
   having really some little influence at the continental courts,
   persuaded them that he had much more. He offered to obtain
   such assistance from foreign potentates, by his persuasions,
   as should effectually oust the Genoese; and, in return,
   requested the crown of Corsica. His genius and his enthusiasm
   were so great, and his promises so dazzling, that, after some
   hesitation, the poor Corsicans, in their despair, seized upon
   this last straw; and in March, 1736, Theodore was crowned
   king. His exertions for the good of this country were
   untiring. He established manufactures and promoted with all
   his power art and commerce, at the same time that, with all
   the force of his genius, he endeavoured to persuade foreign
   powers to lend their assistance to his new subjects in the
   field.
{616}
   His style of living meanwhile was regal and sumptuous. …
   Towards the conclusion of his first year of sovereignty,
   Theodore left Corsica on a continental tour, with the avowed
   object of hastening the promised succour. In two years he
   returned, bringing with him three large and several smaller
   war vessels, handsomely laden with ammunition, which had
   actually been raised by means of his talents and persuasive
   faculties, chiefly amongst the Dutch. But, meanwhile, the
   Corsicans had had other affairs to which to attend. France had
   interfered at the request of Genoa; and negotiations were
   actively going on, which the arrival of the pseudo-king could
   only interrupt. Theodore, although now so well attended, found
   himself unheeded and disregarded; and after a few months was
   forced to leave his new kingdom to its fate, and to return to
   the continent. Five years later, in 1743, he again returned,
   again well equipped, this time with English vessels, but with
   the same ill success. Convinced now that his chance was over
   and his dream of royalty destroyed, Theodore returned to
   England with a sore heart, spending his remaining years in
   this asylum for dethroned kings and ruined adventurers. His
   tomb may be seen in Westminster Abbey. For the next five and
   twenty years the war continued between Corsica and Genoa,
   still fought out on the blood-deluged plains of the unhappy
   little island. But the republic of Genoa was now long past her
   prime, and her energies were fading into senility; and, had it
   not been for the ever-increasing assistance of France, her
   intrepid foes would long ere this have got the better of her.
   In May, 1768, a treaty was signed between Genoa and France, by
   which the republic ceded her now enfeebled claims on Corsica
   to her ally, and left her long-oppressed victim to fight the
   contest out with the French troops. During this time, first
   Gaffori, then Pasquale Paoli, were the leaders of the people.
   Gaffori, a man of refinement, and a hero of skill and
   intrepidity, was murdered in a vendetta in 1753, and in 1755
   Pasquale, youngest son of the old patriot Hyacinth Paoli, left
   his position as officer in the Neapolitan service, and landed,
   by the general desire of his own people, at Aleria, to
   undertake the command of the Corsican army. … From 1764 to
   1768 a truce was concluded between the foes. … In August,
   1768, the truce was to expire; but, before the appointed day
   had arrived, an army of 20,000 French suddenly swooped down
   upon the luckless island. … It was a hopeless struggle for
   Corsica; but the heroism of the undaunted people moved all
   Europe to sympathy. … The Corsicans at first got the better
   of their formidable foe, at the Bridge of Golo, in the taking
   of Borgo, and in other lesser actions. … Meanwhile, the
   country was being destroyed, and the troops becoming
   exhausted. … The battle of Ponte Nuovo, on the 9th of May,
   1769, at once and forever annihilated the Corsican cause. …
   After this victory, the French rapidly gained possession of
   the whole island, and shortly afterwards the struggle was
   abandoned. … In the same year, 1769, Napoleon Buonaparte was
   born in the house out of the Place du Marché at Ajaccio. 'I
   was born,' he said himself in a letter to Paoli, 'the year my
   country died.'"

      _G. Forde,
      A Lady's Tour in Corsica,
      volume 2, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Fitzgerald,
      Kings and Queens of an Hour,
      chapter 1._

      _J. Boswell,
      Journal of a Tour to Corsica._

Corsica: A. D. 1794.
   Conquest by the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

Corsica: A. D. 1796.
   Evacuated by the English.
   Reoccupied by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

----------Corsica: End----------

CORTENUOVA, Battle of (1236).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

CORTES, HERNANDO,
   Conquest of Mexico by.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 to 1521-1524.

CORTES, The early Spanish.
   The old monarchical constitutions of Castile and Aragon.

   "The earliest instance on record of popular representation in
   Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century
   antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city
   had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its
   representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the
   number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name
   signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in
   Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously
   to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from
   any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The
   nomination of these was originally vested in the householders
   at large, but was afterwards confined to the
   municipalities,—a most mischievous alteration, which
   subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence
   of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the
   higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of
   moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the
   transaction of other business, their own petitions were
   presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the
   validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make
   their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from
   the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations
   so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain
   contended for even there till a much later period than that
   now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of
   the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction
   was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts;
   for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of
   the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The
   extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the
   whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the
   sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state,
   whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the
   encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did
   eventually desert them in their utmost need. … The Aragonese
   cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos
   hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the
   knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every
   denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The
   ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar
   privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of
   this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum.
{617}
   The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from
   the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to
   have been a component of the national legislature until more
   than a century and a half after the admission of the commons.
   Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in
   Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. … The
   commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For
   this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of
   their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic
   institutions naturally extended to other parts of the
   Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to
   the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of
   immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were
   permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a
   very early period we find them employed in offices of public
   trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission
   into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133,
   several years earlier than the commencement of popular
   representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending
   two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its
   magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever
   might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been
   once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a
   statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been
   annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little
   regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for
   some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown,
   whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded
   from their deliberations. … It was in the power of any
   member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his
   veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might
   even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house,
   and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business
   during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending
   even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too
   invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its
   consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be
   inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until
   the reign of Philip II., in 1502. … The cortes exercised the
   highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or
   judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters
   of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law
   was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and
   it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to
   its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown,
   removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and
   domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power,
   in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as
   well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on
   the liberties of the nation. … The statute-book affords the
   most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the
   guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in
   them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security
   both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets
   the eye in this venerable record contains the General
   Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated,
   of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at
   Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for
   the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining
   the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the
   security of property against exactions of the crown; and for
   the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal
   corporations and the different orders of nobility. … The
   Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the
   broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its
   confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. … The judicial
   functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by
   writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it
   the name of the General Court."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      introduction, sections 1-2._

   "Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil
   polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders
   of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered
   violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they
   were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides
   these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in
   the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was
   ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the
   coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders
   among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile
   became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public
   spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times,
   to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too
   unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a
   just balance against the crown. … Perhaps in no European
   monarchy except our own was the form of government more
   interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law
   and justice with the royal authority. … Blancas quotes a
   noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always
   heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing
   the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the
   realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk
   would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands
   more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated
   the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the
   reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they
   compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General
   Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full
   and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They
   further "established a positive right of maintaining their
   liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of
   Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent
   conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so
   completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of
   the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.
   … That watchfulness over public liberty which originally
   belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres … and which was
   afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union,
   became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and
   functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional
   history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has
   been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous
   magistrate. … But I do not perceive that his functions were,
   in any essential respect, different from those of the chief
   justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among
   the judges of the King's Bench. …
{618}
   All the royal as well as territorial judges were
   bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties
   arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight
   days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made
   penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the
   execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared
   null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any
   business after his prohibition. … There are two parts of his
   remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are
   the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of
   manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of
   'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of
   King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from
   the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese
   juris firma was of more extensive operation. … The process
   termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal
   liberty as that of juris firma did for property."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Age,
      chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   For some account of the loss of the old constitutional
   liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

   "The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest,
   like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,'
   and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad
   audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business
   was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly
   should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people;
   and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the
   first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the
   Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to
   determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon
   in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early
   monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the
   assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary
   to render the king's election valid. The presence of the
   citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval
   and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council
   of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal
   'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these
   latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and
   making their influence more and more felt, there is no record
   of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked
   the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis,
   et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis
   civitatibus'; from this time the three estates—clergy,
   nobles, citizens—were always represented in the Cortes of
   Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did
   not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of
   Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more
   than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in
   1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of
   Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors
   of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of
   both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true
   representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal
   than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and
   in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ
   of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of
   Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities
   represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200
   deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number
   sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were
   represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality
   either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere
   spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative.
   Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by
   the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary
   was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to
   the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and
   petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not
   in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent
   of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the
   death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian
   dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old
   liberties might yet have been recovered. … With the Cortes
   of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates.
   The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the
   Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become
   servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."

      _W. Webster,
      Review of Colmeiro's
      "Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla"
      (Academy, August 16, 1884)._

CORUNNA, Battle of (1809).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CORUPEDION, Battle of.

   A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which
   Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was
   defeated by Seleucus, and slain.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60._

CORVÉE.

   One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old
   regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over
   his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own
   profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their
   oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at
   the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely
   abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for
   some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."

      _A. de Tocqueville,
      On the State of Society in France before 1789,
      note 4 E. (p. 499)._

CORVUS, The Roman.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

COS, OR KOS.

   One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the
   Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to
   Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the
   celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter
   Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian
   confederacy.

COSIMO DE' MEDICI,
   The ascendancy at Florence of.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.

      See DEMIURGI.

{619}

COSSACKS, The.

   "The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of
   ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in
   opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is
   properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of
   so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for
   anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything,
   however, would seem to favour the belief that the word
   Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity
   of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. … Sherer, in his
   'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the
   origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not
   support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of
   historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast
   pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country
   lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to
   the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks.
   When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take
   possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast
   inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D.
   1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many
   others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of
   this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the
   Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned
   to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that
   river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their
   brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were,
   incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk,
   who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice.
   … At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the
   Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took
   refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by
   that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure
   retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position,
   acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not
   only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence,
   but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for
   purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and
   discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These
   latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent
   seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical
   expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the
   parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the
   most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however,
   with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless,
   desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some
   degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character
   of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more
   energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than
   had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in
   various directions, and from this people, flying at the
   advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of
   hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and
   independent nations. … [They] ultimately found a permanent
   resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the
   cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient
   compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their
   nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the
   Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish
   Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having
   defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna,
   conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering
   tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his
   allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of
   Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large
   bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the
   comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served
   under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy
   of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the
   dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently,
   an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and
   inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine
   was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the
   protection of the kings of Poland. … Although there may,
   doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to
   whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give
   as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will
   there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal
   tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don,
   or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in
   ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy.
   … The Cossacks [of the Don] … have rendered signal service
   to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them
   under her protection, without, however, the existence of any
   official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their
   submission to that power. … The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain
   kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman,
   or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this
   chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and
   implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack
   officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a
   separate war administration of their own; although they are
   compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in
   a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged
   before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their
   condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian
   population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The
   existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart
   of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world,
   appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not
   as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which
   yet remains to be ascertained."

      _H. Krasinski,
      The Cossacks of the Ukraine,
      chapter 1._

   The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from
   the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a
   revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they
   were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was
   accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

COSSÆANS, The.

      See KOSSÆANS.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1502.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of
   Central America.

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

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

----------COSTA RICA: End----------

COSTANOAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COSTANOAN FAMILY.

COSTER, Laurent, and the invention of printing.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

COTARII.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

{620}

COTHON OF CARTHAGE, The.

   "There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one
   into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human
   hands. … The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet
   long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant
   vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it
   was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It
   could not be approached except through the merchant harbour,
   and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could
   be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely
   surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships.
   In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so
   that the whole must have presented the appearance of a
   splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the
   harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 20._

COTSETI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

COTTON, Reverend John and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

COTTON FAMINE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

COTTON-GIN:
   Eli Whitney's invention and its effects.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

COTTON MANUFACTURE:
   The great inventions in spinning and weaving.

   "Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme
   West from the earliest periods of which we have any record.
   The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the
   Mexicans clothed in cotton. … But though the use of cotton
   had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and
   America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the
   ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen,
   and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain.
   Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy,
   Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of
   Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads;
   rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in
   Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their
   own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed,
   cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book,
   and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated
   by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and
   Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding
   that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were
   woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than
   a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton
   attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen
   manufacturers complained that people were dressing their
   children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually
   persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed
   calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to
   extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. … The taste
   for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in
   London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was
   induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths
   from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created
   for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. …
   Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really
   never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a
   combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had
   been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the
   warp; … The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers
   enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy
   workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at
   home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of
   cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been
   made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in
   the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it
   was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. …
   The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than
   that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own
   family could supply him with; and the weavers generally
   experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient
   yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of
   two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more
   apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand
   from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of
   Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733],
   saved the weaver from this labour. … Robert Kay, John Kay's
   son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able
   'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different
   coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and
   replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the
   productive power of each weaver was doubled. … Carding and
   roving were both slowly performed. … The trade was in this
   humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and
   unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which
   cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a
   century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the
   neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long
   walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn
   for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny
   accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves
   noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an
   upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread
   was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately
   occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a
   considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and
   thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. …
   Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret
   for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known.
   His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine,
   which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would
   throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke
   into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself
   had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly
   assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent
   [1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment
   to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the
   spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture.
   But the … yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had
   previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard
   enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads
   had consequently to be used for this purpose.
{621}
   In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from
   Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as
   a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still
   more celebrated machine. … 'After many years intense and
   painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for
   spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic
   industry which has done more than any other trade to
   concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. … He
   passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was
   made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread,
   after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the
   requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher
   rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright
   succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp.
   From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was
   first erected was driven by water power, the machine received
   the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread
   spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of
   the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless
   if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a
   more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright
   applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced
   revolving cylinders for carding cotton. … This extraordinary
   series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn
   at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had
   thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn
   fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. … This defect,
   however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a
   young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in
   combining in one machine the various excellences 'of
   Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the
   former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called
   the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and
   like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the
   twist. … The effects of Crompton's great invention may be
   stated epigrammatically. … The natives of India could spin a
   pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English
   succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles.
   Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the
   weaver. … The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and
   Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn.
   … The spinster had beaten the weaver. … Edmund Cartwright,
   a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at
   Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the
   company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned
   on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed
   that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills
   would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would
   never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that
   Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving
   mill.' … Within three years he had himself proved that the
   invention was practicable by producing the power-loom.
   Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had
   originated, and within fifty years from the date of his
   memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000
   power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. … Other
   inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less
   wonderful or less beneficial than these. … Scheele, the
   Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching
   properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the
   French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to
   bleaching cloth. … In the same year in which Watt and Henry
   were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a
   Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed
   calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of
   sycamore.' … This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder
   printing. … Such are the leading inventions, which made
   Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in
   the world."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      R. W. C. Taylor,
      Introduction to a History of the Factory System,
      chapter 10.

      E. Baines,
      History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain.

      A. Ure,
      The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain.

COULMIERS, Battle of (1870).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, The Mormons at.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623; 1621-1631; and 1635.

COUNCIL OF BLOOD, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

COUNCIL OF FIVE HUNDRED, The Athenian.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

   The French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL OF TEN, The.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

COUNCIL OF THE ANCIENTS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.

      See PRIVY COUNCIL.

COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, General or Ecumenical.

   There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin
   churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)—that is general, or
   universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making
   twenty in all—as follows:

   1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem.
   2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325
      (see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL).
   3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381.
   4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.
   5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.
   6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553.
   7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681.
   8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.
   9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869.
   10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123.
   11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139.
   12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179.
   13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.
   14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245.
   15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274.
   16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311.
   17. The Council of Constance,
       A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418).
   18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431
       (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448).
   19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545
       (see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563).
   20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869
       (see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).

{622}

COUNT AND DUKE, Roman.
   Origin of the titles.

   "The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed
   [under Constantine and his successors] to eight
   masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their
   orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the
   provinces—three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in
   Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia
   eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of
   Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished,
   have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense
   that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should
   be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a
   corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately
   applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals
   were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were
   dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of
   honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented
   in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which
   distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "The Duke and the Count of modern Europe—what are they but
   the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman
   province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing
   up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former
   superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was
   discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the
   Scandinavian Jarl."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3._

COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.

   In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the
   later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts
   of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the
   household troops, known by the names of Domestici and
   Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect
   of the earlier days of the Empire. … Theoretically, their
   duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the
   Guards."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3._

COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.

   In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the
   Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title
   simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. … In practice,
   however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial
   Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of
   Imperial expenditure. … The Count of the Sacred Largesses
   was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the
   Empire."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3._

COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.

      See SAXON SHORE.

COUNT PALATINE.

      See PALATINE, COUNTS.

COUNTER-REFORMATION, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

COUNTRY PARTY, The.

      See ENGLAND; A. D. 1672-1673.

COUP D' ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

COUREURS DE BOIS.

   "Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge
   evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that
   was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods,
   and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and
   priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only
   were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them,
   there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The
   bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object
   of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the
   population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and
   order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more
   than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of
   the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws.
   … We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into
   forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of
   the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an
   organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a
   general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him
   into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in
   order that the edicts against them might have time to relent.
   The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a
   population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight
   in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king
   ordered that any person going into the woods without a license
   should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent
   for life to the galleys for the second. … Under such leaders
   as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at
   various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a
   post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent
   settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the
   Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it
   suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next
   comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Old Regime in Canada,
      chapter 17._

COURLAND, Christian conquest of.

      See, LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

COURT BARON.

      See MANORS.

COURT CUSTOMARY.

      See MANORS.

COURT-LEET.

      See MANORS,
      and SAC AND SOC.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

      See CHANCELLOR.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

      See CURIA REGIS.

COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559;
      and A. D. 1686.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

      See CURIA REGIS.

COURT, SUPREME, of the United States.

      See SUPREME COURT.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1382.
   Pillaged and burned by the French.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1646.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1648.
   Taken by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

         See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND); A. D. 1668.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1679.
   Restored to Spain.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

----------COURTRAI: End----------

{623}

COURTRAI, The Battle of.

   The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the
   barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the
   sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of
   the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which
   was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the
   victors in Courtrai cathedral.

      _G. W. Kitchen,
      History of France,
      book 3, chapter 10, section 2._

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

COURTS OF LOVE.

      See PROVENCE: A.D. 1179-1207.

COUTHON,
   and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

COUTRAS, Battle of (1587).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

COVADONGA, Cave of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

COVENANT, The Halfway.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

COVENANT, The Solemn League and.

   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

COVENANTERS.

   The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish
   National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638)
   and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The
   war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated
   under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the
   persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666; 1669-1679; 1679; and 1681-1689.

COVENANTS, The Scottish.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557-1581; and 1638.

COWBOYS.

   During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal
   and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army,
   well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by
   profession, and came to have their name from their
   cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful
   murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them.
   Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 2, page 372._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780
      (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

COWPENS, Battle of the (1781).

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

CRACOW: A. D. 1702.
   Taken by Charles XII. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Occupied by the Russians.
   Rising of the citizens.
   Surrender and cession to Austria.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

CRACOW: A. D. 1815.
   Creation of the Republic.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846.
   Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians.
   Extinction of the Republic.
   Annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

----------CRACOW: End----------

CRADLE OF LIBERTY.

      See FANEUIL HALL.

CRAFT-GUILDS.

      See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

CRAGIE TRACT, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CRAL.-KRALE.

   "The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c.
   2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their
   native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the
   equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from
   whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern
   Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p.
   422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 63, note.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See, also,
      BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

CRANNOGES.

      See LAKE DWELLINGS.

CRANNON (KRANNON), Battle of (B. C. 322).

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

CRAONNE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to 57-52.

CRATER, Battle of the Petersburg.

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

CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

CRANGALLIDÆ, The.

      See HIERODULI.

CRAYFORD, Battle of (A. D. 457).

   The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading
   Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern
   Britain.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

CRÉCY, Battle of (1346).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

   On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in
   December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges
   made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the
   Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several
   Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of
   Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and
   1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the
   Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union
   Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union
   Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating
   committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being
   chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873,
   recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts,
   for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the
   Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to
   influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of
   New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the
   proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the
   conduct of both members."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      pages 210-220._

      _Report of Select Committee
      (42d Congress, 3d session, H. R. report no. 77)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Crawford,
      The Credit Mobilier of America._

CREEKS.
   Creek Wars.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL),
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

CREES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CREFELD, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

CREMA, Siege of (1159-1160).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

CREMONA: The Roman Colony.
   Siege by the Gauls.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

CREMONA: A. D. 69.
   Destruction by the Flavians.

      See ROME: A. D. 69.

CREMONA: A. D. 1702.
   Defeat of the French.

      See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

{624}

CREOLE.

   "In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the
   idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The
   designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly
   belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have
   emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or
   Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black
   Creoles. … The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish
   word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to
   foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to
   the human race, but also to animals propagated in the
   colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole
   horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."

      _J. J. Von Tschudi,
      Travels in Peru,
      chapter 5, and foot-note._

   "The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of
   a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while
   often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin
   partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times
   and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its
   broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance.
   For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants
   of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied
   a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include
   any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent,
   whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to
   social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded
   to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood,
   and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of
   commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a
   title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or
   thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that
   might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens,
   cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. … There
   are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles,
   these all being included under the distinctive term
   'Americans.' … There seems to be no more serviceable
   definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than
   to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."

      _G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable,
      History and Present Condition of New Orleans
      (Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218)._

CREONES, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CRESCENT, The Order of the.

   A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan,
   Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the
   first to receive this decoration.

CRESPY IN VALOIS, Treaty of (1544).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CRETAN LABYRINTH.

      See LABYRINTHS.

CRETE.

   "The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so
   great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not
   surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete
   were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this
   similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation,
   by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions,
   must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia,
   Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old
   inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of
   subordination. … It is, however, beyond doubt that
   settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a
   large portion of the island was subject to them. In the
   historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we
   find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all
   moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its
   surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in
   their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination
   to the principal city. For that each city of the
   'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it,
   formed also an independent state, will probably not be
   supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason
   to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were
   in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 2._

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CRETE: B. C. 68-66.
   The Roman Conquest.

   The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their
   conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate
   and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the
   professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman
   fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They
   soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent
   envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the
   penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed,
   however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in
   Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more
   were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the
   islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle
   and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with
   equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the
   conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there
   occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and
   Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on
   the Cretan soil.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 4._

CRETE: A. D. 823.
   Conquest by the Saracens.

   "The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was
   disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes
   having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of
   Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate
   in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes
   established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an
   active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of
   Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with
   Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the
   Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of
   Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed
   themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and
   establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was
   unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an
   event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the
   strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the
   lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of
   the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs,
   called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete
   with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their
   permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they
   commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their
   fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by
   an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak,
   now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. … The
   Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 3._

{625}

   During the stay of these piratical Andalusian Arabs at
   Alexandria, "they cut in pieces both friends and foes,
   pillaged the churches and mosques, sold above 6,000 Christian
   captives, and maintained their station in the capital of Egypt
   till they were oppressed by the forces and presence of Almamon
   himself."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, chapter 1._

CRETE: A. D. 961-963.
   Recovery from the Saracens.

   "In the subordinate station of great domestic, or general of
   the East, he [Nicephorus Phocas, afterwards emperor, on the
   Byzantine throne], reduced the island of Crete, and extirpated
   the nest of pirates who had so long defied, with impunity, the
   majesty of the Empire. … Seven months were consumed in the
   siege of Candia; the despair of the native Cretans was
   stimulated by the frequent aid of their brethren of Africa and
   Spain; and, after the massy wall and double ditch had been
   stormed by the Greeks, a hopeless conflict was still
   maintained in the streets and houses of the city. The whole
   island was subdued in the capital, and a submissive people
   accepted, without resistance, the baptism of the conqueror."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

CRETE: A. D. 1204-1205.
   Acquired by the Venetians.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.1204-1205.

CRETE: A. D. 1645-1669.
   The long siege of Candia.
   Surrender to the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

CRETE: A. D. 1715.
   Complete Expulsion of the Venetians by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

CRETE: A. D. 1866-1868.
   Unsuccessful revolt.
   Struggle for independence.
   Turkish concession of the Organic Regulation.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.

----------CRETE: End----------

CRETE, Party of the.
   Crêtois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

CRIMEA, OR CRIM TARTARY:
   Early history.

      See TAURICA;
      also BOSPORUS, CITY AND KINGDOM.

CRIMEA: 7th Century.
   Conquest and occupation by the Khazars.

      See KHAZARS.

CRIMEA: 12th-13th Centuries.
   Genoese commercial colonies.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CRIMEA: 13th-14th Centuries.
   The khanate to Krim.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1475.
   Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1571.
   Expedition of the Khan to Moscow.
   The city stormed and sacked.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1735-1738.
   Russian invasions and fruitless conquests.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1774.
   The khanate declared independent of the Porte.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1776-1784.
   The process of acquisition by Russia.
   Final recognition of Russian sovereignty by the Sultan.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1853-1855.
   War of Russia with Turkey and her allies.
   Siege of Sebastopol.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

----------CRIMEA: End----------

CRISIS OF 1837, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

CRISIS OF 1857.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION
      (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

CRISSA.
   Crissæan or Sacred War.

      See DELPHI.

CRITTENDEN COMPROMISE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

CROATANS, The.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

CROATIA: 7th Century.
   Sclavonic occupation and settlement.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, BOSNIA, ETC.)

CROATIA: A. D. 1102.
   Subjection and annexation to Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

CROATIA: A. D. 1576.
   Transferred to the Duke of Styria.
   Military colonization.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

----------CROATIA: End----------

CROIA, Turkish massacre at.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

CROMLECHS.

   Rude stone monuments found in many parts of the British
   Islands, France, and elsewhere, usually formed by three or
   more huge, rough, upright stones, with a still larger stone
   lying flatly upon them. In France these are called Dolmens.
   They were formerly thought to be "Druids altars," to which
   notion they owe the name Cromlechs; but it is now very
   generally concluded by archæologists that they were
   constructed for burial chambers, and that originally, in most
   cases, they were covered with mounds of earth, forming the
   well known barrows, or grave mounds, or tumuli.

      _L. Jewett,
      Grave Mounds._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon._

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      Prehistoric Times,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, AMORITES.

CROMPTON'S MULE, The invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURES.

CROMWELL, Oliver.
   Campaigns and Protectorate.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 to 1658-1660;
      and IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

CROMWELL, Thomas,
   The suppression of the Monasteries.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

CROMWELLIAN SETTLEMENT OF IRELAND.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.

CROMWELL'S IRONSIDES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

CROSS, The "True."
   Its capture by the Persians and recovery by Heraclius.

      See ROME: A. D. 565-628;
      And JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

CROSS KEYS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

CROTON.
KROTON.

      See SYBARIS.

CROTONA, Battle of (A. D. 983).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CROWN, The iron.

      See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.

CROWN OF INDIA,  The Order of the.

   An order, for women, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.

{626}

CROWN POINT: A. D. 1727.
   Fort built by the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.

CROWN POINT: A. D. 1755.
   English Expedition against.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

CROWN POINT: A. D: 1759.
   Abandoned to the English by the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

CROWN POINT: A. D. 1775.
   Surprise and capture by the Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 MAY.

----------CROWN POINT: End----------

CROWS, OR UPSAROKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CRUITHNIGH.-CRUITHNIANS.

   The Irish name of the Picts and Scots of ancient Ireland and
   Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

CRUSADES:
   Causes and introductory events.

   "Like all the great movements of mankind, the Crusades must be
   traced to the coincidence of many causes which influenced men
   of various nations and discordant feelings, at the same period
   of time, to pursue one common end with their whole heart.
   Religious zeal, the fashion of pilgrimages, the spirit of
   social development, the energies that lead to colonisation or
   conquest, and commercial relations, only lately extended so
   widely as to influence public opinion, all suddenly received a
   deep wound. Every class of society felt injured and insulted,
   and unity of action was created as if by a divine impulse. The
   movement was facilitated by the circumstance that Europe began
   to adopt habits of order just at the time when Asia was thrown
   into a state of anarchy by the invasions of the Seljouk Turks.
   Great numbers of pilgrims had always passed through the
   Byzantine empire to visit the holy places in Palestine. We
   still possess an itinerary of the road from Bordeaux to
   Jerusalem, by the way of Constantinople, written in the fourth
   century for the use of pilgrims. Though the disturbed and
   impoverished state of Europe, after the fall of the Western
   Empire, diminished the number of pilgrims, still, even in
   times of the greatest anarchy, many passed annually through
   the Eastern Empire to Palestine. The improvement which dawned
   on the western nations during the eleventh century, and the
   augmented commerce of the Italians, gave additional importance
   to the pilgrimage to the East. About the year 1064, during the
   reign of Constantine X., an army or caravan of seven thousand
   pilgrims passed through Constantinople, led by the Archbishop
   of Mentz and four bishops. They made their way through Asia
   Minor, which was then under the Byzantine government; but in
   the neighbourhood of Jerusalem they were attacked by the
   Bedouins, and only saved from destruction by the Saracen emir
   of Ramla, who hastened to their assistance. These pilgrims are
   reported to have lost 3,000 of their number, without being
   able to visit either the Jordan or the Dead Sea. The invasions
   of the Seljouks [see TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092]
   increased the disorders in Palestine. … In the year 1076 the
   Seljouk Turks took possession of Jerusalem, and immediately
   commenced harassing the pilgrims with unheard-of exactions.
   The Saracens had in general viewed the pilgrims with favour,
   as men engaged in fulfilling a pious duty, or pursuing lawful
   gain with praiseworthy industry, and they had levied only a
   reasonable toll on the pilgrims, and a moderate duty on their
   merchandise; while in consideration of these imposts, they had
   established guards to protect them on the roads by which they
   approached the holy places. The Turks, on the contrary, acting
   like mere nomads, uncertain of retaining possession of the
   city, thought only of gratifying their avarice. They plundered
   the rich pilgrims, and insulted the poor. The religious
   feelings of the Christians were irritated, and their commerce
   ruined; a cry for vengeance arose throughout all Europe, and
   men's minds were fully prepared for an attempt to conquer
   Palestine, when Peter the Hermit began to preach that it was a
   sacred duty to deliver the tomb of Christ from the hands of
   the Infidels."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1091.
   The Council of Clermont.

   Pope Urban II., one of two rival pontiffs then contending for
   recognition by the Church, entered with great eagerness into
   the movement stirred by Peter the Hermit, and gave it a
   powerful impulse through his support, while obtaining for
   himself, at the same time, a decisive advantage over his
   competitor, by the popularity of the agitation. A great
   Council was convened at Piacenza, A. D. 1094, and a second at
   Clermont, in the autumn of the same year, to deliberate upon
   the action to be taken. The city of Clermont could not contain
   the vast multitude of bishops, clergy and laity which
   assembled, and an army of many thousands was tented in the
   surrounding country. To that excited congregation, at a
   meeting in the great square of Clermont, Pope Urban addressed
   a speech which is one of the notable utterances of History.
   "He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren
   in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated
   by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the
   firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into
   the possessions of the faithful; how Christian wives and
   daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the
   true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden
   under foot. 'You,' continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban
   II. was one of the most eloquent men of the day), 'you, who
   hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been
   endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of
   soul,—whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and
   whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the
   infidel,—I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from
   the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed
   fellow-Christians from the depths into which they have been
   trampled.' … The warmth of the pontiff communicated itself
   to the crowd, and the enthusiasm of the people broke out
   several times ere he concluded his address. He went on to
   portray, not only the spiritual but the temporal advantages
   that would accrue to those who took up arms in the service of
   the cross. Palestine was, he said, a land flowing with milk
   and honey, and precious in the sight of God, as the scene of
   the grand events which had saved mankind. That land, he
   promised, should be divided among them. Moreover, they should
   have full pardon for all their offences, either against God or
   man. 'Go, then,' he added, 'in expiation of your sins; and
   go assured, that after this world shall have passed away,
   imperishable glory shall be yours in the world which is to
   come.' The enthusiasm was no longer to be restrained, and loud
   shouts interrupted the speaker; the people exclaiming as if
   with one voice, 'Dieu le veult! Dieu le veult!' … The news
   of this council spread to the remotest parts of Europe in an
   incredibly short space of time. Long before the fleetest
   horseman could have brought the intelligence, it was known by
   the people in distant provinces; a fact which was considered
   as nothing less than supernatural. But the subject was in
   everybody's mouth, and the minds of men were prepared for the
   result. The enthusiastic merely asserted what they wished, and
   the event tallied with their prediction."

      _C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions: The Crusades,
      (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 7, chapter 6._

{627}

CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095,
   Peter the Hermit and his appeal.

   "About twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem by the
   Turks, the holy sepulchre was visited by an hermit of the name
   of Peter, a native of Amiens, in the province of Picardy in
   France. His resentment and sympathy were excited by his own
   injuries, and the oppression of the Christian name; he mingled
   his tears with those of the patriarch, and earnestly inquired,
   if no hopes of relief could be entertained from the Greek
   emperors of the East. The patriarch exposed the vices and
   weakness of the successors of Constantine. 'I will rouse,'
   exclaimed the hermit, 'the martial nations of Europe in your
   cause;' and Europe was obedient to the call of the hermit. The
   astonished patriarch dismissed him with epistles of credit and
   complaint, and no sooner did he land at Bari, than Peter
   hastened to kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff. His stature
   was small, his appearance contemptible; but his eye was keen
   and lively, and he possessed that vehemence of speech which
   seldom fails to impart the persuasion of the soul. He was born
   of a gentleman's family (for we must now adopt a modern
   idiom), and his military service was under the neighbouring
   counts of Boulogne, the heroes of the first crusade.
   Invigorated by the approbation of the pontiff, this zealous
   missionary traversed, with speed and success, the provinces of
   Italy and France. His diet was abstemious, his prayers long
   and fervent, and the alms which he received with one hand, he
   distributed with the other; his head was bare, his feet naked,
   his meagre body was wrapt in a coarse garment; he bore and
   displayed a weighty crucifix; and the ass on which he rode was
   sanctified in the public eye by the service of the man of God.
   He preached to innumerable crowds in the churches, the
   streets, and the highways. … When he painted the sufferings
   of the natives and pilgrims of Palestine, every heart was
   melted to compassion; every breast glowed with indignation,
   when he challenged the warriors of the age to defend their
   brethren and rescue their Saviour: his ignorance of art and
   language was compensated by sighs and tears, and ejaculations;
   and Peter supplied the deficiency of reason by loud and
   frequent appeals to Christ and his Mother, to the saints and
   angels of paradise, with whom he had personally conversed. The
   most perfect orator of Athens might have envied the success of
   his eloquence; the rustic enthusiast inspired the passions
   which he felt, and Christendom expected with impatience the
   counsels and decrees of the supreme pontiff."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
   The First Great Movement.

   The first army of Crusaders to set out on the long march to
   Jerusalem was a mob of men, women and children which had not
   patience to wait for the organized movement of the military
   leaders. They gathered in vast numbers on the banks of the
   Moselle and the Meuse, in the spring of 1096, with Peter the
   Hermit for their chosen chief. There were nine knights, only,
   in the swarm, and but few who had horses to ride, or efficient
   arms to bear, or provisions to feed upon. Knowing nothing, and
   therefore fearing nothing, they marched away, through France,
   Germany, Hungary and beyond, begging food where they could and
   subsisting by pillage when it needed. A knight called Walter
   the Penniless led the van, and Peter followed, with his second
   division, by a somewhat different route. Walter escaped
   serious trouble until he reached the country of the savage
   Bulgarians. Peter's senseless mob provoked the just wrath of
   the Hungarians by storming the small city of Semlin and
   slaying 4,000 of its inhabitants. The route of both was lined
   with the bones of thousands who perished of hunger, of
   exposure, of disease, and by the swords of Hungarians and
   Bulgarians. A third and a fourth host of like kind followed in
   their wake, led by a monk, Gotschalk, a priest named Volkmar,
   and a Count Emicon. These terrorized even more all the
   countries through which they passed,—especially where Jews
   were to be hunted and killed,—and were destroyed in Hungary
   to almost the last man. Peter and Walter reached
   Constantinople with 100,000 followers, it is said, even yet,
   after all who had fallen by the way. Still refusing to wait
   for the better appointed expeditions that were in progress,
   and still appalling eastern Christendom by their lawless
   barbarities, they passed into Asia Minor, and their miserable
   career soon came to an end. Attacking the Turks in the city of
   Nicæa,—which had become the capital of the Seljouk sultan of
   Roum,—they were beaten, routed, scattered, slaughtered, until
   barely 3,000 of the great host escaped. "Of the first
   Crusaders," says Gibbon, "300,000 had already perished before
   a single city was rescued from the infidels,—before their
   graver and more noble brethren had completed the preparations
   of their enterprise." Meantime the knights and princes of the
   crusade had gathered their armies and were now (in the summer
   of 1096) beginning to move eastward, by different routes. Not
   one of the greater sovereigns of Europe had enlisted in the
   undertaking. The chiefs of one armament were Godfrey de
   Bouillon, duke of the Lower Lorraine, or Brabant; his
   brothers, Eustace, count of Boulogne, and Baldwin; his cousin,
   Baldwin de Bourg, with Baldwin, count of Hainaut, Dudon de
   Contz, and other knights celebrated in the "Jerusalem
   Delivered" of Tasso. This expedition followed nearly the route
   of Peter the Hermit, through Hungary and Bulgaria, giving
   hostages for its orderly conduct and winning the good-will of
   those countries, even maddened as they were by the foregoing mobs.
{628}
   Another larger following from France was led by Hugh, count of
   Vermandois, brother of the king of France; Robert, duke of
   Normandy, eldest son of William the Conqueror; Stephen, count
   of Blois, the Conqueror's son-in-law, and Robert, count of
   Flanders. These took the road into Italy, and to Bari, whence,
   after spending the winter, waiting for favorable weather, they
   were transported by ships to Greece, and pursued their march
   to Constantinople. They were followed by a contingent from
   southern Italy, under Bohemond, the Norman prince of Tarentum,
   son of Robert Guiscard, and his knightly cousin, Tancred. A
   fourth army, gathered in southern France by count Raymond of
   Toulouse and Bishop Adhemer, the appointed legate and
   representative of the pope, chose still another route, through
   Lombardy, Dalmatia and Macedonia, into Thrace. On passing
   through the territories of the Byzantine emperor (Alexius I.),
   all the crusaders experienced his distrust, his duplicity, and
   his cautious ill-will—which, under the circumstances were
   natural enough. Alexius managed so well that he extorted from
   each of the princes an acknowledgment of his rights of
   sovereignty over the region of their expected conquests, with
   an oath of fealty and homage, and he pushed them across the
   Bosphorus so adroitly that no two had the opportunity to unite
   their forces under the walls of Constantinople. Their first
   undertaking in Asia [May and June, A. D. 1097] was the siege
   of Nicæa, and they beleaguered it with an army which Gibbon
   believes to have been never exceeded within the compass of a
   single camp. Here, again, they were mastered by the cunning
   diplomacy of the Greek emperor. When the sultan of Roum
   yielded his capital, he was persuaded to surrender it to
   Alexius, and the imperial banner protected it from the rage of
   the discomfited crusaders. But they revenged themselves on the
   Turk at Dorylæum, where he attacked them during their
   subsequent march, and where he suffered a defeat which ended
   all fighting in Asia Minor. Baldwin, brother of Godfrey, now
   improved his opportunities by stealing away from the army,
   with a few hundred knights and men, to make conquests on his
   own account; with such success that he won the city of Edessa,
   with a sweep of country around it, and founded a principality
   which subsisted for half a century. The rest fared on, meeting
   no opposition from infidel swords, but sickening and dying by
   thousands, from heat and from want of water and food, until
   they came to Antioch. There, the Turkish emir in command, with
   a stout garrison of horse and foot, had prepared for a
   stubborn defence, and he held the besiegers at bay for seven
   months, while they starved in their ill-supplied camps. The
   city was delivered to them by a traitor, at length, but prince
   Bohemond, the crafty Norman, secured the benefit of the
   treason to himself, and forced his compatriots to concede to
   him the sovereignty of Antioch. The sufferings of the
   crusaders did not end with the taking of the city. They
   brought famine and pestilence upon themselves anew by their
   greedy and sensual indulgence, and they were soon under siege
   in their own turn, by a great army which the Turks had brought
   against them. Death and desertion were in rivalry to thin
   their wasted ranks. The survivors were in gloom and despair,
   when an opportune miracle occurred to excite them afresh. A
   lance, which visions and apparitions certified to be the very
   spear that pierced the Redeemer's side, was found buried in a
   church at Antioch. Under the stimulus of this amazing
   discovery they sallied from the town and dispersed the great
   army of the Turks in utter rout. Still the quarrels of the
   leaders went on, and ten months more were consumed before the
   remains of the Latin army advanced to Jerusalem. It was June,
   A. D. 1099, when they saw the Holy City and assailed its
   formidable walls. Their number was now reduced to 40,000, but
   their devotion and their ardor rose to frenzy, and after a
   siege of little more than a month they forced an entrance by
   storm. Then they spared neither age nor sex until they had
   killed all who denied the Savior of mankind—the Prince of
   Peace.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 1._

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 6._

      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      chapters 2-6._

      See also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1099-1144.
   The Latin conquests in the east.
   The Kingdom of Jerusalem.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
   The after-wave of the first movement.

   "The tales of victory brought home by the pilgrims excited the
   most extravagant expectations in the minds of their auditors,
   and nothing was deemed capable of resisting European valour.
   The pope called upon all who had taken the cross to perform
   their vow, the emperor Henry IV. had the crusade preached, in
   order to gain favour with the clergy and laity. Many princes
   now resolved to visit in person the new empire founded in the
   East. Three great armies assembled: the first in Italy under
   the archbishop of Milan, and the two counts of Blandrate; the
   second in France under Hugh the Great and Stephen of Blois
   [who had deserted their comrades of the first expedition at
   Antioch, and] whom shame and remorse urged to perform their
   vow, William, duke of Guienne and count of Poitou, who
   mortgaged his territory to William Rufus of England to procure
   funds, the count of Nevers, the duke of Burgundy, the bishops
   of Laon and Soissons; the third in Germany, under the bishop
   of Saltzburg, the aged duke Welf of Bavaria, Conrad the master
   of the horse to the emperor, and many other knights and
   nobles. Ida also, the margravine of Austria, declared her
   resolution to share the toils and dangers of the way, and pay
   her vows at the tomb of Christ. Vast numbers of women of all
   ranks accompanied all these armies,—nay, in that of the duke
   of Guienne, who was inferior to none in valour, but united to
   it the qualities of a troubadour and glee-man, there appeared
   whole troops of young women. The Italian pilgrims were the
   first to arrive at Constantinople. They set out early in the
   spring, and took their way through Carinthia, Hungary, and
   Bulgaria. Though the excesses committed by them were great,
   the emperor gave them a kind reception, and the most prudent
   and friendly advice respecting their future progress. While
   they abode at Constantinople, Conrad and the count of Blois,
   and the duke of Burgundy, arrived, and at Whitsuntide they all
   passed over, and encamped at Nicomedia."
{629}
   With ignorant fatuity, and against all experienced advice, the
   new Crusaders resolved to direct their march to Bag-dad and to
   overthrow the caliphate. The first body which advanced was cut
   to pieces by the Turks on the banks of the Halys, and only a
   few thousands, out of more than one hundred thousand, are said
   to have made their escape by desperate flight. The second and
   third armies were met successively by the victorious Moslems,
   before they had advanced so far, and were even more completely
   annihilated. The latter body contained, according to the
   chroniclers of the time, 150,000 pilgrims, of whom scarcely
   one thousand were saved from slavery or death. The men fell
   under the swords of the Turks; the women and girls, in great
   numbers, finished out their days in the harems of the East.
   Out of the wreck of the three vast armaments a slender column
   of 10,000 men was got together after some weeks at Antioch and
   led to Jerusalem (A. D. 1102). Most of these perished in
   subsequent battles, and very few ever saw Europe again. "Such
   was the fruitless termination of this second great movement of
   the West, in which perhaps a third of a million of pilgrims
   left their homes, never to revisit them."

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 4._

Crusades: A. D. 1104-1111.
   Conquest of maritime cities of Syria and Palestine.
   Destruction of the Library of Tripoli.

   "The prosperity and the safety of Jerusalem appeared closely
   connected with the conquest of the maritime cities of Syria
   and Palestine; it being by them alone that it could receive
   succour, or establish prompt and easy communications with the
   West. The maritime nations of Europe were interested in
   seconding, in this instance, the enterprises of the king of
   Jerusalem. … From the period of the first crusades, the
   Pisans and the Genoese had constantly sent vessels to the seas
   of the East; and their fleets had aided the Christians in
   several expeditions against the Mussulmans. A Genoese fleet
   had just arrived in the seas of Syria when Baldwin undertook
   the siege of Ptolemaïs [Acre]. The Genoese were invited to
   assist in this conquest; but as religion was not the principle
   to bring them into action, they required, in return for their
   assistance and their labour, that they should have a third of
   the booty; they likewise stipulated to have a separate church
   for themselves, and a national factory and tribunal in the
   conquered city. Ptolemaïs was besieged by land and sea, and
   after a bloody resistance of twenty days, the inhabitants and
   the garrison proposed to surrender, and implored the clemency
   of the conquerors. The city opened its gates to the
   Christians, and the inhabitants prepared to depart, taking
   with them whatever they deemed most valuable; but the Genoese,
   at the sight of such rich booty, paid no respect to the
   capitulation, and massacred without pity a disarmed and
   defenceless people. … In consequence of this victory,
   several places which the Egyptians still held on the coasts of
   Syria fell into the hands of the Christians." Among those was
   the city of Tripoli. "Raymond, Count de St. Gilles and of
   Thoulouse, one of the companions of Godfrey, after having
   wandered for a long time about Asia, had died before this
   place, of which he had commenced the siege. In memory of his
   exploits in the first crusade, the rich territory of Tripoli
   was created a county, and became the inheritance of his
   family. This territory was celebrated for its productions. …
   A library established in this city, and celebrated through all
   the East, contained the monuments of the ancient literature of
   the Persians, the Arabians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks. A
   hundred copyists were there constantly employed in
   transcribing manuscripts. … After the taking of the city, a
   priest attached to Count Bernard de St. Gilles, entered the
   room in which were collected a vast number of copies of the
   Koran, and as he declared the library of Tripoli contained
   only the impious books of Mahomet, it was given up to the
   flames. … Bibles, situated on the smiling and fertile shores
   of Phoenicia, Sarepta, where St. Jerome saw still in his day
   the tower of Isaiah; and Berytus, famous in the early days of
   the church for its school of eloquence, shared the fate of
   Tripoli, and became baronies bestowed upon Christian knights.
   After these conquests, the Pisans, the Genoese, and several
   warriors who had followed Baldwin in his expeditions, returned
   into Europe; and the king of Jerusalem, abandoned by these
   useful allies, was obliged to employ the forces which remained
   in repulsing the invasions of the Saracens."

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      volume 1, book 5._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
   The Second Great Movement.

   During the reign of Fulk, the fourth king of Jerusalem, the
   Latin power in Palestine and its neighboring territories began
   to be seriously shaken by a vigorous Turkish prince named
   Zenghi, on whom the sultan Mahmoud had conferred the
   government of all the country west of the Tigris. It was the
   first time since the coming of the Christians of the West that
   the whole strength of Islam in that region had been so nearly
   gathered into one strong hand, to be used against them, and
   they felt the effect speedily, being themselves weakened by
   many quarrels. In 1143 King Fulk died, leaving the crown to a
   young son, Baldwin III.,—a boy of thirteen, whose mother
   governed in his name. The next year Zenghi captured the
   important city of Edessa, and consternation was produced by
   his successes. Europe was then appealed to for help against
   the advancing Turk, and the call from Jerusalem was taken up
   by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the irresistible enthusiast,
   whose influence accomplished, in his time, whatever he willed
   to have done. Just half a century after Peter the Hermit, St.
   Bernard preached a Second Crusade, and with almost equal
   effect, notwithstanding the better knowledge now possessed of
   all the hardships and perils of the expedition. This time,
   royalty took the lead. King Conrad of Germany commanded a
   great army from that country, and another host followed King
   Louis VII. from France. "Both armies marched down the Danube,
   to Constantinople, in the summer of 1147. At the same moment
   King Roger [of Naples], with his fleet, attacked, not the
   Turks, but the Greek seaport towns of the Morea. Manuel [the
   Byzantine emperor] thereupon, convinced that the large armies
   were designed for the destruction of his empire in the first
   place, with the greatest exertions, got together troops from
   all his provinces, and entered into a half-alliance with the
   Turks of Asia Minor. The mischief and ill-feeling was
   increased by the lawless conduct of the German hordes; the
   Greek troops attacked them more than once; whereupon numerous
   voices were raised in Louis's headquarters to demand open war
   against the faithless Greeks.
{630}
   The kings were fully agreed not to permit this, but on
   arriving in Constantinople they completely fell out, for,
   while Louis made no secret of his warm friendship for Roger,
   Conrad promised the Emperor of Constantinople to attack the
   Normans as soon as the Crusade should be ended. This was a bad
   beginning for a united campaign in the East, and moreover, at
   every step eastward, new difficulties arose. The German army,
   broken up into several detachments, and led without ability or
   prudence, was attacked in Asia Minor by the Emir of Iconium,
   and cut to pieces, all but a few hundred men. The French,
   though better appointed, also suffered severe losses in that
   country, but contrived nevertheless, to reach Antioch with a
   very considerable force, and from thence might have carried
   the project which the second Baldwin had conceived in vain,
   namely, the defence of the northeastern frontier, upon which,
   especially since Zenki [Zenghi] had made his appearance, the
   life or death of the Christian states depended. But in vain
   did Prince Raymond of Antioch try to prevail upon King Louis
   to take this view, and to attack without delay the most
   formidable of all their adversaries, Noureddin [son of Zenghi,
   now dead]. Louis would not hear or do anything till he had
   seen Jerusalem and prayed at the Holy Sepulchre. … In
   Jerusalem he [King Louis] was welcomed by Queen Melisende (now
   regent, during her son's minority, after Fulco's death), with
   praise and gratitude, because he had not taken part in the
   distant wars of the Prince of Antioch, but had reserved his
   forces for the defence of the holy city of Jerusalem. It was
   now resolved to lead the army against Damascus, the only
   Turkish town whose Emir had always refused to submit to either
   Zenki or Noureddin. Nevertheless Noureddin instantly collected
   all his available forces, to succour the besieged town." But
   he was spared further exertion by the jealous disagreement of
   the Christians, who began to take thought as to what should be
   done with Damascus when they took it. The Syrian barons
   concluded that they would prefer to leave the city in Turkish
   hands, and by treacherous manœuvres they forced king Louis to
   raise the siege. "The German king, long since tired of his
   powerless position, returned home in the autumn of 1148, and
   Louis, after much pressing, stayed a few months longer, and
   reached Europe in the following spring. The whole expedition
   … had been wrecked, without honour and without result, by
   the most wretched personal passions, and the most narrow and
   selfish policy."

      _H. Von Sybel,
      History and Literature of the Crusades,
      chapter 3._

   "So ended in utter shame and ignominy the Second Crusade. The
   event seemed to give the lie to the glowing promises and
   prophecies of St. Bernard. So vast had been the drain of
   population to feed this holy war that, in the phrase of an
   eye-witness, the cities and castles were empty, and scarcely
   one man was left to seven women; and now it was known that the
   fathers, the husbands, the sons, or the brothers of these
   miserable women would see their earthly homes no more. The cry
   of anguish charged Bernard with the crime of sending them
   forth on an errand in which they had done absolutely nothing
   and had reaped only wretchedness and disgrace. For a time
   Bernard himself was struck dumb: but he soon remembered that
   he had spoken with the authority of God and his vicegerent,
   and that the guilt or failure must lie at the door of the
   pilgrims."

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Crusades,
      chapter 5._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1187.
   The loss of Jerusalem.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
   The Third Great Movement.

   When the news reached Europe that Saladin, the redoubtable new
   champion of Islam had expelled the Christians and the Cross
   from Jerusalem, polluting once more the precincts of the Holy
   Sepulchre, the effect produced was something not easily
   understood at the present day. If we may believe historians of
   the time, the pope (Urban III.) died of grief; "Christians
   forgot all the ills of their own country to weep over
   Jerusalem. … Luxury was banished from cities; injuries were
   forgotten and alms were given abundantly, Christians slept
   upon ashes, clothed themselves in haircloth, and expiated
   their disorderly lives by fasting and mortification. The
   clergy set the example; the morals of the cloister were
   reformed, and cardinals, condemning themselves to poverty,
   promised to repair to the Holy Land, supported on charity by
   the way. These pious reformations did not last long; but men's
   minds were not the less prepared for a new crusade by them,
   and all Europe was soon roused by the voice of Gregory VIII.,
   who exhorted the faithful to assume the cross and take up
   arms."

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 7._

   "The emperor Frederic Barbarossa and the kings of France and
   England assumed the cross; and the tardy magnitude of their
   armaments was anticipated by the maritime states of the
   Mediterranean and the ocean. The skilful and provident
   Italians first embarked in the ships of Genoa, Pisa, and
   Venice. They were speedily followed by the most eager pilgrims
   of France, Normandy and the Western Isles. The powerful
   succour of Flanders, Frise, and Denmark filled near a hundred
   vessels; and the northern warriors were distinguished in the
   field by a lofty stature and a ponderous battle-axe. Their
   increasing multitudes could no longer be confined within the
   walls of Tyre [which the Latins still held], or remain
   obedient to the voice of Conrad [Marquis of Montferrat, who
   had taken command of the place and repelled the attacks of
   Saladin]. They pitied the misfortunes and revered the dignity
   of Lusignan [the nominal king of Jerusalem, lately captive in
   Saladin's hands], who was released from prison, perhaps to
   divide the army of the Franks. He proposed the recovery of
   Ptolemais, or Acre, thirty miles to the south of Tyre; and the
   place was first invested [July, 1189] by 2,000 horse and
   30,000 foot under his nominal command. I shall not expatiate
   on the story of this memorable siege, which lasted near two
   years, and consumed, in a narrow space, the forces of Europe
   and Asia. … At the sound of the holy trumpet the Moslems of
   Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and the Oriental provinces assembled
   under the servant of the prophet: his camp was pitched and
   removed within a few miles of Acre; and he laboured, night and
   day, for the relief of his brethren and the annoyance of the
   Franks. … In the spring of the second year, the royal fleets
   of France and England cast anchor in the bay of Acre, and the
   siege was more vigorously prosecuted by the youthful emulation
   of the two kings, Philip Augustus and Richard Plantagenet.
{631}
   After every resource had been tried, and every hope was
   exhausted, the defenders of Acre submitted to their fate. …
   By the conquest of Acre the Latin powers acquired a strong
   town and a convenient harbour; but the advantage was most
   dearly purchased. The minister and historian of Saladin
   computes, from the report of the enemy, that their numbers, at
   different periods, amounted to 500,000 or 600,000; that more
   than 100, 000 Christians were slain; that a far greater number
   was lost by disease or shipwreck." On the reduction of Acre,
   king Philip Augustus returned to France, leaving only 500
   knights and 10,000 men behind him. Meantime, the old emperor,
   Frederick Barbarossa, coming by the landward route, through
   the country of the Greeks and Asia Minor, with a well-trained
   army of 20,000 knights and 50,000 men on foot, had perished by
   the way, drowned in a little Cilician torrent, and only 5,000
   of his troops had reached the camp at Acre. Old as he was, (he
   was seventy when he took the cross) Barbarossa might have
   changed the event of the Crusade if he had reached the scene
   of conflict; for he had brains with his valor and character
   with his ferocity, which Richard Cœur de Lion had not. The
   latter remained another year in the Holy Land; recovered
   Cæsarea and Jaffa; threatened Saladin in Jerusalem seriously,
   but to no avail; and stirred up more and fiercer quarrels
   among the Christians than had been customary, even on the soil
   which was sacred to them. In the end, a treaty was arranged
   which displeased the more devout on both sides. "It was
   stipulated that Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre should be
   open, without tribute or vexation, to the pilgrimage of the
   Latin Christians; that, after the demolition of Ascalon, they
   should inclusively possess the sea-coast from Jaffa to Tyre;
   that the count of Tripoli and the prince of Antioch should be
   comprised in the truce; and that, during three years and three
   months, all hostilities should cease. … Richard embarked for
   Europe, to seek a long captivity and a premature grave; and
   the space of a few months concluded the life and glories of
   Saladin."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 59.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "A halo of false glory surrounds the Third Crusade from the
   associations which connect it with the lion-hearted king of
   England. The exploits of Richard I. have stirred to enthusiasm
   the dullest of chroniclers, have furnished themes for jubilant
   eulogies, and have shed over his life that glamour which
   cheats even sober-minded men when they read the story of his
   prototype Achilleus in the tale of Troy. … When we turn from
   the picture to the reality, we shall see in this Third Crusade
   an enterprise in which the fiery zeal which does something
   towards redeeming the savage brutalities of Godfrey and the
   first crusaders is displaced by base and sordid greed, by
   intrigues utterly of the earthy, by wanton crimes from which
   we might well suppose that the sun would hide away its face;
   and in the leaders of this enterprise we shall see men in whom
   morally there is scarcely a single quality to relieve the
   monotonous blackness of their infamy; in whom, strategically,
   a very little generalship comes to the aid of a blind brute
   force."

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Crusades,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediaeval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
      book 2, chapter 12,
      and book 3, chapters 1-2._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.
   The Fourth Expedition.

   A crusading expedition of German barons and their followers,
   which went to the Holy Land, by way of Italy, in 1196, is
   generally counted as the Fourth Crusade, though some writers
   look upon it as a movement supplementary to the Third Crusade.
   The Germans, who numbered some 40,000, do not seem to have
   been welcomed by the Christians of Palestine. The latter
   preferred to maintain the state of peace then prevailing; but
   the new crusaders forced hostilities at once. Saladin was
   dead; his brother Saphadin accepted the challenge to war with
   prompt vigor and struck the first hard blow, taking Jaffa,
   with great slaughter, and demolishing its fortifications. But
   Saphadin was presently defeated in a battle fought between
   Tyre and Sidon, and Jaffa was recovered, together with other
   towns and most of the coast. But, a little later, the Germans
   suffered, in their turn, a most demoralizing reverse at the
   castle of Thoron, which they besieged, and were further
   disturbed, in the midst of their depression, by news of the
   death of their emperor, Henry VI. A great part of them,
   thereupon, returned home. Those who remained, or many of them,
   occupied Jaffa, where they were attacked, a few months later,
   and cut to pieces.

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Crusades,
      chapter 8._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
   The Fifth Movement.-
   Treachery of the Venetians.
   Conquest of Constantinople.

   "Every traveller returning from Syria brought a prayer for
   immediate help from the survivors of the Third Crusade. It was
   necessary to act at once if any portion even of the wreck of
   the kingdom of Jerusalem were to be saved. Innocent the Third,
   and some, at least, of the statesmen of the West were fully
   alive to the progress which Islam had made since the departure
   of the Western kings. In 1197, however, after five years of
   weary waiting, the time seemed opportune for striking a new
   blow for Christendom. Saladin, the great Sultan, had died in
   1193, and his two sons were already quarreling about the
   partition of his empire. The contending divisions of the Arab
   Moslems were at this moment each bidding for the support of
   the Christians of Syria. The other great race of Mahometans
   which had threatened Europe, the Seljukian Turks, had made a
   halt in their progress through Asia Minor. … Other special
   circumstances which rendered the moment favourable for a new
   crusade, combined with the profound conviction of the
   statesmen of the West of the danger to Christendom from the
   progress of Islam, urged Western Europe to take part in the
   new enterprise. The reigning Pope, Innocent III., was the
   great moving spirit of the Fourth Crusade." The popular
   preacher of the Crusade was found in an ignorant priest named
   Fulk, of Neuilly, whose success in kindling public enthusiasm
   was almost equal to that of Peter the Hermit. Vast numbers
   took the cross, with Theobald, count of Champagne, Louis,
   count of Blois and Chartres, Simon de Montfort, Walter of
   Brienne, Baldwin, count of Flanders, Hugh of St. Pol, Geoffrey
   de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne and future historian of
   the Crusade, and many other prominent knights and princes
   among the leaders. The young count of Champagne was the chosen
   chief; but he sickened and died and his place was taken by
   Boniface, marquis of Montferrat.
{632}
   It was the decision of the leaders that the expedition should
   be directed in the first instance against the Moslem power in
   Egypt, and that it should be conveyed to the attack of Egypt
   by sea. Venice, alone, seemed to be able to furnish ships,
   sailors and supplies for so great a movement, and a contract
   with Venice for the service was concluded in the spring of
   120l. But Venice was mercenary, unscrupulous and treacherous,
   caring for nothing but commercial gains. Before the crusaders
   could gather at her port for embarkation, she had betrayed
   them to the Moslems. By a secret treaty with the sultan of
   Egypt, the fact of which is coming more and more conclusively
   to light, she had undertaken to frustrate the Crusade, and to
   receive important commercial privileges at Alexandria as
   compensation for her treachery. When, therefore, in the early
   summer of 1202, the army of the Crusade was collected at
   Venice to take ship, it encountered difficulties,
   discouragements and ill-treatments which thickened daily. The
   number assembled was not equal to expectation. Some had gone
   by sea from Flanders; some by other routes. But Venice had
   provided transport for the whole, and inflexibly demanded pay
   for the whole. The money in hand was not equal to this claim.
   The summer was lost in disputes and attempted compromises.
   Many of the crusaders withdrew in disgust and went home. At
   length, in defiance of the censures of the pope and of the
   bitter opposition of many leaders and followers of the
   expedition, there was a bargain struck, by the terms of which
   the crusaders were to assist the Venetians in taking and
   plundering the Christian city of Zara, a dreaded commercial
   rival on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, belonging to the
   king of Hungary, himself one of the promoters of the very
   crusade which was now to be turned against him. The infamous
   compact was carried out. Zara was taken, and in the end it was
   totally destroyed by the Venetians. In the meantime, the
   doomed city was occupied by the crusading army through the
   winter, while a still more perfidious plot was being formed.
   Old Dandolo, the blind doge of Venice, was the master spirit
   of it. He was helped by the influence of Philip, one of the
   two rivals then fighting for the imperial crown in Germany and
   Italy. Philip had married a daughter of Isaac II. (Angelos),
   made emperor at Constantinople on the fall of the dynasty of
   Comnenus, and that feeble prince had lately been dethroned by
   his brother. The son and heir of Isaac, named Alexius, had
   escaped from Constantinople and had made his way to Philip
   imploring help. Either Philip conceived the idea, or it was
   suggested to him, that the armament of the Crusade might be
   employed to place the young Alexius on the throne of his
   father. To the Venetians the scheme was more than acceptable.
   It would frustrate the Crusade, which they had pledged
   themselves to the sultan of Egypt to accomplish; it would
   satisfy their ill-will towards the Byzantines, and, more
   important than all else, it would give them an opportunity to
   secure immeasurable advantages over their rivals in the great
   trade which Constantinople held at command. The marquis of
   Montferrat, commander of the Crusade, had some grievances of
   his own and some ambitions of his own, which made him
   favorable to the new project, and he was easily won to it. The
   three influences thus combined—those of Philip, of Dandolo,
   and of Montferrat—overcame all opposition. Some who opposed
   were bribed, some were intimidated, some were deluded by
   promises, some deserted the ranks. Pope Innocent remonstrated,
   appealed and threatened in vain. The pilgrim host, "changed
   from a crusading army into a filibustering expedition," set
   sail from Zara in the spring of the year 1203, and was landed,
   the following June, not on the shores of Egypt or Syria, but
   under the walls of Constantinople. Its conquest, pillage and
   brutally destructive treatment of the great city are described
   in another place.

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapters 8-13._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 3._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 59.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See, also,
      BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204

CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1283.
   Against the heathen Sclavonians on the Baltic.

      See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES;
      and PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1209-1242.
   Against the Albigenses.

      See ALBIGENSES.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
   The Children's Crusade.

   "The religious wars fostered and promoted vice; and the
   failure of army after army was looked on as a clear
   manifestation of God's wrath against the sins of the camp.
   This feeling was roused to its highest pitch when, in the year
   1212, certain priests—Nicolas was the name of one of these
   mischievous madmen—went about France and Germany calling on
   the children to perform what the fathers, through their
   wickedness, had been unable to effect, promising that the sea
   should be dry to enable them to march across; that the
   Saracens would be miraculously stricken with a panic at the
   sight of them; that God would, through the hands of children
   only, whose lives were yet pure, work the recovery of the
   Cross and the Sepulchre. Thousands—it is said fifty
   thousand—children of both sexes responded to the call. They
   listened to the impassioned preaching of the monks, believed
   their lying miracles, their visions, their portents, their
   references to the Scriptures, and, in spite of all that their
   parents could do, rushed to take the Cross, boys and girls
   together, and streamed along the roads which led to Marseilles
   and Genoa, singing hymns, waving branches, replying to those
   who asked whither they were going, 'We go to Jerusalem to
   deliver the Holy Sepulchre,' and shouting their rallying cry,
   'Lord Jesus, give us back thy Holy Cross.' They admitted
   whoever came, provided he took the Cross; the infection
   spread, and the children could not be restrained from joining
   them in the towns and villages along their route. Their
   miserable parents put them in prison; they escaped; they
   forbade them to go; the children went in spite of prohibition.
   They had no money, no provisions, no leaders; but the charity
   of the towns they passed through supported them. At their rear
   streamed the usual tail of camp followers. … There were two
   main bodies. One of these directed its way through Germany,
   across the Alps, to Genoa. On the road they were robbed of all
   the gifts which had been presented them; they were exposed to
   heat and want, and very many either died on the march or
   wandered away from the road and so became lost to sight; when
   they reached Italy they dispersed about the country, seeking
   food, were stripped by the villagers, and in some cases were
   reduced to slavery.
{633}
   Only seven thousand out of their number arrived at Genoa. Here
   they stayed for some days. They looked down upon the
   Mediterranean, hoping that its bright waves would divide to
   let them pass. But they did not; there was no miracle wrought
   in their favour; a few of noble birth were received among the
   Genoese families, and have given rise to distinguished houses
   of Genoa; among them is the house of Vivaldi. The rest,
   disappointed and disheartened, made their way back again, and
   got home at length, the girls with the loss of their virtue,
   the boys with the loss of their belief, all barefooted and in
   rags, laughed at by the towns they went through, and wondering
   why they had ever gone at all. This was the end of the German
   army. That of the French was not so fortunate, for none of
   them ever got back again at all. When they arrived at
   Marseilles, thinned probably by the same causes as those which
   had dispersed the Germans, they found, like their brethren,
   that the sea did not open a path for them, as had been
   promised. Perhaps some were disheartened and went home again.
   But fortune appeared to favour them. There were two worthy
   merchants at Marseilles, named Hugh Ferrens, and William
   Porcus, Iron Hugh and Pig William, who traded with the East,
   and had in port seven ships, in which they proposed to convey
   the children to Palestine. With a noble generosity they
   offered to take them for nothing, all for love of religion,
   and out of the pure kindness of their hearts. Of course this
   offer was accepted with joy, and the seven vessels laden with
   the happy little Crusaders, singing their hymns and flying
   their banners, sailed out from Marseilles, bound for the East,
   accompanied by William the Good and Hugh the Pious. It was not
   known to the children, of course, that the chief trade of
   these merchants was the lucrative business of kidnapping
   Christian children for the Alexandrian market. It was so,
   however, and these respectable tradesmen had never before made
   so splendid a coup. Unfortunately, off the Island of St.
   Peter, they encountered bad weather, and two ships went down
   with all on board. What must have been the feelings of the
   philanthropists, Pig William and Iron Hugh, at this
   misfortune? They got, however, five ships safely to
   Alexandria, and sold all their cargo, the Sultan of Cairo
   buying forty of the boys, whom he brought up carefully and
   apart, intending them, doubtless, for his best soldiers. A
   dozen refusing to change their faith were martyred. None of
   the rest ever came back. Nobody in Europe seems to have taken
   much notice of this extraordinary episode."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      appendix number 28._

      _G. Z. Gray,
      The Children's Crusade._

CRUSADE: A. D. 1212.
   Against the Moors in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

CRUSADE: A. D. 1216-1229.
   The Sixth Movement.
   Frederic II. in Jerusalem.

   For six years after the betrayal of the vows of the crusaders
   of 1202-1204—who sacked Constantinople instead of rescuing
   Jerusalem—the Christians of Palestine were protected by a
   truce with Saphadin, the brother of Saladin, who had succeeded
   the latter in power. Hostilities were then rashly provoked by
   the always foolish Latins, and they soon found themselves
   reduced to sore straits, calling upon Europe for fresh help.
   Pope Innocent III. did not scruple to second their appeal. A
   new crusade was preached with great earnestness, and a general
   Council of the Church—the Fourth of Lateran—was convened for
   the stimulation of it. "The Fifth Crusade [or the Sixth, as
   more commonly numbered], the result of this resolution, was
   divided in the sequel into three maritime expeditions: the
   first [A. D. 1216] consisting principally of Hungarians under
   their king, Andrew; the second [A. D. 1218] composed of
   Germans, Italians, French and English nobles and their
   followers; and the third [A. D. 1228] led by the Emperor
   Frederic II. in person. … Though the King of Hungary was
   attended by the flower of a nation which, before its
   conversion to Christianity, had been the scourge and terror of
   Western Europe, the arms of that monarch, even aided by the
   junction of numerous German crusaders under the dukes of
   Austria and Bavaria, performed nothing worthy of notice: and
   after a single campaign in Palestine, in which the Mussulman
   territories were ineffectually ravaged, the fickle Andrew
   deserted the cause and returned with his forces to Europe. His
   defection did not prevent the duke of Austria, with the German
   crusaders, from remaining, in concert with the King of
   Jerusalem, his barons, and the knights of the three religious
   orders, for the defence of Palestine; and, in the following
   year, the constancy of these faithful champions of the Cross
   was rewarded by the arrival of numerous reinforcements from
   Germany. … It was resolved to change the scene of warfare
   from the narrow limits of the Syrian shore to the coast of
   Egypt,  … and the situation of Damietta, at the mouth of the
   Nile, pointed out that city as the first object of attack."
   After a siege of seventeen months, during which both the
   besieged and the besiegers suffered horribly, from famine and
   from pestilence, Damietta was taken (A. D. 1219), Nine-tenths
   of its population of 80,000 had perished. "Both during the
   siege and after the capture of Damietta, the invasion of Egypt
   had filled the infidels with consternation; and the alarm
   which was betrayed in their counsels proved that the
   crusaders, in choosing that country for the theatre of
   operations, had assailed the Mussulman power in its most vital
   and vulnerable point. Of the two sons of Saphadin, Coradinus
   and Camel, who were now uneasily seated on the thrones of
   Damascus and Cairo, the former, in despair of preserving
   Jerusalem, had already demolished its fortifications; and the
   brothers agreed in repeatedly offering the cession of the holy
   city and of all Palestine to the Christians, upon the single
   condition of their evacuating Egypt. Every object which had
   been ineffectually proposed in repeated Crusades, since the
   fatal battle of Tiberias, might now have been gloriously
   obtained by the acceptance of these terms, and the King of
   Jerusalem, the French and English leaders, and the Teutonic
   knights, all eagerly desired to embrace the offer of the
   Sultans. But the obstinate ambition and cupidity of the
   surviving papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius, of the Italian
   chieftains, and of the knights of the other two religious
   orders, by holding out the rich prospect of the conquest and
   plunder of Egypt, overruled every wise and temperate argument
   in the Christian councils, and produced a rejection of all
   compromise with the infidels.
{634}
   After a winter of luxurious inaction, the legate led the
   crusading host from Damietta toward Cairo (A. D. 1220)." The
   expedition was as disastrous in its result as it was imbecile
   in its leadership. The whole army, caught by the rising of the
   Nile, was placed in so helpless a situation that it was glad
   to purchase escape by the surrender of Damietta and the
   evacuation of Egypt. The retreat of the greater part of these
   crusaders did not end until they had reached home. Pope
   Honorius III. (who had succeeded Innocent III. in 1216) strove
   to shift responsibility for the failure from his wretched
   legate to the Emperor Frederic II., who had thus far evaded
   the fulfilment of his crusading promises and vows, being
   occupied in struggles with the papacy. At length, in 1228,
   Frederic embarked for Palestine with a small force, pursued by
   the maledictions of the pope, who denounced him for daring to
   assume the Cross while under the ban of the church, as much as
   he had denounced him before for neglecting it. But the
   free-thinking Hohenstauffen cared little, apparently, and went
   his way, shunned scrupulously by all pious souls, including
   the knights of Palestine, except those of the Teutonic order.
   With the help of the latter he occupied and refortified Jaffa
   and succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Sultan which
   restored Jerusalem to the Christians, reserving certain rights
   to the Mahometans; giving up likewise Bethlehem, Nazareth
   and some other places to the Christians, and securing peace
   for ten years. Frederic had married, a few years before, for
   his second empress, Iolante, daughter and heiress of the
   titular king of Jerusalem, John de Brienne. With the hand of
   this princess, he received from her father a solemn transfer
   of all his rights to that shadowy throne. He now claimed those
   rights, and, entering Jerusalem, with the Teutonic knights (A.
   D. 1229), he crowned himself its king. The patriarch, the
   Templars and the Hospitallers refused to take part in the
   ceremony; the pope denounced Frederic's advantageous treaty as
   soon as he had news of it, and all that it gained for the
   Christians of Palestine was thrown away by them as speedily as
   possible.

      _Major Procter,
      History of the Crusades,
      chapter 5, section 2._

   "No Crusader, since Godfrey de Bouillon, had effected so much
   as Frederick the Second. What would he not have obtained, had
   the Pope, the Patriarch and the Orders given him their hearty
   cooperation?"

      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick II.,
      chapter 8._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1238-1280.
   Against the Bogomiles.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.)

CRUSADES: A. D. 1242.
   The Invasion of Palestine by the Carismians.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
   The Seventh Movement.
   Expedition of Saint Louis to Egypt.

   The Seventh Crusade was undertaken, with little aid from other
   countries, by the devout and wonderfully Christian-like young
   king of France, Louis IX., afterwards canonized, and known in
   history as St. Louis. "He carried it out with a picked army,
   furnished by the feudal chivalry and by the religious and
   military orders dedicated to the service of the Holy Land. The
   Isle of Cyprus was the trysting-place appointed for all the
   forces of the expedition. Louis arrived there on the 12th of
   September, 1248, and reckoned upon remaining there only a few
   days; for it was Egypt that he was in a hurry to reach. The
   Christian world was at that time of opinion that, to deliver
   the Holy Land, it was necessary first of all to strike a blow
   at Islamism in Egypt, wherein its chief strength resided. But
   scarcely had the crusaders formed a junction in Cyprus, when
   the vices of the expedition and the weaknesses of its chief
   began to be manifest. Louis, unshakable in his religious zeal,
   was wanting in clear ideas and fixed resolves as to the
   carrying out of his design. … He did not succeed in winning
   a majority in the council of chiefs over to his opinion as to
   the necessity for a speedy departure for Egypt; it was decided
   to pass the winter in Cyprus. … At last a start was made
   from Cyprus in May, 1249, and, in spite of violent gales of
   wind which dispersed a large number of vessels, they arrived
   on the 4th of June before Damietta. … Having become masters
   of Damietta, St. Louis and the crusaders committed the same
   fault there as in the Isle of Cyprus: they halted there for an
   indefinite time. They were expecting fresh crusaders; and they
   spent the time of expectation in quarreling over the partition
   of the booty taken in the city. They made away with it, they
   wasted it blindly. … Louis saw and deplored these
   irregularities, without being in a condition to stop them. At
   length, on the 20th of November, 1249, after more than five
   months' inactivity at Damietta, the crusaders put themselves
   once more in motion, with the determination of marching upon
   Babylon, that outskirt of Cairo, now called Old Cairo, which
   the greater part of them, in their ignorance, mistook for the
   real Babylon, and where they flattered themselves they would
   find immense riches, and avenge the olden sufferings of the
   Hebrew captives. The Mussulmans had found time to recover from
   their first fright, and to organize, at all points, a vigorous
   resistance. On the 8th of February, 1250, a battle took place
   twenty leagues from Damietta, at Mansourah ('the city of
   victory'), on the right bank of the Nile. … The battle-field
   was left that day to the crusaders; but they were not allowed
   to occupy it as conquerors, for, three days afterwards, on the
   11th of February, 1250, the camp of St. Louis was assailed by
   clouds of Saracens, horse and foot, Mamelukes and Bedouins.
   All surprise had vanished, the Mussulmans measured at a glance
   the numbers of the Christians, and attacked them in full
   assurance of success, whatever heroism they might display; and
   the crusaders themselves indulged in no more self·illusion,
   and thought only of defending themselves. Lack of provisions
   and sickness soon rendered defence almost as impossible as
   attack; every day saw the Christian camp more and more
   encumbered with the famine-stricken, the dying, and the dead;
   and the necessity for retreating became evident." An attempt
   to negotiate with the enemy failed, because they insisted on
   the surrender of the king as hostage,—which none would
   concede. "On the 5th of April, 1250, the crusaders decided
   upon retreating. This was the most deplorable scene of a
   deplorable drama; and at the same time it was, for the king,
   an occasion for displaying, in their most sublime and
   attractive traits, all the virtues of the Christian. Whilst
   sickness and famine were devastating the camp, Louis made
   himself visitor, physician and comforter; and his presence and
   his words exercised upon the worst cases a searching influence. …
{635}
   When the 5th of April, the day fixed for the retreat, had
   come, Louis himself was ill and much enfeebled. He was urged
   to go aboard one of the vessels which were to descend the
   Nile, carrying the wounded and the most suffering; but he
   refused absolutely, saying, 'I don't separate from my people
   in the hour of danger.' He remained on land, and when he had
   to move forward he fainted away. When he came to himself, he
   was amongst the last to leave the camp. … At four leagues
   distance from the camp it had just left, the rear-guard of the
   crusaders, harassed by clouds of Saracens, was obliged to
   halt. Louis could no longer keep on his horse. 'He was put up
   at a house,' says Joinville, 'and laid, almost dead, upon the
   lap of a tradeswoman from Paris; and it was believed that he
   would not last till evening.'" The king, in this condition,
   with the whole wreck of his army,—only 10,000 in number
   remaining to him,—were taken prisoners. Their release from
   captivity was purchased a month later by the surrender of
   Damietta and a ransom-payment of 500,000 livres. They made
   their way to St. Jean d' Acre, in Palestine, whence many of
   them returned home. But King Louis, with some of his knights
   and men-at-arms—how many is not known—stayed yet in the Holy
   Land for four years, striving and hoping against hope to
   accomplish something for the deliverance of Jerusalem, and
   expending "in small works of piety, sympathy, protection, and
   care for the future of the Christian population in Asia, his
   time, his strength, his pecuniary resources, and the ardor of
   a soul which could not remain idly abandoned to sorrowing over
   great desires unsatisfied." The good and pious but ill-guided
   king returned to France in the summer of 1254, and was
   received with great joy.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 17;
      www.gutenberg.org/files/11952_

      ALSO IN:
      _Sire De Joinville,
      Memoirs of Saint Louis,
      part 2._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      books 13-14._

Crusades: A. D. 1252.
   The movement of "the Pastors."

   On the arrival in France of the news of the disastrous failure
   of Saint Louis's expedition to Egypt, there occurred an
   outbreak of fanaticism as insensate as that of the children's
   crusade of forty years before. It was said to have originated
   with a Hungarian named Jacob, who began to proclaim that
   Christ rejected the great ones of the earth from His service,
   and that the deliverance of the Holy City must be accomplished
   by the poor and humble. "Shepherds left their flocks, labourers
   laid down the plough, to follow his footsteps. … The name of
   Pastors was given to these village crusaders. … At length,
   assembled to the number of more than 100,000, these
   redoubtable pilgrims left Paris and divided themselves into
   several troops, to repair to the coast, whence they were to
   embark for the East. The city of Orleans, which happened to be
   in their passage, became the theatre of frightful disorders.
   The progress of their enormities at length created serious
   alarm in the government and the magistracy; orders were sent
   to the provinces to pursue and disperse these turbulent and
   seditious bands. The most numerous assemblage of the Pastors
   was fixed to take place at Bourges, where the 'master of
   Hungary' [Jacob] was to perform miracles and communicate the
   will of Heaven. Their arrival in that city was the signal for
   murder, fire and pillage. The irritated people took up arms
   and marched against these disturbers of the public peace; they
   overtook them between Mortemer and Villeneuve-sur-le-Cher,
   where, in spite of their numbers, they were routed, and
   received the punishment due to their brigandages. Jacob had
   his head cut off by the blow of an axe; many of his companions
   and disciples met with death on the field of battle, or were
   consigned to punishment; the remainder took to flight."

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 14._

Crusades: A. D. 1256-1259.
   Against Eccelino di Romano.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

Crusades: A. D. 1270-1271.
   The last undertakings.
   Saint Louis at Tunis.
   Prince Edward in Palestine.

   "For seven years after his return to France, from 1254 to
   1261, Louis seemed to think no more about them [the crusades],
   and there is nothing to show that he spoke of them even to his
   most intimate confidants; but, in spite of his apparent
   calmness, he was living, so far as they were concerned, in a
   continual ferment of imagination and internal fever, even
   flattering himself that some favorable circumstance would call
   him back to his interrupted work. … In 1261, Louis held, at
   Paris, a Parliament, at which, without any talk of a new
   crusade, measures were taken which revealed an idea of it. …
   In 1263 the crusade was openly preached. … All objections,
   all warnings, all anxieties came to nothing in the face of
   Louis's fixed idea and pious passion. He started from Paris on
   the 16th of March, 1270, a sick man almost already, but with
   soul content, and probably the only one without misgiving in
   the midst of all his comrades. It was once more at
   Aigues-Mortes that he went to embark. All was as yet dark and
   undecided as to the plan of the expedition. … Steps were
   taken at hap-hazard with full trust in Providence and utter
   forgetfulness that Providence does not absolve men from
   foresight. … It was only in Sardinia, after four days' halt
   at Cagliari, that Louis announced to the chiefs of the
   crusade, assembled aboard his ship, the 'Mountjoy,' that he
   was making for Tunis, and that their Christian work would
   commence there. The king of Tunis (as he was then called),
   Mohammed Mostanser, had for some time been talking of his
   desire to become a Christian, if he could be efficiently
   protected against the seditions of his subjects. Louis
   welcomed with transport the prospect of Mussulman conversions.
   … But on the 17th of July, when the fleet arrived before
   Tunis, the admiral, Florent de Varennes, probably without the
   king's orders, and with that want of reflection which was
   conspicuous at each step of the enterprise, immediately took
   possession of the harbor and of some Tunisian vessels as
   prize, and sent word to the king 'that he had only to support
   him and that the disembarkation of the troops might be
   effected with perfect safety.' Thus war was commenced at the
   very first moment against the Mussulman prince whom there had
   been promise of seeing before long a Christian. At the end of
   a fortnight, after some fight between the Tunisians and the
   crusaders, so much political and military blindness produced
   its natural consequences. The re-enforcements promised to
   Louis by his brother Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, had not
   arrived; provisions were falling short; and the heats of an
   African summer were working havoc amongst the army with such
   rapidity that before long there was no time to bury the dead;
   but they were cast pell-mell into the ditch which surrounded
   the camp, and the air was tainted thereby.
{636}
   On the 3d of August Louis was attacked by the epidemic fever."
   On the 25th of August he died. His son and successor, Philip
   III., held his ground before Tunis until November, when he
   gladly accepted a payment of money from the Tunisian prince
   for withdrawing his army. Disaster followed him. A storm
   destroyed part of his fleet, with 4,000 or 5,000 men, and sunk
   all the treasure he had received from the Moslems. On the
   journey home through Italy his wife met with an accident which
   ended her life and that of her prematurely born child. The
   young king arrived at Paris, May, 1271, bringing the remains
   of five of his family for burial at St. Denis: his wife, his
   son, his father, his brother, and his brother-in-law,—all
   victims of the fatal crusade. While France was thus burying
   the last of her crusaders, Prince Edward (afterwards King
   Edward I.) of England, landed in Syria at the head of a few
   hundred knights and men at arms. Joined by the Templars and
   Hospitallers, he had an army of 6,000 or 7,000 men, with which
   he took Nazareth and made there a bloody sacrifice to the
   memory of the gentle Nazarene. He did nothing more. Being
   wounded by an assassin, he arranged a truce with the Sultan of
   Egypt and returned home. His expedition was the last from
   Europe which strove with the Moslems for the Holy Land. The
   Christians of Palestine, who still held Acre and Tyre, Sidon
   and a few other coast cities, were soon afterwards
   overwhelmed, and the dominion of the Crescent in Syria was
   undisputed any more by force of arms, though many voices cried
   vainly against it. The spirit of the Crusades had expired.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 17.
      www.gutenberg.org/files/11952_

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 15._

CRUSADES: A. D. 1291.
   The end of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.
   The last campaign of the Templars.

   "After the fall of Acre [A. D. 1291] the headquarters of the
   Templars were established at Limisso in the island of Cyprus,
   and urgent letters were sent to Europe for succour." In 1295,
   James de Molay, the head of the English province, became Grand
   Master, and soon after his arrival in Palestine he entered
   into an alliance with Ghazan Khan, the Mongol ruler of Persia,
   who had married a Christian princess of Armenia and was not
   unfriendly to the Christians, as against the Mamelukes of
   Egypt, with whom he was at war. The Mongol Khan invited the
   Templars to join him in an expedition against the Sultan of
   Egypt, and they did so in the spring of 1299, at Antioch. "An
   army of 30,000 men was placed by the Mogul emperor under the
   command of the Grand Master, and the combined forces moved up
   the valley of the Orontes towards Damascus. In a great battle
   fought at Hems, the troops of the sultans of Damascus and
   Egypt were entirely defeated and pursued with great slaughter
   until nightfall. Aleppo, Hems, Damascus, and all the principal
   cities, surrendered to the victorious arms of the Moguls, and
   the Templars once again entered Jerusalem in triumph, visited
   the Holy Sepulchre and celebrated Easter on Mount Zion." The
   khan sent ambassadors to Europe, offering the possession of
   Palestine to the Christian powers if they would give him their
   alliance and support, but none responded to the call. Ghazan
   Khan fell ill and withdrew from Syria; the Templars retreated
   to Cyprus once more and their military career, as the
   champions of the Cross, was at an end.

      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Howarth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 3, chapter 8._

CRUSADES:
   Effects and consequences of the Crusades, in Europe.

   "The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and
   the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each
   pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the
   relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded
   and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of
   the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by
   new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition,
   the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of
   indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from
   the baleful fountain of the holy war. The active spirit of the
   Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion; and
   if the ninth and tenth centuries were the times of darkness,
   the thirteenth and fourteenth were the age of absurdity and
   fable. … Some philosophers have applauded the propitious
   influence of these holy wars, which appear to me to have
   checked rather than forwarded the maturity of Europe."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 61.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   "The crusades may be considered as material pilgrimages on an
   enormous scale, and their influence upon general morality
   seems to have been altogether pernicious. Those who served
   under the cross would not indeed have lived very virtuously at
   home; but the confidence in their own merits which the
   principle of such expeditions inspired must have aggravated
   the ferocity and dissoluteness of their ancient habits.
   Several historians attest the depravation of morals which
   existed, both among the crusaders and in the states formed out
   of their conquests."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 1._

   "It was not possible for the crusaders to travel through so
   many countries, and to behold their various customs and
   institutions, without acquiring information and improvement.
   Their views enlarged; their prejudices wore off; new ideas
   crowded into their minds; and they must have been sensible, on
   many occasions, of the rusticity of their own manners when
   compared with those of a more polished people. …
   Accordingly, we discover, soon after the commencement of the
   crusades, greater splendour in the courts of princes, greater
   pomp in public ceremonies, a more refined taste in pleasure
   and amusements, together with a more romantic spirit of
   enterprise spreading gradually over Europe; and to these wild
   expeditions, the effect of superstition and folly, we owe the
   first gleams of light which tended to dispel barbarism and
   ignorance. But the beneficial consequences of the crusades
   took place slowly; their influence upon the state of property,
   and, consequently, of power, in the different kingdoms of
   Europe, was more immediate as well as discernible."

      _W. Robertson,
      View of the Progress of Society in Europe,
      section 1._

{637}

   "The crusades are not, in my mind, either the popular
   delusions that our cheap literature has determined them to be,
   nor papal conspiracies against kings and peoples, as they
   appear to the Protestant controversialist; nor the savage
   outbreaks of expiring barbarism, thirsting for blood and
   plunder, nor volcanic explosions of religious intolerance. I
   believe them to have been, in their deep sources, and in the
   minds of their best champions, and in the main tendency of
   their results, capable of ample justification. They were the
   first great effort of mediæval life to go beyond the pursuit
   of selfish and isolated ambitions; they were the trial-feat of
   the young world, essaying to use, to the glory of God and the
   benefit of man, the arms of its new knighthood. … That in
   the end they were a benefit to the world no one who reads can
   doubt; and that in their course they brought out a love for
   all that is heroic in human nature, the love of freedom, the
   honour of prowess, sympathy with sorrow, perseverance to the
   last and patient endurance without hope, the chronicles of the
   age abundantly prove; proving, moreover, that it was by the
   experience of those times that the forms of those virtues were
   realized and presented to posterity."

      _William Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
      and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

   "Though begun under the name and influence of religious
   belief, the crusades deprived religious ideas, I shall not say
   of their legitimate share of influence, but of their exclusive
   and despotic possession of the human mind. This result, though
   undoubtedly unforeseen, arose from various causes. The first
   was evidently the novelty, extent, and variety of the scene
   which displayed itself to the crusaders; what generally
   happens to travellers happened to them. It is mere
   common-place to say, that travelling gives freedom to the
   mind; that the habit of observing different nations, different
   manners and different opinions, enlarges the ideas, and
   disengages the judgment from old prejudices. The same thing
   happened to those nations of travellers who have been called
   the crusaders; their minds were opened and raised by having
   seen a multitude of different things, of having become
   acquainted with other manners than their own. They found
   themselves also placed in connexion with two states of
   civilization, not only different from their own, but more
   advanced—the Greek state of society on the one hand, and the
   Mussulman on the other. … It is curious to observe in the
   chronicles the impression made by the crusaders on the
   Mussulmans, who regarded them at first as the most brutal,
   ferocious, and stupid barbarians they had ever seen. The
   crusaders, on their part, were struck with the riches and
   elegance of manners which they observed among the Mussulmans.
   These first impressions were succeeded by frequent relations
   between the Mussulmans and Christians. These became more
   extensive and important than is commonly believed. … There
   is another circumstance which is worthy of notice. Down to the
   time of the crusades, the court of Rome, the centre of the
   Church, had been very little in communication with the laity,
   unless through the medium of ecclesiastics; either legates
   sent by the court of Rome, or the whole body of the bishops
   and clergy. There were always some laymen in direct relation
   with Rome; but upon the whole, it was by means of churchmen
   that Rome had any communication with the people of different
   countries. During the crusades, on the contrary, Rome became a
   halting-place for a great portion of the crusaders, either in
   going or returning. A multitude of laymen were spectators of
   its policy and its manners, and were able to discover the
   share which personal interest had in religious disputes. There
   is no doubt that this newly-acquired knowledge inspired many
   minds with a boldness hitherto unknown. When we consider the
   state of the general mind at the termination of the crusades,
   especially in regard to ecclesiastical matters, we cannot fail
   to be struck with a singular fact: religious notions underwent
   no change, and were not replaced by contrary or even different
   opinions. Thought, notwithstanding, had become more free;
   religious creeds were not the only subject on which the human
   mind exercised its faculties; without abandoning them, it
   began occasionally to wander from them, and to take other
   directions. … The social state of society had undergone an
   analogous change. … Without entering into the details … we
   may collect into a few general facts the influence of the
   crusades on the social state of Europe. They greatly
   diminished the number of petty fiefs, petty domains, and petty
   proprietors; they concentrated property and power in a smaller
   number of hands. It is from the time of the crusades that we
   may observe the formation and growth of great fiefs—the
   existence of feudal power on a large scale. … This was one
   of the most important results of the crusades. Even in those
   cases where small proprietors preserved their fiefs, they did
   not live upon them in such an insulated state as formerly. The
   possessors of great fiefs became so many centres around which
   the smaller ones were gathered, and near which they came to
   live. During the crusades, small proprietors found it
   necessary to place themselves in the train of some rich and
   powerful chief, from whom they received assistance and
   support. They lived with him, shared his fortune, and passed
   through the same adventures that he did. When the crusaders
   returned home, this social spirit, this habit of living in
   intercourse with superiors continued to subsist, and had its
   influence on the manners of the age. … The extension of the
   great fiefs, and the creation of a number of central points in
   society, in place of the general dispersion which previously
   existed, were the two principal effects of the crusades,
   considered with respect to their influence upon feudalism. As
   to the inhabitants of the towns, a result of the same nature
   may easily be perceived. The crusades created great civic
   communities. Petty commerce and petty industry were not
   sufficient to give rise to communities such as the great
   cities of Italy and Flanders. It was commerce on a great
   scale—maritime commerce, and, especially, the commerce of the
   East and West, which gave them birth; now it was the crusades
   which gave to the maritime commerce the greatest impulse it
   had yet received. On the whole, when we survey the state of
   society at the end of the crusades, we find that the movement
   tending to dissolution and dispersion, the movement of
   universal localization (if I may be allowed such an
   expression), had ceased, and had been succeeded by a movement
   in the contrary direction, a movement of centralization. All
   things tended to mutual approximation; small things were
   absorbed in great ones, or gathered round them. Such was the
   direction then taken by the progress of society."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 8 (volume 1).
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61572

{638}

CRUSADES: A. D. 1383.
   The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1420-1431.
   Crusade against the Hussites.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1442-1444.
   Christian Europe against the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1467-1471.
   Crusade Instigated by the Pope against George Podiebrad, king
   of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

----------CRUSADES: End----------

CRYPTEIA, The.

      See KRYPTEIA.

CTESIPHON.

   "The Parthian monarchs, like the Mogul sovereigns of
   Hindostan, delighted in the pastoral life of their Scythian
   ancestors, and the imperial camp was frequently pitched in the
   plain of Ctesiphon, on the eastern banks of the Tigris, at the
   distance of only three miles from Seleucia. The innumerable
   attendants on luxury and despotism resorted to the court, and
   the little village of Ctesiphon insensibly swelled into a
   great city. Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals
   penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were
   received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as
   enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities
   experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of
   Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants,
   tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph, Seleucia, already
   exhausted by the neighborhood of a too powerful rival, sunk
   under the fatal blow; but Ctesiphon, in about thirty-three
   years, had sufficiently recovered its strength to maintain an
   obstinate siege against the emperor Severus. The city was,
   however, taken by assault; the king, who defended it in
   person, escaped with precipitation; 100,000 captives and a
   rich booty rewarded the fatigues of the Roman soldiers.
   Notwithstanding these misfortunes, Ctesiphon succeeded to
   Babylon and to Seleucia as one of the great capitals of the
   East."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

   In 637 A. D. Ctesiphon passed into the possession of the
   Saracens.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 632-651.

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 6._

      See, also, MEDAIN.

CUATOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

CUBA: A. D. 1492-1493.
   Discovery by Columbus.

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

CUBA: A. D. 1511.
   Spanish conquest and occupation of the island.

   "Of the islands, Cuba was the second discovered; but no
   attempt had been made to plant a colony there during the
   lifetime of Columbus; who, indeed, after skirting the whole
   extent of its southern coast, died in the conviction that it
   was part of the continent. At length, in 1511, Diego, the son
   and successor of the 'admiral,' who still maintained the seat
   of government in Hispaniola, finding the mines much exhausted
   there, proposed to occupy the neighbouring island of Cuba, or
   Fernandina, as it is called, in compliment to the Spanish
   monarch. He prepared a small force for the conquest, which he
   placed under the command of Don Diego Velasquez. …
   Velasquez, or rather his lieutenant Narvaez, who took the
   office on himself of scouring the country, met with no serious
   opposition from the inhabitants, who were of the same family
   with the effeminate natives of Hispaniola." After the
   conquest, Velasquez was appointed governor, and established
   his seat of government at St. Jago, on the southeast corner of
   the island.

      _W. H. Prescott,
      Conquest of Mexico,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 7._

CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
   Slow development of the island.
   Capture of Havana by the English.
   Discontent with Spanish rule.
   Conspiracies of revolution.

   "Velasquez founded many of the towns of the island, the first
   of which was Baracoa, then Bayamo, and in 1514 Trinidad, Santo
   Espiritu, Puerto Principe; next, in 1515, Santiago de Cuba, as
   also, in the same year, the town of Habana. … This period
   (1511-1607) is particularly interesting to the general reader
   from the fact that in it the explorations of Hernandez de
   Cadoba and Grijalva to Darien, Yucatan, etc., were
   inaugurated,—events which had so much to do with the spread
   of Spanish rule and discovery, paving the way as they did for
   the exploration of Mexico under Hernando Cortes, who, in the
   early history of Cuba, figures largely as the lieutenant of
   the Governor Velasquez. … In 1524, Diego Velasquez died,
   —his death hastened, it is said, by the troubles brought upon
   him by his disputes with his insubordinate lieutenant, Cortes.
   … In the history of the improvement of the island, his
   government will bear favorable comparison with many of the
   later governments; and while that great evil, slavery, was
   introduced into the island in his time, so also was the sugar
   cane. … Up to 1538, there seems to be nothing specially
   striking in the general history of the island, if we except
   the constant attacks with fire and sword of the
   'filibusteros,' or pirates of all nations, from which most all
   the sea-coast towns suffered more or less; but in that year
   there arrived at Santiago de Cuba a man destined to play an
   important part in the history and discovery of the new world,
   and named as Provincial Governor of Florida as well as of
   Cuba,—I allude to Hernando de Soto, who brought with him 10
   large vessels, prepared and fitted out expressly for the
   conquest of the new Spanish territory of Florida. After much
   care and preparation, this expedition started out from the
   city of Habana, the 12th of May [see FLORIDA: A. D.
   1528-1542]. … In this period, also, was promulgated that
   order, secured, it is believed, by the noble efforts of Padre
   Las Casas, prohibiting the enslaving of the aborigines; while,
   also, such had become its importance as a town, all vessels
   directed to and from Mexico were ordered to stop at Havana. In
   the period of years that elapsed from 1607 to 1762, the island
   seems to have been in a perfect state of lethargy, except the
   usual changes of its many Governors, and the raids made upon
   it by pirates, or by more legalized enemies in the form of
   French and English men-of-war. In this latter year, however,
   occurred an event of much import, from the fact that after it,
   or upon its occurrence, the Government of Spain was led to see
   the great importance of Cuba, and particularly Havana, as the
   'Key to the New   World,'—this event was the taking of Havana
   by the English.
{639}
   On the 6th of June, 1762, there arrived off the port of Havana
   an English squadron of 32 ships and frigates, with some 200
   transports, bringing with them a force of nearly 20,000 men of
   all arms, under command of the Duke of Albemarle. This
   formidable armament, the largest that America had ever seen,
   laid siege to the city of Havana, whose garrison consisted at
   that time of only about 2,700 regulars and the volunteers that
   took up arms immediately for the defense of the place. … The
   garrison, however, made a very gallant and prolonged defense,
   notwithstanding the smallness of their numbers, and finally,
   surrendering, were permitted to march out with the honors of
   war, the English thus coming into possession of the most
   important defences on the coast, and, subsequently, taking
   possession of the town of Matanzas. Remaining in possession of
   this portion of the Island of Cuba for many months (until July
   6, 1763), the English, by importing negro labor to cultivate
   the large tracts of wild land, and by shipping large
   quantities of European merchandize, gave a start to the trade
   and traffic of the island that pushed it far on its way to the
   state of prosperity it has now reached; but by the treaty of
   peace, at Paris, in February, 1763 [see Seven Years War], was
   restored to Spain the portion of the island wrested from her
   by the English. … In this period (1762-1801) the island made
   rapid advances in improvement and civilization, many of the
   Captains-General of this period doing much to improve the
   towns and the people, beautifying the streets, erecting
   buildings, etc. In 1763, a large emigration took place from
   Florida, and in 1795 the French emigrants from Santo Domingo
   came on to the island in large numbers. … From 1801, rapid
   increase in the prosperity of the island has taken place. …
   At various times insurrections, some of them quite serious in
   their nature, have shown what the natural desire of the native
   population is for greater privileges and freedom. … In 1823,
   there was a society of 'soles,' as it was called, formed for
   the purpose of freeing the island, having at its head young D.
   Francisco Lemus, and having for its pretext that the island
   was about to be sold to England. In 1829, there was discovered
   the conspiracy of the Black Eagle, as it was called (Aguila
   Negra), an attempt on the part of the population to obtain
   their freedom, some of the Mexican settlers in the island
   being prominent in it. The insurrection, or attempt at one, by
   the blacks in 1844, was remarkable for its wide-spread
   ramifications among the slaves of the island, as well as its
   thorough organization,—the intention being to murder all the
   whites on the island. Other minor insurrections there were,
   but it remained for Narciso Lopez, with a force of some 300
   men, to make the most important attempt [1851], in which he
   lost his life, to free the island."

      _S. Hazard,
      Cuba with Pen and Pencil,
      pages 547-550._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. M. Ballou,
      History of Cuba,
      chapters 1-3._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 38 (volume 4)._

      _J. Entick,
      History of the Late War,
      volume 5, pages 363-386._

      _D. Turnbull,
      Cuba,
      chapters 22-24._

CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
   Acquisition coveted by the slave-power in the United States.
   Attempted purchase.
   Filibustering schemes.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

   "When the Spanish colonies in America became independent, they
   abolished slavery. Apprehensive that the republics of Mexico
   and Columbia would be anxious to wrest Cuba and Porto Rico
   from Spain, secure their independence, and introduce into
   those islands the idea, if they did not establish the fact, of
   freedom, the slave-masters [of the United States] at once
   sought to guard against what they deemed so calamitous an
   event. … But after the annexation of Texas, there was a
   change of feeling and purpose, and Cuba, from being an object
   of dread, became an object of vehement desire. The
   propagandists, strengthened and emboldened by that signal
   triumph, now turned their eyes towards this beautiful 'isle of
   the sea,' as the theatre of new exploits; and they determined
   to secure the 'gem of the Antilles' for the coronet of their
   great and growing power. During Mr. Polk's administration an
   attempt was made to purchase it, and the sum of $100,000,000
   was offered therefor. But the offer was promptly declined.
   What, however, could not be bought it was determined to steal,
   and filibustering movements and expeditions became the order
   of the day. For no sooner was President Taylor inaugurated
   than he found movements on foot in that direction; and, in
   August, 1849, he issued a proclamation, affirming his belief
   that an 'armed expedition' was being fitted out 'against Cuba
   or some of the provinces of Mexico,' and calling upon all good
   citizens' to discountenance and prevent any such enterprise.'
   In 1851 an expedition, consisting of some 500 men, sailed from
   New Orleans under Lopez, a Cuban adventurer. But though it
   effected a landing, it was easily defeated, and its leader and
   a few of his followers were executed. Soon afterward, a secret
   association, styling itself the Order of the Lone Star, was
   formed in several of the Southern cities, having a similar
   object in view; but it attracted little notice and
   accomplished nothing. … In August, 1854, President Pierce
   instructed Mr. Marcy, his Secretary of State, to direct
   Buchanan, Mason and Soulé, ministers respectively at the
   courts of London, Paris and Madrid, to convene in some
   European city and confer with each other in regard to the
   matter of gaining Cuba to the United States. They met
   accordingly, in October, at Ostend. The results of their
   deliberations were published in a manifesto, in which the
   reasons are set forth for the acquisition; and the declaration
   was made that the Union could never enjoy repose and security 'as
   long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries.' But the
   great source of anxiety, the controlling motive, was the
   apprehension that, unless so annexed, she would 'be
   Africanized and become a second San Domingo,' thus 'seriously
   to endanger' the Union. This paper attracted great attention
   and caused much astonishment. It was at first received with
   incredulity, as if there had been some mistake or imposition
   practised. … But there was no mistake. … It was the
   deliberate utterance of the conference, and it received the
   indorsement of Mr. Pierce and his administration. The
   Democratic national conventions of 1856 and of 1860 were quite
   as explicit as were the authors of the Ostend manifesto 'in
   favor of the acquisition of Cuba.'"

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 47._

{640}

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 2,
      and volume 5, chapter 1._

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of James Buchanan,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

      _M. M. Ballou,
      History of Cuba,
      chapter 3._

      _J. J. Roche,
      The Story of the Filibusters,
      chapter 3._

----------CUBA: End----------

CUBIT, The.

   "The length of the Egyptian foot is … shown to be equal to
   1.013 English foot, or 12.16 inches (0.3086 metre) and the
   cubit to 18.24 English inches, or 0.463 metre. This cubit was
   identical with the Phœnician or Olympic cubit, afterwards
   adopted in Greece. … The second of the two Egyptian cubits
   was the royal cubit, or cubit of Memphis, of seven palms or
   twenty-eight digits. … The mean length of the Egyptian royal
   cubit is … ascertained to be 20.67 English inches, or 525
   mm. … There is much conflict of opinion as to the actual
   length of the several cubits in use by the Jews at different
   periods; but the fact that Moses always mentions the Egyptian
   measures … as well as the Egyptian weights … proves that
   the Hebrews originally brought their weights and measures from
   Egypt. … In his dissertation on cubits, Sir Isaac Newton
   states grounds for his opinion that the sacred cubit of the
   Jews was equal to 24.7 of our inches, and that the royal cubit
   of Memphis was equivalent to five-sixths of this sacred Jewish
   cubit, or 20.6 inches."

      _H. W. Chisholm,
      On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
      chapter 2._

CUCUTA, The Convention of.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

CUFA.

      See BUSSORAH and KUFA.

CUICIDH, The.

      See TUATH, THE.

CULDEES, The.

   It used to be set forth by religious historians that the
   Culdees were an ardent religious fraternity in Scotland,
   probably founded by Columba, the saintly Irish missionary of
   the sixth century, and having its principal seat in Iona; that
   they "were the lights of Scotland in a dark and superstitious
   age"; that they struggled for several centuries against the
   errors and the oppressive pretensions of Rome, and that "the
   strength and vigor of the Reformation in Scotland, where the
   Papal power received its first and most decisive check, may be
   traced not indirectly to the faith, the doctrines, and the
   spirit of the ancient Culdees." It was claimed for the
   Presbyterian Church that its form of church government
   prevailed among the Culdees, while the supporters of
   Episcopacy found evidences to the contrary. But all these
   views, with all the controversies fomented by them, have been
   dissipated by modern historical investigation. The facts
   gathered by Dean Reeves and published in 1864, in his work on
   the "Culdees of the British Islands," supported by the more
   recent studies of Mr. W. F. Skene, are now generally accepted.
   Says Mr. Skene, (Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 6): "It is not
   till after the expulsion of the Columban monks from the
   kingdom of the Picts, in the beginning of the eighth century,
   that the name of Culdee appears. To Adamnan, to Eddi and to
   Bede it was totally unknown. They knew of no body of clergy
   who bore this name, and in the whole range of ecclesiastical
   history there is nothing more utterly destitute of authority
   than the application of this name to the Columban monks of the
   sixth and seventh centuries, or more utterly baseless than the
   fabric which has been raised upon that assumption." Mr.
   Skene's conclusion is that the Culdees sprang from an ascetic
   order called Deicolæ or God-worshippers; that in Irish the
   name became Ceile De, thence corrupted into Culdee; that they
   were hermits, who became in time associated in communities,
   and were finally brought under the canonical rule of the Roman
   church, along with the secular clergy.

CULEUS, The.

      See AMPHORA.

CULHUACAN.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

CULLODEN, Battle of (1746).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

CULM, OR KULM, Battle of.

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

CULTURKAMPF, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

CUMÆ.
CUMÆAN SIBYL.

   "Earlier than 735 B. C., … though we do not know the precise
   era of its commencement, there existed one solitary Grecian
   establishment in the Tyrrhenian Sea,—the Campanian Cumæ, near
   Cape Misenum; which the more common opinion of chronologists
   supposed to have been founded in 1050 B. U. and which has even
   been carried back by some authors to 1139 B. C. … We may at
   least feel certain that it is the most ancient Grecian
   establishment in any part of Italy. … The Campanian
   Cumæ—known almost entirely by this its Latin
   designation—received its name and a portion of its
   inhabitants from the Æolic Kymê in Asia Minor. … Cumæ,
   situated on the neck of the peninsula which terminates in Cape
   Misenum, occupied a lofty and rocky hill overhanging the sea
   and difficult of access on the land side. … In the hollow
   rock under the very walls of the town was situated the cavern
   of the prophetic Sibyl,—a parallel and reproduction of the
   Gergithian Sibyl, near Kymê in Æolis: in the immediate
   neighborhood, too, stood the wild woods and dark lake of
   Avernus, consecrated to the subterranean gods, and offering an
   establishment of priests, with ceremonies evoking the dead,
   for purposes of prophecy or for solving doubts and mysteries.
   It was here that Grecian imagination localized the Cimmerians
   and the fable of Odysseus; and the Cumæans derived gains from
   the numerous visitors to this holy spot, perhaps hardly less
   than those of the inhabitants of Krissa from the vicinity of
   Delphi. Of the relations of these Cumæans with the Hellenic
   world generally, we unfortunately know nothing; but they seem
   to have been in intimate connection with Rome during the time
   of the kings, and especially during that of the last king
   Tarquin,—forming the intermediate link between the Greek and
   Latin world, whereby the feelings of the Teukrians and
   Gergitheans near the Æolic Kymê and the legendary stories of
   Trojan as well as Grecian heroes,—Æneas and Odysseus—passed
   into the antiquarian imagination of Rome and Latium. The
   writers of the Augustan age knew Cumæ only in its decline, and
   wondered at the vast extent of its ancient walls, yet
   remaining in their time. But during the two centuries prior to
   500 B. C. these walls inclosed a full and thriving population,
   in the plenitude of prosperity."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

      See, also,  SIBYLS

CUMANS, OR KOMANS, The.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

CUMBERLAND GAP, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

{641}

CUMBRIA:
   The British kingdom.

   "The Britons of Cumbria occupy a tolerably large space on the
   map, but a very small one in history;—their annals have
   entirely perished;—and nothing authentic remains concerning
   them, except a very few passages, wholly consisting of
   incidental notices relating to their subjection and their
   misfortunes. Romance would furnish much more; for it was in
   Cumbria that Rhyderc, or Roderic the magnificent, is therein
   represented to have reigned, and Merlin to have prophesied.
   Arthur held his court in merry Carlisle; and Peredur, the
   Prince of Sunshine, whose name we find amongst the princes of
   Strathclyde, is one of the great heroes of the 'Mabinogion,'
   or tales of youth, long preserved by tradition amongst the
   Cymri. These fantastic personages, however, are of importance
   in one point of view, because they show, what we might
   otherwise forget—that from the Ribble in Lancashire, or
   thereabouts, up to the Clyde, there existed a dense population
   composed of Britons, who preserved their national language and
   customs, agreeing in all respects with the Welsh of the
   present day. So that even in the tenth century, the ancient
   Britons still inhabited the greater part of the western coast
   of the island, however much they had been compelled to yield
   to the political supremacy of the Saxon invaders. The 'Regnum
   Cumbrense' comprehended many districts, probably governed by
   petty princes or Reguli, in subordination to a chief monarch
   or Pendragon. Reged appears to have been somewhere in the
   vicinity of Annandale. Strathclyde is of course the district
   or vale of Clydesdale. In this district, or state, was
   situated Alcluyd, or Dunbritton, now Dumbarton, where the
   British kings usually resided; and the whole Cumbrian kingdom
   was not infrequently called Strathclyde, from the ruling or
   principal state; just as the United Kingdom of Great Britain
   and Ireland is often designated in common language as
   'England,' because England is the portion where the monarch
   and legislature are found. Many dependencies of the Cumbrian
   kingdom extended into modern Yorkshire, and Leeds was the
   frontier town between the Britons and the Angles. … The
   kings of Cumbria became the vassals, or 'men,' of the
   Anglo-Saxon kings. Eugenius had thus submitted to Athelstane.
   Of the nature of the obligation I shall speak hereafter. The
   Anglo-Saxon kings appear to have been anxious to extend and
   confirm their supremacy; Edmund proceeded against Donald, or
   Dumhnail, the Scottish King of Cumbria (A. D. 945), with the
   most inveterate and implacable hostility. … Edmund, having
   thus obtained possession of Cumbria, granted the country to
   Malcolm, King of the Scots, upon condition, as the chronicles
   say, of being his co-operator, both by sea and by land. …
   From this period the right of the Scottish kings or princes to
   the kingdom of Cumbria, as vassals of the English crown, seems
   to have been fully admitted: and the rights of the Scottish
   kings to the 'Earldom of Cumberland'—for such it was
   afterwards termed—were founded upon Edmund's grant. The
   Britons of Strathclyde, and Reged, and Cumbria, gradually
   melted away into the surrounding population; and, losing their
   language, ceased to be discernible as a separate race. Yet it
   is most probable that this process was not wholly completed
   until a comparatively recent period."

      _F. Palgrave,
      History of the Anglo-Saxons,
      chapter 11._

   Cumbria and Cambria (Wales), the two states long maintained by
   the Britons, against the Angles and Saxons, bore, in reality,
   the same name, Cumbria being the more correct form of it. The
   earliest development of the so-called Welsh poetry seems to
   have been in Cumbria rather than in Wales. Taliesen and
   Aneurin were Cumbrian bards, and Arthur, if any historical
   personage stands behind his kingly shadow, was probably a
   Cumbrian hero.

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. F. Skene,
      The Four Ancient Books of Wales._

      See, also, KYMRY, ALCLYDE,
      and SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

CUNARD LINE, The founding of the.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

CUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

CUNEIFORM WRITING.

   The characters employed for the written languages of ancient
   Babylonia and Assyria, have been called cuneiform, from the
   Latin cunens, a wedge, because the marks composing them are
   wedge-shaped. All knowledge of those characters and of the
   languages expressed in them had been lost for many centuries,
   and its recent recovery is one of the most marvelous
   achievements of our age. "Travellers had discovered
   inscriptions engraved in cuneiform, or, as they were also
   termed, arrow-headed characters, on the ruined monuments of
   Persepolis and other ancient sites in Persia. Some of these
   monuments were known to have been erected by the Achæmenian
   princes—Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and his successors—and
   it was therefore inferred that the inscriptions also had been
   carved by order of the same kings. The inscriptions were in
   three different systems of cuneiform writing; and since the
   three kinds of inscription were always placed side by side, it
   was evident that they represented different versions of the
   same text. … It was clear that the three versions of the
   Achæmenian inscriptions were addressed to the three chief
   populations of the Persian Empire, and that the one which
   invariably came first was composed in ancient Persian, the
   language of the sovereign himself. Now this Persian version
   happened to offer the decipherer less difficulties than the
   two others which accompanied it. The number of distinct
   characters employed in writing it did not exceed forty, while
   the words were divided from one another by a slanting wedge.
   Some of the words contained so many characters that it was
   plain that these latter must denote letters and not syllables,
   and that consequently the Persian cuneiform system must have
   consisted of an alphabet, and not of a syllabary. It was
   further plain that the inscriptions had to be read from left
   to right, since the ends of all the lines were exactly
   underneath one another on the left side, whereas they
   terminated irregularly on the right. … The clue to the
   decipherment of the inscriptions was first discovered by the
   successful guess of a German scholar, Grotefend. Grotefend
   noticed that the inscriptions generally began with three or
   four words, one of which varied, while the others remained
   unchanged. The variable word had three forms, though the same
   form always appeared on the same monument. Grotefend,
   therefore, conjectured that this word represented the name of
   a king, the words which followed it being royal titles."
   Working on this conjecture, he identified the three names with
   Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and one of the supposed titles
   with a Zend word for "king," which gave him a considerable
   part of the cuneiform alphabet. He was followed in the work by
   Burnouf, Lassen and Sir Henry Rawlinson, until, finally,
   Assyrian inscriptions were read with "almost as much certainty
   as a page of the Old Testament."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the ancient monuments,
      chapter 1._

{642}

CUNIBERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 691-700.

CUNIMARÉ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

CURDS, OR KURDS, The.

      See CARDUCHI.

CURFEW-BELL, The.

   "Except from its influence upon the imagination, it would be
   hardly worth while to notice the legend of the curfew-bell, so
   commonly supposed to have been imposed by William [the
   Conqueror] upon the English, as a token of degradation and
   slavery; but the 'squilla di lontano, che paja il giorno
   pianger che si muore,' was a universal custom of police
   throughout the whole of mediaeval Europe, not unconnected with
   devotional feeling."

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 3, page 627.

   "In the year [1061] after King Henry's death [Henry I. of
   France], in a Synod held at Caen by the Duke's authority [Duke
   William of Normandy, who became in 1066 the Conqueror, and
   King of England], and attended by Bishops, Abbots, and Barons,
   it was ordered that a bell should be rung every evening, at
   hearing of which prayer should be offered, and all people
   should get within their houses and shut their doors. This odd
   mixture of piety and police seems to be the origin of the
   famous and misrepresented Curfew. Whatever was its object, it
   was at least not ordained as any special hardship on William's
   English subjects."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 12, section 3 (volume 3)._

CURIA, Ancient Roman.

      See COMITIA-CURIATA.

CURIA, Municipal, of the later Roman empire.
   Decuriones.

   "It is only necessary in this work to describe the general
   type of the municipal organization which existed in the
   provinces of the Roman Empire after the time of Constantine.
   … The proprietors of land in the Roman provinces generally
   dwelt in towns and cities, as a protection against brigands
   and man-stealers. Every town had an agricultural district
   which formed its territory, and the landed proprietors
   constituted the municipality. The whole local authority was
   vested in an oligarchical senate called the Curia, consisting
   probably of one hundred of the wealthiest landed proprietors
   in the city or township. This body elected the municipal
   authorities and officers, and filled up vacancies in its own
   body. It was therefore independent of the proprietors from
   among whom it was taken, and whose interests it ought to have
   represented. The Curia—not the body of landed
   proprietors—formed therefore the Roman municipality. The
   Curia was used by the imperial government as an instrument of
   fiscal extortion."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2, section 1._

   "When the progress of fiscal tyranny had almost sapped the
   vigor of society, the decuriones [members of the municipal
   curiæ, called, also, curiales] … being held jointly
   responsible for the taxation, became the veriest slaves of the
   empire. Responsible jointly for the taxes, they were, by the
   same token, responsible for their colleagues and their
   successors; their estates were made the securities of the
   imperial dues; and if any estate was abandoned by its
   proprietor, they were compelled to occupy it and meet the
   imposts exigible from it. Yet they could not relinquish their
   offices; they could not leave the city except by stealth; they
   could not enter the army, or the priesthood, or any office
   which might relieve them from municipal functions. … Even
   the children of the Curial were adscribed to his functions,
   and could engage in no course of life inconsistent with the
   onerous and intolerable duty. In short, this dignity was so
   much abhorred that the lowest plebeian shunned admission to
   it, the members of it made themselves bondmen, married
   slave-women, or joined the barbaric hordes in order to escape
   it; and malefactors, Jews and heretics were sometimes
   condemned to it, as an appropriate penalty for their
   offenses."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 9._

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (volume 1, France), lecture 2._

      See, also ROME: A. D. 363-379.

CURIA, Papal.
   College of Cardinals.
   Consistory.

   "The Court of Rome, commonly called the Roman Curia, consisted
   of a number of dignified ecclesiastics who assisted the Pope
   in the executive administration. The Pontiff's more intimate
   advisers, or, as we should say, his privy council, were the
   College of Cardinals [see PAPACY: A. D. 1059], consisting of a
   certain number of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and
   cardinal deacons. The cardinal deacons, at first seven and
   afterwards fourteen in number, were originally ecclesiastics
   appointed as overseers and guardians of the sick and poor in
   the different districts of Rome. Equal to them in rank were
   the fifty cardinal priests, as the chief priests of the
   principal Roman churches were called; who, with the cardinal
   deacons, formed, in very early times, the presbytery, or
   senate of the Bishop of Rome. … According to some
   authorities, cardinal bishops were instituted in the 9th
   century; according to others not till the 11th, when seven
   bishops of the dioceses nearest to Rome—Ostia, Porto,
   Velitrae, Tusculum, Præneste, Tibur, and the Sabines—were
   adopted by the Pope partly as his assistants in the service of
   the Lateran, and partly in the general administration of the
   Church. In process of time, the appointment of such cardinal
   bishops was extended not only to the rest of Italy but also to
   foreign countries. Though the youngest of the cardinals in
   point of time, cardinal bishops were the highest in rank, and
   enjoyed the pre-eminence in the College. Their titles were
   derived from their dioceses. … But they were also called by
   their own names. The number of the cardinals was indefinite
   and varying. The Council of Basle endeavoured to restrict it
   to 24. But this was not carried out, and Pope Sixtus V. at
   length fixed the number at 70. The Council called the
   Consistory, which advised with the Pope both in temporal and
   ecclesiastical matters, was ordinarily private, and confined
   to the cardinals alone; though on extraordinary occasions, and
   for solemn purposes of state, as in the audiences of foreign
   ambassadors, &c., other prelates, and even distinguished
   laymen, might appear in it."

      _T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, page 38._

{643}

CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

   "The Curia Regis [under the Norman Kings of England], the
   supreme tribunal of judicature, of which the Exchequer was the
   financial department or session, was … the court of the king
   sitting to administer justice with the advice of his
   counsellors; those counsellors being, in the widest
   acceptation, the whole body of tenants-in-chief, but in the
   more limited usage, the great officers of the household and
   specially appointed judges. The great gatherings of the
   national council may be regarded as full sessions of the Curia
   Regis, or the Curia Regis as a perpetual committee of the
   national council."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 127._

   "Not long after the granting of Magna Charta, the Curia Regis
   was permanently divided into three committees or courts, each
   taking a certain portion of the business:
   (1) Fiscal matters were confined to the Exchequer;
   (2) civil disputes, where neither the king's interest nor any
   matter savouring of a criminal nature were involved, were
   decided in the Common Pleas; and
   (3) the court of King's Bench retained all the remaining
   business and soon acquired the exclusive denomination of the
   ancient Curia Regis."

   "But the same staff of judges was still retained for all three
   courts, with the chief justiciar at their head. Towards the
   end of Henry III.'s reign, the three courts received each a
   distinct staff, and on the abolition by Edward I. of the
   office of chief justiciar, the only remaining bond of union
   being severed, they became completely separated. Some trace of
   their ancient unity of organization always survived, however,
   in the court of Exchequer Chamber; until at length after six
   centuries of independent existence they were again united by
   the Judicature Act, 1873. Together with the Court of Chancery
   and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty courts, they now form
   divisions of a consolidated High Court of Justice, itself a
   branch of the Supreme Court of Judicature."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 154._

   "The Aula Regia, or Curia Regis … has been described in
   various and at first sight contradictory terms. Thus it has
   been called the highest Law Court, the Ministry of the King, a
   Legislative Assembly, &c. The apparent inconsistency of these
   descriptions vanishes on closer inspection, and throws great
   light on mediæval history. For the Curia Regis possessed every
   attribute which has been ascribed to it."

      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Privy Council,
      part 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapter 19._

CURIALES.

      See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.

CURIOSOLITÆ, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

CURTIS, George W., and Civil-Service Reform.

      See CIVIL SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

CURULE ÆDILES.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

CURULE CHAIR.

   In ancient Rome, "certain high offices of state conferred upon
   the holder the right of using, upon public occasions, an ivory
   chair of peculiar form. This chair was termed Sella Curulis.
   … This was somewhat in the form of a modern camp-stool."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapters 2 and 4._

CURZOLA, Battle of (1298).

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CUSCO: The Capital of the Incas of Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1533-154.8.

CUSH.
CUSHITES.

   "Genesis, like the Hebrews of later date, includes under the
   name of Cush the nations dwelling to the South, the Nubians,
   Ethiopians and tribes of South Arabia."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      See, also, HAMITES, and ARABIA.

CUSHING, Lieutenant William B.
   Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

CUSTER'S LAST BATTLE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

      See TARIFF.

CUSTOMS UNION, The German (Zollverein).

      See TARIFF: A. D. 1833.

CUSTOZZA, Battles of (1848 and 1866).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849; and 1862-1866.

CUTLER, Manasseh, and the Ordinance of 1787.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES: A. D. 1787.

CUYRIRI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

CYCLADES, The.
SPORADES, The.

   "Among the Ionic portion of Hellas are to be reckoned (besides
   Athens) Eubœa, and the numerous group of islands included
   between the southernmost Eubœan promontory, the eastern coast
   of Peloponnesus, and the northwestern coast of Krête. Of these
   islands some are to be considered as outlying prolongations,
   in a southeasterly direction, of the mountain-system of
   Attica; others of that of Eubœa; while a certain number of
   them lie apart from either system, and seem referable to a
   volcanic origin. To the first class belong Keôs, Kythnus,
   Seriphus, Pholegandrus, Sikinus, Gyarus, Syra, Paros, and
   Antiparos; to the second class Andros, Tênos, Mykonos, Dêlos,
   Naxos, Amorgos; to the third class Kimôlus, Mêlos, Thêra.
   These islands passed amongst the ancients by the general name
   of the Cyclades and the Sporades; the former denomination
   being commonly understood to comprise those which immediately
   surrounded the sacred island of Dêlos,—the latter being given
   to those which lay more scattered and apart. But the names are
   not applied with uniformity or steadiness even in ancient
   times: at present, the whole group are usually known by the
   title of Cyclades."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 12._

CYDONIA, Battles and siege of (B. C. 71-68).

      See CRETE: B. C. 68-66.

CYLON, Conspiracy of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

CYMBELINE, Kingdom of.

      See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

CYMRY, The.

      See KYMRY, THE.

CYNOSARGES AT ATHENS, The.

      See GYMNASIA, GREEK.

CYNOSCEPHALÆ, Battle of (B. C. 364).

   The battle in which Pelopidas, the Theban patriot, friend and
   colleague of Epaminondas, was slain. It was fought B. C. 364,
   in Thessaly, near Pharsalus, on the heights called
   Cynoscephalæ, or the Dog's Heads, and delivered the Thessalian
   cities from the encroachments of the tyrant of Pheræ.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 40._

CYNOSCEPHALÆ: (B. C. 197).

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

{644}

CYNOSSEMA, Naval battle of.

   Two successive naval battles fought, one in July and the
   second in October, B. C. 411, between the Athenians and the
   Peloponnesian allies, in the Hellespont, are jointly called
   the Battle of Cynossema. The name was taken from the headland
   called Cynossema, or the "Dog's Tomb," "ennobled by the legend
   and the chapel of the Trojan queen Hecuba." The Athenians had
   the advantage in both encounters, especially in the latter
   one, when they were joined by Alcibiades, with reenforcements,
   just in time to decide the doubtful fortunes of the day.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 63._

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

CYNURIANS, The.

      See KYNURIANS.

CYPRUS: Origin of the name.

   "The Greek name of the island was derived from the abundance
   in which it produced the beautiful plant ('Copher') which
   furnishes the 'al-henna,' coveted throughout the East for the
   yellow dye which it communicates to the nails. It was rich in
   mines of copper, which has obtained for it the name by which
   it is known in the modern languages of the West."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 4._

CYPRUS: Early History.

   "The first authentic record with regard to Cyprus is an
   inscription on an Egyptian tombstone of the 17th century B.
   C., from which it appears that the island was conquered by
   Thothmes III. of Egypt, in whose reign the exodus of the
   Children of Israel is supposed to have taken place. This was
   no doubt anterior to the establishment of any Greek colonies,
   and probably, also, before the Phœnicians had settled in the
   island. … As appears from various inscriptions and other
   records, Cyprus became subject successively to Egypt, as just
   mentioned, to Assyria, to Egypt again in 568 B. C., when it
   was conquered by Amasis, and in 525 B. C. to Persia. Meanwhile
   the power of the Greeks had been increasing. … The
   civilization of the West was about to assert itself at
   Marathon and Salamis; and Cyprus, being midway between East
   and West, could not fail to be involved in the coming
   conflict. On the occasion of the Ionic revolt [see PERSIA: B.
   C. 521-493] the Greek element in Cyprus showed its strength:
   and in 502 B. C. the whole island, with the single exception
   of the Phœnician town of Amathus, took part with the Ionians
   in renouncing the authority of the Persian king." But in the
   war which followed, the Persians, aided by the Phœnicians of
   the mainland, reconquered Cyprus, and the Cyprian Greeks were
   long disheartened. They recovered their courage, however,
   about 410 B. C. when Evagoras, a Greek of the royal house of
   Teucer, made himself master of Salamis, and finally
   established a general sovereignty over the island—even
   extending his power to the mainland and subjugating Tyre. "The
   reign of Evagoras is perhaps the most brilliant period in the
   history of Cyprus. Before his death, which took place in 374
   B. C., he had raised the island from the position of a mere
   dependency of one or other of the great Eastern monarchies,
   had gained for it a place among the lending states of Greece,
   and had solved the question as to which division of the
   ancient world the Cyprian people should be assigned.
   Consequently when, some forty years later, the power of Persia
   was shattered by Alexander the Great at the battle of Issus,
   the kings of the island hastened to offer him their submission
   as the leader of the Greek race, and sent 120 ships to assist
   him in the siege of Tyre." After Alexander's death, Cyprus was
   disputed between Antigonus and Ptolemy.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

   The king of Egypt secured the prize, and the island remained
   under the Greek-Egyptian crown, until it passed, with the rest
   of the heritage of the Ptolemys to the Romans. "When the
   [Roman] empire was divided, on the death of Constantine the
   Great, Cyprus, like Malta, passed into the hands of the
   Byzantine Emperors. Like Malta, also, it was exposed to
   frequent attacks from the Arabs; but, although they several
   times occupied the island and once held it for no less than
   160 years, they were always expelled again by the Byzantine
   Emperors, and never established themselves there as firmly as
   they did in Malta. The crusades first brought Cyprus into
   contact with the western nations of modern Europe."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of British Colonies,
      section 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. H. Lang,
      CYPRUS,
      chapters 1-8._

      _F. Von Loher,
      CYPRUS,
      chapters 12 and 30._

      _L. P. Di Cesnola,
      Cyprus; its ancient cities, &c._

CYPRUS: B. C. 58.
   Annexed to the Roman Dominions.

   "The annexation of Cyprus was decreed in 696 [B. C. 58] by the
   people [of Rome], that is, by the leaders of the democracy,
   the support given to piracy by the Cypriots being alleged as
   the official reason why that course should now be adopted.
   Marcus Cato, intrusted by his opponents with the execution of
   this measure, came to the island without an army; but he had
   no need of one. The king [a brother of the king of Egypt] took
   poison; the inhabitants submitted without offering resistance
   to their inevitable fate, and were placed under the governor
   of Cilicia."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 4._

CYPRUS: A. D. 117.
   Jewish insurrection.

   "This rich and pleasant territory [the island of Cyprus] had
   afforded a refuge to the Jews of the continent through three
   generations of disturbance and alarm, and the Hebrew race was
   now [A. D. 117] probably not inferior there in number to the
   native Syrians or Greeks. On the first outburst of a Jewish
   revolt [against the Roman domination, in the last year of the
   reign of Trajan] the whole island fell into the hands of the
   insurgents, and became an arsenal and rallying point for the
   insurrection, which soon spread over Egypt, Cyrene and
   Mesopotamia. The leader of the revolt in Cyprus bore the name
   of Artemion, but we know no particulars of the war in this
   quarter, except that 240,000 of the native population is said
   to have fallen victims to the exterminating fury of the
   insurgents. When the rebellion was at last extinguished in
   blood, the Jews were forbidden thenceforth to set foot on the
   island; and even if driven thither by stress of weather, the
   penalty of death was mercilessly enforced. … The Jewish
   population of Cyrenaica outnumbered the natives. … The
   hostility of the Jews in these parts was less directed against
   the central government and the Roman residents than the native
   race. … Of these 220,000 are said to have perished."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 65._

{645}

CYPRUS: A. D. 1191.
   Conquest by Richard Cœur de Lion.
   Founding of the Latin Kingdom.

   During the civil strife and confusion of the last years of the
   Comnenian dynasty of emperors at Constantinople, one of the
   members of the family, Isaac Comnenos, secured the sovereignty
   of Cyprus and assumed the title of emperor. With the alliance
   of the king of Sicily, he defeated the Byzantine forces sent
   against him, and was planted securely, to all appearance, on
   his newly built throne at the time of the Third Crusade.
   Circumstances at that time (A. D. 1191) gave him a fatal
   opportunity to provoke the English crusaders. First, he seized
   the property and imprisoned the crews of three English ships
   that were wrecked on the Cyprian coast. Not satisfied with
   that violence, he refused shelter from the storm to a vessel
   which bore Berengaria of Navarre, the intended wife of King
   Richard. "The king of England immediately sailed to Cyprus;
   and when Isaac refused to deliver up the ship-wrecked
   crusaders, and to restore their property, Richard landed his
   army and commenced a series of operations, which ended in his
   conquering the whole island, in which he abolished the
   administrative institutions of the Eastern Empire, enslaving
   the Greek race, introducing the feudal system, by which he
   riveted the chains of a foreign domination, and then gave it
   as a present to Guy of Lusignan, the titular king of
   Jerusalem, who became the founder of a dynasty of Frank kings
   in Cyprus."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 3, section 1._

   Before giving Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan, Richard had sold the
   island to the Templars, and Guy had to pay the knights heavily
   for the extinguishment of their rights. Richard, therefore,
   was rather a negotiator than a giver in the transaction.

      _William Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
      and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.
   The kingdom under the house of Lusignan.

   "The house of Lusignan maintained itself in Cyprus for nearly
   three centuries, during which, although fallen somewhat from
   the blessedness which had been broken up by Isaac Comnenus,
   the island seems to have retained so much fertility and
   prosperity as to make its later history very dark by contrast.
   … Guy, we are told, received Cyprus for life only, and did
   homage for the island to Richard. As he already bore the title
   of king, the question whether he should hold Cyprus as a
   kingdom does not seem to have arisen. … On his death, in
   April, 1194, Richard putting in no claim for the reversion,
   his brother, Amalric of Lusignan, constable of Palestine,
   entered on the possession as his heir. … Amalric succeeded
   to the crown of Jerusalem; the crown of Jerusalem, which,
   after the year 1269, became permanently united with that of
   Cyprus, was an independent crown, and the king of Jerusalem an
   anointed king: the union of the crowns therefore seems to have
   precluded any question as to the tenure by which the kingdom
   of Cyprus should be held. … The homage then due to Richard,
   or to the crown of England, ceased at the death of Guy."

      _William Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
      and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

      See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1291-1310.
   The Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1489-1570.
   A Venetian dependency.

   The last reigning king of Cyprus was James II., a bastard
   brother of Queen Charlotte, whom he drove from the Cypriot
   throne in 1464. This king married a Venetian lady, Caterina
   Cornaro, in 1471 and was declared to be "the son-in·law of the
   Republic." The unscrupulous republic is said to have poisoned
   its son·in-law in order to secure the succession. He died in
   1473, and a son, born after his death, lived but two years.
   Cyprus was then ruled by the Venetians for fifteen years in
   the name of Caterina, who finally renounced her rights wholly
   in favor of the republic. After 1489, until its conquest by
   the Turks, Cyprus was a Venetian dependency, in form as well
   as in fact, but tributary to the Sultan of Egypt.

      _William Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
      and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

CYPRUS: A. D. 1570-1571.
   Conquest by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1821.
   Turkish massacre of Christians.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1878.
   Control surrendered by Turkey to England.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878, THE TREATIES OF
      SAN STEFANO AND BERLIN.

----------CYPRUS: End----------

CYREANS, The.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

CYRENAICA.
CYRENE.
KYRENE.

   A city, growing into a kingdom, which was founded at an early
   day by the Greeks, on that projecting part of the coast of
   Libya, or northern Africa, which lies opposite to Greece. The
   first settlers were said to have been from the little island
   of Thera, whose people were bold and enterprising. The site
   they chose "was of an unusual nature, especially for
   islanders, and lay several miles away from the sea, the shores
   of which were devoid of natural bays for anchorage. But, with
   this exception, every advantage was at hand: instead of the
   narrow stony soil of their native land, they found the most
   fertile corn-fields, a broad table-land with a healthy
   atmosphere and watered by fresh springs; a well-wooded
   coast-land, unusually well adapted for all the natural
   products which the Hellenes deemed essential; while in the
   background spread mysteriously the desert, a world passing the
   comprehension of the Hellenes, out of which the Libyan tribes
   came to the shore with horses and camels, with black slaves,
   with apes, parrots and other wonderful animals, with dates and
   rare fruits. … An abundant spring of water above the shore
   was the natural point at which the brown men of the deserts
   and the mariners assembled. Here regular meetings became
   customary. The bazaar became a permanent market, and the
   market a city which arose on a grand scale, broad and lofty,
   on two rocky heights, which jut out towards the sea from the
   plateau of the desert. This city was called Cyrene. … Large
   numbers of population immigrated from Crete, the islands and
   Peloponnesus. A large amount of new land was parcelled out,
   the Libyans were driven back, the landing-place became the
   port of Apollonia, and the territory occupied by the city
   itself was largely extended. Cyrene became, like Massalia, the
   starting point of a group of settlements, the centre of a
   small Greece: Barca and Hesperides [afterwards called
   Berenice] were her daughters. Gradually a nation grew up,
   which extended itself and its agriculture, and contrived to
   cover a large division of African land with Hellenic culture.
   This was the new era which commenced for Cyrene with the reign
   of the third king, the Battus who, on account of the
   marvellously rapid rise of his kingdom, was celebrated as 'the
   fortunate' in all Hellas. The Battiadæ [the family or dynasty
   of Battus] were soon regarded as a great power."

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

{646}

   Cyrenaica became subject to Egypt under the Ptolemys, and was
   then usually called Pentapolis, from the five cities of
   Cyrene, Apollonia, Arsinoë (formerly Teuchira), Berenice
   (formerly Hesperis, or Hesperides) and Ptolemais (the port of
   Barca). Later it became a province of the Roman Empire, and
   finally, passing under Mahometan rule, sank to its present
   state, as a district, called Barca, of the kingdom of
   Tripoli.—Cyrene was especially famous for the production of a
   plant called silphium—supposed to be assafœtida—on which
   the ancients seem to have set an extraordinary value. This was
   one of the principal sources of the wealth of Cyrene.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 8, section 1,
      and chapter 12, section 2._

CYRENAICA: B. C. 525.
   Tributary to Persia.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

CYRENAICA: B. C. 322.
   Absorbed in the Kingdom of Egypt by Ptolemy Lagus.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

CYRENAICA: B. C. 97.
   Transferred to the Romans by will.

   "In the middle of this reign [of Ptolemy, called Lathyrus,
   king of Egypt] died Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene. He was the
   half-brother of Lathyrus and Alexander, and having been made
   king of Cyrene by his father Euergetes II., he had there
   reigned quietly for twenty years. Being between Egypt and
   Carthage, then called the Roman province of Africa, and having
   no army which he could lead against the Roman legions, he had
   placed himself under the guardianship of Rome; he had bought a
   truce during his lifetime, by making the Roman people his
   heirs in his will, so that on his death they were to have his
   kingdom. Cyrene had been part of Egypt for above two hundred
   years, and was usually governed by a younger son or brother of
   the king. But on the death of Ptolemy Apion, the Roman senate,
   who had latterly been grasping at everything within their
   reach, claimed his kingdom as their inheritance, and in the
   flattering language of their decree by which the country was
   enslaved, they declared Cyrene free."

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 11._

CYRENAICA: A. D. 117.
   Jewish insurrection.

      See CYPRUS: A. D. 117.

CYRENAICA: A. D. 616.
   Destroyed by Chosroes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

CYRENAICA: 7th Century.
   Mahometan conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

----------CYRENAICA: End----------

CYRUS, The empire of.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

CYRUS THE YOUNGER,
   The expedition of.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

CYZICUS: B. C. 411-410, Battles at.

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

CYZICUS: B. C. 74.
   Siege by Mithridates.

   Cyzicus, which had then become one of the largest and
   wealthiest cities of Asia Minor, was besieged for an entire
   year (B. C. 74-73) by Mithridates in the Third Mithridatic
   war. The Roman Consul Lucullus came to the relief of the city
   and succeeded in gaining a position which blockaded the
   besiegers and cut off their supplies. In the end, Mithridates
   retreated with a small remnant only, of his great armament,
   and never recovered from the disaster.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

CYZICUS: A. D. 267.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

----------CYZICUS: End----------

CZAR, OR TZAR.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.

CZARTORISKYS, The, and the fall of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

CZASLAU, OR CHOTUSITZ, Battle of (A. D. 1742).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

CZEKHS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.

----------CZEKHS, End----------

D.

DACHTELFIELD, The.

      See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

DACIA, The Dacians.

   Ancient Dacia embraced the district north of the Danube
   between the Theiss and the Dneister. "The Dacians [at the time
   of Augustus, in the last half century B. C.] occupied the
   whole of what now forms the southern part of Hungary, the
   Banat and Transylvania. … The more prominent part which they
   henceforth assumed in Roman history was probably owing
   principally to the immediate proximity in which they now found
   themselves to the Roman frontier. The question of the relation
   in which the Dacians stood to the Getæ, whom we find in
   possession of these same countries at an earlier period, was
   one on which there existed considerable difference of opinion
   among ancient writers: but the prevailing conclusion was that
   they were only different names applied to the same people.
   Even Strabo, who describes them as distinct, though cognate
   tribes, states that they spoke the same language. According to
   his distinction the Getæ occupied the more easterly regions,
   adjoining the Euxine, and the Dacians the western, bordering
   on the Germans."

   _E. H. Bunbury,
   History of Ancient Geography,
   chapter 20, section 1._

DACIA: A. D. 102-106.
   Trajan's conquest.

   At the beginning of the second century, when Trajan conquered
   the Dacians and added their country to the Roman Empire, "they
   may be considered as occupying the broad block of land bounded
   by the Theiss, the Carpathians, the lower Danube or Ister, and
   the Pruth." In his first campaign, A. D. 102, Trajan
   penetrated the country to the heart of modern Transylvania,
   and forced the Dacians to give him battle at a place called
   Tapæ, the site of which is not known. He routed them with much
   slaughter, as they had been routed at the same place, Tapæ,
   sixteen years before, in one of the ineffectual campaigns
   directed by Domitian. They submitted, and Trajan established
   strong Roman posts in the country; but he had scarcely reached
   Rome and celebrated his triumph there, before the Dacians were
   again in arms. In the spring of the year 104, Trajan repaired
   to the lower Danube in person, once more, and entered the
   Dacian country with an overwhelming force. This time the
   subjugation was complete, and the Romans established their
   occupation of the country by the founding of colonies and the
   building of roads.
{647}
   Dacia was now made a Roman province, and "the language of the
   Empire became, and to this day substantially remains, the
   national tongue of the inhabitants. … Of the Dacian
   province, the last acquired and the first to be surrendered of
   the Roman possessions, if we except some transient
   occupations, soon to be commemorated, in the East, not many
   traces now exist; but even these may suffice to mark the
   moulding power of Roman civilization. … The accents of the
   Roman tongue still echo in the valleys of Hungary and
   Wallachia; the descendants of the Dacians at the present day
   repudiate the appellation of Wallachs, or strangers, and still
   claim the name of Romúni."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 63._

DACIA: A. D. 270.
   Given up to the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

DACIA: 4th Century.
   Conquest by the Huns.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376,
      and HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

DACIA: 6th Century.
   Occupied by the Avars.

      See AVARS.

DACIA: Modern history.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

----------DACIA: End----------

DACOITS.

      See DAKOITS.

DACOTAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

DÆGSASTAN, Battle of.

   Fought, A. D. 603, between the Northumbrians and the Scots of
   Dalriada, the army of the latter being almost wholly
   destroyed.

DAGOBERT I.,
   King of the Franks
   (Neustria), A. D. 628-638;
   (Austrasia), 622-633:
   (Burgundy), 628-638.

   Dagobert II., King of the Franks
   (Austrasia), A. D. 673-678.

   Dagobert III., King of the Franks
   (Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 711-715.

DAHIS, The.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

DAHLGREN, Admiral John A.
   Siege of Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY, and AUGUST-DECEMBER: S. CAROLINA).

DAHLGREN, Ulric.
   Raid to Richmond.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

DAKOITS.
DAKOITEE.

   The Dakoits of India, who were suppressed soon after the
   Thugs, were "robbers by profession, and even by birth."
   Dakoitee "was established upon a broad basis of hereditary
   caste, and was for the most part an organic state of society.
   'I have always followed the trade of my ancestors, Dakoitee.'
   said Lukha, a noted Dakoit, who subsequently became approver.
   'My ancestors held this profession before me,' said another,
   'and we train boys in the same manner. In my caste if there
   were any honest persons, i. e., not robbers, they would be
   turned out.'" The hunting down of the Dakoits was begun in
   1838, under the direction of Colonel Sleeman, who had already
   hunted down the Thugs.

      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Co.,
      part 3, chapter 3._

DAKOTA, North and South: A. D. 1803.-
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

DAKOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Partly joined, in succession, to Michigan, Wisconsin,
   and Iowa Territories.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
   Admission to the Union.

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

DAKOTAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

DALAI LAMA.

      See LAMAS.

DALCASSIANS.

   The people of North Munster figure prominently under that name
   in early Irish history.

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 2._

DALHOUSIE, Lord, The India administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1848-1856; and 1852.

DALMATIA.

   "The narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the Hadriatic
   on which the name of Dalmatia has settled down has a history
   which is strikingly analogous to its scenery. … As the
   cultivation and civilization of the land lies in patches, as
   harbours and cities alternate with barren hills, so Dalmatia
   has played a part in history only by fits and starts. This
   fitful kind of history goes on from the days of Greek colonies
   and Illyrian piracy to the last war between Italy and Austria.
   But of continuous history, steadily influencing the course of
   the world's progress, Dalmatia has none to show."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Subject and Neighbour Lands of Venice,
      pages 85-87._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. G. Jackson,
      Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
      chapters 1-2._

      See, also, ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS; SALONA;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

DALMATIA: 6th-7th Centuries:
   Slavonic occupation.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES;
      also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

DALMATIA: A. D. 944.
   Beginning of Venetian Conquest.

      See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1102.
   Conquest by the king of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

DALMATIA: 14th Century.
   Conquest from the Venetians by Louis the Great of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

DALMATIA: 16th Century.
   The Uscocks.

      See USCOCKS.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1694-1696.
   Conquests by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1699.
   Cession in great part to Venice by the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: 1683-1699.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1797.
   Acquisition by Austria.

      See, FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

DALMATIA: A. D. 1805.
   Ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1809.
   Incorporated in the Illyrian Provinces of Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

DALMATIA: A. D. 1814.
   Restored to Austria.

   Austria recovered possession of Dalmatia under the
   arrangements of the Congress of Vienna.

----------DALMATIA: End----------

DALRIADA.

   "A district forming the northeast corner of Ireland and
   comprising the north half of the county of Antrim, was called
   Dalriada. It appears to have been one of the earliest
   settlements of the Scots among the Picts of Ulster and to have
   derived its name from its supposed founder Cairbre, surnamed
   Righfhada or Riada. It lay exactly opposite the peninsula of
   Kintyre [Scotland] from whence it was separated by a part of
   the Irish channel of no greater breadth than about fourteen
   miles; and from this Irish district the colony of Scots, which
   was already Christian [fifth century] passed over and settled
   in Kintyre and in the island of Isla"—establishing a Scotch
   Dalriada.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   For some account of the Scotch Dalriada,

      See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

{648}

DAMASCUS, Kingdom of.

   The kingdom of Damascus, or "Aram of Damascus" as it was
   entitled, was formed soon after that Syrian region threw off
   the yoke of dependence which David and Solomon had imposed
   upon it. "Rezon, the outlaw, was its founder. Hader, or Hadad,
   and Rimmon, were the chief divinities of the race, and from
   them the line of its kings derived their names,—Hadad,
   Ben-hadad, Hadad-ezer, Tabrimmon."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 33._

   "Though frequently captured and plundered in succeeding
   centuries by Egypt and Assyria, neither of those nations was
   able to hold it long in subjection because of the other. It
   was probably a temporary repulse of the Assyrians, under
   Shalmaneser II., by the Damascene general Naaman to which
   reference is made in 2 Kings volume 1: 'by him the Lord had given
   deliverance unto Syria.' … After the great conquerors of
   Egypt and Asia, each in his day, had captured and plundered
   Damascus, it was taken without resistance by Parmenio for
   Alexander the Great [B. C. 333]. In it Pompey spent the
   proudest year of his life, 64 B. C., distributing at his
   pleasure the thrones of the East to the vassals of Rome.
   Cleopatra had received the city as a love-gift from Mark
   Antony, and Tiberius had bestowed it upon Herod the Great,
   before Aretas of Petra, the father of the princess whom Herod
   Antipas divorced for Herodias' sake, and the ruler whose
   officers watched the city to prevent the escape of Paul, made
   it, we know not how, a part of his dominions."

      _W. B. Wright,
      Ancient Cities,
      chapter 7._

DAMASCUS: A. D. 634.
   Conquest by the Arabs.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 661.
   Becomes the seat of the Caliphate.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 763.
   The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 1148-1217.
   Capital of the Atabeg and the Ayoubite sultans.

      See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 1401.
   Sack and massacre by Timour.

      See Timour.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 1832.
   Capture by Mehemed Ali.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

----------DAMASCUS: End----------

DAMASUS II., Pope, A. D. 1048, July to August.

DAMIETTA: A. D. 1219-1220.
   Siege, capture and surrender by the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

DAMIETTA: A. D. 1249-1250.
   Capture and loss by Saint Louis.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

DAMIETTA: A. D. 1252.
   Destruction by the Mamelukes.

   "Two years after the deliverance of the king [Saint Louis],
   and whilst he was still in Palestine, the Mamelukes, fearing a
   fresh invasion of the Franks, in order to prevent their
   enemies from taking Damietta and fortifying themselves in that
   city, entirely destroyed it. Some years after, as their fears
   were not yet removed, and the second crusade of Louis IX.
   spread fresh alarms throughout the East, the Egyptians caused
   immense heaps of stone to be cast into the mouth of the Nile,
   in order that the Christian fleets might not be able to sail
   up the river. Since that period a new Damietta has been built
   at a small distance from the site of the former city."

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 14._

DAMNONIA.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

DAMNONII, OR DAMNII, The.

      See DUMNONII.

DAMOISEL.
DAMOISELLE.
DONZELLO.

   "In mediæval Latin 'domicella' is used for the unmarried
   daughter of a prince or noble, and 'domicellus,' contracted
   from 'domnicellus,' the diminutive of 'dominus,' for the son.
   These words are the forerunners of the old French 'dâmoisel'
   in the masculine, and 'damoiselle' in the feminine gender.
   Froissart calls Richard, prince of Wales, son of Edward: 'le
   jeune damoisil Richart.' In Romance the word is indifferently
   'damoisel' and' 'danzel,' in Italian 'donzello.' All of these
   are evidently titles under the same notion as that of child
   and 'enfant,' of which the idea belongs to the knights of an
   earlier period."

      _R. T. Hampson,
      Origines Patriciæ,
      page 328._

DANAIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS. ARGOLIS.

DANCING PLAGUE.

      See PLAGUE, A. D. 1374.

DANDRIDGE, Engagement at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL:
      TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

DANEGELD, The.

   "A tax of two shillings on the hide of land, originally levied
   as tribute to the Danes under Ethelred, but continued [even
   under the Plantagenets], like the income tax, as a convenient
   ordinary resource."

      _William Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      page 53._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

DANELAGH, OR DANELAGA, OR DANELAU.

   The district in England held by the Danes after their treaty
   with Alfred the Great, extending south to the Thames, the Lea
   and the Ouse; north to the Tyne; west of the mountain district
   of Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Cumberland. "Over all this
   region the traces of their colonization abound in the villages
whose names end in by, the Scandinavian equivalent of the English
   tun or ham."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 77._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

DANES AS VIKINGS.

      See, also, NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.

DANES: In England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880, 979-1016,
      and 1016-1042;
      also NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.

DANES: In Ireland.

      See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

----------DANES: End----------

DANITES, The.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.

DANTE AND THE FACTIONS OF FLORENCE.

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

DANTON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

DANTZIC:
   In the Hanseatic League.

         See HANSA TOWNS.

DANTZIC: A. D. 1577.
   Submission to the king of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

DANTZIC: A. D. 1793.
   Acquisition by Prussia.

         See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

DANTZIC: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Siege and capture by the French.

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

DANTZIC: A. D. 1807.
   Declared a Free state.

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

DANTZIC: A. D. 1813.
   Siege and capture by the Allies.

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

{649}

DARA.

   One of the capitals of the Parthian kings, the site of which
   has not been identified.

DARA, Battle of (A. D. 529).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

DARDANIANS OF THE TROAD.

      See TROJA;
      and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      also, AMORITES.

DARIEN, The Isthmus of.

      See PANAMA.

DARIEN: The Scottish colony.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

DARINI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC
      INHABITANTS.

DARIUS,
   King of Persia, B. C. 521-486.
   Darius II., B. C. 425-405.
   Darius III. (Codomannus), B. C. 336-331.

DARK AGES, The.

   The historical period, so-called, is nearly identical with
   that more commonly named the Middle Ages; but its duration may
   be properly considered as less by a century or two. From the
   5th to the 13th century is a definition of the period which
   most historians would probably accept.

      See MIDDLE AGES.

DARORIGUM.
   Modern Vannes.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

DAR-UL-ISLAM AND DAR-UL-HARB.

   "The Koran divides the world into two portions, the House of
   Islam, Dar-ul-Islam, and the House of War, Dar-ul-harb. It has
   generally been represented by Western writers on the
   institutes of Mahometanism and on the habits of Mahometan
   nations, that the Dar-ul-harb, the House of War, comprises all
   lands of the misbelievers. … There is even a widely-spread
   idea among superficial talkers and writers that the holy
   hostility, the Jehad [or Dhihad] of Mussulmans against
   non-Mussulmans is not limited to warfare between nation and
   nation; but that 'it is a part of the religion of every
   Mahometan to kill as many Christians as possible, and that by
   counting up a certain number killed, they think themselves
   secure of heaven.' But careful historical investigators, and
   statesmen long practically conversant with Mahometan
   populations have exposed the fallacy of such charges against
   those who hold the creed of Islam. … A country which is
   under Christian rulers, but in which Mahometans are allowed
   free profession of their faith, and peaceable exercise of
   their ritual, is not a portion of the House of War, of the
   Dar-ul-harb; and there is no religious duty of warfare, no
   Jehad, on the part of true Mussulmans against such a state.
   This has been of late years formally determined by the chief
   authorities in Mahometan law with respect to British India."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 6._

DASTAGERD.

   The favorite residence of the last great Persian king and
   conqueror, Chosroes (A. D. 590-628), was fixed at Dastagerd,
   or Artemita, sixty miles north of Ctesiphon, and east of the
   Tigris. His palaces and pleasure grounds were of extraordinary
   magnificence.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 46.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

DASYUS.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

DAUPHINS OF FRANCE.
DAUPHINE.

   In 1349, Philip VI., or Philip de Valois, of France, acquired
   by purchase from Humbert II., count of Vienne, the sovereignty
   of the province of Dauphine. This principality became from
   that time the appanage of the eldest sons of the kings of
   France and gave them their peculiar name or title of the
   Dauphins. The title in question had been borne by the counts
   of Vienne (in Dauphiné), "on account of the dolphin which they
   carried upon their helmets and on their armorial bearings."

      _E. De Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      book 2, chapter 2, footnote._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 9._

      See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

DAVENPORT, John, and the founding of New Haven Colony.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638, and 1639.

DAVID, King of Israel and Judah.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND
      JUDAH, and JERUSALEM: CONQUEST, &c.

DAVID I.,
   King of Scotland, A. D. 1124-1153.
   David II., 1329-1370.

DAVIS, Jefferson.
   Election to the Presidency of the rebellious
   "Confederate States."

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

   Flight and capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

DAVOUT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
   1806-1807; 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
   also RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
   and GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
   1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DAY OF BARRICADES, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

DAY OF DUPES, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.

DAY OF THE SECTIONS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DAYAKS, OR DYAKS, The.

      See MALAYAN RACE.

DEAK, Francis, and the recovery of Hungarian nationality.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

DEAN FOREST.

   The "Royal Forest of Dean," situated in the southwestern angle
   of the county of Gloucester, England, between the Severn and
   the Wye, is still so extensive that it covers some 23,000
   acres, though much reduced from its original dimensions. Its
   oaks and its iron mines have played important parts in British
   history. The latter were worked by the Romans and still give
   employment to a large number of miners. The former were
   thought to be so essential to the naval power of England that
   the destruction of the Forest is said to have been one of the
   special duties prescribed to the Spanish Armada.

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England._

DEANE, Silas, and the American transactions
with Beaumarchais in France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

DEARBORN, General Henry, and the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
      (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

DEBRECZIN, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

DEBT, Laws concerning: Ancient Greek.

   At Athens, in the time of Solon (6th century, B. C.) the
   Thetes—"the cultivating tenants, metayers and small
   proprietors of the country … are exhibited as weighed down
   by debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a
   state of freedom into slavery—the whole mass of them (we are
   told) being in debt to the rich, who were proprietors of the
   greater part of the soil. They had either borrowed money for
   their own necessities, or they tilled the lands of the rich as
   dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of the produce,
   and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.
{650}
   All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law
   of debtor and creditor—once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia,
   and a large portion of the world—combined with the
   recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the
   right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another
   man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was
   liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he
   could find means either of paying it or working it out; and
   not only he himself, but his minor sons and unmarried
   daughters and sisters also, whom the law gave him the power of
   selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the security of his
   body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon that
   of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive
   contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced
   from freedom to slavery in Attica itself,—many others had
   been sold for exportation,—and some had only hitherto
   preserved their own freedom by selling their children. … To
   their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable
   Seisachtheia, shaking off of burthens, was directed. The
   relief which it afforded was complete and immediate. It
   cancelled at once all those contracts in which the debtor had
   borrowed on the security either of his person or of his land:
   it forbade all future loans or contracts in which the person
   of the debtor was pledged as security: it deprived the
   creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or
   extort work from, his debtor, and confined him to an effective
   judgment at law authorizing the seizure of the property of the
   latter. It swept off all the numerous mortgage pillars from
   the landed properties in Attica, leaving the land free from
   all past claims. It liberated and restored to their full
   rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal
   adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know
   how) of re-purchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a
   renewed life of liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had
   been sold for exportation. And while Solon forbad every
   Athenian to pledge or sell his own person into slavery, he
   took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding him to
   pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister
   under his tutelage—excepting only the case in which either of
   the latter might be detected in unchastity. … One thing is
   never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined with
   the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law—it
   settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again
   do we hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing
   Athenian tranquility. The general sentiment which grew up at
   Athens, under the Solonian money-law and under the
   democratical government, was one of high respect for the
   sanctity of contracts. … There can be little doubt that
   under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to seize
   the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the
   person, the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial
   character."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 11 (volume 3)._

DEBT: Ancient Roman.

   "The hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. The
   obligation of a debt was a tying up or binding, or bondage, of
   the person: the payment was a solution, a loosing or release
   of the person from that bondage. The property of the debtor
   was not a pledge for the debt. It could be made so by special
   agreement, though in the earliest law only by transferring it
   at once to the ownership of the creditor. Without such special
   agreement, the creditor whose debtor failed to pay could not
   touch his property. Even when the debtor had been prosecuted
   and condemned to pay, if he still failed, the creditor could
   not touch his property. He could seize his person—I speak
   now of the early law, in the first centuries of the
   republic—and after holding him in rigorous confinement for
   sixty days, with opportunities, however, either to pay himself
   or get somebody to pay for him, if payment still failed, he
   could sell him as a slave, or put him to death; if there were
   several creditors, they could cut his body into pieces and
   divide it among them. This extreme severity was afterward
   softened; but the principle remained long unchanged, that the
   hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. If the
   debtor obstinately and to the last refused to surrender his
   property, the creditor could not touch it."

      _J. Hadley,
      Introduction to Roman Law,
      lecture 10._

   "During the first half of the Samnite war [B. C. 326-304], but
   in what year is uncertain, there was passed that famous law
   which prohibited personal slavery for debt. No creditor might
   for the future attach the person of his debtor, but he might
   only seize his property; and all those whose personal freedom
   was pledged for their debts (nexi), were released from their
   liability, if they could swear that they had property enough
   to meet their creditor's demands. It does not appear that this
   great alteration in the law was the work of any tribune, or
   that it arose out of any general or deliberate desire to
   soften the severity of the ancient practice. It was
   occasioned, we are told, by one scandalous instance of abuse
   of power on the part of a creditor. … But although personal
   slavery for debt was thus done away with, yet the consequences
   of insolvency were much more serious at Rome than they are in
   modern Europe. He whose property had once been made over to
   his creditors by the prætor's sentence, became, ipso facto,
   infamous; he lost his tribe, and with it all his political
   rights; and the forfeiture was irrevocable, even though he
   might afterwards pay his debts to the full; nor was it even in
   the power of the censors to replace him on the roll of
   citizens. So sacred a thing did credit appear in the eyes of
   the Romans."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 32 (volume 2)._

DEBT: In England.

   "Debt has been regarded as a crime by primitive society in
   every part of the world. In Palestine, as in Rome, the
   creditor had power over the person of the debtor, and
   misfortune was commonly treated with a severity which was not
   always awarded to crime."

      _[Leviticus 12 xxv., 39-41,
      and 2 Kings iv., 1]_

{651}

   "In this country [England] the same system was gradually
   introduced in Plantagenet times. The creditor, who had been
   previously entitled to seize the goods, or even the land of
   the debtor, was at last authorised to seize his person. In one
   sense, indeed, the English law was, in this respect, more
   irrational than the cruel code of the Jews, or the awful
   punishment [death and dismemberment or slavery—Gibbon, chapter
   44] which the law of the Twelve Tables reserved for debtors.
   In Palestine the creditor was, at least, entitled to the
   service of the debtor or of his children, and the slave had
   the prospect of an Insolvent Debtor's Relief Act in the
   Sabbatical year. Even the law of the Twelve Tables allowed the
   creditors to sell the debtor into slavery, instead of
   resorting to the horrible alternative of partitioning his
   body. But in England the creditors had no such choice. They
   had nothing to do but to throw the debtor into prison; and by
   his imprisonment deprive themselves of the only chance of his
   earning money to pay their debts. A law of this kind was
   intolerable to a commercial people. The debtor languished in
   gaol, the creditor failed to obtain payment of his debt. When
   trade increased in Tudor times, the wits of legislators were
   exercised in devising some expedient for satisfying the
   creditor without imprisoning the debtor. The Chancellor was
   authorised to appoint commissioners empowered to divide the
   debtor's property among the creditors. By an Act of Anne the
   debtor who complied with the law was released from further
   liability, and was practically enabled to commence life anew.
   In 1826, a debtor was allowed to procure his own bankruptcy;
   while in 1831, commissioners were appointed to carry out the
   arrangements which had been previously conducted under the
   Court of Chancery. The law of bankruptcy which was thus
   gradually developed by the legislation of three centuries only
   applied to persons in trade. No one who was not a trader could
   become a bankrupt; the ordinary debtor became as a matter of
   course an insolvent, and passed under the insolvent laws. The
   statutes, moreover, omitted to give any very plain definition
   of a trader. The distinction between trader and non-trader
   which had been gradually drawn by the Courts was not based on
   any very clear principle. A person who made bricks on his own
   estate of his own clay was not a trader; but a person who
   bought the clay and then made the bricks was a trader.
   Farmers, again, were exempt from the bankruptcy law; but
   farmers who purchased cattle for sale at a profit were liable
   to it. The possibility, moreover, of a trader being made a
   bankrupt depended on the size of his business. A petitioning
   creditor in bankruptcy was required to be a person to whom at
   least £100 was due; if two persons petitioned, their debts
   were required to amount to £150; if more than two persons
   petitioned, to £200. A small shopkeeper, therefore, who could
   not hope to obtain credit for £200, £150, or £100, could not
   become a bankrupt; he was forced to become an insolvent. The
   treatment of the insolvent was wholly different from that of
   the bankrupt. The bankruptcy law was founded on the principle
   that the goods and not the person of the debtor should be
   liable for the debt; the insolvency law enabled the person of
   the debtor to be seized, but provided no machinery for
   obtaining his goods. … Up to 1838 the first step in
   insolvency was the arrest of the debtor. Any person who made a
   deposition on oath that some other person was in debt to him,
   could obtain his arrest on what was known as 'mesne process.'
   The oath might possibly be untrue; the debt might not be due;
   the warrant issued on the sworn deposition as a matter of
   course. But, in addition to the imprisonment on mesne process,
   the insolvent could be imprisoned for a further period on what
   was known as 'final process.' Imprisonment on mesne process
   was the course which the creditor took to prevent the flight
   of the debtor; imprisonment on final process was the
   punishment which the Court awarded to the crime of debt. Such
   a system would have been bad enough if the debtors' prisons
   had been well managed. The actual condition of these prisons
   almost exceeds belief. Dickens, indeed, has made the story of
   a debtor's imprisonment in the Marshalsea familiar to a world
   of readers. … The Act of 1813 had done something to mitigate
   the misery which the law occasioned. The Court which was
   constituted by it released 50,000 debtors in 13 years. But
   large numbers of persons were still detained in prison for
   debt. In 1827 nearly 6,000 persons were committed in London
   alone for debt. The Common Law Commissioners, reporting in
   1830, declared that the loud and general complaints of the law
   of insolvency were well founded; and Cottenham, in 1838,
   introduced a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in all
   cases. The Lords were not prepared for so complete a remedy;
   they declined to abolish imprisonment on final process, or to
   exempt from imprisonment on mesne process, persons who owed
   more than £20, and who were about to leave the country.
   Cottenham, disappointed at these amendments, decided on
   strengthening his own hands by instituting a fresh inquiry. He
   appointed a commission in 1839, which reported in 1840, and
   which recommended the abolition of imprisonment on final
   process, and the union of bankruptcy and insolvency. In 1841,
   in 1842, in 1843, and in 1844 Cottenham introduced bills to
   carry out this report. The bills of 1841, 1842, and 1843 were
   lost. The bill of 1844 was not much more successful. Brougham
   declared that debtors who refused to disclose their property,
   who refused to answer questions about it, who refused to give
   it up, or who fraudulently made away with it, as well as
   debtors who had been guilty of gross extravagance, deserved
   imprisonment. He introduced an alternative bill giving the
   Cou rt discretionary power to imprison them. The Lords,
   bewildered by the contrary counsels of two such great lawyers
   as Cottenham and Brougham, decided on referring both bills to
   one Select Committee. The Committee preferred Brougham's bill,
   amended it, and returned it to the House. This bill became
   ultimately law. It enabled both private debtors and traders
   whose debts amounted to less than the sums named in the
   Bankruptcy Acts to become bankrupts; and it abolished
   Imprisonment in all cases where the debt did not exceed £20."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 17 (volume 4)._

DEBT: In the United States.

   "In New York, by the act of April 26, 1831, c. 300, and which
   went into operation on March 1st, 1832, arrest and
   imprisonment on civil process at law, and on execution in
   equity founded upon contract, were abolished. The provision
   under the act was not to apply to any person who should have
   been a non-resident of the state for a month preceding (and
   even this exception was abolished by the act of April 25th,
   1840); nor to proceedings as for a contempt to enforce civil
   remedies; nor to actions for fines and penalties; nor to suits
   founded in torts … nor on promises to marry; or for moneys
   collected by any public officer; or for misconduct or neglect
   in office, or in any professional employment.
{652}
   The plaintiff, however, in any suit, or upon any judgment or
   decree, may apply to a judge for a warrant to arrest the
   defendant, upon affidavit stating a debt or demand due, to
   more than $50; and that the defendant is about to remove
   property out of the jurisdiction of the court, with intent to
   defraud his creditors; or that he has property or rights in
   action which he fraudulently conceals; or public or corporate
   stock, money, or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refuses
   to apply to the payment of the judgment or decree in favor of
   the plaintiff; or that he has assigned, or is about to assign
   or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud his
   creditors; or has fraudulently contracted the debt, or
   incurred the obligation respecting which the suit is brought.
   If the judge shall be satisfied, on due examination, of the
   truth of the charge, he is to commit the debtor to jail,
   unless he complies with certain prescribed conditions or some
   one of them, and which are calculated for the security of the
   plaintiff's claim. Nor is any execution against the body to be
   issued on justices' judgments, except in cases essentially the
   same with those above stated. … By the New York act of 1846,
   c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions
   for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in
   actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it
   applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The
   legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially
   abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof
   that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the
   constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental
   principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison
   after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed
   by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In
   February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women
   from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as
   to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil
   actions founded upon contract. … Females were first exempted
   from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and
   imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now
   abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in
   Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January,
   1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the
   debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and
   that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart
   without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force,
   fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was
   carried into effect by the act of the legislature of
   Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish
   imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In
   New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for
   debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23,
   1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract
   and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont,
   imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January,
   1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be
   evidence that they are about to abscond with their property;
   so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of
   torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent
   disposition of property."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries on American Law;
      edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr.,
      volume 2 (foot-note)._

   "In many states the Constitution provides
   (A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt:
      Indiana. C. 1, 22;
      Minnesota. C. I, 12;
      Kansas. C. B.  Rts. 16;
      Maryland. C. 3, 38;
      North Carolina. C. 1, 16;
      Missouri. C. 2. 16;
      Texas. C. 1, 18;
      Oregon. C. 1, 19;
      Nevada. C. 1, 14;
      South Carolina. C. 1, 20;
      Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21;
      Alabama. C. 1, 21;
      Mississippi. C. 1, 11;
      Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.

   (B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt
   (1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states:
      Ohio. C. 1, 15;
      Iowa. C. 1, 19;
      Nebraska. C. 1, 20;
      Tennessee. C. 1, 18;
      Arkansas. C. 2, 16;
      California. C. 1, 15;
      Oregon. C. 1, 15;
      Arizona. B. Uts. 18.

      (2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in
      three states:
      New Jersey. C. 1, 17;
      Michigan. C. 6, 33;
      Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.

   (C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt
   in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for
   the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law;
      Vermont. C. 2, 33;
      Rhode Island. C. 1, 11;
      Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16;
      Illinois. C. 2, 12;
      Kentucky. C. 13, 19;
      Colorado. C. 2, 12.

   … But the above principles are subject to the following
   exceptions in the several states respectively:

   (1) a debtor may be imprisoned in criminal actions: Tennessee.

   So  (2) for the non-payment of fines or penalties imposed by
   law: Missouri.

   So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud:
      Vermont,
      Rhode Island,
      New Jersey,
      Pennsylvania,
      Ohio,
      Indiana,
      Illinois,
      Michigan,
      Iowa,
      Minnesota,
      Kansas,
      Nebraska,
      North Carolina,
      Kentucky,
      Arkansas,
      California,
      Oregon,
      Nevada,
      Colorado,
      South Carolina,
      Florida,
      Arizona.

   And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the
   punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor
   concealed from his creditors:
      Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6;
      Louisiana. C. 223.

   So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon.
   Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada.
   (6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado.
   (7) In cases of malicious mischief: California.
   (8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona.
   (9) Or of moneys collected by public officers,
   or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."

      _F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law:
      Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public
      Statutes of all the States and Territories relating
      to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886,
      art. 8._

----------DEBT: End----------

DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
      The new republican calendar.

DECAMISADOS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

DECATUR, Commodore Stephen.
   Burning of the "Philadelphia."

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.

   In the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813; 1814.

DECCAN, The.

      See INDIA: THE NAME;
      and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

DECELIAN WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DECEMVIRS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

DECIUS: Roman Emperor. A. D. 249-251.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (American).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE),
      and (JULY);
      also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{653}

DECLARATION OF PARIS, The.

   "At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the
   conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see
   RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was
   signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the
   powers represented there, which contained four articles:
   'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The
   neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of
   contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband
   of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.
   Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective—that is
   to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent
   access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other
   powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in
   signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The
   objection on the part of the United States was stated in a
   circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who
   "maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as
   incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents;
   and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to
   increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and
   France, without even benefiting the general cause of
   civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of
   capturing private property, the United States, which had at
   that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small
   navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. … The
   President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the
   first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress
   of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property
   of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas
   shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the
   other belligerent, except it be contraband.' … Among the
   minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a
   general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but
   England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently
   withdrawn. "Events … have shown that … our refusal to
   accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer
   to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the
   'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private
   property on the seas.'"

      _E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International law of the United States,
      chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3)._

      _H. Adams,
      Historical Essays,
      chapter 6._

      See, also, PRIVATEERS.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN,
   French Revolutionary.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

DECLARATORY ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

DECRETA, Roman imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

DECRETALS, The False.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

DECUMÆ.

      See VECTIGAL.

DECUMATES LAND.

      See AGRI DECUMATES,
      also ALEMANNI;
      and SUEVI.

DECURIONES.

      See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

DEDITITIUS.
COLONUS.
SERVUS.

   "The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at
   the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could
   not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land,
   hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that
   land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of
   receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called
   the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom
   he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not
   yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an
   end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible
   for his land. … On his death his sons, who had utterly lost
   their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves
   confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without
   resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that
   they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the
   great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers,
   half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient
   accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the
   middle ages. … Before long they became mere slaves (Servi)
   without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 10._

   With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase
   in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by
   Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was
   not a district without them), the small proprietors could no
   longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class,
   wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others
   crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others
   voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the
   land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or
   coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class
   was formed and increased. … After a successful war these
   serfs were given … to landed proprietors without payment;
   and in this way not only was the class of free peasants
   diminished or altogether destroyed—a happier result—the
   slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were
   not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves,
   and in several imperial constitutions they are caned
   'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold
   property. … On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves
   in that they were liable to personal punishment. … A colonus
   was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit
   of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor
   could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of
   selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was
   compelled to sell the coloni along with it. … The position
   of these villeins was a very miserable one. … These coloni
   in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants
   still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than
   their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves
   over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called
   Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly;
   and under this name recur often in the course of the next
   century both in Gaul and Spain."

      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 4._

DEEMSTERS.

      See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

DEFENDERS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1784.

DEFENESTRATION AT PRAGUE, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

DEFTERDARS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

DEICOLÆ, The.

      See CULDEES.

DEIRA, The kingdom of.

   One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called
   the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it.
   Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of
   it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{654}

DEKARCHIES.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

DEKELEIA.
DEKELEIAN WAR.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DELATION.
DELATORS.

   Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous
   class of men who bore a certain resemblance—with significant
   contrasts likewise—to the sycophants of Athens. They were
   known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The
   delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal
   officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the
   state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the
   title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their
   fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of
   law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards
   to the information given against transgressors of his marriage
   laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and
   suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest
   encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of
   Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were
   one and the same person. There was no public accuser, … but
   the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to
   demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity
   of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of
   prosecution was thus removed from the government to the
   private delator."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 44._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

DELAWARE BAY: A. D. 1609.
   Discovered by Henry Hudson.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

DELAWARE BAY:
   The error perpetuated in its name.

   "Almost every writer on American history that I have met with
   appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped
   error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage
   to Virginia in 1610.' … Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter
   of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to
   Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his
   approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the
   American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land
   to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The
   first European who is really known to have entered the bay,
   after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. … The
   name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to
   the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, appendix, note D._

----------DELAWARE BAY: End----------

DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
   The Dutch occupancy and first settlement.

   The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by
   the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's
   discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding
   the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part
   of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon
   ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New
   Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and
   Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber,
   bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to
   the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of
   an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort
   Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his
   council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and
   comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that
   state. … A company was soon formed to colonize the tract
   acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in
   Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a
   company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the
   historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries,
   were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship
   of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with
   emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements,
   embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of
   Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for
   a whale fishery on the coast. … Early in the spring of 1631,
   the … vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape
   Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty
   souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to
   Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with
   palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the
   country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of
   Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state.
   That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this
   colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to
   complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied
   Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of
   Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian
   chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on
   the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this
   sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at
   Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of
   Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command
   of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the
   destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset,
   the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and
   the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of
   the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found
   only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed
   by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      part 2, chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1632.
   Embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
   The planting of the Swedish colony.

   "William Usselinx, a distinguished merchant in Stockholm, was
   the first to propose to the Swedish government a scheme for
   planting a colony in America. He was a native of Antwerp, and
   had resided in Spain, Portugal and the Azores, at a time when
   the spirit of foreign adventure pervaded every class of
   society. … In the year 1624 he proposed to the Swedish
   monarch, Gustavus Adolphus, a plan for the organization of a
   trading company, to extend its operations to Asia, Africa,
   America and Terra Magellanica. …
{655}
   Whether Usselinx had ever been in America is uncertain, but he
   had, soon after the organization of the Dutch West India
   Company, some connection with it, and by this and other means
   was able to give ample information in relation to the country
   bordering on the Delaware, its soil, climate, and productions.
   … His plan and contract were translated into the Swedish
   language by Schrader, the royal interpreter, and published to
   the nation, with an address strongly appealing both to their
   piety and their love of gain. The king recommended it to the
   States, and an edict dated at Stockholm, July 2d, 1626, was
   issued by royal authority, in which people of all ranks were
   invited to encourage the project and support the Company.
   Books were opened for subscription to the stock … and
   Gustavus pledged the royal treasure for its support to the
   amount of 400,000 dollars. … The work was ripe for
   execution, when the German war [the Thirty Years War], and
   afterwards the king's death, prevented it, and rendered the
   fair prospect fruitless. … The next attempt on the part of
   the Swedes to plant a colony in America was more successful.
   But there has been much difference among historians in
   relation to the period when that settlement was made. … It
   is owing to the preservation, among the Dutch records at
   Albany, of an official protest issued by Kieft, the Governor
   at New Amsterdam, that we do certainly know the Swedes were
   here in the spring of 1638. Peter Minuit, who conducted to our
   shore the first Swedish colony, had been Commercial Agent, and
   Director General of the Dutch West India Company, and Governor
   of the New Netherlands. … At this time Christina, the infant
   daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had ascended the throne of
   Sweden. … Under the direction of Oxenstiern, the celebrated
   chancellor of Sweden, whose wisdom and virtue have shed a
   glory on the age in which he lived, the patent which had been
   granted in the reign of Gustavus to the company formed under
   the influence of Usselinx was renewed, and its privileges
   extended to the citizens of Germany. Minuit, being now out of
   employment, and probably deeming himself injured by the
   conduct of the Dutch Company [which had displaced him from the
   governorship of the New Netherlands, through the influence of
   the patroons, and appointed Wouter Van Twiller, a clerk, to
   succeed him], had determined to offer his services to the
   crown of Sweden. … Minuit laid before the chancellor a plan
   of procedure, urged a settlement on the Delaware, and offered
   to conduct the enterprise. Oxenstiern represented the case to
   the queen … and Minuit was commissioned to command and
   direct the expedition."

      _B. Ferris,
      History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
      part 1, chapters 2-3._

   "With two ships laden with provisions and other supplies
   requisite for the settlement of emigrants in a new country,
   and with fifty colonists, Minuit sailed from Sweden late in
   1637, and entered Delaware Bay in April, 1638. He found the
   country as he had left it, without white inhabitants. Minqua
   Kill, now Wilmington, was selected as the place for the first
   settlement, where he bought a few acres of land of the
   natives, landed his colonists and stores, erected a fort, and
   began a small plantation. He had conducted his enterprise with
   some secrecy, that he might avoid collision with the Dutch;
   but the watchful eyes of their agents soon discovered him, and
   reported his presence to the director at New Amsterdam. Kieft
   [successor to Van Twiller] had just arrived, and it became one
   of his first duties to notify a man who had preceded him in
   office that he was a trespasser and warn him off. Minuit,
   knowing that Kieft was powerless to enforce his protest, being
   without troops or money, paid no attention to his missive, and
   kept on with his work. … He erected a fort of considerable
   strength, named Christina, for the Swedish queen, and
   garrisoned it with 24 soldiers. Understanding the character of
   the Indians, he conciliated their sachems by liberal presents
   and secured the trade. In a few months he was enabled to load
   his ships with peltries and despatch them to his patrons. …
   The colony had to all appearance a promising future. …
   Within two years, however, their prospects were clouded. The
   Company had failed to send out another ship with supplies and
   merchandise for the Indian trade. Provisions failed, trade
   fell off, and sickness began to prevail. … They resolved to
   remove to Manhattan, where they could at least have 'enough to
   eat.' On the eve of 'breaking up' to carry their resolution
   into effect, succor came from an unexpected quarter. The fame
   of New Sweden, as the colony was called, of its fertile lands
   and profitable trade, had reached other nations of Europe. In
   Holland itself a company was formed to establish a settlement
   under the patronage of the Swedish Company." This Dutch
   company "freighted a ship with colonists and supplies, which
   fortunately arrived when the Swedish colony was about to be
   broken up and the country abandoned. The spirits of the Swedes
   were revived. … Their projected removal was indefinitely
   deferred and they continued their work with fresh vigor. The
   Dutch colonists were located in a settlement by themselves,
   only a few miles from Fort Christina. They were loyal to the
   Swedes. … In the autumn of the same year, 1640, Peter
   Hollaendare, who had been appointed deputy governor of the
   colony, and Moens Kling, arrived from Sweden with three ships
   laden with provisions and merchandise for the straitened
   colonists. They also brought out a considerable company of new
   emigrants. New Sweden was now well established and prosperous.
   More lands were bought, and new settlements were made. Peter
   Minuit died the following year."

      _G. W. Schuyler,
      Colonial New York,
      volume 1, introduction, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Acrelius,
      History of New Sweden
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem., volume 11)
      chapter 1._

      _Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 12._

      _G. B. Keen,
      New Sweden
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 9)._

      _J. F. Jameson,
      Willem Usselinx
      (Papers of the American Historical Association,
      volume 2, number 3)._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1643.
   Intrusions of the English from New Haven.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

DELAWARE. A. D. 1640-1656.
   The struggle between the Swedes and the Dutch and the final
   victory of the latter.

   "The [Swedish] colony grew to such importance that John
   Printz, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry, was sent out in 1642
   as governor, with orders for developing industry and trade. He
   took pains to command the mouth of the river, although the
   Dutch had established Fort Nassau on its eastern bank, and the
   Swedish settlements were on the western bank exclusively.
{656}
   Collisions arose between the Dutch and the Swedes, and when
   the former put up the arms of the States General on the
   completion of a purchase of lands from the Indians, Printz in
   a passion ordered them to be torn down. The Swedes gained in
   strength while the Dutch lost ground in the vicinity. In 1648
   the Dutch attempted to build a trading post on the Schuylkill,
   when they were repulsed by force by the Swedes. Individuals
   seeking to erect houses were treated in the same way. The
   Swedes in turn set up a stockade on the disputed ground.
   Director Stuyvesant found it necessary in 1651 to go to confer
   with Printz with a view to holding the country against the
   aggressive English. The Indians were called into council and
   confirmed the Dutch title, allowing the Swedes little more
   than the site of Fort Christina. Fort Casimir was erected
   lower down the river, to protect Dutch interests. The two
   rulers agreed to be friends and allies, and so continued for
   three years. The distress of the Swedish colony led to appeals
   for aid from the home country whither Governor Printz had
   returned. In 1654 help was given, and a new governor, John
   Claude Rysingh, marked his coming by the capture of Fort
   Casimir, pretending that the Dutch West India Company
   authorized the act. The only revenge the Dutch could take was
   the seizure of a Swedish vessel which by mistake ran into
   Manhattan Bay. But the next year orders came from Holland
   exposing the fraud of Rysingh, and directing the expulsion of
   the Swedes from the South River. A fleet was organized and
   Director Stuyvesant recovered Fort Casimir without firing a
   gun. After some parley Fort Christina was also surrendered.
   Such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance to the
   Dutch authorities were sent to the home country. Only twenty
   persons accepted the oath, and of three clergymen two were
   expelled, and the third escaped like treatment by the sudden
   outbreak of Indian troubles. In 1656 the States General and
   Sweden made these transactions [a] matter of international
   discussion. The Swedes presented a protest against the action
   of the Dutch, and it was talked over, but the matter was
   finally dropped. In the same year the West India Company sold
   its interests on the South River to the city of Amsterdam, and
   the colony of New Amstel was erected, so that the authority of
   New Netherland was extinguished."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Armstrong,
      Introduction to the Record of Upland
      (Historical Society of Pennsylvania Memoirs, volume 7)._

      _B. Ferris,
      History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
      part 1, chapter 6-7._

      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 62-228._

      _Report of the Amsterdam Chamber of the W. I. Co.
      (Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 587-646)._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.
   Conquest by the English, and annexation to New York.

   "Five days after the capitulation of New Amsterdam
   [surrendered by the Dutch to the English, Aug. 29, 1664 see
   NEW YORK: A. D. 1664] Nicolls, with Cartwright and Maverick
   … commissioned their colleague, Sir Robert Carr, to go,"
   with three ships and an adequate military force, "and reduce
   the Delaware settlements. Carr was instructed to promise the
   Dutch the possession of all their property and all their
   present privileges, 'only that they change their masters.' To
   the Swedes he was to 'remonstrate their happy return under a
   monarchical government, and his majesty's good inclination to
   that nation.' To Lord Baltimore's officers in Maryland, he was
   to declare that their proprietor's pretended right to the
   Delaware being 'a doubtful case,' possession would be kept for
   the king 'till his majesty is informed and satisfied
   otherwise.' … The Swedes were soon made friends," but the
   Dutch attempted [October] some resistance, and yielded only
   after a couple of broadsides from the ships had killed three
   and wounded ten of their garrison. "Carr now landed … and
   claimed the pillage for himself as 'won by the sword.'
   Assuming an authority independent of Nicolls, he claimed to be
   the 'sole and chief commander and disposer' of all affairs on
   the Delaware." His acts of rapacity and violence, when
   reported to his fellow commissioners, at New York, were
   condemned and repudiated, and Nicolls, the presiding
   commissioner, went to the Delaware in person to displace him.
   "Carr was severely rebuked, and obliged to give up much of his
   ill-gotten spoil. Nevertheless, he could not be persuaded to
   leave the place for some time. The name of New Amstel was now
   changed to New Castle, and an infantry garrison established
   there. … Captain John Carr was appointed commander of the
   Delaware, in subordination to the government of New York, to
   which it was annexed 'as an appendage'; and thus affairs
   remained for several years."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

DELAWARE: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674.
   Final recovery by the English.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674-1760.
   In dispute between the Duke of York and the
   Proprietary of Maryland.
   Grant by the Duke to William Penn:

      See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1682; 1685; and 1760-1767.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.
   The practical independence of Penn's "lower counties" acquired.

   "In April, 1691, with the reluctant consent of William Penn,
   the 'territories,' or 'lower counties,' now known as the State
   of Delaware, became for two years a government by themselves
   under Markham. … The disturbance by Keith [see PENNSYLVANIA;
   A. D. 1692-1696] creating questions as to the administration
   of justice, confirmed the disposition of the English
   government to subject Pennsylvania to a royal commission; and
   in April 1693, Benjamin Fletcher, appointed governor by
   William and Mary, once more united Delaware to Pennsylvania."
   But Penn, restored to his authority in 1694, could not resist
   the jealousies which tended so strongly to divide the Delaware
   territories from Pennsylvania proper. "In 1702, Pennsylvania
   convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were
   never again united. The lower counties became almost an
   independent republic; for, as they were not included in the
   charter, the authority of the proprietary over them was by
   sufferance only, and the executive power intrusted to the
   governor of Pennsylvania was too feeble to restrain the power
   of their people. The legislature, the tribunals, the
   subordinate executive officers of Delaware knew little of
   external control."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the United States.
      (author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

   The question of jurisdiction over Delaware was involved
   throughout in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries
   of Pennsylvania and Maryland.

      See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1685; and 1760-1767.

{657}

DELAWARE: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1766-1774
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767 to 1774;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768 to 1773.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the war of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1776.
   Further introduction of slaves prohibited.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1776-1808.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1777-1779.
   Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1787.
   The adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

DELAWARE: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Refusal of troops on the call of President Lincoln.

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

----------DELAWARE: End----------

DELAWARE RIVER,
   Washington's passage of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

DELAWARES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

DELFT: Assassination of the Prince of Orange (1584).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

DELHI: 11th Century.
   Capture by Mahmoud of Gazna.

         See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

DELHI: A. D. 1192-1290.
   The capital of the Mameluke or Slave dynasty.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

DELHI: A. D. 1399.
   Sack and massacre by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

DELHI: A. D. 1526-1605.
   The founding of the Mogul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

DELHI: A. D. 1739.
   Sack and massacre by Nadir Shah.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

DELHI: A. D. 1760-1761.
   Taken and plundered by the Mahrattas.
   Then by the Afghans.
   Collapse of the Mogul Empire.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

DELHI: A. D. 1857.
   The Sepoy Mutiny.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Explosion of the magazine.
   English siege and capture of the city.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST)
      and (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

----------DELHI: End----------

DELIAN CONFEDERACY.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

DELIAN FESTIVAL.

      See DELOS.

DELIUM, Battle of (B. C. 424).

   A serious defeat suffered by the Athenians in the
   Peloponnesian War, B. C. 424, at the hands of the Thebans and
   other Bœotians. It was consequent upon the seizure by the
   Athenians of the Bœotian temple of Delium—a temple of
   Apollo—on the sea-coast, about five miles from Tanagra, which
   they fortified and intended to hold. After the defeat of the
   army which was returning from this exploit, the garrison left
   at Delium was besieged and mostly captured. Among the hoplites
   who fought at Delium was the philosopher Socrates. The
   commander Hippocrates was slain.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 4, sections 89-100._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 53._

      See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

DELOS.

   Delos, the smallest island of the group called the Cyclades,
   but the most important in the eyes of the Ionian Greeks, being
   their sacred isle, the fabled birthplace of Apollo and long
   the chief seat and center of his worship. "The Homeric Hymn to
   Apollo presents to us the island of Delos as the centre of a
   great periodical festival in honour of Apollo, celebrated by
   all the cities, insular and continental, of the Ionic name.
   What the date of this hymn is, we have no means of
   determining: Thucydides quotes it, without hesitation, as the
   production of Homer, and, doubtless, it was in his time
   universally accepted as such,—though modern critics concur in
   regarding both that and the other hymns as much later than the
   Iliad and Odyssey. It cannot probably be later than 600 B. C.
   The description of the Ionic visitors presented to us in this
   hymn is splendid and imposing; the number of their ships, the
   display of their finery, the beauty of their women, the
   athletic exhibitions as well as the matches of song and
   dance,—all these are represented as making an ineffaceable
   impression on the spectator: 'the assembled Ionians look as if
   they were beyond the reach of old age or death.' Such was the
   magnificence of which Delos was the periodical theatre, and
   which called forth the voices and poetical genius not merely
   of itinerant bards, but also of the Delian maidens in the
   temple of Apollo, during the century preceding 560 B. C. At
   that time it was the great central festival of the Ionians in
   Asia and Europe."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 12._

   During the war with Persia, Delos was made the common treasury
   of the Greeks; but Athens subsequently took the custody and
   management of the treasury to herself and reduced Delos to a
   dependency. The island was long the seat of an extensive
   commerce, and Delian bronze was of note in the arts.

DELOS: B. C. 490.
   Spared by the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

DELOS: B. C. 477.
   The Delian Confederacy.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

DELOS: B. C. 461-454 (?).
   Removal of the Confederate treasury to Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

DELOS: B. C. 425-422.
   Purifications.

   "In the midst of the losses and turmoil of the [Peloponnesian]
   war it had been determined [at Athens] to offer a solemn
   testimony of homage to Apollo on Delos, [B. C. 425]—a homage
   doubtless connected with the complete cessation of the
   pestilence, which had lasted as long as the fifth year of the
   war. The solemnity consisted in the renewed consecration of
   the entire island to the divine Giver of grace; all the
   coffins containing human remains being removed from Delos, and
   Rhenea appointed to be henceforth the sole burial-place. This
   solemnity supplemented the act formerly performed by the
   orders of Pisistratus, and it was doubtless in the present
   instance also intended, by means of a brilliant renewal of the
   Delian celebration, to strengthen the power of Athens in the
   island sea, to give a festive centre to the Ionic world. …
   But the main purpose was clearly one of morality and religion.
   It was intended to calm and edify the minds of the citizens."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2._

{658}

   Three years later (B. C. 422) the Athenians found some reason
   for another purification of Delos which was more radical,
   consisting in the expulsion of all the inhabitants from the
   island. The unfortunate Delians found an asylum at Adramyttium
   in Asia, until they were restored to their homes next year,
   through the influence of the Delphic oracle.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 5, section 1._

DELOS: B. C. 88.
   Pontic Massacre.

   Early in the first war of Mithridates with the Romans (B. C.
   88), Delos, which had been made a free port and had become the
   emporium of Roman commerce in the east, was seized by a Pontic
   fleet, and pillaged, 20,000 Italians being massacred on the
   island. The treasures of Delos were sent to Athens and the
   island restored to the Athenian control.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 17._

DELOS: B. C. 69.
   Ravaged by Pirates.

   "Almost under the eyes of the fleet of Lucullus, the pirate
   Athenodorus surprised in 685 [B. C. 69] the island of Delos,
   destroyed its far-famed shrines and temples, and carried off
   the whole population into slavery."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2._

DELOS: Slave Trade under the Romans.

   "Thrace and Sarmatia were the Guinea Coast of the Romans. The
   entrepôt of this trade was Delos, which had been made a free
   port by Rome after the conquest of Macedonia. Strabo tells us
   that in one day 10,000 slaves were sold there in open market.
   Such were the vile uses to which was put the Sacred Island,
   once the treasury of Greece."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 48._

----------DELOS: End----------

DELPHI.
KRISSA (CRISSA).
KIRRHA (CIRRHA).

   "In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was
   composed the town of Krissa [in Phocis, near Delphi] appears
   to have been great and powerful, possessing all the broad
   plain between Parnassus, Kirphis, and the gulf, to which
   latter it gave its name,—and possessing also, what was a
   property not less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of Pytho
   itself, which the Hymn identifies with Krissa, not indicating
   Delphi as a separate place. The Krissæans, doubtless, derived
   great profits from the number of visitors who came to visit
   Delphi, both by land and by sea, and Kirrha was originally
   only the name for their seaport. Gradually, however, the port
   appears to have grown in importance at the expense of the
   town; … while at the same time the sanctuary of Pytho with
   its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and came
   to claim an independent existence of its own. … In addition
   to the above facts, already sufficient in themselves as seeds
   of quarrel, we are told that the Kirrhæans abused their
   position as masters of the avenue to the temple by sea, and
   levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed there. …
   Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they
   had also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbours by
   outrages upon women, Phocian as well as Argeian, who were
   returning from the temple. Thus stood the case, apparently,
   about 595 B. C., when the Amphiktyonic meeting interfered …
   to punish the Kirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first
   Sacred War in Greece, this object was completely accomplished,
   by a joint force of Thessalians under Eurylochus, Sikyonians
   under Kleisthenes, and Athenians under Alkmæon; the Athenian
   Solon being the person who originated and enforced, in the
   Amphiktyonic council, the proposition of interference. Kirrha
   … was destroyed, or left to subsist merely as a landing
   place; and the whole adjoining plain was consecrated to the
   Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. … The fate
   of Kirrha in this war is ascertained: that of Krissa is not so
   clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or left
   subsisting in a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi.
   From this time forward, the Delphian community appears as
   substantive and autonomous, exercising in their own right the
   management of the temple; though we shall find, on more than
   one occasion, that the Phocians contest this right. … The
   spoils of Kirrha were employed by the victorious allies in
   founding the Pythian Games. The octennial festival hitherto
   celebrated at Delphi in honour of the god, including no other
   competition except in the harp and the pæan, was expanded into
   comprehensive games on the model of the Olympic, with matches
   not only of music, but also of gymnastics and
   chariots,—celebrated, not at Delphi itself, but on the
   maritime plain near the ruined Kirrha,—and under the direct
   superintendence of the Amphiktyons themselves. … They were
   celebrated in the latter half of summer, or first half of
   every third Olympic year. … Nothing was conferred but
   wreaths of laurel."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 28._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 610-586;
      PYTHO; ORACLES OF THE GREEKS;
      and AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

DELPHI: B. C. 357-338.
   Seizure by the Phocians.
   The Sacred Wars.
   Deliverance by Philip of Macedon.
   War with Amphissa.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

DELPHI: B. C. 279.
   Discomfiture of the Gauls.

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

----------DELPHI: End----------

DELPHIC ORACLE, The.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

DELPHIC SIBYL, The.

      See SIBYLS.

DEMES.
DEMI.

      See PHYLÆ; also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

DEMETES, The.
   One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DEMETRIUS,
   The Impostor.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

   Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310, 310-301;
      also GREECE: B. C. 307-301;
      and RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

DEMIURGI.
COSMOS.
TAGOS OR TAGUS.

   Of the less common titles applied among the ancient Greeks to
   their supreme magistrates, are "Cosmos, or Cosmios, and Tagos
   (signifying Arranger and Commander), the former of which we
   find in Crete, the latter in the Thessalian cities. With the
   former we may compare the title of Cosmopolis, which was in
   use among the Epizephyrian Locrians. A more frequent title is
   that of Demiurgi, a name which seems to imply a constitution
   no longer oligarchical, but which bestowed certain rights on
   the Demos. In the time of the Peloponnesian war magistrates of
   this kind existed in Elis and in the Arcadian Mantinæa. …
   The title is declared by Grammarians to have been commonly
   used among the Dorians. … A similar title is that of
   Demuchus, which the supreme magistrates of Thespiæ in Bœotia
   seem to have borne. … The Artyni at Epidaurus and Argos we
   have already mentioned."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 5._

{659}

DEMOCRATIC OR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1789-1792; 1825-1828; 1845-1846.

DEMOSTHENES,
   the general at Sphacteria and at Syracuse.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425,
      and SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

   Demosthenes the orator,
   The Phillipics, and the Death of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, 351-348,
      and 323-322;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 359-338, and 336-322.

DEMOTIC WRITING.

      See HIEROGLYPHICS.

DEMUCHUS.

      See DEMIURGI.

DENAIN. Battle of (1712).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

DENARIUS, The.

      See AS.

DENDERMONDE.
   Surrender to the Spaniards (1584).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

DENIS, King of Portugal, A. D. 1279-1323.

DENMARK.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

DENNEWITZ, OR JÜTERBOGK, Battle of.

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

DENNIKON, Peace of (1531).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

DENVER, The founding of.

      See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

DEORHAM, Battle of.

   Fought A. D. 577, near Bath, England, between the invading
   West Saxons and the Britons. The victory of the former gave
   them possession of the lower valley of the Severn and
   practically completed the Saxon conquest of England.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      pages 125-131._

DERBEND, Pass of.

      See JUROIPACH.

DERBY-DISRAELI MINISTRIES The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859;
      and 1868-1870.

DERRY.

      See LONDONDERRY.

DE RUSSY, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

DESERET, The proposed state of.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

DESMONDS, The.

      See GERALDINES.

DESMOULINS, Camille, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY); 1790;
      1792 (AUGUST), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

DESPOT OF EPIRUS.

   "The title of despot, by which they [the mediæval princes of
   Epirus] are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary
   distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family
   until it had been conferred on them by the Greek Emperor."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 6, section 1._

      See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

DESPOTS,
   Greek.

      See TYRANTS.

   Italian.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

DESSAU, Battle of (1626).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

DESTRIERS.
PALFREYS.

   "A cavaliere or man-at-arms was accompanied by one 'Destriero'
   or strong war-horse, and one or two, sometimes three, mounted
   squires who led the animal fully caparisoned; or carried the
   helmet; lance and shield of their master: these 'Destrieri'
   ('rich and great horses' as Villani calls them), were so named
   because they were led on the right hand without any rider, and
   all ready for mounting: the squire's horses were of an
   inferior kind called 'Ronzini,' and on the 'Palafreni' or
   palfreys the knight rode when not in battle."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      volume 1, page 633._

DESTROYING ANGELS, OR DANITES.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.

DETROIT:
   First occupied by the Coureurs de Bois.

      See COUREURS DE BOIS.

DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.
   The first French forts.
   Cadillac's founding of the city.

   At the beginning of the war called "Queen Anne's War" (1702)
   "Detroit had already been established. In June, 1701, la Mothe
   Cadillac, with a Jesuit father and 100 men, was sent to
   construct a fort and occupy the country; hence he is spoken of
   as the founder of the city. In 1686, a fort [called Fort St.
   Joseph] had been constructed to the south of the present city,
   where Fort Gratiot now stands, but it soon fell into decay and
   was abandoned. It was not the site selected by Cadillac."

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      volume 2, page 408._

   "Fort St. Joseph was abandoned in the year 1688. The
   establishment of Cadillac was destined to a better fate and
   soon rose to distinguished importance among the western
   outposts of Canada."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      volume 1, page 218._

DETROIT: A. D. 1701-1755.
   Importance to the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

DETROIT: A. D. 1712.
   Siege by the Foxes and Massacre of that tribe.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

DETROIT: A. D. 1760.
   The French settlement when surrendered to the English.

   "The French inhabitants here are settled on both sides of the
   river for about eight miles. When I took possession of the
   country soon after the surrender of Canada [see CANADA: A. D.
   1760], they were about 2,500 in number, there being near 500
   that bore arms (to whom I administered oaths of allegiance)
   and near 300 dwelling houses. Our fort here is built of
   stockadoes, is about 25 feet high, and 1,200 yards in
   circumference. … The inhabitants raise wheat and other grain
   in abundance, and have plenty of cattle, but they enrich
   themselves chiefly by their trade with the Indians, which is
   here very large and lucrative."

      _Major R. Rogers,
      Concise Account of North America,
      page 168._

DETROIT: A. D. 1763.
   Pontiac's Siege.

         See PONTIAC'S WAR.

DETROIT: A. D. 1775-1783.
   Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
      CLARK'S CONQUEST.

DETROIT: A. D. 1805.
   Made the seat of government of the Territory of Michigan.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

DETROIT: A. D. 1812.
   The surrender of General Hull.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

DETROIT: A. D 1813.
   American recovery.

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

{660}

DETTINGEN, Battle of (1743).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

DEUSDEDIT, Pope, A. D. 615-618.

DEUTSCH. Origin of the name.

      See GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAME.

DEUTSCHBROD, Battle of (1422).

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

DEVA.

   One of the Roman garrison towns in
Britain, on the site of which is modern Chester,
taking its name from the castra or fortified
station of the legions. It was the station of
the 20th legion.

      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 5.

DEVE-BOYUN, Battle of (1878).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

DEVIL'S CAUSEWAY, The.
   The popular name of an old Roman road in England which runs
   from Silchester to London.

DEVIL'S HOLE,
   The ambuscade and massacre at.

   On the 13th of September, 1763, during the progress of
   Pontiac's War, a train of wagons and packhorses, traversing
   the Niagara portage between Lewiston and Fort Schlosser,
   guarded by an escort of 24 soldiers, was ambuscaded by a party
   of Seneca warriors at the place called the Devil's Hole, three
   miles below the Niagara cataract. Seventy of the whites were
   slain, and only three escaped.

      _F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

DEVON COMMISSION, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.

DEVONSHIRE, in the British age.

      See DUMNONII.

DE WITT, John,
   The administration and the murder of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.

DHIHAD.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

DIACRII, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

DIADOCHI, The.

   The immediate successors of Alexander the Great, who divided
   his empire, are sometimes so-called. "The word diadochi means
   'successors,' and is used to include Antigonus, Ptolemy,
   Seleucus, Lysimachus, etc.—the actual companions of
   Alexander."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 5._

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

DIAMOND, Battle of the (1795).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

DIAMOND DISCOVERY IN SOUTH AFRICA (1867).

      See GRIQUAS.

DIAMOND NECKLACE, The affair of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

DIASPORA, The.

   A name applied to the Jews scattered throughout the Roman
   world.

DIAZ, Porfirio, The Mexican presidency of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1888.

DICASTERIA.

   The great popular court, or jury, in ancient Athens, called
   the Heliæa, or Heliastæ consisting at one time of six thousand
   chosen citizens, was divided into ten sections, called
   Dicasteria. Their places of meeting also bore the same name.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

      See ATHENS: B. C.445-431.

DICKINSON, John, in the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1767-1768; 1774 (SEPTEMBER);
      1776 (JULY).

DICTATOR, Roman.

      See CONSULS, ROMAN.

DIDIAN LAW, The.

      See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

DIDIER, OR DESIDERIUS,
   King of the Lombards, A. D. 759-774.

DIDYMÆUM, The oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

DIEDENHOFEN, Battle of (1639).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

DIEPPE.
   Bombardment and destruction by an English fleet.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.

DIES ATRI.

   The days on which the Romans thought it unlucky to undertake
   business of importance—for example, the day after the
   Calends, Nones and Ides of each month—were called Dies Atri.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 11._

DIES FASTI.
   Dies Nefasti.
   Dies Festi.

      See FASTI, and LUDI.

DIET.

   "An assembly, council, … Parliament. … The peculiar sense
   of the word undoubtedly arose from a popular etymology that
   connected it with the Latin 'dies,' a day, especially a set day, a
   day appointed for public business; whence, by extension, a
   meeting for business, an assembly."

      _W. W. Skeat,
      Etymological Dictionary_

DIET:
   The Germanic.

   "The annual general councils and special councils of Charles
   the Great did not long survive him, and neither his
   descendants nor their successors revived them. They were
   compelled, to be sure, both by custom and by policy to advise
   with the chief men of the kingdom before taking any important
   step or doing anything that depended for success on their
   consent and cooperation, but they varied the number of their
   counsellors and the time, place, and manner of consulting them
   to suit their own convenience. Great formal assemblies of
   counsellors summoned from all parts of the realm were termed
   Imperial Diets (Reichstage); small, or local, or informal
   assemblies of a similar kind were known as Court Diets
   (Hoftage). Princes and other royal vassals, margraves,
   palsgraves, Graves, barons, and even royal Dienstmannen were
   indiscriminately summoned, but the Diets were in no sense
   representative bodies until the Great Interregnum [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272] when certain cities acquired such
   influence in public affairs that they were invited to send
   delegates. The first Diet in which they participated was held
   at Worms in February, 1255, by King William of Holland. Most
   of the cities of the Rhenish League were there represented,
   and they constituted an important factor of the assembly. The
   affairs of the church shared attention with temporal affairs
   in the Diets until the Popes succeeded in making good their
   claims to supremacy in spiritual matters. Thereafter they were
   altogether left to synods and church councils. … Imperial
   Diets and Court Diets continued to be held at irregular
   intervals, whenever and wherever it pleased the king to
   convene them, but Imperial Diets were usually held in Imperial
   cities. These were not such heterogenous assemblies as
   formerly, for few royal vassals, except princes, and no royal
   Dienstmannen whatever were now invited to attend. Graves and
   barons, and prelates who were not princes, continued to be
   summoned, but the number and influence of the Graves and
   barons in the Diets steadily waned. Imperial cities were for
   many years only occasionally asked to participate, that is to
   say, only when the king had especial need of their good
   offices, but in the latter half of the 14th century they began
   to be regularly summoned.
{661}
   Imperial Diets were so frequently held during the Hussite War
   and thereafter, that it became pretty well settled what
   persons and what cities should take part in them, and only
   those persons and those cities that were entitled to take part
   in them were regarded as Estates of the realm. In the 15th
   century they developed into three chambers or colleges, viz.,
   the College of Electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152], the
   College of Princes, Graves, and Barons, usually called the
   Council of Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürstenrath), and the
   College of Imperial Cities. The Archbishop of Mentz presided
   in the College of Electors, and the Archbishop of Salzburg and
   the Duke of Austria presided alternately in the Council of
   Princes of the Empire. The office of presiding in the College
   of Imperial Cities devolved upon the Imperial city in which
   the Diet sat. The king and members of both the upper Colleges
   sometimes sent deputies to represent them, instead of
   attending in person. In 1474 the cities adopted a method of
   voting which resulted in a division of their College into two
   Benches, called the Rhenish Bench and the Swabian Bench,
   because the Rhenish cities were conspicuous members of the
   one, and the Swabian cities conspicuous members of the other.
   In the Council of Princes, at least, no regard was had to the
   number of votes cast, but only to the power and influence of
   the voters, whence a measure might pass the Diet by less than
   a majority of the votes present. Having passed, it was
   proclaimed as the law of the realm, upon receiving the king's
   assent, but was only effective law in so far as the members of
   the Diet, present or absent, assented to it. … Not a single
   Imperial Diet was summoned between 1613 and 1640. The king
   held a few Court Diets during that long interval, consisting
   either of the Electors alone, or of the Electors and such
   other Princes of the Empire as he chose to summon. The
   conditions of membership, and the manner of voting in the
   College of Electors and the College of Imperial Cities
   remained unchanged. … The cities long strove in vain to have
   their votes recognized as of equal weight with the others, but
   the two upper Colleges insisted on regarding them as summoned
   for consultation only, until the Peace of Westphalia settled
   the matter by declaring that 'a decisive vote (votum
   decisivum) shall belong to the Free Imperial Cities not less
   than to the rest of the Estates of the Empire.' Generally, but
   not always, the sense of each College was expressed by the
   majority of votes cast. The Peace of Westphalia provided that
   'in religious matters and all other business, when the Estates
   cannot be considered one body (corpus), as also when the
   Catholic Estates and those of the Augsburg Confession go into
   two parts (in duas partes euntibus), a mere amicable agreement
   shall settle the differences without regard to majority of
   votes.' When the 'going into parts,' (itio in partes) took
   place each College deliberated in two bodies, the Corpus
   Catholicorum and the Corpus Evangelicorum. The king no longer
   attended the Imperial Diets in person, but sent commissioners
   instead, and it was now the common practice of members of both
   the upper Colleges to send deputies to represent them."

      _S. E. Turner,
      Sketch of the Germanic Constitution,
      chapters 4, 5, and 6._

   "The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the
   electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of
   the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign" (Leopold
   I., 1657-1705). This came about rather accidentally than with
   intention, as a consequence of the unusual prolongation of the
   session of a general diet which Rudolph convoked at Ratisbon,
   soon after his accession to the throne. "'So many new and
   important objects … occurred in the course of the
   deliberations that the diet was unusually prolonged, and at
   last rendered perpetual, as it exists at present, and
   distinguishes the Germanic constitution as the only one of its
   kind—not only for a certain length of time, as was formerly,
   and as diets are generally held in other countries, where
   there are national states; but the diet of the Germanic empire
   was established by this event for ever. The diet acquired by
   this circumstance an entirely different form. So long as it
   was only of short duration, it was always expected that the
   emperor, as well as the electors, princes, counts and
   prelates, if not all, yet the greatest part of them, should
   attend in person. … It is true, it had long been customary
   at the diets of Germany, for the states to deliver their votes
   occasionally by means of plenipotentiaries; but it was then
   considered only as an exception, whereas it was now
   established as a general rule, that all the states should send
   their plenipotentiaries, and never appear themselves. … The
   whole diet, therefore, imperceptibly acquired the form of a
   congress, consisting solely of ministers, similar in a great
   degree to a congress where several powers send their envoys to
   treat of peace. In other respects, it may be compared to a
   congress held in the name of several states in perpetual
   alliance with each other, as in Switzerland, the United
   Provinces, and as somewhat of a similar nature exists at
   present in North America; but with this difference,—that in
   Germany the assembly is held under the authority of one common
   supreme head, and that the members do not appear merely as
   deputies, or representatives invested with full power by their
   principals, which is only the case with the imperial cities;
   but so that every member of the two superior colleges of the
   empire is himself an actual sovereign of a state, who permits
   his minister to deliver his vote in his name and only
   according to his prescription.'"

      S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)—(quoting Putter's Historical
      Development of the Germanic Constitution.)

   Of the later Diet, of the Germanic Confederation, something
   may be learned under GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, and 1848
   (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

----------DIET: End----------

DIFFIDATION, The Right of.

      See LANDFRIEDE.

DIGITI.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

DIJON, Battle at.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

DIJON, Origin of.

   Dijon, the old capital of the Dukes of Burgundy, was
   originally a strong camp-city—an "urbs quadrata"—of the
   Romans, known as the Castrum Divionense. Its walls were 30
   feet high, 15 feet thick, and strengthened with 33 towers.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 9._

DILEMITES, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

DIMETIA.

      See BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.

DINAN, Battle of (1597).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

{662}

DINANT, Destruction of.

   In the 15th century, down to the year 1466, Dinant was a
   populous and thriving town. It was included in the little
   state of the prince-bishop of Liege, and was involved in the
   war of the Duke of Burgundy with Liege, which ruined both
   Liege and Dinant. "It was inhabited by a race of industrious
   artisans, preëminent for their skill in the manufacture of
   copper. The excellence of their workmanship is attested by
   existing specimens—organ-screens, baptismal fonts, and other
   ecclesiastical decorations. But the fame of Dinant had been
   chiefly spread by its production of more common and useful
   articles, especially of kitchen utensils,—'pots and pans and
   similar wares,'—which, under the name of 'Dinanderie,' were
   known to housewives throughout Europe." In the course of the
   war a party of rude young men from Dinant gave deep,
   unforgivable provocation to the Duke of Burgundy by
   caricaturing and questioning the paternity of his son, the
   count of Charolais, afterwards Duke Charles the Bold. To
   avenge this insult nothing less than the destruction of the
   whole city would satisfy the implacable and ferocious
   Burgundians. It was taken by the count of Charolais in August,
   1466. His first proceeding was to sack the town, in the most
   thorough and deliberate manner. Then 800 of the more obnoxious
   citizens were tied together in pairs and drowned in the Meuse,
   while others were hanged. This accomplished, the surviving
   women, children and priests were expelled from the town and
   sent empty-handed to Liege, while the men were condemned to
   slavery, with the privilege of ransoming themselves at a heavy
   price, if they found anywhere the means. Finally, the torch
   was applied, Dinant was burned, and contractors were
   subsequently employed by the Duke for several months, to
   demolish the ruins and remove the very materials of which the
   city had been built.

      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 1, chapters 8-9._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 3, chapters 138-139._

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 2, chapter 1._

DINWIDDIE COURT HOUSE, Action at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

DIOBOLY, The.

   Pericles "was the proposer of the law [at Athens] which
   instituted the 'Dioboly,' or free gift of two obols to each
   poor citizen, to enable him to pay the entrance-money at the
   theatre during the Dionysia."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      History of Greece,
      page 271._

      See ATHENS: B. C. 435-431.

DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

   "The civil government of the empire was distributed [under
   Constantine and his successors] into thirteen great dioceses,
   each of which equalled the just measure of a powerful kingdom.
   The first of these dioceses was subject to the jurisdiction of
   the Count of the East. The place of Augustal Præfect of Egypt
   was no longer filled by a Roman knight, but the name was
   retained. … The eleven remaining dioceses—of Asiana,
   Pontica, and Thrace; of Macedonia, Dacia and Pannonia, or
   Western Illyricum; of Italy and Africa; of Gaul, Spain, and
   Britain—were governed by twelve vicars or vice-præfects."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See PUÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

DIOCLETIAN, Roman Emperor.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

DIOCLETIAN: Abdication.

   "The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious
   plain about three miles from Nicomedia [May 1, A. D. 305]. The
   Emperor ascended a lofty throne, and, in a speech full of
   reason and dignity, declared his intention, both to the people
   and to the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary
   occasion. As soon as lie had divested himself of the purple,
   he withdrew from the gazing multitude, and, traversing the
   city in a covered chariot, proceeded without delay to the
   favourite retirement [Salona] which he had chosen in his
   native country of Dalmatia."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See, also, SALONA.

DIOKLÉS, Laws of.

   A code of laws framed at Syracuse, immediately after the
   Athenian siege, by a commission of ten citizens the chief of
   whom was one Dioklês. These laws were extinguished in a few
   years by the Dyonisian tyranny, but revived after a lapse of
   sixty years. The code is "also said to have been copied in
   various other Sicilian cities, and to have remained in force
   until the absorption of all Sicily under the dominion of the
   Romans."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 81._

DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.

   "The four principal Attik Dionysiak festivals were (1) the
   Dionysia Mikra, the Lesser or Rural Dionysia; (2) the Dionysia
   Lenaia; (3) the Anthesteria; and (4) the Dionysia Megala, the
   Greater or City Dionysia. The Rural Dionysia, celebrated
   yearly in the month Posideon (December-January) throughout the
   various townships of Attike, was presided over by the demarch
   or mayor. The celebration occasioned a kind of rustic
   carnival, distinguished like almost all Bakchik festivals, by
   gross intemperance and licentiousness, and during which slaves
   enjoyed a temporary freedom, with licence to insult their
   superiors and behave in a boisterous and disorderly manner. It
   is brought vividly before us in the 'Acharnes' of
   Aristophanes. … The Anthesteria, or Feast of Flowers,
   celebrated yearly in the month Anthesterion (February-March), …
   lasted for three days, the first of which was called
   Pithoigia, or Tap-barrel-day, on which they opened the casks
   and tried the wine of the previous year. … The Dionysia
   Megala, the Greater or City Dionysia, celebrated yearly in the
   month Elaphebolion (March-April) was presided over by the
   Archon Eponymos, so-called because the year was registered in
   his name, and who was first of the nine. The order of the
   solemnities was as follows:
      I. The great public procession.
      II. The chorus of Youths.
      III. The Komos, or band of Dionysiak revellers, whose
      ritual is best illustrated in Milton's exquisite poem.
      IV. The representation of Comedy and Tragedy; for at
      Athenai the stage was religion and the theatre a temple.
   At the time of this great festival the capital was filled with
   rustics from the country townships, and strangers from all
   parts of Hellas and the outer world."

      _R. Brown,
      The Great Dionysiak Myth,
      chapter 6._

DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT SYRACUSE, The.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396, and 344.

DIPLAX, The.

      See PEPLUM.

DIPYLUM, The.

      See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

DIRECTORY, The French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

{663}

DISINHERITED BARONS, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

DISRAELI-DERBY AND BEACONSFIELD MINISTRIES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852: 1858-1859;
      1868-1870: and 1873-1880.

DISRUPTION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

DISSENTERS, OR NONCONFORMISTS, English:
   First bodies organized.
   Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.
   Removal of Disabilities.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665:
      1672-1673: 1711-1714; 1827-1828.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The.

      See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

DIVAN, The.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

DIVODURUM.

   The Gallic name of the city afterwards called
   Mediomatrici—now Metz.

DIVONA.
   Modern Cahors.

      See CADURCI.

DIWANI.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

DIX, General John A.:
   Message to New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

DJEM, OR JEM, Prince, The Story of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

DOAB, The English acquisition of the.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

DOBRIN, Knights of the Order of the Brethren of.

      See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

DOBRUDJA, The.

   The peninsula formed between the Danube, near its mouth, and
   the Black Sea.

DOBUNI, The.
   A tribe of ancient Britons who held a region between the two
   Avons.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DOCETISM.

   "We note another phase of gnosticism in the doctrine so
   directly and warmly combated in the epistles of John: we refer
   to docetism—that is, the theory which refused to recognize
   the reality of the human body of Christ."

      _E. Reuss,
      History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,
      page 323._

DODONA.

      See HELLAS.

DOGE.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

DOGGER BANKS, Naval Battle of the (1781).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

DOKIMASIA.

   "All magistrates [in ancient Athens] whether elected by
   cheirotonia or by lot, were compelled, before entering upon
   their office, to subject themselves to a Dokimasia, or
   scrutiny into their fitness for the post."

      _G. F. Schöman,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

DÖLICHOCEPHALIC MEN.

   A term used in ethnology, signifying "long-headed," as
   distinguishing one class of skulls among the remains of
   primitive men, from another class called brachycephalic, or
   "broad-headed."

DOLLINGER, Doctor, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

DOLMENS.

      See CROMLECHS.

DOMESDAY, OR DOOMSDAY BOOK.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, The.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

DOMINICANS.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS:
      also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

DOMINION OF CANADA.-DOMINION DAY.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

DOMINUS.

      See IMPERATOR, FINAL SIGNIFICATION OF
      THE ROMAN TITLE.

DOMITIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 81-96.

DOMITZ, Battle of (1635).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

DON JOHN OF AUSTRIA.

      See JOHN (DON) OF AUSTRIA.

DON PACIFICO AFFAIR, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850;
      and GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.

DONALD BANE, King of Scotland, A. D. 1093-1098
   (expelled during part of the period by Duncan II.)

DONATI, The.

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

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).

DONATION OF THE COUNTESS MATILDA.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

DONATIONS OF PEPIN AND CHARLEMAGNE.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.

DONATISTS, The.

   "The Donatist controversy was not one of doctrine, but of
   ecclesiastical discipline; the contested election for the
   archbishopric of Carthage. Two competitors, Cecilius and
   Donatus, had been concurrently elected while the church was
   yet in a depressed state, and Africa subject to the tyrant
   Maxentius [A. D. 306-312]. Scarcely had Constantine subdued
   that province, when the two rivals referred their dispute to
   him. Constantine, who still publicly professed paganism, but
   had shown himself very favourable to the Christians,
   instituted a careful examination of their respective claims,
   which lasted from the year 312 to 315, and finally decided in
   favour of Cecilius. Four hundred African bishops protested
   against this decision; from that time they were designated by
   the name of Donatists. … In compliance with an order of the
   emperor, solicited by Cecilius, the property of the Donatists
   was seized and transferred to the antagonist body of the
   clergy. They revenged themselves by pronouncing sentence of
   excommunication against all the rest of the Christian world.
   … Persecution on one side and fanaticism on the other were
   perpetuated through three centuries, up to the period of the
   extinction of Christianity in Africa. The wandering preachers
   of the Donatist faction had no other means of living than the
   alms of their flocks. … As might be expected, they outdid
   each other in extravagance, and soon gave in to the most
   frantic ravings: thousands of peasants, drunk with the effect
   of these exhortations, forsook their ploughs and fled to the
   deserts of Getulia. Their bishops, assuming the title of
   captains of the saints, put themselves at their head, and they
   rushed onward, carrying death and desolation into the adjacent
   provinces: they were distinguished by the name of
   Circumcelliones: Africa was devastated by their ravages."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1632.
   Taken by Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1704.
   Taken by Marlborough.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

----------DONAUWÖRTH: End----------

DONELSON, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY:
      KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

{664}

DONGAN CHARTER, The.

      See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1686.

DONUM.

      See TALLAGE.

DONUS I., Pope, A. D. 676-678.
   Donus II., Pope, A. D. 974-975.

DONZELLO.

      See DÂMOISEL.

DOOMS OF INE, The.

   "These laws were republished by King Alfred as 'The Dooms of
   Ine' who [Ine] came to the throne in A. D. 688. In their first
   clause they claim to have been recorded by King Ine with the
   counsel and teaching of his father Cenred and of Hedde, his
   bishop (who was Bishop of Winchester from A. D. 676 to 705)
   and of Eorcenweld, his bishop (who obtained the see of London
   in 675); and so, if genuine, they seem to represent what was
   settled customary law in Wessex during the last half of the
   seventh century."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 4._

DOOMSDAY, OR DOMESDAY BOOK.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.

DOORANEES, OR DURANEES, The

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

DORDRECHT, OR DORT, Synod of.

      See DORT;
      also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

DORIA, Andrew, The deliverance of Genoa by.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

DORIANS AND IONIANS, The.

   "Out of the great Pelasgian population [see PELASGIANS], which
   covered Anterior Asia Minor and the whole European peninsular
   land, a younger people had issued forth separately, which we
   find from the first divided into two races. These main races
   we may call, according to the two dialects of the Greek
   language, the Dorian and the Ionian, although these names are
   not generally used until a later period to designate the
   division of the Hellenic nation. No division of so thorough a
   bearing could have taken place unless accompanied by an early
   local separation. We assume that the two races parted company
   while yet in Asia Minor. One of them settles in the
   mountain-cantons of Northern Hellas, the other along the
   Asiatic coast. In the latter the historic movement begins.
   With the aid of the art of navigation, learnt from the
   Phœnicians the Asiatic Greeks at an early period spread over
   the sea; domesticating themselves in lower Egypt, in countries
   colonized by the Phœnicians, in the whole Archipelago, from
   Crete to Thrace; and from their original as well as from their
   subsequent seats send out numerous settlements to the coast of
   European Greece, first from the East side, next, after
   conquering their timidity, also taking in the country, beyond
   Cape Malea from the West. At first they land as pirates and
   enemies, then proceed to permanent settlements in gulfs and
   straits of the sea, and by the mouths of rivers, where they
   unite with the Pelasgian population. The different periods of
   this colonization may be judged of by the forms of divine
   worship, and by the names under which the maritime tribes were
   called by the natives. Their rudest appearance is as Carians;
   as Leleges their influence is more beneficent and permanent."

      _Dr. E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2._

   In the view of Dr. Curtius, the later migration of Ionian
   tribes from Southern Greece to the coasts of Asia
   Minor,—which is an undoubted historic fact,—was really a
   return "into the home of their ancestors"—"the ancient home
   of the great Ionic race." Whether that be the true view or
   not, the movement in question was connected, apparently, with
   important movements among the Dorian Greeks in Greece itself.
   These latter, according to all accounts, and the agreement of
   all historians, were long settled in Thessaly, at the foot of
   Olympus (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS). It was there that their
   moral and political development began; there that they learned
   to look at Olympus as the home of the gods, which all Greeks
   afterwards learned to do from them. "The service rendered by
   the Dorian tribe," says Dr. Curtius, "lay in having carried
   the germs of national culture out of Thessaly, where the
   invasion of ruder peoples disturbed and hindered their farther
   growth, into the land towards the south, where these germs
   received an unexpectedly new and grand development. … A race
   claiming descent from Heracles united itself in this
   Thessalian coast-district with the Dorians and established a
   royal dominion among them. Ever afterwards Heraclidæ and
   Dorians remained together, but without ever forgetting the
   original distinction between them. In their seats by Olympus
   the foundations were laid of the peculiarity of the Dorians in
   political order and social customs; at the foot of Olympus was
   their real home."-

      _Dr. E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   From the neighborhood of Olympus the Dorians moved southwards
   and found another home in "the fertile mountain-recess between
   Parnassus and Œta, … the most ancient Doris known to us by
   name." Their final movement was into Peloponnesus, which was
   "the most important and the most fertile in consequences of
   all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued, even
   to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
   character." Thenceforwards the Dorians were the dominant race
   in Peloponnesus, and to their chief state, Lacedæmonia, or
   Sparta, was generally conceded the headship of the Hellenic
   family. This Doric occupation of Peloponnesus, the period of
   which is supposed to have been about 1100 B. C., no doubt
   caused the Ionic migration from that part of Greece and
   colonization of Asia Minor.

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   The subsequent division of the Hellenic world between Ionians
   and Dorians is thus defined by Schömann: "To the Ionians
   belong the inhabitants of Attica, the most important part of
   the population of Eubœa, and the islands of the Ægean included
   under the common name of Cyclades, as well as the colonists
   both on the Lydian and Carian coasts of Asia Minor and in the
   two larger islands Of Chios and Samos which lie opposite. To
   the Dorians within the Peloponnese belong the Spartans, as
   well as the dominant populations of Argos, Sicyon, Philus,
   Corinth, Troezene and Epidaurus, together with the island of
   Ægina; outside the Peloponnese, but nearest to it, were the
   Megarid, and the small Dorian Tetrapolis [also called
   Pentapolis and Tripolis] near Mount Parnassus; at a greater
   distance were the majority of the scattered islands and a
   large portion of the Carian coasts of Asia Minor and the
   neighbouring islands, of which Cos and Rhodes were the most
   important. Finally, the ruling portion of the Cretan
   population was of Dorian descent."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      See, also,
      GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS; ASIA MINOR:
      THE GREEK COLONIES; HERACLIDÆ; SPARTA;
      and ÆOLIANS.

{665}

DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

   "The little territory [in ancient Greece] called Doris and
   Dryopis occupied the southern declivity of Mount Œta, dividing
   Phokis on the north and northwest from the Ætolians, Ænianes
   and Malians. That which was called Doris in the historical
   times, and which reached in the times of Herodotus nearly as
   far eastward as the Maliac gulf, is said to have formed a part
   of what had been once called Dryopis; a territory which had
   comprised the summit of Œta as far as the Sperchius,
   northward, and which had been inhabited by an old Hellenic
   tribe called Dryopes. The Dorians acquired their settlement in
   Dryopis by gift from Hêraklês, who, along with the Malians (so
   ran the legend), had expelled the Dryopes and compelled them
   to find for themselves new seats at Hermionê, and Asinê, in
   the Argolic peninsula of Peloponnesus,—at Styra and Karystus
   in Eubœa,—and in the island of Kythnus; it is only in these
   five last-mentioned places that history recognizes them. The
   territory of Doris was distributed into four little
   townships,—Pindus, or Akyphas, Bœon, Kytinion and Erineon.
   … In itself this tetrapolis is so insignificant that we
   shall rarely find occasion to mention it; but it acquired a
   factitious consequence by being regarded as the metropolis of
   the great Dorian cities in Peloponnesus, and receiving on that
   ground special protection from Sparta."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      See also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

DORMANS, Battle of (1575).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

DORNACH, Battle of (1499).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

DORR REBELLION, The.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.

DORT, OR DORDRECHT, The Synod of.

   "In the low-countries the supreme government, the
   states-general, interfered [in the Calvinistic controversy],
   and in the year 1618 convoked the first and only synod bearing
   something of the character of a general council that has been
   convened by protestants. It assembled at Dort, and continued
   its sittings from November till May following. Its business
   was to decide the questions at issue between the Calvinists
   and Arminians; the latter party were also termed remonstrants.
   James [I.] was requested to send over representatives for the
   English Church, and chose four divines:—Carlton bishop of
   Llandaff, Hall dean of Worcester, afterwards bishop
   successively of Exeter and Norwich, Davenant afterwards bishop
   of Salisbury, and Dr. S. Ward of Cambridge. They were men of
   learning and moderation. … The history of this famous synod
   is told in various ways. Its decisions were in favour of the
   doctrines termed Calvinistic, and the remonstrants were
   expelled from Holland. … The majority were even charged by
   the other party with having bound themselves by an oath before
   they entered upon business, to condemn the remonstrants."

      _J. B. Marsden,
      History of Early Puritans,
      page 329._

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

DORYLAEUM, Battle of (1097).
   See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

DOUAI: A. D.1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

DOUAI: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

DOUAI: A. D. 1710.
   Siege and capture by Marlborough.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

----------DOUAI: End----------

DOUAI, The Catholic Seminary at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.

DOUBLOON.
DOBLON.

      See SPANISH COINS.

DOUGHFACES.

   The "Missouri Compromise," of 1820, in the United States, "was
   a Northern measure, carried by Northern votes. With some the
   threats of disunion were a sufficient influence; some, whom in
   the debate Randolph [John Randolph, of Virginia] called
   doughfaces, did not need even that. … There has been always
   a singular servility in the character of a portion of the
   American people. In that class the slaveholder has always
   found his Northern servitor. Randolph first gave it a name to
   live by in the term doughface."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, pages 270 and 294._

DOUGLAS, Stephen A.,
   and the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

   Defeat in Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (APRIL.-NOVEMBER).

DOURO, Battle of the (1580).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

   Wellington's passage of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

DOVER, Roman Origin of.

      See DUBRIS

DOVER, Tennessee, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

DOVER, Treaty of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

DOWLAH, Surajah, and the English in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757, and 1757.

DRACHMA.

      See TALENT.

DRACONIAN LAWS.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

DRAFT RIOTS, The.

      See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1863.

DRAGON.
PENDRAGON.

   A title sometimes given in Welsh poetry to a king or great
   military leader. Supposed to be derived from the figure of a
   dragon on their flags, which they borrowed from the Romans.

      See CUMBRIA.

DRAGONNADES, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

DRAKE'S PIRACIES, and his famous voyage.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

DRANGIANS, The.

      See SARANGIANS.

DRAPIER'S LETTERS, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.

DRAVIDIAN RACES.

      See TURANIAN RACES;
      also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

DRED SCOTT CASE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

DREPANA, Naval battle at, B. C. 249.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1756.
   Capture and occupation by Frederick the Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1759-1760.
   Capture by the Austrians.
   Bombardment by Frederick.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER), and 1760.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
   Taken by the French.
   Invested by the Allies.
   Great battle before the city and victory for Napoleon.
   French reverses.
   St Cyr's surrender.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
      1813 (APRIL-MAY); (AUGUST);
      (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

----------DRESDEN: End----------

{666}

DRESDEN, Treaty of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

DREUX, Battle of (1562).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

DROGHEDA, OR TREDAH,
   Cromwell's massacre at.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

DROITWICH, Origin of.

      See SALINÆ.

DROMONES.
   A name given to the light galleys of the Byzantine empire.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter  53.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

DRUIDS.

   The priesthood of a religion which existed among the Celts of
   Gaul and Britain before they were Christianized. "Greek and
   Roman writers give us very little information on this subject
   and the early Welsh records and poetry none at all. Modern
   Welsh writers have, however, made up for this want in their
   genuine literature by inventing an elaborate Druidical system
   of religion and philosophy which, they pretend, survived the
   introduction of Christianity and was secretly upheld by the
   Welsh bards in the Middle Ages. This Neo-Druidic imposture has
   found numerous adherents."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      Article, "Celtic Literature,"
      Encyclopedia Britannica._

   "Pliny, alluding to the Druids' predilection for groves of
   oak, adds the words: 'ut inde appellati quoque interpretatione
   Græca possint Druidæ videri.' … Had he possessed knowledge
   enough of the Gaulish language, he would have seen that it
   supplied an explanation which rendered it needless to have
   recourse to Greek, namely in the native word 'dru,' which we
   have in 'Drunemeton,' or the sacred Oak-grove, given by Strabo
   as the name of the place of assembly of the Galatians. In
   fact, one has, if I am not mistaken, been skeptic with regard
   to this etymology, not so much on phonological grounds as from
   failing exactly to see how the oak could have given its name
   to such a famous organization as the druidic one must be
   admitted to have been. But the parallels just indicated, as
   showing the importance of the sacred tree in the worship of
   Zeus and the gods representing him among nations other than
   the Greek one, help to throw some light on this point.
   According to the etymology here alluded to, the Druids would
   be the priests of the god associated or identified with the
   oak; that is, as we are told, the god who seemed to those who
   were familiar with the pagan theology of the Greeks, to stand
   in the same position in Gaulish theology that Zeus did in the
   former. This harmonizes thoroughly with all that is known
   about the Druids."

      _J. Rhys,
      Hibbert Lectures, 1886, on Celtic Heathendom,
      lecture 2, part 2._

   "Our traditions of the Scottish and Irish Druids are evidently
   derived from a time when Christianity had long been
   established. These insular Druids are represented as being
   little better than conjurors, and their dignity is as much
   diminished as the power of the king is exaggerated. … He is
   a Pharaoh or Belshazzar with a troop of wizards at his
   command; but his Druids are sorcerers and rain-doctors. …
   The Druids of Strabo's description walked in scarlet and gold
   brocade and wore golden collars and bracelets; but their
   doctrines may have been much the same as those of the
   soothsayers by the Severn, the Irish medicine-men or those
   rustic wizards by the Loire. … After the conversion of
   Ireland was accomplished the Druids disappear from history.
   Their mystical powers were transferred without much alteration
   to the abbots and bishops who ruled the 'families of the
   saints.'"

      _C. Elton,
      Origins of English History,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Julius Cæsar,
      Gallic War,
      book 6, chapters 13-18._

      _Strabo,
      Geography,
      book 4, chapter 4, sections 4-6._

   For an account of the final destruction of the Druids, in
   their last retreat, on the island of Mona, or Anglesey,

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

DRUMCLOG, The Covenanters at.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE).

DRURY'S BLUFF, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
      THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

DRUSUS, Germanic campaigns of.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

DRYOPIANS, The.

   One of the aboriginal nations of ancient Greece, whose
   territory was in the valley of the Spercheus and extended as
   far as Parnassus and Thermopylæ; but who were afterwards
   widely dispersed in many colonies. It is, says C. O. Müller,
   "historically certain that a great part of the Dryopians were
   consecrated as a subject people to the Pythian Apollo (an
   usage of ancient times, of which there are many instances) and
   that for a long time they served as such."

      _History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      See, also, DORIS; and HIERODULI.

DUBARRY, Countess, Ascendancy of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

DUBH GALLS.

      See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

DUBIENKA, Battle of(1792).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

DUBITZA: Taken by the Austrians (1787).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

DUBLIN: The Danish Kingdom.

      See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES:
      also NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1014.
   The battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1170
   Taken by the Norman-English.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1646-1649.
   Sieges in the Civil War.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1750.
   The importance of the city.

   "In the middle of the 18th century it was in dimensions and
   population the second city in the empire, containing,
   according to the most trustworthy accounts, between 100,000
   and 120,000 inhabitants. Like most things in Ireland, it
   presented vivid contrasts, and strangers were equally struck
   with the crowds of beggars, the inferiority of the inns, the
   squalid wretchedness of the streets of the old town, and with
   the noble proportions of the new quarter, and the brilliant
   and hospitable society that inhabited it. The Liffey was
   spanned by four bridges, and another on a grander scale was
   undertaken in 1753. St. Stephen's Green was considered the
   largest square in Europe. The quays of Dublin were widely
   celebrated."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England,
      18th Century, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

----------DUBLIN: End----------

DUBRIS, OR DUBRÆ.

   The Roman port on the east coast of Britain which is now known
   as Dover. In Roman times, as now, it was the principal
   landing-place on the British side of the channel.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

{667}

DUCAT, Spanish.

      See SPANISH COINS.

DUCES.

      See COUNT AND DUKE.

DUDLEY, Thomas,
   and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.

DUFFERIN, Lord.
   The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1888.

DU GUESCLIN'S CAMPAIGNS:

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

DUKE, The Roman.
      Origin of the title.

      See COUNT AND DUKE.

DUKE'S LAWS, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.

DULGIBINI AND CHASAURI, The.

   "These people [tribes of the ancient Germans] first resided
   near the head of the Lippe, and then removed to the
   settlements of the Chamavi and the Angrevarii, who had
   expelled the Bructeri."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      chapter 34, Oxford translation, note._

      See also, SAXONS.

DUMBARTON, Origin of.

      See ALCLYDE.

DUMBARTON CASTLE, Capture of (1571).

   Dumbarton Castle, held by the party of Mary Queen of Scots, in
   the civil war which followed her deposition and detention in
   England, was captured in 1571, for the regent Lennox, by an
   extraordinary act of daring on the part of one Capt. Crawford.

      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapter 10._

DUMNONIA, OR DAMNONIA, The kingdom of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

DUMNONII, The.

   "It is … a remarkable circumstance that the Dumnonii, whom
   we find in the time of Ptolemy occupying the whole of the
   southwestern extremity of Britain, including both Devonshire
   and Cornwall, and who must therefore have been one of the most
   powerful nations in the island, are never once mentioned in
   the history of the conquest of the country by the Romans; nor
   is their name found in any writer before Ptolemy. … The
   conjecture of Mr. Beale Poste … that they were left in
   nominal independence under a native king … appears to me
   highly probable."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 23, note B._

   There appears to have been a northern branch of the Dumnonii
   or Damnonii, which held an extensive territory on the Clyde
   and the Forth.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DUMOURIEZ, Campaigns and treason of.

      See FRANCE:
      A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1792-1793; and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

DUNBAR: A. D. 1296.
   Battle.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

DUNBAR: A. D. 1339. Siege.

   The fortress of Dunbar, besieged by the English under the Earl
   of Salisbury in 1339, was successfully defended in the absence
   of the governor, the Earl of March, by his wife, known
   afterwards in Scotch history and tradition as "Black Agnes of
   Dunbar."

DUNBAR: A. D. 1650.-Battle.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).

----------DUNBAR: End----------

DUNCAN I.,
   King of Scotland, A. D. 1033-1039.
   Duncan II., A. D. 1094-1095.

DUNDALK, Battle of (1318).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.

DUNDEE (CLAVERHOUSE) AND THE COVENANTERS.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE);
      1681-1689; and 1689 (JULY).

DUNDEE: A. D. 1645.
   Pillaged by Montrose.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

DUNDEE: A. D. 1651.
   Storm and massacre by Monk.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

----------DUNDEE: End----------

DUNES, Battle of the (1658).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

DUNKELD, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (AUGUST).

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1631.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Dutch.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1646.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Importance of the port.
   Its harborage of pirates.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1652.
   Recovered by the Spaniards.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1658.
   Acquired by Cromwell for England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1662.
   Sold by Charles II. to France.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1713.
   Fortifications and harbor destroyed.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1713.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1748.
   Demolition of fortifications again stipulated.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1763.
   The demolition of fortifications pledged once more.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1793.
   Unsuccessful siege by the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

----------DUNKIRK: End----------

DUNMORE, Lord,
   and the end of royal government in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE); and 1775-1776.

DUNMORE'S WAR.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

DUNNICHEN, Battle of (A. D. 685).

      See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

DUPLEIX AND THE FRENCH IN INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

DUPONT, Admiral Samuel F.
   Naval attack on Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

DÜPPEL, Siege and capture of (1864).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

DUPPELN, Battle of (1848).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK):
      A. D. 1848-1862.

DUPPLIN MOOR, Battle of (1332).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

DUQUESNE, Fort.

      See PITTSBURGH.

DURA, Treaty of.

   The humiliating treaty of peace concluded with the Persians,
   A. D. 363, after the defeat and death of the Roman emperor
   Julian, by his successor Jovian.

      G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy chapter 10.

DURANEES, OR DOORANEES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

DURAZZO, Neapolitan dynasty of.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389; 1386-1414,
      and ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

DURBAR, OR DARBAR.

   An audience room in the palace of an East Indian prince. Hence
   applied to a formal audience or levee given by the
   governor-general of India, or by one of the native princes.

      _Century Dictionary_

DURHAM, OR NEVILLE'S CROSS, Battle of (A. D. 1346).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

{668}

DUROBRIVÆ.

   A name given to two Roman towns in Britain; one of which has
   been identified with modern Rochester, the other with the town
   of Castor, near Peterborough.

DUROBRIVIAN WARE.

      See CASTOR WARE.

DUROCOBRIVÆ.

   An important market-town in Roman Britain, supposed to have
   been situated at or near modern Dunstable.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

DUROTRIGES.

   One of the tribes of ancient Britain whose home was in the
   modern county of Dorset.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DUROVERNUM.

   A Roman town in Britain, identified with the modern
   Canterbury. Durovernum was destroyed by the Jutes in 455.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY.

      See EAST INDIA COMPANY, THE DUTCH.

DUTCH GAP CANAL.

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

DUTCH REPUBLIC,
   The constitution and declared independence of the.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1584-1585.

DUTCH WEST INDIA COMPANY.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
      and BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

DÜTLINGEN, OR TUTTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

DYAKS, OR DAYAKS, The.

      See MALAYAN RACE.

DYRRHACHIUM: The founding of.

      See KORKYRA.

DYRRHACHIUM: Provoking cause of the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

DYRRHACHIUM: B. C. 48.
   Cæsar's reverse.

      See ROME: B. C. 48.

DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1081-1082.
   Siege by Robert Guiscard.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1204.
   Acquired by the Despot of Epirus.

      See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

----------DYRRHACHIUM: End----------

DYRRHACHIUM, Peace of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

DYVED.

   See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.


E.

EADMUND, EADWINE, ETC.

      See EDMUND, ETC.

EALDORMAN.

   "The chieftains of the first settlers in our own island bore
   no higher title than Ealdorman or Heretoga. … The name of
   Ealdorman is one of a large class; among a primitive people
   age implies command and command implies age; hence in a
   somewhat later stage of language the elders are simply the
   rulers and the eldest are the highest in rank, without any
   thought of the number of years which they may really have
   lived. It is not perfectly clear in what the authority or
   dignity of the King exceeded that of the Ealdorman. … Even
   the smallest Kingdom was probably formed by the union of the
   districts of several Ealdormen."

      _E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 3, section 1._

   "The organisation of the shire was of much the same character
   as that of the hundred [each shire containing, however, a
   number of hundreds], but it was ruled by an ealdorman as well
   as by a gerefa, and in some other respects bore evidence of
   its previous existence as an independent unity. Its gemot was
   not only the scir-gemot but the folc-gemot also, the assembly
   of the people; its ealdorman commanded not merely the military
   force of the hundreds, but the lords of the franchises and the
   church vassals with their men. Its gerefa or sheriff collected
   the fiscal us well as the local imposts. Its ealdorman was one
   of the king's witan. The ealdorman, the princeps of Tacitus,
   and princeps, or satrapa, or subregulus of Bede, the dux of
   the Latin chroniclers and the comes of the Normans, was
   originally elected in the general assembly of the nation. …
   The hereditary principle appears however in the early days of
   the kingdom as well as in those of Edward the Confessor; in
   the case of an under-kingdom being annexed to a greater the
   old royal dynasty seems to have continued to hand down its
   delegated authority from father to son. The under-kings of
   Hwiccia thus continued to act as ealdormen under Mercia for a
   century; and the ealdormanship of the Gyrwas or fen-countrymen
   seems likewise to have been hereditary. The title of ealdorman
   is thus much older than the existing division of shires, nor
   was it ever the rule for every shire to have an ealdorman to
   itself as it had its sheriff. … But each shire was under an
   ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop in the
   folkmoot, received a third part of the profits of the
   jurisdiction, and commanded the military force of the whole
   division. From the latter character he derived the name of
   heretoga, leader of the host ('here'), or dux, which is
   occasionally given him in charters."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, sections 48-49._

EARL.

   "The title of earl had begun to supplant that of ealdorman in
   the reign of Ethelred; and the Danish jarl, from whom its use
   in this sense was borrowed, seems to have been more certainly
   connected by the tie of comitatus with his king than the
   Anglo-Saxon ealdorman need be supposed to have been."

      _William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 6, section 66._

      See, also, EORL and EALDORMAN.

EARLDOMS, English:
   Canute's creation.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

EARLDOMS:
   The Norman change.

      See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES.

----------EARLDOMS: End----------

EARLY, General Jubal, Campaigns in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA);
      (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND);
      (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA);
      and 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

EARTHQUAKE: B. C. 464.
   Sparta.

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 115.
   At Antioch.

         See ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 365.
   In the Roman world.

   "In the second year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens [A.
   D. 365], on the morning of the 21st day of July, the greater
   part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and
   destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the
   waters; the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the
   sudden retreat of the sea. … But the tide soon returned with
   the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was
   severely felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece
   and of Egypt. … The city of Alexandria annually commemorated
   the fatal day on which 50,000 persons had lost their lives in
   the inundation."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{669}

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 526.
   In the reign of Justinian.

      See ANTIOCH: A. D. 526;
      also, BERYTUS.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1692.
   In Jamaica.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1755.
   At Lisbon.

   See LISBON: A. D. 1755.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1812.
   In Venezuela.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

----------EARTHQUAKE: End----------

EAST AFRICA ASSOCIATIONS, British and German.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

EAST ANGLIA.

   The kingdom formed in Britain by that body of the Angles which
   settled in the eastern district now embraced in the counties
   of Norfolk and Suffolk (North-folk and South-folk).

EAST INDIA COMPANY,
   The Dutch: A. D. 1602.

   Its formation and first enterprises.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1652.
   Settlement at Cape of Good Hope.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1799.
   Its dissolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (DUTCH): End----------

EAST INDIA COMPANY, The English: A. D. 1600-1702.
   Its rise and early undertakings.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1773.
   Constitution of the Company changed by the Acts of Lord North.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1813-1833.-
   Deprived of its monopoly of trade.
   Reconstitution of government.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1858.
   The end of its rule.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (ENGLISH): End----------

EAST INDIA COMPANY, The French.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

EAST INDIES, Portuguese in the.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.

EASTERN CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

EASTERN EMPIRE, The.

      See ROME: 717-800;
      and BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

EASTERN QUESTION, The.

   "For a number of generations in Europe there has been one
   question that, carelessly or maliciously touched upon, has
   never failed to stimulate strife and discord among the
   nations. This is 'the Eastern Question,' the problem how to
   settle the disputes, political and religious, in the east of
   Europe."

      _H. Murdock,
      The Reconstruction of Europe,
      page 17._

   The first occasion in European politics on which the problems
   of the Ottoman empire received the name of the Eastern
   Question seems to have been that connected with the revolt of
   Mehemet Ali in 1831 (see TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840). M. Guizot,
   in his "Memoirs," when referring to that complication, employs
   the term, and remarks: "I say the Eastern Question, for this
   was in fact the name given by all the world to the quarrel
   between the Sultan Mahmoud, and his subject the Pacha of
   Egypt, Mehemet Ali. Why was this sounding title applied to a
   local contest? Egypt is not the whole Ottoman empire. The
   Ottoman empire is not the entire East. The rebellion, even the
   dismemberment of a province, cannot comprise the fate of a
   sovereignty. The great states of Western Europe have
   alternately lost or acquired, either by internal dissension or
   war, considerable territories; yet under the aspect of these
   circumstances no one has spoken of the Western question. Why
   then has a term never used in the territorial crises of
   Christian Europe, been considered and admitted to be perfectly
   natural and legitimate when the Ottoman empire is in argument?
   It is that there is at present in the Ottoman empire no local
   or partial question. If a shock is felt in a corner of the
   edifice, if a single stone is detached, the entire building
   appears to be, and is in fact, ready to fall. … The Egyptian
   question was in 1839 the question of the Ottoman empire
   itself. And the question of the Ottoman empire is in reality
   the Eastern question, not only of the European but of the
   Asiatic East; for Asia is now the theatre of the leading
   ambitions and rivalries of the great powers of Europe; and the
   Ottoman empire is the highway, the gate, and the key of Asia."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time,
      volume 4, page 322._

   The several occasions since 1840 on which the Eastern Question
   has troubled Europe may be found narrated under the following
   captions:

      RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856;
      TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877, 1877-1878, and 1878;
      also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

   Among English writers, the term "the Eastern Question" has
   acquired a larger meaning, which takes in questions connected
   with the advance of Russia upon the Afghan and Persian
   frontiers.

      _Duke of Argyll,
      The Eastern Question._

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1860-1881.

EATON, Dorman B., and Civil-Service Reform.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

EBBSDORF, OR LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of.

   A great and disastrous battle of the Germans with the Danes,
   or Northmen, fought February 2, 880. The Germans were terribly
   beaten, and nearly all who survived the fight were swept away
   into captivity and slavery. The slain received "martyrs'
   honours; and their commemoration was celebrated in the
   Sachsen-land churches till comparatively recent times. An
   unexampled sorrow was created throughout Saxony by this
   calamity, which, for a time, exhausted the country;
   —Scandinavia and Jutland and the Baltic isles resounded with
   exultation."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 4._

EBBSFLEET.

   The supposed first landing-place in Britain of the Jutes,
   under Hengest, A. D. 449 or 450, when English history, as
   English, begins. It was also the landing-place, A. D. 597, of
   Augustine and his fellow missionaries when they entered the
   island to undertake the conversion of its new inhabitants to
   Christianity. Ebbsfleet is in the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth
   of the Thames.

      See ENGLAND: 449-473, and 597-685.

EBERSBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

EBIONISM.

   The heresy (so branded) of a sect of Jewish Christians, which
   spread somewhat extensively in the second, third and fourth
   centuries. "The characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its
   forms are: degradation of Christianity to the level of
   Judaism; the principle of the universal and perpetual validity
   of the Mosaic law; and enmity to the apostle Paul." The name
   of the Ebionites came from a Hebrew word signifying "poor."

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      second period, chapter 4, section 68._

{670}

EBLANI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

EBORACUM, OR EBURACUM.

   The military capital of Roman Britain, and afterwards of the
   Anglian kingdoms of Deira and Northumbria. In Old English its
   name became Eorforwick, whence, by further corruption,
   resulted the modern English name York. The city was one of
   considerable splendor in Roman times, containing the imperial
   palace with many temples and other imposing buildings.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 457-633.

EBURONES, Destruction of the.

   The Eburones were a strong Germanic tribe, who occupied in
   Cæsar's time the country between Liége and Cologne, and whose
   ancestors were said to have formed part of the great migrant
   horde of the Cimbri and Teutones. Under a young chief,
   Ambiorix, they had taken the lead in the formidable revolt
   which occurred among the Belgic tribes, B. C. 54-53. Cæsar,
   when he had suppressed the revolt, determined to bring
   destruction on the Eburones, and he executed his purpose in a
   singular manner. He circulated a proclamation through all the
   neighboring parts of Gaul and Germany, declaring the Eburones
   to be traitors to Rome and outlaws, and offering them and
   their goods as common prey to any who would fall on them. This
   drew the surrounding barbarians like vultures to a feast, and
   the wretched Eburones were soon hunted out of existence. Their
   name disappeared from the annals of Gaul.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 5, chapters 25-58; book 6, chapters 1-34._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapters 13-14._

      See, also, BELGÆ.

ECBATANA.

   "The Southern Ecbatana or Agbatana,—which the Medes and
   Persians themselves knew as Hagmatán,—was situated, as we
   learn from Polybius and Diodorus, on a plain at the foot of
   Mount Orontes, a little to the east of the Zagros range. The
   notices of these authors … and others, render it as nearly
   certain as possible that the site was that of the modern town
   of Hamadan. … The Median capital has never yet attracted a
   scientific expedition. … The chief city of northern Media,
   which bore in later times the names of Gaza, Gazaca, or
   Canzaca, is thought to have been also called Ecbatana, and to
   have been occasionally mistaken by the Greeks for the southern
   or real capital."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

ECCELINO, OR EZZELINO DI ROMANO,
   The tyranny of, and the crusade against.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

ECCLESIA.
   The general legislative assembly of citizens in ancient Athens
   and Sparta.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 31._

      See ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

ECENI, OR ICENI, The.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

ECGBERHT, King of Wessex, A. D. 800-836.

ECKMÜHL, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ECNOMUS, Naval battle of (B. C. 256).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ECORCHEURS, Les.

   In the later period of the Hundred Years War, after the death
   of the Maid of Orleans, when the English were being driven
   from France and the authority of the king was not yet
   established, lawless violence prevailed widely. "Adventurers
   spread themselves over the provinces under a name, 'the
   Skinners,' Les Ecorcheurs, which sufficiently betokens the
   savage nature of their outrages, if we trace it to even its
   mildest derivation, stripping shirts, not skins."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 14._

ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS.

      See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

ÉCU, The order of the.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ECUADOR: Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ECUADOR:
   The aboriginal kingdom of Quito and its conquest by the
   Peruvians and the Spaniards.

   "Of the old Quitu nation which inhabited the highlands to the
   north and south of the present capital, nothing is known to
   tradition but the name of its last king, Quitu, after whom his
   subjects were probably called. His domains were invaded and
   conquered by the nation of the Caras, or Carans, who had come
   by sea in balsas (rafts) from parts unknown. These Caras, or
   Carans, established the dynasty of the Scyris at Quito, and
   extended their conquests to the north and south, until checked
   by the warlike nation of the Puruhas, who inhabited the
   present district of Riobamba. … In the reign of Hualcopo
   Duchicela, the 13th Scyri, the Peruvian Incas commenced to
   extend their conquests to the north. … About the middle of
   the 15th century the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, father of
   Huaynacapac, invaded the dominions of the Scyris, and after
   many bloody battles and sieges, conquered the kingdom of
   Puruha and returned in triumph to Cuzco. Hualcopo survived his
   loss but a few years. He is said to have died of grief, and
   was succeeded by his son Cacha, the 15th and last of the
   Scyris. Cacha Duchicela at once set out to recover his
   paternal dominions. Although of feeble health, he seems to
   have been a man of great energy and intrepidity. He fell upon
   the garrison which the Inca had left at Mocha, put it to the
   sword, and reoccupied the kingdom of Puruha, where he was
   received with open arms. He even carried his banners further
   south, until checked by the Cañares, the inhabitants of what
   is now the district of Cuenca, who had voluntarily submitted
   to the Inca, and now detained the Scyri until Huaynacapac, the
   greatest of the Inca dynasty, came to their rescue." On the
   plain of Tiocajas, and again on the plain of Hatuntaqui, great
   battles were fought, in both of which the Scyri was beaten,
   and in the last of which he fell. "On the very field of battle
   the faithful Caranquis proclaimed Pacha, the daughter of the
   fallen king, as their Scyri. Huaynacapac now regulated his
   conduct by policy. He ordered the dead king to be buried with
   all the honors due to royalty, and made offers of marriage to
   young Pacha, by whom he was not refused. … The issue of the
   marriage was Atahuallpa, the last of the native rulers of
   Peru. …
{671}
   As prudent and highly politic as the conduct of Huaynacapac is
   generally reputed to have been, so imprudent and unpolitic was
   the division of the empire which he made on his death bed,
   bequeathing his paternal dominions to his first-born and
   undoubtedly legitimate son, Huascar, and to Atahuallpa the
   kingdom of Quito. He might have foreseen the evil consequences
   of such a partition. His death took place about the year 1525.
   For five or seven years the brothers lived in peace." Then
   quarrels arose, leading to civil war, resulting in the defeat
   and death of Huascar. Atahuallpa had just become master of the
   weakened and shaken empire of the Incas, when the invading
   Spaniards, under Pizarro, fell on the doomed land and made its
   riches their own. The conquest of the Spaniards did not
   include the kingdom of Quito at first, but was extended to the
   latter in 1533 by Sebastian de Benalcazar, whom Pizarro had
   put in command of the Port of San Miguel. Excited by stories
   of the riches of Quito, and invited by ambassadors from the
   Canares, the old enemies of the Quito tribes, Benalcazar,
   "without orders or permission from Pizarro … left San
   Miguel, at the head of about 150 men. His second in command
   was the monster Juan de Ampudia." The fate of Quito was again
   decided on the plain of Tiocajas, where Rumiñagui, a chief who
   had seized the vacant throne, made a desperate but vain
   resistance. He gained time, however, to remove whatever
   treasures there may have been at Quito beyond the reach of its
   rapacious conquerors, and "where he hid them is a secret to
   the present day. … Traditions of the great treasures hidden
   in the mountains by Rumiñagui are eagerly repeated and
   believed at Quito. … Having removed the gold and killed the
   Virgins of the Sun, and thus placed two objects so eagerly
   coveted by the invaders beyond their reach, Rumiñagui set fire
   to the town, and evacuated it with an his troops and
   followers. It would be difficult to describe the rage,
   mortification and despair of the Spaniards, on finding smoking
   ruins instead of the treasures which they had expected. …
   Thousands of innocent Indians were sacrificed to their
   disappointed cupidity. … Every nook and corner of the
   province was searched; but only in the sepulchres some little
   gold was found. … Of the ancient buildings of Quito no stone
   was left upon the other, and deep excavations were made under
   them to search for hidden treasures. Hence there is no vestige
   left at Quito of its former civilization; not a ruin, not a
   wall, not a stone to which the traditions of the past might
   cling. … On the 28th of August, 1534, the Spanish village of
   Quito [San Francisco de Quito] was founded."

      _F. Hassaurek,
      Fours Years among Spanish Americans,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of Conquest of Peru,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1),
      and chapter 9 (volume 2)._

ECUADOR:
   In the empire of the Incas.

      See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

ECUADOR: A. D. 1542.
   The Audiencia of Quito established.

      See AUDIENCIAS.

ECUADOR: A. D. 1821-1854.
   Emancipation of slaves.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

ECUADOR: A. D. 1822-1888.
   Confederated with New Granada and Venezuela in the Colombian
   Republic.

   Dissolution of the Confederacy.

   The rule of Flores.

   In 1822 "the Province of Quito was incorporated into the
   Colombian Republic [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830]. It
   was now divided into three departments on the French system:
   and the southernmost of these received its name from the
   Equator (Ecuador) which passes through it. Shortly after
   Venezuela had declared itself independent of the Colombian
   Republic [1826—see, as above], the old province of Quito did
   the same, and placed its fortunes in the hands of one of
   Bolivar's lieutenants, named Flores. The name of Ecuador was
   now extended to all three departments. Flores exercised the
   chief authority for 15 years. The constitution limited the
   Presidency to four: but Flores made an arrangement with one of
   his lieutenants called Roca-Fuerte, by which they succeeded
   each other, the outgoing President becoming governor of
   Guayaquil. In 1843 Flores found himself strong enough to
   improve upon this system. He called a convention, which
   reformed the constitution in a reactionary sense, and named
   him dictator for ten years. In 1845 the liberal reaction had
   set in all over Colombia; and it soon became too strong for
   Flores. Even his own supporters began to fail him, and he
   agreed to quit the country on being paid an indemnity of
   $20,000." During the next 15 years Ecuador was troubled by the
   plots and attempts of Flores to regain his lost power. In
   1860, with Peruvian help, he succeeded in placing one of his
   party, Dr. Moreno, in the presidency, and he, himself, became
   governor of Guayaquil. In August, 1875, Moreno was
   assassinated.

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      pages 251-252._

   After the assassination of President Moreno, "the clergy
   succeeded in seating Dr. Antonio Barrero in the presidential
   chair by a peaceful and overwhelming election. … Against his
   government the liberal party made a revolution, and, September
   8, 1876, succeeded in driving him from power, seating in his
   place General Ygnacio de Veintemilla, who was one of Barrero's
   officers, bound to him by many tics. … He called an obedient
   convention at Ambato, in 1878, which named him President ad
   interim, and framed a constitution, the republicanism of which
   it is difficult to find. Under this he was elected President
   for four years, terminating 30th August, 1882, without right
   of re-election except after an interval of four years."

      _G. E. Church,
      Report on Ecuador
      (Senate Ex. Doc. 69, U. S. 47th Congress,
      2d session, volume 3)._

   President Veintemilla seized power as a Dictator, by a
   pronunciamento, April 2, 1882; but civil war ensued and he was
   overthrown in 1883. Senor José M. P. Caamaño was then chosen
   Provisional President, and in February, 1884, he was elected
   President, by the Legislative body. He was succeeded in 1888
   by Don Antonio Flores.

      _Statesman's Year-book, 1889._

----------ECUADOR: End----------

ECUMENICAL, OR ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL.
   A general or universal council of the Christian Church.

      See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

EDDAS, The.

   "The chief depositories of the Norse mythology are the Elder
   or Saemund's Edda (poetry) and the Younger or Snorre's Edda.
   (prose). In Icelandic Edda means 'great-grand-mother,' and
   some think this appellation refers to the ancient origin of
   the myths it contains. Others connect it with the Indian
   'Veda' and the Norse 'vide,' (Swedish 'vela,' to know)."

      _R. B. Anderson,
      Norse Mythology,
      chapter 7._

{672}

   "The word Edda is never found at all in any of the dialects of
   the Old Northern tongue, nor indeed in any other tongue known
   to us. The first time it is met with is in the Lay of Righ,
   where it is used as a title for great-grandmother, and from
   this poem the word is cited (with other terms from the same
   source) in the collection at the end of Scaldscaparmal. How or
   why Snorri's book on the Poetic Art came to be called Edda we
   have no actual testimony. … Snorri's work, especially the
   second part of it, Scaldscaparmal, handed down in copies and
   abridgments through the Middle Ages, was looked on as setting
   the standard and ideal of poetry. It seems to have kept up
   indeed the very remembrance of court-poetry, the memory of
   which, but for it, would otherwise have perished. But though
   the mediæval poets do not copy Edda (i. e., Snorri's rules)
   they constantly allude to it, and we have an unbroken series
   of phrases from 1340 to 1640 in which Edda is used as a
   synonym for the technical laws of the court-metre (a use, it
   may be observed, entirely contrary to that of our own days)."

      _G. Vigfusson and F. Y. Powell,
      Corpus Poeticum Boreale,
      volume 1, introduction, section 4._

EDESSA (Macedonia).

   Edessa, or Ægre, the ancient Macedonian capital, "a place of
   primitive antiquity, according to a Phrygian legend the site
   of the gardens of Midas, at the northern extremity of Mount
   Bermius, where the Lydias comes forth from the mountains. …
   Ægre was the natural capital of the land. With its foundation
   the history of Macedonia had its beginning; Ægre is the germ
   out of which the Macedonian empire grew."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also, MACEDONIA.

EDESSA (Mesopotamia).

      See OSRHŒNE.

EDESSA: The Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EDESSA: The Theological School.

      Sec NESTORIANS.

EDESSA: A. D. 260.
   Battle of.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EDESSA: A. D. 1097-1144.
   The Frank principality.

   On the march of the armies of the First Crusade, as they
   approached Syria, Baldwin, the able, selfish and self-willed
   brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the main body of the
   crusaders, with a band of followers, and moved off eastwards,
   seeking the prizes of a very worldly ambition, and leaving his
   devouter comrades to rescue the holy sepulchre without his
   aid. Good fortune rewarded his enterprise and he secured
   possession of the important city of Edessa. It was governed by
   a Greek prince, who owed allegiance to the Byzantine emperor,
   but who paid tribute to the Turks. "It had surrendered to
   Pouzan, one of the generals of Malek-shah, in the year 1087,
   but during the contests of the Turks and Saracens in the north
   of Syria it had recovered its independence. Baldwin now
   sullied the honour of the Franks, by exciting the people to
   murder their governor Theodore, and rebel against the
   Byzantine authority [other historians say that he was guilty
   of no more than a passive permission of these acts]; he then
   took possession of the place in his own name and founded the
   Frank principality of Edessa, which lasted about 47 years."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Byzantine and Greek Empires A. D. 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

      See, also, CRUSADES: A. D. 1006-1099, and 1147-1149;
      also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

----------EDESSA: End----------

EDGAR,
   King of Scotland, A. D.1098-1107.
   Edgar, King of Wessex, A. D. 958-975.

EDGECOTE, Battle of.

      See BANBURY, BATTLE OF.

EDGEHILL OR KEYNTON, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

EDHEL

      See ADEL.

EDHILING, OR ÆDHILING, The.

      See ETHELING.

EDICT OF NANTES, and its revocation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1599, and 1681-1608.

EDICT OF RESTITUTION, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1620.

EDICTS, Roman imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

EDINBURGH:
   Origin of the city.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

EDINBURGH:11th Century.
   Made the capital of Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1003.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1544.
   Destroyed by the English.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1559-1560.
   Seized by the Lords of the Congregation.
   The Treaty of July, 1560.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1572-1573.
   n the civil war.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1637.
   Laud's Liturgy and the tumult at St. Giles'.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1638.
   The signing of the National Covenant.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1650.
   Surrender to Cromwell.
   Siege and reduction of the Castle.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER);
      and 1651 (AUGUST).

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1688.
   Rioting and revolution.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1707.
   The city at the time of the union.

   "Edinburgh, though still but a small town, excited the
   admiration of travellers who were acquainted with the greatest
   cities of England and the Continent; nor was their admiration
   entirely due to the singular beauty of its situation. The
   quaint architecture of the older houses—which sometimes rose
   to the height of nine, ten or eleven stories—indeed, carried
   back the mind to very barbarous times; for it was ascribed to
   the desire of the population to live as near as possible to
   the protection of the castle. The filth of the streets in the
   early years of the 18th century was indescribable. … The new
   quarter, which now strikes every stranger by its spacious
   symmetry, was not begun till the latter half of the 18th
   century, but as early as 1723 an English traveller described
   the High Street as 'the stateliest street in the world.' …
   Under the influence of the Kirk the public manners of the town
   were marked by much decorum and even austerity, but the
   populace were unusually susceptible of fierce political
   enthusiasm, and when excited they were extremely formidable.
   … A city guard, composed chiefly of fierce Highlanders,
   armed and disciplined like regular soldiers, and placed under
   the control of the magistrates, was established in 1606; and
   it was not finally abolished till the present century.
   Edinburgh, at the beginning of the 18th century, was more than
   twice as large as any other Scotch town. Its population at the
   time of the union slightly exceeded 30,000, while that of
   Glasgow was not quite 15,000, that of Dundee not quite 10,000,
   and that of Perth about 7,000."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 5 (volume 2)._

{673}

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.
   The Porteous Riot.

   "The circumstances of the Porteous Riot are familiar wherever
   the English tongue is spoken, because they were made the
   dramatic opening of one of his finest stories by that
   admirable genius who, like Shakespeare in his plays, has
   conveyed to plain men more of the spirit and action of the
   past in noble fiction, than they would find in most professed
   chronicles of fact. The early scenes of the 'Heart of
   Midlothian' are an accurate account of the transaction which
   gave so much trouble to Queen Caroline and the minister
   [Walpole]. A smuggler who had excited the popular imagination
   by his daring and his chivalry was sentenced to be hanged;
   after his execution the mob pressed forward to cut down his
   body: Porteous, the captain of the City Guard, ordered his men
   to fire, and several persons were shot dead: he was tried for
   murder, convicted, and sentenced, but at the last moment a
   reprieve arrived from London, to the intense indignation of a
   crowd athirst for vengeance: four days later, under mysterious
   ringleaders who could never afterwards be discovered, fierce
   throngs suddenly gathered together at nightfall to the beat of
   drum, broke into the prison, dragged out the unhappy Porteous,
   and sternly hanged him on a dyer's pole close by the common
   place of public execution."

      _J. Morley,
      Walpole,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      chapter 24 (volume 2)._

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1745.
   The Young Pretender in the city.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1779.
   No-Popery riots.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

----------EDINBURGH: End----------

EDINGTON, OR ETHANDUN, Battle of (A. D.878).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

EDMUND,
   King of Wessex, A. D. 940-947.

   Edmund Ironside, King of Wessex, A. D. 1016.

EDOMITES, OR lDUMEANS, The.

   "From a very early period the Edomites were the chief of the
   nations of Arabia Petræa. Amongst the branches sprung,
   according to Arab tradition, from the primitive Amalika, they
   correspond to the Arcam, and the posterity of Esau, after
   settling amongst them as we have seen, became the dominant
   family from which the chiefs were chosen. The original
   habitation of the Edomites was Mount Seir, whence they spread
   over all the country called by the Greeks Gebalene, that is
   the prolongation of the mountains joining on the north the
   land of Moab, into the Valley of Arabah, and the surrounding
   heights. … Saul successfully fought the Edomites; under
   David, Joab and Abishai, his generals, completely defeated
   them, and David placed garrisons in their towns. In their
   ports of Elath and Eziongeber were built the fleets sent to
   India by Hiram and Solomon. … After the schism of the ten
   tribes, the Edomites remained dependent on the King of Judah."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 4._

      See, also,
      NABATHEANS; JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW
      HISTORY; and AMALEKITES.

EDRED, King of Wessex, A. D. 947-955.

EDRISITES, The.

   After the revolt of Moorish or Mahometan Spain from the
   caliphate of Bagdad, the African provinces of the Moslems
   assumed independence, and several dynasties became
   seated—among them that of the Edrisites, which founded the
   city and kingdom of Fez, and which reigned from A. D. 829 to
   907.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

----------EDRISITES: End----------

EDUCATION.

EDUCATION: Ancient.
   Egypt.

   "In the education of youth [the Egyptians] were particularly
   strict; and 'they knew,' says Plato, 'that children ought to
   be early accustomed to such gestures, looks, and motions as
   are decent and proper; and not to be suffered either to hear
   or learn any verses and songs other than those which are
   calculated to inspire them with virtue; and they consequently
   took care that every dance and ode introduced at their feasts
   or sacrifices should be subject to certain regulations.'"

      _Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
      The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
      volume 1, page 321._

   "The children were educated according to their station and
   their future position in life. They were kept in strict
   subjection by their parents, and respect to old age was
   particularly inculcated; the children of the priests were
   educated very thoroughly in writing of all kinds,
   hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic, and in the sciences of
   astronomy, mathematics, etc. The Jewish deliverer Moses was
   educated after the manner of the priests, and the 'wisdom of
   the Egyptians' became a proverbial expression among the
   outside nations, as indicating the utmost limit of human
   knowledge."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      The Dwellers on the Nile,
      chapter 10._

   "On the education of the Egyptians, Diodorus makes the
   following remarks:—'The children of the priests are taught
   two different kinds of writing,—what is called the sacred,
   and the more general; and they pay great attention to geometry
   and arithmetic. For the river, changing the appearance of the
   country very materially every year, is the cause of many and
   various discussions among neighbouring proprietors about the
   extent of their property; and it would be difficult for any
   person to decide upon their claims without geometrical
   reasoning, founded on actual observation. Of arithmetic they
   have also frequent need, both in their domestic economy, and
   in the application of geometrical theorems, besides its
   utility in the cultivation of astronomical studies; for the
   orders and motions of the stars are observed at least as
   industriously by the Egyptians as by any people whatever; and
   they keep record of the motions of each for an incredible
   number of years, the study of this science having been, from
   the remotest times, an object of national ambition with them.
   … But the generality of the common people learn only from
   their parents or relations that which is required for the
   exercise of their peculiar professions, … a few only being
   taught anything of literature, and those principally the
   better class of artificers.' Hence it appears they were not
   confined to any particular rules in the mode of educating
   their children, and it depended upon a parent to choose
   the degree of instruction he deemed most suitable to their
   mode of life and occupations, as among other civilised
   nations."

      _Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
      The Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,
      volume 1, pages 175-176._

{674}

   "There is nothing like being a scribe,' the wise say; 'the
   scribe gets all that is upon earth.' … The scribe is simply
   a man who knows how to read and write, to draw up
   administrative formulas, and to calculate interest. The
   instruction which he has received is a necessary complement of
   his position if he belongs to a good family, whilst if he be
   poor it enables him to obtain a lucrative situation in the
   administration or at the house of a wealthy personage. There
   is, therefore, no sacrifice which the smaller folk deem too
   great, if it enables them to give their sons the acquirements
   which may raise them above the common people, or at least
   insure a less miserable fate. If one of them, in his infancy,
   displays any intelligence, they send him, when about six or
   eight years old, to the district school, where an old
   pedagogue teaches him the rudiments of reading, writing, and
   arithmetic. Towards ten or twelve years old, they withdraw him
   from the care of this first teacher and apprentice him to a
   scribe in some office, who undertakes to make him a 'learned
   scribe.' The child accompanies his master to his office or
   work-yard, and there passes entire months in copying letters,
   circulars, legal documents, or accounts, which he does not at
   first understand, but which he faithfully remembers. There are
   books for his use full of copies taken from well-known
   authors, which he studies perpetually. If he requires a brief,
   precise report, this is how Ennana worded one of his:—'I
   reached Elephantine and accomplished my mission. I reviewed
   the infantry and the chariot soldiers from the temples, as
   well as the servants and subordinates who are in the houses of
   Pharaoh's … officials. As my journey is for the purpose of
   making a report in the presence of his Majesty, … the course
   of my business is as rapid as that of the Nile; you need not,
   therefore, feel anxious about me.' There is not a superfluous
   word. If, on the other hand, a petition in a poetical style be
   required, see how Pentoïrit asked for a holiday. 'My heart has
   left me, it is travelling and does not know how to return, it
   sees Memphis and hastens there. Would that I were in its
   place. I remain here, busy following my heart, which
   endeavours to draw me towards Memphis. I have no work in hand,
   my heart is tormented. May it please the god Ptah to lead me
   to Memphis, and do thou grant that I may be seen walking
   there. I am at leisure, my heart is watching, my heart is no
   longer in my bosom, languor has seized my limbs; my eye is
   dim, my ear hardened, my voice feeble, it is a failure of all
   my strength. I pray thee remedy all this.' The pupil copies
   and recopies, the master inserts forgotten words, corrects the
   faults of spelling, and draws on the margin the signs or
   groups unskilfully traced. When the book is duly finished and
   the apprentice can write all the formulas from memory,
   portions of phrases are detached from them, which he must join
   together, so as to combine new formulas; the master then
   entrusts him with the composition of a few letters, gradually
   increasing the number and adding to the difficulties. As soon
   as he has fairly mastered the ordinary daily routine his
   education is ended, and an unimportant post is sought for. He
   obtains it and then marries, becoming the head of a family,
   sometimes before he is twenty years old; he has no further
   ambition, but is content to vegetate quietly in the obscure
   circle where fate has thrown him."

      _G. Maspéro,
      Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
      chapter 1._

    "In the schools, where the poor scribe's child sat on the
    same bench beside the offspring of the rich, to be trained in
    discipline and wise learning, the masters knew how by timely
    words to goad on the lagging diligence of the ambitious
    scholars, by holding out to them the future reward which
    awaited youths skilled in knowledge and letters. Thus the
    slumbering spark of self-esteem was stirred to a flame in the
    youthful breast, and emulation was stimulated among the boys.
    The clever son of the poor man, too, might hope by his
    knowledge to climb the ladder of the higher offices, for
    neither his birth nor position raised any barrier, if only
    the youth's mental power justified fair hopes for the future.
    In this sense, the restraints of caste did not exist, and
    neither descent nor family hampered the rising career of the
    clever. Many a monument consecrated to the memory of some
    nobleman gone to his long home, who during life had held high
    rank at the court of Pharaoh, is decorated with the simple
    but laudatory inscription, 'His ancestors were unknown
    people.' It is a satisfaction to avow that the training and
    instruction of the young interested the Egyptians in the
    highest degree. For they fully recognised in this the sole
    means of cultivating their national life, and of fulfilling
    the high civilizing mission which Providence seemed to have
    placed in their hands. But above all things they regarded
    justice, and virtue had the highest price in their eyes."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      volume 1, page 22._

EDUCATION:
   Babylonia and Assyria.

   "The primitive Chaldeans were pre-eminently a literary people,
   and it is by their literary relics, by the scattered contents
   of their libraries, that we can know and judge them. As
   befitted the inventors of a system of writing, like the
   Chinese they set the highest value on education, even though
   examinations may have been unknown among them. Education,
   however, was widely diffused. … Assur-bani-pal's library was
   open to the use and enjoyment of all his subjects, and the
   syllabaries, grammars, lexicons, and reading-books that it
   contained, show the extent to which not only their own
   language was studied by the Assyrians, but the dead language
   of ancient Accad as well. It became as fashionable to compose
   in this extinct tongue as it is now-a-days to display one's
   proficiency in Latin prose, and 'dog-Accadian' was perpetrated
   with as little remorse as 'dog-Latin' at the present time. One
   of the Babylonian cylinders found by General di Cesnola in the
   temple-treasure of Kurium, which probably belongs to the
   period of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, has a legend which
   endeavours to imitate the inscriptions of the early Accadian
   princes; but the very first word, by an unhappy error, betrays
   the insufficient knowledge of the old language possessed by
   its composer. Besides a knowledge of Accadian, the educated
   Assyrian was required to have also a knowledge of Aramaic,
   which had now become the 'lingua franca' of trade and
   diplomacy; and we find the Rabshakeh (Rab-sakki), or prime
   minister, who was sent against Hezekiah by Sennacherib,
   acquainted with Hebrew as well.
{675}
   The grammatical and lexical works in the library of
   Nineveh are especially interesting, as being the earliest
   attempts of the kind of which we know, and it is curious to
   find the Hamiltonian method of learning languages forestalled
   by the scribes of Assur-bani-pal. In this case, as in all
   others, the first enquiries into the nature of speech, and the
   first grammars and dictionaries, were due to the necessity of
   comparing two languages together; it was the Accadian which
   forced the Semitic Assyrian or Babylonian to study his own
   tongue. And already in these first efforts the main principles
   of Semitic grammar are laid down clearly and definitely."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Babylonian Literature,
      pages 71-72._

   "The Babylonians were the Chinese of the ancient world. They
   were essentially a reading and writing people. … The books
   were for the most part written upon clay with a wooden reed or
   metal stylus, for clay was cheap and plentiful, and easily
   impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of which the characters
   were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and possibly also
   parchment were employed as writing materials. … The use of
   clay for writing purposes extended, along with Babylonian
   culture, to the neighbouring populations of the East. … It
   is astonishing how much matter can be compressed into the
   compass of a single tablet: The cuneiform system of writing
   allowed the use of many abbreviations—thanks to its
   'ideographic' nature—and the characters were frequently of a
   very minute size. Indeed, so minute is the writing on many of
   the Assyrian (as distinguished from the Babylonian) tablets
   that it is clear not only that the Assyrian scribes and
   readers must have been decidedly short-sighted, but also that
   they must have made use of magnifying glasses. We need not be
   surprised, therefore, to learn that Sir A. H. Layard
   discovered a crystal lens, which had been turned on a lathe,
   upon the site of the great library of Nineveh. … To learn
   the cuneiform syllabary was a task of much time and labour.
   The student was accordingly provided with various means of
   assistance. The characters of the syllabary were classified
   and named; they were further arranged according to a certain
   order, which partly depended on the number of wedges or lines
   of which each was composed. Moreover, what we may term
   dictionaries were compiled. … To learn the signs, however,
   with their multitudinous phonetic values and ideographic
   significations, was not the whole of the labour which the
   Babylonian boy had to accomplish. The cuneiform system of
   writing, along with the culture which had produced it, had
   been the invention of the non-Semitic Accado-Sumerian race,
   from whom it had been borrowed by the Semites. In Semitic
   hands the syllabary underwent further modifications and
   additions, but it bore upon it to the last the stamp of its
   alien origin. On this account alone, therefore, the Babylonian
   student who wished to acquire a knowledge of reading and
   writing was obliged to learn the extinct language of the older
   population of the country. There was, however, another reason
   which even more imperatively obliged him to study the earlier
   tongue. A large proportion of the ancient literature, more
   especially that which related to religious subjects, was
   written in Accado-Sumerian. Even the law-cases of earlier
   times, which formed precedents for the law of a later age,
   were in the same language. In fact, Accado-Sumerian stood in
   much the same relation to the Semitic Babylonians that Latin
   has stood to the modern inhabitants of Europe. … Besides
   learning the syllabary, therefore, the Babylonian boy had to
   learn the extinct of Accad and Sumer. … The study of foreign
   tongues naturally brought with it an inquisitiveness about the
   languages of other people, as well as a passion for etymology.
   … But there were other things besides languages which the
   young student in the schools of Babylonia and Assyria was
   called upon to learn. Geography, history, the names and nature
   of plants, birds, animals, and stones, as well as the elements
   of law and religion, were all objects of instruction. The
   British Museum possesses what may be called the historical
   exercise of some Babylonian lad in the age of Nebuchadnezzar
   or Cyrus, consisting of a list of the kings belonging to one
   of the early dynasties, which he had been required to learn by
   heart. … A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of
   Babylonia could read and write. The contract tablets are
   written in a variety of running hands, some of which are as
   bad as the worst that passes through the modern post. Every
   legal document required the signatures of a number of
   witnesses, and most of these were able to write their own
   names. … In Assyria, however, education was by no means so
   widely spread. Apart from the upper and professional classes,
   including the men of business, it was confined to a special
   body of men—the public scribes. … There was none of that
   jealous exclusion of women in ancient Babylonia which
   characterizes the East of today, and it is probable that boys
   and girls pursued their studies at the same schools. The
   education of a child must have begun early."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Social Life among the Babylonians,
      chapter 3._

EDUCATION:
   China.

   "It is not, perhaps, generally known that Peking contains an
   ancient university; for, though certain buildings connected
   with it have been frequently described, the institution itself
   has been but little noticed. It gives, indeed, so few signs of
   life that it is not surprising it should be overlooked. … If
   a local situation be deemed an essential element of identity,
   this old university must yield the palm of age to many in
   Europe, for in its present site it dates, at most, only from
   the Yuen, or Mongol, dynasty, in the beginning of the
   fourteenth century. But as an imperial institution, having a
   fixed organization and definite objects, it carries its
   history, or at least its pedigree, back to a period far
   anterior to the founding of the Great Wall. Among the
   Regulations of the House of Chow, which flourished a thousand
   years before the Christian era, we meet with it already in
   full-blown vigor, and under the identical name which it now
   bears, that of Kwotszekien, or 'School for the Sons of the
   Empire.' It was in its glory before the light of science
   dawned on Greece, and when Pythagoras and Plato were pumping
   their secrets from the priests of Heliopolis. And it still
   exists, but it is only an embodiment of 'life in death:' its
   halls are tombs, and its officers living mummies. In the 13th
   Book of the Chowle (see Rites de Tcheou, traduction par
   Édouard Biot), we find the functions of the heads of the
   Kwotszekien laid down with a good deal of minuteness.
{676}
   The presidents were to admonish the Emperor of that which is
   good and just, and to instruct the Sons of the State in the
   'three constant virtues' and the 'three practical duties'—in
   other words, to give a course of lectures on moral philosophy.
   The vice-presidents were to reprove the Emperor for his faults
   (i. e., to perform the duty of official censors) and to
   discipline the Sons of the State in the sciences and
   arts—viz., in arithmetic, writing, music, archery,
   horsemanship and ritual ceremonies. … The old curriculum is
   religiously adhered to, but greater latitude is given, as we
   shall have occasion to observe, to the term 'Sons of the
   State.' In the days of Chow, this meant the heir-apparent,
   princes of the blood, and children of the nobility. Under the
   Tatsing dynasty it signifies men of defective scholarship
   throughout the provinces, who purchase literary degrees, and
   more specifically certain indigent students of Peking, who are
   aided by the imperial bounty. The Kwotszekien is located in
   the northeastern angle of the Tartar city, with a temple of
   Confucius attached, which is one of the finest in the Empire.
   The main edifice (that of the temple) consists of a single
   story of imposing height, with a porcelain roof of tent-like
   curvature. … It contains no seats, as all comers are
   expected to stand or kneel in presence of the Great Teacher.
   Neither does it boast anything in the way of artistic
   decoration, nor exhibit any trace of that neatness and taste
   which we look for in a sacred place. Perhaps its vast area is
   designedly left to dust and emptiness, in order that nothing
   may intervene to disturb the mind in the contemplation of a
   great name which receives the homage of a nation. … In an
   adjacent block or square stands a pavilion known as the
   'Imperial Lecture-room,' because it is incumbent on each
   occupant of the Dragon throne to go there at least once in his
   life-time to hear a discourse on the nature and
   responsibilities of his office. … A canal spanned by marble
   bridges encircles the pavilion, and arches of glittering
   porcelain, in excellent repair, adorn the grounds. But neither
   these nor the pavilion itself constitutes the chief attraction
   of the place. Under a long corridor which encloses the entire
   space may be seen as many as one hundred and eighty-two
   columns of massive granite, each inscribed with a portion of
   the canonical books. These are the 'Stone Classics'—the
   entire 'Thirteen,' which formed the staple of a Chinese
   education, being here enshrined in a material supposed to be
   imperishable. Among all the Universities in the world, the
   Kwotszekien is unique in the possession of such a library.
   This is not, indeed, the only stone library extant—another of
   equal extent being found at Singanfu, the ancient capital of
   the Tangs. But, that too, was the property of the Kwotszekien
   ten centuries ago, when Singan was the seat of empire. The
   'School for the Sons of the Empire' must needs follow the
   migrations of the court; and that library, costly as it was,
   being too heavy for transportation, it was thought best to
   supply its place by the new edition which we have been
   describing. … In front of the temple stands a forest of
   columns of scarcely inferior interest. They are three hundred
   and twenty in number, and contain the university roll of
   honor, a complete list of all who since the founding of the
   institution have attained to the dignity of the doctorate.
   Allow to each an average of two hundred names, and we have an
   army of doctors sixty thousand strong! (By the doctorate I
   mean the third or highest degree.) All these received their
   investiture at the Kwotszekien, and, throwing themselves at
   the feet of its president, enrolled themselves among the 'Sons
   of the Empire.' They were not, however—at least the most of
   them were not—in any proper sense alumni of the Kwotszekien,
   having pursued their studies in private, and won their honors
   by public competition in the halls of the Civil-service
   Examining Board. … There is an immense area occupied by
   lecture-rooms, examination-halls and lodging-apartments. But
   the visitor is liable to imagine that these, too, are
   consecrated to a monumental use—so rarely is a student or a
   professor to be seen among them. Ordinarily they are as
   desolate as the halls of Baalbec or Palmyra. In fact, this
   great school for the 'Sons of the Empire' has long ceased to
   be a seat of instruction, and degenerated into a mere
   appendage of the civil-service competitive examinations on
   which it hangs as a dead weight, corrupting and debasing
   instead of advancing the standard of national education."

      _W. A. P. Martin,
      The Chinese, their Education, Philosophy and Letters,
      pages 85-90._

EDUCATION:
   Persia.

   "All the best authorities are agreed that great pains were
   taken by the Persians—or, at any rate, by those of the
   leading clans—in the education of their sons. During the
   first five years of his life the boy remained wholly with the
   women, and was scarcely, if at all, seen by his father. After
   that time his training commenced. He was expected to rise
   before dawn, and to appear at a certain spot, where he was
   exercised with other boys of his age in running, slinging
   stones, shooting with the bow, and throwing the javelin. At
   seven he was taught to ride, and soon afterward he was allowed
   to begin to hunt. The riding included, not only the ordinary
   management of the horse, but the power of jumping on and off
   his back when he was at speed, and of shooting with the bow
   and throwing the javelin with unerring aim, while the horse
   was still at full gallop. The hunting was conducted by
   state-officers, who aimed at forming by its means in the
   youths committed to their charge all the qualities needed in
   war. The boys were made to bear extremes of heat and cold, to
   perform long marches, to cross rivers without wetting their
   weapons, to sleep in the open air at night, to be content with
   a single meal in two days, and to support themselves
   occasionally on the wild products of the country, acorns, wild
   pears and the fruit of the terebinth tree. On days when there
   was no hunting they passed their mornings in athletic
   exercises, and contests with the bow or the javelin, after
   which they dined simply on the plain food mentioned above as
   that of the men in the early times, and then employed
   themselves during the afternoon in occupations regarded as not
   illiberal—for instance, in the pursuits of agriculture,
   planting, digging for roots, and the like, or in the
   construction of arms and hunting implements, such as nets and
   springes. Hardy and temperate habits being secured by this
   training, the point of morals on which their preceptors mainly
   insisted was the rigid observance of truth. Of intellectual
   education they had but little. It seems to have been no part
   of the regular training of a Persian youth that he should
   learn to read.
{677}
   He was given religious notions and a certain amount of moral
   knowledge by means of legendary poems, in which the deeds of
   gods and heroes were set before him by his teachers, who
   recited or sung them in his presence, and afterwards required
   him to repeat what he had heard, or, at any rate, to give some
   account of it. This education continued for fifteen years,
   commencing when the boy was five, and terminating when he
   reached the age of twenty. The effect of this training was to
   render the Persian an excellent soldier and a most
   accomplished horseman. … At fifteen years of age the Persian
   was considered to have attained to manhood, and was enrolled
   in the ranks of the army, continuing liable to military
   service from that time till he reached the age of fifty. Those
   of the highest rank became the body-guard of the king, and
   these formed the garrison of the capital. … Others, though
   liable to military service, did not adopt arms as their
   profession, but attached themselves to the Court and looked to
   civil employment, as satraps, secretaries, attendants, ushers,
   judges, inspectors, messengers. … For trade and commerce the
   Persians were wont to express extreme contempt."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,
      volume 3, pages 238-242._

   After the death of Cyrus, according to Xenophon, the Persians
   degenerated, in the education of their youth and otherwise.
   "To educate the youth at the gates of the palace is still the
   custom," he says; "but the attainment and practice of
   horsemanship are extinct, because they do not go where they
   can gain applause by exhibiting skill in that exercise.
   Whereas, too, in former times, the boys, hearing causes justly
   decided there, were considered by that means to learn justice,
   that custom is altogether altered; for they now see those gain
   their causes who offer the highest bribes. Formerly, also,
   boys were taught the virtues of the various productions of the
   earth, in order that they might use the serviceable, and avoid
   the noxious; but now they seem to be taught those particulars
   that they may do as much harm as possible; at least there are
   nowhere so many killed or injured by poison as in that
   country."

      _Xenophon,
      Cyropædia and Hellenics;
      translated by J. S. Watson and H. Dale,
      pages 284-285._

EDUCATION:
   Judæa.

   "According to the statement of Josephus, Moses had already
   prescribed 'that boys should learn the most important laws,
   because that is the best knowledge and the cause of
   prosperity.' 'He commanded to instruct children in the
   elements of knowledge (reading and writing), to teach them to
   walk according to the laws, and to know the deeds of their
   forefathers. The latter, that they might imitate them; the
   former, that growing up with the laws they might not
   transgress them, nor have the excuse of ignorance.' Josephus
   repeatedly commends the zeal with which the instruction of the
   young was carried on. 'We take most pains of all with the
   instruction of children, and esteem the observance of the laws
   and the piety corresponding with them the most important
   affair of our whole life.' 'If anyone should question one of
   us concerning the laws, he would more easily repeat all than
   his own name. Since we learn them from our first
   consciousness, we have them, as it were, engraven on our
   souls; and a transgression is rare, but the averting of
   punishment impossible.' In like manner does Philo express
   himself: 'Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine
   revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from
   their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law in their
   souls.' … In view of all this testimony it cannot be
   doubted, that in the circles of genuine Judaism boys were from
   their tenderest childhood made acquainted with the demands of
   the law. That this education in the law was, in the first
   place, the duty and task of parents is self-evident. But it
   appears, that even in the age of Christ, care was also taken
   for the instruction of youth by the erection of schools on the
   part of the community. … The later tradition that Joshua ben
   Gamla (Jesus the son of Gamaliel) enacted that teachers of
   boys … should be appointed in every province and in every
   town, and that children of the age of six or seven should be
   brought to them, is by no means incredible. The only Jesus the
   son of Gamaliel known to history is the high priest of that
   name, about 63-65 after Christ. … It must therefore be he
   who is intended in the above notice. As his measures
   presuppose a somewhat longer existence of boys' schools, we
   may without hesitation transfer them to the age of Christ,
   even though not as a general and established institution. The
   subject of instruction, as already appears from the above
   passages of Josephus and Philo, was as good as exclusively the
   law. For only its inculcation in the youthful mind, and not
   the means of general education, was the aim of all this zeal
   for the instruction of youth. And indeed the earliest
   instruction was in the reading and inculcation of the text of
   scripture. … Habitual practice went hand in hand with
   theoretical instruction. For though children were not actually
   bound to fulfil the law, they were yet accustomed to it from
   their youth up."

      _E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ,
      volume 2, pages 47-50._

   In the fourth century B. C. the Council of Seventy Elders
   "instituted regularly appointed readings from the Law; on
   every sabbath and on every week day a portion from the
   Pentateuch was to be read to the assembled congregation. Twice
   a week, when the country people came up from the villages to
   market in the neighbouring towns, or to appeal at the courts
   of justice, some verses of the Pentateuch, however few, were
   read publicly. At first only the learned were allowed to read,
   but at last it was looked upon as so great an honour to belong
   to the readers, that everyone attempted or desired to do so.
   Unfortunately the characters in which the Torah was written
   were hardly readable. Until that date the text of the Torah
   had been written in the ancient style with Phœnician or old
   Babylonian characters, which could only be deciphered by
   practised scribes. … From the constant reading of the Law,
   there arose among the Judæans an intellectual activity and
   vigour, which at last gave a special character to the whole
   nation. The Torah became their spiritual and intellectual
   property, and their own inner sanctuary. At this time there
   sprang up other important institutions, namely, schools, where
   the young men could stimulate their ardour and increase their
   knowledge of the Law and its teachings. The intellectual
   leaders of the people continually enjoined on the rising
   generation, 'Bring up a great many disciples.' And what they
   enjoined so strenuously they themselves must have assisted to
   accomplish. One of these religious schools (Beth-Waad) was
   probably established in Jerusalem.
{678}
   The teachers were called scribes (sopherim) or wise men; the
   disciples, pupils of the wise (Talmude Chachamim). The wise
   men or scribes had a two-fold work; on the one hand they had
   to explain the Torah, and on the other, to make the laws
   applicable to each individual and to the community at large.
   This supplementary interpretation was called 'explanation'
   (Midrash); it was not altogether arbitrary, but rested upon
   certain rules laid down for the proper interpretation of the
   law. The supreme council and the houses of learning worked
   together, and one completed the other. A hardly perceptible,
   but most important movement was the result; for the
   descendants of the Judæans of that age were endowed with a
   characteristic, which they might otherwise have claimed as
   inborn, the talent for research and the intellectual
   penetration, needed for turning and returning words and data,
   in order to discover some new and hidden meaning."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

EDUCATION:
   Schools of the Prophets.

   "In his [Samuel's] time we first hear of what in modern
   phraseology are called the Schools of the Prophets. Whatever
   be the precise meaning of the peculiar word, which now came
   first into use as the designation of these companies, it is
   evident that their immediate mission consisted in uttering
   religious hymns or songs, accompanied by musical
   instruments—psaltery, tabret, pipe and harp, and cymbals. In
   them, as in the few solitary instances of their predecessors,
   the characteristic element was that the silent seer of visions
   found an articulate voice, gushing forth in a rhythmical flow,
   which at once riveted the attention of the hearer. These, or
   such as these, were the gifts which under Samuel were now
   organized, if one may say so, into a system."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 18._

EDUCATION:
   Greece.

   A description of the Athenian education of the young is given
   by Plato in one of his dialogues: "Education," he says, "and
   admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last
   to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor
   are quarrelling about the improvement of the child as soon as
   ever he is able to understand them: he cannot say or do
   anything without their setting forth to him that this is just
   and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable;
   this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that.
   And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by
   threats and blows, like a piece of warped wood. At a later
   stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his
   manners even more than to his reading and music; and the
   teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned
   his letters and is beginning to understand what is written·,
   as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into
   his hands the works of great poets, which he reads at school;
   in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and
   praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is
   required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or
   emulate them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the
   teachers of the lyre take similar care that their young
   disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they
   have taught him the use of the lyre, they introduce him to the
   poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets; and
   these they set to music, and make their harmonies and rhythms
   quite familiar to the children, in order that they may learn
   to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more
   fitted for speech and action; for the life of men in every
   part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to
   the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better
   minister to the virtuous mind, and that the weakness of their
   bodies may not force them to play the coward in war or on any
   other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the
   means, and those who have the means are the rich; their
   children begin education soonest and leave off latest. When
   they have done with masters, the state again compels them to
   learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish,
   and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to
   write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for
   the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and
   makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which
   were the invention of good law-givers who were of old times;
   these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his
   conduct whether as ruler or ruled; and he who transgresses
   them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to
   account, which is a term used not only in your country, but
   also in many others. Now when there is all this care about
   virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder
   and doubt whether virtue can be taught?"

      _Plato,
      Protagoras
      (Dialogue; translated by Jowett, volume 1)._

   The ideas of Aristotle on the subject are in the following:
   "There can be no doubt that children should be taught those
   useful things which are really necessary, but not all thing's;
   for occupations are divided into liberal and illiberal; and to
   young children should be imparted only such kinds of knowledge
   as will be useful to them without vulgarizing them. And any
   occupation, art, or science, which makes the body or soul or
   mind of the freeman less fit for the practice or exercise of
   virtue, is vulgar; wherefore we call those arts vulgar which
   tend to deform the body, and likewise all paid employments,
   for they absorb and degrade the mind. There are also some
   liberal arts quite proper for a freeman to acquire, but only
   in a certain degree, and if he attend to them too closely, in
   order to obtain perfection in them, the same evil effects will
   follow. The object also which a man sets before him makes a
   great difference; if he does or learns anything for his own
   sake or for the sake of his friends, or with a view to
   excellence, the action will not appear illiberal; but if done
   for the sake of others, the very same action will be thought
   menial and servile. The received subjects of instruction, as I
   have already remarked, are partly of a liberal and partly of
   an illiberal character. The customary branches of education
   are in number four; they are—(l) reading and writing, (2)
   gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added
   (4) drawing. Of these, reading and writing and drawing are
   regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of
   ways, and gymnastic exercises are thought to infuse courage.
   Concerning music a doubt may be raised—in our own day most
   men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it
   was included in education, because nature herself, as has been
   often said, requires that we should be able, not only to work
   well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and
   again, the first principle of all action is leisure.
{679}
   Both are required, but leisure is better than occupation; and
   therefore the question must be asked in good earnest, what
   ought we to do when at leisure? Clearly we ought not to be
   amusing ourselves, for then amusement would be the end of
   life. But if this is inconceivable, and yet amid serious
   occupations amusement is needed more than at other times (for
   he who is hard at work has need of relaxation, and amusement
   gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied
   with exertion and effort), at suitable times we should
   introduce amusements, and they should be our medicines, for
   the emotion which they create in the soul is a relaxation, and
   from the pleasure we obtain rest. … It is clear then that
   there are branches of learning and education which we must
   study with a view to the enjoyment of leisure, and these are
   to be valued for their own sake; whereas those kinds of
   knowledge which are useful in business are to be deemed
   necessary, and exist for the sake of other things. And
   therefore our fathers admitted music into education, not on
   the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not
   necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and
   writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management
   of a house-hold, in the acquisition of knowledge and in
   political life, nor like drawing, useful for a more correct
   judgment of the works of artists, nor again like gymnastic,
   which gives health and strength; for neither of these is to be
   gained from music. There remains, then, the use of music for
   intellectual enjoyment in leisure; which appears to have been
   the reason of its introduction, this being one of the ways in
   which it is thought that a freeman should pass his leisure.
   … We are now in a position to say that the ancients witness
   to us; for their opinion may be gathered from the fact that
   music is one of the received and traditional branches of
   education. Further, it is clear that children should be
   instructed in some useful things,—for example, in reading and
   writing,—not only for their usefulness, but also because many
   other sorts of knowledge are acquired through them. With a
   like view they may be taught drawing, not to prevent their
   making mistakes in their own purchases, or in order that they
   may not be imposed upon in the buying or selling of articles,
   but rather because it makes them judges of the beauty of the
   human form. To be always seeking after the useful does not
   become free and exalted souls. … We reject the professional
   instruments and also the professional mode of education in
   music—and by professional we mean that which is adopted in
   contests, for in this the performer practises the art, not for
   the sake of his own improvement, but in order to give
   pleasure, and that of a vulgar sort, to his hearers. For this
   reason the execution of such music is not the part of a
   freeman but of a paid performer, and the result is that the
   performers are vulgarized, for the end at which they aim is
   bad."

      _Aristotle,
      Politics
      (Jowett's Translation),
      book 8._

   "The most striking difference between early Greek education
   and ours was undoubtedly this; that the physical development
   of boys was attended to in a special place and by a special
   master. It was not thought sufficient for them to play the
   chance games of childhood; they underwent careful bodily
   training under a very fixed system, which was determined by
   the athletic contests of after life. … When we compare what
   the Greeks afforded to their boys, we find it divided into two
   contrasted kinds of exercise: hunting, which was practised by
   the Spartans very keenly, and no doubt also by the Eleans and
   Arcadians, as may be seen from Xenophon's 'Tract on (Hare)
   Hunting'; and gymnastics, which in the case of boys were
   carried on in the so-caned palæstra, a sort of open-air
   gymnasium (in our sense) kept by private individuals as a
   speculation, and to which the boys were sent, as they were to
   their ordinary school-master. We find that the Spartans, who
   had ample scope for hunting with dogs in the glens and coverts
   of Mount Taygetus, rather despised mere exercises of dexterity
   in the palæstra, just as our sportsmen would think very little
   of spending hours in a gymnasium. But those Greeks who lived
   in towns like Athens, and in the midst of a thickly populated
   and well-cultivated country, could not possibly obtain
   hunting, and therefore found the most efficient substitute.
   Still we find them very far behind the English in their
   knowledge or taste for out-of-door games. … The Greeks had
   no playgrounds beyond the palæstra or gymnasium; they had no
   playgrounds in our sense, and though a few proverbs speak of
   swimming as a universal accomplishment which boys learned, the
   silence of Greek literature on the subject makes one very
   suspicious as to the generality of such training. … In one
   point, certainly, the Greeks agreed more with the modern
   English than with any other civilised nation. They regarded
   sport as a really serious thing. … The names applied to the
   exercising-places indicate their principal uses. Palæstra
   means a wrestling place; gymnasium originally a place for
   naked exercise, but the word early lost this connotation and
   came to mean mere physical training. … In order to leave
   home and reach the palæstra safely as well as to return, Greek
   boys were put under the charge of a pædagogue, in no way to be
   identified (as it now is) with a schoolmaster. … I think we
   may be justified in asserting that the study of the epic
   poets, especially of the Iliad and Odyssey, was the earliest
   intellectual exercise of schoolboys, and, in the case of
   fairly educated parents, even anticipated the learning of
   letters. For the latter is never spoken of as part of a
   mother's or of home education. Reading was not so universal or
   so necessary as it now is. … We may assume that books of
   Homer were read or recited to growing boys, and that they were
   encouraged or required to learn them off by heart. This is
   quite certain to all who estimate justly the enormous
   influence ascribed to Homer, and the principles assumed by the
   Greeks to have underlain his work. He was universally
   considered to be a moral teacher, whose characters were drawn
   with a moral intent, and for the purpose of example or
   avoidance. … Accordingly the Iliad and Odyssey were supposed
   to contain all that was useful, not only for godliness, but
   for life. All the arts and sciences were to be derived (by
   interpretation) from these sacred texts. … In early days,
   and in poor towns, the place of teaching was not well
   appointed, nay, even in many places, teaching in the open air
   prevailed. … This was … like the old hedge schools of
   Ireland, and no doubt of Scotland too. They also took
   advantage, especially in hot weather, of colonnades, or shady
   corners among public buildings, as at Winchester the summer
   term was called cloister-time, from a similar practice, even
   in that wealthy foundation, of instructing in the cloisters.
   On the other hand, properly appointed schools in respectable
   towns were furnished with some taste, and according to
   traditional notions. …
{680}
   We may be sure that there were no tables or desks, such
   furniture being unusual in Greek houses; it was the universal
   custom, while reading or writing, to hold the book or roll on
   the knee—to us an inconvenient thing to do, but still common
   in the East. There are some interesting sentences, given for
   exercise in Greek and Latin, in the little known
   'Interpretamenta' of Dositheus, now edited and explained by
   German scholars. The entry of the boy is thus described, in
   parallel Greek and Latin: 'First I salute the master, who
   returns my salute: Good morning, master; good morning, school
   fellows. Give me my place, my seat, my stool. Sit closer. Move
   up that way. This is my place, I took it first.' This mixture
   of politeness and wrangling is amusing, and no doubt to be
   found in all ages. It seems that the seats were movable. …
   The usual subdivision of education was into three parts;
   letters, … including reading, writing, counting, and
   learning of the poets; music in the stricter sense, including
   singing and playing on the lyre; and lastly gymnastic, which
   included dancing. … It is said that at Sparta the education
   in reading and writing was not thought necessary, and there
   have been long discussions among the learned whether the
   ordinary Spartan in classical days was able to read. We find
   that Aristotle adds a fourth subject to the three above
   named—drawing, which he thinks requisite, like music, to
   enable the educated man to judge rightly of works of art. But
   there is no evidence of a wide diffusion of drawing or
   painting among the Greeks, as among us. … Later on, under
   the learned influences of Alexandria, and the paid
   professoriate of Roman days, subjects multiplied with the
   decline of mental vigour and spontaneity of the age, and
   children began to be pestered, as they now are, with a
   quantity of subjects, all thought necessary to a proper
   education, and accordingly all imperfectly acquired. This was
   called the encyclical education, which is preserved in our
   Encyclopædia of knowledge. It included,(1) grammar,(2)
   rhetoric, (3) dialectic, (4) arithmetic, (5) music, (6)
   geometry, (7) astronomy, and these were divided into the
   earlier Trivium, and the later Quadrivium."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Old Greek Education,
      chapters 3-5._

   "Reading was taught with the greatest pains, the utmost care
   was taken with the intonation of the voice, and the
   articulation of the throat. We have lost the power of
   distinguishing between accent and quantity. The Greeks did not
   acquire it without long and anxious training of the ear and
   the vocal organs. This was the duty of the phonascus. Homer
   was the common study of all Greeks. The Iliad and Odyssee were
   at once the Bible, the Shakespeare, the Robinson Crusoe, and
   the Arabian Nights of the Hellenic race. Long passages and
   indeed whole books were learnt by heart. The Greek, as a rule,
   learnt no language but his own. Next to reading and repetition
   came writing, which was carefully taught. Composition
   naturally followed, and the burden of correcting exercises,
   which still weighs down the backs of schoolmasters, dates from
   these early times. Closely connected with reading and writing
   is the art of reckoning, and the science of numbers leads us
   easily to music. Plato considered arithmetic as the best spur
   to a sleepy and uninstructed spirit; we see from the Platonic
   dialogues how mathematical problems employed the mind and
   thoughts of young Athenians. Many of the more difficult
   arithmetical operations were solved by geometrical methods,
   but the Greeks carried the art of teaching numbers to
   considerable refinement. They used the abacus, and had an
   elaborate method of finger reckoning, which was serviceable up
   to 10,000. Drawing was the crowning accomplishment to this
   vestibule of training. By the time the fourteenth year was
   completed, the Greek boy would have begun to devote himself
   seriously to the practice of athletics."

      _O. Browning,
      An Introduction to the History of Educational Theories,
      chapter 1._

   "It has sometimes been imagined that in Greece separate
   edifices were not erected as with us expressly for
   school-houses, but that both the didaskalos and the
   philosopher taught their pupils in fields, gardens or shady
   groves. But this was not the common practice, though many
   schoolmasters appear to have had no other place wherein to
   assemble their pupils than the portico of a temple or some
   sheltered corner in the street, where in spite of the din of
   business and the throng of passengers the worship of learning
   was publicly performed. … But these were the schools of the
   humbler classes. For the children of the noble and the opulent
   spacious structures were raised, and furnished with tables,
   desks,—for that peculiar species of grammateion which
   resembled the plate cupboard, can have been nothing but a
   desk,—forms, and whatsoever else their studies required.
   Mention is made of a school at Chios which contained one
   hundred and twenty boys, all of whom save one were killed by
   the falling in of the roof. … The apparatus of an ancient
   school was somewhat complicated: there were mathematical
   instruments, globes, maps, and charts of the heavens, together
   with boards whereon to trace geometrical figures, tablets,
   large and small, of box-wood, fir, or ivory, triangular in
   form, some folding with two, and others with many leaves;
   books too and paper, skins of parchment, wax for covering the
   tablets, which, if we may believe Aristophanes, people
   sometimes ate when they were hungry. To the above were added
   rulers, reed-pens, pen-cases, pen-knives, pencils, and last,
   though not least, the rod which kept them to the steady use of
   all these things: At Athens these schools were not provided by
   the state. They were private speculations, and each master was
   regulated in his charges by the reputation he had acquired and
   the fortunes of his pupils. Some appear to have been extremely
   moderate in their demands. … The earliest task to be
   performed at school was to gain a knowledge of the Greek
   characters, large and small, to spell next, next to read. …
   In teaching the art of writing their practice nearly resembled
   our own. … These things were necessarily the first step in
   the first class of studies, which were denominated music, and
   comprehended everything connected with the development of the
   mind; and they were carried to a certain extent before the
   second division called gymnastics was commenced. They reversed
   the plan commonly adopted among ourselves, for with them
   poetry preceded prose, a practice which, coöperating with
   their susceptible temperament, impressed upon the national
   mind that imaginative character for which it was preëminently
   distinguished.
{681}
   And the poets in whose works they were first initiated were of
   all the most poetical, the authors of lyrical and dithyrambic
   pieces, selections from whose verses they committed to memory,
   thus acquiring early a rich store of sentences and imagery
   ready to be adduced in argument or illustration, to furnish
   familiar allusions or to be woven into the texture of their
   style. … Among the other branches of knowledge most
   necessary to be studied, and to which they applied themselves
   nearly from the outset, was arithmetic, without some inkling
   of which, a man, in Plato's opinion, could scarcely be a
   citizen at all. … The importance attached to this branch of
   education, nowhere more apparent than in the dialogues of
   Plato, furnishes one proof that the Athenians were
   preëminently men of business, who in all their admiration for
   the good and beautiful never lost sight of those things which
   promote the comfort of life, and enable a man effectually to
   perform his ordinary duties. With the same views were geometry
   and astronomy pursued. … The importance of music, in the
   education of the Greeks, is generally understood. It was
   employed to effect several purposes. First, to sooth and
   mollify the fierceness of the national character, and prepare
   the way for the lessons of the poets, which, delivered amid
   the sounding of melodious strings, when the soul was rapt and
   elevated by harmony, by the excitement of numbers, by the
   magic of the sweetest associations, took a firm hold upon the
   mind, and generally retained it during life. Secondly, it
   enabled the citizens gracefully to perform their part in the
   amusements of social life, every person being in his turn
   called upon at entertainments to sing or play upon the lyre.
   Thirdly, it was necessary to enable them to join in the sacred
   choruses, rendered frequent by the piety of the state, and for
   the due performance in old age of many offices of religion,
   the sacerdotal character belonging more or less to all the
   citizens of Athens. Fourthly, as much of the learning of a
   Greek was martial and designed to fit him for defending his
   country, he required some knowledge of music that on the field
   of battle his voice might harmoniously mingle with those of
   his countrymen, in chaunting those stirring, impetuous, and
   terrible melodies, called pæans, which preceded the first
   shock of fight. For some, or all of these reasons, the science
   of music began to be cultivated among the Hellenes, at a
   period almost beyond the reach even of tradition."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 2, chapter 4._

   "In thinking of Greek education as furnishing a possible model
   for us moderns, there is one point which it is important to
   bear in mind: Greek education was intended only for the few,
   for the wealthy and well-born. Upon all others, upon slaves,
   barbarians, the working and trading classes, and generally
   upon all persons spending their lives in pursuit of wealth or
   any private ends whatsoever, it would have seemed to be thrown
   away. Even well-born women were generally excluded from most
   of its benefits. The subjects of education were the sons of
   full citizens, themselves preparing to be full citizens, and
   to exercise all the functions of such. The duties of such
   persons were completely summed up under two heads, duties to
   the family and duties to the State, or, as the Greeks said,
   œconomic and political duties. The free citizen not only
   acknowledged no other duties besides these, but he looked down
   upon persons who sought occupation in any other sphere.
   Œconomy and Politics, however, were very comprehensive terms.
   The former included the three relations of husband to wife,
   father to children, and master to slaves and property; the
   latter, three public functions, legislative, administrative,
   and judiciary. All occupations not included under these six
   heads the free citizen left to slaves or resident foreigners.
   Money-making, in the modern sense, he despised, and, if he
   devoted himself to art or philosophy, he did so only for the
   benefit of the State."

      _T. Davidson,
      Aristotle,
      book 1, chapter 4._

EDUCATION: Greek
   Spartan Training.

   "From his birth every Spartan belonged to the state, which
   decided … whether he was likely to prove a useful member of
   the community, and extinguished the life of the sickly or
   deformed infant. To the age of seven however the care of the
   child was delegated to its natural guardians, yet not so as to
   be left wholly to their discretion, but subject to certain
   established rules of treatment, which guarded against every
   mischievous indulgence of parental tenderness. At the end of
   seven years began a long course of public discipline, which
   grew constantly more and more severe as the boy approached
   toward manhood. The education of the young was in some degree
   the business of all the elder citizens; for there was none who
   did not contribute to it, if not by his active interference,
   at least by his presence and inspection. But it was placed
   under the especial superintendence of an officer selected from
   the men of most approved worth; and he again chose a number of
   youths, just past the age of twenty, and who most eminently
   united courage with discretion, to exercise a more immediate
   command over the classes, into which the boys were divided.
   The leader of each class directed the sports and tasks of his
   young troop, and punished their offences with military rigour,
   but was himself responsible to his elders for the mode in
   which he discharged his office. The Spartan education was
   simple in its objects; it was not the result of any general
   view of human nature, or of any attempt to unfold its various
   capacities: it aimed at training men who were to live in the
   midst of difficulty and danger, and who could only be safe
   themselves while they held rule over others. The citizen was
   to be always ready for the defence of himself and his country,
   at home and abroad, and he was therefore to be equally fitted
   to command and to obey. His body, his mind, and his character
   were formed for this purpose, and for no other: and hence the
   Spartan system, making directly for its main end, and
   rejecting all that was foreign to it, attained, within its own
   sphere, to a perfection which it is impossible not to admire.
   The young Spartan was perhaps unable either to read or write:
   he scarcely possessed the elements of any of the arts or
   sciences by which society is enriched or adorned: but he could
   run, leap, wrestle, hurl the disk, or the javelin, and wield
   every other weapon, with a vigour and agility, and grace which
   were no where surpassed. These however were accomplishments to
   be learnt in every Greek palæstra: he might find many rivals
   in all that he could do; but few could approach him in the
   firmness with which he was taught to suffer. From the tender
   age at which he left his mother's lap for the public schools,
   his life was one continued trial of patience. Coarse and
   scanty fare, and this occasionally withheld, a light dress,
   without any change in the depth of winter, a bed of reeds,
   which he himself gathered from the Eurotas, blows exchanged
   with his comrades, stripes inflicted by his governors, more by
   way of exercise than of punishment, inured him to every form
   of pain and hardship. …
{682}
   The Muses were appropriately honoured at Sparta with a
   sacrifice on the eve of a battle, and the union of the spear
   and the lyre was a favourite theme with the Laconian poets,
   and those who sang of Spartan customs. Though bred in the
   discipline of the camp, the young Spartan, like the hero of
   the Iliad, was not a stranger to music and poetry. He was
   taught to sing, and to play on the flute and the lyre: but the
   strains with which his memory was stored, and to which his voice
   was formed, were either sacred hymns, or breathed a martial
   spirit; and it was because they cherished such sentiments that
   the Homeric lays, if not introduced by Lycurgus, were early
   welcomed at Sparta. … As these musical exercises were
   designed to cultivate, not so much an intellectual, as a moral
   taste; so it was probably less for the sake of sharpening
   their ingenuity, than of promoting presence of mind, and
   promptness of decision, that the boys were led into the habit
   of answering all questions proposed to them, with a ready,
   pointed, sententious brevity, which was a proverbial
   characteristic of Spartan conversation. But the lessons which
   were most studiously inculcated, more indeed by example than
   by precept, were those of modesty, obedience, and reverence
   for age and rank; for these were the qualities on which, above
   all others, the stability of the commonwealth reposed. The
   gait and look of the Spartan youths, as they passed along the
   streets, observed Xenophon, breathed modesty and reserve. In
   the presence of their elders they were bashful as virgins, and
   silent as statues, save when a question was put to them. …
   In truth, the respect for the laws, which rendered the Spartan
   averse to innovation at home, was little more than another
   form of that awe with which his early habits inspired him for
   the magistrates and the aged. With this feeling was intimately
   connected that quick and deep sense of shame, which shrank
   from dishonour as the most dreadful of evils, and enabled him
   to meet death so calmly, when he saw in it the will of his
   country."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

EDUCATION:
   Free-School Ideas in Greece.

   "It is a prevalent opinion that common schools, as we now have
   them, were an American invention. No legislation, it is
   asserted, taxing all in order that all may be taught can be
   traced back further than to the early laws of Massachusetts.
   Those who deny this assertion are content with showing
   something of the sort in Scotland and Germany a generation or
   two before the landing of the Plymouth pilgrims. The truth is,
   however, that, as much of our social wit is now credited to
   the ancient Greeks, something of our educational wisdom ought
   to be. Two centuries ago John Locke, as an able political
   writer, was invited to draw up a code of fundamental laws for
   the new colony of Carolina, and in like manner, more than
   2,300 years ago, Charondas, a master of a similar type in
   Magna Græcia, was called to a similar task. This was to frame
   a series of statutes for the government of a Greek colony
   founded about 446 B. C., in the foot of Italy. This colony was
   Thurii, and conspicuous among the enactments of Charondas was
   the following: 'Charondas made a law unlike those of lawgivers
   before him, for he enacted that the sons of the citizens
   should all learn letters (or writing) … the city making
   payment to the teachers. He thought that the poor, not able to
   pay wages themselves, would otherwise fail of the best
   training. He counted writing the most important study, and
   with reason. Through writing, most things in life, and those
   the most useful, are accomplished—as ballots, epistles, laws,
   covenants. Who can sufficiently praise the learning of
   letters? … Writing alone preserves the most brilliant
   utterances of wise men and the oracles of gods, nay philosophy
   and all culture. All these things it alone hands down to all
   future generations. Wherefore nature should be viewed as the
   source of life, but the source of living well we should
   consider the culture derived from writing. Inasmuch, then, as
   illiterates are deprived of a great good, Charondas came to
   their help, judging them worthy of public care and outlay.
   Former legislators had caused the sick to be attended by
   physicians at the public expense, thinking their bodies worthy
   of cure. He did more, for he cured souls afflicted with
   ignorance. The doctors of the body we pray that we may never
   need, while we would fain abide for ever with those who
   minister to the mind diseased.'—This extract is from the
   'Bibliotheca Historica' of Diodorus Siculus (Book x. § 13),
   who was flourishing at the birth of Christ and was the most
   painstaking chronicler of the Augustan age. The legislation is
   worth notice for more than one reason. It rebukes the
   self-conceit of those who hold that the education of all at
   the charge of all is an idea born in our own time or country.
   It has also been strangely unnoticed by historians who ought
   to have kept it before the people."

      _The Nation,
      March 24, 1892, pages 280-231._

EDUCATION:
   Socrates and the Philosophical Schools.

   "Before the rise of philosophy, the teacher of the people had
   been the rhapsode, or public reciter; after that event he
   gradually gives place to the sophist (… one who makes wise),
   or, as he later with more modesty calls himself, the
   philosopher (… lover of wisdom). The history of Greece for
   centuries is, on its inner side, a history of the struggle
   between what the rhapsode represents and what the philosopher
   represents, between popular tradition and common sense on the
   one hand, and individual opinion and philosophy on the other.
   The transition from the first to the second of these mental
   conditions was accomplished for the world, once for all, by
   the Greeks."

      _T. Davidson,
      Aristotle,
      book 1, chapter 5._

   "There is no instance on record of a philosopher whose
   importance as a thinker is so closely bound up with the
   personality of the man as it was in the case of Socrates. …
   His teaching was not of a kind to be directly imparted and
   faithfully handed down, but could only be left to propagate
   itself freely by stirring up others to a similar self·culture.
   … The youth and early manhood of Socrates fall in the most
   brilliant period of Grecian history. Born during the last
   years of the Persian war, he was a near contemporary of all
   those great men who adorned the age of Pericles. As a citizen
   of Athens he could enjoy the opportunities afforded by a city,
   which united every means of culture by its unrivalled
   fertility of thought. Poverty and low birth were but slender
   obstacles in the Athens of Pericles. … Socrates, no doubt,
   began life by learning his father's trade, … which he
   probably never practised, and certainly soon gave up.
{683}
   He considered it to be his special calling to labour for the
   moral and intellectual improvement of himself and others—a
   conviction which he felt so strongly that it appeared to him
   in the light of a divine revelation. Moreover he was confirmed
   in it by a Delphic oracle, which, of course, must not be
   regarded as the cause of, but rather as an additional support
   to his reforming zeal. … To be independent, he tried, like
   the Gods, to rise superior to his wants; and by carefully
   practising self-denial and abstemiousness, he was really able
   to boast that his life was more pleasant and more free from
   troubles than that of the rest of mankind. Thus he was able to
   devote his whole powers to the service of others, without
   asking or taking reward; and thus he became so engrossed by
   his labours for his native city, that he rarely passed its
   boundaries or even went outside its gates. He did not,
   however, feel himself called upon to take part in the affairs
   of the state. … Anyone convinced as he was, that care for
   one's own culture must precede care for public business, and
   that a thorough knowledge of self, together with a deep and
   many-sided experience, was a necessary condition of public
   activity, must have thought that, to educate individuals by
   influence, was the more pressing need, and have held that he
   was doing his country a better service by educating able
   statesmen for it, than by actually discharging a statesman's
   duties. Accordingly, Socrates never aimed at being anything
   but a private citizen. … Just as little was he desirous of
   being a public teacher like the Sophists. He not only took no
   pay, but he gave no methodical course. He did not profess to
   teach, but to learn in common with others, not to force his
   convictions upon them, but to examine theirs; not to pass the
   truth that came to hand like a coin fresh from the mint, but
   to stir up a desire for truth and virtue, to point out the way
   to it, to overthrow what was spurious, and to seek out real
   knowledge. Never weary of talking, he was on the look out for
   every opportunity of giving an instructive and moral turn to
   the conversation. Day by day he was about in the market and
   public promenades, in schools and workshops, ever ready to
   converse with friends or strangers, with citizens and
   foreigners, but always prepared to lead them to higher
   subjects; and whilst thus in his higher calling serving God,
   he was persuaded that he was also serving his country in a way
   that no one else could do. Deeply as he deplored the decline
   of discipline and education in his native city, he felt that
   he could depend but little on the Sophists, the moral teachers
   of his day. The attractive powers of his discourse won for him
   a circle of admirers, for the most part consisting of young
   men of family, drawn to him by the most varied motives,
   standing to him in various relations, and coming to him, some
   for a longer, others for a shorter time. For his own part, he
   made it his business not only to educate these friends, but to
   advise them in everything, even in worldly matters. But out of
   this changing, and in part loosely connected, society, a
   nucleus was gradually formed of decided admirers,—a Socratic
   school, which we must consider united far less by a common set
   of doctrines, than by a common love for the person of
   Socrates."

      _E. Zeller,
      Socrates and the Socratic Schools,
      chapter 3._

   "Nowhere, except in Athens, do we hear of a philosophic body
   with endowments, legal succession, and the other rights of a
   corporation. This idea, which has never since died out of the
   world, was due to Plato, who bequeathed his garden and
   appointments in the place called after the hero Hekademus, to
   his followers. But he was obliged to do it in the only form
   possible at Athens. He made it a religious foundation, on the
   basis of a fixed worship to the Muses. … The head or
   President of Plato's 'Association of the Muses,' was the
   treasurer and manager of the common fund, who invited guests
   to their feasts, to which each member contributed his share.
   … The members had, moreover, a right to attend lectures and
   use the library or scientific appointments, such as maps,
   which belonged to the school. It was this endowment on a
   religious basis which saved the income and position of Plato's
   school for centuries. … This then is the first Academy, so
   often imitated in so many lands, and of which our colleges are
   the direct descendants. … The school of Plato, then governed
   by Xenocrates, being the bequest of an Athenian citizen who
   understood the law, seems never to have been assailed. The
   schools of Epicurus and Zeno were perhaps not yet recognised.
   But that of Theophrastus, perhaps the most crowded, certainly
   the most distinctly philo-Macedonian, … this was the school
   which was exiled, and which owed its rehabilitation not only
   to the legal decision of the courts, but still more to the
   large views of King Demetrius, who would not tolerate the
   persecution of opinion. But it was the other Demetrius, the
   philosopher, the pupil of Aristotle, the friend of
   Theophrastus, to whom the school owed most, and to whom the
   world owes most in the matter of museums and academies, next
   after Plato. For this was the man who took care, during his
   Protectorate of Athens in the interest of Casander, to
   establish a garden and 'peripatos' for the Peripatetic school,
   now under Theophrastus. … It is remarkable that the Stoic
   school—it too the school of aliens—did not establish a local
   foundation or succession, but taught in public places, such as
   the Painted Portico. In this the Cynical tone of the Porch
   comes out. Hence the succession depended upon the genius of
   the leader."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Greek Life and Thought,
      chapter 7._

   An account of the Academy, the Lyceum, etc., will be found
   under the caption GYMNASIA.

EDUCATION:
   University of Athens.

   "Some scholars … may doubt if there was anything at Athens
   which could answer to the College Life of modern times. Indeed
   it must be owned that formal history is nearly silent on the
   subject, that ancient writers take little notice of it, and
   such evidences as we have are drawn almost entirely from a
   series of inscriptions on the marble tablets, which were
   covered with the ruins and the dust of ages, till one after
   another came to light in recent days, to add fresh pages to
   the story of the past. Happily they are both numerous and
   lengthy, and may be already pieced together in an order which
   extends for centuries. They are known to Epigraphic students
   as the records which deal with the so-called Ephebi; with the
   youths, that is, just passing into manhood, for whom a special
   discipline was provided by the State, to, fit them for the
   responsibilities of active life. It was a National system with
   a many-sided training; the teachers were members of the Civil
   Service; the registers were public documents, and, as such,
   belonged to the Archives of the State.
{684}
   The earlier inscriptions of the series date from the
   period of Macedonian ascendency, but in much earlier times
   there had been forms of public drill prescribed for the
   Ephebi. … We find from a decree, which, if genuine, dates
   even from the days of Pericles, that the young men of Cos were
   allowed by special favour to share the discipline of the
   Athenian Ephebi. Soon afterwards others were admitted on all
   sides. The aliens who had gained a competence as merchants or
   as bankers, found their sons welcomed in the ranks of the
   oldest families of Athens; strangers flocked thither from
   distant countries, not only from the isles of Greece, and from
   the coasts of the Ægean, but, as Hellenic culture made its way
   through the far East, students even of the Semitic race were
   glad to enrol their names upon the College registers, where we
   may still see them with the marks of their several
   nationalities affixed. The young men were no longer, like
   soldiers upon actual service, beginning already the real work
   of life, and on that account, perhaps, the term was shortened
   from the two years to one; but the old associations lasted on
   for ages, even in realistic Athens, which in early politics at
   least had made so clean a sweep. The outward forms were still
   preserved, the soldier's drill was still enforced, and though
   many another feature had been added, the whole institution
   bore upon its face the look rather of a Military College than
   of a training school for a scholar or a statesman. The College
   year began somewhat later than the opening of the civil year,
   and it was usual for all the students to matriculate together;
   that is, to enter formally their names upon the registers,
   which were copied afterwards upon the marble tablets, of which
   large fragments have survived. … 'To put the gown on,' or,
   as we should say, 'to be a gownsman,' was the phrase which
   stood for being a member of the College; and the gown, too,
   was of black, as commonly among ourselves. But Philostratus
   tells us, by the way, that a change was made from black to
   white at the prompting of Herodes Atticus, the munificent and
   learned subject of the Antonines, who was for many years the
   presiding genius of the University of Athens. The fragment of
   an inscription lately found curiously confirms and supplements
   the writer's statement. … The members of the College are spoken
   of as 'friends' and 'messmates'; and it is probable that some
   form of conventual life prevailed among them, without which
   the drill and supervision, which are constantly implied in the
   inscriptions, could scarcely have been enforced by the
   officials. But we know nothing of any public buildings for
   their use save the gymnasia, which in all Greek towns were the
   centres of educational routine, and of which there were
   several well known at Athens. … The College did not try to
   monopolise the education of its students. It had, indeed, its
   own tutors or instructors, but they were kept for humbler
   drill; it did not even for a long time keep an organist or
   choirmaster of its own; it sent its students out for teaching
   in philosophy and rhetoric and grammar, or, in a word, for all
   the larger and more liberal studies. Nor did it favour any
   special set of tenets to the exclusion of the rest. It
   encouraged impartially all the schools of higher thought. …
   The Head of the College held the title of Cosmetes, or of
   rector. … The Rector, appointed only for a year by popular
   election, was no merely honorary head, but took an important
   part in the real work of education. He was sometimes clothed
   with priestly functions. … The system of education thus
   described was under the control of the government throughout.
   … It may surprise us that our information comes almost
   entirely from the inscriptions, and that ancient writers are
   all nearly silent on the subject. … But there was little to
   attract the literary circles in arrangements so mechanical and
   formal; there was too much of outward pageantry, and too
   little of real character evolved."

      _W. W. Capes,
      University Life in Ancient Athens,
      chapter 1._

      _J. H. Newman,
      Historical Sketches,
      chapter 4._

   The reign of the Emperor Justinian "may be signalised as the
   fatal epoch at which several of the noblest institutions of
   antiquity were abolished. He shut the schools of Athens (A. D.
   529), in which an uninterrupted succession of philosophers,
   supported by a public stipend, had taught the doctrines of
   Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus, ever since the time of
   the Antonines. They were, it is true, still attached to
   paganism, and even to the arts of magic."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

EDUCATION:
   Alexandria.

   "Ptolemy, upon whom, on Alexander's death, devolved the
   kingdom of Egypt, supplies us with the first great instance of
   what may be called the establishment of Letters. He and
   Eumenes may be considered the first founders of public
   libraries. … A library, however, was only one of two great
   conceptions brought into execution by the first Ptolemy; and
   as the first was the embalming of dead genius, so the second
   was the endowment of living. … Ptolemy, … prompted, or at
   least, encouraged, by the celebrated Demetrius of Phalerus,
   put into execution a plan for the formal endowment of
   literature and science. The fact indeed of the possession of
   an immense library seemed sufficient to render Alexandria a
   University; for what could be a greater attraction to the
   students of all lands, than the opportunity afforded them of
   intellectual converse, not only with the living, but with the
   dead, with all who had anywhere at any time thrown light upon
   any subject of inquiry? But Ptolemy determined that his
   teachers of knowledge should be as stationary and as permanent
   as his books; so, resolving to make Alexandria the seat of a
   'Studium Generale,' he founded a College for its domicile, and
   endowed that College with ample revenues. Here, I consider, he
   did more than has been commonly done, till modern times. It
   requires considerable knowledge of medieval Universities to be
   entitled to give an opinion; as regards Germany, for instance,
   or Poland, or Spain; but, as far as I have a right to speak,
   such an endowment has been rare down to the sixteenth century,
   as well as before Ptolemy. … To return to the Alexandrian
   College. It was called the Museum,—a name since appropriated
   to another institution connected with the seats of science.
   … There was a quarter of the city so distinct from the rest
   in Alexandria, that it is sometimes spoken of as a suburb. It
   was pleasantly situated on the water's edge, and had been set
   aside for ornamental buildings, and was traversed by groves of
   trees. Here stood the royal palace, here the theatre and
   amphitheatre; here the gymnasia and stadium; here the famous
   Serapeum.
{685}
   And here it was, close upon the Port, that Ptolemy placed his
   Library and College. As might be supposed, the building was
   worthy of its purpose; a noble portico stretched along its
   front, for exercise or conversation, and opened upon the
   public rooms devoted to disputations and lectures. A certain
   number of Professors were lodged within the precincts, and a
   handsome hall, or refectory, was provided for the common meal.
   The Prefect of the house was a priest, whose appointment lay
   with the government. Over the Library a dignified person
   presided. … As to the Professors, so liberal was their
   maintenance, that a philosopher of the very age of the first
   foundation called the place a 'bread basket,' or a 'bird
   coop';  yet, in spite of accidental exceptions, so careful on
   the whole was their selection, that even six hundred years
   afterwards, Ammianus describes the Museum under the title of
   'the lasting abode of distinguished men.' Philostratus, too,
   about a century before, calls it 'a table gathering together
   celebrated men.' … As time went on new Colleges were added
   to the original Museum; of which one was a foundation of the
   Emperor Claudius, and called after his name. … A diversity
   of teachers secured an abundance of students. 'Hither,' says
   Cave, 'as to a public emporium of polite literature,
   congregated, from every part of the world, youthful students,
   and attended the lectures in Grammar, Rhetoric, Poetry,
   Philosophy, Astronomy, Music, Medicine, and other arts and
   sciences'; and hence proceeded, as it would appear, the great
   Christian writers and doctors, 'Clement, … Origen,
   Anatolius, and Athanasius. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the
   third century, may be added; he came across Asia Minor and
   Syria from Pontus, as to a place, says his namesake of Nyssa,
   'to which young men from all parts gathered together, who were
   applying themselves to philosophy.' As to the subjects taught
   in the Museum, Cave has already enumerated the principal; but
   he has not done justice to the peculiar character of the
   Alexandrian school. From the time that science got out of the
   hands of the pure Greeks, into those of a power which had a
   talent for administration, it became less theoretical, and
   bore more distinctly upon definite and tangible objects. …
   Egyptian Antiquities were investigated, at least by the
   disciples of the Egyptian Manetho, fragments of whose history
   are considered to remain; while Carthaginian and Etruscan had
   a place in the studies of the Claudian College. The Museum was
   celebrated, moreover, for its grammarians; the work of
   Hephæstion 'de Metris' still affords matter of thought to a
   living Professor of Oxford; and Aristarchus, like the Athenian
   Priscian, has almost become the nickname for a critic. Yet,
   eminent as is the Alexandrian school in these departments of
   science, its fame rests still more securely upon its
   proficiency in medicine and mathematics. Among its physicians
   is the celebrated Galen, who was attracted thither from
   Pergamus; and we are told by a writer of the fourth century,
   that in his time the very fact of a physician having studied
   at Alexandria, was an evidence of his science which superseded
   further testimonial. As to Mathematics, it is sufficient to
   say, that, of four great ancient names, on whom the modern
   science is founded, three came from Alexandria. Archimedes
   indeed was a Syracusan; but the Museum may boast of Apollonius
   of Perga, Diophantus, a native Alexandrian, and Euclid, whose
   country is unknown. To these illustrious names, may be added,
   Eratosthenes of Cyrene, to whom astronomy has obligations so
   considerable; Pappus; Theon; and Ptolemy, said to be of
   Pelusium, whose celebrated system, called after him the
   Ptolemaic, reigned in the schools till the time of Copernicus,
   and whose Geography, dealing with facts, not theories, is in
   repute still. Such was the celebrated 'Studium' or University
   of Alexandria; for a while in the course of the third and
   fourth centuries, it was subject to reverses, principally from
   war. The whole of the Bruchion, the quarter of the city in
   which it was situated, was given to the flames; and, when
   Hilarion came to Alexandria, the holy hermit, whose rule of
   life did not suffer him to lodge in cities, took up his
   lodgment with a few solitaries among the ruins of its
   edifices. The schools, however, and the library continued; the
   library was reserved for the Caliph Omar's famous judgment; as
   to the schools, even as late as the twelfth century, the Jew,
   Benjamin of Tudela, gives us a surprising report of what he
   found in Alexandria."

      _J. H. Newman,
      Historical Sketches: Rise and Progress of Universities,
      chapter 8._

   "In the three centuries which intervened between Alexander and
   Augustus, Athens was preëminently the training school for
   philosophy, Rhodes, on the other hand, as the only Greek state
   of political importance in which a career of grand and
   dignified activity was open for the orator, distinguished
   itself in the study of eloquence, while Alexandria rested its
   fame chiefly on the excellence of its instruction in Philology
   and Medicine. At a subsequent period the last mentioned
   University obtained even greater celebrity as having given
   birth to a school of philosophers who endeavored to combine
   into a species of theosophic doctrine the mental science of
   Europe with the more spiritual minded and profoundly human
   religions of the East. In the third century Alexandria became
   conspicuous as the headquarters of the Eclectics and
   Neo·Platonists."

      _E. Kirkpatrick,
      Historical Development of Superior Instruction
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 24, pages 466-467)._

EDUCATION:
   Rome.

   "If we cast a final glance at the question of education, we
   shall find but little to say of it, as far as regards the
   period before Cicero. In the republican times the state did
   not trouble itself about the training of youth: a few
   prohibitory regulations were laid down, and the rest left to
   private individuals. Thus no public instruction was given;
   public schools there were, but only as private undertakings
   for the sake of the children of the rich. All depended on the
   father; his personal character and the care taken by the
   mother in education decided the development of the child's
   disposition. Books there were none; and therefore they could
   not be put into the hands of children. A few rugged hymns,
   such as those of the Salii and Arval brothers, with the songs
   in Fescennine verse, sung on festivals and at banquets, formed
   the poetical literature. A child would hear, besides, the
   dirges, or memorial verses, composed by women in honour of the
   dead, and sometimes, too, the public panegyrics pronounced on
   their departed relatives, a distinction accorded to women also
   from the time of Camillus.
{686}
   Whatever was taught a boy by father or mother, or acquired
   externally to the house, was calculated to make the Roman
   'virtus' appear in his eyes the highest aim of his ambition;
   the term including self-mastery, an unbending firmness of
   will, with patience, and an iron tenacity of purpose in
   carrying through whatever was once acknowledged to be right.
   The Greek palestra and its naked combatants always seemed
   strange and offensive to Roman eyes. In the republican times
   the exercises of the gymnasium were but little in fashion;
   though riding, swimming, and other warlike exercises were
   industriously practised, as preparations for the campaign. The
   slave pædagogus, assigned to young people to take charge of
   them, had a higher position with the Romans than the Greeks;
   and was not allowed to let his pupils out of his sight till
   their twentieth year. The Latin Odyssey of Livius Andronicus
   was the school-book first in use; and this and Ennius were the
   only two works to create and foster a literary taste before
   the destruction of Carthage. The freedman Sp. Carvilius was
   the first to open a school for higher education. After this
   the Greek language and literature came into the circle of
   studies, and in consequence of the wars in Sicily, Macedon,
   and Asia, families of distinction kept slaves who knew Greek.
   Teachers quickly multiplied, and were either liberti, or their
   descendants. No free-born Roman would consent to be a paid
   teacher, for that was held to be a degradation. The Greek
   language remained throughout the classical [age] one for
   Romans: they even made their children begin with Homer. As, by
   the seventh century of the republic, Ennius, Plautus,
   Pacuvius, and Terence, had already become old poets,
   dictations were given to scholars from their writings. The
   interpretation of Virgil began under Augustus, and by this
   time the younger Romans were resorting to Athens, Rhodes,
   Apollonia, and Mitylene, in order to make progress in Greek
   rhetoric and philosophy. As Roman notions were based entirely
   on the practical and the useful, music was neglected as a part
   of education; while, as a contrast, boys were compelled to
   learn the laws of the twelve tables by heart. Cicero, who had
   gone through this discipline with other boys of his time,
   complains of the practice having begun to be set aside; and
   Scipio Æmilianus deplored, as an evil omen of degeneracy, the
   sending of boys and girls to the academies of actors, where
   they learnt dancing and singing, in company with young women
   of pleasure. In one of these schools were to be found as many
   as five hundred young persons, all being instructed in
   postures and motions of the most abandoned kind. … On the
   other hand, the gymnastic exercises, which had once served the
   young men as a training for war, fell into disuse, having
   naturally become objectless and burdensome, now that, under
   Augustus, no more Roman citizens chose to enlist in the
   legions. Still slavery was, and continued to be, the foremost
   cause of the depravation of youth, and of an evil education.
   … It was no longer the mothers who educated their own
   children: they had neither inclination nor capacity for such
   duty, for mothers of the stamp of Cornelia had disappeared.
   Immediately on its birth, the child was intrusted to a Greek
   female slave, with some male slave, often of the worst
   description, to help her. … The young Roman was not educated
   in the constant companionship of youths of his own age, under
   equal discipline: surrounded by his father's slaves and
   parasites, and always accompanied by a slave when he went out,
   he hardly received any other impressions than such as were
   calculated to foster conceit, indolence, and pride in him."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew,
      volume 2, pages 279-281._

EDUCATION:
   Higher Education under the Empire.

   "Besides schools of high eminence in Mytilene, Ephesus,
   Smyrna, Sidon, etc., we read that Apollonia enjoyed so high a
   reputation for eloquence and political science as to be
   entrusted with the education of the heir-apparent of the Roman
   Empire. Antioch was noted for a Museum modelled after that of
   the Egyptian metropolis, and Tarsus boasted of Gymnasia and a
   University which Strabo does not hesitate to describe as more
   than rivaling those of Athens and Alexandria. There can be
   little doubt that the philosophers, rhetoricians, and
   grammarians who swarmed in the princely retinues of the great
   Roman aristocracy, and whose schools abounded in all the most
   wealthy and populous cities of the empire east and west, were
   prepared for their several callings in some one or other of
   these institutions. Strabo tells us … that Rome was overrun
   with Alexandrian and Syrian grammarians, and Juvenal describes
   one of the Quirites of the ancient stamp as emigrating in
   sheer disgust from a city which from these causes had become
   thoroughly and utterly Greek. … That external inducements
   were held out amply sufficient to prevail upon poor and
   ambitious men to qualify themselves at some cost for vocations
   of this description is evident from the wealth to which, as we
   are told, many of them rose from extreme indigence and
   obscurity. Suetonius, in the still extant fragment of his
   essay 'de claris rhetoribus,' after alluding to the immense
   number of professors and doctors met with in Rome, draws
   attention to the frequency with which individuals who had
   distinguished themselves as teachers of rhetoric had been
   elevated into the senate, and advanced to the highest
   dignities of the state. That the profession of a philologist
   was occasionally at least well remunerated is evident from the
   facts recorded by the same author in his work 'de claris
   grammaticis,' section 3. He there mentions that there were at
   one time upwards of twenty well attended schools devoted to
   this subject at Rome, and that one fortunate individual, Q.
   Remmius Palaemon, derived four hundred thousand sesterces, or
   considerably above three thousand a year, from instruction in
   philology alone. Julius Caesar conferred the citizenship,
   together with large bounties in money, and immunity from
   public burthens, on distinguished rhetoricians and
   philologists, in order to encourage their presence at Rome.
   … That individuals who thus enjoyed an income not greatly
   below the revenues of an English Bishopric were not, as the
   name might lead us to imagine, employed in teaching the
   accidents of grammar, but possessed considerable pretensions
   to that higher and more thoughtful character of the scholar
   which it has been reserved for modern Europe to exhibit in
   perfection, is not only in itself highly probable, but
   supported by the distinctest and most unimpeachable evidence.
   Seneca tells us that history was amongst the subjects
   professed by grammarians, and Cicero regards the most thorough
   and refined perception of all that pertains to the spirit and
   individuality of the author as an indispensable requisite in
   those who undertake to give instruction in this subject. …
   The grammatici appear to have occupied a position very closely
   analogous to that of the teachers of collegiate schools in
   England, and the gymnasial professors in Germany."

      _E. Kirkpatrick,
      Historical Development of Superior Instruction
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 24, pages 468-470.)_

{687}

EDUCATION: Mediæval.
   The Chaos of Barbaric Conquest.

   "The utter confusion subsequent upon the downfall of the Roman
   Empire and the irruption of the Germanic races was causing, by
   the mere brute force of circumstance, a gradual extinction of
   scholarship too powerful to be arrested. The teaching of
   grammar for ecclesiastical purposes was insufficient to check
   the influence of many causes leading to this overthrow of
   learning. It was impossible to communicate more than a mere
   tincture of knowledge to students separated from the classical
   tradition, for whom the antecedent history of Rome was a dead
   letter. The meaning of Latin words derived from the Greek was
   lost. … Theological notions, grotesque and childish beyond
   description, found their way into etymology and grammar. The
   three persons of the Trinity were discovered in the verb, and
   mystic numbers in the parts of speech. Thus analytical studies
   like that of language came to be regarded as an open field for
   the exercise of the mythologising fancy; and etymology was
   reduced to a system of ingenious punning. … Virgil, the only
   classic who retained distinct and living personality, passed
   from poet to philosopher, from philosopher to Sibyl, from
   Sibyl to magician, by successive stages of transmutation, as
   the truth about him grew more dim and the faculty to apprehend
   him weakened. Forming the staple of education in the schools
   of the grammarians, and metamorphosed by the vulgar
   consciousness into a wizard, he waited on the extreme verge of
   the dark ages to take Dante by the hand, and lead him, as the
   type of human reason, through the realms of Hell and
   Purgatory."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: the Revival of Learning;
      chapter 2._

EDUCATION: Mediæval.
   Gaul: 4th-5th Centuries.

   "If institutions could do all, if laws supplied and the means
   furnished to society could do everything, the intellectual
   state of Gaulish civil society at this epoch [4th-5th
   centuries] would have been far superior to that of the
   religious society. The first, in fact, alone possessed all the
   institutions proper to second the development of mind, the
   progress and empire of ideas. Roman Gaul was covered with
   large schools. The principal were those of Trèves, Bordeaux,
   Autun, Toulouse, Poitiers, Lyons, Narbonne, Aries, Marseilles,
   Vienne, Besançon, &c. Some were very ancient; those of
   Marseilles and of Autun, for example, dated from the first
   century. They were taught philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence,
   literature, grammar, astrology, all the sciences of the age.
   In the greater part of these schools, indeed, they at first
   taught only rhetoric and grammar; but towards the fourth
   century, professors of philosophy and law were everywhere
   introduced. Not only were these schools numerous, and provided
   with many chairs, but the emperors continually took the
   professors of new measures into favor. Their interests are,
   from Constantine to Theodosius the younger, the subject of
   frequent imperial constitutions, which sometimes extended,
   sometimes confirmed their privileges. … After the Empire was
   divided among many masters, each of them concerned himself
   rather more about the prosperity of his states and the public
   establishments which were in them. Thence arose a momentary
   amelioration, of which the schools felt the effects,
   particularly those of Gaul, under the administration of
   Constantius Clorus, of Julian, and of Gratian. By the side of
   the schools were, in general, placed other analogous
   establishments. Thus, at Trèves there was a grand library of
   the imperial palace, concerning which no special information
   has reached us, but of which we may judge by the details·
   which have reached us concerning that of Constantinople. This
   last had a librarian and seven scribes constantly
   occupied—four for Greek, and three for Latin. They copied
   both ancient and new works. It is probable that the same
   institution existed at Trèves, and in the great towns of Gaul.
   Civil society, then, was provided with means of instruction
   and intellectual development. It was not the same with
   religious society. It had at this epoch no institution
   especially devoted to teaching; it did not receive from the
   state any aid to this particular aim. Christians, as well as
   others, could frequent the public schools; but most of the
   professors were still pagans. … It was for a long time in
   the inferior classes, among the people, that Christianity was
   propagated, especially in the Gauls, and it was the superior
   classes which followed the great schools. Moreover, it was
   hardly until the commencement of the fourth century that the
   Christians appeared there, and then but few in number. No
   other source of study was open to them. The establishments
   which, a little afterwards, became, in the Christian church,
   the refuge and sanctuary of instruction, the monasteries, were
   hardly commenced in the Gauls. It was only after the year 360
   that the two first were founded by St. Martin—one at Ligugé,
   near Poitiers, the other at Marmoutiers, near Tours; and they
   were devoted rather to religious contemplation than to
   teaching. Any great school, any special institution devoted to
   the service and to the progress of intellect, was at that
   time, therefore, wanting to the Christians. … All things in
   the fifth century, attest the decay of the civil schools. The
   contemporaneous writers, Sidonius Apollinaris and Mamertius
   Claudianus, for example, deplore it in every page, saying that
   the young men no longer studied, that professors were without
   pupils, that science languished and was being lost. … It was
   especially the young men of the superior classes who frequented
   the schools; but these classes … were in rapid dissolution.
   The schools fell with them; the institutions still existed,
   but they were void—the soul had quitted the body. The
   intellectual aspect of Christian society was very different.
   … Institutions began to rise, and to be regulated among the
   Christians of Gaul. The foundation of the greater portion of
   the large monasteries of the southern provinces belongs to the
   first half of the fifth century. … The monasteries of the
   south of Gaul were philosophical schools of Christianity; it
   was there that intellectual men meditated, discussed, taught;
   it was from thence that new ideas, daring thoughts, heresies,
   were sent forth. …
{688}
   Towards the end of the sixth century, everything is changed:
   there are no longer civil schools; ecclesiastical schools
   alone subsist. Those great municipal schools of Treves, of
   Poitiers, of Vienne, of Bordeaux, &c., have disappeared; in
   their place have arisen schools called cathedral or episcopal
   schools, because each episcopal see had its own. The cathedral
   school was not always alone; we find in certain dioceses other
   schools, of an uncertain nature and origin, wrecks, perhaps,
   of some ancient civil school, which, in becoming
   metamorphosed, had perpetuated itself. … The most
   flourishing of the episcopal schools from the sixth to the
   middle of the eighth century were those of:
   1. Poitiers. There were many schools in the monasteries of the
   diocese at Poitiers itself, at Ligugé, at Ansion, &c.
   2. Paris.
   3. LeMans.
   4. Bourges.
   5. Clermont. There was another school in the town where they
   taught the Theodosian code; a remarkable circumstance, which I
   do not find elsewhere.
   6. Vienne.
   7. Châlons-sur-Saone.
   8. ArIes.
   9. Gap.

   The most flourishing of the monastic schools of the same epoch
   were those of:
   1. Luxeuil, in Franche-Comté.
   2. Fontenelle, or Saint Vandrille, in Normandy; in which were
   about 300 students.
   3. Sithiu, in Normandy.
   4. Saint Médard, at Soissons.
   5. Lerens.

   It were easy to extend this list; but the prosperity of
   monastic schools was subject to great vicissitudes; they
   flourished under a distinguished abbot, and declined under his
   successor. Even in nunneries, study was not neglected; that
   which Saint Cesaire founded at Aries contained, at the
   commencement of the sixth century, two hundred nuns, for the
   most part occupied in copying books, sometimes religious
   books, sometimes, probably, even the works of the ancients.
   The metamorphosis of civil schools into ecclesiastical schools
   was complete. Let us see what was taught in them. We shall
   often find in them the names of sciences formerly professed in
   the civil schools, rhetoric, logic, grammar, geometry,
   astrology, &c.; but these were evidently no longer taught
   except in their relations to theology. This is the foundation
   of the instruction: all was turned into commentary of the
   Scriptures, historical, philosophical, allegorical, moral,
   commentary. They desired only to form priests; all studies,
   whatsoever their nature, were directed towards this result.
   Sometimes they went even further: they rejected the profane
   sciences themselves, whatever might be the use made of them."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization to the French Revolution,
      volume 2, lecture 4 and 16._

EDUCATION:
   Ireland.
   Scotland.
   Schools of Iona.

   Popular accounts represent St. Patrick as "founding at least a
   hundred monasteries, and even those who consider that the
   greater number of the Irish colleges were raised by his
   followers after his death, admit the fact of his having
   established an episcopal monastery and school at Armagh, where
   he and his clergy carried out the same rule of life that he
   had seen followed in the churches of Gaul. … The school,
   which formed a portion of the Cathedral establishment, soon
   rose in importance. Gildas taught here for some years before
   joining St. Cadoc at Llancarvan; and in process of time the
   number of students, both native and foreign, so increased that
   the university, as we may justly call it, was divided into
   three parts, one of which was devoted entirely to students of
   the Anglo-Saxon race. Grants for the support of the schools
   were made by the Irish kings in the eighth century; and all
   through the troublous times of the ninth and tenth centuries,
   when Ireland was overrun by the Danes, and so many of her
   sanctuaries were given to the flames, the succession of
   divinity professors at Armagh remained unbroken, and has been
   carefully traced by Usher. We need not stop to determine how
   many other establishments similar to those of Armagh were
   really founded in the lifetime of St. Patrick. In any case the
   rapid extension of the monastic institute in Ireland, and the
   extraordinary ardour with which the Irish cœnobites applied
   themselves to the cultivation of letters remain undisputed
   facts. 'Within a century after the death of St. Patrick,' says
   Bishop Nicholson, 'the Irish seminaries had so increased that
   most parts of Europe sent their children to be educated here,
   and drew thence their bishops and teachers.' The whole country
   for miles round Leighlin was denominated the 'land of saints
   and scholars.' By the ninth century Armagh could boast of
   7,000 students, and the schools of Cashel, Dindaleathglass,
   and Lismore vied with it in renown. This extraordinary
   multiplication of monastic seminaries and scholars may be
   explained partly by the constant immigration of British
   refugees who brought with them the learning and religious
   observances of their native cloisters, and partly by that
   sacred and irresistible impulse which animates a newly
   converted people to heroic acts of sacrifice. In Ireland the
   infant church was not, as elsewhere, watered with the blood of
   martyrs. … The bards, who were to be found in great numbers
   among the early converts of St. Patrick, had also a
   considerable share in directing the energies of their
   countrymen to intellectual labour. They formed the learned
   class, and on their conversion to Christianity were readily
   disposed to devote themselves to the culture of sacred
   letters. … It would be impossible, within the limits of a
   single chapter, to notice even the names of all the Irish
   seats of learning, or of their most celebrated teachers,
   everyone of whom has his own legend in which sacred and poetic
   beauties are to be found blended together. One of the earliest
   monastic schools was that erected by Enda, prince of Orgiel,
   in that western island called from the wild flowers which even
   still cover its rocky soil, Aran-of-the-Flowers, a name it
   afterwards exchanged for that of Ara-na-naomh, or
   Aran-of-the-Saints. … A little later St. Finian founded his
   great school of Clonard, whence, says Usher, issued forth a
   stream of saints and doctors, like the Greek warriors from the
   wooden horse. …. This desolate wilderness was soon peopled
   by his disciples, who are said to have numbered 3,000, of whom
   the twelve most eminent are often termed the Twelve Apostles
   of Ireland. … Among them none were more famous than St.
   Columba, St. Kieran, and St. Brendan. The first of these is
   known to every English reader as the founder of Iona; and
   Kieran, the carpenter's son, as he is called, is scarcely less
   renowned among his own countrymen. … It was in the year 563
   that St. Columba, after founding the monasteries of
   Doire-Calgaich and Dair-magh in his native land, and incurring
   the enmity of one of the Irish kings, determined on crossing
   over into Scotland in order to preach the faith to the
   Northern Picts. Accompanied by twelve companions, he passed
   the Channel in a rude wicker boat covered with skins, and
   landed at Port-na Currachan, on a spot now marked by a heap of
   huge conical stones.
{689}
   Conall, king of the Albanian Scots, granted him the island of
   I, Hi, or Ai, hitherto occupied by the Druids, and there he
   erected the monastery which, in time, became the mother of
   three hundred religious houses. … Iona, or I-Colum-kil, as
   it was called by the Irish, came to be looked on as the chief
   seat of learning, not only in Britain, but in the whole
   Western world. 'Thither, as from a nest,' says Odonellus,
   playing on the Latin name of the founder, 'these sacred doves
   took their flight to every quarter.' They studied the
   classics, the mechanical arts, law, history, and physic. They
   improved the arts of husbandry and horticulture, supplied the
   rude people whom they had undertaken to civilise with
   ploughshares and other utensils of labour, and taught them the
   use of the forge, in the mysteries of which every Irish monk
   was instructed from his boyhood. They transferred to their new
   homes all the learning of Armagh or Clonard. … In every
   college of Irish origin, by whomsoever they were founded or on
   whatever soil they flourished, we thus see study blended with
   the duties of the missionary and the cœnobite. They were
   religious houses, no doubt, in which the celebration of the
   Church office was often kept up without intermission by day
   and night; but they were also seminaries of learning, wherein
   sacred and profane studies were cultivated with equal success.
   Not only their own monasteries but those of every European
   country were enriched with their manuscripts, and the
   researches of modern bibliopolists are continually
   disinterring from German or Italian libraries a Horace, or an
   Ovid, or a Sacred Codex whose Irish gloss betrays the hand
   which traced its delicate letters."

      _A. T. Drane,
      Christian Schools and Scholars,
      chapter 2._

EDUCATION:
   Charlemagne.

   "If there ever was a man who by his mere natural endowments
   soared above other men, it was Charlemagne. His life, like his
   stature, was colossal. Time never seemed wanting to him for
   anything that he willed to accomplish, and during his ten
   years campaign against the Saxons and Lombards, he contrived
   to get leisure enough to study grammar, and render himself
   tolerably proficient as a Latin writer in prose and verse. He
   found his tutors in the cities that he conquered. When he
   became master of Pisa, he gained the services of Peter of
   Pisa, whom he set over the Palatine school, which had existed
   even under the Merovingian kings, though as yet it was far
   from enjoying the fame to which it was afterwards raised by
   the teaching of Alcuin. He possessed the art of turning
   enemies into friends, and thus drew to his court the famous
   historian, Paul Warnefrid, deacon of the Church of Rome, who
   had previously acted as secretary to Didier, king of the
   Lombards. … Another Italian scholar, St. Paulinus, of
   Aquileja, was coaxed into the service of the Frankish
   sovereign after his conquest of Friuli; I will not say that he
   was bought, but he was certainly paid for by a large grant of
   confiscated territory made over by diploma to 'the Venerable
   Paulinus, master of the art of grammar.' But none of these
   learned personages were destined to take so large a part in
   that revival of learning which made the glory of Charlemagne's
   reign, as our own countryman Alcuin. It was in 781, on
   occasion of the king's second visit to Italy, that the meeting
   took place at Parma, the result of which was to fix the
   English scholar at the Frankish court. Having obtained the
   consent of his own bishop and sovereign to this arrangement,
   Alcuin came over to France in 782, bringing with him several
   of the best scholars of York, among whom were Wizo, Fredegis,
   and Sigulf. Charlemagne received him with joy, and assigned
   him three abbeys for the maintenance of himself and his
   disciples, those namely, of Ferrières, St. Lupus of Troyes,
   and St. Josse in Ponthieu. From this time Alcuin held the
   first place in the literary society that surrounded the
   Frankish sovereign, and filled an office the duties of which
   were as vast as they were various. Three great works at once
   claimed his attention, the correction of the liturgical books,
   the direction of the court academy, and the establishment of
   other public schools throughout the empire. … But it was as
   head of the Palatine school that Alcuin's influence was
   chiefly to be felt in the restoration of letters. Charlemagne
   presented himself as his first pupil, together with the three
   princes, Pepin, Charles, and Louis, his sister Gisla and his
   daughter Richtrude, his councillors Adalard and Angilbert, and
   Eginhard his secretary. Such illustrious scholars soon found
   plenty to imitate their example, and Alcuin saw himself called
   on to lecture daily to a goodly crowd of bishops, nobles, and
   courtiers. The king wished to transform his court into a new
   Athens preferable to that of ancient Greece, in so far as the
   doctrine of Christ is to be preferred to that of Plato. All
   the liberal arts were to be taught there, but in such a way as
   that each should bear reference to religion, for this was
   regarded as the final end of of all learning. Grammar was
   studied in order better to understand the Holy Scriptures and
   to transcribe them more correctly; music, to which much
   attention was given, was chiefly confined to the
   ecclesiastical chant; and it was principally to explain the
   Fathers and refute errors contrary to the faith that rhetoric
   and dialectics were studied. 'In short,' says Crevier, 'the
   thought both of the king and of the scholar who laboured with
   him was to refer all things to religion, nothing being
   considered as truly useful which did not bear some relation to
   that end.' At first Alcuin allowed the study of the classic
   poets, and in his boyhood, as we know, he had been a greater
   reader of Virgil than of the Scriptures. … The authors whose
   study Charlemagne and Alcuin desired to promote, were not so
   much Virgil and Cicero, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and
   Charlemagne, in his excessive admiration of those Fathers,
   gave utterance to the wish that he had a dozen such men at his
   court. The 'City of God' was read at the royal table, and the
   questions addressed by the court students to their master
   turned rather on the obscurities of Holy Writ than the
   difficulties of prosody. In one thing, however, they betrayed
   a classic taste, and that was in their selection of names. The
   Royal Academicians all rejoiced in some literary soubriquet;
   Alcuin was Flaccus; Angilbert, Homer; but Charlemagne himself
   adopted the more scriptural appellation of David. The
   eagerness with which this extraordinary man applied himself to
   acquire learning for himself, and to extend it throughout his
   dominions, is truly admirable, when we remember the enormous
   labours in which he was constantly engaged."

      _A. T. Drane,
      Christian Schools and Scholars,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, CHARLEMAGNE'S.

{690}

EDUCATION: England
   King Alfred.

   King Alfred "gathered round him at his own court the sons of
   his nobility to receive, in conjunction with his own children,
   a better education than their parents would be able or willing
   to give them in their own households. To this assemblage of
   pupils Asser has attached the name of school, and a violent
   controversy once distracted the literary world concerning the
   sense in which the word was to be understood, and whether it
   was not the beginning or origin of a learned institution still
   existing. In speaking of this subject, Asser has taken
   occasion to enumerate and describe the children who were born
   to Alfred from his wife Elswitha, daughter of Ethelred the
   'Big,' alderman of the Gaini, and a noble of great wealth and
   influence in Mercia. 'The sons and daughters,' says Asser,
   'which he had by his wife above mentioned, were Ethelfled the
   eldest, after whom came Edward, then Ethelgiva, then
   Ethelswitha, and Ethelwerd, besides those who died in their
   infancy, one of whom was Edmund. Ethelfled, when she arrived
   at a marriageable age, was united to Ethelred, earl of Mercia;
   Ethelgiva was dedicated to God, and submitted to the rules of
   a monastic life; Ethelwerd, the youngest, by the Divine
   counsels and admirable prudence of the king, was consigned to
   the schools of learning, where, with the children of almost
   all the nobility of the country, and many also who were not
   noble, he prospered under the diligent care of his teachers.
   Books in both languages, namely, in Latin and Saxon, were read
   in the school. They also learned to write; so that, before
   they were of an age to practise manly arts, namely hunting and
   such other pursuits as befit noblemen, they became studious
   and clever in the liberal arts. Edward and Ethelswitha were
   bred up in the king's court, and received great attention from
   their servants and nurses; nay, they continue to this day,
   with the love of all about them, and shew affability, and even
   gentleness, towards all, both foreigners and natives, and are
   in complete subjection to their father; nor, among their other
   studies which appertain to this life and are fit for noble
   youths, are they suffered to pass their time idly and
   unprofitably, without learning the liberal arts; for they have
   carefully learned the Psalms and Saxon books, especially the
   Saxon Poems, and are continually in the habit of making use of
   books.' The schools of learning, to which Asser alludes in
   this passage, as formed for the use of the king's children and
   the sons of his nobles, are again mentioned elsewhere by the
   same author, as 'the school which he had studiously collected
   together, consisting of many of the nobility of his own
   nation:' and in a third passage, Asser speaks of the 'sons of
   the nobility who were bred up in the royal household.' It is
   clear, then, from these expressions, that the king's exertions
   to spread learning among his nobles and to educate his own
   children, were of a most active and personal nature,
   unconnected with any institutions of a more public character:
   the school was kept in his own household, and not in a public
   seat of learning. We may perhaps adduce these expressions of
   Asser as militating against the notion, that an University or
   Public Seminary of Learning existed in the days of Alfred.
   Though it is most probable that the several monasteries, and
   other societies of monks and churchmen, would employ a portion
   of their idle time in teaching youth, and prosecuting their
   own studies; yet there is no proof that an authorized seat of
   learning, such as the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge,
   existed in England, until many hundred years after the time of
   Alfred."

      _J. A. Giles,
      Life and Times of Alfred the Great,
      chapter 21._

EDUCATION:
   Saracenic and Moorish learning.

   "Even as early as the tenth century, persons having a taste
   for learning and for elegant amenities found their way into
   Spain from all adjoining countries; a practice in subsequent
   years still more indulged in, when it became illustrated by
   the brilliant success of Gilbert, who … passed from the
   Infidel University of Cordova to the papacy of Rome. The
   khalifs of the West carried out the precepts of Ali, the
   fourth successor of Mohammed, in the patronage of literature.
   They established libraries in all their chief towns; it is
   said that not fewer than seventy were in existence. To every
   mosque was attached a public school, in which the children of
   the poor were taught to read and write, and instructed in the
   precepts of the Koran. For those in easier circumstances there
   were academies, usually arranged in twenty-five or thirty
   apartments, each calculated for accommodating four students;
   the academy being presided over by a rector. In Cordova,
   Granada, and other great cities, there were universities
   frequently under the superintendence of Jews; the Mohammedan
   maxim being that the real learning of a man is of more public
   importance than any particular religious opinions he may
   entertain. In this they followed the example of the Asiatic
   khalif, Haroun Alraschid, who actually conferred the
   superintendence of his schools on John Masué, a Nestorian
   Christian. The Mohammedan liberality was in striking contrast
   with the intolerance of Europe. … In the universities some
   of the professors of polite literature gave lectures on Arabic
   classical works; others taught rhetoric or composition, or
   mathematics, or astronomy. From these institutions many of the
   practices observed in our colleges were derived. They held
   Commencements, at which poems were read and orations delivered
   in presence of the public. They had also, in addition to these
   schools of general learning, professional ones, particularly
   for medicine. With a pride perhaps not altogether inexcusable,
   the Arabians boasted of their language as being the most
   perfect spoken by man. … It is not then surprising that, in
   the Arabian schools, great attention was paid to the study of
   language, and that so many celebrated grammarians were
   produced. By these scholars, dictionaries, similar to those
   now in use, were composed; their copiousness is indicated by
   the circumstance that one of them consisted of sixty volumes,
   the definition of each word being illustrated or sustained by
   quotations from Arab authors of acknowledged repute. They had
   also lexicons of Greek, Latin, Hebrew; and cyclopedias such as
   the Historical Dictionary of Sciences of Mohammed Ibn
   Abdallah, of Granada."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "The Saracenic kings formed libraries of unparalleled size and
   number. That of Hakem amounted to 600,000 volumes, of which 44
   were employed in the mere catalogue. Upwards of 70 public
   libraries were established in his dominions. 100,000 volumes
   were numbered in the library of Cairo, and were freely lent to
   the studious citizen. The taste of the sovereign communicated
   itself to the subject, and a private doctor declared that his
   books were sufficient to load 400 camels.
{691}
   Nor were the Saracens less attentive to the foundation
   of schools and colleges. Eighty of the latter institutions
   adorned Cordova in the reign of Hakem; in the fifteenth
   century fifty were scattered over the city and plain of
   Granada. 200,000 dinars (about £100,000 sterling) were
   expended on the foundation of a single college at Baghdad. It
   was endowed with an annual revenue of 15,000 dinars, and was
   attended by 6,000 students. The princes of the house of Omeya
   honoured the Spanish academies by their presence and studies,
   and competed, not without success, for the prizes of learning.
   Numerous schools for the purpose of elementary instruction
   were founded by a long series of monarchs. … In this manner
   the Arabians, within two centuries, constructed an apparatus
   for mental improvement which hitherto had not been equalled
   save in Alexandria, and to which the Church, after ruling the
   intellect of Europe for more than five hundred years, could
   offer no parallel."

      _The Intellectual Revival of the Middle Ages
      (Westminster Review, January, 1876)._

EDUCATION:
   Scholasticism.
   Schoolmen.

   In the later times of the Roman empire, "the loss of the
   dignity of political freedom, the want of the cheerfulness of
   advancing prosperity, and the substitution of the less
   philosophical structure of the Latin language for the delicate
   intellectual mechanism of the Greek, fixed and augmented the
   prevalent feebleness and barrenness of intellect. Men forgot,
   or feared, to consult nature, to seek for new truths, to do
   what the great discoverers of other times had done; they were
   content to consult libraries, to study and defend old
   opinions, to talk of what great geniuses had said. They sought
   their philosophy in accredited treatises, and dared not
   question such doctrines as they there found. … In the mean
   time the Christian religion had become the leading subject of
   men's thoughts; and divines had put forward its claims to be,
   not merely the guide of men's lives, and the means of
   reconciling them to their heavenly Master, but also to be a
   Philosophy in the widest sense in which the term had been
   used;—a consistent speculative view of man's condition and
   nature, and of the world in which he is placed. … It was
   held, without any regulating principle, that the philosophy
   which had been bequeathed to the world by the great geniuses
   of heathen antiquity, and the philosophy which was deduced
   from, and implied by, the Revelations made by God to man, must
   be identical; and, therefore, that Theology is the only true
   philosophy. … This view was confirmed by the opinion which
   prevailed, concerning the nature of philosophical truth; a
   view supported by the theory of Plato, the practice of
   Aristotle, and the general propensities of the human mind: I
   mean the opinion that all science may be obtained by the use
   of reasoning alone;—that by analyzing and combining the
   notions which common language brings before us, we may learn
   all that we can know. Thus Logic came to include the whole of
   Science; and accordingly this Abelard expressly maintained.
   … Thus a Universal Science was established, with the
   authority of a Religious Creed. Its universality rested on
   erroneous views of the relation of words and truth; its
   pretensions as a science were admitted by the servile temper
   of men's intellects; and its religious authority was assigned
   it, by making all truth part of religion. And as Religion
   claimed assent within her own jurisdiction under the most
   solemn and imperative sanctions, Philosophy shared in her
   imperial power, and dissent from their doctrines was no longer
   blameless or allowable. Error became wicked, dissent became
   heresy; to reject the received human doctrines, was nearly the
   same as to doubt the Divine declarations. The Scholastic
   Philosophy claimed the assent of all believers. The external
   form, the details, and the text of this Philosophy, were
   taken, in a great measure, from Aristotle; though, in the
   spirit, the general notions, and the style of interpretation,
   Plato and the Platonists had no inconsiderable share. … It
   does not belong to our purpose to consider either the
   theological or the metaphysical doctrines which form so large
   a portion of the treatises of the schoolmen. Perhaps it may
   hereafter appear, that some light is thrown on some of the
   questions which have occupied metaphysicians in all ages, by
   that examination of the history of the Progressive Sciences in
   which we are now engaged; but till we are able to analyze the
   leading controversies of this kind, it would be of little
   service to speak of them in detail. It may be noticed,
   however, that many of the most prominent of them refer to the
   great question, 'What is the relation between actual things
   and general terms?' Perhaps in modern times, the actual things
   would be more commonly taken as the point to start from; and
   men would begin by considering how classes and universals are
   obtained from individuals. But the schoolmen, founding their
   speculations on the received modes of considering such
   subjects, to which both Aristotle and Plato had contributed,
   travelled in the opposite direction, and endeavored to
   discover how individuals were deduced from genera and
   species;—what was 'the Principle of Individuation.' This was
   variously stated by different reasoners. Thus Bonaventura
   solves the difficulty by the aid of the Aristotelian
   distinction of Matter and Form. The individual derives from
   the Form the property of being something, and from the Matter
   the property of being that particular thing. Duns Scotus, the
   great adversary of Thomas Aquinas in theology, placed the
   principle of Individuation in 'a certain determining positive
   entity,' which his school called Hæcceity or 'thisness.' 'Thus
   an individual man is Peter, because his humanity is combined
   with Petreity.' The force of abstract terms is a curious
   question, and some remarkable experiments in their use had
   been made by the Latin Aristotelians before this time. In the
   same way in which we talk of the quantity and quality of a
   thing, they spoke of its 'quiddity.' We may consider the reign
   of mere disputation as fully established at the time of which
   we are now speaking [the Middle Ages]; and the only kind of
   philosophy henceforth studied was one in which no sound
   physical science had or could have a place."

      _W. Whewell,
      History of the Inductive Sciences,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "Scholasticism was philosophy in the service of established
   and accepted theological doctrines. … More particularly,
   Scholasticism was the reproduction of ancient philosophy under
   the control of ecclesiastical doctrine. … The name of
   Scholastics (doctores scholastici) which was given to the
   teachers of the septem liberales artes [seven liberal arts]
   (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, in the Trivium; arithmetic,
   geometry, music and astronomy, in the Quadrivium), or at least
   some of them, in the Cloister-Schools founded by Charlemagne,
   as also to teachers of theology, was afterwards given to all
   who occupied themselves with the sciences, and especially with
   philosophy. … Johannes Scotus, or Erigena [ninth century]
   is the earliest noteworthy philosopher of the Scholastic
   period. He was of Scottish nationality, but was probably born
   and brought up in Ireland. At the call of Charles the Bald he
   emigrated to France."

      _F. Ueberweg,
      History of Philosophy,
      volume 1, pages 355-484._

{692}

   "Scholasticism, at the last, from the prodigious mental
   activity which it kept up, became a tacit universal
   insurrection against authority: it was the swelling of the
   ocean before the storm. … It was a sign of a great awakening
   of the human mind when theologians thought it both their duty
   and their privilege to philosophize. There was a vast waste of
   intellectual labor, but still it was intellectual labor, and,
   as we shall see, it was not in the end unfruitful."

      _C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval
      History, chapter 13._

   "Scholasticism had its hour of glory, its erudite doctors, its
   eloquent professors, chief among whom was Abelard (1070-1142).
   … At a time when printing did not exist, when manuscript
   copies were rare, a teacher who combined knowledge with the
   gift of speech was a phenomenon of incomparable interest, and
   students flocked from all parts of Europe to take advantage of
   his lectures. Abelard is the most brilliant representative of
   the scholastic pedagogy, with an original and personal
   tendency towards the emancipation of the mind. 'It is
   ridiculous,' he said, 'to preach to others what we can neither
   make them understand nor understand ourselves.' With more
   boldness than Saint Anselm, he applied dialectics to theology,
   and attempted to reason out the grounds of his faith. The
   seven liberal arts constituted what may be called the
   secondary instruction of the Middle Age, such as was given in
   the claustral or conventual schools, and later, in the
   universities. The liberal arts were distributed into two
   courses of study, known as the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium.'
   The 'trivium' comprised grammar (Latin grammar, of course),
   dialectics, or logic, and rhetoric; and the 'quadrivium,'
   music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. It is important to
   note the fact that this programme contains only abstract and
   formal studies,—no real and concrete studies. The sciences
   which teach us to know man and the world, such as history,
   ethics, the physical and natural sciences, were omitted and
   unknown, save perhaps in a few convents of the Benedictines.
   Nothing which can truly educate man, and develop his faculties
   as a whole, enlists the attention of the Middle Age. From a
   course of study thus limited there might come skillful
   reasoners and men formidable in argument, but never fully
   developed men. The methods employed in the ecclesiastical
   schools of the Middle Age were in accord with the spirit of
   the times, when men were not concerned about liberty and
   intellectual freedom; and when they thought more about the
   teaching of dogmas than about the training of the
   intelligence. The teachers recited or read their lectures, and
   the pupils learned by heart. The discipline was harsh. Corrupt
   human nature was distrusted. In 1363, pupils were forbidden
   the use of benches and chairs, on the pretext that such high
   seats were an encouragement to pride. For securing obedience,
   corporal chastisements were used and abused. The rod is in
   fashion in the fifteenth as it was in the fourteenth century.
   'There is no other difference,' says an historian, 'except
   that the rods in the fifteenth century are twice as long as
   those in the fourteenth.'"

      _G. Compayré,
      The History of Pedagogy,
      translated by W. H. Payne,
      chapter 4._

EDUCATION: Universities, Their Rise.
   Abelard.

   "Up to the end of the eleventh century the instruction was,
   speaking generally, and allowing for transitory periods of
   revival, and for a few exceptional schools, a shrunken
   survival of the old 'trivium et quadrivium.' The lessons, when
   not dictated and learnt by heart from notes, were got up from
   bald epitomes. All that was taught, moreover, was taught
   solely with a view to 'pious uses.' Criticism did not exist;
   the free spirit of speculation could not, of course, exist.
   … As we approach the period which saw the birth of those
   institutions known as Studia Publica or Generalia, and ere
   long to be known as 'universities,' we have to extend our
   vision and recognize the circumstances of the time, and those
   changes in the social condition of Europe which made great
   central schools possible—schools to be frequented not merely
   by the young ecclesiastic, but by laymen. Among other causes
   which led to the diffusion of a demand for education among the
   laity, was, I think, the institution or reorganization of
   municipalities. It was about the end of the eleventh century
   that the civic Communes (Communia) began to seek and obtain,
   from royal and other authorities, charters of incorporation
   constituting their internal government and conferring certain
   freedoms and privileges as against the encroachment of lay and
   ecclesiastical feudal barons. … About the same time, and
   somewhat prior to this, trade guilds had been formed in many
   cities for mutual protection, the advancement of commerce, and
   the internal regulation of the various crafts. There
   immediately followed a desire for schools in the more
   important commercial towns. In Italy such schools arose in
   Bologna, Milan, Brescia, and Florence; and in Germany they
   arose in Lübeck, Hamburg, Breslau, Nordhausen, Stettin,
   Leipsic, and Nürnberg. The distinctive characteristic of these
   city schools was, that they do not seem to have been under the
   direct control of the Church, or to have been always taught by
   priests; further, that the native tongue (German or Italian,
   as the case might be) was taught. Reading, writing, and a
   little arithmetic seem to have formed the staple of the
   instruction. The custom of dictating, writing down, and then
   learning by heart what was written—universal in the schools
   of the preceding centuries—was, of course, still followed in
   these burgh schools. This custom was almost inevitable. …
   The increased communication with Africa and the East through
   the Crusades had introduced men to a standard of learning
   among the Arabs, unknown in Europe. Outside the school, the
   order of chivalry had introduced a new and higher ethical
   spirit than had been known in the previous centuries. Civic
   communities and trade guilds were forming themselves and
   seeking charters of incorporation. Above all; the Crusades, by
   stimulating the ardour and exciting the intellects of men, had
   unsettled old convention by bringing men of all ranks within
   the sacred circle of a common enthusiasm, and into contact
   with foreign civilizations.
{693}
   The desire for a higher education, and the impulse to more
   profound investigation, that characterized the beginning and
   course of the twelfth century, was thus only a part of a
   widespread movement, political and moral. … While the
   Romano-Hellenic schools had long disappeared, there still
   existed, in many towns, episcopal schools of a high class,
   many of which might be regarded as continuations of the old
   imperial provincial institutions. … In Bologna and Paris,
   Rheims and Naples, it was so. The arts curriculum professed in
   these centres was, for the time and state of knowledge, good.
   These schools, indeed, had never quite lost the fresh impulse
   given by Charlemagne and his successors. … According to my
   view of educational history, the great 'studia publica' or
   'generalia' arose out of them. They were themselves, in a
   narrow sense, already 'studia publica.' … Looking, first, to
   the germ out of which the universities grew, I think we must
   say that the universities may be regarded as a natural
   development of the cathedral and monastery schools; but if we
   seek for an external motive force urging men to undertake the
   more profound and independent study of the liberal arts, we
   can find it only in the Saracenic schools of Bagdad, Babylon,
   Alexandria, and Cordova. … To fix precisely the date of the
   rise of the first specialized schools or universities is
   impossible, for the simple reason that they were not founded.
   … The simplest account of the new university origins is the
   most correct. It would appear that certain active-minded men
   of marked eminence began to give instruction in medical
   subjects at Salerno, and in law at Bologna, in a spirit and
   manner not previously attempted, to youths who had left the
   monastery and cathedral schools, and who desired to equip
   themselves for professional life. Pupils flocked to them; and
   the more able of these students, finding that there was a
   public demand for this higher specialized instruction,
   remained at headquarters, and themselves became teachers or
   doctors. The Church did not found universities any more than
   it founded the order of chivalry. They were founded by a
   concurrence (not wholly fortuitous) of able men who had
   something they wished to teach, and of youths who desired to
   learn. None the less were the acquiescence and protection of
   Church and State necessary in those days for the fostering of
   these infant seminaries. … Of the three great schools which
   we have named, there is sufficient ground for believing that
   the first to reach such a development as to entitle it to the
   name of a studium generale or university was the 'Schola
   Salernitana,' although it never was a university, technically
   speaking."

      _S. S. Laurie,
      Rise and Early Constitution of Universities,
      lectures 6-7._

   "Ideas, till this time scattered, or watched over in the
   various ecclesiastical schools, began to converge to a common
   centre. The great name of University was recognised in the
   capital of France, at the moment that the French tongue had
   become almost universal. The conquests of the Normans, and the
   first crusade, had spread its powerfully philosophic idiom in
   every direction, to England, to Sicily, and to Jerusalem. This
   circumstance alone invested France, central France, Paris,
   with an immense attractive power. By degrees, Parisian French
   became a proverb. Feudalism had found its political centre in
   the royal city; and this city was about to become the capital
   of human thought. The beginner of this revolution was not a
   priest, but a handsome young man of brilliant talents, amiable
   and of noble family. None wrote love verses, like his, in the
   vulgar tongue; he sang them, too. Besides, his erudition was
   extraordinary for that day. He alone, of his time, knew both
   Greek and Hebrew. May be, he had studied at the Jewish schools
   (there were many in the South), or under the rabbins of
   Troyes, Vitry, or of Orleans. There were then in Paris two
   leading schools: the old Episcopal school of the parvis Notre
   Dame, and that of St. Geneviève, on the hill, where shone
   William of Champeaux. Abelard joined his pupils, submitted to
   him his doubts, puzzled him, laughed at him, and closed his
   mouth. He would have served Anselm of Laon the same, had not
   the professor, being a bishop, expelled him from his diocese.
   In this fashion this knight-errant of logic went on, unhorsing
   the most celebrated champions. He himself declared that he had
   only renounced tilt and tourney through his passion for
   intellectual combats. Henceforward, victorious and without a
   rival, he taught at Paris and Melun, the residence of
   Louis-le-Gros, and the lords flocked to hear him; anxious to
   encourage one of themselves, who had discomfited the priests
   on their own ground, and had silenced the ablest clerks.
   Abelard's wonderful success is easily explained. All the lore
   and learning which had been smothered under the heavy,
   dogmatical forms of clerical instruction, and hidden in the
   rude Latin of the middle age, suddenly appeared arrayed in the
   simple elegance of antiquity, so that men seemed for the first
   time to hear and recognise a human voice. The daring youth
   simplified and explained everything; presenting philosophy in
   a familiar form, and bringing it home to men's bosoms. He
   hardly suffered the obscure or supernatural to rest on the
   hardest mysteries of faith. It seemed as if till then the
   Church had lisped and stammered; while Abelard spoke. All was
   made smooth and easy. He treated religion courteously and
   handled her gently, but she melted away in his hands. Nothing
   embarrassed the fluent speaker: he reduced religion to
   philosophy, and morality to humanity. 'Crime,' he said,
   'consists not in the act, but in the intention.' It followed,
   that there was no such thing as sins of habit or of
   ignorance—'They who crucified Jesus, not knowing him to have
   been the Saviour, were guilty of no sin.' What is original
   sin?—'Less a sin, than a punishment.' But then, wherefore the
   redemption and the passion, if there was no sin?—'It was an
   act of pure love. God desired to substitute the law of love
   for that of fear.'"

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 4, chapter 4._

   "It is difficult, by a mere perusal of Abelard's works, to
   understand the effect he produced upon his hearers by the
   force of his argumentation, whether studied or improvised, and
   by the ardor and animation of his eloquence, and the grace and
   attractiveness of his person. But the testimony of his
   contemporaries is unanimous; even his adversaries themselves
   render justice to his high oratorical qualities. No one ever
   reasoned with more subtlety, or handled the dialectic tool
   with more address; and assuredly, something of these qualities
   is to be found in the writings he has left us. But the intense
   life, the enthusiastic ardor which enlivened his discourses,
   the beauty of his face, and the charm of his voice cannot be
   imparted by cold manuscripts.
{694}
   Héloise, whose name is inseparably linked with that of her
   unfortunate husband, and whom Charles de Rémusat does not
   hesitate to call 'the first of women'; who, in any case, was a
   superior person of her time; Héloise, who loved Abelard with
   'an immoderate love,' and who, under the veil of a
   'religieuse' and throughout the practice of devotional duties,
   remained faithful to him until death; Héloise said to him in
   her famous letter of 1136: 'Thou hast two things especially
   which could instantly win thee the hearts of all women: the
   charm thou knowest how to impart to thy voice in speaking and
   singing.' External gifts combined with intellectual qualities
   to make of Abelard an incomparable seducer of minds and
   hearts. Add to this an astonishing memory, a knowledge as
   profound as was compatible with the resources of his time, and
   a vast erudition which caused his contemporaries to consider
   him a master of universal knowledge. … How can one be
   astonished that with such qualities Abelard gained an
   extraordinary ascendency over his age; that, having become the
   intellectual ruler and, as it were, the dictator of the
   thought of the twelfth century, he should have succeeded in
   attracting to his chair and in retaining around it thousands
   of young men; the first germ of those assemblages of students
   who were to constitute the universities several years later?
   … It is not alone by the outward success of his scholastic
   apostolate that Abelard merits consideration as the precursor
   of the modern spirit and the promoter of the foundation of the
   universities; it is also by his doctrine, or at least by his
   method. … No one claims that Abelard was the first who, in
   the Middle Ages, had introduced dialectics into theology,
   reason into authority. In the ninth century, Scotus Erigena
   had already said: 'Authority is derived from reason.'
   Scholasticism, which is nothing but logic enlightening
   theology, an effort of reason to demonstrate dogma, had begun
   before Abelard; but it was he who gave movement and life to
   the method by lending it his power and his renown."

      _G. Compayré,
      Abelard,
      part 1, chapters 2-3._

EDUCATION: Latin Language.

   "Greek was an unknown tongue: only a very few of the Latin
   classics received a perfunctory attention: Boethius was
   preferred to Cicero, and the Moral Sentences ascribed to Cato
   to either. Rules couched in barbarous Latin verse were
   committed to memory. Aristotle was known only in incorrect
   Latin translations, which many of the taught, and some of the
   teachers probably, supposed to be the originals. Matters were
   not mended when the student, having passed through the
   preliminary course of arts, advanced to the study of the
   sciences. Theology meant an acquaintance with the 'Sentences'
   of Peter Lombard, or, in other cases, with the 'Summa' of
   Thomas Aquinas; in medicine, Galen was an authority from which
   there was no appeal. On every side the student was fenced
   round by traditions and prejudices, through which it was
   impossible to break. In truth, he had no means of knowing that
   there was a wider and fairer world beyond. Till the classical
   revival came, every decade made the yoke of prescription
   heavier, and each generation of students, therefore, a feebler
   copy of the last."

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation,
      chapter 3._

   "What at first had been everywhere a Greek became in Western
   Europe a Latin religion. The discipline of Rome maintained the
   body of doctrine which the thought of Greece had defined. A
   new Latin version, superseding alike the venerable Greek
   translation of the Old Testament and the original words of
   Evangelists and Apostles, became the received text of Holy
   Scripture. The Latin Fathers acquired an authority scarcely
   less binding. The ritual, lessons, and hymns of the Church
   were Latin. Ecclesiastics transacted the business of civil
   departments requiring education. Libraries were armories of
   the Church: grammar was part of her drill. The humblest
   scholar was enlisted, in her service: she recruited her ranks
   by founding Latin schools. 'Education in the rudiments of
   Latin,' says Hallam, 'was imparted to a greater number of
   individuals than at present;' and, as they had more use for it
   than at present, it was longer retained. If a boy of humble
   birth had a taste for letters, or if a boy of high birth had a
   distaste for arms, the first step was to learn Latin. His foot
   was then on the ladder. He might rise by the good offices of
   his family to a bishopric, or to the papacy itself by merit
   and the grace of God. Latin enabled a Greek from Tarsus
   (Theodore) to become the founder of learning in the English
   church; and a Yorkshireman (Alcuin) to organize the schools of
   Charlemagne. Without Latin, our English Winfrid (St. Boniface)
   could not have been apostle of Germany and reformer of the
   Frankish Church; or the German Albert, master at Paris of
   Thomas Aquinas; or Nicholas Breakspeare, Pope of Rome. With
   it, Western Christendom was one vast field of labor: calls for
   self-sacrifice, or offers of promotion, might come from north
   or south, from east or west. Thus in the Middle Ages Latin was
   made the groundwork of education; not for the beauty of its
   classical literature, nor because the study of a dead language
   was the best mental gymnastic, or the only means of acquiring
   a masterly freedom in the use of living tongues, but because
   it was the language of educated men throughout Western Europe,
   employed for public business, literature, philosophy, and
   science; above all, in God's providence, essential to the
   unity, and therefore enforced by the authority of, the Western
   Church."

      _C. S. Parker,
      Essay on the History of Classical Education
      (quoted in Dr. Henry Barnard's "Letters, Essays and
      Thoughts on Studies and Conduct," page 467)._

EDUCATION: France.

   "The countries of western Europe, leavened, all of them, by
   the one spirit of the feudal and catholic Middle Age, formed
   in some sense one community, and were more associated than
   they have been since the feudal and catholic unity of the
   Middle Age has disappeared and given place to the divided and
   various life of modern Europe. In the mediæval community
   France held the first place. It is now well known that to
   place in the 15th century the revival of intellectual life and
   the re-establishment of civilisation, and to treat the period
   between the 5th century, when ancient civilisation was ruined
   by the barbarians, and the 15th, when the life and intellect
   of this civilisation reappeared and transformed the world, as
   one chaos, is a mistake. The chaos ends about the 10th
   century; in the 11th there truly comes the first
   re-establishment of civilisation, the first revival of
   intellectual life; the principal centre of this revival is
   France, its chief monuments of literature are in the French
   language, its chief monuments of art are the French cathedrals.
{695}
   This revival fills the 12th and 13th centuries with its
   activity and with its works; all this time France has the
   lead; in the 14th century the lead passes to Italy; but now
   comes the commencement of a wholly new period, the period of
   the Renaissance properly so called, the beginning of modern
   European life, the ceasing of the life of the feudal and
   catholic Middle Age. The anterior and less glorious
   Renaissance, the Renaissance within the limits of the Middle
   Age itself, a revival which came to a stop and could not
   successfully develop itself, but which has yet left profound
   traces in our spirit and our literature,—this revival belongs
   chiefly to France. France, then, may well serve as a typical
   country wherein to trace the mediæval growth of intellect and
   learning; above all she may so stand for us, whose connection
   with her in the Middle Age, owing to our Norman kings and the
   currency of her language among our cultivated class, was so
   peculiarly close; so close that the literary and intellectual
   development of the two countries at that time intermingles,
   and no important event can happen in that of the one without
   straightway affecting and interesting that of the other. …
   With the hostility of the long French Wars of Edward the Third
   comes the estrangement, never afterwards diminishing but
   always increasing."

      _M. Arnold,
      Schools and Universities on the Continent,
      chapter 1._

EDUCATION:
   University of Paris.

   "The name of Abelard recalls the European celebrity and
   immense intellectual ferment of this school [of Paris] in the
   12th century. But it was in the first year of the following
   century, the 13th, that it received a charter from Philip
   Augustus, and thenceforth the name of University of Paris
   takes the place of that of School of Paris. Forty-nine years
   later was founded University College, Oxford, the oldest
   college of the oldest English University. Four nations
   composed the University of Paris,—the nation of France, the
   nation of Picardy, the nation of Normandy, and (signal mark of
   the close intercourse which then existed between France and
   us!) the nation of England. The four nations united formed the
   faculty of arts. The faculty of theology was created in 1257,
   that of law in 1271, that of medicine in 1274. Theology, law,
   and medicine had each their Dean; arts had four Procurators,
   one for each of the four nations composing this faculty. Arts
   elected the rector of the University, and had possession of
   the University chest and archives. The preeminence of the
   Faculty of Arts indicates, as indeed does the very development
   of the University, an idea, gradually strengthening itself, of
   a lay instruction to be no longer absorbed in theology, but
   separable from it. The growth of a lay and modern spirit in
   society, the preponderance of the crown over the papacy, of
   the civil over the ecclesiastical power, is the great feature
   of French history in the 14th century, and to this century
   belongs the highest development of the University. … The
   importance of the University in the 13th and 14th centuries
   was extraordinary. Men's minds were possessed with a wonderful
   zeal for knowledge, or what was then thought knowledge, and
   the University of Paris was the great fount from which this
   knowledge issued. The University and those depending on it
   made at this time, it is said, actually a third of the
   population of Paris; when the University went on a solemn
   occasion in procession to Saint Denis, the head of the
   procession, it is said, had reached St. Denis before the end
   of it had left its starting place in Paris. It had immunities
   from taxation, it had jurisdiction of its own, and its members
   claimed to be exempt from that of the provost of Paris; the
   kings of France strongly favoured the University, and leaned
   to its side when the municipal and academical authorities were
   in conflict; if at any time the University thought itself
   seriously aggrieved, it had recourse to a measure which threw
   Paris into dismay,—it shut up its schools and suspended its
   lectures. In a body of this kind the discipline could not be
   strict, and the colleges were created to supply centres of
   discipline which the University in itself,—an apparatus
   merely of teachers and lecture-rooms,—did not provide. The
   14th century is the time when, one after another, with
   wonderful rapidity, the French colleges appeared. Navarre,
   Montaigu, Harcourt, names so familiar in the school annals of
   France, date from the first quarter of the 14th century. The
   College of Navarre was founded by the queen of Philip the
   Fair, in 1304; the College of Montaigu, where Erasmus,
   Rabelais, and Ignatius Loyola were in their time students, was
   founded in 1314 by two members of the family of Montaigu, one
   of them Archbishop of Rouen. The majority of these colleges
   were founded by magnates of the church, and designed to
   maintain a certain number of bursars, or scholars, during
   their university course. … Along with the University of
   Paris there existed in France, in the 14th century, the
   Universities of Orleans, Angers, Toulouse, and Montpellier.
   Orleans was the great French school for the study of the civil
   law. … The civil law was studiously kept away from the
   University of Paris, for fear it should drive out other
   studies, and especially the study of theology; so late as the
   year 1679 there was no chair of Roman or even of French law in
   the University of Paris. The strength of this University was
   concentrated on theology and arts, and its celebrity arose
   from the multitude of students which in these branches of
   instruction it attracted."

      _M. Arnold,
      Schools and Universities on the Continent,
      chapter 1._

EDUCATION:
   The Sorbonne.

   The University of Paris acquired the name of "the Sorbonne"
   "from Robert of Sorbon, aulic chaplain of St. Louis, who
   established one of the 63 colleges of the University. … The
   name of Sorbonne was first applied to the theological faculty
   only; but at length the whole University received this
   designation."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 24, foot-note._

EDUCATION:
   The Nations.

   "The precise date of the organization at Paris of the four
   Nations which maintained themselves there until the latest
   days of the university escapes the most minute research.
   Neither for the Nations nor for the Faculties was there any
   sudden blossoming, but rather a slow evolution, an insensible
   preparation for a definite condition. Already at the close of
   the twelfth century there is mention in contemporary documents
   of the various provinces of the school of Paris. The Nations
   are mentioned in the bulls of Gregory IX. (1231) and of
   Innocent IV. (1245). In 1245, they already elect their
   attendants, the beadles. In 1249, the existence of the four
   Nations—France, Picardy, Normandy, and England—is proved by
   their quarrels over the election of a rector. … Until the
   definitive constitution of the Faculties, that is, until 1270
   or 1280, the four Nations included the totality of students
   and masters.
{696}
   After the formation of the Faculties, the four Nations
   comprised only the members of the Faculty of Arts and those
   students of other Faculties who had not yet obtained the grade
   of Bachelor of Arts. The three superior Faculties, Theology,
   Medicine, and Law, had nothing in common thenceforward with
   the Nations. … At Bologna, as at Paris, the Nations were
   constituted in the early years of the thirteenth century, but
   under a slightly different form. There the students were
   grouped in two distinct associations, the Ultramontanes and
   the Citramontanes, the foreigners and the Italians, who formed
   two universities, the Transalpine and the Cisalpine, each with
   its chiefs, who were not styled procurators but counsellors;
   the first was composed of eighteen Nations and the second of
   seventeen. At Padua twenty-two Nations were enumerated.
   Montpellier had only three in 1339,—the Catalans, the
   Burgundians, the Provençals; each sub-divided, however, into
   numerous groups. Orleans had ten: France, Germany, Lorraine,
   Burgundy, Champagne, Picardy, Normandy, Touraine, Guyanne, and
   Scotland; Poitiers had four: France, Aquitaine, Touraine, and
   Berry; Prague had four also, in imitation of Paris; Lerida had
   twelve, in imitation of Bologna, etc. But whether more or less
   numerous, and whatever their special organization, the Nations
   in all the universities bore witness to that need of
   association which is one of the characteristics of the Middle
   Ages. … One of the consequences of their organization was to
   prevent the blending and fusion of races, and to maintain the
   distinction of provinces and nationalities among the pupils of
   the same university."

      _G. Compayré,
      Abelard,
      part 2, chapter 2._

EDUCATION: Italy
   Revived Study of Roman Law.

   "It is known that Justinian established in Rome a school of
   law, similar to those of Constantinople and Berytus. When Rome
   ceased to be subject to Byzantine rule, this law-school seems
   to have been transferred to Ravenna, where it continued to keep
   alive the knowledge of the Justinian system. That system
   continued to be known and used, from century to century, in a
   tradition never wholly interrupted, especially in the free
   cities of Northern Italy. It seems even to have penetrated
   beyond Italy into Southern France. But it was destined to
   have, at the beginning of the twelfth century, a very
   extraordinary revival. This revival was part of a general
   movement of the European mind which makes its appearance at
   that epoch. The darkness which settled down on the world, at
   the time of the barbarian invasions, had its midnight in the
   ninth and tenth centuries. In the eleventh, signs of progress
   and improvement begin to show themselves, becoming more
   distinct towards its close, when the period of the Crusades
   was opening upon Europe. Just at this time we find a famous
   school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
   multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
   from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
   its instruction was the Corpus Juris Civilis [see CORPUS JURIS
   CIVILIS]. Its teachers, who constitute a series of
   distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half,
   devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and
   elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially
   the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed
   down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name
   of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were
   accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal
   explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be
   an immense literature. … Here, then, in this school of the
   glossators, at Bologna, in the twelfth and thirteenth
   centuries, the awakened mind of Europe was brought to
   recognize the value of the Corpus Juris, the almost
   inexhaustible treasure of juristic principles, precepts,
   conceptions, reasonings, stored up in it."

      _Jas. Hadley,
      Introduction to Roman Law,
      lecture 2._

EDUCATION: Italy
   University of Bologna.

   "In the twelfth century the law school of the University of
   Bologna eclipsed all others in Europe. The two great branches
   of legal study in the middle ages, the Roman law and the canon
   law, began in the teaching of Irnerius and Gratian at Bologna
   in the first half of the twelfth century. At the beginning of
   this century the name of university first replaces that of
   school; and it is said that the great university degree, that
   of doctor, was first instituted at Bologna, and that the
   ceremony for conferring it was devised there. From Bologna the
   degree and its ceremonial travelled to Paris. A bull of Pope
   Honorius, in 1220, says that the study of 'bomæ literæ' had at
   that time made the city of Bologna famous throughout the
   world. Twelve thousand students from all parts of Europe are
   said to have been congregated there at once. The different
   nations had their colleges, and of colleges at Bologna there
   were fourteen. These were founded and endowed by the
   liberality of private persons; the university professors, the
   source of attraction to this multitude of students, were paid
   by the municipality, who found their reward in the fame,
   business, and importance brought to their town by the
   university. The municipalities of the great cities of northern
   and central Italy were not slow in following the example of
   Bologna; in the thirteenth century Padua, Modena, Piacenza,
   Parma, Ferrara, had each its university. Frederick II. founded
   that of Naples in 1224; in the fourteenth century were added
   those of Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, and Turin. Colleges of
   examiners, or, as we should say, boards, were created by Papal
   bull to examine in theology, and by imperial decree to examine
   in law and medicine. It was in these studies of law and
   medicine that the Italian universities were chiefly
   distinguished."

      _M. Arnold,
      Schools and Universities on the Continent,
      chapter 9._

   "The Bologna School of jurisprudence was several times
   threatened with total extinction. In the repeated difficulties
   with the city the students would march out of the town, bound
   by a solemn oath not to return; and if a compromise was to be
   effected, a papal dispensation from that oath must first be
   obtained. Generally on such occasions, the privileges of the
   university were reaffirmed and often enlarged. In other cases,
   a quarrel between the pope and the city, and the ban placed
   over the latter, obliged the students to leave; and then the
   city often planned and furthered the removal of the
   university. King Frederic II., in 1226, during the war against
   Bologna, dissolved the school of jurisprudence, which seems to
   have been not at all affected thereby, and he formally
   recalled that ordinance in the following year. Originally the
   only school in Bologna was the school of jurisprudence, and in
   connection with it alone a university could be formed. ….
   Subsequently eminent teachers of medicine and the liberal arts
   appeared, and their pupils, too, sought to form a university
   and to choose their own rector.
{697}
   As late as 1295 this innovation was disputed by the jurists
   and interdicted by the city, so that they had to connect
   themselves with the university of jurisprudence. But a few
   years later we find them already in possession again of a few
   rectors, and in 1316 their right was formally recognized in a
   compromise between the university of jurisprudence and the
   city. The students called themselves 'philosophi et medici' or
   'physici'; also by the common name of 'artistæ.' Finally a
   school of theology, founded by pope Innocent VI., was added in
   the second half of the 14th century; it was placed under the
   bishop, and organized in imitation of the school at Paris, so
   that it was a 'universitas magistrorum,' not 'scholarium.' As,
   however, by this arrangement the students of theology in the
   theological university had no civil privileges of their own,
   they were considered individually as belonging to the
   'artistæ.' From this time Bologna had four universities, two
   of jurisprudence, the one of medicine and philosophy, and the
   theological, the first two having no connection with the
   others, forming a unit, and therefore frequently designated as
   one university."

      _F. C. Savigny,
      The Universities of the Middle Ages
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 22, pages 278-279)._

EDUCATION:
   Other Universities.

   "The oldest and most frequented university in Italy, that of
   Bologna, is represented as having flourished in the twelfth
   century. Its prosperity in early times depended greatly on the
   personal conduct of the principal professors, who, when they
   were not satisfied with their entertainment, were in the habit
   of seceding with their pupils to other cities. Thus high
   schools were opened from time to time in Modena, Reggio, and
   elsewhere by teachers who broke the oaths that bound them to
   reside in Bologna, and fixed their centre of education in a
   rival town. To make such temporary changes was not difficult
   in an age when what we have to call an university, consisted
   of masters and scholars, without college buildings, without
   libraries, without endowments, and without scientific
   apparatus. The technical name for such institutions seems to
   have been 'studium scholarium,' Italianised into 'studio' or
   'studio pubblico.' Among the more permanent results of these
   secessions may be mentioned the establishment of the high
   school at Vicenza by translation from Bologna in 1204, and the
   opening of a school at Arezzo under similar circumstances in
   1215; the great University of Padua first saw the light in
   consequence of political discords forcing the professors to
   quit Bologna for a season. The first half of the thirteenth
   century witnessed the foundation of these 'studi' in
   considerable numbers. That of Vercelli was opened in 1228, the
   municipality providing two certified copyists for the
   convenience of students who might wish to purchase textbooks.
   In 1224 the Emperor Frederick II., to whom the south of Italy
   owed a precocious eminence in literature, established the
   University of Naples by an Imperial diploma. With a view to
   rendering it the chief seat of learning in his dominions, he
   forbade the subjects of the Regno to frequent other schools,
   and suppressed the University of Bologna by letters general.
   Thereupon Bologna joined the Lombard League, defied the
   Emperor, and refused to close the schools, which numbered at
   that period about ten thousand students of various
   nationalities. In 1227 Frederick revoked his edict, and
   Bologna remained thenceforward unmolested. Political and
   internal vicissitudes, affecting all the Italian universities
   at this period, interrupted the prosperity of that of Naples.
   In the middle of the thirteenth century Salerno proved a
   dangerous rival. … An important group of 'studi pubblici'
   owed their origin to Papal or Imperial charters in the first
   half of the fourteenth century. That of Perugia was founded in
   1307 by a Bull of Clement V. That of Rome dated from 1303, in
   which year Boniface VIII. gave it a constitution by a special
   edict; but the translation of the Papal See to Avignon caused
   it to fall into premature decadence. The University of Pisa
   had already existed for some years, when it received a charter
   in 1343 from Clement VI. That of Florence was first founded in
   1321. … The subjects taught in the high schools were Canon
   and Civil Law, Medicine, and Theology. These faculties,
   important for the professional education of the public, formed
   the staple of the academical curriculum. Chairs of Rhetoric,
   Philosophy, and Astronomy were added according to occasion,
   the last sometimes including the study of judicial astrology.
   If we enquire how the humanists or professors of classic
   literature were related to the universities, we find that, at
   first at any rate, they always occupied a second rank. The
   permanent teaching remained in the hands of jurists, who
   enjoyed life engagements at a high rate of pay, while the
   Latinists and Grecians could only aspire to the temporary
   occupation of the Chair of Rhetoric, with salaries
   considerably lower than those of lawyers or physicians."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: the Revival of Learning,
      chapter 3._

   "Few of the Italian universities show themselves in their full
   vigour till the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the
   increase of wealth rendered a more systematic care for
   education possible. At first there were generally three sorts
   of professorships—one for civil law, another for canonical
   law, the third for medicine; in course of time professorships
   of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of astronomy were added, the
   last commonly, though not always, identical with astrology.
   The salaries varied greatly in different cases. Sometimes a
   capital sum was paid down. With the spread of culture
   competition became so active that the different universities
   tried to entice away distinguished teachers from one another,
   under which circumstances Bologna is said to have sometimes
   devoted the half of its public income (20,000 ducats) to the
   university. The appointments were as a rule made only for a
   certain time, sometimes for only half a year, so that the
   teachers were forced to lead a wandering life, like actors.
   Appointments for life were, however, not unknown. … Of the
   chairs which have been mentioned, that of rhetoric was
   especially sought by the humanist; yet it depended only on his
   familiarity with the matter of ancient learning whether or no
   he could aspire to those of law, medicine, philosophy, or
   astronomy. The inward conditions of the science of the day
   were as variable as the outward conditions of the teacher.
   Certain jurists and physicians received by far the largest
   salaries of all, the former chiefly as consulting lawyers for
   the suits and claims of the state which employed them. …
{698}
   Personal intercourse between the teachers and the taught,
   public disputations, the constant use of Latin and often of
   Greek, the frequent changes of lecturers and the scarcity of
   books, gave the studies of that time a colour which we cannot
   represent to ourselves without effort. There were Latin
   schools in every town of the least importance, not by any
   means merely as preparatory to higher education, but because,
   next to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the knowledge of
   Latin was a necessity; and after Latin came logic. It is to be
   noted particularly that these schools did not depend on the
   Church, but on the municipality; some of them, too, were
   merely private enterprises. This school system, directed by a
   few distinguished humanists, not only attained a remarkable
   perfection of organisation, but became an instrument of higher
   education in the modern sense of the phrase."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
      volume 1, part 3, chapter 5._

EDUCATION: Germany.
   Prague and its Offspring.

   "The earliest university in Germany was that of Prague. It was
   in 1348, under the Emperor Charles IV., when the taste for
   letters had revived so signally in Europe, when England may be
   said to have possessed her two old universities already for
   three centuries, Paris her Sorbonne already for four, that
   this university was erected as the first of German
   Universities. The idea originated in the mind of the Emperor,
   who was educated in Paris, at the university of that town, and
   was eagerly taken up by the townspeople of that ancient and
   wealthy city, for they foresaw that affluence would shower
   upon them if they could induce a numerous crowd of students to
   flock together within their walls. But the Pope and the
   Emperor took an active part in favouring and authorizing the
   institution; they willingly granted to it wide privileges, and
   made it entirely independent of Church and State. The teaching
   of the professors, and the studies of the students, were
   submitted to no control whatever. After the model of the
   University of Paris, they divided themselves into different
   faculties, and made four such divisions—one for divinity,
   another for medical science, a third for law, and a fourth for
   philosophy. The last order comprised those who taught and
   learned the fine arts and the sciences, which two departments
   were separate at Sorbonne. All the German universities have
   preserved this outward constitution, and in this, as in many
   other circumstances, the precedent of Prague has had a
   prevailing influence on her younger sister institutions. The
   same thing may be said particularly of the disciplinary tone
   of the university. In other countries, universities sprang
   from rigid clerical and monastic institutions, or bore a more
   or less ecclesiastical character which imposed upon them
   certain more retired habits, and a severer kind of discipline.
   Prague took from the beginning a course widely different. The
   students, who were partly Germans, partly of Slavonian blood,
   enjoyed a boundless liberty. They lodged in the houses of the
   townspeople, and by their riches, their mental superiority,
   and their number (they are recorded to have been as many as
   twenty thousand in the year 1409), became the undisputed
   masters of the city. The professors and the inhabitants of
   Prague, far from checking them, rather protected the
   prerogatives of the students, for they found out that all
   their prosperity depended on them. … Not two generations had
   passed since the erection of an institution thus constituted,
   before Huss and Jerome of Prague began to teach the necessity
   of an entire reformation of the Church. The phenomenon is
   characteristic of the bold spirit of inquiry that must have
   grown up at the new University. However, the political
   consequences that attended the promulgation of such doctrines
   led almost to the dissolution of the University itself. For,
   the German part of the students broke up, in consequence of
   repeated and serious quarrels that had taken place with the
   Bohemian and Slavonic party, and went to Leipzig, where
   straightway a new and purely German University was erected.
   While Prague became the seat of a protracted and sanguinary
   war, a great number of Universities rose into existence around
   it, and attracted the crowds that had formerly flocked to the
   Bohemian capital. It appeared as if Germany, though it had
   received the impulse from abroad, would leave all other
   countries behind itself in the erection and promotion of these
   learned institutions, for all the districts of the land vied
   with each other in creating universities. Thus arose those of
   Rostock, Ingolstadt, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Erfurt,
   Tübingen, Greifswalde, Trèves, Mayence and Bâles-schools which
   have partly disappeared again during the political storms of
   subsequent ages. The beginning of the sixteenth century added
   to them one at Frankfort on the Oder, and another, the most
   illustrious of all, Wittenberg. Everyone who is acquainted
   with the history and origin of the Reformation, knows what an
   important part the latter of these universities took in the
   weighty transactions of those times. … Wittenberg remained
   by no means the only champion of Protestantism. At Marburg,
   Jena, Königsberg, and Helmstadt, universities of a professedly
   Protestant character were erected. These schools became the
   cradle and nurseries of the Reformation."

      _The Universities of Germany
      (Dublin University Magazine,
      volume 46, pages 83-85)._

   "The German universities of the fourteenth and fifteenth
   centuries were founded in the following order: Prague, 1348;
   Vienna, 1388; Erfurt, 1392; Leipsic, 1409; Rostock, 1419;
   Greifswald, 1456; Freiburg, 1457; Ingolstadt, 1472; Tübingen,
   1477; and Mayence, 1477. Thus, it will be seen that they were
   established in quick succession—an unmistakable proof of the
   growing scientific interest of the age."

      _F. V. N. Painter,
      History of Education,
      chapter 3, section 5 (k)._

EDUCATION: Netherlands.

   "Tradition reports that a school had … been founded at
   Utrecht, by some zealous missionary, in the time of Charles
   Martel, at which his son Pepin received his education. However
   this may have been, the renown of the Utrecht School of St.
   Martin is of very ancient date. … During the invasion by the
   Normans, this school at Utrecht was suppressed, but was
   reëstablished in 917, and regained its former renown. The
   Emperor, Henry the Fowler, placed here his three sons, Otto,
   Henry and Bruno, to be educated, of whom the last became
   afterward archbishop of Cologne and archduke of Lottringen,
   and was noted for his extraordinary learning and friendship
   for the poet Prudentius. At the beginning of the 12th century,
   Utrecht possessed no less than five flourishing schools,
   several of which had each a 'rector' in addition to the
   priests who had the general control. At about the same time,
   several convents became distinguished as educational
   institutions, especially those of Egmond, Nymwegen,
   Middleburg, in Zealand, and Aduwert, near Gröningen.
{699}
   In Holland, as in Belgium, in addition to the schools that
   were attached to the cathedrals, convents, and chapters, there
   were established in the course of the twelfth century, by the
   more wealthy communities, public schools especially designed
   for the instruction of the citizens and laity. It is also
   worthy of notice that the authority to open such schools was
   always derived from the counts—by whom it was conferred,
   sometimes upon the cities as an especial privilege, and
   sometimes upon merely private persons as a mark of particular
   favor. The jurisdiction of the feudal lords was the same here
   as in Belgium; but while in the latter country, with the
   exception perhaps of the elementary schools in some of the
   cities, the right of supervision everywhere devolved upon the
   chapters, instruction in these public schools of Holland was
   wholly withdrawn from the clergy, and they were made
   essentially secular in their character. The privilege of thus
   establishing schools was conferred upon some of the cities at
   the following dates:

   Dort, by Count Floris V., A. D. 1290;
   the Hague, 1322;
   Leyden, 1324;
   and Rotterdam in 1328, by William III.;
   Delft and Amsterdam, in 1334, by William IV.;
   Leyden again, 1357;
   Haarlem, 1389;
   Alkmar, 1398;
   Hoorn, 1358 and 1390;
   the Hague, 1393;
   Schiedam and Ondewater, 1394;
   and Rotterdam, in 1402, by Albert of Bavaria.

   These schools, adds Stallaert, on the authority of Buddingh,
   were generally styled 'School en Schryfambacht,' 'Schoole en
   Kostern,' (school and writing offices, schools and clerks'
   houses,) and the 'Schoolmijsters' (school-masters) were looked
   upon as professional men or craftsmen—as was the case also in
   Belgium, where they formed distinct guilds and fraternities.
   These public schools of Holland were divided into 'large' and
   'small' schools, (groote en bijschoolen,) Latin being taught
   in the first division. The institution at Zwolle, attained
   special notoriety in the fourteenth century, under the
   direction of the celebrated Johan Cele. According to Thomas à
   Kempis and Ten Bussche, its pupils numbered about a thousand,
   gathered from Holland, Belgium, and the principal provinces of
   Germany."

      _Public Instruction in Holland
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 14)._

EDUCATION: England.
   Early Oxford.

   "The University of Oxford did not spring into being in any
   particular year, or at the bidding of any particular founder:
   it was not established by any formal charter of incorporation.
   Taking its rise in a small and obscure association of teachers
   and learners, it developed spontaneously into a large and
   important body, long before its existence was recognised by
   prince or by prelate. There were certainly schools at Oxford
   in the reign of Henry I., but the previous history of the
   place does not throw much light on their origin, or explain
   the causes of their popularity. The town seems to have grown
   up under the shadow of a nunnery, which is said to have been
   founded by St. Frideswyde as far back as the eighth century.
   Its authentic annals, however, begin with the year 912, when
   it was occupied and annexed by Edward the Elder, King of the
   West Saxons. … Oxford was considered a place of great
   strategical importance in the eleventh century. Its position
   on the borders of Mercia and Wessex rendered it also,
   particularly convenient for parleys between Englishmen and
   Danes, and for great national assemblies. … Retaining for a
   while its rank as one of the chief centres of political life
   in the south of England, and as a suitable meeting-place for
   parliaments and synods, Oxford became thenceforward more and
   more distinctively known as a seat of learning and a nursery
   of clerks. The schools which existed at Oxford before the
   reign of King John, are so seldom and so briefly noticed in
   contemporary records, that it would be difficult to show how
   they developed into a great university, if it were not for the
   analogy of kindred institutions in other countries. There can
   be little doubt, however, that the idea of a university, the
   systems of degrees and faculties, and the nomenclature of the
   chief academical officers, were alike imported into England
   from abroad. … In the earliest and broadest sense of the
   term, a university had no necessary connexion with schools or
   literature, being merely a community of individuals bound
   together by some more or less acknowledged tie. Regarded
   collectively in this light, the inhabitants of any particular
   town might be said to constitute a university, and in point of
   fact the Commonalty of the townsmen of Oxford was sometimes
   described as a university in formal documents of the middle
   ages. The term was, however, specially applied to the whole
   body of persons frequenting the schools of a large studium.
   Ultimately it came to be employed in a technical sense as
   synonymous with studium, to denote the institution itself.
   This last use of the term seems to be of English origin, for
   the University of Oxford is mentioned as such in writs and
   ordinances of the years 1238, 1240, and 1253, whereas the
   greater seat of learning on the banks of the Seine was, until
   the year 1263, styled 'the University of the Masters,' or 'the
   University of the Scholars,' of Paris. The system of
   academical degrees dates from the second half of the twelfth
   century."

      _H. C. M. Lyte,
      A History of the University of Oxford,
      chapter 1._

   "In the early Oxford … of the twelfth and most of the
   thirteenth centuries, colleges with their statutes were
   unknown. The University was the only corporation of the
   learned, and she struggled into existence after hard fights
   with the town, the Jews, the Friars, the Papal courts. The
   history of the University begins with the thirteenth century.
   She may be said to have come into being as soon as she
   possessed common funds and rents, as soon as fines were
   assigned, or benefactions contributed to the maintenance of
   scholars. Now the first recorded fine is the payment of
   fifty-two shillings by the townsmen of Oxford as part of the
   compensation for the hanging of certain clerks. In the year
   1214 the Papal Legate, in a letter to his 'beloved sons in
   Christ, the burgesses of Oxford,' bade them excuse the
   'scholars studying in Oxford' half the rent of their halls, or
   hospitia, for the space of ten years. The burghers were also
   to do penance, and to feast the poorer students once a year;
   but the important point is, that they had to pay that large
   yearly fine 'propter suspendium clericorum'—all for the
   hanging of the clerks. Twenty-six years after this decision of
   the Legate, Robert Grossteste, the great Bishop of Lincoln,
   organized the payment and distribution of the fine, and
   founded the first of the chests, the chest of St. Frideswyde.
{700}
   These chests were a kind of Mont de Piété, and to found them
   was at first the favourite form of benefaction. Money was left
   in this or that chest, from which students and masters would
   borrow, on the security of pledges, which were generally
   books, cups, daggers, and so forth. Now, in this affair of
   1214 we have a strange passage of history, which happily
   illustrates the growth of the University. The beginning of the
   whole affair was the quarrel with the town, which in 1209, had
   hanged two clerks, 'in contempt of clerical liberty.' The
   matter was taken up by the Legate—in those bad years of King
   John, the Pope's viceroy in England—and out of the
   humiliation of the town the University gained money,
   privileges, and halls at low rental. These were precisely the
   things that the University wanted. About these matters there
   was a constant strife, in which the Kings as a rule, took part
   with the University. … Thus gradually the University got the
   command of the police, obtained privileges which enslaved the
   city, and became masters where they had once been despised,
   starveling scholars. … The result, in the long run, was that
   the University received from Edward III. 'a most large
   charter, containing many liberties, some that they had before,
   and others that he had taken away from the town.' Thus Edward
   granted to the University 'the custody of the assize of bread,
   wine, and ale,' the supervising of measures and weights, the
   sole power of clearing the streets of the town and suburbs.
   Moreover, the Mayor and the chief Burghers were condemned
   yearly to a sort of public penance and humiliation on St.
   Scholastica's Day. Thus, by the middle of the fourteenth
   century, the strife of Town and Gown had ended in the complete
   victory of the latter."

      _A. Lang,
      Oxford,
      chapter 2._

   "To mark off the Middle Age from the Modern Period of the
   University is certainly very difficult. Indeed the earlier
   times do not form a homogeneous whole, but appear perpetually
   shifting and preparing for a new state. The main transition
   however was undoubtedly about the middle of the fourteenth
   century; and the Reformation, a remarkable crisis, did but
   confirm what had been in progress for more than a century and
   a half: so that the Middle Age of the University contained the
   thirteenth century, and barely the former half of the
   fourteenth. … There is no question, that during this Middle
   Age the English Universities were distinguished far more than
   ever afterwards by energy and variety of intellect. Later
   times cannot produce a concentration of men eminent in all the
   learning and science of the age, such as Oxford and Cambridge
   then poured forth, mightily influencing the intellectual
   development of all Western Christendom. Their names indeed may
   warn us against an undiscriminating disparagement of the
   Monasteries, as 'hotbeds of ignorance and stupidity'; when so
   many of those worthies were monks of the Benedictine,
   Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, or reformed Augustinian
   order. But in consequence of this surpassing celebrity, Oxford
   became the focus of a prodigious congregation of students, to
   which nothing afterwards bore comparison. The same was
   probably true of Cambridge in relative proportion. … A
   tolerably well authenticated account, attacked of late by
   undue scepticism, fixes [the number of] those of Oxford at
   thirty thousand, in the middle of the thirteenth century. The
   want indeed of contemporary evidence must make us cautious of
   yielding absolute belief to this: in fact we have no document
   on this matter even as old as the Reformation. … Not only
   did the Church and the new orders of Monks draw great numbers
   thither, but the Universities themselves were vast High
   Schools, comprising boys and even children. It is not
   extravagant, if Cambridge was not yet in great repute, to
   imagine fifteen thousand students of all ages at Oxford, and
   as many more attendants. Nor was it at all difficult to
   accommodate them in the town, when Oxford contained three
   hundred Halls and Inns: and as several students dwelt in one
   room, and were not careful for luxury, each building on an
   average might easily hold one hundred persons. The style of
   Architecture was of the simplest and cheapest kind, and might
   have been easily run up on a sudden demand: and a rich flat
   country, with abundant water carriage, needed not to want
   provisions. That the numbers were vast, is implied by the
   highly respectable evidence which we have, that as many as
   three thousand migrated from Oxford on the riots of 1209;
   although the Chronicler expressly states that not all joined
   in the secession. In the reign of Henry III. the reduced
   numbers are reckoned at fifteen thousand. After the middle of
   the fourteenth century, they were still as many as from three
   to four thousand; and after the Reformation they mount again
   to five thousand. On the whole therefore the computation of
   thirty thousand, as the maximum, may seem, if not positively
   true, yet the nearest approximation which we can expect. Of
   Cambridge we know no more than that the numbers were much
   lower than at Oxford. … While in the general, there was a
   substantial identity between the scholastic learning of Oxford
   and of Paris, yet Oxford was more eager in following positive
   science:—and this, although such studies were disparaged by
   the Church, and therefore by the public. Indeed originally the
   Church had been on the opposite side; but the speculative
   tendency of the times had carried her over, so that
   speculation and theology went hand in hand. In the middle of
   the thirteenth century we may name Robert Grosseteste and John
   Basingstock, as cultivating physical science, and (more
   remarkable still) the Franciscan Roger Bacon: a man whom the
   vulgar held to be equal to Merlin and Michael Scott as a
   magician, and whom posterity ranks by the noblest spirits of
   the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in all branches of
   positive science,—except theology. A biography of Roger Bacon
   should surely be written! Unfortunately, we know nothing as to
   the influence of these men on their times, nor can we even
   learn whether the University itself was at all interested in
   their studies. … We have … a strange testimony to the
   interest which in the beginning of the fourteenth century the
   mass of the students took in the speculation of their elders;
   for the street rows were carried on under the banners of
   Nominalists and Realists. … The coarse and ferocious manners
   prevalent in the Universities of the Middle Ages are every
   where in singular contrast to their intellectual pretensions:
   but the Universities of the Continent were peaceful, decorous,
   dignified,—compared with those of England. The storms which
   were elsewhere occasional, were at Oxford the permanent
   atmosphere. For nearly two centuries our 'Foster Mother' of
   Oxford lived in a din of uninterrupted furious warfare; nation
   against nation, school against school, faculty against
   faculty. Halls, and finally Colleges, came forward as
   combatants; and the University, as a whole, against the Town;
   or against the Bishop of Lincoln; or against the Archbishop of
   Canterbury. Nor was Cambridge much less pugnacious."

      _V. A. Huber,
      The English Universities,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{701}

EDUCATION:
   Cambridge.

   "Various facts and circumstances … lend probability to the
   belief that, long before the time when we have certain
   evidence of the existence of Cambridge as a university, the
   work of instruction was there going on. The Camboritum of the
   Roman period, the Grantebrycgr of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
   the Grentebrige of Domesday, must always have been a place of
   some importance. It was the meeting-place of two great Roman
   roads,—Akeman Street, running east and west, and the Via
   Devana, traversing the north and the south. … Confined at
   first to the rising ground on the left bank of the river, it
   numbered at the time of the Norman Conquest as many as four
   hundred houses, of which twenty-seven were pulled down to make
   way for the castle erected by William the Conqueror. … Under
   the castle walls, with the view, it would seem, of making some
   atonement for many a deed of violence and wrong, the Norman
   sheriff, Picot by name, founded the Church of St. Giles, and
   instituted in connection with it a small body of secular
   canons. … The year 1112 was marked by the occurrence of an
   event of considerable importance in connection with the
   subsequent history of the university. The canons of St. Giles,
   attended by a large concourse of the clergy and laity, crossed
   the river, and took up their abode in a new and spacious
   priory at Barnwell. … The priory at Barnwell, which always
   ranked among the wealthiest of the Cambridge foundations,
   seems from the first to have been closely associated with the
   university; and the earliest university exhibitions were those
   founded by William de Kilkenny, bishop of Ely from 1254 to
   1257, for two students of divinity, who were to receive
   annually the sum of two marks from the priory. In the year
   1133 was founded the nunnery of St. Rhadegund, which, in the
   reign of Henry VII., was converted into Jesus College; and in
   1135 a hospital of Augustinian canons, dedicated to St. John
   the Evangelist, was founded by Henry Frost, a burgess of the
   town. … It was … a very important foundation, inasmuch as
   it not only became by conversion in the sixteenth century the
   College of St. John the Evangelist, but was also … the
   foundation of which Peterhouse, the earliest Cambridge
   college, may be said to have been in a certain sense the
   offshoot. … In the year 1229 there broke out at Paris a feud
   of more than ordinary gravity between the students and the
   citizens. Large numbers of the former migrated to the English
   shores; and Cambridge, from its proximity to the eastern
   coast, and as the centre where Prince Louis, but a few years
   before, had raised the royal standard, seems to have attracted
   the great majority. … The university of Cambridge, like that
   of Oxford, was modelled mainly on the university of Paris. Its
   constitution was consequently oligarchic rather than
   democratic, the government being entirely in the hands of the
   teaching body, while the bachelors and undergraduates had no
   share in the passing of new laws and regulations."

      _J. B. Mullinger,
      A History of the University of Cambridge,
      chapters 1-2._

   "The earliest existing college at Cambridge is St. Peter's,
   generally called Peterhouse, historically founded A. D. 1257,
   in the reign of Henry III. The Universities are known merely
   by their situation; as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St.
   Andrews'; but each college has a name, according to the taste
   of its founder or first members. These names may be divided
   into two classes, those named from the founder, as Pembroke,
   Clare, Gonville and Caius (this had two founders, the restorer
   being Dr. Kaye, who Latinized his name into Caius, always
   pronounced Keys), King's (from King Henry VI.),—Queens' (from
   the queens both of Henry VI. and Edward IV.), Sidney Sussex,
   and Downing;—and those named for beatified persons and
   objects of worship,—St. Peter's, St. John's, St. Catharine's,
   St. Mary Magdalene, Corpus Christi, Emmanuel, Jesus Christ's,
   Trinity and Trinity Hall. The apparent impiety of these names,
   which in one case of an ancient name now changed, was
   absolutely revolting, entirely passes off with a few days'
   use. St. Catharine's soon becomes Cats, and St. Mary Magdalene
   is always called Maudlin. You readily admit the superiority of
   Trinity over Corpus ale; go to see a friend who lives on
   Christ's piece; and hear with regret, that in the boat races
   Emmanuel has been bumped by Jesus; an epithet being probably
   prefixed to the last name. These names of course were given in
   monkish times,—Trinity by Henry VIII., but all the colleges
   except one were founded before the reign of James I. … The
   seventeen colleges … are distinct corporations. Their
   foundations, resources, buildings, governing authorities and
   students, are entirely separate from each other. Nor has any
   one college the least control in any other. The plan, however,
   is much the same in all. The presiding authority is in most
   cases called the Master, or speaking more generally, the Head;
   while the net proceeds of all the college funds—for the vast
   wealth supposed to belong to the University really is in the
   hands of the separate colleges—are distributed among certain
   of the graduates, called Fellows, who with the Head constitute
   the corporation. These corporations give board and lodging on
   various terms to such students as choose to enter the college
   and comply with its rules, in order to receive its assistance
   in obtaining the honors of the University; and each college
   offers its own peculiar inducements to students. … The whole
   body of the colleges, taken together, constitutes the
   University. All those who after residing seven years at some
   college, have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or a higher
   one, and keep their name on the college lists by a small
   payment, vote at the University elections for members of
   Parliament and all other officers, and manage its affairs. …
   The colleges, at certain intervals; present such students as
   comply with their conditions to University authorities for
   matriculation, for certain examinations, and for the reception
   of degrees; and until one receives the degree of Master of
   Arts, he must remain a member of some college, not necessarily
   one and the same, to hold any University privileges. After
   this stage, he may, under certain conditions, break up all his
   college connections, and yet remain in the University."

      _W. Everett,
      On the Cam.,
      lecture 1._

{702}

EDUCATION:
   Spain and Portugal.

   "Salamanca was founded in the 13th-century, and received its
   statutes in the year 1422, out of which was developed the
   following constitution. The rector, with eight 'consiliarii,'
   all students, who could appoint their successors, administered
   the university. The doctors render the oath of obedience to
   the rector. The 'domscholaster' is the proper judge of the
   school; but he swears obedience to the rector. A bachelor of
   law must have studied six years, and after five years more he
   could become licentiate. In filling a paid teachership, the
   doctor was chosen next in age of those holding the diploma,
   unless a great majority of the scholars objected, in which
   case the rector and council decided. This liberal constitution
   for the scholars is in harmony with the code of Alphonzo X.,
   soon after 1250, in which the liberty of instruction was made
   a general principle of law. This constitution continued in
   Salamanca into the 17th century, for Retes speaks of a
   disputation which the rector held at that time under his
   presidency. Alcala university was established by cardinal
   Ximenes, in 1510, for the promotion of the study of theology
   and philosophy, for which reason it contained a faculty of
   canon, but not of civil law. The center of the university was
   the college of St. Ildefons, consisting of thirty-three
   prebendaries, who could be teachers or scholars, since for
   admission were required only poverty, the age of twenty, and
   the completion of the course of the preparatory colleges.
   These thirty-three members elected annually a rector and three
   councilors, who controlled the entire university. Salaried
   teachers were elected, not by the rector and council alone,
   but by all the students. It had wide reputation. When visited
   by Francis I., while a prisoner of Spain, he was welcomed by
   11,000 students. The Coimbra university, in Portugal, received
   statutes in 1309, from king Dionysius, with a constitution
   similar to those just mentioned."

      _F. C. Savigny,
      The Universities of the Middle Ages
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 22, page 324)._

EDUCATION:
   Renaissance.

   "Modern education begins with the Renaissance. The educational
   methods that we then begin to discern will doubtless not be
   developed and perfected till a later period; the new doctrines
   will pass into practice only gradually, and with the general
   progress of the times. But from the sixteenth century
   education is in possession of its essential principles. …
   The men of the sixteenth century having renewed with classical
   antiquity an intercourse that had been too long interrupted,
   it was natural that they should propose to the young the study
   of the Greeks and the Romans. What is called secondary
   instruction really dates from the sixteenth century. The crude
   works of the Middle Age are succeeded by the elegant
   compositions of Athens and Rome, henceforth made accessible to
   all through the art of printing; and, with the reading of the
   ancient authors, there reappear through the fruitful effect of
   imitation, their qualities of correctness in thought, of
   literary taste, and of elegance in form. In France, as in
   Italy, the national tongues, moulded, and, as it were,
   consecrated by writers of genius, become the instruments of an
   intellectual propaganda. Artistic taste, revived by the rich
   products of a race of incomparable artists, gives an extension
   to the horizon of life, and creates a new class of emotions.
   Finally, the Protestant Reform develops individual thought and
   free inquiry, and at the same time, by its success, it imposes
   still greater efforts on the Catholic Church. This is not
   saying that everything is faultless in the educational efforts
   of the sixteenth century. First, as is natural for innovators,
   the thought of the teachers of this period is marked by
   enthusiasm rather than by precision. They are more zealous in
   pointing out the end to be attained, than exact in determining
   the means to be employed. Besides, some of them are content to
   emancipate the mind, but forget to give it proper direction.
   Finally, others make a wrong use of the ancients; they are too
   much preoccupied with the form and the purity of language;
   they fall into Ciceromania, and it is not their fault if a new
   superstition, that of rhetoric, does not succeed the old
   superstition, that of the Syllogism."

      _G. Compayré,
      The History of Pedagogy,
      chapter 5 (sections 92-93)._

EDUCATION:
   Rabelais' Gargantua.

   Rabelais' description of the imaginary education of Gargantua
   gives us the educational ideas of a man of genius in the 16th
   century: "Gargantua," he writes, "awaked, then, about four
   o'clock in the morning. Whilst they were rubbing him, there
   was read unto him some chapter of the Holy Scripture aloud and
   clearly, with a pronunciation fit for the matter, and hereunto
   was appointed a young page born in Basché, named Anagnostes.
   According to the purpose and argument of that lesson, he
   oftentimes gave himself to revere, adore, pray, and send up
   his supplications to that good God whose word did show His
   majesty and marvellous judgments. Then his master repeated
   what had been read, expounding unto him the most obscure and
   difficult points. They then considered the face of the sky, if
   it was such as they had observed it the night before, and into
   what signs the sun was entering, as also the moon for that
   day. This done, he was appareled, combed, curled, trimmed and
   perfumed, during which time they repeated to him the lessons
   of the day before. He himself said them by heart, and upon
   them grounded practical cases concerning the estate of man,
   which he would prosecute sometimes two or three hours, but
   ordinarily they ceased as soon as he was fully clothed. Then
   for three good hours there was reading. This done, they went
   forth, still conferring of the substance of the reading, and
   disported themselves at ball, tennis, or the 'pile trigone,'
   gallantly exercising their bodies, as before they had done
   their minds. All their play was but in liberty, for they left
   off when they pleased, and that was commonly when they did
   sweat, or were otherwise weary. Then were they very well dried
   and rubbed, shifted their shirts, and walking soberly, went to
   see if dinner was ready. Whilst they stayed for that, they did
   clearly and eloquently recite some sentences that they had
   retained of the lecture. In the mean time Master Appetite
   came, and then very orderly sat they down at table. At the
   beginning of the meal there was read some pleasant history of
   ancient prowess, until he had taken his wine. Then, if they
   thought good, they continued reading, or began to discourse
   merrily together; speaking first of the virtue, propriety,
   efficacy, and nature of all that was served in at that table;
   of bread, of wine, of water, of salt, of flesh, fish, fruits,
   herbs, roots, and of their dressing. By means whereof, he
   learned in a little time all the passages that on these
   subjects are to be found in Pliny, Athenæus, Dioscorides,
   Julius, Pollux, Galen, Porphyrius, Oppian, Polybius,
   Heliodorus, Aristotle, Œlian, and others.
{703}
   Whilst they talked of these things, many times, to be the more
   certain, they caused the very books to be brought to the
   table, and so well and perfectly did he in his memory retain
   the things above said, that in that time there was not a
   physician that knew half so much as he did. Afterwards they
   conferred of the lessons read in the morning, and ending their
   repast with some conserve of quince, he washed his hands and
   eyes with fair fresh water, and gave thanks unto God in some
   fine canticle, made in praise of the divine bounty and
   munificence. This done, they brought in cards, not to play,
   but to learn a thousand pretty tricks and new inventions,
   which were all grounded upon arithmetic. By this means he fell
   in love with that numerical science, and every day after
   dinner and supper he passed his time in it as pleasantly as he
   was wont to do at cards and dice. … After this they
   recreated themselves with singing musically, in four or five
   parts, or upon a set theme, as it best pleased them. In matter
   of musical instruments, he learned to play the lute, the
   spinet, the harp, the German flute, the flute with nine holes,
   the violin, and the sackbut. This hour thus spent, he betook
   himself to his principal study for three hours together, or
   more, as well to repeat his matutinal lectures as to proceed
   in the book wherein he was, as also to write handsomely, to
   draw and form the antique and Roman letters. This being done,
   they went out of their house, and with them a young gentleman
   of Touraine, named Gymnast, who taught the art of riding.
   Changing then his clothes, he mounted on any kind of horse,
   which he made to bound in the air, to jump the ditch, to leap
   the palisade, and to turn short in a ring both to the right
   and left hand. … The time being thus bestowed, and himself
   rubbed, cleansed, and refreshed with other clothes, they
   returned fair and softly; and passing through certain meadows,
   or other grassy places, beheld the trees and plants: comparing
   them with what is written of them in the books of the
   ancients, such as Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Marinus, Pliny,
   Nicander, Macer, and Galen, and carried home to the house
   great handfuls of them, whereof a young page called Rhizotomos
   had charge—together with hoes, picks, spuds, pruning-knives,
   and other instruments requisite for herborising. Being come to
   their lodging, whilst supper was making ready, they repeated
   certain passages of that which had been read, and then sat
   down at table. … During that repast was continued the lesson
   read at dinner as long as they thought good: the rest was
   spent in good discourse, learned and profitable. After that
   they had given thanks, they set themselves to sing musically,
   and play upon harmonious instruments, or at those pretty
   sports made with cards, dice or cups,—thus made merry till it
   was time to go to bed; and sometimes they would go make visits
   unto learned men, or to such as had been travellers in strange
   countries. At full night they went into the most open place of
   the house to see the face of the sky, and there beheld the
   comets, if any were, as likewise the figures, situations,
   aspects, oppositions, and conjunctions of the stars. Then with
   his master did he briefly recapitulate, after the manner of
   the Pythagoreans, that which he had read, seen, learned, done,
   and understood in the whole course of that day. Then they
   prayed unto God the Creator, falling down before Him, and
   strengthening their faith towards Him, and glorifying Him for
   His boundless bounty; and, giving thanks unto Him for the time
   that was past, they recommended themselves to His divine
   clemency for the future. Which being done, they entered upon
   their repose."

      _W. Besant,
      Readings in Rabelais,
      pages 20-29._

EDUCATION:
   Germany.

   "The schools of France and Italy owed little to the great
   modern movement of the Renaissance. In both these countries
   that movement operated, in both it produced mighty results;
   but of the official establishments for instruction it did not
   get hold. In Italy the mediæval routine in those
   establishments at first opposed a passive resistance to it;
   presently came the Catholic reaction, and sedulously shut it
   out from them. In France the Renaissance did not become a
   power in the State, and the routine of the schools sufficed to
   exclude the new influence till it took for itself other
   channels than the schools. But in Germany the Renaissance
   became a power in the State; allied with the Reformation,
   where the Reformation triumphed in German countries the
   Renaissance triumphed with it, and entered with it, into the
   public schools. Melancthon and Erasmus were not merely enemies
   and subverters of the dominion of the Church of Rome, they
   were eminent humanists; and with the great but single
   exception of Luther, the chief German reformers were all of
   them distinguished friends of the new classical learning, as
   well as of Protestantism. The Romish party was in German
   countries the ignorant party also, the party untouched by the
   humanities and by culture. Perhaps one reason why in England
   our schools have not had the life and growth of the schools of
   Germany and Holland is to be found in the separation, with us,
   of the power of the Reformation and the power of the
   Renaissance. With us, too, the Reformation triumphed and got
   possession of our schools; but our leading reformers were not
   at the same time, like those of Germany, the nation's leading
   spirits in intellect and culture. In Germany the best spirits
   of the nation were then the reformers; in England our best
   spirits,—Shakspeare, Bacon, Spenser,—were men of the
   Renaissance, not men of the Reformation, and our reformers
   were men of the second order. The Reformation, therefore,
   getting hold of the schools in England was a very different
   force, a force far inferior in light, resources, and
   prospects, to the Reformation getting hold of the schools in
   Germany. But in Germany, nevertheless, as Protestant orthodoxy
   grew petrified like Catholic orthodoxy, and as, in
   consequence, Protestantism flagged and lost the powerful
   impulse with which it started, the school flagged also, and in
   the middle of the last century the classical teaching of
   Germany, in spite of a few honourable names like Gesner's,
   Ernesti's, and Heyne's, seems to have lost all the spirit and
   power of the 16th century humanists, to have been sinking into
   a mere church appendage, and fast becoming torpid. A
   theological student, making his livelihood by teaching till he
   could get appointed to a parish, was the usual school-master.
   'The schools will never be better,' said their great
   renovator, Friedrich August Wolf, the well-known critic of
   Homer, 'so long as the school-masters are theologians by
   profession.
{704}
   A theological course in a university, with its smattering of
   classics, is about as good a preparation for a classical
   master as a course of feudal law would be.' Wolf's coming to
   Halle in 1783, invited by Von Zedlitz, the minister for public
   worship under Frederick the Great, a sovereign whose civil
   projects and labours were not less active and remarkable than
   his military, marks an era from which the classical schools of
   Germany, reviving the dormant spark planted in them by the
   Renaissance, awoke to a new life."

      _M. Arnold,
      Schools and Universities on the Continent,
      chapter 14._

   It is surprising to learn "how much was left untaught, in the
   sixteenth century, in the schools. Geography and history were
   entirely omitted in every scheme of instruction, mathematics
   played but a subordinate part, while not a thought was
   bestowed either upon natural philosophy or natural history.
   Every moment and every effort were given to the classical
   languages, chiefly to the Latin. But we should be overhasty,
   should we conclude, without further inquiry, that these
   branches, thus neglected in the schools, were therefore every
   where untaught. Perhaps they were reserved for the university
   alone, and there, too, for the professors of the philosophical
   faculty, as is the case even at the present day with natural
   philosophy and natural history; nay, logic, which was a
   regular school study in the sixteenth century, is, in our day,
   widely cultivated at the university. We must, therefore, in
   order to form a just judgment upon the range of subjects
   taught in the sixteenth century, as well as upon the methods
   of instruction, first cast a glance at the state of the
   universities of that period, especially in the philosophical
   faculties. A prominent source of information on this point is
   to be found in the statutes of the University of Wittenberg,
   revised by Melancthon, in the year 1545. The theological
   faculty appears, by these statutes, to have consisted of four
   professors, who read lectures on the Old and New
   Testaments,—chiefly on the Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah, the
   Gospel of John, and the Epistle to the Romans. They also
   taught dogmatics, commenting upon the Nicene creed and
   Augustine's book, 'De spiritu et litera.' The Wittenberg
   lecture schedule for the year 1561, is to the same effect;
   only we have here, besides exegesis and dogmatics, catechetics
   likewise. According to the statutes, the philosophical faculty
   was composed of ten professors. The first was to read upon
   logic and rhetoric; the second, upon physics, and the second
   book of Pliny's natural history; the third, upon arithmetic
   and the 'Sphere' of John de Sacro Busto; the fourth, upon
   Euclid, the 'Theoriæ Planetarum' of Burbach, and Ptolemy's'
   Almagest'; the fifth and sixth, upon the Latin poets and
   Cicero; the seventh, who was the 'Pedagogus,' explained to the
   younger class, Latin Grammar, Linacer 'de emendata structura
   Latini sermonis,' Terence, and some of Plautus; the eighth,
   who was the 'Physicus,' explained Aristotle's 'Physics and
   Dioscorides'; the ninth gave instruction in Hebrew; and the
   tenth reviewed the Greek Grammar, read lectures on Greek
   Classics at intervals, also on one of St. Paul's Epistles,
   and, at the same time, on ethics. … Thus the philosophical
   faculty appears to have been the most fully represented at
   Wittenberg, as it included ten professors, while the
   theological had but four, the medical but three. … We have a
   … criterion by which to judge of the limited nature of the
   studies of that period, as compared with the wide field which
   they cover at the present day, in the then almost total lack
   of academical apparatus and equipments. The only exception was
   to be found in the case of libraries; but, how meager and
   insufficient all collections of books must have been at that
   time, when books were few in number and very costly, will
   appear from the fund, for example, which was assigned to the
   Wittenberg library; it yielded annually but one hundred
   gulden, (about $63,) with which, 'for the profit of the
   university and chiefly of the poorer students therein, the
   library may be adorned and enriched with books in all the
   faculties and in every art, as well in the Hebrew and Greek
   tongues.' Of other apparatus, such as collections in natural
   history, anatomical museums, botanical gardens, and the like,
   we find no mention; and the less, inasmuch as there was no
   need of them in elucidation of such lectures as the professors
   ordinarily gave. When Paul Eber, the theologian, read lectures
   upon anatomy, he made no use of dissection."

      _K. von Raumer,
      Universities in the Sixteenth Century
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 5, pages 535-540)._

EDUCATION:
   Luther and the Schools.

   "Luther … felt that, to strengthen the Reformation, it was
   requisite to work on the young, to improve the schools, and to
   propagate throughout Christendom the knowledge necessary for a
   profound study of the holy Scriptures. This, accordingly, was
   one of the objects of his life. He saw it in particular at the
   period which we have reached, and wrote to the councillors of
   all the cities of Germany, calling upon them to found
   Christian schools. 'Dear sirs,' said he, 'we annually expend
   so much money on arquebuses, roads, and dikes; why should we
   not spend a little to give one or two schoolmasters to our
   poor children? God stands at the door, and knocks; blessed are
   we if we open to him. Now the word of God abounds. O my dear
   Germans, buy, buy, while the market is open before your
   houses. … Busy yourselves with the children,' continues
   Luther, still addressing the magistrates; 'for many parents
   are like ostriches; they are hardened towards their little
   ones, and satisfied with having laid the egg, they care
   nothing for it afterwards. The prosperity of a city does not
   consist merely in heaping up great treasures, in building
   strong walls, in erecting splendid mansions, in possessing
   glittering arms. If madmen fall upon it, its ruin will only be
   the greater. The true wealth of a city, its safety, and its
   strength, is to have many learned, serious, worthy,
   well-educated citizens. And whom must we blame because there
   are so few at present, except you magistrates, who have
   allowed our youth to grow up like trees in a forest?' Luther
   particularly insisted on the necessity of studying literature
   and languages: 'What use is there, it may be asked, in
   learning Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? We can read the Bible very
   well in German. Without languages,' replies he, 'we could not
   have received the gospel. … Languages are the scabbard that
   contains the sword of the Spirit; they are the casket that
   guards the jewels; they are the vessel that holds the wine;
   and as the gospel says, they are the baskets in which the
   loaves and fishes are kept to feed the multitude. If we
   neglect the languages, we shall not only eventually lose the
   gospel, but be unable to speak or write in Latin or in German.
{705}
   No sooner did men cease to cultivate them than Christendom
   declined, even until it fell under the power of the pope. But
   now that languages are again honored, they shed such light
   that all the world is astonished, and everyone is forced to
   acknowledge that our gospel is almost as pure as that of the
   apostles themselves. In former times the holy fathers were
   frequently mistaken, because they were ignorant of languages.
   … If the languages had not made me positive as to the
   meaning of the word, I might have been a pious monk, and
   quietly preached the truth in the obscurity of the cloister;
   but I should have left the pope, the sophists, and their
   antichristian empire still unshaken."

      _J. H. Merle d' Aubigné,
      History of the Reformation of the 16th Century,
      book 10, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

   Luther, in his appeal to the municipal magistrates of Germany,
   calls for the organization of common schools to be supported
   at public cost. "Finally, he gives his thought to the means of
   recruiting the teaching service. 'Since the greatest evil in
   every place is the lack of teachers, we must not wait till
   they come forward of themselves; we must take the trouble to
   educate them and prepare them.' To this end Luther keeps the
   best of the pupils, boys and girls, for a longer time in
   school; gives them special instructors, and opens libraries
   for their use. In his thought he never distinguishes women
   teachers from men teachers; he wants schools for girls as well
   as for boys. Only, not to burden parents and divert children
   from their daily labor, he requires but little time for school
   duties. … 'My opinion is [he says] that we must send the
   boys to school one or two hours a day, and have them learn a
   trade at home for the rest of the time. It is desirable that
   these two occupations march side by side.' … Luther gives
   the first place to the teaching of religion: 'Is it not
   reasonable that every Christian should know the Gospel at the
   age of nine or ten?' Then come the languages, not, as might be
   hoped, the mother tongue, but the learned languages, Latin,
   Greek, and Hebrew. Luther had not yet been sufficiently rid of
   the old spirit to comprehend that the language of the people
   ought to be the basis of universal instruction. He left to
   Comenius the glory of making the final separation of the
   primary school from the Latin school. … Physical exercises
   are not forgotten in Luther's pedagogical regulations. But he
   attaches an especial importance to singing. 'Unless a
   school-master know how to sing, I think him of no account.'
   'Music,' he says again, 'is a half discipline which makes men
   more indulgent and more mild.' At the same time that he
   extends the programme of studies, Luther introduces a new
   spirit into methods. He wishes more liberty and more joy in
   the school. 'Solomon,' he says, 'is a truly royal
   schoolmaster. He does not, like the monks, forbid the young to
   go into the world and be happy. Even as Anselm said: "A young
   man turned aside from the world is like a young tree made to
   grow in a vase." The monks have imprisoned young men like
   birds in their cage. It is dangerous to isolate the young.'
   … Do not let ourselves imagine, however, that Luther at once
   exercised a decisive influence on the current education of his
   day. A few schools were founded, called writing schools; but
   the Thirty Years' War, and other events, interrupted the
   movement of which Luther has the honor of having been the
   originator. … In the first half of the seventeenth century,
   Ratich, a German, and Comenius, a Slave, were, with very
   different degrees of merit, the heirs of the educational
   thought of Luther. With something of the charlatan and the
   demagogue, Ratich devoted his life to propagating a novel art
   of teaching, which be called didactics, and to which he
   attributed marvels. He pretended, by his method of languages,
   to teach Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in six months. But
   nevertheless, out of many strange performances and lofty
   promises, there issue some thoughts of practical value. The
   first merit of Ratich was to give the mother tongue, the
   German language, the precedence over the ancient languages."

      _G. Compayré,
      The History of Pedagogy,
      chapter 6 (sections 130-134)._

EDUCATION:
   Netherlands.

   "When learning began to revive after the long sleep of the
   Middle Ages, Italy experienced the first impulse. Next came
   Germany and the contiguous provinces of the Low Countries. The
   force of the movement in these regions is shown by an event of
   great importance, not always noticed by historians. In 1400,
   there was established at Deventer, in the northeastern
   province of the Netherlands, an association or brotherhood,
   usually called Brethren of the Life in Common [see BRETHREN OF
   THE COMMON LOT]. In their strict lives, partial community of
   goods, industry in manual labor, fervent devotion, and
   tendency to mysticism, they bore some resemblance to the
   modern Moravians. But they were strikingly distinguished from
   the members of this sect by their earnest cultivation of
   knowledge, which was encouraged among themselves and promoted
   among others by schools, both for primary and advanced
   education. In 1430, the Brethren had established forty-five
   branches, and by 1460 more than thrice that number. They were
   scattered through different parts of Germany and the Low
   Countries, each with its school subordinate to the head
   college at Deventer. It was in these schools, in the middle of
   the fifteenth century, that a few Germans and Netherlanders
   were, as Hallam says, roused to acquire that extensive
   knowledge of the ancient languages which Italy as yet
   exclusively possessed. Their names should never be omitted in
   any remembrance of the revival of letters; for great was their
   influence upon subsequent times. Chief among these men were
   Wessels, of Groningen, 'one of those who contributed most
   steadily to the purification of religion'; Hegius of Deventer,
   under whom Erasmus obtained his early education, and who
   probably was the first man to print Greek north of the Alps;
   Dringeberg, who founded a good school in Alsace; and Longius,
   who presided over one at Munster. Thanks to the influence of
   these pioneers in learning, education had made great progress
   among the Netherlanders by the middle of the sixteenth
   century. … We have the testimony of the Italian Guicciardini
   to the fact that before the outbreak of the war with Spain
   even the peasants in Holland could read and write well. As the
   war went on, the people showed their determination that in
   this matter there should be no retrogression. In the first
   Synod of Dort, held in 1574, the clergy expressed their
   opinion upon the subject by passing a resolution or ordinance
   which, among other things, directed 'the servants of the
   Church' to obtain from the magistrates in every locality a
   permission for the appointment of schoolmasters, and an order
   for their compensation as in the past.
{706}
   Before many years had elapsed the civil authorities began to
   establish a general school system for the country. In 1582,
   the Estates of Friesland decreed that the inhabitants of towns
   and villages should, within the space of six weeks, provide
   good and able Reformed schoolmasters, and those who neglected
   so to do would be compelled to accept the instructors
   appointed for them. This seems to have been the beginning of
   the supervision of education by the State, a system which soon
   spread over the whole republic. In these schools, however,
   although they were fostered by the State, the teachers seem,
   in the main, to have been paid by their pupils. But as years
   went on, a change came about in this part of the system. It
   probably was aided by the noteworthy letter which John of
   Nassau, the oldest brother of William the Silent, the noble
   veteran who lived until 1606, wrote to his son Lewis William,
   Stadtholder of Friesland. In this letter, which is worthy of a
   place on the walls of every schoolhouse in America, the
   gallant young stadt-holder is instructed to urge on the
   States-General 'that they, according to the example of the
   pope and Jesuits, should establish free schools, where
   children of quality as well as of poor families, for a very
   small sum, could be well and christianly educated and brought
   up. This would be the greatest and most useful work, and the
   highest service that you could ever accomplish for God and
   Christianity, and especially for the Netherlands themselves.
   … In summa, one may jeer at this as popish trickery, and
   undervalue it as one will: there still remains in the work an
   inexpressible benefit. Soldiers and patriots thus educated,
   with a true knowledge of God and a Christian conscience, item,
   churches and schools, good libraries, books, and
   printing-presses, are better than all armies, arsenals,
   armories, munitions, alliances, and treaties that can be had
   or imagined in the world.' Such were the words in which the
   Patriarch of the Nassaus urged upon his countrymen a
   common-school system. In 1609, when the Pilgrim Fathers took
   up their residence in Leyden, the school had become the common
   property of the people, and was paid for among other municipal
   expenses. It was a land of schools supported by the State—a
   land, according to Motley, 'where every child went to school,
   where almost every individual inhabitant could write and read,
   where even the middle classes were proficient in mathematics
   and the classics, and could speak two or more modern
   languages.' Does any reader now ask whence the settlers of
   Plymouth, who came directly from Holland, and the other
   settlers of New England whose Puritan brethren were to be
   found in thousands throughout the Dutch Republic, derived
   their ideas of schools first directed, and then supported by
   the State."

EDUCATION:
   Leyden University.

   To commemorate the deliverance of Leyden from the Spanish
   siege in 1574 (see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574), "and as a
   reward for the heroism of the citizens, the Prince of Orange,
   with the consent of the Estates of the province, founded the
   University of Leyden. Still, the figment of allegiance
   remained; the people were only fighting for their
   constitutional rights, and so were doing their duty to the
   sovereign. Hence the charter of the university ran in the name
   of Philip, who was credited with its foundation, as a reward
   to his subjects for their rebellion against his evil
   counsellors and servants, 'especially in consideration of the
   differences of religion, and the great burdens and hardships
   borne by the citizens of our city of Leyden during the war
   with such faithfulness.' Motley calls this 'ponderous irony,'
   but the Hollanders were able lawyers and intended to build on
   a legal basis. This event marks an epoch in the intellectual
   history of Holland and of the world. … The new university
   was opened in 1575, and from the outset took the highest rank.
   Speaking, a few years ago, of its famous senate chamber,
   Niebuhr called it 'the most memorable room of Europe in the
   history of learning.' The first curator was John Van der Does,
   who had been military commandant of the city during the siege.
   He was of a distinguished family, but was still more
   distinguished for his learning, his poetical genius, and his
   valor. Endowed with ample funds, the university largely owed
   its marked pre-eminence to the intelligent foresight and wise
   munificence of its curators. They sought out and obtained the
   most distinguished scholars of all nations, and to this end
   spared neither pains nor expense. Diplomatic negotiation and
   even princely mediation were often called in for the
   acquisition of a professor. Hence it was said that it
   surpassed all the universities of Europe in the number of its
   scholars of renown. These scholars were treated with princely
   honors. … The 'mechanicals' of Holland, as Elizabeth called
   them, may not have paid the accustomed worship to rank, but to
   genius and learning they were always willing to do homage.
   Space would fail for even a brief account of the great men,
   foreign and native, who illuminated Leyden with their
   presence. … But it was not alone in scholarship and in
   scientific research that the University of Leyden gave an
   impetus to modern thought. Theological disputes were developed
   there at times, little tempests which threatened destruction
   to the institution, but they were of short duration. The right
   of conscience was always respected, and in the main the right
   of full and public discussion. … When it was settled that
   dissenters could not be educated in the English universities,
   they flocked to Leyden in great numbers, making that city,
   next to Edinburgh, their chief resort. Eleven years after the
   opening of the University of Leyden, the Estates of democratic
   Friesland, amid the din of war, founded the University of
   Franeker, an institution which was to become famous as the
   home of Arminius. … Both of these universities were
   perpetually endowed with the proceeds of the ecclesiastical
   property which had been confiscated during the progress of the
   war."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapters 2, 20, and 3._

EDUCATION:
   England.

   "In contemplating the events of the fifteenth and sixteenth
   centuries, in their influence on English civilisation, we are
   reminded once more of the futility of certain modern
   aspirations. No amount of University Commissions, nor of
   well-meant reforms, will change the nature of Englishmen. It
   is impossible, by distributions of University prizes and
   professorships, to attract into the career of letters that
   proportion of industry and ingenuity which, in Germany for
   example, is devoted to the scholastic life.
{707}
   Politics, trade, law, sport, religion, will claim their own in
   England, just as they did at the Revival of Letters. The
   illustrious century which Italy employed in unburying,
   appropriating, and enjoying the treasures of Greek literature
   and art, our fathers gave, in England, to dynastic and
   constitutional squabbles, and to religious broils. The
   Renaissance in England, and chiefly in Oxford, was like a
   bitter and changeful spring. There was an hour of genial
   warmth, there breathed a wind from the south, in the lifetime
   of Chaucer; then came frosts and storms; again the brief
   sunshine of court favour shone on literature for a while, when
   Henry VIII. encouraged study, and Wolsey and Fox founded
   Christ Church and Corpus Christi College, once more the bad
   days of religious strife returned, and the promise of learning
   was destroyed. Thus the chief result of the awakening thought
   of the fourteenth century in England was not a lively delight
   in literature, but the appearance of the Lollards. The
   intensely practical genius of our race turned, not to letters,
   but to questions about the soul and its future, about property
   and its distribution. The Lollards were put down in Oxford;
   'the tares were weeded out' by the House of Lancaster, and in
   the process the germs of free thought, of originality, and of
   a rational education, were destroyed. 'Wyclevism did domineer
   among us,' says Wood; and, in fact, the intellect of the
   University was absorbed, like the intellect of France during
   the heat of the Jansenist controversy, in defending or
   assailing '267 damned conclusions,' drawn from the books of
   Wyclife. The University 'lost many of her children through the
   profession of Wyclevism.'"

      _A. Lang,
      Oxford,
      chapter 3._

EDUCATION:
   Colet and St. Paul's School.

   Dr. John Colet, appointed Dean of St. Paul's in 1505,
   "resolved, whilst living and in health, to devote his
   patrimony to the foundation of a school in St. Paul's
   Churchyard, wherein 153 children, without any restriction as
   to nation or country, who could already read and write, and
   were of 'good parts and capacities,' should receive a sound
   Christian education. The 'Latin adulterate, which ignorant
   blind fools brought into this world,' poisoning thereby 'the
   old Latin speech, and the very Roman tongue used in the time
   of Tully and Sallust, and Virgil and Terence, and learned by
   St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine,'—all that
   'abusion which the later blind world brought in, and which may
   rather be called Blotterature than Literature,'—should be
   'utterly abanished and excluded' out of this school. The
   children should be taught good literature, both Latin and
   Greek, 'such authors that have with wisdom joined pure chaste
   eloquence'—'specially Christian authors who wrote their
   wisdom in clean and chaste Latin, whether in prose or verse;
   for,' said Colet, 'my intent is by this school specially to
   increase knowledge, and worshipping of God and Our Lord Jesus
   Christ, and good Christian life and manners in the children.'
   … The building consisted of one large room, divided into an
   upper and lower school by a curtain, which could be drawn at
   pleasure; and the charge of the two schools devolved upon a
   high-master and a sub-master respectively. The forms were
   arranged so as each to seat sixteen boys, and were provided
   each with a raised desk, at which the head-boy sat as
   president. The building also embraced an entrance-porch and a
   little chapel for divine service. Dwelling-houses were
   erected, adjoining the school, for the residence of the two
   masters; and for their support, Colet obtained, in the spring
   of 1510, a royal license to transfer to the Wardens and Guild
   of Mercers in London, real property to the value of £53 per
   annum (equivalent to at least £530 of present money). Of this
   the head-master was to receive as his salary £35 (say £350)
   and the under-master £18 (say £180) per annum. Three or four
   years after, Colet made provision for a chaplain to conduct
   divine service in the chapel, and to instruct the children in
   the Catechism, the Articles of the faith, and the Ten
   Commandments,—in English; and ultimately, before his death,
   he appears to have increased the amount of the whole endowment
   to £122 (say £1,200) per annum. So that it, may be considered,
   roughly, that the whole endowment, including the buildings,
   cannot have represented a less sum than £30,000 or £40,000 of
   present money. And if Colet thus sacrificed so much of his
   private fortune to secure a liberal (and it must be conceded
   his was a liberal) provision for the remuneration of the
   masters who should educate his 153 boys, he must surely have
   had deeply at heart the welfare of the boys themselves. And,
   in truth, it was so. Colet was like a father to his
   schoolboys. … It was not to be expected that he should find
   the school-books of the old grammarians in any way adapted to
   his purpose. So at once he set his learned friends to work to
   provide him with new ones. The first thing wanted was a Latin
   Grammar for beginners. Linacre undertook to provide this want,
   and wrote with great pains and labour, a work in six books,
   which afterwards came into general use. But when Colet saw it,
   at the risk of displeasing his friend, he put it altogether
   aside. It was too long and too learned for his 'little
   beginners.' So he condensed within the compass of a few pages
   two little treatises, an 'Accidence' and a 'Syntax,' in the
   preface to the first of which occur the gentle words quoted
   above. These little books, after receiving additions from the
   hands of Erasmus, Lilly, and others, finally became generally
   adopted and known as Lilly's Grammar. This rejection of his
   Grammar seems to have been a sore point with Linacre, but
   Erasmus told Colet not to be too much concerned about it. …
   Erasmus, in the same letter in which he spoke of Linacre's
   rejected Grammar … put on paper his notions of what a
   schoolmaster ought to be, and the best method of teaching
   boys, which he fancied Colet might not altogether approve, as
   he was wont somewhat more to despise rhetoric than Erasmus
   did. He stated his opinion that—'In order that the teacher
   might be thoroughly up to his work, he should not merely be a
   master of one particular branch of study. He should himself
   have travelled through the whole circle of knowledge. In
   philosophy he should have studied Plato and Aristotle,
   Theophrastus and Plotinus; in Theology the Sacred Scriptures,
   and after them Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil among the Greek
   fathers, and Ambrose and Jerome among the Latin fathers; among
   the poets, Homer and Ovid; in geography, which is very
   important in the study of history, Pomponins Mela, Ptolemy,
   Pliny, Strabo. He should know what ancient names of rivers,
   mountains, countries, cities, answer to the modern ones; and
   the same of trees, animals, instruments, clothes, and, gems,
   with regard to which it is incredible how ignorant even
   educated men are.
{708}
   He should take note of little facts about agriculture,
   architecture, military and culinary arts, mentioned by
   different authors. He should be able to trace the origin of
   words, their gradual corruption in the languages of
   Constantinople, Italy, Spain, and France. Nothing should be
   beneath his observation which can illustrate history or the
   meaning of the poets. But you will say what a load you are
   putting on the back of the poor teacher! It is so; but I
   burden the one to relieve the many. I want the teacher to have
   traversed the whole range of knowledge, that it may spare each
   of his scholars doing it. A diligent and thoroughly competent
   master might give boys a fair proficiency in both Latin and
   Greek, in a shorter time and with less labour than the common
   run of pedagogues take to teach their babble.' On receipt of
   this … Colet wrote to Erasmus: … '"What! I shall not
   approve!" So you say! What is there of Erasmus's that I do not
   approve?'"

      _F. Seebohm,
      The Oxford Reformers,
      chapter 6._

EDUCATION:
   Ascham and "The Scholemaster."

   Roger Ascham, the friend of Lady Jane Grey and the tutor of
   Queen Elizabeth, was born in 1515, and died in 1568. "It was
   partly with the view to the instruction of his own children,
   that he commenced the 'Schole-master,' the work by which he is
   most and best known, to which he did not live to set the last
   hand. He communicated the design and import of the book in a
   letter to Sturmius, in which he states, that not being able to
   leave his sons a large fortune, he was resolved to provide
   them with a preceptor, not one to be hired for a great sum of
   money, but marked out at home with a homely pen. In the same
   letter he gives his reasons for employing the English
   language, the capabilities of which he clearly perceived and
   candidly acknowledged, a high virtue for a man of that age,
   who perhaps could have written Latin to his own satisfaction
   much more easily than his native tongue. But though the
   benefit of his own offspring might be his ultimate object, the
   immediate occasion of the work was a conversation at Cecil's,
   at which Sir Richard Sackville expressed great indignation at
   the severities practiced at Eton and other great schools, so
   that boys actually ran away for fear of merciless
   flagellation. This led to the general subject of school
   discipline, and the defects in the then established modes of
   tuition. Ascham coinciding with the sentiments of the company,
   and proceeding to explain his own views of improvement,
   Sackville requested him to commit his opinions to paper and
   the 'Schole-master' was the result. It was not published till
   1670. … We … quote a few passages, which throw light upon
   the author's good sense and good nature. To all violent
   coercion, and extreme punishment, he was decidedly
   opposed:—'I do agree,' says he, 'with all good school-masters
   in all these points, to have children brought to good
   perfectness in learning, to all honesty in manners; to have
   all faults rightly amended, and every vice severely corrected,
   but for the order and way that leadeth rightly to these
   points, we somewhat differ.' 'Love is better than fear,
   gentleness than beating, to bring up a child rightly in
   learning.' 'I do assure you there is no such whetstone to
   sharpen a good wit, and encourage a will to learning, as is
   praise.'… 'The scholar is commonly beat for the making, when
   the master were more worthy to be beat for the mending, or
   rather marring, of the same; the master many times being as
   ignorant as the child what to say properly and fitly to the
   matter.' … This will I say, that even the wisest of your
   great beaters do as oft punish nature as they do correct
   faults. Yea many times the better nature is the sorer
   punished. For if one by quickness of wit take his lesson
   readily, another by hardness of wit taketh it not so speedily;
   the first is always commended, the other is commonly punished,
   when a wise school-master should rather discreetly consider
   the right disposition of both their natures, and not so much
   weigh what either of them is able to do, as what either of
   them is likely to do hereafter. For this I know, not only by
   reading of books in my study, but also by experience of life
   abroad in the world, that those which be commonly the wisest,
   the best learned, and best men also, when they be old, were
   never commonly the quickest of wit when they were young. Quick
   wits commonly be apt to take, unapt to keep. Some are more
   quick to enter speedily than be able to pierce far, even like
   unto oversharp tools, whose edges be very soon turned.'"

      _H. Coleridge,
      Biographia Borealis,
      pages 328-330._

EDUCATION:
   Jesuit Teaching and Schools.

   "The education of youth is set forth in the Formula of
   Approval granted by Paul III. in 1540," to the plans of
   Ignatius Loyola for the foundation of the Society of Jesus,
   "as the first duty embraced by the new Institute. … Although
   the new religious were not at once able to begin the
   establishment of colleges, yet the plan of those afterwards
   founded, was gradually ripening in the sagacious mind of St.
   Ignatius, who looked to these institutions as calculated to
   oppose the surest bulwarks against the progress of heresy. The
   first regular college of the Society was that established at
   Gandia in 1546, through the zeal of St. Francis Borgia, third
   General of the Society; and the regulations by which it was
   governed, and which were embodied in the constitutions, were
   extended to all the Jesuit colleges afterwards founded. The
   studies were to include theology, both positive and
   scholastic, as well as grammar, poetry, rhetoric, and
   philosophy. The course of philosophy was to last three years,
   that of theology four; and the Professors of Philosophy were
   enjoined to treat their subject in such a way as to dispose
   the mind for the study of theology, instead of setting up
   faith and reason in opposition to one another. The theology of
   St. Thomas, and the philosophy of Aristotle, were to be
   followed, except on those points where the teaching of the
   latter was opposed to the Catholic faith."

      _A. T. Drane,
      Christian Schools and Scholars,
      page 708._

   "As early as the middle of the sixteenth century … [the
   Society of Jesus] had several colleges in France, particularly
   those of Billom, Mauriac, Rodez, Tournon, and Pamiers. In 1561
   it secured a footing in Paris, notwithstanding the resistance
   of the Parliament, of the university, and of the bishops
   themselves. A hundred years later it counted nearly fourteen
   thousand pupils in the province of Paris alone. The college of
   Clermont, in 1651, enrolled more than two thousand young men.
   The middle and higher classes assured to the colleges of the
   society an ever-increasing membership.
{709}
   At the end of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits could
   inscribe on the roll of honor of their classes a hundred
   illustrious names, among others those of Condé and Luxembourg,
   Fléchier and Bossuet, Lamoignon and Séguier, Descartes,
   Comeille, and Moliere. In 1710 they controlled six hundred and
   twelve colleges and a large number of universities. They were
   the real masters of education, and they maintained this
   educational supremacy till the end of the eighteenth century.
   Voltaire said of these teachers: 'The Fathers taught me
   nothing but Latin and nonsense.' But from the seventeenth
   century, opinions are divided, and the encomiums of Bacon and
   Descartes must be offset by the severe judgment of Leibnitz.
   'In the matter of education, says this great philosopher, 'the
   Jesuits have remained below mediocrity.' Directly to the
   contrary, Bacon had written: 'As to whatever relates to the
   instruction of the young, we must consult the schools of the
   Jesuits, for there can be nothing that is better done.' … A
   permanent and characteristic feature of the educational policy
   of the Jesuits is, that, during the whole course of their
   history, they have deliberately neglected and disdained
   primary instruction. The earth is covered with their Latin
   colleges; and wherever they have been able, they have put
   their hands on the institutions for university education; but
   in no instance have they founded a primary school. Even in
   their establishment for secondary instruction, they entrust
   the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their
   order, and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher
   classes."

      _G. Compayré,
      History of Pedagogy,
      pages 141-143._

      See, also, JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

   "The Jesuits owed their success partly to the very narrow task
   which they set themselves, little beyond the teaching of Latin
   style, and partly to the careful training which they gave
   their students, a training which often degenerated into mere
   mechanical exercise. But the mainspring of their influence was
   the manner in which they worked the dangerous force of
   emulation. Those pupils who were most distinguished at the end
   of each month received the rank of prætor, censor, and
   decurion. The class was divided into two parts, called Romans
   and Carthaginians, Greeks and Trojans. The students sat
   opposite each other, the master in the middle, the walls were
   hung with swords, spears and shields which the contending
   parties carried off in triumph as the prize of victory. These
   pupils' contests wasted a great deal of time. The Jesuits
   established public school festivals, at which the pupils might
   be exhibited, and the parents flattered. They made their own
   school books, in which the requirements of good teaching were
   not so important as the religious objects of the order. They
   preferred extracts to whole authors; if they could not prune
   the classics to their fancy they would not read them at all.
   What judgment are we to pass on the Jesuit teaching as a
   whole? It deserves praise on two accounts. First, it
   maintained the dignity of literature in an age which was too
   liable to be influenced by considerations of practical
   utility. It maintained the study of Greek in France at a
   higher level than the University, and resisted the assaults of
   ignorant parents on the fortress of Hellenism. Secondly, it
   seriously set itself to understand the nature and character of
   the individual pupil, and to suit the manner of education to
   the mind that was to receive it. Whatever may have been the
   motives of Jesuits in gaining the affections, and securing the
   devotion of the children under their charge; whether their
   desire was to develop the individuality which they probed, or
   to destroy it in its germ, and plant a new nature in its
   place; it must be admitted that the loving care which they
   spent upon their charge was a new departure in education, and
   has become a part of every reasonable system since their time.
   Here our praise must end. … They amused the mind instead of
   strengthening it. They occupied in frivolities such as Latin
   verses the years which they feared might otherwise be given to
   reasoning and the acquisition of solid knowledge. …
   Celebrated as the Jesuit schools have been, they have owed
   much more to the fashion which filled them with promising
   scholars, than to their own excellence in dealing with their
   material. … They have never stood the test of modern
   criticism. They have no place in a rational system of modern
   education."

      _O. Browning,
      Introduction to the History of Educational Theories,
      chapter 8._

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
   Austria.

   "The annual appropriations passed by Parliament allow the
   minister of public instruction $8,307,774 for all kinds of
   public educational institutions, elementary and secondary
   schools, universities, technical and art schools, museums, and
   philanthropic institutions. Generally, this principle is
   adhered to by the state, to subsidize the highest institutions
   of learning most liberally, to share the cost of maintaining
   secondary schools with church and community, and to leave the
   burden of maintaining elementary schools almost entirely to
   the local or communal authorities. … In the Austrian public
   schools no distinctions are made with the pupils as regards
   their religious confessions. The schools are open to all, and
   are therefore common schools in the sense in which that term
   is employed with us. In Prussia it is the policy of the
   Government to separate the pupils of different religious
   confessions in … elementary, but not to separate them in
   secondary schools. In Austria and Hungary, special teachers of
   religion for the elementary and secondary schools are
   employed; in Prussia this is done only in secondary schools,
   while religion is taught by the secular teachers in elementary
   schools. This is a very vital difference, and shows how much
   nearer the Austrian schools have come to our ideal of a common
   school."

      _United States Commissioner of Education,
      Report, 1889-90,
      pages 465-466._

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
   Belgium.

   "The treaty of Paris, of March 30, 1814, fixed the boundaries
   of the Netherlands, and united Holland and Belgium. In these
   new circumstances, the system of public instruction became the
   subject of much difficulty between the Calvinists of the
   northern provinces and the Catholics of the southern. The
   government therefore undertook itself to manage the
   organization of the system of instruction in its three grades.
   … William I. desired to free the Belgians from French
   influence, and with this object adopted the injudicious
   measure of attempting to force the Dutch language upon them.
   He also endeavored to familiarize them with Protestant ideas,
   and to this end determined to get the care of religious
   instruction exclusively into the hands of the state. But the
   clergy were energetic in asserting their rights; the boldness
   of the Belgian deputies to the States-General increased daily;
   and the project for a system of public and private instruction
   which was laid before the second chamber on the 26th November,
   1829, was very unfavorably received by the Catholics. The
   government very honorably confessed its error by repealing the
   obnoxious ordinances of 1825. But it was too late, and the
   Belgian provinces were lost to Holland. On the 12th October,
   1830, the provisory government repealed all laws restricting
   the freedom of instruction, and the present system, in which
   liberty of instruction and governmental aid and supervision
   are recognized, commenced."

      _Public Instruction in Belgium
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 8, pages 582-583)._

{710}

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
   Denmark.

   "Denmark has long been noted for the excellence of her
   schools. … The perfection and extension of the system of
   popular instruction date from the beginning of the eighteenth
   century, when Bishop Thestrup, of Aalberg, caused 6 parish
   schools to be established in Copenhagen and when King
   Frederick IV. (1699-1730) had 240 school-houses built. …
   Christian VI. (17301746), … ordained in 1739 the
   establishment of common or parish schools in every town and in
   every larger village. The branches of instruction were to be
   religion, reading, writing, and arithmetic. No one was to be
   allowed to teach unless he had shown himself qualified to the
   satisfaction of the clergyman of the parish. …. Many
   difficulties, however (especially the objections of the landed
   proprietors, who had their own schools on their estates),
   hindered the free development of the common school system, and
   it was not until 1814 that a new and more favorable era was
   inaugurated by the law of July 29 of that year. According to
   this law the general control of the schools is in the hands of
   a minister of public instruction and subordinate
   superintendents for the several departments of the kingdom."

      _Education in Denmark
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 2),
      pages 40-41._

   "With a population in 1890 of 2,185,157, the pupils enrolled
   in city and rural schools in Denmark numbered 231,940, or
   about 10 per cent. of the population receiving the foundation
   of an education. In 1881 the illiterates to 100 recruits
   numbered 0.36; in Sweden at that date, the per cent. was
   0.39."

      _United States Commissioner of Education,
      Report, 1889-90,
      page 523._

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
   England: Oxford and Cambridge.

   "Oxford and Cambridge, as establishments for education,
   consist of two parts—of the University proper, and of the
   Colleges. The former, original and essential, is founded,
   controlled, and privileged by public authority, for the
   advantage of the nation. The latter, accessory and contingent,
   are created, regulated, and endowed by private munificence,
   for the interest of certain favored individuals. Time was,
   when the Colleges did not exist, and the University was there;
   and were the Colleges again abolished, the University would
   remain entire. The former, founded solely for education,
   exists only as it accomplishes the end of its institution; the
   latter, founded principally for aliment and habitation, would
   still exist, were all education abandoned within their walls.
   The University, as a national establishment, is necessarily
   open to the lieges in general; the Colleges, as private
   institutions, might universally do, as some have actually
   done—close their gates upon all, except their foundation
   members. The Universities and Colleges are thus neither
   identical, nor vicarious of each other. If the University
   ceases to perform its functions, it ceases to exist; and the
   privileges accorded by the nation to the system of public
   education legally organized in the University, can not,
   without the consent of the nation—far less without the
   consent of the academical legislature—be lawfully transferred
   to the system of private education precariously organized in
   the Colleges, and over which neither the State nor the
   University have any control. They have, however, been
   unlawfully usurped. Through the suspension of the University,
   and the usurpation of its functions and privileges by the
   Collegial bodies, there has arisen the second of two systems,
   diametrically opposite to each other.—The one, in which the
   University was paramount, is ancient and statutory; the other,
   in which the Colleges have the ascendant, is recent and
   illegal.—In the former, all was subservient to public
   utility, and the interests of science; in the latter, all is
   sacrificed to private monopoly, and to the convenience of the
   teacher. … In the original constitution of Oxford, as in
   that of all the older Universities of the Parisian model, the
   business of instruction was not confided to a special body of
   privileged professors. The University was governed, the
   University was taught, by the graduates at large. Professor,
   Master, Doctor, were originally synonymous. Every graduate had
   an equal right of teaching publicly in the University the
   subjects competent to his faculty, and to the rank of his
   degree; nay, every graduate incurred the obligation of
   teaching publicly, for a certain period, the subjects of his
   faculty, for such was the condition involved in the grant of
   the degree itself."

      _Sir William Hamilton,
      Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, etc.: Education,
      chapter 4._

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
   England: The "Great Public Schools."

   What is a public school in England? "The question is one of
   considerable difficulty. To some extent, however, the answer
   has been furnished by the Royal Commission appointed in 1861
   to inquire into the nature and application of the endowments
   and revenues, and into the administration and management of
   certain specified colleges and schools commonly known as the
   Public Schools Commission. Nine are named in the Queen's
   letter of appointment, viz., Eton, Winchester, Westminster,
   the Charterhouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors', Harrow,
   Rugby, and Shrewsbury. The reasons probably which suggested
   this selection were, that the nine named foundations had in
   the course of centuries emerged from the mass of endowed
   grammar-schools, and had made for themselves a position which
   justified their being placed in a distinct category, and
   classed as 'public schools.' It will be seen as we proceed
   that all these nine have certain features in common,
   distinguishing them from the ordinary grammar-schools which
   exist in almost every country town in England. Many of these
   latter are now waking up to the requirements of the new time
   and following the example of their more illustrious sisters.
   The most notable examples of this revival are such schools as
   those at Sherborne, Giggleswick, and Tunbridge Wells, which,
   while remodelling themselves on the lines laid down by the
   Public Schools Commissioners, are to some extent providing a
   training more adapted to the means and requirements of our
   middle classes in the nineteenth century than can be found at
   any of the nine public schools.
{711}
   But twenty years ago the movement which has since made such
   astonishing progress was scarcely felt in quiet country places
   like these, and the old endowments were allowed to run to
   waste in a fashion which is now scarcely credible. The same
   impulse which has put new life into the endowed
   grammar-schools throughout England has worked even more
   remarkably in another direction. The Victorian age bids fair
   to rival the Elizabethan in the number and importance of the
   new schools which it has founded and will hand on to the
   coming generation. Marlborough, Haileybury, Uppingham,
   Rossall, Clifton, Cheltenham, Radley, Malvern, and Wellington
   College, are nine schools which have taken their place in the
   first rank. … In order, then, to get clear ideas on the
   general question, we must keep these three classes of schools
   in mind—the nine old foundations recognized in the first
   instance by the Royal Commission of 1861; the old foundations
   which have remained local grammar-schools until within the
   last few years, but are now enlarging their bounds, conforming
   more or less to the public-school system, and becoming
   national institutions; and, lastly, the modern foundations
   which started from the first as public schools, professing to
   adapt themselves to the new circumstances and requirements of
   modern English life. The public schools of England fall under
   one or other of these categories. … We may now turn to the
   historic side of the question, dealing first, as is due to
   their importance, with the nine schools of our first category.
   The oldest, and in some respects most famous of these, is
   Winchester School, or, as it was named by its founder William
   of Wykeham, the College of St. Mary of Winchester, founded in
   1382. Its constitution still retains much of the impress left
   on it by the great Bishop of the greatest Plantagenet King,
   five centuries ago. Toward the end of the fourteenth century
   Oxford was already the center of English education, but from
   the want of grammar-schools boys went up by hundreds untaught
   in the simplest rudiments of learning, and when there lived in
   private hostels or lodging-houses, in a vast throng, under no
   discipline, and exposed to many hardships and temptations. In
   view of this state of things, William of Wykeham founded his
   grammar-school at Winchester and his college at Oxford,
   binding the two together, so that the school might send up
   properly trained scholars to the university, where they would
   be received at New College, in a suitable academical home,
   which should in its turn furnish governors and masters for the
   school. … Next in date comes the royal foundation of Eton,
   or 'The College of the Blessed Mary of Eton, near Windsor.' It
   was founded by Henry VI., A. D. 1446, upon the model of
   Winchester, with a collegiate establishment of a provost, ten
   fellows (reduced to seven in the reign of Edward IV.), seventy
   scholars, and ten chaplains (now reduced to two; who are
   called 'conducts'), and a head and lower master, ten lay
   clerks, and twelve choristers. The provost and fellows are the
   governing body, who appoint the head master. … Around this
   center the great school, numbering now a thousand boys, has
   gathered, the college, however, still retaining its own
   separate organization and traditions. Besides the splendid
   buildings and playing-fields at Eton, the college holds real
   property of the yearly value of upward of £20,000, and forty'
   livings ranging from £100 to £1,200 of yearly value. … The
   school next in date stands out in sharp contrast to Winchester
   and Eton. It is St. Paul's School, founded by Dean Colet. …
   Shrewsbury School, which follows next in order of seniority,
   claims a royal foundation, but is in reality the true child of
   the town's folk. The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed
   also the seminaries attached to many of them, to the great
   injury of popular education. This was specially the case in
   Shropshire, so in 1551 the bailiffs, burgesses, and
   inhabitants of Shrewsbury and the neighborhood petitioned
   Edward VI. for a grant of some portion of the estates of the
   dissolved collegiate churches for the purpose of founding a
   free school. The King consented, and granted to the
   petitioners the appropriated tithes of several livings and a
   charter, but died before the school was organized. It was in
   abeyance during Mary's reign, but opened in the fourth year of
   Elizabeth, 1562, by Thomas Aston. … We have now reached the
   great group of Elizabethan schools, to which indeed Shrewsbury
   may also be said to belong, as it was not opened until the
   Queen had been three years on the throne. The two metropolitan
   schools of Westminster and Merchant Taylors' were in fact
   founded in 1560, two years before the opening of Shrewsbury.
   Westminster as a royal foundation must take precedence. It is
   a grammar-school attached by the Queen to the collegiate
   church of St. Peter, commonly called Westminster Abbey, and
   founded for the free education of forty scholars in Latin,
   Greek, and Hebrew. The Queen, with characteristic thriftiness,
   provided no endowment for her school, leaving the cost of
   maintenance as a charge on the general revenues of the dean
   and chapter, which indeed were, then as now, fully competent
   to sustain the burden. … Merchant Taylors', the other
   metropolitan school founded in 1560, owes its origin to Sir
   Thomas White, a member of the Court of Assistants of the
   company, and founder of St. John's College, Oxford. It was
   probably his promise to connect the school with his college
   which induced the Company to undertake the task. … Sir
   Thomas White redeemed his promise by endowing the school with
   thirty-seven fellowships at St. John's College. … Rugby, or
   the free school of Lawrence Sheriff, follows next in order,
   having been founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, grocer, and
   citizen of London. His 'intent' (as the document expressing
   his wishes is called) declares that his lands in Rugby and
   Brownsover, and his 'third of a pasture-ground in Gray's Inn
   Fields, called Conduit Close,' shall be applied to maintain a
   free grammar school for the children of Rugby and Brownsover,
   and the places adjoining, and four poor almsmen of the same
   parishes. These estates, after providing a fair schoolhouse
   and residences for the master and almsmen, at first produced a
   rental of only £24 13s. 4d. In due time, however, Conduit
   Close became a part of central London, and Rugby School the
   owner of eight acres of houses in and about the present Lamb's
   Conduit Street. The income of the whole trust property amounts
   now to about £6,000, of which £255 is expended on the
   maintenance of the twelve almsmen. … Harrow School was
   founded in 1571, four years later than Rugby, by John Lyon, a
   yeoman of the parish.
{712}
   He was owner of certain small estates in and about Harrow and
   Barnet, and of others at Paddington and Kilburn. All these he
   devoted to public purposes, but unfortunately gave the former
   for the perpetual education of the children and youth of the
   parish, and the latter for the maintenance and repair of the
   highways from Harrow and Edgeware to London. The present
   yearly revenue of the school estates is barely over £1,000,
   while that of the highway trust is nearly £4,000. But, though
   the poorest in endowments, Harrow, from its nearness to
   London, and consequent attractions for the classes who spend a
   large portion of their year in the metropolis either in
   attendance in Parliament, or for pleasure, has become the
   rival of Eton as a fashionable school. … Last on the list of
   the nine schools comes the Charterhouse (the Whitefriars of
   Thackeray's novels). It may be fairly classed with the
   Elizabethan schools, though actually founded in 1609, after
   the accession of James I. In that year a substantial yeoman,
   Thomas Sutton by name, purchased from Lord Suffolk the lately
   dissolved Charterhouse, by Smithfield, and obtained letters
   patent empowering him to found a hospital and school on the
   old site."

      _T. Hughes,
      The Public Schools of England
      (North American Review, April, 1879)._

EDUCATION: England
   Fagging.

   "In rougher days it was found, that in large schools the
   stronger and larger boys reduced the smaller and weaker to the
   condition of Helots. Here the authorities stepped in, and
   despairing of eradicating the evil, took the power which mere
   strength had won, and conferred it upon the seniors of the
   school—the members, that is, of the highest form or forms. As
   in those days, promotion was pretty much a matter of rotation,
   everyone who remained his full time at the school, was pretty
   sure to reach in time the dominant class, and the humblest fag
   looked forward to the day when he would join the ranks of the
   ruling aristocracy. Meantime he was no longer at the beck of
   any stronger or ruder classfellow. His 'master' was in theory,
   and often in practice, his best protector: he imposed upon him
   very likely what may be called menial offices—made him carry
   home his 'Musæ'—field for him at cricket—brush his coat; if
   we are to believe school myths and traditions, black his
   shoes, and even take the chill off his sheets. The boy,
   how-ever, saw the son of a Howard or a Percy similarly
   employed by his side, and in cheerfully submitting to an
   ancient custom, he was but following out the tendencies of the
   age and class to which he belonged. … The mere abolition of
   the right of fagging, vague and undefined as were the duties
   attached to it, would have been a loss rather than a gain to
   the oppressed as a class. It would merely have substituted for
   the existing law, imperfect and anomalous as that law might
   be, the licence of brute force and the dominion of boyish
   truculence. … Such was, more or less, the state of things
   when he to whom English education owes so incalculable a debt,
   was placed at the head of Rugby School. … It was hoped that
   he who braved the anger of his order by his pamphlet on Church
   Reform—at whose bold and uncompromising language bishops
   stood aghast and courtly nobles remonstrated in vain—would
   make short work of ancient saws and mediæval traditions—that
   a revolution in school life was at hand. And they were not
   mistaken. … What he did was to seize on the really valuable
   part of the existing system—to inspire it with that new life,
   and those loftier purposes, without which mere institutions,
   great or small, must, sooner or later, wither away and perish.
   His first step was to effect an important change in the actual
   machinery of the school—one which, in itself, amounted to a
   revolution. The highest form in the school was no longer open
   to all whom a routine promotion might raise in course of time
   to its level. Industry and talent as tested by careful
   examinations (in the additional labour of which he himself
   bore the heaviest burden), were the only qualifications
   recognised. The new-modelled 'sixth form' were told, that the
   privileges and powers which their predecessors had enjoyed for
   ages were not to be wrested from them; but that they were to
   be held for the common good, as the badges and instruments of
   duties and responsibilities, such as anyone with less
   confidence in those whom he addressed would have hesitated to
   impose. They were told plainly that without their co-operation
   there was no hope of keeping in check the evils inherent in a
   society of boys. Tyranny, falsehood, drinking, party-spirit,
   coarseness, selfishness—the evil spirits that infest
   schools—these they heard Sunday after Sunday put in their
   true light by a majestic voice and a manly presence, with
   words, accents, and manner which would live in their memory
   for years; but they were warned that, to exercise such
   spirits, something more was needed than the watchfulness of
   masters and the energy of their chief. They themselves must
   use their large powers, entrusted to them in recognition of
   the principle, or rather of the fact, that in a large society
   of boys some must of necessity hold sway, to keep down, in
   themselves and those about them, principles and practices
   which are ever ready, like hideous weeds, to choke the growth
   of all that is fair and noble in such institutions. Dr. Arnold
   persevered in spite of opposition, obloquy, and
   misrepresentation. … But he firmly established his system,
   and his successors, men differing in training and temperament
   from himself and from each other, have agreed in cordially
   sustaining it. His pupils and theirs, men in very different
   walks of life, filling honourable posts at the universities
   and public schools, or ruling the millions of India, or
   working among the blind and toiling multitudes of our great
   towns, feel daily how much of their usefulness and power they
   owe to the sense of high trust and high duty which they
   imbibed at school."

      _Our Public Schools—Their Discipline and Instruction
      (Fraser's Magazine, volume 1, pages 407-409)._

EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1699-1870.
   The rise of Elementary Schools.

   "The recognition by the English State of its paramount duty in
   aiding the work of national education is scarcely more than a
   generation old. The recognition of the further and far more
   extensive work of supplementing by State aid, or by State
   agency, all deficiencies in the supply of schools, dates only
   thirteen years back [to 1870]; while the equally pressing duty
   of enforcing, by a universal law, the use of the opportunities
   of education thus supplied, is a matter almost of yesterday.
   The State has only slowly stepped into its proper place; more
   slowly in the case of England than in the case of any other of
   the leading European nations. … In 1699 the Society for the
   Propagation of Christian Knowledge was founded, and by it
   various schools were established throughout the country.
{713}
   In 1782 Robert Raikes established his first Sunday school, and
   in a few years the Union, of which he was the founder, had
   under its control schools scattered all over the country. But
   the most extensive efforts made for popular education were
   those of Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster towards the close of
   the eighteenth century. … They misconceived and misjudged
   the extent of the work that had to be accomplished. They
   became slaves to their system—that which was called the
   Monitorial system … and by elevating it to undue importance
   they did much to discredit the very work in which they were
   engaged. … Amongst the Nonconformist followers of Lancaster
   there arose the British and Foreign School Society; while by
   those of Bell there was established, on the side representing
   the Church, the National Society. The former became the
   recognised agency of the Dissenters, the latter of the Church;
   and through one or other of these channels State aid, when it
   first began to flow, was obliged to take its course. … In
   1802 the first Sir Robert Peel passed a Bill which restricted
   children's labour in factories, and required that reading,
   writing, and arithmetic should be taught to them during a part
   of each day. This was the beginning of the factory
   legislation. … In 1807 Mr. Whitebread introduced a Bill for
   the establishment of parochial schools through the agency of
   local vestries, who were empowered to draw on the rates for
   the purpose. The House of Commons accepted the Bill, but it
   was thrown out in the House of Lords. … The movement for a
   State recognition of education was pressed more vigorously
   when the fears and troubles of European war were clearing
   away. It was in 1816 that Brougham obtained his Select
   Committee for Inquiring into the Education of the Poor in the
   Metropolis. … In 1820 Brougham introduced, on the basis of
   his previous inquiries, an Education Bill. … By this Bill
   the issue between the contending parties in the State, which
   was henceforward destined to be the chief stumbling-block in
   the way of a State education, was placed on a clear and
   well-defined basis. … The Church was alarmed at anything
   which seemed to trench upon what she naturally thought to be
   her appointed task. The Dissenters dreaded what might add to
   the impregnability of the Church's strongholds. … When the
   beginning was actually made it came … as an almost unnoticed
   proposal of the Executive. In 1832 the sum of £20,000 for
   public education was placed in the estimates; it was passed by
   the Committee of Supply; and the first step was taken on that
   course from which the State has never since drawn back. No
   legislation was necessary. … The next great step was taken
   in 1839, when the annual vote was increased from £20,000 to
   £30,000, and when a special department was created to
   supervise the work. Hitherto grants had been administered by
   the Treasury to meet a certain amount of local exertion, and
   in general reliance upon vague assurances as to maintenance of
   the schools by local promoters. … The conditions which were
   soon found to be necessary as securities, either for
   continuance or for efficiency, were not yet insisted upon. To
   do this it was necessary to have a Department specially
   devoted to this work; and the means adopted for creating such
   a Department was one which had the advantage of requiring no
   Act of Parliament. By an order in Council a Special Committee
   of the Privy Council was established, and, in connection with
   this Committee, a special staff of officers was engaged. The
   same year saw the appointment of the first inspectors of
   schools. It was thus that the Education Department was
   constituted. The plan which the advisers of the Government in
   this new attempt had most at heart was that of a Normal
   Training College for teachers. … But it was surrounded with
   so much matter for dispute, gathered during a generation of
   contention, that the proposal all but wrecked the Government
   of Lord Melbourne. The Church objected to the scheme. … In
   the year 1844, after five years of the new administration, it
   was possible to form some estimate, not only of the solid work
   accomplished, but of the prospects of the immediate future.
   … Between 1839 and 1844, under the action of the Committee
   of Council, £170,000 of Imperial funds had been distributed to
   meet £430,000 from local resources. In all, therefore, about
   one million had been spent in little more than ten years. What
   solid good had this accomplished? … According to a careful
   and elaborate report in the year 1845, only about one in six,
   even of the children at school, was found able to read the
   Scriptures with any ease. Even for these the power of reading
   often left them when they tried a secular book. Of reading
   with intelligence there was hardly any; and about one-half of
   the children who came to school left, it was calculated,
   unable to read. Only about one child in four had mastered,
   even in the most mechanical way, the art of writing. As
   regards arithmetic, not two per cent. of the children had
   advanced as far as the rule of three. … The teaching of the
   schools was in the hands of men who had scarcely any training,
   and who had often turned to the work because all other work
   had turned away from them. Under them it was conducted upon
   that monitorial system which was the inheritance from Dr.
   Bell, the rival of Lancaster. The pupils were set to teach one
   another. … The inquiries of the Committee of Council thus
   gave the death-blow, in public estimation, to the once
   highly-vaunted monitorial system. But how was it to be
   replaced? The model of a better state of things was found in
   the Dutch schools. There a selected number of the older
   pupils, who intended to enter upon the profession of teachers,
   were apprenticed, when they had reached the age of thirteen,
   to the teacher. … After their apprenticeship they passed to
   a Training College. … Accordingly, a new and important start
   was made by the Department on the 25th of August 1846. … In
   1851 twenty-five Training Colleges had been established; and
   these had a sure supply of qualified recruits in the 6,000
   pupil teachers who were by that time being trained to the
   work. … The ten years between 1842 and 1852 saw the
   Parliamentary grant raised from £40,000 to £160,000 a year,
   with the certainty of a still further increase as the
   augmentation grants to teachers and the stipends to pupil
   teachers grew in number. Nearly 3,800 schools had been built
   with Parliamentary aid, providing accommodation for no less
   than 540,000 children. The State had contributed towards this
   more than £400,000; and a total expenditure had been incurred
   in providing schools of more than £1,000,000. … But the
   system was as yet only tentative; and a mass of thorny
   religious questions had to be faced before a really national
   system could be established.
{714}
   … All parties became convinced that the first step was to
   inquire into the merits and defects of the existing system,
   and on the basis of sound information to plan some method of
   advance. Under this impression it was that the Commission on
   Public Education, of which the Duke of Newcastle was chairman,
   was appointed in 1858." The result of the Commission of 1858
   was a revision of the educational Code which the Committee of
   the Privy Council had formulated. The New Code proved
   unsatisfactory in its working, and every year showed more
   plainly the necessity of a fully organized system of national
   education. "Out of the discussions there arose two societies,
   which fairly expressed two different views. … The first of
   these was the Education League, started at Birmingham in 1869.
   … Its basis, shortly stated, was that of a compulsory system
   of school provision, by local authorities through means of
   local rates; the schools so provided to be at once free and
   unsectarian. … In this programme the point which raised most
   opposition was the unsectarian teaching. It was chiefly to
   counteract this part of the League's objects that there was
   formed the Education Union, which urged a universal system
   based upon the old lines. … By common consent the time for a
   settlement was now come. Some guarantee must be taken that the
   whole edifice should not crumble to pieces; that for local
   agencies there should be substituted local authorities; and
   that the State should be supplied with some machinery whereby
   the gaps in the work might be supplied. It was in this
   position of opinion that Mr. Forster, as Vice-President,
   introduced his Education Bill in 1870. … The measure passed
   the House of Lords without any material alteration; and
   finally became Law on the 9th of August 1870."

      _R. Craik,
      The State in its Relation to Education._

   The schools to which the provisions of the Act of 1870
   extends, and the regulations under which such schools are to
   be conducted, are defined in the Act as follows: "Every
   elementary school which is conducted in accordance with the
   following regulations shall be a public elementary school
   within the meaning of this Act; and every public elementary
   school shall be conducted in accordance with the following
   regulations (a copy of which regulations shall be
   conspicuously put up in every such school); namely

   (1.) It shall not be required, as a condition of any child
   being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall
   attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any
   place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any
   religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects
   in the school or elsewhere, from which observance or
   instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he
   shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any
   day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the
   religious body to which his parent belongs:

   (2.) The time or times during which any religious observance
   is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at
   any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or
   at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting,
   and shall be inserted in a time-table to be approved by the
   Education Department, and to be kept permanently and
   conspicuously affixed in every school-room; and any scholar
   may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or
   instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of
   the school:

   (3.) The school shall be open at all times to the inspection
   of any of Her Majesty's inspectors, so, however, that it shall
   be no part of the duties of such inspector to inquire into any
   instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to
   examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge or in any
   religious subject or book:

   (4.) The school shall be conducted in accordance with the
   conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in
   order to obtain an annual parliamentary grant."

      _J. R. Rigg,
      National Education,
      appendix A._

   "The new Act retained existing inspected schools, … it also
   did away with all denominational classifications of schools
   and with denominational inspection, treating all inspected
   schools as equally belonging to a national system of schools
   and under national inspection, the distinctions as to
   inspectors and their provinces being henceforth purely
   geographical. But the new Act no longer required that public
   elementary schools established by voluntary agency and under
   voluntary management should have in them any religious
   character or element whatever, whether as belonging to a
   Christian Church or denomination, or as connected with a
   Christian philanthropic society, or as providing for the
   reading of the Scriptures in the school. It was left open to
   any party or any person to establish purely voluntary schools
   if they thought fit. But, furthermore, the Act made provision
   for an entirely new class of schools, to be established and
   (in part) supported out of local rates, to be governed by
   locally-elected School Boards, and to have just such and so
   much religious instruction given in them as the governing
   boards might think proper, at times preceding or following the
   prescribed secular school hours, and under the protection of a
   time-table Conscience Clause, as in the case of voluntary
   schools, with this restriction only, that in these schools no
   catechism or denominational religious formulary of any sort
   was to be taught. The mode of electing members to the School
   Boards was to be by what is called the cumulative vote—that
   is, each elector was to have as many votes as there were
   candidates, and these votes he could give all to one, or else
   distribute among the candidates as he liked; and all
   ratepayers were to be electors. … The new law … made a
   clear separation, in one respect, between voluntary and Board
   schools. Both were to stand equally in relation to the
   National Education Department, under the Privy Council; but
   the voluntary schools were to have nothing to do with local
   rates or rate aid, nor Local Boards to have any control over
   voluntary schools."

      _J. H. Rigg,
      National Education,
      chapter 10._

   "To sum up … in few words what may be set down as the chief
   characteristics of our English system of Elementary Education,
   I should say

   (1) first, that whilst about 30 per cent. of our school
   accommodation is under the control of school boards, the cost
   of maintenance being borne in part by local rates as well as
   by the Parliamentary grant, fully 70 per cent. is still in the
   hands of voluntary school-managers, whose subscriptions take
   the place of the rates levied by school boards.

   (2) In case a deficiency in school accommodation is reported
   in any school district, the Education Department have the
   power to require that due provision shall be made for the same
   within a limited time; the 'screw' to be applied to wilful
   defaulters in a voluntary school district being the threat of
   a board, and in a school board district the supercession of
   the existing board by a new board, nominated by the
   Department, and remunerated out of the local rates.

{715}

   (3) Attendance is enforced everywhere by bye-laws, worked
   either by the school board or by the School Attendance
   Committee: and although these local authorities are often very
   remiss in discharging their duties, and the magistrates not
   seldom culpably lenient in dealing with cases brought before
   them, there are plenty of districts in which regularity of
   school attendance has been improved fully 10 per cent. in the
   past two or three years. …

   (4) The present provision for teachers, and the means in
   existence for keeping up the supply, are eminently
   satisfactory. Besides a large but somewhat diminishing body of
   apprenticed pupil teachers, there is a very considerable and
   rapidly increasing number of duly qualified assistants, and at
   their head a large array of certificated teachers, whose ranks
   are being replenished, chiefly from the Training Colleges, at
   the rate of about 2,000 a year.

   (5) The whole of the work done is examined and judged every
   year by inspectors and inspectors' assistants organised in
   districts each superintended by a senior inspector—the total
   cost of this inspection for the present year being estimated
   at about £150,000."

      _Reverend H. Roe,
      The English System of Elementary Education
      (International Health Exhibition, London,
      1884: Conference on Education, section A)._

   "The result of the work of the Education Department is causing
   a social revolution in England. If the character of the
   teaching is too mechanical, if the chief aim of the teacher is
   to earn as much money as possible for his managers, it must be
   remembered that this cannot be done without at least giving
   the pupil the ability to read and write. Of course the schools
   are not nearly so good as the friends of true education wish.
   Much remains to be done. … Free education will shortly be an
   accomplished fact; the partial absorption of the voluntary
   schools by the School Boards will necessarily follow, and
   further facilitate the abolition of what have been the cause
   of so much evil—result examinations, and 'grant payments.'
   'Write "Grant factory" on three-fourths of our schools,' said
   an educator to me. … The schools are known as

   (1) Voluntary Schools, which have been built, and are partly
   supported by voluntary subscriptions. These are under
   denominational control.

   (2) Board Schools: viz., schools built and supported by money
   raised by local taxation, and controlled by elected School
   Boards.

   Out of 4,688,000 pupils in the elementary schools, 2,154,000
   are in the schools known as Voluntary, provided by, and under
   the control of the Church of England; 1,780,000 are in Board
   Schools; 330,000 attend schools under the British School
   Society, or other undenominational control; 248,000 are in
   Roman Catholic schools; and 174,000 belong to Wesleyan
   schools. The schools here spoken of correspond more nearly
   than any other in England to the Public School of the United
   States and Australia; but are in many respects very different,
   chiefly from the fact that they are provided expressly for the
   poor, and in many cases are attended by no other class."

      _W. C. Grasby,
      Teaching in Three Continents,
      chapter 2._

EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1891.
   Attainment of Free Education.

   In 1891, a bill passed Parliament which aims at making the
   elementary schools of the country free from the payment of
   fees. The bill as explained in the House of Commons, "proposed
   to give a grant of 10s. per head to each scholar in average
   attendance between five and fourteen years of age, and as
   regarded such children schools would either become wholly
   free, or would continue to charge a fee reduced by the amount
   of the grant, according as the fee at present charged did or
   did not exceed 10s. When a school had become free it would
   remain free, or when a fee was charged, the fee would remain
   unaltered unless a change was required for the educational
   benefit of the locality; and under this arrangement he
   believed that two-thirds of the elementary schools in England
   and Wales would become free. There would be no standard
   limitations, but the grant would be restricted to schools
   where the compulsory power came in, and as to the younger
   children, it was proposed that in no case should the fee
   charged exceed 2d." In a speech made at Birmingham on the free
   education bill, Mr. Chamberlain discussed the opposition to it
   made by those who wished to destroy the denominational
   schools, and who objected to their participation in the
   proposed extension of public support. "To destroy
   denominational schools," he said, "was now an impossibility,
   and nothing was more astonishing than the progress they had
   made since the Education Act of 1870. He had thought, he said,
   they would die out with the establishment of Board schools,
   but he had been mistaken, for in the last twenty-three years
   they had doubled their accommodation, and more than doubled
   their subscription list. At the present time they supplied
   accommodation for two-thirds of the children of England and
   Wales. That being the case, to destroy voluntary schools—to
   supply their places with Board schools, as the Daily News
   cheerfully suggested—would be to involve a capital
   expenditure of £50,000,000, and £5,000,000 extra yearly in
   rates, But whether voluntary or denominational schools were
   good or bad, their continued existence had nothing to do with
   the question of free education, and ought to be kept quite
   distinct from it. To make schools free was not to give one
   penny extra to any denominational endowment. At the present
   time the fee was a tax, and if the parents did not pay fees
   they were brought before the magistrates, and if they still
   did not pay they might be sent to gaol. The only thing the
   Government proposed to do was not to alter the tax but to
   alter the incidence. The same amount would be collected; it
   would be paid by the same people, but it would be collected
   from the whole nation out of the general taxation." The bill
   was passed by the Commons July 8, and by the Lords on the 24th
   of the same month. The free education proposals of the
   Government are said to have been generally accepted throughout
   the country by both Board and Voluntary schools.

      _Annual Register, 1891,
      pages 128 and 97, and part 2, page 51._

{716}

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1565-1802.
   The Jesuits.
   Port Royal.
   The Revolution.
   Napoleon.

   "The Jesuits invaded the province long ruled by the University
   alone. By that adroit management of men for which they have
   always been eminent, and by the more liberal spirit of their
   methods, they outdid in popularity their superannuated rival.
   Their first school at Paris was established in 1565, and in
   1762, two years before their dissolution, they had eighty-six
   colleges in France. They were followed by the Port Royalists,
   the Benedictines, the Oratorians. The Port Royal schools [see
   PORT ROYAL], from which perhaps a powerful influence upon
   education might have been looked for, restricted this
   influence by limiting very closely the number of their pupils.
   Meanwhile the main funds and endowments for public education
   in France were in the University's hands, and its
   administration of these was as ineffective as its teaching.
   … The University had originally, as sources of revenue, the
   Post Office and the Messageries, or Office of Public
   Conveyance; it had long since been obliged to abandon the Post
   Office to Government, when in 1719 it gave up to the same
   authority the privilege of the Messageries, receiving in
   return from the State a yearly revenue of 150,000 livres. For
   this payment, moreover, it undertook the obligation of making
   the instruction in all its principal colleges gratuitous. Paid
   or gratuitous, however, its instruction was quite inadequate
   to the wants of the time, and when the Jesuits were expelled
   from France in 1764, their establishments closed, and their
   services as teachers lost, the void that was left was
   strikingly apparent, and public attention began to be drawn to
   it. It is well known how Rousseau among writers, and Turgot
   among statesmen, busied themselves with schemes of education;
   but the interest in the subject must have reached the whole
   body of the community, for the instructions of all three
   orders of the States General in 1789 are unanimous in
   demanding the reform of education, and its establishment on a
   proper footing. Then came the Revolution, and the work of
   reform soon went swimmingly enough, so far as the abolition of
   the old schools was concerned. In 1791 the colleges were all
   placed under the control of the administrative authorities; in
   1792 the jurisdiction of the University was abolished; in 1793
   the property of the colleges was ordered to be sold, the
   proceeds to be taken by the State; in September of the same
   year the suppression of all the great public schools and of
   all the University faculties was pronounced. For the work of
   reconstruction Condorcet's memorable plan had in 1792 been
   submitted to the Committee of Public Instruction appointed by
   the Legislative Assembly. This plan proposed a secondary
   school for every 4,000 inhabitants; for each department, a
   departmental institute, or higher school; nine lycées, schools
   carrying their studies yet higher than the departmental
   institute, for the whole of France; and to crown the edifice,
   a National Society of Sciences and Arts, corresponding in the
   main with the present institute of France. The whole expense
   of national instruction was to be borne by the State, and this
   expense was estimated at 29,000,000 of francs. But 1792 and
   1793 were years of furious agitation, when it was easier to
   destroy than to build. Condorcet perished with the Girondists,
   and the reconstruction of public education did not begin till
   after the fall of Robespierre. The decrees of the Convention
   for establishing the Normal School, the Polytechnic, the
   School of Mines, and the écoles centrales, and then Daunou's
   law in 1795, bore, however, many traces of Condorcet's design.
   Daunou's law established primary schools, central schools,
   special schools, and at the head of all the Institute of
   France, this last a memorable and enduring creation, with
   which the old French Academy became incorporated. By Daunou's
   law, also, freedom was given to private persons to open
   schools. The new legislation had many defects. … The
   country, too, was not yet settled enough for its education to
   organise itself successfully. The Normal School speedily broke
   down; the central schools were established slowly and with
   difficulty; in the course of the four years of the Directory
   there were nominally instituted ninety·one of these schools,
   but they never really worked. More was accomplished by private
   schools, to which full freedom was given by the new
   legislation, at the same time that an ample and open field lay
   before them. They could not, however, suffice for the work,
   and education was one of the matters for which Napoleon, when
   he became Consul, had to provide. Foureroy's law, in 1802,
   took as the basis of its school-system secondary schools,
   whether established by the communes or by private individuals;
   the Government undertook to aid these schools by grants for
   buildings, for scholarships, and for gratuities to the
   masters; it prescribed Latin, French, geography, history, and
   mathematics as the instruction to be given in them. They were
   placed under the superintendence of the prefects. To continue
   and complete the secondary schools were instituted the
   lyceums; here the instruction was to be Greek and Latin,
   rhetoric, logic, literature, moral philosophy, and the
   elements of the mathematical and physical sciences. The pupils
   were to be of four kinds: boursiers nationaux, scholars
   nominated to scholarships by the State; pupils from the
   secondary schools, admitted as free scholars by competition;
   paying boarders, and paying day-scholars."

      _M. Arnold,
      Schools and Universities on the Continent,
      chapter 1._

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1833-1889.
   The present System of Public Instruction.

   "The question of the education of youth is one of those in
   which the struggle between the Catholic Church and the civil
   power has been, and still is, hottest. It is also one of those
   in which France, which for a long time had remained far in the
   rear, has made most efforts, and achieved most progress in
   these latter years. … Napoleon I. conceived education as a
   means of disciplining minds and wills and moulding them into
   conformity with the political system which he had put in
   force; accordingly he gave the University the monopoly of
   public education. Apart from the official system of teaching,
   no competition was allowed except that specially authorised,
   regulated, and controlled by the State itself. Religious
   instruction found a place in the official programmes, and
   members of the clergy were even called on to supply it, but
   this instruction itself, and these priests themselves, were
   under the authority of the State. Hence two results: on the
   one hand the speedy impoverishment of University education,
   … on the other hand, the incessant agitation of all those
   who were prevented by the special organisation given to the
   University from expounding their ideas or the faith that was
   in them from the professorial chair. This agitation was begun
   and carried on by the Catholic Church itself, as soon as it
   felt more at liberty to let its ambitions be discerned.
{717}
   On this point the Church met with the support of a good number
   of Liberals, and it is in a great measure to its initiative
   that are due the three important laws of 1833, 1850, and 1875,
   which have respectively given to France freedom of primary
   education, of secondary education, and finally that of higher
   education; which have given, that is to say, the right to
   everyone, under certain conditions of capacity and character,
   to open private schools in competition with the three orders
   of public schools. But the Church did not stop there. Hardly
   had it insured liberty to its educational institutions—a
   liberty by which all citizens might profit alike, but of which
   its own strong organisation and powerful resources enabled it
   more easily to take advantage—hardly was this result obtained
   than the Church tried to lay hands on the University itself,
   and to make its doctrines paramount there. … Thence arose a
   movement hostile to the enterprises of the Church, which has
   found expression since 1880 in a series of laws which Excluded
   her little by little from the positions she had won, and only
   left to her, as to all other citizens, the liberty to teach
   apart from, and concurrently with, the State. The right to
   confer degrees has been given back to the State alone; the
   privilege of the 'letter of obedience' has been abolished;
   religious teaching has been excluded from the primary schools;
   and after having 'laicized,' as the French phrase is, the
   curriculum, the effort was persistently made to 'laicize' the
   staff. …. From the University point of view, the territory
   of France is divided into seventeen academies, the chief towns
   of which are Paris, Douai, Caen, Rennes, Poitiers, Bordeaux,
   Toulouse, Montpellier, Aix, Grenoble, Chambéry, Lyons,
   Besançon, Nancy, Dijon, Clermont, and Algiers. Each academy
   has a rector at its head, who, under the authority of the
   Minister of Public Instruction, is charged with the material
   administration of higher and secondary education, and with the
   methods of primary instruction in his district. The
   administration of this last belongs to the prefect of each
   department, assisted by an academy-inspector. In each of these
   three successive stages—department, academy, and central
   administration—is placed a council, possessing administrative
   and disciplinary powers. The Departmental Council of Public
   Instruction, which comprises six officials … forms a
   disciplinary council for primary education, either public or
   free (i. e., State or private). This council sees to the
   application of programmes, lays down rules, and appoints one
   or more delegates in each canton to superintend primary
   schools. The Academic Council … performs similar functions
   with regard to secondary and higher education. The Higher
   Council of Public Instruction sits at Paris. It comprises
   forty-four elected representatives of the three educational
   orders, nine University officials, and four 'free'
   schoolmasters appointed by the Minister, and is the
   disciplinary court of appeal for the two preceding councils.
   … Such is the framework, administrative as well as judicial,
   in which education, whether public or free, lives and moves.
   … Since 1882 Primary Education has been compulsory for all
   children of both sexes, from the age of six to the end of the
   thirteenth year, unless before reaching the latter age they
   have been able to pass an examination, and to gain the
   certificate of primary studies. To satisfy the law, the
   child's name must be entered at a public or private school; he
   may, however, continue to receive instruction at home, but in
   this case, after he has reached the age of eight, he must be
   examined every year before a State board. … At the age of
   thirteen the child is set free from further teaching, whatever
   may be the results of the education he has received. … In
   public schools the course of instruction does not include, as
   we have said, religious teaching; but one day in the week the
   school must take a holiday, to allow parents to provide such
   teaching for their children, if they wish to do so. The school
   building cannot be used for that purpose. In private schools
   religious instruction may be given, but this is optional. The
   programme of primary education includes: moral and civic
   instruction; reading, writing, French, geography and history
   (particularly those of France); general notions of law and
   science; the elements of drawing, modelling, and music; and
   gymnastics. No person of either sex can become a teacher,
   either public or private, unless he possesses the 'certificate
   of capacity for primary instruction' given by a State board.
   For the future—putting aside certain temporary
   arrangements—no member of a religious community will be
   eligible for the post of master in a public school. … As a
   general rule, every commune is compelled to maintain a public
   school, and, if it has more than 500 inhabitants, a second
   school for girls only. … The sum total of the State's
   expenses for primary education in 1887 is as high as
   eighty-five million francs (£3,400,000), and that without
   mentioning grants for school buildings, whereas in 1877 the
   sum total was only twelve millions (£480,000). … From 1877
   to 1886, the number of public schools rose from 61,000 to
   66,500; that of the pupils from 4,200,000 to 4,500,000, with
   96,600 masters and mistresses; that of training schools for
   male teachers from 79 to 89, of training schools for female
   teachers from 18 to 77, with 5,400 pupils (3,500 of them
   women), and 1,200 masters. As to the results a single fact
   will suffice. In these ten years, before the generations newly
   called to military service have been able to profit fully by
   the new state of things, the proportion of illiterate recruits
   (which is annually made out directly after the lots are drawn)
   has already fallen from 15 to 11 per cent."

      _A. Lebon and P. Pelet,
      France as it is,
      chapter 5._

   "In 1872, after the dreadful disaster of the war, Monsieur
   Thiers, President of the Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale,
   and Monsieur Jules Simon, Minister of Public Instruction, felt
   that what was most important for the nation was a new system
   of public instruction, and they set themselves the task of
   determining the basis on which this new system was to be
   established. In September, 1882, Monsieur Jules Simon issued a
   memorable circular calling the attention of all the most
   distinguished leaders of thought to some proposed plans. He
   did not long remain in power, but in his retirement he wrote a
   book entitled: 'Réforme de l'Enseignement Secondaire.'
   Monsieur Bréal, who was commissioned to visit the schools of
   Germany, soon after published another book which aroused new
   enthusiasm in France. … From that day a complete educational
   reform was decided on.
{718}
   In 1872 we had at the Ministeré de l'Instruction Publique
   three distinguished men: Monsieur Dumont for the Enseignement
   Supérieur, one from whom we hoped much and whose early death
   we had to mourn in 1884; Monsieur Zévort for the Enseignement
   Secondaire, who also died ere the good seed which he had sown
   had sprung up and borne fruit (1887); and Monsieur Buisson to
   whose wisdom, zeal, and energy we owe most of the work of the
   Enseignement Primaire. At their side, of maturer years than
   they, stood Monsieur Gréard, Recteur de l'Académie de Paris.
   … All the educationists of the first French Revolution had
   insisted on the solidarity of the three orders of education;
   maintaining that it was not possible to separate one from
   another, and that there ought to be a close correspondence
   between them. This principle lies at the root of the whole
   system of French national instruction. Having established this
   principle, the four leaders called upon all classes of
   teachers to work with them, and professors who had devoted
   their life to the promotion of superior instruction brought
   their experience and their powers of organization to bear upon
   schools for all classes, from the richest to the poorest. …
   But to reform and to reconstruct a system of instruction is
   not a small task. It is not easy to change at once the old
   methods, to give a new spirit to the masters, to teach those
   who think that what had been sufficient for them need not be
   altered and is sufficient forever. However, we must say that
   as soon as the French teachers heard of the great changes
   which were about to take place, they were all anxious to rise
   to the demands made on them, and were eager for advice and
   help. Lectures on pedagogy and psychology were given to them
   by the highest professors of philosophy, and these lessons
   were so much appreciated that the attention of the University
   of France was called to the necessity for creating at the
   Sorbonne a special course of lectures on pedagogy. Eleven
   hundred masters and mistresses attended them the first year
   that they were inaugurated; from that time till now their
   number has always been increasing. Now we have at the Sorbonne
   a Chaire Magistrale and Conférences for the training of
   masters and professors; and the faculties at Lyons, Bordeaux,
   Nancy, and Montpellier have followed the example given at the
   Sorbonne, Paris. … In 1878, the Musée Pedagogique was
   founded; in 1882, began the publication of the Revue
   Pedagogique and the Revue Internationale de l'Enseignement.
   Four large volumes of the Dictionnaire de Pédagogie, each
   containing about 3,000 closely printed pages, have also come
   out under the editorship of Monsieur Buisson, all the work of
   zealous teachers and educationists. In 1879 normal schools
   were opened. Then in 1880 primary schools, and in 1882 we may
   say that the Ecoles Maternelles and the Ecoles Enfantines were
   created, so different are they from the infant schools or the
   Salles d'Asile; in 1883 a new examination was established for
   the Professorat and the Direction des Ecoles Normales, as well
   as for the inspectors of primary instruction; and in July,
   1889, the law about public and private teaching was
   promulgated, perhaps one of the most important that has ever
   been passed by the Republic."

      _Mme. Th. Armagnac,
      The Educational Renaissance of France
      (Education, September, 1890)._

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1890-1891.
   Statistics.

   The whole number of pupils registered in the primary,
   elementary and superior schools, public and private, of France
   and Algiers (excluding the "écoles maternelles") for the
   school-year 1890-91, was 5,593,883; of which 4,384,905 were in
   public schools (3,760,601, "laïque," and 624,304
   "congréganiste"), and 1,208,978 in private schools (151,412
   "laïques," and 1,057,566 "congréganiste"). Of 36,484
   communes, 35,503 possessed a public school, and 875 were
   joined for school purposes with another commune. The male
   teachers employed in the elementary and superior public
   schools numbered 28,657; female teachers, 24,273; total
   52,930.

      _Ministère de l'Instruction publique,
      Résumé des états de situation de l'enseignement primaire
      pour l'année scolaire 1890-1891._

EDUCATION:
   Ireland.

   "The present system of National Education in Ireland was
   founded in 1831. In this year grants of public money for the
   education of the poor were entrusted to the lord-lieutenant in
   order that they might be applied to the education of the
   people. This education was to be given to children of every
   religious belief, and to be superintended by commissioners
   appointed for the purpose. The great principle on which the
   system was founded was that of 'united secular and separate
   religious instruction.' No child should be required to attend
   any religious instruction which should be contrary to the
   wishes of his or her parents or guardians. Times were to be
   set apart during which children were to have such religious
   instruction as their parents might think proper. It was to be
   the duty of the Commissioners to see that these principles
   were carried out and not infringed on in any way. They had
   also power to give or refuse money to those who applied for
   aid to build schools. Schools are 'vested' and 'non-vested.'
   Vested schools are those built by the Board of National
   Education; non-vested schools are the ordinary schools, and
   are managed by those who built them. If a committee of persons
   build a school, it is looked on by the Board as the 'patron.'
   If a landowner or private person builds a school, he is
   regarded as the patron if he has no committee. The patron,
   whether landlord or committee, has power to appoint or dismiss
   a manager, who corresponds with the Board. The manager is also
   responsible for the due or thorough observance of the laws and
   rules. Teachers are paid by him after he certifies that the
   laws have been kept, and gives the attendance for each
   quarter. When an individual is patron, he may appoint himself
   manager and thus fill both offices. … The teachers are paid
   by salaries and by results fees. The Boards of Guardians have
   power to contribute to these results fees. Some unions do so
   and are called 'contributory.' School managers in Ireland are
   nearly always clerics of some denomination. There are
   sometimes, but very rarely, lay managers. … From the census
   returns of 1881 it appears that but fifty-nine per cent. of
   the people of Ireland are able to read and write, The greater
   number of national schools through Ireland are what are
   called 'unmixed,' that is, attended by children of one
   denomination only. The rest of the schools are called 'mixed,'
   that is, attended by children of different forms of religion.
   The percentage of schools that show a 'mixed' attendance tends
   to become smaller each year. … There are also twenty-nine
   'model' schools in different parts of Ireland. These schools
   are managed directly by the Board of National Education. …
{719}
   According to the report of the Commissioners of National
   Education for 1890, the 'percentage of average attendance to
   the average number of children on the rolls of the schools was
   but 59.0,' and the percentage of school attendance to the
   estimated population of school age in Ireland would be less
   than 50. Different reasons might be given for this small
   percentage of attendance. The chief reasons are, first,
   attendance at school not being compulsory, and next, education
   not being free. … The pence paid for school fees in Ireland
   may seem, to many people, a small matter. But in a country
   like Ireland, where little money circulates, and a number of
   the people are very poor, school pence are often not easily
   found every week. In 1890, £104,550 4s. and 8d. was paid in
   school fees, being an average of 4s. 32¾d. per unit of average
   attendance."

      _The Irish Peasant;
      by a Guardian of the Poor,
      chapter 8._

EDUCATION:
   Norway.

   "In 1739 the schools throughout the country were regulated by
   a royal ordinance, but this paid so little regard to the
   economical and physical condition of Norway that it had to be
   altered and modified as early as 1741. Compulsory instruction,
   however, had thus been adopted, securing to every child in the
   country instruction in the Christian doctrine and in reading,
   and this coercion was retained in all later laws. … Many
   portions of the country are intersected by high mountains and
   deep fiords, so that a small population is scattered over a
   surface of several miles. In such localities the law has
   established 'ambulatory schools,' whose teachers travel from
   one farm to another, living with the different peasants.
   Although this kind of instruction has often been most
   incomplete and the teachers very mediocre, still educational
   coercion has everywhere been in force, and Christian
   instruction everywhere provided for the children. These
   'ambulatory schools' formerly existed in large numbers, but
   with the increase of wealth and population, and the growing
   interest taken in education, their number has gradually
   diminished, and that of fixed circle-schools augmented in the
   same proportion."

      _G. Gade,
      Report on the Educational System of Norway
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, July, 1871)._

   "School attendance is compulsory for at least 12 weeks each
   year for all children in the country districts from 8 years of
   age to confirmation, and from 7 years to confirmation in the
   towns. According to the law of 1889, which in a measure only
   emphasizes preceding laws, each school is to have the
   necessary furnishings and all indispensable school material.
   The Norwegians are so intent upon giving instruction to all
   children that in case of poverty of the parents the
   authorities furnish text-books and the necessary clothing, so
   that school privileges may be accorded to all of school age."

      _U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
      page 513._

EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1809.
   Education and the liberation movement.

   "The most important era in the history of public instruction
   in Prussia, as well as in other parts of Germany, opens with
   the efforts put forth by the king and people, to rescue the
   kingdom from the yoke of Napoleon in 1809. In that year the
   army was remodeled and every citizen converted into a soldier;
   landed property was declared free of feudal service;
   restrictions on freedom of trade were abolished, and the whole
   state was reorganized. Great reliance was placed on infusing a
   German spirit into the people by giving them freer access to
   improved institutions of education from the common school to
   the university. Under the councils of Hardenberg, Humboldt,
   Stein, Altenstein, these reforms and improvements were
   projected, carried on, and perfected in less than a single
   generation. The movement in behalf of popular schools
   commenced by inviting C. A. Zeller, of Wirtemberg, to Prussia.
   Zeller was a young theologian, who had studied under
   Pestalozzi in Switzerland, and was thoroughly imbued with the
   method and spirit of his master. On his return he had convened
   the school teachers of Wirtemberg in barns, for want of better
   accommodations being allowed him, and inspired them with a
   zeal for Pestalozzi's methods, and for a better education of
   the whole people. On removing to Prussia he first took charge
   of the seminary at Koenigsberg, soon after founded the
   seminary at Karalene, and went about into different provinces
   meeting with teachers, holding conferences, visiting schools,
   and inspiring school officers with the right spirit. The next
   step taken was to send a number of young men, mostly
   theologians, to Pestalozzi's institution at Ifferten, to
   acquire his method, and on their return to place them in new,
   or reorganized teachers' seminaries. To these new agents in
   school improvement were joined a large body of zealous
   teachers, and patriotic and enlightened citizens, who, in ways
   and methods of their own, labored incessantly to confirm the
   Prussian state, by forming new organs for its internal life,
   and new means of protection from foreign foes. They proved
   themselves truly educators of the people. Although the
   government thus not only encouraged, but directly aided in the
   introduction of the methods of Pestalozzi into the public
   schools of Prussia, still the school board in the different
   provinces sustained and encouraged those who approved and
   taught on different systems. … Music, which was one of
   Pestalozzi's great instruments of culture, was made the
   vehicle of patriotic songs, and through them the heart of all
   Germany was moved to bitter hatred of the conqueror who had
   desolated her fields and homes, and humbled the pride of her
   monarchy. All these efforts for the improvement of elementary
   education, accompanied by expensive modifications in the
   establishments of secondary and superior education, were made
   when the treasury was impoverished, and taxes the most
   exorbitant in amount were levied on every province and commune
   of the kingdom."

      _H. Barnard,
      National Education in Europe,
      pages 83-84._

   For this notable educational work begun in Prussia in 1809,
   and which gave a new character to the nation, "the
   Providential man appeared in Humboldt, as great a master of
   the science and art of education as Scharnhorst was a master
   of the organisation of war. Not only was he himself, as a
   scholar and an investigator, on a level with the very first of
   his age, not only had he lived with precisely those masters of
   literature, Schiller and Goethe, who were most deliberate in
   their self-culture, and have therefore left behind most
   instruction on the higher parts of education, but he had been
   specially intimate with F. A. Wolf. It is not generally known
   in England that Wolf was not merely the greatest philologer
   but also the greatest teacher and educationist of his time.
   … Formed by such teachers, and supported by a more intense
   belief in culture than almost any man of his time, Humboldt
   began his work in April, 1809.
{720}
   In primary education Fichte had already pointed
   to Pestalozzi as the best guide. One of that reformer's
   disciples, C. A. Zeller, was summoned to Königsberg to found a
   normal school, while the reformer himself, in his weekly
   educational journal, cheered fallen Prussia by his panegyric,
   and wrote enthusiastically to Nicolovius pronouncing him and
   his friends the salt and leaven of the earth that would soon
   leaven the whole mass. It is related that in the many
   difficulties which Zeller not unnaturally had to contend with,
   the King's genuine benevolence, interest in practical
   improvement, and strong family feeling, were of decisive use.
   … The reform of the Gymnasia was also highly successful.
   Süvern here was among the most active of those who worked
   under Humboldt's direction. In deference to the authority of
   Wolf the classics preserved their traditional position of
   honour, and particular importance was attached to Greek. …
   But it was on the highest department of education that
   Humboldt left his mark most visibly. He founded the University
   of Berlin; he gave to Europe a new seat of learning, which has
   ever since stood on an equality with the very greatest of
   those of which Europe boasted before. We are not indeed to
   suppose that the idea of such a University sprang up for the
   first time at this moment, or in the brain of Humboldt. Among
   all the losses which befell Prussia by the Peace of Tilsit
   none was felt more bitterly than the loss of the University of
   Halle, where Wolf himself had made his fame. Immediately after
   the blow fell, two of the Professors of Halle made their way
   to Memel and laid before the King a proposal to establish a
   High School at Berlin. This was on August 22nd, 1807. … On
   September 4th came an Order of Cabinet, in which it was
   declared to be one of the most important objects to compensate
   the loss of Halle. It was added that neither of the two
   Universities which remained to Prussia, those of Königsberg
   and Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, could be made to supply the place
   of Halle, Königsberg being too remote from the seat of
   Government and Frankfurt not sufficiently provided with means.
   At Berlin a University could best, and at least expense, be
   established. Accordingly all funds which had hitherto gone to
   Halle were to go for the future to Berlin, and assurances were
   to be given to the expelled Professors which might prevent
   their talents being lost to the country. A University is not
   founded in a day, and accordingly while Stein held office the
   design did not pass beyond the stage of discussion. …
   Humboldt sent in his Report on May 12, 1809, and on August
   16th followed the Order of Cabinet assigning to the new
   University, along with the Academies of Science and Art, an
   annual dotation of 150,000 thalers, and the Palace of Prince
   Henry as its residence. During the rest of his term of office
   Humboldt was occupied in negotiations with eminent men of
   science all over Germany, whose services he hoped to procure.
   He was certainly not unsuccessful. He secured Fichte for
   Philosophy; Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Marheineke for
   Theology; Savigny and Schmalz for Jurisprudence; Friedländer,
   Kohlrausch, Hufeland, and Reil for Medicine; Wolf, Buttmann,
   Böckh, Heindorf, and Spalding for the Study of Antiquity;
   Niebuhr and Rühs for History; Tralles for Mathematics (Gauss
   refused the invitation). The University was opened at
   Michaelmas of 1810, and as the first result of it the first
   volume of Niebuhr's Roman History, opening so vast a field of
   historical speculation, was published in 1811. … Altogether
   in that period of German history the relations of literature,
   or rather culture in general, to politics are remarkable and
   exceptional. There had been a most extraordinary intellectual
   movement, a great outpouring of genius, and yet this had taken
   place not, as according to some current theories it ought to
   have done, in the bosom of political liberty, but in a country
   where liberty was unknown. And as it was not the effect, so
   the new literature did not seem disposed to become the cause,
   of liberty. Not only was it careless of internal liberty, but
   it was actually indifferent to national independence. The
   golden age of German literature is the very period when
   Germany was conquered by France. … So far literature and
   culture seemed a doubtful benefit, and might almost be
   compared to some pernicious drug, which should have the power
   to make men forget their country and their duties. Not
   unreasonably did Friedrich Perthes console himself for the
   disasters of Germany by reflecting that at least they had
   brought to an end 'the paper time,' the fool's paradise of a
   life made up of nothing more substantial than literature. In
   Humboldt's reform we have the compensation for all this. Here
   while on the one hand we see the grand spectacle of a nation
   in the last extremity refusing to part with the treasures of
   its higher life, on the other hand that higher life is no
   longer unnaturally divorced from political life. It is prized
   as one of the bulwarks of the State, as a kind of spiritual
   weapon by which the enemy may be resisted. And in the new and
   public-spirited generation of thinkers, of which Fichte and
   Sehleiermacher were the principal representatives, culture
   returns to politics the honour that has been done to it. …
   In Humboldt and his great achievements of 1809, 1810, meet and
   are reconciled the two views of life which found their most
   extreme representatives in Goethe and Stein."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 6, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1874.
   The Educational Administration.

   "There is no organic school-law in Prussia, … though
   sketches and projects of such a law have more than once been
   prepared. But at present the public control of the higher
   schools is exercised through administrative orders and
   instructions, like the minutes of our Committee of Council on
   Education. But the administrative authority has in Prussia a
   very different basis for its operations from that which it has
   in England, and a much firmer one. It has for its basis these
   articles of the Allgemeine Landrecht, or common law of
   Prussia, which was drawn up in writing in Frederick the
   Great's reign, and promulgated in 1794, in the reign of his
   successor:—'Schools and universities are State institutions,
   having for their object the instruction of youth in useful and
   scientific knowledge. Such establishments are to be instituted
   only with the State's previous knowledge and consent. All
   public schools and public establishments of education are
   under the State's supervision, and must at all times submit
   themselves to its examinations and inspections.
{721}
   Whenever the appointment of teachers is not by virtue of the
   foundation or of a special privilege vested in certain persons
   or corporations, it belongs to the State. Even where the
   immediate supervision of such schools and the appointment of
   their teachers is committed to certain private persons or
   corporations, new teachers cannot be appointed, and important
   changes in the constitution and teaching of the school cannot
   be adopted without the previous knowledge or consent of the
   provincial school authorities. The teachers in the gymnasiums
   and other higher schools have the character of State
   functionaries.' … It would be a mistake to suppose that the
   State in Prussia shows a grasping and centralising spirit in
   dealing with education; on the contrary, it makes the
   administration of it as local as it possibly can; but it takes
   care that education shall not be left to the chapter of
   accidents. … Prussia is now divided into eight provinces,
   and these eight provinces are again divided into twenty-six
   governmental districts, or Regierungen. There is a Provincial
   School Board (Provinzial-Schulcollegium) in the chief town of
   each of the eight provinces, and a Governmental District Board
   in that of each of the twenty-six Regierungen. In general, the
   State's relations with the higher class of secondary schools
   are exercised through the Provincial Board; its relations with
   the lower class of them, and with the primary schools, through
   the District Board. In Berlin, the relations with these also
   are managed by the Provincial Board. A
   Provinzial-Schulcollegium has for its president the High
   President of the province; for its director the vice-president
   of that governmental district which happens to have for its
   centre the provincial capital. The Board has two or three
   other members, of whom, in general, one is a Catholic and one
   is a Protestant; and one is always a man practically
   conversant with school matters. The District Board has in the
   provincial capitals the same president and director as the
   Provincial Board; in the other centres of Regierungen it has
   for its president the President of the Regierung, and three or
   four members selected on the same principle as the members of
   the Provincial Board. The provincial State authority,
   therefore, is, in general, for gymnasiums, the larger
   progymnasiums, and Realschulen of the first rank, the
   Provincial School Board; for the smaller progymnasiums,
   Realschulen of the second rank, the higher Burgher Schools,
   and the primary schools of all kinds, the Governmental
   District Board. Both boards are in continual communication
   with the Educational Minister at Berlin. … Besides the
   central and provincial administration there is a local or
   municipal administration for schools that are not Crown
   patronage schools. … In most towns the local authority for
   schools of municipal patronage is the town magistracy,
   assisted by a Stadtschulrath; sometimes the local authority is
   a Curntorium or Schulcommission."

      _M. Arnold,
      Higher Schools and Universities in Germany,
      chapter 3._

   "The secondary school differs from the elementary schools by a
   course of instruction going beyond the immediate demands of
   every-day life; from the special school, by the more general
   character of the courses of instruction; from the university,
   by its preparatory character. It has the special aim to give
   that sound basis of scientific and literary education which
   enables a man to participate in solving the higher problems of
   life in church, state, and society, In accordance with their
   historical development, two directions can be clearly traced,
   viz., the gymnasium and the real-school: the former comprising
   gymnasia and pro-gymnasia; and the latter real-schools of the
   first class, real-schools of the second class, and higher
   burgher-schools."

      _History of Secondary Instruction in Germany
      (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information,
      1874, number 3), page 41._

   "The name gymnasium came into use as early as the sixteenth
   century. The ministerial decree of the 12th of November, 1812,
   ordered that all learned school institutions, such as lyceums,
   pedagogiums, collegiums, Latin schools, etc., should bear the
   name gymnasium. A gymnasium is and has long been a classical
   school."

      _U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90, page 318._

      ALSO IN: _V. Cousin, Report on the state of
      public instruction in Prussia._

EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1885-1889.
   The Elementary School-System.

   "The New Yorker, anxious for a high degree of perfection in
   the elementary schools of his State, must be struck forcibly
   by the following merits of the Elementary School System of
   Prussia. …

   1. Compulsory education laws, necessitating a full and regular
   attendance of the children of school age.

   2. Official courses of study fixing the work to be
   accomplished in each of the different grades of schools.
   Uniformity is thus secured in the work done in all schools of
   the same class.

   3. Definite qualifications and experience in teaching for
   eligibility to the office of school commissioner.

   4. Provisions elevating teaching to the dignity of a
   profession and making the tenure of office secure.

   5. Trained teachers in rural as well as city districts and a
   school year of at least forty weeks.

   6. General supervision of instruction for children of school
   age in private schools and families, including the
   qualifications of instructors. …

   Every Prussian child between the ages of 6 and 14 must, except
   in cases of severe illness or other extraordinary cause, be
   present at every session of the school he attends. The lists
   of the children of school age, in charge of the local police
   (in rural districts the Burgermeister), are kept so carefully
   that it is impossible to escape the provisions of the
   compulsory education laws, as much so as it is to evade the
   military service. Dispensations amounting to more than four
   weeks in the school year are never given to children under 12
   years of age, and to them only when sickness in the family or
   other unusual cause make it advisable. … In order to
   understand the qualifications required of school commissioners
   (Kreisschulinspektoren) in Prussia, let us review briefly the
   requirements of male teachers.

   1. Elementary schools. It may be stated at the outset that
   almost all the male elementary school teachers are normal
   school graduates. To insure similarity in training and a
   thorough knowledge of character, few foreigners and few beside
   normal school (Schullehrer-Seminar) graduates are admitted to
   the male teaching force. From 6 to 14 the would-be teacher has
   attended, let us suppose, an elementary school. He must then
   absolve the three years' course laid down for the preparatory
   schools. … He is now ready for the normal school. At the
   close of a three years' course at the normal school he is
   admitted to the first teachers' examination. If successful, he
   must next practice as candidate or assistant teacher not less
   than two years and not more than five years before his
   admission to the final test. … If a teacher fails to pass
   the examination within five years, he is dropped.

{722}

   2. Middle schools. For teachers of lower classes the same
   requirements with the addition of ability to teach a foreign
   tongue, or natural history in its broadest sense, and the
   attainment of the mark 'good' in all subjects at the final
   examination. … For higher classes, a special examination
   provided for middle school teachers. … There is really no
   gradation between elementary and middle schools. The latter
   merely go on somewhat further with elementary school work,
   introducing French, Latin and English.

   3. High schools (Realschulen, Realgymnasien, Progymnasien and
   Gymnasien). All high school teachers, except those engaged in
   technical departments, must first absolve the nine years'
   gymnasial course, which commences at the close of the third
   school year.

   Next comes the university course of three or four years. The
   candidate is now ready for the State examination. The subjects
   for this State examination … are divided into four classes:

   1. The ancient languages and German;
   2. Mathematics and natural sciences;
   3. History and geography;
   4. Religion and Hebrew.

   At the close of one year's practice to test teaching capacity
   he receives a second certificate and is thereupon engaged
   provisionally. … The school commissioners … are either
   former regular high school teachers, general doctors of
   philosophy or more rarely theologians, or former normal school
   teachers. All must have had practical experience in teaching.
   … The work to be accomplished in each Prussian elementary
   school is definitely laid down by law. Each school is not a
   law unto itself as to what shall be done and when and how this
   is to be done. I have learned by practical experience that the
   work in ungraded schools compares most favorably with that of
   graded schools."

      _J. R. Parsons, Jr.,
      Prussian Schools through American eyes,
      chapter 1, sections 5-10._

   Prussian elementary schools are now free. "In this respect
   Prussia has passed through three stages. Under the first
   elementary schools were entirely self-supporting; under the
   second they received State aid, but were still largely
   self-supporting; under the third, Laws of 1888 and 1889,
   elementary schools were made free and the State pays a larger
   proportion of the cost of maintenance. Districts must pay for
   repairs, new buildings and cost of heating. If unwilling to
   provide proper accommodations for the children of school age,
   they can be forced by the government to do so. Poor districts
   may receive special government aid to meet such expenses. …
   The direct aim of the laws of June 14, 1888, and March 31,
   1889, was to lighten the burden of local taxation for schools
   for children of school age. These laws have had a beneficial
   effect in increasing slightly the wages of teachers. Teachers'
   salaries are still quite small in Prussia, particularly in the
   case of females. Allowances are generally made for house-rent
   and fuel. Teachers in rural districts are provided with a
   house and garden. Their salaries are often not much more than
   half those paid city teachers of the same grade, and yet, as
   regards professional training and character of work, they are
   fully equal to city teachers. … The average annual salary
   received by teachers in Prussia in 1886 was $267.50. The
   average for the same year in New York was $409.27. The
   Prussian teacher, however, received fuel and dwelling free, in
   addition to his regular salary. … In 1885 the population of
   Prussia was 28,318,470, and the total cost of public education
   per caput was $1,7717. Drs. Schneider and Petersilie of
   Berlin, in 'Preussische Statistik 101,' published in 1889,
   reckon the total cost for 1888, excluding army and navy
   schools, at $50,192,857. … In Prussia, elementary
   instruction is the first consideration. The resolution adopted
   by the national assembly (Landtag) December 22, 1870, is a
   good illustration of this. It was at the very crisis of the
   Franco-German war, yet the Landtag called on the government to
   increase the number of normal schools and the capacity of
   those already existing, and 'thus to put an end to the
   practice of filling up teachers' vacancies by appointing
   unqualified individuals.'"

      _J. R. Parsons, Jr.,
      Prussian Schools through American eyes,
      chapter 1, sections 15-17._

   "Throughout Prussia there is now one school-room and one
   teacher to 446 inhabitants and 78.8 children actually
   attending school. This shows that there are far too few
   teachers. But the government and the cities have recently
   devoted considerable sums to the establishment of new places
   for teachers, so that, in the year 1881, there were 10,000
   more teachers working in the public schools than in 1873. The
   salaries of the teachers were also raised. The average payment
   in the country is 954 marks, in the cities 1,430 marks. …
   The expense of maintaining the Prussian national schools
   amounts annually to about 102,000,000 of marks, 43,000,000 of
   which are paid by the cities. One hundred and ten colleges for
   the training of teachers are now engaged in the education of
   male and female instructors, with an attendance of 9,892
   pupils; that is, there is one pupil to every 2,758
   inhabitants. In the case of the female teachers only, a
   considerable degree of assistance is rendered by private
   institutions. … The intermediary schools established in
   1872, and recently converted into the higher citizen schools,
   form a transition from the national schools to the higher
   schools. These teach religion, German, French, English,
   history and geography, arithmetic and mathematics, natural
   history and physics, writing, drawing, singing, and
   gymnastics. The course embraces six years without Latin, with
   the privilege of one year's service in the army instead of
   three. Complementary to the national school is the finishing
   school. There are a large number in Prussia, namely, 1,261
   with 68,766 pupils: 617 with 10,395 in the country, and 644
   with 58,371 in the cities. Of these 644,342 are obligatory by
   local statutes, 302 are optional. Since the law of 1878
   special care has been devoted to the compulsory education of
   orphaned children. … The preparatory instruction of female
   teachers leaves much to be desired."

      _F. Kirchner,
      Contemporary Educational Thought in Prussia
      (Educational Review, May, 1891)._

   "About 25 per cent. of all the teachers in public middle
   schools are women, hence … women hold positions in these
   schools more frequently than in the lower, the purely
   elementary, schools of the kingdom. The greatest ratio of
   women teachers in Prussia is found in private middle schools,
   where 2,422 of 3,126 (or nearly 80 percent.) are women. … In
   all the public schools of Prussia (elementary, middle, and
   secondary) only 10,600 women teachers were employed [1887], or
   14¼ per cent. of all the teachers in the kingdom. … Before
   the public schools of the kingdom had the care and close
   supervision on the part of the state which they have now, many
   more private schools were in existence than at present. During
   the last 25 years the private schools have not increased in
   numbers, but perceptibly decreased."

      _United States Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
      pages 287-289._

{723}

EDUCATION:
   Russia.

   "After serfdom had been abolished, the Emperor Alexander II.
   saw that the indispensable consequence of this great reform
   must be a thorough reorganization of public instruction. In
   1861 a committee was appointed to draw up the plan of a law.
   In 1862 M. Taneef submitted to the Emperor a 'General plan for
   the organization of popular education,' which contained some
   very excellent points. The result was the General Regulations
   of 1864, which are still in force. … The difficulties which
   a complete reorganization of popular education meets in Russia
   are enormous. They are principally caused by the manner in
   which the inhabitants live, scattered over a large extent of
   country, and by their extreme poverty. … The density of
   population is so small that there are only 13.6 inhabitants to
   one square kilometer (2.6 square kilometers to 1 square mile),
   instead of 69 as in France. Under these circumstances only the
   children from the center hamlet and those living-nearest to it
   could attend school regularly, especially during the
   winter-months. The remainder of the inhabitants would pay
   their dues without having any benefit, which would necessarily
   foster discontent. As Prince Gagarin says, 'It has, therefore,
   not been possible to make education in Russia compulsory, as
   in Germany, nor even to enforce the establishment of a school
   in each community.' It is doubtless impossible at present to
   introduce into Russia the educational systems of the western
   countries."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      Progress of Education in Russia
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1875, number 3), pages 31-32._

EDUCATION:
   Scotland.

   "The existing system of education in Scotland is an outcome of
   causes deeply involved in the political and religious history
   of the country. … This system was preceded by a complicated
   variety of educational agencies, of which the chief were
   parish schools, founded upon a statute of 1646, which was
   revived and made operative in 1696. Parish and burgh schools,
   supported by local funds and by tuition fees, made up the
   public provision for education. In addition there were schools
   partly maintained by parliamentary grants, mission and
   sessional schools maintained by the Established Church and the
   Free Church, and other parochial and private schools. Parish
   and burgh schools carried instruction to the level of the
   universities, which were easily accessible to all classes. The
   date of the passage of the 'Scotch Education Act' (1872) was
   opportune for the organization of these various agencies into
   a system maintained by the combined action of the Government
   and local authorities. In framing the Scotch act care was
   taken, as in framing the English act two years before, to
   guard the rights of the Government with respect to funds
   appropriated from the public treasury. At the same time equal
   care was shown for the preservation of the Scotch ideal. This
   was a broad and comprehensive ideal, embracing the different
   grades of scholastic work. … This ideal differentiates the
   Scotch act from the English act passed two years before. The
   latter related to elementary schools exclusively; the former
   has a wider scope, providing the foundations of a system of
   graded schools correlated to the universities which lie beyond
   its province. With respect to the interests of the Government,
   the two acts are substantially the same. … For the general
   direction of the system a Scotch educational department was
   created, composed, like the English department, of lords of
   the privy council, and having the same president. … The act
   ordered every parent to secure the instruction of his children
   between the ages of 5 and 13, or until a certificate of
   exemption should be secured. Parents failing in this
   obligation are subject to prosecution and penalty by fine or
   imprisonment. The compulsory provision extends to blind
   children. Parochial or burghal authorities were authorized to
   pay the tuition fees of those children whose parents could not
   meet the expenditure, a provision rendered unnecessary by the
   recent remission of all fees. The Scotch act, by a sweeping
   clause, made compulsory attendance universal; the English act
   left the matter of compulsion to local managers. A subsequent
   act (1878) fixed the standard of exemption in Scotland at the
   fifth [grade, or year of study], which pupils should pass at
   11 years of age. In 1883, the upper limit of compulsory
   attendance in Scotland was raised to 14 years. … The
   universities of Scotland have been more intimately related to
   the life of the common people than those of any other country.
   In this respect, even more if possible than in their
   constitution, they present a marked contrast to the English
   universities. To their democratic spirit may be traced many of
   the characteristics which differentiate the Scotch people and
   policies from those of England. To their widespread influence,
   to the ambitions which they awakened, and the opportunities
   which they brought within the reach of the whole body of
   Scottish youth is due, in large measure, the independent and
   honorable part that Scotland has played in the history of the
   United Kingdom. This popular character of the universities has
   been fostered by the curriculum of the common schools, by the
   easy passage from the schools to the higher institutions; by
   the inexpensive mode of student life in the university towns,
   and by the great number of scholarship funds available for the
   poor. These conditions, however, have not been without their
   disadvantages. Of these, the chief are the low entrance
   standards and the consequent forcing of preparatory
   instruction upon the university professors. … As a result of
   long-continued efforts a Scotch universities act was passed in
   1889. This act provided for the reorganization of the four
   universities; for the elevation of their standards; the
   enrichment of their curricula, and the increase of their
   resources. … The Scotch universities have taken part in the
   popular movements of the last decade. They maintain local
   examinations for secondary schools and students. St. Andrews
   has been particularly active in promoting the higher education
   of women, having instituted the special degree of L. L. A.
   (lady literate in arts). Edinburgh also grants a certificate
   in arts to women. Aberdeen has recently appointed a lecturer
   on education, following thus the precedent set by Edinburgh
   and St. Andrews. The four universities are united in a scheme
   of university extension."

      _United States Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
      volume 1, pages 188-207._

{724}

EDUCATION:
   Sweden.

   "Sweden has two ancient and famous universities—Upsala and
   Lund. That of Lund is in the south part of the kingdom, and
   when founded was on Danish territory. The income from its
   estates is about 176,000 rix-dollars ($46,315) per annum. It
   also receives yearly aid from the state. In 1867 it had 75
   professors and tutors, and 400 students. Upsala is the larger
   university, located at the old town of that name—the ancient
   capital of Sweden—an hour and a half by rail north of
   Stockholm. It has 100 professors and tutors, and 1,449
   students, an increase of 131 over the year 1869. … This
   university had its beginning as an institution of learning as
   far back as 1250. In 1438 it had one academic professorship,
   and was dedicated as an university in 1477. Its principal
   endowment was by Gustavus Adolphus in 1624, when he donated to
   it all of the estate in lands that he possessed, amounting in
   all to 300 farms."

      _C. C. Andrews,
      Report on the Educational System of Sweden
      (United States Bureau of Education, Circulars
      of Information, July, 1871)._

EDUCATION:
   Switzerland.

   "The influence of the Reformation, and, in the following age,
   of the Jesuit reaction, gave to Switzerland, as to Germany,
   its original and fundamental means and agencies of national
   education, and impressed also upon the population a habit of
   dutiful regard for schools and learning. It was not, however,
   till forty years ago that the modern education of Switzerland
   was organized. 'The great development of public education in
   Switzerland,' to quote Mr. Kay, 'dates from 1832, after the
   overthrow of the old oligarchical forms of cantonal government
   and the establishment of the present democratic forms.'
   Zürich, Lausanne, and Geneva take the lead in Switzerland as
   centres of educational influence. The canton in which the work
   of educational reform began was Zürich. … The instrument of
   the reform, rather the revolution, was Scherr, a trained
   school-teacher from Würtemberg, a teacher, in particular, of
   deaf mutes to speak articulately. This man initiated in Zürich
   the new scheme and work of education, and founded the first
   Training College. He was looked upon by the oligarchs, partly
   feudalists, and partly manufacturers, as a dangerous
   revolutionist, and was exiled from Zürich. But now a monument
   to his memory adorns the city. The work which he began could
   not be suppressed or arrested. Zürich has ever since taken the
   lead in education among the cantons of Switzerland. Derived
   originally from Germany, the system is substantially identical
   with that of Germany. … The principles and methods are
   substantially alike throughout. There are, first, the communal
   schools—these of course in largest number—one to every
   village, even for every small hamlet, provided and maintained,
   wholly or chiefly, by the commune; there are burgher schools
   in towns, including elementary, real, and superior schools,
   supported by the towns; there are cantonal schools—gymnasia
   and industrial or technical schools—supported by the State,
   that is, by the canton. There is often a Cantonal University.
   There is of course a Cantonal Training School or College, and
   there are institutes of various kinds. The Cantonal
   Universities, however, are on a small and economical scale; as
   yet there is no Federal University. School life in Switzerland
   is very long, from six to fourteen or fifteen, and for all who
   are to follow a profession, from fifteen to twenty-two."

      _J. H. Rigg,
      National Education,
      chapter 4._

EDUCATION: Modern: Asiatic Countries.
   China.

   "Every step in the process of teaching is fixed by unalterable
   usage. So much is this the case, that in describing one school
   I describe all, and in tracing the steps of one student I
   point out the course of all; for in China there are no new
   methods or short roads. In other countries, a teacher, even in
   the primary course, finds room for tact and originality. In
   those who dislike study, a love of it is to be inspired by
   making 'knowledge pleasant to the taste'; and the dull
   apprehension is to be awakened by striking and apt
   illustrations. … In China there is nothing of this. The land
   of uniformity, all processes in arts and letters are as much
   fixed by universal custom as is the cut of their garments or
   the mode of wearing their hair. The pupils all tread the path
   trodden by their ancestors of a thousand years ago, nor has it
   grown smoother by the attrition of so many feet. The
   undergraduate course may be divided into three stages, in each
   of which there are two leading studies: In the first the
   occupations of the student are committing to memory (not
   reading) the canonical books and writing an infinitude of
   diversely formed characters, as a manual exercise. In the
   second, they are the translation of his text books (i. e.,
   reading), and lessons in composition. In the third, they are
   belles lettres and the composition of essays. Nothing could be
   more dreary than the labors of the first stage. … Even the
   stimulus of companionship in study is usually denied, the
   advantages resulting from the formation of classes being as
   little appreciated as those of other labor saving machinery.
   Each pupil reads and writes alone, the penalty for failure
   being so many blows with the ferule or kneeling for so many
   minutes on the rough brick pavement which serves for a floor.
   At this period fear is the strongest motive addressed to the
   mind of the scholar. … This arctic winter of monotonous toil
   once passed, a more auspicious season dawns on the youthful
   understanding. The key of the cabala which he has been so long
   and so blindly acquiring is put into his hands. He is
   initiated in the translation and exposition of those sacred
   books which he had previously stored away in his memory. …
   The light however is let in but sparingly, as it were, through
   chinks and rifts in the long dark passage. A simple character
   here and there is explained, and then, it may be after the
   lapse of a year or two, the teacher proceeds to the
   explication of entire sentences. Now for the first time the
   mind of the student begins to take in the thoughts of those he
   has been taught to regard as the oracles of wisdom. … The
   value of this exercise can hardly be overestimated. When
   judiciously employed it does for the Chinese what translation
   into and out of the dead languages of the west does for us. It
   calls into play memory, judgment, taste, and gives him a
   command of his own vernacular which, it is safe to assert, he
   would never acquire in any other way. … The first step in
   composition is the yoking together of double characters.
{725}
   The second is the reduplication of these binary compounds and the
   construction of parallels—an idea which runs so completely through
   the whole of Chinese literature that the mind of the student
   requires to be imbued with it at the very outset. This is the
   way he begins: The teacher writes, 'wind blows,' the pupil
   adds, 'rain falls'; the teacher writes, 'rivers are long,' the
   pupil adds, 'seas are deep,' or 'mountains are high,' &c. From
   the simple subject and predicate, which in their rude grammar
   they describe as 'dead' and' living' characters, the teacher
   conducts his pupil to more complex forms, in which qualifying
   words and phrases are introduced. He gives as a model some
   such phrase as 'The Emperor's grace is vast as heaven and
   earth,' and the lad matches it by 'The Sovereign's favor is
   profound as lake and sea.' These couplets often contain two
   propositions in each member, accompanied by all the usual
   modifying terms; and so exact is the symmetry required by the
   rules of the art that not only must noun, verb, adjective, and
   particle respond to each other with scrupulous exactness, but
   the very tones of the characters are adjusted to each other
   with the precision of music. Begun with the first strokes of
   his untaught pencil, the student, whatever his proficiency,
   never gets beyond the construction of parallels. When he
   becomes a member of the institute or a minister of the
   imperial cabinet, at classic festivals and social
   entertainments, the composition of impromptu couplets, formed
   on the old model, constitutes a favorite pastime. Reflecting a
   poetic image from every syllable, or concealing the keen point
   of a cutting epigram, they afford a fine vehicle for sallies
   of wit; and poetical contests such as that of Melibœus and
   Menalcas are in China matters of daily occurrence. If a
   present is to be given, on the occasion of a marriage, a
   birth-day, or any other remarkable occasion, nothing is deemed
   so elegant or acceptable as a pair of scrolls inscribed with a
   complimentary distich. When the novice is sufficiently
   exercised in the 'parallels' for the idea of symmetry to have
   become an instinct, he is permitted to advance to other
   species of composition which afford freer scope for his
   faculties. Such are the 'shotiah,' in which a single thought
   is expanded in simple language, the 'lun,' the formal
   discussion of a subject more or less extended, and epistles
   addressed to imaginary persons and adapted to all conceivable
   circumstances. In these last, the forms of the 'complete
   letter writer' are copied with too much servility; but in the
   other two, substance being deemed of more consequence than
   form, the new fledged thought is permitted to essay its powers
   and to expatiate with but little restraint. In the third
   stage, composition is the leading object, reading being wholly
   subsidiary. It takes for the most part the artificial form of
   verse, and of a kind of prose called 'wen-chang,' which is, if
   possible, still more artificial. The reading required embraces
   mainly rhetorical models and sundry anthologies. History is
   studied, but only that of China, and that only in compends;
   not for its lessons of wisdom, but for the sake of the
   allusions with which it enables a writer to embellish classic
   essays. The same may be said of other studies; knowledge and
   mental discipline are at a discount and style at a premium.
   The goal of the long course, the flower and fruit of the whole
   system, is the 'wen-chang '; for this alone can insure success
   in the pubic examinations for the civil service, in which
   students begin to adventure soon after entering on the third
   stage of their preparatory course. … We hear it asserted
   that 'education is universal in China; even coolies are taught
   to read and write.' In one sense this is true, but not as we
   understand the terms 'reading and writing.' In the
   alphabetical vernaculars of the west, the ability to read and
   write implies the ability to express one's thoughts by the pen
   and to grasp the thoughts of others when so expressed. In
   Chinese, and especially in the classical or book language, it
   implies nothing of the sort. A shopkeeper may be able to write
   the numbers and keep accounts without being able to write
   anything else; and a lad who has attended school for several
   years will pronounce the characters of an ordinary book with
   faultless precision, yet not comprehend the meaning of a
   single sentence. Of those who can read understandingly (and
   nothing else ought to be called reading), the proportion is
   greater in towns than in rural districts. But striking an
   average, it does not, according to my observation, exceed one
   in twenty for the male sex and one in ten thousand for the
   female." The literary examinations, "coming down from the
   past, with the accretions of many centuries, … have expanded
   into a system whose machinery is as complex as its proportions
   are enormous. Its ramifications extend to every district of
   the empire; and it commands the services of district
   magistrates, prefects, and other civil functionaries up to
   governors and viceroys. These are all auxiliary to the regular
   officers of the literary corporation. In each district there
   are two resident examiners, with the title of professor, whose
   duty it is to keep a register of all competing students and to
   exercise them from time to time in order to stimulate their
   efforts and keep them in preparation for the higher
   examinations in which degrees are conferred. In each province
   there is one chancellor or superintendent of instruction, who
   holds office for three years, and is required to visit every
   district and hold the customary examinations within that time,
   conferring the first degree on a certain percentage of the
   candidates. There are, moreover, two special examiners for
   each province, generally members of the Hanlin, deputed from
   the capital to conduct the great triennial examination and
   confer the second degree. The regular degrees are three:
      1st. 'Siu-tsai' or 'Budding talent.'
      2d. 'Ku-jin' or 'Deserving of promotion.'
      3d. 'Tsin-shi' or 'Fit for office.'
   To which may be added, as a fourth degree, the Hanlin, or
   member of the 'Forest of Pencils.' … The first degree only
   is conferred by the provincial chancellor, and the happy
   recipients, fifteen or twenty in each department, or 1 per
   cent. of the candidates, are decorated with the insignia of
   rank and admitted to the ground floor of the nine storied
   pagoda. The trial for the second degree is held in the capital
   of each province, by special commissioners, once in three years.
   It consists of three sessions of three days each, making nine
   days of almost continuous exertion—a strain to the mental and
   physical powers, to which the infirm and aged frequently
   succumb. In addition to composition in prose and verse, the
   candidate is required to show his acquaintance with history,
   (the history of China;) philosophy, criticism, and various
   branches of archæology. Again 1 per cent. is decorated; but it
   is not until the more fortunate among them succeed in passing
   the metropolitan triennial that the meed of civil office is
   certainly bestowed.
{726}
    They are not, however, assigned to their respective offices
    until they have gone through two special examinations within
    the palace and in the presence of the emperor. On this
    occasion the highest on the list is honored with the title of
    'chuang yuen' or 'laureate,' a distinction so great that in
    the last reign it was not thought unbefitting the daughter of
    a 'chuang yuen' to be raised to the position of consort of
    the Son of Heaven. A score of the best are admitted to
    membership in the Academy, two or three score are attached to
    it as pupils or probationers, and the rest drafted off to
    official posts in the capital or in the provinces, the
    humblest of which is supposed to compensate the occupant for
    a life of penury and toil."

      _Reverend W. A. P. Martin,
      Report on the System of Public Instruction in China
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1877, number 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. A. P. Martin,
      The Chinese: their Education, &C._

EDUCATION:
   Japan.

   From the fourth to the eighth centuries of the Christian era,
   "after the conquest of Corea by the Japanese emperor Jigo
   Kogo, came letters, writing, books, literature, religion,
   ethics, politics, medicine, arts, science, agriculture,
   manufactures, and the varied appliances of civilization; and
   with these entered thousands of immigrants from Corea and
   China. Under the intellectual influence of Buddhism—the
   powerful and aggressive faith that had already led captive the
   half of Asia—of the Confucian ethics and philosophy, and
   Chinese literature, the horizon of the Japanese mind was
   immensely broadened. … In the time of the European 'dark
   ages' the Japanese were enjoying what, in comparison, was a
   high state of civilization. … Under the old regime of the
   Sho-guns, all foreign ideas and influences were systematically
   excluded, and the isolation of Japan from the rest of the
   world was made the supreme policy of the government. Profound
   peace lasted from the beginning of the seventeenth century to
   1868. During this time, schools and colleges, literature and
   learning, flourished. It was the period of scholastic, not of
   creative, intellectual activity. The basis of education was
   Chinese. What we consider the means of education, reading and
   writing, were to them the ends. Of classified science there
   was little or none. Mathematics was considered as fit only for
   merchants and shop-keepers. No foreign languages were studied,
   and their acquisition was forbidden. … There was no
   department of education, though universities were established
   at Kioto and Yedo, large schools in the daimio's capitals, and
   innumerable private schools all over the country. Nine-tenths
   of the people could read and write. Books were very numerous
   and cheap. Circulating libraries existed in every city and
   town. Literary clubs and associations for mutual improvement
   were common even in country villages. Nevertheless, in
   comparison with the ideal systems and practice of the
   progressive men of New Japan, the old style was as different
   from the present as the training of an English youth in
   mediæval times is from that of a London or Oxford student of
   the present day. Although an attempt to meet some of the
   educational necessities arising from the altered conditions of
   the national life were made under the Sho-gun's regime, yet
   the first attempt at systematic work in the large cities was
   made under the Mikado's government, and the idea of a new
   national plan of education is theirs only. In 1871 the Mom Bu
   Sho, or department of education, was formed, of which the high
   counselor Oki, a man of indomitable vigor and perseverance,
   was made head. … According to the scheme of national
   education promulgated in 1872, the empire is divided into
   eight Dai Gaku Ku, (Daigakku,) or great educational divisions.
   In each of' these there is to be a university, normal school,
   schools of foreign languages, high schools, and primary
   schools. The total number of schools will number, it is
   expected, over 55,000. Only in the higher schools is a foreign
   language to be taught. In the lower schools the Japanese
   learning and elementary science translated or adopted from
   European or American text-books are to be taught. The general
   system of instruction, methods, discipline, school-aids,
   furniture, architecture, are to be largely adopted from
   foreign models, and are now to a great extent in vogue
   throughout the country."

      _W. E. Griffis,
      Education in Japan
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1875, number 2)._

EDUCATION: Modern: America.  A. D. 1619-1819.
   Virginia.
   College of William and Mary.

   "In 1619—one year before the Pilgrim Fathers came to the land
   named New England by Captain John Smith—Sir Edwin Sandys,
   president of the Virginia Company in old England, moved the
   grant of ten thousand acres of land for the establishment of a
   university at Henrico. The proposed grant, which was duly
   made, included one thousand acres for an Indian college; the
   remainder was to be 'the foundation of a seminary of learning
   for the English.' The very same year the bishops of England,
   at the suggestion of the King, raised the sum of fifteen
   hundred pounds for the encouragement of Indian Education. …
   Tenants were sent over to occupy the university lands, and Mr.
   George Thorpe, a gentleman of His Majesty's Privy Chamber,
   came over to be the superintendent of the university itself.
   This first beginning of philanthropy toward the Indians and of
   educational foundations for the Indians in America was
   suspended by reason of the Indian massacre, in the spring of
   1622, when Mr. Thorpe and three hundred and forty settlers,
   including tenants of the university, were cut off by an
   insurrection of savages. It was only two years after this
   terrible catastrophe that the idea of a university in Virginia
   was revived. Experience with treacherous Indians suggested
   that the institution should be erected upon a secluded
   sheltered site—an island in the Susquehanna River. … The
   plan was broken off by the death of its chief advocate and
   promoter, Mr. Edward Palmer. But the idea of a university for
   Virginia was not lost. … In 1660, the colonial Assembly of
   Virginia took into their own hands the project of founding
   educational institutions within their borders. The motive of
   the Virginians was precisely the same as that of the great and
   general Court of Massachusetts, when it established Harvard
   College, and grammar schools to fit youth 'for ye university.'
   The Virginians voted 'that for the advance of learning,
   education of youth, supply of the ministry, and promotion of
   piety, there be land taken upon purchases for a college and
   free schoole, and that there be, with as much speede as may be
   convenient, housing erected thereon for entertainment of
   students and schollers.'
{727}
   It was also voted in 1660 that the various commissioners of
   county courts take subscriptions on court days for the benefit
   of the college, and that the commissioners send orders
   throughout their respective counties to the vestrymen of all
   the parishes for the purpose of raising money from such
   inhabitants as 'have not already subscribed.' It appears from
   the record of this legislation in Hening's Statutes of
   Virginia that already in 1660, 'His Majestie's Governour,
   Council of State, and Burgesses of the present grand Assembly
   have severally subscribed severall considerable sumes of money
   and quantityes of tobacco,' to be paid upon demand after a
   place had been provided and built upon for educational
   purposes. A petition was also recommended to Sir William
   Berkeley, then governor of Virginia, that the King be
   petitioned for letters patent authorizing collections from
   'well disposed people in England for the erecting of colledges
   and schooles in this countrye.' This action of the Virginians
   in 1660 ought to be taken as much better evidence of an early
   regard for education in that colony than the well-known saying
   of Governor Berkeley would seem to indicate. In reply to an
   inquiry by the lords commissioners of trades and plantations
   respecting the progress of learning in the colony of Virginia,
   Berkeley said, 'I thank God there are no free schools nor
   printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years.'
   This answer by a crusty old governor has been quoted perhaps
   too often as an index of the real sentiments of colonial
   Virginia toward the cause of education. Not only is the tone
   of popular legislation entirely opposed to the current view,
   but Berkeley's own acts should modify our judgment of his
   words. He actually subscribed, with other gentlemen of the
   colony, for 'a Colledge of students of the liberal arts and
   sciences.' Undoubtedly Sir William did not believe in popular
   education as it is now understood. If he had done so, he would
   have been much in advance of his time. … Some writers would
   have us believe that the college was actually planted as early
   as 1661, but this is highly improbable. Early educational
   enactments in Virginia were like many of those early towns—on
   paper only. And yet the Virginians really meant to have both
   towns and a college. In 1688-'89, twenty-five hundred pounds
   were subscribed by a few wealthy gentlemen in the colony and
   by their merchant friends in England toward the endowment of
   the higher education. In 1691 the colonial Assembly sent the
   Reverend James Blair, the commissary or representative of the
   Bishop of London, back to England to secure a charter for the
   proposed college. Virginia's agent went straight to Queen Mary
   and explained the educational ambition of her colony in
   America. The Queen favored the idea of a college, and William
   wisely concurred. The royal pair agreed to allow two thousand
   pounds out of the quit-rents of Virginia toward building the
   college. … The English Government concluded to give not only
   £2,000 in money, but also 20,000 acres of land, with a tax of
   one penny on every pound of tobacco exported from Maryland and
   Virginia, together with all fees and profits arising from the
   office of surveyor-general, which were to be controlled by the
   president and faculty of the college. They were authorized to
   appoint special surveyors for the counties whenever the
   governor and his council thought it necessary. These
   privileges, granted by charter in 1693, were of great
   significance in the economic history of Virginia. They brought
   the entire land system of the colony into the hands of a
   collegiate land office. Even after the Revolution, one-sixth
   of the fees to all public surveyors continued to be paid into
   the college treasury down to the year 1819, when this custom
   was abolished."

      _H. B. Adams,
      The College of William and Mary
      (Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education,
      1887, number 1)._

EDUCATION: Modern: America: A. D. 1635.
   Massachusetts.
   Boston Latin School.

   "The Public Latin School of Boston enjoys the distinction of
   being the oldest existing school within the bounds of the
   United States. It was founded in the spring of 1635, thus
   ante-dating Harvard College, and has been in continuous
   existence ever since, with the interruption of a few months,
   during the siege of Boston, 1775-1776." The two hundred and
   fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the school was
   celebrated April 23, 1885, on which occasion the Reverend Phillips
   Brooks, D. D., delivered an address from which the following
   passages are taken: "The colony under Winthrop arrived in the
   Arabella and founded Boston in 1630. On the 4th of September,
   1633, the Griffin brought John Cotton from the Lincolnshire
   Boston, full of pious spirit and wise plans for the new colony
   with which he had cast in his lot. It has been suggested that
   possibly we owe to John Cotton the first suggestion of the
   first town-school. … However this may be, here is the town
   record of the 13th of the second month, 1635. It is forever
   memorable, for it is the first chapter of our Book of Genesis,
   the very cradle of all our race: 'At a general meeting upon
   publique notice … it was then generally agreed upon that our
   brother Philemon Pormort shall be entreated to become
   scholemaster, for the teaching and nourtering of children
   among us.' It was two hundred and fifty years ago to-day
   [April 23, 1885] just nineteen years after the day when
   William Shakespeare died, just seventy-one years after the day
   when he was born. How simple that short record is, and how
   unconscious that short view is of the future which is wrapped
   up in it! Fifty-nine thousand children who crowd the Boston
   public schools to-day—and who can count what thousands yet
   unborn?—are to be heard crying out for life in the dry,
   quaint words of that old vote. By it the first educational
   institution, which was to have continuous existence in
   America, and in it the public school system of the land, came
   into being. Philemon Pormort, the first teacher of the Latin
   School, is hardly more than a mere shadow of a name. It is not
   even clear that he ever actually taught the school at all. A
   few years later, with Mr. Wheelwright, after the Hutchinson
   excitement, he disappears into the northern woods, and is one
   of the founders of Exeter, in New Hampshire. There are rumors
   that he came back to Boston and died here, but it is all very
   uncertain. … The name 'free school' in those days seems to
   have been used to characterize an institution which should not
   be restricted to any class of children, and which should not
   be dependent on the fluctuating attendance of scholars for its
   support. It looked forward to ultimate endowment, like the
   schools of England. The town set apart the rent of Deer
   Island, and some of the other islands in the harbor, for its help.
{728}
   All the great citizens, Governor Winthrop, Governor Vane, Mr.
   Bellingham, and the rest, made generous contributions to it.
   But it called, also, for support from those who sent their
   children to it, and who were able to pay something; and it was
   only of the Indian children that it was distinctly provided
   that they should be 'taught gratis.' It was older than any of
   the schools which, in a few years, grew up thick around it.
   The same power which made it spring out of the soil was in all
   the rich ground on which these colonists, unlike any other
   colonists which the world has ever seen, had set their feet.
   Roxbury had its school under the Apostle Eliot in 1645.
   Cambridge was already provided before 1643. Charlestown did
   not wait later than 1636. Salem and Ipswich were, both of
   them, ready in 1637. Plymouth did not begin its system of
   public instruction till 1663. It was in 1647 that the General
   Court enacted that resolve which is the great charter of free
   education in our Commonwealth, in whose preamble and ordinance
   stand the immortal words: 'That learning may not be buried in
   the grave of our fathers, in church and Commonwealth, the Lord
   assisting our endeavors, it is therefore ordered that every
   township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased
   them to the number of fifty householders, shall then forthwith
   appoint one within their town to teach all such children as
   shall resort to him to write and read.' There can be no doubt,
   then, of our priority. But mere priority is no great thing.
   The real interest of the beginning of the school is the large
   idea and scale on which it started. It taught the children,
   little Indians and all, to read and write. But there seems
   every reason to suppose that it taught also the Latin tongue,
   and all that then was deemed the higher knowledge. It was the
   town's only school till 1682."

      _The Oldest School in America,
      pages 5-24._

EDUCATION:  A. D. 1636.
   Massachusetts.
   Harvard College.

   "The first settlers in New England, recognizing the importance
   of a higher education than could be given in the common
   schools, began at once the founding of a university. The
   avowed object of this university was the training of young men
   for the ministry. Nothing could show clearer the spirit of
   these early colonists. Though less than four thousand in
   number, and scattered along the shores of Massachusetts Bay in
   sixteen hamlets, they were, nevertheless, able to engage in
   such an enterprise before adequate provision had been made for
   food, raiment, shelter, a civil government, or divine worship;
   at a time when soil and climate had disappointed them, and
   their affairs were in a most critical condition; for, not only
   were they called to face famine, disease, and death, but the
   mother country and the surrounding savage tribes were
   threatening them with war. … It was near the close of 1636,
   a little more than six years after the landing of the
   Puritans, when this first step was taken by the General Court
   of the Massachusetts Colony. At this assembly, presided over
   by Sir Henry Vane, governor of the colony, the General Court
   agreed to give £400 (a munificent sum for the time) towards
   the founding of a school or college, but left the question of
   its location and building to be determined by the Court that
   was to sit in September of the following year. This, it is
   said, was the first assembly 'in which the people by their
   representatives ever gave their own money to found a place of
   education.' At the next Court it was decided to locate the
   college at Newtown, or 'the New Towne,' and twelve of the
   principal magistrates and ministers were chosen to carry out
   this design. A few months later, they changed the name of the
   town to Cambridge, not only to tell their posterity whence
   they came, but also, as Quincy aptly says, to indicate 'the
   high destiny to which they intended the institution should
   aspire.' Another year, however, passed before the College was
   organized. The impulse given to it then was due to aid which
   came from so unexpected a quarter that it must have seemed to
   the devout men of New England as a clear indication of the
   divine favor. The Reverend John Harvard, a Non-conformist
   minister, was graduated, in 1635, from the Puritan college of
   Emmanuel, at Cambridge, England, and came, two years later, to
   America and settled in Charlestown, where he immediately took
   a prominent part in town affairs. His contemporaries gave him
   the title of reverend, and he is said to have officiated
   occasionally in Charlestown as 'minister of God's word.' One
   has recently said of him that he was 'beloved and honored, a
   well-trained and accomplished scholar of the type then
   esteemed,' and that in the brief period of his life in America
   —scarcely more than a year—he cemented more closely
   friendships that had been begun in earlier years. The project
   of a college was then engrossing the thought of these early
   friends and doubtless he also became greatly interested in it.
   Thus it happened that, when his health failed, through his own
   love of learning and through sympathy with the project of his
   daily associates, he determined to bequeath one-half of his
   estate, probably about £800, besides his excellent library of
   three hundred and twenty volumes, towards the endowment of the
   college. This bequest rendered possible the immediate
   organization of the college, which went into operation 'on the
   footing of the ancient institutions of Europe,' and, out of
   gratitude to Harvard, the General Court voted that the new
   institution should bear his name."

      _G. G. Bush,
      Harvard,
      pages 12-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Quincy,
      History of Harvard University._

      _S. A. Eliot,
      Sketch of the History of Harvard College._

EDUCATION:  A. D. 1642-1732.
   New England and New York.
   Early Common Schools.

   "New England early adopted, and has, with a single exception,
   constantly maintained the principle that the public should
   provide for the instruction of all the youth. That which
   elsewhere, as will be found, was left to local provision, as
   in New York; or to charity, as in Pennsylvania; or to parental
   interest, as in Virginia, was in most parts of New England
   early secured by law. … The act of 1642 in Massachusetts,
   whose provisions were adopted in most of the adjacent
   colonies, was admirable as a first legislative school law. It
   was watchful of the neglect of parents, and looked well after
   the ignorant and the indigent. But it neither made schooling
   free, nor imposed a penalty for its neglect. … Schools were
   largely maintained by rates, were free only to the
   necessitous, and in not a few of the less populous districts
   closed altogether or never opened. This led, five years later,
   to more stringent legislation. … As suggesting the general
   scope and tenor of the law, the following extract is made. …
{729}
   'It is therefore ordered by this Court and authority thereof
   that every township within this jurisdiction, after the Lord
   hath increased them to the number of fifty householders, shall
   then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such
   children as shall resort to him, to write and read; whose
   wages shall be paid, either by the parents or masters of such
   children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply,
   as the major part of those who order the prudentials of the
   town shall appoint; provided that those who send their
   children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can
   have them taught for in the adjoining towns. And it is further
   ordered that where any town shall increase to the number of
   one hundred families or house-holders, they shall set up a
   grammar-school, the master thereof being able to instruct
   youths so far as they may be fitted for the university; and if
   any town neglect the performance hereof, above one year, then
   every such town shall pay five pounds per annum to the next
   such school, till they shall perform this order.' … Three
   years after the law just cited Connecticut passed a very
   similar one. … In Rhode Island there was no attempt at a
   school system prior to the efforts of John Howland about 1790.
   There were schools in both Providence and Newport; but the
   colony was small (with a population of less than ten thousand
   in 1700), broken into feeble settlements, and offering little
   opportunity for organization. … It is claimed that, at the
   surrender of the Dutch in New York (1664), so general was the
   educational spirit, almost every town in the colony had its
   regular school and more or less permanent teachers. After the
   occupation of the province by the English, little attention
   was given to education. … Thirteen years after the
   surrender, a Latin school was opened in the city; but the
   first serious attempt to provide regular schooling was in the
   work of the 'Society for the Propagation of the Gospel' (1704)
   in the founding of Trinity School. The society kept up an
   efficient organization, for many years, and at the opening of
   the Revolution had established and chiefly supported more than
   twenty schools in the colony. About 1732, also, there was
   established in New York city a school after the plan of the
   Boston Latin School, free as that was free, and which became,
   according to eminent authority, the germ of the later King's
   (now Columbia) College."

      _R. G. Boone,
      Education in the United States,
      chapter 3._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1683-1779. Pennsylvania.
   Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

   "Education had not been over-looked in the policy of Penn. In
   his Frame of Government we read: 'The governor and provincial
   council shall erect and order all public schools, and
   encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and
   laudable inventions, in the said province. … And … a
   committee of manners, education and arts, that all wicked and
   scandalous living may be prevented, and that youth may be
   successively trained up in virtue and useful knowledge and
   arts.' The first movement to establish an educational
   institution of a high grade was in the action of the Executive
   Council which proposed, November 17, 1683, 'That Care be Taken
   about the Learning and Instruction of Youth, to wit: A School
   of Arts and Sciences.' It was not until 1689, however, that
   the 'Public Grammar School' was set up in Philadelphia. This
   institution, founded upon the English idea of a 'free'
   school,' was formally chartered in 1697 as the 'William Penn
   Charter School.' It was intended as the head of a system of
   schools for all, rather than a single school for a select few,
   an idea which the founders of the Charitable School, fifty
   years later, had also in mind—an idea which was never carried
   out in the history of either institution. The failure of
   Penn's scheme of government, and the turmoil during the early
   part of the eighteenth century arising from the conflicts
   between different political parties, for a time influenced
   very decidedly educational zeal in the province. The
   government, which at the outset had taken such high ground on
   the subject, ceased to exert itself in behalf of education,
   and the several religious denominations and the people
   themselves in neighborhood organizations took up the burden
   and planted schools as best they could throughout the growing
   colony. … Feeling the importance for some provision to
   supplement the education then given in the established
   schools, Benjamin Franklin as early as 1743 drew up a proposal
   for establishing an academy. … He secured the assistance of
   a number of friends, many of them members of the famous Junto,
   and then published his pamphlet entitled 'Proposals Relating
   to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.' … On all sides
   the paper met with great favor and generous support. The
   result was the organization of a board of trustees, consisting
   of 24 of those who had subscribed to the scheme of the
   Academy, with Franklin as president. This body immediately set
   about to realize the object of the pamphlet, and nourished by
   subscriptions, lotteries, and gifts the Academy was placed in
   a flourishing condition. … The Academy comprised three
   schools, the Latin, the English, and the mathematical, over
   each of which was placed a master, one of whom was the rector
   of the institution. … The English School was neglected. The
   other schools were favored, especially the Latin School. In
   the eyes of Franklin and many of the supporters of the
   Academy, the English School was the one of chief importance.
   What we would call a 'starving out' process was begun by which
   the English School was kept in a weak condition, most of the
   funds going to the Latin School. … The success of the
   Academy was so gratifying to all interested in it that it was
   determined to apply for a charter. This was granted to the
   trustees by Thomas and Richard Penn, the proprietors, on July
   13, 1753. Desirous at the same time of enlarging the course of
   instruction, the trustees elected Mr. William Smith teacher of
   logic, rhetoric, natural and moral philosophy. Mr. Smith
   accepted the position and entered upon his duties at the
   Academy in May, 1754. The history of the institution from this
   date, whether known as the Academy or the College, to 1779 is
   the history of the life of William Smith."

      _J. L. Stewart,
      Historical Sketch of the University of Pennsylvania
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1892, number 2:
      Benjamin Franklin and the University, chapter 4)._


{730}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1701-1717.
   Connecticut.
   Yale College.

   "For sixty years the only school for higher education in New
   England had been Harvard College, at Cambridge. The people,
   and especially the clergy, of Connecticut naturally desired
   the benefit of a similar establishment nearer home. The three
   ministers of New Haven, Milford, and Branford first moved in
   the enterprise. Ten ministers, nine of them being graduates of
   Harvard College, met at Branford [1701] and made a
   contribution from their libraries of about forty volumes in
   folio 'for the founding of a college.' Other donations
   presently came in. An Act of Incorporation was granted by the
   General Court. It created a body of trustees, not to be more
   than eleven in number nor fewer than seven, all to be
   clergymen and at least forty years of age. The Court endowed
   the College with an annual grant, subject to be discontinued
   at pleasure, of one hundred and twenty pounds in 'country
   pay,'—equivalent to sixty pounds sterling. The College might
   hold property 'not exceeding the value of five hundred pounds
   per annum'; its students were exempted from the payment of
   taxes and from military service; and the Governor and his
   Council gave a formal approval of its application to the
   citizens for pecuniary id. … The first President was Abraham
   Pierson, minister of Killingworth, at which place he continued
   to reside, though the designated seat of the College was at
   Saybrook. Eight students were admitted, and arranged in
   classes. At each of the first two annual commencements one
   person, at the third three persons, received the degree of
   Bachelor of Arts. President Pierson was succeeded, at his
   death, by Mr. Andrew, minister at Milford, to which place the
   elder pupils were accordingly transferred, while the rest went
   to Saybrook, where two tutors had been provided to assist
   their studies. … For nearly twenty years the College of
   Connecticut … continued to be an unsatisfactory experiment.
   While the rector taught some youth at Milford, and two tutors
   had other pupils at Saybrook, and the few scores of books
   which had been obtained for a library were divided between the
   two places, there was small prospect of the results for which
   institutions of learning are created. Notwithstanding the
   general agreement that whatever facilities for the higher
   education could be commanded should be brought together and
   combined, the choice of the place was embarrassed by various
   considerations. … Saybrook, Wethersfield, Hartford, and New
   Haven competed with each other for the preference, offering
   such contributions as they were able towards the erection of a
   college building. The offer from New Haven, larger than that
   of any other town, was seven hundred pounds sterling. The plan
   of fixing the College there, promoted by the great influence
   of Governor Saltonstall, was adopted by the trustees; and with
   money obtained by private gifts, and two hundred and fifty
   pounds accruing from a sale of land given by the General
   Assembly, a building was begun [1717], which finally cost a
   thousand pounds sterling. … The Assembly gave the College a
   hundred pounds. Jeremiah Dummer sent from England a
   substantial present of books. Governor Saltonstall contributed
   fifty pounds sterling, and the same sum was presented by
   Jahleel Brenton, of Newport, in Rhode Island. But the chief
   patronage came from Elihu Yale,—a native of New Haven, but
   long resident in the East Indies, where he had been Governor
   of Fort St. George. He was now a citizen of London, and
   Governor of the East India Company. His contributions,
   continued through seven years, amounted to some four hundred
   pounds sterling; and he was understood to have made
   arrangements for a further bounty of five hundred pounds,
   which, however, through unfortunate accidents, never came to
   its destination. The province made a grant of forty pounds
   annually for seven years."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 4, chapter 11,
      and book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1746-1787.
   New York.
   King's College, now Columbia College.

   "The establishment of a college in the city of New York was
   many years in agitation before the design was carried into
   effect. At length, under an act of Assembly passed in
   December, 1746, and other similar acts which followed, moneys
   were raised by public lottery 'for the encouragement of
   learning and towards the founding a college' within the
   colony. These moneys were, in November, 1751, vested in
   trustees. … The trustees, in November, 1753, invited Dr.
   Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, to be President of the
   intended college. Dr. Johnson consequently removed to New York
   in the month of April following, and in July, 1754, commenced
   the instruction of a class of students in a room of the
   school-house belonging to Trinity Church; but he would not
   absolutely accept the presidency until after the passing of
   the charter. This took place on the 31st of October in the
   same year, 1754; from which period the existence of the
   college is properly to be dated. The Governors of the college,
   named in the charter, are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
   the first Lord Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, both
   empowered to act by proxies; the Lieutenant-governor of the
   province, and several other public officers; together with the
   rector of Trinity Church, the senior minister of the Reformed
   Protestant Dutch Church, the ministers of the German Lutheran
   Church, of the French Church, of the Presbyterian
   Congregation, and the President of the college, all ex
   officio, and twenty-four of the principal gentlemen of the
   city. The college was to be known by the name of King's
   College. Previously to the passing of the charter, a parcel of
   ground to the westward of Broadway, bounded by Barclay,
   Church, and Murray streets and the Hudson River, had been
   destined by the vestry of Trinity Church as a site for the
   college edifice; and, accordingly, after the charter was
   granted, a grant of the land was made on the 13th of May,
   1755. … The part of the land thus granted by Trinity Church,
   not occupied for college purposes, was leased, and became a
   very valuable endowment to the college. The sources whence the
   funds of the institution were derived, besides the proceeds of
   the lotteries above mentioned, were the voluntary
   contributions of private individuals in this country, and sums
   obtained by agents who were subsequently sent to England and
   France. In May, 1760, the college buildings began to be
   occupied. In 1763 a grammar school was established. In March,
   1763, Dr. Johnson resigned the presidency, and the Reverend Dr.
   Myles Cooper, of Oxford, who had previously been appointed
   Professor of Moral Philosophy and assistant to the President,
   was elected in his place. … In consequence of the dispute
   between this and the parent country, Dr. Cooper returned to
   England, and the Reverend Benjamin Moore was appointed praeses pro
   tempore during the absence of Dr. Cooper, who, however, did
   not return. On the breaking out of the Revolutionary War the
   business of the college was almost entirely broken up, and it
   was not until after the return of peace that its affairs were
   again regularly attended to.
{731}
   In May, 1784, the college, upon its own application, was
   erected into a university; its corporate title was changed
   from King's College to Columbia College, and it was placed
   under the control of a board termed Regents of the University.
   … The college continued under that government until April,
   1787, when the Legislature of the State restored it to its
   original position under the present name of Columbia College.
   … At the same time a new body was created, called by the
   same name, 'The Regents of the University,' under which all
   the seminaries of learning mentioned in the act creating it
   were placed by the legislature. This body still exists under
   its original name."

      _Columbia College Handbook,
      pages 5-9._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1776-1880.
   New England and New York.
   State School Systems.

   "It was not until over thirty years after the close of the war
   of 1776 that a regular system of schools at the public expense
   was established. New England boasted with pride of being the
   first in education, as she had been in war. Her example was
   closely followed by the other States. In New York, in 1805,
   many gentlemen of prominence associated for the purpose of
   establishing a free school in New York City for the education
   of the children of persons in indigent circumstances, and who
   did not belong to, or were not provided for by, any religious
   society. These public-spirited gentlemen presented a memorial
   to the Legislature, setting forth the benefits that would
   result to society from educating such children, and that it
   would enable them more effectually to accomplish the objects
   of their institution if the schools were incorporated. The
   bill of incorporation was passed April 9, 1805. This was the
   nucleus from which the present system of public schools
   started into existence. Later on, in the year 1808, we find
   from annual printed reports that two free schools were opened
   and were in working order. … It was the intention of the
   founders of these schools—among whom the names of De Witt
   Clinton, Ferdinand de Peyster, John Murray, and Leonard
   Bleecker stand prominent as officers—to avoid the teachings
   of any religious society; but there were among the people many
   who thought that sufficient care was not being bestowed upon
   religious instruction: to please these malcontents the
   literary studies of the pupils were suspended one afternoon in
   every week, and an association of fifty ladies of
   'distinguished consideration ·in society' met on this day and
   examined the children in their respective catechisms. … To
   read, write, and know arithmetic in its first branches
   correctly, was the extent of the educational advantages which
   the founders of the free-school system deemed necessary for
   the accomplishment of their purposes."

      _A. H. Rhine,
      The Early Free Schools of America.
      (Popular Science Monthly, March, 1880)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1785-1880.
   The United States.
   Land-grants for Schools.

   "The question of the endowment of educational institutions by
   the Government in aid of the cause of education seems to have
   met no serious opposition in the Congress of the
   Confederation, and no member raised his voice against this
   vital and essential provision relating to it in the ordinance
   of May 20, 1785, 'for ascertaining the mode of disposing of
   lands in the Western Territory.' This provided: 'There shall
   be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township for the
   maintenance of public schools within said township.' This was
   an endowment of 640 acres of land (one section of land, one
   mile square) in a township 6 miles square, for the support and
   maintenance of public schools' within said township.' The
   manner of establishment of public schools thereunder, or by
   whom, was not mentioned. It was a reservation by the United
   States, and advanced and established a principle which finally
   dedicated one thirty-sixth part of all public lands of the
   United States, with certain exceptions as to mineral, &c., to
   the cause of education by public schools. … In the
   Continental Congress, July 13, 1787, according to order, the
   ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the United
   States northwest of the river Ohio' came on, was read a third
   time, and passed [see NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D.1787]. It
   contained the following: 'Art. 3. Religion, morality, and
   knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness
   of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
   be encouraged.' The provision of the ordinance of May 20,
   1785, relating to the reservation of the sixteenth section in
   every township of public land, was the inception of the
   present rule of reservation of certain sections of land for
   school purposes. The endowment was the subject of much
   legislation in the years following. The question was raised
   that there was no reason why the United States should not
   organize, control, and manage these public schools so endowed.
   The reservations of lands were made by surveyors and duly
   returned. This policy at once met with enthusiastic approval
   from the public, and was tacitly incorporated into the
   American system as one of its fundamental organic ideas.
   Whether the public schools thus endowed by the United States
   were to be under national or State control remained a
   question, and the lands were held in reservation merely until
   after the admission of the State of Ohio in 1802. … To each
   organized Territory, after 1803, was and now is reserved the
   sixteenth section (until after the Oregon Territory act
   reserved the thirty-sixth as well) for school purposes, which
   reservation is carried into grant and confirmation by the
   terms of the act of admission of the Territory or State into
   the Union; the State then becoming a trustee for school
   purposes. These grants of land were made from the public
   domain, and to States only which were known as public-land
   States. Twelve States, from March 3, 1803, known as
   public-land States, received the allowance of the sixteenth
   section to August 14, 1848. … Congress, June 13, 1812, and
   May 26, 1824, by the acts ordering the survey of certain towns
   and villages in Missouri, reserved for the support of schools
   in the towns and villages named, provided that the whole
   amount reserved should not exceed one-twentieth part of the
   whole lands included in the general survey of such town or
   village. These lots were reserved and sold for the benefit of
   the schools. Saint Louis received a large fund from this
   source. … In the act for the organization of the Territory
   of Oregon, August 14, 1848, Senator Stephen A. Douglas
   inserted an additional grant for school purposes of the
   thirty-sixth section in each township, with indemnity for all
   public-land States thereafter to be admitted, making the
   reservation for school purposes the sixteenth and thirty-sixth
   sections, or 1,280 acres in each township of six miles square
   reserved in public-land States and Territories, and confirmed
   by grant in terms in the act of admission of such State or
   Territory into the Union. From March 13, 1853, to June 30,
   1880, seven States have been admitted into the Union having a
   grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, and the
   same area has been reserved in eight Territories."

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      chapter 13._

{732}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1789.
   The United States.

   "The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for
   the education of the people; and in the Convention that framed
   it, I believe the subject was not even mentioned. A motion to
   insert a clause providing for the establishment of a national
   university was voted down. I believe it is also the fact, that
   the Constitutions of only three of the thirteen original
   States made the obligation to maintain a system of Free
   Schools a part of their fundamental law."

      _H. Mann,
      Lectures and Annual Reports on Education,
      lecture 5._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1793.
   Massachusetts.
   Williams College.

   "Williams College, at Williamstown, Berkshire County, Mass.,
   was chartered in 1793. The town and the college were named in
   honor of Colonel Ephraim Williams, who had command of the forts
   in the Hoosac Valley, and was killed in a battle with the
   French and Indians, September 8, 1755. By his will he
   established a free school in the township which was to bear
   his name. The most advanced students of this free school
   became the first college class, numbering 4, and received the
   regular degree of bachelor of arts in the autumn of 1795. The
   small amount left by the will of Colonel Williams was
   carefully managed for 30 years by the executors, and they then
   obtained permission from the State legislature to carry out
   the benevolent purposes of the testator. The fund for building
   was increased by individual subscriptions, and by the avails
   of a lottery, which the general court granted for that
   purpose. The building which is now known as West College was
   then erected for the use of the free school and was finished
   in 1790. … The free school was opened in 1791, with Reverend
   Ebenezer Fitch, a graduate of Yale College, as preceptor, and
   Mr. John Lester as assistant. … The success of the school
   was so great that the next year the trustees asked the
   legislature to incorporate the school into a college. This was
   done, and a grant of $4,000 was made from the State treasury
   for the purchase of books and philosophical apparatus. The
   college was put under the care of 12 trustees, who elected
   Preceptor Fitch the first president of the college."

      _E. B. Parsons
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 6:
      History of Higher Education in Massachusetts, chapter 9)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1795-1867.
   The United States.
   State School Funds.

   "Connecticut took the lead in the creation of a permanent fund
   for the support of schools. The district known as the Western
   Reserve, in Northern Ohio, had been secured to her in the
   adjustment of her claims to lands confirmed to her by the
   charter of King Charles II. The Legislature of the State, in
   1795, passed an act directing the sale of all the land
   embraced in the Reserve, and setting apart the avails as a
   perpetual fund for the maintenance of common schools. The
   amount realized was about $1,120,000. … New York was the
   next State to establish a common school fund for the aid and
   maintenance of schools in the several school districts of the
   State. The other Northern States except New Hampshire,
   Vermont, Pennsylvania, and one or two others, have established
   similar funds. … In all the new States, the 500,000 acres,
   given by act of Congress, on their admission into the Union,
   for the support of schools, have been sacredly set apart for
   that purpose, and generally other lands belonging to the
   States have been added to the fund. … Prior to the war the
   Slave States had made attempts to establish plans for popular
   education, but with results of an unsatisfactory character. In
   Virginia a school system was in force for the education of the
   children of indigent white persons. In North Carolina a large
   school fund, exceeding two millions of dollars, had been set
   apart for the maintenance of schools. In all of these States
   common schools had been introduced, but they did not flourish
   as in the North and West. … There was not the same
   population of small and independent farmers, whose families
   could be united into a school district. … A more serious
   obstacle was the slave population, constituting one-third of
   the whole, and in some of the States more than half, whom it
   was thought dangerous to educate."

      _V. M. Rice,
      Special Report on the Present State of Education, 1867,
      pages 19-23._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1837.
   Michigan.
   The University.

   "In 1804, when Michigan was organized as a Territory, Congress
   granted a township of land for a seminary of learning, and the
   university to be established in 1817 was to be in accordance
   with this grant. The Territorial government committed the
   interests of higher education to the care of the Governor and
   the Judges, and it is supposed that through the exertions of
   Honorable A. B. Woodward, then presiding Judge of the Supreme Court
   of the Territory of Michigan, that the act establishing a
   university was framed. A portion of this most curious document
   of the early History of Michigan will be given. It is entitled
   'An act to establish the Catholepistemiad or University
   Michigania.' 'Be it enacted by the Governor and Judges of the
   Territory of Michigan, That there shall be in the said
   Territory a catholepistemiad or university denominated the
   Catholepistemiad or University Michigania. The
   Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania shall be composed
   of thirteen didaxum or professorships; first, a didaxia or
   professorship catholepistemia, or universal science, the
   dictator or professor of which shall be president of the
   institution; second, a didaxia or professorship of
   anthropoglassica, or literature embracing all of the
   episternum or sciences relative to language; third, a didaxia
   or professorship of mathematica or mathematics; fourth, a
   didaxia or professorship of physiognostica or natural history,
   etc.' The act thus continues through the whole range of the
   'thirteen didaxum'; the remaining nine are as follows: Natural
   philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, medical sciences, economical
   sciences, ethical sciences, military sciences, historical
   sciences, and intellectual. The university was to be under the
   control of the professors and president, who were to be
   appointed by the Governor, while the institution was to be the
   center and controlling power of the educational system of the
   State.
{733}
   It was to be supported by taxation by an increase of the
   amount of taxes already levied, by 15 per cent. Also power was
   given to raise money for the support of the university by
   means of lotteries. This remarkable document was not without
   its influence in shaping the public school policy of Michigan,
   but it was many years before the State approximated its
   learned provisions. Impracticable as this educational plan
   appears for a handful of people in the woods of Michigan, it
   served as a foundation upon which to build. The officers and
   president were duly appointed, and the work of the new
   university began at once. At first the university appeared as
   a school board, to establish and maintain primary schools
   which they held under their charge. Then followed a course of
   study for classical academies, and finally, in October, 1817,
   an act was passed establishing a college in the city of
   Detroit called 'The First College of Michigania.' … The
   people contributed liberally to these early schools, the sum
   of three thousand dollars being subscribed at the beginning.
   … An act was passed on the 30th of April, 1821, by the
   Governor and Judges establishing a university in Detroit to
   take the place of the catholepistemiad and to be called the
   'University of Michigan.' In its charter nearly all the powers
   of the former institution were substantially confirmed, except
   the provision for taxes and lotteries. … The second
   corporation, known as the 'University of Michigan,' carried on
   the work of education already begun from 1821 to the third
   organization, in 1837. The education was very limited,
   consisting in one classical academy at Detroit, and part of
   the time a Lancasterian school. The boards of education kept
   up and transmitted the university idea to such an extent that
   it may be said truly and legally that there was one University
   of Michigan, which passed through three successive stages of
   development marked by the dates 1817, 1821, and 1837," at
   which time it was removed to Ann Arbor.

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      (United States Bureau of Education.
      Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 239-241._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. M. Farrand,
      History of the University of Michigan._

      _A. Ten Brook,
      American State Universities._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1818-1821.
   Massachusetts.
   Amherst College.

   "Amherst College originated in a strong desire on the part of
   the people of Massachusetts to have a college near the central
   part of the State, where the students should be free from the
   temptations of a large city, where the expenses of an
   education should not be beyond the means of those who had but
   little money, and where the moral and religious influences
   should be of a decidedly Christian character. … The
   ministers of Franklin County, at a meeting held in Shelburne
   May 18, 1815, expressed it as their opinion that a literary
   institution of high order ought to be established in Hampshire
   County, and that the town of Amherst appeared to them to be
   the most eligible place for it. Their early efforts for a
   literary institution in Hampshire County resulted in the first
   place in the establishment of an academy in Amherst, which was
   incorporated in the year 1816. … In the year 1818 a
   constitution was adopted by the trustees of Amherst Academy,
   for the raising and management of a fund of at least $50,000,
   for the classical education of indigent young men of piety and
   talents for the Christian ministry. … This charity fund may
   be said to be the basis of Amherst College, for though it was
   raised by the trustees of Amherst Academy it was really
   intended to be the foundation of a college, and has always
   been a part of the permanent funds of Amherst College, kept
   sacredly from all other funds for the specific object for
   which it was given. … This was for many years the only
   permanent fund of Amherst College, and without this it would
   have seemed impossible at one time to preserve the very
   existence of the college. So Amherst College grew out of
   Amherst Academy, and was built permanently on the charity fund
   raised by the trustees of that academy. … Although the
   charity fund of $50,000 had been received in 1818, it was not
   till 1820 that the recipient felt justified in going forward
   to erect buildings for a college in Amherst. Efforts were made
   for the removal of Williams College from Williamstown to
   Hampshire County, and to have the charity fund used in
   connection with that college; and, if that were done, it was
   not certain that Amherst could be regarded as the best
   location for the college. But the legislature of Massachusetts
   decided that Williams College could not be removed from
   Williamstown, and nothing remained but for the friends of the
   new institution to go on with their plans for locating it at
   Amherst. … This first college edifice was ready for
   occupation and dedicated on the 18th of September, 1821. In
   the month of May, 1821, Reverend Zephaniah Swift Moore, D. D., was
   unanimously elected by the trustees of Amherst Academy
   president of the new institution."

      _T. P. Field
      (United States Bureau of Education, Circular of
      Information, 1891, number 6: History of Higher Education
      in Massachusetts), chapter 11._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1837.
   Massachusetts.
   Horace Mann and the State System.

   "When Massachusetts, in 1837, created a Board of Education,
   then were first united into a somewhat related whole the more
   or less excellent but varied and independent organizations,
   and a beginning made for a State system. It was this massing
   of forces, and the hearty co-operation he initiated, in which
   the work of Horace Mann showed its matchless greatness.
   'Rarely,' it has been said, 'have great ability, unselfish
   devotion, and brilliant success, been so united in the course
   of a single life.' A successful lawyer, a member of the State
   Legislature, and with but limited experience as a teacher, he
   has left his impress upon the educational sentiments of, not
   only New England, but the United States."

      _R. G. Boone,
      Education in the United States,
      page 103._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1840-1886.
   The United States.
   Proportion of College Students.

   "It is estimated that in 1840 the proportion of college
   students to the entire population in the United States was 1
   to 1,540; in 1860, 1 to 2,012; in 1870,1 to 2,546; in 1880, 1
   to 1,840; and in 1886, 1 to about 1,400, Estimating all our
   combined efforts in favor of higher education, we fall far
   short of some of the countries of the Old World."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States (U. S. Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1890, number 1), page 36._

{734}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1844-1876.
   Canada.
   Ontario School System.

   "From the earliest settlement of Ontario, schools were
   established as the wants of the inhabitants required. The
   Legislature soon recognized the needs of the country, and made
   grants of land and money in aid of elementary, secondary, and
   superior education. Statutes were passed from time to time for
   the purpose of opening schools to meet the demands of the
   people. The sparsely settled condition of the Province delayed
   for a while the organization of the system. It was not until
   1844 that the elementary schools were put on a comprehensive
   basis. In that year the Reverend Egerton Ryerson, LL. D., was
   appointed Chief Superintendent of Education, and the report
   which he presented to the House of Assembly sketched in an
   able manner the main features of the system of which he was
   the distinguished founder, and of which he continued for
   thirty-three years to be the efficient administrator. In 1876
   the office of chief superintendent was abolished, and the
   schools of the Province placed under the control of a member
   of the Government with the title of Minister of Education. …
   The system of education in Ontario may be said to combine the
   best features of the systems of several countries. To the Old
   World it is indebted for a large measure of its stability,
   uniformity and centralization; to the older settled parts of
   the New World for its popular nature, its flexibility and its
   democratic principles which have given, wherever desirable,
   local control and individual responsibility. From the State of
   New York we have borrowed the machinery of our school; from
   Massachusetts the principle of local taxation; from Ireland
   our first series of text books; from Scotland the co-operation
   of parents with the teacher, in upholding his authority; from
   Germany the system of Normal Schools and the Kindergarten; and
   from the United States generally the non-denominational
   character of elementary, secondary, and university education.
   Ontario may claim to have some features of her system that are
   largely her own. Among them may be mentioned a division of
   state and municipal authority on a judicious basis; clear
   lines separating the function of the University from that of
   the High Schools, and the function of the High Schools from
   that of the Public or elementary schools; a uniform course of
   study; all High and Public Schools in the hands of
   professionally trained teachers; no person eligible to the
   position of inspector who does not hold the highest grade of a
   teacher's certificate, and who has not had years of experience
   as a teacher; inspectors removable if inefficient, but not
   subject to removal by popular vote; the examinations of
   teachers under Provincial instead of local control; the
   acceptance of a common matriculation examination for admission
   to the Universities and to the learned professions; a uniform
   series of text books for the whole Province; the almost entire
   absence of party politics in the manner in which school
   boards, inspectors and teachers discharge their duties; the
   system national instead of sectarian, but affording under
   constitutional guarantees and limitations protection to Roman
   Catholic and Protestant Separate Schools and denominational
   Universities."

      _J. Millar,
      Educational System of the Province of Ontario._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1862.
   The United States.
   Land-grant for industrial Colleges.

   "Next to the Ordinance of 1787, the Congressional grant of
   1862 is the most important educational enactment in America.
   … By this gift forty-eight colleges and universities have
   received aid, at least to the extent of the Congressional
   grant; thirty-three of these, at least, have been called into
   existence by means of this act. In thirteen States the
   proceeds of the land scrip were devoted to institutions
   already in existence. The amount received from the sales of
   land scrip from twenty-four of these States aggregates the sum
   of $13,930,456, with land remaining unsold estimated at nearly
   two millions of dollars. These same institutions have received
   State endowments amounting to over eight million dollars. The
   origin of this gift must be sought in local communities. In
   this country all ideas of national education have arisen from
   those States that have felt the need of local institutions for
   the education of youth. In certain sections of the Union,
   particularly the North and West, where agriculture was one of
   the chief industries, it was felt that the old classical
   schools were not broad enough to cover all the wants of
   education represented by growing industries. There was
   consequently a revulsion from these schools toward the
   industrial and practical side of education. Evidences of this
   movement are seen in the attempts in different States to found
   agricultural, technical, and industrial schools. These ideas
   found their way into Congress, and a bill was introduced in
   1858, which provided for the endowment of colleges for the
   teaching of agriculture and the mechanical arts. The bill was
   introduced by Honorable Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont; it was
   passed by a small majority, and was vetoed by President
   Buchanan. In 1862 the bill was again presented with slight
   changes, passed and signed, and became a law July 2, 1862. …
   It stipulated to grant to each State thirty thousand acres of
   land for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which
   the States were respectively entitled by the census of 1860,
   for the purpose of endowing 'at least one college where the
   leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific
   and classical studies, and including military tactics, to
   teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture
   and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the Legislatures of
   the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the
   liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in
   the several pursuits and professions of life.' … From this
   proposition all sorts of schools sprang up, according to the
   local conception of the law and local demands. It was thought
   by some that boys were to be taught agriculture by working on
   a farm, and purely agricultural schools were founded with the
   mechanical arts attached. In other States classical schools of
   the stereotyped order were established, with more or less
   science; and, again, the endowment in others was devoted to
   scientific departments. The instruction of the farm and the
   teaching of pure agriculture have not succeeded in general,
   while the schools that have made prominent those studies
   relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, upon the whole,
   have succeeded best. … In several instances the managers of
   the land scrip have understood that by this provision the
   State could not locate the land within the borders of another
   State, but its assignees could thus locate lands, not more
   than one million acres in any one State. By considering this
   question, the New York land scrip was bought by Ezra Cornell,
   and located by him for the college in valuable lands in the
   State of Wisconsin, and thus the fund was augmented. However,
   the majority of the States sold their land at a sacrifice,
   frequently for less than half its value. There was a lull in
   the land market during the Civil War, and this cause, together
   with the lack of attention in many States, sacrificed the gift
   of the Federal Government. The sales ranged all the way from
   fifty cents to seven dollars per acre, as the average price
   for each State."

      _F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 47-49._

{735}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1862-1886.
   New York.
   Cornell University.

   "On the second of July, 1862,  … [President Lincoln] signed
   the act of congress, donating public lands for the
   establishment of colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts.
   This act had been introduced into congress by the Honorable Justin
   S. Morrill. … The Morrill act provided for a donation of
   public land to the several states, each state to receive
   thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative it
   sent to congress. States not containing within their own
   borders public land subject to sale at private entry received
   land scrip instead. But this land scrip the recipient states
   were not allowed to locate within the limits of any other
   state or of any territory of the United States. The act
   laconically directed 'said scrip to be sold by said states.'
   The proceeds of the sale, whether of land or scrip, in each
   state were to form a perpetual fund. … In the execution of
   this trust the State of New York was hampered by great and
   almost insuperable obstacles. For its distributive share it
   received land scrip to the amount of nine hundred and ninety
   thousand acres. The munificence of the endowment awakened the
   cupidity of a multitude of clamorous and strangely unexpected
   claimants. … If the princely domain granted to the State of
   New York by congress was not divided and frittered away, we
   owe it in great measure to the foresight, the energy, and the
   splendid courage of a few generous spirits in the legislature
   of whom none commanded greater respect or exercised more
   influence than Senator Andrew Dickson White, the gentleman who
   afterwards became first president of Cornell University. …
   But the all-compelling force which prevented the dispersion
   and dissipation of the bounty of congress was the generous
   heart of Ezra Cornell. While rival institutions clamored for a
   division of the 'spoils,' and political tricksters played
   their base and desperate game, this man thought only of the
   highest good of the State of New York, which he loved with the
   ardor of a patriot and was yet to serve with the heroism of a
   martyr. … When the legislature of the State of New York was
   called upon to make some disposition of the congressional
   grant, Ezra Cornell sat in the senate. … Of his minor
   legislative achievements I shall not speak. One act, however,
   has made his name as immortal as the state it glorified. By a
   gift of half a million dollars (a vast sum in 1865, the last
   year of the war!) he rescued for the higher education of New
   York the undivided grant of congress; and with the united
   endowments he induced the legislature to establish, not merely
   a college of applied science but a great modern
   university—'an institution,' according to his own admirable
   definition, 'where any person can find instruction in any
   study.' It was a high and daring aspiration to crown the
   educational system of our imperial state with an organ of
   universal knowledge, a nursery of every science and of all
   scholarship, an instrument of liberal culture and of practical
   utility to all classes of our people. This was, however, the
   end; and to secure it Ezra Cornell added to his original gift
   new donations of land, of buildings, and of money. … But one
   danger threatened this latest birth of time. The act of
   congress donating land scrip required the states to sell it.
   The markets were immediately glutted. Prices fell. New York
   was selling at an average price of fifty cents an acre. Her
   princely domain would bring at this rate less than half a
   million dollars! Was the splendid donation to issue in such
   disaster? If it could be held till the war was over, till
   immigration opened up the Northwest, it would be worth five
   times five hundred thousand dollars! So at least thought one
   far-seeing man in the State of New York. And this man of
   foresight had the heart to conceive, the wisdom to devise, and
   the courage to execute—he alone in all the states—a plan for
   saving to his state the future value of the lands donated by
   congress. Ezra Cornell made that wonderful and dramatic
   contract with the State of New York! He bound himself to
   purchase at the rate of sixty cents per acre the entire right
   of the commonwealth to the scrip, still unsold; and with the
   scrip, thus purchased by him as an individual he agreed to
   select and locate the lands it represented, to pay the taxes,
   to guard against trespasses and defend from fires, to the end
   that within twenty years when values had appreciated he might
   sell the land and turn into the treasury of the State of New
   York for the support of Cornell University the entire net
   proceeds of the enterprise. Within a few years Ezra Cornell
   had located over half a million acres of superior pine land in
   the Northwestern states, principally in Wisconsin. Under bonds
   to the State of New York to do the state's work he had spent
   about $600,000 of his own cash to carry out the trust
   committed to him by the state, when, alas, in the crisis of
   1874, fortune and credit sank exhausted and death came to free
   the martyr-patriot from his bonds. The seven years that
   followed were the darkest in our history. … Ezra Cornell was
   our founder; Henry W. Sage followed him as wise masterbuilder.
   The edifices, chairs and libraries which bear the name of
   'Sage' witness to [his] later gifts: but though these now
   aggregate the princely sum of $1,250,000, [his] management of
   the university lands has been [his] greatest achievement. From
   these lands, with which the generosity and foresight of Ezra
   Cornell endowed the university, there have been netted under
   [Mr. Sage's] administration, not far short of $4,000,000, with
   over 100,000 acres still to sell. Ezra Cornell's contract with
   the state was for twenty years. It expired August 4, 1886,
   when a ten years' extension was granted by the state. The
   trust will be closed in 1896."

      _J. G. Schurman,
      Address at Inauguration to the Presidency of
      Cornell University, November 11, 1892._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1866-1869.
   The United States.
   Bureau of Education.

   "Educators, political economists, and statesmen felt the need
   of some central agency by which the general educational
   statistics of the country could be collected, preserved,
   condensed, and properly arranged for distribution. This need
   found expression finally in the action taken at a convention
   of the superintendence department of the National Educational
   Association, held at Washington February, 1866, when it was
   resolved to petition Congress in favor of a National Bureau of
   Education. …
{736}
   The memorial was presented in the House of Representatives by
   General Garfield, February 14, 1866, with a bill for the
   establishment of a National Bureau on essentially the basis
   the school superintendents had proposed. Both bill and
   memorial were referred to a committee of seven members. …
   The bill was reported back from the committee, with an
   amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing for the
   creation of a department of education instead of the bureau
   originally proposed. Thus altered, it was passed by a vote of
   nearly two to one. In the Senate it was referred to the
   Committee on the Judiciary … who the following winter
   reported it without amendment and with a recommendation that
   it pass, which it did on the 1st of March, 1867, receiving on
   the next day the approval of the President. By the act of July
   28, 1868, which took effect June 30, 1869, the Department of
   Education was abolished, and an Office of Education in the
   Department of the Interior was established, with the same
   objects and duties. … The act of March 2, 1867, …
   established an agency 'for the purpose of collecting such
   statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress
   of education in the several States and Territories, and of
   diffusing such information respecting the organization and
   management of school systems and methods of teaching as shall
   aid the people of the United States in the establishment and
   maintenance of efficient school systems and otherwise promote
   the cause of education.' It will be perceived that the chief
   duty of the office under the law is to act as an educational
   exchange. Exercising and seeking to exercise no control
   whatever over its thousands of correspondents, the office
   occupies a position as the recipient of voluntary information
   which is unique."

      _C. Warren,
      Answers to Inquiries about the United States Bureau
      of Education, chapters 2-3._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.
   New York.
   Public Schools made entirely free.

   The public schools of the State of New York were not entirely
   free until 1867. In his report to the Legislature made in
   February of that year, the State Superintendent of Public
   Instruction, Honorable Victor M. Rice, said: "The greatest defect
   in our school system is, as I have urged in previous reports,
   the continuance of the rate bill system. Our common schools
   can never reach their highest degree of usefulness until they
   shall have been made entirely free. … To meet this public
   demand, to confer upon the children of the State the blessings
   of free education, a bill has already been introduced into
   your honorable body. … The main features of the bill are the
   provisions to raise, by State tax, a sum about equal to that
   raised in the districts by rate bills, and to abolish the rate
   bill system; to facilitate the erection and repair of school
   houses." The bill referred to was passed at the same session
   of the Legislature, and in his next succeeding report,
   Superintendent Rice gave the following account of the law and
   its immediate effects: "While the general structure of the
   school law was not disturbed, a material modification was made
   by the Act (chap. 406, Laws of 1867), which took effect on the
   first day of October of the same year, and which, among other
   things, provided for the abolishment of rate-bills, and for
   increased local and State taxation for school purposes. This
   was primarily a change in the manner of raising the requisite
   funds; not an absolute increase of the aggregate amount to be
   raised. It involved and encouraged such increase, so far as
   the inhabitants in the several school districts should
   authorize it, by substituting taxation exclusively on
   property, for a mixed assessment which, in part, was a tax on
   attendance. Thus relieved of an old impediment, and supplied
   with additional power and larger resources, the cause of
   public instruction, during the last fiscal year, has wrought
   results unequaled in all the past. … The effect of this
   amendment has not been confined to the financial policy
   thereby inaugurated. It is distinctly traceable in lengthened
   terms of school, in a larger and more uniform attendance, and
   in more liberal expenditures for school buildings and
   appliances."

      _Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State
      of New York,
      Annual Report, 1869,
      pages 5-6._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.
   Maryland.
   Johns Hopkins University.

   "By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of Baltimore, the
   sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a university
   [chartered in 1867] and a hospital, $3,500,000 being
   appropriated to each. … To the bequest no burdensome
   conditions were attached. … Just what this new university
   was to be proved a very serious question to the trustees. The
   conditions of Mr. Hopkins's bequest left the determination of
   this matter open. … A careful investigation led the trustees
   to believe that there was a growing demand for opportunities
   to study beyond the ordinary courses of a college or a
   scientific school, particularly in those branches of learning
   not included in the schools of law, medicine and theology.
   Strong evidence of this demand was afforded by the increasing
   attendance of American students upon the lectures of the
   German universities, as well as by the number of students who
   were enrolling themselves at Harvard and Yale for the
   post-graduate courses. It was therefore determined that the
   Johns Hopkins should be primarily a university, with advanced
   courses of lectures and fully equipped laboratories; that the
   courses should be voluntary, and the teaching not limited to
   class instruction. The foundation is both old and new. In so
   far as each feature is borrowed from some older university,
   where it has been fairly tried and tested, it is old, but at
   the same time this particular combination of separate features
   has here been made for the first time. … In the ordinary
   college course, if a young man happens to be deficient in
   mathematics, for example, he is either forced to lose any
   advantage he may possess in Greek or Latin, or else is obliged
   to take a position in mathematics for which he is unprepared.
   In the college department of the Johns Hopkins, this
   disadvantage does not exist; the classifying is specific for
   each study. The student has also the privilege of pushing
   forward in any one study as rapidly as he can with advantage;
   or, on the other hand, in case of illness or of unavoidable
   interruption, of prolonging the time devoted to the course, so
   that no part of it shall be omitted. As the studies are
   elective, it is possible to follow the usual college course if
   one desires. Seven different courses of study are indicated,
   any of which leads to the Baccalaureate degree, thus enabling
   the student to direct and specialize his work. The same
   standard of matriculation and the same severity of
   examinations are maintained in all these courses.
{737}
   A student has the privilege of extending his study beyond the
   regular class work, and he will be credited with all such
   private and outside study, if his examiners are satisfied of
   his thoroughness and accuracy."

      _S. B. Herrick,
      The Johns Hopkins University
      (Scribner's Monthly, December 1879)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1867-1891.
   The United States.
   The Peabody Education Fund.

   "The letter announcing and creating the Peabody endowment was
   dated February 7, 1867. In that letter, after referring to the
   ravages of he late war, the founder of the Trust said: 'I feel
   most deeply that it is the duty and privilege of the more
   favoured and wealthy portions of our nation to assist those
   who are less fortunate.' He then added: 'I give one million of
   dollars for the encouragement and promotion of intellectual,
   moral, and industrial education among the young of the more
   destitute portions of the Southern and Southwestern States of
   the Union.' On the day following, ten of the Trustees selected
   by him held a preliminary meeting in Washington. Their first
   business meeting was held in the city of New York, the 19th of
   March following, at which a general plan was adopted and an
   agent appointed. Mr. Peabody returned to his native country
   again in 1869, and on the 1st day of July, at a special
   meeting of the Trustees held at Newport, added a second
   million to the cash capital of the fund. … According to the
   donor's directions, the principal must remain intact for
   thirty years. The Trustees are not authorized to expend any
   part of it, nor yet to add to it any part of the accruing
   interest. The manner of using the interest, as well as the
   final distribution of the principal, was left entirely to the
   discretion of a self-perpetuating body of Trustees. Those
   first appointed had, however, the rare advantage of full
   consultation with the founder of the Trust while he still
   lived, and their plans received his cordial and emphatic
   approbation. … The pressing need of the present seemed to be
   in the department of primary education for the masses, and so
   they determined to make appropriations only for the assistance
   of public free schools. The money is not given as a charity to
   the poor. It would be entirely inadequate to furnish any
   effectual relief if distributed equally among all those who
   need it, and would, moreover, if thus widely dissipated,
   produce no permanent results. But the establishment of good
   public schools provides for the education of all children,
   whether rich or poor, and initiates a system which no State
   has ever abandoned after a fair trial. So it seemed to the
   donor as well as to his Trustees, that the greatest good of
   the greatest number would be more effectually and more
   certainly attained by this mode of distribution than by any
   other. No effort is made to distribute according to
   population. It was Mr. Peabody's wish that those States which
   had suffered most from the ravages of war should be assisted
   first."

      _American Educational Cyclopædia, 1875,
      pages 224-225._

   The report made by the treasurer of the Fund in 1890, showed a
   principal sum invested to the amount of $2,075,175.22,
   yielding an income that year of $97,818. In the annual report
   of the U. S. Commissioner of Education made February 1, 1891, he
   says: "It would appear to the student of education in the
   Southern States that the practical wisdom in the
   administration of the Peabody Fund and the fruitful results
   that have followed it could not be surpassed in the history of
   endowments."

      _Proceedings of the Trustees of the Peabody Education Fund,
      1887-1892._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1884-1891.
   California.
   Leland Stanford Junior University.

   "The founding at Palo Alto of 'a university for both sexes,
   with the colleges, schools, seminaries of learning, mechanical
   institutes, museums, galleries of art, and all other things
   necessary and appropriate to a university of high degree,' was
   determined upon by the Honorable Leland Stanford and Jane Lathrop
   Stanford in 1884. In March of the year following the
   Legislature of California passed an Act providing for the
   administration of trust funds in connection with institutions
   of learning. November 14, 1885, the Grant of Endowment was
   publicly made, in accordance with this Act, and on the same
   day the Board of Trustees held its first meeting in San
   Francisco. The work of construction was at once begun, and the
   cornerstone laid May 14, 1887. The University was formally
   opened to students October 1, 1891. The idea of the
   university, in the words of its founders, 'came directly and
   largely from our son and only child, Leland, and in the belief
   that had he been spared to advise as to the disposition of our
   estate, he would have desired the devotion of a large portion
   thereof to this purpose, we will that for all time to come the
   institution hereby founded shall bear his name, and shall be
   known as The Leland Stanford Junior University.' The object of
   the University, as stated in its Charter, is 'to qualify
   students for personal success and direct usefulness in life';
   and its purposes, 'to promote the public welfare by exercising
   an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching
   the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating
   love and reverence for the great principles of government as
   derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty,
   and the pursuit of happiness.' The University is located on
   the Palo Alto estate in the Santa Clara valley, thirty-three
   miles southeast of San Francisco, on the Coast Division of the
   Southern Pacific Railway. The estate consists of over eight
   thousand acres, partly lowland and partly rising into the
   foothills of the Santa Cruz range. On the grounds is the
   residence of the Founders, and an extensive and beautiful
   arboretum containing a very great variety of shrubs and trees.
   The property conveyed to the University, in addition to the
   Palo Alto estate, consists of the Vina estate, in Tehama
   County, of fifty-five thousand acres, of which about four
   thousand acres are planted in vines, and the Gridley estate,
   in Butte County, of twenty-two thousand acres, devoted mainly
   to the raising of wheat. … The founders of the Leland
   Stanford Junior University say: 'As a further assurance that
   the endowment will be ample to establish and maintain a
   university of the highest grade, we have, by last will and
   testament, devised to you and your successors additional
   property. We have done this as a security against the
   uncertainty of life and in the hope that during our lives the
   full endowment may go to you. The aggregate of the domain
   thus dedicated to the founding of the University, is over
   eighty-five thousand acres, or more than one hundred and
   thirty-three square miles, among the best improved and most
   valuable lands in the State."

      _Leland Stanford Junior University,
      Circulars of Information, numbers 6 and 1-2._

{738}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1889.
   Massachusetts.
   Clark University.

   "Clark University was founded [at Worcester] by … a native
   of Worcester County, Massachusetts. It was 'not the outcome of
   a freak of impulse, or of a sudden wave of generosity, or of
   the natural desire to perpetuate in a worthy way one's
   ancestral name. To comprehend the genesis of the enterprise we
   must go back along the track of Mr. Clark's personal history
   20 years at least. For as long ago as that, the idea came home
   with force to his mind that all civilized communities are in
   the hands of experts. … Looking around at the facilities
   obtainable in this country for the prosecution of original
   research, he was struck with the meagerness and the
   inadequacy. Colleges and professional schools we have in
   abundance, but there appeared to be no one grand inclusive
   institution, unsaddled by an academic department, where
   students might pursue as far as possible their investigation
   of any and every branch of science. … Mr. Clark went abroad
   and spent eight years visiting the institutions of learning in
   almost every country of Europe. He studied into their history
   and observed their present working.' … It is his strong and
   expressed desire that the highest possible academic standards
   be here forever maintained; that special opportunities and
   inducements be offered to research; that to this end the
   instructors be not overburdened with teaching or examinations.
   … A charter was granted early in 1887. Land and other
   property that had been before secured by the founder was
   transferred to the board, and the erection of a central
   building was begun. In the spring of 1888 G. Stanley Hall,
   then a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, was invited
   to the presidency. … The plans of the university had so far
   progressed that work was begun in October, 1889, in
   mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology."

      _G. G. Bush,
      History of Higher Education in Massachusetts
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 6), chapter 18._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1889-1892.
   Illinois.
   Chicago University.

   "At its Annual Meeting in May, 1889, the Board of the American
   Baptist Education Society resolved to take immediate steps
   toward the founding of a well-equipped college in the city of
   Chicago. At the same time John D. Rockefeller made a
   subscription of $600,000 and this sum was increased during the
   succeeding year by about $600,000 more in subscriptions
   representing more than two thousand persons. Three months
   after the completion of this subscription, Mr. Rockefeller
   made an additional proffer of $1,000,000. The site of the
   University consists of three blocks of ground—about two
   thousand feet long and three hundred and sixty-two feet wide,
   lying between the two South Parks of Chicago, and fronting on
   the Midway Plaisance, which is itself a park connecting the
   other two. One-half of this site is a gift of Marshall Field
   of Chicago, and the other half has been purchased at a cost of
   $132,500. At the first meeting of the Board after it had
   become an incorporated body, Professor William R. Harper, of
   Yale University, was unanimously elected President of the
   University. … It has been decided that the University will
   begin the work of instruction on the first day of October,
   1892. … The work of the University shall be arranged under
   three general divisions, viz., The University Proper, The
   University-Extension Work, The University Publication Work."

      _University of Chicago,
      Official Bulletin no. 1, January, 1891._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1890.
   United States.
   Census Statistics.

   The following statistics of education in the United States are
   from the returns gathered for the Eleventh Census, 1890. In
   these statistics the states and territories are classed in
   five great geographical divisions, defined as follows: North
   Atlantic Division, embracing the New England States, New York,
   New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; South Atlantic Division,
   embracing the States of the eastern coast, from Delaware to
   Florida, together with the District of Columbia; North Central
   Division, embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
   Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Dakota,
   Nebraska, and Kansas; South Central Division, embracing
   Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
   Arkansas, and Oklahoma; Western Division, embracing all the
   remaining States and Territories. The total taxation for
   public schools in the United States, as reported by this
   census, was $102,164,796; of which $37,619,786 was raised in
   the North Atlantic Division, $5,678,474 in the South Atlantic
   Division, $47,033,142 in the North Central Division,
   $5,698.562 in the South Central Division, and $6,134,832 in
   the Western Division. From funds and rents there were raised
   for school purposes a total of $25,694,449 in the United
   States at large, of which $8,273,147 was raised in the North
   Atlantic Division, $2,307,051 in the South Atlantic Division,
   $8,432,593 in the North Central Division, $3,720,158 in the
   South Central Division, and $2,961,500 in the Western
   Division. The total of all "ordinary" receipts for school
   support in the United States, was $139,619,440, of which
   $49,201,216 were in the North Atlantic Division, $8,685,223 in
   the South Atlantic Division. $61,108,263 in the North Central
   Division, $10,294,621 in the South Central Division, and
   $10,330,117 in the Western Division. The total "ordinary
   expenditures" were $138,786,393 in the whole United States;
   being $47,625,548 in the North Atlantic Division, $8,630,711
   in the South Atlantic Division, $62,815.531 in the North
   Central Division, $9,860,050 in the South Central Division,
   and $9,854,544 in the Western Division. For teachers' wages
   there was a total expenditure of $88,705,992, $28,067,821
   being in the North Atlantic Division, $6,400,063 in the South
   Atlantic Division, $39,866,831 in the North Central Division,
   $8,209,509 in the South Central Division, and $6,161,768 in
   the Western Division. The total expenditure for Libraries and
   Apparatus was $1,667,787, three-fourths of which was in the
   North Atlantic and North Central Divisions. The expenditure
   reported for construction and care of buildings, was
   $24,224,793, of which $10,687,114 was in the North Atlantic
   Division, $884,277 was in the South Atlantic Division,
   $9,869,489 in the North Central Division, $770,257 in the
   South Central Division, and $2,013,656 in the Western
   Division. Reported estimates of the value of buildings and
   other school property are incomplete, but $27,892,831 are
   given for Massachusetts, $41,626,735 for New York, $35,435,412
   for Pennsylvania, $32,631,549 for Ohio, $26,814,480 for
   Illinois, and these are the States that stand highest in the
   column.
{739}
   The apparent enrollment in Public Schools for the
   census year, reported to July, 1891, was as follows:
      North Atlantic Division, 3,124,417;
      South Atlantic Division, 1,758,285;
      North Central Division,  5,032,182;
      South Central Division,  2,334,694;
      Western Division,          520,286;
      Total for the United States, 12,769,864
   being 20.39 per cent. of the population, against 19.84 per
   cent. in 1880. The reported enrollment in Private Schools at
   the same time was:
      North Atlantic Division, 196,173;
      South Atlantic Division, 165,253;
      North Central Division,  187,827;
      South Central Division,  200,202;
      Western Division,         54,749;
      Total for the United States, 804,204.
   The reported enrollment in Parochial Schools was:
      North Atlantic Division, 311,684;
      South Atlantic Division,  30,869;
      North Central Division,  398,585;
      South Central Division,   41,115;
      Western Division,         17,349;
      Total for the United States, 799,602.
   Of this total, 626,496 were  enrolled in Catholic and 151,651
   in Lutheran Parochial Schools; leaving only 21,455 in the
   schools of all other denominations. Total enrollment reported
   in all schools 14,373,670. The colored public school
   enrollment in the Southern States was 1,288,229 in 1890,
   against 797,286 in 1880,—an increase of more than 61 per
   cent. The enrollment of whites was 3,358,527, against
   2,301,804,—an increase of nearly 46 per cent. The approximate
   number of Public School-houses in the United States, for the
   census year 1890 is given at 219,992, being 42,949 in the
   North Atlantic Division, 32,142 in the South Atlantic
   Division, 97,166 in the North Central Division, 38,962 in the
   South Central Division, 8,773 in the Western Division. The
   largest number reported is 14,214 in Pennsylvania. Of 6,408
   school-houses in Virginia 4,568 are for white, and 1,840 for
   colored children; in North Carolina, 3,973 white and 1,820
   colored. The above statistics are taken in part from the
   Compendium of the Eleventh Census, published in 1894, and
   partly from tables courteously furnished from the Census
   Bureau in advance of their publication.

EDUCATION: Modern: Reforms and Movements.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1638-1671.
   Comenius.

   "To know Comenius [born in Moravia, 1592] and the part he
   played in the seventeenth century, to appreciate this grand
   educational character, it would be necessary to begin by
   relating his life; his misfortunes; his journeys to England
   [1638], where Parliament invoked his aid; to Sweden [1642],
   where the Chancellor Oxenstiern employed him to write manuals
   of instruction; especially his relentless industry, his
   courage through exile, and the long persecutions he suffered
   as a member of the sect of dissenters, the Moravian Brethren;
   and the schools he founded at Fulneck, in Bohemia, at Lissa
   and at Patak, in Poland."

      _G. Compayré,
      The History of Pedagogy,
      chapter 6 (section 137)._

   "Comenius's inspiring motive, like that of all leading
   educationalists, was social regeneration. He believed that
   this could be accomplished through the school. He lived under
   the hallucination that by a proper arrangement of the
   subject-matter of instruction, and by a sound method, a
   certain community of thought and interests would be
   established among the young, which would result in social
   harmony and political settlement. He believed that men could
   be manufactured. … The educational spirit of the Reformers,
   the conviction that all—even the humblest—must be taught to
   know God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, was inherited by
   Comenius in its completeness. In this way, and in this way
   only, could the ills of Europe be remedied, and the progress
   of humanity assured. While, therefore, he sums up the
   educational aim under the threefold heads of Knowledge,
   Virtue, and Piety or Godliness, he in truth has mainly in view
   the last two. Knowledge is of value only in so far as it forms
   the only sound basis, in the eyes of a Protestant theologian,
   of virtue and godliness. We have to train for a hereafter. …
   By knowledge Comenius meant knowledge of nature and of man's
   relation to nature. It is this important characteristic of
   Comenius's educational system that reveals the direct
   influence of Bacon and his school. … It is in the department
   of Method, however, that we recognise the chief contribution
   of Comenius to education. The mere attempt to systematise was
   a great advance. In seeking, however, for foundations on which
   to erect a coherent system, he had to content himself with
   first principles which were vague and unscientific. … In the
   department of knowledge, that is to say, knowledge of the
   outer world, Comenius rested his method on the scholastic
   maxim, 'Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in
   sensu.' This maxim he enriched with the Baconian induction,
   comprehended by him only in a general way. … From the simple
   to the complex, from the particular to the general, the concrete
   before the abstract, and all, step by step, and even by
   insensible degrees,—these were among his leading principles
   of method. But the most important of all his principles was
   derived from the scholastic maxim quoted above. As all is from
   sense, let the thing to be known be itself presented to the
   senses, and let every sense be engaged in the perception of
   it. When it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to
   present the object itself, place a vivid picture of it before
   the pupil. The mere enumeration of these few principles, even
   if we drop out of view all his other contributions to method
   and school-management, will satisfy any man familiar with all
   the more recent treatises on Education, that Comenius, even
   after giving his precursors their due, is to be regarded as
   the true founder of modern Method, and that he anticipates
   Pestalozzi and all of the same school. … Finally, Comenius's
   views as to the inner organisation of a school were original,
   and have proved themselves in all essential respects correct.
   The same may be said of his scheme for the organisation of a
   State-system—a scheme which is substantially, mutatis
   mutandis, at this moment embodied in the highly-developed
   system of Germany. When we consider, then, that Comenius first
   formally and fully developed educational method, that he
   introduced important reforms into the teaching of languages,
   that he introduced into schools the study of Nature, that he
   advocated with intelligence, and not on purely sentimental
   grounds, a milder discipline, we are justified in assigning to
   him a high, if not the highest, place among modern educational
   writers."

      _S. S. Laurie,
      John Amos Comenius,
      pages 217-226._

{740}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1681-1878.
   The Christian Brothers.

   "Any description of popular education in Europe would be
   incomplete, which should not give prominence to the Institute
   of the Christian Brothers—or the Brothers of the Christian
   Doctrine—including in that term the earliest professional
   school for the training of teachers in Europe; one of the most
   remarkable body of teachers devoted exclusively and without
   pay to the education of the children of the poor that the
   world has ever seen. … The Institute was established as a
   professional school in 1681, and to Abbe John Baptist de la
   Salle, belongs the high honor not only of founding it, but of
   so infusing into its early organization his own profound
   conviction of the Christ-like character of its mission among
   the poor, that it has retained for nearly two centuries the
   form and spirit of its origin. This devoted Christian teacher
   was born at Rheims on the 30th of April, 1651. … He was
   early distinguished for his scholarly attainments and maturity
   of character; and at the age of seventeen, before he had
   completed his full course of theological study, he was
   appointed Canon in the Cathedral church of Rheims. From the
   first, he became interested in the education of the young, and
   especially of the poor, as the most direct way of leading them
   to a Christian life;—and with this view before he was
   twenty-one years old, he assumed the direction of two
   charities, devoted to female education. From watching the
   operation of these schools, conducted by teachers without
   professional training, without plan and without mutual
   sympathy and aid, he conceived the design of bringing the
   teachers of this class of schools from the neighboring
   parishes into a community for their moral and professional
   improvement. For this purpose, he invited them first to meet,
   and then to lodge at his house, and afterwards, about the year
   1681, he purchased a house for their special accommodation.
   Here, out of school hours and during their holy days, they
   spent their time in the practice of religious duties, and in
   mutual conferences on the work in which they were engaged.
   About this period, a large number of free schools for the poor
   were established in the neighboring towns; and applications
   were constantly made to the Abbe for teachers formed under his
   training, care, and influence. To meet this demand, and make
   himself more directly useful in the field of Christian
   education, he resigned his benefice, that he might give his
   whole attention to the work. To close the distance between
   himself, having a high social position and competence from his
   father's estate, and the poor schoolmasters to whom he was
   constantly preaching an unreserved consecration of themselves
   to their vocation—he not only resigned his canonry, with its
   social and pecuniary advantages, but distributed his
   patrimony, in a period of scarcity, in relieving the
   necessities of the poor, and in providing for the education of
   their children. He thus placed himself on a footing of
   equality—as to occupation, manner of life, and entire
   dependence on the charity of others—with the schoolmasters of
   the poor. The annals of education or religion show but few
   such examples of practical self-denial, and entire
   consecration to a sense of duty. … Having completed his act
   of resignation and self-imposed poverty, he assembled his
   teachers, announced to them what he had done, and sung with
   them a Te Deum. After a retreat—a period set apart to prayer
   and fasting-continued for seventeen days, they devoted
   themselves to the consideration of the best course to give
   unity, efficiency, and permanence to their plans of Christian
   education for the poor. They assumed the name of 'The Brothers
   of the Christian Doctrine,' as expressive of their
   vocation—which by usage came to be abbreviated into
   'Christian Brothers.' They took on themselves vows of poverty,
   celibacy, and obedience for three years. They prescribed to
   themselves the most frugal fare, to be provided in turns by
   each other, They adopted at that time some rules of behavior,
   which have since been incorporated into the fundamental rules
   of the order. … In 1702 the first step was taken to
   establish an Institute at Rome, under the mission of one of
   the brothers, Gabriel Drolin, who after years of poverty, was
   made conductor of one of the charitable schools founded by
   Pope Clement XI. This school became afterwards the foundation
   of the house which the brothers have had in Rome since the
   pontificate of Benedict XIII., who conferred on the institute
   the constitution of a religious order. In 1703, under the
   pecuniary aid of M. Chateau Blanc, and the countenance of the
   archbishop, M. de Gontery, a school was opened at Avignon. …
   In 1789, the National Assembly prohibited vows to be made in
   communities; and in 1790, suppressed all religious societies;
   and in 1791, the institute was dispersed. At that date there
   were one hundred and twenty houses, and over one thousand
   brothers, actively engaged in the duties of the school room.
   The continuity of the society was secured by the houses
   established in Italy, to which many of the brothers fled. …
   In 1801, on the conclusion of a Concordat between the Pope and
   the government, the society was revived in France by the
   opening of a school at Lyons; and in 1815, they resumed their
   habit, and opened a novitiate, the members of which were
   exempt from military service. At the organization of the
   university in 1808, the institute was legally reorganized, and
   from that time has increased in numbers and usefulness. … In
   1842, there were 390 houses (of which 326 were in France),
   with 3,030 brothers, and 585 novices. There were 642 schools
   with 163,700 children, besides evening schools with 7,800
   adults in attendance, and three reformatory schools with 2,000
   convicts under instruction."

      _Henry Barnard,
      National Education in Europe,
      pages 435-441._

   "In 1878 their numbers had increased to 11,640; they had 1,249
   establishments, and the number of their scholars was 390,607."

      _Mrs. R. F. Wilson,
      The Christian Brothers, their Origin and Work,
      chapter 21._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1762.
   Rousseau.

   "Rousseau, who had educated himself, and very badly at that,
   was impressed with the dangers of the education of his day. A
   mother having asked his advice, he took up the pen to write
   it; and, little by little, his counsels grew into a book, a
   large work, a pedagogic romance ['Emile']. This romance, when
   it appeared in 1762, created a great noise and a great
   scandal. The Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, saw
   in it a dangerous, mischievous work, and gave himself the
   trouble of writing a long encyclical letter in order to point
   out the book to the reprobation of the faithful. This document
   of twenty-seven chapters is a formal refutation of the
   theories advanced in 'Emile.' … In those days, such a
   condemnation was a serious matter; its consequences to an
   author might be terrible. Rousseau had barely time to flee.
   His arrest was decreed by the parliament of Paris, and his
   book was burned by the executioner. … As a fugitive,
   Rousseau did not find a safe retreat even in his own country.
{741}
   He was obliged to leave Geneva, where his book was also
   condemned, and Berne, where he had sought refuge, but whence
   he was driven by intolerance. He owed it to the protection of
   Lord Keith, governor of Neufchâtel, a principality belonging
   to the King of Prussia, that he lived for some time in peace
   in the little town of Motiers in the Val de Travers. … The
   renown of the book, condemned by so high an authority, was
   immense. Scandal, by attracting public attention to it, did it
   good service. What was most serious and most suggestive in it
   was not, perhaps, seized upon; but the 'craze' of which it was
   the object had, notwithstanding, good results. Mothers were
   won over, and resolved to nurse their own infants; great lords
   began to learn handicrafts, like Rousseau's imaginary pupil;
   physical exercises came into fashion; the spirit of innovation
   was forcing itself a way. … Three men above all the rest are
   noted for having popularized the pedagogic method of Rousseau,
   and for having been inspired in their labors by 'Emile.' These
   were Basedow, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Basedow, a German
   theologian, had devoted himself entirely to dogmatic
   controversy, until the reading of 'Emile' had the effect of
   enlarging his mental horizon, and of revealing to him his true
   vocation. … Pestalozzi of Zurich, one of the foremost
   educators of modern times, also found his whole life
   transformed by the reading of 'Emile,' which awoke in him the
   genius of a reformer. … The most distinguished among his
   disciples and continuators is Froebel, the founder of those
   primary schools … known by the name of 'kindergartens,' and
   the author of highly esteemed pedagogic works. These various
   attempts, these new and ingenious processes which, step by
   step, have made their way among us, and are beginning to make
   their workings felt, even in institutions most stoutly opposed
   to progress, are all traceable to Rousseau's 'Emile.' … It
   is true that 'Emile' contains pages that have outlived their
   day, many odd precepts, many false ideas, many disputable and
   destructive theories; but at the same time we find in it so
   many sagacious observations, such upright counsels, suitable
   even to modern times, so lofty an ideal, that, in spite of
   everything, we cannot read and study it without profit. …
   There is absolutely nothing practicable in his [Rousseau's]
   system. It consists in isolating a child from the rest of the
   world; in creating expressly for him a tutor, who is a phœnix
   among his kind; in depriving him of father, mother, brothers,
   and sisters, his companions in study; in surrounding him with
   a perpetual charlatanism, under the pretext of following
   nature; and in showing him only through the veil of a
   factitious atmosphere the society in which he is to live. And,
   nevertheless, at each step it is sound reason by which we are
   met; by an astonishing paradox, this whimsicality is full of
   good sense; this dream overflows with realities; this
   improbable and chimerical romance contains the substance and
   the marrow of a rational and truly modern treatise on
   pedagogy. Sometimes we must read between the lines, add what
   experience has taught us since that day, transpose into an
   atmosphere of open democracy those pages, written under the
   old order of things, but even then quivering with the new
   world which they were bringing to light, and for which they
   prepared the way. Reading 'Emile' in the light of modern
   prejudices, we can see in it more than the author wittingly
   put into it; but not more than logic and the instinct of
   genius set down there. To unfold the powers of children in due
   proportion to their age; not to transcend their ability; to
   arouse in them the sense of the observer and of the pioneer;
   to make them discoverers rather than imitators: to teach them
   accountability to themselves and not slavish dependence upon
   the words of others; to address ourselves more to the will
   than to custom, to the reason rather than to the memory; to
   substitute for verbal recitations lessons about things; to
   lead to theory by way of art; to assign to physical movements
   and exercises a prominent place, from the earliest hours of
   life up to perfect maturity; such are the principles scattered
   broadcast in this book, and forming a happy counterpoise to
   the oddities of which Rousseau was perhaps most proud."

      _J. Steeg,
      Introduction to Rousseau's 'Emile.'_

EDUCATION: A. D. 1798-1827.
   Pestalozzi.

   In Switzerland, up to the end of the eighteenth century, the
   state of primary instruction was very bad. "The teachers were
   gathered up at hazard; their pay was wretched; in general they
   had no lodgings of their own, and they were obliged to hire
   themselves out for domestic service among the well-off
   inhabitants of the villages, in order to find food and lodging
   among them. A mean spirit of caste still dominated
   instruction, and the poor remained sunk in ignorance. It was
   in the very midst of this wretched and unpropitious state of
   affairs that there appeared, towards the end of the eighteenth
   century, the most celebrated of modern educators. … Born at
   Zurich in 1746, Pestalozzi died at Brugg in Argovia in 1827.
   This unfortunate great man always felt the effects of the
   sentimental and unpractical education given him by his mother,
   who was left a widow with three children in 1751. He early
   formed the habit of feeling and of being touched with emotion,
   rather than of reasoning and of reflecting. The laughing-stock
   of his companions, who made sport of his awkwardness, the
   little scholar of Zurich accustomed himself to live alone and
   to become a dreamer. Later, towards 1760, the student of the
   academy distinguished himself by his political enthusiasm and
   his revolutionary daring. At that early period he had
   conceived a profound feeling for the miseries and the needs of
   the people, and he already proposed as the purpose of his life
   the healing of the diseases of society. At the same time there
   was developed in him an irresistible taste for a simple,
   frugal, and almost ascetic life. To restrain his desires had
   become the essential rule of his conduct, and, to put it in
   practice, he forced himself to sleep on a plank, and to
   subsist on bread and vegetables."

      _G. Compayré,
      The History of Pedagogy,
      chapter 18._

   "In spite … of Pestalozzi's patent disqualifications in many
   respects for the task he undertook; in spite of his ignorance
   of even common subjects (for he spoke, read, wrote, and
   cyphered badly, and knew next to nothing of classics or
   science); in spite of his want of worldly wisdom, of any
   comprehensive and exact knowledge of men and of things; in
   spite of his being merely an elementary teacher,—through the
   force of his all-conquering love, the nobility of his heart,
   the resistless energy of his enthusiasm, his firm grasp of a
   few first principles, his eloquent exposition of them in
   words, his resolute manifestation of them in deeds,—he stands
   forth among educational reformers as the man whose influence
   on education is wider, deeper, more penetrating, than that of
   all the rest—the prophet and the sovereign of the domain in
   which he lived and laboured. …
{742}
   It was late in life—he was fifty-two years of age—before
   Pestalozzi became a practical school-master. He had even begun
   to despair of ever finding the career in which he might
   attempt to realize the theories over which his loving heart
   and teeming brain had been brooding from his earliest youth.
   … At fifty-two years of age, then, we find Pestalozzi
   utterly unacquainted with the science and the art of
   education, and very scantily furnished even with elementary
   knowledge, undertaking at Stanz, in the canton of Unterwalden,
   the charge of eighty children, whom the events of war had
   rendered homeless and destitute. … The house in which the
   eighty children were assembled to be boarded, lodged, and
   taught, was an old tumble-down Ursuline convent, scarcely
   habitable, and destitute of all the conveniences of life. The
   only apartment suitable for a schoolroom was about twenty-four
   feet square, furnished with a few desks and forms; and into
   this were crowded the wretched children, noisy, dirty,
   diseased, and ignorant, with the manners and habits of
   barbarians. Pestalozzi's only helper in the management of the
   institution was an old woman, who cooked the food and swept
   the rooms; so that he was, as he tells us himself, not only
   the teacher, but the paymaster, man-servant, and almost the
   housemaid of the children. … 'My wishes [he writes] were now
   accomplished. I felt convinced that my heart would change the
   condition of my children as speedily as the springtide sun
   reanimates the earth frozen by the winter. Nor,' he adds, 'was
   I mistaken. Before the springtide sun melted away the snow
   from our mountains, you could no longer recognise the same
   children.' … 'I was obliged,' he says, 'unceasingly to be
   everything to my children. I was alone with them from morning
   to night. It was from my hand they received whatever could be
   of service both to their bodies and minds. All succour, all
   consolation, all instruction came to them immediately from
   myself. Their hands were in my hand; my eyes were fixed on
   theirs, my tears mingled with theirs, my smiles encountered
   theirs, my soup was their soup, my drink was their drink. I
   had around me neither family, friends, nor servants; I had
   only them. I was with them when they were in health, by their
   side when they were ill. I slept in their midst. I was the
   last to go to bed, the first to rise in the morning. When we
   were in bed I used to pray with them and talk to them till
   they went to sleep. They wished me to do so.' … 'I knew,' he
   says, 'no system, no method, no art but that which rested on
   the simple consequences of the firm belief of the children in
   my love towards them. I wished to know no other.' …
   Gradually … Pestalozzi advanced to the main principles of
   his system of moral education. … He says:—'Nature develops
   all the human faculties by practice, and their growth depends
   on their exercise.' 'The circle of knowledge commences close
   around a man, and thence extends concentrically.' 'Force not
   the faculties of children into the remote paths of knowledge,
   until they have gained strength by exercise on things that are
   near them.' 'There is in Nature an order and march of
   development. If you disturb or interfere with it, you mar the
   peace and harmony of the mind. And this you do, if, before you
   have formed the mind by the progressive knowledge of the
   realities of life, you fling it into the labyrinth of words,
   and make them the basis of development.' 'The artificial march
   of the ordinary school, anticipating the order of Nature,
   which proceeds without anxiety and without haste, inverts this
   order by placing words first, and thus secures a deceitful
   appearance of success at the expense of natural and safe
   development.' In these few sentences we recognise all that is
   most characteristic in the educational principles of
   Pestalozzi. … To set the intellectual machinery in
   motion—to make it work, and keep it working; that was the
   sole object at which he aimed; of all the rest he took little
   account. … He relied upon a principle which must be insisted
   on as cardinal and essential in education. He secured the
   thorough interest of his pupils in the lesson, and mainly
   through their own direct share in it. … Observation, …
   according to Pestalozzi (and Bacon had said the same thing
   before him), is the absolute basis of all knowledge, and is
   therefore the prime agent in elementary education. It is
   around this theory, as a centre of gravity, that Pestalozzi's
   system revolves."

      _J. Payne,
      Lectures on the History of Education,
      lecture. 9._

   "During the short period, not more than a year, which
   Pestalozzi spent among the children at Stanz, he settled the
   main features of the Pestalozzian system. Sickness broke out
   among the children, and the wear and tear was too great even
   for Pestalozzi. He would probably have sunk under his efforts
   if the French, pressed by the Austrians, had not entered
   Stanz, in January, 1799, and taken part of the Ursuline
   Convent for a military hospital. Pestalozzi was, therefore,
   obliged to break up the school, and he himself went to a
   medicinal spring on the Gurnigel in the Canton Bern. … He
   came down from the Gurnigel, and began to teach in the primary
   schools (i. e., schools for children from four to eight years
   old) of Burgdorf, the second town in the Canton. Here the
   director was jealous of him, and he met with much opposition.
   … In less than a year Pestalozzi left this school in bad
   health, and joined Krüsi in opening a new school in Burgdorf
   Castle, for which he afterward (1802) obtained Government aid.
   Here he was assisted in carrying out his system by Krüsi,
   Tobler, and Bluss. He now embodied the results of his
   experience in a work which has obtained great celebrity—'How
   Gertrude Teaches her Children' [also published in England
   under the title of 'Leonard and Gertrude]. In 1802 Pestalozzi,
   for once in his life a successful and popular man, was elected
   a member of a deputation sent by the Swiss people to Paris. On
   the restoration of the Cantons in 1804. the Castle of Burgdorf
   was again occupied by one of the chief magistrates, and
   Pestalozzi and his establishment were moved to the Monastery
   of Buchsee. Here the teachers gave the principal direction to
   another, the since celebrated Fellenburg, 'not without my
   consent,' says Pestalozzi, 'but to my profound mortification.'
   He therefore soon accepted an invitation from the inhabitants
   of Yverdun to open an institution there, and within a
   twelvemonth he was followed by his old assistants, who had
   found government by Fellenburg less to their taste than
   no-government by Pestalozzi.
{743}
   The Yverdun Institute had soon a world-wide reputation.
   Pestalozzian teachers went from it to Madrid, to Naples, to
   St. Petersburg. Kings and philosophers joined in doing it
   honor. But, as Pestalozzi himself has testified, these praises
   were but as a laurel-wreath encircling a skull. The life of
   the Pestalozzian institutions had been the love which the old
   man had infused into all the members, teachers as well as
   children; but this life was wanting at Yverdun. The
   establishment was much too large to be carried on successfully
   without more method and discipline than Pestalozzi,
   remarkable, as he himself says, for his 'unrivalled incapacity
   to govern,' was master of. The assistants began each to take
   his own line, and even the outward show of unity was soon at
   an end. … Thus the sun went down in clouds, and the old man,
   when he died at the age of eighty, in 1827, had seen the
   apparent failure of all his toils. He had not, however, failed
   in reality. It has been said of him that his true fortune was
   to educate ideas, not children, and when twenty years later
   the centenary of his birth was celebrated by school-masters,
   not only in his native country, but throughout Germany, it was
   found that Pestalozzian ideas had been sown, and were bearing
   fruit, over the greater part of central Europe."

      _R. H. Quick,
      Essays on Educational Reformers,
      chapter 8._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1891.
   Co-education and the Higher Education of
   Women in the United States.

   "When to a few daring minds the conviction came that education
   was a right of personality rather than of sex, and when there
   was added to this growing sentiment the pressing demand for
   educated women as teachers and as leaders in philanthropy, the
   simplest means of equipping women with the needful preparation
   was found in the existing schools and colleges. … In nearly
   every State west of the Alleghanies, 'Universities' had been
   founded by the voluntary tax of the whole population.
   Connected with all the more powerful religious denominations
   were schools and colleges which called upon their adherents
   for gifts and students. These democratic institutions had the
   vigor of youth, and were ambitious and struggling. 'Why,'
   asked the practical men of affairs who controlled them,
   'should not our daughters go on with our sons from the public
   schools to the university which we are sacrificing to equip
   and maintain?' It is not strange that with this and much more
   practical reasoning of a similar kind, co-education was
   established in some colleges at their beginning, in others
   after debate, and by a radical change in policy. When once the
   chivalrous desire was aroused to give girls as good an
   education as their brothers, Western men carried out the
   principle unflinchingly. From the kindergarten to the
   preparation for the doctorate of philosophy, educational
   opportunities are now practically alike for men and women. The
   total number of colleges of arts and sciences empowered by law
   to give degrees, reporting to Washington in 1888, was three
   hundred and eighty-nine. Of these, two hundred and
   thirty-seven, or nearly two-thirds, were co-educational. Among
   them are nearly all the State universities, and nearly all the
   colleges under the patronage of the Protestant sects. Hitherto
   I have spoken as if co-education were a Western movement; and
   in the West it certainly has had greater currency than
   elsewhere. But it originated, at least so far as concerns
   superior secondary training, in Massachusetts. Bradford
   Academy, chartered in 1804, is the oldest incorporated
   institution in the country to which boys and girls were from
   the first admitted; but it closed its department for boys in
   1836, three years after the foundation of co-educational
   Oberlin, and in the very year when Mount Holyoke was opened by
   Mary Lyon, in the large hope of doing for young women what
   Harvard had been founded to do for young men just two hundred
   years before. Ipswich and Abbot Academies in Massachusetts had
   already been chartered to educate girls alone. It has been the
   dominant sentiment in the East that boys and girls should be
   educated separately. The older, more generously endowed, more
   conservative seats of learning, inheriting the complications
   of the dormitory system, have remained closed to women. … In
   the short period of the twenty years after the war the four
   women's colleges which are the richest in endowments and
   students of any in the world were founded and set in motion.
   These colleges—Vassar, opened in 1865, Wellesley and Smith in
   1875, and Bryn Mawr in 1885—have received in gifts of every
   kind about $6,000,000, and are educating nearly two thousand
   students. For the whole country the Commissioner of Education
   reports two hundred and seven institutions for the superior
   instruction of women, with more than twenty-five, thousand
   students. But these resources proved inadequate. There came an
   increasing demand, especially from teachers, for education of
   all sorts. … In an attempt to meet a demand of this sort the
   Harvard Annex began twelve years ago [in 1879] to provide a
   few women with instruction from members of the Harvard
   faculty. … Barnard College in New York is an annex of
   Columbia only in a sense, for not all her instruction is given
   by Columbia's teaching force, though Columbia will confer
   degrees upon her graduates. The new woman's college at
   Cleveland sustains temporarily the same relations to, Adelbert
   College, though to a still greater extent she provides
   independent instruction."

      _A. F. Palmer,
      Review of the Higher Education of Women
      (Woman and the Higher Education, pages 105-127)._

   "The Cleveland College for Women, Cleveland, Ohio, was first
   opened for instruction in 1888 as a department of Western
   Reserve University. At the same time the trustees of the
   university decided to receive no more women into Adelbert
   College. That the success of the new school might be assured,
   the faculty of Adelbert College generously offered their
   services for a term of years as instructors. During the first
   year twenty-three young women were admitted, but two of whom
   were in the regular courses. During 1889-90 the number of
   students increased to thirty-eight. … In 1887 Evelyn
   College, an institution for women, was opened at Princeton, N.
   J. Its location at this place gives the institution very great
   advantages, inasmuch as the use of the libraries and museums
   of the College of New Jersey, popularly known as Princeton
   College, are granted to the students."

      _U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
      volume 2, page 744._

{744}

   "The latest report of the United States Commissioner of
   Education contains over two hundred institutions for the
   superior education of women. The list includes colleges and
   seminaries entitled to confer degrees, and a few seminaries,
   whose work is of equal merit, which do not give degrees. Of
   these more than two hundred institutions for the education of
   women exclusively, only 47 are situated within [western
   states]. … Of these 47, but 30 are chartered with authority
   to confer degrees. … The extent to which the higher
   education of women is in the West identified with
   co-education, can be seen by comparing the two statements
   above given. Of the total 212 higher institutions receiving
   women, and of the total 195 such institutions which confer the
   regular degrees in arts, science, and letters, upon their
   graduates, 165 are co-educational. … Among colleges
   characterized from birth by a liberal and progressive spirit
   may be mentioned 'The Cincinnati Wesleyan Woman's College.'
   This institution was chartered in 1842, and claims to be 'the
   first liberal collegiate institution in the world for the
   exclusive education of women.' … The West is committed to
   co-education, excepting only the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran,
   and the Protestant Episcopal sects,—which are not yet, as
   sects, committed to the collegiate education of women at
   all,—and the Presbyterian sect, whose support, in the West,
   of 14 co-educational colleges against 4 for the separate
   education of young men, almost commits it to the
   co-educational idea. … In 1853, Antioch College was opened
   at Yellow Springs, Ohio. It was the first endeavor in the West
   to found a college under Christian but non-sectarian auspices.
   Its president, Horace Mann, wrote of it: 'Antioch is now the
   only first-class college in all the West that is really an
   unsectarian institution.' … Antioch was from the first
   avowedly co-educational."

       _M. W. Sewall,
       Education of Women in the Western States
       (Woman's Work in America, pages 61-70)._

   "Most people would probably be ready to say that except for
   the newly founded Woman's College in Baltimore and Tulane
   University [State university of Louisiana], the collegiate
   education of women does not exist in the South. But as matter
   of fact, there are no less than one hundred and fifty
   institutions in the South which are authorized by the
   Legislatures of their respective States to confer the regular
   college degrees upon women. Of these, forty-one are
   co-educational, eighty-eight are for women alone, and
   twenty-one are for colored persons of both sexes. The bureau
   of education makes no attempt to go behind the verdict of the
   State Legislatures, but on looking over the catalogues of all
   these institutions it is, as might have been expected, easy to
   see that the great majority of them are not in any degree
   colleges, in the ordinary sense of the word. Not a single one
   of the so-called female colleges presents a real college
   course, and many of the co-educational colleges are colleges
   only in name."

      _C. L. Franklin,
      Education of Women in the Southern States
      (Woman's Work in America, pages 93-94)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1816-1892,
   Froebel and the Kindergarten.

   "Frœbel (Friedrich Wilhelm August) was born April 21, 1782, at
   Oberweissbach, in the principality of Schwanburg-Rudolstadt.
   His mother died when he was so young that he never even
   remembered her; and he was left to the care of an ignorant
   maid-of-all-work, who simply provided for his bodily wants.
   … Not until he was ten years of age did he receive the
   slightest regular instruction. He was then sent to school, to
   an uncle who lived in the neighborhood, … He pronounced the
   boy to be idle (which, from his point of view, was quite true)
   and lazy (which certainly was not true)—a boy, in short, that
   you could do nothing with. … It was necessary for him to
   earn his bread, and we next find him a sort of apprentice to a
   woodsman in the great Thuringian forest. Here, as he afterward
   tells us, he lived some years in cordial intercourse with
   nature and mathematics, learning even then, though
   unconsciously, from the teaching he received, how to teach
   others. … In 1801 he went to the University of Jena, where
   he attended lectures on natural history, physics, and
   mathematics; but, as he tells us, gained little from them. …
   This … was put an end to by the failure of means to stay at
   the University. For the next few years he tried various
   occupations. … While engaged in an architect's office at
   Frankfort, he formed an acquaintance with the Rector of the
   Model School, a man named Gruner. Gruner saw the capabilities
   of Frœbel, and detected also his entire want of interest in
   the work that he was doing; and one day suddenly said to him:
   'Give up your architect's business; you will do nothing at it.
   Be a teacher. We want one now in the school; you shall have
   the place.' This was the turning point in Frœbel's life. He
   accepted the engagement, began work at once, and tells us that
   the first time he found himself in the midst of a class of 30
   or 40 boys, he felt that he was in the element that he had
   missed so long—'the fish was in the water.' He was
   inexpressibly happy. … In a calmer mood he severely
   questioned himself as to the means by which he was to satisfy
   the demands of his new position. About this time he met with
   some of Pestalozzi's writings, which so deeply impressed him
   that he determined to go to Yverdun and study Pestalozzi on
   the spot. He accomplished his purpose, and lived and worked
   for two years with Pestalozzi. His experience at Yverdun
   impressed him with the conviction that the science of
   education had still to draw out from Pestalozzi's system those
   fundamental principles which Pestalozzi himself did not
   comprehend. 'And therefore,' says Schmidt, 'this genial
   disciple of Pestalozzi supplemented his system by advancing
   from the point which Pestalozzi had reached through pressure
   from without, to the innermost conception of man, and arriving
   at the thought of the true development and culture of
   mankind.' … His educational career commenced November 13th,
   1816, in Greisheim, a little village near Stadt-Ilm, in
   Thuringia; but in 1817, when his Pestalozzian friend,
   Middendorf, joined him … the school was transferred to the
   beautiful village of Keilhau, near Rudolstadt, which may be
   considered as his chief starting-place. … Langenthal,
   another Pestalozzian, associated himself with them, and they
   commenced building a house. The number of pupils rose to
   twelve in 1818. Then the daughter of war-counselor Hoffman of
   Berlin, from enthusiasm for Frœbel's educational ideas, became
   his wife. She had a considerable dowry, which, together with
   the accession of Frœbel's elder brother, increased the funds
   and welfare of the school. In 1831 he was invited by the
   composer, Schnyder von Wartensee, to erect a similar garden on
   his estate, near the lake of Sempach, in the canton Luzern. It
   was done. Frœbel changed his residence the next year, from
   Keilhau to Switzerland. In 1834 the government of Bern invited
   him to arrange a training course for teachers in Burgdorf. In
   1835 he became principal of the orphan asylum in Burgdorf, but
   in 1836 he and his wife wished to return to Germany. There he
   was active in Berlin, Keilhau, Blankenburg, Dresden,
   Liebenstein in Thuringia, Hamburg, (1849,) and Marienthal,
   near Liebenstein, where he lived until his decease in 1852,
   among the young ladies, whom he trained as nurses for the
   kindergarten, and the little children who attended his
   school."

      _H. Barnard, editor,
      Papers on Froebel's Kindergarten: Memoir._

{745}

   "The child thinks only through symbols. In other words, it
   explains all it sees not by the recorded experience of others,
   as does an adult, but by marshaling and comparing its own
   concept or symbol of what it has itself seen. Its sole
   activity is play. 'The school begins with teaching the
   conventionalities of intelligence. Froebel would have the
   younger children receive a symbolic education in plays, games,
   and occupations which symbolize the primitive arts of man.'
   For this purpose, the child is led through a series of
   primitive occupations in plaiting, weaving, and modeling,
   through games and dances, which bring into play all the social
   relations, and through songs and the simple use of number,
   form and language. The 'gifts' all play their manifold
   purpose, inspiring the child, awakening its interest, leading
   the individual along the path the race has trod, and teaching
   social self-control. The system has its palpable dangers. The
   better and more intricate the tool, the more skill needed in
   its safe use. … The kindergarten requires trained hands.
   With trivial teachers its methods may easily degenerate into
   mere amusement, and thwart all tendency to attention,
   application, or industry. Valuable as it is in its hints for
   the care and development of children, its gay round needs to
   be ballasted with the purpose and theory uppermost in
   Froebel's mind when he opened his first school in a German
   peasant village, down whose main street a brook tumbled, and
   through whose lanes the halberdier still walked by night and
   sang the hours. It is idle to suppose that Froebel founded a
   perfect system, or to insist on all the details of the
   professional kindergartner's creed. Here as elsewhere, and
   aforetime, it has taken only forty years from the founder's
   death for faith to degenerate into religion and sect. But the
   central purpose he had in view must be steadily maintained. He
   sought his ends through play, and not through work. It is as
   dangerous for this method to harden into an approach to the
   primary school as it is for it to soften into a riot of
   misrule, and lax observance of order. … Switzerland, then
   the only republic in Europe, was the first country to adopt
   Froebel's method, though in some Swiss towns the kindergarten
   is still supported by private associations. France, another
   republic, has more children beginning school under an
   adaptation of Froebel than all the rest of the world put
   together. It was Froebel's own opinion that 'the spirit of
   American nationality was the only one in the world with which
   his method was in complete harmony, and to which its
   legitimate institutions would present no barriers.' The
   figures given below of the growth of the kindergarten in this
   country are the best possible proof of the truth of Froebel's
   prescient assertion. … In 1870 there were in this country
   only five kindergarten schools, and in 1872 the National
   Education Association at its Boston meeting appointed a
   committee which reported a year later recommending the system.
   Between 1870 and 1873, experimental kindergartens were
   established in Boston, Cleveland, and St. Louis, public
   attention was enlisted by the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Palmer
   Peabody, the most important worker in the early history of the
   kindergarten in this country, and the system began a rapid
   growth. Taking private and public kindergartens together, the
   advance of the system has displayed this most rapid progress:

                1875    1880     1885   1891-2
   Schools.       95     232      413    1,001
   Teachers.     216     524      902    2,242
   Pupils.     2,809   8,871   18,780   50,423

   Down to 1880, these figures, outside of St. Louis, relate
   almost altogether to private schools. By 1885 the public
   kindergartens were not over a fifth in number of the schools,
   and held not over a fourth of the pupils. In the figures last
   given in this table there are 724 private kindergartens with
   1,517 teachers and 29,357 pupils, and 277 public kindergartens
   with 725 teachers and 21,066 pupils, so that the latter have
   now 27 per cent. of the schools, 33 per cent. of the teachers,
   and 42 per cent. of the pupils. … Yet great as is this
   advance, the kindergarten as yet plays but an infinitesimal
   part in our educational system as a whole. … Of the sixteen
   American cities with a population of over 200,000 in 1890,
   only four—Philadelphia, Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis
   have incorporated the kindergarten on any large scale in their
   public-school systems. Four more—New York, Chicago, Brooklyn,
   and Buffalo—have kindergarten associations organized to
   introduce the new method as a part of free public education."

      _T. Williams,
      The Kindergarten Movement
      (The Century, January, 1893)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1883.
   The Higher Education of Women in England.

   The movement in England to secure a higher education for women
   dates from 1865. "In that year a Royal Commission was
   appointed to inquire into and report on the endowed grammar
   schools of England and Wales, and on what is called
   'secondary' education generally. Several ladies who were
   already alive to the deficiencies in the education of their
   own sex, memorialized this Commission to extend the scope of
   its inquiry to girls' schools, and the Commission taking what
   was then thought quite a bold step, consented to do so. …
   One of the points brought out was the absence of any
   institutions doing for women what the universities did for
   men, and the consequent difficulty in which women stood of
   obtaining the highest kind of education—a difficulty which
   told on girls' schools by making it hard for them to procure
   thoroughly competent mistresses. This led in the course of the
   next year or two—the report of the Commission having been
   published in 1868—to the establishment of a college for
   women, which was first placed at Hitchin, a town on the Great
   Northern Railway, between London and Cambridge, and in a
   little while, when money had been collected sufficient for the
   erection of buildings, this college was finally settled at
   Girton, a spot about two miles from Cambridge, whence it takes
   the name of Girton College. Its purpose was to provide for
   women the same teaching in the same subjects as men receive in
   Cambridge University, and the teachers were nearly all of them
   professors or tutors there, men in some cases of high
   eminence.
{746}
   Meanwhile, in Cambridge itself, a system of day classes for
   women, taught by University teachers, had been created, at
   first as an experiment for one year only. When several years
   had passed, when the number attending had increased, and it
   was found that women came to lodge in Cambridge in order to
   profit by these lectures, a house was hired in which to
   receive them, and ultimately a company was formed and a
   building erected a little way out of Cambridge, under the name
   of Newnham Hall, to which the lectures, now mainly designed
   for these students coming from a distance, were attached.
   Thus, at about the same time, though from somewhat different
   origins, Girton and Newnham came into being and began their
   course of friendly rivalry. Both have greatly developed since
   then. Their buildings have been repeatedly enlarged. Their
   numbers have risen steadily. … In Girton the charge for
   lodging, board and instruction is £100 per annum, in Newnham a
   little less. The life in both is very similar, a lady being
   placed at the head as resident principal, while the affairs
   are managed by a committee including both men and women. The
   lectures are delivered partly by Cambridge men, professors in
   the University, or tutors or lecturers in some of the
   colleges, partly by ladies, who, having once been students
   themselves, have come back as teachers. These lectures cover
   all the subjects required in the degree examinations of the
   University; and although students are not obliged to enter
   themselves for those examinations, they are encouraged to do
   so, and do mostly set the examinations before them as their
   goal. Originally the University took no official notice of the
   women students, and their being examined by the regular degree
   examiners of the University was a matter of pure favor on the
   part of those gentlemen. … At last, however, some examiners
   came into office (for the examiners are changed every two
   years) who disapproved of this informal examination of the
   women candidates, and accordingly a proposal was made to the
   University that it should formally authorize and impose on the
   examiners the function heretofore discharged by them in their
   individual capacity. This proposal, after some discussion and
   opposition, was carried, so that now women may enter both for
   the honor examinations and the pass examinations for the
   University degree as a matter of right. Their names do not
   appear in the official lists among those of the men, but
   separately; they are, however, tested by the same question
   papers and judged by the same standard. … Some Oxford
   graduates and their friends, stimulated by the success of
   Girton and Newnham, have founded two similar institutions in
   Oxford, one of which, Episcopalian and indeed High Church in
   its proclivities, is called Lady Margaret Hall, while the
   other, in compliment to the late Mrs. Somerville, has been
   given the title of Somerville Hall. These establishments are
   conducted on much the same lines as the two Cambridge
   colleges. … In the large towns where new colleges have been
   lately founded or courses of lectures established, such as
   Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, steps are usually taken to
   provide lectures for women. … What is called among you the
   question of co-education has come up very little in England.
   All the lectures given inside the walls of the four English
   colleges I have mentioned are, of course, given to women only,
   the colleges being just as exclusively places for women as
   Trinity and St. John's are places for men. … At this moment
   the principal of one of the two halls of which Newnham
   consists is a daughter of the Prime Minister [Miss Helen
   Gladstone], while her predecessor was a niece of the Marquis
   of Salisbury. The principal of Girton is a niece of the late
   Lord Lawrence, the famous Governor-General of India. Of the
   students a fair proportion belong to the wealthy classes,
   while a somewhat larger proportion mean to take teaching as
   their profession."

      _Progress of Female Education in England.
      (Nation, July 5, 1883)._

      See, also, above, SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1886.
   Industrial Education in the United States.

   "In 1865 John Boynton of Templeton, Mass., gave $100,000 for
   the endowment and perpetual support of a Free Institute for
   the youth of Worcester County, Mass. He thus explained his
   objects: 'The aim of this school shall ever be the instruction
   of youth in those branches of education not usually taught in
   the public schools, which are essential and best adapted to
   train the young for practical life'; especially such as were
   intending to be mechanics, or manufacturers, or farmers. In
   furtherance of this object, ten months later, in 1866, Ichabod
   Washburn of Worcester gave $25,000, and later $50,000 more to
   erect, equip, and endow a machine-shop which should
   accommodate twenty apprentices and a suitable number of
   skilled workmen to instruct them and to carry on the shop as a
   commercial establishment. The apprentices were to be taught
   the use of tools in working wood and metals, and to be
   otherwise instructed, much as was customary fifty years ago
   for boys learning a trade. The Worcester Free Institute was
   opened for students in November, 1868, as a technical school
   of about college grade; and the use of the shops and shop
   instruction was limited to those students in the course of
   mechanical engineering. Thus did the Worcester School under
   the leadership of Prest. C. O. Thompson incorporate
   tool-instruction and shop-practice into the training of
   mechanical engineers. … In the same year, 1868, Victor
   Della-Vos introduced into the Imperial Technical (engineering)
   School at Moscow the Russian method of class-instruction in
   the use of tools. … The great value of the work of Della-Vos
   lay in the discovery of the true method of tool-instruction,
   for without his discovery the later steps would have been
   impossible. In 1870, under the direction of Professor Robinson and
   Prest. J. M. Gregory of the University of Illinois, a
   wood-working shop was added to the appliances for the course
   in architecture, and an iron-working shop to the course in
   mechanical engineering in that institution. In 1871, the
   Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N. J., munificently endowed by
   Edwin A. Stevens, as a school of mechanical engineering,
   fitted up a series of shops for the use of its students. The
   next step forward was taken by Washington University in St.
   Louis in providing for all its engineering students systematic
   instruction in both wood and metals. In 1872, a large shop in the
   Polytechnic School was equipped with work-benches, two lathes,
   a forge, a gear-cutter and full sets of carpenters',
   machinists', and forging tools. …
{747}
   Thus far had we progressed when the Philadelphia Exposition of
   1876 was opened. None of us knew anything of the Moscow
   school, or of the one in Bohemia in which the Russian method
   had been adopted in 1874. … In his report of 1876, Prest. J.
   D. Runkle, of the Mass. Institute of Technology, gave a full
   exposition of the theory and practice of tool-instruction of
   Della-Vos as exhibited at the Philadelphia Exposition, and he
   recommended that without delay the course in mechanical
   engineering at the Institute be completed by the addition of a
   series of Instruction Shops. The suggestion was acted on, and
   in the spring of 1877 a class of mechanical engineering
   students was given instruction in chipping and filing. … The
   St. Louis Manual Training School was established June 6, 1879.
   It embodied hopes long cherished and plans long formed. For
   the first time in America the age of admission to school-shops
   was reduced to fourteen years as a minimum, and a very general
   three-years' course of study was organized. The ordinance by
   which the school was established specified its objects in very
   general terms:—'Its objects shall be instruction in
   mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a
   high-school course, and instruction and practice in the use of
   tools. The tool-instruction, as at present contemplated, shall
   include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron clipping
   and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of
   machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar
   character, its it may be deemed advisable to add to the
   foregoing from time to time. The students will divide their
   working hours, as nearly as possible, equally between mental
   and manual exercises.' … The Baltimore Manual Training
   School, a public school, on the same footing as the high
   school, was opened in 1883. The Chicago Manual Training
   School, established as an incorporated school by the
   Commercial Club of that city, was opened in January, 1884. …
   Manual training was introduced into the high school of Eau
   Claire, Wisconsin, in 1884. The 'Scott Manual Training School'
   was organized as a part of the high school of Toledo in 1884.
   … Manual training was introduced into the College (high
   school) of the City of New York in 1884. The Philadelphia
   Manual Training School, a public high school, was opened in
   September, 1885. The Omaha high school introduced manual
   training in 1885. … Dr. Adler's Workingman's School for poor
   children has for several years taught manual training to the
   very lowest grades. … The Cleveland Manual Training School
   was incorporated in 1885, and opened in connection with the
   city high school, in 1886. New Haven, which had for some time
   encouraged the use of tools by the pupils of several of its
   grammar schools, in September, 1886, opened a regular shop and
   furnished systematic instruction in tool-work. The school
   board of Chicago added manual training to the course of the
   'West Side High School' in September, 1886."

      _C. M. Woodward,
      The Manual Training School,
      chapter 1._

   "Concerning the manual-training school there are two widely
   different views. The one insists that it shall teach no trade,
   but the rudiments of all of them; the other that the
   particular industries may properly be held to maintain schools
   to recruit their own ranks. The first would teach the use of
   the axe, the saw, the plane, the hammer, the square, the
   chisel, and the file; claiming that 'the graduate from such a
   course at the end of three years is within from one to three
   months of knowing quite as thoroughly as an apprentice who had
   served seven years any one of the twenty trades to which he
   may choose to turn.' Of this class are, besides most of those
   already named, the Haish Manual Training School of Denver;
   that of Tulane University, New Orleans; the Felix Adler's
   'Workingman's School, of New York City; and the School of
   Manual Technology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Among
   schools of the second class are some interesting institutions.
   They include the numerous general and special trade-schools
   for boys, instruction in the manifold phases of domestic
   economy for girls, and the yet small but rapidly growing class
   of industries open alike to both. Sewing is taught in public
   or private schools in Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago,
   New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and about a
   dozen other cities, besides in a number of special
   institutions. Cooking-schools are no longer a novelty in half
   as many of the larger cities, since their introduction into
   New York city in 1876. Printing may be learned in the Kansas
   Agricultural College; Cooper Union, New York; Girard College,
   Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Telegraphy, stenography,
   wood-engraving, various kinds of smithing, and carpentry,
   have, especially the last two, numerous representatives. The
   New York Kitchen Garden, for the instruction of children in
   the work of the household, is an interesting modification of
   the Kindergarten along the industrial line. For young ladies,
   the Elizabeth Aull Seminary, Lexington, Missouri, is a school
   of home-work, in which 'are practically taught the mysteries
   of the kitchen and laundry,' and upon whose graduates is
   conferred the degree of 'Mistress of Home-Work.' The Lasell
   Seminary at Auburndale, Massachusetts, also has recently
   (1885) undertaken a similar but more comprehensive experiment,
   including lessons and lectures in anatomy and physiology, with
   hygiene and sanitation, the principles of common law by an
   eminent attorney, instruction and practice in the arts of
   domestic life, the principles of dress, artistic
   house-furnishing, healthy homes, and cooking. Of
   training-schools for nurses there are thirty-one. … Of
   schools of a different character still, there have been or are
   the Carriage Builder's Apprenticeship School, New York; those
   of Hoe & Co., printing-press manufacturers; and Tiffany & Co.,
   jewelers; and the Tailors' 'Trades School' recently
   established and flourishing in Baltimore, besides the
   Pennsylvania Railroad novitiate system, at Altoona; in which
   particular trades or guilds or corporations have sought to
   provide themselves with a distinct and specially trained class
   of artisans. The latest and in some respects the most
   interesting experiment of the kind is that of the 'Baltimore
   and Ohio Railroad service' at Mt. Clare, Baltimore. It was
   inaugurated in 1885, apprentices being selected from
   applicants by competitive examination."

      _R. G. Boone,
      Education in the United States,
      chapter 13._

{748}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1873-1889.
   University Extension in England.

   "The University Extension Movement, which has now been before
   the country eighteen years, has revealed the existence of a
   real need for larger opportunities of higher education amongst
   the middle and working classes. From the time of its
   inauguration in 1873 by the University of Cambridge, owing
   mainly to the enthusiastic advocacy and skill in practical
   affairs of Mr. James Stuart (at that time Fellow and Lecturer
   of Trinity College), down to the present day, when the
   principle has been accepted by all the Universities in Great
   Britain and by some in countries beyond the seas, the movement
   has shown marvellous vitality and power of adjustment to
   changing conditions. From a small beginning in three towns in
   the Midlands, it has grown until the centres in connection
   with the various branches are to be numbered by hundreds and
   the students by tens of thousands. The success attained by
   Cambridge in the first three years led, in 1876, to the
   formation of the London Society for the Extension of
   University Teaching, for the express purpose of carrying on
   similar work within the metropolitan area. In 1878 the
   University of Oxford undertook to make similar arrangements
   for Lectures, but after a year or two, they were for the time
   abandoned. Subsequently in 1885 the Oxford work was revived
   and has since been carried on with vigour and success. The
   University of Durham is associated with Cambridge in this work
   in the northeast of England, while courses of Lectures on the
   Extension plan have been given for several years in connection
   with Victoria University in centres around Manchester. Two or
   three years ago the four Scottish Universities united in
   forming a like scheme for Scotland, while at the close of 1889
   a Society for the Extension of University Teaching was formed
   in the north of Ireland. Finally the movement has spread to
   Greater Britain and the United States, and there are signs
   that work on similar lines is about to be established in
   various countries on the continent of Europe."

      _R. D. Roberts,
      Eighteen years of University Extension,
      chapter 1._

   "One of the chief characteristics of the system is the method
   of teaching adopted in connection with it. A working man at
   one of the centres in the north of England who had attended
   the lectures for several terms, described the method as
   follows in a paper read by him at a meeting:

   'Any town or village which is prepared to provide an audience,
   and pay the necessary fees, can secure a course of twelve
   lectures on any subject taught in the University, by a
   lecturer who has been educated at the University, and who is
   specially fitted for lecturing work. A syllabus of the course
   is printed and put into the hands of students. This syllabus
   is a great help to persons not accustomed to note-taking.
   Questions are given on each lecture, and written answers can
   be sent in by anyone, irrespective of age or sex. All the
   lectures, except the first, are preceded by a class, which
   lasts about an hour. In this class the students and the
   lecturer talk over the previous lecture. The written answers
   are returned with such corrections as the lecturer deems
   necessary. At the end of the course an examination is held and
   certificates are awarded to the successful candidates. These
   lectures are called University Extension Lectures.'

   Another definition which has been given is this:

   'Advanced systematic teaching for the people, without
   distinction of rank, sex, or age, given by means of lectures,
   classes, and written papers during a connected course,
   conducted by men "who believe in their work, and intend to do
   it," teachers who connect the country with the University by
   manner, method, and information.'"

      _R. D. Roberts,
      The University Extension Scheme,
      pages 6-7._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1892.
   University Extension in the United States.

   "The first conscious attempts to introduce English University
   Extension methods into this country were made in 1887, by
   individuals connected with the Johns Hopkins University. The
   subject was first publicly presented to the American Library
   Association at their meeting upon one of the Thousand Islands
   in September, 1887. The idea was heartily approved," and the
   first result of the suggestion was a course of lectures on
   economic questions given in one of the lecture-rooms of the
   Buffalo Library the following winter by Dr. Edward W. Bemis.
   The next winter "Dr. Bemis repeated his course on 'Economic
   Questions of the Day' in Canton, Ohio. … The Canton
   experiment was followed in February, 1889, by another course,
   conducted by Dr. Bemis, in connection with the Public Library
   at St. Louis. … About the time when these various
   experiments were being tried in St. Louis, Canton, and
   Buffalo, individual members of Johns Hopkins University were
   attempting to introduce University Extension methods in
   connection with local lectures in the city of Baltimore. …
   The idea of University Extension in connection with Chautauqua
   was conceived by Dr. J. H. Vincent during a visit to England,
   in 1886, when he saw the English lecture system in practical
   operation and his own methods of encouraging home reading in
   growing favor with university men. The first definite American
   plan, showing at once the aims, methods, cost, and history, of
   University Extension lectures, was drawn up at Chautauqua by
   the writer of this article in the early summer of 1888. …
   Contemporary with the development of Chautauqua College and
   University Extension was the plan of Mr. Seth T. Stewart, of
   Brooklyn, New York, for 'University and School Extension.' …
   Several public meetings were held in New York in 1889-90 for
   the promotion of University and School Extension. … One of
   the most gratifying recent experiments in University Extension
   in America has been in the city of Philadelphia under the
   auspices of the American Society for the Extension of
   University Teaching. At various local centres Mr. Richard G.
   Moulton, one of the most experienced lecturers from Cambridge,
   England, lectured for ten weeks in the winter and spring of
   1891 to large and enthusiastic audiences. All the essential
   features of English University Extension were methodically and
   persistently carried out. … The American field for
   University Extension is too vast for the missionary labors of
   any one society or organization. … The most significant sign
   of the times with regard to University Extension in America is
   the recent appropriation of the sum of $10,000 for this very
   object by the New York legislature. The money is to be
   expended under the direction of the Regents of the University
   of the State of New York. … The intention of the New York
   act is simply to provide the necessary means for organizing a
   State system of University Extension … and to render such
   general assistance and co-operation as localities may
   require."

      _H. B. Adams,
      University Extension in America,
      (Forum, July, 1891)._

   On the opening, in 1892, of the Chicago University,
   munificently endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, of Cleveland,
   University Extension was made one of the three grand divisions
   of its organization.

{749}

EDWARD,
   King of Portugal,
      A. D. 1433-1438.
   Edward, called the Confessor, King of England,
      A. D. 1042-1065.
   Edward, called the Elder, King of Wessex,
      A. D. 901-925.
   Edward, called the Martyr, King of Wessex,
      A. D. 975.
   Edward I., King of England,
      A. D. 1274-1307.
   Edward II., King of England,
      A. D. 1307-1327.
   Edward III., King of England,
      A. D. 1327-1377.
   Edward V., King of England (first king of the House of York),
      A. D. 1461-1483.
   Edward V., titular King of England,
      A. D. 1483 (from April 9, when his father, Edward IV.,
      died, until June 22, when he is believed to have been
      murdered in the Tower by command of his uncle, the usurper,
      Richard III.).
   Edward VI., King of England,
      A. D. 1547-1553.

EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1755.
   Built by the New England troops.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1717.
   Abandoned to the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1777(JULY-OCTOBER).

----------EDWARD, Fort: End----------

EDWIG, King of Wessex, A. D. 955-957.

EDWIN, King of Northumbria, A. D. 617-633.

Egesta.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
      and SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

EGFRITH, King of Northumbria, A. D. 670-685.

EGINA.
EGINETANS.

      See ÆGINA.

EGMONT, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and 1566-1568.

EGNATIAN WAY, The.

   A Roman road constructed from Apollonia on the Adriatic to the
   shores of the Hellespont; finally carried to Byzantium.

EGRA: A. D. 1647.
   Siege and capture by the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

EGYPT:
   Its Names.

   "Egypt is designated in the old inscriptions, as well as in
   the books of the later Christian Egyptians, by a word which
   signifies 'the black land,' and which is read in the Egyptian
   language Kern, or Kami."

      [Footnote: Kamit in the edition of 1891.]

   "The ancients had early remarked that the cultivable land of
   Egypt was distinguished by its dark and almost black colour.
   … The neighbouring region of the Arabian desert bore the
   name of Tesher, or the red land. … The Egyptians designated
   themselves simply as 'the people of the black land,' and …
   the inscriptions, so far as we know, have handed down to us no
   other appellation. … A real enigma is proposed to us in the
   derivation and meaning of the curious proper name, by which
   the foreign peoples of Asia, each in its own dialect, were
   accustomed to designate Egypt. The Hebrews gave the land the
   name of Mizraim; the Assyrians Muzur; the Persians, Mudraya.
   We may feel assured that at the basis of all these
   designations there lies an original form which consisted of
   the three letters M-z-r, all explanations of which have been
   as yet unsuccessful. Although I intend hereafter to consider
   more particularly the derivation of this puzzling name, which
   is still preserved at the present day in the Arabic
   appellation Misr, I will here premise the remark that this
   name was originally applied only to a certain definite part of
   Egypt, in the east of the Delta, which, according to the
   monuments, was covered and defended by many 'zor,' or
   fortresses, and was hence called in Egyptian Mazor (that is,
   fortified)."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 2._

   "Brugsch explains the name Egypt by 'ha-ka-ptah,' i. e. 'the
   precinct of Ptah.' As Ptah was more especially the god of
   Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 1, chapter 1, note._

   "The last use of Kem died out in the form Chemi in Coptic, the
   descendant of the classical language, which ceased to be
   spoken a century ago. It survives among us in the terms
   'chemistry' and 'alchemy,' sciences thought to be of Egyptian
   origin."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      introduction._

EGYPT:
   Its Historical Antiquity.

   The lists of Egyptian kings which have been found "agree in
   presenting the name of Mena [or Menes] as that of the first
   Pharaoh of Egypt, and as such he is unhesitatingly accepted,
   although no contemporary monumental record of the fact has yet
   been discovered. According to Manetho, the age of Mena dates
   back to a period of 5,004 years before the Christian era, a
   date which is nearly equal to 7,000 years from the present
   day. Brugsch favours a somewhat less interval, namely, 4455 B. C.;
   others place it as low as 2700 B. C., whilst Birch and
   Chabas adopt a medium date, namely 4000 B. C., which is
   equivalent to 6000 years backward from the existing time.
   These extreme variations are chiefly referable to the
   difficulty of ascertaining the precise length of each
   individual reign, and especially to the occasional
   contemporaneous reign of two or more kings, and sometimes the
   existence of two or more dynasties in different parts of the
   empire. … Lieblein gives full credit to the chronology of
   Manetho [a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote about 260 B. C.],
   as recorded by the historian Africanus, as likewise did the
   distinguished Mariette, and differs very little from the
   standard adopted by Birch. He assigns to Mena, as the pioneer
   of the first monarchy, a date in round numbers of 3900 years."

      _E. Wilson,
      The Egypt of the Past,
      chapter 1._

   "As to the era … when the first Pharaoh mounted the throne,
   the German Egyptologers have attempted to fix it at the
   following epochs: Boeckh, B. C. 5702; Unger, 5613; Brugsch,
   4455; Lauth, 4157; Lepsius, 3892; Bunsen, 3623. The difference
   between the two extreme points of the series is amazingly
   great, for its number of years amounts to no less than 2079.
   … The calculations in question are based on the extracts
   already often mentioned from a work by the Egyptian priest
   Manetho on the history of Egypt. That learned man had then at
   his command the annals of his country's history, which were
   preserved in the temples, and from them, the best and most
   accurate sources, be derived the materials for his work,
   composed in the Greek language, on the history of the ancient
   Egyptian Dynasties. His book, which is now lost, contained a
   general review of the kings of the land, divided into Thirty
   Dynasties, arranged in the order of their names, with the
   lengths of their reigns, and the total duration of each
   dynasty. Though this invaluable work was little known and
   certainly but little regarded by the historians of the old
   classical age, large extracts were made from it by some of the
   ecclesiastical writers. In process of time the copyists,
   either by error or designedly, corrupted the names and the
   numbers, and thus we only possess at the present day the ruins
   instead of the complete building. The truth of the original,
   and the authenticity of its sources were first proved by the
   deciphering of the Egyptian writings. And thus the Manethonian
   list served, and still serves, as a guide for assigning to the
   royal names read on the monuments their places in the
   Dynasties."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, MANETHO, LIST OF.

{750}

EGYPT:
   Origin of the ancient people.

   "The Egyptians, together with some other nations, form, as it
   would seem, a third branch of that [the Caucasian] race,
   namely, the family called Cushite, which is distinguished by
   special characters from the Pelasgian and the Semitic
   families. Whatever relations may be found always to exist
   between these great races of mankind, thus much may be
   regarded as certain, that the cradle of the Egyptian people
   must be sought in the interior of the Asiatic quarter of the
   world. In the earliest ages of humanity, far beyond all
   historical remembrance, the Egyptians, for reasons unknown to
   us, left the soil of their primeval home, took their way
   towards the setting sun, and finally crossed that bridge of
   nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the
   favoured banks of the holy Nile. Comparative philology, in its
   turn, gives powerful support to this hypothesis. The Egyptian
   language … shows in no way any trace of a derivation and
   descent from the African families of speech. On the contrary,
   the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian
   grammar point to such an intimate connection with the
   Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages that it is almost
   impossible to mistake the close relations which formerly
   prevailed between the Egyptians and the races called
   Indo-Germanic and Semitic."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 1._

   "It has been maintained by some that the immigration was from
   the south, the Egyptians having been a colony from Ethiopia
   which gradually descended the Nile and established itself in
   the middle and lower portions of the valley; and this theory
   can plead in its favour, both a positive statement of
   Diodorus, and the fact, which is quite certain, of an ethnic
   connection between the Egyptians and some of the tribes who
   now occupy Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia). But modern
   research has shown quite unmistakably that the movement of the
   Egyptians was in the opposite direction. … We must look,
   then, rather to Syria or Arabia than to Ethiopia as the cradle
   of the Egyptian nation. At the same time we must admit that
   they were not mere Syrians or Arabs, but had, from the
   remotest time whereto we can go back, distinct
   characteristics, whereby they have a good claim to be
   considered as a separate race."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 3._

   "So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa,
   like the valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot
   of the Abyssinian hills, was inhabited by nations who in
   colour, language, and customs were sharply distinguished from
   the negro. These nations belong to the whites: their languages
   were most closely allied to the Semitic. From this, and from
   their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been drawn
   that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil
   of Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still
   continue in the language of the Berbers. Assisted by the
   favourable conditions of their land, the tribe which settled
   on the Lower Nile quickly left their kinsmen far behind.
   Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life. The
   descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the
   Nile, in spite of the numerous layers which the course of
   centuries has subsequently laid upon the soil of the land,
   still form the larger part of the population of Egypt, and the
   ancient language is preserved in the dialect of the Copts."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 1, chapter 1._

EGYPT:
   The Old Empire and the Middle Empire.

   The following are the Egyptian Dynasties, from the first
   Pharaoh, Mena, to the epoch of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings,
   with the dates and periods assigned to each by Brugsch:

   The First Dynasty; of Thinis: B. C. 4400-4166.
   The Second; of Thinis: 4133-4000.
   The Third; of Memphis: 3966-3766.
   The Fourth; of Memphis: 3733-3600.
   The Fifth; of Elephantine: 3566-3333.
   The Sixth; of Memphis: 3300-3066.
   The Seventh to the Eleventh
      (a confused and obscure period):  3033-2500.
   The Twelfth; of Thebes: 2466-2266.

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      appendix A._

   "The direct descendants of Menes [or Mena] form the First
   Dynasty, which, according to Manetho, reigned 253 years. No
   monument contemporary with these princes has come down to us.
   … The Second Dynasty, to which Manetho assigns nine kings,
   lasted 302 years. It was also originally from This [or
   Thinis], and probably related to the First. … When this
   family had become extinct, a Dynasty, originally from Memphis,
   seized the throne, forming the Third, and to it a duration of
   214 years is attributed. … With the Fourth Dynasty, Memphite
   like the Third, and which reigned 284 years, history becomes
   clearer and monuments more numerous. This was the age of the
   three Great Pyramids, built by the three kings, Khufu (the
   Cheops of Herodotus), Shafra (Chefren), and Menkara
   (Mycerinus). … The Fifth Dynasty came originally from
   Elephantine, at the southern extremity of Upper Egypt, and
   there possibly the kings generally resided, though at the same
   time Memphis was not deprived of its importance. … On the
   death of the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, a new family, of
   Memphitic origin according to Manetho, came to the throne. …
   Primitive art attained its highest point under the Sixth
   Dynasty. … But, from the time of the civil commotions in
   which Neit-aker [the Nitocris of Herodotus] perished, Egyptian
   civilization underwent a sudden and unaccountable eclipse.
   From the end of the Sixth Dynasty to the commencement of the
   Eleventh, Manetho reckons 436 years, and for this whole period
   the monuments are absolutely silent. Egypt seems then to have
   disappeared from the rank of nations; and when this long
   slumber ended, civilization commenced a new career, entirely
   independent of the past. …
{751}
   Thus ends that period of nineteen centuries, which modern
   scholars know as the Old Empire. … Thebes did not exist in
   the days of the glory of the Old Empire. The holy city of Amen
   seems to have been founded during the period of anarchy and
   obscurity, succeeding, as we have said, to the Sixth Dynasty.
   Here was the birthplace of that renewed civilization, that new
   monarchy, we are accustomed to call the Middle Empire, the
   middle age in fact of ancient Egypt—a middle age anterior to
   the earliest ages of all other history. From Thebes cane the
   six kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. … We again quote the
   excellent remarks of M. Mariette: 'When, with the Eleventh
   Dynasty, we see Egypt awake from her long slumber, all old
   traditions appear to be forgotten; the proper names used in
   ancient families, the titles of functionaries, the style of
   writing, and even the religion—all seem new. This,
   Elephantine, and Memphis, are no longer the favourite
   capitals. Thebes for the first time becomes the seat of
   sovereign power. Egypt, moreover, has lost a considerable
   portion of her territory, and the authority of her legitimate
   kings hardly extends beyond the limited district of the
   Thebaid. The study of the monuments confirms these general
   views; they are rude, primitive, sometimes coarse; and when we
   look at them we may well believe that Egypt, under the
   Eleventh Dynasty, again passed through a period of infancy, as
   she had already done under the Third Dynasty.' A dynasty
   probably related to, and originally from the same place as
   these first Theban princes succeeded them. … This Twelfth
   Dynasty reigned for 213 years, and its epoch was one of
   prosperity, of peace at home and glorious achievements abroad.
   … Although the history of the Twelfth Dynasty is clear and
   well known, illustrated by numerous monuments, there is,
   nevertheless, no period in the annals of Egypt more obscure
   than the one closing with the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is one
   long series of revolutions, troubles, and internal
   dissensions, closed by a terrible catastrophe, the greatest
   and most lasting recorded in Egyptian history, which a second
   time interrupted the march of civilization on the banks of the
   Nile, and for a while struck Egypt from the list of nations."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. J. Bunsen,
      Egypt's Place in Universal History,
      volume 2._

      See, also, MEMPHIS, and THEBES, EGYPT.

EGYPT:
   The Hyksos, or Shepherd-Kings.

   According to the Manethouian account which the Jewish
   historian Josephus has preserved to us by transcribing it, the
   Egyptian Netherlands were at a certain time overspread by a
   wild and rough people, which came from the countries of the
   east, overcame the native kings who dwelt there, and took
   possession of the whole country, without finding any great
   opposition on the part of the Egyptians. They were called
   Hyksos, which Josephus interpreted as meaning Shepherd-kings.
   "Hyk," he explained, meant King, in the holy language, and
   "sos," in the dialect of the people, signified Shepherd. But
   Dr. Brugsch identifies "sos" with the name "Shasu," which the
   old Egyptians gave to the Bedouins, whose name became
   equivalent to Shepherds. Hence Dr. Brugsch inclines to the
   ancient opinion transmitted by Josephus, that the Hyksos were
   Arabs or Bedouins—the Shasu of the Egyptian records, who hung
   on the northeastern frontier of Egypt from the most ancient
   times and were always pressing into the country, at every
   opportunity. But many objections against this view are raised
   and the different theories advanced to account for the Hyksos
   are quite numerous. Canon Rawlinson says: "The Egyptians of
   the time of Herodotus seem to have considered that they were
   Philistines. Moderns have regarded them as Canaanites,
   Syrians, Hittites. It is an avoidance rather than a solution
   of the difficulty to say that they were 'a collection of all
   the nomad hordes of Arabia and Syria' [Lenormant], since there
   must have been a directing hand. … On the whole, therefore,
   we lean to the belief that the so-called Hyksos or Shepherds
   were Hittites."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 19._

   "It is maintained on good authority that the Hyksos, or
   Shepherd-Kings, had secured possession of the eastern frontier
   of Lower Egypt immediately after the close of the Twelfth
   Dynasty; that at this time the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth
   Dynasties ruled contemporaneously, the former in Upper, the
   latter in Lower Egypt; one was illegitimate, the other the
   illegitimate line; but authors are not in accord as to their
   right of priority. It is supposed that, while Egypt claimed
   the Thirteenth Dynasty as her own, the Hyksos usurped the
   mastery over the Fourteenth Dynasty, and governed through the
   agency of its kings, treating them meanwhile as vassal chiefs.
   These local kings had cities from which they were unable to
   escape, and were deprived of an army of defence. Such was the
   state of the country for 184 years, when the Fourteenth
   Dynasty died out, and when the Fifteenth Dynasty, constituted
   of six successive Hyksos kings, took the reins of government
   into their own hands. Lieblein, whose views we are now
   endeavouring to express, assigns as the date of the invasion
   of the Hyksos 2108 years B. C. … It is not improbable that
   the well-known journey of Abraham to Egypt was made during the
   early period of the reign of the Shepherd-Kings; whilst the
   visit of Joseph occurred near the close of their power."

      _E. Wilson,
      The Egypt of the Past,
      chapter 5._

   "'The Shepherds possessed themselves of Egypt by violence,'
   writes Mariette-Bey, 'but the civilization which they
   immediately adopted on their conquest was rather Egyptian than
   Asiatic, and the discoveries of Avaris (San) prove that they
   did not even banish from their temples the gods of the ancient
   Egyptian Pantheon.' In fact the first shepherd-king, Solatis
   himself, employed an Egyptian artist to inscribe … his title
   on the statue of a former legitimate Pharaoh. 'They did not
   disturb the civilization more than the Persians or the Greeks,
   but simply accepted the higher one they had conquered.' So our
   revered scholar Dr. Birch has summed up the matter; and Professor
   Maspero has very happily described it thus: 'The popular
   hatred loaded them with ignominious epithets, and treated them
   as accursed, plague-stricken, leprous. Yet they allowed
   themselves very quickly to be domesticated. … Once admitted
   to the school of Egypt, the barbarians progressed quickly in
   the civilized life. The Pharaonic court reappeared around
   these shepherd-kings, with all its pomp and all its following
   of functionaries great and small. The royal style and title of
   Cheops and the Amenemhas were fitted to the outlandish names
   of Jannes and Apapi. The Egyptian religion, without being
   officially adopted, was tolerated, and the religion of the
   Canaanites underwent some modifications to avoid hurting
   beyond measure the susceptibility of the worshippers of
   Osiris.'"

      _H. G. Tomkins,
      Studies on the Times of Abraham,
      chapter 8._

{752}

   In a late Italian work ("Gli Hyksos") by Dr. C. A. de Cara,
   "he puts together all that is ascertained in regard to them
   [the Hyksos], criticises the theories that have been
   propounded on their behalf, and suggests a theory of his own.
   Nothing that has been published on the subject seems to have
   escaped his notice. … His own view is that the Hyksos
   represented a confederacy of various Asiatic tribes, under the
   leadership of the northern Syrians. That their ruling class
   came from this part of the world seems to me clear from the
   name of their supreme god Sutekh, who occupied among them the
   position of the Semitic Baal."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Hyksôs 
      (Academy, September 20, 1890)._

   "Historical research concerning the history of the Hyksos may
   be summed up as follows:

      I. A certain number of non-Egyptian kings of foreign
      origin, belonging to the nation of the Menti, ruled for a
      long time in the eastern portion of the Delta.

      II. These chose as their capitals the cities of Zoan and
      Avaris, and provided them with strong fortifications.

      III. They adopted not only the manners and customs of the
      Egyptians, but also their official language and writing,
      and the order of their court was arranged on Egyptian
      models.

      IV. They were patrons of art, and Egyptian artists erected,
      after the ancient models, monuments in honour of these
      usurpers, in whose statues they were obliged to reproduce
      the Hyksos physiognomy, the peculiar arrangement of the
      beard und head-dress, as well as other variations of their
      costume.

      V. They honored Sutekh, the son of Nut, as the supreme god
      of their newly acquired country, with the surname Nub, 'the
      golden.' He was the origin of all that is evil and perverse
      in the visible and invisible world, the opponent of good
      and the enemy of light. In the cities of Zoan and Avaris,
      splendid temples were constructed in honour of this god,
      and other monuments raised, especially Sphinxes, carved out
      of stone from Syene.

      VI. In all probability one of them was the founder of a new
      era, which most likely began with the first year of his
      reign. Down to the time of the second Ramses, four hundred
      years had elapsed of this reckoning which was acknowledged
      even by the Egyptians.

      VII. The Egyptians were indebted to their contact with them
      for much useful knowledge. In particular their artistic views
      were expanded and new forms and shapes, notably that of the
      winged sphinx, were introduced, the Semitic origin of which is
      obvious at a glance. …

   The inscriptions on the monuments designate that foreign
   people who once ruled in Egypt by the name of Men or Menti. On
   the walls of the temple of Edfû it is stated that 'the
   inhabitants of the land of Asher are called Menti.' … In the
   different languages, … and in the different periods of
   history, the following names are synonymous: Syria, Rutennu of
   the East, Asher, and Menti."—"Since, on the basis of the
   most recent and best investigations in the province of ancient
   Egyptian chronology, we reckon the year 1350 B. C. as a mean
   computation for the reign of Ramses, the reign of the Hyksos
   king, Nub, and probably its beginning, falls in the year 1750
   B. C., that is, 400 years before Ramses II. Although we are
   completely in the dark as to the place King Nub occupied in
   the succession of the kindred princes of his house, yet the
   number mentioned is important, as an approximate epoch for the
   stay of the foreign kings in Egypt. According to the statement
   in the Bible, the Hebrews from the immigration of Jacob into
   Egypt until the Exodus remained 430 years in that land. Since
   the Exodus from Egypt took place in the time of Meneptah II.,
   the son of Ramses II.—the Pharaoh of the oppression—the
   year B. C. 1300 may be an approximate date. If we add to this
   430 years, as expressing the total duration of the sojourn of
   the Hebrews in Egypt, we arrive at the year 1730 B. C. as the
   approximate date for the immigration of Jacob into Egypt, and
   for the time of the official career of Joseph at the court of
   Pharaoh. In other words, the time of Joseph (1730 B. C.) must
   have fallen in the period of the Hyksos domination, about the
   reign of the above-mentioned prince Nub (1750 B. C)."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs
      (edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick),
      pages 106-109, and 126._

      See JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

      ALSO IN:
      F. C. H. Wendel, History of Egypt, chapter 4.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1700-1400.
   The New Empire.
   The Eighteenth Dynasty.

   "The dominion of the Hyksos by necessity gave rise to profound
   internal divisions, alike in the different princely families
   and in the native population itself. Factions became rampant
   in various districts, and reached the highest point in the
   hostile feeling of the inhabitants of Patoris or the South
   country against the people of Patomit or North country, who
   were much mixed with foreign blood. … From this condition of
   divided power and of mutual jealousy the foreign rulers
   obtained their advantage and their chief strength, until King
   Aahmes made himself supreme."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs
      (edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick)._

   "The duration of the reign of this first Pharaoh of the New
   Empire was twenty-five years. He was succeeded by his son
   Amenhotep I. and the latter by his son Thothmes I. "The reign
   of Thothmes 1. … derives its chief distinction from the fact
   that, at this period of their history, the Egyptians for the
   first time carried their arms deep into Asia, overrunning
   Syria, and even invading Mesopotamia, or the tract between the
   Tigris and the Euphrates. Hitherto the furthest point reached
   in this direction had been Sharuhen in Southern Palestine. …
   Syria was hitherto almost an undiscovered region to the
   powerful people which nurturing its strength in the Nile
   valley, had remained content with its own natural limits and
   scarcely grasped at any conquests. A time was now come when
   this comparative quietude and absence of ambition were about
   to cease. Provoked by the attack made upon her from the side
   of Asia, and smarting from the wounds inflicted upon her pride
   and prosperity by the Hyksos during the period of their rule,
   Egypt now set herself to retaliate, and for three centuries
   continued at intervals to pour her armies into the Eastern
   continent, and to carry fire and sword over the extensive and
   populous regions which lay between the Mediterranean and the
   Zagros mountain range. There is some uncertainty as to the
   extent of her conquests; but no reasonable doubt can be
   entertained that for a space of three hundred years Egypt was
   the most powerful and the most aggressive state that the world
   contained, and held a dominion that has as much right to be
   called an 'Empire' as the Assyrian, the Babylonian or the Persian.
{753}
   While Babylonia, ruled by Arab conquerors, declined in
   strength, and Assyria proper was merely struggling into
   independence, Egypt put forth her arm and grasped the fairest
   regions of the earth's surface." The immediate successor of
   Thothmes I. was his son, Thothmes II., who reigned in
   association with a sister of masculine character, queen
   Hatasu. The strong-minded queen, moreover, prolonged her reign
   after the death of this elder brother, until a younger
   brother, Thothmes III. displaced her. The Third Thothmes was
   the greatest of Egyptian conquerors and kings. He carried his
   arms beyond the Euphrates, winning a memorable victory at
   Megiddo over the confederated kings of the Syrian and
   Mesopotamian countries. He left to his son (Amenhotep II.) "a
   dominion extending about 1,100 miles from north to south, and
   (in places) 450 miles from west to east." He was a great
   builder, likewise, and "has left the impress of his presence
   in Egypt more widely than almost any other of her kings, while
   at the same time he has supplied to the great capitals of the
   modern world their most striking Egyptian monuments." The
   larger of the obelisks now standing in Rome and
   Constantinople, as well as those at London and New York were
   all of them produced in the reign of this magnificent Pharaoh.
   The two obelisks last named stood originally, and for fourteen
   centuries at the front of the great temple of the sun, in
   Heliopolis. They were removed by the Roman Emperor, Augustus,
   B. C: 23, to Alexandria, where they took in time the name of
   Cleopatra's Needles,—although Cleopatra had no part in their
   long history. After nineteen centuries more of rest, these
   strangely coveted monuments were again disturbed, and
   transported into lands which their builder knew not of. The
   later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty seem to have, none of
   them, possessed the energy and character of Thothmes III. The
   line ended about 1400 B. C. with Horemheb, who left no heirs.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 13._

      _H. H. Gorringe,
      Egyptian Obelisks._

EGYPT: About B. C. 1500-1400.
   The Tell el-Amarna Tablets.
   Correspondence of the Egyptian kings with Babylonia, Assyria,
   Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine.

   "The discovery made in 1887 by a peasant woman of Middle Egypt
   may be described as the most important of all contributions to
   the early political history of Western Asia. We have become
   possessed of a correspondence, dating from the fifteenth
   century B. C., which was carried on during the reigns of three
   Egyptian kings, with the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, Armenia,
   Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, during a period of great
   activity, when revolutions which affected the whole history of
   the east shore lands of the Mediterranean were in progress;
   and we find in these tablets a contemporary picture of the
   civilisation of the age. … The Tell Amarna tablets represent
   a literature equal in bulk to about half the Pentateuch, and
   concerned almost exclusively with political affairs, They are
   clay tablets, varying from two inches to a foot in length,
   with a few as large as eighteen inches, covered with cuneiform
   writing generally on both sides, and often on the edges as
   well. The peasantry unearthed nearly the complete collection,
   including some 320 pieces in all; and explorers afterwards
   digging on the site have added only a few additional
   fragments. The greater number were bought for the Berlin
   Museum, while eighty-two were acquired for England, and the
   rest remain either in the Boulak Museum at Cairo; or, in a few
   instances, in the hands of private collectors. … Tell Amarna
   (apparently 'the mound of the tumuli ') is an important ruined
   site on the east bank of the Nile, about a hundred and fifty
   miles in a straight line south of Cairo. Its Egyptian name is
   said to have been Khu-en-aten, 'Glory of the Sun-disk.'"

      _The Tell Amarna Tablets
      (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893)._

   "The collection of Cuneiform Tablets recently found [1887] at
   Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, consisted of about three
   hundred and twenty documents, or portions of documents. The
   British Museum possesses eighty-two … the Berlin Museum has
   one hundred and sixty, a large number being fragments; the
   Gizeh Museum has sixty; and a few are in the hands of private
   persons. … In color the Tablets vary from a light to a dark
   dust tint, and from a flesh-color to dark brick-red. The
   nature of the clay of which they are made sometimes indicates
   the countries from which they come. The size of the Tablets in
   the British Museum varies from 8¾ inches x 4-7/8 inches to 2-1/8
   inches x 1-11/16 inches; the longest text contains 98 lines, the
   shortest 10. … The greater number are rectangular, and a few
   are oval; and they differ in shape from any other cuneiform
   documents known to us. … The writing … resembles to a
   certain extent the Neo-Babylonian, i. e., the simplification
   of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire used commonly in
   Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B. C. It
   possesses, however, characteristics different from those of
   any other style of cuneiform writing of any period now known
   to exist; and nearly every tablet contains forms of characters
   which have hitherto been thought peculiar to the Ninevite or
   Assyrian style of writing. But, compared with the neat,
   careful hand employed in the official documents drawn up for
   the kings of Assyria, it is somewhat coarse and careless, and
   suggests the work of unskilled scribes. One and the same hand,
   however, appears in tablets which come from the same person
   and the same place. On some of the large tablets the writing
   is bold and free; on some of the small ones the characters are
   confused and cramped, and are groups of strokes rather than
   wedges. The spelling … is often careless, and in some
   instances syllables have been omitted. At present it is not
   possible to say whether the irregular spelling is due to the
   ignorance of the scribe or to dialectic peculiarities. … The
   Semitic dialect in which these letters are written is
   Assyrian, and is, in some important details, closely related
   to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. … The documents were
   most probably written between the years B. C. 1500 to 1450.
   … They give an insight into the nature of the political
   relations which existed between the kings of Western Asia and
   the kings of Egypt, and prove that an important trade existed
   between the two countries from very early times. … A large
   number of the present tablets are addressed to 'the King of
   Egypt,' either Amenophis III. or Amenophis IV. Nearly all of
   them consist of reports of disasters to the Egyptian power and
   of successful intrigues against it, coupled by urgent
   entreaties for help, pointing to a condition of distraction
   and weakness in Egypt. … The most graphic details of the
   disorganized condition, and of the rival factions, of the
   Egyptian dependencies lying on the coastline of Phoenicia and
   Northern Palestine, are to be gathered from a perusal of the
   dispatches of the governors of the cities of Byblos, Beyrut
   and Tyre."

       _The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum,
       introduction._

{754}

   "In the present state of cuneiform research I believe it to be
   impossible to give a translation of the Tell el-Amarna texts
   which would entirely satisfy the expert or general reader. No
   two scholars would agree as to any interpretation which might
   be placed upon certain rare grammatical forms and unknown
   words in the Babylonian text, and any literal translation in a
   modern language would not be understood by the general reader
   on account of the involved style and endless repetition of
   phrases common to a Semitic idiom and dialect. About the
   general meaning of the contents of the greater number of the
   letters there can be no doubt whatever, and it is therefore
   possible to make a summary of the contents of each letter,
   which should, as a rule, satisfy the general reader, and at
   the same time form a guide to the beginner in cuneiform.
   Summaries of the contents of the Tell el-Amarna tablets in the
   British Museum have been published in 'The Tell el-Amarna
   Tablets in the British Museum, with autotype facsimiles,'
   printed by order of the Trustees, London, 1892, and it is
   hoped that the transliteration, given in the following pages
   may form a useful supplement to that work." …

   No. 1. A Letter from Egypt—Amenophis III. to Kallimma (?)
   Sin, King of Karaduniyash, referring to his proposed marriage
   with Sukharti, the daughter of Kallimma-Sin, and containing
   the draft of a commercial treaty, and an allusion to the
   disappearance of certain chariots and horses.

   No.2. Letters from Babylonia-Burraburiyash, King of
   Karaduniyash, to Amenophis IV., referring to the friendship
   which had existed between their respective fathers, and the
   help which had been rendered to the King of Egypt by
   Burraburiyash himself; the receipt of two manahs of gold is
   acknowledged and a petition is made for more.

   No. 3. Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash to Amenophis IV.,
   complaining that the Egyptian messengers had visited his
   country thrice without bringing gifts, and that they withheld
   some of the gold which had been sent to him from Egypt;
   Burraburiyash announces the despatch of a gift of lapis-lazuli
   for the Egyptian princess who was his son's wife. …

   No. 30. Letter from Abi-milki, governor of Tyre, to the King
   of Egypt, reporting that he believes Zimrida will not be able
   to stir up disaffection in the city of Sidon, although he has
   caused much hostility against Tyre. He asks for help to
   protect the city, and for water to drink and wood to burn, and
   he sends with his messenger Ili-milki five talents of copper
   and other gifts for the King of Egypt. He reports that the
   King of Danuna is dead and that his brother reigns in his
   stead; one half of the city of Ugarit has been destroyed by
   fire; the soldiers of the Khatti have departed; Itagamapairi,
   governor of Kedesh, and Aziru are fighting against Namyawiza.
   If the King of Egypt will but send a few troops, all will be
   well with Tyre. …

   No. 43. Letter from the governor of a town in Syria to the
   King of Egypt, reporting that the rebels have asserted their
   independence; that Biridashwi has stirred up rebellion in the
   city of Inu-Amma; that its people have captured chariots in
   the city of Ashtarti: that the kings of the cities of Buzruna
   and Khalunni have made a league with Biridashwi to slay
   Namyawiza (who, having taken refuge in Damascus and being
   attacked by Arzawiya, declared himself to be a vassal of
   Egypt); that Arzawiya went to the city of Gizza and afterwards
   captured the city of Shaddu; that Itakkama ravaged the country
   of Gizza; and that Arzawiya and Biridashwi have wasted the
   country of Abitu.

   No. 44. Continuation (1) of a letter to the King of Egypt,
   reporting that, owing to the hostilities of Abd-Ashirta,
   Khâya, an official, was unable to send ships to the country of
   Amurri, as he had promised. The ships from Arvad which the
   writer has in his charge, lack their full complement of men
   for war service, and he urges the king to make use of the
   ships and crews which he has had with him in Egypt. The writer
   of the letter also urges the King of Egypt to appoint an
   Egyptian official over the naval affairs of Sidon, Beyrut and
   Arvad, and to seize Abd-Ashirta and put him under restraint to
   prevent him obstructing the manning of the ships of war. …

   No. 58. Letter from the governor of a district in Palestine
   (?) to the governors of neighbouring states in the land of
   Canaan, informing them that he is about to send his messenger
   Akiya on a mission to the King of Egypt, and to place himself
   and every thing that he has at his disposal. Akiya will go to
   Egypt by the way of Canaan, and the writer of this letter
   suggests that any gifts they may have to send to Egypt should
   be carried by him, for Akiya is a thoroughly trustworthy man.

      _C. Bezold,
      Oriental Diplomacy: Being the transliterated
      text of the Cuneiform Despatches,
      preface._

   Under the title of "The Story of a 'Tell,'" Mr. W. M. Flinders
   Petrie, the successful excavator and explorer of Egyptian
   antiquities, gave a lecture in London, in June, 1892, in which
   he described the work and the results of an excavation then in
   progress under his direction on the supposed site of Lachish,
   at a point where the maritime plain of Philistia rises to the
   mountains of Judæa, on the route from Egypt into Asia. The
   chairman who introduced Mr. Petrie defined the word "Tell" as
   follows: "A Tell is a mound of earth showing by the presence
   of broken pottery or worked stone that it is the site of a
   ruined city or village. In England when a house falls down or
   is pulled down the materials are usually worth the expense of
   removing for use in some new building. But in Egypt common
   houses have for thousands of years been built of sun-dried
   bricks; in Palestine of rough rubble walling, which, on
   falling, produces many chips, with thick flat roofs of
   plaster. It is thus often less trouble to get new than to use
   old material; the sites of towns grow in height, and
   depressions are filled up." The mound excavated by Mr. Petrie
   is known as Tell el Hesy. After he left the work it was
   carried on by Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Petrie in his lecture says
   "The last news is that Mr. Bliss has found the long looked for
   prize, a cuneiform tablet. … From the character of the
   writing, which is the same as on the tablets written in
   Palestine in 1400. B. C., to the Egyptian king at Tel el
   Amarna, we have a close agreement regarding the chronology of
   the town. Further, it mentions Zimrida as a governor, and this
   same man appears as governor of Lachish on the tablets found
   at Tel el Amarna. We have thus at last picked up the other end
   of the broken chain of correspondence between Palestine and
   Egypt, of which one part was so unexpectedly found in Egypt a
   few years ago on the tablets at Tel el Amarna; and we may hope
   now to recover the Palestinian part of this intercourse and so
   establish the pre-Israelite history of the land."

      W_. M. F. Petrie,
      The Story of a "Tell"
      (The City and the Land, lecture 6)._

      See, also, PALESTINE.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Conder,
      The Tell Amarna Tablets,
      translated._

{755}

EGYPT: About B. C. 1400-1200.
   The first of the Ramesides.
   The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus.

   "Under the Nineteenth Dynasty, which acquired the throne after
   the death of Har-em-Hebi [or Hor-em-heb] the fortune of Egypt
   maintained to some extent its ascendancy; but, though the
   reigns of some war-like kings throw a bright light on this
   epoch, the shade of approaching trouble already darkens the
   horizon." Ramses I. and his son, or son-in-law, Seti I., were
   involved in troublesome wars with the rising power of the
   Hittites, in Syria, and with the Shasu of the Arabian desert.
   Seti was also at war with the Libyans, who then made their
   first appearance in Egyptian history. His son Ramses II., the
   Sesostris of the Greeks, who reigned for sixty-seven years, in
   the fourteenth century B. C., has always been the most famous
   of the Egyptian kings, and, by modern discovery, has been made
   the most interesting of them to the Christian world. He was a
   busy and boastful warrior, who accomplished no important
   conquests; but "among the Pharaohs he is the builder 'par
   excellence.' It is almost impossible to find in Egypt a ruin
   or an ancient mound, without reading his name." … It was to
   these works, probably, that the Israelites then in Egypt were
   forced to contribute their labor; for the Pharaoh of the
   oppression is identified, by most scholars of the present day,
   with this building and boasting Sesostris.

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 3._

   "The extreme length of the reign of Ramses was, as in other
   histories, the cause of subsequent weakness and disaster. His
   successor was an aged son, Menptah, who had to meet the
   difficulties which were easily overcome by the youth of his
   energetic father. The Libyans and their maritime allies broke
   the long tranquillity of Egypt by a formidable invasion and
   temporary conquest of the north-west. The power of the
   monarchy was thus shaken, and the old king was not the leader
   to restore it. His obscure reign was followed by others even
   obscurer, and the Nineteenth Dynasty ended in complete
   anarchy, which reached its height when a Syrian chief, in what
   manner we know not, gained the rule of the whole country. It
   is to the reign of Menptah that Egyptian tradition assigned
   the Exodus, and modern research has come to a general
   agreement that this is its true place in Egyptian history. …
   Unfortunately we do not know the duration of the oppression of
   the Israelites, nor the condition of Lower Egypt during the
   Eighteenth Dynasty, which, according to the hypothesis here
   adopted, corresponds to a great part of the Hebrew sojourn. It
   is, however, clear from the Bible that the oppression did not
   begin till after the period of Joseph's contemporaries, and
   had lasted eighty years before the Exodus. It seems almost
   certain that this was the actual beginning of the oppression,
   for it is very improbable that two separate Pharaohs are
   intended by the 'new king which knew not Joseph' and the
   builder of Rameses, or, in other words, Ramses II., and the
   time from the accession of Ramses II. to the end of Menptah's
   reign can have little exceeded the eighty years of Scripture
   between the birth of Moses and the Exodus. … If the
   adjustment of Hebrew and Egyptian history for the oppression,
   as stated above, be accepted, Ramses II. was probably the
   first, and certainly the great oppressor. His character suits
   this theory; he was an undoubted autocrat who … covered
   Egypt and Lower Nubia with vast structures that could only
   have been produced by slave-labor on the largest scale."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Ancient Egypt
      (Contemporary Review, March, 1879)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 14._

      _H. G. Tomkins,
      Life and Times of Joseph._

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

EGYPT: About B. C. 1300.
   Exodus of the Israelites.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1200-670.
   The decline of the empire of the Pharaohs.

   From the anarchy in which the Nineteenth Dynasty came to its
   end, order was presently restored by the seating in power of a
   new family, which claimed to be of the Rameside stock. The
   second of its kings, who called himself Ramses III. and who is
   believed to be the Rhampsinitus of the Greeks, appears to have
   been one of the ablest of the monarchs of his line. The
   security and prosperity of Egypt were recovered under his
   reign and he left it in a state which does not seem to have
   promised the rapid decay which ensued. "It is difficult to
   understand and account for the suddenness and completeness of
   the collapse. … The hieratic chiefs, the high priests of the
   god Ammon at Thebes, gradually increased in power, usurped one
   after another the prerogatives of the Pharaohs, by degrees
   reduced their authority to a shadow, and ended with an open
   assumption not only of the functions, but of the very insignia
   of royalty. A space of nearly two centuries elapsed, however,
   before this change was complete. Ten princes of the name of
   Ramses, and one called Meri-Tum, all of them connected by
   blood with the great Rameside house, bore the royal title and
   occupied the royal palace, in the space between B. C. 1280 and
   B. C. 1100. Egyptian history during this period is almost
   wholly a blank. No military expeditions are conducted—no
   great buildings are reared—art almost disappears—literature
   holds her tongue." Then came the dynasty of the priest-kings,
   founded by Her-Hor, which held the throne for more than a
   century and was contemporary in its latter years with David
   and Solomon. The Twenty-Second Dynasty which succeeded had its
   capital at Bubastis and is concluded by Dr. Brugsch to have
   been a line of Assyrian kings, representing an invasion and
   conquest of Egypt by Nimrod, the great king of Assyria. Other
   Egyptologists disagree with Dr. Brugsch in this, and Professor
   Rawlinson, the historian of Assyria, finds objections to the
   hypothesis from his own point of view.
{756}
   The prominent monarch of this dynasty was the Sheshonk of
   Biblical history, who sheltered Jeroboam, invaded Palestine
   and plundered Jerusalem. Before this dynasty came to an end it
   had lost the sovereignty of Egypt at large, and its Pharaohs
   contended with various rivals and invaders. Among the latter,
   power grew in the hands of a race of Ethiopians, who had risen
   to importance at Napata, on the Upper Nile, and who extended
   their power, at last, over the whole of Egypt. The Ethiopian
   domination was maintained for two-thirds of a century, until
   the great wave of Assyrian conquest broke upon Egypt in 672 B.
   C. and swept over it, driving the Ethiopians back to Napata
   and Meroë.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 15-18._

      _E. Wilson,
      Egypt of the Past,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, ETHIOPIA.

EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.
   Assyrian conquest and restored independence.
   The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
   The Greeks at Naucratis.

   Although Syria and Palestine had then been suffering for more
   than a century from the conquering arms of the Assyrians, it
   was not until 670 B. C., according to Professor Rawlinson, that
   Esarhaddon passed the boundaries of Egypt and made himself
   master of that country. His father Sennacherib, had attempted
   the invasion thirty years before, at the time of his siege of
   Jerusalem, and had recoiled before some mysterious calamity
   which impelled him to a sudden retreat. The son avenged his
   father's failure. The Ethiopian masters of Egypt were expelled
   and the Assyrian took their place. He "broke up the country
   into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who
   bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a
   certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned
   at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamtik
   I.)—a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in
   Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho. The remaining
   rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians."
   These arrangements were soon broken up by the expelled
   Ethiopian king, Tirhakah, who rallied his forces and swept the
   Assyrian kinglets out of the country; but Asshur-bani-pal, son
   and successor of Esarhaddon, made his appearance with an army
   in 668 or 667 B. C. and Tirhakah fled before him. Again and
   again this occurred, and for twenty years Egypt was torn
   between the Assyrians and the Ethiopians, in their struggle
   for the possession of her. At length, out of the chaos
   produced by these conflicts there emerged a native ruler—the
   Psammetichus mentioned above—who subjugated his fellow
   princes and established a new Egyptian monarchy, which
   defended itself with success against Assyria and Ethiopia,
   alike. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, of Sais, founded by
   Psammetichus, is suspected to have been of Libyan descent. It
   ruled Egypt until the Persian conquest, and brought a great
   new influence to bear on the country and people, by the
   introduction of Greek soldiers and traders. It was under this
   dynasty that the Greek city of Naucratis was founded, on the
   Canobic branch of the Nile.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
      chapter 9._

   The site of Naucratis, near the Canobic branch of the Nile,
   was determined by excavations which Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie
   began in 1884, and from which much has been learned of the
   history of the city and of early relations between the
   Egyptians and the Greeks. It is concluded that the settlement
   of Naucratis dates from about 660 B. C.—not long after the
   beginning of the reign of Psammitichus—and that its Greek
   founders became the allies of that monarch and his successors
   against their enemies. "All are agreed that before the reign
   of Psammitichus and the founding of Naucratis, Egypt was a
   sealed book to the Greeks. It is likely that the Phoenicians,
   who were from time to time the subjects of the Pharaohs, were
   admitted, where aliens like the Greeks were excluded. We have
   indeed positive evidence that the Egyptians did not wish
   strange countries to learn their art, for in a treaty between
   them and the Hittites it is stipulated that neither country
   shall harbour fugitive artists from the other. But however the
   fact may be accounted for, it is an undoubted fact that long
   before Psammitichus threw Egypt open to the foreigner, the
   Phoenicians had studied in the school of Egyptian art, and
   learned to copy all sorts of handiwork procured from the
   valley of the Nile. … According to Herodotus and Diodorus,
   the favour shown to the Greeks by the King was the cause of a
   great revolt of the native Egyptian troops, who left the
   frontier fortresses, and marched south beyond Elephantine,
   where they  settled, resisting all the entreaties of
   Psammitichus, who naturally deplored the loss of the mainstay
   of his dominions, and developed into the race of the Sebridae.
   Wiedemann, however, rejects the whole story as unhistorical,
   and certainly, if we closely consider it, it contains great
   inherent improbabilities. … Psammitichus died in B. C: 610,
   and was succeeded by his son Necho, who was his equal in
   enterprise and vigour. This King paid great attention to the
   fleet of Egypt, and Greek shipwrights were set to work on both
   the Mediterranean and Red Seas to build triremes for the State
   navy. A fleet of his ships, we are told, succeeded in sailing
   round Africa, a very great feat for the age. The King even
   attempted the task, of which the completion was reserved for
   the Persian Darius, the Ptolemies, and Trajan, of making a
   canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Herodotus says
   that, after sacrificing the lives of 120,000 men to the labour
   and heat of the task, he gave it up, in consequence of the
   warning of an oracle that he was toiling only for the
   barbarians. … Necho, like his father, must needs try the
   edge of his new weapon, the Ionian mercenaries, on Asia. At
   first he was successful. Josiah, King of Judah, came out
   against him, but was slain, and his army dispersed. Greek
   valour carried Necho as far as the Euphrates. … But
   Nebuchadnezzar, son of the King of Babylon, marched against
   the invaders, and defeated them in a great battle near
   Carehemish. His father's death recalled him to Babylon, and
   Egypt was for the moment saved from counter-invasion by the
   stubborn resistance offered to the Babylonian arms by
   Jehoiakim, King of Judah, a resistance fatal to the Jewish
   race; for Jerusalem was captured after a long siege, and most
   of the inhabitants carried into captivity. Of Psammitichus
   II., who succeeded Necho, we should know but little were it
   not for the archaeological record. Herodotus only says that he
   attacked Ethiopia, and died after a reign of six years.
{757}
   But of the expedition thus summarily recorded we have a
   lasting and memorable result in the well-known inscriptions
   written by Rhodians and other Greek mercenaries on the legs of
   the colossi at Abu Simbel in Nubia, which record how certain
   of them came thither in the reign of Psammitichus, pushing up
   the river in boats as far as it was navigable, that is,
   perhaps, up to the second cataract. … Apries, the Hophra of
   the Bible, was the next king. The early part of his reign was
   marked by successful warfare against the Phoenicians and the
   peoples of Syria; but, like his predecessor, he was unable to
   maintain a footing in Asia in the face of the powerful and
   warlike Nebuchadnezzar. The hostility which prevailed between
   Egypt and Babylon at this time caused King Apries to open a
   refuge for those Jews who fled from the persecution of
   Nebuchadnezzar. He assigned to their leaders, among whom were
   the daughters of the King of Judah, a palace of his own at
   Daphnae, 'Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes,' as it is called by
   Jeremiah. That prophet was among the fugitives, and uttered in
   the palace a notable prophecy, (xliii. 9) that King
   Nebuchadnezzar should come and spread his conquering tent over
   the pavement before it. Formerly it was supposed that this
   prophecy remained unfulfilled, but this opinion has to be
   abandoned. Recently discovered Egyptian and Babylonian
   inscriptions prove that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt as far
   as Syene. … The fall of Apries as brought about by his
   ingratitude to the Greeks, and his contempt for the lives of
   his own subjects. He had formed the project of bringing under
   his sway the Greek cities of the Cyrenaica. … Apries
   despatched against Cyrene a large force; but the Cyreneans
   bravely defended themselves, and as the Egyptians on this
   occasion marched without their Greek allies, they were
   entirely defeated, and most of them perished by the sword, or
   in the deserts which separate Cyrene from Egypt. The defeated
   troops, and their countrymen who remained behind in garrison
   in Egypt, imputed the disaster to treachery on the part of
   Apries. … They revolted, and chose as their leader Amasis, a
   man of experience and daring. But Apries, though deserted by
   his subjects, hoped still to maintain his throne by Greek aid.
   At the head of 30,000 Ionians and Carians he marched against
   Amasis. At Momemphis a battle took place between the rival
   kings and between the rival nations; but the numbers of the
   Egyptians prevailed over the arms and discipline of the
   mercenaries, and Apries was defeated and captured by his
   rival, who, however, allowed him for some years to retain the
   name of joint-king. It is the best possible proof of the
   solidity of Greek influence in Egypt at this time that Amasis,
   though set on the throne by the native army after a victory
   over the Greek mercenaries, yet did not expel these latter
   from Egypt, but, on the contrary, raised them to higher favour
   than before. … In the delightful dawn of connected European
   history we see Amasis as a wise and wealthy prince, ruling in
   Egypt at the time when Polycrates was tyrant of Samos; and
   when Croesus of Lydia, the richest king of his time, was
   beginning to be alarmed by the rapid expansion of the Persian
   power under Cyrus. … In the days of Psammitichus III., the
   son of Amasis, the storm which had overshadowed Asia broke
   upon Egypt. One of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries in
   Egypt named Phanes, a native of Halicarnassus, made his way to
   the Persian Court, and persuaded Cambyses, who, according to
   the story, had received from Amasis one of those affronts
   which have so often produced wars between despots, to invade
   Egypt in full force."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. F. Petrie,
      Naukratis._

      See, also, NAUKRATIS.

EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
   Persian conquest and sovereignty.

   The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the
   independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and
   even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's
   ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king
   of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen
   and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their
   place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of
   conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the
   task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian
   monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It
   was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of
   his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate
   of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA:
   B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father
   Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects,
   but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and
   Carians. … In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the
   Egyptian army was completely defeated. … The conquest of
   Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring
   tribes. … Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and
   Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his
   tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous
   expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he
   retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted
   rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country,
   was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples
   and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt
   and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely
   broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious
   slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator
   than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."

      _George Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 7._

   "The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are
   enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing
   revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the
   Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus,
   who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and
   the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte)
   Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we
   need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and
   have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of
   independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the
   invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C.
   353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius
   Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending
   with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C.
   332)."

      _P. Smith,
      Ancient History of the East (Students'),
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN: _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 5._

{758}

EGYPT: B. C. 332.
   Alexander's conquest.

   "In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of
   Tyre—see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330]
   Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied
   by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of
   Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by
   the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered
   Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest,
   but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake
   off the Persian tyranny. … Mazaces [the Persian commander]
   himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became
   aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and
   met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the
   fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it
   to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched
   across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the
   honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis,
   who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. …
   He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of
   the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on
   that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed
   on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea,
   and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales …
   by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by
   a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the
   isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis,
   where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent
   guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from
   adventurers. … Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck
   by the advantages of this position for a city, which should
   become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the
   East and the West. … He immediately gave orders for the
   beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was
   suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and
   marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares,
   palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander
   remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the
   occupation and administration of the country. "The system
   which he established served in some points as a model for the
   policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the
   country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward,
   and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of
   Ammon.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 50._

EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
   The kingdom of the Ptolemies.

   In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between
   his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus—reputed to be a
   natural son of Alexander's father Philip—chose Egypt (see
   MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be
   wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was
   the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by
   reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest
   of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he
   founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more
   security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of
   the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen
   years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name
   (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his
   dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African
   coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of
   Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over
   for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids,
   sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see
   SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest
   extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy
   Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of
   Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene
   they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them.
   Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy
   developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can
   show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the
   most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they
   more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They
   made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the
   greatest seat of learning,—the successor of Athens as the
   capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapters 7-12._

   The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy
   Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year
   following.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

   "Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly
   altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other
   respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt
   took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead
   of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great
   effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the
   country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had
   scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring
   up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies,
   intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would
   naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced
   manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine
   linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt
   alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade
   in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed,
   enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and
   Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in
   return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to
   offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies
   seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red
   Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual,
   but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the
   hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf.
   Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread
   eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë
   and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian
   trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands,
   the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further
   and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and
   Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans,
   could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which
   had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. … If we may
   trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which
   have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under
   Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we
   cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his
   reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and
   40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The
   fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large
   vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars.
   Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then
   more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 7._

      See, also, ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
      and EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

{759}

EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.
   Strife among the Ptolemies.
   Roman pretensions.

   The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between
   Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son,
   Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans
   to support his claims by making a will in which he named the
   Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to
   Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that
   they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was
   obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days
   afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen.
   The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander
   was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of
   the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called
   Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he
   succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of
   the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have
   been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed
   with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a
   rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B.
   C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in
   Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will
   his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder
   son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the
   Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The
   Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its
   executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three
   years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought,
   Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling
   against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to
   interfere.

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 11._

EGYPT: B. C. 48-47.
   Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy.
   Intervention of Cæsar.
   The rising against him.
   The Romans besieged in Alexandria.
   Their ruthless victory.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

EGYPT: B. C. 30.
   Organized as a Roman province.

   After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt
   was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and
   the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had
   no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he
   tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign
   soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon
   crushing nearer home. … In due time he persuaded the senate
   and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should
   never be placed under the administration of any man of
   superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be
   allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the
   supreme authority."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 29._

EGYPT: A. D. 100-500.
   Roman and Christian.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415;
      and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EGYPT: A. D. 296.
   Revolt crushed by Diocletian.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
   Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.

   The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian
   conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt
   itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time
   of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued
   by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that
   impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the
   Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels
   of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from
   the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia.
   Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the
   archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes
   entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a
   wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy
   was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the
   neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were
   finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the
   death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the
   empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their
   Persian garrisons.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 46.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EGYPT: A. D. 640-646.
   Moslem conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171.
   Under the Fatimite Caliphs.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.

EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250.
   Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.

      See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220.
   Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250.
   The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.
   The Mameluke Sultans.

   The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The
   word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and … they
   were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the
   South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his
   accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were
   employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope
   employs Swiss. … Subsequently, however, Circassia became the
   country which most largely furnished this class of troops.
   Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were
   taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then
   followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed
   to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle,
   or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of
   Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo],
   and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time
   devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they
   neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became
   degenerate and corrupt. … The dynasty of Saladin … was of
   no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era.
{760}
   Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of
   the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in
   Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of
   the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who
   married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany,
   who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself
   murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. … Their
   subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan
   Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust,
   murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from
   power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or
   six years. … The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall
   of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke
   Dynasties constantly present."

      _A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5._

EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans.
   Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST),
      and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Bonaparte's organization of government.
   His victory at Aboukir.
   His return to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST),
      and 1799 (NOVEMBER).

EGYPT: A. D. 1800.
   Discontent and discouragement of the French.
   The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
   Turkish defeat at Heliopolis.
   Revolt crushed at Cairo.
   Assassination of Kleber.

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

EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Expulsion of the French by the English.
   Restoration of the province to Turkey.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
   The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power.
   His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.

   "It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or
   Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the
   Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor
   was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops
   furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with
   the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command
   of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and
   soon found himself an important factor in the confused
   political position which followed the departure of the British
   army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former
   posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for
   revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the
   rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who
   divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other
   hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet
   gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually
   apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at
   the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either
   side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He
   played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the
   Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides,
   but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the
   anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at
   last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be
   persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805]
   their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the
   curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed
   Mohammad 'Aly's election—for such it was—to the governorship
   of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and
   Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo,
   laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan
   Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured
   their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an
   indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for
   weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from
   Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote,
   in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of
   Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery
   amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse)
   Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the
   citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of
   Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was
   everywhere disputed by the Beys. … An attempt was made to
   ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the
   metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal
   of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's
   party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on
   that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony,
   inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive
   them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The
   dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without
   any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their
   Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the
   suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city.
   … They marched along the principal street for some distance,
   with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with
   apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the
   Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar
   and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party
   continuing along the main street, and through the gate called
   Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here
   they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with
   this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back
   towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed;
   and in that part of the main thoroughfare called
   Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires.
   Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the
   collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder
   fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the
   city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in
   the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the
   alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who
   escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A
   horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the
   Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they
   were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were
   slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were
   dragged away. … The wretched captives were then chained and
   left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following
   morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day
   before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes.
{761}
   One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were
   released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put
   to death in the course of the ensuing night. … The Beys were
   disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them
   retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more
   probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte
   began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but
   the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from
   Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the
   Turkish fleet sailed away. … An attempt of the English
   Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of
   5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and
   humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of
   seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the
   Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory
   policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged
   them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in
   order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery
   which finally uprooted the Memluk power. … Early in the year
   1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis
   in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo
   were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's
   favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the
   army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell
   into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other
   chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the
   citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having
   taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and
   followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and
   narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as
   soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed
   before them. The last of those who made their exit before the
   gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops
   their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all
   the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by
   another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses,
   that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some
   stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through
   which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they
   commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and
   immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had
   the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. …
   470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if
   any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey.
   According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and
   alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall.
   Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades,
   and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate.
   He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the
   signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks
   throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to
   every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys
   were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their
   adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner,
   and sacked their dwellings. … The last of his rivals being
   now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the
   administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions
   abroad."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Egypt,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      volume 2._

EGYPT: A. D. 1807.
   Occupation of Alexandria by the English.
   Disastrous failure of their expedition.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
   Successes against the Turks.
   Intervention of the Western Powers.
   Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
   Mehemet Ali and his successors.
   The khedives.
   The opening of the Suez Canal.

   "By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European
   Powers, … his title to Egypt having been … affirmed …
   Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the
   social and material improvement of the country, with an
   aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as
   the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions
   and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed
   grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up
   till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and
   notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death
   incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing
   Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then
   verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental
   malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in
   mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the
   government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,
   the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,
   but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of
   the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and
   bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type—ignorant,
   cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every
   sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in
   almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in
   July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his
   own slaves,—acting, it was variously said, on a secret order
   from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To
   Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable
   and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief
   done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence
   and force of character required to carry on the great work
   begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for
   the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the
   colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,
   has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was
   succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of
   Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's
   reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still
   fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the
   more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give
   the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which
   forms the main element of a problem that still confronts
   Europe.
{762}
   But, for this the same impartial judge will at least
   equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his
   extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at
   ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical
   justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress
   of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of
   railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved
   the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the
   country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native
   industries. For so much, at least, history will give him
   credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the
   magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez
   Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but
   through which—as if by the irony of history—the first ship
   that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic
   of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal
   character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,
   crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private
   relations. … It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the
   first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of
   'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank
   a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy
   bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the
   year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from
   the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,—in
   virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

      _J. C. M'Coan,
      Egypt
      (National Life and Thought, lecture 18)._

      _J. C. M'Coan,
      Egypt under Ismail,
      chapters 1-4._

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.
   Conquest of the Soudan.
   Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
   The government of General Gordon.
   Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.

   In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance
   to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central
   Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command
   of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and
   received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which
   he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make
   Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to
   Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission,
   and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of
   Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with
   fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years
   past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the
   slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these
   pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and
   energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he
   established over their territory a certain number of small
   military settlements. … Baker returned to Europe flattering
   himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the
   scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various
   slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a
   number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable
   slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had
   been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back
   than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than
   before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however,
   was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means
   the worst. … Under European compulsion … the Khedive
   Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the
   scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on
   the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the
   sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the
   equatorial provinces under the administration of an European
   officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of
   repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced
   by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a
   brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained
   high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for
   his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This
   was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who
   was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon
   Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in
   1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American
   officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin
   Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants
   Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. …
   Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto
   been known, became the continual scene of military movements
   and scientific excursions. … The Soudan was so far conquered
   as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed
   along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. …
   In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he
   was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years,
   worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation
   and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the
   jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by
   the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's
   Government had sent to support him, he consented to return
   again to his post; this time with the title of
   Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial
   Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the
   Government palace at Khartoum. … Egyptian authority, allied
   with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be
   taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo
   Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could
   reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area
   of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense.
   Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the
   Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were
   such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as
   lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts
   watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right
   away to the confines of Wadai. … Unfortunately in 1879
   Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the
   Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the
   country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy,
   disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at
   Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period
   been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to
   the front. … It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded
   Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his
   subordinates—Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been
   placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey,
   an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the
   Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of
   Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the
   Mahdi appeared on the scene.
{763}
   Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred,
   the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by
   many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early
   age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth,
   a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly
   aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled
   several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney,
   the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861.
   Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful
   order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes
   for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His
   proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi
   Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five
   months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode
   upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum,
   where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of
   his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually
   gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but
   followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as
   well as powerful. … Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed
   that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his
   plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as
   'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of
   Islam to come and join him at Abba. … Convinced that it was
   impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues
   of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf
   Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him
   to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched
   to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed
   were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black
   soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and
   they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of
   a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah,
   wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could
   rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of
   followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many,
   put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault
   was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a
   retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan.
   Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition
   of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to
   secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A
   further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda
   with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more
   melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay
   stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around
   him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry,
   escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news.
   The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense
   excitement spreading throughout the Soudan…. Meantime the
   Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt
   sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops
   overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the
   town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to
   El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the
   following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time
   numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left
   Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with
   no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. …
   And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger
   for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act
   for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under
   the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service
   who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December
   1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the
   desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance
   on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had
   fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his
   headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks,
   but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking
   El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in
   amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic
   fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a
   force five or six times their superior in numbers, and
   completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European
   staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the
   dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy.
   Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to
   Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated
   for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a
   rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants,
   occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded
   Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another,
   two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief
   of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between
   Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this
   time had risen so high that it threatened not only to
   overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become
   the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."

      _A. J. Wauters,
      Stanley's Emin Pasha Expedition,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Major R. F. Wingate,
      Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan,
      books 1-4._

      _Colonel Sir W. F. Butler,
      Charles George Gordon,
      chapters 5-6._

      _A. E. Hake,
      The Story of Chinese Gordon,
      chapters 10-15._

EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882.
   Bankruptcy of the state.
   English and French control of finances.
   Native hostility to the foreigners.
   Rebellion, led by Arabi.
   English bombardment of Alexandria.

   "The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged
   extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and
   the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices
   were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in
   1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to
   ninety-eight millions. … The European capitalists obtained
   for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really
   not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued
   at low rates. … The interest on these borrowed millions was
   punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found
   that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British
   government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to
   examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at
   twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed
   at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of
   consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took
   the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of
   these usurious demands.
{764}
   The debt, although under their control, and therefore
   secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in
   premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to
   something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English
   consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the
   jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also
   established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners
   against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal
   gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his
   private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the
   creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the
   Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive
   pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to
   act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on
   Egyptian finances—M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank,
   for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England.
   These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the
   finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all
   independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to
   resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order
   to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was
   afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the
   National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European
   commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. …
   Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of
   the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and
   later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the
   Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances.
   Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued
   at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight
   per cent. nett. … But to be able to pay the creditors their
   full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national
   expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and
   the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many
   classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a
   fanatical hatred of race against race. … In consequence of
   all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers,
   and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves
   into a National party, with the object of resisting the
   oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by
   the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate
   officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February,
   1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the
   National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who
   installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of
   this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the
   beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the
   reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired
   and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his
   present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now
   dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed,
   consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as
   Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry
   of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed
   by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The
   western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and
   demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June,
   1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and
   his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. … The new Khedive,
   with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his
   ministry and the organization of his finances to the western
   Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of
   the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch
   over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted
   forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the
   entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were
   embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further
   reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw
   a large number out of employment. … Many acts of military
   insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November,
   1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. … Ahmed
   Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public
   notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly
   rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled
   to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the
   further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army,
   and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however,
   did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian
   party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more
   reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted
   great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. … A
   pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he
   dexterously used to increase his popularity. … Twenty-six
   officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the
   Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the
   sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This
   leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to
   the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming
   Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister
   without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon
   afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers.
   … This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the
   May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European
   Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads
   would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of
   the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was
   realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet
   of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of
   Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and
   the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. …
   The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more
   apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. … On
   the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the
   Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in
   favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. … On the 3rd of June,
   Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had
   sailed from Constantinople. … His object was to pacify Egypt
   and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. … Since the
   publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha
   as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the
   actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen
   the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. …
{765}
   The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the
   remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of
   the works. … Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria
   on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter,
   plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. … Though the
   disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of
   foreigners was the result. … On the 22nd a commission,
   consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans … began to try
   the ringleaders of the riot. … But events were hurrying on
   towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the
   fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral
   received information that the entrance to the harbour would be
   blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be
   an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of
   the Suez canal was also discovered. … The English, on their
   side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi,
   while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready
   for resistance. … On the 27th the English vice-consul
   advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the
   3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for
   war were complete. … Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th
   showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the
   English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar
   Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and
   surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the
   bombardment at four the next morning. … As the French
   government were unable to take part in any active measures (a
   grant for that purpose having been refused by the National
   Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral
   Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other
   nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the
   harbour of Alexandria. … On the evening of the 10th of July
   … and at daybreak on the 11th, the … ironclads took up the
   positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the
   east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships
   were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the
   Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. … The first shot
   fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the
   Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the
   Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement
   became general. … At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up
   by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock
   the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the
   guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from
   their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi
   had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines
   was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike
   and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the
   Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew
   it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half
   an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30
   the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were
   repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. … The English
   casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a
   comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. …
   At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by
   the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary
   measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to
   the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were
   fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the
   city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames
   were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware
   that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time
   for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army.
   Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other
   nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen.
   But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined
   soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed
   many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said,
   'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"

      _H. Vogt,
      The Egyptian War of 1882,
      pages 2-32._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. McCoan,
      Egypt under Ismail,
      chapters 8-10._

      _C. Royle,
      The Egyptian Campaigns,
      volume 1, chapters 1-20._

      _Khedives and Pashas._

      _C. F. Goodrich,
      Report on British Military and Naval Operations in Egypt,
      1882,
      part 1._

EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.
   The massacre and destruction in Alexandria.
   Declared rebellion of Arabi.
   Its suppression by the English.
   Banishment of Arabi.
   English occupation.

   The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage,
   massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder.
   It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and
   burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings
   surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and
   left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand
   Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with
   all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the
   afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had
   occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The
   admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by
   some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly
   without excuse. … The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th,
   and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next
   day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed
   to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was
   escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong
   guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who
   had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention
   was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of
   Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of
   Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people.
   … The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people,
   but he was regarded as the tool of England. … From the
   moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the
   real ruler of the people. … The conference at Constantinople
   was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It
   presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the
   dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt.
   But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian
   in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and
   the unbeliever. … In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed
   upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and
   discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a
   counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a
   traitor to his people and his religion.
{766}
   Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord
   Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced
   to the conference that England was about to send an expedition
   to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the
   authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that
   he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin
   feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that
   the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a
   rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of
   incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare
   Arabi a rebel. … In his desperation, he sent a force of
   3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in
   readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. … In the
   meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt
   and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the
   diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. … It was
   not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived
   with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only
   two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian
   interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by
   Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about
   70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The
   objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush
   Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways
   of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the
   Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many
   objections to the former route. … The Suez canal was
   supposed to be neutral water. … But England felt no
   obligation to recognize any neutrality, … acting upon the
   principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of
   any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific
   oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can
   place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In
   other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of
   the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound
   secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. … On the
   19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to
   attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night,
   they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that
   the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral
   Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the
   troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at
   Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation.
   The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the
   Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie
   to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed
   necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further
   advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of
   some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here
   the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while
   organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi
   opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and
   Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at
   once before the British transports could come up with the
   advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and
   the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at
   Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss
   upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were
   made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become
   convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained
   in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at
   Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. … It was
   therefore decided to make the approach under cover of
   darkness. … At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General
   Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting
   of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty
   field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so
   accurately was the movement conducted that the leading
   brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within
   two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley)
   were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of
   their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized
   our close proximity to their works.' … The intrenchments
   were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians
   fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were
   bayoneted at their posts. … But what could the rank and file
   accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but
   hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and
   his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis,
   where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other
   officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the
   same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and
   at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and
   the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded,
   and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the
   fortifications. … A proof of the completeness of the success
   was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of
   soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of
   Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with
   the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. … 'Major-General Lowe was
   ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. …
   General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just
   outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The
   cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. … A
   message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the
   city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did
   unconditionally.' … Before leaving England, Wolseley had
   predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September;
   but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and
   Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood
   alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the
   intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations
   regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord
   Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and
   announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish
   force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared
   to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne
   the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the
   influence her success had given her. And it was for the
   interest of Egypt that she should not. … England's first
   duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the
   British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it
   was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's
   authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. …
{767}
   What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount
   interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established
   and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to
   themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. … But
   England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial.
   … It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before
   a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to
   plead their cause. … The trial was a farce. Everything was
   'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to
   plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be
   condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was
   immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In
   fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the
   court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. … On the 26th of
   December Arabi and his six companions … upon whom the same
   sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon,
   there to spend their life of perpetual exile. … Lord
   Dufferin … had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early
   in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of
   governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of
   legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat
   altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in
   its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive.
   The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies:
   the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the
   'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one
   for each province. … Every Egyptian man, over twenty years
   of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from
   the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the
   'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were
   to form the constituency that should elect the provincial
   council. … The scheme for reorganization was carried forward
   to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in
   September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such
   disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive
   considered it unwise to put the new institutions into
   operation. In place of legislative council and general
   assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting
   of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The
   reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending
   troubles and dangers in the Sudan."

      _J. E. Bowen,
      The Conflict of East and West in Egypt,
      chapter 5-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel J. F. Maurice,
      Military History of the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt._

      _C. Royle,
      The Egyptian Campaigns,
      volume 1, chapters 22-44._

EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
   General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum.
   The town beleaguered by the Mahdists.
   English rescue expedition.
   The energy that was too late.

   "The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British
   Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating
   the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. …
   Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January,
   1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the
   military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it
   might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian
   garrisons and for the safety of the European population in
   Khartoum. … He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. …
   Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian
   Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. …
   Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. … While
   Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to
   the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual
   evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would
   very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark
   on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be
   caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,—'Even if I was mean enough
   to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this
   forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days
   communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although
   subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian
   tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages
   exceedingly uncertain. … Long before the summer of 1884, it
   was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become
   so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could
   only be by the despatch of a British force. … Early in May,
   war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of
   the month the military authorities in Cairo received
   instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an
   expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000
   camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for
   a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a
   half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady
   Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were
   occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers
   were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the
   cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was
   not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House
   of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the
   Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon.
   … It was agreed that there were but two routes by which
   Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of
   the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. … The Nile
   route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale
   were begun. … It was at first arranged that not more than
   5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number
   was raised to 7,000. … The instructions given to Lord
   Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was
   to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that
   purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of
   any kind were to be undertaken."

      _C. Royle,
      The Egyptian Campaigns, 1882-1885,
      volume 2, chapters 12-18._

   "First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates
   of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of
   February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of
   March. … Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the
   regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most
   expeditiously and with least damage to boats. … He also
   dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to
   Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted
   Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th
   Hussars, acting as scouts—numbering about 1,100 in all—set
   out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100
   miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy.
{768}
   The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was
   achieved with perfect success. … On the 17th January Sir
   Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and
   after defeating some 10,000 Arabs—collected from Berber,
   Metemneh, and Omdurman—pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells.
   His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at
   Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men—of attacking when thirst
   and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force—were at all
   points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were
   65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded,
   with 9 officers killed—among them Colonel Burnaby—and 9
   wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile.
   He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if
   possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench
   himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of
   Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said
   to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a
   zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in
   the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert,
   of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the
   column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu
   Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of
   charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so
   terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly
   served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged;
   and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime
   Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he
   found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic
   message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' …
   In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the
   true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for
   years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before
   Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and
   that what he really meant was that he had come to his last
   biscuit. The message—which was written for the enemy—was
   dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on
   January 28, just a month after its despatch. … The public,
   carefully kept in ignorance … and hopeful beyond their wont,
   were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in
   the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."

      _A. E. Hake,
      The Story of Chinese Gordon,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stanley,
      In Darkest Africa,
      chapter 1._

      _Colonel H. E. Colvile,
      History of the Soudan Campaign._

      _Colonel C. W. Wilson,
      From Korti to Khartoum._

      _Colonel Sir W. F. Butler,
      The Campaign of the Cataracts._

      _W. M. Pimblett,
      The Story of the Soudan War._

      _General C. G. Gordon,
      Journals at Khartoum._

      _H. W. Gordon,
      Events in the Life of Charles George Gordon,
      chapters 14-20._

EGYPT: A. D. 1893.
   The reigning khedive.

   Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his
   son Abbas, born in 1874.

   _Statesman's Year-book, 1893._

----------EGYPT: End----------

EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

EGYPTIAN TALENT.

      See TALENT.

EIDGENOSSEN.

   The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is
   often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the
   members of the Swiss Confederation/

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

   The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a
   corruption of the same term.

EIGHT SAINTS OF WAR, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

EIKON BASILIKE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

EION, Siege and capture of (B. C. 470).

      See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EIRE.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

EKKLESIA.

      See ECCLESIA.

EKOWE, Defence of (1879).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1870.

ELAGABALUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 218-222.

ELAM.

   "Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between
   the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest
   son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was
   known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the
   name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an
   Elamite invasion—an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal,
   and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and
   desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid
   of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest.
   Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern
   Chaldea. … This is the first time we meet authentic
   monumental records of a country which was destined through the
   next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly
   hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria,
   until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under
   Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the
   whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan
   (afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own
   original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock,
   its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. …
   Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both
   from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which
   means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' … One of
   Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not
   content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam.
   He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship
   of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis—which calls him
   Chedorlaomer—is the only document we have descriptive of this
   king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of
   it, … Khudur-Lagamar … lived, according to the most
   probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      Story of Chaldea,
      chapter 4._

   It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the
   records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great
   was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he
   acquired his later dominions, by conquest.

      See PERSIA, B. C. 549-521.

      See, also, BABYLONIA.

EL ARISH, Treaty of.

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

ELBA: A. D. 1735.
   Ceded to Spain by Austria.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ELBA: A. D. 1802.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ELBA: A. D. 1814.
   Napoleon in exile.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL),
      and (APRIL-JUNE).

{i}

APPENDIX A.


NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.

To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of
every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the
stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and
customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the
basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated
to a subordinate place.

The "language" test is of course subject to very serious
limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general
to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless
been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of
linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases
where both the civilization and language of one people have
become lost in that of another the test must of course fail
utterly.

With all these restrictions however the adoption of the
linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically
universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is
the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where
successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points
wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely
admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established
are unassailable by any other school of criticism.

Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the
subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division:
the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in
the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may
be safely accepted as fact.

The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its
central feature the _Indo-Germanic_ (_Indo-European_)
or _Aryan_ race. The distinction between the races clearly
Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division
of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the
Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at
the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded
the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe
in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, _pre-Aryan,
Aryan, non-Aryan,_ affords the key to the historical
development of European ethnology.


PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.

Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the
_Iberians_ occupy easily the first place. The seat of this
people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France;
their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They
are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial
characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places
them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the
volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of
the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns
to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the
modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in
"Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to
include also the _Bretons_ of the north west. It is clear
however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic:
made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles
during the fifth century.

To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every
foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding
races is due the survival to the present day of their
descendants, the _Basques_.

The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and
Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people
in every age. Here the _Cantabri_ successfully resisted the
Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the
remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the
last years of Augustus. While the _Iberian_ race as a whole
has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin
intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The
present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of
Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French
department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost
in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of
the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong
likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning
these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration
from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the
connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the
one stated.)

Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of
Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the
pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded
as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is
conjecture.


ARYAN PEOPLES.

In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to
mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally
enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the _Sanskrit_
(Hindoo), _Zend_ (Persian), _Greek, Latin, Celtic,
Germanic_ and _Slavic_. To these may be added two others
not definitely classified, the _Albanian_ and the
_Lithuanian_. These bear the closest affinity respectively
to the Latin and the _Slavic_.

Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern
us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The
vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning
their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this
subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best
view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max
Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor
A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).

{ii}

Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two
do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the
_Latin_, _Germanic_ and _Slavic_ form by great
odds the bulk of the European population.


THE LATIN BRANCH.

The _Latin_ countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and
the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the
Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can
be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As
Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of
different races: the _Iapygians_ and _Oenotrians_ of
the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek
settlers; the _Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians_ and
_Oscans_ in the centre; the _Etruscans_ on the west
shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the
_Gauls_ in the valley of the Po, with the _Ligurians_
and _Venetians_ respectively on the west and east coasts. Of
this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to
the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the
growing power of Rome.

The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by
the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the
West-Roman Empire.

This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin
countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and
finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in
Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over
two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression,
and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character
of the Italian peninsula.

In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman
conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is
best described as _Celt-Iberian_. Upon this population the
Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that
reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of
Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the
ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The _Gothic_
kingdom of Spain (418-714) and the _Suevic_ kingdom of
northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a
trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be
dismissed so lightly.

Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire
country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight
centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest
their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure
Aryan stock has never been effaced.

The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided
into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is
geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the
Celtic blending with the _Iberian_; in the northeast the
Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are
strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in
the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli"
are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing
for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description
of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present
day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of
ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.

The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin
stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined
siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated
to undergo.

In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown;
the _Frankish_ kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness
never overthrown at all.

In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic
element in the Scandinavian _Norman_. Over all these outside
elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed.
While the _Franks_ have imposed their name upon the natives,
the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the
invaders.

The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in
the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line
running east and west through the centre of France marks the
division between the French and the _Provençal_ dialects,
the _langued'oil_ and the _langued'oc_. It is south of
this line in the country of the _langued'oc_ that the Latin
or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.

In the northeast, on the other hand, in the _Walloon_
provinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic
times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.

Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of
its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The
_Albanians_ (_Skipetars_) and the _Roumans_
(_Vlachs_ or _Wallachs_) represent as nearly as
ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of
Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely
uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of
their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some
southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an
entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have
been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic
races in the seventh century.

The _Albanian_ migrations of the time penetrated Attica,
Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the _Slavs_ and
_Vlachs_ they formed indeed a great part of the population
of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have
since been merged in the native Greek population, and the
_Vlachs_ have almost entirely disappeared from these
southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater
tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent
one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica
and Argolis.

The _Roumans_ or _Vlachs_, the supposed native
population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the
Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present
the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on
the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.

Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting
study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous
Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic
Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally
abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's
"Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)

{iii}

The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is
probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south
of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the
present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and
West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.

In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans
was an important one, and to this day they still linger in
considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For
a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History
of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)


THE GERMANIC BRANCH.

The _Germanic_ nations of modern Europe are _England,
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway_ and _Sweden_. The
Germanic races also form the major part of the population of
Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and
appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.

Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of
the West scarcely a trace remains.

The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history
furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan
_Ivernians_ (the possible _Iberians_ of the British
Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and
Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two
divisions, the _Goidels_ or _Gaels_ and the
_Britons_.

In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did
not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact
the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of
the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic
element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the
Germanic races, the _Angles, Saxons_ and _Jutes_, from
the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of
extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the
British Isles only in _Wales_ and the western portions of
_Scotland_ and _Ireland_. The invasions of the
_Danes_, and later the _Norman_ conquest, bringing with
them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have
produced in England no marked modification of the _Saxon_
stock.

The _German_ Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms,
Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of
the Germanic peoples of the continent.

During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman
Empire the _Germanic_ peoples were grouped much further
westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction
involving the dispossession of the _Slavic_ peoples on the
Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of
Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division,
Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands
north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which
the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses
the _Flemish_, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is
about equally divided between the _Flemish_ and the
_Walloon_. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is
encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in
the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same,
the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form
also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern
Italy.

The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively
Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic _Poles_ of Posen,
Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant
of the _Wends_ of Lusatia and the French element in the
recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond
the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian
territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in
isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the
Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century
and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia.
On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the _Scandinavian_
branch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find
another and non-Aryan race, the _Lapps_. On the other hand a
remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast
line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.


THE SLAVIC BRANCH.

The _Slavs_, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear
in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the
Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed
at nearly one hundred million souls.

At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all
modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples,
beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the
course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the
_Polabic_, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the
German, and, barring the remnant of _Wends_ in Lusatia (the
_Sorabi_ or _Northern Serbs_), have disappeared
entirely from ethnic geography.

The great _Slavic_ nation of the present day is Russia, but
the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the
considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders
impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.

The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical
conditions, into three great divisions: the _Eastern_, the
_Western_ and the _Southern_. The greatest of these
divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of
the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as
follows: The _Great Russians_ occupying the vast inland
territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions,
the _Little Russians_ inhabiting the entire south of Russia
from Poland to the Caspian, and the _White Russians_, the
least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk,
the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.

The _West Slavic_ group, omitting names of peoples now
extinct, are the _Poles, Slovaks, Czechs_ and the remnants
of the Lusatian _Wends_. The _Poles_, excepting those
already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian
Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under
the sovereignty of Austria are the _Slovaks, Moravians_ and
_Czechs_ of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as
historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having
appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth
century.

{iv}

In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to
the _Lithuanians_ whose history, despite the racial
difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their
present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and
Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.

The _South Slavic_ peoples were isolated from their northern
kinsmen by the great _Finno-Tatar_ invasions.

The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove
like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the
southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman
Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic
invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these
Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in
connection with the _Finno-Tatar_ invasions which caused
them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic
changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era.
During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants
spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus
and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a
separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save
and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states
(Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they
may be classed in three divisions. The _Bulgarians_, so
called from the _Finno-Tatar_ people whom they absorbed
while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the
separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a
considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and
Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly
corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the
peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the
subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The
second division includes the _Servians, Montenegrans,
Bosnians_ and _Croatians_, the last two under Austrian
control; the third and smallest are the _Slovenes_ of
Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's
"Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the
early history and also comparative ethnology of the
_Slavs_.)

The territory occupied by the _Greek_ speaking people is
clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is
the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest
hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories
immediately adjoining, the _Greek_ population overwhelmingly
preponderates.

Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in
Attica and Argolis, a _Vlach_ element in Epirus while the
_Turk_ himself still lingers in certain quarters of
Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive
migrations of the Middle Ages. The _Slavs_, who also figured
most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece
as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic
admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful
source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the
question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.


NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.

The _Non-Aryan_ peoples on the soil of modern Europe,
excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already
placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the
_Finno-Tatar_ or _Ural-Altaic_ family, and all,
possibly excepting the _Finns_, date their arrival in Europe
from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal
divisions of this race, the _Ugric, Finnic, Turkic_ and
_Mongolic_, all have their European representatives.

Of the first the only representatives are the _Hungarians_
(_Magyars_). The rift between the North and South Slavic
peoples opened by the _Huns_ in the fifth century, reopened
and enlarged by the _Avars_ in the sixth, was finally
occupied by their kinsmen the _Magyars_ in the ninth. The
receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the _Magyars_
in utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a
natural consequence that they have been the only one of the
_Ural-Altaic_ peoples to accept the religion and
civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St.
Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not
altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of
Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.

More closely allied to the _Magyars_ than to their more
immediate neighbors of the same race are the _Finnic_ stems
of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole
northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually
displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by
their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the
_Ehsts_ and _Tschudes_ of Ehstland, the _Finns_
and _Karelians_ of Finland, the _Tscheremissians_ of
the upper Volga, the _Siryenians_ in the basin of the
Petchora and the _Lapps_ in northern Scandinavia and along
the shores of the Arctic ocean.

East of the _Lapps_, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie
the _Samojedes_, a people forming a distinct branch of the
Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic
peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known
indifferently as _Tatar_ (_Tartar_) or _Turk_,
has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical
geography rather than race divergence been separated into two
great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly
comprised under the specific name of _Tartar_; and the
southern, the _Turk_.

These are the latest additions to the European family of races.
The _Mongol-Tatar_ invasion of Russia occurred as late as
the thirteenth century, while the _Turks_ did not gain their
first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until
1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in
Asia-Minor.

Barring the _Armenians_, the _Georgians_ of the
northeast, the _Greeks_ of the seacoast and the scattered
_Circassians_, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.

In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great
figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were
always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they
occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical
inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day
there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the
Turkish population actually predominates; their general
distribution is clearly shown on the map.

{v}

The _Tartars_ or _Russian Turks_ represent the siftings
of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.

Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count
scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their
former Slavic subjects.

The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over
the south and east. Prominent among them are the _Crim
Tartars_, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the
Caspian, the _Kirghis_ of the north shore and Ural valley,
and the _Bashkirs_ between the upper Ural and the Volga,
with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes
south of the Caucasus.

The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been
commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership,
though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia
proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol
people however, the _Kalmucks_, did make their way into
Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and
the lower Volga.

The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part
of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian
seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races
between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the
Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find
a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each
other.

To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose
ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in
three general divisions however they are as follows: the
so-called _Circassians_ who formerly occupied the whole
western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who,
since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part
emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the
_Lesghians_, under which general name are included the
motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the
_Georgians_, the supposed descendants of the ancient
_Iberians_ of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope,
including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on
the southeast coast of the Black sea.

The _Tartars_ are hardly found in the Caucasus though they
reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura
and the Araxes. Here also appear the various _Iranian_ stems
of the Asiatic Aryans, the _Armenians_, the _Persians_
and the _Kurds_.

R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general
authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and
otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's
"Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den
Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's
"Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients,"
Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der
Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des
europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der
europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom
österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder
und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas
(Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."

   A. C. Reiley.

{vi}

APPENDIX B.


NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA.
(TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)

There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose
historical geography has a greater present interest than the
Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the
Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed
one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which
constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the
present age.

Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a
number of separate and diminutive national entities, the
_Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian_ and Montenegrin, the
_Greek_ and _Albanian_, all struggling desperately to
establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish
Empire.

What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting
struggles for separate national existence it is out of our
province to forecast.

It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible
light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of
the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine
maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth
century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in
the entire history of this region. The most intricate it
certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity
arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from
the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history
which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its
purely transitionary character, but also from the several
national movements which during this time were diligently at
work.

During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from
their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of
course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great
empire.

The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these
regions passed under the rule of the _Turk_. These four maps
treat of that most interesting period intervening between the
crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That
in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has
repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation,
is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.

What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most
interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the
Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out
their full national development, either federately or
independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is
threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire,
is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the
mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is
now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate
national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live.
The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended
in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may
perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same
national spirit.


THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the
twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation
as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the
Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in
itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the
offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman
Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which
had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography,
external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical
contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations.
It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most
vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and
more closely to the ethnic limits of the _Greek_ nation. The
later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek
Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national
consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of
this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the
nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and
venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth
century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the
Byzantine Empire by the _Turks_, but it was the Crusaders,
not the _Turks_, who overthrew the first empire. In one view
this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no
transition period whose study would be productive of such
fruitful results.

Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the
Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was
enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor
from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the
prelude to final disaster.

Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the
_Greeks_ were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin
Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original
crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from
Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek
Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191.
Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian
intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine
Empire (1204).

{vii}

This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also
ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in
Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from
it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be
seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the
thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the
establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the
place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the
Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of
Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of
Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of
Achaia.

Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power:
in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of
Nicæa and Trebizond.

The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's
notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development,
either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They
were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling
population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a
people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous.
Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they
resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a
time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims
its own.

Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and
immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom
of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222;
the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek
Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the
principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the
Morea in 1430.

The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long
enough to fall at last before the _Turkish_ conquest. The
Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were
destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and
partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a
somewhat longer life.

To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the
achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event
of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been
employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete
restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire
as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the
greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race.
The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea.
In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon
began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople
and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement
of the fourteenth century the _Turks_, having thrown off the
Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their
final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of
the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but
over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of
their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There
remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever
separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to
work.


THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.

It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the
national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the
evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of
the Danube.

The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh
century of the great southward migration of the _Slavic_
peoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the
strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had
hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods,
notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel
(976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the
Empire itself. These _Slavic_ states had, however, been
subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the
eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of
independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of
the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that
their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian
kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between
the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic
discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely
_Slavic_ is well established, for the great and singular
revival of the _Vlach_ or _Rouman_ peoples and their
movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats
north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this
age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the
Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as
Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also
north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are
known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still
the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube
is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of
the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably
advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")

At the present day this movement has been so long completed that
scarcely the trace of _Vlach_ population remains in the
lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in
passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the
creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a
momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The
dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to
make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time
that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of
overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of
Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the
reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople,
in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its
importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the
Mongols.


SERVIA.

In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a
period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered
its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.

{viii}

Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it
enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since
fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored
Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period
of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest
that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European
possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have
come under other conditions, but already another and greater
enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in
1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his
entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the
East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek
Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish
dominion.


THE VLACHS.

Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national
manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this
period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in
one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the
_Vlachs_. This _Latin_ population, which ethnologists
have attempted to identify with the ancient _Thracians_,
was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular
groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth
century their great northward migration began. A single result of
this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second
Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence
was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of
the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia,
and the growth of a _Vlach_ population in the Transylvanian
lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great
part the political geography of the present day.

The process of this evolution may be understood from a
comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the
_Cumanians_, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth
century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or
Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the
Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map
of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this
exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was
thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the _Vlachs_
north of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality
of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of
the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a
long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.

Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in
1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols,
between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities
of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century
dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened,
however, towards the close of the century and after a period of
shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a
time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period
of permanent Turkish supremacy.

With the presence and influence of the _Vlachs_ south of the
Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their
subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct
connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they
still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an
independent state, was in the country east of the range of
Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the
principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of
the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).

This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it
was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine
Empire.


ALBANIANS.

The _Skipetars_ (_Albanians_) during this period appear
to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national
existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall
of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever
independence existed in the northern section was lost in the
revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of
the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George
Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg,
created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of
Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from
Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and
the basin of the Drin (see map IV).

It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control
was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.


THE TURKISH CONQUEST.

The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final
conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save.
The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map
IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in
Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the
Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall
brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of
Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460),
Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and
Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia
(1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district
immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro,
situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first
Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the
height of the Turkish domination.

The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest
after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won
during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder
ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all
her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the
superiority over the _Crim Tartars_, Wallachia, Moldavia and
Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the
subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy
of the Ottoman conqueror.

The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish
conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The
repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though
with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of
Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of
the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical
analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is
attempted.

{ix}

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of
course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the
purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy
than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the
national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves,
have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply
to show that the four separate national movements, the
_Greek_, the _Slavic_, the _Rouman_, and the
_Albanian_, which may be said to have created the present
Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two
last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period
just traversed.

In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been
so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be
looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient
existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed
in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for
the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of
Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is
Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical
works see the general bibliography of historical geography.

      A. C. Reiley.

{x}

APPENDIX C.

NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)


The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement
of great political and geographical questions. These questions
resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the
political forces of the present age,—the first, represented in
the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the
awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns
historical geography only incidentally, but the second has
already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our
time.


RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.

Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of
central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy
and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary,
the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and
if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse
conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at
least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the
present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of
the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more
complicated than the others, and which, so far from being
settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This
reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has
been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no
doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated
by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps
(1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national
movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves
during this period. These movements, feeble in their character,
were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of
this power in the present century these forces once more have
opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the
Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.

The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the
eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774),
Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia
(1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while
Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered
practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the
Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.


THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.

All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power,
did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the
Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the
actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have
begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign
of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most
unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under
Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the
present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the
recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in
the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution
(1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination,
had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work
was undone by the intervention of the great powers.

The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of
England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in
the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first
time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of
Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave
to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the
treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous
under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22,
1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of
Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece
was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though
the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed
to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of
Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833,
after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was
again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the
March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years
bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the
gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George
I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration
since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and
in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the
present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of
Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a
further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.


THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.

A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the
Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats
sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali,
pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan
himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the
present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the
practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet
still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy
to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between
Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the
history of European Turkey.
{xi}
Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and
the final issue of the rival interests struggling at
Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July,
1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the
interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In
outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive
alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange
for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the
Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this
treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian
predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent
sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as
it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter
prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839)
compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi
while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of
rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855)
struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events
of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not,
as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's
ascendency.


THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.

The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to
dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire—a
policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and
Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on
this question,—Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while
England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with
the northern power.

By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary
struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople
(1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken
from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty
powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years
before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private
Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into
a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the
powers (March 13, 1871).

Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the
congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied
powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple
Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire.
They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a
Turkish crisis for another twenty years.

The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth
of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of
both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this
name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a
common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a
new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single
assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and
finally crowned as king in 1881.


THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.

The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in
the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These
provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro
and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation
almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a
settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of
fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all
these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in
Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious
massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on
Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily
victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by
compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the
representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in
a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire,
which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia,
Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently
embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31,
1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined
to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately
declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror
excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered
policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies,
and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the
sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still
recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish
resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the
Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an
armistice was granted.

Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to
herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public
opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to
the Bosporus.

By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey
recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and
Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had
just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal
Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe,
which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the
portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro
received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on
the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier
assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the
territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the
Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a
vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania,
approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of
the Chalcidice.

It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the
interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An
ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror
and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the
Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but
before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great
Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of
negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.

{xii}

By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the
disputed points—chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian
seaboard on the Ægean—and the congress of Berlin then assembled
(June 13-July 13, 1878).


ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of
Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty
of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the
Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the
cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation
was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus
to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more
important provision was the transfer of the administrative
control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria.
This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between
Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year,
by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the
Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria,
despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the
sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed
to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September
of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil
the control of the island of Cyprus.

The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the
complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian
principality. This result was achieved through the agency of
Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of
San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the
Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of
a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed
entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy
local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a
new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy,
although under the military authority of the Sultan.

The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the
Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this
triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent
events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the
new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of
Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by
so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have
foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the
Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but
from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent
himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had
for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The
determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans
continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly
all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by
maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has
been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one
event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well
to illustrate this fact.


LATER CHANGES.

In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially
undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations
between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a
conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which
Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian
prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through
the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and
other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact
exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the
Bulgarian people was more generally understood.

The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance
thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar
compensation, but were both foiled.

Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a
short war (Nov.-December 1885), and Greece was checked in her
aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense
of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of
1886.

Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old
lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced
to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his
successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und
his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully
preserved its autonomy.


THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.

A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may
be briefly given. The non-_Turkish_ populations of European
Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into
four groups: the _Roumans_ or _Vlachs_, the
_Greeks_, the _Albanians_ and the _Slavs_. The
process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present
century, has given among these people the following separate
states. The _Vlachs_ are represented in the present kingdom
of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the _Greeks_ are
represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of
the house of Denmark; while the _Slavs_ are represented by
three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg,
Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little
principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never
yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is
likewise native.

The _Albanians_ alone of the four races, owing in part,
perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of
Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for
separate national existence.

To these peoples, under any normal process of development,
belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time
has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered
on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by
the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors,
Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing
claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which
these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future
was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.

{xiii}

It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of
the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and
even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the
Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding
between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this
danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested
and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of
possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity
of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria,
under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of
Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable
conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the
next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act
independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria
possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from
any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which
is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still
greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint,
have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated
population of European Turkey. The unliberated _Greek_
population predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian
peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace
and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of
the _Bulgarian_ people conform almost exactly to the
boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The
creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic
Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in
1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would
hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of
the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national
claim, the _Greeks_ and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs
to what remains of European Turkey.

These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely
indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question
permitted a natural settlement.

Concerning the _Turks_ themselves a popular fallacy has ever
been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an
important division of the subject intrudes itself.

In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly
preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever
threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great
concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of
this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only
legitimate title. The _Turkish_ population in Thrace and the
Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its
continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman
Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and
final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe
at the present day.)

The historical geography of the Balkans during the present
century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even
from the current literature of the subject. The best purely
geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by
Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe,"
and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford
excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of
the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's
"History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or
less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an
end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The
Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe,"
the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's
"Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical
geography.

   A. C. Reiley.

{xiv}

APPENDIX D.


NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.

The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so
distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the
reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of
treatment.

The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the
statement of purely political conditions.

This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact
portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this
method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or
social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people
rather than the exact extent of their race or their government,
must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is
concerned, comparatively intangible.

Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a
subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one
condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in
its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.

The map which treats a subject in its historical development has
the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this
advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and
proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map
there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes
before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points
evident, but with their relation to external facts often
obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one
particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A
progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect
picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what
precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as
the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible
nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with
its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These
observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of
cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes
that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of
treatment.

The central feature in the early development of Christianity is
soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city
until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this
spread was continued from people to people until it became the
religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this
crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke
criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to
the second period be open to some question; but within the limits
of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms,
indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.


THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.

During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the
Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or
province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early
as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire
which does not number some Christians in its population. The
subject of the historical geography of the Christian church
during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the
locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found.
On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement.
It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the
suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not
and cannot contain.

Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division
attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and
"post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation.
Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100),
our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the
Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the
post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research,
although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as
inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D.
Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the
persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in
the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been
definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as
follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443).
Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of
these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in
available cartographic form.

It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the
author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of
space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The
attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the
more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the
least dispute.

The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon
the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A
special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to
mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special
activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we
have as centres in Apostolic times _Jerusalem, Antioch,
Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica_ and _Corinth_; in
post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates
special and limited notices, we may name _Alexandria, Edessa,
Rome_ and _Carthage_.

The city of _Rome_ contains a Christian community in
Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre,
prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable
historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar
position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the
map.

{xv}

CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.

The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the
accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The
attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period
would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.

The exact time of the advent of the Christian-Roman world it is
indeed impossible to define with precision. The Empire after the
time of Constantine was predominantly Christian, yet paganism
still lingered in formidable though declining strength. A map of
religions designed to explain this period, even with unlimited
historical material, could hardly be executed by any system, for
the result could be little better than a chaos, the fragments of
the old religion everywhere disappearing or blending with the
new. The further treatment of the growth of Christianity by
cities or churches is now impossible; for the rapid increase of
the latter has carried the subject into details and intricacies
where it cannot be followed: on the other hand, to describe the
Roman world in the fourth century as a Christian world would be
taking an unwarranted liberty with the plain facts of history.

The last feeble remnants of paganism were in fact burned away in
the fierce heat of the barbaric invasions of the fifth century.
After that time we can safely designate the former limits of the
Roman Empire as the Christian world. From this point we can
resume the subject of church expansion by the "second method"
indicated at the head of this article. But concerning the
transition period of the fourth and fifth centuries, from the
time Christianity is predominant in the Roman world until it
becomes the sole religion of the Roman world, both methods fail
us and the map can tell us practically nothing.


BARBARIANS OF THE INVASION.

Another source of intricacy occurring at this point should not
escape notice. It was in the fourth century that Christianity
began its spread among the barbarian Teutonic nations north of
the Danube. The _Goths_, located on the Danube, between the
Theiss and the Euxine, were converted to Christianity, in the
form known as Arianism, by the missionary bishop Ulphilas, and
the faith extended in the succeeding century to many other
confederations of the Germanic race. This fact represented, for a
time, the Christianization, whole or partial, of some peoples
beyond the borders of the Empire. With the migrations of the
fifth and sixth centuries, however, these converts, without
exception, carried their new faith with them into the Empire, and
their deserted homes, left open to new and pagan settlers, simply
became the field for the renewed missionary effort of a later
age. It is a historical fact, from a cartographic standpoint a
fortunate one, that, with all the geographic oscillations of this
period between Christianity and paganism, the Christian world
finally emerged with its boundaries conforming, with only a few
exceptions, to the former frontiers of the Roman Empire.

Whether or not this is a historical accident it nevertheless
gives technical accuracy from the geographic standpoint to the
statement that Christianity first made the conquest of the Roman
world; from thence it went out to complete the conquest of
Europe.


CONVERSION OF EUROPE.

With the view, as afforded on the map, of the extent of
Christianity at the commencement of the seventh century, we have
entered definitely upon the "second method." Indeed, in Ireland,
Wales and Scotland, where the Celtic church has already put forth
its missionary effort, the method has, in point of date, been
anticipated; but this fact need cause no confusion in treatment.
Henceforth the spread of Christianity is noted as it made its way
from "people to people." At this point, however, occurs the
greatest intangibility of the subject. The dates given under each
country represent, as stated in the key to the map, "the
approximate periods of conversion." It is not to be inferred,
however, that Christianity was completely unknown in any of these
countries prior to the periods given, or that the work of
conversion was in each case entirely completed within the time
specified. But it is an absolute necessity to give some
definiteness to these "periods of conversion"; to assign with all
distinctness possible the time when each land passed from the
list of pagan to the list of Christian nations. The dates marking
the limits to these periods are perhaps chosen by an arbitrary
method. The basis of their selection, however, has been almost
invariably some salient point, first in the introduction and
finally in the general acceptance of the Christian faith. In
order that the reader may possess the easy means of independent
opinion or critical judgment, the explanation is appended of the
dates thus used, concerning which a question might legitimately
arise.

Goths.
   Converted to Arian Christianity by Ulphilas, 341-381.

   These dates cover the period of the ministry of Ulphilas,
   whose efforts resulted in the conversion of the great body of
   the Danubian Goths. He received his ordination and entered
   upon his work in 341, and died at Constantinople in 381. (See
   C. A. A. Scott's "Ulfilas.")

Suevi, Burgundians and Lombards.

   These people, like the Goths, passed from paganism through the
   medium of Arian Christianity to final Orthodoxy. Concerning
   the first process, it is possible to establish nothing, save
   that these Teutonic peoples appeared in the Empire in the
   fifth century as professors of the Arian faith. The exact time
   of the acceptance of this faith is of less consequence. The
   second transition from Arianism to Orthodoxy occurred at a
   different time in each case. The Suevi embraced the Catholic
   faith in 550; the Visigoths, through their Catholic king
   Reccared, were brought within the church at the third council
   of Toledo (589). Further north the Burgundians embraced
   Catholicism through their king Sigismond in 517, and, finally,
   the Lombards, the last of the Arians, accepted Orthodoxy in
   the beginning of the seventh century. The Vandals, another
   Arian German nation of this period, figured in Africa in the
   fourth century.

   They were destroyed, however, by the arms of Belisarius in
   534, and their early disappearance renders unnecessary their
   representation on the present map.

Franks.
   Christianity introduced in 496.

   This is the date of the historic conversion of Clovis and his
   warriors on the battlefield of Tolbiac. The Franks were the
   first of the Germanic peoples to pass, as a nation, to
   orthodoxy direct from paganism, and their conversion, as we
   have seen, was soon followed by the progress from Arianism to
   Orthodoxy of the other Germanic nations within the borders of
   the Empire.

{xvi}

Ireland.
   Christianity introduced by Patrick, 440-493.

   St. Patrick entered upon his missionary work in Ireland in
   440; he died on the scene of his labors in 493. This period
   witnessed the conversion of the bulk of the Irish nation.

Picts.
   Christianity introduced from Ireland by Columba, 563-597.

   These dates cover the period of St. Columba's ministry. The
   work of St. Ninian, the "apostle of the Lowlands" in the
   previous century, left very few enduring results. The period
   from 563, the date of the founding of the famous Celtic
   monastery of Iona, to the death of Columba in 597, witnessed,
   however, the conversion of the great mass of the Pictish
   nation.

Strathclyde.
   Christianity introduced by Kentigern, 550-603.

   These dates, like the two preceding, cover the period of the
   ministry of a single man, Kentigern, the "apostle of
   Strathclyde." The date marking the commencement of Kentigern's
   labors is approximate. He died in 603.

England.

   The Celtic church had been uprooted in England by the
   Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. While
   its missionary efforts were now being expended on Scotland,
   Strathclyde, and Cornwall, its pristine seat had thus fallen
   away to complete paganism. The Christianization of England was
   the work of the seventh century, and in this work the Celtic
   church, though expending great effort, was anticipated and
   ultimately outstripped by the church of Rome.

Kent.
   Christianity introduced by Augustine, 597-604.

   These dates cover the ministry of St. Augustine, the apostle
   of Kent. This was the first foothold gained by the Roman
   church on the soil of Britain.

Northumbria.—627-651.

   Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria, received baptism from
   the Kentish missionary Paulinus on Easter Eve, 627.

   The process of conversion was continued by the Celtic
   missionary, Aidin, who died in 651. The Christianity of
   Northumbria had begun before the latter date, however, to
   influence the surrounding states.

East Anglia.—630-647.

   East Anglia had one Christian king prior to this period; but
   it was only with the accession of Sigebert (630) that great
   progress was made in the conversion of the people. The reign
   of king Anna witnesses the practical completion of this work.
   In 647 the efforts of this sovereign led to the baptism of
   Cenwalch, king of the West Saxons.

Wessex.—634-648.

   The conversion of the West Saxons was begun by the missionary
   Birinus in 634. The year 648 witnessed the restoration of the
   Christian king Cenwalch.

Mercia.—654-670.

   Mercia was one of the last of the great English kingdoms to
   accept the faith. Their king, Penda, was indeed the most
   formidable foe the church encountered in the British Isles.
   The conversion of Penda's son Peada admitted the gospel to the
   Middle Angles, who accepted Christianity in 653. The East
   Saxons embraced the faith at about the same time. Finally in
   654 the defeat and death of Penda at the hand of Oswy, the
   Christian king of Northumbria, opened the doors of Mercia as
   well. The conversion of the realm was practically accomplished
   during the next few years.

Sussex.—681.

   The leaders of the South Saxons received baptism at the hands
   of the apostle Wilfred in 681. Sussex was the last retreat of
   paganism on the English mainland, and five years later the
   conversion of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight completed
   the spread of Christianity over every portion of the British
   Isles.

Frisians.
   Christianity introduced by Willibrord, 690-739.

   The work of St. Willibrord among the Frisians was one of many
   manifestations of the missionary activity of the Celtic
   church. Willibrord introduced Christianity among these people
   during the years of his ministry, but to judge by the
   subsequent martyrdom of Boniface in Friesland (755) the work
   of conversion was not fully completed in all quarters until a
   later time.

Mission Field of Boniface.—722-755.

   The object of the map is not merely to locate the mission
   field of the great "apostle of Germany," but also to give the
   location and date of the various bishoprics which owed their
   foundation to his missionary efforts.

Saxons.—787-805.

   Of all the nations converted to Christianity up to this time
   the Saxons were the first conquest of the sword. The two most
   powerful Saxon chiefs were baptized in 787; but it was not
   until their complete defeat and subjugation by Charlemagne in
   805 that the work of conversion showed a degree of
   completeness. With the Christianization of the Saxons the
   cordon of the church was completed around the Germanic
   nations.

Moravia.
   Christianity introduced by Cyrillus and Methodius, 863-900.

   St. Cyrillus, the "apostle of the Slavs," entered upon his
   mission in Moravia in 863. The political Moravia of the ninth
   century, under Rastislav and Sviatopluk, exceeded greatly the
   limits of the modern province; but the missionary labor of the
   brothers Cyrillus and Methodius seems to have produced its
   principal results in the modern Moravian territory, as
   indicated on the map. Methodius, the survivor of the brothers,
   died about 900. In the tenth century Moravia figures as
   Christian.

Czechs.—880-1039.

   The door to Bohemia was first opened from Moravia in the time
   of Sviatopluk. The reactions in favor of paganism were,
   however, unusually prolonged and violent. Severus, Archbishop
   of Prague, finally succeeded in enforcing the various rules of
   the Christian cultus (1039).

Poles.—966-1034.

   The Polish duke Mieczyslav was baptized in 966. Mieczyslav II.
   died in 1034. These dates cover the active missionary time
   when, indeed, the efforts of the clergy were backed by the
   strong arm of the sovereign. Poland did not, however, become
   completely Christian until a somewhat later period.

Bulgarians.—863-900.

   The Bulgarian prince Bogoris was baptized in 863. Again, as in
   so many other cases, the faith was compelled to pass to the
   people through the medium of the sovereign. The second date is
   arbitrary, although Bulgaria appears definitely as a Christian
   country at the commencement of the tenth century.

Magyars.—950-1050.

   Missionaries were admitted into the territory of the Magyars
   in 950.

{xvii}

The coronation of St. Stephen, the "apostolic king," (1000)
marked the real triumph of Christianity in Hungary. A number of
pagan reactions occurred, however, in the eleventh century, so
that it is impossible to place the conversion of the Magyars at
an earlier date than the last one assigned.

Russians.—988-1015.

   The Russian grand-duke Vladimir was baptized on the occasion
   of his marriage to the princess Anne, sister of the Byzantine
   Emperor, in 988. Before his death in 1015 Christianity had
   through his efforts become the accepted religion of his
   people.

Danes.—Converted by Ansgar and his successors, 827-1035.

   The Danes had been visited by missionaries prior to the ninth
   century, but their work had left no permanent result. The
   arrival of Ansgar, the "apostle of the North" (827), marks the
   real beginning of the period of conversion. This period in
   Denmark was an unusually long one. It was not fully complete
   until the reign of Canute the Great (1019-1035).

Swedes (Gothia).
   Christianity introduced by Ansgar and his successors, 829-1000.

   Ansgar made his first visit to Sweden in 829, two years after
   his arrival in Denmark. The period of conversion, as in
   Denmark, was a long one; but by the year 1000 the southern
   section, Gothia or Gothland, had become Christian. The
   conversion of the northern Swedes was not completed for
   another century.

Norwegians.—935-1030.

   The period of conversion in Norway began with the reign of the
   Christian king Hakon the Good. The faith made slow progress,
   however, until the reign of Olaf Trygveson, who ascended the
   throne near the end of the tenth century. The work of
   conversion was completed in the reign of Olaf the Saint
   (1014-1030).

Pomeranians.
   Christianity introduced by Otho of Bamberg, 1124-1128.

   The attempt of the Poles to convert the Pomeranians by the
   sword prior to these dates had proven unavailing, and
   missionaries had been driven from the country. Within the
   short space of four years, however, Otho of Bamberg succeeded
   in bringing the great mass of the people within the pale of
   the church.

Abotrites.—1125-1162.

   The conversion of these people was clearly the work of the
   sword. It was accomplished within the time specified by Albert
   the Bear, first margrave of Brandenburg, and Henry the Lion,
   duke of Saxony. The last heathen king became the first
   Christian duke of Mecklenburg in 1162. Further south the
   kindred Wend nations between the Elbe and the Oder had been
   the object of German effort, both missionary and military, for
   over two centuries, but had generally come within the church
   before this time.

Lives and Prussians.
   Christianity introduced by the Sword Brothers, 1202-1236,
   and by the Teutonic Knights, 1230-1289.

   These conversions, the work of the transplanted military
   orders of Palestine, were direct conquests of the sword, and
   as such possess a definiteness which is so unfortunately
   lacking in so many other cases.

So much for the character and the purpose of the dates which
appear on this map. In the employment of the colors, the periods
covered are longer, and as a consequence the general results are
somewhat more definite. The use of a color system directly over a
date system is intended to afford an immediate though general
view, From this to the special aspects presented by the date
features is a simple step in the development of the subject.

Another feature of the map which may not escape notice is the
different systems used, respectively, in the Roman and Mediæval
period for the spelling of urban names. A development map
covering a long period of history cannot be entirely free from
anachronisms of this nature; but a method has nevertheless been
followed in the spelling of these place names:—to give in each
case the spelling current at the period of conversion. The fact
that the labors of the Christian missionaries were confined
mostly to the Roman world in the Roman period, and did not extend
to non-Roman lands until the Middle Ages, enables us to limit our
spelling of civic names to a double system. The cities of the
Roman and of the Mediæval period are shown on the map and in the
key in two different styles of type. Only in the cases of cities
like Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, where the current form has
the absolute sanction of usage even for classic times, has there
been any deviation from the strict line of this method.

In conclusion, the general features of the subject present
themselves as follows: Had the advance of Christianity, like
Mohammedanism, been by conquest, had the bounds of the Christian
faith been thus rendered ever conterminous with the limits of a
people or an empire, then, indeed, the subject of church
expansion would possess a tangibility and coherency concerning
which exact statement would be possible. The historical geography
of the Christian church would then partake of some of the
precision of political division. But the non-political element in
the Christian cultus deprives us, in the study of the subject, of
this invaluable aid. At a later time, when the conquests of the
soul were backed by the strong arm of power, and when the new
faith, as often happened, passed to the people from the
sovereign, a measure of this exactness is perhaps possible.

We have witnessed an indication of these tendencies in many
cases, as we approached the termination of the period covered by
this map. But the fact remains that the fundamental character of
the Christian faith precludes, in the main, the possibility of
its growth being measured by the rules which govern ordinary
political expansion.

This being then a subject on which definiteness is well nigh
impossible, it has been treated by a method correspondingly
elastic. A working basis for the study of the subject is,
however, afforded by this system. This basis secured, the student
may then systematically pursue his theme.


BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The historical geography of the Christian church, if studied only
within narrow limits, can be culled from the pages of general
church history. All of these accounts, however, are brief—those
in the smaller histories extremely so. If studied thus, the
reader will derive the most help from:

   Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church,"
   volume I, pages 68-86.
   volume II, pages 1-84, 93-129;

   Schaff's "History of the Christian Church,"
   volume I, pages 224-406,
   volume II, pages 13-84,
   volume III, pages 10-71,
   volume IV, pages 17-142,

   Moeller's "History of the Christian Church."

{xviii}

These works may be supplemented by a vast number of books
treating of special phases of church history, though the number
in English dealing specifically with geographical expansion is
very small.

The most recent, dealing with the ante-Nicene period, is Ramsey's
"Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170," to which the same
author's "Historical Geography of Asia Minor" forms a most
indispensible prelude.

Entering the mediæval period, the best general guides are the
little books of G. F. Maclear, entitled respectively the
conversion of the Celts, English, Continental Teutons, Northmen
and Slavs. These works may be supplemented by Thomas Smith's
"Mediæval Missions," and for special subjects by G. T. Stokes'
"Ireland and the Celtic Church," W. F. Skene's "Celtic Scotland"
(volume II), and S. Baring Gould's "The Church in Germany."

The texts of the Councils as contained in Harduin, Labbe, and
Mansi are indispensible original aids in the study of church
geography.

Of German Works, J. E. T. Wiltsch's "Atlas Sacer," and the same
author's "Church Geography and Statistics," translated by John
Leitch, have long remained the standard guides for a study of the
historical geography of the church. The Atlas Sacer, containing
five large plates, is the only pure atlas guide to the subject.
The "Church Geography and Statistics," being an ecclesiastical
work, dwells with great fulness on the internal facts of church
geography, but the outward expansion, barring the early growth of
the church, is not so concisely treated. For the history of
mediæval missions the reader will be better served elsewhere. To
the reader using German, C. G. Blumhardt's "Die
Missionsgeschichte der Kirche Christi" (3 volumes, 1828-1837), and
a later work, "Handbuch der Missionsgeschichte und
Missionsgeographie" (2 volumes, 1863), may be noted.

For modern missions there is a very full literature.
Comprehensive works on this subject are Grundemann's "Allgemeine
Missions Atlas," Burkhardt and Grundemann's "Les Missions
Evangéliques" (4 vols.), and in English the "Encyclopædia of
Missions." Several articles in the "Encyclopædia of Missions"
should not escape notice. Among them are "Mediæval Missions," and
the "Historical Geography of Missions," the latter by Dr. Henry
W. Hulbert. The writer is glad at this point to return his thanks
to Dr. Hulbert for the valued aid extended in the location of the
Church of the ante-Nicene period.

   A. C. Reiley

{xix}

APPENDIX E.

THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND CORRECTIONS TO MATTER
RELATING TO AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

(PP. 76-108) HAVE BEEN KINDLY MADE BY MAJOR J. W. POWELL
AND MR. J. OWEN DORSEY, OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.

Adai.

   This tribe, formerly classed as a distinct family—the
   Adaizan—is now regarded by the Bureau of Ethnology as but a
   part of the Caddoan or Pawnee.

Apache Group.

   Indians of different families are here mentioned together:
   (A) the Comanches, etc., of the Shoshonean Family;
   (B) the Apaches (including the Chiricaguis, or Chiri cahua,
   Coyoteros, etc., but excluding the Tejuas who are Tañoan) of
   the Athapascan Family, the Navajos of the same family; and
   (C) the Yuman Family, including the Cosninos, who are not
   Apache (Athapascan stock).

Athapascan Family.

   Not an exact synonym of "Chippewyans, Tinneh and Sarcees." The
   whole family is sometimes known as Tinneh, though that
   appellation is more frequently limited to part of the Northern
   group, the Chippewyans. The Surcees are an offshoot of the
   Beaver tribe, which latter form part of one of the
   subdivisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.
   The Sarcees are now with the Blackfeet.

Atsinas (Caddoes).

   The Atsinas are not a Caddoan people, but they are Algonquian,
   as are the Blackfeet (Sik-sik-a). The Atsinas are the "Fall
   Indians," "Minnetarees of the Plains," or "Gros Ventres of the
   Plains," as distinguished from the Hidatsa, who are sometimes
   called the "Minnetarees of the Missouri," "Gros Ventres of the
   Missouri."

Blackfeet or Siksikas.

   The Sarcee are a Tinneh or Athapascan tribe, but they are not
   the Tinneh (see above). The "Atsina" are not a Caddo tribe
   (see above).

Cherokees.

   These people are now included in the Iroquoian Family. See
   Powell, in Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 79.

Flatheads (Salishan Family).

   The "Cherakis," though included among the Flatheads by Force,
   are of the Iroquoian Family. The "Chicachas" or Chickasaws,
   are not Salishan, but Muskhogean. See Powell, Seventh Annual
   Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 95. The Totiris of Force, are
   the Tutelos, a tribe of the Siouan Family. See Powell,
   Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 116. The
   Cathlamahs, Killmucks (i. e., Tillamooks), Clatsops, Chinooks
   and Chilts are of the Chinookan Family. See Powell, Seventh
   Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 65, 66.

Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

   There are two distinct tribes which are often confounded, both
   being known as the Gros Ventres or Minnetarees. 1. The Atsina
   or Fall Indians, an Algonquian tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the
   Plains," or the "Minnetarees of the Plains." 2. The Hidatsa, a
   Siouan tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Missouri," or the
   "Minnetarees of the Missouri." The former, the Atsina, have
   been wrongly styled "Caddoes" on page 81.

Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Gros Ventres.

   Often confounded with the Atsina, who belong to the Algonquian
   Family, the Hidatsa being a tribe of the Siouan Family. The
   Hidatsa have been called Gros Ventres, "Big Paunches," but
   this nickname could have no reference to any personal
   peculiarities of the Hidatsa. It seems to have originated in a
   quarrel between some Indians over the big paunch of a buffalo,
   resulting in the separation of the people into the present
   tribes of Hidatsas and Absarokas or Crows, the latter of whom
   now call the Hidatsa, "Ki-kha-tsa," from ki-kha, a paunch.

Hupas.

   They belong to the Athapascan Family: the reference to the
   Modocs is misleading.

Iroquois Tribes of the South.
   "The Meherrins or Tuteloes."

   These were not identical, the Tutelos being a Siouan tribe,
   the Meherrins being now identified with the Susquehannocks.

Kenai or Blood Indians.

   The Kenai are an Athapascan people inhabiting the shores of
   Cook's Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, Southern Alaska; while
   the Blood Indians are a division of the Blackfeet (Siksika),
   an Algonquian tribe, in Montana.

Kusan Family.

   The villages of this family were on Coos River and Bay, and on
   both sides of Coquille River, near the mouth. See Powell,
   Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 80.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Owen Dorsey, The Gentile System of the
      Siletz Tribes, in Journal American Folk-Lore,
      July-Sept., 1890, page 231.

Minnetarees.

      See above, ATSINA and HIDATSA.

Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

   The Klamaths and Modocs are of the Lutuamian Family; the
   Shastas of the Sastean; the Pit River Indians of the
   Palaihnihan; the Eurocs of the Weitspekan; the Cahrocs of the
   Quoratean; the Hoopahs, Tolewas, and the lower Rogue River
   Indians of the Athapascan; the upper Rogue River Indians of
   the Takilman.

Muskhogean Family.

   The Biloxi tribe is not Muskhogean but Siouan. See Dorsey
   (James Owen), "The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana," reprinted
   from volume 42, Proc. American Association Advancement
   of Science., Madison meeting, 1893.

Natchitoches.

   A tribe of the Caddoan Family.

      _Dorsey (J. Owen),
      MS. in the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882._

      ALSO IN:
      _Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 61._

Pueblos.

   "That Zuni was Cibola it is needless to attempt to prove any
   further."

      A. F. Bandelier,
      Journal of American Eth. and Arch., volume 3,
      page 19, 1892.

{xx}

Rogue River Indians.

   This includes tribes of various families: the upper Rogue
   River Indians being the Takelma, who are assigned to a special
   family, the Takilman; and the lower Rogue River Indians, who
   are Athapascan tribes.

      See _Dorsey (J. Owen),
      "The Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes,"
      in Journal of American Folk-Lore,
      July-September, 1890, pages 228, 232-236._

Santees.

   Two divisions of the Siouan Family are known by this name: 1.
   The I san-ya-ti or Dwellers on Knife Lake, Minnesota,
   identical with the Mdewakantonwan Dakota. These figured in the
   Minnesota outbreak of 1862. The survivors are in Knox County,
   Nebraska, on what was once the Santee reservation, and near
   Flandreau, South Dakota. 2. The Santees of South Carolina were
   part of the Catawba confederacy. The Santee river is named
   after them.

Sarcee.

   These are not all of the Tinneh, nor are they really
   Blackfeet, though living with them. The Sarcees are an
   offshoot of the Beaver Indians, a tribe of one of the
   divisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.

Siouan Family.

   All the tribes of this family do not speak the Sioux language,
   as is wrongly stated on page 103. Those who speak the "Sioux"
   language are the Dakota proper, nicknamed Sioux, and the
   Assiniboin. There are, or have been, nine other groups of
   Indians in this family: to the Cegiha or Dhegiha group belong
   the Omahas, Ponkas, Osages, Kansas or Kaws, and Kwapas or
   Quapaws; to the Tchiwere group belong the Iowas, Otos, and
   Missouris; the Winnebago or Hochangara constitute another
   group; the fifth group consists of the survivors of the Mandan
   nation; to the sixth group belong the Hidatsa and the
   Absarokas or Crows; the Tutelos, Keyauwees, Aconeechis, etc.,
   constituted the seventh group; the tribes of the Catawba
   confederacy, the eighth; the Biloxis, the ninth; and certain
   Virginia tribes the tenth group. The Winnebagos call
   themselves Hochangara, or First Speech (not "Trout Nation"),
   they are not called Horoje ("fish-eaters") by the Omahas, but
   Hu-tan-ga, Big Voices, a mistranslation of Hochangara. The
   Dakotas proper sometimes speak of themselves as the "O-che-ti
   sha-ko-win," or the Seven Council-fires. Their Algonquian foes
   called them Nadowe-ssi-wak, the Snake-like ones, from nadowe,
   a snake; this was corrupted by the Canadian French to
   Nadouessioux, of which the last syllable is Sioux. The seven
   primary divisions of the Dakota are as follow: Mdewakantonwan,
   Wakhpekute, Sisitonwan or Sisseton, Wakhpetonwan or Warpeton,
   Ihanktonwan or Yankton, Ihanktonwanna or Yanktonnai, and
   Titonwan or Teton.

The Sheyennes or Cheyennes, mentioned in connection with the
Sioux by Gallatin and Carver, are an Algonquian people. Gallatin
styles the "Mandanes" a Minnetaree tribe; but as has just been
stated, the survivors of the Mandan nation, a people that
formerly inhabited many villages (according to Dr. Washington
Matthews and others) belong to a distinct group of the Siouan
Family, and the Hidatsa (including the Amakhami or "Annahawas" of
Gallatin) and the Absaroka, Upsaroka or Crows constitute the
sixth group of that family. The "Quappas or Arkansas" of Gallatin
are the Kwapas or Quapaws of recent times. The Osages call
themselves, not "Wausashe," but Wa-sha-she.

Takilman Family.

   "The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue
   River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on
   the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep
   Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now
   included among the 'Rogue River Indians,' and they reside on
   the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey
   found them in 1884."

      _Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 121._

   They call themselves, Ta-kel-ma

      _Dorsey._

   Dorsey had their chief make a map showing the locations of all
   their villages.

{xxi}

[Transcriber's note:
The internet links listed were active at the time of this
production in 2021. The link may be to a different edition than
listed. Most are to _archive.org_ or _gutenberg.org_,
both excellent repositories of free books.
An internet search (duckduckgo, google, bing, …) will provide
links to many other sources. These were produced by entering the
author and title, as shown in the list, eg.,

  BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States of America, site:archive.org

Without the site restriction (site:archive.org) the search
results are flooded with links to commercial sites, hiding the
actual targets.

Results can be extended by noting the sequence number in a link such as:
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
Try modifying the number for adjacent volumes of the same title.]


APPENDIX F.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.

THE BETTER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ON SUBJECTS NAMED BELOW.



_In the following Classified List, the date of the first
appearance of each one among the older works is given in
parentheses, if ascertained. The period covered by the several
memoirs, and other works limited in time, is stated in
brackets._


AMERICA.
   DISCOVERY.
   EXPLORATION.
   SETTLEMENT.
   ARCHÆOLOGY.
   ETHNOLOGY.

GENERAL.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States of America, part 1.
   (Author's last revision.)
   New York: D. Appleton & Company 1883-5. 6 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa01bancrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds06banciala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037606mbp
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
   History of the Pacific States of North America:
   Central America, volumes 1-2;
   Mexico, volumes 1-2.
   San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company 1882-3.
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics11bategoog
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics16bategoog
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
   (Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics24bategoog
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics13bategoog
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics30bategoog
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics02bategoog
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics23bategoog
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics04bategoog
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics29bategoog
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics03bategoog
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics06bategoog
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics07bategoog
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics05bategoog
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific13bancrich
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific14bancrich
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics09bategoog
   (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics01bategoog
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics10bategoog
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific17bancrich
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics22bategoog
   (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics08bategoog
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics20bategoog
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics27bategoog
   (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics31bategoog
   (Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics17bategoog
   (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics18bategoog
   (Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics28bategoog
   (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics19bategoog
   (Volume 25) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
   (Volume 26) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics12bategoog
   (Volume 27) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics21bategoog
   (Volume 31) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics25bategoog
   (Volume 32) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
   (Volume 33) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics14bategoog

BANVARD, REVEREND JOSEPH.
   Novelties of the new world.
   Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/noveltiesofnew00banv

BELKNAP, JEREMY.
   American biography, volume 1. (1794-8.)
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanbiograph185101belk
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48978
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37965

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
   Notes of Americana.
   (Bulletins, volume 3. pages 205-209.)

BROWNELL, HENRY.
   North and South America Illustrated, from its first discovery.
   Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Company 1800. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/northsouthameric11brow
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northsouthamill01browrich
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northandsoutham00browgoog

BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SIDNEY H. GAY.
   Popular history of the United States, volume 1.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1870-81. 4 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/3704730.1-4

BUMP, C. W.
   Bibliographies of America. Baltimore. 1892.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical
   and political science. 10th series, nos. 10-11. appendix)

CARVER, ELVIRA, _and_ MARA L. PRATT.
   Our fatherland. [Juvenile.]
   Boston: Educational Publication Company. 1890. volume 1-.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherland00carv
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherlandvol01carvuoft

FISKE, JOHN.
   The discovery of America: with some account of
   ancient America and the Spanish conquest.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

GORDON, THOMAS F.
   History of America, volumes. 1-2;
   containing the history of the Spanish discoveries
   prior to 1520. Philadelphia. 1832. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00gordgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD. collection
   Divers voyages touching the discovery of America and
   the Islands adjacent (1582); with notes by John W. Jones.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1850.
   https://archive.org/details/diversvoyagesto00thorgoog

HARRISSE, HENRY.
   The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary,
   and historic investigation.
   London: H. Stevens & Son. 1892.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   A book of American explorers.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1877.

   Larger history of the United States of America, chapters 1-5.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.

HOLMES, ABIEL.
   The annals of America, 1492-1826 (1805); 2d edition.
   Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsamerica02holmgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americanannals00unkngoog

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON.
   Cosmos (1845-58), translated by E. C. Otté,
   part 2, section 6 (volume 2).
   London: H. Bohn. 1847-58. 5 volumes
   (Audio) https://archive.org/details/cosmos_1603_librivox
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cosmosasketchap00dallgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cosmossketchofph0002humb/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cosmosofph03humbrich
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/sketchofphcosmos04humbrich

   New York: Harper & Brothers 1850-. 5 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/cosmos01humbgoog

KERR, ROBERT, ed.
   General history and collection of voyages and travels (1811-1824).
   volumes 1-6.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood. 18 volumes.
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory06kerrgoog
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco02kerrrich
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory02kerrgoog
   (Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zb46AAAAIAAJ
   (Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory07kerrgoog
   (Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory08kerrgoog
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco05kerrrich
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory15kerrgoog
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10kerrgoog
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory12kerrgoog
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory09kerrgoog
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory11kerrgoog
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory04kerrgoog
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.18187
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory14kerrgoog
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory05kerrgoog
   (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory13kerrgoog
   (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory03kerrgoog

KINGSLEY, CHARLES.
   The first discovery of America.
   (Lectures delivered in America in 1874.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1875.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875.)
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1360
   https://archive.org/details/lecturesdelivere00king

LODGE, H. C.
   Gravier's Découverte de l'Amérique.
   (North American Review 119: 166. 1874.)

MACGREGOR, JOHN.
   Progress in America.
   London: Whittaker & Company. 1847. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/progressofameric01macguoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/progressamerica02macggoog

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
   America; a history.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.87679

MAVOR, WILLIAM.
   Historical account of the most celebrated voyages.
   volumes 1 and 17.
   London: 1790-7. 20 volumes.
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou01conggoog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou02conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou13conggoog
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37601
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37604
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc03mavogoog
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou11conggoog
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09conggoog
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou17mavogoog
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09mavogoog
   (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37614
   (Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37615
   (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc10mavogoog
   (Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37617
   (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou08mavogoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37618

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   History of New England, volume 1, chapter 2.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-90.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl02palf
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl0002palf/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl00palf

PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.
   History of the new world called America.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892-. volume 1-.
   New York: Macmillan & Company. 1892-. volume 1-.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld01paynrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld02paynrich

PINKERTON, JOHN, ed.
   General collection of the best and most interesting
   voyages and travels, volume 14.
   London: Longman. 1808-14. 17 volumes.
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18698
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio01pink
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio02pink
   (Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pink
   (Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pinkuoft
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect05pinkgoog/page/n15/mode/2up
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18703
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio07pink
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect03unkngoog/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio09pink
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio10pink
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio11pink
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio12pink
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio14pink
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.5489
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1668

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
   History of America (1777-96).
   (Works, volumes 6-8.
   Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler. 1825.)
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica12robegoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americarobertson00willrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00robegoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03robe
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica01unkngoog

SCAIFE, WALTER B.
   America, its geographical history, 1492-1892.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and
   political science, extra volume 13.) Baltimore. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/americaitsgeogra00scairich

SNOWDEN, RICHARD.
   History of North and South America, from its discovery
   to the death of General Washington. (1806.)
   Philadelphia: B. Warner. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 2) /phttps://archive.org/details/historynorthand00snowgoog

STEVENS, HENRY.
   Historical and geographical notes on the earliest
   discoveries in America, 1453-1530.
   London: Henry Stevens. 1869.
   New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalandge00stevgoog

WILLSON, MARCIUS.
   American history.
   New York: Mark H. Newman & Company. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/americanhistory00will

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   Harrisse's Discovery of North America
   Nation, 55: 244. 264.
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-196715/page/n11/mode/2up

   Editor, Narrative and critical history of America
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1886. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 1, 1)https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica51wins
   (Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica12wins
   (Volume 2    )https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica02winsrich
   (Volume 2, 1)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica21wins
   (Volume 2, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica22wins
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0003wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 3, 1)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica31wins
   (Volume 3, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica32wins
   (Volume 4 )  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
   (Volume 4, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica41wins
   (Volume 4, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica42wins
   (Volume 5    ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0005wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica52wins
   (Volume 6, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica61wins
   (Volume 6, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica62wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0007wins/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 7, 2)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica72wins
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0008wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 8, 2)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica82wins

YATES, JOHN V. N., _and_ MOULTON, JOS. W.
   History of the state of New York, volume 1, part 1.
   New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1924-6. 2 volumes.
   (Volume1, 1)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof12moul_0
   (Part 2)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof02moul/page/n3/mode/2up


PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ANDERSON, RASMUS B.
   America not discovered by Columbus.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/americanotdiscov00andeiala

BEAMISH, NORTH LUDLOW.
   The discovery of America by the Northmen in the 10th century.
   London: T. & W. Boone 1841.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00beamgoog

BOWEN, _Reverend_ BENJ. F.
   America discovered by the Welsh in 1170. A. D.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1876.
   https://archive.org/details/americadiscovere00boweuoft

DALL, W. H.
   Alleged early Chinese voyages to America.
   (Science, 8: 402. 1886.)

DAVIS, ASAHEL.
   Discovery of America by the Northmen.
   Rochester: D. Hoyt. 1839.
   https://archive.org/details/lectureondiscove00davi

DE COSTA, Reverend BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, editor.
   The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen,
   illustrated by translations from the Icelandic sagas.
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandisc00deco
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221

{xxii}

DIMAN, J. L.
   De Costa's Pre-Columbian discovery of America,
   (North American Review, 109: 205. 1869.)
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221

DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY THE NORTHMEN.
   (Atlantic Monthly, 54: 282. 1884.)

DU BOIS, B. H.
   Did the Norse discover America?
   (Magazines of American History, 27: 369. 1892.)

ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.
   The New England history, chapter 1.
   New York: Charles Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/newenglandhisto04elligoog

EVERETT, EDWARD.
   Discovery of America by the Northmen.
   (North American Review, 46: 161. 1838.)

FISKE, JOHN.
   How America came to be discovered.
   (Harper's Magazine, 64: 111. 1881.)

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
   The visit of the Vikings,
   (Harper's Magazine, 65: 515. 1882.)

HORSFORD, EBEN NORTON.
   The problem of the Northmen.
   Cambridge: J. Wilson & Son. 1889.
   https://archive.org/details/problemofnorthme00hors

LEGENDS OF OLD America.
   (Cornhill Magazine 26: 452. 1872.)

LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY.
   The ante-Norse discoverers of America
   (Continental Monthly, 1: 389,530. 1862)

   Fusang: or the discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist
   priests in the 5th century.
   London: Trübner. 1875.
   New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875.
   http://link.archive.org/portal/Fusang-or-The-discovery-of-America-by-Chinese/ZD2URRe5Nbs/

MacLEAN, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America
   (American Antiquarian, 14, 1892)

MAJOR, RICHARD HENRY.
   The life of prince Henry of Portugal,
   surnamed the navigator, and its results.
   London: A. Asher & Company, 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincehenr00majo

   On the voyages of the Venetian brothers Zeno.
   (Massachusetts History Society Proceedings, 1873-75.)

   _Translator and editor._
   Voyages of the Venetian brothers, Nicolò and Antonio Zeno,
   to the northern seas, in the 14th century.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagesofvenetia00zenorich

ONDERDONK, J. L.
   Pre-Columbian discoveries of America,
   (National Quarterly Review, 33: 1. 1876.)
   https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandis00ondegoog/page/n4/mode/2up

PILON, M. R.
   Visits of Europeans to America
   in the 10th and 11th centuries.
   (Potter's American Monthly, 5: 903. 1875.)

RANKING, JOHN,
   Historical researches on the conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc.,
   in the 13th century, by the Mongols.
   London: Longman. 1827.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalresear00rank

REEVES, ARTHUR MIDDLETON.
   The finding of Wineland the good.
   London: Henry Frowde. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

ROPES, A. R.
   Early explorations of America, real and imaginary.
   (English Historical Review, 2: 78. 1887.)

SHORT, JOHN T.
   Claims to the discovery of America
   (Galaxy, 20: 509. 1875.)

SLAFTER, _Rev_. EDMUND F.
   The discovery of America by the Northmen 985-1015:
   a discourse delivered before the New Hampshire
   Historical Society, April 24, 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

   _Editor._
   Voyages of the Northmen to America; including extracts from
   the Icelandic sagas in an English translation by N. L. Beamish,
   opinion of Professor Rafn, etc.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagesofnorthme00slafiala

SMITH, JOSHUA TOULMIN.
   The discovery of America by the Northmen In the 10th century;
   comprising translations of all the most important original
   narratives (1839). 2d edition.
   London: William S. Orr & Company 1842.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri00smit

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Madoc (1805).
   London: Longmans.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/madoc03soutgoog/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/madoc00soutgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

STEPHENS, THOMAS.
   Madoc; an essay on the discovery of America by
   Madoc ap Owen Gwynedd in the 12th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/madocessayondisc00stepuoft

STORM, GUSTAV.
   Studies on the Vineland voyages.
   Copenhagen: Thiele. 1889.

VINING, EDWARD P.
   An inglorious Columbus; or, evidence that Hwui Shán
   and a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered
   America in the 5th century.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/ingloriouscolumb00vini

VOYAGES TO VINLAND, THE; from the saga of Eric the red.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No.31.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_07112/page/n5/mode/2up

WATSON, PAUL B.
   Bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America.
   (Library Journal, 6: 227. 1881.)

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   America prefigured: an address at Harvard, October 21, 1892.
   Cambridge. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/prefiguredamerica00winsrich/page/4/mode/2up


COLUMBUS

ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL.
   Christopher Columbus, his life and work.
   ("Makers of America.")
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1892.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54929
   https://archive.org/details/christophercolum00adamrich

   Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus.
   (Magazine of American History, 27: 161, 1892.)

ADAMS, HERBERT B., and HENRY WOOD.
   Columbus and his discovery of America.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political
   science, 10th series, Numbers 10-11,)
   Baltimore, October-November, 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/columbusandhisd00woodgoog

BLIND, K.
   The forerunners of Columbus.
   (New Review, 7: 346, Living Age, 195: 387. 1892.)

CASTELAR, EMILIO.
   Christopher Columbus.
   (Century, 22: 123-921. 1892.)
   https://archive.org/details/centuryillustrat44newyuoft

COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER.
   Journal, 1492-3; and documents relating to the voyages of John
   [and Sebastian] Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real; translated by
   C. R. Markham.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_05312

   The letter on the discovery of America; a facsimile
   of the pictorial edition, with a new and literal translation.
   Printed by the Lenox Library. New York. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/letterofcolumbus00colum

   Letter to Gabriel Sanchez, 1493.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 33.)
   https://archive.org/details/spanishletterco00kerngoog

   Select letters, with other original documents; translated
   and edited by R. H. Major.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1847.

   Writings descriptive of the discovery and occupation
   of the new world; edited by Paul Leicester Ford.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Company. 1892.

COLUMBUS, FERDINAND.
   The discovery of America; from the life of Columbus.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 29.)

ELTON, CHARLES.
   The career of Columbus.
   New York: Cassell Publishing Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/careercolumbus00eltogoog

GOODRICH, AARON.
   History of the character and achievements of the
   so-called Christopher Columbus.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofcharact00good

HELPS, _Sir_ ARTHUR, and H. P. Thomas.
   Life of Columbus.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1869.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15336

IRVING, WASHINGTON.
   Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828);
   to which are added those of his companions (1831).
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8519
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand01irviiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand02irviiala
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand03irviiala
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyagesc05irvigoog

LORGUES, ROSELLY DE.
   Life of Christopher Columbus, from Spanish and Italian
   documents; comp. from the French by J. J. Barry.
   Boston: P. Donahoe. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofchristophe00rose

MACKIE, CHARLES PAUL.
   The last voyages of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea,
   as related by himself and his companions.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/lastvoyagesadmi00paulgoog

MACKINTOSH, J.
   The discovery of America by Columbus and the
   origin of the North American Indians.
   Toronto. 1836.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00mcingoog

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
   Life of Christopher Columbus.
   London: George Philip & Son. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924020393413

MAURY, M.
   An examination of the claims of Columbus.
   (Harper's Magazines, 42: 425, 527. 1871.)

OBER, FREDERICK A.
   In the wake of Columbus; adventures of the special
   commissioner sent by the World's Columbian Exposition
   to the West Indies.
   Boston: D. Lothrop Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/inwakecolumbusa00obergoog

SEELYE, ELIZABETH EGGLESTON.
   The story of Columbus; with introduction by Edward Eggleston.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/storyofcolumbus00seel

SPALDING, J. L.,
   Columbus, (Catholic World, 56: 1. 1892.)

TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
   The life of Christopher Columbus;
   translated from the Italian by H. F. Brownson.
   Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1890. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifechriscolum01tardrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifechristopher00browgoog

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   Christopher Columbus, and how he received and imparted
   the spirit of discovery.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.158654

   Columbiana. (Nation, 52: 297. 1891.)


POST-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ARBER, EDWARD. editor.
   The first three English books on America (?1511)-1555 A. D.;
   being chiefly translations, compilations, &c., by
   Richard Eden, from the writings of Pietro Martire,
   Sebastian Münster, Sebastian Cabot.
   Birmingham. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/firstthreeenglis00arberich

ASHER, G. M., editor
   Henry Hudson the navigator: original documents in which
   his career is recorded.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/henryhudsonnavig27ashe

BIDDLE, RICHARD.
   Memoir of Sebastian Cabot.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.
   https://archive.org/details/sebastiancabot00biddrich

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
   America in the 16th century
   (bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 130-141).

   Early English explorations in America
   (bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 241-244).

   Early explorations in America
   (bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 103-100).

{xxiii}

BREVOORT, J. C.
   Verrazano the navigator [from report of the American
   Geographical Society of New York for 1873].
   New York. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/verrazanonavigator00brevrich

CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE.
   Voyages (1603-1610): translated Charles P. Otis, [editor]
   with memoir by E. F. Slafter.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1878-82. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_26911
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00massgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00unkngoog

DE VRIES. D. P.
   Extracts from the voyages; translated from a
   Dutch ms. in the Philadelphia Library, by Dr. G.
   Troost. (Collections of the New York Historical Society.,
   2d series, volume 1.
   New York. 1841.)

   Voyages from Holland to America, 1632-1644;
   translated by H. C. Murphy. (Collections of the New
   York Historical Society, 2d series, volume 3.
   New York. 1857.)
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028729402/page/n25/mode/2up

FISKE, JOHN.
   The romance of the Spanish and French explorers.
   (Harper's Magazines, 64: 438. 1882.)

FORCE, M. F.
   Some observations on the letters of Amerigo Vespucci (1879).
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/someobservation01forcgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD, editor.
   The principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and
   discoveries of the English nation
   (1589); edited by E. Goldsmid. volume 12-15.
   Edinburgh: E. & G. Goldsmid. 1889-90.
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.178849
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat02hakluoft
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00haklgoog
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga06hakl
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00unkngoog
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33125
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat10hakl
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat11hakl
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat12hakl
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/theprincipalnavi25645gut
   (Volume 13) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25645/
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33132

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
   The old English seamen.
   (Harper's Mag., 66: 217. 1883)

   The Spanish discoverers.
   (Harper's Magazine. 65: 729. 1882.)

HUDSON, HENRY.
   Divers voyages and northern discoveries.
   (Purchas his pilgrimes, volume 3.
   Collections of the New York Historical Society, volume 1.
   New York. 1811.)

JUET, ROBERT.
   Extract from the journal of the voyage
   of the Half-Moon, Henry Hudson, master, 1609.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 1.
   New York. 1841.)
   http://halfmoon.mus.ny.us/Juets-journal.pdf

KOHL, J. G.
   History of the discovery of Maine; with
   an appendix on the voyages of the Cabots.
   (Collections of the Maine Historical Society.,
   2d series, volume 1.
   Portland: 1869.)
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofdiscove00kohl

LESTER, C. EDWARDS, and A. FOSTER.
   Life and voyages of Americus Vespucius.
   New York: Baker & Scribner. 1846.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyages00lestrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofame00lestiala
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924020421867

NICHOLLS, J. F.
   Remarkable life, adventures and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
   London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/remarkablelifead00nich

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   Pioneers of France in the New World.
   Boston: Little. Brown & Company. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/pioneers_of_france_in_new_world_0908_librivox1

PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.
   Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America;
   13 original narratives from the collection of Hakluyt.
   London: Thomas de la Rue & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagesofelizabe02hakluoft

READ, JOHN MEREDITH, Jr.
   Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalinquir00readuoft

SANTAREM, _Viscount_. Researches respecting Americus
   Vespucius and his voyages (1842); translated by E. V. Childe.
   Boston: C. C. Little & Jas. Brown. 1850.
   https://archive.org/details/researchesrespe02conggoog

STANLEY OF ALDERLEY. Lord.
   The first voyage round the world, by Magellan; translated from
   the accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary writers; with
   documents, notes, etc.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/firstvoyageround00piga

TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
   John and Sebastian Cabot, biographical notice, with documents;
   translated from the Italian by Henry F. Brownson.
   Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/johnsebast00tardrich

TOWLE, GEORGE M.
   Magellan.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/magellan00towl/page/n5/mode/2up

VERRAZANO, JOHN DE. The relation of.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society., volume 1.
   New York. 1811.)

   The same: a new translation, by J. G. Cogswell.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 1.
   New York. 1841.)

   Voyage, 1524.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 17.)
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

VESPUCCI, AMERIGO.
   Account of his first voyage; letter to Pier Soderini.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 34.)
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

   The first four voyages; reprinted in facsimile and
   translated from the rare original edition. (1505-6).
   London: Bernard Quaritch. 1893.

   https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesp
   https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesprich

VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS, THE.
   From Hakluyt's "Principal navigations."
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 37.)


SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION.

ANDAGOYA, PASCUAL DE.
   Narrative of the proceedings of Pedrarias Davila [1514-1541];
   translated and edited by C. R. Markham.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofproce00anda

BANDELIER, ADOLF F. A.
   Discovery of New Mexico [Cibola] by Fray Marcos of Nizza.
   (Magazine of Western History, 4: 659. 1886.)

BENZONI, GIROLAMO.
   History of the new world, shewing his travels in America,
   1541-1556; translated and edited by W. H. Smyth.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/historynewworld00smytgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

BLACKMAR, FRANK W.
   Spanish Institutions of the southwest.
   Baltimore. 1801. (Johns Hopkins University studies in
   history and political science. Extra volume 10.)
   https://archive.org/details/spanishinstituti00blac

CHARLEVOIX, Father F. P. X. DE.
   History of Paraguay (1756);
   [translated from the French].
   London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.
   (French)  https://archive.org/details/histoireduparag04chargoog
   (English) https://books.google.com/books?id=40sIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

CHEVALIER, MICHEL.
   Mexico, ancient and modern; translated by T. Alpass.
   London: J. Maxwell & Company. 1864. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_33125000251625/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoancientan01alpagoog

CIEZA DE LEON, PEDRO DE.
   Travels, A. D. 1532-50, contained in the first and
   second parts of his Chronicle of Peru (1553-):
   translated an edited by C. R. Markham.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1864-83.
   https://archive.org/details/travelsofpedrode33ciez/page/n31/mode/2up

CLAVIGERO, _Abbé_ D. FRANCESCO SAVERIO.
   History of Mexico, collected from Spanish and Mexican
   historians, from MSS. and ancient paintings of the Indians;
   translated from the Italian by Charles Cullen.
   Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson. 1804. 3 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmexicoc03clav

CORTEZ, HERNANDO.
   Despatches addressed to the emperor Charles V. during
   the conquest: translated from the Spanish, with
   introduction and notes by George Folsom.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.
   https://archive.org/details/despatchesofhern0cort

DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.
   Memoirs, containing a true and full account of the
   discovery and conquest of Mexico and New Spain (1612):
   translated from the Spanish by John I. Lockhart.
   London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis01dauoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsconquist01lockgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.40349/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis02di

DISCOVERY and conquest of Terra Florida, by Don Fernando de Solo;
   written by a gentleman of Elvas (1557), and translated out of
   Portuguese by Richard Hakluyt: edited by W. B. Rye.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryandcon00haklgoog

FANCOURT, CHARLES. ST. J.
   History of Yucatan.
   London: J. Murray. 1854.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofyucatan00fanc

HELPS, _Sir_ ARTHUR.
   Life of Hernando Cortes.
   London: Bell & Son. 1871. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifehernandocor00goog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85399/page/ii/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco01helpuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco02helpuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86033

   Life of Las Casas.
   London: Bell & Son. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeoflascasasth00help/page/n7/mode/2up

   Life of Pizarro.
   London: Bell & Son. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofpizarrowit00help

   The Spanish conquest In America.
   London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1867. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquesti01helpuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest00conggoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest06oppegoog
   (Volume 3) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/agf7071.0003.001
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/spanish_conquest_in_america_vol4/page/n3/mode/2up

IRVING, THEODORE.
   History of De Soto's conquest of Florida (1835).
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvirich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvigoog

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
   History of Peru, chapters 1-4.
   Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/ahistoryperu01markgoog

   _Edited and translated_.
   Reports on the discovery of Peru.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1872.
   https://archive.org/details/reportsondiscove04mark

MAYER, BRANTZ.
   Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, book. 1.
   Hartford: S. Drake & Company. 1851. 2 volumes.
   https://books.google.com/books/about/Mexico_Aztec_Spanish_and_republican.html?id=4QNQAQAAIAAJ
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspan01mayegoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspani02maye

RESCOTT, WILLIAM H.
   History of the conquest of Mexico (1843);
   edited by J. F. Kirk.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestofmexico01presrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestmexico02presuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyconmex03pres
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques04pres

   History of the conquest of Peru (1847);
   edited by J. F. Kirk.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques01presiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques02presiala
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques03presiala

RAYNAL, _Abbé_.
   A philosophical and political history of the settlements and
   trade of the Europeans in the east and west Indies (1770);
   translated from the French by J. O. Justamond.
   London. 1788. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol01rayn
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol02rayn
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol03rayn
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol04rayn
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol06rayn
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol05rayn
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol07rayn
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol08rayn/

RIVERO, M. E., and TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.
   Peruvian antiquities:
   translated from the Spanish by F. L. Hawks.
   New York: G. P. Putnam & Company. 1853.
   https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

SIMPSON, J. H.
   Coronado's march in search of the "Seven cities of Cibola."
   Washington. 1871.
   https://archive.org/details/coronadosmarchin00simprich/page/n11/mode/2up

SOLIS, _Don_ ANTONIO DE
   History of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards (1684);
   translated from the Spanish by T. Townsend,
   revised and corrected by N. Hook.
   London: T. Woodward. 1738. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_the_Conquest_of_Mexico.html?id=ejQVAAAAQAAJ

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   History of Brazil, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1810-19. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil01sout
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil02sout
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil03sout

SOUTHEY, THOMAS.
   Chronological history of the West Indies, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1827. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis01sout
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02sout
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis03sout

TOWLE, GEORGE M.
   Pizarro.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/pizarrohisadvent00towlrich/page/n5/mode/2up

TYLOR, EDWARD B.
   Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1861.
   https://archive.org/details/b24883360

WASHBURN, CHARLES A.
   History of Paraguay, chapters 1-4.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1871. 2 volumes.
   (volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua01washuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
   (volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua02wash

WATSON, ROBERT G.
   The Spanish and Portuguese in South America during
   the colonial period, volume 1.
   London: Trübner & Company. 1884. 2 volumes.
   (volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishportugues01watsuoft
   (volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50990
   (volume 2) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52252

WILSON, ROBERT A.
   A new history of the conquest of Mexico, in which
   Las Casas' denunciations of the popular historians
   of that war are vindicated.
   Philadelphia: Jas. Challen & Son. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/anewhistoryconq00goog

{xxiv}

ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONIZATION.

ACRELIUS, ISRAEL.
   History of New Sweden. (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania
   Historical Society, volume 11.
   Philadelphia. 1876.)
   https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed11acre
   https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed00acre
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_12822/page/n5/mode/2up

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
   Three episodes of Massachusetts history.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm01adamuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm02adam

BAYLIES, FRANCIS.
   Historical memoir of the colony of New Plymouth (1830).
   Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1866. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir11bayl
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir02bayl

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
   History of Virginia (1705).
   Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.
   https://archive.org/details/historyvirginia00campgoog

BOZMAN, JOHN LEEDS
   History of Maryland, 1633-1660.
   Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837 (introduction 1811.)
   Baltimore: John Murphy & Co.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmarylan00bozm
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog

BRADFORD, WILLIAM.
   History of Plymouth Plantation.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
   4th series, volume 3. Boston. 1856.)
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofplymout1162brad
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog

BRIDGES, GEORGE W.
   Annals of Jamaica, volume 1.
   London: J. Murray. 1827. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsofjamaica01briduoft
   (Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/annalsjamaica05bridgoog

BRODHEAD, JOHN R., _editor_
   Documents relating to the colonial history
   of the state of New York.
   Albany. 1856-87. 14 volumes.
   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/page/n7/mode/2up

   History of the state of New York, volume 1.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04b/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/
   (Index)     https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ11brod/page/n7/mode/2up

BROWN, ALEXANDER editor
   The genesis of the United States [a collection of
   historical mss. and tracts, with notes, etc.].
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1890. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds01brow
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds02brow

BROWN, WILLIAM HAND, editor.
   Archives of Maryland.
   Baltimore. 1883-.
   https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000021/html/am21p--1.html
   Has links to other volumes.

BURKE, EDMUND.
   An account of the European settlements in America.
   London: R. & J. Dodsley. 1757. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea01burk
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea02burk

BURY, _Viscount_.
   Exodus of the western nations.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn01albeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn02albeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82499

CAMPBELL, CHARLES.
   Introduction to the history of the colony and
   ancient dominion of Virginia.
   Richmond: D. B. Minor. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00campb

   History of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonya00camp

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
   The Puritan in Holland, England and America.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1892. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland01camp
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland02camp

CARROLL, B. R., _editor_.
   Historical collections of South Carolina.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1836. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle00carrgoog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle02carrgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

CHARLEVOIX, _Father_ PIERRE F. X. DE.
   History and general description of New France (1744):
   translated, with notes, by John G. Shea.
   New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-7.2. 6 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32251
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32765
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde03char
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde04char
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historygenerald05achar
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde06char

CHEEVER, GEORGE B., _editor_
   Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620.
   New York: J. Wiley. 1848.
   https://archive.org/details/journalofpilgrim00mouruoft

DALTON, HENRY G.
   History of British Guiana, chapter 2.
   London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg00daltgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

DOUGLASS, WILLIAM.
   Summary, historical and political, of the British settlements
   in North America.
   London: R. Baldwin. 1755. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/summaryhistorica01doug/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_lc_summary-historical-political_Lande00193_v2-15869

DOYLE, JOHN A.
   The American colonies (Arnold prize essay).
   London: Rivingtons. 1869.

   The English In America: Virginia.
   Maryland and the Carolinas (1882).
   The Puritan colonies (1887), 2 volumes.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co.

   https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi01doyl
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi03doyl
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi04doyl/page/n7/mode/2up/page/n7/mode/2up

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
   The making of New England, 1580-1643.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/makingofnewengla00drakrich

   The making of Virginia and the middle colonies.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/makingofvirginia00drak

DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
   History and antiquities of Boston, 1630-1770.
   Boston: L. Stevens. 1856.
   https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00dra

EDWARDS, BRYAN.
   History, civil and commercial, of the British colonies
   in the West Indies. [Caribs, etc.]
   London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_44458
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm04edwa
   https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm06edwa/page/n5/mode/2up

FERRIS, BENJAMIN.
   History of the original settlements on the Delaware.
   Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.
   https://archive.org/details/historyoforigina00ferr

FISHER. GEORGE P.
   The colonial era (American History series).
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1892.
   (1906) https://archive.org/details/colonialera00fishuoft
   (1910) https://archive.org/details/colonialerabygeo00fish

FISKE, JOHN.
   The beginnings of New England.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1889.
   (1897) https://archive.org/details/beginningsofne00fisk

FORCE, PETER. editor.
   Tracts and other papers relating principally to the origin,
   settlement and progress of the colonies in North America.
   Washington. 1886-47. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper01forc
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper02forc
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper1844forc
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper04forc

GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.
   History of Louisiana; the French domination (1851-4).
   New York: William J. Widdleton. 1861.
   (1867) https://archive.org/details/historyoflouisia03gaya

GOODWIN, JOHN A.
   The pilgrim republic.
   Boston: Ticknor & Company. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/pilgrimrepublich00good/page/n11/mode/2up

GRAHAME, JAMES.
   History of the rise and progress of the United States
   of North America. till 1688, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro01grah/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro02grah/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 4, 1836) https://archive.org/details/historyriseandp01grahgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

   The same, enlarged [to 1776] and amended [edited by
   Josiah Quincy, and published under the title of
   "History of the United States"].
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846.

HAWKS, FRANCIS L.
   History of North Carolina [to 1729] (1857-60).
   Fayetteville: Hale & Son. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028788374
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00lillgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00pittgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00unkngoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MzgTAAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
   The French Voyageurs.
   (Harper's Mag., 66: 505. 1883.)

HUBBARD, _Rev_. WILLIAM.
   General history of New England, to 1680 (1815).
   (Collections of the Massachusetts History Society,
   2d series, volumes 5-11. Boston. 1848.)
   https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00hubb

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
   History of the colony [and province] of Massachusetts-Bay
   [to 1749].
   Boston: T. & J. Fleet. 1764-7. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc

LAMBRECHTSEN, N. C.
   Short description of the discovery and subsequent history
   of the New Netherlands (1818): [translated from the Dutch].
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 1. New York. 1841.)

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
   Short history of the English colonies in America.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/histenglishcolonies00lodgrich

MARSHALL, JOHN.
   History of the colonies planted by the English on the continent
   of North America.
   Philadelphia: A. Small. 1824.
   https://archive.org/details/plantedcolonies00marsrich

MOORE, N.
   Pilgrims and Puritans: the story of the planting of Plymouth
   and Boston.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/pilgrimspuritans00tiff

MOURT, GEORGE.
   Relation, or journal of the plantation at Plymouth (1622);
   with introduction and notes by H. M. Dexter.
   Boston: J. K. Wiggin. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/mourtsrelationo00dextgoog

NEILL, EDWARD D.
   English colonization of America during the 17th century.
   London: Strahan & Company. 1871.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924032746145

   History of the Virginia Company of London.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028784738

   Virginia vetusta [Supplement to above].
   Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/virginiavetusta00neilgoog

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
   Register of New Netherland, 1626-1674.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/registerofnewnet00ocal

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-1864. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl01bost
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla19palfgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla18palfgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

PRINCE, THOMAS.
   Chronological history of New England [to 1633] (1736-55).
   Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Company. 1826.
   https://archive.org/details/achronologicalh00halegoog/page/n6/mode/2up

SAINSBURY, W. N. _editor_.
   Calendar of state papers: colonial series
   [America and the West Indies].
   London: Longman. 1860-89. 3 volumes. 1860-84. 6 volumes.
   (1675-1676) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa19offigoog
   (1677-1680) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa08offigoog/page/n11/mode/2up
   (1685-1688) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa18offigoog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (1689-1692) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa14offigoog
   (1696-1697) https://archive.org/details/cu31924087794685
   (1719-1720) https://archive.org/details/colonialrecordsc31greauoft/page/n3/mode/2up
   (1699)      https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa15offigoog

SHURTLEFF, N. B., _editor_.
   Records of the governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
   1628-86. Printed by order of the Legislature.
   Boston. 1853-4; 5 volumes in 6.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno01mass
   (Volume 4, Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091024590
   (Volume 4, Part 2) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno42mass

SHURTLEFF, N. B., and D. PULSIFER. _editors_.
   Records of the colony of New Plymouth.
   Printed by order of the Legislature.
   Boston. 1855-61. 12 volumes. in 10.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo0102newp/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo05newp
   https://www.plymouthcolony.net/resources/pcr.html#pcrarchive

STITH, WILLIAM.
   History of the first discovery and settlement of Virginia (1747).
   New York: Reprinted for Jos. Sabin. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/101292821.nlm.nih.gov/page/n3/mode/2up

TARBOX, _Rev_. INCREASE N.
   Sir Walter Raleigh and his colony in America.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/sirwalterralegh00lanegoog

TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.
   General history of the United States of America to 1792.
   Boston: Farrand, Mallory & Company. 1810. volume 1.
   https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum
   (Volume 1 of 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory01trumgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum/page/n13/mode/2up

TYTLER, PATRICK F.
   Historical view of the progress of discovery on the
   more northern coasts of America; with natural history,
   by Jas. Wilson.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1832.
   New York: Harper Brothers.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalviewp00goog

WHITEFIELD, WILLIAM A., _editor_.
   Documents relating to the colonial history of the state of New
   Jersey.
   Newark. 1880-. 11 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati01socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati04socigoog/page/n12/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati05socigoog/page/n6/mode/2up

   (William Nelson)
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati03socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati02socigoog/page/n4/mode/2up
   (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati00socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up

WILSON, JAMES GRANT, _editor_
   Memorial history of the city of New York, volume 1.
   New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024757290
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo01wilsuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo02wilsuoft/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo03wilsuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo04wilsuoft/page/n13/mode/2up

WINTHROP, JOHN.
   History of New England, 1630-1649 (1825-6). New edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1853. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal00wint/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal02wint

YOUNG, ALEXANDER.
   Chronicles of the first planters of the colony of
   Massachusetts Bay, 1623-1636.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1846.
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00younuoft
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn_0

   Chronicles of the pilgrim fathers, 1602-1625.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1841.
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofpilg00youn

{xxv}

AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY.

ABBOTT, CHARLES. C.
   Primitive Industry; or illustrations of the handiwork, in
   stone, bone and clay, of the native races of the northern
   Atlantic seaboard of America.
   Salem: G. A. Bates. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/primitiveindustry00abborich

   Traces of an American autocthon.
   (American Naturalist, 10: 329. 1876.)

AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN AND ORIENTAL JOURNAL.
   Chicago. 1878-.

AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY.
   Proceedings.
   Boston.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.
   Baltimore. 1885-7.
   Boston: Ginn & Company. 1888-.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON.
   Proceedings (1879-).
   (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 25-.
   Washington. 1882-.)

ATWATER, CALEB.
   Description of the antiquities discovered in Ohio and other
   western states.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
   Worcester: American Antiquities Society. 1820.)
   https://archive.org/details/descriptionofant0000atwa/page/n3/mode/2up

BACON, A. T.
   Ruins of the Colorado valley.
   (Lippincott's Magazine, 20: 521. 1880.)

BAILEY, _Rev_. JACOB.
   Observations and conjectures on the antiquities of America.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   volume 4. Boston. 1795.)

BALDWIN, JOHN D.
   Ancient America.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1872.
   https://archive.org/details/ancientamericain00bald/page/n7/mode/2up

   Pre-historic nations.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.115963

BANDELIER, ADOLF
   A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary Indians
   of New Mexico. Report on the ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos.
   Boston: A. Williams & Company. 1881.
   (Papers Archæological Institute of America.)
   https://archive.org/details/historicalintrod00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up

   Report of an archæological tour in Mexico, in 1881.
   Boston: Cupples, Upham & Company. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologmexico02bandrich/page/n5/mode/2up

BARBER, EDWIN A.
   Ancient pueblos, Rio San Juan.
   (American Naturalist, 12: 526, 606. 1878.)
   https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/272184

   Pueblo pottery. (American Naturalist, 15: 453. 1881.)

   Rock inscriptions of the "ancient pueblos."
   (American Naturalist, 10: 716. 1876.)

BAXTER, SYLVESTER.
   The father of the pueblos [Zuni].
   (Harper's Magazine, 65: 72. 1882.)

BEAUCHAMP, W. M.
   Indian occupation of New York.
   (Science, 19: 76. 1892.)
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau_0

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
   America before Columbus.
   (Bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 65-71.)

BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY.
   Palæolithic implements of the valley of the Delaware;
   by C. C. Abbott and others (from Proceedings, volume 21).
   Cambridge. 1881.

BRINTON, DANIEL G.
   The books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historic records
   of the Mayas of Yucatan.
   Philadelphia: Edw. Stern & Company. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/bookschilanbala00bringoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924020440115

   Essays of an Americanist.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/essaysofamerican00brin/page/n5/mode/2up

   Prehistoric chronology of America.
   (Science, 10: 76. 1887.)

BRYANT, W. C.
   Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.
   [Buffalo. 1890.]

BRYCE, GEORGE.
   The mound builders.
   Winnipeg Historical Society. 1884-5.
   https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00bryc

CARR, LUCIEN.
   The mounds of the Mississippi valley, historically considered.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924104076934

CHARNAY, DÉSIRÉ.
   Ancient cities of the new world, being voyages and
   explorations in Mexico and Central America, 1857-82;
   translated from the French by J. Gonino and H. S. Conant.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/ancientcitiesofn00char_1

CONANT, A. J.
   Footprints of vanished races in the Mississippi valley.
   St. Louis: C. R. Barns. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/footprintsvanrace00conarich

CUSHING, FRANK H.
   The nation of the willows [Zunis].
   (Atlantic Monthly, 50: 362,541. 1882.)

   Zuni social, mythic and religious systems.
   (Popular Science Monthly, 21: 186. 1882.)

DALL, W. H.
   On the remains of later pre-historic man obtained from caves
   in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska (1876).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924104074822/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/ontheremains00dallrich/page/n5/mode/2up

EVERETT, J. T.
   The earliest American people.
   (Magazine of American History, 22: 114. 1889.)
   https://archive.org/details/magazineamerica05stevgoog
   https://archive.org/stream/magazineamerica05stevgoog/magazineamerica05stevgoog_djvu.txt

FISKE, JOHN.
   The discovery of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1892. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

FORCE, M. F.
   Some early notices of the Indians of Ohio;
   to what race did the mound builders belong.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/someearlynotice00ohiogoog

FOSTER, J. W.
   Prehistoric races of the United States of America:
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/prehistoricraces00fostiala/page/n5/mode/2up

GANNETT, HENRY.
   Prehistoric ruins in southern Colorado.
   (Popular Science Monthly, 16: 666. 1880.)

HABEL, S.
   The sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala (1878).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)
   (French) https://archive.org/details/sculpturesdesant00habe

HALE, HORATIO.
   Indian migrations, as evidenced by language; comprising the
   Huron-Cherokee stock, Dakota, Algonkins, Chahta-Muskoki,
   mound-builders, Iberians.
   Chicago. 1883.
   (American Association for the Advancement of Science., 1882,
   American Antiquarian, January, April, 1883.)
   https://archive.org/details/indianmigrations00halerich

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
   Peabody Museum of American archæology and ethnology. Reports.
   Cambridge. 1868-.

HAVEN, SAMUEL F.
   Archæology of the United States. (1855).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 8.
   Washington. 1856.)
   https://archive.org/details/archologyunited00havegoog/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologyus00haverich

HIGGINSON, T. W.
   The first Americans.
   (Harper's Magazine, 65: 342. 1882.)

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER von.
   Researches concerning the Institutions and monuments of the
   ancient inhabitants of America;
   translated by Helen M. Williams.
   London: Longman 1814. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/researchesconcer01humb

JACKSON, W. H.
   Ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado.
   (American Naturalist, 10: 31. 1876.)

JONES, CHARLES C. Jr.
   Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the
   Georgia tribes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0?view=theater

   Monumental remains of Georgia, part 1.
   Savannah: J. M. Cooper & Company. 1861.
   https://archive.org/details/monumentalremain01jone

JONES, JOSEPH
   Explorations of the aboriginal remains of Tennessee (1876).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHÆOLOGY.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891-.

KINGSBOROUGH, _Lord_.
   Antiquities of Mexico: comprising fac-similes of ancient
   Mexican paintings and hieroglyphics, etc., illustrated by many
   valuable inedited mss.
   London. R. Havell. 1830-48. 9 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi1King
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv2King
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv3King
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi4King
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi5King
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi6King
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi7King
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv8King
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv9King

LAPHAM, I. A.
   The antiquities of Wisconsin (1853),
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 7.
   Washington 1855.)
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofwis00laph

LARKIN, FREDERICK.
   Ancient man in America. 1880.

MacLEAN, J. P.
   The mound builders.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00maclgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

MINDELEFF, V.
   Origin of pueblo architecture.
   (Science, 9: 593. 1887.)
   http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19856/19856-h/19856-h.htm

MITCHILL, _Dr._ SAMUEL.
   Communications [on American antiquities, ethnology, etc.].
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
   Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1820.)

MOOREHEAD, WARREN K.
   Fort Ancient, the great prehistoric earthwork of Warren
   County, Ohio; compiled from a careful survey.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/fortancientgrea00moorgoog

NADAILLAC, _Marquis de_.
   Prehistoric America (1882);
   translated by N. d'Anvers.
   edited by W. H. Dall.
   New York: G. W. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_52727/page/n7/mode/2up

NEWBERRY, JOHN S.
   Ancient civilizations of America.
   (Popular Science Monthly, 41: 187. 1892.)

OHIO STATE ARCHÆOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
   Report on the antiquities of Ohio.
   (Final report of the Ohio State board of Centennial managers.
   Columbus. 1877.)

PEET, _Reverend_ STEPHEN D.
   Prehistoric America.
   Chicago: American Antiquarian Office. 1890-. 5 volumes. volume 1.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932

   The mound builders, volume 2.
   Emblematic mounds and animal effigies.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri01peetuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri02peet
   https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri04peet/page/n7/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri03peet
   https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri05peet
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416924/page/n7/mode/2up

PHILADELPHIA. Numismatic and Antiquarian Society.
   Proceedings.

POWELL, J. W.
   Annual reports of the Bureau of Ethnology.
   Washington.
   (1) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up
   (7) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26568/26568-h/26568-h.htm

   (1st) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up
   (10th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu108889smit
   (11th)https://archive.org/details/eleventhannualre1889powe
   (12th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit
   (Pubs) https://ia902705.us.archive.org/26/items/listofpubethno00smitrich/listofpubethno00smitrich.pdf

   Prehistoric man in America.
   (Forum, 8: 489. 1890.)

PRIEST, JOSIAH.
   American antiquities and discoveries in the west, 2d edition,
   revised.
   Albany: Hoffman  1835
   https://archive.org/details/americanantiqui05priegoog

PUTNAM, F. W.
   Archæological notes, and other pamphlets.

   Prehistoric remains in the Ohio valley.
   (Century, 17: 698. 1890.)

QUATREFAGES, A. DE.
   The peopling of America.
   (Popular Science Monthly, 38: 305. 1891.)

RAU, CHARLES.
   The archæological collection of the United States National
   Museum (1876).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalc00raugoog

   The Palenque tablet in the United States National Museum (1879).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge,
   volume 22. Washington. 1880.)
   https://archive.org/details/palenquetabletin00rauc

{xxvi}

READ, Matthew Canield
   Archæology of Ohio.
   Cleveland: Western Reserve History Society. [1888.]
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologyohio00readrich

REISS, W., and A. STÜBEL.
   The necropolis of Ancon in Peru.
   Berlin: A. Asher & Company. 1880-7. 8 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/gri_33125012875635

RIO, _Don_ ANTONIO DEL.
   Description of the ruins of an ancient city, discovered near
   Palengue, Guatemala (1787); translated: [also] Teatro Critico
   Americano, by Dr. Paul Felix Cabrera.
   London: Henry Berthoud. 1822.
   https://archive.org/details/descriptionofrui00roan_0

RIVERO, MARIANO EDW., and JOHN JAMES VON TSCHUDI.
   Peruvian antiquities: translated from the Spanish by
   Francis L. Hawks.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 1853.
   https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog

ST. LOUIS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
   Contributions to the archæology of Missouri, part 1: Pottery.
   Salem: George A. Bates. 1880.

SHORT, JOHN T.
   The North Americans of antiquity; their origin, migrations and
   type of civilization considered.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/northamericansof00shorrich

STEPHENS, JOHN L.
   Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave11841step
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentstravel07stepgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0001
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0002

   Incidents of travel In Yucatan.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelinyucatan01step
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave01step_1
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/travelyucatan02step
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave21843step

SQUIER E. G.
   Aboriginal monuments of New York. (1849).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 2.
   Washington. 1851.)
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginalmonume0000squi/page/n5/mode/2up

   Antiquities of the state of New York; with a
   supplement on the antiquities of the west.
   Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Company. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsta00squirich

   Nicaragua: its people, scenery, monuments.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1852. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_nicaraguaits01squi
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nicaraguaitspeo05squigoog/page/n8/mode/2up

SQUIER E. G., and E. H. DAVIS.
   Ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley (1847).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 1.
   Washington. 1848.)
   https://archive.org/details/ancientmonuments00squi

THOMAS, CYRUS.
   Catalogue of prehistoric works east of the Rocky Mountains.
   Washington. 1891.
   (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
   https://archive.org/details/catalogueprehis01thomgoog

   The Cherokees In pre-Columbian times.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1800.
   https://archive.org/details/cherokeesinpreco00thom

   The circular, square, and octagonal earthworks of Ohio.
   Washington. 1889. (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
   https://archive.org/details/b30477633

   The problem of the Ohio mounds.
   Washington. 1889.
   (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
   https://archive.org/details/problemofohiomou01thom

   A study of the Manuscript Troano.
   (United States geography and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 5.
   Washington. 1882.)
   https://archive.org/details/studyofmanuscrip00thom_0/page/n5/mode/2up

THRUSTON, GATES P.
   The antiquities of Tennessee and the adjacent states, and the
   state of aboriginal society in the scale of civilization
   represented by them.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiestenn00thurrich

UNITED STATES.
   Bureau of Ethnology, John W. Powell, director.
   Annual reports. Washington.
   See POWELL, J. W.

WALLACE, A. R.
   American museums, of American pre-historic archæology.
   (Fortnightly Review, 48: 665. 1887.)

WHITTLESEY, CHARLES.
   Description of ancient works in Ohio (1850).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 3.
   Washington. 1852.)
   https://archive.org/details/descriptionsofan00whit

WINSOR, JUSTIN, _editor_.
   Narrative and critical history of America, volume 1.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1886. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica02wins
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica03wins
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica05wins
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica06wins
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica07wins
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica08wins


AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

ADAIR, JAMES.
   The history of the American Indians, particularly those
   nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida,
   Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia.
   London: E. & C. Dilly. 1775.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica00adairich

ALLEN, PAUL.
   History of the expedition under the command of Lewis and
   Clarke, to the Pacific Ocean, 1804-6.
   Philadelphia. Dublin: J. Christie. 1817. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti01allegoog/page/n12/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti04allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti02allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti03allegoog/page/n15/mode/2up

AMERICAN STATE PAPERS:
   Indian affairs, 1789-1827.
   Washington: 1852-4. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanstatepap_c11unit

ATWATER, CALEB.
   Remarks made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829.
   Columbus, Ohio: I. N. Whiting. 1831.
   https://archive.org/details/remarksmadeontou00atwa

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States of America; the authors's last
   revision, volume 2.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1883-5. 6 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.506697
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
   The native races of the Pacific States of North America.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1874-6. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeraces01bancrich
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci03bancgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci02bancgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci01bancgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci00bancgoog
   https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci04bancgoog/page/n18/mode/2up

BARROWS, William.
   The Indian's side of the Indian question.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Company. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_03383

BEACH, W. W., editor.
   The Indian miscellany.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/rsindianmiscella00beacuoft

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
   The Indian question (list in Bulletins,
   volume 4, pages 68-70).

BRINTON, DANIEL G.
   The American race; a linguistic classification and
   ethnographic description of the native tribes of North and
   South America.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55096

   Races and peoples: lectures on the science of ethnography.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57315
   https://archive.org/details/racesandpeoplesl57315gut

BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S.
   The story of the American Indian, his origin, development,
   decline and destiny.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/storyofamericani00broo/page/n5/mode/2up

BROWN, ROBERT.
   The races of mankind, volume 1.
   London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin. 1873-6: 4 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/racesofmankindbe01browuoft

BROWNELL, CHARLES DE WOLF.
   The Indian races of North and South America.
   New York: American Subscription House. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/indianracesofnor00brow

CANADA.
   Department of Indian affairs.
   Annual reports. Ottawa.

CATLIN, GEORGE.
   Illustrations of the manners, customs and condition of the
   North American Indians (1841).
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1861. 2 volumes.
   Chatto & Windus. 1876. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm01catl
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm02catl

   North American portfolio of hunting scenes, etc.
   London: H. Bohn. 1844.
   https://archive.org/details/Ayer_250_45_C2_1844_Catlin/page/n27/mode/2up

CHARLEVOIX, _Father_.
   Letters to the Dutchess of Lesdiguieres [containing account of
   the North American tribes, 1720-22; translated]
   London. 1763.
   https://archive.org/details/letterstodutche00char

COLDEN, CADWALLADER.
   History of the five Indian nations of Canada, which are
   dependent on the province of  New York in America.
   New York. 1727.
   [Enlarged edition].
   London. 1747.
   https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-131832-5200

COLTON, C.
   Tour of the American lakes in 1830.
   London: F. Westley & A. H. Davis. 1833. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tourofamericanla0000colt/page/n1/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak00coltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak01coltgoog

CRAIG, NEVILLE B., editor.
   The olden time.
   Pittsburg. 1846-8.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1876. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/GR_3089-1/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/oldentimeamonth00craigoog

DODGE, _Colonel_ RICHARD I.
   Our wild Indians: thirty-three years' personal experience
   among the red men of the great west; with an introduction by
   General Sherman.
   Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Company. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/ourwildindiansth00dodgrich

DOMENECH, Abbé EM.
   Seven years' residence in the great deserts of North America.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsreside01domeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsresid00domegoog

DONALDSON, THOMAS
   The George Catlin Indian gallery, United States National
   Museum, Washington.
   (Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1885, part 2.)

DRAKE, FRANCIS S.
   Indian history for young folks.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/indianhistoryfo00dowdgoog/page/n12/mode/2up

DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
   The aboriginal races of North America, 15th edition.
   Philadelphia: C. Desilver & Sons. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginalraceso01drak

   Biography and history of the Indians of North America.
   (1841), 11th edition.
   Boston: B. B. Mussey & Company. 1851.
   (Edition 8) https://archive.org/details/cihm_34854
   (Edition 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37353

   The old Indian chronicle; being a collection of exceeding rare
   tracts written and published in the time of king Philip's war.
   Boston: Antiquarian Institute. 1836.
   https://archive.org/details/oldindianchroni00lithgoog

ELLIS, GEORGE E.
   The red man and the white man in North America.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028719007
   https://archive.org/details/redmanwhitemanin00ellirich

FIELD, THOMAS. W.
   An essay towards an Indian bibliography.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Company. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsindi00fielrich

FLETCHER, ALICE C.
   Indian education and civilization; a report.
   Washington. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/indianeducationa00unitrich

GALLATIN, ALBERT.
   A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
   Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836.)
   Writings; edited by H. Adams. Lippincott. 1879. 3 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/synopsisofindian01gall/page/n3/mode/2up

HOLMES, _Reverend_ ABIEL.
   Annals of America, 1492-1826 (1895).
   Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47268/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
   (Volume 2, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269

HUMBOLDT ALEXANDER VON.
   Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of
   the new continent, 1799-1804, by Alexander de Humboldt and
   Aimé Bonpland;
   translated by Helen Maria Williams, volume 5, pages 315-334.
   London: Longman. 1826. 7 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati00humbgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati01humbgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
   Annual reports of the executive committee.
   Philadelphia.
   ( 6th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (30th, 1912) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe02commgoog
   (31st, 1913) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up

JACKSON. _Mrs_. HELEN HUNT.
   A century of dishonor (1881). New edition, with appendix.
   Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/centuryofdishono005246mbp/page/n23/mode/2up

KINGSLEY, JOHN STERLING, editor.
   The standard natural history, volume 6.
   Boston: S. E. Cassino & Company. 1885. 6 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh01king
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh02king
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924003839358/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh03king
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh04king/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh05king/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh06king/page/n11/mode/2up

KIP, _Reverend_ WILLIAM INGRAHAM.
   The early Jesuit, missions in North America; composed and
   translated from the letters of the French Jesuits.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipw_0
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi02kipw

LAHONTAN, _Baron_.
   New voyages to North America, containing an account of the
   several nations of that vast continent, 1683-1694 (1703):
   [translated from the French.] 2d edition.
   London. 1735. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort01laho
   (Volume 2, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort02laho/page/n7/mode/2up

{xxvii}

LAKE MOHONK annual conference of friends of the Indian.
   Proceedings. Philadelphia.
   https://www.maquah.net/Historical/Mohonk.html
   (17th, 1890)https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu00unkngoog
   (1896) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu01unkngoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (17th, 1899) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu39unkngoog

McKENNEY, THOMAS L., _and_ JAMES HALL.
   History of the Indian tribes of North America, with 120
   portraits from the Indian gallery at Washington (1838-44).
   Philadelphia: D. Rice & A. N. Hart. 1854. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant01mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant02mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up

MANYPENNY, GEORGE W.
   Our Indian wards.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/Ayer_155_M25_1880

MASON, _Professor_ OTIS T., editor.
   Miscellaneous papers relating to anthropology, from the
   Smithsonian report for 1881.
   Washington. 1883.

MASSACHUSETTS.
   The Indian question; report of the committee appointed by
   Governor Long.
   Boston. 1880.

MORGAN, LEWIS H.
   Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.
   Washington. 1881.
   (U. S. geographic and geological survey,
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)
   https://archive.org/details/houseshouselifeo00morg_0

   Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family
   (1868). (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 17.
   Washington. 1871.)
   https://archive.org/details/systemsofconsang00morgrich/page/n21/mode/2up

MORSE, _Reverend_ JEDIDIAH.
   A report to the secretary of war of the United States, on
   Indian affairs, comprising a narrative of a tour in 1820.
   New Haven: S. Converse. 1822.
   https://archive.org/details/reporttosecretar00mors

MORTON, SAMUEL G.
   Crania Americana; or a comparative view of the skulls of
   various aboriginal nations of North and South America.
   Philadelphia: J. Penington. 1839.
   https://archive.org/details/Craniaamericana00Mort

NOTT, J. C., GEORGE. R. GLIDDON, _and others_.
   Indigenous races of the earth.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/indigenousraceso01nott

OTIS, ELWELL S.
   The Indian question.
   New York: Sheldon & Company. 1878.
   https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00otisrich

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   History of the conspiracy of Pontiac (1851).
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1888. 2 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39253

   The Jesuits in North America.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1867.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6933

PESCHEL, OSCAR.
   The races of man and their geographical distribution;
   from the German. (1874).
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1876.
   (1876) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501969
   (1888) https://archive.org/details/racesofmantheirg00pescuoft

PRICHARD, JAMES C.
   Researches into the physical history of mankind (1813). 2d ed.
   London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop08pricgoog
   (Volume 1, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop03pricgoog
   (Volume 1, 1836) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop06pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 2, 1837) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop02pricgoog
   (Volume 2, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop04pricgoog
   (Volume 3, 1811) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop09pricgoog
   (Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop10pricgoog
   (Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop05pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 4, 1844) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop01pricgoog
   (Volume 5, 1847) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop07pricgoog

RADISSON, PETER ESPRIT.
   Voyages, being an account of his travels and experiences among
   the North American Indians, 1652-1684; with historical
   illustrations and an introduction by Gideon D. Scull.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagespeteresp00sculgoog/page/n14/mode/2up

RAWLE, WILLIAM.
   A vindication of Heckewelder's "History of the Indian
   nations." (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society,
   volume 1.
   Philadelphia. 1826.
   J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864.)
   https://archive.org/details/5f1b0c76-4bcd-4e48-b937-081944dc88aa/mode/2up

ROGERS, _Major_ ROBERT.
   A concise account of North America.
   London. 1765.
   https://archive.org/details/aconciseaccount00rogeuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
   Historical and statistical information respecting the history,
   condition and prospects of the Indian tribes; prepared under
   the direction of the Bureau of Indian affairs.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1851-5. 5 volumes.
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924032190161
   (Part 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis02scho
   (Part 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091889976
   (Part 4) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatipt4scho
   (Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis05scho
   (Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstati00schoa
   (Part 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis06scho/page/n7/mode/2up

SHALER, NATHANIEL S.
   Nature and man in America.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1891.
   (1891) https://archive.org/details/natureandmanina00shalgoog
   (1924) https://archive.org/details/naturemaninameri00

STANFORD'S COMPENDIUM OF GEOGRAPHY AND TRAVEL:
   North America; edited and enlarged by Professor F. V. Hayden
   and Professor A. R. C. Selwyn.
   London: E. Stanford. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86162

STANLEY'S PORTRAITS OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS IN SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION.
   Catalogue (1852).
   (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 2. Washington. 1862.)
   https://archive.org/details/portraitsnaindians00stanrich

THATCHER, B. B.
   Indian biography.
   New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54898
   (Volume 2) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54072

UNITED STATES.
   Board of Indian Commissioners. Annual reports. Washington.
   (2nd, 1870)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo02unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (3rd, 1871)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo03unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (4th, 1872)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo04unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   (5th, 1873)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo05unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (6th, 1874)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo06unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (7th, 1875)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo07unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (8th, 1876)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo08unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   (17th, 1885) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo17unitrich
   (20th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/20annualreport00unitrich
   (1928)       https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo00unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up

   Commissioner of Indian affairs. Annual reports. Washington.

WALKER, FRANCIS A.
   The Indian question.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Company. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00walk

WOMEN'S NATIONAL INDIAN ASSOCIATION.
   Annual reports. Philadelphia.


AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

SPECIAL TRIBES, GROUPS AND REGIONS.

AB-SA-RA-KA, HOME OF THE CROWS.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/absarakahomeofcr00carr/page/n5/mode/2up

BANDELIER, ADOLF F.
   The delight makers.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/delightmakers00bandrich

   The gilded man (El Dorado).
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/gildedmaneldorad00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up

BARTRAM, WILLIAM.
   Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc.
   [1773-8]. [Creeks, Cherokees and Choctaws.]
   Philadelphia. 1791.
   https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughno00bart

BEAUCHAMP, William Martin
   The Iroquois trail; in which are included David Cusick's
   sketches of ancient history of the six nations.
   Fayetteville, New York: H. C. Beauchamp. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_04555

BECKWOURTH, JAMES P., Chief of the Crows.
   Life and adventures (1856).
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1858.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeadventuresof00beckrich

BENSON, HENRY C.
   Life among the Choctaw Indians.
   Cincinnati: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeamongchoctaw00bens

BIART, LUCIEN.
   The Aztecs, their history, manners and customs (1885);
   translated from the French, by J. L. Garner.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1887.
   (1919) https://archive.org/details/aztecstheirhist01garngoog

BLACKBIRD, ANDREW J. (MACK-AW-DE-BE-NESSY).
   History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, a
   grammar of their language, etc.
   Ypsilanti, Michigan. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/completebothearl01blac

BLAKE, Lady.
   The Beothuks of Newfoundland.
   (Nineteenth Century, 24: 899. 1888.)

BRETT, Reverend W. H.
   The Indian tribes of Guiana.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/indiantribesofgu00bret

BRINTON, DANIEL G., _editor_.
   The annals of the Cakchiquels; the original text, with a
   translation, notes and introduction.
   Philadelphia. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/bp_684862

   The Lenâpé and their legends, with the complete text and
   symbols of the Walam Olum.
   Philadelphia. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/lenptheirleg00brin

   _Editor_. The Maya chronicles.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/mayachronicles00briniala

   Notes on the Floridian peninsula.
   Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/notesonfloridia01bringoog

   The Shawnees and their migrations.
   (Historical magazine, volume. 10, January, 1866.)

BRODHEAD, JOHN Romeyn
   History of the state of New York., volume 1.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853-71. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof01brod_0
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod

CASWELL, _Mrs_. HARRIET S.
   Our life among the Iroquois Indians.
   Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/ourlifeamongiroq00caswiala

CATON, JOHN D.
   The last of the Illinois, and a sketch of the Pottawatomies
   (1870).
   (Fergus historical series.)
   Chicago: Fergus Printing Company. 1876.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_04014

CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.
   Mississippi, as a province, territory and state.
   Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880. volume 1.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028795405

CLARKE, PETER D.
   Origin and traditional history of the Wyandotts, etc.
   Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Company. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/origintraditiona00clar

COPWAY, GEORGE (KAH-GE-GA-GAH-BOWH), _Chief_.
   Traditional history and characteristic sketches of the Ojibway
   nation.
   London: C. Gilpin. 1850.
   https://archive.org/details/traditionalhist00bookgoog

COX, ROSS.
   Adventures on the Columbia River.
   London. 2 volumes.
   New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/adventuresoncolu00coxr
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.7215
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33605

COZZENS, SAMUEL W.
   The marvellous country; or, three years in Arizona and New
   Mexico, the Apaches' home (1873).
   Boston: Lee & Shepard.
   https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountry00cozzrich/page/n9/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozz_0
   https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozzrich

CRANTZ, DAVID.
   History of Greenland, book 4 (volume 1).
   London: 1767. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgree01cran
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgreen02cran

CRUISE OF THE REVENUE-STEAMER CORWIN IN ALASKA AND THE North West
ARCTIC OCEAN IN 1881.
   Washington. 1883. (H. of Rep's, 47th congress, 2d session.
   Ex. doc. 105.)
   https://archive.org/details/cruiseofrevenues00muir

CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON.
   My adventures in Zuni.
   (Century, volumes 3-4, December, 1882, February, May, 1883.)
   https://archive.org/details/zunifolktales00cushrich
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48342
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/zuibreadstuff00cush/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/zuifetiches00cush/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924104094010

CUSTER, _General_. G. A.
   My life on the plains.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/mylifeonplainsor00cust

DALL, WILLIAM. H.
   Tribes of the extreme northwest.
   (United States geography and geology survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
   Washington. 1877.)
   https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno01dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

DALTON, HENRY G.
   History of British Guiana, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1855. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
   https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog/mode/2up

DEFOREST, JOHN W.
   History of the Indians of Connecticut (1853).
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1871.
   (1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc00darlgoog
   (1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc01darlgoog

DENTON, DANIEL.
   A brief description of New York; likewise a brief relation of
   the customs of the Indians there (1670).
   New York: William Gowans. 1845.
   https://archive.org/details/briefdescription11dent/page/n13/mode/2up

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN
   An account of the Abipones, an equestrian people of Paraguay
   (1784); from the Latin.
   London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone04dobr
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone05dobr
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/accountofabiponex03dobr
   (Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50629
   (Volume 2) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50621
   (Volume 3) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50623

DODGE. J. R.
   Red men of the Ohio valley, 1650-1795.
   Springfield, Ohio: Ruralist Publishing Company. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/redmenofohiovall00dodg

{xxviii}

DORSEY, JAMES OWEN.
   The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana.
   Salem. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofbilo0047dors/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-534279/page/n1/mode/2up

   The gentile system of the Siletz tribes.
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-532806/page/n1/mode/2up

   Migrations of Siouan tribes.
   (American Naturalist, volume 20, March, 1886.)
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-2449921/page/n1/mode/2up

DUNBAR, J. B.
   The Pawnee Indians.
   (Magazine of American History, volume 4, April, 1880.)

EASTMAN, _Mrs._ MARY.
   Dahcotah; or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort
   Snelling.
   New York: John Wiley. 1849.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_35037

EELLS, MYRON.
   Indians of Puget Sound.
   (American Antiquarian, 9: 1,271. 10: 26, 174. 1887-8.)

EGGLESTON, EDWARD, _and_ LILLIE E. SEELYE.
   Pocahontas.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. [1879.]
   https://archive.org/details/pocahontas00seel

GATSCHET, ALBERT S.
   The Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon.
   Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.
   (United States geographical and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)
   https://archive.org/details/klamathindiansof02gatsuoft
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_52744/page/n7/mode/2up

   A migration legend of the Creek Indians, with a linguistic,
   historic and ethnographic introduction.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884. volume 1.
   (Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49031
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924096785484
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/migrationcreek00gatsrich

GIBBS, GEORGE.
   Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
   (United States geographical and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
   Washington. 1877.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_14847/page/n9/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno00dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

GOOKIN, DANIEL.
   Historical account of the doings and sufferings of the
   Christian Indians of New England.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
   Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1886.)
   https://books.google.com/books/about/Historical_Account_of_the_Doings_and_Suf.html?id=Qmhumu27RG0C

   Historical collections of the Indians in New England.
   (Collections of the Mass. Historical Society, volume 1.
   Boston. 1792.)

GRANT, _Mrs_. ANNE (of Laggan).
   Memoirs of an American lady [Mrs. Philip Schuyler] (1808).
   (Mohawks.) New York.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirsanameric03grangoog

GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD.
   Pawnee hero stories and folk-tales, with notes on the origin,
   customs and character of the Pawnee people.
   New York: Forest and Stream Pub. Company, 1889.
   (1893) https://archive.org/details/pawneeherostorie00grinrich/page/n3/mode/2up

GWYTHER, G.
   Pueblo Indians.
   (Overland Monthly, 6: 260. 1871.)

HALE, HORATIO, _editor_.
   The Iroquois book of rites.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924099385514

HARDACRE, EMMA C.
   The cliff-dwellers.
   (Scribner's Monthly, 17: 266. 1878.)

HAUGHTON, JAMES
   Additional memoir of the Moheagans.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, volume 9.
   Boston. 1804.)
   https://archive.org/details/memoirjameshaug00hauggoog

HEALY, _Capt_. M. A.
   Report of the cruise of the revenue marine steamer Corwin in
   the Arctic Ocean in 1885.
   Washington. 1887. (House of Representatives,
   49th congress, 1st session. Ex. doc. 153.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_04426

HEARNE, SAMUEL.
   A journey from Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769-72.
   London: A. Strahan & T. Cadell. 1795.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38404
   https://archive.org/details/journeyfromprin00hear

HECKEWELDER, _Reverend_ JOHN.
   History of the manners and customs of the Indian nations
   who once inhabited Pennsylvania, etc. (1818; new edition,
   with introduction by Reverend William C. Reichel.
   Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 12.
   Philadelphia. 1876).
   https://archive.org/details/histmannerscust00heckrich

   Narrative of the mission of the United Brethren among
   the Delaware and Mohegan Indians, 1740-1808.
   Philadelphia: M'Carthy & Davis. 1820.
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofmissi00heck

HENRY, ALEXANDER
   Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories,
   1760-76.
   New York: I. Riley. 1809.
   (1809) https://archive.org/details/travelsandadven00henrgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventur00henr
   (1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventure00henr/page/n7/mode/2up

HILLARD, G. S.
   Life of captain John Smith.
   (Library of American biography: conducted by Jared Sparks. 1884.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 10 volumes.)
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofcaptainjoh00simms
   https://archive.org/details/lifecaptainsmith00simmrich

HIND, HENRY YOULE.
   Explorations in the interior of the Labrador peninsula; the
   country of the Montagnais and Nasquapee Indians.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42676
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/explorationsinin021863hind
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42677

   Narrative of the Canadian Red River exploring expedition of
   1857, and of the Assinniboine and Saskatchewan expedition of 1858.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_35699
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofcanad02hind

HOWARD, OLIVER OTIS.
   Nez Percé Joseph; an account of his ancestors, his lands, etc.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/nezpercejoseph01howa
   https://archive.org/details/nezpercejosepha01howagoog

HUBBARD, J. NILES.
   An account of Sa·go-ye-wat·ha, or Red Jacket and his people,
   1750-1830.
   Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/accountofsagoyew00hubbuoft
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7339

HUNTER, JOHN D.
   Manners and customs of several Indian tribes located west of
   the Mississippi.
   Philadelphia. 1823.
   https://archive.org/details/mannerscustoms00huntrich

   Memoirs of a captivity among the Indians.
   London: Longman. 1824.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirsacaptivi01huntgoog
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82979

HURT, Dr. GARLAND.
   Indians of Utah. (Simpson's Report of explorations, 1850.
   Washington. 1876.)

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS. J.
   The Parana.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/paranwithincide00hutcgoog

IM THURN, EVERARD FERDINAND.
   Among the Indians of Guiana.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Company. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/amongindiansgui00thurgoog

IRVING, JOHN TREAT.
   Indian sketches taken during a United States expedition to
   make treaties with the Pawnee and other tribes of Indians in
   1833 (1833).
   New York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/indiansketchest01irvigoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/GR_2157-2
   https://archive.org/details/indiansketchesta00irvirich/page/ii/mode/2up

JAMES, EDWIN, _comp_.
   Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky
   Mountains., 1819-20, under command of Major Long.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1823. 2 volumes, with atlas.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofexpedit01jame
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/account02ofexpeditjame

JEWITT, JOHN R.
   Narrative of adventures and sufferings among the Indians of
   Nootka Sound.
   Ithaca, New York: Andrus, Gauntlett & Company. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jewi

JOGUES PAPERS, THE (1642-6);
   translated, with a memoir, by J. G. Shea.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 3. New York, 1857.)

JOHNSON, ELIAS, _Tuscarora chief_.
   Legends, traditions and laws of the Iroquois or six
   nations, and history of the Tuscarora Indians.
   Lockport. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_24792
   https://archive.org/details/bp_583763/page/3/mode/2up

JONES, _Reverend_ PETER (KAHKEWAQUONABY).
   History of the Ojebway Indians.
   London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofojebway00jone

KEATING, WILLIAM H., _comp._
   Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter's River,
   Lake Winnepeek, &c., in 1823, under command of Major Long.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1824. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofexped01keat
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofanexp010860mbp/page/n7/mode/2up

KETCHUM, WILLIAM.
   Authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some
   account of its early inhabitants; comprising historic notices
   of the six nations [Senecas, chiefly].
   Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker & Hill. 1864. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc01ketcgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc00ketcgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/authenticcompreh02ketc

KIDDER, FREDERIC.
   The Abenaki Indians. (Collections of the Main Historical
   Society., volume 6. Portland: 1859.)
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25416
   https://archive.org/details/abenakiindiansw00kiddgoog
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_36479

KIP, _Reverend_. WILLIAM INGRAHAM, _compo. and translator._
   The early Jesuit missions in North America; from the letters
   of the Fr. Jesuits, with notes.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip
   https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipwrich

KOHL, J. G.
   Kitchi-gami; wanderings round Lake Superior [translated from
   the German]. [Ojibbewas.] London: Chapman & Hall. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/kitchigamiwander00kohl/page/n7/mode/2up

LA ROCHEFOUCAULT LIANCOURT, _Duc de_.
   Travels through the United States, the country of the Iroquois
   and upper Canada, 1795-7.
   London. 1799.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughun01larorich

LE CLERCQ, Father CHRISTIAN.
   First establishment of the faith in New France (1691); now
   first translation, with notes, by John G. Shea.
   New York: J. G. Shea. 1881. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme01lecl
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme02lecl

LEWIS AND CLARKE.
   Journal to the Rocky Mountains., 1804-6, as related by Patrick
   Gass (1807).
   Dayton: Ells, Claflin & Company. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/lewisclarksjourn00gassrich

LORD, JOHN K.
   The naturalist in Vancouver's Island and British Columbia,
   volume 2.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1866. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc01lord
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc00lord

LOSKIEL, GEORGE HENRY.
   History of the mission of the United Brethren among the Indians
   of North America; translated from the German by C. I. La Trobe.
   London 1794.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiss00losk
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmission01losk

LUMMIS, CHARLES. F.
   The land of poco tiempo [New Mexico].
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028915036

McKENNA, J. A. J.
   Indians of Canada.
   (Catholic World, 53: 350. 1891.)

McKENNEY, THOMAS. L.
   Sketches of a tour to the lakes [1826],
   the Chippeway Indians, etc.
   Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr. 1827.
   https://archive.org/details/sketchesatourto01mckegoog

MARCY, Colonel R. B.
   Thirty years of army life on the border.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsofarm01marc

MARCY, Colonel. R. B., and GEORGE. D. McCLELLAN.
   Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana In 1852.
   [Comanches and Kiowas.]
   Washington. 1854. (House of Representatives, 33d congress,
   1st session Ex. doc)
   https://archive.org/details/explorationredr00mcclgoog

MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.
   Historical writings relating to the early history of the west;
   with introduction by William L. Stone.
   Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalwritin01mars
   https://archive.org/details/historicalwriti00marsgoog/page/n21/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_09926

   The Niagara frontier; read before the Buffalo Historical Club.
   February 27, 1865. [Buffalo: The author.]
   https://archive.org/details/niagarafrontiere00mars/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_40160

MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.
   Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.
   Washington. 1877.
   (United States geographical and geological survey.
   F. V. Hayden in charge: miscellaneous publications. No.7.)
   https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp00mattgoog
   https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp01mattgoog
   https://archive.org/details/ethnographyphilo00mattrich
   https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_hid_morsyn-2

MEGAPOLENSIS, J., _Jr_.
   Short sketch of the Mohawk Indians in New Netherland (1644);
   translated, revised, with an introduction, by J. H. Brodhead.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society. 2d series,
   volume 3.
   New York. 1857.)

MEMOIR OF THE PEQUOTS, etc.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   volume 10. Boston. 1800.)

MILLER, JOAQUIN.
   Unwritten history; life amongst the Modocs.
   Hartford: American Pub. Company. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/amongstthemodocs00millrichs://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich
   https://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich

MILLER. WILLIAM. J.
   Notes concerning the Wampanoag tribe of Indians.
   Providence: S. S. Rider. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/notesconcerningw00mill/page/n5/mode/2up

{xxix}

MINER, LEWIS H.
   The valley of Wyoming.
   New York: Robert H. Johnston & Company. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/valleywyomingro00minegoog
   https://archive.org/details/valleyofwyomingr00mine

MÖLLHAUSEN, BALDWIN.
   Diary of a journey from the Mississippi to the coasts of the
   Pacific, with a United States government expedition [1853-4];
   translated by Mrs. Percy Sinnett.
   London: Longman. 1858. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryajourneyfr00sinngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/Diaryjourneyfro11Moll

MORELET, ARTHUR.
   Travels in Central America; translated from the French by
   Mrs. M. F. Squier; introduction by M. G. Squier.
   London: Trübner & Company. 1871.
   New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1871.
   https://archive.org/details/travelsincentra00moregoog

MORGAN, LEWIS H.
   League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.
   Rochester: Sage & Brother. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg
   (2 volumes, 1922) https://archive.org/details/hodenosaunee00morgrich
   https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg

   Report on the fabrics, inventions, implements and utensils of
   the Iroquois, made to the regents of the university [of New
   York.], 1851.

NEW YORK STATE.
   Commissioners of Indian affairs, for the extinguishment of
   Indian titles. Proceedings, with introduction and notes by
   F. B. Hough.
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1861. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy_0
   https://archive.org/details/bp_616923/page/n3/mode/2up

   Regents of the university. Annual reports on the condition of
   the state cabinet of natural history and the historical and
   antiquarian collection.
   Albany.

   Special committee to Investigate the Indian problem.
   Report. Albany. 1889.

NORMAN, B. M.
   Rambles in Yucatan; including a visit to the remarkable ruins
   of Chi-Chen, Kabah, Zayi, and Uxmal.
   New York: J. & H. G. Langley. 1842.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57074
   https://archive.org/details/ramblesinyucatan00norm

NUTTALL, THOMAS.
   Journal of travels into the Arkansa territory, 1819.
   Philadelphia. T. H. Palmer. 1821.
   https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt
   https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt_0

OBER, F. A.
   Acoma, a picturesque pueblo.
   (American architect, 29: 65. 1890.)

PALFREY, JOHN GORHAM.
   Compendious history of New England. 1494-1775 (1884). volume 1.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 4 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto01palfuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto02palfuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto03palfuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto04palfuoft

PIDGEON, WILLIAM.
   Traditions of De-coo-dah, comprising extensive explorations,
   surveys and excavations of the remains of the mound builders in
   America. (1853).
   New York: Horace Thayer. 1858.
   https://archive.org/details/traditionsofdeco00inpidg

POWERS, STEPHEN.
   Tribes of California.
   Washington. 1877.
   (United States geographical and geological survey,
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)
   https://archive.org/details/tribescaliforni00powegoog/page/n9/mode/2up

RAE, J.
   Indians of Hudson's Bay territories.
   (Journal of the Society of Arts, 30: 483. 1882.)

REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR EXPEDITION TO POINT BARROW,
ALASKA [1881-2].
   Washington. 1885. (House of Representatives, 48th congress,
   2d session Ex. doc. 44.)
   https://archive.org/details/reportofpolar00inteuoft

RIGGS, _Reverend_ Dr. STEPHEN R.
   Mary and I; forty years with the Sioux.
   Chicago: W. G. Holmes. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/maryandifortyyea00riggrich

RINK, Dr. HENRY.
   The Eskimo tribes; their distribution and characteristics,
   with a comparative vocabulary (volume 11 of the "Middelelser
   om Gronland").
   Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/eskimotribesthei00rinkrich

   Tales and traditions of the Eskimo, with a sketch of their
   habits, religions, language, etc. (1866-71); translated from
   the Danish by the author, edited by Dr. R. Brown.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.
   https://archive.org/details/talestraditionso01rink

RONAN, PETER.
   Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation, 1813-1890.
   Helena: Journal Publishing Company. 1800.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch00ronarich

RONDTHALER, _Reverend_ EDWARD.
   Life of John Heckewelder;
   edited by B. H. Coates.
   Philadelphia: T. Ward. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofjohnheckew00rondt

RUTTENBER. E. M.
   History of the Indian tribes of Hudson's River: their origin,
   manners, etc.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1872.
   https://archive.org/details/ruttenberindians00ruttrich

SCHERMERHORN, J. F.
   Report, on the western Indians.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   2d series, volume 2.
   Boston. 1814.)
   https://archive.org/details/correctviewoftha00sche

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
   Notes on the Iroquois.
   Albany: E. H. Pease & Company. 1847.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50053

   Personal memoirs of a residence of thirty years with
   the Indian tribes on the American frontiers, 1-12-1842 (1831).
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
   http://www.fullbooks.com/Personal-Memoirs-Of-A-Residence-Of-Thirty.html

SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.
   Life and times of David Zeisberger, apostle of the Indians.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078

SEAVER, JAS. E.
   Life of Mary Jemison: Deh-he-wä-mis (1842).
   New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan. 1856.
   (1918) https://archive.org/details/narrativeoflifeo00seavuoft

SHEA, J. G.
   Inquiries respecting the lost neutral nation.
   (Schoolcraft's Information respecting the Indian tribes, part. 4.)
   See SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.

SHELDON, WILLIAM.
   Account of the Caraibs.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
   Worcester: American Antiquarian Society. 1820.)

SIMPSON, JAMES H.
   Journal of a military reconnoissance from Santa Fe to the
   Navajo country, 1840. [Navajos and Pueblos.]
   Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1852.
   https://archive.org/details/journalamilitar00simpgoog

   The shortest route to California, with some account
   of the Indian tribes [of Utah].
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/shortestroutetoc00simp

SITGREAVES, _Capt_. L.
   Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado rivers.
   Washington, 1854.
   (Senate ex. doc's, 33d congress, 1st session.)
   https://archive.org/details/reportanexpidit00sitggoog
   https://archive.org/details/reportanexpedit00engigoog

SKENANDOAH.
   Letters on the Iroquois; addressed to Albert Gallatin.
   (Reprinted in volume 2 of Craig's "The olden time."
   Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton. 1848. 2 volumes.)

SMET, _Father_ P. J. DE.
   Letters and sketches, with a narrative of a year's residence
   among the Indian tribes of the Rocky Mountains.
   Philadelphia: M. Fithian. 1843.
   https://archive.org/details/letterssketchesw00smet

   Oregon missions and travels over the Rocky Mountains. 1845-6.
   New York: Edward Dunigan. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_40687

   Western missions and missionaries.
   New York: T. W. Strong. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm01smet/page/n7/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm0000smet/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsa00smetrich

SMITH, Capt. JOHN.
   Description of Virginia. General historie of Virginia. (Works,
   1608-1631); edited by E. Arber, Birmingham. 1884.

SPRAGUE, JOHN T.
   The origin, progress, and conclusion of the Florida war.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1843.
   https://archive.org/details/originprogressa03spragoog

   Historical and mythological traditions of the Algonquins, with
   a translation of the "Walumolum."
   (New York Historical Society.)

STONE, WILLIAM L.
   Life and times of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket (1841).
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeandtimessag01stongoog

   Life of Joseph Brant--Thayendanegea (1838).
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofjosephbran01ston
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifejosephbrant03stongoog

STRACHEY, WILLIAM.
   Historie of travaile into Virginia Britannia. (1618?).
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1849.
   https://archive.org/details/historietravail00majogoog

SWAN, JAMES G.
   The Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte's Islands (1874).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 21.
   Washington. 1876.)
   https://archive.org/details/haidahindians00swanrich
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_23957

   The Indians of Cape Flattery, Washington Territory. (1868).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 16.
   Washington. 1870.)
   https://archive.org/details/indianscapeflatt00swanrich
   https://archive.org/details/b21914084

   The northwest coast;
   or three years [1852-5] in Washington Territory.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/northwestcoastor00swan

SULLIVAN, _Honorable_ JAMES.
   History of the Penobscott Indians.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   volume 9. Boston. 1804.)

VETROMILE, EUGENE.
   The Abnaki Indians.
   (Collections of the Maine Historical Society., volume 6.
   Portland. 1859.)
   https://archive.org/details/abnakisandtheir00vetrgoog

   The Abnakis and their history.
   New York: J. B. Kirker. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/abnakistheirhist00vetr

WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM. D.
   Indian tribes in New England (1839)
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   3d series, volume 9. 1846.)

WILLIS, WILLIAM.
   The language of the Abnaquies or eastern Indians: appendix by
   C. E. Potter. (Collections of the Maine Historical Society,
   volume 4.
   Portland. 1856.)

WILSON, DANIEL.
   The Huron-Iroquois of Canada.
   (Translation Royal Society, Canada. 1884.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_29131/page/n5/mode/2up

ZEISBERGER, DAVID, _Moravian Missionary, Ohio._
   Diary [1781-1798]; translated from the German and
   edited by E. F. Bliss.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid01zeisrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid02zeisrich

ZYLYFF.
   The Ponca chiefs, an Indian's attempt to appeal from the
   tomahawk to the courts; with introduction by Inshtatheamba
   (Bright Eyes), and dedication by Wendell Phillips.
   Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/poncachiefsanin01tibbgoog


AUSTRIA.

GENERAL.

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The holy Roman empire (1864).
   London: Macmillan & Company.
   (1871) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44101
   (1915) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.213191

COXE, WILLIAM.
   History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792 (1807).
   London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof01coxeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof03coxeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.458810

DUNHAM, S. A.
   History of the Germanic empire.
   London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani01dunhiala/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani02dunhiala/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani03dunhiala/page/n7/mode/2up

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
   History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.
   London: John Murray, 4 volumes; George Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmodern01dyer
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40858

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/b31349638
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeog01free
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01freeuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01free
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra02freeuoft

{xxxi}

GOULD, S. BARING.
GOULD, S. BARING-GOULD.
   The story of Germany (Story of the nations).
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/storyofgermany00bari/page/n11/mode/2up

HEEREN, A. H. L.
   A manual of the history of the political system of Europe and
   its colonies (1809); translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501449/page/n1/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/manualofhistoryo00heerrich
   https://archive.org/details/manual00ofhistoryoheerrich

KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM.
   The revolutions of Europe (1771);
   from the French.
   London: Whittaker & Company. 1839.
   https://archive.org/details/revolutionseurop00koch

KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH.
   History of Germany (1816); [translated by J. D. Haas].
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
   https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog
   New York: Appleton. 1845.
   https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog

LATHAM, ROBERT. G.
   Ethnology of Europe.
   London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.
   https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofeurop00lathuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

   The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31028

LAVISSE, ERNEST.
   General view of the political history of Europe;
   translated by Charles Gross.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00laviiala
   https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00lavi
   https://archive.org/details/generalviewpoli01grosgoog

LEGER, LOUIS.
   History of Austro-Hungary (1666; 2d edition., 1878-88);
   translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofaustroh00lege
   https://archive.org/details/ahistoryaustroh00hillgoog

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
   History of Germany.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00lewi
   https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00unkngoog

LODGE, RICHARD.
   History of modern Europe, 1453-1878.
   London: J. Murray. 1885.
   New York: Harper Brothers.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00lodguoft
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne017244mbp
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027987092

MALLESON, G. B.
   Lost opportunities of the house of Austria
   (Royal Historical Society Papers, volume 12, page 225).

MENZEL, WOLFGANG.
   History of Germany (1824-5);
   translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany01menzuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany02menzuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany03menzuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historygermanyf00menzgoog

MICHELET, JULES.
   A summary of modern history (1827);
   translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.
   https://archive.org/details/asummarymodernh00michgoog
   https://archive.org/details/summaryofmodernh00michuoft

RUSSELL, WILLIAM.
   History of modern Europe (1779).
   London: George Routledge & Sons. 4 volumes.
   Whittaker & Company. 4 volume
   New York: Harper Brothers. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historymoderneu01jonegoog

   (Epitomized) https://archive.org/details/russellshistory00russgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

SIME, JAMES.
   History of Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1874.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simerich
   https://archive.org/details/historygermany00simegoog
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany0000unse_n7z0/page/n7/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00sime
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simeuoft

SMYTH, WILLIAM.
   Lectures on modern history (1840).
   London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.3073
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.2173

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
   Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the
   dissolution of the empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/asketchgermanic01turngoog

VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.
   Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne
   (Works, translated by Smollett and others, 1761, volumes 20-22).
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsoftheempir01voltuoft


MEDIÆVAL.

BUSK, Mrs. WILLIAM.
   Mediæval popes, emperors, kings and crusaders.
   London: Hookham & Sons. 1854-6. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem01buskuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp01buskgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem02buskuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV2
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp00buskgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem03buskuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem04buskuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV4

COMYN, _Sir_ ROBERT.
   History of the western empire, from Charlemagne to Charles V.
   [800-1520],
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1841. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne01unkngoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne02unkngoog/page/n7/mode/2up

DURUY, VICTOR.
   The history of the middle ages (1839);
   translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney, with notes and
   revisions by G. B. Adams.
   New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00dur
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duru
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duruuoft
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.169467

HALLAM, HENRY.
   View of the state of Europe during the middle ages.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.
   New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 3) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33540
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofe01hall
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur01hall
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur02hall
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur03hall
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027794654/page/n3/mode/2up

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,
   Select historical documents of the middle ages.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1892.
   New York: Macmillan & Company.
   https://archive.org/details/selecthistorical00hendiala
   https://archive.org/details/ErnestF.HendersonSelectHistoricalDocumentsOfTheMiddleAges
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186161
   https://archive.org/details/selectdocuments00hend
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186526

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.
   New York: MacMillan & Company. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/seventeenlecture00stub
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027811011

   The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development
   https://archive.org/details/constitutionalh04stubgoog

   The Early Plantagenets
   https://archive.org/details/earlyplantagenet01stub


16TH-17TH CENTURIES.
REFORMATION.
THIRTY YEARS WAR.

CUST, _Sir_ EDWARD,
   Lives of the warriors of the thirty years' war.
   London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt1custuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt2custuoft

GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
   The thirty years' war, 1618-1648 (Epochs of history).
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1874.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40082
   https://archive.org/details/gardinersamuel00rawsrich
   https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar00gardgoog
   https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600gard
   https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600

GINDELY, ANTON.
   History of the thirty years' war (1869-80):
   translated by A. Ten Brook.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historythirtyye01broogoog

MALDEN, HENRY E.
   Vienna, 1683.
   London: Kegan Paul & Company. 1883.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56023

MARTIN, HENRI.
   History of France: age of Louis XIV.(1860);
   translated by Mrs. Booth.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_nW0PAAAAYAAJ
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_T30PAAAAYAAJ

MAXWELL, _Sir_ WILLIAM STIRLING.
   Don John of Austria, 1547-78.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1883. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria01stiriala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria02stiruoft

MITCHELL, Lieut.-Colonel J.
   Life of Wallenstein.
   London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.94161

PRAET, JULES VAN.
   Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th and 17th
   centuries; [translated] edited by Sir Edmund Head.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77834

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria (1832);
   translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
   London: Longman.
   (1853) https://archive.org/details/FerdinandIAndMaximilianIIOfAustria/page/n5/mode/2up

   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514 (1824);
   translated from the German by Philip A. Ashworth.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.
   (1887) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte01rank
   (1909) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankiala
   (1915) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankrich

   History of the reformation in Germany (1839-43);
   translated by Sarah Austin.
   London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes.
   (1905) https://archive.org/details/historyreformat02rankgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
   History of the reign of the emperor Charles V. (1769); with
   life of the emperor after his abdication, by W. H. Prescott
   (1857).
   London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp42robegoog
   (Volume 1)  https://archive.org/details/historyofreign01robe
   (Volume 2)  https://archive.org/details/reignofemperorch02robe
   https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up

   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof1864robe
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof02robe
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03robe

   New York: Hopkins & Seymore
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof01robguat/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03roguat/page/n11/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp32robegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Complete) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof00roberich

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Company, 2d edition. 1872.
   (Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up


18TH CENTURY.

BRACKENBURY. _Colonel_. C. B.
   Frederick the great.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/frederickgreat00bracrich

BROGLIE, Duc de.
   Frederick the great and Maria Theresa (1882);
   translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
   London: Low, Marston & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma01brogiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma02brogiala

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, called Frederick the
   great (1858).

   London: Chapman & Hall.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric37carlgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric27carlgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric57carlgoog

   New York: Harper & Brothers.
   (Books 1-19) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2102
   (Books 1-21) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25808
   (Books 1-5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl
   (Books 8-10) https://archive.org/details/friedrichiiofpru03carl
   (Books 15-17) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog

   New York: Dana Estes and Charles E. Lauriat
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri02carl
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri03carl
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri04carl
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri05carl
   (Volume 6)  https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri06carl

   New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric54carlgoog/page/n12/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric51carlgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

   Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric10carlgoog

CUST, _Sir_ Edward.
   Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century.
   London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight05custgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight00custgoog/page/n4/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight03custgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight04custgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.106238/page/n1/mode/2up

DOVER, _Lord_.
   Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.
   London: Longman. 1831.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeoffredericse01doveuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifefredericsec08dovegoog/page/n8/mode/2up

FREDERICK II. (called the great).
   History of my own times [1740-1745].
   (Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. Volume 1.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.)
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/vol2historyofmyo00fred
   (Part 2) https://archive.org/details/vol3historyofmyo00fred

   See CARLYLE, THOMAS for mant other volumes.

GERARD, JAMES W.
   The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027872021
   https://archive.org/details/peaceutrechtahi00geragoog

KUGLER, FRANCIS.
   Pictorial history of Germany during the reign of Frederick the
   great (1842); [translated from the German.].
   London: H. G. Bohn.
   https://archive.org/details/pictorialhistor00menzgoog

LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE
   History of England in the 18th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofengland06leck/page/n7/mode/2up

LONGMAN, F. W.
   Frederick the great and the seven years' war.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.41356
   https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatse01long

MACAULAY, _Lord_.
   Essays: Frederick the great (1842).
   London: Longmans, Green & Company.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.
   New York: Maynard, Merrill, &: Co.
  https://archive.org/details/essayonfredericg00maca/page/n5/mode/2up

MALLESON, _Colonel_. G. B.
   Loudon [Austrian fieldmarshal, 1743-1790].
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.

MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.
   The French revolution.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
   (1897) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00malluoft
   (1893) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00mallrich
   (1893) https://archive.org/details/cu31924031498128/page/n9/mode/2up

MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.
   History of the French revolution, 1789-1814 (1824);
   translated from the French.
   London: George Bell & Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr00migniala
   https://archive.org/details/historyfrenchre03conggoog

RAUMER, FREDERICK VON.
   Contributions to modern history: Frederick II. and his times.
   London: Charles Knight & Company. 1837.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91064

SCHLOSSER, F. C.
   History of the eighteenth century, etc.;
   translated by D. Davison.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen03schlgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen08schlgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen01schlgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen02schlgoog/page/n5/mode/2up

STANHOPE, _Earl_ (Lord Mahon).
   History of England 1713-1783 (1836-53).
   London: John Murray.  7 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland01stan
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland02stan
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland03stan/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland04stan
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland05stan/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland07stan/page/n5/mode/2up

   Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz 1853
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4CFTAAAAcAAJ

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   History of the French revolution. Volumes 1-2.
   London: Rivingtons. 1880.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886-91.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr01stepiala
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024309480

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
   History of the French revolution (1827);
   translated by F. Shoberl (1854).
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench01thieuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench02thieuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/v3a4historyoffren03thieuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench04thieuoft
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench05thieuoft

{xxxi}

19TH CENTURY: EARLY AND GENERAL.

ADAMS, _Major_ CHARLES.
   Great campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870;
   edited by C. C. King.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/greatcampaignssu00adam

ALISON, _Sir_ ARCHIBALD.
   History of Europe, 1789-1815 (1842). 10 volumes.
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr04alisgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr37alisgoog

   History of Europe, 1815-1852 (1857). 6 volumes.

   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   New York: Harper & Brothers.

   (Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope701alisuoft
   (Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef02alis
   (Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope703alisuoft
   (Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropefc04alis
   (Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope705alisuoft
   (Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope706alisuoft
   (Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope707alisuoft
   (Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef08alisuoft
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alisuoft
   (Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alis
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef11alisiala
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef12alisuoft
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef13alisuoft
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef14alisuoft
   (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef15alisuoft
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef16alisuoft
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef17alisuoft
   (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef00alisuoft

AUSTRIA.
   (North British Review, 44: 27. 1866.)

AUSTRIAN NATIONALITIES AND AUSTRIAN POLICY:
   by J. W. W. (Fraser's Magazine., 52: 163. 1855).

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT-.
   Studies in European politics.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston &: Douglas. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope01duffgoog
   https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope00duffgoog
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027804248
   https://archive.org/details/studiesineuropea00granrich

FYFFE, C. A.
   History of modern Europe. [1792-1878].
   London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes.
   New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1881-90. 3 volumes.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6589
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172930/page/n1/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00fyffuoft

JOURNAL OF A NOBLEMAN:
   his residence at Vienna during the congress.
   London. Philadelphia. 1833.

KELLY, WALTER K.
   History of the house of Austria [1792-1848]. _And_
   Genesis or the late Austrian revolution: by an officer of
   state [Count Hartig]: translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof00kell

KOHL, J. G.
   Austria.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
   https://archive.org/details/austriaviennapr00kohlgoog

KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
   The growth of German unity.
   London: David Nutt. 1892.

LANFREY, P.
   History of Napoleon I. [translated from the French.].
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo01lanfuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapole02lanf
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344834
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo03lanfuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344842
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo04lanfuoft

MALLESON, _Colonel_ George Bruce
   Life of Prince Metternich (Statesmen series).
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1888.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &: Co.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00mall
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.181131/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemet00mall
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00malluoft
   (Audio) https://archive.org/details/life_of_prince_metternich_1611_librivox/lifeofprincemetternich_01_malleson_128kb.mp3

METTERNICH, _Prince_.
   Memoirs [1773-1835]: translated by Mrs. Alexander Napier.
   London: Bentley & Son. 1880.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirsofprincem02mettuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85236/page/ii/mode/2up

MICHIELS, ALFRED, _compiler_.
   Secret history of the Austrian government.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/secrethistoryau00michgoog

MÜLLER, W.
   Political history of recent times, 1816-1875:
   translated [and continued to 1881] by John P. Peters.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mulliala
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mluoft
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00ml
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00mlgoog
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00petegoog

ROSE, J. H.
   A century of continental history, 1780-1880.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1889.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924031187804

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   Europe, 1789-1815.
   London: Macmillan &: Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/europestephens00step

THIERS, ADOLPH.
   History of the consulate and the empire of France under
   Napoleon (1845-62); translated by D. F. Campbell and H. W.  Herbert.
   London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 5 volumes.

   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1894. 12 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire01thieiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyconsulate02thieiala
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire03thieiala
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire04thieiala
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula05thieiala
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire06thieiala
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire07thieiala
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire08thieiala
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula09thieiala
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire10thieiala
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire11thieiala
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire12thieiala

TURNBULL, PETER EVAN
   Austria, volume 2.
   London: J. Murray. 1840. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria01turngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/austria02turngoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria03turngoog/page/n6/mode/2up

VEHSE, E.
   Memoirs of the court, aristocracy and diplomacy of Austria;
   translated by Franz Demmler.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1856. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtof01vehs
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtar02vehs
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirscourtari00vehsgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088019769

WEIR, ARCHIBALD.
   The historical basis of modern Europe, 1760-1815.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Company. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501799
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027892375/page/n7/mode/2up

WHITMAN, SIDNEY.
   The realm of the Habsburgs.
   London: William Heinemann. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whituoft
   https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whit/page/n9/mode/2up


AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, AND THE LESSER PROVINCES.

AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.
   (Edinburgh Review, 90: 230. 1849.)

AUSTRIA IN 1848-9.
   (Edinburgh Review, 174: 440. 1891.)

BONER, CHARLES.
   Transylvania.
   London: Longmans. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/transylvaniaits00bonegoog

BRACE, CHARLES LORING.
   Hungary in 1851.
   New York: Charles Scribner. 1852.
   https://archive.org/details/hungaryin1851wit01brac
   https://archive.org/details/hungaryinwithan00bracgoog

FELBERMANN, LOUIS.
   Hungary and its people.
   London: Griffith, Farran & Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/hungaryitspeople00felb

FITZMAURICE, EDMOND.
   Home rule in Austria.
   (Nineteenth Century, 19: 443. 1886.)

FORSTER, FLORENCE A.
   Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir, with a preface by
   M. E. Grant Duff.
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/francisdekhung00arnoiala
   https://archive.org/details/francisdekhunga00forgoog

GERARD, E.
   The land beyond the forest [Transylvania].
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1888. 2 volumes.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57168
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924011921420

GODKIN, EDWIN LAWRENCE
   History of Hungary and the Magyars.
   London: Cassell & Company. 1858.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofhungary00godkiala/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyhungarya00godkgoog

GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.
   My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9 (1851); translated.
   London: D. Bogue.
   New York: Harper & Brothers.
   https://archive.org/details/mylifeactsinhung00grrich

HOFER, ANDREW,
   Memoirs of the life of: containing an account of the
   transactions in the Tyrol, 1809: [translated] from the German,
   by C. H. Hall.
   London: John Murray. 1820.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeandr00unkngoog

KAY, DAVID.
   Home rule in Austria-Hungary.
   (Nineteenth Century, 19: 41. 1886.)
   https://archive.org/details/austriahungary00kayd

KLAPKA, _General_ GEORGE.
   Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary:
   translated by O. Wenckstern.
   London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep00wencgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep01klapgoog

MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
   Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary,
   and Germany.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39540
   https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00maurgoog/page/n16/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00unkngoog
   https://archive.org/details/therevolutionary39540gut
   https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymov00maur

PAGET, JOHN.
   Travels in Hungary and Transylvania (1839).
   London: John Murray.
   Philadelphia: Lea &: Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.36331/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0001.001.umich.edu/page/II/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/hungarytransylva02pageuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0002.001.umich.edu/page/n9/mode/2up

PARDOE, Miss JULIA.
   The city of the Magyar, or Hungary and her institutions in 1839-40.
   London: G. Virtue. 1840. 3 volumes.
   https://books.google.com/books/about/The_City_of_the_Magyar.html?id=S-gDAAAAQAAJ

PATON, A. A.
   Highlands and islands of the Adriatic.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1849. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/highlandsislands00pato/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dzbNcsnbcOYC

PATTERSON, ARTHUR J.
   The Magyars: their country and institutions.
   London: Smith, Elder & Company. 1869. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou06johngoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou01pattgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

PLANTA, JOSEPH.
   History of the Helvetic confederacy.
   London. 1800. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhelveti01planuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic02plangoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic00plangoog

PRICE, BONAMY.
   Austria and Hungary.
   (Fraser's Magazine, 65: 384. 1862.)

STILES, WILLIAM. H.
   Austria in 1848-49.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1852-3. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020130
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020148

SZABAD, EMERIC.
   Hungary, past and present.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.
   https://archive.org/details/hungarypastandp00szabgoog/page/n4/mode/2up

VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, _and_ LOUIS HEILPRIN.
   The story of Hungary (Story of the nations).
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50038
   https://archive.org/details/storyhungary00vmgoog


AUSTRIA AND ITALY.

ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.
   Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto02arrigoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto01arrigoog

AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND ITALY.
   (Edinburgh Review., 109: 286. 1859.)

AUSTRIANS AND ITALY, The.
   (Eclectic Magazine, 47: 538. 1859.)

GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.
   Autobiography: translated by A. Werner,
   with a supplement by Jessie White Mario.
   London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/autobiography01gariuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi00garigoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi02garigoog

ITALY AND THE WAR OF 1866.
   (Westminster Review., 87: 275. 1867.)

MAZADE, CHARLES DE.
   Life of Count Cavour.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofcountcavou00mazarich

O'CLERY, PATRICK KEYES (The Chevalier O'Clery).
   The history of the Italian revolution: 1st period, 1796-1849.
   London: R. Washbourne. 1875.
   https://archive.org/details/historyitalianr00oclgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

   The making of Italy.
   London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &: Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly18500oclerich
   https://archive.org/details/makingitaly00oclgoog
   https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly0000ocle/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/makingitaly01oclgoog

PROBYN, JOHN W.
   Italy, 1815-1890.
   London: Cassell & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallofn00probuoft
   https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna00probgoog
   https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna01probgoog/italyfromfallna01probgoog

STUART, R.
   The Austro-Italian alliance.
   (Contemporary Review., 40: 921. 1881.)

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
   The dawn of Italian Independence, 1814-1849.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1893. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind01thayiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind02thayuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924082152400

WRIGHTSON, RICHARD HEBER
   A history of modern Italy [1800-50].
   London: Richard Bentley. 1855.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.14113
   https://archive.org/details/ahistorymoderni00wriggoog

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.

CHESNEY, C. C.
   The campaign [of 1866] in western Germany.
   (Blackwood's Magazine, 101: 68. 1867.)

DICEY, EDWARD.
   The battlefields of 1866.
   London: Tinsley Brothers. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/battlefields00dicegoog

   The campaign [of 1866] in Germany.
   (Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 386. 1866.)

DICEY, EDWARD T.
   The campaign [of 1866] in Italy.
   (Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 241. 1866.)

GERMANIC CONFEDERATION and the Austrian empire, The.
   (Quarterly Review, 84: 425. 1849.)

HOZIER, H. M.
   The seven weeks' war [1866].
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1867. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238477
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45879

{xxxii}

LOWE, CHARLES.
   Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.
   London: Cassell & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/princebismarkhis00lowe
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarckhi01loweiala
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka01lowegoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka02lowegoog

MALET, _Sir_ ALEXANDER.
   The overthrow of the Germanic confederation. 1866.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77288/page/iii/mode/2up

MALLESON, _Colonel_. G. B.
   Battle-fields of Germany.
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/battlefieldsofge00malluoft

   The refounding of the German empire. 1848-71.
   London: Seeley & Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/refoundingofgerm00mall

PRUSSIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1806.
   (Edinburgh Review, 125: 187. 1867.)

RECONSTRUCTION OF GERMANY, The.
   (North British Review, 51: 133. 1869.)

SIMON, EDOUARD.
   The emperor William and his reign:
   from the French.
   London: Remington & Company. 1886. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama00simogoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama01simogoog

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   The founding of the German empire by William I.;
   based chiefly upon Prussian state documents:
   translated by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford, Jr.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Company. 1890-1. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman01sybe
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman02sybe
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman03sybe
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman04sybe
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman05sybe
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman06sybe

AUSTRIA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES.

AUSTRIA, GERMANY AND THE EASTERN QUESTION.
   (Fraser's Magazine, 96: 407. 1877.)

AUSTRIA'S POLICY IN THE EAST.
   (Macmillan's Magazine, 53: 17. 1885.)

BOURCHIER, John David
   The sentinel of the Balkans.
   (Fortnightly Review., 52: 806. 1889.)

CAILLARD, VINCENT.
   The Bulgarian imbroglio.
   (Fortnightly Review, 44: 740. 1885.)

FREEMAN; EDWARD A.
   The house of Habsburg in south-eastern Europe.
   (Fortnightly Review., 51: 839. 1889.)

   The position of the Austrian power in south-eastern Europe.
   (Contemporary Review., 41: 727. 1882.)


THE RECONSTRUCTED EMPIRE: ITS REFORMS AND POLICY.

AUSTRIA AND HER REFORMS.
   (Westminster Review. 75: 503. 1801.)

AUSTRIA SINCE SADOWA.
   (Quarterly Review., 131: 90. 1871.)

AUSTRIA: qu'est que c'est l'Austrie?
   (Edinburgh Review, 40: 298. 1824.)

AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM.
   (Westminster Review, 79: 333. 1863.)

BEUST, FRIEDRICH F. _Count_ VON.
   Memoirs [1830-1885].
   London: Remington & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.92139
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsfriedric00beusgoog

BOURCHIER, J. D.
   The heritage of the Hapsburgs.
   (Fortnightly Review, 51: 377. 1889.)

DILKE, _Sir_ CHARLES W.
   Position of European politics, 1887.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91722

DUALISM IN AUSTRIA.
   (Westminster Review, 88: 431. 1867.)

FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE AUSTRIAN
EMPIRE.
   (Foreign Quarterly Review, 18: 257. 1837.)

NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

   ----------Volume 1: End--------

   ----------Volume 2: Start--------

LIST OF MAPS.

Map of Europe at the close of the Tenth Century,
   To follow page 1020.

Map of Europe in 1768,
   To follow page 1086.

Four maps of France, A. D. 1154, 1180, 1814 and 1860,
   To follow page 1168.

Two maps of Central Europe, A. D. 848 and 888,
   On page 1404.

Map of Germany at the Peace of Westphalia,
   To follow page 1486.

Maps of Germany, A. D. 1815 and 1866;
  of the Netherlands, 1880-1889; and of the Zollverein,
  To follow page 1540


LOGICAL OUTLINES, IN COLORS.

English history,
   To follow page 730.

French history,
   To follow page 1158.
German history,
   To follow page 1428.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.

The Fifth Century,
   On page 1433.
The Sixth Century,
   On page 1434.


{769}

EL DORADO,
   The quest of.

   "When the Spaniards had conquered and pillaged the civilized
   empires on the table lands of Mexico, Bogota, and Peru, they
   began to look round for new scenes of conquest, new sources of
   wealth; the wildest rumours were received as facts, and the
   forests and savannas, extending for thousands of square miles
   to the eastward of the cordilleras of the Andes, were covered,
   in imagination, with populous kingdoms, and cities filled with
   gold. The story of El Dorado, of a priest or king smeared with
   oil and then coated with gold dust, probably originated in a
   custom which prevailed among the civilized Indians of the
   plateau of Bogota; but El Dorado was placed, by the credulous
   adventurers, in a golden city amidst the impenetrable forests
   of the centre of South America, and, as search after search
   failed, his position was moved further and further to the
   eastward, in the direction of Guiana. El Dorado, the phantom
   god of gold and silver, appeared in many forms. … The
   settlers at Quito and in Northern Peru talked of the golden
   empire of the Omaguas, while those in Cuzco and Charcas dreamt
   of the wealthy cities of Paytiti and Enim, on the banks of a
   lake far away, to the eastward of the Andes. These romantic
   fables, so firmly believed in those old days led to the
   exploration of vast tracts of country, by the fearless
   adventurers of the sixteenth century, portions of which have
   never been traversed since, even to this day. The most famous
   searches after El Dorado were undertaken from the coast of
   Venezuela, and the most daring leaders of these wild
   adventures were German knights."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Introduction to Simon's Account of the
      Expedition of Ursua and Aguirre
      (Hakluyt Society 1861)._

   "There were, along the whole coast of the Spanish Main,
   rumours of an inland country which abounded with gold. These
   rumours undoubtedly related to the kingdoms of Bogota and
   Tunja, now the Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Belalcazar, who was in
   quest of this country from Quito, Federman, who came from
   Venezuela, and Gonzalo Ximenez de Quesada, who sought it by
   way of the River Madalena, and who effected its conquest, met
   here. But in these countries also there were rumours of a rich
   land at a distance; similar accounts prevailed in Peru; in
   Peru they related to the Nuevo Reyno, there they related to
   Peru; and thus adventurers from both sides were allured to
   continue the pursuit after the game was taken. An imaginary
   kingdom was soon shaped out as the object of their quest, and
   stories concerning it were not more easily invented than
   believed. It was said that a younger brother of Atabalipa
   fled, after the destruction of the Incas, took with him the
   main part of their treasures, and founded a greater empire
   than that of which his family had been deprived. Sometimes the
   imaginary Emperor was called the Great Paytite, sometimes the
   Great Moxo, sometimes the Enim or Great Paru. An impostor at
   Lima affirmed that he had been in his capital, the city of
   Manoa, where not fewer than 3,000 workmen were employed in the
   silversmiths' street; he even produced a map of the country,
   in which he had marked a hill of gold, another of silver, and
   a third of salt. … This imaginary kingdom obtained the name
   of El Dorado from the fashion of its Lord, which has the merit
   of being in savage costume. His body was anointed every
   morning with a certain fragrant gum of great price, and gold
   dust was then blown upon him, through a tube, till he was
   covered with it: the whole was washed off at night. This the
   barbarian thought a more magnificent and costly attire than
   could be afforded by any other potentate in the world, and
   hence the Spaniards called him El Dorado, or the Gilded One. A
   history of all the expeditions which were undertaken for the
   conquest of his kingdom would form a volume not less
   interesting than extraordinary."

      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

   The most tragical and thrilling of the stories of the seekers
   after El Dorado is that which Mr. Markham introduces in the
   quotation above, and which Southey has told with full details
   in _The Expedition of Orsua; and the Crimes of Aguirre._
   The most famous of the expeditions were those in which Sir
   Walter Raleigh engaged, and two of which he personally led—in
   1595, and in 1617-18. Released from his long imprisonment in
   the Tower to undertake the latter, he returned from it, broken
   and shamed, to be sent to the scaffold as a victim sacrificed
   to the malignant resentment of Spain. How far Raleigh shared
   in the delusion of his age respecting El Dorado, and how far
   he made use of it merely to promote a great scheme for the
   "expansion of England," are questions that will probably
   remain forever in dispute.

      _Sir Walter Raleigh,
      Discoverie of the Large, Rich and
      Beautiful Empire of Guiana
      (Hakluyt Society 1848)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Van Heuvel,
      El Dorado._

      _E. Edwards,
      Life of Raleigh,
      volume 1, chapters 10 and 25._

      _P. F. Tytler,
      Life of Raleigh,
      chapters 3 and 6._

      _E. Gosse,
      Raleigh,
      chapters 4 and 9._

      _A. F. Bandelier,
      The gilded man._

ELECTORAL COLLEGE, The Germanic:
   Its rise and constitution.
   Its secularization and extinction.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152,
      and 1347-1493;
      also, 1801-1803,
      and 1805-1806.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION, The.

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

ELECTORS,
   Presidential, of the United States of America.

      See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION.

   "Electricity, through its etymology at least, traces its
   lineage back to Homeric times. In the Odyssey reference is
   made to the 'necklace hung with bits of amber' presented by
   the Phœnician traders to the Queen of Syra. Amber was highly
   prized by the ancients, having been extensively used as an
   ornamental gem, and many curious theories were suggested as to
   its origin. Some of these, although mythical, were singularly
   near the truth, and it is an interesting coincidence that in
   the well-known myth concerning the ill-fated and rash youth
   who so narrowly escaped wrecking the solar chariot and the
   terrestrial sphere, amber, the first known source of
   electricity, and the thunder-bolts of Jupiter are linked
   together. It is not unlikely that this substance was indebted,
   for some of the romance that clung to it through ages, to the
   fact that when rubbed it attracts light bodies. This property
   it was known to possess in the earliest times: it is the one
   single experiment in electricity which has come down to us
   from the remotest antiquity. … The power of certain fishes,
   notably what is known as the 'torpedo,' to produce
   electricity, was known at an early period, and was commented
   on by Pliny and Aristotle.
{770}
   … Up to the sixteenth [century] there seems to have been no
   attempt to study electrical phenomena in a really scientific
   manner. Isolated facts which almost thrust themselves upon
   observers, were noted, and, in common with a host of other
   natural phenomena, were permitted to stand alone, with no
   attempt at classification, generalization, or examination
   through experiment. … Dr. Gilbert can justly be called the
   creator of the science of electricity and magnetism. His
   experiments were prodigious in number, and many of his
   conclusions were correct and lasting. To him we are indebted
   for the name 'electricity,' which he bestowed upon the power
   or property which amber exhibited in attracting light bodies,
   borrowing the name from the substance itself, in order to
   define one of its attributes. … This application of
   experiment to the study of electricity, begun by Gilbert three
   hundred years ago, was industriously pursued by those who came
   after him, and the next two centuries witnessed a rapid
   development of science. Among the earlier students of this
   period were the English philosopher, Robert Boyle, and the
   celebrated burgomaster of Magdeburg, Otto von Guericke. The
   latter first noted the sound and light accompanying electrical
   excitation. These were afterwards independently discovered by
   Dr. Wall, an Englishman, who made the somewhat prophetic
   observation, 'This light and crackling seems in some degree to
   represent thunder and lightning.' Sir Isaac Newton made a few
   experiments in electricity, which he exhibited to the Royal
   Society. … Francis Hawksbee was an active and useful
   contributor to experimental investigation, and he also called
   attention to the resemblance between the electric spark and
   lightning. The most ardent student of electricity in the early
   years of the eighteenth century was Stephen Gray. He performed
   a multitude of experiments, nearly all of which added
   something to the rapidly accumulating stock of knowledge, but
   doubtless his most important contribution was his discovery of
   the distinction between conductors and non-conductors. …
   Some of Gray's papers fell into the hands of Dufay, an officer
   of the French army, who, after several years' service, had
   resigned his post to devote himself to scientific pursuits.
   … His most important discovery was the existence of two
   distinct species of electricity, which he named 'vitreous' and
   'resinous.' … A very important advance was made in 1745 in
   the invention of the Leyden jar or phial. As has so many times
   happened in the history of scientific discovery, it seems
   tolerably certain that this interesting device was hit upon by
   at least three persons, working independently of each other.
   One Cuneus, a monk named Kleist, and Professor Muschenbroeck,
   of Leyden, are all accredited with the discovery. … Sir
   William Watson perfected it by adding the outside metallic
   coating, and was by its aid enabled to fire gunpowder and
   other inflammables."

      _T. C. Mendenhall,
      A Century of Electricity,
      chapter 1._


ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1745-1747.
   Franklin's identification of Electricity with Lightning.

   "In 1745 Mr. Peter Collinson of the Royal Society sent a
   [Leyden] jar to the Library Society of Philadelphia, with
   instructions how to use it. This fell into the hands of
   Benjamin Franklin, who at once began a series of electrical
   experiments. On March 28, 1747, Franklin began his famous
   letters to Collinson. … In these letters he propounded the
   single-fluid theory of electricity, and referred all electric
   phenomena to its accumulation in bodies in quantities more
   than their natural share, or to its being withdrawn from them
   so as to leave them minus their proper portion." Meantime,
   numerous experiments with the Leyden jar had convinced
   Franklin of the identity of lightning and electricity, and he
   set about the demonstration of the fact. "The account given by
   Dr. Stuber of Philadelphia, an intimate personal friend of
   Franklin, and published in one of the earliest editions of the
   works of the great philosopher, is as follows:—'The plan
   which he had originally proposed was to erect on some high
   tower, or other elevated place, a sentry-box, from which
   should rise a pointed iron rod, insulated by being fixed in a
   cake of resin. Electrified clouds passing over this would, he
   conceived, impart to it a portion of their electricity, which
   would be rendered evident to the senses by sparks being
   emitted when a key, a knuckle, or other conductor was
   presented to it. Philadelphia at this time offered no
   opportunity of trying an experiment of this kind. Whilst
   Franklin was waiting for the erection of a spire, it occurred
   to him that he might have more ready access to the region of
   clouds by means of a common kite. He prepared one by attaching
   two cross-sticks to a silk handkerchief, which would not
   suffer so much from the rain as paper. To his upright stick
   was fixed an iron point. The string was, as usual, of hemp,
   except the lower end, which was silk. Where the hempen string
   terminated, a key was fastened. With this apparatus, on the
   appearance of a thunder-gust approaching, he went into the
   common, accompanied by his son, to whom alone he communicated
   his intentions, well knowing the ridicule which, too generally
   for the interest of science, awaits unsuccessful experiments in
   philosophy. He placed himself under a shed to avoid the rain.
   His kite was raised. A thunder-cloud passed over it. No signs
   of electricity appeared. He almost despaired of success, when
   suddenly he observed the loose fibres of his string move
   toward an erect position. He now pressed his knuckle to the
   key, and received a strong spark. How exquisite must his
   sensations have been at this moment! On his experiment
   depended the fate of his theory. Doubt and despair had begun
   to prevail, when the fact was ascertained in so clear a
   manner, that even the most incredulous could no longer
   withhold their assent. Repeated sparks were drawn from the
   key, a phial was charged, a shock given, and all the
   experiments made which are usually performed with
   electricity.' And thus the identity of lightning and
   electricity was proved. … Franklin's proposition to erect
   lightning rods which would convey the lightning to the ground,
   and so protect the buildings to which they were attached, found
   abundant opponents. … Nevertheless, public opinion became
   settled … that they did protect buildings. … Then the
   philosophers raised a new controversy as to whether the
   conductors should be blunt or pointed; Franklin, Cavendish,
   and Watson advocating points, and Wilson blunt ends. … The
   logic of experiment, however, showed the advantage of pointed
   conductors; and people persisted then in preferring them, as
   they have done ever since."

{771}

      _P. Benjamin,
      The Age of Electricity,
      chapter 3._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1753-1820.
   The beginnings of the Electric Telegraph.

   "The first actual suggestion of an electric telegraph was made
   in an anonymous letter published in the Scots Magazine at
   Edinburgh, February 17th, 1753. The letter is initialed 'C.
   M.,' and many attempts have been made to discover the author's
   identity. … The suggestions made in this letter were that a
   set of twenty-six wires should be stretched upon insulated
   supports between the two places which it was desired to put in
   connection, and at each end of every wire a metallic ball was
   to be suspended, having under it a letter of the alphabet
   inscribed upon a piece of paper. … The message was to be
   read off at the receiving station by observing the letters
   which were successively attracted by their corresponding
   balls, as soon as the wires attached to the latter received a
   charge from the distant conductor. In 1787 Monsieur Lomond, of
   Paris, made the very important step of reducing the twenty-six
   wires to one, and indicating the different letters by various
   combinations of simple movements of an indicator, consisting
   of a pith-ball suspended by means of a thread from a conductor
   in contact with the wire. … In the year 1790 Chappe, the
   inventor of the semaphore, or optico-mechanical telegraph,
   which was in practical use previous to the introduction of the
   electric telegraph, devised a means of communication,
   consisting of two clocks regulated so that the second hands
   moved in unison, and pointed at the same instant to the same
   figures. … In the early form of the apparatus, the exact
   moment at which the observer at the receiving station should
   read off the figure to which the hand pointed was indicated by
   means of a sound signal produced by the primitive method of
   striking a copper stew pan, but the inventor soon adopted the
   plan of giving electrical signals instead of sound signals.
   … In 1795 Don Francisco Salva … suggested … that instead
   of twenty-six wires being used, one for each letter, six or
   eight wires only should be employed, each charged by a Leyden
   jar, and that different letters should be formed by means of
   various combinations of signals from these. … Mr.
   (afterwards Sir Francis) Ronalds … took up the subject of
   telegraphy in the year 1816, and published an account of his
   experiments in 1823," based on the same idea as that of
   Chappe. … "Ronalds drew up a sort of telegraphic code by
   which words, and sometimes even complete sentences, could be
   transmitted by only three discharges. … Ronalds completely
   proved the practicability of his plan, not only on [a] short
   underground line, …. but also upon an overhead line some
   eight miles in length, constructed by carrying a telegraph
   wire backwards and forwards over a wooden frame-work erected
   in his garden at Hammersmith. … The first attempt to employ
   voltaic electricity in telegraphy was made by Don Francisco
   Salva, whose frictional telegraph has already been referred
   to. On the 14th of May, 1800, Salva read a paper on 'Galvanism
   and its application to Telegraphy' before the Academy of Sciences
   at Barcelona, in which he described a number of experiments
   which he had made in telegraphing over a line some 310 metres
   in length. … A few years later he applied the then recent
   discovery of the Voltaic pile to the same purpose, the
   liberation of bubbles of gas by the decomposition of water at
   the receiving station being the method adopted for indicating
   the passage of the signals. A telegraph of a very similar
   character was devised by Sömmering, and described in a paper
   communicated by the inventor to the Munich Academy of Sciences
   in 1809. Sömmering used a set of thirty-five wires corresponding
   to the twenty-five letters of the German alphabet and the ten
   numerals. … Oersted's discovery of the action of the
   electric current upon a suspended magnetic needle provided a
   new and much more hopeful method of applying the electric
   current to telegraphy. The great French astronomer Laplace
   appears to have been the first to suggest this application of
   Oersted's discovery, and he was followed shortly afterwards by
   Ampere, who in the year 1820 read a paper before the Paris
   Academy of Sciences."

      _G. W. De Tunzelmann,
      Electricity in Modern Life,
      chapter 9._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1786-1800.
   Discoveries of Galvani and Volta.

   "The fundamental experiment which led to the discovery of
   dynamical electricity [1786] is due to Galvani, professor of
   anatomy in Bologna. Occupied with investigations on the
   influence of electricity on the nervous excitability of
   animals, and especially of the frog, he observed that when the
   lumbar nerves of a dead frog were connected with the crural
   muscles by a metallic circuit, the latter became briskly
   contracted. … Galvani had some time before observed that the
   electricity of machines produced in dead frogs analogous
   contractions, and he attributed the phenomena first described
   to an electricity inherent in the animal. He assumed that this
   electricity, which he called vital fluid, passed from the
   nerves to the muscles by the metallic arc, and was thus the
   cause of contraction. This theory met with great support,
   especially among physiologists, but it was not without
   opponents. The most considerable of these was Alexander Volta,
   professor of physics in Pavia. Galvani's attention had been
   exclusively devoted to the nerves and muscles of the frog;
   Volta's was directed upon the connecting metal. Resting on the
   observation, which Galvani had also made, that the contraction
   is more energetic when the connecting arc is composed of two
   metals than where there is only one, Volta attributed to the
   metals the active part in the phenomenon of contraction. He
   assumed that the disengagement of electricity was due to their
   contact, and that the animal parts only officiated as
   conductors, and at the same time as a very sensitive
   electroscope. By means of the then recently invented
   electroscope, Volta devised several modes of showing the
   disengagement of electricity on the contact of metals. … A
   memorable controversy arose between Galvani and Volta. The
   latter was led to give greater extension to his contact
   theory, and propounded the principle that when two
   heterogeneous substances are placed in contact, one of them
   always assumes the positive and the other the negative
   electrical condition. In this form Volta's theory obtained the
   assent of the principal philosophers of his time."

      _A. Ganot,
      Elementary Treatise on Physics;
      translated by Atkinson, book 10, chapter 1._

   Volta's theory, however, though somewhat misleading, did not
   prevent his making what was probably the greatest step in the
   science up to this time, in the invention (about 1800) of the
   Voltaic pile, the first generator of electrical energy by
   chemical means, and the forerunner of the vast number of types
   of the modern "battery."

{772}

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1810-1890.
   The Arc light.

   "The earliest instance of applying Electricity to the
   production of light was in 1810, by Sir Humphrey Davy, who
   found that when the points of two carbon rods whose other ends
   were connected by wires with a powerful primary battery were
   brought into contact, and then drawn a little way apart, the
   Electric current still continued to jump across the gap,
   forming what is now termed an Electric Arc. … Various
   contrivances have been devised for automatically regulating
   the position of the two carbons. As early as 1847, a lamp was
   patented by Staite, in which the carbon rods were fed together
   by clockwork. … Similar devices were produced by Foucault
   and others, but the first really successful arc lamp was
   Serrin's, patented in 1857, which has not only itself survived
   until the present day, but has had its main features
   reproduced in many other lamps. … The Jablochkoff Candle
   (1876), in which the arc was formed between the ends of a pair
   of carbon rods placed side by side, and separated by a layer of
   insulating material, which slowly consumed as the carbons
   burnt down, did good service in accustoming the public to the
   new illuminant. Since then the inventions by Brush,
   Thomson-Houston, and others have done much to bring about its
   adoption for lighting large rooms, streets, and spaces out of
   doors."

      _J. B. Verity,
      Electricity up to Date for Light, Power, and Traction,
      chapter 3._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1820-1825.
   Oersted, Ampere, and the discovery of the Electro-Magnet.

   "There is little chance … that the discoverer of the magnet,
   or the discoverer and inventor of the magnetic needle, will
   ever be known by name, or that even the locality and date of
   the discovery will ever be determined [see COMPASS]. … The
   magnet and magnetism received their first scientific treatment
   at the hands of Dr. Gilbert. During the two centuries
   succeeding the publication of his work, the science of
   magnetism was much cultivated. … The development of the
   science went along parallel with that of the science of
   electricity … although the latter was more fruitful in novel
   discoveries and unexpected applications than the former. It is
   not to be imagined that the many close resemblances of the two
   classes of phenomena were allowed to pass unnoticed. … There
   was enough resemblance to suggest an intimate relation; and
   the connecting link was sought for by many eminent
   philosophers during the last years of the eighteenth and the
   earlier years of the present century."

      _T. C. Mendenhall,
      A Century of Electricity,
      chapter 3._

   "The effect which an electric current, flowing in a wire, can
   exercise upon a neighbouring compass needle was discovered by
   Oersted in 1820. This first announcement of the possession of
   magnetic properties by an electric current was followed
   speedily by the researches of Ampere, Arago, Davy, and by the
   devices of several other experimenters, including De la Rive's
   floating battery and coil, Schweigger's multiplier, Cumming's
   galvanometer, Faraday's apparatus for rotation of a permanent
   magnet, Marsh's vibrating pendulum and Barlow's rotating
   star-wheel. But it was not until 1825 that the electromagnet
   was invented. Arago announced, on 25th September 1820, that a
   copper wire uniting the poles of a voltaic cell, and
   consequently traversed by an electric current, could attract
   iron filings to itself laterally. In the same communication he
   described how he had succeeded in communicating permanent
   magnetism to steel needles laid at right angles to the copper
   wire, and how, on showing this experiment to Ampere, the
   latter had suggested that the magnetizing action would be more
   intense if for the straight copper wire there were substituted
   one wrapped in a helix, in the centre of which the steel
   needle might be placed. This suggestion was at once carried
   out by the two philosophers. 'A copper wire wound in a helix
   was terminated by two rectilinear portions which could be
   adapted, at will, to the opposite poles of a powerful
   horizontal voltaic pile; a steel needle wrapped up in paper
   was introduced into the helix.' 'Now, after some minutes'
   sojourn in the helix, the steel needle had received a
   sufficiently strong dose of magnetism.' Arago then wound upon
   a little glass tube some short helices, each about 2¼ inches
   long, coiled alternately right-handedly and left-handedly, and
   found that on introducing into the glass tube a steel wire, he
   was able to produce 'consequent poles' at the places where the
   winding was reversed. Ampère, on October 23rd, 1820, read a
   memoir, claiming that these facts confirmed his theory of
   magnetic actions. Davy had, also, in 1820, surrounded with
   temporary coils of wire the steel needles upon which he was
   experimenting, and had shown that the flow of electricity
   around the coil could confer magnetic power upon the steel
   needles. … The electromagnet, in the form which can first
   claim recognition … was devised by William Sturgeon, and is
   described by him in the paper which he contributed to the
   Society of Arts in 1825."

      _S. P. Thompson,
      The Electromagnet,
      chapter 1._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1825-1874.
   The Perfected Telegraph.

   "The European philosophers kept on groping. At the end of five
   years [after Oersted's discovery], one of them reached an
   obstacle which he made up his mind was so entirely
   insurmountable, that it rendered the electric telegraph an
   impossibility for all future time. This was [1825] Mr. Peter
   Barlow, fellow of the Royal Society, who had encountered the
   question whether the lengthening of the conducting wire would
   produce any effect in diminishing the energy of the current
   transmitted, and had undertaken to resolve the problem. … 'I
   found [he said] such a considerable diminution with only 200
   feet of wire as at once to convince me of the impracticability
   of the scheme.' … The year following the announcement of
   Barlow's conclusions, a young graduate of the Albany (N. Y.)
   Academy—by name Joseph Henry—was appointed to the
   professorship of mathematics in that institution. Henry there
   began the series of scientific investigations which is now
   historic. … Up to that time, electro-magnets had been made
   with a single coil of naked wire wound spirally around the
   core, with large intervals between the strands. The core was
   insulated as a whole: the wire was not insulated at all.
   Professor Schweigger, who had previously invented the
   multiplying galvanometer, had covered his wires with silk.
   Henry followed this idea, and, instead of a single coil of
   wire, used several. … Barlow had said that the gentle
   current of the galvanic battery became so weakened, after
   traversing 200 feet of wire, that it was idle to consider the
   possibility of making it pass over even a mile of conductor
   and then affect a magnet.
{773}
   Henry's reply was to point out that the trouble lay in the way
   Barlow's magnet was made. … Make the magnet so that the
   diminished current will exercise its full effect. Instead of
   using one short coil, through which the current can easily
   slip, and do nothing, make a coil of many turns; that
   increases the magnetic field: make it of fine wire, and of
   higher resistance. And then, to prove the truth of his
   discovery, Henry put up the first electro-magnetic telegraph
   ever constructed. In the academy at Albany, in 1831, he
   suspended 1,060 feet of bell-wire, with a battery at one end
   and one of his magnets at the other; and he made the magnet
   attract and release its armature. The armature struck a bell,
   and so made the signals. Annihilating distance in this way was
   only one part of Henry's discovery. He had also found, that,
   to obtain the greatest dynamic effect close at hand, the
   battery should be composed of a very few cells of large
   surface, combined with a coil or coils of short coarse wire
   around the magnet,—conditions just the reverse of those
   necessary when the magnet was to be worked at a distance. Now,
   he argued, suppose the magnet with the coarse short coil, and
   the large-surface battery, be put at the receiving station;
   and the current coming over the line be used simply to make
   and break the circuit of that local battery. … This is the
   principle of the telegraphic 'relay.' In 1835 Henry worked a
   telegraph-line in that way at Princeton. And thus the
   electro-magnetic telegraph was completely invented and
   demonstrated. There was nothing left to do, but to put up the
   posts, string the lines, and attach the instruments."

      _P. Benjamin,
      The Age of Electricity,
      chapter 11._

   "At last we leave the territory of theory and experiment and
   come to that of practice. 'The merit of inventing the modern
   telegraph, and applying it on a large scale for public use,
   is, beyond all question, due to Professor Morse of the United
   States.' So writes Sir David Brewster, and the best
   authorities on the question substantially agree with him. …
   Leaving for future consideration Morse's telegraph, which was
   not introduced until five years after the time when he was
   impressed with the notion of its feasibility, we may mention
   the telegraph of Gauss and Weber of Göttingen. In 1833, they
   erected a telegraphic wire between the Astronomical and
   Magnetical Observatory of Göttingen, and the Physical Cabinet
   of the University, for the purpose of carrying intelligence
   from the one locality to the other. To these great
   philosophers, however, rather the theory than the practice of
   Electric Telegraphy was indebted. Their apparatus was so
   improved as to be almost a new invention by Steinheil of
   Munich, who, in 1837 … succeeded in sending a current from
   one end to the other of a wire 36,000 feet in length, the
   action of which caused two needles to vibrate from side to
   side, and strike a bell at each movement. To Steinheil the
   honour is due of having discovered the important and
   extraordinary fact that the earth might be used as a part of
   the circuit of an electric current. The introduction of the
   Electric Telegraph into England dates from the same year as
   that in which Steinheil's experiments took place. William
   Fothergill Cooke, a gentleman who held a commission in the
   Indian army, returned from India on leave of absence, and
   afterwards, because of his bad health, resigned his
   commission, and went to Heidelberg to study anatomy. In 1836,
   Professor Mönke, of Heidelberg, exhibited an
   electro-telegraphic experiment, 'in which electric currents,
   passing along a conducting wire, conveyed signals to a distant
   station by the deflexion of a magnetic needle enclosed in
   Schweigger's galvanometer or multiplier.' … Cooke was so
   struck with this experiment, that he immediately resolved to
   apply it to purposes of higher utility than the illustration
   of a lecture. … In a short time he produced two telegraphs
   of different construction. When his plans were completed, he
   came to England, and in February, 1837, having consulted
   Faraday and Dr. Roget on the construction of the
   electric-magnet employed in a part of his apparatus, the
   latter gentleman advised him to apply to Professor Wheatstone.
   … The result of the meeting of Cooke and Wheatstone was that
   they resolved to unite their several discoveries; and in the
   month of May 1837, they took out their first patent 'for
   improvements in giving signals and sounding alarms in distant
   places by means of electric currents transmitted through
   metallic circuits.' … By-and-by, as might probably have been
   anticipated, difficulties arose between Cooke and Wheatstone,
   as to whom the main credit of introducing the Electric
   Telegraph into England was due. Mr. Cooke accused Wheatstone
   (with a certain amount of justice, it should seem) of entirely
   ignoring his claims; and in doing so Mr. Cooke appears to have
   rather exaggerated his own services. Most will readily agree
   to the wise words of Mr. Sabine: "It was once a popular
   fallacy in England that Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone were the
   original inventors of the Electric Telegraph. The Electric
   Telegraph had, properly speaking, no inventor; it grew up as
   we have seen little by little."

      _H. J. Nicoll,
      Great Movements,
      pages 424-429._

   "In the latter part of the year 1832, Samuel F. B. Morse, an
   American artist, while on a voyage from France to the United
   States, conceived the idea of an electromagnetic telegraph
   which should consist of the following parts, viz: A single
   circuit of conductors from some suitable generator of
   electricity; a system of signs, consisting of dots or points
   and spaces to represent numerals; a method of causing the
   electricity to mark or imprint these signs upon a strip or
   ribbon of paper by the mechanical action of an electro-magnet
   operating upon the paper by means of a lever, armed at one end
   with a pen or pencil; and a method of moving the paper ribbon
   at a uniform rate by means of clock-work to receive the
   characters. … In the autumn of the year 1835 he constructed
   the first rude working model of his invention. … The first
   public exhibition … was on the 2d of September, 1837, on
   which occasion the marking was successfully effected through
   one third of a mile of wire. Immediately afterwards a
   recording instrument was constructed … which was
   subsequently employed upon the first experimental line between
   Washington and Baltimore. This line was constructed in 1843-44
   under an appropriation by Congress, and was completed by May
   of the latter year. On the 27th of that month the first
   despatch was transmitted from Washington to Baltimore. … The
   experimental line was originally constructed with two wires,
   as Morse was not at that time acquainted with the discovery of
   Steinheil, that the earth might be used to complete the circuit.
{774}
   Accident, however, soon demonstrated this fact. … The
   following year (1845) telegraph lines began to be built over
   other routes. … In October, 1851, a convention of deputies
   from the German States of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
   Würtemberg and Saxony, met at Vienna, for the purpose of
   establishing a common and uniform telegraphic system, under
   the name of the German-Austrian Telegraph Union. The various
   systems of telegraphy then in use were subjected to the most
   thorough examination and discussion. The convention decided
   with great unanimity that the Morse system was practically far
   superior to all others, and it was accordingly adopted. Prof.
   Steinheil, although himself … the inventor of a telegraphic
   system, with a magnanimity that does him high honor, strongly
   urged upon the convention the adoption of the American
   system." … The first of the printing telegraphs was patented
   in the United States by Royal E. House, in 1846. The Hughes
   printing telegraph, a remarkable piece of mechanism, was
   patented by David E. Hughes, of Kentucky, in 1855. A system
   known as the automatic method, in which the signals
   representing letters are transmitted over the line through the
   instrumentality of mechanism, was originated by Alexander Bain
   of Edinburgh, whose first patents were taken out in 1846. An
   autographic telegraph, transmitting despatches in the
   reproduced hand-writing of the sender, was brought out in
   1850, by F. C. Bakewell, of London. The same result was
   afterwards accomplished with variations of method by Charles
   Cros, of Paris, Abbé Caseli, of Florence, and others; but none
   of these inventions has been extensively used. "The
   possibility of making use of a single wire for the
   simultaneous transmission of two or more communications seems
   to have first suggested itself to Moses G. Farmer, of Boston,
   about the year 1852." The problem was first solved with
   partial success by Dr. Gintl, on the line between Prague and
   Vienna, in 1853, but more perfectly by Carl Frischen, of
   Hanover, in the following year. Other inventors followed in
   the same field, among them Thomas A. Edison, of New Jersey,
   who was led by his experiments finally, in 1874 to devise a
   system "which was destined to furnish the basis of the first
   practical solution of the curious and interesting problem of
   quadruplex telegraphy."

      _G. B. Prescott,
      Electricity and the Electric Telegraph,
      chapter 29-40._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1831-1872.
   Dynamo
   Electrical Machines, and Electric Motors.

   "The discovery of induction by Faraday, in 1831, gave rise to
   the construction of magneto-electro machines. The first of
   such machines that was ever made was probably a machine that
   never came into practical use, the description of which was
   given in a letter, signed 'P. M.,' and directed to Faraday,
   published in the Philosophical Magazine of 2nd August, 1832.
   We learn from this description that the essential parts of
   this machine were six horse-shoe magnets attached to a disc,
   which rotated in front of six coils of wire wound on bobbins."
   Sept. 3rd, 1832, Pixii constructed a machine in which a single
   horse-shoe magnet was made to rotate before two soft iron
   cores, wound with wire. In this machine he introduced the
   commutator, an essential element in all modern continuous
   current machines. "Almost at the same time, Ritchie, Saxton,
   and Clarke constructed similar machines. Clarke's is the best
   known, and is still popular in the small and portable
   'medical' machines so commonly sold. … A larger machine
   [was] constructed by Stöhrer (1843), on the same plan as
   Clarke's, but with six coils instead of two, and three
   compound magnets instead of one. … The machines, constructed
   by Nollet (1849) and Shepard (1856) had still more magnets and
   coils. Shepard's machine was modified by Van Malderen, and was
   called the Alliance machine. … Dr. Werner Siemens, while
   considering how the inducing effect of the magnet can be most
   thoroughly utilised, and how to arrange the coils in the most
   efficient manner for this purpose, was led in 1857 to devise
   the cylindrical armature. … Sinsteden in 1851 pointed out
   that the current of the generator may itself be utilised to
   excite the magnetism of the field magnets. … Wilde [in 1863]
   carried out this suggestion by using a small steel permanent
   magnet and larger electro magnets. … The next great
   improvement of these machines arose from the discovery of what
   may be called the dynamo-electric principle. This principle
   may be stated as follows:—For the generation of currents by
   magneto-electric induction it is not necessary that the
   machine should be furnished with permanent magnets; the
   residual or temporary magnetism of soft iron quickly rotating
   is sufficient for the purpose. … In 1867 the principle was
   clearly enunciated and used simultaneously, but independently,
   by Siemens and by Wheatstone. … It was in February, 1867,
   that Dr. C. W. Siemens' classical paper on the conversion of
   dynamical into electrical energy without the aid of permanent
   magnetism was read before the Royal Society. Strangely enough,
   the discovery of the same principle was enunciated at the same
   meeting of the Society by Sir Charles Wheatstone. … The
   starting-point of a great improvement in dynamo-electric
   machines, was the discovery by Pacinotti of the ring armature
   … in 1860. … Gramme, in 1871, modified the ring armature,
   and constructed the first machine, in which he made use of the
   Gramme ring and the dynamic principle. In 1872,
   Hefner-Alteneck, of the firm of Siemens and Halske,
   constructed a machine in which the Gramme ring is replaced by
   a drum armature, that is to say, by a cylinder round which
   wire is wound. … Either the Pacinotti-Gramme ring armature,
   or the Hefner-Alteneck drum armature, is now adopted by nearly
   all constructors of dynamo-electric machines, the parts
   varying of course in minor details." The history of the dynamo
   since has been one of a gradual perfection of parts, resulting
   in the production of a great number of types, which can not
   here even be mentioned.

      _A. R. von Urbanitzky,
      Electricity in the Service of Man,
      pages 227-242._

      _S. P. Thompson,
      Dynamo Electrical Machines._

ELECTRICITY:
   Electric Motors.

   It has been known for forty years that every form of electric
   motor which operated on the principle of mutual mechanical
   force between a magnet and a conducting wire or coil could
   also be made to act as a generator of induced currents by the
   reverse operation of producing the motion mechanically. And
   when, starting from the researches of Siemens, Wilde, Nollet,
   Holmes and Gramme, the modern forms of magneto-electric and
   dynamo-electric machines began to come into commercial use, it
   was discovered that any one of the modern machines designed as
   a generator of currents constituted a far more efficient
   electric motor than any of the previous forms which had been
   designed specially as motors.
{775}
   It required no new discovery of the law of reversibility to
   enable the electrician to understand this; but to convince the
   world required actual experiment."

      _A. Guillemin,
      Electricity and Magnetism,
      part 2, chapter 10, section 3._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1835-1889.
   The Electric Railway.

   "Thomas Davenport, a poor blacksmith of Brandon, Vt.,
   constructed what might be termed the first electric railway.
   The invention was crude and of little practical value, but the
   idea was there. In 1835 he exhibited in Springfield,
   Massachusetts, a small model electric engine running upon a
   circular track, the circuit being furnished by primary
   batteries carried in the car. Three years later, Robert
   Davidson, of Aberdeen, Scotland, began his experiments in this
   direction. … He constructed quite a powerful motor, which
   was mounted upon a truck. Forty battery cells, carried on the
   car, furnished power to propel the motor. The battery elements
   were composed of amalgamated zinc and iron plates, the
   exciting liquid being dilute sulphuric acid. This locomotive
   was run successfully on several steam railroads in Scotland,
   the speed attained was four miles an hour, but this machine
   was afterwards destroyed by some malicious person or persons
   while it was being taken home to Aberdeen. In 1849 Moses
   Farmer exhibited an electric engine which drew a small car
   containing two persons. In 1851, Dr. Charles Grafton Page, of
   Salem, Massachusetts, perfected an electric engine of
   considerable power. On April 29 of that year the engine was
   attached to a car and a trip was made from Washington to
   Bladensburg, over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad track. The
   highest speed attained was nineteen miles an hour. The
   electric power was furnished by one hundred Grove cells
   carried on the engine. … The same year, Thomas Hall, of
   Boston, Mass., built a small electric locomotive called the
   Volta. The current was furnished by two Grove battery cells
   which were conducted to the rails, thence through the wheels
   of the locomotive to the motor. This was the first instance of
   the current being supplied to the motor on a locomotive from a
   stationary source. It was exhibited at the Charitable
   Mechanics fair by him in 1860. … In 1879, Messrs. Siemen and
   Halske, of Berlin, constructed and operated an electric
   railway at the Industrial Exposition. A third rail placed in
   the centre of the two outer rails, supplied the current, which
   was taken up into the motor through a sliding contact under
   the locomotive. … In 1880 Thomas A. Edison constructed an
   experimental road near his laboratory in Menlo Park, N. J. The
   power from the locomotive was transferred to the car by belts
   running to and from the shafts of each. The current was taken
   from and returned through the rails. Early in the year of 1881
   the Lichterfelde, Germany, electric railway was put into
   operation. It is a third rail system and is still running at
   the present time. This may be said to be the first commercial
   electric railway constructed. In 1883 the Daft Electric
   Company equipped and operated quite successfully an electric
   system on the Saratoga & Mt. McGregor Railroad, at Saratoga,
   N. Y." During the next five or six years numerous electric
   railroads, more or less experimental, were built." October 31,
   1888, the Council Bluffs & Omaha Railway and Bridge Company
   was first operated by electricity, they using the
   Thomson-Houston system. The same year the Thomson-Houston Co.
   equipped the Highland Division of the Lynn & Boston Horse
   Railway at Lynn, Massachusetts. Horse railways now began to be
   equipped with electricity all over the world, and especially
   in the United States. In February, 1889, the Thomson-Houston
   Electric Co. had equipped the line from Bowdoin Square,
   Boston, to Harvard Square, Cambridge, of the West End Railway
   with electricity and operated twenty cars, since which time it
   has increased its electrical apparatus, until now it is the
   largest electric railway line in the world."

      _E. Trevert,
      Electric Railway Engineering,
      appendix A._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1841-1880.
   The Incandescent Electric Light.

   "While the arc lamp is well adapted for lighting large areas
   requiring a powerful, diffused light, similar to sunlight, and
   hence is suitable for outdoor illumination, and for workshops,
   stores, public buildings, and factories, especially those
   where colored fabrics are produced, its use in ordinary
   dwellings, or for a desk light in offices, is impractical, a
   softer, steadier, and more economical light being required.
   Various attempts to modify the arc-light by combining it with
   the incandescent were made in the earlier stages of electric
   lighting. … The first strictly incandescent lamp was
   invented in 1841 by Frederick de Molyens of Cheltenham,
   England, and was constructed on the simple principle of the
   incandescence produced by the high resistance of a platinum
   wire to the passage of the electric current. In 1849 Petrie
   employed iridium for the same purpose, also alloys of iridium
   and platinum, and iridium and carbon. In 1845 J. W. Starr of
   Cincinnati first proposed the use of carbon, and, associated
   with King, his English agent, produced, through the financial
   aid of the philanthropist Peabody, an incandescent lamp. …
   In all these early experiments, the battery was the source of
   electric supply; and the comparatively small current required
   for the incandescent light as compared with that required for
   the arc light, was an argument in favor of the former. …
   Still, no substantial progress was made with either system
   till the invention of the dynamo resulted in the practical
   development of both systems, that of the incandescent
   following that of the arc. Among the first to make
   incandescent lighting a practical success were Sawyer and Man
   of New York, and Edison. For a long time, Edison experimented
   with platinum, using fine platinum wire coiled into a spiral,
   so as to concentrate the heat, and produce incandescence; the
   same current producing only a red heat when the wire, whether
   of platinum or other metal, is stretched out. … Failing to
   obtain satisfactory results from platinum, Edison turned his
   attention to carbon, the superiority of which as an
   incandescent illuminant had already been demonstrated; but its
   rapid consumption, as shown by the Reynier and similar lamps,
   being unfavorable to its use as compared with the durability
   of platinum and iridium, the problem was, to secure the
   superior illumination of the carbon, and reduce or prevent its
   consumption. As this consumption was due chiefly to oxidation,
   it was questionable whether the superior illumination were not
   due to the same cause, and whether, if the carbon were inclosed
   in a glass globe, from which oxygen was eliminated, the same
   illumination could be obtained.
{776}
   Another difficulty of equal magnitude was to obtain a
   sufficiently perfect vacuum, and maintain it in a hermetically
   sealed globe inclosing the carbon, and at the same time
   maintain electric connection with the generator through the
   glass by a metal conductor, subject to expansion and
   contraction different from that of the glass, by the change of
   temperature due to the passage of the electric current. Sawyer
   and Man attempted to solve this problem by filling the globe
   with nitrogen, thus preventing combustion by eliminating the
   oxygen. … The results obtained by this method, which at one
   time attracted a great deal of attention, were not
   sufficiently satisfactory to become practical; and Edison and
   others gave their preference to the vacuum method, and sought
   to overcome the difficulties connected with it. The invention
   of the mercurial air pump, with its subsequent improvements,
   made it possible to obtain a sufficiently perfect vacuum, and
   the difficulty of introducing the current into the interior of
   the globe was overcome by imbedding a fine platinum wire in
   the glass, connecting the inclosed carbon with the external
   circuit; the expansion and contraction of the platinum not
   differing sufficiently from that of the glass, in so fine a
   wire, as to impair the vacuum. … The carbons made by Edison
   under his first patent in 1879, were obtained from brown paper
   or cardboard. … They were very fragile and short-lived, and
   consequently were soon abandoned. In 1880 he patented the
   process which, with some modifications, he still adheres to.
   In this process he uses filaments of bamboo, which are taken
   from the interior, fibrous portion of the plant."

      _P. Atkinson,
      Elements of Electric Lighting,
      chapter 8._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Atlantic Cable.

   "Cyrus Field … established a company in America (in 1854),
   which … obtained the right of landing cables in Newfoundland
   for fifty years. Soundings were made in 1856 between Ireland
   and Newfoundland, showing a maximum depth of 4,400 metres.
   Having succeeded after several attempts in laying a cable
   between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Field founded the
   Atlantic Telegraph Company in England. … The length of the
   … cable [used] was 4,000 kilometres, and was carried by the
   two ships Agamemnon and Niagara. The distance between the two
   stations on the coasts was 2,640 kilometres. The laying of the
   cable commenced on the 7th of August, 1857, at Valentia
   (Ireland); on the third day the cable broke at a depth of
   3,660 metres, and the expedition had to return. A second
   expedition was sent in 1858; the two ships met each other
   half-way, the ends of the cable were joined, and the lowering
   of it commenced in both directions; 149 kilometres were thus
   lowered, when a fault in the cable was discovered. It had,
   therefore, to be brought on board again, and was broken during
   the process. After it had been repaired, and when 476
   kilometres had been already laid, another fault was
   discovered, which caused another breakage; this time it was
   impossible to repair it, and the expedition was again
   unsuccessful, and had to return. In spite of the repeated
   failures, two ships were again sent out in the same year, and
   this time one end of the cable was landed in Ireland, and the
   other at Newfoundland. The length of the sunk cable was 3,745
   kilometres. Field's first telegram was sent on the 7th of
   August, from America to Ireland. The insulation of the cable,
   however, became more defective every day, and failed
   altogether on the 1st of September. From the experience
   obtained, it was concluded that it was possible to lay a
   trans-Atlantic cable, and the company, after consulting a
   number of professional men, again set to work. … The Great
   Eastern was employed in laying this cable. This ship, which is
   211 metres long, 25 metres broad, and 16 metres in height,
   carried a crew of 500 men, of which 120 were electricians and
   engineers, 179 mechanics and stokers, and 115 sailors. The
   management of all affairs relating to the laying of the cable
   was entrusted to Canning. The coast cable was laid on the 21st
   of July, and the end of it was connected with the Atlantic
   cable on the 23rd. After 1,326 kilometres had been laid, a
   fault was discovered, an iron wire was found stuck right
   across the cable, and Canning considered the mischief to have
   been done with a malevolent purpose. On the 2nd of August,
   2,196 kilometres of cable were sunk, when another fault was
   discovered. While the cable was being repaired it broke, and
   attempts to recover it at the time were all unsuccessful; in
   consequence of this the Great Eastern had to return without
   having completed the task. A new company, the Anglo-American
   Telegraph Company, was formed in 1866, and at once entrusted
   Messrs. Glass, Elliott and Company with the construction of a
   new cable of 3,000 kilometres. Different arrangements were
   made for the outer envelope of the cable, and the Great
   Eastern was once more equipped to give effect to the
   experiments which had just been made. The new expedition was
   not only to lay a new cable, but also to take up the end of
   the old one, and join it to a new piece, and thus obtain a
   second telegraph line. The sinking again commenced in Ireland
   on the 13th of July, 1866, and it was finished on the 27th. On
   the 4th of August, 1866, the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Line was
   declared open."

      _A. R. von Urbanitzky,
      Electricity in the Service of Man,
      pages 767-768._

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1876-1892.
   The Telephone.

   "The first and simplest of all magnetic telephones is the Bell
   Telephone." In "the first form of this instrument, constructed
   by Professor Graham Bell, in 1876 … a harp of steel rods was
   attached to the poles of a permanent magnet. … When we sing
   into a piano, certain of the strings of the instrument are set
   in vibration sympathetically by the action of the voice with
   different degrees of amplitude, and a sound, which is an
   approximation to the vowel uttered, is produced from the
   piano. Theory shows that, had the piano a much larger number
   of strings to the octave, the vowel sounds would be perfectly
   reproduced. It was upon this principle that Bell constructed
   his first telephone. The expense of constructing such an
   apparatus, however, deterred Bell from making the attempt, and
   he sought to simplify the apparatus before proceeding further in
   this direction. After many experiments with more, or less
   unsatisfactory results, he constructed the instrument …
   which he exhibited at Philadelphia in 1876. In this apparatus,
   the transmitter was formed by an electro-magnet, through which
   a current flowed, and a membrane, made of gold-beater's skin,
   on which was placed as a sort of armature, a piece of soft
   iron, which thus vibrated in front of the electro-magnet when
   the membrane was thrown into sonorous vibration.
{777}
   … It is quite clear that when we speak into a Bell
   transmitter only a small fraction of the energy of the
   sonorous vibrations of the voice can be converted into
   electric currents, and that these currents must be extremely
   weak. Edison applied himself to discover some means by which
   he could increase the strength of these currents. Elisha Gray
   had proposed to use the variation of resistance of a fine
   platinum wire attached to a diaphragm dipping into water, and
   hoped that the variation of extent of surface in contact would
   so vary the strength of current as to reproduce sonorous
   vibrations; but there is no record of this experiment having
   been tried. Edison proposed to utilise the fact that the
   resistance of carbon varied under pressure. He had
   independently discovered this peculiarity of carbon, but it
   had been previously described by Du Moncel. … The first
   carbon transmitter was constructed in 1878 by Edison."

      _W. H. Preece, and J. Maier,
      The Telephone,
      chapters 3-4._

   In a pamphlet distributed at the Columbian Exposition,
   Chicago, 1893, entitled "Exhibit of the American Bell
   Telephone Co.," the following statements are made: "At the
   Centennial Exposition, in Philadelphia, in 1876, was given the
   first general public exhibition of the telephone by its
   inventor, Alexander Graham Bell. To-day, seventeen years
   later, more than half a million instruments are in daily use
   in the United States alone, six hundred million talks by
   telephone are held every year, and the human voice is carried
   over a distance of twelve hundred miles without loss of sound
   or syllable. The first use of the telephone for business
   purposes was over a single wire connecting only two
   telephones. At once the need of general inter-communication
   made itself felt. In the cities and larger towns exchanges
   were established and all the subscribers to any one exchange
   were enabled to talk to one another through a central office.
   Means were then devised to connect two or more exchanges by
   trunk lines, thus affording means of communication between all
   the subscribers of all the exchanges so connected. This work
   has been pushed forward until now have been gathered into what
   may be termed one great exchange all the important cities from
   Augusta on the east to Milwaukee on the west, and from
   Burlington and Buffalo on the north to Washington on the
   south, bringing more than one half the people of this country
   and a much larger proportion of the business interests, within
   talking distance of one another. … The lines which connect
   Chicago with Boston, via New York, are of copper wire of extra
   size. It is about one sixth of an inch in diameter, and weighs
   435 pounds to the mile. Hence each circuit contains 1,044,000
   pounds of copper. … In the United States there are over a
   quarter of a million exchange subscribers, and … these make
   use of the telephone to carry on 600,000,000 conversations
   annually. There is hardly a city or town of 5,000 inhabitants
   that has not its Telephone Exchange, and these are so knit
   together by connecting lines that intercommunication is
   constant." The number of telephones in use in the United
   States, on the 20th of December in each year since the first
   introduction, is given as follows;
      1877, 5,187;
      1878, 17,567;
      1879, 52,517;
      1880, 123,380;
      1881, 180,592;
      1882, 237,728;
      1883, 298,580;
      1884, 325,574;
      1885, 330,040;
      1886, 353,518;
      1887, 380,277;
      1888, 411,511;
      1889, 444,861;
      1890, 483,790;
      1891, 512,407;
      1892, 552,720.

----------End: Electricity----------

ELEPHANT, Order of the.

      A Danish order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by
      King Christian V.

ELEPHANTINE.

      See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES, The.

   Among the ancient Greeks, "the mysteries were a source of
   faith and hope to the initiated, as are the churches of modern
   times. Secret doctrines, regarded as holy, and to be kept with
   inviolable fidelity, were handed down in these brotherhoods,
   and no doubt were fondly believed to contain a saving grace by
   those who were admitted, amidst solemn and imposing rites,
   under the veil of midnight, to hear the tenets of the ancient
   faith, and the promises of blessings to come to those who,
   with sincerity of heart and pious trust, took the obligations
   upon them. The Eleusinian mysteries were the most imposing and
   venerable. Their origin extended back into a mythical
   antiquity, and they were among the few forms of Greek worship
   which were under the superintendence of hereditary
   priesthoods. Thirlwall thinks that 'they were the remains of a
   worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and
   its attendant rites, grounded on a view of Nature less
   fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both
   philosophical thought and religious feeling.' This conclusion
   is still further confirmed by the moral and religious tone of
   the poets,—such as Æschylus,—whose ideas on justice, sin and
   retribution are as solemn and elevated as those of a Hebrew
   prophet. The secrets, whatever they were, were never revealed
   in express terms; but Isocrates uses some remarkable
   expressions, when speaking of their importance to the
   condition of man. 'Those who are initiated,' says he
   'entertain sweeter hopes of eternal life'; and how could this
   be the case, unless there were imparted at Eleusis the
   doctrine of eternal life, and some idea of its state and
   circumstances more compatible with an elevated conception of
   the Deity and of the human soul than the vague and shadowy
   images which haunted the popular mind. The Eleusinian
   communion embraced the most eminent men from every part of
   Greece,—statesmen, poets, philosophers, and generals; and
   when Greece became a part of the Roman Empire, the greatest
   minds of Rome drew instruction and consolation from its
   doctrines. The ceremonies of initiation—which took place
   every year in the early autumn, a beautiful season in
   Attica—were a splendid ritual, attracting visitors from every
   part of the world. The processions moving from Athens to
   Eleusis over the Sacred Way, sometimes numbered twenty or
   thirty thousand people, and the exciting scenes were well
   calculated to leave a durable impression on susceptible minds.
   … The formula of the dismissal, after the initiation was
   over, consisted in the mysterious words 'konx,' 'ompax'; and
   this is the only Eleusinian secret that has illuminated the
   world from the recesses of the temple of Demeter and
   Persephone. But it is a striking illustration of the value
   attached to these rites and doctrines, that, in moments of
   extremest peril—as of impending shipwreck, or massacre by a
   victorious enemy,—men asked one another, 'Are you initiated?'
   as if this were the anchor of their hopes for another life."

{778}

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      chapter 2, lecture 10._

   "The Eleusinian mysteries continued to be celebrated during
   the whole of the second half of the fourth century, till they
   were put an end to by the destruction of the temple at
   Eleusis, and by the devastation of Greece in the invasion of
   the Goths under Alaric in 395."

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

      _W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown,
      The Great Dionysiak Myth,
      chapter 6, section. 2._

      _J. J. I. von Dollinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew,
      book 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also, ELEUSIS.

ELEUSIS.

   Eleusis was originally one of the twelve confederate townships
   into which Attica was said to have been divided before the
   time of Theseus. It "was advantageously situated [about
   fourteen miles Northwest of Athens] on a height, at a small
   distance from the shore of an extensive bay, to which there is
   access only through narrow channels, at the two extremities of
   the island of Salamis: its position was important, as
   commanding the shortest and most level route by land from
   Athens to the Isthmus by the pass which leads at the foot of
   Mount Cerata along the shore to Megara. … Eleusis was built
   at the eastern end of a low rocky hill, which lies parallel to
   the sea-shore. … The eastern extremity of the hill was
   levelled artificially for the reception of the Hierum of Ceres
   and the other sacred buildings. Above these are the traces of an
   Acropolis. A triangular space of about 500 yards each side,
   lying between the hill and the shore, was occupied by the town
   of Eleusis. … To those who approached Eleusis from Athens,
   the sacred buildings standing on the eastern extremity of the
   height concealed the greater part of the town, and on a nearer
   approach presented a succession of magnificent objects, well
   calculated to heighten the solemn grandeur of the ceremonies
   and the awe and reverence of the Mystæ in their initiation.
   … In the plurality of enclosures, in the magnificence of the
   pylæ or gateways, in the absence of any general symmetry of
   plan, in the small auxiliary temples, we recognize a great
   resemblance between the sacred buildings of Eleusis and the
   Egyptian Hiera of Thebes and Philæ. And this resemblance is
   the more remarkable, as the Demeter of Attica was the Isis of
   Egypt. We cannot suppose, however, that the plan of all these
   buildings was even thought of when the worship of Ceres was
   established at Eleusis. They were the progressive creation of
   successive ages. … Under the Roman Empire … it was
   fashionable among the higher order of Romans to pass some time
   at Athens in the study of philosophy and to be initiated in
   the Eleusinian mysteries. Hence Eleusis became at that time
   one of the most frequented places in Greece; and perhaps it
   was never so populous as under the emperors of the first two
   centuries of our æra. During the two following centuries, its
   mysteries were the chief support of declining polytheism, and
   almost the only remaining bond of national union among the
   Greeks; but at length the destructive visit of the Goths in
   the year 396, the extinction of paganism and the ruin of
   maritime commerce, left Eleusis deprived of every source of
   prosperity, except those which are inseparable from its
   fertile plain, its noble bay, and its position on the road
   from Attica to the Isthmus. … The village still preserves
   the ancient name, no further altered than is customary in
   Romaic conversions."

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens;
      volume 2: The Demi, section 5._

ELGIN, Lord.
   The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

ELIS.

   Elis was an ancient Greek state, occupying the country on the
   western coast of Peloponnesus, adjoining Arcadia, and between
   Messenia at the south and Achaia on the north. It was noted
   for the fertility of its soil and the rich yield of its
   fisheries. But Elis owed greater importance to the inclusion
   within its territory of the sacred ground of Olympia, where
   the celebration of the most famous festival of Zeus came to be
   established at an early time. The Elians had acquired Olympia
   by conquest of the city and territory of Pisa, to which it
   originally belonged, and the presidency of the Olympic games
   was always disputed with them by the latter. Elis was the
   close ally of Sparta down to the year B. C. 421, when a bitter
   quarrel arose between them, and Elis suffered heavily in the
   wars which ensued. It was afterwards at war with the
   Arcadians, and joined the Ætolian League against the Achaian
   League. The city of Elis was one of the most splendid in
   Greece; but little now remains, even of ruins, to indicate its
   departed glories.

      See, also, OLYMPIC GAMES.

ELISII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

ELIZABETH,
   Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1741-1761.

   Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, and the Thirty Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620; 1620; 1621-1623;
      1631-1632, and 1648.

   Elizabeth, Queen of England, A. D. 1558-1603.

    Elizabeth Farnese, Queen of Spain.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735; and
      SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725, and 1726-1731.

ELIZABETH, N. J.
   The first settlement of.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

ELK HORN, OR PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ELKWATER, OR CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

ELLANDUM, Battle of.

   Decisive victory of Ecgberht, the West Saxon king, over the
   Mercians, A. D. 823.

ELLEBRI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ELLENBOROUGH, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

ELLSWORTH, Colonel, The death of.

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

ELMET.

   A small kingdom of the Britons which was swallowed up in the
   English kingdom of Northumbria early in the seventh century.
   It answered, roughly speaking, to the present West-Riding of
   Yorkshire. … Leeds "preserves the name of Loidis, by which
   Elmet seems also to have been known."

      J. R. Green, The Making of England, page 254.

ELMIRA, N. Y. (then Newtown).
   General Sullivan's Battle with the Senecas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ELSASS.

      See ALSACE.

ELTEKEH, Battle of.

   A victory won by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, over the
   Egyptians, before the disaster befell his army which is
   related in 2 Kings xix. 35. Sennacherib's own account of the
   battle has been found among the Assyrian records.

{779}

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 6._

ELUSATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.

ELVIRA, Battle of(1319).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

ELY, The Camp of Refuge at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

ELYMAIS.

      See ELAM.

ELYMEIA.

      See MACEDONIA.

ELYMIANS, The.

      See SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.

ELYSIAN FIELDS.

      See CANARY ISLANDS.

ELZEVIRS.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1617-1680.

EMANCIPATION, Catholic.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

EMANCIPATION, Compensated;
   Proposal of President Lincoln.

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

EMANCIPATION, Prussian Edict of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS,
   President Lincoln's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER), and 1863 (JANUARY).

EMANUEL,
   King of Portugal, A. D. 1495-1521.

   Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, A. D. 1553-1580.

EMBARGO OF 1807, The American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

EMERICH, King of Hungary, A. D. 1196-1204.

EMERITA AUGUSTA.

   A colony of Roman veterans settled in Spain, B. C. 27, by the
   emperor Augustus. It is identified with modern Merida, in
   Estremadura.

      C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 34, note.

EMESSA.
   Capture by the Arabs (A. D. 636).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

ÉMIGRÉS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER); and 1791-1792.

EMITES, The.

      See JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

EMMAUS, Battle of.

   Defeat of a Syrian army under Gorgias by Judas Maccabæus,
   B. C. 166.

      Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.

EMMENDINGEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER). .

EMMET INSURRECTION, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1801-1803.

EMPEROR.

   A title derived from the Roman title Imperator.

      See IMPERATOR.

EMPORIA, The.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

ENCOMIENDAS.

      See SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS;
      also, REPARTIMIENTOS.

ENCUMBERED ESTATES ACT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.

ENCYCLICAL AND SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.

ENCYCLOPÆDISTS, The.

   "French literature had never been so brilliant as in the
   second half of the 18th century. Buffon, Diderot, D'Alembert,
   Rousseau, Duclos, Condillac, Helvetius, Holbach, Raynal,
   Condorcet, Mably, and many others adorned it, and the
   'Encyclopædia,' which was begun in 1751 under the direction of
   Diderot, became the focus of an intellectual influence which
   has rarely been equalled. The name and idea were taken from a
   work published by Ephraim Chambers in Dublin, in 1728. A noble
   preliminary discourse was written by D'Alembert; and all the
   best pens in France were enlisted in the enterprise, which was
   constantly encouraged and largely assisted by Voltaire. Twice
   it was suppressed by authority, but the interdict was again
   raised. Popular favour now ran with an irresistible force in
   favour of the philosophers, and the work was brought to its
   conclusion in 1771."

      W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter. 20 (volume 5).

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Morley,
      Diderot and the Encyclopædists,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      _E. J. Lowell,
      The Eve of the French Revolution,
      chapter 16._

ENDICOTT, John, and the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, and after.

ENDIDJAN, Battle of (1876).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

ENGADINE, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

ENGEN, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

ENGERN, Duchy of.

      See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

ENGHIEN, Duc d',
   The abduction and execution of.

      See FRANCE: 1804-1805.

ENGLAND:
   Before the coming of the English.
   The Celtic and Roman periods.

      See BRITAIN.

ENGLAND: A. D.449-547.
   The three tribes of the English conquest.
   The naming of the country.

   "It was by … three tribes [from Northwestern Germany], the
   Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes, that southern Britain was
   conquered and colonized in the fifth and sixth centuries,
   according to the most ancient testimony. … Of the three, the
   Angli almost if not altogether pass away into the migration:
   the Jutes and the Saxons, although migrating in great numbers,
   had yet a great part to play in their own homes and in other
   regions besides Britain; the former at a later period in the
   train and under the name of the Danes; the latter in German
   history from the eighth century to the present day."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "Among the Teutonic settlers in Britain some tribes stand out
   conspicuously; Angles, Saxons, and Jutes stand out
   conspicuously above all. The Jutes led the way; from the
   Angles the land and the united nation took their name; the
   Saxons gave us the name by which our Celtic neighbours have
   ever known us. But there is no reason to confine the area from
   which our forefathers came to the space which we should mark
   on the map as the land of the continental Angles, Saxons, and
   Jutes. So great a migration is always likely to be swollen by
   some who are quite alien to the leading tribe; it is always
   certain to be swollen by many who are of stocks akin to the
   leading tribe, but who do not actually belong to it.
{780}
   As we in Britain are those who stayed behind at the time of
   the second great migration of our people [to America], so I
   venture to look on all our Low-Dutch kinsfolk on the continent
   of Europe as those who stayed behind at the time of the first
   great migration of our people. Our special hearth and cradle
   is doubtless to be found in the immediate marchland of Germany
   and Denmark, but the great common home of our people is to be
   looked on as stretching along the whole of that long coast
   where various dialects of the Low-Dutch tongue are spoken. If
   Angles and Saxons came, we know that Frisians came also, and
   with Frisians as an element among us, it is hardly too bold to
   claim the whole Netherlands as in the widest sense Old
   England, as the land of one part of the kinsfolk who stayed
   behind. Through that whole region, from the special Anglian
   corner far into what is now northern France, the true tongue
   of the people, sometimes overshadowed by other tongues, is
   some dialect or other of that branch of the great Teutonic
   family which is essentially the same as our own speech. From
   Flanders to Sleswick the natural tongue is one which differs
   from English only as the historical events of fourteen hundred
   years of separation have inevitably made the two tongues—two
   dialects, I should rather say, of the same tongue—to differ.
   From these lands we came as a people. That was our first
   historical migration. Our remote forefathers must have made
   endless earlier migrations as parts of the great Aryan body,
   as parts of the smaller Teutonic body. But our voyage from the
   Low-Dutch mainland to the isle of Britain was our first
   migration as a people. … Among the Teutonic tribes which
   settled in Britain, two, the Angles and the Saxons, stood out
   foremost. These two between them occupied by far the greater
   part of the land that was occupied at all. Each of these two
   gave its name to the united nation, but each gave it on
   different lips. The Saxons were the earlier invaders; they had
   more to do with the Celtic remnant which abode in the land. On
   the lips then of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain, the whole
   of the Teutonic inhabitants of Britain were known from the
   beginning, and are known still, as Saxons. But, as the various
   Teutonic settlements drew together, as they began to have
   common national feelings and to feel the need of a common
   national name, the name which they chose was not the same as
   that by which their Celtic neighbours called them. They did
   not call themselves Saxons and their land Saxony; they called
   themselves English and their land England. I used the word
   Saxony in all seriousness; it is a real name for the Teutonic
   part of Britain, and it is an older name than the name
   England. But it is a name used only from the outside by Celtic
   neighbours and enemies; it was not used from the inside by the
   Teutonic people themselves. In their mouths, as soon as they
   took to themselves a common name, that name was English; as
   soon as they gave their land a common name, that name was
   England. … And this is the more remarkable, because the age
   when English was fully established as the name of the people,
   and England as the name of the land, was an age of Saxon
   supremacy, an age when a Saxon state held the headship of
   England and of Britain, when Saxon kings grew step by step to
   be kings of the English and lords of the whole British island.
   In common use then, the men of the tenth and eleventh
   centuries knew themselves by no name but English."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The English People in its Three Homes
      (Lectures to American Audiences,
      pages 30-31, and 45-47)._

      See ANGLES AND JUTES, and SAXONS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
   The Beginning of English history.
   The conquest of Kent by the Jutes.

   "In the year 449 or 450 a band of warriors was drawn to the
   shores of Britain by the usual pledges of land and pay. The
   warriors were Jutes, men of a tribe which has left its name to
   Jutland, at the extremity of the peninsula that projects from
   the shores of North-Germany, but who were probably akin to the
   race that was fringing the opposite coast of Scandinavia and
   settling in the Danish Isles. In three 'keels'—so ran the
   legend of their conquest—and with their Ealdormen, Hengest
   and Horsa, at their head, these Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet in
   the Isle of Thanet. With the landing of Hengest and his
   war-band English history begins. … In the first years that
   followed after their landing, Jute and Briton fought side by
   side; and the Picts are said to have been scattered to the
   winds in a great battle on the eastern coast of Britain. But
   danger from the Pict was hardly over when danger came from the
   Jutes themselves. Their numbers probably grew fast as the news
   of their settlement in Thanet spread among their fellow
   pirates who were haunting the channel; and with the increase
   of their number must have grown the difficulty of supplying
   them with rations and pay. The dispute which rose over these
   questions was at last closed by Hengest's men with a threat of
   war." The threat was soon executed; the forces of the Jutes
   were successfully transferred from their island camp to the
   main shore, and the town of Durovernum (occupying the site of
   modern Canterbury) was the first to experience their rage.
   "The town was left in blackened and solitary ruin as the
   invaders pushed along the road to London. No obstacle seems to
   have checked their march from the Stour to the Medway." At
   Aylesford (A. D. 455), the lowest ford crossing the Medway,
   "the British leaders must have taken post for the defence of
   West Kent; but the Chronicle of the conquering people tells
   … only that Horsa fell in the moment of victory; and the
   flint-heap of Horsted which has long preserved his name …
   was held in aftertime to mark his grave. … The victory of
   Aylesford was followed by a political change among the
   assailants, whose loose organization around ealdormen was
   exchanged for a stricter union. Aylesford, we are told, was no
   sooner won than 'Hengest took to the kingdom, and Ælle, his
   son.' … The two kings pushed forward in 457 from the Medway
   to the conquest of West Kent." Another battle at the passage
   of the Cray was another victory for the invaders, and, "as the
   Chronicle of their conquerors tells us, the Britons' forsook
   Kent-land and fled with much fear to London.' … If we trust
   British tradition, the battle at Crayford was followed by a
   political revolution in Britain itself.  … It would seem …
   that the Romanized Britons rose in revolt under Aurelius
   Ambrosianus, a descendant of the last Roman general who
   claimed the purple as an Emperor in Britain. … The
   revolution revived for a while the energy of the province."
   The Jutes were driven back into the Isle of Thanet, and held
   there, apparently, for some years, with the help of the strong
   fortresses of Richborough and Reculver, guarding the two
   mouths of the inlet which then parted Thanet from the
   mainland.
{781}
   "In 465 however the petty conflicts which had gone on along
   the shores of the Wantsum made way for a decisive struggle.
   … The overthrow of the Britons at Wipped'sfleet was so
   terrible that all hope of preserving the bulk of Kent seems
   from this moment to have been abandoned; and … no further
   struggle disturbed the Jutes in its conquest and settlement.
   It was only along its southern shore that the Britons now held
   their ground. … A final victory of the Jutes in 473 may mark
   the moment when they reached the rich pastures which the Roman
   engineers had reclaimed from Romney Marsh. … With this
   advance to the mouth of the Weald the work of Hengest's men
   came to an end; nor did the Jutes from this time play any
   important part in the attack on the island, for their
   after-gains were limited to the Isle of Wight and a few
   districts on the Southampton Water."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 67-101._

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

A Logical Outline of English History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

   Physical or material (Orange).
   Ethnological (Dark Blue).
   Social and political (Green).
   Intellectual, moral and religious (Tan).
   Foreign (Black).

5th-7th centuries.
Conquest: and settlement by Saxons, Angles and Jutes.

   The Island of Britain, separated from the Continent of Europe
   by a narrow breadth of sea, which makes friendly commerce easy
   and hostile invasion difficult;—its soil in great part
   excellent; its northern climate tempered by the humid warmth
   of the Gulf Stream; its conditions good for breeding a robust
   population, strongly fed upon corn and meats; holding,
   moreover, in store, for later times, a rare deposit of iron
   and coal, of tin and potter's clay, and other minerals of like
   utility; was occupied and possessed by tribes from Northern
   Europe, of the strongest race in history; already schooled in
   courage and trained to enterprise by generations of sea-faring
   adventure; uncorrupted by any mercenary contact with the
   decaying civilization of Rome, but ready for the knowledge it
   could give.

7th-11th Centuries.

   Fused, after much warring with one another and with their
   Danish kin, into a nation of Englishmen, they lived, for five
   centuries, an isolated life, until their insular and
   independent character had become deeply ingrained, and the
   primitive system of their social and political
   organization—their Townships, their Hundreds, their Shires,
   and the popular Moots, or courts, which determined and
   administered law in each—was rooted fast; though their king's
   power waxed and the nobles and the common people drew farther
   apart.

A. D. 1066.—Norman conquest.

   Then they were mastered (in the last successful invasion that
   their Island ever knew) by another people, sprung from their
   own stock, but whose blood had been warmed and whose wit had
   been quickened by Latin and Gallic influences in the country
   of the Franks.

11th-18th Centuries.

   A new social and political system now formed itself in England
   as the result:—Feudalism modified by the essential democracy
   inherent in Old English institutions—producing a stout
   commonality to daunt the lords, and a strong aristocracy to
   curb the king.

A. D. 1215. Magna charta.

   English royalty soon weakened itself yet more by ambitious
   strivings to maintain and extend a wide dominion over-sea, in
   Normandy and Aquitaine; and was helpless to resist when barons
   and commons came together to demand the signing and sealing of
   the Great Charter of Englishmen's rights.

A. D. 1265-1295—Parliament.

   Out of the conditions which gave birth to Magna Charta there
   followed, soon, the development of the English Parliament as a
   representative legislature, from the Curia Regis of the Normans
   and the Witenagemot of the older English time.

A. D. 1337-1453—The Hundred Years War.

   From the woful wars of a hundred years with France, which
   another century brought upon it, the nation, as a whole,
   suffered detriment, no doubt, and it progress was hindered in
   many ways; but politically the people took some good from
   the troubled times, because their kings were more dependant on
   them for money and men.

A. D. 1453-1485—War of the Roses

   So likewise, they were bettered in some ways by the dreadful
   civil Wars of the Roses, which distracted England for thirty
   years. The nobles well-nigh perished, as an order, in these
   wars, while the middle-class people at large suffered relatively
   little, in numbers or estate.

A. D. 1348—The Great Plague.

   But, previously, the great Plague, by diminishing the ranks of
   the laboring class, had raised wages and the standard of living
   among them, and had helped, with other causes, to multiply the
   small landowners and tenant farmers of the country, increasing
   the independent common class.

A. D. 1327-1377—Immigration of Flemish weavers.

   Moreover, from the time of Edward III., who encouraged Flemish
   weavers to settle in England and to teach their art to his
   people, manufactures began to thrive; trade extended; towns
   grew in population and wealth, and the great burgher
   middle-class rose rapidly to importance and weight in the
   land.

A. D. 1485-1603—Absolutism of the Tudors.

   But the commons of England were not prepared to make use of
   the actual power which they held. The nobles had led them in
   the past; it needed time to raise leaders among themselves,
   and time to organize their ranks. Hence no new checks on
   royalty were ready to replace those constraints which had been
   broken by the ruin of great houses in the civil wars, and the
   crown made haste to improve its opportunity for grasping
   power. There followed, under the Tudors, a period of
   absolutism greater than England had known before.

15th-16th Centuries—Renaissance.

   But this endured only for the time of the education of the
   commons, who conned the lessons of the age with eagerness and
   with understanding. The new learning from Greece and Rome; the
   new world knowledge that had been found in the West; the new
   ideas which the new art of the printer had furnished with
   wings,—all these had now gained their most fertile planting
   in the English mind. Their flower was the splendid literature
   of the Elizabethan age; they ripened fruits more substantial
   at a later day.

   The intellectual development of the nation tended first toward
   a religious independence, which produced two successive
   revolts—from Roman Papacy and from the Anglican Episcopacy
   that succeeded it.

   This religious new departure of the English people gave
   direction to a vast expansion of their energies in the outside
   world. It led them into war with Spain, and sent forth Drake
   and Hawkins and the Buccaneers, to train the sailors and pilot
   the merchant adventurers who would soon make England mistress
   of all the wide seas.

A. D. 1608-1688.
   The Stuarts.
   The Civil War.
   The Commonwealth.
   The Revolution.

   Then, when these people, strong, prosperous and intelligent,
   had come to be ripely sufficient for self-government, there
   fell to them a foolish race of kings, who challenged them to a
   struggle which stripped royalty of all but its fictions, and
   established the sovereignty of England in its House of Commons
   for all time.

18th-19th Centuries.
   Science
   Invention.
   Material progress.
   Economic enlightenment.

   Unassailable in its island,—taking part in the great wars of
   the 18th century by its fleets and its subsidies
   chiefly,—busy with its undisturbed labors at home,—vigorous
   in its conquests, its settlements and its trade, which it
   pushed into the farthest parts of the earth,—creating wealth
   and protecting it from spoliation and from waste,—the English
   nation now became the industrial and economic school of the
   age. It produced the mechanical inventions which first opened
   a new era in the life of mankind on the material side; it
   attained to the splendid enlightenment of freedom in trade; it
   made England the workshop and mart of the world, and it spread
   her Empire to every Continent, through all the seas.

--------- End: A Logical Outline of English History --------------------

ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
   The conquests of the Saxons.
   The founding of the kingdoms of Sussex, Wessex and Essex.

   "Whilst the Jutes were conquering Kent, their kindred took
   part in the war. Ship after ship sailed from the North Sea,
   filled with eager warriors. The Saxons now arrived—Ella and
   his three sons landed in the ancient territory of the Regni
   (A. D. 477-491). The Britons were defeated with great
   slaughter, and driven into the forest of Andreade, whose
   extent is faintly indicated by the wastes and commons of the
   Weald. A general confederacy of the Kings and 'Tyrants' of the
   Britons was formed against the invaders, but fresh
   reinforcements arrived from Germany; the city of
   Andreades-Ceastre was taken by storm, all its inhabitants were
   slain and the buildings razed to the ground, so that its site
   is now entirely unknown. From this period the kingdom of the
   South Saxons was established in the person of Ella; and though
   ruling only over the narrow boundary of modern Sussex, he was
   accepted as the first of the Saxon Bretwaldas, or Emperors of
   the Isle of Britain. Encouraged, perhaps, by the good tidings
   received from Ella, another band of Saxons, commanded by
   Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the neighbouring shore,
   in the modern Hampshire (A. D. 494). At first they made but
   little progress. They were opposed by the Britons; but
   Geraint, whom the Saxon Chroniclers celebrate for his
   nobility, and the British Bards extol for his beauty and
   valour, was slain (A. D. 501). The death of the Prince of the
   'Woodlands of Dyfnaint,' or Damnonia, may have been avenged,
   but the power of the Saxons overwhelmed all opposition; and
   Cerdic, associating his son Cynric in the dignity, became the
   King of the territory which he gained. Under Cynric and his
   son Ceaulin, the Saxons slowly, yet steadily, gained ground.
   The utmost extent of their dominions towards the North cannot
   be ascertained; but they had conquered the town of Bedford;
   and it was probably in consequence of their geographical
   position (A. D. 571) with respect to the countries of the
   Middle and East Saxons, that the name of the West Saxons was
   given to this colony. The tract north of the Thames was soon
   lost; but on the south of that river and of the Severn, the
   successors of Cerdic, Kings of Wessex, continued to extend
   their dominions. The Hampshire Avon, which retains its old
   Celtic name, signifying 'the Water,' seems at first to have
   been their boundary. Beyond this river, the British princes of
   Damnonia retained their power; and it was long before the
   country as far as the Exe became a Saxon March-land, or
   border. About the time that the Saxons under Cerdic and Cynric
   were successfully warring against the Britons, another colony
   was seen to establish itself in the territory or kingdom
   which, from its geographical position, obtained the name of
   East Saxony; but whereof the district of the Middle Saxons,
   now Middlesex, formed a part. London, as you well know, is
   locally included in Middle Saxony; and the Kings of Essex, and
   the other sovereigns who afterwards acquired the country,
   certainly possessed many extensive rights of sovereignty in
   the city. Yet, I doubt much whether London was ever
   incorporated in any Anglo-Saxon kingdom; and I think we must
   view it as a weak, tributary, vassal state, not very well able
   to resist the usurpations of the supreme Lord or Suzerain,
   Æscwin, or Ercenwine, who was the first King of the East
   Saxons (A. D. 527). His son Sleda was married to Ricola,
   daughter to Ethelbert of Kent, who afterwards appears as the
   superior, or sovereign of the country; and though Sleda was
   King, yet Ethelbert joined in all important acts of
   government. This was the fate of Essex—it is styled a
   kingdom, but it never enjoyed any political independence,
   being always subject to the adjoining kings."

      _F. Palgrave,
      History of the Anglo Saxons,
      chapter 2._

   "The descents of [the West Saxons], Cerdic and Cynric, in 495
   at the mouth of the Itchen, and a fresh descent on Portchester
   in 501, can have been little more than plunder raids; and
   though in 508 a far more serious conflict ended in the fall of
   5,000 Britons and their chief, it was not till 514 that the
   tribe whose older name seems to have been that of the
   Gewissas, but who were to be more widely known as the West
   Saxons, actually landed with a view to definite conquest."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 3._

   "The greatness of Sussex did not last beyond the days of its
   founder Ælle, the first Bretwalda. Whatever importance Essex,
   or its offshoot, Middlesex, could claim as containing the
   great city of London was of no long duration. We soon find
   London fluctuating between the condition of an independent
   commonwealth, and that of a dependency of the Mercian Kings.
   Very different was the destiny of the third Saxon Kingdom.
   Wessex has grown into England, England into Great Britain,
   Great Britain into the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom into
   the British Empire. Every prince who has ruled England before
   and since the eleventh century [the interval of the Danish
   kings, Harold, son of Godwine, and William the Conqueror, who
   were not of the West Saxon house] has had the blood of Cerdic
   the West Saxon in his veins. At the close of the sixth century
   Wessex had risen to high importance among the English
   Kingdoms, though the days of its permanent supremacy were
   still far distant."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 2, section 1._

{782}

ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
   The conquests of the Angles.
   The founding of their kingdoms.

   Northwards of the East Saxons was established the kingdom of
   the East Angles, in which a northern and a southern people
   (Northfolc and Suthfolc) were distinguished. It is probable
   that, even during the last period of the Roman sway, Germans
   were settled in this part of Britain; a supposition that gains
   probability from several old Saxon sagas, which have reference
   to East Anglia at a period anterior to the coming of Hengest
   and Horsa. The land of the Gyrwas, containing 1,200 hides …
   comprised the neighbouring marsh districts of Ely and
   Huntingdonshire, almost as far as Lincoln. Of the East Angles
   Wehwa, or Wewa, or more commonly his son Uffa, or Wuffa, from
   whom his race derived their patronymic of Uffings or Wuffings,
   is recorded as the first king. The neighbouring states of
   Mercia originated in the marsh districts of the Lindisware, or
   inhabitants of Lindsey (Lindesig), the northern part of
   Lincolnshire. With these were united the Middle Angles. This
   kingdom, divided by the Trent into a northern and a southern
   portion, gradually extended itself to the borders of Wales.
   Among the states which it comprised was the little Kingdom of
   the Hwiccas, conterminous with the later diocese of Worcester,
   or the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and a part of
   Warwick. This state, together with that of the Hecanas, bore
   the common Germanic appellation of the land of the Magesætas.
   … The country to the north of the Humber had suffered the
   most severely from the inroads of the Picts and Scots. It
   became at an early period separated into two British states,
   the names of which were retained for some centuries, viz.:
   Deifyr (Deora rice), afterwards Latinized into Deira,
   extending from the Humber to the Tyne, and Berneich (Beorna
   rice), afterwards Bernicia, from the Tyne to the Clyde. Here
   also the settlements of the German races appear anterior to
   the date given in the common accounts of the first Anglian
   kings of those territories, in the middle of the sixth
   century."

      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe),
      volume 1, pages 112-117._

   The three Anglian kingdoms of Northumberland, Mercia and East
   Anglia, "are altogether much larger than the Saxon and Jutish
   Kingdoms, so you see very well why the land was called
   'England' and not 'Saxony.' … 'Saxonia' does occur now and
   then, and it was really an older name than 'Anglia,' but it
   soon went quite out of use. … But some say that there were
   either Jutes or Saxons in the North of England as soon or
   sooner than there were in the south. If so, there is another
   reason why the Scotch Celts as well as the Welsh, call us
   Saxons. It is not unlikely that there may have been some small
   Saxon or Jutish settlements there very early, but the great
   Kingdom of Northumberland was certainly founded by Ida the
   Angle in 547. It is more likely that there were some Teutonic
   settlements there before him, because the Chronicle does not
   say of him, as it does of Hengest, Cissa and Cerdie, that he
   came into the land by the sea, but only that he began the
   Kingdom. … You must fully understand that in the old times
   Northumberland meant the whole land north of the Humber,
   reaching as far as the Firth of Forth. It thus takes in part
   of what is now Scotland, including the city of Edinburgh, that
   is Eadwinesburh, the town of the great Northumbrian King
   Eadwine, or Edwin [Edwin of Deira, A. D. 617-633]. … You
   must not forget that Lothian and all that part of Scotland was
   part of Northumberland, and that the people there are really
   English, and still speak a tongue which has changed less from
   the Old-English than the tongue of any other part of England.
   And the real Scots, the Gael in the Highlands, call the
   Lowland Scots 'Saxons,' just as much as they do the people of
   England itself. This Northumbrian Kingdom was one of the
   greatest Kingdoms in England, but it was often divided into
   two, Beornicia [or Bernicia] and Deira, the latter of which
   answered pretty nearly to Yorkshire. The chief city was the
   old Roman town of Eboracum, which in Old-English is Eoforwic,
   and which we cut short into York. York was for a long time the
   greatest town in the North of England. There are now many
   others much larger, but York is still the second city in
   England in rank, and it gives its chief magistrate the title
   of Lord-Mayor, as London· does, while in other cities and
   towns the chief magistrate is merely the Mayor, without any
   Lord. … The great Anglian Kingdom of the Mercians, that is
   the Marchmen, the people on the march or frontier, seems to
   have been the youngest of all, and to have grown up gradually
   by joining together several smaller states, including all the
   land which the West Saxons had held north of the Thames. Such
   little tribes or states were the Lindesfaras and the Gainas in
   Lincolnshire, the Magesætas in Herefordshire, the Hwiccas in
   Gloucester, Worcester, and part of Warwick, and several
   others. … When Mercia was fully joined under one King, it
   made one of the greatest states in England, and some of the
   Mercian Kings were very powerful princes. It was chiefly an
   Anglian Kingdom; and the Kings were of an Anglian stock, but
   among the Hwiccas and in some of the other shires in southern
   and western Mercia, most of the people must really have been
   Saxons."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Old English History for Children,
      chapter 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 560.

   Ethelbert becomes king of Kent.

ENGLAND: A. D. 593.

   Ethelfrith becomes king of Northumbria.

ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
   The conversion of the English.

   "It happened that certain Saxon children were to be sold for
   slaves at the marketplace at Rome; when Divine Providence, the
   great clock-keeper of time, ordering not only hours, but even
   instants (Luke ii. 38), to his own honour, so disposed it,
   that Gregory, afterwards first bishop of Rome of that name,
   was present to behold them. It grieved the good man to see the
   disproportion betwixt the faces and fortunes, the complexions
   and conditions, of these children, condemned to a servile
   estate, though carrying liberal looks, so legible was
   ingenuity in their faces. It added more to his sorrow, when he
   conceived that those youths were twice vassals, bought by
   their masters, and 'sold under sin' (Romans vii. 14), servants
   in their bodies, and slaves in their souls to Satan; which
   occasioned the good man to enter into further inquiry with the
   merchants (which set them to sale) what they were and whence
   they came, according to this ensuing dialogue:

   Gregory.—'Whence come these captives?'
   Merchants.—'From the isle of Britain.'
   Gregory.—'Are those islanders Christians?'
   Merchants.—'O no, they are Pagans.'
   Gregory.—'It is sad that the author of darkness should
   possess men with so bright faces. But what is the name of
   their particular nation?'
   Merchants.—'They are called Angli.'
   Gregory.—'And well may, for their "angel like faces"; it
   becometh such to be coheirs with the angels in heaven. In what
   province of England did they live?'
   Merchants.—'In Deira.'
   Gregory.—'They are to be freed de Dei irâ, "from the anger of
   God." How call ye the king of that country?'
   Merchants.—'Ella.'
   Gregory.—'Surely hallelujah ought to be sung in his kingdom
   to the praise of that God who created all things.'

{783}

   Thus Gregory's gracious heart set the sound of every word to
   the time of spiritual goodness. Nor can his words be justly
   censured for levity, if we consider how, in that age, the
   elegance of poetry consisted in rhythm, and the eloquence of
   prose in allusions. And which was the main, where his pleasant
   conceits did end, there his pious endeavours began; which did
   not terminate in a verbal jest, but produce real effects,
   which ensued hereupon."

      _Thomas Fuller,
      The Church History of Britain,
      book 2, section 1._

   In 590 the good Gregory became Bishop of Rome, or Pope, and
   six years later, still retaining the interest awakened in him
   by the captive English youth, he dispatched a band of
   missionary monks to Britain, with their prior, Augustine, at
   their head. Once they turned back, affrighted by what they
   heard of the ferocity of the new heathen possessors of the
   once-Christian island of Britain; but Gregory laid his
   commands upon them again, and in the spring of 597 they
   crossed the channel from Gaul, landing at Ebbsfleet, in the
   Isle of Thanet, where the Jutish invaders had made their first
   landing, a century and a half before. They found Ethelbert of
   Kent, the most powerful of the English kings at that time,
   already prepared to receive them with tolerance, if not with
   favor, through the influence of a Christian wife—queen
   Bertha, of the royal family of the Franks. The conversion and
   baptism of the Kentish king and court, and the acceptance of
   the new faith by great numbers of the people followed quickly.
   In November of the same year, 597, Augustine returned to Gaul
   to receive his consecration as "Archbishop of the English,"
   establishing the See of Canterbury, with the primacy which has
   remained in it to the present day. The East Saxons were the
   next to bow to the cross and in 604 a bishop, Mellitus, was
   sent to London. This ended Augustine's work—and Gregory's—
   for both died that year. Then followed an interval of little
   progress in the work of the mission, and, afterwards, a
   reaction towards idolatry which threatened to destroy it
   altogether. But just at this time of discouragement in the
   south, a great triumph of Christianity was brought about in
   Northumberland, and due, there, as in Kent, to the influence
   of a Christian queen. Edwin, the king, with many of his nobles
   and his people, were baptised on Easter Eve, A. D. 627, and a new
   center of missionary work was established at York. There, too,
   an appalling reverse occurred, when Northumberland was
   overrun, in 633, by Penda, the heathen king of Mercia; but the
   kingdom rallied, and the Christian Church was reestablished,
   not wholly, as before, under the patronage and rule of Rome,
   but partly by a mission from the ancient Celtic Church, which
   did not acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. In the end,
   however, the Roman forms of Christianity prevailed, throughout
   Britain, as elsewhere in western Europe. Before the end of the
   7th century the religion of the Cross was established firmly
   in all parts of the island, the South Saxons being the latest
   to receive it. In the 8th century English missionaries were
   laboring zealously for the conversion of their Saxon and
   Frisian brethren on the continent.

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West; The English._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Venerable Bede,
      Ecclesiastical History._

      _H. Soames,
      The Anglo Saxon Church._

      _R. C. Jenkins,
      Canterbury,
      chapter 2._

ENGLAND:
   End of the 6th. Century.
   The extent, the limits and the character
   of the Teutonic conquest.

   "Before the end of the 6th century the Teutonic dominion
   stretched from the German ocean to the Severn, and from the
   English Channel to the Firth of Forth. The northern part of
   the island was still held by Picts and Scots, Celtic tribes,
   whose exact ethnical relation to each other hardly concerns
   us. And the whole west side of the island, including not only
   modern Wales, but the great Kingdom of Strathclyde, stretching
   from Dumbarton to Chester, and the great peninsula containing
   Cornwall, Devon and part of Somerset, was still in the hands
   of independent Britons. The struggle had been a long and
   severe one, and the natives often retained possession of a
   defensible district long after the surrounding country had
   been occupied by the invaders. It is therefore probable that,
   at the end of the 6th century and even later, there may have
   been within the English frontier inaccessible points where
   detached bodies of Welshmen still retained a precarious
   independence. It is probable also that, within the same
   frontier, there still were Roman towns, tributary to the
   conquerors rather than occupied by them. But by the end of the
   6th century even these exceptions must have been few. The work
   of the Conquest, as a whole, was accomplished. The Teutonic
   settlers had occupied by far the greater part of the territory
   which they ever were, in the strictest sense, to occupy. The
   complete supremacy of the island was yet to be won; but that
   was to be won, when it was won, by quite another process. The
   English Conquest of Britain differed in several important
   respects from every other settlement of a Teutonic people
   within the limits of the Roman Empire. … Though the literal
   extirpation of a nation is an impossibility, there is every
   reason to believe that the Celtic inhabitants of those parts
   of Britain which had become English at the 6th century had
   been as nearly extirpated as a nation can be. The women would
   doubtless be largely spared, but as far as the male sex is
   concerned, we may feel sure that death, emigration or personal
   slavery were the only alternatives which the vanquished found
   at the hands of our fathers. The nature of the small Celtic
   element in our language would of itself prove the fact. Nearly
   every Welsh word which has found its way into English
   expresses some small domestic matter, such as women and slaves
   would be concerned with."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 2, section 1._

   "A glance at the map shows that the mass of the local
   nomenclature of England begins with the Teutonic conquest,
   while the mass of the local nomenclature of France is older
   than the Teutonic conquest. And, if we turn from the names on
   the map to the living speech of men, there is the most
   obvious, but the most important, of all facts, the fact that
   Englishmen speak English and that Frenchmen speak French.

{784}

   That is to say, in Gaul the speech of Rome lived through the
   Teutonic conquest, while in Britain it perished in the
   Teutonic conquest, if it had not passed away before. And
   behind this is the fact, very much less obvious, a good deal
   less important, but still very important, that in Gaul tongues
   older than Latin live on only in corners as mere survivals,
   while in Britain, while Latin has utterly vanished, a tongue
   older than Latin still lives on as the common speech of an
   appreciable part of the land. Here then is the final result
   open to our own eyes. And it is a final result which could not
   have come to pass unless the Teutonic conquest of Britain had
   been something of an utterly different character from the
   Teutonic conquest of Gaul—unless the amount of change, of
   destruction, of havoc of every kind, above all, of slaughter
   and driving out of the existing inhabitants, had been far
   greater in Britain than it was in Gaul. If the Angles and
   Saxons in Britain had been only as the Goths in Spain, or even
   as the Franks in Gaul, it is inconceivable that the final
   results should have been so utterly different in the two
   cases. There is the plain fact: Gaul remained a Latin-speaking
   land; England became a Teutonic-speaking land. The obvious
   inference is that, while in Gaul the Teutonic conquest led to
   no general displacement of the inhabitants, in England it did
   lead to such a general displacement. In Gaul the Franks simply
   settled among a subject people, among whom they themselves
   were gradually merged; in Britain the Angles and Saxons slew
   or drove out the people whom they found in the land, and
   settled it again as a new people."

   _E. A. Freeman,
   The English People in its Three Homes
   (Lectures to American Audiences),
   pages 114-115._

   "Almost to the close of the 6th century the English conquest
   of Britain was a sheer dispossession of the conquered people;
   and, so far as the English sword in these earlier days
   reached, Britain became England, a land, that is, not of
   Britons, but of Englishmen. There is no need to believe that
   the clearing of the land meant the general slaughter of the
   men who held it, or to account for such a slaughter by
   supposed differences between the temper of the English and
   those of other conquerors. … The displacement of the
   conquered people was only made possible by their own stubborn
   resistance, and by the slow progress of the conquerors in the
   teeth of it. Slaughter no doubt there was on the battlefield
   or in towns like Anderida, whose long defence woke wrath in
   their besiegers. But for the most part the Britons cannot have
   been slaughtered; they were simply defeated and drew back."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 4._

   The view strongly stated above, as to the completeness of the
   erasure of Romano-British society and influence from the whole
   of England except its southwestern and north· western
   counties, by the English conquest, is combated as strongly by
   another less prominent school of recent historians,
   represented, for example, by Mr. Henry C. Coote (The Romans of
   Britain) and by Mr. Charles H. Pearson, who says: "We know
   that fugitives from Britain settled largely during the 5th
   century in Armorica and in Ireland; and we may perhaps accept
   the legend of St. Ursula as proof that the flight, in some
   instances, was directed to the more civilized parts of the
   continent. But even the pious story of the 11,000 virgins is
   sober and credible by the side of that history which assumes
   that some million men and women were slaughtered or made
   homeless by a few ship-loads of conquerors."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

   The opinion maintained by Prof. Freeman and Mr. Green (and, no
   less, by Dr. Stubbs) is the now generally accepted one.

ENGLAND: 7th Century.
   The so-called "Heptarchy."

   "The old notion of an Heptarchy, of a regular system of seven
   Kingdoms, united under the regular supremacy of a single
   over-lord, is a dream which has passed away before the light
   of historic criticism. The English Kingdoms in Britain were
   ever fluctuating, alike in their number and in their relations
   to one another. The number of perfectly independent states was
   sometimes greater and sometimes less than the mystical seven,
   and, till the beginning of the ninth century, the whole nation
   did not admit the regular supremacy of any fixed and permanent
   over-lord. Yet it is no less certain that, among the mass of
   smaller and more obscure principalities, seven Kingdoms do
   stand out in a marked way, seven Kingdoms of which it is
   possible to recover something like a continuous history, seven
   Kingdoms which alone supplied candidates for the dominion of
   the whole island." These seven kingdoms were Kent, Sussex,
   Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, Northumberland and Mercia.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 2._

   "After the territorial boundaries had become more settled,
   there appeared at the commencement of the seventh century
   seven or eight greater and smaller kingdoms. … Historians
   have described this condition of things as the Heptarchy,
   disregarding the early disappearance of Sussex, and the
   existence of still smaller kingdoms. But this grouping was
   neither based upon equality, nor destined to last for any
   length of time. It was the common interest of these smaller
   states to withstand the sudden and often dangerous invasions
   of their western and northern neighbours; and, accordingly,
   whichever king was capable of successfully combating the
   common foe, acquired for the time a certain superior rank,
   which some historians denote by the title of Bretwalda. By
   this name can only be understood an actual and recognized
   temporary superiority; first ascribed to Ælla of Sussex, and
   later passing to Northumbria, until Wessex finally attains a
   real and lasting supremacy. It was geographical position which
   determined these relations of superiority. The small kingdoms
   in the west were shielded by the greater ones of
   Northumberland, Mercia and Wessex, as though by
   crescent-shaped forelands—which in their struggles with the
   Welsh kingdoms, with Strathclyde and Cumbria, with Picts and
   Scots, were continually in a state of martial activity. And so
   the smaller western kingdoms followed the three warlike ones;
   and round these Anglo-Saxon history revolved for two whole
   centuries, until in Wessex we find a combination of most of
   the conditions which are necessary to the existence of a great
   State."

      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 617.
   Edwin becomes king of Northumbria.

ENGLAND: A. D. 634.
   Oswald becomes king of Northumbria.

ENGLAND: A. D. 655.
   Oswi becomes king of Northumbria.

{785}

ENGLAND: A. D. 670.
   Egfrith becomes king of Northumbria.

ENGLAND: A. D. 688.
   Ini becomes king of the West Saxons.

ENGLAND: A. D. 716.
    Ethelbald becomes king of Mercia.

ENGLAND: A. D. 758.
   Offa becomes king of Mercia.

ENGLAND: A. D. 794.
   Cenwulf becomes king of Mercia.

ENGLAND: A. D. 800.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Ecgberht.

ENGLAND: A. D. 800-836.
   The supremacy of Wessex.
   The first king of all the English.

   "And now I have come to the reign of Ecgberht, the great
   Bretwalda. He was an Ætheling of the blood of Cerdic, and he
   is said to have been the son of Ealhmund, and Ealhmund is said
   to have been an Under-king of Kent. For the old line of the
   Kings of Kent had come to an end and Kent was now sometimes
   under Wessex and sometimes under Mercia. … When Beorhtric
   died in 800, he [Ecgberht] was chosen King of the West-Saxons.
   He reigned until 836, and in that time he brought all the
   English Kingdoms, and the greater part of Britain, more or
   less under his power. The southern part of the island, all
   Kent, Sussex, and Essex, he joined on to his own Kingdom, and
   set his sons or other Æthelings to reign over them as his
   Under-kings. But Northumberland, Mercia, and East-Anglia were
   not brought so completely under his power as this. Their Kings
   submitted to Ecgberht and acknowledged him as their over-lord,
   but they went on reigning in their own Kingdoms, and
   assembling their own Wise Men, just as they did before. They
   became what in after times was called his 'vassals,' what in
   English was called being his 'men.' … Besides the English
   Kings, Ecgberht brought the Welsh, both in Wales and in
   Cornwall, more completely under his power. … So King
   Ecgberht was Lord from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, and
   from the English Channel to the Firth of Forth. So it is not
   wonderful if, in his charters, he not only called himself King
   of the West-Saxons or King of the West-Saxons and Kentishmen,
   but sometimes 'Rex Anglorum,' or 'King of the English.' But
   amidst all this glory there were signs of great evils at hand.
   The Danes came several times."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Old English History for Children,
      chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 836.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelwulf.

ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
   Conquests and settlements of the Danes.
   The heroic struggle of Alfred the Great.
   The "Peace of Wedmore" and the "Danelaw."
   King Alfred's character and reign.

   "The Danish invasions of England … fall naturally into three
   periods, each of which finds its parallel in the course of the
   English Conquest of Britain. … We first find a period in
   which the object of the invaders seems to be simple plunder.
   They land, they harry the country, they fight, if need be, to
   secure their booty, but whether defeated or victorious, they
   equally return to their ships, and sail away with what they
   have gathered. This period includes the time from the first
   recorded invasion [A. D. 787] till the latter half of the
   ninth century. Next comes a time in which the object of the
   Northmen is clearly no longer mere plunder, but settlement.
   … In the reign of Æthelwulf the son of Ecgberht it is
   recorded that the heathen men wintered for the first time in
   the Isle of Sheppey [A. D. 855]. This marks the transition
   from the first to the second period of their invasions. … It
   was not however till about eleven years from this time that
   the settlement actually began. Meanwhile the sceptre of the
   West-Saxons passed from one hand to another. … Four sons of
   Æthelwulf reigned in succession, and the reigns of the first
   three among them [Ethelbald, A. D. 858, Ethelberht, 860,
   Ethelred, 866] make up together only thirteen years. In the
   reign of the third of these princes, Æthelred I., the second
   period of the invasions fairly begins. Five years were spent
   by the Northmen in ravaging and conquering the tributary
   Kingdoms. Northumberland, still disputed between rival Kings,
   fell an easy prey [867-869], and one or two puppet princes did
   not scruple to receive a tributary crown at the hands of the
   heathen invaders. They next entered Mercia [868], they seized
   Nottingham, and the West-Saxon King hastening to the relief of
   his vassals, was unable to dislodge them from that stronghold.
   East Anglia was completely conquered [866-870] and its King
   Eadmund died a martyr. At last the full storm of invasion
   burst upon Wessex itself [871]. King Æthelred, the first of a
   long line of West-Saxon hero-Kings, supported by his greater
   brother Ælfred [Alfred the Great] met the invaders in battle
   after battle with varied success. He died and Ælfred
   succeeded, in the thick of the struggle. In this year [871],
   the last of Æthelred and the first of Ælfred, nine pitched
   battles, besides smaller engagements, were fought with the
   heathens on West-Saxon ground. At last peace was made; the
   Northmen retreated to London, within the Mercian frontier;
   Wessex was for the moment delivered, but the supremacy won by
   Ecgberht was lost. For a few years Wessex was subjected to
   nothing more than temporary incursions, but Northumberland and
   part of Mercia were systematically occupied by the Northmen,
   and the land was divided among them. … At last the Northmen,
   now settled in a large part of the island, made a second
   attempt to add Wessex itself to their possessions [878]. For a
   moment the land seemed conquered; Ælfred himself lay hid in the
   marshes of Somersetshire; men might well deem that the Empire
   of Ecgberht and the Kingdom of Cerdic itself, had vanished for
   ever. But the strong heart of the most renowned of Englishmen,
   the saint, the scholar, the hero, and the lawgiver, carried
   his people safely through this most terrible of dangers.
   Within the same year the Dragon of Wessex was again victorious
   [at the battle of Ethandun, or Edington], and the Northmen
   were driven to conclude a peace which Englishmen, fifty years
   sooner, would have deemed the lowest depth of degradation, but
   which might now be fairly looked upon as honourable and even
   as triumphant. By the terms of the Peace of Wedmore the
   Northmen were to evacuate Wessex and the part of Mercia
   south-west of Watling-Street; they, or at least their chiefs,
   were to submit to baptism, and they were to receive the whole
   land beyond Watling-Street as vassals of the West-Saxon King.
   … The exact boundary started from the Thames, along the Lea
   to its source, then right to Bedford and along the Ouse till
   it meets Watling-Street, then along Watling-Street to the
   Welsh border. See Ælfred and Guthrum's Peace,' Thorpe's 'Laws
   and Institutes,' i. 152. This frontier gives London to the
   English; but it seems that Ælfred did not obtain full
   possession of London till 886."
{786}
   The territory thus conceded to the Danes, which included all
   northeastern England from the Thames to the Tyne, was
   thenceforth known by the name of the Danelagh or Danelaw,
   signifying the country subject to the law of the Danes. The
   Peace of Wedmore ended the second period of the Danish
   invasions. The third period, which was not opened until a full
   century later, embraced the actual conquest of the whole of
   England by a Danish king and its temporary annexation to the
   dominions of the Danish crown.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 2, with foot-note._

   "Now that peace was restored, and the Danes driven out of his
   domains, it remained to be seen whether Alfred was as good a
   ruler as he was a soldier. … What did he see? The towns,
   even London itself, pillaged, ruined, or burnt down; the
   monasteries destroyed; the people wild and lawless; ignorance,
   roughness, insecurity everywhere. It is almost incredible with
   what a brave heart he set himself to repair all this; how his
   great and noble aims were still before him; how hard he
   strove, and how much he achieved. First of all he seems to
   have sought for helpers. Like most clever men, he was good at
   reading characters. He soon saw who would be true, brave, wise
   friends, and he collected these around him. Some of them he
   fetched from over the sea, from France and Germany; our friend
   Asser from Wales, or, as he calls his country, 'Western
   Britain,' while England, he calls 'Saxony.' He says he first
   saw Alfred 'in a royal vill, which is called Dene' in Sussex.
   'He received me with kindness, and asked me eagerly to devote
   myself to his service, and become his friend; to leave
   everything which I possessed on the left or western bank of
   the Severn, and promised that he would give more than an
   equivalent for it in his own dominions. I replied that I could
   not rashly and incautiously promise such things; for it seemed
   to be unjust that I should leave those sacred places in which
   I had been bred, educated, crowned, and ordained for the sake
   of any earthly honour and power, unless upon compulsion. Upon
   this he said, "If you cannot accede to this, at least let me
   have your service in part; spend six months of the year with
   me here, and the other six months in Britain."' And to this
   after a time Asser consented. What were the principal things
   he turned his mind to after providing for the defence of his
   kingdom, and collecting his friends and counsellors about him?
   Law—justice—religion—education. He collected and studied
   the old laws of his nation; what he thought good he kept, what
   he disapproved he left out. He added others, especially the
   ten commandments and some other parts of the law of Moses.
   Then he laid them all before his Witan, or wise men, and with
   their approval published them. … The state of justice in
   England was dreadful at this time. … Alfred's way of curing
   this was by inquiring into all cases, as far as he possibly
   could, himself; and Asser says he did this 'especially for the
   sake of the poor, to whose interest, day and night, he ever
   was wonderfully attentive; for in the whole kingdom the poor,
   besides him, had few or no protectors.' … When he found that
   the judges had made mistakes through ignorance, he rebuked them,
   and told them they must either grow wiser or give up their
   posts; and soon the old earls and other judges, who had been
   unlearned from their cradles, began to study diligently. …
   For reviving and spreading religion among his people he used
   the best means that he knew of; that is, he founded new
   monasteries and restored old ones, and did his utmost to get
   good bishops and clergymen. For his own part, he strove to
   practise in all ways what he taught to others. … Education
   was in a still worse condition than everything else. … All
   the schools had been broken up. Alfred says that when he began
   to reign there were very few clergymen south of the Humber who
   could even understand the Prayer-book. (That was still in
   Latin, as the Roman missionaries had brought it.) And south of
   the Thames he could not remember one. His first care was to
   get better-educated clergy and bishops. And next to get the
   laymen taught also. … He founded monasteries and schools,
   and restored the old ones which had been ruined. He had a
   school in his court for his own children and the children of
   his nobles. But at the very outset a most serious difficulty
   confronted Alfred. Where was he to get books? At this time, as
   far as we can judge, there can only have been one, or at most
   two books in the English language—the long poem of Cædmon
   about the creation of the world, &c., and the poem of Beowulf
   about warriors and fiery dragons. There were many English
   ballads and songs, but whether these were written down I do
   not know. There was no book of history, not even English
   history; no book of geography, no religious books, no
   philosophy. Bede, who had written so many books, had written
   them all in Latin. … So when they had a time of  'stillness'
   the king and his learned friends set to work and translated
   books into English; and Alfred, who was as modest and candid
   as he was wise, put into the preface of one of his
   translations that he hoped, if anyone knew Latin better than
   he did, that he would not blame him, for he could but do
   according to his ability. … Beside all this, he had a great
   many other occupations. Asser, who often lived with him for
   months at a time, gives us an account of his busy life.
   Notwithstanding his infirmities and other hindrances, 'he
   continued to carry on the government, and to exercise hunting
   in all its branches; to teach his workers in gold and
   artificers of all kinds, his falconers, hawkers, and
   dog-keepers; to build houses, majestic and good, beyond all
   the precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical
   inventions; to recite the Saxon books (Asser, being a
   Welshman, always calls the English, Saxon), and especially to
   learn by heart the Saxon poems, and to make others learn them;
   he never desisted from studying most diligently to the best of
   his ability; he attended the mass and other daily services of
   religion; he was frequent in psalm-singing and prayer;  … he
   bestowed alms and largesses on both natives and foreigners of
   all countries; he was affable and pleasant to all, and
   curiously eager to investigate things unknown.'"

      _M. J. Guest,
      Lectures on the History of England,
      lecture 9._

   "It is no easy task for anyone who has been studying his
   [Alfred's] life and works to set reasonable bounds to their
   reverence, and enthusiasm, for the man. Lest the reader should
   think my estimate tainted with the proverbial weakness of
   biographers for their heroes; let them turn to the words in
   which the earliest, and the last of the English historians of
   that time, sum up the character of Alfred.
{787}
   Florence of Worcester, writing in the century after his death,
   speaks of him as 'that famous, warlike, victorious king; the
   zealous protector of widows, scholars, orphans and the poor;
   skilled in the Saxon poets; affable and liberal to all;
   endowed with prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance;
   most patient under the infirmity which he daily suffered; a
   most stern inquisitor in executing justice; vigilant and
   devoted in the service of God.' Mr. Freeman, in his 'History
   of the Norman Conquest,' has laid down the portrait in bold
   and lasting colours, in a passage as truthful as it is
   eloquent, which those who are familiar with it will be glad to
   meet again, while those who do not know it will be grateful to me
   for substituting for any poor words of my own. 'Alfred, the
   unwilling author of these great changes, is the most perfect
   character in history. He is a singular instance of a prince
   who has become a hero of romance, who, as such, has had
   countless imaginary exploits attributed to him, but to whose
   character romance has done no more than justice, and who
   appears in exactly the same light in history and in fable. No
   other man on record has ever so thoroughly united all the
   virtues both of the ruler and of the private man. In no other
   man on record were so many virtues disfigured by so little
   alloy. A saint without superstition, a scholar without
   ostentation, a warrior all whose wars were fought in the
   defence of his country, a conqueror whose laurels were never
   stained by cruelty, a prince never cast down by adversity,
   never lifted up to insolence in the day of triumph—there is
   no other name in history to compare with his. Saint Lewis
   comes nearest to him in the union of a more than monastic
   piety with the highest civil, military, and domestic virtues.
   Both of them stand forth in honourable contrast to the abject
   superstition of some other royal saints, who were so selfishly
   engaged in the care of their own souls that they refused
   either to raise up heirs for their throne, or to strike a blow
   on behalf of their people. But even in Saint Lewis we see a
   disposition to forsake an immediate sphere of duty for the
   sake of distant and unprofitable, however pious and glorious,
   undertakings. The true duties of the King of the French
   clearly lay in France, and not in Egypt or Tunis. No such
   charge lies at the door of the great King of the West Saxons.
   With an inquiring spirit which took in the whole world, for
   purposes alike of scientific inquiry and of Christian
   benevolence, Alfred never forgot that his first duty was to
   his own people. He forestalled our own age in sending
   expeditions to explore the Northern Ocean, and in sending alms
   to the distant Churches of India; but he neither forsook his
   crown, like some of his predecessors, nor neglected his
   duties, like some of his successors. The virtue of Alfred,
   like the virtue of Washington, consisted in no marvellous
   displays of super-human genius, but in the simple,
   straightforward discharge of the duty of the moment. But
   Washington, soldier, statesman, and patriot, like Alfred, has
   no claim to Alfred's further characters of saint and scholar.
   William the Silent, too, has nothing to set against Alfred's
   literary merits; and in his career, glorious as it is, there
   is an element of intrigue and chicanery utterly alien to the
   noble simplicity of both Alfred and Washington. The same union
   of zeal for religion and learning with the highest gifts of
   the warrior and the statesman is found, on a wider field of
   action, in Charles the Great. But even Charles cannot aspire
   to the pure glory of Alfred. Amidst all the splendour of
   conquest and legislation, we cannot be blind to an alloy of
   personal ambition, of personal vice, to occasional unjust
   aggressions and occasional acts of cruelty. Among our own
   later princes, the great Edward alone can bear for a moment
   the comparison with his glorious ancestor. And, when tried by
   such a standard, even the great Edward fails. Even in him we
   do not see the same wonderful union of gifts and virtues which
   so seldom meet together; we cannot acquit Edward of occasional
   acts of violence, of occasional recklessness as to means; we
   cannot attribute to him the pure, simple, almost childlike
   disinterestedness which marks the character of Alfred.' Let
   Wordsworth, on behalf of the poets of England, complete the
   picture:

      'Behold a pupil of the monkish gown,
      The pious Alfred, king to justice dear!
      Lord of the harp and liberating spear;
      Mirror of princes! Indigent renown
      Might range the starry ether for a crown
      Equal to his deserts, who, like the year,
      Pours forth his bounty, like the day doth cheer,
      And awes like night, with mercy-tempered frown.
      Ease from this noble miser of his time
      No moment steals; pain narrows not his cares—
      Though small his kingdom as a spark or gem,
      Of Alfred boasts remote Jerusalem,
      And Christian India, through her widespread clime,
      In sacred converse gifts with Alfred shares.'"

      _Thomas Hughes,
      Alfred the Great,
      chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Pauli,
      Life of Alfred the Great._

      _Asser,
      Life of Alfred._

      See, also, NORMANS, and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

ENGLAND: A. D. 901.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Elder.

ENGLAND: A. D. 925.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelstan.

ENGLAND: A. D. 938.
   The battle of Brunnaburgh.

   Alfred the Great, dying in 901, was succeeded by his son,
   Edward, and Edward, in turn, was followed, A. D. 925, by his
   son Athelstane, or Æthalsten. In the reign of Athelstane a
   great league was formed against him by the Northumbrian Danes
   with the Scots, with the Danes of Dublin and with the Britons
   of Strathclyde and Cumbria. Athelstane defeated the
   confederates in a mighty battle, celebrated in one of the
   finest of Old-English war-songs, and also in one of the Sagas
   of the Norse tongue, as the Battle of Brunnaburgh or
   Brunanburh, but the site of which is unknown. "Five Kings and
   seven northern Iarls or earls fell in the strife. …
   Constantine the Scot fled to the north, mourning his
   fair-haired son, who perished in the slaughter. Anlaf [or
   Olaf, the leader of the Danes or Ostmen of Dublin], with a sad
   and scattered remnant of his forces, escaped to Ireland. …
   The victory was so decisive that, during the remainder of the
   reign of Athelstane, no enemy dared to rise up against him;
   his supremacy was acknowledged without contest, and his glory
   extended to distant realms."

      _F. Palgrave,
      History of the Anglo-Saxons,
      chapter 10._

   Mr. Skene is of opinion that the battle of Brunnaburgh was
   fought at Aldborough, near York.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 1, page 357._

ENGLAND: A. D. 940.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Edmund.

ENGLAND: A. D. 946.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Edred.

ENGLAND: A. D. 955.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Edwig.

{788}

ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Edgar.

ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
   Completed union of the realm.
   Increase of kingly authority.
   Approach towards feudalism.
   Rise of the Witenagemot.
   Decline of the Freemen.

   "Before Alfred's son Edward died, the whole of Mercia was
   incorporated with his immediate dominions. The way in which
   the thing was done was more remarkable than the thing itself.
   Like the Romans, he made the fortified towns the means of
   upholding his power. But unlike the Romans, he did not
   garrison them with colonists from amongst his own immediate
   dependents. He filled them, as Henry the Fowler did afterwards
   in Saxony, with free townsmen, whose hearts were at one with
   their fellow countrymen around. Before he died in 924, the
   Danish chiefs in the land beyond the Humber had acknowledged
   his overlordship, and even the Celts of Wales and Scotland had
   given in their submission in some form which they were not
   likely to interpret too strictly. His son and his two
   grandsons, Athelstan, Edmund, and Edred completed the work,
   and when after the short and troubled interval of Edwy's rule
   in Wessex, Edgar united the undivided realm under his sway in
   958, he had no internal enemies to suppress. He allowed the
   Celtic Scottish King who had succeeded to the inheritance of
   the Pictish race to possess the old Northumbrian land north of
   the Tweed, where they and their descendants learned the habits
   and speech of Englishmen. But he treated him and the other
   Celtic kings distinctly as his inferiors, though it was
   perhaps well for him that he did not attempt to impose upon
   them any very tangible tokens of his supremacy. The story of
   his being rowed by eight kings on the Dee is doubtless only a
   legend by which the peaceful king was glorified in the
   troubled times which followed. Such a struggle, so
   successfully conducted, could not fail to be accompanied by a
   vast increase of that kingly authority which had been on the
   growth from the time of its first establishment. The
   hereditary ealdormen, the representatives of the old kingly
   houses, had passed away. The old tribes, or—where their
   limitations had been obliterated by the tide of Danish
   conquest, as was the case in central and northern England—the
   new artificial divisions which had taken their place, were now
   known as shires, and the very name testified that they were
   regarded only as parts of a greater whole. The shire mote
   still continued the tradition of the old popular assemblies.
   At its head as presidents of its deliberations were the
   ealdorman and the bishop, each of them owing their appointment
   to the king, and it was summoned by the shire-reeve or
   sheriff, himself even more directly an officer of the king,
   whose business it was to see that all the royal dues were paid
   within the shire. In the more general concerns of the kingdom,
   the king consulted with his Witan, whose meetings were called
   the Witenagemot, a body, which, at least for all ordinary
   purposes, was composed not of any representatives of the
   shire-motes, but of his own dependents, the ealdormen, the
   bishops, and a certain number of thegns whose name, meaning
   'servants', implied at least at first, that they either were
   or had at one time been in some way in the employment of the
   king. … The necessities of war … combined with the
   sluggishness of the mass of the population to favour the
   growth of a military force, which would leave the tillers of
   the soil to their own peaceful occupations. As the conditions
   which make a standing army possible on a large scale did not
   yet exist, such a force must be afforded by a special class,
   and that class must be composed of those who either had too
   much land to till themselves, or, having no land at all, were
   released from the bonds which tied the cultivator to the soil,
   in other words, it must be composed of a landed aristocracy
   and its dependents. In working out this change, England was
   only aiming at the results which similar conditions were
   producing on the Continent. But just as the homogeneousness of
   the population drew even the foreign element of the church
   into harmony with the established institutions, so it was with
   the military aristocracy. It grouped itself round the king,
   and it supplemented, instead of overthrowing, the old popular
   assemblies. Two classes of men, the eorls and the gesiths, had
   been marked out from their fellows at the time of the
   conquest. The thegn of Edgar's day differed from both, but he
   had some of the distinguishing marks of either. He was not
   like the gesith, a mere personal follower of the king. He did
   not, like the eorl, owe his position to his birth. Yet his
   relation to the king was a close one, and he had a hold upon
   the land as firm as that of the older eorl. He may, perhaps,
   best be described as a gesith, who had acquired the position
   of an eorl without entirely throwing off his own
   characteristics. … There can be little doubt that the change
   began in the practice of granting special estates in the
   folkland, or common undivided land, to special persons. At
   first this land was doubtless held to be the property of the
   tribe. [This is now questioned by Vinogradoff and others. See
   FOLCLAND.]  … When the king rose above the tribes, he
   granted it himself with the consent of his Witan. A large
   portion was granted to churches and monasteries. But a large
   portion went in privates estates, or book land, as it was
   called, from the book or charter which conveyed them to the
   king's own gesiths, or to members of his own family. The
   gesith thus ceased to be a mere member of the king's military
   household. He became a landowner as well, with special duties.
   to perform to the king. … He had special jurisdiction given
   him over his tenants and serfs, exempting him and them from
   the authority of the hundred mote, though they still remained,
   except in very exceptional cases, under the authority of the
   shire mote. … Even up to the Norman conquest this change was
   still going on. To the end, indeed, the old constitutional
   forms were not broken down. The hundred mote was not
   abandoned, where freemen enough remained to fill it. Even
   where all the land of a hundred had passed under the
   protection of a lord there was little outward change. …
   There was thus no actual breach of continuity in the nation.
   The thegnhood pushed its roots down, as it were, amongst the
   free classes. Nevertheless there was a danger of such a breach
   of continuity coming about. The freemen entered more and more
   largely into a condition of' dependence, and there was a great
   risk lest such a condition of dependence should become a
   condition of servitude. Here and there, by some extraordinary
   stroke of luck, a freeman might rise to be a thegn. But the
   condition of the class to which he belonged was deteriorating
   every day.
{789}
   The downward progress to serfdom was too easy to take, and by
   large masses of the population it was already taken. Below the
   increasing numbers of the serfs was to be found the lower
   class of slaves, who were actually the property of their
   masters. The Witenagemot was in reality a select body of
   thegns, if the bishops, who held their lands in much the same
   way, be regarded as thegns. In was rather an inchoate House of
   Lords, than an inchoate Parliament, after our modern ideas. It
   was natural that a body of men which united a great part of
   the wealth with almost all the influence in the kingdom should
   be possessed of high constitutional powers. The Witenagemot
   elected the king, though as yet they always chose him out of
   the royal family, which was held to have sprung from the god
   Woden. There were even cases in which they deposed unworthy
   kings."

      _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      part 1, chapter 2, section 16-21._

ENGLAND: A. D. 975.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Martyr.

ENGLAND: A. D. 979.
   Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelred, called The Unready.

ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
   The Danish conquest.

   "Then [A. D. 979] commenced one of the longest and most
   disastrous reigns of the Saxon kings, with the accession of
   Ethelred II., justly styled Ethelred the Unready. The Northmen
   now renewed their plundering and conquering expeditions
   against England; while England had a worthless waverer for her
   ruler, and many of her chief men turned traitors to their king
   and country. Always a laggart in open war, Ethelred tried in
   1001 the cowardly and foolish policy of buying off the enemies
   whom he dared not encounter. The tax called Dane-gelt was then
   levied to provide 'a tribute for the Danish men on account of
   the great terror which they caused.' To pay money thus was in
   effect to hire the enemy to renew the war. In 1002 Ethelred
   tried the still more weak and wicked measure of ridding
   himself of his enemies by treacherous massacre. Great numbers
   of Danes were now living in England, intermixed with the
   Anglo-Saxon population. Ethelred resolved to relieve himself
   from all real or supposed danger of these Scandinavian
   settlers taking part with their invading kinsmen, by sending
   secret orders throughout his dominions for the putting to
   death of every Dane, man, woman, and child, on St. Brice's
   Day, Nov. 13. This atrocious order was executed only in
   Southern England, that is, in the West-Saxon territories; but
   large numbers of the Danish race were murdered there while
   dwelling in full security among their Saxon neighbours. …
   Among the victims was a royal Danish lady, named Gunhilde, who
   was sister of Sweyn, king of Denmark, and who had married and
   settled in England. … The news of the massacre of St. Brice
   soon spread over the Continent, exciting the deepest
   indignation against the English and their king. Sweyn
   collected in Denmark a larger fleet and army than the north
   had ever before sent forth, and solemnly vowed to conquer
   England or perish in the attempt. He landed on the south coast
   of Devon, obtained possession of Exeter by the treachery of
   its governor, and then marched through western and southern
   England, marking every shire with fire, famine and slaughter;
   but he was unable to take London, which was defended against
   the repeated attacks of the Danes with strong courage and
   patriotism, such as seemed to have died out in the rest of
   Saxon England. In 1013, the wretched king Ethelred fled the
   realm and sought shelter in Normandy. Sweyn was acknowledged
   king in all the northern and western shires, but he died in
   1014, while his vow of conquest was only partly accomplished.
   The English now sent for Ethelred back from Normandy,
   promising loyalty to him as their lawful king, 'provided he
   would rule over them more justly than he had done before.'
   Ethelred willingly promised amendment, and returned to reign
   amidst strife and misery for two years more. His implacable
   enemy, Sweyn, was indeed dead; but the Danish host which Sweyn
   had led thither was still in England, under the command of
   Sweyn's son, Canute [or Cnut], a prince equal in military
   prowess to his father, and far superior to him and to all
   other princes of the time in statesmanship and general
   ability. Ethelred died in 1016, while the war with Canute was
   yet raging. Ethelred's son, Edmund, surnamed Ironside, was
   chosen king by the great council then assembled in London, but
   great numbers of the Saxons made their submission to Canute.
   The remarkable personal valour of Edmund, strongly aided by
   the bravery of his faithful Londoners, maintained the war for
   nearly a year, when Canute agreed to a compromise, by which he
   and Edmund divided the land between them. But within a few
   months after this, the royal Ironside died by the hand of an
   assassin, and Canute obtained the whole realm of the English
   race. A Danish dynasty was now [A. D. 1016] established in
   England for three reigns."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Lappenberg,
      England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 2, pages 151-233._

      See, also, MALDEN, and ASSANDUN, BATTLES OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1016.
   Accession and death of King Edmund Ironside.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.
   The Reign of the Danish kings.

   "Cnut's rule was not as terrible as might have been feared. He
   was perfectly unscrupulous in striking down the treacherous
   and mischievous chieftains who had made a trade of Ethelred's
   weakness and the country's divisions. But he was wise and
   strong enough to rule, not by increasing but by allaying those
   divisions. Resting his power upon his Scandinavian kingdoms
   beyond the sea, upon his Danish countrymen in England, and his
   Danish huscarles, or specially trained soldiers in his
   service, he was able, without even the appearance of weakness,
   to do what in him lay to bind Dane and Englishman together as
   common instruments of his power. Fidelity counted more with
   him than birth. To bring England itself into unity was beyond
   his power. The device which he hit upon was operative only in
   hands as strong as his own. There were to be four great earls,
   deriving their name from the Danish word jarl, centralizing
   the forces of government in Wessex, in Mercia, in East Anglia,
   and in Northumberland. With Cnut the four were officials of
   the highest class. They were there because he placed them
   there. They would cease to be there if he so willed it. But it
   could hardly be that it would always be so. Some day or
   another, unless a great catastrophe swept away Cnut and his
   creation, the earldoms would pass into territorial
   sovereignties and the divisions of England would be made
   evident openly."

      _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      chapter 2, section 25._

{790}

   "He [Canute] ruled nominally at least, a larger European
   dominion than any English sovereign has ever done; and perhaps
   also a more homogeneous one. No potentate of the time came
   near him except the king of Germany, the emperor, with whom he
   was allied as an equal. The king of the Norwegians, the Danes,
   and a great part of the Swedes, was in a position to found a
   Scandinavian empire with Britain annexed. Canute's division of
   his dominions on his death-bed, showed that he saw this to be
   impossible; Norway, for a century and a half after his strong
   hand was removed, was broken up amongst an anarchical crew of
   piratic and blood-thirsty princes, nor could Denmark be
   regarded as likely to continue united with England. The
   English nation was too much divided and demoralised to retain
   hold on Scandinavia, even if the condition of the latter had
   allowed it. Hence Canute determined that during his life, as
   after his death, the nations should be governed on their own
   principles. … The four nations of the English,
   Northumbrians, East Angles, Mercians and West Saxons, might,
   each under their own national leader, obey a sovereign who was
   strong enough to enforce peace amongst them. The great
   earldoms of Canute's reign were perhaps a nearer approach to a
   feudal division of England than anything which followed the
   Norman Conquest. … And the extent to which this creation of
   the four earldoms affected the history of the next
   half-century cannot be exaggerated. The certain tendency of
   such an arrangement to become hereditary, and the certain
   tendency of the hereditary occupation of great fiefs
   ultimately to overwhelm the royal power, are well
   exemplified. … The Norman Conquest restored national unity
   at a tremendous temporary sacrifice, just as the Danish
   Conquest in other ways, and by a reverse process, had helped
   to create it."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 77._

    Canute died in 1035. He was succeeded by his two sons, Harold
    Harefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnute or Hardicanute
    (1040-1042), after which the Saxon line of kings was
    momentarily restored.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1035.
   Accession of Harold, son of Cnut.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1040.
   Accession of Harthacnut, or Hardicanute.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1042.
   Accession of Edward the Confessor.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066.
   The last of the Saxon kings.

   "The love which Canute had inspired by his wise and
   conciliatory rule was dissipated by the bad government of his
   sons, Harold and Harthacnut, who ruled in turn. After seven
   years of misgovernment, or rather anarchy, England, freed from
   the hated rule  of Harthacnut by his death, returned to its
   old line of kings, and 'all folk chose Edward [surnamed The
   Confessor, son of Ethelred the Unready] to king,' as was his
   right by birth. Not that he was, according to our ideas, the
   direct heir, since Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, still
   lived, an exile in Hungary. But the Saxons, by choosing Edward
   the Confessor, reasserted for the last time their right to
   elect that one of the hereditary line who was most available.
   With the reign of Edward the Confessor the Norman Conquest
   really began. We have seen the connection between England and
   Normandy begun by the marriage of Ethelred the Unready to Emma
   the daughter of Richard the Fearless, and cemented by the
   refuge offered to the English exiles in the court of the
   Norman duke. Edward had long found a home there in Canute's
   time. … Brought up under Norman influence, Edward had
   contracted the ideas and sympathies of his adopted home. On
   his election to the English throne the French tongue became
   the language of the court, Norman favourites followed in his
   train, to be foisted into important offices of State and
   Church, and thus inaugurate that Normanizing policy which was
   to draw on the Norman Conquest. Had it not been for this,
   William would never have had any claim on England." The
   Normanizing policy of king Edward roused the opposition of a
   strong English party, headed by the great West-Saxon Earl
   Godwine, who had been lifted from an obscure origin to vast
   power in England by the favor of Canute, and whose son Harold
   held the earldom of East Anglia. "Edward, raised to the throne
   chiefly through the influence of Godwine, shortly married his
   daughter, and at first ruled England leaning on the
   assistance, and almost overshadowed by the power of the great
   earl." But Edward was Norman at heart and Godwine was
   thoroughly English; whence quarrels were not long in arising.
   They came to the crisis in 1051, by reason of a bloody tumult
   at Dover, provoked by insolent conduct on the part of a train
   of French visitors returning home from Edward's Court. Godwine
   was commanded to punish the townsmen of Dover and refused,
   whereupon the king obtained a sentence of outlawry, not only
   against the earl, but against his sons. "Godwine, obliged to
   bow before the united power of his enemies, was forced to fly
   the land. He went to Flanders with his son Swegen, while
   Harold and Leofwine went to Ireland, to be well received by
   Dermot king of Leinster. Many Englishmen seem to have followed
   him in his exile: for a year the foreign party was triumphant,
   and the first stage of the Norman Conquest complete. It was at
   this important crisis that William [Duke of Normandy], secure
   at home, visited his cousin Edward. … Friendly relations we
   may be sure had existed between, the two cousins, and if, as
   is not improbable, William had begun to hope that he might
   some day succeed to the English throne, what more favourable
   opportunity for a visit could have been found? Edward had lost
   all hopes of ever having any children. … William came, and
   it would seem, gained all that he desired. For this most
   probably was the date of some promise on Edward's part that
   William should succeed him on his death. The whole question is
   beset with difficulties. The Norman chroniclers alone mention
   it, and give no dates. Edward had no right to will away his
   crown, the disposition of which lay with King and Witenagemot
   (or assembly of Wise Men, the grandees of the country), and
   his last act was to reverse the promise, if ever given, in
   favour of Harold, Godwine's son. But were it not for some such
   promise, it is hard to see how William could have subsequently
   made the Normans and the world believe in the sacredness of
   his claim. … William returned to Normandy; but next year
   Edward was forced to change his policy." Godwine and his sons
   returned to England, with a fleet at their backs; London
   declared for them, and the king submitted himself to a
   reconciliation.
{791}
   "The party of Godwine once more ruled supreme, and no mention
   was made of the gift of the crown to William. Godwine, indeed,
   did not long survive his restoration, but dying the year
   after, 1053, left his son Harold Earl of the West-Saxons and
   the most important man in England." King Edward the Confessor
   lived yet thirteen years after this time, during which period
   Earl Harold grew continually in influence and conspicuous
   headship of the English party. In 1062 it was Harold's
   misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of France, and he
   was made captive. Duke William of Normandy intervened in his
   behalf and obtained his release; and "then, as the price of
   his assistance, extorted an oath from Harold, soon to be used
   against him. Harold, it is said, became his man, promised to
   marry 'William's daughter Adela, to place Dover at once in
   William's hands, and support his claim to the English throne
   on Edward's death. By a stratagem of William's the oath was
   unwittingly taken on holy relics, hidden by the duke under the
   table on which Harold laid hands to swear, whereby, according
   to the notions of those days, the oath was rendered more
   binding." But two years later, when Edward the Confessor died,
   the English Witenagemot chose Harold to be king, disregarding
   Edward's promise and Harold's oath to the Duke of Normandy.

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapters 10 and 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapters 7-10._

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 10._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066.
   Election and coronation of Harold.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (spring and summer).
   Preparations of Duke William to enforce his claim to the
   English crown.

   On receiving news of Edward's death and of Harold's acceptance
   of the crown, Duke William of Normandy lost no time in
   demanding from Harold the performance of the engagements to
   which he had pledged himself by his oath. Harold answered that
   the oath had no binding effect, by reason of the compulsion
   under which it was given; that the crown of England was not
   his to bestow, and that, being the chosen king, he could not
   marry without consent of the Witenagemot. When the Duke had
   this reply he proceeded with vigor to secure from his own
   knights and barons the support he would need for the enforcing
   of his rights, as he deemed them, to the sovereignty of the
   English realm. A great parliament of the Norman barons was
   held at Lillebonne, for the consideration of the matter. "In
   this memorable meeting there was much diversity of opinion.
   The Duke could not command his vassals to cross the sea; their
   tenures did not compel them to such service. William could
   only request their aid to fight his battles in England: many
   refused to engage in this dangerous expedition, and great
   debates arose. …William, who could not restore order,
   withdrew into another apartment: and, calling the barons to
   him one by one, he argued and reasoned with each of these
   sturdy vassals separately, and apart from the others. He
   exhausted all the arts of persuasion;—their present courtesy,
   he engaged, should not be tamed into a precedent, … and the
   fertile fields of England should be the recompense of their
   fidelity. Upon this prospect of remuneration, the barons
   assented. … William did not confine himself to his own
   subjects. All the adventurers and adventurous spirits of the
   neighbouring states were invited to join his standard. … To
   all, such promises were made as should best incite them to the
   enterprise—lands,—liveries,—money,—according to their
   rank and degree; and the port of St. Pierre-sur-Dive was
   appointed as the place where all the forces should assemble.
   William had discovered four most valid reasons for the
   prosecution of his offensive warfare against a neighbouring
   people:—the bequest made by his cousin;—the perjury of
   Harold;—the expulsion of the Normans, at the instigation, as
   he alleged, of Godwin;—and, lastly, the massacre of the Danes
   by Ethelred on St. Brice's Day. The alleged perjury of Harold
   enabled William to obtain the sanction of the Papal See.
   Alexander, the Roman Pontiff, allowed, nay, even urged him to
   punish the crime, provided England, when conquered, should be
   held as the fief of St. Peter. … Hildebrand, Archdeacon of
   the Church of Rome, afterwards the celebrated Pope Gregory
   VII., greatly assisted by the support which he gave to the
   decree. As a visible token of protection, the Pope transmitted
   to William the consecrated banner, the Gonfanon of St. Peter,
   and a precious ring, in which a relic of the chief of the
   Apostles was enclosed."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 3, pages 300-303._

   "William convinced, or seemed to convince, all men out of
   England and Scandinavia that his claim to the English crown
   was just and holy, and that it was a good work to help him to
   assert it in arms. … William himself doubtless thought his
   own claim the better; he deluded himself as he deluded others.
   But we are more concerned with William as a statesman; and if
   it be statesmanship to adapt means to ends, whatever the ends
   may be, if it be statesmanship to make men believe the worse
   cause is the better, then no man ever showed higher
   statesmanship than William showed in his great pleading before
   all Western Christendom. … Others had claimed crowns; none
   had taken such pains to convince all mankind that the claim
   was a good one. Such an appeal to public opinion marks on one
   side a great advance."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      William the Conqueror,
      chapter 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (September).
   The invasion of Tostig and Harold Hardrada and their
   overthrow at Stamford Bridge.

   "Harold [the English king], as one of his misfortunes, had to
   face two powerful armies, in distant parts of the kingdom,
   almost at the same time. Rumours concerning the intentions and
   preparations of the Duke of Normandy soon reached England.
   During the greater part of the summer, Harold, at the head of
   a large naval and military force, had been on the watch along
   the English coast. But months passed away and no enemy became
   visible. William, it was said, had been apprised of the
   measures which had been taken to meet him. … Many supposed
   that, on various grounds, the enterprise had been abandoned.
   Provisions also, for so great an army, became scarce. The men
   began to disperse; and Harold, disbanding the remainder,
   returned to London. But the news now came that Harold
   Hardrada, king of Norway, had landed in the north, and was
   ravaging the country in conjunction with Tostig, Harold's
   elder brother. This event came from one of those domestic
   feuds which did so much at this juncture to weaken the power
   of the English.
{792}
   Tostig had exercised his authority in Northumbria [as earl] in
   the most arbitrary manner, and had perpetrated atrocious
   crimes in furtherance of his objects. The result was an amount
   of disaffection which seems to have put it out of the power of
   his friends to sustain him. He had married a daughter of
   Baldwin, count of Flanders, and so became brother-in-law to
   the duke of Normandy. His brother Harold, as he affirmed, had
   not done a brother's part towards him, and he was more
   disposed, in consequence, to side with the Norman than with
   the Saxon in the approaching struggle. The army with which he
   now appeared consisted mostly of Norwegians and Flemings, and
   their avowed object was to divide not less than half the
   kingdom between them. … [The young Mercian earls Edwin and
   Morcar] summoned their forces … to repel the invasion under
   Tostig. Before Harold could reach the north, they hazarded an
   engagement at a place named Fulford, on the Ouse, not far from
   Bishopstoke. Their measures, however, were not wisely taken.
   They were defeated with great loss. The invaders seem to have
   regarded this victory as deciding the fate of that part of the
   kingdom. They obtained hostages at York, and then moved to
   Stamford Bridge, where they began the work of dividing the
   northern parts of England between them. But in the midst of
   these proceedings clouds of dust were seen in the distance.
   The first thought was, that the multitude which seemed to be
   approaching must be friends. But the illusion was soon at an
   end. The dust raised was by the march of an army of West
   Saxons under the command of Harold."

      _R. Vaughan,
      Revolutions of English History,
      book 3, chapter 1._

   "Of the details of that awful day [Sept. 25, 1066] we have no
   authentic record. We have indeed a glorious description [in
   the Heimskringla of Snorro Sturleson], conceived in the
   highest spirit of the warlike poetry of the North; but it is a
   description which, when critically examined, proves to be
   hardly more worthy of belief than a battle-piece in the Iliad.
   … At least we know that the long struggle of that day was
   crowned by complete victory on the side of England. The
   leaders of the invading host lay each man ready for all that
   England had to give him, his seven feet of English ground.
   There Harold of Norway, the last of the ancient Sea-Kings,
   yielded up that fiery soul which had braved death in so many
   forms and in so many lands. … There Tostig, the son of
   Godwine, an exile and a traitor, ended, in crime and sorrow a
   life which had begun with promises not less bright than that
   of his royal brother. … The whole strength of the Northern
   army was broken; a few only escaped by flight, and found means
   to reach the ships at Riccall."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 14, section. 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (October).
   The Norman invasion and battle of Senlac or Hastings.

   The battle of Stamford-bridge was fought on Monday, September
   25, A. D. 1066. Three days later, on the Thursday, September
   28, William of Normandy landed his more formidable army of
   invasion at Pevensey, on the extreme southeastern coast. The
   news of  William's landing reached Harold, at York, on the
   following Sunday, it is thought, and his victorious but worn
   and wasted army was led instantly back, by forced marches,
   over the route it had traversed no longer than the week
   before. Waiting at London a few days for fresh musters to join
   him, the English king set out from that city October 12, and
   arrived on the following day at a point seven miles from the
   camp which his antagonist had entrenched at Hastings. Meantime
   the Normans had been cruelly ravaging the coast country, by
   way of provoking attack. Harold felt himself driven by the
   devastation they committed to face the issue of battle without
   waiting for a stronger rally. "Advancing near enough to the coast
   to check William's ravages, he intrenched himself on the hill
   of Senlac, a low spur of the Sussex Downs, near Hastings, in a
   position which covered London, and forced the Norman army to
   concentrate. With a host subsisting by pillage, to concentrate
   is to starve, and no alternative was left to William but a
   decisive victory or ruin. Along the higher ground that leads
   from Hastings the Duke led his men in the dim dawn of an
   October morning to the mound of Telham. It was from this
   point, that the Normans saw the host of the English gathered
   thickly behind a rough trench and a stockade on the height of
   Senlac. Marshy ground covered their right. … A general
   charge of the Norman foot opened the battle; in front rode the
   minstrel Taillefer, tossing his sword in the air and catching
   it again while he chanted the song of Roland. He was the first
   of the host who struck a blow, and he was the first to fall.
   The charge broke vainly on the stout stockade behind which the
   English warriors plied axe and javelin with fierce cries of 'Out,
   Out,' and the repulse of the Norman footmen was followed by
   the repulse of the Norman horse. Again and again the Duke
   rallied and led them to the fatal stockade. … His Breton
   troops, entangled in the marshy ground on his left, broke in
   disorder, and a cry arose, as the panic spread through the
   army, that the Duke was slain. 'I live,' shouted William as he
   tore off his helmet, 'and by God's help will conquer yet.'
   Maddened by repulse, the Duke spurred right at the standard;
   unhorsed, his terrible mace struck down Gyrth, the King's
   brother, and stretched Leofwine, a second of Godwine's sons,
   beside him; again dismounted, a blow from his hand hurled to
   the ground an unmannerly rider who would not lend him his
   steed. Amid the roar and tumult of the battle he turned the
   flight he had arrested into the means of victory. Broken as
   the stockade was by his desperate onset, the shield-wall of
   the warriors behind it still held the Normans at bay, when
   William by a feint of flight drew a part of the English force
   from their post of vantage. Turning on his disorderly
   pursuers, the Duke cut them to pieces, broke through the
   abandoned line, and was master of the central plateau, while
   French and Bretons made good their ascent on either flank. At
   three the hill seemed won, at six the fight still raged around
   the standard, where Harold's hus-carls stood stubbornly at bay
   on the spot marked afterward by the high altar of Battle
   Abbey. An order from the Duke at last brought his archers to
   the front, and their arrow-flight told heavily on the dense
   masses crowded around the King. As the sun went down, a shaft
   pierced Harold's right eye; he fell between the royal ensigns,
   and the battle closed with a desperate mélée over his corpse."

      _J. R. Green,
      A Short History of the English People,
      chapter 2, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 15, section 4._

      _E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 8._

      _Wace,
      Roman de Rou,
      translated by Sir A. Malet._

{793}

England: A. D. 1066-1071.
   The Finishing of the Norman Conquest.

   "It must be well understood that this great victory [of
   Senlac] did not make Duke William King nor put him in
   possession of the whole land. He still held only part of
   Sussex, and the people of the rest of the kingdom showed as
   yet no mind to submit to him. If England had had a leader left
   like Harold or Gyrth, William might have had to fight as many
   battles as Cnut had, and that with much less chance of winning
   in the end. For a large part of England fought willingly on
   Cnut's side, while William had no friends in England at all,
   except a few Norman settlers. William did not call himself
   King till he was regularly crowned more than two months later,
   and even then he had real possession only of about a third of
   the kingdom. It was more than three years before he had full
   possession of all. Still the great fight on Senlac none the
   less settled the fate of England. For after that fight William
   never met with any general resistance. … During the year 1067
   William made no further conquests; all western and northern
   England remained unsubdued; but, except in Kent and
   Herefordshire, there was no fighting in any part of the land
   which had really submitted. The next two years were the time
   in which all England was really conquered. The former part of
   1068 gave him the West. The latter part of that year gave him
   central and northern England as far as Yorkshire, the extreme
   north and northwest being still unsubdued. The attempt to win
   Durham in the beginning of 1069 led to two revolts at York.
   Later in the year all the north and west was again in arms,
   and the Danish fleet [of King Swegen, in league with the
   English patriots] came. But the revolts were put down one by
   one, and the great winter campaign of 1069-1070 conquered the
   still unsubdued parts, ending with the taking of Chester.
   Early in 1070 the whole land was for the first time in
   Williams's possession; there was no more fighting, and he was
   able to give his mind to the more peaceful part of his
   schemes, what we may call the conquest of the native Church by
   the appointment of foreign bishops. But in the summer of 1070
   began the revolt of the Fenland, and the defence of Ely, which
   lasted till the autumn of 1071. After that William was full
   King everywhere without dispute. There was no more national
   resistance; there was no revolt of any large part of the
   country. … The conquest of the land, as far as fighting
   goes, was now finished."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Short History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 8, section 9; chapter 10, section 16._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1067-1087.
   The spoils of the Conquest.

   "The Norman army … remained concentrated around London [in
   the winter of 1067], and upon the southern and eastern coasts
   nearest Gaul. The partition of the wealth of the invaded
   territory now almost solely occupied them. Commissioners went
   over the whole extent of country in which the army had left
   garrisons; they took an exact inventory of property of every
   kind, public and private, carefully registering every
   particular. … A close inquiry was made into the names of all
   the English partisans of Harold, who had either died in
   battle, or survived the defeat, or by involuntary delays had
   been prevented from joining the royal standard. All the
   property of these three classes of men, lands, revenues,
   furniture, houses, were confiscated; the children of the first
   class were declared forever disinherited; the second class,
   were, in like manner, wholly dispossessed of their  estates
   and property of every kind, and, says one of the Norman
   writers, were only too grateful for being allowed to retain
   their lives. Lastly, those who had not taken up arms were also
   despoiled of all they possessed, for having had the intention
   of taking up arms; but, by special grace, they were allowed to
   entertain the hope that after many long years of obedience and
   devotion to the foreign power, not they, indeed, but their
   sons, might perhaps obtain from their new masters some portion
   of their paternal heritage. Such was the law of the conquest,
   according to the unsuspected testimony of a man nearly
   contemporary with and of the race of the conquerors [Richard
   Lenoir or Noirot, bishop of Ely in the 12th century]. The
   immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of
   those adventurers of every nation who had enrolled under the
   banner of the duke of Normandy. … Some received their pay in
   money, others had stipulated that they should have a Saxon
   wife, and William, says the Norman chronicle, gave them in
   marriage noble dames, great heiresses, whose husbands had
   fallen in the battle. One, only, among the knights who had
   accompanied the conqueror, claimed neither lands, gold, nor
   wife, and would accept none of the spoils of the conquered.
   His name was Guilbert Fitz-Richard: he said that he had
   accompanied his lord to England because such was his duty, but
   that stolen goods had no attraction for him."

      _A. Thierry,
      History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
      book 4._

   "Though many confiscations took place, in order to gratify the
   Norman army, yet the mass of property was left in the hands of
   its former possessors. Offices of high trust were bestowed
   upon Englishmen, even upon those whose family renown might
   have raised the most aspiring thoughts. But, partly through
   the insolence and injustice of William's Norman vassals,
   partly through the suspiciousness natural to a man conscious
   of having overturned the national government, his yoke soon
   became more heavy. The English were oppressed; they rebelled,
   were subdued, and oppressed again. … An extensive spoliation
   of property accompanied these revolutions. It appears by the
   great national survey of Domesday Book, completed near the
   close of the Conqueror's reign, that the tenants in capite of
   the crown were generally foreigners. … But inferior
   freeholders were much less disturbed in their estates than the
   higher. … The valuable labours of Sir Henry Ellis, in
   presenting us with a complete analysis of Domesday Book,
   afford an opportunity, by his list of mesne tenants at the
   time of the survey, to form some approximation to the relative
   numbers of English and foreigners holding manors under the
   immediate vassals of the crown. … Though I will not now
   affirm or deny that they were a majority, they [the English]
   form a large proportion of nearly 8,000 mesne tenants, who are
   summed up by the diligence of Sir Henry Ellis. …
{794}
   This might induce us to suspect that, great as the spoliation
   must appear in modern times, and almost completely as the
   nation was excluded from civil power in the commonwealth,
   there is some exaggeration in the language of those writers
   who represent them as universal reduced to a state of penury
   and servitude. And this suspicion may be in some degree just.
   Yet those writers, and especial the most English in feeling of
   them all, M. Thierry, are warranted by the language of
   contemporary authorities."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages.
      chapter 8, part 2._

   "By right of conquest William claimed nothing. He had come to
   take his crown, and he had unluckily met with some opposition
   in taking it. The crown-lands of King Edward passed of course
   to his successor. As for the lands of other men, in William's
   theory all was forfeited to the crown. The lawful heir had
   been driven to seek his kingdom in arms; no Englishman had
   helped him; many Englishmen had fought against him. All then
   were directly or indirectly traitors. The King might lawfully
   deal with the lands of all as his own. … After the general
   redemption of lands, gradually carried out as William's power
   advanced, no general blow was dealt at Englishmen as such. …
   Though the land had never seen so great a confiscation, or one
   so largely for the behoof of foreigners, yet there was nothing
   new in the thing itself. … Confiscation of land was the
   every-day punishment for various public and private crimes.
   … Once granting the original wrong of his coming at all and
   bringing a host of strangers with him, there is singularly
   little to blame in the acts of the Conqueror."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      William the Conqueror,
      pages 102-104, 126._

   "After each effort [of revolt] the royal hand was laid on more
   heavily: more and more land changed owners, and with the
   change of owners the title changed. The complicated and
   unintelligible irregularities of the Anglo-Saxon tenures were
   exchanged for the simple and uniform feudal theory. … It was
   not the change from alodial to feudal so much as from
   confusion to order. The actual amount of dispossession was no
   doubt greatest in the higher ranks."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9, section. 95._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
   The Camp of Refuge in the Fens.

   "In the northern part of Cambridgeshire there is a vast extent
   of low and marshy land, intersected in every direction by
   rivers. All the waters from the centre of England which do not
   flow into the Thames or the Trent, empty themselves into these
   marshes, which in the latter end of autumn overflow, cover the
   land, and are charged with fogs and vapours. A portion of this
   damp and swampy country was then, as now, called the Isle of
   Ely; another the Isle of Thorney, a third the Isle of
   Croyland. This district, almost a moving bog, impracticable
   for cavalry and for soldiers heavily armed, had more than once
   served as a refuge for the Saxons in the time of the Danish
   conquest; towards the close of the year 1069 it became the
   rendezvous of several bands of patriots from various quarters,
   assembling against the Normans. Former chieftains, now
   dispossessed of their lands, successively repaired hither with
   their clients, some by land, others by water, by the mouths of
   the rivers. They here constructed entrenchments of earth and
   wood, and established an extensive armed station, which took
   the name of the Camp of Refuge. The foreigners at first
   hesitated to attack them amidst their rushes and willows, and
   thus gave them time to transmit messages in every direction,
   at home and abroad, to the friends of old England. Become
   powerful, they undertook a partisan war by land and by sea,
   or, as the conquerors called it, robbery and piracy."

      _A. Thierry,
      History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
      book 4._

   "Against the new tyranny the free men of the Danelagh and of
   Northumbria rose. If Edward the descendant of Cerdic had been
   little to them, William the descendant of Rollo was still
   less. … So they rose, and fought; too late, it may be, and
   without unity or purpose; and they were worsted by an enemy
   who had both unity and purpose; whom superstition, greed, and
   feudal discipline kept together, at least in England, in one
   compact body of unscrupulous and terrible confederates. And
   theirs was a land worth fighting for—a good land and large:
   from Humber mouth inland to the Trent and merry Sherwood,
   across to Chester and the Dee, round by Leicester and the five
   burghs of the Danes; eastward again to Huntingdon and
   Cambridge (then a poor village on the site of an old Roman
   town); and then northward again into the wide fens, the land
   of the Girvii, where the great central plateau of England
   slides into the sea, to form, from the rain and river washings
   of eight shires, lowlands of a fertility inexhaustible,
   because ever-growing to this day. Into those fens, as into a
   natural fortress, the Anglo-Danish noblemen crowded down
   instinctively from the inland to make their last stand against
   the French. … Most gallant of them all, and their leader in
   the fatal struggle against William, was Hereward the Wake,
   Lord of Bourne and ancestor of that family of Wake, the arms
   of whom appear on the cover of this book."

      _C. Kingsley,
      Hereward the Wake,
      Prelude._

   The defence of the Camp of Refuge was maintained until
   October, 1071, when the stronghold is said to have been
   betrayed by the monks of Ely, who grew tired of the
   disturbance of their peace. But Hereward did not submit. He
   made his escape and various accounts are given of his
   subsequent career and his fate.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 20, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      first series, chapter 8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
   The Domesday Survey and Domesday Book.

   "The distinctive characteristic of the Norman kings [of
   England] was their exceeding greed, and the administrative
   system was so directed as to insure the exaction of the
   highest possible imposts. From this bent originated the great
   registration that William [the Conqueror] caused to be taken
   of all lands, whether holden in fee or at rent; as well as the
   census of the entire population. The respective registers were
   preserved in the Cathedral of Winchester, and by the Norman
   were designated 'Ie grand rôle,' 'Ie rôle royal,' 'Ie rôle de
   Winchester'; but by the Saxons were termed 'the Book of the
   Last Judgment,' 'Doomesdaege Boc,' 'Doomsday Book.'"

      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      chapter 1._

   For a different statement see the following: "The recently
   attempted invasion from Denmark seems to have impressed the
   king with the desirability of· an accurate knowledge of his
   resources, military and fiscal, both of which were based upon
   the land. The survey was completed in the remarkably short
   space of a single year [1085-1086]. In each shire the
   commissioners made their inquiries by the oaths of the
   sheriffs, the barons and their Norman retainers, the parish
   priests, the reeves and six ceorls of each township.
{795}
   The result of their labours was a minute description of all
   the lands of the kingdom, with the exception of the four
   northern counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland
   and Durham, and part of what is now Lancashire. It enumerates
   the tenants-in-chief, under tenants, freeholders, villeins,
   and serfs, describes the nature and obligations of the
   tenures, the value in the time of King Eadward, at the
   conquest, and at the date of the survey, and, which gives the
   key to the whole inquiry, informs the king whether any advance
   in the valuation could be made. … The returns were
   transmitted to Winchester, digested, and recorded in two
   volumes which have descended to posterity under the name of
   Domesday Book. The name itself is probably derived from Domus
   Dei, the appellation of a chapel or vault of the cathedral at
   Winchester in which the survey was at first deposited."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 2._

   "Of the motives which induced the Conqueror and his council to
   undertake the Survey we have very little reliable information,
   and much that has been written on the subject savours more of
   a deduction from the result than of a knowledge of the
   immediate facts. We have the statement from the Chartulary of
   St. Mary's, Worcester, of the appointment of the Commissioners
   by the king himself to make the Survey. We have also the
   heading of the 'Inquisitio Eliensis' which purports to give,
   and probably does truly give, the items of the articles of
   inquiry, which sets forth as follows:

   I. What is the manor called?
   II. Who held it in the time of King Edward?
   III. Who now holds it?
   IV. How many hides?
   V. What teams are there in demesne?
   VI. What teams of the men?
   VII. What villans?
   VIII. What cottagers?
   IX. What bondmen?
   X. What freemen and what sokemen?
   XI. What woods?
   XII. What meadow?
   XIII. What pastures?
   XIV. What mills?
   XV. What fisheries?
   XVI. What is added or taken away?
   XVII. What the whole was worth together, and what now?
   XVIII. How much each freeman or sokeman had or has?

   All this to be estimated three times, viz. in the time of King
   Edward, and when King William gave it, and how it is now, and
   if more can be had for it than has been had. This document is,
   I think, the best evidence we have of the form of the inquiry,
   and it tallies strictly with the form of the various returns
   as we now have them. … An external evidence failing, we are
   driven back to the Record itself for evidence of the
   Conqueror's intention in framing it, and anyone who carefully
   studies it will be driven to the inevitable conclusion that it
   was framed and designed in the spirit of perfect equity. Long
   before the Conquest, in the period between the death of Alfred
   and that of Edward the Confessor, the kingdom had been rapidly
   declining into a state of disorganisation and decay. The
   defence of the kingdom and the administration of justice and
   keeping of the peace could not be maintained by the king's
   revenues. The tax of Danegeld, instituted by Ethelred at first
   to buy peace of the Danes, and afterwards to maintain the
   defence of the kingdom, had more and more come to be levied
   unequally and unfairly. The Church had obtained enormous
   remissions of its liability, and its possessions were
   constantly increasing. Powerful subjects had obtained further
   remission, and the tax had come to be irregularly collected
   and was burdensome upon the smaller holders and their poor
   tenants, while the nobility and the Church escaped with a
   small share in the burden. In short the tax had come to be
   collected upon an old and uncorrected assessment. It had
   probably dwindled in amount, and at last had been ultimately
   remitted by Edward the Confessor. Anarchy and confusion
   appears to have reigned throughout the realm. The Conqueror
   was threatened with foreign invasion, and pressed on all sides
   by complaints of unfair taxation on the part of his subjects.
   Estates had been divided and subdivided, and the incidence of
   the tax was unequal and unjust. He had to face the
   difficulties before him and to count the resources of his
   kingdom for its defence, and the means of doing so were not at
   hand. In this situation his masterly and order-loving Norman
   mind instituted this great inquiry, but ordered it to be taken
   (as I maintain the study of the Book will show) in the most
   public and open manner, and with the utmost impartiality, with
   the view of levying the taxes of the kingdom equally and
   fairly upon all. The articles of his inquiry show that he was
   prepared to study the resources of his kingdom and consider
   the liability of his subjects from every possible point of
   view."

      _Stuart Moore,
      On the Study of Domesday Book
      (Domesday Studies, volume 1)._

   "Domesday Book is a vast mine of materials for the social and
   economical history of our country, a mine almost
   inexhaustible, and to a great extent as yet unworked. Among
   national documents it is unique. There is nothing that
   approaches it in interest and value except the Landnámabók,
   which records the names of the original settlers in Iceland
   and the designations they bestowed upon the places where they
   settled, and tells us how the island was taken up and
   apportioned among them. Such a document for England,
   describing the way in which our forefathers divided the
   territory they conquered, and how 'they called the lands after
   their own names,' would indeed be priceless. But the Domesday
   Book does, indirectly, supply materials for the history of the
   English as well as of the Norman Conquest, for it records not
   only how the lands of England were divided among the Norman
   host which conquered at Senlac, but it gives us also the names
   of the Saxon and Danish holders who possessed the lands before
   the great battle which changed all the future history of
   England, and enables us to trace the extent of the transfer of
   the land from Englishmen to Normans; it shows how far the
   earlier owners were reduced to tenants, and by its enumeration
   of the classes of population—freemen, sokemen, villans,
   cottiers, and slaves—it indicates the nature and extent of
   the earlier conquests. Thus we learn that in the West of
   England slaves were numerous, while in the East they were
   almost unknown, and hence we gather that in the districts
   first subdued the British population was exterminated or
   driven off, while in the West it was reduced to servitude."

      _I. Taylor,
      Domesday Survivals
      (Domesday Studies, volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapters 21-22 and appendix A in volume 5._

      _W. de Gray Birch,
      Domesday Book._

      _F. W. Maitland,
      Domesday Book (Dict. Pol. Econ.)._

{796}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
   The sons of the Conqueror and their reigns.

   William the Conqueror, when he died, left Normandy and Maine
   to his elder son Robert, the English crown to his stronger
   son, William, called Rufus, or the Red, and only a legacy of
   £5,000 to his third son, Henry, called Beauclerc, or The
   Scholar. The Conqueror's half-brother, Odo, soon began to
   persuade the Norman barons in England to displace William
   Rufus and plant Robert on the English throne. "The claim of
   Robert to succeed his father in England, was supported by the
   respected rights of primogeniture. But the Anglo-Saxon crown
   had always been elective. … Primogeniture … gave at that
   time no right to the crown of England, independent of the
   election of its parliamentary assembly. Having secured this
   title, the power of Rufus rested on the foundation most
   congenial with the feelings and institutions of the nation,
   and from their partiality received a popular support, which
   was soon experienced to be impregnable. The danger compelled
   the king to court his people by promises to diminish their
   grievances; which drew 30,000 knights spontaneously to his
   banners, happy to have got a sovereign distinct from hated
   Normandy. The invasion of Robert, thus resisted by the English
   people, effected nothing but some temporary devastations. …
   The state of Normandy, under Robert's administration, for some
   time furnished an ample field for his ambitious uncle's
   activity. It continued to exhibit a negligent government in
   its most vicious form. … Odo's politics only facilitated the
   Reannexation of Normandy to England. But this event was not
   completed in William's reign. When he retorted the attempt of
   Robert, by an invasion of Normandy, the great barons of both
   countries found themselves endangered by the conflict, and
   combined their interest to persuade their respective
   sovereigns to a fraternal pacification. The most important
   article of their reconciliation provided, that if either
   should die without issue, the survivor should inherit his
   dominions. Hostilities were then abandoned; mutual courtesies
   ensued; and Robert visited England as his brother's guest. The
   mind of William the Red King, was cast in no common mould. It
   had all the greatness and the defects of the chivalric
   character, in its strong but rudest state. Impetuous, daring,
   original, magnanimous, and munificent; it was also harsh,
   tyrannical, and selfish; conceited of its own powers, loose in
   its moral principles, and disdaining consequences. … While
   Lanfranc lived, William had a counsellor whom he respected,
   and whose good opinion he was careful to preserve. … The
   death of Lanfranc removed the only man whose wisdom and
   influence could have meliorated the king's ardent, but
   undisciplined temper. It was his misfortune, on this event, to
   choose for his favourite minister, an able, but an
   unprincipled man. … The minister advised the king, on the
   death of every prelate, to seize all his temporal possessions.
   … The great revenues obtained from this violent innovation,
   tempted both the king and his minister to increase its
   productiveness, by deferring the nomination of every new
   prelate for an indefinite period. Thus he kept many
   bishoprics, and among them the see of Canterbury, vacant for
   some years; till a severe illness alarming his conscience, he
   suddenly appointed Anselm to the dignity; … His disagreement
   with Anselm soon began. The prelate injudiciously began the
   battle by asking the king to restore, not only the possessions
   of his see, which were enjoyed by Lanfranc—a fair
   request—but also the lands which had before that time
   belonged to it; a demand that, after so many years alteration
   of property, could not be complied with without great
   disturbance of other persons. Anselm also exacted of the king
   that in all things which concerned the church, his counsels
   should be taken in preference to every other. … Though
   Anselm, as a literary man, was an honour and a benefit to his
   age, yet his monastic and studious habits prevented him from
   having that social wisdom, that knowledge of human nature,
   that discreet use of his own virtuous firmness, and that mild
   management of turbulent power, which might have enabled him to
   have exerted much of the influence of Lanfranc over the mind
   of his sovereign. … Anselm, seeing the churches and abbeys
   oppressed in their property, by the royal orders, resolved to
   visit Rome, and to concert with the pope the measures most
   adapted to overawe the king. … William threatened, that if
   he did go to Rome, he would seize all the possessions of the
   archbishopric. Anselm declared, that he would rather travel
   naked and on foot, than desist from his resolution; and he
   went to Dover with his pilgrim's staff and wallet. He was
   searched before his departure, that he might carry away no
   money, and was at last allowed to sail. But the king
   immediately executed his threat, and sequestered all his lands
   and property. This was about three years before the end of the
   reign. … Anselm continued in Italy till William's death. The
   possession of Normandy was a leading object of William's
   ambition, and he gradually attained a preponderance in it. His
   first invasion compelled Robert to make some cessions; these were
   increased on his next attack: and when Robert determined to
   join the Crusaders, he mortgaged the whole of Normandy to
   William for three years, for 10,000 marks. He obtained the
   usual success of a powerful invasion in Wales. The natives
   were overpowered on the plains, but annoyed the invaders in
   their mountains. He marched an army against Malcolm, king of
   Scotland, to punish his incursions. Robert advised the
   Scottish king to conciliate William; Malcolm yielded to his
   counsel and accompanied Robert to the English court, but on
   his return, was treacherously attacked by Mowbray, the earl of
   Northumbria, and killed. William regretted the perfidious
   cruelty of the action. … The government of William appears
   to have been beneficial, both to England and Normandy. To the
   church it was oppressive. … He had scarcely reigned twelve
   years, when he fell by a violent death." He was hunting with a
   few attendants in the New Forest. "It happened that, his friends
   dispersing in pursuit of game, he was left alone, as some
   authorities intimate, with Walter Tyrrel, a noble knight, whom
   he had brought out of France, and admitted to his table, and
   to whom he was much attached. As the sun was about to set, a
   stag passed before the king, who discharged an arrow at it.
   … At the same moment, another stag crossing, Walter Tyrrel
   discharged an arrow at it. At this precise juncture, a shaft
   struck the king, and buried itself in his breast. He fell,
   without a word, upon the arrow, and expired on the spot. …
   It seems to be a questionable point, whether Walter Tyrrel
   actually shot the king. That opinion was certainly the most
   prevalent at the time, both here and in France. …
{797}
   None of the authorities intimate a belief of a purposed
   assassination; and, therefore, it would be unjust now to
   impute it to anyone. … Henry was hunting in a different part
   of the New Forest when Rufus fell. … He left the body to the
   casual charity of the passing rustic, and rode precipitately
   to Winchester, to seize the royal treasure. … He obtained
   the treasure, and proceeding hastily to London, was on the
   following Sunday, the third day after William's death, elected
   king, and crowned. … He began his reign by removing the
   unpopular agents of his unfortunate brother. He recalled
   Anselm, and conciliated the clergy. He gratified the nation,
   by abolishing the oppressive exactions of the previous reign.
   He assured many benefits to the barons, and by a charter,
   signed on the day of his coronation, restored to the people
   their Anglo-Saxon laws and privileges, as amended by his
   father; a measure which ended the pecuniary oppressions of his
   brother, and which favoured the growing liberties of the
   nation. The Conqueror had noticed Henry's expanding intellect
   very early; had given him the best education which the age
   could supply. … He became the most learned monarch of his
   day, and acquired and deserved the surname of Beauclerc, or
   fine scholar. No wars, no cares of state, could afterwards
   deprive him of his love of literature. The nation soon felt
   the impulse and the benefit of their sovereign's intellectual
   taste. He acceded at the age of 32, and gratified the nation
   by marrying and crowning Mathilda, daughter of the sister of
   Edgar Etheling by Malcolm the king of Scotland, who had been
   waylaid and killed."

      _S. Turner,
      History of England during the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

   The Norman lords, hating the "English ways" of Henry, were
   soon in rebellion, undertaking to put Robert of Normandy (who
   had returned from the Crusade) in his place. The quarrel went
   on till the battle of Tenchebray, 1106, in which Robert was
   defeated and taken prisoner. He was imprisoned for life. The
   duchy and the kingdom were again united. The war in Normandy
   led to a war with Louis king of France, who had espoused
   Robert's cause. It was ended by the battle of Brêmule, 1119,
   where the French suffered a bad defeat. In Henry's reign all
   south Wales was conquered; but the north Welsh princes held
   out. Another expedition against them was preparing, when, in
   1135, Henry fell ill at the Castle of Lions in Normandy, and
   died.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Reign of William Rufus and accession of Henry I._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.
   The miserable reign of Stephen.
   Civil war, anarchy and wretchedness in England.
   The transition to hereditary monarchy.

   After the death of William the Conqueror, the English throne
   was occupied in succession by two of his sons, William II., or
   William Rufus (1087-1100), and Henry I., or Henry Beauclerk
   (1100-1135). The latter outlived his one legitimate son, and
   bequeathed the crown at his death to his daughter, Matilda,
   widow of the Emperor Henry V. of Germany and now wife of
   Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. This latter marriage had been very
   unpopular, both in England and Normandy, and a strong party
   refused to recognize the Empress Matilda, as she was commonly
   called. This party maintained the superior claims of the
   family of Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, who had
   married the Earl of Blois. Naturally their choice would have
   fallen upon Theobald of Blois, the eldest of Adela's sons; but
   his more enterprising younger brother Stephen supplanted him.
   Hastening to England, and winning the favour of the citizens
   of London, Stephen secured the royal treasure and persuaded a
   council of peers to elect him king. A most grievous civil war
   ensued, which lasted for nineteen terrible years, during which
   long period there was anarchy and great wretchedness in
   England. "The land was filled with castles, and the castles
   with armed banditti, who seem to have carried on their
   extortions under colour of the military commands bestowed by
   Stephen on every petty castellan. Often the very belfries of
   churches were fortified. On the poor lay the burden of
   building these strongholds; the rich suffered in their
   donjeons. Many were starved to death, and these were the
   happiest. Others were flung into cellars filled with reptiles,
   or hung up by the thumbs till they told where their treasures
   were concealed, or crippled in frames which did not suffer
   them to move, or held just resting on the ground by sharp iron
   collars round the neck. The Earl of Essex used to send out
   spies who begged from door to door, and then reported in what
   houses wealth was still left; the alms-givers were presently
   seized and imprisoned. The towns that could no longer pay the
   blackmail demanded from them were burned. … Sometimes the
   peasants, maddened by misery, crowded to the roads that led
   from a field of battle, and smote down the fugitives without
   any distinction of sides. The bishops cursed vainly, when the
   very churches were burned and monks robbed. 'To till the
   ground was to plough the sea; the earth bare no corn, for the
   land was all laid waste by such deeds, and men said openly
   that Christ slept, and his saints. Such things, and more than
   we can say, suffered we nineteen winters for our sins' (A. S.
   Chronicle). … Many soldiers, sickened with the unnatural
   war, put on the white cross and sailed for a nobler
   battle-field in the East." As Matilda's son Henry—afterwards
   Henry II.—grew to manhood, the feeling in his favor gained
   strength and his party made head against the weak and
   incompetent Stephen. Finally, in 1153, peace was brought about
   under an agreement "that Stephen should wear the crown till
   his death, and Henry receive the homage of the lords and towns
   of the realm as heir apparent." Stephen died the next year and
   Henry came to the throne with little further dispute.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England During the Early and Middle Ages,
      chapter 28._

   "Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot,
   however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his
   failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms
   had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in
   the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have
   heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers,
   not enjoying the same stand-point as ourselves, were, I think,
   somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. … His
   weakness throughout his reign … was due to two causes, each
   supplementing the other.
{798}
   These were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of
   his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he
   should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those
   who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival
   claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of
   Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could
   compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to
   submit to further demands. … The position of his opponents
   throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two
   assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the
   'contract' justified ipso facto revolt on theirs; the second,
   that their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal
   relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by
   performing the famous diffidatio. This essential feature of
   continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the
   Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his
   position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his
   Norman followers more absolute than he could have claimed as
   their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that
   was due the introduction for a time of this pernicious
   principle into England. … Passing now to the other point,
   the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great
   interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at
   what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle
   of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary
   right according to feudal rules. For the right view on this
   subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual
   sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—'The crown
   then continued to be elective. … But whilst the elective
   principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary
   or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right
   of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was
   recognized as coordinate. … The measures taken by Henry I.
   for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove
   the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the
   importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the
   elective theory.' Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong
   bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in
   his main argument, namely, that Stephen 'was no usurper in the
   sense in which the word is vulgarly used.' He urges,
   apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the
   eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn
   oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly
   suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened
   the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir
   to the throne, which first appears under Henry II., and in the
   pages of William of Newburgh. So far as Stephen is concerned the
   case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the
   Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think that, as
   implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a
   single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's
   daughter ('regis Henrici filia '), but she claimed it further
   because the succession had been assured to her by oath ('sibi
   juratum') as such. It is important to observe that the oath in
   question can in no way be regarded in the light of an
   election. … The Empress and her partisans must have largely,
   to say the least, based their claim on her right to the throne
   as her father's heir, and … she and they appealed to the
   oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather
   than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a
   free election. … The sex of the Empress was the drawback to
   her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question
   that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his
   father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough
   to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have
   done so. … Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here
   collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the
   right of election to the English crown presents considerable
   analogy to that of canonical election in the case of English
   bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a
   mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of
   change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to
   extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his
   daughter's succession, and when they subsequently complain of
   this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight
   of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown,
   not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's
   heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when
   Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by
   Divine right ('Dei gratia'), and attempts to reduce that
   election to nothing more than a national 'assent' to his
   succession. Obviously, the whole question turned on whether
   the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere
   ratification of a choice already made. … In comparing
   Stephen with his successor the difference between their
   circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At
   Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial
   oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and
   had led to an impatience of official restraint which opened
   the path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on
   the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of
   feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a
   strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the introduction
   of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated the
   position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the
   Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II.
   derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered
   from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance,
   whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or
   concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a
   rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all
   the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as
   Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at
   length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that
   which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time
   to break his power as effectually as the followers of the
   Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have
   owed his escape to that efficient administration which years
   of strength and safety had given him the time to construct. It
   in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not
   superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that
   Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed
   better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects."

      _J. H. Round,
      Geoffrey de Mandeville,
      chapter. 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. J. R. Green,
      Henry the Second,
      chapter 1._

      See, also,
      STANDARD, BATTLE OF THE (A. D. 1137).

{799}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
   Henry II., the first of the Angevin kings (Plantagenets)
   and his empire.

   Henry II., who came to the English throne on Stephen's death,
   was already, by the death of his father, Geoffrey, Count of
   Anjou, the head of the great house of Anjou, in France. From
   his father he inherited Anjou, Touraine and Maine; through his
   mother, Matilda, daughter of Henry I., he received the dukedom
   of Normandy as well as the kingdom of England; by marriage
   with Eleanor, of Aquitaine, or Guienne, he added to his empire
   the princely domain which included Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge,
   Perigord, Limousin, Angoumois, with claims of suzerainty over
   Auvergne and Toulouse. "Henry found himself at twenty-one
   ruler of dominions such as no king before him had ever dreamed
   of uniting. He was master of both sides of the English
   Channel, and by his alliance with his uncle, the Count of
   Flanders, he had command of the French coast from the Scheldt
   to the Pyrenees, while his claims on Toulouse would carry him
   to the shores of the Mediterranean. His subjects told with
   pride how 'his empire reached from the Arctic Ocean to the
   Pyrenees'; there was no monarch save the Emperor himself who
   ruled over such vast domains. … His aim [a few years Inter]
   seems to have been to rival in some sort the Empire of the
   West, and to reign as an over-king, with sub-kings of his
   various provinces, and England as one of them, around him. He
   was connected with all the great ruling houses. … England
   was forced out of her old isolation; her interest in the world
   without was suddenly awakened. English scholars thronged the
   foreign universities; English chroniclers questioned
   travellers, scholars, ambassadors, as to what was passing
   abroad.' The influence of English learning and English
   statecraft made itself felt all over Europe. Never, perhaps,
   in all the history of England was there a time when Englishmen
   played so great a part abroad." The king who gathered this
   wide, incongruous empire under his sceptre, by mere
   circumstances of birth and marriage, proved strangely equal,
   in many respects, to its greatness. "He was a foreign king who
   never spoke the English tongue, who lived and moved for the
   most part in a foreign camp, surrounded with a motley host of
   Brabançons and hirelings. … It was under the rule of a
   foreigner such as this, however, that the races of conquerors
   and conquered in England first learnt to feel that they were
   one. It was by his power that England, Scotland and Ireland
   were brought to some vague acknowledgement of a common
   suzerain lord, and the foundations laid of the United Kingdom
   of Great Britain and Ireland. It was he who abolished
   feudalism as a system of government, and left it little more
   than a system of land tenure. It was he who defined the
   relations established between Church and State, and decreed
   that in England churchman as well as baron was to be held
   under the Common Law. … His reforms established the judicial
   system whose main outlines have been preserved to our own day.
   It was through his 'Constitutions' and his 'Assizes' that it
   came to pass that over all the world the English-speaking
   races are governed by English and not by Roman law. It was by
   his genius for government that the servants of the royal
   household became transformed into Ministers of State. It was
   he who gave England a foreign policy which decided our
   continental relations for seven hundred years. The impress
   which the personality of Henry II. left upon his time meets us
   wherever we turn."

      _Mrs. J. R. Green,
      Henry the Second,
      chapters 1-2._

   Henry II. and his two sons, Richard I. (Cœur de Lion), and
   John, are distinguished, sometimes, as the Angevin kings, or
   kings of the House of Anjou, and sometimes as the
   Plantagenets, the latter name being derived from a boyish
   habit ascribed to Henry's father, Count Geoffrey, of "adorning
   his cap with a sprig of 'plantagenista,' the broom which in
   early summer makes the open country of Anjou and Maine a blaze
   of living gold." Richard retained and ruled the great realm of
   his father; but John lost most of his foreign inheritance,
   including Normandy, and became the unwilling benefactor of
   England by stripping her kings of alien interests and alien
   powers and bending their necks to Magna Charta.

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets._

      See, also,
      AQUITAINE (GUIENNE): A. D. 1137-1152;
      IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
   Conflict of King and Church.
   The Constitutions of Clarendon.
   Murder of Archbishop Becket.

   "Archbishop Theobald was at first the King's chief favourite
   and adviser, but his health and his influence declining,
   Becket [the Archdeacon of Canterbury] was found apt for
   business as well as amusement, and gradually became intrusted
   with the exercise of all the powers of the crown. … The
   exact time of his appointment as Chancellor has not been
   ascertained, the records of the transfer of the Great Seal not
   beginning till a subsequent reign, and old biographers being
   always quite careless about dates. But he certainly had this
   dignity soon after Henry's accession. … Becket continued
   Chancellor till the year 1162, without any abatement in his
   favour with the King, or in the power which he possessed, or
   in the energy he displayed, or in the splendour of his career.
   … In April, 1161, Archbishop Theobald died. Henry declared
   that Becket should succeed,—no doubt counting upon his
   co-operation in carrying on the policy hitherto pursued in
   checking the encroachments of the clergy and of the see of
   Rome. … The same opinion of Becket's probable conduct was
   generally entertained, and a cry was raised that 'the Church
   was in danger.' The English bishops sent a representation to
   Henry against the appointment, and the electors long refused
   to obey his mandate, saying that 'it was indecent that a man
   who was rather a soldier than a priest, and who had devoted
   himself to hunting and falconry instead of the study of the
   Holy Scriptures, should be placed in the chair of St.
   Augustine.' … The universal expectation was, that Becket
   would now attempt the part so successfully played by Cardinal
   Wolsey in a succeeding age; that, Chancellor and Archbishop,
   he would continue the minister and personal friend of the
   King; that he would study to support and extend all the
   prerogatives of the Crown, which he himself was to exercise;
   and that in the palaces of which he was now master he would
   live with increased magnificence and luxury. … Never was
   there so wonderful a transformation. Whether from a
   predetermined purpose, or from a sudden change of inclination,
   he immediately became in every respect an altered man.
{800}
   Instead of the stately and fastidious courtier, was seen the
   humble and squalid penitent. Next [to] his skin he wore
   hair-cloth, populous with vermin; he lived upon roots, and his
   drink was water, rendered nauseous by an infusion of fennel.
   By way of further penance and mortification, he frequently
   inflicted stripes on his naked back. … He sent the Great
   Seal to Henry, in Normandy, with this short message, 'I desire
   that you will provide yourself with another Chancellor, as I
   find myself hardly sufficient for the duties of one office,
   and much less of two.' The fond patron, who had been so eager
   for his elevation, was now grievously disappointed and
   alarmed. … He at once saw that he had been deceived in his
   choice. … The grand struggle which the Church was then
   making was, that all churchmen should be entirely exempted
   from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, whatever crime
   they might have committed. … Henry, thinking that he had a
   favourable opportunity for bringing the dispute to a crisis,
   summoned an assembly of all the prelates at Westminster, and
   himself put to them this plain question: 'Whether they were
   willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the
   kingdom?' Their reply, framed by Becket, was: 'We are willing,
   saving our own order.' … The King, seeing what was
   comprehended in the reservation, retired with evident marks of
   displeasure, deprived Becket of the government of Eye and
   Berkhamstead, and all the appointments which he held at the
   pleasure of the Crown, and uttered threats as to seizing the
   temporalities of all the bishops, since they would not
   acknowledge their allegiance to him as the head of the state.
   The legate of Pope Alexander, dreading a breach with so
   powerful a prince at so unseasonable a juncture, advised
   Becket to submit for the moment; and he with his brethren,
   retracting the saving clause, absolutely promised 'to observe
   the laws and customs of the kingdom.' To avoid all future
   dispute, Henry resolved to follow up his victory by having
   these laws and customs, as far as the Church was concerned,
   reduced into a code, to be sanctioned by the legislature, and
   to be specifically acknowledged by all the bishops. This was
   the origin of the famous 'Constitutions of Clarendon.'''
   Becket left the kingdom (1164). Several years later he made
   peace with Henry and returned to Canterbury; but soon he again
   displeased the King, who cried in a rage, 'Who will rid me of
   this turbulent priest?' Four knights who were present
   immediately went to Canterbury, where they slew the Archbishop
   in the cathedral (December 29, 1170). "The government tried to
   justify or palliate the murder. The Archbishop of York likened
   Thomas à Becket to Pharaoh, who died by the Divine vengeance,
   as a punishment for his hardness of heart; and a proclamation
   was issued, forbidding anyone to speak of Thomas of Canterbury
   as a martyr: but the feelings of men were too strong to be
   checked by authority; pieces of linen which had been dipped in
   his blood were preserved as relics; from the time of his death
   it was believed that miracles were worked at his tomb; thither
   flocked hundreds of thousands, in spite of the most violent
   threats of punishment; at the end of two years he was
   canonised at Rome; and, till the breaking out of the
   Reformation, St. Thomas of Canterbury, for pilgrimages and
   prayers, was the most distinguished Saint in England."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
      chapter 3._

   "What did Henry II. propose to do with a clerk who was accused
   of a crime? … Without doing much violence to the text, it is
   possible to put two different interpretations upon that famous
   clause in the Constitutions of Clarendon which deals with
   criminous clerks. … According to what seems to be the
   commonest opinion, we might comment upon this clause in some
   such words as these:—Offences of which a clerk may be accused
   are of two kinds. They are temporal or they are
   ecclesiastical. Under the former head fall murder, robbery,
   larceny, rape, and the like; under the latter, incontinence,
   heresy, disobedience to superiors, breach of rules relating to
   the conduct of divine service, and so forth. If charged with
   an offence of the temporal kind, the clerk must stand his
   trial in the king's court; his trial, his sentence, will be
   like that of a layman. For an ecclesiastical offence, on the
   other hand, he will be tried in the court Christian. The king
   reserves to his court the right to decide what offences are
   temporal, what ecclesiastical; also he asserts the right to
   send delegates to supervise the proceedings of the spiritual
   tribunals. … Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author
   of this clause is not thinking of two different classes of
   offences. The purely ecclesiastical offences are not in
   debate. No one doubts that for these a man will be tried in
   and punished by the spiritual court. He is thinking of the
   grave crimes, of murder and the like. Now every such crime is
   a breach of temporal law, and it is also a breach of canon
   law. The clerk who commits murder breaks the king's peace, but
   he also infringes the divine law, and—no canonist will doubt
   this—ought to be degraded. Very well. A clerk is accused of
   such a crime. He is summoned before the king's court, and he
   is to answer there—let us mark this word respondere—for what
   he ought to answer for there. What ought he to answer for
   there? The breach of the king's peace and the felony. When he
   has answered, … then, without any trial, he is to be sent to
   the ecclesiastical court. In that court he will have to answer
   as an ordained clerk accused of homicide, and in that court
   there will be a trial (res ibi tractabitur). If the spiritual
   court convicts him it will degrade him, and thenceforth the
   church must no longer protect him. He will be brought back
   into the king's court, … and having been brought back, no
   longer a clerk but a mere layman, he will be sentenced
   (probably without any further trial) to the layman's
   punishment, death or mutilation. The scheme is this:
   accusation and plea in the temporal court; trial, conviction,
   degradation, in the ecclesiastical court; sentence in the
   temporal court to the layman's punishment. This I believe to
   be the meaning of the clause."

      _F. W. Maitland,
      Henry II. and the Criminous Clerks
      (English Historical Review, April, 1892),
      pages 224-226._

   The Assize of Clarendon, sometimes confused with the
   Constitutions of Clarendon, was an important decree approved
   two years later. It laid down the principles on which the
   administration of justice was to be carried out, in twenty-two
   articles drawn up for the use of the judges.

      _Mrs. J. R Green,
      Henry the Second,
      chapters 5-6._

{801}

   "It may not be without instruction to remember that the
   Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket spent his life in
   opposing, and of which his death procured the suspension, are
   now incorporated in the English law, and are regarded, without
   a dissentient voice, as among the wisest and most necessary of
   English institutions; that the especial point for which he
   surrendered his life was not the independence of the clergy
   from the encroachments of the Crown, but the personal and now
   forgotten question of the superiority of the see of Canterbury
   to the see of York."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Historical Memorials of Canterbury,
      page 124._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 12, sections 139-141._

      _W. Stubbs,
      Select Charters,
      part 4._

      _J. C. Robertson,
      Becket._

      _J. A. Giles,
      Life and Letters of Thomas à Becket._

      _R. H. Froude,
      History of the Contest between Archbishop
      Thomas à Becket and Henry II.
      (Remains, part 2, volume 2)._

      _J. A. Froude,
      Life and Times of Thomas Becket._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 29._

      See, also,
      BENEFIT OF CLERGY,
      and JURY, TRIAL BY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1189.
   Accession of King Richard I. (called Cœur de Lion).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1189-1199.
   Reign of Richard Cœur de Lion.
   His Crusade and campaigns in France.

   "The Third Crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192], undertaken
   for the deliverance of Palestine from the disasters brought
   upon the Crusaders' Kingdom by Saladin, was the first to be
   popular in England. … Richard joined the Crusade in the very
   first year of his reign, and every portion of his subsequent
   career was concerned with its consequences. Neither in the
   time of William Rufus nor of Stephen had the First or Second
   Crusades found England sufficiently settled for such
   expeditions. … But the patronage of the Crusades was a
   hereditary distinction in the Angevin family now reigning in
   England: they had founded the kingdom of Palestine; Henry II.
   himself had often prepared to set out; and Richard was
   confidently expected by the great body of his subjects to
   redeem the family pledge. … Wholly inferior in statesmanlike
   qualities to his father as he was, the generosity,
   munificence, and easy confidence of his character made him an
   almost perfect representative of the chivalry of that age. He
   was scarcely at all in England, but his fine exploits both by
   land and sea have made him deservedly a favourite. The
   depreciation of him which is to be found in certain modern
   books must in all fairness be considered a little mawkish. A
   King who leaves behind him such an example of apparently
   reckless, but really prudent valour, of patience under jealous
   ill-treatment, and perseverance in the face of extreme
   difficulties, shining out as the head of the manhood of his
   day, far above the common race of kings and emperors,—such a
   man leaves a heritage of example as well as glory, and incites
   posterity to noble deeds. His great moral fault was his
   conduct to Henry, and for this he was sufficiently punished;
   but his parents must each bear their share of the blame. …
   The interest of English affairs during Richard's absence
   languishes under the excitement which attends his almost
   continuous campaigns. … Both on the Crusade and in France
   Richard was fighting the battle of the House which the English
   had very deliberately placed upon its throne; and if the war
   was kept off its shores, if the troubles of Stephen's reign
   were not allowed to recur, the country had no right to
   complain of a taxation or a royal ransom which times of peace
   enabled it, after all, to bear tolerably well. … The great
   maritime position of the Plantagenets made these sovereigns
   take to the sea."

      _M. Burrows,
      Commentaries on the History of England,
      book 1, chapter 18._

   Richard "was a bad king; his great exploits, his military
   skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes,
   his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want
   of sympathy, or even consideration for his people. He was no
   Englishman. … His ambition was that of a mere warrior."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      section. 150 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 2, chapter 7-8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1199.
   Accession of King John.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.
   The loss of Normandy and its effects.

   In 1202 Philip Augustus, king of France, summoned John of
   England, as Duke of Normandy (therefore the feudal vassal of
   the French crown) to appear for trial on certain grave charges
   before the august court of the Peers of France. John refused
   to obey the summons; his French fiefs were declared forfeited,
   and the armies of the French king took possession of them (see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224). This proved to be a lasting
   separation of Normandy from England,—except as it was
   recovered momentarily long afterwards in the conquests of
   Henry V. "The Norman barons had had no choice but between John
   and Philip. For the first time since the Conquest there was no
   competitor, son, brother, or more distant kinsman, for their
   allegiance. John could neither rule nor defend them. Bishops
   and barons alike welcomed or speedily accepted their new lord.
   The families that had estates on both sides of the Channel
   divided into two branches, each of which made terms for
   itself; or having balanced their interests in the two
   kingdoms, threw in their lot with one or other, and renounced
   what they could not save. Almost immediately Normandy settles
   down into a quiet province of France. … For England the
   result of the separation was more important still. Even within
   the reign of John it became clear that the release of the
   barons from their connexion with the continent was all that
   was wanted to make them Englishmen. With the last vestiges of
   the Norman inheritances vanished the last idea of making
   England a feudal kingdom. The Great Charter was won by men who
   were maintaining, not the cause of a class, as had been the
   case in every civil war since 1070, but the cause of a nation.
   From the year 1203 the king stood before the English people
   face to face."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 12, section 152._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.
   King John's quarrel with the Pope and the Church.

   On the death, in 1205, of Archbishop Hubert, of Canterbury,
   who had long been chief minister of the crown, a complicated
   quarrel over the appointment to the vacant see arose between
   the monks of the cathedral, the suffragan bishops of the
   province, King John, and the powerful Pope Innocent III. Pope
   Innocent put forward as his candidate the afterwards famous
   Stephen Langton, secured his election in a somewhat irregular
   way (A. D. 1207), and consecrated him with his own hands. King
   John, bent on filling the primacy with a creature of his own,
   resisted the papal action with more fury than discretion, and
   proceeded to open war with the whole Church.
{802}
   "The monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and
   when, in the following year, an interdict which the Pope had
   intrusted to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester, was
   published, his hostility to the Church became so extreme that
   almost all the bishops fled; the Bishops of Winchester,
   Durham, and Norwich, two of whom belonged to the ministerial
   body, being the only prelates left in England. The interdict
   was of the severest form; all services of the Church, with the
   exception of baptism and extreme unction, being forbidden,
   while the burial of the dead was allowed only in unconsecrated
   ground; its effect was however, weakened by the conduct of
   some of the monastic orders, who claimed exemption from its
   operation, and continued their services. The king's anger knew
   no bounds. The clergy were put beyond the protection of the
   law; orders were issued to drive them from their benefices,
   and lawless acts committed at their expense met with no
   punishment. … Though acting thus violently, John showed the
   weakness of his character by continued communication with the
   Pope, and occasional fitful acts of favour to the Church; so
   much so, that, in the following year, Langton prepared to come
   over to England, and, upon the continued obstinacy of the
   king, Innocent, feeling sure of his final victory, did not
   shrink from issuing his threatened excommunication. John had
   hoped to be able to exclude the knowledge of this step from
   the island … ; but the rumour of it soon got abroad, and its
   effect was great. … In a state of nervous excitement, and
   mistrusting his nobles, the king himself perpetually moved to
   and fro in his kingdom, seldom staying more than a few days in
   one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy.
   … In 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed,
   including all the princes of the North of Europe; Ferrand of
   Flanders, the Duke of Brabant, John, and Otho [John's Guelphic
   Saxon nephew, who was one of two contestants for the imperial
   crown in Germany], were all members of it, and it was chiefly
   organized by the activity of Reinald of Dammartin, Count of
   Boulogne. The chief enemy of these confederates was Philip of
   France; and John thought he saw in this league the means of
   revenge against his old enemy. To complete the line of
   demarcation between the two parties, Innocent, who was greatly
   moved by the description of the disorders and persecutions in
   England, declared John's crown forfeited, and intrusted the
   carrying out of the sentence to Philip. In 1213 armies were
   collected on both sides. Philip was already on the Channel,
   and John had assembled a large army on Barhamdown, not far
   from Canterbury." But, at the last moment, when the French
   king was on the eve of embarking his forces for the invasion
   of England, John submitted himself abjectly to Pandulf, the
   legate of the Pope. He not only surrendered to all that he had
   contended against, but went further, to the most shameful
   extreme. "On the 15th of May, at Dover, he formally resigned
   the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf,
   and received them again as the Pope's feudatory."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England (3d edition),
      volume 1, pages 130-134._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      Book 4, number 5._

      See, also, BOUVINES, BATTLE OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1206-1230.
   Attempts of John and Henry III. to recover Anjou and Maine.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.
   Magna Carta.

   "It is to the victory of Bouvines that England owes her Great
   Charter [see BOUVINES]. … John sailed for Poitou with the
   dream of a great victory which should lay Philip [of France]
   and the barons alike at his feet. He returned from his defeat
   to find the nobles no longer banded together in secret
   conspiracies, but openly united in a definite claim of liberty
   and law. The author of this great change was the new
   Archbishop [Langton] whom Innocent had set on the throne of
   Canterbury. … In a private meeting of the barons at St.
   Paul's, he produced the Charter of Henry I., and the
   enthusiasm with which it was welcomed showed the sagacity with
   which the Primate had chosen his ground for the coming
   struggle. All hope, however, hung on the fortunes of the
   French campaign; it was the victory at Bouvines that broke the
   spell of terror, and within a few days of the king's landing
   the barons again met at St. Edmundsbury. … At Christmas they
   presented themselves in arms before the king and preferred their
   claim. The few months that followed showed John that he stood
   alone in the land. … At Easter the barons again gathered in
   arms at Brackley and renewed their claim. 'Why do they not ask
   for my kingdom?' cried John in a burst of passion; but the
   whole country rose as one man at his refusal. London threw
   open her gates to the army of the barons, now organized under
   Robert Fitz-Walter, 'the marshal of the army of God and the
   holy Church.' The example of the capital was at once followed
   by Exeter and Lincoln; promises of aid came from Scotland and
   Wales; the northern nobles marched hastily to join their
   comrades in London. With seven horsemen in his train John
   found himself face to face with a nation in arms. … Nursing
   wrath in his heart the tyrant bowed to necessity, and summoned
   the barons to a conference at Runnymede. An island in the
   Thames between Staines and Windsor had been chosen as the
   place of conference: the king encamped on one bank, while the
   barons covered the marshy flat, still known by the name of
   Runnymede, on the other. Their delegates met in the island
   between them. … The Great Charter was discussed, agreed to,
   and signed in a single day [June 15, A. D. 1215]. One copy of
   it still remains in the British Museum, injured by age and
   fire, but with the royal seal still hanging from the brown,
   shriveled parchment."

      _J. R Green,
      Short History of the England People,
      chapter 3, sections 2-3._

   "As this was the first effort towards a legal government, so
   is it beyond comparison the most important event in our
   history, except that, Revolution without which its benefits
   would have been rapidly annihilated. The constitution of
   England has indeed no single date from which its duration is
   to be reckoned. The institutions of positive law, the far more
   important changes which time has wrought in the order of
   society, during six hundred years subsequent to the Great
   Charter, have undoubtedly lessened its direct application to
   our present circumstances. But it is still the key-stone of
   English liberty. All that has since been obtained is little
   more than as confirmation or commentary. … The essential
   clauses of Magna Charta are those which protect the personal
   liberty and property of all freemen, by giving security from
   arbitrary imprisonment and arbitrary spoliation.
{803}
   'No freeman (says the 29th chapter of Henry III.'s charter,
   which, as the existing law, I quote in preference to that of
   John, the variations not being very material) shall be taken
   or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties,
   or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise
   destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon, but by
   lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We
   will sell to no man, we will not deny or delay to any man,
   justice or right.' It is obvious that these words, interpreted
   by any honest court of law, convey an ample security for the
   two main rights of civil society."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 8, part 2._

   "The Great Charter, although drawn up in the form of a royal
   grant, was really a treaty between the king and his subjects.
   … It is the collective people who really form the other high
   contracting party in the great capitulation,—the three
   estates of the realm, not, it is true, arranged in order
   according to their profession or rank, but not the less
   certainly combined in one national purpose, and securing by
   one bond the interests and rights of each other, severally and
   all together. … The barons maintain and secure the right of
   the whole people as against themselves as well as against
   their master. Clause by clause the rights of the commons are
   provided for as well as the rights of the nobles. … The
   knight is protected against the compulsory exaction of his
   services, and the horse and cart of the freeman against the
   irregular requisition even of the sheriff. … The Great
   Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it
   has realised its own identity. … The whole of the
   constitutional history of England is little more than a
   commentary on Magna Carta."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 12, section 155._

   The following is the text of Magna Carta;

   "John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland,
   Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his
   Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries,
   Foresters, Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, and to all Bailiffs,
   and his faithful subjects, greeting. Know ye, that we, in the
   presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the
   souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of
   God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our
   Realm, by advice of our venerable Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop
   of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy
   Roman Church; Henry, Archbishop of Dublin; William, of London;
   Peter, of Winchester; Jocelin, of Bath and Glastonbury; Hugh,
   of Lincoln; Walter, of Worcester; William, of Coventry;
   Benedict, of Rochester—Bishops; of Master Pandulph,
   Sub-Deacon and Familiar of our Lord the Pope; Brother Aymeric,
   Master of the Knights-Templars in England; and of the noble
   Persons, William Marescall, Earl of Pembroke; William, Earl of
   Salisbury; William, Earl of Warren; William, Earl of Arundel;
   Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland; Warin FitzGerald,
   Peter FitzHerbert, and Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poitou;
   Hugh de Neville, Matthew FitzHerbert, Thomas Basset, Alan
   Basset, Philip of Albiney, Robert de Roppell, John Mareschal,
   John FitzHugh, and others, our liegemen, have, in the first
   place, granted to God, and by this our present Charter
   confirmed, for us and our heirs forever;

   1. That the Church of England shall be free, and have her
   whole rights, and her liberties inviolable; and we will have
   them so observed, that it may appear thence that the freedom
   of elections, which is reckoned chief and indispensable to the
   English Church, and which we granted and confirmed by our
   Charter, and obtained the confirmation of the same from our
   Lord the Pope Innocent III., before the discord between us and
   our barons, was granted of mere free will; which Charter we
   shall observe, and we do will it to be faithfully observed by
   our heirs for ever.

   2. We also have granted to all the freemen of our kingdom, for
   us and for our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties,
   to be had and holden by them and their heirs, of us and our
   heirs for ever; If any of our earls, or barons, or others, who
   hold of us in chief by military service, shall die, and at the
   time of his death his heir shall be of full age, and owe a
   relief, he shall have his inheritance by the ancient
   relief—that is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl, for a
   whole earldom, by a hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a
   baron, for a whole barony, by a hundred pounds; the heir or
   heirs of a knight, for a whole knight's fee, by a hundred
   shillings at most; and whoever oweth less shall give less,
   according to the ancient custom of fees.

   3. But if the heir of any such shall be under age, and shall
   be in ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance
   without relief and without fine.

   4. The keeper of the land of such an heir being under age,
   shall take of the land of the heir none but reasonable issues,
   reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without
   destruction and waste of his men and his goods; and if we
   commit the custody of any such lands to the sheriff, or any
   other who is answerable to us for the issues of the land, and
   he shall make destruction and waste of the lands which he hath
   in custody, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be
   committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who
   shall answer for the issues to us, or to him to whom we shall
   assign them; and if we sell or give to anyone the custody of
   any such lands, and he therein make destruction or waste, he
   shall lose the same custody, which shall be committed to two
   lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall in like manner
   answer to us as aforesaid.

   5. But the keeper, so long as he shall have the custody of the
   land, shall keep up the houses, parks, warrens, ponds, mills,
   and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of
   the same land; and shall deliver to the heir, when he comes of
   full age, his whole land, stocked with ploughs and carriages,
   according as the time of wainage shall require, and the issues
   of the land can reasonably bear.

   6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, and so that
   before matrimony shall be contracted, those who are near in
   blood to the heir shall have notice.

   7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith
   and without difficulty have her marriage and inheritance; nor
   shall she give anything for her dower, or her marriage, of her
   inheritance, which her husband and she held at the day of his
   death; and she may remain in the mansion house of her husband
   forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall
   be assigned.

   8. No widow shall be distrained to marry herself, so long as
   she has a mind to live without a husband; but yet she shall
   give security that she will not marry without our assent, if
   she hold of us; or without the consent of the lord of whom she
   holds, if she hold of another.

{804}

   9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent
   for any debt so long as the chattels of the debtor are
   sufficient to pay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the
   debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor has
   sufficient to pay the debt; and if the principal debtor shall
   fail in the payment of the debt, not having wherewithal to pay
   it, then the sureties shall answer the debt; and if they will
   they shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, until they
   shall be satisfied for the debt which they paid for him,
   unless the principal debtor can show himself acquitted thereof
   against the said sureties.

   10. If anyone have borrowed anything of the Jews, more or
   less, and die before the debt be satisfied, there shall be no
   interest paid for that debt, so long as the heir is under age,
   of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt falls into our
   hands, we will only take the chattel mentioned in the deed.

   11. And if anyone shall die indebted to the Jews, his wife
   shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if the
   deceased left children under age, they shall have necessaries
   provided for them, according to the tenement of the deceased;
   and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, saving,
   however, the service due to the lords, and in like manner
   shall it be done touching debts due to others than the Jews.

   12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless
   by the general council of our kingdom; except for ransoming
   our person, making our eldest son a knight, and once for
   marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall be
   paid no more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be
   concerning the aids of the City of London.

   13. And the City of London shall have all its ancient
   liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water:
   furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities and
   boroughs, and towns and ports, shall have all their liberties
   and free customs.

   14. And for holding the general council of the kingdom
   concerning the assessment of aids, except in the three cases
   aforesaid, and for the assessing of scutages, we shall cause
   to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and
   greater barons of the realm, singly by our letters. And
   furthermore, we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our
   sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief, for
   a certain day, that is to say, forty days before their meeting
   at least, and to a certain place; and in all letters of such
   summons we will declare the cause of such summons. And summons
   being thus made, the business shall proceed on the day
   appointed, according to the advice of such as shall be
   present, although all that were summoned come not.

   15. We will not for the future grant to anyone that he may
   take aid of his own free tenants, unless to ransom his body,
   and to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his
   eldest daughter; and for this there shall be only paid a
   reasonable aid.

   16. No man shall be distrained to perform more service for a
   knight's fee, or other free tenement, than is due from thence.

   17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be
   holden in some place certain.

   18. Trials upon the Writs of Novel Disseisin, and of Mort
   d'ancestor, and of Darrein Presentment, shall not be taken but
   in their proper counties, and after this manner: We, or if we
   should be out of the realm, our chief justiciary, will send
   two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who,
   with four knights of each county, chosen by the county, shall
   hold the said assizes in the county, on the day, and at the
   place appointed.

   19. And if any matters cannot be determined on the day
   appointed for holding the assizes in each county, so many of
   the knights and freeholders as have been at the assizes
   aforesaid shall stay to decide them as is necessary, according
   as there is more or less business.

   20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but
   only according to the degree of the offence; and for a great
   crime according to the heinousness of it, saving to him his
   contenement; and after the same manner a merchant, saving to
   him his merchandise. And a villein shall be amerced after the
   same manner, saving to him his wainage, if he falls under our
   mercy; and none of the aforesaid amerciaments shall be
   assessed but by the oath of honest men in the neighbourhood.

   21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced but by their peers,
   and after the degree of the offence.

   22. No ecclesiastical person shall be amerced for his lay
   tenement, but according to the proportion of the others
   aforesaid, and not according to the value of his
   ecclesiastical benefice.

   23. Neither a town nor any tenant shall be distrained to make
   bridges or embankments, unless that anciently and of right
   they are bound to do it.

   24. No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other our bailiffs,
   shall hold "Pleas of the Crown."

   25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and trethings, shall
   stand at the old rents, without any increase, except in our
   demesne manors.

   26. If anyone holding of us a lay fee die, and the sheriff, or
   our bailiffs, show our letters patent of summons for debt
   which the dead man did owe to us, it shall be lawful for the
   sheriff or our bailiff to attach and register the chattels of
   the dead, found upon his lay fee, to the amount of the debt,
   by the view of lawful men, so as nothing be removed until our
   whole clear debt be paid; and the rest shall be left to the
   executors to fulfil the testament of the dead; and if there be
   nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the
   use of the dead, saving to his wife and children their
   reasonable shares.

   27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be
   distributed by the hands of his nearest relations and friends,
   by view of the Church, saving to everyone his debts which the
   deceased owed to him.

   28. No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other
   chattels of any man unless he presently give him money for it,
   or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller.

   29. No constable shall distrain any knight to give money for
   castle-guard, if he himself will do it in his person, or by
   another able man, in case he cannot do it through any
   reasonable cause. And if we have carried or sent him into the
   army, he shall be free from such guard for the time he shall
   be in the army by our command.

   30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take
   horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, without the
   assent of the said freeman.

   31. Neither shall we nor our bailiffs take any man's timber
   for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of the
   owner of the timber.

   32. We will retain the lands of those convicted of felony only
   one year and a day, and then they shall be delivered to the
   lord of the fee.

   33. All kydells (wears) for the time to come shall be put down
   in the rivers of Thames and Medway, and throughout all
   England, except upon the seacoast.

{805}

   34. The writ which is called prœcipe, for the future, shall
   not be made out to anyone, of any tenement, whereby a freeman
   may lose his court.

   35. There shall be one measure of wine and one of ale through
   our whole realm; and one measure of corn, that is to say, the
   London quarter; and one breadth of dyed cloth, and russets,
   and haberjeets, that is to say, two ells within the lists; and
   it shall be of weights as it is of measures.

   36. Nothing from henceforth shall be given or taken for a writ
   of inquisition of life or limb, but it shall be granted
   freely, and not denied.

   37. If any do hold of us by fee-farm, or by socage, or by
   burgage, and he hold also lands of any other by knight's
   service, we will not have the custody of the heir or land,
   which is holden of another man's fee by reason of that
   fee-farm, socage, or burgage; neither will we have the custody
   of the fee-farm, or socage, or burgage, unless knight's
   service was due to us out of the same fee-farm. We will not
   have the custody of an heir, nor of any land which he holds of
   another by knight's service, by reason of any petty serjeanty
   by which he holds of us, by the service of paying a knife, an
   arrow, or the like.

   38. No bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his law
   upon his own bare saying, without credible witnesses to prove
   it.

   39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or
   outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass
   upon him, nor will we send upon him, unless by the lawful
   judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

   40. We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man,
   either justice or right.

   41. All merchants shall have safe and secure conduct, to go
   out of, and to come into England, and to stay there and to
   pass as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by
   the ancient and allowed customs, without any unjust tolls;
   except in time of war, or when they are of any nation at war
   with us. And if there be found any such in our land, in the
   beginning of the war, they shall be attached, without damage
   to their bodies or goods, until it be known unto us, or our
   chief justiciary, how our merchants be treated in the nation
   at war with us; and if ours be safe there, the others shall be
   safe in our dominions.

   42. It shall be lawful, for the time to come, for anyone to go
   out of our kingdom, and return safely and securely by land or
   by water, saving his allegiance to us; unless in time of war,
   by some short space, for the common benefit of the realm,
   except prisoners and outlaws, according to the law of the
   land, and people in war with us, and merchants who shall be
   treated as is above mentioned.

   43. If any man hold of any escheat, as of the honour of
   Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other
   escheats which be in our hands, and are baronies, and die, his
   heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service
   to us than he would to the baron, if it were in the baron's
   hand; and we will hold it after the same manner as the baron
   held it.

   44. Those men who dwell without the forest from henceforth
   shall not come before our justiciaries of the forest, upon
   common summons, but such as are impleaded, or are sureties for
   any that are attached for something concerning the forest.

   45. We will not make any justices, constables, sheriffs, or
   bailiffs, but of such as know the law of the realm and mean
   duly to observe it.

   46. All barons who have founded abbeys, which they hold by
   charter from the kings of England, or by ancient tenure, shall
   have the keeping of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

   47. All forests that have been made forests in our time shall
   forthwith be disforested; and the same shall be done with the
   water-banks that have been fenced in by us in our time.

   48. All evil customs concerning forests, warrens, foresters,
   and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, water-banks and
   their keepers, shall forthwith be inquired into in each
   county, by twelve sworn knights of the same county, chosen by
   creditable persons of the same county; and within forty days
   after the said inquest be utterly abolished, so as never to be
   restored: so as we are first acquainted therewith, or our
   justiciary, if we should not be in England.

   49. We will immediately give up all hostages and charters
   delivered unto us by our English subjects, as securities for
   their keeping the peace, and yielding us faithful service.

   50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks the
   relations of Gerard de Atheyes, so that for the future they
   shall have no bailiwick in England; we will also remove
   Engelard de Cygony, Andrew, Peter, and Gyon, from the
   Chancery; Gyon de Cygony, Geoffrey de Martyn, and his
   brothers; Philip Mark, and his brothers, and his nephew,
   Geoffrey, and their whole retinue.

   51. As soon as peace is restored, we will send out of the
   kingdom all foreign knights, cross-bowmen, and stipendiaries,
   who are come with horses and arms to the molestation of our
   people.

   52. If anyone has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without
   the lawful judgment of his peers, of his lands, castles,
   liberties, or right, we will forthwith restore them to him;
   and if any dispute arise upon this head, let the matter be
   decided by the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned, for
   the preservation of the peace. And for all those things of
   which any person has, without the lawful judgment of his
   peers, been dispossessed or deprived, either by our father
   King Henry, or our brother King Richard, and which we have in
   our hands, or are possessed by others, and we are bound to
   warrant and make good, we shall have a respite till the term
   usually allowed the crusaders; excepting those things about
   which there is a plea depending, or whereof an inquest hath
   been made, by our order before we undertook the crusade; but
   as soon as we return from our expedition, or if perchance we
   tarry at home and do not make our expedition, we will
   immediately cause full justice to be administered therein.

   53. The same respite we shall have, and in the same manner,
   about administering justice, disafforesting or letting
   continue the forests, which Henry our father, and our brother
   Richard, have afforested; and the same concerning the wardship
   of the lands which are in another's fee, but the wardship of
   which we have hitherto had, by reason of a fee held of us by
   knight's service; and for the abbeys founded in any other fee
   than our own, in which the lord of the fee says he has a
   right; and when we return from our expedition, or if we tarry
   at home, and do not make our expedition, we will immediately
   do full justice to all the complainants in this behalf.

   54. No man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the appeal of a
   woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

{806}

   55. All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all
   amerciaments imposed unjustly and contrary to the law of the
   land, shall be entirely given up, or else be left to the
   decision of the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned for
   the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of them,
   together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury,
   if he can be present, and others whom he shall think fit to
   invite; and if he cannot be present, the business shall
   notwithstanding go on without him; but so that if one or more
   of the aforesaid five-and-twenty barons be plaintiffs in the
   same cause, they shall be set aside as to what concerns this
   particular affair, and others be chosen in their room, out of
   the said five-and-twenty, and sworn by the rest to decide the
   matter.

   56. If we have disseised or dispossessed the Welsh of any
   lands, liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment
   of their peers, either in England or in Wales, they shall be
   immediately restored to them; and if any dispute arise upon
   this head, the matter shall be determined in the Marches by
   the judgment of their peers; for tenements in England
   according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales
   according to the law of Wales, for tenements of the Marches
   according to the law of the Marches: the same shall the Welsh
   do to us and our subjects.

   57. As for all those things of which a Welshman hath, without
   the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or deprived
   of by King Henry our father, or our brother King Richard, and
   which we either have in our hands or others are possessed of,
   and we are obliged to warrant it, we shall have a respite till
   the time generally allowed the crusaders; excepting those
   things about which a suit is depending, or whereof an inquest
   has been made by our order, before we undertook the crusade:
   but when we return, or if we stay at home without performing
   our expedition, we will immediately do them full justice,
   according to the laws of the Welsh and of the parts before
   mentioned.

   58. We will without delay dismiss the son of Llewellin, and
   all the Welsh hostages, and release them from the engagements
   they have entered into with us for the preservation of the
   peace.

   59. We will treat with Alexander, King of Scots, concerning
   the restoring his sisters and hostages, and his right and
   liberties, in the same form and manner as we shall do to the
   rest of our barons of England; unless by the charters which we
   have from his father, William, late King of Scots, it ought to
   be otherwise; and this shall be left to the determination of
   his peers in our court.

   60. All the aforesaid customs and liberties, which we have
   granted to be holden in our kingdom, as much as it belongs to
   us, all people of our kingdom, as well clergy as laity, shall
   observe, as far as they are concerned, towards their
   dependents.

   61. And whereas, for the honour of God and the amendment of
   our kingdom, and for the better quieting the discord that has
   arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these
   things aforesaid; willing to render them firm and lasting, we
   do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security,
   namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of
   the kingdom, whom they think convenient; who shall take care,
   with all their might, to hold and observe, and cause to be
   observed, the peace and liberties we have granted them, and by
   this our present Charter confirmed in this manner; that is to
   say, that if we, our justiciary, our bailiffs, or any of our
   officers, shall in any circumstance have failed in the
   performance of them towards any person, or shall have broken
   through any of these articles of peace and security, and the
   offence be notified to four barons chosen out of the
   five-and-twenty before mentioned, the said four barons shall
   repair to us, or our justiciary, if we are out of the realm,
   and, laying open the grievance, shall petition to have it
   redressed without delay: and if it be not redressed by us, or
   if we should chance to be out of the realm, if it should not
   be redressed by our justiciary within forty days, reckoning
   from the time it has been notified to us, or to our justiciary
   (if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid
   shall lay the cause before the rest of the five-and-twenty
   barons; and the said five-and-twenty barons, together with the
   community of the whole kingdom, shall distrain and distress us
   in all the ways in which they shall be able, by seizing our
   castles, lands, possessions, and in any other manner they can,
   till the grievance is redressed, according to their pleasure;
   saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our Queen
   and children; and when it is redressed, they shall behave to
   us as before. And any person whatsoever in the kingdom may
   swear that he will obey the orders of the five-and-twenty
   barons aforesaid in the execution of the premises, and will
   distress us, jointly with them, to the utmost of his power;
   and we give public and free liberty to anyone that shall
   please to swear to this, and never will hinder any person from
   taking the same oath.

   62. As for all those of our subjects who will not, of their
   own accord, swear to join the five-and-twenty barons in
   distraining and distressing us, we will issue orders to make
   them take the same oath as aforesaid. And if anyone of the
   five-and-twenty barons dies, or goes out of the kingdom, or is
   hindered any other way from carrying the things aforesaid into
   execution, the rest of the said five-and-twenty barons may
   choose another in his room, at their discretion, who shall be
   sworn in like manner as the rest. In all things that are
   committed to the execution of these five-and-twenty barons,
   if, when they are all assembled together, they should happen
   to disagree about any matter, and some of them, when summoned,
   will not or cannot come, whatever is agreed upon, or enjoined,
   by the major part of those that are present shall be reputed
   as firm and valid as if all the five-and-twenty had given
   their consent; and the aforesaid five-and-twenty shall swear
   that all the premises they shall faithfully observe, and cause
   with all their power to be observed. And we will procure
   nothing from anyone, by ourselves nor by another, whereby any
   of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or lessened;
   and if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be null
   and void; neither will we ever make use of it either by
   ourselves or any other. And all the ill-will, indignations,
   and rancours that have arisen between us and our subjects, of
   the clergy and laity, from the first breaking out of the
   dissensions between us, we do fully remit and forgive:
   moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said dissensions,
   from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the
   restoration of peace and tranquillity, we hereby entirely
   remit to all, both clergy and laity, and as far as in us lies
   do fully forgive. We have, moreover, caused to be made for
   them the letters patent testimonial of Stephen, Lord
   Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, Lord Archbishop of Dublin,
   and the bishops aforesaid, as also of Master Pandulph, for the
   security and concessions aforesaid.

{807}

   63. Wherefore we will and firmly enjoin, that the Church of
   England be free, and that all men in our kingdom have and hold
   all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, truly
   and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly to
   themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things
   and places, for ever, as is aforesaid. It is also sworn, as
   well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all the
   things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith, and without
   evil subtilty. Given under our hand, in the presence of the
   witnesses above named, and many others, in the meadow called
   Runingmede, between Windsor and Staines, the 15th day of June,
   in the 17th year of our reign."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Select Charters,
      part 5._

      _Old South Leaflets,
      General Series,
      number 5._

      Also IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 1, number 7._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
   Character and reign of Henry III.
   The Barons' War.
   Simon de Montfort and the evolution of the English Parliament.

   King John died October 17, 1216. "His legitimate successor was
   a child of nine years of age. For the first time since the
   Conquest the personal government was in the hands of a minor.
   In that stormy time the great Earl of Pembroke undertook the
   government, as Protector. … At the Council of Bristol, with
   general approbation and even with that of the papal legate,
   Magna Charta was confirmed, though with the omission of
   certain articles. … After some degree of tranquillity had
   been restored, a second confirmation of the Great Charter took
   place in the autumn of 1217, with the omission of the clauses
   referring to the estates, but with the grant of a new charta
   de foresta, introducing a vigorous administration of the
   forest laws. In 9 Henry III. Magna Charta was again confirmed,
   and this is the form in which it afterwards took its place
   among the statutes of the realm. Two years later, Henry III.
   personally assumes the reins of government at the Parliament
   of Oxford (1227), and begins his rule without confirming the
   two charters. At first the tutorial government still
   continues, which had meanwhile, even after the death of the
   great Earl of Pembroke (1219), remained in a fairly orderly
   condition. The first epoch of sixteen years of this reign must
   therefore be regarded purely as a government by the nobility
   under the name of Henry III. The regency had succeeded in
   removing the dominant influence of the Roman Curia by the
   recall of the papal legate, Pandulf, to Rome (1221), and in
   getting rid of the dangerous foreign mercenary soldiery
   (1224). … With the disgraceful dismissal of the chief
   justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, there begins a second epoch of a
   personal rule of Henry III. (1232-1252), which for twenty
   continuous years, presents the picture of a confused and
   undecided struggle between the king and his foreign favourites
   and personal adherents on the one side, and the great barons,
   and with them soon the prelates, on the other. … In 21 Henry
   III. the King finds himself, in consequence of pressing money
   embarrassments, again compelled to make a solemn confirmation
   of the charter, in which once more the clauses relating to the
   estates are omitted. Shortly afterwards, as had happened just
   one hundred years previously in France, the name
   'parliamentum' occurs for the first time (Chron. Dunst., 1244;
   Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself,
   in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates
   with this term the assembly which originated the Magna Charta.
   … The name 'parliament,' now occurs more frequently, but
   does not supplant the more definite terms concilium,
   colloquium, etc. In the meanwhile the relations with the
   Continent became complicated, in consequence of the family
   connections of the mother and wife of the King, and the greed
   of the papal envoys. … From the year 1244 onwards, neither a
   chief justice nor a chancellor, nor even a treasurer, is
   appointed, but the administration of the country is conducted
   at the Court by the clerks of the offices."

      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      volume 1, pages 313-321._

   "Nothing is so hard to realise as chaos; and nothing nearer to
   chaos can be conceived than the government of Henry III. Henry
   was, like all the Plantagenets, clever; like very few of them,
   he was devout; and if the power of conceiving a great policy
   would constitute a great King, he would certainly have been
   one. … He aimed at making the Crown virtually independent of
   the barons. … His connexion with Louis IX., whose
   brother-in-law he became, was certainly a misfortune to him.
   In France the royal power had during the last fifty years been
   steadily on the advance; in England it had as steadily
   receded; and Henry was ever hearing from the other side of the
   Channel maxims of government and ideas of royal authority
   which were utterly inapplicable to the actual state of his own
   kingdom. This, like a premature Stuart, Henry was incapable of
   perceiving; a King he was, and a King he would be, in his own
   sense of the word. It is evident that with such a task before
   him, he needed for the most shadowy chance of success, an iron
   strength of will, singular self-control, great forethought and
   care in collecting and husbanding his resources, a rare talent
   for administration, the sagacity to choose and the
   self-reliance to trust his counsellors. And not one of these
   various qualities did Henry possess. … Henry had imbibed
   from the events and the tutors of his early childhood two
   maxims of state, and two alone: to trust Rome, and to distrust
   the barons of England. … He filled the places of trust and
   power about himself with aliens, to whom the maintenance of
   Papal influence was like an instinct of self-preservation.
   Thus were definitely formed the two great parties out of whose
   antagonism the War of the Barons arose, under whose influence
   the relations between the crown and people of England were
   remodelled, and out of whose enduring conflict rose,
   indirectly, the political principles which contributed so
   largely to bring about the Reformation of the English Church.
   The few years which followed the fall of Hubert de Burgh were
   the heyday of Papal triumph. And no triumph could have been
   worse used. … Thus was the whole country lying a prey to the
   ecclesiastical aliens maintained by the Pope, and to the lay
   aliens maintained by the King, … when Simon de Montfort
   became … inseparably intermixed with the course of our
   history. … In the year 1258 opened the first act of the
   great drama which has made the name of Simon de Montfort
   immortal. … The Barons of England, at Leicester's
   suggestion, had leagued for the defence of their rights. They
   appeared armed at the Great Council. …
{808}
   They required as the condition of their assistance that the
   general reformation of the realm should be entrusted to a
   Commission of twenty-four members, half to be chosen by the
   crown, and half by themselves. For the election of this body,
   primarily, and for a more explicit statement of grievances,
   the Great Council was to meet again at Oxford on the 11th of
   June, 1258. When the Barons came, they appeared at the head of
   their retainers. The invasion of the Welsh was the plea; but
   the real danger was nearer home. They seized on the Cinque
   Ports; the unrenewed truce with France was the excuse; they
   remembered too vividly King John and his foreign mercenaries.
   They then presented their petition. This was directed to the
   redress of various abuses. … To each and every clause the
   King gave his inevitable assent. One more remarkable
   encroachment was made upon the royal prerogative; the election
   in Parliament of a chief justiciar. … The chief justiciar
   was the first officer of the Crown. He was not a mere chief
   justice, after the fashion of the present day, but the
   representative of the Crown in its high character of the
   fountain of justice. … But the point upon which the barons
   laid the greatest stress, from the beginning to the end of
   their struggle, was the question of the employment of aliens.
   That the strongest castles and the fairest lands of England
   should be in the hands of foreigners, was an insult to the
   national spirit which no free people could fail to resent. …
   England for the English, the great war cry of the barons, went
   home to the heart of the humblest. … The great question of
   the constitution of Parliament was not heard at Oxford; it
   emerged into importance when the struggle grew fiercer, and
   the barons found it necessary to gather allies round them. …
   One other measure completed the programme of the barons;
   namely, the appointment, already referred to, of a committee
   of twenty-four. … It amounted to placing the crown under the
   control of a temporary Council of Regency [see OXFORD,
   PROVISIONS OF]. … Part of the barons' work was simple
   enough. The justiciar was named, and the committee of
   twenty-four. To expel the foreigners was less easy. Simon de
   Montfort, himself an alien by birth, resigned the two castles
   which he held, and called upon the rest to follow. They simply
   refused. … But the barons were in arms, and prepared to use
   them. The aliens, with their few English supporters, fled to
   Winchester, where the castle was in the hands of the foreign
   bishop Aymer. They were besieged, brought to terms, and
   exiled. The barons were now masters of the situation. …
   Among the prerogatives of the crown which passed to the Oxford
   Commission not the least valuable, for the hold which it gave
   on the general government of the country, was the right to
   nominate the sheriffs. In 1261 the King, who had procured a
   Papal bull to abrogate the Provisions of Oxford, and an army
   of mercenaries to give the bull effect, proceeded to expel the
   sheriffs who had been placed in office by the barons. The
   reply of the barons was most memorable; it was a direct appeal
   to the order below their own. They summoned three knights
   elected from each county in England to meet them at St. Albans
   to discuss the state of the realm. It was clear that the day
   of the House of Commons could not be far distant, when at such
   a crisis an appeal to the knights of the shire could be made,
   and evidently made with success. For a moment, in this great
   move, the whole strength of the barons was united; but
   differences soon returned, and against divided counsels the
   crown steadily prevailed. In June, 1262, we find peace
   restored. The more moderate of the barons had acquiesced in
   the terms offered by Henry; Montfort, who refused them, was
   abroad in voluntary exile. … Suddenly, in July, the Earl of
   Gloucester died, and the sole leadership of the barons passed
   into the hands of Montfort. With this critical event opens the
   last act in the career of the great Earl. In October he returns
   privately to England. The whole winter is passed in the
   patient reorganising of the party, and the preparation for a
   decisive struggle. Montfort, fervent, eloquent, and devoted,
   swayed with despotic influence the hearts of the younger
   nobles (and few in those days lived to be grey), and taught
   them to feel that the Provisions of Oxford were to them what
   the Great Charter had been to their fathers. They were drawn
   together with an unanimity unknown before. … They demanded
   the restoration of the Great Provisions. The King refused, and
   in May, 1263, the barons appealed to arms. … Henry, with a
   reluctant hand, subscribed once more to the Provisions of
   Oxford, with a saving clause, however, that they should be
   revised in the coming Parliament. On the 9th of September,
   accordingly, Parliament was assembled. … The King and the
   barons agreed to submit their differences to the arbitration
   of Louis of France. … Louis IX. had done more than any one
   king of France to enlarge the royal prerogative; and Louis was
   the brother-in-law of Henry. His award, given at Amiens on the
   23d of January, 1264. was, as we should have expected,
   absolutely in favour of the King. The whole Provisions of
   Oxford were, in his view, an invasion of the royal power. …
   The barons were astounded. … They at once said that the
   question of the employment of aliens was never meant to be
   included. … The appeal was made once again to the sword.
   Success for a moment inclined to the royal side, but it was
   only for a moment; and on the memorable field of Lewes the
   genius of Leicester prevailed. … With the two kings of
   England and of the Romans prisoners in his hands, Montfort
   dictated the terms of the so-called Mise of Lewes. … Subject
   to the approval of Parliament, all differences were to be
   submitted once more to French arbitration. … On the 23d of
   June the Parliament met. It was no longer a Great Council,
   after the fashion of previous assemblies; it included four
   knights, elected by each English county. This Parliament gave
   such sanction as it was able to the exceptional authority of
   Montfort, and ordered that until the proposed arbitration
   could be carried out, the King's council should consist of
   nine persons, to be named by the Bishop of Chichester, and the
   Earls of Gloucester and Leicester. The effect was to give
   Simon for the time despotic power. … It was at length agreed
   that all questions whatever, the employment of aliens alone
   excepted, should be referred to the Bishop of London, the
   justiciar Hugh le Despenser, Charles of Anjou, and the Abbot
   of Bec. If on any point they could not agree, the Archbishop
   of Rouen was to act as referee. … It was … not simply the
   expedient of a revolutionary chief in difficulties, but the
   expression of a settled and matured policy, when, in December
   1264, [Montfort] issued in the King's name the ever-memorable
   writs which summoned the first complete Parliament which ever
   met in England.
{809}
   The earls, barons, and bishops received their summons as of
   course; and with them the deans of cathedral churches, an
   unprecedented number of abbots and priors, two knights from
   every shire, and two citizens or burgesses from every city or
   borough in England. Of their proceedings we know but little;
   but they appear to have appointed Simon de Montfort to the
   office of Justiciar of England, and to have thus made him in
   rank, what he had before been in power, the first subject in
   the realm. … Montfort … had now gone so far, he had
   exercised such extraordinary powers, he had done so many
   things which could never really be pardoned, that perhaps his
   only chance of safety lay in the possession of some such
   office as this. It is certain, moreover, that something which
   passed in this Parliament, or almost exactly at the time of
   its meeting, did cause deep offence to a considerable section
   of the barons. … Difficulties were visibly gathering thicker
   around him, and he was evidently conscious that disaffection
   was spreading fast. … Negotiations went forward, not very
   smoothly, for the release of Prince Edward. They were
   terminated in May by his escape. It was the signal for a
   royalist rising. Edward took the command of the Welsh border;
   before the middle of June he had made the border his own. On
   the 29th Gloucester opened its gates to him. He had many
   secret friends. He pushed fearlessly eastward, and surprised
   the garrison of Kenilworth, commanded by Simon, the Earl's
   second son. The Earl himself lay at Evesham, awaiting the
   troops which his son was to bring up from Kenilworth. … On
   the fatal field of Evesham, fighting side by side to the last,
   fell the Earl himself, his eldest son Henry, Despenser the
   late Justiciar, Lord Basset of Drayton, one of his firmest
   friends, and a host of minor name. With them, to all
   appearance, fell the cause for which they had fought."

      _Simon de Montfort
      (Quarterly Review, January, 1866)._

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH:
      EARLY STAGES OF ITS EVOLUTION.

   "Important as this assembly [the Parliament of 1264] is in the
   history of the constitution, it was not primarily and
   essentially a constitutional assembly. It was not a general
   convention of the tenants in chief or of the three estates,
   but a parliamentary assembly of the supporters of the existing
   government."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 14, section 177 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets._

      _G. W. Prothero,
      Life of Simon de Montfort,
      chapter 11-12._

      _H. Blaauw,
      The Barons' War._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      England, Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1271.
   Crusade of Prince Edward:

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1272.
   Accession of King Edward I.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.
   Development of Parliamentary representation under Edward 1.

   "Happily, Earl Simon [de Montfort] found a successor, and more
   than a successor, in the king's [Henry III.'s] son. … Edward
   I. stood on the vantage ground of the throne. … He could do
   that easily and without effort which Simon could only do
   laboriously, and with the certainty of rousing opposition.
   Especially was this the case with the encouragement given by
   the two men to the growing aspirations after parliamentary
   representation. Earl Simon's assemblies were instruments of
   warfare. Edward's assemblies were invitations to peace. …
   Barons and prelates, knights and townsmen, came together only
   to support a king who took the initiative so wisely, and who,
   knowing what was best for all, sought the good of his kingdom
   without thought of his own ease. Yet even so, Edward was too
   prudent at once to gather together such a body as that which
   Earl Simon had planned. He summoned, indeed, all the
   constituent parts of Simon's parliament, but he seldom
   summoned them to meet in one place or at one time. Sometimes
   the barons and prelates met apart from the townsmen or the
   knights, sometimes one or the other class met entirely alone.
   … In this way, during the first twenty years of Edward's
   reign, the nation rapidly grew in that consciousness of
   national unity which would one day transfer the function of
   regulation from the crown to the representatives of the
   people."

      _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      chapter 4, section 17._

   "In 1264 Simon de Montfort had called up from both shires and
   boroughs representatives to aid him in the new work of
   government. That part of Earl Simon's work had not been
   lasting. The task was left for Edward I. to be advanced by
   gradual safe steps, but to be thoroughly completed, as a part
   of a definite and orderly arrangement, according to which the
   English parliament was to be the perfect representation of the
   Three Estates of the Realm, assembled for purposes of
   taxation, legislation and united political action. …
   Edward's first parliament, in 1275, enabled him to pass a
   great statute of legal reform, called the Statute of
   Westminster the First, and to exact the new custom on wool;
   another assembly, the same year, granted him a fifteenth. …
   There is no evidence that the commons of either town or county
   were represented. … In 1282, when the expenses of the Welsh
   war were becoming heavy, Edward again tried the plan of
   obtaining money from the towns and counties by separate
   negotiation; but as that did not provide him with funds
   sufficient for his purpose, he called together, early in 1283,
   two great assemblies, one at York and another at Northampton,
   in which four knights from each shire and four members from
   each city and borough were ordered to attend; the cathedral
   and conventual clergy also of the two provinces were
   represented at the same places by their elected proctors. At
   these assemblies there was no attendance of the barons; they
   were with the king in Wales; but the commons made a grant of
   one-thirtieth on the understanding that the lords should do
   the same. Another assembly was held at Shrewsbury the same
   year, 1283, to witness the trial of David of Wales; to this
   the bishops and clergy were not called, but twenty towns and
   all the counties were ordered to send representatives. Another
   step was taken in 1290: knights of the shire were again
   summoned; but still much remained to be done before a perfect
   parliament was constituted. Counsel was wanted for
   legislation, consent was wanted for taxation. The lords were
   summoned in May, and did their work in June and July, granting
   a feudal aid and passing the statute 'Quia Emptores,' but the
   knights only came to vote or to promise a tax, after a law had
   been passed; and the towns were again taxed by special
   commissions. In 1294, … under the alarm of war with France,
   an alarm which led Edward into several breaches of
   constitutional law, he went still further, assembling the
   clergy by their representatives in August, and the shires by
   their representative knights in October.
{810}
   The next year, 1295, witnessed the first summons of a perfect
   and model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
   deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
   severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
   commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
   them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
   elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
   each borough. The writ by which the prelates were called to
   this parliament contained a famous sentence taken from the
   Roman law, 'That which touches all should be approved by all,'
   a maxim which might serve as a motto for Edward's
   constitutional scheme, however slowly it grew upon him, now
   permanently and consistently completed."

      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      chapter 10._

   "Comparing the history of the following ages with that of the
   past, we can scarcely doubt that Edward had a definite idea of
   government before his eyes, or that that idea was successful
   because it approved itself to the genius and grew out of the
   habits of the people. Edward saw, in fact, what the nation was
   capable of, and adapted his constitutional reforms to that
   capacity. But although we may not refuse him the credit of
   design, it may still be questioned whether the design was
   altogether voluntary, whether it was not forced upon him by
   circumstances and developed by a series of careful
   experiments. … The design, as interpreted by the result, was
   the creation of a national parliament, composed of the three
   estates. … This design was perfected in 1295. It was not the
   result of compulsion, but the consummation of a growing policy.
   … But the close union of 1295 was followed by the compulsion
   of 1297: out of the organic completeness of the constitution
   sprang the power of resistance, and out of the resistance the
   victory of the principles, which Edward might guide, but which
   he failed to coerce."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15, section 244
      and chapter 14, section 180-182._

      _W. Stubbs,
      Select Charters,
      part 7._

   "The 13th century was above all things the age of the lawyer
   and the legislator. The revived study of Roman law had been
   one of the greatest results of the intellectual renaissance of
   the twelfth century. The enormous growth of the universities
   in the early part of the thirteenth century was in no small
   measure due to the zeal, ardour and success of their legal
   faculties. From Bologna there flowed all over Europe a great
   impulse towards the systematic and scientific study of the
   Civil Law of Rome. … The northern lawyers were inspired by
   their emulation of the civilians and canonists to look at the
   rude chaos of feudal custom with more critical eyes. They
   sought to give it more system and method, to elicit its
   leading principles, and to coordinate its clashing rules into
   a harmonious body of doctrine worthy to be put side by side
   with the more pretentious edifices of the Civil and Canon Law.
   In this spirit Henry de Bracton wrote the first systematic
   exposition of English law in the reign of Henry III. The
   judges and lawyers of the reign of Edward sought to put the
   principles of Bracton into practice. Edward himself strove
   with no small success to carry on the same great work by new
   legislation. … His well-known title of the 'English
   Justinian' is not so absurd as it appears at first sight. He
   did not merely resemble Justinian in being a great legislator.
   Like the famous codifier of the Roman law, Edward stood at the
   end of a long period of legal development, and sought to arrange
   and systematise what had gone before him. Some of his great
   laws are almost in form attempts at the systematic
   codification of various branches of feudal custom. … Edward
   was greedy for power, and a constant object of his legislation
   was the exaltation of the royal prerogative. But he nearly
   always took a broad and comprehensive view of his authority,
   and thoroughly grasped the truth that the best interests of
   king and kingdom were identical. He wished to rule the state,
   but was willing to take his subjects into partnership with
   him, if they in return recognised his royal rights. … The
   same principles which influenced Edward as a lawgiver stand
   out clearly in his relations to every class of his subjects.
   … It was the greatest work of Edward's life to make a
   permanent and ordinary part of the machinery of English
   government, what in his father's time had been but the
   temporary expedient of a needy taxgatherer or the last
   despairing effort of a revolutionary partisan. Edward I.
   is—so much as one man can be—the creator of the historical
   English constitution. It is true that the materials were ready
   to his hand. But before he came to the throne the parts of the
   constitution, though already roughly worked out, were
   ill-defined and ill-understood. Before his death the national
   council was no longer regarded as complete unless it contained
   a systematic representation of the three estates. All over
   Europe the thirteenth century saw the establishment of a
   system of estates. The various classes of the community, which
   had a separate social status and a common political interest,
   became organised communities, and sent their representatives
   to swell the council of the nation. By Edward's time there had
   already grown up in England some rough anticipation of the
   three estates of later history. … It was with no intention
   of diminishing his power, but rather with the object of
   enlarging it, that Edward called the nation into some sort of
   partnership with him. The special clue to this aspect of his
   policy is his constant financial embarrassment. He found that
   he could get larger and more cheerful subsidies if he laid his
   financial condition before the representatives of his people.
   … The really important thing was that Edward, like Montfort,
   brought shire and borough representatives together in a single
   estate, and so taught the country gentry, the lesser
   landowners, who, in a time when direct participation in
   politics was impossible for a lower class, were the real
   constituencies of the shire members, to look upon their
   interests as more in common with the traders of lower social
   status than with the greater landlords with whom in most
   continental countries the lesser gentry were forced to
   associate their lot. The result strengthened the union of
   classes, prevented the growth of the abnormally numerous
   privileged nobility of most foreign countries, and broadened
   and deepened the main current of the national life."

      _T. F. Tout,
      Edward the First,
      chapter 7-8._

{811}

   "There was nothing in England which answered to the 'third
   estate' in France—a class, that is to say, both isolated and
   close, composed exclusively of townspeople, enjoying no
   commerce with the rural population (except such as consisted
   in the reception of fugitives), and at once detesting and
   dreading the nobility by whom it was surrounded. In England
   the contrary was the case. The townsfolk and the other classes
   in each county were thrown together upon numberless occasions;
   a long period of common activity created a cordial
   understanding between the burghers on the one hand and their
   neighbours the knights and landowners on the other, and
   finally prepared the way for the fusion of the two classes."

      _E. Boutmy,
      The English Constitution,
      chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.
   The Statute of Mortmain.

   "For many years past, the great danger to the balance of power
   appeared to come from the regular clergy, who, favoured by the
   success of the mendicant orders, were adding house to house
   and field to field. Never dying out like families, and rarely
   losing by forfeitures, the monasteries might well nigh
   calculate the time, when all the soil of England should be
   their own. … Accordingly, one of the first acts of the
   barons under Henry III. had been to enact, that no fees should
   be aliened to religious persons or corporations. Edward
   re-enacted and strengthened this by various provisions in the
   famous Statute of Mortmain. The fee illegally aliened was now
   to be forfeited to the chief lord under the King; and if, by
   collusion or neglect, the lord omitted to claim his right, the
   crown might enter upon it. Never was statute more unpopular
   with the class at whom it was aimed, more ceaselessly eluded,
   or more effectual. … Once the clergy seem to have meditated
   open resistance, for, in 1281, we find the king warning the
   bishops, who were then in convocation at Lambeth, as they
   loved their baronies, to discuss nothing that appertained to
   the crown, or the king's person, or his council. The warning
   appears to have proved effectual, and the clergy found less
   dangerous employment in elaborating subtle evasions of the
   obnoxious law. At first fictitious recoveries were practised;
   an abbey bringing a suit against a would-be donor, who
   permitted judgment against him to go by default. When this was
   prohibited, special charters of exemption were procured. Once
   an attempt was made to smuggle a dispensing bill through
   parliament. One politic abbot in the 15th century encouraged
   his friends to make bequests of land, suffered them to
   escheat, and then begged them back of the crown, playing on
   the religious feelings of Henry VI. Yet it is strong proof of
   the salutary terror which the Statute of Mortmain inspired
   that even then the abbot was not quieted, and procured an Act
   of Parliament to purge him from any consequences of his
   illegal practices. In fact, the fear, lest astute crown
   lawyers should involve a rich foundation in wholesale
   forfeitures, seems sometimes to have hampered its members in
   the exercise of their undoubted rights as citizens."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents._

      _K. E. Digby,
      Law of Real Property (4th edition)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1282-1284.
   Subjugation of Wales.

      See WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
   Conquest of Scotland by Edward I.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

ENGLAND: 14th Century.
   Immigration of Flemish artisans.
   The founding of English manufactures.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
   Resistance to the Pope.

   "For one hundred and fifty years succeeding the Conquest, the
   right of nominating the archbishops, bishops, and mitred
   abbots had been claimed and exercised by the king. This right
   had been specially confirmed by the Constitutions of
   Clarendon, which also provided that the revenues of vacant
   sees should belong to the Crown. But John admitted all the
   Papal claims, surrendering even his kingdom to the Pope, and
   receiving it back as a fief of the Holy See. By the Great
   Charter the Church recovered its liberties; the right of free
   election being specially conceded to the cathedral chapters
   and the religious houses. Every election was, however, subject
   to the approval of the Pope, who also claimed a right of veto
   on institutions to the smaller church benefices. … Under
   Henry III. the power thus vested in the Pope and foreign
   superiors of the monastic orders was greatly abused, and soon
   degenerated into a mere channel for draining money into the
   Roman exchequer. Edward I. firmly withstood the exactions of
   the Pope, and reasserted the independence of both Church and
   Crown. … In the reign of the great Edward began a series of
   statutes passed to check the aggressions of the Pope and
   restore the independence of the national church. The first of
   the series was passed in 1306-7. … This statute was
   confirmed under Edward III. in the 4th, and again in the 5th
   year of his reign; and in the 25th of his reign [A. D. 1351],
   roused 'by the grievous complaints of all the commons of his
   realm,' the King and Parliament passed the famous Statute of
   Provisors, aimed directly at the Pope, and emphatically
   forbidding his nominations to English benefices. … Three
   years afterwards it was found necessary to pass a statute
   forbidding citations to the court of Rome—[the prelude to the
   Statute of Præmunire, described below]. … In 1389, there was an
   expectation that the Pope was about to attempt to enforce his
   claims, by excommunicating those who rejected them. … The
   Parliament at once passed a highly penal statute. … Matters
   were shortly afterwards brought to a crisis by Boniface IX.,
   who after declaring the statutes enacted by the English
   Parliament null and void, granted to an Italian cardinal a
   prebendal stall at Wells, to which the king had already
   presented. Cross suits were at once instituted by the two
   claimants in the Papal and English courts. A decision was
   given by the latter, in favour of the king's nominee, and the
   bishops, having agreed to support the Crown, were forthwith
   excommunicated by the Pope. The Commons were now roused to the
   highest pitch of indignation,"—and the final great Statute of
   Præmunire was passed, A. D. 1393. "The firm and resolute
   attitude assumed by the country caused Boniface to yield; 'and
   for the moment,' observes Mr. Froude, 'and indeed for ever
   under this especial form, the wave of papal encroachment was
   rolled back.'"

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 11._

   "The great Statute of Provisors, passed in 1351, was a very
   solemn expression of the National determination not to give
   way to the pope's usurpation of patronage. … All persons
   procuring or accepting papal promotions were to be arrested.
   … In 1352 the purchasers of Provisions were declared
   outlaws; in 1365 another act repeated the prohibitions and
   penalties; and in 1390 the parliament of Richard II. rehearsed
   and confirmed the statute. By this act, forfeiture and
   banishment were decreed against future transgressors."
{812}
   The Statute of Præmunire as enacted finally in 1393, provided
   that "all persons procuring in the court of Rome or elsewhere
   such translations, processes, sentences of excommunication,
   bulls, instruments or other things which touch the king, his
   crown, regality or realm, should suffer the penalties of
   præmunire"—which included imprisonment and forfeiture of
   goods. "The name præmunire which marks this form of
   legislation is taken from the opening word of the writ by
   which the sheriff is charged to summon the delinquent."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 19, section 715-716._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1307.
   Accession of King Edward II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.
   The Ordainers.

   "At the parliament which met in March 1310 [reign of Edward
   II.] a new scheme of reform was promulgated, which was framed
   on the model of that of 1258 and the Provisions of Oxford. It
   was determined that the task of regulating the affairs of the
   realm and of the king's household should be committed to an
   elected body of twenty-one members, or Ordainers, the chief of
   whom was Archbishop Winchelsey. … The Ordainers were
   empowered to remain in office until Michaelmas 1311, and to
   make ordinances for the good of the realm, agreeable to the
   tenour of the king's coronation oath. The whole administration
   of the kingdom thus passed into their hands. … The Ordainers
   immediately on their appointment issued six articles directing
   the observance of the charters, the careful collection of the
   customs, and the arrest of the foreign merchants; but the
   great body of the ordinances was reserved for the parliament
   which met in August 1311. The famous document or statute known
   as the Ordinances of 1311 contained forty-one clauses, all
   aimed at existing abuses."

      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      chapter 12._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
   Bannockburn and the recovery of Scottish independence.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; 1314-1328.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1327.
   Accession of King Edward III.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1328.
   The Peace of Northampton with Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1328-1360.
   The pretensions and wars of Edward III. in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339; and 1337-1360.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1332-1370.
   The wars of Edward III. with Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333, and 1333-1370.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1333-1380.
   The effects of the war in France.

   "A period of great wars is generally favourable to the growth
   of a nobility. Men who equipped large bodies of troops for the
   Scotch or French wars, or who had served with distinction in
   them, naturally had a claim for reward at the hands of their
   sovereign. … The 13th century had broken up estates all over
   England and multiplied families of the upper class; the 14th
   century was consolidating properties again, and establishing a
   broad division between a few powerful nobles and the mass of
   the community. But if the gentry, as an order, lost a little
   in relative importance by the formation of a class of great
   nobles, more distinct than had existed before, the middle
   classes of England, its merchants and yeomen, gained very much
   in importance by the war. Under the firm rule of the 'King of
   the Sea,' as his subjects lovingly called Edward III., our
   commerce expanded. Englishmen rose to an equality with the
   merchants of the Hanse Towns, the Genoese, or the Lombards,
   and England for a time overflowed with treasure. The first
   period of war, ending with the capture of Calais, secured our
   coasts; the second, terminated by the peace of Brétigny,
   brought the plunder of half [of] France into the English
   markets; and even when Edward's reign had closed on defeat and
   bankruptcy, and our own shores were ravaged by hostile fleets,
   it was still possible for private adventurers to retaliate
   invasion upon the enemy. … The romance of foreign conquest,
   of fortunes lightly gained and lightly lost, influenced
   English enterprise for many years to come. … The change to
   the lower orders during the reign arose rather from the
   frequent pestilences, which reduced the number of working men
   and made labour valuable, than from any immediate
   participation in the war. In fact, English serfs, as a rule,
   did not serve in Edward's armies. They could not be
   men-at-arms or archers for want of training and equipment; and
   for the work of light-armed troops and foragers, the Irish and
   Welsh seem to have been preferred. The opportunity of the
   serfs came with the Black Death, while districts were
   depopulated, and everywhere there was a want of hands to till
   the fields and get in the crops. The immediate effect was
   unfortunate. … The indifference of late years, when men were
   careless if their villans stayed on the property or emigrated,
   was succeeded by a sharp inquisition after fugitive serfs, and
   constant legislation to bring them back to their masters. …
   The leading idea of the legislator was that the labourer,
   whose work had doubled or trebled in value, was to receive the
   same wages as in years past; and it was enacted that he might
   be paid in kind, and, at last, that in all cases of contumacy
   he should be imprisoned without the option of a fine. … The
   French war contributed in many ways to heighten the feeling of
   English nationality. Our trade, our language and our Church
   received a new and powerful influence. In the early years of
   Edward III.'s reign, Italian merchants were the great
   financiers of England, farming the taxes and advancing loans
   to the Crown. Gradually the instinct of race, the influence of
   the Pope, and geographical position, contributed, with the
   mistakes of Edward's policy, to make France the head, as it
   were, of a confederation of Latin nations. Genoese ships
   served in the French fleet, Genoese bowmen fought at Crécy,
   and English privateers retorted on Genoese commerce throughout
   the course of the reign. In 1376 the Commons petitioned that
   all Lombards might be expelled [from] the kingdom, bringing
   amongst other charges against them that they were French
   spies. The Florentines do not seem to have been equally
   odious, but the failure of the great firm of the Bardi in
   1345, chiefly through its English engagements, obliged Edward
   to seek assistance elsewhere; and he transferred the privilege
   of lending to the crown to the merchants of the rising Hanse
   Towns."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the Fourteenth Century,
      chapter 9._

   "We may trace the destructive nature of the war with France in
   the notices of adjoining parishes thrown into one for want of
   sufficient inhabitants, 'of people impoverished by frequent
   taxation of our lord the king,' until they had fled, of
   churches allowed to fall into ruin because there were none to
   worship within their walls, and of religious houses
   extinguished because the monks and nuns had died, and none bad
   been found to supply their places. …
{813}
   To the poverty of the country and the consequent inability of
   the nation to maintain the costly wars of Edward III., are
   attributed the enactments of sumptuary laws, which were passed
   because men who spent much on their table and dress were
   unable 'to help their liege lord' in the battle field."

      _W. Denton,
      England in the 15th Century,
      introduction, part 2._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1318-1349.
   The Black Death and its effects.

   "The plague of 1349 … produced in every country some marked
   social changes. … In England the effects of the plague are
   historically prominent chiefly among the lower classes of
   society. The population was diminished to an extent to which
   it is impossible now even to approximate, but which bewildered
   and appalled the writers of the time; whole districts were
   thrown out of cultivation, whole parishes depopulated, the
   number of labourers was so much diminished that on the one
   hand the survivors demanded an extravagant rate of wages, and
   even combined to enforce it, whilst on the other hand the
   landowners had to resort to every antiquated claim of service
   to get their estates cultivated at all; the whole system of
   farming was changed in consequence, the great landlords and
   the monastic corporations ceased to manage their estates by
   farming stewards, and after a short interval, during which the
   lands with the stock on them were let to the cultivator on
   short leases, the modern system of letting was introduced, and
   the permanent distinction between the farmer and the labourer
   established."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 16, section 259._

   "On the first of August 1348 the disease appeared in the
   seaport towns of Dorsetshire, and travelled slowly westwards
   and northwards, through Devonshire and Somersetshire to
   Bristol. In order, if possible, to arrest its progress, all
   intercourse with the citizens of Bristol was prohibited by the
   authorities of the county of Gloucester. These precautions
   were however taken in vain; the Plague continued to Oxford,
   and, travelling slowly in the same measured way, reached
   London by the first of November. It appeared in Norwich on the
   first of January, and thence spread northwards. … The
   mortality was enormous. Perhaps from one-third to one-half the
   population fell victims to the disease. Adam of Monmouth says
   that only a tenth of the population survived. Similar
   amplifications are found in all the chroniclers. We are told
   that 60,000 persons perished in Norwich between January and
   July 1349. No doubt Norwich was at that time the second city
   in the kingdom, but the number is impossible. … It is stated
   that in England the weight of the calamity fell on the poor,
   and that the higher classes were less severely affected. But
   Edward's daughter Joan fell a victim to it and three
   archbishops of Canterbury perished in the same year. … All
   contemporary writers inform us that the immediate consequence
   of the Plague was a dearth of labour, and excessive
   enhancement of wages, and thereupon a serious loss to the
   landowners. To meet this scarcity the king issued a
   proclamation directed to the sheriffs of the several counties,
   which forbad the payment of higher than the customary wages,
   under the penalties of amercement. But the king's mandate was
   every where disobeyed. … Many of the labourers were thrown
   into prison; many to avoid punishment fled to the forests, but
   were occasionally captured and fined; and all were constrained
   to disavow under oath that they would take higher than
   customary wages for the future."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      History of Agriculture and Prices in England,
      volume 1,  chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. A. Gasquet,
      The Great Pestilence._

      _W. Longman,
      Edward III.,
      volume 1; chapter 10._

      _A. Jessop,
      The Coming of the Friars, &c.,
      chapter 4-5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.
   Chaucer and his relations to English language and literature.

   "At the time when the conflict between church and state was
   most violent, and when Wyclif was beginning to draw upon
   himself the eyes of patriots, there was considerable talk at
   the English court about a young man named Geoffrey Chaucer,
   who belonged to the king's household, and who both by his
   personality and his connections enjoyed the favor of the royal
   family. … On many occasions, even thus early, he had
   appeared as a miracle of learning to those about him—he read
   Latin as easily as French; he spoke a more select English than
   others; and it was known that he had composed, or, as the
   expression then was, 'made,' many beautiful English verses.
   The young poet belonged to a well-to-do middle-class family
   who had many far-reaching connections, and even some influence
   with the court. … Even as a boy he may have heard his
   father, John Chaucer, the vintner of Thames Street, London,
   telling of the marvelous voyage he had made to Antwerp and
   Cologne in the brilliant suite of Edward III. in 1338. When a
   youth of sixteen or seventeen, Geoffrey served as a page or
   squire to Elizabeth, duchess of Ulster, first wife of Lionel,
   duke of Clarence, and daughter-in-law of the king. He bore
   arms when about nineteen years of age, and went to France in
   1359, in the army commanded by Edward III. … This epoch
   formed a sort of 'Indian summer' to the age of chivalry, and
   its spirit found expression in great deeds of war as well as
   in the festivals and manners of the court. The ideal which men
   strove to realize did not quite correspond to the spirit of
   the former age. On the whole, people had become more worldly
   and practical, and were generally anxious to protect the real
   interests of life from the unwarranted interference of
   romantic aspirations. The spirit of chivalry no longer formed
   a fundamental element, but only an ornament of life—an
   ornament, indeed, which was made much of, and which was looked
   upon with a sentiment partaking of enthusiasm. … In the
   midst of this outside world of motley pomp and throbbing life
   Geoffrey could observe the doings of high and low in various
   situations. He was early initiated into court intrigues, and
   even into many political secrets, and found opportunities of
   studying the human type in numerous individuals and according
   to the varieties developed by rank in life, education, age,
   and sex. … Nothing has been preserved from his early
   writings. … The fact is very remarkable that from the first,
   or at least from a very early period, Chaucer wrote in the
   English language—however natural this may seem to succeeding
   ages in 'The Father of English Poetry.' The court of Edward
   III. favored the language as well as the literature of France;
   a considerable number of French poets and 'menestrels' were in
   the service and pay of the English king.
{814}
   Queen Philippa, in particular, showing herself in this a true
   daughter of her native Hainault, formed the centre of a
   society cultivating the French language and poetry. She had in
   her personal service Jean Froissart, one of the most eminent
   representatives of that language and poetry; like herself he
   belonged to one of the most northern districts of the
   French-speaking territory; he had made himself a great name,
   as a prolific and clever writer of erotic and allegoric
   trifles, before he sketched out in his famous chronicle the
   motley-colored, vivid picture of that eventful age. We also
   see in this period young Englishmen of rank and education
   trying their flight on the French Parnassus. … To these
   Anglo-French poets there belonged also a Kentishman of noble
   family, named John Gower. Though some ten years the senior of
   Chaucer, he had probably met him about this time. They were
   certainly afterwards very intimately acquainted. Gower … had
   received a very careful education, and loved to devote the
   time he could spare from the management of his estates to
   study and poetry. His learning was in many respects greater
   than Chaucer's. He had studied the Latin poets so diligently
   that he could easily express himself in their language, and he
   was equally good at writing French verses, which were able to
   pass muster, at least in England. … But, Chaucer did not let
   himself be led astray by examples such as these. It is
   possible that he would have found writing in French no easy
   task, even if he had attempted it. At any rate his bourgeois
   origin, and the seriousness of his vocation as poet, threw a
   determining weight into the scale and secured his fidelity to
   the English language with a commendable consistency."

      _B. Ten Brink,
      History of English Literature,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2, part 1)._

   "English was not taught in the schools, but French only, until
   after the accession of Richard II., or possibly the latter
   years of Edward III., and Latin was always studied through the
   French. Up to this period, then, as there were no standards of
   literary authority, and probably no written collections of
   established forms, or other grammatical essays, the language
   had no fixedness or uniformity, and hardly deserved to be
   called a written speech. … From this Babylonish confusion of
   speech, the influence and example of Chaucer did more to
   rescue his native tongue than any other single cause; and if
   we compare his dialect with that of any writer of an earlier
   date, we shall find that in compass, flexibility,
   expressiveness, grace, and all the higher qualities of
   poetical diction, he gave it at once the utmost perfection
   which the materials at his hand would permit of. The English
   writers of the fourteenth century had an advantage which was
   altogether peculiar to their age and country. At all previous
   periods, the two languages had co-existed, in a great degree
   independently of each other, with little tendency to intermix;
   but in the earlier part of that century, they began to
   coalesce, and this process was going on with a rapidity that
   threatened a predominance of the French, if not a total
   extinction of the Saxon element. … When the national spirit
   was aroused, and impelled to the creation of a national
   literature, the poet or prose writer, in selecting his
   diction, had almost two whole vocabularies before him. That
   the syntax should be English, national feeling demanded; but
   French was so familiar and habitual to all who were able to
   read, that probably the scholarship of the day would scarcely
   have been able to determine, with respect to a large
   proportion of the words in common use, from which of the two
   great wells of speech they had proceeded. Happily, a great
   arbiter arose at the critical moment of severance of the two
   peoples and dialects, to preside over the division of the
   common property, and to determine what share of the
   contributions of France should be permanently annexed to the
   linguistic inheritance of Englishmen. Chaucer did not
   introduce into the English language words which it had
   rejected as aliens before, but out of those which had been
   already received, he invested the better portion with the
   rights of citizenship, and stamped them with the mint-mark of
   English coinage. In this way, he formed a vocabulary, which,
   with few exceptions, the taste and opinion of succeeding
   generations has approved; and a literary diction was thus
   established, which, in all the qualities required for the
   poetic art, had at that time no superior in the languages of
   modern Europe. The soundness of Chaucer's judgment, the nicety
   of his philological appreciation, and the delicacy of his
   sense of adaptation to the actual wants of the English people,
   are sufficiently proved by the fact that, of the Romance words
   found in his writings, not much above one hundred have been
   suffered to become obsolete, while a much larger number of
   Anglo-Saxon words employed by him have passed altogether out
   of use. … In the three centuries which elapsed between the
   Conquest and the noon-tide of Chaucer's life, a large
   proportion of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of religion, of moral
   and intellectual discourse, and of taste, had become utterly
   obsolete, and unknown. The place of the lost words had been
   partly supplied by the importation of Continental terms; but
   the new words came without the organic power of composition
   and derivation which belonged to those they had supplanted.
   Consequently, they were incapable of those modifications of
   form and extensions of meaning which the Anglo-Saxon roots
   could so easily assume, and which fitted them for the
   expression of the new shades of thought and of sentiment born
   of every hour in a mind and an age like those of Chaucer."

      _G. P. Marsh,
      Origin and History of the English Language,
      lecture 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. R. Lounsbury,
      Studies in Chaucer._

      _A. W. Ward,
      Chaucer._

      _W. Godwin,
      Life of Geoffrey Chaucer._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.
   The Lollards.

   "The Lollards were the earliest 'Protestants' of England. They
   were the followers of John Wyclif, but before his time the
   nickname of Lollard had been known on the continent. A little
   brotherhood of pious people had sprung up in Holland, about
   the year 1300, who lived in a half-monastic fashion and
   devoted themselves to helping the poor in the burial of their
   dead; and, from the low chants they sang at the
   funerals—lollen being the old word for such singing—they
   were called Lollards. The priests and friars hated them and
   accused them of heresy, and a Walter Lollard, probably one of
   them, was burnt in 1322 at Cologne as a heretic, and gradually
   the name became a nickname for such people. So when Wyclif's
   simple priests' were preaching the new doctrines, the name
   already familiar in Holland and Germany, was given to them,
   and gradually became the name for that whole movement of
   religious reformation which grew up from the seed Wyclif
   sowed."

      _B. Herford,
      Story of Religion in England,
      chapter 16._

{815}

   "A turning point arrived in the history of the reforming party
   at the accession of the house of Lancaster. King Henry the
   Fourth was not only a devoted son of the Church, but he owed
   his success in no slight measure to the assistance of the
   Churchmen, and above all to that of Archbishop Arundel. It was
   felt that the new dynasty and the hierarchy stood or fell
   together. A mixture of religious and political motives led to
   the passing of the well-known statute 'De hæretico comburendo'
   in 1401 and thenceforward Lollardy was a capital offence."

      _R. L. Poole,
      Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
      chapter 8._

   "The abortive insurrection of the Lollards at the commencement
   of Henry V. 's reign, under the leadership of Sir John
   Oldcastle, had the effect of adding to the penal laws already
   in existence against the sect." This gave to Lollardy a
   political character and made the Lollards enemies against the
   State, as is evident from the king's proclamation in which it
   was asserted "that the insurgents intended to 'destroy him,
   his brothers and several of the spiritual and temporal lords,
   to confiscate the possessions of the Church, to secularize the
   religious orders, to divide the realm into confederate
   districts, and to appoint Sir John Oldcastle president of the
   commonwealth.'"

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History (4th edition),
      chapter 11._

   "The early life of Wycliffe is obscure. … He emerges into
   distinct notice in 1360, ten years subsequent to the passing
   of the first Statute of Provisors, having then acquired a
   great Oxford reputation as a lecturer in divinity. … He was
   a man of most simple life; austere in appearance; with bare
   feet and russet mantle. As a soldier of Christ, he saw in his
   Great Master and his Apostles the patterns whom he was bound
   to imitate. By the contagion of example he gathered about him
   other men who thought as he did; and gradually, under his
   captaincy, these 'poor priests' as they were called—vowed to
   poverty because Christ was poor—vowed to accept no benefice
   … spread out over the country as an army of missionaries, to
   preach the faith which they found in the Bible—to preach, not of
   relics and of indulgences, but of repentance and of the grace
   of God. They carried with them copies of the Bible which
   Wycliffe had translated, … and they refused to recognize the
   authority of the bishops, or their right to silence them. If
   this had been all, and perhaps if Edward III. had been
   succeeded by a prince less miserably incapable than his
   grandson Richard, Wycliffe might have made good his ground;
   the movement of the parliament against the pope might have
   united in a common stream with the spiritual move against the
   church at home, and the Reformation have been antedated by a
   century. He was summoned to answer for himself before the
   Archbishop of Canterbury in 1377. He appeared in court
   supported by the presence of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
   the eldest of Edward's surviving sons, and the authorities
   were unable to strike him behind so powerful a shield. But the
   'poor priests' had other doctrines. … His [Wycliffe's]
   theory of property, and his study of the character of Christ,
   had led him to the near confines of Anabaptism." The rebellion
   of Wat Tyler, which occurred in 1381, cast odium upon all such
   opinions. "So long as Wycliffe lived, his own lofty character was
   a guarantee for the conduct of his immediate disciples; and
   although his favour had far declined, a party in the state
   remained attached to him, with sufficient influence to prevent
   the adoption of extreme measures against the 'poor priests.'
   … They were left unmolested for the next twenty years. …
   On the settlement of the country under Henry IV. they fell
   under the general ban which struck down all parties who had
   shared in the late disturbances."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 6._

   "Wycliffe's translation of the Bible itself created a new era,
   and gave birth to what may be said never to have existed till
   then—a popular theology. … It is difficult in our day to
   imagine the impression such a book must have produced in an
   age which had scarcely anything in the way of popular
   literature, and which had been accustomed to regard the
   Scriptures as the special property of the learned. It was
   welcomed with an enthusiasm which could not be restrained, and
   read with avidity both by priests and laymen. … The homely
   wisdom, blended with eternal truth, which has long since
   enriched our vernacular speech with a multitude of proverbs,
   could not thenceforth be restrained in its circulation by mere
   pious awe or time-honoured prejudice. Divinity was discussed
   in ale-houses. Popular preachers made war upon old prejudices.
   and did much to shock that sense of reverence which belonged
   to an earlier generation. A new school had arisen with a
   theology of its own, warning the people against the delusive
   preaching of the friars, and asserting loudly its own claims
   to be true and evangelical, on the ground that it possessed
   the gospel in the English tongue. Appealing to such an
   authority in their favour, the eloquence of the new teachers
   made a marvellous impression. Their followers increased with
   extraordinary rapidity. By the estimate of an opponent they
   soon numbered half the population, and you could hardly see
   two persons in the street but one of them was a Wycliffite.
   … They were supported by the powerful influence of John of
   Gaunt, who shielded not only Wycliffe himself, but even the
   most violent of the fanatics. And, certainly, whatever might
   have been Wycliffe's own view, doctrines were promulgated by
   his reputed followers that were distinctly subversive of
   authority. John Ball fomented the insurrection of Wat Tyler,
   by preaching the natural equality of men. … But the
   popularity of Lollardy was short-lived. The extravagance to
   which it led soon alienated the sympathies of the people, and
   the sect fell off in numbers almost as rapidly as it had
   risen."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Studies in English History, 1-2._

   "Wyclif … was not without numerous followers, and the
   Lollardism which sprang out of his teaching was a living force
   in England for some time to come. But it was weak through its
   connection with subversive social doctrines. He himself stood
   aloof from such doctrines, but he could not prevent his
   followers from mingling in the social fray. It was perhaps
   their merit that they did so. The established constitutional
   order was but another name for oppression and wrong to the
   lower classes. But as yet the lower classes were not
   sufficiently advanced in moral and political training to make
   it safe to entrust them with the task of righting their own
   wrongs as they would have attempted to right them if they had
   gained the mastery. It had nevertheless become impossible to
   leave the peasants to be once more goaded by suffering into
   rebellion. The attempt, if it had been made, to enforce
   absolute labour-rents was tacitly abandoned, and gradually
   during the next century the mass of the villeins passed into
   the position of freemen.
{816}
   For the moment, nobles and prelates, landowners and clergy,
   banded themselves together to form one great party of
   resistance. The church came to be but an outwork of the
   baronage."

      _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      part 1, chapter 5, sections 14-15._

      ALSO IN
      _L. Sergeant,
      John Wyclif._

      _G. Lechler,
      John Wiclif and his English Precursors._

      See, also,
      BOHEMIA; A. D. 1405-1415,
      and BEGUINES.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1377.
   Accession of King Richard II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1377-1399.
   The character and reign of Richard II.

   "Richard II. was a far superior man to many of the weaker
   kings of England; but being self-willed and unwarlike, he was
   unfitted for the work which the times required. Yet, on a
   closer inspection than the traditional view of the reign has
   generally encouraged, we cannot but observe that the finer
   qualities which came out in certain crises of his reign appear
   to have frequently influenced his conduct: we know that he was
   not an immoral man, that he was an excellent husband to an
   excellent wife, and that he had devoted friends, willing to
   lay down their lives for him when there was nothing whatever
   left for them to gain. … Richard, who had been brought up in
   the purple quite as much as Edward II., was kept under
   restraint by his uncles, and not being judiciously guided in
   the arts of government, fell, like his prototype, into the
   hands of favourites. His brilliant behaviour in the
   insurrection of 1381 indicated much more than mere possession
   of the Plantagenet courage and presence of mind. He showed a
   real sympathy with the villeins who had undeniable grievances.
   … His instincts were undoubtedly for freedom and
   forgiveness, and there is no proof, nor even probability, that
   he intended to use the villeins against his enemies. His early
   and happy marriage with Anne of Bohemia ought, one might
   think, to have saved him from the vice of favouritism; but he
   was at least more fortunate than Edward II. in not being cast
   under the spell of a Gaveston. When we consider the effect of
   such a galling government as that of his uncle Gloucester, and
   his cousin Derby, afterwards Henry IV., who seems to have been
   pushing Gloucester on from the first, we can hardly be
   surprised that he should require some friend to lean upon. The
   reign is, in short, from one, and perhaps the truest, point of
   view, a long duel between the son of the Black Prince and the
   son of John of Gaunt. One or other of them must inevitably
   perish. A handsome and cultivated youth, who showed himself at
   fifteen every inch a king, who was married at sixteen, and led
   his own army to Scotland at eighteen, required a different
   treatment from that which he received. He was a man, and
   should have been dealt with as such. His lavish and
   reprehensible grants to his favourites were made the excuse
   for Gloucester's violent interference in 1386, but there is
   good ground for believing that the movement was encouraged by
   the anti-Wicliffite party, which had taken alarm at the
   sympathy with the Reformers shown at this time by Richard and
   Anne."

      _M. Burrows,
      Commentaries on the History of England,
      book 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the 14th Century,
      chapter 10-12._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.
   Wat Tyler's Rebellion.

   "In June 1381 there broke out in England the formidable
   insurrection known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion. The movement
   seems to have begun among the bondmen of Essex and of Kent;
   but it spread at once to the counties of Sussex Hertford,
   Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk. The peasantry, armed with
   bludgeons and rusty swords, first occupied the roads by which
   pilgrims went to Canterbury, and made everyone swear that he
   would be true to king Richard and not accept a king named
   John. This, of course, was aimed at the government of John of
   Gaunt [Duke of Lancaster], … to whom the people attributed
   every grievance they had to complain of. The principal, or at
   least the immediate cause of offence arose out of a poll-tax
   which had been voted in the preceding year."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 2._

   The leaders of the insurgents were Wat the Tyler, who had been
   a soldier, John Ball, a priest and preacher of democratic and
   socialistic doctrines, and one known as Jack Straw. They made
   their way to London. "It ought to have been easy to keep them
   out of the city, as the only approach to it was by London
   Bridge, and the mayor and chief citizens proposed to defend
   it. But the Londoners generally, and even three of the
   aldermen, were well inclined to the rebels, and declared that
   they would not let the gates be shut against their friends and
   neighbours, and would kill the mayor himself if he attempted
   to do it. So on the evening of Wednesday, June 13, the
   insurgents began to stream in across the bridge, and next
   morning marched their whole body across the river, and
   proceeded at once to the Savoy, the splendid palace of the
   Duke of Lancaster. Proclamation was made that any one found
   stealing the smallest article would be beheaded; and the place
   was then wrecked and burned with all the formalities of a
   solemn act of justice. Gold and silver plate was shattered
   with battle-axes and thrown into the Thames; rings and smaller
   jewels were brayed in mortars; silk and embroidered dresses
   were trampled under feet and torn up. Then the Temple was
   burned with all its muniments. The poet Gower was among the
   lawyers who had to save their lives by flight, and he passed
   several nights in the woods of Essex, covered with grass and
   leaves and living on acorns. Then the great house of the
   Hospitallers at Clerkenwell was destroyed, taking seven days
   to burn." The young king (Richard II.) and his court and
   council had taken refuge in the Tower. The insurgents now
   threatened to storm their stronghold if the king did not come
   out and speak to them. The king consented and appointed a
   rendezvous at Mile End. He kept the appointment and met his
   turbulent subjects with so much courage and tact and so many
   promises, that he persuaded a great number to disperse to
   their homes. But while this pacific interview took place, Wat
   Tyler, John Ball, and some 400 of their followers burst into
   the Tower, determined to find the archbishop of Canterbury and
   the Lord Treasurer, Sir Robert de Hales, who were the most
   obnoxious ministers. "So great was the general consternation
   that the soldiers dared not raise a hand while these ruffians
   searched the different rooms, not sparing even the king's
   bedroom, running spears into the beds, asked the king's mother
   to kiss them, and played insolent jokes on the chief officers.
{817}
   Unhappily they were not long in finding the archbishop, who
   had said mass in the chapel, and was kneeling at the altar in
   expectation of their approach." The Lord Treasurer was also
   found, and both he and the archbishop were summarily beheaded
   by the mob. "Murder now became the order of the day, and
   foreigners were among the chief victims; thirteen Flemings
   were dragged out of one church and beheaded, seventeen out of
   another, and altogether it is said 400 perished. Many private
   enmities were revenged by the London rabble on this day." On
   the next day, June 15, the king, with an armed escort, went to
   the camp of the insurgents, at Smithfield, and opened
   negotiations with Tyler, offering successively three forms of
   a new charter of popular rights and liberties, all of which
   were rejected. Finally, Tyler was invited to a personal
   conference, and there, in the midst of the king's party, on
   some provocation or pretended provocation in his words or
   bearing, the popular leader was struck from his horse and
   killed. King Richard immediately rode out before the ranks of
   the rebels, while they were still dazed by the suddenness and
   audacity of the treacherous blow, crying "I will be your
   leader; follow me." The thoughtless mob followed and soon
   found itself surrounded by bodies of troops whose courage had
   revived. The king now commanded the trembling peasants "to
   fall on their knees, cut the strings of their bows, and leave
   the city and its neighbourhood, under pain of death, before
   nightfall. This command was instantly obeyed." Meantime and
   afterwards there were many lesser risings in various parts of
   the country, all of which were suppressed, with such rigorous
   prosecutions in the courts that 1,500 persons are said to have
   suffered judicially.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the Fourteenth Century,
      chapter 10._

   The Wat Tyler insurrection proved disastrous in its effect on
   the work of Church reform which Wyclif was then pursuing. "Not
   only was the power of the Lancastrian party, on which Wyclif
   had relied, for the moment annihilated, but the quarrel
   between the Baronage and Church, on which his action had
   hitherto been grounded, was hushed in the presence of a common
   danger. Much of the odium of the outbreak, too, fell on the
   Reformer. … John Ball, who had figured in the front rank of
   the revolt, was claimed as one of his adherents. … Whatever
   belief such charges might gain, it is certain that from this
   moment all plans for the reorganization of the Church were
   confounded in the general odium which attached to the projects
   of the socialist peasant leaders."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 5, section 3._

   "When Parliament assembled it proved itself as hostile as the
   crown to the conceding any of the demands of the people; both
   were faithful to all the records of history in similar cases;
   they would have belied all experience if, being victorious,
   they had consented to the least concession to the vanquished.
   The upper classes repudiated the recognition of the rights of
   the poor to a degree, which in our time would be considered
   sheer insanity. The king had annulled, by proclamation to the
   sheriffs, the charters of manumission which he had granted to
   the insurgents, and this revocation was warmly approved by
   both Lords and Commons, who, not satisfied with saying that
   such enfranchisement could not be made without their consent,
   added, that they would never give that consent, even to save
   themselves from perishing altogether in one day. There was, it
   is true, a vague rumour about the propriety and wisdom of
   abolishing villanage; but the notion was scouted, and the
   owners of serfs showed that they neither doubted the right by
   which they held their fellow-creatures in a state of slavery,
   nor would hesitate to increase the severity of the laws
   affecting them. They now passed a law by which 'all riots and
   rumours, and other such things were turned into high treason';
   this law was most vaguely expressed, and would probably
   involve those who made it in inextricable difficulties. It was
   self-apparent, that this Parliament acted under the impulses
   of panic, and of revenge for recent injuries. … It might be
   said that the citizens of the municipalities wrote their
   charters of enfranchisement with the very blood of their lords
   and bishops; yet, during the worst days of oppression, the
   serfs of the cities had never suffered the cruel excesses of
   tyranny endured by the country people till the middle of the
   fifteenth century. And, nevertheless, the long struggles of
   the townships, despite the bloodshed and cruelties of the
   citizens, are ever considered and narrated as glorious
   revolutions, whilst the brief efforts of the peasants for
   vengeance, which were drowned in their own blood, have
   remained as a stigma flung in the face of the country
   populations whenever they utter a word claiming some
   amelioration in their condition. Whence the injustice? The
   bourgeoisie was victorious and successful. The rural
   populations were vanquished and trampled upon. The
   bourgeoisie, therefore, has had its poets, historians, and
   flatterers, whilst the poor peasant, rude, untutored, and
   ignorant, never had a lyre nor a voice to bewail his
   lamentable sorrows and sufferings."

      _Prof. De Vericour,
      Wat Tyler
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
      number 8, volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Lechler,
      John Wiclif,
      chapter 9, section 3._

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1383.
   The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1388.
   The Merciless or Wonderful Parliament.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE WONDERFUL.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1399.
   Accession of King Henry IV.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.
   House of Lancaster.

   This name is given in English history to the family which
   became royal in the person of Henry of Bolingbroke, Duke of
   Lancaster, who deposed his cousin, Richard II., or forced him
   to abdicate the throne, and who was crowned king (Henry IV.),
   Oct. 11, 1399, with what seemed to be the consent of the
   nation. He not only claimed to be the next in succession to
   Richard, but he put forward a claim of descent through his
   mother, more direct than Richard's had been, from Henry III.
   "In point of fact Henry was not the next in succession. His
   father, John of Gaunt [or John of Ghent, in which city he was
   born], was the fourth son of Edward III., and there were
   descendants of that king's third son, Lionel Duke of Clarence,
   living. … At one time Richard himself had designated as his
   successor the nobleman who really stood next to him in the
   line of descent. This was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the
   same who was killed by the rebels in Ireland. This Roger had
   left a son Edmund to inherit his title, but Edmund was a mere
   child, and the inconvenience of another minority could not
   have been endured."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 2._

{818}

   As for Henry's pretensions through his mother, they were
   founded upon what Mr. Gairdner calls an "idle story," that
   "the eldest son of Henry III. was not king Edward, but his
   brother Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, who was commonly
   reputed the second son; and that this Edmund had been
   purposely set aside on account of his personal deformity. The
   plain fact of the matter was that Edmund Crouchback was six
   years younger than his brother Edward I.; and that his surname
   Crouchback had not the smallest reference to personal
   deformity, but only implied that he wore the cross upon his
   back as a crusader." Mr. Wylie (History of England under Henry
   IV., volume 1, chapter 1) represents that this latter claim
   was put forward under the advice of the leading jurists of the
   time, to give the appearance of a legitimate succession;
   whereas Henry took his real title from the will and assent of
   the nation. Henry IV. was succeeded by his vigorous son, Henry
   V. and he in turn by a feeble son, Henry VI., during whose
   reign England was torn by intrigues and factions, ending in
   the lamentable civil wars known as the "Wars of the Roses,"
   the deposition of Henry VI. and the acquisition of the throne
   by the "House of York," in the persons of Edward IV. and
   Richard III. It was a branch of the House of Lancaster that
   reappeared, after the death of Richard III. in the royal
   family better known as the Tudors.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
   Relations with Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1402-1413.
   Owen Glendower's Rebellion in Wales.

      See WALES: A. D.1402-1413.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.
   Hotspur's Rebellion.

   The earl of Northumberland and his son, Henry Percy, called
   "Hotspur," had performed great services for Henry IV., in
   establishing and maintaining him upon the throne. "At the
   outset of his reign their opposition would have been fatal to
   him; their adhesion ensured his victory. He had rewarded them
   with territory and high offices of trust, and they had by
   faithful services ever since increased their claims to
   gratitude and consideration. … Both father and son were
   high-spirited, passionate, suspicious men, who entertained an
   exalted sense of their own services and could not endure the
   shadow of a slight. Up to this time [early in 1403] not a
   doubt had been cast on their fidelity. Northumberland was
   still the king's chief agent in Parliament, his most valued
   commander in the field, his Mattathias. It has been thought
   that Hotspur's grudge against the king began with the notion
   that the release of his brother-in-law, Edmund Mortimer [taken
   prisoner, the year before, by the Welsh], had been neglected
   by the king, or was caused by Henry's claim to deal with the
   prisoners taken at Homildon; the defenders of the Percies
   alleged that they had been deceived by Henry in the first
   instance, and only needed to be persuaded that Richard lived
   in order to desert the king. It is more probable that they
   suspected Henry's friendship, and were exasperated by his
   compulsory economies. … Yet Henry seems to have conceived no
   suspicion. … Northumberland and Hotspur were writing for
   increased forces [for the war with Scotland]. … On the 10th
   of July Henry had reached Northamptonshire on his way
   northwards; on the 17th he heard that Hotspur with his uncle
   the earl of Worcester were in arms in Shropshire. They raised
   no cry of private wrongs, but proclaimed themselves the
   vindicators of national right: their object was to correct the
   evils of the administration, to enforce the employment of wise
   counsellors, and the proper expenditure of public money. …
   The report ran like wildfire through the west that Richard was
   alive, and at Chester. Hotspur's army rose to 14,000 men, and
   not suspecting the strength and promptness of the king, he sat
   down with his uncle and his prisoner, the earl of Douglas,
   before Shrewsbury. Henry showed himself equal to the need.
   From Burton-on-Trent, where on July 17 he summoned the forces
   of the shires to join him, he marched into Shropshire, and
   offered to parley with the insurgents. The earl of Worcester
   went between the camps, but he was either an impolitic or a
   treacherous envoy, and the negotiations ended in mutual
   exasperation. On the 21st the battle of Shrewsbury was fought;
   Hotspur was slain; Worcester was taken and beheaded two days
   after. The old earl, who may or may not have been cognizant of
   his son's intentions from the first, was now marching to his
   succour. The earl of Westmoreland, his brother-in-law, met him
   and drove him back to Warkworth. But all danger was over. On
   the 11th of August he met the king at York, and submitted to
   him."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18, section 632._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Wylie,
      History of England under Henry IV.,
      volume 1, chapter 25._

      _W. Shakespeare,
      King Henry IV.,
      part 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1413.
   Accession of King Henry V.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.
   Parliamentary gains under Henry V.

   "What the sword had won the sword should keep, said Henry V.
   on his accession; but what was meant by the saying has its
   comment in the fact that, in the year which witnessed his
   victory at Agincourt, he yielded to the House of Commons the
   most liberal measure of legislation which until then it had
   obtained. The dazzling splendour of his conquests in France
   had for the time cast into the shade every doubt or question
   of his title, but the very extent of those gains upon the
   French soil established more decisively the worse than
   uselessness of such acquisitions to the English throne. The
   distinction of Henry's reign in constitutional history will
   always be, that from it dates that power, indispensable to a
   free and limited monarchy, called Privilege of Parliament; the
   shield and buckler under which all the battles of liberty and
   good government were fought in the after time. Not only were
   its leading safeguards now obtained, but at once so firmly
   established, that against the shock of incessant resistance in
   later years they stood perfectly unmoved. Of the awful right
   of impeachment, too, the same is to be said. It was won in the
   same reign, and was never afterwards lost."

      _J. Forster,
      Historical and Biographical Essays,
      volume 1, page 207._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1415-1422.
   Conquests of Henry V. in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415; and 1417-1422.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1422.
   Accession of King Henry VI.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1431-1453.
   Loss of English conquests and possessions in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453,
      and AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.

{819}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.
   Cade's Rebellion.

   A formidable rebellion broke out in Kent, under the leadership
   of one Jack Cade, A. D. 1450. Overtaxation, the bad management
   of the council, the extortion of the subordinate officers, the
   injustice of the king's bench, the abuse of the right of
   purveyance, the "enquestes" and amercements, and the
   illegitimate control of elections were the chief causes of the
   rising of 1450. "The rising was mainly political, only one
   complaint was economical, not a single one was religious. We
   find not a single demand for new legislation. … The movement
   was by no means of a distinctly plebeian or disorderly
   character, but was a general and organized rising of the
   people at large. It was a political upheaval. We find no trace
   of socialism or of democracy. … The commons in 1450 arose
   against Lancaster and in favor of York. Their rising was the
   first great struggle in the Wars of the Roses."

      _Kriehn,
      Rising in 1450,
      Chapter IV., VII._

   Cade and his rebels took possession of London; but they were
   beaten in a battle and forced to quit the city. Cade and some
   followers continued to be turbulent and soon afterwards he was
   killed.

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 7, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      3d series, chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1455.
   Demoralized state of the nation.
   Effects of the wars in France.

   "The whole picture of the times is very depressing on the
   moral if not on the material side. There are few more pitiful
   episodes in history than the whole tale of the reign of Henry
   VI., the most unselfish and well-intentioned king that ever
   sat upon the English throne—a man of whom not even his
   enemies and oppressors could find an evil word to say; the
   troubles came, as they confessed, 'all because of his false
   lords, and never of him.' We feel that there must have been
   something wrong with the heart of a nation that could see
   unmoved the meek and holy king torn from wife and child, sent
   to wander in disguise up and down the kingdom for which he had
   done his poor best, and finally doomed to pine for five years a
   prisoner in the fortress where he had so long held his royal
   Court. Nor is our first impression concerning the
   demoralisation of England wrong. Every line that we read bears
   home to us more and more the fact that the nation had fallen
   on evil times. First and foremost among the causes of its
   moral deterioration was the wretched French War, a war begun
   in the pure spirit of greed and ambition,—there was not even
   the poor excuse that had existed in the time of Edward
   III.—carried on by the aid of hordes of debauched foreign
   mercenaries … and persisted in long after it had become
   hopeless, partly from misplaced national pride, partly because
   of the personal interests of the ruling classes. Thirty-five
   years of a war that was as unjust as it was unfortunate had
   both soured and demoralised the nation. … When the final
   catastrophe came and the fights of Formigny [or Fourmigny] and
   Chatillon [Castillon] ended the chapter of our disasters, the
   nation began to cast about for a scapegoat on whom to lay the
   burden of its failures. … At first the unfortunate Suffolk
   and Somerset had the responsibility laid upon them. A little
   later the outcry became more bold and fixed upon the
   Lancastrian dynasty itself as being to blame not only for
   disaster abroad, but for want of governance at home. If King
   Henry had understood the charge, and possessed the wit to
   answer it, he might fairly have replied that his subjects must
   fit the burden upon their own backs, not upon his. The war had
   been weakly conducted, it was true; but weakly because the men
   and money for it were grudged. … At home, the bulwarks of
   social order seemed crumbling away. Private wars, riot, open
   highway robbery, murder, abduction, armed resistance to the
   law, prevailed on a scale that had been unknown since the
   troublous times of Edward II.—we might almost say since the
   evil days of Stephen. But it was not the Crown alone that
   should have been blamed for the state of the realm. The nation
   had chosen to impose over-stringent constitutional checks on
   the kingly power before it was ripe for self-government, and
   the Lancastrian house sat on the throne because it had agreed
   to submit to those checks. If the result of the experiment was
   disastrous, both parties to the contract had to bear their
   share of the responsibility. But a nation seldom allows that
   it has been wrong; and Henry of Windsor had to serve as a
   scapegoat for all the misfortunes of the realm, because Henry
   of Bolingbroke had committed his descendants to the unhappy
   compact. Want of a strong central government was undoubtedly
   the complaint under which England was labouring in the middle
   of the 15th century, and all the grievances against which
   outcry was made were but symptoms of one latent disease. …
   All these public troubles would have been of comparatively
   small importance if the heart of the nation had been sound.
   The phenomenon which makes the time so depressing is the
   terrible decay in private morals since the previous century.
   … There is no class or caste in England which comes well out
   of the scrutiny. The Church, which had served as the conscience
   of the nation in better times, had become dead to spiritual
   things. It no longer produced either men of saintly life or
   learned theologians or patriotic statesmen. … The baronage
   of England had often been unruly, but it had never before
   developed the two vices which distinguished it in the times of
   the Two Roses—a taste for indiscriminate bloodshed and a turn
   for political apostacy. … Twenty years spent in contact with
   French factions, and in command of the godless mercenaries who
   formed the bulk of the English armies, had taught our nobles
   lessons of cruelty and faithlessness such as they had not
   before imbibed. … The knights and squires showed on a
   smaller scale all the vices of the nobility. Instead of
   holding together and maintaining a united loyalty to the
   Crown, they bound themselves by solemn sealed bonds and the
   reception of 'liveries' each to the baron whom he preferred.
   This fatal system, by which the smaller landholder agreed on
   behalf of himself and his tenants to follow his greater
   neighbour in peace and war, had ruined the military system of
   England, and was quite as dangerous as the ancient feudalism.
   … If the gentry constituted themselves the voluntary
   followers of the baronage, and aided their employers to keep
   England unhappy, the class of citizens and burgesses took a
   very different line of conduct. If not actively mischievous,
   they were solidly inert. They refused to entangle themselves
   in politics at all. They submitted impassively to each ruler
   in turn, when they had ascertained that their own persons and
   property were not endangered by so doing. A town, it has been
   remarked, seldom or never stood a siege during the Wars of the
   Roses, for no town ever refused to open its gates to any
   commander with an adequate force who asked for entrance."

      _C. W. Oman,
      Warwick the King-maker,
      chapter 1._

{820}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
   The Wars of the Roses.

   Beginning with a battle fought at St. Albans on the 23d of
   May, 1455, England was kept in a pitiable state of civil war,
   with short intervals of troubled peace, during thirty years.
   The immediate cause of trouble was in the feebleness of King
   Henry VI., who succeeded to the throne while an infant, and
   whose mind, never strong, gave way under the trials of his
   position when he came to manhood. The control of the
   government, thus weakly commanded, became a subject of strife
   between successive factions. The final leaders in such
   contests were Queen Margaret of Anjou, the energetic consort
   of the helpless king (with the king himself sometimes in a
   condition of mind to cooperate with her), on one side, and, on
   the other side, the Duke of York, who traced his lineage to
   Edward III., and who had strong claims to the throne if Henry
   should leave no heir. The battle at St. Albans was a victory
   for the Yorkists and placed them in power for the next two
   years, the Duke of York being named Protector. In 1456 the
   king recovered so far as to resume the reigns of government,
   and in 1459 there was a new rupture between the factions. The
   queen's adherents were beaten in the battle of Bloreheath,
   September 23d of that year; but defections in the ranks of the
   Yorkists soon obliged the latter to disperse and their
   leaders, York, Warwick and Salisbury, fled to Ireland and to
   Calais. In June, 1460, the earls of Warwick, Salisbury and
   March (the latter being the eldest son of the Duke of York)
   returned to England and gathered an army speedily, the city of
   London opening its gates to them. The king's forces were
   defeated at Northampton (July 10) and the king taken prisoner.
   A parliament was summoned and assembled in October. Then the Duke
   of York came over from Ireland, took possession of the royal
   palace and laid before parliament a solemn claim to the crown.
   After much discussion a compromise was agreed upon, under
   which Henry VI. should reign undisturbed during his life and
   the Duke of York should be his undisputed successor. This was
   embodied in an act of parliament and received the assent of
   the king; but queen Margaret who had retired into the north,
   refused to surrender the rights of her infant son, and a
   strong party sustained her. The Duke of York attacked these
   Lancastrian forces rashly, at Wakefield, December 30, 1460, and
   was slain on the field of a disastrous defeat. The queen's
   army, then, marching towards London, defeated the Earl of
   Warwick at St. Albans, February 17, 1461 (the second battle of
   the war at that place), and recovered possession of the person
   of the king. But Edward, Earl of March (now become Duke of
   York, by the death of his father), who had just routed a
   Lancastrian force at Mortimer's Cross, in Wales, joined his
   forces with those of Warwick and succeeded in occupying
   London, which steadily favored his cause. Calling together a
   council of lords, Edward persuaded them to declare King Henry
   deposed, on the ground that he had broken the agreement made
   with the late Duke of York. The next step was to elect Edward
   king, and he assumed the royal title and state at once. The
   new king lost no time in marching northwards against the army
   of the deposed sovereign, which lay near York. On the 27th of
   March the advanced division of the Lancastrians was defeated
   at Ferrybridge, and, two days later, their main body was
   almost destroyed in the fearful battle of Towton,—said to
   have been the bloodiest encounter that ever took place on
   English soil. King Henry took refuge in Scotland and Queen
   Margaret repaired to France. In 1464 Henry reappeared in the
   north with a body of Scots and refugees and there were risings
   in his favor in Northumberland, which the Yorkists crushed in
   the successive battles of Hedgeley Moor and Hexham. The
   Yorkist king (Edward IV.) now reigned without much disturbance
   ntil 1470, when he quarreled with the powerful Earl of Warwick—
   the "king-maker," whose strong hand had placed him on the
   throne. Warwick then passed to the other side, offering his
   services to Queen Margaret and leading an expedition which
   sailed from Harfleur in September, convoyed by a French fleet.
   Edward found himself unprepared to resist the Yorkist risings
   which welcomed Warwick and he fled to Holland, seeking aid
   from his brother-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy. For nearly six
   months, the kingdom was in the hands of Warwick and the
   Lancastrians; the unfortunate Henry VI., released from
   captivity in the Tower, was once more seated on the throne.
   But on the 14th of March, 1471, Edward reappeared in England,
   landing at Ravenspur, professing that he came only to recover
   his dukedom of York. As he moved southwards he gathered a
   large force of supporters and soon reassumed the royal title
   and pretensions. London opened its gates to him, and, on the
   14th of April—exactly one month after his landing—he
   defeated his opponents at Barnet, where Warwick, "the
   king-maker"—the last of the great feudal barons—was slain.
   Henry, again a captive, was sent back to the Tower. But
   Henry's dauntless queen, who landed at Weymouth, with a body
   of French allies on the very day of the disastrous Barnet
   fight, refused to submit. Cornwall and Devon were true to her
   cause and gave her an army with which she fought the last
   battle of the war at Tewksbury on the 4th of May. Defeated and
   taken prisoner, her young son slain—whether in the battle or
   after it is unknown—the long contention of Margaret of Anjou
   ended on that bloody field. A few days later, when the
   triumphant Yorkist King Edward entered London, his poor,
   demented Lancastrian rival died suddenly and suspiciously in
   the Tower. The two parties in the long contention had each
   assumed the badge of a rose—the Yorkists a white rose, the
   Lancastrians a red one. Hence the name of the Wars of the
   Roses. "As early as the time of John of Ghent, the rose was
   used as an heraldic emblem, and when he married Blanche, the
   daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, he used the red rose for a
   device. Edmund of Langley, his brother, the fifth son of
   Edward III., adopted the white rose in opposition to him; and
   their followers afterwards maintained these distinctions in
   the bloody wars of the fifteenth century. There is, however,
   no authentic account of the precise period when these badges
   were first adopted."

      _Mrs. Hookham,
      Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York._

      _Sir J. Ramsay,
      Lancaster and York._

      _C. W. Oman;
      Warwick, the King-maker,
      chapter 5-17._

      See, also,
      TOWTON, BARNET, and TEWKSBURY.

{821}

   The effects of the Wars of the Roses.

   "It is astonishing to observe the rapidity with which it [the
   English nation] had settled down to order in the reign of
   Henry VII. after so many years of civil dissension. It would
   lead us to infer that those wars were the wars of a class, and
   not of the nation; and that the effects of them have been
   greatly exaggerated. With the single exception of Cade's
   rebellion, they had nothing in common with the revolutions of
   later or earlier times. They were not wars against classes,
   against forms of government, against the order or the
   institutions of the nation. It was the rivalry of two
   aristocratic factions struggling for superiority, neither of
   them hoping or desiring, whichever obtained the upper hand, to
   introduce momentous changes in the State or its
   administration. The main body of the people took little
   interest in the struggle; in the towns at least there was no
   intermission of employment. The war passed over the nation,
   ruffling the surface, toppling down high cliffs here and
   there, washing away ancient landmarks, attracting the
   imagination of the spectator by the mightiness of its waves,
   and the noise of its thunders; but the great body below the
   surface remained unmoved. No famines, no plagues, consequent
   on the intermittance of labour caused by civil war, are
   recorded; even the prices of land and provisions scarcely
   varied more than they have been known to do in times of
   profoundest peace. But the indirect and silent operation of
   these conflicts was much more remarkable. It reft into
   fragments the confederated ranks of a powerful territorial
   aristocracy, which had hitherto bid defiance to the King,
   however popular, however energetic. Henceforth the position of
   the Sovereign in the time of the Tudors, in relation to all
   classes of the people, became very different from what it had
   been; the royal supremacy was no longer a theory; but a fact.
   Another class had sprung up on the decay of the ancient
   nobility. The great towns had enjoyed uninterrupted
   tranquility, and even flourished, under the storm that was
   scourging the aristocracy and the rural districts. Their
   population had increased by numbers whom fear or the horrors
   of war had induced to find shelter behind stone walls. The
   diminution of agricultural labourers converted into soldiers
   by the folly of their lords had turned corn-lands into
   pasture, requiring less skill, less capital, and less labour."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "Those who would estimate the condition of England aright
   should remember that the War of the Roses was only a
   repetition on a large scale of those private wars which
   distracted almost every county, and, indeed, by taking away
   all sense of security, disturbed almost every manor and every
   class of society during the same century. … The lawless
   condition of English society in the 15th century resembled
   that of Ireland in as recent a date as the beginning of the
   19th century. … In both countries women were carried off,
   sometimes at night; they were first violated, then dragged to
   the altar in their night-dress and compelled to marry their
   captors. … Children were seized and thrown into a dungeon
   until ransomed by their parents."

      _W. Denton,
      England in the 15th Century,
      chapter 3._

   "The Wars of the Roses which filled the second half of the
   15th century furnished the barons with an arena in which their
   instincts of violence had freer play than ever; it was they
   who, under the pretext of dynastic interests which had ceased
   to exist, of their own free choice prolonged the struggle.
   Altogether unlike the Italian condottieri, the English barons
   showed no mercy to their own order; they massacred and
   exterminated each other freely, while they were careful to
   spare the commonalty. Whole families were extinguished or
   submerged in the nameless mass of the nation, and their
   estates by confiscation or escheat helped to swell the royal
   domain. When Henry VII. had stifled the last movements of
   rebellion and had punished, through the Star Chamber, those
   nobles who were still suspected of maintaining armed bands,
   the baronage was reduced to a very low ebb; not more than
   twenty-nine lay peers were summoned by the king to his first
   Parliament. The old Norman feudal nobility existed no longer;
   the heroic barons of the great charter barely survived in the
   persons of a few doubtful descendants; their estates were
   split up or had been forfeited to the Crown. A new class came
   forward to fill the gap, that rural middle class which was
   formed … by the fusion of the knights with the free
   landowners. It had already taken the lead in the House of
   Commons, and it was from its ranks that Henry VII. chose
   nearly all the new peers. A peerage renewed almost throughout,
   ignorant of the habits and traditions of the earlier nobility,
   created in large batches, closely dependent on the monarch who
   had raised it from little or nothing and who had endowed it
   with his bounty—this is the phenomenon which confronts us at
   the end of the fifteenth century."

      _E. Boutmy,
      The English Constitution,
      chapter 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1461.
   Accession of King Edward IV.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1461-1485.
   House of York.

   The House of York, which triumphed in the Wars of the Roses,
   attaining the throne in the person of Edward IV. (A. D. 1461),
   derived its claim to the crown through descent, in the female
   line, from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward
   III. (the second son who lived to manhood and left children);
   while the House of Lancaster traced its lineage to John of
   Gaunt, a younger son of the same king Edward III., but the
   line of Lancastrian succession was through males. "Had the
   crown followed the course of hereditary succession, it would
   have devolved on the posterity of Lionel. … By the decease
   of that prince without male issue, his possessions and
   pretensions fell to his daughter Philippa, who by a singular
   combination of circumstances had married Roger Mortimer earl
   of March, the male representative of the powerful baron who
   was attainted and executed for the murder of Edward II., the
   grandfather of the duke of Clarence. The son of that potent
   delinquent had been restored to his honours and estates at an
   advanced period in the reign of Edward III. … Edmund, his
   grandson, had espoused Philippa of Clarence. Roger Mortimer,
   the fourth in descent from the regicide, was lord lieutenant
   of Ireland and was considered, or, according to some writers,
   declared to be heir of the crown in the early part of
   Richard's reign. Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in whom the
   hereditary claim to the crown was vested at the deposition of
   Richard, was then only an infant of ten years of age. …
{822}
   Dying without issue, the pretensions to the crown, which he
   inherited through the duke of Clarence, devolved on his sister
   Anne Mortimer, who espoused Richard of York earl of Cambridge,
   the grandson of Edward III. by his fourth [fifth] son Edmund
   of Langley duke of York." Edward IV. was the grandson of this
   Anne Mortimer and Richard of York.

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of England,
      volume 1, pages 338-339._

   The House of York occupied the throne but twenty-four years.
   On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, the crown was secured by
   his brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester, who caused Edward's
   two sons to be murdered in the Tower. The elder of these
   murdered princes is named in the list of English kings as
   Edward V.; but he cannot be said to have reigned. Richard III.
   was overthrown and slain on Bosworth field in 1485.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
   The New Monarchy.
   The rise of Absolutism and the decline of Parliamentary
   government.

   "If we use the name of the New Monarchy to express the
   character of the English sovereignty from the time of Edward
   IV. to the time of Elizabeth, it is because the character of
   the monarchy during this period was something wholly new in
   our history. There is no kind of sibilantly between the
   kingship of the Old English, of the Norman, the Angevin, or
   the Plantagenet sovereigns, and the kingship of the Tudors.
   … What the Great Rebellion in its final result actually did
   was to wipe away every trace of the New Monarchy, and to take
   up again the thread of our political development just where it
   had been snapped by the Wars of the Roses. … The founder of
   the New Monarchy was Edward IV. … While jesting with
   aldermen, or dallying with his mistresses, or idling over the
   new pages from the printing press [Caxton's] at Westminster,
   Edward was silently laying the foundations of an absolute rule
   which Henry VII. did little more than develop and consolidate.
   The almost total discontinuance of Parliamentary life was in
   itself a revolution. Up to this moment the two Houses had
   played a part which became more and more prominent in the
   government of the realm. … Under Henry VI. an important step
   in constitutional progress had been made by abandoning the old
   form of presenting the requests of the Parliament in the form
   of petitions which were subsequently moulded into statutes by
   the Royal Councils; the statute itself, in its final form, was
   now presented for the royal assent, and the Crown was deprived
   of its former privilege of modifying it. Not only does this
   progress cease, but the legislative activity of Parliament
   itself comes abruptly to an end. … The necessity for
   summoning the two Houses had, in fact, been removed by the
   enormous tide of wealth which the confiscation of the civil
   war poured into the royal treasury. … It was said that
   nearly a fifth of the land had passed into the royal
   possession at one period or another of the civil war. Edward
   added to his resources by trading on a vast scale. … The
   enterprises he had planned against France … enabled Edward
   not only to increase his hoard, but to deal a deadly blow at
   liberty. Setting aside the usage of loans sanctioned by the
   authority of Parliament, Edward called before him the
   merchants of the city and requested from each a present or
   benevolence in proportion to the need. Their compliance with
   his prayer was probably aided by his popularity with the
   merchant class; but the system of benevolence was soon to be
   developed into the forced loans of Wolsey and the ship-money
   of Charles I."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 6, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18, section 696._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1474.
   Treaty with the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1476.
   Introduction of Printing by Caxton.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1476-1491.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
   Murder of the young king, Edward V.
   Accession of Richard III.
   The battle of Bosworth and the fall of the House of York.

   On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, his crafty and
   unscrupulous brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, gathered
   quickly into his hands the reins of power, proceeding with
   consummate audacity and ruthlessness to sweep every strong
   rival out of his path. Contenting himself for a few weeks,
   only, with the title of Protector, he soon disputed the
   validity of his brother Edward's marriage, caused an
   obsequious Parliament to set aside the young sons whom the
   latter had left, declaring them to be illegitimate, and placed
   the crown on his own head. The little princes (King Edward V.,
   and Richard, Duke of York), immured in the Tower, were
   murdered presently at their uncle's command, and Richard III.
   appeared, for the time, to have triumphed in his ambitious
   villainy. But, popular as he made himself in many cunning
   ways, his deeds excited a horror which united Lancastrians
   with the party of York in a common detestation. Friends of
   Henry, Earl of Richmond, then in exile, were not slow to take
   advantage of this feeling. Henry could claim descent from the
   same John of Gaunt, son of Edward III., to whom the House of
   Lancaster traced its lineage; but his family—the
   Beauforts—sprang from the mistress, not the wife, of the
   great Duke of Lancaster, and had only been legitimated by act
   of Parliament. The Lancastrians, however, were satisfied with
   the royalty of his blood, and the Yorkists were made content
   by his promise to marry a daughter of Edward IV. On this
   understanding being arranged, Henry came over from Brittany to
   England, landing at Milford Haven on the 7th or 8th of August,
   1485, and advancing through Wales, being joined by great
   numbers as he moved. Richard, who had no lack of courage,
   marched quickly to meet him, and the two forces joined battle
   on Bosworth Field, in Leicestershire, on Sunday, August 21. At
   the outset of the fighting Richard was deserted by a large
   division of his army and saw that his fate was sealed. He
   plunged, with despairing rage, into the thickest of the
   struggle and was slain. His crowned helmet, which he had worn,
   was found by Sir Reginald Bray, battered and broken, under a
   hawthorn bush, and placed on the head of his rival, who soon
   attained a more solemn coronation, as Henry VII.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      3d Series, chapters 19-20._

   "I must record my impression that a minute study of the facts
   of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of
   the general fidelity of the portrait with which we have been
   made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More. I feel quite
   ashamed, at this day, to think how I mused over this subject
   long ago, wasting a great deal of time, ink and paper, in
   fruitless efforts to satisfy even my own mind that traditional
   black was real historical white, or at worst a kind of grey.
   …
{823}
   Both the character and personal appearance of Richard III.
   have furnished matter of controversy. But with regard to the
   former the day has now gone by when it was possible to doubt
   the evidence at least of his principal crime; and that he was
   regarded as a tyrant by his subjects seems almost equally
   indisputable. At the same time he was not destitute of better
   qualities. … As king he seems really to have studied his
   country's welfare, passed good laws, endeavoured to put an end
   to extortion, declined the free gifts offered to him by
   several towns, and declared he would rather have the hearts of
   his subjects than their money. His munificence was especially
   shown in religious foundations. … His hypocrisy was not of
   the vulgar kind which seeks to screen habitual baseness of
   motive by habitual affectation of virtue. His best and his
   worst deeds were alike too well known to be either concealed
   or magnified; at least, soon after he became king, all doubt
   upon the subject must have been removed. … His ingratiating
   manners, together with the liberality of his disposition, seem
   really to have mitigated to a considerable extent the alarms
   created by his fitful deeds of violence. The reader will not
   require to be reminded of Shakespeare's portrait of a murderer
   who could cajole the woman whom he had most exasperated and
   made a widow into marrying himself. That Richard's ingenuity
   was equal to this extraordinary feat we do not venture to
   assert; but that he had a wonderful power of reassuring those
   whom he had most intimidated and deceiving those who knew him
   best there can be very little doubt. … His taste in building
   was magnificent and princely. … There is scarcely any
   evidence of Richard's [alleged] deformity to be derived from
   original portraits. The number of portraits of Richard which
   seem to be contemporary is greater than might have been
   expected. … The face in all the portraits is a remarkable
   one, full of energy and decision, yet gentle and sad-looking,
   suggesting the idea not so much of a tyrant as of a mind
   accustomed to unpleasant thoughts. Nowhere do we find depicted
   the warlike hard-favoured visage attributed to him by Sir
   Thomas More. … With such a one did the long reign of the
   Plantagenets terminate. The fierce spirit and the valour of
   the race never showed more strongly than at the close. The
   Middle Ages, too, as far as England was concerned, may be said
   to have passed away with Richard III."

      _J. Gairdner,
      History of the Life, and Reign of Richard The Third,
      introduction and chapter 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1485.
   Accession of King Henry VII.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1528.
   The Sweating Sickness.

      See SWEATING SICKNESS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.
   The Tudors.

   The Tudor family, which occupied the English throne from the
   accession of Henry VII., 1485, until the death of Elizabeth,
   1603, took its name, but not its royal lineage, from Sir Owen
   Tudor, a handsome Welsh chieftain, who won the heart and the
   hand of the young widow of Henry V., Catherine of France. The
   eldest son of that marriage, made Earl of Richmond, married in
   his turn Margaret Beaufort, great-granddaughter to John of
   Gaunt, or Ghent, who was one of the sons of Edward III. From
   this latter union came Henry of Richmond, as he was known, who
   disputed the crown with Richard III. and made his claim good
   on Bosworth Field, where the hated Richard was killed. Henry's
   pretensions were based on the royal descent of his
   mother—derived, however, through John of Gaunt's mistress—
   and the dynasty which he founded was closely related in origin
   to the Lancastrian line. Henry of Richmond strengthened his
   hold upon the crown, though not his title to it, by marrying
   Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV., thus joining the white rose
   to the red. He ascended the throne as Henry VII., A. D. 1485;
   was succeeded by his son, Henry VIII., in 1509, and the latter
   by his three children, in order as follows: Edward VI., 1547;
   Mary, 1553; Elizabeth, 1558. The Tudor family became extinct
   on the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603. "They [the Tudors]
   reigned in England, without a successful rising against them,
   for upwards of a hundred years; but not more by a studied
   avoidance of what might so provoke the country, than by the
   most resolute repression of every effort, on the part of what
   remained of the peerage and great families, to make head
   against the throne. They gave free indulgence to their tyranny
   only within the circle of the court, while they unceasingly
   watched and conciliated the temper of the people. The work
   they had to do, and which by more scrupulous means was not
   possible to be done, was one of paramount necessity; the
   dynasty uninterruptedly endured for only so long as was
   requisite to its thorough completion; and to each individual
   sovereign the particular task might seem to have been
   specially assigned. It was Henry's to spurn, renounce and
   utterly cast off, the Pope's authority, without too suddenly
   revolting the people's usages and habits; to arrive at blessed
   results by ways that a better man might have held to be
   accursed; during the momentous change in progress to keep in
   necessary check both the parties it affected; to persecute
   with an equal hand the Romanist and the Lutheran; to send the
   Protestant to the stake for resisting Popery, and the Roman
   Catholic to the scaffold for not admitting himself to be Pope;
   while he meantime plundered the monasteries, hunted down and
   rooted out the priests, alienated the abbey lands, and glutted
   himself and his creatures with that enormous spoil. It was
   Edward's to become the ready and undoubting instrument of
   Cranmer's design, and, with all the inexperience and more than
   the obstinacy of youth, so to force upon the people his
   compromise of doctrine and observance, as to render possible,
   even perhaps unavoidable, his elder sister's reign. It was
   Mary's to undo the effect of that precipitate eagerness of the
   Reformers, by lighting the fires of Smithfield; and
   opportunely to arrest the waverers from Protestantism, by
   exhibiting in their excess the very worst vices, the cruel
   bigotry, the hateful intolerance, the spiritual slavery, of
   Rome. It was Elizabeth's finally and forever to uproot that
   slavery from amongst us, to champion all over the world a new
   and nobler faith, and immovably to establish in England the
   Protestant religion."

      _J. Forster,
      Historical and Biographical Essays,
      pages 221-222._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      chapter 6._

      _C. E. Moberly,
      The Early Tudors._

{824}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.
   The Rebellions of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

   Although Henry VII., soon after he attained the throne,
   married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV., and thus
   united the two rival houses, the Yorkists were discontented
   with his rule. "With the help of Margaret of Burgundy, Edward
   IV. 's sister, and James IV. of Scotland, they actually set up
   two impostors, one after the other, to claim the throne. There
   was a real heir of the House of York still alive—young
   Edward, Earl of Warwick [son of the Duke of Clarence, brother
   to Edward IV.],  … and Henry had taken the precaution to
   keep him in the Tower. But in 1487 a sham Earl of Warwick
   appeared in Ireland, and being supported by the Earl of
   Kildare, was actually crowned in Dublin Cathedral. Henry soon
   put down the imposture by showing the real earl to the people
   of London, and defeating the army of the pretended earl at
   Stoke, near Newark, June, 1487. He proved to be a lad named
   Lambert Simnel, the son of a joiner at Oxford, and he became a
   scullion in the king's kitchen." In 1492 another pretender of
   like character was brought forward. "A young man, called
   Perkin Warbeck, who proved afterwards to be a native of
   Tournay, pretended that he was Richard, Duke of York, the
   younger of the two little princes in the Tower, and that he
   had escaped when his brother Edward V. was murdered. He
   persuaded the king of France and Margaret of Burgundy to
   acknowledge him, and was not only received at the foreign
   courts, but, after failing in Ireland, he went to Scotland,
   where James IV. married him to his own cousin Catharine
   Gordon, and helped him to invade England in 1496. The invasion
   was defeated however, by the Earl of Surrey, and then Perkin
   went back to Ireland, where the people had revolted against
   the heavy taxes. There he raised an army and marched to
   Exeter, but meeting the king's troops at Taunton, he lost
   courage, and fled to the Abbey of Beaulieu, where he was taken
   prisoner, and sent to the Tower in 1497." In 1501 both Perkin
   Warbeck and the young Earl of Warwick were executed.

      _A. B. Buckley,
      History of England for Beginners,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Gairdner,
      Story of Perkin Warbeck
      (appendix to Life of Richard III.)._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      3d series, chapters 21 and 24._

      _J. Gairdner,
      Henry VII.,
      chapters 4 and 7._

ENGLAND: 15th-16th Centuries.
   The Renaissance.
   Life in "Merry England."
   Preludes to the Elizabethan Age of literature.

   "Toward the close of the fifteenth century … commerce and
   the woollen trade made a sudden advance, and such an enormous
   one that corn-fields were changed into pasture-lands, 'whereby
   the inhabitants of the said town (Manchester) have gotten and
   come into riches and wealthy livings,' so that in 1553, 40,000
   pieces of cloth were exported in English ships. It was already
   the England which we see to-day, a land of meadows, green,
   intersected by hedgerows, crowded with cattle, abounding in
   ships, a manufacturing, opulent land, with a people of
   beef-eating toilers, who enrich it while they enrich
   themselves. They improved agriculture to such an extent, that
   in half a century the produce of an acre was doubled. They
   grew so rich, that at the beginning of the reign of Charles I.
   the Commons represented three times the wealth of the Upper
   House. The ruin of Antwerp by the Duke of Parma sent to
   England 'the third part of the merchants and manufacturers,
   who made silk, damask, stockings, taffetas, and serges.'  The
   defeat of the Armada and the decadence of Spain opened the
   seas to their merchants. The toiling hive, who would dare,
   attempt, explore, act in unison, and always with profit, was
   about to reap its advantages and set out on its voyages,
   buzzing over the universe. At the base and on the summit of
   society, in all ranks of life, in all grades of human
   condition, this new welfare became visible. … It is not when
   all is good, but when all is better, that they see the bright
   side of life, and are tempted to make a holiday of it. This is
   why at this period they did make a holiday of it, a splendid
   show, so like a picture that it fostered painting in Italy, so
   like a representation, that it produced the drama in England.
   Now that the battle-axe and sword of the civil wars had beaten
   down the independent nobility, and the abolition of the law of
   maintenance had destroyed the petty royalty of each great
   feudal baron, the lords quitted their sombre castles,
   battlemented fortresses, surrounded by stagnant water, pierced
   with narrow windows, a sort of stone breast-plates of no use
   but to preserve the life of their masters. They flock into new
   palaces, with vaulted roofs and turrets, covered with
   fantastic and manifold ornaments, adorned with terraces and
   vast staircases, with gardens, fountains, statues, such as
   were the palaces of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, half Gothic and
   half Italian, whose convenience, grandeur, and beauty
   announced already habits of society and the taste for
   pleasure. They came to court and abandoned their old manners;
   the four meals which scarcely sufficed their former voracity
   were reduced to two; gentlemen soon became refined, placing
   their glory in the elegance and singularity of their
   amusements and their clothes. … To vent the feelings, to
   satisfy the heart and eyes, to set free boldly on all the
   roads of existence the pack of appetites and instincts, this
   was the craving which the manners of the time betrayed. It was
   'merry England,' as they called it then. It was not yet stern
   and constrained. It expanded widely, freely, and rejoiced to
   find itself so expanded. No longer at court only was the drama
   found but in the village. Strolling companies betook
   themselves thither, and the country folk supplied any
   deficiencies when necessary. Shakspeare saw, before he
   depicted them, stupid fellows, carpenters, joiners,
   bellow-menders, play Pyramus and Thisbe, represent the lion
   roaring as gently as possible, and the wall, by stretching out
   their hands. Every holiday was a pageant, in which
   townspeople, workmen, and children bore their parts. … A few
   sectarians, chiefly in the towns and of the people, clung
   gloomily to the Bible. But the court and the men of the world
   sought their teachers and their heroes from pagan Greece and
   Rome. About 1490 they began to read the classics; one after
   the other they translated them; it was soon the fashion to
   read them in the original. Elizabeth, Jane Grey, the Duchess
   of Norfolk, the Countess of Arundel, many other ladies, were
   conversant with Plato, Xenophon, and Cicero in the original,
   and appreciated them. Gradually, by an insensible change, men
   were raised to the level of the great and healthy minds who
   had freely handled ideas of all kinds fifteen centuries ago.
   They comprehended not only their language, but their thought;
   they did not repeat lessons from, but held conversations with
   them; they were their equals, and found in them intellects as
   manly as their own. …
{825}
   Across the train of hooded school men and sordid cavillers the
   two adult and thinking ages were united, and the moderns,
   silencing the infantine or snuffling voices of the middle-age,
   condescended only to converse with the noble ancients. They
   accepted their gods, at least they understand them, and keep
   them by their side. In poems, festivals, tapestries, almost
   all ceremonies they appear, not restored by pedantry merely,
   but kept alive by sympathy, and glorified by the arts of an
   age as flourishing and almost as profound as that of their
   earliest birth. After the terrible night of the middle-age,
   and the dolorous legends of spirits and the damned, it was a
   delight to see again Olympus shining upon us from Greece; its
   heroic and beautiful deities once more ravishing the heart of
   men, they raised and instructed this young world by speaking
   to it the language of passion and genius; and the age of
   strong deeds, free sensuality, bold invention, had only to
   follow its own bent, in order to discover in them the eternal
   promoters of liberty and beauty. Nearer still was another
   paganism, that of Italy; the more seductive because more
   modern, and because it circulates fresh sap in an ancient
   stock; the more attractive, because more sensuous and present,
   with its worship of force and genius, of pleasure and
   voluptuousness. … At that time Italy clearly led in every
   thing, and civilisation was to be drawn thence as from its
   spring. What is this civilisation which is thus imposed on the
   whole of Europe, whence every science and every elegance
   comes, whose laws are obeyed in every court, in which Surrey,
   Sidney, Spenser, Shakspeare sought their models and their
   materials? It was pagan in its elements and its birth; in its
   language, which is but slightly different from Latin; in its
   Latin traditions and recollections, which no gap has come to
   interrupt; in its constitution, whose old municipal life first
   led and absorbed the feudal life; in the genius of its race,
   in which energy and enjoyment always abounded."

      _H. A. Taine,
      History of English Literature,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The intellectual movement, to which we give the name of
   Renaissance, expressed itself in England mainly through the
   Drama. Other races in that era of quickened activity, when
   modern man regained the consciousness of his own strength and
   goodliness after centuries of mental stagnation and social
   depression, threw their energies into the plastic arts and
   scholarship. The English found a similar outlet for their
   pent-up forces in the Drama. The arts and literature of Greece
   and Rome had been revealed by Italy to Europe. Humanism had
   placed the present once more in a vital relation to the past.
   The navies of Portugal and Spain had discovered new continents
   beyond the ocean; the merchants of Venice and Genoa had
   explored the farthest East. Copernicus had revolutionised
   astronomy, and the telescope was revealing fresh worlds beyond
   the sun. The Bible had been rescued from the mortmain of the
   Church; scholars studied it in the language of its authors,
   and the people read it in their own tongue. In this rapid
   development of art, literature, science, and discovery, the
   English had hitherto taken but little part. But they were
   ready to reap what other men had sown. Unfatigued by the
   labours of the pioneer, unsophisticated by the pedantries and
   sophistries of the schools, in the freshness of their youth
   and vigour, they surveyed the world unfolded to them. For more
   than half a century they freely enjoyed the splendour of this
   spectacle, until the struggle for political and religious
   liberty replunged them in the hard realities of life. During
   that eventful period of spiritual disengagement from absorbing
   cares, the race was fully conscious of its national
   importance. It had shaken off the shackles of oppressive
   feudalism, the trammels of ecclesiastical tyranny. It had not
   yet passed under the Puritan yoke, or felt the encroachments
   of despotic monarchy. It was justly proud of the Virgin Queen,
   with whose idealised personality the people identified their
   newly acquired sense of greatness. … What in those fifty
   years they saw with the clairvoyant eyes of artists, the poets
   wrote. And what they wrote, remains imperishable. It is the
   portrait of their age, the portrait of an age in which
   humanity stood self-revealed, a miracle and marvel to its own
   admiring curiosity. England was in a state of transition when
   the Drama came to perfection. That was one of those rare
   periods when the past and the future are both coloured by
   imagination, and both shed a glory on the present. The
   medieval order was in dissolution; the modern order was in
   process of formation. Yet the old state of things had not
   faded from memory and usage; the new had not assumed despotic
   sway. Men stood then, as it were, between two dreams—a dream
   of the past, thronged with sinister and splendid
   reminiscences; a dream of the future, bright with unlimited
   aspirations and indefinite hopes. Neither the retreating
   forces of the Middle Ages nor the advancing forces of the
   modern era pressed upon them with the iron weight of
   actuality. The brutalities of feudalism had been softened; but
   the chivalrous sentiment remained to inspire the Surreys and
   the Sidneys of a milder epoch. … What distinguished the
   English at this epoch from the nations of the South was not
   refinement of manners, sobriety, or self-control. On the
   contrary they retained an unenviable character for more than
   common savagery. … Erasmus describes the filth of their
   houses, and the sicknesses engendered in their cities by bad
   ventilation. What rendered the people superior to Italians and
   Spaniards was the firmness of their moral fibre, the sweetness
   of their humanity, a more masculine temper, less vitiated
   instincts and sophisticated intellects, a law-abiding and
   religious conscience, contempt for treachery and baseness,
   intolerance of political or ecclesiastical despotism combined
   with fervent love of home and country. They were coarse, but
   not vicious; pleasure-loving, but not licentious; violent, but
   not cruel; luxurious but not effeminate. Machiavelli was a
   name of loathing to them. Sidney, Essex, Raleigh, More, and
   Drake were popular heroes; and whatever may be thought of
   these men, they certainly counted no Marquis of Pescara, no
   Duke of Valentino, no Malatesta Baglioni, no Cosimo de' Medici
   among them. The Southern European type betrayed itself but
   faintly in politicians like Richard Cromwell and Robert
   Dudley. … Affectations of foreign vices were only a
   varnish on the surface of society. The core of the nation
   remained sound and wholesome. Nor was the culture which the
   English borrowed from less unsophisticated nations, more than
   superficial. The incidents of Court gossip show how savage was
   the life beneath.
{826}
   Queen Elizabeth spat, in the presence of her nobles, at a
   gentleman who had displeased her; struck Essex on the cheek;
   drove Burleigh blubbering from her apartment. Laws in merry
   England were executed with uncompromising severity. Every
   township had its gallows; every village its stocks,
   whipping-post and pillory. Here and there, heretics were
   burned upon the market-place; and the block upon Tower Hill
   was seldom dry. … Men and women who read Plato, or discussed
   the elegancies of Petrarch, suffered brutal practical jokes,
   relished the obscenities of jesters, used the grossest
   language of the people. Carrying farms and acres on their
   backs in the shape of costly silks and laces, they lay upon
   rushes filthy with the vomit of old banquets. Glittering in
   suits of gilt and jewelled mail, they jostled with
   town-porters in the stench of the bear-gardens, or the bloody
   bull-pit. The church itself was not respected. The nave of old
   S. Paul's became a rendezvous for thieves and prostitutes. …
   It is difficult, even by noting an infinity of such
   characteristics, to paint the many-coloured incongruities of
   England at that epoch. Yet in the midst of this confusion rose
   cavaliers like Sidney, philosophers like Bacon, poets like
   Spenser; men in whom all that is pure, elevated, subtle,
   tender, strong, wise, delicate and learned in our modern
   civilisation displayed itself. And the masses of the people
   were still in harmony with these high strains. They formed the
   audience of Shakspere. They wept for Desdemona, adored Imogen,
   listened with Jessica to music in the moon-light at Belmont,
   wandered with Rosalind through woodland glades of Arden. Such
   was the society of which our theatre became the mirror."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Shakspere's Predecessors in the English Drama,
      chapter 2, section 1, 2, and 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1497.
   Cabot's discovery of the North American Continent.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
   Voyage and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
   Ground of English claims in the New World.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1502.
   The marriage which brought the Stuarts to the English throne.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1509.
   The character and reign of Henry VII.

   "As a king, Bacon tells us that he was 'a wonder for wise
   men.' Few indeed were the councillors that shared his
   confidence, but the wise men, competent to form an estimate of
   his statesmanship, had but one opinion of his consummate
   wisdom. Foreigners were greatly struck with the success that
   attended his policy. Ambassadors were astonished at the
   intimate knowledge he displayed of the affairs of their own
   countries. From the most unpropitious beginnings, a proscribed
   man and an exile, he had won his way in evil times to a throne
   beset with dangers; he had pacified his own country, cherished
   commerce, formed strong alliances over Europe, and made his
   personal influence felt by the rulers of France, Spain, Italy,
   and the Netherlands as that of a man who could turn the scale
   in matters of the highest importance to their own domestic
   welfare. … From first to last his policy was essentially his
   own; for though he knew well how to choose the ablest
   councillors, he asked or took their advice only to such an
   extent as he himself deemed expedient. … No one can
   understand his reign, or that of his son, or, we might add, of
   his granddaughter Queen Elizabeth, without appreciating the
   fact that, however well served with councillors, the sovereign
   was in those days always his own Prime Minister. … Even the
   legislation of the reign must be regarded as in large measure
   due to Henry himself. We have no means, it is true, of knowing
   how much of it originated in his own mind; but that it was all
   discussed with him in Council and approved before it was
   passed we have every reason to believe. For he never appears
   to have put the royal veto upon any Bill, as constitutional
   usage both before and after his days allowed. He gave his
   assent to all the enactments sent up to him for approval,
   though he sometimes added to them provisos of his own. And
   Bacon, who knew the traditions of those times, distinctly
   attributes the good legislation of his days to the king
   himself. 'In that part, both of justice and policy, which is
   the most durable part, and cut, as it were, in brass or
   marble, the making of good laws, he did excel.' This
   statement, with but slight variations in the wording, appears
   again and again throughout the History; and elsewhere it is
   said that he was the best lawgiver to this nation after Edward
   I. … The parliaments, indeed, that Henry summoned were only
   seven in number, and seldom did anyone of them last over a
   year, so that during a reign of nearly twenty-four years many
   years passed away without a Parliament at all. But even in
   those scanty sittings many Acts were passed to meet evils that
   were general subjects of complaint. … He could scarcely be
   called a learned man, yet he was a lover of learning, and gave
   his children an excellent education. His Court was open to
   scholars. … He was certainly religious after the fashion of
   his day. … His religious foundations and bequests perhaps do
   not necessarily imply anything more than conventional feeling.
   But we must not overlook the curious circumstance that he once
   argued with a heretic at the stake at Canterbury and got him
   to renounce his heresy. It is melancholy to add that he did
   not thereupon release him from the punishment to which he had
   been sentenced; but the fact seems to show that he was afraid
   of encouraging insincere conversions by such leniency. During
   the last two or three years of the 15th century there was a
   good deal of procedure against heretics, but on the whole, we
   are told, rather by penances than by fire. Henry had no desire
   to see the old foundations of the faith disturbed. His zeal
   for the Church was recognised by no less than three Popes in
   his time, who each sent him a sword and a cap of maintenance.
   … To commerce and adventure he was always a good friend. By
   his encouragement Sebastian Cabot sailed from Bristol and
   discovered Newfoundland—The New Isle, as it at first was
   called. Four years earlier Columbus had first set foot on the
   great western continent, and had not his brother been taken by
   pirates at sea, it is supposed that he too might have made his
   great discovery under Henry's patronage."

      _James Gairdner,
      Henry the Seventh,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Bacon,
      History of the Reign of King Henry VII._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1509,
   Accession of King Henry VIII.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1151-1513.
   Enlisted In the Holy League of Pope Julius II. against France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1513.
   Henry's invasion of France.
   The victory of the Battle of the Spurs.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

{827}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1513-1529.
   The ministry of Cardinal Wolsey.

   From 1513 to 1529, Thomas Wolsey, who became Archbishop of
   York in 1514, and Cardinal in 1515, was the minister who
   guided the policy of Henry VIII., so far as that head-strong
   and absolute monarch could be guided at all. "England was
   going through a crisis, politically, socially, and
   intellectually, when Wolsey undertook the management of
   affairs. … We must regret that he put foreign policy in the
   first place, and reserved his constructive measures for
   domestic affairs. … Yet even here we may doubt if the
   measures of the English Reformation would have been possible
   if Wolsey's mind had not inspired the king and the nation with
   a heightened consciousness of England's power and dignity.
   Wolsey's diplomacy at least tore away all illusions about Pope
   and Emperor, and the opinion of Europe, and taught Henry VIII.
   the measure of his own strength. It was impossible that
   Wolsey's powerful hand should not leave its impression upon
   everything which it touched. If Henry VIII. inherited a strong
   monarchy, Wolsey made the basis of monarchical power still
   stronger. … Wolsey saw in the royal power the only possible
   means of holding England together and guiding it through the
   dangers of impending change. … Wolsey was in no sense a
   constitutional minister, nor did he pay much heed to
   constitutional forms. Parliament was only summoned once during
   the time that he was in office, and then he tried to browbeat
   Parliament and set aside its privileges. In his view the only
   function of Parliament was to grant money for the king's
   needs. The king should say how much he needed, and Parliament
   ought only to advise how this sum might be most conveniently
   raised. … He was unwise in his attempt to force the king's
   will upon Parliament as an unchangeable law of its action.
   Henry VIII. looked and learned from Wolsey's failure, and when
   he took the management of Parliament into his own hands he
   showed himself a consummate master of that craft. … He was
   so skilful that Parliament at last gave him even the power
   over the purse, and Henry, without raising a murmur, imposed
   taxes which Wolsey would not have dared to suggest. … Where
   Wolsey would have made the Crown independent of Parliament,
   Henry VIII. reduced Parliament to be a willing instrument of
   the royal will. … Henry … clothed his despotism with the
   appearance of paternal solicitude. He made the people think
   that he lived for them, and that their interests were his,
   whereas Wolsey endeavoured to convince the people that the
   king alone could guard their interests, and that their only
   course was to put entire confidence in him. Henry saw that men
   were easier to cajole than to convince. … In spite of the
   disadvantage of a royal education, Henry was a more thorough
   Englishman than Wolsey, though Wolsey sprang from the people.
   It was Wolsey's teaching, however, that prepared Henry for his
   task. The king who could use a minister like Wolsey and then
   throw him away when he was no longer useful, felt that there
   was no limitation to his self-sufficiency. … For politics in
   the largest sense, comprising all the relations of the nation
   at home and abroad, Wolsey had a capacity which amounted to
   genius, and it is doubtful if this can be said of any other
   Englishman. … Taking England as he found her, he aimed at
   developing all her latent possibilities, and leading Europe to
   follow in her train. … He made England for a time the centre
   of European politics, and gave her an influence far higher
   than she could claim on material grounds. … He was indeed a
   political artist, who worked with a free hand and a certain
   touch. … He was, though he knew it not, fitted to serve
   England, but not to serve the English king. He had the aims of
   a national statesman, not of a royal servant. Wolsey's
   misfortune was that his lot was cast on days when the career
   of a statesman was not distinct from that of a royal servant."

      _M. Creighton,
      Cardinal Wolsey,
      chapters 8 and 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII._

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of  England from the Fall of Wolsey,
      chapters 1-2._

      _G. Cavendish,
      Life of Wolsey._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1514.
   Marriage of the king's sister with Louis XII. of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Intrigues against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1519.
   Candidacy of Henry VIII. for the imperial crown.

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1520-1521.
   Rivalry of the Emperor and the French King
   for the English alliance.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1525.
   The king changes sides in European politics and breaks his
   alliance with the Emperor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1527.
   New alliance with France and Venice against Charles V.
   Formal renunciation of the claim of the English kings to the
   crown of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.
   Henry VIII. and the Divorce question.
   The rupture with Rome.

   Henry VIII. owed his crown to the early death of his brother
   Arthur, whose widow, Catharine of Aragon, the daughter of
   Ferdinand, and consequently the aunt of Charles V. [emperor],
   Henry was enabled to marry through a dispensation obtained by
   Henry VII. from Pope Julius II.,—marriage with the wife of a
   deceased brother being forbidden by the laws of the Church.
   Henry was in his twelfth year when the marriage was concluded,
   but it was not consummated until the death of his father. …
   The question of Henry's divorce from Catharine soon became a
   subject of discussion, and the effort to procure the annulling
   of the marriage from the pope was prosecuted for a number of
   years. Henry professed, and perhaps with sincerity, that he
   had long been troubled with doubts of the validity of the
   marriage, as being contrary to the divine law, and therefore
   not within the limit of the pope's dispensing power. The death
   of a number of his children, leaving only a single daughter,
   Mary, had been interpreted by some as a mark of the
   displeasure of God. At the same time the English people, in
   the fresh recollection of the long dynastic struggle, were
   anxious on account of the lack of a male heir to the throne.
   On the queen's side it was asserted that it was competent for
   the pope to authorize a marriage with a brother's widow, and
   that no doubt could possibly exist in the present case, since,
   according to her testimony, her marriage with Arthur had never
   been completed. The eagerness of Henry to procure the divorce
   increased with his growing passion for Anne Boleyn. The
   negotiations with Rome dragged slowly on. Catharine was six
   years older than himself, and had lost her charms.
{828}
   He was enamored of this young English girl, fresh from the
   court of France. He resolved to break the marriage bond with
   the Spanish princess who had been his faithful wife for nearly
   twenty years. It was not without reason that the king became
   more and more incensed at the dilatory and vacillating course
   of the pope. … Henry determined to lay the question of the
   validity of his marriage before the universities of Europe,
   and this he did, making a free use of bribery abroad and of
   menaces at home. Meantime, he took measures to cripple the
   authority of the pope and of the clergy in England. In these
   proceedings he was sustained by a popular feeling, the growth
   of centuries, against foreign ecclesiastical interference and
   clerical control in civil affairs. The fall of Wolsey was the
   effect of his failure to procure the divorce, and of the
   enmity of Anne Boleyn and her family. … In order to convict
   of treason this minister, whom he had raised to the highest
   pinnacle of power, the king did not scruple to avail himself
   of the ancient statute of præmunire, which Wolsey was accused
   of having transgressed by acting as the pope's legate in
   England—it was dishonestly alleged, without the royal
   license. Early in 1531 the king charged the whole body of the
   clergy with having incurred the penalties of the same law by
   submitting to Wolsey in his legatine character. Assembled in
   convocation, they were obliged to implore his pardon, and
   obtained it only in return for a large sum of money. In their
   petition he was styled, in obedience to his dictation, 'The
   Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of
   England,' to which was added, after long debate, at the
   suggestion of Archbishop Warham—'as far as is permitted by
   the law of Christ.' The Church, prostrate though it was at the
   feet of the despotic king, showed some degree of self-respect
   in inserting this amendment. Parliament forbade the
   introduction of papal bulls into England. The king was
   authorized if he saw fit, to withdraw the annats—first-fruits
   of benefices—from the pope. Appeals to Rome were forbidden.
   The retaliatory measures of Henry did not move the pope to
   recede from his position. On or about January 25, 1533, the
   king was privately married to Anne Boleyn. … In 1534 Henry
   was conditionally excommunicated by Clement VII. The papal
   decree deposing him from the throne, and absolving his
   subjects from their allegiance, did not follow until 1538, and
   was issued by Paul III. Clement's bull was sent forth on the
   23 of March. On the 23 of November Parliament passed the Act
   of Supremacy, without the qualifying clause which the clergy
   had attached to their vote. The king was, moreover, clothed
   with full power and authority to repress and amend all such
   errors, heresies, and abuses as 'by any manner of spiritual
   authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed.'
   Thus a visitatorial function of vast extent was recognized as
   belonging to him. In 1532 convocation was driven to engage not
   'to enact or promulge or put in execution' any measures
   without the royal license, and to promise to change or to
   abrogate any of the 'provincial constitutions' which he should
   judge inconsistent with his prerogative. The clergy were thus
   stripped of all power to make laws. A mixed commission, which
   Parliament ordained for the revision of the whole canon law,
   was not appointed in this reign. The dissolution of the king's
   marriage thus dissolved the union of England with the papacy."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      period 8, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 2, chapters 27-35._

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _S. H. Burke,
      Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
      volume 1, chapters 8-25._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 6, chapter 3._

      _T. E. Bridgett,
      Life and Writings of Sir T. More._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1529-1535.
   The execution of Sir Thomas More.

   On the 25th of October, 1529, the king, by delivering the
   great seal to Sir Thomas More, constituted him Lord
   Chancellor. In making this appointment, Henry "hoped to
   dispose his chancellor to lend his authority to the projects
   of divorce and second marriage, which now agitated the king's
   mind, and were the main objects of his policy. … To pursue
   this subject through the long negotiations and discussions
   which it occasioned during six years, would be to lead us far
   from the life of Sir Thomas More. … All these proceedings
   terminated in the sentence of nullity in the case of Henry's
   marriage with Catherine, pronounced by Cranmer, the espousal
   of Anne Boleyn by the king, and the rejection of the papal
   jurisdiction by the kingdom, which still, however, adhered to
   the doctrines of the Roman catholic church. The situation of
   More during a great part of these memorable events was
   embarrassing. The great offices to which he was raised by the
   king, the personal favour hitherto constantly shown to him,
   and the natural tendency of his gentle and quiet disposition,
   combined to disincline him to resistance against the wishes of
   his friendly master. On the other hand, his growing dread and
   horror of heresy, with its train of disorders; his belief that
   universal anarchy would be the inevitable result of religious
   dissension, and the operation of seven years' controversy for
   the Catholic church, in heating his mind on all subjects
   involving the extent of her authority, made him recoil from
   designs which were visibly tending towards disunion with the
   Roman pontiff. … Henry used every means of procuring an
   opinion favourable to his wishes from his chancellor, who
   excused himself as unmeet for such matters, having never
   professed the study of divinity. … But when the progress
   towards the marriage was so far advanced that he saw how soon
   the active co-operation of a chancellor must be required, he
   made suit to 'his singular dear friend,' the duke of Norfolk,
   to procure his discharge from this office. The duke, often
   solicited by More, then obtained, by importunate suit, a clear
   discharge for the chancellor. … The king directed Norfolk,
   when he installed his successor, to declare publicly, that his
   majesty had with pain yielded to the prayers of sir Thomas
   More, by the removal of such a magistrate. …. It must be
   owned that Henry felt the weight of this great man's opinion,
   and tried every possible means to obtain at least the
   appearance of his spontaneous approbation. … The king …
   sent the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor, the duke of
   Norfolk, and Cromwell, to attempt the conversion of More.
   Audley reminded More of the king's special favour and many
   benefits. More admitted them; but modestly added, that his
   highness had most graciously declared that on this matter More
   should be molested no more.
{829}
   When in the end they saw that no persuasion could move him,
   they then said, 'that the king's highness had given them in
   commandment, if they could by no gentleness win him, in the
   king's name with ingratitude to charge him, that never was
   servant to his master so villainous, nor subject to his prince
   so traitorous as he.'. . . By a tyrannical edict, mis-called a
   law, in the same session of 1533-4, it was made high treason,
   after the 1st of May, 1534, by writing, print, deed, or act,
   to do or to procure, or cause to be done or procured, anything
   to the prejudice, slander, disturbance, or derogation of the
   king's lawful matrimony with queen Anne. If the same offences
   were committed by words, they were only misprision. The same
   act enjoined all persons to take an oath to maintain the whole
   contents of the statute, and an obstinate refusal to make such
   oath was subjected to the penalties of misprision. … Sir T.
   More was summoned to appear before these commissioners at
   Lambeth, on Monday the 13th of April, 1534. … After having
   read the statute and the form of the oath, he declared his
   readiness to swear that he would maintain and defend the order
   of succession to the crown as established by parliament. He
   disclaimed all censure of those who had imposed, or on those
   who had taken, the oath, but declared it to be impossible that
   he should swear to the whole contents of it, without offending
   against his own conscience. … He never more returned to his
   house, being committed to the custody of the abbot of
   Westminster, in which he continued four days; and at the end
   of that time he was conveyed to the Tower on Friday the 17th
   of April, 1534. … On the 6th of May, 1535, almost
   immediately after the defeat of every attempt to practise on
   his firmness, More was brought to trial at Westminster, and it
   will scarcely be doubted, that no such culprit stood at any
   European bar for a thousand years. … It is lamentable that
   the records of the proceedings against such a man should be
   scanty. We do not certainly know the specific offence of which
   he was convicted. … On Tuesday, the 6th of July (St.
   Thomas's eve), 1535, sir Thomas Pope, 'his singular good
   friend,' came to him early with a message from the king and
   council, to say that he should die before nine o'clock of the
   same morning. … The lieutenant brought him to the scaffold,
   which was so weak that it was ready to fall, on which he said,
   merrily, 'Master Lieutenant, I pray you see me safe up, and
   for my coming down let me shift for myself.' When he laid his
   head on the block he desired the executioner to wait till he
   had removed his beard, for that had never offended his
   highness."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      Sir Thomas More
      (Cabinet Cyclopedia:
      Eminent British Statesmen, volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Historical Biographies,
      chapter 3._

      _T. E. Bridgett,
      Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More,
      chapters 12-24._

      _S. H. Burke,
      Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
      volume 1, chapter 29._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1531-1563,
   The genesis of the Church of England.

   "Henry VIII. attempted to constitute an Anglican Church
   differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of the
   supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this
   attempt was extraordinary. The force of his character, the
   singularly favorable situation in which he stood with respect
   to foreign powers, the immense wealth which the spoliation of
   the ah beys placed at his disposal, and the support of that
   class which still halted between two opinions, enabled him to
   bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as heretics
   those who avowed the tenets of the Reformers, and to hang as
   traitors those who owned the authority of the Pope. But
   Henry's system died with him. Had his life been prolonged, he
   would have found it difficult to maintain a position assailed
   with equal fury by all who were zealous either for the new or
   for the old opinions. The ministers who held the royal
   prerogatives in trust for his infant son could not venture to
   persist in so hazardous a policy; nor could Elizabeth venture
   to return to it. It was necessary to make a choice. The
   government must either submit to Rome, or must obtain the aid
   of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had
   only one thing in common, hatred of the Papal power. The
   English reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on
   the Continent. They unanimously condemned as Antichristian
   numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly
   adhered, and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt
   a strong repugnance even to things indifferent which had
   formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon.
   Thus Bishop Hooper, who died manfully at Gloucester for his
   religion, long refused to wear the episcopal vestments. Bishop
   Ridley, a martyr of still greater renown, pulled down the
   ancient altars of his diocese, and ordered the Eucharist to be
   administered in the middle of churches, at tables which the
   Papists irreverently termed oyster boards. Bishop Jewel
   pronounced the clerical garb to be a stage dress, a fool's
   coat, a relique of the Amorites, and promised that he would
   spare no labour to extirpate such degrading absurdities.
   Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre from
   dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration.
   Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of
   England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the
   absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bishop Ponet was of
   opinion that the word Bishop should be abandoned to the
   Papist, and that the chief officers of the purified church
   should be called Superintendents. When it is considered that
   none of these prelates belonged to the extreme section of the
   Protestant party, it cannot be doubted that, if the general
   sense of that party had been followed, the work of reform
   would have been carried on as unsparingly in England as in
   Scotland. But, as the government needed the support of the
   Protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of the
   government. Much was therefore given up on both sides: an
   union was effected; and the fruit of that union was the Church
   of England."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 1._

   "The Reformation in England was, singular amongst the great
   religious movements of the sixteenth century. It was the least
   heroic of them all—the least swayed by religious passion, or
   moulded and governed by spiritual and theological necessities.
   From a general point of view, it looks at first little more
   than a great political change. The exigencies of royal
   passion, and the dubious impulses of statecraft, seem its
   moving and really powerful springs. But, regarded more
   closely, we recognise a significant train both of religious
   and critical forces at work. The lust and avarice of Henry,
   the policy of Cromwell, and the vacillations of the leading
   clergy, attract prominent notice; but there may be traced
   beneath the surface a wide-spread evangelical fervour amongst
   the people, and, above all, a genuine spiritual earnestness
   and excitement of thought at the universities.
{830}
   These higher influences preside at the first birth of the
   movement. They are seen in active operation long before the
   reforming task was taken up by the Court and the bishops."

      _J. Tulloch,
      Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy
      in England in the 17th Century,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "The miserable fate of Anne Boleyn wins our compassion, and
   the greatness to which her daughter attained has been in some
   degree reflected back upon herself. Had she died a natural
   death, and had she not been the mother of Queen Elizabeth, we
   should have estimated her character at a very low value
   indeed. Protestantism might still, with its usual unhistorical
   partizanship, have gilded over her immoralities; but the
   Church of England must ever look upon Anne Boleyn with
   downcast eyes full of sorrow and shame. By the influence of
   her charms, Henry was induced to take those steps which ended
   in setting the Church of England free from an uncatholic yoke:
   but that such a result should be produced by such an influence
   is a fact which must constrain us to think that the land was
   guilty of many sins, and that it was these national sins which
   prevented better instruments from being raised up for so
   righteous an object."

      _J. H. Blunt,
      The Reformation of the Church of England,
      pages 197-198._

   "Cranmer's work might never have been carried out, there might
   have been no English Bible, no Ten Articles or 'Institution,'
   no reforming Primers, nor Proclamations against Ceremonies,
   had it not been for the tact, boldness and skill of Thomas
   Crumwell, who influenced the King more directly and constantly
   than Cranmer, and who knew how to make his influence
   acceptable by an unprincipled confiscation and an absurd
   exaggeration of the royal supremacy. Crumwell knew that in his
   master's heart there was a dislike and contempt of the clergy.
   … It is probable that Crumwell's policy was simply
   irreligious, and only directed towards preserving his
   influence with the King; but as the support of the reforming
   part of the nation was a useful factor in it, he was thus led
   to push forward religious information in conjunction with
   Cranmer. It has been before said that purity and
   disinterestedness are not to be looked for in all the actors
   in the English Reformation. To this it may be added that
   neither in the movement itself nor in those who took part in
   it is to be found complete consistency. This, indeed, is not
   to be wondered at. Men were feeling their way along untrodden
   paths, without any very clear perception of the end at which
   they were aiming, or any perfect understanding of the
   situation. The King had altogether misapprehended the meaning
   of his supremacy. A host of divines whose views as to the
   distinction between the secular and the spiritual had been
   confused by the action of the Popes, helped to mislead him.
   The clergy, accustomed to be crushed and humiliated by the
   Popes, submitted to be crushed and humiliated by the King; and
   as the tide of his autocratic temper ebbed and flowed, yielded
   to each change. Hence there was action and reaction throughout
   the reign. But in this there were obvious advantages for the
   Church. The gradual process accustomed men's thoughts to a
   reformation which should not be drastic or iconoclastic, but
   rather conservative and deliberate."

      _G. G, Perry,
      History of the Reformation in England,
      chapter 5._

   "With regard to the Church of England, its foundations rest
   upon the rock of Scripture, not upon the character of the King
   by whom they were laid. This, however, must be affirmed in
   justice to Henry, that mixed as the motives were which first
   induced him to disclaim the Pope's authority, in all the
   subsequent measures he acted sincerely, knowing the importance
   of the work in which he had engaged, and prosecuting it
   sedulously and conscientiously, even when most erroneous. That
   religion should have had so little influence upon his moral
   conduct will not appear strange, if we consider what the
   religion was wherein he was trained up;—nor if we look at the
   generality of men even now, under circumstances immeasurably
   more fortunate than those in which he was placed. Undeniable
   proofs remain of the learning, ability, and diligence, with
   which he applied himself to the great business of weeding out
   superstition, and yet preserving what he believed to be the
   essentials of Christianity untouched. This praise (and it is
   no light one) is his due: and it is our part to be thankful to
   that all-ruling Providence, which rendered even his passions
   and his vices subservient to this important end."

      _R. Southey,
      The Book of the Church,
      chapter 12._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.
   The suppression of the Monasteries.

   "The enormous, and in a great measure ill-gotten, opulence of
   the regular clergy had long since excited jealousy in every
   part of Europe. … A writer much inclined to partiality
   towards the monasteries says that they held [in England]
   one-fifth part of the kingdom; no insignificant patrimony. …
   As they were in general exempted from episcopal visitation,
   and intrusted with the care of their own discipline, such
   abuses had gradually prevailed and gained strength by
   connivance as we may naturally expect in corporate bodies of
   men leading almost of necessity useless and indolent lives,
   and in whom very indistinct views of moral obligations were
   combined with a great facility of violating them. The vices
   that for many ages had been supposed to haunt the monasteries,
   had certainly not left their precincts in that of Henry VIII.
   Wolsey, as papal legate, at the instigation of Fox, bishop of
   Hereford, a favourer of the Reformation, commenced a
   visitation of the professed as well as secular clergy in 1523,
   in consequence of the general complaint against their manners.
   … Full of anxious zeal for promoting education, the noblest
   part of his character, he obtained bulls from Rome suppressing
   many convents (among which was that of St. Frideswide at
   Oxford), in order to erect and endow a new college in that
   university, his favourite work, which after his fall was more
   completely established by the name of Christ Church. A few
   more were afterwards extinguished through his instigation; and
   thus the prejudice against interference with this species of
   property was somewhat worn off, and men's minds gradually
   prepared for the sweeping confiscations of Cromwell [Thomas
   Cromwell, who succeeded Wolsey as chief minister of Henry
   VIII.]. The king indeed was abundantly willing to replenish
   his exchequer by violent means, and to avenge himself on those
   who gainsayed his supremacy; but it was this able statesman
   who, prompted both by the natural appetite of ministers for
   the subjects' money and by a secret partiality towards the
   Reformation, devised and
   carried on with complete success, if not with the utmost
   prudence, a measure of no inconsiderable hazard and
   difficulty. …
{831}
   It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of
   monasteries, both to intimidate the regular clergy, and to
   excite popular indignation against them. It is not to be
   doubted that in the visitation of these foundations, under the
   direction of Cromwell, as lord vice-gerent of the king's
   ecclesiastical supremacy, many things were done in an
   arbitrary manner, and much was unfairly represented. Yet the
   reports of these visitors are so minute and specific that it
   is rather a preposterous degree of incredulity to reject their
   testimony whenever it bears hard on the regulars. … The
   dread of these visitors soon induced a number of abbots to
   make surrenders to the king; a step of very questionable
   legality. But in the next session the smaller convents, whose
   revenues were less than £200 a year, were suppressed by act of
   parliament, to the number of 376, and their estates vested in
   the crown. This summary spoliation led to the great northern
   rebellion soon afterwards," headed by Robert Ask, a gentleman
   of Yorkshire, and assuming the title of a Pilgrimage of Grace.

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 2._

   "Far from benefiting the cause of the monastic houses, the
   immediate effect of the Pilgrimage of Grace was to bring ruin
   on those monasteries which had as yet been spared. For their
   complicity or alleged complicity in it, twelve abbots were
   hanged, drawn and quartered, and their houses were seized by
   the Crown. Every means was employed by a new set of
   Commissioners to bring about the surrender of others of the
   greater abbeys. The houses were visited, and their pretended
   relics and various tricks to encourage the devotion of the
   people were exposed. Surrenders went rapidly on during the
   years 1537 and 1538, and it became necessary to obtain a new
   Act of Parliament to vest the property of the later surrenders
   in the Crown. … Nothing, indeed, can be more tragical than
   the way in which the greater abbeys were destroyed on
   manufactured charges and for imaginary crimes. These houses
   had been described in the first Act of Parliament as 'great
   and honourable,' wherein 'religion was right well kept and
   observed.' Yet now they were pitilessly destroyed. A revenue
   of about £131,607 is computed to have thus come to the Crown,
   while the movables are valued at £400,000. How was this vast
   sum of money expended?

   (1) By the Act for the suppression of the greater monasteries
   the King was empowered to erect six new sees, with their deans
   and chapters, namely, Westminster, Oxford, Chester,
   Gloucester, Bristol and Peterborough. …

   (2) Some monasteries were turned into collegiate churches, and
   many of the abbey churches … were assigned as parish
   churches.

   (3) Some grammar schools were erected.

   (4) A considerable sum is said to have been spent in making
   roads and in fortifying the coasts of the Channel.

   (5) But by far the greater part of the monastic property
   passed into the hands of the nobility and gentry, either by
   purchase at very easy rates, or by direct gift from the Crown.
   …

   The monks and nuns ejected from the monasteries had small
   pensions assigned to them, which are said to have been
   regularly paid; but to many of them the sudden return into a
   world with which they had become utterly unacquainted, and in
   which they had no part to play, was a terrible hardship, …
   greatly increased by the Six Article Law, which … made the
   marriage of the secularized 'religious' illegal under heavy
   penalties."

      _G. G. Perry,
      History of the Reformation in England,
      chapter 4._

   "The religious bodies, instead of uniting in their common
   defence, seem to have awaited singly their fate with the
   apathy of despair. A few houses only, through the agency of
   their friends, sought to purchase the royal favour with offers
   of money and lands; but the rapacity of the king refused to
   accept a part when the whole was at his mercy."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 6, chapter 4._

   Some of the social results of the suppression "may be summed
   up in a few words. The creation of a large class of poor to
   whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime; the division
   of class from class, the rich mounting up to place and power,
   the poor sinking to lower depths; destruction of custom as a
   check upon the exactions of landlords; the loss by the poor of
   those foundations at schools and universities intended for
   their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical tithes
   into the hands of lay owners."

      _F. A. Gasquet,
      Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries,
      volume 2, page 523._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1536-1543.
   Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn.
   Her successors, the later wives of Henry VIII.

   Anne Boleyn had been secretly married to the king in January,
   1533, and had been crowned on Whitsunday of that year. "The
   princess Elizabeth, the only surviving child, was born on the
   7th of September following. … The death of Catherine, which
   happened at Kimbolton on the 29th of January, 1536, seemed to
   leave queen Anne in undisturbed possession of her splendid
   seat." But the fickle king had now "cast his affections on
   Jane Seymour, the daughter of Sir John Seymour, a young lady
   then of the Queen's bed-chamber, as Anne herself had been in
   that of Catherine." Having lost her charms in the eyes of the
   lustful despot who had wedded her, her influence was gone—
   and her safety. Charges were soon brought against the
   unfortunate woman, a commission (her own father included in
   it) appointed to inquire into her alleged misdeeds, and "on
   the 10th of May an indictment for high treason was found by
   the grand jury of Westminster against the Lady Anne, Queen of
   England; Henry Norris, groom of the stole; Sir Francis Weston
   and William Brereton, gentlemen of the privy chamber; and Mark
   Smeaton, a performer on musical instruments, and a person 'of
   low degree,' promoted to be a groom of the chamber for his
   skill in the fine art which he professed. It charges the queen
   with having, by all sorts of bribes, gifts, caresses, and
   impure blandishments, which are described with unblushing
   coarseness in the barbarous Latinity of the indictment,
   allured these members of the royal household into a course of
   criminal connection with her, which had been carried on for
   three years. It included also George Boleyn viscount Rochford,
   the brother of Anne, as enticed by the same lures and snares
   with the rest of the accused, so as to have become the
   accomplice of his sister, by sharing her treachery and
   infidelity to the king. It is hard to believe that Anne could
   have dared to lead a life so unnaturally dissolute, without
   such vices being more early and very generally known in a
   watchful and adverse court.
{832}
   It is still more improbable that she should in every instance
   be the seducer. … Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were
   tried before a commission of oyer and terminer at Westminster,
   on the 12th of May, two days after the bill against them was
   found. They all, except Smeaton, firmly denied their guilt to
   the last moment. On Smeaton's confession it must be observed
   that we know not how it was obtained, how far it extended, or
   what were the conditions of it. … On the 12th of May, the
   four commoners were condemned to die. Their sentence was
   carried into effect amidst the plaints of the bystanders. …
   On the 15th of May, queen Anne and her brother Rochford were
   tried." The place of trial was in the Tower, "which concealed
   from the public eye whatever might be wanting in justice."
   Condemnation duly followed, and the unhappy queen was executed
   May 19, 1536. The king lost little time in wedding Jane
   Seymour. "She died in childbed of Edward VI. on the 13th of
   October, 1537. The next choice made by or for Henry, who
   remained a widower for the period of more than two years," was
   the "princess Anne, sister of the duke of Cleves, a
   considerable prince on the lower Rhine. … The pencil of
   Holbein was employed to paint this lady for the king, who,
   pleased by the execution, gave the flattering artist credit
   for a faithful likeness. He met her at Dover, and almost
   immediately betrayed his disappointment. Without descending
   into disgusting particulars, it is necessary to state that,
   though the marriage was solemnised, the king treated the
   princess of Cleves as a friend." At length, by common action
   of an obsequious parliament and a more obsequious convocation
   of the church, the marriage was declared to be annulled, for
   reasons not specified. The consent of the repudiated wife was
   "insured by a liberal income of £3,000 a year, and she lived
   for 16 years in England with the title of princess Anne of
   Cleves. … This annulment once more displayed the triumph of
   an English lady over a foreign princess." The lady who now
   captivated the brutally amorous monarch was lady Catherine
   Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, who became queen on the
   8th of August, 1540. In the following November, the king
   received such information of lady Catherine's dissolute life
   before marriage "as immediately caused a rigid inquiry into
   her behaviour. … The confessions of Catherine and of lady
   Rochford, upon which they were attainted in parliament, and
   executed in the Tower on the 14th of February, are not said to
   have been at any time questioned. … On the 10th of July,
   1543, Henry wedded Catherine Parr, the widow of Lord Latimer,
   a lady of mature age," who survived him.

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of England (L. L. C.),
      volume 2, chapters 7-8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Friedmann,
      Ann Boleyn._

      _H. W. Herbert,
      Memoirs of Henry VIII. and his Six Wives._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
   The Reformation checked.
   The Six Articles.

   "Yielding to the pressure of circumstances, he [Henry VIII.]
   had allowed the Reformers to go further than he really
   approved. The separation from the Church of Rome, the
   absorption by the Crown of the powers of the Papacy, the unity
   of authority over both Church and State centred in himself, had
   been his objects. In doctrinal matters he clung to the Church
   of which he had once been the champion. He had gained his
   objects because he had the feeling of the nation with him. In
   his eagerness he had even countenanced some steps of doctrinal
   reform. But circumstances had changed. … Without detriment
   to his position he could follow his natural inclinations. He
   listened, therefore, to the advice of the reactionary party,
   of which Norfolk was the head. They were full of bitterness
   against the upstart Cromwell, and longed to overthrow him as
   they had overthrown Wolsey. The first step in their triumph
   was the bill of the Six Articles, carried in the Parliament of
   1539. These laid down and fenced round with extraordinary
   severity the chief points of the Catholic religion at that
   time questioned by the Protestants. The bill enacted, first,
   'that the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ were present
   in the Blessed Sacrament,' and that 'after consecration there
   remained no substance of bread and wine, nor any other but the
   substance of Christ'; whoever, by word or writing, denied this
   article was a heretic, and to be burned. Secondly, the
   Communion in both kinds was not necessary, both body and blood
   being present in each element; thirdly, priests might not
   marry; fourthly, vows of chastity by man or woman ought to be
   observed; fifthly, private masses ought to be continued;
   sixthly, auricular confession must be retained. Whoever wrote
   or spoke against these … Articles, on the first offence his
   property was forfeited; on the second offence he was a felon,
   and was put to death. Under this 'whip with six strings' the
   kingdom continued for the rest of the reign. The Bishops at
   first made wild work with it. Five hundred persons are said to
   have been arrested in a fortnight; the king had twice to
   interfere and grant pardons. It is believed that only
   twenty-eight persons actually suffered death under it."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      volume 2, page 411._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Blunt,
      Reformation of the Church of England,
      volume 1, chapter 8-9._

      _S. H. Burke,
      Men and Women of the English Reformation,
      volume 2, pages 17-24._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1542-1547.
   Alliance with Charles V. against Francis I.
   Capture and restoration of Boulogne.
   Treaty of Guines.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
   The wooing of Mary Queen of Scots.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1547.
   Accession of King Edward VI.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.
   The completing of the Reformation.

   Henry VIII., dying on the 28th of January, 1547, was succeeded
   by his son Edward,—child of Jane Seymour,—then only nine
   years old. By the will of his father, the young king (Edward
   VI.) was to attain his majority at eighteen, and the
   government of his kingdom, in the meantime, was entrusted to a
   body of sixteen executors, with a second body of twelve
   councillors to assist with their advice. "But the first act of
   the executors and counsellors was to depart from the
   destination of the late king in a material article. No sooner
   were they met, than it was suggested that the government would
   lose its dignity for want of some head who might represent the
   royal majesty." The suggestion was opposed by none except the
   chancellor, Wriothesley,—soon afterwards raised to the
   peerage as Earl of Southampton. "It being therefore agreed to
   name a protector, the choice fell of course on the Earl of
   Hertford [afterwards Duke of Somerset], who, as he was the
   king's maternal uncle, was strongly interested in his safety."
{833}
   The protector soon manifested an ambition to exercise his
   almost royal authority without any constraint, and, having
   found means to remove his principal opponent, Southampton,
   from the chancellorship, and to send him into disgrace, he
   procured a patent from the infant king which gave him
   unbounded power. With this power in his hand he speedily
   undertook to carry the work of church reform far beyond the
   intentions of Henry VIII. "The extensive authority and
   imperious character of Henry had retained the partisans of
   both religions in subjection; but upon his demise, the hopes
   of the Protestants, and the fears of the Catholics began to
   revive, and the zeal of these parties produced every where
   disputes and animosities, the usual preludes to more fatal
   divisions. The protector had long been regarded as a secret
   partisan of the reformers; and being now freed from restraint,
   he scrupled not to discover his intention of correcting all
   abuses in the ancient religion, and of adopting still more of
   the Protestant innovations. He took care that all persons
   intrusted with the king's education should be attached to the
   same principles; and as the young prince discovered a zeal for
   every kind of literature, especially the theological, far
   beyond his tender years, all men foresaw, in the course of his
   reign, the total abolition of the Catholic faith in England;
   and they early began to declare themselves in favour of those
   tenets which were likely to become in the end entirely
   prevalent. After Southhampton's fall, few members of the
   council seemed to retain any attachment to the Romish
   communion; and most of the counsellors appeared even sanguine
   in forwarding the progress of the reformation. The riches
   which most of them had acquired from the spoils of the clergy,
   induced them to widen the breach between England and Rome; and by
   establishing a contrariety of speculative tenets, as well as
   of discipline and worship, to render a coalition with the
   mother church altogether impracticable. Their rapacity, also,
   the chief source of their reforming spirit, was excited by the
   prospect of pillaging the secular, as they had already done
   the regular clergy; and they knew, that while any share of the
   old principles remained, or any regard to the ecclesiastics,
   they could never hope to succeed in that enterprise. The
   numerous and burdensome superstitions with which the Romish
   church was loaded had thrown many of the reformers, by the
   spirit of opposition, into an enthusiastic strain of devotion;
   and all rites, ceremonies, pomp, order, and extreme
   observances were zealously proscribed by them, as hindrances
   to their spiritual contemplations, and obstructions to their
   immediate converse with heaven."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      volume 3, chapter 34._

   "'This year' [1547] says a contemporary, 'the Archbishop of
   Canterbury [Cranmer] did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall
   of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since England was
   a Christian country.' This significant act was followed by a
   rapid succession of sweeping changes. The legal prohibitions
   of Lollardry were removed; the Six Articles were repealed; a
   royal injunction removed all pictures and images from the
   churches; priests were permitted to marry; the new communion
   which had taken the place of the mass was ordered to be
   administered in both kinds, and in the English tongue; an
   English Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy, which with slight
   alterations is still used in the Church of England, replaced
   the missal and breviary, from which its contents are mainly
   drawn; a new catechism embodied the doctrines of Cranmer and
   his friends; and a Book of Homilies compiled in the same sense
   was appointed to be read in churches. … The power of
   preaching was restricted by the issue of licenses only to the
   friends of the Primate. … The assent of the nobles about the
   Court was won by the suppression of chantries and religious
   guilds, and by glutting their greed with the last spoils of
   the Church. German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to
   stamp out the wider popular discontent which broke out in the
   East, in the West, and in the Midland counties. … The rule
   of the upstart nobles who formed the Council of Regency became
   simply a rule of terror. 'The greater part of the people,' one
   of their creatures, Cecil, avowed, 'is not in favour of
   defending this cause, but of aiding its adversaries, the
   greater part of the nobles who absent themselves from court,
   all the bishops save three or four, almost all the judges and
   lawyers, almost all the justices of the peace, the priests who
   can move their flocks any way; for the whole of the commonalty
   is in such a state of irritation that it will easily follow
   any stir towards change.' But with their triumph over the
   revolt, Cranmer and his colleagues advanced yet more boldly in
   the career of innovation. … The Forty-two Articles of
   Religion, which were now [1552] introduced, though since
   reduced by omissions to thirty-nine, have remained to this day
   the formal standard of doctrine in the English Church."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 7, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Strype,
      Memorials of Cranmer,
      book 2._

      _G. Burnet,
      History of the Reformation of Church of England,
      volume 2, book 1._

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of England,
      book 2, chapter 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1548.
   First Act for encouragement of Newfoundland fisheries.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
   The right of succession to the throne,
   on the death of Edward VI.

   "If Henry VII. be considered as the stock of a new dynasty, it
   is clear that on mere principles of hereditary right, the
   crown would descend, first, to the issue of Henry VIII.;
   secondly, to those of [his elder sister] Margaret Tudor, queen
   of Scots; thirdly, to those of [his younger sister] Mary
   Tudor, queen of France. The title of Edward was on all
   principles equally undisputed; but Mary and Elizabeth might be
   considered as excluded by the sentence of nullity, which had
   been pronounced in the case of Catharine and in that of Anne
   Boleyn, both which sentences had been confirmed in parliament.
   They had been expressly pronounced to be illegitimate
   children. Their hereditary right of succession seemed thus to
   be taken away, and their pretensions rested solely on the
   conditional settlement of the crown on them, made by their
   father's will, in pursuance of authority granted to him by act
   of parliament. After Elizabeth Henry had placed the
   descendants of Mary, queen of France, passing by the progeny
   of his eldest sister Margaret. Mary of France, by her second
   marriage with Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, had two
   daughters,—lady Frances, who wedded Henry Grey, marquis of
   Dorset, created duke of Suffolk; and lady Elinor, who espoused
   Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland.
{834}
   Henry afterwards settled the crown by his will on the heirs of
   these two ladies successively, passing over his nieces
   themselves in silence. Northumberland obtained the hand of
   lady Jane Grey, the eldest daughter of Grey duke of Suffolk,
   by lady Frances Brandon, for lord Guilford Dudley, the
   admiral's son. The marriage was solemnised in May, 1553, and
   the fatal right of succession claimed by the house of Suffolk
   devolved on the excellent and unfortunate lady Jane."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of England,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
   Accession of Queen Mary.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
   The doubtful conflict of religions.

   "Great as was the number of those whom conviction or self
   interest enlisted under the Protestant banner, it appears
   plain that the Reformation moved on with too precipitate a
   step for the majority. The new doctrines prevailed in London,
   in many large towns, and in the eastern counties. But in the
   north and west of England, the body of the people were
   strictly Catholics. The clergy, though not very scrupulous
   about conforming to the innovations, were generally averse to
   most of them. And, in spite of the church lands, I imagine
   that most of the nobility, if not the gentry, inclined to the
   same persuasion. … An historian, whose bias was certainly
   not unfavourable to Protestantism [Burnet, iii. 190, 196]
   confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the
   aversion of the people towards reformation, and even intimates
   that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the
   bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old
   superstition. This is somewhat an humiliating admission, that
   the protestant faith was imposed upon our ancestors by a
   foreign army. … It is certain that the re-establishment of
   popery on Mary's accession must have been acceptable to a
   large part, or perhaps to the majority, of the nation."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "Eight weeks and upwards passed between the proclaiming of
   Mary queen and the Parliament by her assembled; during which
   time two religions were together set on foot, Protestantism
   and Popery; the former hoping to be continued, the latter
   labouring to be restored. … No small justling was there
   betwixt the zealous promoters of these contrary religions. The
   Protestants had possession on their side, and the protection
   of the laws lately made by King Edward, and still standing in
   free and full force unrepealed. … The Papists put their
   ceremonies in execution, presuming on the queen's private
   practice and public countenance. … Many which were neuters
   before, conceiving to which side the queen inclined, would not
   expect, but prevent her authority in alteration: so that
   superstition generally got ground in the kingdom. Thus it is
   in the evening twilight, wherein light and darkness at first
   may seem very equally matched, but the latter within little
   time doth solely prevail."

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 8, section 1, ¶ 5._

      ALSO IN:
      J. II. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England,
      volume 1; chapters 8-9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.
   Wyat's Insurrection.

   Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain was opposed with
   great bitterness of popular feeling, especially in London and
   its neighborhood. Risings were undertaken in Kent, Devonshire,
   and the Midland counties, intended for the frustration of the
   marriage scheme; but they were ill-planned and soon
   suppressed. That in Kent, led by Sir Thomas Wyat, threatened
   to be formidable at first, and the Queen's troops retreated
   before it. Wyat, however, lost his opportunity for securing
   London, by delays, and his followers dispersed. He was taken
   prisoner and executed. "Four hundred persons are said to have
   suffered for this rebellion."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 36._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
   The restoration of Romanism.
   The persecution of Protestants by Queen Mary.

   "An attempt was made, by authority of King Edward's will, to
   set aside both his sisters from the succession, and raise Lady
   Jane Grey to the throne, who had lately been married to one of
   Northumberland's sons. This was Northumberland's doing; he was
   actuated by ambition, and the other members of the government
   assented to it, believing, like the late young King, that it
   was necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith.
   Cranmer opposed the measure, but yielded. … But the
   principles of succession were in fact well ascertained at that
   time, and, what was of more consequence, they were established
   in public opinion. Nor could the intended change be supported
   on the ground of religion, for popular feeling was decidedly
   against the Reformation. Queen Mary obtained possession of her
   rightful throne without the loss of a single life, so
   completely did the nation acknowledge her claim; and an after
   insurrection, rashly planned and worse conducted, served only
   to hasten the destruction of the Lady Jane and her husband.
   … If any person may be excused for hating the Reformation,
   it was Mary. She regarded it as having arisen in this country
   from her mother's wrongs, and enabled the King to complete an
   iniquitous and cruel divorce. It had exposed her to
   inconvenience, and even danger, under her father's reign, to
   vexation and restraint under her brother; and, after having
   been bastardized in consequence of it, … an attempt had been
   made to deprive her of the inheritance, because she continued
   to profess the Roman Catholic faith. … Had the religion of
   the country been settled, she might have proved a good and
   beneficent, as well as conscientious, queen. But she delivered
   her conscience to the direction of cruel men; and, believing
   it her duty to act up to the worst principles of a persecuting
   Church, boasted that she was a virgin sent by God to ride and
   tame the people of England. … The people did not wait till
   the laws of King Edward were repealed; the Romish doctrines
   were preached, and in some places the Romish clergy took
   possession of the churches, turned out the incumbents, and
   performed mass in jubilant anticipation of their approaching
   triumph. What course the new Queen would pursue had never been
   doubtful; and as one of her first acts had been to make
   Gardiner Chancellor, it was evident that a fiery persecution
   was at hand. Many who were obnoxious withdrew in time, some
   into Scotland, and more into Switzerland and the Protestant
   parts of Germany. Cranmer advised others to fly; but when his
   friends entreated him to preserve himself by the like
   precaution, he replied, that it was not fitting for him to
   desert his post. … The Protestant Bishops were soon
   dispossessed of their sees; the marriages which the Clergy and
   Religioners had contracted were declared unlawful, and their
   children bastardized.
{835}
   The heads of the reformed Clergy, having been brought forth to
   hold disputations, for the purpose rather of intimidating than
   of convincing them, had been committed to different prisons,
   and after these preparatories the fiery process began."

      _R. Southey,
      Book of the Church,
      chapter 14._

   "The total number of those who suffered in this persecution,
   from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September,
   1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related,
   in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the
   relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from
   each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general
   accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are
   estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284.
   Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is
   probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called
   'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of
   those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine
   and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive
   amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years,
   it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in
   its earliest year."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of England,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

   "Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and
   baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious,
   although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never
   listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was
   danger that they would be struck in return. … They took the
   weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the
   husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and
   boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that
   which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into
   the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the
   articles of their creed; and of these they made their
   burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and
   when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to
   rot."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 24._

   Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary
   disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from
   Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the
   Spanish court so steadily favoured. … Many are said to have
   become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the
   throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Collier,
      Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
      part 2, book 5._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 7, chapter 2-3._

      _J. Fox,
      Book of Martyrs._

      _P. Heylyn,
      Ecclesia Restaurata,
      volume 2._

      _J. Strype,
      Memorials of Cranmer,
      book 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
   Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
   Loss of Calais.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558.
   Accession of Queen Elizabeth.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
   The Age of Elizabeth:
   Recovery of Protestantism.

   "The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
   to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
   suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
   But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
   by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
   Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
   immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
   She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
   of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
   Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
   persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
   gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
   religion. … Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
   the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
   the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
   the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
   in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
   Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
   published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
   without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
   orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
   care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
   party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
   part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
   and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
   published injunctions that all churches should conform
   themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
   host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
   which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
   material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
   concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
   foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
   therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
   with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
   prevailed on to perform the ceremony. … Elizabeth, though
   she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
   delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
   Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
   gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
   have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
   Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
   particular which she could desire of them. … The first bill
   brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
   disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
   the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
   and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
   much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
   supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
   denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
   the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
   been exercised by her father and brother. … By this act, the
   crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
   even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
   power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
   all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
   ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. … A law
   was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
   Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
   bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
   chapters. … A solemn and public disputation was held during
   this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
   divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
   The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
   sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
   triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
   refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
{836}
   Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
   last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
   bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
   of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
   who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
   absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
   thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
   clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
   commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
   whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
   objections."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 38, pages 375-380 (volume 3)._

   "Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a
   Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations
   would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann
   Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to
   regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of
   Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon,
   however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own
   despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful
   reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or
   excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to
   choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance
   between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently
   judged as it is approached from the religious or the political
   side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise
   come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to
   manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming
   the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to
   the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and
   often finding their way to her scaffolds,—what are they but
   the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a
   proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is
   excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to
   keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church,
   whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to
   weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to
   make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The
   next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic,
   and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and
   European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the
   traitorous subtlety was all Catholic—the keenness of
   discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then,
   too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself
   broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was
   still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was
   to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom
   which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the
   instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of
   the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to
   die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were
   peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon
   the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all
   his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores.
   'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did
   much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone
   to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to
   hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more
   of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."

      _C. Beard,
      Hibbert Lectures, 1883: The Reformation,
      lecture 9._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
   The Age of Elizabeth:
   The Queen's chief councillors.

   "Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already
   officially experienced during three reigns, though still
   young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last—that
   is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in
   that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the
   Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began
   their work together. He was not long in discovering that there
   was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever
   brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of
   unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two
   arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were
   pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also
   the good sense to select the wisest and most learned
   ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and
   chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both
   of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been
   Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary—a position far
   from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of
   men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which
   exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the
   persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with
   a sublime impartiality. … It was under the advice of Cecil
   and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her
   famous settlement or Establishment of religion."

      _M. Burrows,
      Commentaries on the History of England,
      book 2, chapter 17._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
   The Age of Elizabeth: Parliament.

   "The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
   very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
   constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
   even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
   as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
   and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
   represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
   power, … there was still a considerable party, sometimes
   carrying the house along with them, who with patient
   resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
   assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
   contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
   a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
   remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
   Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
   leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
   of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
   power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
   kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
   to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
   manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
   were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
   representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
   discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
   first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
   evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
   ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
   remain.
{837}
   The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
   common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
   these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
   strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
   gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
   attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
   from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
   court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
   formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
   to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
   exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
   as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
   be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
   in the other."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
   The Age of Elizabeth: Literature.

   "The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any
   other in our history by a number of great men, famous in
   different ways, and whose names have come down to us with
   unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars,
   poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker,
   and—high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in
   our mouths—Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson,
   Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her
   long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts,
   were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human
   nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same
   general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark
   of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great
   Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never
   shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than
   at this period. Our writers and great men had something in
   them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were
   not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or
   Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of
   themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth
   and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel,
   and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of
   affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent
   race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with
   none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy.
   … For such an extraordinary combination and development of
   fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek
   for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the
   circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in
   local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned
   that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages
   placed within their reach. … The first cause I shall
   mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the
   Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave
   a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
   inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
   throughout Europe. … The translation of the Bible was the
   chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret
   spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had
   been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions
   of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers
   (such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave
   them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt
   within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by
   giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. … The
   immediate use or application that was made of religion to
   subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious
   ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was
   made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about
   the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek
   and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain
   and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown
   open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. …
   What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this
   period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of
   voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to
   arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery
   waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the
   dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown
   worlds. … Again, the heroic and martial spirit which
   breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable
   activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was
   not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished
   forever. … Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a
   unity and common direction to all these causes, was the
   natural genius of the country, which was strong in these
   writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of
   islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we
   would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to
   ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we
   have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from
   others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets
   and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads
   and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world,
   and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a
   battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and
   it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it.
   Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and
   character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of
   it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion,
   with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think,
   and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in
   masses. … We may be accused of grossness, but not of
   flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want
   of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature.
   Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal
   and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one
   uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of
   incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of
   beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good
   indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies
   in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which
   is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for
   French rules and French models."

      _W. Hazlitt,
      Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
      lecture 1._

{838}

   "Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had
   already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical
   erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought.
   Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and
   translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and
   assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means
   much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and
   dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of
   contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of
   Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were
   introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The
   age favoured translation, and English readers before the close
   of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan
   library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of
   ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances
   sufficiently account for the richness and variety of
   Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points
   which must strike every student of that literature—its native
   freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan
   literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance
   of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness
   under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its
   energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of
   the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance.
   They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting,
   transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating
   the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey
   and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open
   to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the
   past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic
   revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the
   blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to
   be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
      (Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
   The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
   High Commission.

   "When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559,
   Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the
   clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded
   to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass,
   and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities
   signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the
   constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as
   Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the
   steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and
   Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except
   the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a
   consultation was ordered between the representatives of both
   sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had
   been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the
   realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist
   champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it
   took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed
   the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her
   own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme
   Governor,' of the Church of England."

      _M. Burrows,
      Commentaries on the History of England,
      book 2, chapter 17._

   This first Parliament of Elizabeth passed two memorable acts
   of great importance in English history,—the Act of Supremacy
   and the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer. "The former is
   entitled 'An act for restoring to the crown the ancient
   jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; and
   for abolishing foreign power.' It is the same for substance
   with the 25th of Henry VIII. … but the commons incorporated
   several other bills into it; for besides the title of 'Supreme
   Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal,' which is
   restored to the Queen, the act revives those laws of King
   Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. which had been repealed in the
   late reign. It forbids all appeals to Rome, and exonerates the
   subjects from all exactions and impositions heretofore paid to
   that court; and as it revives King Edward's laws, it repeals a
   severe act made in the late reign for punishing heresy. …
   'Moreover, all persons in any public employs, whether civil or
   ecclesiastical, are obliged to take an oath in recognition of
   the Queen's right to the crown, and of her supremacy in all
   causes ecclesiastical and civil, on penalty of forfeiting all
   their promotions in the church, and of being declared
   incapable of holding any public office.' … Further, 'The act
   forbids all writing, printing, teaching, or preaching, and all
   other deeds or acts whereby any foreign jurisdiction over
   these realms is defended, upon pain that they and their
   abettors, being thereof convicted, shall for the first offence
   forfeit their goods and chattels; … spiritual persons shall
   lose their benefices, and all ecclesiastical preferments; for
   the second offence they shall incur the penalties of a
   præmunire; and the third offence shall be deemed high
   treason.' There is a remarkable clause in this act, which gave
   rise to a new court, called 'The Court of High Commission.'
   The words are these, 'The Queen and her successors shall have
   power, by their letters patent under the great seal, to
   assign, name, and authorize, as often as they shall think
   meet, and for as long a time as they shall please, persons
   being natural-born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise,
   under her and them, all manner of jurisdiction, privileges,
   and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical
   jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, &c., to
   visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all errors,
   heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences and enormities
   whatsoever. Provided, that they have no power to determine
   anything to be heresy, but what has been adjudged to be so by
   the authority of the canonical scripture, or by the first four
   general councils, or any of them; or by any other general
   council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express
   and plain words of canonical scripture; or such as shall
   hereafter be declared to be heresy by the high court of
   parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation.'
   Upon the authority of this clause the Queen appointed a
   certain number of 'Commissioners' for ecclesiastical causes,
   who exercised the same power that had been lodged in the hands
   of one vicegerent in the reign of King Henry VIII. And how
   sadly they abused their power in this and the two next reigns
   will appear in the sequel of this history. They did not
   trouble themselves much with the express words of scripture,
   or the four first general councils, but entangled their
   prisoners with oaths ex-officio, and the inextricable mazes of
   the popish canon law. … The papists being vanquished, the
   next point was to unite the reformed among themselves. …
   Though all the reformers were of one faith, yet they were far
   from agreeing about discipline and ceremonies, each party
   being for settling the church according to their own model. …
{839}
   The Queen … therefore appointed a committee of divines to
   review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular
   it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker,
   Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas
   Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to
   strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to
   make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of
   Christ in the sacraments; but not a word in favour of the
   stricter protestants. Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too
   far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes
   and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old
   popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in
   reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made
   in favour of those who now began to be called Puritans, from
   their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than
   had yet been established. … The book was presented to the
   two houses and passed into a law. … The title of the act is
   'An act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the
   Church, and administration of the Sacraments.' It was brought
   into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third
   time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and
   took place from the 24th of June 1559."

      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Burnet,
      History of the Reformation of the Church of England.,
      volume 2, book 3._

      _P. Heylyn,
      Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth, Anno 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
   Puritanism taking form.

   "The Church of England was a latitudinarian experiment, a
   contrivance to enable men of opposing creeds to live together
   without shedding each others' blood. It was not intended, and
   it was not possible, that Catholics or Protestants should find
   in its formulas all that they required. The services were
   deliberately made elastic; comprehending in the form of
   positive statement only what all Christians agreed in
   believing, while opportunities were left open by the rubric to
   vary the ceremonial according to the taste of the
   congregations. The management lay with the local authorities
   in town or parish: where the people were Catholics the
   Catholic aspect could be made prominent; where Popery was a
   bugbear, the people were not disturbed by the obtrusion of
   doctrines which they had outgrown. In itself it pleased no
   party or section. To the heated controversialist its chief
   merit was its chief defect. … Where the tendencies to Rome
   were strongest, there the extreme Reformers considered
   themselves bound to exhibit in the most marked contrast the
   unloveliness of the purer creed. It was they who furnished the
   noble element in the Church of England. It was they who had
   been its martyrs; they who, in their scorn of the world, in
   their passionate desire to consociate themselves in life and
   death to the Almighty, were able to rival in self-devotion the
   Catholic Saints. But they had not the wisdom of the serpent,
   and certainly not the harmlessness of the dove. Had they been
   let alone—had they been unharassed by perpetual threats of
   revolution and a return of the persecutions—they, too, were
   not disinclined to reason and good sense. A remarkable
   specimen survives, in an account of the Church of Northampton,
   of what English Protestantism could become under favouring
   conditions. … The fury of the times unhappily forbade the
   maintenance of this wise and prudent spirit. As the power of
   evil gathered to destroy the Church of England, a fiercer
   temper was required to combat with them, and Protestantism
   became impatient, like David, of the uniform in which it was
   sent to the battle. It would have fared ill with England had
   there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish
   veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an
   enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic
   fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of
   their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their
   harness, it was they, after all, who saved the Church which
   attempted to disown them, and with the Church saved also the
   stolid mediocrity to which the fates then and ever committed
   and commit the government of it."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 20._

   "The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been
   considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for
   serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the
   Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward VI. the
   scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great
   difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came
   to the throne, those difficulties were much increased.
   Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of
   Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant
   after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who
   were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil
   days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been
   hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate
   at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich and
   Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more
   simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church
   government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to
   their country, convinced that the reform which had been
   effected under King Edward had been far less searching and
   extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it
   was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from
   Elizabeth. Indeed, her system, wherever it differed from her
   brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were
   little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human
   authority. … Since these men could not be convinced, it was
   determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution
   produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it
   made them a faction. … The power of the discontented
   sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they
   were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and
   among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign
   of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of
   Commons. And doubtless, had our ancestors been then at liberty
   to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the
   strife between the crown and the Parliament would instantly
   have commenced. But that was no season for internal
   dissensions. … Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe
   were struggling for death or life. … Whatever might be the
   faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the
   fate of the realm and of all reformed churches was staked on
   the security of her person and on the success of her
   administration. …
{840}
   The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she
   had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she
   might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion
   might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be
   victorious by sea and land."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   "Two parties quickly evolved themselves out of the mass of
   Englishmen who held Calvinistic opinions; namely those who
   were willing to conform to the requirements of the Queen, and
   those who were not. To both is often given indiscriminately by
   historians the name of Puritan; but it seems more correct, and
   certainly is more convenient, to restrict the use of the name
   to those who are sometimes called conforming Puritans. … To
   the other party fitly belongs the name of Nonconformist. …
   It was against the Nonconformist organization that Elizabeth's
   efforts were chiefly directed. … The war began in the
   enforcement by Archbishop Parker in 1565 of the Advertisements
   as containing the minimum of ceremonial that would be
   tolerated. In 1566 the clergy of London were required to make
   the declaration of Conformity which was appended to the
   Advertisements, and thirty-seven were suspended or deprived
   for refusal. Some of the deprived ministers continued to
   conduct services and preach in spite of their deprivation, and
   so were formed the first bodies of Nonconformists, organized
   in England."

      _H. O. Wakeman,
      The Church and the Puritans,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Tulloch,
      English Puritanism and its Leaders,
      introduction._

      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapters 8-10 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1562-1567.
   Hawkins' slave-trading voyages to America.
   First English enterprise in the New World.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
   The first naming of the Puritans.

   "The English bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by their
   canons, began to show their authority in urging the clergy of
   their dioceses to subscribe to the Liturgy, ceremonies and
   discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same were
   branded with the odious name of Puritans. A name which in this
   notion first began in this year [A. D. 1564]; and the grief
   had not been great if it had ended in the same. The
   philosopher banisheth the term, (which is Polysæmon), that is
   subject to several senses, out of the predicaments, as
   affording too much covert for cavil by the latitude thereof.
   On the same account could I wish that the word Puritan were
   banished common discourse, because so various in the
   acceptations thereof. We need not speak of the ancient Cathari
   or primitive Puritans, sufficiently known by their heretical
   opinions. Puritan here was taken for the opposers of the
   hierarchy and church service, as resenting of superstition.
   But profane mouths quickly improved this nickname, therewith
   on every occasion to abuse pious people; some of them so far
   from opposing the Liturgy, that they endeavoured (according to
   the instructions thereof in the preparative to the Confession)
   'to accompany the minister with a pure heart,' and laboured
   (as it is in the Absolution) 'for a life pure and holy.' We
   will, therefore, decline the word to prevent exceptions;
   which, if casually slipping from our pen, the reader knoweth
   that only nonconformists are thereby intended."

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 9, section 1._

   "For in this year [1565] it was that the Zuinglian or
   Calvinian faction began to be first known by the name of
   Puritans, if Genebrard, Gualter, and Spondanus (being all of
   them right good chronologers) be not mistaken in the time.
   Which name hath ever since been appropriate to them, because
   of their pretending to a greater purity in the service of God
   than was held forth unto them (as they gave out) in the Common
   Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the rites and
   usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the
   constitution of the Church of England."

      _P. Heylyn,
      Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth,
      Anno 7, section 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1568.
   Detention and imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1569.
   Quarrel with the Spanish governor of the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1580.
   Drake's piratical warfare with Spain and his famous voyage.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
   Queen Elizabeth's treatment of the Roman Catholics.
   Persecution of the Seminary Priests and the Jesuits.

   "Camden and many others have asserted that by systematic
   connivance the Roman Catholics enjoyed a pretty free use of
   their religion for the first fourteen years of Elizabeth's
   reign. But this is not reconcilable to many passages in
   Strype's collections. We find abundance of persons harassed
   for recusancy, that is, for not attending the protestant
   church, and driven to insincere promises of conformity. Others
   were dragged before ecclesiastical commissions for harbouring
   priests, or for sending money to those who had fled beyond
   sea. … A great majority both of clergy and laity yielded to
   the times; and of these temporizing conformists it cannot be
   doubted that many lost by degrees all thought of returning to
   their ancient fold. But others, while they complied with
   exterior ceremonies, retained in their private devotions their
   accustomed mode of worship. … Priests … travelled the
   country in various disguises, to keep alive a flame which the
   practice of outward conformity was calculated to extinguish.
   There was not a county throughout England, says a Catholic
   historian, where several of Mary's clergy did not reside, and
   were commonly called the old priests. They served as chaplains
   in private families. By stealth, at the dead of night, in
   private chambers, in the secret lurking places of an
   ill-peopled country, with all the mystery that subdues the
   imagination, with all the mutual trust that invigorates
   constancy, these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their
   solemn rites, more impressive in such concealment than if
   surrounded by all their former splendour. … It is my
   thorough conviction that the persecution, for it can obtain no
   better name, carried on against the English Catholics, however
   it might serve to delude the government by producing an
   apparent conformity, could not but excite a spirit of
   disloyalty in many adherents of that faith. Nor would it be
   safe to assert that a more conciliating policy would have
   altogether disarmed their hostility, much less laid at rest
   those busy hopes of the future, which the peculiar
   circumstances of Elizabeth's reign had a tendency to produce."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3._

{841}

   "The more vehement Catholics had withdrawn from the country,
   on account of the dangers which there beset them. They had
   taken refuge in the Low Countries, and there Allen, one of the
   chief among them, had established a seminary at Douay, for the
   purpose of keeping up a supply of priests in England. To Douay
   numbers of young Englishmen from Oxford continually flocked.
   The establishment had been broken up by Requescens, and
   removed to Rheims, and a second college of the same
   description was established at Rome. From these two centres of
   intrigue numerous enthusiastic young men constantly repaired
   to England, and in the disguise of laymen carried on their
   priestly work and attempted to revive the Romanist religion.
   But abler and better disciplined workmen were now wanted.
   Allen and his friends therefore opened negotiations with
   Mercuriano, the head of the Jesuit order, in which many
   Englishmen had enrolled themselves. In 1580, as part of a
   great combined Catholic effort, a regular Jesuit mission,
   under two priests, Campion and Parsons, was despatched to
   England. … The new missionaries were allowed to say that
   that part of the Bull [of excommunication issued against
   Elizabeth] which pronounced censures upon those who clung to
   their allegiance applied to heretics only, that Catholics
   might profess themselves loyal until the time arrived for
   carrying the Bull into execution; in other words, they were
   permitted to be traitors at heart while declaring themselves
   loyal subjects. This explanation of the Bull was of itself
   sufficient to justify severity on the part of the government.
   It was impossible henceforward to separate Roman Catholicism
   from disloyalty. Proclamations were issued requiring English
   parents to summon their children from abroad, and declaring
   that to harbour Jesuit priests was to support rebels. …
   Early in December several priests were apprehended and closely
   examined, torture being occasionally used for the purpose. In
   view of the danger which these examinations disclosed,
   stringent measures were taken. Attendance at church was
   rendered peremptorily necessary. Parliament was summoned in
   the beginning of 1581 and laws passed against the action of
   the Jesuits. … Had Elizabeth been conscious of the full
   extent of the plot against her, had she known the intention of
   the Guises [then dominant in France] to make a descent upon
   England in co-operation with Spain, and the many ramifications
   of the plot in her own country, it is reasonable to suppose
   that she would have been forced at length to take decided
   measures. But in ignorance of the abyss opening before her
   feet, she continued for some time longer her old temporizing
   policy." At last, in November, 1583, the discovery of a plot
   for the assassination of the queen, and the arrest of one
   Throgmorton, whose papers and whose confession were of
   startling import, brought to light the whole plan and extent
   of the conspiracy. "Some of her Council urged her at once to
   take a straightforward step, to make common cause with the
   Protestants of Scotland and the Netherlands, and to bid
   defiance to Spain. To this honest step, she as usual could not
   bring herself, but strong measures were taken in England.
   Great numbers of Jesuits and seminary priests were apprehended
   and executed, suspected magistrates removed, and those
   Catholic Lords whose treachery might have been fatal to her
   ejected from their places of authority and deprived of
   influence."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, pages 546-549._

   "That the conspiracy with which these men were charged was a
   fiction cannot be doubted. They had come to England under a
   prohibition to take any part in secular concerns, and with the
   sole view of exercising the spiritual functions of the
   priesthood. … At the same time it must be owned that the
   answers which six of them gave to the queries were far from
   satisfactory. Their hesitation to deny the opposing power (a
   power then indeed maintained by the greater number of divines
   in Catholic kingdoms) rendered their loyalty very
   problematical, in case of an attempt to enforce the bull by
   any foreign prince. It furnished sufficient reason to watch
   their conduct with an eye of jealousy … but could not
   justify their execution for an imaginary offence."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 3._

   "It is probable that not many more than 200 Catholics were
   executed, as such, in Elizabeth's reign, and this was ten
   score too many. … 'Dod reckons them at 191; Milner has
   raised the list to 204. Fifteen of these, according to him,
   suffered for denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising
   their ministry, and the rest for being reconciled to the
   Romish church. Many others died of hardships in prison, and
   many were deprived of their property. There seems,
   nevertheless [says Hallam], to be good reason for doubting
   whether anyone who was executed might not have saved his life
   by explicitly denying the Pope's power to depose the Queen.'"

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 17, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Foley,
      Records of the English Province of the Society of
      Jesus._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1574.
   Emancipation of villeins on the royal domains.
   Practical end of serfdom.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1575.
   Sovereignty of Holland and Zealand offered to Queen Elizabeth,
   and declined.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1581.
   Marriage proposals of the Duke of Anjou declined by Queen
   Elizabeth.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1583.
   The expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
   Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1584-1590.
   Raleigh's colonizing attempts in America.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1586.
   Leicester in the Low Countries.
   Queen Elizabeth's treacherous dealing with the
   struggling Netherlanders.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
   Mary Queen of Scots and the Catholic conspiracies.
   Her trial and execution.

   "Maddened by persecution, by the hopelessness of rebellion
   within or deliverance from without, the fiercer Catholics
   listened to schemes of assassination, to which the murder of
   William of Orange lent at the moment a terrible significance.
   The detection of Somerville, a fanatic who had received the
   host before setting out for London 'to shoot the Queen with
   his dagg,' was followed by measures of natural severity, by
   the flight and arrest of Catholic gentry, by a vigourous
   purification of the Inns of Court, where a few Catholics
   lingered, and by the dispatch of fresh batches of priests to
   the block. The trial and death of Parry, a member of the House
   of Commons who had served in the Queen's household, on a
   similar charge, brought the Parliament together in a transport
   of horror and loyalty.
{842}
   All Jesuits and seminary priests were banished from the realm
   on pain of death. A bill for the security of the Queen
   disqualified any claimant of the succession who had instigated
   subjects to rebellion or hurt to the Queen's person from ever
   succeeding to the crown. The threat was aimed at Mary Stuart.
   Weary of her long restraint, of her failure to rouse Philip or
   Scotland to aid her, of the baffled revolt of the English
   Catholics and the baffled intrigues of the Jesuits, she bent
   for a moment to submission. 'Let me go,' she wrote to
   Elizabeth; 'let me retire from this island to some solitude
   where I may prepare my soul to die. Grant this and I will sign
   away every right which either I or mine can claim.' But the
   cry was useless, and her despair found a new and more terrible
   hope in the plots against Elizabeth's life. She knew and
   approved the vow of Anthony Babington and a band of young
   Catholics, for the most part connected with the royal
   household, to kill the Queen; but plot and approval alike
   passed through Walsingham's hands, and the seizure of Mary's
   correspondence revealed her guilt. In spite of her protests, a
   commission of peers sat as her judges at Fotheringay Castle;
   and their verdict of 'guilty' annihilated, under the
   provisions of the recent statute, her claim to the crown. The
   streets of London blazed with bonfires, and peals rang out
   from steeple to steeple, at the news of her condemnation; but,
   in spite of the prayer of Parliament for her execution, and
   the pressure of the Council, Elizabeth shrank from her death.
   The force of public opinion, however, was now carrying all
   before it, and the unanimous demand of her people wrested at
   last a sullen consent from the Queen. She flung the warrant
   signed upon the floor, and the Council took on themselves the
   responsibility of executing it. Mary died [February 8, 1587]
   on a scaffold which was erected in the castle hall at
   Fotheringay, as dauntlessly as she had lived. 'Do not weep,'
   she said to her ladies, 'I have given my word for you.' 'Tell
   my friends,' she charged Melville, 'that I die a good
   Catholic.'"

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 7, section 6._

   "'Who now doubts,' writes an eloquent modern writer, 'that it
   would have been wiser in Elizabeth to spare her life?' Rather,
   the political wisdom of a critical and difficult act has never
   in the world's history been more signally justified. It cut
   away the only interest on which the Scotch and English
   Catholics could possibly have combined. It determined Philip
   upon the undisguised pursuit of the English throne, and it
   enlisted against him and his projects the passionate
   patriotism of the English nobility."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 12, chapter 34._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. De Lamartine,
      Mary Stuart,
      chapter 31-34._

      _L. S. F. Buckingham,
      Memoirs of Mary Stuart,
      volume 2, chapter 5-6._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England,
      book 3, chapter 5._

      _J. D. Leader,
      Mary Queen of Scots in Captivity._

      _C. Nau,
      History of Mary Stuart._

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of Mary Queen of Scots,
      chapters 9-10._

England: A. D. 1587-1588.
   The wrath of Catholic Europe.
   Spanish vengeance and ambition astir.

   "The death of Mary [Queen of Scots] may have preserved England
   from the religious struggle which would have ensued upon her
   accession to the throne, but it delivered Elizabeth from only
   one, and that the weakest of her enemies; and it exposed her
   to a charge of injustice and cruelty, which, being itself well
   founded, obtained belief for any other accusation, however
   extravagantly false. It was not Philip [of Spain] alone who
   prepared for making war upon her with a feeling of personal
   hatred: throughout Romish Christendom she was represented as a
   monster of iniquity; that representation was assiduously set
   forth, not in ephemeral libels, but in histories, in dramas,
   in poems, and in hawker's pamphlets; and when the king of
   Spain equipped an armament for the invasion of England,
   volunteers entered it with a passionate persuasion that they
   were about to bear a part in a holy war against the wickedest
   and most inhuman of tyrants. The Pope exhorted Philip to
   engage in this great enterprize for the sake of the Roman
   Catholic and apostolic church, which could not be more
   effectually nor more meritoriously extended than by the
   conquest of England; so should he avenge his own private and
   public wrongs; so should he indeed prove himself most worthy
   of the glorious title of Most Catholic King. And he promised,
   as soon as his troops should have set foot in that island, to
   supply him with a million of crowns of gold towards the
   expenses of the expedition. … Such exhortations accorded
   with the ambition, the passions, and the rooted principles of
   the king of Spain. The undertaking was resolved."

      _R. Southey,
      Lives of the British Admirals,
      volume 2, page 319._

   "The succours which Elizabeth had from time to time afforded
   to the insurgents of the Netherlands was not the only cause of
   Philip's resentment and of his desire for revenge. She had
   fomented the disturbances in Portugal, … and her captains,
   among whom Sir Francis Drake was the most active, had for many
   years committed unjustifiable depredations on the Spanish
   possessions of South America, and more than once on the coasts
   of the Peninsula itself. … By Spanish historians, these
   hostilities are represented as unprovoked in their origin, and
   as barbarous in their execution, and candor must allow that
   there is but too much justice in the complaint."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 4, section 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 12, chapter 35._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
   The Spanish Armada.

   "Perhaps in the history of mankind there has never been a vast
   project of conquest conceived and matured in so protracted and
   yet so desultory a manner, as was this famous Spanish
   invasion. … At last, on the 28th, 29th and 30th May, 1588,
   the fleet, which had been waiting at Lisbon more than a month
   for favourable weather, set sail from that port, after having
   been duly blessed by the Cardinal Archduke Albert, viceroy of
   Portugal. There were rather more than 130 ships in all,
   divided into 10 squadrons. … The total tonnage of the fleet
   was 59,120: the number of guns was 3,165. Of Spanish troops
   there were 19,295 on board: there were 8,252 sailors and 2,088
   galley-slaves. Besides these, there was a force of noble
   volunteers, belonging to the most illustrious houses of Spain,
   with their attendants, amounting to nearly 2,000 in all. …
   The size of the ships ranged from 1,200 tons to 300. The
   galleons, of which there were about 60, were huge
   round-stemmed clumsy vessels, with bulwarks three or four feet
   thick, and built up at stem and stern, like castles.
{843}
   The galeasses—of which there were four—were a third larger
   than the ordinary galley, and were rowed each by 300
   galley-slaves. They consisted of an enormous towering fortress
   at the stern, a castellated structure almost equally massive
   in front, with seats for the rowers amidships. At stem and
   stern and between each of the slaves' benches were heavy
   cannon. These galeasses were floating edifices, very wonderful
   to contemplate. They were gorgeously decorated. There were
   splendid state-apartments, cabins, chapels, and pulpits in
   each, and they were amply provided with awnings, cushions,
   streamers, standards, gilded saints and bands of music. To
   take part in an ostentatious pageant, nothing could be better
   devised. To fulfil the great objects of a war-vessel—to sail
   and to fight—they were the worst machines ever launched upon
   the ocean. The four galleys were similar to the galeasses in
   every respect except that of size, in which they were by
   one-third inferior. All the ships of the fleet—galeasses,
   galleys, galleons, and hulks—were so encumbered with
   top-hamper, so over-weighted in proportion to their draught of
   water, that they could bear but little canvas, even with
   smooth seas and light and favourable winds. … Such was the
   machinery which Philip had at last set afloat, for the purpose
   of dethroning Elizabeth and establishing the inquisition in
   England. One hundred and forty ships, 11,000 Spanish veterans,
   as many more recruits, partly Spanish, partly Portuguese, 2,000
   grandees, as many galley slaves, and 300 barefooted friars and
   inquisitors. The plan was simple. Medina Sidonia [the
   captain-general of the Armada] was to proceed straight from
   Lisbon to Calais roads: there he was to wait for the Duke of
   Parma [Spanish commander in the Netherlands], who was to come
   forth from Newport, Sluys, and Dunkirk, bringing with him his
   17,000 veterans, and to assume the chief command of the whole
   expedition. They were then to cross the channel to Dover, land
   the army of Parma, reinforced with 6,000 Spaniards from the
   fleet, and with these 23,000 men Alexander was to march at
   once upon London. Medina Sidonia was to seize and fortify the
   Isle of Wight, guard the entrance of the harbours against any
   interference from the Dutch and English fleets, and—so soon
   as the conquest of England had been effected—he was to
   proceed to Ireland. … A strange omission had however been
   made in the plan from first to last. The commander of the
   whole expedition was the Duke of Parma: on his head was the
   whole responsibility. Not a gun was to be fired—if it could
   be avoided—until he had come forth with his veterans to make
   his junction with the Invincible Armada off Calais. Yet there
   was no arrangement whatever to enable him to come forth—not
   the slightest provision to effect that junction. … Medina
   could not go to Farnese [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma],
   nor could Farnese come to Medina. The junction was likely to
   be difficult, and yet it had never once entered the heads of
   Philip or his counsellors to provide for that difficulty. …
   With as much sluggishness as might have been expected from
   their clumsy architecture, the ships of the Armada consumed
   nearly three weeks in sailing from Lisbon to the neighbourhood
   of Cape Finisterre. Here they were overtaken by a tempest. …
   Of the squadron of galleys, one was already sunk in the sea,
   and two of the others had been conquered by their own slaves.
   The fourth rode out the gale with difficulty, and joined the
   rest of the fleet, which ultimately reassembled at Coruña; the
   ships having, in distress, put in first at Vivera, Ribadeo,
   Gijon, and other northern ports of Spain. At the Groyne—as
   the English of that day were accustomed to call Coruña—they
   remained a month, repairing damages and recruiting; and on the
   22d of July (N. S.) the Armada set sail. Six days later, the
   Spaniards took soundings, thirty leagues from the Scilly
   Islands, and on Friday, the 29th of July, off the Lizard, they
   had the first glimpse of the land of promise presented them by
   Sixtus V. of which they had at last come to take possession.
   On the same day and night the blaze and smoke of ten thousand
   beacon-fires from the Land's End to Margate, and from the Isle
   of Wight to Cumberland, gave warning to every Englishman that
   the enemy was at last upon them."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 12, chapter 36._

      _J. A. Froude,
      The Spanish Story of the Armada._

      _R. Southey,
      Lives of British Admirals,
      volume 2, pages 327-334._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      5th series, chapter 27._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
   The Destruction of the Armada.

   "The great number of the English, the whole able-bodied
   population being drilled, counterbalanced the advantage
   possessed, from their universal use of firearms, by the
   invaders. In all the towns there were trained bands (a civic
   militia); and, either in regular service or as volunteers,
   thousands of all ranks had received a military training on the
   continent. The musters represented 100,000 men as ready to
   assemble at their head-quarters at a day's notice. It was, as
   nearly always, in its military administration that the
   vulnerable point of England lay. The fitting-out and
   victualling of the navy was disgraceful; and it is scarcely an
   excuse for the councillors that they were powerless against
   the parsimony of the Queen. The Government maintained its
   hereditary character from the days of Ethelred the Unready,
   and the arrangements for assembling the defensive forces were
   not really completed by them until after the Armada was
   destroyed. The defeat of the invaders, if they had landed,
   must have been accomplished by the people. The flame of
   patriotism never burnt purer: all Englishmen alike, Romanists,
   Protestant Episcopalians, and Puritans, were banded together
   to resist the invader. Every hamlet was on the alert for the
   beacon-signal. Some 15,000 men were already under arms in
   London; the compact Tilbury Fort was full, and a bridge of
   boats from Tilbury to Gravesend blocked the Thames. Philip's
   preparations had been commensurate with the grandeur of his
   scheme. The dockyards in his ports in the Low Countries, the
   rivers, the canals, and the harbours of Spain, Portugal,
   Naples, and Italy, echoed the clang of the shipwrights'
   hammers. A vast armament, named, as if to provoke Nemesis, the
   'Invincible Armada,' on which for three years the treasures of
   the American mines had been lavished, at length rode the seas,
   blessed with Papal benedictions and under the patronage of the
   saints. It comprised 65 huge galleons, of from 700 to 1,300
   tons, with sides of enormous thickness, and built high like
   castles; four great galleys, each carrying 50 guns and 450
   men, and rowed by 300 slaves; 56 armed merchantmen, and 20
   pinnaces. These 129 vessels were armed with 2,430 brass and
   iron guns of the best manufacture, but each gun was furnished
   only with 50 rounds.
{844}
   They carried 5,000 seamen: Parma's army amounted to 30,000
   men—Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Walloons; and 19,000
   Castilians and Portuguese, with 1,000 gentlemen volunteers,
   were coming to join him. To maintain this army after it had
   effected a landing, a great store of provisions—sufficient
   for 40,000 men for six months—was placed on board. The
   overthrow of this armament was effected by the navy and the
   elements. From the Queen's parsimony the State had only 36
   ships in the fleet; but the City of London furnished 33
   vessels; 18 were supplied by the liberality of private
   individuals; and nearly 100 smaller ships were obtained on
   hire; so that the fleet was eventually brought up to nearly
   30,000 tons, carrying 16,000 men, and equipped with 837 guns.
   But there was sufficient ammunition for only a single day's
   fighting. Fortunately for Elizabeth's Government, the
   Spaniards, having been long driven from the channel by
   privateers, were now unacquainted with its currents; and they
   could procure, as the Dutch were in revolt, only two or three
   competent pilots. The Spanish commander was the Duke of
   Medina-Sidonia, an incapable man, but he had under him some of
   the ablest of Philip's officers. When the ships set out from
   the Tagus, on the 29th May, 1588, a storm came on, and the
   Armada had to put into Coruña to refit. From that port the
   Armada set out at the beginning of July, in lovely weather,
   with just enough wind to wave from the mastheads the red
   crosses which they bore as symbols of their crusade. The Duke
   of Medina entered the Channel on the 18th July, and the rear
   of his fleet was immediately harassed by a cannonade from the
   puny ships of England, commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham
   (Lord High Admiral), with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Winter,
   Fenner, and other famous captains. With the loss of three
   galleons from fire or boarding, the Spanish commander, who was
   making for Flanders to embark Parma's army, anchored in Calais
   roads. In the night fire-ships—an ancient mode of warfare
   which had just been reintroduced by the Dutch—passed in among
   the Armada, a fierce gale completed their work, and morning
   revealed the remnant of the Invincible Armada scattered along
   the coast from Calais to Ostend. Eighty vessels remained to
   Medina, and with these he sailed up the North Sea, to round
   the British Isles. But the treacherous currents of the Orkneys
   and the Hebrides were unknown to his officers, and only a few
   ships escaped the tempests of the late autumn. More than
   two-thirds of the expedition perished, and of the remnant that
   again viewed the hills of Spain all but a few hundreds
   returned only to die."

      _H. R. Clinton,
      From Crécy to Assye,
      chapter 7._

   In the fighting on the 23d of July, "the Spaniards' shot flew
   for the most part over the heads of the English, without doing
   execution, Cock being the only Englishman that died bravely in
   the midst of his enemies in a ship of his own. The reason of
   this was, that the English ships, being far less than the
   enemy's, made the attack with more quickness and agility; and
   when they had given a broadside, they presently sheered off to
   a convenient distance, and levelled their shot so directly at
   the bigger and more unwieldy ships of the Spaniards, as seldom
   to miss their aim; though the Lord Admiral did not think it
   safe or proper to grapple with them, as some advised, with
   much more heat than discretion, because that the enemy's fleet
   carried a considerable army within their sides, whereas ours had
   no such advantage. Besides their ships far exceeded ours in
   number and bulk, and were much stronger and higher built;
   insomuch that their men, having the opportunity to ply us from
   such lofty hatches, must inevitably destroy those that were
   obliged, as it were, to fight beneath them. … On the 24th
   day of the month there was a cessation on both sides, and the
   Lord Admiral sent some of his smaller vessels to the nearest
   of the English harbours, to fetch a supply of powder and
   ammunition; then he divided the fleet into four squadrons, the
   first of which he commanded himself, the second he committed
   to Drake, the third to Hawkins, and the fourth to Frobisher.
   He likewise singled out of the main fleet some smaller vessels
   to begin the attack on all sides at once, in the very dead of
   the night; but a calm happening spoiled his design." On the
   26th "the Spanish fleet sailed forward with a fair and soft
   gale at southwest and by south; and the English chased them
   close at the heels; but so far was this Invincible Armada from
   alarming the sea-coasts with any frightful apprehensions, that
   the English gentry of the younger sort entered themselves
   volunteers, and taking leave of their parents, wives, and
   children, did, with incredible cheerfulness, hire ships at
   their own charge; and, in pure love to their country, joined
   the grand fleet in vast numbers. … On the 27th of this month
   the Spanish Fleet came to an anchor before Calais, their
   pilots having acquainted them that if they ventured any
   farther there was some danger that the force of the current
   might drive them away into the Northern Channel. Not far from
   them came likewise the English Admiral to an anchor, and lay
   within shot of their ships. The English fleet consisted by
   this time of 140 sail; all of them ships of force, and very
   tight and nimble sailors, and easily manageable upon a tack.
   But, however, the main brunt of the engagement lay not upon
   more than 15 or 16 of them. … The Lord Admiral got ready
   eight of his worst ships the very day after the Spaniards came
   to an anchor; and having bestowed upon them a good plenty of
   pitch, tar, and rosin, and lined them well with brimstone and
   other combustible matter, they sent them before the wind, in
   the dead time of the night, under the conduct of Young and
   Prowse, into the midst of the Spanish fleet. … The Spaniards
   reported that the duke, upon the approach of the fire-ships,
   ordered the whole fleet to weigh anchor and stand to sea, but
   that when the danger was over every ship should return to her
   station. This is what he did himself, and he likewise
   discharged a great gun as a signal to the rest to do as he
   did; the report, however, was heard but by very few, by reason
   their fears had dispersed them at that rate that some of them
   ventured out of the main ocean, and others sailed up the
   shallows of Flanders. In the meantime Drake and Fenner played
   briskly with their cannon upon the Spanish fleet, as it was
   rendezvousing over against Graveling. … On the last day of
   the month the wind blew hard at north-west early in the
   morning, and the Spanish fleet attempting to get back again to
   the Straits of Calais, was driven toward Zealand.
{845}
   The English then gave over the chase, because, in the
   Spaniards' opinion, they perceived them making haste enough to
   their own destruction. For the wind, lying at the W. N. W.
   point, could not choose but force them on the shoals and sands
   on the coast of Zealand. But the wind happening to come about
   in a little time to Southwest and by West they went before the
   wind. … Being now, therefore, clear of danger in the main
   ocean, they steered northward, and the English fleet renewed
   the chase after them. … The Spaniards having now laid aside
   all the thoughts and hopes of returning to attempt the
   English, and perceiving their main safety lay in their flight,
   made no stay or stop at any port whatever. And thus this
   mighty armada, which had been three whole years fitting out,
   and at a vast expense, met in one month's time with several
   attacks, and was at last routed, with a vast slaughter on
   their side, and but a very few of the English missing, and not
   one ship lost, except that small vessel of Cock's. … When,
   therefore, the Spanish fleet had taken a large compass round
   Britain, by the coasts of Scotland, the Orcades, and Ireland,
   and had weathered many storms, and suffered as many wrecks and
   blows, and all the inconveniences of war and weather, it made
   a shift to get home again, laden with nothing but shame and
   dishonour. … Certain it is that several of their ships
   perished in their flight, being cast away on the coasts of
   Scotland and Ireland, and that above 700 soldiers were cast on
   shore in Scotland. … As for those who had the ill fortune to
   be drove upon the Irish shore, they met with the most
   barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the
   wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy."

      _W. Camden,
      History of Queen Elizabeth._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Historical Biographies: Drake._

      _E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles,
      chapter 10._

      _C. Kingsley,
      Westward Ho!
      chapter 31._

      _R. Hakluyt,
      Principal Navigations, &C.
      (E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
   Alliance with Henry IV. of France against Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
   Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1597.
   Abolition of the privileges of the Hanse merchants.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1600.
   The first charter to the East India Company.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1601.
   The first Poor Law.

      See POOR LAWS, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
   Accession of King James I.
   The Stuart family.

   On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of
   Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the
   title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that
   daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret
   Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather
   was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of
   Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the
   ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or
   Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND:
   A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion
   of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an
   acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time
   when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the
   peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal
   power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he
   united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one
   sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who,
   comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was
   possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost
   it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the
   statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that
   James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot
   be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he
   took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and
   brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to
   either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach
   to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the
   people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not
   then have been refused, and which might have saved half a
   century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was
   allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty
   years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous
   period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on
   it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading
   statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the
   bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion
   dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what
   likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to
   make gospel and law was given, with other far more
   questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and
   qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts
   were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon
   this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more
   culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it
   lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the
   penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion
   can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by
   the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart
   kings."

      _J. Forster,
      Historical and Biographical Essays,
      p.227._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
   The Hampton Court Conference.

   James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a
   conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints
   of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to
   conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the
   abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded
   with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into
   his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an
   oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being
   compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on
   every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates,
   who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and
   theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the
   scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country,
   he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of
   Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where
   religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among
   grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as
   formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place
   where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him
   to his face.'
{846}
   After long conferences, during which the king gave the most
   extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and
   profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the
   word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the
   puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed
   at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion,
   declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God
   and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and
   Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my
   council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and
   say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay
   marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must
   once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king
   will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years
   before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy
   and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to
   you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be
   kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both
   our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow
   lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My
   lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that
   these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make
   their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if
   once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become
   of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.'
   Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with,
   'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or
   I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The
   English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at
   the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy
   shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of
   them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of
   God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean
   of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum
   sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw
   the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances,
   buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed
   beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish
   ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with
   redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of
   Scotland to the English model."

      _T. McCrie,
      Sketches of Scottish Church History,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 1, sections 3._

      _G. G. Perry,
      History of the Church of England,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 10, section 1 (volume 3)._

England: A. D. 1605.
   The Gunpowder Plot.

   "The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence
   on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary,
   whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their
   cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to
   have shown some partiality towards them. … Very soon they
   discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and
   enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention
   of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of
   persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth.
   Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family,
   first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and
   he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the
   illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would
   you put an end to the king's life: he has children. … To
   serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the
   king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all
   our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all
   assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us
   the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great
   preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining,
   may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing
   the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over
   to destruction these determined foes to all piety and
   religion. … Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby;
   and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and
   among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to
   Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish
   service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly
   acquainted. … All this passed in the spring and summer of
   the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in
   Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was
   to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their
   operations. … They soon pierced the wall, though three yards
   in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were
   somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how
   to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the
   vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had
   been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the
   vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was
   immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six
   barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with
   faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung
   open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing
   dangerous. … The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for,
   now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to
   assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above
   twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of
   near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of
   punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one
   conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a
   discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after
   all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle
   from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending
   him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the
   letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached
   little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The
   Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly
   led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection
   of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The
   gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the
   place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being
   put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices.
   They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while
   resisting arrest.

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      volume 4, chapter 46._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England,
      chapter 6, (volume 1)._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 9, chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
   The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and
   Plymouth branches.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

{847}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
   The Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
   The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at
   New Plymouth.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1621.
   Claims in North America conflicting with France.
   Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1638.
   The grants in Newfoundland to Baltimore and Kirke.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
   The Protestant Alliance in the Thirty Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
   The gains of Parliament in the reign of James I.

   "The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of
   James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to
   restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects'
   liberties. They had obtained in this period but one
   legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act
   against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their
   ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a
   protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public
   concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped
   prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of
   levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond
   controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested
   elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried
   indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and
   inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against
   their house. Of these advantages some were evidently
   incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions
   of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the
   increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to
   anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold
   of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when
   viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the
   uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents,
   collected through our long and various history, a calm
   by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass
   without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
   Marriage of Charles with Henrietta Maria of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628.
   The accession of Charles I.
   Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.

   "The political and religious schism which had originated in
   the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th
   century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish
   despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to
   republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House
   of Commons. … While the minds of men were in this state, the
   country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a
   war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the
   Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war
   hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It
   was necessary that the king should have a large military
   force. He could not have such a force without money. He could
   not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It
   followed, therefore, that he either must administer the
   government in conformity with the sense of the House of
   Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the
   fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during
   several centuries. … Just at this conjuncture James died
   [March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had
   received from nature a far better understanding, a far
   stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his
   father's. He had inherited his father's political theories,
   and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into
   practice. … His taste in literature and art was excellent,
   his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life
   without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his
   disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in
   truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked
   ways. … He seems to have learned from the theologians whom
   he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could
   be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could
   not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic
   authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was
   an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in
   case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole
   judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked
   the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side
   of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable
   dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who
   looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of
   that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a
   situation that he must either conduct the administration in
   conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make
   outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the
   constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very
   sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with
   the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice
   was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied
   taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament
   [1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again
   resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes
   without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the
   opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance,
   which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation
   made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning
   men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and
   alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and
   martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient
   jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament
   [1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger
   and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of
   tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the
   demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many
   evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully
   adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities.
   The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in
   the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by
   the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second
   Great Charter of the liberties of England."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of the English Revolution,
      book 1._

{848}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
   The Petition of Right.

   "Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude
   the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride,
   as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much
   apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his
   despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in
   his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or
   in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other
   statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this
   instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot
   banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing
   amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not
   in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected.
   Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which
   it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the
   king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and
   equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that
   he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed
   as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a
   more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in
   the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles
   his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for
   granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great
   for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but
   considerable according to the precedents of former times, to
   which men naturally look. … The Petition of Right, … this
   statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the
   common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had
   been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the
   Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it
   unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious
   insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate
   1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation,
   with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without
   the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith,
   accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render
   the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical
   ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

   The following is the text of the Petition of Right:

   "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our
   Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
   Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared
   and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King
   Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non
   concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by
   the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and
   assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights,
   Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this
   realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and
   twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is
   declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be
   compelled to make any loans to the King against his will,
   because such loans were against reason and the franchise of
   the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that
   none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a
   Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes
   before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this
   realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they
   should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,
   aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in
   Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions
   directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with
   instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have
   been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain
   sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their
   refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not
   warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have
   been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give
   attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and
   others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and
   sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other
   charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
   counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants,
   Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by
   command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council,
   against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where
   also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the
   Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no
   freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
   freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
   exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
   of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and
   twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was
   declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man
   of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of
   his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor
   disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer
   by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the
   said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your
   realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of
   late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for
   their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by
   your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and
   receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded
   to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was
   certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's
   special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council,
   and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being
   charged with anything to which they might make answer
   according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of
   soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties
   of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have
   been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to
   suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this
   realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people:
   And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year
   of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and
   enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb
   against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the
   land:
{849}
   and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes
   of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but
   by the laws established in this your realm, either by the
   customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and
   whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the
   proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the
   laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late
   divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued
   forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and
   appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed
   within the land, according to the justice of martial law
   against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons
   joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery,
   felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever,
   and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to
   martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed
   to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to
   cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law
   martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects
   have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when
   and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
   deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
   and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And
   also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an
   exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the
   laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of
   your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused,
   or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the
   same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders
   were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such
   commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of
   like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
   and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray
   your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
   compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax,
   or such like charge, without common consent by Act of
   Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take
   such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise
   molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal
   thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is
   before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your
   Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
   mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time
   to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by
   martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter
   no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or
   persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by
   colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or
   put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
   All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent
   Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws
   and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also
   vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings
   to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall
   not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that
   your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further
   comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will
   and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers
   and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and
   statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your
   Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition
   being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus
   delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done
   according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the
   statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have
   no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to
   their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
   he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On
   June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit
   droit fait comme il est désiré.']"

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England,
      chapter 63 (volume 6)._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      page 1._

      _J. L. De Lolme,
      The English Constitution,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
   Assassination of Buckingham.

   "While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on,
   the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose
   influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal
   manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr.
   Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the
   Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council
   set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before
   it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth—'Let Charles and
   George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor
   Lambe.' … Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in
   his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were
   being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was
   reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some
   that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not
   thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.'
   There must have been something strangely attractive about the
   man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so
   dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria,
   and William Laud. … In the meantime Rochelle held out." One
   attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham
   was to command in person the armament now in preparation for
   another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham
   went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The
   King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On
   the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two'
   before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then
   he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of
   captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him
   believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell
   the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not
   believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing
   and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed
   by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an
   officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this
   gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's
   breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The
   Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The
   attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the
   noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had
   seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was
   arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man
   of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently
   unhinged his mind.

{850}

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      6th series, chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapter 65._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
   Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
   The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
   Massachusetts Bay.

      See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
   The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
   Tonnage and Poundage.
   The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.

   Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June,
   1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The
   Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very
   extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call
   Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between
   Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied
   without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio
   non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed
   Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary
   consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to
   pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd':
   there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to
   Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had
   been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In
   regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant
   Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to
   a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like
   circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of
   consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's
   death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of
   Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of
   Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of
   Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully
   ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable
   tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was
   in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February,
   1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and
   made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way
   into History. … A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved
   upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there.
   Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' … the King
   hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was
   dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most
   unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a
   Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day,
   while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to
   'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had
   orders to the contrary; persisted in that;—and at last took
   to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days;
   and consider what to do! On the second day, which was
   Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's
   command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday
   next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former
   nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn
   again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once
   more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But
   young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second
   son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for
   that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his
   chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such
   agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House
   was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy
   Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them,
   who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr.
   Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles;
   'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to
   rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted
   manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked
   their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their
   Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and
   Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man
   out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly
   vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they
   understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising
   procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention,
   and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil
   Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and
   others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much
   legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was
   kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday,
   2d of March, 1629."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      J. Forster,
      Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
      book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
   Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
   with their royal charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1631.
   Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

ENGLAND: A. D: 1632.
   Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

      See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1632.
    The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
   The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.

   "When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood
   alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the
   means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for
   establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their
   church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and
   enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired
   them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed
   the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all
   ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none
   professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and
   struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The
   courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men
   threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford
   more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one
   adversary remained—the people, each day more discontented
   with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish
   it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne;
   it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other,
   evangelical faith and civil liberty.
{851}
   The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of
   episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to
   believe that he was not the only one who held his authority
   from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of
   less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so
   many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the
   clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the
   people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed
   vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the
   bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the
   strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its
   doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to
   this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous
   resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands
   of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took
   cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious
   matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its
   jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete
   adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the
   liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously
   exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great
   many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were
   withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they
   were forbidden to preach. … Persecution followed and reached
   them everywhere. … Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship
   speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their
   pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful,
   magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid
   great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to
   collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely
   the details of new ceremonies—sometimes borrowed from Rome,
   sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once
   ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists,
   every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the
   liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without
   consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's
   consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority.
   … And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events
   the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more
   like that of Rome. … Books were published to prove that the
   doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself
   to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly
   licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly
   tolerated. … The splendour and exclusive dominion of
   episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself,
   Laud proceeded to secure its independence. … The divine
   right of bishops became, in a short time, the official
   doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king
   himself. … By the time things had come to this pass, the
   people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part
   of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of
   the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular
   revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular
   reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that
   which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of the English Revolution of 1640,
      book 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6._

      _G. G. Perry,
      History of the Church of England,
      chapters 13-16 (volume l)._

      _P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
   Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
   Ship-money.

   "The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. … All
   the promises of the king were violated without scruple or
   shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in
   consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent,
   was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority.
   Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal
   times were made pretexts for harassing the people with
   exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were
   persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were
   forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They
   were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit.
   Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty
   of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the
   victims. … The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite
   of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots
   deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an
   inclement sky. … For the misgovernment of this disastrous
   period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the
   death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime
   minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him,
   or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the
   one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper
   would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and
   capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never
   were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals
   to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as
   they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that
   age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes
   of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark
   him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. … But
   Wentworth—whoever names him without thinking of those harsh
   dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the
   majesty of an antique Jupiter! … Among the humbler tools of
   Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the
   attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause
   of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that
   cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with
   Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the
   people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the
   king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of
   war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns
   along the coast. These measures, though they were direct
   violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of
   precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government
   took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent
   writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch
   of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at
   a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to
   bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland
   counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in
   the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our
   shores.
{852}
   It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the
   Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying
   ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy
   it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under
   the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly
   admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of
   the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no
   bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The
   nation well understood this; and from one end of England to
   the other, the public mind was strongly excited.
   Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum
   of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very
   small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff
   was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But,
   though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the
   demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most
   eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the
   few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to
   incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of
   bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between
   the people and the crown. … Towards the close of the year
   1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before
   all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the
   writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper
   was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as
   yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents
   had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments
   of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber
   took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the
   bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of
   Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only
   during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the
   least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his
   favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave
   their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this
   decision was to make the public indignation stronger and
   deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more
   advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the
   king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this
   occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his
   reputation to a great height generally throughout the
   kingdom.'"

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Essays,
      volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapter 74 (volume 7),
      and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);_

      ALSO

      _Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      pages 37-53, and 115._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
   Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
   Rise of the independents.

   "It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of
   the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the
   constitution in church or state, or would square their actions
   by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."

      _J. Rushworth,
      Historical Collection,
      volume 2, 1355._

   "These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the
   civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been
   the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the
   conscientious people of England. There was a sort of
   imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to
   immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the
   establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal
   church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire
   opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no
   difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no
   thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others.
   Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery.
   They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of
   God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members,
   and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a
   blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put
   down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law,
   and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress
   all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself
   not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party,
   which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction,
   gradually arose the party of the independents. … Before the
   end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party
   of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities,
   intellectual, military and civil."

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
      A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
      A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
      A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
      and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
   The First Bishops' War in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
   The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
   The Scots Army in England.

   "His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the
   hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch
   Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to
   chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a
   Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable
   otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England;
   which, at one time, thought never to have seen another
   Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for
   Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any
   recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's
   Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th
   April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies
   against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th
   May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the
   Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an
   Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl
   Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that
   course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000.
   Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the
   Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the
   whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner.
   His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence,
   forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and
   set it marching out of the several Counties in the South
   towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army.
   The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied
   against their officers, shot some of their officers: in
   various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed
   Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of
   Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of
   the window.
{853}
   No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for
   from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had
   raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into
   England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to
   the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross
   the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them
   all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and
   each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back.
   August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at
   Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making
   small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle,
   and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where
   his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an
   end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their
   behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to
   all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice
   in England,—took possession of Newcastle next day; took
   possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,—and
   stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The
   whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their
   saviours. … His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at
   the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a
   'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots;
   and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped
   in any way. … A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of
   November next;—whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and
   the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and
   by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very
   leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle,
   and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a
   day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in
   finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in
   Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the
   King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally
   getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the
   3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by
   the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"

      _T. Carlyle,
      Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 1: 1640._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapter 91-94._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 72-73 (volume 7)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
   Acquisition and settlement of Madras.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
   The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work.
   Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.

   "The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost
   his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications
   and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without
   a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his
   treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament;
   addresses and petitions against the government were presented.
   Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial
   law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great
   council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not
   trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated,
   he tried every shift rather than again face the
   representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was
   left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a
   Parliament. … On the 3d of November, 1640—a day to be long
   remembered—met that great Parliament, destined to every
   extreme of fortune—to empire and to servitude, to glory and
   to contempt;—at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at
   another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its
   tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was
   great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not
   disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the
   late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures
   would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men
   who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate
   tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied,
   talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and
   said that they must now be of another temper than they were
   the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all
   the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and
   payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called
   forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never
   before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House
   of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver
   St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men
   exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the
   country—Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of
   friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Nugent's Memorials of Hampden
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2)._

   "The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at
   Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king,
   and each brought from borough or county a petition of
   grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of
   citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to
   examine and report on them, and their reports formed the
   grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal
   acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow
   'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in
   triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed
   laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of
   the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High
   Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the
   North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a
   crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished.
   Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's
   case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the
   subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or
   any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon
   any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or
   allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end
   forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on
   the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly
   of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and
   citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to
   summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to
   look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch
   army was still encamped in the north. … Meanwhile the
   Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal
   system. …
{854}
   Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch,
   fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison.
   … But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor
   neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre
   of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford.
   Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile
   instrument of tyranny—it was the guilt of 'that grand
   apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which
   closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned
   in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was
   conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the
   Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his
   master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of
   Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament."
   Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent
   to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more
   solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you
   shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of
   a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor
   a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend
   as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on
   the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of
   attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and
   Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe
   fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a
   universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The
   bells clashed out from every steeple."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 8, section 6._

   The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could
   be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life
   and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant
   as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it
   is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the
   first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he
   had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords,
   Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to
   it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with
   which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned
   his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of
   loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal
   intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every
   line. … Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to
   another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not
   want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his
   counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging
   him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them
   all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury
   of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling
   in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their
   opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of
   non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their
   Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth
   deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.'
   Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the
   honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two
   consciences,—a public and a private conscience,—and that
   'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with,
   but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as
   a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the
   royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is
   within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day
   Charles's public conscience got the better of its private
   rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to
   the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House
   scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking
   place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le
   roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister
   to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved
   him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which
   made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from
   arresting its execution."

      _H. D. Traill,
      Lord Stafford,
      pages 195-198._

   "It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed
   and writhing as the wretched king … [who abandoned
   Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in
   the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once
   cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the
   branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving
   the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing
   the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's
   character. … When we have convinced ourselves that this
   'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much
   as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old
   privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding
   by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award
   those increased honours for which his minister was a
   petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be
   discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with
   the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by
   withholding their well-earned reward;—still does the
   blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears
   he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his
   after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed
   himself of one excuse,—but that the man, who, in a few short
   months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand
   somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for
   attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite
   consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness
   to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. … As
   to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no
   alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The
   king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further
   opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who
   had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his
   will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's
   estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing
   but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head
   and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the
   adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their
   cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no
   adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people—this
   was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those
   outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my
   own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it
   in a technical view, and with our present settlement of
   evidence and treason.
{855}
   But to concede that point, after the advances they had made,
   would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown
   that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of
   Strafford—and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its
   neglect. And this was done. … One momentary emotion …
   escaped … [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death.
   He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill.
   Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford,
   laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven,
   uttered the memorable words,—'Put not your trust in princes,
   nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.'
   Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."

      _R. Browning,
      Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
      (Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2,
      pages 403-406)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym._

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 3 (volume 1)._

      _Lord Nugent,
      Memorials of Hampden.
      parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2)._

      _Lady T. Lewis,
      Life of Lord Falkland._

   The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which
   Strafford was tried and condemned:

   "Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against
   Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation,
   whereby he stands charged with High Treason.

   I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously
   endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of
   the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to
   introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law,
   which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and
   actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms,
   to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.

   II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power
   over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his
   majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised
   the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many,
   both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.

   III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through
   with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of
   his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and
   hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer,
   converting them to his own use, when his majesty was
   necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had
   been a long time unpaid.

   IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority
   of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and
   encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual
   dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and
   by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and
   tyrannical designs.

   V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and
   hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those
   of Scotland.

   VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed
   in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by
   wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death,
   his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at
   Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the
   end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a
   loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be
   engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the
   Scots.

   VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these
   and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the
   right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary
   proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense
   his maj. against parliaments.—By which words, counsels, and
   actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance,
   laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people
   from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and
   destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him
   of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown
   and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy
   of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant
   general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn
   privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England
   and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time
   that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth
   were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant
   general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England,
   during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and
   6th Articles set forth were done and committed.—And the said
   commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of
   exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or
   Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the
   Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said
   Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the
   premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or
   Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case
   shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do
   pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every
   the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial,
   and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is
   agreeable to law and justice."

      _Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 2, pages 737-739._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May).
   The Root and Branch Bill.

   "A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining
   Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the
   House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House
   induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more
   vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops,
   Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a
   measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the
   skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in
   Committee."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2 (volume 2), page 650._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October).
   Roundheads and Cavaliers.
   The birth of English parties.

   "After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September,
   1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited
   Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by
   consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical
   reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act
   declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The
   recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on
   which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable
   epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate
   existence of the two great parties which have ever since
   alternately governed the country. …
{856}
   During the first months of the Long Parliament, the
   indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so
   strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man.
   Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small
   minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star
   Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by
   the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the
   reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting
   institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be
   openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it
   convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and
   their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the
   king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the
   Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the
   attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made
   war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous.
   Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the
   men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No
   republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more
   severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour
   of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of
   the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the
   Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the
   bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting
   Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion
   become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but
   extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of
   the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in
   the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the
   majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who
   entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a
   retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the
   utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration.
   But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and
   when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a
   short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with
   those which, under different names, have ever since contended,
   and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs,
   appeared confronting each other. During some years they were
   designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently
   called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these
   appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 1._

   It was not until some months later, however, that the name of
   Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by
   their royalist adversaries.

      See ROUNDHEADS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (November).
   The Grand Remonstrance.

   Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news
   of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the
   party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great
   pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should
   try their relative strengths before the king's return; and
   they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which
   they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of
   the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The
   Grand Remonstrance. … The notion of a great general document
   which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to
   the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had
   crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a
   detection of their causes, and a specification of the
   remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had
   been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a
   week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it
   had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before
   the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the
   broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming
   desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the
   Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,'
   such was the description of the then intended document (August
   7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the
   Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was
   presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we
   say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen
   folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists
   of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly
   numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the
   first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of
   successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it
   reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in
   the Parliament."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 6._

   "It [The Grand Remonstrance] embodies the case of the
   Parliament against the Ministers of the king. It is the most
   authentic statement ever put forth of the wrongs endured by
   all classes of the English people, during the first fifteen
   years of the reign of Charles I.; and, for that reason, the
   most complete justification upon record of the Great
   Rebellion." The debates on The Grand Remonstrance were begun
   November 9 and ended November 22, when the vote was taken:
   Ayes, 159.—Noes, 148.—So evenly were the parties in the
   great struggle then divided.

      _J. Forster,
      History and Biographical Essays,
      volume 1: Debates on the Grand Remonstrance._

   The following is the text of "The Grand Remonstrance," with
   that of the Petition preceding it:

   "Most Gracious Sovereign: Your Majesty's most humble and
   faithful subjects the Commons in this present Parliament
   assembled, do with much thankfulness and joy acknowledge the
   great mercy and favour of God, in giving your Majesty a safe
   and peaceable return out of Scotland into your kingdom of
   England, where the pressing dangers and distempers of the
   State have caused us with much earnestness to desire the
   comfort of your gracious presence, and likewise the unity and
   justice of your royal authority, to give more life and power
   to the dutiful and loyal counsels and endeavours of your
   Parliament, for the prevention of that eminent ruin and
   destruction wherein your kingdoms of England and Scotland are
   threatened. The duty which we owe to your Majesty and our
   country, cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive,
   that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils
   under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and
   cherished by a corrupt and ill-affected party, who amongst
   other their mischievous devices for the alteration of religion
   and government, have sought by many false scandals and
   imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed amongst the
   people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this
   Parliament, and to get themselves a party and faction amongst
   your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves in
   their wicked courses; and hindering those provisions and
   remedies which might, by the wisdom of your Majesty and
   counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against them.
{857}
   For preventing whereof, and the better information of your
   Majesty, your Peers and all other your loyal subjects, we have
   been necessitated to make a declaration of the state of the
   kingdom, both before and since the assembly of this
   Parliament, unto this time, which we do humbly present to your
   Majesty, without the least intention to lay any blemish upon
   your royal person, but only to represent how your royal
   authority and trust have been abused, to the great prejudice
   and danger of your Majesty, and of all your good subjects. And
   because we have reason to believe that those malignant
   parties, whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for
   the advantage and increase of Popery, is composed, set up, and
   acted by the subtile practice of the Jesuits and other
   engineers and factors for Rome, and to the great danger of
   this kingdom, and most grievous affliction of your loyal
   subjects, have so far prevailed as to corrupt divers of your
   Bishops and others in prime places of the Church, and also to
   bring divers of these instruments to be of your Privy Council,
   and other employments of trust and nearness about your
   Majesty, the Prince, and the rest of your royal children. And
   by this means have had such an operation in your counsel and
   the most important affairs and proceedings of your government,
   that a most dangerous division and chargeable preparation for
   war betwixt your kingdoms of England and Scotland, the
   increase of jealousies betwixt your Majesty and your most
   obedient subjects, the violent distraction and interruption of
   this Parliament, the insurrection of the Papists in your
   kingdom of Ireland, and bloody massacre of your people, have
   been not only endeavoured and attempted, but in a great
   measure compassed and effected. For preventing the final
   accomplishment whereof, your poor subjects are enforced to
   engage their persons and estates to the maintaining of a very
   expensive and dangerous war, notwithstanding they have already
   since the beginning of this Parliament undergone the charge of
   £150,000 sterling, or thereabouts, for the necessary support
   and supply of your Majesty in these present and perilous
   designs. And because all our most faithful endeavours and
   engagements will be ineffectual for the peace, safety and
   preservation of your Majesty and your people, if some present,
   real and effectual course be not taken for suppressing this
   wicked and malignant party:—We, your most humble and obedient
   subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your
   Majesty,

   1. That you will be graciously pleased to concur with the
   humble desires of your people in a parliamentary way, for the
   preserving the peace and safety of the kingdom from the
   malicious designs of the Popish party:

      For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and
      abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy,
      and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously
      abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and
      oppression of the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of
      your people:

      For the taking away such oppressions in religion, Church
      government and discipline, as have been brought in and
      fomented by them;

      For uniting all such your loyal subjects together as join
      in the same fundamental truths against the Papists, by
      removing some oppressions and unnecessary ceremonies by
      which divers weak consciences have been scrupled, and seem
      to be divided from the rest, and for the due execution of
      those good laws which have been made for securing the
      liberty of your subjects.

   2. That your Majesty will likewise be pleased to remove from
   your council all such as persist to favour and promote any of
   those pressures and corruptions wherewith your people have
   been grieved, and that for the future your Majesty will
   vouchsafe to employ such persons in your great and public
   affairs, and to take such to be near you in places of trust,
   as your Parliament may have cause to confide in; that in your
   princely goodness to your people you will reject and refuse
   all mediation and solicitation to the contrary, how powerful
   and near soever.

   3. That you will be pleased to forbear to alienate any of the
   forfeited and escheated lands in Ireland which shall accrue to
   your Crown by reason of this rebellion, that out of them the
   Crown may be the better supported, and some satisfaction made
   to your subjects of this kingdom for the great expenses they
   are like to undergo [in] this war. Which humble desires of
   ours being graciously fulfilled by your Majesty, we will, by
   the blessing and favour of God, most cheerfully undergo the
   hazard and expenses of this war, and apply ourselves to such
   other courses and counsels as may support your real estate
   with honour and plenty at home, with power and reputation
   abroad, and by our loyal affections, obedience and service,
   lay a sure and lasting foundation of the greatness and
   prosperity of your Majesty, and your royal prosperity in
   future times.

   The Commons in this present Parliament assembled, having with
   much earnestness and faithfulness of affection and zeal to the
   public good of this kingdom, and His Majesty's honour and
   service for the space of twelve months, wrestled with great
   dangers and fears, the pressing miseries and calamities, the
   various distempers and disorders which had not only assaulted,
   but even overwhelmed and extinguished the liberty, peace and
   prosperity of this kingdom, the comfort and hopes of all His
   Majesty's good subjects, and exceedingly weakened and
   undermined the foundation and strength of his own royal
   throne, do yet find an abounding malignity and opposition in
   those parties and factions who have been the cause of those
   evils, and do still labour to cast aspersions upon that which
   hath been done, and to raise many difficulties for the
   hindrance of that which remains yet undone, and to foment
   jealousies between the King and Parliament, that so they may
   deprive him and his people of the fruit of his own gracious
   intentions, and their humble desires of procuring the public
   peace, safety and happiness of this realm. For the preventing
   of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavours may
   produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the
   growth of these mischievous designs: the maturity and ripeness
   to which they have attained before the beginning of the
   Parliament: the effectual means which have been used for the
   extirpation of those dangerous evils, and the progress which
   hath therein been made by His Majesty's goodness and the
   wisdom of the Parliament: the ways of obstruction and
   opposition by which that progress hath been interrupted: the
   courses to be taken for the removing those obstacles, and for
   the accomplishing of our most dutiful and faithful intentions
   and endeavours of restoring and establishing the ancient
   honour, greatness and security of this Crown and nation.
{858}
   The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and
   pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and
   principles of government, upon which the religion and justice
   of this kingdom are firmly established. The actors and
   promoters hereof have been:

   1. The Jesuited Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles
   of that change and subversion of religion which they so much
   long for.

   2. The Bishops, and the corrupt part of the Clergy, who
   cherish formality and superstition as the natural effects and
   more probable supports of their own ecclesiastical tyranny and
   usurpation.

   3. Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have
   engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign
   princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the
   State at home. The common principles by which they moulded and
   governed all their particular counsels and actions were these:
   First, to maintain continual differences and discontents
   between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative
   and liberty, that so they might have the advantage of siding
   with him, and under the notions of men addicted to his
   service, gain to themselves and their parties the places of
   greatest trust and power in the kingdom. A second, to suppress
   the purity and power of religion, and such persons as were
   best affected to it, as being contrary to their own ends, and
   the greatest impediment to that change which they thought to
   introduce. A third, to conjoin those parties of the kingdom
   which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide
   those who were most opposite, which consisted in many
   particular observations. To cherish the Arminian part in those
   points wherein they agree with the Papists, to multiply and
   enlarge the difference between the common Protestants and
   those whom they call Puritans, to introduce and countenance
   such opinions and ceremonies as are fittest for accommodation
   with Popery, to increase and maintain ignorance, looseness and
   profaneness in the people; that of those three parties,
   Papists, Arminians and Libertines, they might compose a body
   fit to act such counsels and resolutions as were most
   conducible to their own ends. A fourth, to disaffect the King
   to Parliaments by slander and false imputations, and by
   putting him upon other ways of supply, which in show and
   appearance were fuller of advantage than the ordinary course
   of subsidies, though in truth they brought more loss than gain
   both to the King and people, and have caused the great
   distractions under which we both suffer. As in all compounded
   bodies the operations are qualified according to the
   predominant element, so in this mixed party, the Jesuited
   counsels, being most active and prevailing, may easily be
   discovered to have had the greatest sway in all their
   determinations, and if they be not prevented, are likely to
   devour the rest, or to turn them into their own nature. In the
   beginning of His Majesty's reign the party began to revive and
   flourish again, having been somewhat damped by the breach with
   Spain in the last year of King James, and by His Majesty's
   marriage with France; the interests and counsels of that State
   being not so contrary to the good of religion and the
   prosperity of this kingdom as those of Spain; and the Papists
   of England, having been ever more addicted to Spain than
   France, yet they still retained a purpose and resolution to
   weaken the Protestant parties in all parts, and even in
   France, whereby to make way for the change of religion which
   they intended at home.

   1. The first effect and evidence of their recovery and
   strength was the dissolution of the Parliament at Oxford,
   after there had been given two subsidies to His Majesty, and
   before they received relief in any one grievance many other
   more miserable effects followed.

   2. The loss of the Rochel fleet, by the help of our shipping,
   set forth and delivered over to the French in opposition to
   the advice of Parliament, which left that town without defence
   by sea, and made way, not only to the loss of that important
   place, but likewise to the loss of all the strength and
   security of the Protestant religion in France.

   3. The diverting of His Majesty's course of wars from the West
   Indies, which was the most facile and hopeful way for this
   kingdom to prevail against the Spaniard, to an expenseful and
   successless attempt upon Cadiz, which was so ordered as if it
   had rather been intended to make us weary of war than to
   prosper in it.

   4. The precipitate breach with France, by taking their ships
   to a great value without making recompense to the English,
   whose goods were thereupon imbarred and confiscated in that
   kingdom.

   5. The peace with Spain without consent of Parliament,
   contrary to the promise of King James to both Houses, whereby
   the Palatine's cause was deserted and left to chargeable and
   hopeless treaties, which for the most part were managed by
   those who might justly be suspected to be no friends to that
   cause.

   6. The charging of the kingdom with billeted soldiers in all
   parts of it, and the concomitant design of German horse, that
   the land might either submit with fear or be enforced with
   rigour to such arbitrary contributions as should be required
   of them.

   7. The dissolving of the Parliament in the second year of His
   Majesty's reign, after a declaration of their intent to grant
   five subsidies.

   8. The exacting of the like proportion of five subsidies,
   after the Parliament dissolved, by commission of loan, and
   divers gentlemen and others imprisoned for not yielding to pay
   that loan, whereby many of them contracted such sicknesses as
   cost them their lives.

   9. Great sums of money required and raised by privy seals.

   10. An unjust and pernicious attempt to extort great payments
   from the subject by way of excise, and a commission issued
   under the seal to that purpose.

   11. The Petition of Right, which was granted in full
   Parliament, blasted, with an illegal declaration to make it
   destructive to itself, to the power of Parliament, to the
   liberty of the subject, and to that purpose printed with it,
   and the Petition made of no use but to show the bold and
   presumptuous injustice of such ministers as durst break the
   laws and suppress the liberties of the kingdom, after they had
   been so solemnly and evidently declared.

   12. Another Parliament dissolved 4 Car., the privilege of
   Parliament broken, by imprisoning divers members of the House,
   detaining them close prisoners for many months together,
   without the liberty of using books, pen, ink or paper; denying
   them all the comforts of life, all means of preservation of
   health, not permitting their wives to come unto them even in
   the time of their sickness.

{859}

   13. And for the completing of that cruelty, after years spent
   in such miserable durance, depriving them of the necessary
   means of spiritual consolation, not suffering them to go
   abroad to enjoy God's ordinances in God's House, or God's
   ministers to come to them to minister comfort to them in their
   private chambers.

   14. And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not
   admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them
   with informations in inferior courts, sentencing and fining
   some of them for matters done in Parliament; and extorting the
   payments of those fines from them, enforcing others to put in
   security of good behaviour before they could be released.

   15. The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound,
   still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity
   had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve
   them, of whom one died [Sir John Eliot] by the cruelty and
   harshness of his imprisonment, which would admit of no
   relaxation, notwithstanding the imminent danger of his life,
   did sufficiently appear by the declaration of his physician,
   and his release, or at least his refreshment, was sought by
   many humble petitions, and his blood still cries either for
   vengeance or repentance of those Ministers of State, who have
   at once obstructed the course both of His Majesty's justice
   and mercy.

   16. Upon the dissolution of both these Parliaments, untrue and
   scandalous declarations were published to asperse their
   proceedings, and some of their members unjustly; to make them
   odious, and colour the violence which was used against them;
   proclamations set out to the same purpose; and to the great
   dejecting of the hearts of the people, forbidding them even to
   speak of Parliaments.

   17. After the breach of the Parliament in the fourth of His
   Majesty, injustice, oppression and violence broke in upon us
   without any restraint or moderation, and yet the first project
   was the great sums exacted through the whole kingdom for
   default of knighthood, which seemed to have some colour and
   shadow of a law, yet if it be rightly examined by that
   obsolete law which was pretended for it, it will be found to
   be against all the rules of justice, both in respect of the
   persons charged, the proportion of the fines demanded, and the
   absurd and unreasonable manner of their proceedings.

   18. Tonnage and Poundage hath been received without colour or
   pretence of law; many other heavy impositions continued
   against law, and some so unreasonable that the sum of the
   charge exceeds the value of the goods.

   19. The Book of Rates lately enhanced to a high proportion,
   and such merchants that would not submit to their illegal and
   unreasonable payments, were vexed and oppressed above measure;
   and the ordinary course of justice, the common birthright of
   the subject of England, wholly obstructed unto them.

   20. And although all this was taken upon pretence of guarding
   the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised,
   and upon the same pretence, by both which there was charged
   upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the
   merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the
   Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands
   of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do
   still remain in miserable slavery.

   21. The enlargements of forests, contrary to 'Carta de
   Foresta,' and the composition thereupon.

   22. The exactions of coat and conduct money and divers other
   military charges.

   23. The taking away the arms of trained bands of divers
   counties.

   24. The desperate design of engrossing all the gunpowder into
   one hand, keeping it in the Tower of London, and setting so
   high a rate upon it that the poorer sort were not able to buy
   it, nor could any have it without licence, thereby to leave
   the several parts of the kingdom destitute of their necessary
   defence, and by selling so dear that which was sold to make an
   unlawful advantage of it, to the great charge and detriment of
   the subject.

   25. The general destruction of the King's timber, especially
   that in the Forest of Deane, sold to Papists, which was the
   best store-house of this kingdom for the maintenance of our
   shipping.

   26. The taking away of men's right, under the colour of the
   King's title to land, between high and low water marks.

   27. The monopolies of soap, salt, wine, leather, sea-coal, and
   in a manner of all things of most common and necessary use.

   28. The restraint of the liberties of the subjects in their
   habitation, trades and other interests.

   29. Their vexation and oppression by purveyors, clerks of the
   market and saltpetre men.

   30. The sale of pretended nuisances, as building in and about
   London.

   31. Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture,
   under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out
   of the subjects' purses, without any considerable profit to
   His Majesty.

   32. Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been
   taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of
   Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without
   their consent, and against it.

   33. And not only private interest, but also public faith, have
   been broken in seizing of the money and bullion in the mint,
   and the whole kingdom like to be robbed at once in that
   abominable project of brass money.

   34. Great numbers of His Majesty's subjects for refusing those
   unlawful charges, have been vexed with long and expensive
   suits, some fined and censured, others committed to long and
   hard imprisonments and confinements, to the loss of health in
   many, of life in some, and others have had their houses broken
   up, their goods seized, some have been restrained from their
   lawful callings.

   35. Ships have been interrupted in their voyages, surprised at
   sea in a hostile manner by projectors, as by a common enemy.

   36. Merchants prohibited to unlade their goods in such ports
   as were for their own advantage, and forced to bring them to
   those places which were much for the advantage of the
   monopolisers and projectors.

{860}

   37. The Court of Star Chamber hath abounded in extravagant
   censures, not only for the maintenance and improvement of
   monopolies and other unlawful taxes, but for divers other
   causes where there hath been no offence, or very small;
   whereby His Majesty's subjects have been oppressed by grievous
   fines, imprisonments, stigmatisings, mutilations, whippings,
   pillories, gags, confinements, banishments; after so rigid a
   manner as hath not only deprived men of the society of their
   friends, exercise of their professions, comfort of books, use
   of paper or ink, but even violated that near union which God
   hath established between men and their wives, by forced and
   constrained separation, whereby they have been bereaved of the
   comfort and conversation one of another for many years
   together, without hope of relief, if God had not by His
   overruling providence given some interruption to the
   prevailing power, and counsel of those who were the authors
   and promoters of such peremptory and heady courses.

   38. Judges have been put out of their places for refusing to
   do against their oaths and consciences; others have been so
   awed that they durst not do their duties, and the better to
   hold a rod over them, the clause 'Quam diu se bene gesserit'
   was left out of their patents, and a new clause 'Durante bene
   placito' inserted.

   39. Lawyers have been checked for being faithful to their
   clients; solicitors and attorneys have been threatened, and
   some punished, for following lawful suits. And by this means
   all the approaches to justice were interrupted and forecluded.

   40. New oaths have been forced upon the subject against law.

   41. New judicatories erected without law. The Council Table
   have by their orders offered to bind the subjects in their
   freeholds, estates, suits and actions.

   42. The pretended Court of the Earl Marshal was arbitrary and
   illegal in its being and proceedings.

   43. The Chancery, Exchequer Chamber, Court of Wards, and other
   English Courts, have been grievous in exceeding their
   jurisdiction.

   44. The estate of many families weakened, and some ruined by
   excessive fines, exacted from them for compositions of
   wardships.

   45. All leases of above a hundred years made to draw on
   wardship contrary to law.

   46. Undue proceedings used in the finding of offices to make
   the jury find for the King.

   47. The Common Law Courts, feeling all men more inclined to
   seek justice there, where it may be fitted to their own
   desire, are known frequently to forsake the rules of the
   Common Law, and straying beyond their bounds, under pretence
   of equity, to do injustice.

   48. Titles of honour, judicial places, sergeantships at law,
   and other offices have been sold for great sums of money,
   whereby the common justice of the kingdom hath been much
   endangered, not only by opening a way of employment in places
   of great trust, and advantage to men of weak parts, but also
   by giving occasion to bribery, extortion, partiality, it
   seldom happening that places ill-gotton are well used.

   49. Commissions have been granted for examining the excess of
   fees, and when great exactions have been discovered,
   compositions have been made with delinquents, not only for the
   time past, but likewise for immunity and security in offending
   for the time to come, which under colour of remedy hath but
   confirmed and increased the grievance to the subject.

   50. The usual course of pricking Sheriffs not observed, but
   many times Sheriffs made in an extraordinary way, sometimes as
   a punishment and charge unto them; sometimes such were pricked
   out as would be instruments to execute whatsoever they would
   have to be done.

   51. The Bishops and the rest of the Clergy did triumph in the
   suspensions, ex-communications, deprivations, and degradations
   of divers painful, learned and pious ministers, in the
   vexation and grievous oppression of great numbers of His
   Majesty's good subjects.

   52. The High Commission grew to such excess of sharpness and
   severity as was not much less than the Romish Inquisition, and
   yet in many cases by the Archbishop's power was made much more
   heavy, being assisted and strengthened by authority of the
   Council Table.

   53. The Bishops and their Courts were as eager in the country;
   although their jurisdiction could not reach so high in rigour
   and extremity of punishment, yet were they no less grievous in
   respect of the generality and multiplicity of vexations, which
   lighting upon the meaner sort of tradesmen and artificers did
   impoverish many thousands.

   54. And so afflict and trouble others, that great numbers to
   avoid their miseries departed out of the kingdom, some into
   New England and other parts of America, others into Holland.

   55. Where they have transported their manufactures of cloth,
   which is not only a loss by diminishing the present stock of
   the kingdom, but a great mischief by impairing and endangering
   the loss of that particular trade of clothing, which hath been
   a plentiful fountain of wealth and honour to this nation.

   56. Those were fittest for ecclesiastical preferment, and
   soonest obtained it, who were most officious in promoting
   superstition, most virulent in railing against godliness and
   honesty.

   57. The most public and solemn sermons before His Majesty were
   either to advance prerogative above law, and decry the
   property of the subject, or full of such kind of invectives.

   58. Whereby they might make those odious who sought to
   maintain the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom, and
   such men were sure to be weeded out of the commission of the
   peace, and out of all other employments of power in the
   government of the country.

   59. Many noble personages were councillors in name, but the
   power and authority remained in a few of such as were most
   addicted to this party, whose resolutions and determinations
   were brought to the table for countenance and execution, and
   not for debate and deliberation, and no man could offer to
   oppose them without disgrace and hazard to himself.

   60. Nay, all those that did not wholly concur and actively
   contribute to the furtherance of their designs, though
   otherwise persons of never so great honour and abilities, were
   so far from being employed in any place of trust and power,
   that they were neglected, discountenanced, and upon all
   occasions injured and oppressed.

   61. This faction was grown to that height and entireness of
   power, that now they began to think of finishing their work,
   which consisted of these three parts.

   62. I. The government must be set free from all restraint of
   laws concerning our persons and estates.

{861}

   63. II. There must be a conjunction between Papists and
   Protestants in doctrine, discipline and ceremonies; only it
   must not yet be called Popery.

   64. III. The Puritans, under which name they include all those
   that desire to preserve the laws and liberties of the kingdom,
   and to maintain religion in the power of it, must be either
   rooted out of the kingdom with force, or driven out with fear.

   65. For the effecting of this it was thought necessary to
   reduce Scotland to such Popish superstitions and innovations
   as might make them apt to join with England in that great
   change which was intended.

   66. Whereupon new canons and a new liturgy were pressed upon
   them, and when they refused to admit of them, an army was
   raised to force them to it, towards which the Clergy and the
   Papists were very forward in their contribution.

   67. The Scots likewise raised an army for their defence.

   68. And when both armies were come together, and ready for a
   bloody encounter, His Majesty's own gracious disposition, and
   the counsel of the English nobility and dutiful submission of
   the Scots, did so far prevail against the evil counsel of
   others, that a pacification was made, and His Majesty returned
   with peace and much honour to London.

   69. The unexpected reconciliation was most acceptable to all
   the kingdom, except to the malignant party; whereof the
   Archbishop and the Earl of Strafford being heads, they and
   their faction begun to inveigh against the peace, and to
   aggravate the proceedings of the states, which so increased
   [incensed?] His Majesty, that he forthwith prepared again for
   war.

   70. And such was their confidence, that having corrupted and
   distempered the whole frame and government of the kingdom,
   they did now hope to corrupt that which was the only means to
   restore all to a right frame and temper again.

   71. To which end they persuaded His Majesty to call a
   Parliament, not to seek counsel and advice of them, but to
   draw countenance and supply from them, and to engage the whole
   kingdom in their quarrel.

   72. And in the meantime continued all their unjust levies of
   money, resolving either to make the Parliament pliant to their
   will, and to establish mischief by a law, or else to break it,
   and with more colour to go on by violence to take what they
   could not obtain by consent. The ground alleged for the
   justification of this war was this,

   73. That the undutiful demands of the Parliaments in Scotland
   was a sufficient reason for His Majesty to take arms against
   them, without hearing the reason of those demands, and
   thereupon a new army was prepared against them, their ships
   were seized in all ports both of England and Ireland, and at
   sea, their petitions rejected, their commissioners refused
   audience.

   74. The whole kingdom most miserably distempered with levies
   of men and money, and imprisonments of those who denied to
   submit to those levies.

   75. The Earl of Strafford passed into Ireland, caused the
   Parliament there to declare against the Scots, to give four
   subsidies towards that war, and to engage themselves, their
   lives and fortunes, for the prosecution of it, and gave
   directions for an army of eight thousand foot and one thousand
   horse to be levied there, which were for the most part
   Papists.

   76. The Parliament met upon the 13th of April, 1640. The Earl
   of Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury, with their party,
   so prevailed with His Majesty, that the House of Commons was
   pressed to yield a supply for maintenance of the war with
   Scotland, before they had provided any relief for the great
   and pressing grievances of the people, which being against the
   fundamental privilege and proceeding of Parliament, was yet in
   humble respect to His Majesty, so far admitted as that they
   agreed to take the matter of supply into consideration, and
   two several days it was debated.

   77. Twelve subsidies were demanded for the release of
   ship-money alone, a third day was appointed for conclusion,
   when the heads of that party begun to fear the people might
   close with the King, in falsifying his desires of money; but
   that withal they were like to blast their malicious designs
   against Scotland, finding them very much indisposed to give
   any countenance to that war.

   78. Thereupon they wickedly advised the King to break off the
   Parliament and to return to the ways of confusion, in which
   their own evil intentions were most likely to prosper and
   succeed.

   79. After the Parliament ended the 5th of May, 1640, this
   party grew so bold as to counsel the King to supply himself
   out of his subjects' estates by his own power, at his own
   will, without their consent.

   80. The very next day some members of both Houses had their
   studies and cabinets, yea, their pockets searched: another of
   them not long after was committed close prisoner for not
   delivering some petitions which he received by authority of
   that House.

   81. And if harsher courses were intended (as was reported) it
   is very probable that the sickness of the Earl of Strafford,
   and the tumultuous rising in Southwark and about Lambeth were
   the causes that such violent intentions were not brought to
   execution.

   82. A false and scandalous Declaration against the House of
   Commons was published in His Majesty's name, which yet wrought
   little effect with the people, but only to manifest the
   impudence of those who were authors of it.

   83. A forced loan of money was attempted in the City of
   London.

   84. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen in their several wards,
   enjoined to bring in a list of the names of such persons as
   they judged fit to lend, and of the sums they should lend. And
   such Aldermen as refused to do so were committed to prison.

   85. The Archbishop and the other Bishops and Clergy continued
   the Convocation, and by a new commission turned it into a
   provincial Synod, in which, by an unheard-of presumption, they
   made canons that contain in them many matters contrary to the
   King's prerogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of
   the realm, to the right of Parliaments, to the property and
   liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition and of
   dangerous consequence, thereby establishing their own
   usurpations, justifying their altar-worship, and those other
   superstitious innovations which they formerly introduced
   without warrant of law.

{862}

   86. They imposed a new oath upon divers of His Majesty's
   subjects, both ecclesiastical and lay, for maintenance of
   their own tyranny, and laid a great tax on the Clergy, for
   supply of His Majesty, and generally they showed themselves
   very affectionate to the war with Scotland, which was by some
   of them styled 'Bellum Episeopale,' and a prayer composed and
   enjoined to be read in all churches, calling the Scots rebels,
   to put the two nations in blood and make them irreconcilable.

   87. All those pretended canons and constitutions were armed
   with the several censures of suspension, excommunication,
   deprivation, by which they would have thrust out all the good
   ministers, and most of the well-affected people of the
   kingdom, and left an easy passage to their own design of
   reconciliation with Rome.

   88. The Popish party enjoyed such exemptions from penal laws
   as amounted to a toleration, besides many other encouragements
   and Court favours.

   89. They had a Secretary of State, Sir Francis Windebanck, a
   powerful agent for speeding all their desires.

   90. A Pope's Nuncio residing here, to act and govern them
   according to such influences as he received from Rome, and to
   intercede for them with the most powerful concurrence of the
   foreign princes of that religion.

   91. By his authority the Papists of all sorts, nobility,
   gentry, and clergy were convocated after the manner of a
   Parliament.

   92. New jurisdictions were erected of Romish Archbishops,
   taxes levied, another state moulded within this state
   independent in government, contrary in interest and affection,
   secretly corrupting the ignorant or negligent professors of
   our religion, and closely uniting and combining themselves
   against such as were found in this posture, waiting for an
   opportunity by force to destroy those whom they could not hope
   to seduce.

   93. For the effecting whereof they were strengthened with arms
   and munitions, encouraged by superstitious prayers, enjoined
   by the Nuncio to be weekly made for the prosperity of some
   great design.

   94. And such power had they at Court, that secretly a
   commission was issued out, or intended to be issued to some
   great men of that profession, for the levying of soldiers, and
   to command and employ them according to private instructions,
   which we doubt were framed for the advantage of those who were
   the contrivers of them.

   95. His Majesty's treasure was consumed, his revenue
   anticipated.

   96. His servants and officers compelled to lend great sums of
   money.

   97. Multitudes were called to the Council Table, who were
   tired with long attendances there for refusing illegal
   payments.

   98. The prisons were filled with their commitments; many of
   the Sheriffs summoned into the Star Chamber, and some
   imprisoned for not being quick enough in levying the
   ship-money; the people languished under grief and fear, no
   visible hope being left but in desperation.

   99. The nobility began to weary of their silence and patience,
   and sensible of the duty and trust which belongs to them: and
   thereupon some of the most ancient of them did petition His
   Majesty at such a time, when evil counsels were so strong,
   that they had occasion to expect more hazard to themselves,
   than redress of those public evils for which they interceded.

   100. Whilst the kingdom was in this agitation and distemper,
   the Scots, restrained in their trades, impoverished by the
   loss of many of their ships, bereaved of all possibility of
   satisfying His Majesty by any naked supplication, entered with
   a powerful army into the kingdom, and without any hostile act
   or spoil in the country they passed, more than forcing a
   passage over the Tyne at Newburn, near Newcastle, possessed
   themselves of Newcastle, and had a fair opportunity to press
   on further upon the King's army.

   101. But duty and reverence to His Majesty, and brotherly love
   to the English nation, made them stay there, whereby the King
   had leisure to entertain better counsels.

   102. Wherein God so blessed and directed him that he summoned
   the Great Council of Peers to meet at York upon the 24th of
   September, and there declared a Parliament to begin the 3d of
   November then following.

   103. The Scots, the first day of the Great Council, presented
   an humble Petition to His Majesty, whereupon the Treaty was
   appointed at Ripon.

   104. A present cessation of arms agreed upon, and the full
   conclusion of all differences referred to the wisdom and care
   of the Parliament.

   105. At our first meeting, all oppositions seemed to vanish,
   the mischiefs were so evident which those evil counsellors
   produced, that no man durst stand up to defend them: yet the
   work itself afforded difficulty enough.

   106. The multiplied evils and corruption of fifteen years,
   strengthened by custom and authority, and the concurrent
   interest of many powerful delinquents, were now to be brought
   to judgment and reformation.

   107. The King's household was to be provided for:—they had
   brought him to that want, that he could not supply his
   ordinary and necessary expenses without the assistance of his
   people.

   108. Two armies were to be paid, which amounted very near to
   eighty thousand pounds a month.

   109. The people were to be tenderly charged, having been
   formerly exhausted with many burdensome projects.

   110. The difficulties seemed to be insuperable, which by the
   Divine Providence we have overcome. The contrarieties
   incompatible, which yet in a great measure we have reconciled.

   111. Six subsidies have been granted and a Bill of poll-money,
   which if it be duly levied, may equal six subsidies more, in
   all £600,000.

   112. Besides we have contracted a debt to the Scots of
   £220,000, yet God hath so blessed the endeavours of this
   Parliament, that the kingdom is a great gainer by all these
   charges.

   113. The ship-money is abolished, which cost the kingdom about
   £200,000 a year.

   114. The coat and conduct-money, and other military charges
   are taken away, which in many countries amounted to little
   less than the ship-money.

   115. The monopolies are all suppressed, whereof some few did
   prejudice the subject, above £1,000,000 yearly.

   116. The soap £100,000.

   117. The wine £300,000.

   118. The leather must needs exceed both, and salt could be no
   less than that.

{863}

   119. Besides the inferior monopolies, which, if they could be
   exactly computed, would make up a great sum.

   120. That which is more beneficial than all this is, that the
   root of these evils is taken away, which was the arbitrary
   power pretended to be in His Majesty of taxing the subject, or
   charging their estates without consent in Parliament, which is
   now declared to be against law by the judgment of both Houses,
   and likewise by an Act of Parliament.

   121. Another step of great advantage is this, the living
   grievances, the evil counsellors and actors of these mischiefs
   have been so quelled.

   122. By the justice done upon the Earl of Strafford, the
   flight of the Lord Finch and Secretary Windebank.

   123. The accusation and imprisonment of the Archbishop of
   Canterbury, of Judge Berkeley; and

   124. The impeachment of divers other Bishops and Judges, that
   it is like not only to be an ease to the present times, but a
   preservation to the future.

   125. The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by the
   Bill for a triennial Parliament, and the abrupt dissolution of
   this Parliament by another Bill, by which it is provided it
   shall not be dissolved or adjourned without the consent of
   both Houses.

   126. Which two laws well considered may be thought more
   advantageous than all the former, because they secure a full
   operation of the present remedy, and afford a perpetual spring
   of remedies for the future.

   127. The Star Chamber.

   128. The High Commission.

   129. The Courts of the President and Council in the North were
   so many forges of misery, oppression and violence, and are all
   taken away, whereby men are more secured in their persons,
   liberties and estates, than they could be by any law or
   example for the regulation of those Courts or terror of the
   Judges.

   130. The immoderate power of the Council Table, and the
   excessive abuse of that power is so ordered and restrained,
   that we may well hope that no such things as were frequently
   done by them, to the prejudice of the public liberty, will
   appear in future times but only in stories, to give us and our
   posterity more occasion to praise God for His Majesty's
   goodness, and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament.

   131. The canons and power of canon-making are blasted by the
   votes of both Houses.

   132. The exorbitant power of Bishops and their courts are much
   abated, by some provisions in the Bill against the High
   Commission Court, the authors of the many innovations in
   doctrine and ceremonies.

   133. The ministers that have been scandalous in their lives,
   have been so terrified in just complaints and accusations,
   that we may well hope they will be more modest for the time to
   come; either inwardly convicted by the sight of their own
   folly, or outwardly restrained by the fear of punishment.

   134. The forests are by a good law reduced to their right
   bounds.

   135. The encroachments and oppressions of the Stannary Courts,
   the extortions of the clerk of the market.

   136. And the compulsion of the subject to receive the Order of
   Knighthood against his will, paying of fines for not receiving
   it, and the vexatious proceedings thereupon for levying of
   those fines, are by other beneficial laws reformed and
   prevented.

   137. Many excellent laws and provisions are in preparation for
   removing the inordinate power, vexation and usurpation of
   Bishops, for reforming the pride and idleness of many of the
   clergy, for easing the people of unnecessary ceremonies in
   religion, for censuring and removing unworthy and unprofitable
   ministers, and for maintaining godly and diligent preachers
   through the kingdom.

   138. Other things of main importance for the good of this
   kingdom are in proposition, though little could hitherto be
   done in regard of the many other more pressing businesses,
   which yet before the end of this Session we hope may receive
   some progress and perfection.

   139. The establishing and ordering the King's revenue, that so
   the abuse of officers and superfluity of expenses may be cut
   off, and the necessary disbursements for His Majesty's honour,
   the defence and government of the kingdom, may be more
   certainly provided for.

   140. The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both
   the delays and charges of lawsuits.

   141. The settling of some good courses for preventing the
   exportation of gold and silver, and the inequality of
   exchanges between us and other nations, for the advancing of
   native commodities, increase of our manufactures, and well
   balancing of trade, whereby the stock of the kingdom may be
   increased, or at least kept from impairing, as through neglect
   hereof it hath done for many years last past.

   142. Improving the herring-fishing upon our coasts, which will
   be of mighty use in the employment of the poor, and a
   plentiful nursery of mariners for enabling the kingdom in any
   great action.

   143. The oppositions, obstructions and other difficulties
   wherewith we have been encountered, and which still lie in our
   way with some strength and much obstinacy, are these: the
   malignant party whom we have formerly described to be the
   actors and promoters of all our misery, they have taken heart
   again.

   144. They have been able to prefer some of their own factors
   and agents to degrees of honour, to places of trust and
   employment, even during the Parliament.

   145. They have endeavoured to work in His Majesty ill
   impressions and opinions of our proceedings, as if we had
   altogether done our own work, and not his; and had obtained
   from him many things very prejudicial to the Crown, both in
   respect of prerogative and profit.

   146. To wipe out this slander we think good only to say thus
   much: that all that we have done is for His Majesty, his
   greatness, honour and support, when we yield to give £25,000 a
   month for the relief of the Northern Counties; this was given
   to the King, for he was bound to protect his subjects.

   147. They were His Majesty's evil counsellors, and their ill
   instruments that were actors in those grievances which brought
   in the Scots.

   148. And if His Majesty please to force those who were the
   authors of this war to make satisfaction, as he might justly
   and easily do, it seems very reasonable that the people might
   well be excused from taking upon them this burden, being
   altogether innocent and free from being any cause of it.

{864}

   149. When we undertook the charge of the army, which cost
   above £50,000 a month, was not this given to the King? Was it
   not His Majesty's army? Were not all the commanders under
   contract with His Majesty, at higher rates and greater wages
   than ordinary?

   150. And have not we taken upon us to discharge all the
   brotherly assistance of £300,000, which we gave the Scots? Was
   it not toward repair of those damages and losses which they
   received from the King's ships and from his ministers?

   151. These three particulars amount to above £1,100,000.

   152. Besides, His Majesty hath received by impositions upon
   merchandise at least £400,000.

   153. So that His Majesty hath had out of the subjects' purse
   since the Parliament began, £1,500,000 and yet these men can
   be so impudent as to tell His Majesty that we have done
   nothing for him.

   154. As to the second branch of this slander, we acknowledge
   with much thankfulness that His Majesty hath passed more good
   Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in many
   ages.

   155. But withal we cannot forget that these venomous councils
   did manifest themselves in some endeavours to hinder these
   good acts.

   156. And for both Houses of Parliament we may with truth and
   modesty say thus much: that we have ever been careful not to
   desire anything that should weaken the Crown either in just
   profit or useful power.

   157. The triennial Parliament for the matter of it, doth not
   extend to so much as by law we ought to have required (there
   being two statutes still in force for a Parliament to be once
   a year), and for the manner of it, it is in the King's power
   that it shall never take effect, if he by a timely summons
   shall prevent any other way of assembling.

   158. In the Bill for continuance of this present Parliament,
   there seems to be some restraint of the royal power in
   dissolving of Parliaments, not to take it out of the Crown,
   but to suspend the execution of it for this time and occasion
   only: which was so necessary for the King's own security and
   the public peace, that without it we could not have undertaken
   any of these great charges, but must have left both the armies
   to disorder and confusion, and the whole kingdom to blood and
   rapine.

   159. The Star Chamber was much more fruitful in oppression
   than in profit, the great fines being for the most part given
   away, and the rest stalled at long times.

   160. The fines of the High Commission were in themselves
   unjust, and seldom or never came into the King's purse. These
   four Bills are particularly and more specially instanced.

   161. In the rest there will not be found so much as a shadow
   of prejudice to the Crown.

   162. They have sought to diminish our reputation with the
   people, and to bring them out of love with Parliaments.

   163. The aspersions which they have attempted this way have
   been such as these:

   164. That we have spent much time and done little, especially
   in those grievances which concern religion.

   165. That the Parliament is a burden to the kingdom by the
   abundance of protections which hinder justice and trade; and
   by many subsidies granted much more heavy than any formerly
   endured.

   166. To which there is a ready answer; if the time spent in
   this Parliament be considered in relation backward to the long
   growth and deep root of those grievances, which we have
   removed, to the powerful supports of those delinquents, which
   we have pursued, to the great necessities and other charges of
   the commonwealth for which we have provided.

   167. Or if it be considered in relation forward to many
   advantages, which not only the present but future ages are
   like to reap by the good laws and other proceedings in this
   Parliament, we doubt not but it will be thought by all
   indifferent judgments, that our time hath been much better
   employed than in a far greater proportion of time in many
   former Parliaments put together; and the charges which have
   been laid upon the subject, and the other inconveniences which
   they have borne, will seem very light in respect of the
   benefit they have and may receive.

   168. And for the matter of protections, the Parliament is so
   sensible of it that therein they intended to give them
   whatsoever ease may stand with honour and justice, and are in
   a way of passing a Bill to give them satisfaction.

   169. They have sought by many subtle practices to cause
   jealousies and divisions betwixt us and our brethren of
   Scotland, by slandering their proceedings and intentions
   towards us, and by secret endeavours to instigate and incense
   them and us one against another.

   170. They have had such a party of Bishops and Popish lords in
   the House of Peers, as hath caused much opposition and delay
   in the prosecution of delinquents, hindered the proceedings of
   divers good Bills passed in the Commons' House, concerning the
   reformation of sundry great abuses and corruptions both in
   Church and State.

   171. They have laboured to seduce and corrupt some of the
   Commons' House to draw them into conspiracies and combinations
   against the liberty of the Parliament.

   172. And by their instruments and agents they have attempted
   to disaffect and discontent His Majesty's army, and to engage
   it for the maintenance of their wicked and traitorous designs;
   the keeping up of Bishops in votes and functions, and by force
   to compel the Parliament to order, limit and dispose their
   proceedings in such manner as might best concur with the
   intentions of this dangerous and potent faction.

   173. And when one mischievous design and attempt of theirs to
   bring on the army against the Parliament and the City of
   London, hath been discovered and prevented;

   174. They presently undertook another of the same damnable
   nature, with this addition to it, to endeavour to make the
   Scottish army neutral, whilst the English army, which they had
   laboured to corrupt and envenom against us by their false and
   slanderous suggestions, should execute their malice to the
   subversion of our religion and the dissolution of our
   government.

   175. Thus they have been continually practising to disturb the
   peace, and plotting the destruction even of all the King's
   dominions; and have employed their emissaries and agents in
   them, all for the promoting their devilish designs, which the
   vigilancy of those who were well affected hath still
   discovered and defeated before they were ripe for execution in
   England and Scotland.

{865}

   176. Only in Ireland, which was farther off, they have had
   time and opportunity to mould and prepare their work, and had
   brought it to that perfection that they had possessed
   themselves of that whole kingdom, totally subverted the
   government of it, routed out religion, and destroyed all the
   Protestants whom the conscience of their duty to God, their
   King and country, would not have permitted to join with them,
   if by God's wonderful providence their main enterprise upon
   the city and castle of Dublin, had not been detected and
   prevented upon the very eve before it should have been
   executed.

   177. Notwithstanding they have in other parts of that kingdom
   broken out into open rebellion, surprising towns and castles,
   committed murders, rapes and other villainies, and shaken off
   all bonds of obedience to His Majesty and the laws of the
   realm.

   178. And in general have kindled such a fire, as nothing but
   God's infinite blessing upon the wisdom and endeavours of this
   State will be able to quench it.

   179. And certainly had not God in His great mercy unto this
   land discovered and confounded their former designs, we had
   been the prologue to this tragedy in Ireland, and had by this
   been made the lamentable spectacle of misery and confusion.

   180. And now what hope have we but in God, when as the only
   means of our subsistence and power of reformation is under Him
   in the Parliament?

   181. But what can we the Commons, without the conjunction of
   the House of Lords, and what conjunction can we expect there,
   when the Bishops and recusant lords are so numerous and
   prevalent that they are able to cross and interrupt our best
   endeavours for reformation, and by that means give advantage
   to this malignant party to traduce our proceedings?

   182. They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all
   Church government, and leave every man to his own fancy for
   the service and worship of God, absolving him of that
   obedience which he owes under God unto His Majesty, whom we
   know to be entrusted with the ecclesiastical law as well as
   with the temporal, to regulate all the members of the Church
   of England, by such rules of order and discipline as are
   established by Parliament, which is his great council in all
   affairs both in Church and State.

   183. We confess our intention is, and our endeavours have
   been, to reduce within bounds that exorbitant power which the
   prelates have assumed unto themselves, so contrary both to the
   Word of God and to the laws of the land, to which end we
   passed the Bill for the removing them from their temporal
   power and employments, that so the better they might with
   meekness apply themselves to the discharge of their functions,
   which Bill themselves opposed, and were the principal
   instruments of crossing it.

   184. And we do here declare that it is far from our purpose or
   desire to let loose the golden reins of discipline and
   government in the Church, to leave private persons or
   particular congregations to take up what form of Divine
   Service they please, for we hold it requisite that there
   should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that
   order which the laws enjoin according to the Word of God. And
   we desire to unburden the consciences of men of needless and
   superstitious ceremonies, suppress innovations, and take away
   the monuments of idolatry.

   185. And the better to effect the intended reformation, we
   desire there may be a general synod of the most grave, pious,
   learned and judicious divines of this island; assisted with
   some from foreign parts, professing the same religion with us,
   who may consider of all things necessary for the peace and
   good government of the Church, and represent the results of
   their consultations unto the Parliament, to be there allowed
   of and confirmed, and receive the stamp of authority, thereby
   to find passage and obedience throughout the kingdom.

   186. They have maliciously charged us that we intend to
   destroy and discourage learning, whereas it is our chiefest
   care and desire to advance it, and to provide a competent
   maintenance for conscionable and preaching ministers
   throughout the kingdom, which will be a great encouragement to
   scholars, and a certain means whereby the want, meanness and
   ignorance, to which a great part of the clergy is now subject,
   will be prevented.

   187. And we intended likewise to reform and purge the
   fountains of learning, the two Universities, that the streams
   flowing from thence may be clear and pure, and an honour and
   comfort to the whole land.

   188. They have strained to blast our proceedings in
   Parliament, by wresting the interpretations of our orders from
   their genuine intention.

   189. They tell the people that our meddling with the power of
   episcopacy hath caused sectaries and conventicles, when
   idolatrous and Popish ceremonies, introduced into the Church
   by the command of the Bishops have not only debarred the
   people from thence, but expelled them from the kingdom.

   190. Thus with Elijah, we are called by this malignant party
   the troublers of the State, and still, while we endeavour to
   reform their abuses, they make us the authors of those
   mischiefs we study to prevent.

   191. For the perfecting of the work begun, and removing all
   future impediments, we conceive these courses will be very
   effectual, seeing the religion of the Papists hath such
   principles as do certainly tend to the destruction and
   extirpation of all Protestants, when they shall have
   opportunity to effect it.

   192. It is necessary in the first place to keep them in such
   condition as that they may not be able to do us any hurt, and
   for avoiding of such connivance and favour as hath heretofore
   been shown unto them.

   193. That His Majesty be pleased to grant a standing
   Commission to some choice men named in Parliament, who may
   take notice of their increase, their counsels and proceedings,
   and use all due means by execution of the laws to prevent all
   mischievous designs against the peace and safety of this
   kingdom.

   194. Thus some good course be taken to discover the
   counterfeit and false conformity of Papists to the Church, by
   colour whereof persons very much disaffected to the true
   religion have been admitted into place of greatest authority
   and trust in the kingdom.

{866}

   195. For the better preservation of the laws and liberties of
   the kingdom, that all illegal grievances and exactions be
   presented and punished at the sessions and assizes.

   196. And that Judges and Justices be very careful to give this
   in charge to the grand jury, and both the Sheriff and Justices
   to be sworn to the due execution of the Petition of Right and
   other laws.

   197. That His Majesty be humbly petitioned by both Houses to
   employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in
   managing his business at home and abroad as the Parliament may
   have cause to confide in, without which we cannot give His
   Majesty such supplies for support of his own estate, nor such
   assistance to the Protestant party beyond the sea, as is
   desired.

   198. It may often fall out that the Commons may have just
   cause to take exceptions at some men for being councillors,
   and yet not charge those men with crimes, for there be grounds
   of diffidence which lie not in proof.

   199. There are others, which though they may be proved, yet
   are not legally criminal.

   200. To be a known favourer of Papists, or to have been very
   forward in defending or countenancing some great offenders
   questioned in Parliament; or to speak contemptuously of either
   Houses of Parliament or Parliamentary proceedings.

   201. Or such as are factors or agents for any foreign prince
   of another religion; such are justly suspected to get
   councillors' places, or any other of trust concerning public
   employment for money; for all these and divers others we may
   have great reason to be earnest with His Majesty, not to put
   his great affairs into such hands, though we may be unwilling
   to proceed against them in any legal way of charge or
   impeachment.

   202. That all Councillors of State may be sworn to observe
   those laws which concern the subject in his liberty, that they
   may likewise take an oath not to receive or give reward or
   pension from any foreign prince, but such as they shall within
   some reasonable time discover to the Lords of His Majesty's
   Council.

   203. And although they should wickedly forswear themselves,
   yet it may herein do good to make them known to be false and
   perjured to those who employ them, and thereby bring them into
   as little credit with them as with us.

   204. That His Majesty may have cause to be in love with good
   counsel and good men, by shewing him in an humble and dutiful
   manner how full of advantage it would be to himself, to see
   his own estate settled in a plentiful condition to support his
   honour; to see his people united in ways of duty to him, and
   endeavours of the public good; to see happiness, wealth, peace
   and safety derived to his own kingdom, and procured to his
   allies by the influence of his own power and government."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).
   The King's attempt against the Five Members.

   On the 3d of January, "the king was betrayed into … an
   indiscretion to which all the ensuing disorders and civil wars
   ought immediately and directly to be ascribed. This was the
   impeachment of Lord Kimbolton and the five members. …
   Herbert, attorney-general, appeared in the House of Peers,
   and, in his majesty's name, entered an accusation of high
   treason against Lord Kimbolton and five commoners, Hollis, Sir
   Arthur Hazlerig, Hambden, Pym, and Strode. The articles were,
   That they had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the
   fundamental laws and government of the kingdom, to deprive the
   king of his regal power, and to impose on his subjects an
   arbitrary and tyrannical authority; that they had endeavoured,
   by many foul aspersions on his majesty and his government, to
   alienate the affections of his people, and make him odious to
   them; that they had attempted to draw his late army to
   disobedience of his royal commands, and to side with them in
   their traitorous designs; that they had invited and encouraged
   a foreign power to invade the kingdom; that they had aimed at
   subverting the rights and very being of Parliament; that, in
   order to complete their traitorous designs, they had
   endeavoured, as far as in them lay, by force and terror, to
   compel the Parliament to join with them, and to that end had
   actually raised and countenanced tumults against the king and
   Parliament; and that they had traitorously conspired to levy,
   and actually had levied, war against the king. The whole world
   stood amazed at this important accusation, so suddenly entered
   upon, without concert, deliberation or reflection. … But men
   had not leisure to wonder at the indiscretion of this measure:
   their astonishment was excited by new attempts, still more
   precipitate and imprudent. A sergeant at arms, in the king's
   name, demanded of the House the five members, and was sent
   back without any positive answer. Messengers were employed to
   search for them and arrest them. Their trunks, chambers, and
   studies, were sealed and locked. The House voted all these
   acts of violence to be breaches of privilege, and commanded
   everyone to defend the liberty of the members. The king,
   irritated by all this opposition, resolved next day to come in
   person to the House, with an intention to demand, perhaps
   seize, in their presence, the persons whom he had accused.
   This resolution was discovered to the Countess of Carlisle,
   sister to Northumberland, a lady of spirit, wit, and intrigue.
   She privately sent intelligence to the five members; and they
   had time to withdraw, a moment before the king entered. He was
   accompanied by his ordinary retinue, to the number of above
   two hundred, armed as usual, some with halberts, some with
   walking swords. The king left them at the door, and he himself
   advanced alone through the hall, while all the members rose to
   receive him. The speaker withdrew from his chair, and the king
   took possession of it. The speech which he made was as
   follows: 'Gentlemen, I am sorry for this occasion of coming to
   you. Yesterday, I sent a sergeant at arms, to demand some,
   who, by my order, were accused of high treason. Instead of
   obedience, I received a message. … Therefore am I come to
   tell you, that I must have these men wheresoever I can find
   them. Well, since I see all the birds are flown, I do expect
   that you will send them to me as soon as they return. But I
   assure you, on the word of a king, I never did intend any
   force, but shall proceed against them in a fair and legal way,
   for I never meant any other.' … When the king was looking
   around for the accused members, he asked the speaker, who
   stood below, whether any of these persons were in the House?
   The speaker, falling on his knee, prudently replied: 'I have,
   sir, neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place,
   but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am.
{867}
   And I humbly ask pardon, that I cannot give any other answer
   to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.' The Commons
   were in the utmost disorder; and when the king was departing,
   some members cried aloud so as he might hear them, Privilege!
   Privilege! and the House immediately adjourned till next day.
   That evening, the accused members, to show the greater
   apprehension, removed into the city, which was their fortress.
   The citizens were the whole night in arms. … When the House
   of Commons met, they affected the greatest dismay; and
   adjourning themselves for some days, ordered a committee to
   sit in Merchant-Tailors' hall in the city. … The House again
   met, and after confirming the votes of their committee, instantly
   adjourned, as if exposed to the most imminent perils from the
   violence of their enemies. This practice they continued for
   some time. When the people, by these affected panics, were
   wrought up to a sufficient degree of rage and terror, it was
   thought proper, that the accused members should, with a
   triumphant and military procession, take their seats in the
   House. The river was covered with boats, and other vessels,
   laden with small pieces of ordnance, and prepared for fight.
   Skippon, whom the Parliament had appointed, by their own
   authority, major-general of the city militia, conducted the
   members, at the head of this tumultuary army, to
   Westminster-hall. And when the populace, by land and by water,
   passed Whitehall, they still asked, with insulting shouts,
   What has become of the king and his cavaliers? And whither are
   they fled? The king, apprehensive of danger from the enraged
   multitude, had retired to Hampton-court, deserted by all the
   world, and overwhelmed with grief, shame, and remorse for the
   fatal measures into which he had been hurried."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      volume 5, chapter 55, pages 85-91._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 6, section 5._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapter 103 (volume 10)._

      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Cent.,
      book 8, chapter 10 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
   Preparations for war.
   The marshalling of forces.
   The raising of the King's standard.

   "January 10th. The King with his Court quits Whitehall; the
   Five Members and Parliament proposing to return tomorrow, with
   the whole City in arms round them. He left Whitehall; never
   saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.

   March 9th. The King has sent away his Queen from Dover, 'to be
   in a place of safety,'—and also to pawn the Crown-jewels in
   Holland, and get him arms. He returns Northward again,
   avoiding London. Many messages between the Houses of
   Parliament and him: 'Will your Majesty grant us Power of the
   Militia; accept this list of Lord-Lieutenants?' On the 9th of
   March, still advancing Northward without affirmative response,
   he has got to Newmarket; where another Message overtakes him,
   earnestly urges itself upon him: 'Could not your Majesty
   please to grant us Power of the Militia for a limited time?'
   'No, by God!' answers his Majesty, 'not for an hour.'

   On the 19th of March he is at York; where his Hull Magazine,
   gathered for service against the Scots, is lying near; where a
   great Earl of Newcastle, and other Northern potentates, will
   help him; where at least London and its Puritanism, now grown
   so fierce, is far off. There we will leave him; attempting
   Hull Magazine, in vain; exchanging messages with his
   Parliament; messages, missives, printed and written Papers
   without limit: Law-pleadings of both parties before the great
   tribunal of the English Nation, each party striving to prove
   itself right and within the verge of Law: preserved still in
   acres of typography, once thrillingly alive in every fibre of
   them; now a mere torpor, readable by few creatures, not
   rememberable by any."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 2, preliminary._

   "As early as June 2 a ship had arrived on the North English
   coast, bringing the King arms and ammunition from Holland,
   purchased by the sale of the crown-jewels which the Queen had
   taken abroad. On the 22d of the same month more than forty of
   the nobles and others in attendance on the King at York had
   put down their names for the numbers of armed horse they would
   furnish respectively for his service. Requisitions in the
   King's name were also out for supplies of money; and the two
   Universities, and the Colleges in each, were invited to send
   in their plate. On the other hand, the Parliament had not been
   more negligent. There had been contributions or promises from
   all the chief Parliamentarian nobles and others; there was a
   large loan from the city; and hundreds of thousands, on a
   smaller scale, were willing to subscribe. And already, through
   all the shires, the two opposed powers were grappling and
   jostling with each other in raising levies. On the King's side
   there were what were called Commissions of Array, or powers
   granted to certain nobles and others by name to raise troops
   for the King. On the side of Parliament, in addition to the
   Volunteering which had been going on in many places (as, for
   example, in Cambridgeshire, where Oliver Cromwell was forming
   a troop of Volunteer horse … ), there was the Militia
   Ordinance available wherever the persons named in that
   ordinance were really zealous for Parliament, and able to act
   personally in the districts assigned them. And so on the 12th
   of July the Parliament had passed the necessary vote for
   supplying an army, and had appointed the Earl of Essex to be
   its commander-in-chief, and the Earl of Bedford to be its
   second in command as general of horse. It was known, on the
   other side, that the Earl of Lindsey, in consideration of his
   past experience of service both on sea and land, was to have
   the command of the King's army, and that his master of horse
   was to be the King's nephew, young Prince Rupert, who was
   expected from the Continent on purpose. Despite all these
   preparations, however, it was probably not till August had
   begun that the certainty of Civil War was universally
   acknowledged. It was on the 9th of that month that the King
   issued his proclamation 'for suppressing the present Rebellion
   under the command of Robert, Earl of Essex,' offering pardon
   to him and others if within six days they made their
   submission. The Parliamentary answer to this was on the 11th;
   on which day the Commons resolved, each man separately rising
   in his place and giving his word, that they would stand by the
   Earl of Essex with their lives and fortunes to the end. Still,
   even after that, there were trembling souls here and there who
   hoped for a reconciliation.
{868}
   Monday the 22d of August put an end to all such fluttering:
   —On that day, the King, who had meanwhile left York, and come
   about a hundred miles farther south, into the very heart of
   England, … made a backward movement as far as the town of
   Nottingham, where preparations had been made for the great
   scene that was to follow. … This consisted in bringing out
   the royal standard and setting it up in due form. It was about
   six o'clock in the evening when it was done. … A herald read
   a proclamation, declaring the cause why the standard had been
   set up, and summoning all the lieges to assist his Majesty.
   Those who were present cheered and threw up their hats, and,
   with a beating of drums and a sounding of trumpets, the
   ceremony ended. … From that evening of the 22d of August,
   1642, the Civil War had begun."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _John Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapters 104-105 (volume 10)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
   The nation choosing sides.

   "In wealth, in numbers, and in cohesion the Parliament was
   stronger than the king. To him there had rallied most of the
   greater nobles, many of the lesser gentry, some proportion of
   the richer citizens, the townsmen of the west, and the rural
   population generally of the west and north of England. For the
   Parliament stood a strong section of the peers and greater
   gentry, the great bulk of the lesser gentry, the townsmen of
   the richer parts of England, the whole eastern and home
   counties, and lastly, the city of London. But as the Civil War
   did not sharply divide classes, so neither did it
   geographically bisect England. Roughly speaking, aristocracy
   and peasantry, the Church, universities, the world of culture,
   fashion, and pleasure were loyal: the gentry, the yeomanry,
   trade, commerce, morality, and law inclined to the Parliament.
   Broadly divided, the north and west went for the king; the
   south and east for the Houses; but the lines of demarcation
   were never exact: cities, castles, and manor-houses long held
   out in an enemy's county. There is only one permanent
   limitation. Draw a line from the Wash to the Solent. East of
   that line the country never yielded to the king; from first to
   last it never failed the Parliament. Within it are enclosed
   Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford,
   Bucks, Herts, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex. This was the
   wealthiest, the most populous, and the most advanced portion
   of England. With Gloucester, Reading, Bristol, Leicester, and
   Northampton, it formed the natural home of Puritanism."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
   Edgehill—the opening battle of the war.
   The Eastern Association.

   Immediately after the raising of his standard at Nottingham,
   the King, "aware at last that he could not rely on the
   inhabitants of Yorkshire, moved to Shrewsbury, at once to
   collect the Catholic gentry of Lancashire and Cheshire, to
   receive the Royalist levies of Wales, and to secure the valley
   of the Severn. The movement was successful. In a few days his
   little army was increased fourfold, and he felt himself strong
   enough to make a direct march towards the capital. Essex had
   garrisoned Northampton, Coventry and Warwick, and lay himself
   at Worcester; but the King, waiting for no sieges, left the
   garrisoned towns unmolested and passed on towards London, and
   Essex received peremptory orders to pursue and interpose if
   possible between the King and London. On the 22nd of October
   he was close upon the King's rear at Keynton, between
   Stratford and Banbury. But his army was by no means at its
   full strength; some regiments had been left to garrison the
   West, others, under Hampden had not yet joined him. But delay
   was impossible, and the first battle of the war was fought on
   the plain at the foot of the north-west slope of Edgehill,
   over which the royal army descended, turning back on its
   course to meet Essex. Both parties claimed the victory. In
   fact it was with the King. The Parliamentary cavalry found
   themselves wholly unable to withstand the charge of Rupert's
   cavaliers. Whole regiments turned and fled without striking a
   blow; but, as usual, want of discipline ruined the royal
   cause. Rupert's men fell to plundering the Parliamentary
   baggage, and returned to the field only in time to find that
   the infantry, under the personal leading of Essex, had
   reestablished the fight. Night closed the battle [which is
   sometimes named from Edgehill and sometimes from Keynton]. The
   King's army withdrew to the vantage-ground of the hills, and
   Essex, reinforced by Hampden, passed the night upon the field.
   But the Royalist army was neither beaten nor checked in its
   advance, while the rottenness of the Parliamentary troops had
   been disclosed." Some attempts at peace-making followed this
   doubtful first collision; but their only effect was to
   embitter the passions on both sides. The King advanced,
   threatening London, but the citizens of the capital turned out
   valiantly to oppose him, and he "fell back upon Oxford, which
   henceforward became the centre of their operations. … War
   was again the only resource, and speedily became universal.
   … There was local fighting over the whole of England. …
   The headquarters of the King were constantly at Oxford, from
   which, as from a centre, Rupert would suddenly make rapid
   raids, now in one direction, now in another. Between him and
   London, about Reading, Aylesbury, and Thame, lay what may be
   spoken of as the main army of Parliament, under the command of
   Lord-General Essex. … The other two chief scenes of the war
   were Yorkshire and the West. In Yorkshire the Fairfaxes,
   Ferdinando Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas, made what head
   they could against what was known as the Popish army under the
   command of the Earl, subsequently Marquis of Newcastle, which
   consisted mainly of the troops of the Northern counties, which
   had become associated under Newcastle in favour of Charles.
   Newark, in Nottinghamshire, was early made a royal garrison,
   and formed the link of connection between the operations in
   Yorkshire and at Oxford. In the extreme South-west, Lord
   Stamford, the Parliamentary General, was making a somewhat
   unsuccessful resistance against Sir Ralph, afterwards Lord
   Hopton. Wales was wholly Royalist, and one of the chief
   objects of Charles's generals was to secure the Severn valley,
   and thus connect the war in Devonshire with the central
   operations at Oxford. In the Eastern counties matters assumed
   rather a different form. The principle of forming several
   counties into an association … was adopted by the
   Parliament, and several such associations were formed, but
   none of these came to much except that of the Eastern
   counties, which was known by way of preeminence as 'The
   Association.' Its object was to keep the war entirely beyond
   the borders of the counties of which it consisted. The reason
   of its success was the genius and energy of Cromwell."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, period 2,
      page 659._

{869}

   "This winter there arise among certain Counties 'Associations'
   for mutual defence, against Royalism and plunderous Rupertism;
   a measure cherished by the Parliament, condemned as
   treasonable by the King. Of which 'Associations,' countable to
   the number of five or six, we name only one, that of Norfolk,
   Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Herts; with Lord Gray of Wark for
   Commander; where and under whom Oliver was now serving. This
   'Eastern Association' is alone worth naming. All the other
   Associations, no man of emphasis being in the midst of them,
   fell in a few months to pieces; only this of Cromwell
   subsisted, enlarged itself, grew famous;—and kept its own
   borders clear of invasion during the whole course of the War."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 2, preliminary._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      chapters 2-4 (volume l)._

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (May).
   Cromwell's Ironsides.

   "It was … probably, a little before Edgehill, that there
   took place between Cromwell and Hampden the memorable
   conversation which fifteen years afterwards the Protector
   related in a speech to his second Parliament. It is a piece of
   autobiography so instructive and pathetic that it must be set
   forth in full in the words of Cromwell himself:

   'I was a person who, from my first employment, was suddenly
   preferred and lifted up from lesser trusts to greater; from my
   first being Captain of a Troop of Horse. … I had a very
   worthy friend then; and he was a very noble person, and I know
   his memory was very grateful to all,—Mr. John Hampden. At my
   first going out into this engagement, I saw our men were
   beaten at every hand. … Your troops, said I, are most of
   them old decayed serving-men, and tapsters, and such kind of
   fellows; and, said I, their troops are gentlemen's sons,
   younger sons and persons of quality: do you think that the
   spirits of such base mean fellows will ever be able to
   encounter gentlemen, that have honour and courage and
   resolution in them? Truly I did represent to him in this
   manner conscientiously; and truly I did tell him: You must get
   men of a spirit: and take it not ill what I say,—I know you
   will not,—of a spirit that is likely to go on as far as
   gentlemen will go: or else you will be beaten still. I told
   him so; I did truly. He was a wise and worthy person; and he
   did think that I talked a good notion, but an impracticable
   one. … I raised such men as had the fear of God before them,
   as made some conscience of what they did; and from that day
   forward, I must say to you, they were never beaten, and
   wherever they were engaged against the enemy they beat
   continually.' … The issue of the whole war lay in that word.
   It lay with 'such men as had some conscience in what they
   did.' 'From that day forward they were never beaten.' … As
   for Colonel Cromwell,' writes a news-letter of May, 1643, 'he
   hath 2,000 brave men, well disciplined; no man swears but he
   pays his twelve-pence; if he be drunk, he is set in the
   stocks, or worse; if one calls the other roundhead he is
   cashiered: insomuch that the countries where they come leap
   for joy of them, and come in and join with them. How happy
   were it if all the forces were thus disciplined!' These were
   the men who ultimately decided the war, and established the
   Commonwealth. On the field of Marston, Rupert gave Cromwell
   the name of Ironside, and from thence this famous name passed
   to his troopers. There are two features in their history which
   we need to note. They were indeed 'such men as had some
   conscience in their work'; but they were also much more. They
   were disciplined and trained soldiers. They were the only body
   of 'regulars' on either side. The instinctive genius of
   Cromwell from the very first created the strong nucleus of a
   regular army, which at last in discipline, in skill, in
   valour, reached the highest perfection ever attained by
   soldiers either in ancient or modern times. The fervour of
   Cromwell is continually pressing towards the extension of this
   'regular' force. Through all the early disasters, this body of
   Ironsides kept the cause alive: at Marston it overwhelmed the
   king: as soon as, by the New Model, this system was extended
   to the whole army, the Civil War was at an end."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
   The King calls in the Irish.

   "To balance the accession of power which the alliance with
   Scotland brought to the Parliament, Charles was so unwise, men
   then said so guilty, as to conclude a peace with the Irish
   rebels, with the intent that thus those of his forces which
   had been employed against them, might be set free to join his
   army in England. No act of the King, not the levying of
   ship-money, not the crowd of monopolies which enriched the
   court and impoverished the people, neither the extravagance of
Buckingham, the tyranny of Strafford nor the prelacy of Laud, not
   even the attempted arrest of the five members, raised such a
   storm of indignation and hatred throughout the kingdom, as did
   this determination of the King to withdraw (as men said), for
   the purpose of subduing his subjects, the force which had been
   raised to avenge the blood of 100,000 Protestant martyrs. …
   To the England of the time this act was nauseous, was
   exasperating to the highest degree, while to the cause of the
   King it was fatal; for, from this moment, the condition of the
   Parliamentary party began to mend."

      _N. L. Walford,
      Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 2._

   "None of the king's schemes proved so fatal to his cause as
   these. On their discovery, officer after officer in his own
   army flung down their commissions, the peers who had fled to
   Oxford fled back again to London, and the Royalist reaction in
   the Parliament itself came utterly to an end."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 8, section 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).
   Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.

   At the beginning of July, 1643, "London was astir with a new
   event of great consequence in the course of the national
   revolution. This was the meeting of the famous Westminster
   Assembly. The necessity of an ecclesiastical Synod or
   Convocation, to cooperate with the Parliament, had been long
   felt.
{870}
   Among the articles of the Grand Remonstrance of December 1641
   had been one desiring a convention of 'a General Synod of the
   most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines of this
   island, assisted by some from foreign parts,' to consider of
   all things relating to the Church and report thereon to
   Parliament. It is clear from the wording of this article that
   it was contemplated that the Synod should contain
   representatives from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
   Indeed, by that time, the establishment of a uniformity of
   Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship between the Churches of
   England and Scotland was the fixed idea of those who chiefly
   desired a Synod. … In April, 1642 … it was ordered by the
   House, in pursuance of previous resolutions on the subject,
   'that the names of such divines as shall be thought fit to be
   consulted with concerning the matter of the Church be brought
   in tomorrow morning,' the understood rule being that the
   knights and burgesses of each English county should name to
   the House two divines, and those of each Welsh county one
   divine, for approval. Accordingly, on the 20th, the names were
   given in. … By the stress of the war the Assembly was
   postponed. At last, hopeless of a bill that should pass in the
   regular way by the King's consent, the Houses resorted, in
   this as in other things, to their peremptory plan of Ordinance
   by their own authority. On the 13th of May, 1643, an Ordinance
   for calling an Assembly was introduced in the Commons; which
   Ordinance, after due going and coming between the two Houses,
   came to maturity June 12, when it was entered at full length
   in the Lords' Journals. 'Whereas, amongst the infinite
   blessings of Almighty God upon this nation,'—so runs the
   preamble of the Ordinance,—'none is, or can be, more dear to
   us than the purity of our religion; and for as much as many
   things yet remain in the discipline, liturgy and government of
   the Church which necessarily require a more perfect
   reformation: and whereas it has been declared and resolved, by
   the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the
   present Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their
   Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters,
   Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending on
   the hierarchy, is evil and justly offensive and burdensome to
   the kingdom, and a great impediment to reformation and growth
   of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government
   of this kingdom, and that therefore they are resolved the same
   shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be
   settled in the Church as may be agreeable to God's Holy Word,
   and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church
   at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and
   other reformed Churches abroad. … Be it therefore ordained,
   &c.' What is ordained is that 149 persons, enumerated by name
   in the Ordinance … shall meet on the 1st of July next in
   King Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster; … 'to confer and
   treat among themselves of such matters and things, concerning
   the liturgy, discipline and government of the Church of
   England … as shall be proposed by either or both Houses of
   Parliament, and no other.' … Notwithstanding a Royal
   Proclamation from Oxford, dated June 22, forbidding the
   Assembly and threatening consequences, the first meeting duly
   took place on the day appointed—Saturday, July 1, 1643; and
   from that day till the 22d of February, 1648-9, or for more
   than five years and a half, the Westminster Assembly is to be
   borne in mind as a power or institution in the English realm,
   existing side by side with the Long Parliament, and in
   constant conference and cooperation with it. The number of its
   sittings during these five years and a half was 1,163 in all;
   which is at the rate of about four sittings every week for the
   whole time. The earliest years of the Assembly were the most
   important."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Mitchell,
      The Westminster Assembly,
      lectures 4-5._

      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 3, chapters 2 and 4._

      SEE, also, INDEPENDENTS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
   The Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish nation.

   "Scotland had been hitherto kept aloof from the English
   quarrel. … Up to this time the pride and delicacy of the
   English patriots withheld them, for obvious reasons, from
   claiming her assistance. Had it been possible, they would
   still have desired to engage no distant party in this great
   domestic struggle; but when the present unexpected crisis
   arrived … these considerations were laid aside, and the
   chief leaders of the Parliament resolved upon an embassy to
   the North, to bring the Scottish nation into the field. The
   conduct of this embassy was a matter of the highest difficulty
   and danger. The Scots were known to be bigoted to their own
   persuasions of narrow and exclusive church government, while
   the greatest men of the English Parliament had proclaimed the
   sacred maxim that every man who worshipped God according to
   the dictates of his conscience was entitled to the protection
   of the State. But these men, Vane, Cromwell, Marten and St.
   John, though the difficulties of the common cause had brought
   them into the acknowledged position of leaders and directors
   of affairs, were in a minority in the House of Commons, and
   the party who were their superiors in numbers were as bigoted
   to the most exclusive principles of Presbyterianism as the
   Scots themselves. Denzil Holies stood at the head of this
   inferior class of patriots. … The most eminent of the
   Parliamentary nobility, particularly Northumberland, Essex and
   Manchester belonged also to this body; while the London
   clergy, and the metropolis itself, were almost entirely
   Presbyterian. These things considered, there was indeed great
   reason to apprehend that this party, backed by the Scots, and
   supported with a Scottish army, would be strong enough to
   overpower the advocates of free conscience, and 'set up a
   tyranny not less to be deplored than that of Laud and his
   hierarchy, which had proved one of the main occasions of
   bringing on the war.' Yet, opposing to all this danger only
   their own high purposes and dauntless courage, the smaller
   party of more consummate statesmen were the first to propose
   the embassy to Scotland. … On the 20th of July, 1643, the
   commissioners set out from London. They were four; and the man
   principally confided in among them was Vane [Sir Henry, the
   younger]. He, indeed, was the individual best qualified to
   succeed Hampden as a counsellor in the arduous struggle in
   which the nation was at this time engaged. … Immediately on
   his arrival in Edinburgh the negotiation commenced, and what
   Vane seems to have anticipated at once occurred. The Scots
   offered their assistance heartily on the sole condition of an
   adhesion to the Scottish religious system on the part of
   England.
{871}
   After many long and very warm debates, in which Vane held to
   one firm policy from the first, a solemn covenant was
   proposed, which Vane insisted should be named a solemn league
   and covenant, while certain words were inserted in it on his
   subsequent motion, to which he also adhered with immovable
   constancy, and which had the effect of leaving open to the
   great party in England, to whose interests he was devoted,
   that last liberty of conscience which man should never
   surrender. … The famous article respecting religion ran in
   these words;

   'That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
   grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings,
   the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of
   Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
   against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
   kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
   discipline, and government, according to the Word of God, and
   the example of the best Reformed churches; and we shall
   endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms
   to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
   confessing of faith, form of church government directory for
   worship and catechizing; that we and our posterity after us,
   may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may
   delight to dwell in the midst of us. That we shall in like
   manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation
   of popery, prelacy (that is, church government by archbishops,
   bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and
   chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers
   depending on that hierarchy).' Vane, by this introduction of
   'according to the Word of God,' left the interpretation of
   that word to the free conscience of every man. On the 17th of
   August, the solemn league and covenant was voted by the
   Legislature and the Assembly of the Church at Edinburgh. The
   king in desperate alarm, sent his commands to the Scotch
   people not to take such a covenant. In reply, they 'humbly
   advised his majesty to take the covenant himself.' The
   surpassing service rendered by Vane on this great occasion to
   the Parliamentary cause, exposed him to a more violent hatred
   from the Royalists than he had yet experienced, and Clarendon
   has used every artifice to depreciate his motives and his
   sincerity. … The solemn league and covenant remained to be
   adopted in England. The Scottish form of giving it authority
   was followed as far as possible. It was referred by the two
   Houses to the Assembly of Divines, which had commenced its
   sittings on the 1st of the preceding July, being called
   together to be consulted with by the Parliament for the
   purpose of settling the government and form of worship of the
   Church of England. This assembly already referred to,
   consisted of 121 of the clergy; and a number of lay assessors
   were joined with them, consisting of ten peers, and twenty
   members of the House of Commons. All these persons were named
   by the ordinance of the two Houses of Parliament which gave
   birth to the assembly. The public taking of the Covenant was
   solemnized on the 25th of September, each member of either
   House attesting his adherence by oath first, and then by
   subscribing his name. The name of Vane, subscribed immediately
   on his return, appears upon the list next to that of
   Cromwell."

      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
      chapter 8._

      _A. F. Mitchell,
      The Westminster Assembly,
      lectures 5-6._

      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      page 187._

   The following is the text of the Solemn League and Covenant:

   "A solemn league and covenant for Reformation and defence of
   religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace
   and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and
   Ireland. We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens,
   burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts
   in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, by the
   providence of God living under one King, and being of one
   reformed religion; having before our eyes the glory of God,
   and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour
   Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty
   and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety and
   peace of the kingdoms, wherein everyone's private condition is
   included; and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody
   plots, conspiracies, attempts and practices of the enemies of
   God against the true religion and professors thereof in all
   places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the
   reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power and
   presumption are of late, and at this time increased and
   exercised, whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and
   kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and
   kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and
   kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: we
   have (now at last) after other means of supplication,
   remonstrance, protestations and sufferings, for the
   preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and
   destruction, according to the commendable practice of these
   kingdoms in former times, and the example of God's people in
   other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and
   determined to enter into a mutual and solemn league and
   covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for
   himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do
   swear,

   I. That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the
   grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings,
   the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
   Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
   against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
   kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
   discipline and government, according to the Word of God, and
   the example of the best reformed Churches; and we shall
   endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms
   to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
   confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for
   worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us,
   may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may
   delight to dwell in the midst of us.

   II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons,
   endeavour the extirpation of Popery, prelacy (that is, Church
   government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and
   Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all
   other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy),
   superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and whatsoever shall
   be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
   godliness lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be
   in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may
   be one, and His name one in the three kingdoms.

{872}

   III. We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy,
   in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives
   mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the
   Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to
   preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority,
   in the preservation and defence of the true religion and
   liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness
   with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no
   thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power
   and greatness.

   IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the
   discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
   malignants or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation
   of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the
   kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties
   amongst the people, contrary to the league and covenant, that
   they may be brought to public trial and receive condign
   punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
   deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
   respectively, or others having power from them for that
   effect, shall judge convenient.

   V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these
   kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the
   good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately
   concluded and settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one
   of us, according to our places and interest, endeavour that
   they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all
   posterity, and that justice may be done upon the wilful
   opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent
   articles.

   VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in
   this common cause of religion, liberty and peace of the
   kingdom, assist and defend all those that enter into this
   league and covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof;
   and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by
   whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided
   and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
   to make defection to the contrary part, or give ourselves to a
   detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so
   much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms,
   and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our
   lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all
   opposition, and promote the same according to our power,
   against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are
   not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and
   make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: all
   which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these
   kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God,
   and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present
   distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof: we profess and
   declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be
   humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms;
   especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable
   benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the
   purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to
   receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of Him in our
   lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions
   so much abounding amongst us, and our true and unfeigned
   purpose, desire and endeavour, for ourselves and all others
   under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in
   all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each
   one to go before another in the example of a real reformation,
   that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation,
   and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.
   And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the
   Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the
   same, as we shall answer at that Great Day when the secrets of
   all hearts shall be disclosed: most humbly beseeching the Lord
   to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
   our desires and Proceedings with such success as may be a
   deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to the
   Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of
   Anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like
   association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement
   of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility
   of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (August-September).
   Siege of Gloucester and first Battle of Newbury.

   "When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly
   with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western
   and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the
   second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won
   several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or
   ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads, adversity had begun
   to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept
   in alarm, sometimes by plots and sometimes by riots. It was
   thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army,
   and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors.
   Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto
   remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can
   it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at
   this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind,
   Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall. But
   the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it
   never returned. In August, 1643, he sate down before the city
   of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and
   by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since
   the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of
   the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The
   trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their
   services might be required. A great force was speedily
   collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester
   was raised. The Royalists in every part of the kingdom were
   disheartened; the spirit of the parliamentary party revived;
   and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster
   to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 1._

   After accomplishing the relief of Gloucester, the
   Parliamentary army, marching back to London, was intercepted
   at Newbury by the army of the king, and forced to fight a
   battle, September 20, 1643, in which both parties, as at
   Edgehill, claimed the victory. The Royalists, however, failed
   to bar the road to London, as they had undertaken to do, and
   Essex resumed his march on the following morning.

{873}

   "In this unhappy battle was slain the lord viscount Falkland;
   a person of such prodigious parts of learning and knowledge,
   of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of
   so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind,
   and of that primitive sincerity and integrity of life, that if
   there were no other brand upon this odious and accursed war
   than that single loss, it must be most infamous and execrable
   to all posterity."

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 7, section 217._

   This lamented death on the royal side nearly evened, so to
   speak, the great, unmeasured calamity which had befallen the
   better cause three months before, when the high-souled patriot
   Hampden was slain in a paltry skirmish with Rupert's horse, at
   Chalgrove Field, not far from the borders of Oxfordshire. Soon
   after the fight at Newbury, Charles, having occupied Reading,
   withdrew his army to Oxford and went into winter quarters.

      _N. L. Walford,
      Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
      part 2._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January).
   Battle of Nantwich and siege of Lathom House.

   The Irish army brought over by King Charles and landed in
   Flintshire, in November, 1643, under the command of Lord
   Byron, invaded Cheshire and laid siege to Nantwich, which was
   the headquarters of the Parliamentary cause in that region.
   Young Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered to collect forces and
   relieve the town. With great difficulty he succeeded, near the
   end of January, 1644, in leading 2,500 foot-soldiers and
   twenty-eight troops of horse, against the besieging army,
   which numbered 3,000 foot and 1,800 horse. On the 28th of
   January he attacked and routed the Irish royalists completely.
   "All the Royalist Colonels, including the subsequently
   notorious Monk, 1,500 soldiers, six pieces of ordnance, and
   quantities of arms, were captured." Having accomplished this
   most important service, Sir Thomas, "to his great annoyance,"
   received orders to lay siege to Lathom House, one of the
   country seats of the Earl of Derby, which had been fortified
   and secretly garrisoned, with 300 soldiers. It was held by the
   high-spirited and dauntless Countess of Derby, in the absence
   of her husband, who was in the Isle of Man. Sir Thomas Fairfax
   soon escaped from this ignoble enterprise and left it to be
   carried on, first, by his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, and
   afterwards by Colonel Rigby. The Countess defended her house
   for three months, until the approach of Prince Rupert forced
   the raising of the siege in the following spring. Lathom House
   was not finally surrendered to the Roundheads until December
   6, 1645, when it was demolished.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Thompson,
      Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      _E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      page 2, chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January-July).
   The Scots in England.
   The Battle of Marston Moor.

   "On the 19th of January, 1644, the Scottish army entered
   England. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. … In the
   meantime, the parliament at Westminster formed a council under
   the title of 'The Committee of the Two Kingdoms,' consisting
   of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four
   Scottish Commissioners. Whatever belongs to the executive
   power as distinguished from the legislative devolved upon this
   Committee. In the spring of 1644 the parliament had five
   armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by
   voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there
   were altogether 56,000 men under arms; the English forces
   being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller,
   Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller advanced to blockade
   Oxford. The queen went to Exeter in April, and never saw
   Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had become
   so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the
   night of the 3d of June the king secretly left the city and
   passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had again
   been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller.
   Essex, supported by the council of war, but in opposition to
   the committee of the two kingdoms, had marched to the west.
   Waller, meanwhile, went in pursuit of the king into
   Worcestershire, Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then
   at Copredy Bridge, near Banbury, defeated Waller, who had
   hastened back to encounter him. Essex was before the walls of
   Exeter, in which city the queen had given birth to a princess.
   The king hastened to the west. He was strong enough to meet
   either of the parliamentary armies thus separated. Meanwhile
   the combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York.
   Rupert had just accomplished the relief of Lathom House, which
   had been defended by the heroic countess of Derby for eighteen
   weeks, against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. He then
   marched towards York with 20,000 men. The allied English and
   Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster.
   Rupert entered York with 2,000 cavalry. The Earl of Newcastle
   was in command there. He counselled a prudent delay. The
   impetuous Rupert said he had the orders of the king for his
   guidance, and he was resolved to fight. On the 2nd of July,
   having rested two days in and near York, and enabled the city
   to be newly provisioned, the royalist army went forth to
   engage. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The issue of the
   encounter would have been more than doubtful, but for
   Cromwell, who for the first time had headed his Ironsides in a
   great pitched battle. The right wing of the parliamentary army
   was scattered. Rupert was chasing and slaying the Scottish
   cavalry. … The charges of Fairfax and Cromwell decided the
   day. The victory of the parliamentary forces was so complete
   that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at
   Scarborough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with
   the wreck of his army, to Chester. Fifteen hundred prisoners,
   all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the
   victors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 2, letter 8._

      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapter 7._

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      chapter 12, (volume 1)._

      _E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (August-September).
   Essex's surrender.
   The second Battle of Newbury.

{874}

   "The great success at Marston, which had given the north to
   the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through
   feebleness and jealousies in the leaders and the wretched
   policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consisting of a
   local militia, were aimlessly ordered about by a committee of
   civilians in London. Disaster followed on disaster. Essex,
   Waller, and Manchester would neither agree amongst themselves
   nor obey orders. Essex and Waller had parted before Marston
   was fought; Manchester had returned from York to protect his
   own eastern counties. Waller, after his defeat at Copredy, did
   nothing, and naturally found his army melting away. Essex,
   perversely advancing into the west, was out-manœuvred by
   Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the surrender of
   all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, September 2, 1644].
   By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the
   Parliament had not an army in the field. But the Committee of
   the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last
   brought together near Newbury a united army nearly double the
   strength of the King's. On Sunday, the 29th of October, was
   fought the second battle of Newbury, as usual in these
   ill-ordered campaigns, late in the afternoon. An arduous day
   ended without victory, in spite of the greater numbers of the
   Parliament's army, though the men fought well, and their
   officers led them with skill and energy. At night the King was
   suffered to withdraw his army without loss, and later to carry
   off his guns and train. The urgent appeals of Cromwell and his
   officers could not infuse into Manchester energy to win the
   day, or spirit to pursue the retreating foe."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapters 7._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      chapters 19 and 21._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
   The Self-denying Ordinance.

   "Cromwell had shown his capacity for organization in the
   creation of the Ironsides; his military genius had displayed
   itself at Marston Moor. Newbury first raised him into a
   political leader. 'Without a more speedy, vigorous and
   effective prosecution of the war,' he said to the Commons
   after his quarrel with Manchester, 'casting off all lingering
   proceedings, like those of soldiers of fortune beyond sea to
   spin out a war, we shall make the kingdom weary of us, and
   hate the name of a Parliament.' But under the leaders who at
   present conducted it a vigorous conduct of the war was
   hopeless. They were, in Cromwell's plain words, 'afraid to
   conquer.' They desired not to crush Charles, but to force him
   back, with as much of his old strength remaining as might be,
   to the position of a constitutional King. … The army, too,
   as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to conquer
   with. Now, as then, he urged that till the whole force was new
   modeled, and placed under a stricter discipline, 'they must
   not expect any notable success in anything they went about.'
   But the first step in such a reorganization must be a change
   of officers. The army was led and officered by members of the
   two Houses, and the Self-renouncing [or Self-denying]
   Ordinance, which was introduced by Cromwell and Vane, declared
   the tenure of civil or military offices incompatible with a
   seat in either. In spite of a long and bitter resistance,
   which was justified at a later time by the political results
   which followed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto
   bound the army to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion
   was too strong to be withstood. The passage of the Ordinance
   brought about the retirement of Essex, Manchester, and Waller;
   and the new organization of the army went rapidly on under a
   new commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, the hero of the
   long contest in Yorkshire, and who had been raised into fame
   by his victory at Nantwich and his bravery at Marston Moor."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 8, section 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      chapter 15 (volume l)._

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
      chapter 11._

      _J. A. Picton,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 10._

      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-February).
   The attempted Treaty of Uxbridge.

   A futile negotiation between the king and Parliament was
   opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor
   his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace;
   they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost
   rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered; and
   he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more
   triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be
   expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion
   among the negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the
   militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy
   covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English
   commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete
   establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution
   of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy.
   Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 10, part 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-April).
   The New Model of the army.

   The passage of the Self-denying Ordinance was followed, or
   accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called
   New Model of the army. "The New Model was organised as
   follows:
   10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000;
   10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000;
   10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000:
   Total, 21,000 men.

   All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, the
   new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the
   object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every
   officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his
   appointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460
   per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. … Sir Thomas
   Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Chief by a vote of
   both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex,
   Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions
   on the 2nd. … The name of Cromwell was of course, with those
   of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original
   list of the New Model army; but with a significance which
   could not have escaped remark, the appointment of
   lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom
   that vacancy would be filled."

      _N. L. Walford,
      The Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
      part. 2: Fairfax._

{875}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).
   The Battle of Naseby.

   "Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward
   to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was
   besieging. Before that task was completed he received orders
   to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own
   views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new
   army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should
   be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax
   received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces,
   which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against
   the Eastern Association, and had just taken Leicester on their
   way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded
   and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one
   battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up
   with the king in the neighbourhood of Harborough. Charles
   turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the
   great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had
   joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two
   days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory
   seems to have been chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is
   almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, period 2,
      page 675._

   "The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, on its old hill-top,
   very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border
   of Northamptonshire; nearly on a line, and nearly midway,
   between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of
   perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but
   neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop,
   beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads
   off, North and South, into two long streets; the old Church
   with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spire
   finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods; a
   'hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the
   Eighth's time,'—which has, like Hudibras's breeches, 'been
   at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moorland,
   though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last
   generation, and is still somewhat bare of wood. It stands
   nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn
   at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; 'Navesby,
   quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' … It was on this high
   moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on
   the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed
   fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had despised till
   then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby.
   'Prince Rupert, on the King's right wing, charged up the hill,
   and carried all before him'; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell
   charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all
   before him,—and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he.
   Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from
   the Association two days before, 'amid shouts from the whole
   Army': he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince
   Rupert, on returning from his plunder, finds the King's
   Infantry a ruin; prepares to charge again with the rallied
   Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point,
   'broke all asunder,'—never to reassemble more. … There were
   taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages';—and
   above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery
   camp-followers 'with long skean-knives about a foot in
   length,' which they well knew how to use; upon whom I fear the
   Ordinance against Papists pressed hard this day. The King's
   Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal
   Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression
   against his Majesty,—gave in fact a most melancholy view of
   the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was
   lost!"

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 2, letter 29._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4)._

      _E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
   Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King
   disclosed.

   "At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen,
   chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and
   strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were
   instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were
   more injurious to [the king's] cause. … He gave her [the
   queen] power to treat with the English catholics, promising to
   take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should
   enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful
   assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him
   to affect it. … Suspicions were much aggravated by a second
   discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty
   between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish
   catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws,
   but the establishment of their religion in far the greater
   part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby,
   who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against
   Glamorgan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and
   committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced
   two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any
   seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest
   powers to treat with the Irish, and promising to fulfil any
   conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of
   this, disavowed Glamorgan. … Glamorgan, however, was soon
   released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's
   favour. This transaction has been the subject of much
   historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his
   own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his
   indifference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his
   readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any
   conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the
   authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch
   demonstrated that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation
   could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in
   confirmation."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2)._

      _T. Carte,
      Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
      book 4 (volume 3)._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 3._

{876}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
   The Clubmen.

   "When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby
   fight], they found that in these counties the country-people
   had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to
   resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of
   King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms,
   and carried banners, with the motto—'If you offer to plunder
   our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen,
   however, could not hope to control the movements of the
   disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few
   fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."

      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapter 8._

   "The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known
   to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon
   stormed; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent
   how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been:
   'Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen'; the design to
   be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated
   Counties': however, it has now come to nothing."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 2, letter 14._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
   The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.

   "The continuance of the civil war for a whole year after the
   decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's
   selfishness, and of his utter indifference to the sufferings
   of the people. All rational hope was gone, and even Rupert
   advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet
   Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans,
   persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his
   adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong
   a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was
   to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garrison to hold
   out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing
   misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom.
   Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army
   of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August,
   he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched
   promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He
   had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him
   in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had
   carried Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners,
   with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the
   21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert
   had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective
   garrison of 2,300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September
   it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who
   still occupied the most defensible forts, surrendered the
   whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he
   deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass
   to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would
   not, that fighting was useless—that the royal cause was lost.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 21-22._

      ALSO IN.
      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 9._

      _W. Hunt,
      Bristol,
      chapter 7._

      _E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (SEPTEMBER).
   Defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH).
   Adoption of Presbyterianism by Parliament.

   "For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been
   sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
   Abbey. … They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of
   Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism; but
   the real questions at issue were the establishment of the
   Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The
   Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form
   of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any
   toleration for non-conformists, whether Catholics,
   Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large
   majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized
   opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it
   no easy matter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their
   own way. … After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the
   Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory,
   prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the
   Common Prayer-book (3rd January, 1645). The sign of the cross
   in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments,
   the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion
   table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about
   which the people were to stand or sit; the passages of
   Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice; no
   forms of prayer were prescribed. The same year a new directory
   for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The
   Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered
   to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without
   first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was
   followed by a third ordinance for establishing the
   Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of
   trial for three years. As originally introduced into the
   House, this ordinance met with great opposition, because it
   gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning
   men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what,
   argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist? … A
   modified ordinance accordingly was passed; scandalous
   offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and
   excommunicate, were specified; assemblies were declared
   subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who
   thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from
   one Church assembly after another to the civil power—the
   Parliament (16th March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England
   and Scotland, felt deeply mortified. After all these years'
   contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on
   the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left
   under the power of the State—the disappointment was intense
   to a degree we cannot estimate. They looked on the
   Independents as the enemies of God; this 'lame Erastian
   Presbytery' as hardly worth the having. … The Assembly of
   Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was
   changed into a committee for examining candidates for the
   Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up without any formal
   dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March,
   1653."

      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War.
      chapter 40 (volume 2)._

      _A. F. Mitchell,
      The Westminster Assembly,
      lectures 7, 9, 13._

      _Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly._

      See, also, INDEPENDENTS.

{877}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
   The King in the hands of the Scots.
   His duplicity and his intrigues.
   The Scots surrender him.

   "On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King
   had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his
   northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person.
   Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right
   to dispose of their King so long as he was on English soil;
   and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle,
   an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable
   even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order; and
   the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carrying their
   sovereign with them. … Meantime the City Presbyterians were
   petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the
   godly and thorough reformation so long promised; and they were
   supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in
   the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that
   the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the
   Scottish sense of it. … The question as to the disposal of
   the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues
   between Presbyterianism and the sects. For if the King had
   been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the
   army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and
   responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have
   kept his crown and his Anglican ritual—at least for his own
   worship—and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously
   as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this,
   he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere
   cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to
   his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament.
   On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were
   appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the
   King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for
   which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed
   and exaggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed
   forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament
   for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts
   done by Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed;
   and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford
   anti-Parliament, without due authorisation from Westminster,
   were to be void. … On August 10th the Commissioners who had
   been sent to the King returned to Westminster. … The King
   had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance
   that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially
   as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from
   the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The
   labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to
   be discovered. … The death of the Earl of Essex on September
   14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the
   victorious party. The Presbyterians had hoped to restore him
   to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible
   weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left
   without a man to rival in military authority the commanders
   whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too complete
   success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of
   the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their
   sustenance and pay was pressing heavily on the country. … No
   wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public
   security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for
   diminishing or disbanding the army in England. … The
   Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two
   reasons; First, the negotiations with the Scotch lingered; and
   next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was
   overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January,
   1647, when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in
   discharge of the English debt to the Scottish army. But the
   successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining
   difficulty of the Parliament—that of paying their own
   soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the
   Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is
   unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very
   complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the
   Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian
   system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost
   to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declining the
   Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point
   in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of
   two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to
   override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire
   incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the
   relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best
   for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached
   to him. … But to have carried with them an intractable man
   to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same
   time that he brought against them the whole power of England,
   would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, they made the
   best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and,
   taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects,
   who conducted him to Holdenby House, in Northamptonshire, on
   the 6th of February, 1647."

      _J. A. Picton,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 7, section 4._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 3845 (volume 2)._

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth, book 1,
      chapters 24-27, and book 2,
      chapter 1-6 (volume 2)._

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of chapter Rebellion,
      book 9, section 161-178,
      and book 10 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
   The Army takes things in hand.

   The King was surrendered to Parliament, and all now looking
   toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
   falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters
   [i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the
   Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents,
   inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling
   that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament,
   pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of
   sending to Ireland, disbanding, neglecting the payment of
   arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there
   came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon,
   whom all liked, whom the Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
   at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
   Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
   letter, brought to him the day before by three private
   soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
   to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
   to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
   loved,—framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
   degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
   thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
   the three soldiers to appear at once. …
{878}
   A violent tumult arose in the House. The Presbyterians
   declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with
   their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once
   committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be
   commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack
   and sugar provided. Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who
   sat next to him, and pointing to the Presbyterians, said that
   those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out
   by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an
   organization, a sort of Parliament, in the Army, the officers
   forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank
   and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in
   the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as
   'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agitators.' This organization had
   taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. … At
   the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for
   astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and
   appearing without warning, June 2, at Holmby House, where
   Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
   proposed to assume the custody of the King. A cool, quiet
   fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and
   was their spokesman, Joyce. 'What is your authority?' asked
   the King. The cornet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at
   his back. … So bold a step as the seizure of the King made
   necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a
   fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion
   from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most
   conspicuous for extreme views. The Army meanwhile hovered,
   ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the
   city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to
   remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. … But if
   Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the
   country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer
   rebellion. … The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the
   head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one
   hundred Commoners, betook themselves to Fairfax, and on August
   2 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at
   Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place.
   The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect
   condition, and they were drawn out 20,000 strong to receive
   the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts
   in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive
   demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his
   troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to
   Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The
   Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the
   midst of the column; the city officials joined the train. At
   Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and
   the Houses again put to work, the first business being to
   thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them.
   The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Cromwell in the
   rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp
   of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the
   war-like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work-shops and
   the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers
   looked neither to the right nor left; nor by act, word, or
   gesture was any offence given."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 24._

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 3, letter 26._

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      book 2, chapter 7-11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   The King's "Game" with Cromwell and the army,
   and the ending of it.

   After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army
   leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The indignation of
   the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly
   more difficult; but Cromwell … clung to the hope of
   accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind,
   conservative by tradition, and above all practical in temper,
   saw the political difficulties which would follow on the
   abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he
   persisted in negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost
   alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals as
   a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew
   restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform,
   for the abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of
   Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers
   to discuss the question of abolishing Royalty itself. Cromwell
   was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade
   the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers
   to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long,
   and Charles was still resolute to 'play his game.' He was, in
   fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with
   Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking
   their lives for him he was conducting another and equally
   delusive negotiation with the Parliament. … In the midst of
   his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with
   astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the
   King had fled [November 11, 1647]. … Even Cromwell was
   powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers,
   and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is
   a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at
   last, 'but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is
   not to be trusted.' By a strange error, Charles had made his
   way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some
   hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of
   Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled
   in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he
   set himself to organize it from his prison; and while again
   opening delusive negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a
   secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm.
   The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension of the
   Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north
   of the Tweed. … In England the whole of the conservative
   party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long
   Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the
   religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward
   the King; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for
   fitful insurrections in almost every quarter."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 8, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of the English Revolution of 1640,
      books 7-8._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 10, chapter 4._

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth._

      _G. Hillier,
      Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
      Carisbrooke Castle, &c._

{879}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (April-August).
   The Second Civil War.
   Defeat of the Scots at Preston.

   "The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a
   short but formidable affair. The whole of Wales was speedily
   in insurrection; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in
   the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern
   counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester,
   Pembroke, Colchester, were held for the king; the fleet
   revolted; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of
   Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north;
   Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and
   thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May
   Cromwell reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not
   take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell
   turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt,
   and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing
   into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness,
   detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely
   harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed
   rather fit for a hospital than a battle.' Having joined
   Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th
   of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive
   and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most
   numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he
   was in supreme command. … Early on the morning of the 17th
   August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of
   the Duke of Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a
   long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of
   17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The
   long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward
   and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was
   upon them. The great host, cut into sections, fought with
   desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one
   long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion
   of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were
   taken. 'We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell,
   'but a very great number; having done execution upon them
   above thirty miles together, besides what we killed in the two
   great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior
   officer. … The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell
   hastened to recover Berwick and Carlisle, and to restore the
   Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 74 (volume 7)._

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 11 (volume 4)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
   The Treaty at Newport.

   "The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke
   of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout
   England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct of Fairfax
   and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable
   manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with
   the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of London,
   ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled
   the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a
   vote, by 165 to 90, that they would not alter the fundamental
   government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their
   impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the
   upper house and the most obnoxious to the army: they restored
   the eleven members to their seats; they revoked their
   resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even
   that which required his assent by certain preliminary
   articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called
   presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional,
   regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of
   parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. The treaty of
   Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of
   the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to
   themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered,
   somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake,
   and that their own privileges were set on the same cast.
   Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of
   Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed
   from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and
   their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned
   wise in their generation become the dupes of their own
   selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew
   anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that
   it was necessary to anticipate, if possible, the return of
   Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once
   with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield
   in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not,
   however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so
   often proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any
   reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his
   surrender of almost all that could be demanded."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 10, part 2._

   The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these
   negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later
   day when his correspondence came to light. "After having
   solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should
   cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 10): 'Obey my
   wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free
   from all restraint; nor trouble yourself about my concessions
   as to Ireland; they will not lead to anything;' and the day on
   which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty
   years the command of the army (October 9), he wrote to sir
   William Hopkins: 'To tell you the truth, my great concession
   this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my
   approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have
   yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without
   much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own
   it would break my heart, for I have done that which my escape
   alone can justify.' The parliament, though without any exact
   information, suspected all this perfidy; even the friends of
   peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most
   earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges
   of the independents."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of the English Revolution of 1640,
      book 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4)._

      _I. Disraeli,
      Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I.,
      volume 2, chapters 39-40._

{880}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
   The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
   The Long Parliament cut down to the Rump.

   On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers
   presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army
   against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king.
   This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it
   had been voted unanimously in the council of officers, and
   entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The
   remonstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty
   conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to
   justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called
   upon parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision
   for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial
   parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to
   this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its
   consideration of the document. On the first of December there
   appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took
   possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to
   Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the
   extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea
   towards the isle of Wight." The same day on which this was
   done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at
   Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament;
   and the two following days were occupied by the house of
   commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the
   negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against
   the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the
   independents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat
   all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of
   the 5th, by a majority of 129 to 83, that the king's answers
   to the propositions of both houses were a ground for them to
   proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.
   On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the
   house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the
   council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully
   expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw
   near to London, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the
   remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to
   London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the
   Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. … On the 5th of
   December three officers of the army held a meeting with three
   members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound
   members might best be separated from those by whom their
   measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in
   possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a
   regiment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard
   upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia,
   having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the
   guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A
   part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon
   the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons.
   Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his
   hand of the persons he was commissioned to arrest; and
   sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of
   Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an
   intention of passing into the house. Forty-one members were
   thus arrested. … On the following day more members were
   secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day
   before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwell took
   his seat; and Henry Marten moved that the speaker should
   return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed
   in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses
   adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the
   members who had been taken into custody by the military were
   liberated. … Besides those who were absolutely secured, or
   shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were
   other members that looked with dislike on the present
   proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under
   force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily
   abstained from being present at their sittings and debates."

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      book 2, chapters 23-24 (volume 2)._

   "The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force
   the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number,
   and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the
   coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'"

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
      chapter 13._

   "This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the
   author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in
   allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump."

      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 4, chapter 1, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 28._

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      book 4, chapters 1 and 3 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (JANUARY).
   The trial and execution of the King.

   "During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor
   [whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of
   December], there had been proceedings in Parliament of which
   he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it
   was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to
   trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in
   making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of
   treason; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One
   hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court,—
   peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The
   ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On
   the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being,
   after God, the source of all just power, the representatives
   of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that
   whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in
   Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are
   concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not
   had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either
   to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the
   possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in
   constituting the High Court of Justice in the name of the
   Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now
   reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which
   only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson,
   'were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded
   nor compelled; and as there were some nominated in the
   commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but
   durst not hold on, so all the rest might have declined it if
   they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered
   nothing by so doing.' … On the 19th of January, major
   Harrison appeared … at Windsor with his troop. There was a
   coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King
   took his seat; and, once more, he entered London, and was
   lodged at St. James's palace.
{881}
   The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in
   Westminster-hall. … After the names of the members of the
   court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the
   president, ordered the serjeant to bring in the prisoner.
   Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He
   moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and contemptuously
   around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained
   covered. … The clerk reads the charge, and when he is
   accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the
   face of the Court. 'Though his tongue usually hesitated, yet
   it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed in
   mind,' writes Warwick. … Again and again contending against
   the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the
   sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene
   was renewed; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the
   monarch became apparent. The cries of 'Justice, justice,'
   which were heard at first, were now mingled with 'God save the
   King.' He had refused to plead; but the Court nevertheless
   employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence
   to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament.
   Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court
   would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members
   adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public
   sitting was resumed. … The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had
   agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King'
   desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to
   sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he
   thought would lead to the reconciling of all parties, and to
   the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer
   it; the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses
   in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that
   which should satisfy and secure all interests.' Ludlow goes on
   to say, 'Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose
   his own resignation, and the admission of his son to the
   throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The
   commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied,
   upon debate, that nothing but loss of time would be the
   consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a
   negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn
   speech to the King. … The clerk was lastly commanded to read
   the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body;
   'and the commissioners,' says Ludlow, 'testified their
   unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak;
   'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the
   29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of
   execution, addressed to 'colonel Francis Hacker, colonel
   Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of
   them.' … There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch
   ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst
   the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors
   from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day
   of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax.
   'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the
   house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200
   horsemen; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching
   home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were
   occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the
   approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to
   prevent anyone from coming in or going out; … The same day,
   between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a
   scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To
   that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, surrounded by
   soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It
   was a bitterly cold morning. … His purposed address to the
   people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the
   scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook the
   nature of government; for people are free under a government,
   not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the
   laws of it.' His theory of government was a consistent one. He
   had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been
   fast passing away for its assertion. The headsman did his
   office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding
   multitude."

      _Charles Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 4, chapter 7._

   "In the death-warrant of 29th January 1649, next after the
   President and Lord Grey, stands the name of Oliver Cromwell.
   He accepted the responsibility of it, justified, defended it
   to his dying day. No man in England was more entirely
   answerable for the deed than he, 'I tell you,' he said to
   Algernon Sidney, 'we will cut off his head with the crown upon
   it.' … Slowly he had come to know—not only that the man,
   Charles Stuart, was incurably treacherous, but that any
   settlement of Parliament with the old Feudal Monarchy was
   impossible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaffold the
   old Feudal Monarchy expired for ever. In January 1649 a great
   mark was set in the course of the national life—the Old Rule
   behind it, the New Rule before it. Parliamentary government,
   the consent of the nation, equality of rights, and equity in
   the law—all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts
   indeed returned for one generation, but with the sting of the
   Old Monarchy gone, and only to disappear almost without a
   blow. The Church of England returned; but not the Church of
   Laud or of Charles. The peers returned, but as a meek House of
   Lords, with their castles razed, their feudal rights and their
   political power extinct. It is said that the regicides killed
   Charles I. only to make Charles II. king. It is not so, They
   killed the Old Monarchy; and the restored monarch was by no
   means its heir, but a royal Stadtholder or Hereditary
   President."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 7._

   "Respecting the death of Charles it has been pronounced by
   Fox, that 'it is much to be doubted whether his trial and
   execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served
   to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of
   Europe in general.' And he goes on to speak with considerable
   favour of the authors of that event. One of the great
   authorities of the age having so pronounced, an hundred and
   fifty years after the deed, it may be proper to consider for a
   little the real merits of the actors, and the act. It is not
   easy to imagine a greater criminal than the individual against
   whom the sentence was awarded. … Liberty is one of the
   greatest negative advantages that can fall to the lot of a
   man; without it we cannot possess any high degree of
   happiness, or exercise any considerable virtue. Now Charles,
   to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, conspired against
   the liberty of his country, to assert his own authority
   without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all
   his actions, so far as the public was concerned.
{882}
   To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a
   parliament. When he was compelled once more to have recourse
   to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he
   determined to bring up the army, and by that means to put an
   end to its sittings. Both in Scotland and England, the scheme
   that he formed for setting aside all opposition, was by force
   of arms. For that purpose he commenced war against the English
   parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power
   for four years. Conquered, and driven out of the field, he did
   not for that, for a moment lose sight of his object and his
   resolution. He sought in every quarter for the materials of a
   new war; and, after an interval of twenty months, and from the
   depths of his prison, he found them. To this must be added the
   most consummate insincerity and duplicity. He could never be
   reconciled; he could never be disarmed; he could never be
   convinced. His was a war to the death, and therefore had the
   utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the
   liberty of a nation. … The proper lesson taught by the act
   of the thirtieth of January, was that no person, however high
   in station, however protected by the prejudices of his
   contemporaries, must expect to be criminal against the welfare
   of the state and community, without retribution and
   punishment. The event however sufficiently proved that the
   condemnation and execution of Charles did not answer the
   purposes intended by its authors. It did not conciliate the
   English nation to republican ideas. It shocked all those
   persons in the country who did not adhere to the ruling party.
   This was in some degree owing to the decency with which
   Charles met his fate. He had always been in manners, formal,
   sober and specious. … The notion was every where prevalent,
   that a sovereign could not be called to account, could not be
   arraigned at the bar of his subjects. And the violation of
   this prejudice, instead of breaking down the wall which
   separated him from others, gave to his person a sacredness
   which never before appertained to it. Among his own partisans
   the death of Charles was treated, and was spoken of, as a sort
   of deicide. And it may be admitted for a universal rule, that
   the abrupt violation of a deep-rooted maxim and persuasion of
   the human mind, produces a reaction, and urges men to hug the
   maxim closer than ever. I am afraid, that the day that saw
   Charles perish on the scaffold, rendered the restoration of
   his family certain."

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth of England
      to the Restoration of Charles II.,
      book 2, chapter 26 (volume 2)._

   "The situation, complicated enough already, had been still
   further complicated by Charles's duplicity. Men who would have
   been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any
   constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor; and
   men who had long been alienated from him were irritated into
   active hostility. By these he was regarded with increasing
   intensity as the one disturbing force with which no
   understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To
   remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no
   thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only
   possible road to peace for the troubled nation. It seemed that
   so long as Charles lived deluded nations and deluded parties
   would be stirred up, by promises never intended to be
   fulfilled, to fling themselves, as they had flung themselves
   in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which
   was struggling to establish itself in England."

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of the Great Civil War,
      1642-1649, chapter 71 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _John Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Henry Marten._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      pages 268-290._

   The following is the text of the Act which arraigned the King
   and constituted the Court by which he was tried:

   "Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of
   England, not content with the many encroachments which his
   predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and
   freedom, hath had a wicked design totally to subvert the
   antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and
   in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical
   government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to
   bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and
   sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against
   the parliament and kingdom; whereby this country hath been
   miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade
   decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other
   mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable
   offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly
   been brought to exemplary and condign punishment: whereas also
   the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment
   of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into
   their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom,
   did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by
   sad experience, that such their remissness served only to
   encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their
   evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and
   invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater
   inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or
   magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, traiterously and
   maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or
   destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for
   so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and
   commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and
   ordained by the authority thereof, That the earls of Kent,
   Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of
   Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord
   chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief
   baron Wylde; the lord Fairfax, lieutenant general Cromwell,
   &c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and
   required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing,
   Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said
   Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are
   hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Justice, to
   meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said
   commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under
   their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by
   public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of
   Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place
   to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof,
   at meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for the charging
   of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons
   above-mentioned, and for receiving his personal Answer
   thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which
   the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise,
   and taking any other Evidence concerning the same; and
   thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final
   Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and
   such final Sentence to execute, or cause to be executed,
   speedily and impartially.
{883}
   And the said court is hereby  and required to chuse and
   appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances
   as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge
   necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the
   premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the General, and all
   officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of
   justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby
   authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the
   said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed
   unto them; provided that this act, and the authority hereby
   granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from
   the date of the making hereof, and no longer."

      _Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 3, pages 1254-1255._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
   The Commonwealth established.

   "England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually
   made on Thursday, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed
   their three great Resolutions, declaring

   (1) that the People of England were, under God, the original
   of all just power in the State,

   (2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been
   chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed
   the supreme power in their name, and

   (3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of
   a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of
   Peers.

   On Tuesday, the 30th of January, the theory of these
   Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of
   that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front
   of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the
   Commons passed an Act 'prohibiting the proclaiming of any
   person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions
   thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had
   died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers? It was
   significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived
   their three theoretical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered
   them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might
   then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince
   them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of
   Commons, "'That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless
   and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be
   brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 7, after
   another long debate, it was further resolved 'That it hath
   been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that
   the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power
   thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and
   dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the
   People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished,
   and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after
   some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the
   customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of
   mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since January
   4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's
   death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense
   from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration of the
   government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons
   resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be
   erected; to consist of not more than forty persons. On the
   13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were
   reported and agreed to, "these Instructions conferring almost
   plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to
   one year." On the 14th and 15th forty-one persons were
   appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell,
   Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels
   Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute
   a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 4, book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume. 10, chapter 5._

      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of History of England,
      chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
   The Eikon Basilike.

   "A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious
   circumstances, February 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the
   late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist
   enthusiasm.

   'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestie
   in his Solitudes and Sufferings.—Romans viii. More than
   conquerour, &c.—Bona agere et mala pati Regium est.
   MDCXLVIII':
   such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 pages of text,
   in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to
   be one of the most famous books of the world. … The book, so
   elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight
   successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the
   late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual
   autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter,
   with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or
   generally rather with reflections and meditations on some
   passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed
   to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics
   appropriate to the circumstances remembered. … Save for a
   few … passages … , the pathos of which lies in the
   situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull
   performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the
   Liturgy; and without incision, point, or the least shred of
   real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had!
   Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with
   sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave
   orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in
   various forms, to supply the constant demand—which was not
   satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a
   single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist
   households. … By means of this book, in fact, acting on the
   state of sentiment which it fitted, there was established,
   within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that
   marvellous worship of his memory, that passionate recollection
   of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the
   martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted
   till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the
   English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters."

      _D. Masson,
      Life and Times of John Milton,
      volume 4, book 1, chapter 1._

{884}

   "I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the
   paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched,
   immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an
   amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a
   genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced
   Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such
   a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden,
   Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the
   Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of
   the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of his Life in London,
      by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (APRIL-MAY).
   Mutiny of the Levellers.

      See LEVELLERS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
   Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (JULY).
   Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
   War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER).
    The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.

       See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1653.
   The Army and the Rump.

   "'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell
   said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary to come
   to a settlement.' But the settlement which had been promised
   after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The
   bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell
   pressed it in person, was only passed, after bitter
   opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had
   been purchased by a compromise which permitted the House to
   sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a
   dead lock. … The one remedy for all this was, as the army
   saw, the assembly of a new and complete Parliament in place of
   the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which
   the House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new
   activity. … But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not
   only to show the energy of the Parliament, but to free it from
   the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a
   force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of
   Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this
   view the quarrel with Holland had been carefully nursed. …
   The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the
   introduction of a bill for its disbanding to understand the
   new policy of the Parliament. … The army petitioned not only
   for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit
   declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a
   close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a
   New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the
   resolve of the sitting members to continue as a part of the
   coming Parliament without re-election. The officers, irritated
   by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an
   immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In
   ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. 'As
   for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take
   them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason.' … Not
   only were the existing members to continue as members of the
   New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their
   right of choosing representatives, but they were to constitute
   a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each
   election, and the fitness of the members returned. A
   conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of
   the Commons and the officers of the army. … The conference
   was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that
   no decisive step should be taken; but it had no sooner
   reassembled, than the absence of the leading members confirmed
   the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new
   Representative through the House. 'It is contrary to common
   honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall,
   he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as
   the door of the House of Commons."

      _J. R Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 8, section 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

      _J. A. Picton,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 22._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1672.
   The Navigation Acts and the American colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672;
      also, NAVIGATION LAWS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.
   War with the Dutch Republic.

   "After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was
   attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of
   the Dutch republicans [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650], the
   Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for
   cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John,
   chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained
   the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two
   republics, which would have rendered their interests totally
   inseparable; … but the states, who were unwilling to form a
   nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so
   obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered
   only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the
   haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well
   as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with
   impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange
   families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into
   England and endeavoured to foment a quarrel between the
   republics. …. There were several motives which at this time
   induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures.
   Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as
   a pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying
   the new model of a representative, with which the nation had
   so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would
   furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that
   numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the
   other hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of
   Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments
   would prove a motive for diminishing the military
   establishment. To divert the attention of the public from
   domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the
   present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. … All
   these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who
   had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parliament
   to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the
   United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the
   Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of
   commerce, embraced such measures as they knew would give
   disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of
   navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into
   England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the
   growth and manufacture of their own country. … The minds of
   men in both states were every day more irritated against each
   other; and it was not long before these humours broke forth
   into action."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 60 (volume 5)._

{885}

   "The negotiations … were still pending when Blake, meeting
   Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch
   Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which
   led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1652). The
   maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of
   Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his
   whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took
   place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of
   the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to
   yield the command to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was
   displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp
   was reinstated in command. A victory over Blake off the Naze
   (November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a
   broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English
   from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight
   a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La
   Hogue; while at length, on the 2d and 3d of June, a decisive
   engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk
   and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch
   Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his
   own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving
   eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month,
   another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death
   of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval
   power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the
   treaty was signed, in which Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and
   the Swiss provinces were included. … The Dutch acknowledged
   the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they
   consented to the Navigation Act."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, page 701._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Dixon,
      Robert Blake, Admiral and General at Sea,
      chapters 6-7._

      _D. Hannay,
      Admiral Blake,
      chapters 6-7._

      _J. Campbell,
      Naval History of Great Britain,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _G. Penn,
      Memorials of Sir William Penn,
      chapter 4._

      _J. Corbett,
      Monk,
      chapter 7._

      _J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John De Witt,
      volume 1, books 4-5._

      See, also, NAVIGATION LAWS, ENGLISH: A. D. 1651.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (APRIL).
   Cromwell's expulsion of the Rump.

   "In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the
   Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as
   Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill
   without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to
   Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for
   dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'the
   work is very great and dangerous.'—'You say well,' said the
   general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an
   hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question
   for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again,
   'This is the time; I must do it.' He rose up, put off his hat,
   and spoke. Beginning moderately and respectfully, he presently
   changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of
   justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to
   have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have
   espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers,
   who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing
   them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And
   rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them
   that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other
   instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir
   Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in
   Parliament, coming from their own trusted servant. Roused to
   fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on
   his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping
   with his feet, and cried out, 'You are no Parliament, I say
   you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this;
   I will put an end to your prating. Call them in!' Twenty or
   thirty musketeers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the
   floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the
   door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, 'This is
   not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.'
   Cromwell, who evidently regarded Vane as the breaker of the
   supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying,
   'O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from
   Sir Henry Vane.' Then looking upon one of the members, he
   said, 'There sits a drunkard;' to another he said, 'Some of
   you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the
   profession of the Gospel.' 'Some are whoremasters,' he said,
   looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he
   said, 'What shall we do with this Bauble? Here, take it away!'
   and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to
   Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and
   refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I
   will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the
   Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place.
   'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put
   their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The
   members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling
   aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; but
   that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,'
   he said, as they passed him, 'that have forced me to do this,
   for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather
   slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched
   the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it
   under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to
   clear the House of all members, and to have the door locked,
   and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous
   scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most
   heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a
   matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional
   eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately
   unravelled. … In strict constitutional right the House was
   no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of
   Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords,
   approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive
   proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme
   partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. The
   junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto
   which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor
   had their services to the Cause been so great.
{886}
   In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of
   Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another.
   Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have
   dissolved the House; snapping a vote which would give his
   faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains
   that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had
   that 'scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of
   legal right, which counts for so much in things political."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
      part 3, chapter 17._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 4 (volume l)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th century,
      book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      volume 3, chapters 27-29._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
   The Barebones, or Little Parliament.

   Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his
   own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-General and
   Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred
   and forty "persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and
   honesty," chosen and "nominated" by himself, with the advice
   of his council of officers, requiring them to be and appear at
   the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day
   of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust"
   of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government" of
   the Commonwealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the
   county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so
   summoned, 'only two' did not attend. Disconsolate Bulstrode
   says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and
   knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at
   this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme
   Authority of this Nation; considering how little right
   Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentlemen
   to take it.' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan
   England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his
   Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity;
   saying as audibly as the means permitted: Yea, we did wish it
   so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. … The
   undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a
   quite reputable Assembly; got together by anxious
   'consultation of the godly Clergy' and chief Puritan lights in
   their respective Counties; not without much earnest revision,
   and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men
   adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it
   well. The List of the Assembly exists; not yet entirely gone
   dark for mankind. A fair proportion of them still recognizable
   to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage
   Families, two or three, which still exist among us,—Colonel
   Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley
   Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature;
   whom if not the King and his pasteboard Norroys have had the
   luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since
   raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,—Colonel Robert
   Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of
   approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely
   destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a
   distinguished Parliament,—even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone,
   'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals
   must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable.
   Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and has a name which
   can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents;
   to be himself a man of piety, of understanding and
   weight,—and even of considerable private capital, my witty
   flunkey friends! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he
   can, I think. … In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in
   Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or
   Speaking-Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England,
   as exact as could well be got,—much more exact, I suppose,
   than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election
   usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little
   Parliament, and wittily Bare-bone's Parliament; which meets on
   the 4th of July. Their witty name survives; but their history
   is gone all dark."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 7, speech. 1._

   The "assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite
   an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic
   and impracticable reformers that everything substantial among
   English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their
   hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily
   able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the
   action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his
   hands,—which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Picton,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 23._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (December).
   The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate.
   The Instrument of Government.

   "What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is
   soon told. The Council of Officers having been summoned by
   Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and
   deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method
   of headship in a 'Single Person' for his whole life must now
   be tried in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that
   Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was
   actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that,
   Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History
   and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having
   consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on
   Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial
   and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the
   Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the
   Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some
   of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation
   of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any
   experiment of the Single Person method in Government 'as a
   treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as
   unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the
   other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a
   conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty
   generally throughout the country and even among the
   Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of
   sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity
   of the time, the only possible salvation of the Commonwealth from
   the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters
   civil and religious, which had been the visible drift at last
   of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. … The powers and
   duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately,
   in a Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called
   'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as
   The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn
   fidelity at his installation."

{887}

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 4, book 4, chapters 1 and 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324._

      _Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 3, pages 1417-1426._

   The following is the text Of the Instrument of Government:

   The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and
   Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.

   I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth
   of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
   belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people
   assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be
   the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland,
   and Ireland.

   II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the
   administration of the government over the said countries and
   dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord
   Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall
   not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen.

   III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants,
   and other things, which now run in the name and style of the
   keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament,
   shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from
   whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and
   honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons
   (except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all
   forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said
   countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the
   council, and according to these presents and the laws.

   IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall
   dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and
   land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent
   of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice
   and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose
   and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals
   of Parliament."

   V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall
   direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a
   good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states;
   and also, with the consent of the major part of the council,
   have the power of war and peace.

   VI. That the laws shall not be altered, suspended, abrogated,
   or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or
   imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in
   Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth
   article.

   VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at
   Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that
   successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every
   third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the
   present Parliament.

   VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any
   successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months,
   to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be
   adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own consent.

   IX. That as well the next as all other successive Parliaments,
   shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed;
   that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England,
   Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of
   Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be,
   and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be
   chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall
   be, and not exceed, the number of thirty; and the persons to
   be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not
   exceed, the number of thirty.

   X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from
   time to time, for the several counties of England, Wales, the
   Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of
   Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same
   respectively, shall be according to the proportions and
   numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say,

      Bedfordshire, 5;
      Bedford Town, 1;
      Berkshire, 5;
      Abingdon, 1;
      Reading, 1;
      Buckinghamshire, 5;
      Buckingham Town, 1;
      Aylesbury, 1;
      Wycomb, 1;
      Cambridgeshire, 4;
      Cambridge Town, 1;
      Cambridge University, 1;
      Isle of Ely, 2;
      Cheshire, 4;
      Chester, 1;
      Cornwall, 8;
      Launceston, 1;
      Truro, 1;
      Penryn, 1;
      East Looe and West Looe, 1;
      Cumberland, 2;
      Carlisle, 1;
      Derbyshire, 4;
      Derby Town, 1;
      Devonshire, 11;
      Exeter, 2;
      Plymouth, 2
      Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, 1;
      Totnes, 1;
      Barnstable, 1;
      Tiverton, 1;
      Honiton, 1;
      Dorsetshire, 6;
      Dorchester, 1;
      Weymouth and Melcomb-Regis, 1;
      Lyme-Regis, 1;
      Poole, 1;
      Durham, 2;
      City of Durham, 1;
      Essex, 13;
      Malden, 1;
      Colchester, 2;
      Gloucestershire, 5;
      Gloucester, 2;
      Tewkesbury, 1;
      Cirencester, 1;
      Herefordshire, 4;
      Hereford, 1;
      Leominster, 1;
      Hertfordshire, 5;
      St. Alban's, 1:
      Hertford, 1;
      Huntingdonshire, 3;
      Huntingdon, 1;
      Kent, 11;
      Canterbury, 2;
      Rochester, 1
      Maidstone, 1;
      Dover, 1;
      Sandwich, 1;
      Queenborough, 1;
      Lancashire, 4;
      Preston, 1;
      Lancaster, 1;
      Liverpool, 1;
      Manchester, 1;
      Leicestershire, 4
      Leicester, 2;
      Lincolnshire, 10;
      Lincoln, 2;
      Boston, 1;
      Grantham, 1;
      Stamford, 1;
      Great Grimsby, 1;
      Middlesex, 4;
      London, 6;
      Westminster, 2;
      Monmouthshire, 3;
      Norfolk 10;
      Norwich, 2;
      Lynn-Regis, 2
      Great Yarmouth, 2
      Northamptonshire, 6;
      Peterborough, 1;
      Northampton, 1;
      Nottinghamshire, 4;
      Nottingham, 2;
      Northumberland, 3;
      Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1;
      Berwick, 1;
      Oxfordshire, 5;
      Oxford City, 1;
      Oxford University, 1;
      Woodstock, 1;
      Rutlandshire, 2;
      Shropshire, 4;
      Shrewsbury, 2;
      Bridgnorth, 1;
      Ludlow, 1;
      Staffordshire, 3;
      Lichfield, 1;
      Stafford, 1;
      Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1;
      Somersetshire, 11;
      Bristol, 2;
      Taunton, 2;
      Bath, 1;
      Wells, 1;
      Bridgwater, 1;
      Southamptonshire, 8;
      Winchester, 1;
      Southampton, 1
      Portsmouth, 1;
      Isle of Wight, 2;
      Andover, 1;
      Suffolk, 10;
      Ipswich, 2;
      Bury St. Edmunds, 2;
      Dunwich, 1;
      Sudbury, 1;
      Surrey, 6;
      Southwark, 2;
      Guildford, 1;
      Reigate, 1;
      Sussex, 9;
      Chichester, 1;
      Lewes, 1;
      East Grinstead, 1;
      Arundel, 1;
      Rye, 1;
      Westmoreland, 2;
      Warwickshire, 4;
      Coventry, 2;
      Warwick, 1;
      Wiltshire, 10;
      New Sarum, 2;
      Marlborough, 1;
      Devizes, 1;
      Worcestershire, 5;
      Worcester, 2.

   YORKSHIRE.
      West Riding, 6;
      East Riding, 4;
      North Riding, 4;
      City of York, 2
      Kingston-upon-Hull, 1;
      Beverley, 1;
      Scarborough, 1;
      Richmond, 1;
      Leeds, 1;
      Halifax, 1.

{888}

   WALES.
      Anglesey, 2:
      Brecknoekshire, 2;
      Cardiganshire, 2;
      Carmarthenshire, 2;
      Carnarvonshire, 2;
      Denbighshire, 2;
      Flintshire, 2;
      Glamorganshire, 2;
      Cardiff, 1;
      Merionethshire, 1;
      Montgomeryshire, 2;
      Pembrokeshire, 2;
      Haverfordwest, 1;
      Radnorshire, 2.

   The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and
   Ireland, and the several counties, cities, and places therein,
   shall be according to such proportions and number as shall be
   agreed upon and declared by the Lord Protector and the major
   part of the council, before the sending forth writs of summons
   for the next Parliament.

   XI. That the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the
   Great Seal of England, directed to the sheriffs of the several
   and respective counties, with such alteration as may suit with
   the present government to be made by the Lord Protector and
   his council, which the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of
   the Great Seal shall seal, issue, and send abroad by warrant
   from the Lord Protector. If the Lord Protector shall not give
   warrant for issuing of writs of summons for the next
   Parliament, before the first of June, 1654, or for the
   Triennial Parliaments, before the first day of August in every
   third year, to be accounted as aforesaid; that then the
   Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the
   time being, shall, without any warrant or direction, within
   seven days after the said first day of June, 1654, seal,
   issue, and send abroad writs of summons (changing therein what
   is to be changed as aforesaid) to the several and respective
   sheriffs of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for summoning the
   Parliament to meet at Westminster, the third day of September
   next; and shall likewise, within seven days after the said
   first day of August, in every third year, to be accounted from
   the dissolution of the precedent Parliament, seal, issue, and
   send forth abroad several writs of summons (changing therein
   what is to be changed) as aforesaid, for summoning the
   Parliament to meet at Westminster the sixth of November in
   that third year. That the said several and respective
   sheriffs, shall, within ten days after the receipt of such
   writ as aforesaid, cause the same to be proclaimed and
   published in every market-town within his county upon the
   market-days thereof, between twelve and three of the clock;
   and shall then also publish and declare the certain day of the
   week and month, for choosing members to serve in Parliament for
   the body of the said county, according to the tenor of the
   said writ, which shall be upon Wednesday five weeks after the
   date of the writ; and shall likewise declare the place where
   the election shall be made: for which purpose he shall appoint
   the most convenient place for the whole county to meet in; and
   shall send precepts for elections to be made in all and every
   city, town, borough, or place within his county, where
   elections are to be made by virtue of these presents, to the
   Mayor, Sheriff, or other head officer of such city, town,
   borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such
   writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and officers
   respectively are to make publication of, and of the certain
   day for such elections to be made in the said city, town, or
   place aforesaid, and to cause elections to be made
   accordingly.

   XII. That at the day and place of elections, the Sheriff of
   each county, and the said Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and
   other head officers within their cities, towns, boroughs, and
   places respectively, shall take view of the said elections,
   and shall make return into the chancery within twenty days
   after the said elections, of the persons elected by the
   greater number of electors, under their hands and seals,
   between him on the one part, and the electors on the other
   part; wherein shall be contained, that the persons elected
   shall not have power to alter the government as it is hereby
   settled in one single person and a Parliament.

   XIII. That the Sheriff, who shall wittingly and willingly make
   any false return, or neglect his duty, shall incur the penalty
   of 2,000 marks of lawful English money; the one moiety to the
   Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such person as will
   sue for the same.

   XIV. That all and every person and persons, who have aided,
   advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the
   Parliament, since the first day of January 1641 (unless they
   have been since in the service of the Parliament, and given
   signal testimony of their good affection thereunto) shall be
   disabled and incapable to be elected, or to give any vote in
   the election of any members to serve in the next Parliament,
   or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments.

   XV. That all such, who have advised, assisted, or abetted the
   rebellion of Ireland, shall be disabled and incapable for ever
   to be elected, or give any vote in the election of any member
   to serve in Parliament; as also all such who do or shall
   profess the Roman Catholic religion.

   XVI. That all votes and elections given or made contrary, or
   not according to these qualifications, shall be null and void;
   and if any person, who is hereby made incapable, shall give
   his vote for election of members to serve in Parliament, such
   person shall lose and forfeit one full year's value of his
   real estate, and one full third part of his personal estate;
   one moiety thereof to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety
   to him or them who shall sue for the same.

   XVII. That the persons who shall be elected to serve in
   Parliament, shall be such (and no other than such) as are
   persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good
   conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years.

   XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or
   possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to
   the value of £200, and not within the aforesaid exceptions,
   shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for
   counties.

   XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the
   Great Seal, shall be sworn before they enter into their
   offices, truly and faithfully to issue forth, and send abroad,
   writs of summons to Parliament, at the times and in the manner
   before expressed: and in case of neglect or failure to issue
   and send abroad writs accordingly, he or they shall for every
   such offence be guilty of high treason, and suffer the pains
   and penalties thereof.

   XX. That in case writs be not issued out, as is before
   expressed, but that there be a neglect therein, fifteen days
   after the time wherein the same ought to be issued out by the
   Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal; that
   then the Parliament shall, as often as such failure shall
   happen, assemble and be held at Westminster, in the usual
   place, at the times prefixed, in manner and by the means
   hereafter expressed; that is to say, that the sheriffs of the
   several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, cities,
   boroughs, and places aforesaid, within England, Wales,
   Scotland, and Ireland, the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars
   of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Mayor and
   Bailiffs of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other
   places aforesaid respectively, shall at the several courts and
   places to be appointed as aforesaid, within thirty days after
   the said fifteen days, cause such members to be chosen for
   their said several and respective counties, sheriffdoms,
   universities, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, by such
   persons, and in such manner, as if several and respective
   writs of summons to Parliament under the Great Seal had issued
   and been awarded according to the tenor aforesaid: that if the
   sheriff, or other persons authorized, shall neglect his or
   their duty herein, that all and every such sheriff and person
   authorized as aforesaid, so neglecting his or their duty,
   shall, for every such offence, be guilty of high treason, and
   shall suffer the pains and penalties thereof.

{889}

   XXI. That the clerk, called the clerk of the Commonwealth in
   Chancery for the time being, and all others, who shall
   afterwards execute that office, to whom the returns shall be
   made, shall for the next Parliament, and the two succeeding
   Triennial Parliaments, the next day after such return, certify
   the names of the several persons so returned, and of the
   places for which he and they were chosen respectively, unto
   the Council; who shall peruse the said returns, and examine
   whether the persons so elected and returned be such as is
   agreeable to the qualifications, and not disabled to be
   elected: and that every person and persons being so duly
   elected, and being approved of by the major part of the
   Council to be persons not disabled, but qualified as
   aforesaid, shall be esteemed a member of Parliament, and be
   admitted to sit in Parliament, and not otherwise.

   XXII. That the persons so chosen and assembled in manner
   aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the
   Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the supreme
   legislative power to be and reside in the Lord Protector and
   such Parliament, in manner herein expressed.

   XXIII. That the Lord Protector, with the advice of the major
   part of the Council, shall at any other time than is before
   expressed, when the necessities of the State shall require it,
   summon Parliaments in manner before expressed, which shall not
   be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved without their own
   consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And
   in case of future war with any foreign State, a Parliament
   shall be forthwith summoned for their advice concerning the
   same.

   XXIV. That all Bills agreed unto by the Parliament, shall be
   presented to the Lord Protector for his consent; and in case
   he shall not give his consent thereto within twenty days after
   they shall be presented to him, or give satisfaction to the
   Parliament within the time limited, that then, upon
   declaration of the Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not
   consented nor given satisfaction, such Bills shall pass into
   and become laws, although he shall not give his consent
   thereunto; provided such Bills contain nothing in them
   contrary to the matters contained in these presents.

   XXV. That [Henry Lawrence, esq.; Philip lord vise. Lisle; the
   majors general Lambert, Desborough, and Skippon; lieutenant
   general Fleetwood; the colonels Edward Montagu, Philip Jones,
   and Wm. Sydenham; sir Gilbert Pickering, sir Ch. Wolseley, and
   sir Anth. Ashley Cooper, Barts., Francis Rouse, esq., Speaker
   of the late Convention, Walter Strickland, and Rd. Major,
   esqrs.]—or any seven of them, shall be a Council for the
   purposes expressed in this writing; and upon the death or
   other removal of any of them, the Parliament shall nominate
   six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for
   everyone that is dead or removed; out of which the major part
   of the Council shall elect two, and present them to the Lord
   Protector, of which he shall elect one; and in case the
   Parliament shall not nominate within twenty days after notice
   given unto them thereof, the major part of the Council shall
   nominate three as aforesaid to the Lord Protector, who out of
   them shall supply the vacancy; and until this choice be made,
   the remaining part of the Council shall execute as fully in
   all things, as if their number were full. And in case of
   corruption, or other miscarriage in any of the Council in
   their trust, the Parliament shall appoint seven of their
   number, and the Council six, who, together with the Lord
   Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal
   for the time being, shall have power to hear and determine
   such corruption and miscarriage, and to award and inflict
   punishment, as the nature of the offence shall deserve, which
   punishment shall not be pardoned or remitted by the Lord
   Protector; and, in the interval of Parliaments, the major part
   of the Council, with the consent of the Lord Protector, may,
   for corruption or other miscarriage as aforesaid, suspend any
   of their number from the exercise of their trust, if they
   shall find it just, until the matter shall be heard and
   examined as aforesaid.

   XXVI. That the Lord Protector and the major part of the
   Council aforesaid may, at any time before the meeting of the
   next Parliament, add to the Council such persons as they shall
   think fit, provided the number of the Council be not made
   thereby to exceed twenty-one, and the quorum to be
   proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major
   part of the Council.

   XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised,
   settled, and established for maintaining of 10,000 horse and
   dragoons, and 20,000 foot, in England, Scotland and Ireland,
   for the defence and security thereof, and also for a
   convenient number of ships for guarding of the seas; besides
   £200,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges
   of administration of justice, and other expenses of the
   Government, which revenue shall be raised by the customs, and
   such other ways and means as shall be agreed upon by the Lord
   Protector and the Council, and shall not be taken away or
   diminished, nor the way agreed upon for raising the same
   altered, but by the consent of the Lord Protector and the
   Parliament.

   XXVIII. That the said yearly revenue shall be paid into the
   public treasury, and shall be issued out for the uses
   aforesaid.

   XXIX. That in case there shall not be cause hereafter to keep
   up so great a defence both at land or sea, but that there be
   an abatement made thereof, the money which will be saved
   thereby shall remain in bank for the public service, and not
   be employed to any other use but by consent of Parliament, or,
   in the intervals of Parliament, by the Lord Protector and
   major part of the Council.

{890}

   XXX. That the raising of money for defraying the charge of the
   present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect
   of the present wars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and
   not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the
   consent of the major part of the Council, for preventing the
   disorders and dangers which might otherwise fall out both by
   sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first
   Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid; and
   also to make laws and ordinances for the peace and welfare of
   these nations where it shall be necessary, which shall be
   binding and in force, until order shall be taken in Parliament
   concerning the same.

   XXXI. That the lands, tenements, rents, royalties,
   jurisdictions and hereditaments which remain yet unsold or
   undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to
   the Commonwealth (except the forests and chases, and the
   honours and manors belonging to the same; the lands of the
   rebels in Ireland, lying in the four counties of Dublin, Cork,
   Kildare, and Carlow; the lands forfeited by the people of
   Scotland in the late wars, and also the lands of Papists and
   delinquents in England who have not yet compounded), shall be
   vested in the Lord Protector, to hold, to him and his
   successors, Lords Protectors of these nations, and shall not
   be alienated but by consent in Parliament. And all debts,
   fines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and
   casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by
   authority of Parliament, shall be due to the Lord Protector,
   and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be recovered
   and prosecuted in his name.

   XXXII. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations
   shall be elective and not hereditary; and upon the death of
   the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith
   elected to succeed him in the Government; which election shall
   be by the Council, who, immediately upon the death of the Lord
   Protector, shall assemble in the Chamber where they usually
   sit in Council; and, having given notice to an their members
   of the cause of their assembling, shall, being thirteen at
   least present, proceed to the election; and, before they
   depart the said Chamber, shall elect a fit person to succeed
   in the Government, and forthwith cause proclamation thereof to
   be made in an the three nations as shall be requisite; and the
   person that they, or the major part of them, shall elect as
   aforesaid, shall be, and shall be taken to be, Lord Protector
   over these nations of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the
   dominions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the
   children of the late King, nor any of his line or family, be
   elected to be Lord Protector or other Chief Magistrate over
   these nations, or any the dominions thereto belonging. And
   until the aforesaid election be past, the Council shall take
   care of the Government, and administer in an things as fully
   as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are
   enabled to do.

   XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of
   England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby
   declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England,
   Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for
   his life.

   XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the
   Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, Chief Governors of Ireland
   and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches,
   shall be chosen by the approbation of Parliament; and, in the
   intervals of Parliament, by the approbation of the major part
   of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament.

   XXXV. That the Christian religion, as contained in the
   Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public
   profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a
   provision, less subject to scruple and contention, and more
   certain than the present, be made for the encouragement and
   maintenance of able and painful teachers, for the instructing
   the people, and for discovery and confutation of error,
   hereby, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine; and until
   such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be
   taken away or impeached.

   XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be
   compened by penalties or otherwise; but that endeavours be
   used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good
   conversation.

   XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ
   (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or
   discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from,
   but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and
   exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty
   to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of
   the public peace on their parts: provided this liberty be not
   extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the
   profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness.

   XXXVIII. That all laws, statutes and ordinances, and clauses
   in any law, statute or ordinance to the contrary of the
   aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed as null and void.

   XXXIX. That the Acts and Ordinances of Parliament made for the
   sale or other disposition of the lands, rents and
   hereditaments of the late King, Queen, and Prince, of
   Archbishops and Bishops, &c., Deans and Chapters, the lands of
   delinquents and forest-lands, or any of them, or of any other
   lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments belonging to the
   Commonwealth, shall nowise be impeached or made invalid, but
   shall remain good and firm; and that the securities given by
   Act and Ordinance of Parliament for any sum or sums of money,
   by any of the said lands, the excise, or any other public
   revenue; and also the securities given by the public faith of
   the nation, and the engagement of the public faith for
   satisfaction of debts and damages, shall remain firm and good,
   and not be made void and invalid upon any pretence whatsoever.

   XL. That the Articles given to or made with the enemy, and
   afterwards confirmed by Parliament, shall be performed and
   made good to the persons concerned therein; and that such
   appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for relief
   concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard
   and determined the next Parliament, anything in this writing
   or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding.

{891}

   XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations
   shall take and subscribe a solemn oath, in the presence of the
   Council, and such others as they shall call to them, that he
   will seek the peace, quiet and welfare of these nations, cause
   law and justice to be equally administered; and that he will
   not violate or infringe the matters and things contained in
   this writing, and in all other things will, to his power and
   to the best of his understanding, govern these nations
   according to the laws, statutes and customs thereof.

   XLII. That each person of the Council shall, before they enter
   upon their trust, take and subscribe an oath, that they will
   be true and faithful in their trust, according to the best of
   their knowledge; and that in the election of every successive
   Lord Protector they shall proceed therein impartially, and do
   nothing therein for any promise, fear, favour or reward.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654.
   Re-conquest of Acadia (Nova Scotia).

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654 (April).
   Incorporation of Scotland with the Commonwealth.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
   The Protector, his Parliaments and his Major-Generals.
   The Humble Petition and Advice.
   Differing views of the Cromwellian autocracy.

   "Oliver addressed his first Protectorate Parliament on Sunday,
   the 3d of September. … Immediately, under the leadership of
   old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many
   other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the
   Instrument of Government, the constitutional basis of the
   existing system. By five votes, it decided to discuss 'whether
   the House should approve of government by a Single Person and
   a Parliament.' This was of course to set up the principle of
   making the Executive dependent on the House; a principle, in
   Oliver's mind, fatal to settlement and order. He acted at
   once. Calling on the Lord Mayor to secure the city, and
   disposing his own guard round Westminster Hall, he summoned
   the House again on the 9th day. … Members were called on to
   sign a declaration, 'not to alter the government as settled in
   a Single Person and a Parliament.' Some, 300 signed; the
   minority—about a fourth—refused and retired. … The
   Parliament, in spite of the declaration, set itself from the
   first to discuss the constitution, to punish heretics,
   suppress blasphemy, revise the Ordinances of the Council; and
   they deliberately withheld all supplies for the services and
   the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the
   constitution de novo. Not a single bill had been sent up to
   the Protector for his assent. Oliver, as usual, acted at once.
   On the expiration of their five lunar months, 22d January
   1655, he summoned the House and dissolved it, with a speech
   full of reproaches."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 11._

   "In 1656, the Protector called a second Parliament. By
   excluding from it about a hundred members whom he judged to be
   hostile to his government, he found himself on amicable terms
   with the new assembly. It presented to him a Humble Petition
   and Advice, asking that certain changes of the Constitution
   might be agreed to by mutual consent, and that he should
   assume the title of King. This title he rejected, and the
   Humble Petition and Advice was passed in an amended form on
   May 25, 1657, and at once received the assent of the
   Protector. On June 26, it was modified in some details by the
   Additional Petition and Advice. Taking the two together, the
   result was to enlarge the power of Parliament and to diminish
   that of the Council. The Protector, in turn, received the
   right of appointing his successor, and to name the
   life-members of 'the other House,' which was now to take the
   place of the House of Lords. … In accordance with the
   Additional Petition and Advice, the Protector summoned
   'certain persons to sit in the other House.' A quarrel between
   the two Houses broke out, and the Protector [February 4, 1658]
   dissolved the Parliament in anger."

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      pages lxiii-lxiv., and 334-350._

   "To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurper's
   wish, but can seldom be in his power. The protector [in 1655]
   abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the kingdom into
   districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a
   sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of
   his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly
   hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil
   authority. They were employed to secure the payment of a tax
   of 10 per cent., imposed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those
   who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where
   their estates exceeded £100 per annum. The major-generals, in
   their correspondence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a
   rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. … All
   illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the
   civil war. It had ended in a despotism, compared to which all
   the illegal practices of former kings, all that had cost
   Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the balance.
   For what was ship-money, a general burthen, by the side of the
   present decimation of a single class, whose offence had long
   been expiated by a composition and effaced by an act of
   indemnity? or were the excessive punishments of the
   star-chamber so odious as the capital executions inflicted
   without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to
   erect his high court of justice? … I cannot … agree in the
   praises which have been showered upon Cromwell for the just
   administration of the laws under his dominion. That, between
   party and party, the ordinary civil rights of men were fairly
   dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be admitted
   that he filled the benches of justice with able lawyers,
   though not so considerable as those of the reign of Charles
   II.; but it is manifest that, so far as his own authority was
   concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a
   hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation
   than this soldier of a commonwealth."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 10, part 2._

   "Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by
   the winning cause in a revolution to restore confidence and
   secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, 'the Constable
   set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a
   military despot. … Never did a ruler invested with absolute
   power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive
   to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary
   control."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 11._

   "To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the
   gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any
   nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by
   a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were
   nothing to what was now imposed upon her."

      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth:
      Cromwell._

{892}

   "His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern
   constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for
   that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was,
   both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by
   being absolute. … Those soldiers who would not suffer him to
   assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts
   of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The
   government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth
   a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and
   the magnanimity of the despot."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 1._

England: A. D. 1655-1658.
   War with Spain, alliance with France.
   Acquisition of Dunkirk.

   "Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in
   1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle
   between France and Spain was continued with great animosity,
   each country striving to crush her rival and become the first
   power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were
   bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the
   possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the
   possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell
   determined to ally himself with France against Spain. … It
   was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain
   came most into collision with the interests of England. Her
   kings based their claims to the possession of two continents
   on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted
   them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the
   distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd
   Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the
   discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the
   discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this
   monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North
   American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still
   recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut
   all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or
   colonization of at least the southern half of the New World.
   … While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace
   was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to
   banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory
   (October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a
   league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell
   undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging
   Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving
   the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the
   occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the
   trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were
   then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of
   invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war
   opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been
   taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with
   another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He
   attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico,
   in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced
   the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his
   voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the
   siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards
   tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an
   engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills
   among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the
   courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for
   themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' … Ten
   days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had
   no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys
   of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good …'] (June
   25)."

      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157._

      _J. Campbell,
      Naval History of Great Britain,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _J. Waylen,
      The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
      pages 173-272._

      _W. H. Dixon,
      Robert Blake,
      chapters 9-10._

      _D. Hannay,
      Admiral Blake,
      chapter 9-11._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
   The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts.
   King Charles II.

   When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September,
   1658—the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at
   Worcester—his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it
   was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and
   succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded
   by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration
   of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that
   all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair
   of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or
   personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the
   former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from
   his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a
   new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
   confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
   opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret
   royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed
   to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous
   action once more as a political power in the state,
   subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders.
   Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his
   father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument
   for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and
   was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified
   their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the
   Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume
   its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members
   came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely
   stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the
   supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time
   expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate
   and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not
   last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived
   also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that
   it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and
   began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House
   of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and
   a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the
   direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under
   Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions,
   and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
   England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
   now induced to interfere.
{893}
   He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government,
   declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched
   into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement
   was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular
   demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage
   and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at
   last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was
   the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his
   intentions—himself, perhaps, as little as any—and it was
   not until after a period of protracted suspense that he
   declared himself for the convening of a new and free
   Parliament, in the place of the Rump—which had again resumed
   its sittings—for the settlement of the state. "The result of
   the elections was such as might have been expected from the
   temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with
   few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The
   Presbyterians formed the majority. … The new Parliament,
   which, having been called without the royal writ, is more
   accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster
   [April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which
   they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by
   force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his
   country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
   gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent.
   When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were
   covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could
   be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to
   London was a continued triumph."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 1._

   The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back
   their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was
   embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our
   Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament
   with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this
   Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of
   conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations
   only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate
   questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated
   estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of
   Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while
   diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the
   ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to
   associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of
   State."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 2, 1660-61._

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 16 (volume 6)._

      _D. Masson,
      Life of Milton,
      volume 5, book 3._

      _J. Corbett,
      Monk,
      chapter 9-14._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685.
   The Merry Monarch.

   "There never were such profligate times in England as under
   Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his
   swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in
   his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst
   vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies),
   drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and
   committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a
   fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me
   try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things
   that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman
   sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry
   proceeding was—of course—to declare that he was one of the
   greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone,
   like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next
   merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament,
   in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred
   thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that
   old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely
   fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle,
   and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to
   work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were
   called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of
   the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to
   say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and
   another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters,
   a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his
   heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every
   horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived
   with appalling cruelty. … Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
   the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
   staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
   ordered for execution. … These merry scenes were succeeded
   by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the
   late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and
   Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster
   Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day
   long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell
   set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of
   whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face
   for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what
   England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his
   grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it,
   like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the
   remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared,
   either, though they had been most excellent women. The base
   clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been
   buried in the Abbey, and—to the eternal disgrace of
   England—they were thrown into a pit, together with the
   mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral
   Blake. … The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of
   debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry
   husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until
   she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very
   good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A
   Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and
   afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful
   of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with
   the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady
   named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her
   rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an
   actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the
   worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have
   been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this
   orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry
   waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth,
   became the Duke of Richmond.
{894}
   Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The
   Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry
   ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords
   and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand
   pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money,
   made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for
   five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which
   Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers,
   and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England
   this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the
   Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this
   action, he would have received his just deserts."

      _C. Dickens,
      Child's History of England,
      chapter 35._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
   Acquisition of Bombay.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
   The Savoy Conference.

   "The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and
   Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this
   question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]?
   The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise,
   for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from
   beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in
   doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the
   Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting
   the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King
   and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the
   English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the
   restoration of the Church even more than it was the
   restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present
   Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise.
   The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the
   Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the
   Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully
   kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce
   by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains,
   and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles
   "took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing
   a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit
   the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by
   which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing
   his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God
   hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that
   nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not
   enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to
   the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went
   on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree
   sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one
   of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed
   to choose an equal number of learned divines of both
   persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile
   no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice.
   The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration,
   … and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale
   to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate
   had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge.
   Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy
   in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration
   had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was
   brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was
   at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the
   riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met
   the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the
   justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed
   took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton
   Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail.
   Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and
   the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both
   parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for
   agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at
   union having fallen through, the Government had their hands
   free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 7._

   "The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the
   25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review
   the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient
   Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it
   contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it,
   and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
   afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the
   Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's
   lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. … The
   Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April.
   … The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
   actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about
   a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of
   a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make
   alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were,
   by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a
   circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy
   the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of
   Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."

      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in English,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Calamy,
      Nonconformists' Memorial,
      introduction, section 3._

      _W. Orme,
      Life and Times of Richard Baxter,
      chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
   The sale of Dunkirk.

   "Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his
   civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles
   II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold
   which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a
   hand. … [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its
   dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He
   asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions,
   and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the
   Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the
   negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he
   wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk.
   Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as
   D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on
   the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good
   city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

{895}

England: A. D. 1662-1665.
   The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.

   The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which
   had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned
   the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task
   which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the
   Savoy. … The act of uniformity followed [passed by the
   Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the
   royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the
   revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers,
   and no other, should be used in all places of public worship;
   and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from
   it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set
   form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to
   everything contained and prescribed in it.' … The act of
   uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the
   church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was
   the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda,
   they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the
   people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of
   equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them
   expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter. 4._

   "This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
   could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday,
   August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. … This was
   an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed
   church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians
   relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and
   four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
   Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
   banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock
   was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by
   the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the
   number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less
   than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also
   by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no
   room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner
   buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the
   Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered
   to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and
   that even by their brethren who professed the same faith
   themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
   the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so
   much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school
   was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did,
   to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. … The ejected
   ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and
   obscurity. … The act of uniformity took place August the
   24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king
   published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some
   indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists
   were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the
   king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
   their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
   they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
   the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include
   in it. … Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th
   of June, an act against private meetings, called the
   Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after
   was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years
   of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise
   of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the
   church of England, where there are five persons more than the
   household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace
   be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5,
   and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and
   the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to
   some of the American plantations, excepting New England or
   Virginia." … In the year 1665 the plague broke out"—and
   the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of
   the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the
   people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring
   to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was
   busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render
   their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting
   upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any
   pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.],
   which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the
   road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place
   that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had
   been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. …
   When this act came out, those ministers who had any
   maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in
   obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not
   corporations."

      _E. Calamy,
      The Nonconformist's Memorial,
      introduction, sections 4-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 3, chapters 6-9._

      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 4, chapter 6-7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
   The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
   and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
   The King's charter to Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
   The conquest of New Netherland (New York).

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
   The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
   The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
   War with Holland renewed.
   The Dutch fleet in the Thames.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
   The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
   Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
   The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
   His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
   His betrayal of Holland.
   His breaking of the Triple Alliance.

   In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the
   king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
   annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. …
   But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
   disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
   the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
   assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
   though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
   Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
   he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
   Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
   opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
   sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
   French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
   triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
   closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. …
   About the end of the year the communications between the two
   princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
   the promise of French money, was received by the English
   ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
   form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
   that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
   or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
   proceedings Charles received an important communication from
   his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
   and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
   History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
   and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
   his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
   not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
   him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
   communion with the established church, while he attended at
   the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
   learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
   dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
   similar answer was returned to the same question from the
   pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
   communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
   embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
   replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
   the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
   Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
   Clifford. … The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
   Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
   being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
   approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
   this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
   to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
   safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
   intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
   monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,—was Charles
   sincere or not? … He was the most accomplished dissembler in
   his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
   to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
   brother and the king of France. … Now, however, the secret
   negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
   Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
   French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
   considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
   insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
   conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
   projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
   subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
   of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
   to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
   national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
   and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
   through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
   of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
   … though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
   known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
   negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
   the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
   confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
   in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
   Chudleigh. The principal articles were:

      1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself
      a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most
      expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join
      with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time
      as the most Christian king should judge proper.

      2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
      insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion,
      the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of
      livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three
      months, the other of six months, after the ratification of
      the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
      of 6,000 men, if … necessary. …

      4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
      monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
      England should aid him with all his power in the
      acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should
      make war on the united provinces, and that neither should
      conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and
      consent of his ally.".

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11._

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 16._

      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
   The Cabal.

   "It was remarked that the committee of council, established
   for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince
   Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper
   Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great
   confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole
   secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley
   [afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and
   Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the
   Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names
   happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry
   in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter. 65 (volume 6)._

      See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
   The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.

   "It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
   party in the Royal Council which represented the old
   Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
   Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
   trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
   their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
   announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
   … His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
   outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
   fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
   the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
   adjourned.
{897}
   Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
   suspending—under Clifford's advice—the payment of either
   principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
   treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
   goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
   more startling—the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
   his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
   of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
   of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
   suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
   dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
   religion only in private houses. … The Declaration of
   Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
   against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. …
   It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
   supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
   … There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
   the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
   war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
   temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
   from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
   and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head—a party
   which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
   its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
   the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
   House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
   in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
   of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
   recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
   recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
   without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
   and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
   and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
   reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
   Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
   Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
   but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
   through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. …
   Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
   more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
   Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. …
   Clifford, too, … owned to being a Catholic, and … laid
   down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
   that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
   of the Crown. … The resignations were held to have proved
   the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
   passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
   an end."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 9, section 3._

   "It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at
   Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet
   the construction of it, although it did not exclude from
   office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did
   effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the
   Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had
   the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
   those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have
   defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present
   submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
   entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
   relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
   cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act,
   which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two
   large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the
   course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
   sufferers."

      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1._

      _J. Collier,
      Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
      part 2, book 9 (volume 8)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
   Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
   Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
   Peace with the Dutch.
   Treaty of Westminster.
   Recovery of New York.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
   Concessions to France in Newfoundland.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
   The Popish Plot.

   "There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being
   betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused
   a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character,
   named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared
   that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king
   and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a
   magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly
   afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch
   near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics
   had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when
   Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the
   matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman
   alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was
   passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York,
   from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
   for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
   became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and
   other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great
   number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord
   Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in
   1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his
   friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and
   Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he
   could to fan the flame."

      _A. B. Buckley,
      History of England for Beginners,
      chapter 19._

   "The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
   fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
   their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were
   busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols
   were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a
   state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night.
   Preparations were made for barricading the great
   thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets.
   Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought
   himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail
   loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter. 2 (volume 1)._

{898}

   "It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
   or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
   with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
   short-hand that they might not be destitute of its
   consolations in the hour of calamity. … It was about the
   year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so
   named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet
   Street. … They were terrorists and spread alarm with great
   effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof,
   was recommended as a security against assassination at the
   hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of
   life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was
   introduced."

      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
   house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
   Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
   Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
   implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
   and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in
   common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to
   examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly
   acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some
   of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found
   guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing,
   became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who
   were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant
   conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French
   ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
   nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
   thoroughly cowed."

      _A. Carrel,
      History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
      part 1, chapter 4._

   "Although, … upon a review of this truly shocking
   transaction, we may be fairly justified … in imputing to the
   greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary
   degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of
   planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders;
   yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be
   considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation,
   in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses,
   prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not
   equal, shares."

      _C. J. Fox,
      History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
      introduction, ch._

   "In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to
   assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper,
   earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he
   certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work
   up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
   horrors. … In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
   something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had
   made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and
   distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation,
   artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the
   authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication,
   too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable
   activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion;
   and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in
   which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to
   be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had
   long been generally known, and was about this time made
   public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
   These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
   imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
   dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
   precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
   apprehended. … For their supposed part in the plot, ten
   laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
   eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
   condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
   were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
   executed with horrible severity."

      _C. Butler,
      Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
      chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
      chapter 89 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
   The Habeas Corpus Act.

   "Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
   has place in almost every government, except in that of Great
   Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to
   the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for
   the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in
   other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid
   the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition
   of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were
   still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion
   or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus,
   which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act
   it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No
   judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a
   writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to
   produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has
   its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and
   imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the
   judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so
   proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be
   indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
   trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
   by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 67 (volume 6)._

   "The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful
   imprisonment, were—

   1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused
   to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his
   appearance before the court when required, and in token of
   such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
   main').

   2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice,
   which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated.
   … It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county
   court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not.
   …

   3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
   is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be
   objected against him.

   A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
   either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
   and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
   sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
   were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
   The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
   arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
   called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
   subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
   and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
   of all others.
{899}
   This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
   in any of the Superior courts of common law. … But this writ
   … proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
   protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
   right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
   a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
   for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
   the reign of Charles I. … The parliament endeavoured to
   prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
   of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
   … should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
   unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
   judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
   enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
   the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
   thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
   habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
   brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
   for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
   Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
   subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
   established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
   the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
   Act.'"

      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      book 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries on the Laws of England,
      book 3, chapter 8._

      _H. J. Stephen,
      Commentaries,
      book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4)._

   The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:

   I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
   and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
   Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
   criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus
   to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas
   Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid
   their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their
   Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the
   King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained
   in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to
   their great Charges and Vexation.

   II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of
   all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed
   Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most
   Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
   Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present
   Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that
   whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus
   directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or
   other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their
   Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said
   Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under
   Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or
   Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under
   Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days
   after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment
   aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially
   expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or
   Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be
   ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and
   endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per
   Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the
   Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded
   by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according
   to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not
   make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And
   bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so
   committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor,
   or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time
   being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence
   the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other
   Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made
   returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall
   then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or
   Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in
   any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place
   or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing;
   and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One
   Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if
   beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the
   space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not
   longer.

   III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other
   Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ,
   (2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such
   Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo
   Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person
   that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall
   be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any
   Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the
   Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term,
   it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so
   committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in
   Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
   to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
   or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench,
   or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree
   of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper,
   Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or
   Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer,
   or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were
   denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody
   the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby
   authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
   Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
   attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at
   the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus
   under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of
   the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in
   whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be,
   returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord
   Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron,
   of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And
   upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers,
   his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or
   under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is
   so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively
   before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the
   said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons,
   or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable,
   and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
   Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
   Detainer.
{900}
   (7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
   brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
   or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be
   brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from
   his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one
   or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their
   Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and
   Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the
   Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
   Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
   County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
   Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said
   Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and
   then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and
   the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court,
   where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall
   appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or
   Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so
   committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant
   out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters,
   or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of
   any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or
   Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the
   which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.

   IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person
   shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms
   after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his
   Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not
   have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in
   Pursuance of this Act.

   V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
   if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or
   under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy,
   shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to
   bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners,
   according to the Command of the said Writ, within the
   respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the
   Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or
   within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver,
   to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or
   Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he
   and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and
   every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such
   other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained,
   shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party
   grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the
   second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and
   is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office.
   (3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or
   Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such
   Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of
   Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's
   Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection,
   Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution,
   by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted
   or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any
   Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall
   be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any
   after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for
   any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient
   Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said
   Penalty for the Second Offence.

   VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated
   Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the
   Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be
   delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any
   time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same
   Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by
   the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they
   shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court
   having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person
   or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or
   imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or
   imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any
   Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or
   be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they
   shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of
   Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in
   the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be
   recovered as aforesaid.

   VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any
   Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or
   Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of
   Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the
   first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
   and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his
   Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term,
   Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after
   such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
   Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and
   Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby
   required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day
   of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the
   Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the
   Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and
   Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could
   not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general
   Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as
   aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the
   first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
   and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his
   Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term,
   Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after
   his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall
   be discharged from his Imprisonment.

   VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend
   to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or
   other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that
   after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his
   criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to
   the Law for such other Suit.

{901}

   IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority
   aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this
   Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any
   Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed
   Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed
   from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any
   other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus,
   or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered
   to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such
   Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent
   by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to
   any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where
   the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another
   within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or
   Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden
   Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person
   or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and
   sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal
   aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or
   signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the
   Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall
   suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act
   before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence,
   respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the
   Party grieved.

   X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority
   aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any
   Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or
   their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of
   Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of
   King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if
   the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or
   Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of
   the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation
   time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or
   Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that
   such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any
   Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted,
   being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to
   the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds,
   to be recovered in manner aforesaid.

   XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
   That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning
   of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County
   Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places,
   within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of
   Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any
   Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

   XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons
   beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority
   aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or
   hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom
   of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
   shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey,
   Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or
   Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter
   shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his
   Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is
   hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if
   any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so
   imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall
   and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of
   this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any
   of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or
   Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained,
   imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true
   meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons,
   that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any
   Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment
   or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting
   in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every
   such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs,
   besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be
   less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay,
   Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no
   Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more
   than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of
   the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court,
   as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to
   be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons
   who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or
   countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or
   Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or
   transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be
   any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully
   convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear
   any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of
   England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or
   any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto
   belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains,
   Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in
   and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the
   Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be
   incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or
   Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities,
   or any of them.

   XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend
   to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in
   Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation,
   or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part
   beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement,
   altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such
   Contract.

   XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or
   Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court
   pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall
   think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose,
   such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts
   beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to
   the contrary notwithstanding.

   XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein
   contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to
   the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June,
   One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing
   advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such
   Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary
   notwithstanding.

{902}

   XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time
   resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital
   Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or
   foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors,
   where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such
   Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive
   such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used
   before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the
   contrary notwithstanding.

   XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or
   Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for
   any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be
   sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most
   after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in
   Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he
   shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after
   the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery
   out of Prison, which shall first happen.

   XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the
   Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal
   before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back
   to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the
   Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is
   detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon
   any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon
   any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of
   Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice
   shall appertain.

   XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended,
   any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas
   Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.

   XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if
   any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited
   against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to
   be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful
   for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are
   not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special
   Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which
   Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in
   Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants
   against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said
   Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all
   Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently
   pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or
   Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.

   XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason
   or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon
   Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according
   as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or
   less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace
   that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before
   them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be
   it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be
   committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged
   as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony,
   or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason
   or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and
   specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such
   Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act,
   or in any other manner than they might have been before the
   making of this Act.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
   The Meal-tub Plot.

   "Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through
   all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was
   a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of
   the papists. He … got into all companies, and mixed with the
   hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with
   himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of
   commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set
   up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent
   away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and
   then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was
   very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run
   about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break
   out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel
   Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived
   letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then
   some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for
   some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's
   chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they
   found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was
   made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters
   were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so
   they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of
   them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this
   whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came
   to be called the meal-tub plot. … This was a great disgrace
   to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the
   countenance he had given him."

      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 3, 1679._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.
   The Exclusion Bill.

   "Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in
   the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident
   that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and
   evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and
   undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne,
   long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten
   such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not
   supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to
   obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the
   exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the
   country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly
   shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of
   pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so
   vigorous would have been successful. … But the zeal they
   showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January
   24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an
   event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw
   their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of
   commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet
   quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments
   commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long
   in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of
   parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading
   of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].

{903}

   Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next
   parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed
   the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. … The bill of
   exclusion … provided that the imperial crown of England
   should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons
   successively during the life of the duke of York as would have
   inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead.
   … But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other
   objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the
   earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the
   line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved
   themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to
   its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of
   Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most
   impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James,
   duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king
   Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the
   Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation
   used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up
   the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of
   personal excellence or public services, against a princess of
   known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And
   the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels
   eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a
   belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Carrel,
      History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapter 4-8 (volume 1)._

      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 3, 1679-81._

      _Sir W. Temple,
      Memoirs,
      part 3 (Works, volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.
   Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.

   "Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely
   animated against each other. The very names by which each
   party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and
   rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer,
   appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is
   remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of
   Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material
   difference, this island has been so long divided. The court
   party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the
   fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the
   name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between
   the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the
   appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these
   foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 68 (volume 6)._

   "The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose,
   is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's
   Collection):—

      The word Tory's of Irish Extraction,
      'Tis a Legacy that they have left here
         They came here in their brogues,
         And have acted like Rogues,
      In endeavouring to learn us to swear."

      _J. Grego,
      History of Parliamentary Elections,
      page 36._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Cooke,
      History of Party,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 2._

   For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,

      See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
   The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs.
   The Rye-house Plot.

   "Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the
   penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a
   refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the
   exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his
   thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to
   exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory
   temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he
   saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in
   April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of
   the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal
   burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his
   declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities
   solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no
   forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary
   succession. … The Duke of York returned in triumph to St.
   James's. … Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through
   the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was
   at once arrested. … Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger,
   plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of
   adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City,
   where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to
   appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But
   their delays drove him to flight. … The flight of
   Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful
   sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further
   resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to
   answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in
   arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around
   him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of
   assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his
   brother as they passed the Rye-house [a Hertfordshire farm
   house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both
   the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly
   distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown
   lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an
   ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by
   suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of
   sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn
   Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled
   in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of
   prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683
   the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long
   in check lay crushed at his feet. … On the very day when the
   crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their
   handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the
   University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of
   passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of
   religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was
   a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament,
   coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions
   the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with
   contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and
   his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as
   James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed
   to him.

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 9, sections 5-6._

{904}

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth;
      chapters 8-10 (volume 1)._

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapters 68-69 (volume 6)._

      _G. W. Cooke,
      History of Party,
      volume 1, chapters 6-11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.
   Accession of James II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February).
   The new King proclaims his religion.

   "The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant
   friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in
   the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory
   which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the
   doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay
   their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was
   elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The
   Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried
   out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace;
   and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by
   Popish divines."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July).
   Monmouth's Rebellion.

   "The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May … was
   almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had
   produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the
   Whig influence. … The apparent triumph of the King and the
   Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the
   insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled
   malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in
   Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son
   of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on
   the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s
   reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the
   accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at
   Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of
   lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy
   prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions
   were determined on,—the one under Argyle, who hoped to find
   an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of
   Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England.
   Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. …
   Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority
   intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of
   his fellow leaders. … His army disbanded. He was himself
   taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable
   constancy, was beheaded. … A week before the final
   dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England
   [at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had
   not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself
   at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common
   people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even
   the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy,
   and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. …
   Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there
   received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the
   nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception
   at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began
   to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that,
   although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was
   still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were
   closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized
   by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham
   and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting
   several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire,
   Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The
   Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July
   encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of
   Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night
   surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The
   night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist
   was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three
   great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the
   armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew
   nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known
   as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and
   behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the
   enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the
   love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft
   nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle
   was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's
   artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was
   followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed
   insurrection. … Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into
   the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the
   neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for
   his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July.
   "The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most
   terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be
   flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his
   military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at
   Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier,
   all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter
   pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of
   their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at
   the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are
   said by some to have been put to death the week after the
   battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, pages 764-768._

    The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at
    2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be
    easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in
    those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends
    the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches,
    cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."

      _C. J. Fox,
      History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September).
   The Bloody Assizes.

   "Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief
   Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four
   other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will
   last as long as our race and language. … At Winchester the
   Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
   been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels
   had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had
   been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow
   of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding
   was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
   concealment.
{905}
   She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the
   part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of
   guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on
   the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many
   people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading.
   No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his
   fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only
   victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys
   reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which
   Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The
   court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet;
   and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a
   bloody purpose. … More than 300 prisoners were to be tried.
   The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for
   making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance
   of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty.
   Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and
   were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The
   remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and
   ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged
   in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester
   Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
   the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
   persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
   of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
   fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three
   prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At
   every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the
   green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with
   soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and
   quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the
   traveller sick with horror. … The Chief Justice was all
   himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went
   on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that
   many thought him drunk from morning to night. … Jeffreys
   boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his
   predecessors together since the Conquest. … Yet those rebels
   who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of
   the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
   to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of
   misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less
   terrible than that which Oates had undergone. … The number
   of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and
   forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who
   suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on
   persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the
   gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as
   slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and
   that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian
   island. … It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average,
   each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from
   ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry
   competition for grants. … And now Jeffreys had done his
   work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor
   from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind
   him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of
   Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. … But at the
   court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
   his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with
   interest and delight. … At a later period, when all men of
   all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the
   wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate
   themselves by throwing the blame on each other."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir James Mackintosh,
      History of the Revolution
      in England, chapter 1._

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
      chapter 100 (volume 3)._

      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapter 29-31 (volume 2)._

      See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686.
   Faithless and tyrannical measures against
   the New England colonies.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687;
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689.
   The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
   The Court of High Commission revived.

   "James conceived the design of employing his authority as head
   of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church
   to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard
   to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the
   exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction
   by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of
   the Catholic Church. … He, indeed, considered the
   ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence
   to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,'
   said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to
   establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my
   measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to
   exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes
   possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He
   found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading
   the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and
   re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission],
   under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested
   with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised
   by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to
   their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to
   certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of
   Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of
   this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by
   the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on
   controverted questions."

      _Sir James Mackintosh,
      History of the Revolution in England,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 5, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
   The consolidation of New England under a royal
   Governor-General.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687.
   Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power.

   "The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the
   catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or
   other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the
   royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the
   catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the
   tests under another form before the court of king's bench.
{906}
   This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
   might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
   particular subjects from the formalities. … The king …
   closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
   and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
   historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
   dispensing power. … The judges of the king's bench, after a
   trial, … declared, almost in the very language used by the
   crown counsel:

      1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes;

      2. That the laws of England are the king's laws;

      3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the
      kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular
      cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;

      4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king
      himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent
      upon all,

      5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the
      king by the people, but the ancient remains of the
      sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England,
      which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.

   The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the
   respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of
   the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from
   the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no
   longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions
   and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by
   parliament. … To obtain or to retain certain employments, it
   was necessary to be of the same religion with the king.
   Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all
   those who had pronounced at all energetically for the
   maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit
   during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."

      _A. Carrel,
      History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
   Declarations of Indulgence.
   Trial of the Seven Bishops.

   "Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James
   endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from
   Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by
   issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a
   Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby
   he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of
   them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete.
   … On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English
   Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to
   grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to
   all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published
   his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects
   become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution
   (since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free
   exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the
   Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of
   Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists,
   authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to
   perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament
   imposing any religious test for civil or military offices.
   This declaration was then notoriously illegal and
   unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third
   declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in
   England, but with small encouragement. … On the 27th of
   April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence
   for England. … On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he
   directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly
   read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the
   officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays—namely, on
   the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of
   June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this
   Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and
   Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the
   sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures—now
   they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a
   violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their
   Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The
   Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with
   and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The
   London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On
   the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of
   Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that
   the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of
   May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was
   held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by
   the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting,
   disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, … but
   stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not
   dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical—that the
   Declaration was therefore illegal—and could not be solemnly
   published by the petitioners in the House of God and during
   divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop
   of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake
   of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough,
   and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of
   London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The
   Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court,
   therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six
   Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the
   King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and
   seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday,
   the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was
   read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The
   Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the
   following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same
   manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was
   disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England.
   James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and
   Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on
   the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most
   enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all
   classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth
   to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had
   been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven
   Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. … The
   Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being
   stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of
   the 30th June, 1688."

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 2._

{907}

   "The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry
   covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled
   the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert
   Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to
   established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not
   guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were
   these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience
   in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout
   of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy
   roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity
   from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in
   the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. … 'The
   acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion
   in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow,
   and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the
   hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the
   acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably
   arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Strickland,
      Lives of the Seven Bishops._

      _R. Southey,
      Book of the Church,
      chapter 18._

      _G. G. Perry,
      History of the Church of England,
      chapter 30 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (July).
   William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation.

   "The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes
   steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and
   heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this
   succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the
   importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay
   not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power
   which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince
   of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the
   struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends
   with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of
   Lewis XIV."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 9, section 7._

   "William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the
   republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the
   Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England
   [as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and,
   therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.]; and his
   consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was,
   at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of the Revolution in England,
      chapter 10._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
   Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it.

   "In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's
   accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the
   memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first
   demonstration of the full force of that popular animosity
   which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however,
   Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of
   Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with
   proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed
   descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and
   the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a
   signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen
   before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the
   day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in
   cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by
   Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by
   Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, was conveyed by Admiral
   Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the
   required security for English assistance in the projected
   undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme
   difficulty. … On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe
   for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his
   English advisers, put forth his famous declaration. Starting
   with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is
   necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds
   to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England
   had been set at naught. The most important of these were—

      (1) the exercise of the dispensing power;

      (2) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial
      bench;

      (3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of
      papists to offices (particularly judicial and military
      offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally
      the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for
      the propagation of the Catholic religion;

      (4) the establishment and action of the Court of High
      Commission;

      (5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the
      procuring of the surrender of others;

      (6) interference with elections by turning out of all
      employment such as refused to vote as they were required;
      and

      (7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of
      Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had
      been done to remove.

   Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went
   on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had
   in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the
   earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords
   spiritual and temporal, and other English subjects of all
   ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very
   distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the
   expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a
   free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged
   himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of
   the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant religion, and
   the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England
   and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the
   'pretended Prince of Wales'; and that this object being
   attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation
   should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a
   week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in
   readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General.
   … On the 19th William and his armament set sail from
   Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent
   storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of
   November the fleet put to sea a second time. … By noon of
   the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into
   Torbay."

      _H. D. Traill,
      William the Third,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time, 1688
      (volume 3)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4)._

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
      chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4)._

      _T. P. Courtenay,
      Life of Danby (Lardner's Cab. Cyclop.),
      pages 315-324._

{908}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
   The Revolution.
   Ignominious flight of James.

   "The declaration published by the prince [on landing]
   consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings
   of the government since the accession of the king, which were
   regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of
   the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. …
   To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar
   evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the
   prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many
   lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the
   gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. …
   Addresses were also published to the army and navy. … The
   immediate effect of these appeals did not correspond with the
   expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of
   November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet
   submission. The memory of Monmouth's expedition was still
   fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord
   Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some
   officers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince;
   and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates
   belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St.
   Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however,
   quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to
   desert the service of the king. … Every day now brought with
   it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings
   of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour;
   while James was as constantly reminded, by one desertion after
   another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with
   scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection
   of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of
   Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and
   the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at
   Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall at
   night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and
   found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange
   who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and
   Plymouth, Hull, York, and Newcastle, were among the places of
   strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince.
   His standard had also been unfurled with success in the
   counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. … Even in
   Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending
   Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince
   from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their
   willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for
   his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the
   affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged
   his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his
   person from a distance; but from that course he was dissuaded
   by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an
   assembly of peers, James issued a proclamation on the 13th of
   November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a
   parliament on the 15th of January; that a pardon of all
   offences should previously pass the great seal; and that
   commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters
   of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of
   affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax,
   Nottingham, and Godolphin; but William evaded for some days
   the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged
   proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in
   London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting
   the destruction of life and property on the largest possible
   scale. … No one doubted the authenticity of this document,
   and the ferment and disorder which it spread through the city
   filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety
   of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December,
   the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board
   a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voyage to Calais.
   James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course
   of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their
   proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that
   a parliament should be assembled; that all persons holding
   public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish
   them; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the
   fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should
   be placed in the hands of Protestants; that the expense of the
   Dutch armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English
   Treasury; and that the king and the prince, and their
   respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from
   London during the sitting of parliament. James read these
   articles with some surprise, observing that they were much
   more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been
   given to the queen; the city was still in great agitation; and
   private letters, intimating that his person was not beyond the
   reach of danger, suggested that his interests might possibly
   be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence
   his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three
   o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with
   sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The
   vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable
   fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption
   until it came near to Feversham, where some fishermen,
   suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably
   priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took
   them from the vessel. … The arrest of the monarch at
   Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy
   council, commanding that his carriage and the royal guards
   should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. … After some
   consultation the king was informed that the public interests
   required his immediate withdrawment to some distance from
   Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed a
   preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were
   complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester
   William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose
   his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient
   for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. …
   His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to
   his departure was likely to arise; and on the last day of this
   memorable year—only a week after his removal from Whitehall,
   James embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable
   breeze safely reached the French coast."

      _R. Vaughan,
      History of England under the House of Stuart,
      volume 2, pages 914-918._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapters 9-10 (volume 2)._

      _H. D. Traill,
      William the Third,
      chapter 4._

      _Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's
      History of the Revolution in 1688,
      chapters 16-17._

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2)._

{909}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
   The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary.
   The Declaration of Rights.

   "The convention met on the 22nd of January. Their first care
   was to address the prince to take the administration of
   affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order
   to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he
   already exercised. On the 28th of January the commons, after a
   debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint
   opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II.,
   having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this
   kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and
   people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons
   having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn
   himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and
   that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously
   the next day, That it hath been found by experience
   inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant
   kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. This vote was a
   remarkable triumph of the Whig party, who had contended for
   the exclusion bill. … The lords agreed with equal unanimity
   to this vote; which, though it was expressed only as an
   abstract proposition, led by a practical inference to the
   whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former
   resolution several important divisions took place." The lords
   were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions,
   that James had "abdicated" the government by his desertion of
   it, and that the throne had thereby become "vacant." They
   yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the
   commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution,
   that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king
   and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto
   belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed
   to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they
   should have completed the declaration of those fundamental
   rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone
   forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at
   once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled
   them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon
   which they elected his successors, was incorporated in the
   final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of
   February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the
   state of affairs required: That William and Mary, prince and
   princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of
   England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
   belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms
   and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during
   their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that
   the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and
   executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the
   said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after
   their decease the said crown and royal dignity of the said
   kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the
   said princess; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne
   of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of
   her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the
   body of the said prince of Orange. … The Declaration of
   Rights presented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of
   Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both
   houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a
   recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the
   late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a
   declaration, nearly following the words of the former part,
   that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that
   the throne shall be filled by the prince and princess of
   Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. … This
   declaration was, some months afterwards [in October],
   confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of
   rights."

      See ENGLAND: 1689 (OCTOBER).

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapters 14-15 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4)._

      _R. Gneist,
      History of English Constitution,
      chapter 42 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
   The Church and the Revolution.
   The Toleration Act.
   The Non-Jurors.

   "The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late
   changes were not all of the same way of thinking in religion;
   many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were
   Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the
   Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them
   in Charles II.'s reign. Protestant Dissenters, save those who
   denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of
   worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to
   be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in
   Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is
   called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however,
   very narrow; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should
   get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter
   might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of
   Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test
   Acts were left untouched. King William, who was a Presbyterian
   in his own land, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won
   back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished
   the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept
   Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would
   not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in
   Convocation—as the Parliament of the Church is
   called—William could get nothing done. At the same time a
   rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in
   the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy
   in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which
   every man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of
   the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and
   Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the
   clergy were very unwilling to obey this law; but only 400 were
   found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather
   than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were
   called 'non-jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them
   were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II.
   only a year before. The sect of non-jurors, who looked upon
   themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it
   did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e.,
   early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names
   High-Church and Low-Church first came into use."

      _J. Rowley,
      The Settlement of the Constitution,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 5, chapters 4-11._

      _T. Lathbury,
      History of the Non-jurors._

{910}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (MAY).
   War declared against France.
   The Grand Alliance.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
   The Bill of Rights.

   The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by
   Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:

   Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
   assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely
   representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did
   upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord
   One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [o. s.], present unto
   their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style
   of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being
   present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in
   writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words
   following, viz.:

   "Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers
   evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did
   endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion,
   and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:

      1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with
      and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without
      consent of Parliament.

      2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for
      humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the
      said assumed power.

      3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under
      the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of
      Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.

      4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by
      pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner
      than the same was granted by Parliament.

      5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this
      kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament,
      and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

      6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to
      be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed
      and employed contrary to law.

      7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve
      in Parliament.

      8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters
      and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers
      other arbitrary and illegal causes.

      9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and
      unqualified persons have been returned, and served on
      juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials
      for high treason, which were not freeholders.

      10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons
      committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the
      laws made for the liberty of the subjects.

      11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and
      cruel punishments inflicted.

      12. And several grants and promises made of fines and
      forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the
      persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

   All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws
   and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said
   late King James II. having abdicated the government, and the
   throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange
   (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious
   instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and
   arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and
   Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause
   letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
   being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties,
   cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque ports, for the
   choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to
   be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
   two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand
   Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an
   establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties
   might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which
   letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon
   the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant
   to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled
   in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into
   their most serious consideration the best means for attaining
   the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors
   in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and
   asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

      1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the
      execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of
      Parliament, is illegal.

      2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the
      execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been
      assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

      3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of
      Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other
      commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and
      pernicious.

      4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by
      pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for
      longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be
      granted, is illegal.

      5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the
      King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such
      petitioning are illegal.

      6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the
      kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of
      Parliament, is against law.

      7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
      for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as
      allowed by law.

      8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.

      9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings
      in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in
      any court or place out of Parliament.

      10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
      excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments
      inflicted.

      11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned,
      and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason
      ought to be freeholders.

      12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures
      of particular persons before conviction are illegal and
      void.

      13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
      amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws,
      Parliament ought to be held frequently.

{911}

   And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular
   the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and
   that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the
   prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any
   wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To
   which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged
   by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as
   being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy
   therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said
   Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so
   far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the
   violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and
   from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and
   liberties:

   II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
   Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, that William
   and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared,
   King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the
   dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal
   dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said
   Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the
   survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the
   regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of
   Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during
   their joint lives; and after their deceases, the said crown
   and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to
   the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of
   such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of
   her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the
   body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and
   Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to
   accept the same accordingly.

   III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
   persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be
   required by law instead of them; and that the said oaths of
   allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely
   promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true
   allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So
   help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart
   abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that
   damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or
   deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may
   be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
   whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
   prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any
   jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority,
   ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me
   God.'"

   IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and
   royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland,
   and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the
   resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained
   in the said declaration.

   V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said
   Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two
   Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their
   Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
   settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this
   kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in
   danger again of being subverted; to which the said Lords
   Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to
   act accordingly.

   VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual
   and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the
   ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration,
   and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein
   contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority
   of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted,
   That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and
   claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and
   indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this
   kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed,
   and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars
   aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as
   they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers
   and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their
   successors according to the same in all times to come.

   VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
   seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his
   marvellous providence, and merciful goodness to this nation,
   to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons
   most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their
   ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of
   their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly,
   firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts,
   think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that
   King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their
   Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity as
   aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of
   right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign
   liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and
   Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to
   whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of
   the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities,
   prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same
   belonging and appertaining, are most fully, rightfully, and
   entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.

   VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this
   realm, by reason of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for
   preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon
   which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this
   nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said
   Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their
   Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and declared,
   that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and
   dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto
   belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their
   said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives,
   and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire,
   perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government
   be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both
   their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their
   deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to
   the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such
   issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and
   the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the
   heirs of the body of his said Majesty: And thereunto the said
   Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of
   all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit
   themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do
   faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and
   defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and
   succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the
   utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against
   all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the
   contrary.

{912}

   IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is
   inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
   kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or
   queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and
   Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted,
   That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be
   reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church
   of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry
   a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to
   inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this
   realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or
   any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise, any regal
   power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all
   and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall
   be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said
   Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and
   be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as
   should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said
   person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or
   professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

   X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any
   time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown
   of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the
   first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown,
   sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the
   presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his
   or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall
   administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of
   his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen),
   make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned
   in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of
   King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual
   preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling
   Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." But if it
   shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her
   succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age
   of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make,
   subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or
   her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first
   Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such
   King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve
   years.

   XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall
   be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this
   present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of
   this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties,
   by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
   Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the
   authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established
   accordingly.

   XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority
   aforesaid, That from and after this present session of
   Parliament, no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any
   statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the
   same shall be held void and of no effect, except a
   dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such
   cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill
   or bills to be passed during this present session of
   Parliament.

   XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted
   before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of
   our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any
   ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same
   shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and
   no other, than as if this Act had never been made.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1696.
   The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
   against Louis XIV. (called in American history "King William's
   War ").

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692;
      1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.

      Also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
   The Battle of Beachy Head.
   The great peril of the kingdom.

   "In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent
   a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest
   and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of
   Torrington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs,
   and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch
   fleet under Evertsen. On the 26th of June the English and
   French fleets were close to each other, and an important
   engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington
   abandoned the Isle of Wight and retreated towards the Straits
   of Dover. …  The Queen and her Council, receiving this
   intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight.
   Torrington received these orders on the 29th June. Next day he
   bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less
   than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed
   the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them
   little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which
   was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most
   splendid courage, but at length, being unsupported, his second
   in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen,
   and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged
   to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington
   destroyed some of these injured ships, took the remainder in
   tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When
   in that river he pulled up all the buoys to prevent pursuit.
   … Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in
   December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the
   third day was acquitted; but William refused to see him, and
   ordered him to be dismissed from the navy."

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 24._

   "There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that
   on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The
   shame was insupportable; the peril was imminent. … At any
   moment London might be appalled by news that 20,000 French
   veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of
   the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months,
   making preparations for a rising. All the regular troops who
   could be assembled for the defence of the island did not
   amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our
   country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than
   that of the first week of July 1690."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 15 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Campbell,
      Naval History of Great Britain,
      chapter 18 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690-1691.
   Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The new charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

{912}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
   Attempted invasion from France.
   Battle of La Hogue.

   "The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make
   an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who
   had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the
   King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more
   powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him
   after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,—an army to
   invade England. News received from that country explained this
   change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at
   Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was
   believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it
   would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow.
   … Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among
   the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill),
   had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at
   Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet
   which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed
   himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on
   Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence
   in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval
   operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500
   transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the
   greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre:
   this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of
   Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal
   de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set
   ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the
   line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it
   could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the
   invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy
   'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of
   the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of
   its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to
   Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels
   strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the
   Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without
   the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of
   France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were
   detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations.
   Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the
   squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible
   to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in
   England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and
   English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French
   admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he
   went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the
   Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in
   presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever
   appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from
   the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99,
   78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were
   much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63
   ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in
   all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied
   fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than
   20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and
   strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack,
   bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the
   enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night
   fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet
   lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no
   chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day,
   Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had
   strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English
   coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval
   port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had
   desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels!
   There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of
   the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew
   the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency,
   Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet
   through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney,
   which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast.
   Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place
   of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and
   failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few
   days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of
   La Hogue,—in the presence and under the guns of King James'
   army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his
   unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him;
   but this influence was only that of his blindness and
   incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left
   among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in
   our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have
   gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the
   French navy. … La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head.
   The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies
   had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were
   soon replaced."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV:
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 2.'_

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 4)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 2, book 7 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
   Expiration of censorship law.
   Appearance of first newspapers.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Measures of commercial and industrial restriction
   in the American colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   Recognition of William III. by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698.
   The founding of Calcutta.

         See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
   The question of the Spanish Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.
   The Spanish king's will.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
   The Act of Settlement.
   The source of the sovereignty of the
   House of Hanover or Brunswick.

   "William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke
   of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond
   infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to
   inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of
   William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled
   the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs.
   Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of
   James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She
   was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the
   nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that
   did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen
   Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it
   tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now
   made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or
   to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to
   war in defence of countries that did not belong to England,
   unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so
   that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."

      _J. Rowley,
      The Settlement of the Constitution,
      book 1, chapter 5._

{914}

   "Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament,
   and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any
   side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the
   fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very
   far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended
   prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one
   disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy,
   daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the
   Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of
   which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it
   seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. …
   According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement,
   all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of
   king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and
   annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal
   line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the
   paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs
   of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly
   hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors.
   But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood
   indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of
   his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries
   illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of
   the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right
   to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry
   the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and
   resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      book 10 (volume 2)._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
   The rousing of the nation to war with France.

   When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the
   bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition
   Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering
   not only that he had been befooled, but that his English
   subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the
   royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the
   people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is
   incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no
   sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the
   Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was
   better for England that France should accept the will than
   fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' … William dreaded the idea
   of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave
   objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily
   passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact
   converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment
   of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the
   Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of
   Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. … But just as,
   under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant
   chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden
   combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were
   instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The
   hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the
   Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II.
   breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of
   those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often
   determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of
   the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely
   and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king
   could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English
   public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned
   from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in
   the temper in which he could most have wished it to be."
   Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been
   factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the
   last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament—in the
   country it was already inaudible—was completely silenced. The
   two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm
   resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince
   of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. … Nor did the
   goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons
   accepted without a word of protest the four treaties
   constituting the new Grand Alliance. … The votes of supply
   were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the
   King arrived at this agreement with one another than the
   latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February,
   1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his
   horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His
   death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it
   was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of
   March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his
   deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed
   Stuart king, James II.

      _H. D. Traill,
      William the Third,
      chapters 14-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5)._

      See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
   Accession of Queen Anne.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
   Union of rival East India Companies.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.
   Failure at Cadiz.
   The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
   Marlborough's first campaigns.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
   The War of the Spanish Succession in America
   (called "Queen Anne's War").

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

{915}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714.
   The Age of Anne in literature.

   "That which was once called the Augustan age of English
   literature was specially marked by the growing development of
   a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from
   the early system of the patronage of authors to the later
   system of their professional independence. Patronage was being
   changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which
   Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage.
   The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to
   subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found
   that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage
   than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the
   reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an
   effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place.
   The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the
   political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation
   took place. The minister found it better to have a regular
   corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than
   occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary
   taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees,
   struggled into a more independent position as their public
   increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we
   find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently
   numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous
   as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old
   religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman
   loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty
   of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a
   brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and
   lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses,
   talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the
   new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays;
   more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less
   desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering
   warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet
   consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The
   essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first
   time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly
   gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force.
   The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is
   moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by
   which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas
   current in contemporary speculation. … Pope is the typical
   representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or
   may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or
   Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed
   of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however,
   that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the
   century proved that, in some sense, he is a most
   characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources
   of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities.
   He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an
   almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to
   coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare.
   Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and
   his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than
   poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as
   I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the
   most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day
   with a curious completeness. … There is, however, another
   wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth
   century did work original in character and of permanent value.
   If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and
   theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the
   critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the
   moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark.
   Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an
   independent art with Addison. Addison and his various
   colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay
   which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the
   preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a
   formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which
   Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the
   century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of
   the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson,
   Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very
   crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century,
   Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical
   moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. … The English
   novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe.
   Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was
   developed out of previously existing material, and is related
   to the great family of stories with which men have amused
   themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original
   creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which
   amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were
   popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too
   unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery
   that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded
   events had never happened."

      _L. Stephen,
      History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
      chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2)._

   "This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be
   regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing
   part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely
   be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide
   reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five
   great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest
   intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest
   critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed
   more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than
   by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has,
   although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a
   remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to
   specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real
   Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary
   supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals
   in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious
   interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a
   great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit,
   and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during
   those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more
   points than either of these schools. This sustained and
   variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort,
   strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for
   persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The
   Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not
   yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of
   intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and
   during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright
   enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the
   distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be
   indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general
   thought."

      _E. Gosse,
      The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
      (New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
   The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

{916}

England: A. D. 1703.
   The Aylesbury election case.

   "Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for
   maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's
   Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that
   the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be
   set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff
   went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the
   judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower
   House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not
   cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that
   Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all
   persons who should in future commence such an action, and all
   attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of
   a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then
   came to counter-resolutions. … The prorogation of Parliament
   put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it
   was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the
   Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his
   damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons
   imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong
   measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges
   of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a
   prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament
   expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the
   doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action
   lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the
   vote of an elector.'"

       _C. Knight,
       Popular History of England,
       volume 5, chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers,
      chapter. 110 (volume 4)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
   Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
   Campaigns in Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707.
   The Union with Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
   Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
   Spread of Jacobitism.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
   The Barrier Treaty with Holland.

   "The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government
   in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly
   to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of
   entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the
   house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories
   might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by
   altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present
   established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the
   preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the
   Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a
   general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as
   possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination
   of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect
   with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired
   for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to
   enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to
   the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition
   of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from
   France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that
   kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was
   to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of
   Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel,
   Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur,
   Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and
   Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the
   dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that
   Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite
   certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen,
   whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).
_
ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
   Opposition to the war.
   Trial of Sacheverell.
   Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.

   "A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the
   growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French
   offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of
   Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him
   profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John
   [Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders
   of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new
   engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves
   felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and
   periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior,
   the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant
   sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its
   general. … A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way
   in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A
   High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine
   of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience
   and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of
   the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a
   sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved
   prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of
   Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His
   trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and
   the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the
   gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. … A small
   majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence
   they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and
   illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory
   triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from
   the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of
   Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess
   of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing
   about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. …
   The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his
   [Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A
   masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the
   opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his
   forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been
   conducted between the French and English Ministers without his
   knowledge marched rapidly to a close. … At the opening of
   1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by
   the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed
   from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as
   guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew
   from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the
   peace was at an end."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      section 9, chapter 9._

{917}

   Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of
   the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had
   entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war
   proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been
   striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be
   elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in
   December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he
   became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than
   Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England, Reign of Anne,
      chapters 12-15._

   "Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest
   attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling
   those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party
   Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the
   Third with military instinct had always been reluctant to
   govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the
   Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. … The new idea of a
   homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the
   mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken
   under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present
   time, was as yet some way off. Marlborough's notions were
   those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he carried out
   the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the
   Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The
   Ministry of Godolphin was a composite administration,
   containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St.
   John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. … Lord
   Somers was a type of statesman of a novel order at that time.
   … In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to
   find a man attaining the highest political rank who was
   unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the
   great 'governing families,' as they have been called. Lord
   Somers was the son of a Worcester attorney. … It was
   fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the
   foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional
   government, as we now call it, was in course of construction.
   By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the
   difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign; and from the
   ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed,
   as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he
   was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the
   Tory party was Bolingbroke's; and that the Tories suffered from
   the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can
   doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the
   Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood
   Godolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and
   careful attention to the details of administration
   Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns
   remained unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one
   man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in
   public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence
   of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office
   of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way
   for Sir Robert Walpole's government of England under the title
   of First Lord of the Treasury. … Marlborough saw and always
   admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the
   financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting
   credit it must be remembered that in a venal age, when the
   standards of public honesty were so different from those which
   now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. … Bolingbroke is
   interesting to us as the most striking figure among the
   originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough
   disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact
   with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors.
   Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types
   of constitutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later,
   Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. … He and his friends,
   opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are
   interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of
   'Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government
   and the prototypes of cabinet ministers of to-day. Their ways
   of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be
   dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater
   resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of
   the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may
   have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to
   his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly
   misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or
   Mr. Chamberlain."

      _R. B. Brett,
      Footprints of Statesmen,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 89-107._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Walpole,
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough._

      _G. W. Cooke,
      Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
      volume 1, chapters 6-13._

      _J. C. Collins,
      Bolingbroke._

      _A. Hassall,
      Life of Bolingbroke,
      chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
   The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.

   "The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament
   a necessary qualification for becoming a member of
   corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was
   very efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether
   insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. … Such men,
   while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no
   scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or
   receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The
   Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured
   this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it
   was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing
   authorities. … In 1702, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for
   suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the
   Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig
   preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a
   coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the
   negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht; but the Tories
   "made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional
   Conformity Bill should be accepted by the Whigs.
{918}
   The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on
   the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that
   all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common
   councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were
   proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship,
   should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of
   public employment till they should depose that for a whole
   year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons
   added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and
   with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during
   the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable,
   for the great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in
   office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but
   having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their
   houses. … The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was
   to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of
   power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the
   Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and
   deprive them of the means of educating their children in their
   faith. … As carried through the House of Commons, it
   provided that no one, under pain of three months'
   imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school,
   or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a
   licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the
   Anglican liturgy, and had received the sacrament in some
   Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent
   occasional conformity it was further provided that if a
   teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship
   he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment,
   and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from
   acting as schoolmaster or tutor. … Some important clauses,
   however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its
   severity. They provided that Dissenters might have
   school-mistresses to teach their children to read; that the
   Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in
   reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics
   relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. … The
   facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly
   shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the
   latter years of the reign of Queen Anne."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 1._

   The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration
   of Lord Stanhope.

      _Cobbett's Parliamentary History,
      volume 7, pages 567-587._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 5, chapters 14-16._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
   Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht.
   Acquisitions from Spain and France.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713;
      also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
      and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
   Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713-1714.
   The desertion of the Catalans.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
   The end of the Stuart line and the beginning of the
   Hanoverians.

   Queen Anne died, after a short illness, on the morning of
   August 1, 1714. The Tories, who had just gained control of the
   ministry, were wholly unprepared for this emergency. They
   assembled in Privy Council, on the 29th of July, when the
   probably fatal issue of the Queen's illness became apparent,
   and "a strange scene is said to have occurred. Argyle and
   Somerset, though they had contributed largely by their
   defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin,
   were now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently
   been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their
   rank of Privy Councillors, they appeared unsummoned in the
   council room, pleading the greatness of the emergency.
   Shrewsbury, who had probably concocted the scene, rose and
   warmly thanked them for their offer of assistance; and these
   three men appear to have guided the course of events. …
   Shrewsbury, who was already Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of
   Ireland, became Lord Treasurer, and assumed the authority of
   Prime Minister. Summons were at once sent to all Privy
   Councillors, irrespective of party, to attend; and Somers and
   several other of the Whig leaders were speedily at their post.
   They had the great advantage of knowing clearly the policy
   they should pursue, and their measures were taken with
   admirable promptitude and energy. The guards of the Tower were
   at once doubled. Four regiments were ordered to march from the
   country to London, and all seamen to repair to their vessels.
   An embargo was laid on all shipping. The fleet was equipped,
   and speedy measures were taken to protect the seaports and to
   secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time
   despatches were sent to the Netherlands ordering seven of the
   ten British battalions to embark without delay; to Lord
   Strafford, the ambassador at the Hague, desiring the
   States-General to fulfil their guarantee of the Protestant
   succession in England; to the Elector, urging him to hasten to
   Holland, where, on the death of the Queen, he would be met by
   a British squadron, and escorted to his new kingdom." When the
   Queen's death occurred, "the new King was at once proclaimed,
   and it is a striking proof of the danger of the crisis that
   the funds, which had fallen on a false rumour of the Queen's
   recovery, rose at once when she died. Atterbury is said to
   have urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing
   Cross, and to have offered to head the procession in his lawn
   sleeves, but the counsel was mere madness, and Bolingbroke saw
   clearly that any attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement
   would be now worse than useless. … The more violent spirits
   among the Jacobites now looked eagerly for a French invasion,
   but the calmer members of the party perceived that such an
   invasion was impossible. … The Regency Act of 1705 came at
   once into operation. The Hanoverian minister produced the
   sealed list of the names of those to whom the Elector
   entrusted the government before his arrival, and it was found
   to consist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the
   Whig party. … Parliament, in accordance with the provisions
   of the Bill, was at once summoned, and it was soon evident
   that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration
   was passed."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

{919}

   "George I., whom circumstances and the Act of Settlement had
   thus called to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, had been
   a sovereign prince for sixteen years, during which time he had
   been Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. He was the second who ever
   bore that title. By right of his father he was Elector; it was
   by right of his mother that he now became ruler of the United
   Kingdom. The father was Ernest Augustus, Sovereign Bishop of
   Osnaburg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had become
   Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. In
   1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector.
   … The mother of George I. was Sophia, usually known as the
   Electress Sophia. The title was merely one of honour, and only
   meant wife of an Elector. … The Electress Sophia was the
   daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of King James I., and
   Frederick, the Elector Palatine [whose election to the throne
   of Bohemia and subsequent expulsion from that kingdom and from
   his Palatine dominions were the first acts in the Thirty
   Years' War]. … The new royal house in England is sometimes
   called the House of Hanover, sometimes the House of Brunswick.
   It will be found that the latter name is more generally used
   in histories written during the last century, the former in
   books written in the present day. If the names were equally
   applicable, the modern use is the more convenient, because
   there is another, and in some respects well known, branch of
   the House of Brunswick; but no other has a right to the name
   of Hanover. It is, however, quite certain that, whatever the
   English use may be, Hanover is properly the name of a town and
   of a duchy, but that the electorate was Brunswick-Lüneburg.
   … The House of Brunswick was of noble origin, tracing itself
   back to a certain Guelph d'Este, nicknamed 'the Robust,' son
   of an Italian nobleman, who had been seeking his fortunes in
   Germany. Guelph married Judith, widow of the English King,
   Harold, who fell on the hill of Senlac. … One of Guelph's
   descendants, later, married Maud, the daughter of King Henry
   II., probably the most powerful king in Europe of his day, at
   whose persuasion the Emperor conferred on the Guelphs the
   duchy of Brunswick."

      _E. E. Morris,
      The Early Hanoverians,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. M. Thornton,
      The Brunswick Accession,
      chapters 1-10._

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      book 10 (volume 2)._

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      chapters 1-4._

      _W. M. Thackeray,
      The Four Georges,
      lecture 1._

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (English
      History Review, volume 1)._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701,
      THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721.
   First years of George I.
   The rise of Walpole to power and the founding of Parliamentary
   Government.

   "The accession of the house of Hanover in the person of the
   great-grandson of James I. was once called by a Whig of this
   generation the greatest miracle in our history. It took place
   without domestic or foreign disturbance. … Within our own
   borders a short lull followed the sharp agitations of the last
   six months. The new king appointed an exclusively Whig
   Ministry. The office of Lord Treasurer was not revived, and
   the title disappears from political history. Lord Townshend
   was made principal Secretary of State, and assumed the part of
   first Minister. Mr. Walpole [Sir Robert] took the subaltern
   office of paymaster of the forces, holding along with it the
   paymastership of Chelsea Hospital. Although he had at first no
   seat in the inner Council or Cabinet, which seems to have
   consisted of eight members, only one of them a commoner, it is
   evident that from the outset his influence was hardly second
   to that of Townshend himself. In little more than a year
   (October 1715) he had made himself so prominent and valuable
   in the House of Commons, that the opportunity of a vacancy was
   taken to appoint him to be First Commissioner of the Treasury
   and Chancellor of the Exchequer. … Besides excluding their
   opponents from power, the Whigs instantly took more positive
   measures. The new Parliament was strongly Whig. A secret
   committee was at once appointed to inquire into the
   negotiations for the Peace. Walpole was chairman, took the
   lead in its proceedings, and drew the report." On Walpole's
   report, the House "directed the impeachment of Oxford,
   Bolingbroke, and Ormond for high treason, and other high
   crimes and misdemeanours mainly relating to the Peace of
   Utrecht. … The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke
   are the last instance in our history of a political
   impeachment. They are the last ministers who were ever made
   personally responsible for giving bad advice and pursuing a
   discredited policy, and since then a political mistake has
   ceased to be a crime. … The affair came to an abortive end.
   … The opening years of the new reign mark one of the least
   attractive periods in political history. George I. … cared
   very little for his new kingdom, and knew very little about
   its people or its institutions. … His expeditions to Hanover
   threw the management of all domestic affairs almost without
   control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two
   first Hanoverian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans,
   if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of
   strong and commanding will without much talent, Walpole would
   never have been able to lay the foundations of government by
   the House of Commons and by Cabinet so firmly that even the
   obdurate will of George III. was unable to overthrow it

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

   Happily for the system now established, circumstances
   compelled the first two sovereigns of the Hanoverian line to
   strike a bargain with the English Whigs, and it was faithfully
   kept until the accession of the third George. The king was to
   manage the affairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern
   England. It was an excellent bargain for England. Smooth as
   this operation may seem in historic description, Walpole found
   its early stages rough and thorny." The king was not easily
   brought to understand that England would not make war for
   Hanoverian objects, nor allow her foreign policy to be shaped
   by the ambitions of the Electorate. Differences arose which
   drove Townshend from the Cabinet, and divided the Whig party.
   Walpole retired from the government with Townshend, and was in
   opposition for three years, while Lord Stanhope and the Earl of
   Sunderland controlled the administration. The Whig schism came
   to an end in 1720, and Townshend and Walpole rejoined the
   administration, the latter as Paymaster of the Forces without
   a seat in the Cabinet. "His opposition was at an end, but he
   took no part in the active work of government. … Before many
   months had passed the country was overtaken by the memorable
   disasters of the South Sea Bubble.

      See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

{920}

   All eyes were turned to Walpole. Though he had privately
   dabbled in South Sea stock on his own account, his public
   predictions came back to men's minds; they remembered that he
   had been called the best man for figures in the House, and the
   disgrace of' his most important colleagues only made his
   sagacity the more prominent. … He returned to his old posts,
   and once more became First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor
   of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again
   Secretary of State. Walpole held his offices practically
   without a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an
   almost equal span of unbroken supremacy, but with that
   exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of
   power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this
   extraordinary stability, we must remember that the country had
   just passed through eighty years of revolution. A man of 80 in
1721 could recall the execution of Charles I., the protectorate
   of Oliver, the fall of Richard Cromwell, the restoration of
   Charles II., the exile of James II., the change of the order
   of succession to William of Orange, the reactionary ministry
   of Anne, and finally the second change to the House of
   Hanover. The interposition, after so long a series of violent
   perturbations as this, of twenty years of settled system and
   continuous order under one man, makes Walpole's government of
   capital and decisive importance in our history, and
   constitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a
   king, but a true and definite period, with a beginning, an
   end, a significance, and a unity of its own."

      _J. Morley,
      Walpole,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,
      chapters 9-21 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1715.
   The Jacobite rising.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.
   The Septennial Act.

   The easy suppression of the Jacobite rebellion was far from
   putting an end to the fears of the loyal supporters of the
   Hanoverian dynasty. They regarded with especial anxiety the
   approaching Parliamentary elections. "As, by the existing
   statute of 6 William and Mary [the Triennial Act, of 1694],
   Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a
   new election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great
   probability of a renewal of the contest, or at least of very
   serious riots during the election time. With this in view, the
   ministers proposed that the existing Parliament should be
   continued for a term of seven instead of three years. This,
   which was meant for a temporary measure, has never been
   repealed, and is still the law under which Parliaments are
   held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament,
   that it was acting arbitrarily in thus increasing its own
   duration. 'It was a direct usurpation,' it has been said, 'of
   the rights of the people, analogous to the act of the Long
   Parliament in declaring itself indestructible.' It has been
   regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in
   liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the
   peculiar conditions of the time. It was useless to look to the
   constituencies for the support of the popular liberty. The
   return of members in the smaller boroughs was in the hands of
   corrupt or corruptible freemen; in the counties, of great
   landowners; in the larger towns, of small place-holders under
   Government. A general election in fact only gave fresh
   occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of
   the House of Lords—freedom and independence in the presence
   of these two permanent powers could be secured only by the
   greater permanence of the third element of the Legislature,
   the House of Commons. It was thus that, though no doubt in
   some degree a party measure for securing a more lengthened
   tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received,
   upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation
   of the best statesmen of the time."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, page 938._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1717-1719.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   War with Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1720.
   The South Sea Bubble.

      See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1721-1742.
   Development of the Cabinet System of ministerial government.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1725.
   The Alliance of Hanover.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1726-1731.
   Fresh differences with Spain.
   Gibraltar besieged.
   The Treaty of Seville.
   The Second Treaty of Vienna.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1727.
   Accession of King George II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1727-1741.
   Walpole's administration under George II.

   "The management of public affairs during the six years of
   George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister,
   was easy. … His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by
   George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had
   ransacked a very copious vocabulary of abuse, in order to
   stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal,
   scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert
   Walpole's name was mentioned. … Walpole bowed meekly to the
   coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer
   Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king
   and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the
   old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated
   with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed,
   and the rupture was total after the death of Walpole's sister,
   Townsend's wife. … After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole
   reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole
   functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was
   betrayed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name
   was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But
   Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the
   kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to
   guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his
   market. Walpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the
   Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the
   people. I have already said, that before his accession George
   hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in
   fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King
   hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one
   George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then
   came before the man in possession the clear vision of
   Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer
   by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as
   noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil
   list. … Besides, Walpole was sincerely determined to support
   the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George
   that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be
   fought out in England. … Hence he was able to check one of
   the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. …
{921}
   It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of
   Commons by bribery; that the secret service money was thus
   employed: and that this minister was the father of that
   corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House
   during the first half of the last century. I suspect that
   these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story
   that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have
   been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is,
   in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about certain
   members of the opposition. … Walpole has been designated,
   and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held
   'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country
   can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the
   war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept
   George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting
   on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoiding foreign
   embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke
   out in 1739. … I do not intend to disparage Walpole's
   administrative ability when I say that the country prospered
   independently of any financial policy which he adopted or
   carried out. … Walpole let matters take their course, for he
   understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in
   his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact,
   that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he
   steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved,
   as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe; and
   he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He
   contrived to smooth away the difficulties which arose in 1727;
   and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see
   SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through
   ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to
   5,000 men." But the opposition to Walpole's peace policy
   became a growing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and
   forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the
   peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated,
   though with great difficulty, the determination of his enemies
   to impeach him.

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      Historical Gleanings,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career
   with adequate attention without recognising in him a great
   minister, although the merits of his administration were often
   rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of
   those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of
   that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of
   statesmen largely depends. … He was eminently true to the
   character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity
   the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their
   needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics
   to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its
   institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained,
   though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of
   religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sympathies, its
   tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The
   landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were
   reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which
   divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary
   government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of
   normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of
   moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most
   essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These
   were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very
   manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own
   character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of
   his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring
   sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sovereign
   with fidelity; but he was intensely wedded to power,
   exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or
   retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of
   honour which marks a high-minded man. … His estimate of
   political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female
   virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was
   saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its
   conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. … It is
   necessary to speak with much caution on this matter,
   remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the
   conditions of his time. … The systematic corruption of
   Members of Parliament is said to have begun under Charles II.,
   in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was
   continued under his successor, and the number of scandals
   rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. … And
   if corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally
   certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure of
   secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an
   equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. … The real
   charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when
   he exercised an almost unexampled ascendancy in politics, and
   when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution
   of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and
   successfully resisted every attempt at reform. … It was his
   settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by
   attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great
   financiers, or great statesmen, … but simply by engrossing
   borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter. 3 (volume 1)._

   "But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender
   back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should
   have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor
   united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and
   good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots
   attempting a Hanoverian regimen over us: we should have had
   revolt, commotion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a
   quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material
   prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that
   corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that
   courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen,
   patriot and statesman governed it. … In private life the old
   pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays
   tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or
   boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared
   for letters no more than his master did: he judged human
   nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he
   was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base.
   But, with his hireling House of Commons, he defended liberty
   for us; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. … He
   gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and
   ease, and freedom; the Three per Cents. nearly at par; and
   wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a quarter."

      _W. M. Thackeray,
      The Four Georges,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole,
      chapters 31-59 (volume 1)._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3)._

      _Lord Hervey,
      Memoirs of the Reign of George II._

{922}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1732.
   The grant of Georgia to General Oglethorpe.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1733.
   The first Bourbon Family Compact.
   Its hostility to Great Britain.

      See FRANCE, A. D. 1733.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787
   The great inventions which built up the
   Cotton Manufacture.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
   The War of Jenkins' Ear.

   "In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts
   to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain,
   which is an illustration of the saying that the occasion of a
   war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious.
   The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran
   that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins,
   skipper of the ship 'Rebecca,' of London, had been maltreated
   by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and
   hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was
   boarded by the Spanish coast guard. The Spaniards could find
   no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched
   narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him
   to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At
   length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his
   king. … Seven years later Captain Jenkins was examined by
   the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him
   how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins answered, 'I
   recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The
   answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the
   House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was
   circulated through the country. 'No need of allies now,' said
   one politician; 'the story of Jenkins will raise us
   volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from
   its somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the minds of
   men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then
   afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting
   upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the
   legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to
   Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government;
   and traders and sailors were breaking the international laws
   which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New
   World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in
   so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in
   order to force an entrance for their trade, which the
   Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This
   question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by
   the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as
   their sole return for their victories what was known as the
   Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use
   had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege
   of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their
   homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese,
   and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish
   kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the
   treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years
   to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her
   numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on
   the business. The English Government committed the contract to
   the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be
   supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy,
   merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or
   over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a
   provision for the trading of one English ship each year with
   Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage
   therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not
   exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this
   stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a
   ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous
   tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very
   profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that
   Captain Jenkins was accused. … Walpole, always anxious for
   peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the
   growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer.
   For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office,
   but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and
   most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a
   declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received
   throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. … A
   year and a day after this declaration of war an event
   occurred—the death of the Emperor—which helped to swell the
   volume of this war until it was merged into the European war,
   called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes
   within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between
   Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war
   went on until the general pacification in the treaty of
   Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out
   again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale
   and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title
   'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war
   was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on
   Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello,
   and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous
   voyage."

      _E. E. Morris,
      The Early Hanoverians,
      book 2, chapter 3._

   "Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from
   Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien,
   December 1st—an exploit for which he received the thanks of
   both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the
   spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through
   his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the
   commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore
   Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying
   the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian
   town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of
   which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between
   Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was
   on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having
   sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 3._

{923}

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Walter,
      Voyage around the World of George Anson._

      _Sir J. Barrow,
      Life of Lord George Anson,
      chapter 1-2._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapter 43 (volume 3)._

      See, also,
      FRANCE, A. D. 1733,
      and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1742.
   Naval operations in the Mediterranean.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
   Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
   Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.

   "Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his
   retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had
   conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account
   of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the
   general assault upon the late administration, but more
   especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had
   expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public
   mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the
   interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal
   head of the new administration, which was looked on as little
   more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character
   was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded
   Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,)
   and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It
   was about this time that he received a creditable and
   convenient addition to his private fortune, which also
   attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of
   Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on
   account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the
   laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was
   now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition
   statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages
   between members of their respective families and his own.
   These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow
   Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of
   this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham,
   the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke
   of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret,
   who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on
   account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's
   Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville,
   were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed
   Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to
   enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr.
   Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole—using in derision an epithet
   soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country—'the great
   Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';—but it was
   found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and
   after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were
   persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance
   from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day
   be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.'
   Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give
   his support to the remodelled administration. … On the
   breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically
   supported the ministry in their measures to protect the
   established government. George the Second's prejudices
   against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort
   of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand
   of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746,
   he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland;
   and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more
   lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. … In
   his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then
   rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held
   what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for
   the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands,
   and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he
   held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary
   for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the
   Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt
   nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would
   accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
      chapter 4._

   "From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts
   set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry
   Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was
   singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful
   disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At
   his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more
   peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in
   Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores,
   the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of
   conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new
   type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from
   Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble
   Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new
   statesman a new force, of which he was in part the
   representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into
   political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of
   the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse,
   William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The
   characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his
   career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that
   conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the
   objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a
   strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully
   weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an
   Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals
   from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal
   enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow.
   Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this
   'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."

      _R. B. Brett,
      Footprints of Statesmen,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 24-28 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743.
   The British Pragmatic Army.
   Battle of Dettingen.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
   The second Bourbon Family Compact.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752.
   Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
   The founding of British empire by Clive.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
   War of the Austrian Succession:
   Hostilities in America.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.

{924}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
   War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
   Fontenoy.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
   The Young Pretender's invasion.
   Last rising of the Jacobites.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
   War of the Austrian Succession
   British incapacity.
   Final successes at Sea.

   "The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by
   land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we
   are considering. … Mismanagement and languor were general.
   The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape
   rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly
   be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage,
   and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added
   little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the
   expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of
   plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the
   Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. … The overwhelming
   superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually
   to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which
   commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the
   Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In
   1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior
   English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near
   Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were
   taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most
   efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were
   enormously multiplied."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
   War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
   Siege of Genoa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
   End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
   First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
   the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America.
   Preludes of the final contest.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1751.
   Reformation of the Calendar.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1753.
   The Jewish Naturalization  Bill.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
   Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
   The Seven Years War.
   Its causes and provocations.

   "The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
   are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe
   ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and
   the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family
   that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortunately,
   however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of
   discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new
   disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity
   were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient
   rivalry between France and England, which had formerly vented
   itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of
   maritime discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the
   quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came
   into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute
   about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into
   a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
   France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in
   such state as they were before the war. This clause became a
   copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the
   limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the
   12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England
   'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were
   had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed
   them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French
   pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only the peninsula
   extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English
   further included in it that part of the American continent
   which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St.
   Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New
   Brunswick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the
   British North American settlements. The English claimed the
   banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as
   forming part of Louisiana; and they attempted to confine the
   British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana
   to Canada. Commissaries were appointed to settle these
   questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the
   years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the
   occupation by the French of the islands of St. Lucia,
   Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared
   neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could
   terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war
   inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say
   who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the
   other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to
   hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French
   navy. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister
   of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller
   vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten
   years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly
   the occasion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series
   of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on
   the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by
   the mother countries. A French writer, who flourished about
   this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare
   to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking
   gradually to recover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were
   now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels
   wherever found. … It being known that a considerable French
   fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for
   America, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured
   two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755.
   Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. …
   A naval war between England and France was now unavoidable;
   but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also
   to be mixed up with a European war.
{925}
   The complicated relations of the European system again caused
   these two wars to run into one, though their origin had
   nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay in
   the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European
   contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and
   decided the fate of Canada on the plains of Germany. The war
   in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly
   caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity
   of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a
   royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of
   these passions."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

   "The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at
   all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial
   questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; but
   the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe,
   joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector
   of Hanover, made it almost certain that a war between England
   and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from
   charging on the English Government of the time—for it was
   they, and not the French, who forced on the war—as Macaulay
   might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen,
   of the Russians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown
   down at Kunersdorf. The States of the Continent had many old
   enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result; and
   these would probably have given rise to a war some day, even
   if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously
   fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each
   other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be
   remembered that it was the work of England that the war took
   place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous
   suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and
   arbitrary proceedings by which it was forced on, we may well
   question whether English writers have any right to reprobate
   Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral
   in itself and disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were
   highway robbers, the English were pirates. … The origin of
   the war between England and France, if a struggle which had
   hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said
   to have an origin, was the struggle for America."

      _A. R. Ropes,
      The Causes of the Seven Years' War
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
      new series, volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 31-32 (volume 4)._

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapters 1-7._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL).
   Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the
   colonies by act of Parliament.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
   Boscawen's naval victory over the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JULY).
   Braddock's defeat in America.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
   Victory at Lake George.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1756.
   Loss of Minorca and reverses in America.

      See MINORCA: A. D. 1756;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1759.
   Campaigns on the Continent.
   Defence of Hanover.

      See GERMANY: A D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
      to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760.
   The great administration of the elder Pitt.

   "In 1754 Henry Pelham died. The important consequence of his
   death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of
   coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's
   brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fox
   for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the
   Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield,
   for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the
   leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much
   disliked by the King, to be available for the position. Fox
   for a while refused to accept it, and Murray was unwilling to
   do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the
   professional path along which he was to move to such
   distinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas
   Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the
   attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to
   take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those
   of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later
   still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which
   did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never
   recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence
   suffered by this amazing act. … The Duke of Newcastle's
   Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the
   slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of
   war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had
   now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be
   recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was
   the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic,
   gallant, and profligate Duc de Richelieu. The event is
   memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the
   trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate
   Admiral Byng.

      See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.

   The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time
   the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry
   which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this
   long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then
   a coalition of another kind was formed, which included
   Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position
   of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own
   way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung
   himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance
   with that great Frederick whose genius and daring were like
   his own."

      _Justin McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      volume 2, chapter 41._

   "Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State,
   with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme
   direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man
   who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was
   silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the
   continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place
   in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was
   tempting. … The first acts of the new administration were
   characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions
   were sent against different parts of the French coast with
   little success. … But soon conquests of a very different
   kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession
   of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought,
   not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the
   minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted.
{926}
   In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton
   was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had
   confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The
   captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington
   Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church,
   amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an
   immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all
   the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree
   thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur,
   supplies more than double of those which had been given during
   the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the
   conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga;
   then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by
   Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year
   was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The
   news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached
   London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy
   and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the
   general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in
   extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were
   never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the
   nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes
   fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument
   to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings.
   The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to
   sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke.
   Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French
   coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was
   furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had
   infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had
   long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on
   the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack
   could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done
   your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer
   for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French
   admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were
   destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany.
   The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph.
   Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was
   subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of
   disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime
   conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in
   magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in
   the East. In the space of three years the English had founded
   a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of
   India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to
   Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the
   authority of the East India Company was more absolute than
   that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of
   Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important
   ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by
   France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the
   Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties.
   Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising
   foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than
   Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and
   able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance
   as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against
   his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with
   so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the
   Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show
   of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to
   suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in
   an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should
   be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in
   Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost
   no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such
   was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high
   situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for
   him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had
   been no example, and which have never since been imitated. …
   The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of
   Hanover] were driven out. … In the meantime, the nation
   exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. … The
   success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his
   [Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the
   national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the
   emergency, that the national resources were contributed with
   unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The
   ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. … The
   situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of
   George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any
   public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he
   domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the
   people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first
   Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first
   country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he
   was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets
   and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
      (Essays, volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 33-36 (volume 4)._

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
      chapter 4._

England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
   The Seven Years War.
   Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.

   Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military
   and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have
   thought the proper means by which England should assist in a
   continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of
   little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was
   found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping
   and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached
   Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their
   boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the
   fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent
   out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore
   Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar
   assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The
   army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while
   engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French
   troops which had been hastily collected, and severely
   handled."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, page 1027._

{927}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
   The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg
   and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
   Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761.
   Breaking of French power in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
   Great victories in America.
   Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
   British naval supremacy established.
   Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.

   "Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make
   preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large
   scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other
   places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large
   fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small
   squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at
   Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc
   d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by
   the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the
   flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the
   channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron,
   under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a
   diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The
   design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably
   have succeeded three or even two years before, but the
   opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate
   state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a
   landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with
   the support of the newly created militia, would probably have
   been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was
   found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast,
   ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his
   ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made
   by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet,
   under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was
   compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in
   water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon
   M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast,
   passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however,
   though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase,
   and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of
   Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which
   three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt.
   The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded
   till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the
   coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The
   discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was
   even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke,
   who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven
   from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put
   to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same
   day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay,
   where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay,
   judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet
   of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by
   a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the
   morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff
   in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English,
   recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on
   their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter
   among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running
   mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little
   known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no
   peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all
   sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship
   was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy,
   the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of
   fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence
   many of the English ships never got into action at all; but
   the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was
   needed if the enemy were not to escape. … As long as
   daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the
   coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad
   spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' … By nightfall two
   French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two,
   the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil
   Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did
   that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore
   in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and
   four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the
   river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in
   the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the
   Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever
   got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought
   he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with
   the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the
   Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and
   could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the
   victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded.
   The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had
   succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was
   a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the
   following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of
   the war the French never ventured to meet the English in
   battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly
   while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their
   rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval
   and commercial supremacy of England was assured."

      _F. W. Longman,
      Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
      chapter 12, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of the British Navy,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _J. Entick,
      History of the late War,
      volume 4, pages 241-290._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
   Completed conquest of Canada.
   Successes of the Prussians and their allies.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

{928}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
   Accession of George III.
   His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship.
   Retirement of the elder Pitt.
   Rise and fall of Bute.
   The Grenville Ministry.

   "When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had
   been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig
   families which had been brought into the foreground by the
   revolution of 1688. … Under Walpole's wise and powerful
   sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than
   the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition
   to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of
   Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been
   impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this
   simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his
   education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant
   king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as
   general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly
   correct. … Nevertheless … George III. was not destitute of
   a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in
   this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate
   end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the
   dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some
   of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong
   wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in
   scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in
   personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no
   banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of
   business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent
   for administration, and he devoted this talent most
   assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human
   sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied
   manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an
   adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and
   securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found
   them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton
   insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the
   slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural
   enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred.
   As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and
   short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad
   views and independent character he nursed the bitterest
   rancour. … Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in
   1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down
   the growing system of cabinet government in England."

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession,
   afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary
   connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting
   while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the
   court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their
   return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the
   ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even
   encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to
   be in his interest. … Lord Bute, the originator of the new
   policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful
   promotion. He was not connected with the great families who
   had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no
   parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a
   courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with
   the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above
   all, he was a Scotchman. … Immediately after the king's
   accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted
   into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards
   concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with
   a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State.
   It was now the object of the court to break up the existing
   ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among
   the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the
   chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been
   difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies
   amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of
   fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most
   powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He
   desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had
   concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war
   with this country.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

   Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues
   except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
   —declared that he had been called to the ministry by the
   voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for
   measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met
   with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender
   his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister
   with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of
   Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a
   year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal
   favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his
   popularity. … The same Gazette which announced his
   resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension,
   and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite.
   On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most
   influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief
   management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole
   direction of the House of Lords. … His ascendency provoked
   the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister,
   the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
   patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. … At
   length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
   in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.
   And now, the object of the court being at length attained,
   Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as
   First Lord of the Treasury. … The king and his minister were
   resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their
   arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents
   disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative.
   Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
   agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
   aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
   ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
   declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
   peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
   office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king,
   with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of
   privy councillors. … No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of
   the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he … resigned
   his place in the household. A more general proscription of the
   Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton,
   and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of
   Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were
   dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. …
   Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of
   the Whig party.
{929}
   All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
   peace, were dismissed. … The preliminaries of peace were
   approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in
   the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of
   England.' But her exultation was premature. … These
   stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an
   organised opposition. … The fall of the king's favoured
   minister was even more sudden than his rise. … Afraid, as he
   confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his
   royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7,
   1763],—to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king
   himself,—before he had held office for eleven months. … He
   retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
   securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
   the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
   arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
   of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
   king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
   control of himself and his favorite."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Jesse,
      Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
      chapter 1-10 (volume 1)._

      _The Grenville Papers,
      volumes 1-2._

      _W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._

      _G. O. Trevelyan,
      Early History of Charles James Fox,
      chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
   Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
   The conflicting theories of their relations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
   The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
   War with Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
   The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762.
   Capture of Havana.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
   "The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.

   "The popular dislike to the new system of Government by
   courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance
   of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the
   minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of
   opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John
   Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are
   indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of
   political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him
   far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and
   shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world,
   with the manners of a gentleman, were among the
   accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely
   illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he
   engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his
   debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested
   the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon
   religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not
   in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a
   patriot. … Wilkes' journal, which originated with the
   administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was
   happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and
   personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed
   in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the
   political press of the present day; but at a time when the
   characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public
   estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from
   the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. … It
   had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now
   acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat
   the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as
   the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it
   had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders
   of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes
   presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree
   which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken
   to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought
   necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of
   the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary
   of State to seize—not any person named—but 'the authors,
   printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the
   North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons
   were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as
   it was found that none of them could be brought within the
   description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of
   the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for
   false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these
   actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff
   under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
   Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a
   Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to
   justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the
   legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by
   name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the
   presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of
   King's Bench. … The Court of King's Bench … intimated a
   strong opinion against the Crown upon the important
   constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed
   the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case
   came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined
   any further agitation of the questions. … These proceedings
   were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765,
   long after the administration under which they were instituted
   had ceased to exist. … The prosecution of Wilkes himself was
   pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of
   Parliament, which extends to every case except treason,
   felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the
   vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a
   servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative,
   advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception,
   as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this
   perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought
   before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary
   demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of
   State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been
   proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the
   Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was
   brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. … The argument
   which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct
   which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once
   rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result
   was the liberation of Wilkes from custody.
{930}
   But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this
   disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was
   immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he
   was deprived of his commission as colonel of the
   Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided
   the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from
   the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy
   Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first
   business brought forward by the Government was this
   contemptible affair—a proceeding not merely foolish and
   undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and
   decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged
   libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is
   manifest that the Government should have left the law to take
   its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now
   required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry
   which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and
   this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister,
   readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant
   and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by
   the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of
   the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the
   question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner,
   insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On
   the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel
   with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who
   had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of
   provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place;
   but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question
   of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they
   resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to
   the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought
   to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in
   the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and
   dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public
   spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus
   officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically
   futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this
   very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a
   member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of
   this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was
   consistent with the loftiness of his character. … The
   conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower
   House. … The session was principally occupied by the
   proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the
   unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament
   had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name
   was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner
   appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon
   'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who
   rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their
   hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its
   stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems
   which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his
   supposed royal patroness. … Wilkes himself, however, was
   forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of
   Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not
   the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend
   in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after
   the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was
   eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately
   followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for
   Aylesbury."

      _W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      Historical Gleanings,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 41-42 (volume 5)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
   The end and results of the Seven Years War:
   The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
   America to be English, not French.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Determination to tax the American colonies.
   The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1764.
   The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its
   consequences.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765.
   Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.
   Grenville dismissed.
   The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries.
   Repeal of the Stamp Act.
   Fresh trouble in the American colonies.

   "Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the
   people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of
   their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the
   king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George
   afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
   recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
   Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a
   Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers,
   however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry,
   persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's
   name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the
   Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult
   on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration.
   Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name
   by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his
   Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some
   time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of
   them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make
   overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost
   any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king
   was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He
   was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's
   following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no
   underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a
   burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he
   determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the
   Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ
   again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland
   opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the
   Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. … The new
   Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord
   of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
   Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. …
{931}
   Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
   of language or government. … He was totally free from any
   suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than
   talent in the Ministry altogether. … The back-bone of the
   party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke
   was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was
   not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its
   own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to
   effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
   accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
   [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
   so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time
   passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. … The
   king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his
   Ministers. … The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
   was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with
   them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance
   with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely
   party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on
   whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to
   form a coalition, in which were included men of the most
   opposite views—'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the
   few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any
   office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of
   following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this
   Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the
   leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
   Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
   North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
   Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
   Barrington, Camden, Granby—all men of the most opposite
   views. … This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the
   very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage.
   … As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an
   uncongenial atmosphere. … His name, too, had lost a great
   deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to
   conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and
   humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' … There
   were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
   increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
   that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
   disease later almost approached madness. … The Ministry
   drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of
   opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want
   of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking
   entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with
   America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's
   repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet,
   and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had
   always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought
   forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and
   paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and
   1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. …
   This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its
   author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry
   became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
   some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
   was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
   Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord
   Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded
   Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first
   Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number
   of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst
   that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the
   short period of its existence was marked by a succession of
   arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that
   it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed
   to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal
   connection with it was not severed for some time"—that is,
   not until the following year, 1768.

      _B. C. Skottowe,
      Our Hanoverian Kings,
      pages 234-239._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Grenville Papers,
      volumes 3-4._

      _C. W. Dilke,
      Papers of a Critic,
      volume 2._

      _E. Lodge,
      Portraits,
      volume 8, chapter 2._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
   The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
   John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
   The Middlesex elections.

   In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned
   to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but
   his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved
   and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a
   candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
   votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
   decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
   The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
   the close of the poll the numbers were—Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr.
   Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which
   astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was
   in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to
   illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.'
   It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom
   they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. … A
   month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though
   relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in
   your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly
   expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes
   appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the
   sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his
   expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
   surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
   consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
   offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
   and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he
   was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of
   the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself
   into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.
   Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that
   he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense
   multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its
   purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
   became furious, and commenced a riot.
{932}
   Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
   wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
   butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
   and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
   inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
   the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did
   the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier
   was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a
   reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A
   general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
   conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
   assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
   them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
   it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
   the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
   protection that the law can authorise and this office can
   give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
   necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
   before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
   without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
   observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
   of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
   for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days
   afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five
   votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John
   Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament
   expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
   member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
   was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned
   him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At
   another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court
   tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for
   Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been
   elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had
   been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a
   subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
   hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
   resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of
   'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very
   name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident
   that not the law only had been violated in his person, but
   that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
   Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
   the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his
   debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at
   length done what was right between him and one of the
   Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the
   other having been removed by death beyond the reach of
   justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages.
   These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed
   out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had
   exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the
   ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs
   of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of
   April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid
   succession to the offices—then much sought after, because
   held in high honour—of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of
   London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
   for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
   the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally
   expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the
   City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post
   till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the
   latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has
   generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by
   several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and
   energetic opponent of the war with America."

      _W. F. Rae,
      John Wilkes
      (Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. F. Rae,
      Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
      part 1._

      _G. O. Trevelyan,
      Early History of Charles James Fox,
      chapters 5-6, and 8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The Letters of Junius.

   "One of the newspapers in London at this period was the
   'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson
   Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the
   day; and he readily received any contributions of a like
   tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a
   writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
   continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was
   the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of
   signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and
   Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters
   (excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were
   published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public
   attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in
   ability, or still less in acrimony. … Such was the state of
   these publications, not much rising in interest above the
   common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of
   January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same
   hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ
   greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or
   superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce
   and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
   including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
   predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
   respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army
   and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows
   which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for
   himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed
   with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of
   Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew
   his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William
   himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of
   the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than
   once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay
   him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir
   William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends
   could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned
   the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the
   controversy. … These victories over a man of rank and
   station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of
   Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly
   expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author.
{933}
   He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
   sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
   signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
   and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before
   he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a
   series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton.
   Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which
   he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a
   false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,—an
   attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants
   to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by
   the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture
   was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known
   statesmen or well-known writers—Burke or Dunning, Boyd or
   Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton—flew from mouth to
   mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
   hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
   Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
   little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
   eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries
   Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance
   by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of
   August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and
   Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are
   forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the
   popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was
   supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall
   was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others
   for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The
   verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and
   publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to
   ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
   period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
   Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
   the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
   with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against
   the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who
   had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into
   the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen
   controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
   The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
   commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
   69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
   of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. … Besides the
   letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many
   others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending
   them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham
   appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to
   Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript
   among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written
   in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same
   initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made
   known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important
   of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
   Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
   in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
   length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
   of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the
   letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser
   were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by
   an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly
   they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
   streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
   was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
   him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
   the bar of some coffee-house. … It may be doubted whether
   Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. … When
   dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he
   declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it
   shall perish with me.'"

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 47 (v. 5)._

   The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the
   letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by
   different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and
   Pseudonyms":

   James Adair, M. P.;
   Captain Allen;
   Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
   William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
   Mr. Bickerton;
   Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
   Edmund Burke;
   William Burke;
   John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
   Lord Camden;
   John Lewis De Lolme;
   John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
   Samuel Dyer;
   Henry Flood;
   Sir Philip Francis;
   George III.;
   Edward Gibbon;
   Richard Glover;
   Henry Grattan;
   William Greatrakes;
   George Grenville;
   James Grenville;
   William Gerard Hamilton;
   James Hollis;
   Thomas Hollis;
   Sir George Jackson;
   Sir William Jones;
   John Kent;
   Major-General Charles Lee;
   Charles Lloyd;
   Thomas Lyttleton;
   Laughlin Maclean;
   Rev. Edmund Marshall;
   Thomas Paine;
   William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
   the Duke of Portland;
   Thomas Pownall;
   Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
   John Roberts;
   Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
   George, Viscount Sackville;
   the Earl of Shelburne;
   Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
   Richard Suett;
   Earl Temple;
   John Horne Tooke;
   Horace Walpole;
   Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
   John Wilkes;
   James Wilmot, D. D.;
   Daniel Wray.

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Cooke,
      History of Party,
      volume 3, chapter 6._

      _C. W. Dilke,
      Papers of a Critic,
      volume 2._

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Warren Hastings
      (Essays, volume 5)._

      _A. Bisset,
      Short History of the English Parliament,
      chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
   Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
   Beginning of the administration of Lord North.

   "The incompetency of the ministry was … becoming obvious. In
   the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime
   Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants
   of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The
   rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's
   party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently
   explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder
   of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence
   suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
   party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which
   had brought discontent in England to the verge of open
   outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying
   along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point
   the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own
   Cabinet.
{934}
   France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
   beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
   Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
   Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
   to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
   friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
   was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
   the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
   session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
   public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the
   murrain among 'horned beasts,'—a speech not of a king, but,
   said Junius, of  'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an
   amendment when the address in answer to this speech was
   proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the
   fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he
   blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America,
   which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed
   strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of
   Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be
   taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's
   voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent.
   Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the
   persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked
   and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby,
   one of the most popular men in England, followed the same
   course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
   also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up
   by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of
   the nation. … Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet
   the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and
   much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
   his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion.
   The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands,
   but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. …
   The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
   this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
   his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected
   in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one
   of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime
   Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
   and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
   that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
   unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
   find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity
   gone. The new Prime Minister … had great capacity for
   business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a
   first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of
   temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep,
   during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn
   aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
   accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the
   Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more
   than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the
   support of all royal influence from whatever source derived,
   North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill
   effects of such a system of government, and of the King's
   policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really
   responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
   closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
   the reign—the struggle of the King, supported by the
   unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of
   those who were represented, against the domination of the
   House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels
   which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the
   great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the
   Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
   struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not
   recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He
   did not understand that the people had other objects much
   beyond his own."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, pages 1057-1060._

      ALSO IN:
      _Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
      volume 1._

      _W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapters 10-13 (volume 1)._

      _J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapter 17 (volume 1)._

      _E. Burke,
      Thoughts on the Present Discontents
      (Works, volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
   The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
      and 1772-1773;  and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
   Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
   Freedom of reporting secured.

   "The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
   House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
   exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
   still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
   desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
   It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
   publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
   had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
   periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
   under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
   and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
   speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
   authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
   'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
   respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
   article which purported to be a report of the debates in
   Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
   by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
   derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
   more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
   of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
   composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
   oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
   Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
   the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
   the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
   which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
   no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
   publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
   resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
   privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
   be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
   therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
   disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
   proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
   session.
{935}
   There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
   would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
   parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
   right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
   had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
   conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
   the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
   would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
   member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
   wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
   meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
   could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
   had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
   even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
   members."

      _William Massey,
      History of England,
      volume 2, chapter 15._

   "Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the
   bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after
   receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker.
   Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who
   failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead
   of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger
   into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were
   both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
   Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had
   recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic
   magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a
   peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not
   backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from
   custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful
   arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had
   been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively
   apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and
   Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of
   having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought
   the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of
   London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both
   members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in
   their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower.
   Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one
   long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their
   release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards,
   the publication of debates has been pursued without any
   interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of
   privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of
   the main sources of its influence—its censure being reserved for
   wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued
   beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was
   prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the
   power of a single member of either House to require the
   exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously
   employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until
   1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present
   could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:

      _R. F. D. Palgrave,
      The House of Commons,
      lecture 2._

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
   The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
   Reconstitution of the Government of British India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec  Act.
   The First Continental Congress in America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
   Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
   efficient by James Watt.

      See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
   War measures against the colonies.
   The drift toward American independence.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
   relations to the American War.

   "The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
   stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
   latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
   maximum. … The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
   the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
   with the King. … The Declaration of Independence, and the
   known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
   climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
   English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
   the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
   … In every stage of the contest the influence of the
   Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. … The
   statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
   were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
   Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
   writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
   the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
   Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
   to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
   … While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
   the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
   the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
   examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
   realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
   not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
   directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
   the Government. … 'Every means of distressing America,'
   wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
   supported the employment of Indians. … It was the King's
   friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
   violence. … The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
   and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
   The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
   culpable in this matter, was Lord North. …
{936}
   The publication of the correspondence of George III. …
   supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
   the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
   from this correspondence that for the space of about five
   years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
   costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
   judgment and to his own wishes. … Again and again he
   entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
   and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
   threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
   … The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
   with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
   independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
   Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
   that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
   … He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
   reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
   Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
   Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
   Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
   the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
   was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
   not an ally in the world. … England, already exhausted by a
   war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
   confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
   months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. …
   There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
   consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
   turned. … If any statesman could, at the last moment,
   conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
   kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
   existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
   hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
   moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
   North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
   for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
   silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
   Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
   with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
   the ship would assuredly go down. … The King was unmoved. He
   consented indeed—and he actually authorised Lord North to make
   the astounding proposition—to receive Chatham as a
   subordinate minister to North. … This episode appears to me
   the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
   own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
   Charles I. to the scaffold."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 14 (volume 4)._

   "George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
   which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed,
   was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not
   shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired
   under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is
   difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable
   mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the
   natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance
   and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally
   unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."

      _J. Morley,
      Edmund Burke: a Historical Study,
      page 135_.

   "No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt
   to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than
   rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let
   us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that
   he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation.
   And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had
   the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let
   the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and
   no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George
   and the British nation were simply not wiser than other
   people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from
   the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when
   any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without
   compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even
   mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real
   power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the
   acknowledgment of American independence, King George still
   called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title
   was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up.
   Remember that some people in our own day regretted the
   separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If
   they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The English People in its Three Homes
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 183-184._

      ALSO IN:
      _Correspondence of George III. with Lord North._

      _Lord Brougham,
      Historical Sketches of Statesmen
      in the Reign of George III._

      _T. Macknight,
      History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
      chapters 22-26 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
   War with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
   Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
   The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

   "The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774],
   establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier
   have been impossible, and it was justly considered a
   remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such
   a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should
   have created no serious disturbances in the country. … The
   success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later,
   to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some
   part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still
   subject. … The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of
   £100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic
   priest performing his functions in England, and there were
   occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to
   the utmost in order to defeat them. … The worst part of the
   persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III.,
   and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal
   those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending
   of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these
   and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment,
   and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing
   land. … It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was
   carried without a division in either House, without any
   serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
   concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
   England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
   session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
{937}
   It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate
   and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity
   through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the
   country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians
   perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first
   signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of
   Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established
   Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending,
   and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a
   remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an
   agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly
   through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary
   resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills,
   newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant
   Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. … Furious
   riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and
   Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the
   Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The
   shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods
   scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were
   compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of
   many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
   Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of
   Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to
   suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not
   suffered to fire in their defence. … The flame soon spread
   southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery
   had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many
   murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and
   many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how
   easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent
   the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. … The fanatical
   party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the
   person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a
   melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very
   ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his
   connection with the ducal house of Gordon. … A 'Protestant
   Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
   was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and
   presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that
   20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a
   petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about
   half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three
   great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
   blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
   been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
   roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
   have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to
   actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the
   scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an
   aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around
   the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of
   the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted,
   compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No
   Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and
   many of them, but especially the members of the House of
   Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. … In the
   Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and
   demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with
   much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192
   to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George
   Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery,
   and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed
   him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in
   the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of
   his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of
   the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the
   body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers'
   gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other
   ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said
   at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North
   succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many
   anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were
   made to force the doors. … At last about nine o'clock the
   troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to
   disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further
   outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in
   Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried
   away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in
   the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The
   Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was
   next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
   intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
   slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
   captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
   for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
   disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
   Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
   Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
   utterly ruined."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of English in the 18th Century,
      chapter 13 (volume 3)._

   "On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. …
   Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
   have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
   days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
   adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
   might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
   Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
   perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
   force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
   Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and
   maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
   time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
   interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
   was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
   prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
   broken open … and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
   were likewise made upon several … private houses. … But
   the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
   perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
   they closed the day of madness and crime—the entire
   demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
   Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. …
{938}
   The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
   dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
   indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
   felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
   was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
   destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
   all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
   infuriated multitudes who braved their power. … The King's
   Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
   Bridewell, were all burned today. … The Mansion House, the
   Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
   understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
   other buildings which it was intended to attack were
   circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
   assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
   guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
   without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
   the fire of the military. … Among other houses which were
   set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
   Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. … The worst
   consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
   excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
   quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
   indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
   rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
   the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
   night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
   different quarters of the town. … By Thursday morning …
   the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
   succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
   of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
   the rioters would be speedily overpowered. … The soldiers
   attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
   complete success. … On Friday the courts of justice were
   again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
   evening. … On this first day after the close of the riots,
   'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
   places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' …
   Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
   capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
   the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
   remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
   distant land. … Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
   part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
   was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
   trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.

      _Sketches of Popular Tumults,
      section 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Jesse,
      Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
      chapter 34 (volume 2)._

      _H. Walpole,
      Journal of the Reign of George III.,
      volume 2, pages 403-424._

      _Annual Register, 1780,
      pages 254-287._

      _C. Dickens,
      Barnaby Rudge._

      _W. J. Amherst,
      History of Catholic Emancipation,
      volume 1, chapters 1-5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
   Declining strength of the government.
   Rodney's great naval victory.
   The siege of Gibraltar.

   "The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow
   of the personal government of George III., was now close at
   hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour.
   In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina
   had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of
   that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king
   complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had
   been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was
   scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one.
   Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North
   and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had
   told upon Ireland. … For more than a year there had been war
   in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying
   everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost
   foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and
   insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests
   except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire
   tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of
   Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir
   Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola,
   thus driving the British from their last position in Florida.
   In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the
   siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three
   years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter
   the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to
   Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British
   possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and
   Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous
   watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all
   the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a
   single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however,
   impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West
   Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships
   encountered the French near the island of
   Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued,
   and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the
   most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before
   the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and
   Grasse was taken prisoner,—the first French
   commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an
   enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to
   Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do
   nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was
   eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the
   course of the summer the English achieved another great
   success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a
   struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in
   modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in
   the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded
   the other parties to the war."

      _J. Fiske,
      American Revolution,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

   "Gibraltar … had been closely invested for nearly three
   years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the
   place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced
   by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and
   commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of
   1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in
   the month of November, the enemy were driven from their
   approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by
   a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the
   fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of
   Gibraltar.
{939}
   De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez,
   assumed the chief command. … The garrison of Gibraltar
   comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the
   allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense
   train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well
   acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it
   from the land side, but relied with confidence on the
   formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it
   from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and
   shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the
   action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient
   to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which
   ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates
   was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from
   sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were
   consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not
   until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade
   took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great
   attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered
   fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day,
   the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail
   of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were
   drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb
   ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within
   close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with
   strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the
   land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with
   the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in
   at the first practicable breach. … The grand attack was
   commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400
   pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely
   anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant
   storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to
   the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the
   most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other
   quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the
   floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were
   silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long
   time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous
   masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless
   from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not
   penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless,
   the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed
   against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of
   red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it
   was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles,
   which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning
   to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns
   from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which
   issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire,
   and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue
   the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent;
   and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal
   floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. … Eight
   of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night;
   and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames
   and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible
   flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with
   annihilation. … The loss of the enemy was computed at
   2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted
   to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to
   repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and
   Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the
   appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and
   relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal,
   they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might
   enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having
   been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits
   until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior
   array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an
   engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the
   combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his
   stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed
   this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish
   Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line,
   venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the
   great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been
   regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she
   had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had
   been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies.
   After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

      _W. Massey,
      History of England, Reign of George III.,
      chapter 27 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 62-66 (volume 7)._

      _J. Drinkwater,
      History of the Siege of Gibraltar._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783.
   Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783.
   War with Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782.
   Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
   Fall of Lord North.
   The second Rockingham Ministry.
   Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
   The Shelburne Ministry.
   Coalition of Fox and North.

   "There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an
   unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party
   allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the
   surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November,
   1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his
   hands, when he heard of it. … On February 7, a vote of
   censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a
   majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost
   a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one
   vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a
   resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).

   Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's
   resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he
   seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to
   Hanover. … Indeed, if it had not been for his large family,
   and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well
   known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried
   this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of
   which he was no longer master.
{940}
   By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the
   game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to
   Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him
   with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you
   who desert me, not I who desert you.' … Even when the
   long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no
   more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still
   flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from
   among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would
   be able to restore peace without granting independence, and
   Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in
   this scheme. … Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall
   into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence
   of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox,
   and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's
   phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was
   not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of
   permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the
   supplanter, of Rockingham. … His game was to wait. He
   respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. … Before
   Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct
   pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon
   American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on
   the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed
   by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the
   old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform,
   and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment
   of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by
   being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took
   charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself
   went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord
   Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of
   the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At
   the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as
   Chancellor. … The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into
   the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway,
   and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and
   Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. … Few
   Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the
   Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence,
   and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to
   Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a
   change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that
   ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is
   said never to have touched a card during either of his three
   short terms of office. … By the division of work among the
   two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the
   colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those
   relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of
   Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two
   Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American
   colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved
   in order to form part of the general treaty of peace.
   According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at
   once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain
   at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and
   Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and
   England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her
   side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme,
   but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she
   ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and
   the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his
   control into the hands of Fox. … Shelburne at once threw his
   whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great
   effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the
   trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be
   required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to
   make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was
   wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and
   the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the
   isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace
   was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the
   treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782
   (SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and
   Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly
   have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of
   friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed
   to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that
   important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin
   were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the
   Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the
   Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and
   despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then
   because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon
   earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July
   Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the
   King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined
   to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not
   make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord
   Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the
   Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and
   the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt
   [Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into
   the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to
   smile on Shelburne. He … might well look forward to a long
   and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration
   lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust
   and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in
   February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had
   concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was
   succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry
   formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland
   succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became
   the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the
   Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the
   Paymastership, the followers of Lord North … were rewarded
   with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of
   political parties have been received by historians and
   posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the
   coalition of 1783. … There is no evidence to show that at
   the time it struck politicians in general as being specially
   heinous."

      _H. O. Wakeman,
      Life of Charles James Fox,
      chapters 3-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord J. Russell,
      Life of Fox,
      chapters 16-17 (volume l)._

      _W. F. Rae,
      Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
      pages 307-317._

      _Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
      Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 3, chapters 3-6._

{941}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
   The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
   America signed at Paris.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Fall of the Coalition.
   Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
   His extraordinary grasp of power.
   His attempted measures of reform.

   "Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked
   for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of
   India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist.
   Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter.
   … It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against
   an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform,
   demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed
   at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of
   India,—patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was
   soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the
   majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of
   Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever,
   dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the
   King schemed, and controversy raged. … When the Bill arrived
   at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King
   had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom
   it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper
   circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The
   peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or
   strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of
   usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries
   of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions
   were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. …
   The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was
   paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused
   to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed
   the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found
   North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At
   first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,'
   exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the
   message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals
   were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and
   the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government,
   unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli,
   'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this
   one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay;
   the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the
   King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First
   Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the
   Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal
   derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of
   17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the
   difficulties were tremendous. … The composition of the
   Government was … the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The
   majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than
   40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and
   Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the
   meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval
   of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the
   place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed
   on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons
   met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The
   narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but
   would require too much detail for our limits. … On the day
   of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched
   divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His
   government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed.
   The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he
   needed no support. He had inherited from his father that
   confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can
   save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made
   himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new
   colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had
   refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for
   he felt that the country required time. … The Clerkship of
   the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a
   year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was
   universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and
   so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote
   his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not
   £300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious.
   … Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He
   gave the place to Barré. … To a nation inured to jobs this
   came as a revelation. … Above and beyond all was the fact
   that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the
   great leaders allied against him. … In face of so resolute a
   resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions,
   though they always showed a superiority to the Government,
   betrayed notable diminution. … On the 25th of March
   Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by
   the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections
   were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate
   of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs—of
   Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their
   seats—was 160. … The King and Pitt were supported on the
   tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which
   in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national
   sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."

      _Lord Rosebery,
      Pitt,
      chapter 3._

   "Three subjects then needed the attention of a great
   statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force
   themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were,
   our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of
   our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition
   of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. … He brought in a
   series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which
   the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number.
   They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament
   which they restrained or completed was much greater. He
   attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free
   Trade, the principles which he was the first of English
   statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of
   the country. … The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly
   suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the
   worst part of it.
{942}
   The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the
   national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. … Mr.
   Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the
   well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a
   certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in
   itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be
   so paid. … He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the
   debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. … The exposure
   of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so,
   such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr.
   Pitt's deserved fame. … The subject of parliamentary reform
   is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public
   most connected his name, and is also that with which we are
   now least apt to connect it. … He proposed the abolition of
   the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey
   accomplished it. … If the strong counteracting influence of
   the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he
   would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary
   representation. … The state of Ireland was a more pressing
   difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical
   errors, or our parliamentary corruption. … He proposed at
   once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments,
   and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish
   Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single
   representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in
   England. … Of these great reforms he was only permitted to
   carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described
   it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it
   continued to be for very many years; but the time became
   unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."

       _W. Bagehot,
       Biographical Studies: William Pitt._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl Stanhope,
      Life of William Pitt,
      chapters 4-9 (volume 1)._

      _G. Tomline,
      Life of William Pitt,
      chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2)._

      _Lord Rosebery,
      Pitt,
      chapters 3-4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY).
   Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.

      See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789.
   The King's second derangement.

   The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in
   the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration
   than the first. "He was able … to sign a warrant for the
   further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th
   September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the
   king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and
   placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in
   danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a
   further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th
   November. … According to long established law, Parliament,
   without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed
   to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion,
   for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to
   the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate
   upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had
   given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of
   Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of
   sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were
   actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of
   Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the
   exercise of his right. … Mr. Pitt, on the other hand,
   maintained that as no legal provision had been made for
   carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of
   Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which
   these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the
   situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the
   king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the
   Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792.
   War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793.
   The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
   Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
      and (JULY-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
   Popular feeling towards the French Revolution.
   Small number of the English Jacobins.
   Pitt forced into war.
   Tory panic and reign of terror.
   Violence of government measures.

   "That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would
   widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the
   peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom
   which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French
   revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in
   this struggle England would join them. It was from England
   that they had drawn those principles of political and social
   liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into
   practice. It was to England that they looked above all for
   approbation and sympathy. … To the revolutionists at Paris
   the attitude of England remained unintelligible and
   irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found
   but a cold neutrality. … But that this attitude was that of the
   English people as a whole was incredible to the French
   enthusiasts. … Their first work therefore they held to be
   the bringing about a revolution in England. … They strove,
   through a number of associations which had formed themselves
   under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same
   spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy,
   Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which
   denounced this correspondence as seditious. … Burke was
   still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was
   forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm
   throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the
   emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them
   at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse
   terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have
   been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror
   in France. … In November the Convention decreed that France
   offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would
   strive for freedom. … In the teeth of treaties signed only
   two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when
   it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government
   resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to
   enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A.
   D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force
   England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every
   day harder upon Pitt. … But even while withdrawing our
   Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose
   Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a
   policy of peace. …
{943}
   No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood
   lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion,
   and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. … But
   desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in
   vain. … Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications,
   and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War.
   From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his
   immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation,
   still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little
   save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never
   fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of
   passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic
   oversea. … The partisans of Republicanism were in reality
   but a few handfuls of men. … But in the mass of Englishmen
   the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into
   sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property
   and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he
   still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

   "Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a
   Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no
   response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his
   friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin
   Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered
   only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme
   opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite
   incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society
   was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were
   computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal
   masses of the people. … It is sad to say it, but when Pitt
   had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil.
   To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he
   commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking
   and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist,
   characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The
   country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous
   informers was called into activity by the government. …
   There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase
   of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent
   a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas
   Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were
   thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. … In
   Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      Three English Statesmen,
      pages 239-247._

   "The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man
   who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow
   might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason.
   … But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs
   could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the
   Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now,
   as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had
   disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its
   liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass."
   The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy,
   who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But
   no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved
   against them by creditable witnesses, and both were
   acquitted." The public joy was very general at these
   acquittals. … The war lost its popularity; bread grew
   scarce; commerce was crippled; … the easy success that had
   been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people
   clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took
   advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the
   constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the
   Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill.
   Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of
   every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate,
   and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."

      _G. W. Cooke,
      History of Party,
      volume 3, chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6)._

      _J. Gifford,
      History of the Political Life of William Pitt,
      chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4)._

      _W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4)._

      _E. Smith,
      The Story of the English Jacobins._

      _A. Bisset,
      Short History of the English Parliament,
      chapter 8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
   Campaigns of the Coalition against France.
   French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine.
   Conquest of Corsica.
   Naval victory of Lord Howe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
   Angry relations with the United States.
   The Jay Treaty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands.
   French conquest of Holland.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
   Crumbling of the European Coalition.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
   Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
   Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
   Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
   Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798.
   Attempted French invasions of Ireland.
   Irish Insurrection.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
   Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments.
   Defeat of the first Reform movement.
   Mutiny of the Fleet.
   Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

   "The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded
   during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797.
   The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed
   every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of
   all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national
   burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents
   had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with
   uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial
   insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic
   arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a
   run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was
   reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council
   appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash
   payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged
   from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes
   a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion
   of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place.
{944}
   The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew
   their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th
   May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly
   remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently
   carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after
   violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a
   similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of
   the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and
   the requisite supplies were voted. … Unknown to the
   government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in
   the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate
   of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles
   II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue
   severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of
   complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a
   general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel
   fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power
   of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and
   memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their
   grievances: their demands being examined by government, and
   found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May
   the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of
   disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a
   more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore,
   which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had
   been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers
   appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and,
   blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in
   such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant
   rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused
   dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King
   remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the
   parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication
   with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury
   Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames;
   and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly
   arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their
   enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to
   their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and
   several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was
   extended to the multitude. … Notwithstanding all these
   dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its
   enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of
   February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12
   frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the
   blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St.
   Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6
   frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the
   Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral,
   while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of
   the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and
   Collingwood,—the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns,
   engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the
   Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112;
   while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a
   quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried
   the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's
   sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad—an
   enormous four-decker—though her colours were twice struck,
   escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador,
   with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British;
   and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half
   its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which
   was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant
   Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis
   (created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at
   sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship
   which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St.
   Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval
   campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach
   Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11
   frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried
   courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under
   Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the
   battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine
   miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British
   Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his
   own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action
   commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost
   fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with
   the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves
   worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess
   of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line,
   including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates,
   struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled
   two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered.
   The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly
   equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040
   English, and 1,160 Dutch. … The only remaining operations of
   the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force
   which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an
   abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400
   French."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 190-196 (chapter 22,
      volume 5 of complete work)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapters 100-103 (volume 6)._

      _R. Southey,
      Life of Nelson,
      chapter 4._

      _E. J. De La Gravière,
      Sketches of the Last Naval War,
      volume 1, part 2._

      _Captain A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power on the
      French Revolution and Empire,
      chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST).
   Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1798.
   Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL).
   Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
   Expedition against Holland.
   Seizure of the Dutch fleet.
   Ignominious ending of the enterprise.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1800.
   Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain.
   Creation of the "United Kingdom."

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

{945}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801.
   The first Factory Act.

      See FACTORY LEGISLATION.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Import of the Treaty of Luneville.
   Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone.
   Retirement of Pitt.
   The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at
   Copenhagen.
   Expulsion of the French from Egypt.
   The Peace of Amiens.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
   Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King.
   His resignation.
   The Addington Ministry.
   The Peace of Amiens.
   War resumed.
   Pitt at the helm again.
   His death.
   The Ministry of "All the Talents."

   "The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party
   discussion, which quickly became only second to that of
   parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of
   College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the
   questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had
   been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be
   admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism
   was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the
   cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their
   complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the
   Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation
   should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament
   he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a
   minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not
   a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous
   professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an
   honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had
   given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the
   constitution. It had been better for the character of George
   III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told
   him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to
   fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which
   that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic
   emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for
   the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once
   interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to
   overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated
   the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy
   religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his
   resignation. … All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from
   the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were
   withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory
   party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the
   king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon
   every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea—the
   certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of
   innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to
   form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of
   the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than
   Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons,
   was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he
   succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling
   up the offices at his disposal. … The peace of Amiens was
   the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A.
   D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the
   boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be
   restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of
   England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded,
   yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade
   was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France
   retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree
   restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring
   consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was
   approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such
   a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington
   administration. But he could not control his adherents. … As
   the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency
   of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt
   sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and
   Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only
   refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if
   Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of
   the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a
   man destitute of commanding talents. When to these
   parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the
   war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened invasion,
   Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had
   performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had
   made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with
   the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had
   unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor
   manifest an intention of returning to office, than the
   ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found
   himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced
   that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume
   his station as a matter of course. During his temporary
   retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his
   supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually
   approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new
   arrangements unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To
   this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm—or
   obstinate. … In the following year, Addington himself, now
   created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the
   subordinate appointment of president of the council. The
   conflagration had again spread through Europe. … Pitt had
   the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the
   produce of such immense expense and the object of such hope,
   shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, his most
   faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from
   which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment
   of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of
   the navy. Lord Sidmouth and several others seceded from the
   cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by
   reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away
   the year 1805. On the 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. …
   The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration.
   The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions
   innumerable. Canning now recognised no political leader, but
   retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and
   his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt.
   Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although
   sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to
   defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face
   of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded.
{946}
   The administration, which was ironically designated by its
   opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was
   first lord of the treasury. Fox chose the office of secretary
   for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the
   war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the
   seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr.
   Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of
   the navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who,
   although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired
   considerable distinction as an eloquent Whig speaker, was
   advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the
   vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the
   reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty."

      _G. W. Cooke,
      History of Party,
      volume 3, chapters 17-18._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon),
      Life of Pitt,
      chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4)._

      _A. G. Stapleton,
      George Canning and His Times,
      chapters 6-8._

      _Earl Russell,
      Life and Times of Charles James Fox,
      chapters 58-69 (volume 3)._

      _G. Pellew,
      Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington,
      1st Viscount Sidmouth,
      chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER).
   Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland.
   His extraordinary reply.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803.
   Bonaparte's complaints and demands.
   The Peltier trial.
   The First Consul's rage.
   Declaration of war.
   Napoleon's seizure of Hanover.
   Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy,
   Switzerland and the Netherlands.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1804-1809.
   Difficulties with the United States.
   Questions of neutral rights.
   Right of Search and Impressment.
   The American Embargo.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
   Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805.
   Napoleon's threatened invasion.
   Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet.
   His victory and death at Trafalgar.
   The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
   Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
   Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon.
   War with Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
   Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples.
   The Battle of Maida.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
   Death of Pitt.
   Peace negotiations with Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Expedition against Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial warfare with Napoleon.
   Orders in Council.
   Berlin and Milan Decrees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.
   The ministry of "All the Talents."
   Abolition of the Slave Trade.
   The Portland and the Perceval ministries.
   Confirmed insanity of George III.
   Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales.
   Assassination of Mr. Perceval.

   The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for
   its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of
   Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade.
   Fox was now destined at the close of his career to be
   disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly
   realized the insincerity of his hero. … The second great
   object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his
   death;—this was the abolition of the slave-trade. For more
   than thirty years the question had been before the country,
   and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson,
   Wilberforce, and Fox. . Pitt was quite at one with them on
   this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject.
   The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this
   description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence
   of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to
   succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary
   punishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this
   measure—the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship—was wholly
   inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in
   1811 that its final extinction was secured. The remaining acts
   of the Ministry were blunders. … Their financial system was
   a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their
   allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they
   insisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the
   Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying
   it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government.
   … The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it,
   and so the Ministry agreed to drop the question under protest.
   George insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was
   refused he dismissed them. … This then was the final triumph
   of George III. He had successfully dismissed this Ministry; he
   had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to
   withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles
   were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and
   they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely
   necessary in order to curb the royal influence. … The Duke
   of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high
   rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents
   were never very great, and they were weakened by age and
   disease. The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, a dexterous debater and a patriotic statesman.
   This Government, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on
   the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde
   policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really
   high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign
   Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him
   into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of
   much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels
   inevitably arose between the two, and there was no real Prime
   Minister to hold them strongly under control. … At last the
   ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual
   resignation on the ground that neither could serve with the
   other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who
   felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing
   the Ministry any longer.
{947}
   The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in
   an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were
   Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither
   Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him.
   The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in
   ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded as a
   chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory
   commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was
   Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was continually
   thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as
   long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the
   Peninsular War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry
   out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of
   Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with
   insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties
   during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring
   forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a somewhat more modified
   form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and
   Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as
   lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this
   moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over
   from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in office.
   Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was
   succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was
   assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at
   once fell to pieces."

      _B. C. Skottowe,
      Our Hanoverian Kings,
      book 10, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. H. Hill,
      George Canning,
      chapters 13-17._

      _S. Walpole,
      Life of Spencer Perceval,
      volume 2._

      _R. I. and S. Wilberforce,
      Life of William Wilberforce,
      chapter 20 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807.
   Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER).
   Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and
   French.
   Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure.
   Disastrous expedition to Egypt.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
   Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of
   Russia.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
   Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet.
   War with Russia and Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
   Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice.
   Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY).
   Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden.
   Expedition of Sir John Moore.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
   Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new
   Napoleonic monarchy.
   Opening of the Peninsular War.

      See SPAIN: A. D.1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
   Expulsion of English forces from Capri.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D.1808-1809.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
   Convention of Cintra.
   Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
   Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat.
   His death at Corunna.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
   Wellington sent to the Peninsula.
   The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
   The Walcheren Expedition.

   "Three times before, during the war, it had occurred to one or
   another, connected with the government, that it would be a
   good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the
   French ships in the river, and get possession of their
   arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military
   science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they
   had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt
   had considered impracticable, Lord Castlereagh, with the
   rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order
   not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would
   have objected to the enterprise. Though the scene of action
   was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he
   consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval,
   military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed the
   responsibility—except such as the King and the Duke of York
   chose to share. … It was May, 1809, before any stir was
   apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to infer
   that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; but
   so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr.
   Canning signified that he could not share in the
   responsibility of an enterprise which must so involve his own
   office. … The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39
   ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due proportion of
   small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports
   carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided
   for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored
   the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused.
   … The naval commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose
   title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many
   who had more experience were unemployed. The military command
   was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad been)
   to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a
   favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and
   courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. … The
   fatal mistake was made of not defining the respective
   authorities of the two commanders; and both being
   inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first,
   and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the
   autumn, an epigram of unknown origin was in every body's
   mouth, all over England:

      'Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn,
      Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
      Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
      Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'

   The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast
   of Holland the next day. The first discovery was that there
   were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The
   next was that no plan had been formed about how to proceed.
   The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp,
   45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for
   defence; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first.
   They set about it so slowly that a fortnight was consumed in
   preparations.
{948}
   In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken.
   After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do
   next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on
   to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time
   two intermediate places had been so strengthened that there
   must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but
   take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not
   another blow was struck; not another league was traversed by
   this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery
   of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into
   the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang
   up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few
   days, just when it became necessary to reduce the rations,
   because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August,
   Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not
   advisable to pursue further operations.' But, if they could
   not proceed, neither could they remain where they were. The
   enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and
   31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river,
   that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up,
   and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it
   was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September,
   most of the ships were at home again; and Lord Chatham
   appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in
   the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre
   Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the
   rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day.
   Though the men had been working in the swamps, up to the waist
   in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had
   been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a
   canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames
   water to drink would stop the sickness; and a supply of 500
   tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October,
   a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar,
   were sent over to mend the roofs; but they immediately dropped
   into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated
   in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were
   laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the
   beginning been insufficient for their need. At last,
   government desired the chief officers of the army Medical
   Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise
   nature of the fever, and what could be done. The
   Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon
   each other. Government appointed it to the Physician-General,
   Sir Lucas Pepys; but he refused to go. Both officers were
   dismissed, and the medical department of the army was
   reorganized and greatly improved. The deaths were at this time
   from 200 to 300 a week. When Walcheren was evacuated, on the
   23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months
   before were dead or missing; and of those who returned, 35,000
   were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st
   of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this
   expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of
   deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 7, chapter 20._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula.
   His retreat into Portugal.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810.
   Capture of the Mauritius.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812.
   The War in the Peninsula.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French recoil from them.
   English advance into Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1800-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
      and 1810-1812.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811.
   Capture of Java from the Dutch.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812.
   Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden.
   Reopening of their ports to British commerce.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JANUARY).
   Building of the first passenger Steam-boat.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
   The Peninsular War.
   Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
   The Liverpool Ministry.
   Business depression and bad harvests.
   Distress and rioting.
   The Luddites.

   "Again there was much negotiation, and an attempt to introduce
   Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they
   could not serve with Castlereagh; they were then asked to form
   a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected
   to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged.
   Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but
   quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the
   Household; and as an American war was threatening, and the
   ministry had already given up their Orders in Council (one of
   the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather
   than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord
   Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his
   Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office.
   Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while
   Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success
   of Wellington as yet uncertain, England had drifted into war
   with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war
   might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of
   ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the
   Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory
   measures against France, regardless of the practical injury
   they were inflicting upon all neutrals. … The same motive of
   class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the
   foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole
   administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity to
   look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic
   point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly
   increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only
   kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those
   higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any
   attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the
   inevitable consequence of the circumstances in which England
   was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable
   in so far as it created those circumstances. At the same time
   it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which
   the misery was ignored and the occasional success of
   individual merchants and contractors regarded as evidences of
   national prosperity. …
{949}
   A plentiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many
   continental ports, did much to revive both trade and
   manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of
   corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread
   distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country
   banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped
   payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the
   manufacturing interest also; apparently, for the instant, the
   very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. … Before
   the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week.
   The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of
   absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men
   urged upon Parliament that they were starving; but there was
   another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no
   means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and
   cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good
   nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of
   times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand
   labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not
   unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers
   were very ready to believe that it was the machinery which
   caused their ruin, and so in fact it was; the change, though
   on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery.
   The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in
   riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham,
   calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot
   lad who some 30 years before, had broken stocking-frames),
   gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom
   the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret
   organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking.
   The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd
   of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels holding every
   approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants
   cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of
   smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as
   rapidly as it had arrived—such were the incidents of the
   night riots."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, period 3,
      pages 1325-1332._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 7, chapter 30._

      _Pictorial History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 4
      (Reign of George III., volume 4)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1815.
   War with the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809;
      1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE).
   Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
   Wellington's victorious and final campaigns
   in the Peninsular War.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1816.
   War with the Ghorkas of Nepal.

      See INDIA: A. D.1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
   The allies in France and in possession of Paris.
   Fall of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
      and (MARCH-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
   Treaty of Paris.
   Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France
   and the Cape of Good Hope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
   The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH).
   The Corn Law.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

[Transcriber's Note:]

INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL).
   Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a
   Summer" and widespread famine.

   "Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests
   in Britain and Ireland. … With the cause of the problems
   unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets
   and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in
   many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags
   reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during
   times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the
   highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was
   the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.

      _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe_

[End Transcriber's Note]

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
   The Waterloo campaign.
   Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST).
   Surrender of Napoleon.
   His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
   Wellington's army in Paris.
   The Second Treaty.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER).
   The Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
   Agitation for Parliamentary Reform.
   Hampden Clubs.
   Spencean philanthropists.
   Trials of William Hone.
   The Spa-fields meeting and riot.
   March of the Blanketeers.
   Massacre of Peterloo.
   The Six Acts.
   Death of George III.
   Accession of George IV.

   "From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for
   the most part, a name of terror to the Government. … It
   passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of
   popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,'
   and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of
   hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel
   Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a
   Radical' … says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of
   William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were
   read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing
   districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby,
   and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing
   towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett
   advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever
   miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of
   politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the
   preceding thirty years had produced many working men of
   sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in
   the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were
   found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their
   effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their
   assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at
   first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the
   cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and
   discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' … In a Report of the
   Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the
   19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as
   'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary
   Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage
   and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number
   of them … nothing short of a Revolution is the object
   expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows
   that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs
   limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform.
   … Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a
   delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of
   delegates to be assembled in London. …
{950}
   The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking
   tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a
   society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived
   their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in
   Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation
   happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the
   property of the State, which State should divide all the
   produce for the support of the people. … The Committee of
   the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions
   besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other
   notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with
   machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had
   established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently
   paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A
   meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the
   interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a
   senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named
   Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one
   gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower;
   but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and
   constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and
   dangerous position than that in which every political writer
   was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was
   subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned
   upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
   Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under
   which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned.
   The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to
   compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during
   which three years forty such informations were laid, only one
   person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio
   informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice
   then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default,
   to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were
   committed to prison during this year. … The entire course of
   these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one
   solitary instance of success—William Cobbett ran away. On the
   28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication
   of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl
   Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was
   proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but
   he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and
   published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice
   having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl
   Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's
   famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the
   authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would
   also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law?
   This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these
   ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and
   seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the
   solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had
   surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years,
   with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had
   gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to
   perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to
   whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly
   useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge
   in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into
   the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three
   trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our
   constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects
   upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of
   that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never
   been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause,
   we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel
   itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,—an
   improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be
   corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and
   which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of
   the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends
   upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest
   corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best
   gift of heaven,—that of knowledge."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 5._

   In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in
   the counties of England arising out of the distress. There
   were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were
   appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into
   the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas
   Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from
   Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation
   through various circles in London. The march of the
   Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large
   number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of
   walking to London to lay an account of their distress before
   the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might
   be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary
   reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should
   carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to
   sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly
   in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The
   nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their
   portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple,
   was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time
   one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic
   childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do
   but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool,
   and justice would be done to them and their claims. The
   Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very
   different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been
   marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could
   not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in
   official circles. The Government, availing itself of the
   suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the
   movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by
   military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in
   it. … The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not
   inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great
   public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's
   Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of
   the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to
   the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to
   petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered
   that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great
   cities were without any manner of representation in
   Parliament.
{951}
   It was a vast meeting—some 80,000 men and women are stated to
   have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for
   some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse
   the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring
   their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were
   killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government
   brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and
   discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply
   measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put
   down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable,
   and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to
   call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent
   training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms.
   These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It
   was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the
   working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. …
   During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of
   Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary
   reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward
   motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a
   motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and
   universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody.
   … The motion had only two supporters—Burdett himself, and
   his colleague, Lord Cochrane. … The forms of the House
   require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this
   inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party.
   … On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to
   an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind.
   Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals,
   wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room
   to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long,
   white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words
   of Milton—the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of
   noon—irrecoverably dark'—now, in a happier mood, announcing
   himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the
   Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George
   IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services
   of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time
   expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but
   their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."

      _J. McCarthy,
      Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Routledge,
      Chapters in the History of Popular Progress,
      chapters 12-19._

      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1)._

      _E. Smith,
      William Cobbett,
      chapters 21-23 (volume 2)._

      See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1818.
   Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820.
   Accession of King George IV.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822.
   Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
   Projects of the Holy Alliance.
   English protests.
   Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American
   colonies.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
   The Cato Street Conspiracy.
   Trial of Queen Caroline.
   Canning in the Foreign Office.
   Commercial Crisis of 1825.
   Canning as Premier.
   His death.

   "Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the
   Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we
   are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret
   intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man
   named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging
   Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to
   murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to
   come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the
   police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in
   Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the
   candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For
   that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon
   hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the
   Cato Street Conspiracy. … George IV., almost as soon as the
   crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a
   divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess
   Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of
   getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed
   both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had
   gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the
   subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the
   purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She
   now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to
   London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a
   royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her
   conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the
   Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and
   disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she
   had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the
   lustre gained in her defence—Henry Brougham and Thomas
   Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the
   failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two
   things that the Ministers refused—the insertion of her name
   in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign
   court—Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of
   Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the
   throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the
   fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and
   witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. …
   At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority
   of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And
   the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she
   rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would
   have been better for her own peace. But she went in public
   procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And
   more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her
   way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her
   husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from
   the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death,
   insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass
   through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of
   dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the
   procession till it had cleared the streets. … George Canning
   had resigned his office rather than take any part with the
   Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and
   Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of
   the trial year.

{952}

   Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth … resigned the Home Office. He
   was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve
   eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of
   Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this
   arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh,
   who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign
   Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was
   diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh].
   … Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet
   acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States,
   which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace
   and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the
   conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to
   reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. … During the years
   1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that
   speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once
   during the last century and a half. … A crop of fungus
   companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the
   Stock Exchange. … Shares were bought and gambled in. The
   winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets.
   depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy
   and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed
   so much capital. Then the crashing began—the weak broke
   first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and
   commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of
   one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new
   supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to
   lend money upon the security of goods—in fact to begin the
   pawnbroking business—the Government met the crisis, allayed
   the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit.
   Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it
   became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the
   chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April,
   Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues
   refusing to take office with him. His administration was
   brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.

      _W. F. Collier,
      History of England,
      pages 526-529._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Brougham,
      Life and Times, by Himself,
      chapters 12-18 (volume 2)._

      _A. G. Stapleton,
      George Canning and His Times,
      chapters 18-34._

      _A. G. Stapleton,
      Some Official Correspondence of George Canning,
      2 volumes_

      _F. H. Hill,
      George Canning,
      chapters 19-22._

      _Sir T. Martin,
      Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
      chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826.
   The first Burmese War.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830.
   The beginning of railroads.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
   Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters.
   Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.

   "Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence,
   unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a
   century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the
   anomalous position in which they had been placed by the
   Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
   1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the
   Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement
   of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters
   had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They
   fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would
   logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and
   they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to
   running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit
   understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one
   side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and
   almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year
   by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London
   banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the  hard,
   unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding,
   any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from
   sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating
   his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual
   Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House
   of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the
   Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for
   Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the
   substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the
   Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of
   party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and
   eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and
   elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward
   a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant
   Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do
   so.' A year afterwards—on the 26th of February, 1828—Lord
   John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave."
   His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had
   sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it
   was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved
   from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and
   dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more
   unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of
   Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious
   question. … On his advice the Bishops consented to
   substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in
   force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the
   maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to
   injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to
   be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the
   pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell,
   though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the
   sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was
   modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though
   strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Stoughton,
      Religion in England from 1800 to 1850,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _H. S. Skeats,
      History of the Free Churches of England,
      chapter 9._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
   The administration of Lord Goderich.
   Advent of the Wellington Ministry.

   "The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of
   the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly
   altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries
   Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally
   considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long
   endurance. … The differences upon financial measures between
   Mr. Herries … and Mr. Huskisson … could not be reconciled
   by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to
   the king on the 9th of January, 1828.
{953}
   His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that
   he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king
   told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which
   he should be the head. … It was understood that lord
   Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington
   immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of
Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility
   of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the
   Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the
   government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of
   some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the
   Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of
   Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant,
   became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb,
   afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for
   Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these
   arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was
   unchanged."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir T. Martin,
      Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
      chapter 9._

      _W. M. Torrens,
      Life of Viscount Melbourne,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829.
   Intervention on behalf of Greece.
   Battle of Navarino.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1828.
   Corn Law amendment.
   The Sliding Scale.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1829.
   Catholic Emancipation.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
   The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform.
   Death of George IV.
   Accession of William IV.
   Fall of the Wellington Ministry.

   "Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain
   and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members;
   after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days
   of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a
   population of a little more than eight millions; in the later
   days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters,
   out of a population of twenty-two millions. … But the
   inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if
   we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up
   into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of
   counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the
   counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the
   Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of
   Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling
   freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned
   members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were
   about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in
   Ireland,—all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few
   exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish
   boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be
   Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic
   interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail.
   Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have
   been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the
   Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the
   more important places were selected; though other
   considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners
   of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a
   very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the
   King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some
   important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small
   boroughs, increased the number of county members, and
   enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms
   were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very
   few changes were made. … In the hundred and fifty years
   which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in
   the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of
   either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed,
   and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were
   remarkable examples of the latter,—Old Sarum was an example
   of the former. … At one time a place of some importance, it
   declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and,
   even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a
   town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary
   boroughs. … Many other places might be named [known as Rotten
   Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]—such as Gatton in Surrey, and
   Ludgershall in Wiltshire—which represented only their owners.
   In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was
   a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under
   consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by
   eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his
   estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine
   members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and
   several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one
   authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned
   one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to
   1780, the members for the county of York—the largest and most
   influential of the counties—were always elected in Lord
   Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected
   instances. Many others might be cited. According to a
   statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons
   returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793,
   the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and
   declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals
   returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150
   members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307
   members—the majority of the House before the Union with
   Ireland—no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society
   asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to
   prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which
   there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were
   returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50
   electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not
   more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by
   26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in
   England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to
   representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis.
   … In some cases the suffrage was practically household
   suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely
   restricted. But they all returned their two members equally;
   it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or
   only three or four. Such being the state of the
   representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was
   practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller
   boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to
   see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. …
{954}
   As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is
   on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr.
   Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were
   £200,000. … It is not to be supposed that a condition of
   things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no
   attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far
   back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de
   Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of
   Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the
   borough representation as 'the rotten part of the
   constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke
   of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the
   House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and
   annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782,
   1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of
   Reform. … After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr.
   (afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he
   presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends
   of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and
   founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793,
   1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large
   majorities. … From the beginning of the 19th century to the
   year 1815—with the exception of a few months after the Peace
   of Amiens in 1802—England was at war. During that time Reform
   dropped out of notice. … In 1817, and again in 1818 and
   1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for
   Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of
   Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was
   defeated by a tremendous majority. … The next ten years were
   comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this
   history is concerned. … Two events made the year 1830
   particularly opportune for raising the question of
   Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death
   of George IV. [June 26],—the second, the deposition of
   Charles X. of France. … For the deposition of
   Charles—followed as it was very soon by a successful
   insurrection in Belgium—produced an immense impression upon
   the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally.
   In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two
   continental countries what the people of England had been
   asking for in vain for years. … We must not omit to notice
   one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This
   was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation.
   The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at
   the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our
   history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be
   no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute.
   … By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of
   the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament
   which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since
   the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime
   Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home
   Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to
   dissolve at once. … In the Parliament thus dissolved, and
   especially in the session just brought to a close, the
   question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very
   beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the
   Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an
   amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed
   the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most
   imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation
   will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to
   their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' …
   He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell,
   but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he
   introduced a specific plan of Reform—a very Radical plan
   indeed—but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d
   of February, Lord John Russell … asked for leave to bring in
   a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester,
   and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in
   the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and
   finally, on the 28th of May—scarcely two months before the
   dissolution—Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish
   universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments,
   but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332.
   … Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country,
   not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is
   not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it
   occupied all minds. … The whole of August and a considerable
   part of September, therefore, were occupied with the
   elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of
   excite merit. … When all was over, and the results were
   reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who
   represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say
   nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were
   Minsterialists. … Of the 236 men who were returned by
   elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were
   Ministerialists. … The first Parliament of William IV. met
   on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened
   till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered
   his Speech. … The occasion was made memorable, however, not
   by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of
   Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. … 'The noble Earl
   [Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape
   of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to
   acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of
   Reform; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's
   Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on
   my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never
   read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which
   could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the
   representation could be improved, or be rendered more
   satisfactory to the country at large than at the present
   moment. … I am not only not prepared to bring forward any
   measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as
   far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the
   government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to
   resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly
   fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's
   career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the
   16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced
   that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been
   something like a panic in the city, because Ministers,
   apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to
   abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor
   at the Guildhall.
{955}
   On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the
   House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on
   the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil
   list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it
   was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to
   Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his
   continuance in office was impossible."

      _W. Heaton,
      The Three Reforms of Parliament,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Paul,
      History of Reform,
      chapters 1-6._

      _W. Bagehot,
      Essays on Parliamentary Reform,
      essay 2._

      _H. Cox,
      Antient Parliamentary Elections._

      _S. Walpole,
      The Electorate and the Legislature,
      chapter 4._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Decayed Boroughs
      (Historical Essays, 4th series)._

England: A. D. 1830-1832.
   The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the
   Ministry of Earl Grey.

   "Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord
   Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the
   government would 'take into immediate consideration the state
   of the representation, with a view to the correction of those
   defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of
   time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that
   confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid
   Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that
   is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and
   the preservation of the government.' The government were now
   pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the
   Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the
   cause was eagerly supported by the people. … So great were
   the difficulties with which the government had to contend,
   that they needed all the encouragement that the people could
   give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,—the
   interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt,
   unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,—the opposition of
   two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of
   the House of Commons,—and above all, the strong Tory spirit
   of the country. … On the 3d February, when Parliament
   reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had
   succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective,
   without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised
   moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of
   the whole government.' … On the 1st March, this measure was
   brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell,
   to whom,—though not in the cabinet,—this honorable duty had
   been justly confided. … On the 22d March, the second reading
   of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House
   of 608,—probably the greatest number which, up to that time,
   had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April,
   on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a
   minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General
   Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England
   ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced
   that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On
   that same night, they were again defeated on a question of
   adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was
   decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the
   king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It
   was one of the most critical days in the history of our
   country. … The people were now to decide the question;—and
   they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned,
   pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the
   second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a
   majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions
   ensued in committee,—night after night; and the bill was not
   disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a
   majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill
   was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to
   oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October,
   after a debate of five nights,—one of the most memorable by
   which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a
   great event in history,—the bill was rejected on the second
   reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be
   fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to
   think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they
   were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the
   House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was
   prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement,
   turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on
   the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought
   in,—changed in many respects,—and much improved by reason of
   the recent census, and other statistical investigations.
   Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no
   longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second
   time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of
   162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons,
   and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of
   again rejecting it could not be concealed,—the courage of some
   was shaken,—the patriotism of others aroused; and after a
   debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the
   narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The
   peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were
   preparing to change its essential character by amendments.
   Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous.
   … The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced;
   or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted
   to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers
   resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the
   Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform
   ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was
   immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of
   unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his
   Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will
   carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions,
   that bill for reforming the representation of the people,
   which has recently passed this House.' … The public
   excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the
   people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when
   Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The
   bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition
   to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and
   the bill,—the Great Charter of 1832,—at length received the
   Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of
   this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the
   faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than
   half a century.
{956}
   The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten
   boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,—having
   less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,—were
   swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000
   inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis
   lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The
   next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented;
   and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including
   metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning
   two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county
   populations were also regarded in the distribution of
   seats,—the number of county members being increased from 94
   to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of
   members adjusted with reference to the importance of the
   constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal
   franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of
   election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household
   franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were
   the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but
   residence within the borough was attached as a condition to
   their right of voting. … The county constituency was
   enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for
   terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a
   year. … The defects of the Scotch representation, being even
   more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not
   likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of
   reform. … The entire representation was remodelled.
   Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union:
   this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted
   to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise
   was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to
   certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to
   all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many
   of the defects of the English system. … The right of
   election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in
   £10 householders; and large additions were made to the county
   constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act
   of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of the Reform Bill of 1832._

      _W. Jones,
      Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers._

      _Lord Brougham,
      Life and Times, by Himself,
      chapters 21-22._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831.
   First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.

      See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Intervention in the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
   War with Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
   Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
   Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn.
   Factory Bill.
   Irish tithes.

   "The period which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill was
   one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. …
   The first great reform was the complete abolition of the
   system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had
   itself been suppressed so far as we could suppress it long
   before that time, but now the whole system of West Indian
   slavery was brought to an end [see SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.
   1834-1838]. … A long agitation of the small but energetic
   anti-slavery party brought about this practical result in
   1833. … Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macaulay, father of the
   historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Wilberforce,
   Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving
   hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave
   system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate
   freedom to all children subsequently born, and to all those
   who were then under six years of age; while it determined for
   all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five
   years in one class and seven years in another, after which
   they attained absolute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000
   for the compensation of the slave-owners. "Another reform of
   no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the
   East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause
   giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was
   abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the
   world [see INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in
   those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home,
   slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a
   servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as
   personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in
   the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in
   the great mines and factories. No law up to this time
   regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours
   of labour in factories. … A commission was appointed to
   investigate the condition of those who worked in the
   factories. Lord Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of
   Shaftesbury, … brought forward the motion which ended in the
   appointment of the commission. The commission quickly brought
   together an immense amount of evidence to show the terrible
   effect, moral and physical, of the over-working of women and
   children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting
   by law the duration of the hours of labour. … The principle
   of legislative interference to protect children working in
   factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting
   the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young
   persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see FACTORY
   LEGISLATION]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord
   Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give
   that principle a more extended application. … Irish tithes
   were one of the grievances which came under the energetic
   action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland
   complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the
   maintenance of the church establishment in which they did not
   believe, and under whose roofs they never bent in worship." In
   1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in
   favor of the extinction of tithes; but the Government
   undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the
   Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its
   own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and
   several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill
   which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge."

      _J. McCarthy,
      The Epoch of Reform,
      chapters 7-8._

      ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 17.

      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3)._

{957}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840.
   Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
   The capture of Acre.
   Bombardment of Alexandria.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
   The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.

      See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837.
   Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry.
   The first Melbourne Administration.
   Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second.
   Death of William IV.
   Accession of Queen Victoria.

   "On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward
   … resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of
   Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant
   population; that it was the right of the State, and of
   Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the
   temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced.
   The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint
   a commission of inquiry; they hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward
   to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in
   government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news
   was received of the resignation of four of the most
   conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any
   interference with church property with abhorrence; they were
   Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the
   Earl of Ripon. … Owing to the difference of opinion in the
   Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey
   placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the
   king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four
   days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of
   Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for
   the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but
   it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the
   Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was
   filled by Lord Duncannon; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a
   seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord
   Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave. The
   Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it
   passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The
   king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded
   reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and
   circumstances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer
   died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the
   upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken
   up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for
   Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry depended chiefly on
   the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons,
   declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government
   could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing
   Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The
   sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry
   was considered unconstitutional; the act of the king was
   wholly without precedent. … The Duke of Wellington, from
   November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the
   Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one
   colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at
   the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
   This temporary government was called a dictatorship. … On
   Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been
   called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office of
   First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
   With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir
   James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their
   co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined.
   Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he
   was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced
   opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. …
   The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by
   Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst
   was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord
   Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a
   hostile House of Commons. … The Prime Minister therefore
   thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the
   opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth manifesto'] of
   declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform
   Bill as a final settlement of the question. … The elections,
   though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more
   favorable to the existing government than that which had been
   dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals.
   … Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution,
   'That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the
   subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satisfactory and
   final adjustment which does not embody the temporalities of
   the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27,
   and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the following
   day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that
   in consequence of the resolution in the House of Commons, the
   ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a
   similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later, Viscount
   Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords,
   stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First
   Lord of the Treasury. … On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued
   from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate
   people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were
   regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflammation
   of the lungs, had greatly increased. … On Tuesday, June 20th,
   the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty
   had expired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the
   seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign,
   leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece,
   Alexandrina Victoria."

      _A. H. McCalman,
      Abridged History of England,
      pages 565-570._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 2, chapters 10-12._

      _W. M. Torrens,
      Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne,
      volume 2, chapters 1-8._

      _J. W. Croker,
      Correspondence and Diaries,
      chapters 18-20 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1836-1839.
   Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law Agitation.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
   Separation of Hanover.

      See HANOVER: A. D. 1837.

{958}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
   Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria.
   End of personal rule.
   Beginning of purely constitutional government.
   Peel and the Bedchamber Question.

   "The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to
   the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of
   the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their
   favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne].
   'Peel,' he said, 'has no manners, and I have no small talk.'
   He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would
   choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her companions.
   He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of
   Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in
   these islands was to begin. The late King had advanced
   somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was
   still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the
   accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an
   end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the
   coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the
   Tories. The Whigs had many troubles. They were not reformers
   enough for the great body of their supporters. … The
   Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage
   O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was
   many a serious crisis in foreign policy—in China and in
   Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of
   Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid
   them open to new attacks from their enemies. On the top of all
   came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an
   insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt
   called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the
   Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry
   bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly
   awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and
   opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5.
   Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7,
   1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of
   course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the
   young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she
   was sorry to part with her late Ministers, and that she did
   not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to
   act in accordance with constitutional usages; Peel accepted
   the task of forming an Administration. And then came the
   famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question'—the
   'question de jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her
   ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some
   change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig
   statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of
   Peel on no less important a question than the Government of
   Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake to govern
   under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her
   late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created
   immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of
   misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon
   after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort
   suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right.
   … Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give
   way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back
   discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it,
   got back 'behind the petticoats of the ladies-in-waiting.'"

      _J. McCarthy,
      Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      H_. Dunckley,
      Lord Melbourne,
      chapter 11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
   The Victorian Age in Literature.

   "It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of
   speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria
   will stand out in history as the period of a literature as
   distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, although
   not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed
   below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a
   great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious
   to note how sharply and completely the literature of Victoria
   separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott,
   Byron, and Wordsworth: Before Queen Victoria came to the
   throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead.
   Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey
   and Moore; and Savage Landor died much later still. But
   Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their
   literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of
   them added a cubit or an inch to his intellectual stature from
   that time; some of them even did work which distinctly proved
   that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after
   breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable
   about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than
   its complete severance from the leadership of that which had
   gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine
   inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very
   convenient for the purposes of this history, that the
   literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself
   clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and
   historians who were making their fame with the beginning of
   the reign had done all their best work and made their mark
   before these later years, and were followed by a new and
   different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different
   sources, and challenging comparison as antagonists rather than
   disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the
   most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years
   of the reign."

      _J. McCarthy,
      The Literature of the Victorian Reign
      (Appletons' Journal, January, 1879, page 498)._

   "The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name
   to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this
   distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of
   thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about
   the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these
   characteristics continue for generations without apparent
   break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not
   terminate with Elizabeth. In one important respect, however,
   it differs from most of those epochs which derive their
   appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo,
   Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, a
   claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding
   ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of
   Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had
   alternately prevailed in successive periods. Delight and
   Utility met, Truth and Imagination kissed each other.
   Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius
   put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose.
   The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality
   of aspect which would alone render our Queen's reign
   intellectually memorable.
{959}
   Looking back to the 18th century in England, we see the spirit
   of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as
   great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there
   is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for
   the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust
   as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor
   intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers,
   and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of
   antiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely,
   when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative
   composition returns, the half-century immediately preceding
   her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the
   ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the
   elder Mill, and others compose, indeed, books of great value,
   but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the
   other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unattained
   since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for
   many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion
   of its predecessors."

      _R. Garnett,
      Literature (The Reign of Queen Victoria,
      edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446)._

   "The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions between
   the literature of the present day and that of the first
   quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting
   in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose
   and Verse. In the Georgian era verse was in the ascendant; in
   the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not
   easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate
   aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in
   the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's,
   or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest
   that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by
   Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a
   power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in
   vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to
   have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in
   question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by anyone who
   remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the
   mightier character of the events and circumstances in the
   midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the
   national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in
   regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the
   great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the
   first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its
   reception of the succession of great victories that, ever
   thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up
   the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to
   Waterloo—from the last fight of Nelson to the last of
   Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the
   one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every
   city and town and humblest village in the land, have been
   heard since then. … Of course, there was plenty of prose
   also written throughout the verse era; but no book in prose
   that was then produced greatly excited the public mind, or
   drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley
   novels began to appear; and even that remarkable series of
   works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second
   place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that
   result. Of the other prose writing that then went on what was
   most effective was that of the periodical press,—of the
   Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date,
   of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter
   with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its
   contributors),—much of it owing more or less of its power to
   its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry to
   prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of
   literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a
   relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having
   been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is
   what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness
   always ends in."

      _G. L. Craik,
      Compendious History of English Literature,
      volume 2, pages 553-555._

   "What … are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in
   verse? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly
   varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be
   superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the
   idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of
   which this age has been extraordinarily prolific; sometimes
   assuming the form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott;
   sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the
   Hellenics of Landor; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in
   the work of Tennyson; sometimes aiming at psychological
   analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning;
   sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe;
   sometimes indulging flights of pure artistic fancy, as in
   Keats' "Endymion" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses
   the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the
   stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and because it
   results in a picture. … No literature and no age has been
   more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the
   age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously
   burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to
   Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti,
   Clough, Swinburne, Arnold, Tennyson, and I do not know how
   many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The
   causes are not far to seek. Without a comprehensive vehicle
   like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national
   life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our
   poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves,
   subjectively, introspectively, obeying impulses from nature
   and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen,
   but as they were this man or that woman. … When they sang,
   they sang with their particular voice; and the lyric is the
   natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is
   this Victorian lyric! It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and
   Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's' Ancient Mariner' and Keats'
   odes, Clough's 'Easter day' and Tennyson's 'Maud,' Swinburne's
   'Songs before Sunrise' and Browning's 'Dramatis Personæ,'
   Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's
   'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's
   'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth
   century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire
   Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles
   on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,'
   Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is
   Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal.
{960}
   The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible
   that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off
   scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the
   same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our
   century, debarred from epic, debarred from drama, falls back
   upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies
   its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth
   personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth
   of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as
   Wordsworth's 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe
   Harold,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's
   'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be
   classified in either species. They are partly
   autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes
   itself distinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the
   translations, of which so many have been made; some of them
   real masterpieces and additions to our literature."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
      (Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889,
      pages 62-64)._

   The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of
   perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense
   distinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life,
   and thence of art. … It is … the present aim of art to
   throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can
   hardly contrive, but which the novel professes to manage for
   those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early
   novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place
   we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself.
   … There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and
   a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, roundness and balance,
   but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified
   knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And
   adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its
   most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of
   the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as
   the Elizabethan lived with all his might and was not troubled
   about many things, his art was intense and round, but
   restricted; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the
   light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees
   much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treatment of
   life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not,
   however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its
   makers. In possibility it is indeed the greater of the two,
   being more epical; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is
   ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the
   great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to
   name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly
   non-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated
   pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian
   gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built
   above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. …
   Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great
   literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made
   powerful by romance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly
   shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside
   of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it; for they
   both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being
   chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge,
   taste, and perception."

      _T. D. Robb,
      The Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel
      (Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891,
      pages 520-522)._

England: A. D. 1838-1842.
   The Chartist agitation.

   "When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of
   February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to
   a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy
   contrast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of
   the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain
   the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of
   the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and
   resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal
   practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years
   occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take
   root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been
   issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of which
   had been held, says the proclamation, 'after sunset by
   torchlight.' The persons attending these meetings were armed
   with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor
   and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the
   most inflammatory language. … The document called 'The People's
   Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838,
   comprised six points:—universal suffrage, excluding,
   however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal
   electoral districts; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; no
   property qualification for members; and a payment to every
   member for his legislative services. These principles so
   quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in
   the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition
   presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a
   quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with
   extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an
   extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most
   part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt
   which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the
   working population very soon became divided into what were
   called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As
   a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the
   physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order
   and of the rights of property."

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

   "Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and
   promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking
   demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and
   eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the
   class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some
   were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics;
   and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere.
   Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made
   himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once
   famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, appears to have been
   sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by
   his Chartism. … He was of commanding presence, great
   stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; he
   had mixed in good society; he belonged to an old family. …
   There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature
   than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like
   Thomas Cooper, … devoted, impassioned, full of poetic
   aspiration, and no scant measure of poetic inspiration as
   well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. …
{961}
   Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever
   joined a sinking cause. … It is necessary to read such a
   book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how
   genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at
   the heart of the Chartist movement, and how bitter was the
   suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of
   stout working men who, in a country like England, might well
   have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were
   only too willing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes
   of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the 'bread tax' became
   identified in the minds of the very best of the working class,
   and identified justly, with the system of political and
   economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although
   not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. … A
   whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate
   the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and conducted by Feargus
   O'Connor, was the most popular and influential of them; but
   every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at
   which sometimes very violent language was employed. … A
   formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the
   authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. …
   Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with
   the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn-Law leaders; but
   all such attempts proved failures. The Chartists would not
   give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the
   hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government began to
   prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter
   movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and
   treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprisonment at
   Newport, in Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue
   [November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed
   to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict
   occurred in which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some
   50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams,
   and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high
   treason, and were sentenced to death; but the sentence was
   commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction
   of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the
   Chartist agitation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed
   rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the
   attempt at Newport and its consequences. … There was no lack
   of what were called energetic measures on the part of the
   Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were
   prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds. In most cases
   they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
   … The working classes grew more and more bitter against the
   Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain
   their own ends. … There was a profound distrust of the
   middle class and their leaders," and it was for that reason
   that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law
   movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that
   time the Chartists, who represented the bulk of the artisan
   class in most of the large towns, did in their very hearts
   believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats
   and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the
   sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what
   are called the ruling class did really believe the English
   working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of
   fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they
   were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove
   themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all
   established securities of society."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of
   the Chartists was that of appointing and observing what was to
   be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes
   throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind
   of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to
   concede the charter."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Cooper,
      Life, by himself,
      chapter 14-23._

      _W. Lovett,
      Life and Struggles,
      chapters 8-15._

      _T. Frost,
      Forty Years' Recollections,
      chapters 3-11._

      _H. Jephson,
      The Platform,
      part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1839-1842.
   The Opium War with China.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
   Adoption of Penny-Postage.

   "In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap
   and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was
   appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout
   the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction that the
   plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative
   sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a
   varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weighing
   more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one
   penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of
   January, 1840. Its final accomplishment is mainly due to the
   sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the
   scheme."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      page 883._

   "Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very
   heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a
   single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost
   2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.;
   from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter
   was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage
   was much higher."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Hill,
      Life of Sir Rowland Hill._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
   The Queen's marriage.

   "On January 16, 1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person,
   announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of
   Saxe Coburg-Gotha—a step which she trusted would be
   'conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own
   domestic happiness.' … It was indeed a marriage founded on
   affection. … The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin.
   He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three
   months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert
   Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the
   second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his
   wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of
   Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau,
   one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26,
   1819. … A marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince
   Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on
   both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing
   should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she
   herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin.
{962}
   In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England,
   and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she
   seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner
   which her family and friends would most have desired. … The
   marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February
   10, 1840."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
   Interference in Afghanistan.
   The first Afghan War.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1842; 1842-1869.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
   Fall of the Melbourne Ministry.
   Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.

   In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do
   something for freedom of trade. … Colonial timber and sugar
   were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign
   timber and sugar; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a
   heavier duty according as it was imported from countries of
   slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to
   raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on
   foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to
   replace the sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see
   TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed
   duty of 8s. per quarter. … The concessions offered by the
   Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the free
   traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests
   around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was
   rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody expected the Ministers
   to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the
   continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a
   vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June
   by a single vote in a House of 623 members. Instead of
   resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The
   elections went on through the last days of June and the whole
   of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared
   that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in the House
   of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August.
   Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords
   moved amendments to the Address, which were carried by
   majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned
   and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its
   head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the
   Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third
   time the honours of Lord Chancellor." Among the lesser members
   of the Administration—not in the Cabinet—was Mr. Gladstone,
   who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time
   Peel experienced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's
   Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of
   Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Duchess of
   Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should
   resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the
   Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a
   frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. … During
   the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the
   commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the
   deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the
   humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by
   encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage
   distress by making the price of provisions lower and more
   regular, without taking away that protection which he still
   believed essential to British agriculture: these were the
   tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. … Having
   solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to
   persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved
   obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in
   the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He
   surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of
   Buccleugh. … The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to
   consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of
   corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a
   revolution which few persons in England thought possible,
   although it was to be completed in little more than ten
   years."

      _F. C. Montague,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 7-8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Thursfield,
      Peel,
      chapter 7-8._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapters 3-5._

      _J. W. Croker,
      Correspondence and Diaries,
      chapter 22 (volume 2_).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1842.
   The Ashburton Treaty with the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
   Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1845-1846.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
   First war with the Sikhs.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
   Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United
   States.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
   The vengeance of the Tory-Protectionists.
   Overthrow of Peel.
   Advent of Disraeli.
   Ministry of Lord John Russell.

   "Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extinguishing the
   duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third
   time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was
   due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing
   in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the
   Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The
   situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr.
   O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The
   Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made
   it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not
   attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English
   Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were
   certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join
   with these other opponents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of
   the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the
   Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty
   Protectionists followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby
   against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the
   Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The
   division took place on the second reading of the Bill on
   Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the
   Ministry."

      _J. McCarthy,
      The Epoch of Reform,
      page 183._

{963}

   The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by
   Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making
   himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly
   grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion
   Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust
   Peel, and, must therefore refuse to give him unconstitutional
   powers.' … He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted
   his promises. … 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had
   once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be the leader,
   declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering
   majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed.
   Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to
   Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and
   uncertainty, descended the task of again building together the
   shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly
   they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the
   elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had
   birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen.
   Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued
   for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased,
   whether they liked it or not. … He was without Court favour,
   and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had
   never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He
   was young, too—only 42—after all the stir that he had made.
   There was no example of a rise so sudden under such
   conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his
   services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of
   superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them.
   Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief: but
   Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate
   themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single
   person that they had who was equal to the situation. … He
   had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Lord Beaconsfield,
      chapter 9._

   Although the Tory-Protectionists had accomplished the
   overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the
   Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed
   under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with
   Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the
   Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood
   Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay
   Paymaster-General.

      W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 11.

   The most important enactment of the Coercion Bill "(which
   subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that
   which conferred on the executive Government the power in
   proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their
   dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of proclaiming
   a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of
   the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary
   there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the
   district."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, page 137._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Walpole,
      Life of Lord John Russell,
      chapter 16 (volume 1)._

      _B. Disraeli,
      Lord George Bentinck,
      chapter 14-16._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
   Difference with France on the Spanish marriages.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
   The last Chartist demonstration.

   "The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical
   reformers, and had themselves divided into two sections; for
   their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity
   with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien
   and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He
   had entered into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful
   character. … He had also injudiciously taken up a position
   of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus
   appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated
   many of his supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846
   contained several representatives of the Chartist principles,
   and O'Connor himself had been returned for Nottingham by a
   large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry.
   The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to
   the agitation. The country was filled with meetings at which
   violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped
   of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new
   Convention was summoned for the 6th of April, a vast petition
   was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that
   half a million of people would have been present, was summoned
   to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the
   purpose of carrying the petition to the House in procession.
   The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought
   necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier
   classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are
   said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The
   military arrangements were entrusted to the Duke of
   Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified;
   public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they
   should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to
   prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. … Such a
   display of determination seemed almost ridiculous when
   compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the
   cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a
   million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common.
   Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commissioner of
   Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting,
   but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be
   held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur.
   His heart had already begun to fail him, and he … used all
   his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent
   advice was followed, and no disturbance of any importance took
   place. … The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement
   by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been
   heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the
   disclosures attending the presentation of the petition." There
   were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the
   document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers
   of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a
   deathblow to Chartism."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, pages 176-178._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Second war with the Sikhs.
   Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1849.
   Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.
   The Don Pacifico Affair.
   Lord Palmerston's speech.

   The little difficulty with Greece which came to a crisis in
   the last weeks of 1849 and the first, of 1850 (see GREECE: A.
   D. 1846-1850), and which was commonly called the Don Pacifico
   Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by
   Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks.
{964}
   The speech (June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from
   the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly
   admired, and proved immensely effective in raising the
   speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was
   unquestionably an important landmark in the life of Lord
   Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a
   select few; for the British public does not read Blue Books,
   and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign
   politics at all. … But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of
   the nation, and was received with a universal verdict of
   approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the
   people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of
   time."

      _L. C. Sanders,
      Life of Viscount Palmerston,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Marquis of Lorne,
      Viscount Palmerston,
      chapter 7._

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

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Cobden,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      _T. Martin,
      Life of the Prince Consort,
      chapter 38 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
   The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States,
   establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua
   Canal.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
   Restoration of the Roman Episcopate.
   The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852.
   The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein
   Question.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.
   The Great Exhibition.

   "The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day
   on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. …
   Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since.
   Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour
   and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them
   at least—those of Paris in 1867 and 1878—were infinitely
   superior in the array and display of the products, the
   dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the
   impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the
   ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the
   play—an impression never to be equalled. … It was the first
   organised to gather all the representatives of the world's
   industry into one great fair. … The Hyde Park Exhibition was
   often described as the festival to open the long reign of
   Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called
   without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of
   the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said
   fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace.
   … The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince
   Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in
   carrying the idea into practical execution. … Many persons
   were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its
   doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a
   foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything
   really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse
   and protection. … There was a great deal of difficulty in
   selecting a plan for the building. … Happily, a sudden
   inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was
   then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at
   Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. …
   Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was
   eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many
   improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass
   and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of
   Hyde Park."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Martin,
      Life of the Prince Consort,
      chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852.
   The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from
   the Cabinet.
   Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell.
   The first Derby
   Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.

   The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis
   Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D.
   1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the
   British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the
   Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only
   expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador]
   his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December
   wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in
   Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the
   success of the French President's arbitrary action. This
   despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to
   the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a
   character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence
   ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed
   satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he
   gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. …
   There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from
   this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before
   he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In
   February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill
   which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence
   of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the
   scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to
   omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia,
   which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom,
   and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government
   were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had
   been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby
   formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston,
   but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on
   the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn,
   and other matters.'

      _G. B. Smith,
      The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
      pages 264-265._

   "The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of
   the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but
   it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take
   place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government
   would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition
   should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the
   House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience,
   acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were
   passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a
   considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected
   by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general
   election began, the party had raised itself considerably in
   public estimation. But for one consideration the country would
   probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to
   their hands.
{965}
   But that one consideration was all important. … The
   Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent,
   on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite
   majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was
   that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow
   majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr.
   Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. … Negotiations
   were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on
   this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to
   join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons.
   But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which
   accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the
   Opposition attack without any reinforcements. … On the 16th
   of December, … being defeated on the Budget by a majority of
   19, Lord Derby at once resigned."

      _T. E. Kebbel,
      Life of the Earl of Derby,
      chapter 6._

   "The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a
   coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth
   thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became
   Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer.
   The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle,
   Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."

      _G. W. E. Russell,
      The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone,
      chapter 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852.
   Second Burmese War.
   Annexation of Pegu.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853.
   Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives.
   Further progress in Free Trade.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855.
   Civil-Service Reform.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856.
   The Crimean War.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
   Popular discontent with the management of the war.
   Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry.
   Palmerston's first premiership.
   A brightening of prospects.

   "Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord
   Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of
   the popular indignation. … But England was not only
   suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power
   in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet.
   … Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord
   Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and
   reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the
   Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the
   necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at
   his post. … At a little later stage … the difficulties
   were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the
   appointment of a select committee to inquire into the
   condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John
   definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to
   await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried
   against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen
   now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the
   Queen [January 31, 1855]. … Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet
   of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was
   apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it
   suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."

      _G. B. Smith,
      Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
      pages 227-230._

   "Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership
   came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition
   Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure
   for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express
   request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief,
   but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively
   refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and
   successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of
   the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord
   Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was
   still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was
   reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and
   being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War.
   Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was
   practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the
   resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places
   being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord
   John Russell."

      _Marquis of Lorne,
      Viscount Palmerston,
      chapter 10._

   "It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord
   Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the
   tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away
   in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a
   creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and
   mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European
   concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many
   months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia
   was a faithless friend. … Between the belligerent powers the
   cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for
   Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans
   on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though
   there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of
   the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward
   only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the
   gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry.
   Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A
   series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of
   organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If
   there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a
   regular majority. … And the hand that was to restore order
   out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. … Lord Palmerston
   was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But
   the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was
   considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful
   vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and
   was always to be found at his post. … His generalship
   secured ample majorities for the Government in every division
   during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston
   inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can
   hardly be two opinions."

      _L. C. Sanders,
      Life of Viscount Palmerston,
      chapter 10._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
   Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860.
   War with China.
   French alliance in the war.
   Capture of Canton.
   Entrance into Pekin.
   Destruction of the Summer Palace.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

{966}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858.
   The Sepoy Mutiny in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858.
   Assumption of the government of India by the Crown.
   End of the rule of the East India Co.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
   The Conspiracy Bill.
   Fall of Palmerston's government.
   Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli.
   Lord Palmerston again Premier.

   "On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate
   Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini,
   whose head-quarters had previously been in London. Not without
   some reason it was felt in France that such men ought not to
   be able to find shelter in this country, and the French
   Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect.
   Lord Palmerston, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling
   of the French nation, desired to pass a measure which should
   give to the British Government the power to banish from
   England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life
   of a foreign sovereign. … An unfortunate outburst of
   vituperation against England in the French press, and the
   repetition of such language by officers of the French army who
   were received by the Emperor when they waited on him as a
   deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord
   Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass,
   and it had been read the first time by a majority of 200. But the
   foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the
   current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An
   amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote
   of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his
   own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was
   obliged to resign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant
   office. … Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the
   fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to
   the country. … The election of 1859 failed to give the
   Conservatives a majority, and soon after the opening of the
   session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence
   moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by
   the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that
   'to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice
   of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of
   years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell
   would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these
   veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither
   would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and
   to Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming
   what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern times, so
   far as the individual ability of its members was concerned.
   Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the
   Exchequer."

      _Marquis of Lorne,
      Viscount Palmerston,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Martin,
      Life of the Prince Consort,
      chapters 82-84, 91-92,
      and 94 (volume 4)._

      _T. E. Kebbel,
      Life of the Earl of Derby,
      chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1860.
   The Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty with France.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May).
   The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference
   to the American Civil War.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (October).
   The allied intervention in Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (November).
   The Trent Affair.
   Seizure of Mason and Slidell.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The Cotton Famine.

   "Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton
   operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of
   1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon
   the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point
   which they had ever touched, came the news of the American
   war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw
   material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung
   despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of 'the
   freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders
   refused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions
   nor their interests. … There was a four months' supply held
   on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been
   three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and
   there would be the usual twelve months' supply from other
   sources; and by the time this was consumed, and the five
   months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be
   right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by
   the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for
   during the greater part of the year 1861 the market was dull,
   and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the
   year the aspect of affairs began to change. … The Federals
   had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although
   as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly
   established Confederate government was doing its best to
   render it effective. They believed that cotton was king in
   England, and that the old country could not do without it, and
   would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with
   those who kept it prisoner. Mills began to run short time or
   to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about
   it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the
   boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the
   mid-winter height three months earlier than usual. The
   poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the
   increase was not of the usual character—it was too early for
   out-door labourers to present themselves; still the difference
   was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole
   twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented
   themselves, and in December the increase was again 7,000; so
   that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or
   about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now
   serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very
   largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were
   meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show
   that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the
   blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added
   16,000 more to the recipients of relief, who were now 70 per
   cent above the usual number for the same period of the year.
   But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of
   boards of guardians were evidently no real measure of the
   distress prevailing. … The month of February usually lessens
   the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins
   again as soon as the signs of spring appear; but in 1862 it
   added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases,
   the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the
   same period of the year.
{967}
   But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular
   localities. … The cotton operatives were now, if left to
   themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and
   those very unequally distributed, and without chart or
   compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there
   were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons
   absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined to go to
   the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these
   families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with
   the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, and the
   vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to
   hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit
   enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when
   dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare
   even the poorest from unnecessary humiliation; and
   organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the
   necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality.
   Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport,
   and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train,
   and the guardians and the relief committees of these several
   places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The
   month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its
   lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the
   guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents on the relief
   committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich
   (a part of Manchester) being added to the list. … The month
   of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the
   boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief
   committees; and these six committees had now as many
   dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the
   twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. … In the
   month of July, when all unemployed operatives would ordinarily
   be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means
   of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories
   of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a
   flood, 13,000 additional applicants being forced to appeal for
   poor-law relief; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the
   seven relief committees. … In August the flood had become a
   deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The
   increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single
   month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number
   chargeable in the same month of the previous year, whilst a
   further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the
   relief committees. … Most of the cotton on hand at this
   period was of Indian growth, and needed alterations of
   machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an
   employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun
   or manufactured. But oh! how glad would the tens of thousands
   of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even
   of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much
   harder work for one-third less than normal wages. … Another
   month is past, and October has added to the number under the
   guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief
   committees 39,000 more. … And now dread winter approaches,
   and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of
   thousands who are compulsorily idle, and consequently
   foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies
   of the season; who have no means of procuring needful
   clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the
   hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as
   food. … The total number of persons chargeable at the end of
   November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on
   relief committees, 200,084; total 458,441. … There were not
   wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of
   the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the
   English government of the Southern confederacy in America. And
   meetings were called in various places to memorialise the
   government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced
   by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple
   recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring
   to our shores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up
   by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if
   adopted would be war; war in favour of the slave confederacy
   of the South, and against the free North and North-west,
   whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In
   addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a
   nation 3,000 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in
   getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the
   support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the
   food which we needed from the North equally as much as the
   cotton from the South. … These meetings and counter meetings
   perhaps helped to steady the action of the government
   (notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards
   the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal
   proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions
   of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. … The
   maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early
   in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end
   of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is
   nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is
   for the last week in the year 1862, viz.: 485,434 persons; but
   in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more
   were relieved."

      _J. Watts,
      The Facts of the Cotton Famine,
      chapters 8 and 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. A. Arnold,
      History of the Cotton Famine._

      _E. Waugh,
      Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
   The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama
   at Liverpool.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865.
   Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Death of Palmerston.
   Ministry of Lord John Russell.
   Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation.
   Triumph of the Adullamites.
   Third administration of Derby and Disraeli,
   and its Reform Bills.

   "On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18,
   1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to
   Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of
   Commons. The queen opened her seventh parliament (February 6,
   1866), in person, for the first time since the prince
   consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward
   his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in
   counties and boroughs, but the opposition of the moderate
   Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to
   the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell
   resigned.
{968}
   The government had been personally weakened by the successive
   deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the
   Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The
   queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who,
   although the Conservative party was in the minority in the
   House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking
   the management of the government: he as Premier and First Lord
   of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."

      _A. H. McCalman,
      Abridged History of England,
      page 603._

   "The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The
   Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform:
   the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it
   unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure,
   which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of
   all earnest Reformers. … The principal opposition came not
   from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from
   Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal
   party, who from the very first declared they would have none
   of it. … Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as
   'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were
   discontented, had gathered themselves together in the
   political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government.
   But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm,
   carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift
   succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power.
   … The party of two, which in its origin reminded Mr. Bright
   of 'the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you
   could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of
   it,' was gradually reinforced by deserters from the ranks of
   the Government until at last the Adullamites were strong
   enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night,
   after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the
   Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an
   amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs,
   Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating be substituted for
   a rental qualification; and the Government was at an end. …
   The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career
   to its close. He formally handed over the leadership of the
   party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little
   part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow
   his example, and then the long-standing duel between Gladstone
   and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the
   parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the
   footlights. Meanwhile, however, Lord Derby had taken office
   [July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons
   and crossing the stage. … The exasperated Liberals, however,
   were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in
   favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde Park; the
   Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited
   mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the
   unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such
   occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced
   that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and
   Mr. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The
   Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once.
   They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the
   subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then
   they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, was very
   shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging
   reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of
   three of its members—the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount
   Cranborne, and General Peel—announced their intention of
   bringing in a comprehensive measure. The measure in question
   proposed household suffrage in the boroughs subject to the
   payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties
   subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful
   clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal
   professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of
   other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a
   clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he
   possessed a double qualification by rating and by profession.
   The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the
   compound householder.' The compound householder is now as
   extinct an animal as the potwalloper found in earlier
   parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform
   debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing
   reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who
   did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them
   through his landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small
   houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of
   occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission of them implied a
   large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party,
   therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and
   the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be remembered,
   however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to
   lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was
   held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme
   brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of
   the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a
   certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote,
   and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from
   the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described
   roughly as 'the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the
   Liberal party once more split up. The advanced section were
   determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they
   would have no 'drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them
   held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Commons and
   decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired
   the name of the 'Tea-Room Party.' The communication of their
   views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He
   denounced them in violent language, and his passion was
   emulated by Mr. Bright. … Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and
   his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The
   Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were
   able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to
   induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure
   and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. … Not
   only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended,
   the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises
   swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely
   altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a
   balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the
   balance of power to a sweeping measure of reform."

      _B. C. Skottowe,
      Short History of Parliament,
      chapter 22._

{969}

   The Reform Bill for England "was followed in 1868 by measures
   for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise
   in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of
   the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property
   owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was
   not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was
   given to all ratepaying householders and to lodgers occupying
   lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all
   ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made
   nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except
   agricultural labourers and women."

      _D. W. Rannie,
      Historical Outline of the English Constitution,
      chapter 12, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. BAGEHOT,
      Essays on Parliamentary Reform, 3._

      _G. B. Smith,
      Life of Gladstone,
      chapters 17-18 (volume 2)._

      _W. Robertson,
      Life and Times of John Bright,
      chapters 39-40._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869.
   Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States.
   The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1867-1868.
   Expedition to Abyssinia.

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
   Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry.
   Mr. Gladstone in power.
   His Irish Land Bill.

   "On March 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the
   House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of
   Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions
   which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. …
   It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance
   of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr.
   Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had
   come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease
   to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was
   near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had
   to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely
   more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power
   to serve it. There was probably not a single Englishman
   capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the
   moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of
   the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time.
   Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to
   procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in
   suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. Maguire's motion,
   Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject
   of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the
   opinion of the House of Commons it was necessary that the
   Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an
   Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests
   and to all individual rights of property. The second
   resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of
   new personal interests by the exercise of any public
   patronage; and the third asked for an address to the Queen,
   praying that Her Majesty would place at the disposal of
   Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish
   Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare
   for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing
   that no further appointments should be made, and that the
   action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should
   decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868,
   Mr. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could
   have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if
   there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish
   when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions
   which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even
   more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish
   Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the
   name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his
   amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that
   considerable modifications in the temporalities of the Church
   in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was of opinion 'that
   any proposition tending to the disestablishment or
   disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the
   decision of the new Parliament.' Lord Stanley's amendment
   asked only for delay. … The debate was one of great power
   and interest. … When the division was called there were 270
   votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the
   Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval
   was afforded for agitation on both sides. … Mr. Gladstone's
   first resolution came to a division about a month after the
   defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a
   majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the
   amendment—330 votes were given for the resolution; 265
   against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65.
   Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Government must take
   some decisive step in consequence of that vote; and a few days
   afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary
   business could be got through, Parliament would be dissolved
   and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the
   dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November.
   Not for many years had there been so important a general
   election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The
   new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give
   their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not
   merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a
   general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. …
   The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its
   Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as
   mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it
   had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a
   majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had
   but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything
   in his own hands, and the country might look for a career of
   energetic reform. … Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new
   Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly that it
   would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal
   vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command
   him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr.
   Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited
   to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was
   only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age,
   but there were scarcely any evidences of advancing years to be
   seen on his face. … The Government he formed was one of
   remarkable strength. … Mr. Gladstone went to work at once
   with his Irish policy.
{970}
   On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure
   for the disestablishment and partial disendowment of the Irish
   State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the
   Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State
   Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free
   Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were
   to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or
   governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of
   the Church and was to be recognised by the Government, and
   duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England
   and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical
   Courts were to be abolished. There were various and
   complicated arrangements for the protection of the life
   interests of those already holding positions in the Irish
   Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would
   return to the possession of the State when all these interests
   had been fairly considered and dealt with. … Many amendments
   were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a
   controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the
   controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure
   for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received the
   royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of
   the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much
   pathetic dignity. Be died before the Irish State Church had
   ceased to live. … When the Irish Church had been disposed
   of, Mr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish
   land system. … In a speech delivered by him during his
   electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had declared that
   the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State
   Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education,
   and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On
   February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land
   Bill into the House of Commons. … It recognised a certain
   property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he
   tilled. Mr. Gladstone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found
   it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the
   Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist,
   he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the
   right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of
   his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the
   bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming
   all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving
   it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The
   bill established a special judiciary machinery for carrying
   out its provisions. … It put an end to the reign of the
   landlord's absolute power; it reduced the landlord to the
   level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the
   country who had anything to sell or hire. … The bill passed
   without substantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill
   received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree
   had been hewn down. … Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church
   and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had
   gone with Irish ideas thus far."

      _J. McCarthy,
      Short History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 3, chapter 6._

      _Annual Register, 1869,
      part 1: English History,
      chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1870.
   The Education Bill.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
   Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests.
   Defeat of the Ballot Bill.

   "The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the
   Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th
   of February. It abolished the system by which rich men
   obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army,
   and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell
   in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the
   regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal
   Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future,
   commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by
   open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the
   Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. … The
   debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax
   that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over
   the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
   country. … The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second
   Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments
   passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again
   obstructed. … Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By
   statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could
   exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The
   Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled
   her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of
   the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed
   'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal
   Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They
   "carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it,
   and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill
   without any alterations. … The Session of 1871 was also made
   memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course
   of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were
   exhausted. … When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the
   real motive which dictated the … obstruction of the
   Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly
   revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August,
   not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because
   it had come to them too late for proper consideration.
   Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In
   spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill
   abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and
   Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and
   privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to
   students of all creeds and faiths."

      _R. Wilson,
      Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
      volume 2, chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. E. Russell,
      The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
      chapter 9._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872.
   Renewed negotiations with the United States.
   The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
   Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party
   and organization of the Land League.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
   Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
   Disraeli's Ministry.
   His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
   The Eastern Question.
   Overthrow of the administration.
   The Second Gladstone Ministry.

{971}

   "One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out
   with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our
   purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their
   neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley … were sent
   out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th,
   1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month
   at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital,
   Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which
   he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under
   our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the
   Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some
   restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful
   body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry
   an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its
   unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a
   majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but
   astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of
   governing the country with the House of Commons then existing,
   consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative
   reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the
   Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January,
   1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter
   to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income
   tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections
   went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the
   Ministry (17th February, 1874). … On the accession of the
   Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874),
   the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the
   reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were
   abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound.
   This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little
   over six years. … Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield,
   was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these
   consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of
   Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February,
   1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of
   Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic
   provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments.
   … As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces
   (1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents
   against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by
   solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the
   conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000
   troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon
   this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office,
   which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). … The war proving
   disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February,
   1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired
   additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty
   of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war
   seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of
   Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a
   congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented
   by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the
   sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that
   the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our
   ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister
   loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with
   honour.' … Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy
   commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had
   brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish
   poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less
   discredit on the Ministry. … The Parliament was dissolved March
   24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the
   Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the
   following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers,
   but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875
   relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord
   Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings
   brought him again so prominent before the public that his
   leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. … He
   now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held
   before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who
   also held them. … The result of the general election of 1880
   was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than
   Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest
   continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland,
   resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords'
   hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the
   latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to
   legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried
   through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish
   Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that
   country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own
   industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair
   Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were
   included in this beneficent legislation."

      _R. Johnston,
      A Short History of the Queen's Reign,
      pages 49-57._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      Lord Beaconsfield,
      chapters 16-17._

      _G. B. Smith,
      Life of Gladstone,
      chapters 22-28 (volume 2)._

      _H. Jephson,
      The Platform,
      chapters 21-22 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877.
   Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878.
   The Eastern Question again.
   Bulgarian atrocities.
   Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey.
   War-clamor of "the Jingoes."
   The fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
   Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881.
   Annexation of the Transvaal.
   The Boer War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA:  A. D. 1806-1881.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
   The Congress of Berlin.
   Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880.
   The second Afghan War.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1880.
   Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
   War in Egypt.
   Bombardment of Alexandria.
   Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
   The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
   Parliamentary Elections.

{972}

   "Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who
   hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were
   decreasing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the
   constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and
   also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures
   following the General Election proved to the most sanguine
   that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to
   be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger
   aggregate sums were expended in bribery and treating, never
   probably had so many persons been bribed and treated as at the
   General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen
   petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices
   were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that
   those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of
   seven of these the reports of the Commissioners appointed
   under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to
   which corruption of all kinds had grown. … A most serious
   feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they
   afforded that bribery was regarded as a meritorious not as a
   disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of
   corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace
   by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors,
   solicitors, the agents of the candidates, and others of a like
   class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a
   part of the necessary machinery for conducting an election.
   Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained
   municipal honours, not only after they had committed these
   practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by
   public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary
   Return furnished still more conclusive proof, that election
   expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were
   on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure during
   the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of
   two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the
   prospects of future elections were indeed alarming. … The
   necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion
   insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil
   encountered. … The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January,
   1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt
   practices' would be submitted to Parliament, and on the
   following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in
   forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his
   Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with
   general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the
   House of Commons, at a time when members and constituents
   alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to
   light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that
   intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its
   finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of
   Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the
   enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. Yet enough desire for
   reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January
   1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles
   intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which
   has now become the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1883, was in
   its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to
   strike hard and home at corrupt practices; the second was to
   prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the
   conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary.
   Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been
   crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating
   was now added to the same class of offences, and the
   punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to
   hard labour. … Besides punishment on conviction,
   incapacities of a serious character are to result from a
   person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election
   Judges or Election Commissioners. … A candidate reported
   personally guilty of corrupt practices can never sit again for
   the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a
   member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons,
   whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered
   incapable of holding any public office or exercising any
   franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so
   found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or
   members of other honourable professions, they are to be
   reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of
   Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and
   dealt with as in the case of professional misconduct. Licensed
   victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the
   licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to
   renew their licenses. … The employment of all paid
   assistants except a very limited number is forbidden; no
   conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number
   of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for
   the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands,
   torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these
   prohibitions of specific objects were not considered
   sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy
   and reckless candidates would have found other channels in
   which to flow. … And thus it was that the 'maximum scale'
   was adopted as at once the most direct and the most
   efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself
   or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate
   is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of
   an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which
   depend in each case on the numerical extent of the
   constituency."

      _H. Hobhouse,
      The Parliamentary Elections
      (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,
      pages 1-8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
   The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill.
   The existing qualifications and disqualifications
   of the Suffrage.

   "Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr.
   Trevelyan became a member of his Administration. Already the
   Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to
   office—Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. … Their
   presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good
   augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to
   prove misleading. It was understood from the first that, with
   such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a
   still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his
   speeches in Midlothian. … On the 17th of October, 1883, a
   great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of
   considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The
   Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who
   represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations.
{973}
   It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. … To a man the
   delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household
   suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man
   they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no
   longer delayed. … When Parliament met on the 5th of the
   following February … a measure for 'the enlargement of the
   occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the
   United Kingdom' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech;
   and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that 'on the
   first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the
   bill. So much was the House of Commons occupied with affairs
   in Egypt and the Soudan, however, that it was not till the
   29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his
   pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill
   through the House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it
   was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the
   country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde
   Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000
   persons. … On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates
   was held in St. James's Hall, London. … Mr. John Morley, who
   presided, used some words respecting the House that had
   rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers
   everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, 'that no power on earth can
   separate henceforth the question of mending the House of
   Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of
   Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at
   Birmingham, referred to the Lords as 'many of them the spawn
   of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark
   ages of our country'; and his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, used
   even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the
   House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular
   liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
   common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse
   and sheltered every privilege. … It is irresponsible without
   independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without
   judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.' … In very many
   instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the
   agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time,
   and to concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on
   one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the
   extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no
   encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of
   the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time
   in the House of Commons, in November, 1884, and by the Lords
   soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by
   previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated
   redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a
   separate bill was framed and introduced while the Franchise
   Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the
   Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885.

      _W. Heaton,
      The Three Reforms of Parliament,
      chapter 6._

   "In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other
   words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having
   about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this
   purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are
   divested of the right of electing a separate member; 36 towns,
   with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns
   obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion
   to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new
   franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into
   'electoral districts' of about the like population, to elect
   one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly,
   carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized
   towns, which have been left with two members. The County of
   York forms, for example, 26 electoral districts; Liverpool 9.
   To sum up, the result stands thus:—the counties choose 253
   members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). The
   average population of the county electoral districts is now
   52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town
   electoral districts 52,700 (formerly 41,200). … The number
   of the newly-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average
   estimate, to be 2,000,000."

      _Dr. R. Gneist,
      The English Parliament in its Transformations,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Murdoch,
      History of Constitutional Reform in Great
      Britain and Ireland,
      pages 277-398._

      _H. Jephson,
      The Platform,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

   The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is
   entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":

      An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation of
      the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.]

      Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
      with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
      Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
      assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

      1. This Act may be cited as the Representation of the
      People Act, 1884.

      2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger
      franchise at elections shall be established in all counties
      and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man
      possessed of a household qualification or a lodger
      qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate
      in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be
      registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
      election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be
      situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to
      be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
      election for such county or borough.

      3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by
      virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the
      dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom
      such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he
      shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the
      Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant
      occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant.

      4. Subject to the saving in this Act for existing voters,
      the following provisions shall have effect with reference
      to elections:

      (1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a
      voter in respect of the ownership of any rentcharge except
      the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a
      rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which an
      apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in
      respect of any portion of tithes.

      (2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint
      tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or
      tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if
      his interest is sufficient to confer a qualification as a
      voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be
      entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
      conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered
      as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.
{974}
      Provided that where such owners have derived their interest
      by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or
      will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are
      bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business
      thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient
      to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be
      entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
      conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered as a
      voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to
      vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each
      such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be
      ascertained by the division of the total value of the land
      or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.

      5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or
      borough in the United Kingdom of a clear yearly value of
      not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered
      as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for
      such county or borough in respect of such occupation
      subject to the like conditions respectively as a man is, at
      the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a
      voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect
      of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for
      such borough in respect of the borough occupation
      franchise.

      6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be
      registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a
      county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house,
      lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.

      7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household
      qualification" means, as respects England and Ireland, the
      qualification enacted by the third section of the
      Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments
      appended to this text], and the enactments amending or
      affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so
      far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to
      counties in England and to counties and boroughs in
      Ireland.

     (2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended
     and applied to Ireland, the following dates shall be
     substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say,
     the twentieth day of July for the fifteenth day of July, the
     first day of July for the twentieth day of July, and the
     first day of January for the fifth day of January.

     (3.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means the
     qualification enacted, as respects England, by the fourth
     section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see
     comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending
     or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the
     fourth section of the Representation of the People (Ireland)
     Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the
     same, and the said section of the English Act of 1867, and
     the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far
     as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
     England, and the said section of the Irish Act of 1868, and
     the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far
     as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
     Ireland; and sections five and six and twenty-two and
     twenty-three of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration
     Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to
     Ireland, and for the purpose of such application the
     reference in the said section six to the Representation of
     the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the
     Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the
     said section twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Municipal
     Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of
     the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, shall be construed
     to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in
     Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and
     otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the
     reference to the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall be
     construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and
     the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the
     dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the
     twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the
     fourteenth day of July for the twenty-fifth day of July,
     and the word "overseers" shall be construed to refer in a
     county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the
     town clerk.

      (4.) The expression "a household qualification" means, as
      respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third
      section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
      1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same,
      and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they
      are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
      Scotland, and for the purpose of the said section and
      enactments the expression "dwelling-house" in Scotland
      means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate
      dwelling, and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be
      substituted for the definition contained in section
      fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland)
      Act, 1868.

      (5.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means, as
      respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the fourth
      section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
      1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same,
      and the said section and enactments, so far as they are
      consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in
      Scotland.

      (6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, as
      respects England, the franchise enacted by the sixth
      section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see
      comments appended to this text]; and, as respects Scotland,
      the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the
      Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; and, as
      respects Ireland, the franchise enacted by the first
      section of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and
      fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty,
      chapter sixty-nine.

      (7.) The expression "borough occupation franchise" means,
      as respects England, the franchise enacted by the
      twenty-seventh section of the Act of the session of the
      second and third years of the reign of King William the
      Fourth, chapter forty-five [see comments appended to this
      text]; and as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by
      the eleventh section of the Act of the session of the
      second and third years of the reign of King William the
      Fourth, chapter sixty-five; and as respects Ireland the
      franchise enacted by section five of the Act of the session
      of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her
      present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, and the third section
      of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.

{975}

      (8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county
      occupation franchise or 'borough occupation franchise other
      than the sections in this Act in that behalf mentioned
      shall be deemed to be referred to in the definition of the
      county occupation franchise and the borough occupation
      franchise in this Act mentioned.

      8. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Representation of
      the People Acts" means the enactments for the time being in
      force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively
      relating to the representation of the people, inclusive of
      the Registration Acts as defined by this Act.

      (2.) The expression "the Registration Acts" means the
      enactments for the time being in force in England,
      Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the
      registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for
      counties and boroughs, inclusive of the Rating Acts as
      defined by this Act.

      (3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People
      Acts" and "the Registration Acts" respectively, where used
      in this Act, shall be read distributively in reference to
      the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the
      case of each part the enactments for the time being in
      force in that part.

      (4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
      to the registration of persons entitled to vote in boroughs
      in England in respect of a household or a lodger
      qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in respect of a
      lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations
      and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices,
      lists, and other forms, extend to counties as well as to
      boroughs.

      (5.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
      to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of
      persons entitled to vote in respect of the county
      occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise
      respectively, shall, with the necessary variations and with
      the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and
      other forms, extend respectively to the registration in
      counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to
      vote in respect of the household qualification conferred by
      this Act.

      (6.) In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts
      which relate to the registration of persons entitled to
      vote in burghs, including the provisions relating to dates,
      shall, with the necessary variations, and with the
      necessary alterations of notices and other forms, extend
      and apply to counties as well as to burghs; and the
      enactments of the said Acts which relate to the
      registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall,
      so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be
      repealed: Provided that in counties the valuation rolls,
      registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in
      parishes as heretofore.

      9. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Rating Acts" means
      the enactments for the time being in force in England,
      Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the placing
      of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other
      enactments relating to rating in so far as they are
      auxiliary to or deal with the registration of persons
      entitled to vote at elections; and the expression "the
      Rating Acts" where used in this Act shall be read
      distributively in reference to the three parts of the
      United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the Acts
      for the time being in force in that part.

      (2.) In every part of the United Kingdom it shall be the
      duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and
      May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect
      to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or
      dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Representation of
      the People Acts, whether any man, other than the owner or
      other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such
      hereditament, is entitled to be registered as a voter in
      respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such
      dwelling-house, and to enter in the rate book the name of
      every man so entitled, and the situation or description of
      the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and
      for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be
      added to the rate book.

      (3.) For the purpose of the execution of such duty the
      overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or
      rated or liable to be rated in respect of such
      hereditament, or on some agent of such person concerned in
      the management of such hereditament, the requisition
      specified in the Third Schedule of this Act requiring that
      the form in that notice be accurately filled up and
      returned to the overseers within twenty-one days after such
      service; and if any such person or agent on whom such
      requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall
      be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
      forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his
      duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach
      of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts, and
      shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding
      forty shillings for each default.

      (4.) The notice under this section may be served in manner
      provided by the Representation of the People Acts with
      respect to the service on occupiers of notice of
      non-payment of rates, and, where a body of persons,
      corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on
      the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where
      the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or
      otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local
      officer having the superintendence or control of such
      hereditament.

      (5.) In the application of this section to Scotland the
      expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a
      man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section
      inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service,
      or employment, there shall not be entered in the valuation
      roll any rent or value against the name of such man as
      applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man
      by reason of such entry become liable to be rated in
      respect of such dwelling-house.

      (6.) The proviso in section two of the Act for the
      valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland passed in the
      session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the
      reign of Her present Majesty chapter ninety-one, and
      section fifteen of the Representation of the People
      (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be repealed: Provided that in
      any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the
      parochial board of any parish, or any other rating
      authority entitled to impose assessments according to the
      valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such
      assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately
      let for a shorter period than one year or at a rent not
      amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and
      from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and
      occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in
      the valuation roll.

{976}

      (7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is
      rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall
      nevertheless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and
      to vote under the same conditions under which an occupier
      of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of
      the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the
      Acts amending the same, to be registered as a voter, and to
      vote where the owner is rated, and the enactments referred
      to in the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to Ireland
      accordingly, with the modifications in that schedule
      mentioned.

      (8.) Both in England and Ireland where a man inhabits any
      dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or
      employment, and is deemed for the purposes of this Act and
      of the Representation of the People Acts to be an
      inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant, and
      another person is rated or liable to be rated for such
      dwelling-house, the rating of such other person shall for
      the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the
      People Acts be deemed to be that of the inhabitant
      occupier; and the several enactments of the Poor Rate
      Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and other Acts
      amending the same referred to in the First Schedule to this
      Act shall for those purposes apply to such inhabitant
      occupier, and in the construction of those enactments the
      word "owner" shall be deemed to include a person actually
      rated or liable to be rated as aforesaid.

      (9.) In any part of the United Kingdom where a man inhabits
      a dwelling-house in respect of which no person is rated by
      reason of such dwelling-house belonging to or being
      occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other
      ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled
      to be registered as a voter, and to vote by reason only
      that no one is rated in respect of such dwelling-house, and
      that no rates are paid in respect of the same, and it shall
      be the duty of the persons making out the rate book or
      valuation roll to enter any such dwelling-house as last
      aforesaid in the rate book or valuation roll, together with
      the name of the inhabitant occupier thereof.

      10. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any person (who at
      the date of the passing of this Act is registered in
      respect of any qualification to vote for any county or
      borough), of his right to be from time to time registered
      and to vote for such county or borough in respect of such
      qualification in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
      Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of
      the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a
      qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise
      under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in
      respect of such latter franchise only. Nothing in this Act
      shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal
      incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any
      right to be registered as a voter or to vote.

      11. This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor
      thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation
      of the People Acts as defined by this Act; and the
      expressions "election," "county," and "borough," and other
      expressions in this Act and in the enactments applied by
      this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts.
      Provided that in this Act and the said enactments—The
      expression "overseers" includes assessors, guardians,
      clerks of unions, or other persons by whatever name known,
      who perform duties in relation to rating or to the
      registration of voters similar to those performed in
      relation to such matters by overseers in England. The
      expression "rentcharge" includes a fee farm rent, a feu
      duty in Scotland, a rent seck, a chief rent, a rent of
      assize, and any rent or annuity granted out of land. The
      expression "land or tenement" includes any part of a house
      separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business,
      or profession, and that expression, and also the expression
      "hereditament" when used in this Act, in Scotland includes
      "lands and heritages." The expressions "joint tenants" and
      "tenants in common" shall include "pro indiviso
      proprietors." The expression "clear yearly value" as
      applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the
      annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in
      Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such
      land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time
      being, under the Act of the session of the first and second
      years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter
      fifty-six, or any Acts amending the same.

      12. Whereas the franchises conferred by this Act are in
      substitution for the franchises conferred by the enactments
      mentioned in the first and second parts of the Second
      Schedule hereto, be it enacted that the Acts mentioned in
      the first part of the said Second Schedule shall be
      repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of
      the said schedule mentioned except in so far as relates to
      the rights of persons saved by this Act; and the Acts
      mentioned in the second part of the said Second Schedule
      shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that
      part of the said schedule mentioned, except in so far as
      relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act and
      except in so far as the enactments so repealed contain
      conditions made applicable by this Act to any franchise
      enacted by this Act.

      13. This Act shall commence and come into operation on the
      first day of January one thousand eight hundred and
      eighty-five: Provided that the register of voters in any
      county or borough in Scotland made in the last-mentioned
      year shall not come into force until the first day of
      January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and
      until that day the previous register of voters shall
      continue in force.

   The following comments upon the foregoing act afford
   explanations which are needed for the understanding of some of
   its provisions:

   "The introduction of the household franchise into counties is
   the main work of the Representation of the People Act, 1884.
   … The county household franchise is … made identical with
   the borough franchise created by the Reform Act of 1867 (30 &
   31 Vict., c. 102), to which we must, therefore, turn for the
   definition of the one household franchise now established in
   both counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The
   third section of the Act in question provides that 'Every man
   shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be registered
   as a voter, and when registered to vote, for a member or
   members to serve in Parliament for a borough [we must now add
   "or for a county or division of a county"] who is qualified as
   follows:

      (1.) Is of full age and not subject to any legal
      incapacity;

      (2.) Is on the last day of July [now July 15th] in any
      year, and has during the whole of the preceding twelve
      calendar months been an inhabitant occupier as owner or
      tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within
      a county or division of a county];

{977}

      (3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as
      an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied
      by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for
      the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; and,

      (4.) Has on or before the 20th day of July in the same year
      bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable
      by other ordinary occupiers in respect of all poor rates
      that have been payable by him in respect of the said
      premises up to the preceding 5th day of January: Provided
      that no man shall under this section be entitled to be
      registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint
      occupier of any dwelling house. … The lodger franchise
      was the creation of the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict.,
      c. 102), the 4th section of which conferred the suffrage
      upon lodgers who, being of full age and not subject to any
      legal incapacity, have occupied in the same borough
      lodgings 'of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of
      £10 or upwards' for twelve months preceding the last day of
      July, and have claimed to be registered as voters at the
      next ensuing registration of voters. By this clause certain
      limitations or restrictions were imposed on the lodger franchise;
      but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the
      6th section of which considerably enlarged the franchise by
      enacting that:

      (1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two
      successive years shall not be deemed to be different
      lodgings by reason only that in that year or either of
      those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in
      addition to his original lodgings.

      (2.) For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote the
      occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of
      the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect
      as continued occupation of the same lodgings.

      (3.) Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one
      lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let
      unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the
      number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than £10 for
      each lodger, then each lodger (if otherwise qualified and
      subject to the conditions of the Representation of the
      People Act, 1867) shall be entitled to be registered and
      when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more
      than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled
      to be registered in respect of such lodgings. … Until the
      passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, no
      householder was qualified to vote unless he not only
      occupied a dwelling house, but occupied it either as owner
      or as the tenant of the owner. And where residence in an
      official or other house was necessary, or conducive to the
      efficient discharge of a man's duty or service, and was
      either expressly or impliedly made a part of such duty or
      service then the relation of landlord or tenant was held
      not to be created. The consequence was that a large number
      of persons who as officials, as employes, or as servants
      are required to reside in public buildings, on the premises
      of their employers or in houses assigned to them by their
      masters were held not to be entitled to the franchise. In
      future such persons will … be entitled to vote as
      inhabitant occupiers and tenants (under Section 3 of the
      recent Act), notwithstanding that they occupy their
      dwelling houses 'by virtue of any office, service or
      employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a
      subordinate cannot qualify or obtain a vote in respect of a
      dwelling house which is also inhabited by any person under whom
      'such man serves in such office, service or employment.'
      … Persons seised of (i. e., owning) an estate of
      inheritance (i. e., in fee simple or fee-tail) of freehold
      tenure, in lands or tenements, of the value of 40s. per
      annum, are entitled to a vote for the county or division of
      the county in which the estate is situated. This is the
      class of electors generally known as 'forty shilling
      freeholders.' Originally all freeholders were entitled to
      county votes, but by the 8 Henry VI., c. 7, it was provided
      that no freehold of a less annual value than 40s. should
      confer the franchise. Until the Reform Act of 1832, 40s.
      freeholders, whether their estate was one of inheritance or
      one for life or lives, were entitled to county votes. That Act,
      however, restricted the county freehold franchise by
      drawing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheritance,
      and (2) freeholds not of inheritance. While the owners of
      the first class of freeholds were left in possession of
      their former rights (except when the property is situated
      within a Parliamentary borough), the owners of the latter
      were subjected to a variety of conditions and restrictions. …
      Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act,
      1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county
      votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance,
      provided that it was of an annual value sufficient to give
      40s. for each owner. But … this right is materially
      qualified by Section 4 of the recent Act. … Persons
      seised of an estate for life or lives of freehold tenure of
      the annual value of 40s., but of less than £5, are entitled
      to a county vote, provided that they

      (1) actually and bonâ fide occupy the premises, or

      (2) were seised of the property at the time of the passing
      of the 2 Will. IV., c. 45 (June 7th, 1832), or

      (3) have acquired the property after the date by marriage,
      marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or
      office. … Persons seised of an estate for life or lives
      or of any larger estate in lands or tenements of any tenure
      whatever of the yearly value of £5 or upwards: This
      qualification is not confined to the ownership of freehold
      lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31
      Vict., c. 102, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their
      property is of the annual value of £5. … The electoral
      qualifications in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will.
      IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the
      Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict., c. 3).
      The effect of the three Acts taken together is that the
      County franchises are as follows:

      1. Owners of Land, &c., of the annual value of £5, after
      deducting feu duty, ground annual, or other considerations
      which an owner may be bound to pay or to give an account
      for as a condition of his right.

      2. Leaseholders under a lease of not less than 57 years or
      for the life of the tenant of the clear yearly value of
      £10, or for a period of not less than 19 years when the
      clear yearly value is not less than £50, or the tenant is
      in actual personal occupancy of the land.

      3. Occupiers of land, &c., of the clear yearly value of £10.

      4. Householders.

      5. Lodgers.

      6. The service franchise.

      Borough franchises.
      1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10.
      2. Householders.
      3. Lodgers.
      4. The service franchise.

{978}

      The qualification for these franchises is in all material
      respects the same as for the corresponding franchises in
      the Scotch counties, and in the counties and boroughs of
      England and Wales. … The Acts relating to the franchise
      in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict., c.
      69, the representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,
      and the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Read
      together they give the following qualifications:

      County franchises.

      1. Owners of freeholds of inheritance or of freeholds for
      lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual
      value of £5.

      2. Freeholders and copyholders of a clear annual value of
      £10.

      3. Leaseholders of various terms and value.

      4. Occupiers of land or a tenement of the clear annual
      value of £10.

      5. Householders.

      6. The lodger franchise.

      7. The service franchise.

      Borough franchises.

      1. Occupiers of lands and tenements of the annual value of
      £10.

      2. Householders. …

      3. Lodgers.

      4. The service franchise.

      5. Freemen in certain boroughs. …

   All the franchises we have described … are subject to this
   condition, that no one, however qualified, can be registered
   or vote in respect of them if he is subjected to any legal
   incapacity to become or act as elector. … No alien unless
   certificated or naturalised, no minor, no lunatic or idiot,
   nor any person in such a state of drunkenness as to be
   incapable—is entitled to vote. Police magistrates in London
   and Dublin, and police officers throughout the country,
   including the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are
   disqualified from voting either generally or for
   constituencies within which their duties lie. In the case of
   the police the disqualification continues for six months after
   an officer has left the force. … Persons are disqualified
   who are convicted of treason or treason-felony, for which the
   sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of
   imprisonment with hard labour or exceeding twelve months,
   until they have suffered their punishment (or such as may be
   substituted by competent authority), or until they receive a
   free pardon. Peers are disqualified from voting at the
   election of any member to serve in Parliament. A returning
   officer may not vote at any election for which he acts, unless
   the numbers are equal, when he may give a casting vote. No
   person is entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for
   any county or borough who has within twelve calendar months
   next previous to the last day of July in such year received
   parochial relief or other alms which by the law of Parliament
   disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for
   reward or payment are disqualified from voting thereat
   although they may be on the register. … The Corrupt and
   Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51),
   disqualifies a variety of offenders [see above, A. D. 1883]
   against its provisions from being registered or voting."

      _W. A. Holdsworth,
      The New Reform Act,
      pages 20-36._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1885.
   Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885.
   The fall of the Gladstone government.
   The brief first Ministry of Lord Salisbury.

   "Almost simultaneously with the assembling of Parliament
   [February 19, 1885] had come the news of the fall of Khartoum
   and the death of General Gordon [see EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885].
   These terrible events sent a thrill of horror and indignation
   throughout the country, and the Government was severely
   condemned in many quarters for its procrastination. Mr.
   Gladstone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to
   the situation, and announced that it was necessary to
   overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, to renew operations against
   Osman Digma, and to construct a railway from Suakim to Berber
   with a view to a campaign in the autumn. A royal proclamation
   was issued calling out the reserves. Sir Stafford Northcote
   initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion
   affirming that the risks and sacrifices which the Government
   appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified by a
   distinct recognition of our responsibility for Egypt, and
   those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its
   security. Mr. John Morley introduced an amendment to the
   motion, waiving any judgment on the policy of the Minister,
   but expressing regret at its decision to continue the conflict
   with the Mahdl. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion
   and amendment. Observing that it was impossible to give rigid
   pledges as to the future, he appealed to the Liberal party, if
   they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the
   Government, to strengthen their hands by an unmistakable vote
   of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the
   votes being 302 in their favour with 288 against; but many of
   those who supported the Government had also voted for the
   amendment by Mr. Morley. … Financial questions were
   extremely embarrassing to the Government, and it was not until
   the 30th of April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
   ready with his financial statement. He was called upon to deal
   with a deficit of upwards of a million, with a greatly
   depressed revenue, and with an estimated expenditure for the
   current year—including the vote of credit—of no less than
   £100,000,000. Amongst Mr. Childers's proposals was one to levy
   upon land an amount of taxation proportioned to that levied on
   personal property. There was also an augmentation of the
   spirit duties and of the beer duty. The country members were
   dissatisfied and demanded that no new charges should be thrown
   on the land till the promised relief of local taxation had
   been carried out. The agricultural and the liquor interests
   were discontented, as well as the Scotch and Irish members
   with the whiskey duty. The Chancellor made some concessions,
   but they were not regarded as sufficient, and on the Monday
   after the Whitsun holidays, the Opposition joined battle on a
   motion by Sir M. Hicks Beach. … Mr. Gladstone stated at the
   close of the debate that the Government would resign if
   defeated. The amendment was carried against them by 264 to
   252, and the Ministry went out. … Lord Salisbury became
   Premier. … The general election … [was] fixed for November
   1885."

      _G. B. Smith,
      The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
      pages 373-377._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
   The partition of East Africa with Germany.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

{979}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Mr. Gladstone's return to power.
   His Home Rule Bill for Ireland and his Irish Land Bill.
   Their defeat.
   Division of the Liberal Party.
   Lord Salisbury's Ministry.

   "The House of Commons which had been elected in November and
   December, 1885, was the first House of Commons which
   represented the whole body of the householders and lodgers of
   the United Kingdom. The result of the appeal to new
   constituencies and an enlarged electorate had taken all
   parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help
   of their Irish allies, successful in the towns beyond all
   their hopes; the Liberals, disappointed in the boroughs, had
   found compensation in unexpected successes in the counties;
   and the Irish Nationalists had almost swept the board. … The
   English representation—exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for
   Liverpool—gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English
   constituencies; which Wales and Scotland swelled to 106. The
   Irish representation had undergone a still more remarkable
   change. Of 103 members for the sister island, 85 were Home
   Rulers and only 18 were Tories. … The new House of Commons
   was exactly divided between the Liberals on one side and the
   Tories with their Irish allies on the other. Of its 670
   members just one-half, or 335, were Liberals, 249 were Tories,
   and 86 were Irish Nationalists [or Home Rulers]. … It was
   soon clear enough that the alliance between the Tory Ministers
   and the Irish Nationalists was at an end." On the 25th of
   January 1886, the Government was defeated on an amendment to
   the address, and on the 28th it resigned. Mr. Gladstone was
   invited to form a Ministry and did so with Lord Herschell for
   Lord Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt for Chancellor of the
   Exchequer, Mr. Childers for Home Secretary, Lord Granville for
   Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. John Morley for Chief
   Secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for President of
   the Local Government Board. On the 29th of March "Mr.
   Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that on the 8th of
   April he would ask for leave to bring in a bill 'to amend the
   provision for the future government of Ireland'; and that on
   the 15th he would ask leave to bring in a measure 'to make
   amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in
   Ireland.'" The same day Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan
   (Secretary for Ireland) resigned their seats in the Cabinet,
   and it was generally understood that differences of opinion on
   the Irish bills had arisen. On the 8th of April the House of
   Commons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his
   measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech which
   lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his
   plan and the reasons on which they were based. The essential
   conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he
   defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be
   placed in jeopardy; the minority must be protected; the
   political equality of the three countries must be maintained,
   and there must be an equitable distribution of Imperial
   burdens. He then discussed some proposals which had been made
   for the special treatment of Ulster—its exclusion from the
   bill, its separate autonomy or the reservation of certain
   matters, such as education, for Provincial Councils; all of
   which he rejected. The establishment of an Irish legislature
   involved the removal of Irish peers from the House of Lords
   and the Irish representatives from the House of Commons. But
   if Ireland was not represented at Westminster, how was it to
   be taxed? The English people would never force on Ireland
   taxation without representation. The taxing power would be in
   the hands of the Irish legislature, but Customs and Excise
   duties connected with Customs would be solely in the control
   of the Imperial Parliament, Ireland's share in these being
   reserved for Ireland's use. Ireland must have security against
   her Magna Charta being tampered with; the provision of the Act
   would therefore only be capable of modification with the
   concurrence of the Irish legislature, or after the recall of
   the Irish members to the two Houses of Parliament. The Irish
   legislature would have all the powers which were not specially
   reserved from it in the Act. It was to consist of two orders,
   though not two Houses. It would be subject to all the
   prerogatives of the Crown; it would have nothing to do with
   Army or Navy, or with Foreign or Colonial relations; nor could
   it modify the Act on which its own authority was based.
   Contracts, charters, questions of education, religious
   endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority.
   Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures,
   copyright, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters,
   were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The
   composition of the legislature was to be first, the 103
   members now representing Ireland with 101, elected by the same
   constituencies, with the exception of the University, with
   power to the Irish legislature to give two members to the
   Royal University if it chose; then the present Irish members
   of the House of Lords, with 75 elected by the Irish people
   under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be
   left, but the Viceroy was not to quit office with an outgoing
   government, and no religious disability was to affect his
   appointment. He would have a Privy Council, and the executive
   would remain as at present, but might be changed by the action
   of the legislative body. The present judges would preserve their
   lien on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, and the Queen
   would be empowered to antedate their pensions if it was seen
   to be desirable. Future judges, with the exception of two in
   the Court of Exchequer, would be appointed by the Irish
   government, and, like English judges, would hold their office
   during good behaviour. The Constabulary would remain under its
   present administration, Great Britain paying all charges over
   a million. Eventually, however, the whole police of Ireland
   would be under the Irish government. The civil servants would
   have two years' grace, with a choice of retirement on pension
   before passing under the Irish executive. Of the financial
   arrangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail.
   He fixed the proportion of Imperial charges Ireland should pay at
   one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and
   Great Britain fourteen parts. More than a million of duty is
   paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and
   this would be practically a contribution towards the Irish
   revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco
   manufactured in Ireland and sold here. Altogether the British
   taxpayers would contribute in this way £1,400,000 a year to
   the Irish Exchequer; reducing the actual payment of Ireland
   itself for Imperial affairs to one-twenty-sixth." On the 16th
   of April Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill,
   connecting it with the Home Rule Bill as forming part of one
   great measure for the pacification of Ireland. In the meantime
   the opposition to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal
   party had been rapidly taking form. It Mr. Trevelyan, Sir
   Henry James, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Courtney.
   It soon received the support of Mr. John Bright. The debate in
   the House, which lasted until the 3rd of June, was passionate
   and bitter.
{980}
   It ended in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 30
   against the bill. The division was the largest which had ever
   been taken in the House of Commons, 657 members being present.
   The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Liberals.
   The minority consisted of 228 Liberals and 85 Nationalists.
   Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country by a dissolution of
   Parliament. The elections were adverse to him, resulting in
   the return to Parliament of members representing the several
   parties and sections of parties as follows:

   Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194,
   Irish Nationalists 85
   total 279;
   seceding Liberals 75,
   Conservatives 316
   total 391.

   Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resigned and a new Ministry
   was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance
   with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord
   Salisbury's Government, became organized as a distinct party
   under the leadership of Lord Hartington, and took the name of
   Liberal Unionists.

      _P. W. Clayden,
      England under the Coalition,
      chapters 1-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. D. Traill,
      The Marquis of Salisbury,
      chapter 12._

      Annual Register, 1885, 1886.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of
   Washington.
   Renewed controversies with the United States.
   The rejected Treaty.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1886.
   Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill.
   The plan of campaign in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1886-1893.
   The Bering Sea Controversy and Arbitration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1890.
   Settlement of African questions with Germany.
   Cession of Heligoland.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.
   The Free Education Bill.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.
   The fourth Gladstone Ministry.
   Passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons.
   Its defeat by the Lords.

   On the 28th of June, 1892, Parliament was dissolved, having
   been in existence since 1886, and a new Parliament was
   summoned to meet on the 4th of August. Great excitement
   prevailed in the ensuing elections, which turned almost
   entirely on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberal
   or Gladstonian party, favoring Home Rule, won a majority of 42
   in the House of Commons; but in the representation of England
   alone there was a majority of 70 returned against it. In
   Ireland, the representation returned was 103 for Home Rule,
   and 23 against; in Scotland, 51 for and 21 against; in Wales,
   28 for and 2 against. Conservatives and Liberal Unionists
   (opposing Home Rule) lost little ground in the boroughs, as
   compared with the previous Parliament, but largely in the
   counties. As the result of the election, Lord Salisbury and
   his Ministry resigned August 12, and Mr. Gladstone was
   summoned to form a Government. In the new Cabinet, which was
   announced four days later, Earl Rosebery became Foreign
   Secretary; Baron Herschell, Lord Chancellor; Sir William
   Vernon Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Herbert H.
   Asquith, Home Secretary; and Mr. John Morley, Chief Secretary
   for Ireland. Although the new Parliament assembled in August,
   1892, it was not until the 13th of February following that Mr.
   Gladstone introduced his bill to establish Home Rule in
   Ireland. The bill was under debate in the House of Commons
   until the night of September 1, 1893, when it passed that body
   by a vote of 301 to 267. "The bill provides for a Legislature
   for Ireland, consisting of the Queen and of two Houses—the
   Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. This
   Legislature, with certain restrictions, is authorized to make
   laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in
   respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some
   part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish
   Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law
   respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or
   prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any
   disability or conferring any privilege on account of religious
   belief, or whereby any person may be deprived of life,
   liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby
   private property may be taken without just compensation.
   According to the bill the executive power in Ireland shall
   continue vested in her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord
   Lieutenant, on behalf of her Majesty, shall exercise any
   prerogatives or other executive power of the Queen the
   exercise of which may be delegated to him by her Majesty, and
   shall in the Queen's name summon, prorogue, and dissolve the
   Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of
   Ireland is provided for, which 'shall aid and advise in the
   government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice
   and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or
   withhold the assent of her Majesty to bills passed by the houses
   of the Legislature. The Legislative Council by the terms of
   the bill shall consist of forty-eight Councilors. Every man
   shall be entitled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occupies
   any land or tenement of a ratable value of £20. The term of
   office of the Councilors is to be for eight years, which is
   not to be affected by dissolution, but one-half of the
   Councilors shall retire in every fourth year and their seats
   be filled by a new election. The Legislative Assembly is to
   consist of 103 members returned by the Parliamentary
   constituencies existing at present in Ireland. This Assembly,
   unless sooner dissolved, may exist for five years. The bill
   also provides for 80 Irish members in the House of Commons. In
   regard to finance, the bill provides that for the purposes of
   this act the public revenue shall be divided into general
   revenue and special revenue, and general revenue shall consist
   of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion
   due to Ireland of the hereditary revenues of the crown which
   are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for
   the customs and excise duties collected in Great Britain on
   articles consumed in Ireland, provided that an annual sum of
   the customs and excise duties collected in Ireland on articles
   consumed in Great Britain shall be deducted from the revenue
   collected in Ireland and treated as revenue collected in Great
   Britain; these annual sums to be determined by a committee
   appointed jointly by the Irish Government and the Imperial
   Treasury. It is also provided that one-third of the general
   revenue of Ireland and also that portion of any imperial
   miscellaneous revenue to which Ireland may claim to be
   entitled shall be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom
   as the contribution of Ireland to imperial liabilities and
   expenditures; this plan to continue for a term of six years,
   at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be
   devised.
{981}
   The Legislature, in order to meet expenses of the public
   service, is authorized to impose taxes other than those now
   existing in Ireland. Ireland should also have charged up
   against her and be compelled to pay out of her own Treasury
   all salaries and pensions of Judges and liabilities of all
   kinds which Great Britain has assumed for her benefit. The
   bill further provides that appeal from courts in Ireland to
   the House of Lords shall cease and that all persons having the
   right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in
   council. The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed at
   six years. Ultimately the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease
   to exist and no force other than the ordinary civil police
   shall be permitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall
   be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894,
   and the first election for members shall be held at such time
   before that day as may be fixed by her Majesty in council." In
   the House of Lords, the bill was defeated on the 8th of
   September—the second reading postponed to a day six months
   from that date—by the overwhelming vote of 419 to 41.

----------ENGLAND: End----------

ENGLE.
ENGLISH.

      See ANGLES AND JUTES;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

ENGLISH PALE, The.

      See PALE, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLISH SWEAT, The.

      See SWEATING SICKNESS.

ENGLISHRY.

   To check the assassination of his tyrannical Norman followers
   by the exasperated English, William the Conqueror ordained
   that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a
   heavy penalty. "In connexion with this enactment there grew up
   the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every murdered man was
   presumed to be a Norman, unless proofs of 'Englishry' were
   made by the four nearest relatives of the deceased.
   'Presentments of Englishry,' as they were technically termed,
   are recorded in the reign of Richard I., but not later."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History.
      page 68._

ENNISKILLEN, The defence of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

ENÔMOTY, The.

   In the Spartan military organization the enômoty "was a small
   company of men, the number of whom was variable, being given
   differently at 25, 32, or 36 men,—drilled and practised
   together in military evolutions, and bound to each other by a
   common oath. Each Enômoty had a separate captain or
   enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 8._

ENRIQUE.

      See HENRY.

ENSISHEIM, Battle of (1674).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

EORL AND CEORL.

   "The modern English forms of these words have completely lost
   their ancient meaning. The word 'Earl,' after several
   fluctuations, has settled down as the title of one rank in the
   Peerage; the word 'Churl' has come to be a word of moral
   reprobation, irrespective of the rank of the person who is
   guilty of the offence. But in the primary meaning of the
   words, 'Eorl' and 'Ceorl'—words whose happy jingle causes
   them to be constantly opposed to each other—form an
   exhaustive division of the free members of the state. The
   distinction in modern language is most nearly expressed br the
   words 'Gentle' and 'Simple.' The 'Ceorl' is the simple
   freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no
   distinction of birth or office marks out from his fellows."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 3, section 2._

      See, also, ETHEL;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

EORMEN STREET.

      See ERMYN STREET.

EPAMINONDAS, and the greatness of Thebes.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371, and 371-362;
      also THEBES: B. C. 378.

EPEIROS.

      See Epmus.

EPHAH, The.

   "The ephah, or bath, was the unit of measures of capacity for
   both liquids and grain [among the ancient Jews]. The ephah is
   considered by Queipo to have been the measure of water
   contained in the ancient Egyptian cubic foot, and thus
   equivalent to 29.376 litres, or 6.468 imperial gallons, and to
   have been nearly identical with the ancient Egyptian artaba
   and the Greek metretes. For liquids, the ephah was divided
   into six hin, and the twelfth part of the hin was the log. As
   a grain measure, the ephah was divided into ten omers, or
   gomers. The omer measure of manna gathered by the Israelites
   in the desert as a day's food for each adult person was thus
   equal to 2.6 imperial quarts. The largest measure of capacity
   both for liquids and dry commodities was the cor of twelve
   ephahs."

      _H. W. Chisholm,
      On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
      chapter 2._

EPHES-DAMMIM, Battle of.

   The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the
   gigantic Philistine.

      _1 Samuel, xvii._

EPHESIA, The.

      See IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

EPHESUS.
   The Ephesian Temple.

   "The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river
   Cayster, which falls into the Bay of Scala Nova, on the
   western coast of Asia Minor. Of the origin and foundation of
   Ephesus we have no historical record. Stories were told which
   ascribed the settlement of the place to Androklos, the son of
   the Athenian king, Codrus. … With other Ionian cities of
   Asia Minor, Ephesus fell into the hands of Crœsus, the last of
   the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Crœsus by Cyrus,
   it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot.
   Although from that time, during a period of at least five
   centuries, to the conquest by the Romans, the city underwent
   great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and
   importance. The Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has
   almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most
   attractive and notable of all the cities of Asia Minor. Its
   magnificent harbour was filled with Greek and Phenician
   merchantmen, and multitudes flocked from all parts to profit
   by its commerce and to worship at the shrine of its tutelary
   goddess. The City Port was fully four miles from the sea,
   which has not, as has been supposed, receded far. … During
   the generations which immediately followed the conquest of
   Lydia and the rest of Asia Minor by the Persian kings, the
   arts of Greece attained their highest perfection, and it was
   within this short period of little more than two centuries
   that the great Temple of Artemis was three times built upon
   the same site, and, as recent researches have found, each time
   on the same grand scale."

      _J. T. Wood,
      Discoveries at Ephesus,
      chapter 1._

{982}

   The excavations which were carried on at Ephesus by Mr. Wood,
   for the British Museum, during eleven years, from 1863 until
   1874, resulted in the uncovering of a large part of the site
   of the great Temple and the determining of its architectural
   features, besides bringing to light many inscriptions and much
   valuable sculpture. The account given in the work named above
   is exceedingly interesting.

EPHESUS: Ionian conquest and occupation.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

EPHESUS: Ancient Commerce.

   "The spot on the Asiatic coast which corresponded most nearly
   with Corinth on the European, was Ephesus, a city which, in
   the time of Herodotus, had been the starting point of caravans
   for Upper Asia, but which, under the change of dynasties and
   ruin of empires, had dwindled into a mere provincial town. The
   mild sway of Augustus restored it to wealth and eminence, and
   as the official capital of the province of Asia, it was
   reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

EPHESUS: A. D. 267.
   Destruction by the Goths of the Temple of Diana.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

EPHESUS: A. D. 431 and 449.
   The General Council and the "Robber Synod."

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

----------EPHESUS: End----------

EPHETÆ, The.

   A board of fifty-one judges instituted by the legislation of
   Draco, at Athens, for the trial of crimes of bloodshed upon
   the Areopagus.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

EPHORS.

   "Magistrates, called by the name of Ephors, existed in many
   Dorian as well as in other States [of ancient Greece],
   although our knowledge with regard to them extends no further
   than to the fact of their existence; while the name, which
   signifies quite generally 'overseers,' affords room for no
   conclusion as to their political position or importance. In
   Sparta, however, the Board of Five Ephors became, in the
   course of time, a magistracy of such dignity and influence
   that no other can be found in any free State with which it can
   be compared. Concerning its first institution nothing certain
   can be ascertained. … The following appears to be a probable
   account:—The Ephors were originally magistrates appointed by
   the kings, partly to render them special assistance in the
   judicial decision of private disputes,—a function which they
   continued to exercise in later times,—partly to undertake,
   as lieutenants of the kings, other of their functions, during
   their absence in military service, or through some other
   cause. … When the monarchy and the Gerousia wished to
   re-establish their ancient influence in opposition to the
   popular assembly, they were obliged to agree to a concession
   which should give some security to the people that this power
   should not be abused to their detriment. This concession
   consisted in the fact that the Ephors were independently
   authorized to exercise control over the kings themselves. …
   The Ephors were enabled to interfere in every department of
   the administration, and to remove or punish whatever they
   found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public
   interest."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1, section 8._

      See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

EPHTHALITES, The.

      See HUNS, THE WHITE.

EPIDAMNUS.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432;
      and KORKYRA.

EPIDII, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

EPIGAMIA.

   The right of marriage in ancient Athens.

      G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3.

EPIGONI, The.

      See BŒOTIA.

EPIPOLÆ.

   One of the parts or divisions of the ancient city of Syracuse,
   Sicily.

EPIROT LEAGUE, The.

   "The temporary greatness of the Molossian kingdom [of Epeiros,
   or Epirus] under Alexander and Pyrrhus is matter of general
   history. Our immediate business is with the republican
   government which succeeded on the bloody extinction of royalty
   and the royal line [which occurred B. C. 239]. Epeiros now
   became a republic; of the details of its constitution we know
   nothing, but its form can hardly fail to have been federal.
   The Epeirots formed one political body; Polybios always speaks
   of them, like the Achaians and Akarnanians, as one people
   acting with one will. Decrees are passed, ambassadors are sent
   and received, in the name of the whole Epeirot people, and
   Epeiros had, like Akarnania, a federal coinage bearing the
   common name of the whole nation."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      book 4, section 1._

EPIRUS.
THE EPIROTS.

   "Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western
   Greece] we find small nations or tribes not considered as
   Greeks, but known, from the fourth century B. C. downwards,
   under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies,
   properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of
   an island or a peninsula. It came only gradually to be applied
   by the Greeks as their comprehensive denomination to designate
   all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian Gulf on the
   south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and
   Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots the
   principal were—the Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and
   Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as
   maritime along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokeraunian
   mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the
   Ambrakian Gulf. … Among these various tribes it is difficult
   to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for
   Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as
   Hellenic,—and the oracle of Dôdôna, as well as the
   Nekyomanteion (or holy cavern for evoking the dead) of
   Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and
   both (in the time of the historian) Hellenic. Thucydides, on
   the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as
   barbaric. … Epirus is essentially a pastoral country: its
   cattle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were
   celebrated throughout all antiquity; and its population then,
   as now, found divided village residence the most suitable to
   their means and occupations. … Both the Chaonians and
   Thesprotians appear, in the time of Thucydides, as having no
   kings: there was a privileged kingly race, but the presiding
   chief was changed from year to year. The Molossians, however,
   had a line of kings, succeeding from father to son, which
   professed to trace its descent through fifteen generations
   downward from Achilles and Neoptolemus to Tharypas about the
   year 400 B. C."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 24._

{983}

   The Molossian kings subsequently extended their sovereignty
   over the whole country and styled themselves kings of Epirus.
   Pyrrhus, whose war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 282-275) is one
   of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious
   and energetic of the dynasty (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280);
   Hannibal reckoned him among the greatest of soldiers. In the
   next century Epirus fell under the dominion of Rome.
   Subsequently it formed part of the Byzantine empire; then
   became a separate principality, ruled by a branch of the
   imperial Comnenian family; was conquered by the Turks in 1466
   and is now represented by the southern half of the province of
   Turkey, called Albania.

      See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
   The Greek Despotat.

   From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, overthrown by the
   Crusaders and the Venetians in 1204, "that portion …
   situated to the west of the range of Pindus was saved from
   feudal domination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine
   Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III.
   After the conquest of Constantinople, he escaped into Epirus,
   where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some
   influence; and assuming the direction of the administration of
   the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a
   considerable military force, and established the seat of his
   authority generally at Ioannina or Arta. … History has
   unfortunately preserved very little information concerning the
   organisation and social condition of the different classes and
   races which inhabited the dominions of the princes of Epirus.
   Almost the only facts that have been preserved relate to the
   wars and alliances of the despots and their families with the
   Byzantine emperors and the Latin princes. … They all assumed
   the name of Angelos Komnenos Dukas; and the title of despot,
   by which they are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine
   honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of
   the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek
   emperor. Michael I, the founder of the despotat, distinguished
   himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He
   extended his authority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia,
   and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually
   independent, he acknowledged Theodore I. (Laskaris), [at
   Nicæa] as the lawful emperor of the East." The able and
   unscrupulous brother of Michael, Theodore, who became his
   successor in 1214, extinguished by conquest the Lombard
   kingdom of Saloniki, in Macedonia (A. D. 1222), and assumed
   the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at
   Nicæa, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of
   Thessalonica was short lived. Its capital was taken by the
   emperor of Nicæa, in 1234, and Michael's son John, then
   reigning, was forced to resign the imperial title. The
   despotat of Epirus survived for another century, much torn and
   distracted by wars and domestic conflicts. In 1350 its
   remaining territory was occupied by the king of Servia, and
   finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusader,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. E. Tennent,
      History of Modern Greece,
      chapter 3._

EPIRUS: Modern History.

   See ALBANIANS.

EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH.

      See CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

EPISTATES.

   The presiding officer of the ancient Athenian council and
   popular assembly.

EPONYM.
EPONYMUS.

   The name-giver,—the name-giving hero of primitive myths, in
   which tribes and races of people set before themselves, partly
   by tradition, partly by imagination, an heroic personage who
   is supposed to be their common progenitor and the source of
   their name.

EPONYM CANON OF ASSYRIA.

      See ASSYRIA, EPONYM CANON OF.

EPPING FOREST.

   Once so extensive that it covered the whole county of Essex,
   England, and was called the Forest of Essex. Subsequently,
   when diminished in size, it was called Waltham Forest. Still
   later, when further retrenched, it took the name of Epping,
   from a town that is embraced in it. It is still quite large,
   and within recent years it has been formally declared by the
   Queen "a people's park."

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England._

EPULONES, The.

   "The epulones [at Rome] formed a college for the
   administration of the sacred festivals."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

EQUADOR.

      See ECUADOR.

EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

EQUESTRIAN ORDER, Roman.

   "The selection of the burgess cavalry was vested in the
   censors. It was, no doubt, the duty of these to make the
   selection on purely military grounds, and at their musters to
   insist that all horsemen incapacitated by age or otherwise, or
   at all unserviceable, should surrender their public horse; but
   it was not easy to hinder them from looking to noble birth
   more than to capacity, and from allowing men of standing, who
   were once admitted, senators particularly, to retain their
   horse beyond the proper time. Accordingly it became the
   practical rule for the senators to vote in the eighteen
   equestrian centuries, and the other places in these were
   assigned chiefly to the younger men of the nobility. The
   military system, of course, suffered from this, not so much
   through the unfitness for effective service of no small part
   of the legionary cavalry, as through the destruction of
   military equality to which the change gave rise; the noble
   youth more and more withdrew from serving in the infantry, and
   the legionary cavalry became a close aristocratic corps."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 11._

   "The eighteen centuries, therefore, in course of time … lost
   their original military character and remained only as a
   voting body. It was by the transformation thus effected in the
   character of the eighteen centuries of knights, whilst the
   cavalry service passed over to the richer citizens not
   included in the senatorial families, that a new class of Roman
   citizens began gradually to be formed, distinct from the
   nobility proper and from the mass of the people, and
   designated as the equestrian order."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter. 1._

   The equestrian order became a legally constituted class under
   the judicial law of Caius Gracchus, B. C. 123, which fixed its
   membership by a census, and transferred to it the judicial
   functions previously exercised by the senators only. It formed
   a kind of monetary aristocracy, as a counterweight to the
   nobility.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 6._


{984}

ERA, Christian.

   "Unfortunately for ancient Chronology, there was no one fixed
   or universally established Era. Different countries reckoned
   by different eras, whose number is embarrassing, and their
   commencements not always easily to be adjusted or reconciled
   to each other; and it was not until A. D. 532 that the
   Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by
   birth, and a Roman Abbot, who flourished in the reign of
   Justinian. … Dionysius began his era with the year of our
   Lord's incarnation and nativity, in U. C. 753, of the
   Varronian Computation, or the 45th of the Julian Era. And at
   an earlier period, Panodorus, an Egyptian monk, who flourished
   under the Emperor Arcadius, A. D. 395, had dated the
   incarnation in the same year. But by some mistake, or
   misconception of his meaning, Bede, who lived in the next
   century after Dionysius, adopted his year of the Nativity, U.
   C. 753, yet began the Vulgar Era, which he first introduced,
   the year after, and made it commence January 1, U. C. 754, which
   was an alteration for the worse, as making the Christian Era
   recede a year further from the true year of the Nativity. The
   Vulgar Era began to prevail in the West about the time of
   Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II. A. D. 730. … But it was
   not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV. A. D. 1431,
   who ordered this era to be used in the public Registers. …
   Dionysius was led to date the year of the Nativity, U. C. 753,
   from the Evangelist Luke's account that John the Baptist began
   his ministry 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
   Cæsar'; and that Jesus, at his baptism, 'was beginning to be
   about 30 years of age.' Luke iii. 1-23. … But this date of
   the Nativity is at variance with Matthew's account, that
   Christ was born before Herod's death; which followed shortly
   after his massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. … Christ's
   birth, therefore, could not have been earlier than U. C. 748,
   nor later than U. C. 749. And if we assume the latter year, as
   most conformable to the whole tenor of Sacred History, with
   Chrysostom, Petavius, Prideaux, Playfair, &c., this would give
   Christ's age at his baptism, about 34 years; contrary to
   Luke's account."

      _W. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume 1, book l._

   In a subsequent table, Mr. Hales gives the results of the
   computations made by different chronologists, ancient and
   modern, to fix the true year of the Nativity, as accommodated
   to what is called "the vulgar," or popularly accepted,
   Christian Era. The range is through no less than ten years,
   from B. C. 7 to A. D. 3. His own conclusion, supported by
   Prideaux and Playfair, is in favor of the year B. C. 5.
   Somewhat more commonly at the present time, it is put at B. C.
   4.

      See, also, JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

ERA, French Revolutionary.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),
      and 1793 (OCTOBER).

ERA, Gregorian.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

ERA, Jalalæan.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

ERA, Julian.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ERA, Mahometan, or Era of the Hegira.

   "The epoch of the Era of the Hegira is, according to the civil
   calculation, Friday, the 16th of July, A. D. 622, the day of
   the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which is the date
   of the Mahometans; but astronomers and some historians assign
   it to the preceding day, viz., Thursday, the 15th of July; an
   important fact to be borne in mind when perusing Arabian
   writers. The years of the Hegira are lunar years, and contain
   twelve months, each commencing with the new moon; a practice
   which necessarily leads to great confusion and uncertainty,
   inasmuch as every year must begin considerably earlier in the
   season than the preceding. In chronology and history, however,
   and in dating their public instruments, the Turks use months
   which contain alternately thirty and twenty-nine days,
   excepting the last month, which, in intercalary years,
   contains thirty days. … The years of the Hegira are divided
   into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of which are termed
   common years, of 354 days each; and the eleven others
   intercalary, or abundant, from their consisting of one day
   more: these are the 2d, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th,
   21st, 24th, 26th and 29th. To ascertain whether any given year
   be intercalary or not divide it by 30; and if either of the
   above numbers remain, the year is one of 355 days."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History._

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

ERA, Spanish.

   "The Spanish era dates from 38 B. C. (A. U. 716) and is
   supposed to mark some important epoch in the organization of
   the province by the Romans. It may coincide with the campaign
   of Calvinus, which is only known to us from a notice in the
   Fasti Triumphales. … The Spanish era was preserved in Aragon
   till 1358, in Castile till 1383, and in Portugal till 1415."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 34, note._

ERA OF DIOCLETIAN, or Era of Martyrs.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

ERA OF GOOD FEELING.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.

ERA OF THE FOUNDATION OF ROME.

      See ROME: B. C. 753.

ERA OF THE OLYMPIADS.

      See OLYMPIADS, ERA OF THE.

ERANI.

   Associations existing in ancient Athens which resembled the
   mutual benefit or friendly-aid societies of modern times.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

ERASTIANISM.

   A doctrine which "received its name from Thomas Erastus, a
   German physician of the 16th century, contemporary with
   Luther. The work in which he delivered his theory and
   reasonings on the subject is entitled 'De Excommunicatione
   Ecclesiastica.' … The Erastians … held that religion is an
   affair between man and his creator, in which no other man or
   society of men was entitled to interpose. … Proceeding on
   this ground, they maintained that every man calling himself a
   Christian has a right to make resort to any Christian place of
   worship, and partake in all its ordinances. Simple as this
   idea is, it strikes at the root of all priestcraft."

      _W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

ERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

      See, also, ERYX.

ERDINI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

EREMITES OF ST. FRANCIS.

      See MINIMS.

ERETRIA.

      See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.

ERFURT, IMPERIAL CONFERENCE AND TREATY OF.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

{985}

ERECTHEION AT ATHENS, The.

   "At a very early period there was, opposite the long northern
   side of the Parthenon, a temple which, according to Herodot,
   was dedicated jointly to Athene Polias and the Attic hero,
   Erectheus. … This temple was destroyed by fire while the
   Persians held the city. Not unlikely the rebuilding of the
   Erectheion was begun by Perikles together with that of the
   other destroyed temples of the Akropolis; but as it was not
   finished by him, it is generally not mentioned amongst his
   works. … This temple was renowned amongst the ancients as
   one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence, and seems
   to have remained almost intact down to the time of the Turks.
   The siege of Athens by the Venetians in 1687 seems to have
   been fatal to the Erectheion, as it was to the Parthenon."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks,
      section 14._

      See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

ERIC,
   King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1412-1439.
   Eric Blodaexe, King of Norway, A. D. 934-940.
   Eric I., King of Denmark, A. D: 850-854.
   Eric I. (called Saint), King of Sweden, A. D. 1155-1161.
   Eric II., King of Denmark, A. D. 854-883.
   Eric II., King of·Norway, A. D. 1280-1299.
   Eric II. (Knutsson), King of Sweden, A. D. 1210-1216.
   Eric III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1095-1103.
   Eric III. (called The Stammerer), King of Sweden, A. D. 1222-1250.
   Eric IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1134-1137.
   Eric V., King of Denmark, A. D. 1137-1147.
   Eric VI., King of Denmark, A. D. 1241-1250.
   Eric VII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1259-1286.
   Eric VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1286-1319.
   Eric XIV., King of Sweden, A. D. 1560-1568.

ERICSSON, John
   Invention and construction of the Monitor.

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

ERIE, The City of: A. D. 1735.
   Site occupied by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1764-1791.
   Origin.

   Four years after the British conquest of Canada, in 1764,
   Colonel John Bradstreet built a blockhouse and stockade near
   the site of the later Fort Erie, which was not constructed
   until 1791. When war with the United States broke out, in
   1812, the British considered the new fort untenable, or
   unnecessary, and evacuated and partly destroyed it, in May,
   1813.

      _C. K. Remington,
      Old Fort Erie._

ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1814.
   The siege and the destruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1866.
   The Fenian invasion.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------ERIE: End----------

ERIE, Lake:
   The Indian name.

      See NIAGARA: THE NAME, &c.

ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1679.
   Navigated by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1813.
   Perry's naval victory.

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

----------ERIE, Lake: End----------

ERIE CANAL, Construction of the.

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

ERIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS.

ERIN.

      See IRELAND.

ERMANRIC, OR HERMANRIC, The empire of.

      See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 350-375; and 376.

ERMYN STREET.

   A corruption of Eormen street, the Saxon name of one of the
   great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from London to
   Lincoln. Some writers trace it northwards through York to the
   Scottish border and southward to Pevensey.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

ERNESTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

ERPEDITANI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ERTANG, The.
   The sacred book of the Manicheans.

      See MANICHEANS.

ERYTHRÆ.-ERYTHRÆAN SIBYL.

   Erythræ was an ancient Ionian city on the Lydian coast of Asia
   Minor, opposite the island of Chios or Scio. It was chiefly
   famous as the home or seat of one of the most venerated of the
   sibyls—prophetic women—of antiquity. The collection of
   Sibylline oracles which was sacredly preserved at Rome appears
   to have been largely derived from Erythræ. The Cumæan Sibyl is
   sometimes identified with her Erythræan sister, who is said to
   have passed into Europe.

      See, also, SIBYLS.

ERYTHRÆAN SEA, The.

   The Erythræan Sea, in the widest sense of the term, as used by
   the ancients, comprised "the Arabian Gulf (or what we now call
   the Red Sea), the coasts of Africa outside the straits of Bab
   el Mandeb as far as they had then been explored, as well as
   those of Arabia and India down to the extremity of the Malabar
   coast." The Periplus of the Erythræan Sea is a geographical
   treatise of great importance which we owe to some unknown
   Greek writer supposed to be nearly contemporary with Pliny. It
   is "a kind of manual for the instruction of navigators and
   traders in the Erythræan Sea."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 25._

   "The Erythrêam Sea is an appellation … in all appearance
   deduced [by the ancients] from their entrance into it by the
   straits of the Red Sea, styled Erythra by the Greeks, and not
   excluding the gulph of Persia, to which the fabulous history
   of a king Erythras is more peculiarly appropriate."

      _W. Vincent,
      Periplus of the Erythrêan Sea,
      book 1, prelim. disquis._

ERYX.
ERCTE.

   A town originally Phoœnician or Carthaginian on the
   northwestern coast of Sicily. It stood on the slope of a
   mountain which was crowned with an ancient temple of
   Aphrodite, and which gave the name Erycina to the goddess when
   her worship was introduced at Rome.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ERZEROUM: A. D. 1878.
   Taken by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ESCOCÉS, The party of the.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

ESCOMBOLI.

      See STAMBOUL.

ESCORIAL, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

ESCUYER.
ESQUIRE.

      See CHIVALRY.

ESDRAELON, Valley of.

      See MEGIDDO.

ESKIMO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

ESNE.

      See THEOW.

ESPARTERO, Regency of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

ESPINOSA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

{986}

ESQUILINE, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

ESQUIRE.
ESCUYER.
SQUIRE.

      See CHIVALRY.

ESQUIROS, Battle of (1521).

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

ESSELENIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

ESSENES, The.

      See Supplement in volume 5.

ESSEX.

   Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
   conquerors of Britain, in the fifth and sixth centuries, who
   acquired, from their geographical position in the island, the
   name of the East Saxons. It covered the present county of
   Essex and also included London and Middlesex.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

ESSEX JUNTO, The.

   In the Massachusetts election of 1781, "the representatives of
   the State in Congress, and some of the more moderate leaders
   at home, opposed Governor Hancock, the popular candidate, and
   supported James Bowdoin, who was thought to represent the more
   conservative elements. … It was at this time that Hancock is
   said to have bestowed on his opponents the title of the 'Essex
   Junto,' and this is the first appearance of the name in
   American politics. … The 'Junto' was generally supposed to
   be composed of such men as Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot,
   Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, the Lowells, Timothy
   Pickering, &c., and took its name from the county to which
   most of its reputed members originally belonged. … The
   reputed members of the 'Junto' held political power in
   Massachusetts [as leaders of the Federalist party] for more
   than a quarter of a century." According to Chief Justice
   Parsons, as quoted by Colonel Pickering in his Diary, the term
   'Essex Junto' was applied by one of the Massachusetts royal
   governors, before the Revolution, to certain gentlemen of
   Essex county who opposed his measures. Hancock, therefore,
   only revived the title and gave it currency, with a new
   application.

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      pages 17-22._

ESSLINGEN, OR ASPERN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ESSUVII, The.

   A Gallic tribe established anciently in the modern French
   department of the Orne.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, note._

ESTATES, Assembly of.

   "An assembly of estates is an organised collection, made by
   representation or otherwise, of the several orders, states or
   conditions of men, who are recognised as possessing political
   power. A national council of clergy and barons is not an
   assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of
   the people, the plebs, the simple freemen or commons."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15, section 185._

      See, also, ESTATES, THE THREE.

ESTATES, The Three.

   "The arrangement of the political factors in three estates is
   common, with some minor variations, to all the European
   constitutions, and depends on a principle of almost universal
   acceptance. This classification differs from the system of
   caste and from all divisions based on differences of blood or
   religion, historical or prehistorical. … In Christendom it
   has always taken the form of a distinction between clergy and
   laity, the latter being subdivided according to national
   custom into noble and non-noble, patrician and plebeian,
   warriors and traders, landowners and craftsmen. … The
   Aragonese cortes contained four brazos or arms, the clergy,
   the great barons or ricos hombres, the minor barons, knights
   or infanzones, and the towns. The Germanic diet comprised
   three colleges, the electors, the princes and the cities, the
   two former being arranged in distinct benches, lay and
   clerical. … The Castilian cortes arranged the clergy, the
   ricos hombres and the communidades, in three estates. The
   Swedish diet was composed of clergy, barons, burghers and
   peasants. … In France, both in the States General and in the
   provincial estates, the division is into gentz de l'eglise,
   nobles, and gentz des bonnes villes. In England, after a
   transitional stage, in which the clergy, the greater and
   smaller barons, and the cities and boroughs, seemed likely to
   adopt the system used in Aragon and Scotland, and another in
   which the county and borough communities continued to assert
   an essential difference, the three estates of clergy, lords
   and commons, finally emerge as the political constituents of
   the nation, or, in their parliamentary form, as the lords
   spiritual and temporal and the commons. This familiar formula
   in either shape bears the impress of history. The term commons
   is not in itself an appropriate expression for the third
   estate; it does not signify primarily the simple freemen, the
   plebs, but the plebs organised and combined in corporate
   communities, in a particular way for particular purposes. The
   commons are the communitates or universitates, the organised
   bodies of freemen of the shires and towns. … The third
   estate in England differs from the same estate in the
   continental constitutions, by including the landowners under
   baronial rank. In most of those systems it contains the
   representatives of the towns or chartered communities only."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15, sections 185, 193._

   "The words 'gens de tiers et commun état' are found in many
   acts [France] of the 15th century. The expressions 'tiers
   état,' 'commun état,' and 'le commun' are used indifferently,
   … This name of 'Tiers État, when used in its ordinary sense,
   properly comprises only the population of the privileged
   cities; but in effect it extends much beyond this; it includes
   not only the cities, but the villages and hamlets—not only
   the free commonalty, but all those for whom civil liberty is a
   privilege still to come."

      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, pages 61 and 60._

ESTATES, or "States," of the Netherland Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ESTATES GENERAL.

      See STATES GENERAL.

ESTE, The House of.

   "Descended from one of the northern families which settled in
   Italy during the darkest period of the middle ages, the Este
   traced their lineal descent up to the times of Charlemagne.
   They had taken advantage of the frequent dissensions between
   the popes and the German emperors of the houses of Saxony and
   Swabia, and acquired wide dominions in Lunigiana, and the
   March of Treviso, where the castle of Este, their family
   residence, was situated. Towards the middle of the 11th
   century, that family had been connected by marriages with the
   Guelphs of Bavaria, and one of the name of Este was eventually
   to become the common source from which sprung the illustrious
   houses of Brunswick and Hanover. The Este had warmly espoused
   the Guelph party [see GUELFS], during the wars of the Lombard
   League. …
{987}
   Towards the year 1200, Azzo V., Marquis of Este, married
   Marchesella degli Adelardi, daughter of one of the most
   conspicuous Guelphs at Ferrara, where the influence of the
   House of Este was thus first established."

      _L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
      Italy,
      volume 2, pages 62-63._

   The Marquesses of Este became, "after some of the usual
   fluctuations, permanent lords of the cities of Ferrara [1264]
   and Modena [1288]. About the same time they lost their
   original holding of Este, which passed to Padua, and with
   Padua to Venice. Thus the nominal marquess of Este and real
   lord of Ferrara was not uncommonly spoken of as Marquess of
   Ferrara. In the 15th century these princes rose to ducal rank;
   but by that time the new doctrine of the temporal dominion of
   the Popes had made great advances. Modena, no man doubted, was
   a city of the Empire; but Ferrara was now held to be under the
   supremacy of the Pope. The Marquess Borso had thus to seek his
   elevation to ducal rank from two separate lords. He was
   created Duke of Modena [1453] and Reggio by the Emperor, and
   afterwards Duke of Ferrara [1471] by the Pope. This difference
   of holding … led to the destruction of the power of the
   house of Este. In the times in which we are now concerned,
   their dominions lay in two masses. To the west lay the duchy
   of Modena and Reggio; apart from it to the east lay the duchy
   of Ferrara. Not long after its creation, this last duchy was
   cut short by the surrender of the border-district of Rovigo to
   Venice. … Modena and Ferrara remained united, till Ferrara
   was annexed [1598] as an escheated fief to the dominions of
   its spiritual overlord. But the house of Este still reigned
   over Modena with Reggio and Mirandola, while its dominions
   were extended to the sea by the addition of Massa and other
   small possessions between Lucca and Genoa. The duchy in the
   end passed by female succession to the House of Austria
   [1771-1803]."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, sections 3-4._

   "The government of the family of Este at Ferrara, Modena, and
   Reggio displays curious contrasts of violence and popularity.
   Within the palace frightful deeds were perpetrated; a princess
   was beheaded [1425] for alleged adultery with a stepson;
   legitimate and illegitimate children fled from the court, and
   even abroad their lives were threatened by assassins sent in
   pursuit of them (1471). Plots from without were incessant; the
   bastard of a bastard tried to wrest the crown from the lawful
   heir, Hercules I.: this latter is said afterwards (1493) to
   have poisoned his wife on discovering that she, at the
   instigation of her brother, Ferrante of Naples, was going to
   poison him. This list of tragedies is closed by the plot of
   two bastards against their brothers; the ruling Duke Alfonso
   I. and the Cardinal Ippolito (1506), which was discovered in
   time, and punished with imprisonment for life. … It is
   undeniable that the dangers to which these princes were
   constantly exposed developed in them capacities of a
   remarkable kind."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
      part 1, chapter 5._

   For the facts of the ending of the legitimate Italian line of
   Este,

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA:
   Origin of the name.

      See ÆSTII.

ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Christian conquest.

      See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

ESTIENNES, The Press of the.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

ESTREMOS, OR AMEIXAL, Battle of (1663).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

ETCHEMINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ETHANDUN, OR EDINGTON, Battle of (A. D. 878).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

ETHEL, ETHELINGS, OR ÆTHELINGS.

   "The sons and brothers of the king [of the English] were
   distinguished by the title of Æthelings. The word Ætheling,
   like eorl, originally denoted noble birth simply; but as the
   royal house of Wessex rose to pre-eminence and the other royal
   houses and the nobles generally were thereby reduced to a
   relatively lower grade, it became restricted to the near
   kindred of the national king."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 29._

   "It has been sometimes held that the only nobility of blood
   recognized in England before the Norman Conquest was that of
   the king's kin. The statement may be regarded as deficient in
   authority, and as the result of a too hasty generalization
   from the fact that only the sons and brothers of the kings
   bear the name of ætheling. On the other hand must be alleged
   the existence of a noble (edhiling) class among the
   continental Saxons who had no kings at all. … The laws of
   Ethelbert prove the existence of a class bearing the name of
   eorl of which no other interpretation can be given. That
   these, eorlas and æthel, were the descendants of the primitive
   nobles of the first settlement, who, on the institution of
   royalty, sank one step in dignity from the ancient state of
   rude independence, in which they had elected their own chiefs
   and ruled their own dependents, may be very reasonably
   conjectured. … The ancient name of eorl, like that of
   ætheling, changed its application, and, under the influence,
   perhaps, of Danish association, was given like that of jarl to
   the official ealdorman. Henceforth the thegn takes the place
   of the æthel, and the class of thegns probably embraces all
   the remaining families of noble blood. The change may have
   been very gradual; the 'north people's law' of the tenth or
   early eleventh century still distinguishes the eorl and
   ætheling with a wergild nearly double that of the ealdorman
   and seven times that of the thegn; but the north people's law
   was penetrated with Danish influence, and the eorl probably
   represents the jarl rather than the ealdorman, the great eorl
   of the fourth part of England as it was divided by Canute. …
   The word eorl is said to be the same as the Norse jarl and
   another form of ealdor (?); whilst the ceorl answers to the
   Norse Karl; the original meaning of the two being old man and
   young man."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 6, section 64, and note._

ETHEL.
   Family-land.

      See ALOD; and FOLCLAND.

ETHELBALD,
   King of Mercia, A. D. 716-755.
   Ethelbald, King of Wessex, A. D. 858-860.

ETHELBERT,
   King of Kent, A. D. 565-616.
   Ethelbert, King of Wessex, A. D. 860-866.

ETHELFRITH, King of Northumberland, A. D. 593-617.

ETHELRED,
   King of Wessex, A. D. 866-871.
   Ethelred, called the Unready, King of Wessex, A. D. 979-1016.

{988}

ETHELSTAN, King of Wessex, A. D. 925-940.

ETHELWULF, King of Wessex, A. D. 836-858.

ETHIOPIA.

   The Ethiopia of the ancients, "in the ordinary and vague sense
   of the term, was a vast tract extending in length above a
   thousand miles, from the 9th to the 24th degree of north
   latitude, and in breadth almost 900 miles, from the shores of
   the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to the desert of the Sahara. This
   tract was inhabited for the most part by wild and barbarous
   tribes—herdsmen, hunters, or fishermen—who grew no corn,
   were unacquainted with bread, and subsisted on the milk and
   flesh of their cattle, or on game, turtle, and fish, salted or
   raw. The tribes had their own separate chiefs, and
   acknowledged no single head, but on the contrary were
   frequently at war one with the other, and sold their prisoners
   for slaves. Such was Ethiopia in the common vague sense; but
   from this must be distinguished another narrower Ethiopia,
   known sometimes as 'Ethiopia Proper' or 'Ethiopia above
   Egypt,' the limits of which were, towards the south, the
   junction of the White and Blue Niles, and towards the north
   the Third Cataract. Into this tract, called sometimes 'the
   kingdom of Meroë,' Egyptian civilisation had, long before the
   eighth century [B. C.], deeply penetrated. Temples of the
   Egyptian type, stone pyramids, avenues of sphinxes, had been
   erected; a priesthood had been set up, which was regarded as
   derived from the Egyptian priesthood; monarchical institutions
   had been adopted; the whole tract formed ordinarily one
   kingdom, and the natives were not very much behind the
   Egyptians in arts or arms, or very different from them in
   manners, customs, and mode of life. Even in race the
   difference was not great. The Ethiopians were darker in
   complexion than the Egyptians, and possessed probably a
   greater infusion of Nigritic blood; but there was a common
   stock at the root of the two races—Cush and Mizraim were
   brethren. In the region of Ethiopia Proper a very important
   position was occupied in the eighth century [B. C.] by Napata.
   Napata was situated midway in the great bend of the Nile,
   between latitude 18° and 19°. … It occupied the left bank of
   the river in the near vicinity of the modern Gebel Berkal. . .
   Here, when the decline of Egypt enabled the Ethiopians to
   reclaim their ancient limits, the capital was fixed of that
   kingdom, which shortly became a rival of the old empire of the
   Pharaohs, and aspired to take its place. … The kingdom of
   Meroë, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as
   the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the
   Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and
   its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the
   Atbara and the Blue Nile. … Napata continued down to Roman
   times a place of importance, and only sank to ruin in
   consequence of the campaigns of Petronius against Candacé in
   the first century after our era."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      Historical Researches, Carthaginians,
      Ethiopians, &c., pages 143-249._

      See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1200-670;
      and LIBYANS, THE.

ETON SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.--ENGLAND.

ETRURIA, Ancient.

      See ETRUSCANS.

ETRURIA, The kingdom of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803;
      also PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808(NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

ETRUSCANS, The.

   "At the time when Roman history begins, we find that a
   powerful and warlike race, far superior to the Latins in
   civilisation and in the arts of life, hemmed in the rising
   Roman dominion in the north. The Greeks called them Turrhenoi,
   the Romans called them Etrusci, they called themselves the
   Rasenna. Who they were and whence they came has ever been
   regarded as one of the most doubtful and difficult problems in
   ethnology. One conclusion only can be said to have been
   universally accepted both in ancient and in modern times. It
   is agreed on every hand that in all essential points, in
   language, in religion, in customs, and in appearance, the
   Etruscans were a race wholly different from the Latins. There
   is also an absolute agreement of all ancient tradition to the
   effect that the Etruscans were not the original inhabitants of
   Etruria, but that they were an intrusive race of conquerors.
   … It has been usually supposed that the Rasenna made their
   appearance in Italy some ten or twelve centuries before the
   Christian era. … For some six or seven centuries, the
   Etruscan power and territory continued steadily to increase,
   and ultimately stretched far south of the Tiber, Rome itself
   being included in the Etruscan dominion, and being ruled by an
   Etruscan dynasty. The early history of Rome is to a great
   extent the history of the uprising of the Latin race, and its
   long struggle for Italian supremacy with its Etruscan foe. It
   took Rome some six centuries of conflict to break through the
   obstinate barrier of the Etruscan power. The final conquest of
   Etruria by Rome was effected in the year 281 B. C. … The
   Rasennic people were collected mainly in the twelve great
   cities of Etruria proper, between the Arno and the Tiber.
   [Modern Tuscany takes its name from the ancient Etruscan
   inhabitants of the region.] This region was the real seat of
   the Etruscan power. … From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great
   Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their
   nearest non-Aryan neighbours—the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to
   the north of them—by the name Turan, a word from which we
   derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian. The Aryan
   Greeks, on the other hand, called the Turkic tribe of the
   Rasenna, the nearest non-Aryan race, by the name of Turrhenoi.
   The argument of this book is to prove that the Tyrrhenians of
   Italy were of kindred race with the Turanians of Turkestan. Is
   it too much to conjecture that the Greek form Turrhene may be
   identically the same word as the Persian form Turan?"

      _I. Taylor,
      Etruscan Researches,
      chapter 2._

   "The utmost we can say is that several traces, apparently
   reliable, point to the conclusion that the Etruscans may be on
   the whole included among the Indo-Germans. … But even
   granting those points of connection, the Etruscan people
   appears withal scarcely less isolated. 'The Etruscans,'
   Dionysius said long ago, 'are like no other nation in language
   and manners'; and we have nothing to add to his statement. …
   Reliable traces of any advance of the Etruscans beyond the
   Tiber, by land, are altogether wanting. … South of the Tiber
   no Etruscan settlement can be pointed out as having owed its
   origin to founders who came by land; and that no indication
   whatever is discernible of any serious pressure by the
   Etruscans upon the Latin nation."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 9._

{989}

EUBŒA.

   "The island of Eubœa, long and narrow like Krête, and
   exhibiting a continuous backbone of lofty mountains from
   northwest to southeast, is separated from Bœotia at one point
   by a strait so narrow (celebrated in antiquity under the name
   of the Eurīpus) that the two were connected by a bridge for a
   large portion of the historical period of Greece, erected
   during the later times of the Peloponnesian war by the
   inhabitants of Chalkis [Chalcis]. Its general want of breadth
   leaves little room for plains. The area of the island consists
   principally of mountain, rock, dell, and ravine, suited in
   many parts for pasture, but rarely convenient for
   grain-culture or town habitations. Some plains there were,
   however, of great fertility, especially that of Lelantum,
   bordering on the sea near Chalkis, and continuing from that
   city in a southerly direction towards Eretria. Chalkis and
   Eretria, both situated on the western coast, and both
   occupying parts of this fertile plain, were the two principal
   places in the island: the domain of each seems to have
   extended across the island from sea to sea. … Both were in
   early times governed by an oligarchy, which among the
   Chalcidians was called the Hippobotæ, or Horse feeders,—
   proprietors probably of most part of the plain called
   Lelantum."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 12._

      See, also, NEGROPONT.

EUBOIC TALENT.

   See TALENT.

EUCHITES, The.

   See MYSTICISM.

EUDES, King of France
   (in partition with Charles the Simple), A. D. 887-898.

EUDOSES, The.

      See AVIONES.

EUGENE (Prince) of Savoy, Campaigns of.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709, and 1710-1712.

EUGENE I., Pope, A. D. 655-657.
   Eugene II., Pope, A. D. 824-827.
   Eugene III., Pope, A. D. 1145-1153.
   Eugene IV., Pope, A. D. 1431-1447.

EUGENIANS, The.

      See HY-NIALS.

EUMENES, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

EUMOLPHIDÆ, The.

      See PHYLÆ.

EUPATRIDÆ, The.

   "The Eupatridæ [in ancient Athens] are the wealthy and
   powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in
   all the various gentes, and principally living in the city of
   Athens, after the consolidation of Attica: from them are
   distinguished the middling and lower people, roughly
   classified into husbandmen and artisans. To the Eupatridæ is
   ascribed a religious as well as a political and social
   ascendency. They are represented as the source of all
   authority on matters both sacred and profane,"

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10._

EUROKS, OR YUROKS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

EUROPE.

A HISTORICAL SKETCH.

   A general sketch of the history of Europe at large cannot, for
   obvious reasons, be constructed of quotations from the
   historians, on the plan followed in other parts of this work.
   The editor has found it necessary, therefore, to introduce
   here an essay of his own.

   The first inhabitants of the continent of Europe have left no
   trace of their existence on the surface of the land. The
   little that we know of them has been learned by the discovery
   of deeply buried remains, including a few bones and skulls,
   many weapons and tools which they had fashioned out of stone
   and bone, and some other rude marks of their hands which time
   has not destroyed. The places in which these remains are
   found—under deposits that formed slowly in ancient river beds
   and in caves—have convinced geologists that the people whose
   existence they reveal lived many thousands of years ago, and
   that the continent of Europe in their time was very different
   from the Europe of the present day, in its climate, in its
   aspect, and in its form. They find reason to suppose that the
   peninsula of Italy, as well as that of Spain, was then an
   isthmus which joined Europe to Africa; and this helps to
   explain the fact that remains of such animals as the elephant,
   the lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the hyena, as
   well as the mammoth, are found with the remains of these early
   men. They all seem to have belonged, together, to a state of
   things, on the surface of the earth, which was greatly changed
   before the men and the animals that we have historical
   knowledge of appeared.

The Stone Age.

   These primitive Europeans were evidently quite at the bottom
   of the savage state. They had learned no use of metals, since
   every relic of their workmanship that can be found is of
   stone, or bone, or wood. It is thought possible that they
   shaped rough vessels out of unbaked clay; but that is
   uncertain. There is nothing to show that they had domesticated
   any animals. It is plain that they dwelt in caves, wherever
   nature provided such dwellings; but what shelters they may
   have built elsewhere for themselves is unknown.

   In one direction, only, did these ancient people exhibit a
   faculty finer than we see in the lowest savages of the present
   day: they were artists, in a way. They have left carvings and
   drawings of animals—the latter etched with a sharp point on
   horns, bones, and stones—which are remarkable for uncultured
   men.

   The period in man's life on the earth at which these people
   lived—the period before metals were known—has been named by
   archæologists the Stone Age. But the Stone Age covers two
   stages of human culture—one in which stone implements were
   fashioned unskilfully, and a second in which they were
   finished with expert and careful hands. The first is called
   the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age, the second the Neolithic or
   New Stone Age. Between the two periods in Europe there seems
   to have been a long interval of time, and a considerable
   change in the condition of the country, as well as in that of
   its people.
{990}
   In fact, the Europe of the Neolithic Age was probably not very
   different in form and climate from the Europe of our own day.
   Relics of the human life of that time are abundantly scattered
   over the face of the continent. There are notable deposits of
   them in the so-called "kitchen-middens" of Denmark, which are
   great mounds of shells,—shells of oysters and other
   molluscs,—which these ancient fishermen had opened and
   emptied, and then cast upon a refuse heap. Buried in those
   mounds, many bits of their workmanship have been preserved,
   and many hints of their manner of life are gleaned from the
   signs and tokens which these afford. They had evidently risen
   some degrees above the state of the men of the Palæolithic or
   Old Stone Age; but they were inferior in art.

The Bronze Age.

   The discovery and use of copper—the metal most easily worked,
   and most frequently found in the metallic state—is the event
   by which archæologists mark the beginning of a second state in
   early civilizations. The period during which copper, and
   copper hardened by an alloy of tin, are the only metals found
   in use, they call the Bronze Age. There is no line of positive
   division between this and the Neolithic period which it
   followed. The same races appear to have advanced from the one
   stage to the other, and probably some were in possession of
   tools and weapons of bronze, while others were still
   contenting themselves with implements of stone.

Lake Dwellings.

   In many parts of Europe, especially in Switzerland and
   northern Italy, plain traces of some curious habitations of
   people who lived through the later Stone Age into the Bronze
   Age, and even after it, have been brought to light. These are
   the "lake dwellings," or "lacustrine habitations," as they
   have been called, which have excited interest in late years.
   They were generally built on piles, driven into a lake-bottom,
   at such distance from shore as would make them easy of defence
   against enemies. The foundations of whole villages of these
   dwellings have been found in the Swiss and North Italian
   lakes, and less numerously elsewhere. From the lake-mud under
   and around them, a great quantity of relics of the
   lake-dwellers have been taken, and many facts about their arts
   and mode of life have been learned. It is known that, even
   before a single metal had come into their hands, they had
   begun to cultivate the earth; had raised wheat and barley and
   flax; had domesticated the horse, the ox, the sheep, the goat,
   the pig and the dog; had become fairly skilful in weaving, in
   rope-making, and in the art of the potter, but without the
   potter's wheel.

   Gradually copper and bronze made their appearance among the
   implements of these people, as modern search discovers them
   imbedded, layer upon layer, in the old ooze of the lake-beds
   where they were dropped. In time, iron, too, reveals itself
   among their possessions, showing that they lived in their
   lake-villages from the later Stone Age into that third period
   of the early process of civilization which is named the Iron
   Age—when men first acquired the use of the most useful of all
   the metals. It appears, in fact, that the lake-dwellings were
   occupied even down to Roman times, since articles of Roman
   make have been found in the ruins of them.

Barrows.

   In nearly all parts of Europe there are found burial mounds,
   called barrows, which contain buried relics of people who
   lived at one or the other of the three periods named. For the
   most part, they represent inhabitants of the Neolithic and of
   the Bronze Ages. In Great Britain some of these barrows are
   long, some are round; and the skulls found in the long barrows
   are different in shape from those in the round ones, showing a
   difference of race. The people to whom the first belonged are
   called "long-headed," or "dolichocephalic"; the others are
   called "broad-headed," or "brachycephalic." In the opinion of
   some ethnologists, who study this subject of the distinctions
   of race in the human family, the broad-headed people were
   ancestors of the Celtic or Keltic tribes, whom the Romans
   subdued in Gaul and Britain; while the long-headed men were of
   a preceding race, which the Celts, when they came, either
   drove out of all parts of Europe, except two or three
   mountainous corners, or else absorbed by intermarriage. The
   Basques of northwestern Spain, and some of their neighbors on
   the French side of the Pyrenees, are supposed to be survivals
   of this very ancient people; and there are suspected to be
   traces of their existence seen in the dark-haired and
   dark-skinned people of parts of Wales, Ireland, Corsica, North
   Africa, and elsewhere.

The Aryan Nations.

   At least one part of this conjecture has much to rest upon.
   The inhabitants of western Europe when our historical
   knowledge of them—that is, our recorded and reported
   knowledge of them—begins, were, certainly, for the most
   part, Celtic peoples, and it is extremely probable that they
   had been occupying the country as long as the period
   represented by the round barrows. It is no less probable that
   they were the lake-dwellers of Switzerland, North Italy, and
   other regions; and that they did, in fact, displace some
   earlier people in most parts of Western Europe.

   The Celts—whose nearly pure descendants are found now in the
   Bretons of France, the Welsh, the Highland Scotch and the
   Celtic Irish, and who formed the main stock of the larger part
   of the French nation—were one branch of the great family of
   nations called Aryan or Indo-European. The Aryan peoples are
   assumed to be akin to one another—shoots from one
   stem—because their languages are alike in grammatical
   structure and contain great numbers of words that are
   manifestly formed from the same original "root"; and because
   they differ in these respects from all other languages. The
   nations thus identified as Aryan are the nations that have
   acted the most important parts in all human history except the
   history of extremely ancient times. Besides the Celtic peoples
   already mentioned, they include the English, the Dutch, the
   Germans, and the Scandinavians, forming the Teutonic race; the
   Russians, Poles, and others of the Slavonic group; the ancient
   Greeks and Romans, with their modern representatives, and the
   Persians and Hindus in Asia. According to the evidence of
   their languages, there must have been a time and a place, in
   the remote past, when and where a primitive Aryan race, which
   was ancestral to all these nations, lived and multiplied until
   it outgrew its original country and began to send forth
   successive "swarms," or migrating hordes, as many unsettled
   races have been seen to do within the historic age.
{991}
   It is hopeless, perhaps, to think of determining the time when
   such a dispersion of the Aryan peoples began; but many
   scholars believe it possible to trace, by various marks and
   indications, in language and elsewhere, the lines of movement
   in the migration, so far as to guess with some assurance the
   region of the primitive Aryan home; but thus far there are
   great disagreements in the guessing. Until recent years, the
   prevailing judgment pointed to that highland district in
   Central Asia which lies north of the Hindoo-Koosh range of
   mountains, and between the upper waters of the Oxus and
   Jaxartes. But later studies have discredited this first theory
   and started many opposing ones. The strong tendency now is to
   believe that the cradle of all the peoples of Aryan speech was
   somewhere in Europe, rather than in Asia, and in the north of
   Europe rather than in the center or the south. At the same
   time, there seems to be a growing opinion that the language of
   the Aryans was communicated to conquered peoples so
   extensively that its spread is not a true measure of the
   existing diffusion of the race.

The Celtic Branch.

   Whatever may have been the starting-point of the Aryan
   migrations, it is supposed that the branch now distinguished
   as Celtic was the first to separate from the parent stem and
   to acquire for itself a new domain. It occupied southwestern
   Europe, from northern Spain to the Rhine, and across the
   Channel to the British islands, extending eastward into
   Switzerland, North It&ly and the Tyrol. But little of what the
   tribes and nations forming this Celtic race did is known,
   until the time when another Aryan people, better civilized,
   came into collision with them, and drew them into the written
   history of the world by conquering them and making them its
   subjects.

   The people who did this were the Romans, and the Romans and
   the Greeks are believed to have been carried into the two
   peninsulas which they inhabited, respectively, by one and the
   same movement in the Aryan dispersion. Their languages show
   more affinity to one another than to the other Aryan tongues,
   and there are other evidences of a near relationship between
   them; though they separated, it is quite certain, long before
   the appearance of either in history.

The Hellenes, or Greeks.

   The Greeks, or Hellenes, as they called themselves, were the
   first among the Aryan peoples in Europe to make themselves
   historically known, and the first to write the record which
   transmits history from generation to generation. The peninsula
   in which they settled themselves is a very peculiar one in its
   formation. It is crossed in different directions by mountain
   ranges, which divide the land into parts naturally separated
   from one another, and which form barriers easily defended
   against invading foes. Between the mountains lie numerous
   fertile valleys. The coast is ragged with gulfs and bays,
   which notch it deeply on all sides, making the whole main
   peninsula a cluster of minor peninsulas, and supplying the
   people with harbors which invite them to a life of seafaring
   and trade. It is surrounded, moreover, with islands, which
   repeat the invitation.

   Almost necessarily, in a country marked with such features so
   strongly, the Greeks became divided politically into small
   independent states—city-states they have been named—and
   those on the sea-coast became engaged very early in trade with
   other countries of the Mediterranean Sea. Every city of
   importance in Greece was entirely sovereign in the government
   of itself and of the surrounding territory which formed its
   domain. The stronger among them extended their dominion over
   some of the weaker or less valiant ones; but even then the
   subject cities kept a considerable measure of independence.
   There was no organization of national government to embrace
   the whole, nor any large part, of Greece. Certain among the
   states were sometimes united in temporary leagues, or
   confederacies, for common action in war; but these were
   unstable alliances, rather than political unions. In their
   earliest form, the Greek city-states were governed by kings,
   whose power appears to have been quite limited, and who were
   leaders rather than sovereigns. But kingship disappeared from
   most of the states in Greece proper before they reached the
   period of distinct and accepted history. The kings were first
   displaced by aristocracies—ruling families, which took all
   political rights and privileges to themselves, and allowed
   their fellows (whom they usually oppressed) no part or voice
   in public affairs. In most instances these aristocracies, or
   oligarchies, were overthrown, after a time, by bold agitators
   who stirred up a revolution, and then contrived, while
   confusion prevailed, to gather power into their own hands.
   Almost every Greek city had its time of being ruled by one or
   more of these Tyrants, as they were called. Some of them, like
   Pisistratus of Athens, ruled wisely and justly for the most
   part, and were not "tyrants" in the modern sense of the term;
   but all who gained and held a princely power unlawfully were
   so named by the Greeks. The reign of the Tyrants was nowhere
   lasting. They were driven out of one city after another until
   they disappeared. Then the old aristocracies came uppermost
   again in some cities, and ruled as before. But some, like
   Athens, had trained the whole body of their citizens to such
   intelligence and spirit that neither kingship nor oligarchy
   would be endured any longer, and the people undertook to
   govern themselves. These were the first democracies—the first
   experiments in popular government—that history gives any
   account of. "The little commonwealths of Greece," says a great
   historian, "were the first states at once free and civilized
   which the world ever saw. They were the first states which
   gave birth to great statesmen, orators, and generals who did
   great deeds, and to great historians who set down those great
   deeds in writing. It was in the Greek commonwealths, in short,
   that the political and intellectual life of the world began."

   In the belief of the Greeks, or of most men among them, their
   early history was embodied with truth in the numerous legends
   and ancient poems which they religiously preserved; but people
   in modern times look differently upon those wonderful myths
   and epics, studying them with deep interest, but under more
   critical views. They throw much light on the primitive life of
   the Hellenes, and more light upon the development of the
   remarkable genius and spirit of those thoughtful and
   imaginative people; but of actual history there are only
   glimpses and guesses to be got from them.

{992}

   The Homeric poems, the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," describe a
   condition of things in which the ruling state of Peloponnesus
   (the southern peninsula of Greece) was a kingdom of the
   Achaians, having its capital at Mycenæ, in Argolis,—the realm
   of King Agamemnon,—and in which Athens is unknown to the
   poet. Within recent years, Dr. Schliemann has excavated the
   ruins of Mycenæ, and has found evidence that it really must
   have been, in very early times, the seat of a strong and rich
   monarchy. But the Achaian kingdom had entirely disappeared,
   and the Achaian people had shrunk to an insignificant
   community, on the Gulf of Corinth, when the first assured
   views of Greek history open to us.

The Dorians.

   It seems to be a fact that the Achaians had been overwhelmed
   by a great invasion of more barbarous Greek tribes from the
   North, very much as the Roman Empire, in later times, was
   buried under an avalanche of barbarism from Germany. The
   invaders were a tribe or league of tribes called Dorians, who
   had been driven from their own previous home on the slopes of
   the Pindus mountain range. Their movement southward was part,
   as appears, of an extensive shifting of place, or migration,
   that occurred at that time (not long, it is probable, before
   the beginning of the historic period) among the tribes of
   Hellas. The Dorians claimed that in conquering Peloponnesus
   they were recovering a heritage from which their chiefs had
   been anciently expelled, and their legends were shaped
   accordingly. The Dorian chiefs appeared in these legends as
   descendants of Hercules, and the tradition of the conquest
   became a story of "The Return of the Heraclids."

   The principal states founded or possessed and controlled by
   the Dorians in Peloponnesus, after their conquest, were
   Sparta, or Lacedæmon, Argos, and Corinth. The Spartans were
   the most warlike of the Greeks,—the most resolute and
   energetic,—and their leadership in practical affairs common
   to the whole came to be generally acknowledged. At the same
   time they had little of the intellectual superiority which
   distinguished some of their Hellenic kindred in so remarkable
   a degree. Their state was organized on military principles;
   its constitution (the body of famous ordinances ascribed to
   Lycurgus) was a code of rigid discipline, which dealt with the
   citizen as a soldier always under training for war, and
   demanded from him the utmost simplicity of life. Their form of
   government combined a peculiar monarchy (having two royal
   families and two kings) with an aristocratic senate (the
   Gerousia), and a democratic assembly (which voted on matters
   only as submitted to it by the senate), with an irresponsible
   executive over the whole, consisting of five men called the
   Ephors. This singular government, essentially aristocratic or
   oligarchical, was maintained, with little disturbance or
   change, through the whole independent history of Sparta. In
   all respects, the Spartans were the most conservative and the
   least progressive among the politically important Greeks.

   At the beginning of the domination of the Dorians in
   Peloponnesus, their city of Argos took the lead, and was the
   head of a league which included Corinth and other city-states.
   But Sparta soon rose to rivalry with Argos; then reduced it to
   a secondary place, and finally subjugated it completely.

The Ionians.

   The extensive shifting of population which had produced its
   most important result in the invasion of Peloponnesus by the
   Dorians, must have caused great commotions and changes
   throughout the whole Greek peninsula; and quite as much north
   of the Corinthian isthmus as south of it. But in the part
   which lies nearest to the isthmus—the branch peninsula of
   Attica—the old inhabitants appear to have held their ground,
   repelling invaders, and their country was affected only by an
   influx of fugitives, flying from the conquered Peloponnesus.
   The Attic people were more nearly akin to the expelled
   Achaians and Ionians than to the conquering Dorians, although
   a common brotherhood in the Hellenic race was recognized by
   all of them. Whatever distinction there may have been before
   between Achaians and Ionians now practically disappeared, and
   the Ionic name became common to the whole branch of the Greek
   people which derived itself from them. The important division
   of the race through all its subsequent history was between
   Dorians and Ionians. The Æolians constituted a third division,
   of minor importance and of far less significance. The
   distinction between Ionians and Dorians was a very real one,
   in character no less than in traditions and name. The Ionians
   were the superior Greeks on the intellectual side. It was
   among them that the wonderful genius resided which produced
   the greater marvels of art, literature and philosophy in Greek
   civilization. It was among them, too, that the institutions of
   political freedom were carried to their highest attainment.
   Their chief city was Athens, and the splendor of its history
   bears testimony to their unexampled genius. On the other hand,
   the Dorians were less thoughtful, less imaginative, less broad
   in judgment or feeling—less susceptible, it would seem, of a
   high refinement of culture; but no less capable in practical
   pursuits, no less vigorous in effective action, and sounder,
   perhaps, in their moral constitution. Sparta, which stood at
   the head of the Doric states, contributed almost nothing to
   Greek literature, Greek thought, Greek art, or Greek commerce,
   but exercised a great influence on Greek political history.
   Other Doric states, especially Corinth, were foremost in
   commercial and colonizing enterprise, and attained some
   brilliancy of artistic civilization, but with moderate
   originality.

Greeks and Phœnicians.

   It was natural, as noted above, that the Greeks should be
   induced at an early day to navigate the surrounding seas, and
   to engage in trade with neighboring nations. They were not
   original, it is supposed, in these ventures, but learned more
   or less of ship-building and the art of navigation from an
   older people, the Phœnicians, who dwelt on the coast of Syria
   and Palestine, and whose chief cities were Sidon and Tyre. The
   Phœnicians had extended their commerce widely through the
   Mediterranean before the Greeks came into rivalry with them.
   Their ships, and their merchants, and the wares they bartered,
   were familiar in the Ægean when the Homeric poems were
   composed.
{993}
   They seem to have been the teachers of the early Greeks in
   many things. They gave them, with little doubt, the invention
   of the alphabet, which they themselves had borrowed from
   Egypt. They conveyed hints of art, which bore astonishing
   fruits when planted in the fertile Hellenic imagination. They
   carried from the East strange stories of gods and demigods,
   which were woven into the mythology of the Greeks. They gave,
   in fact, to Greek civilization, at its beginning, the greatest
   impulse it received. But all that Hellas took from the outer
   world it wrought into a new character, and put upon it the
   stamp of its own unmistakable genius. In navigation and
   commerce the Greeks of the coast-cities and the islands were
   able, ere long, to compete on even terms with the Phœnicians,
   and it happened, in no great space of time, that they had
   driven the latter entirely from the Ægean and the Euxine seas.

Greek Colonies.

   They had now occupied with colonies the coast of Asia Minor
   and the islands on both their own coasts. The Ionian Greeks
   were the principal colonizers of the Asiatic shore and of the
   Cyclades. On the former and near it they founded twelve towns
   of note, including Samos, Miletus, Ephesus, Chios, and Phocæa,
   which are among the more famous cities of ancient times. Their
   important island settlements in the Cyclades were Naxos,
   Delos, Melos, and Paros. They possessed, likewise, the great
   island of Eubœa, with its two wealthy cities of Chalcis and
   Eretria. These, with Attica, constituted, in the main, the
   Ionic portion of Hellas.

   The Dorians occupied the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and
   founded on the coast of Asia Minor the cities of Halicarnassus
   and Cnidus. The important Æolian colonies in Asia were Smyrna
   (acquired later by the Ionians), Temnos, Larissa, and Cyme. Of
   the islands they occupied Lesbos and Tenedos.

   From these settlements on neighboring coasts and islands the
   vigorous Greeks pushed on to more distant fields. It is
   probable that their colonies were in Cyprus and Crete before
   the eighth century, B. C. In the seventh century B. C., during
   a time of confusion and weakness in Egypt, they had entered
   that country as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, and had
   founded a city, Naucratis, which became an important agent in
   the exchange of arts and ideas, as well as of merchandise,
   between the Nile and the Ægean. Within a few years past the
   site of Naucratis has been uncovered by explorers, and much
   has been brought to light that was obscure in Greek and
   Egyptian history before. Within the same seventh century,
   Cyrene and Barca had been built on the African coast, farther
   west. Even a century before that time, the Corinthians had
   taken possession of Corcyra (modern Corfu), and they, with the
   men of Chalcis and Megara, had been actively founding cities
   that grew great and rich, in Sicily and in southern Italy,
   which latter acquired the name of "Magna Græcia" (Great
   Greece). At a not much later time they had pressed northwards
   to the Euxine or Black Sea, and had scattered settlements
   along the Thracian and Macedonian coast, including one
   (Byzantium) on the Bosphorus, which became, after a thousand
   years had passed, the imperial city of Constantinople. About
   597 B. C., the Phocæans had planted a colony at Massalia, in
   southern Gaul, from which sprang the great city known in
   modern times as Marseilles. And much of all this had been
   done, by Ionians and Dorians together, before Athens (in which
   Attica now centered itself, and which loomed finally greater
   in glory than the whole Hellenic world besides) had made a
   known mark in history.

Rise of Athens.

   At first there had been kings in Athens, and legends had
   gathered about their names which give modern historians a
   ground-work for critical guessing, and scarcely more. Then the
   king disappeared and a magistrate called Archon took his
   place, who held office for only ten years. The archons are
   believed to have been chosen first from the old royal family
   alone; but after a time the office was thrown open to all
   noble families. This was the aristocratic stage of political
   evolution in the city-state. The next step was taken in 683 B.
   C. (which is said to be the beginning of authentic Athenian
   chronology) when nine archons were created, in place of the
   one, and their term of office was reduced to a single year.

   Fifty years later, about 621 B. C., the people of Athens
   obtained their first code of written law, ascribed to one
   Draco, and described as a code of much severity. But it gave
   certainty to law, for the first time, and was the first great
   protective measure secured by the people. In 612 B. C. a noble
   named Kylon attempted to overthrow the aristocratic government
   and establish a tyranny under himself, but he failed.

Legislation of Solon.

   Then there came forward in public life another noble, who was
   one of the wisest men and purest patriots of any country or
   age, and who made an attempt of quite another kind. This was
   Solon, the famous lawgiver, who became archon in 594 B. C. The
   political state of Athens at that time has been described for
   us in an ancient Greek treatise lately discovered, and which
   is believed to be one of the hitherto lost writings of
   Aristotle. "Not only," says the author of this treatise, "was
   the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect,
   but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were in
   absolute slavery to the rich. … The whole country was in the
   hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their
   rent, they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their
   children with them. Their persons were mortgaged to their
   creditors." Solon saw that this was a state of things not to
   be endured by such a people as the Athenians, and he exerted
   himself to change it. He obtained authority to frame a new
   constitution and a new code of laws for the state. In the
   latter, he provided measures for relieving the oppressed class
   of debtors. In the former, he did not create a democratic
   government, but he greatly increased the political powers of
   the people. He classified them according to their wealth,
   defining four classes, the citizens in each of which had
   certain political duties and privileges measured to them by
   the extent of their property and income. But the whole body of
   citizens, in their general assembly (the Ecclesia), were given
   the important right of choosing the annual archons, whom they
   must select, however, from the ranks of the wealthiest class.
   At the same time, Solon enlarged the powers of the old
   aristocratic senate—the Areopagus—giving it a supervision of
   the execution of the laws and a censorship of the morals of
   the people.

{994}

   "These changes did not constitute Democracy,—a form of
   government then unknown, and for which there was as yet no
   word in the Greek language. But they initiated the democratic
   spirit. … Athens, thus fairly started on her
   way,—emancipated from the discipline of aristocratic
   school-masters, and growing into an age of manly liberty and
   self-restraint,—came eventually nearer to the ideal of 'the
   good life' [Aristotle's phrase] than any other State in
   Hellas."

      (W. W. Fowler.)

Tyranny of Pisistratus.

   But before the Athenians reached their nearness to this "good
   life," they had to pass under the yoke of a "tyrant,"
   Pisistratus, who won the favor of the poorer people, and, with
   their help, established himself in the Acropolis (560 B. C.)
   with a foreign guard to maintain his power. Twice driven out,
   he was twice restored, and reigned quite justly and prudently,
   on the whole, until his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by
   his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus; but the latter was
   killed in 514, and Hippias was expelled by the Spartans in 510
   B. C.; after which there was no tyranny in Athens.

The Democratic Republic.

   On the fall of the Pisistratidæ, a majority of the noble or
   privileged class struggled hard to regain their old
   ascendancy; but one of their number, Cleisthenes, took the
   side of the people and helped them to establish a democratic
   constitution. He caused the ancient tribal division of the
   citizens to be abolished, and substituted a division which
   mixed the members of clans and broke up or weakened the
   clannish influence in politics. He enlarged Solon's senate or
   council and divided it into committees, and he brought the
   "ecclesia," or popular assembly, into a more active exercise
   of its powers. He also introduced the custom of ostracism,
   which permitted the citizens of Athens to banish by their vote
   any man whom they thought dangerous to the state. The
   constitution of Cleisthenes was the final foundation of the
   Athenian democratic republic. Monarchical and aristocratic
   Sparta resented the popular change, and undertook to restore
   the oligarchy by force of arms; but the roused democracy of
   Athens defended its newly won liberties with vigor and
   success.

The Persian Wars.

   Not Athens only, but all Greece, was now about to be put to a
   test which proved the remarkable quality of both, and formed
   the beginning of their great career. The Ionian cities of Asia
   Minor had recently been twice conquered, first by Crœsus, King
   of Lydia, and then by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian
   empire, who had overthrown Crœsus (B. C. 547), and taken his
   dominions. The Persians oppressed them, and in 500 B. C. they
   rose in revolt. Athens and Eretria sent help to them, while
   Sparta refused. The revolt was suppressed, and Darius, the
   king of Persia, planned vengeance upon the Athenians and
   Eretrians for the aid they had given to it. He sent an
   expedition against them in 493 B. C., which was mostly
   destroyed by a storm. In 490 B. C. he sent a second powerful
   army and fleet, which took Eretria and razed it to the ground.
   The great Persian army then marched upon Athens, and was met at
   Marathon by a small Athenian force of 9,000 men. The little
   city of Platæa sent 1,000 more to stand with them in the
   desperate encounter. They had no other aid in the fight, and
   the Persians were a great unnumbered host. But Miltiades, the
   Greek general that day, planned his battle-charge so well that
   he routed the Asiatic host and lost but 192 men. The Persians
   abandoned their attempt and returned to their wrathful king.
   One citizen of Athens, Themistocles, had sagacity enough to
   foresee that the "Great King," as he was known, would not rest
   submissive under his defeat; and with difficulty he persuaded
   his fellow citizens to prepare themselves for future conflicts
   by building a fleet and by fortifying their harbors, thus making
   themselves powerful at sea. The wisdom of his counsels was
   proved in 480 B. C., when Xerxes, the successor of Darius, led
   an army of prodigious size into Greece, crossing the
   Hellespont by a bridge of boats. This time, Sparta, Corinth,
   and several of the lesser states, rallied with Athens to the
   defence of the common country; but Thebes and Argos showed
   friendship to the Persians, and none of the important
   island-colonies contributed any help. Athens was the brain and
   right arm of the war, notwithstanding the accustomed
   leadership of Sparta in military affairs.

   The first encounter was at Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and his
   300 Spartans defended the narrow pass, and died in their place
   when the Persians found a way across the mountain to surround
   them. But on that same day the Persian fleet was beaten at
   Artemisium. Xerxes marched on Athens, however, found the city
   deserted, and destroyed it. His fleet had followed him, and
   was still stronger than the naval force of the Greeks.
   Themistocles forced a battle, against the will of the
   Peloponnesian captains, and practically destroyed the Persian
   fleet. This most memorable battle of Salamis was decisive of
   the war, and decisive of the independence of Greece. Xerxes,
   in a panic, hastened back into Asia, leaving one of his
   generals, Mardonius, with 300,000 men, to pursue the war. But
   Mardonius was routed and his host annihilated, at Platæa, the
   next year, while the Persian fleet was again defeated on the
   same day at Mycale.

The Golden Age of Athens.

   The war had been glorious for the Athenians, and all could see
   that Greece had been saved by their spirit and their
   intelligence much more than by the valor of Sparta and the
   other states. But they were in a woful condition, with their
   city destroyed and their families without homes. Wasting no
   time in lamentations, they rebuilt the town, stretched its
   walls to a wider circuit, and fortified it more strongly than
   before, under the lead of the sagacious Themistocles. Their
   neighbors were meanly jealous, and Sparta made attempts to
   interfere with the building of the walls; but Themistocles
   baffled them cunningly, and the new Athens rose proudly out of
   the ashes of the old.

{995}

   The Ionian islands and towns of Asia Minor (which had broken
   the Persian yoke) now recognized the superiority and
   leadership of Athens, and a league was formed among them,
   which held the meetings of its deputies and kept its treasury
   in the temple of Apollo on the sacred island of Delos; for
   which reason it was called the Confederacy of Delos, or the
   Delian League. The Peloponnesian states formed a looser rival
   league under the headship of Sparta. The Confederacy of Delos
   was in sympathy with popular governments and popular parties
   everywhere, while the Spartans and their following favored
   oligarchies and aristocratic parties. There were many
   occasions for hostility between the two.

   The Athenians, at the head of their Confederacy, were strong,
   until they impaired their power by using it in tyrannical
   ways. Many lesser states in the league were foolish enough to
   commute in money payments the contribution of ships and men
   which they had pledged themselves to make to the common naval
   force. This gave Athens the power to use that force
   despotically, as her own, and she did not scruple to exercise
   the power. The Confederacy was soon a name; the states forming
   it were no longer allies of Athens, but her subjects; she
   ruled them as the sovereign of an Empire, and her rule was
   neither generous nor just. Thereby the double tie of kinship
   and of interest which might have bound the whole circle of
   Ionian states to her fortunes and herself was destroyed by her
   own acts. Provoking the hatred of her allies and challenging
   the jealous fear of her rivals, Athens had many enemies.

   At the same time, a dangerous change in the character of her
   democratic institutions was begun, produced especially by the
   institution of popular jury-courts, before which prosecutions
   of every kind were tried, the citizens who constituted the
   courts acting as jury and judge at once. This gave them a
   valuable training, without doubt, and helped greatly to raise
   the common standard of intelligence among the Athenians so
   high; but it did unquestionably tend also to demoralizations
   that were ruinous in the end. The jury service, which was
   slightly paid, fell more and more to an unworthy class, made
   up of idlers or intriguers. Party feeling and popular passions
   gained an increasing influence over the juries, and demagogues
   acquired an increasing skill in making use of them.

   But these evils were scarcely more than in their seed during
   the great period of "Athenian Empire," as it is sometimes
   called, and everything within its bounds was suffused with the
   shining splendor of that matchless half-century. The genius of
   this little Ionic state was stimulated to amazing achievements
   in every intellectual field. Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides,
   Aristophanes, within a single generation, crowded Athenian
   literature with the masterpieces of classic drama. Pheidias
   and his companions crowned the Acropolis and filled the city
   with works that have been the models in art for all ages
   since. Socrates began the quizzing which turned philosophy
   into honest truth-seeking paths, and Plato listened to him and
   was instructed for his mission. Thucydides watched events with
   sagacious young eyes, and prepared his pen for the chronicling
   of them; while Herodotus, pausing at Athens from his wide
   travels, matured the knowledge he had gathered up and
   perfected it for his final work. Over all of them came
   Pericles to preside and rule, not as a master, or "tyrant,"
   but as leader, guide, patron, princely republican,—statesman
   and politician in one.

The Peloponnesian War.

   The period of the ascendancy of Pericles was the "golden age"
   of Athenian prosperity and power, both material and
   intellectual. The beginning of the end of it was reached a
   little before he died, when the long-threatened war between
   Athens and the Peloponnesian league, led by Sparta, broke out
   (B. C. 431). If Athens had then possessed the good will of the
   cities of her own league, and if her citizens had retained
   their old sobriety and intelligence, she might have triumphed
   in the war; for she was all powerful at sea and fortified
   almost invincibly against attacks by land. But the subject
   states, called allies, were hostile, for the most part, and
   helped the enemy by their revolts, while the death of Pericles
   (B. C. 429) let loose on the people a swarm of demagogues who
   flattered and deluded them, and baffled the wiser and more
   honest, whose counsels and leadership might have given her
   success.

   The fatal folly of the long war was an expedition against the
   distant city of Syracuse (B. C. 415-413), into which the
   Athenians were enticed by the restless and unscrupulous
   ambition of Alcibiades. The entire force sent to Sicily
   perished there, and the strength and spirit of Athens were
   ruinously sapped by the fearful calamity. She maintained the
   war, however, until 404 B. C., when, having lost her fleet in
   the decisive battle of Ægospotami, and being helplessly
   blockaded by sea and land, the city was surrendered to the
   Spartan general Lysander. Her walls and fortifications were
   then destroyed and her democratic government was overthrown,
   giving place to an oligarchy known as the "thirty tyrants."
   The democracy soon suppressed the thirty tyrants and regained
   control, and Athens, in time, rose somewhat from her deep
   humiliation, but never again to much political power in
   Greece. In intellect and cultivation, the superiority of the
   Attic state was still maintained, and its greatest productions
   in philosophy and eloquence were yet to be given to the world.

Spartan and Theban Ascendancy.

   After the fall of Athens, Sparta was dominant in the whole of
   Greece for thirty years and more, exercising her power more
   oppressively than Athens had done. Then Thebes, which had been
   treacherously seized and garrisoned by the Spartans, threw off
   their yoke (B. C. 379) and led a rising, under her great and
   high-souled citizen, Epaminondas, which resulted in bringing
   Thebes to the head of Greek affairs. But the Theban ascendancy
   was short-lived, and ended with the death of Epaminondas in
   362 B. C.

Macedonian Supremacy.

   Meantime, while the city-states of Hellas proper had been
   wounding and weakening one another by their jealousies and
   wars, the semi-Greek kingdom of Macedonia, to the north of
   them, in their own peninsula, had been acquiring their
   civilization and growing strong. And now there appeared upon
   its throne a very able king, Philip, who took advantage of
   their divisions, interfered in their affairs, and finally made
   a practical conquest of the whole peninsula, by his victory at
   the battle of Chæronea (B. C. 338). At Athens, the great
   orator Demosthenes had exerted himself for years to rouse
   resistance to Philip. If his eloquence failed then, it has
   served the world immortally since, by delighting and
   instructing mankind.

{996}

   King Philip was succeeded by his famous son, Alexander the
   Great, who led an army of Macedonians and Greeks into Asia (B.
   C. 334), overthrew the already crumbling Persian power,
   pursued his conquests through Afghanistan to India, and won a
   great empire which he did not live to rule. When he died (B.
   C. 323), his generals divided the empire among them and fought
   with one another for many years. But the general result was
   the spreading of the civilization and language of the Greeks,
   and the establishing of their intellectual influence, in
   Egypt, in Syria, in Asia Minor, and beyond.

   In Greece itself, a state of disturbance and of political
   confusion and weakness prevailed for another century. There
   was promise of something better, in the formation, by several
   of the Peloponnesian states, of a confederacy called the
   Achaian League, which might possibly have federated and
   nationalized the whole of Hellas in the end; but the Romans,
   at this juncture, turned their conquering arms eastward, and
   in three successive wars, between 211 and 146 B. C., they
   extinguished the Macedonian kingdom, and annexed it, with the
   whole peninsula, to the dominions of their wonderful republic.

The Romans.

   The Romans, as stated already, are believed to have been
   originally near kindred to the Greeks. The same movement, it
   is supposed, in the successive outswarmings of Aryan peoples,
   deposited in one peninsula the Italian tribes, and in the next
   peninsula, eastward, the tribes of the Hellenes. Among the
   Italian tribes were Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, etc.,
   occupying the middle and much of the southern parts of the
   peninsula, while a mysterious alien people, the Etruscans,
   whose origin is not known, possessed the country north of them
   between the Arno and the Tiber. In the extreme south were
   remnants of a primitive race, the Iapygian, and Greek colonies
   were scattered there around the coasts. From the Latins sprang
   the Romans, at the beginning of their separate existence; but
   there seems to have been a very early union of these Romans of
   the primitive tradition with a Sabine community, whereby was
   formed the Roman city-state of historical times. That union
   came about through the settlement of the two communities,
   Latin and Sabine, on two neighboring hills, near the mouth of
   the river Tiber, on its southern bank. In the view of some
   historians, it is the geographical position of those hills,
   hardly less than the masterful temper and capacity of the race
   seated on them, which determined the marvellous career of the
   city founded on that site. Says Professor Freeman: "The whole
   history of the world has been determined by the geological
   fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber
   and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another
   than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out
   above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the
   centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction
   of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the
   great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
   Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
   Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
   Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
   hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
   so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
   those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
   terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
   or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
   more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
   Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
   history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
   was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
   men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
   communities into tribes of a single city."

   The followers of Romulus occupied the Palatine Mount, and the
   Sabines were settled on the Quirinal. At subsequent times, the
   Cœlian, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Esquiline and the
   Viminal hills were embraced in the circumvallation, and the
   city on the seven hills thus acquired that name.

   If modern students and thinkers, throwing light on the
   puzzling legends and traditions of early Rome from many
   sources, in language and archæology, have construed their
   meaning lightly, then great importance attaches to those first
   unions or incorporations of distinct settlements in the
   forming of the original city-state. For it was the beginning
   of a process which went on until the whole of Latium, and then
   the whole of Italy, and, finally, the whole Mediterranean
   world, were joined to the seven hills of Rome. "The whole
   history of Rome is a history of incorporation"; and it is
   reasonable to believe that the primal spring of Roman
   greatness is found in that early adoption and persistent
   practice of the policy of political absorption, which gave
   conquest a character it had never borne before. At the same
   time, this view of the creation of the Roman state contributes
   to an understanding of its early constitutional history. It
   supposes that the union of the first three tribes which
   coalesced—those of the Palatine, the Quirinal and Capitoline
   (both occupied by the Sabines) and the Cœlian hills—ended the
   process of incorporation on equal terms. These formed the
   original Roman people—the "fathers," the "patres," whose
   descendants appear in later times as a distinct class or
   order, the "patricians"—holding and struggling to maintain
   exclusive political rights, and exclusive ownership of the
   public domain, the "ager publicus," which became a subject of
   bitter contention for four centuries. Around these heirs of
   the "fathers" of Rome arose another class of Romans, brought
   into the community by later incorporations, and not on equal
   terms. If the first class were "fathers," these were children,
   in a political sense, adopted into the Roman family, but without
   a voice in general affairs, or a share in the public lands, or
   eligibility to the higher offices of the state. These were the
   "plebeians" or "plebs" of Rome, whose long struggle with the
   patricians for political and agrarian rights is the more
   interesting side of Roman history throughout nearly the whole
   of the prosperous age of the republic.

{997}

   At Rome, as at Athens, there was a period of early kingship,
   the legends of which are as familiar to us all as the stories
   of the Bible, but the real facts of which are almost totally
   unknown. It is surmised that the later kings—the well known
   Tarquins of the classical tale—were Etruscan princes (it is
   certain that they were Etruscans), who had broken for a time
   the independence of the Romans and extended their sovereignty
   over them. It is suspected, too, that this period of Etruscan
   domination was one in which Roman civilization made a great
   advance, under the tuition of a more cultivated people. But if
   Rome in its infancy did know a time of subjugation, the
   endurance was not long. It ended, according to Roman
   chronology, in the 245th year of the city, or 509 B.C., by the
   expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last of the kings.

The Roman Republic.

   The Republic was then founded; but it was an aristocratic and
   not a democratic republic. The consuls, who replaced the
   kings, were required to be patricians, and they were chosen by
   the landholders of the state. The senate was patrician; all
   the important powers of government were in patrician hands,
   and the plebs suffered grievous oppression in consequence.
   They were not of a tamely submissive race. They demanded
   powers for their own protection, and by slow degrees they won
   them—strong as the patricians were in their wealth and their
   trained political skill.

   Precisely as in Athens, the first great effort among the
   common people was to obtain relief from crushing burdens of
   debt, which had been laid upon them in precisely the same
   way—by loss of harvests while in military service, and by the
   hardness of the laws which creditors alone had framed. An army
   of plebs, just home from war, marched out of the city and
   refused to return until magistrates of their own choosing had
   been conceded to them. The patricians could not afford to lose
   the bone and sinew of their state, and they yielded the point
   in demand (B. C. 494). This first "secession of the plebs"
   brought about the first great democratic change in the Roman
   constitution, by calling into existence a powerful
   magistracy—the Tribunes of the Plebs—who henceforth stood
   between the consuls and the common people, for the protection
   of the latter.

   From this first success the plebeian order went forward, step
   by step, to the attainment of equal political rights in the
   commonwealth, and equal participation in the lands which Roman
   conquest was continually adding to the public domain. In 450
   B. C., after ten years of struggle, they secured the
   appointment of a commission which framed the famous Twelve
   Tables of the Law, and so established a written and certain
   code. Five years later, the caste exclusiveness of the
   patricians was broken down by a law which permitted marriages
   between the orders. In 367 B. C. the patrician monopoly of the
   consular office was extinguished, by the notable Licinian
   Laws, which also limited the extent of land that any citizen
   might occupy, and forbade the exclusive employment of slave
   labor on any estate. One by one, after that, other
   magistracies were opened to the plebs; and in 287 B. C. by the
   Lex Hortensia, the plebeian concilium, or assembly, was made
   independent of the senate and its acts declared to be valid
   and binding. The democratic commonwealth was now completely
   formed.

Roman Conquest of Italy.

   While these changes in the constitution of their Republic were
   in progress, the Romans had been making great advances toward
   supremacy in the peninsula. First they had been in league with
   their Latin neighbors, for war with the Æquians, the
   Volscians, and the Etruscans. The Volscian war extended over
   forty years, and ended about 450 B. C. in the practical
   disappearance of the Volscians from history. Of war with the
   Æquians, nothing is heard after 458 B. C., when, as the tale
   is told, Cincinnatus left his plow to lead the Romans against
   them. The war with the Etruscans of the near city of Veii had
   been more stubborn. Suspended by a truce between 474 and 438
   B. C., it was then renewed, and ended in 396 B. C., when the
   Etruscan city was taken and destroyed. At the same time the
   power of the Etruscans was being shattered at sea by the
   Greeks of Tarentum and Syracuse, while at home they were
   attacked from the north by the barbarous Gauls or Celts.

   These last named people, having crossed the Alps from Gaul and
   Switzerland and occupied northern Italy, were now pressing
   upon the more civilized nations to the south of the Po. The
   Etruscans were first to suffer, and their despair became so
   great that they appealed to Rome for help. The Romans gave
   little aid to them in their extremity; but enough to provoke
   the wrath of Brennus, the savage leader of the Gauls. He
   quitted Etruria and marched to Rome, defeating an army which
   opposed him on the Allia, pillaging and burning the city (B.
   C. 390) and slaying the senators, who had refused to take
   refuge, with other inhabitants, in the capitol. The defenders
   of the capitol held it for seven months; Rome was rebuilt,
   when the Gauls withdrew, and soon took up her war again with
   the Etruscan cities. By the middle of the same century she was
   mistress of southern Etruria, though her territories had been
   ravaged twice again by renewed incursions of the Gauls. In a
   few years more, when her allies of Latium complained of their
   meager share of the fruits of these common wars, and demanded
   Roman citizenship and equal rights, she fought them fiercely
   and humbled them to submissiveness (B. C. 339-338), reducing
   their cities to the status of provincial towns.

   And now, having awed or subdued her rivals, her friends, and
   her enemies, near at hand, the young Republic swung into the
   career of rapid conquest which subdued to her will, within
   three-fourths of a century, the whole of Italy below the mouth
   of the Arno.

   In 343 B. C. the Roman arms had been turned against the
   Samnites at the south, and they had been driven from the
   Campania. In 327 B. C. the same dangerous rivals were again
   assailed, with less impunity. At the Caudine Forks, in 321 B.
   C., the Samnites inflicted both disaster and shame upon their
   indomitable foes; but the end of the war (B. C. 304) found
   Rome advanced and Samnium fallen back. A third contest ended
   the question of supremacy; but the Samnites (B. C. 290)
   submitted to become allies and not subjects of the Roman
   state.

   In this last struggle the Samnites had summoned Gauls and
   Etruscans to join them against the common enemy, and Rome had
   overcome their united forces in a great fight at Sentinum.
   This was in 295 B. C. Ten years later she annihilated the
   Senonian Gauls, annexed their territory and planted a colony
   at Sena on the coast. In two years more she had paralyzed the
   Boian Gauls by a terrible chastisement, and had nothing more
   to fear from the northward side of her realm. Then she turned
   back to finish her work in the south.

{998}

War with Pyrrhus.

   The Greek cities of the southern coast were harassed by
   various marauding neighbors, and most of them solicited the
   protection of Rome, which involved, of course, some surrender
   of their independence. But one great city, Tarentum, the most
   powerful of their number, refused these terms, and hazarded a
   war with the terrible republic, expecting support from the
   ambitious Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, on the Greek coast opposite
   their own. Pyrrhus came readily at their call, with dreams of
   an Italian kingdom more agreeable than his own. Assisted in
   the undertaking by his royal kinsmen of Macedonia and Syria,
   he brought an army of 25,000 men, with 20 elephants—which
   Roman eyes had never seen before. In two bloody fights (B. C.
   280-279), Pyrrhus was victorious; but the cost of victory was
   so great that he dared not follow it up. He went over to
   Sicily, instead, and waged war for three years (B. C. 278-276)
   with the Carthaginians, who had subjugated most of the island.
   The Epirot king brought timely aid to the Sicilian Greeks, and
   drove their Punic enemies into the western border of the
   island; but he claimed sovereignty over all that his arms
   delivered, and was not successful in enforcing the claim. He
   returned to Italy and found the Romans better prepared than
   before to face his phalanx and his elephants. They routed him
   at Beneventum, in the spring of 275 B. C. and he went back to
   Epirus, with his dreams dispelled. Tarentum fell, and Southern
   Italy was added to the dominion of Rome.

Punic Wars.

   During her war with Pyrrhus, the Republic had formed an
   alliance with Carthage, the powerful maritime Phœnician city
   on the African coast. But friendship between these two cities
   was impossible. The ambition of both was too boundless and too
   fierce. They were necessarily competitors for supremacy in the
   Mediterranean world, from the moment that a narrow strait
   between Italy and Sicily was all that held them apart. Rome
   challenged her rival to the duel in 264 B. C., when she sent
   help to the Mamertines, a band of brigands who had seized the
   Sicilian city of Messina, and who were being attacked by both
   Carthaginians and Syracusan Greeks. The "First Punic War,"
   then begun, lasted twenty-four years, and resulted in the
   withdrawal of the Carthaginians from Sicily, and in their
   payment of an enormous war indemnity to Rome. The latter
   assumed a protectorate over the island, and the kingdom of
   Hiero of Syracuse preserved its nominal independence for the
   time; but Sicily, as a matter of fact, might already be looked
   upon as the first of those provinces, beyond Italy, which Rome
   bound to herself, one by one, until she had compassed the
   Mediterranean with her dominion and gathered to it all the
   islands of that sea.

   The "Second Punic war," called sometimes the "Hannibalic war,"
   was fought with a great Carthaginian, rather than with
   Carthage herself. Hamilcar Barca had been the last and ablest
   of the Punic generals in the contest for Sicily. Afterwards he
   undertook the conquest of Spain, where his arms had such
   success that he established a very considerable power, more
   than half independent of the parent state. He nursed an
   unquenchable hatred of Rome, and transmitted it to his son
   Hannibal, who solemnly dedicated his life to warfare with the
   Latin city. Hamilcar died, and in due time Hannibal found
   himself prepared to make good his oath. He provoked a
   declaration of war (B. C. 218) by attacking Saguntum, on the
   eastern Spanish coast—a town which the Romans "protected."
   The latter expected to encounter him in Spain; but before the
   fleet bearing their legions to that country had reached
   Massilia, he had already passed the Pyrenees and the Rhone,
   with nearly 100,000 men, and was crossing the Alps, to assail
   his astounded foes on their own soil. The terrific barrier was
   surmounted with such suffering and loss that only 20,000 foot
   and 6,000 horse, of the great army which left Spain, could be
   mustered for the clearing of the last Alpine pass. With this
   small following, by sheer energy, rapidity and precision of
   movement—by force, in other words, of a military genius never
   surpassed in the world—he defeated the armies of Rome again
   and again, and so crushingly in the awful battle of Cannæ (B.
   C. 216) that the proud republic was staggered, but never
   despaired. For fifteen years the great Carthaginian held his
   ground in southern Italy; but his expectation of being joined
   by discontented subjects of Rome in the peninsula was very
   slightly realized, and his own country gave him little
   encouragement or help. His brother Hasdrubal, marching to his
   relief in 207 B. C., was defeated on the river Metaurus and
   slain. The arms of Rome had prospered meantime in Sicily and
   in Spain, even while beaten at home, and her Punic rival had
   been driven from both. In 204 B. C. the final field of battle
   was shifted to Carthaginian territory by Scipio, of famous
   memory, thereafter styled Africanus, because he "carried the
   war into Africa." Hannibal abandoned Italy to confront him,
   and at Zama, in the autumn of 202 B. C., the long contention
   ended, and the career of Carthage as a Power in the ancient
   world was forever closed. Existing by Roman sufferance for
   another half century, she then gave her implacable conquerors
   another pretext for war, and they ruthlessly destroyed her
   (B.C. 146).

Roman Conquest of Greece.

   In that same year of the destruction of Carthage, the conquest
   of Greece was finished. The first war of the Romans on that
   side of the Adriatic had taken place during the Second Punic
   war, and had been caused by an alliance formed between
   Hannibal and King Philip of Macedonia (B. C. 214). They
   pursued it then no further than to frustrate Philip's designs
   against themselves; but they formed alliances with the Greek
   states oppressed or menaced by the Macedonian, and these drew
   them into a second war, just as the century closed. On
   Cynoscephalæ, Philip was overthrown (B. C. 197), his kingdom
   reduced to vassalage, and the freedom of all Greece was
   solemnly proclaimed by the Roman Consul Flaminius.

{999}

   And now, for the first time, Rome came into conflict with an
   Asiatic power. The throne of the Syrian monarchy, founded by
   one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was occupied by a
   king more ambitious than capable, who had acquired a large and
   loosely jointed dominion in the East, and who bore the
   sounding name of Antiochus the Great. This vainglorious King,
   having a huge army and many elephants at his disposal, was
   eager to try a passage at arms with the redoubtable men of
   Rome. He was encouraged in his desire by the Ætolians in
   Greece, who bore ill-will to Rome. Under this encouragement,
   and having Hannibal—then a fugitive at his court—to give him
   counsel, which he lacked intelligence to use, Antiochus
   crossed the Ægean and invaded Greece (B. C. 192). The Romans
   met him at the pass of Thermopylæ; drove him back to the
   shores from which he came; pursued him thither; crushed and
   humbled him on the field of Magnesia, and took the kingdoms
   and cities of Asia Minor under their protection, as the allies
   (soon to be subjects) of Rome.

   Twenty years passed with little change in the outward
   situation of affairs among the Greeks. But discontent with the
   harshness and haughtiness of Roman "protection" changed from
   sullenness to heat, and Perseus, son of Philip of Macedonia,
   fanned it steadily, with the hope of bringing it to a flame.
   Rome watched him with keen vigilance, and before his plans
   were ripe her legions were upon him. He battled with them
   obstinately for three years (B. C. 171-168); but his fate was
   sealed at Pydna. He went as a prisoner to Rome; his kingdom
   was broken into four small republics; the Achæan League was
   stricken by the captivity of a thousand of its chief men; the
   whole of Greece was humbled to submissiveness, though not yet
   formally reduced to the state of a Roman province. That
   followed some years later, when risings in Macedonia and
   Achaia were punished by the extinction of the last semblance
   of political independence in both (B. C. 148-146).

The Zenith of the Republic.

   Rome now gripped the Mediterranean (the ocean of the then
   civilized world) as with four fingers of a powerful hand: one
   laid on Italy and all its islands, one on Macedonia and
   Greece, one on Carthage, one on Spain, and the little finger
   of her "protection" reaching over to the Lesser Asia. Little
   more than half a century, since the day that Hannibal
   threatened her own city gates, had sufficed to win this vast
   dominion. But the losses of the Republic had been greater,
   after all, than the gains; for the best energies of its
   political constitution had been expended in the acquisition,
   and the nobler qualities in its character had been touched
   with the incurable taints of a licentious prosperity.

Beginning of Decline.

   A century and a half had passed since the practical ending of
   the struggle of plebeians with patricians for political and
   agrarian rights. In theory and in form, the constitution
   remained as democratic as it was made by the Licinian Laws of
   367 B. C., and by the finishing touch of the Hortensian Law of
   287 B. C. But in practical working it had reverted to the
   aristocratic mode. A new aristocracy had risen out of the
   plebeian ranks to reinforce the old patrician order. It was
   composed of the families of men who had been raised to
   distinction and ennobled by the holding of eminent offices,
   and its spirit was no less jealous and exclusive than that of
   the older high caste.

The Senate and the Mob.

   Thus strengthened, the aristocracy had recovered its
   ascendancy in Rome, and the Senate, which it controlled, had
   become the supreme power in government. The amazing success of
   the Republic during the last century just reviewed—its
   successes in war, in diplomacy, and in all the sagacious
   measures of policy by which its great dominion had been
   won—are reasonably ascribed to this fact. For the Senate had
   wielded the power of the state, in most emergencies, with
   passionless deliberation and with unity and fixity of aim.

   But it maintained its ascendancy by an increasing employment
   of means which debased and corrupted all orders alike. The
   people held powers which might paralyze the Senate at any
   moment, if they chose to exercise them, through their
   assemblies and their tribunes. They had seldom brought those
   powers into play thus far, to interfere with the senatorial
   government of the Republic, simply because they had been
   bribed to abstain. The art of the politician in Rome, as
   distinguished from the statesman, had already become
   demagoguery. This could not well have been otherwise under the
   peculiar constitution of the Roman citizenship. Of the
   thirty-five tribes who made up the Roman people, legally
   qualified to vote, only four were within the city. The
   remaining thirty-one were "plebs urbana." There was no
   delegated representation of this country populace—citizens
   beyond the walls. To exercise their right of suffrage they
   must be personally present at the meetings of the "comitia
   tributa"—the tribal assemblies; and those of any tribe who
   chanced to be in attendance at such a meeting might give a
   vote which carried with it the weight of their whole tribe.
   For questions were decided by the majority of tribal, not
   individual, votes; and a very few members of a tribe might act
   for and be the tribe, for all purposes of voting, on occasions
   of the greatest possible importance. It is quite evident that
   a democratic system of this nature gave wide opportunity for
   corrupt "politics." There must have been, always, an
   attraction for the baser sort among the rural plebs, drawing
   them into the city, to enjoy the excitement of political
   contests, and to partake of the flatteries and largesses which
   began early to go with these. And circumstances had tended
   strongly to increase this sinister sifting into Rome of the
   most vagrant and least responsible of her citizens, to make
   them practically the deputies and representatives of that
   mighty sovereign which had risen in the world—the "Populus
   Romanus." For there was no longer either thrift or dignity
   possible in the pursuits of husbandry. The long Hannibalic War
   had ruined the farming class in Italy by its ravages; but the
   extensive conquests that followed it had been still more
   ruinous to that class by several effects combined. Corn
   supplies from the conquered provinces were poured into Rome at
   cheapened prices; enormous fortunes, gathered in the same
   provinces by officials, by farmers of taxes, by money-lenders,
   and by traders, were largely invested in great estates,
   absorbing the small farms of olden time; and, finally,
   free-labor in agriculture was supplanted, more and more, by
   the labor of slaves, which war and increasing wealth combined
   to multiply in numbers. Thus the "plebs urbana" of Rome were a
   depressed and, therefore, a degenerating class, and the same
   circumstances that made them so impelled them towards the
   city, to swell the mob which held its mighty sovereignty in
   their hands.

{1000}

   So far, a lavish amusement of this mob with free games, and
   liberal bribes, had kept it generally submissive to the
   senatorial government. But the more it was debased by such
   methods, and its vagrancy encouraged, the more extravagant
   gratuities of like kind it claimed. Hence a time could never
   be far away when the aristocracy and the senate would lose
   their control of the popular vote on which they had built
   their governing power.

Agrarian Agitations.

   But they invited the quicker coming of that time by their own
   greediness in the employment of their power for selfish and
   dishonest ends. They had practically recovered their monopoly
   of the use of the public lands. The Licinian law, which
   forbade any one person to occupy more than five hundred jugera
   (about three hundred acres) of the public lands, had been made
   a dead letter. The great tracts acquired in the Samnite wars,
   and since, had remained undistributed, while the use and
   profit of them were enjoyed, under one form of authority or
   another, by rich capitalists and powerful nobles.

   This evil, among many that waxed greater each year, caused the
   deepest discontent, and provoked movements of reform which
   soon passed by rapid stages into a revolution, and ended in
   the fall of the Republic. The leader of the movement at its
   beginning was Tiberius Gracchus, grandson of Scipio Africanus
   on the side of his mother, Cornelia. Elected tribune in 133 B.
   C., he set himself to the dangerous task of rousing the people
   against senatorial usurpations, especially in the matter of
   the public domain. He only drew upon himself the hatred of the
   senate and its selfish supporters; he failed to rally a
   popular party that was strong enough for his protection, and
   his enemies slew him in the very midst of a meeting of the
   tribes. His brother Caius took up the perilous cause and won
   the office of tribune (B. C. 123) in avowed hostility to the
   senatorial government. He was driven to bid high for popular
   help, even when the measures which he strove to carry were
   most plainly for the welfare of the common people, and he may
   seem to modern eyes to have played the demagogue with some
   extravagance. But statesmanship and patriotism without
   demagoguery for their instrument or their weapon were hardly
   practicable, perhaps, in the Rome of those days, and it is not
   easy to find them clean-handed in any political leader of the
   last century of the Republic. The fall of Caius Gracchus was
   hastened by his attempt to extend the Roman franchise beyond
   the "populus Romanus," to all the freemen of Italy. The mob in
   Rome was not pleased with such political generosity, and
   cooled in its admiration for the large-minded tribune. He lost
   his office and the personal protection it threw over him, and
   then he, like his brother, was slain (B. C. 121) in a melee.

Jugurthine War.

   For ten years the senate, the nobility, and the capitalists
   (now beginning to take the name of the equestrian order), had
   mostly their own way again, and effaced the work of the
   Gracchi as completely as they could. Then came disgraceful
   troubles in Numidia which enraged the people and moved them to
   a new assertion of themselves. The Numidian king who helped
   Scipio to pull Carthage down had been a ward of Rome since
   that time. When he died, he left his kingdom to be governed
   jointly by two young sons and an older nephew. The latter,
   Jugurtha, put his cousins out of the way, took the kingdom to
   himself, and baffled attempts at Rome to call him to account,
   by heavy bribes. The corruption in the case became so flagrant
   that even the corrupted Roman populace revolted against it, and
   took the Numidian business into its own hands. War was
   declared against Jugurtha by popular vote, and, despite
   opposing action in the Senate, one Marius, an experienced
   soldier of humble birth, was elected consul and sent out to
   take command. Marius distinguished himself in the war much
   less than did one of his officers, Cornelius Sulla; but he
   bore the lion's share of glory when Jugurtha was taken captive
   and conveyed to Rome (B. C. 104). Marius was now the great
   hero of the hour, and events were preparing to lift him to the
   giddiest heights of popularity.

Teutones and Cimbri.

   Hitherto, the barbarians of wild Europe whom the Romans had
   met were either the Aryan Celts, or the non-Aryan tribes found
   in northern Italy, Spain and Gaul. Now, for the first time,
   the armies of Rome were challenged by tribes of another grand
   division of the Aryan stock, coming out of the farther North.
   These were the Cimbri and the Teutones, wandering hordes of
   the great Teutonic or Germanic race which has occupied Western
   Europe north of the Rhine since the beginning of historic
   time. So far as we can know, these two were the first of the
   Germanic nations to migrate to the South. They came into
   collision with Rome in 113 B. C., when they were in Noricum,
   threatening the frontiers of her Italian dominion. Four years
   later they were in southern Gaul, where the Romans were now
   settling colonies and subduing the native Celts. Twice they
   had beaten the armies opposed to them; two years later they
   added a third to their victories; and in 105 B. C. they threw
   Rome into consternation by destroying two great armies on the
   Rhone. Italy seemed helpless against the invasion for which
   these terrible barbarians were now preparing, when Marius went
   against them. In the summer of 102 B. C. he annihilated the
   Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (modern Aix), and in the following
   year he destroyed the invading Cimbri, on a bloody field in
   northern Italy, near modern Vercellæ.

Marius.

   From these great victories, Marius went back to Rome, doubly
   and terribly clothed with power, by the devotion of a reckless
   army and the hero-worship of an unthinking mob. The state was
   at his mercy. A strong man in his place might have crushed the
   class-factions and accomplished the settlement which Cæsar
   made after half a century more of turbulence and shame. But
   Marius was ignorant, he was weak, and he became a mere
   blood-stained figure in the ruinous anarchy of his time.

{1001}

Optimates and Populares.

   The social and political state of the capital had grown
   rapidly worse. A middle-class in Roman society had practically
   disappeared. The two contending parties or factions, which had
   taken new names—"optimates" and "populares"—were now
   divided almost solely by the line which separates rich from
   poor. "If we said that 'optimates' signified the men who
   bribed and abused office under the banner of the Senate and
   its connections, and that 'populares' meant men who bribed and
   abused office with the interests of the people outside the
   Senatorial pale upon their lips, we might do injustice to many
   good men on both sides, but should hardly be slandering the
   parties" (Beesly). There was a desperate conflict between the
   two in the year 100, B. C. and the Senate once more recovered
   its power for a brief term of years.

The Social War.

   The enfranchisement of the so-called "allies"—the Latin and
   other subjects of Rome who were not citizens—was the burning
   question of the time. The attempt of Caius Gracchus to extend
   rights of citizenship to them had been renewed again and
   again, without success, and each failure had increased the
   bitter discontent of the Italian people. In 90 B. C. they drew
   together in a formidable confederation and rose in revolt. In
   the face of this great danger Rome sobered herself to action
   with old time wisdom and vigor. She yielded her full
   citizenship to all Italian freemen who had not taken arms, and
   then offered it to those who would lay their arms down. At the
   same time, she fought the insurrection with every army she
   could put into the field, and in two years it was at an end.
   Marius and his old lieutenant, Sulla, had been the principal
   commanders in this "Social War," as it was named, and Sulla
   had distinguished himself most. The latter had now an army at
   his back and was a power in the state, and between the two
   military champions there arose a rivalry which produced the
   first of the Roman Civil Wars.

Marius and Sulla.

   A troublesome war in the East had been forced upon the Romans
   by aggressions of Mithridates, King of Pontus. Both Marius and
   Sulla aspired to the command. Sulla obtained election to the
   consulship in 88 B. C. and was named for the coveted place.
   But Marius succeeded in getting the appointment annulled by a
   popular assembly and himself chosen instead for the Eastern
   command. Sulla, personally imperilled by popular tumults, fled
   to his legions, put himself at their head, and marched back to
   Rome—the first among her generals to turn her arms against
   herself. There was no effective resistance; Marius fled; both
   Senate and people were submissive to the dictates of the
   consul who had become master of the city. He "made the tribes
   decree their own political extinction, resuscitating the
   comitia centuriata; he reorganized the Senate by adding three
   hundred to its members and vindicating the right to sanction
   legislation; conducted the consular elections, exacting from
   L. Cornelius Cinna, the newly elected consul, a solemn oath
   that he would observe the new regulations, and securing the
   election of Cn. Octavius in his own interest, and then, like
   'a countryman who had just shaken the lice off his coat,' to
   use his own figure, he turned to do his great work in the
   East."

      (Horton).

   Sulla went to Greece, which was in revolt and in alliance with
   Mithridates, and conducted there a brilliant, ruthless
   campaign for three years (B. C. 87-84), until he had restored
   Roman authority in the peninsula, and forced the King of
   Pontus to surrender all his conquests in Asia Minor. Until
   this task was finished, he gave no heed to what his enemies
   did at Rome; though the struggle there between "Sullans" and
   "Marians" had gone fiercely and bloodily on, and his own
   partisans had been beaten in the fight. The consul Octavius,
   who was in Bulla's interest, had first driven the consul Cinna
   out of the city, after slaying 10,000 of his faction. Cinna's
   cause was taken up by the new Italian citizens; he was joined
   by the exiled Marius, and these two returned together, with an
   army which the Senate and the party of Sulla were unable to
   resist. Marius came back with a burning heart and with savage
   intentions of revenge. A horrible massacre of his opponents
   ensued, which went on unchecked for five days, and was
   continued more deliberately for several months, until Marius
   died, at the beginning of the year 86 B. C. Then Cinna ruled
   absolutely at Rome for three years, supported in the main by
   the newly-made citizens; while the provinces generally
   remained under the control of the party of the optimates. In
   83 B. C. Sulla, having finished with carefulness his work in
   the East, came back into Italy, with 40,000 veterans to attend
   his steps. He had been outlawed and deprived of his command,
   by the faction governing at the capital; but its decrees had
   no effect and troubled him little. Cinna had been killed by
   his own troops, even before Bulla's landing at Brundisium.
   Several important leaders and soldiers on the Marian side,
   such as Pompeius, then a young general, and Crassus, the
   millionaire, went over to Sulla's camp. One of the consuls of
   the year saw his troops follow their example, in a body; the
   other consul was beaten and driven into Capua. Sulla wintered
   in Campania, and the next spring he pressed forward to Rome,
   fighting a decisive battle with Marius the younger on the way,
   and took possession of the city; but not in time to prevent a
   massacre of senators by the resentful mob.

Sulla's Dictatorship.

   Before that year closed, the whole of Italy had been subdued,
   the final battle being fought with the Marians and Italians at
   the Colline Gate, and Sulla again possessed power supreme. He
   placed it beyond dispute by a deliberate extermination of his
   opponents, more merciless than the Marian massacre had been.
   They were proscribed by name, in placarded lists, and rewards
   paid to those who killed them; while their property was
   confiscated, and became the source of vast fortunes to Sulla's
   supporters, and of lands for distribution to his veterans.

   When this terror had paralyzed all resistance to his rule, the
   Dictator (for he had taken that title) undertook a complete
   reconstruction of the constitution, aiming at a permanent
   restoration of senatorial ascendancy and a curbing of the
   powers which the people, in their assemblies, and the
   magistrates who especially represented them, had gained during
   the preceding century. He remodelled, moreover, the judicial
   system, and some of his reforms were undoubtedly good, though
   they did not prove enduring. When he had fashioned the state
   to his liking, this extraordinary usurper quietly abdicated
   his dictatorial office (B. C. 80) and retired to private life,
   undisturbed until his death (B. C. 78).

{1002}

After Sulla.

   The system he had established did not save Rome from renewed
   distractions and disorder after Sulla died. There was no
   longer a practical question between Senate and people—between
   the few and the many in government. The question now, since
   the legionaries held their swords prepared to be flung into
   the scale, was what one should again gather the powers of
   government into his hands, as Sulla had done.

The Great Game and the Players.

   The history of the next thirty years—the last generation of
   republican Rome—is a sad and sinister but thrilling chronicle
   of the strifes and intrigues, the machinations and
   corruptions, of a stupendous and wicked game in politics that
   was played, against one another and against the Republic, by a
   few daring, unscrupulous players, with the empire of the
   civilized world for the stake between them. There were more
   than a few who aspired; there were only three players who
   entered really as principals into the game. These were
   Pompeius, called "the Great," since he extinguished the Marian
   faction in Sicily and in Spain; Crassus, whose wealth gave him
   power, and who acquired some military pretensions besides, by
   taking the field against a formidable insurrection of slaves
   (B. C. 73-71); and Julius Cæsar, a young patrician, but nephew
   of Marius by marriage, who assiduously strengthened that
   connection with the party of the people, and who began, very
   soon after Sulla's death, to draw attention to himself as a
   rising power in the politics of the day. There were two other
   men, Cicero and the younger Cato, who bore a nobler and
   greater because less selfish part in the contest of that
   fateful time. Both were blind to the impossibility of
   restoring the old order of things, with a dominant Senate, a
   free but well guided populace, and a simply ordered social
   state; but their blindness was heroic and high-souled.

Pompeius in the East.

   Of the three strong rivals for the vacant dictatorial chair
   which waited to be filled, Pompeius held by far the greater
   advantages. His fame as a soldier was already won; he had been
   a favorite of Fortune from the beginning of his career;
   everything had succeeded with him; everything was expected for
   him and expected from him. Even while the issues of the great
   struggle were pending, a wonderful opportunity for increasing
   his renown was opened to him. The disorders of the civil war
   had licensed a swarm of pirates, who fairly possessed the
   eastern Mediterranean and had nearly extirpated the maritime
   trade. Pompeius was sent against them (B. C. 67), with a
   commission that gave him almost unlimited powers, and within
   ninety days he had driven them from the sea. Then, before he
   had returned from this exploit, he was invested with supreme
   command in the entire East, where another troublesome war with
   Mithridates was going on. He harvested there all the laurels
   which belonged by better right to his predecessor, Lucullus,
   finding the power of Mithridates already broken down. From
   Pontus he passed into Armenia, and thence into Syria, easily
   subjugating both, and extinguishing the monarchy of the
   Seleucids. The Jews resisted him and he humbled them by the
   siege and conquest of their sacred city. Egypt was now the
   only Mediterranean state left outside the all-absorbing
   dominion of Rome; and even Egypt, by bequest of its late king,
   belonged to the Republic, though not yet claimed.

The First Triumvirate.

   Pompeius came back to Rome in the spring of 61 B. C. so
   glorified by his successes that he might have seemed to be
   irresistible, whatever he should undertake. But, either
   through an honest patriotism or an overweening confidence, he
   had disbanded his army when he reached Italy, and he had
   committed himself to no party. He stood alone and aloof, with
   a great prestige, great ambitions, and no ability to use the
   one or realize the other. Before another year passed, he was
   glad to accept offers of a helping hand in politics from
   Cæsar, who had climbed the ladder of office rapidly within
   four or five years, spending vast sums of borrowed money to
   amuse the people with games, and distinguishing himself as a
   democratic champion. Cæsar, the far seeing calculator,
   discerned the enormous advantages that he might gain for
   himself by massing together the prestige of Pompeius, the
   wealth of Crassus and his own invincible genius, which was
   sure to be the master element in the combination. He brought
   the coalition about through a bargain which created what is
   known in history as the First Triumvirate, or supremacy of
   three.

Cæsar in Gaul.

   Under the terms of the bargain, Cæsar was chosen consul for 59
   B. C., and at the end of his term was given the governorship
   of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, with command of three
   legions there, for five years. His grand aim was a military
   command—the leadership of an army—the prestige of a
   successful soldier. No sooner had he secured the command than
   fortune gave him opportunities for its use in the most
   striking way and with the most impressive results. The Celtic
   tribes of Gaul, north of the two small provinces which the
   Romans had already acquired on the Mediterranean coast, gave
   him pretexts or provocations (it mattered little to Cæsar
   which) for war with them, and in a series of remarkable
   campaigns, which all soldiers since have admired, he pushed
   the frontiers of the dominion of Rome to the ocean and the
   Rhine, and threatened the nations of Germany on the farther
   banks of that stream. "The conquest of Gaul by Cæsar," says
   Mr. Freeman, "is one of the most important events in the
   history of the world. It is in some sort the beginning of
   modern history, as it brought the old world of southern
   Europe, of which Rome was the head, into contact with the
   lands and nations which were to play the greatest part in
   later times—with Gaul, Germany, and Britain." From Gaul
   Cæsar crossed the channel to Britain in 55 B. C. and again in
   the following year, exacting tribute from the Celtic natives,
   but attempting no lodgment in the island.

{1003}

   Meantime, while pursuing a career of conquest which excited
   the Roman world, Cæsar never lost touch with the capital and
   its seething politics. Each winter he repaired to Lucca, the
   point in his province which was nearest to Rome, and conferred
   there with his friends, who flocked to the rendezvous. He
   secured an extension of his term, to enable him to complete
   his plans, and year by year he grew more independent of the
   support of his colleagues in the triumvirate, while they
   weakened one another by their jealousies, and the Roman state
   was more hopelessly distracted by factious strife.

End of the Triumvirate.

   The year after Cæsar's second invasion of Britain, Crassus,
   who had obtained the government of Syria, perished in a
   disastrous war with the Parthians, and the triumvirate was at
   an end. Disorder in Rome increased and Pompeius lacked energy
   or boldness to deal with it, though he seemed to be the one
   man present who might do so. He was made sole consul in 52 B.
   C.; he might have seized the dictatorship, with approval of
   many, but he waited for it to be offered to him, and the offer
   never came. He drew at last into close alliance with the party
   of the Optimates, and left the Populares to be won entirely to
   Cæsar's side.

Civil War.

   Matters came to a crisis in 50 B. C., when the Senate passed
   an order removing Cæsar from his command and discharging his
   soldiers who had served their term. He came to Ravenna with a
   single legion and concerted measures with his friends. The
   issue involved is supposed to have been one of life or death
   to him, as well as of triumph or failure in his ambitions; for
   his enemies were malignant. His friends demanded that he be
   made consul, for his protection, before laying down his arms.
   The Senate answered by proclaiming him a public enemy if he
   failed to disband his troops with no delay. It was a
   declaration of war, and Cæsar accepted it. He marched his
   single legion across the Rubicon, which was the boundary of
   his province, and advanced towards Rome.

   Pompeius, with the forces he had gathered, retreated
   southward, and consuls, senators and nobles generally streamed
   after him. Cæsar followed them—turning aside from the
   city—and his force gathered numbers as he advanced. The
   Pompeians continued their flight and abandoned Italy,
   withdrawing to Epirus, planning to gather there the forces of
   the East and return with them. Cæsar now took possession of
   Rome and secured the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, from
   which it drew its supply of food. This done, he proceeded
   without delay to Spain, where seven legions strongly devoted
   to Pompeius were stationed. He overcame them in a single
   campaign, enlisted most of the veterans in his own service,
   and acquired a store of treasure. Before the year ended he was
   again in Rome, where the citizens had proclaimed him dictator. He
   held the dictatorship for eleven days, only, to legalize an
   election which made him consul, with a pliant associate. He
   reorganized the government, complete in all its branches,
   including a senate, partly composed of former members of the
   body who had remained or returned. Then (B. C. 48.—January) he
   took up the pursuit of Pompeius and the Optimates. Crossing to
   Epirus, after some months of changeful fortune, he fought and
   won the decisive battle of Pharsalia. Pompeius, flying to
   Egypt, was murdered there. Cæsar, following, with a small
   force, was placed in great peril by a rising at Alexandria,
   but held his ground until assistance came. He then garrisoned
   Egypt with Roman troops and made the princess Cleopatra, who
   had captivated him by her charms, joint occupant of the throne
   with her younger brother. During his absence, affairs at Rome
   were again disturbed, and he was once more appointed dictator,
   as well as tribune for life. His presence restored order at
   once, and he was soon in readiness to attack the party of his
   enemies who had taken refuge in Africa. The battle of Thapsus,
   followed by the suicide of Cato and the surrender of Utica,
   practically finished the contest, though one more campaign was
   fought in Spain the following year.

Cæsar Supreme.

   Cæsar was now master of the dominions of Rome, and as entirely
   a monarch as anyone of his imperial successors, who took his
   name, with the power which he caused it to symbolize, and
   called themselves "Cæsars," and "Imperators," as though the
   two titles were equivalent. "Imperator" was the title under
   which he chose to exercise his sovereignty. Other Roman
   generals had been Imperators before, but he was the first to
   be named Imperator for life, and the word (changed in our
   tongue to Emperor) took a meaning from that day more regal
   than Rex or King. That Cæsar, the Imperator, first of all
   Emperors, ever coveted the crown and title of an
   older-fashioned royalty, is not an easy thing to believe.

   Having settled his authority firmly, he gave his attention to
   the organization of the Empire (still Republic in name) and to
   the reforming of the evils which afflicted it. That he did
   this work with consummate judgment and success is the opinion
   of all who study his time. He gratified no resentments,
   executed no revenges, proscribed no enemies. All who submitted
   to his rule were safe; and it seems to be clear that the
   people in general were glad to be rescued by his rule from the
   old oligarchical and anarchical state. But some of Cæsar's own
   partisans were dissatisfied with the autocracy which they
   helped to create, or with the slenderness of their own parts
   in it. They conspired with surviving leaders of the Optimates,
   and Cæsar was assassinated by them, in the Senate chamber, on
   the 15th of March, B. C. 44.

   Professor Mommsen has expressed the estimate of Cæsar which
   many thoughtful historians have formed, in the following
   strong words: "In the character of Cæsar the great contrasts
   of existence meet and balance each other. He was of the
   mightiest creative power, and yet of the most penetrating
   judgment; of the highest energy of will and the highest
   capacity of execution; filled with republican ideals, and at
   the same time born to be king. He was 'the entire perfect
   man'; and he was this because he was the entire and perfect
   Roman." This may be nearly true if we ignore the moral side of
   Cæsar's character. He was of too large a nature to do evil
   things unnecessarily, and so he shines even morally in
   comparison with many of his kind; but he had no scruples.

{1004}

After the Murder of Cæsar.

   The murderers of Cæsar were not accepted by the people as the
   patriots and "liberators" which they claimed to be, and they
   were soon in flight from the city. Marcus Antonius, who had
   been Cæsar's associate in the consulship, now naturally and
   skilfully assumed the direction of affairs, and aspired to
   gather the reins of imperial power into his own hands. But
   rivals were ready to dispute with him the great prize of
   ambition. Among them, it is probable that Antony gave little
   heed at first to the young man, Caius Octavius, or Octavianus,
   who was Cæsar's nephew, adopted son and heir; for Octavius was
   less than nineteen years old, he was absent in Apollonia, and
   he was little known. But the young Cæsar, coming boldly though
   quietly to Rome, began to push his hereditary claims with a
   patient craftiness and dexterity that were marvellous in one
   so young.

The Second Triumvirate.

   The contestants soon resorted to arms. The result of their
   first indecisive encounter was a compromise and the formation
   of a triumvirate, like that of Cæsar, Pompeius and Crassus.
   This second triumvirate was made up of Antonius, Octavius, and
   Lepidus, lately master of the horse in Cæsar's army. Unlike
   the earlier coalition, it was vengeful and bloody-minded. Its
   first act was a proscription, in the terrible manner of Sulla,
   which filled Rome and Italy with murders, and with terror and
   mourning. Cicero, the patriot and great orator, was among the
   victims cut down.

   After this general slaughter of their enemies at home,
   Antonius and Octavius proceeded against Brutus and Cassius,
   two of the assassins of Cæsar, who had gathered a large force
   in Greece. They defeated them at Philippi, and both
   "liberators" perished by their own hands. The triumvirs now
   divided the empire between them, Antonius ruling the East,
   Octavius the West, and Lepidus taking Africa—that is, the
   Carthaginian province, which included neither Egypt nor
   Numidia. Unhappily for Antonius, the queen of Egypt was among
   his vassals, and she ensnared him. He gave himself up to
   voluptuous dalliance with Cleopatra at Alexandria, while the
   cool intriguer, Octavius, at Rome, worked unceasingly to
   solidify and increase his power. After six years had passed,
   the young Cæsar was ready to put Lepidus out of his way, which
   he did mercifully, by sending him into exile. After five years
   more, he launched his legions and his war galleys against
   Antonius, with the full sanction of the Roman senate and
   people. The sea-fight at Actium (B. C. 31) gave Octavius the
   whole empire, and both Antonius and Cleopatra committed
   suicide after flying to Egypt. The kingdom of the Ptolemies
   was now extinguished and became a Roman province in due form.

Octavius (Augustus) Supreme.

   Octavius was now more securely absolute as the ruler of Rome
   and its great empire than Sulla or Julius Cæsar had been, and
   he maintained that sovereignty without challenge for
   forty-five years, until his death. He received from the Senate
   the honorary title of "Augustus," by which he is most commonly
   known. For official titles, he took none but those which had
   belonged to the institutions of the Republic, and were
   familiarly known. He was Imperator, as his uncle had been. He
   was Princeps, or head of the Senate; he was Censor; he was
   Tribune; he was Supreme Pontiff. All the great offices of the
   Republic he kept alive, and ingeniously constructed his
   sovereignty by uniting their powers in himself.

Organization of the Empire.

   The historical position of Augustus, as the real founder of
   the Roman Empire, is unique in its grandeur; and yet History
   has dealt contemptuously, for the most part, with his name.
   His character has been looked upon, to use the language of De
   Quincey, as "positively repulsive, in the very highest
   degree." "A cool head," wrote Gibbon of him, "an unfeeling
   heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him, at the age of
   nineteen, to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never
   afterwards laid aside." And again: "His virtues, and even his
   vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates
   of his interest, he was at first the enemy, and at last the
   father, of the Roman world." Yet, how can we deny surpassing
   high qualities of some description to a man who set the
   shattered Roman Republic, with all its democratic bases broken
   up, on a new—an imperial—foundation, so gently that it
   suffered no further shock, and so solidly that it endured, in
   whole or in part, for a millennium and a half?

   In the reign of Augustus the Empire was consolidated and
   organized; it was not much extended. The frontiers were
   carried to the Danube, throughout, and the subjugation of
   Spain was made complete. Augustus generally discouraged wars
   of conquest. His ambitious stepsons, Drusus and Tiberius,
   persuaded him into several expeditions beyond the Rhine,
   against the restless German nations, which perpetually menaced
   the borders of Gaul; but these gained no permanent footing in
   the Teutonic territory. They led, on the contrary, to a
   fearful disaster (A. D. 9), near the close of the reign of
   Augustus, when three legions, under Varus, were destroyed in
   the Teutoburg Forest by a great combination of the tribes,
   planned and conducted by a young chieftain named Hermann, or
   Arminius, who is the national hero of Germany to this day.

   The policy of Drusus in strongly fortifying the northern
   frontier against the Germans left marks which are
   conspicuously visible at the present day. From the fifty
   fortresses which he is said to have built along the line
   sprang many important modern cities,—Basel, Strasburg, Worms,
   Mainz, Bingen, Coblenz, Bonn, Cologne, and Leyden, among the
   number. From similar forts on the Danubian frontier rose
   Vienna, Regensburg and Passau.

Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

   Augustus died A. D. 11, and was succeeded in his honors, his
   offices, and his powers, by his step-son, Tiberius Claudius
   Nero, whom he had adopted. Tiberius, during most of his reign,
   was a vigorous ruler, but a detestable man, unless his
   subjects belied him, which some historians suspect. Another
   attempt at the conquest of Germany was made by his nephew
   Germanicus, son of Drusus; but the jealousy of the emperor
   checked it, and Germanicus died soon after, believing that he
   had been poisoned. A son of Germanicus, Caius, better known by
   his nick-name of Caligula, succeeded to the throne on the
   death of Tiberius (A. D. 37), and was the first of many
   emperors to be crazed and made beast-like, in lust, cruelty
   and senselessness, by the awful, unbounded power which passed
   into their hands.
{1005}
   The Empire bore his madness for three years, and then he was
   murdered by his own guards. The Senate had thoughts now of
   restoring the commonwealth, and debated the question for a
   day; but the soldiers of the prætorian guard took it out of
   their hands, and decided it, by proclaiming Tiberius Claudius
   (A. D. 41), a brother of Germanicus, and uncle of the emperor
   just slain. Claudius was weak of body and mind, but not
   vicious, and his reign was distinctly one of improvement and
   advance in the Empire. He began the conquest of Britain, which
   the Romans had neglected since Cæsar's time, and he opened the
   Senate to the provincials of Gaul. He had two wives of
   infamous character, and the later one of these, Agrippina,
   brought him a son, not his own, whom he adopted, and who
   succeeded him (A.D. 54). This was Nero, of foul memory, who
   was madman and monster in as sinister a combination as history
   can show. During the reign of Nero, the spread of
   Christianity, which had been silently making its way from
   Judæa into all parts of the Empire, began to attract the
   attention of men in public place, and the first persecution of
   its disciples took place (A. D. 64). A great fire occurred in
   Rome, which the hated emperor was believed to have caused; but
   he found it convenient to accuse the Christians of the deed,
   and large numbers of them were put to death in horrible ways.

Vespasian and his Sons.

   Nero was tolerated for fourteen years, until the soldiers in
   the provinces rose against him, and he committed suicide (A.
   D. 68) to escape a worse death. Then followed a year of civil
   war between rival emperors—Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and
   Vespasian—proclaimed by different bodies of soldiers in
   various parts of the Empire. The struggle ended in favor of
   Vespasian, a rude, strong soldier, who purged the government,
   disciplined the army, and brought society back toward simpler
   and more decent ways. The great revolt of the Jews (A. D.
   66-70) had broken out before he received the purple, and he
   was commanding in Judæa when Nero fell. The siege, capture and
   destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished by his son Titus. A
   more formidable revolt in the West (A. D. 69) was begun the
   Batavians, a German tribe which occupied part of the
   Netherland territory, near the mouth of the Rhine. They were
   joined by neighboring Gauls and by disaffected Roman
   legionaries, and they received help from their German kindred
   on the northern side of the Rhine. The revolt, led by a
   chieftain named Civilis, who had served in the Roman army, was
   overcome with extreme difficulty.

   Vespasian was more than worthily succeeded (A. D. 79) by his
   elder son, Titus, whose subjects so admired his many virtues
   that he was called "the delight of the human race." His short
   reign, however, was one of calamities: fire at Rome, a great
   pestilence, and the frightful eruption of Vesuvius which
   destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii. After Titus came his
   younger brother Domitian (A. D. 81), who proved to be another
   creature of the monstrous species that appeared so often in
   the series of Roman emperors. The conquest of southern Britain
   (modern England) was completed in his reign by an able
   soldier, Agricola, who fought the Caledonians of the North,
   but was recalled before subduing them. Domitian was murdered
   by his own servants (A. D. 96), after a reign of fifteen
   years.

Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian.

   Rome and the Empire were happy at last in the choice that was
   made of a sovereign to succeed the hateful son of Vespasian.
   Not the soldiery, but the Senate, made the choice, and it fell
   on one of their number, Cocceius Nerva, who was already an
   aged man. He wore the purple but sixteen months, and his
   single great distinction in Roman history is, that he
   introduced to the imperial succession a line of the noblest
   men who ever sat in the seat of the Cæsars. The first of these
   was the soldier Trajan, whom Nerva adopted and associated with
   himself in authority. When Nerva died (A. D. 97), his son by
   adoption ascended the throne with no opposition. The new
   Emperor was simple and plain in his habits and manners of
   life; he was honest and open in all his dealings with men; he
   was void of suspicion, and of malice and jealousy no less. He
   gave careful attention to the business of state and was wise
   in his administration of affairs, improving roads, encouraging
   trade, helping agriculture, and developing the resources of the
   Empire in very prudent and practical ways. But he was a
   soldier, fond of war, and he unwisely reopened the career of
   conquest which had been almost closed for the Empire since
   Pompeius came back from the East. A threatening kingdom having
   risen among the Dacians, in the country north of the lower
   Danube—the Transylvania and Roumania of the present day—he
   attacked and crushed it, in a series of vigorous campaigns (A.
   D. 101-106), and annexed the whole territory to the dominion
   of Rome. He then garrisoned and colonized the country, and
   Romanized it so completely that it keeps the Roman name, and
   its language to this day is of the Latin stock, though Goths,
   Huns, Bulgarians and Slavs have swept it in successive
   invasions, and held it among their conquests for centuries at
   a time. In the East, he ravaged the territory of the Parthian
   king, entered his capital and added Mesopotamia, Armenia, and
   Arabia Petræa to the list of Roman provinces. But he died (A.
   D. 117) little satisfied with the results of his eastern
   campaigns.

   His successor abandoned them, and none have doubted that he
   did well; because the Empire was weakened by the new frontier
   in Asia which Trajan gave it to defend. His Dacian conquests
   were kept, but all beyond the Euphrates in the East were given
   up. The successor who did this was Hadrian, a kinsman, whom
   the Emperor adopted in his last hours. Until near the close of
   his life, Hadrian ranked among the best of the emperors. Rome
   saw little of him, and resented his incessant travels through
   every part of his great realm. His manifest preference for
   Athens, where he lingered longest, and which flourished anew
   under his patronage, was still more displeasing to the ancient
   capital. For the Emperor was a man of cultivation, fond of
   literature, philosophy and art, though busy with the cares of
   State. In his later years he was afflicted with a disease
   which poisoned his nature by its torments, filled his mind
   with dark suspicions, and made him fitfully tyrannical and
   cruel. The event most notable in his generally peaceful and
   prosperous reign was the renewed and final revolt of the Jews,
   under Barchochebas, which resulted in their total expulsion
   from Jerusalem, and its conversion into a heathen city, with a
   Roman name.

{1006}

The Antonines.

   Hadrian had adopted before his death (A. D. 138) a man of
   blameless character, Titus Aurelius Antoninus, who received
   from his subjects, when he became Emperor, the appellation
   "Pius," to signify the dutiful reverence and kindliness of his
   disposition. He justified the name of Antoninus Pius, by which
   he is historically known, and his reign, though disturbed by
   some troubles on the distant borders of the Empire, was happy
   for his subjects in nearly all respects. "No great deeds are
   told of him, save this, perhaps the greatest, that he secured
   the love and happiness of those he ruled" (Capes).

   Like so many of the emperors, Antoninus had no son of his own;
   but even before he came to the throne, and at the request of
   Hadrian, he had adopted a young lad who won the heart of the
   late Emperor while still a child. The family name of this son
   by adoption was Verus, and he was of Spanish descent; the name
   which he took, in his new relationship, was Marcus Aurelius
   Antoninus. It is unquestionably the most illustrious name in
   the whole imperial line, from Augustus to the last
   Constantine, and made so, not so much by deeds as by
   character. He gave the world the solitary example of a
   philosopher upon the throne. There have been a few—a very
   few—surpassingly good men in kingly places; but there has
   never been another whose soul was lifted to so serene a height
   above the sovereignty of his station. Unlimited power tempted
   no form of selfishness in him; he saw nothing in his imperial
   exaltation but the duties which it imposed. His mind was
   meditative, and inclined him to the studious life; but he
   compelled himself to be a man of vigor and activity in
   affairs. He disliked war; but he spent years of his life in
   camp on the frontiers; because it fell to his lot to encounter
   the first great onset of the barbarian nations of the north,
   which never ceased from that time to beat against the barriers
   of the Empire until they had broken them down. His struggle
   was on the line of the Danube, with the tribes of the
   Marcomanni, the Quadi, the Vandals, and others of less
   formidable power. He held them back, but the resources of the
   Empire were overstrained and weakened lastingly by the effort.
   For the first time, too, there were colonies of barbarians
   brought into the Empire, from beyond its lines, to be settled
   for the supply of soldiers to the armies of Rome: It was a
   dangerous sign of Roman decay and a fatal policy to begin. The
   decline of the great world-power was, in truth, already well
   advanced, and the century of good emperors which ended when
   Marcus Aurelius died (A. D. 180), only retarded, and did not
   arrest, the progress of mortal maladies in the state.

From Commodus to Caracalla.

   The best of emperors was followed on the throne by a son,
   Commodus, who went mad, like Nero and Caligula, with the
   drunkenness of power, and who was killed (A. D. 192) by his
   own servants, after a reign of twelve years. The soldiers of
   the prætorian guard now took upon themselves the making of
   emperors, and placed two upon the throne—first, Pertinax, an
   aged senator, whom they murdered the next year, and then
   Didius Julianus, likewise a senator, to whom, as the highest
   bidder, they sold the purple. Again, as after Nero's death,
   the armies on the frontiers put forward, each, a rival
   claimant, and there was war between the competitors. The
   victor who became sovereign was Septimius Severus (A. D.
   194-211), who had been in command on the Danube. He was an
   able soldier, and waged war with success against the Parthians
   in the East, and with the Caledonians in Britain, which latter
   he could not subdue. Of his two sons, the elder, nicknamed
   Caracalla (A. D. 211-217), killed his brother with his own
   hands, and tortured the Roman world with his brutalities for
   six years, when he fell under the stroke of an assassin. The
   reign of this foul beast brought one striking change to the
   Empire. An imperial edict wiped away the last distinction
   between Romans and Provincials, giving citizenship to every
   free inhabitant of the Empire. "Rome from this date became
   constitutionally an empire, and ceased to be merely a
   municipality. The city had become the world, or, viewed from
   the other side, the world had become 'the City'" (Merivale).

Anarchy and Decay.

   The period of sixty-seven years from the murder of Caracalla
   to the accession of Diocletian—when a great constitutional
   change occurred—demands little space in a sketch like this.
   The weakening of the Empire by causes inherent in its social
   and political structure,—the chief among which were the
   deadly influence of its system of slavery and the paralyzing
   effects of its autocracy,—went on at an increasing rate,
   while disorder grew nearly to the pitch of anarchy, complete.
   There were twenty-two emperors in the term, which scarcely
   exceeded that of two generations of men. Nineteen of these
   were taken from the throne by violent deaths, through mutiny
   or murder, while one fell in battle, and another was held
   captive in Persia till he died. Only five among these
   twenty-two ephemeral lords of the world,—namely Alexander
   Severus, Decius (who was a vigorous soldier and ruler, but who
   persecuted the Christians with exceptional cruelty), Claudius,
   Aurelian, and Probus,—can be credited with any personal
   weight or worth in the history of the time; and they held
   power too briefly to make any notable mark.

   The distractions of the time were made worse by a great number
   of local "tyrants," as they were called—military adventurers
   who rose in different parts of the Empire and established
   themselves for a time in authority over some district, large
   or small. In the reign of Gallienus (A. D. 260-268) there were
   nineteen of these petty "imperators," and they were spoken of
   as the "thirty tyrants." The more important of the "provincial
   empires" thus created were those of Postumus, in Gaul, and of
   Odenatus of Palmyra. The latter, under Zenobia; queen and
   successor of Odenatus, became a really imposing monarchy,
   until it was overthrown by Aurelian, A. D. 273.

{1007}

The Teutonic Nations.

   The Germanic nations beyond the Rhine and the Danube had, by
   this time, improved their organization, and many of the tribes
   formerly separated and independent were now gathered into
   powerful confederations. The most formidable of these leagues
   in the West was that which acquired the common name of the
   Franks, or Freemen, and which was made up of the peoples
   occupying territory along the course of the Lower Rhine.
   Another of nearly equal power, dominating the German side of
   the Upper Rhine and the headwaters of the Danube, is believed
   to have absorbed the tribes which had been known in the
   previous century as Boii, Marcomanni, Quadi, and others. The
   general name it received was that of the Alemanni. The
   Alemanni were in intimate association with the Suevi, and
   little is known of the distinction that existed between the
   two. They had now begun to make incursions across the Rhine,
   but were driven back in 238. Farther to the East, on the Lower
   Danube, a still more dangerous horde was now threatening the
   flanks of the Empire in its European domain. These were Goths,
   a people akin, without doubt, to the Swedes, Norsemen and
   Danes; but whence and when they made their way to the
   neighborhood of the Black Sea is a question in dispute. It was
   in the reign of Caracalla that the Romans became first aware
   of their presence in the country since known as the Ukraine. A
   few years later, when Alexander Severus was on the throne, they
   began to make incursions into Dacia. During the reign of
   Philip the Arabian (A. D. 244-249) they passed through Dacia,
   crossed the Danube, and invaded Mœsia (modern Bulgaria). In
   their next invasion (A. D. 251) they passed the Balkans,
   defeated the Romans in two terrible battles, the last of which
   cost the reigning Emperor, Decius, his life, and destroyed the
   city of Philippopolis, with 100,000 of its people. But when, a
   few years later, they attempted to take possession of even
   Thrace and Macedonia, they were crushingly defeated by the
   Emperor Claudius, whose successor Aurelian made peace by
   surrendering to them the whole province of Dacia (A. D. 270),
   where they settled, giving the Empire no disturbance for
   nearly a hundred years. Before this occurred, the Goths,
   having acquired the little kingdom of Bosporus (the modern
   Crimea) had begun to launch a piratical navy, which plundered
   the coast cities of Asia Minor and Greece, including Athens
   itself.

   On the Asiatic side of the Empire a new power, a revived and
   regenerated Persian monarchy, had risen out of the ruins of
   the Parthian kingdom, which it overthrew, and had begun
   without delay to contest the rule of Rome in the East.

Diocletian.

   Briefly described, this was the state and situation of the
   Roman Empire when Diocletian, an able Illyrian soldier, came
   to the throne (A. D. 284). His accession marks a new epoch.
   "From this time," says Dean Merivale, "the old names of the
   Republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate itself,
   cease, even if still existing, to have any political
   significance." "The empire of Rome is henceforth an Oriental
   sovereignty." But the changes which Diocletian made in the
   organization and administration of the Empire, if they did
   weigh it down with a yet more crushing autocracy and
   contribute to its exhaustion in the end, did also, for the
   time, stop the wasting of its last energies, and gather them
   in hand for potent use. It can hardly be doubted that he
   lengthened the term of its career.

   Finding that one man in the exercise of supreme sovereignty,
   as absolute as he wished to make it, could not give sufficient
   care to every part of the vast realm, he first associated one
   Maximian with himself, on equal terms, as Emperor, or
   Augustus, and six years later (A. D. 292) he selected two
   others from among his generals and invested them with a
   subordinate sovereignty, giving them the title of "Cæsars."
   The arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily while
   Diocletian remained at the head of his imperial college. But
   in 305 he wearied of the splendid burden that he bore, and
   abdicated the throne, unwillingly followed by his associate,
   Maximian. The two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, were then
   advanced to the imperial rank, and two new Cæsars were named.

   Jealousies, quarrels, and civil war were soon rending the
   Empire again. The details are unimportant.

Constantine and Christianity.

   After nine years of struggle, two competitors emerged (A. D.
   314) alone, and divided the Empire between them. They were
   Constantine, son of Constantius, the Cæsar, and one Licinius.
   After nine years more, Licinius had disappeared, defeated and
   put to death, and Constantine (A. D. 323) shared the
   sovereignty of Rome with none. In its final stages, the
   contest had become, practically, a trial of strength between
   expiring Paganism in the Roman world and militant
   Christianity, now grown to great strength. The shrewd
   adventurer Constantine saw the political importance to which
   the Christian Church had risen, and identified himself with it
   by a "conversion" which has glorified his name most
   undeservedly. If to be a Christian with sincerity is to be a
   good man, then Constantine was none; for his life was full of
   evil deeds, after he professed the religion of Christ, even
   more than before. "He poured out the best and noblest blood in
   torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with
   himself. … In a palace which he had made a desert, the
   murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his
   sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the
   stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier
   bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest" (Sismondi).

   But the so-called "conversion" of Constantine was an event of
   vast import in history. It changed immensely, and with
   suddenness, the position, the state, the influence, and very
   considerably the character and spirit of the Christian Church.
   The hierarchy of the Church became, almost at once, the
   greatest power in the Empire, next to the Emperor himself, and
   its political associations, which were dangerous from the
   beginning, soon proved nearly fatal to its spiritual
   integrity. "Both the purity and the freedom of the Church were
   in danger of being lost. State and Church were beginning an
   amalgamation fraught with peril. The State was becoming a kind
   of Church, and the Church a kind of State. The Emperor
   preached and summoned councils, called himself, though half in
   jest, a 'bishop,' and the bishops had become State officials,
   who, like the high dignitaries of the Empire, travelled by the
   imperial courier-service, and frequented the ante-chambers of
   the palaces in Constantinople." "The Emperor determined what
   doctrines were to prevail in the Church, and banished Arius
   to-day and Athanasius to-morrow." "The Church was surfeited
   with property and privileges. The Emperor, a poor financier,
   impoverished the Empire to enrich" it (Uhlhorn). That
   Christianity had shared the gain of the Christian Church from
   these great changes, is very questionable.

{1008}

   By another event of his reign, Constantine marked it in
   history with lasting effect. He rebuilt with magnificence the
   Greek city of Byzantium on the Bosphorus, transferred to it
   his imperial residence, and raised it to a nominal equality
   with Rome, but to official find practical superiority, as the
   capital of the Empire. The old Rome dwindled in rank and
   prestige from that day; the new Rome—the city of Constantine,
   or Constantinople—rose to the supreme place in the eyes and
   the imaginations of men.


Julian and the Pagan Revival.

   That Constantine added the abilities of a statesman to the
   unscrupulous cleverness of an adventurer is not to be
   disputed; but he failed to give proof of this when he divided
   the Empire between his three sons at his death (A. D. 337).
   The inevitable civil wars ensued, until, after sixteen years,
   one survivor gathered the whole realm under his scepter again.
   He (Constantius), who debased and disgraced the Church more
   than his father had done, was succeeded (A. D. 361) by his
   cousin, Julian, an honest, thoughtful, strong man, who, not
   unnaturally, preferred the old pagan Greek philosophy to the
   kind of Christianity which he had seen flourishing at the
   Byzantine court. He publicly restored the worship of the
   ancient gods of Greece and Rome; he excluded Christians from
   the schools, and bestowed his favor on those who scorned the
   Church; but he entered on no violent persecution. His reign
   was brief, lasting only two years. He perished in a hapless
   expedition against the Persians, by whom the Empire was now
   almost incessantly harassed.

Valentinian and Valens.

   His successor, Jovian, whom the army elected, died in seven
   months; but Valentinian, another soldier, raised by his
   comrades to the throne, reigned vigorously for eleven years.
   He associated his brother, Valens, with him in the
   sovereignty, assigning the latter to the East, while he took
   the administration of the West.

   Until the death of Valentinian, in 375, the northern frontiers
   of the Empire, along the Rhine and the Danube, were well
   defended. Julian had commanded in Gaul, with Paris for his
   capital, six years before he became Emperor, and had organized
   its defence most effectively. Valentinian maintained the line
   with success against the Alemanni; while his lieutenant,
   Theodosius, delivered Roman Britain from the ruinous attacks
   of the Scots and Picts of its northern region. On the Danube,
   there continued to be peace with the Goths, who held back all
   other barbarians from that northeastern border.

The Goths in the Empire.

   But the death of Valentinian was the beginning of fatal
   calamities. His brother, Valens, had none of his capability or
   his vigor, and was unequal to such a crisis as now occurred.
   The terrible nation of the Huns had entered Europe from the
   Asiatic steppes, and the Western Goths, or Visigoths, fled
   before them. These fugitives begged to be permitted to cross
   the Danube and settle on vacant lands in Mœsia and Thrace.
   Valens consented, and the whole Visigothic nation, 200,000
   warriors, with their women and children, passed the river (A.
   D. 376). It is possible that they might, by fair treatment,
   have been converted into loyal citizens, and useful defenders
   of the land. But the corrupt officials of the court took
   advantage of their dependent state, and wrung extortionate
   prices from them for disgusting food, until they rose in
   desperation and wasted Thrace with fire and sword. Fresh
   bodies of Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) and other barbarians came
   over to join them (A. D. 378); the Roman armies were beaten in
   two great battles, and Valens, the Emperor, was slain. The
   victorious Goths swept on to the very walls of Constantinople,
   which they could not surmount, and the whole open country,
   from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, was ravaged by them at
   will.

Theodosius.

   In the meantime, the western division of the Empire had
   passed, on the death of Valentinian, under the nominal rule of
   his two young sons, Gratian, aged sixteen, and Valentinian
   II., aged four. Gratian had made an attempt to bring help to
   his uncle Valens; but the latter fought his fatal battle while
   the boy emperor was on the way, and the latter, upon hearing
   of it, turned back. Then Gratian performed his one great act.
   He sought a colleague, and called to the throne the most
   promising young soldier of the day. This was Theodosius, whose
   father, Count Theodosius, the deliverer of Britain, had been
   put to death by Valens, on some jealous accusation, only three
   years before. The new Emperor took the East for his realm, having
   Gratian and Valentinian II. for colleagues in the West. He
   speedily checked the ravages of the Goths and restored the
   confidence of the Roman soldiers. Then he brought diplomacy to
   bear upon the dangerous situation, and succeeded in arranging
   a peace with the Gothic chieftains, which enlisted them in the
   imperial service with forty thousand of their men. But they
   retained their distinctive organization, under their own
   chiefs, and were called "fœderati," or allies. This concession
   of a semi-independence to so great a body of armed barbarians
   in the heart of the Empire was a fatal mistake, as was proved
   before many years.

   For the time being it secured peace, and gave Theodosius
   opportunity to attend to other things. The controversies of
   the Church were among the subjects of his consideration, and
   by taking the side of the Athanasians, whom his predecessor
   had persecuted, he gave a final victory to Trinitarianism, in
   the Roman world. His reign was signalized, moreover, by the
   formal, official abolition of paganism at Rome.

   The weak but amiable Gratian, reigning at Paris, lost his
   throne and his life, in 383, as the consequence of a revolt
   which began in Britain and spread to Gaul. The successful
   rebel and usurper, Maximus, seemed so strong that Theodosius
   made terms with him, and acknowledged his sovereignty for a
   number of years. But, not content with a dominion which
   embraced Britain, Gaul and Spain, Maximus sought, after a
   time, to add Italy, where the youth, Valentinian II., was
   still enthroned (at Milan, not Rome), under the tutelage of
   his mother. Valentinian fled to Theodosius; the Eastern
   Emperor adopted his cause, and restored him to his throne,
   defeating the usurper and putting him to death (A. D. 388).
   Four years later Valentinian II. died; another usurper arose,
   and again Theodosius (A. D. 394) recovered the throne.

{1009}

Final Division of the Empire.

   Theodosius was now alone in the sovereignty. The Empire was
   once more, and for the last time, in its full extent, united
   under a single lord. It remained so for but a few months. At
   the beginning of the year 395, Theodosius died, and his two
   weak sons, Arcadius and Honorius, divided the perishing Empire
   between them, only to augment, in its more venerable seat, the
   distress of the impending fall.

   Arcadius, at the age of eighteen, took the government of the
   East; Hononus, a child of eleven, gave his name to the
   administration of the West. Each emperor was under the
   guardianship of a minister chosen by Theodosius before he
   died. Rufinus, who held authority at Constantinople, was
   worthless in all ways; Stilicho, who held the reins at Milan,
   was a Vandal by birth, a soldier and a statesman of vigorous
   powers.

Decay of the Western Empire.

   The West seemed more fortunate than the East, in this
   division; yet the evil days now fast coming near fell
   crushingly on the older Rome, while the New Rome lived through
   them, and endured for a thousand years. No doubt the Empire
   had weakened more on its elder side; had suffered more
   exhaustion of vital powers. It had little organic vitality now
   left in it. If no swarms of barbaric invaders had been waiting
   and watching at its doors, and pressing upon it from every
   point with increasing fierceness, it seems probable that it
   would have gone to pieces ere long through mere decay. And if,
   on the other hand, it could have kept the vigorous life of its
   best republican days, it might have defied Teuton and Slav
   forever. But all the diseases, political and social, which the
   Republic engendered in itself, had been steadily consuming the
   state, with their virulence even increased, since it took on the
   imperial constitution. All that imperialism did was to gather
   waning energies in hand, and make the most of them for
   external use. It stopped no decay. The industrial palsy,
   induced by an ever-widening system of slave-labor, continued
   to spread. Production decreased; the sum of wealth shrunk in
   the hands of each succeeding generation; and yet the great
   fortunes and great estates grew bigger from age to age. The
   gulf between rich and poor opened deeper and wider, and the
   bridges once built across it by middle-class thrift were
   fallen down. The burden of imperial government had become an
   unendurable weight; the provincial municipalities, which had
   once been healthy centers of a local political life, were
   strangled by the nets of taxation flung over them. Men sought
   refuge even in death from the magistracies which made them
   responsible to the imperial treasury for revenues which they
   could not collect. Population dwindled, year by year.
   Recruiting from the body of citizens for the common needs of
   the army became more impossible. The state was fully
   dependent, at last, on barbaric mercenaries of one tribe for
   its defence against barbaric invaders of another; and it was
   no longer able, as of old, to impress its savage servitors
   with awe of its majesty and its name.

Stilicho and Alaric.

   Stilicho, for a time, stoutly breasted the rising flood of
   disaster. He checked the Picts and Scots of Northern Britain,
   and the Alemanni and their allies on the frontiers of Gaul.
   But now there arose again the more dreadful barbarian host
   which had footing in the Empire itself, and which Theodosius
   had taken into pay. The Visigoths elected a king (A. D. 395),
   and were persuaded with ease to carve a kingdom for him out of
   the domain which seemed waiting to be snatched from one or
   both of the feeble monarchs, who sat in mockery of state at
   Constantinople and Milan. Alaric, the new Gothic king, moved
   first against the capital on the Bosphorus; but Rufinus
   persuaded him to pass on into Greece, where he went pillaging
   and destroying for a year. Stilicho, the one manly defender of
   the Empire, came over from Italy with an army to oppose him;
   but he was stopped on the eve of battle by orders from the
   Eastern Court, which sent him back, as an officious meddler.
   This act of mischief and malice was the last that Rufinus
   could do. He was murdered, soon afterwards, and Arcadius,
   being free from his influence, then called upon Stilicho for
   help. The latter came once more to deliver Greece, and did so
   with success. But Alaric, though expelled from the peninsula,
   was neither crushed nor disarmed, and the Eastern Court had
   still to make terms with him. It did so for the moment by
   conferring on him the government of that part of Illyricum
   which the Servia and Bosnia of the present day coincide with,
   very nearly. He rested there in peace for four years, and then
   (A. D. 400) he called his people to arms again, and led the whole
   nation, men, women and children, into Italy. The Emperor,
   Honorius, fled from Milan to Ravenna, which, being a safe
   shelter behind marshes and streams, became the seat of the
   court for years thereafter. Stilicho, stripping Britain and
   Gaul of troops, gathered forces with which, at Eastertide in
   the year 402, and again in the following year, he defeated the
   Goths, and forced them to retreat.

   He had scarcely rested from these exertions, when the valiant
   Stilicho was called upon to confront a more savage leader,
   Radagaisus by name, who came from beyond the lines (A. D.
   405), with a vast swarm of mixed warriors from many tribes
   pouring after him across the Alps. Again Stilicho, by superior
   skill, worsted the invaders, entrapping them in the mountains
   near Fiesole (modern Florence), and starving them there till
   they yielded themselves to slavery and their chieftain to
   death.

   This was the last great service to the dying Roman state which
   Stilicho was permitted to do. Undermined by the jealousies of
   the cowardly court at Ravenna, he seems to have lost suddenly
   the power by which he held himself so high. He was accused of
   treasonable designs and was seized and instantly executed, by
   the Emperor's command.

{1010}

Alaric and his Goths in Rome.

   Stilicho dead, there was no one in Italy for Alaric to fear,
   and he promptly returned across the Alps, with the nation of
   the Visigoths behind him. There was no resistance to his
   march, and he advanced straight upon Rome. He did not assail
   the walls, but sat down before the gates (A. D. 408), until
   the starving citizens paid him a great ransom in silver and
   gold and precious spices and silken robes. With this booty he
   retired for the winter into Tuscany, where his army was
   swelled by thousands of fugitive barbarian slaves, and by
   reinforcements of Goths and Huns. From his camp he opened
   negotiations with Honorius, demanding the government of
   Dalmatia, Venetia and Noricum, with certain subsidies of money
   and corn. The contemptible court, skulking at Ravenna, could
   neither make war nor make concessions, and it soon exhausted
   the patience of the barbarian by its puerilities. He marched
   again to Rome (A. D. 409), seized the port of Ostia, with its
   supplies of grain, and forced the helpless capital to join him
   in proclaiming a rival emperor. The prefect of the city, one
   Attalus, accepted the purple at his hands, and played the
   puppet for a few months in imperial robes. But the scheme
   proved unprofitable, Attalus was deposed, and negotiations
   were reopened with Honorius. Their only result was a fresh
   provocation which sent Alaric once more against Rome, and this
   time with wrath and vengeance in his heart. Then the great,
   august capital of the world was entered, through treachery or
   by surprise, on the night of the 24th of August, 410, and
   suffered all that the lust, the ferocity and the greed of a
   barbarous army let loose could inflict on an unresisting city.
   It was her first experience of that supreme catastrophe of
   war, since Brennus and the Gauls came in; but it was not to be
   the last.

   From the sack of Rome, Alaric moved southward, intending to
   conquer Sicily; but a sudden illness brought his career to an
   end.

The Barbarians Swarming in.

   The Empire was now like a dying quarry, pulled down by fierce
   hunting packs and torn on every side. The Goths were at its
   throat; the tribes of Germany—Sueves, Vandals, Burgundians,
   Alans—had leaped the Rhine (A. D. 406) and swarmed upon its
   flanks, throughout Gaul and Spain. The inrush began after
   Stilicho, to defend Italy against Alaric and Radagaisus, had
   stripped the frontiers of troops. Sueves, Vandals, and Alans
   passed slowly through the provinces, devouring their wealth
   and making havoc of their civilization as they went. After
   three years, they had reached and surmounted the Pyrenees, and
   were spreading the same destruction through Spain.

   The confederated tribes of the Franks had already been
   admitted as allies into northwestern Gaul, and were settled
   there in peace. At first, they stood faithful to the Roman
   alliance, and valiantly resisted the new invasion; but its
   numbers overpowered them, and their fidelity gave way when
   they saw the pillage of the doomed provinces going on. They
   presently joined the barbarous mob, and with an energy which
   secured the lion's share of plunder and domain.

   The Burgundians did not follow the Vandals and Sueves to the
   southwest, but took possession of the left bank of the middle
   Rhine, whence they gradually spread into western Switzerland
   and Savoy, and down the valleys of the Rhone and Saone,
   establishing in time an important kingdom, to which they gave
   their name.

   No help from Ravenna or Rome came to the perishing provincials
   of Gaul in the extremity of their distress; but a pretender
   arose in Britain, who assumed the imperial title and promised
   deliverance. He crossed over to Gaul in 407 and was welcomed
   with eagerness, both there and in Spain, to which he advanced.
   He gained some success, partly by enlisting and partly by
   resisting the invaders; but his career was brief. Other
   pretenders appeared in various provinces, of the West; but the
   anarchy of the time was too great for any authority,
   legitimate or revolutionary, to establish itself.

The Visigoths in Gaul.

   And, now, into the tempting country of the afflicted Gauls,
   already crowded with rapacious freebooters, the Visigoths made
   their way. Their new king, Ataulph, or Adolphus, who succeeded
   Alaric, passed into Gaul, but not commissioned, as sometimes
   stated, to restore the imperial sovereignty there. He moved
   with his nation, as Alaric had moved, and Italy, by his
   departure, was relieved; but Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and
   the Aquitainian country at large, was soon subject to his
   command (A. D. 412-419). He passed the Pyrenees and entered
   Spain, where an assassin took his life. His successor, Wallia,
   drove the Sueves into the mountains and the Vandals into the
   South; but did not take possession of the country until a
   later time. The Visigoths, returning to Aquitaine, found
   there, at last, the kingdom which Alaric set out from the
   Danube to seek, and they were established in it with the Roman
   Emperor's consent. It was known as the kingdom of Gothia, or
   Septimania, but is more commonly called, from its capital, the
   kingdom of Toulouse.

The Eastern Empire.

   Affairs in the Eastern Empire had never arrived at so
   desperate a state as in the West. With the departure of
   Alaric, it had been relieved from its most dangerous immediate
   foe. There had been tumults, disorders, assassinations, court
   conspiracies, fierce religious strifes, and every evidence of
   a government with no settled authority and no title to
   respect; but yet the Empire stood and was not yet seriously
   shaken. In 408 Arcadius died. His death was no loss, though he
   left an infant son to take his place; for he also left a
   daughter, Pulcheria, who proved to be a woman of rare virtue
   and talents, and who reigned in her brother's name.

Aetius and the Huns.

   The imbecile Honorius, with whose name the failing sovereignty
   of Rome had been so disastrously linked for eight and twenty
   rears, died in 423. An infant nephew was his heir, and
   Placidia, the mother, ruled at Ravenna for a fourth of a
   century, in the name of her child. Her reign was far stronger
   than her wretched brother's had been, because she gave loyal
   support to a valiant and able man, who stood at her side.
   Aetius, her minister, did all, perhaps, that man could do to
   hold some parts of Gaul, and to play barbarian against
   barbarian—Hun against Goth and Frank—in skilful diplomacy
   and courageous war. But nothing that he won was any lasting
   gain. In his youth, Aetius had been a hostage in the camps of
   both the Goths and the Huns, and had made acquaintances among
   the chieftains of both which served his policy many times.
{1011}
   He had employed the terrible Huns in the early years of his
   ministry, and perhaps they had learned too much of the
   weakness of the Roman State. These most fearful of all the
   barbarian peoples then surging in Europe had been settled, for
   some years, in the region since called Hungary, under Attila,
   their most formidable king. He terrorized all the surrounding
   lands and exercised a lordship from the Caspian to the Baltic
   and the Rhine. The imperial court at the East stooped to pay
   him annual tribute for abstaining from the invasion of its
   domain. But in 450, when the regent Pulcheria became Empress
   of the East, by her brother's death, and married a brave old
   soldier, Marcian, in order to give him the governing power, a
   new tone was heard in the voice from Constantinople which
   answered Attila's demands.

Defeat of Attila.

   The Hun then appears to have seen that the sinking Empire of
   the West offered a more certain victim to his terrors and his
   arms, and he turned them to that side. First forming an
   alliance with the Vandals (who had crossed from Spain to
   Africa in 429, had ravaged and subdued the Roman provinces,
   and had established a kingdom on the Carthaginian ground, with
   a naval power in the Carthaginian Sea), Attila led his huge
   army into suffering Gaul. There were Ostrogoths, and warriors
   from many German tribes, as well as Huns, in the terrific
   host; for Attila's arm stretched far, and his subjects were
   forced to follow when he led. His coming into Gaul affrighted
   Romans and barbarians alike, and united them in a common
   defense. Aetius formed an alliance with Theodoric, the
   Visigothic king, and their forces were joined by Burgundians
   and Franks. They met Attila near Chalons, and there, on a day
   in June, A. D. 451, upon the Catalaunian fields, was fought a
   battle that is always counted among the few which gave shape
   to all subsequent history. The Huns were beaten back, and
   Europe was saved from the hopeless night that must have
   followed a Tartar conquest in that age.

Attila threatening Rome.

   Attila retreated to Germany, foiled but not daunted. The next
   year (A. D. 452) he invaded Italy and laid siege to Aquileia,
   an important city which stood in his path. It resisted for
   three months and was then utterly destroyed. The few
   inhabitants who escaped, with fugitives from neighboring
   ports, found a refuge in some islands of the Adriatic coast,
   and formed there a sheltered settlement which grew into the
   great city and republican state of Venice. Aetius made
   strenuous exertions to gather forces for another battle with
   the Huns; but the resources of the Empire had sunk very low.
   While he labored to collect troops, the effect of a pacific
   embassy was despairingly tried, and it went forth to the camp
   of Attila, led by the venerable bishop of Rome—the first
   powerful Pope—Leo I., called the Great. The impression which
   Leo made on the Hunnish king, by his venerable presence, and
   by the persuasiveness of his words, appears to have been
   extraordinary. At all events, Attila consented to postpone his
   designs on Rome; though he demanded and received promise of an
   annual tribute. The next winter he died, and Rome was troubled
   by him no more.

Rome Sacked by the Vandals.

   But another enemy came, who rivalled Attila in ruthlessness,
   and who gave a name to barbarity which it has kept to this
   day. The Vandal king, Genseric, who now swept the
   Mediterranean with a piratical fleet, made his appearance in
   the Tiber (A. D. 455) and found the Roman capital powerless to
   resist his attack. The venerable Pope Leo again interceded for
   the city, and obtained a promise that captives should not be
   tortured nor buildings burned,—which was the utmost stretch
   of mercy that the Vandal could afford. Once more, then, was
   Rome given up, for fourteen days and nights, to pillage and
   the horrors of barbaric debauch. "Whatever had survived the
   former sack,—whatever the luxury of the Roman Patriciate,
   during the intervening forty-five years, had accumulated in
   reparation of their loss,—the treasures of the imperial
   palace, the gold and silver vessels employed in the churches,
   the statues of pagan divinities and men of Roman renown, the
   gilded roof of the temple of Capitolian Jove, the plate and
   ornaments of private individuals, were leisurely conveyed to
   the Vandal fleet and shipped off to Africa" (Sheppard).

   The Vandal invasion had been preceded, in the same year, by a
   palace revolution which brought the dynasty of Theodosius to
   an end. Placidia was dead, and her unworthy son, Valentinian
   III., provoked assassination by dishonoring the wife of a
   wealthy senator, Maximus, who mounted to his place. Maximus
   was slain by a mob at Rome, just before the Vandals entered
   the city. The Empire was now without a head, and the throne
   without an heir. In former times, the Senate or the army would
   have filled the vacant imperial seat; now, it was a barbarian
   monarch, Theodoric, the Visigothic king, who made choice of a
   successor to the Cæsars. He named a Gallic noble, Avitus by
   name, who had won his esteem, and the nomination was confirmed
   by Marcian, Emperor of the East.

Ricimer and Majorian.

   But the influence of Theodoric in Roman affairs was soon
   rivalled by that of Count Ricimer, another Goth, or Sueve, who
   held high command in the imperial army, and who resented the
   elevation of Avitus. The latter was deposed, after reigning a
   single year; and Majorian, a soldier of really noble and
   heroic character, was promoted to the throne. He was too great
   and too sincere a man to be Ricimer's tool, and the same hand
   which raised him threw him down, after he had reigned four
   years (A. D. 457-461). He was in the midst of a powerful
   undertaking against the Vandals when he perished. Majorian was
   the last Emperor in the Western line who deserves to be named.

The last Emperors in the West.

   Ricimer ruled Italy, with the rigor of a despot, under the
   modest title of Patrician, until 472. His death was soon
   followed by the rise of another general of the barbarian
   troops, Orestes, to like autocracy, and he, in turn, gave way
   to a third, Odoacer, who slew him and took his place. The
   creatures, half a dozen in number, who put on and put off the
   purple robe, at the command of these adventurers, who played
   with the majesty of Rome, need no further mention.
{1012}
   The last of them was Romulus Augustulus, son of Orestes, who
   escaped his father's fate by formally resigning the throne. He
   was the last Roman Emperor in the West, until Charlemagne
   revived the title, three centuries and a quarter later. "The
   succession of the Western Emperors came to an end, and the way
   in which it came to an end marks the way in which the names
   and titles of Rome were kept on, while all power was passing
   into the hands of the barbarians. The Roman Senate voted that
   one Emperor was enough, and that the Eastern Emperor, Zeno,
   should reign over the whole Empire. But at the same time Zeno
   was made to entrust the government of Italy, with the title of
   Patrician, to Odoacer. … Thus the Roman Empire went on at
   Constantinople, or New Rome, while Italy and the Old Rome
   itself passed into the power of the Barbarians. Still the
   Roman laws and names went on, and we may be sure that any man
   in Italy would have been much surprised if he had been told
   that the Roman Empire had come to an end" (Freeman).

Odoacer.

   The government of Odoacer, who ruled with the authority of a
   king, though pretending to kingship only in his own nation,
   was firm and strong. Italy was better protected from its
   lawless neighbors than it had been for nearly a century
   before. But nothing could arrest the decay of its
   population—the blight that had fallen upon its prosperity.
   Nor could that turbulent age afford any term of peace that
   would be long enough for even the beginning of the cure of
   such maladies and such wounds as had brought Italy low. For
   fourteen years Odoacer ruled; and then he was overthrown by a
   new kingdom-seeking barbarian, who came, like Alaric, out of
   the Gothic swarm.

Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

   The Ostrogoths had now escaped, since Attila died, from the
   yoke of the Huns, and were prepared, under an able and
   ambitious young king, Theodoric, who had been reared as a
   hostage at Constantinople, to imitate the career of their
   cousins, the Visigoths. Having troubled the Eastern Court
   until it stood in fear of him, Theodoric asked for a
   commission to overthrow Odoacer, in Italy, and received it
   from the Emperor's hand. Thus empowered by one still
   recognized as lawful lord on both sides of the Adriatic,
   Theodoric crossed the Julian Alps (A. D. 489) with the
   families of his nation and their household goods. Three
   battles made him master of the peninsula and decided the fate
   of his rival. Odoacer held out in Ravenna for two years and a
   half, and surrendered on a promise of equal sovereignty with
   the Ostrogothic king. But Theodoric did not scruple to kill
   him with his own sword, at the first opportunity which came.
   In that act, the native savagery in him broke loose; but
   through most of his life he kept his passions decently tamed,
   and acted the barbarian less frequently than the civilized
   statesman and king. He gave Italy peace, security, and
   substantial justice for thirty years. With little war, he
   extended his sovereignty over Illyrium, Pannonia, Noricum,
   Rhætia and Provence, in south-eastern Gaul. If the extensive
   kingdom which he formed—with more enlightenment than any
   other among those who divided the heritage of Rome—could have
   endured, the parts of Europe which it covered might have fared
   better in after times than they did. "Italy might have been
   spared six hundred years of gloom and degradation." But
   powerful influences were against it from the first, and they
   were influences which proceeded mischievously from the
   Christian Church. Had the Goths been pagans, the Church might
   have turned a kindly face to them, and wooed them to
   conversion as she wooed the Franks. But they were Christians,
   of a heretic stamp, and the orthodox Christianity of Rome held
   them in deadly loathing. While still beyond the Danube, they had
   received the faith from an Arian apostle, at the time of the
   great conflict of Athanasius against Arius, and were stubborn
   in the rejection of Trinitarian dogma. Hence the Church in the
   West was never reconciled to the monarchy of Theodoric in
   Italy, nor to that of the Visigoths at Toulouse; and its
   hostility was the ultimate cause of the failure of both.

The Empire in the East.

   To understand the events which immediately caused the fall of
   the Ostrogothic power, we must turn back for a moment to the
   Empire in the East. Marcian, whom Pulcheria, the wise daughter
   of Arcadius, made Emperor by marrying him, died in 457, and
   Aspar, the barbarian who commanded the mercenaries, selected
   his successor. He chose his own steward, one Leo, who proved
   to have more independence than his patron expected, and who
   succeeded in destroying the latter. After Leo I. came (474)
   his infant grandson; Leo II., whose father, an Isaurian
   chieftain, took his place when he died, within the year. The
   Isaurian assumed a Greek name, Zeno, and occupied the
   throne—with one interval of flight and exile for twenty
   months—during seven years. When he died, his widow gave her
   hand in marriage to an excellent officer of the palace,
   Anastasius by name, and he was sovereign of the Empire for
   twenty-seven years.

The reign of Justinian.

   After Anastasius, came Justin I., born a peasant in Dacia
   (modern Roumania), but advanced as a soldier to the command of
   the imperial guards, and thence to the throne. He had already
   adopted and educated his nephew, Justinian, and before dying,
   in 527, he invested him with sovereignty as a colleague. The
   reign of Justinian was the most remarkable in the whole
   history of the Empire in the East. Without breadth of
   understanding, or notable talents of any kind: without
   courage; without the least nobility of character; without even
   the virtue of fidelity to his ministers and friends,—this
   remarkable monarch contrived to be splendidly served by an
   extraordinary generation of great soldiers, great jurists,
   great statesmen, who gave a brilliance to his reign that was
   never rivalled while the Byzantine seat of Empire stood. It
   owes, in modern esteem, its greatest fame to the noble
   collection of Roman laws which was made, in the Pandects and
   the Code, under the direction of the wise and learned
   Tribonian. Transiently it was glorified by conquests that bore
   a likeness to the march of the resistless legions of ancient
   Rome; and the laurelled names of Belisarius and Narses claimed
   a place on the columns of victory with the names of Cæsar and
   Pompeius.
{1013}
   But the splendors of the reign were much more than offset by
   miseries and calamities of the darkest kind. "The reign of
   Justinian, from its length, its glory and its disasters, may
   be compared to the reign of Louis XIV., which exceeded it in
   length, and equalled it in glory and disaster. … He extended
   the limits of his empire; but he was unable to defend the
   territory he had received from his predecessors. Everyone of
   the thirty-eight years of his reign was marked by an invasion
   of the barbarians; and it has been said that, reckoning those
   who fell by the sword, who perished from want, or were led
   into captivity, each invasion cost 200,000 subjects to the
   empire. Calamities which human prudence is unable to resist
   seemed to combine against the Romans, as if to compel them to
   expiate their ancient glory. … So that the very period which
   gave birth to so many monuments of greatness, may be looked
   back upon with horror, as that of the widest desolation and
   the most terrific mortality" (Sismondi). The first and longest
   of the wars of Justinian was the Persian war, which he inherited
   from his predecessors, and which scarcely ceased while the
   Persian monarchy endured. It was in these Asiatic campaigns
   that Belisarius began his career. But his first great
   achievement was the overthrow and extinction of the Vandal
   power in Africa, and the restoration of Roman authority (the
   empire of the new Rome) in the old Carthaginian province (A.
   D. 533-534). He accomplished this with a force of but 10,000
   foot and 5,000 horse, and was hastily recalled by his jealous
   lord on the instant of his success.

Conquests of Belisarius in Italy.

   But the ambition of Justinian was whetted by this marvellous
   conquest, and he promptly projected an expedition against the
   kingdom of the Eastern Goths. The death of Theodoric had
   occurred in 526. His successor was a child of ten years, his
   grandson, whose mother exercised the regency. Amalsuentha, the
   queen-regent, was a woman of highly cultivated mind, and she
   offended her subjects by too marked a Romanization of her
   ideas. Her son died in his eighteenth year, and she associated
   with herself on the throne the next heir to it, a worthless
   nephew of Theodoric, who was able, in a few weeks, to strip
   all her power from her and consign her to a distant prison,
   where she was soon put to death (A. D. 535). She had
   previously opened negotiations with Justinian for the
   restoration of his supremacy in Italy, and the ambitious
   Emperor assumed with eagerness a right to avenge her
   deposition and death. The fate of Amalsuentha was his excuse,
   the discontent of Roman orthodoxy with the rule of the heretic
   Goths was his encouragement, to send an army into Italy with
   Belisarius at its head. First taking possession of Sicily,
   Belisarius landed in Italy in 536, took Naples and advanced on
   Rome. An able soldier, Vitiges, had been raised to the Gothic
   throne, and he evacuated Rome in December; but he returned the
   following March and laid siege to the ancient capital, which
   Belisarius had occupied with a moderate force. It was defended
   against him for an entire year, and the strength of the Gothic
   nation was consumed on the outer side of the walls, while the
   inhabitants within were wasted by famine and disease. The
   Goths invoked the aid of the Franks in Gaul, and those fierce
   warriors, crossing the Alps (A. D. 538), assailed both Goths
   and Greeks, with indiscriminate hostility, destroyed Milan and
   Genoa, and mostly perished of hunger themselves before they
   retreated from the wasted Cisalpine country.

   Released from Rome, Belisarius advanced in his turn against
   Ravenna, and took the Gothic capital, making Vitiges a
   prisoner (A. D. 539). His reward for these successes was a
   recall from command. The jealous Emperor could not afford his
   generals too much glory at a single winning. As a consequence
   of his folly, the Goths, under a new king, Totila, were
   allowed to recover so much ground in the next four years that,
   when, in 544, Belisarius was sent back, almost without an
   army, the work of conquest had to be done anew. Rome was still
   being held against Totila, who besieged it, and the great
   general went by sea to its relief. He forced the passage of
   the Tiber, but failed through the misconduct of the commander
   in the city to accomplish an entry, and once more the great
   capital was entered and yielded to angry Goths (A. D. 546).
   They spared the lives of the few people they found, and the
   chastity of the women; but they plundered without restraint.

Rome a Solitude for Forty Days.

   Totila commanded the total destruction of the city; but his
   ruthless hand was stayed by the remonstrances of Belisarius.
   After demolishing a third of the walls, he withdrew towards
   the South, dragging the few inhabitants with him, and, during
   forty days, Rome is said to have been an unpeopled solitude.
   The scene which this offers to the imagination comes near to
   being the most impressive in history. At the end of that
   period it was entered by Belisarius, who hastily repaired the
   walls, collected his forces, and was prepared to defend
   himself when Totila came back by rapid marches from Apulia.
   The Goths made three assaults and were bloodily repulsed.

End of the Ostrogothic Kingdom.

   But again Belisarius was recalled by a mean and jealous court,
   and again the Gothic cause was reanimated and restored. Rome
   was taken again from its feeble garrison (A. D. 549), and this
   time it was treated with respect. Most of Italy and Sicily,
   with Corsica and Sardinia, were subdued by Totila's arms, and
   that king, now successful, appealed to Justinian for peace. It
   was refused, and in 552 a vigorous prosecution of the war
   resumed, under a new commander—the remarkable eunuch Narses,
   who proved himself to be one of the great masters of war.
   Totila was defeated and slain in the first battle of the
   campaign; Rome was again beleaguered and taken; and the last
   blow needed to extinguish the Gothic kingdom in Italy was
   given the following year (A. D. 553), when Totila's successor,
   Teia, ended his life on another disastrous field of battle.

The Exarchate.

   Italy was restored for the moment to the Empire, and was
   placed under the government of an imperial viceroy, called
   Exarch, which high office the valiant Narses was the first to
   fill. His successors, known in history as the Exarchs of
   Ravenna, resided in that capital for a long period, while the
   arm of their authority was steadily shortened by the conquests
   of new invaders, whose story is yet to be told.

{1014}

Events in the West.

   Leaving Italy and Rome, once more in the imperial fold, but
   mere provinces now of a distant and alienated sovereignty, it
   is necessary to turn back to the West, and glance over the
   regions in which, when we looked at them last, the
   institutions of Roman government and society were being
   dissolved and broken up by flood upon flood of barbaric
   invasion from the Teutonic North.

Teutonic Conquest of Britain.

   If we begin at the farthest West which the Roman dominion
   reached, we shall find that the island of Britain was
   abandoned, practically, by the imperial government earlier
   than the year 410, when Rome was sinking under the blows of
   Alaric. From that time the inhabitants were left to their own
   government and their own defense. To the inroads of the savage
   Caledonian Picts and Irish Scots, there were added, now, the
   coast ravages of a swarm of ruthless pirates, which the tribes
   of northwestern Europe had begun to launch upon the German or
   North Sea. The most cruel and terrible of these ocean
   freebooters were the Saxons, of the Elbe, and they gave their
   name for a time to the whole. Their destructive raids upon the
   coasts of Britain and Gaul had commenced more than a century
   before the Romans withdrew their legions, and that part of the
   British coast most exposed to their ravages was known as the
   Saxon Shore. For about thirty years after the Roman and
   Romanized inhabitants of Britain had been left to defend
   themselves, they held their ground with good courage, as
   appears; but the incessant attacks of the Picts wore out, at
   last, their confidence in themselves, and they were fatally
   led to seek help from their other enemies, who scourged them
   from the sea. Their invitation was given, not to the Saxons,
   but to a band of Jutes—warriors from that Danish peninsula in
   which they have left their name. The Jutes landed at
   Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet (A. D. 449 or 450), with two
   chiefs, Hengest and Horsa, at their head. They came as allies,
   and fought by the side of the Britons against the Picts with
   excellent success. Then came quarrels, and presently, in 455,
   the arms of Hengest and Horsa were turned against their
   employers. Ten years later the Jutes had secure possession of
   the part of Britain now called Kent, and Hengest was their
   king, Horsa having fallen in the war. This was the beginning
   of the transformation of Roman-Celtic Britain into the
   Teutonic England of later history. The success of the Jutes
   drew their cousins and piratical comrades, the Saxons and the
   Angles, to seek kingdoms in the same rich island. The Saxons
   came first, landing near Selsey, in 477, and taking gradual
   possession of a district which became known as the kingdom of
   the South Saxons, or Sussex. The next invasion was by Saxons
   under Cerdic, and Jutes, who joined to form the kingdom of the
   West Saxons, or Wessex, covering about the territory of modern
   Hampshire. So much of their conquest was complete by the year
   519. At about the same time, other colonies were established
   and gave their names, as East Saxons and Middle Saxons, to the
   Essex and Middlesex of modern English geography. A third tribe
   from the German shore, the Angles, now came (A. D. 547) to
   take their part in the conquest of the island, and these laid
   their hands upon kingdoms in the East and North of England, so
   much larger than the modest Jute and Saxon realms in the south
   that their name fixed itself, at last, upon the whole country,
   when it lost the name of Britain. Northumberland, which
   stretched from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, Mercia, which
   covered at one time the whole middle region of England, and
   East Anglia, which became divided into the two English
   counties of Norfolk (North-folk) and Suffolk (South-folk),
   were the three great kingdoms of the Angles.

The Making of England.

   Before the end of the sixth century, almost the whole of
   modern England, and part of Scotland, on its eastern side, as
   far to the north as Edinburgh, was in possession of the German
   invaders. They had not merely subdued the former
   possessors—Britons and Roman provincials (if Romans remained
   in the island after their domination ceased),—but, in the
   judgment of the best investigators of the subject, they had
   practically swept them from all the parts of the island in
   which their own settlements were established. That is to say,
   the prior population was either exterminated by the merciless
   swords of these Saxon and English pagans, or was driven into
   the mountains of Wales, into the peninsula of Cornwall and
   Devon, or into the Strathclyde corner of Scottish
   territory,—in all which regions the ancient British race has
   maintained itself to this day. Scarcely a vestige of its
   existence remains elsewhere in England,—neither in language,
   nor in local names, nor in institutions, nor in survivals of
   any other kind; which shows that the inhabitants were effaced
   by the conquest, as the inhabitants of Gaul, of Spain, and of
   Italy, for example, were not.

   The new society and the new states which now arose on the soil
   of Britain, and began to shape themselves into the England of
   the future, were as purely Germanic as if they had grown up in
   the Jutish peninsula or on the Elbe. The institutions,
   political and social, of the immigrant nations, had been
   modified by changed circumstances, but they had incorporated
   almost nothing from the institutions which they found existing
   in their new home and which they supplanted. Broadly speaking,
   nothing Roman and nothing Celtic entered into them. They were
   constructed on German lines throughout.

   The barbarism of the Saxons and their kin when they entered
   Britain was far more unmitigated than that of most of the
   Teutonic tribes which overwhelmed the continental provinces of
   Rome had been. The Goths had been influenced to some extent
   and for quite a period by Roman civilization, and had
   nominally accepted Christian precepts and beliefs, before they
   took arms against the Empire. The Franks had been allies of
   Rome and in contact with the refinements of Roman Gaul, for a
   century or two before they became masters in that province.
   Most of the other nations which transplanted themselves in the
   fifth century from beyond the Rhine to new homes in the
   provinces of Rome, had been living for generations on the
   borders of the Empire, or near; had acquired some
   acquaintance, at least, with the civilization which they did
   not share, and conceded to it a certain respect; while some of
   them had borne arms for the Emperor and taken his pay. But the
   Saxons, Angles and Jutes had thus far been remote from every
   influence or experience of the kind.
{1015}
   They knew the Romans only as rich strangers to be plundered
   and foes to be fought. Christianity represented nothing to
   them but an insult to their gods. There seems to be little
   doubt, therefore, that the civilizing work which Rome had done
   in western Europe was obliterated nowhere else so ruthlessly
   and so wantonly as in Britain. Christianity, still sheltered
   and strong in Ireland, was wholly extinguished in England for
   a century and more, until the memorable mission of Augustine,
   sent by Pope Gregory the Great (A. D. 597), began the
   conversion of the savage islanders.

The Kingdom of the Franks.

   In Gaul, meanwhile, and in southwestern Germany, the Franks
   had become the dominant power. They had moved tardily to the
   conquest, but when they moved it was with rapid strides. While
   they dwelt along the Lower Rhine, they were in two divisions:
   the Salian Franks, who occupied, first, the country near the
   mouth of the river, and then spread southwards, to the Somme,
   or beyond; and the Ripuarians, who lived farther up the Rhine,
   in the neighborhood of Cologne, advancing thence to the
   Moselle. In the later part of the fifth century a Roman
   Patrician, Syagrius, still exercised some kind of authority in
   northern Gaul; but in 486 he was defeated and overthrown by
   Chlodvig, or Clovis, the chief of the Salian Franks. Ten years
   later, Clovis, leading both the Salian and the Ripuarian
   Franks in an attack upon the German Alemanni, beyond the Upper
   Rhine, subdued that people completely, and took their country.
   Their name survived, and adhered to the whole people of
   Germany, whom the Franks and their successors the French have
   called Allemands to this day. After his conquest of the
   Alemanni, Clovis, who had married a Christian wife, accepted
   her faith and was baptized, with three thousand of his chief
   men. The professed conversion was as fortunate politically for
   him as it had been for Constantine. He adopted the
   Christianity which was that of the Roman Church—the Catholic
   Christianity of the Athanasian creed—and he stood forth at
   once as the champion of orthodoxy against the heretic Goths
   and Burgundians, whose religion had been poisoned by the
   condemned doctrines of Arius. The blessings, and the more
   substantial endeavors, of the Roman Church were, therefore, on
   his side, when he attacked the Burgundians and made them
   tributary, and when, a few years later, he expelled the Goths
   from Aquitaine and drove them into Spain (A.D. 500-508).
   Beginning, apparently, as one of several chiefs among the
   Salian Franks, he ended his career (510) as sole king of the
   whole Frank nation, and master of all Gaul except a Gothic
   corner of Provence, with a considerable dominion beyond the
   Rhine.

The Merovingian Kings.

   But Clovis left his realm to four sons, who divided it into as
   many kingdoms, with capitals at Metz, Orleans, Paris, and
   Soissons. There was strife and war between them, until one of
   the brothers, Lothaire, united again the whole kingdom, which,
   meantime, had been enlarged by the conquest of Thuringia and
   Provence, and by the extinction of the tributary Burgundian
   kings. When he died, his sons rent the kingdom again, and
   warred with one another, and once more it was brought
   together. Says Hallam: "It is a weary and unprofitable task to
   follow these changes in detail, through scenes of tumult and
   bloodshed, in which the eye meets with no sunshine, nor can
   rest upon any interesting spot. It would be difficult, as
   Gibbon has justly observed, to find anywhere more vice or less
   virtue." But, as Dean Church has remarked, the Franks were
   maintained in their ascendancy by the favor of the clergy and
   the circumstances of their position, despite their divisions
   and the worthless and detestable character of their kings,
   after Clovis. "They occupied a land of great natural wealth,
   and great geographical advantages, which had been prepared for
   them by Latin culture; they inherited great cities which they
   had not built, and fields and vineyards which they had not
   planted; and they had the wisdom, not to destroy, but to use
   their conquest. They were able with singular ease and
   confidence to employ and trust the services, civil and
   military, of the Latin population. … The bond between the
   Franks and the native races was the clergy. … The forces of
   the whole nation were at the disposal of the ruling race; and
   under Frank chiefs, the Latins and Gauls learned once more to
   be warriors." This no doubt suggests a quite true explanation
   of the success of the Franks; but too much may easily be
   inferred from it. It will not be safe to conclude that the
   Franks were protectors of civilization in Gaul, and did not
   lay destroying hands upon it. We shall presently see that it
   sank to a very darkened state under their rule, though the
   eclipse may have been less complete than in some other of the
   barbarized provinces of Rome.

Rise of the Carolingians.

   The division in the Frankish dominion which finally marked
   itself deeply and became permanent was that which separated
   the East Kingdom, or Austrasia, from the West Kingdom, or
   Neustria. In Austrasia, the Germanic element prevailed; in
   Neustria, the Roman and Gallic survivals entered most largely
   into the new society. Austrasia widened into the Germany of
   later history; Neustria into France. In both these kingdoms,
   the Frankish kings sank lower and lower in character, until
   their name (of Merwings or Merovingians, from an ancestor of
   Clovis) became a byword for sloth and worthlessness. In each
   kingdom there arose, beside the nominal monarch, a strong
   minister, called the Major Domus, or Mayor of the Palace, who
   exercised the real power and governed in the king's name.
   During the last half of the seventh century, the Austrasian
   Mayor, Pippin of Heristal, and the Neustrian Mayor, Ebroin,
   converted the old antagonism of the two kingdoms into a
   personal rivalry and struggle for supremacy. Ebroin was
   murdered, and Pippin was the final victor, in a decisive
   battle at Testry (687), which made him virtual master of the
   whole Frank realm, although the idle Merwings still sat on
   their thrones. Pippin's son, Charles Martel, strengthened and
   extended the domination which his father had acquired. He
   drove back the Saxons and subdued the Frisians in the North,
   and, in the great and famous battle of Tours (732) he
   repelled, once for all, the attempt of the Arab and Moorish
   followers of Mahomet, already lodged in Spain, to push their
   conquests beyond the Pyrenees.
{1016}
   The next of the family, Pippin the Short, son of Charles
   Martel, put an end to the pretence of governing in the name of
   a puppet-king. The last of the Merovingians was quietly
   deposed—lacking even importance enough to be put to death—
   and Pippin received the crown at the hands of Pope Zachary (A.
   D. 751). He died in 768, and the reign of his son, who
   succeeded him—the Great Charles—the Charlemagne of mediæval
   history—is the introduction to so new an era, and so changed
   an order of circumstances in the European world, that it will
   be best to finish with all that lies behind it in our hasty
   survey before we take it up.

The Conquests of Islam.

   Outside of Europe, a new and strange power had now risen, and
   had spread its forces with extraordinary rapidity around the
   southern and eastern circuit of the Mediterranean, until it
   troubled both extremities of the northern shore. This was the
   power of Islam—the proselyting, war-waging religion of
   Mahomet, the Arabian prophet. At the death of Mahomet, in 632,
   he was lord of Arabia, and his armies had just crossed the
   border, to attack the Syrian possessions of the Eastern Roman
   Empire. In seven years from that time, the whole of Palestine
   and Syria had been overrun, Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, and
   all the strong cities taken, and Roman authority expelled. In
   two years more, they had dealt the last blow to the Sassanian
   monarchy in Persia and shattered it forever. At the same time
   they were besieging Alexandria and adding Egypt to their
   conquests. In 668, only thirty-six years after the death of
   the Prophet, they were at the gates of Constantinople, making
   the first of their many attempts to gain possession of the New
   Rome. In 698 they had taken Carthage, had occupied all North
   Africa to the Atlantic coast, had converted the Mauretanians,
   or Moors, and absorbed them into their body politic as well as
   into their communion. In 711 the commingled Arabs and Moors
   crossed the Straits and entered Spain, and the overthrow of
   the Christian kingdom of the Visigoths was practically
   accomplished in a single battle that same year. Within two
   years more, the Moors (as they came to be most commonly
   called) were in possession of the whole southern, central, and
   eastern parts of the Spanish peninsula, treating the
   inhabitants who had not fled with a more generous toleration
   than differing Christians were wont to offer to one another.
   The Spaniards (a mixed population of Roman, Suevic, Gothic,
   and aboriginal descent) who did, not submit, took refuge in
   the mountainous region of the Asturias and Galicia, where they
   maintained their independence, and, in due time, became
   aggressive, until, after eight centuries, they recovered their
   whole land.

The Eastern Empire.

   At the East, as we have seen, the struggle of the Empire with
   the Arabs began at the first moment of their career of foreign
   conquest. They came upon it when it was weak from many wounds,
   and exhausted by conflict with many foes. Before the death of
   Justinian (565), the transient glories of his reign had been
   waning fast. His immediate successor saw the work of
   Belisarius and Narses undone, for the most part, and the
   Italian peninsula overrun by a new horde of barbarians, more
   rapacious and more savage than the Goths. At the same time,
   the Persian war broke out again, and drained the imperial
   resources to pay for victories that had no fruit. Two better
   and stronger emperors—Tiberius and Maurice—who came after
   him, only made an honorable struggle, without leaving the
   Empire in a better state. Then a brutal creature—Phocas—held
   the throne for eight years (602-610) and sunk it very low by his
   crimes. The hero, Heraclius, who was now raised to power, came
   too late. Assailed suddenly, at the very beginning of his
   reign, by a fierce Persian onset, he was powerless to resist.
   Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor were successively ravaged and
   conquered by the Persian arms. They came even to the
   Bosphorus, and for ten years they held its eastern shore and
   maintained a camp within sight of Constantinople itself; while
   the wild Tartar nation of the Avars raged, at the same time,
   through the northern and western provinces of the Empire, and
   threatened the capital on its landward sides. The Roman Empire
   was reduced, for a time, to "the walls of Constantinople, with
   the remnant of Greece, Italy, and Africa, and some maritime
   cities, from Tyre to Trebizond, of the Asiatic coast." But in
   622 Heraclius turned the tide of disaster and rolled it back
   upon his enemies. Despite an alliance of the Persians with the
   Avars, and their combined assault upon Constantinople in 626,
   he repelled the latter, and wrested from the former, in a
   series of remarkable campaigns, all the territory they had
   seized. He had but just accomplished this great deliverance of
   his dominions, when the Arabs came upon him, as stated above.
   There was no strength left in the Empire to resist the
   terrible prowess of these warriors of the desert. They
   extinguished its authority in Syria and Egypt, as we have
   seen, in the first years of their career; but then turned
   their arms to the East and the West, and were slow in
   disputing Asia Minor with its Christian lords. "From the time
   of Heraclius the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened:
   the line of empire which had been defined by the laws of
   Justinian and the arms of Belisarius recedes on all sides from
   our view" (Gibbon). There was neither vigor nor virtue in the
   descendants of Heraclius; and when the last of them was
   destroyed by a popular rising against his vicious tyranny
   (711), revolution followed revolution so quickly that three
   reigns were begun and ended in six years.

The so-called Byzantine Empire.

   Then came to the throne a man of strong character, who
   redeemed it at least from contempt; who introduced a dynasty
   which endured for a century, and whose reign is the beginning
   of a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire, so marked
   that the Empire has taken from that time, in the common usage,
   a changed name, and is known thenceforth as the Byzantine,
   rather than the Eastern or the Greek. This was Leo the
   Isaurian, who saved Constantinople from a second desperate
   Moslem siege; who checked for a considerable period the
   Mahometan advance in the East; who reorganized the imperial
   administration on lasting lines; and whose suppression of
   image-worship in the Christian churches of his empire led to a
   rupture with the Roman Church in the West,—to the breaking of
   all relations of dependence in Rome and Italy upon the Empire
   in the East, and to the creating of a new imperial sovereignty
   in Western Europe which claimed succession to that of Rome.

{1017}

Lombard Conquest of Italy.

   On the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses, for
   Justinian, the eunuch Narses, as related before, was made
   governor, residing at Ravenna, and bearing the title of
   Exarch. In a few years he was displaced, through the influence
   of a palace intrigue at Constantinople. To be revenged, it is
   said that he persuaded the Lombards, a German tribe lately
   become threatening on the Upper Danube, to enter Italy. They
   came, under their leader Alboin, and almost the whole northern
   and middle parts of the peninsula submitted to them with no
   resistance. Pavia stood a siege for three years before it
   surrendered to become the Lombard capital; Venice received an
   added population of fugitives, and was safe in her
   lagoons—like Ravenna, where the new Exarch watched the march
   of Lombard conquest, and scarcely opposed it. Rome was
   preserved, with part of southern Italy and with Sicily; but no
   more than a shadow of the sovereignty of the Empire now
   stretched westward beyond the Adriatic.

Temporal Power of the Popes.

   The city of Rome, and the territory surrounding it, still
   owned a nominal allegiance to the Emperor at Constantinople;
   but their immediate and real ruler was the Bishop of Rome, who
   had already acquired, in a special way, the fatherly name of
   "Papa" or Pope. Many circumstances had combined to place both
   spiritual and temporal power in the hands of these Christian
   pontiffs of Rome. They may have been originally, in the
   constitution of the Church, on an equal footing of
   ecclesiastical authority with the four other chiefs of the
   hierarchy—the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
   Antioch and Jerusalem; but the great name of Rome gave them
   prestige and weight of superior influence to begin with. Then,
   they stood, geographically and sympathetically, in nearest
   relations with that massive Latin side of Christendom, in
   western Europe, which was never much disturbed by the raging
   dogmatic controversies that tore and divided the Church on its
   Eastern, Greek side. It was inevitable that the Western Church
   should yield homage to one head—to one bishopric above all
   other bishoprics; and it was more inevitable that the See of
   Rome should be that one. So the spiritual supremacy to which
   the Popes arrived is easily enough explained. The temporal
   authority which they acquired is accounted for as obviously.
   Even before the interruption of the line of emperors in the
   West, the removal of the imperial residence for long periods
   from Rome, to Constantinople, to Milan, to Ravenna, left the
   Pope the most impressive and influential personage in the
   ancient capital. Political functions were forced on him,
   whether he desired to exercise them or not. It was Pope Leo
   who headed the embassy to Attila, and saved the city from the
   Huns. It was the same Pope who pleaded for it with the Vandal
   king, Genseric. And still more and more, after the imperial
   voice which uttered occasional commands to his Roman subjects
   was heard from a distant palace in Constantinople, and in
   accents that had become wholly Greek, the chair of St. Peter
   grew throne-like,—the respect paid to the Pope in civil
   matters took on the spirit of obedience, and his aspect before
   the people became that of a temporal prince.

   This process of the political elevation of the Papacy was
   completed by the Lombard conquest of Italy. The Lombard kings
   were bent upon the acquisition of Rome; the Popes were
   resolute and successful in holding it against them. At last
   the Papacy made its memorable and momentous alliance with the
   Carolingian chiefs of the Franks. It assumed the tremendous
   super-imperial right and power to dispose of crowns, by taking
   that of the kingdom of the Franks from Childeric and giving it
   to Pippin (751); and this was the first assumption of that
   right by the chief priest of Western Christendom. In return,
   Pippin led an army twice to Italy (754-755), humbled the
   Lombards, took from them the exarchate of Ravenna and the
   Pentapolis (a district east of the Appenines, between Ancona
   and Ferrara), and transferred this whole territory as a
   conqueror's "donation" to the Apostolic See. The temporal
   sovereignty of the Popes now rested on a base as political and
   as substantial as that of the most worldly and vulgar
   potentates around them.

Charlemagne's restored Roman Empire.

   Pippin's greater son, Charlemagne, renewed the alliance of his
   house with the Papacy, and strengthened it by completing the
   conquest of the Lombards, extinguishing their kingdom (774),
   and confirming his father's donation of the States of the
   Church. Charlemagne was now supreme in Italy, and the Pope
   became the representative of his sovereignty at Rome,—a
   position which lastingly enhanced the political importance of
   the Roman See in the peninsula. But while Pope and King stood
   related, in one view, as agent and principal, or subject and
   sovereign, another very different relationship slowly shaped
   itself in the thoughts of one, if not of both. The Western
   Church had broken entirely with the Eastern, on the question
   of image-worship; the titular sovereignty of the Eastern
   Emperor in the ancient Roman capital was a worn-out fiction;
   the reign of a female usurper, Irene, at Constantinople
   afforded a good occasion for renouncing and discarding it. But
   a Roman Emperor there must be, somewhere, for lesser princes
   and sovereigns to do homage to; the political habit and
   feeling of the European world, shaped and fixed by the long
   domination of Rome, still called for it. "Nor could the
   spiritual head of Christendom dispense with the temporal;
   without the Roman Empire there could not be," according to the
   feeling of the ninth century, "a Roman, nor by necessary
   consequence a Catholic and Apostolic Church." For "men could
   not separate in fact what was indissoluble in thought:
   Christianity must stand or fall along with the great Christian
   state: they were but two names for one and the same thing"
   (Bryce). Therefore the head of the Church, boldly enlarging
   the assumption of his predecessor who bestowed the crown of
   the Merovingians upon Pippin, now took it upon himself to set
   the diadem of the Cæsars on the head of Charlemagne. On the
   Christmas Day, in the year 800, in the basilica of St. Peter,
   at Rome, the solemn act of coronation was performed by Pope
   Leo III.; the Roman Empire lived again, in the estimation of
   that age, and Charles the Great reopened the interrupted line
   of successors to Augustus.

{1018}

   Before this imperial coronation of Charlemagne occurred, he
   had already made his dominion imperial in extent, by the
   magnitude of his conquests. North, south, east, and west, his
   armies had been everywhere victorious. In eighteen campaigns
   against the fierce and troublesome Saxons, he subdued those
   stubborn pagans and forced them to submit to a Christian
   baptism—with how much of immediate religious effect may be
   easily surmised. But by opening a way for the more Christ-like
   missionaries of the cross, who followed him, this missionary
   of the battle-ax did, no doubt, a very real apostolic work. He
   checked the ravages of the piratical Danes. He crushed the
   Avars and took their country, which comprised parts of the
   Austria and Hungary of the present day. He occupied Bavaria,
   on the one hand, and Brittany on the other. He crossed the
   Pyrenees to measure swords with the Saracens, and drove them
   from the north of Spain, as far as the Ebro. His lordship in
   Italy has been noticed already. He was unquestionably one of
   the greatest monarchs of any age, and deserves the title
   Magnus, affixed to his name, if that title ever has been
   deserved by the kings who were flattered with it. There was
   much more in his character than the mere aggressive energy
   which subjugated so wide a realm. He was a man of
   enlightenment far beyond his time; a man who strove after
   order, in that disorderly age, and who felt oppressed by the
   ignorance into which the world had sunk. He was a seeker after
   learning, and the friend and patron of all in his day who
   groped in the darkness and felt their way towards the light.
   He organized his Empire with a sense of political system which
   was new among the Teutonic masters of Western Europe (except
   as shown by Theodoric in Italy); but there were not years
   enough in his own life for the organism to mature, and his
   sons brought back chaos again.

Appearance of the Northmen.

   Before Charlemagne died (814) he saw the western coasts and
   river valleys of his Empire harried by a fresh outpouring of
   sea-rovers from the far North, and it is said that he had sad
   forebodings of the affliction they would become to his people
   thereafter. These new pirates of the North Sea, who took up,
   after several centuries, the abandoned trade of their kinsmen,
   the Saxons (now retired from their wild courses and
   respectably settled on one side of the water, while subdued
   and kept in order on the other), were of the bold and rugged
   Scandinavian race, which inhabited the countries since known
   as Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They are more or less confused
   under the general name of Northmen, or Norsemen—men of the
   North; but that term appears to have been applied more
   especially to the freebooters from the Norwegian coast, as
   distinguished from the "Danes" of the lesser peninsula. It is
   convenient, in so general a sketch as this, to ignore the
   distinction, and to speak of the Northmen as inclusive, for
   that age, of the whole Scandinavian race.

   Their visitations began to terrify the coasts of England,
   France and Germany, and the lower valleys of the rivers which
   they found it possible to ascend, some time in the later half
   of the eighth century. It is probable that their appearance on
   the sea at this time, and not before, was due to a revolution
   which united Norway under a single king and a stronger
   government, and which, by suppressing independence and
   disorder among the petty chiefs, drove many of them to their
   ships and sent them abroad, to lead a life of lawlessness more
   agreeable to their tastes. It is also probable that the
   northern countries had become populated beyond their
   resources, as seemed to have happened before, when the Goths
   swarmed out, and that the outlet by sea was necessarily and
   deliberately opened. Whatever the cause, these Norse
   adventurers, in fleets of long boats, issued with some
   suddenness from their "vics," or fiords (whence the name
   "viking"), and began an extraordinary career. For more than
   half a century their raids had no object but plunder, and what
   they took they carried home to enjoy. First to the Frisian
   coast, then to the Rhine—the Seine—the Loire,—they came
   again and again to pillage and destroy; crossing at the same
   time to the shores of their nearest kinsmen—but heeding no
   kinship in their savage and relentless forays along the
   English coasts—and around to Ireland and the Scottish
   islands, where their earliest lodgments were made.

The Danes in England.

   About the middle of the ninth century they began to seize
   tracts of land in England and to settle themselves there in
   permanent homes. The Angles in the northern and eastern parts
   and the Saxons in the southern part of England had weakened
   themselves and one another by rivalry and war between their
   divided kingdoms. There had been for three centuries an
   unceasing struggle among them for supremacy. At the time of
   the coming of the Danes (who were prominent in the English
   invasion and gave their name to it), the West Saxon kings had
   won a decided ascendancy. The Danes, by degrees, stripped them
   of what they had gained. Northumberland, Mercia and East
   Anglia were occupied in succession, and Wessex itself was
   attacked. King Alfred, the great and admirable hero of early
   English history, who came to the throne in 871, spent the
   first eight years of his reign in a deadly struggle with the
   invaders. He was obliged in the end to concede to them the
   whole northeastern part of England, from the Thames to the
   Tyne, which was known thereafter as "the Danelaw"; but they
   became his vassals, and submitted to Christian baptism. A
   century later, the Norse rovers resumed their attacks upon
   England, and a cowardly English king, distrusting the now
   settled and peaceful Danes, ordered an extensive massacre of
   them (1002). The rage which this provoked in Denmark led to a
   great invasion of the country. England was completely
   conquered, and remained subject to the Danish kings until
   1042, when its throne was recovered for a brief space of time
   by the English line.

{1019}

The Normans in Normandy.

   Meanwhile the Northmen had gained a much firmer and more
   important footing in the territory of the Western
   Franks—which had not yet acquired the name of France. The
   Seine and its valley attracted them again and again, and after
   repeated expeditions up the river, even to the city of Paris,
   which they besieged several times, one of their chiefs, Rolf
   or Rollo, got possession of Rouen and began a permanent
   settlement in the country. The Frank King, Charles the Simple,
   now made terms with Rollo and granted him a district at the
   mouth of the Seine, (912), the latter acknowledging the
   suzerainty or feudal superiority of Charles, and accepting at
   the same time the doubly new character of a baptised Christian
   and a Frankish Duke. The Northmen on the Seine were known
   thenceforth as Normans, their dukedom as Normandy, and they
   played a great part in European history during the next two
   centuries.

The Northmen in the West.

   The northern sea-rovers who had settled neither in Ireland,
   England, nor Frankland, went farther afield into the West and
   North and had wonderful adventures there. They took possession
   of the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Hebrides, and other islands
   in those seas, including Man, and founded a powerful
   island-kingdom, which they held for a long period. Thence they
   passed on to Faroë and Iceland, and in Iceland, where they
   lived peaceful and quiet lives of necessity, they founded an
   interesting republic, and developed a very remarkable
   civilization, adorned by a literature which the world is
   learning more and more to admire. From Iceland, it was a
   natural step to the discovery of Greenland, and from
   Greenland, there is now little doubt that they sailed
   southwards and saw and touched the continent of America, five
   centuries before Columbus made his voyage.

The Northmen in the East.

   While the Northmen of the ninth and tenth centuries were
   exciting and disturbing all Western Europe by their naval
   exploits, other adventurers from the Swedish side of the
   Scandinavian country were sallying eastwards under different
   names. Both as warriors and as merchants, they made their way
   from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Bosphorus, and bands
   of them entered the service of the Eastern Emperor, at
   Constantinople, where they received the name of Varangians,
   from the oath by which they bound themselves. One of the
   Swedish chiefs, Rurik by name, was chosen by certain tribes of
   the country now called Russia, to be their prince. Rurik's
   capital was Novgorod, where he formed the nucleus of a kingdom
   which grew, through many vicissitudes, into the modern empire
   of Russia. His successors transferred their capital to Kief,
   and ultimately it was shifted again to Moscow, where the
   Muscovite princes acquired the title, the power, and the great
   dominion of the Czars of all the Russias.

The Slavonic Race.

   The Russian sovereigns were thus of Swedish origin; but their
   subjects were of another race. They belonged to a branch of
   the great Aryan stock, called the Slavic or Slavonic, which
   was the last to become historically known. The Slavonians bore
   no important part in events that we have knowledge of until
   several centuries of the Christian era had passed. They were
   the obscure inhabitants in that period of a wide region in
   Eastern Europe, between the Vistula and the Caspian. In the
   sixth century, pressed by the Avars, they crossed the Vistula,
   moving westwards, along the Baltic; and, about the same time
   they moved southwards, across the Danube, and established the
   settlements which formed the existing Slavonic states in
   South-eastern Europe—Servia, Croatia and their lesser
   neighbors. But the principal seat of the Slavonic race within
   historic times has always been in the region still occupied by
   its principal representatives, the Russians and the Poles.

Mediæval Society.
The Feudal System.

   We have now come to a period in European history—the middle
   period of the Middle Ages—when it is appropriate to consider
   the peculiar state of society which had resulted from the
   transplanting of the Germanic nations of the North to the
   provinces of the Roman Empire, and from placing the well
   civilized surviving inhabitants of the latter in subjection to
   and in association with masters so vigorous, so capable and so
   barbarous. In Gaul, the conquerors, unused to town-life, not
   attracted to town pursuits, and eager for the possession of
   land, had generally spread themselves over the country and
   left the cities more undisturbed, except as they pillaged them
   or extorted ransom from them. The Roman-Gallic population of
   the country had sought refuge, no doubt, to a large extent, in
   the cities; the agricultural laborers were already, for the
   most part, slaves or half-slaves—the coloni of the Roman
   system—and remained in their servitude; while some of the
   poorer class of freemen may have sunk to the same condition.

   How far the new masters of the country had taken possession of
   its land by actual seizure, ousting the former owners, and
   under what rules, if any, it was divided among them, are
   questions involved in great obscurity. In the time of
   Charlemagne, there seems to have been a large number of small
   landowners who cultivated their own holdings, which they
   owned, not conditionally, but absolutely, by the tenure called
   allodial. But alongside of these peasant proprietors there was
   another landed class whose estates were held on very different
   terms, and this latter class, at the time now spoken of, was
   rapidly absorbing the former. It was a class which had not
   existed before, neither among the Germans nor among the
   Romans, and the system of land tenure on which it rested was
   equally new to both, although both seem to have contributed
   something to the origin of it. This was the Feudal System,
   which may be described, in the words of Bishop Stubbs, as
   being "a complete organization of society through the medium
   of land tenure, in which, from the king down to the landowner,
   all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
   the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
   his lord; the defence and service being based on, and
   regulated by, the nature and extent of the land held by the
   one of the other." Of course, the service exacted was, in the
   main, military, and the system grew up as a military system,
   expanding into a general governing system, during a time of
   loose and ineffective administration. That it was a thing of
   gradual growth is now fairly well settled, although little is
   clearly known of the process of growth. It came to its
   perfection in the tenth century, by which time most other
   tenures of land had disappeared. The allodial tenure gave way
   before it, because, in those disorderly times, men of small or
   moderate property in land were in need of the protection which
   a powerful lord, who had many retainers at his back, or a strong
   monastery, could give, and were induced to surrender, to one
   or the other, their free ownership of the land they held,
   receiving it back as tenants, in order to establish the
   relation which secured a protector.

{1020}

   In its final organization, the feudal system, as stated
   before, embraced the whole society of the kingdom.
   Theoretically, the king was the pinnacle of the system. In the
   political view of the time—so far as a political view
   existed—he was the over-lord of the realm rather by reason of
   being its ultimate land-lord, than by being the center of
   authority and the guardian of law. The greater subordinate
   lordships of the kingdom—the dukedoms and counties—were
   held as huge estates, called fiefs, derived originally by
   grant from the king, subject to the obligation of military
   service, and to certain acts of homage, acknowledging the
   dependent relationship. The greater feudatories, or vassals,
   holding immediately from the king, were lords in their turn of
   a second order of feudatories, who held lands under them; and
   they again might divide their territories among vassals of a
   third degree; for the process of sub-infeudation went on until
   it reached the cultivator of the soil, who bore the whole
   social structure of society on his bent back.

   But the feudal system would have wrought few of the effects
   which it did if it had involved nothing but land tenure and
   military service. It became, however, as before intimated, a
   system of government, and one which inevitably produced a
   disintegration of society and a destruction of national bonds.
   A grant of territory generally carried with it almost a grant
   of sovereignty over the inhabitants of the territory, limited
   only by certain rights and powers reserved to the king, which
   he found extreme difficulty in exercising. The system was one
   "in which every lord judged, taxed, and commanded the class
   next below him, in which abject slavery formed the lowest and
   irresponsible tyranny the highest grade, in which private war,
   private coinage, private prisons, took the place of the
   imperial institutions of government" (Stubbs). This was the
   singular system which had its original and special growth
   among the Franks, in the Middle Ages, and which spread from
   them, under the generally similar conditions of the age, to
   other countries, with various degrees of modification and
   limitation. Its influence was obviously opposed to political
   unity and social order, and to the development of institutions
   favorable to the people.

   But an opposing influence had kept life in one part of society
   which feudalism was not able to envelope. That was in cities.
   The cities, as before stated, had been the refuge of a large
   and perhaps a better part of the Roman-Gallic free population
   which survived the barbarian conquest. They, in conjunction
   with the Church, preserved, without doubt, so much of the
   plant of Roman civilization as escaped destruction. They
   certainly suffered heavily, and languished for several
   centuries; but a slow revival of industries and arts went on
   in them,—trade crept again into its old channels, or found
   new ones,—and wealth began to be accumulated anew. With the
   consciousness of wealth came feelings of independence; and
   such towns were now beginning to acquire the spirit which made
   them, a little later, important instruments in the weakening
   and breaking of the feudal system.

Rise of the Kingdom of France.

   During the period between the death of Charlemagne and the
   settlement of the Normans in the Carlovingian Empire, that
   Empire had become permanently divided. The final separation
   had taken place (887) between the kingdom of the East Franks,
   or Germany, and the kingdom of the West Franks, which
   presently became France. Between them stretched a region in
   dispute called Lotharingia, out of which came the duchy of
   Lorraine. The kingdom of Burgundy (sometimes cut into two) and
   the kingdom of Italy, had regained a separate existence; and
   the Empire which Charlemagne had revived was nothing but a
   name. The last of the Carlovingian emperors was Arnulf, who
   died in 899. The imperial title was borne afterwards by a
   number of petty Italian potentates, but lost all imperial
   significance for two-thirds of a century, until it was
   restored to some grandeur again and to a lasting influence in
   history, by another German king.

   Before this occurred, the Carlovingian race of kings had
   disappeared from both the Frank kingdoms. During the last
   hundred years of their reign in the West kingdom, the throne
   had been disputed with them two or three times by members of a
   rising family, the Counts of Paris and Orleans, who were also
   called Dukes of the French, and whose duchy gave its name to
   the kingdom which they finally made their own. The kings of
   the old race held their capital at Laon, with little power and
   a small dominion, until 987, when the last one died. The then
   Count of Paris and Duke of the French, Hugh, called Capet,
   became king of the French, by election; Paris became the
   capital of the kingdom, and the France of modern times had its
   birth, though very far from its full growth.

   The royal power had now declined to extreme weakness. The
   development of feudalism had undermined all central authority,
   and Hugh Capet as king had scarcely more power than he drew
   from his own large fief. "At first he was by no means
   acknowledged in the kingdom; but … the chief vassals
   ultimately gave at least a tacit consent to the usurpation,
   and permitted the royal name to descend undisputed upon his
   posterity. But this was almost the sole attribute of
   sovereignty which the first kings of the third dynasty
   enjoyed. For a long period before and after the accession of
   that family France has, properly speaking, no national
   history" (Hallam).

The Communes.

   When the royal power began to gain ascendancy, it seems to
   have been largely in consequence of a tacitly formed alliance
   between the kings and the commons or burghers of the towns.
   The latter, as noted before, were acquiring a spirit of
   independence, born of increased prosperity, and were
   converting their guilds or trades unions into crude forms of
   municipal organization, as "communes" or commons. Sometimes by
   purchase and sometimes by force, they were ridding themselves
   of the feudal pretensions which neighboring lords held over
   them, and were obtaining charters which defined and guaranteed
   municipal freedom to them. One or two kings of the time
   happened to be wise enough to give encouragement to this
   movement towards the enfranchisement of the communes, and it
   proved to have an important influence in weakening feudalism
   and strengthening royalty.

[Image: Europe at the close of the 10th century.]

{1021}

Germany.

   In the German kingdom, much the same processes of
   disintegration had produced much the same results as in
   France. The great fiefs into which it was divided—the duchies
   of Saxony, Franconia, Swabia and Bavaria—were even more
   powerful than the great fiefs of France. When the Carlovingian
   dynasty came to an end, in 911, the nobles made choice of a
   king, electing Conrad of Franconia, and, after him (919),
   Henry the Fowler, Duke of Saxony. The monarchy continued
   thereafter to be elective, actually as well as in theory, for
   a long period. Three times the crown was kept in the same
   family during several successive generations: in the House of
   Saxony from 919 to 1024; in the House of Franconia from 1024
   to 1137; in the House of the Hohenstaufens, of Swabia, from
   1137 to 1254: but it never became an acknowledged heritage
   until long after the Hapsburgs won possession of it; and even
   to the end the forms of election were preserved.

The Holy Roman Empire.

   The second king of the Saxon dynasty, Otho I., called the
   Great, recovered the imperial title, which had become extinct
   again in the West, added the crown of Lombardy to the crown of
   Germany, and founded anew the Germanic Roman Empire, which
   Charlemagne had failed to establish enduringly, but which now
   became one of the conspicuous facts of European history for
   more than eight hundred years, although seldom more than a
   shadow and a name. But the shadow and the name were those of
   the great Rome of antiquity, and the mighty memory it had left
   in the world gave a superior dignity and rank to these German
   emperors, even while it diminished their actual power as kings
   of Germany. It conferred upon them, indeed, more than rank and
   dignity; it bestowed an "office" which the ideas and feelings
   of that age could not suffer to remain vacant. The Imperial
   office seemed to be required, in matters temporal, to balance
   and to be the complement of the Papal office in matters
   spiritual. "In nature and compass the government of these two
   potentates is the same, differing only in the sphere of its
   working; and it matters not whether we call the Pope a
   spiritual Emperor, or the Emperor a secular Pope." "Thus the
   Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the
   same thing, in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of
   the universal Christian society, is also Romanism; that is,
   rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality"
   (Bryce). These mediæval ideas of the "Holy Roman Empire," as
   it came to be called (not immediately, but after a time), gave
   importance to the imperial coronation thenceforth claimed by
   the German kings. It was a factitious importance, so far as
   concerned the immediate realm of those kings. In Germany,
   while it brought no increase to their material power, it
   tended to alarm feudal jealousies; it tended to draw the kings
   away from their natural identification with their own country; it
   tended to distract them from an effective royal policy at
   home, by foreign ambitions and aims; and altogether it
   interfered seriously with the nationalization of Germany, and
   gave a longer play to the disrupting influences of feudalism
   in that country than in any other.

Italy, the Empire and the Papacy.

   Otto I. had won Italy and the Imperial crown (962) very
   easily. For more than half a century the peninsula had been in
   a deplorable state. The elective Lombard crown, quarreled over
   by the ducal houses of Friuli, Spoleto, Ivrea, Provence, and
   others, settled nowhere with any sureness, and lost all
   dignity and strength, though several of the petty kings who
   wore it had been crowned emperors by the Pope. At Rome, all
   legitimate government, civil or ecclesiastical, had
   disappeared. The city and the Church had been for years under
   the rule of a family of courtesans, who made popes of their
   lovers and their sons. Southern Italy was being ravaged by the
   Saracens, who occupied Sicily, and Northern Italy was
   desolated by the Hungarians. Under these circumstances, Otto
   I., the German king, listened to an appeal from an oppressed
   queen, Adelaide, widow of a murdered king, and crossed, the
   Alps (951), like a gallant knight, to her relief. He chastised
   and humbled the oppressor, rescued the queen, and married her. A
   few years later, on further provocation, he entered Italy
   again, deposed the troublesome King Berengar, caused himself
   to be crowned King of Italy, and received the imperial crown
   at Rome (962) from one of the vilest of a vile brood of popes,
   John XII. Soon afterwards, he was impelled to convoke a synod
   which deposed this disgraceful pope and elected in his place
   Leo VIII., who had been Otto's chief secretary. The citizens
   now conceded to the Emperor an absolute veto on papal
   elections, and the new pope confirmed their act. The German
   sovereigns, from that time, for many years, asserted their
   right to control the filling of the chair of St. Peter, and
   exercised the right on many occasions, though always with
   difficulty.

   Nominally they were sovereigns of Rome and Italy; but during
   their long absences from the country they scarcely made a show
   of administrative government in it, and their visits were
   generally of the nature of expeditions for a reconquest of the
   land. Their claims of sovereignty were resisted more and more,
   politically throughout Italy and ecclesiastically at Rome. The
   Papacy emancipated itself from their control and acquired a
   natural leadership of Italian opposition to German imperial
   pretensions. The conflict between these two forces became, as
   will be seen later on, one of the dominating facts of European
   history for four centuries—from the eleventh to the
   fourteenth.

{1022}

The Italian City-republics.

   The disorder that had been scarcely checked in Italy since the
   Goths came into it,—the practical extinction of central
   authority after Charlemagne dropped his sceptre, and the
   increasing conflicts of the nobles among themselves,—had one
   consequence of remarkable importance in Italian history. It
   opened opportunities to many cities in the northern parts of
   the peninsula for acquiring municipal freedom, which they did
   not lack spirit to improve. They led the movement and set the
   example which created, a little later, so many vigorous
   communes in Flanders and France, and imperial free cities in
   Germany at a still later day. They were earlier in winning
   their liberties, and they pushed them farther,—to the point
   in many cases of creating, as at Pisa, Genoa, Florence, and
   Venice, a republican city state. Venice, growing up in the
   security of her lagoons, from a cluster of fishing villages to
   a great city of palaces, had been independent from the
   beginning, except as she acknowledged for a time the nominal
   supremacy of the Eastern Emperor. Others won their way to
   independence through struggles that are now obscure, and
   developed, before these dark centuries reached their close, an
   energy of life and a splendor of genius that come near to
   comparison with the power and the genius of the Greeks. But,
   like the city-republics of Greece, they were perpetually at
   strife with one another, and sacrificed to their mutual
   jealousies, in the end, the precious liberty which made them
   great, and which they might, by a well settled union, have
   preserved.

The Saxon line of Emperors.

   Such were the conditions existing or taking shape in Italy
   when the Empire of the West—the Holy Roman Empire of later
   times—was founded anew by Otho the Great. Territorially, the
   Empire as he left it covered Germany to its full extent, and
   two-thirds of Italy, with the Emperor's superiority
   acknowledged by the subject states of Burgundy, Bohemia,
   Moravia, Poland, Denmark, and Hungary—the last named with
   more dispute.

   Otho the Great died in 972. His two immediate successors, Otho
   II. (973-983) and Otho III. (983-1002) accomplished little,
   though the latter had great ambitions, planning to raise Rome
   to her old place as the capital of the world; but he died in
   his youth in Italy, and was succeeded by a cousin, Henry II.,
   whose election was contested by rivals in Germany, and
   repudiated in Italy. In the latter country the great nobles
   placed Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, on the Lombard throne; but
   the factions among them soon caused his overthrow, and, Henry,
   crossing the Alps, reclaimed the crown.

The Franconian Emperors.

   Henry II. was the last of the Saxon line, and upon his death,
   in 1024, the House of Franconia came to the throne, by the
   election of Conrad II., called "the Salic." Under Conrad, the
   kingdom of Burgundy, afterwards called the kingdom of Arles
   (which is to be distinguished from the French Duchy of
   Burgundy—the northwestern part of the old kingdom), was
   reunited to the Empire, by the bequest of its last king,
   Rudolph III. Conrad's son, grandson, and great grandson
   succeeded him in due order; Henry III. from 1039 to 1056;
   Henry IV. from 1056 to 1106; Henry V. from 1106 to 1125. Under
   Henry III. the Empire was at the summit of its power. Henry
   II., exercising the imperial prerogative, had raised the Duke
   of Hungary to royal rank, giving him the title of king. Henry
   III. now forced the Hungarian king to acknowledge the imperial
   supremacy and pay tribute. The German kingdom was ruled with a
   strong hand and peace among its members compelled. "In Rome,
   no German sovereign had ever been so absolute. A disgraceful
   contest between three claimants of the papal chair had shocked
   even the reckless apathy of Italy. Henry deposed them all and
   appointed their successor." "The synod passed a decree
   granting to Henry the right of nominating the supreme pontiff;
   and the Roman priesthood, who had forfeited the respect of the
   world even more by habitual simony than by the flagrant
   corruption of their manners, were forced to receive German
   after German as their bishop, at the bidding of a ruler so
   powerful, so severe, and so pious. But Henry's encroachments
   alarmed his own nobles no less than the Italians, and the
   reaction, which might have been dangerous to himself, was
   fatal to his successor. A mere chance, as some might call it,
   determined the course of history. The great Emperor died
   suddenly in A. D. 1056, and a child was left at the helm,
   while storms were gathering that might have demanded the
   wisest hand" (Bryce).

Hildebrand and Henry IV.

   The child was Henry IV., of unfortunate memory; the storms
   which beset him blew from Rome. The Papacy, lifted from its
   degradation by Henry's father and grandfather, had recovered
   its boldness of tone and enlarged its pretensions and claims.
   It had come under the influence of an extraordinary man, the
   monk Hildebrand, who swayed the councils of four popes before
   he became pope himself (1073), and whose pontifical reign as
   Gregory VII. is the epoch of greatest importance in the
   history of the Roman Church. The overmastering ascendancy of
   the popes, in the Church and over all who acknowledge its
   communion, really began when this invincible monk was raised
   to the papal throne. He broke the priesthood and the whole
   hierarchy of the West to blind obedience by his relentless
   discipline. He isolated them, as an order apart, by enforcing
   celibacy upon them; and he extinguished the corrupting
   practices of simony. Then, when he had marshalled the forces
   of the Church, he proclaimed its independence and its
   supremacy in absolute terms. In the growth of feudalism
   throughout Europe, the Church had become compromised in many
   ways with the civil powers. Its bishoprics and abbeys had
   acquired extensively the nature of fiefs, and bishops and
   abbots were required to do homage to a secular lord before
   they could receive an "investiture" of the rich estates which
   had become attached by a feudal tenure to their sees. The
   ceremony of investiture, moreover, included delivery of the
   crozier and the pastoral ring, which were the very symbols of
   their spiritual office. Against this dependence of the Church
   upon temporal powers, Gregory now arrayed it in revolt, and
   began the "War of Investitures," which lasted for half a
   century. The great battle ground was Germany; the Emperor, of
   necessity, was the chief opponent; and Henry IV., whose youth
   had been badly trained, and whose authority had been weakened
   by a long, ill-guardianed minority, was at a disadvantage in
   the contest. His humiliation at Canossa (1077), when he stood
   through three winter days, a suppliant before the door of the
   castle which lodged his haughty enemy, praying to be released
   from the dread penalties of excommunication, is one of the
   familiar tableaux of history. He had a poor revenge seven
   years later, when he took Rome, drove Gregory into the castle
   St. Angelo, and seated an anti-pope in the Vatican. But his
   triumph was brief. There came to the rescue of the
   beleaguered Pope certain new actors in Italian history, whom
   it is now necessary to introduce.

{1023}

The Normans in Italy and Sicily.

   The settlement of predatory Northmen on the Seine, which took
   the name of Normandy and the constitution of a ducal fief of
   France, had long since grown into an important
   half-independent state. Its people—now called Normans in the
   smoother speech of the South—had lost something of their
   early rudeness, and had fallen a little under the spell of the
   rising chivalry of the age; but the goad of a warlike temper
   which drove their fathers out of Norway still pricked the sons
   and sent them abroad, in restless search of adventures and
   gain. Some found their way into the south of Italy, where
   Greeks, Lombards and Saracens were fighting merrily, and where
   a good sword and a tough lance were tools of the only industry
   well-paid. Presently there was banded among them there a
   little army, which found itself a match for any force that
   Greek or Lombard, or other opponent, could bring against it,
   and which proceeded accordingly to work its own will in the
   land. It seized Apulia (1042) and divided it into twelve
   countships, as an aristocratic republic. Pope Leo IX. led an
   army against it and was beaten and taken prisoner (1053). To
   release himself he was compelled to grant the duchy they had
   taken to them, as a fief of the Church, and to extend his
   grant to whatever they might succeed in taking, beyond it. The
   chiefs of the Normans thus far had been, in succession, three
   sons of a poor gentleman in the Cotentin, Tancred by name, who
   now sent a fourth son to the scene. This new comer was Robert,
   having the surname of Guiscard, who became the fourth leader
   of the Norman troop (1057), and who, in a few years, assumed
   the title of Duke of Calabria and Apulia. His duchies
   comprised, substantially, the territory of the later kingdom
   of Naples. A fifth brother, Roger, had meantime crossed to
   Sicily, with a small following of his countrymen; and, between
   1060 and 1090, had expelled the Saracens from that island, and
   possessed it as a fief of his brother's duchy. But in the next
   generation these relations between the two conquests were
   practically reversed. The son of Roger received the title of
   King of Sicily from the Pope, and Calabria and Apulia were
   annexed to his kingdom, through the extinction of Robert's
   family.

   These Normans of Southern Italy were the allies who came to
   the rescue of Pope Gregory, when the Emperor, Henry IV.,
   besieged him in Castle St. Angelo. He summoned Robert Guiscard
   as a vassal of the Church, and the response was prompt. Henry
   and his Germans retreated when the Normans came near, and the
   latter entered Rome (1084). Accustomed to pillage, they began,
   soon, to treat the city as a captured place, and the Romans
   rose against them. They retaliated with torch and sword, and
   once more Rome suffered from the destroying rage of a
   barbarous soldiery let loose. "Neither Goth nor Vandal,
   neither Greek nor German, brought such desolation on the city
   as this capture by the Normans" (Milman). Duke Robert made no
   attempt to hold the ruined capital, but withdrew to his own
   dominions. The Pope went with him, and died soon afterwards
   (1085), unable to return to Rome. But the imperious temper he
   had imparted to the Church was lastingly fixed in it, and his
   lofty pretensions were even surpassed by the pontiffs who
   succeeded him. He spoke for the Papacy the first syllables of
   that awful proclamation that was sounded in its finality,
   after eight hundred years, when the dogma of infallibility was
   put forth.

Norman Conquest of England.

   The Normans in Italy established no durable power. In another
   quarter they were more fortunate. Their kinsmen, the Danes,
   who subjugated England and annexed it to their own kingdom in
   1016, had lost it again in 1042, when the old line of kings
   was restored, in the person of Edward, called the Confessor.
   But William, Duke of Normandy, had acquired, in the course of
   these shiftings of the English crown, certain claims which he
   put forth when Edward died, and when Harold, son of the great
   Earl Godwine, was elected king to succeed him, in 1066. To
   enforce his claim, Duke William, commissioned by the Pope,
   invaded England, in the early autumn of that year, and won the
   kingdom in the great and decisive battle of Senlac, or
   Hastings, where Harold was slain. On Christmas Day he was
   crowned, and a few years sufficed to end all resistance to his
   authority. He established on the English throne a dynasty
   which, though shifting sometimes to collateral lines, has held
   it to the present day.

   The Norman Conquest, as estimated by its greatest historian,
   Professor Freeman, wrought more good effects than ill to the
   English people. It did not sweep away their laws, customs or
   language, but it modified them all, and not unfavorably; while
   "it aroused the old national spirit to fresh life, and gave
   the conquered people fellow-workers in their conquerors." The
   monarchy was strengthened by William's advantages as a
   conqueror, used with the wisdom and moderation of a statesman.
   Feudalism came into England stripped of its disrupting forces;
   and the possible alternative of absolutism was hindered by
   potent checks. At the same time, the Conquest brought England
   into relations with the Continent which might otherwise have
   arisen very slowly, and thus gave an early importance to the
   nation in European history.

The Crusades.

   At the period now reached in our survey, all Europe was on the
   eve of a profounder excitement and commotion than it had ever
   before known—one which stirred it for the first time with a
   common feeling and with common thoughts. A great cry ran
   through it, for help to deliver the holy places of the
   Christian faith from the infidels who possessed them. The
   pious and the adventurous, the fanatical and the vagrant, rose
   up in one motley and tumultuous response to the appeal, and
   mobs and armies (hardly distinguishable) of Crusaders—
   warriors of the Cross—began to whiten the highways into Asia
   with their bones. The first movement, in 1096, swept 300,000
   men, women and children, under Peter the Hermit, to their
   death, with no other result; but nearly at the same time there
   went an army, French and Norman for the most part, which made its
   way to Jerusalem, took the city by assault (1099) and founded
   a kingdom there, which defended itself for almost a hundred
   years. Long before it fell, it was pressed sorely by the
   surrounding Moslems and cried to Europe for help.
{1024}
   A Second Crusade, in 1147, accomplished nothing for its
   relief, but spent vast multitudes of lives; and when the
   feeble kingdom disappeared, in 1187, and the Sepulchre of the
   Saviour was defiled again by unbelievers, Christendom grew
   wild, once more, with passion, and a Third Crusade was led by
   the redoubtable Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, of Germany, King
   Richard Cœur de Lion, of England, and King Philip Augustus of
   France. The Emperor perished miserably on the way and his army
   was wasted in its march; the French and English exhausted
   themselves in sieges which won nothing of durable advantage to
   the Christian world; the Sultan Saladin gathered most of the
   laurels of the war.

The Turks on the Scene.

   The armies of Islam which the Crusaders encountered in Asia
   Minor and the Holy Land were no longer, in their leadership,
   of the race of Mahomet. The religion of the Prophet was still
   triumphant in the East, but his nation had lost its lordship,
   and Western Asia had submitted to new masters. These were the
   Turks—Turks of the House of Seljuk—first comers of their
   swarm from the great Aral basin. First they had been
   disciples, won by the early armed missionaries of the
   Crescent; then servants and mercenaries, hired to fight its
   battles and guard its princes, when the vigor of the Arab
   conquerors began to be sapped, and their character to be
   corrupted by luxury and pride; then, at last, they were
   masters. About the middle of the ninth century, the Caliph at
   Bagdad became a puppet in their hands, and the Moslem Empire
   in Asia (Africa and Spain being divided between rival Caliphs)
   soon passed under their control.

   These were the possessors of Jerusalem and its sacred shrines,
   whose grievous and insulting treatment of Christian pilgrims,
   in the last years of the eleventh century, had stirred Europe
   to wrath and provoked the great movement of the Crusades. The
   movement had important consequences, both immediate and
   remote; but its first effects were small in moment compared
   with those which lagged after. To understand either, it will
   be necessary to glance back at the later course of events in
   the Eastern or Byzantine Empire.

The Byzantine Empire.

   The fortunes of the Empire, since it gave up Syria and Egypt
   to the Saracens, had been, on the whole, less unhappy than the
   dark prospect at that time. It had checked the onrush of Arabs
   at the Taurus mountain range, and retained Asia Minor; it had
   held Constantinople against them through two terrible sieges;
   it had fought for three centuries, and finally subdued, a new
   Turanian enemy, the Bulgarians, who had established a kingdom
   south of the Danube, where their name remains to the present
   day. The history of its court, during much of the period, had
   been a black and disgusting record of conspiracies,
   treacheries, murders, mutilations, usurpations and foul vices
   of every description; with now and then a manly figure
   climbing to the throne and doing heroic things, for the most
   part uselessly; but the system of governmental administration
   seems to have been so well constructed that it worked with a
   certain independence of its vile or imbecile heads, and the
   country was probably better and better governed than its
   court.

   At Constantinople, notwithstanding frequent tumults and
   revolutions, there had been material prosperity and a great
   gathering of wealth. The Saracen conquests, by closing other
   avenues of trade between the East and the West, had
   concentrated that most profitable commerce in the Byzantine
   capital. The rising commercial cities of Italy—Amalphi,
   Venice, Genoa, Pisa—seated their enterprises there. Art and
   literature, which had decayed, began then to revive, and
   Byzantine culture, on its surface, took more of superiority to
   that of Teutonic Europe.

   The conquests of the Seljuk Turks gave a serious check to this
   improvement of the circumstances of the Empire. Momentarily,
   by dividing the Moslem power in Asia, they had opened an
   opportunity to an energetic Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, to
   recover northern Syria and Cilicia (961-969). But when, in the
   next century, they had won a complete mastery of the dominions
   of the Caliphate of Bagdad, they speedily swept back the
   Byzantines, and overran and occupied the most of Asia Minor
   and Armenia. A decisive victory at Manzikert, in 1071, when
   the emperor of the moment was taken prisoner and his army
   annihilated, gave them well nigh the whole territory to the
   Hellespont. The Empire was nearly reduced to its European
   domain, and suffered ten years of civil war between rivals for
   the throne.

   At the end of that time it acquired a ruler, in the person of
   Alexius Comnenus, who is the generally best known of all the
   Byzantine line, because he figures notably in the stories of
   the First Crusade. He was a man of crafty abilities and
   complete unscrupulousness. He took the Empire at its lowest
   state of abasement and demoralization. In the first year of
   his reign he had to face a new enemy. Robert Guiscard, the
   Norman, who had conquered a dukedom in Southern Italy, thought
   the situation favorable for an attack on the Eastern Empire,
   and for winning the imperial crown. Twice he invaded the Greek
   peninsula (1081-1084) and defeated the forces brought against
   him by Alexius; but troubles in Italy recalled him on the
   first occasion, and his death brought the second expedition to
   naught.

   Such was the situation of the Byzantines when the waves of the
   First Crusade, rolling Asia-ward, surged up to the gates of
   Constantinople. It was a visitation that might well appall
   them,—these hosts of knights and vagabonds, fanatics and
   freebooters, who claimed and proffered help in a common
   Christian war with the infidels, and who, nevertheless, had no
   Christian communion with them—schismatics as they were,
   outside the fold of the Roman shepherd. There is not a doubt
   that they feared the crusading Franks more than they feared
   the Turks. They knew them less, and the little hearsay
   knowledge they had was of a lawless, barbarous, fighting
   feudalism in the countries of the West,—more rough and
   uncouth, at least, than their own defter methods of murdering
   and mutilating one another. They received their dangerous
   visitors with nervousness and suspicion; but Alexius Comnenus
   proved equal to the delicate position in which he found
   himself placed. He burdened his soul with lies and perfidies;
   but he managed affairs so wonderfully that the Empire plucked
   the best fruits of the first Crusades, by recovering a great
   part of Asia Minor, with all the coasts of the Euxine and the
   Ægean, from the weakened Turks. The latter were so far shaken
   and depressed by the hard blows of the Crusaders that they
   troubled the Byzantines very little in the century to come.

{1025}

   But against this immediate gain to the Eastern Empire from the
   early Crusades, there were serious later offsets. The commerce
   of Constantinople declined rapidly, as soon as the Moslem
   blockade of the Syrian coast line was broken. It lost its
   monopoly. Trade ran back again into other reopened channels.
   The Venetians and Genoese became more independent. Formerly,
   they had received privileges in the Empire as a gracious
   concession. Now they dictated the terms of their commercial
   treaties and their naval alliances. Their rivalries with one
   another involved the Empire in quarrels with both, and a state
   of things was brought about which had much to do with the
   catastrophe of 1204, when the fourth Crusade was diverted to
   the conquest of Constantinople, and a Latin Empire supplanted
   the Empire of the Roman-Greeks.

Effects of the Crusades.

   Briefly noted, these were the consequences of the early
   Crusades in the East. In western Europe they had slower, but
   deeper and more lasting effects. They weakened feudalism, by
   sending abroad so many of the feudal lords, and by
   impoverishing so many more; whereby the towns gained more
   opportunity for enfranchisement, and the crown, in France
   particularly, acquired more power. They checked smaller wars
   and private quarrels for a time, and gave in many countries
   unwonted seasons of peace, during which the thoughts and
   feelings of men were acted on by more civilizing influences.
   They brought men into fellowship who were only accustomed to
   fight one another, and thus softened their provincial and
   national antipathies. They expanded the knowledge—the
   experience—the ideas—of the whole body of those who visited
   the East and who survived the adventurous expedition; made
   them acquainted with civilizations at least more polished than
   their own; taught them many things which they could only learn in
   those days by actual sight, and sent them back to their homes
   throughout Europe, to be instructors and missionaries, who did
   much to prepare Western Christendom for the Renaissance or new
   birth of a later time. The twelfth century—the century of the
   great Crusades—saw the gray day-break in Europe after the
   long night of darkness which settled down upon it in the
   fifth. In the thirteenth it reached the brightening dawn, and
   in the fifteenth it stood in the full morning of the modern
   day. Among all the movements by which it was pushed out of
   darkness into light, that of the Crusades would appear to have
   been the most important; important in itself, as a social and
   political movement of great change, and important in the seeds
   that it scattered for a future harvest of effects.

   In both the Byzantine and Arabian civilizations of the East
   there was much for western Europe to learn. Perhaps there was
   more in the last named than in the first; for the Arabs, when
   they came out from behind their deserts, and exchanged the
   nomadic life for the life of cities, had shown an amazing
   avidity for the lingering science of old Greece, which they
   encountered in Egypt and Syria. They had preserved far more of
   it, and more of the old fineness of feeling that went with it,
   than had survived in Greece itself, or in any part of the
   Teutonized empire of Rome. The Crusaders got glimpses of its
   influence, at least, and a curiosity was wakened, which sent
   students into Moorish Spain, and opened scholarly interchanges
   which greatly advanced learning in Europe.

Rising Power of the Church.

   Not the least important effect of the Crusades was the
   atmosphere of religion which they caused to envelope the great
   affairs of the time, and which they made common in politics
   and society. The influence of the Church was increased by
   this; and its organization was powerfully strengthened by the
   great monastic revival that followed presently: the rise of
   purer and more strictly disciplined orders of the "regular"
   (that is the secluded or monastic) clergy—Cistercians,
   Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.; as well as the
   creation of the great military-religious orders—Knights
   Templars, Knights of the Hospital of St. John, Teutonic
   Knights, and others, which were immediately connected with the
   Crusades.

   To say that the Church gained influence is to say that the
   clergy gained it, and that the chief of the clergy, the Pope,
   concentrated the gain in himself. The whole clerical body was
   making encroachments in every field of politics upon the
   domain of the civil authority, using shrewdly the advantages
   of superior learning, and busying itself more and more in
   temporal affairs. The popes after Gregory VII. maintained his
   high pretensions and pursued his audacious course. In most
   countries they encountered resistance from the Crown; but the
   brunt of the conflict still fell upon the emperors, who, in
   some respects, were the most poorly armed for it.

Guelfs and Ghibellines.

   Henry IV., who outlived his struggle with Gregory, was beaten
   down at last—dethroned by a graceless son, excommunicated by
   a relentless Church and denied burial when he died (1106) by
   its clergy. The rebellious son, Henry V., in his turn fought
   the same battle over for ten years, and forced a compromise
   which saved about half the rights of investiture that his
   father had claimed. His death (1125) ended the Franconian
   line, and the imperial crown returned for a few years to the
   House of Saxony, by the election of the Duke Lothaire. But the
   estates of the Franconian family had passed, by his mother, to
   Frederick of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia; and now a bitter
   feud arose between the House of Saxony and the House of
   Hohenstaufen or Swabia,—a feud that was the most memorable
   and, the longest lasting in history, if measured by the
   duration of party strifes which began in it and which took
   their names from it. For the raging factions of Guelfs and
   Ghibellines which divided Italy for two centuries had their
   beginning in this Swabian-Saxon feud, among the Germans. The
   Guelfs were the partisans of the House of Saxony; the
   Ghibellines were the party of the Hohenstaufens. The
   Hohenstaufens triumphed when Lothaire died (1138), and made
   Conrad of their House Emperor. They held the crown, moreover,
   in their family for four generations, extending through more
   than a century; and so it happened that the German name of the
   German party of the Hohenstaufens came to be identified in
   Italy with the party or faction in that country which
   supported imperial interests and claims in the free cities and
   against the popes. Whereupon the opposed party name was
   borrowed from Germany likewise and applied to the Italian
   faction which took ground against the Emperors—although these
   Italian Guelfs had no objects in common with the partisans of
   Saxony.

{1026}

The Hohenstaufens in Italy.

   The first Hohenstaufen emperor was succeeded (1152) by his
   nephew Frederick I., called Barbarossa, because of his red
   beard. The long reign of Frederick, until 1190, was mainly
   filled with wars and contentions in Italy, where he pushed the
   old quarrel of the Empire with the Papacy, and where,
   furthermore, he resolutely undertook to check the growing
   independence of the Lombard cities. Five times during his
   reign he led a great army into the peninsula, like a hostile
   invader, and his destroying marches through the country, of
   which he claimed to be sovereign, were like those of the
   barbarians who came out of the North seven centuries before.
   The more powerful cities, like Milan, were undoubtedly
   oppressing their weaker neighbors, and Barbarossa assumed to
   be the champion of the latter. But he smote impartially the
   weak and the strong, the village and the town, which provoked
   his arrogant temper in the slightest degree. Milan escaped his
   wrath on the first visitation, but went down before it when he
   came again (1158), and was totally destroyed, the inhabitants
   being scattered in other towns. Even the enemies of Milan were
   moved to compassion by the savageness of this punishment, and
   joined, a few years later, in rebuilding the prostrate walls
   and founding Milan anew. A great "League of Lombardy" was
   formed by all the northern towns, to defend their freedom
   against the hated Emperor, and the party of the Ghibellines
   was reduced for the time to a feeble minority. Meantime
   Barbarossa had forced his way into Rome, stormed the very
   Church of St. Peter, and seated an anti-pope on the throne.
   But a sudden pestilence fell upon his army, and he fled before
   it, out of Italy, almost alone. Yet he never relaxed his
   determination to bend both the Papacy and the Lombard
   republics to his will. After seven years he returned, for the
   fifth time, and it proved to be the last. The League met him
   at Legnano (1176) and administered to him an overwhelming
   defeat. Even his obstinacy was then overcome, and after a
   truce of six years he made peace with the League and the Pope,
   on terms which conceded most of the liberties that the cities
   claimed. It was in the reign of Frederick that the name "Holy
   Roman Empire" began, it seems, to be used.

   Frederick died while on a crusade and was succeeded (1190) by
   his son, Henry VI., who had married the daughter and heiress
   of the King of Sicily and who acquired that kingdom in her
   right. His short reign was occupied mostly in subduing the
   Sicilian possession. When he died (1197) his son Frederick was
   a child. Frederick succeeded to the crown of Sicily, but his
   rights in Germany (where his father had already caused him to
   be crowned "King of the Romans"—the step preliminary to an
   imperial election) were entirely ignored. The German crown was
   disputed between a Swabian and a Saxon claimant, and the
   Saxon, Otho, was King and Emperor in name, until 1218, when he
   died. But he, too, quarreled with a pope, about the lands of
   the Countess Matilda, which she gave to the Church; and his
   quarrel was with Innocent III., a pope who realized the
   autocracy which Hildebrand had looked forward to, and who
   lifted the Papacy to the greatest height of power it ever
   attained. To cast down Otho, Innocent took up the cause of
   Frederick, who received the royal crown a second time, at
   Aix-la-Chapelle (1215) and the imperial crown at Rome (1220).
   Frederick II. (his designation) was one of the few men of
   actual genius who have ever sprung from the sovereign families
   of the world; a man so far in advance of his time that he
   appears like a modern among his mediæval contemporaries. He
   was superior to the superstitions of his age,—superior to its
   bigotries and its provincialisms. His large sympathies and
   cosmopolitan frame of mind were acted upon by all the new
   impulses of the epoch of the crusades, and made him reflect,
   in his brilliant character, as in a mirror, the civilizing
   processes that were working on his generation.

   Between such an emperor as Frederick II. and such popes as
   Innocent III. and his immediate successors, there could not
   fail to be collision and strife. The man who might, perhaps,
   under other circumstances, have given some quicker movement to
   the hands which measure human, progress on the dial of time,
   spent his life in barely proving his ability to live and reign
   under the anathemas and proscriptions of the Church. But he
   fought a losing fight, even when he seemed to be winning
   victories in northern Italy, over the Guelf cities of
   Lombardy, and when the party of the Ghibellines appeared to be
   ascendant throughout the peninsula. His death (1250) was the
   end of the Hohenstaufens as an imperial family. His son,
   Conrad, who survived him four years, was king of Sicily and
   had been crowned king of Germany; but he never wore the crown
   imperial. Conrad's illegitimate brother, Manfred, succeeded on
   the Sicilian throne; but the implacable Papacy gave his
   kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of King Louis IX. of
   France, and invited a crusade for the conquest of it. Manfred
   was slain in battle, Conrad's young son, Conradin, perished on
   the scaffold, and the Hohenstaufens disappeared from history.
   Their rights, or claims, in Sicily and Naples, passed to the
   Spanish House of Aragon, by the marriage of Manfred's daughter
   to the Aragonese king; whence long strife between the House of
   Anjou and the House of Aragon, and a troubled history for the
   Neapolitans and the Sicilians during some centuries. In the
   end, Anjou kept Naples, while Aragon won Sicily; the kings in
   both lines called themselves Kings of Sicily, and a subsequent
   re-union of the two crowns created a very queerly named
   "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies."

{1027}

Germany and the Empire.

   After the death of Frederick II., the German kings, while
   maintaining the imperial title, practically abandoned their
   serious attempts to enforce an actual sovereignty in Italy.
   The Holy Roman Empire, as a political factor comprehending
   more than Germany, now ceased in reality to exist. The name
   lived on, but only to represent a flattering fiction for
   magnifying the rank and importance of the German kings. In
   Italy, the conflict, as between Papacy and Empire, or between
   Lombard republican cities and Empire, was at an end. No
   further occasion existed for an imperial party, or an
   anti-imperial party. The Guelf and Ghibelline names and
   divisions had no more the little meaning that first belonged
   to them. But Guelfs and Ghibellines raged against one another,
   more furiously than before, and generations passed before
   their feud died out.

   While the long, profitless Italian conflict of the Emperors
   went on, their kingship in Germany suffered sorely. As they
   grasped at a shadowy imperial title, the substance of royal
   authority slipped from them. Their frequent prolonged absence
   in Italy gave opportunities for enlarged independence to the
   German princes and feudal lords; their difficulties beyond the
   Alps forced them to buy support from their vassals at home by
   fatal concessions and grants; their neglect of German affairs
   weakened the ties of loyalty, and provoked revolts. The result
   might have been a dissolution of Germany so complete as to
   give rise to two or three strong states, if another potent
   influence had not worked injury in a different way. This came
   from the custom of equalized inheritance which prevailed among
   the Germans. The law of primogeniture, which already governed
   hereditary transmissions of territorial sovereignty in many
   countries, even where it did not give an undivided private
   estate, as in England, to the eldest son of a family, got
   footing in Germany very late and very slowly. At the time now
   described, it was the quite common practice to divide
   principalities between all the sons surviving a deceased duke
   or margrave. It was this practice which gave rise to the
   astonishing number of petty states into which Germany came to
   be divided, and the forms of which are still intact. It was
   this, in the main, which prevented the growth of any states to
   a power that would absorb the rest. On the other hand, the
   flimsy, half fictitious general constitution which the Empire
   substituted for such an one as the Kingdom of Germany would
   naturally have grown into, made an effective centralization of
   sovereignty—easy as the conditions seemed to be prepared for
   it—quite impossible.

Free Cities in Germany and their Leagues.

   One happy consequence of this state of things was the
   enfranchisement, either wholly or nearly so, of many thriving
   cities. The growth of cities, as centers of industry and
   commerce, and the development of municipal freedom among them,
   was considerably later in Germany than in Italy, France and
   the Netherlands; but the independence gained by some among
   them was more entire than in the Low Countries or in France,
   and more lasting than in Italy.

   Most of the free cities of Germany were directly or
   immediately subject to the Emperor, and wholly independent of
   the princes whose territories surrounded them; whence they
   were called "imperial cities." This relationship bound them to
   the Empire by strong ties; they had less to fear from it than
   from the nearer small potentates of their country; and it
   probably drew a considerable part of such strength as it
   possessed, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from their
   support. Their own power was being augmented at this period by
   the formation of extensive Leagues among them, for common
   defense, and for the protection, regulation and extension of
   their trade. In that age of lawless violence, there was so
   little force in government, everywhere, and so entire a want
   of co-operation between governments, that the operations of
   trade were exposed to piracy, robbery, and black-mail, on
   every sea and in every land. By the organization of their
   Leagues, the energetic merchants of north-western Europe did
   for themselves what their half-civilized governments failed to
   do for them. They not only created effective agencies for the
   protection of their trade, but they legislated, nationally and
   internationally, for themselves, establishing codes and
   regulations, negotiating commercial treaties, making war, and
   exercising many functions and powers that seem strange to
   modern times. The great Hansa, or Hanseatic League, which rose
   to importance in the thirteenth century among the cities in
   the north of Germany, was the most extensive, the longest
   lasting and the most formidable of these confederations. It
   controlled the trade between Germany, England, Russia, the
   Scandinavian countries, and the Netherlands, and through the
   latter it made exchanges with southern Europe and the East. It
   waged successful war with Denmark, Sweden and Norway combined,
   in defiance of the opposition of the Emperor and the Pope. But
   the growth of its power engendered an arrogance which provoked
   enmity in all countries, while the slow crystalizing of
   nationalities in Europe, with national sentiments and
   ambitions, worked in all directions against the commercial
   monopoly of the Hansa towns. By the end of the fifteenth
   century their league had begun to break up and its power to
   decline. The lesser associations of similar character—such as
   the Rhenish and the Swabian—had been shorter-lived.

The Great Interregnum.

   These city-confederations represented in their time the only
   movement of concentration that appeared in Germany. Every
   other activity seemed tending toward dissolution. Headship
   there was none for a quarter of a century after Frederick II.
   died. The election of the Kings, who took rank and title as
   Emperors when crowned by the Pope, had now become the
   exclusive privilege of three prince-bishops and four temporal
   princes, who acquired the title of Electors. Jealous of one
   another, and of all the greater lords outside their electoral
   college, it was against their policy to confer the scepter on
   any man who seemed likely to wield it with a strong hand. For
   twenty years—a period in German history known as the Great
   Interregnum—they kept the throne practically vacant. Part of
   the Electors were bribed to choose Richard, Earl of Cornwall,
   brother of the English King Henry III., and the other part
   gave their votes to Alfonso, King of Castile. Alfonso never
   came to be crowned, either as King or Emperor; Richard was
   crowned King, but exercised no power and lived mostly in his
   own country. The Empire was virtually extinct; the Kingdom
   hardly less so. Burgundy fell away from the imperial
   jurisdiction even more than Italy did. Considerable parts of
   it passed to France.

{1028}

Rise of the House of Austria.

   At last, in 1273, the interregnum was ended by the election of
   a German noble to be King of Germany. This was Rodolph, Count
   of Hapsburg,—lord of a small domain and of little importance
   from his own possessions, which explains, without doubt, his
   selection. But Rodolph proved to be a vigorous king, and he
   founded a family of such lasting stamina and such self-seeking
   capability that it secured in time permanent possession of the
   German crown, and acquired, outside of Germany, a great
   dominion of its own. He began the aggrandizement of his House
   by taking the fine duchy of Austria from the kingdom of
   Bohemia and bestowing it upon his sons. He was energetic in
   improving opportunities like this, and energetic, too, in
   destroying the castles of robber-knights and hanging the
   robbers on their own battlements; but of substantial authority
   or power he had little enough. He never went to Rome for the
   imperial crown; nor troubled himself much with Italian
   affairs.

   On Rodolph's death (1291), his son Albert of Austria was a
   candidate for the crown. The Electors rejected him and ejected
   another poor noble, Adolphus of Nassau; but Adolphus
   displeased them after a few years, and they decreed his
   deposition, electing Albert in his place. War followed and
   Adolphus was killed. Albert's reign was one of vigor, but he
   accomplished little of permanent effect. He planted one of his
   sons on the throne of Bohemia, where the reigning family had
   become extinct; but the new king died in a few months, much
   hated, and the Bohemians resisted an Austrian successor. In
   1308, Albert was assassinated, and the electors raised Count
   Henry of Luxemburg to the throne, as Henry VII. Henry VII. was
   the first king of Germany since the Hohenstaufens who went to
   Italy (1310) for the crown of Lombardy and the crown of the
   Cæsars, both of which he received. The Ghibelline party was
   still strong among the Italians. In the distracted state of
   that country there were many patriots—the poet Dante
   prominent among them—who hoped great things from the
   reappearance of an emperor; but the enthusiastic welcome he
   received was mainly from those furious partisans who looked
   for a party triumph to be won under the new emperor's lead.
   When they found that he would not let himself be made an
   instrument of faction in the unhappy country, they turned
   against him. His undertakings in Italy promised nothing but
   failure, when he died suddenly (1313), from poison, as the
   Germans believed. His successor in Germany, chosen by the
   majority of the electors, was Lewis of Bavaria; but Frederick
   the Fair of Austria, supported by a minority, disputed the
   election, and there was civil war for twelve years, until
   Frederick, a prisoner, so won the heart of Lewis that the
   latter divided the throne with him and the two reigned
   together.

France under the Capetians.

   While Germany and the fictitious Empire linked with it were
   thus dropping from the foremost place in western Europe into
   the background, several kingdoms were slowly emerging out of
   the anarchy of feudalism, and acquiring the organization of
   authority and law which creates stable and substantial power.
   France for two centuries, under the first three Capetian
   kings, had made little progress to that end. At the accession
   (1103) of the fourth of those kings, namely, Louis VI., it is
   estimated that the actual possessions of the Crown, over which
   it exercised sovereignty direct, equalled no more than about
   five of the modern departments of France; while twenty-nine
   were in the great fiefs of Flanders, Burgundy, Champagne,
   Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Vermandois, and Boulogne, where the
   royal authority was but nominal; thirty-three, south of the
   Loire, were hardly connected with the Crown, and twenty-one
   were then dependent on the Empire. The actual "France," as a
   kingdom, at that time, was very small. "The real domain of
   Louis VI. was almost confined to the five towns of Paris,
   Orleans, Estampes, Melun, and Compiegne, and to estates in
   their neighbourhood." But the strengthening of the Crown was
   slightly begun in the reign of this king, by his wise policy
   of encouraging the enfranchisement of the communes, as noted
   before, which introduced a helpful alliance between the
   monarchy and the burgher-class, or third estate, as it came to
   be called, of the cities, against the feudal aristocracy.

   But progress in that direction was slight at first and slowly
   made. Louis VII., who came to the throne in 1137, acquired
   momentarily the great duchy of Aquitaine, or Guienne, by his
   marriage with Eleanor, who inherited it; but he divorced her,
   and she married Henry Plantagenet, who became Henry II., King
   of England, being at the same time Duke of Normandy, by
   inheritance from his mother, and succeeding his father in
   Anjou, Maine and Touraine. Eleanor having carried to him the
   great Aquitanian domain of her family, he was sovereign of a
   larger part of modern France than owned allegiance to the
   French king.

French recovery of Normandy and Anjou.

   But the next king in France, Philip, called Augustus (1180),
   who was the son of Louis VII., wrought a change of these
   circumstances. He was a prince of remarkable vigor, and he
   rallied with rare ability all the forces that the Crown could
   command. He wrested Vermandois from the Count of Flanders, and
   extorted submission from the rebellious Duke of Burgundy.
   Suspending his projects at home for a time, to go crusading to
   the Holy Land in company with King Richard of England, he
   resumed them with fresh energy after Richard's death. The
   latter was succeeded by his mean brother John, who seems to
   have been hated with unanimity. John was accused of the murder
   of his young nephew, Arthur of Brittany, who disputed the
   inheritance from Richard. As Duke of Normandy and Anjou, John,
   though King of England, was nevertheless a vassal of the King
   of France. Philip summoned him, on charges, to be tried by his
   peers. John failed to answer the summons, and the forfeiture
   of his fiefs was promptly declared. The French king stood well
   prepared to make the confiscation effective, while John, in
   serious trouble with his English subjects, could offer little
   resistance. Thus the Norman realm of the English kings—their
   original dominion—was lost beyond recovery, and with it Anjou
   and Maine. They held Guienne and Poitou for some years; but
   the bases of the French monarchy were broadened immensely from
   the day when the great Norman and Angevin fiefs became royal
   domain.

{1029}

The Albigenses.

   Events in the south of France, during Philip's reign, prepared
   the way for a further aggrandisement of the Crown. Ancient
   Latin civilization had lingered longer there, in spirit, at
   least, than in the central and northern districts of the
   kingdom, and the state of society intellectually was both
   livelier and more refined. It was the region of Europe where
   thought first showed signs of independence, and where the
   spiritual despotism of Rome was disputed first. A sect arose
   in Languedoc which took its name from the district of Albi,
   and which offended the Church perhaps more by the freedom of
   opinion that it claimed than by the heresy of the opinions
   themselves. These Albigeois, or Albigenses, had been at issue
   with the clergy of their country and with the Papacy for some
   years before Innocent III., the pontifical autocrat of his
   age, proclaimed a crusade against them (1208), and launched
   his sentence of excommunication against Raymond, Count of
   Toulouse, who gave them countenance if not sympathy. The
   fanatical Simon de Montfort, father of the great noble of like
   name who figures more grandly in English history, took the
   lead of the Crusade, to which bigots and brutal adventurers
   flocked together. Languedoc was wasted with fire and sword,
   and after twenty years of intermittent war, in which Peter of
   Aragon took part, assisting the Albigeois, the Count of
   Toulouse purchased peace for his ruined land by ceding part of
   it to the king of France, and giving his daughter in marriage
   to the king's brother Alphonso,—by which marriage the
   remainder of the country was transferred, a few years later,
   to the French crown.

The Battle of Bouvines.

   Philip Augustus, in whose reign this brutal crushing of
   Provençal France began, took little part in it, but he saw
   with no unwillingness another too powerful vassal brought low.
   The next blow of like kind he struck with his own hand. John
   of England had quarreled with the mighty Pope Innocent III.;
   his kingdom had been placed under interdict and his subjects
   absolved from their allegiance. Philip of France eagerly
   offered to become the executor of the papal decree, and
   gathered an army for the invasion of England, to oust John
   from his throne. But John hastened now to make peace with the
   Church, submitting himself, surrendering his kingdom to the
   Pope, and receiving it back as a papal fief. This
   accomplished, the all-powerful pontiff persuaded the French
   king to turn his army against the Count of Flanders, who had
   never been reduced to a proper degree of submission to his
   feudal sovereign. He seems to have become the recognized head
   of a body of nobles who showed alarm and resentment at the
   growing power of the Crown, and the war which ensued was quite
   extraordinary in its political importance. King John of
   England came personally to the assistance of the Flemish
   Count, because of the hatred he felt towards Philip of France.
   Otho, Emperor of Germany, who had been excommunicated and
   deposed by the Pope, and who was struggling for his crown with
   the young Hohenstaufen, Frederick II., took part in the melee,
   because John was his uncle, and because the Pope was for
   Philip, and because Germany dreaded the rising power of
   France. So the war, which seemed at first to be a trifling
   affair in a corner, became in fact a grand clearing storm, for
   the settlement of many large issues, important to all Europe.
   The settlement was accomplished by a single decisive battle,
   fought at Bouvines (1214), not far from Tournay. It
   established effectively in France the feudal superiority and
   actual sovereignty of the king. It evoked a national spirit
   among the French people, having been their first national
   victory, won under the banners of a definite kingdom, over
   foreign foes. It was a triumph for the Papacy and the Church
   and a crushing blow to those who dared resist the mandates of
   Rome. It sent King John back to England so humbled and
   weakened that he had little stomach for the contest which
   awaited him there, and the grand event of the signing of Magna
   Charta next year was more easily brought about. It settled the
   fate of Otho of Germany, and cleared the bright opening of the
   stormy career of Frederick II., his successor. Thus the battle
   of Bouvines, which is not a famous field in common knowledge,
   must really be numbered among the great and important battles
   of the world.

   When Philip Augustus died in 1223, the regality which he
   bequeathed to his son, Louis VIII., was something vastly
   greater than that which came to him from his predecessors. He
   had enhanced both the dignity and the power, both the
   authority and the prestige, of the Crown, and made a
   substantial kingdom of France. Louis VIII. enlarged his
   dominions by the conquest of Lower Poitou and the taking of
   Rochelle from the English; but he sowed the seeds of future
   weakness in the monarchy by creating great duchies for his
   children, which became as troublesome to later kings as
   Normandy and Anjou had been to those before him.

Saint Louis.

   Louis IX.—Saint Louis in the calendar of the Catholic
   Church—who came to the throne in 1226, while a child of
   eleven years, was a king of so noble a type that he stands
   nearly alone in history. Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, and
   King Alfred of England, are the only sovereigns who seem
   worthy to be compared with him; and even the purity of those
   rare souls is not quite so simple and so selfless, perhaps, as
   that which shines in the beautiful character of this most
   Christian king. His goodness was of that quality which rises
   to greatness—above all other measures of greatness in the
   distinction of men. It was of that quality which even a wicked
   world is compelled to feel and to bend to as a power, much
   exceeding the power of state-craft or of the sword. Of all the
   kings of his line, this Saint Louis was probably the one who
   had least thought of a royal interest in France distinct from
   the interest of the people of France; and the one who
   consciously did least to aggrandize the monarchy and enlarge
   its powers; but no king before him or after him was so much
   the true architect of the foundations of the absolute French
   monarchy of later times. His constant purpose was to give
   peace to his kingdom and justice to his people; to end
   violence and wrong-doing.
{1030}
   In pursuing this purpose, he gave a new character and a new
   influence to the royal courts,—established them in public
   confidence,—accustomed his subjects to appeal to them; he
   denounced the brutal senselessness of trials by combat, and
   commanded their abolition; he gave encouragement to the study
   and the introduction of Roman law, and so helped to dispel the
   crude political as well as legal ideas that feudalism rested
   on. His measures in these directions all tended to the
   undermining of the feudal system and to the breaking down of
   the independence of the great vassals who divided sovereignty
   with the king. At the same time the upright soul of King
   Louis, devotedly pious son of the Church as he was, yielded
   his conscience to it, and the just ordinances of his kingdom,
   no more than he yielded to the haughty turbulence of the great
   vassals of the crown.

   The great misfortunes of the reign of Saint Louis were the two
   calamitous Crusades in which he engaged (1248-1254, and 1270),
   and in the last of which he died. They were futile in every
   way—as unwisely conducted as they were unwisely conceived;
   but they count among the few errors of a noble, great life.
   Regarded altogether, in the light which after-history throws
   back upon it, the reign of Louis IX. is more loftily
   distinguished than any other in the annals of France.

Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface.

   There is little to distinguish the reign of St. Louis' son,
   Philip III., "le Hardi," "the Rash" (1270-1285), though the
   remains of the great fief of Toulouse were added in his time
   to the royal domain; but under the grandson of St. Louis, the
   fourth Philip, surnamed "le Bel," there was a season of storms
   in France. This Philip was unquestionably a man of clear, cold
   intellect, and of powerful, unbending will. There was nothing
   of the soldier in him, much of the lawyer-like mind and
   disposition. The men of the gown were his counsellors; he
   advanced their influence, and promoted the acceptance in
   France of the principles of the Roman or civil law, which were
   antagonistic to feudal ideas. In his attitude towards the
   Papacy—which had declined greatly in character and power
   within the century past—he was extraordinarily bold. His
   famous quarrel with Pope Boniface VIII. resulted in
   humiliations to the head of the Church from which, in some
   respects, there was no recovery. The quarrel arose on
   questions connected chiefly with the taxing of the clergy. The
   Pope launched one angry Bull after another against the
   audacious king, and the latter retorted with Ordinances which
   were as effective as the Bulls. Excommunication was defied;
   the Inquisition was suppressed in France; appeal taken to a
   General Council of the Church. At last Boniface suffered
   personal violence at the hands of a party of hired ruffians,
   in French pay, who attacked him at his country residence, and
   received such indignities that he expired soon after of shame
   and rage. The pope immediately succeeding died a few months
   later, and dark suspicions as to the cause of his death were
   entertained; for he gave place (1305) to one, Clement V., who
   was the tool of the French king, bound to him by pledges and
   guarantees before his election. This Pope Clement removed the
   papal residence from Rome to Avignon, and for a long
   period—the period known as "the Babylonish Captivity"—the
   Holy See was subservient to the monarchy of France.

   In this contest with the Papacy, Philip threw himself on the
   support of the whole body of his people, convoking (1302) the
   first meeting of the Three Estates—the first of the few
   general Parliaments—ever assembled in France.

Destruction of the Templars.

   A more sinister event in the reign of Philip IV. was his
   prosecution and destruction of the famous Order of the Knights
   Templars. The dark, dramatic story has been told many times,
   and its incidents are familiar. Perhaps there will never be
   agreement as to the bottom of truth that might exist in the
   charges brought against the Order; but few question the fact
   that its blackest guilt in the eyes of the French King was its
   wealth, which he coveted and which he was resolved to find
   reasons for taking to himself. The knights were accused of
   infidelity, blasphemy, and abominable vices. They were tried,
   tortured, tempted to confessions, burned at the stake, and
   their lands and goods were divided between the Crown and the
   Knights of St. John.

Flemish Wealth and Independence.

   The wilful king had little mercy in his cold heart and few
   scruples in his calculating brain. His character was not
   admirable; but the ends which he compassed were mostly good
   for the strength and independence of the monarchy of France,
   and, on the whole, for the welfare of the people subject to
   it. Even the disasters of his reign had sometimes their good
   effect: as in the case of his failure to subjugate the great
   county of Flanders. Originally a fief of the Kings of France,
   it had been growing apart from the French monarchy, through
   the independent interests and feelings that rose in it with
   the increase of wealth among its singularly industrious and
   thrifty people. The Low Countries, or Netherlands, on both
   sides of the Rhine, had been the first in western Europe to
   develop industrial arts and the trade that goes with them in a
   thoroughly intelligent and systematic way. The Flemings were
   leaders in this industrial development. Their country was full
   of busy cities,—communes, with large liberties in
   possession,—where prosperous artisans, pursuing many crafts,
   were organized in gilds and felt strong for the defense of
   their chartered rights. Ghent exceeded Paris in riches and
   population at the end of the thirteenth century. Bruges was
   nearly its equal; and there were many of less note. The
   country was already a prize to be coveted by kings; and the
   kings of France, who claimed the rights of feudal superiority
   over its count, had long been seeking to make their
   sovereignty direct, while the spirit of the Flemings carried
   them more and more toward independence.

   In 1294, Philip IV. became involved in war with Edward I. of
   England over Guienne. Flanders, which traded largely with
   England and was in close friendship with the English king and
   people, took sides with the latter, and was basely abandoned
   when Philip and Edward made peace, in 1302. The French king
   then seized his opportunity to subjugate the Flemings, which
   he practically accomplished for a time, mastering all of their
   cities except Ghent. His need and his greed made the burden of
   taxes which he now laid on these new subjects very heavy and
   they were soon in revolt. By accident, and the folly of the
   French, they won a fearfully decisive victory at Courtray,
   where some thousands of the nobles and knights of France
   charged blindly into a canal, and were drowned, suffocated and
   slaughtered in heaps. The carnage was so great that it broke
   the strength of the feudal chivalry of France, and the French
   crown, while it lost Flanders, yet gained power from the very
   disaster.

{1031}

   In 1314, Philip IV. died, leaving three sons, who occupied the
   throne for brief terms in succession: Louis X, surnamed Hutin
   (disorder), who survived his father little more than a year;
   Philip V., called "the Long" (1316-1322), and Charles IV.,
   known as "the Fair" (1322-1328). With the death of Charles the
   Fair, the direct line of the Capetian Kings came to an end,
   and Philip, Count of Valois, first cousin of the late kings,
   and grandson of Philip III., came to the throne, as Philip
   VI.—introducing the Valois line of kings.

Claims of Edward III. of England.

   The so-called Salic law, excluding females, in France, from
   the throne, had now, in the arrangement of these recent
   successions, been affirmed and enforced. It was promptly
   disputed by King Edward III. of England, who claimed the
   French crown by right of his mother, daughter of Philip IV.
   and sister of the last three kings. His attempt to enforce
   this claim was the beginning of the wicked, desolating
   "Hundred Years War" between England and France, which
   well-nigh ruined the latter, while it contributed in the
   former to the advancement of the commons in political power.

England after the Norman Conquest.

   The England of the reign of Edward III., when the Hundred
   Years War began, was a country quite different in condition
   from that which our narrative left, at the time it had yielded
   (about 1071) to William the Norman conqueror. The English
   people were brought low by that subjugation, and the yoke
   which the Normans laid upon them was heavy indeed. They were
   stripped of their lands by confiscation; they were disarmed
   and disorganized; every attempt at rebellion failed miserably,
   and every failure brought wider confiscations. The old
   nobility suffered most and its ranks were thinned. England
   became Norman in its aristocracy and remained English in its
   commons and its villeinage.

Modified Feudalism in England.

   Before the Conquest, feudalism had crept into its southern
   parts and was working a slow change of its old free Germanic
   institutions. But the Normans quickened the change and widened
   it. At the same time they controlled it in certain ways,
   favorably both to the monarchy and the people. They
   established a feudal system, but it was a system different
   from that which broke up the unity of both kingdoms of the
   Franks. William, shrewd statesman that he was, took care that
   no dangerous great fiefs should be created; and he took care,
   too, that every landlord in England should swear fealty direct
   to the king,—thus placing the Crown in immediate relations
   with all its subjects, permitting no intermediary lord to take
   their first allegiance to himself and pass it on at second
   hand to a mere crowned overlord.

   The effect of this diluted organization of feudalism in
   England was to make the monarchy so strong, from the
   beginning, that both aristocracy and commons were naturally
   put on their defence against it, and acquired a feeling of
   association, a sense of common interest, a habit of alliance,
   which became very important influences in the political
   history of the nation. In France, as we have seen, there had
   been nothing of this. There, at the beginning, the feudal
   aristocracy was dominant, and held itself so haughtily above
   the commons, or Third Estate, that no political cooperation
   between the two orders could be thought of when circumstances
   called for it. The kings slowly undermined the aristocratic
   power, using the communes in the process; and when, at last,
   the power of the monarchy had become threatening to both
   orders in the state, they were separated by too great an
   alienation of feeling and habit to act well together.

   It was the great good fortune of England that feudalism was
   curbed by a strong monarchy. It was the greater good fortune
   of the English people that their primitive Germanic
   institutions—their folk-moots, and their whole simple popular
   system of local government—should have had so long and sturdy
   a growth before the feudal scheme of society began seriously
   to intrude upon them. The Norman conqueror did no violence to
   those institutions. He claimed to be a lawful English king,
   respecting English laws. The laws, the customs, the
   organization of government, were, indeed, greatly modified in
   time; but the modification was slow, and the base of the whole
   political structure that rose in the Anglo-Norman kingdom
   remained wholly English.

Norman Influences in England.

   The Normans brought with them into England a more active,
   enterprising, enquiring spirit than had animated the land
   before. They brought an increase of learning and of the
   appetite for knowledge. They brought a more educated taste in
   art, to improve the building of the country and its
   workmanship in general. They brought a wider acquaintance with
   the affairs of the outside world, and drew England into
   political relations with her continental neighbors, which were
   not happy for her in the end, but which may have contributed
   for a time to her development. They brought, also, a more
   powerful organization of the Church, which gave England
   trouble in later days.

The Conqueror's Sons.

   When the Conqueror died (1087), his eldest son Robert
   succeeded him in Normandy, but he wished the crown of England
   to go to his son William, called Rufus, or "the Red." He could
   not settle the succession by his will, because in theory the
   succession was subject to the choice or assent of the nobles
   of the realm. But, in fact, William Rufus became king through
   mere tardiness of opposition; and when, a few months after his
   coronation, a formidable rebellion broke out among the Normans
   in England, who preferred his wayward brother Robert, it was
   the native English who sustained him and established him on
   the throne. The same thing occurred again after William Rufus
   died (1100). The Norman English tried again to bring in Duke
   Robert, while the native English preferred the younger
   brother, Henry, who was born among them. They won the day.
   Henry I., called Beauclerc, the Scholar, was seated on the
   throne. Unlike William Rufus, who had no gratitude for the
   support the English gave him, and ruled them harshly, Henry
   showed favor to his English subjects, and, during his reign of
   thirty-five years, the two races were so effectually
   reconciled and drawn together that little distinction between
   them appears thereafter.

{1032}

   Henry acquired Normandy, as well as England, uniting again the
   two sovereignties of his father. His thriftless brother,
   Robert, had pledged the dukedom to William Rufus, who lent him
   money for a crusading expedition. Returning penniless, Robert
   tried to recover his heritage; but Henry claimed it and made
   good the claim.

Anarchy in Stephen's Reign.

   At Henry's death, the succession fell into dispute. He had
   lost his only son. His daughter, Matilda, first married to the
   Emperor Henry V., had subsequently wedded Count Geoffrey of
   Anjou, by whom she had a son. Henry strove, during his life,
   to bind his nobles by oath to accept Matilda and her son as
   his successors. But on his death (1135) their promises were
   broken. They gave the crown to Stephen of Blois, whose mother
   was Henry's sister; whereupon there ensued the most dreadful
   period of civil war and anarchy that England ever knew.
   Stephen, at his coronation, swore to promises which he did not
   keep, losing many of his supporters for that reason; the
   Empress Matilda and her young son Henry had numerous
   partisans; and each side was able to destroy effectually the
   authority of the other. "The price of the support given to
   both was the same—absolute licence to build castles, to
   practise private war, to hang their private enemies, to
   plunder their neighbours, to coin their money, to exercise
   their petty tyrannies as they pleased." "Castles innumerable
   sprang up, and as fast as they were built they were filled
   with devils; each lord judged and taxed and coined. The feudal
   spirit of disintegration had for once its full play. Even
   party union was at an end, and every baron fought on his own
   behalf. Feudalism had its day, and the completeness of its
   triumph ensured its fall" (Stubbs).

Angevin Kings of England.

   At length, in 1153, peace was made by a treaty which left
   Stephen in possession of the throne during his life, but made
   Henry, already recognized as Duke of Normandy, his heir.
   Stephen died the following year, and Henry II., now twenty-one
   years old, came quietly into his kingdom, beginning a new
   royal line, called the Angevin kings, because of their descent
   from Geoffrey of Anjou; also taking the name Plantagenets from
   Geoffrey's fashion of wearing a bit of broom, Planta Genista,
   in his hat.

   Henry II. proved, happily, to be a king of the strong
   character that was needed in the England of that wretched
   time. He was bold and energetic, yet sagacious, prudent,
   politic. He loved power and he used it with an unsparing hand;
   but he used it with wise judgment, and England was the better
   for it. He struck hard and persistently at the lawlessness of
   feudalism, and practically ended it forever as a menace to
   order and unity of government in England. He destroyed
   hundreds of the castles which had sprung up throughout the
   land in Stephen's time, to be nests of robbers and strongholds
   of rebellion. He humbled the turbulent barons. He did in
   England, for the promotion of justice, and for the enforcement
   of the royal authority, what Louis IX. did a little later in
   France: that is, he reorganized and strengthened the king's
   courts, creating a judicial system which, in its most
   essential features, has existed to the present time. His
   organizing hand brought system and efficiency into every
   department of the government. He demanded of the Church that
   its clergy should be subject to the common laws of the
   kingdom, in matters of crime, and to trial before the ordinary
   courts; and it was this most just reform of a crying
   abuse—the exemption of clerics from the jurisdiction of
   secular courts—which brought about the memorable collision
   of King Henry with Thomas Becket, the inflexible archbishop of
   Canterbury. Becket's tragical death made a martyr of him, and
   placed Henry in a penitential position which checked his great
   works of reform; but, on the whole, his reign was one of
   splendid success, and shines among the epochs that throw light
   on the great after-career of the English nation.

   Aside from his importance as an English statesman, Henry II.
   figured largely, in his time, among the most powerful of the
   monarchs of Europe. His dominions on the continent embraced
   much more of the territory of modern France than was ruled
   directly by the contemporary French king, though nominally he
   held them as a vassal of the latter. Normandy came to him from
   his grandfather; from his father he inherited the large
   possessions of the House of Anjou; by his marriage with
   Eleanor of Aquitaine (divorced by Louis VII. of France, as
   mentioned already) he acquired her wide and rich domain. On
   the continent, therefore, he ruled Normandy, Maine, Touraine,
   Anjou, Guienne, Poitou and Gascony. He may be said to have
   added Ireland to his English kingdom, for he began the
   conquest. He held a great place, in his century, and
   historically he is a notable figure in the time.

   His rebellious, undutiful son Richard, Cœur de Lion, the
   Crusader, the hard fighter, the knight of many rude
   adventures, who succeeded Henry II. in 1189, is popularly
   better known than he; but Richard's noisy brief career shows
   poorly when compared with his father's life of thoughtful
   statesmanship. It does not show meanly, however, like that of
   the younger son, John, who came to the throne in 1199. The
   story of John's probable murder of his young nephew, Arthur,
   of Brittany, and of his consequent loss of all the Angevin
   lands, and of Normandy (excepting only the Norman islands, the
   Jerseys, which have remained English to our own day) has been
   briefly told heretofore, when the reign of Philip Augustus of
   France was under review.

{1033}

   The whole reign of John was ignominious. He quarreled with the
   Pope—with the inflexible Innocent III., who humbled many
   kings—over a nomination to the Archbishopric of Canterbury
   (1205); his kingdom was put under interdict (1208); he was
   threatened with deposition; and when, in affright, he
   surrendered, it was so abjectly done that he swore fealty to
   the Pope, as a vassal to his suzerain, consenting to hold his
   kingdom as a fief of the Apostolic See. The triumph of the
   Papacy in this dispute brought one great good to England. It
   made Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, and thereby
   gave a wise and righteous leader to the opponents of the
   king's oppressive rule. Lords and commons, laity and clergy,
   were all alike sufferers from John's greed, his perfidy, his
   mean devices and his contempt of law. Langton rallied them to
   a sober, stern, united demonstration, which awed King John,
   and compelled him to put his seal to Magna Charta—the grand
   Charter of English liberties (1215). A few weeks later he
   tried to annul what he had done, with encouragement from the
   Pope, who anathematized the Charter and all who had to do with
   it. Then certain of the barons, in their rage, offered the
   English crown to the heir of France, afterwards Louis VIII.;
   and the French prince actually came to England (1216) with an
   army to secure it. But before the forces gathered on each side
   were brought to any decisive battle, John died. Louis'
   partisans then dropped away from him and the next year, after
   a defeat at sea, he returned to France.

Henry III. and the Barons' War.

   John left a son, a lad of nine years, who grew to be a better
   man than himself, though not a good king, for he was weak and
   untruthful in character, though amiable and probably
   well-meaning. He held the throne for fifty-six years, during
   which long time, after his minority was passed, no minister of
   ability and honorable character could get and keep office in
   the royal service. He was jealous of ministers, preferring
   mere administrative clerks; while he was docile to favorites,
   and picked them for the most part from a swarm of foreign
   adventurers whom the nation detested. The Great Charter of his
   father had been reaffirmed in his name soon after he received
   the crown, and in 1225 he was required to issue it a third
   time, as the condition of a grant of money; but he would not
   rule honestly in compliance with its provisions, and sought
   continually to lay and collect heavy taxes in unlawful ways.
   He spent money extravagantly, and was foolish and reckless in
   foreign undertakings, accepting, for example, the Kingdom of
   Sicily, offered to his son Edmund by the Pope, whose gift
   could only be made good by force of arms. At the same time he
   was servile to the popes, whose increasing demands for money
   from England were rousing even the clergy to resistance. So
   the causes of discontent grew abundantly until they brought it
   to a serious head. All classes of the people were drawn
   together again, as they had been to resist the aggressions of
   John. The great councils of the kingdom, or assemblies of
   barons and bishops (which had taken the place of the
   witenagemot of the old English time, and which now began to be
   called Parliaments), became more and more united against the
   king. At last the discontent found a leader of high capacity
   and of heroic if not blameless character, in Simon de
   Montfort, Earl of Leicester. Simon de Montfort was of foreign
   birth,—son of that fanatical crusader of the same name, who
   spread ruin over the fair country of the Albigeois. The
   English earldom of Leicester had passed to his family, and the
   younger Simon, receiving it, came to England and became an
   Englishman. After some years he threw himself into the
   struggle with the Crown, and his leadership was soon
   recognized. In 1258, a parliament held at London compelled the
   king to consent to the appointment of an extraordinary
   commission of twenty-four barons, clothed with full power to
   reform the government. The commission was named at a
   subsequent meeting of parliament, the same year, at Oxford,
   where the grievances to be redressed were set forth in a paper
   known as the Provisions of Oxford. From the twenty-four
   commissioners there were chosen fifteen to be the King's
   Council. This was really the creation of a new constitution
   for the kingdom, and Henry swore to observe it. But ere long
   he procured a bull from the Pope, absolving him from his oath,
   and he began to prepare for throwing off the restraints that
   had been put upon him. The other side took up arms, under
   Simon's lead; but peace was preserved for a time by referring
   all questions in dispute to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
   France. The arbiter decided against the barons (1264) and
   Montfort's party refused to abide by the award. Then followed
   the civil conflict known as the Barons' War. The king was
   defeated and taken prisoner, and was obliged to submit to
   conditions which practically transferred the administration of
   the government to three counsellors, of whom Simon de Montfort
   was the chief.

Development of the English Parliament;

   In January, 1265, a memorable parliament was called together.
   It was the first national assembly in which the larger element
   of the English Commons made its appearance; for Montfort had
   summoned to it certain representatives of borough towns, along
   with the barons, the bishops and the abbots, and along,
   moreover, with representative knights, who had been gaining
   admittance of late years to what now became a convocation of
   the Three Estates. The parliamentary model thus roughly shaped
   by the great Earl of Leicester was not continuously followed
   until another generation came; but it is his glory,
   nevertheless, to have given to England the norm and principle
   on which its unexampled parliament was framed. By dissensions
   among themselves, Simon de Montfort and his party soon lost
   the great advantage they had won, and on another appeal to
   arms they were defeated (1265) by the king's valiant and able
   son, afterwards King Edward I., and Montfort was slain. It was
   seven years after this before Edward succeeded his father, and
   nine before he came to the throne, because he was absent on a
   Crusade; but when he did, it was to prove himself, not merely
   one of the few statesmen-kings of England, but one large
   enough in mind to take lessons from the vanquished enemies of
   the Crown. He, in reality, took up the half-planned
   constitutional work of Simon de Montfort, in the development
   of the English Parliament as a body representative of all
   orders in the nation, and carried it forward to substantial
   completion. He did it because he had wit to see that the
   people he ruled could be led more easily than they could be
   driven, and that their free-giving of supplies to the Crown
   would be more open-handed than their giving under compulsion.
   The year 1295 "witnessed the first summons of a perfect and
   model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
   deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
   severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
   commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
   them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
   elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
   each borough" (Stubbs).
{1034}
   Two years later, the very fundamental principle of the English
   Constitution was established, by a Confirmation of the
   Charters, conceded in Edward's absence by his son, but
   afterwards assented to by him, which definitely renounced the
   right of the king to tax the nation without its consent. Thus
   the reign of Edward I. was really the most important in the
   constitutional history of England. It was scarcely less
   important in the history of English jurisprudence; for Edward
   was in full sympathy with the spirit of an age in which the
   study and reform of the law were wonderfully awakened
   throughout Europe. The great statutes of his reign are among
   the monuments of Edward's statesmanship, and not the least
   important of them are those by which he checked the
   encroachments of the Church and its dangerous acquisition of
   wealth.

   At the same time, the temper of this vigorous king was warlike
   and aggressive. He subdued the Welsh and annexed Wales as a
   principality to England. He enforced the feudal supremacy
   which the English kings claimed over Scotland, and, upon the
   Scottish throne becoming vacant, in 1290, seated John Baliol,
   as a vassal who did homage to him. The war of Scottish
   Independence then ensued, of which William Wallace and Robert
   Bruce were the heroes. Wallace perished on an English scaffold
   in 1305; Bruce, the next year, secured the Scottish crown, and
   eventually broke the bonds in which his country was held.

   Edward I. died in 1307, and his kingly capability died with
   him. He transmitted neither spirit nor wisdom to his son, the
   second Edward, who gave himself and his kingdom up to foreign
   favorites, as his grandfather had done. His angry subjects
   practically took the government out of his hands (1310), and
   confided it to a body of twenty-one members, called Ordainers.
   His reign of twenty years was one of protracted strife and
   disorder; but the constitutional power of Parliament made
   gains. In outward appearance, however, there was nothing to
   redeem the wretchedness of the time. The struggle of factions
   was pushed to civil war; while Scotland, by the great blow
   struck at Bannockburn (1314), made her independence complete.
   In 1322, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose descent was as royal
   as the king's, but who headed the opponents of Edward and
   Edward's unworthy favorites, was defeated in battle, taken
   prisoner, and brought to the block. This martyrdom, as it was
   called, embalmed Lancaster's memory in the hearts of the
   people.

Edward III. and his French Claims.

   The queen of Edward II., Isabella of France, daughter of
   Philip the Fair, made, at last, common cause with his enemies.
   In January, 1327, he was forced to formally resign the crown,
   and in September of the same year he was murdered, the queen,
   with little doubt, assenting to the deed. His son, Edward
   III., who now came to the throne, founded claims to the crown
   of France upon the rights of his mother, whose three brothers,
   as we have seen, had been crowned in succession and had died,
   bringing the direct line of royalty in France to an end. By
   this claim the two countries were plunged into the miseries of
   the dreadful Hundred Years War, and the progress of
   civilization in Europe was seriously checked.

Recovery of Christian Spain.

   Before entering that dark century of war, it will be necessary
   to go back a little in time, and carry our survey farther
   afield, in the countries of Europe more remote from the center
   of the events we have already scanned. In Spain, for example,
   there should be noticed, very briefly, the turning movement of
   the tide of Mahometan conquest which drove the Spanish
   Christians into the mountains of the North. In the eighth
   century, their little principality of Asturia had widened into
   the small kingdom of Leon, and the eastern county of Leon had
   taken the name of Castella (Castile) from the number of forts
   or castles with which it bristled, on the Moorish border. East
   of Leon, in the Pyrenees, there grew up about the same time the
   kingdom of Navarre, which became important in the eleventh
   century, under an enterprising king, Sancho the Great, who
   seized Castile and made a separate kingdom of it, which he
   bequeathed to his son. The same Navarrese king extended his
   dominion over a considerable part of the Spanish March, which
   Charlemagne had wrested from the Moors in the ninth century,
   and out of this territory the kingdom of Aragon was presently
   formed. These four kingdoms, of Leon, Navarre, Castile, and
   Aragon, were shuffled together and divided again, in changing
   combinations, many times during the next century or two; but
   Castile and Leon were permanently united in 1230. Meantime
   Portugal, wrested from the Moors, became a distinct kingdom;
   while Navarre was reduced in size and importance. Castile,
   Aragon, and Portugal are from that time the Christian Powers
   in the Peninsula which carried on the unending war with their
   Moslem neighbors. By the end of the thirteenth century they
   had driven the Moors into the extreme south of the peninsula,
   where the latter, thenceforth, held little beyond the small
   kingdom of Granada, which defended itself for two centuries
   more.

Moorish Civilization and its Decay.

   The Christians were winners and the Moslems were losers in
   this long battle, because adversity had disciplined the one
   and prosperity had relaxed and vitiated the other. Success
   bred disunion, and the spoils of victory engendered
   corruption, among the followers of Mahomet, very quickly in
   their career. The middle of the eighth century was hardly
   passed when the huge empire they had conquered broke in twain,
   and two Caliphates on one side of the Mediterranean, imitated the
   two Roman Empires on the other. We have seen how the Caliphate
   of the East, with its seat at Bagdad, went steadily to wreck;
   but fresh converts of Islam, out of deserts at the North, were
   in readiness, there, to gather the fragments and construct a
   new Mahometan power. In the West, where the Caliphs held their
   court at Cordova, the same crumbling of their power befell
   them, through feuds and jealousies and the decay of a sensuous
   race; but there were none to rebuild it in the Prophet's name.
   The Moor gave way to the Castilian in Spain for reasons not
   differing very much from the reasons which explain the
   supplanting of the Arab by the Turk in the East.

{1035}

   While its grandeur lasted in Spain,—from the eighth to the
   eleventh centuries—the empire of the Saracens, or Moors, was
   the most splendid of its age. It developed a civilization
   which must have been far finer, in the superficial showing,
   and in much of its spirit as well, than anything found in
   Christian Europe at that time. Its religious temper was less
   fierce and intolerant. Its intellectual disposition was
   towards broader thinking and freer inquiry. Its artistic
   feeling was truer and more instinctive. It took lessons from
   classic learning and philosophy before Germanized Europe had
   become aware of the existence of either, and it gave the
   lessons at second hand to its Christian neighbors. Its
   industries were conducted with a knowledge and a skill that
   could be found among no other people. Says Dr. Draper: "Europe
   at the present day does not offer more taste, more refinement,
   more elegance, than might have been seen, at the epoch of
   which we are speaking, in the capitals of the Spanish Arabs.
   Their streets were lighted and solidly paved. Their houses
   were frescoed and carpeted; they were warmed in winter by
   furnaces, and cooled in summer with perfumed air brought by
   underground pipes from flower beds. They had baths, and
   libraries, and dining halls, fountains of quicksilver and
   water. City and country were full of conviviality, and of
   dancing to lute and mandolin. Instead of the drunken and
   gluttonous wassail orgies of their northern neighbors, the
   feasts of the Saracens were marked with sobriety."

   The brilliancy of the Moorish civilization seems like that of
   some short-lived flower, which may spring from a thin soil of
   no lasting fertility. The qualities which yielded it had their
   season of ascendancy over the deeper-lying forces that worked
   in the Gothic mind of Christian Spain; but time exhausted the
   one, while it matured the other.

Mediæval Spanish Character.

   There seems to be no doubt that the long conflict of races and
   religions in the peninsula affected the character of the
   Spanish Christians more profoundly, both for good and for ill,
   than it affected the people with whom they strove. It hardened
   and energized them, preparing them for the bold adventures
   they were soon to pursue in a new-found world, and for a
   lordly career in all parts of the rounded globe. It embittered
   and gave fierceness to a sentiment among them which bore some
   likeness to religion, but which was, in reality, the
   partisanship of a church, and not the devotion of a faith. It
   tended to put bigotry in the place of piety—religious rancor
   in the place of charity—priests and images in the place of
   Christ—much more among the Spaniards than among other
   peoples; for they, alone, were Crusaders against the Moslem
   for eight hundred years.

Early Free Institutions in Spain.

   The political effects of those centuries of struggle in the
   peninsula were also remarkable and strangely mixed. In all the
   earlier stages of the national development, until the close of
   the mediæval period, there seems to have been as promising a
   growth of popular institutions, in most directions, as can be
   found in England itself. Apparently, there was more good
   feeling between classes than elsewhere in Europe. Nobles,
   knights and commons fought side by side in so continuous a
   battle that they were more friendly and familiar in
   acquaintance with one another. Moreover, the ennobled and the
   knighted were greatly more numerous in Spain than in the
   neighboring countries. The kings were lavish of such honors in
   rewarding valor, on every battlefield and after every campaign.
   It was impossible, therefore, for so great a distance to widen
   between the grandee and the peasant or the burgher as that
   which separated the lord and the citizen in Germany or France.
   The division of Christian Spain into several petty kingdoms,
   and the circumstances under which they were placed, retarded
   the growth of monarchical power, and yet did not tend to a
   feudal disintegration of society; because the pressure of its
   perpetual war with the infidels forced the preservation of a
   certain degree of unity, sufficient to be a saving influence.
   At the same time, the Spanish cities became prosperous, and
   naturally, in the circumstances of the country, acquired much
   freedom and many privileges. The inhabitants of some cities in
   Aragon enjoyed the privileges of nobility as a body; the
   magistrates of other cities were ennobled. Both in Aragon and
   Castile, the towns had deputies in the Cortes before any
   representatives of boroughs sat in the English Parliament; and
   the Cortes seems to have been, in the twelfth and thirteenth
   centuries, a more potent factor in government than any
   assembly of estates in any other part of Europe.

   But something was wanting in Spain that was not wanting in
   England and in the Netherlands, for example, to complete the
   evolution of a popular government from this hopeful beginning.
   And the primary want, it would seem, was a political sense or
   faculty in the people. To illustrate this in one particular:
   the Castilian Commons did not grasp the strings of the
   national purse when they had it in their hands, as the
   practical Englishmen did. They allowed the election of
   deputies from the towns to slip out of their hands and to
   become an official function of the municipalities, where it
   was corrupted and controlled by the Crown. In Aragon, the
   popular rights were more efficiently maintained, perhaps; but
   even there the political faculty of the people must have been
   defective, as compared with that of the nations in the North
   which developed free government from less promising germs.
   And, yet, it is possible that the whole subsequent failure of
   Spain may be fully explained by the ruinous prosperity of her
   career in the sixteenth century,—by the fatal gold it gave
   her from America, and the independent power it put into the
   hands of her kings.

Northern and North-eastern Europe.

   While the Spaniards in their southern peninsula were wrestling
   with the infidel Moor, their Gothic kindred of Sweden, and the
   other Norse nations of that opposite extremity of Europe, had
   been casting off paganism and emerging from the barbarism of
   their piratical age, very slowly. It was not until the tenth
   and eleventh centuries that Christianity got footing among
   them. It was not until the thirteenth century that unity and
   order, the fruits of firm government, began to be really fixed
   in any part of the Scandinavian peninsulas.

{1036}

   The same is substantially true of the greater Slavic states on
   the eastern side of Europe. The Poles had accepted
   Christianity in the tenth century, and their dukes, in the
   same century, had assumed the title of kings. In the twelfth
   century they had acquired a large dominion and exercised great
   power; but the kingdom was divided, was brought into collision
   with the Teutonic Knights, who conquered Prussia, and it fell
   into a disordered state. The Russians had been Christianized
   in the same missionary century—the tenth; but civilization
   made slow progress among them, and their nation was being
   divided and re-divided in shifting principalities by
   contending families and lords. In the thirteenth century they
   were overwhelmed by the fearful calamity of a conquest by
   Mongol or Tartar hordes, and fell under the brutal domination
   of the successors of Genghis Khan.

Latin Conquest of Constantinople.

   At Constantinople, the old Greek-Roman Empire of the East had
   been passing through singular changes since we noticed it
   last. The dread with which Alexius Comnenius saw the coming of
   the Crusaders in 1097 was justified by the experience of his
   successors, after little more than a hundred years. In 1204, a
   crusade, which is sometimes numbered as the fourth and
   sometimes as the fifth in the crusading series, was diverted
   by Venetian influence from the rescue of Jerusalem to the
   conquest of Constantinople, ostensibly in the interest of a
   claimant of the Imperial throne. The city was taken and
   pillaged, and the Greek line of Emperors was supplanted by a
   Frank or Latin line, of which Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was
   the first. But this Latin Empire was reduced to a fraction of
   the conquered dominion, the remainder being divided among
   several partners in the conquest; while two Greek princes of
   the fallen house saved fragments of the ancient realm in Asia,
   and throned themselves as emperors at Trebizond and Nicæa. The
   Latin Empire was maintained, feebly and without dignity, a
   little more than half a century; and then (1261) it was
   extinguished by the sovereign of its Nicæan rival, Michael
   Palæologus, who took Constantinople by a night surprise,
   helped by treachery within. Thus the Greek or Byzantine Empire
   was restored, but much shorn of its former European
   possessions, and much weakened by loss of commerce and wealth.
   It was soon involved in a fresh struggle for life with the
   Turks.

The Thirteenth Century.

   We have now, in our general survey of European history, just
   passed beyond the thirteenth century, and it will be
   instructive to pause here a moment and glance back over the
   movements and events which distinguish that remarkable age.
   For the thirteenth century, while it belongs chronologically
   to mediæval times, seems nearer in spirit to the
   Renaissance—shows more of the travail of the birth of our
   modern mind and life—than the fourteenth, and even more than
   the greater part of the years of the fifteenth century.

   For England, it was the century in which the enduring bases of
   constitutional government were laid down; within which Magna
   Charta and its Confirmations were signed; within which the
   Parliament of Simon de Montfort and the Parliaments of Edward
   I. gave a representative form and a controlling power to the
   wonderful legislature of the English nation. In France, it was
   the century of the Albigenses; of Saint Louis and his judicial
   reforms; and it stretched within two years of the first
   meeting of the States-General of the kingdom. In Switzerland,
   it was the century which began the union of the three forest
   cantons. In Spain, it was the century which gave Aragon the
   "General Privilege" of Peter III.; in Hungary, it was the
   century of its Golden Bull. In Italy it was the century of
   Frederick II.,—the man of modern spirit set in mediæval
   circumstances; and it was the century, too, which moulded the
   city-republics that resisted and defeated his despotic
   pretensions. Everywhere, it was an age of impulses toward
   freedom, and of mighty upward strivings out of the chaos and
   darkness of the feudal state. It was an age of vast energies,
   directed with practical judgment and power. It organized the
   great league of the Hansa Towns, which surpassed, as an
   enterprise of combination in commercial affairs, the most
   stupendous undertakings of the present time. It put the
   weavers and traders of Flanders on a footing with knights and
   princes. In Venice and Genoa it crowned the merchant like a
   king. It sent Marco Polo to Cathay, and inoculated men with
   the itch of exploration from which they find no ease to this
   day. It was the century which saw painting revived as a living
   art in the world by Cimabue and Giotto, and sculpture restored
   by Niccola Pisano. It was the age of great church-building in
   Italy, in Germany and in France. It was the century of St.
   Francis of Assisi, and of the creation of the mendicant orders
   in the Church,—a true religious reformation in its spirit,
   however unhappy in effect it may have been. It was the time of
   the high tide of mediæval learning; the epoch of Aquinas, of
   Duns Scotus, of Roger Bacon; the true birth-time of the
   Universities of Paris and Oxford. It was the century which
   educated Dante for his immortal work.

The Fourteenth Century.

   The century which followed was a period of many wars—of
   ruinous and deadly wars, and miserable demoralizations and
   disorders, which depressed all Europe by their effects. In the
   front of them all was the wicked Hundred Years War, forced on
   France by the ambition of an English king to wear two crowns;
   while with it came the bloody insurrection of the Jacquerie,
   the ravages of the free companies, and ruinous anarchy
   everywhere. Then, in Italy, there was a duel to the death
   between Venice and Genoa; and a long, wasting contest of
   rivals for the possession of Naples. In Germany, a contested
   imperial election, and the struggle of the Swiss against the
   Austrian Dukes. In Flanders, repeated revolts under the two
   Artevelds. In the East, the terrible fight of Christendom with
   the advancing Turk. And while men were everywhere so busily
   slaying one another, there came the great pestilence which
   they called the Black Death, to help them in the grim work,
   and Europe was half depopulated by it. At the same time, the
   Church, which might have kindled some beacon lights of faith
   and hope in the midst of all this darkness and terror, was
   sinking to its lowest state, and Rome had become an unruled
   robbers' den.

   There were a few voices heard, above the wailing and the
   battle-din of the afflicted age, which charmed and comforted
   it; voices which preached the pure gospel of Wycliffe and
   Huss,—which recited the great epic of Dante,—which syllabled
   the melodious verse of Petrarch and Chaucer,—which told the
   gay tales of Boccaccio; but the pauses of peace in which men
   might listen to such messages and give themselves to such
   delights were neither many nor long.

{1037}

The Hundred Years War.

   The conflict between England and France began in Flanders,
   then connected with the English very closely in trade. Philip
   VI. of France forced the Count of Flanders to expel English
   merchants from his territory. Edward III. retaliated (1336) by
   forbidding the exportation of wool to Flanders, and this
   speedily reduced the Flemish weavers to idleness. They rose in
   revolt, drove out their count, and formed an alliance with
   England, under the lead of Jacob van Arteveld, a brewer, of
   Ghent. The next year (1337) Edward joined the Flemings with an
   army and entered France; but made no successful advance,
   although his fleet won a victory, in a sea-fight off Sluys,
   and hostilities were soon suspended by a truce. In 1341 they
   were renewed in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the
   dukedom, and the scattered sieges and chivalric combats which
   made up the war in that region for two years are described
   with minuteness by Froissart, the gossipy chronicler of the
   time. After a second truce, the grimly serious stage of the
   war was reached in 1346. It was in that year that the English
   won the victory at Crécy, which was the pride and boast of
   their nation for centuries; and the next season they took
   Calais, which they held for more than two hundred years.

   Philip died in 1350 and was succeeded by his son John. In
   1355, Edward of England repeated his invasion, ravaging
   Artois, while his son, the Black Prince, from Guienne (which
   the English had held since the Angevin time), devastated
   Languedoc. The next year, this last named prince made another
   sally from Bordeaux, northwards, towards the Loire, and was
   encountered by the French king, with a splendid army, at
   Poitiers. The victory of the English in this case was more
   overwhelming than at Crécy, although they were greatly
   outnumbered. King John was taken prisoner and conveyed to
   London. His kingdom was in confusion. The dauphin called
   together the States-General of France, and that body, in which
   the commons, or third estate, attained to a majority in numbers,
   assumed powers and compelled assent to reforms which seemed
   likely to place it on a footing of equal importance with the
   Parliament of England. The leader of the third estate in these
   measures was Etienne or Stephen Marcel, provost of Paris, a
   man of commanding energy and courage. The dauphin, under
   orders from his captive father, attempted to nullify the
   ordinances of the States-General. Paris rose at the call of
   Marcel and the frightened prince became submissive; but the
   nobles of the provinces resented these high-handed proceedings
   of the Parisians and civil war ensued. The peasants, who were
   in great misery, took advantage of the situation to rise in
   support of the Paris burgesses, and for the redressing of
   their own wrongs. This insurrection of the Jacquerie, as it is
   known, produced horrible deeds of outrage and massacre on both
   sides, and seems to have had no other result. Paris, meantime
   (1358), was besieged and hard pressed; Marcel, suspected of an
   intended treachery, was killed, and with his death the whole
   attempt to assert popular rights fell to the ground.

   The state of France at this time was one of measureless
   misery. It was overrun with freebooters—discharged soldiers,
   desperate homeless and idle men, and the ruffians who always
   bestir themselves when authority disappears. They roamed the
   country in bands, large and small, stripped it of what war had
   spared, and left famine behind them.

   At length, in 1360, terms of peace were agreed upon, in a
   treaty signed at Bretigny, and fighting ceased, except in
   Brittany, where the war went on for four years more. By the
   treaty, all French claims upon Aquitaine and the dependencies
   were given up, and Edward acquired full sovereignty there, no
   longer owing homage, as a vassal, to the king of France.
   Calais, too, was ceded to England, and so heavy a ransom was
   exacted from the captive King John that he failed to collect
   money for the payment of it and died in London (1364).

Charles the Wise.

   Charles V., who now ruled independently, as he had ruled for
   some years in his father's name, proved to be a more prudent
   and capable prince, and his counsellors and captains were
   wisely chosen. He was a man of studious tastes and of
   considerable learning for that age, with intelligence to see
   and understand the greater sources of evil in his kingdom.
   Above all, he had patience enough to plant better things in
   the seed and wait for them to grow, which is one of the
   grander secrets of statesmanship. By careful, judicious
   measures, he and those who shared the task of government with
   him slowly improved the discipline and condition of their
   armies. The "great companies" of freebooters, too strong to be
   put down, were lured out of the kingdom by an expedition into
   Spain, which the famous warrior Du Guesclin commanded, and
   which was sent against the detestable Pedro, called the Cruel,
   of Castile, whom the English supported. A stringent economy in
   public expenditure was introduced, and the management of the
   finances was improved. The towns were encouraged to strengthen
   their fortifications, and the state and feeling of the whole
   country were slowly lifted from the gloomy depth to which the
   war had depressed them.

   At length, in 1369, Charles felt prepared to challenge another
   encounter with the English, by repudiating the ignominious
   terms of the treaty of Bretigny. Before the year closed,
   Edward's armies were in the country again, but accomplished
   nothing beyond the havoc which they wrought as they marched.
   The French avoided battles, and their cities were well
   defended. Next year the English returned, and the Black Prince
   earned infamy by a ferocious massacre of three thousand men,
   women, and children, in the city of Limoges, when he had taken
   it by storm. It was his last campaign. Already suffering from
   a mortal disease, he returned to England, and died a few years
   later. The war went on, with no decisive results, until 1375,
   when it was suspended by a truce. In 1377, Edward III. died,
   and the French king began war again with great success. Within
   three years he expelled the English from every part of France
   except Bayonne, Bordeaux, Brest, Cherbourg and Calais.

   If he had lived a little longer, there might soon have been an
   end of the war. But he died in 1380, and fresh calamities fell
   upon unhappy France.

{1038}

Rising Power of Burgundy.

   The son who succeeded him, Charles VI., was an epileptic boy
   of twelve years, who had three greedy and selfish uncles to
   quarrel over the control of him, and to plunder the Crown of
   territory and treasures. One of these was the Duke of
   Burgundy, the first prince of a new great house which King
   John had foolishly created. Just before that fatuous king
   died, the old line of Burgundian dukes came to an end, and he
   had the opportunity, which wise kings before him would have
   improved very eagerly, to annex that fief to the crown.
   Instead of doing so, he gave it as an appanage to his son
   Philip, called "the Bold," and thus rooted a new plant of
   feudalism in France which was destined to cause much trouble.
   Another of the uncles was Louis, Duke of Anjou, heir to the
   crown of Naples under a will of the lately murdered Queen
   Joanna, and who was preparing for an expedition to enforce his
   claim. The third was Duke of Berry, upon whom his father, King
   John, had conferred another great appanage, including Berry,
   Poitou and Auvergne.

   The pillage and misgovernment of the realm under these
   rapacious guardians of the young king was so great that
   desperate risings were provoked, the most formidable of which
   broke out in Paris. They were all suppressed, and with
   merciless severity. At the same time, the Flemings, who had
   again submitted to their count, revolted once more, under the
   lead of Philip van Arteveld, son of their former leader. The
   French moved an army to the assistance of the Count of
   Flanders, and the sturdy men of Ghent, who confronted it
   almost alone, suffered a crushing defeat at Roosebeke (1382).
   Philip van Arteveld fell in the battle, with twenty-six
   thousand of his men. Two years later, the Count of Flanders
   died, and the Duke of Burgundy, who had married his daughter,
   acquired that rich and noble possession. This beginning of the
   union of Burgundy and the Netherlands, creating a power by the
   side of the throne of France which threatened to overshadow
   it, and having for its ultimate consequence the casting of the
   wealth of the Low Countries into the lap of the House of
   Austria and into the coffers of Spain, is an event of large
   importance in European history.

Burgundians and Armagnacs.

   When Charles VI. came of age, he took the government into his
   own hands, and for some years it was administered by capable
   men. But in 1392 the king's mind gave way, and his uncles
   regained control of affairs. Philip of Burgundy maintained the
   ascendancy until his death, in 1404. Then the controlling
   influence passed to the king's brother, the Duke of Orleans,
   between whom and the new Duke of Burgundy, John, called the
   Fearless, a bitter feud arose. John, who was unscrupulous,
   employed assassins to waylay and murder the Duke of Orleans,
   which they did in November, 1407. This foul deed gave rise to
   two parties in France. Those who sought vengeance ranged
   themselves under the leadership of the Count of Armagnac, and
   were called by his name. The Burgundians, who sustained Duke
   John, were in the main a party of the people; for the Duke had
   cultivated popularity, especially in Paris, by advocating
   liberal measures and extending the rights and privileges of
   the citizens.

   The kingdom was kept in turmoil and terror for years by the
   war of these factions, especially in and about Paris, where
   the guild of the butchers took a prominent part in affairs, on
   the Burgundian side, arming a riotous body of men who were
   called Cabochiens, from their leader's name. In 1413 the
   Armagnacs succeeded in recovering possession of the capital
   and the Cabochiens were suppressed.

Second Stage of the Hundred Years War.

   Meantime, Henry V. of England, the ambitious young Lancastrian
   king who came to the throne of that country in 1413, saw a
   favorable opportunity, in the distracted state of France, to
   reopen the questions left unsettled by the breaking of the
   treaty of Bretigny. He invaded France in 1415, as the rightful
   king coming to dethrone a usurper, and began by taking
   Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine, after a siege which cost
   him so heavily that he found it prudent to retreat towards
   Calais. The French intercepted him at Agincourt and forced him
   to give them battle. He had only twenty thousand men, but they
   formed a well disciplined and well ordered army. The French
   had gathered eighty thousand men, but they were a feudal mob.
   The battle ended, like those of Crécy and Poitiers, in the
   routing and slaughter of the French, with small loss to
   Henry's force. His army remained too weak in numbers, however,
   for operations in a hostile country, and the English king
   returned home, with a great train of captive princes and
   lords.

   He left the Armagnacs and Burgundians still fighting one
   another, and disabling France as effectually as he could do if
   he stayed to ravage the land. In 1417 he came back and began
   to attack the strong cities of Normandy, one by one, taking
   Caen first. In the next year, by a horrible massacre, the
   Burgundian mob in Paris overcame the Armagnacs there, and
   reinstated Duke John of Burgundy in possession of the capital.
   The latter was already in negotiation with the English king,
   and evidently prepared to sacrifice the kingdom for whatever
   might seem advantageous to himself. But in 1419 Henry V. took
   Rouen, and, when all of Normandy submitted with its capital,
   he demanded nothing less than that great province, with
   Brittany, Guienne, Maine, Anjou and Touraine in addition,—or,
   substantially, the western half of France.

Burgundian and English Alliance.

   Parleyings were brought to an end in September of that year by
   the treacherous murder of Duke John. The Armagnacs slew him
   foully, at an interview to which he had been enticed, on the
   bridge of Montereau. His son, Duke Philip of Burgundy, now
   reopened negotiations with the invader, in conjunction with
   Queen Isabella (wife of the demented king), who had played an
   evil part in all the factious troubles of the time. These two,
   having control of the king's person, concluded a treaty with
   Henry V. at Troyes, according to the terms of which Henry
   should marry the king's daughter Catherine; should be
   administrator of the kingdom of France while Charles VI.
   lived, and should receive the crown when the latter died. The
   marriage took place at once, and almost the whole of France
   north of the Loire seemed submissive to the arrangement. The
   States-General and the Parliament of Paris gave official
   recognition to it; the disinherited dauphin of France, whose
   own mother had signed away his regal heritage, retired, with
   his Armagnac supporters, to the country south of the Loire,
   and had little apparent prospect of holding even that.

{1039}

Two Kings in France.

   But a mortal malady had already stricken King Henry V., and he
   died in August, 1422. The unfortunate, rarely conscious French
   king, whose crown Henry had waited for, died seven weeks
   later. Each left an heir who was proclaimed king of France.
   The English pretender (Henry VI. in England, Henry II. in
   France) was an innocent infant, ten months old; but his court
   was in Paris, his accession was proclaimed with due ceremony
   at St. Denis, his sovereignty was recognized by the Parliament
   and the University of that city, and the half of France
   appeared resigned to the lapse of nationality which its
   acceptance of him signified. The true heir of the royal house
   of France (Charles VII.) was a young man of nearly mature age
   and of fairly promising character; but he was proclaimed in a
   little town of Berry, by a small following of lords and
   knights, and the nation for which he stood hardly seemed to
   exist.

   The English supporters of the English king of France were too
   arrogant and overbearing to retain very long the good will of
   their allies among the French people. Something like a
   national feeling in northern France was aroused by the
   hostility they provoked, and the strength of the position in
   which Henry V. left them was steadily but slowly lost. Charles
   proved incapable, however, of using any advantages which
   opened to him, or of giving his better counsellors an
   opportunity to serve him with good effect, and no important
   change took place in the situation of affairs until the
   English laid siege, in 1428, to the city of Orleans, which was
   the stronghold of the French cause.

Jeanne d'Arc, the Maid of Orleans.

   Then occurred one of the most extraordinary episodes in
   history; the appearance of the young peasant girl of Lorraine,
   Jeanne d'Arc, whose coming upon the scene of war was like the
   descent of an angel out of Heaven, sent with a Divine
   commission to rescue France. Belief in the inspiration of this
   simple maiden, who had faith in her own visions and voices,
   was easier for that age than belief in a rational rally of
   public energies, and it worked like a miracle on the spirit of
   the nation. But it could not have done so with effect if the
   untaught country girl of Domremy had not been endowed in a
   wonderful way, with a wise mind, as well as with an
   imaginative one, and with courage as well as with faith. When
   the belief in her inspired mission gave her power to lead the
   foolish king, and authority to command his disorderly troops,
   she acted almost invariably with understanding, with good
   sense, with a clear, unclouded judgment, with straightforward
   singleness of purpose, and with absolute personal
   fearlessness. She saw the necessity for saving Orleans; and
   when that had been done under her own captaincy (1429), she
   saw how greatly King Charles would gain in prestige if he made
   his way to Rheims, and received, like his predecessors, a
   solemn coronation and consecration in the cathedral of that
   city. It was by force of her gentle obstinacy of determination
   that this was done, and the effect vindicated the sagacity of
   the Maid. Then she looked upon her mission as accomplished,
   and would have gone quietly home to her village; for she seems
   to have remained as simple in feeling as when she left her
   father's house, and was innocent to the end of any selfish
   pleasure in the fame she had won and the importance she had
   acquired. But those she had helped would not let her go; and
   yet they would not be guided by her without wrangle and
   resistance. She wished to move the army straight from Rheims
   to Paris, and enter that city before it had time to recover
   from the consternation it was in. But other counsellors
   retarded the march, by stopping to capture small towns on the
   way, until the opportunity for taking Paris was lost. The
   king, who had been braced up to a little energy by her
   influence, sank back into his indolent pleasures, and faction
   and frivolity possessed the court again. Jeanne strove with
   high courage against malignant opposition and many
   disheartenments, in the siege of Paris and after, exposing
   herself in battle with the bravery of a seasoned warrior; and
   her reward was to find herself abandoned at last, in a
   cowardly way, to the enemy, when she had led a sortie from the
   town of Compiegne, to drive back the Duke of Burgundy, who was
   besieging it. Taken prisoner, she was given up to the Duke,
   and sold by him to the English at Rouen.

   That the Maid acted with supernatural powers was believed by
   the English as firmly as by the French; but those powers, in
   their belief, came, not from Heaven, but from Hell. In their
   view she was not a saint, but a sorceress. They paid a high
   price to the Duke of Burgundy for his captive, in order to put
   her on trial for the witchcraft which they held she had
   practised against them, and to destroy her mischievous power.
   No consideration for her sex, or her youth, or for the beauty
   and purity of character that is revealed in all the accounts
   of her trial, moved her judges to compassion. They condemned
   her remorselessly to the stake, and she was burned on the 31st
   of May, 1431, with no effort put forth on the part of the
   French or their ungrateful king to save her from that horrible
   fate.

End of the Hundred Years War.

   After this, things went badly with the English, though some
   years passed before Charles VII. was roused again to any
   display of capable powers. At last, in 1435, a general
   conference of all parties in the war was brought about at
   Arras. The English were offered Normandy and Aquitaine in full
   sovereignty, but they refused it, and withdrew from the
   conference when greater concessions were denied to them. The
   Duke of Burgundy then made terms with King Charles, abandoning
   the English alliance, and obtaining satisfaction for the
   murder of his father. Charles was now able, for the first time
   in his reign, to enter the capital of his kingdom (May, 1436),
   and it is said that he found it so wasted by a pestilence and
   so ruined and deserted, that wolves came into the city, and
   that forty persons were devoured by them in a single week,
   some two years later.

{1040}

   Charles now began to show better qualities than had appeared
   in his character before. He adopted strong measures to
   suppress the bands of marauders who harassed and wasted the
   country, and to bring all armed forces in the kingdom under
   the control and command of the Crown. He began the creation of
   a disciplined and regulated militia in France. He called into
   his service the greatest French merchant of the day, Jacques
   Cœur, who successfully reorganized the finances of the state,
   and whose reward, after a few years, was to be prosecuted and
   plundered by malignant courtiers, while the king looked
   passively on, as he had looked on at the trial and execution
   of Jeanne d'Arc.

   In 1449, a fresh attack upon the English in Normandy was
   begun; and as civil war—the War of the Roses—was then at the
   point of outbreak in England, they could make no effective
   resistance. Within a year, the whole of Normandy had become
   obedient again to the rule of the king of France. In two years
   more Guienne had been recovered, and when, in October, 1453,
   the French king entered Bordeaux, the English had been finally
   expelled from every foot of the realm except Calais and its
   near neighborhood. The Hundred Years War was at an end.

England under Edward III.

   The century of the Hundred Years War had been, in England, one
   of few conspicuous events; and when the romantic tale of that
   war—the last sanguinary romance of expiring Chivalry—is
   taken out of the English annals of the time, there is not much
   left that looks interesting on the surface of things. Below
   the surface there are movements of no little importance to be
   found.

   When Edward III. put forward his claim to the crown of France,
   and prepared to make it good by force of arms, the English
   nation had absolutely no interest of its own in the
   enterprise, from which it could derive no possible advantage,
   but which did, on the contrary, promise harm to it, very
   plainly, whatever might be the result. If the king succeeded,
   his English realm would become a mere minor appendage to a far
   more imposing continental dominion, and he and his successors
   might easily acquire a power independent and absolute, over
   their subjects. If he failed, the humiliation of failure would
   wound the pride and the prestige of the nation, while its
   resources would have been drained for naught. But these
   rational considerations did not suffice to breed any
   discoverable opposition to King Edward's ambitious
   undertaking. The Parliament gave sanction to it; most probably
   the people at large approved, with exultant expectations of
   national glory; and when Crécy and Poitiers, with victories
   over the hostile Scots, filled the measure of England's glory
   to overflowing, they were intoxicated by it, and had little
   thought then of the cost or the consequences.

   But long before Edward's reign came to an end, the splendid
   pageantries of the war had passed out of sight, and a new
   generation was looking at, and was suffering from, the
   miseries and mortifications that came in its train. The
   attempt to conquer France had failed; the fruits of the
   victories of Crécy and Poitiers had been lost; even Guienne,
   which had been English ground since the days of Henry II., was
   mostly given up. And England was weak from the drain of money
   and men which the war had caused. The awful plague of the 14th
   century, the Black Death, had smitten her people hard and left
   diminished numbers to bear the burden. There had been famine
   in the land, and grievous distress, and much sorrow.

   But the calamities of this bitter time wrought beneficent
   effects, which no man then living is likely to have clearly
   understood. By plague, famine and battle, labor was made
   scarce, wages were raised, the half-enslaved laborer was
   speedily emancipated, despite the efforts of Parliament to
   keep him in bonds, and land-owners were forced to let their
   lands to tenant-farmers, who strengthened the English
   middle-class. By the demands of the war for money and men, the
   king was held more in dependence on Parliament than he might
   otherwise have been, and the plant of constitutional
   government, which began its growth in the previous century,
   took deeper root.

   In the last years of his life Edward III. lost all of his
   vigor, and fell under the influence of a woman, Alice Perrers,
   who wronged and scandalized the nation. The king's eldest son,
   the Black Prince, was slowly dying of an incurable disease,
   and took little part in affairs; when he interfered, it seems
   to have been with some leanings to the popular side. The next
   in age of the living sons of Edward was a turbulent, proud,
   self-seeking prince, who gave England much trouble and was
   hated profoundly. This was John, Duke of Lancaster, called
   John of Gaunt, or Ghent, because of his birth in that city.

England under Richard II.

   The Black Prince, dying in 1376, left a young son, Richard,
   then ten years old, who was immediately recognized as the heir
   to the throne, and who succeeded to it in the following year,
   when Edward III. died. The Duke of Lancaster had been
   suspected of a design to set Richard aside and claim the crown
   for himself. But he did not venture the attempt; nor was he
   able to secure even the regency of the kingdom during the
   young king's minority. The distrust of him was so general that
   Parliament and the lords preferred to invest Richard with full
   sovereignty even in his boyhood. But John of Gaunt,
   notwithstanding these endeavors to exclude him from any place
   of authority, contrived to attain a substantial mastery of the
   government, managing the war in France and the expenditure of
   public moneys in his own way, and managing them very badly. At
   least, he was held chiefly responsible for what was bad, and
   his name was heard oftenest in the mutterings of popular
   discontent. The peasants were now growing very impatient of
   the last fetters of villeinage which they wore, and very
   conscious of their right to complete freedom. Those feelings
   were strongly stirred in them by a heavy poll-tax which
   Parliament levied in 1381. The consequence was an outbreak of
   insurrection, led by one Wat the Tyler, which became
   formidable and dangerous. The insurgents began by making
   everybody they encountered swear to be true to King Richard,
   and to submit to no king named John, meaning John of Gaunt.
   They increased in numbers and boldness until they entered and
   took possession of the city of London, where they beheaded the
   Archbishop of Canterbury, and other obnoxious persons; but
   permitted no thieving to be done.
{1041}
   The day after this occurred, Wat Tyler met the young king at
   Smithfield, for a conference, and was suddenly killed by one
   of those who attended the king. The excuse made for the deed
   was some word of insolence on the part of the insurgent
   leader; but there is every appearance of a foul act of
   treachery in the affair. Richard on this occasion behaved
   boldly and with much presence of mind, acquiring by his
   courage and readiness a command over the angry rebels, which
   resulted in their dispersion.

   The Wat Tyler rebellion appears to have manifested a more
   radically democratic state of thinking and feeling among the
   common people than existed again in England before the
   seventeenth century. John Ball, a priest, and others who were
   associated with Wat Tyler in the leadership, preached
   doctrines of social equality that would nearly have satisfied
   a Jacobin of the French Revolution.

   This temper of political radicalism had no apparent connection
   with the remarkable religious feeling of the time, which the
   great reformer, Wyclif, had aroused; yet the two movements of
   the English mind were undoubtedly started by one and the same
   revolutionary shock, which it took from the grave alarms and
   anxieties of the age, and for which it had been prepared by
   the awakening of the previous century. Wyclif was the first
   English Puritan, and more of the spirit of the reformation of
   religion which he sought, than the spirit of Luther's
   reformation, went into the Protestantism that ultimately took
   form in England. The movement he stirred was a more wonderful
   anticipation of the religious revolt of the sixteenth century
   than any other which occurred in Europe; for that of Huss in
   Bohemia took its impulse from Wyclif and the English Lollards,
   as Wyclif's followers were called.

   Richard was a weak but wilful king, and the kingdom was kept
   in trouble by his fitful attempts at independence and
   arbitrary rule. He made enemies of most of the great lords,
   and lost the good will and confidence of Parliament. He did
   what was looked upon as a great wrong to Henry of Bolingbroke,
   son of John of Gaunt, by banishing both him and the Duke of
   Norfolk from the kingdom, when he should have judged between
   them; and he made the wrong greater by seizing the lands of
   the Lancastrian house when John of Gaunt died. This caused his
   ruin. Henry of Bolingbroke, now Duke of Lancaster, came back to
   England (1399), encouraged by the discontent in the kingdom,
   and was immediately joined by so many adherents that Richard
   could offer little resistance. He was deposed by act of
   Parliament, and the Duke of Lancaster (a grandson of Edward
   III., as Richard was), was elected to the throne, which he
   ascended as Henry IV. By judgment of King and Parliament,
   Richard was presently condemned to imprisonment for life in
   Pomfret Castle; and, early in the following year, after a
   conspiracy in his favor had been discovered, he died
   mysteriously in his prison.

England Under Henry IV.

   The reign of Henry IV., which lasted a little more than
   thirteen years, was troubled by risings and conspiracies, all
   originating among the nobles, out of causes purely personal or
   factious, and having no real political significance. But no
   events in English history are more commonly familiar, or seem
   to be invested with a higher importance, than the rebellions
   of Owen Glendower and the Percys,—Northumberland and Harry
   Hotspur,—simply because Shakespeare has laid his magic upon
   what otherwise would be a story of little note. Wars with the
   always hostile Scots supplied other stirring incidents to the
   record Of the time; but these came to a summary end in 1405,
   when the crown prince, James, of Scotland, voyaging to France,
   was driven by foul winds to the English coast and taken
   prisoner. The prince's father, King Robert, died on hearing
   the news, and James, the captive, was now entitled to be king.
   But the English held him for eighteen years, treating him as a
   guest at their court, rather than as a prisoner, and educating
   him with care, but withholding him from his kingdom.

   To strengthen his precarious seat upon the throne, Henry
   cultivated the friendship of the Church, and seems to have
   found this course expedient, even at considerable cost to his
   popularity. For the attitude of the commons towards the Church
   during his reign was anything but friendly. They went so far
   as to pass a bill for the confiscation of Church property,
   which the Lords rejected; and they seem to have repented of an
   Act passed early in his reign, under which a cruel persecution
   of the Lollards was begun. The clergy and the Lords, with the
   favor of the king, maintained the barbarous law, and England
   for the first time saw men burned at the stake for heresy.

England Under Henry V. and Henry VI.

   Henry IV. died in 1413, and was succeeded by his spirited and
   able, but too ambitious son, Henry V., the Prince Hal of
   Shakespeare, who gave up riotous living when called to the
   grave duties of government and showed himself to be a man of
   no common mould. The war in France, which he renewed, and the
   chief events of which have been sketched already, filled up
   most of his brief reign of nine years. His early death (1422)
   left two crowns to an infant nine months old. The English
   crown was not disputed. The French crown, though practically
   won by conquest, was not permanently secured, but was still to
   be fought for; and in the end, as we have seen, it was lost.
   No more need be said of the incidents of the war which had
   that result.

   The infant king was represented in France by his elder uncle,
   the Duke of Bedford. In England, the government was carried on
   for him during his minority by a council, in which his younger
   uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, occupied the chief place,
   but with powers that were jealously restricted. While the war
   in France lasted, or during most of the thirty-one years
   through which it was protracted after Henry V.'s death, it
   engrossed the English mind and overshadowed domestic
   interests, so that the time has a meagre history.

   Soon after he came of age, Henry VI. married (1444) Margaret
   of Anjou, daughter of René, Duke of Anjou, who claimed to be
   King of Naples and Jerusalem. The marriage, which aimed at
   peace with France, and which had been brought about by the
   cession to that country of Maine and Anjou, was unpopular in
   England. Discontent with the feeble management of the war, and
   with the general weakness and incapability of the government,
   grew apace, and showed itself, among other exhibitions, in a
   rebellion (1450) known as Jack Cade's, from the name of an
   Irishman who got the lead of it. Jack Cade and his followers
   took possession of London and held it for three days, only
   yielding at last to an offer of general pardon, after they had
   beheaded Lord Say, the most obnoxious adviser of the king. A
   previous mob had taken the head of the Earl of Suffolk, who
   was detested still more as the contriver of the king's
   marriage and of the humiliating policy in France.

{1042}

The Wars of the Roses.

   At length, the Duke of York, representing an elder line of
   royal descent from Edward III., took the lead of the
   discontented in the nation, and civil war was imminent in
   1452; but pacific counsels prevailed for the moment. The king,
   who had always been weak-minded, and entirely under the
   influence of the queen, now sank for a time into a state of
   complete stupor, and was incapable of any act. The Lords in
   Parliament thereupon appointed the Duke of York Protector of
   England, and the government was vigorously conducted by him
   for a few months, until the king recovered. The queen, and the
   councillors she favored, now regained their control of
   affairs, and the opposition took arms.

   The long series of fierce struggles between these two parties,
   which is commonly called the Wars of the Roses, began on the
   22d of May, 1455, with a battle at St. Albans—the first of
   two that were fought on the same ground. At the beginning, it
   was a contest for the possession of the unfortunate,
   irresponsible king, and of the royal authority which resided
   nominally in his person. But it became, ere long, a contest
   for the crown which Henry wore, and to which the Duke of York
   denied his right. The Duke traced his ancestry to one son of
   Edward III., and King Henry to another son. But the Duke's
   forefather, Lionel, was prior in birth to the King's
   forefather, John of Gaunt, and, as an original proposition,
   the House of York was clearly nearer than the House of
   Lancaster to the royal line which had been interrupted when
   Richard II. was deposed. The rights of the latter House were
   such as it had gained prescriptively by half a century of
   possession.

   At one time it was decided by the Lords that Henry should be
   king until he died, and that the Duke of York and his heirs
   should succeed him. But Queen Margaret would not yield the
   rights of her son, and renewed the war. The Duke of York was
   killed in the next battle fought. His son, Edward, continued
   the contest, and early in 1461, having taken possession of
   London, he was declared king by a council of Lords, which
   formally deposed Henry. The Lancastrians were driven from the
   kingdom, and Edward held the government with little
   disturbance for eight years. Then a rupture occurred between
   him and his most powerful supporter, the Earl of Warwick.
   Warwick put himself at the head of a rebellion which failed in
   the first instance, but which finally, when Warwick had joined
   forces with Queen Margaret, drove Edward to flight. The latter
   took refuge in the Netherlands (1470), where he received
   protection and assistance from the Duke of Burgundy, who was
   his brother-in-law. Henry VI. was now restored to the throne;
   but for no longer a time than six months. At the end of that
   period Edward landed again in England, with a small force,
   professing that he came only to demand his dukedom. As soon as
   he found himself well received and strongly supported, he
   threw off the mask, resumed the title of king, and advanced to
   London, where the citizens gave him welcome. A few days later
   (April 14, 1471) he went out to meet Warwick and defeated and
   slew him in the fierce battle of Barnet. One more fight at
   Tewkesbury, where Queen Margaret was taken prisoner, ended the
   war. King Henry died, suspiciously, in the Tower, on the very
   night of his victorious rival's return to London, and Edward
   IV. had all his enemies under his feet.

England under the House of York.

   For a few years England enjoyed peace within her borders, and
   the material effects of the protracted civil wars were rapidly
   effaced. Indeed, the greater part of England appears to have
   been lightly touched by those effects. The people at large had
   taken little part in the conflict, and had been less disturbed
   by it, in their industries and in their commerce, than might
   have been expected. It had been a strife among the great
   families, enlisting the gentry to a large extent, no doubt,
   but not the middle class. Hence its chief consequence had been
   the thinning and weakening of the aristocratic order, which
   relatively enhanced the political importance of the commons.
   But the commons were not yet trained to act independently in
   political affairs. Their rise in power had been through joint
   action of lords and commons against the Crown, with the former
   in the lead; they were accustomed to depend on aristocratic
   guidance, and to lean on aristocratic support. For this
   reason, they were not only unprepared to take advantage of the
   great opportunity which now opened to them, for decisively
   grasping the control of government, but they were unfitted to
   hold what they had previously won, without the help of the
   class above them. As a consequence, it was the king who
   profited by the decimation and impoverishment of the nobles,
   grasping not only the power which they lost, but the power
   which the commons lacked skill to use. For a century and a
   half following the Wars of the Roses, the English monarchy
   approached more nearly to absolutism than at any other period
   before or after.

   The unsparing confiscations by which Edward IV. and his
   triumphant party crushed their opponents enriched the Crown
   for a time and made it independent of parliamentary subsidies.
   When supply from that source began to fall short, the king
   invented another. He demeaned himself so far as to solicit
   gifts from the wealthy merchants of the kingdom, to which he
   gave the name of "benevolences," and he practiced this system
   of royal beggary so persistently and effectually that he had
   no need to call Parliament together. He thus began, in a
   manner hardly perceived or resisted, the arbitrary and
   unconstitutional mode of government which his successors
   carried further, until the nation roused itself and took back
   its stolen liberties with vengeance and wrath.

{1043}

Richard III. and the first of the Tudors.

   Edward IV. died in 1483, leaving two young sons, the elder not
   yet thirteen. Edward's brother, Richard, contrived with
   amazing ability and unscrupulousness to acquire control of the
   government, first as Protector, and presently as King. The
   young princes, confined in the Tower, were murdered there, and
   Richard III. might have seemed to be secure on his wickedly
   won throne; for he did not lack popularity, notwithstanding
   his crimes. But an avenger soon came, in the person of Henry,
   Earl of Richmond, who claimed the Crown. Henry's claim was not
   a strong one. Through his mother, he traced his lineage to
   John of Gaunt, as the Lancastrians had done; but it was the
   mistress and not the wife of that prince who bore Henry's
   ancestor. His grandfather was a Welsh chieftain, Sir Owen
   Tudor, who won the heart of the widowed queen of Henry V.,
   Catherine of France, and married her. But the claim of Henry
   of Richmond, if a weak one genealogically, sufficed for the
   overthrow of the red-handed usurper, Richard. Henry, who had
   been in exile, landed in England in August, 1485, and was
   quickly joined by large numbers of supporters. Richard
   hastened to attack them, and was defeated and slain on
   Bosworth Field. With no more opposition, Henry won the
   kingdom, and founded, as Henry VII., the Tudor dynasty which
   held the throne until the death of Elizabeth.

   Under that dynasty, the history of England took on a new
   character, disclosing new tendencies, new impulses, new
   currents of influence, new promises of the future. We will not
   enter upon it until we have looked at some prior events in
   other regions.

Germany.

   If we return now to Germany, we take up the thread of events
   at an interesting point. We parted from the affairs of that
   troubled country while two rival Emperors, Louis IV., or
   Ludwig, of Bavaria, and Frederick of Austria, were endeavoring
   (1325) to settle their dispute in a friendly way, by sharing
   the throne together. Before noting the result of that
   chivalric and remarkable compromise, let us glance backward
   for a moment at the most memorable and important incident of
   the civil war which led to it.

Birth of the Swiss Confederacy.

   The three cantons of Switzerland which are known distinctively
   as the Forest Cantons, namely, Schwytz (which gave its name in
   time to the whole country), Uri, and Unterwalden, had stood in
   peculiar relations to the Hapsburg family since long before
   Rudolph became Emperor and his house became the House of
   Austria. In those cantons, the territorial rights were held
   mostly by great monasteries, and the counts of Hapsburg for
   generations past had served the abbots and abbesses in the
   capacity of advocates, or champions, to rule their vassals for
   them and to defend their rights. Authority of their own in the
   cantons they had none. At the same time, the functions they
   performed so continually developed ideas in their minds,
   without doubt, which grew naturally into pretensions that were
   offensive to the bold mountaineers. On the other hand, the
   circumstances of the situation were calculated to breed
   notions and feelings of independence among the men of the
   mountains. They gave their allegiance to the Emperor—to the
   high sovereign who ruled over all, in the name of Rome—and
   they opposed what came between them and him. It is manifest
   that a threatening complication for them arose when the Count
   of Hapsburg became Emperor, which occurred in 1273. They had
   no serious difficulty with Rudolph, in his time; but they
   wisely prepared themselves for what might come, by forming, or
   by renewing, in 1291, a league of the three cantons,—the
   beginning and nucleus of the Swiss Confederation, which has
   maintained its independence and its freedom from that day to
   this. The league of 1291 had existed something more than
   twenty years when the confederated cantons were first called
   upon to stand together in resistance to the Austrian
   pretensions. This occurred in 1315, during the war between
   Louis and Frederick, when Leopold, Duke of Austria, invaded
   the Forest Cantons and was disastrously beaten in a fight at
   the pass of Morgarten. The victory of the confederates and the
   independence secured by it gave them so much prestige that
   neighboring cities and cantons sought admission to their
   league. In 1332 Luzern was received as a member; in 1351,
   1352, and 1353, Zurich, Glarus, Zug, and Bern came in,
   increasing the membership to eight. It took the name of the
   Old League of High Germany, and its members were known as
   Eidgenossen, or Confederates.

   Such, in brief, are the ascertained facts of the origin of the
   Swiss Confederacy. There is nothing found in authentic history
   to substantiate the popular legend of William Tell.

   The questions between the league and the Austrian princes,
   which continued to be troublesome for two generations, were
   practically ended by the two battles of Sempach and Naefels,
   fought in 1386 and 1388, in both of which the Austrians were
   overthrown.

The Emperor Louis IV. and the Papacy.

   While the Swiss were gaining the freedom which they never
   lost, Germany at large was making little progress in any
   satisfactory direction. Peace had not been restored by the
   friendly agreement of 1325 between Ludwig and Frederick. The
   partisans of neither were contented with it. Frederick was
   broken in health and soon retired from the government; in 1330
   he died. The Austrian house persisted in hostility to Louis;
   but his more formidable enemies were the Pope and the King of
   France. The period was that known in papal history as "the
   Babylonish Captivity," when the popes resided at Avignon and
   were generally creatures of the French court and subservient
   to its ambitions or its animosities. Philip of Valois, who now
   reigned in France, aspired to the imperial crown, which the head
   of the Church had conferred on the German kings, and which the
   same supreme pontiff might claim authority to transfer to the
   sovereigns of France. This is supposed to have been the secret
   of the relentless hostility with which Louis was pursued by
   the Papacy—himself excommunicated, his kingdom placed under
   interdict, and every effort made to bring about his deposition
   by the princes of Germany. But divided and depressed as the
   Germans were, they revolted against these malevolent
   pretensions of the popes, and in 1338 the electoral princes
   issued a bold declaration, asserting the sufficiency of the
   act of election to confer imperial dignity and power, and
   denying the necessity for any papal confirmation whatever. Had
   Louis been a commanding leader, and independent of the Papacy in
   his own feelings, he could probably have rallied a national
   sentiment on this issue that would have powerfully affected
   the future of German history.
{1044}
   But he lacked the needful character, and his troubles
   continued until he died (1347). A year before his death, his
   opponents had elected and put forward a rival emperor,
   Charles, the son of King John of Bohemia. Charles (IV.) was
   subsequently recognized as king without dispute, and secured
   the imperial crown. "It may be affirmed with truth that the
   genuine ancient Empire, which contained a German kingdom, came
   to an end with the Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian. None strove
   again after his death to restore the imperial power. The
   golden bull of his successor Charles IV. sealed the fate of
   the old Empire. Through it, and indeed through the entire
   conduct of Charles IV., King of Bohemia as he really was, and
   emperor scarcely more than in name, the imperial government
   passed more and more into the hands of the prince-electors,
   who came to regard the emperor no longer as their master, but
   as the president of an assembly in which he shared the power
   with themselves." "From the time of Charles IV. the main
   object and chief occupation of the emperors was not the
   Empire, but the aggrandisement and security of their own
   house. The Empire served only as the means and instrument of
   their purpose" (Dollinger).

The Golden Bull of Charles IV.

   The Golden Bull referred to by Dr. Dollinger was an instrument
   which became the constitution, so to speak, of the Holy Roman
   or Germanic Empire. It prescribed the mode of the election of
   the King, and definitively named the seven Electors. It also
   conferred certain special powers and privileges on these seven
   princes, which raised them much above their fellows and gave
   them an independence that may be said to have destroyed every
   hope of Germanic unity. This was the one mark which the reign
   of Charles IV. left upon the Empire. His exertions as Emperor
   were all directed to the aggrandizement of his own family, and
   with not much lasting result. In his own kingdom of Bohemia he
   ruled with better effect. He made its capital, Prague, an
   important city, adorning it with noble buildings and founding
   in it the most ancient of German universities. This University
   of Prague soon sowed seeds from which sprang the first
   movement of religious reformation in Germany.

   Charles IV., dying in 1378, was succeeded by his son Wenzel,
   or Wenceslaus, on the imperial throne as well as the Bohemian.
   Wenceslaus neglected both the Empire and the Kingdom, and the
   confusion of things in Germany grew worse. Some of the
   principal cities continued to secure considerable freedom and
   prosperity for themselves, by the combined efforts of their
   leagues; but everywhere else great disorder and oppression
   prevailed. It was at this time that the Swabian towns, to the
   number of forty-one, formed a union and waged unsuccessful war
   with a league which the nobles entered into against them. They
   were defeated, and crushingly dealt with by the Emperor.

   In 1400 Wenceslaus was deposed and Rupert of the Palatinate
   was elected, producing another civil war, and reducing the
   imperial government to a complete nullity. Rupert died in
   1410, and, after some contention, Sigmund, or Sigismund,
   brother of Wenceslaus, was raised to the throne. He was
   Margrave of Brandenburg and King of Hungary, and would become
   King of Bohemia when Wenceslaus died.

The Reformation of Huss in Bohemia.

   Bohemia was about to become the scene of an extraordinary
   religious agitation, which John Huss, teacher and preacher in
   the new but already famous University of Prague, was beginning
   to stir. Huss, who drew more or less of his inspiration from
   Wyclif, anticipated Luther in the boldness of his attacks upon
   iniquities in the Church. In his case as in Luther's, the
   abomination which he could not endure was the sale of papal
   indulgences; and it was by his denunciation of that impious
   fraud that he drew on himself the deadly wrath of the Roman
   hierarchy. He was summoned before the great Council of the
   Church which opened at Constance in 1414. He obeyed the
   summons and went to the Council, bearing a safe-conduct from
   the Emperor which pledged protection to him until he returned.
   Notwithstanding this imperial pledge, he was imprisoned for
   seven months at Constance, and was then impatiently listened
   to and condemned to the stake. On the 6th of July, 1415, he
   was burned. In the following May, his friend and disciple,
   Jerome of Prague, suffered the same martyrdom. The Emperor,
   Sigismund, blustered a little at the insolent violation of his
   safe-conduct; but dared do nothing to make it effective.

   In Bohemia, the excitement produced by these outrages was
   universal. The whole nation seemed to rise, in the first
   wide-spread aggressive popular revolt that the Church of Rome
   had yet been called upon to encounter. In 1419 there was an
   armed assembly of 40,000 men, on a mountain which they called
   Tabor, who placed themselves under the leadership of John
   Ziska, a nobleman, one of Huss' friends. The followers of
   Ziska soon displayed a violence of temper and a radicalism
   which repelled the more moderate Hussites, or Reformers, and
   two parties appeared, one known as the Taborites, the other as
   the Calixtines, or Utraquists. The former insisted on entire
   separation from the Church of Rome; the latter confined their
   demands to four reforms, namely: Free preaching of the Word of
   God; the giving of the Eucharistic cup to the laity; the
   taking of secular powers and of worldly goods from the clergy;
   the enforcing of Christian discipline by all authorities. So much
   stress was laid by the Calixtines on their claim to the
   chalice or cup (communion in both kinds) that it gave them
   their name. The breach between these parties widened until
   they were as hostile to each other as to the Catholics, and
   the Bohemian reform movement was ruined in the end by their
   division.

   In 1419, the deposed Emperor Wenceslaus, who had still
   retained his kingdom of Bohemia, was murdered in his palace,
   at Prague. His brother, the Emperor Sigismund, was his heir;
   but the Hussites refused the crown to him, and resisted his
   pretensions with arms. This added a political conflict to the
   religious one, and Bohemia was afflicted with a frightful
   civil war for fifteen years. Ziska fortified mount Tabor and
   took possession of Prague. The Emperor and the Pope allied
   themselves, to crush an insurrection which was aimed against
   both. They summoned Christendom to a new crusade, and
   Sigismund led 100,000 men against Prague, in 1420. Ziska met
   him and defeated him, and drove him, with his crusaders, from
   the country. The Taborites were now maddened by their success,
   and raged over the land, destroying convents and burning
   priests. Their doctrines, moreover, began to take on a
   socialistic and republican character, threatening property in
   general and questioning monarchy, too. The well-to-do and
   conservative classes were more and more repelled from them.

{1045}

   In 1421 a second crusading army, 200,000 strong, invaded
   Bohemia and was scattered like chaff by Ziska (now blind) and
   his peasant soldiery. The next year they defeated the Emperor
   again; but in 1424 Ziska died, and a priest called Procopius
   the Great took his place. Under their new leader, the fierce
   Taborites were as invincible as they had been under Ziska.
   They routed an imperial army in 1426, and then carried the war
   into Austria and Silesia, committing fearful ravages. Still
   another crusade was set in motion against them by the Pope,
   and still another disastrous failure was made of it. Then
   Germany again suffered a more frightful visitation from the
   vengeful Hussites than before. Towns and villages were
   destroyed by hundreds, and wide tracks of ruin and death were
   marked on the face of the land, to its very center. Once more,
   and for the last time, in 1431, the Germans rallied a great force
   to retaliate these attacks, and they met defeat, as in all
   previous encounters, but more completely than ever before.
   Then the Pope and the Emperor gave up hope of putting down the
   indomitable revolutionists by force, and opened parleyings.
   The Pope called a council at Basel for the discussion of
   questions with the Hussites, and, finally, in 1433, their
   moderate party was prevailed upon to accept a compromise which
   really conceded nothing to them except the use of the cup in
   the communion. The Taborites refused the terms, and the two
   parties grappled each other in a fierce struggle for the
   control of the state. But the extremists had lost much of
   their old strength, and the Utraquists vanquished them in a
   decisive battle at Lipan, in May, 1434. Two years later
   Sigismund was formally acknowledged King of Bohemia and
   received in Prague. In 1437 he died. His son-in-law, Albert of
   Austria, who succeeded him, lived but two years, and the heir
   to the throne then was a son, Ladislaus, born after his
   father's death. This left Bohemia in a state of great
   confusion and disorder for several years, until a strong man,
   George Podiebrad, acquired the control of affairs.

   Meantime, the Utraquists had organized a National Church of
   Bohemia, considerably divergent from Rome. It failed to
   satisfy the deeper religious feelings that were widely current
   among the Bohemians in that age, and there grew up a sect
   which took the name of "Unitas Fratrum," or "Unity of the
   Brethren," but which afterwards became incorrectly known as
   the Moravian Brethren. This sect, still existing, has borne an
   important part in the missionary history of the Christian
   world.

The Papacy.—The Great Schism.

   The Papacy, at the time of its conflict with the Hussites, in
   Bohemia, was rapidly sinking to that lowest level of
   debasement which it reached in the later part of the fifteenth
   century. Its state was not yet so abhorrent as it came to be
   under the Borgias; but it had been brought even more into
   contempt, perhaps, by the divisions and contentions of "the
   Great Schism." The so-called "Babylonish Captivity" of the
   series of popes who resided for seventy years at Avignon
   (1305-1376), and who were under French influence, had been
   humiliating to the Church; but the schism which immediately
   followed (1378-1417), when a succession of rival popes, or
   popes and antipopes, thundered anathemas and excommunications
   at one another, from Rome and from Avignon, was even more
   scandalous and shameful. Christendom was divided by the
   quarrel. France, Spain, Scotland, and some lesser states, gave
   their allegiance to the pope at Avignon; England, Germany and
   the northern kingdoms adhered to the pope at Rome. In 1402, an
   attempt to heal the schism was made by a general Council of
   the Church convened at Pisa. It decreed the deposition of both
   the contending pontiffs, and elected a third; but its
   authority was not recognized, and the confusion of the Church
   was only made worse by bringing three popes into the quarrel,
   instead of two. Twelve years later, another Council, held at
   Constance,—the same which burned Huss,—had more success.
   Europe had now grown so tired of the scandal, and so disgusted
   with the three pretenders to spiritual supremacy, that the
   action of the Council was backed by public opinion, and they
   were suppressed. A fourth pope, Martin V., whom the Council
   then seated in the chair of St. Peter (1417), was universally
   acknowledged, and the Great Schism was at an end.

   But other scandals and abuses in the Church, which public
   opinion in Europe had already begun to cry loudly against,
   were untouched by these Councils. A subsequent Council at
   Basel, which met in 1431, attempted some restraints upon papal
   extortion (ignoring the more serious moral evils that claimed
   attention); but was utterly beaten in the conflict with Pope
   Eugenius IV., which this action brought on, and its decrees
   lost all effect. So the religious autocracy at Rome, sinking
   stage by stage below the foulest secular courts of the time,
   continued without check to insult and outrage, more and more,
   the piety, the common sense, and the decent feeling of
   Christendom, until the habit of reverence was quite worn out
   in the minds of men throughout the better half of Europe.

Rome and the last Tribune, Rienzi.

   The city of Rome had fallen from all greatness of its own when
   it came to be dependent on the fortunes of the popes. Their
   departure to Avignon had reduced it to a lamentable state.
   They took with them, in reality, the sustenance of the city;
   for it lived, in the main, on the revenues of the Papacy, and
   knew little of commerce beyond the profitable traffic in
   indulgences, absolutions, benefices, relics and papal
   blessings, which went to Avignon with the head of the Church.
   Authority, too, departed with the Pope, and the wretched city
   was given up to anarchy almost uncontrolled. A number of
   powerful families—the Colonna, the Orsini, and
   others—perpetually at strife with one another, fought out
   their feuds in the streets, and abused and oppressed their
   neighbors with impunity. Their houses were impregnable
   castles, and their retainers were a formidable army.

{1046}

   It was while this state of things was at its worst that the
   famous Cola di Rienzi, "last of the Tribunes," accomplished a
   revolution which was short-lived but extraordinary. He roused
   the people to action against their oppressors and the
   disturbers of their peace. He appealed to them to restore the
   republican institutions of ancient Rome, and when they
   responded, in 1347, by conferring on him the title and
   authority of a Tribune, he actually succeeded in expelling the
   turbulent nobles, or reducing them to submission, and
   established in Rome, for a little time, what he called "the
   Good Estate." But his head was quickly turned by his success;
   he was inflated with conceit and vanity; he became arrogant
   and despotic; the people tired of him, and after a few months
   of rule he was driven from Rome. In 1354 he came back as a
   Senator, appointed by the Pope, who thought to use him for the
   restoration of papal authority; but his influence was gone,
   and he was slain by a-riotous mob.

   The return of the Pope to Rome in 1376 was an event so long
   and ardently desired by the Roman people that they submitted
   themselves eagerly to his government. But his sovereignty over
   the States of the Church was substantially lost, and the
   regaining of it was the principal object of the exertions of
   the popes for a long subsequent period.

The Two Sicilies.

   In Southern Italy and Sicily, since the fall of the
   Hohenstaufens (1268), the times had been continuously evil.
   The rule of the French conqueror, Charles of Anjou, was hard
   and unmerciful, and the power he established became
   threatening to the Papacy, which gave the kingdom to him. In
   1282, Sicily freed itself, by the savage massacre of Frenchmen
   which bears the name of the Sicilian Vespers. The King of
   Aragon, Peter III., whose queen was the Hohenstaufen heiress,
   supported the insurrection promptly and vigorously, took
   possession of the island, and was recognized by the people as
   their king. A war of twenty years' duration ensued. Both
   Charles and Peter died and their sons continued the battle. In
   the end, the Angevin house held the mainland, as a separate
   kingdom, with Naples for its capital, and a younger branch of
   the royal family of Aragon reigned in the island. But both
   sovereigns called themselves Kings of Sicily, so that History,
   ever since, has been forced to speak puzzlingly of "Two
   Sicilies." For convenience it seems best to distinguish them
   by calling one the kingdom of Naples and the other the kingdom
   of Sicily. On the Neapolitan throne there came one estimable
   prince, in Robert, who reigned from 1309 to 1343, and who was
   a friend of peace and a patron of arts and letters. But after
   him the throne was befouled by crimes and vices, and the
   kingdom was made miserable by civil wars. His grand-daughter
   Joanna, or Jane, succeeded him. Robert's elder brother
   Caribert had become King of Hungary, and Joanna now married
   one of that king's sons—her cousin Andrew. At the end of two
   years he was murdered (1345) and the queen, a notoriously
   vicious woman, was accused of the crime. Andrew's brother,
   Louis, who had succeeded to the throne in Hungary, invaded
   Naples to avenge his death, and Joanna was driven to flight.
   The country then suffered from the worst form of civil war—a
   war carried on by the hireling ruffians of the "free
   companies" who roamed about Italy in that age, selling their
   swords to the highest bidders. In 1351 a peace was brought
   about which restored Joanna to the throne. The Hungarian
   King's son, known as Charles of Durazzo, was her recognized
   heir, but she saw fit to disinherit him and adopt Louis, of
   the Second House of Anjou, brother of Charles V. in France.
   Charles of Durazzo invaded Naples, took the queen prisoner and
   put her to death. Louis of Anjou attempted to displace him, but
   failed. In 1383 Louis died, leaving his claims to his son.
   Charles of Durazzo was called to Hungary, after a time, to
   take the crown of that kingdom, and left his young son,
   Ladislaus, on the Neapolitan throne. The Angevin claimant,
   Louis II., was then called in by his partisans, and civil war
   was renewed for years. When Ladislaus reached manhood he
   succeeded in expelling Louis, and he held the kingdom until
   his death, in 1414. He was succeeded by his sister, Joanna
   II., who proved to be as wicked and dissolute a woman as her
   predecessor of the same name. She incurred the enmity of the
   Pope, who persuaded Louis III., son of Louis II., to renew the
   claims of his house. The most renowned "condottiere" (or
   military contractor, as the term might be translated), of the
   day, Atteridolo Sforza, was engaged to make war on Queen
   Joanna in the interest of Louis. On her side she obtained a
   champion by promising her dominions to Alfonso V., of Aragon
   and Sicily. The struggle went on for years, with varying
   fortunes. The fickle and treacherous Joanna revoked her
   adoption of Alfonso, after a time, and made Louis her heir.
   When Louis died, she bequeathed her crown to his brother René,
   Duke of Lorraine. Her death occurred in 1435, but still the
   war continued, and nearly all Italy was involved in it, taking
   one side or the other. Alfonso succeeded at last (1442) in
   establishing himself at Naples, and René practically gave up
   the contest, although he kept the title of King of Naples. He
   was the father of the famous English Queen Margaret of Anjou,
   who fought for her weak-minded husband and her son in the Wars
   of the Roses.

   While the Neapolitan kingdom was passing through these endless
   miseries of anarchy, civil war, and evil government, the
   Sicilian kingdom enjoyed a more peaceful and prosperous
   existence. The crown, briefly held by a cadet branch of the
   House of Aragon, was soon reunited to that of Aragon; and
   under Alfonso, as we have seen, it was once more joined with
   that of Naples, in a "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies." But both
   these unions were dissolved on the death of Alfonso, who
   bequeathed Aragon and Sicily to his legitimate heir, and
   Naples to a bastard son.

The Despots of Northern Italy.

   In Northern Italy a great change in the political state of
   many among the formerly free commonwealths had been going on
   since the thirteenth century. The experience of the Greek
   city-republics had been repeated in them. In one way and
   another, they had fallen under the domination of powerful
   families, who had established a despotic rule over them,
   sometimes gathering several cities and their surrounding
   territory into a considerable dominion, and obtaining from the
   Emperor or the Pope a formally conferred and hereditary title.
   Thus the Visconti had established themselves at Milan, and had
   become a ducal house. After a few generations they gave way to
   the military adventurer, Francesco Sforza, son of the Sforza
   who made war for Louis III. of Anjou on Joanna II. of Naples.
   In Verona, the Della Scala family reigned for a time, until
   Venice overcame them; at Modena and Ferrara, the Estes; at
   Mantua, the Gonzagas; at Padua, the Carraras.

{1047}

The Italian Republics.

   In other cities, the political changes were of a different
   character. Venice, which grew rich and powerful with
   extraordinary rapidity, was tyrannically governed by a haughty
   and exclusive aristocracy. In commerce and in wealth she
   surpassed all her rivals, and her affairs were more shrewdly
   conducted. She held large possessions in the East, and she was
   acquiring an extensive dominion on the Italian mainland. The
   Genoese, who were the most formidable competitors of Venice in
   commerce, preserved their democracy, but at some serious
   expense to the administrative efficiency of their government.
   They were troubled by a nobility which could only be turbulent
   and could not control. They fought a desperate but losing
   fight with the Venetians, and were several times in subjection
   to the dukes of Milan and the kings of France. Pisa, which had
   led both Venice and Genoa in the commercial race at the
   beginning, was ruined by her wars with the latter, and with
   Florence, and sank, in the fourteenth century, under the rule
   of the Visconti, who sold their rights to the Florentines.

Florence.

   The wonderful Florentine republic was the one which preserved
   its independence under popular institutions the longest, and
   in which they bore the most splendid fruit. For a period that
   began in the later part of the thirteenth century, the
   government of Florence was so radically democratic that the
   nobles (grandi) were made ineligible to office, and could only
   qualify themselves for election to any place in the magistracy
   by abandoning their order and engaging in the labor of some
   craft or art. The vocations of skilled industry were all
   organized in gilds, called Arti, and were divided into two
   classes, one representing what were recognized as the superior
   arts (Arti Major, embracing professional and mercantile callings,
   with some others); the other including the commoner
   industries, known as the Arti Minori. From the heads, or
   Priors, of the Arti were chosen a Signory, changed every two
   months, which was entrusted with the government of the
   republic. This popular constitution was maintained in its
   essential features through the better part of a century, but
   with continual resistance and disturbance from the excluded
   nobles, on one side, and from the common laboring people, on
   the other, who belonged to no art-gild and who, therefore,
   were excluded likewise from participation in political
   affairs. Between these two upper and lower discontents, the
   bourgeois constitution gave way at last. The mob got control
   for a time; but only, as always happens, to bring about a
   reactionary revolution, which placed an oligarchy in power;
   and the oligarchy made smooth the way for a single family of
   great wealth and popular gifts and graces to rise to supremacy
   in the state. This was the renowned family which began to rule
   in Florence in 1435, when Cosimo de' Medici entered on the
   office of Gonfaloniere. The Medici were not despots, of the
   class of the Visconti, or the Sforzas, or the Estes. They
   governed under the old constitutional forms, with not much
   violation of anything except the spirit of them. They acquired
   no princely title, until the late, declining days of the
   house. Their power rested on influence and prestige, at first,
   and finally on habit. They developed, and enlisted in their
   own support, as something reflected from themselves, the pride
   of the city in itself,—in its magnificence,—in its great and
   liberal wealth,—in its patronage of letters and art,—in its
   fame abroad and the admiration with which men looked upon it.

   Through all the political changes in Florence there ran an
   unending war of factions, the bitterest and most inveterate in
   history. The control of the city belonged naturally to the
   Guelfs, for it was the head and front of the Guelfic party in
   Italy. "Without Florence," says one historian, "there would
   have been no Guelfs." But neither party scrupled to call armed
   help from the outside into its quarrels, and the Ghibellines
   were able, nearly as often as the Guelfs, to drive their
   opponents from the city. For the ascendancy of one faction
   meant commonly the flight or expulsion of every man in the
   other who had importance enough to be noticed. It was thus
   that Dante, an ardent Ghibelline, became an exile from his
   beloved Florence during the later years of his life. But the
   strife of Guelfs with Ghibellines did not suffice for the
   partisan rancor of the Florentines, and they complicated it
   with another split of factions, which bore the names of the
   Bianchi and the Neri, 01' the Whites and the Blacks.

   For two or three centuries the annals of Florence are naught,
   one thinks in reading them, but an unbroken tale of strife
   within, or war without—of tumult, riot, revolution,
   disorder. And yet, underneath, there is an amazing story to be
   found, of thrift, industry, commerce, prosperity, wealth, on
   one side, and of the sublimest genius, on another, giving
   itself, in pure devotion, to poetry and art. The contradiction
   of circumstances seems irreconcilable to our modern
   experience, and we have to seek an explanation of it in the
   very different conditions of mediæval life. It is with
   certainty a fact that Florence, in its democratic time, was
   phenomenal in genius, and in richness of life,—in prosperity
   both material and intellectual; and it is reasonable to credit
   to that time the planting and the growing of fruits which
   ripened surpassingly in the Medicean age.

The Ottomans and the Eastern Empire.

   So little occasion has arisen for any mention of the lingering
   Eastern Empire, since Michael Palæologus, the Greek, recovered
   Constantinople from the Franks (1261), that its existence
   might easily be forgotten. It had no importance until it fell,
   and then it loomed large again, in history, not only by the
   tragic impression of its fall upon the imaginations of men,
   but by the potent consequences of it.

   For nearly two hundred years, the successors of Palæologus,
   still calling themselves "Emperors of the Romans," and ruling
   a little Thracian and Macedonian corner of the old dominion of
   the Eastern Cæsars, struggled with a new race of Turks, who
   had followed the Seljuk horde out of the same Central Asian
   region. One of the first known leaders of this tribe was
   Osman, or Othman, after whom they are sometimes called
   Osmanlis, but more frequently Ottoman Turks. They appeared in
   Asia Minor about the middle of the thirteenth century,
   attacking both Christian and Mahometan states, and gradually
   extending their conquest over the whole. About the end of the
   first century of their career, they passed the straits and won
   a footing in Europe. In 1361, they took Hadrianople and made
   it their capital. Their sultan at this time was Amurath.

{1048}

   As yet, they did not attack Constantinople. The city itself
   was too strong in its fortifications; but beyond the walls of
   the capital there was no strength in the little fragment of
   Empire that remained. It appealed vainly to Western Europe for
   help. It sought to make terms with the Church of Rome. Nothing
   saved it for the moment but the evident disposition of the
   Turk to regard it as fruit which would drop to his hand in due
   time, and which he might safely leave waiting while he turned
   his arms against its more formidable neighbors. He contented
   himself with exacting tribute from the emperors, and
   humiliating them by commands which they dared not disobey. In
   the Servians, the Bosnians, and the Bulgarians, Amurath found
   worthier foes. He took Sophia, their principal city, from the
   latter, in 1382; in 1389 he defeated the two former nations in
   the great battle of Kossova. At the moment of victory he was
   assassinated, and his son Bajazet mounted the Ottoman throne.
   The latter, at Nicopolis (1396), overwhelmed and destroyed the
   one army which Western Europe sent to oppose the conquering
   march of his terrible race. Six years later, he himself was
   vanquished and taken prisoner in Asia by a still more terrible
   conqueror,—the fiendish Timour or Tamerlane, then scourging
   the eastern Continent. For some years the Turks were paralyzed
   by a disputed succession; but under Amurath II., who came to
   the throne in 1421, their advance was resumed, and in a few
   years more their long combat with the Hungarians began.

Hungary and the Turks.

   The original line of kings of Hungary having died out in 1301,
   the influence of the Pope, who claimed the kingdom as a fief
   of the papal see, secured the election to the throne of
   Charles Robert, or Caribert, of the Naples branch of the House
   of Anjou. He and his son Louis, called the Great, raised the
   kingdom to notable importance and power. Louis added the crown
   of Poland to that of Hungary, and on his death, leaving two
   daughters, the Polish crown passed to the husband of one and
   the Hungarian crown to the husband of the other. This latter
   was Sigismund of Luxemburg, who afterwards became Emperor, and
   also King of Bohemia. Under Sigismund, Hungary was threatened
   on one side by the Turks, and ravaged on the other by the
   Hussites of Bohemia. He was succeeded (1437) by his
   son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who lived only two years, and
   the latter was followed by Wladislaus, King of Poland; who
   again united the two crowns, though at the cost of a
   distracting civil war with partisans of the infant son of
   Albert. It was in the reign of this prince that the Turks
   began their obstinate attacks on Hungary, and thenceforth, for
   two centuries and more, that afflicted country served
   Christendom as a battered bulwark which the new warriors of
   Islam could beat and disfigure but could not break down. The
   hero of these first Hungarian wars with the Turks was John
   Huniades, or Hunyady, a Wallachian, who fought them with
   success until a peace was concluded in 1444. But King
   Wladislaus was persuaded the same year by a papal agent to
   break the treaty and to lead an expedition against the enemy's
   lines. The result was a calamitous defeat, the death of the
   king, and the almost total destruction of his army. Huniades
   now became regent of the kingdom, during the minority of the
   late King Albert's young son, Ladislaus.

   He suffered one serious defeat at the hands of the Turks, but
   avenged it again and again, with help from an army of
   volunteers raised in all parts of Europe by the exertions of a
   zealous monk named Capistrano. When Huniades died, in 1456,
   his enemies already controlled the worthless young king,
   Ladislaus, and the latter pursued him in his grave with
   denunciations as a traitor and a villain. In 1458, Ladislaus
   died, and Mathias, a son of Huniades, was elected king. After
   he had settled himself securely upon the throne, Mathias
   turned his arms, not against the Turks, but against the
   Hussites of Bohemia, in an attempt to wrest the crown of that
   kingdom from George Podiebrad.

The Fall of Constantinople.

   Meantime, the Turkish Sultan, Mohammed II., had accomplished
   the capture of Constantinople and brought the venerable Empire
   of the East—Roman, Greek, or Byzantine, as we choose to name
   it—to an end. He was challenged to the undertaking by the
   folly of the last Emperor, Constantine Palæologus, who
   threatened to support a pretender to Mohammed's throne. The
   latter began serious preparations at once for a siege of the
   long coveted city, and opened his attack in April, 1453. The
   Greeks, even in that hour of common danger, were too hotly
   engaged in a religious quarrel to act defensively together.
   Their last preceding emperor had gone personally to the
   Council of the Western Church, at Florence, in 1439, with some
   of the bishops of the Greek Church, and had arranged for the
   submission of the latter to Rome, as a means of procuring help
   from Catholic Europe against the Turks. His successor,
   Constantine, adhered to this engagement, professed the
   Catholic faith and observed the Catholic ritual. His subjects
   in general repudiated the imperial contract with scorn, and
   avowedly preferred a Turkish master to a Roman shepherd. Hence
   they took little part in the defense of the city. Constantine,
   with the small force at his command, fought the host of
   besiegers with noble courage and obstinacy for seven weeks,
   receiving a little succor from the Genoese, but from no other
   quarter. On the 29th of May the walls were carried by storm;
   the Emperor fell, fighting bravely to the last; and the Turks
   became masters of the city of Constantine. There was no
   extensive massacre of the inhabitants; the city was given up
   to pillage, but not to destruction, for the conqueror intended
   to make it his capital. A number of fugitives had escaped,
   before, or during the siege, and made their way into Italy and
   other parts of Europe, carrying an influence which was
   importantly felt, as we shall presently see; but 60,000
   captives, men, women and children, were sold into slavery and
   scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire.

   Greece and most of the islands of the Ægean soon shared the
   fate of Constantinople, and the subjugation of Servia and
   Bosnia was made complete. Mohammed was even threatening Italy
   when he died, in 1481.

{1049}

Renaissance.

   We have now come, in our hasty survey of European history, to
   the stretch of time within which historians have quite
   generally agreed to place the ending of the state of things
   characteristic of the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the
   changed conditions and the different spirit that belong to the
   modern life of the civilized world. The transition in European
   society from mediæval to modern ways, feelings, and thoughts
   has been called Renaissance, or new birth; but the figure
   under which this places the conception before one's mind does
   not seem to be really a happy one. There was no birth of
   anything new in the nature of the generations of men who
   passed through that change, nor in the societies which they
   formed. What occurred to make changes in both was an
   expansion, a liberation, an enlightenment—an opening of eyes,
   and of ears, and of inner senses and sensibilities. There was no
   time and no place that can be marked at which this began; and
   there is no cause nor chain of causes to which it can be
   traced. We have found signs of its coming, here and there, in
   one token of movement and another, all the way through later
   mediæval times—at least since the first Crusades. In the
   thirteenth century there was a wonderful quickening of all the
   many processes which made it up. In the fourteenth century
   they were checked; but still they went on. In the fifteenth
   they revived with greater energy than before; and in the
   sixteenth they rose to their climax in intensity and effect.
   That which took place in European society was not a
   re-naissance so much as the re-wakening of men to a day-light
   existence, after a thousand years of sunless
   night,—moonlighted at the best. The truest descriptive figure
   is that which represents these preludes to our modern age as a
   morning dawn and daybreak.

   Probably foremost among the causes of the change in Western
   Europe from the mediæval to the modern state, we must place
   those influences that extinguished the disorganizing forces in
   feudalism. Habits and forms of the feudal arrangement remained
   troublesome in society, as they do in some measure to the
   present day; but feudalism as a system of social disorder and
   disintegration was by this time cleared away. We have noted in
   passing some of the undermining agencies by which it was
   destroyed: the crusading movements; the growth and
   enfranchisement of cities; the spread of commerce; the rise of
   a middle class; the study of Roman law; the consequent increase
   of royal authority in France,—all these were among the causes
   of its decline. But possibly none among them wrought such
   quick and deadly harm to feudalism as the introduction of
   gunpowder and fire-arms in war, which occurred in the
   fourteenth century. When his new weapons placed the
   foot-soldier on a fairly even footing in battle with the
   mailed and mounted knight, the feudal military organization of
   society was ruined beyond remedy. The changed conditions of
   warfare made trained armies, and therefore standing armies, a
   necessity; standing armies implied centralized authority; with
   centralized authority the feudal condition disappeared.

   If these agencies in the generating of the new movement of
   civilization which we call Modern are placed before the
   subtler and more powerful influence of the printing press, it
   is because they had to do a certain work in the world before
   the printing press could be an efficient educator. Some
   beginning of a public, in our modern sense, required to be
   created, for letters to act upon. Until that came about, the
   copyists of the monasteries and of the few palace libraries
   existing were more than sufficient to satisfy all demands for
   the multiplication of ancient writings or the publication of
   new ones. The printer, if he had existed, would have starved
   for want of employment. He would have lacked material,
   moreover, to work upon; for it was the rediscovery of a great
   ancient literature which made him busy when he came.

Invention of Printing.

   The preparation of Europe for an effective use of the art of
   printing may be said to have begun in the twelfth and
   thirteenth centuries, when the great universities of Paris,
   Bologna, Naples, Padua, Modena, and others, came into
   existence, to be centers of intellectual
   irritation—disputation—challenge—groping inquiry. But it
   was not until the fourteenth century, when the labors and the
   influence of Petrarch and other scholars and men of genius
   roused interest in the forgotten literature of ancient Rome
   and Greece, that the craving and seeking for books grew
   considerable. Scholars and pretended scholars from the Greek
   Empire then began to find employment, in Italy more
   especially, as teachers of the Greek language, and a market
   was opened for manuscripts of the older Greek writings, which
   brought many precious ones to light, after long burial, and
   multiplied copies of them. From Italy, this revival of classic
   learning crept westward and northward somewhat slowly, but it
   went steadily on, and the book as a commodity in the commerce
   of the world rose year by year in importance, until the
   printer came forward, about the middle of the fifteenth
   century, to make it abundant and cheap.

   Whether John Gutenberg, at Mentz, in 1454, or Laurent Coster,
   at Haarlem, twenty years earlier, executed the first printing
   with movable types, is a question of small importance, except
   as a question of justice between the two possible inventors,
   in awarding a great fame which belongs to one or both. The
   grand fact is, that thought and knowledge took wings from that
   sublime invention, and ideas were spread among men with a
   swift diffusion that the world had never dreamed of before.
   The slow wakening that had gone on for two centuries became
   suddenly so quick that scarcely more than fifty years, from
   the printing of the first Bible, sufficed to inoculate half of
   Europe with the independent thinking of a few boldly
   enlightened men.

{1050}

The Greek Revival.

   If Gutenberg's printing of Pope Nicholas' letter of
   indulgence, in 1454, was really the first achievement of the
   new-born art, then it followed by a single year the event
   commonly fixed upon for the dating of our Modern Era, and it
   derived much of its earliest importance indirectly from that
   event. For the fall of Constantinople, in 1453, was preceded
   and followed by a flight of Greeks to Western Europe, bearing
   such treasures as they could save from the Turks. Happily
   those treasures included precious manuscripts; and among the
   fugitives was no small number of educated Greeks, who became
   teachers of their language in the West. Thus teaching and text
   were offered at the moment when the printing press stood ready
   to make a common gift of them to every hungering student. This
   opened the second of the three stages which the late John
   Addington Symonds defined in the history of scholarship during
   the Renaissance: "The first is the age of passionate desire;
   Petrarch poring over a Homer he could not understand, and
   Boccaccio in his maturity learning Greek, in order that he
   might drink from the well-head of poetic inspiration, are the
   heroes of this period. They inspired the Italians with a
   thirst for antique culture. Next comes the age of acquisition
   and of libraries. Nicholas V., who founded the Vatican Library
   in 1453, Cosmo de' Medici, who began the Medicean Collection a
   little earlier, and Poggio Bracciolani, who ransacked all the
   cities and convents of Europe for manuscripts, together with
   the teachers of Greek, who in the first half of the fifteenth
   century escaped from Constantinople with precious freights of
   classic literature, are the heroes of this second period."
   "Then came the third age of scholarship—the age of the
   critics, philologers, and printers. … Florence, Venice,
   Basle, and Paris groaned with printing presses. The Aldi, the
   Stephani, and Froben, toiled by night and day, employing
   scores of scholars, men of supreme devotion and of mighty
   brain, whose work it was to ascertain the right reading of
   sentences, to accentuate, to punctuate, to commit to the
   press, and to place beyond the reach of monkish hatred or of
   envious time, that everlasting solace of humanity which exists
   in the classics. All subsequent achievements in the field of
   scholarship sink into insignificance beside the labours of
   these men, who needed genius, enthusiasm, and the sympathy of
   Europe for the accomplishment of their titanic task. Virgil
   was printed in 1470, Homer in 1488, Aristotle in 1498, Plato
   in 1512. They then became the inalienable heritage of mankind.
   … This third age in the history of the Renaissance
   Scholarship may be said to have reached its climax in Erasmus
   [1465-1536]; for by this time Italy had handed on the torch
   of learning to the northern nations" (Symonds).

   Art had already had its new birth in Italy; but it shared with
   everything spiritual and intellectual the wonderful quickening
   of the age, and produced the great masters of the fifteenth
   and sixteenth centuries: Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci,
   Raphael, Titian, in Italy, the Brothers Van Eyck in Flanders,
   Holbein and Dürer, in Germany, and the host of their compeers
   in that astonishing age of artistic genius.

Portuguese Explorations.

   A ruder and more practical direction in which the spirit of
   the age manifested itself conspicuously and with prodigious
   results was that of exploring navigation, to penetrate the
   unknown regions of the globe and find their secrets out. But,
   strangely, it was none of the older maritime and commercial
   peoples who led the way in this: neither the Venetians, nor
   the Genoese, nor the Catalans, nor the Flemings, nor the Hansa
   Leaguers, nor the English, were early in the search for new
   countries and new routes of trade. The grand exploit of
   "business enterprise" in the fifteenth century, which changed
   the face of commerce throughout the world, was left to be
   performed by the Portuguese, whose prior commercial experience
   was as slight as that of any people in Europe. And it was one
   great man among them, a younger son in their royal family,
   Prince Henry, known to later times as "the Navigator," who
   woke the spirit of exploration in them and pushed them to the
   achievement which placed Portugal, for a time, at the head of
   the maritime states. Beginning in 1434, Prince Henry sent
   expedition following expedition down the western coast of
   Africa, searching for the southern extremity of the continent,
   and a way round it to the eastward—to the Indies, the goal of
   commercial ambition then and long after. In our own day it
   seems an easy thing to sail down the African coast to the
   Cape; but it was not easy in the middle of the fifteenth
   century; and when Prince Henry died, in 1460, his ships had
   only reached the mouth of the Gambia, or a little way beyond
   it. His countrymen had grown interested, however, in the
   pursuit which he began, and expeditions were continued, not
   eagerly but at intervals, until Bartolomew Diaz, in 1486,
   rounded the southern point of the continent without knowing
   it, and Vasco da Gama, in 1497, passed beyond, and sailed to
   the coast of India.

Discovery of America.

   Five years before this, Columbus, in the service of Ferdinand
   and Isabella of Spain, had made the more venturesome voyage
   westward, and had found the New World of America. That the
   fruits of that surpassing discovery fell to Spain, is one of
   the happenings of history which one need not try to explain;
   since (if we except the Catalans among them) there were no
   people in Europe less inclined to ocean adventure than the
   Spaniards. But they had just finished the conquest of the
   Moors; their energies, long exercised in that struggle,
   demanded some new outlet, and the Genoese navigator, seeking
   money and ships, and baffled in all more promising lands, came
   to them at the right moment for a favorable hearing. So
   Castile won the amazing prize of adventure, which seems to
   have belonged by more natural right to Genoa, or Venice, or
   Bruges, or Lubeck, or Bristol.

   The immediate material effects of the finding of the new way
   to the Asiatic side of the world were far more important than
   the effects of the discovery of America, and they were
   promptly felt. No sooner had the Portuguese secured their
   footing in the eastern seas, and on the route thither, which
   they proceeded vigorously to do, than the commerce of Europe
   with that rich region of spices and silks, and curious
   luxuries which Europe loved, abandoned its ancient channels
   and ran quickly into the new one. There were several strong
   reasons for this: (1) the carriage of goods by the longer
   ocean route was cheaper than by caravan routes to the
   Mediterranean; (2) the pestilent Moorish pirates of the
   Barbary Coast were escaped; (3) European merchants found heavy
   advantages in dealing directly with the East instead of
   trading at second hand through Arabs and Turks. So the
   commerce of the Indies fled suddenly away from the
   Mediterranean to the Atlantic; fled from Venice, from Genoa,
   from Marseilles, from Barcelona, from Constantinople, from
   Alexandria; fled, too, from many cities of the arrogant Hanse
   league in the North, which had learned the old ways of traffic
   and were slow to catch the idea of a possible change. At the
   outset of the rearrangement of trade, the Portuguese won and
   held, for a time, the first handling of East Indian
   commodities, while Dutch, English and German
   traders—especially the first named—met them at Lisbon and
   took their wares for distribution through central and northern
   Europe. But, in no long time, the Dutch and English went to
   India on their own account, and ousted the Portuguese from
   their profitable monopoly.

{1051}

   Commercially, the discovery of America had little effect on
   Europe for a century or two. Politically, it had vast
   consequences in the sixteenth century, which came, in the
   main, from the power and prestige that accrued to Spain. But
   perhaps its most important effects were those moral and
   intellectual ones which may be attributed to the sudden,
   surprising enlargement of the geographical horizon of men. The
   lifting of the curtain of mystery which had hung so long
   between two halves of the world must have compelled every man,
   who thought at all, to suspect that other curtains of mystery
   might be hiding facts as simple and substantial, waiting for
   their Columbus to disclose them; and so the bondage of the
   mediæval mind to that cowardice of superstition which fears
   inquiry, must surely have been greatly loosened by the
   startling event. But the Spaniards, who rushed to the
   possession of the new-found world, showed small signs of any
   such effect upon their minds; and perhaps it was the greedy
   thought of their possession which excluded it.

Nationalization of Spain.

   The Spaniards were one of half-a-dozen peoples in Western
   Europe who had just arrived, in this fifteenth century, at a
   fairly consolidated nationality, and were prepared, for the
   first time in their history, to act with something like
   organic unity in the affairs of the world. It was one of the
   singular birth-marks of the new era in history, that so many
   nations passed from the inchoate to the definite form at so
   nearly the same time. The marriage of Isabella of Castile to
   Ferdinand of Aragon, in 1469, effected a permanent union of
   the two crowns, and a substantial incorporation of the greater
   part of the Spanish peninsula into a single strong kingdom,
   made yet stronger in 1491 by the conquest of Grenada and
   subjugation of the last of the Spanish Moors.

Louis XI. and the Nationalizing of France.

   The nationalizing of France had been a simultaneous but quite
   different process. From the miserably downfallen and divided
   state in which it was left by the Hundred Years War, it was
   raised by a singular king, who employed strange, ignoble
   methods, but employed them with remarkable success. This was
   Louis XI., who owes to Sir Walter Scott's romance of "Quentin
   Durward" an introduction to common fame which he could hardly
   have secured otherwise; since popular attention is not often
   drawn to the kind of cunning and hidden work in politics which
   he did.

   Louis XI., on coming to the throne in 1461, found himself
   surrounded by a state of things which seemed much like a
   revival of the feudal state at its worst, when Philip Augustus
   and Louis IX. had to deal with great vassals who rivalled or
   overtopped them in power. The reckless granting of appanages
   to children of the royal family had raised up a new group of
   nobles, too powerful and too proud to be loyal and obedient
   subjects of the monarchy. At the head of them was the Duke of
   Burgundy, whose splendid dominion, extended by marriage over
   most of the Netherlands, raised him to a place among the
   greater princes of Europe, and who quite outshone the King of
   France in everything but the royal title. It was impossible,
   under the circumstances, for the crown to establish its
   supremacy over these powerful lords by means direct and open.
   The craft and dishonesty of Louis found methods more
   effectual. He cajoled, beguiled, betrayed and cheated his
   antagonists, one by one. He played the selfishness and
   ambitions of each against the others, and he skilfully evoked
   something like a public opinion in his kingdom against the
   whole. At the outset of his reign the nobles formed a
   combination against him which they called the League of the
   Public Weal, but which aimed at nothing but fresh gains to the
   privileged class and advantages to its chiefs. Of alliance with
   the people against the crown, as in England, there was no
   thought. Louis yielded to the League in appearance, and
   cunningly went beyond its demands in his concessions, making
   it odious to the kingdom at large, and securing to himself the
   strong support of the States-General of France, when he
   appealed to it.

   The tortuous policy of Louis was aided by many favoring
   circumstances and happenings. It was favored not least,
   perhaps, by the hot-headed character of Charles the Bold, who
   succeeded his father, Philip, in the Duchy of Burgundy, in
   1467. Charles was inspired with a great and not unreasonable
   ambition, to make his realm a kingdom, holding a middle place
   between France and Germany. He had abilities, but he was of a
   passionate and haughty temper, and no match for the cool,
   perfidious, plotting King of France. The latter, by skilful
   intrigue, involved him in a war with the Swiss, which he
   conducted imprudently, and in which he was defeated and killed
   (1477). His death cleared Louis' path to complete mastery in
   France, and he made the most of his opportunity. Charles left
   only a daughter, Mary of Burgundy, and her situation was
   helpless. Louis lost no time in seizing the Duchy of Burgundy,
   as a fief of France, and in the pretended exercise of his
   rights as godfather of the Duchess Mary. He also took
   possession of Franche Comté, which was a fief of the Empire,
   and he put forward claims in Flanders, Artois, and elsewhere.
   But the Netherlanders, while they took advantage of the young
   duchess' situation, and exacted large concessions of chartered
   privileges from her, yet maintained her rights; and before the
   first year of her orphanage closed, she obtained a champion by
   marriage with the Archduke Maximilian of Austria, son of the
   Emperor, Frederick III. Maximilian was successful in war with
   Louis; but the latter succeeded, after all, in holding
   Burgundy, which was thenceforth absorbed in the royal domain
   of France and gave no further trouble to the monarchy, while
   he won some important extensions of the northwestern frontiers
   of his kingdom.

   Before the death of Louis XI. the French crown regained Anjou,
   Maine, and Provence, by inheritance from the last
   representative of the great second House of Anjou. Thus the
   kingdom which he left to his son, Charles VIII. (1483), was a
   consolidated nation, containing in its centralized government
   the germs of the absolute monarchy of a later day.

{1052}

Italian Expedition of Charles VIII.

   Charles VIII. was a loutish and uneducated boy of eight years
   when his father died. His capable sister Anne carried on the
   government for some years, and continued her father's work by
   defeating a revolt of the nobles, and by marrying the young
   king to the heiress of Brittany—thereby uniting to the crown
   the last of the great semi-independent fiefs. When Charles
   came of age, he conceived the idea of recovering the kingdom
   of Naples, which the House of Anjou claimed, and which he
   looked upon as part of his inheritance from that House. He was
   incited to the enterprise, moreover, by Ludovico il Moro, or
   Louis the Moor, an intriguing uncle of the young Duke of
   Milan, who conspired to displace his nephew. In 1494 Charles
   crossed the Alps with a large and well-disciplined army, and
   met with no effectual opposition. The Medici of Florence and
   the Pope had agreed together to resist this French intrusion,
   which they feared; but the invading force proved too
   formidable, and the Florentines, then under the influence of
   Savonarola, looked to it for their liberation from the
   Medicean rule, already oppressive. Accordingly Charles marched
   triumphantly through the peninsula, making some stay at Rome.
   On his approach to Naples, the Aragonese King, Alfonso,
   abdicated in favor of his son, Ferdinand II., and died soon
   after. Ferdinand, shut out of Naples by an insurrection, fled
   to Sicily, and Charles entered the city, where the populace
   welcomed him with warmth. Most of the kingdom submitted within
   a few weeks, and the conquest seemed complete, as it had been
   easy.

   But what they had won so easily the French held with a
   careless hand, and they lost it with equal ease. While they
   revelled and caroused in Naples, abusing the hospitality of
   their new subjects, and gathering plunder with reckless greed,
   a dangerous combination was formed against them, throughout
   the peninsula. Before they were aware, it had put them in
   peril, and Charles was forced to retreat with haste, in the
   spring of 1495, leaving an inadequate garrison to hold the
   Neapolitan capital. In Lombardy, he had to fight with the
   Venetians, and with his protege, Louis the Moor, now Duke of
   Milan. He defeated them, and regained France in November. Long
   before that time, the small force he left at Naples had been
   overcome, and Ferdinand had recovered his kingdom.

   In one sense, the French had nothing to show for this their
   first expedition of conquest. In another sense they had much
   to show and their gain was great. They had made their first
   acquaintance with the superior culture of Italy. They had
   breathed the air beyond the Alps, which was then surcharged
   with the inspirations of the Renaissance. Both the ideas and
   the spoil they brought back were of more value to France than
   can be easily estimated. They had returned laden with booty,
   and much of it was in treasures of art, every sight of which
   was a lesson to the sense of beauty and the taste of the
   people among whom they were shown. The experience and the
   influence of the Italian expedition were undoubtedly very
   great, and the Renaissance in France, as an artistic and a
   literary birth, is reasonably dated from it.

Italian Wars of Louis XII.

   Charles VIII. died suddenly in 1498 and was succeeded by his
   cousin, of the Orleans branch of the Valois family, Louis XII.
   The new king was weak in character, but not wicked. His first
   thought on mounting the throne was of the claims of his family
   to other thrones, in Italy. Besides the standing Angevin claim
   to the kingdom of Naples, he asserted rights of his own to the
   duchy of Milan, as a descendant of Valentina Visconti, heiress
   of the ducal house which the Sforzas supplanted. In 1499 he sent
   an army against Louis the Moor, and the latter fled from Milan
   without an attempt at resistance. Louis took possession of the
   duchy with the greatest good will of the people; but, before
   half a year had passed, French taxes, French government, and
   French manners had disgusted them, and they made an attempt to
   restore their former tyrant. The attempt failed, and Louis the
   Moor was imprisoned in France for the remainder of his life.

   Milan secured, Louis XII. began preparations to repeat the
   undertaking of Charles VIII. against Naples. The Neapolitan
   crown had now passed to an able and popular king, Frederick,
   and Frederick had every reason to suppose that he would be
   supported and helped by his kinsman, Ferdinand of Aragon, the
   well-known consort of Isabella of Castile. Ferdinand had the
   power to hold the French king in check; but instead of using
   it for the defense of the Neapolitan branch of his house, he
   secretly and treacherously agreed with Louis to divide the
   kingdom of Naples with him. Under these circumstances, the
   conquest was easily accomplished (1501). The betrayed
   Frederick surrendered to Louis, and lived as a pensionary in
   France until his death. The Neapolitan branch of the House of
   Aragon came to an end.

   Louis and Ferdinand speedily quarreled over the division of
   their joint conquest. The treacherous Spaniard cheated the
   French king in treaty negotiations, gaining time to send
   forces into Italy which expelled the French. It was in this
   war that the Spanish general, Gonsalvo di Cordova, won the
   reputation which gave him the name of "the Great Captain"; and
   it was likewise in this war that the chivalric French knight,
   Bayard, began the winning of his fame.

The League of Cambrai and the Holy League.

   Naples had again slipped from the grasp of France, and this
   time it had passed to Spain. Louis XII. abandoned the tempting
   kingdom to his rival, and applied himself to the establishing
   of his sovereignty over Milan and its domain. Some territory
   formerly belonging to the Milaness had been ceded to Venice by
   the Sforzas. He himself had ceded another district or two to
   the republic in payment for services rendered. Ferdinand of
   Spain had made payments in the same kind of coin, from his
   Neapolitan realm, for Venetian help to secure it.
{1053}
   The warlike Pope Julius II. saw Rimini and other towns
   formerly belonging to the States of the Church now counted
   among the possessions of the proud mistress of the Adriatic.
   All of these disputants in Italy resented the gains which
   Venice had gathered at their expense, and envied and feared
   her somewhat insolent prosperity. They accordingly suspended
   their quarrels with one another, to form a league for breaking
   her down and for despoiling her. The Emperor Maximilian, who had
   grievances of his own against the Venetians, joined the
   combination, and Florence was bribed to become a party to it
   by the betrayal of Pisa into her hands. Thus was formed the
   shameful League of Cambrai (1508). The French did most of the
   fighting in the war that ensued, though Pope Julius, who took
   the field in person, easily proved himself a better soldier
   than priest. The Venetians were driven for a time from the
   greater part of the dominion they had acquired on the
   mainland, and were sorely pressed. But they made terms with
   the Pope, and it then became his interest, not merely to stop
   the conquests of his allies, but to press them out of Italy,
   if possible. He began accordingly to intrigue against the
   French, and presently had a new league in operation, making
   war upon them. It was called a Holy League, because the head
   of the Church was its promoter, and it embraced the Emperor,
   King Ferdinand of Spain, King Henry VIII. of England, and the
   Republic of Venice. As the result of the ruthless and
   destructive war which they waged, Louis XII., before he died,
   in 1515, saw all that he had won in Lombardy stripped from him
   and restored to the Sforzas—the old family of the Dukes of
   Milan; Venice recovered most of her possessions, but never
   regained her former power, since the discovery of the ocean
   route to India, round the Cape of Good Hope, was now turning
   the rich trade of the East, the great source of her wealth,
   into the hands of the Portuguese; the temporal dominion of the
   Popes was enlarged by the recovery of Bologna and Perugia and by
   the addition of Parma and Piacenza; and Florence, which had
   been a republic since the death of Savonarola, was forced to
   submit anew to the Medici.

The Age of Infamous Popes.

   The fighting Pope, Julius II., who made war and led armies,
   while professing to be the vicar of Him who brought the
   message of good-will and peace to mankind, was very far from
   being the worst of the popes of his age. He was only worldly,
   thinking much of his political place as a temporal sovereign
   in Italy, and little of his spiritual office as the head of
   the Church of Christ. As the sovereign of Rome and the Papal
   States, Julius II. ran a brilliant career, and is one of the
   splendid figures of the Italian renaissance. Patron of Michael
   Angelo and Raphael, projector of St. Peter's, there is a
   certain grandeur in his character to be admired, if we could
   forget the pretended apostolic robe which he smirched with
   perfidious politics and stained with blood.

   But the immediate predecessors of Julius II., Sixtus IV. and
   Alexander VI., had had nothing in their characters to lure
   attention from the hideous examples of bestial wickedness
   which they set before the world. Alexander, especially, the
   infamous Borgia,—systematic murderer and robber, liar and
   libertine,—accomplished practitioner of every crime and every
   vice that was known to the worst society of a depraved
   generation, and shamelessly open in the foulest of his
   doings,—there is scarcely a pagan monster of antiquity that
   is not whitened by comparison with him. Yet he sat in the
   supposed seat of St. Peter for eleven years, to be venerated
   as the Vicar of Christ, the "Holy Father" of the Christian
   Church; his declarations and decrees in matters of faith to be
   accepted as infallible inspirations; his absolution to be
   craved as a passport to Heaven; his anathema to be dreaded as
   a condemnation to Hell!

   This evil and malignant being died in 1503. poisoned by one of
   his own cups, which he had brewed for another. Julius II.
   reigned until 1513; and after him came the Medicean Pope, Leo
   X., son of Lorenzo the Magnificent,—princely and worldly as
   Julius, but in gentler fashion; loving ease, pleasure, luxury,
   art, and careless of all that belonged to religion beyond its
   ceremonies and its comfortable establishment of clerical
   estates. Is it strange that Christendom was prepared to give
   ear to Luther?

Luther and the Reformation.

   When Luther raised his voice, he did but renew a protest which
   many pure and pious and courageous men before him had uttered,
   against evils in the Church and falsities and impostures in
   the Papacy. But some of them, like Arnold of Brescia, like
   Peter Waldo, and the Albigenses, had been too far in advance
   of their time, and their revolt was hopeless from the
   beginning. Wyclif's movement had been timed unfortunately in
   an age of great commotions, which swallowed it up. That of
   Huss had roused an ignorant peasantry, too uncivilized to
   represent a reformed Christianity, and had been ruined by the
   fierceness of their misguided zeal. The Reformation of
   Savonarola, at Florence, had been nobly begun, but not wisely
   led, and it had spent its influence at the end on aims less
   religious than political.

   But there occurred a combination, when Luther arose, of
   character in himself, of circumstances in his country, and of
   temper in his generation, which made his protest more
   lastingly effective. He had high courage, without rashness. He
   had earnestness and ardor, without fanaticism. He had the
   plain good sense and sound judgment which win public
   confidence. His substantial learning put him on terms with the
   scholars of his day, and he was not so much refined by it as
   to lose touch with the common people. A certain coarseness in
   his nature was not offensive to the time in which he lived,
   but rather belonged among the elements of power in him. His
   spirituality was not fine, but it was strong. He was sincere,
   and men believed in him. He was open, straightforward, manly,
   commanding respect. His qualities showed themselves in his
   speech, which went straight to its mark, in the simplest
   words, moulding the forms and phrases of the German language
   with more lasting effect than the speech of any other man who
   ever used it. Not many have lived in any age or any country
   who possessed the gift of so persuasive a tongue, with so
   powerful a character to command the hearing for it.

{1054}

   And the generation to which Luther spoke really waited for a
   bold voice to break into the secret of its thoughts concerning
   the Church. It had inherited a century of alienation from
   quarreling popes and greedy, corrupted priests and now there
   had been added in its feeling the deep abhorrence roused by
   such villains as the Borgia in the papal chair, and by their
   creatures and minions in the priesthood of the Church. If it
   is crediting too much to the common multitude of the time to
   suppose them greatly sickened by the vices and corruptions of
   their priests, we may be sure, at least, that they were
   wearied and angered by the exactions from them, which a
   vicious hierarchy continually increased. The extravagance of
   the Papacy kept pace with its degradation, and Christendom
   groaned under the burden of the taxes that were wrung from it
   in the name of the lowly Saviour of mankind.

   Nowhere in Europe were the extortions of the Church felt more
   severely than in Germany, where the serfdom of the peasants
   was still real and hard, and where the depressing weight of
   the feudal system had scarcely been lifted from society at
   all. Feudalism had given way in that country less than in any
   other. Central authority remained as weak, and national
   solidification as far away, as ever. Of organic unity in the
   heterogeneous bundle of electoral principalities, duchies,
   margravates and free cities which made up the nominal realm of
   the King of the Romans, there was no more at the beginning of
   the sixteenth century than there had been in the twelfth. But
   that very brokenness and division in the political state of
   Germany proved to be one of the circumstances which favored
   the Protestant Reformation of the Church. Had monarchical
   authority established itself there as in France, then the
   Austro-Spanish family which wielded it, with the concentrated
   bigotry of their narrow-minded race, would have crushed the
   religious revolt as completely in Saxony as they did in
   Austria and Bohemia.

The Ninety-five Theses.

   The main events of the Reformation in Germany are so commonly
   known that no more than the slightest sketching of them is
   needed here. Letters of indulgence, purporting to grant a
   remission of the temporal and purgatorial penalties of sin,
   had been sold by the Church for centuries; but none before
   Pope Leo X. had made merchandize of them in so peddlar-like
   and shameful a fashion as that which scandalized the
   intelligent piety of Europe in 1517. Luther, then a professor
   in the new University of Wittenberg, Saxony, could not hide
   his indignation, as most men did. He stood forth boldly and
   challenged the impious fraud, in a series of propositions or
   theses, which, after the manner of the time, he nailed to the
   door of Wittenberg Church. Just that bold action was needed to
   let loose the pent-up feeling of the German people. The
   ninety-five theses were printed and went broadcast through the
   land, to be read and to be listened to, and to stir every
   class with independent ideas. It was the first great appeal
   made to the public opinion of the world, after the invention
   of printing had put a trumpet to the mouths of eloquent men,
   and the effect was too amazing to be believed by the careless
   Pope and his courtiers.

Political Circumstances.

   But more than possibly—probably, indeed—the popular feeling
   stirred up would never have accomplished the rupture with Rome
   and the religious independence to which North Germany attained
   in the end, if political motives had not coincided with
   religious feelings to bring certain princes and great nobles
   into sympathy with the Monk of Wittenberg. The Elector of
   Saxony, Luther's immediate sovereign, had long been in
   opposition to the Papacy on the subject of its enormous
   collections of money from his subjects, and he was well
   pleased to have the hawking of indulgences checked in his
   dominions. Partly for this reason, partly because of the pride
   and interest with which he cherished his new University,
   partly from personal liking and admiration of Luther, and
   partly, too, no doubt, in recognition of the need of Church
   reforms, he gave Luther a quiet protection and a concealed
   support. He was the strongest and most influential of the
   princes of the Empire, and his obvious favor to the movement
   advanced it powerfully and rapidly.

   At first, there was no intention to break with the Papacy and
   the Papal Church,—certainly none in Luther's mind. His
   attitude towards both was conciliatory in every way, except as
   concerned the falsities and iniquities which he had protested
   against. It was not until the Pope, in June, 1520, launched
   against him the famous Bull, "Exurge Domine," which left no
   alternative between abject submission and open war, that
   Luther and his followers cast off the authority of the Roman
   Church and its head, and grounded their faith upon Holy
   Scripture alone. By formally burning the Bull, Luther accepted
   the papal challenge, and those who believed with him were
   ready for the contest.

The Diet of Worms.

   In 1521, the reformer was summoned before a Diet of the
   Empire, at Worms, where a hearing was given him. The influence
   of the Church, and of the young Austro-Spanish Emperor,
   Charles V., who adhered to it, was still great enough to
   procure his condemnation; but they did not dare to deal with
   him as Huss had been dealt with. He was suffered to depart
   safely, pursued by an imperial edict which placed the ban of
   the Empire on all who should give him countenance or support.
   His friends among the nobles spirited him away and concealed
   him in a castle, the Wartburg, where he remained for several
   months, employed in making his translation of the Bible.
   Meantime, the Emperor had been called away from Germany by his
   multifarious affairs, in the Netherlands and Spain, and had
   little attention to give to Luther and the questions of
   religion for half-a-dozen years. He was represented in Germany
   by a Council of Regency, with the Elector of Saxony at the
   head of, it; and the movement of reformation, if not
   encouraged in his absence, was at least considerably
   protected. It soon showed threatening signs of wildness and
   fanaticism in many quarters; but Luther proved himself as
   powerful in leadership as he had been in agitation, and the
   religious passion of the time was controlled effectively, on
   the whole.

{1055}

Organization of the Lutheran Church.

   Before the close of the year 1521, Pope Leo X. died, and his
   successor, Adrian, while insisting upon the enforcement of the
   Edict of Worms against Luther and his supporters, yet
   acknowledged the corruptions of the Church and promised a
   reformation of them. His promises came too late; his
   confessions only gave testimony to the independent reformers
   which their opponents could not impeach. There was no longer
   any thought of cleansing the Church of Rome, to abide in it. A
   separated—a restored Church—was clearly determined on, and
   Luther framed a system of faith and discipline which was
   adopted in Saxony, and then accepted very generally by the
   reformed Churches throughout Germany. In 1525, the Elector
   Frederick of Saxony died. He had quietly befriended the
   Lutherans and tolerated the reform, but never identified
   himself with them. His brother, John, who succeeded him, made
   public profession of his belief in the Lutheran doctrines, and
   authoritatively established the church system which Luther had
   introduced. The Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, the Margrave of
   Brandenburg, and the Dukes of Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Zell,
   followed his example; while the imperial cities of Frankfort,
   Nuremberg, Bremen, Strasburg, Brunswick, Nordhausen, and
   others, formally ranged themselves on the same side. By the
   year 1526, when a diet at Spires declared the freedom of each
   state in the Empire to deal with the religious reform
   according to its own will, the Reformation in Germany was a
   solidly organized fact. But those of the reform had not yet
   received their name, of "Protestants." That came to them three
   years later, when the Roman party had rallied its forces in a
   new diet at Spires, to undo the declaration of 1526, and the
   leaders of the Lutheran party recorded their solemn protest.

The Austro-Burgundian Marriage.

   To understand the situation politically, during the period of
   struggle for and against the Reformation, it will be necessary
   to turn back a little, for the noting of important occurrences
   which have not been mentioned.

   When Albert II., who was King of Hungary and Bohemia, as well
   as King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, as the title came to be,
   soon afterwards), died, in 1439, he was succeeded by his
   second cousin Frederick III., Duke of Styria, and from that
   time the Roman or imperial crown was held continuously in the
   Austrian family, becoming practically hereditary. But
   Frederick did not succeed to the duchy of Austria, and he
   failed of election to the throne in Hungary and Bohemia. Hence
   his position as Emperor was peculiarly weak and greatly
   impoverished, through want of revenue from any considerable
   possessions of his own. During his whole long reign, of nearly
   fifty-four years, Frederick was humiliated and hampered by his
   poverty; the imperial authority was brought very low, and
   Germany was in a greatly disordered state. There were frequent
   wars between its members, and between Austria and Bohemia, with
   rebellions in Vienna and elsewhere; while the Hungarians were
   left to contend with the aggressive Turks, almost unhelped.

   But in 1477 a remarkable change in the circumstances and
   prospects of the family of the Emperor Frederick III. was made
   by the marriage of his son and heir, Maximilian, to Mary, the
   daughter and heiress of the wealthy and powerful Duke of
   Burgundy, Charles the Bold. The bridegroom was so poor that
   the bride is said to have loaned him the money which enabled
   him to make a fit appearance at the wedding. She had lost, as
   we saw, the duchy of Burgundy, but the valiant arm of
   Maximilian enabled her to hold the Burgundian county, Franche
   Comté, and the rich provinces of the Netherlands, which formed
   at that time, perhaps, the most valuable principality in
   Europe. The Duchess Mary lived only five years after her
   marriage; but she left a son, Philip, who inherited the
   Netherlands and Franche Comté, and Maximilian ruled them as
   his guardian.

   In 1493, the Emperor Frederick died, and Maximilian, who had
   been elected King of the Romans some years before, succeeded
   him in the imperial office. He was never crowned at Rome, and
   he took the title, not used before, of King of Germany and
   Emperor-elect. He was Archduke of Austria, Duke of Styria,
   Carinthia and Carniola, and Count of Tyrol; and, with his
   guardianship in the Low Countries, he rose greatly in
   importance and power above his father. But he accomplished
   less than might possibly have been done by a ruler of more
   sureness of judgment and fixity in purpose. His plans were
   generally beyond his means, and the failures in his
   undertakings were numerous. He was eager to interfere with the
   doings of Charles VIII. and Louis XIII. in Italy; but the
   Germanic diet gave him so little support that he could do
   nothing effective. He joined the League of Cambrai against
   Venice, and the Holy League against France, but bore no
   important part in either. His reign was signalized in Germany
   by the division of the nation into six administrative
   "Circles," afterwards increased to ten, and by the creation of
   a supreme court of appeal, called the Imperial Chamber,—both
   of which measures did something towards the diminution of
   private wars and disorders.

The Austro-Spanish Marriage.—Charles V.

   But Maximilian figures most conspicuously in history as the
   immediate ancestor of the two great sovereign dynasties—the
   Austrian and the Austro-Spanish—which sprang from his
   marriage with Mary of Burgundy and which dominated Europe for
   a century after his death. His son Philip, heir to the
   Burgundian sovereignty of the Netherlands, married (1496)
   Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Two
   children, Charles and Ferdinand, were the fruit of this
   marriage. Charles, the elder, inherited more crowns and
   coronets than were ever gathered, in reality, by one
   sovereign, before or since. Ferdinand and Isabella had united
   by their marriage the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, and, by
   the conquest of Granada and the partial conquest of Navarre,
   the entire peninsula, except Portugal, was subsequently added
   to their joint dominion. Joanna inherited the whole, on the
   death of Isabella, in 1504, and the death of Ferdinand, in
   1516. She also inherited from her father, Ferdinand, the
   kingdom of the Two Sicilies—which he had reunited—and the
   island of Sardinia. Philip, on his side, already in possession
   of the Netherlands and Franche Comté, was heir to the domain of
   the House of Austria. Both of these great inheritances
   descended in due course to Charles, and he had not long to
   wait for them. His father, Philip, died in 1506, and his
   mother, Joanna, lost her mind, through grief at that event.
   The death of his Spanish grandfather, Ferdinand, occurred in
   1516, and that of his Austrian grandfather, the Emperor
   Maximilian, followed three years later.
{1056}
   At the age of twenty years (representing his mother in her
   incapacity) Charles found himself sovereign of Spain, and
   America, of Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, the Low Countries,
   Franche Comté, Austria, and the duchies associated with it.
   The same year (1519) he was chosen King of Germany and
   Emperor-elect, after a keen contest over the imperial crown,
   in which Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England were
   his competitors. On attaining this dignity, he conferred the
   Austrian possessions on his brother Ferdinand. But he remained
   the most potent and imposing monarch that Europe had seen
   since Charlemagne. He came upon the stage just as Luther had
   marshalled, in Germany, the reforming forces of the new era,
   against intolerable iniquities in the Papal Church.
   Unfortunately, he came, with his vast armament of powers, to
   resist the demands of his age, and to be the champion of old
   falsities and wrongs, both in Church and State. There was
   nothing in the nature of the man, nor in his education, nor in
   the influences which bore upon him, from either the Spanish or
   the Austrian side of his family, to put him in sympathy with
   lifting movements or with liberal ideas. He never formed a
   conception of the world in which it looked larger to his eyes,
   or signified more to him, than the globe upon his scepter. So,
   naturally enough, this Cæsar of the Renaissance (Charles V. in
   Germany and Charles I. in Spain) did his utmost, from the day
   he climbed the throne, to thrust Europe back into the murk of
   the fourteenth century, which he found it pretty nearly
   escaped from. He did not succeed; but he gave years of misery
   to several countries by his exertions, and he resigned the
   task to a successor whom the world is never likely to tire of
   abhorring and despising.

The end of popular freedom in Spain.

   The affairs which called Charles V. away from Germany, after
   launching his ineffectual edict of Worms against Luther and
   Luther's supporters, grew in part out of disturbances in his
   kingdom of Spain. His election to the imperial office had not
   been pleasing to the Spaniards, who anticipated the
   complications they would be dragged into by it, the foreign
   character which their sovereign (already foreign in mind by
   his education in the Netherlands) would be confirmed in, and
   the indifference with which their grievances would be
   regarded. For their grievances against the monarchy had been
   growing serious in the last years of Ferdinand, and since his
   death. The crown had gained power in the process of political
   centralization, and its aggrandizement from the possession of
   America began to loom startlingly in the light of the conquest
   of Mexico, just achieved. During the absence of Charles in
   Germany, his former preceptor, Cardinal Adrian, of Utrecht,
   being in charge of the government as regent, a revolt broke
   out at Toledo which spread widely and became alarming. The
   insurgents organized their movement under the name of the
   Santa Junta, or Holy League, and having obtained possession of
   the demented Queen, Joanna, they assumed to act for her and
   with her authority. This rebellion was suppressed with
   difficulty; but the suppression was accomplished (1521-1522),
   and it proved to be the last struggle for popular freedom in
   Spain. The government used its victory with an unsparing
   determination to establish absolute powers, and it succeeded.
   The conditions needed for absolutism were already created, in
   fact, by the deadly blight which the Inquisition had been
   casting upon Spain for forty years. Since the beginning of the
   frightful work of Torquemada, in 1483, it had been diligently
   searching out and destroying every germ of free thought and
   manly character that gave the smallest sign of fruitfulness in
   the kingdom; and the crushing of the Santa Junta may be said
   to have left few in Spain who deserved a better fate than the
   political, the religious and the intellectual servitude under
   which the nation sank.

Persecution of the Spanish Moriscoes.

   Charles, whose mind was dense in its bigotry, urged on the
   Inquisition, and pointed its dreadful engines of destruction
   against the unfortunate Moriscoes, or Moors, who had been
   forced to submit to Christian baptism after their subjugation.
   Many of these followers of Mahomet had afterwards taken up
   again the prayers and practices of their own faith, either
   secretly or in quiet ways, and their relapse appears to have
   been winked at, more or less. For they were a most useful
   people, far surpassing the Spaniards in industry, in thrift
   and knowledge of agriculture, and in mechanical skill. Many of
   the arts and manufactures of the kingdom were entirely in
   their hands. It was ruinous to interfere with their peaceful
   labors. But Charles, as heathenish as the Grand Turk when it
   suited his ends to be so, could look on these well-behaved and
   useful Moors with no eyes but the eyes of an orthodox piety, and
   could take account of nothing but their infidel faith. He
   began, therefore, in 1524, the heartless, senseless and
   suicidal persecution of the Moriscoes which exterminated them
   or drove them from the land, and which contributed signally to
   the making of Spain an exemplary pauper among the nations.

Despotism of Charles V. in the Netherlands.

   In his provinces of the Low Countries, Charles found more than
   in Spain to provoke his despotic bigotry. The Flemings and the
   Dutch had been tasting of freedom too much for his liking, in
   recent years, and ideas, both political and religious, had
   been spreading among them, which were not the ideas of his
   august mind, and must therefore, of necessity, be false. They
   had already become infected with the rebellious anti-papal
   doctrines of Luther. Indeed, they had been even riper than
   Luther's countrymen for a religious revolution, when he
   sounded the signal note which echoed through all northern
   Europe. In Germany, the elected emperor could fulminate an
   edict against the audacious reformers, but he had small power
   to give force to it. In the Netherlands, he possessed a
   sovereignty more potent, and he took instant measures to
   exercise the utmost arbitrariness of which he could make it
   capable. The Duchess Margaret, his aunt, who had been
   governess of the provinces, was confirmed by him in that
   office, and he enlarged the powers in her commission. His
   commands practically superseded the regular courts, and
   subjected the whole administration of justice to his arbitrary
   will and that of his representative. At the same time they
   stripped the States of their legislative functions and reduced
   them to insignificance.
{1057}
   Having thus trampled on the civil liberties of the provinces,
   he borrowed the infernal enginery of the Inquisition, and
   introduced it for the destruction of religious freedom. Its
   first victims were two Augustine monks, convicted of
   Lutheranism, who were burned at Brussels, in July, 1523. The
   first martyr in Holland was a priest who suffered impalement
   as well as burning, at the Hague, in 1525. From these
   beginnings the persecution grew crueler as the alienation of
   the stubborn Netherlanders from the Church of Rome widened;
   and Charles did not cease to fan its fires with successive
   proclamations or "placards," which denounced and forbade every
   reading of Scripture, every act of devotion, every
   conversation of religion, in public or private, which the
   priests of the Church did not conduct. "The number of
   Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried
   alive, in obedience to his edicts, … have been placed as
   high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and have never
   been put at a lower mark than 50,000."

Charles V. and Francis I. in Italy.

   These exercises of an autocratic piety in Spain and the Low
   Countries may be counted, perhaps, among the pleasures of the
   young Emperor during the earlier years of his reign. His more
   serious affairs were connected mainly with his interests or
   ambitions in Italy, which seemed to be threatened by the King
   of France. The throne in that country was now occupied by
   Francis I., a cousin of Louis XII., who had succeeded the
   latter in 1515, and who had taken up anew the Italian projects
   in which Louis failed. In the first year of his reign, he
   crossed the Alps with an army, defeated the Swiss whom the
   Duke of Milan employed against him, and won the whole duchy by
   that single fight. This re-establishment of the French at
   Milan was regarded with exceeding jealousy by the Austrian
   interest, and by the Pope. Maximilian, shortly before his
   death, had made a futile effort to dislodge them, and Charles
   V., on coming to the throne, lost no time in organizing plans
   to the same end. He entered into an alliance with Pope Leo X.,
   by a treaty which bears the same date as the Edict of Worms
   against Luther, and there can be little doubt that the two
   instruments were part of one understanding. Both parties
   courted the friendship of Henry VIII. of England, whose power
   and importance had risen to a high mark, and Henry's able
   minister, Cardinal Wolsey, figured notably in the diplomatic
   intrigues which went on during many years.

   War began in 1521, and in three months the French were
   expelled from nearly every part of the Milanese territory.
   Pope Leo X. lived just long enough to receive the news. His
   successor was Adrian VI., former tutor of the Emperor, who
   made vain attempts to arrange a peace. Wolsey had brought
   Henry VIII. of England into the alliance against Francis,
   expecting to win the papal tiara through the Emperor's
   influence; but he was disappointed.

   Francis made an effort in 1523 to recover Milan; but was
   crippled at the moment of sending his expedition across the
   Alps by the treason of the most powerful noble of France, the
   Constable, Charles, Duke of Bourbon. The Constable had been
   wronged and affronted by the King's mother, and by intriguers
   at court, and he revenged himself basely by going over to the
   enemies of his country. In the campaigns which followed
   (1523-1524), the French had ill-success, and lost their
   chivalrous and famous knight, Bayard, in one of the last
   skirmishes of their retreat. Another change now occurred in
   the occupancy of the papal throne, and Wolsey's ambitious
   schemes were foiled again. The new Pope was Giulio de'Medici,
   who took the name of Clement VII.

   Once more the King of France, in October, 1524, led his forces
   personally into Italy and laid siege to Pavia. It was a
   ruinous undertaking. He was defeated overwhelmingly in a
   battle fought before Pavia (February 24, 1525) and taken
   prisoner. After a captivity in Spain of nearly a year, he
   regained his freedom disgracefully, by signing and solemnly
   swearing to a treaty which he never intended to observe. By
   this treaty he not only renounced all claims to Milan, Naples,
   Genoa, and other Italian territory, but he gave up the duchy
   of Burgundy. Released in good faith on these terms, in the
   early part of 1526, he perfidiously repudiated the treaty, and
   began fresh preparations for war. He found the Italians now as
   ready to oust the Spaniards from their peninsula with French
   help, as they had been ready before to expel the French with
   help from Spain. The papal interest was in great alarm at the
   power acquired by the Emperor, and Venice and Milan shared the
   feeling. A new "Holy Alliance" was accordingly formed, with
   the Pope at its head, and with Henry VIII. of England for its
   "Protector." But before this League took the field with its
   forces, Rome and Italy were stricken and trampled, as though
   by a fresh invasion of Goths.

Sack of Rome, by the army of the Constable.

   The imperial army, quartered in the duchy of Milan, under the
   command of the Constable Bourbon, was scantily paid and fed.
   The soldiers were forced to plunder the city and country for
   their subsistence, and, of course, under those circumstances,
   there was little discipline among them. The region which they
   terrorized was soon exhausted, by their robberies and by the
   stoppage of industries and trade. It then became necessary for
   the Constable to lead them to new fields, and he moved
   southwards. His forces were made up in part of Spaniards and
   in part of Germans—the latter under a Lutheran commander, and
   enlisted for war with the Pope and for pillage in Italy. He
   directed the march to Rome, constrained, perhaps, by the
   demands of his soldiery, but expecting, likewise, to crush the
   League by seizing its apostolic head. On the 5th of May, 1527,
   his 40,000 brigands arrived before the city. At daybreak, the
   next morning, they assaulted the walls irresistibly and
   swarmed over them. Bourbon was killed in the assault, and his
   men were left uncontrolled masters of the venerable capital of
   the world. They held it for seven months, pillaging and
   destroying, committing every possible excess and every
   imaginable sacrilege. Rome is believed to have suffered at
   their hands more lasting defacement and loss of the splendors
   of its art than from the sacking of Vandals or Goths.

   The Pope held out in Castle St. Angelo for a month and then
   surrendered. The hypocritical Charles V., when he learned what
   his imperially commissioned bandits had done, made haste to
   express horror and grief, but did not hasten to check or
   repair the outrage in the least. Pope Clement was not released
   from captivity until a great money-payment had been extorted
   from him, with the promise of a general council of the Church
   to reform abuses and to eradicate Lutheranism.

{1058}

Spanish Domination in Italy.

   Europe was shocked by the barbarity of the capture of Rome,
   and the enemies leagued against Charles were stimulated to
   more vigorous exertions. Assisted with money from England,
   Francis sent another army into Italy, which took Genoa and
   Pavia and marched to Naples, blockading the city by sea and
   land. But the siege proved fatal to the French army. So many
   perished of disease that the survivors were left at the mercy
   of the enemy, and capitulated in September, 1528.

   The great Genoese Admiral, Andrea Doria, had been offended,
   meantime, by King Francis, and had excited his fellow citizens
   to a revolution, which made Genoa, once more, an independent
   republic, with Doria at its head. Shortly before this
   occurred, Florence had expelled the Medici and reorganized her
   government upon the old republican basis. But the defeat of
   the French before Naples ended all hope of Italian liberty;
   since the Pope resigned himself after that event to the will
   of the Emperor, and the papal and imperial despotisms became
   united as one, to exterminate freedom from the peninsula.
   Florence was the first victim of the combination. The city was
   besieged and taken by the Emperor's troops, in compliance with
   the wishes of the Pope, and the Medici, his relatives, were
   restored. Francis continued war feebly until 1529, when a
   peace called the "Ladies Peace" was brought about, by
   negotiations between the French King's mother and the
   Emperor's aunt. This was practically the end of the long
   French wars in Italy.

Germany.

   Such were the events which, in different quarters of the
   world, diverted the attention of the Emperor during several
   years from Luther and the Reformation in Germany. The
   religious movement in those years had been making a steady
   advance. Yet its enemies gained control of another Diet held
   at Spires in 1529 and reversed the ordinance of the Diet of
   1526, by which each state had been left free to deal in its
   own manner with the edict of Worms. Against this action of the
   Diet, the Lutheran princes and the representatives of the
   Lutheran towns entered their solemn protest, and so acquired
   the name, "Protestants," which became in time the accepted and
   adopted name of all, in most parts of the world, who withdrew
   from the Roman communion.

The Peasants' War and the Anabaptists.

   Before this time, the Reform had passed through serious
   trials, coming from excesses in the very spirit out of which
   itself had risen and to which it gave encouragement. The long
   suffering, much oppressed peasantry of Germany, who had found
   bishops as pitiless extortioners as lords, caught eagerly at a
   hope of relief from the overthrow of the ancient Church.
   Several times within the preceding half-century they had risen
   in formidable revolts, with a peasants' clog, or bundschuh for
   their banner. In 1525 fresh risings occurred in Swabia,
   Franconia, Alsace, Lorraine, Bavaria, Thuringia and elsewhere,
   and a great Peasants' War raged for months, with ferocity and
   brutality on both sides. The number who perished in the war is
   estimated at 100,000. The demands made by the peasants were for
   measures of the simplest justice—for the poorest rights and
   privileges in life. But their cause was taken up by
   half-crazed religious fanatics, who became in some parts their
   leaders, and such a character was given to it that reasonable
   reformers were justified, perhaps, in setting themselves
   sternly against it. The wildest prophet of the outbreak was
   one Thomas Münzer, a precursor of the frenzied sect of the
   Anabaptists. Münzer perished in the wreck of the peasants'
   revolt; but some of his disciples, who fled into Westphalia
   and the Netherlands, made converts so rapidly in the town of
   Münster that in 1535 they controlled the city, expelled every
   inhabitant who would not join their communion, elected and
   crowned a king, and exhibited a madness in their proceedings
   that is hardly equalled in history. The experience at Münster
   may reasonably be thought to have proved the soundness of
   Luther's judgment in refusing countenance to the cause of the
   oppressed peasants when they rebelled.

   At all events, his opposition to them was hard and bitter. And
   it has been remarked that what may be called Luther's
   political position in Germany had become by this time quite
   changed. "Instead of the man of the people, Luther became the
   man of the princes; the mutual confidence between him and the
   masses, which had supported the first faltering steps of the
   movement, was broken; the democratic element was supplanted by
   the aristocratic; and the Reformation, which at first had
   promised to lead to a great national democracy, ended in
   establishing the territorial supremacy of the German princes.
   … The Reformation was gradually assuming a more secular
   character, and leading to great political combinations"
   (Dyer).

Progress of Lutheranism in Germany.

   By the year 1530, the Emperor Charles was prepared to give
   more attention to affairs in Germany and to gratify his
   animosity towards the movement of Reformation. He had
   effectually beaten his rival, the King of France, had
   established his supremacy in Italy, had humbled the Pope, and
   was quite willing to be the zealous champion of a submissive
   Church. His brother Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, had
   secured, against much opposition, both the Hungarian and the
   Bohemian crowns, and so firmly that neither was ever again
   wrested from his family, though they continued for some time
   to be nominally elective. The dominions of Ferdinand had
   suffered a great Turkish invasion, in 1529, under the Sultan
   Solyman, who penetrated even to Vienna and besieged the city,
   but without success, losing heavily in his retreat.

   In May, 1530, Charles re-entered Germany from Italy. The
   following month he opened the sitting of the Diet, which had
   been convened at Augsburg. His first act at Augsburg was to
   summon the protesting princes, of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg,
   and other states, before him and to signify to them his
   imperial command that the toleration of Lutheranism in their
   dominions must cease. He expected the mandate to suffice; when
   he found it ineffectual, he required an abstract of the new
   religions doctrines to be laid before him. This was prepared
   by Melancthon, and, afterwards known as the Confession of
   Augsburg, became the Lutheran standard of faith.
{1059}
   The Catholic theologians prepared a reply to it, and both were
   submitted to the Emperor. He made some attempt to bring about
   a compromise of the differences, but he demanded of the
   Protestants that they should submit themselves to the Pope,
   pending the final decisions of a proposed general Council of
   the Church. When this was refused, the Diet formally condemned
   their doctrines and required them to reunite themselves with
   the Catholic Church before the 15th of April following. The
   Emperor, in November, issued a decree accordingly, renewing
   the Edict of Worms and commanding its enforcement.

   The Protestant princes, thus threatened, assembled in
   conference at Schmalkald at Christmas, 1530, and there
   organized their famous armed league. But fresh preparations
   for war by the Turk now compelled Charles to make terms with
   his Lutheran subjects. They refused to give any assistance to
   Austria or Hungary against the Sultan, while threatened by the
   Augsburg decree. The gravity of the danger forced a concession
   to them, and by the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) it was agreed
   that the Protestants should have freedom of worship until the
   next Diet should meet, or a General Council should be held.
   This peace was several times renewed, and there were ten years
   of quiet under it, in Germany, during which time the cause of
   Protestantism made rapid advances. By the year 1540, it had
   established an ascendancy in Würtemberg, among the states of
   the South, and in the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Augsburg,
   Ulm, Constance, and Strasburg. Its doctrines had been adopted
   by "the whole of central Germany, Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse,
   part of Brunswick, and the territory of the Guelphs; in the
   north by the bishoprics of Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and
   Naumburg … ; by East Friesland, the Hanse Towns, Holstein
   and Schleswig, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Silesia, the
   Saxon states, Brandenburg, and Prussia. Of the larger states
   that were closed against it there remained only Austria,
   Bavaria, the Palatinate and the Rhenish Electorates"
   (Hausser). In 1542, Duke Henry of Brunswick, the last of the
   North German princes who adhered to the Papal Church, was
   expelled from his duchy and Protestantism established. About
   the same time the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne announced his
   conviction of the truth of the Protestant doctrines.

The Schmalkaldic War.

   Charles was still too much involved in foreign wars to venture
   upon a struggle with the Lutherans; but a few years more
   sufficed to free his hands. The Treaty of Crespy, in 1544,
   ended his last conflict with Francis I. In the same year, Pope
   Paul III. summoned the long promised General Council of the
   Church to meet at Trent the following spring—by which
   appointment a term was put to the toleration conceded in the
   Peace of Nuremberg. The Protestants, though greatly increased
   in numbers, were now less united than at the time of the
   formation of the Schmalkaldic League. There was much division
   among the leading princes. They yielded no longer to the
   influence of their wisest and ablest chief, Philip of Hesse.
   Luther, whose counsels had always been for peace, approached
   his end, and died in 1546. The circumstances were favorable to
   the Emperor, when he determined to put a stop to the
   Reformation by force. He secured an important ally in the very
   heart of Protestant Germany, winning over to his side the
   selfish schemer, Duke Maurice of Saxony—now the head of the
   Albertine branch of the Saxon house. In 1546 he felt prepared
   and war began. The successes were all on the imperial side.
   There was no energy, no unity, no forethoughtfulness of plan,
   among the Lutherans. The Elector, John Frederick, of Saxony,
   and Philip of Hesse, both fell into the Emperor's hands and
   were barbarously imprisoned. The former was compelled to
   resign his Electorate, and it was conferred upon the renegade
   Duke Maurice. Philip was kept in vile places of confinement
   and inhumanly treated for years. The Protestants of Germany
   were entirely beaten down, for the time being, and the Emperor
   imposed upon them in 1548 a confession of faith called "the
   Interim," the chief missionaries of which were the Spanish
   soldiers whom he had brought into the country. But if the
   Lutherans had suffered themselves to be overcome, they were
   not ready to be trodden upon in so despotic a manner. Even
   Maurice, now Elector of Saxony, recoiled from the tyranny
   which Charles sought to establish, while he resented the
   inhuman treatment of Philip of Hesse, who was his
   father-in-law. He headed a new league, therefore, which was
   formed against the Emperor, and which entered into a secret
   alliance with Henry II. of France (Francis I. having died in
   1547). Charles was taken by surprise when the revolt broke
   out, in 1552, and barely escaped capture. The operations of
   Maurice were vigorous and ably conducted, and in a few weeks
   the Protestants had recovered all the ground lost in 1546-7;
   while the French had improved the opportunity to seize the
   three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun. The ultimate result
   was the so-called "Religious Peace of Augsburg," concluded in
   1555, which gave religious freedom to the ruling princes of
   Germany, but none whatever to the people. It put the two
   religions on the same footing, but it was simply a footing of
   equal intolerance. Each ruler had the right to choose his own
   creed, and to impose it arbitrarily upon his subjects if he
   saw fit to do so. As a practical consequence, the final
   division of Germany between Protestantism and Catholicism was
   substantially determined by the princes and not by the people.

   The humiliating failure of Charles V. to crush the Reformation
   in Germany was no doubt prominent among the experiences which
   sickened him of the imperial office and determined him to
   abdicate the throne, which he did in the autumn of 1556.

Reformation in Switzerland.

   A generation had now passed since the Lutheran movement of
   Reformation was begun in Germany, and, within that time, not
   only had the wave of influence from Wittenberg swept over all
   western Europe, but other reformers had risen independently
   and contemporaneously, or nearly so, in other countries, and
   had co-operated powerfully in making the movement general. The
   earliest of these was the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who
   began preaching against indulgences and other flagrant abuses
   in the Church, at Zurich, in 1519, the same year in which
   Luther opened his attack. The effect of his preaching was so
   great that Zurich, four years later, had practically separated
   itself from the Roman Church.
{1060}
   From that beginning the Reformation spread so rapidly that in
   half-a-dozen years it had mastered most of the Cantons of
   Switzerland outside of the five Forest Cantons, where
   Catholicism held its ground with stubbornness. The two
   religions were then represented by two parties, which absorbed
   in themselves all the political as well as the religious
   questions of the day, and which speedily came to blows. The
   Catholics allied themselves with Ferdinand of Austria, and the
   Protestants with several of the imperial cities of Germany.
   But such an union between the Swiss and the German Protestants
   as seemed plainly desirable was prevented; mainly, by the
   dictatorial obstinacy of Luther. Zwingli's reforming ideas
   were broader, and at the same time more radical, than
   Luther's, and the latter opposed them with irreconcilable
   hostility. He still held with the Catholics to the doctrine of
   transubstantiation, which the Swiss reformer rejected. Hence
   Zwingli was no less a heretic in Luther's eyes than in the
   eyes of the pope, and the anathemas launched against him from
   Wittenberg were hardly less thunderous than those from Rome.
   So the two contemporaneous reformation movements, German and
   Swiss, were held apart from one another, and went on side by
   side, with little help or sympathy from one another. In 1531
   the Forest Cantons attacked and defeated the men of Zurich,
   and Zwingli was slain in the battle. Peace was then concluded
   on terms which left each canton free to establish its own
   creed, and each congregation free to do the same in the common
   territories of the confederation.

Reformation in France.

   In France, the freer ideas of Christianity—the ideas less
   servile to tradition and to Rome—that were in the upper air
   of European culture when the sixteenth century began, had
   found some expression even before Luther spoke. The influence
   of the new classical learning, and of the "humanists" who
   imbibed its spirit, tended to that liberation of the mind, and
   was felt in the greatest center of the learning of the time,
   the University of Paris. But not sufficiently to overcome the
   conservatism of the Sorbonne—the theological faculty of the
   University; for Luther's writings were solemnly condemned and
   burned by it in 1521, and a persecution of those inclined
   toward the new doctrines was early begun. Francis I., in whose
   careless and coarse nature there was some taste for letters and
   learning, as well as for art, and who patronized in an idle
   way the Renaissance movements of his reign, seemed disposed at
   the beginning to be friendly to the religious Reformers. But
   he was too shallow a creature, and too profoundly unprincipled
   and false, to stand firmly in any cause of righteousness, and
   face such a power as that of Rome. His nobler sister, Margaret
   of Angoulême, who embraced the reformed doctrines with
   conviction, exerted a strong influence upon the king in their
   favor while she was by his side; but after her marriage to
   Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, and after Francis had
   suffered defeat and shame in his war with Charles V., he was
   ready to make himself the servant of the Papacy for whatever
   it willed against his Protestant subjects, in order to have
   its alliance and support. So the persecution grew steadily
   more fierce, more systematic, and more determined, as the
   spirit of the Reformation spread more widely through the
   kingdom.

Calvin at Geneva.

   One of the consequences of the persecution was the flight from
   France, in 1534, of John Calvin, who subsequently became the
   founder and the exponent of a system of Protestant theology
   which obtained wider acceptance in Europe than that of Luther.
   All minor differences were practically merged in the great
   division between these two theologies—the Lutheran and the
   Calvinistic—which split the Reformation in twain. After two
   years of wandering, Calvin settled in the free city of Geneva,
   where his influence very soon rose to so extraordinary a
   height that he transformed the commonwealth and ruled it,
   unselfishly, and in perfect piety, but with iron-handed
   despotism, for a quarter of a century.

The French Court.

   The reign of Francis I. has one other mark in history, besides
   that of his persecution of the Reformers, his careless
   patronage of arts and letters, and his unsuccessful wars with
   the Emperor. He gave to the French Court—at least more than
   his predecessors had done—the character which made it in
   later French history so evil and mischievous a center of
   dissoluteness, of base intrigue, of national demoralization.
   It was invested in his time with the fascinations which drew
   into it the nobles of France and its men of genius, to corrupt
   them and to destroy their independence. It was in his time that
   the Court began to seem to be, in its own eyes, a kind of
   self-centered society, containing all of the French nation
   which needed or deserved consideration, and holding its place
   in the order of things quite apart from the kingdom which it
   helped its royal master to rule. Not to be of the Court was to
   be non-existent in its view; and thus every ambition in France
   was invited to push at its fatal doors.

Catherine de' Medici and the Guises.

   Francis I. died in 1547, and was followed on the throne by his
   son Henry II., whose marriage to Catherine de' Medici, of the
   renowned Florentine family, was the most important personal
   act of his life. It was important in the malign fruits which
   it bore; since Catherine, after his death, gave an evil
   Italian bend-sinister to French politics, which had no lack of
   crookedness before. Henry continued the war with Charles V.,
   and was afterwards at war with Philip II., Charles' son, and
   with England, the latter country losing Calais in the
   contest,—its last French possession. Peace was made in 1559,
   and celebrated with splendid tournaments, at one of which the
   French king received a wound that caused his death.

   He left three sons, all weaklings in body and character, who
   reigned successively. The elder, Francis II., died the year
   following his accession. Although aged but seventeen when he
   died, he had been married some two years to Mary Stuart, the
   young queen of Scots. This marriage had helped to raise to
   great power in the kingdom a family known as the Guises. They
   were a branch of the ducal House of Lorraine, whose duchy was
   at that time independent of France, and, although the father
   of the family, made Duke of Guise by Francis I., had become
   naturalized in France in 1505, his sons were looked upon as
   foreigners by the jealous Frenchmen whom they supplanted at
   Court.
{1061}
   Of the six sons, there were two of eminence, one (the second
   duke of Guise) a famous general in his day, the other a
   powerful cardinal. Five sisters completed the family in its
   second generation. The elder of these, Mary, had married James
   V. of Scotland (whose mother was the English princess,
   Margaret, sister of Henry VIII.), and Mary Stuart, queen of
   Scots, born of that marriage, was therefore a niece of the
   Guises. They had brought about her marriage to Francis II.,
   while he was dauphin, and they mounted with her to supreme
   influence in the kingdom when she ascended the throne with her
   husband. The queen-mother, Catherine de' Medici, was as eager
   as the Guises to control the government, in what appeared to
   her eyes the interest of her children; but during the short
   reign of Francis II. she was quite thrust aside, and the
   queen's uncles ruled the state.

   The death of Francis II. (1560) brought a change, and with the
   accession of Charles IX., a boy of ten years, there began a
   bitter contest for ascendancy between Catherine and the
   Guises; and this struggle became mixed and strangely
   complicated with a deadly conflict of religions, which the
   steady advance of the Reformation in France had brought at
   this time to a crisis.

The Huguenots.

   Under the powerful leadership which Calvin assumed, at Geneva,
   the reformed religion in France had acquired an organized
   firmness and strength which not only resisted the most cruel
   persecution, but made rapid headway against it. "Protestantism
   had become a party which did not, like Lutheranism in Germany,
   spring up from the depths." "It numbered its chief adherents
   among the middle and upper grades of society, spread its roots
   rather among the nobles than the citizens, and among learned
   men and families of distinction rather than among the people."
   "Some of the highest aristocracy, who were discontented, and
   submitted unwillingly to the supremacy of the Guises, had
   joined the Calvinistic opposition—some undoubtedly from
   policy, others from conviction. The Turennes, the Rohans, and
   Soubises, pure nobles, who addressed the king as 'mon cousin,'
   especially the Bourbons, the agnates of the royal house, had
   adopted the new faith" (Hausser). One branch of the Bourbons
   had lately acquired the crown of Navarre. The Spanish part of
   the old Navarrese kingdom had been subjugated and absorbed by
   Ferdinand of Aragon; but its territory on the French side of
   the Pyrenees—Béarn and other counties—still maintained a
   half independent national existence, with the dignity of a
   regal government. When Margaret of Angoulême, sister of
   Francis I., married Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, as
   mentioned before, she carried to that small court an earnest
   inclination towards the doctrines of the Reform. Under her
   protection Navarre became largely Protestant, and a place of
   refuge for the persecuted of France. Margaret's daughter, the
   famous Jeanne d'Albret, espoused the reformed faith fully, and
   her husband, Antoine de Bourbon, as well as Antoine's brother,
   Louis de Condé, found it politic to profess the same belief.
   For the Protestants (who were now acquiring, in some unknown
   way, the name of Huguenots) had become so numerous and so
   compactly organized as to form a party capable of being
   wielded with great effect, in the strife of court factions
   which the rivalry of Catherine and the Guises produced. Hence
   politics and religion were inextricably confused in the civil
   wars which broke out shortly after the death of Francis II.
   (1560), and the accession of the boy king, Charles IX. These
   wars belong to a different movement in the general current of
   European events, and we will return to them after a glance at
   the religious Reformation, and at the political circumstances
   connected with it, in England and elsewhere.

England.

   Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, made king of England by his
   victory at Bosworth, established himself so firmly in the seat
   of power that three successive rebellions failed to disturb
   him. In one of these (1487) a pretender, Lambert Simnel, was
   put forward, who claimed to be the Earl of Warwick. In another
   (1491-1497) a second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, personated one
   of the young princes whom Richard III. had caused to be
   murdered in the tower. Neither of the impostures had much
   success in the kingdom. Henry VII. was not a popular king, but
   he was able and strong, and he solidified all the bases of
   monarchical independence which circumstances had enabled
   Edward IV. to begin laying down.

   It was in the reign of Henry that America was discovered, and
   he might have been the patron of Columbus, the beneficiary of
   the great voyage, and the proprietor and lord of the grand
   realm which Isabella and Ferdinand secured. But he lacked the
   funds or the faith—apparently both—and put aside his
   unequaled opportunity. When the field of westward exploration
   had been opened, however, he was early in entering it, and
   sent the Cabots upon those voyages which gave England her
   claim to the North American coasts.

   During the reign of Henry VII. there were two quiet marriages
   in his family which strangely influenced subsequent history.
   One was the marriage, in 1501, of the king's eldest son,
   Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon, youngest daughter of Ferdinand
   and Isabella. The other, in 1503, united the king's daughter,
   Margaret, to James IV., King of Scotland. It was through this
   latter marriage that the inheritance of the English crown
   passed to the Scottish House of Stuart, exactly one hundred
   years later, upon the failure of the direct line of descent in
   the Tudor family. The first marriage, of Prince Arthur to
   Catherine of Aragon, was soon dissolved by the death of the
   prince, in 1502. Seven years afterwards the widowed Catherine
   married her late husband's brother, just after he became Henry
   VIII., King of England, upon the death of his father, in 1509.
   Whence followed notable consequences which will presently
   appear.

{1062}

Henry VIII. and his breach with Rome.

   It was the ambition of Henry VIII. to play a conspicuous part
   in European affairs; and as England was rich and strong, and
   as the king had obtained nearly the absoluteness of the crown
   in France, the parties to the great contests then going on
   were all eagerly courting his alliance. His ambitions ran
   parallel, too, with those of the able minister, Thomas Wolsey,
   who rose to high influence at his side soon after his reign
   began. Wolsey aspired to the Papal crown, with the cardinal's
   cap as a preparatory adornment, and he drew England, as we
   have seen, into the stormy politics of the sixteenth century
   in Europe, with no gain, of glory or otherwise, to the nation,
   and not much result of any kind. When the Emperor Maximilian
   died, in 1519, Henry entered the lists against Maximilian's
   grandson, Charles of Spain, and Francis I. of France, as a
   candidate for the imperial crown. In the subsequent wars which
   broke out between his two rivals, he took the side of the
   successful Charles, now Emperor, and helped him to climb to
   supremacy in Europe over the prostrate French king. He had
   dreams of conquering France again, and casting the glories of
   Henry V. in the shade; but he carried his enterprise little
   beyond the dreaming. When it was too late to check the growth
   of Charles' overshadowing power, he changed his side and took
   Francis into alliance.

   But Henry's motives were always selfish and personal—never
   political; and the personal motives had now taken on a most
   despicable character. He had tired of his wife, the Spanish
   Catherine, who was six years older than himself. He had two
   pretexts for discontent with his marriage: 1, that his queen
   had borne him only a daughter, whereas England needed a male
   heir to the throne; 2, that he was troubled with scruples as
   to the lawfulness of wedlock with his brother's widow. On this
   latter ground he began intrigues to win from the Pope, not a
   divorce in the ordinary sense of the term, but a declaration
   of the nullity of his marriage. This challenged the opposition
   of the Emperor, Catherine's nephew, and Henry's alliances were
   naturally changed.

   The Pope, Clement VII., refused to annul the marriage, and
   Henry turned his unreasoning wrath upon Cardinal Wolsey, who
   had conducted negotiations with the Pope and failed in them.
   Wolsey was driven from the Court in disgrace and died soon
   afterwards. He was succeeded in the king's favor by a more
   unscrupulous man, Thomas Cromwell. Henry had not yet despaired
   of bringing the Pope to compliance with his wishes; and he
   began attacks upon the Church and upon the papal revenues
   which might shake, as he hoped, the firmness of the powers at
   Rome. With the help of a pliant minister and a subservient
   Parliament, he forced the clergy (1531-1532) in Convocation
   to acknowledge him to be the Supreme Head of the English
   Church, and to submit themselves entirely to his authority. At
   the same time he grasped the "annates," or first year's income
   of bishoprics, which had been the richest perquisite of the papal
   treasury. In all these proceedings, the English king was
   acting on a line parallel to that of the continental rising
   against Rome; but it was not in friendliness toward it nor in
   sympathy with it that he did so. He had been among the
   bitterest enemies of the Reformation, and he never ceased to
   be so. He had won from the Pope the empty title of "Defender
   of the Faith," by a foolish book against Luther, and the faith
   which he defended in 1521 was the faith in which he died. But
   when he found that the influence of Charles V. at Rome was too
   great to be overcome, and that the Pope could be neither
   bribed, persuaded nor coerced to sanction the putting away of
   his wife, he resolved to make the English Church sufficient in
   authority to satisfy his demand, by establishing its
   ecclesiastical independence, with a pontiff of its own, in
   himself. He purposed nothing more than this. He contemplated
   no change of doctrine, no cleansing of abuses. He permitted no
   one whose services he commanded in the undertaking to bring
   such changes into contemplation. So far as concerned Henry's
   initiative, there was absolutely nothing of religious
   Reformation in the movement which separated the Church of
   England from the Church of Rome. It accomplished its sole
   original end when it gave finality to the decree of an English
   ecclesiastical court, on the question of the king's marriage,
   and barred queen Catherine's appeal from it. It was the
   intention of Henry VIII. that the Church under his papacy
   should remain precisely what it had been under the Pope at
   Rome, and he spared neither stake nor gibbet in his
   persecuting zeal against impudent reformers.

   But the spirit of Reformation which was in the atmosphere of
   that time lent itself, nevertheless, to King Henry's project,
   and made that practicable which could hardly have been so a
   generation before. The influence of Wyclif had never wholly
   died out; the new learning was making its way in England and
   broadening men's minds; the voice of Luther and his fellow
   workers on the continent had been heard, and not vainly.
   England was ripe for the religious revolution, and her king
   promoted it, without intention. But while his reign lasted,
   and his despotism was heavy on the land, there was nothing
   accomplished but the breaking of the old Church fetters, and
   the binding of the nation anew with green withes, which,
   presently, it would burst asunder.

   The conspicuous events of Henry's reign are familiarly known.
   Most of them bear the stamp of his monstrous egotism and
   selfishness. He was the incomparable tyrant of English
   history. The monarch who repudiated two wives, sent two to the
   block, and shared his bed with yet two more; who made a whole
   national church the servant of his lusts, and who took the
   lives of the purest men of his kingdom when they would not
   bend their consciences to say that he did well—has a pedestal
   quite his own in the gallery of infamous kings.

Edward VI. and the Reformation.

   Dying in 1547, Henry left three children: Mary, daughter of
   Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, and
   Edward, son of Jane Seymour. The latter, in his tenth year,
   became King (Edward VI.), and his uncle, the Duke of Somerset,
   acquired the control of the government, with the title of
   Protector. Somerset headed a party which had begun before the
   death of the king to press for more changes in the character
   of the new Church of England and less adherence to the pattern
   of Rome. There seems to be little reason to suppose that the
   court leaders of this party were much moved in the matter by
   any interest of a religious kind; but the growth of thinking
   and feeling in England tended that way, and the side of
   Reformation had become the stronger. They simply gave way to
   it, and, abandoned the repression which Henry had persisted
   in. At the same time, their new policy gave them more freedom
   to grasp the spoils of the old Church, which Henry VIII. had
   begun to lay hands on, by suppression of monasteries and
   confiscation of their estates. The wealth thus sequestered
   went largely into private hands.

{1063}

   It was in the short reign of Edward VI. that the Church of
   England really took on its organic form as one of the Churches
   of the Reformation, by the composition of its first
   prayer-books, and by the framing of a definite creed.

Lady Jane Grey.

   In 1553, the young king died. Somerset had fallen from power
   the previous year and had suffered death. He had been
   supplanted by Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of
   Northumberland, and that minister had persuaded Edward to
   bequeath his crown to Lady Jane Grey, grand-daughter of the
   younger sister of Henry VIII. But Northumberland was hated by
   the people, and few could recognize the right of a boy on the
   throne to change the order of regal succession by his will.
   Parliament had formally legitimated both Catherine's daughter,
   Mary, and Anne Boleyn's daughter, Elizabeth, and had placed
   them in the line of inheritance. Mary's legal title to the
   crown was clear. She had adhered with her mother to the Roman
   Church, and her advent upon the throne would mean the
   subjection of the English Church to the Papacy anew; since the
   constitution of the Church armed the sovereign with supreme
   and indisputable power over it. The Protestants of the kingdom
   knew what to expect, and were in great fear; but they submitted.
   Lady Jane Grey was recommended to them by her Protestant
   belief, and by her beautiful character; but her title was too
   defective and her supporters too much distrusted. There were
   few to stand by the poor young girl when Northumberland
   proclaimed her queen, and she was easily dethroned by the
   partisans of Mary. A year later she was sent to the block.

   Catholicism was now ascendant again, and England was brought
   to share in the great reaction against the Reformation which
   prevailed generally through Europe and which we shall
   presently consider. Before doing so, let us glance briefly at
   the religious state of some other countries not yet touched
   upon.

The Reformation in Scotland.

   In Scotland, a deep undercurrent of feeling against the
   corruptions of the Church had been repressed by resolute
   persecutions, until after the middle of the sixteenth century.
   Wars with England, and the close connection of the Scottish
   Court with the Guises of France, had both tended to retard the
   progress of a reform sentiment, or to delay the manifestation
   of it. But when the pent-up feeling began to respond to the
   voice of the great Calvinistic evangelist and organizer, John
   Knox, it swept the nation like a storm. Knox's first
   preaching, after his captivity in France and exile to Geneva,
   was in 1555. In 1560, the authority of the Pope was renounced,
   the mass prohibited, and the Geneva confession of faith
   adopted, by the Scottish Estates. After that time the Reformed
   Church in Scotland—the Church of Presbyterianism—had only
   to resist the futile hostility of Mary Stuart for a few years,
   until it came to its great struggle against English
   Episcopacy, under Mary's son and grandson, James and Charles.

The Reformation in the North.

   In the three Scandinavian nations the ideas of the
   Reformation, diffused from Germany, had won early favor, both
   from kings and people, and had soon secured an enduring
   foothold. They owed their reception quite as much, perhaps, to
   the political situation as to the religious feeling of the
   northern peoples.

   When the ferment of the Reformation movement began, the three
   crowns were worn by one king, as they had been since the
   "Union of Calmar," in 1397, and the King of Denmark was the
   sovereign of the Union. His actual power in Sweden and Norway
   was slight; his theoretical authority was sufficient to
   irritate both. In Sweden, especially, the nobles chafed under
   the yoke of the profitless federation. Christian II., the last
   Danish king of the three kingdoms, crushed their disaffection
   by a harsh conquest of the country (1520), and by savage
   executions, so perfidious and so numerous that they are known
   in Swedish history as the Massacre of Stockholm. But this
   brutal and faithless king became so hateful in his own proper
   kingdom that the Danish nobles rose against him in 1523 and he
   was driven from the land. The crown was given to his uncle,
   Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. In that German Duchy,
   Lutheranism had already made its way, and Frederick was in
   accord with it. On coming to the throne of Denmark, where
   Catholicism still prevailed, he pledged himself to attempt no
   interference with it; but he felt no obligation, on the other
   hand, to protect it. He demanded and established a toleration
   for both doctrines, and gave to the reformers a freedom of
   opportunity which speedily undermined the old faith and
   overthrew it.

   In the meantime, Sweden had undergone the important revolution
   of her history, which placed the national hero, Gustavus Vasa,
   on the throne. Gustavus was a young noble whose title to the
   crown was not derived from his lineage, but from his genius.
   After Christian II. had bloodily exterminated the elder
   leaders of the Swedish state, this young lord, then a hostage
   and prisoner in the tyrant's hands, made his escape and took
   upon himself the mission of setting his country free. For
   three years Gustavus lived a life like that of Alfred the
   Great in England, when he, too, struggled with the Danes. His
   heroic adventures were crowned with success, and Sweden, led
   to independence by its natural king, bestowed the regal title
   upon him (1523) and seated him upon its ancient throne. The
   new Danish king, Frederick, acknowledged the revolution, and
   the Union of Calmar was dissolved. Sweden under Gustavus Vasa
   recovered from the state of great disorder into which it had
   fallen, and grew to be a nation of important strength. As a
   measure of policy, he encouraged the introduction of
   Lutheranism and promoted the spread of it, in order to break
   the power of the Catholic clergy, and also, in order, without
   doubt, to obtain possession of the property of the Church,
   which secured to the Crown the substantial revenues it
   required.

{1064}

Italy.

   In Italy, the reformed doctrines obtained no popular footing
   at any time, though many among the cultivated people regarded
   them with favor, and would gladly have witnessed, not only a
   practical purging of the Church, but a revision of those
   Catholic dogmas most offensive to a rational mind. But such
   little movement as stirred in that direction was soon stopped
   by the success of the Emperor, Charles V., in his Italian wars
   with Francis I., and by the Spanish domination in the
   peninsula which ensued thereon. The Spain of that age was like
   the bloodless octopus which paralyzes the victim in its
   clutch, and Italy, gripped in half of its many principalities
   by the deadly tentacles thrust out from Madrid, showed no
   consciousness for the next two centuries.

The Council of Trent.

   The long demanded, long promised General Council, for
   considering the alleged abuses in the Church and the alleged
   falsities in its doctrine, and generally for discussion and
   action upon the questions raised by the Reformation, assembled
   at Trent in December, 1545. The Emperor seems to have desired
   with sincerity that the Council might be one which the
   Protestants would have confidence in, and in which they might
   be represented, for a full discussion of their differences
   with Rome. But this was made impossible from the beginning.
   The Protestants demanded that "final appeal on all debated
   points should be made to the sole authority of Holy
   Scripture," and this being refused by the Pope (Paul III.),
   there remained no ground on which the two parties could meet.
   The Italian prelates who composed the majority of the Council
   made haste, it would seem, to take action which closed the
   doors of conciliation against the Reformers. "First, they
   declared that divine revelation was continuous in the Church
   of which the Pope was the head; and that the chief written
   depository of this revelation—namely, the Scriptures—had no
   authority except in the version of the Vulgate. Secondly, they
   condemned the doctrine of justification by Faith. … Thirdly,
   they confirmed the efficacy and the binding authority of the
   Seven Sacraments." "The Council terminated in December [1563]
   with an act of submission, which placed all its decrees at the
   pleasure of the Papal sanction. Pius [Pius IV. became Pope in
   1560] was wise enough to pass and ratify the decrees of the
   Tridentine fathers by a Bull dated on December 26, 1563,
   reserving to the Papal sovereign the sole right of
   interpreting them in doubtful or disputed cases. This he could
   well afford to do; for not an article had been penned without
   his concurrence, and not a stipulation had been made without a
   previous understanding with the Catholic powers. The very terms,
   moreover, by which his ratification was conveyed, secured his
   supremacy, and conferred upon his successors and himself the
   privileges of a court of ultimate appeal. At no previous
   period in the history of the Church had so wide, so undefined,
   and so unlimited an authority been accorded to the See of
   Rome" (Symonds).

   Some practical reforms in the Church were wrought by the
   Council of Trent, but its disciplinary decrees were less
   important than the dogmatic. From beginning to end of its
   sessions, which, broken by many suspensions and adjournments,
   dragged through eighteen years, it addressed itself to the
   task of solidifying the Church of Rome, as left by the
   Protestant schism,—not of healing the schism itself or of
   removing the provocations to it. The work which the Council
   did in that direction was of vast importance, and profoundly
   affected the future of the Papacy and of its spiritual realm.
   It gave a firm dogmatic footing to the great reactionary new
   forces which now came into play, with aggressive enthusiasm
   and zeal, to arrest the advance of the Reformation and roll it
   back.

The Catholic reaction.

   The extraordinary revival of Catholicism and thrusting back of
   Protestantism which occurred in the later half of the
   sixteenth century had several causes behind it and within it.

   1. The spiritual impulse from which the Reformation started
   had considerably spent itself, or had become debased by a
   gross admixture of political and mercenary aims. In Germany,
   the spoils derived from the suppressing of monastic
   establishments and the secularizing of ecclesiastical fiefs
   and estates, appeared very early among the potent inducements
   by which mercenary princes were drawn to the side of the
   Lutheran reform. Later, as the opposing leagues, Protestant
   and Catholic, settled into chronic opposition and hostility,
   the struggle between them took on more and more the character
   of a great political game, and lost more and more the spirit
   of a battle for free conscience and a free mind. In France, as
   we have noticed, the political entanglements of the Huguenot
   party were such, by this time, that it could not fail to be
   lowered by them in its religious tone. In England, every
   breath of spirituality in the movement had so far (to the
   death of Henry VIII.) been stifled, and it showed nothing but
   a brazen political front to the world. In the Netherlands, the
   struggle for religious freedom was about to merge itself in a
   fight of forty years for self-government, and the fortitude
   and valor of the citizen were more surely developed in that
   long war than the faith and fervor of the Christian. And so,
   generally throughout Europe, Protestantism, in its conflict
   with the powers of the ancient Church, had descended, ere the
   sixteenth century ran far into its second half, to a
   distinctly lower plane than it occupied at first. On that
   lower plane Rome fronted it more formidably, with stronger
   arms, than on the higher.

   2. Broadly stating the fact, it may be said that Protestantism
   made all its great inroads upon the Church of Rome before
   partisanship came to the rescue of the latter, and closed the
   open mind with which Luther, and Zwingli, and Farel, and
   Calvin were listened to at first. It happens always, when new
   ideas, combative of old ones, whether religious or political,
   are first put forward in the world, they are listened to for a
   time with a certain disinterestedness of attention—a certain
   native candor in the mind—which gives them a fair hearing. If
   they seem reasonable, they obtain ready acceptance, and spread
   rapidly,—until the conservatism of the beliefs assailed
   takes serious alarm, and the radicalism of the innovating
   beliefs becomes ambitious and rampant; until the for and the
   against stiffen themselves in opposing ranks, and the voice of
   argument is drowned by the cries of party. That ends all
   shifting of masses from the old to the new ground. That ends
   conversion as an epidemic and dwindles it to the sporadic
   character.

   3. Protestantism became bitterly divided within itself at an
   early stage of its career by doctrinal differences, first
   between Zwinglians and Lutherans, and then between Lutherans
   and Calvinists, while Catholicism, under attack, settled into
   more unity and solidity than before.

{1065}

   4. The tremendous power in Europe to which the Spanish
   monarchy, with its subject dominions, and its dynastic
   relations, had now risen, passed, in 1556, to a dull-brained
   and soulless bigot, who saw but one use for it, namely, the
   extinction of all dissent from his own beliefs, and all
   opposition to his own will. Philip II. differed from his
   father, Charles V., not in the enormity of his bigoted
   egotism—they were equals, perhaps, in that—but in the
   exclusiveness of it. There was something else in Charles,
   something sometimes faintly admirable. He did have some
   interests in life that were not purely malignant. But his
   horrid vampire of a son, the most repulsive creature of his
   kind in all history, had nothing in him that was not as deadly
   to mankind as the venom secreted behind the fang of a cobra. It
   was a frightful day for the world when a despotism which
   shadowed Spain, Sicily, Italy and the Low Countries, and which
   had begun to drag unbounded treasure from America, fell to the
   possession of such a being as this. Nothing substantial was
   taken away from the potent malevolence of Philip by his
   failure of election in Germany to the Imperial throne. On the
   contrary, he was the stronger for it, because all his dominion
   was real and all his authority might assume to be absolute.
   His father had been more handicapped than helped by his German
   responsibilities and embarrassments, which Philip escaped. It
   is not strange that his concentration of the vast enginery
   under his hands to one limited aim, of exterminating what his
   dull and ignorant mind conceived to be irreligion and treason,
   had its large measure of success. The stranger thing is, that
   there was fortitude and courage to resist such power, in even
   one corner of his realm.

   5. The Papacy was restored at this time to the purer and
   higher character of its best ages, by well-guided elections,
   which raised in succession to the throne a number of men, very
   different in ability, and quite different, too, in the spirit
   of their piety, but generally alike in dignity and decency of
   life, and in qualities which command respect. The fiery
   Neapolitan zealot, Caraffa, who became Pope in 1555 as Paul
   IV.; his cool-tempered diplomatic successor, Pius IV., who
   manipulated the closing labors of the Council of Trent; the
   austere inquisitor, Pius V.; the more commonplace Gregory
   XIII., and the powerful Sixtus V., were pontiffs who gave new
   strength to Catholicism, in their different ways, both by what
   they did and by what they were.

   6. The revival of zeal in the Roman Church, naturally
   following the attacks upon it, gave rise to many new religious
   organizations within its elastic fold, some reformatory, some
   missionary and militant, but all bringing an effectual
   reinforcement to it, at the time when its assailants began to
   show faltering signs. Among these was one—Loyola's Society of
   Jesus—which marched promptly to the front of the battle, and
   which contributed more than any other single force in the
   field to the rallying of the Church, to the stopping of
   retreat, and to the facing of its stubborn columns forward for
   a fresh advance. The Jesuits took such a lead and accomplished
   such results by virtue of the military precision of discipline
   under which they had been placed and to which they were
   singularly trained by the rules of the founder; and also by
   effect of a certain subtle sophistry that runs through their
   ethical maxims and their counsels of piety. They fought for
   their faith with a sublime courage, with a devotion almost
   unparalleled, with an earnestness of belief that cannot be
   questioned; but they used weapons and modes of warfare which
   the higher moral feeling of civilized mankind, whether
   Christian or Pagan, has always condemned. It is not Protestant
   enemies alone who say this. It is the accusation that has been
   brought against them again and again in their own Church, and
   which has expelled them from Catholic countries, again and
   again. In the first century or more of their career, this
   plastic conscience, moulded by a passionate zeal, and
   surrendered, with every gift of mind and body, to a service of
   obedience which tolerated no evasion on one side nor bending
   on the other, made the Jesuits the most invincible and
   dangerous body of men that was ever organized for defense and
   aggression in any cause.

   The order was founded in 1540, by a bull of Pope Paul III. At
   the time of Loyola's death, in 1556, it numbered about one
   thousand members, and under Lainez, the second general of the
   order, who succeeded Loyola at the head, it advanced rapidly,
   in numbers, in efficiency of organization, and in wide-spread
   influence.

   Briefly stated, these are the incidents and circumstances
   which help to explain—not fully, perhaps, but almost
   sufficiently—the check to Protestantism and the restored
   energy and aggressiveness of the Catholic Church, in the later
   half of the sixteenth century.

The Ruin of Spain.

   In his kingdoms of Spain, Philip II. may be said to have
   finished the work of death which his father and his father's
   grand-parents committed to him. They began it, and appointed
   the lines on which it was to be done. The Spain of their day
   had the fairest opportunity of any nation in Europe for a
   great and noble career. The golden gates of her opportunity
   were unlocked and opened by good Queen Isabella; but the pure
   hands of the same pious queen threw over the neck of her
   country the noose of a strangler, and tightened it
   prayerfully. Her grandson, who was neither pious nor good,
   flung his vast weight of power upon it. But the strangling
   halter of the Spanish Inquisition did not extinguish signs of
   life in his kingdom fast enough to satisfy his royal
   impatience, and he tightened other cords upon the suffering
   body and all its limbs. Philip, when he came to take up the
   murderous task, found every equipment for it that he could
   desire. He had only to gather the strands of the infernal mesh
   into his hands, and bring the strain of his awful sovereignty
   to bear upon them: then sit and watch the palsy of death creep
   over his dominions.

   Of political life, Charles really left nothing for his son to
   kill. Of positive religious life, there can have been no
   important survival, for he and his Inquisition had been keenly
   vigilant; but Philip made much of the little he could
   discover. As to the industrial life of Spain, father and son
   were alike active in the murdering of it, and alike ingenious.
   They paralyzed manufactures, in the first instance, by
   persecuting and expelling the thrifty and skilful Moriscoes;
   then they made their work complete by heavy duties on raw
   materials. To extinguish the agricultural industries of the
   kingdom, they had happy inspirations.
{1066}
   They prohibited the exportation of one commodity after
   another—corn, cattle, wool, cloth, leather, and the
   like—until they had brought Spain practically to the point of
   being dependent on other countries for many products of skill,
   and yet of having nothing to offer in exchange, except the
   treasure of precious metals which she drew from America. Hence
   it happened that the silver and gold of the Peruvian and
   Mexican mines ran like quicksand through her fingers, into the
   coffers of the merchants of the Low Countries and of England;
   and, probably, no other country in Europe saw so little of
   them, had so little of benefit from them, as the country they
   were supposed to enrich.

   If the killing of Spain needed to be made complete by anything
   more, Philip supplied the need, in the deadliness of his
   taxation. Spending vast sums in his attempt to repeat upon the
   Netherlands the work of national murder he had accomplished in
   Spain; losing, by the same act, the rich revenues of the
   thrifty provinces; launching into new expenditures as he
   pursued, by clumsy warfare, his mission of death into fresh
   fields, aiming now at the life of France, and now at the life
   of England,—he squeezed the cost of his armies and armadas
   from a country in which he had strangled production already,
   and made poverty the common estate. It was the last draining
   of the life-blood of a nation which ought to have been strong
   and great, but which suffered murder most foul and unnatural.

   We hardly exaggerate even in figure when we say that Spain was
   a dead nation whim Philip quitted the scene of his arduous
   labors. It is true that his successors still found something
   for their hands to do, in the ways that were pleasant to their
   race, and burned and bled and crushed the unhappy kingdom with
   indefatigable persistency; but it was really the corpse of a
   nation which they practised on. The life of Spain, as a
   breathing, sentient state, came to an end under the hands of
   Philip II., first of the Thugs.

Philip II. and the Netherlands.

   The hand of Charles V. had been heavy on the Netherlands; but
   resistance to such a power as that of Spain in his day was
   hardly dreamed of. It was not easy for Philip to outdo his
   father's despotism; less easy to drive the laborious
   Hollanders and Flemings to desperation and force them into
   rebellious war. But he accomplished it. He filled the country
   with Spanish troops. He reorganized and stimulated the
   Inquisition. He multiplied bishoprics in the Provinces,
   against the wish of even the Catholic population. He scorned
   the counsels of the great nobles, and gave foreign advisers to
   the Regent, his half-sister, Margaret of Parma, illegitimate
   daughter of Charles V., whom he placed at the head of the
   government. His oppressions were endured, with increasing
   signs of hidden passion, for ten years. Then, in 1566, the
   first movement of patriotic combination appeared. It was a
   league among certain of the nobles; its objects were peaceful,
   its plans were legal; but it was not countenanced by the wiser
   of the patriots, who saw that events were not ripe. The
   members of the league went in solemn procession to the Regent
   with a petition; whereupon one of her councillors denounced
   them as "a troop of beggars." They promptly seized the epithet
   and appropriated it. A beggar's wallet became their emblem;
   the idea was caught up and carried through the country, and a
   visible party rose quickly into existence.

   The religious feeling now gained boldness. Enormous
   field-meetings began to be held, under arms, in every part of
   the open country, defying edicts and Inquisition. There
   followed a little later some fanatical and riotous outbreaks
   in several cities, breaking images and desecrating churches.
   Upon these occurrences, Philip despatched to the Netherlands,
   in the summer of 1567, a fresh army of Spanish troops,
   commanded by a man who was after his own heart—as mean, as
   false, as merciless, as little in soul and mind, as
   himself,—the Duke of Alva. Alva brought with him authority
   which practically superseded that of the Regent, and secret
   instructions which doomed every man of worth in the Provinces.

   At the head of the nobility of the country; by eminence of
   character, no less than by precedence in rank, stood William
   of Nassau, Prince of Orange, who derived his higher title from
   a petty and remote principality, but whose large family
   possessions were in Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Luxemburg.
   Associated closely with him, in friendship and in political
   action, were Count Egmont, and the Admiral Count Horn, the
   latter of a family related to the Montmorencies of France.
   These three conspicuous nobles Philip had marked with special
   malice for the headsman, though their solitary crime had been
   the giving of advice against his tyrannies. William of
   Orange-"the Silent," as he came to be known—far-seeing in
   his wisdom, and well-advised by trusty agents in Spain,
   withdrew into Germany before Alva arrived. He warned his
   friends of their danger and implored them to save themselves;
   but they were blinded and would not listen. The perfidious
   Spaniard lured them with flatteries to Brussels and thrust
   them into prison. They were to be the first victims of the
   appalling sacrifice required to appease the dull rage of the
   king. Within three months they had eighteen hundred
   companions, condemned like themselves to the scaffold, by a
   council in which Alva presided and which the people called
   "the Council of Blood." In June, 1568, they were brought to
   the block.

   Meantime Prince William and his brother, Louis of Nassau, had
   raised forces in Germany and attempted the rescue of the
   terrorized Provinces; but their troops were ill-paid and
   mutinous and they suffered defeat. For the time being, the
   Netherlands were crushed. As many of the people as could
   escape had fled; commerce was at a standstill; workshops were
   idle; the cities, once so wealthy, were impoverished; death,
   mourning, and terror, were everywhere. Alva had done very
   perfectly what he was sent to do.

   The first break in the blackness of the clouds appeared in
   April, 1572, when a fleet, manned by refugee adventurers who
   called themselves Sea-Beggars, attacked and captured the town
   of Brill. From that day the revolt had its right footing, on
   the decks of the ships of the best sailors in the world. It
   faced Philip from that day as a maritime power, which would
   grow by the very feeding of its war with him, until it had
   consumed everything Spanish within its reach. The taking of
   Brill soon gave the patriots control of so many places in
   Holland and Zealand that a meeting of deputies was held at
   Dort, in July, 1572, which declared William of Orange to be
   "the King's legal Stadtholder in Holland, Zealand, Friesland
   and Utrecht," and recommended to the other Provinces that he
   be appointed Protector of all the Netherlands during the
   King's absence.

{1067}

   Alva's reign of terror had failed so signally that even he was
   discouraged and asked to be recalled. It was his boast when he
   retired that he had put eighteen thousand and six hundred of
   the Netherlanders to death since they were delivered into his
   hands, above and beyond the horrible massacres by which he had
   half depopulated every captured town. Under Alva's successor,
   Don Louis de Requesens, a man of more justice and humanity,
   the struggle went on, adversely, upon the whole, to the
   patriots, though they triumphed gloriously in the famous
   defense of Leyden. To win help from England, they offered the
   sovereignty of their country to Queen Elizabeth; but in vain.
   They made no headway in the southern provinces, where
   Catholicism prevailed, and where the religious difference drew
   people more to the Spanish side. But when Requesens died
   suddenly, in the spring of 1576, and the Spanish soldiery
   broke into a furious mutiny, sacking Antwerp and other cities,
   then the nobles of Flanders and Brabant applied to the northern
   provinces for help. The result was a treaty, called the
   Pacification of Ghent, which contemplated a general effort to
   drive the Spaniards from the whole land. But not much came of
   this confederacy; the Catholic provinces never co-operated
   with the Protestant provinces, and the latter went their own
   way to freedom and prosperity, while the former sank back,
   submissive, to their chains.

   For a short time after the death of Requesens, Philip was
   represented in the Netherlands by his illegitimate
   half-brother, Don John of Austria; but Don John died in
   October, 1578, and then came the great general, Alexander
   Farnese, Prince of Parma, who was to try the patriots sorely
   by his military skill. In 1579, the Prince of Orange drew them
   more closely together, in the Union of Utrecht, which Holland,
   Zealand, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, Overyssel, and
   Groningen, subscribed, and which was practically the
   foundation of the Dutch republic, though allegiance to Philip
   was not yet renounced. This followed two years later, in July,
   1581, when the States General, assembled at the Hague, passed a
   solemn Act of Abjuration, which deposed Philip from his
   sovereignty and transferred it to the Duke of Anjou, a prince
   of the royal family of France, who did nothing for the
   Provinces, and who died soon after. At the same time, the
   immediate sovereignty of Holland and Zealand was conferred on
   the Prince of Orange.

   In March, 1582, Philip made his first deliberate attempt to
   procure the assassination of the Prince. He had entered into a
   contract for the purpose, and signed it with his own hand. The
   assassin employed failed only because the savage pistol wound
   he inflicted, in the neck and jaw of his victim, did not kill.
   The master-murderer, at Madrid, was not discouraged. He
   launched his assassins, one following the other, until six had
   made their trial in two years. The sixth, one Balthazar
   Gerard, accomplished that for which he was sent, and William
   the Silent, wise statesman and admirable patriot, fell under
   his hand (July 10, 1584). Philip was so immeasurably delighted
   at this success that he conferred three lordships on the
   parents of the murderer.

   William's son, Maurice, though but eighteen years old, was
   immediately chosen Stadtholder of Holland, Zealand and
   Utrecht, and High Admiral of the Union. In the subsequent
   years of the war, he proved himself a general of great
   capacity. Of the details of the war it is impossible to speak.
   Its most notable event was the siege of Antwerp, whose
   citizens defended themselves against the Duke of Parma, with
   astonishing courage and obstinacy, for many months. They
   capitulated in the end on honorable terms; but the prosperity
   of their city had received a blow from which it never revived.

   Once more the sovereignty of the Provinces was offered to
   Queen Elizabeth of England, and once more declined; but the
   queen sent her favorite, the Earl of Leicester, with a few
   thousand men, to help the struggling Hollanders (1585). This
   was done, not in sympathy with them or their cause, but purely
   as a self-defensive measure against Spain. The niggardliness
   and the vacillations of Elizabeth, combined with the
   incompetency of Leicester, caused troubles to the Provinces
   nearly equal to the benefit of the forces lent them. Philip of
   Spain was now involved in his undertakings with the Guises and
   the League in France, and in his plans against England, and
   was weakened in the Netherlands for some years. Parma died in
   1592, and Count Mansfield took his place, succeeded in his
   turn by the Marquis Spinola. The latter, at last, made an
   honest report, that the subjugation of the United Provinces
   was impracticable, and, Philip II. being now dead, the Spanish
   government was induced in 1607 to agree to a suspension of
   arms. A truce for twelve years was arranged; practically it
   was the termination of the war of independence, and
   practically it placed the United Provinces among the nations,
   although the formal acknowledgment of their independence was
   not yielded by Spain until 1648.

England under Mary.

   While the Netherlands had offered to Philip of Spain a special
   field for his malice, there were others thrown open to him
   which he did not neglect. He may be said, in fact, to have
   whetted his appetite for blood and for burned human flesh in
   England, whither he went, as a young prince, in 1554, to marry
   his elderly second cousin, Queen Mary. We may be sure that he
   did not check the ardor of his consort, when she hastened to
   re-establish the supremacy of the Pope, and to rekindle the
   fires of religious persecution. The two-hundred and
   seventy-seven heretics whom she is reckoned to have burned may
   have seemed to him, even then, an insignificant handful. He
   quickly tired of her, if not of her congenial work, and left
   her in 1555. In 1558 she died, and the Church of Rome fell
   once more, never to regain its old footing of authority.

{1068}

England under Elizabeth.

   Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, who now came to the
   throne, was Protestant by the necessities of her position,
   whether doctrinally convinced or no. The Catholics denied her
   legitimacy of birth, and disputed, therefore, her right to the
   crown. She depended upon the Protestants for her support, and
   Protestantism, either active or passive, had become, without
   doubt, the dominant faith of the nation. But the mild schism
   which formerly took most of its direction from Luther, had now
   been powerfully acted upon by the influence of Calvin. Geneva
   had been the refuge of many ministers and teachers who fled
   from Mary's fires, and they returned to spread and deepen in
   England the stern, strong, formidable piety which Calvin
   evoked. These Calvinistic Protestants now made themselves felt
   as a party in the state, and were known ere long by that name
   which the next century rendered famous in English and American
   history—the great name of the Puritans. They were not
   satisfied with the stately, decorous, ceremonious Church which
   Elizabeth reconstructed on the pattern of the Church of Edward
   VI. At the same time, no party could be counted on more surely
   for the support of the queen, since the hope of Protestantism
   in England depended upon her, even as she was dependent upon
   it.

   The Catholics, denying legitimacy to Elizabeth, recognized
   Mary Queen of Scots as the lawful sovereign of England. And
   Mary was, in fact, the next in succession, tracing her
   lineage, as stated before, to the elder sister of Henry VIII.
   If Elizabeth had been willing to frankly acknowledge Mary's
   heirship, failing heirs of her own body, it seems probable
   that the partisans of the Scottish queen would have been
   quieted, to a great extent. But Mary had angered her by
   assuming, while in France, the arms and style of Queen of
   England. She distrusted and disliked her Stuart cousin, and,
   moreover, the whole idea of a settlement of the succession was
   repugnant to her mind. At the same time, she could not be
   brought to marry, as her Protestant subjects wished. She
   coquetted with the notion of marriage through half her reign,
   but never to any purpose.

   Such were the elements of agitation and trouble in England
   under Elizabeth. The history of well-nigh half-a-century was
   shaped in almost all its events by the threatening attitude of
   Catholicism and its supporters, domestic and foreign, toward
   the English queen. She was supported by the majority of her
   subjects with staunch loyalty and fidelity, even though she
   treated them none too well, and troubled them in their very
   defense of her by her whims and caprices. They identified her
   cause with themselves, and took such pride in her courage that
   they shut their eyes to the many weaknesses that went with it.
   She never grasped the affairs she dealt with in a broadly
   capable way. She never acted on them with well considered
   judgment. Her ministers, it is clear, were never able to
   depend upon a reasonable action of her mind. Her vanity or her
   jealousy might put reason in eclipse at any moment, and a skilful
   flatterer could make the queen as foolish as a milkmaid. But
   she had a royal courage and a royal pride of country, and she
   did make the good and glory of England her aim. So she won the
   affection of all Englishmen whose hearts were not in the
   keeping of the Pope, and no monarch so arbitrary was ever more
   ardently admired.

Mary, Queen of Scots.

   In 1567, Mary Stuart was deposed by her own subjects, or
   forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James. She had
   alienated the Scottish people, first by her religion, and then
   by her suspected personal crimes. Having married her second
   cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, she was accused of being
   false to him. Darnley revenged his supposed wrongs as a
   husband by murdering her secretary, David Rizzio. In the next
   year (1567) Darnley was killed; the hand of the Earl of
   Bothwell appeared quite plainly in the crime, and the queen's
   complicity was believed. She confirmed the suspicions against
   herself by marrying Bothwell soon afterwards. Then her
   subjects rose against her, imprisoned her in Loch Leven
   Castle, and made the Earl of Murray regent of the Kingdom. In
   1568 Mary escaped from her Scottish prison and entered
   England. From that time until her death, in 1587, she was a
   captive in the hands of her rival, Queen Elizabeth, and was
   treated with slender magnanimity. More than before, she became
   the focus of intrigues and conspiracies which threatened both
   the throne and the life of Elizabeth, and a growing feeling of
   hostility to the wretched woman was inevitable.

   In 1570, Pope Pius V. issued against Elizabeth his formal bull
   of excommunication, absolving her subjects from their
   allegiance. This quickened, of course, the activity of the
   plotters against the queen and set treason astir. Priests from
   the English Catholic Seminary at Douai, afterwards at Rheims,
   began to make their appearance in the country; a few Jesuits
   came over; and both were active agents of the schemes on foot
   which contemplated the seating of Mary Stuart on the throne of
   Elizabeth Tudor. Some of these emissaries were executed, and
   they are counted among the martyrs of the Catholic Church,
   which is a serious mistake. The Protestantism of the sixteenth
   century was quite capable of religious persecution, even to
   death; but it has no responsibilities of that nature in these
   Elizabethan cases. As a matter of fact, the religion of the
   Jesuit sufferers in the reign of Elizabeth was a mere incident
   attaching itself to a high political crime, which no nation
   has ever forgiven.

   The plotting went on for twenty years, keeping the nation in
   unrest; while beyond it there were thickening signs of a great
   project of invasion in the sinister mind of Philip II. At
   last, in 1586, the coolest councillors of Elizabeth persuaded
   her to bring Mary Stuart to trial for alleged complicity in a
   conspiracy of assassination which had lately come to light.
   Convicted, and condemned to death, Mary ended her sad life on
   the scaffold, at Fotheringay, on the 8th of February, 1587.
   Whether guilty or guiltless of any knowledge of what had been
   done in her name, against the peace of England and against the
   life of the English queen, it cannot be thought strange that
   Protestant England took her life.

The Spanish Armada.

   A great burst of wrath in Catholic Europe was caused by the
   execution of Mary, and Philip of Spain hastened forward his
   vast preparations for the invasion and conquest of England. In
   1588, the "invincible armada," as it was believed to be,
   sailed out of the harbors of Portugal and Spain, and wrecked
   itself with clumsy imbecility on the British and Irish coasts.
   It scarcely did more than give sport to the eager English
   sailors who scattered its helpless ships and hunted them down.
   Philip troubled England no more, and conspiracy ceased.

{1069}

England at Sea.

   But the undeclared, half-piratical warfare which private
   adventurers had been carrying on against Spanish commerce for
   many years now acquired fresh energy. Drake, Hawkins,
   Frobisher, Grenvil, Raleigh, were the heroic spirits of this
   enterprising warfare; but they had many fellows. It was the
   school of the future navy of England, and the foundations of
   the British Empire were laid down by those who carried it on.

   Otherwise, Elizabeth had little war upon her hands, except in
   Ireland, where the state of misery and disorder had already
   been long chronic. The first really complete conquest of the
   island was accomplished by Lord Mountjoy between 1600 and
   1603.

Intellectual England.

   But neither the political troubles nor the naval and military
   triumphs of England during the reign of Elizabeth are of much
   importance, after all, compared with the wonderful flowering
   of the genius of the nation which took place in that age.
   Shakespeare, Spenser, Bacon, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Hooker,
   Raleigh, Sidney, are the great facts of Elizabeth's time, and
   it shines with the luster of their names, the period most
   glorious in English history.

The Religious Wars in France.

   Wherever the stealthy arm of the influence of Philip II. of
   Spain could reach, there the Catholic reaction of his time
   took on a malignant form. In France, it is quite probable that
   the Catholics and the Huguenots, if left to themselves, would
   have come to blows; but it is certain that the meddling
   fingers of the Spanish king put fierceness and fury into the
   wars of religion, which raged from 1562 to 1596, and that they
   were prolonged by his encouragement and help.

   Catherine de' Medici, to strengthen herself against the
   Guises, after the death of Francis II., offered attentions for
   a time to the Huguenot nobles, and encouraged them to expect a
   large and lasting measure of toleration. She went so far that
   the Huguenot influence at court, surrounding the young king,
   became very seriously alarming to Catholic onlookers, both at
   home and abroad. Among the many remonstrances addressed to the
   queen-regent, the one which appears to have been decisive in
   its effect came from Philip. He coldly sent her word that he
   intended to interfere in France and to establish the supremacy
   of the Catholic Church; that he should give his support for that
   purpose to any true friend of the Church who might request it.
   Whether Catherine had entertained an honest purpose or not, in
   her dealing with the Huguenots, this threat, with what lay
   behind it, put an end to the hope of justice for them. It is
   true that an assembly of notables, in January, 1562, did
   propose a law which the queen put forth, in what is known as
   the "Edict of January," whereby the Huguenots were given, for
   the first time, a legal recognition, ceasing to be outlaws,
   and were permitted to hold meetings, in the daytime, in open
   places, outside of walled cities; but their churches were
   taken away from them, they were forbidden to build more, and
   they could hold no meetings in walled towns. It was a measure
   of toleration very different from that which they had been led
   to expect; and even the little meted out by this Edict of January
   was soon shown to have no guarantee. Within three months, the
   Duke of Guise had found an opportunity for exhibiting his
   contempt of the new law, by ordering his armed followers to
   attack a congregation at Vassy, killing fifty and wounding two
   hundred of the peaceful worshippers. This outrage drove the
   Huguenots to arms and the civil wars began.

   The frivolous Anthony, King of Navarre, had been won back to
   the Catholic side. His staunch wife, Jeanne d'Albret, with her
   young son, the future Henry IV., and his brother, Louis,
   Prince of Condé, remained true to their faith. Condé was the
   chief of the party. Next to him in rank, and first in real
   worth and weight, was the noble Admiral Coligny. The first war
   was brief, though long enough to end the careers of Anthony of
   Navarre, killed in battle, and the Duke of Guise,
   assassinated. Peace was made in 1563 through a compromise,
   which conceded certain places to the Huguenots, wherein they
   might worship God in their own way. But it was a hollow peace,
   and the malicious finger of the great master of assassins at
   Madrid never ceased picking at it. In 1566, civil war broke
   out a second time, continuing until 1570. Its principal
   battles were that of Jarnac, in which Condé was taken prisoner
   and basely assassinated by his captors, and that of
   Moncontour. The Huguenots were defeated in both. After the
   death of Condé, young Henry of Navarre, who had reached his
   fifteenth year, was chosen to be the chief of the party, with
   Coligny for his instructor in war.

   Again peace was made, on a basis of slight concessions. Henry
   of Navarre married the King's sister, Margaret of Valois;
   prior to which he and his mother took up their residence with
   the court, at Paris, where Jeanne d'Albret soon sickened and
   died. The Admiral Coligny acquired, apparently, a marked
   influence over the mind of the young king; and once more there
   seemed to be a smiling future for the Reformed. But damnable
   treacheries were hidden underneath this fair showing. The most
   hideous conspiracy of modern times was being planned, at the
   very moment of the ostentatious peace-marriage of the King of
   Navarre, and the chief parties to it were Catherine de' Medici
   and the Guises, whose evil inclinations in common had brought
   them together at last. On the 22d of August, 1572, Coligny was
   wounded by an assassin, employed by the widow and son of the
   late Duke of Guise, whose death they charged against him,
   notwithstanding his protestations of innocence. Two days
   later, the monstrous and almost incredible massacre of St.
   Bartholomew's Day was begun. Paris was full of Huguenots—the
   heads of the party—its men of weight and influence—who had
   been drawn to the capital by the King of Navarre's marriage
   and by the supposed new era of favor in which they stood. To
   cut these off was to decapitate Protestantism in France, and
   that was the purpose of the infernal scheme. The weak-minded
   young king was not an original party to the plot. When
   everything had been planned, he was easily excited by a tale
   of pretended Huguenot conspiracies, and his assent to summary
   measures of prevention was secured. A little after midnight,
   on the morning of Sunday, August 24, the signal was given, by
   Catherine's order, which let loose a waiting swarm of
   assassins, throughout Paris, on the victims who had been
   marked for them. The Huguenots had had no warning; they were
   taken everywhere by surprise, and they were easily murdered in
   their beds, or hunted down in their hopeless flight.

{1070}

   The noble Coligny, prostrated by the wound he had received two
   days before, was killed in his chamber, and his body flung out
   of the window. The young Duke of Guise stood waiting in the
   court below, to gloat on the corpse and to basely spurn it
   with his foot.

   The massacre in Paris was carried on through two nights and
   two days; and, for more than a month following, the example of
   the capital was imitated in other cities of France, as the
   news of what were called "the Paris Matins" reached them. The
   total number of victims in the kingdom is estimated variously
   to have been between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand.
   Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of Condé escaped the
   massacre, but they saved their lives by a hypocritical
   abjuration of their religion.

   The strongest town in the possession of the Huguenots was La
   Rochelle, and great numbers of their ministers and people of
   mark who survived the massacre now took refuge in that city,
   with a considerable body of armed men. The royal forces laid
   siege to the city, but made no impression on its defences.
   Peace was conceded in the end on terms which again promised
   the Huguenots some liberty of worship. But there was no
   sincerity in it.

   In 1574, Charles IX. died, and his brother, the Duke of Anjou,
   who had lately been elected King of Poland, ran away from his
   Polish capital with disgraceful haste and secrecy, to secure
   the French crown. He was the most worthless of the
   Valois-Medicean brood, and the French court in his reign
   attained its lowest depth of degradation. The contending
   religions were soon at war again, with the accustomed result,
   in 1576, of another short-lived peace. The Catholics were
   divided into two factions, one fanatical, following the
   Guises, the other composed of moderate men, calling themselves
   the Politiques, who hated the Spanish influence under which
   the Guises were always acting, and who were willing to make
   terms with the Huguenots. The Guises and the ultra-Catholics
   now organized throughout France a great oath-bound "Holy
   League", which became so formidable in power that the king
   took fright, put himself at the head of it, and reopened war
   with the Reformed.

   More and more, the conflict of religions became confused with
   questions of politics and mixed with personal quarrels. At one
   time, the king's younger brother, the Duke of Alençon, had
   gone over to the Huguenot side; but stayed only long enough to
   extort from the court some appointments which he desired. The
   king, more despised by his subjects than any king of France
   before him had ever been, grew increasingly jealous and afraid
   of the popularity and strength of the Duke of Guise, who was
   proving to be a man quite superior to his father in
   capability. Guise, on his side, was made arrogant by his sense
   of power, and his ambition soared high. There were reasons for
   believing that he did not look upon the throne itself as
   beyond his reach.

   After 1584, when the Duke of Alençon (Duke of Anjou under his
   later title) died, a new political question, vastly
   disturbing, was brought into affairs. That death left no heir
   to the crown in the Valois line, and the King of Navarre, of
   the House of Bourbon, was now nearer in birth to the throne
   than any other living person. Henry had, long ere this,
   retracted his abjuration of 1572, had rejoined the Huguenots
   and taken his place as their chief. The head of the Huguenots
   was now the heir presumptive to the crown, and the wretched,
   incapable king was being impelled by his fear of Guise to look
   to his Huguenot heir for support. It was a strange situation.
   In 1588 it underwent a sinister change. Guise and his brother,
   the Cardinal, were both assassinated by the king's body-guard,
   acting under the king's orders, in the royal residence at the
   Castle of Blois. When the murder had been done, the cowardly
   king spurned his dead enemy with his foot, as Guise, sixteen
   years before, had spurned the murdered Coligny, and said "I am
   King at last." He was mistaken. His authority vanished with
   the vile deed by which he expected to reinvigorate it. Paris
   broke into open rebellion. The League renewed its activity
   throughout France. The king, abandoned and cursed on all
   sides, had now no course open to him but an alliance with
   Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots. The alliance was effected,
   and the two Henrys joined forces to subdue insurgent Paris.
   While the siege of the city was in progress (1589), Henry III.
   fell a victim, in his turn, to the murderous mania of his
   depraved age and court. He was assassinated by a fanatical
   monk.

Henry of Navarre.

   Henry of Navarre now steps into the foreground of French
   history, as Henry IV., lawful King of France as well as of
   Navarre, and ready to prove his royal title by a more useful
   reign than the French nation had known since it buried St.
   Louis, his last ancestor on the throne. But his title was
   recognized at first by few outside the party of the Huguenots.
   The League went openly into alliance with Philip of Spain, who
   even half-stopped his war in the Netherlands to send money and
   troops into France. The energies of his insignificant soul
   were all concentrated on the desire to keep the heretical
   Béarnese from the throne of France. But happily his powers
   were no longer equal to his malice; he was still staggering
   under the blow which destroyed his great Armada.

   Henry received some help in money from Queen Elizabeth, and
   5,000 English and Scotch came over to join his army. He was an
   abler general than any among his opponents, and he made
   headway against them. His splendid victory at Ivry, on the
   14th of March, 1590, inspirited his followers and took heart
   from the League. He was driven from his subsequent siege of
   Paris by a Spanish army, under the Duke of Parma; but the very
   interference of the Spanish king helped to turn French feeling
   in Henry's favor. On the 25th of July, 1593, he practically
   extinguished the opposition to himself by his final submission
   to the Church of Rome. It was an easy thing for him to do. His
   religion sat lightly on him. He had accepted it from his
   mother; he had adhered to it—not faithfully—as the creed of
   a party. He could give it up, in exchange for the crown of
   France, and feel no trouble of conscience. But the Reformed
   religion in France was really benefited by his apostacy. Peace
   came to the kingdom, as the consequence,—a peace of many
   years,—and the Huguenots were sheltered in considerable
   religious freedom by the peace. Henry secured it to them in
   1598 by the famous Edict of Nantes, which remained in force
   for nearly a hundred years.

{1071}

   The reign of Henry IV. was one of the satisfactory periods in
   the life of France, so far as concerns the material prosperity
   of the nation. He was a man of strong, keen intellect, with
   firmness of will and elasticity of temper, but weak on the
   moral side. He was of those who win admiration and friendship
   easily, and he remains traditionally the most popular of
   French kings. He had the genius for government which so rarely
   coincides with royal birth. A wise minister, the Duke of
   Sully, gave stability to his measures, and between them they
   succeeded in remarkably improving and promoting the
   agricultural and the manufacturing industries of France,
   effacing the destructive effects of the long civil wars, and
   bringing economy and order into the finances of the
   overburdened nation. His useful career was ended by an
   assassin in 1610.

Germany and the Thirty Years War.

   The reactionary wars of religion in Germany came
   half-a-century later than in France. While the latter country
   was being torn by the long civil conflicts which Henry IV.
   brought to an end, the former was as nearly in the enjoyment
   of religious peace as the miserable contentions in the bosom
   of Protestantism, between Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter
   more commonly called "the Reformed"), would permit. On the
   abdication of Charles V., in 1556, he had fortunately failed
   to bring about the election of his son Philip to the imperial
   throne. His brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and King of
   Bohemia and Hungary, was chosen Emperor, and that sovereign
   had too many troubles in his immediate dominions to be willing
   to invite a collision with the Protestant princes of Germany
   at large. The Turks had overrun Hungary and established
   themselves in possession of considerable parts of the country.
   Ferdinand obtained peace with the redoubtable Sultan Suleiman,
   but only by payments of money which bore a strong likeness to
   tribute. He succeeded, through his prudent and skilful policy,
   in making both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns practically
   hereditary in the House of Austria.

   Dying in 1564, Ferdinand transmitted both those kingdoms, with
   the Austrian Archduchy and the imperial office, to his son,
   Maximilian II., the broadest and most liberal minded of his
   race. Though educated in Spain, and in companionship with his
   cousin, Philip II., Maximilian exhibited the most tolerant
   spirit that appears anywhere in his age. Perhaps it was the
   hatefulness of orthodox zeal as exemplified in Philip which
   drove the more generous nature of Maximilian to revolt. He
   adhered to the Roman communion; but he manifested so much
   respect for the doctrines of the Lutheran that his father felt
   called upon at one time to make apologies for him to the Pope.
   Throughout his reign he held himself aloof from religious
   disputes, setting an example of tolerance and spiritual
   intelligence to all his subjects, Lutherans, Calvinists and
   Catholics alike, which ought to have influenced them more for
   their good than it did. Under the shelter of the toleration
   which Maximilian gave it, Protestantism spread quickly over
   Austria, where it had had no opportunity before; revived the
   old Hussite reform in Bohemia; made great gains in Hungary,
   and advanced in all parts of his dominions except the Tyrol.
   The time permitted to it for this progress was short, since
   Maximilian reigned but twelve years. He died in 1576, and his
   son Rudolph, who followed him, brought evil changes upon the
   country in all things. He, too, had been educated in Spain,
   but with a very different result. He came back a creature of
   the Jesuits; but so weakly wilful a creature that even they
   could do little with him. Authority of government went to
   pieces in his incompetent hands, and at last, in 1606, a
   family conclave of princes of the Austrian house began
   measures which aimed at dispossessing Rudolph of his various
   sovereignties, so far as possible, in favor of his brother
   Matthias. Rudolph resisted with some effect, and in the
   contests which ensued the Protestants of Austria and Bohemia
   improved their opportunity for securing an enlargement of
   their rights. Matthias made the concession of complete
   toleration in Austria, while Rudolph, in Bohemia, granted the
   celebrated charter, called the Letter of Majesty (1609), which
   gave entire religious liberty to all sects.

   These concessions were offensive to two princes, the Archduke
   Ferdinand of Styria, and Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, who had
   already taken the lead in a vigorous movement of Catholic
   reaction. Some proceedings on the part of Maximilian, which
   the Emperor sanctioned, against the Protestant free city of
   Donauwörth, had caused certain Protestant princes and cities,
   in 1608, to form a defensive Union. But the Elector Palatine,
   who attached himself to the Reformed or Calvinist Church, was
   at the head of this Union, and the bigoted Lutherans,
   especially the Elector of Saxony, looked with coldness upon
   it. On the other hand, the Catholic states formed a
   counter-organization—a Holy League—which was more compact
   and effective. The two parties being thus set in array, there
   rose suddenly between them a political question of the most
   disturbing character. It related to the right of succession to
   an important duchy, that of Juliers, Clèves, and Berg. There
   were several powerful claimants, in both of the Saxon
   families, and including also the Elector of Brandenburg and
   the Palsgrave of Neuberg, two members of the Union. As usual,
   the political question took possession of the religious issue
   and used it for its own purposes. The Protestant Union opened
   negotiations with Henry IV. of France, who saw an opportunity
   to weaken the House of Austria and to make some gains for
   France at the expense of Germany. A treaty was concluded, and
   Henry began active preparations for campaigns in both Germany
   and Italy, with serious intent to humble and diminish the
   Austrian power. The Dutch came into the alliance, likewise,
   and James I. of England promised his co-operation. The
   combination was formidable, and might have changed very
   extensively the course of events that awaited unhappy Germany,
   if the whole plan had not been frustrated by the assassination
   of Henry IV., in 1610. All the parties to the alliance drew
   back after that event, and both sides waited.

{1072}

   In 1611, Rudolph was deposed in Bohemia, and the following
   year he died. Matthias, already King of Hungary, succeeded
   Rudolph in Bohemia and in the Empire. But Matthias was
   scarcely stronger in mind or body than his brother, and the
   same family pressure which had pushed Rudolph aside now forced
   Matthias to accept a coadjutor, in the person of the vigorous
   Ferdinand, Archduke of Styria. For the remainder of his reign
   Matthias was a cipher, and all power in the government was
   exercised by Ferdinand. His bitter opposition to the tolerant
   policy which had prevailed generally for half-a-century was
   well understood. Hence, his rise to supremacy in the Empire
   gave notice that the days of religious peace were ended. The
   outbreak of civil war was not long in coming.

Beginning of the war in Bohemia.

   It began in Bohemia. A violation of the Protestant rights
   guaranteed by the Letter of Majesty provoked a rising under
   Count Thurn. Two of the king's councilors, with their
   secretary, were flung from a high window of the royal castle,
   and this act of violence was followed by more revolutionary
   measures. A provisional government of thirty Directors was set
   up and the king's authority set wholly aside. The Protestant
   Union gave prompt support to the Bohemian insurrection and
   sent Count Mansfield with three thousand soldiers to its aid.
   The Thirty Years War was begun (1618).

   Early in these disturbances, Matthias died (1619). Ferdinand
   had already made his succession secure, in Austria, Bohemia
   and Hungary, and the imperial crown was presently conferred on
   him. But the Bohemians repudiated his kingship and offered
   their crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, lately married
   to the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. of England.
   The Elector, persuaded, it is said, by his ambitious young
   wife, unwisely accepted the tempting bauble, and went to
   Prague to receive it. But he had neither prudence nor energy
   to justify his bold undertaking. Instead of strengthening
   himself for his contest with Ferdinand, he began immediately
   to enrage his new subjects by pressing Calvinistic forms and
   doctrines upon them, and by arrogantly interfering with their
   modes of worship. His reign was so brief that he is known in
   Bohemian annals as "the winter king." A single battle, won by
   Count Tilly, in the service of the Catholic League and of its
   chief, Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, ended his sovereignty. He
   lost his Electorate as well as his kingdom, and was a
   wandering fugitive for the remainder of his life. Bohemia was
   mercilessly dealt with by the victorious Ferdinand. Not only
   was Protestantism crushed, and Catholicism established as the
   exclusive religion, but the very life of the country,
   intellectually and materially, was extinguished; so that
   Bohemia never again stood related to the civilization of
   Europe as it had stood before, when Prague was an important
   center of learning and thought. To a less extent, Austria
   suffered the same repression, and its Protestantism was
   uprooted.

   In this sketch it is unnecessary to follow the details of the
   frightful Thirty Years War, which began as here described.
   During the first years it was carried on mainly by the troops
   of the Catholic League, under Tilly, acting against Protestant
   forces which had very little coherence or unity, and which
   were led by Count Mansfield, Christian of Anhalt, and other
   nobles, in considerable independence of one another. In 1625
   the first intervention from outside occurred. Christian IV. of
   Denmark took up the cause of threatened Protestantism. As Duke
   of Schleswig-Holstein, he was a prince of the Empire, and he
   joined with other Protestant princes in condemning the
   deposition of the Elector-Palatine, whose electorate had been
   conferred on Maximilian of Bavaria. King Christian entered
   into an alliance with England and Holland, which powers
   promised help for the reinstatement of the Elector. But the
   aid given was trifling, and slight successes which Christian
   and his German allies obtained against Tilly were soon changed
   to serious reverses.

Wallenstein.

   For the first time during the war, the Emperor now brought
   into the field an army acting in his own name, and not in that
   of the League. It was done in a singular manner—by contract,
   so to speak, with a great soldier and wealthy nobleman, the
   famous Wallenstein. Wallenstein offered to the Emperor the
   services of an army of 50,000 men, which he would raise and
   equip at his own expense, and which should be maintained
   without public cost—that is, by plunder. His proposal was
   accepted, and the formidable body of trained and powerfully
   handled brigands was launched upon Germany, for the torture
   and destruction of every region in which it moved. It was the
   last appearance in European warfare of the "condottiere" of
   the Middle Ages. Wallenstein and Tilly swept all before them.
   The former failed only before the stubborn town of Stralsund,
   which defied his siege. Mansfield and Christian of Anhalt both
   died in 1627. Peace was forced upon the Danish king. The
   Protestant cause was prostrate, and the Emperor despised its
   weakness so far that he issued an "Edict of Restitution,"
   commanding the surrender of certain bishoprics and
   ecclesiastical estates which had fallen into Protestant hands
   since the Treaty of Passau. At the same time, he yielded to
   the jealousy which Wallenstein's power had excited, by
   dismissing that commander from his service.

Gustavus Adolphus.

   The time was an unfavorable one for such an experiment. A new
   and redoubtable champion of Protestantism had just appeared on
   the scene and was about to revive the war. This was Gustavus
   Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had ambitions, grievances and
   religious sympathies, all urging him to rescue the Protestant
   states of Germany from the Austrian-Catholic despotism which
   seemed to be impending over them. His interference was
   jealously resented at first by the greater Protestant princes.
   The Elector of Brandenburg submitted to an alliance with him
   only under compulsion. The Elector of Saxony did not join the
   Swedish king until (1631) Tilly had ravaged his territories
   with ferocity, burning 200 villages. When Gustavus had made
   his footing in the country secure, he quickly proved himself
   the greatest soldier of his age. Tilly was overwhelmed in a
   battle fought on the Breitenfeld, at Leipsic. The following
   spring he was again beaten, on the Lech, in Bavaria, and died
   of wounds received in the battle. Meantime, the greater part
   of Germany was at the feet of the Swedish king; and a sincere
   co-operation between him and the German princes would probably
   have ended the war. But small confidence existed between these
   allies, and Richelieu, the shrewd Cardinal who was ruling
   France, had begun intrigues which made the Thirty Years War
   profitable in the end to France. The victories of Gustavus
   seemed to bear little fruit. Wallenstein was summoned once
   more to save the Emperor's cause, and reappeared in the field
   with 40,000 men. The heroic Swede fought him at Lützen, on the
   16th of November, 1632, and routed him, but fell in the battle
   among the slain.

{1073}

   With the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the possibility of a
   satisfactory conclusion of the war vanished. The Swedish army
   remained in Germany, under the military command of Duke
   Bernhard of Saxe Weimar and General Horn, but under the
   political direction of Axel Oxenstiern, the able Swedish
   Chancellor. On the Imperial side, Wallenstein again incurred
   distrust and suspicion. His power was so formidable that his
   enemies were afraid to let him live. They plotted his death by
   assassination, and he was murdered on the 25th of February,
   1634. The Emperor's son Ferdinand now took the command of the
   Imperial forces, and, a few months later, having received
   reinforcements from Spain, he had the good fortune to defeat
   the Swedes at Nördlingen.

The French in the War.

   The Elector of Saxony, and other Protestant princes, then made
   peace with the Emperor, and the war was only prolonged by the
   intrigues of Richelieu and for the aggrandizement of France.
   In this final stage of it, when the original elements of
   contention, and most of the original contestants, had
   disappeared, it lasted for yet fourteen years. Ferdinand II.
   died in 1637, and was succeeded by his son Ferdinand III. Duke
   Bernhard died in 1639. In the later years of the war,
   Piccolomini on the Imperial side, Baner, Torstenson and
   Wrangel at the head of the Swedes, and Turenne and Condé in
   command of the French, were the soldiers who made great names.

Destructiveness of the War.

   In 1648, the long suffering of Germany was eased by the Peace
   of Westphalia. Years of quiet, and of order fairly restored,
   would be needed to heal the bleeding wounds of the country and
   revive its strength. From end to end, it had been trampled
   upon for a generation by armies which plundered and destroyed
   as they passed. There is nothing more sickening in the annals
   of war than the descriptions which eye-witnesses have left of
   the misery, the horror, the desolation of that frightful
   period in German history. "Especially in the south and west,
   Germany was a wilderness of ruins; places that were formerly
   the seats of prosperity were the haunts of wolves and robbers
   for many a long year. It is estimated that the population was
   diminished by twenty, by some even by fifty, per cent. The
   population of Augsburg was reduced from 80,000 to 18,000; of
   Frankenthal, from 18,000 to 324 inhabitants. In Würtemberg, in
   1641, of 400,000 inhabitants, 48,000 remained; in the
   Palatinate, in 1636, there were 201 peasant farmers; and in
   1648, but a fiftieth part of the population remained"
   (Häusser).

The Peace of Westphalia.

   By the treaties of Westphalia, the religious question was
   settled with finality. Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed
   (Calvinists), were put on an equal footing of religious
   liberty. Politically, the effects of the Peace were radical
   and lasting in their injury to the German people. The few
   bonds of Germanic unity which had survived the reign of
   feudalism were dissolved. The last vestige of authority in the
   Empire was destroyed. "From this time Germany long remained a
   mere lax confederation of petty despotisms and oligarchies
   with hardly any national feeling. Its boundaries too were cut
   short in various ways. The independence of the two free
   Confederations at the two ends of the Empire, those of
   Switzerland and the United Provinces, which had long been
   practically cut off from the Empire, was now formally
   acknowledged. And, what was far more important, the two
   foreign kingdoms which had had the chief share in the war,
   France and Sweden, obtained possessions within the Empire, and
   moreover, as guarantors or sureties of the peace, they
   obtained a general right of meddling in its affairs." "The
   right of France to the 'Three Lotharingian Bishoprics,' which
   had been seized nearly a hundred years before, was now
   formally acknowledged, and, besides this, the possessions and
   rights of the House of Austria in Elsass, the German land
   between the Rhine and the Vosges, called in France Alsace,
   were given to France. The free city of Strasburg and other
   places in Elsass still remained independent, but the whole of
   South Germany now lay open to France. This was the greatest
   advance that France had yet made at the expense of the Empire.
   Within Germany itself the Elector of Brandenburg also received
   a large increase of territory" (Freeman).

   Among the treaties which made up the Peace of Westphalia was
   one signed by Spain, acknowledging the independence of the
   United Provinces, and renouncing all claims to them.

France under Richelieu.

   The great gains of France from the Thirty Years War were part
   of the fruit of bold and cunning statesmanship which Richelieu
   had ripened and plucked for that now rising nation. For a time
   after the death of Henry IV., chaos had seemed likely to
   return again in France. His son, Louis XIII., was but nine
   years old. The mother, Marie de' Medici, who secured the
   regency, was a foolish woman, ruled by Italian favorites, who
   made themselves odious to the French people. As soon as the
   young king approached manhood, he put himself in opposition to
   his mother and her favorites, under the influence of a set of
   rivals no more worthy, and France was carried to the verge of
   civil war by their puerile hostilities. Happily there was
   something in the weak character of Louis XIII. which bent him
   under the influence of a really great mind when circumstances
   had brought him within its reach. Richelieu entered the King's
   council in 1624. The king was soon an instrument in his hands,
   and he ruled France, as though the scepter was his own, for
   eighteen years. He was as pitiless a despot as ever set heel
   on a nation's neck; but the power which he grasped with what
   seemed to be a miserly and commonplace greed, was all gathered
   for the aggrandizement of the monarchy that he served. He
   believed that the nation needed to have one master, sole and
   unquestioned in his sovereignty. That he enjoyed being that
   one master, in reality, while he lived, is hardly doubtful;
   but his whole ambition is not so explained. He wrought
   according to his belief for France, and the king, in his eyes,
   was the embodiment of France. He erected the pedestal on which
   "the grand monarch" of the next generation posed with
   theatrical effect.

{1074}

   Three things Richelieu did;

   1. He enforced the royal authority, with inexorable rigor,
   against the great families and personages, who had not
   learned, even under Henry IV., that they were subjects in the
   absolute sense.

   2. He struck the Huguenots, not as a religious sect, but as a
   political party, and peremptorily stopped their growth of
   strength in that character, which had clearly become
   threatening to the state.

   3. He organized hostility in Europe to the overbearing and
   dangerous Austro-Spanish power, put France at the head of it,
   and took for her the lion's share of the conquests by which
   the Hapsburgs were reduced.

Mazarin and the Fronde.

   The great Cardinal died near the close of the year 1642; and
   Louis XIII. followed him to the grave in the succeeding May,
   leaving a son, Louis XIV., not yet five years of age, under
   the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria. The minister,
   Cardinal Mazarin, who enjoyed the confidence of the
   queen-regent, and who was supposed to enjoy her affections as
   well, had been Richelieu's disciple, and took the helm of
   government on Richelieu's recommendation. He was an adroit
   politician, with some statesmanlike sagacity, but he lacked
   the potent spirit by which his master had awed and ruled every
   circle into which he came, great or small. Mazarin had the
   Thirty Years War to bring to a close, and he managed the
   difficult business with success, wasting nothing of the effect
   of the brilliant victories of Condé and Turenne. But the war had
   been very costly. Mazarin was no better financier than
   Richelieu had been before him, and the burdens of taxation
   were greater than wise management would have made them. There
   was inevitable discontent, and Mazarin, as a foreigner, was
   inevitably unpopular. With public feeling in this state, the
   Court involved itself in a foolish conflict with the
   Parliament of Paris, and presently there was a Paris
   revolution and a civil war afoot (1649). It was a strange
   affair of froth and empty rages—this war of "The Fronde," as
   it was called—having no depth of earnestness in it and no
   honesty of purpose anywhere visible in its complications. The
   men and women who sprang to a lead in it—the women more
   actively and rancorously than the men—were mere actors of
   parts in a great play of court intrigue, for the performance
   of which unhappy France had lent its grand stage. There seems
   to have been never, in any other civil conflict which history
   describes, so extraordinary a mixture of treason and
   libertinism, of political and amorous intrigue, of
   heartlessness and frivolity, of hot passion and cool
   selfishness. The people who fought most and suffered most
   hardly appear as noticeable factors in the contest. The court
   performers amused themselves with the stratagems and bloody
   doings of the war as they might have done with the tricks of a
   masquerade.

   It was in keeping with the character of the Frondeurs that
   they went into alliance, at last, with Spain, and that, even
   after peace within the nation had been restored, "the Great
   Condé" remained in the Spanish service and fought against his
   own countrymen. Mazarin regained control of affairs, and
   managed them on the whole ably and well. He brought about an
   alliance with England, under Cromwell, and humbled Spain to
   the acceptance of a treaty which considerably raised the
   position of France among the European Powers. By this Treaty
   of the Pyrenees (1659), the northwestern frontier of the
   kingdom was both strengthened and advanced; Lorraine was shorn
   of some of its territory and prepared for the absorption which
   followed after no long time; there were gains made on the side
   of the Pyrenees; and, finally, Louis XIV. was wedded to the
   infanta of Spain, with solemn renunciations on her part, for
   herself and her descendants, of all claims upon the Spanish
   crown, or upon Flanders, or Burgundy, or Charolais. Not a
   claim was extinguished by these solemn renunciations, and the
   Treaty of the Pyrenees is made remarkable by the number of
   serious wars and important events to which it gave rise.

   Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661 and the government was assumed
   personally by Louis XIV., then twenty-three years old.

England Under the Stuarts.

   While Germany and France had, each in turn, been disordered by
   extremely unlike civil wars, one to the unmitigated
   devastation and prostration of the land, the other to the
   plain putting in proof of the nothingness of the nation at
   large, as against its monarchy and court, the domestic peace
   of England had been ruffled in a very different way, and with
   very different effects.

   The death of Queen Elizabeth united the crown of England with
   that of Scotland, on the head of James, son of the unhappy
   Mary Stuart. In England he was James I., in Scotland James VI.
   His character combined shrewdness in some directions with the
   most foolish simplicity in others. He was not vicious, he was
   not in any particular a bad man; but he was exasperating in
   his opinionated self-conceit, and in his gaucheries of mind
   and body. The Englishmen of those days did not love the Scots;
   and, all things considered, we may wonder, perhaps, that James
   got on so well as he did with his English subjects. He had
   high notions of kingship, and a superlative opinion of his own
   king-craft, as he termed the art of government. He scarcely
   deviated from the arbitrary lines which Elizabeth had laid
   down, though he had nothing of Elizabeth's popularity. He
   offended the nation by truckling to its old enemy, the King of
   Spain, and pressing almost shamefully for a marriage of his
   elder son to the Spanish infanta. The favorites he enriched
   and lavished honors upon were insolent upstarts. His treatment
   of the growing Puritanism in English religious feeling was
   contemptuous. There was scarcely a point on which any
   considerable number of his subjects could feel in agreement
   with him, or entertain towards him a cordial sentiment of
   loyalty or respect. Yet his reign of twenty-two years was
   disturbed by nothing more serious than the fatuous "gunpowder
   plot" (1605) of a few discontented Catholics. But his son had
   to suffer the retarded consequences of a loyalty growing weak,
   on one side, while royalty strained its prerogatives on the
   other.

   The reign of James I. witnessed the effective beginnings of
   English colonization in America,—the planting of a durable
   settlement in Virginia and the migration of the Pilgrim
   Fathers to New England. The latter movement (1620) was one of
   voluntary exile, produced by the hard treatment inflicted on
   those "Separatists" or "Independents" who could not reconcile
   themselves to a state-established Church. Ten years later, the
   Pilgrim movement, of Independents, was followed by the greater
   migration of Puritans—quite different in class, in character
   and in spirit.

{1075}

Charles. I.

   James died in 1625, and the troubled reign of his son, Charles
   I., began. Charles took over from his father a full measure of
   popular discontent, along with numerous active springs in
   operation for increasing it. The most productive of these was
   the favorite, Buckingham, who continued to be the sole
   counselor and minister of the young king, as he had been of
   the older one, and who was utterly hateful to England, for
   good reasons of incapacity and general worthlessness. In the
   king himself, though he had virtues, there was a coldness and
   a falsity of nature which were sure to widen the breach
   between him and his people.

   Failing the Spanish marriage, Charles had wedded (1624) a
   French princess, Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII. The
   previous subserviency to Spain had then been followed by a war
   with that country, which came to Charles among his
   inheritances, and which Buckingham mismanaged, to the shame of
   England. In 1627 another war began, but this time with France,
   on account of the Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle. Again the
   meddlesome hand of Buckingham wrought disaster and national
   disgrace, and public indignation was greatly stirred. When
   Parliament endeavored to call the incapable minister to
   account, and to obtain some security for a better management
   of affairs, the king dissolved it. Twice was this done, and
   Charles and his favorite employed every arbitrary and
   questionable device that could be contrived for them, to raise
   money without need of the representatives of the people. At
   length, in 1628, they were driven to face a third Parliament,
   in order to obtain supplies. By this time the Commons of
   England were wrought up to a high and determined assertion of
   their rights, as against the Crown, and the Puritans had
   gained a majority in the popular representation. In the lower
   House of Parliament, therefore, the demands of the king for
   money were met by a counter-demand for guarantees to protect
   the people from royal encroachments on their liberties. The
   Commons were resolute, and Charles gave way to them, signing
   with much reluctance the famous instrument known as the
   "Petition of Right," which pledged the Crown to abstain in
   future from forced loans, from taxes imposed without
   Parliamentary grant, from arbitrary imprisonments, without
   cause shown, and from other despotic proceedings. In return
   for his signature to the Petition of Right, Charles received a
   grant of money; but the Commons refused to authorize his
   collection of certain customs duties, called Tonnage and
   Poundage, beyond a single year, and it began attacks on
   Buckingham,—whereupon the king prorogued it. Shortly
   afterwards Buckingham was assassinated; a second expedition to
   relieve Rochelle failed miserably; and early in 1629
   Parliament was assembled again. This time the Puritan temper
   of the House began to show itself in measures to put a stop to
   some revivals of ancient ceremony which had appeared in
   certain churches. At the same time officers of the king, who
   had seized goods belonging to a member of the House, for
   non-payment of Tonnage and Poundage, were summoned to the bar
   to answer for it. The king protected them, and a direct
   conflict of authority arose. On the 2d of March, the king sent
   an order to the Speaker of the House of Commons for
   adjournment; but the Speaker was forcibly held in his chair,
   and not permitted to announce the adjournment, until three
   resolutions had been read and adopted, denouncing as an enemy
   to the kingdom every person who brought in innovations in
   religion, or who advised the levying of Tonnage and Poundage
   without parliamentary grant, or who voluntarily paid such
   duties, so levied. This done, the members dispersed; the king
   dissolved Parliament immediately, and his resolution was taken
   to govern England thenceforth on his own authority, with no
   assembly of the representatives of the people to question or
   criticise him. He held to that determination for eleven years,
   during which long time no Parliament sat in England, and the
   Constitution was practically obliterated.

   The leaders of the Commons in their recent proceedings were
   arrested and imprisoned. Sir John Eliot, the foremost of them,
   died in harsh confinement within the Tower, and others were
   held in long custody, refusing to recognize the jurisdiction
   of the king's judges over things done in Parliament.

Wentworth and Laud.

   One man, of great ability, who had stood at the beginning with
   Sir John Eliot, and acted with the party which opposed the
   king, now went over to the side of the latter and rose high in
   royal favor, until he came in the end to be held chiefly
   responsible for the extreme absolutism to which the government
   of Charles was pushed. This was Sir Thomas Wentworth, made
   Earl of Strafford at a later day, in the tardy rewarding of
   his services. But William Laud, Bishop of London, and
   afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was the evil counselor of
   the king, much more than Wentworth, in the earlier years of
   the decade of tyranny. It was Laud's part to organize the
   system of despotic monarchy on its ecclesiastical side; to
   uproot Puritanism and all dissent, and to cast religion for
   England and for Scotland in one mould, as rigid as that of
   Rome.

   For some years, the English nation seemed terrorized or
   stupefied by the audacity of the complete overthrow of its
   Constitution. The king and his servants might easily imagine
   that the day of troublesome Parliaments and of inconvenient
   laws was passed. At least in those early years of their
   success, it can scarcely have occurred to their minds that a
   time of accounting for broken laws, and for the violated
   pledges of the Petition of Right, might come at the end. At
   all events they went their way with seeming satisfaction, and
   tested, year by year, the patient endurance of a people which
   has always been slow to move. Their courts of Star Chamber and
   of High Commission, finding a paramount law in the will and
   pleasure of the king, imprisoned, fined, pilloried, flogged
   and mutilated in quite the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition,
   though they did not burn.
{1076}
   They collected Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary
   consent, and servile judges enforced the payment. They
   invented a claim for "ship-money" (in commutation of an
   ancient demand for ships to serve in the King's navy) from
   inland towns and counties, as well as from the commercial
   ports; and when John Hampden, a squire in Buckinghamshire,
   refused payment of the unlawful tax, their obedient judges
   gave judgment against him. And still the people endured; but
   they were laying up in memory many things, and gathering a
   store of reasons for the action that would by and by begin.

Rebellion in Scotland.

   At last, it was Scotland, not England, that moved to rebel.
   Laud and the king had determined to break down Presbyterianism
   in the northern kingdom and to force a Prayer Book on the
   Scottish Church. There was a consequent riot at St. Giles, in
   Edinburgh (1637); Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the bishop,
   and Scotland presently was in revolt, signing a National
   Covenant and defying the king. Charles, attempting to frighten
   the resolute Scots with an army which he could not pay, was
   soon driven to a treaty with them (1639) which he had not
   honesty enough to keep. Wentworth, who had been Lord Deputy of
   Ireland since 1632, and who had framed a model of absolutism
   in that island, for the admiration of his colleagues in
   England, now returned to the king's side and became his chief
   adviser. He counselled the calling of a Parliament, as the
   only means by which English help could be got for the
   restoring of royal authority in Scotland. The Parliament was
   summoned and met in April, 1640. At once, it showed a temper
   which alarmed the king and he dissolved it in three weeks.
   Again Charles made the attempt to put down his Scottish
   subjects without help from an English Parliament, and again
   the attempt failed.

The Long Parliament.

   Then the desperate king summoned another Parliament, which
   concentrated in itself, when it came together, the suppressed
   rebellion that had been in the heart of England for ten years,
   and which broke his flimsy fabric of absolutism, almost at a
   single blow. It was the famous Long Parliament of English
   history, which met in November, 1640, and which ruled England
   for a dozen years, until it gave way to the Cromwellian
   dictatorship. It sent Laud and Strafford to the Tower,
   impeached the latter and brought him to the block, within six
   months from the beginning of its session; and the king gave up
   his minister to the vengeance of the angry Commons with hardly
   one honest attempt to protect him. Laud waited in prison five
   years before he suffered the same fate. The Parliament
   declared itself to be indissoluble by any royal command; and
   the king assented. It abolished the Star Chamber and the Court
   of High Commission; and the king approved. It swept
   ship-money, and forest claims, and all of Charles' lawless
   money-getting devices into the limbo; and he put his signature
   to its bills. But all the time he was intriguing with the
   Scots for armed help to overthrow his masterful English
   Parliament, and he was listening to Irish emissaries who
   offered an army for the same purpose, on condition that
   Ireland' should be surrendered to the Catholics.

Civil War.

   Charles had arranged nothing on either of these treacherous
   plans, nor had he gained anything yet from the division
   between radicals and moderates that was beginning to show
   itself in the popular party, when he suddenly brought the
   strained situation to a crisis, in January, 1642, by his most
   foolish and arrogant act. He invaded the House of Commons in
   person, with a large body of armed men, for the purpose of
   arresting five members—Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and
   Strode—whom he accused of having negotiated treasonably with
   the Scots in 1640. The five members escaped; the House
   appealed to the citizens of London for protection; king and
   Parliament began immediately to raise troops; the nation
   divided and arrayed itself on the two sides,—most of the
   gentry, the Cavaliers, supporting the king, and most of the
   Puritan middle-class, wearing close-cut hair and receiving the
   name Roundheads, being ranged in the party of Parliament. They
   came to blows in October, when the first battle was fought, at
   Edgehill.

   In the early period of the war, the parliamentary forces were
   commanded by the Earl of Essex; and Sir Thomas Fairfax was
   their general at a later stage; but the true leader on that
   side, for war and for politics alike, was soon found in Oliver
   Cromwell, a member of Parliament, whose extraordinary capacity
   was first shown in the military organization of the Eastern
   Counties, from which he came. After 1645, when the army was
   remodeled, with Cromwell as second in rank, his real
   chieftainship was scarcely disguised. The decisive battle of
   the war was fought that year at Naseby, where the king's cause
   suffered an irrecoverable defeat.

   The Presbyterians of Scotland had now allied themselves with
   the English Roundheads, on condition that the Church of
   England should be remodeled in the Presbyterian form. The
   Puritan majority in Parliament being favorable to that form, a
   Solemn League and Covenant between the two nations had been
   entered into, in 1643, and an Assembly of Divines was convened
   at Westminster to frame the contemplated system of the Church.
   But the Independents, who disliked Presbyterianism, and who
   were more tolerantly inclined in their views, had greatly
   increased in numbers, and some of the stronger men on the
   Parliament side, including Cromwell, the strongest of all,
   were among them. This difference brought about a sharp
   struggle within the popular party for the control of the
   fruits of the triumph now beginning to seem secure. Under
   Cromwell, the Army became a powerful organization of religious
   Independency, while Parliament sustained Presbyterianism, and
   the two stood against each other as rival powers in the state.

{1077}

   At the beginning of the year 1646 the fortunes of Charles had
   fallen very low. His partisan, Montrose, in Scotland, had been
   beaten; his intrigues in Ireland, for the raising of a
   Catholic army, had only alarmed and disgusted his English
   friends; he was at the end of his resources, and he gave
   himself up to the Scots. The latter, in conjunction with the
   Presbyterian majority in Parliament, were willing to make
   terms with him, and restore him to his throne; on conditions
   which included the signing of the Covenant and the
   establishing of Presbyterianism in the Churches of both
   kingdoms. He refused the proposal, being deluded by a belief
   that the quarrel of Independents and Presbyterians would open
   his way to the recovery of power without any concessions at
   all. The Scots then surrendered him to the English, and he was
   held in confinement by the latter for the next two years,
   scheming and pursuing intrigues in many directions, and
   convincing all who dealt with him that his purposes were never
   straightforward—that he was faithless and false to the core.

   Ill-will and suspicion, meanwhile, were widening the breach
   between Parliament and the Army. Political and religious
   agitators were gaining influence in the latter and republican
   ideas were spreading fast. At length (December, 1648), the
   Army took matters into its own hands; expelled from Parliament
   those members who favored a reconciliation with the king, on
   the basis of a Presbyterian establishment of the Church, and
   England passed under military rule. The "purged" Parliament
   (or rather the purged House of Commons, which now set the
   House of Lords aside, declaring itself to be the sole and
   supreme power in the state) brought King Charles to trial in
   the following month, before a High Court of Justice created
   for the occasion. He was convicted of treason, in making war
   upon his subjects, and was beheaded on the 30th of January,
   1649.

The Commonwealth and the Protectorate.

   The king being thus disposed of, the House of Commons
   proclaimed England a Commonwealth, "without a King or House of
   Lords," took to itself the name of Parliament, and appointed
   an executive Council of State, forty-one in number. The new
   government, in its first year, had a rebellion in Ireland to
   deal with, and sent Cromwell to the scene. He crushed it with
   a merciless hand. The next year Scotland was in arms, for the
   late king's son, now called Charles II., who had entered the
   country, accepted Presbyterianism, and signed the Covenant.
   Again Cromwell was the man for the occasion, and in a campaign
   of two months he ended the Scottish war, with such decision that
   he had no more fighting to do on English or Scottish soil
   while he lived. There was war with the Dutch in 1652, 1653 and
   1654, over questions of trade, and the long roll of English naval
   victories was opened by the great soldier-seaman, Robert
   Blake.

   But the power which upheld and carried forward all things at
   this time was the power of Oliver Cromwell, master of the
   Army, and, therefore, master of the Commonwealth. The
   surviving fragment of the Long Parliament was an anomaly, a
   fiction; men called it "the Rump." In April, 1653, Cromwell
   drove the members of it from their chamber and formally took
   to himself the reins of government which in fact he had been
   holding before. A few months later he received from his
   immediate supporters the title of Lord Protector, and an
   Instrument of Government was framed, which served as a
   constitution during the next three years. Cromwell was as
   unwilling as Charles had been to share the government with a
   freely elected and representative Parliament. The first House
   which he called together was dissolved at the end of five
   months (1655), because it persisted in discussing a revision
   of the constitution. His second Parliament, which he summoned
   the following year, required to be purged by the arbitrary
   exclusion of about a hundred members before it could be
   brought to due submission. This tractable body then made
   certain important changes in the constitution, by an enactment
   called the "Humble Petition and Advice." It created a second
   house, to take the place of the House of Lords, and gave to
   the Lord Protector the naming of persons to be life-members of
   such upper house. It also gave to the Protector the right of
   appointing his own successor, a right which Cromwell exercised
   on his death-bed, in 1658, by designating his son Richard.

   The responsible rule of Cromwell, from the expulsion of the
   Rump and his assumption of the dignity of Lord Protector,
   covered only the period of five years. But in that brief time
   he made the world respect the power of England as it had never
   been respected before. His government at home was as absolute
   and arbitrary as the government of the Stuarts, but it was
   infinitely wiser and more just. Cromwell was a statesman of
   the higher order; a man of vast power, in intellect and will.
   That he did not belong to the yet higher order of commanding
   men, whose statesmanship is pure in patriotism and uncolored
   by selfish aims, is proved by his failure to even plan a more
   promising settlement of the government of England than that
   which left it, an anomalous Protectorate, to a man without
   governing qualities, who happened to be his son.

Restoration of the Stuarts.

   Richard Cromwell was brushed aside after eight months of an
   absurd attempt to play the part of Lord Protector. The
   officers of the Army and the resuscitated Rump Parliament,
   between them, managed affairs, in a fashion, for almost a
   year, and then they too were pushed out of the way by the army
   which had been stationed in Scotland, under General George
   Monk. By the action of Monk, with the consent, and with more
   than the consent, of England at large, the Stuart monarchy was
   restored. Charles II. was invited to return, and in May, 1660,
   he took his seat on the re-erected throne.

   The nation, speaking generally, was tired of a military
   despotism; tired of Puritan austerity; tired of revolution and
   political uncertainty;—so tired that it threw itself down at
   the feet of the most worthless member of the most worthless
   royal family in its history, and gave itself up to him without
   a condition or a guarantee. For twenty-five years it endured
   both oppression and disgrace at his hands. It suffered him to
   make a brothel of his Court; to empty the national purse into
   the pockets of his shameless mistresses and debauched
   companions; to revive the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud; to
   make a crime of the religious creeds and the worship of more
   than half his subjects; to sell himself and sell the honor of
   England to the king of France for a secret pension, and to be
   in every possible way as ignoble and despicable as his father
   had been arrogant and false. When he died, in 1685, the
   prospects of the English nation were not improved by the
   accession of his brother, the Duke of York, who became James
   II.
{1078}
   James had more honesty than his brother or his father; but the
   narrowness and meanness of the Stuart race were in his blood.
   He had made himself intolerable; to his subjects, both English
   and Scotch, by entering the Catholic Church, openly, while
   Charles was believed to have done the same in secret. His
   religion was necessarily bigotry, because of the smallness of
   his nature, and he opposed it to the Protestantism of the
   kingdom with a kind of brutal aggressiveness. In the first
   year of his reign there was a rebellion undertaken, in the
   interest of a bastard son of Charles II., called Duke of
   Monmouth; but it was savagely put down, first by force of
   arms, at Sedgemoor, and afterwards by the "bloody assizes" of
   the ruthless Judge Jeffreys. Encouraged by this success
   against his enemies James began to ignore the "Test Act,"
   which excluded Catholics from office, and to surround himself
   by men of his own religion. The Test Act was an unrighteous
   law, and the "Declaration of Indulgence" which James issued,
   for the toleration of Catholics and Dissenters, was just in
   principle, according to the ideas of later times; but the
   action of the king with respect to both was, nevertheless, a
   gross and threatening violation of law. England had submitted
   to worse conduct from Charles II., but its Protestant temper
   was now roused, and the loyalty of the subject was consumed by
   the fierceness of the Churchman's wrath. James' daughter,
   Mary, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange, were invited
   from Holland to come over and displace the obnoxious father
   from his throne. They accepted the invitation, November, 1688;
   the nation rose to welcome them; James fled,—and the great
   Revolution, which ended arbitrary monarchy in England forever,
   and established constitutional government on clearly defined
   and lasting bases, was accomplished without the shedding of a
   drop of blood.

The House of Orange and the Dutch Republic.

   William of Orange, who thus acquired a place in the line of
   English kings, held, at the same time, the nearly regal office
   of Stadtholder of Holland; but the office had not remained
   continuously in his family since William the Silent, whose
   great-grandson he was. Maurice, the son of the murdered
   William the Silent, had been chosen to the stadtholdership
   after his father's death, and had carried forward his father's
   work with success, so far as concerned the liberation of the
   United Provinces from the Spanish yoke. He was an abler
   soldier than William, but not his equal as a statesman, nor as
   a man. The greater statesman of the period was John of
   Barneveldt, between whom and the Stadtholder an opposition
   grew up which produced jealousy and hostility, more especially
   on the part of the latter. A shameful religious conflict had
   arisen at this time between the Calvinists, who numbered most
   of the clergy in their ranks, and a dissenting body, led by
   Jacob Hermann, or Arminius, which protested against the
   doctrine of predestination. Barneveldt favored the Arminians.
   The Stadtholder, Maurice, without any apparent theological
   conviction in the matter, threw his whole weight of influence
   on the side of the Calvinists; and was able, with the help of
   the Calvinist preachers, to carry the greater part of the
   common people into that faction. The Arminians were everywhere
   put down as heretics, barred from preaching or teaching, and
   otherwise silenced and ill treated. It is a singular fact
   that, at the very time of this outburst of Calvinistic fury,
   the Dutch were exhibiting otherwise a far more tolerant temper
   in religion than any other people in Europe, and had thrown
   open their country as a place of shelter for the persecuted of
   other lands,—both Christian sectaries and Jews. We infer,
   necessarily, that the bitterness of the Calvinists against the
   Arminians was more political than religious in its source, and
   that the source is really traceable to the fierce ambition of
   Prince Maurice, and the passion of the party which supported
   his suspicious political aims.

   Barneveldt lost influence as the consequence of the
   Calvinistic triumph, and was exposed helplessly to the
   vindictive hatred of Prince Maurice, who did not scruple to
   cause his arrest, his trial and execution (1619), on charges
   which none believed. Maurice, whose memory is blackened by
   this great crime, died in 1625, and was succeeded by his
   half-brother, Frederic Henry. The war with Spain had been
   renewed in 1621, at the end of the twelve years truce, and
   more than willingly renewed; for the merchant class, and the
   maritime interest in the cities which felt secure, preferred
   war to peace. Under a hostile flag they pushed their commerce
   into Spanish and Portuguese seas from which a treaty of peace
   would undoubtedly exclude them; and, so long as Spanish
   American silver fleets were afloat, the spoils of ocean war
   were vastly enriching. It was during these years of war that
   the Dutch got their footing on the farther sides of the world,
   and nearly won the mastery of the sea which their slower but
   stronger English rivals wrested from them in the end. Not
   until the general Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, was a final
   settlement of issues between Spain and the United Provinces
   brought about. The freedom and independence of the Provinces,
   as sovereign states, was then acknowledged by the humbled
   Spaniard, and favorable arrangements of trade were conceded to
   them. The southern, Catholic Provinces, which Spain had held,
   were retained in their subjection to her.

   Frederic Henry, the third Stadtholder, was succeeded in 1647
   by his son, William II. The latter wasted his short career of
   less than four years in foolish plotting to revolutionize the
   government and transform the stadtholdership into a monarchy,
   supported by France, for the help of which country he seemed
   willing to pay any base and treasonable price. Dying suddenly
   in the midst of his scheming, he left an unborn son—the
   future William III. of England—who came into the world a week
   after his father had left it. Under these circumstances the
   stadtholdership was suspended, with strong feelings against
   the revival of it, resulting from the conduct of William II.
   The lesser provinces then fell under the domination of
   Holland—so much so that the name of Holland began soon to be
   applied to the confederation at large, and is very commonly
   used with that meaning for a long subsequent time. The chief
   minister of the Estates of Holland, known as the Grand
   Pensionary, became the practical head of the federal
   government. After 1653 the office of Grand Pensionary was
   filled by a statesman of high ability, John de Witt, the chief
   end of whose policy appears to have been the prevention of the
   return of the House of Orange to power. The government thus
   administered, and controlled by the commercial class, was
   successful in promoting the general prosperity of the
   provinces, and in advancing their maritime importance and
   power.
{1079}
   It conducted two wars with England—one with the Commonwealth
   and one with the restored monarchy—and could claim at least
   an equal share of the naval glory won in each. But it
   neglected the land defense of the country, and was found
   shamefully unprepared in 1672, when the Provinces were
   attacked by a villainous combination, formed between Louis
   XIV. of France and his servile pensioner, Charles II. of
   England. The republic, humbled and distressed by the rushing
   conquests of the French, fixed its hopes upon the young Prince
   of Orange, heir to the prestige of a great historic name, and
   turned its wrath against the party of De Witt. The Prince was
   made Stadtholder, despite the opposition of John de Witt, and
   the latter, with his brother Cornelius, was murdered by a mob
   at Amsterdam. William of Orange proved both wise and heroic as
   a leader, and the people were roused to a new energy of
   resistance by his appeals and his example. They cut their
   dykes and flooded the land, subjecting themselves to
   unmeasured loss and distress, but peremptorily stopping the
   French advance, until time was gained for awakening public
   feeling in Europe against the aggressions of the unscrupulous
   French king. Then William of Orange began that which was to be
   his great and important mission in life,—the organizing of
   resistance to Louis XIV. Without the foresight and penetration
   of French designs which he evinced,—without his unflagging
   exertions for the next thirty years,—without his diplomatic
   tact, his skill of management, his patience in war, his
   obstinate perseverance,—it seems to be a certainty that the
   ambitious "grand monarch," concentrating the whole power of
   France in himself, would have been able to break the
   surrounding nations one by one, and they would not have
   combined their strength for an effective self-protection. The
   revolution of 1688-9 in England, which gave the crown of that
   kingdom to William, and his wife Mary, contributed greatly to
   his success, and was an event nearly as important in European
   politics at large as it was in the constitutional history of
   Great Britain.

Germany after the Thirty Years War.

   In a natural order of things, Germany should have supplied the
   main resistance to Louis XIV. and held his unscrupulous
   ambition in check. But Germany had fallen to its lowest state
   of political demoralization and disorder. The very idea of
   nationality had disappeared. The Empire, even collapsed to the
   Germanic sense, and even reduced to a frame and a form, had
   almost vanished from practical affairs. The numerous petty
   states which divided the German people stood apart from one
   another, in substantial independence, and were sundered by
   small jealousies and distrusts. Little absolute principalities
   they were, each having its little court, which aped, in a
   little way, the grand court of the grand monarch of
   France—central object of the admiration and the envy of all
   small souls in its time. Half of them were ready to bow down
   to the splendid being at Versailles, and to be his creatures,
   if he condescended to bestow a nod of patronage and attention
   upon them. The French king had more influence among them than
   their nominal Emperor. More and more distinctly the latter
   drew apart in his immediate dominions as an Austrian
   sovereign; and more and more completely Austrian interests and
   Austrian policy became removed and estranged from the interests
   of the Germanic people. The ambitions and the cares of the
   House of Hapsburg were increasingly in directions most
   opposite to the German side of its relations, tending towards
   Italy and the southeast; while, at the same time, the narrow
   church influence which depressed the Austrian states widened a
   hopeless intellectual difference between them and the northern
   German people.

Brandenburg.—Prussia.

   The most notable movements in dull German affairs after the
   Peace of Westphalia were those which connected themselves with
   the settling and centering in Brandenburg of a nucleus of
   growing power, around which the nationalizing of Germany has
   been a crystalizing process ever since. The Mark of
   Brandenburg was one of the earliest conquests (tenth century)
   of the Germans from the Wends. Prussia, afterwards united with
   Brandenburg, was a later conquest (thirteenth century) from
   Wendish or Slavonic and other pagan inhabitants, and its
   subjugation was a missionary enterprise, accomplished by the
   crusading Order of Teutonic Knights, under the authority and
   direction of the Pope. The Order, which held the country for
   more than two centuries, and ruled it badly, became
   degenerate, and about the middle of the fifteenth century it
   was overcome in war by Casimir IV. of Poland, who took away
   from it the western part of its territory, and forced it to do
   homage to him for the eastern part, as a fief of the Polish
   crown. Sixty years later, the Reformation movement in Germany
   brought about the extinguishment of the Teutonic Order as a
   political power. The Grand Master of the Order at that time
   was Albert, a Hohenzollern prince, belonging to a younger
   branch of the Brandenburg family. He became a Lutheran, and
   succeeded in persuading the Polish king, Sigismund I., to
   transfer the sovereignty of the East Prussian fief to him
   personally, as a duchy. He transmitted it to his descendants,
   who held it for a few generations; but the line became extinct
   in 1618, and the Duchy of Prussia then passed to the elder
   branch of the family and was united with Brandenburg. The Mark
   of Brandenburg had been raised to the rank of an Electorate in
   1356 and had been acquired by the Hohenzollern family in 1417.
   The superior weight of the Brandenburg electors in northern
   Germany may be dated from their acquisition of the important
   Duchy of Prussia; but they made no mark on affairs until the
   time of Frederick William I., called the Great Elector, who
   succeeded to the Electorate in 1640, near the close of the
   Thirty Years War. In the arrangements of the Peace of
   Westphalia he secured East Pomerania and other considerable
   additions of territory. In 1657 he made his Duchy of Prussia
   independent of Poland, by treaty with the Polish king. In 1672
   and 1674 he had the courage and the independence to join the
   allies against Louis XIV., and when the Swedes, in alliance
   with Louis, invaded his dominions, he defeated and humbled
   them at Fehrbellen, and took from them the greater part of
   their Pomeranian territory. When the Great Elector died, in
   1688, Brandenburg was the commanding North-German power, and
   the Hohenzollern family had fully entered on the great career
   it has since pursued.

{1080}

   Frederick William's son Frederick, with none of his father's
   talent, had a pushing but shallow ambition. He aspired to be a
   king, and circumstances made his friendship so important to
   the Emperor Leopold I. that the latter, exercising the
   theoretical super-sovereignty of the Cæsars, endowed him with
   the regal title. He was made King of Prussia, not of
   Brandenburg, because Brandenburg stood in vassalage to the
   Empire, while Prussia was an independent state.

Poland and Russia.

   When Brandenburg and Prussia united began to rise to
   importance, the neighboring kingdom of Poland had already
   passed the climax of its career. Under the Jagellon dynasty,
   sprung from the Duke Jagellon of Lithuania, who married
   Hedwig, Queen of Poland, in 1386, and united the two states,
   Poland was a great power for two centuries, and seemed more
   likely than Russia to dominate the Slavonic peoples of Europe.
   The Russians at that time were under the feet of the Mongols
   or Tartars, whose terrific sweep westwards, from the steppes
   of Asia, had overwhelmed them completely and seemed to bring
   their independent history to an end. Slowly a Russian duchy
   had emerged, having its seat of doubtful sovereignty at
   Moscow, and being subject quite humbly to the Mongol Khan.
   About 1477 the Muscovite duke of that time, Ivan Vasilovitch,
   broke the Tartar yoke and acquired independence. But his
   dominion was limited. The Poles and Lithuanians, now united,
   had taken possession of large and important territories
   formerly Russian, and the Muscovite state was entirely cut off
   from the Baltic. It began, however, in the next century, under
   Ivan the Terrible, first of the Czars, to make conquests
   southward and south-eastward, from the Tartars, until it had
   reached the Caspian Sea. The dominion of the Czar stretched
   northward, at the same time, to the White Sea, at the single
   port of which trade was opened with the Russian country by
   English merchant adventurers in the reign of Elizabeth. Late
   in the sixteenth century the old line of rulers, descended
   from the Scandinavian Ruric, came to an end, and after a few
   years Michael Romanoff established the dynasty which has
   reigned since his time.

   As between the two principal Slavonic nations, Russia was now
   gaining stability and weight, while Poland had begun to lose
   both. It was a fatal day for the Poles when, in 1573, on the
   death of the last of the Jagellons, they made their monarchy
   purely elective, abolishing the restriction to one family
   which had previously prevailed. The election was by the
   suffrage of the nobles, not the people at large (who were
   generally serfs), and the government became an oligarchy of
   the most unregulated kind known in history. The crown was
   stripped of power, and the unwillingness of the nobility to
   submit to any national authority, even that of its own
   assembly, reached a point, about the middle of the seventeenth
   century, at which anarchy was virtually agreed upon as the
   desirable political state. The extraordinary "liberum veto,"
   then made part of the Polish constitution, gave to each single
   member of the assemblies of the nobles, or of the deputies
   representing them, a right to forbid any enactment, or to
   arrest the whole proceedings of the body, by his unsupported
   negative. This amazing prerogative appears to have been
   exercised very rarely in its fullness; but its theoretical
   existence effectually extinguished public spirit and paralyzed
   all rational legislation. Linked with the singular feebleness
   of the monarchy, it leaves small room for surprise at the
   ultimate shipwreck of the Polish state.

   The royal elections at Warsaw came to be prize contests at
   which all Europe assisted. Every Court set up its candidate
   for the paltry titular place; every candidate emptied his
   purse into the Polish capital, and bribed, intrigued,
   corrupted, to the best of his ability. Once, at least (1674),
   when the game was on, a sudden breeze of patriotic feeling
   swept the traffickers out of the diet, and inspired the
   election of a national hero, John Sobieski, to whom Europe
   owes much; for it was he who drove back the Turks, in 1683,
   when their last bold push into central Europe was made, and
   when they were storming at the gates of Vienna. But when
   Sobieski died, in 1696, the old scandalous vendue of a crown
   was re-opened, and the Elector of Saxony was the buyer. During
   most of the last two centuries of its history, Poland sold its
   throne to one alien after another, and allowed foreign states
   to mix and meddle with its affairs. Of real nationality there
   was not much left to extinguish when the time of extinction
   came. There were patriots, and very noble patriots, among the
   Poles, at all periods of their history; but it seems to have
   been the very hopelessness of the state into which their
   country had drifted which intensified their patriotic feeling.

   Russia had acquired magnitude and strength as a barbaric
   power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but it was
   not until the reign of Peter the Great, which opened in 1682,
   that the great Slavonic empire began to take on a European
   character, with European interests and influences, and to
   assimilate the civilization of the West. Peter may be said to
   have knotted Russia to Europe at both extremities, by pushing
   his dominions to the Baltic on the north and to the Black Sea
   on the south, and by putting his own ships afloat in both.
   From his day, Russia has been steadily gathering weight in
   each of the two continents over which her vast bulk of empire
   is stretched, and moving to a mysterious great destiny in time
   to come.

The Turks.

   The Turks, natural enemies of all the Christian races of
   eastern and southeastern Europe, came practically to the end
   of their threatening career of conquest about the middle of
   the sixteenth century, when Suleiman the Magnificent died
   (1566). He had occupied a great part of Hungary; seated a
   pasha in Buda; laid siege to Vienna; taken Rhodes from the
   Knights of St. John; attacked them in Malta; made an alliance
   with the King of France; brought a Turkish fleet into the
   western Mediterranean, and held Europe in positive terror of
   an Ottoman domination for half a century. His son Selim added
   Cyprus to the Turkish conquests; but was humbled in the
   Mediterranean by the great Christian victory of Lepanto, won
   by the combined fleets of Spain, Venice and the Pope, under
   Don John of Austria. After that time Europe had no great fear
   of the Turk; though he still fought hard with the Venetians,
   the Poles, the Russians, the Hungarians, and, once more,
   carried his arms even to Vienna. But, on the whole, it was a
   losing fight; the crescent was on the wane.

{1081}

Last glories of Venice.

   In the whole struggle with the Ottomans, through the
   fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, the republic
   of Venice bore a noble part. She contested with them foot by
   foot the Greek islands, Peloponnesus, and the eastern shores
   of the Adriatic. Even after her commerce began to slip from
   her control, and the strength which came from it sank rapidly,
   she gave up her eastern possessions but slowly, one by one,
   and after stout resistance. Crete cost the Turks a war of
   twenty-four years (1645-1669). Fifteen years afterwards the
   Venetians gathered their energies afresh, assumed the
   aggressive, and conquered the whole Peloponnesus, which they
   held for a quarter of a century. Then it was lost again, and
   the Ionian Islands alone remained Venetian territory in the
   East.

Rise of the House of Savoy.

   Of Italy at large, in the seventeenth century, lying prostrate
   under the heavy hand of Spain, there is no history to claim
   attention in so brief a sketch as this. One sovereign family
   in the northwest, long balanced on the Alps, in uncertainty
   between a cis-Alpine and a trans-Alpine destiny, but now
   clearly committed to Italian fortunes, had begun to win its
   footing among the noticeable smaller powers of the day by
   sheer dexterity of trimming and shifting sides in the
   conflicts of the time. This was the House of Savoy, whose
   first possessions were gathered in the crumbling of the old
   kingdom of Burgundy, and lay on both slopes of the Alps,
   commanding several important passes. On the western and
   northern side, the counts, afterwards dukes, of Savoy had to
   contend, as time went on, with the expanding kingdom of France
   and with the stout-hearted communities which ultimately formed
   the Swiss Confederacy. They fell back before both. At one
   period, in the fifteenth century, their dominion had stretched
   to the Saone, and to the lake of Neufchatel, on both sides of
   it, surrounding the free city of Geneva, which they were never
   able to overcome, and the lake of Geneva entire. After that
   time, the Savoyards gradually lost territory on the Gallic
   side and won compensations on the Italian side, in Piedmont,
   and at the expense of Genoa and the duchy of Milan. The Duke
   Victor Amadeus II. was the most successful winner for his
   house, and he made his gains by remarkable manœuvering on both
   sides of the wars of Louis XIV. One of his acquisitions (1713)
   was the island kingdom of Sicily, which gave him a royal title. A
   few years later he exchanged it with Austria for the island
   kingdom of Sardinia—a realm more desirable to him for
   geographical reasons only. The dukes of Savoy and princes of
   Piedmont thus became kings of Sardinia, and the name of the
   kingdom was often applied to their whole dominion, down to the
   recent time when the House of Savoy attained the grander
   kingship of united Italy.

First wars of Louis XIV.

   The wars of Louis XIV. gave little opportunity for western and
   central Europe to make any other history than that of struggle
   and battle, invasion and devastation, intrigue and faithless
   diplomacy, shifting of political landmarks and traffic in
   border populations, as though they were pastured cattle, for
   fifty years, in the last part of the seventeenth century and
   the first part of the eighteenth (1665-1715). It will be
   remembered that when this King of France married the Infanta
   of Spain, he joined in a solemn renunciation of all rights on
   her part and on that of her children to such dominions as she
   might otherwise inherit. But such a renunciation, with no
   sentiment of honor behind it, was worthless, of course, and
   Louis XIV., in his own esteem, stood on a height quite above
   the moral considerations that have force with common men. When
   Philip IV. of Spain died, in 1665, Louis promptly began to put
   forward the claims which he had pledged himself not to make.
   He demanded part of the Netherlands, and Franche Comté—the
   old county (not the duchy) of Burgundy—as belonging to his
   queen. It was his good fortune to be served by some of the
   greatest generals, military engineers and administrators of
   the day—by Turenne, Condé, Vauban, Louvois, and others—and
   when he sent his armies of invasion into Flanders and Franche
   Comté they carried all before them. Holland took alarm at
   these aggressions which came so near to her, and formed an
   alliance with England and Sweden to assist Spain. But the
   unprincipled English king, Charles II., was easily bribed to
   betray his ally; Sweden was bought over; Spain submitted to a
   treaty which gave the Burgundian county back to her, and
   surrendered an important part of the Spanish Netherlands to
   France. Louis' first exploit of national brigandage had thus
   been a glorious success, as glory is defined in the vocabulary
   of sovereigns of his class. He had stolen several valuable
   towns, killed some thousands of people, carried misery into
   the lives of some thousands more, and provoked the Dutch to a
   challenge of war that seemed promising of more glory of like
   kind.

   In 1672 he prepared himself to chastise the Dutch, and his
   English pensioner, Charles II., with several German princes,
   joined him in the war. It was this war, as related already,
   which brought about the fall and the death of John de Witt,
   Grand Pensionary of Holland; which raised William of Orange to
   the restored stadtholdership, and which gave him a certain
   leadership of influence in Europe, as against the French king.
   It was this war, likewise, which gave the Hohenzollerns their
   first great battle-triumph, in the defeat of the Swedes,
   allies of the French, at Fehrbellin. For Frederick William,
   the Great Elector, had joined the Emperor Leopold and the King
   of Spain in another league with Holland to resist the
   aggressions of France; while Sweden now took sides with Louis.
   England was soon withdrawn from the contest, by the determined
   action of Parliament, which forced its king to make peace.
   Otherwise the war became general in western Europe and was
   frightful in the death and misery it cost. Generally the
   French had the most success. Turenne was killed in 1675 and
   Condé retired the same year; but able commanders were found in
   Luxemburg and Crequi to succeed them. In opposition to William
   of Orange, the Dutch made peace at Nimegueu, in 1678, and
   Spain was forced to give up Franche Comté, with another
   fraction of her Netherland territories; but Holland lost
   nothing. Again Louis XIV. had beaten and robbed his neighbors
   with success, and was at the pinnacle of his glory. France, it
   is true, was oppressed and exhausted, but her king was a
   "grand monarch," and she must needs be content.

{1082}

   For a few years the grand monarch contented himself with small
   filchings of territory, which kept his conscience supple and
   gave practice to his sleight-of-hand. On one pretext and
   another he seized town after town in Alsace, and, at last,
   1681, surprised and captured the imperial free city of
   Strasburg, in a time of entire peace. He bombarded Genoa, took
   Avignon from the Pope, bullied and abused feeble Spain, made
   large claims on the Palatinate in the name of his
   sister-in-law, but against her will, and did nearly what he
   was pleased to do, without any effective resistance, until
   after William of Orange had been called to the English throne.
   That completed a great change in the European situation.

Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

   The change had already been more than half brought about by a
   foul and foolish measure which Louis had adopted in his
   domestic administration. Cursed by a tyrant's impatience at
   the idea of free thought and free opinion among his subjects,
   he had been persuaded by Catholic zealots near his person to
   revoke the Edict of Nantes and revive persecution of the
   Huguenots. This was done in 1685. The fatal effects within
   France resembled those which followed the persecution of the
   Moriscoes of Spain. The Huguenots formed a large proportion of
   the best middle class of the kingdom,—its manufacturers, its
   merchants, its skilled and thrifty artisans. Infamous efforts
   were made to detain them in the country and there force them
   to apostacy or hold them under punishment if they withstood.
   But there was not power enough in the monarchy, with all its
   absolutism, to enclose France in such a wall. Vast numbers
   escaped—half a million it is thought—carrying their skill,
   their knowledge, their industry and their energy into Holland,
   England, Switzerland, all parts of Protestant Germany, and
   across the ocean to America. France was half ruined by the
   loss.

The League of Augsburg.

   At the same time, the Protestant allies in Germany and the
   North, whom Louis had held in subserviency to himself so long,
   were angered and alarmed by his act. They joined a new
   defensive league against him, formed at Augsburg, in 1686,
   which embraced the Emperor, Spain, Holland, and Sweden, at
   first, and afterwards took in Savoy and other Italian states,
   along with Germany almost entire. But the League was miserably
   unprepared for war, and hardly hindered the march of Louis'
   armies when he suddenly moved them into the Rhenish
   electorates in 1688. For the second time in his reign, and
   under his orders, the Palatinate was fearfully devastated with
   fire and sword. But this attack on Germany, occupying the arms
   of France, gave William of Orange his opportunity to enter
   England unopposed and take the English crown. That
   accomplished, he speedily brought England into the League,
   enlarging it to a "grand alliance" of all western Europe
   against the dangerous monarch of France, and inspiring it with
   some measure of his own energy and courage. France had now to
   deal with enemies on every side. They swarmed on all her
   frontiers, and the strength and valor with which she met them
   were amazing. For three years the French more than held their
   own, not only in land-fighting, but on the sea, where they
   seemed likely, for a time, to dispute the supremacy of the
   English and the Dutch with success. But the frightful draft
   made on the resources of the nation, and the strain on its
   spirit, were more than could be kept up. The obstinacy of the
   king, and his indifference to the sufferings of his people,
   prolonged the war until 1697, but with steady loss to the
   French of the advantages with which they began. Two years
   before the end, Louis had bought over the Duke of Savoy, by
   giving back to him all that France had taken from his Italian
   territories since Richelieu's time. When the final peace was
   settled, at Ryswick, like surrenders had to be made in the
   Netherlands, Lorraine, and beyond the Rhine; but Alsace, with
   Strasburg, was kept, to be a German graft on France, until the
   sharp Prussian pruning knife, in our own time, cut it away.

War of the Spanish Succession.

   There were three years of peace after the treaty of Ryswick,
   an then a new war—longer, more bitter, and more destructive
   than those before it—arose out of questions connected with
   the succession to the crown of Spain. Charles II., last of the
   Austro-Spanish or Spanish-Hapsburg kings, died in 1700,
   leaving no heir. The nearest of his relatives to the throne
   were the descendants of his two sisters, one of whom had
   married Louis XIV. and the other the Emperor Leopold, of the
   Austrian House. Louis XIV., as we know, had renounced all the
   Spanish rights of his queen and her issue; but that
   renunciation had been shown already to be wasted paper.
   Leopold had renounced nothing; but he had required a
   renunciation of her Spanish claims from the one daughter,
   Maria, of his Spanish wife, and he put forward claims to the
   Spanish succession, on his own behalf, because his mother had
   been a princess of that nation, as well as his wife. He was
   willing, however, to transfer his own rights to a younger son,
   fruit of a second marriage, the Archduke Charles.

   The question of the Spanish succession was one of European
   interest and importance, and attempts had been made to settle
   it two years before the death of the Spanish king, in 1698, by
   a treaty, or agreement, between France, England, and Holland.
   By that treaty these outside powers (consulting Spain not at
   all) undertook a partition of the Spanish monarchy, in what
   they assumed to be the interest of the European balance of
   power. They awarded Naples, Sicily, and some lesser Italian
   possessions to a grandson of Louis XIV., the Milanese
   territory to the Archduke Charles, and the rest of the Spanish
   dominions to an infant son of Maria, the Emperor's daughter,
   who was married to the elector of Bavaria. But the infant so
   selected to wear the crown of Spain died soon afterwards, and
   a second treaty of partition was framed. This gave the
   Milanese to the Duke of Lorraine, in exchange for his own
   duchy, which he promised to cede to France, and the whole
   remainder of the Spanish inheritance was conceded to the
   Austrian archduke, Charles. In Spain, these arrangements were
   naturally resented, by both people and king, and the latter
   was persuaded to set against them a will, bequeathing all that
   he ruled to the younger grandson of Louis XIV., Philip of
   Anjou, on condition that the latter renounce for himself and
   for his heirs all claims to the crown of France. The
   inducement to this bequest was the power which the King of
   France possessed to enforce it, and so to preserve the unity
   of the Spanish realm. That the argument and the persuasion
   came from Louis' own agents, while other agents amused
   England, Holland and Austria with treaties of partition, is
   tolerably clear.

{1083}

   Near the end of the year 1700, the King of Spain died; his
   will was disclosed; the treaties were as coolly ignored as the
   prior renunciation had been, and the young French prince was
   sent pompously into Spain to accept the proffered crown. For a
   time, there was indignation in Europe, but no more. William of
   Orange could persuade neither England nor Holland to war, and
   Austria could not venture hostilities without their help. But
   that submissiveness only drew from the grand monarch fresh
   displays of his dishonesty and his insolence. Philip of
   Anjou's renunciation of a possible succession to the French
   throne, while occupying that of Spain, was practically
   annulled: The government of Spain was guided from Paris like
   that of a dependency of France. Dutch and English commerce was
   injured by hostile measures. Movements alarming to Holland
   were made on the frontiers of the Spanish Netherlands.
   Finally, when the fugitive ex-king of England, James II., died
   at St. Germains, in September, 1701, Louis acknowledged James'
   son, the Pretender, as King of England. This insult roused the
   war spirit in England which King William had striven so hard
   to evoke. He had already arranged the terms of a new defensive
   Grand Alliance with Holland, Austria, and most of the German
   states. There was no difficulty now in making it an offensive
   combination.

   But William, always weak in health, and worn by many cares and
   harassing troubles, died in March, 1702, before the war which
   he desired broke out. His death made no pause in the movement
   of events. Able statesmen, under Queen Anne, his successor,
   carried forward his policy and a great soldier was found, in
   the person of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, to command
   the armies of England and the Dutch. Another commander, of
   remarkable genius, Prince Eugene of Savoy, took service with
   the Emperor, and these two, acting cordially together, humbled
   the overweening pride of Louis XIV. in the later years of his
   reign. He had worn out France by his long exactions. His
   strong ministers, Colbert, Louvois and others, were dead, and
   he did not find successors for them. He had able generals, but
   none equal to Turenne, Condé or Luxemburg,—none to cope with
   Marlborough and Prince Eugene. The war was widespread, on a
   stupendous scale, and it lasted for twelve years. Its
   campaigns were fought in the Low Countries, in Germany, in
   Italy and in Spain. It glorified the reign of Anne, in English
   history, by the shining victories of Blenheim, Ramilies,
   Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and by the capture of Gibraltar, the
   padlock of the Mediterranean. The misery to which France was
   reduced in the later years of the war was probably the
   greatest that the much suffering nation ever knew.

The Peace of Utrecht.

   Louis sought peace, and was willing to go far in surrenders to
   obtain it. But the allies pressed him too hard in their
   demands. They would have him not only abandon the Bourbon
   dynasty that he had set up in Spain, but join them in
   overthrowing it. He refused to negotiate on such terms, and
   Fortune approved his resolution, by giving decisive victories
   to his arms in Spain, while dealing, out disaster and defeat
   in every other field. England grew weary of the war when it
   came to appear endless, and Marlborough and the Whigs, who had
   carried it on, were ousted from power. The Tories, under
   Harley and Bolingbroke, came into office and negotiated the
   famous Peace of Utrecht (1713), to which all the belligerents
   in the war, save the Emperor, consented. The Emperor yielded
   to a supplementary treaty, signed at Rastadt the next year.
   These treaties left the Bourbon King of Spain, Philip V., on
   his throne, but bound him, by fresh renunciations, not to be
   likewise King of France. They gave to England Gibraltar and
   Minorca, at the expense of Spain, and Nova Scotia,
   Newfoundland and Hudson's Bay at the expense of France. They
   took much more from Spain. They took Sicily, which they gave
   to the Duke of Savoy, with the title of King; they took
   Naples, Milan, Mantua and Sardinia, which they gave to
   Austria, or, more strictly speaking, to the Emperor; and they
   took the Spanish Netherlands, which they gave to Austria in
   the main, with some barrier towns to the Dutch. They took from
   France her conquests on the right bank of the Rhine; but they
   left her in possession of Alsace, with Strasburg and Landau.
   The great victim of the war was Spain.

France at the death of Louis XIV.

   Louis XIV. was near the end of his reign when this last of the
   fearful wars which he caused was brought to a close. He died
   in September, 1715, leaving a kingdom which had reasons to
   curse his memory in every particular of its state. He had
   foiled the exertions of as wise a minister, Jean Colbert, as
   ever strove to do good to France. He had dried the sources of
   national life as with a searching and monstrous sponge. He had
   repressed everything which he could not absorb in his
   flaunting court, in his destroying armies, and in himself. He
   had dealt with France as with a dumb beast that had been given
   him to bestride; to display himself upon, before the gaze of an
   envious world; to be bridled, and spurred at his pleasure, and
   whipped; to toil for him and bear burdens as he willed; to
   tread upon his enemies and trample his neighbors' fields. It
   was he, more than all others before or after, who made France
   that dumb creature which suffered and was still for a little
   longer time, and then began thinking and went mad.

{1084}

Charles XII. of Sweden.

   While the Powers of western Europe were wrestling in the great
   war of the Spanish Succession, the nations of the North and
   East were tearing each other, at the same time, with equal
   stubbornness and ferocity. The beginning of their conflict was
   a wanton attack from Russia, Poland and Denmark, on the
   possessions of Sweden. Sweden, in the past century, had made
   extensive, conquests, and her territories, outside of the
   Scandinavian peninsula, were thrust provokingly into the sides
   of all these three neighbors. There had been three Charleses
   on the Swedish throne in succession, following Christina, the
   daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. Queen Christina, an eccentric
   character, had abdicated in 1654, in order to join the
   Catholic Church, and had been succeeded by her cousin, Charles
   X. The six years reign of this Charles was one of constant war
   with the Danes and the Poles, and almost uniformly he was the
   aggressor. His son and successor, Charles XI., suffered the
   great defeat at Fehrbellin which gave prestige to Brandenburg;
   but he was shielded by the puissant arm of Louis XIV., his
   ally, and lost no territory. More successful in his domestic
   policy than in his wars, he, both practically and formally,
   established absolutism in the monarchy. Inheriting from his
   father that absolute power, while inheriting at the same time
   the ruthless ambition of his grandfather, Charles XII. came to
   the throne in 1697.

   In the first two years of his reign, this extraordinary young
   autocrat showed so little of his character that his royal
   neighbors thought him a weakling, and Peter the Great, of
   Russia, conspired with Augustus of Poland and Frederick IV. of
   Denmark to strip him of those parts of his dominion which they
   severally coveted. The result was like the rousing of a lion
   by hunters who went forth to pursue a hare. The young Swede,
   dropping, instantly and forever, all frivolities, sprang at
   his assailants before they dreamed of finding him awake, and
   the game was suddenly reversed. The hunters became the hunted,
   and they had no rest for nine years from the implacable
   pursuit of them which Charles kept up. He defeated the Danes
   and the Russians in the first year of the war (1700). In 1702
   he invaded Poland and occupied Warsaw; in 1704 he forced the
   deposition of the Saxon King of Poland, Augustus, and the
   election of Stanislaus Leczinski. Not yet satisfied, he
   followed Augustus into his electorate of Saxony, and compelled
   him there to renounce the Polish crown and the Russian
   alliance. In 1708 he invaded Russia, marching on Moscow, but
   turning aside to meet an expected ally, Mazeppa the Cossack.
   It was the mistake which Napoleon repeated a century later.
   The Swedes exhausted themselves in the march, and the Russians
   bided their time. Peter the Czar had devoted eight years,
   since Charles defeated him at Narva, to making soldiers,
   well-trained, out of the mob which that fight scattered. When
   Charles had worn his army down to a slender and disheartened
   force, Peter struck and destroyed it at Pultowa. Charles
   escaped from the wreck and took refuge, with a few hundreds of
   is guards, in the Turkish province of Bessarabia, at Bender. In
   that shelter, which the Ottomans hospitably accorded to him,
   he remained for five years, intriguing to bring the Porte into
   war with his Muscovite enemy, while all the fruits of his nine
   years of conquest in the North were stripped from him by the
   old league revived. Augustus returned to Poland and recovered
   his crown. Peter took possession of Livonia, Ingria, and a
   great part of Finland. Frederick IV., of Denmark, attacked
   Sweden itself. The kingless kingdom made a valiant defense
   against the crowd of eager enemies; but Charles had used the
   best of its energies and its resources, and it was not strong.

   Near the end of 1710, Charles succeeded in pushing the Sultan
   into war with the Czar, and the latter, advancing into
   Moldavia, rashly placed himself in a position of great peril,
   where the Turks had him really at their mercy. But Catherine,
   the Czarina, who was present, found means to bribe the Turkish
   vizier in command, and Peter escaped with no loss more serious
   than the surrender of Azov. That ended the war, and the hopes
   of the Swedish king. But still the stubborn Charles wearied
   the Porte with his importunities, until he was commanded to
   quit the country. Even then he refused to depart,—resisted
   when force was used to expel him, and did not take his leave
   until late in November, 1714, when he received intelligence
   that his subjects were preparing to appoint his sister regent
   of the kingdom and to make peace with the Czar. That news
   hurried him homeward; but only for continued war. He was about
   to make terms with Russia, and to secure her alliance against
   Denmark, Poland and Hanover, when he was killed during an
   invasion of Norway, in the siege of Friedrickshall (December,
   1718). The crown of Sweden was then conferred upon his sister,
   but shorn of absolute powers, and practically dependent upon
   the nobles. All the wars in which Charles XII. had involved
   his kingdom were brought to an end by great sacrifices, and
   Russia rose to the place of Sweden as the chief power in the
   North. The Swedes paid heavily for the career of their
   "Northern Alexander."

Alliance against Spain.

   Before the belligerents in the North had quieted themselves,
   those of the West were again in arms. Spain had fallen under
   the influence of two eager and restless ambitions, that of the
   queen, Elizabeth of Parma, and an Italian minister, Cardinal
   Alberoni; and the schemes into which these two drew the
   Bourbon king, Philip V., soon ruptured the close relations
   with France which Louis XIV. had ruined his kingdom to bring
   about. To check them, a triple alliance was formed (1717)
   between France, England and Holland,—enlarged the next year
   to a quadruple alliance by the adhesion of Austria. At the
   outset of the war, Spain made a conquest of Sardinia, and
   almost accomplished the same in Sicily; but the English
   crushed her navy and her rising commerce, while the French
   crossed the Pyrenees with an army which the Spaniards could
   not resist. A vast combination which Alberoni was weaving, and
   which took in Charles XII., Peter the Great, the Stuart
   pretender, the English Jacobites, and the opponents of the
   regency in France, fell to pieces when the Swedish king fell.
   Alberoni was driven from Spain and all his plans were given
   up. The Spanish king withdrew from Sicily and surrendered
   Sardinia. The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchanged islands,
   as stated before, and the former (holding Naples already)
   revived the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, while the latter
   became King of Sardinia.

{1085}

War of the Polish Succession.

   These disturbances ended, there were a few years of rest in
   Europe, and then another war, of the character peculiar to the
   eighteenth century, broke out. It had its cause in the Polish
   election of a king to succeed Augustus II. As usual, the
   neighboring nations formed a betting ring of onlookers, so to
   speak, and "backed" their several candidates heavily. The
   deposed and exiled king, Stanislaus Leczinski, who received
   his crown from Charles XII. and lost it after Pultowa, was the
   French candidate; for he had married his daughter to Louis XV.
   Frederick Augustus of Saxony, son of the late King Augustus,
   was the Russian and Austrian candidate. The contest resulted
   in a double election (1733), and out of that came war. Spain
   and Sardinia joined France, and the Emperor had no allies.
   Hence the House of Austria suffered greatly in the war, losing
   the Two Sicilies, which went to Spain, and were conferred on a
   younger son of the king, creating a third Bourbon monarchy.
   Part of the duchy of Milan was also yielded by Austria to the
   King of Sardinia; and the Duke of Lorraine, husband of the
   Emperor's daughter, Maria Theresa, gave up his duchy to
   Stanislaus, who renounced therefor his claim on the crown of
   Poland. The Duke of Lorraine received as compensation a right
   of succession to the grand duchy of Tuscany, where the
   Medicean House was about to expire. These were the principal
   consequences, humiliating to Austria, of what is known as the
   First Family Compact of the French and Spanish Bourbons.

War of Jenkins' Ear.

   This alliance between the two courts gave encouragement to
   hostile demonstrations in the Spanish colonies against English
   traders, who were accused of extensive smuggling, and the
   outcome was a petty war (1739), called "the War of Jenkins'
   Ear."

War of the Austrian Succession.

   Before these hostilities were ended, another "war of
   succession," more serious than any before it, was wickedly
   brought upon Europe. The Emperor, Charles VI., died in 1740,
   leaving no son, but transmitting his hereditary dominions to
   his eldest daughter, the celebrated Maria Theresa, married to
   the ex-Duke of Lorraine. Years before his death he had sought
   to provide against any possible disputing of the succession,
   by an instrument known as the Pragmatic Sanction, to which he
   obtained, first, the assent of the estates of all the
   provinces and kingdoms of the Austrian realm, and, secondly,
   the guaranty by solemn treaty of almost every European Power.
   He died in the belief that he had established his daughter
   securely, and left her to the enjoyment of a peaceful reign.
   It was a pitiful illusion. He was scarcely in his grave before
   half the guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction were putting
   forward claims to this part and that part of the Austrian
   territories. The Elector of Bavaria, the Elector of Saxony (in
   his wife's name) and the King of Spain, claimed the whole
   succession; the two first mentioned on grounds of collateral
   lineage, the latter (a Bourbon cuckoo in the Spanish-Hapsburg
   nest) as being the heir of the Hapsburgs of Spain.

   While these larger pretensions were still jostling each other
   in the diplomatic stage, a minor claimant, who said little but
   acted powerfully, sent his demands to the Court of Vienna with
   an army following close at their heels. This was Frederick II.
   of Prussia, presently known as Frederick the Great, who
   resuscitated an obsolete claim on Silesia and took possession
   of the province (1740-41) without waiting for debate. If,
   anywhere, there had been virtuous hesitations before, his bold
   stroke ended them. France could not see her old Austrian rival
   dismembered without hastening to grasp a share. She contracted
   with the Spanish king and the Elector of Bavaria to enforce
   the latter's claims, and to take the Austrian Netherlands in
   prospect for compensation, while Spain should find indemnity
   in the Austro-Italian states. Frederick of Prussia, having
   Silesia in hand, offered to join Maria Theresa in the defense
   of her remaining dominions; but his proposals were refused,
   and he entered the league against her. Saxony did the same.
   England and Sardinia were alone in befriending Austria, and
   England was only strong at sea. Maria Theresa found her
   heartiest support in Hungary, where she made a personal appeal
   to her subjects, and enlarged their constitutional privileges.
   In 1742 the Elector of Bavaria was elected Emperor, as Charles
   VII. In the same year, Maria Theresa, acting under pressure
   from England, gave up the greater part of Silesia to
   Frederick, by treaty, as a price paid, not for the help he had
   offered at first, but barely for his neutrality. He abandoned
   his allies and withdrew from the war. His retirement produced
   an immense difference in the conditions of the contest. Saxony
   made peace at the same time, and became an active ally on the
   Austrian side. So rapidly did the latter then recover their
   ground and the French slip back that Frederick, after two
   years of neutrality, became alarmed, and found a pretext to
   take up arms again. The scale was now tipped to the side on
   which he threw himself, but not immediately; and when, in
   1745, the Emperor, Charles VII., died suddenly, Maria Theresa
   was able to secure the election of her husband, Francis of
   Lorraine (or Tuscany), which founded the Hapsburg-Lorraine
   dynasty on the imperial throne. This was in September. In the
   following December Frederick was in Dresden, and Saxony—the
   one effective ally left to the Austrians, since England had
   withdrawn from the war in the previous August—was at his
   feet. Maria Theresa, having the Spaniards and the French still
   to fight in Italy and the Netherlands, could do nothing but make
   terms with the terrible Prussian king. The treaty, signed at
   Dresden on Christmas Day, 1745, repeated the cession of
   Silesia to Frederick, with Glatz, and restored Saxony to the
   humbled Elector.

Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

   France and Spain, deserted the second time by their faithless
   Prussian ally, continued the war until 1748, when the
   influence of England and Holland brought about a treaty of
   peace signed at Aix-la-Chapelle. France gained nothing from
   the war, but had suffered a loss of prestige, distinctly.
   Austria, besides giving up Silesia to Frederick of Prussia,
   was required to surrender a bit of Lombardy to the King of
   Sardinia, and to make over Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla to
   Don Philip of Spain, for a hereditary principality. Under the
   circumstances, the result to Maria Theresa was a notable
   triumph, and she shared with her enemy, Frederick, the
   fruitage of fame harvested in the war. But antagonism between
   these two, and between the interests and ambitions which they
   respectively represented—dynastic on one side and national
   on the other—was henceforth settled and irreconcilable, and
   could leave in Germany no durable peace.

{1086}

Colonial conflicts of France and England.

   The peace was broken, not for Germany alone, but for Europe
   and for almost the world at large, in six years after the
   signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The rupture occurred
   first very far from Europe—on the other sides of the globe,
   in America and Hindostan, where England and France were eager
   rivals in colonial conquest. In America, they had quarreled
   since the Treaty of Utrecht over the boundaries of Acadia, or
   Nova Scotia, which that treaty transferred to England.
   Latterly, they had come to a more serious collision in the
   interior of the continent. The English, rooting their
   possession of the Atlantic seaboard by strong and stable
   settlements, had been tardy explorers and slow in passing the
   Alleganies to the region inland. On the other hand, the
   French, nimble and enterprising in exploration, and in
   military occupation, but superficial and artificial in
   colonizing, had pushed their way by a long circuit from
   Canada, through the great lakes to the head waters of the
   Ohio, and were fortifying a line in the rear of the British
   colonies, from the valley of the St. Lawrence to the valley of
   the Mississippi, before the English were well aware of their
   intent. Then the colonists, Virginians and Pennsylvanians,
   took arms, and the career of George Washington was begun as
   leader of an expedition in 1754 to drive the French from the
   Ohio. It was not successful, and a strong force of regular
   troops was sent over next year by the British government,
   under Braddock, to repeat the attempt. A frightful
   catastrophe, worse than failure, came of this second
   undertaking, and open war between France and England, which
   had not yet been declared, followed soon. This colonial
   conflict of England and France fired the train, so to speak,
   which caused a great explosion of suppressed hostilities in
   Europe.

The House of Hanover in England.

   If the English crown had not been worn by a German king,
   having a German principality to defend, the French and English
   might have fought out their quarrel on the ocean, and in the
   wilderness of America, or on the plains of the Carnatic,
   without disturbing their continental neighbors. But England
   was now under a new, foreign-bred line of sovereigns,
   descended from that daughter of James I., the princess
   Elizabeth, who married the unfortunate Elector Palatine and
   was queen of Bohemia for a brief winter term. After William of
   Orange died, his wife, Queen Mary, having preceded him to the
   grave, and no children having been born to them, Anne, the
   sister of Mary, had been called to the throne. It was in her
   reign that the brilliant victories of Marlborough were won,
   and in her reign that the Union of Scotland with England,
   under one parliament as well as one sovereign, was brought
   about. On Anne's death (1714), her brother, the son of James
   II., called "the Pretender," was still excluded from the
   throne, because of his religion, and the next heir was sought
   and summoned, in the person of the Elector George, of Hanover,
   whose remote ancestress was Elizabeth Stuart. George I. had
   reigned thirteen years, and his son, George II., had been
   twenty-seven years on the throne, when these quarrels with
   France arose. Throughout the two reigns, until 1742, the
   English nation had been kept mostly at peace, by the potent
   influence of a great minister, Sir Robert Walpole, and had
   made a splendid advance in material prosperity and strength;
   while the system of ministerial government, responsible to
   Parliament and independent of the Crown, which has been in
   later times the peculiar feature of the British constitution,
   was taking shape. In 1742, Walpole fell from power, and the
   era of peace for England was ended. But her new dynasty had
   been firmly settled, and politically, industrially, and
   commercially, the nation was so sound in its condition as to
   be well prepared for the series of wars into which it plunged.
   In the War of the Austrian Succession England had taken a limited
   part, and with small results to herself. She was now about to
   enter, under the lead of the high spirited and ambitious Pitt,
   afterwards Earl of Chatham, the greatest career of conquest in
   her history.

[Image: Europe 1768 A. D.]

The Seven Years War.

   As before said, it was the anxiety of George II. for his
   electorate of Hanover which caused an explosion of hostilities
   in Europe to occur, as consequence of the remote fighting of
   French and English colonists in America. For the strengthening
   of Hanover against attacks from France, he sought an alliance
   with Frederick of Prussia. This broke the long-standing
   anti-French alliance of England with Austria, and Austria
   joined fortunes with her ancient Bourbon enemy, in order to be
   helped to the revenge which Maria Theresa now promised herself
   the pleasure of executing upon the Prussian king. As the
   combination finally shaped itself on the French side, it
   embraced France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Poland, Saxony, and
   the Palatinate, and its inspiring purpose was to break Prussia
   down and partition her territories, rather than to support
   France against England. The agreements to this end were made
   in secret; but Frederick obtained knowledge of them, and
   learned that papers proving the conspiracy against him were in
   the archives of the Saxony government, at Dresden. His action was
   decided with that promptitude which so often disconcerted his
   enemies. He did not wait to be attacked by the tremendous
   league formed against him, nor waste time in efforts to
   dissolve it, but defiantly struck the first blow. He poured
   his army into Saxony (August, 1756), seized Dresden by
   surprise, captured the documents he desired, and published
   them to the world in vindication of his summary precipitation
   of war. Then, blockading the Saxon army in Pirna, he pressed
   rapidly into Bohemia, defeated the Austrians at Lowositz, and
   returned as rapidly, to receive the surrender of the Saxons
   and to enlist most of them in his own ranks. This was the
   European opening of the Seven Years War, which raged, first
   and last, in all quarters of the globe. In the second year of
   the war, Frederick gained an important victory at Prague and
   suffered a serious reverse at Kolin, which threw most of
   Silesia into the hands of the Austrians. Close following that
   defeat came crushing news from Hanover, where the incompetent
   Duke of Cumberland, commanding for his father, the English
   King George, had allowed the French to force him to an
   agreement which disbanded his army, and left Prussia alone in
   the terrific fight. Frederick's position seemed desperate; but
   his energy retrieved it.
{1087}
   He fought and defeated the French at Rossbach, near Lützen, on
   the 5th of November, and the Austrians, at Leuthen, near
   Breslau, exactly one month later. In the campaigns of 1758, he
   encountered the Russians at Zorndorf, winning a bloody
   triumph, and he sustained a defeat at Hochkirk, in battle with
   the Austrians. But England had repudiated Cumberland's
   convention and recalled him; English and Hanoverian forces
   were again put into the field, under the capable command of
   Prince Frederick of Brunswick, who turned the tide in that
   quarter against the French, and the results of the year were
   generally favorable to Frederick. In 1759, the Hanoverian
   army, under Prince Ferdinand, improved the situation on that
   side; but the prospects of the King of Prussia were clouded by
   heavy disasters. Attempting to push a victory over the
   Russians too far, at Kunersdorf, he was terribly beaten. He
   lost Dresden, and a great part of Saxony. In the next year he
   recovered all but Dresden, which he wantonly and inhumanly
   bombarded. The war was now being carried on with great
   difficulty by all the combatants. Prussia, France and Austria
   were suffering almost equally from exhaustion; the misery
   among their people was too great to be ignored; the armies of
   each had dwindled. The opponents of Pitt's war policy in
   England overcame him, in October, 1761, whereupon he resigned,
   and the English subsidy to Frederick was withdrawn. But that
   was soon made up to him by the withdrawal of Russia from the
   war, at the beginning of 1762, when Peter of Holstein, who
   admired Frederick, became Czar. Sweden made peace a little
   later. The remainder of the worn and wearied fighters went on
   striking at each other until near the end of the year.

   Meantime, on the colonial and East Indian side of it, this
   prodigious Seven Years War, as a great struggle for
   world-empire between England and France, had been adding
   conquest to conquest and triumph to triumph for the former. In
   1759, Wolfe had taken Quebec and died on the Heights of
   Abraham in the moment of victory. Another twelve months saw
   the whole of Canada clear of Frenchmen in arms. In the East,
   to use the language of Macaulay, "conquests equalling in
   rapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and
   Pizarro, had been achieved." "In the space of three years the
   English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been
   defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had yielded to
   Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa,
   and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was
   more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been."

Treaties of Paris and Hubertsburg.

   In February, 1763, two treaties of peace were concluded, one
   at Paris, on the 10th, between England, France and Spain (the
   latter Power having joined France in the war as late as
   January, 1762); the other at Hubertsburg, on the 15th, between
   Prussia and Austria. France gave up to England all her
   possessions in North America, except Louisiana (which passed
   to Spain,), and yielded Minorca, but recovered the
   Philippines. She surrendered, moreover, considerable interests
   in the West Indies and in Africa. The colonial aspirations of
   the French were cast down by a blow that was lasting in its
   effect. As between Prussia and Austria, the triumphs of the
   peace and the glories of the war were won entirely by the
   former. Frederick came out of it, "Frederick the Great," the
   most famous man of his century, as warrior and as statesman,
   both. He had defended his little kingdom for seven years
   against three great Powers, and yielded not one acre of its
   territory. He had raised Prussia to the place in Germany from
   which her subsequent advance became easy and almost
   inevitable. But the great fame he earned is spotted with many
   falsities and much cynical indifference to the commonest
   ethics of civilization. His greatness is of that character
   which requires to be looked at from selected standpoints.


Russia.

   Another character, somewhat resembling that of Frederick, was
   now drawing attention on the eastern side of Europe. Since the
   death of Peter the Great, the interval in Russian history had
   been covered by six reigns, with a seventh just opening, and
   the four sovereigns who really exercised power were women.
   Peter's widow, Catherine I., had succeeded him (1725) for two
   years. His son, Alexis, he had put to death; but Alexis left a
   son, Peter, to whom Catherine bequeathed the crown. Peter II.
   died after a brief reign, in 1730; and the nearest heirs were
   two daughters of Peter the Great, Anne and Elizabeth. But they
   were set aside in favor of another Anne—Anne of
   Courland—daughter of Peter the Great's brother. Anne's reign
   of ten years was under the influence of German favorites and
   ministers, and nearly half of it was occupied with a Turkish
   War, in cooperation with Austria. For Austria the war had most
   humiliating results, costing her Belgrade, all of Servia, part
   of Bosnia and part of Wallachia. Russia won back Asov, with
   fortifications forbidden, and that was all. Anne willed her
   crown to an infant nephew, who appears in the Russian annals
   as Ivan VI.; but two regencies were overthrown by palace
   revolutions within little more than a year, and the second one
   carried to the throne that Princess Elizabeth, younger
   daughter of Peter the Great, who had been put aside eleven
   years before. Elizabeth, a woman openly licentious and
   intemperate, reigned for twenty-one years, during the whole
   important period of the War of the Austrian Succession, and
   almost to the end of the Seven Years War. She was bitterly
   hostile to Frederick the Great, whose sharp tongue had
   offended her, and she joined Maria Theresa with eagerness in
   the great effort of revenge, which failed. In the early part
   of her reign, war with Sweden had been more successful and had
   added South Finland to the Russian territories. It is claimed
   for her domestic government that the general prosperity of the
   country was advanced.

{1088}

Catherine II.

   On the death of Elizabeth, near the end of the year 1761, the
   crown passed to her nephew, Peter of Holstein, son of her
   eldest sister, Anne, who had married the Duke of Holstein.
   This prince had been the recognized heir, living at the
   Russian court, during the whole of Elizabeth's reign. He was
   an ignorant boor, and he had become a besotted drunkard. Since
   1744 he had been married to a young German princess, of the
   Anhalt Zerbst family, who took the baptismal name of Catherine
   when she entered the Greek Church. Catherine possessed a superior
   intellect and a strong character; but the vile court into
   which she came as a young girl, bound to a disgusting husband,
   had debauched her in morals and lowered her to its own
   vileness. She gained so great an ascendancy that the court was
   subservient to her, from the time that her incapable husband,
   Peter III., succeeded to the throne. He reigned by sufferance
   for a year and a half, and then (July, 1762) he was easily
   deposed and put to death. In the deposition, Catherine was the
   leading actor. Of the subsequent murder, some historians are
   disposed to acquit her. She did not scruple, at least, to
   accept the benefit of both deeds, which raised her, alone, to
   the throne of the Czars.

Partition of Poland.

   Peter III., in his short reign, had made one important change
   in Russian policy, by withdrawing from the league against
   Frederick of Prussia, whom he greatly admired. Catherine found
   reasons, quite aside from those of personal admiration, for
   cultivating the friendship of the King of Prussia, and a close
   understanding with that astute monarch was one of the earliest
   objects of her endeavor. She had determined to put an end to
   the independence of Poland. As she first entertained the
   design, there was probably no thought of the partitioning
   afterwards contrived. But her purpose was to keep the Polish
   kingdom in disorder and weakness, and to make Russian
   influence supreme in it, with views, no doubt, that looked
   ultimately to something more. On the death of the Saxon king
   of Poland, Augustus III., in 1763, Catherine put forward a
   native candidate for the vacant throne, in the person of
   Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a Russianized Pole and a former lover
   of her own. The King of Prussia supported her candidate, and
   Poniatowsky was duly elected, with 10,000 Russian troops in
   Warsaw to see that it was properly done. The Poles were
   submissive to the invasion of their political independence;
   but when Catherine, who sought to create a Russian party in
   Poland by protecting the members of the Greek Church and the
   Protestants, against the intolerance of the Polish Catholics,
   forced a concession of civil equality to the former (1768),
   there was a wide-spread Catholic revolt. In the fierce war
   which followed, a band of Poles was pursued across the Turkish
   border, and a Turkish town was burned by the Russian pursuers.
   The Sultan, who professed sympathy with the Poles, then
   declared war against Russia. The Russo-Turkish war, in turn,
   excited Austria, which feared Russian conquests from the
   Turks, and another wide disturbance of the peace of Europe
   seemed threatening. In the midst of the excitement there came
   a whispered suggestion, to the ear of the courts of Vienna and
   St. Petersburg, that they severally satisfy their territorial
   cravings and mutually assuage each other's jealousy, at the
   expense of the crumbling kingdom of Poland. The whisper may
   have come from Frederick II. of Prussia, or it may not. There
   are two opinions on the point. From whatever source it came,
   it found favorable consideration at Vienna and St. Petersburg,
   and between February and August, 1772, the details of the
   partition were worked out.

   Poland was not yet extinguished. The kingdom was only shorn of
   some 160,000 square miles of territory, more than half of
   which went to Russia, a third to Austria, and the remainder,
   less than 10,000 square miles, to Prussia. This last mentioned
   annexation was the old district of West Prussia which the
   Polish king, Casimir IV., had wrested from the Teutonic
   Knights in 1466, before Brandenburg had aught to do with
   Prussian lands or name. After three centuries, Frederick
   reclaimed it.

   The diminished kingdom of Poland showed more signs of a true
   national life, of an earnest national feeling, of a sobered
   and rational patriotism, than had appeared in its former
   history. The fatal powers monopolized by the nobles, the
   deadly "liberum veto," the corrupting elective kingship, were
   looked at in their true light, and in May, 1791, a new
   constitution was adopted which reformed those evils. But a few
   nobles opposed the reformation and appealed to Russia,
   supplying a pretext to Catherine on which she filled Poland
   with her troops. It was in vain that the patriot Kosciusko led
   the best of his countrymen in a brave struggle with the
   invader. They were overborne (1793-1794); the unhappy nation
   was put in fetters, while Catherine and a new King of Prussia,
   Frederick William II., arranged the terms of a second
   partition. This gave to Prussia an additional thousand square
   miles, including the important towns of Danzig and Thorn,
   while Russia took four times as much. A year later, the small
   remainder of Polish territory was dismembered and divided
   between Russia, Prussia and Austria, and thus Poland
   disappeared from the map of Europe as a state.


Russia as left by Catherine II.

   Meantime, in her conflicts with the Turks, Catherine was
   extending her vast empire to the Dneister and the Caucasus,
   and opening a passage for her fleets from the Black Sea to the
   Mediterranean. By treaty in 1774 she placed the Tartars of the
   Crimea in independence of the Turks, and so isolated them for
   easy conquest. In 1783 the conquest was made complete. By the
   same treaty she secured a right of remonstrance on behalf of
   the Christian subjects of the Sultan, in the Danubian
   principalities and in the Greek Church at Constantinople,
   which opened many pretexts for future interference and for war
   at Russian convenience. The aggressions of the strong-willed
   and powerful Czarina, and their dazzling success, filled her
   subjects with pride, and effaced all remembrance of her
   foreign origin and her want of right to the seat which she
   filled. She was ambitious to improve the empire, as well as to
   expand it; for her liberal mind took in the large ideas of that
   speculative age and was much moved by them. She attempted many
   reforms; but most things that she tried to do for the
   bettering of civilization and the lifting of the people were
   done imperiously, and spoiled by the autocratic method of the
   doing. In her later years, her inclination towards liberal
   ideas was checked, and the French Revolution put an end to it.

{1089}

State of France in the Eighteenth Century.

   In tracing the destruction of Poland and the aggrandizement of
   Russia, we have passed the date of that great catastrophe in
   France which ended the old modern order of things, and
   introduced a new one, not for France only, but for Europe at
   large. It was a catastrophe toward which the abused French
   people had been slowly slipping for generations, pushed
   unrelentingly to it by blind rulers and a besotted
   aristocracy. By nature a people ardent and lively in temper,
   hopeful and brave in spirit, full of intelligence, they had
   been held down in dumb repression: silenced in voice, even for
   the uttering of their complaints; the national meeting of
   their representative States suppressed for nearly two
   centuries; taxes wrung from them on no measure save the will
   of a wanton-minded and ignorant king; their beliefs
   prescribed, their laws ordained, their courts of justice
   commanded, their industries directed, their trade hedged
   round, their rights and permissions in all particulars meted
   out to them by the same blundering and irresponsible
   autocracy. How long would they bear it? and would their
   deliverance come by the easing of their yoke, or by the
   breaking of it?—were the only questions.

   Their state was probably at its worst in the later years of
   Louis XIV. That seems to be the conclusion which the deepest
   study has now reached, and the picture formerly drawn by
   historians, of a society continually sinking into lower
   miseries, is mostly put aside. The worst state, seemingly, was
   passed, or nearly so, when Louis XIV. died. It began to mend
   under his despicable successor, Louis XV. (1715-1774),—
   perhaps even during the regency of the profligate Orleans
   (1715-1723). Why it mended, no historian has clearly
   explained. The cause was not in better government; for the
   government grew worse. It did not come from any rise in
   character of the privileged classes; for the privileged
   classes abused their privileges with increasing selfishness.
   But general influences were at work in the world at large,
   stimulating activities of all kinds,—industry, trade,
   speculation, combination, invention, experiment, science,
   philosophy,—and whatever improvement occurred in the material
   condition and social state of the common people of France may
   find its explanation in these. There was an augmentation of
   life in the air of the eighteenth century, and France took
   some invigoration from it, despite the many maladies in its
   social system and the oppressions of government under which it
   bent.

   But the difference between the France of Louis XIV. and the
   France of Louis XVI. was more in the people than in their
   state. If their misery was a little less, their patience was
   less, and by not a little. The stimulations of the age, which
   may have given more effectiveness to labor and more energy to
   trade, had likewise set thinking astir, on the same practical
   lines. Men whose minds in former centuries would have labored
   on riddles dialectical, metaphysical and theological, were now
   bent on the pressing problems of daily life. The mysteries of
   economic science began to challenge them. Every aspect of
   surrounding society thrust questions upon them, concerning its
   origin, its history, its inequalities, its laws and their
   principles, its government and the source of authority in it.
   The so-called "philosophers" of the age, Rousseau, Voltaire
   and the encyclopædists—were not the only questioners of the
   social world, nor did the questioning all come from what they
   taught. It was the intellectual epidemic of the time, carried
   into all countries, penetrating all classes, and nowhere with
   more diffusion than in France.

   After the successful revolt of the English colonies in
   America, and the conspicuous blazoning of the doctrines of
   political equality and popular self-government in their
   declaration of independence and their republican constitution,
   the ferment of social free-thinking in France was naturally
   increased. The French had helped the colonists, fought side by
   side with them, watched their struggle with intense interest,
   and all the issues involved in the American revolution were
   discussed among them, with partiality to the republican side.
   Franklin, most republican representative of the young
   republic, came among them and captivated every class. He
   recommended to them the ideas for which he stood, perhaps more
   than we suspect.


Louis XVI. and his reign.

   And thus, by many influences, the French people of all classes
   except the privileged nobility, and even in that class to some
   small extent, were made increasingly impatient of their
   misgovernment and of the wrongs and miseries going with it.
   Louis XVI., who came to the throne in 1774, was the best in
   character of the Bourbon kings. He had no noxious vices and no
   baleful ambitions. If he had found right conditions prevailing
   in his kingdom he would have made the best of them. But he had
   no capacity for reforming the evils that he inherited, and no
   strength of will to sustain those who had. He accepted an
   earnest reforming minister with more than willingness, and
   approved the wise measures of economy, of equitable taxation,
   and of emancipation for manufactures and trade, which Turgot
   proposed. But when protected interests, and the privileged
   order which fattened on existing abuses, raised a storm of
   opposition, he weakly gave way to it, and dismissed the man
   (1776) who might possibly have made the inevitable revolution
   a peaceful one. Another minister, the Genevan banker, Necker,
   who aimed at less reform, but demanded economy, suffered the
   same overthrow (1781). The waste, the profligate expenditure,
   the jobbery, the leeching of the treasury by high-born
   pensioners and sinecure office-holders, went on, scarcely
   checked, until the beginnings of actual bankruptcy had
   appeared.

The States-General.

   Then a cry, not much heeded before, for the convocation of the
   States-general of the kingdom—the ancient great legislature
   of France, extinct since the year 1614—became loud and
   general. The king yielded (1788). The States-general was
   called to meet on the 1st of May, 1789, and the royal summons
   decreed that the deputies chosen to it from the third
   estate—the common people—should be equal in number to the
   deputies of the nobility and the clergy together. So the dumb
   lips of France as a nation were opened, its tongue unloosed,
   its common public opinion, and public feeling made articulate,
   for the first time in one hundred and seventy-five years. And
   the word that it spoke was the mandate of Revolution.

   The States-general assembled at Versailles on the 5th of May,
   and a conflict between the third estate and the nobles
   occurred at once on the question between three assemblies and
   one. Should the three orders deliberate and vote together as
   one body, or sit and act separately and apart. The commons
   demanded the single assembly. The nobles and most of the
   clergy refused the union, in which their votes would be
   overpowered.

{1090}

The National Assembly.

   After some weeks of dead-lock on this fundamental issue, the
   third estate brought it to a summary decision, by boldly
   asserting its own supremacy, as representative of the mass of
   the nation, and organizing itself in the character of the
   "National Assembly" of France. Under that name and character
   it was joined by a considerable part of the humbler clergy,
   and by some of the nobles,—additional to a few, like
   Mirabeau, who sat from the beginning with the third estate, as
   elected representatives of the people. The king made a weak
   attempt to annul this assumption of legislative sufficiency on
   the part of the third estate, and only hurried the exposure of
   his own powerlessness. Persuaded by his worst advisers to
   attempt a stronger demonstration of the royal authority, he
   filled Paris with troops, and inflamed the excitement, which
   had risen already to a passionate heat.

Outbreak of the Revolution.

   Necker, who had been recalled to the ministry when the meeting
   of the States-general was decided upon, now received his
   second dismissal (July 11), and the news of it acted on Paris
   like a signal of insurrection. The city next day was in
   tumult. On the 14th the Bastile was attacked and taken. The
   king's government vanished utterly. His troops fraternized
   with the riotous people. Citizens of Paris organized
   themselves as a National Guard, on which every hope of order
   depended, and Lafayette took command. The frightened nobility
   began flight, first from Paris, and then from the provinces,
   as mob violence spread over the kingdom from the capital. In
   October there were rumors that the king had planned to follow
   the "émigrés" and take refuge in Metz. Then occurred the
   famous rising of the women; their procession to Versailles;
   the crowd of men which followed, accompanied but not
   controlled by Lafayette and his National Guards; the
   conveyance of the king and royal family to Paris, where they
   remained during the subsequent year, practically in captivity,
   and at the mercy of the Parisian mob.

   Meanwhile, the National Assembly, negligent of the dangers of
   the moment, while actual anarchy prevailed, busied itself with
   debates on constitutional theory, with enactments for the
   abolition of titles and privileges, and with the creating of
   an inconvertible paper money, based on confiscated church
   lands, to supply the needs of the national treasury. Meantime,
   too, the members of the Assembly and their supporters outside
   of it were breaking into parties and factions, divided by
   their different purposes, principles and aims, and forming
   clubs,—centers of agitation and discussion,—clubs of the
   Jacobins, the Cordeliers, the Feuillants and the like,—where
   fear, distrust and jealousy were soon engendering ferocious
   conflicts among the revolutionists themselves. And outside of
   France, on the border where the fugitive nobles lurked,
   intrigue was always active, striving to enlist foreign help
   for King Louis against his subjects.

The First Constitution.

   In April, 1791, Mirabeau, whose influence had been a powerful
   restraint upon the Revolution, died. In June, the king made an
   attempt to escape from his durance in Paris, but was captured
   at Varennes and brought back. Angry demands for his deposition
   were now made, and a tumultuous republican demonstration
   occurred, on the Champ de Mars, which Lafayette and the mayor
   of Paris, Bailly, dispersed, with bloodshed. But republicanism
   had not yet got its footing. In the constitution, which the
   Assembly completed at this time, the throne was left
   undisturbed. The king accepted the instrument, and a
   constitutional monarchy appeared to have quietly taken the
   place of the absolute monarchy of the past.

The Girondists.

   It was an appearance not long delusive. The Constituent
   National Assembly being dissolved, gave way to a Legislative
   Assembly (October, 1791) elected under the new constitution.
   In the Legislative Assembly the republicans appeared with a
   strength which soon gave them control of it. They were divided
   into various groups; but the most eloquent and energetic of
   these, coming from Bordeaux and the department of the Gironde,
   fixed the name of Girondists upon the party to which they
   belonged. The king, as a constitutional sovereign, was forced
   presently to choose ministers from the ranks of the
   Girondists, and they controlled the government for several
   months in the spring of 1792. The earliest use they made of
   their control was to hurry the country into war with the
   German powers, which were accused of giving encouragement to
   the hostile plans of the émigrés on the border. It is now a
   well-determined fact that the Emperor Leopold was strongly
   opposed to war with France, and used all his influence for the
   preservation of peace. It was revolutionary France which
   opened the conflict, and it was the Girondists who led and
   shaped the policy of war.

Overthrow of the Monarchy.

   In the first encounters of the war, the undisciplined French
   troops were beaten, and Paris was in panic. Measures were
   adopted which the king refused to sanction, and he dismissed
   his Girondist ministers. Lafayette, who was commanding one
   division of the army in the field, approved the king's course,
   and wrote an unwise letter to the Assembly, intimating that
   the army would not submit to a violation of the constitution.
   The republicans were enraged. Everything seemed proof to them
   of a treasonable connivance with the enemies of France, to
   bring about the subjugation of the country, and a forcible
   restoration of the old regime, absolutism, aristocratic
   privilege and all. On the 20th of June there was another
   rising of the Paris mob, unchecked by those who could, as yet,
   have controlled it. The rioters broke into the Tuileries and
   humiliated the king and queen with insults, but did no
   violence. Lafayette came to Paris and attempted to reorganize
   his old National Guard, for the defense of the constitution
   and the preservation of order, but failed. The extremists then
   resolved to throw down the toppling monarchy at once, by a
   sudden blow. In the early morning of August 10, they expelled
   the Council-General of the Municipality of Paris from the
   Hotel de Ville, and placed the government of the city under
   the control of a provisional Commune, with Danton at its head.
{1091}
   At the same hour, the mob which these conspirators held in
   readiness, and which they directed, attacked the Tuileries and
   massacred the Swiss guard, while the king and the royal family
   escaped for refuge to the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly,
   near at hand. There, in the king's presence, on a formal
   demand made by the new self-constituted Municipality or
   Commune of Paris, the Assembly declared his suspension from
   executive functions, and invited the people to elect without
   delay a National Convention for the revising of the
   Constitution. Commissioners, hastily sent out to the provinces
   and the armies in the field, were received everywhere with
   submission to the change of government, except by Lafayette
   and his army, in and around Sedan. The Marquis placed them
   under arrest and took from his soldiers a new oath of fidelity
   to the constitution and the king. But he found himself
   unsupported, and, yielding to the sweep of events, he obeyed a
   dismissal by the new government from his command, and left
   France, to wait in exile for a time when he might serve his
   Country with a conscience more assured.

The Paris Commune.

   Pending the meeting of the Convention, the Paris Commune,
   increased in number to two hundred and eighty-eight, and
   dominated by Danton and Robespierre, became the governing
   power in France. The Legislative Assembly was subservient to
   it; the kingless Ministry, which had Danton in association
   with the restored Girondists, was no less so. It was the
   fierce vigor of the Commune which caused the king and the
   royal family to be imprisoned in the Temple; which instituted
   a special tribunal for the summary trial of political
   prisoners; which searched Paris for "suspects," on the night
   of August 29-30, gathered three thousand men and women into
   the prisons and convents of the city, planned and ordered the
   "September Massacres" of the following week, and thus thinned
   the whole number of these "suspects" by a half.

Fall of the Girondists.

   On the 22d of September the National Convention assembled. The
   Jacobins who controlled the Commune were found to have carried
   Paris overwhelmingly and all France largely with them, in the
   election of representatives. A furious, fanatical democracy, a
   bloodthirsty anarchism, was in the ascendant. The republican
   Girondists were now the conservative party in the Convention.
   They struggled to hold their ground, and very soon they were
   struggling for their lives. The Jacobin fury was tolerant of
   no opposition. What stood in its path, with no deadlier weapon
   than an argument or an appeal, must be, not merely overcome,
   but destroyed. The Girondists would have saved the king from
   the guillotine, but they dared not adopt his defense, and
   their own fate was sealed when they gave votes, under fear,
   which sent him in January to his death. Five months longer
   they contended irresolutely, as a failing faction, with their
   terrible adversaries, and then, in June, 1793, they were
   proscribed and their arrest decreed. Some escaped and raised
   futile insurrections in the provinces. Some stayed and faced
   the death which awaited them in the fast approaching "reign of
   terror."

"The Mountain" and "the Terror."

   The fall of the Girondists left the Jacobin "Mountain"
   (so-called from the elevation of the seats on which its
   deputies sat in the Convention) unopposed. Their power was not
   only absolute in fact, but unquestioned, and they inevitably
   ran to riot in the exercise of it. The same madness overcame
   them in the mass which overcame Nero, Caligula, Caracalla, as
   individuals; for it is no more strange that the unnatural and
   awful feeling of unlimited dominion over one's fellows should
   turn the brain of a suddenly triumphant faction, than that it
   should madden a single shallow-minded man. The men of "the
   Mountain" were not only masters of France—except in La Vendée
   and the neighboring region south of the Loire, where an obstinate
   insurrection had broken out—but the armies which obeyed them
   had driven back the invading Germans, had occupied the
   Austrian Netherlands and taken possession of Savoy and Nice.
   Intoxicated by these successes, the Convention had proclaimed
   a crusade against all monarchical government, offering the
   help of France to every people which would rise against
   existing authorities, and declaring enmity to those who
   refused alliance with the Revolution. Holland was attacked and
   England forced to war. The spring of 1793 found a great
   European coalition formed against revolutionary France, and
   justified by the aggressions of the Jacobinical government.

   For effective exercise of the power of the Jacobins, the
   Convention as a whole proved too large a body, even when it
   had been purged of Girondist opposition. Its authority was now
   gathered into the hands of the famous Committee of Public
   Safety, which became, in fact, the Revolutionary Government,
   controlling the national armies, and the whole administration
   of domestic and foreign affairs. Its reign was the Reign of
   Terror, and the fearful Revolutionary Tribunal, which began
   its bloody work with the guillotine in October, 1793, was the
   chief instrument of its power. Robespierre, Barère, St. Just,
   Couthon, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d' Herbois and Carnot—the
   latter devoted to the business of the war—were the
   controlling members of the Committee. Danton withdrew from it,
   refusing to serve.

   In September, the policy of terrorism was avowedly adopted,
   and, in the language of the Paris Commune, "the Reign of
   Terror" became "the order of the day." The arraignment of
   "suspects" before the Revolutionary Tribunal began. On the
   14th of October Marie Antoinette was put on trial; on the 16th
   she met her death. On the 31st the twenty-one imprisoned
   Girondist deputies were sent to the guillotine; followed on
   the 10th of November by the remarkable woman, Madame Roland,
   who was looked upon as the real leader of their party. From
   that time until the mid-summer following, the blood-madness
   raged; not in Paris alone, but throughout France, at Lyons,
   Marseilles, Toulon, Bordeaux, Nantes, and wherever a show of
   insurrection and resistance had challenged the ferocity of the
   Commissioners of the Revolutionary Government, who had been
   sent into the provinces with unlimited death-dealing powers.

{1092}

   But when Jacobinism had destroyed all exterior opposition, it
   began very soon to break into factions within itself. There
   was a pitch in its excesses at which even Danton and
   Robespierre became conservatives, as against Hébert and the
   atheists of his faction. A brief struggle ensued, and the
   Hébertists, in March, 1794, passed under the knife of the
   guillotine. A month later Danton's enemies had rallied and he,
   with his followers, went down before their attack, and the
   sharp knife in the Place de la Revolution silenced his bold
   tongue. Robespierre remained dominant for a few weeks longer
   in the still reigning Committee of Public Safety; but his
   domination was already undermined by many fears, distrusts and
   jealousies among his colleagues and throughout his party. His
   downfall came suddenly on the 27th of July. On the morning of
   that day he was the dictator of the Convention and of its
   ruling committee; at night he was a headless corpse, and Paris
   was shouting with joy.

   On the death of Robespierre the Reign of Terror came quickly
   to an end. The reaction was sudden and swift. The Committee of
   Public Safety was changed; of the old members only Carnot,
   indispensable organizer of war, remained. The Revolutionary
   Tribunal was remodeled. The Jacobin Club was broken up. The
   surviving Girondist deputies came back to the Convention.
   Prosecution of the Terrorists for their crimes began. A new
   struggle opened, between the lower elements in Parisian and
   French society, the sansculotte elements, which had controlled
   the Revolution thus far, and the middle class, the
   bourgeoisie, long cowed and suppressed, but now rallying to
   recover its share of power. Bourgeoisie triumphed in the
   contest. The Sansculottes made their last effort in a rising
   on the 1st Prairial (May 20, 1795) and were put down. A new
   constitution was framed which organized the government of the
   Republic under a legislature in two chambers,—a Council of
   Five Hundred and a Council of Ancients,—with an executive
   Directory of Five. But only one third of the legislature first
   assembled was to be freely elected by the people. The
   remaining two thirds were to be taken from the membership of
   the existing Convention. Paris rejected this last mentioned
   feature of the constitution, while France at large ratified
   it. The National Guard of Paris rose in insurrection on the
   13th Vendémiare (October 5), and it was on this occasion that
   the young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, got his foot
   on the first round of the ladder by which he climbed
   afterwards to so great a height. Put in command of the regular
   troops in Paris, which numbered only 5,000, against 30,000 of the
   National Guards, he crushed the latter in an action of an
   hour. That hour was the opening hour of his career.

   The government of the Directory was instituted on the 27th of
   October following. Of its five members, Carnot and Barras were
   the only men of note, then or afterwards.

The war with the Coalition.

   While France was cowering under "the Terror," its armies,
   under Jourdan, Hoche, and Pichegru, had withstood the great
   European combination with astonishing success. The allies were
   weakened by ill feeling between Prussia and Austria over the
   second partition of Poland, and generally by a want of concert
   and capable leadership in their action. On the other side, the
   democratic military system of the Republic, under Carnot's
   keen eyes, was continually bringing forward fresh soldierly
   talent to the front. The fall of the Jacobins made no change
   in that vital department of the administration, and the
   successes of the French were continued. In the summer of 1794
   they carried the war into Germany, and expelled the allies
   from the Austrian Netherlands. Thence they invaded Holland,
   and before the end of January, 1795, they were masters of the
   country; the Stadtholder had fled to England, and a Batavian
   Republic had been organized. Spain had suffered losses in
   battle with them along the Pyrenees, and the King of Sardinia
   had yielded to them the passes of the Maritime Alps. In April
   the King of Prussia made peace with France. Before the close
   of the year 1795 the revolt in La Vendée was at an end; Spain
   had made peace; Pichegru had attempted a great betrayal of the
   armies on the Rhine, and had failed.

Napoleon in Italy.

   This in brief was the situation at the opening of the year
   1796, when the "little Corsican officer," who won the
   confidence of the new government of the Directory by saving
   its constitution on the 13th Vendemiare, planned the campaign
   of the year, and received the command of the army sent to
   Italy. He attacked the Sardinians in April, and a single month
   sufficed to break the courage of their king and force him to a
   treaty of peace. On the 10th of May he defeated the Austrians
   at Lodi; on the 15th he was in Milan. Lombardy was abandoned
   to him; all central Italy was at his mercy, and he began to
   act the sovereign conqueror in the peninsula, with a contempt
   for the government at Paris which he hardly concealed. Two
   ephemeral republics were created under his direction, the
   Cisalpine, in Lombardy, and the Cispadane, embracing Modena,
   Ferrara and Bologna. The Papacy was shorn of part of its
   territories.

   Every attempt made by the Austrians to shake the hold which
   Bonaparte had fastened on the peninsula only fixed it more
   firmly. In the spring he began movements beyond the Alps, in
   concert with Hoche on the Rhine, which threatened Vienna
   itself and frightened Austria into proposals of peace.
   Preliminaries, signed in April, foreshadowed the hard terms of
   the treaty concluded at Campo Formio in the following October.
   Austria gave up her Netherland provinces to France, and part
   of her Italian territories to the Cisalpine Republic; but
   received, in partial compensation, the city of Venice and a
   portion of the dominions of the Venetian state; for, between
   the armistice and the treaty, Bonaparte had attacked and
   overthrown the venerable republic, and now divided it with his
   humbled enemy.

France under the Directory.

   The masterful Corsican, who handled these great matters with
   the airs of a sovereign, may have known himself already to be
   the coming master of France. For the inevitable submission
   again of the many to one was growing plain to discerning eyes.
   The frightful school-teaching of the Revolution had not
   impressed practical lessons in politics on the mind of the
   untrained democracy, so much as suspicions, distrusts, and
   alarms. All the sobriety of temper, the confidence of feeling,
   the constraining habit of public order, without which the
   self-government of a people is impracticable, were yet to be
   acquired. French democracy was not more prepared for
   republican institutions in 1797 than it had been in 1789.
{1093}
   There was no more temperance in its factions, no more balance
   between parties, no more of a steadying potency in public
   opinion. But it had been brought to a state of feeling that
   would prefer the sinking of all factions under some vigorous
   autocracy, rather than another appeal of their quarrels to the
   guillotine. And events were moving fast to a point at which
   that choice would require to be made. The summer of 1797 found
   the members of the Directory in hopeless conflict with one
   another and with the legislative councils. On the 4th of
   September a "coup d' état," to which Bonaparte contributed
   some help, purged both the Directory and the Councils of men
   obnoxious to the violent faction, and exiled them to Guiana.
   Perhaps the moment was favorable then for a soldier, with the
   great prestige that Bonaparte had won, to mount to the seat of
   power; but he did not so judge.

The Expedition to Egypt.

   He planned, instead, an expedition to Egypt, directed against
   the British power in the East,—an expedition that failed in
   every object it could have, except the absence in which it
   kept him from increasing political disorders at home. He was
   able to maintain some appearance of success, by his
   subjugation of Egypt and His invasion of Syria; but of harm
   done to England, or of gain to France in the Mediterranean,
   there was none; since Nelson, at the battle of the Nile,
   destroyed the French fleet, and Turkey was added to the
   Anglo-Austrian coalition. The blunder of the expedition, as
   proved by its whole results, was not seen by the French people
   so plainly, however, as they saw the growing hopelessness of
   their own political state, and the alarming reverses which
   their armies in Italy and on the Rhine had sustained since
   Bonaparte went away.

French Aggressions.—The new Coalition.

   Continued aggressions on the part of the French had provoked a
   new European coalition, formed in 1798. In Switzerland they
   had overthrown the ancient constitution of the confederacy,
   organizing a new Helvetic Republic on the Gallic model, but
   taking Geneva to themselves. In Italy they had set up a third
   republic, the Roman, removing the Pope forcibly from his
   sovereignty and from Rome. Every state within reach had then
   taken fresh alarm, and even Russia, undisturbed in the
   distance, was now enlisted against the troublesome democracy
   of France.

   The unwise King of Naples, entering rashly into the war before
   his allies could support him, and hastening to restore the
   Pope, had been driven (December, 1798) from his kingdom, which
   underwent transformation into a fourth Italian republic, the
   Parthenopeian. But this only stimulated the efforts of the
   Coalition, and in the course of the following year the French
   were expelled from all Italy, saving Genoa alone, and the
   ephemeral republics they had set up were extinguished. On the
   Rhine they had lost ground; but they had held their own in
   Switzerland, after a fierce struggle with the Russian forces
   of Suwarrow.

Napoleon in power.

   When news of these disasters, and of the ripeness of the
   situation at Paris for a new coup d' état, reached Bonaparte,
   in Egypt, he deserted his army there, leaving it, under
   Kléber, in a helpless situation, and made his way back to
   France. He landed at Fréjus on the 9th of October. Precisely a
   month later, by a combination with Sieyès, a veteran
   revolutionist and maker of constitutions, he accomplished the
   overthrow of the Directory. Before the year closed, a fresh
   constitution was in force, which vested substantially
   monarchical powers in an executive called the First Consul,
   and the chosen First Consul was Napoleon Bonaparte. Two
   associate Consuls, who sat with him, had no purpose but to
   conceal for a short time the real absoluteness of his rule.

   From that time, for fifteen years, the history of France—it
   is almost possible to say the history of Europe—is the story
   of the career of the extraordinary Corsican adventurer who
   took possession of the French nation, with unparalleled
   audacity, and who used it, with all that pertained to
   it—lives, fortunes, talents, resources—in the most
   prodigious and the most ruthless undertakings of personal
   ambition that the modern world has ever seen. He was
   selfishness incarnate; and he was the incarnation of genius in
   all those modes of intellectual power which bear upon the
   mastery of momentary circumstances and the mastery of men. But
   of the higher genius that might have worthily employed such
   vast powers,—that might have enlightened and inspired a
   really great ambition in the man, to make himself an enduring
   builder of civilization in the world, he had no spark. The
   soul behind his genius was ignoble, the spirit was mean. And
   even on the intellectual side, his genius had its narrowness.
   His projects of selfishness were extraordinary, but never
   sagacious, never far-sighted, thoughtfully studied, wisely
   planned. There is no appearance in any part of his career of a
   pondered policy, guiding him to a well-determined end in what
   he did. The circumstances of any moment, whether on the
   battle-field or in the political arena, he could handle with a
   swift apprehension, a mastery and a power that may never have
   been surpassed. But much commoner men have apprehended and
   have commanded in a larger and more successful way the general
   sweep of circumstances in their lives. It is that fact which
   belittles Napoleon in the comparison often made between him
   and Cæsar. He was probably Cæsar's equal in war. But who can
   imagine Cæsar in Napoleon's place committing the blunders of
   blind arrogance which ruined the latter in Germany and Spain,
   or making his fatuous attempt to shut England, the great naval
   power, out of continental Europe?

   His domestic administration was beneficial to France in many
   ways. He restored order, and maintained it, with a powerful
   hand. He suppressed faction effectually, and eradicated for
   the time all the political insanities of the Revolution. He
   exploited the resources of the country with admirable success;
   for his discernment in such matters was keen and his practical
   judgment was generally sound. But he consumed the nation
   faster than he gave it growth. His wars—the wars in which
   Europe was almost unceasingly kept by the aggression of his
   insolence and his greed—were the most murderous, the most
   devouring, that any warrior among the civilized races of
   mankind has ever been chargeable with.
{1094}
   His blood-guiltiness in these wars is the one glaring fact
   which ought to be foremost in every thought of them. But it is
   not. There is a pitiable readiness in mankind to be dazzled
   and cheated by red battle-lights, when it looks into history
   for heroes; and few figures have been glorified more
   illusively in the world's eye than the marvelous warrior, the
   vulgar-minded adventurer, the prodigy of self-exalting genius,
   Napoleon Bonaparte.

   In the first year of his Consulate, Bonaparte recovered Italy,
   by the extraordinary Marengo campaign, while Moreau won the
   victory of Hohenlinden, and the Treaty of Luneville was
   brought about. Austria obtained peace again by renewing the
   concessions of Campo Formio, and by taking part in a
   reconstruction of Germany, under Bonaparte's dictation, which
   secularized the ecclesiastical states, extinguished the
   freedom of most of the imperial cities, and aggrandized
   Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden and Saxony, as protégés and
   dependencies of France. England was left alone in the war,
   with much hostile feeling raised against her in Europe and
   America by the arrogant use she had made of her mastery of the
   sea. The neutral powers had all been embittered by her
   maritime pretensions, and Bonaparte now brought about the
   organization among them of a Northern League of armed
   neutrality. England broke it with a single blow, by Nelson's
   bombardment of Copenhagen. Napoleon, however, had conceived
   the plan of starving English industries and ruining British
   trade by a "continental system" of blockade against them,
   which involved the compulsory exclusion of British ships and
   British goods from all European countries. This impossible
   project committed him to a desperate struggle for the
   subjugation of Europe. It was the fundamental cause of his
   ruin.

The First Empire.

   In 1802 the First Consul advanced his restoration of
   absolutism in France a second step, by securing the Consulate
   for life. A short interval of peace with England was arranged,
   but war broke out anew the following year, and the English for
   a time had no allies. The French occupied Hanover, and the
   Germans were quiescent. But in 1804, Bonaparte shocked Europe
   by the abduction and execution of the Bourbon prince, Duc
   d'Enghien, and began to challenge again the interference of
   the surrounding powers by a new series of aggressive measures.
   His ambition had thrown off all disguises; he had transformed
   the Republic of France into an Empire, so called, and himself,
   by title, into an Emperor, with an imposing crown. The
   Cisalpine or Italian Republic received soon afterwards the
   constitution of a kingdom, and he took the crown to himself as
   King of Italy. Genoa and surrounding territory (the Ligurian
   Republic) were annexed, at nearly the same time, to France;
   several duchies were declared to be dependencies, and an
   Italian principality was given to Napoleon's elder sister. The
   effect produced in Europe by such arbitrary and admonitory
   proceedings as these enabled Pitt, the younger, now at the
   head of the English government, to form an alliance (1805),
   first with Russia, afterwards with Austria, Sweden and Naples,
   and finally with Prussia, to break the yoke which the French
   Emperor had put upon Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Hanover,
   and to resist his further aggressions.

Austerlitz and Trafalgar.

   The amazing energy and military genius of Napoleon never had
   more astonishing proof than in the swift campaign which broke
   this coalition at Ulm and Austerlitz. Austria was forced to
   another humiliating treaty, which surrendered Venice and
   Venetia to the conqueror's new Kingdom of Italy; gave up Tyrol
   to Bavaria; yielded other territory to Würtemberg, and raised
   both electors to the rank of kings, while making Baden a grand
   duchy, territorially enlarged. Prussia was dragged by force
   into alliance with France, and took Hanover as pay. But
   England triumphed at the same time on her own element, and
   Napoleon's dream of carrying his legions across the Channel,
   as Cæsar did, was forever dispelled by Nelson's dying victory
   at Trafalgar. That battle, which destroyed the combined navies
   of France and Spain, ended hope of contending successfully
   with the relentless Britons at sea.

End of the Holy Roman Empire.

   France was never permitted to learn the seriousness of
   Trafalgar, and it put no check on the vaulting ambition in
   Napoleon which now began to o'erleap itself. He gave free rein
   to his arrogance in all directions. The King of Naples was
   expelled from his kingdom and the crown conferred on Joseph
   Bonaparte. Louis Bonaparte was made King of Holland. Southern
   Germany was suddenly reconstructed again. The little kingdoms
   of Napoleon's creation and the small states surrounding them
   were declared to be separated from the ancient Empire, and
   were formed into a Confederation of the Rhine, under the
   protection of France. Warned by this rude announcement of the
   precarious tenure of his imperial title as the head of the
   Holy Roman Empire, Francis II. resigned it, and took to
   himself, instead, a title as meaningless as that which
   Napoleon had assumed,—the title of Emperor of Austria. The
   venerable fiction of the Holy Roman Empire disappeared from
   history on the 6th of August, 1806.

Subjugation of Prussia.

   But while Austria had become submissive to the offensive
   measures of Napoleon, Prussia became now fired with
   unexpected, sudden wrath, and declared war in October, 1800.
   It was a rash explosion of national resentment, and the
   rashness was dearly paid for. At Jena and Auerstadt, Prussia
   sank under the feet of the merciless conqueror, as helplessly
   subjugated as a nation could be. Russia, attempting her
   rescue, was overcome at Eylau and Friedland; and both the
   vanquished powers came to terms with the victor at Tilsit
   (July, 1807). The King of Prussia gave up all his kingdom west
   of the Elbe, and all that it had acquired in the second and
   third partitions of Poland. A new German kingdom, of
   Westphalia, was constructed for Napoleon's youngest brother,
   Jerome. A free state of Danzig, dependent on France, and a
   Grand Duchy of Warsaw, were created. The Russian Czar, bribed
   by some pieces of Polish Prussia, and by prospective
   acquisitions from Turkey and Sweden, became an ally of
   Napoleon and an accomplice in his plans for the subjection of
   Europe. He enlisted his empire in the "continental system"
   against England, and agreed to the enforcement of the decree
   which Napoleon issued from Berlin, declaring the British
   islands in a state of blockade, and prohibiting trade with
   them. The British government retorted by its "orders in
   council," which blockaded in the like paper-fashion all ports
   of France and of the allies and dependencies of France. And so
   England and Napoleon fought one another for years in the
   peaceful arena of commerce, to the exasperation of neutral
   nations and the destruction of the legitimate trade of the
   world.

{1095}

The crime against Spain.

   And now, having prostrated Germany, and captivated the Czar,
   Napoleon turned toward another field, which had scarcely felt,
   as yet, his intrusive hand. Spain had been in servile alliance
   with France for ten years, while Portugal adhered steadily to
   her friendship with Great Britain, and now refused to be
   obedient to the Berlin Decree. Napoleon took prompt measures
   for the punishment of so bold a defiance. A delusive treaty
   with the Spanish court, for the partition of the small kingdom
   of the Braganzas, won permission for an army under Junot to
   enter Portugal, through Spain. No resistance to it was made.
   The royal family of Portugal quitted Lisbon, setting sail for
   Brazil, and Junot took possession of the kingdom. But this
   accomplished only half of Napoleon's design. He meant to have
   Spain, as well; and he found, in the miserable state of the
   country, his opportunity to work out an ingenious,
   unscrupulous scheme for its acquisition. His agents set on
   foot a revolutionary movement, in favor of the worthless crown
   prince, Ferdinand, against his equally worthless father, Charles
   IV., and pretexts were obtained for an interference by French
   troops. Charles was first coerced into an abdication; then
   Ferdinand was lured to an interview with Napoleon, at Bayonne,
   was made prisoner there, and compelled in his turn to
   relinquish the crown. A vacancy on the Spanish throne having
   been thus created, the Emperor gathered at Bayonne a small
   assembly of Spanish notables, who offered the seat to Joseph
   Bonaparte, already King of Naples. Joseph, obedient to his
   imperial brother's wish, resigned the Neapolitan crown to
   Murat, his sister's husband, accepted the crown of Spain, and
   was established at Madrid with a French army at his back.

   This was one of the two most ruinous of the political blunders
   of Napoleon's life. He had cheated and insulted the whole
   Spanish nation, in a way too contemptuous to be endured even
   by a people long cast down. There was a revolt which did not
   spring from any momentary passion, but which had an obstinacy
   of deep feeling behind that made effective suppression of it
   impossible. French armies could beat Spanish armies, and
   disperse them, but they could not keep them dispersed; and
   they could not break up the organization of a rebellion which
   organized itself in every province, and which went on, when
   necessary, without any organization at all. England sent
   forces to the peninsula, under Wellington, for the support of
   the insurgent Spaniards and Portuguese; and thenceforward, to
   the end of his career, the most inextricable difficulties of
   Napoleon were those in which he had entangled himself on the
   southern side of the Pyrenees.

The chastening of Germany.

   The other cardinal blunder in Napoleon's conduct, which proved
   more destructive to him than the crime in Spain, was his
   exasperating treatment of Germany. There was neither
   magnanimity on the moral side of him nor real wisdom on the
   intellectual side, to restrain him from using his victory with
   immoderate insolence. He put as much shame as he could invent
   into the humiliations of the German people. He had Prussia
   under his heel, and he ground the heel upon her neck with the
   whole weight of his power. The consequence was a pain and a
   passion which wrought changes like a miracle in the temper and
   character of the abused nation. There were springs of feeling
   opened and currents of national life set in motion that might
   never have been otherwise discovered. Enlightened men and
   strong men from all parts of Germany found themselves called
   to Prussia and to the front of its affairs, and their way made
   easy for them in labors of restoration and reform. Stein and
   Hardenburg remodeled the administration of the kingdom,
   uprooted the remains of serfdom in it, and gave new freedom to
   its energies. Scharnhorst organized the military system on
   which rose in time the greatest of military powers. Humboldt
   planned the school system which educated Prussia beyond all
   her neighbors, in the succeeding generations. Even the
   philosophers came out of their closets and took part, as
   Fichte did, in the stirring and uplifting of the spirit of
   their countrymen. So it was that the outrages of Napoleon in
   Germany revenged themselves, by summoning into existence an
   unsuspected energy that would be turned against him to destroy
   him in the end.

   But the time of destruction was not yet come. He had a few
   years of triumph still before him,—of triumph everywhere
   except in Portugal and Spain. Austria, resisting him once more
   (1809), was once more crushed at Wagram, and to such
   submissiveness that it gave a daughter of the imperial house
   in marriage to the parvenu sovereign of France, next year,
   when he divorced his wife Josephine. He was at the summit of
   his renown that year, but already declining from the greatest
   height of his power. In 1811 there was little to change the
   situation.

The fall of Napoleon.

   In 1812 the downfall of Napoleon was begun by his fatal
   expedition to Russia. The next year Prussia, half regenerated
   within the brief time since Jena and Tilsit, went into
   alliance with Russia, and the War of Liberation was begun.
   Austria soon joined the alliance; and at Leipzig (Oct. 18,
   1813) the three nations shattered at last the yoke of
   oppression that had bound Europe so long. At the same time,
   the French armies in Spain were expelled, and Wellington
   entered France through the Pyrenees, to meet the allies who
   pursued Napoleon across the Rhine. Forced to abdicate and
   retire to the little island of Elba (the sovereignty of which
   was ceded to him), he remained there in quiet from May, 1814,
   until March, 1815, when he escaped and reappeared in France.
   Army and people welcomed him. The Bourbon monarchy, which had
   been restored by the allies, fell at his approach. The king,
   Louis XVIII., fled. Napoleon recovered his throne and occupied
   it for it few weeks. But the alliance which had expelled him from
   it refused to permit his recovery of power. The question was
   settled finally at Waterloo, on the 18th of June, when a
   British army under Wellington and a Prussian army under
   Blücher won a victory which left no hope to the beaten
   Emperor. He surrendered himself to the commander of a British
   vessel of war, and was sent to confinement for the remainder
   of his life on the remote island of St. Helena.

{1096}

The Congress of Vienna.

   But Europe, delivered from one tyrannical master, was now
   given over to several of them, in a combination which
   oppressed it for a generation. The sovereigns who had united
   to dethrone Napoleon, with the two emperors, of Austria and
   Russia, at their head, and with the Austrian minister,
   Metternich, for their most trusted counselor, assumed first,
   in the Congress of Vienna, a general work of political
   rearrangement, to repair the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
   disturbances, and then, subsequently, an authoritative
   supervision of European politics which proved as meddlesome as
   Napoleon's had been. Their first act, as before stated, was to
   restore the Bourbon monarchy in France, indifferent to the
   wishes of the people. In Spain, Ferdinand had already taken
   the throne, when Joseph fled. In Italy, the King of Sardinia
   was restored and Genoa transferred to him; Lombardy and
   Venetia were given back to Austria; Tuscany, Modena and some
   minor duchies received Hapsburg princes; the Pope recovered
   his States, and the Bourbons returned to Naples and Sicily. In
   Germany, the Prussian kingdom was enlarged again by several
   absorptions, including part of Saxony, but some of its Polish
   territory was given to the Czar; Hanover became a kingdom;
   Austria resumed the provinces which Napoleon had conveyed to
   his Rhenish proteges; and, finally, a Germanic Confederation
   was formed, to take the place of the extinct Empire, and with
   no more efficiency in its constitution. In the Netherlands, a
   new kingdom was formed, to bear the Netherland name, and to
   embrace Holland and Belgium in union, with the House of Orange
   on the throne.

The Holy Alliance.

   Between the Czar, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of
   Prussia, there was a personal agreement that went with these
   arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and which was
   prolonged for a number of years. In the public understanding,
   this was associated, perhaps wrongly, with a written
   declaration, known as the Holy Alliance, in which the three
   sovereigns set forth their intention to regulate their foreign
   and domestic policy by the precepts of Christianity, and
   invited all princes to join their alliance for the maintenance
   of peace and the promotion of brotherly love. Whether
   identical as a fact with this Holy Alliance or secreted behind
   it, there was, and long continued to be, an undoubted league
   between these sovereigns and others, which had aims very
   different from the promotion of brotherly love. It was wholly
   reactionary, hostile to all political liberalism, and
   repressive of all movements in the interest of the people.
   Metternich was its skilful minister, and the deadly, soulless
   system of beaureaucratic absolutism which he organized in
   Austria was the model of government that it strove to
   introduce.

   In Italy, the governments generally were reduced to the
   Austrian model, and the political state of the peninsula, for
   forty years, was scarcely better, if at all, than it had been
   under the Spanish rule in the sixteenth and seventeenth
   centuries.

   Germany, as divided as ever, under a federal constitution
   which federated nothing else so much as the big and little
   courts and their reactionary ideas, was profoundly depressed
   in political spirit, while prospering materially and showing
   notable signs of intellectual life.

   France was not slow in finding that the restored Bourbons and
   the restored émigrés had forgotten nothing and learned
   nothing, in the twenty-five years of their exile. They put all
   their strength into the turning back of the clock, trying to
   make it strike again the hours in which the Revolution and
   Napoleon had been so busy. It was futile work; but it sickened
   and angered the nation none the less. After all the stress and
   struggle it had gone through, there was a strong nation yet to
   resist the Bourbonism brought back to power. It recovered from
   the exhaustion of its wars with a marvellous quickness. The
   millions of peasant land-owners, who were the greatest
   creation of the Revolution, dug wealth from its soil with
   untiring free arms, and soon made it the most prosperous land
   in Europe. Through country and city, the ideas of the
   Revolution were in the brains of the common people, while its
   energies were in their brawn, and Bourbonism needed more
   wisdom than it ever possessed to reconcile them to its
   restoration.

Revolutions of 1820-1821.

   It was not in France, however, but in Spain, that the first
   rising against the restored order of things occurred.
   Ferdinand VII., when released from his French imprisonment in
   1814, was warmly received in Spain, and took the crown with
   quite general consent. He accepted the constitution under
   which the country had been governed since 1812, and made large
   lying promises of a liberal rule. But when seated on the
   throne, he suppressed the constitution, restored the
   Inquisition, revived the monasteries, called back the expelled
   Jesuits, and opened a deadly persecution of the liberals in
   Spanish politics. No effective resistance to him was organized
   until 1820, when a revolutionary movement took form which
   forced the king, in March, to reestablish the constitution and
   call different men to his council. Portugal, at the same time,
   adopted a similar constitution, and the exiled king, John VI.,
   returning now from Brazil, accepted it.

   The revolution in Spain set fire to the discontent that had
   smouldered in Italy. The latter broke forth, in the summer of
   1820, at Naples, where the Bourbon king made no resistance to
   a sudden revolt of soldiers and citizens, but yielded the
   constitution they demanded at once. Sardinia followed, in the
   next spring, with a rising of the Piedmontese, requiring
   constitutional government. The king, Victor Emmanuel I., who
   was very old, resigned the crown to his brother, Charles
   Felix. The latter refused the demands of the
   constitutionalists and called upon Austria for help.

{1097}

   These outbreaks of the revolutionary spirit were alarming to
   the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance and excited them to a
   vigorous activity. They convened a Congress, first at Troppau,
   in October, 1820, afterwards at Laybach, and finally at
   Verona, to plan concerted action for the suppressing of the
   popular movements of the time. As the result of these
   conferences, the congenial duty of restoring absolutism in the
   Two Sicilies, and of helping the King of Sardinia against his
   subjects, was imposed upon Austria and willingly performed;
   while the Bourbon court of France was solicited to put an end
   to the bad example of constitutional government in Spain. Both
   commissions were executed with fidelity and zeal. Italy was
   flung down and fettered again; French troops occupied Spain
   from 1823 until 1827. England, alone, protested against this
   flagrant policing of Europe by the Holy Alliance. Canning, its
   spirited minister, "called in the New World," as he described
   his policy, "to redress the balance of the old," by
   recognizing the independence of the Spanish colonies in
   America, which, Cuba excepted, were now separated forever from
   the crown of Spain. Brazil in like manner was cut loose from
   the Portuguese crown, and assumed the constitution of an
   empire, under Dom Pedro, the eldest son of John VI.

Greek War of Independence.

   These stifled revolutions in western Europe failed to
   discourage a more obstinate insurrection which began in the
   East, among the Christian subjects of the Turks, in 1821. The
   Ottoman government had been growing weaker and more vicious
   for many years. The corrupted and turbulent Janissaries were
   the masters of the empire, and a sultan who attempted, as
   Selim III. (1789-1807) had done, to introduce reforms, was
   put to death. Russia, under Alexander I., had been continuing
   to gain ground at the expense of the Turks, and assuming more
   and more of a patronage of the Christian subjects of the
   Porte. There seems to be little doubt that the rising begun in
   1821, which had its start in Moldavia, and its first leader in a
   Greek, Ypsilanti, who had been an officer in the Russian
   service, received encouragement from the Czar. But Alexander
   turned his back on it when the Greeks sprang to arms and
   seriously appealed to Europe for help in a war of national
   independence. The Congress of Verona condemned the Greek
   rising, in common with that of Spain. Again, England alone
   showed sympathy, but did nothing as a government, and left the
   struggling Greeks to such help as they might win from
   individual friends. Lord Byron, with others, went to Greece,
   carrying money and arms; and, generally, these volunteers lost
   much of their ardor in the Greek cause when they came into
   close contact with its native supporters. But the Greeks,
   however lacking in high qualities, made an obstinate fight,
   and held their ground against the Turks, until the feeling of
   sympathy with them had grown too strong in England and in
   France for the governments of those countries to be heedless
   of it. Moreover, in Russia, Alexander I. had been succeeded
   (1825) by the aggressive Nicholas, who had not patience to
   wait for the slow crumbling of the Ottoman power, but was
   determined to break it as summarily as he could. He joined
   France and England, therefore, in an alliance and in a naval
   demonstration against the Turks (1827), which had its result
   in the battle of Navarino. The allies of Nicholas went no
   farther; but he pursued the undertaking, in a war which lasted
   until the autumn of 1829. Turkey at the end of it conceded the
   independence of Greece, and practically that of Wallachia and
   Moldavia. In 1830, a conference at London established the
   Greek kingdom, and in 1833 a Bavarian prince, Otho I., was
   settled on the throne.

Revolutions of 1830.

   Before this result was reached, revolution in western Europe,
   arrested in 1821-23, had broken out afresh. Bourbonism had
   become unendurable to France. Charles X., who succeeded his
   brother Louis XVIII; in 1824, showed not only a more arbitrary
   temper, but a disposition more deferential to the Church than
   his predecessor. He was fond of the Jesuits, whom his subjects
   very commonly distrusted and disliked. He attempted to put
   shackles on the press, and when elections to the chamber of
   deputies went repeatedly against the government, he undertook
   practically to alter the suffrage by ordinances of his own. A
   revolution seemed then to be the only remedy that was open to
   the nation, and it was adopted in July, 1830, the veteran
   Lafayette taking the lead. Charles X. was driven to
   abdication, and left France for England. The crown was
   transferred to Louis Philippe, of the Orleans branch of the
   Bourbon family,—son of the Philip Égalité who joined the
   Jacobins in the Revolution.

   The July Revolution in France proved a signal for more
   outbreaks in other parts of Europe than had followed the
   Spanish rising of ten years before.

   Belgium broke away from the union with Holland, which had
   never satisfied its people, and, after some struggle, won
   recognized independence, as a new kingdom, with Leopold of
   Saxe Coburg raised to the throne.

   Russian Poland, bearing the name of a constitutional kingdom
   since 1815, but having the Czar for its king and the Czar's
   brother for viceroy, found no lighter oppression than before,
   and made a hopeless, brave attempt to escape from its bonds.
   The revolt was put down with unmerciful severity, and
   thousands of the hapless patriots went to exile in Siberia.

   In Germany, there were numerous demonstrations in the smaller
   states, which succeeded more or less in extorting
   constitutional concessions; but there was no revolutionary
   movement on a larger scale.

   Italy remained quiet in both the north and the south, where
   disturbances had arisen before; but commotions occurred in the
   Papal states, and in Modena and Parma, which required the arms
   of Austria to suppress.

   In England, the agitations of the continent hastened forward a
   revolution which went far beyond all other popular movements
   of the time in the lasting importance of its effects, and
   which exhibited in their first great triumph the peaceful
   forces of the Platform and the Press.

{1098}

England under the last two Georges.

   But we have given little attention to affairs in Great Britain
   during the past half century or more, and need to glance
   backward.

   Under the third of the Georges, there was distinctly a check
   given to the political progress which England had been making
   since the Revolution of 1688. The wilfulness of the king
   fairly broke down, for a considerable period, the system of
   responsible cabinet government which had been taking shape and
   root under the two earlier Hanoverians, and ministers became
   again, for a time, mere mouthpieces of the royal will. The
   rupture with the American colonies, and the unsuccessful war
   which ended in their independence, brought in another
   influence, adverse, for the time being, to popular claims in
   government. For it was not King George, alone, nor Lord North,
   nor any small Tory faction, that prosecuted and upheld the
   attempt to make the colonists in America submissive to
   "taxation without representation." The English nation at large
   approved the war; English national sentiment was hostile to
   the Americans in their independent attitude, and the
   Whigs—the liberals then in English politics—were a
   discredited and weakened party for many years because of their
   leaning to the American side of the questions in dispute.
   Following close upon the American war, came the French
   Revolution, which frightened into Toryism great numbers of
   people who did not by nature belong there. In England, as
   everywhere else, the reaction lasted long, and government was
   more arbitrary and repressive than it could possibly have
   continued to be under different circumstances.

   Meantime extraordinary social changes had taken place, which
   tended to mark more strongly the petrifying of things in the
   political world. The great age of mechanical invention had
   been fully opened. Machines had begun to do the work of human
   hands in every industry, and steam had begun to move the
   machines. The organization of labor, too, had assumed a new
   phase. The factory system had arisen; and with it had appeared
   a new growth of cities and towns. Production was accelerated;
   wealth was accumulating more rapidly, and the distribution of
   wealth was following different lines. The English middle class
   was rising fast as a money-power and was gathering the
   increased energies of the kingdom into its hands.

Parliamentary Reform in England.

   But while the tendency of social changes had been to increase
   vastly the importance of this powerful middle class, the
   political conditions had actually diminished its weight in
   public affairs. In Parliament, it had no adequate
   representation. The old boroughs, which sent members to the
   House of Commons as they had sent them for generations before,
   no longer contained a respectable fraction of the "commons of
   England," supposed to be represented in the House, and those
   who voted in the boroughs were not at all the better class of
   the new England of the nineteenth century. Great numbers of
   the boroughs were mere private estates, and the few votes
   polled in them were cast by tenants who elected their
   landlords' nominees. On the other hand, the large cities and
   the numerous towns of recent growth had either no
   representation in Parliament, or they had equal representation
   with the "rotten boroughs" which cast two or three or
   half-a-dozen votes.

   That the commons of England, with all the gain of substantial
   strength they had been making in the last half of the
   eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth,
   endured this travesty of popular representation so long as
   until 1832, is proof of the potency of the conservatism which
   the French Revolution induced. The subject of parliamentary
   reform had been now and then discussed since Chatham's time;
   but Toryism had always been able to thrust it aside and bring
   the discussion to naught. At last there came the day when the
   question would no longer be put down. The agitations of 1830,
   combined with a very serious depression of industry and trade,
   produced a state of feeling which could not be defied. King and
   Parliament yielded to the public demand, and the First Reform
   Bill was passed. It widened the suffrage and amended very
   considerably the inequities of the parliamentary
   representation; but both reforms have been carried much
   farther since, by two later bills.

Repeal of the English Corn Laws.

   The reform of Parliament soon brought a broader spirit into
   legislation. Its finest fruits began to ripen about 1838, when
   an agitation for the repeal of the foolish and wicked English
   "corn-laws" was opened by Cobden and Bright. In the day of the
   "rotten boroughs," when the landlords controlled Parliament,
   they imagined that they had "protected" the farming interest,
   and secured higher rents to themselves, by laying heavy duties
   on the importation of foreign bread-stuffs. A famous "sliding
   scale" of such duties had been invented, which raised the
   duties when prices in the home market dropped, and lowered
   them proportionately when home prices rose. Thus the consumers
   were always deprived, as much as possible, of any cheapening
   of their bread which bountiful Nature might offer, and paid a
   heavy tax to increase the gains of the owners and cultivators
   of land.

   Now that other "interests" besides the agricultural had a
   voice in Parliament, and had become very strong, they began to
   cry out against this iniquity, and demand that the "corn laws"
   be done away with. The famous "anti-corn-law league,"
   organized mainly by the exertions of Richard Cobden, conducted
   an agitation of the question which brought about the repeal of
   the laws in 1846.

   But the effect of the agitation did not end there. So thorough
   and prolonged a discussion of the matter had enlightened the
   English people upon the whole question between "protection"
   and free trade. The manufacturers and mechanics, who had led
   the movement against protective duties on food-stuffs, were
   brought to see that they were handicapped more than protected
   by duties on imports in their own departments of production.
   So Cobden and his party continued their attacks on the theory
   of "protection" until every vestige of it was cleared from the
   English statute books.

The Revolutions of 1848.

   Another year of revolutions throughout Europe came in 1848,
   and the starting point of excitement was not, this time, at
   Paris, but, strangely enough, in the Vatican, at Rome. Pius
   IX. had been elected to the papal chair in 1846, and had
   immediately rejoiced the hearts and raised the hopes of the
   patriots in misgoverned Italy by his liberal measures of
   reform and his promising words. The attitude of the Pope gave
   encouragement to popular demonstrations in various Italian
   states during the later part of 1847; and in January 1848 a
   formidable rising occurred in Sicily, followed in February by
   another in Naples. King Ferdinand II. was compelled to change
   his ministers and to concede a constitution, which he did not
   long respect.

{1099}

   Lombardy was slow this time in being kindled; but when the
   flame of revolution burst out it was very fierce. The
   Austrians were driven first from Milan (March, 1848), and then
   from city after city, until they seemed to be abandoning their
   Italian possessions altogether. Venice asserted its republican
   independence under the presidency of Daniel Manin. Charles
   Albert, King of Sardinia, thought the time favorable for
   recovering Lombardy to himself, and declared war against
   Austria. The expulsion of the Austrians became the demand of
   the entire peninsula, and even the Pope, the Grand Duke of
   Tuscany, and the King of Naples were forced to join the
   patriotic movement in appearance, though not with sincerity.
   But the King of Sardinia brought ruin on the whole
   undertaking, by sustaining a fatal defeat in battle at
   Custozza, in July, 1848.

   France had been for some time well prepared for revolt, and
   was quick to be moved by the first whisper of it from Italy.
   The short-lived popularity of Louis Philippe was a thing of
   the past. There was widespread discontent with many things,
   and especially with the limited suffrage. The French people
   had the desire and the need of something like that grand
   measure of electoral reform which England secured so
   peacefully in 1832; but they could not reach it in the
   peaceful way. The aptitude and the habit of handling and
   directing the great forces of public opinion effectively in
   such a situation were alike wanting among them. There was a
   mixture, moreover, of social theories and dreams in their
   political undertaking, which heated the movement and made it
   more certainly explosive. The Parisian mob took arms and built
   barricades on the 23d of February. The next day Louis Philippe
   signed an abdication, and a week later he was an exile in
   England. For the remainder of the year France was strangely
   ruled: first by a self-constituted provisional government,
   Lamartine at its head, which opened national workshops, and
   attempted to give employment and pay to 125,000 enrolled
   citizens in need; afterwards by a Constituent National
   Assembly, and an Executive Commission, which found the
   national workshops a devouring monster, difficult to control
   and hard to destroy. Paris got rid of the shops in June, at
   the cost of a battle which lasted four days, and in which more
   than 8,000 people were wounded or slain. In November a
   republican constitution, framed by the Assembly, was adopted,
   and on the 10th of December Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of
   Louis Bonaparte, once King of Holland, and of Hortense
   Beauharnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine, was elected
   President of the Republic by an enormous popular vote.

   The revolutionary shock of 1848 was felt in Germany soon after
   the fall of the monarchy in France. In March there was rioting
   in Berlin and a collision with the troops, which alarmed the
   king so seriously that he yielded promises to almost every
   demand. Similar risings in other capitals had about the same
   success. At Vienna, the outbreak was more violent and drove
   both Metternich and the Emperor from the city. In the first
   flush of these popular triumphs there came about a most
   hopeful-looking election of a Germanic National Assembly,
   representative of all Germany, and gathered at Frankfort, on
   the invitation of the Diet, for a revision of the constitution
   of the Confederation. But the Assembly contained more learned
   scholars than practical statesmen, and its constitutional work
   was wasted labor. A Constituent Assembly elected in Prussia
   accomplished no more, and was dispersed in the end without
   resistance; but the king granted a constitution of his own
   framing. The revolutionary movement in Germany left its
   effects, in a general loosening of the bonds of harsh
   government, a general broadening of political ideas, a final
   breaking of the Metternich influence, even in Austria; but it
   passed over the existing institutions of the much-divided
   country with a very light touch.

   In Hungary the revolution, stimulated by the eloquence of
   Kossuth, was carried to the pitch of serious war. The
   Hungarians had resolved to be an independent nation, and in
   the struggle which ensued they approached very near the
   attainment of their desire; but Russia came to the help of the
   Hapsburgs, and the armies of the two despotisms combined were
   more than the Hungarians could resist. Their revolt was
   abandoned in August, 1849, and Kossuth, with other leaders,
   escaped through Turkish territory to other lands.

   The suppression of the Hungarian revolt was followed by a
   complete restoration of the despotism and domination of the
   Austrians in Italy. Charles Albert, of Sardinia, had taken
   courage from the struggle in Hungary and had renewed
   hostilities in March, 1849. But, again, he was crushingly
   defeated, at Novara, and resigned, in despair, the crown to
   his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Venice, which had resisted a long
   siege with heroic constancy, capitulated in August of the same
   year. The whole of Lombardy and Venetia was bowed once more
   under the merciless tyranny of the Austrians, and savage
   revenges were taken upon the patriots who failed to escape.
   Rome, whence the Pope—no longer a patron of liberal
   politics—had fled, and where a republic had been once more
   set up, with Garibaldi and Mazzini in its constituent
   assembly, was besieged and taken, and the republic overturned,
   by troops sent from republican France. The Neapolitan king
   restored his atrocious absolutism without help, by measures of
   the greatest brutality.

   A civil war in Switzerland, which occurred simultaneously with
   the political collisions in surrounding countries, is hardly
   to be classed with them. It was rather a religious conflict,
   between the Roman Catholics and their opponents. The Catholic
   cantons, united in a League, called the Sonderbund, were
   defeated in the war; the Jesuits were expelled from
   Switzerland in consequence, and, in September, 1848, a new
   constitution for the confederacy was adopted.

{1100}

The Second Empire in France.

   The election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French
   Republic was ominous of a disposition among the people to
   bring back a Napoleonic regime, with all the falsities that it
   might imply. He so construed the vote which elected him, and
   does not seem to have been mistaken. Having surrounded himself
   with unprincipled adventurers, and employed three years of his
   presidency in preparations for the attempt, he executed a coup
   d' état on the 2d of December, dispersing the National
   Assembly, arresting influential republicans, and submitting to
   popular vote a new constitution which prolonged his presidency
   to ten years. This was but the first step. A year later he
   secured a "plébiscite" which made him hereditary Emperor of
   the French. The new Empire—the Second Empire in France—was
   more vulgar, more false, more fraudulent, more swarmingly a
   nest of self-seeking and dishonest adventurers, than the First
   had been, and with nothing of the saving genius that was in
   the First. It rotted for eighteen years, and then it fell,
   France with it.

The Crimean War.

   A certain respectability was lent to this second Napoleonic
   Empire by the alliance of England with it in 1854, against
   Russia. The Czar, Nicholas, had determined to defy resistance
   in Europe to his designs against the Turks. He first
   endeavored to persuade England to join him in dividing the
   possessions of "the sick man," as he described the Ottoman,
   and, that proposal being declined, he opened on his own
   account a quarrel with the Porte. France and England joined
   forces in assisting the Turks, and the little kingdom of
   Sardinia, from motives of far-seeing policy, came into the
   alliance. The principal campaign of the war was fought in the
   Crimea, and its notable incident was the long siege of
   Sebastopol, which the Russians defended until September, 1855.
   An armistice was concluded the following January, and the
   terms of peace were settled at a general conference of powers
   in Paris the next March. The results of the war were a check
   to Russia, but an improvement of the condition of the Sultan's
   Christian subjects. Moldavia and Wallachia were soon
   afterwards united under the name of Roumania, paying tribute
   to the Porte, but otherwise independent.

Liberation and Unification of Italy.

   The part taken by Sardinia in the Crimean War gave that
   kingdom a standing in European politics which had never been
   recognized before. It was a measure of sagacious policy due to
   the able statesman, Count Cavour, who had become the trusted
   minister of Victor Emmanuel, the Sardinian king. The king and
   his minister were agreed in one aim—the unification of Italy
   under the headship of the House of Savoy. By her participation
   in the war with Russia, Sardinia won a position which enabled
   her to claim and secure admission to the Congress of Paris,
   among the greater powers. At that conference, Count Cavour
   found an opportunity to direct attention to the deplorable
   state of affairs in Italy, under the Austrian rule and
   influence. No action by the Congress was taken; but the
   Italian question was raised in importance at once by the
   discussion of it, and Italy was rallied to the side of
   Sardinia as the necessary head of any practicable movement
   toward liberation. More than that: France was moved to
   sympathy with the Italian cause, and Louis Napoleon was led to
   believe that his throne would be strengthened by espousing it.
   He encouraged Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, therefore, in an
   attitude toward Austria which resulted in war (1859), and when
   the Sardinians were attacked he went to their assistance with
   a powerful force. At Magenta and Solferino the Austrians were
   decisively beaten, and the French emperor then abruptly closed
   the war, making a treaty which ceded Lombardy alone to
   Sardinia, leaving Venetia still under the oppressor, and the
   remainder of Italy unchanged in its state. For payment of the
   service he had rendered, Louis Napoleon exacted Savoy and
   Nice, and Victor Emmanuel was compelled to part with the
   original seat of his House.

   There was bitter disappointment among the Italian patriots
   over the meagerness of the fruit yielded by the splendid
   victories of Magenta and Solferino. Despite the treaty of
   Villafranca, they were determined to have more, and they did.
   Tuscany, Parma, Modena and Romagna demanded annexation to
   Sardinia, and, after a plébiscite, they were received (March,
   1860) into the kingdom and represented in its parliament. In
   the Two Sicilies there was an intense longing for deliverance
   from the brutalities of the Neapolitan Bourbons. Victor
   Emmanuel could not venture an attack upon the rotten kingdom,
   for fear of resentments in France and elsewhere. But the
   adventurous soldier, Garibaldi, now took on himself the task
   of completing the liberation of Italy. With an army of
   volunteers, he first swept the Neapolitans out of Sicily, and
   then took Naples itself, within the space of four months,
   between May and September, 1860. The whole dominion was
   annexed to what now became the Kingdom of Italy, and which
   embraced the entire peninsula except Rome, garrisoned for the
   Pope by French troops, and Venetia, still held in the clutches
   of Austria. In 1862, Garibaldi raised volunteers for an attack
   on Rome; but the unwise movement was suppressed by Victor
   Emmanuel. Two years later, the King of Italy brought about an
   agreement with the French emperor to withdraw his garrison
   from Rome, and, after that had been done, the annexation of
   Rome to the Italian kingdom was a mere question of time. It
   came about in 1870, after the fall of Louis Napoleon, and
   Victor Emmanuel transferred his capital to the Eternal City.
   The Pope's domain was then limited to the precincts of the
   Vatican.

The Austro-Prussian War.

   The unification of Italy was the first of a remarkable series
   of nationalizing movements which have been the most
   significant feature of the history of the last half of the
   nineteenth century. The next of these movements to begin was
   in Germany—the much divided country of one peculiarly
   homogeneous and identical race. Influences tending toward
   unification had been acting on the Germans since Prussia rose
   to superiority in the north. By the middle of the century, the
   educated, military Prussia that was founded after 1806 had
   become a power capable of great things in capable hands; and
   the capable hands received it. In 1861, William I. succeeded
   his brother as king; in 1862, Otto von Bismarck became his
   prime minister. It was a remarkable combination of qualities
   and talents, and remarkable results came from it.

{1101}

   In 1864, Prussia and Austria acted together in taking
   Schleswig and Holstein, as German states, from Denmark. The
   next year they quarreled over the administration of the
   duchies. In 1866, they fought, and Austria was entirely
   vanquished in a "seven weeks war." The superiority of Prussia,
   organized by her great military administrator and soldier,
   Moltke, was overpowering. Her rival was left completely at her
   mercy. But Bismarck and his king were wisely magnanimous. They
   refrained from inflicting on the Austrians a humiliation that
   would rankle and keep enmities alive. They foresaw the need of
   future friendship between the two powers of central Europe, as
   against Russia on the one side and France on the other, and
   they shaped their policy to secure it. It sufficed them to
   have put Austria out of the German circle, forever; to have
   ended the false relation in which the Hapsburgs—rulers of an
   essentially Slavonic and Magyar dominion—had stood towards
   Germany so long.

   Prussia now dominated the surrounding German states so
   commandingly that the mode and the time of their unification
   may be said to have been within her own control. Hanover,
   Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Frankfort were
   incorporated in the Prussian kingdom at once. Saxony and the
   other states of the north were enveloped in a North German
   Confederation, with the King of Prussia for its hereditary
   president and commander of its forces. The states of southern
   Germany were left unfederated for the time being, but bound
   themselves by treaty to put their armies at the disposal of
   Prussia. Thus Germany as a whole was already made practically
   one power, under the control of King William and his great
   minister.

Final Expulsion of Austria from Italy.

   The same war which unified Germany carried forward the
   nationalization of Italy another step. Victor Emmanuel had
   shrewdly entered into an alliance with Prussia before the war
   began, and attacked Austria in Venetia simultaneously with the
   German attack on the Bohemian side. The Italians were beaten
   at Custozza, and their navy was defeated in the Adriatic; but
   the victorious Prussians exacted Venetia for them in the
   settlement of peace, and Austria had no more footing in the
   peninsula.

Austria-Hungary.

   It is greatly to the credit of Austria, long blinded and
   stupefied by the narcotic of absolutism, that the lessons of
   the war of 1866 sank deep into her mind and produced a very
   genuine enlightenment. The whole policy of the court of Vienna
   was changed, and with it the constitution of the Empire. The
   statesmen of Hungary were called into consultation with the
   statesmen of Austria, and the outcome of their discussions was
   an agreement which swept away the old Austria, holding Hungary
   in subjection, and created in its place a new power—a federal
   Austria-Hungary—equalized in its two principal parts, and
   united under the same sovereign with distinct constitutions.

The Franco-German War.

   The surprising triumph of Prussia in the Seven Weeks War stung
   Louis Napoleon with a jealousy which he could not conceal. He
   was incapable of perceiving what it signified,—of perfection
   in the organization of the Prussian kingdom and of power in
   its resources. He was under illusions as to the strength of
   his own Empire. It had been honeycombed by the rascalities
   that attended and surrounded him, and he did not know it. He
   imagined France to be capable of putting a check on Prussian
   aggrandizement; and he began very early after Sadowa to pursue
   King William with demands which were tolerably certain to end
   in war. When the war came, in July, 1870, it was by his own
   declaration; yet Prussia was prepared for it and France was
   not. In six weeks time from the declaration of war,—in one
   month from the first action,—Napoleon himself was a prisoner
   of war in the hands of the Germans, surrendered at Sedan, with
   the whole army which he personally commanded; the Empire was in
   collapse, and a provisional government had taken the direction
   of affairs. On the 20th of September Paris was invested; on
   the 28th of October Baznine, with an army of 150,000 men,
   capitulated at Metz. A hopeless attempt to rally the nation to
   fresh efforts of defence in the interior, on the Loire, was
   valiantly made under the lead of Gambetta; but it was too
   late. When the year closed, besieged Paris was at the verge of
   starvation and all attempts to relieve the city had failed. On
   the 28th of January, 1871, an armistice was sought and
   obtained; on the 30th, Paris was surrendered and the Germans
   entered it. The treaty of peace negotiated subsequently ceded
   Alsace to Germany, with a fifth of Lorraine, and bound France
   to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs.

The Paris Commune.

   In February, 1871, the provisional "Government of National
   Defense" gave way to a National Assembly, duly elected under
   the provisions of the armistice, and an executive was
   instituted at Bordeaux, under the presidency of M. Thiers.
   Early in March, the German forces were withdrawn from Paris,
   and control of the city was immediately seized by that
   dangerous element—Jacobinical, or Red Republican, or
   Communistic, as it may be variously described—which always
   shows itself with promptitude and power in the French capital,
   at disorderly times. The Commune was proclaimed, and the
   national government was defied. From the 2d of April until the
   28th of May Paris was again under siege, this time by forces
   of the French government, fighting to overcome the
   revolutionists within. The proceedings of the latter were more
   wantonly destructive than those of the Terrorists of the
   Revolution, and scarcely less sanguinary. The Commune was
   suppressed in the end with great severity.

The Third French Republic.

   M. Thiers held the presidency of the Third Republic in France
   until 1873, when he resigned and was succeeded by Marshal
   MacMahon. In 1875 the constitution which has since remained,
   with some amendments, in force, was framed and adopted. In
   1878 Marshal MacMahon gave place to M. Jules Grévy, and the
   latter to M. Sadi Carnot in 1887. Republican government seems
   to be firmly and permanently established in France at last.
   The country is in a prosperous state, and nothing but its
   passionate desire to recover Alsace and to avenge Sedan
   appears threatening to its future.

{1102}

The new German Empire.

   While the army of the Germans was still besieging Paris, and
   King William and Prince Bismarck were at Versailles, in
   January, 1871, the last act which completed the unification
   and nationalization of Germany was performed. This was the
   assumption of the title of Emperor by King William, in
   response to the prayer of the princes of Germany and of the
   North German Parliament. On the 16th of the following April, a
   constitution for the German Empire was proclaimed.

   The long and extraordinary reign of the Emperor William I. was
   ended by his death in 1888. His son, Frederick III., was dying
   at the time of an incurable disease, and survived his father
   only three months. The son of Frederick III., William II.,
   signalized the beginning of his reign by dismissing, after a
   few months, the great minister, Count Bismarck, on whom his
   strong grandfather had leaned, and who had wrought such
   marvels of statesmanship and diplomacy for the German race.
   What may lie at the end of the reign which had this
   self-sufficient beginning is not to be foretold.

The Russo-Turkish War.

   Since the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, the peace of Europe
   has been broken but once by hostilities within the European
   boundary. In 1875 a rising against the unendurable misrule of
   the Turks began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was imitated
   the next year in Bulgaria. Servia and Montenegro declared war
   against Turkey and were overcome. Russia then espoused the
   cause of the struggling Slavs, and opened, in 1877, a most
   formidable new attempt to crush the Ottoman power, and to
   accomplish her coveted extension to the Mediterranean. From
   May until the following January the storm of war raged
   fiercely along the Balkans. The Turks fought stubbornly, but
   they were beaten back, and nothing but a dangerous opposition
   of feeling among the other powers in Europe stayed the hand of
   the Czar from being laid upon Constantinople. The powers
   required a settlement of the peace between Russia and Turkey
   to be made by a general Congress, and it was held at Berlin in
   June, 1878. Bulgaria was divided by the Congress into two
   states, one tributary to the Turk, but freely governed, the
   other subject to Turkey, but under a Christian governor. This
   arrangement was set aside seven years later by a bloodless
   revolution, which formed one Bulgaria in nominal relations of
   dependence upon the Porte. This was the third important
   nationalizing movement within a quarter of a century, and it
   is likely to go farther in southeastern Europe, until it
   settles, perhaps, "the Eastern question," so far as the
   European side of it is concerned.

   Bosnia and Herzegovina were given to Austria by the Congress
   of Berlin; the independence of Roumania, Servia, and
   Montenegro was made more complete; the island of Cyprus was
   turned over to Great Britain for administration.

Spain in the last half Century.

   A few words will tell sufficiently the story of Spain since
   the successor of Joseph Bonaparte quitted the scene. Ferdinand
   VII. died in 1833, and his infant daughter was proclaimed
   queen, as Isabella II., with her mother, Christina, regent.
   Isabella's title was disputed by Don Carlos, the late king's
   brother, and a civil war between Carlists and Christinos went
   on for years. When Isabella came of age she proved to be a
   dissolute woman, with strong proclivities toward arbitrary
   government. A liberal party, and even a republican party, had
   been steadily gaining ground in Spain, and the queen placed
   herself in conflict with it. In 1868 a revolution drove her
   into France. The revolutionists offered the crown to a prince
   distantly related to the royal family of Prussia. It was this
   incident that gave Louis Napoleon a pretext for quarreling
   with the King of Prussia in 1870 and declaring war. Declined
   by the Hohenzollern prince, the Spanish crown was then offered
   to Amadeo, son of the King of Italy, who accepted it, but
   resigned it again in 1873, after a reign of two years, in
   disgust with the factions which troubled him. Castelar, the
   distinguished republican orator, then formed a republican
   government which held the reins for a few months, but could
   not establish order in the troubled land. The monarchy was
   restored in December, 1874, by the coronation of Alfonso XII.,
   son of the exiled Isabella. Since that time Spain has
   preserved a tolerably peaceful and contented state.

England and Ireland.

   In recent years, the part which Great Britain has taken in
   Continental affairs has been slight; and, indeed, there has
   been little in those affairs to bring about important
   international relations. In domestic politics, a single series
   of questions, concerning Ireland and the connection of Ireland
   with the British part of the United Kingdom, has mastered the
   field, overriding all others and compelling the statesmen of
   the day to take them in hand. The sudden imperiousness of
   these questions affords a peculiar manifestation of the
   political conscience in nations which the nineteenth century
   has wakened and set astir. Through all the prior centuries of
   their subjection, the treatment of the Irish people by the
   English was as cruel and as heedless of justice and right as
   the treatment of Poles by Russians or of Greeks by Turks. They
   were trebly oppressed: as conquered subjects of an alien race,
   as religious enemies, as possible rivals in production and
   trade. They were deprived of political and civil rights; they
   were denied the ministrations of their priests; the better
   employments and more honorable professions were closed to
   them; the industries which promised prosperity to their
   country were suppressed. A small minority of Protestant
   colonists became the recognized nation, so far as a
   nationality in Ireland was recognized at all. When Ireland was
   said to have a Parliament, it was the Parliament of the
   minority alone. No Catholic sat in it; no Catholic was
   represented in it. When Irishmen were permitted to bear arms,
   they were Protestant Irishmen only who formed the privileged
   militia. Seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the island were
   politically as non-existent as actual serfdom could have made
   them. For the most part they were peasants and their state as
   such scarcely above the condition of serfs. They owned no
   land; their leases were insecure; the laws protected them in
   the least possible degree; their landlords were mostly of the
   hostile creed and race. No country in Europe showed conditions
   better calculated to distress and degrade a people.

{1103}

   This was the state of things in Ireland until nearly the end
   of the eighteenth century. In 1782 legislative independence
   was conceded; but the independent legislature was still the
   Parliament in which Protestants sat alone. In 1793 Catholics
   were admitted to the franchise; but seats in Parliament were
   still denied to them and they must elect Protestants to
   represent them. In 1800 the Act of Union, creating the United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, extinguished the
   Parliament at Dublin and provided for the introduction of
   Irish peers and members to represent Irish constituencies in
   the greater Parliament at London; but still no Catholic could
   take a seat in either House. Not until 1829, after eighteen
   years of the fierce agitation which Daniel O'Connell stirred
   up, were Catholic disabilities entirely removed and the people
   of that faith placed on an equal footing with Protestants in
   political and civil rights. O'Connell's agitation was not for
   Catholic emancipation alone, but for the repeal of the Act of
   Union and the restoration of legislative independence and
   national distinctness to Ireland. That desire has been hot in
   the Irish heart from the day the Union was accomplished. After
   O'Connell's death, there was quiet on the subject for a time.
   The fearful famine of 1845-7 deadened all political feeling.
   Then there was a recurrence of the passionate animosity to
   British rule which had kindled unfortunate rebellions in 1798
   and 1803. It produced the Fenian conspiracies, which ran their
   course from about 1858 to 1867. But soon after that time Irish
   nationalism resumed a more politic temper, and doubled the
   energy of its efforts by confining them to peaceful and lawful
   ways. The Home Rule movement, which began in 1873, was aimed
   at the organization of a compact and well-guided Irish party
   in Parliament, to press the demand for legislative
   independence and to act with united weight on lines of Irish
   policy carefully laid down. This Home Rule party soon acquired
   a powerful leader in Mr. Charles Parnell, and was successful
   in carrying questions of reform in Ireland to the forefront of
   English politics.

   Under the influence of its great leader, Mr. Gladstone, the
   Liberal party had already, before the Home Rule party came
   into the field, begun to adopt measures for the redress of
   Irish wrongs. In 1869, the Irish branch of the Church of
   England, calling itself the Church of Ireland, was
   disestablished. The membership of that church was reckoned to
   be one-tenth of the population; but it had been supported by
   the taxation of the whole. The Catholics, the Presbyterians
   and other dissenters were now released from this unjust
   burden. In 1870, a Land Bill—the first of several, which
   restrict the power of Irish landlords to oppress their
   tenants, and which protect the latter, while opening
   opportunities of land-ownership to them—was passed. The land
   question became for a time more prominent than the Home Rule
   question, and the party of Mr. Parnell was practically
   absorbed in an Irish National Land League, formed to force
   landlords to a reduction of rents. The methods of coercion
   adopted brought the League into collision with the Liberal
   Government, notwithstanding the general sympathy of the latter
   with Irish complaints. For a time the Irish Nationalists went
   into alliance with the English Conservatives; but in 1886 Mr.
   Gladstone became convinced, and convinced the majority of his
   party, that just and harmonious relations between Ireland and
   Great Britain could never be established without the
   concession of Home Rule to the former. A bill which he
   introduced to that end was defeated in the House of Commons
   and Mr. Gladstone resigned. In 1892 he was returned to power,
   and in September of the following year he carried in the House
   of Commons a bill for the transferring of Irish legislation to
   a distinct Parliament at Dublin. It was defeated, however, in
   the House of Lords, and the question now rests in an unsettled
   state. Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the premiership and
   from the leadership of his party, which occurred in March,
   1894, may affect the prospects of the measure; but the English
   Liberals are committed to its principle, and it appears to be
   certain that the Irish question will attain some solution
   within no very long time.

Conclusion.

   The beginning of the year 1894, when this is written, finds
   Europe at peace, as it has been for a number of years. But the
   peace is not of friendship, nor of honorable confidence, nor
   of good will. The greater nations are lying on their arms, so
   to speak, watching one another with strained eyes and with
   jealous hearts. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, are
   marshaling armies in the season of peace that, not many years
   ago, would have seemed monstrous for war. Exactions of
   military service and taxation for military expenditure are
   pressed upon their people to the point of last endurance. The
   preparation for battle is so vast in its scale, so unceasing,
   so increasing, so far in the lead over all other efforts among
   men, that it seems like a new affirmation of belief that war
   is the natural order of the world.

   And yet, the dread of war is greater in the civilized world
   than ever before. The interests and influences that work for
   peace are more powerful than at any former time. The wealth
   which war threatens, the commerce which it interrupts, the
   industry which it disturbs, the intelligence which it offends,
   the humanity which it shocks, the Christianity which it
   grieves, grow stronger to resist it, year by year. The
   statesman and the diplomatist are under checks of
   responsibility which a generation no older than Palmerston's
   never felt. The arbitrator and the tribunal of arbitration
   have become familiar within a quarter of a century. The spirit
   of the age opposes war with rising earnestness and increasing
   force; while the circumstance and fact of the time seem
   arranged for it as the chief business of mankind. It is a
   singular and a critical situation; the outcome from it is
   impenetrably hidden.

   Within itself, too, each nation is troubled with hostilities
   that the world has not known before. Democracy in politics is
   bringing in, as was inevitable, democracy in the whole social
   system; and the period of adjustment to it, which we are
   passing through, could not fail to be a period of trial and of
   many dangers. The Anarchist, the Nihilist, the Socialist in
   his many variations—what are they going to do in the time
   that lies before us?

   Europe, at the present stage of its history, is in the thick
   of many questions; and so we leave it.

{1104}

EURYMEDON, Battles of the (B. C. 466).

      See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EUSKALDUNAC.

      See BASQUES.

EUTAW SPRINGS, Battle of(1781).

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

EUTHYNI, The.

      See LOGISTÆ.

EUTYCHIAN HERESY.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

EUXINE, The.

   Euxinus Pontus, or Pontus Euxinus, the Black Sea,
   as named by the Greeks.

EVACUATION DAY.
   The anniversary of the evacuation of New York by
   the British, Nov. 25, 1783.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

EVANGELICAL UNION OF GERMANY, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

EVER VICTORIOUS ARMY, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

EVESHAM, Battle of (1265).

   The battle which finished the civil war in England known as
   the Barons' War. It was fought Aug. 3, 1265, and Earl Simon de
   Montfort, the soul of the popular cause, was slain, with most
   of his followers. Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I.,
   commanded the royal forces.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

EVICTIONS, Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

EXARCHS OF RAVENNA.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

EXARCHS OF THE DIOCESE.

      See PRIMATES.

EXCHEQUER.
EXCHEQUER ROLLS.
EXCHEQUER TALLIES.

   "The Exchequer of the Norman kings was the court in which the
   whole financial business of the country was transacted, and as
   the whole administration of justice, and even the military
   organisation, was dependent upon the fiscal officers, the
   whole framework of society may be said to have passed annually
   under its review. It derived its name from the chequered cloth
   which covered the table at which the accounts were taken, a
   name which suggested to the spectator the idea of a game at
   chess between the receiver and the payer, the treasurer and
   the sheriff. … The record of the business was preserved in
   three great rolls; one kept by the Treasurer, another by the
   Chancellor, and a third by an officer nominated by the king,
   who registered the matters of legal and special importance.
   The rolls of the Treasurer and Chancellor were duplicates;
   that of the former was called from its shape the great roll of
   the Pipe, and that of the latter the roll of the Chancery. These
   documents are mostly still in existence. The Pipe Rolls are
   complete from the second year of Henry II. and the
   Chancellor's Rolls nearly so. Of the preceding period only one
   roll, that of the thirty-first year of Henry I., is preserved,
   and this with Domesday book is the most valuable store of
   information which exists for the administrative history of the
   age. The financial reports were made to the barons by the
   sheriffs of the counties. At Easter and Michælmas each of
   these magistrates produced his own accounts and paid in to the
   Exchequer such an instalment or proffer as he could afford,
   retaining in hand sufficient money for current expenses. In
   token of receipt a tally was made; a long piece of wood in
   which a number of notches were cut, marking the pounds,
   shillings, and pence received; this stick was then split down
   the middle, each half contained exactly the same number of
   notches, and no alteration could of course be made without
   certain detection. … The fire which destroyed the old Houses
   of Parliament is said to have originated in the burning of the
   old Exchequer tallies."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 126._

   "The wooden 'tallies' on which a large notch represented
   £1,000, and smaller notches other sums, while a halfpenny was
   denoted by a small round hole, were actually in use at the
   Exchequer until the year 1824."

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      Preface to Hall's "Antiquities and
      Curiosities of the Exchequer."_

      ALSO IN: _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 1, number 5._

      See, also, CURIA REGIS and CHESS.

EXCHEQUER, Chancellor of the.

   In the reign of Henry III., of England, "was created the
   office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Exchequer
   seal was entrusted, and who with the Treasurer took part in
   the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer, although not in
   the common law jurisdiction of the barons, which extended
   itself as the legal fictions of pleading brought common pleas
   into this court."

      W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15, section 237.

EXCLUSION BILL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.

EXCOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERDICTS.

   "Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to
   its religious efficacy, was originally nothing more in
   appearance than the exercise of a right which every society
   claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its body. No
   direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for
   several ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual
   censures, and tended to exclude the object of it, not only
   from a participation in religious rites, but in a considerable
   degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was used
   sparingly and upon the gravest occasions. Gradually, as the
   church became more powerful and more imperious,
   excommunications were issued upon every provocation, rather as
   a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any regard to its
   original intention. … Princes who felt the inadequacy of
   their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of
   more formidable sanctions. Several capitularies of Charlemagne
   denounce the penalty of excommunication against incendiaries
   or deserters from the army. Charles the Bald procured similar
   censures against his revolted vassals. Thus the boundary
   between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less
   distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh
   encroachments, as they discovered the secret of rendering them
   successful. … The support due to church censures by temporal
   judges is vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and
   Charlemagne. It became in later ages a more established
   principle in France and England, and, I presume, in other
   countries. By our common law an excommunicated person is
   incapable of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he
   may be detained in prison until he obtains absolution. By the
   Establishments of St. Louis, his estate or person might be
   attached by the magistrate. These actual penalties were
   attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more
   calculated to make an impression on ordinary minds. They were
   to be shunned, like men infected with leprosy, by their
   servants, their friends, and their families. …
{1105}
   But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a
   hardened sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had
   recourse to a more comprehensive punishment. For the offence
   of a nobleman she put a county, for that of a prince his
   entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of religious
   offices. No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous
   as this. During an interdict the churches were closed, the
   bells silent, the dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism
   and extreme unction performed. The penalty fell upon those who
   had neither partaken nor could have prevented the offence; and
   the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the
   pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so
   rare before the time of Gregory VII., that some have referred
   them to him as their author; instances may however be found of
   an earlier date."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, part 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
      part 2, chapter 1, article 3._

      _H. C. Lea,
      Studies in Church History,
      part 3._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 8, section 86._

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED SESSIONS.

EXEGETÆ, The.

   A board of three persons in ancient Athens "to whom
   application might be made in all matters relating to sacred
   law, and also, probably, with regard to the significance of
   the Diosemia, or celestial phenomena and other signs by which
   future events were foretold."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

EXETER, Origin of.

   "Isca Damnoniorum, Caer Wisc, Exanceaster, Exeter, keeping
   essentially the same name under all changes, stands
   distinguished as the one great English city which has, in a
   more marked way than any other, kept its unbroken being and
   its unbroken position throughout all ages. The City on the
   Exe, in all ages and in all tongues keeping its name as the
   City on the Exe, allows of an easy definition. … It is the
   one city [of England] in which we can feel sure that human
   habitation and city life have never ceased from the days of
   the early Cæsars to our own." At the Norman conquest, Exeter
   did not submit to William until after a siege of 18 days, in
   1068.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Exeter,
      chapters 1-2._

EXILARCH, The.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

EXODUS FROM EGYPT, The.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

EYLAU, Battle of (1807).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

EYRE, Governor, and the Jamaica insurrection.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

EYSTEIN I., King of Norway, A. D. 1116-1122.
   Eystein II., 1155-1157.

EZZELINO, OR ECCELINO DI ROMANO,
   The tyranny of, and the crusade against.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

F.

FABIAN POLICY.-FABIAN TACTICS.

   The policy pursued by Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman Dictator,
   called "the Cunctator" or Lingerer, in his campaigns against
   Hannibal.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

FACTORY LEGISLATION, English.

   "During the 17th and 18th centuries, when the skill of the
   workmen had greatly improved, and the productiveness of labour
   had increased, various methods were resorted to for the
   purpose of prolonging the working day. The noontide nap was
   first dispensed with, then other intervals of rest were
   curtailed, and ultimately artificial light was introduced,
   which had the effect of abolishing the difference between the
   short days of winter and the long days of summer, thus
   equalising, the working day throughout the year. The opening
   of the 19th century was signalised by a new cry, namely, for a
   reduction in the hours of labour; this was in consequence of
   the introduction of female and child labour into the
   factories, and the deterioration of the workers as a result of
   excessive overwork. … The overwork of the young, and
   particularly the excessive hours in the factories, became such
   crying evils that in 1801 the first Act was passed to restrict
   the hours of labour for apprentices, who were prohibited from
   working more than 12 hours a day, between six A. M. and nine
   P. M., and that provision should be made for teaching them to
   read and write, and other educational exercises. This Act
   further provided that the mills should be whitewashed at least
   once a year; and that doors and windows should be made to
   admit fresh air. This Act was followed by a series of
   commissions and committees of inquiry, the result being that
   it was several times amended. The details of the evidence
   given before the several commissions and committees of inquiry
   are sickening in the extreme; the medical testimony was
   unanimous in its verdict that the children were physically
   ruined by overwork; those who escaped with their lives were so
   crippled and maimed that they were unable to maintain
   themselves in after life, and became paupers. It was proven
   that out of 4,000 who entered the factory before they were 30
   years of age, only 600 were to be found in the mills after
   that age. By Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819 it was proposed to
   limit the hours to 11 per day with one and a half for meals,
   for those under 16 years of age. But the mill-owners
   prophesied the ruin of the manufacturers of the country—they
   could not compete with the foreign markets, it was an
   interference with the freedom of labour, the spare time given
   would be spent in debauchery and riot, and that if passed,
   other trades would require the same provisions. The Bill was
   defeated, and the hours fixed at 72 per week; the justices,
   that is to say the manufacturers, were entrusted with the
   enforcement of the law. In 1825 a new law was passed defining
   the time when breakfast and dinner was to be taken, and fixing
   the time to half an hour for the first repast, and a full hour
   for dinner; the traditional term of apprentices was dropped
   and the modern classification of children and young persons
   was substituted, and children were once more prohibited from
   working more than 12 hours a day. But every means was adopted
   to evade the law. … After thousands of petitions, and
   numerous angry debates in Parliament, the Act of 1833 was
   passed, which limited the working hours of children to 48
   hours per week, and provided that each child should have a
   certain amount of schooling, and with it factory inspectors
   were appointed to enforce the law.
{1106}
   But the law was not to come into operation until March 1,
   1836, during which time it had to be explained and defended in
   one session, amended in a second, and made binding in a third.
   After several Royal Commissions and inquiries by select
   committees, this Act has been eight times amended, until the
   working hours of children are now limited to six per day, and
   for young persons and women to 56 per week; these provisions
   with certain modifications are now extended to workshops, and
   the whole law is being consolidated and amended. … The whole
   series of the Factory Acts, dating from 42 George III., c. 73,
   to the 37 and 38 Victoria 1874, forms a code of legislation,
   in regard to working people, unexampled in any age and
   unequalled in any country in the world. … Outside
   Parliament efforts have been constantly made to further reduce
   the working hours."

      _G. Howell,
      The Conflicts of Capital and Labour,
      pages 298-301._

   "The continental governments, of course, have been obliged to
   make regulations covering kindred subjects, but rarely have
   they kept pace with English legislation. America has enacted
   progressive laws so far as the condition of factory workers
   has warranted. It should be remembered that the abuses which
   crept into the system in England never existed in this country
   in any such degree as we know they did in the old country. Yet
   there are few States in America where manufactures predominate
   or hold an important position in which law has not stepped in
   and restricted either the hours of labor, or the conditions of
   labor, and insisted upon the education of factory children,
   although the laws are usually silent as to children of
   agricultural laborers. It is is not wholly in the passage of
   purely factory acts that the factory system has influenced the
   legislation of the world. England may have suffered
   temporarily from the effects of some of her factory
   legislation, and the recent reduction of the hours of labor to
   nine and one-half per day, less than in any other country, has
   had the effect of placing her works at a disadvantage; but, in
   the long run, England will be the gainer on account of all the
   work she has done in the way of legislative restrictions upon
   labor. In this she has changed her whole policy. Formerly
   trade must be restricted and labor allowed to demoralize
   itself under the specious plea of being free; now, trade must
   be free and labor restricted in the interests of society,
   which means in the interest of good morals. The factory system
   has not only wrought this change, but has compelled the
   economists to recognize the distinction between commodities
   and services. There has been greater and greater freedom of
   contract in respect to commodities, but the contracts which
   involve labor have become more and more completely under the
   authority and supervision of the State. 'Seventy-five years
   ago scarcely a single law existed in any country for
   regulating the contract for services in the interest of the
   laboring classes. At the same time the contract for
   commodities was everywhere subject to minute and incessant
   regulations' [Hon. F. A. Walker]. Factory legislation in
   England, as elsewhere, has had for its chief object the
   regulation of the labor of children and women; but its scope
   has constantly increased by successive and progressive
   amendments until they have attempted to secure the physical
   and moral well-being of the working-man in all trades, and to
   give him every condition of salubrity and of personal safety
   in the workshops. The excellent effect of factory legislation
   has been made manifest throughout the whole of Great Britain.
   'Physically, the factory child can bear fair comparison with
   the child brought up in the fields,' and, intellectually,
   progress is far greater with the former than with the latter.
   Public opinion, struck by these results, has demanded the
   extension of protective measures for children to every kind of
   industrial labor, until parliament has brought under the
   influence of these laws the most powerful industries. To carry
   the factory regulations and those relative to schooling into
   effect, England has an efficient corps of factory inspectors.
   The manufacturers of England are unanimous in acknowledging
   that to the activity, to the sense of impartiality, displayed
   by these inspectors, is due the fact that an entire
   application of the law has been possible without individual
   interests being thereby jeopardized to a very serious extent.
   … In no other country is there so elaborate a code of
   factory laws as the 'British factory and workshop act' of 1878
   (41 Vict., chapter 16), it being an act consolidating all the
   factory acts since Sir Robert Peel's act of 1802."

      _C. D. Wright,
      Factory Legislation
      (Tenth Census of the United States, volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _First annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of
      the State of New York, 1886, appendix._

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapters 22 and 27._

      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      volume 2, pages 512-515._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

FADDILEY, Battle of.

   Fought successfully by the Britons with the West Saxons, on
   the border of Cheshire, A. D. 583.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 206._

FAENZA, Battle of (A. D. 542).

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

FÆSULÆ.

      See FLORENCE, ORIGIN AND NAME.

FAGGING.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      ENGLAND.—THE GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

FAGGIOLA, Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

FAINÉANT KINGS.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

FAIR OAKS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

FAIRFAX AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ARMY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL),
      and (JUNE); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST);
      1648 (NOVEMBER); 1649 (FEBRUARY).

FALAISE.

   "The Castle [in Normandy] where legend fixes the birth of
   William of Normandy, and where history fixes the famous homage
   of William of Scotland, is a vast donjon of the eleventh or
   twelfth century. One of the grandest of those massive square
   keeps which I have already spoken of as distinguishing the
   earliest military architecture of Normandy crowns the summit
   of a precipitous rock, fronted by another mass of rock, wilder
   still, on which the cannon of England were planted during
   Henry's siege. To these rocks, these 'felsen,' the spot owes
   its name of Falaise. … Between these two rugged heights lies
   a narrow dell. … The den is crowded with mills and
   tanneries, but the mills and tanneries of Falaise have their
   share in the historic interest of the place. … In every from
   which the story has taken in history or legend, the mother of
   the Conqueror appears as the daughter of a tanner of Falaise."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 8, section 1._

{1107}

FALAISE, Peace of (1175).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.

FALK LAWS, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

FALKIRK, Battles of (1298 and 1746).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305;
      and 1745-1746.

FAMAGOSTA: A. D. 1571. Taken by the Turks.

   See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

FAMILIA.

   The slaves belonging to a master were collectively called
   familia among the Romans.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 100._

FAMILY COMPACT.

   The First Bourbon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

   The Second.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

   The Third.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

FAMILY COMPACT IN CANADA, The.

      See CANADA: A. D.1820-1837.

FAMINE, The Cotton.

      See, ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

FAMINE, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.

FANARIOTS.

      See PHANARIOTS.

FANEUIL HALL.

   "The fame of Faneuil Hall [Boston, Mass.] is as wide as the
   country itself. It has been called the 'Cradle of Liberty,'
   because dedicated by that early apostle of freedom, James
   Otis, to the cause of liberty, in a speech delivered in the
   hall in March, 1763. … Its walls have echoed to the voices
   of the great departed in times gone by, and in every great
   public exigency the people, with one accord, assembled
   together to take counsel within its hallowed precincts. …
   The Old Market-house … existing in Dock Square in 1734, was
   demolished by a mob in 1736-37. There was contention among the
   people as to whether they would be served at their houses in
   the old way, or resort to fixed localities, and one set of
   disputants took this summary method of settling the question.
   … In 1740, the question of the Market-house being revived,
   Peter Faneuil proposed to build one at his own cost on the
   town's land in Dock Square, upon condition that the town
   should legally authorize it, enact proper regulations, and
   maintain it for the purpose named. Mr. Faneuil's noble offer
   was courteously received, but such was the division of opinion
   on the subject that it was accepted by a majority of only
   seven votes, out of 727 persons voting. The building was
   completed in September, 1742, and three days after, at a
   meeting of citizens, the hall was formally accepted and a vote
   of thanks passed to the donor. … The town voted that the
   hall should be called Faneuil Hall forever. … The original
   size of the building was 40 by 100 feet, just half the present
   width; the hall would contain 1,000 persons. At the fire of
   January 13, 1763, the whole interior was destroyed, but the
   town voted to rebuild in March, and the State authorized a
   lottery in aid of the design. The first meeting after the
   rebuilding was held on the 14th March, 1763, when James Otis
   delivered the dedicatory address. In 1806 the Hull was
   enlarged in width to 80 feet, and by the addition of a third
   story."

      _S. A. Drake,
      Old Landmarks of Boston,
      chapter 4._

FANNIAN LAW, The.

      See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

FARM.

      See FERM.

FARMERS' ALLIANCE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

FARMER'S LETTERS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

FARNESE, Alexander, Duke of Parma, in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

FARNESE, The House of.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

FARRAGUT, Admiral David G.
   Capture of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Attack on Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Victory in Mobile Bay.

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

FARSAKH, OR FARSANG, The.

      See PARASANG.

FASCES.

      See LICTORS.

FASTI.

   "Dies Fasti were the days upon which the Courts of Justice [in
   ancient Rome] were open, and legal business could be
   transacted before the Praetor; the Dies Nefasti were those
   upon which the Courts were closed. … All days consecrated to
   the worship of the Gods by sacrifices, feasts or games, were
   named Festi. … For nearly four centuries and a-half after
   the foundation of the city the knowledge of the Calendar was
   confined to the Pontifices alone. … These secrets which
   might be, and doubtless often were, employed for political
   ends, were at length divulged in the year B. C. 314, by Cn.
   Flavius, who drew up tables embracing all this
   carefully-treasured information, and hung them up in the Forum
   for the inspection of the public. From this time forward
   documents of this description were known by the name of Fasti.
   … These Fasti, in fact, corresponded very closely to a
   modern Almanac. … The Fasti just described have, to prevent
   confusion, been called Calendaria, or Fasti Calendares, and
   must be carefully distinguished from certain compositions also
   named Fasti by the ancients. These were regular chronicles in
   which were recorded each year the names of the Consuls and
   other magistrates, together with the remarkable events, and
   the days on which they occurred. The most important were the
   Annales Maximi, kept by the Pontifex Maximus."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquities,
      chapter 11._

FATIMITE CALIPHS, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171;

      Also, ASSASSINS.

FAVILA, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 737-739.

FEAST OF LIBERTY.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479:
      PERSIAN WARS.
      PLATÆA.

FEAST OF REASON, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

FEAST OF THE FEDERATION, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.

FEAST OF THE SUPREME BEING, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

FECIALES.
FETIALES.

      See FETIALES.

FEDELI.

      See CATTANI.

FEDERAL CITY, The.

      See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

{1108}

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
FEDERATIONS.

   "Two requisites seem necessary to constitute a Federal
   Government in … its most perfect form. On the one hand, each
   of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in
   those matters which concern each member only. On the other
   hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters
   which concern the whole body of members collectively. Thus
   each member will fix for itself the laws of its criminal
   jurisprudence, and even the details of its political
   constitution. And it will do this, not as a matter of
   privilege or concession from any higher power, but as a matter
   of absolute right, by virtue of its inherent powers as an
   independent commonwealth. But in all matters which concern the
   general body, the sovereignty of the several members will
   cease. Each member is perfectly independent within its own
   sphere; but there is another sphere in which its independence,
   or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested
   with every right of sovereignty on one class of subjects, but
   there is another class of subjects on which it is as incapable
   of separate political action as any province or city of a
   monarchy or of an indivisible republic. … Four Federal
   Commonwealths … stand out, in four different ages of the
   world, as commanding, above all others, the attention of
   students of political history. Of these four, one belongs to
   what is usually known as 'ancient,' another to what is
   commonly called 'mediæval' history; a third arose in the
   period of transition between mediæval and modern history; the
   creation of the fourth may have been witnessed by some few of
   those who are still counted among living men, … These four
   Commonwealths are, First, the Achaian League [see GREECE: B.
   C. 280-146] in the later days of Ancient Greece, whose most
   flourishing period comes within the third century before our
   era. Second, the Confederation of the Swiss Cantons [see
   CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION], which, with many
   changes in its extent and constitution, has lasted from the
   thirteenth century to our own day. Third, the Seven United
   Provinces of the Netherlands [see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
   1577-1581, and after], whose Union arose in the War of
   Independence against Spain, and lasted, in a republican form,
   till the war of the French Revolution. Fourth, the United
   States of North America [see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA], which formed a Federal Union after their revolt
   from the British Crown under George the Third, and whose
   destiny forms one of the most important, and certainly the
   most interesting, of the political problems of our own time.
   Of these four, three come sufficiently near to the full
   realization of the Federal idea to be entitled to rank among
   perfect Federal Governments. The Achaian League, and the
   United States since the adoption of the present Constitution,
   are indeed the most perfect developments of the Federal
   principle which the world has ever seen. The Swiss
   Confederation, in its origin a Union of the loosest kind, has
   gradually drawn the Federal bond tighter and tighter, till,
   within our own times, it has assumed a form which fairly
   entitles it to rank beside Achaia and America. The claim of
   the United Provinces is more doubtful; their union was at no
   period of their republican being so close as that of Achaia,
   America, and modern Switzerland."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      volume 1, pages 3-6._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Classification of Federal Governments.

   "To the classification of federal governments publicists have
   given great attention with unsatisfactory results. History
   shows a great variety of forms, ranging from the lowest
   possible organization, like that of the Amphictyonic Council
   [see AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL] to the highly centralized and
   powerful German Empire. Many writers deny that any fixed
   boundaries can be described. The usual classification is,
   however, into three divisions,—the Staatenstaat, or state
   founded on states; the Staatenbund, or union of states—to
   which the term Confederacy nearly corresponds; and the
   Bundesstaat, or united state, which answers substantially to
   the term federation as usually employed. The Staatenstaat is
   defined to be a state in which the units are not individuals,
   but states, and which, therefore, has no operation directly on
   individuals, but deals with and legislates for its corporate
   members; they preserve undisturbed their powers of government
   over their own subjects. The usual example of a Staatenstaat
   is the Holy Roman Empire [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. This
   conception … is, however, illogical in theory, and never has
   been carried out in practice. … Historically, also, the
   distinction is untenable. The Holy Roman Empire had courts,
   taxes, and even subjects not connected with the states. In
   theory it had superior claims upon all the individuals within
   the Empire; in practice it abandoned control over the states.
   The second category is better established. Jellinek says:
   "When states form a permanent political alliance, of which
   common defence is at the very least the purpose, with
   permanent federal organs, there arises a Staatenbund.' This
   form of government is distinguished from an alliance by the
   fact that it has permanent federal organs; from a commercial
   league by its political purpose; from a Bundesstaat by its
   limited purpose. In other words, under Staatenbund are
   included the weaker forms of true federal government, in which
   there is independence from other powers, and, within the
   purposes of the union, independence from the constituent
   states. … The Staatenbund form includes most of the federal
   governments which have existed. The Greek confederations
   (except perhaps the Lycian and Achæan) and all the mediæval
   leagues were of this type: even the strong modern unions of
   the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, have gone through
   the Staatenbund stage in their earlier history. Between the
   Staatenbund and the more highly developed form, the
   Bundesstaat, no writer has described an accurate boundary.
   There are certain governments, notably those of Canada,
   Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, in which is found
   an elaborate and powerful central organism, including federal
   courts; to this organism is assigned all or nearly all the
   common concerns of the nation; within its exclusive control
   are war, foreign affairs, commerce, colonies, and national
   finances; and there is an efficient power of enforcement
   against states. Such governments undoubtedly are
   Bundesstaaten."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
      (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
      chapter 1._

{1109}

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Greek Federations.

   "Under the conditions of the Græco-Roman civic life there were
   but two practicable methods of forming a great state and
   diminishing the quantity of warfare. The one method was
   conquest with incorporation, the other method was federation.
   … Neither method was adopted by the Greeks in their day of
   greatness. The Spartan method of extending its power was
   conquest without incorporation: when Sparta conquered another
   Greek city, she sent a harmost to govern it like a tyrant; in
   other words she virtually enslaved the subject city. The
   efforts of Athens tended more in the direction of a peaceful
   federalism. In the great Delian confederacy [see GREECE: B. C.
   478-477, and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454], which developed into the
   maritime empire of Athens, the Ægean cities were treated as
   allies rather than subjects. As regards their local affairs
   they were in no way interfered with, and could they have been
   represented in some kind of a federal council at Athens, the
   course of Grecian history might have been wonderfully altered.
   As it was, they were all deprived of one essential element of
   sovereignty,—the power of controlling their own military
   forces. … In the century following the death of Alexander,
   in the closing age of Hellenic independence, the federal idea
   appears in a much more advanced stage of elaboration, though
   in a part of Greece which had been held of little account in
   the great days of Athens and Sparta. Between the Achaian
   federation, framed in 274 B. C., and the United States of
   America, there are some interesting points of resemblance
   which have been elaborately discussed by Mr. Freeman, in his
   'History of Federal Government.' About the same time the
   Ætolian League [see ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE] came into prominence in
   the north. Both these leagues were instances of true federal
   government, and were not mere confederations; that is, the
   central government acted directly upon all the citizens and
   not merely upon the local governments. Each of these leagues
   had for its chief executive officer a General elected for one
   year, with powers similar to those of an American President.
   In each the supreme assembly was a primary assembly at which
   every citizen from every city of the league had a right to be
   present, to speak, and to vote; but as a natural consequence
   these assemblies shrank into comparatively aristocratic
   bodies. In Ætolia, which was a group of mountain cantons
   similar to Switzerland, the federal union was more complete
   than in Achaia, which was a group of cities. … In so far as
   Greece contributed anything towards the formation of great and
   pacific political aggregates, she did it through attempts at
   federation. But in so low a state of political development as
   that which prevailed throughout the Mediterranean world in
   pre-Christian times, the more barbarous method of conquest
   with incorporation was more likely to be successful on a great
   scale. This was well illustrated in the history of Rome,—a civic
   community of the same generic type with Sparta and Athens, but
   presenting specific differences of the highest importance. …
   Rome early succeeded in freeing itself from that insuperable
   prejudice which elsewhere prevented the ancient city from
   admitting aliens to a share in its franchise. And in this
   victory over primeval political ideas lay the whole secret of
   Rome's mighty career."


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Mediæval Leagues in Germany.

   "It is hardly too much to say that the Lombard League led
   naturally to the leagues of German cities. The exhausting
   efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to secure dominion in
   Italy compelled them to grant privileges to the cities in
   Germany; the weaker emperors, who followed, bought support
   with new charters and privileges. The inability of the Empire
   to keep the peace or to protect commerce led speedily to the
   formation of great unions of cities, usually commercial in
   origin, but very soon becoming political forces of prime
   importance. The first of these was the Rhenish League, formed
   in 1254. The more important cities of the Rhine valley, from
   Basle to Cologne, were the original members; but it eventually
   had seventy members, including several princes and ruling
   prelates. The league had Colloquia, or assemblies, at stated
   intervals; but, beyond deciding upon a general policy, and the
   assignment of military quotas, it had no legislative powers.
   There was, however, a Kommission, or federal court, which
   acted as arbiter in disputes between the members. The chief
   political service of the league was to maintain peace during
   the interregnum in the Empire (1256-1273). During the
   fourteenth century it fell apart, and many of its members
   joined the Hansa or Suabian League. … In 1377 seventeen
   Suabian cities, which had been mortgaged by the Emperor,
   united to defend their liberties. They received many
   accessions of German and Swiss cities; but in 1388 they were
   overthrown by Leopold III. of Austria, and all combinations of
   cities were forbidden. A federal government they cannot be
   said to have possessed; but political, almost federal
   relations continued during the fifteenth century. The similar
   leagues of Frankfort and Wetterau were broken up about the
   same time. Other leagues of cities and cantons were in a like
   manner formed and dissolved,—among them the leagues of
   Hauenstein and Burgundy; and there was a confederation in
   Franche Comté, afterward French territory. All the mediæval
   leagues thus far mentioned were defensive, and had no extended
   relations beyond their own borders. The great Hanseatic League
   [see HANSA TOWNS], organized as a commercial union, developed
   into a political and international power, which negotiated and
   made war on its own account with foreign and German
   sovereigns; and which was for two centuries one of the leading
   powers of Europe."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
      (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
      chapter 3._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Mediæval League of Lombardy.

   When Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the fifth time in
   1163, to enforce the despotic sovereignty over that country
   which the German kings, as emperors, were then claiming (see
   ITALY: A. D. 961-1039), a league of the Lombard cities was
   formed to resist him. "Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso,
   the most powerful towns of the Veronese marches, assembled
   their consuls in congress, to consider of the means of putting
   an end to a tyranny which overwhelmed them. The consuls of
   these four towns pledged themselves by oath in the name of
   their cities to give mutual support to each other in the
   assertion of their former rights, and in the resolution to
   reduce the imperial prerogatives to the point at which they
   were fixed under the reign of Henry IV. Frederick, informed of
   this association; returned hastily into Northern Italy, to put it
   down … but he soon perceived that the spirit of liberty had
   made progress in the Ghibeline cities as well as in those of
   the Guelphs. …
{1110}
   Obliged to bend before a people which he considered only as
   revolted subjects, he soon renounced a contest so humiliating,
   and returned to Germany, to levy an army more submissive to
   him. Other and more pressing interests diverted his attention
   from this object till the autumn of 1166. … When Frederick,
   in the month of October, 1166, descended the mountains of the
   Grisons to enter Italy by the territory of Brescia, he marched
   his army directly to Lodi, without permitting any act of
   hostility on the way. At Lodi, he assembled, towards the end
   of November, a diet of the kingdom of Italy, at which he
   promised the Lombards to redress the grievances occasioned by
   the abuses of power by his podestas, and to respect their just
   liberties; … to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
   marched his army into Central Italy. … The towns of the
   Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
   daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
   diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
   between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
   of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there, and joined those
   of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibelines, for
   the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
   deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
   destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
   in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
   of Milan. This confederation was called the League of Lombardy.
   The consuls took the oath, and their constituents afterwards
   repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for the recovery
   of the common liberty; that the league for this purpose should
   last twenty years; and, finally, that they should aid each
   other in repairing in common any damage experienced in this
   sacred cause, by any one member of the confederation:
   extending even to the past this contract for reciprocal
   security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. … Lodi was
   soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the oath
   to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia, Parma,
   Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
   association."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 2._

   In 1226 the League was revived
   or renewed against Frederick II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

   "Milan and Bologna took the lead, and were followed by
   Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Faenza, Mantua, Vercelli, Lodi,
   Bergamo, Turin, Alessandria, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso. …
   Nothing could be more unlike, than the First and the Second
   Lombard Leagues, that of 1167, formed against Frederick the
   First after the most cruel provocation, was sanctioned by the
   Pope, and had for its end the deliverance of Lombardy. That of
   1226, formed against Frederick the Second, after no
   provocation received, was discountenanced by the Pope, and
   resulted in the frustration of the Crusade and in sowing the
   germ of endless civil wars. This year is fixed upon by the
   Brescian Chronicler as the beginning of 'those plaguy factions
   of Guelf and Ghibelline, which were so engrained into the
   minds of our forefathers, that they have handed them down as
   an heir-loom to their posterity, never to come to an end.'"

      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick the Second,
      volume 1, pages 265-266._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Modern Federations.

   "A remarkable phenomenon of the last hundred years is the
   impetus that has been given to the development of Federal
   institutions. There are to-day contemporaneously existing no
   less than eight distinct Federal Governments. First and
   foremost is the United States of America, where we have an
   example of the Federal Union in the most perfect form yet
   attained. Then comes Switzerland, of less importance than the
   United States of America, but most nearly approaching it in
   perfection. Again we have the German Empire [see CONSTITUTION
   OF GERMANY], that great factor in European politics, which is
   truly a Federal Union, but a cumbrous one and full of
   anomalies. Next in importance comes the Dominion of Canada
   [see CONSTITUTION OF CANADA], which is the only example of a
   country forming a Federal Union and at the same time a colony.
   Lastly come the Argentine Republic, Mexico, and the States of
   Colombia and Venezuela [see CONSTITUTIONS]. This is a very
   remarkable list when we consider that never before the present
   century did more than two Federal Unions ever coexist, and
   that very rarely, and that even those unions were far from
   satisfying the true requirements of Federation. Nor is this
   all. Throughout the last hundred years we can mark a growing
   tendency in countries that have adopted the Federal type of
   Government to perfect that Federal type and make it more truly
   Federal than before. In the United States of America, for
   instance, the Constitution of 1789 was more truly Federal than
   the Articles of Confederation, and certainly since the Civil
   War we hear less of State Rights, and more of Union. It has
   indeed been remarked that the citizens of the United States
   have become fond of applying the words 'Nation' and 'National'
   to themselves in a manner formerly unknown. We can mark the
   same progress in Switzerland. Before 1789, Switzerland formed
   a very loose system of Confederated States—in 1815, a
   constitution more truly Federal was devised; in 1848, the
   Federal Union was more firmly consolidated; and lastly, in
   1874, such changes were made in the Constitution that
   Switzerland now presents a very fairly perfect example of
   Federal Government. In Germany we may trace a similar
   movement. In 1815, the Germanic Confederation was formed; but
   it was only a system of Confederated States, or what the
   Germans call Staatenbund; but after various changes, amongst
   others the exclusion of Austria in 1866, it became, in 1871, a
   composite State or, in German language, a Bundestaat. Beyond
   this, we have to note a further tendency to Federation. In the
   year 1886, a Bill passed the Imperial Parliament to permit of
   the formation of an Australasian Council for the purposes of
   forming the Australasian Colonies into a Federation. Then we
   hear of further aspirations for applying the Federal system,
   as though there were some peculiar virtue or talismanic effect
   about it which rendered it a panacea for all political troubles.
   There has, also, been much talk about Imperial Federation.
   Lastly, some people think they see a simple solution of the
   Irish Question in the application of Federation, particularly
   the Canadian form of it, to Ireland."

      _Federal Government
      (Westminster Rev., May, 1888,
      pages 573-574)._

{1111}

   "The federal is one of the oldest forms of government known,
   and its adaptability to the largest as well as to the smallest
   states is shown in all political formations of late years.
   States in the New and in the Old World, all in their
   aggregation, alike show ever a stronger tendency to adopt it.
   Already all the central states of Europe are
   federal—Switzerland, Germany, Austria [see AUSTRIA: A. D.
   1866-1867, and 1866-1887]; and if ever the various Sclav
   principalities in south-eastern Europe—the Serb, the
   Albanian, the Rouman, the Bulgar, and the Czech—are to
   combine, it will probably be (as Mr. Freeman so long ago as
   1862 remarked) under a federal form,—though whether under
   Russian or Austrian auspices, or neither, remains to be seen.
   … In the German lands from early ages there has existed an
   aggregation of tribes and states, some of them even of
   non-German race, each of which preserved for domestic purposes
   its own arrangements and laws, but was united with the rest
   under one supreme head and central authority as regards its
   relation to all external powers. Since 1871 all the states of
   Germany 'form an eternal union for the protection of the realm
   and the care of the welfare of the German people.' For
   legislative purposes, under the Emperor as head, are the two
   Houses of Assembly; first, the Upper House of the Federated
   States, consisting of 62 members, who represent the individual
   States, and thus as the guardian of State rights, answers very
   closely to the Senate of the American Union, except that the
   number of members coming from each state is not uniform, but
   apportioned. … Each German state has its own local
   constitution and home rule for its internal affairs. Generally
   there are two chambers, except in some of the smallest states,
   the population of which does not much exceed in some cases
   that of our larger towns. … Since 1867 the Austro-Hungarian
   monarchy has been a political Siamese twin, of which Austria
   is the one body, and Hungary the other; the population of the
   Austrian half is 24 millions, and that of Hungary about 16
   millions. Each of the two has its own parliament; the
   connecting link is the sovereign (whose civil list is raised
   half by one and half by the other) and a common army, navy,
   and diplomatic service, and another Over-parliament of 120
   members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Hungary, and
   the other half by the legislature of Austria (the Upper House
   of each twin returns twenty, and the Lower of each forty
   delegates from their own number, who thus form a kind of Joint
   Committee of the Four Houses). The jurisdiction of this
   Over-parliament is limited to foreign affairs and war. … The
   western or Austrian part of the twin … is a federal
   government in itself. … Federated Austria consists of
   seventeen distinct states. The German element constitutes 36
   per cent. of the inhabitants of these, and the Sclav 57 per
   cent. There are a few Magyars, Italians, and Roumanians. Each
   of these seventeen states has its own provincial parliament of
   one House, partly composed of ex-officio members (the bishops and
   archbishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, and the
   chancellors of the universities), but chiefly of
   representatives chosen by all the inhabitants who pay direct
   taxation. Some of these are elected by the landowners, others
   by the towns, others by the trade-guilds and boards of
   commerce; the representatives of the rural communes, however,
   are elected by delegates, as in Prussia. They legislate
   concerning all local matters, county taxation, land laws and
   farming, education, public worship, and public works. …
   Turning next to the oldest federation in Europe, that of
   Switzerland, which with various changes has survived from
   1308, though its present constitution dates only from 1874, we
   find it now embraces three nationalities—German, French,
   Italian. The original nucleus of the State, however, was
   German, and even now three-fourths of the population are
   German. The twenty-two distinct states are federated under one
   president elected annually, and the Federal Assembly of two
   chambers. … Each of the cantons is sovereign and
   independent, and has its own local parliament, scarcely any
   two being the same, but all based on universal suffrage. Each
   canton has its own budget of revenue and expenditure, and its
   own public debt."

      _J. N. Dalton,
      The Federal States of the World
      (Nineteenth Century, July, 1884)._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Canadian Federation.

   "A convention of thirty-three representative men was held in
   the autumn of 1864 in the historic city of Quebec, and after a
   deliberation of several weeks the result was the unanimous
   adoption of a set of seventy-two resolutions embodying the
   terms and conditions on which the provinces through their
   delegates agreed to a federal union in many respects similar
   in its general features to that of the United States
   federation, and in accordance with the principles of the
   English constitution. These resolutions had to be laid before
   the various legislatures and adopted in the shape of addresses
   to the queen whose sanction was necessary to embody the wishes
   of the provinces in an imperial statute. … In the early part
   of 1867 the imperial parliament, without a division, passed
   the statute known as the 'British North America Act, 1867,'
   which united in the first instance the province of Canada, now
   divided into Ontario and Quebec, with Nova Scotia and New
   Brunswick and made provisions for the coming in of the other
   provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British
   Columbia, and the admission of Rupert's Land and the great
   North-west. Between 1867 and 1873 the provinces just named,
   with the exception of Newfoundland, which has persistently
   remained out of the federation, became parts of the Dominion
   and the vast Northwest Territory was at last acquired on terms
   eminently satisfactory to Canada and a new province of great
   promise formed out of that immense region, with a complete
   system of parliamentary government. … When the terms of the
   Union came to be arranged between the provinces in 1864, their
   conflicting interest had to be carefully considered and a system
   adopted which would always enable the Dominion to expand its
   limits and bring in new sections until it should embrace the
   northern half of the continent, which, as we have just shown,
   now constitutes the Dominion. It was soon found, after due
   deliberation, that the most feasible plan was a confederation
   resting on those principles which experience of the working of
   the federation of the United States showed was likely to give
   guarantees of elasticity and permanency. The maritime
   provinces had been in the enjoyment of an excellent system of
   laws and representative institutions for many years, and were
   not willing to yield their local autonomy in its entirety. The
   people of the province of Quebec, after experience of a union
   that lasted from 1841 to 1867, saw decidedly great advantages
   to themselves and their institutions in having a provincial
   government under their own control. The people of Ontario
   recognized equal advantages in having a measure of local
   government, apart from French Canadian influences and
   interference. The consequence was the adoption of the federal
   system, which now, after twenty-six years' experience, we can
   truly say appears on the whole well devised and equal to the
   local and national requirements of the people."

      _J. G. Bourinot,
      Federal Government in Canada
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th Series,
      numbers 10-13), lectures 1-2._

{1112}

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   Britannic Federation, Proposed.

   "The great change which has taken place in the public mind in
   recent years upon the importance to the Empire of maintaining
   the colonial connection found expression at a meeting held at
   the Westminster Palace Hotel in July 1884, under the guidance
   of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, who occupied the chair. At
   that meeting—which was attended by a large number of members
   of Parliament of both parties, and representatives of the
   colonies—it was moved by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith: 'That,
   in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some
   form of federation is essential.' That resolution was seconded
   by the Earl of Rosebery, and passed unanimously. In November
   of the same year the Imperial Federation League was formed to
   carry out the objects of that resolution; and the subject has
   received considerable attention since. … I believe all are
   agreed that the leading objects of the Imperial Federation
   League are to find means by which the colonies, the outlying
   portions of the Empire, may have a certain voice and weight
   and influence in reference to the foreign policy of this
   country, in which they are all deeply interested, and
   sometimes more deeply interested than the United Kingdom
   itself. In the next place, that measures may be taken by which
   all the power and weight and influence that these great
   British communities in Australasia, in South Africa, and in
   Canada possess shall be brought into operation for the
   strengthening and defence of the Empire. The discussion of
   these questions has led to a great deal of progress. We have
   got rid of a number of fallacies that obtained in the minds of
   a good many persons in relation to the means by which those
   objects are to be attained. Most people have come to the
   conclusion stated by Lord Rosebery at the Mansion House, that
   a Parliamentary Federation, if practicable, is so remote, that
   during the coming century it is not likely to make any very great
   advance. We have also got rid of the fallacy that it was
   practicable to have a common tariff throughout the Empire. It
   is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitution either
   of England or of the autonomous colonies. The tariff of a
   country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of
   the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as
   to make uniformity impracticable. … I regard the time as
   near at hand when the great provinces of Australasia will be
   confederated under one Government. … When that has been done
   it will be followed, I doubt not, at a very early day, by a
   similar course on the part of South Africa, and then we shall
   stand in the position of having three great dominions,
   commonwealths, or realms, or whatever name is found most
   desirable on the part of the people who adopt them—three
   great British communities, each under one central and strong
   Government. When that is accomplished, the measure which the
   Marquis of Lorne has suggested, of having the representatives
   of these colonies during the term of their office here in
   London, practically Cabinet Ministers, will give to the
   Government of England an opportunity of learning in the most
   direct and complete manner the views and sentiments of each of
   those great British communities in regard to all questions of
   foreign policy affecting the colonies. I would suggest that
   the representatives of those three great British communities
   here in London should be leading members of the Cabinet of the
   day of the country they represent, going out of office when
   their Government is changed. In that way they would always
   represent the country, and necessarily the views of the party
   in power in Canada, in Australasia, and in South Africa. That
   would involve no constitutional change; it would simply
   require that whoever represented those dominions in London
   should have a seat in their own Parliament, and be a member of
   the Administration."

      _C. Tupper,
      Federating the Empire (Nineteenth Century,
      October, 1891)._

   "Recent expensive wars at the Cape, annexations of groups of
   islands in the neighbourhood of Australia, the Fishery and
   other questions that have arisen, and may arise, on the North
   American continent, have all compelled us to take a review of
   our responsibilities in connection with our Colonies and to
   consider how far, in the event of trouble, we may rely upon
   their assistance to adequately support the commercial
   interests of our scattered Empire. It is remarkable that,
   although the matters here indicated are slowly coming to the
   surface, and have provoked discussion, they have not been
   forced upon the public attention suddenly, or by any violent
   injury or catastrophe. The review men are taking of our
   position, and the debates as to how best we can make our
   relationships of standing value, have been the natural outcome
   of slowly developing causes and effects. Politicians belonging
   to both of the great parties in the State have joined the
   Federation League. The leaders have expressly declared that
   they do not desire at the present moment to propound any
   definite theories, or to push any premature scheme for closer
   union of the Empire. The society has been formed for the
   purpose of discussing any plans proposed for such objects. The
   suggestions actually made have varied in importance from
   comprehensive projects of universal commercial union and
   common contributions for a world-wide military and naval
   organization, to such a trivial proposal as the personal
   recognition of distinguished colonists by a nomination to the
   peerage."

      _The Marquis of Lorne,
      Imperial Federation,
      chapter 1._

{1113}

   "Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many
   degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not
   gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general
   principle. 'The federation we aim at (he has said) is the
   closest possible union of the various self-governing States
   ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free
   development which is the birthright of British subjects all
   over the world—the closest union in sympathy, in external
   action, and in defence.' … The representation of the
   Colonies in the Privy Council has been viewed with favour,
   both by statesmen and by theoretical writers. Earl Grey has
   proposed the appointment of a Federal Committee, selected from
   the Privy Council, to advise with the Secretary of State for
   the Colonies. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out
   with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Creswell, in an essay to
   which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was
   awarded. 'The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr.
   Creswell, 'must be an independent body, constitutional in its
   origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its
   decisions. Such a body we have already in existence in the
   Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party
   considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have
   done service to the State. To this body colonists of
   distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting
   the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representation
   might be given to every part of the empire, in proportion to
   the several contributions to expenditure for Imperial
   defence.' The constitution of a great Council of the Empire,
   with similar functions in relation to foreign affairs to those
   which are exercised in the United States by a Committee of the
   Senate, is a step for which public opinion is not yet
   prepared. In the meanwhile the utmost consideration is being
   paid at the Foreign Office to Colonial feelings and interests.
   No commitments or engagements are taken which would not be
   approved by Colonial opinion. Another proposal which has been
   warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that
   for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the
   Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals
   for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for
   discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts
   of the empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more
   than a generation to the principle of Free-trade. By our
   policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so
   cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully
   with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. … It
   would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our
   fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and
   exhaustive inquiry. … Lord Rosebery has recently declared
   that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of
   representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and
   House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an
   Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hoffmeyer at
   the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord
   Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial
   Government for the present to conferences, summoned at
   frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the
   Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League.
   It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the
   Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with
   admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important
   questions of common interest to the different countries of the
   empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it
   cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most
   tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result
   of that conference was the recognition by the Australian
   colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval
   defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the
   Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the
   Australian Governments. Lord Rosebery holds that the question
   of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent
   conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down
   the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the
   future. They must be held periodically and at stated
   intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent
   them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these
   periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour
   which it is in their power to give. The task to be
   accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the
   production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress
   that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task
   before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which
   would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of
   the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that
   have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If
   we have these conferences, if they are allowed to discuss, as
   they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties
   to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord
   Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in
   authority or in weight. Lord Salisbury, in his speeches
   recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the
   House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial
   Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted
   on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent
   conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave
   inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. … In appealing to the
   Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as
   to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire
   may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out
   some pregnant hints. To make a united empire both a Zollverein
   and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of
   feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious
   difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A
   Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly
   more, urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from
   possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a
   protection. We may take concerted action for defence without
   the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be
   difficult to carry out."

      _Lord Brassey,
      Imperial Federation: An English View
      (Nineteenth Century, September., 1891)._

   "The late Mr. Forster launched under the high-sounding title
   of the 'Imperial Federation League,' a scheme by which its
   authors proposed to solve all the problems attending the
   administration of our colonial empire. From first to last the
   authors of this scheme have never condescended on particulars.
   'Imperial federation,' we were always told, was the only
   specific against the disintegration of the Empire, but as to
   what this specific really was, no information was vouchsafed.
   … It is very natural that the citizens of a vast but
   fragmentary empire, whose territorial atoms (instead of
   forming, like those of the United States, a 'ring-fence'
   domain) are scattered over the surface of the globe, should
   cast about for some artificial links to bind together the
   colonies we have planted, and 'the thousand tribes nourished
   on strange religions and lawless slaveries' which we have
   gathered under our rule.
{1114}
   This anxiety has been naturally augmented by a chronic
   agitation for the abandonment of all colonies as expensive and
   useless. For though there may be little to boast of in the
   fact that Great Britain has in the course of less than three
   centuries contrived by war, diplomacy, and adventure, to annex
   about a fifth of the globe, it can hardly be expected that she
   should relinquish without an effort even the nominal sway she
   still holds over her colonial empire. Hence it comes to pass
   that any scheme which seems to supply the needed links is
   caught up by those who, possessing slight acquaintance with
   the past history or the present aspirations of our colonists,
   are simply looking out for some new contrivance by which they
   may hope that an enduring bond of union may be provided.
   'Imperial federation' is the last new 'notion' which has
   cropped up in pursuance of this object. … Some clue … to
   its objects and aims may be gained by a reference to the
   earliest exposition by Mr. Forster of his motives contained in
   his answer five years ago to the question, 'Why was the League
   formed at all?' 'For this reason,' says Mr. Forster, 'because
   in giving self-government to our colonies we have introduced a
   principle which must eventually shake off from Great Britain,
   Greater Britain, and divide it into separate states, which
   must, in short, dissolve the union unless counteracting
   measures be taken to preserve it.' Believing, as we do, that
   it has only been by conceding to our larger groups of colonies
   absolute powers of self-government that we have retained them
   at all, and that the secret of our protracted empire lies in
   the fact of this abandonment of central arbitrary power, the
   retention of which has caused the collapse of all the European
   empires which preceded us in the path of colonisation, we are
   bound to enter our emphatic protest against an assumption so
   utterly erroneous as that propounded by Mr. Forster. So far
   from believing that the permanent union of the British Empire
   is to be secured by 'measures which may counteract the
   workings of colonial self-government,' we are convinced that
   the only safety for our Empire lies in the unfettered action
   of that self-government which we have ourselves granted to our
   colonies. It would almost seem that for Lord Rosebery and his
   fellow workers the history of the colonial empires of
   Portugal, Spain, Holland, and France had been written in vain.
   For if we ask why these colonial empires have dwindled and
   decayed, the answer is simply because that self-government
   which is the life of British colonies was never granted to
   their dependencies. There was a time when one hundred and
   fifty sovereign princes paid tribute to the treasury of
   Lisbon. For two hundred years, more than half the South
   American continent was an appanage of Spain. Ceylon, the Cape,
   Guiana, and a vast cluster of trade factories in the East were
   at the close of the seventeenth century colonies of Holland;
   while half North America, comprising the vast and fertile
   valleys of the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Ohio,
   obeyed, a little more than a century ago, the sceptre of
   France. Neither Portugal, nor Spain, nor Holland, nor France,
   has lacked able rulers or statesmen, but the colonial empire
   of all these states has crumbled and decayed. The exceptional
   position of Great Britain in this respect can only be ascribed
   to the relinquishment of all the advantages, political and
   commercial, ordinarily presumed to result to dominant states
   from the possession of dependencies. … The romantic dreams
   of the Imperial Federation League were in fact dissipated
   beforehand by the irrevocable grant of independent
   legislatures to all our most important colonies, and Lord
   Rosebery may rest assured that, charm he never so wisely, they
   will not listen to his blandishments at the cost of one iota
   of the political privileges already conferred on them."

      _Imperial Federation
      (Edinburgh Review, July, 1889)._

   "'Britannic Confederation' is defined to be an union of 'the
   United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, British North
   America, 'British South Africa, and Australasia.' The West
   Indies and one or two other British Dependencies seem here to
   be shut out; but, at any rate, with this definition we at
   least know where we are. The terms of the union we are not
   told; but, as the word 'confederation' is used, I conceive
   that they are meant to be strictly federal. That is to say,
   first of all, the Parliament of the United Kingdom will give
   up its right to legislate for British North America, British
   South Africa, and Australasia. Then the United Kingdom,
   British North America, British South Africa and Australasia
   will enter into a federal relation with one another. They may
   enter either as single members (States or Cantons) 'or as
   groups of members. That is, Great Britain and Ireland might
   enter as a single State of the Confederation, or England,
   Scotland, Ireland, Wales—or possibly smaller divisions
   again—might enter as separate States. Or Great Britain,
   Australia, Canada, &c., might enter as themselves Leagues,
   members of a greater League, as in the old state of things in
   Graubünden. I am not arguing for or against any of these
   arrangements. I am only stating them as possible. But whatever
   the units are to be—Great Britain and Australia, England and
   Victoria, or anything larger or smaller—if the confederation
   is to be a real one, each State must keep some powers to
   itself, and must yield some powers to a central body. That
   Central body, in which all the States must be represented in
   some way or other, will naturally deal with all international
   matters, all matters that concern the Britannic Confederation
   as a whole. The legislatures of Great Britain and Australia,
   England and Victoria, or whatever the units fixed on may be,
   will deal only with the internal affairs of those several
   cantons. Now such a scheme as this is theoretically possible.
   That is, it involves no contradiction in terms, as the talk
   about Imperial Federation does. It is purely federal; there is
   nothing 'imperial' about it. It is simply applying to certain
   political communities a process which has been actually gone
   through by certain other political communities. It is
   proposing to reconstruct a certain political constitution
   after the model of certain other political constitutions which
   are in actual working. It is therefore something better than
   mere talk and theory. But, because it is theoretically
   possible, it does not follow that it is practically possible,
   that is, that it is possible in this particular case. … Of
   the federations existing at this time the two chief are
   Switzerland and the United States of America. They differ in
   this point, that one is very large and the other very small;
   they agree in this, that the territory of both is continuous.
   But the proposed Britannic Confederation will be scattered,
   scattered over every part of the world.
{1115}
   I know of no example in any age of a scattered confederation,
   a scattered Bundesstaat. The Hanse Towns were not a
   Bundesstaat; they were hardly a Staatenbund. Of the probable
   working of such a body as that which is now proposed the
   experience of history can teach us nothing; we can only guess
   what may be likely. The Britannic Confederation will have its
   federal congress sitting somewhere, perhaps at Westminster,
   perhaps at Melbourne, perhaps at some Washington called
   specially into being at some point more central than either.
   … For a while their representatives will think it grand to
   sit at Westminster; presently, as the spirit of equality
   grows, they are not unlikely to ask for some more central
   place; they may even refuse to stir out of their own
   territory. That is to say, they will find that the sentiment
   of national unity, which they undoubtedly have in no small
   measure, needs some physical and some political basis to stand
   on. It is hard to believe that States which are united only by
   a sentiment, which have so much, both political and physical,
   to keep them asunder, will be kept together for ever by a
   sentiment only. And we must further remember that that
   sentiment is a sentiment for the mother-country, and not for
   one another. … Canada and Australia care a great deal for
   Great Britain; we may doubt whether, apart from Great Britain,
   Canada and Australia care very much for one another. There may
   be American States which care yet less for one another; but in
   their case mere continuity produces a crowd of interests and
   relations common to all. We may doubt whether the
   confederation of States so distant as the existing colonies of
   Great Britain, whether the bringing them into closer relations
   with one another as well as with Great Britain, will at all tend
   to the advance of a common national unity among them. We may
   doubt whether it will not be likely to bring out some hidden
   tendencies to disunion among them. … In the scattered
   confederation all questions and parties are likely to be
   local. It is hard to see what will be the materials for the
   formation of great national parties among such scattered
   elements."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity
      (Britannic Confederation, edited by A. S. White)._

   "I have the greatest respect for the aspirations of the
   Imperial Federationists, and myself most earnestly desire the
   moral unity of our race and its partnership in achievement and
   grandeur. But an attempt at formal Federation, such as is now
   proposed, would in the first place exclude the people of the
   United States, who form the largest portion of the
   English-speaking race, and in the second place it would split
   us all to pieces. It would, I am persuaded, call into play
   centrifugal forces against which the centripetal forces could
   not contend for an hour. What interests of the class with
   which a Federal Parliament would deal have Australia and
   Canada in common? What enemy has either of them whom the other
   would be inclined to fight? Australia, it seems, looks forward
   to a struggle with the Chinese for ascendency in that quarter
   of the globe. Canada cares no more about a struggle between
   the Australians and the Chinese at the other extremity of the
   globe than the Australians would care about a dispute between
   Canada and her neighbours in the United States respecting
   Canadian boundaries or the Fisheries Question. The
   circumstances of the two groups of colonies, to which their
   policy must conform, are totally different. Australia lies in
   an ocean by herself: Canada is territorially interlocked and
   commercially bound up, as well as socially almost fused, with
   the great mass of English-speaking population which occupies
   the larger portion of her continent. Australia again is
   entirely British. Canada has in her midst a great block of
   French population, constituting a distinct nationality, which
   instead of being absorbed is daily growing in intensity; and
   she would practically be unable to take part in any enterprise
   or support any policy, especially any policy entailing an
   increase of taxation, to which the French Canadians were
   opposed. Of getting Canada to contribute out of her own
   resources to wars or to the maintenance of armaments, for the
   objects of British diplomacy in Europe or in the East, no one
   who knows the Canadians can imagine that there would be the
   slightest hope. The very suggestion, at the time of the Soudan
   Expedition, called forth emphatic protests on all sides. The
   only results of an experiment in formal Federation, I repeat,
   would be repudiation of Federal demands, estrangement and
   dissolution."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      Straining the Silken Thread
      (Macmillan's Magazine. August, 1888)._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
   European Federation.

   "While it is obvious that Imperial Federation of the British
   Empire would cover many of the defects in our relationship
   with the colonies, it is equally apparent that it is open to
   the fatal objection of merely making us a more formidable
   factor in the field of international anarchy. Suppose the
   colonies undertook to share equitably the great cost of
   imperial defence in the present state of things throughout
   Europe—and that is a very large assumption—England would be
   entirely dependent, in case of war, for the supply of food on
   the fleet, any accident to which would place us at the enemy's
   mercy. Even without actual hostilities, however, our
   additional strength would cause another increase of foreign
   armaments to meet the case of war with us. This process has
   taken place invariably on the increase of armaments of any
   European state, and may be taken to be as certain as that the
   sun will rise to-morrow. But all the benefits accruing from
   Imperial Federation may be secured by European Federation,
   plus a reduction of military liability, which Imperial
   Federation would not only not reduce, but increase. There is
   nothing to prevent the self-governing colonies from joining in
   a European Federation, and thus enlarging the basis of that
   institution enormously, and cutting off in a corresponding
   degree the chance of an outbreak of violence in another
   direction, which could not fail to have serious consequences
   to the colonies at any rate."

      _C. D. Farquharson,
      Federation, the Polity of the Future
      (Westminster Review, December, 1891),
      pages 602-603._

----------FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: End----------

FEDERALIST, The.

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

FEDERALISTS; The party of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
      also 1812; and 1814 (DECEMBER): THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

FEDS.
CONFEDS.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

FEE.

      See FEUDALISM.

FEHDERECHT.

   The right of private warfare, or diffidation,
   exercised in mediæval Germany.

      See LANDDFRIEDE.

{1116}

FEHRBELLIN, Battle of (1675).

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

FEIS OF TARA.

      See TARA.

FELICIAN HERESY.

      See ADOPTIANISM.

FELIX V., Pope, A. D. 1439-1449
   Elected by the Council of Basle.

FENIAN MOVEMENT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

FENIAN: Origin of the Name.

   An Irish poem of the ninth century called the Duan Eireannach,
   or Poem of Ireland, preserves a mythical story of the origin
   of the Irish people, according to which they sprang from one
   Fenius Farsaidh who came out of Scythia. Nel, or Niul, the son
   of Fenius, travelled into Egypt and married Scota, a daughter
   of Forann (Pharaoh). "Niul had a son named Gaedhuil Glas, or
   Green Gael; and we are told that it is from him the Irish are
   called Gaedhil (Gael) or Gadelians, while from his mother is
   derived the name of Scoti, or Scots, and from Fenius that of
   Feni or Fenians."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 10._

   From this legend was derived the name of the Fenian
   Brotherhood, organized in Ireland and America for the
   liberation of the former from British rule, and which played a
   disturbing but unsuccessful part in Irish affairs from about
   1865 to 1871.

FEODORE.

      See THEODORE.

FEODUM.

      See FEUDALISM.

FEOF.

      See FEUDALISM.

FEORM FULTUM.

      See FERM.

FERDINAND,
   King of Portugal, A. D. 1367-1383.

   Ferdinand 1., Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary and
   Bohemia, 1835-1848.

   Ferdinand I.,
      Germanic Emperor, 1558-1564;
      Archduke of Austria,
      and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1526-1564;
      King of the Romans, 1531-1558.

   Ferdinand I., King of Aragon and Sicily, 1412-1416.

   Ferdinand I.,
      King of Castile, 1035-1065;
      King of Leon, 1037-1065.

   Ferdinand I., King of Naples, 1458-1494.

   Ferdinand II., Germanic Emperor and King of Bohemia and
   Hungary, 1619-1637.

   Ferdinand II.,
      King of Aragon, 1479-1516;
      V. of Castile (King-Consort of Isabella of Castile and
      Regent), 1474-1516;
      II. of Sicily, 1479-1516; and III. of Naples, 1503-1516.

   Ferdinand II., King of Leon, 1157-1188.

   Ferdinand II., King of Naples, 1495-1496.

   Ferdinand II., called Bomba,
   King of the Two Sicilies, 1830-1859.

   Ferdinand III., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
   Bohemia, 1637-1657.

   Ferdinand III.,
      King of Castile, 1217-1230;
      King of Leon and Castile, united, 1230-1252.

   Ferdinand IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1295-1312.

   Ferdinand IV.,
      King of Naples,
      and I. of the Two Sicilies, 1759-1806;
      and 1815-1825.

   Ferdinand VI., King of Spain, 1746-1759.

   Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, 1808; and 1814-1833.

FERIÆ.

      See LUDI.

FERM.
FIRMA.
FARM.

   "A sort of composition for all the profits arising to the king
   [in England, Norman period] from his ancient claims on the
   land and from the judicial proceedings of the shire-moot; the
   rent of detached pieces of demesne land, the remnants of the
   ancient folk-land; the payments due from corporate bodies and
   individuals for the primitive gifts, the offerings made in
   kind, or the hospitality—the feorm-fultum—which the kings
   had a right to exact from their subjects, and which were
   before the time of Domesday generally commuted for money; the
   fines, or a portion of the fines, paid in the ordinary process
   of the county courts, and other small miscellaneous incidents.
   These had been, soon after the composition of Domesday,
   estimated at a fixed sum, which was regarded as a sort of rent
   or composition at which the county was let to the sheriff and
   recorded in the 'Rotulus Exactorious'; for this, under the
   name of ferm, he answered annually; if his receipts were in
   excess, he retained the balance as his lawful profit, the
   wages of his service; if the proceeds fell below the ferm, he
   had to pay the difference from his own purse. … The farm,
   ferm, or firma, the rent or composition for the ancient
   feorm-fultum, or provision payable in kind to the Anglo-Saxon
   kings. The history of the word in its French form would be
   interesting. The use of the word for a pecuniary payment is
   traced long before the Norman Conquest."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 126, and note._

FERNANDO.

      See FERDINAND.

FEROZESHUR, Battle of (1845)

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.


FERRARA: The House of Este.

      See ESTE.

FERRARA: A. D. 1275.
   Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

FERRARA: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation to the states of the Church.
   End of the house of Este.
   Decay of the city and duchy.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

FERRARA: A. D. 1797.
   Joined to the Cispadine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

----------FERRARA: End----------

FERRY BRIDGE, Battle of (1461).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

FETIALES.
FECIALES.

   "The duties of the feciales, or fetiales [among the Romans].
   extended over every branch of international law. They gave
   advice on all matters of peace or war, and the conclusion of
   treaties and alliances. … They fulfilled the same functions
   as heralds, and, as such, were frequently entrusted with
   important communications. They were also sent on regular
   embassies. To them was entrusted the reception and
   entertainment of foreign envoys. They were required to decide
   on the justice of a war about to commence, and to proclaim and
   consecrate it according to certain established formalities.
   … The College of Feciales consisted of nearly twenty
   members, with a president, who was called Pater Patratus,
   because it was necessary that he should have both father and
   children living, that he might be supposed to take greater
   interest in the welfare of the State, and look backwards as
   well as forwards. … The name of Feciales … still existed
   under the emperors, as well as that of Pater Patratus, though
   only as a title of honour, while the institution itself was
   for ever annihilated; and, after the reign of Tiberius, we
   cannot find any trace of it."

      _E. C. G. Murray,
      Embassies and Foreign Courts,
      pages 8-10._

      See, also, AUGURS.

{1117}

FEUDAL TENURES.

   "After the feudal system of tenure had been fully established,
   all lands were held subject to certain additional obligations,
   which were due either to the King (not as sovereign, but as
   feudal lord) from the original grantees, called
   tenants-in-chief (tenentes in capite), or to the
   tenants-in-chief themselves from their under tenants. Of these
   obligations the most honourable was that of knight-service.
   This was the tenure by which the King granted out fiefs to his
   followers, and by which they in turn provided for their own
   military retainers. The lands of the bishops and dignified
   ecclesiastics, and of most of the religious foundations, were
   also held by this tenure. A few exceptions only were made in
   favour of lands which had been immemorially held in
   frankalmoign, or free-alms. On the grant of a fief, the tenant
   was publicly invested with the land by a symbolical or actual
   delivery, termed livery of seisin. He then did homage, so
   called from the words used in the ceremony: 'Je deveigne votre
   homme' ['I become your man']. … In the case of a sub-tenant
   (vavassor), his oath of fealty was guarded by a reservation of
   the faith due to his sovereign lord the King. For every
   portion of land of the annual value of £20, which constituted
   a knight's fee [in England], the tenant was bound, whenever
   required, to render the services of a knight properly armed
   and accoutred, to serve in the field forty days at his own
   expense. … Tenure by knight-service was also subject to
   several other incidents of a burdensome character. … There
   was a species of tenancy in chief by Grand Serjeanty, …
   whereby the tenant was bound, instead of serving the King
   generally in his wars, to do some special service in his own
   proper person, as to carry the King's banner or lance, or to
   be his champion, butler, or other officer at his coronation.
   … Grants of land were also made by the King to his inferior
   followers and personal attendants, to be held by meaner
   services. … Hence, probably, arose tenure by Petit
   Serjeanty, though later on we find that term restricted to
   tenure 'in capite' by the service of rendering yearly some
   implement of war to the King. … Tenure in Free Socage (which
   still subsists under the modern denomination of Freehold, and
   may be regarded as the representative of the primitive alodial
   ownership) denotes, in its most general and extensive
   signification, a tenure by any certain and determinate
   service, as to pay a fixed money rent, or to plough the lord's
   land for a fixed number of days in the year. … Tenure in
   Burgage was a kind of town socage. It applied to tenements in
   any ancient borough, held by the burgesses, of the King or
   other lord, by fixed rents or services. … This tenure, which
   still subsists, is subject to a variety of local customs, the
   most remarkable of which is that of borough-English, by which
   the burgage tenement descends to the youngest instead of to
   the eldest son. Gavelkind is almost confined to the county of
   Kent. … The lands are held by suit of court and fealty, a
   service in its nature certain. The tenant in Gavelkind
   retained many of the properties of alodial ownership: his
   lands were devisable by will; in case of intestacy they
   descended to all his sons equally; they were not liable to
   escheat for felony … and they could be aliened by the tenant
   at the age of fifteen. Below Free Socage was the tenure in
   Villeinage, by which the agricultural labourers, both free and
   servile, held the land which was to them in lieu of money
   wages."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      pages 58-65._

FEUDALISM.

   "Feudalism, the comprehensive idea which includes the whole
   governmental policy of the French kingdom, was of distinctly
   Frank growth. The principle which underlies it may be
   universal; but the historic development of it with which the
   constitutional history of Europe is concerned may be traced
   step by step under Frank influence, from its first appearance
   on the conquered soil of Roman Gaul to its full development in
   the jurisprudence of the Middle Ages. In the form which it has
   reached at the Norman Conquest, it may be described as a
   complete organisation of society through the medium of land
   tenure, in which from the king down to the lowest landowner
   all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
   the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
   his lord; the defence and service being based on and regulated
   by the nature and extent of the land held by the one of the
   other. In those states which have reached the territorial
   stage of development, the rights of defence and service are
   supplemented by the right of jurisdiction. The lord judges as
   well as defends his vassal; the vassal does suit as well as
   service to his lord. In states in which feudal government has
   reached its utmost growth, the political, financial, judicial,
   every branch of public administration, is regulated by the
   same conditions. The central authority is a mere shadow of a
   name. This institution had grown up from two great
   sources—the beneficium, and the practice of
   commendation,—and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil
   by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any
   amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The
   beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by
   the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and
   servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in
   the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or
   powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as
   tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the
   weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who
   felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of
   the church. By the practice of commendation, on the other
   hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a
   lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of
   his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage.
   … The union of the beneficiary tie with that of commendation
   completed the idea of feudal obligation; the two-fold hold on
   the land, that of the lord and that of the vassal, was
   supplemented by the two-fold engagement, that of the lord to
   defend, and that of the vassal to be faithful. A third
   ingredient was supplied by the grants of immunity by which in
   the Frank empire, as in England, the possession of land was
   united with the right of judicature: the dwellers on a feudal
   property were placed under the tribunal of the lord, and the
   rights which had belonged to the nation or to its chosen head
   were devolved upon the receiver of a fief. The rapid spread of
   the system thus originated, and the assimilation of all other
   tenures to it, may be regarded as the work of the tenth
   century; but as early as A. D. 877 Charles the Bald recognised
   the hereditary character of all benefices; and from that year
   the growth of strictly feudal jurisprudence may be held to
   date. The system testifies to the country and causes of its
   birth.
{1118}
   The beneficium is partly of Roman, partly of German origin.
   … Commendation on the other hand may have had a Gallic or
   Celtic origin, and an analogy only with the Roman clientship.
   … The word feudum, fief, or fee, is derived from the German
   word for cattle (Gothic 'faihu'; Old High German 'fihu'; Old
   Saxon 'fehu'; Anglo-Saxon 'feoh'); the secondary meaning being
   goods, especially money: hence property in general. The letter
   _d_ is perhaps a mere insertion for sound's sake; but it
   has been interpreted as part of a second root, _od_, also
   meaning property, in which case the first syllable has a third
   meaning, that of fee or reward, and the whole word means
   property given by way of reward for service. But this is
   improbable. … The word feodum is not found earlier than the
   close of the ninth century."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9, section 93, and notes (volume 1)._

   "The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds,
   in fact, may be considered as almost confined to the dominions
   of Charlemagne, and to those countries which afterwards
   derived it from thence. In England it can hardly be thought to
   have existed in a complete state, before the Conquest.
   Scotland, it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her
   neighbour. The Lombards of Benevento had introduced feudal
   customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which the Norman
   conquerors afterwards perfected. Feudal tenures were so
   general in the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the
   monarchies which were founded upon that basis. Charlemagne's
   empire, it must be remembered, extended as far as the Ebro.
   But in Castile and Portugal they were very rare, and certainly
   could produce no political effect. Benefices for life were
   sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia.
   Neither of these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under
   the description of countries influenced by the feudal system."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2._

   "Hardly any point in the whole history of European
   institutions has been the subject of so violent controversy as
   this of the origin of Feudalism. It was formerly supposed that
   Feudalism was only a somewhat more developed form of the
   ancient Germanic 'following' transplanted to Roman soil, but a
   more critical examination of the documents of the early period
   soon showed that there was more to it than this. It became
   evident that Feudalism was not so simple as had at first
   appeared. … When, however, scholars had come to see this,
   they then found themselves at variance upon the details of the
   process by which the popular monarchical arrangements of the
   early Franks were converted into the aristocratic forms of the
   later Feudalism. While they agreed upon the essential fact
   that the Germans, at the time of their emergence from their
   original seats and their occupation of the Roman lands, were
   not mere wandering groups of freebooters, as the earlier
   school had represented them, but well-organized nations, with
   a very distinct sense of political organization, they found
   themselves hopelessly divided on the question how this
   national life had, in the course of time, come to assume forms
   so very different from those of the primitive German. The
   first person to represent what we may call the modern view of
   the feudal system was Georg Waitz, in the first edition of his
   History of the German Constitution, in the years 1844-47.
   Waitz presented the thing as a gradual growth during several
   centuries, the various elements of which it was composed
   growing up side by side without definite chronological
   sequence. This view was met by Paul Roth in his History of the
   Institution of the Benefice, in the year 1850. He maintained that
   royal benefices were unknown to the Merovingian Franks, and
   that they were an innovation of the earliest Carolingians.
   They were, so he believed, made possible by a grand
   confiscation of the lands of the Church, not by Charles
   Martel, as the earlier writers had believed, but by his sons,
   Pippin and Karlmann. The first book of Roth was followed in
   the year 1863 by another on Feudalism and the Relation of the
   Subject to the State, (Feudalität und Unterthanenverband), in
   which he attempted to show that the direct subjection of the
   individual to the government was not a strange idea to the
   early German, but that it pervaded all forms of Germanic life
   down to the Carolingian times, and that therefore the feudal
   relation was a something entirely new, a break in the practice
   of the Germans. In the years 1880-1885 appeared a new edition
   of Waitz's History of the German Constitution, in which, after
   acknowledging the great services rendered by Roth to the cause of
   learning, he declares himself unable to give up his former
   point of view, and brings new evidence in support of it. Thus
   for more than thirty years this question has been before the
   world of scholars, and may be regarded as being quite as far
   from a settlement as ever."

      _E. Emerton,
      An Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
      page 236 (foot-note)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Civilization:
      Second Course, lecture 2._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.

FEUILLANTS, Club and Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, and 1791 (OCTOBER).

FEZ:
   Founding of the city and kingdom.

      See EDRISITES.

FIANNA EIRINN.

   The ancient militia of Erin,
   famous in old Irish romance and song.

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

FIDENÆ.

   An ancient city on the left bank of the Tiber, only five miles
   from Rome, originally Latin, but afterwards containing a mixed
   Latin and Etruscan population. It was at war with Rome until
   the latter destroyed it, B. C. 426.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 15._

FIEFS.

      See FEUDAL TENURES;
      and FEUDALISM.

FIELD OF LIES, The.

   Ludwig, or Louis, the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne,
   was a man of gentle character, and good intentions—too
   amiable and too honest in his virtues for the commanding of a
   great empire in times so rude. He lost the control of his
   state, and his family, alike. His own sons headed a succession
   of revolts against his authority. The second of these
   insurrections occurred in the year 833. Father and sons
   confronted one another with hostile armies, on the plain of
   Rothfeld, not far from Colmar in Alsace. Intrigue instead of
   battle settled the controversy, for the time being. The
   adherents of the old emperor were all enticed away from him,
   and he found himself wholly deserted and alone. To signify the
   treacherous methods by which this defection was brought about,
   the "Rothfeld" (Red-field) on which it occurred received the
   name of "Lügenfeld," or Field of Lies.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Carlovingians;
      translated by Bellingham, chapter 7._

{1119}

FIELD OF THE CLOTH OF GOLD, The.

   The place of the famous meeting of Henry VIII. of England with
   Francis I. of France, which took place in the summer of 1520
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], is notable in history, from the
   magnificence of the preparations made for it, as The Field of
   the Cloth of Gold. It was at Guisnes, or between Guisnes and
   Arde, near Calais (then English territory). "Guisnes and its
   castle offered little attraction, and if possible less
   accommodation, to the gay throng now to be gathered within its
   walls. … But on the castle green, within the limits of a few
   weeks, and in the face of great difficulties, the English
   artists of that day contrived a summer palace, more like a
   vision of romance, the creation of some fairy dream (if the
   accounts of eye-witnesses of all classes may be trusted), than
   the dull every-day reality of clay-born bricks and mortar. No
   'palace of art' in these beclouded climates of the West ever
   so truly deserved its name. … The palace was an exact square
   of 328 feet. It was pierced on every side with oriel windows
   and clerestories curiously glazed, the mullions and posts of
   which were overlaid with gold. An embattled gate, ornamented
   on both sides with statues representing men in various
   attitudes of war, and flanked by an embattled tower, guarded
   the entrance. From this gate to the entrance of the palace
   arose in long ascent a sloping daïs or hall-pace, along which
   were grouped 'images of sore and terrible countenances,' in
   armour of argentine or bright metal. At the entrance, under an
   embowed landing place, facing the great doors, stood 'antique'
   (classical) figures girt with olive branches. The passages,
   the roofs of the galleries from place to place and from
   chamber to chamber, were ceiled and covered with white silk,
   fluted and embowed with silken hanging of divers colours and
   braided cloths, 'which showed like bullions of fine burnished
   gold.' The roofs of the chambers were studded with roses, set
   in lozenges, and diapered on a ground of fine gold. Panels
   enriched with antique carving and gilt bosses covered the
   spaces between the windows; whilst all along the corridors and
   from every window hung tapestry of silk and gold, embroidered
   with figures. … To the palace was attached a spacious
   chapel, still more sumptuously adorned. Its altars were hung
   with cloth of gold tissue embroidered with pearls; cloth of
   gold covered the walls and desks. … Outside the palace gate,
   on the greensward, stood a gilt fountain, of antique
   workmanship, with a statue of Bacchus 'birlying the wine.'
   Three runlets, fed by secret conduits hid beneath the earth,
   spouted claret, hypocras, and water into as many silver cups,
   to quench the thirst of all comers. … In long array, in the
   plain beyond, 2,800 tents stretched their white canvas before
   the eyes of the spectator, gay with the pennons, badges, and
   devices of the various occupants; whilst miscellaneous
   followers, in tens of thousands, attracted by profit or the
   novelty of the scene, camped on the grass and filled the
   surrounding slopes, in spite of the severity of
   provost-marshal and reiterated threats of mutilation and
   chastisement. … From the 4th of June, when Henry first
   entered Guisnes, the festivities continued with unabated
   splendour for twenty days. … The two kings parted on the
   best of terms, as the world thought."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lady Jackson,
      The Court of France in the 16th Century,
      volume 1, chapters 11-12._

      _Miss Pardoe,
      The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

FIESCO, Conspiracy of.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.

FIESOLE.

      See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

FIFTEEN, The (Jacobite Rebellion).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.

FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

   One of the most extremely fanatical of the politico-religious
   sects or factions which rose in England during the
   commonwealth and the Protectoral reign of Cromwell, was that
   of the so-called Fifth Monarchy Men, of whom Major-General
   Harrison was the chief. Their belief is thus described by
   Carlyle: "The common mode of treating Universal History, …
   not yet entirely fallen obsolete in this country, though it
   has been abandoned with much ridicule everywhere else for half
   a century now, was to group the Aggregate Transactions of the
   Human Species into Four Monarchies: the Assyrian Monarchy of
   Nebuchadnezzar and Company; the Persian of Cyrus and ditto;
   the Greek of Alexander; and lastly the Roman. These I think
   were they; but am no great authority on the subject. Under the
   dregs of this last, or Roman Empire, which is maintained yet by
   express name in Germany, 'Das heilige Römische Reich,' we poor
   moderns still live. But now say Major-General Harrison and a
   number of men, founding on Bible Prophecies, Now shall be a
   Fifth Monarchy, by far the blessedest and the only real
   one,—the Monarchy of Jesus Christ, his Saints reigning for
   Him here on Earth,—if not He himself, which is probable or
   possible,—for a thousand years, &c., &c.—O Heavens, there
   are tears for human destiny; and immortal Hope itself is
   beautiful because it is steeped in Sorrow, and foolish Desire
   lies vanquished under its feet! They who merely laugh at
   Harrison take but a small portion of his meaning with them."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 8, speech 2._

   The Fifth Monarchy fanaticism, sternly repressed by Oliver
   Cromwell, gave some signs of turbulence during Richard
   Cromwell's protectorate, and broke out in a mad way the year
   after the Restoration. The attempted insurrection in London
   was headed by one Venner, and was called Venner's
   Insurrection. It was easily put down. "It came as the expiring
   flash of a fanatical creed, which had blended itself with
   Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of the latter; and, dying
   out rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of
   Millenarianism."

      _J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 5, page 16._

"FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT."

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

FILI.

   A class of poets among the early Irish, who practiced
   originally certain rites of incantation. Their art was called
   Filidecht. "The bards, who recited poems and stories, formed
   at first a distinct branch from the Fili. According as the
   true Filidecht fell into desuetude, and the Fili became simply
   a poet, the two orders practically coalesced and the names
   Fili and bard became synonymous. … In Pagan times and during
   the Middle Ages the Irish bards, like the Gaulish ones,
   accompanied their recitation of poems on a stringed instrument
   called a crut. … The bard was therefore to the Fili, or
   poet, what the Jogler was to the Troubadour."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      Article, Celtic Literature,
      Encyclopedia Brittanica._

{1120}

FILIBUSTER.

   "The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one
   of ends rather than of means. Some authorities say that the
   words have a common etymology; but others, including
   Charlevoix, maintain that the filibuster derived his name from
   his original occupation, that of a cruiser in a 'flibote,' or
   'Vly-boat,' first used on the river Vly, in Holland. Yet
   another writer says that the name was first given to the
   gallant followers of Dominique de Gourgues, who sailed from
   Finisterre, or Finibuster, in France, on the famous expedition
   against Fort Caroline in 1567 [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568].
   The name, whatever its origin, was long current in the Spanish
   as 'filibustero' before it became adopted into the English. So
   adopted, it has been used to describe a type of adventurer who
   occupied a curious place in American history during the decade
   from 1850 to 1860."

      _J. J. Roche,
      The Story of the Filibusters,
      chapter 1._

      See, also,
      AMERICA: A: D. 1639-1700.

FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITIONS OF LOPEZ AND WALKER.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860;
      and NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, The.

   "The Council of Toledo, held under King Reccared, A. D. 589,
   at which the Visigothic Church of Spain formally abjured
   Arianism and adopted the orthodox faith, put forth a version
   of the great creed of Nicæa in which they had interpolated an
   additional clause, which stated that the Holy Ghost proceeded
   from the Father 'and from the Son' (Filioque). Under what
   influence the council took upon itself to make an addition to
   the creed of the universal Church is unknown. It is probable
   that the motive of the addition was to make a stronger protest
   against the Arian denial of the co-equal Godhead of the Son.
   The Spanish Church naturally took a special interest in the
   addition it had made to the symbol of Nicæa, and sustained it
   in subsequent councils. … The Frankish Church seems to have
   early adopted it from their Spanish neighbours. … The
   question was brought before a council held at Aix in A. D.
   809. … The council formally approved of the addition to the
   creed, and Charles [Charlemagne] sent two bishops and the
   abbot of Corbie to Rome to request the pope's concurrence in
   the decision. Leo, at a conference with the envoys, expressed
   his agreement with the doctrine, but strongly opposed its
   insertion into the creed. … Notwithstanding the pope's
   protest, the addition was adopted throughout the Frankish
   Empire. When the Emperor Henry V. was crowned at Rome, A. D.
   1014, he induced Pope Benedict VIII. to allow the creed with
   the filioque to be chanted after the Gospel at High Mass; so
   it came to be generally used in Rome; and at length Pope
   Nicholas I. insisted on its adoption throughout the West. At a
   later period the controversy was revived, and it became the
   ostensible ground of the final breach (A. D. 1054) between the
   Churches of the West and those of the East."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Charlemagne,
      chapter 23._

   "The Filioque controversy relates to the eternal procession of
   the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian
   controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost
   the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and
   Latin churches, … and has occasioned, deepened, and
   perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single
   word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest and most nearly
   related churches divided since the ninth century, and still
   forbids a reunion."

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 11, section 107._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Howard,
      The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches._

      See, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

FILIPPO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1412-1447.

FILLMORE, Millard.
   Vice-Presidential Election.
   Succession to the Presidency.
   Administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848 to 1852.

FINÉ, The.

   A clan or sept division of the tribe in ancient Ireland.

FINGALL.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
      also, IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FINLAND: A. D. 1808-1810.
   Conquest by and peculiar annexation to Russia.
   Constitutional independence of the Finnish grand
   duchy confirmed by the Czar.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

FINN GALLS.

      See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FINNS.

      See HUNGARIANS.

FIODH-INIS.

      See IRELAND, THE NAME.

FIRBOLGS, The.

   One of the races to which Irish legend ascribes the settlement
   of Ireland; said to have come from Thrace.

      See NEMEDIANS,
      and IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

FIRE LANDS, The.

      See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

FIRMA.

      See FERM.

FIRST CONSUL OF FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

FIRST EMPIRE (FRENCH), The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805, to 1815.

FIRST-FRUITS.

      See ANNATES.

FIRST REPUBLIC (FRENCH), The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1804-1805.

FISCALINI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

FISCUS, The.

   "The treasury of the senate [in the early period of the Roman
   empire] retained the old republican name of the ærarium; that
   of the emperor was denominated the fiscus, a term which
   ordinarily signified the private property of an individual.
   Hence the notion rapidly grew up, that the provincial
   resources constituted the emperor's private purse, and when in
   process of time the control of the senate over the taxes gave
   way to their direct administration by the emperor himself, the
   national treasury received the designation of fiscus, and the
   idea of the empire being nothing else than Cæsar's patrimony
   became fixed ineradicably in men's minds."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 32._

FISHER, Fort, The capture of.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
   (DECEMBER-JANUARY: NORTH CAROLINA).

FISHERIES, North American: A. D. 1501-1578.
   The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fishermen on the
   Newfoundland Banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

{1121}

FISHERIES: A. D. 1610-1655.
   Growth of the English interest.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1620.
   Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1660-1688.
   The French gain their footing in Newfoundland.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1713.
   Newfoundland relinquished to England, with fishing rights
   reserved to France, by the Treaty of Utrecht.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1720-1745.
   French interests protected by the fortification of Louisbourg.

      See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1748.
   St. Pierre and Michelon islands on the Newfoundland coast
   ceded to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1763.

   Rights secured to France on the island of Newfoundland and in
   the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the Treaty of Paris.

   Articles V. and VI. of the Treaty of Paris (1763), which
   transferred Canada and all its islands from France to England,
   are in the following language:

   "The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and
   drying, on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland,
   such as it is specified in the 13th Article of the Treaty of
   Utrecht; which article is renewed and confirmed by the present
   treaty (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as
   well as to the other islands and coasts, in the mouth and in
   the gulph of St. Laurence): and his Britannic majesty consents
   to leave to the subjects of the most Christian king the
   liberty of fishing in the gulph of St. Laurence, on condition
   that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery,
   but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts
   belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent, as
   those of the islands situated in the said gulph of St.
   Laurence. And as to what relates to the fishery on the coasts
   of the island of Cape Breton out of the said gulph, the
   subjects of the most Christian king shall not be permitted to
   exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 15 leagues
   from the coasts of the island of Cape Breton; and the fishery
   on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Acadia, and everywhere else
   out of the said gulph, shall remain on the foot of former
   treaties.

   Article VI. The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St.
   Peter and Miquelon, in full right, to his most Christian
   majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fishermen: and
   his said most Christian majesty engages not to fortify the
   said islands; to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for
   the convenience of the fishery; and to keep upon them a guard
   of 50 men only for the police."

      _Text of the Treaty (Parliamentary History,
      volume 15, page 1295)._

FISHERIES: A. D. 1778.
   French fishery rights recognized in the treaty between France
   and the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

FISHERIES: A. D. 1783.
   Rights secured to the United States by the Treaty of Paris.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.
   Disputed rights of American fishermen after the War of 1812.
   Silence of the Treaty of Ghent.
   The Convention of 1818.

   Under the Treaty of Paris (1783) "we claimed that the liberty
   which was secured to the inhabitants of the United States to
   take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation
   of not drying or curing the same on that island, and also on
   the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the limited
   rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of Nova Scotia,
   Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were not created or conferred
   by that treaty, but were simply recognized by it as already
   existing. They had been enjoyed before the Revolution by the
   Americans in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and
   had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, through
   the valor and sacrifices of the colonies of New England and
   New York. The treaty was therefore considered analogous to a
   deed of partition. It defined the boundaries between the two
   countries and all the rights and privileges belonging to them.
   We insisted that the article respecting fisheries was
   therefore to be regarded as identical with the possession of
   land or the demarcation of boundary. We also claimed that the
   treaty, being one that recognized independence, conceded
   territory, and defined boundaries, belonged to that class
   which is permanent in its nature and is not affected by
   subsequent suspension of friendly relations. The English,
   however, insisted that this treaty was not a unity; that while
   some of its provisions were permanent, other stipulations were
   temporary and could be abrogated, and that, in fact, they were
   abrogated by the war of 1812; that the very difference of the
   language used showed that while the rights of deep-sea fishing
   were permanent, the liberties of fishing were created and
   conferred by that treaty, and had therefore been taken away by
   the war. These were the two opposite views of the respective
   governments at the conferences which ended in the treaty of
   Ghent, of 1814." No compromise appearing to be practicable,
   the commissioners agreed, at length, to drop the subject from
   consideration. "For that reason the treaty of Ghent is
   entirely silent as to the fishery question.

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

   In consequence of conflicts arising between our fishermen and
   the British authorities, our point of view was very strongly
   maintained by Mr. Adams in his correspondence with the British
   Foreign Office, and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush,
   then our minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin,
   succeeded in signing a treaty, which among other things
   settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as
   follows: … 'It is agreed between the high contracting
   parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall
   have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic
   Majesty, the liberty of taking fish of any kind on that part
   of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape
   Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coasts
   of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Qurpon Islands;
   on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
   bays, harbors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern
   coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle,
   and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that
   the American fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and
   cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks in
   the southern part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and
   of the coasts of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any
   portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
   said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion, so
   settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the
   inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.
{1122}
   And the United States hereby renounces forever any liberty
   heretofore enjoyed, claimed by the inhabitants thereof to
   take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any
   of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic
   Majesty's dominions in America not included in the
   above-mentioned limits. Provided, however, That the American
   fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for
   the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of
   purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose
   whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall
   be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish
   therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the
   privileges hereby secured to them.' The American
   plenipotentiaries evidently labored to obtain as extensive a
   district of territory as possible for in-shore fishing, and
   were willing to give up privileges, then apparently of small
   amount, but now much more important, than of using other bays
   and harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that reason
   they acquiesced in omitting the word 'bait' in the first
   sentence of the proviso after  water.' … The power of
   obtaining bait for use in the deep-sea fisheries is one which
   our fishermen were afterward very anxious to secure. But the
   mackerel fisheries in those waters did not begin until several
   years later. The only contention then was about the cod
   fisheries."

      _E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      chapter 8._

      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 415-418._

FISHERIES: A. D. 1854-1866.
   Privileges defined under the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
      A. D. 1854-1866.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1871.
   Reciprocal privileges adjusted between Great Britain and the
   United States by the Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1877-1888.
   The Halifax award.
   Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of
   Washington.
   The rejected Treaty of 1888.

   In accordance with the terms of articles 22 and 23 of the
   Treaty of Washington (see ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871), a
   Commission appointed to award compensation to Great Britain
   for the superior value of the fishery privileges conceded to
   the citizens of the United States by that treaty, met at
   Halifax on the 5th of June, 1877. The United States was
   represented on the Commission by Hon. E. H. Kellogg, of
   Massachusetts, and Great Britain by Sir Alexander F. Gault, of
   Canada. The two governments having failed to agree in the
   selection of the third Commissioner, the latter was named, as
   the Treaty provided, by the Austrian Ambassador at London, who
   designated M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minister at
   Washington. The award was made November 27, 1877, when, "by a
   vote of two to one, the Commissioners decided that the United
   States was to pay $5,500,000 for the use of the fishing
   privileges for 12 years. The decision produced profound
   astonishment in the United States." Dissatisfaction with the
   Halifax award, and generally with the main provisions of the
   Treaty of Washington relating to the fisheries, was so great
   in the United States that, when, in 1878, Congress
   appropriated money for the payment of the award, it inserted
   in the bill a clause to the effect that "Articles 18 and 21 of
   the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain
   concluded on the 8th of May, 1871, ought to be terminated at
   the earliest period consistent with the provisions of Article
   33 of the same Treaty." "It is a curious fact that during the
   time intervening between the signing of the treaty of
   Washington and the Halifax award an almost complete change
   took place in the character of the fisheries. The method of
   taking mackerel was completely revolutionized by the
   introduction of the purse-seine, by means of which vast
   quantities of the fish were captured far out in the open sea
   by enclosing them in huge nets. … This change in the method
   of fishing brought about a change in the fishing grounds. …
   The result of this change was very greatly to diminish the
   value of the North-eastern Fisheries to the United States
   fishermen." On the 1st of July, 1883, "in pursuance of
   instructions from Congress, the President gave the required
   notice of the desire of the United States to terminate the
   Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, which
   consequently came to an end the 1st of July, 1885. The
   termination of the treaty fell in the midst of the fishing
   season, and, at the suggestion of the British Minister,
   Secretary Bayard entered into a temporary arrangement whereby
   the American fishermen were allowed the privileges of the
   treaty during the remainder of the season, with the
   understanding that the President should bring the question
   before Congress at its next session and recommend a joint
   Commission by the Governments of the United States and Great
   Britain." This was done; but Congress disapproved the
   recommendation. The question of rights under former treaties,
   especially that of 1818, remained open, and became a subject
   of much irritation between the United States and the
   neighboring British American provinces. The local regulations
   of the latter were enforced with stringency and harshness
   against American fishermen; the latter solicited and procured
   retaliatory legislation from Congress. To end this
   unsatisfactory state of affairs, a treaty was negotiated at
   Washington in February, 1888, by Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary
   of State, William L. Putnam and James B. Angell,
   plenipotentiaries on the part of the United States, and Joseph
   Chamberlain, M. P., Sir L. S. Sackville West and Sir Charles
   Tupper, plenipotentiaries on the part of Great Britain, which
   treaty was approved by the President and sent to the Senate,
   but rejected by that body on the 21st of August, by a negative
   vote of 30, against 27 in its favor.

      _C. B. Elliott,
      The United States and the North-eastern Fisheries,
      pages 79-100._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      chapter 8._

      _J. H. De Ricci,
      The Fisheries Dispute (1888)._

      _Annual Cyclopedia,
      volume 13 (1888), pages 217-226._

      _Annual Report of United States Commission of Fish and
      Fisheries for 1886._

      _Correspondence relative to proposed Fisheries Treaty
      (Senate Ex. Doc., Number 113, 50th Congress, 1st Session)._

      _Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission (H. R. Ex.
      Doc., Number 89, 45th. Congress, 2d Session)._

----------FISHERIES: End----------

FISHER'S HILL, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

FISHING CREEK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

{1123}

FITCH, John, and the beginnings of steam navigation.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION.

FITZGERALD'S (LORD THOMAS) REBELLION IN IRELAND.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

FIVE BLOODS, The.

      See IRELAND; 13TH-14TH CENTURIES.

FIVE BOROUGHS, The.

   A confederation of towns occupied by the Danes in England,
   including Derby, Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham and Stamford,
   which played a part in the events of the tenth and eleventh
   centuries. It afterwards became Seven Boroughs by addition of
   York and Chester.

FIVE FORKS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
      (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

FIVE HUNDRED, The French Council of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

FIVE HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

FIVE MEMBERS, King Charles' attempt against the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).

FIVE MILE ACT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

FIVE NATIONS OF INDIANS, The.

   The five original tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy,—the
   Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas,—were
   commonly called by the English the Five Nations. Subsequently,
   in 1715, a sixth tribe, the Tuscaroras, belonging to the same
   stock, was admitted to the confederacy, and its members were
   then known as the Six Nations.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS
      TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

FIVE THOUSAND, The

      See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.

FIVE YEARS' TRUCE, The.

   The hostilities between Athens and Sparta which preceded the
   Peloponnesian War, being opened by the battle of Tanagra, B.
   C. 457, were suspended B. C. 451, by a truce called the Five
   Years' Truce, arranged through the influence of the
   soldier-statesman Cimon.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 1, section 112._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 2._

FLAGELLANTS.

   "Although the Church's forgiveness for sin might now [14th
   century] be easily obtained in other ways: Still Flagellation
   was not only greatly admired among the religious, but was also
   held in such high estimation by the common people, that in
   case of any calamity or plague, they thought they could
   propitiate the supposed wrath of God in no more effectual
   manner than by scourging, and processions of scourgers; just
   as though the Church's ordinary means of atonement were
   insufficient for extraordinary cases. A decided mistrust of
   the Church's intercession, and the clergy who dispensed it,
   prevailed among the societies of Flagellants; roused to action
   by the plague that past over from Asia into Europe in the year
   1348, and spread devastation everywhere, ever since the
   beginning of the year 1349 they diffused themselves from the
   Hungarian frontier over the whole of Germany, and found
   entrance even into the neighbouring countries. … They
   practised this penance according to a fixed rule, without the
   co-operation of the clergy, under the guidance of Masters,
   Magistri, and made no secret of the fact, that they held the
   Church's way of salvation in much lower estimation than the
   penance by the scourge. Clement VI. put an end to the public
   processions of Flagellants, which were already widely
   prevalent: but penance by the scourge was only thus forced
   into concealment. In Thuringia, Conrad Schmidt, one of their
   masters, gave the form of a connected system of heretical
   doctrine to their dislike of the Church. … Thus there now
   rose heretical Flagellants, called also by the common name of
   Beghards; they existed down to the time of the Reformation,
   especially in Thuringia, as an heretical sect very dangerous
   to the Church. This warning example, as well as the mistrust
   natural to the Hierarchy of all spiritual impulses which did
   not originate from itself, decided the destiny of the later
   societies of Flagellants. When the Whitemen (Bianchi) [see
   WHITE PENITENTS], scourging themselves as they went, descended
   from the Alps into Italy, they were received almost everywhere
   with enthusiasm by the clergy and the people; but in the Papal
   territory death was prepared for their leader, and the rest
   accordingly dispersed themselves."

      _J. C. L. Gieseler,
      Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,
      section 123 (volume 4)._

   "Divided into companies of male and female devotees, under a
   leader and two masters, they stripped themselves naked to the
   waist, and publicly scourged themselves, or each other, till
   their shoulders were covered with blood. This expiatory
   ceremony was repeated every morning and afternoon for
   thirty-three days, equal in number to the years which Christ
   is thought to have lived upon earth; after which they returned
   to their former employments, cleansed from sin by the baptism
   of blood.' The flagellants appeared first in Hungary; but
   missionary societies were soon formed, and they hastened to
   impart the knowledge of the new gospel to foreign nations.
   They spread with rapidity over Poland, Germany and the Low
   Countries. From France they were excluded at the request of
   the pope, who had issued a severe constitution against them;
   but a colony reached England, and landed in London, to the
   number of 120 men and women. … The missionaries made not a
   single proselyte."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 4, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Cooper,
      Flagellation and the Flagellants._

      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Church,
      note appendix to chapter 23._

FLAMENS.
FLAMINES.

   "The pontifices, like several other priestly brotherhoods [of
   ancient Rome] … had sacrificial priests (flamines) attached
   to them, whose name was derived from 'flare' (to blow the
   fire). The number of flamines attached to the pontifices was
   fifteen, the three highest of whom, … viz., the Flamen
   Dialis, Martialis, and Quirinalis, were always chosen from old
   patrician families. … Free from all civil duties, the Flamen
   Dialis, with his wife and children, exclusively devoted
   himself to the service of the deity. His house … lay on the
   Palatine hill. His marriage was dissoluble by death only; he
   was not allowed to take an oath, mount a horse, or look at an
   army. He was forbidden to remain a night away from his house,
   and his hand touched nothing unclean, for which reason he
   never approached a corpse or a burial-place. … In the
   daytime the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to take off his
   head-dress, and he was obliged to resign his office in case it
   fell off by accident. In his belt he carried the sacrificial
   knife, and in his hand he held a rod, in order to keep off the
   people on his way to the sacrifice. For the same purpose he
   was preceded by a lictor, who compelled everybody on the way
   to lay down his work, the flamen not being allowed to see the
   business of daily life."

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

      See AUGURS.

{1124}

FLAMINIAN WAY.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

FLAMINIUS, The defeat of.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

FLANDERS: A. D. 863.
   Creation of the County.

   Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, of France (not yet
   called France), and a twice widowed queen of England, though
   hardly yet out of her girlhood (she had wedded Ethelwulf and
   Ethelbald, father and son, in succession), took a mate, at
   last, more to her liking, by a runaway match with one of her
   father's foresters, named Baudouin, or Baldwin, Bras-de-fer.
   This was in 862. King Charles, in his wrath, caused the
   impudent forester to be outlawed and excommunicated, both; but
   after a year of intercession and mediation he forgave the pair
   and established them in a suitable fief. Baudouin was made
   Count or Marquis of Flanders. "Previously to Baudouin's era,
   Flanders or 'Flandria' is a designation belonging, as learned
   men conjecture, to a Gau or Pagus, afterwards known as the
   Franc de Bruges, and noticed only in a single charter.
   Popularly, the name of Flanders had obtained with respect to a
   much larger surrounding Belgic country. … The name of
   'Flanders' was thus given to the wide, and in a degree
   indefinite tract, of which the Forester Baudouin and his
   predecessors had the official range or care. According to the
   idiom of the Middle Ages, the term 'Forest' did not exactly
   convey the idea which the word now suggests, not being applied
   exclusively to wood-land, but to any wild and unreclaimed
   region. … Any etymology of the name of Flamingia, or
   Flanders, which we can guess at, seems intended to designate
   that the land was so called from being half-drowned.
   Thirty-five inundations, which afflicted the country at
   various intervals from the tenth to the sixteenth century,
   have entirely altered the coast-line; and the interior
   features of the country, though less affected, have been much
   changed by the diversions which the river-courses have
   sustained. … Whatever had been the original amplitude of the
   districts over which Baudouin had any control or authority,
   the boundaries were now enlarged and defined. Kneeling before
   Charles-le-Chauve, placing his hands between the hands of the
   Sovereign, he received his 'honour':—the Forester of Flanders
   was created Count or Marquis. All the countries between the
   Scheldt, the Somme and the sea, became his benefice; so that
   only a narrow and contested tract divided Baudouin's Flanders
   from Normandy. According to an antient nomenclature, ten
   counties, to wit, Theerenburch, Arras, Boulogne, Guisnes,
   Saint-Paul, Hesdin, Blandemont, Bruges, Harlebec, and Tournay,
   were comprehended in the noble grant which Baudouin obtained
   from his father-in-law."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and of England,
      book 1, chapter 4._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1096.
   The Crusade of Count Robert.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1201-1204.
   The diverted Crusade of Count Baldwin and the imperial crown
   he won at Constantinople.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;
      and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1214.
   Humbled at the battle of Bouvines.

      See BOUVINES.

FLANDERS: 13th Century.
   The industry, commerce and wealth of the Flemings.

   "In the 13th century, Flanders was the most populous and the
   richest country in Europe. She owed the fact to the briskness
   of her manufacturing and commercial undertakings, not only
   amongst her neighbours, but throughout Southern and Eastern
   Europe. … Cloth, and all manner of woolen stuffs, were the
   principal articles of Flemish production, and it was chiefly
   from England that Flanders drew her supply of wool, the raw
   material of her industry. Thence arose between the two
   countries commercial relations which could not fail to acquire
   political importance. As early as the middle of the 12th
   century, several Flemish towns formed a society for founding
   in England a commercial exchange, which obtained great
   privileges, and, under the name of the Flemish hanse of
   London, reached rapid development. The merchants of Bruges had
   taken the initiative in it; but soon all the towns of
   Flanders—and Flanders was covered with towns—Ghent, Lille,
   Ypres, Courtrai, Furnes, Alost, St. Omer, and Douai, entered
   the confederation, and made unity as well as extension of
   liberties in respect of Flemish commerce the object of their
   joint efforts. Their prosperity became celebrated; and its
   celebrity gave it increase. It was a burgher of Bruges who was
   governor of the hanse of London, and he was called the Count
   of the Hanse. The fair of Bruges, held in the month of May,
   brought together traders from the whole world. 'Thither came
   for exchange,' says the most modern and most enlightened
   historian of Flanders (Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, 'Histoire
   de Flandre,' t. ii., page 300), 'the produce of the North and
   the South, the riches collected in the pilgrimages to
   Novgorod, and those brought over by the caravans from
   Samarcand and Bagdad, the pitch of Norway and the oils of
   Andalusia, the furs of Russia and the dates from the Atlas,
   the metals of Hungary and Bohemia, the figs of Granada, the
   honey of Portugal, the wax of Morocco, and the spice of Egypt;
   whereby, says an ancient manuscript, no land is to be compared
   in merchandise to the land of Flanders.' … So much
   prosperity made the Counts of Flanders very puissant lords.
   'Marguerite II., called "the Black," Countess of Flanders and
   Hainault, from 1244 to 1280, was extremely rich,' says a
   chronicler, 'not only in lands, but in furniture, jewels, and
   money; … insomuch that she kept up the state of queen rather
   than countess.' Nearly all the Flemish towns were strongly
   organised communes, in which prosperity had won liberty, and
   which became before long small republics, sufficiently
   powerful not only for the defence of their municipal rights
   against the Counts of Flanders, their lords, but for offering
   an armed resistance to such of the sovereigns their neighbours
   as attempted to conquer them or to trammel them in their
   commercial relations, or to draw upon their wealth by forced
   contributions or by plunder."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip Van Arteveld,
      part 1, chapter 2._

{1125}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
   The war with Philip the Fair.

   As the Flemings advanced in wealth and consequence, the feudal
   dependence of their country upon the French crown grew
   increasingly irksome and oppressive to them, and their
   attitude towards France became one of confirmed hostility. At
   the same time, they were drawn to a friendly leaning towards
   England by common commercial interests. This showed itself
   decisively on the occasion of the quarrel that arose (A. D.
   1295) between Philip IV., called the Fair, and Edward I. of
   England, concerning the rule of the latter in Aquitaine or
   Guienne. The French king found allies in Scotland; the English
   king found allies in Flanders. An alliance of marriage, in
   fact, had been arranged to take place between king Edward and
   the daughter of Guy de Dampierre, count of Flanders; but
   Philip contrived treacherously to get possession of the
   persons of the count and his daughter and imprisoned them both
   at Paris, declaring the states of the count to be forfeited.
   In 1299 the two kings settled their quarrel and abandoned
   their allies on both sides—Scotland to the tender mercies of
   Edward, and Flanders to the vengeance of the malignant king
   Philip the Fair. The territory of the Flemings was annexed to
   the crown of France, and Jacques de Châtillon, uncle of the
   queen, was appointed governor. Before two years had passed the
   impatient Flemings were in furious revolt. The insurrection
   began at Bruges, May 18, 1302, and more than 3,000 Frenchmen
   in that city were massacred in the first rage of the
   insurgents. This massacre was called the Bruges Matins. A
   French army entered Flanders to put down the rising and was
   confronted at Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302) by the Flemish
   militia. The latter were led by young Guy of Dampierre and, a
   few knights, who dismounted to fight on equal terms with their
   fellows. "About 20,000 militia, armed only with pikes, which
   they employed also as implements of husbandry, resolved to
   abide the onset of 8,000 Knights of gentle blood, 10,000
   archers, and 30,000 foot-soldiers, animated by the presence
   and directed by the military skill of Robert Count of Artois,
   and of Raoul de Nesle, Constable of France. Courtrai was the
   object of attack, and the Flemings, anxious for its safety,
   arranged themselves on a plain before the town, covered in
   front by a canal." An altercation which occurred between the
   two French commanders led to the making of a blind and furious
   charge on the part of the French horsemen, ignorant and
   heedless of the canal, into which they plunged, horses and
   riders together, in one inextricable mass, and where, in their
   helplessness, they were slain without scruple by the Flemings.
   "Philip had lost his most experienced Generals, and the flower
   of his troops; but his obstinacy was unbending." In repeated
   campaigns during the next two years, Philip strove hard to
   retrieve the disaster of Courtrai. He succeeded, at last (A.
   D. 1304), in achieving, with the help of the Genoese, a naval
   victory in the Zuruck-Zee, followed by a victory, personally
   his own, at Mons-en-Puelle, in September of the same year.
   Then, finding the Flemings as dauntlessly ready as ever to
   renew the fight, he gave up to their obstinacy and
   acknowledged the independence of the county. A treaty was
   signed, in which "the independence of Flanders was
   acknowledged under its Count, Robert de Bethune (the eldest
   son of Guy de Dampierre), who, together with his brothers and
   all the other Flemish prisoners, was to be restored to
   liberty. The Flemings, on the other hand, consented to
   surrender those districts beyond the Lys in which the French
   language was vernacularly spoken; and to this territory were
   added the cities of Douai, Lille, and their dependencies. They
   engaged, moreover, to furnish by instalments 200,000 livres in
   order to cover the expenses which Philip had incurred by their
   invasion."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip Van Arteveld,
      part 1, chapters 2-3._

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 5, chapter 2._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1314.
   Dishonesty of Philip of France.

   Philip was one of the most treacherous of princes, and his
   treaty with the Flemings did not secure them against him. "The
   Flemings, who had paid the whole of the money stipulated by
   the treaty of 1305, demanded the restitution of that part of
   Flanders which had been given up as a pledge; but Philippe
   refused to restore it on the plea that it had been given to
   him absolutely and not conditionally. He commenced hostilities
   [A. D. 1314] by seizing upon the counties of Nevers and
   Réthel, belonging to the count of Flanders and his eldest son,
   who replied by laying siege to Lille." Philippe was making
   great exertions to raise money for a vigorous prosecution of
   the war, when he died suddenly, Nov. 25, 1314, as the result
   of an accident in hunting.

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 2, chapter 2._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1328.
   The Battle of Cassel.

   The first act of Philip of Valois, King of France, after his
   coronation in 1328, was to take up the cause of his cousin,
   Louis de Nevers, Count of Flanders, who had been driven from
   his territories by the independent burghers of Bruges, Ypres,
   and other cities, and who had left to him no town save Ghent,
   in which he dared to appear. The French king "gathered a great
   host of feudal lords, who rejoiced in the thought of Flemish
   spoil, and marched to Arras, and thence onwards into Flanders.
   He pitched his tent under the hill of Cassel, 'with the
   fairest and greatest host in the world' around him. The
   Flemish, under Claus Dennequin, lay on the hill-top: thence
   they came down all unawares in three columns on the French
   camp in the evening, and surprised the King at supper and all
   but took him. The French soon recovered from the surprise;
   'for God would not consent that lords should be discomfitted
   by such riffraff': they slew the Flemish Captain Dennequin,
   and of the rest but few escaped; 'for they deigned not to
   flee,' so stubborn were those despised weavers of Flanders.
   This little battle, with its great carnage of Flemish,
   sufficed to lay all Flanders at the feet of its count."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 1._

   "Sixteen thousand Flemings had marched to the attack in three
   divisions. Three heaps of slain were counted on the morrow in
   the French lines, amounting altogether to 13,000 corpses; and
   it is said that Louis … inflicted death upon 10,000 more of
   the rebels."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapters 21-22._

{1126}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.
   The revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.
   The alliance with England.

   The most important measure by which Edward III. of England
   prepared himself for the invasion of France, as a claimant of
   the French crown [See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339] was the
   securing of an alliance with the Flemish burghers. This was
   made easy for him by his enemies. "The Flemings happened to
   have a count who was wholly French—Louis de Nevers—who was
   only count through the battle of Cassel and the humiliation of
   his country, and who resided at Paris, at the court of
   Philippe de Valois. Without consulting his subjects, he
   ordered a general arrest of all the English throughout
   Flanders; on which Edward had all the Flemings in England
   arrested. The commerce, which was the life-blood of each
   country, was thus suddenly broken off. To attack the English
   through Guyenne and Flanders was to wound them in their most
   sensible parts, to deprive them of cloth and wine. They sold
   their wool at Bruges, in order to buy wine at Bordeaux. On the
   other hand, without English wool, the Flemings were at a
   stand-still. Edward prohibited the exportation of wool,
   reduced Flanders to despair, and forced her to fling herself
   into his arms. At first, a crowd of Flemish workmen emigrated
   into England, whither they were allured at any cost, and by
   every kind of flattery and caress. … I take it that the
   English character has been seriously modified by these
   emigrations, which went on during the whole of the fourteenth
   century. Previously, we find no indications of that patient
   industry which now distinguishes the English. By endeavouring
   to separate Flanders and England the French king only
   stimulated Flemish emigration, and laid the foundation of
   England's manufactures. Meanwhile, Flanders did not resign
   herself. The towns burst into insurrection. They had long
   hated the count, either because he supported the country
   against the monopoly of the towns, or because he admitted the
   foreigners, the Frenchmen, to a share of their commerce. The
   men of Ghent, who undoubtedly repented of having withheld
   their aid from those of Ypres and of Bruges at the battle of
   Cassel, chose, in 1337, as their leader, the brewer,
   Jacquemart Artaveld. Supported by the guilds, and, in
   particular, by the fullers and clothiers, Artaveld organized a
   vigorous tyranny. He assembled at Ghent the men of the three
   great cities, 'and showed them that they could not live
   without the king of England; for all Flanders depended on
   cloth-making, and, without wool, one could not make cloth;
   therefore he recommended them to keep the English king their
   friend.'"

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 20._

      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip Van Altevelde,
      part 3._

      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (Johnes's translation),
      book 1, chapter 29._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1345.
   The end of Jacques Van Artaveld.

   "Jacob von Artaveld, the citizen of Ghent that was so much
   attached to the king of England, still maintained the same
   despotic power over all Flanders. He had promised the king of
   England, that he would give him the inheritance of Flanders,
   invest his son the prince of Wales with it, and make it a
   duchy instead of an earldom. Upon which account the king was,
   at this period, about St. John the Baptist's day, 1345, come
   to Sluys, with a numerous attendance of barons and knights. He
   had brought the prince of Wales with him, in order that Jacob
   von Artaveld's promises might be realized. The king remained
   on board his fleet in the harbour of Sluys, where he kept his
   court. His friends in Flanders came thither to see and visit
   him; and there were many conferences between the king and
   Jacob Von Artaveld on one side, and the councils from the
   different capital towns on the other, relative to the
   agreement before mentioned. … When on his return he [Van
   Artaveld] came to Ghent about midday, the townsmen who were
   informed of the hour he was expected, had assembled in the
   street that he was to pass through; as soon as they saw him,
   they began to murmur, and put their heads close together,
   saying, 'Here comes one who is too much the master, and wants
   to order in Flanders according to his will and pleasure, which
   must not be longer borne.' With this they had also spread a
   rumour through the town, that Jacob von Artaveld had collected
   all the revenues of Flanders, for nine years and more. … Of
   this great treasure he had sent part into England. This
   information inflamed those of Ghent with rage; and, as he was
   riding up the streets, he perceived that there was something
   in agitation against him; for those who were wont to salute
   him very respectfully, now turned their backs, and went into
   their houses. He began therefore to suspect all was not as
   usual; and as soon as he had dismounted, and entered his
   hotel, he ordered the doors and windows to be shut and
   fastened. Scarcely had his servants done this, when the street
   which he inhabited was filled from one end to the other with
   all sorts of people, but especially by the lowest of the
   mechanics. His mansion was surrounded on every side, attacked
   and broken into by force. Those within did all they could to
   defend it, and killed and wounded many: but at last they could
   not hold out against such vigorous attacks, for three parts of
   the town were there. When Jacob von Artaveld saw what efforts
   were making, and how hardly he was pushed, he came to a
   window; and, with his head uncovered, began to use humble and
   fine language. … When Jacob von Artaveld saw that he could
   not appease or calm them, he shut the window, and intended
   getting out of his house the back way, to take shelter in a
   church adjoining; but his hotel was already broke into on that
   side, and upwards of four hundred were there calling out for him.
   At last he was seized by them, and slain without mercy: his
   death-stroke was given him by a sadler, called Thomas Denys.
   In this manner did Jacob von Artaveld end his days, who in his
   time had been complete master of Flanders. Poor men first
   raised him, and wicked men slew him."

      _J. Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapter 115 (volume 1)._

{1127}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
   The revolt of the White Hoods.

   "We will … speak of the war in Flanders, which began about
   this time [A. D. 1379]. The people were very murderous and
   cruel, and multitudes were slain or driven out of the country.
   The country itself was so much ruined, that it was said a
   hundred years would not restore it to the situation it was in
   before the war. Before the commencement of these wars in
   Flanders, the country was so fertile, and everything in such
   abundance, that it was marvellous to see; and the inhabitants
   of the principal towns lived in very grand state. You must
   know that this war originated in the pride and hatred that
   several of the chief towns bore to each other: those of Ghent
   against Bruges, and others, in like manner, vying with each
   other through envy. However, this could not have created a war
   without the consent of their lord, the earl of Flanders, who
   was so much loved and feared that no one dared anger him." It
   is in these words that the old court chronicler, Froissart,
   begins his fully detailed and graphic narrative of the
   miserable years, from 1379 to 1384, during which the communes
   of Flanders were at war with one another and at war with their
   worthless and oppressive count, Luis de Maele. The picturesque
   chronicle is colored with the prejudices of Froissart against
   the Flemish burghers and in favor of their lord; but no one
   can doubt that the always turbulent citizens were jealous of
   rights which the always rapacious lord never ceased to
   encroach upon. As Froissart tells the story, the outbreak of
   war began with an attempt on the part of the men of Bruges, to
   dig a canal which would divert the waters of the river Lys.
   When those of Ghent had news of this unfriendly undertaking,
   they took counsel of one John Yoens, or John Lyon, a burgher
   of much cunning, who had formerly been in favor with the
   count, but whom his enemies had supplanted. "When he [John
   Lyon] was prevailed on to speak, he said: 'Gentlemen, if you
   wish to risk this business, and put an end to it, you must
   renew an ancient custom that formerly subsisted in the town of
   Ghent: I mean, you must first put on white-hoods, and choose a
   leader, to whom everyone may look, and rally at his signal.'
   This harangue was eagerly listened to, and they all cried out,
   'We will have it so, we will have it so! now let us put on
   white-hoods.' White-hoods were directly made, and given out to
   those among them who loved war better than peace, and had
   nothing to lose. John Lyon was elected chief of the White
   Hoods. He very willingly accepted of this office, to avenge
   himself on his enemies, to embroil the towns of Ghent and
   Bruges with each other and with the earl their lord. He was
   ordered, as their chief, to march against the pioneers and
   diggers from Bruges, and had with him 200 such people as
   preferred rioting to quiet."

      _Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 2, chapters 36-102._

   When the White Hoods had driven the ditchers of Bruges from
   their canal, they returned to Ghent, but not to disband.
   Presently the jealous count required them to lay aside the
   peculiar badge of their association, which they declined to
   do. Then Count Louis sent his bailiff into Ghent with 200
   horsemen, to arrest John Lyon, and some others of his band.
   The White Hoods rallied, slew the bailiff and drove his posse
   from the town; after which unmistakable deed Ghent and the
   count were distinctly at war. The city of the White Hoods took
   prompt measures to secure the alliance and support of its
   neighbors. Some nine or ten thousand of its citizens marched
   to Bruges, and partly by persuasion, partly by force, partly
   by the help of the popular party in the town, they effected a
   treaty of friendship and alliance—which did not endure,
   however, very long. Courtray, Damme, Ypres and other cities
   joined the league and it soon presented a formidable array.
   Oudenarde, strongly fortified, by the count, became the key of
   the situation, and was besieged by the citizen-militia. In the
   midst of the siege, the Duke of Burgundy, son-in-law of the
   count, made successful efforts to bring about a peace
   (December 1379). "The count promised to forget the past and
   return to his residence in Ghent. This peace, however, was of
   short duration; and the count, after passing only two or three
   days in Ghent, alleged some cause of dissatisfaction and
   returned to Lille, to recommence hostilities, in the course of
   which, with the assistance of the richer citizens, he made
   himself master of Bruges. Another peace was signed in the
   August of 1380, which was no more durable than the former, and
   the count reduced Ypres; and, at the head of an army of 60,000
   men, laid siege to Ghent itself, the chief and soul of the
   popular confederacy, in the month of September. But the
   citizens of Ghent defended themselves so well that he was
   obliged to raise the siege in the middle of November, and
   agree to a truce. This truce also was broken by the count's
   party, the war renewed in the beginning of the year 1381, and
   the men of Ghent experienced a disastrous defeat in the battle
   of Nevelle towards the middle of May. It was a war of
   extermination, and was carried on with extreme ferocity. …
   Ghent itself, now closely blockaded by the count's troops, was
   only saved by the great qualities of Philip Van Artevelde [son
   of Jacques Van Arteveld, of the revolution of 1337], who, by a
   sort of peaceful revolution, was placed at the head of affairs
   [January 25, 1381]. The victory of Beverholt, in which the
   count was defeated with great slaughter, and only escaped with
   difficulty, made the town of Ghent again master of Flanders."

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip Van Arteveld,
      chapters 14-16._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Revolutions, Insurrections and Conspiracies of Europe,
      volume 2, chapters 7-9._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
   The rebellion crushed.

   By the marriage of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, to the daughter
   and heiress of the Count of Flanders, that powerful French
   prince had become interested in the suppression of the revolt
   of the Flemish burghers and the restoration of the count to
   his lordship. His nephew, the young king of France, Charles
   VI., was easily persuaded to undertake a campaign to that end,
   and an army of considerable magnitude was personally led
   northwards by the monarch of fourteen years. "The object of
   the expedition was not only to restore to the Count of
   Flanders his authority, but to punish the turbulent commons,
   who stirred up those of France to imitate their example.
   Froissart avows it to have been a war between the commons and
   the aristocracy. The Flemings were commanded by Artaveldt, son
   of the famous brewer, the ally of Edward III. The town of Ghent
   had been reduced to the extreme of distress and famine by the
   count and the people of Bruges, who supported him. Artaveldt
   led the people of Ghent in a forlorn hope against Bruges,
   defeated the army of the count, and broke into the rival town,
   which he took and plundered. After this disaster, the count
   had recourse to France. The passage of the river Lys, which
   defended Flanders, was courageously undertaken, and effected
   with some hazard by the French.
{1128}
   The Flemings were rather dispirited by this first success:
   nevertheless, they assembled their forces; and the two armies
   of French knights and Flemish citizens met at Rosebecque [or
   Roosebeck], between Ypres and Courtray. The 27th of November,
   1382, was the day of battle. Artaveldt had stationed his army
   on a height, to await the attack of the French, but their
   impatience forced him to commence. Forming his troops into one
   solid square, Artaveldt led them against the French centre.
   Froissart compares their charge to the headlong rush of a wild
   boar. It broke the opposite line, penetrating into its ranks:
   but the wings of the French turned upon the flank of the
   Flemings, which, not having the advantage of a charge or
   impulse, were beaten by the French men at arms. Pressed upon
   one another, the Flemings had not room to fight: they were
   hemmed in, surrounded, and slaughtered: no quarter was asked
   or given; nearly 30,000 perished. The 9,000 Ghentois that had
   marched under their banner were counted, to a man, amongst the
   slain: Artaveldt, their general, was among the foremost who
   had fallen. Charles ordered his body to be hung upon a tree.
   It was at Courtray, very near to the field where this battle
   was fought, that Robert of Artois, with a French army, had
   perished beneath the swords of the Flemings, nearly a century
   previous. The gilded spurs of the French knights still adorned
   the walls of the cathedral of Courtray. The victory of Rosebecque
   in the eyes of Charles had not sufficiently repaid the former
   defeat: the town of Courtray was pillaged and burnt; its
   famous clock was removed to Dijon, and formed the third wonder
   of this kind in France, Paris and Sens alone possessing
   similar ornaments. The battle of Rosebecque proved more
   unfortunate for the communes of France than for those of
   Flanders. Ghent, notwithstanding her loss of 9,000 slain, did
   not yield to the conqueror, but held out the war for two years
   longer; and did not finally submit until the Duke of Burgundy,
   at the death of their count, guaranteed to the burghers the
   full enjoyment of their privileges. The king avenged himself
   on the mutinous city of Paris; entered it as a conqueror; took
   the chains from the streets and unhinged the gates: one hundred
   of the citizens were sent to the scaffold; the property of the
   rich was confiscated; and all the ancient and most onerous
   taxes, the gabelle, the duty on sales, as well as that of
   entry, were declared by royal ordinance to be established
   anew. The principal towns of the kingdom were visited with the
   same punishments and exactions. The victory of Rosebecque
   overthrew the commons of France, which were crushed under the
   feet of the young monarch and his nobles."

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of France,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN
      _Sir J. Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 2, chapters 111-130._

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 23 (volume 3)._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
   The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade.

   The crushing defeat of the Flemings at Roosebeke produced
   alarm in England, where the triumph of the French was quickly
   felt to be threatening. "English merchants were expelled from
   Bruges, and their property was confiscated. Calais even was in
   danger. The French were at Dunkirk and Gravelines, and might
   by a sudden dash on Calais drive the English out." There had
   been aid from England promised to Van Artevelde, but the
   promise had only helped on the ruin of the Ghent patriot by
   misleading him. No help had come when he needed it. Now, when
   it was too late, the English bestirred themselves. For some
   months there had been on foot among them a Crusade, which Pope
   Urban VI. had proclaimed against the supporters of the rival
   Pope Clement VII.—the "Schismatics." France took the side of
   the latter and was counted among the Schismatics. Accordingly,
   Pope Urban's Crusade, so far as the English people could be moved
   to engage in it, was now directed against the French in
   Flanders. It was led by the Bishop of Norwich, who succeeded
   in rousing a very considerable degree of enthusiasm in the
   country for the movement, despite the earnest opposition of
   Wyclif and his followers. The crusading army assembled at
   Calais in the spring of 1383, professedly for a campaign in
   France; but the Bishop found excuses for leading it into
   Flanders. Gravelines was first attacked, carried by storm, and
   its male defenders slaughtered to a man. An army of French and
   Flemings, encountered near Dunkirk, was routed, with fearful
   carnage, and the whole coast, including Dunkirk, fell into the
   hands of the English. Then they laid siege to Ypres, and there
   their disasters began. The city held out with stubbornness
   from the 9th of June until the 10th of August, when the
   baffled besiegers—repulsed in a last desperate assault which
   they had made on the 8th—marched away. "Ypres might rejoice,
   but the disasters of the long siege proved final. Her stately
   faubourgs were not rebuilt, and she has never again taken her
   former rank among the cities of Flanders." In September a
   powerful French army entered Flanders, and the English
   crusaders could do nothing but retreat before it, giving up
   Cassel (which the French burned), then Bergues, then
   Bourbourg, after a siege, and, finally, setting fire to
   Gravelines and abandoning that place. "Gravelines was utterly
   destroyed, but the French soon began to rebuild it. It was
   repeopled from the surrounding country, and fortified strongly
   as a menace to Calais." The Crusaders returned to England
   "'dripping with blood and disgracing their country. Blessed be
   God who confounds the proud,' says one sharp critic, who
   appears to have been a monk of Canterbury."

      _G. M. Wrong,
      The Crusade of MCCCLXXXIII._

      ALSO IN
      _Sir J. Froissart, (Johnes),
      Chronicles
      book 2, chapters 130-145 (volumes 1-2)._

FLANDERS: A. D. 1383
   Joined to the Dominions of the Duke of Burgundy.

   "Charles V. [of France] had formed the design of obtaining
   Flanders for his brother Philip, Duke of Burgundy, afterwards
   known as Philip the Bold—by marrying him to Margaret
   [daughter and heiress of Louis de Maele, count of Flanders].
   To gain the good will of the Communes, he engaged to restore
   the three bailiwicks of Lille, Douai, and Orchies as a
   substitute for the 10,000 livres a year promised to Louis de
   Maele and his successors in 1351, as well as the towns of
   Peronne, Crèvecœur, Arleux and Château-Chinon, assigned to him
   in 1358. … On the 13th May, 1369, the 'Lion of Flanders'
   once more floated, after an interval of half a century, over
   the walls of Lille, Douai, and Orchies, and at the same time
   Flemish garrisons marched into St. Omer, Aire, Bethune and
   Hesdin. The marriage ceremony took place at Ghent on the 19th
   of June." The Duke of Burgundy waited fourteen years for the
   heritage of his wife. In January, 1383, Count Louis died, and
   Flanders was added to the great and growing dominion of the
   new Burgundian house.

      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip van Arteveld,
      chapters 14 and 18._

      See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1364.

{1129}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1451-1453.
   Revolt against the Burgundian Gabelle.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1477.
   Severance from Burgundy.
   Transference to the Austrian House by marriage of Mary of
   Burgundy.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1482-1488.
   Resistance to Maximilian.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1494-1588.
   The Austro-Spanish sovereignty and its oppressions.
   The great revolt and its failure in the Flemish provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, and after.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1529.
   Pretensions of the king of France to Suzerainty resigned.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1539-1540.
   The unsupported revolt of Ghent.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1594-1884.
   Later history.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609, to 1830-1884.

----------FLANDERS: End----------

FLATHEAD INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

FLAVIA CÆSARIENSIS.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

FLAVIAN AMPHITHEATRE, The.

      See COLOSSEUM.

FLAVIAN FAMILY, The.

   "We have designated the second period of the [Roman] Empire by
   the name of the Flavian family—the family of Vespasian [Titus
   Flavius Vespasian]. The nine Emperors who were successively
   invested with the purple, in the space of the 123 years from
   his accession, were not all, however, of Flavian race, even by
   the rites of adoption, which in Rome was become a second
   nature; but the respect of the world for the virtues of
   Flavius Vespasian induced them all to assume his name, and
   most of them showed themselves worthy of such an affiliation.
   Vespasian had been invested with the purple at Alexandria, on
   the 1st of July, A. D. 69; he died in 79. His two sons reigned
   in succession after him; Titus, from 79 to 81; Domitian, from 81
   to 96. The latter having been assassinated, Nerva, then an old
   man, was raised to the throne by the Senate (A. D. 96-98). He
   adopted Trajan (98-117); who adopted Adrian (117-138). Adrian
   adopted Antoninus Pius (138-161); who adopted Marcus Aurelius
   (161-180); and Commodus succeeded his father, Marcus Aurelius
   (180-192). No period in history presents such a succession of
   good and great men upon any throne: two monsters, Domitian and
   Commodus, interrupt and terminate it."

      _J. C. L. Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 2._

FLEETWOOD, OR BRANDY STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

FLEIX, The Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

FLEMINGS.
FLEMISH.

      See FLANDERS.

FLEMISH GUILDS.

      See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

FLEURUS, Battle of (1622).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

FLEURUS, Battle of (1690).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

FLEURUS, Battle of (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

FLODDEN, Battle of (A. D. 1513).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.

FLORALIA, The.

      See LUDI.

FLORÉAL, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

FLORENCE:
   Origin and Name:

   "Fæsulre was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine
   traditions call it the metropolis of Florence, which would
   accordingly be a colony of Fæsulre; but a statement in
   Machiavelli and others describes Florence as a colony of
   Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some
   local chronicle. Fæsulre was no doubt an ancient Etruscan
   town, probably one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of
   Sulla [B. C. 82-81]. … My conjecture is, that Sulla not only
   built a strong fort on the top of the hill of Fæsulre, but
   also the new colony of Florentia below, and gave to it the
   'ager Fæsulanus.'"

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.
      volume 2, page 228._

   "We can reasonably suppose that the ancient trading nations
   may have pushed their small craft up the Arno to the present
   site of Florence, and thus have gained a more immediate
   communication with the flourishing city of Fiesole than they
   could through other ports of Etruria, from whatever race its
   people might have sprung. Admitting the high antiquity of
   Fiesole, the imagined work of Atlas, and the tomb of his
   celestial daughter, we may easily believe that a market was
   from very early times established in the plain, where both by
   land and water the rural produce could be brought for sale
   without ascending the steep on which that city stood. Such
   arrangements would naturally result from the common course of
   events, and a more convenient spot could scarcely be found
   than the present site of Florence, to which the Arno is still
   navigable by boats from its mouth, and at that time perhaps by
   two branches. … 'There were,' says Villani, 'inhabitants
   round San Giovanni, because the people of Fiesole held their
   market there one day in the week, and it was called the Field
   of Mars, the ancient name: however it was always, from the
   first, the market of the Fiesolines, and thus it was called
   before Florence existed.'
{1130}
   And again: 'The Pæetor Florinus, with a Roman army, encamped
   beyond the Arno towards Fiesole and had two small villages
   there, … where the people of Fiesole one day in the week
   held a general market with the neighbouring towns and
   villages. … On the site of this camp, as we are also assured
   by Villani, was erected the city of Florence, after the
   capture of Fiesole by Pompey, Cæsar, and Martius; but Leonardo
   Aretino, following Malespini, asserts that it was the work of
   Sylla's legions, who were already in possession of Fiesole.
   … The variety of opinions almost equals the number of
   authors. … It may be reasonably concluded that Florence,
   springing originally from Fiesole, finally rose to the rank of
   a Roman colony and the seat of provincial government; a
   miniature of Rome, with its Campus Martius, its Capitol,
   Forum, temple of Mars, aqueducts, baths, theatre and
   amphitheatre, all erected in imitation of the 'Eternal City;'
   for vestiges of all these are still existing either in name or
   substance. The name of Florence is as dark as its origin, and
   a thousand derivations have confused the brains of
   antiquarians and their readers without much enlightening them,
   while the beautiful Giagiolo or Iris, the city's emblem, still
   clings to her old grey walls, as if to assert its right to be
   considered as the genuine source of her poetic appellation.
   From the profusion of these flowers that formerly decorated
   the meads between the rivers Mugnone and Arno, has sprung one
   of the most popular opinions on the subject; for a white plant
   of the same species having shown itself amongst the rising
   fabrics, the incident was poetically seized upon and the Lily
   then first assumed its station in the crimson banner of
   Florence."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 1._

FLORENCE: A. D. 406.
   Siege by Radagaisus.
   Deliverance by Stilicho.

      See ROME: A. D. 404-408.

FLORENCE: 12th Century.
   Acquisition of republican independence.

   "There is … an assertion by Villani, that Florence contained
   twenty-two thousand fighting men, without counting the old men
   and children,' about the middle of the sixth century; and
   modern statisticians have based on this statement an estimate
   which would make the population of the city at that period
   about sixty-one thousand. There are reasons too for believing
   that very little difference in the population took place
   during several centuries after that time. Then came the sudden
   increase arising from the destruction, more or less entire, of
   Fiesole, and the incorporation of its inhabitants with those
   of the newer city, which led to the building of the second
   walls. … An estimate taking the inhabitants of the city at
   something between seventy and eighty thousand at the period
   respecting which we are inquiring [beginning of the 12th
   century] would in all probability be not very wide of the
   mark. The government of the city was at that time lodged in
   the hands of magistrates exercising both legislative and
   administrative authority, called Consuls, assisted by a senate
   composed of a hundred citizens of worth—buoni uomini. These
   Consuls 'guided everything, and governed the city, and decided
   causes, and administered justice.' They remained in office for
   one year. How long this form of government had been
   established in Florence is uncertain. It was not in existence
   in the year 897; but it was in activity in 1102. From 1138 we
   have a nearly complete roll of the names of the consuls for
   each year down to 1219. … The first recorded deeds of the
   young community thus governed, and beginning to feel conscious
   and proud of its increasing strength, were characteristic
   enough of the tone of opinion and sentiment which prevailed
   within its walls, and of the career on which it was entering.
   'In the year 1107,' says Malispini, 'the city of Florence
   being much increased, the Florentines, wishing to extend their
   territory, determined to make war against any castle or
   fortress which would not be obedient to them. And in that year
   they took by force Monte Orlando, which belonged to certain
   gentlemen who would not be obedient to the city. And they were
   defeated, and the castle was destroyed.' These 'gentlemen,' so
   styled by the civic historian who thus curtly records the
   destruction of their home, in contradistinction to the
   citizens who by no means considered themselves such, were the
   descendants or representatives of those knights and captains,
   mostly of German race, to whom the Emperors had made grants of
   the soil according to the feudal practice and system. They
   held directly of the Empire, and in no wise owed allegiance or
   obedience of any sort to the community of Florence. But they
   occupied almost all the country around the rising city; and
   the citizens' wanted to extend their territory.' Besides,
   these territorial lords were, as has been said, gentlemen, and
   lived as such, stopping wayfarers on the highways, levying tolls
   in the neighbourhood of their strongholds, and in many ways
   making themselves disagreeable neighbours to peaceable folks.
   … The next incident on the record, however, would seem to
   show that peaceful townsfolk as well as marauding nobles were
   liable to be overrun by the car of manifest destiny, if they
   came in the way of it. 'In the same year,' says the curt old
   historian, 'the men of Prato rebelled against the Florentines;
   wherefore they went out in battle against it, and took it by
   siege and destroyed it.' Prato rebelled against Florence! It
   is a very singular statement; for there is not the shadow of a
   pretence put forward, or the smallest ground for imagining
   that Florence had or could have claimed any sort of suzerainty
   over Prato. … The territorial nobles, however, who held
   castles in the district around Florence were the principal
   objects of the early prowess of the citizens; and of course
   offence against them was offence against the Emperor. … In
   1113, accordingly, we find an Imperial vicar residing in
   Tuscany at St. Miniato; not the convent-topped hill of that
   name in the immediate neighbourhood of Florence, but a little
   mountain city of the same name, overlooking the lower
   Valdarno, about half way between Florence and Pisa. … There
   the Imperial Vicars perched themselves hawk-like, with their
   Imperial troops, and swooped down from time to time to
   chastise and bring back such cities of the plain as too
   audaciously set at naught the authority of the Emperor. And
   really these upstart Florentines were taking the bit between
   their teeth, and going on in a way that no Imperial Vicar
   could tolerate. … So the indignant cry of the harried Counts
   Cadolingi, and of several other nobles holding of the Empire,
   whose houses had been burned over their heads by these
   audacious citizens, went up to the ears of 'Messer Ruberto,'
   the Vicar, in San Miniato.
{1131}
   Whereupon that noble knight, indignant at the wrong done to
   his fellow nobles, as well as at the offence against the
   authority of his master the Emperor, forthwith put lance in
   rest, called out his men, and descended from his mountain
   fortress to take summary vengeance on the audacious city. On
   his way thither he had to pass through that very gorge where
   the castle of Monte Orlando had stood, and under the ruins of
   the house from which the noble vassals of the Empire had been
   harried. … There were the leathern-jerkined citizens on the
   very scene of their late misdeed, come out to oppose the
   further progress of the Emperor's Vicar and his soldiers. And
   there, as the historian writes, with curiously impassible
   brevity, 'the said Messer Ruberto was discomfited and killed.'
   And nothing further is heard of him, or of any after
   consequences resulting from the deed. Learned legal
   antiquaries insist much on the fact, that the independence of
   Florence and the other Communes was never 'recognised' by the
   Emperors; and they are no doubt perfectly accurate in saying
   so. One would think, however, that that unlucky Vicar of
   theirs, Messer Ruberto, must have 'recognised' the fact,
   though somewhat tardily."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   Countess Matilda, the famous friend of Pope Gregory VII.,
   whose wide dominion included Tuscany, died in 1115,
   bequeathing her vast possessions to the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

   "In reality she was only entitled thus to bequeath her
   allodial lands, the remainder being imperial fiefs. But as it
   was not always easy to distinguish between the two sorts, and
   the popes were naturally anxious to get as much as they could,
   a fresh source of contention was added to the constant
   quarrels between the Empire and the Church. 'Henry IV.
   immediately despatched a representative into Tuscany, who
   under the title of Marchio, Judex, or Praeses, was to govern
   the Marquisate in his name.' 'Nobody,' says Professor Villari,
   'could legally dispute his right to do this: but the
   opposition of the Pope, the attitude of the towns which now
   considered themselves independent and the universal confusion
   rendered the Marquis's authority illusory. The imperial
   representatives had no choice but to put themselves at the
   head of the feudal nobility of the contado and unite it into a
   Germanic party hostile to the cities. In the documents of the
   period the members of this party are continually described as
   Teutonici.' By throwing herself in this juncture on the side
   of the Pope, and thus becoming the declared opponent of the
   empire and the feudal lords, Florence practically proclaimed
   her independence. The grandi, having the same interests with
   the working classes, identified themselves with these; became
   their leaders, their consuls in fact if not yet in name. Thus
   was the consular commune born, or, rather, thus did it
   recognize itself on reaching manhood; for born, in reality, it
   had already been for some time, only so quietly and
   unconsciously that nobody had marked its origin or, until now,
   its growth. The first direct consequence of this
   self-recognition was that the rulers were chosen out of a
   larger number of families. As long as Matilda had chosen the
   officers to whom the government of the town was entrusted, the
   Uberti and a few others who formed their clan, their kinsmen, and
   their connections had been selected, to the exclusion of the
   mass of the citizens. Now more people were admitted to a share
   in the administration: the offices were of shorter duration,
   and out of those selected to govern each family had its turn.
   But those who had formerly been privileged—the Uberti and
   others of the same tendencies and influence—were necessarily
   discontented with this state of things, and there are
   indications in Villani of burnings and of tumults such as
   later, when the era of faction fights had fairly begun, so
   often desolated the streets of Florence."

      _B. Duffy,
      The Tuscan Republics,
      chapter 6._

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.
   The beginning, the causes and the meaning of the strife of the
   Guelfs and Ghibellines.

   Nearly from the beginning of the 13th century, all Italy, and
   Florence more than other Italian communities, became
   distracted and convulsed by a contest of raging factions. "The
   main distinction was that between Ghibellines and Guelphs—two
   names in their origin far removed from Italy. They were first
   heard in Germany in 1140, when at Winsberg in Suabia a battle
   was fought between two contending claimants of the Empire; the
   one, Conrad of Hohenstauffen, Duke of Franconia, chose for his
   battle-cry 'Waiblingen,' the name of his patrimonial castle in
   Würtemburg; the other, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, chose
   his own family name of 'Welf,' or 'Wölf.' Conrad proved
   victorious, and his kindred to the fourth ensuing generation
   occupied the imperial throne; yet both war-cries survived the
   contest which gave them birth, lingering on in Germany as
   equivalents of Imperialist and anti-Imperialist. By a process
   perfectly clear to philologists, they were modified in Italy
   into the forms Ghibellino and Guelfo; and the Popes being
   there the great opponents of the Emperors, an Italian Guelph
   was a Papalist. The cities were mainly Guelph; the nobles most
   frequently Ghibelline. A private feud had been the means of
   involving Florence in the contest."

      _M. F. Rossetti,
      A Shadow of Dante,
      chapter 3._

   "The Florentines kept themselves united till the year 1215,
   rendering obedience to the ruling power, and anxious only to
   preserve their own safety. But, as the diseases which attack
   our bodies are more dangerous and mortal in proportion as they
   are delayed, so Florence, though late to take part in the
   sects of Italy, was afterwards the more afflicted by them. The
   cause of her first division is well known, having been
   recorded by Dante and many other writers; I shall, however,
   briefly notice it. Amongst the most powerful families of
   Florence were the Buondelmonti and the Uberti; next to these
   were the Amidei and the Donati. Of the Donati family there was
   a rich widow who had a daughter of exquisite beauty, for whom, in
   her own mind, she had fixed upon Buondelmonti, a young
   gentleman, the head of the Buondelmonti family, as her
   husband; but either from negligence, or because she thought it
   might be accomplished at any time, she had not made known her
   intention, when it happened that the cavalier betrothed
   himself to a maiden of the Amidei family. This grieved the
   Donati widow exceedingly; but she hoped, with her daughter's
   beauty, to disturb the arrangement before the celebration of
   the marriage; and from an upper apartment, seeing Buondelmonti
   approach her house alone, she descended, and as he was passing
   she said to him, 'I am glad to learn you have chosen a wife,
   although I had reserved my daughter for you'; and, pushing the
   door open, presented her to his view.
{1132}
   The cavalier, seeing the beauty of the girl, … became
   inflamed with such an ardent desire to possess her, that, not
   thinking of the promise given, or the injury he committed in
   breaking it, or of the evils which his breach of faith might
   bring upon himself, said, 'Since you have reserved her for me,
   I should be very ungrateful indeed to refuse her, being yet at
   liberty to choose'; and without any delay married her. As soon
   as the fact became known, the Amidei and the Uberti, whose
   families were allied, were filled with rage," and some of
   them, lying in wait for him, assassinated him as he was riding
   through the streets. "This murder divided the whole city; one
   party espousing the cause of the Buondelmonti, the other that
   of the Uberti; and … they contended with each other for many
   years, without one being able to destroy the other. Florence
   continued in these troubles till the time of Frederick II.,
   who, being king of Naples, endeavoured to strengthen himself
   against the church; and, to give greater stability to his
   power in Tuscany, favoured the Uberti and their followers,
   who, with his assistance, expelled the Buondelmonti; thus our
   city, as all the rest of Italy had long time been, became
   divided into Guelphs and Ghibellines."

      _N. Machiavelli,
      History of Florence,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "Speaking generally, the Ghibellines were the party of the
   emperor, and the Guelphs the party of the Pope; the
   Ghibellines were on the side of authority, or sometimes of
   oppression, the Guelphs were on the side of liberty and
   self-government. Again, the Ghibellines were the supporters of
   an universal empire of which Italy was to be the head, the
   Guelphs were on the side of national life and national
   individuality. … If these definitions could be considered as
   exhaustive, there would be little doubt as to the side to
   which our sympathies should be given. … We should … expect
   all patriots to be Guelphs, and the Ghibelline party to be
   composed of men who were too spiritless to resist despotic
   power, or too selfish to surrender it. But, on the other hand,
   we must never forget that Dante was a Ghibelline."

      _O. Browning,
      Guelphs and Ghibellines,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1215.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
   The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

   In 1248, the Ghibellines, at the instigation of Frederick II.,
   and with help from his German soldiery, expelled the Guelfs
   from the city, after desperate fighting for several days, and
   destroyed the mansions of their chiefs, to the number of 38.
   In 1250 there was a rising of the people—of the under-stratum
   which the cleavage of parties hardly penetrated—and a popular
   constitution of government was brought into force. At the same
   time, the high towers, which were the strongholds of the
   contending nobles, were thrown down. An attempt was then made
   by the leaders of the people to restore peace between the
   Ghibellines and the Guelfs, but the effort was vain; whereupon
   the Guelfs (in January, 1251) came back to the city, and the
   Ghibellines were either driven away or were shut up in their
   city castles, to which they had retired when the people rose.
   In 1258 the restless Ghibellines plotted with Manfred, King of
   the Two Sicilies, to regain possession of Florence. The plot
   was discovered, and the enraged people drove the last
   lingerers of the faction from their midst and pulled down
   their palaces. The great palace of the Uberti family, most
   obnoxious of all, was not only razed, but a decree was made
   that no building should ever stand again on its accursed site.
   The exiled Ghibellines took refuge at Siena, and there plotted
   again with King Manfred, who sent troops to aid them. The
   Florentines did not wait to be attacked, but marched out to
   meet them on Sienese territory, and suffered a terrible defeat
   at Montaperti (September 4, 1260), in the battle that Dante
   refers to, "which coloured the river Arbia red." "'On that
   day,' says Villani, … 'was broken and destroyed the old
   popular government of Florence, which had existed for ten
   years with so great power and dignity, and had won so many
   victories.' Few events have ever left a more endurable
   impression on the memory of a people than this great battle
   between two cities and parties animated both of them by the
   most unquenchable hatred. The memory of that day has lasted
   through 600 years, more freshly perhaps in Siena than in
   Florence." As a natural consequence of their defeat at
   Montaperti, the Guelfs were again forced to fly into exile
   from Florence, and this expatriation included a large number
   of even the commoner people. "So thorough had been the defeat,
   so complete the Ghibelline ascendency resulting from it, that
   in every city the same scene on a lesser scale was taking
   place. Many of the smaller towns, which had always been Guelph
   in their sympathies, were now subjected to Ghibelline
   despotism. One refuge alone remained in Tuscany—Lucca. …
   And thither the whole body of the expatriated Guelphs betook
   themselves. … The Ghibellines entered Florence in triumph on
   the 16th of September, three days after their enemies had left
   it. … The city seemed like a desert. The gates were standing
   open and unguarded; the streets were empty; the comparatively
   few inhabitants who remained, almost entirely of the lowest
   class of the populace, were shut up in their obscure
   dwellings, or were on their knees in the churches. And what
   was worse, the conquerors did not come back alone. They had
   invited a foreign despot to restore order;" and so King
   Manfred's general, Giordano da Anglona, established Count
   Guido Novello in Florence as Manfred's vicar. "All the
   constitutional authorities established by the people, and the
   whole frame-work of the former government, were destroyed, and
   the city was ruled entirely by direction transmitted from the
   King's Sicilian court." There were serious proposals, even,
   that Florence itself should be destroyed, and the saving of
   the noble city from that untimely fate is credited to one
   patriotic noble, of the Uberti family, who withstood the
   proposition, alone. "The Ghibelline army marched on Lucca, and
   had not much more difficulty in reducing that city. The
   government was put into Ghibelline hands, and Lucca became a
   Ghibelline city like all the rest of Tuscany. The Lucchese
   were not required by the victors to turn their own Guelphs out
   of the city. But it was imperatively insisted on that every
   Guelph not a native citizen should be thrust forth from the
   gates." The unfortunate Florentines, thus made homeless again,
   now found shelter at Bologna, and presently helped their friends
   at Modena and Reggio to overcome the Ghibellines in those
   cities and recover control. But for five years their condition
   was one of wretchedness. Then Charles of Anjou was brought
   into Italy (1265) by the Pope, to snatch the crown of the Two
   Sicilies from King Manfred, and succeeded in his undertaking.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

{1133}

   The prop of the Ghibellines was broken. Guido Novello and his
   troopers rode away from Florence; 800 French horsemen, sent by
   the new Angevine king, under Guy de Montfort, took their
   places; the Guelfs swarmed in again—the Ghibellines swarmed
   out; the popular constitution was restored, with new features
   more popular than before. In 1273 there was a great attempt
   made by Pope Gregory X. in person, to reconcile the factions
   in Florence; but it had so little success that the Holy Father
   left the city in disgust and pronounced it under interdict for
   three years. In 1278 the attempt was renewed with somewhat
   better success. "'And now, says Villani, 'the Ghibellines were
   at liberty to return to Florence, they and their families. …
   And the said Ghibellines had back again their goods and
   possessions; except that certain of the leading families were
   ordered, for the safety of the city, to remain for a certain
   time beyond the boundaries of the Florentine territory.' In
   fact, little more is heard henceforward of the Ghibellines as
   a faction within the walls of Florence. The old name, as a
   rallying cry for the Tory or Imperialist party, was still
   raised here and there in Tuscany; and Pisa still called
   herself Ghibelline. But the stream of progress had run past
   them and left them stranded."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 1, chapters 4-5,
      and book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _N. Machiavelli,
      Florentine Histories,
      book 1._

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 4._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
   Development of the popular constitution of the Commonwealth.

   When it became clear that the republic was to rule itself
   henceforth untrammelled by imperial interference, the people
   [in 1250] divided themselves into six districts, and chose for
   each district two Ancients, who administered the government in
   concert with the Potestà and the Captain of the People. The
   Ancients were a relic of the old Roman municipal organization.
   … The body of the citizens, or the popolo, were ultimately
   sovereigns in the State. Assembled under the banners of their
   several companies, they formed a parlamento for delegating
   their own power to each successive government. Their
   representatives, again, arranged in two councils, called the
   Council of the People and the Council of the Commune, under
   the presidency of the Captain of the People and the Potestà,
   ratified the measures which had previously been proposed and
   carried by the executive authority or signoria. Under this
   simple State system the Florentines placed themselves at the
   head of the Tuscan League, fought the battles of the Church,
   asserted their sovereignty by issuing the golden florin of the
   republic, and flourished until 1266. In that year an important
   change was effected in the Constitution. The whole population
   of Florence consisted, on the one hand, of nobles or Grandi,
   as they were called in Tuscany, and on the other hand of
   working people. The latter, divided into traders and
   handicraftsmen, were distributed in guilds called Arti; and at
   that time there were seven Greater and five Lesser Arti, the most
   influential of all being the Guild of the Wool Merchants.
   These guilds had their halls for meeting, their colleges of
   chief officers, their heads, called Consoli or Priors, and
   their flags. In 1266 it was decided that the administration of
   the commonwealth should be placed simply and wholly in the
   hands of the Arti, and the Priors of these industrial
   companies became the lords or Signory of Florence. No
   inhabitant of the city who had not enrolled himself as a
   craftsman in one of the guilds could exercise any function of
   burghership. To be scioperato, or without industry, was to be
   without power, without rank or place of honour in the State.
   The revolution which placed the Arts at the head of the
   republic had the practical effect of excluding the Grandi
   altogether from the government. … In 1293, after the
   Ghibellines had been defeated in the great battle of
   Campaldino, a series of severe enactments, called the
   Ordinances of Justice, were decreed against the unruly Grandi.
   All civic rights were taken from them; the severest penalties
   were attached to their slightest infringement of municipal
   law; their titles to land were limited; the privilege of
   living within the city walls was allowed them only under
   galling restrictions; and last not least, a supreme
   magistrate, named the Gonfalonier of Justice, was created for
   the special purpose of watching them and carrying out the
   penal code against them. Henceforward Florence was governed
   exclusively by merchants and artisans. The Grandi hastened to
   enroll themselves in the guilds, exchanging their former
   titles and dignities for the solid privilege of burghership.
   The exact parallel to this industrial constitution for a
   commonwealth, carrying on wars with emperors and princes,
   holding haughty captains in its pay, and dictating laws to
   subject cities, cannot, I think, be elsewhere found in
   history. It is as unique as the Florence of Dante and Giotto
   is unique."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Florence and the Medici
      (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5)._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Balbo,
      Life and Times of Dante,
      volume 1, Introduction._

      _A. Von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de Medici,
      book 1, chapter 1._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1284-1293.
   War with Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1289.
   The victory of Campaldino, and the jealousy among its heroes.

   In 1289 the Ghibellines of Arezzo having expelled the Guelfs
   from that city, the Florentines made war in the cause of the
   latter and won a great victory at Campaldino. This "raised the
   renown and the military spirit of the Guelf party, for the
   fame of the battle was very great; the hosts contained the
   choicest chivalry of either side, armed and appointed with
   emulous splendour. The fighting was hard, there was brilliant
   and conspicuous gallantry, and the victory was complete. It
   sealed Guelf ascendency. The Ghibelline warrior-bishop of
   Arezzo fell, with three of the Uberti, and other Ghibelline
   chiefs. … In this battle the Guelf leaders had won great
   glory. The hero of the day was the proudest, handsomest,
   craftiest, most winning, most ambitious, most unscrupulous
   Guelf noble in Florence—one of a family who inherited the
   spirit and recklessness of the proscribed Uberti, and did not
   refuse the popular epithet of 'Malefami'—Corso Donati.
{1134}
   He did not come back from the field of Campaldino, where he
   had won the battle by disobeying orders, with any increased
   disposition to yield to rivals, or court the populace, or
   respect other men's rights. Those rivals, too—and they also
   had fought gallantly in the post of honour at Campaldino—were
   such as he hated from his soul—rivals whom he despised, and
   who yet were too strong for him [the family of the Cerchi].
   His blood was ancient, they were upstarts; he was a soldier,
   they were traders; he was poor, they the richest men in
   Florence. … They had crossed him in marriages, bargains,
   inheritances. … The glories of Campaldino were not as oil on
   these troubled waters. The conquerors flouted each other all
   the more fiercely in the streets on their return, and
   ill-treated the lower people with less scruple."

      _R. W. Church,
      Dante and Other Essays,
      pages 27-31._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Balbo,
      Life and Times of Dante,
      part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300.
   New factions in the city, and Dante's relations to them.
   The Bianchi and the Neri (Whites and Blacks).

   Among the Nobles "who resisted the oppression of the people,
   Corso Donati must have been the chief, but he did not at first
   come forward; with one of his usual stratagems, however, he
   was the cause of a new revolution [January, 1295], which drove
   Giano della Bella, the leader of the people, from the city.
   … Notwithstanding the fall of Giano, the Nobles did not
   return into power. He was succeeded as a popular leader by one
   much his inferior, one Pecora, surnamed, from his trade, the
   Butcher. New disputes arose between the nobles and the people,
   and between the upper and lower ranks of the people itself.
   Villani tells us that, in the year 1295, 'many families, who
   were neither tyrannical nor powerful, withdrew from the order
   of the nobles, and enrolled themselves among the people,
   diminishing the power of the nobles and increasing that of the
   people.' Dante must have been precisely one of those nobles 'who
   were neither tyrannical nor powerful;' and … it is certain
   that he was among those who passed over from their own order
   to that of the Popolani, by being matriculated in one of the
   Arts. In a register from 1297 to 1300, of the Art of the
   physicians and druggists, the fifth of the seven major Arts,
   he is found matriculated in these words: 'Dante d'Aldighiero
   degli Aldighieri poeta fiorentino.' … Dante, by this means,
   obtained office under the popular government. … The new
   factions that arose in Florence, in almost all Tuscany, and in
   some of the cities in other parts of Italy, were merely
   subdivisions of the Guelf party; merely what, in time, happens
   to every faction after a period of prosperity, a division of
   the ultras and of the moderates, or of those who hold more or
   less extravagant views. … All this happened to the Guelf
   party in a very few years, and the Neri and Bianchi, the names
   'Of the two divisions of that party, which had arisen in 1300,
   were no longer mentioned ten years afterwards, but were again
   lost in the primitive appellations of Guelfs and Ghibellines.
   Thus this episode would possess little interest, and would be
   scarcely mentioned in the history of Italy, or even of
   Florence, had not the name of our sublime Poet been involved
   in it; and, after his love, it is the most important
   circumstance of his life, and the one to which he most
   frequently alludes in his Commedia. It thus becomes a subject
   worthy of history. … Florentine historians attribute Corso
   Donati's hatred towards Vieri de Cerchi to envy. … This envy
   arose to such a height between Dante's neighbours in Florence
   that he has rendered it immortal. 'Through envy,' says
   Villani, 'the citizens began to divide into factions, and one
   of the principal feuds began in the Sesto dello Scandalo, near
   the gate of St. Pietro, between the families of the Cerchi and
   the Donati [from which latter family came Dante's wife]. …
   Messer Vieri was the head of the House of the Cerchi, and he
   and his house were powerful in affairs, possessing a numerous
   kindred; they were very rich merchants, for their company was
   one of the greatest in the world.'" The state of animosity
   between these two families "was existing in Florence in the
   beginning of 1300, when it was increased by another rather
   similar family quarrel that had arisen in Pistoia. . . .
   'There was in Pistoia a family which amounted to more than 100
   men capable of bearing arms; it was not of great antiquity,
   but was powerful, wealthy, and numerous; it was descended from
   one Cancellieri Notaio, and from him they had preserved
   Cancellieri as their family name. From the children of the two
   wives of this man were descended the 107 men of arms that have
   been enumerated; one of the wives having been named Madonna
   Bianca, her descendants were called Cancellieri Bianchi (White
   Cancellieri); and the descendants of the other wife, in
   opposition, were called Cancellieri Neri (Black
   Cancellieri).'" Between these two branches of the family of
   the Cancellieri there arose, some time near the end of the
   thirteenth century, an implacable feud. "Florence …
   exercised a supremacy over Pistoia … and fearing that these
   internal dissensions might do injury to the Guelf party, she
   took upon herself the lordship or supremacy of that city. The
   principal Cancellieri, both Bianchi and Neri, were banished to
   Florence itself; 'the Neri took up their abode in the house of
   the Frescobaldi, beyond the Arno; the Bianchi at the house of
   the Cerchi, in the Garbo, from being connected with them by
   kindred. But as one sick sheep infects another, and is
   injurious to the flock, so this cursed seed of discord, that
   had departed from Pistoia and had now entered Florence,
   corrupted all the Florentines, and divided them into two
   parties.' … The Cerchi, formerly called the Forest party
   (parte selvaggia), now assumed the name of Bianchi; and those
   who followed the Donati were now called Neri. … 'There sided
   with [the Bianchi, says Villani] the families of the Popolani
   and petty artisans, and all the Ghibellines, whether Nobles or
   Popolani.' … Thus the usual position in which the two
   parties stood was altered; for hitherto the Nobles had almost
   always been Ghibellines, and the Popolani Guelfs; but now, if
   the Popolani were not Ghibellines, they were at least not such
   strong Guelfs as the nobles. Sometimes these parties are
   referred to as White Guelfs and Black Guelfs."

      _C. Balbo,
      Life and Times of Dante,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 14 (volume l)._

      _N. Machiavelli,
      The Florentine Histories,
      book 2._


{1135}

FLORENCE: A. D. 1301-1313.
   Triumph of the Neri.
   Banishment of Dante and his party.
   Downfall and death of Corso Donati.

   "In the year 1301, a serious affray took place between the two
   parties [the Bianchi and the Neri]; the whole city was in
   arms; the law, and the authority of the Signoria, among whom
   was the poet Dante Alighieri, was set at naught by the great
   men of each side, while the best citizens looked on with fear
   and trembling. The Donati, fearing that unaided they would not
   be a match for their adversaries, proposed that they should
   put themselves under a ruler of the family of the king of
   France. Such a direct attack on the independence of the state
   was not to be borne by the Signoria, among whom the poet had
   great influence. At his instigation they armed the populace,
   and with their assistance compelled the heads of the
   contending parties to lay down their arms, and sent into exile
   Messer Donati and others who had proposed the calling in of
   foreigners. A sentence of banishment was also pronounced
   against the most violent men of the party of the Bianchi, most
   of whom, however, were allowed, under various pretences, to
   return to their country. The party of the Donati in their
   exile carried on those intrigues which they had commenced
   while at home. They derived considerable assistance from the
   king of France's brother, Charles of Valois, whom Pope
   Boniface had brought into Italy. That prince managed, by means
   of promises, which he subsequently violated, to get admission
   for himself, together with several of the Neri, and the legate
   of the pope, into Florence. He then produced letters,
   generally suspected to be forgeries, charging the leaders of
   the Bianchi with conspiracy. The popularity of the accused
   party had already been on the wane, and after a violent
   tumult, the chief men among them, including Dante, were
   obliged to leave the city; their goods were confiscated, and
   their houses destroyed. … From this time Corso Donati, the
   head of the faction of the Neri, became the chief man at
   Florence. The accounts of its state at this period, taken from
   the most credible historians, warrant us in thinking that the
   severe invectives of Dante are not to be ascribed merely to
   indignation or resentment at the harsh treatment he had
   received. … The city was rent by more violent dissensions
   than ever. There were now three distinct sources of
   contention—the jealousy between the people and the nobles,
   the disputes between the Bianchi and the Neri, and those
   between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs. It was in vain that
   the legate of Pope Benedict, a man of great piety, went
   thither for the sake of trying to restore order. The
   inhabitants showed how little they respected him by exhibiting
   a scandalous representation of hell on the river Arno; and,
   after renewing his efforts without success, he cursed the city
   and departed [1302]. The reign of Corso Donati ended like that
   of most of those who have succeeded to power by popular violence.
   Six years after the banishment of his adversaries he was
   suspected, not without reason, of endeavouring to make himself
   independent of constitutional restraints. The Signori declared
   him guilty of rebellion. After a protracted resistance he made
   his escape from the city, but was pursued and taken at Rovesca
   [1308]. When he was led captive by those among whom his
   authority had lately been paramount, he threw himself under
   his horse, and, after having been dragged some distance, he
   was dispatched by one of the captors. … The party that had
   been raised by Corso Donati continued to hold the chief power
   at Florence even after the death of their chief. The exiled
   faction, in the words of one of their leaders, … had not
   learned the art of returning to their country as well as their
   adversaries. Four years after the events alluded to, the
   Emperor, Henry VII., made some negotiations in their favour,
   which but imperfectly succeeded. The Florentines, however,
   were awed when he approached their city at the head of his
   army; and in the extremity of their danger they implored the
   assistance of King Robert of Naples, and made him Lord of
   their city for the space of five years. The Emperor's
   mysterious death [August 24, 1313], at Buonconvento freed them
   from their alarm."

      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Florence,
      chapter 2._

      _B. Duffy,
      The Tuscan Republics,
      chapter 12._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1310-1313.
   Resistance to the Emperor, Henry VII.
   Siege by the imperial army.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1313-1328.
   Wars with Pisa and with Castruccio Castracani, of Lucca.
   Disastrous battles of Montecatini and Altopascio.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1336-1338.
   Alliance with Venice against Mastino della Scala.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.
   Defeat by the Pisans before Lucca.
   The brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens.

   In 1341, Mastino della Scala, of Verona, who had become master
   of Lucca in 1335 by treachery, offered to sell that town to
   the Florentines. The bargain was concluded; "but it appeared
   to the Pisans the signal of their own servitude, for it cut
   off all communication between them and the Ghibelines of
   Lombardy. They immediately advanced their militia into the
   Lucchese states to prevent the Florentines from taking
   possession of the town; vanquished them in battle, on the 2d
   of October, 1341, under the walls of Lucca; and, on the 6th of
   July following, took possession of that city for themselves.
   The people of Florence attributed this train of disasters to
   the incapacity of their magistrates. … At this period,
   Gauttier [Walter] de Brienne, duke of Athens, a French noble,
   but born in Greece, passed through Florence on his way from
   Naples to France; The duchy of Athens had remained in his
   family from the conquest of Constantinople till it was taken
   from his father in 1312. … It was for this man the
   Florentines, after their defeat at Lucca, took a sudden fancy.
   … On the 1st of August, 1342, they obliged the signoria to
   confer on him the title of captain of justice, and to give him
   the command of their militia." A month later, the duke, by his
   arts, had worked such a ferment among the lower classes of the
   population that they "proclaimed him sovereign lord of
   Florence for his life, forced the public palace, drove from it
   the gonfalonier and the priori, and installed him there in
   their place. … Happily, Florence was not ripe for slavery:
   ten months sufficed for the duke of Athens to draw from it
   400,000 golden florins, which he sent either to France or
   Naples; but ten months sufficed also to undeceive all parties
   who had placed any confidence in him," and by a universal
   rising, in July, 1343, he was driven from the city.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

{1136}

FLORENCE: 14th Century.
   Industrial Prosperity of the City.

   "John Villani has given us an ample and precise account of the
   state of Florence in the earlier part of the 14th century. The
   revenue of the Republic amounted to 300,000 florins, a sum
   which, allowing for the depreciation of the precious metals,
   was at least equivalent to 600,000 pounds sterling; a larger
   sum than England and Ireland, two centuries ago, yielded
   annually to Elizabeth—a larger sum than, according to any
   computation which we have seen, the Grand Duke of Tuscany now
   derives from a territory of much greater extent. The
   manufacture of wool alone employed 200 factories and 30,000
   workmen. The cloth annually produced sold, at an average, for
   1,200,000 florins; a sum fairly equal, in exchangeable value,
   to two millions and a half of our money. Four hundred thousand
   florins were annually coined. Eighty banks conducted the
   commercial operations, not of Florence only, but of all
   Europe. The transactions of these establishments were
   sometimes of a magnitude which may surprise even the
   contemporaries of the Barings and the Rothschilds. Two houses
   advanced to Edward the Third of England upwards of 300,000
   marks, at a time when the mark contained more silver than 50
   shillings of the present day, and when the value of silver was
   more than quadruple of what it now is. The city and its
   environs contained 170,000 inhabitants. In the various schools
   about 10,000 children were taught to read; 1,200 studied
   arithmetic; 600 received a learned education. The progress of
   elegant literature and of the fine arts was proportioned to
   that of the public prosperity. … Early in the 14th century
   came forth the Divine Comedy, beyond comparison the greatest
   work of imagination which had appeared since the poems of
   Homer. The following generation produced indeed no second
   Dante: but it was eminently distinguished by general
   intellectual activity. The study of the Latin writers had
   never been wholly neglected in Italy. But Petrarch introduced
   a more profound, liberal, and elegant scholarship; and
   communicated to his countrymen that enthusiasm for the
   literature, the history, and the antiquities of Rome, which
   divided his own heart with a frigid mistress and a more frigid
   Muse. Boccaccio turned their attention to the more sublime and
   graceful models of Greece."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Machiavelli
      (Essays, volume 1)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1348.
   The Plague.

   "In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at
   Florence, the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible
   plague; which, whether owing to the influence of the planets,
   or that it was sent from God as a just punishment for our
   sins, had broken out some years before in the Levant, and
   after passing from place to place, and making incredible havoc
   all the way, had now reached the west. There, spite of all the
   means that art and human foresight could suggest, such as
   keeping the city clear from filth, the exclusion of all
   suspected persons, and the publication of copious instructions
   for the preservation of health; and notwithstanding manifold
   humble supplications offered to God in processions and
   otherwise; it began to show itself in the spring of the
   aforesaid year, in a sad and wonderful manner. Unlike what had
   been seen in the east, where bleeding from the nose is the
   fatal prognostic, here there appeared certain tumours in the
   groin or under the armpits, some as big as a small apple,
   others as an egg; and afterwards purple spots in most parts of
   the body; in some cases large and but few in number, in others
   smaller and more numerous—both sorts the usual messengers of
   death. To the cure of this malady, neither medical knowledge
   nor the power of drugs was of any effect. … Nearly all died
   the third day from the first appearance of the symptoms, some
   sooner, some later, without any fever or other accessory
   symptoms. What gave the more virulence to this plague, was
   that, by being communicated from the sick to the hale, it
   spread daily, like fire when it comes in contact with large
   masses of combustibles. Nor was it caught only by conversing
   with, or coming near the sick, but even by touching their
   clothes, or anything that they had before touched. … These
   facts, and others of the like sort, occasioned various fears
   and devices amongst those who survived, all tending to the
   same uncharitable and cruel end; which was, to avoid the sick,
   and everything that had been near them, expecting by that
   means to save themselves. And some holding it best to live
   temperately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties,
   and shut themselves up from the rest of the world. … Others
   maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would
   baulk no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking
   and revelling incessantly from tavern to tavern, or in private
   houses (which were frequently found deserted by the owners,
   and therefore common to everyone), yet strenuously avoiding,
   with all this brutal indulgence, to come near the infected.
   And such, at that time, was the public distress, that the
   laws, human and divine, were no more regarded; for the
   officers to put them in force being either dead, sick, or in
   want of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he
   pleased. … I pass over the little regard that citizens and
   relations showed to each other; for their terror was such that
   a brother even fled from a brother, a wife from her husband,
   and, what is more uncommon, a parent from his own child. …
   Such was the cruelty of Heaven, and perhaps of men, that
   between March and July following, according to authentic
   reckonings, upwards of 100,000 souls perished in the city
   only; whereas, before that calamity, it was not supposed to
   have continued so many inhabitants. What magnificent
   dwellings, what noble palaces, were then depopulated to the
   last inhabitant!"

      _G. Boccaccio,
      The Decameron,
      introd._

      See, also, BLACK DEATH.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
   The captains of the Guelf Party and the "Ammoniti."

   "The magistracy called the 'Capitani di Parte Guelfa,'—the
   Captains of the Guelph party,—was instituted in the year
   1267; and it was remarked, when the institution of it was
   recorded, that the conception of a magistracy avowedly formed
   to govern a community, not only by the authority of, but in
   the interest of one section only of its members, was an
   extraordinary proof of the unfitness of the Florentines for
   self-government, and a forewarning of the infallible certainty
   that the attempt to rule the Commonwealth on such principles
   would come to a bad ending. In the year 1358, a little less
   than a century after the first establishment of this strange
   magistracy, it began to develop the mischievous capabilities
   inherent in the nature of it, in a very alarming manner. …
{1137}
   In 1358 this magistracy consisted of four members. … These
   men, 'born,' says Ammirato, 'for the public ruin, under
   pretext of zeal for the Guelph cause' … caused a law to be
   passed, according to which any citizen or Florentine subject
   who had ever held, or should thereafter hold, any office in
   the Commonwealth, might be either openly or secretly accused
   before the tribunal of the Captains of the Guelph Party of
   being Ghibelline, or not genuine Guelph. If the accusation was
   supported by six witnesses worthy of belief, the accused might
   be condemned to death or to fine at the discretion of the
   Captains. … It will be readily conceived that the passing of
   such a law, in a city bristling with party hatreds and feuds,
   was the signal for the commencement of a reign of terror." The
   citizens proscribed were "said to be 'admonished'; and the
   condemnations were called 'admonitions'; and henceforward for
   many years the 'ammonizioni' [or 'ammoniti'] play a large part
   in the domestic history and political struggles of Florence."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1359-1391.
   The Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood and the wars with Pisa,
   with Milan, and with the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
   War with the Pope in support of the oppressed States of the
   Church.
   The Eight Saints of War.
   A terrible excommunication.

   In 1375, the Florentines became engaged in war with Pope
   Gregory XI., supporting a revolt of the States of the Church,
   which were heavily oppressed by the representatives of their
   papal sovereign

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

   "Nevertheless, so profoundly reverenced was the church that
   even the sound of war against a pope appeared to many little
   less than blasphemy: numbers opposed on this pretence, but
   really from party motives alone." But "a general council
   assembled and declared the cause of liberty paramount to every
   other consideration; the war was affirmed to be rather against
   the injustice and tyranny of foreign governors than the church
   itself. … All the ecclesiastical cities then groaning under
   French oppression were to be invited to revolt and boldly
   achieve their independence. These spirited resolutions were
   instantly executed, and on the 8th of August 1375 Alessandro
   de' Bardi [and seven other citizens] … were formed into a
   supreme council of war called 'Gli Otto della Guerra'; and
   afterwards, from their able conduct, 'Gli Otto Santi della
   Guerra' [The Eight Saints of War]; armed with the concentrated
   power of the whole Florentine nation in what regarded war." A
   terrible sentence of excommunication was launched against the
   Florentines by the Pope. "Their souls were solemnly condemned
   to the pains of hell; fire and water were interdicted; their
   persons and property outlawed in every Christian land, and
   they were finally declared lawful prey for all who chose to
   sell, plunder, or kill them as though they were mere slaves or
   infidels."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
   Complete democratizing of the commonwealth.
   The Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearance of the Medici in Florentine history.

   Though the reign of the Duke of Athens lasted rather less than
   a year, "it bore important fruits; for the tyrant, seeking to
   support himself upon the favour of the common people, gave
   political power to the Lesser Arts at the expense of the
   Greater, and confused the old State-system by enlarging the
   democracy. The net result of these events for Florence was,
   first, that the city became habituated to rancorous
   party-strife, involving exiles and proscriptions, and,
   secondly, that it lost its primitive social hierarchy of
   classes. … Civil strife now declared itself as a conflict
   between labour and capital. The members of the Lesser Arts,
   craftsmen who plied trades subordinate to those of the Greater
   Arts, rose up against their social and political superiors,
   demanding a larger share in the government, a more equal
   distribution of profits, higher wages, and privileges that
   should place them on an absolute equality with the wealthy
   merchants. It was in the year 1378 that the proletariate broke
   out into rebellion. Previous events had prepared the way for
   this revolt. First of all, the republic had been democratised
   through the destruction of the Grandi and through the popular
   policy pursued to gain his own ends by the Duke of Athens.
   Secondly, society had been shaken to its very foundation by
   the great plague of 1348 … nor had 30 years sufficed to
   restore their relative position to grades and ranks confounded
   by an overwhelming calamity. … Rising in a mass to claim
   their privileges, the artisans ejected the Signory from the
   Public Palace, and for awhile Florence was at the mercy of the
   mob. It is worthy of notice that the Medici, whose name is
   scarcely known before this epoch, now come for one moment to
   the front. Salvestro de' Medici was Gonfalonier of Justice at
   the time when the tumult first broke out. He followed the
   faction of the handicraftsmen, and became the hero of the day.
   I cannot discover that he did more than extend a sort of
   passive protection to their cause. Yet there is no doubt that
   the attachment of the working classes to the house of Medici
   dates from this period. The rebellion of 1378 is known in
   Florentine history as the Tumult of the Ciompi. The name
   Ciompi strictly means the Wool-Carders. One set of operatives
   in the city, and that the largest, gave its title to the whole
   body of the labourers. For some months these craftsmen
   governed the republic, appointing their own Signory and
   passing laws in their own interest; but, as is usual, the
   proletariate found itself incapable of sustained government.
   The ambition and discontent of the Ciompi foamed themselves
   away, and industrious workingmen began to see that trade was
   languishing and credit on the wane. By their own act at last
   they restored the government to the Priors of the Greater
   Arti. Still the movement had not been without grave
   consequences. It completed the levelling of classes, which had
   been steadily advancing from the first in Florence. After the
   Ciompi riot there was no longer not only any distinction
   between noble and burgher, but the distinction between greater
   and lesser guilds was practically swept away. … The proper
   political conditions had been formed for unscrupulous
   adventurers. Florence had become a democracy without social
   organisation. … The time was come for the Albizzi to attempt
   an oligarchy, and for the Medici to begin the enslavement of the
   State.
{1138}
   The Constitution of Florence offered many points of weakness
   to the attacks of such intriguers. In the first place it was
   in its origin not a political but an industrial
   organisation—a simple group of guilds invested with the
   sovereign authority. … It had no permanent head, like the
   Doge of Venice, no fixed senate like the Venetian Grand
   Council; its chief magistrates, the Signory, were elected for
   short periods of two months, and their mode of election was
   open to the gravest criticism. Supposed to be chosen by lot,
   they were really selected from lists drawn up by the factions
   in power from time to time. These factions contrived to
   exclude the names of all but their adherents from the bags, or
   'borse,' in which the burghers eligible for election had to be
   inscribed. Furthermore, it was not possible for this shifting
   Signory to conduct affairs requiring sustained effort and
   secret deliberation; therefore recourse was being continually
   had to dictatorial Commissions. The people, summoned in
   parliament upon the Great Square, were asked to confer
   plenipotentiary authority upon a committee called Balia [see
   BALIA OF FLORENCE], who proceeded to do what they chose in the
   State; and who retained power after the emergency for which
   they were created passed away. … It was through these [and
   other specified] defects that the democracy merged gradually
   into a despotism. The art of the Medici consisted in a
   scientific comprehension of these very imperfections, a
   methodic use of them for their own purposes, and a steady
   opposition to any attempts made to substitute a stricter
   system. … Florence, in the middle of the 14th century, was a
   vast beehive of industry. Distinctions of rank among burghers,
   qualified to vote and hold office, were theoretically unknown.
   Highly educated men, of more than princely wealth, spent their
   time in shops and counting-houses, and trained their sons to
   follow trades. Military service at this period was abandoned
   by the citizens; they preferred to pay mercenary troops for
   the conduct of their wars. Nor was there, as in Venice, any
   outlet for their energies upon the seas. Florence had no navy,
   no great port—she only kept a small fleet for the protection
   of her commerce. Thus the vigour of the commonwealth was
   concentrated on itself; while the influence of citizens,
   through their affiliated trading-houses, correspondents, and
   agents, extended like a network over Europe. … Accordingly
   we find that out of the very bosom of the people a new
   plutocratic aristocracy begins to rise. … These nobles of
   the purse obtained the name of 'Popolani Nobili'; and it was
   they who now began to play at high stakes for the supreme
   power. … The opening of the second half of the 14th century
   had been signalised by the feuds of two great houses, both
   risen from the people. These were the Albizzi and the Ricci."
   The Albizzi triumphed, in the conflict of the two houses, and
   became all-powerful for a time in Florence; but the wars with
   the Visconti, of Milan, in which they engaged the city, made
   necessary a heavy burden of taxation, which they rendered more
   grievous by distributing it unfairly. "This imprudent
   financial policy began the ruin of the Albizzi. It caused a
   clamour in the city for a new system of more just taxation,
   which was too powerful to be resisted. The voice of the people
   made itself loudly heard; and with the people on this occasion
   sided Giovanni de' Medici. This was in 1427. It is here that
   the Medici appear upon that memorable scene where in the
   future they are to play the first part. Giovanni de' Medici
   did not belong to the same branch of his family as the
   Salvestro who favoured the people at the time of the Ciompi
   Tumult. But he adopted the same popular policy. To his sons
   Cosimo and Lorenzo he bequeathed on his death-bed the rule
   that they should invariably adhere to the cause of the
   multitude, found their influence on that, and avoid the arts
   of factious and ambitious leaders."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Florence and the Medici
      (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume l)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      books 4-5 (volume 2)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
   War with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan.

   "Already in 1386, the growing power of Giangaleazzo Visconti,
   the tenth duke of Milan of that family, began to give umbrage,
   not only to all the sovereign princes: his neighbours, but
   also to Florence [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. … Florence
   … had cause enough to feel uneasy at the progress of such a
   man in his career of successful invasion and
   usurpation;—Florence, no more specially than other of the
   free towns around her, save that Florence seems always to have
   thought that she had more to lose from the loss of her liberty
   than any of the other cities … and felt always called upon to
   take upon herself the duty of standing forward as the champion
   and supporter of the principles of republicanism and free
   government. … The Pope, Urban VI., added another element of
   disturbance to the condition of Italy. For in his anxiety to
   recover sundry cities mainly in Umbria and Romagna … he was
   exceedingly unscrupulous of means, and might at any moment be
   found allying himself with the enemies of free government and
   of the old Guelph cause in Italy. Venice, also, having most
   improvidently and unwisely allied herself with Visconti,
   constituted another element of danger, and an additional cause
   of uneasiness and watchfulness to the Florentine government.
   In the spring of 1388, therefore, a board of ten, 'Dieci di
   Balia,' was elected for the general management of 'all those
   measures concerning war and peace which should be adopted by
   the entire Florentine people.'" The first war with Visconti
   was declared by the republic in May, 1390, and was so
   successfully conducted for the Florentines by Sir John
   Hawkwood that it terminated in a treaty signed January 26,
   1392, which bound the Duke of Milan not to meddle in any way
   with the affairs of Tuscany. For ten years this agreement
   seems to have been tolerably well adhered to; but in 1402 the
   rapacious Duke entered upon new encroachments, which forced
   the Florentines to take up arms again. Their only allies were
   Bologna and Padua (or Francesco Carrara of Padua), and the
   armies of the three states were defeated in a terribly bloody
   battle fought near Bologna on the 26th of June. "Bologna fell
   into the hands of Visconti. Great was the dismay and terror in
   Florence when the news … reached the city. It was neither
   more nor less than the fall, as the historian says, of the
   fortress which was the bulwark of Florence. Now she lay
   absolutely open to the invader." But the invader did not come.
   He was stricken with the plague and died, in September, and
   Florence and Italy were saved from the tyranny which he had
   seemed able to extend over the whole.

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 2)._

{1139}

FLORENCE: 14th-15th Centuries.
   Commercial enterprise, industrial energy,
   wealth and culture of the city.

   "During the 14th and 15th centuries Florentine wealth
   increased in an extraordinary degree. Earlier generations had
   compelled the powerful barons of the district to live in the
   city; and even yet the exercise of the rights of citizenship
   was dependent on having a residence there. The influx of
   outsiders was, however, much more owing to the attractions
   offered by the city, whether in business, profession, or
   pleasure, than to compulsion. … The situation of the city is
   not favorable to the natural growth of commerce, especially
   under the conditions which preceded the building of railroads.
   At a considerable distance from the sea, on a river navigable
   only for very small craft, and surrounded by hills which
   rendered difficult the construction of good roads,—the fact
   that the city did prosper so marvellously is in itself proof
   of the remarkable energy and ability of its people. They
   needed above all things a sea-port, and to obtain a good one
   they waged some of their most exhausting wars. Their principal
   wealth, however, came through their financial operations,
   which extended throughout Europe, and penetrated even to
   Morocco and the Orient. Their manufactures also, especially of
   wool and silk, brought in enormous returns, and made not only
   the fortunes but also, in one famous case at least, the name
   of the families engaged in them. Their superiority over the
   rest of Christendom in these pursuits was but one side of that
   remarkable, universal talent which is the most astonishing
   feature of the Florentine life of that age. With the hardihood
   of youth, they were not only ready but eager to engage in new
   enterprises, whether at home or abroad. … As a result of
   their energy and ability, riches poured into their coffers,—a
   mighty stream of gold, in the use of which they showed so much
   judgment, that the after world has feasted to our day, and for
   centuries to come, will probably continue to feast without
   satiety on the good things which they caused to be made, and
   left behind them. Of all the legacies for which we have to
   thank Florence, none are so well known and so universally
   recognized as the treasures of art created by her sons, many
   of which yet remain within her walls, the marvel and delight
   of all who behold them. As the Florentines were ready to try
   experiments in politics, manufactures, and commerce, so also
   in all branches of the fine arts they tried experiments, left
   the old, beaten paths of their forefathers, and created
   something original, useful, and beautiful for themselves.
   Christian art from the time of the Roman Empire to Cimabue had
   made comparatively little progress; but a son of the
   Florentine fields was to start a revolution which should lead
   to the production of some of the most marvellous works which
   have proceeded from the hand of man. The idea that the fine
   arts are more successfully cultivated under the patronage of
   princes than under republican rule is very widespread, and is
   occasionally accepted almost as a dogma; but the history of
   Athens and of Florence teaches us without any doubt that the
   two most artistic epochs in the history of the world have had
   their rise in republics. … Some writers, dazzled by the
   splendors of the Medici, entirely lose sight of the fact that
   both Dante and Petrarch were dead before the Medici were even
   heard of, and that the greatest works, at least in
   architecture, were all begun long before they were leaders in
   Florentine affairs. That family did much, yes very much, for
   the advancement of art and letters; but they did not do all or
   nearly all that was done in Florence. … Though civil discord
   and foreign war were very frequent, Florentine life is
   nevertheless an illustration rather of what Herbert Spencer
   calls the commercial stage of civilization, than of the
   war-like period. Her citizens were above all things merchants,
   and were generally much more willing to pay to avoid a war than
   to conduct one. They strove for glory, not in feats of arms,
   but in literary contests and in peaceful emulation in the
   encouragement of learning and the fine arts."

      _W. B. Scaife,
      Florentine Life during the Renaissance,
      pages 16-19._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1405-1406.
   Purchase and conquest of Pisa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1409-1411.
   League against and war with Ladislas, King of Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1423-1447.
   War with the Duke of Milan.
   League with Venice, Naples, and other States.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.
   The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici.

   In 1433, Cosmo, or Cosimo de' Medici, the son of Giovanni de'
   Medici, was the recognized leader of the opposition to the
   oligarchy controlled by Rinaldo de' Albizzi. Cosmo inherited
   from his father a large fortune and a business as a merchant
   and banker which he maintained and increased. "He lived
   splendidly; he was a great supporter of all literary men, and
   spent and distributed his great wealth amongst his fellow
   citizens. He was courteous and liberal, and was looked upon
   with almost unbounded respect and affection by a large party
   in the state. Rinaldo was bent upon his ruin, and in 1433,
   when he had a Signoria devoted to his party, he cited Cosmo
   before the Council, and shut him up in a tower of the Public
   Palace. Great excitement was caused by this violent step, and
   two days after the Signoria held a parliament of the people.
   The great bell of the city was tolled, and the people gathered
   round the Palace. Then the gates of the Palace were thrown
   open, and the Signoria, the Colleges of Arts, and the
   Gonfaloniere came forth, and asked the people if they would
   have a Balia. So a Balia was appointed, the names being
   proposed by the Signoria, to decide on the fate of Cosmo. At
   first it was proposed to kill him, but he was only banished,
   much against the will of Rinaldo, who knew that, if he lived,
   he would some day come back again. The next year the Signoria
   was favourable to him; another Balia was appointed; the party
   of the Albizzi was banished, and Cosmo was recalled. He was
   received with a greeting such as men give to a conqueror, and
   was hailed as the 'Father of his Country.' This triumphant
   return gave the Medici a power in the Republic which they
   never afterwards lost. The banished party fled to the court of
   the Duke of Milan, and stirred him up to war against the city."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 6, section 5._

{1140}

   "Cosimo de' Medici did not content himself with rendering his
   old opponents harmless; he took care also that none of his
   adherents should become too powerful and dangerous to him.
   Therefore, remarks Francesco Guicciardini, he retained the
   Signoria, as well as the taxes, in his hand, in order to be
   able to promote or oppress individuals at will. In other
   things the citizens enjoyed greater freedom and acted more
   according to their own pleasure than later, in the days of his
   grandson, for he let the reins hang loose if he was only sure
   of his own position. It was just in this that his great art
   lay, to guide things according to his will, and yet to make
   his partisans believe that he shared his authority with them.
   … 'It is well known' remarks [Guicciardini] … 'how much
   nobility and wealth were destroyed by Cosimo and his
   descendants by taxation. The Medici never allowed a fixed
   method and legal distribution, but always reserved to
   themselves the power of bearing heavily upon individuals
   according to their pleasure. … He [Cosimo] maintained great
   reserve in his whole manner of life. For a quarter of a
   century he was the almost absolute director of the State, but
   he never assumed the show of his dignity. … The ruler of the
   Florentine State remained citizen, agriculturist, and
   merchant. In his appearance and bearing there was nothing
   which distinguished him from others. … He ruled the money
   market, not only in Italy, but throughout Europe. He had banks
   in all the western countries, and his experience and the
   excellent memory which never failed him, with his strong love
   of order, enabled him to guide everything from Florence, which
   he never quitted after 1438." The death of Cosimo occurred on
   the 1st day of August, 1464.

      _A. von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book. 1, chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1)._

   "The last troubled days of the Florentine democracy had not
   proved quite unproductive of art. It was the time of Giotto's
   undisputed sway. Many works of which the 15th century gets the
   glory because it finished them were ordered and begun amidst
   the confusion and terrible agitation of the demagogy. …
   Under the oligarchy, in the relative calm that came with
   oppression, a taste for art as well as for letters began to
   develop in Florence as elsewhere." But "Cosimo de' Medicis had
   rare good fortune. In his time, and under his rule, capricious
   chance united at Florence talents as numerous as they were
   diverse—the universal Brunelleschi, the polished and elegant
   Ghiberti, the rough and powerful Donatello, the suave
   Angelico, the masculine Masaccio. … Cosimo lived long enough
   to see the collapse of the admirable talent which flourished
   upon the banks of the Arno, and soon spread throughout Italy,
   and to feel the void left by it. It is true his grandson saw a
   new harvest, but as inferior to that which preceded it, as it
   was to that which followed it."

      _F. T. Perrens,
      History of Florence, 1434-1531,
      book 1, chapter 6._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1450-1454.
   Alliance with Francesco Sforza, of Milan, and war with
   Venice, Naples, Savoy, and other States.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.
   Lucas Pitti, and the building of the Pitti Palace.
   Piero de' Medici and the five agents of his tyranny.

   Until 1455, Cosmo de' Medici shared the government of Florence
   in some degree with Neri Capponi, an able statesman, who had
   taken an eminent part in public affairs for many years—during
   the domination of the Albizzi, as well as afterwards.

   "When Neri Capponi died, the council refused to call a new
   parliament to replace the balia, whose power expired on the
   1st of July, 1455. … The election of the signoria was again
   made fairly by lot, … the contributions were again equitably
   apportioned,—the tribunals ceased to listen to the
   recommendations of those who, till then, had made a traffic of
   distributive justice." This recovery of freedom in Florence
   was enjoyed for about three years; but when, in 1458, Lucas
   Pitti, "rich, powerful, and bold," was named gonfalonier,
   Cosmo conspired with him to reimpose the yoke. "Pitti
   assembled the parliament; but not till he had filled all the
   avenues of the public square with soldiers or armed peasants.
   The people, menaced and trembling within this circle,
   consented to name a new balia, more violent and tyrannical
   than any of the preceding. It was composed of 352 persons, to
   whom was delegated all the power of the republic. They exiled
   a great number of the citizens who had shown the most
   attachment to liberty, and they even put some to death." When,
   in 1463, Cosmo's second son, Giovanni, on whom his hopes were
   centered, died, Lucas Pitti "looked on himself henceforth as
   the only chief of the state. It was about this time that he
   undertook the building of that magnificent palace which now
   [1832] forms the residence of the grand-dukes. The republican
   equality was not only offended by the splendour of this regal
   dwelling; but the construction of it afforded Pitti an
   occasion for marking his contempt of liberty and the laws. He
   made of this building an asylum for all fugitives from
   justice, whom no public officer dared pursue when once he
   [they?] took part in the labour. At the same time individuals,
   as well as communities, who would obtain some favour from the
   republic, knew that the only means of being heard was to offer
   Lucas Pitti some precious wood or marble to be employed in the
   construction of his palace. When Cosmo de' Medici died, at his
   country-house of Careggi, on the 1st of August, 1464, Lucas
   Pitti felt himself released from the control imposed by the
   virtue and moderation of that great citizen. … His [Cosmo's]
   son, Pietro de' Medici, then 48 years of age, supposed that he
   should succeed to the administration of the republic, as he
   had succeeded to the wealth of his father, by hereditary
   right: but the state of his health did not admit of his
   attending regularly to business, or of his inspiring his
   rivals with much fear. To diminish the weight of affairs which
   oppressed him, he resolved on withdrawing a part of his immense
   fortune from commerce; recalling all his loans made in
   partnership with other merchants; and laying out this money in
   land. But this unexpected demand of considerable capital
   occasioned a fatal shock to the commerce of Florence; at the
   same time that it alienated all the debtors of the house of
   Medici, and deprived it of much of its popularity. The death
   of Sforza, also, which took place on the 8th of March, 1466,
   deprived the Medicean party of its firmest support abroad. …
   The friends of liberty at Florence soon perceived that Lucas
   Pitti and Pietro de' Medici no longer agreed together; and
   they recovered courage when the latter proposed to the council
   the calling of a parliament, in order to renew the balia, the
   power of which expired on the 1st of September, 1465; his
   proposition was rejected.
{1141}
   The magistracy began again to be drawn by lot from among the
   members of the party victorious in 1434. This return of
   liberty, however, was but of short duration. Pitti and Medici
   were reconciled: they agreed to call a parliament, and to
   direct it in concert; to intimidate it, they surrounded it
   with foreign troops. But Medici, on the nomination of the
   balia, on the 2d of September, 1466, found means of admitting
   his own partisans only, and excluding all those of Lucas
   Pitti. The citizens who had shown any zeal for liberty were
   all exiled. … Lucas Pitti ruined himself in building his
   palace. His talents were judged to bear no proportion to his
   ambition: the friends of liberty, as well as those of Medici,
   equally detested him; and he remained deprived of all power in
   a city which he had so largely contributed to enslave. Italy
   became filled with Florentine emigrants: every revolution,
   even every convocation of parliament, was followed by the
   exile of many citizens. … At Florence, the citizens who
   escaped proscription trembled to see despotism established in
   their republic; but the lower orders were in general
   contented, and made no attempt to second Bartolomeo Coleoni,
   when he entered Tuscany, in 1467, at the head of the
   Florentine emigrants, who had taken him into their pay.
   Commerce prospered; manufactures were carried on with great
   activity; high wages supported in comfort all who lived by
   their labour; and the Medici entertained them with shows and
   festivals, keeping them in a sort of perpetual carnival,
   amidst which the people soon lost all thought of liberty.
   Pietro de' Medici was always in too bad a state of health to
   exercise in person the sovereignty he had usurped over his
   country; he left it to five or six citizens, who reigned in
   his name. … They not only transacted all business, but
   appropriated to themselves all the profit; they sold their
   influence and credit; they gratified their cupidity or their
   vengeance; but they took care not to act in their own names,
   or to pledge their own responsibility; they left that to the
   house of Medici. Pietro, during the latter months of his life,
   perceived the disorder and corruption of his agents. He was
   afflicted to see his memory thus stained, and he addressed
   them the severest reprimands; he even entered into
   correspondence with the emigrants, whom he thought of
   recalling, when he died, on the 2d of December, 1469. His two
   sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano, the elder of whom was not 21 years
   of age, … given up to all the pleasures of their age, had
   yet no ambition. The power of the state remained in the hands
   of the five citizens who had exercised it under Pietro."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 11._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
   The conspiracy of the Pazzi.
   The government of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
   The death of liberty.
   The golden age of letters and art.

   "Lorenzo inherited his grandfather's political sagacity and
   far surpassed him in talent and literary culture. In many
   respects too he was a very different man. Cosimo never left
   his business office; Lorenzo neglected it, and had so little
   commercial aptitude that he was obliged to retire from
   business, in order not to lose his abundant patrimony. Cosimo
   was frugal in his personal expenses and lent freely to others;
   Lorenzo loved splendid living, and thus gained the title of
   the Magnificent; he spent immoderately for the advancement of
   literary men; he gave himself up to dissipation which ruined
   his health and shortened his days. His manner of living
   reduced him to such straits, that he had to sell some of his
   possessions and obtain money from his friends. Nor did this
   suffice; for he even meddled with the public money, a thing
   that had never happened in Cosimo's time. Very often, in his
   greed of unlawful gain, he had the Florentine armies paid by
   his own bank; he also appropriated the sums collected in the
   Monte Comune or treasury of the public debt, and those in the
   Monte delle Fanciulle where were marriage portions accumulated
   by private savings—money hitherto held sacred by all.
   Stimulated by the same greed, he, in the year 1472 joined the
   Florentine contractors for the wealthy alum mines of Volterra,
   at the moment in which that city was on the verge of rebellion
   in order to free itself from a contract which it deemed
   unjust. And Lorenzo, with the weight of his authority, pushed
   matters to such a point that war broke out, soon to be
   followed by a most cruel sack of the unhappy city, a very
   unusual event in Tuscany. For all this he was universally
   blamed. But he was excessively haughty and cared for no man;
   he would tolerate no equals, would be first in
   everything—even in games. He interfered in all matters, even
   in private concerns and in marriages: nothing could take place
   without his consent. In overthrowing the powerful and exalting
   men of low condition, he showed none of the care and
   precaution so uniformly observed by Cosimo. It is not then
   surprising if his enemies increased so fast that the
   formidable conspiracy of the Pazzi broke out on the 26th April
   1478. In this plot, hatched in the Vatican itself where Sixtus
   IV. was Lorenzo's determined enemy, many of the mightiest
   Florentine families took part. In the cathedral, at the moment
   of the elevation of the Host, the conspirators' daggers were
   unsheathed. Giuliano dei Medici was stabbed to death, but
   Lorenzo defended himself with his sword and saved his own
   life. The tumult was so great that it seemed as though the
   walls of the church were shaken. The populace rose to the cry
   of 'Palle! Palle!' the Medici watchword, and the enemies of
   the Medici were slaughtered in the streets or hung from the
   windows of the Palazzo Veechio. There, among others, were seen
   the dangling corpses of Archbishop Salviati and of Francesco
   Pazzi, who in their last struggles had gripped each other with
   their teeth and remained thus for some time. More than seventy
   persons perished on that day, and Lorenzo, taking advantage of
   the opportunity, pushed matters to extremity by his
   confiscations, banishments, and sentences of death. Thereby
   his power would have been infinitely increased if Pope Sixtus
   IV., blinded by rage, had not been induced to excommunicate
   Florence, and make war against it, in conjunction with
   Ferdinand of Aragon. On this Lorenzo, without losing a moment,
   went straight to Naples, and made the king understand how much
   better it served his interests that Florence should have but
   one ruler instead of a republican government, always liable to
   change and certainly never friendly to Naples. So he returned
   with peace re-established and boundless authority and
   popularity. Now indeed he might have called himself lord of
   the city, and it must have seemed easy to him to destroy the
   republican government altogether.
{1142}
   With his pride and ambition it is certain that he had an
   intense desire to stand on the same level with the other
   princes and tyrants of Italy; the more so as at that moment
   success seemed entirely within his grasp. But Lorenzo showed
   that his political shrewdness was not to be blinded by
   prosperity, and knowing Florence well, he remained firm to the
   traditional policy of his house, that of dominating the
   Republic, while apparently respecting it. He was well
   determined to render his power solid and durable; but to that
   end he had recourse to a most ingenious reform, by means of
   which, without abandoning the old road, he thoroughly
   succeeded in his object. In place of the usual five-yearly
   Balia, he instituted, in 1480, the Council of Seventy, which
   renewed itself and was like a permanent Balia with still wider
   power. This, composed of men entirely devoted to his cause,
   secured the government to him forever. By this Council, say
   the chroniclers of the time, liberty was wholly buried and
   undone, but certainly the most important affairs of the State
   were carried on in it by intelligent and cultivated men, who
   largely promoted its material prosperity. Florence still
   called itself a republic, nominally the old institutions were
   still in existence, but all this seemed and was nothing but an
   empty mockery. Lorenzo, absolute lord of all, might certainly be
   called a tyrant, surrounded by lackeys and courtiers. … Yet
   he dazzled all men by the splendour of his rule, so that
   [Guicciardini] observes, that though Lorenzo was a tyrant, 'it
   would be impossible to imagine a better and more pleasing
   tyrant.' Industry, commerce, public works had all received a
   mighty impulse. In no city in the world had the civil equality
   of modern States reached the degree to which it had attained
   not merely in Florence itself, but in its whole territory and
   throughout all Tuscany. Administration and secular justice
   proceeded regularly enough in ordinary cases, crime was
   diminished, and, above all, literary culture had become a
   substantial element of the new State. Learned men were
   employed in public offices, and from Florence spread a light
   that illuminated the world. … But Lorenzo's policy could
   found nothing that was permanent. Unrivalled as a model of
   sagacity and prudence, it promoted in Florence the development
   of all the new elements of which modern society was to be the
   outcome, without succeeding in fusing them together; for his
   was a policy of equivocation and deceit, directed by a man of
   much genius, who had no higher aim than his own interest and
   that of his family, to which he never hesitated to sacrifice
   the interests of his people."

      _P. Villari,
      Machiavelli and his Times,
      chapter 2, section 2 (volume 1)._

   "The state of Florence at this period was very remarkable. The
   most independent and tumultuous of towns was spellbound under
   the sway of Lorenzo de' Medici, the grandson of Cosimo who
   built San Marco; and scarcely seemed even to recollect its
   freedom, so absorbed was it in the present advantages
   conferred by 'a strong government,' and solaced by shows,
   entertainments, festivals, pomp, and display of all kinds. It
   was the very height of that classic revival so famous in the
   later history of the world, and the higher classes of society,
   having shaken themselves apart with graceful contempt from the
   lower, had begun to frame their lives according to a pagan
   model, leaving the other and much bigger half of the world to
   pursue its superstitions undisturbed. Florence was as near a
   pagan city as it was possible for its rulers to make it. Its
   intellectual existence was entirely given up to the past; its
   days were spent in that worship of antiquity which has no
   power of discrimination, and deifies not only the wisdom but
   the trivialities of its golden epoch. Lorenzo reigned in the
   midst of a lettered crowd of classic parasites and flatterers,
   writing poems which his courtiers found better than
   Alighieri's, and surrounding himself with those eloquent
   slaves who make a prince's name more famous than arms or
   victories, and who have still left a prejudice in the minds of
   all literature-loving people in favour of their patron. A man
   of superb health and physical power, who can give himself up
   to debauch all night without interfering with his power of
   working all day, and whose mind is so versatile that he can
   sack a town one morning and discourse upon the beauties of
   Plato the next, and weave joyous ballads through both
   occupations—gives his flatterers reason when they applaud
   him. The few righteous men in the city, the citizens who still
   thought of Florence above all, kept apart, overwhelmed by the
   tide which ran in favour of that leading citizen of Florence,
   who had gained the control of the once high-spirited and
   freedom-loving people. Society had never been more dissolute,
   more selfish, or more utterly deprived of any higher aim.
   Barren scholarship, busy over grammatical questions, and
   elegant philosophy, snipping and piecing its logical systems,
   formed the top dressing to that half-brutal,
   half-superstitious ignorance which in such communities is the
   general portion of the poor. The dilettante world dreamed
   hazily of a restoration of the worship of the pagan gods;
   Cardinal Bembo bade his friend beware of reading St. Paul's
   epistles, lest their barbarous style should corrupt his taste;
   and even such a man as Pico della Mirandola declared the
   'Divina Commedia' to be inferior to the 'Canti
   Carnascialeschi' of Lorenzo de' Medici. … Thus limited
   intellectually, the age of Lorenzo was still more hopeless
   morally, full of debauchery, cruelty, and corruption,
   violating oaths, betraying trusts, believing in nothing but
   Greek manuscripts, coins, and statues, caring for nothing but
   pleasure. This was the world in which Savonarola found
   himself."

      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Florence,
      chapter 9._

   "Terrible municipal enmities had produced so much evil as to
   relax ancient republican energy. After so much destruction
   repose was necessary. To antique sobriety and gravity succeed
   love of pleasure and the quest of luxury. The belligerent
   class of great nobles were expelled and the energetic class of
   artisans crushed. Bourgeois rulers were to rule, and to rule
   tranquilly. Like the Medicis, their chiefs, they manufacture,
   trade, bank and make fortunes in order to expend them in
   intellectual fashion. War no longer fastens its cares upon
   them, as formerly, with a bitter and tragic grasp; they manage
   it through the paid bands of condottieri, and these as cunning
   traffickers, reduce it to cavalcades; when they slaughter each
   other it is by mistake; historians cite battles in which
   three, and sometimes only one soldier remains on the field.
   Diplomacy takes the place of force, and the mind expands as
   character weakens. Through this mitigation of war and through
   the establishment of principalities or of local tyrannies, it
   seems that Italy, like the great European monarchies, had just
   attained to its equilibrium.
{1143}
   Peace is partially established and the useful arts germinate
   in all directions upon an improved social soil like a good
   harvest on a cleared and well-ploughed field. The peasant is
   no longer a serf of the glebe, but a metayer; he nominates his
   own municipal magistrates, possesses arms and a communal
   treasury; he lives in enclosed bourgs, the houses of which,
   built of stone and cement, are large, convenient, and often
   elegant. Near Florence he erects walls, and near Lucca he
   constructs turf terraces in order to favor cultivation.
   Lombardy has its irrigations and rotation of crops; entire
   districts, now so many deserts around Lombardy and Rome, are
   still inhabited and richly productive. In the upper class the
   bourgeois and the noble labor since the chiefs of Florence are
   hereditary bankers and commercial interests are not
   endangered. Marble quarries are worked at Carrara, and foundry
   fires are lighted in the Maremmes. We find in the cities
   manufactories of silk, glass, paper, books, flax, wool and
   hemp; Italy alone produces as much as all Europe and furnishes
   to it all its luxuries. Thus diffused commerce and industry
   are not servile occupations tending to narrow or debase the
   mind. A great merchant is a pacific general, whose mind
   expands in contact with men and things. Like a military
   chieftain he organizes expeditions and enterprises and makes
   discoveries. … The Medicis possess sixteen banking-houses in
   Europe; they bind together through their business Russia and
   Spain, Scotland and Syria; they possess mines of alum
   throughout Italy, paying to the Pope for one of them a hundred
   thousand florins per annum; they entertain at their court
   representatives of all the powers of Europe and become the
   councillors and moderators of all Italy. In a small state like
   Florence, and in a country without a national army like Italy,
   such an influence becomes ascendant in and through itself; a
   control over private fortunes leads to a management of the
   public funds, and without striking a blow or using violence, a
   private individual finds himself director of the state. …
   These banking magistrates are liberal as well as capable. In
   thirty-seven years the ancestors of Lorenzo expend six hundred
   and sixty thousand florins in works of charity and of public
   utility. Lorenzo himself is a citizen of the antique stamp,
   almost a Pericles, capable of rushing into the arms of his
   enemy, the king of Naples, in order to avert, through personal
   seductions and eloquence, a war which menaces the safety of
   his country. His private fortune is a sort of public treasury,
   and his palace a second hotel-de-ville. He entertains the
   learned, aids them with his purse, makes friends of them,
   corresponds with them, defrays the expenses of editions of
   their works, purchases manuscripts, statues and medals,
   patronizes promising young artists, opens to them his gardens,
   his collections, his house and his table, and with that
   cordial familiarity and that openness, sincerity and
   simplicity of heart which place the protected on a footing of
   equality with the protector as man to man and not as an
   inferior in relation to a superior. This is the representative
   man whom his contemporaries all accept as the accomplished man of
   the century, no longer a Farinata or an Alighieri of ancient
   Florence, a spirit rigid, exalted and militant to its utmost
   capacity, but a balanced, moderate and cultivated genius, one
   who, through the genial sway of his serene and beneficent
   intellect, binds up into one sheaf all talents and all
   beauties. It is a pleasure to see them expanding around him.
   On the one hand writers are restoring and, on the other,
   constructing. From the time of Petrarch Greek and Latin
   manuscripts are sought for, and now they are to be exhumed in
   the convents of Italy, Switzerland, Germany and France. They
   are deciphered and restored with the aid of the savants of
   Constantinople. A decade of Livy or a treatise by Cicero, is a
   precious gift solicited by princes; some learned man passes
   ten years of travel in ransacking distant libraries in order
   to find a lost book of Tacitus, while the sixteen authors
   rescued from oblivion by the Poggios are counted as so many
   titles to immortal fame. … Style again becomes noble and at
   the same time clear, and the health, joy and serenity diffused
   through antique life re-enters the human mind with the
   harmonious proportions of language and the measured graces of
   diction. From refined language they pass to vulgar language,
   and the Italian is born by the side of the Latin. … Here in
   the restored paganism, shines out Epicurean gaiety, a
   determination to enjoy at any and all hours, and that instinct
   for pleasure which a grave philosophy and political sobriety
   had thus far tempered and restrained. With Pulci, Berni,
   Bibiena, Ariosto, Bandelli, Aretino, and so many others, we
   soon see the advent of voluptuous debauchery and open
   skepticism, and later a cynical unbounded licentiousness.
   These joyous and refined civilizations based on a worship of
   pleasure and intellectuality—Greece of the fourth century,
   Provence of the twelfth, and Italy of the sixteenth—were not
   enduring. Man in these lacks some checks. After sudden
   outbursts of genius and creativeness he wanders away in the
   direction of license and egotism; the degenerate artist and
   thinker makes room for the sophist and the dilettant. But in
   this transient brilliancy his beauty was charming. … It is
   in this world, again become pagan, that painting revives, and
   the new tastes she is to gratify show beforehand the road she
   is to follow; henceforth she is to decorate the houses of rich
   merchants who love antiquity and who desire to live daintily."

      _H. Taine,
      Italy, Florence and Venice,
      book 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici._

      _W. Roscoe,
      Life of Lorenzo de' Medici._

      _F. T. Perrens,
      History of Florence, 1434-1531,
      book 2, chapters 2-6._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
   The preaching of Savonarola.
   The coming of Charles VII. of France,
   and expulsion of the Medici.
   The great religious revival and Christianization of
   the Commonwealth.
   Conflict with the Church and fall of Savonarola.

   Girolamo, or Jerome Savonarola, a Dominican monk, born at
   Ferrara in 1452, educated to be a physician, but led by early
   disgust with the world to renounce his intended profession and
   give himself to the religious life, was sent to the convent of
   St. Mark, in Florence, in 1490, when he had reached the age of
   37. "He began his career as a reader and lecturer, and his
   lectures, though only intended for novices, drew a large
   audience. He then lectured in the garden of the cloister,
   under a large rosebush, where many intellectual men came from
   the city to hear him.
{1144}
   At length he began to preach in the Church of St. Mark's, and
   his subject was the Apocalypse, out of which he predicted the
   restoration of the Church in Italy, which he declared God
   would bring about by a severe visitation. Its influence upon
   his hearers was overpowering; there was no room in the church
   for the brethren; his fame spread abroad, and he was next
   appointed to preach the sermons in the cathedral. … Amid the
   luxurious, æsthetic, semi-pagan life of Florence, in the ears
   of the rich citizens, the licentious youth, the learned
   Platonists, he denounced the revival of paganism, the
   corruptions of the Church; the ignorance and consequent
   slavery of the people, and declared that God would visit Italy
   with some terrible punishment, and that it would soon come. He
   spoke severe words about the priests, declared to the people
   that the Scriptures were the only guides to salvation; that
   salvation did not come from external works, as the Church
   taught, but from faith in Christ, from giving up the heart to
   Him, and if He forgave sin, there was no need for any other
   absolution. Scarcely had he been a year in Florence when he
   was made prior of the monastery. There was a custom in vogue,
   a relic of the old times, for every new prior to go to the
   king or ruler and ask his favour. This homage was then due to
   Lorenzo di Medici, but Savonarola declared he would never
   submit to it, saying—'From whom have I received my office,
   from God or Lorenzo? Let us pray for grace to the Highest.'
   Lorenzo passed over this slight, being anxious to acquire the
   friendship of one whom he clearly saw would exert great
   influence over the Florentines. Burlamachi, his contemporary
   biographer, tells us that Lorenzo tried all kinds of plans to
   win the friendship of Savonarola: he attended the church of
   St. Mark; listened to his sermons; gave large sums of money to
   him for the poor; loitered in the garden to attract his
   attention—but with little success. Savonarola treated him
   with respect, gave his money away to the poor, but avoided him
   and denounced him. Another plan was tried: five distinguished men
   waited on Savonarola, and begged him to spare such elevated
   persons in his sermons, to treat more of generalities; and not
   to foretell the future. They received a prophetic answer: 'Go
   tell your master, Lorenzo, to repent of his sins, or God will
   punish him and his. Does he threaten me with banishment? Well,
   I am but a stranger, and he is the first citizen in Florence,
   but let him know that I shall remain and he must soon depart!'
   What happened shortly after caused the people to begin to
   regard Savonarola as a prophet, and won him that terrible fame
   which caused his downfall. … Lorenzo died on the 8th April,
   1492, and from that time Savonarola becomes more prominent. He
   directed his exertions to the accomplishment of three
   objects—the reformation of his monastery, the reformation of
   the Florentine State, and the reformation of the Church. He
   changed the whole character of his monastery. … Then he
   proceeded to State matters, and in this step we come to the
   problem of his life—was he a prophet or a fanatic? Let the
   facts speak for themselves. Lorenzo was succeeded by his son
   Pietro, who was vastly inferior to his father in learning and
   statesmanship. His only idea appears to have been a desire to
   unite Florence and Naples into one principality; this created
   for him many enemies, and men began to fancy that the great
   house of Medici would terminate with him. So, it appears,
   thought Savonarola, and announced the fact at first privately
   amongst his friends; in a short time, however, he began to
   prophecy their downfall publicly. During the years 1492 and
   1494, he was actively engaged in preaching. In Advent of the
   former year, he began his thirteen sermons upon Noah's Ark. In
   1493 he preached the Lent sermons at Bologna, and upon his return
   he began preaching in the cathedral. In these sermons he
   predicted the approaching fall of the State to the
   astonishment of all his hearers, who had not the slightest
   apprehension of danger: 'The Lord has declared that His sword
   shall come upon the land swiftly and soon.' This was the
   burden of a sermon preached on Advent Sunday, 1492. At the
   close of 1493, and as the new year approached, he spoke out
   more plainly and definitely. He declared that one should come
   over the Alps who was called, like Cyrus, of whom Jeremiah
   wrote; and he should, sword in hand, wreak vengeance upon the
   tyrants of Italy. … His preaching had always exerted a
   marvellous influence upon people, as we shall hereafter note,
   but they could not understand the cause of these predictions.
   The city was at peace; gay and joyous as usual, and no fear
   was entertained; but towards the end of the year came the
   fulfilment. Charles VIII., King of France, called into Italy
   by Duke Ludovico of Milan, came over the Alps with an immense
   army, took Naples, and advanced on Florence. The expulsion of
   the Medici from Florence soon followed: Pietro, being
   captured, signed an agreement to deliver up all his
   strongholds to Charles VIII., and to pay him 200,000 ducats.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

   The utmost indignation seized the Florentines when they heard
   of this treaty. The Signori sent heralds to Charles, to
   negotiate for milder terms, and their chief was Savonarola,
   who addressed the King like a prophet, begged him to take pity
   on Italy, and save her. His words had the desired effect.
   Charles made more easy terms, and left it to the Florentine
   people to settle their own State. In the meantime Pietro
   returned, but he found Florence in the greatest
   excitement—the royal palace was closed; stones were thrown at
   him; he summoned his guards, but the people took to arms, and
   he was compelled to fly to his brothers Giovanni and Giuliano.
   The Signori declared them to be traitors, and set a price upon
   their heads. Their palace and its treasures fell into the hands
   of the people. The friends of the Medici, however, were not
   all extinct; and as a discussion arose which was likely to
   lead to a struggle, Savonarola summoned the people to meet
   under the dome of St. Mark. … In fact, the formation of the
   new State fell upon Savonarola, for the people looked up to
   him as an inspired prophet. He proposed that 3,200 citizens
   should form themselves into a general council. Then they drew
   lots for a third part, who for six months were to act together
   as an executive body and represent the general council,
   another one-third for the next three months, and so on; so
   that every citizen had his turn in the council every eighteen
   months. They ultimately found it convenient to reduce the
   number to 80—in fact, Savonarola's Democracy was rapidly
   becoming oligarchic. Each of these 80 representatives was to
   be 40 years of age; they voted with black and white beans, six
   being a legal majority.
{1145}
   But the Chief of the State was to be Christ; He was to be the
   new monarch. His next step was to induce them to proclaim a
   general amnesty, in which he succeeded only through vigorously
   preaching to them that forgiveness was sweeter than
   vengeance—that freedom and peace were more loving than strife
   and hatred. … He was now at the height of his power; his
   voice ruled the State; he is the only instance in Europe of a
   monk openly leading a republic. The people regarded him as
   something more than human: they knew of his nights spent in
   prayer; of his long fasts; of his unbounded charity. … Few
   preachers ever exerted such influence upon the minds of
   crowds, such a vitalizing influence; he changed the whole
   character of Florentine society. Libertines abandoned their
   vices; the theatres and taverns were empty; there was no card
   playing, nor dice throwing; the love of fasting grew so
   general, that meat could not be sold; the city of Florence was
   God's city, and its government a Theocracy. There was a custom in
   Florence, during Carnival time, for the children to go from
   house to house and bid people give up their cherished
   pleasures; and so great was the enthusiasm at this period that
   people gave up their cards, their dice and backgammon boards,
   the ladies their perfumed waters, veils, paint-pots, false
   hair, musical instruments, harps, lutes, licentious tales,
   especially those of Boccaccio, dream books, romances, and
   popular songs. All this booty was gathered together in a heap
   in the market place, the people assembled, the Signori took
   their places, and children clothed in white, with olive
   branches on their heads, received from them the burning
   torches, and set fire to the pile amid the blast of trumpets
   and chant of psalms, which were continued till the whole was
   consumed. … His fame had now reached other countries;
   foreigners visited Florence solely for the purpose of seeing
   and hearing him. The Sultan of Turkey allowed his sermons to
   be translated and circulated in his dominions. But in the
   midst of his prosperity his enemies were not idle: as he
   progressed their jealousy increased: his preaching displeased
   them, terrified them, and amongst these the most bitter and
   virulent were the young sons of the upper classes: they called
   his followers 'howlers' (piagnoni), and so raged against him
   that they gained the name, now immortalised in history, of the
   Arrabiati (the furies): this party was increased by the old
   friends of the Medici, who called him a rebel and leader of
   the lower classes. Dolfo Spini, a young man of position and
   wealth, commanded this party, and used every effort to destroy
   the reputation of Savonarola, to incite the people against him,
   and to ruin him. They bore the name of 'Compagnacci'; they
   wrote satires about the Piagnoni; they circulated slanders
   about the monk who was making Florence the laughing stock of
   Europe: but Savonarola went on his way indifferent to the
   signs already manifesting themselves amongst his countrymen,
   ever most sensitive to ridicule. He also strove to reform the
   Church: he delineated the Apostolic Church as a model upon
   which he would build up that of Florence. … By this time,
   the intelligence of his doings, and the gist of his preaching
   and writing, which had been carefully transmitted to Rome by
   his enemies, began to attract the attention of the Pope,
   Alexander VI., who tried what had frequently proved an
   infallible remedy, and offered Savonarola a Cardinal's hat,
   which he at once refused. He was then invited to Rome, but
   thought it prudent to excuse himself. When the controversy
   between him and the Pope appeared to approach a crisis,
   Savonarola took a step which somewhat hurried the catastrophe.
   He wrote to the Kings of France and Spain, and the Emperor of
   Germany, to call a General Council to take into consideration
   the Reform of the Church. One of these letters reached the
   Pope, through a spy of Duke Ludovico Moro, of Milan, whom
   Savonarola had denounced. The result was the issue of a Breve
   (October, 1496), which forbade him to preach. The Pope then
   ordered the Congregation of St. Mark to be broken up and
   amalgamated with another. For a time Savonarola, at the advice
   of his friends, remained quiet; but at this last step, to
   break up the institution he had established, he was aroused to
   action. He denounced Rome as the source of all the poison
   which was undermining the constitution of the Church; declared
   that its evil fame stunk in men's nostrils. The Pope then
   applied to the Signori to deliver up this enemy of the Church,
   but to no purpose. The Franciscans were ordered to preach
   against him, but they made no impression. Then came the last
   thunderbolt: a Bann was issued (12th May, 1497), which was
   announced by the Franciscans. During the time of his
   suspension and his excommunication, many things happened which
   tended to his downfall, although his friends gathered round him,
   the rapid change of ministry brought in turn friends of the
   Medici to the helm; they introduced the young, Compagnacci
   into the Council, and gradually his enemies were increasing in
   the Government to a strong party." The fickle Florentine mob
   now took sides with them against the monk whom it had recently
   adored, and on the 7th of April, 1498, in the midst of a
   raging tumult, Savonarola was taken into custody by the
   Signori of the city. With the assent of the Pope, he was
   subjected seven times to torture upon the rack, to force from
   him a recantation of all that he had taught and preached, and
   on the 23d of May he was hanged and burned, in company with
   two of his disciples.

      _O. T. Hill,
      Introduction to Savonarola's "Triumph of the Cross."_

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Villari,
      History of Savonarola and his times._

      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Florence._

      _H. H. Milman,
      Savonarola, Erasmus, and other Essays._

      _George Eliot,
      Romola._

      _H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      volume 1, chapters 3-4._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1494-1509.
   The French deliverance of Pisa and the long war of reconquest.

      See PISA: A. D. 1404-1509.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.
   Threatened by the Medici, on one side,
   and Cæsar Borgia on the other.
   A new division of parties.

   "After the death of Savonarola things changed with such a
   degree of rapidity that the Arrabbiati had not time to
   consider in what manner they could restrict the government;
   but they soon became convinced that the only salvation for the
   Republic was to adopt the course which had been recommended by
   the Friar. Piero and Giuliano dei Medici were in fact already
   in the neighbourhood of Florence, supported by a powerful
   Venetian army. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary for
   the Arrabbiati to unite with the Piagnoni, in order to defend
   themselves against so many dangers and so many enemies.
{1146}
   By great good fortune, the Duke of Milan, from jealousy of the
   Venetians, came to their assistance to ward off the danger;
   but who could trust to his friendship—who could place any
   reliance on his fidelity? As to Alexander Borgia, he who had
   held out such great hopes, and had made so many promises, in
   order to get Savonarola put to death, no sooner was his object
   attained than he gave full sway to his unbridled passions. It
   seemed as if the death of the poor Friar had released both the
   Pope and his son, Duke Valentino, from all restraints upon
   their lusts and ambition. The Pope formed intimate alliances
   with Turks and Jews, a thing hitherto unheard of. He, in one
   year, set up twelve cardinals' hats for sale. The history of
   the incests and murders of the family of Borgia is too well
   known to render it necessary for us to enter into any detailed
   account of them here. The great object of the Pope was to form
   a State for his son in the Romagna; and so great was the
   ambition of Duke Valentino, that he contemplated extending his
   power over the whole of Italy, Tuscany being the first part he
   meant to seize upon. With that view he was always endeavouring
   to create new dangers to the Republic; at one time he caused
   Arezzo to rise against it; at another time he threatened to
   bring back Piero de' Medici; and he was continually ravaging
   their territory. The consequence was, that the Florentines
   were obliged to grant him an annual subsidy of 36,000 ducats,
   under the name of condotta (military pay); but even that did
   not restrain him from every now and then, under various
   pretexts, overrunning and laying waste their territory. Thus
   did Alexander Borgia fulfil those promises to the Republic by
   which they had been induced to murder Savonarola. The
   Arrabbiati were at length convinced that to defend themselves
   against the Medici and Borgia, their only course was to
   cultivate the alliance with France, and unite in good faith
   with the Piagnoni. Thus they completely adopted the line of
   policy which Savonarola had advised; and the consequence was,
   that their affairs got order and their exertions were attended
   with a success far beyond what could have been anticipated."

      _P. Villari,
      History of Savonarola and of his Times,
      volume 2, conclusion._

   "A new division of parties may be said to have taken place
   under the three denominations of 'Palleschi' [a name derived
   from the watchword of the Mediceans, 'palle, palle,' which
   alluded to the well-known balls in the coat of arms of the
   Medici family], 'Ottimati,' and 'Popolani.' The first … were
   for the Medici and themselves. … The 'Ottomati' were in
   eager search for a sort of visionary government where a few of
   the noblest blood, the most illustrious connexions and the
   greatest riches, were to rule Florence without any regard to
   the Medici. … The Popolani, who formed the great majority,
   loved civic liberty, therefore were constantly watching the
   Medici and other potent and ambitious men."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book. 2, chapter 8 (volume 4)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.
   Ten years under Piero Soderini.
   Restoration of the Medici and their second expulsion.
   Siege of the city by the imperial army.
   Final surrender to Medicean tyranny.
   Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

   "In 1502, it was decreed that the Gonfalonier should hold
   office for life—should be in fact a Doge. To this important
   post of permanent president Piero Soderini was appointed; and
   in his hands were placed the chief affairs of the republic.
   … During the ten years which elapsed between 1502 and 1512,
   Piero Soderini administered Florence with an outward show of
   great prosperity. He regained Pisa, and maintained an
   honourable foreign policy in the midst of the wars stirred up
   by the League of Cambray. Meanwhile the young princes of the
   house of Medici had grown to manhood in exile. The Cardinal
   Giovanni was 37 in 1512. His brother Giuliano was 33. Both of
   these men were better fitted than their brother Piero to fight
   the battles of the family. Giovanni, in particular, had
   inherited no small portion of the Medicean craft. During the
   troubled reign of Julius II. he kept very quiet, cementing his
   connection with powerful men in Rome, but making no effort to
   regain his hold on Florence. Now the moment for striking a
   decisive blow had come. After the battle of Ravenna in 1512,
   the French were driven out of Italy, and the Sforzas returned
   to Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513]; the Spanish troops,
   under the Viceroy Cardona, remained masters of the country.
   Following the camp of these Spaniards, Giovanni de' Medici
   entered Tuscany in August, and caused the restoration of the
   Medici to be announced in Florence. The people, assembled by
   Soderini, resolved to resist to the uttermost. … Yet their
   courage failed on August 29th, when news reached them of the
   capture and the sack of Prato. Prato is a sunny little city a
   few miles distant from the walls of Florence, famous for the
   beauty of its women, the richness of its gardens, and the
   grace of its buildings. Into this gem of cities the savage
   soldiery of Spain marched in the bright autumnal weather, and
   turned the paradise into a hell. It is even now impossible to
   read of what they did in Prato without shuddering. Cruelty and
   lust, sordid greed for gold, and cold delight in bloodshed,
   could go no further. Giovanni de' Medici, by nature mild and
   voluptuous, averse to violence of all kinds, had to smile
   approval, while the Spanish Viceroy knocked thus with mailed
   hand for him at the door of Florence. The Florentines were
   paralysed with terror. They deposed Soderini and received the
   Medici. Giovanni and Giuliano entered their devastated palace
   in the Via Larga, abolished the Grand Council, and dealt with
   the republic as they listed. … It is not likely that they
   would have succeeded in maintaining their authority—for they
   were poor and ill-supported by friends outside the
   city—except for one most lucky circumstance: that was the
   election of Giovanni de' Medici to the Papacy in 1513. The
   creation of Leo X. spread satisfaction throughout Italy. …
   Florence shared in the general rejoicing. … It seemed as
   though the Republic, swayed by him, might make herself the
   first city in Italy, and restore the glories of her Guelf
   ascendency upon the platform of Renaissance statecraft. There
   was now no overt opposition to the Medici in Florence. How to
   govern the city from Rome, and how to advance the fortunes of
   his brother Giuliano and his nephew Lorenzo (Piero's son, a
   young man of 21), occupied the Pope's most serious attention.
   For Lorenzo, Leo obtained the Duchy of Urbino and the hand of
   a French princess. Giuliano was named Gonfalonier of the
   Church. He also received the French title of Duke of Nemours
   and the hand of Filiberta, Princess of Savoy. …
{1147}
   Giulio, the Pope's bastard cousin, was made cardinal. … To
   Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the titular head of the family, was
   committed the government of Florence. … Florence now for the
   first time saw a regular court established in her midst, with
   a prince, who, though he bore a foreign title, was in fact her
   master. The joyous days of Lorenzo the Magnificent returned.
   … But this prosperity was no less brief than it was
   brilliant. A few years sufficed to sweep off all the chiefs of
   the great house. Giuliano died in 1516, leaving only a bastard
   son, Ippolito. Lorenzo died in 1519, leaving a bastard son,
   Alessandro, and a daughter, six days old, who lived to be the
   Queen of France. Leo died in 1521. There remained now no
   legitimate male descendants from the stock of Cosimo. The
   honours and pretensions of the Medici devolved upon three
   bastards,—on the Cardinal Giulio, and the two boys,
   Alessandro and Ippolito. Of these, Alessandro was a mulatto,
   his mother having been a Moorish slave in the Palace of
   Urbino; and whether his father was Giulio, or Giuliano, or a
   base groom, was not known for certain. To such extremities
   were the Medici reduced. … Giulio de' Medici was left in
   1521 to administer the State of Florence single-handed. He was
   archbishop, and he resided in the city, holding it with the
   grasp of an absolute ruler. … In 1523, the Pope, Adrian VI.,
   expired after a short papacy, from which he gained no honour
   and Italy no profit. Giulio hurried to Rome, and, by the
   clever use of his large influence, caused himself to be
   elected with the title of Clement VII." Then followed the
   strife of France and Spain—of Francis I. and Charles V.—for
   the possession of Italy, and the barbarous sack of Rome in
   1527.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527, and 1527-1529.

   "When the Florentines knew what was happening in Rome, they
   rose and forced the Cardinal Passerini [whom the Pope had
   appointed to act as his vicegerent in the government of
   Florence] to depart with the Medicean bastards from the city.
   … The whole male population was enrolled in a militia. The
   Grand Council was reformed, and the republic was restored upon
   the basis of 1495. Niccolo Capponi was elected Gonfalonier.
   The name of Christ was again registered as chief of the
   commonwealth—to such an extent did the memory of Savonarola
   still sway the popular imagination. The new State hastened to
   form an alliance with France, and Malatesta Baglioni was
   chosen as military Commander-in-Chief. Meanwhile the city
   armed itself for siege—Michel Angelo Buonarroti and
   Francesco da San Gallo undertaking the construction of new
   forts and ramparts. These measures were adopted with sudden
   decision, because it was soon known that Clement had made
   peace with the Emperor, and that the army which had sacked
   Rome was going to be marched on Florence. … On September 4
   [1529], the Prince of Orange appeared before the walls, and
   opened the memorable siege. It lasted eight months, at the end
   of which time, betrayed by their generals, divided among
   themselves, and worn out with delays, the Florentines
   capitulated. … The long yoke of the Medici had undermined
   the character of the Florentines. This, their last glorious
   struggle for liberty, was but a flash in the pan—a final
   flare up of the dying lamp. … What remains of Florentine
   history may be briefly told. Clement, now the undisputed
   arbiter of power and honour in the city, chose Alessandro de'
   Medici to be prince. Alessandro was created Duke of Cività di
   Penna, and married to a natural daughter of Charles V.
   Ippolito was made a cardinal." Ippolito was subsequently
   poisoned by Alessandro, and Alessandro was murdered by another
   kinsman, who suffered assassination in his turn. "When
   Alessandro was killed in 1539, Clement had himself been dead
   five years. Thus the whole posterity of Cosimo de' Medici,
   with the exception of Catherine, Queen of France [daughter of
   Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the son of Piero de' Medici], was
   utterly extinguished. But the Medici had struck root so firmly
   in the State, and had so remodelled it upon the type of
   tyranny, that the Florentines were no longer able to do
   without them. The chiefs of the Ottimati selected Cosimo," a
   descendant from Lorenzo, brother of the Cosimo who founded the
   power of the House. "He it was who obtained [1569] the title
   of Grand Duke of Tuscany from the Pope—a title confirmed by
   the Emperor, fortified by Austrian alliances, and transmitted
   through his heirs to the present century."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Sketches and studies in Italy,
      chapter 5 (Florence and the Medici)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapters 8-15 (volumes 1-2)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 9, chapter 10, book 10 (volume 4)._

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      volumes 4-5._

      _W. Roscoe,
      Life and Pontificate of Leo X,
      chapters 9-23 (volumes 1-2)._

      _P. Villari,
      Machiavelli and his Times,
      volumes 3-4_.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1803.
   Becomes the capital of the kingdom of Etruria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1865.
   Made temporarily the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

----------FLORENCE: End----------

FLORIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276.

FLORIDA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES;
      MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; SEMINOLES; TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1512.
   Discovery and Naming by Ponce de Leon.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
   The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
   Wide Spanish application of the name Florida.

   "The voyages of Garay [1519-1523] and Vasquez de Ayllon
   [1520-1526] threw new light on the discoveries of Ponce, and
   the general outline of the coasts of Florida became known to
   the Spaniards. Meanwhile, Cortes had conquered Mexico, and the
   fame of that iniquitous but magnificent exploit rang through
   all Spain. Many an impatient cavalier burned to achieve a
   kindred fortune. To the excited fancy of the Spaniards the
   unknown land of Florida seemed the seat of surpassing wealth,
   and Pamphilo de Narvaez essayed to possess himself of its
   fancied treasures. Landing on its shores [1528], and
   proclaiming destruction to the Indians unless they
   acknowledged the sovereignty of the Pope and the Emperor, he
   advanced into the forests with 300 men. Nothing could exceed
   their sufferings. Nowhere could they find the gold they came
   to seek. The village of Appalache, where they hoped to gain a
   rich booty, offered nothing but a few mean wigwams. The horses
   gave out and the famished soldiers fed upon their flesh.
{1148}
   The men sickened, and the Indians unceasingly harassed their
   march. At length, after 280 leagues of wandering, they found
   themselves on the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and
   desperately put to sea in such crazy boats as their skill and
   means could construct. Cold, disease, famine, thirst, and the
   fury of the waves, melted them away. Narvaez himself perished,
   and of his wretched followers no more than four escaped,
   reaching by land, after years of vicissitude, the Christian
   settlements of New Spain. … Cabeça de Vaca was one of the
   four who escaped, and, after living for years among the tribes
   of Mississippi, crossed the River Mississippi near Memphis,
   journeyed westward by the waters of the Arkansas and Red River
   to New Mexico and Chihuahua, thence to Cinaloa on the Gulf of
   California, and thence to Mexico. The narrative is one of the
   most remarkable of the early relations. … The interior of
   the vast country then comprehended under the name of Florida
   still remained unexplored. … Hernando de Soto … companion
   of Pizarro in the conquest of Peru … asked and obtained
   permission [1537] to conquer Florida. While this design was in
   agitation, Cabeça de Vaca, one of those who had survived the
   expedition of Narvaez, appeared in Spain, and for purposes of
   his own spread abroad the mischievous falsehood that Florida
   was the richest country yet discovered. De Soto's plans were
   embraced with enthusiasm. Nobles and gentlemen contended for
   the privilege of joining his standard; and, setting sail with
   an ample armament, he landed [May, 1539] at the Bay of
   Espiritu Santo, now Tampa Bay, in Florida, with 620 chosen
   men, a band as gallant and well appointed, as eager in purpose
   and audacious in hope, as ever trod the shores of the New
   World. … The adventurers began their march. Their story has
   been often told. For month after month and year after year,
   the procession of priests and cavaliers, cross-bowmen,
   arquebusiers, and Indian captives laden with the baggage,
   still wandered on through wild and boundless wastes, lured
   hither and thither by the ignis-fatuus of their hopes. They
   traversed great portions of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi,
   everywhere inflicting and enduring misery, but never
   approaching their phantom El Dorado. At length, in the third
   year of their journeying, they reached the banks of the
   Mississippi, 132 years before its second [or third?] discovery
   by Marquette. … The Spaniards crossed over at a point above
   the mouth of the Arkansas. They advanced westward, but found
   no treasures,—nothing indeed but hardships, and an Indian
   enemy, furious, writes one of their officers, 'as mad dogs.'
   They heard of a country towards the north where maize could
   not be cultivated because the vast herds of wild cattle
   devoured it. They penetrated so far that they entered the
   range of the roving prairie-tribes. … Finding neither gold
   nor the South Sea, for both of which they had hoped, they
   returned to the banks of the Mississippi. De Soto … fell
   into deep dejection, followed by an attack of fever, and soon
   after died miserably [May 21, 1542]. To preserve his body from
   the Indians his followers sunk it at midnight in the river,
   and the sullen waters of the Mississippi buried his ambition
   and his hopes. The adventurers were now, with few exceptions,
   disgusted with the enterprise, and longed only to escape from
   the scene of their miseries. After a vain attempt to reach
   Mexico by land, they again turned back to the Mississippi, and
   labored, with all the resources which their desperate
   necessity could suggest, to construct vessels in which they
   might make their way to some Christian settlement. … Seven
   brigantines were finished and launched; and, trusting their
   lives on board these frail vessels, they descended the
   Mississippi, running the gauntlet between hostile tribes who
   fiercely attacked them. Reaching the Gulf, though not without
   the loss of eleven of their number, they made sail for the
   Spanish settlement on the River Panuco, where they arrived
   safely, and where the inhabitants met them with a cordial
   welcome. Three hundred and eleven men thus escaped with life,
   leaving behind them the bones of their comrades, strewn
   broadcast through the wilderness. De Soto's fate proved an
   insufficient warning, for those were still found who begged a
   fresh commission for the conquest of Florida; but the Emperor
   would not hear them. A more pacific enterprise was undertaken
   by Cancello [or Cancer], a Dominican monk, who with several
   brother-ecclesiastics undertook to convert the natives to the
   true faith, but was murdered in the attempt. … Not a
   Spaniard had yet gained foothold in Florida. That name, as the
   Spaniards of that day understood it, comprehended the whole
   country extending from the Atlantic on the east to the
   longitude of New Mexico on the west, and from the Gulf of
   Mexico and the River of Palms indefinitely northward towards
   the polar Sea. This vast territory was claimed by Spain in
   right of the discoveries of Columbus, the grant of the Pope,
   and the various expeditions mentioned above. England claimed
   it in light of the discoveries of Cabot, while France could
   advance no better title than might be derived from the voyage
   of Verrazano and vague traditions of earlier visits of Breton
   adventurers."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Irving,
      Conquest of Florida by De Soto._

      _Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida;
      written by a Gentleman of Elvas (Hakluyt Society)._

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
      chapters 1-4._

      _J. G. Shea,
      Ancient Florida (Narrative and Critical
      History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 4)._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
   First colonizing attempt of the French Huguenots.

   About the middle of the 16th century, certain of the
   Protestants of France began to turn their thoughts to the New
   World as a possible place of refuge from the persecutions they
   were suffering at home. "Some of the French sea-ports became
   strong-holds of the Huguenots. Their most prominent supporter,
   Coligny, was high admiral of France. These Huguenots looked
   toward the new countries as the proper field in which to
   secure a retreat from persecution, and to found a new
   religious commonwealth. Probably many of the French
   'corsarios' following the track of the Portuguese and
   Spaniards to the West Indies and the coasts of Brazil, were
   Huguenots. … The first scheme for a Protestant colony in the
   new world was suggested by Admiral Coligny in 1554, and intended
   for the coast of Brazil, to which an expedition, under Durand
   de Villegagnon, was sent with ships and colonists. This
   expedition arrived at the Bay of Rio de Janeiro in 1555,
   and founded there the first European settlement.
{1149}
   It was followed the next year by another expedition. But the
   whole enterprise came to an end by divisions among the
   colonists, occasioned by the treacherous, despotic, and cruel
   proceedings of its commander, a reputed Catholic. The colony
   was finally subverted by the Portuguese, who, in 1560, sent
   out an armament against it, and took possession of the Bay of
   Rio de Janeiro. … After the unfortunate end of the French
   enterprise to South America, Admiral Coligny, who may be
   styled the Raleigh of France, turned his attention to the
   eastern shores of North America; the whole of which had become
   known in France from the voyage of Verrazano, and the French
   expeditions to Canada and the Banks of Newfoundland." In
   February, 1562, an expedition, fitted out by Coligny, sailed
   from Havre de Grace, under Jean Ribault, with Réné de
   Laudonnière forming one of the company. Ribault arrived on the
   Florida coast in the neighborhood of the present harbor of St.
   Augustine, and thence sailed north. "At last, in about 32° 30'
   North he found an excellent broad and deep harbor, which he
   named Port Royal, which probably is the present Broad River,
   or Port Royal entrance. … He found this port and the
   surrounding country so advantageous and of such 'singular
   beauty,' that he resolved to leave here a part of his men in a
   small fort. … A pillar with the arms of France was therefore
   erected, and a fort constructed, furnished with cannon,
   ammunition, and provisions, and named 'Charlesfort.' Thirty
   volunteers were placed in it, and it became the second
   European settlement ever attempted upon the east coast of the
   United States. Its position was probably not far from the site
   of the present town of Beaufort, on Port Royal River. Having
   accomplished this, and made a certain captain, Albert de la
   Pieria, 'a soldier of great experience,' commander of
   Charlesfort, he took leave of his countrymen, and left Port
   Royal on the 11th day of June," arriving in France on the 20th
   of July. "On his arrival in France, Ribault found the country
   in a state of great commotion. The civil war between the
   Huguenots and the Catholics was raging, and neither the king
   nor the admiral had time to listen to Ribault's solicitations,
   to send relief to the settlers left in 'French Florida.' Those
   colonists remained, therefore, during the remainder of 1562,
   and the following winter, without assistance from France; and
   after many trials and sufferings, they were at last forced, in
   1563, to abandon their settlement and the new country." Having
   constructed a ship, with great difficulty, they put to sea;
   but suffered horribly on the tedious voyage, from want of food
   and water, until they were rescued by an English vessel and
   taken to England.

      J_. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection,
      2d series, volume 1), chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World,
      chapter 3._

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of New France;
      translated by J. G. Shea,
      book 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. E. V. Smith,
      Villegaignon
      (American Society of Church History, volume 3)._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1564-1565.
   The second Huguenot colony, and the cry in Spain against it.

   "After the treacherous peace between Charles IX. and the
   Huguenots, Coligny renewed his solicitations for the
   colonization of Florida. The king gave consent; in 1564 three
   ships were conceded for the service; and Laudonnière, who, in
   the former voyage, had been upon the American coast, a man of
   great intelligence, though a seaman rather than a soldier, was
   appointed to lead forth the colony. … A voyage of 60 days
   brought the fleet, by the way of the Canaries and the
   Antilles, to the shores of Florida in June. The harbor of Port
   Royal, rendered gloomy by recollections of misery, was
   avoided; and, after searching the coast, and discovering
   places which were so full of amenity that melancholy itself
   could not but change its humor as it gazed, the followers of
   Calvin planted themselves on the banks of the river May [now
   called the St. John's], near St. John's bluff. They sung a
   psalm of thanksgiving, and gathered courage from acts of
   devotion. The fort now erected was called Carolina. … The
   French were hospitably welcomed by the natives; a monument,
   bearing the arms of France, was crowned with laurels, and its
   base encircled with baskets of corn. What need is there of
   minutely relating the simple manners of the red men, the
   dissensions of rival tribes, the largesses offered to the
   strangers to secure their protection or their alliance, the
   improvident prodigality with which careless soldiers wasted
   the supplies of food; the certain approach of scarcity; the
   gifts and the tribute levied from the Indians by entreaty,
   menace or force? By degrees the confidence of the red men was
   exhausted; they had welcomed powerful guests, who promised to
   become their benefactors, and who now robbed their humble
   granaries. But the worst evil in the new settlement was the
   character of the emigrants. Though patriotism and religious
   enthusiasm had prompted the expedition, the inferior class of
   the colonists was a motley group of dissolute men. Mutinies
   were frequent. The men were mad with the passion for sudden
   wealth; and in December a party, under the pretence of
   desiring to escape from famine, compelled Laudonnière to sign
   an order permitting their embarkation for New Spain. No sooner
   were they possessed of this apparent sanction of the chief
   than they began a career of piracy against the Spaniards. The
   act of crime and temerity was soon avenged. The pirate vessel
   was taken, and most of the men disposed of as prisoners or
   slaves. The few that escaped in a boat sought shelter at Fort
   Carolina, where Laudonnière sentenced the ringleaders to
   death. During these events the scarcity became extreme; and
   the friendship of the natives was forfeited by unprofitable
   severity. March of 1565 was gone, and there were no supplies
   from France; April passed away, and the expected recruits had
   not arrived; May brought nothing to sustain the hopes of the
   exiles, and they resolved to attempt a return to Europe. In
   August, Sir John Hawkins, the slave merchant, arrived from the
   West Indies. He came fresh from the sale of a cargo of
   Africans, whom he had kidnapped with signal ruthlessness; and
   he now displayed the most generous sympathy, not only
   furnishing a liberal supply of provisions, but relinquishing a
   vessel from his own fleet. The colony was on the point of
   embarking when sails were descried. Ribault had arrived to
   assume the command, bringing with him supplies of every kind,
   emigrants with their families, garden-seeds, implements of
   husbandry, and the various kinds of domestic animals. The
   French, now wild with joy, seemed about to acquire a home, and
   Calvinism to become fixed in the inviting regions of Florida.
{1150}
   But Spain had never abandoned her claim to that territory,
   where, if she had not planted colonies, she had buried many
   hundreds of her bravest sons. … There had appeared at the
   Spanish court a commander well fitted for reckless acts. Pedro
   Melendez [or Menendez] de Aviles … had acquired wealth in
   Spanish America, which was no school of benevolence, and his
   conduct there had provoked an inquiry, which, after a long
   arrest, ended in his conviction. … Philip II. suggested the
   conquest and colonization of Florida; and in May, 1565, a
   compact was framed and confirmed by which Melendez, who
   desired an opportunity to retrieve his honor, was constituted
   the hereditary governor of a territory of almost unlimited
   extent. On his part he stipulated, at his own cost, in the
   following May, to invade Florida with 500 men; to complete its
   conquest within three years; to explore its currents and
   channels, the dangers of its coasts, and the depth of its
   havens; to establish a colony of at least 500 persons, of whom
   100 should be married men; with 12 ecclesiastics, besides four
   Jesuits. … Meantime, news arrived, as the French writers
   assert through the treachery of the court of France, that the
   Huguenots had made a plantation in Florida, and that Ribault
   was preparing to set sail with re-enforcements. The cry was
   raised that the heretics must be extirpated; and Melendez
   readily obtained the forces which he required."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (author's last revision), part 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. R. Fairbanks,
      History of Florida,
      chapters 7-8._

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 1._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
   The Spanish capture of Fort Caroline and
   massacre of the Huguenots.
   Founding of St. Augustine.

   "The expedition under Menendez consisted of an army of 2,600
   soldiers and officers. He sailed straight for Florida,
   intending to attack Fort Caroline with no delay. In fact he
   sighted the mouth of the port [Sept. 4, 1565] two months after
   starting; but, considering the position occupied by the French
   ships, he judged it prudent to defer the attack, and make it,
   if possible, from the land. A council of war was held in Fort
   Caroline, presided over by Ribaut. Laudonnière proposed that,
   while Ribaut held the fort with the ships, he, with his old
   soldiers, who knew the country well, aided by the Floridans as
   auxiliaries, should engage the Spaniards in the woods, and
   harass them by perpetual combats in labyrinths to which they
   were wholly unaccustomed. The advice was good, but it was not
   followed. Ribaut proposed to follow the Spanish fleet with his
   own—lighter and more easily handled—fall on the enemy when
   the soldiers were all disembarked, and, after taking and
   burning the ships, to attack the army. In the face of
   remonstrances from all the officers, he persisted in this
   project. Disaster followed the attempt. A violent gale arose.
   The French ships were wrecked upon the Floridan coast; the men
   lost their arms, their powder, and their clothes; they escaped
   with their bare lives. There was no longer the question of
   conquering the Spaniards, but of saving themselves. The
   garrison of Caroline consisted of 150 soldiers, of whom 40
   were sick. The rest of the colony was composed of sick and
   wounded Protestant ministers, workmen, royal commissioners,'
   and so forth. Laudonnière was in command. They awaited the
   attack for several days, yet the Spaniards came not. They were
   wading miserably through the marshes in the forests, under
   tropical rains, discouraged, and out of heart." But when, at
   length, the exhausted and despairing Spaniards, toiling
   through the marshes, from St. Augustine, where they had landed
   and established their settlement, reached the French fort
   (Sept. 20), "there was actually no watch on the ramparts.
   Three companies of Spaniards simultaneously rushed from the
   forest, and attacked the fortress on the south, the west and
   the south-west. There was but little resistance from the
   surprised garrison. There was hardly time to grasp a sword.
   About 20 escaped by flight, including the Captain,
   Laudonnière; the rest were every one massacred. None were
   spared except women and children under fifteen; and, in the
   first rage of the onslaught, even these were murdered with the
   rest. There still lay in the port three ships, commanded by
   Jacques Ribaut, brother [son] of the unfortunate Governor. One
   of these was quickly sent to the bottom by the cannon of the
   fort; the other two cut their cables, and slipped out of reach
   into the roadstead, where they lay, waiting for a favourable
   wind, for three days. They picked up the fugitives who had
   been wandering half-starved in the woods, and then set sail
   from this unlucky land. … There remained, however, the
   little army, under Ribaut, which had lost most of its arms in
   the wreck, and was now wandering along the Floridan shore."
   When Ribaut and his men reached Fort Caroline and saw the
   Spanish flag flying, they turned and retreated southward. Not
   many days later, they were intercepted by Menendez, near St.
   Augustine, to which post he had returned. The first party of
   the French who came up, 200 in number, and who were in a
   starving state, surrendered to the Spaniard, and laid down
   their arms. "They were brought across the river in small
   companies, and their hands tied behind their backs. On
   landing, they were asked if they were Catholics. Eight out of
   the 200 professed allegiance to that religion; the rest were
   all Protestants.' Menendez traced out a line on the ground
   with his cane. The prisoners were marched up one by one to the
   line; on reaching it, they were stabbed. Next day, Ribaut
   arrived with the rest of the army. The same pourparlers began.
   But this time a blacker treachery was adopted." An officer,
   sent by Menendez, pledged his honor to the French that the
   lives of all should be spared if they laid down their arms.
   "It is not clear how many of the French accepted the
   conditions. A certain number refused them, and escaped into
   the woods. What is certain is, that Ribaut, with nearly all
   his men, were tied back to back, four together. Those who said
   they were Catholics, were set on one side; the rest were all
   massacred as they stood. … Outside the circle of the
   slaughtered and the slaughterers stood the priest, Mendoza,
   encouraging, approving, exhorting the butchers."

      _W. Besant,
      Gaspard de Coligny,
      chapter 7._

   The long dispatch in which Menendez reported his fiendish work
   to the Spanish king has been brought to light in the archives
   at Seville, and there is this endorsement on it, in the
   hand-writing of Philip II.: "Say to him that, as to those he
   has killed, he has done well; and as to those he has saved,
   they shall be sent to the galleys."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World,
      chapters 7-8._

{1151}

   ALSO IN:
   _C. W. Baird,
   History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
   volume 1, introduction._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568.
   The vengeance of Dominic de Gourgues.

   "As might have been expected, all attempts to rouse the French
   court into demanding redress were vain. Spain, above all other
   nations, knew the arts by which a corrupt court might be
   swayed, and the same intrigues which, fifty years later, sent
   Raleigh to the block and well-nigh ended the young colony of
   Virginia, now kept France quiet. But though the court refused
   to move, an avenger was not wanting. Dominic de Gourgues had
   already known as a prisoner of war the horrors of the Spanish
   galleys. Whether he was a Huguenot is uncertain. Happily in
   France, as the history of that and all later ages proved, the
   religion of the Catholic did not necessarily deaden the
   feelings of the patriot. Seldom has there been a deed of more
   reckless daring than that which Dominic de Gourgues now
   undertook. With the proceeds of his patrimony he bought three
   small ships, manned by eighty sailors and a hundred
   men-at-arms. He then obtained a commission as a slaver on the
   coast of Guinea, and in the summer of 1567 set sail. With
   these paltry resources he aimed at overthrowing a settlement
   which had already destroyed a force of twenty times his
   number, and which might have been strengthened in the
   interval. … To the mass of his followers he did not reveal
   the true secret of his voyage till he had reached the West
   Indies. Then he disclosed his real purpose. His men were of
   the same spirit as their leader. Desperate though the
   enterprise seemed, De Gourgues' only difficulty was to
   restrain his followers from undue haste. Happily for their
   attempt, they had allies on whom they had not reckoned. The
   fickle savages had at first welcomed the Spaniards, but the
   tyranny of the new comers soon wrought a change, and the
   Spaniards in Florida, like the Spaniards in every part of the
   New World, were looked on as hateful tyrants. So when De
   Gourgues landed he at once found a ready body of allies. …
   Three days were spent in making ready, and then De Gourgues,
   with a hundred and sixty of his own men and his Indian allies,
   marched against the enemy. In spite of the hostility of the
   Indians, the Spaniards seem to have taken no precaution
   against a sudden attack. Menendez himself had left the colony.
   The Spanish force was divided between three forts, and no proper
   precautions were taken for keeping up the communications
   between them. Each was successively seized, the garrison slain
   or made prisoners, and, as each fort fell, those in the next
   could only make vague guesses as to the extent of the danger.
   Even when divided into three the Spanish force outnumbered
   that of De Gourgues, and savages with bows and arrows would
   have counted for little against men with fire arms and behind
   walls. But after the downfall of the first fort a panic seemed
   to seize the Spaniards, and the French achieved an almost
   bloodless victory. After the death of Ribault and his
   followers nothing could be looked for but merciless
   retaliation, and De Gourgues copied the severity, though not
   the perfidy of his enemies. The very details of Menendez' act
   were imitated, and the trees on which the prisoners were hung
   bore the inscription: 'Not as Spaniards, but as traitors,
   robbers, and murderers.' Five weeks later De Gourgues anchored
   under the walls of Rochelle. … His attack did not wholly
   extirpate the Spanish power in Florida. Menendez received the
   blessing of the Pope as a chosen instrument for the conversion
   of the Indians, returned to America and restored his
   settlement. As before, he soon made the Indians his deadly
   enemies. The Spanish settlement held on, but it was not till
   two centuries later that its existence made itself remembered
   by one brief but glorious episode in the history of the
   English colonies."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Dewhurst,
      History of St. Augustine, Florida,
      chapter 9._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1628.
   Claimed by France, and placed, with New France, under the
   control of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1629.
   Claimed in part by England and embraced in the Carolina grant
   to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1680.
   Attack on the English of Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1702.
   Adjustment of western boundary with the French of Louisiana.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1740.
   Unsuccessful attack on St. Augustine by the English of Georgia
   and Carolina.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (February).
   Ceded to Great Britain by Spain in the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (July).
   Possession taken by the English.

   "When, in July [1763], possession was taken of Florida, its
   inhabitants, of every age and sex, men, women, children, and
   servants, numbered but 3,000; and, of these, the men were
   nearly all in the pay of the Catholic king. The possession of
   it had cost him nearly $230,000 annually; and now it was
   accepted by England as a compensation for Havana. Most of the
   people, receiving from the Spanish treasury indemnity for
   their losses, had migrated to Cuba, taking with them the bones
   of their saints and the ashes of their distinguished dead. The
   western province of Florida extended to the Mississippi, on
   the line of latitude of 31°. On the 20th of October, the
   French surrendered the post of Mobile, with its brick fort,
   which was fast crumbling to ruins. A month later, the slight
   stockade at Tombigbee, in the west of the Chocta country, was
   delivered up. In a congress of the Catawbas, Cherokees,
   Creeks, Chicasas, and Choctas, held on the 10th of November,
   at Augusta, the governors of Virginia and the colonies south
   of it were present, and the peace with the Indians of the
   South and South-west was ratified."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision.),
      volume 3, page 64._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (October).
   English provinces, East and West, constituted by the King's
   proclamation.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
      AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

{1152}

FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida by the Spanish commander at New
   Orleans.

   "In the summer of 1779 Spain had declared war against Great
   Britain. Galvez [the Spanish commander at New Orleans]
   discovered that the British were planning the surprise of New
   Orleans, and, under cover of preparations for defense, made
   haste to take the offensive. Four days before the time he had
   appointed to move, a hurricane destroyed a large number of
   houses in the town, and spread ruin to crops and, dwellings up
   and down the 'coast,' and sunk his gun flotilla. … Repairing
   his disasters as best he could, and hastening his ostensibly
   defensive preparations, he marched, on the 22d of August,
   1779, against the British forts on the Mississippi. His …
   little army of 1,434 men was without tents, other military
   furniture, or a single engineer. The gun fleet followed in the
   river abreast of their line of march along its shores,
   carrying one 24-pounder, five 18-pounders, and four
   4-pounders. With this force, in the space of about three
   weeks, Fort Bute on bayou Manchac, Baton Rouge and Fort
   Panmure. 8 vessels, 556 regulars, and a number of sailors,
   militia-men, and free blacks, fell into the hands of the
   Spaniards. The next year, 1780, re-enforced from Havana,
   Galvez again left New Orleans by way of the Balize with 2,000
   men, regulars, militia, and free blacks, and on the 15th of
   March took Fort Charlotte on Mobile river. Galvez next
   conceived the much larger project of taking Pensacola. Failing
   to secure re-enforcements from Havana by writing for them, he
   sailed to that place in October, to make his application in
   person, intending to move with them directly on the enemy.
   After many delays and disappointments he succeeded, and early
   in March, 1781, appeared before Pensacola with a ship of the
   line, two frigates, and transports containing 1,400 soldiers
   well furnished with artillery and ammunition. Here he was
   joined by such troops as could be spared from Mobile, and by
   Don Estevan Mirò from New Orleans, at the head of the
   Louisiana forces, and on the afternoon of the 16th of March,
   though practically unsupported by the naval fleet, until
   dishonor was staring its jealous commanders in the face, moved
   under hot fire, through a passage of great peril, and took up
   a besieging position. … It is only necessary to state that,
   on the 9th of May, 1781, Pensacola, with a garrison of 800
   men, and the whole of West Florida, were surrendered to
   Galvez. Louisiana had heretofore been included under one
   domination with Cuba, but now one of the several rewards
   bestowed upon her governor was the captain-generalship of
   Louisiana and West Florida."

      _G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
      History of New Orleans
      (United States Tenth Census, volume 19)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Gayarré,
      History of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,
      chapter 3._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   The question of boundaries between Spain and the United
   States, and the question of the navigation of the Mississippi.

   "By the treaty of 1783 between Great Britain on the one part
   and the United States and her allies, France and Spain, on the
   other, Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the
   colonies, and recognized as a part of their southern boundary
   a line drawn due east from a point in the Mississippi River,
   in latitude 31° north, to the middle of the Appalachicola; and
   at the same time she ceded to Spain by a separate agreement
   the two Floridas, but without defining their northern
   boundaries. This omission gave rise to a dispute between Spain
   and the United States as to their respective limits. On the
   part of Spain it was contended that by the act of Great
   Britain, of 1764, the northern boundary of West Florida had
   been fixed at the line running due east from the mouth of the
   Yazoo to the Chattahoochee, and that all south of that line
   had been ceded to her; whilst on the other hand, the United
   States as strenuously maintained that the act fixing and
   enlarging the limits of West Florida was superseded by the
   recent treaty, which extended their southern boundary to the
   31st degree of north latitude, a hundred and ten miles further
   south than the line claimed by Spain. Spain, however, had
   possession of the disputed territory by right of conquest, and
   evidently had no intention of giving it up. She strengthened
   her garrisons at Baton Rouge and Natchez, and built a fort at
   Vicksburg, and subsequently one at New Madrid, on the Missouri
   side of the Mississippi, just below the mouth of the Ohio; and
   of the latter she made a port of entry where vessels from the
   Ohio were obliged to land and declare their cargoes. She even
   denied the right of the United States to the region between
   the Mississippi and the Alleghany Mountains, which had been
   ceded to them by Great Britain, on the ground that the
   conquests made by Governor Galvez, of West Florida, and by Don
   Eugenio Pierre, of Fort St. Joseph, 'near the sources of the
   Illinois,' had vested the title to all this country in her;
   and she insisted that what she did not own was possessed by
   the Indians, and could not therefore belong to the United
   States. Even as late as 1795, she claimed to have bought from
   the Chickasaws the bluffs which bear their name, and which are
   situated on the east bank of the Mississippi some distance
   north of the most northerly boundary ever assigned by Great
   Britain to West Florida. Here, then, was cause for 'a very
   pretty quarrel,' and to add to the ill feeling which grew out
   of it, Spain denied the right of the people of the United
   States to the 'free navigation of the Mississippi,'—a right
   which had been conceded to them by Great Britain with all the
   formalities with which she had received it from France. …
   What was needed to make the right of any value to the people
   of the Ohio valley was the additional right to take their
   produce into a Spanish port, New Orleans, and either sell it
   then and there, or else store it, subject to certain
   conditions, until such time as it suited them to transfer it
   to sea-going vessels. This right Spain would not concede; and
   as the people of the Ohio valley were determined to have it,
   cost what it might, it brought on a series of intrigues
   between the Spanish governors of Louisiana and certain
   influential citizens west of the Alleghanies which threatened
   the stability of the American Union almost before it was
   formed."

      _L. Carr,
      Missouri,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      chapter 6._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
   Continued occupation of West Florida by the Spaniards.
   Revolt of the inhabitants.
   Possession taken by the Americans from the Mississippi to the
   Perdido.

   "The success of the French in Spain, and the probability of
   that kingdom being obliged to succumb, had given occasion to
   revolutionary movements in several of the Spanish American
   provinces. This example … had been followed also in that
   portion of the Spanish province of West Florida bordering on
   the Mississippi. The inhabitants, most of whom were of British
   or American birth, had seized the fort at Baton Rouge, had met
   in convention, and had proclaimed themselves independent,
   adopting a single star for their flag, the same symbol
   afterward assumed by the republic of Texas.
{1153}
   Some struggles took place between the adherents of the Spanish
   connection and these revolutionists, who were also threatened
   with attack from Mobile, still held by a Spanish garrison. In
   this emergency they applied, through Holmes, governor of the
   Mississippi Territory, for aid and recognition by the United
   States. … The president, however, preferred to issue a
   proclamation, taking possession of the east bank of the
   Mississippi, occupation of which, under the Louisiana treaty,
   had been so long delayed, not, it was said, from any defect of
   title, but out of conciliatory views toward Spain. …
   Claiborne, governor of the Orleans Territory, then at
   Washington, was dispatched post-haste to take possession." The
   following January Congress passed an act in secret session
   "authorizing the president to take possession as well of East
   as of West Florida, under any arrangement which had been or
   might be entered into with the local authorities; or, in case
   of any attempted occupation by any foreign government, to take
   and to maintain possession by force. Previously to the passage
   of this act, the occupation of the east bank of the
   Mississippi had been already completed by Governor Claiborne;
   not, however, without some show of resistance. … Captain
   Gaines presently appeared before Mobile with a small
   detachment of American regulars, and demanded its surrender.
   Colonel Cushing soon arrived from New Orleans with several
   gun-boats, artillery, and a body of troops. The boats were
   permitted to ascend the river toward Fort Stoddard without
   opposition. But the Spanish commandant refused to give up
   Mobile, and no attempt was made to compel him." By an act of
   Congress passed in April, 1812, "that part of Florida recently
   taken possession of, as far east as Pearl River, was annexed to
   the new state [of Louisiana]. The remaining territory, as far
   as the Perdido, though Mobile still remained in the hands of
   the Spaniards, was annexed, by another act, to the Mississippi
   Territory." A year later, in April, 1813, General Wilkinson
   was instructed to take possession of Mobile, and to occupy all
   the territory claimed, to the Perdido, which he accordingly
   did, without bloodshed.

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States, 2d series,
      chapters 23, 24, 26 (volume 3)._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
   The fugitive negroes and the first Seminole War.
   Jackson's campaign.

   "The tranquillity of Monroe's administration was soon
   seriously threatened by the renewal of trouble with the
   Southern Indians [the Seminoles, and the refugee Creeks]. …
   The origin of the difficulty was twofold: first, the injustice
   which has always marked the treatment of Indian tribes whose
   lands were coveted by the whites; and secondly, the revival of
   the old grievance, that Florida was a refuge for the fugitive
   slaves of Georgia and South Carolina. … The Seminoles had
   never withheld a welcome to the Georgia negro who preferred
   their wild freedom to the lash of an overseer on a cotton or
   rice plantation. The Georgians could never forget that the
   grand-children of their grandfathers' fugitive slaves were
   roaming about the Everglades of Florida. … So long as there
   were Seminoles in Florida, and so long as Florida belonged to
   Spain, just so long would the negroes of Georgia find an
   asylum in Florida with the Seminoles. … A war with the
   Indians of Florida, therefore, was always literally and
   emphatically a slave-hunt. A reclamation for fugitives was
   always repulsed by the Seminoles and the Spaniards, and, as
   they could be redeemed in no other way, Georgia was always
   urging the Federal Government to war."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 10._

   During the War of 1812-14, the English, who were permitted by
   Spain to make use of Florida with considerable freedom, and
   who received no little assistance from the refugee negroes and
   Creek Indians, "had built a fort on the Appalachicola River,
   about 15 miles from its mouth, and had collected there an
   immense amount of arms and ammunition. … When the war ended,
   the English left the arms and ammunition in the fort. The
   negroes seized the fort, and it became known as the 'Negro
   Fort.' The authorities of the United States sent General
   Gaines to the Florida frontier with troops, to establish peace
   on the border. The Negro Fort was a source of anxiety both to
   the military authorities and to the slave-owners of Georgia,"
   and a pretext was soon found—whether valid or not seems
   uncertain—for attacking it. "A hot shot penetrated one of the
   magazines, and the whole fort was blown to pieces, July 27, 1816.
   There were 300 negro men, women and children, and 20 Choctaws
   in the fort; 270 were killed. Only three came out unhurt, and
   these were killed by the allied Indians. … During 1817 there
   were frequent collisions on the frontiers between Whites and
   Indians. … On the 20th of November, General Gaines sent a
   force of 250 men to Fowltown, the headquarters of the chief of
   the 'Redsticks,' or hostile Creeks. They approached the town
   in the early morning, and were fired on. An engagement
   followed. The town was taken and burned. … The Indians of
   that section, after this, began general hostilities, attacked
   the boats which were ascending the Appalachicola, and
   massacred the persons in them. … In December, on receipt of
   intelligence of the battle at Fowltown and the attack on the
   boats, Jackson was ordered to take command in Georgia. He
   wrote to President Monroe: 'Let it be signified to me through
   any channel (say Mr. J. Rhea) that the possession of the
   Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty
   days it will be accomplished.' Much was afterwards made to
   depend on this letter. Monroe was ill when it reached
   Washington, and he did not see or read it until a year
   afterwards, when some reference was made to it. Jackson
   construed the orders which he received from Calhoun with
   reference to this letter. … He certainly supposed, however,
   that he had the secret concurrence of the administration in
   conquering Florida. … He advanced through Georgia with great
   haste and was on the Florida frontier in March, 1818. He …
   immediately advanced to St. Mark's, which place he captured.
   On his way down the Appalachicola he found the Indians and
   negroes at work in the fields, and unconscious of any
   impending attack. Some of them fled to St. Mark's. His theory,
   in which he supposed that he was supported by the
   administration, was that he was to pursue the Indians until he
   caught them, wherever they might go; that he was to respect
   Spanish rights as far as he could consistently with that
   purpose; and that the excuse for his proceedings was that
   Spain could not police her own territory, or restrain the
   Indians.
{1154}
   Jackson's proceedings were based on two positive but arbitrary
   assumptions: (1) That the Indians got aid and encouragement
   from St. Mark's and Pensacola. (This the Spaniards always
   denied, but perhaps a third assumption of Jackson might be
   mentioned: that the word of a Spanish official was of no
   value.) (2) That Great Britain kept paid emissaries employed
   in Florida to stir up trouble for the United States. This
   latter assumption was a matter of profound belief generally in
   the United States." Acting upon it with no hesitation, Jackson
   caused a Scotch trader named Arbuthnot, whom he found at St.
   Mark's, and an English ex-lieutenant of marines, Ambrister by
   name, who was taken prisoner among the Seminoles, to be
   condemned by court martial and executed, although no
   substantial evidence of their being in any way answerable for
   Indian hostilities was adduced. "It was as a mere incident of
   his homeward march that Jackson turned aside and captured
   Pensacola, May 24, 1818, because he was told that some Indians
   had taken refuge there. He deposed the Spanish government, set
   up a new one, and established a garrison. He then continued
   his march homewards. "Jackson's performances in Florida were
   the cause of grave perplexities to his government, which
   finally determined "that Pensacola and St. Mark's should be
   restored to Spain, but that Jackson's course should be
   approved and defended on the grounds that he pursued his enemy
   to his refuge, and that Spain could not do the duty which
   devolved on her."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a public man,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 2, chapters 31-39._

      _J. R. Giddings,
      The Exiles of Florida,
      chapters 1-4._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.
   Cession by Spain to the United States.

   "Jackson's vigorous proceedings in Florida would seem not to
   have been without effect. Pending the discussion in Congress
   on his conduct, the Spanish minister, under new instructions
   from home, signed a treaty for the cession of Florida, in
   extinction of the various American claims, for the
   satisfaction of which the United States agreed to pay to the
   claimants $5,000,000. The Louisiana boundary, as fixed by this
   treaty, was a compromise between the respective offers
   heretofore made, though leaning a good deal to the American
   side: the Sabine to the 32d degree of north latitude; thence a
   north meridian line to the Red River; the course of that river
   to the 100th degree of longitude east [? west] from Greenwich;
   thence north by that meridian to the Arkansas; up that river
   to its head, and to the 42d degree of north latitude; and
   along that degree to the Pacific. This treaty was immediately
   ratified by the Senate," but it was not until February, 1821,
   that the ratification of the Spanish government was received.

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      2d series, chapters 31-32 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Morse,
      John Quincy Adams,
      pages 109-125._

      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
      other countries (edition of 1880), pages 1016-1022._

FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.
   The Second Seminole War.

   "The conflict with the Seminoles was one of the legacies left
   by Jackson to Van Buren; it lasted as long as the
   Revolutionary War, cost thirty millions of dollars, and
   baffled the efforts of several generals and numerous troops,
   who had previously shown themselves equal to any in the world.
   … As is usually the case in Indian wars there had been wrong
   done by each side; but in this instance we were the more to
   blame, although the Indians themselves were far from being
   merely harmless and suffering innocents. The Seminoles were
   being deprived of their lands in pursuance of the general
   policy of removing all the Indians [to] west of the
   Mississippi. They had agreed to go, under pressure, and
   influenced, probably, by fraudulent representations; but they
   declined to fulfill their agreement. If they had been treated
   wisely and firmly they might probably have been allowed to
   remain without serious injury to the surrounding whites. But
   no such treatment was attempted, and as a result we were
   plunged in one of the most harassing Indian wars we ever
   waged. In their gloomy, tangled swamps, and among the unknown
   and untrodden recesses of the everglades, the Indians found a
   secure asylum; and they issued from their haunts to burn and
   ravage almost all the settled parts of Florida, fairly
   depopulating five counties. … The great Seminole leader,
   Osceola, was captured only by deliberate treachery and breach
   of faith on our part, and the Indians were worn out rather
   than conquered. This was partly owing to their remarkable
   capacities as bush-fighters, but infinitely more to the nature
   of their territory. Our troops generally fought with great
   bravery; but there is very little else in the struggle, either
   as regards its origin or the manner in which it was carried
   on, to which an American can look back with any satisfaction."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      Life of Thomas H. Benton,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Giddings,
      The Exiles of Florida,
      chapters 7-21._

      _J. T. Sprague,
      The Florida War._

      See also,
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1845.
   Admission into the Union.

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

FLORIDA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
   Temporary Union conquests and occupation.
   Discouragement of Unionists.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1864.
   Unsuccessful National attempt to occupy the State.
   Battle of Olustee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1865 (JULY).
   Provisional government set up under President Johnson's plan
   of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

----------FLORIDA: End----------

FLORIN, The.

   "The Republic of Florence, in the year 1252, coined its golden
   florin, of 24 carats fine, and of the weight of one drachm. It
   placed the value under the guarantee of publicity, and of
   commercial good faith; and that coin remained unaltered, as
   the standard for all other values, as long as the republic
   itself endured."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 4._

FLOTA, The.

      See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

FLOYD, JOHN B., Treachery of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

FLUSHING: A. D. 1807.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

{1155}

FLUSHING: A. D. 1809.
   Taken and abandoned by the English.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

FOCKSHANI, Battle of (1789).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

FODHLA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

FŒDERATI OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

   The bodies of barbarians who were taken in the military
   service of the Roman empire, during the period of its decline,
   serving "under their hereditary chiefs, using the arms which
   were proper to them, from preserving their language, their
   manners and their customs, were designated by the name of
   frederati" (confederates or allies).

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      The dynasty of Theodosius,
      chapter 4._

FOIX, Rise of the Counts of.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

FOIX, The house in Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

FOLCLAND.
FOLKLAND.

   Public land, among the early English. "It comprised the whole
   area that was not at the original allotment assigned to
   individuals or communities, and that was not subsequently
   divided into estates of bookland [bocland]. The folkland was
   the standing treasury of the country; no alienation of any
   part of it could be made without the consent of the national
   council; but it might be allowed to individuals to hold
   portions of it subject to rents and other services to the
   state."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 36._

   The theory here stated is questioned by Prof. Vinogradoff, who
   says: "I venture to suggest that folkland need not mean the
   land owned by the people. Bookland is land that is held by
   bookright; folkland is land that is held by folkright. The
   folkland is what our scholars have called ethel, and alod, and
   family-land, and yrfeland; it is land held under the old
   restrictive common-law, the law which keeps land in families,
   as contrasted with land which is held under a book, under a
   'privilegium,' modelled on Roman precedents, expressed in
   Latin words, armed with ecclesiastical sanctions, and making
   for free alienation and individualism."

   _P. Vinogradoff,
   Folkland
   (English History Rev., January, 1893)._

   ALSO IN:
   _J. M. Kemble,
   The Saxons in England,
   book 1, chapter 11._

   See, also, ALOD.

FOLIGNO, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

FOLKLAND.

      See FOLCLAND.

FOLKMOOT.

      See HUNDRED:
      also SHIRE;
      also WITENAGEMOT;
      also TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, THE NEW ENGLAND.

FOLKTHING.
FOLKETING, The.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
      (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

FOLKUNGAS, The.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

FOMORIANS, OR FORMORIANS, The.

   A people mentioned in Irish legends as sea-rovers. Mr.
   Sullivan, in his article on "Celtic Literature" in the
   Encyclopædia Britannica advances the opinion that the Romans
   were the people alluded to; but the general view is quite
   different.

      See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS;
      also, NEMEDIANS.

FONTAINE FRANĆAISE, Battle of (1595).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

FONTAINEBLEAU: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Residence of the captive Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

FONTAINEBLEAU,
   Treaties of (1807).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807,
      and SPAIN: A. D.1807-1808.

FONTAINEBLEAU,
   Treaties of (1814).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

FONTAINEBLEAU DECREE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

FONTARABIA, Siege and Battle (1638).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

FONTENAILLES, OR FONTENAY,
   Battle of, A. D. 841.

   In the civil war between the three grandsons of Charlemagne,
   which resulted in the partition of his empire and the definite
   separation of Germany and France, the decisive battle was
   fought, June 25, 841, at Fontenailles, or Fontenay
   (Fontanetum), near Auxerre. It was one of the fiercest and
   bloodiest fights of mediæval times, and 80,000 men are said to
   have died on the field.

      Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 2.

      See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 814-962.

FONTENOY, Battle of(1745).

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

FOOT, The Roman.

   "The unit of lineal measure [with the Romans] was the Pes,
   which occupied the same place in the Roman system as the Foot
   does in our own. According to the most accurate researches,
   the Pes was equal to, about 11.64 inches imperial measure, or
   .97 of an English foot. The Pes being supposed to represent
   the length of the foot in a well proportioned man, various
   divisions and multiples of the Pes were named after standards
   derived from the human frame. Thus: Pes=16 Digiti, i. e.
   finger-breadths, [or] 4 Palmi, i. e. hand-breadths;
   Sesquipes=l cubitus, i. e. length from elbow to extremity of
   middle finger. The Pes was also divided into 12 Pollices, i.
   e. thumb-joint-lengths, otherwise called Unciae (whence our
   word 'inch')."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 13._

FOOTE, Commodore.
   Gun-boat campaign on the western rivers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

FORBACH, OR SPICHERN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

FORCE BILL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (APRIL).

FORESTS, Charter of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

FORLI, Battle of (1423).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

FORMORIANS.

      See FOMORIANS.

FORMOSUS, Pope, A. D. 891-896.

FORNUOVA, Battle of (1495).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

FORT EDWARD.
FORT ERIE.
FORT FISHER, ETC.

      See EDWARD, FORT; ERIE, FORT, ETC.

FORTRENN, Men of.

   A Pictish people who figure in early Scottish history, and
   whom Mr. Rhys derives from the tribe known to the Romans as
   Verturiones. The western part of Fife was embraced in their
   kingdom.

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      pages 158-159._

FORTUNATE ISLANDS.

      See CANARY ISLANDS, DISCOVERY OF.

{1156}

FORTY-FIVE, The.

   The Jacobite rebellion of 1745 is often referred to as "the
   Forty-five."

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745.

FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

FORUM, The Julian, and its extensions.

   "From the entrance of the Suburra branched out the long
   streets which penetrated the hollows between the Quirinal,
   Viminal, and Esquiline to the gates pierced in the mound of
   Servius. It was in this direction that Cæsar effected the
   first extension of the Forum, by converting the site of
   certain streets into an open space which he surrounded with
   arcades, and in the centre of which he erected his temple of
   Venus. By the side of the Julian Forum, or perhaps in its
   rear, Augustus constructed a still ampler inclosure, which he
   adorned with the temple of Mars the Avenger. Succeeding
   emperors … continued to work out the same idea, till the
   Argiletum on the one hand, and the saddle of the Capitoline
   and Quirinal, excavated for the purpose, on the other, were
   both occupied by these constructions, the dwellings of the
   populace being swept away before them; and a space running
   nearly parallel to the length of the Roman Forum, and
   exceeding it in size, was thus devoted to public use,
   extending from the pillar of Trajan to the basilica of
   Constantine."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

FORUM BOARIUM AND VELABRUM OF ANCIENT ROME, The.

   "The Velabrum, the Forum Boarium, the Vicus Tuscus, and the
   Circus Maximus are names rich in reminiscences of the romantic
   youth and warlike manhood of the Roman people. The earliest
   dawn of Roman history begins with the union of the Capitoline
   and Palatine hills into one city. In those far-distant times,
   however, no population was settled in the Velabrum or Circus
   valley; for, as we have seen, until the drainage was
   permanently provided for by the cloacæ, these districts were
   uninhabited swamps; and the name Velabrum itself is said to
   have been derived from the boats used in crossing from one
   hill to the other. Perhaps such may not have been the case
   with the Forum Boarium, which lay between the Velabrum and the
   river. … The limits of the Forum Boarium can be clearly
   defined. It was separated from the Velabrum at the Arch of the
   Goldsmiths. … On the south-eastern side the Carceres of the
   Circus, and the adjoining temple on the site of S. Maria in
   Cosmedin, bounded the district, on the western the Tiber, and
   on the north western the wall of Servius. … The immediate
   neighbourhood of the river, the Forum, the Campus Martius, and
   the Palace of the Cæsars would naturally render this quarter
   one of the most crowded thoroughfares of Rome. … The Forum
   itself, which gave the name to the district, was probably an
   open space surrounded by shops and public buildings, like the
   Forum Romanum, but on a smaller scale. In the centre stood the
   bronze figure of a bull, brought from Ægina, either as a
   symbol of the trade in cattle to which the place owed its
   name, or, as Tacitus observes, to mark the supposed spot
   whence the plough of Romulus, drawn by a bull and a cow, first
   started in tracing out the Palatine pomœrium."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 12._

FORUM GALLORUM, Battle of (B. C. 43).

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

FORUM JULII.

   A Roman colony and naval station (modern Frejus) founded on
   the Mediterranean coast of Gaul by Augustus.

FORUM ROMANUM, The.

   "The older Forum, or Forum Romanum, as it was called, to
   distinguish it from the later Fora, which were named after
   their respective builders [Forum of Julius Cæsar, of Augustus,
   of Nerva, of Vespasian, of Trajan, etc.], was an open space of
   an oblong shape, which extended in a south-easterly direction
   from near the depression or intermontium between the two
   summits of the Capitoline hill to a point opposite the still
   extant temple of Antoninus and Faustina. … Round this
   confined space were grouped the most important buildings of
   Republican Rome."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 6, part 1._

   "Forum, in the literal sense of the word merely a marketplace,
   derives its name 'á ferendo,' (from bringing, getting,
   purchasing). … Narrow is the arena on which so great a drama
   was enacted in the Republican and Imperial City! the
   ascertainable measurements of this region, according to good
   authorities, being 671 English feet in the extreme length; 202
   in the extreme breadth, and 117 feet at the narrower, the
   south-eastern, side. A wildly picturesque marshy vale,
   overshadowed by primæval forests, and shut in by rugged
   heights, was that low ground between the Palatine and
   Capitoline hills when the 'Roma Quadrata,' ascribed to
   Romulus, was founded about seven centuries and a half before
   our era. After the wars and finally confirmed alliance between
   Romans and Sabines … the colonists agreed to unite under the
   same government, and to surround the two cities and two hills
   with a wider cincture of fortifying walls than those the still
   extant ruins of which are before us on the Palatine. Now was
   the swampy waste rendered serviceable for civic purposes; the
   forest was cut down; the stagnant marshes were drained, the
   clayey hollows filled up; the wild valley became the appointed
   arena for popular assemblage; though Dionysius tells us it was
   for some time on a spot sacred to Vulcan (the 'Vulcanale'),
   probably a terrace on the slope of the Palatine overlooking
   the Forum, that the people used to meet for political affairs,
   elections, etc. During many ages there were, it appears, no
   habitations save on the hills. … The Forum, as an enclosed
   public place amidst buildings, and surrounded by graceful
   porticos, may be said to have owed its origin to Tarquinius
   Priscus, between the years 616 and 578 B. C. That king (Livius
   tells us) was the first who erected porticos around this area,
   and also divided the ground into lots, where private citizens
   might build for their own uses. Booths, probably wooden (the
   'tabernæ veteres'), were the first rude description of shops
   here seen. … Uncertain is the original place of the 'Rostra
   Veteres'—the ancient tribunal for orators. No permanent
   tribunal for such purpose is known to have been placed in the
   Forum till the year of the city 417. … In the year 336 B.
   C., the Romans having gained a naval victory over the
   citizens' of Antium, several of those enemies' ships were
   burnt, others transported to the Roman docks, and the bronzed
   prows of the latter were used to decorate a pulpit, now raised
   for public speaking, probably near the centre of the Forum."

      _C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Lanciani,
      Ancient Rome,
      pages 75-82._


{1157}

FORUM TREBONII, Battle of (A. D. 251).

      See GOTHS, FIRST INVASIONS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

FOSI, The.

      See CHAUCI.

FOSSA.

      See CASTRA.

FOSSE, The.

   One of the great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from
   Lincoln southwestwardly into Cornwall.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

FOSTAT.

   The original name of Cairo, Egypt, signifying "the
   Encampment."

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

FOTHERINGAY CASTLE, Mary Stuart's execution at.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, Ponce de Leon's quest of the.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND AT ATHENS.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.

FOUR HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

FOUR MASTERS, The.

   Four Irish antiquaries of 17th century, who compiled the mixed
   collection of legend and history called the "Annals of the
   Kingdom of Ireland," are commonly known as the Four Masters.
   They were Michael O'Clery, a lay brother of the order of St.
   Francis; Conaire O'Clery, brother of Michael; Cucogry or
   Peregrine O'Clery, head of the Tirconnell sept of the
   O'Clerys, to which Michael and Conaire belonged; and Ferfeasa
   O'Mulconry, of whom nothing is known, except that he was a
   native of the county of Roscommon. The "Annals" of the Four
   Masters have been translated into English from the Irish
   tongue by John O'Donovan.

      _J. O'Donovan,
      Introduction to Annals of the Kingdom of
      Ireland by the Four Masters._

FOUR MILE STRIP, Cession of the.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

FOURMIGNY, Battle of (1449).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL);
      1866 (JUNE);
      1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:
   The enforcement of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (APRIL).

----------FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: End----------

FOURTH OF JULY.

   The anniversary of the adoption of the American Declaration of
   Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

FOWEY, Essex's surrender at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

FOWLTOWN, Battle of (1817).

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

FOX AND NORTH COALITION, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782; 1783;
      and 1783-1787.

FOX INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and SACS, &c.

   For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians
   at Detroit in 1712,

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

   For an account of the Black Hawk War,

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

FRANCE:
   Gallic and Roman.

      See GAUL. A. D. 481-843.

FRANCE:
   Under the Franks, to the division of the Empire of
   Charlemagne.

      See FRANKS.

FRANCE: A. D. 841-911.
   Ravages and settlements of the Northmen.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 841 to 876-911.

FRANCE: 9th Century.
   Introduction of the modern name.

   At the time of the division of the empire of Charlemagne
   between his three grand-sons, which was made a definite and
   lasting political separation by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D.
   843, "the people of the West [western Europe] had come to be
   divided, with more and more distinctness, into two classes,
   those composed of Franks and Germans, who still adhered to the
   Teutonic dialects, and those, composed of Franks,
   Gallo-Romans, and Aquitanians, who used the Romance dialects,
   or the patois which had grown out of a corrupted Latin. The
   former clung to the name of Germans, while the latter, not to
   lose all share in the glory of the Frankish name, began to
   call themselves Franci, and their country Francia Nova, or New
   France. … Francia was the Latin name of Frankenland, and had
   long before been applied to the dominions of the Franks on
   both sides of the Rhine. Their country was then divided into
   East and West Francia; but in the time of Karl the Great
   [Charlemagne] and Ludwig Pious, we find the monk of St. Gall
   using the terms Francia Nova, in opposition to the Francia,
   'quæ dicitur antiqua.'"

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 18, with note._

   "As for the mere name of Francia, like other names of the
   kind, it shifted its geographical use according to the
   wanderings of the people from whom it was derived. After many
   such changes of meaning, it gradually settled down as the name
   for those parts of Germany and Gaul where it still abides.
   There are the Teutonic or Austrian [or Austrasian] Francia,
   part of which still keeps the name of Franken or Franconia,
   and the Romance or Neustrian Francia, which by various
   annexations has grown into modern France."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      volume 1, page 121._

   "As late as the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, the name of
   Frank was still used, and used too with an air of triumph, as
   equivalent to the name of German. The Kings and kingdoms of
   this age had indeed no fixed titles, because all were still
   looked on as mere portions of the great Frankish realm.
   Another step has now been taken towards the creation of modern
   France; but the older state of things has not yet wholly
   passed away. Germany has no definite name; for a long time it
   is 'Francia Orientalis,' 'Francia Teutonica'; then it becomes
   'Regnum Teutonicum,' 'Regnum Teutonicorum.' But it is equally
   clear that, within the limits of that Western or Latin France,
   Francia and Francus were fast getting their modern meanings of
   France and Frenchmen, as distinguished from Frank or German."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Franks and the Gauls
      (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7)._

{1158}

FRANCE: A. D. 843.
   The kingdom of Charles the Bald.

   The first actual kingdom of France (Francia Nova—Francia
   Occidentalis), was formed in the partition of the empire of
   Charlemagne between his three grandsons, by the Treaty of
   Verdun, A. D. 843. It was assigned to Charles, called "the
   Bald," and comprised the Neustria of the older Frank
   divisions, together with Aquitaine. It "had for its eastern
   boundary, the Meuse, the Saône and the Rhone; which,
   nevertheless, can only be understood of the Upper Meuse, since
   Brabant was certainly not comprised in it"; and it extended
   southwards beyond the Pyrenees to the Ebro.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1, footnote._

   "Charles and his successors have some claim to be accounted
   French. They rule over a large part of France, and are cut
   away from their older connexion with Germany. Still, in
   reality they are Germans and Franks. They speak German, they
   yearn after the old imperial name, they have no national
   feeling at all. On the other hand, the great lords of
   Neustria, as it used to be called, are ready to move in that
   direction, and to take the first steps towards a new national
   life. They cease to look back to the Rhine, and occupy
   themselves in a continual struggle with their kings. Feudal
   power is founded, and with it the claims of the bishops rise
   to their highest point. But we have not yet come to a kingdom
   of France. … It was no proper French kingdom; but a dying
   branch of the Empire of Charles the Great. … Charles the
   Bald, entering on his part of the Caroling Empire, found three
   large districts which refused to recognise him. These were
   Aquitaine, whose king was Pippin II.; Septimania, in the hands
   of Bernard; and Brittany under Nominoë. He attempted to reduce
   them; but Brittany and Septimania defied him, while over
   Aquitaine he was little more than a nominal suzerain."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1._

      See, also,
      FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 814-962.

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

A Logical Outline of French History

   (Red)   Physical or material.
   (Blue)  Ethnologilcal.
   (Green) Social and political.
   (Brown) Intellectual, moral and  religious.
   (Black) Foreign.

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

   The country known anciently as Gaul, and in modern times as
   France, is distinguished by no physical characteristics that
   will go far towards explaining its history. Lying within the
   middle degrees of the northern temperate zone, greatly
   diversified in its superficial features, and varied in the
   qualities of its soil, it represents a fair average of the
   more favorable conditions of human life.

The Gauls.

   The inhabitants of the land when the Romans subdued it were a
   Celtic people, belonging to the race which has survived to the
   present day with least admixture or modification in the
   Bretons, the Welsh, the Celtic Irish and the Highland Scotch.
   The peculiar traits of the race in mind and temper are so
   visible in French history as to show that the nation has never
   ceased to be essentially Gallic in blood.

B. C. 51-A. D. 406; Roman Gaul.

  Under the control and the teaching of Rome for four centuries
  and a half, the Gauls were perfected in her civilization and
  corrupted by the vices of her decay.

5th Century; Frank Conquest.

   When the invasion of Teutonic barbarism broke the barrier of
   the Rhine, they were easily but not quickly overwhelmed, and
   sank under a conquest more complete than that from Rome had
   been; since the whole body of the conquerors came to dwell
   within the land, and to be neighbors and masters, at once. For
   the most part, these invaders preferred country to town, and
   carved estates for themselves in all the districts that were
   fertile and fair. The Gallo-Romans, or Romanized Gauls, were
   left to more freedom in their cities than outside; but their
   cities were blighted in industry and in trade by the common
   ruin around them. In the rural districts, few liberties or
   rights were preserved for the subjugated race.

Feudalism.

   The form of society which the German conquerors brought with
   them into Gaul was broken by the change of circumstance, quite
   as much as the form of society which they overthrew. The camp
   gave place to the castle; the wandering war-chief acquired the
   firmer superiority of a great land-proprietor and lord; his
   warriors slipped in station from free followers to dependents,
   in divers degrees; the greater chiefs won the title of kings;
   the fiercer kings destroyed their rivals; and four or five
   centuries shaped, by slow processes that are traceable,
   indistinctly, the military structure of society called Feudal,
   which organized lawlessness with picturesque and destructive
   effects.

A. D. 481-752. Merovingian monarchy.
A. D. 768-814. Empire of Charlemagne.

   All authority withered, except the spiritual authority of the
   Church, which steadily grew. The royalty that had thrived for
   a time upon the distribution of lands, dignities and powers,
   lost prestige when it had expended the domains at its
   disposal, and when offices and estates were clutched in
   hereditary possession. Before it actually expired, there arose
   a family of remarkable men—great in four successive
   generations—who put its crown upon their own heads and made
   it powerful again. The last and greatest of these expanded the
   Frank kingdom into a new Roman Empire; but the energy of the
   achievement was wholly his own, and his empire fell to pieces
   when he died.

A. D. 987. Kingdom of Hugh Capet.
11th-12th centuries. Enfranchisement of the Communes.

   In the part which became France, royalty dwindled once more;
   the great dukes and counts nominally subject to it, in the
   feudal sense, renewed and increased their power; until one of
   their number took the throne, and bequeathed it to his heirs.

   This new line of kings won back by degrees the ascendancy of
   the crown. The small actual dominion, surrounding Paris, with
   which they began, was widened slowly by the strong,
   authoritative arm. They made themselves, in rude fashion, the
   champions of order and law. They took the people of the towns
   into alliance with them; for the towns were beginning to
   catch the spirit of the free cities of Italy, and the sturdy
   temper of the Flemish burghers, and to assume the name of
   "communes," or commons, casting off the feudal yoke that had
   been laid upon them. The kings lent their countenance to the
   communes, and the communes strengthened the hands of the
   kings. Between them and much helped by the stir of the
   Crusades, they loosened the roots of feudalism, until its
   decay set in. The king's courts and the king's officers pushed
   their jurisdiction into a widening realm, until the king's
   authority had become supreme, in fact as well as in name.

   Even the measureless misery of a hundred years of war with
   English kings brought power, in the end, to the crown, by
   weakening the greater lords, and by bringing into existence a
   fixed military force.

A. D. 1337-1453. Hundred Years War.

   Happy accidents, shrewd marriages, and cunning intrigues
   gathered the great dukedoms, one by one, into the royal
   domain, and the solidarity of modern France was attained.

16th-17th centuries. Aggrandisement of the Monarchy.

   But People and King stood no longer side by side. The league
   of King and Commons against the Lords had proved less happy
   than the alliance in England of Commons and Lords against the
   King. Royalty emerged from the patient struggle alone in
   possession of sovereign power. It had used the communes and
   then abused them, breaking their charters—their
   liberties—their courage—their hopes—and widening the
   distance between class and class. The "estates" of the realm
   became a memory and a name. During five hundred years, while
   the Parliament of England grew in majesty and might, the
   States-General of France were assembled but thirteen times.

The Court.

   When royalty, at last, invented the fatal enchantments of a
   "Court," then the blighting of all other powers was soon
   complete. It drew within its spell, from all the provinces of
   France, their nobles, their men of genius, their aspiring
   spirits, and assembled them to corrupt and debase them
   together—to make them its pensioners and hirelings, its
   sycophants, its jesters, its knaves.

Suppression of the Huguenots.

   Neither Renaissance nor Reformation could undo the spell.
   Ideas from the one and a great faith from the other joined in
   league for the liberty of both, and the thoughtful among the
   people were rallied to them with craving eagerness. But
   bigotry and frivolity ruled the Court, and the Court proved
   stronger than France. Freedom of conscience, and every species
   of freedom with it, were destroyed; by massacre, by civil war,
   by oppressive government, by banishment, by corrupting bribes.

18th century. The "Ancien Régime."

   And always the grandeur of the monarchy increased; its rule
   grew more absolute; its Court sucked the life-blood of the
   State more remorselessly. The People starved, that the King
   might be magnificent; they perished in a thousand battles,
   that his name might be "glorious;" they went into exile,
   carrying away the arts of France, that the piety of the King
   might not be shocked by their heresies. But always, too, there
   was growing in the world, around France and in France, a
   knowledge,—an understanding,—a modern spirit,—that rebelled
   against these infamies.

A. D. 1789-1799. Revolution.
A. D. 1799-1815. Napoleon.

   In due time there came an end. Court, and King, and Church,
   and all that even seemed to be a part of the evil old regime,
   were whirled into a red gulf of Revolution and disappeared.
   The people, unused to Liberty, were made drunken by it, and
   went mad. In breaking the gyves of feudalism they broke every
   other restraint, and wrecked society in all its forms. Then,
   in the stupor of their debauch, they gave themselves to a new
   despot—mean, conscienceless, detestable, but transcendent in
   the genius and the energy of his selfishness—who devoured
   them like a dragon, in the hunger of his insatiate ambition,
   and persuaded them to be proud of their fate.

A. D. 1815-1830. Bourbon Restoration.
A. D. 1830-1848. Louis Phillippe
A. D. 1848-1851. Second Republic.
A. D. 1852-1870. Second Empire.
A. D. 1870-.     Third Republic.

   Europe suppressed the intolerable adventurer, and France, for
   three-fourths of a century since, has been under an
   apprenticeship of experience, slowly learning the art of
   self-government by constitutional modes. Two monarchies, one
   republic, and a sham empire are the spoiled samples of her
   work. A third republic, now in hand, is promising better
   success. It rests with seeming stability on the support of the
   great class of peasant landowners, which the very miseries of her
   misgoverned past have created for France. Trained to pinching
   frugality by the hard conditions of the old regime; unspoiled
   by any ruinous philanthropy, like that of the English
   poor-laws; stimulated to land-buying by opportunities which
   came, first, from the impoverishment of extravagant nobles,
   and, later, from revolutionary confiscations; encouraged to
   the same acquisition by favorable laws of transfer and equal
   inheritance,—the landowning peasants of France constitute a
   Class powerful in numbers, invincible in conservatism, an
   profoundly interested in the preservation of social order.

--------End: A Logical Outline of French History-----------

FRANCE: A. D. 861.
   Origin of the duchy and of the house of Capet.

   In 861, Charles the Bald, king of that part of the dismembered
   empire of Charlemagne which grew into the kingdom of France,
   was struggling with many difficulties: defending himself
   against the hostile ambition of his brother, Louis the German;
   striving to establish his authority in Brittany and Aquitaine;
   harried and harassed by Norse pirates; surrounded by domestic
   treachery and feudal restiveness. All of his many foes were
   more or less in league against him, and the soul of their
   combination appears to have been a certain bold adventurer—a
   stranger of uncertain origin, a Saxon, as some say—who bore
   the name of Robert the Strong. In this alien enemy, King
   Charles, who never lacked shrewdness, discovered a possible
   friend. He opened negotiations with Robert the Strong, and a
   bargain was soon made which transferred the sword and the
   energy of the potent mercenary to the service of the king.
   "Soon after, a Placitum or Great Council was held at
   Compiègne. In this assembly, and by the assent of the
   Optimates, the Seine and its islands, and that most important
   island Paris, and all the country between Seine and Loire,
   were granted to Robert, the Duchy of France, though not yet so
   called, moreover the Angevine Marches, or County of
   Outre-Maine, all to be held by Robert-le-Fort as barriers
   against Northmen and Bretons, and by which cessions the realm
   was to be defended. Only a portion of this dominion owned the
   obedience of Charles: the Bretons were in their own country,
   the Northmen in the country they were making their own; the
   grant therefore was a license to Robert to win as much as he
   could, and to keep his acquisitions should he succeed. …
   Robert kept the Northmen in check, yet only by incessant
   exertion. He inured the future kings of France, his two young
   sons, Eudes and Robert, to the tug of war, making them his
   companions in his enterprises. The banks of the Loire were
   particularly guarded by him, for here the principal attacks
   were directed." Robert the Strong fought valiantly, as he had
   contracted to do, for five years, or more, and then, in an
   unlucky battle with the Danes, one summer day in 866, he fell.
   "Thus died the first of the Capets." All the honors and
   possessions which he had received from the king were then
   transferred, not to his sons, but to one Hugh, Count of
   Burgundy, who became also Duke or Marquis of France and Count
   of Anjou. Twenty years later, however, the older son of
   Robert, Eudes, turns up in history again as Count of Paris,
   and nothing is known of the means by which the family, soon to
   become royal, had recovered its footing and its importance.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.
   The end of the Carolingian monarchy and the rise of the
   Capetian.

   Charles the Bald died in 877 and was succeeded by his son
   Louis, called "the Stammerer," who reigned only two years. His
   two sons, Louis and Carloman, were joint kings for a short
   space, struggling with the Northmen and losing the provinces
   out of which Duke Boson of Provence, brother-in-law of Charles
   the Bald, formed the kingdom of Arles. Louis died in 882 and
   Carloman two years afterwards; thereupon Charles, surnamed
   "the Fat," king of Lombardy and Germany, and also emperor
   (nephew of Charles the Bald), became likewise king of France,
   and briefly reunited under his feebly handled sceptre the
   greater part of the old empire of Charlemagne: When he died,
   in 888, a party of the nobles, tired of his race, met and
   elected Count Eudes (or Odo), the valiant Count of Paris, who
   had just defended his city with obstinate courage against the
   Northmen, to be their king. The sovereignty of Eudes was not
   acknowledged by the nation at large. His opponents found a
   Carling to set up against him, in the person of the boy
   Charles,—youngest son of Louis "the Stammerer," born after
   his father's death,—who appears in history as Charles "the
   Simple." Eudes, after some years of war, gave up to Charles a
   small domain, between the Seine and the Meuse, acknowledged
   his feudal superiority and agreed that the whole kingdom
   should be surrendered to him on his (Eudes') death. In
   accordance with this agreement, Charles the Simple became sole
   king in 898, when Eudes died, and the country which
   acknowledged his nominal sovereignty fell into a more
   distracted state than ever. The Northmen established
   themselves in permanent occupation of the country on the lower
   Seine, and Charles, in 911, made a formal cession of it to
   their duke, Rollo, thus creating the great duchy of Normandy.
   In 922 the nobles grew once more disgusted with the feebleness
   of their king and crowned Duke Robert, brother of the late king
   Eudes, driving Charles into his stronghold of Laon. The
   Normans came to Charles' help and his rival Robert was killed
   in a battle.
{1159}
   But Charles was defeated, was inveigled into the hands of one
   of the rebel Lords.—Herbert of Venmandois—and kept a
   prisoner until he died, in 929. One Rodolf of Burgundy had
   been chosen king, meantime, and reigned until his death, in
   936. Then legitimacy triumphed again, and a young son of
   Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England, was sent
   for and crowned. This king—Louis IV.—his son, Lothair, and
   his grandson, Louis V., kept possession of the shaking throne
   for half-a-century; but their actual kingdom was much of the
   time reduced to little more than the royal city of Laon and
   its immediate territories. When Louis died, in 987, leaving no
   nearer heir than his uncle, Charles, Duke of Lorraine, there
   was no longer any serious attempt to keep up the Carolingian
   line. Hugh, Duke of France—whose grandfather Robert, and
   whose grand-uncle Eudes had been crowned kings, before him,
   and whose father, "Hugh the Great," had been the king-maker of
   the period since—was now called to the throne and settled
   himself firmly in the seat which a long line of his
   descendants would hold. He was known as Hugh Capet to his
   contemporaries, and it is thought that he got the name from
   his wearing of the hood, cap, or cape of St. Martin—he being
   the abbot of St. Martin at Tours, in addition to his other
   high dignities.

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5;
      book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume l)._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapters 11 and 13-15._

      See, also, LAON.

FRANCE: A. D. 987.
   Accession of Hugh Capet.
   The kingdom of the early Capetians.

   "On the accession of the third race [the Capetians], France,
   properly so called, only comprised the territory between the
   Somme and the Loire; it was bounded by the counties of
   Flanders and Vermandois on the north; by Normandy and Brittany
   on the west; by the Champagne on the east; by the duchy of
   Aquitaine on the south. The territory within these bounds was
   the duchy of France, the patrimonial possession of the Capets,
   and constituted the royal domain. The great fiefs of the
   crown, in addition to the duchy of France, were the duchy of
   Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, nearly the whole of Flanders,
   formed into a county, the county of Champagne, the duchy of
   Aquitaine, and the county of Toulouse. … The sovereigns of
   these various states were the great vassals of the crown and
   peers of France; Lorraine and a portion of Flanders were
   dependent on the Germanic crown, while Brittany was a fief of
   the duchy of Normandy. … The county of Barcelona beyond the
   Alps was also one of the great fiefs of the crown of France."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France: second epoch,
      book 1, chapter 2._

   "With the exception of the Spanish March and of part of
   Flanders, all these states have long been fully incorporated
   with the French monarchy. But we must remember that, under the
   earlier French Kings, the connexion of most of these provinces
   with their nominal suzerain was even looser than the connexion
   of the German princes after the Peace of Westphalia with the
   Viennese Emperors. A great French Duke was as independent
   within his own dominions as an Elector of Saxony or Bavaria,
   and there were no common institutions, no Diet or assembly of
   any kind, to bring him into contact either with his liege lord
   or with his fellow-vassals. Aquitaine and Toulouse … seem
   almost to have forgotten that there was any King of the French
   at all, or at all events that they had anything to do with him.
   They did not often even pay him the compliment of waging war
   upon him, a mode of recognition of his existence which was
   constantly indulged in by their brethren of Normandy and
   Flanders."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Franks and the Gauls
      (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7)._

   "When France was detached from the Empire in the ninth
   century, of all three imperial regions she was the one which
   seemed least likely to form a nation. There was no unity in
   the country west of the Scheldt, the Meuse, and the Rhone.
   Various principalities, duchies, or counties were here formed,
   but each of them was divided into secular fiefs and
   ecclesiastical territories. Over these fiefs and territories
   the authority of the duke or the count, which was supposed to
   represent that of the king, was exercised only in case these
   seigneurs had sufficient power, derived from their own
   personal estates. Destitute of domains and almost starving,
   the king, in official documents, asked what means he might
   find on which to live with some degree of decency. From time
   to time, amid this chaos, he discussed the theory of his
   authority. He was a lean and solemn phantom, straying about
   among living men who were very rude and energetic. The phantom
   kept constantly growing leaner, but royalty did not vanish.
   People were accustomed to its existence, and the men of those
   days could not conceive of a revolution. By the election of
   Hugh Capet, in 987, royalty became a reality, because the
   king, as Duke of Francia, had lands, money, and followers. It
   would be out of place to seek a plan of conduct and a
   methodical line of policy in the actions of the Capetians, for
   they employed simultaneously every sort of expedient. During
   more than three centuries they had male offspring; thus the
   chief merit of the dynasty was that it endured. As always
   happens, out of the practice developed a law; and this happy
   accident produced a lawful hereditary succession, which was a
   great element of strength. Moreover the king had a whole
   arsenal of rights: old rights of Carolingian royalty,
   preserving, the remembrance of imperial power, which the study
   of the Roman law was soon to resuscitate, transforming these
   apparitions into formidable realities; old rights conferred by
   the coronation, which were impossible to define, and hence
   incontestable; and rights of suzerainty, newer and more real,
   which were definitely determined and codified as feudalism
   developed and which, joined to the other rights mentioned
   above, made the king proprietor of France. These are the
   elements that Capetian royalty contributed to the play of
   fortuitous circumstances."

      _E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.


{1160}

FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.
   The Feudal Period.

   "The period in the history of France, of which we are about to
   write, began with the consecration of Hugues Capet, at Reims,
   the 3rd of July, 987, but it is a period which would but
   improperly take its name from the Capetians; for throughout
   this time royalty was, as it were, annihilated in France; the
   social bond was broken, and the country which extends from the
   Rhine to the Pyrenees, and from the English Channel to the
   Gulf of Lyon, was governed by a confederation of princes
   rarely under the influence of a common will, and united only
   by the Feudal System. While France was confederated under
   feudal administration, the legislative power was suspended.
   Hugues Capet and his successors, until the accession of St.
   Louis, had not the right of making laws; the nation had no
   diet, no regularly constituted assemblies whose authority it
   acknowledged. The Feudal System, tacitly adopted, and
   developed by custom, was solely acknowledged by the numerous
   sovereigns who divided the provinces among themselves. It
   replaced the social bond, the monarch, and the legislator. …
   The period … is therefore like a long interregnum, during
   which the royal authority was suspended, although the name of
   king was always preserved. He who bore this title in the midst
   of a republic of princes was only distinguished from them by
   some honorary prerogative, and he exercised over them scarcely
   any authority. Until very near the end of the 11th century,
   these princes were scarcely less numerous than the castles
   which covered France. No authority was acknowledged at a
   distance, and every fortress gave its lord rank among the
   sovereigns. The conquest of England by the Normans broke the
   equilibrium between the feudal lords; one of the confederate
   princes, become a king in 1066, gradually extended, until
   1179, his domination over more than half of France; and
   although it was not he who bore the title of king of the
   French, it may be imagined that in time the rest of the
   country would also pass under his yoke. Philip the August and
   his son, during the forty-six last years of the same period,
   reconquered almost all the fiefs which the English kings had
   united, brought the other great vassals back to obedience, and
   changed the feudal confederation which had ruled France into a
   monarchy, which incorporated the Feudal System in its
   constitution."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      France Under the Feudal System
      (translated by W. Bellingham), chapter 1._

   "The feudal period, that is, the period when the feudal system
   was the dominant fact of our country, … is comprehended
   between Hugh Capet and Philippe de Valois, that is, it
   embraces the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. … At the end of
   the 10th century, royalty and the commons were not visible, or
   at all events scarcely visible. At the commencement of the
   14th century, royalty was the head of the state, the commons
   were the body of the nation. The two forces to which the
   feudal system was to succumb had then attained, not, indeed,
   their entire development, but a decided preponderance. …
   With the 14th century, the character of war changed. Then
   began the foreign wars; no longer a vassal against suzerain,
   or vassal against vassal, but nation against nation,
   government against government. On the accession of Philippe de
   Valois, the great wars between the French and the English
   broke out—the claims of the kings of England, not upon any
   particular fief, but upon the whole land, and upon the throne
   of France—and they continued up to Louis XI. They were no
   longer feudal, but national wars; a certain proof that the
   feudal period stopped at this limit, that another society had
   already commenced."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      2d course, lecture 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 996.
   Accession of King Robert II.

FRANCE: A. D. 1031.
   Accession of King Henry I.

FRANCE: A. D. 1060.
   Accession of King Philip I.

FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125.
   Enfranchisement of Communes.

   "The establishment of the commune of Mans, towards the year
   1070, was not a fact, isolated, and without respect to what
   passed in the rest of France; it was, on the contrary, a
   symptom of the great revolution which was working in the
   opinions, the manners, and the condition of the mass of the
   people; a symptom which, bearing a certain date, must serve to
   establish the epoch of a crowd of analogous efforts made in
   the other towns of France. History has not preserved the
   memory of these different efforts, but it has shown us the
   results. During the two following centuries, the cities ceased
   not to obtain charters, to found or secure by legitimate
   authority, the immunities and franchises which constituted the
   communal rights. … All, or nearly all had, however, already
   conquered liberty; they had experienced how advantageous it
   was to be governed by themselves, and the high price which
   they put upon the favor they solicited, bears witness to their
   experience. The enfranchisement of the communes is almost
   universally reported in the … reign … of Louis the Fat;
   and the honor of this great revolution, which created the
   third estate [tiers-état], and liberty in France, has been
   given either to the generosity or the wise policy of that
   prince. There is doubtless some truth in this opinion, since
   we find in France no communal charter anterior to the reign of
   Louis VI., and he is also the first king who was seen to ally
   himself with the burgesses, to make war on the nobility.
   However, the idea which is formed of this event, when one
   attributes it to the act of the monarch's will, or the effect
   of his system, is completely erroneous. The French people owed
   whatever degree of liberty it enjoyed in the middle ages, to
   its own valor; it acquired it as liberty must always be
   acquired, at the sword's point; it profitted by the divisions,
   the imprudence, the weakness, or the crimes of its lords, lay
   or ecclesiastic, to seize it from and in spite of them. …
   The origin of every commune was, as indicated by the different
   names by which they are designated, a communion, a conjuration,
   or confederation, of the inhabitants of a town who were
   mutually engaged to defend each other. The first act of the
   commune was the occupation of a tower in which was set up a
   clock or belfry; and the first clause of the oath of all the
   communers, was to repair in arms, when the bell sounded, at
   the place assigned them, to defend each other. From this first
   engagement resulted that of submitting to magistrates named by
   the communers: it was the mayors, echevins, and juries, in
   northern France, and consuls or syndics in southern France, to
   whom the consent of all abandoned the sole right of directing
   the common efforts. Thus the militia was first created; the
   magistracy came afterwards. … The reign of Phillip I. had
   been but a long anarchy. During those forty-eight years the
   royal government had not existed, and no other had
   efficaciously taken its place. At the same time, greatly
   differing from the other feudal monarchies, all legislative
   power was suspended in France. There were no diets like those
   of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy, no parliament like that
   of England, no cortes like those of Spain, no field of March
   like that of the antient Frankish kings, no assemblages, in
   fine, which bound by their acts the great vassals and their
   subjects, and which could submit them to common laws.
{1161}
   The French had not desired a participation in the sovereignty
   which they could only acquire by sacrificing their
   independence. Thus, two great vassals, or the subjects of two
   great vassals, could scarcely believe themselves compatriots.
   … The anarchy which was found in the great state of the
   French monarchy, because all the relations between the king
   and the count were relaxed, was found also in the petty state
   of the county of Paris, or of the duchy of France; for the
   lords and barons of the crown's domains no better obeyed or
   respected more the prerogatives of their lord, than the great
   vassals those of the suzerain. The anarchy was complete, the
   disorder seemed carried to its height, and never had the
   social bond in France been nearer to being broken: yet never
   had France made so real a progress as during these forty-eight
   years. Phillip, at his death, left his son quite another
   people to that which he had received from his father: the most
   active monarch would never have done so much for France as she
   had without him done for herself during his sleep. The towns
   were more numerous, more populous, more opulent, and more
   industrious; property had acquired a security unknown in the
   preceding centuries; justice was distributed between equals,
   and by equals; and the liberty of the burgesses, conquered by
   arms, was defended with energy."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      France under the Feudal System,
      chapters 9 and 12._

   "Liberty … was to have its beginning in the towns, in the
   towns of the centre of France, which were to be called
   privileged towns, or communes, and which would either receive
   or extort their franchises. … All coveted a few franchises
   or privileges, and offered to purchase them; for, needy and
   wretched as they were, poor artisans, smiths and weavers,
   suffered to cluster for shelter at the foot of a castle, or
   fugitive serfs crowding round a church, they could manage to
   find money; and men of this stamp were the founders of our
   liberties. They willingly starved themselves to procure the
   means of purchase; and king and barons rivalled each other in
   selling charters which fetched so high a price. This
   revolution took place all over the kingdom under a thousand
   different forms, and with but little disturbance; so that it
   has only attracted notice with regard to some towns of the
   Oise and the Somme, which, placed in less favorable
   circumstances, and belonging to two different lords, one a
   layman, the other ecclesiastical, resorted to the king for a
   solemn guarantee of concessions often violated, and maintained
   a precarious liberty at the cost of several centuries of civil
   war. To these towns the name of communes has been more
   particularly applied; and the wars they had to wage form a
   slight but dramatic incident in this great revolution, which
   was operating silently and under different forms in all the
   towns of the north of France. 'Twas in brave and choleric
   Picardy, whose commons had so soundly beaten the Normans—in
   the country of Calvin, and of so many other revolutionary
   spirits—that these explosions took place. Noyon, Beauvais,
   Laon, three ecclesiastical lordships, were the first communes;
   to these may be added St. Quentin. Here the Church had laid
   the foundations of a powerful democracy. … The king has been
   said to be the founder of the communes; but the reverse is
   rather the truth: it is the communes that established the
   king. Without them, he could not have beaten off the Normans;
   and these conquerors of England and the Two Sicilies would
   probably have conquered France. It was the communes, or, to
   use a more general and exact term, the bourgeoisies, which,
   under the banner of the saint of the parish, enforced the
   common peace between the Oise and the Loire; while the king,
   on horseback, bore in front the banner of the abbey of St.
   Denys."

      _M. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 4._

      See, also, COMMUNES.

   The following comments on the passages quoted above are made
   by a good authority: "The general view taken of this subject
   of the enfranchisement of the communes by historians who wrote
   at the middle of the century is now being seriously modified.
   The studies of Luchaire have shown, I think, that such
   statements as Sismondi's, which attribute everything to the
   people, are exaggerations. 'Liberty,' as it existed in the
   communes, was only corporate or aristocratic privilege. As for
   the national assemblages, there were great councils held, such
   as those which existed under the Norman monarchs in England,
   and they issued the 'assizes,' which was a common form of
   legislation in the Middle Ages. It was not, of course,
   legislation, in its modern sense. Michelet is quite too
   flowery, poetical, democratic, to be safely followed."

FRANCE: A. D. 1096.
   Departure of the First Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

FRANCE: A. D. 1100.
   The extent of the kingdom.

   "When Louis [VI.] was adopted by his father in 1100, the crown
   had as its own domain only the county of Paris, Hurepoix, the
   Gatinais, the Orléanis, half the county of Sens, the French
   Vexin, and Bourges, together with some ill-defined rights over
   the episcopal cities of Rheims, Beauvais, Laon, Noyon,
   Soissons, Amiens. And even within these narrow limits the
   royal power was but thinly spread over the surface. The barons
   in their castles were in fact independent, and oppressed the
   merchants and poor folk as they would. The king had also
   acknowledged rights of suzerainty over Champagne, Burgundy,
   Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Boulogne; but, in most
   cases, the only obedience the feudal lords stooped to was that
   of duly performing the act of homage to the king on first
   succession to a fief. He also claimed suzerainty, which was
   not conceded, over the South of France; over Provence and
   Lorraine he did not even put forth a claim of lordship."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1101.
   Disastrous Crusade of French princes and knights.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

FRANCE: A. D. 1106-1119.
   War with Henry I. of England and Normandy.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

{1162}

FRANCE: A. D. 1108-1180.
   The reigns of Louis VI., Louis VII. and
   accession of Philip II.
   Gain and loss of Aquitaine.

   "Louis VI., or 'the Fat' was the first able man whom the line
   of Hugh Capet had produced since it mounted the throne. He
   made the first attempt at curbing the nobles, assisted by
   Suger, the Abbot of St. Denys. The only possibility of doing
   this was to obtain the aid of one party of nobles against
   another; and when any unusually flagrant offence had been
   committed, Louis called together the nobles, bishops, and
   abbots of his domain, and obtained their consent and
   assistance in making war on the guilty man, and overthrowing
   his castle, thus, in some degree, lessening the sense of utter
   impunity which had caused so many violences and such savage
   recklessness. He also permitted a few of the cities to
   purchase the right of self-government. … The royal authority
   had begun to be respected by 1137, when Louis VI. died, having
   just effected the marriage of his son, Louis VII., with
   Eleanor, the heiress of the Dukes of Aquitaine—thus hoping to
   make the crown really more powerful than the great princes who
   owed it homage. At this time lived the great St. Bernard,
   Abbot of Clairvaux, who had a wonderful influence over men's
   minds. … Bernard roused the young king Louis VII., to go on
   the second crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149], which was
   undertaken by the Emperor and the other princes of Europe to
   relieve the distress of the kingdom of Palestine. … Though
   Louis did reach Palestine, it was with weakened forces; he
   could effect nothing by his campaign, and Eleanor, who had
   accompanied him, seems to have been entirely corrupted by the
   evil habits of the Franks settled in the East. Soon after his
   return, Louis dissolved his marriage; and Eleanor became the
   wife of Henry, Count of Anjou, who soon after inherited the
   kingdom of England as our Henry II., as well as the duchy of
   Normandy, and betrothed his third son to the heiress of
   Brittany [see AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152]. Eleanor's marriage
   seemed to undo all that Louis VI. had done in raising the
   royal power; for Henry completely overshadowed Louis, whose
   only resource was in feeble endeavours to take part against
   him in his many family quarrels. The whole reign of Louis the
   Young, the title that adhered to him on account of his simple,
   childish nature, is only a record of weakness and disaster,
   till he died in 1180. … Powerful in fact as Henry II. was,
   it was his gathering so large a part of France under his rule
   which was, in the end, to build up the greatness of the French
   kings. What had held them in check was the existence of the
   great fiefs or provinces, each with its own line of dukes or
   counts, and all practically independent of the king. But now
   nearly all the provinces of southern and western France were
   gathered into the hand of a single ruler; and though he was a
   Frenchman in blood, yet, as he was King of England, this ruler
   seemed to his French subjects no Frenchman, but a foreigner.
   They began therefore to look to the French king to free them
   from a foreign ruler; and the son of Louis VII., called Philip
   Augustus, was ready to take advantage of their disposition."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      History of France
      (History Primers), chapter 1, sections 6-7._

FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
   The kingdom extended by Philip Augustus.
   Normandy, Maine and Anjou recovered from the English kings.

   "Louis VII. ascended the throne [A. D. 1137] with better
   prospects than his father. He had married Eleanor, heiress of
   the great duchy of Guienne [or Aquitaine]. But this union,
   which promised an immense accession of strength to the crown,
   was rendered unhappy by the levities of that princess.
   Repudiated by Louis, who felt rather as a husband than a king,
   Eleanor immediately married Henry II. of England, who, already
   inheriting Normandy from his mother and Anjou from Ins father,
   became possessed of more than one-half of France, and an
   over-match for Louis, even if the great vassals of the crown
   had been always ready to maintain its supremacy. One might
   venture perhaps to conjecture that the sceptre of France would
   eventually have passed from the Capets to the Plantagenets, if
   the vexatious quarrel with Becket at one time, and the
   successive rebellions fomented by Louis at a later period, had
   not embarrassed the great talents and ambitious spirit of
   Henry. But the scene quite changed when Philip Augustus, son
   of Louis VII., came upon the stage [A. D. 1180]. No prince
   comparable to him in systematic ambition and military
   enterprise had reigned in France since Charlemagne. From his
   reign the French monarchy dates the recovery of its lustre. He
   wrested from the count of Flanders the Vermandois (that part
   of Picardy which borders on the Isle of France and Champagne),
   and, subsequently, the County of Artois. But the most
   important conquests of Philip were obtained against the kings
   of England. Even Richard I., with all his prowess, lost ground
   in struggling against an adversary not less active, and more
   politic, than himself: But when John not only took possession
   of his brother's dominions, but confirmed his usurpation by
   the murder, as was very probably surmised, of the heir,
   Philip, artfully taking advantage of the general indignation,
   summoned him as his vassal to the court of his peers. John
   demanded a safe-conduct. Willingly, said Philip; let him come
   unmolested. And return? inquired the English envoy. If the
   judgment of his peers permit him, replied the king. By all the
   saints of France, he exclaimed, when further pressed, he shall
   not return unless acquitted. The bishop of Ely still
   remonstrated that the duke of Normandy could not come without
   the king of England; nor would the barons of that country
   permit their sovereign to run the risk of death or
   imprisonment. What of that, my lord bishop? cried Philip. It
   is well known that my vassal the duke of Normandy acquired
   England by force. But if a subject obtains any accession of
   dignity, shall his paramount lord therefore lose his rights?
   … John, not appearing at his summons, was declared guilty of
   felony, and his fiefs confiscated. The execution of this
   sentence was not intrusted to a dilatory arm. Philip poured
   his troops into Normandy, and took town after town, while the
   king of England, infatuated by his own wickedness and
   cowardice, made hardly an attempt at defence. In two years
   [A. D. 1203-1204] Normandy, Maine, and Anjou were
   irrecoverably lost. Poitou and Guienne resisted longer; but
   the conquest of the first was completed [A. D. 1224] by Louis
   VIII., successor of Philip."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1205;
      and ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

FRANCE: A. D. 1188-1190.
   Crusade of Philip Augustus.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

FRANCE: A. D. 1201-1203.
   The Fifth Crusade, and its diversion against Constantinople.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

A. D. 1209-1229.
   The Albigensian wars and their effects.

      See ALBIGENSES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1212.
   The Children's Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

FRANCE: A. D. 1214.
   Nationalizing effects of the Battle of Bouvines.

      See BOUVINES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1223.
   Accession of King Louis VIII.

{1163}

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
   Reign and character of Louis IX. (Saint Louis).
   His great civilizing work and influence.

   "Of the forty-four years of St. Louis' reign, nearly fifteen,
   with a long interval of separation, pertained to the
   government of Queen Blanche of Castille, rather than that of
   the king her son. Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only
   eleven; and he remained a minor up to the age of twenty-one,
   in 1236, for the time of majority in the case of royalty was
   not yet specially and rigorously fixed. During those ten years
   Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly
   asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as
   guardian of the king her son. With a good sense really
   admirable in a person so proud and ambitious, she saw that
   official power was ill suited to her woman's condition, and
   would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she screened
   herself from view behind her son. He it was who, in [1236],
   wrote to the great vassals bidding them to his consecration;
   he it was who reigned and commanded; and his name alone
   appeared on royal decrees and on treaties. It was not until
   twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that Louis, on starting
   for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother the kingly
   authority, and that Blanche, during her son's absence, really
   governed with the title of regent. … During the first period
   of his government, and so long as her son's minority lasted,
   Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots,
   insurrections, and open war; and, what was still worse for
   her, with the insults and calumnies of the crown's great
   vassals, burning to seize once more, under a woman's
   government, the independence and power which had been
   effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus. Blanche
   resisted their attempts, at one time with open and persevering
   energy, at another dexterously with all the tact, address, and
   allurements of a woman. Though she was now forty years of age
   she was beautiful, elegant, attractive, full of resources and
   of grace. … The malcontents spread the most odious scandals
   about her. … Neither in the events nor in the writings of
   the period is it easy to find anything which can authorize the
   accusations made by the foes of Queen Blanche. … She
   continued her resistance to the pretensions and machinations
   of the crown's great vassals, whether foes or lovers, and she
   carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of all, the
   extension of the domains and the power of the kingship. We
   observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic
   charitableness, or of religious scrupulousness; that is, none
   of those grand moral impulses which are characteristic of
   Christian piety and which were predominant in St. Louis.
   Blanche was essentially politic and concerned with her
   temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her
   teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and
   disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and
   the rarest on the roll of glorious kings. What St. Louis really
   owed to his mother, and it was a great deal, was the steady
   triumph which, whether by arms or by negotiation, Blanche
   gained over the great vassals, and the preponderance which,
   amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she secured for the
   kingship of her son in his minority. … When Louis reached
   his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of the
   kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public
   affairs. … The kingship of the son was a continuance of the
   mother's government. Louis persisted in struggling for the
   preponderance of the crown against the great vassals;
   succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent count of
   Brittany; wrung from Theobald IV., count of Champagne, the
   rights of suzerainty in the countships of Chartres, Blois, and
   Sancerre, and the viscountship of Châteaudun; and purchased
   the fertile countship of Mâcon from its possessor. It was
   almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations ably
   conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he
   accomplished these increments of the kingly domain; and when
   he made war on any of the great vassals, he engaged therein
   only on their provocation, to maintain the rights or honour of
   his crown, and he used victory with as much moderation as he
   had shown before entering upon the struggle. … When war was
   not either a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant
   knight, from sheer equity and goodness of heart, loved peace
   rather than war. The successes he had gained in his campaign
   of 1242 [against the count of La Marche and Henry III., of
   England, whose mother had become the wife of La Marche] were
   not for him the first step in an endless career of glory and
   conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate them whilst
   securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his
   adversaries as well as for his own, the benefits of peace. He
   entered into negotiations, successively, with the count of la
   Marche, the king of England, the count of Toulouse, the king
   of Aragon, and the various princes and great feudal lords who
   had been more or less engaged in the war; and in January,
   1243, says the latest and most enlightened of his biographers
   [M. Felix Faure], 'the treaty of Lorris marked the end of
   feudal troubles for the whole duration of St. Louis' reign. He
   drew his sword no more, save only against the enemies of the
   Christian faith and Christian civilization, the Mussulmans.'"

      _G. Masson,
      Saint Louis and the Thirteenth Century,
      pages 44-56._

   "St. Louis … by this war of 1242 finished those contests for
   the crown with its vassals which had been going on since the
   time of his ancestor, Louis the Fat. But it was not by warfare
   that he was to aid in breaking down the strongholds of
   feudalism. The vassals might have been beaten time and again,
   and yet the spirit of feudalism, still surviving, would have
   raised up new champions to contend against the crown. St.
   Louis struck at the spirit of the Middle Age, and therein
   insured the downfall of its forms and whole embodiment. He
   fought the last battles against feudalism, because, by a surer
   means than battling, he took, and unconsciously, the
   life-blood from the opposition to the royal authority.
   Unconsciously, we say; he did not look on the old order of
   things as evil, and try to introduce a better; he did not
   selfishly contend for the extension of his own power; he was
   neither a great reformer, nor a (so-called) wise king. He
   undermined feudalism, because he hated injustice; he warred
   with the Middle Age, because he could not tolerate its
   disregard of human rights; and he paved the way for
   Philip-le-bel's struggle with the papacy, because he looked
   upon religion and the church as instruments for man's
   salvation, not as tools for worldly aggrandizement.
{1164}
   He is, perhaps, the only monarch on record who failed in most
   of what he undertook of active enterprise, who was under the
   control of the prejudices of his age, who was a true
   conservative, who never dreamed of effecting great social
   changes,—and who yet, by his mere virtues, his sense of duty,
   his power of conscience, made the mightiest and most vital
   reforms. One of these reforms was the abolition of the trial
   by combat. … It is not our purpose to follow Louis either in
   his first or second crusade. If the great work of his life was
   not to be done by fighting at home, still less was it to be
   accomplished by battles in Egypt or Tunis. His mission was
   other and greater than he dreamed of, and his service to
   Christendom was wholly unlike that which he proposed to
   himself. … In November, 1244, he took the cross; but it was
   June of 1248 before he was able to leave Paris to embark upon
   his cherished undertaking. …

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

   On the fifth of June, 1249, he landed in Egypt, which was
   to be conquered before Palestine could be safely attacked. On
   the seventh of June, Damietta was entered, and there the
   French slept and feasted, wasting time, strength, and money,
   until the twentieth of the following November. Then came the
   march southward; the encampment upon the Nile; the terrors of
   the Greek fire; the skirmishes which covered the plain with
   dead; the air heavy with putridity and pestilence; the putrid
   water; the fish fat with the flesh of the dead; sickness,
   weakness, retreat, defeat, captivity. On the sixth of April,
   1250, Louis and his followers were prisoners to the
   Mussulmans; Louis might have saved himself, but would not quit
   his followers; he had been faithful thus far, and would be
   till death. … On the eighth of May, 1250, Louis was a
   freeman, and it was not until the twenty-fifth of April, 1254,
   that he set sail to return to his native shores, where
   Blanche, who had been regent during his absence, had some
   months since yielded up her breath. On the seventh of
   September, he entered Paris, sad and worn. … And scarce had
   he landed, before he began that course of legislation which
   continued until once more he embarked upon the crusade. … In
   his first legislative action, Louis proposed to himself these
   objects,—to put an end to judicial partiality, to prevent
   needless and oppressive imprisonment for debt, to stop
   unfounded criminal prosecutions, and to mitigate the horrors
   of legalized torture. In connection with these general topics,
   he made laws to bear oppressively upon the Jews, to punish
   prostitution and gambling, and to diminish intemperance. And
   it is worthy of remark, that this last point was to be
   attained by forbidding innkeepers to sell to any others than
   travellers,—a measure now (six hundred years later) under
   discussion in some parts of our Union, with a view to the same
   end. But the wish which this rare monarch had to recompense
   all who had been wronged by himself and forefathers was the
   uppermost wish of his soul. He felt that to do justice himself
   was the surest way to make others willing to do it. Commissioners
   were sent into every province of the kingdom to examine each
   alleged case of royal injustice, and with power in most
   instances to make instant restitution. He himself went forth
   to hear and judge in the neighborhood of his capital, and as
   far north as Normandy. … As he grew yet older, the spirit of
   generosity grew stronger daily in his bosom. He would have no
   hand in the affairs of Europe, save to act, wherever he could,
   as peacemaker. Many occasions occurred where all urged him to
   profit by power and a show of right, a naked legal title, to
   possess himself of valuable fiefs; but Louis shook his head
   sorrowfully and sternly, and did as his inmost soul told him
   the law of God directed. … There had been for some reigns
   back a growing disposition to refer certain questions to the
   king's tribunals, as being regal, not baronial, questions.
   Louis the Ninth gave to this disposition distinct form and
   value, and, under the influence of the baron-hating legists,
   he so ordained, in conformity with the Roman law, that, under
   given circumstances, almost any case might be referred to his
   tribunal. This, of course, gave to the king's judgment-seat
   and to him more of influence than any other step ever taken
   had done. It was, in substance, an appeal of the people from
   the nobles to the king, and it threw at once the balance of
   power into the royal hands. … It became necessary to make
   the occasional sitting of the king's council or parliament,
   which exercised certain judicial functions, permanent; and to
   change its composition, by diminishing the feudal and
   increasing the legal or legist element. Thus everywhere, in
   the barons' courts, the king's court, and the central
   parliament, the Roman, legal, organized element began to
   predominate over the German, feudal, barbaric tendencies, and
   the foundation-stones of modern society were laid. But the
   just soul of Louis and the prejudices of his Romanized
   counsellors were not arrayed against the old Teutonic
   barbarism alone, with its endless private wars and judicial
   duels; they stood equally opposed to the extravagant claims of
   the Roman hierarchy. … The first calm, deliberate,
   consistent opposition to the centralizing power of the great
   see was that offered by its truest friend and most honest
   ally, Louis of France. From 1260 to 1268, step by step was
   taken by the defender of the liberties of the Gallican church,
   until, in the year last named, he published his 'Pragmatic
   Sanction' [see below], his response, by advice of his wise
   men, to the voice of the nation, the Magna Charta of the
   freedom of the church of France, upon whose vague articles,
   the champions of that freedom could write commentaries, and
   found claims, innumerable. … But the legislation of Louis
   did not stop with antagonism to the feudal system and to the
   unauthorized claims of the church; it provided for another
   great grievance of the Middle Age, that lying and unequal
   system of coinage which was a poison to honest industry and
   commercial intercourse. … And now the great work of Louis
   was completed; the barons were conquered, the people
   protected, quiet prevailed through the kingdom, the national
   church was secured in her liberties. The invalid of Egypt, the
   sojourner of Syria, had realized his dreams and purposes of
   good to his own subjects, and once again the early vision of
   his manhood, the recovery of Palestine, haunted his slumbering
   and his waking hours. … On the sixteenth of March, 1270, he
   left Paris for the seashore; on the first of July, he sailed
   from France. The sad, sad story of this his last earthly doing
   need not be here repeated."

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

      _Saint Louis of France
      (North American Review, April, 1846)._

   On the part performed by Louis IX. in the founding of
   absolutism in France,

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

{1165}

FRANCE: A. D. 1252.
   The Crusading movement of the Pastors.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

FRANCE: A. D. 1266.
   Acquisition of the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies by
   Charles of Anjou, the king's brother.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.
   Assertion of the rights of the Gallican Church.

   "The continual usurpations of the popes produced the
   celebrated Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis [about A. D.
   1268]. This edict, the authority of which, though probably
   without cause, has been sometimes disputed, contains three
   important provisions; namely, that all prelates and other
   patrons shall enjoy their full rights as to the collation of
   benefices, according to the canons; that churches shall
   possess freely their rights of election; and that no tax or
   pecuniary exaction shall be levied by the pope, without
   consent of the king and of the national church. We do not
   find, however, that the French government acted up to the
   spirit of this ordinance."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, part 2._

   "This Edict appeared either during the last year of Clement
   IV., … or during the vacancy in the Pontificate. … It
   became the barrier against which the encroachments of the
   ecclesiastical power were destined to break; nor was it swept
   away till a stronger barrier had arisen in the unlimited power
   of the French crown." It "became a great Charter of
   Independence to the Gallican Church."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 11, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1270-1285.
   The sons of St. Louis.
   Origin of the Houses of Valois and Bourbon.

   St. Louis left several sons, the elder of whom succeeded him
   as Philippe III., and his youngest son was Robert, Count of
   Clermont and Lord of Bourbon, the ancestor of all the branches
   of the House of Bourbon. Philippe III. died in 1285, when he
   was succeeded by his son, Philippe IV. A younger son, Charles,
   Count of Valois, was the ancestor of the Valois branch of the
   royal family.

FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.
   Reign of Philip IV.
   His conflict with the Pope and his destruction of the
   Templars.

   Philippe IV., called "le Bel" (the Handsome), came to the
   throne on the death of his father, Philippe "le Hardi," in
   1285. He was presently involved in war with Edward I. of
   England, who crossed to Flanders in 1297, intending to invade
   France, but was recalled by the revolt in Scotland, under
   Wallace, and peace was made in 1303. The Flemings, who had
   provoked Philippe by their alliance with the English, were
   thus left to suffer his resentment. They bore themselves
   valiantly in a war which lasted several years, and inflicted
   upon the knights of France a fearful defeat at Courtrai, in
   1302. In the end, the French king substantially failed in his
   designs upon Flanders.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

   "It is probable that this long struggle would have been still
   protracted, but for a general quarrel which had sprung up some
   time before its close, between the French king and Pope
   Boniface VIII., concerning the [taxation of the clergy and
   the] right of nomination to vacant bishoprics within the
   dominions of Philippe. The latter, on seeing Bernard Saissetti
   thrust into the Bishopric of Pamiers by the pontiff's sole
   authority, caused the Bishop to be arrested by night, and,
   after subjecting him to various indignities, consigned him to
   prison on a charge of treason, heresy, and blasphemy. Boniface
   remonstrated against this outrage and violence in a bull known
   in history, by its opening words 'Ausculta, fili,' in which he
   asserted his power 'over nations and kingdoms, to root out and
   to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to
   plant,' and concluded by informing Philippe that he had
   summoned all the superior clergy of France to an assembly at
   Rome on the 1st of the following November, in order to
   deliberate on the remedies for such abuses as those of which
   the king had been guilty. Philippe, by no means intimidated by
   this measure, convoked a full and early assembly of the three
   estates of his kingdom, to decide upon the conduct of him whom
   the orthodox, up to that time, had been in the habit of deeming
   infallible. This (10th April 1302) was the first meeting of a
   Parliament, properly so called, in France. … The chambers
   unanimously approved and applauded the conduct of the king,
   and resolved to maintain the honour of the crown and the
   nation from foreign insult or domination; and to mark their
   decision more conclusively, they concurred with the sovereign
   in prohibiting the clergy from attending the Pope's summons to
   Rome. The papal bull was burned as publicly as possible. …
   The Pope, alarmed at these novel and bold proceedings, sought
   instantly to avert their consequences by soothing
   explanations; but Philippe would not now be turned aside from
   his course. He summoned a convocation of the Gallican
   prelates, in which by the mouth of William de Nogaret, his
   chancellor, he represented the occupier of St. Peter's chair
   as the father of lies and an evil-doer; and he demanded the
   seizure of this pseudo-pope, and his imprisonment until he
   could be brought before a legitimate tribunal to receive the
   punishment due to his numerous crimes. Boniface now declared
   that the French king was excommunicated, and cited him by his
   confessor to appear in the papal court at Rome within three
   months, to make submission and atonement for his contumacy.
   … While this unseemly quarrel … seemed to be growing
   interminable in its complexities, the daring of a few men
   opened a shorter path to its end than could have been
   anticipated. William of Nogaret associating to him Sciarra
   Colonna, a noble Roman, who, having been driven from his
   native city by Boniface and subjected to various hardships,
   had found refuge in Paris, passed, with a train of three
   hundred horsemen, and a much larger body of picked infantry,
   secretly into Italy, with the intention of surprising the Pope
   at his summer residence in his native town of Anagni. … The
   papal palace was captured after a feeble resistance, and the
   cardinals and personal attendants of the Pontiff fled for
   their lives. … The Condottieri … dragged the Pope from his
   throne, and conveying him into the street, mounted him upon a
   lean horse without saddle or bridle, with his head to the
   animal's tail, and thus conducted him in a sort of pilgrimage
   through the town. He was then consigned prisoner to one of the
   chambers of his palace and placed under guard; while the body
   of his captors dispersed themselves through the splendid
   apartments in eager pursuit of plunder. Three days were thus
   occupied; but at the end of that time the … people of Anagni
   … took arms in behalf of their fellow-townsman and spiritual
   father, and falling upon the French while still indulging in
   the licence of the sack, drove Nogaret and Colonna from their
   quarters, and either expelled or massacred the whole of their
   followers."
{1166}
   The Pope returned to Rome in so great a rage that his reason
   gave way, and soon afterwards he was found dead in his bed.
   "The scandal of these proceedings throughout Christendom was
   immense; and Philippe adopted every precaution to avert evil
   consequences from himself by paying court to Benedict XI. who
   succeeded to the tiara. This Pope, however, though he for some
   time temporised, could not be long deaf to the loud voices of
   the clergy which called for punishment upon the oppressors of
   the church. Ere he had reigned nine months he found himself
   compelled to excommunicate the plunderers of Anagni; and a few
   days afterwards he perished, under circumstances which leave
   little doubt of his having been poisoned. … The king of
   France profitted largely by the crime; since, besides gaining
   time for the subsidence of excitement, he was subsequently
   enabled, by his intrigues, to procure the election of a person
   pledged not only to grant him absolution for all past
   offences, but to stigmatise the memory of Boniface, to restore
   the deposed Colonna to his honours and estates, to nominate
   several French ecclesiastics to the college of cardinals, and
   to grant to the king the tenths of the Gallican church for a
   term of five years. The pontiff who thus seems to have been
   the first of his race to lower the pretensions of his office,
   was Bertrand de Goth, originally a private gentleman of
   Bazadors, and subsequently promoted to the Archiepiscopal See
   of Bordeaux. He assumed the title of Clement V., and after
   receiving investiture at Lyons, fixed the apostolic residence
   at Avignon, where it continued, under successive occupants,
   for a period, the length of which caused it to be denominated
   by the Italians the Babylonian captivity. This quarrel
   settled, Philippe engaged in another undertaking, the
   safe-conduct of which required all his skill and
   unscrupulousness. This important enterprise was no less than
   the destruction and plunder of the military order of Knights
   Templars. … Public discontent … had, by a variety of
   circumstances, been excited throughout the realm. Among the
   number of exactions, the coin had been debased to meet the
   exigencies of the state, and this obstructing the operations
   of commerce, and inflicting wrongs to a greater or less extent
   upon all classes, everyone loudly complained of injustice,
   robbery and oppression, and in the end several tumults
   occurred, in which the residence of the king himself was
   attacked, and the whole population were with difficulty
   restrained from insurrection. In Burgundy, Champagne, Artois
   and Forez, indeed, the nobles, and burgess class having for
   the first time made common cause of their grievances, spoke
   openly of revolt against the royal authority, unless the
   administration should be reformed, and equity be substituted
   in the king's courts for the frauds, extortions and
   malversations, which prevailed. The sudden death of
   Philippe—owing to a fall from his horse while hunting the
   wild boar in the forest of Fontainebleau—on the 29th of
   November, 1314, delivered the people from their tyrant, and
   the crown from the consequences of a general rebellion. Pope
   Clement, the king's firm friend, had gone to his last account
   on the 20th of the preceding April. Louis X., le Hutin (the
   Quarrelsome), ascended the throne at the mature age of
   twenty-five."

      _G. M. Bussey and T. Gaspey,
      Pictorial History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, PAPACY: A.D. 1294-1348,
      and TEMPLARS: A.D. 1307-1314.

FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1328.
   Louis X., Philip V., Charles IV.
   Feudal reaction.

   Philip-le-Bel died in 1314. "With the accession of his son,
   Louis X., so well surnamed Hutin (disorder, tumult), comes a
   violent reaction of the feudal, local, provincial spirit,
   which seeks to dash in pieces the still feeble fabric of
   unity, demands dismemberment, and claims chaos. The Duke of
   Brittany arrogates the right of judgment without appeal; so
   does the exchequer of Rouen. Amiens will not have the king's
   sergeants subpœna before the barons, or his provosts remove
   any prisoner from the town's jurisdiction. Burgundy and Nevers
   require the king to respect the privileges of feudal justice.
   … The common demand of the barons is that the king shall
   renounce all intermeddling with their men. … The young
   monarch grants and signs all; there are only three points to
   which he demurs, and which he seeks to defer. The Burgundian
   barons contest with him the jurisdiction over the rivers,
   roads, and consecrated places. The nobles of Champagne doubt
   the king's right to lead them to war out of their own
   province. Those of Amiens, with true Picard impetuosity,
   require without any circumlocution, that all gentlemen may war
   upon each other, and not enter into securities, but ride, go,
   come, and be armed for war, and pay forfeit to one another.
   … The king's reply to these absurd and insolent demands is
   merely: 'We will order examination of the registers of my lord
   St. Louis, and give to the said nobles two trustworthy
   persons, to be nominated by our council, to verify and inquire
   diligently into the truth of the said article.' The reply was
   adroit enough. The general cry was for a return to the good
   customs of St. Louis: it being forgotten that St. Louis had
   done his utmost to put a stop to private wars. But by thus
   invoking the name of St. Louis, they meant to express their
   wish for the old feudal independence—for the opposite of the
   quasi-legal, the venal, and pettifogging government of
   Philippe-le-Bel. The barons set about destroying, bit by bit,
   all the changes introduced by the late king. But they could
   not believe him dead so long as there survived his Alter Ego,
   his mayor of the palace, Enguerrand de Marigny, who, in the
   latter years of his reign, had been coadjutor and rector of
   the kingdom, and who had allowed his statue to be raised in
   the palace by the side of the king's. His real name was Le
   Portier; but along with the estates he bought the name of
   Marigny. … It was in the Temple, in the very spot where
   Marigny had installed his master for the spoliation of the
   Templars, that the young king Louis repaired to hear the
   solemn accusation brought against him. His accuser was
   Philippe-le-Bel's brother, the violent Charles of Valois, a
   busy man, of mediocre abilities, who put himself at the head
   of the barons. … To effect his destruction, Charles of
   Valois had recourse to the grand accusation of the day, which
   none could surmount.
{1167}
   It was discovered, or presumed, that Marigny's wife or sister,
   in order to effect his acquittal, or bewitch the king, had
   caused one Jacques de Lor to make certain small figures: 'The
   said Jacques, thrown into prison, hangs himself in despair,
   and then his wife, and Enguerrand's sisters are thrown into
   prison, and Enguerrand himself, condemned before the knights
   … is hung at Paris on the thieves' gibbet.' … Marigny's
   best vengeance was that the crown, so strong in his care, sank
   after him into the most deplorable weakness. Louis-le-Hutin,
   needing money for the Flemish war, treated as equal with
   equal, with the city of Paris. The nobles of Champagne and
   Picardy hastened to take advantage of the right of private war
   which they had just reacquired, and made war on the countess of
   Artois, without troubling themselves about the judgment
   rendered by the king, who had awarded this fief to her. All
   the barons had resumed the privilege of coining; Charles of
   Valois, the king's uncle, setting them the example. But
   instead of coining for their own domains only, conformably to
   the ordinances of Philippe-le-Hardi and Philippe-le-Bel, they
   minted coin by wholesale, and gave it currency throughout the
   kingdom. On this, the king had perforce to arouse himself, and
   return to the administration of Marigny and of
   Philippe-le-Bel. He denounced the coinage of the barons,
   (November the 19th, 1315;) ordained that it should pass
   current on their own lands only; and fixed the value of the
   royal coin relatively to thirteen different coinages, which
   thirty-one bishops or barons had the right of minting on their
   own territories. In St. Louis's time, eighty nobles had enjoyed
   this right. The young feudal king, humanized by the want of
   money, did not disdain to treat with serfs and with Jews. …
   It is curious to see the son of Philippe-le-Bel admitting
   serfs to liberty [see SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE]; but it is
   trouble lost. The merchant vainly swells his voice and
   enlarges on the worth of his merchandise; the poor serfs will
   have none of it. Had they buried in the ground some bad piece
   of money, they took care not to dig it up to buy a bit of
   parchment. In vain does the king wax wroth at seeing them dull
   to the value of the boon offered. At last, he directs the
   commissioners deputed to superintend the enfranchisement, to
   value the property of such serfs as preferred 'remaining in
   the sorriness (chétiveté) of slavery,' and to tax them 'as
   sufficiently and to such extent as the condition and wealth of
   the individuals may conveniently allow, and as the necessity of
   our war requires.' But with all this it is a grand spectacle
   to see proclamation made from the throne itself of the
   imprescriptible right of every man to liberty. The serfs do
   not buy this right, but they will remember both the royal
   lesson, and the dangerous appeal to which it instigates
   against the barons. The short and obscure reign of
   Philippe-le-Long [Philip V., 1316-1322] is scarcely less
   important as regards the public law of France, than even that
   of Philippe-le-Bel. In the first place, his accession to the
   throne decides a great question. As Louis Hutin left his queen
   pregnant, his brother Philippe is regent and guardian of the
   future infant. This child dies soon after its birth, and
   Philippe proclaims himself king to the prejudice of a daughter
   of his brother's; a step which was the more surprising from
   the fact that Philippe-le-Bel had maintained the right of
   female succession in regard to Franche-Comté and Artois. The
   barons were desirous that daughters should be excluded from
   inheriting fiefs, but that they should succeed to the throne
   of France; and their chief, Charles of Valois, favored his
   grand-niece against his nephew Philippe. Philippe assembled
   the States, and gained his cause, which, at bottom, was good,
   by absurd reasons. He alleged in his favor the old German law
   of the Franks, which excluded daughters from the Salic land;
   and maintained that the crown of France was too noble a fief
   to fall into hands used to the distaff ('pour tomber en
   quenouille')—a feudal argument, the effect of which was to
   ruin feudality. … By thus rejecting the right of the
   daughters at the very moment it was gradually triumphing over
   the fiefs, the crown acquired its character of receiving
   always without ever giving; and a bold revocation, at this
   time, of an donations made since St. Louis's day, seems to
   contain the principle of the inalienableness of the royal
   domain. Unfortunately, the feudal spirit which resumed
   strength under the Valois in favor of private wars, led to
   fatal creations of appanages, and founded, to the advantage of
   the different branches of the royal family, a princely
   feudality as embarrassing to Charles VI. and Louis XI., as the
   other had been to Philippe-le-Bel. This contested succession
   and disaffection of the barons force Philippe-le-Long into the
   paths of Philippe-le-Bel. He flatters the cities, Paris, and,
   above all, the University,—the grand power of Paris. He
   causes his barons to take the oath of fidelity to him, in
   presence of the masters of the university, and with their
   approval. He wishes his good cities to be provided with
   armories; their citizens to keep their arms in a sure place;
   and appoints them a captain in each bailiwick or district,
   (March the 12th, 1316). … Praiseworthy beginnings of order
   and of government brought no relief to the sufferings of the
   people. During the reign of Louis Hutin, a horrible mortality
   had swept off, it was said, the third of the population of the
   North. The Flemish war had exhausted the last resources of the
   country. … Men's imaginations becoming excited, a great
   movement took place among the people. As in the days of St.
   Louis, a multitude of poor people, of peasants, of shepherds
   or pastoureaux, as they were called, flock together and say
   that they seek to go beyond the sea, that they are destined to
   recover the Holy Land. … They wended their way towards the
   South, everywhere massacring the Jews; whom the king's
   officers vainly tried to protect. At last, troops were got
   together at Toulouse, who fell upon the Pastoureaux, and
   hanging them up by twenties and thirties the rest dispersed.
   … Philippe-le-Long … was seized with fever in the course
   of the same year, (A. D. 1321,) in the month of August,
   without his physicians being able to guess its cause. He
   languished five months, and died. … His brother Charles
   [Charles IV., 1322-1328] succeeded him, without bestowing a
   thought more on the rights of Philippe's daughter; than
   Philippe had done to those of Louis's daughter. The period of
   Charles's reign is as barren of facts with regard to France,
   as it is rich in them respecting Germany, England, and
   Flanders. The Flemings imprison their count. The Germans are
   divided between Frederick of Austria and Lewis of Bavaria, who
   takes his rival prisoner at Muhldorf. In the midst of the
   universal divisions, France seems strong from the circumstance
   of its being one. Charles-le-Bel interferes in favor of the
   count of Flanders.
{1168}
   He attempts, with the pope's aid, to make himself emperor; and
   his sister, Isabella, makes herself actual queen of England by
   the murder of Edward II. … Charles-le-Bel … died almost at
   the same time as Edward, leaving only a daughter; so that he
   was succeeded by a cousin of his. All that fine family of
   princes who had sat near their father at the Council of Vienne
   was extinct. In the popular belief, the curses of Boniface had
   taken effect. … This memorable epoch, which depresses
   England so low, and in proportion, raises France so high,
   presents, nevertheless, in the two countries two analogous
   events: In England, the barons have overthrown Edward II. In
   France, the feudal party places on the throne the feudal
   branch of the Valois."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      books 5-6 (volume l)._

      See, also, VALOIS, THE HOUSE OF.

FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1347.
   The king's control of the Papacy in its contest with the
   emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
   The extent of the royal domain.
   The great vassals.
   The possessions of foreign princes in France.

   On the accession of the House of Valois to the French throne,
   in the person of Philip VI. (A. D. 1328), the royal domain had
   acquired a great increase of extent. In the two centuries
   since Philip I. it had gained, "by conquest, by confiscation,
   or by inheritance, Berry, or the Viscounty of Bourges,
   Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Valois, Vermandois, the
   counties of Auvergne, and Boulogne, a part of Champagne and
   Brie, Lyonnais, Angoumois, Marche, nearly the whole of
   Languedoc, and, lastly, the kingdom of Navarre, which
   belonging in her own right to queen Jeanne, mother of the last
   three Capetians [Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of Navarre and
   of the counties of Champagne and Brie, was married to Philip
   IV., and was the mother of Louis X., Philip V. and Charles
   IV.], Charles IV. united with the crown. But the custom among
   the kings of giving apanages or estates to the princes of
   their house detached afresh from the domain a great part of
   the reunited territories, and created powerful princely
   houses, of which the chiefs often made themselves formidable
   to the monarchs. Among these great houses of the Capetian
   race, the most formidable were: the house of Burgundy, which
   traced back to king Robert; the house of Dreux, issue of a son
   of Louis the Big, and which added by a marriage the duchy of
   Brittany to the county of that name; the house of Anjou, issue
   of Charles, brother of Saint Louis, which was united in 1290
   with that of Valois; the house of Bourbon, descending from
   Robert, Count of Clermont, sixth son of Saint Louis; and the
   house of Alençon, which traced back to Philip III., and
   possessed the duchy of Alençon and Perche. Besides these great
   princely houses of Capetian stock, which owed their grandeur
   and their origin to their apanages, there were many others
   which held considerable rank in France, and of which the
   possessions were transmissible to women; while the apanages
   were all masculine fiefs. The most powerful of these houses
   were those of Flanders, Penthièvre, Châtillon, Montmorency,
   Brienne, Coucy, Vendôme, Auvergne, Foix, and Armagnac. The
   vast possessions of the two last houses were in the country of
   the Langue d'Oc. The counts of Foix were also masters of
   Bearn, and those of Armagnac possessed Fezensac, Rouergue, and
   other large seigniories. Many foreign princes, besides, had
   possessions in France at the accession of the Valois. The king
   of England was lord of Ponthieu, of Aunis, of Saintonge, and
   of the duchy of Aquitaine; the king of Navarre was count of
   Evreux, and possessor of many other towns in Normandy; the
   king of Majorca was proprietor of the seigniory of
   Montpellier; the duke of Lorraine, vassal of the German
   empire, paid homage to the king of France for many fiefs that
   he held in Champagne; and, lastly, the Pope possessed the
   county Venaissin, detached from Provence."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, page 224._

FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
   Accession of King Philip VI.

FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
   The splendor of the Monarchy on the eve of the calamitous
   wars.

   "Indisputably, the king of France [Philip VI., or Philip de
   Valois] was at this moment [A. D. 1328] a great king. He had
   just reinstated Flanders in its state of dependence on him.
   The king of England had done him homage for his French
   provinces. His cousins reigned at Naples and in Hungary. He
   was protector of the king of Scotland. He was surrounded by a
   court of kings—by those of Navarre, Majorca, Bohemia; and
   the Scottish monarch was often one of the circle. The famous
   John of Bohemia, of the house of Luxembourg, and father to the
   emperor Charles IV., declared that he could not live out of
   Paris, 'the most chivalrous residence in the world.' He
   fluttered over all Europe, but ever returned to the court of
   the great king of France—where was kept up one constant
   festival, where jousts and tournaments ever went on, and the
   romances of chivalry, king Arthur and the round table, were
   realized."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.
   The claim of Edward III. of England to the French crown.

   "History tells us that Philip, king of France, surnamed the
   Fair, had three sons, beside his beautiful daughter Isabella,
   married to the king of England [Edward II.]. These three sons
   were very handsome. The eldest, Lewis, king of Navarre during
   the lifetime of his father, was called Lewis Hutin [Louis X.];
   the second was named Philip the Great, or the Long [Philip
   V.]; and the third, Charles [Charles IV.]. All these were
   kings of France, after their father Philip, by legitimate
   succession, one after the other, without having by marriage
   any male heirs; yet, on the death of the last king, Charles,
   the twelve peers and barons of France did not give the kingdom
   to Isabella, the sister, who was queen of England, because
   they said and maintained, and still do insist, that the
   kingdom of France is so noble that it ought not to go to a
   woman; consequently neither to Isabella, nor to her son, the
   king of England [Edward III.]; for they hold that the son of a
   woman cannot claim any right of succession, where that woman
   has none herself. For these reasons the twelve peers and
   barons of France unanimously gave the kingdom of France to the
   lord Philip of Valois, nephew to king Philip, and thus put
   aside the queen of England, who was sister to Charles, the
   late king of France, and her son. Thus, as it seemed to many
   people, the succession went out of the right line; which has
   been the occasion of the most destructive wars and
   devastations of countries, as well in France as elsewhere, as
   you will learn hereafter; the real object of this history
   being to relate the great enterprises and deeds of arms
   achieved in these wars, for from the time of good Charlemagne,
   king of France, never were such feats performed."

      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (Johnes'),
      book 1, chapter 4._

[Images: Maps of France]

   France in 1154 At the Accession of Henry II. (Anjou)
   Showing how he Acquired his fiefs in France.

   Acquired By Henry From Matilda.

   Acquired By Henry From His Father Goeffrey Of Anjou.

   Acquired By Henry From His Wife Eleanor Of Aquitaine

   French Crown Lands

   Other Vassal Lands.

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

   France in 1180
   At The Accession Of Philip Augustus
   Showing The Lands Acquired By The Crown During His Reign.

   Crown Lands At Accession Of Philip

   Acquired During His Reign Form Angevins

   Acquired During His Reign From Other Vassals

   Angevin Lands (1223)

   Other Vassal Lands

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

   France at the death of Philip IV (The Fair) 1314

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

   France at the Peace of Bretigny

-------End: Maps of France----------------

{1169}

   "From the moment of Charles IV.'s death [A. D. 1328], Edward
   III. of England buoyed himself up with a notion of his title
   to the crown of France, in right of his mother Isabel, sister
   to the three last kings. We can have no hesitation in
   condemning the injustice of this pretension. Whether the Salic
   law were or were not valid, no advantage could be gained by
   Edward. Even if he could forget the express or tacit decision
   of all France, there stood in his way Jane, the daughter of
   Louis X., three [daughters] of Philip the Long, and one of
   Charles the Fair. Aware of this, Edward set up a distinction,
   that, although females were excluded from succession, the same
   rule did not apply to their male issue; and thus, though his
   mother Isabel could not herself become queen of France, she
   might transmit a title to him. But this was contrary to the
   commonest rules of inheritance; and if it could have been
   regarded at all, Jane had a son, afterwards the famous king of
   Navarre [Charles the Bad], who stood one degree nearer to the
   crown than Edward. It is asserted in some French authorities
   that Edward preferred a claim to the regency immediately after
   the decease of Charles the Fair, and that the States-General,
   or at least the peers of France, adjudged that dignity to
   Philip de Valois. Whether this be true or not, it is clear
   that he entertained projects of recovering his right as early,
   though his youth and the embarrassed circumstances of his
   government threw insuperable obstacles in the way of their
   execution. He did liege homage, therefore, to Philip for
   Guienne, and for several years, while the affairs of Scotland
   engrossed his attention, gave no signs of meditating a more
   magnificent enterprise. As he advanced in manhood, and felt
   the consciousness of his strength, his early designs grew
   mature, and produced a series of the most important and
   interesting revolutions in the fortunes of France."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part l._

      See, also, SALIC LAW: APPLICATION TO THE
      REGAL SUCCESSION IN FRANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
   The beginning of the "Hundred Years War."

   It was not until 1337 that Edward III. felt prepared to assert
   formally his claim to the French crown and to assume the title
   of King of France. In July of the following year he began
   undertakings to enforce his pretended right, by crossing with
   a considerable force to the continent. He wintered at Antwerp,
   concerting measures with the Flemings, who had espoused his
   cause, and arranging an alliance with the emperor-king of
   Germany, whose name bore more weight than his arms. In 1339 a
   formal declaration of hostilities was made and the long
   war—the Hundred Years War, as it has been called—of English
   kings for the sovereignty of France, began. "This great war
   may well be divided into five periods. The first ends with the
   Peace of Bretigny in 1360 (A. D. 1337-1360), and includes the
   great days of Crécy [1346] and Poitiers [1356], as well as the
   taking of Calais: the second runs to the death of Charles the
   Wise in 1380; these are the days of Du Guesclin and the
   English reverses: the third begins with the renewal of the war
   under Henry V. of England, and ends with the Regency of the
   Duke of Bedford at Paris, including the field of Azincourt
   [1415] and the Treaty of Troyes (A. D. 1415-1422): the fourth
   is the epoch of Jeanne Darc and ends with the second
   establishment of the English at Paris (A. D. 1428-1431): and
   the fifth and last runs on to the final expulsion of the
   English after the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Thus, though it
   is not uncommonly called the Hundred Years War, the struggle
   really extended over a period of a hundred and sixteen years."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapters 1-7._

   "No war had broken out in Europe, since the fall of the Roman
   Empire, so memorable as that of Edward III. and his successors
   against France, whether we consider its duration, its object,
   or the magnitude and variety of its events. It was a struggle
   of one hundred and twenty years, interrupted but once by a
   regular pacification, where the most ancient and extensive
   dominion in the civilised world was the prize, twice lost and
   twice recovered in the conflict. … There is, indeed, ample
   room for national exultation at the names of Crecy, Poitiers
   and Azincourt. So great was the disparity of numbers upon
   those famous days, that we cannot, with the French historians,
   attribute the discomfiture of their hosts merely to mistaken
   tactics and too impetuous valour. … These victories, and the
   qualities that secured them, must chiefly be ascribed to the
   freedom of our constitution, and to the superior condition of
   the people. Not the nobility of England, not the feudal
   tenants, won the battles of Crecy and Poitiers; for these were
   fully matched in the ranks of France; but the yeomen who drew
   the bow with strong and steady arms, accustomed to use it in
   their native fields, and rendered fearless by personal
   competence and civil freedom. … Yet the glorious termination
   to which Edward was enabled, at least for a time, to bring the
   contest, was rather the work of fortune than of valour and
   prudence. Until the battle of Poitiers [A. D. 1356] he had
   made no progress towards the conquest of France. That country
   was too vast, and his army too small, for such a revolution.
   The victory of Crecy gave him nothing but Calais. … But at
   Poitiers he obtained the greatest of prizes, by taking
   prisoner the king of France. Not only the love of freedom
   tempted that prince to ransom himself by the utmost
   sacrifices, but his captivity left France defenceless and
   seemed to annihilate the monarchy itself. … There is no
   affliction which did not fall upon France during this
   miserable period. … Subdued by these misfortunes, though
   Edward had made but slight progress towards the conquest of
   the country, the regent of France, afterwards Charles V.,
   submitted to the peace of Bretigni [A. D. 1360]. By this
   treaty, not to mention less important articles, all Guienne,
   Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, the Limousin, and the Angoumois,
   as well as Calais, and the county of Ponthieu, were ceded in
   full sovereignty to Edward; a price abundantly compensating
   his renunciation of the title of France, which was the sole
   concession stipulated in return."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      book 1, chapters 1-212._

      _W. Longman,
      History of Edward III.,
      volume 1, chapters 6-22._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 20._

      _D. F. Jamison,
      Life and Times of Bertrand du Guesclin,
      volume 1, chapters 4-10._

      See, also, POITIERS, BATTLE OF.

{1170}

FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348.
    The Black Plague.

   "Epochs of moral depression are those, too, of great motality.
   … In the last years of Philippe de Valois' reign, the
   depopulation was rapid. The misery and physical suffering
   which prevailed were insufficient to account for it; for they
   had not reached the extreme at which they subsequently
   arrived. Yet, to adduce but one instance, the population of a
   single town, Narbonne, fell off in the space of four or five
   years from the year 1399, by 500 families. Upon this too tardy
   diminution of the human race followed extermination,—the great
   black plague, or pestilence, which at once heaped up mountains
   of dead throughout Christendom. It began in Provence, in the
   year 1347, on All Saints' Day, continued sixteen months, and
   carried off two-thirds of the inhabitants. The same wholesale
   destruction befell Languedoc. At Montpellier, out of twelve
   consuls, ten died. At Narbonne, 30,000 persons perished. In
   several places, there remained only a tithe of the
   inhabitants. All that the careless Froissart says of this
   fearful visitation, and that only incidentally, is—'For at
   this time there prevailed throughout the world generally a
   disease called epidemy, which destroyed a third of its
   inhabitants.' This pestilence did not break out in the north
   of the kingdom until August, 1348, where it first showed
   itself at Paris and St. Denys. So fearful were its ravages at
   Paris, that, according to some, 800, according to others, 500,
   daily sank under it. … As there was neither famine at the time
   nor want of food, but, on the contrary great abundance, this
   plague was said to proceed from infection of the air and of
   the springs. The Jews were again charged with this, and the
   people cruelly fell upon them."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      See BLACK DEATH.

FRANCE: A. D. 1350.
   Accession of King John II.

FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
   The States-General and Etienne Marcel.

   "The disaster of Poitiers [1356] excited in the minds of the
   people a sentiment of national grief, mixed with indignation
   and scorn at the nobility who had fled before an army so
   inferior in number. Those nobles who passed through the cities
   and towns on their return from the battle were pursued with
   imprecations and outrages. The Parisian bourgeoisie, animated
   with enthusiasm and courage, took upon itself at all risks the
   charge of its own defense; whilst, the eldest son of the king,
   a youth of only nineteen, who had been one of the first to
   fly, assumed the government as lieutenant of his father. It
   was at the summons of this prince that the states assembled
   again at Paris before the time which they had appointed. The
   same deputies returned to the number of 800, of whom 400 were
   of the bourgeoisie; and the work of reform, rudely sketched in
   the preceding session, was resumed under the same influence,
   with an enthusiasm which partook of the character of
   revolutionary impulse. The assembly commenced by concentrating
   its action in a committee of twenty-four members,
   deliberating, as far as appears, without distinction of
   orders; it then intimated its resolutions under the form of
   petitions, which were as follow: The authority of the states
   declared supreme in all affairs of administration and finance,
   the impeachment of all the counsellors of the king, the
   dismissal in a body of the officers of justice, and the
   creation of a council of reformers taken from the three
   orders; lastly, the prohibition to conclude any truce without
   the assent of the three states, and the right on their part to
   re-assemble at their own will without a royal summons. The
   lieutenant of the king, Charles Duke of Normandy, exerted in
   vain the resources of a precocious ability to escape these
   imperious demands: he was compelled to yield everything. The
   States governed in his name; but dissension, springing from
   the mutual jealousy of the different orders, was soon
   introduced into their body. The preponderating influence of
   the bourgeois appeared intolerable to the nobles, who, in
   consequence, deserted the assembly and retired home. The
   deputies of the clergy remained longer at their posts, but
   they also withdrew at last; and, under the name of the
   States-General, none remained but the representatives of the
   cities, alone charged with all the responsibilities of the
   reform and the affairs of the kingdom. Bowing to a necessity
   of central action, they submitted of their own accord to the
   deputation of Paris; and soon, by the tendency of
   circumstances, and in consequence of the hostile attitude of
   the Regent, the question of supremacy of the states became a
   Parisian question, subject to the chances of a popular émeute
   and the guardianship of the municipal power. At this point
   appears a man whose character has grown into historical
   importance in our days from our greater facilities of
   understanding it, Etienne [Stephen] Marcel, 'prévôt des
   marchands'—that is to say, mayor of the municipality of
   Paris. This échevin of the 14th century, by a remarkable
   anticipation, designed and attempted things which seem to
   belong only to recent revolutions. Social unity, and
   administrative uniformity; political rights, co-extensive and
   equal with civil rights; the principle of public authority
   transferred from the crown to the nation; the States-General
   changed, under the influence of the third order, into a
   national representation; the will of the people admitted as
   sovereign in the presence of the depositary of the royal
   power; the influence of Paris over the provinces, as the head
   of opinion and centre of the general movement; the democratic
   dictatorship, and the influence of terror exercised in the
   name of the common weal; new colours assumed and carried as a
   sign of patriotic union and symbol of reform; the transference
   of royalty itself from one branch of the family to the other,
   with a view to the cause of reform and the interest of the
   people—such were the circumstances and the scenes which have
   given to our own as well as the preceding century their
   political character. It is strange to find the whole of it
   comprised in the three years over which the name of the Prévôt
   Marcel predominates. His short and stormy career was, as it
   were, a premature attempt at the grand designs of Providence,
   and the mirror of the bloody changes of fortune through which
   those designs were destined to advance to their accomplishment
   under the impulse of human passions. Marcel lived and died for
   an idea—that of hastening on, by the force of the masses, the
   work of gradual equalisation commenced by the kings
   themselves; but it was his misfortune and his crime to be
   unrelenting in carrying out his convictions. To the
   impetuosity of a tribune who did not shrink even from murder
   he added the talent of organization; he left in the grand
   city, which he had ruled with a stern and absolute sway,
   powerful institutions, noble works, and a name which two
   centuries afterwards his descendants bore with pride as a
   title of nobility."

      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers Etat,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14th CENTURY.

{1171}

FRANCE: A. D. 1358.
   The insurrection of the Jacquerie.

   "The miseries of France weighed more and more heavily on the
   peasantry; and none regarded them. They stood apart from the
   cities, knowing little of them; the nobles despised them and
   robbed them of their substance or their labour. … At last
   the peasantry (May, 1358), weary of their woes, rose up to
   work their own revenge and ruin. They began in the Beauvais
   country and there fell on the nobles, attacking and destroying
   castles, and slaying their inmates: it was the old unvarying
   story. They made themselves a kind of king, a man of Clermont
   in the Beauvoisin, named William Callet. Froissart imagines
   that the name 'Jacques Bonhomme' meant a particular person, a
   leader in these risings. Froissart however had no accurate
   knowledge of the peasant and his ways. Jacques Bonhomme was
   the common nickname, the 'Giles' or 'Hodge' of France, the
   name of the peasant generally; and from it such risings as
   this of 1358 came to be called the 'Jacquerie,' or the
   disturbances of the 'Jacques.' The nobles were soon out
   against them, and the whole land was full of anarchy. Princes
   and nobles, angry peasants with their 'iron shod sticks and
   knives,' free-lances, English bands of pillagers, all made up
   a scene of utter confusion: 'cultivation ceased, commerce
   ceased, security was at an end.' The burghers of Paris and
   Meaux sent a force to help the peasants, who were besieging
   the fortress at Meaux, held by the nobles; these were suddenly
   attacked and routed by the Captal de Buch and the Count de Foix,
   'then on their return from Prussia.' The King of Navarre also
   fell on them, took by stratagem their leader Callet, tortured
   and hanged him. In six weeks the fire was quenched in blood."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      chapter 2, section 3._

   "Froissard relates the horrible details of the Jacquerie with
   the same placid interest which characterises his descriptions
   of battles, tournaments, and the pageantry of chivalry. The
   charm and brilliancy of his narrative have long popularised
   his injustice and his errors, which are self-apparent when
   compared with the authors and chroniclers of his time. … The
   chronicles contemporary of the Jacquerie confine themselves to
   a few words on the subject, although, with the exception of
   the Continuator of Nangis, they were all hostile to the cause
   of the peasants. The private and local documents on the
   subject say very little more. The Continuator of Nangis has
   drawn his information from various sources. He takes care to
   state that he has witnessed almost all he relates. After
   describing the sufferings of the peasants, he adds that the
   laws of justice authorised them to rise in revolt against the
   nobles of France. His respected testimony reduces the
   insurrection to comparatively small proportions. The hundred
   thousand Jacques of Froissard are reduced to something like
   five or six thousand men, a number much more probable when it
   is considered that the insurrection remained a purely local
   one, and that, in consequence of the ravages we have
   mentioned, the whole open country had lost about two-thirds of
   its inhabitants. He states very clearly that the peasants
   killed indiscriminately, and without pity, men and children,
   but he does not say anything of those details of atrocity
   related by Froissard. He only alludes once to a report of some
   outrages offered to some noble ladies; he speaks of it as a
   vague rumour. He describes the insurgents, after the first
   explosion of their vindictive fury, as pausing—amazed at
   their own boldness, and terrified at their own crimes, and the
   nobles, recovering from their terror, taking immediate
   advantage of this sudden torpor and paralysis—assembling and
   slaughtering all, innocent and guilty, burning houses and
   villages. If we turn to other writers contemporary with the
   Jacquerie, we find that Louvet, author of the 'History of the
   District of Beauvais,' does not say much on the subject, and
   evinces also a sympathy for the peasants: the paucity of his
   remarks on a subject represented by Froissard as a gigantic,
   bloody tragedy, raises legitimate doubts as to the veracity of
   the latter. There is another authority on the events of that
   period, which may be considered as more weighty, in
   consequence of its ecclesiastical character; it is the
   'cartulaire,' or journal of the Abbot of Beauvais. … There
   is no trace in it of the horror and indescribable terror …
   [the rising] must have inspired if the peasants had committed
   the atrocities attributed to them by the feudal historian,
   Froissard. On the contrary, the vengeance of the peasants
   falls into the shade, as it were, in contrast with the
   merciless reaction of the nobles, along with the sanguinary
   oppression of the English. The writer of the 'Abbey of
   Beauvais,' and the anonymous monk, 'Continuator of Nangis,'
   concur with each other in their account of the Jacquerie.
   Their judgments are similar, and they manifest the same
   moderation. Their opinions, moreover, are confirmed by a
   higher authority, a testimony that must be considered as
   indisputable, namely, the letters of amnesty of the Regent of
   France, which are all preserved; they bear the date of 10th
   August 1358, and refer to all the acts committed on the
   occasion of the Jacquerie. In these he proves himself more
   severe upon the reaction of the nobles than on the revolt of
   the peasants. … There is not the slightest allusion to the
   monstrosities related by Froissard, which the Regent could not
   have failed to stigmatise, as he is well known for having
   entertained an unscrupulous hatred to any popular movement, or
   any claims of the people. The manner, on the contrary, in
   which the Jacquerie are represented in this official document,
   is full of signification; it represents the men of the open
   country assembling spontaneously in various localities, in
   order to deliberate on the means of resisting the English, and
   suddenly, as with a mutual agreement, turning fiercely on the
   nobles, who were the real cause of their misery, and of the
   disgrace of France, on the days of Crecy and Poitiers. … It
   has also been forgotten that many citizens took an active part
   in the Jacquerie. The great chronicles of France state that
   the majority were peasants, labouring people, but that there
   were also among them citizens, and even gentlemen, who, no
   doubt, were impelled by personal hatred and vengeance. Many
   rich men joined the peasants, and became their leaders. The
   bourgeoisie, in its struggles with royalty, could not refuse
   to take advantage of such a diversion; and Beauvais, Senlis,
   Amiens, Paris, and Meaux accepted the Jacquerie. Moreover,
   almost all the poorer classes of the cities sympathised with
   the revolted peasants.
{1172}
   The Jacquerie broke out on the 21st of May 1358, and not in
   November 1357, as erroneously stated by Froissard, in the
   districts around Beauvais and Clermont-sur-Oise. The peasants,
   merely armed with pikes, sticks, fragments of their ploughs,
   rushed on their masters, murdered their families, and burned
   down their castles. The country comprised between Beauvais and
   Melun was the principal scene of this war of extermination.
   … The Jacquerie had commenced on the 21st of May. On the 9th
   of June … it was already terminated. It was, therefore, in
   reality, an insurrection of less than three weeks' duration.
   The reprisals of the nobles had already commenced on the 9th
   of June, and continued through the whole of July, and the
   greater part of August. Froissard states that the Jacquerie
   lasted over six weeks, thus comprising in his reckoning three
   weeks of the ferocious vengeance of the nobles, and casting on
   Jacques Bonhomme the responsibility of the massacres of which
   he had been the victim, as well as those he had committed in
   his furious despair."

      _Prof. De Vericour,
      The Jacquerie
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (Johnes' translation),
      book 1, chapter 181._

FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
   English conquests recovered.

   The Peace of Bretigny brought little peace to France or little
   diminution of the troubles of the kingdom. In some respects
   there was a change for the worse introduced. The armies which
   had ravaged the country dissolved into plundering bands which
   afflicted it even more. Great numbers of mercenaries from both
   sides were set free, who gathered into Free Companies, as they
   were called, under leaders of fit recklessness and valor, and
   swarmed over the land, warring on all prosperity and all the
   peaceful industries of the time, seeking booty wherever it
   might be found.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

   Civil war, too, was kept alive by the intrigues and
   conspiracies of the Navarrese king, Charles the Bad; and war
   in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, was
   actually stipulated for, by French and English, in their
   treaty of general peace. But when the chivalric but hapless
   King John died, in 1364, the new king, Charles V., who had
   been regent during his captivity, developed an unexpected
   capacity for government. He brought to the front the famous
   Breton warrior Du Guesclin-rough, ignorant, unchivalric—but a
   fighter of the first order in his hard-fighting day. He
   contrived with adroitness to rid France, mostly, of the Free
   Companies, by sending them, with Du Guesclin at their head,
   into Spain, where they drove Peter the Cruel from the throne
   of Castile, and fought the English, who undertook, wickedly
   and foolishly, to sustain him. The Black Prince won a great
   battle, at Najara or Navarette (A. D. 1367), took Du Guesclin
   prisoner and restored the cruel Pedro to his throne. But it
   was a victory fatal to English interests in France. Half the
   army of the English prince perished of a pestilent fever
   before he led it back to Aquitaine, and he himself was marked
   for early death by the same malady. He had been made duke of
   Aquitaine, or Guienne, and held the government of the country.
   The war in Spain proved expensive; he taxed his Gascon and
   Aquitanian subjects heavily. He was ill, irritable, and
   treated them harshly. Discontent became widely spread, and the
   king of France subtly stirred it up until he felt prepared to
   make use of it in actual war. At last, in 1368, he challenged
   a rupture of the Peace of Bretigny by summoning King Edward,
   as his vassal, to answer complaints from Aquitaine. In April
   of the next year he formally declared war and opened
   hostilities the same day. His cunning policy was not to fight,
   but to waste and wear the enemy out. Its wisdom was well-proved
   by the result. Day by day the English lost ground; the footing
   they had gained in France was found to be everywhere insecure.
   The dying Black Prince achieved one hideous triumph at
   Limoges, where he fouled his brilliant fame by a monstrous
   massacre; and thence he was carried home to end his days in
   England. In 1376 he died, and one year later his father, King
   Edward, followed him to the grave, and a child of eleven
   (Richard II.) came to the English throne. But the same
   calamity befell France in 1380, when Charles the Wise died,
   leaving an heir to the throne only twelve years of age. In
   both kingdoms the minority of the sovereign gave rise to
   factious intrigues and distracting feuds. The war went on at
   intervals, with frequent truces and armistices, and with
   little result beyond the animosities which it kept alive. But
   the English possessions, by this time, had been reduced to
   Calais and Guines, with some small parts of Aquitaine
   adjoining the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne. And thus, it may
   be said, the situation was prolonged through a generation,
   until Henry V. of England resumed afresh the undertaking of
   Edward III.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 4._

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 2, chapter 6._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 9._

      _D. F. Jamison,
      Life and Times of Du Guesclin._

      _Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (Johnes' translation),
      book 1._

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.

FRANCE: A. D. 1364.
   Accession of King Charles V.

FRANCE: A. D. 1378.
   Acquisitions in the Rhone valley legal conferred by the
   Emperor.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

FRANCE: A. D. 1380.
   Accession of King Charles VI.

FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
   The reign of the Dukes.
   The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

   "Charles VI. had arrived at the age of eleven years and some
   months when his father died [A. D. 1380]. His three paternal
   uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Berry, and Burgundy, and his
   maternal uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, disputed among themselves
   concerning his guardianship and the regency. They agreed to
   emancipate the young King immediately after his coronation,
   which was to take place during the year, and the regency was
   to remain until that period in the hands of the eldest, the
   Duke of Anjou." But the Duke of Anjou was soon afterwards
   lured into Italy by the fatal gift of a claim to the crown of
   Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.], and perished in striving
   to realize it. The surviving uncles misgoverned the country
   between them until 1389, when the young king was persuaded to
   throw off their yoke. The nation rejoiced for three years in
   the experience and the prospect of administrative reforms; but
   suddenly, in July, 1392, the young king became demented, and
   "then commenced the third and fatal epoch of that disastrous
   reign. The faction of the dukes again seized power," but only
   to waste and afflict the kingdom by dissensions among
   themselves.
{1173}
   The number of the rival dukes was now increased by the
   addition of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king, who
   showed himself as ruthless and rapacious as any. "Charles was
   still considered to be reigning; each one sought in turn to
   get possession of him, and each one watched his lucid moments
   in order to stand well in power. His flashes of reason were
   still more melancholy than his fits of delirium. Incapable of
   attending to his affairs, or of having a will of his own,
   always subservient to the dominant party, he appeared to
   employ his few glimmerings of reason only in sanctioning the
   most tyrannical acts and the most odious abuses. It was in
   this manner that the kingdom of France was governed during
   twenty-eight years." In 1404, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip
   the Bold, having died, the Duke of Orleans acquired supreme
   authority and exercised it most oppressively. But the new Duke
   of Burgundy, John the Fearless, made his appearance on the
   scene ere long, arriving from his county of Flanders with an
   army and threatening civil war. Terms of peace, however, were
   arranged between the two dukes and an apparent reconciliation
   took place. On the very next day the Duke of Orleans was
   assassinated (A. D. 1407), and the Duke of Burgundy openly
   proclaimed his instigation of the deed. Out of that
   treacherous murder sprang a war of factions so deadly that
   France was delivered by it to foreign conquest, and destroyed,
   we may say, for the time being, as a nation. The elder of the
   young princes of Orleans, sons of the murdered duke, had
   married a daughter of Count Bernard of Armagnac, and Count
   Bernard became the leader of the party which supported them
   and sought to avenge them, as against the Duke of Burgundy and
   his party. Hence the former acquired the name of Armagnacs;
   the latter were called Burgundians. Armagnac led an army of
   Gascons [A. D. 1410] and threatened Paris, "where John the
   Fearless caressed the vilest populace. Burgundy relied on the
   name of the king, whom he held in his power, and armed in the
   capital a corps of one hundred young butchers or
   horse-knackers, who, from John Caboche, their chief, took the
   name of Cabochiens. A frightful war, interrupted by truces
   violated on both sides, commenced between the party of
   Armagnac and that of Burgundy. Both sides appealed to the
   English, and sold France to them. The Armagnacs pillaged and
   ravaged the environs of Paris with unheard of cruelties, while
   the Cabochiens caused the capital they defended to tremble.
   The States-General, convoked for the first time for thirty
   years, were dumb—without courage and without strength. The
   Parliament was silent, the university made itself the organ of
   the populace, and the butchers made the laws. They pillaged,
   imprisoned and slaughtered with impunity, according to their
   savage fury, and found judges to condemn their victims. …
   The reaction broke out at last. Tired of so many atrocities,
   the bourgeoisie took up arms, and shook off the yoke of the
   horse-knackers. The Dauphin was delivered by them. He mounted
   on horseback, and, at the head of the militia, went to the
   Hôtel de Ville, from which place he drove out Caboche and his
   brigands. The counter revolution was established. Burgundy
   departed, and the power passed to the Armagnacs. The princes
   re-entered Paris, and King Charles took up the oriflamme (the
   royal standard of France), to make war against John the
   Fearless, whose instrument he had been a short time before.
   His army was victorious. Burgundy submitted, and the treaty of
Arras [A. D. 1415] suspended the war, but not the executions and
   the ravages. Henry V., King of England, judged this a
   propitious moment to descend upon France, which had not a
   vessel to oppose the invaders."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, pages 266-279._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      volume 1, book 1, chapters 1-140._

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 2, chapters 8-9._

FRANCE: A. D. 1383.
   Pope Urban's Crusade against the Schismatics.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

FRANCE: A. D. 1396.
   The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the king.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
   The Hundred Years War renewed by Henry V. of England.

   "When Henry V. resolved to recover what he claimed as the
   inheritance of his predecessors, he had to begin, it may be
   said, the work of conquest over again. Allies, however, he
   had, whose assistance he was to find very useful. The dynasty
   of De Montfort had been established in possession of the
   dukedom of Britanny in a great measure by English help, and
   though the relations between the two countries had not been
   invariably friendly since that time, the sense of this
   obligation, and, still more powerfully, a jealous fear of the
   French king, inclined Britanny to the English alliance. The
   Dukes of Burgundy, though they had no such motives of
   gratitude towards England, felt a far stronger hostility
   towards France. The feud between the rival factions which went
   by the names of Burgundians and Armagnacs had now been raging
   for several years; and though the attitude of the Burgundians
   varied—at the great struggle of Agincourt they were allies,
   though lukewarm and even doubtful allies, of the French—they
   ultimately ranked themselves decidedly on Henry's side. In
   1414, then, Henry formally demanded, as the heir of Isabella,
   mother of his great-grandfather Edward, the crown of France.
   This claim the French princes wholly refused to consider.
   Henry then moderated his demands so far, at least, as to allow
   Charles to remain in nominal possession of his kingdom; but
   … France was to cede to England, no longer as a feudal
   superior making a grant to a vassal, but in full sovereignty,
   the provinces of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou, together with all
   that was comprised in the ancient duchy of Aquitaine. Half,
   too, of Provence was claimed, and the arrears of the ransom of
   King John, amounting to 1,200,000 crowns, were also to be
   paid. Finally, the French king was to give his youngest
   daughter, Katharine, in marriage to Henry, with a portion of
   2,000,000 crowns. The French ministers offered, in answer, to
   yield the duchy of Aquitaine, comprising the provinces of
   Anjou, Gascony, Guienne, Poitou, and to give the hand of the
   princess Katharine with a dowry of 600,000 crowns.
   "Negotiations went on through several months, with small
   chance of success, while Henry prepared for war. His
   preparations were completed in the summer of 1415, and on the
   11th of August in that year he set sail from Southampton, with
   an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers, very
   completely equipped, and accompanied with cannon and other
   engines of war.
{1174}
   Landing in the estuary of the Seine, the invaders first
   captured the important Norman seaport of Harfleur, after a
   siege of a month, and expelled the inhabitants from the town.
   It was an important acquisition; but it had cost the English
   heavily. They were ill-supplied with food; they had suffered
   from much rain; 2,000 had died of an epidemic of dysentery.
   The army was in no condition for a forward movement. "The
   safest course would now have been to return at once; and this
   seems to have been pressed upon the king by the majority of
   his counsellors. But this prudent advice did not approve
   itself to Henry's adventurous temper. … He determined … to
   make what may be called a military parade to Calais. This
   involved a march of not less than 150 miles through a hostile
   country, a dangerous, and, but that one who cherishes such
   designs as Henry's must make a reputation for daring, a
   useless operation; but the king's determined will overcame all
   opposition." Leaving a strong garrison at Harfleur, Henry set
   out upon his march. Arrived at the Somme, his further progress
   was disputed, and he was forced to make a long detour before
   he could effect a crossing of the river. On the 24th of
   October, he encountered the French army, strongly posted at
   the village of Azincour or Agincourt, barring the road to
   Calais; and there, on the morning of the 25th, after a night
   of drenching rain, the great battle, which shines with so
   dazzling a glory in English history, was fought. There seems
   to be no doubt that the English were greatly outnumbered by
   the French—according to Monstrelet they were but one to six;
   but the masses on the French side were unskilfully handled and
   no advantage was got from them. The deadly shafts of the
   terrible English archers built such a rampart of corpses in
   their front that it actually sheltered them from the charge of
   the French cavalry. "Everywhere the French were routed, slain,
   or taken. The victory of the English was complete. … The
   French loss was enormous. Monstrelet gives a long list of the
   chief princes and nobles who fell on that fatal field. … We
   are disposed to trust his estimate, which, including princes,
   knights and men-at-arms of every degree, he puts at 10,000.
   … Only 1,600 are said to have been 'of low degree.' … The
   number of knights and gentlemen taken prisoners was 1,500.
   Among them were Charles, Duke of Orleans, and the Duke of
   Bourbon, both princes of the blood-royal. … Brilliant as was
   the victory which Henry had won at Agincourt, it had, it may
   be said, no immediate results. … The army resumed its
   interrupted march to Calais, which was about forty miles
   distant. At Calais a council of war was held, and the
   resolution to return to England unanimously taken. A few days
   were allowed for refreshment, and about the middle of November
   the army embarked."

      _A. J. Church,
      Henry the Fifth,
      chapters 6-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      volume 1, book 1, chapters 140-149._

      _J. E. Tyler,
      Henry of Monmouth,
      chapters 19-23._

      _G M. Towle,
      History of Henry V.,
      chapters 7-8._

      _Lord Brougham,
      History of England and France
      under the House of Lancaster._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History:
      second series, chapters 24-26._

FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
   Massacre of Armagnacs.
   The murder of the Duke of Burgundy.

   "The captivity of so many princes of the blood as had been
   taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
   to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
   that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
   men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
   Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
   had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
   violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
   remained at the head of their hostile factions. … The Count
   d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
   the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
   hands. … The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
   his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
   him than to the other party. … For a whole day's ride round
   the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
   burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
   called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
   Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
   had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
   English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
   Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
   moment for a second expedition." The English king took
   advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
   1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
   were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,—
   especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
   Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
   Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
   of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
   prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
   in the court. … The court of each prison became a
   slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
   and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
   in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
   corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
   had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
   broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
   men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
   their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
   Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
   morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
   perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
   reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
   besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
   supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
   was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
   In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
   followed, both parties making a truce with the English
   invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
   the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
   cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
   profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
   met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
   Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
   one side the treachery was consummated a month later
   (September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
   the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
   Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
   presence.
{1175}
   This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
   Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
   the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
   easy prey to foreign conquest.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      second series, chapters 28-29._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211._

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 9, chapter 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
   Burgundy's revenge.
   Henry the Fifth's triumph.
   Two kings in Paris.
   The Treaty of Troyes.
   Death of Henry.

   "Whilst civil war was … penetrating to the very core of the
   kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the
   kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned
   to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize
   after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen
   months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed
   at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and
   resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he
   successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance
   in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances,
   Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a
   short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors;
   but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege
   of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle.
   Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000
   souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese,
   on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates,
   their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements
   from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had
   ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring
   provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand
   old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died
   either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the
   neighbouring country. … Fifteen thousand men of
   city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many
   archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many
   men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for
   more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of
   strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the
   town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus
   had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of
   England." After this great success there were truces brought
   about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to
   nothing—except the treacherous murder of the Duke of
   Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The
   son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as
   Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king
   and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the
   fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at
   Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and
   those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was
   granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with
   Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the
   dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an
   agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The
   preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance
   with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by
   King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on
   the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to
   the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty,
   definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and
   promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess
   Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in
   marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his
   possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death,
   "the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and
   appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England
   and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of
   Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the
   party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay
   upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to
   this peace, which seemed to them treason. … In the duchy of
   Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to
   the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful
   proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease
   experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles
   VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of
   Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon
   him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war
   lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others,
   Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate
   resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. …
   It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and
   in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his
   enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry
   V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen
   Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of
   Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a
   substantial and durable success for him. … Towards the end
   of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to
   delude himself as to his condition, he … had himself removed
   to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them
   his last royal instructions. … He expired on the 31st of
   August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 23._

   At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept
   distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly
   equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising
   sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and
   profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of
   France flocked into his ante-chambers."

      _A. J. Church,
      Henry the Fifth,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264._

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 9, chapters 2-3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1422.
   Accession of King Charles VII.

{1176}

FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
   The Mission of the Maid.

   "France divided—two kings, two regencies, two armies, two
   governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of
   justice—met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles,
   nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the
   soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the
   nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31,
   1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI.,
   father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom
   to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently
   took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued
   the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the
   dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August
   17, 1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the
   government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He
   then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy
   round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the
   partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that
   remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere
   ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands—sometimes
   friends, sometimes enemies—driving each other on, wave after
   wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops,
   burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the
   population. In this disorganization of the country, the young
   dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people,
   at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was
   making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. … Such
   was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior
   in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc,
   better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,—daughter of a
   peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of
   Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young
   maiden—of the voices she heard—of the conviction which came
   upon her that she was called by God to deliver her
   country—and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went
   about her mission until all people bent to her as the
   messenger and minister of God—the story is a familiar one to
   all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois,
   with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where
   Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed
   the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its
   confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On
   the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was
   saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back
   the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in
   reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and
   the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found
   and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only
   another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which
   seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I
   must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to
   go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the
   intermediate provinces were still in the power of the
   Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals
   opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all
   opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims
   was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429)
   the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier,
   Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims
   opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained
   trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the
   Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by
   her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' … The
   king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was
   accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in
   the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the
   will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of
   Rheims to receive your holy unction—now that you at last are
   king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' … From that
   moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have
   come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she
   had given victory, wished her to remain always their
   prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she
   was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she
   felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained
   courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an
   attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first
   failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The
   following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the
   town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24,
   1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken
   prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the
   commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the
   drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once
   in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid
   was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner
   to the count of Luxembourg, who yielded her to the Duke of
   Burgundy, who surrendered her to the English, who delivered
   her to the Inquisition, by which she was tried, condemned and
   burned to death, at Rouen, as a witch (May 30, 1431). "It was
   a complex crime, in which each party got rid of
   responsibility, but in which the accusation rests with Paris
   [the University of Paris was foremost among the pursuers of
   the wonderful Maid], the cowardice with Luxembourg, the
   sentence with the Inquisition, the blame and punishment with
   England, and the disgrace and ingratitude with France. This
   bartering about Joan by her enemies, of whom the fiercest were
   her countrymen, had lasted six months. … During these six
   months, the influence of this goddess of war upon the troops
   of Charles VII.—her spirit, which still guided the camp and
   council of the king—the patriotic, though superstitious,
   veneration of the people, which her captivity only
   doubled,—and, lastly, the absence of the Duke of Burgundy,
   … all these causes had brought reverse after reverse upon
   the English, and a series of successes to Charles VII. Joan,
   although absent, triumphed everywhere."

      _A. de Lamartine,
      Memoirs of Celebrated Characters: Joan of Arc._

   "It seems natural to ask what steps the King of France had
   taken … to avert her doom. If ever there had been a
   sovereign indebted to a subject, that sovereign was Charles
   VII., that subject Joan of Arc. … Yet, no sooner was she
   captive than she seems forgotten. We hear nothing of any
   attempt at rescue, of any proposal for ransom; neither the
   most common protest against her trial, nor the faintest threat
   of reprisals; nay, not even after her death, one single
   expression of regret! Charles continued to slumber in his
   delicious retreats beyond the Loire, engrossed by dames of a
   very different character from Joan's, and careless of the
   heroine to whom his security in that indolence was due. Her
   memory on the other hand was long endeared to the French
   people, and long did they continue to cherish a romantic hope
   that she might still survive.
{1177}
   So strong was this feeling, that in the year 1436 advantage
   was taken of it by a female imposter, who pretended to be Joan
   of Arc escaped from her captivity. She fixed her abode at
   Metz, and soon afterwards married a knight of good family, the
   Sire des Armoises. Strange to say, it appears from a contemporary
   chronicle, that Joan's two surviving brothers acknowledged
   this woman as their sister. Stranger still, other records
   prove that she made two visits to Orleans, one before and one
   after her marriage, and on each occasion was hailed as the
   heroine returned. … The brothers of Joan of Arc might
   possibly have hopes of profit by the fraud; but how the people
   of Orleans, who had seen her so closely, who had fought side
   by side with her in the siege, could be deceived as to the
   person, we cannot understand, nor yet what motive they could
   have in deceiving. The interest which Joan of Arc inspires at
   the present day extends even to the house where she dwelt, and
   to the family from which she sprung. Her father died of grief
   at the tidings of her execution; her mother long survived it,
   but fell into great distress. Twenty years afterwards we find
   her in receipt of a pension from the city of Orleans; three
   francs a month; 'to help her to live.' Joan's brothers and
   their issue took, the name of Du Lis from the Lily of France,
   which the King had assigned as their arms. … It will be easy
   to trace the true character of Joan. … Nowhere do modern
   annals display a character more pure—more generous—more
   humble amidst fancied visions and undoubted victories—more
   free from all taint of selfishness—more akin to the champions
   and martyrs of old times. All this is no more than justice and
   love of truth would require us to say. But when we find some
   French historians, transported by an enthusiasm almost equal
   to that of Joan herself, represent her us filling the part of
   a general or statesman—as skilful in leading armies, or
   directing councils—we must withhold our faith. Such skill,
   indeed, from a country girl, without either education or
   experience, would be, had she really possessed it, scarcely
   less supernatural than the visions which she claimed. But the
   facts are far otherwise. In affairs of state, Joan's voice was
   never heard; in affairs of war, all her proposals will be
   found to resolve themselves into two—either to rush headlong
   upon the enemy, often in the very point where he was
   strongest, or to offer frequent and public prayers to the
   Almighty. We are not aware of any single instance in which her
   military suggestions were not these, or nearly akin to these.
   … Of Joan's person no authentic resemblance now remains. A
   statue to her memory had been raised upon the bridge at
   Orleans, at the sole charge … of the matrons and maids of
   that city: this probably preserved some degree of likeness,
   but unfortunately perished in the religious wars of the
   sixteenth century. There is no portrait extant; the two
   earliest engravings are of 1606 and 1612, and they greatly
   differ."

      _Lord Mahon,
      Historical Essays,
      pages 53-57._

   "A few days before her death, when urged to resume her woman's
   dress, she said: 'When I shall have accomplished that for
   which I was sent from God, I will take the dress of a woman.'
   Yet, in one sense her mission did end at Rheims. The faith of
   the people still followed her, but her enemies—not the
   English, but those in the heart of the court of Charles—began
   to be too powerful for her. We may, indeed, conceive what a
   hoard of envy and malice was gathering in the hearts of those
   hardened politicians at seeing themselves superseded by a
   peasant girl. They, accustomed to dark and tortuous ways,
   could not comprehend or coalesce with the divine simplicity of
   her designs and means. A successful intrigue was formed
   against her. It was resolved to keep her still in the camp as
   a name and a figure, but to take from her all power, all voice
   in the direction of affairs. So accordingly it was done. …
   Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are
   attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of
   Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary
   talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action;
   but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures.
   She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that
   they should have died without confession. She wept at the
   abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she
   was without a trace of vindictiveness. 'Ah, Glacidas, Glacidas!'
   she said to Sir William Glasdale at Orleans, 'you have called
   me foul names; but I have pity upon your soul and the souls of
   your men. Surrender to the King of Heaven!' And she was once
   seen, resting the head of a wounded Englishman on her lap,
   comforting and consoling him. In her diet she was abstemious
   in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and then for the
   most part, only of bread and water sometimes mixed with wine.
   In the field she slept in her armour, but when she came into a
   city she always sought out some honourable matron, under whose
   protection she placed herself; and there is wonderful evidence
   of the atmosphere of purity which she diffused around her, her
   very presence banishing from men's hearts all evil thoughts
   and wishes. Her conversation, when it was not of the war, was
   entirely of religion. She confessed often, and received
   communion twice in the week. 'And it was her custom,' says
   Dunois, 'at twilight every day, to retire to the church and
   make the bells be rung for half an hour, and she gathered the
   mendicant religious who followed the King's army, and made
   them sing an antiphon of the Blessed Mother of God.' From
   presumption, as from superstition, she was entirely free. When
   women brought her crosses and chaplets to bless, she said:
   'How can I bless them? Your own blessing would be as good as
   mine.'"

      _J. O'Hagan,
      Joan of Arc,
      pages 61-66._

   "What is to be thought of her? What is to be thought of the
   poor shepherd girl from the hills and forests of Lorraine,
   that—like the Hebrew shepherd boy from the hills and forests
   of Judea—rose suddenly out of the quiet, out of the safety,
   out of the religious inspiration, rooted in deep pastoral
   solitudes, to a station in the van of armies, and to the more
   perilous station at the right hand of kings? The Hebrew boy
   inaugurated his patriotic mission by an act, by a victorious
   act, such as no man could deny. But so did the girl of
   Lorraine, if we read her story as it was read by those who saw
   her nearest. Adverse armies bore witness to the boy as no
   pretender; but so they did to the gentle girl. Judged by the
   voices of all who saw them from a station of good-will, both
   were found true and loyal to any promises involved in their
   first acts. Enemies it was that made the difference between
   their subsequent fortunes.
{1178}
   The boy rose to a splendour, and a noonday prosperity, both
   personal and public, that rang through the records of his
   people, and became a by-word amongst his posterity for a
   thousand years, until the sceptre was departing from Judah.
   The poor, forsaken girl, on the contrary, drank not herself
   from that cup of rest which she had secured for France. …
   This pure creature—pure from every suspicion of even a
   visionary self-interest, even as she was pure in senses more
   obvious—never once did this holy child, as regarded herself,
   relax from her belief in the darkness that was travelling to
   meet her. She might not prefigure the very manner of her
   death; she saw not in vision, perhaps, the aerial altitude of
   the fiery scaffold, the spectators without end on every road
   pouring into Rouen as to a coronation, the surging smoke, the
   volleying flames, the hostile faces all around, the pitying
   eye that lurked but here and there, until nature and
   imperishable truth broke loose from artificial
   restraints;—these might not be apparent through the mists of
   the hurrying future. But the voice that called her to death,
   that she heard for ever."

      _T. De Quincey,
      Joan of Arc (Collected Writings, volume 5)._

   A discussion of doubts that have been raised concerning the
   death of Joan at the stake will be found in

      _Octave Delepierre's
      Historical Difficulties and Contested Events,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 10._

      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      book 2, chapters 57-105._

      _H. Parr,
      Life and Death of Joan of Arc._

      _J. Tuckey,
      Joan of Arc._

      _Mrs. A. E. Bray,
      Joan of Arc._

FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
   The English expelled.

   "In Joan of Arc the English certainly destroyed the cause of
   their late reverses. But the impulse had been given, and the
   crime of base vengeance could not stay it. Fortune declared
   every where and in every way against them. In vain was Henry
   VI. brought to Paris, crowned at Notre Dame, and made to
   exercise all the functions of royalty in court and parliament.
   The duke of Burgundy, disgusted with the English, became at
   last reconciled to Charles; who spared no sacrifice to win the
   support of so powerful a subject. The amplest possible amends
   were made for the murder of the late duke. The towns beyond
   the Somme were ceded to Burgundy, and the reigning duke [but
   not his successors] was exempted from all homage towards the
   king of France. Such was the famous treaty of Arras [September
   21, 1435], which restored to Charles his throne, and deprived
   the English of all hopes of retaining their conquests in the
   kingdom. The crimes and misrule of the Orleans faction were
   forgotten; popularity ebbed in favour of Charles. … One of
   the gates of Paris was betrayed by the citizens to the
   constable and Dunois [April, 1436]. Willoughby, the governor,
   was obliged to shut himself up in the Bastile with his
   garrison, from whence they retired to Rouen. Charles VII.
   entered his capital, after twenty years' exclusion from it, in
   November, 1437. Thenceforward the war lost its serious
   character. Charles was gradually established on his throne,
   and the struggle between the two nations was feebly carried
   on, broken merely by a few sieges and enterprises, mostly to
   the disadvantage of the English. … There had been frequent
   endeavours and conferences towards a peace between the French
   and English. The demands on either side proved irreconcilable.
   A truce was however concluded, in 1444, which lasted four
   years; it was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI. with
   Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Réné, and granddaughter of
   Louis, who had perished while leading an army to the conquest
   of Naples. … In 1449 the truce was allowed to expire. The
   quarrels of York and Lancaster had commenced, and England was
   unable to defend her foreign possessions. Normandy was
   invaded. The gallant Talbot could not preserve Rouen with a
   disaffected population, and Charles recovered without loss of
   blood [1449] the second capital of his dominions. The only
   blow struck by the English for the preservation of Normandy
   was at Fourmigny near Bayeux. … Normandy was for ever lost
   to the English after this action or skirmish. The following
   year Guyenne was invaded by the count de Dunois. He met with
   no resistance. The great towns at that day had grown wealthy,
   and their maxim was to avoid a siege at all hazards." Lord
   Talbot was killed in an engagement at Castillon (1450), and
   "with that hero expired the last hopes of his country in
   regard to France. Guyenne was lost [A. D. 1453] as well as
   Normandy, and Calais remained to England the only fruit of so
   much blood spilt and so many victories achieved."

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 11._

      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
      book 2, chapter 109, book 3, chapter 65._

      See, also,
      AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.

FRANCE: A. D. 1438.
   Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   Reforming decrees of the Council of Basel adopted for the
   Gallican church.

   After the rupture between the reforming Council of Basel and
   Pope Eugenius IV. (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448), Charles VII.
   of France "determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the
   decrees of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that
   no opposition could be made by the Pope. Accordingly a Synod
   was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438. The embassadors of
   Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was agreed
   that the King should write to Pope and Council to stay their
   hands in proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the
   reformation be not lost, some of the Basel decrees should be
   maintained in France by royal authority. The results of the
   synod's deliberation were laid before the King, and on July 7
   were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French
   Church. The Pragmatic Sanction enacted that General Councils
   were to be held every ten years, and recognised the authority
   of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to reserve any
   of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were
   to be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices
   in expectancy, 'whence all agree that many evils arise,' were
   to cease, as well as reservations. In all cathedral churches,
   one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied
   for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or
   preach at least once a week. Benefices were to be conferred in
   future, one-third on graduates, two-thirds on deserving
   clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes, were
   forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be 24, each of the
   age of 30 at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to
   be paid to the Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on
   institution. Regulations were made for greater reverence in
   the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said by the
   priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were
   forbidden, and clerical concubinage was to be punished by
   suspension for three months. Such were the chief reforms of
   its own special grievances, which France wished to establish.
   It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of
   national Churches to arrange for themselves the details of
   their own ecclesiastical organisation."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

{1179}

FRANCE: A. D. 1447.
   Origin of the claims of the house of Orleans to the duchy of
   Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
   The reconstructed kingdom.
   The new plant of Absolutism.

   "At the expulsion of the English, France emerged from the
   chaos with an altered character and new features of
   government. The royal authority and supreme jurisdiction of
   the parliament were universally recognised. Yet there was a
   tendency towards insubordination left among the great
   nobility, arising in part from the remains of old feudal
   privileges, but still more from that lax administration which,
   in the convulsive struggles of the war, had been suffered to
   prevail. In the south were some considerable vassals, the
   houses of Foix, Albret, and Armagnac, who, on account of their
   distance from the seat of empire, had always maintained a very
   independent conduct. The dukes of Britany and Burgundy were of
   a more formidable character, and might rather be ranked among
   foreign powers than privileged subjects. The princes, too, of
   the royal blood, who, during the late reign, had learned to
   partake or contend for the management, were ill-inclined
   towards Charles VII., himself jealous, from old recollections
   of their ascendancy. They saw that the constitution was
   verging rapidly towards an absolute monarchy, from the
   direction of which they would studiously be excluded. This
   apprehension gave rise to several attempts at rebellion during
   the reign of Charles VII., and to the war, commonly entitled,
   for the Public Weal ('du bien public'), under Louis XI. Among
   the pretenses alleged by the revolters in each of these, the
   injuries of the people were not forgotten; but from the people
   they received small support. Weary of civil dissension, and
   anxious for a strong government to secure them from
   depredation, the French had no inducement to intrust even
   their real grievances to a few malcontent princes, whose
   regard for the common good they had much reason to distrust.
   Every circumstance favoured Charles VII. and his son in the
   attainment of arbitrary power. The country was pillaged by
   military ruffians. Some of these had been led by the dauphin
   to a war in Germany, but the remainder still infested the high
   roads and villages. Charles established his companies of
   ordonnance, the basis of the French regular army, in order to
   protect the country from such depredators. They consisted of
   about nine thousand soldiers, all cavalry, of whom fifteen
   hundred were heavy-armed; a force not very considerable, but
   the first, except mere body-guards, which had been raised in
   any part of Europe as a national standing army. These troops
   were paid out of the produce of a permanent tax, called the
   taille; an innovation still more important than the former.
   But the present benefit cheating the people, now prone to
   submissive habits, little or no opposition was made, except in
   Guienne, the inhabitants of which had speedy reason to regret
   the mild government of England, and vainly endeavoured to
   return to its protection. It was not long before the new
   despotism exhibited itself in its harshest character. Louis
   XI., son of Charles VII., who during his father's reign, had
   been connected with the discontented princes, came to the
   throne greatly endowed with those virtues and vices which
   conspire to the success of a king."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1458-1461.
   Renewed submission of Genoa to the King, and renewed revolt.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

FRANCE: A. D. 1461.
   Accession of King Louis XI.
   Contemporary portrait of him by Commines.

   "Of all the princes that I ever knew, the wisest and most
   dexterous to extricate himself out of any danger or difficulty
   in time of adversity, was our master King Louis XI. He was the
   humblest in his conversation and habit, and the most painful
   and indefatigable to win over any man to his side that he
   thought capable of doing him either mischief or service:
   though he was often refused, he would never give over a man
   that he wished to gain, but still pressed and continued his
   insinuations, promising him largely, and presenting him with
   such sums and honours as he knew would gratify his ambition;
   and for such as he had discarded in time of peace and
   prosperity, he paid dear (when he had occasion for them) to
   recover them again; but when he had once reconciled them, he
   retained no enmity towards them for what had passed, but
   employed them freely for the future. He was naturally kind and
   indulgent to persons of mean estate, and hostile to all great
   men who had no need of him. Never prince was so conversable,
   nor so inquisitive as he, for his desire was to know everybody
   he could; and indeed he knew all persons of any authority or
   worth in England, Spain, Portugal and Italy, in the
   territories of the Dukes of Burgundy and Bretagne, and among
   his own subjects; and by those qualities he preserved the
   crown upon his head, which was in much danger by the enemies
   he had created to himself upon his accession to the throne.
   But above all, his great bounty and liberality did him the
   greatest service: and yet, as he behaved himself wisely in
   time of distress, so when he thought himself a little out of
   danger, though it were but by a truce, he would disoblige the
   servants and officers of his court by mean and petty ways,
   which were little to his advantage; and as for peace, he could
   hardly endure the thoughts of it. He spoke slightingly of most
   people, and rather before their faces, than behind their
   backs, unless he was afraid of them, and of that sort there
   were a great many, for he was naturally somewhat timorous.
   When he had done himself any prejudice by his talk, or was
   apprehensive he should do so, and wished to make amends, he
   would say to the person whom he had disobliged, 'I am sensible
   my tongue has done me a great deal of mischief; but, on the
   other hand, it has sometimes done me much good; however, it is
   but reason I should make some reparation for the injury.' And
   he never used this kind of apologies to any person, but he
   granted some favour to the person to whom he made it, and it
   was always of considerable amount. It is certainly a great
   blessing from God upon any prince to have experienced
   adversity as well as prosperity, good as well as evil, and
   especially if the good outweighs the evil, as it did in the
   king our master.
{1180}
   I am of opinion that the troubles he was involved in, in his
   youth, when he fled from his father, and resided six years
   together with Philip Duke of Burgundy, were of great service
   to him; for there he learned to be complaisant to such as he
   had occasion to use, which was no slight advantage of
   adversity. As soon as he found himself a powerful and crowned
   king, his mind was wholly bent upon revenge; but he quickly
   found the inconvenience of this, repented by degrees of his
   indiscretion, and made sufficient reparation for his folly and
   error, by regaining those he had injured, as shall be related
   hereafter. Besides, I am very confident that if his education
   had not been different from the usual education of such nobles
   as I have seen in France, he could not so easily have worked
   himself out of his troubles; for they are brought up to
   nothing but to make themselves ridiculous, both in their
   clothes and discourse; they have no knowledge of letters; no
   wise man is suffered to come near them, to improve their
   understandings; they have governors who manage their business,
   but they do nothing themselves."—Such is the account of Louis
   XI. which Philip de Commines gives in one of the early
   chapters of his delightful Memoirs. In a later chapter he
   tells naively of the king's suspicions and fears, and of what
   he suffered, at the end of his life, as the penalty of his
   cruel and crafty dealings with his subjects: "Some five or six
   months before his death, he began to suspect everybody,
   especially those who were most capable and deserving of the
   administration of affairs. He was afraid of his son, and
   caused him to be kept close, so that no man saw or discoursed
   with him, but by his special command. At last he grew
   suspicious of his daughter, and of his son-in-law the Duke of
   Bourbon, and required an account of what persons came to speak
   with them at Plessis, and broke up a council which the Duke of
   Bourbon was holding there, by his order. … Behold, then, if
   he had caused many to live under him in continual fear and
   apprehension, whether it was not returned to him again; for of
   whom could he be secure when he was afraid of his son-in-law,
   his daughter, and his own son? I speak this not only of him,
   but of all other princes who desire to be feared, that
   vengeance never falls on them till they grow old, and then, as
   a just penance, they are afraid of everybody themselves; and
   what grief must it have been to this poor King to be tormented
   with such terrors and passions? He was still attended by his
   physician, Master James Coctier, to whom in five months' time
   he had given fifty-four thousand crowns in ready money,
   besides the bishopric of Amiens for his nephew, and other
   great offices and estates for himself and his friends; yet
   this doctor used him very roughly indeed; one would not have
   given such outrageous language to one's servants as he gave
   the King, who stood in such awe of him, that he durst not
   forbid him his presence. It is true he complained of his
   impudence afterwards, but he durst not change him as he had
   done all the rest of his servants; because he had told him
   after a most audacious manner one day, 'I know well that some
   time or other you will dismiss me from court, as you have done
   the rest; but be sure (and he confirmed it with a great oath)
   you shall not live eight days after it'; with which expression
   the King was so terrified, that ever after he did nothing but
   flatter and bribe him, which must needs have been a great
   mortification to a prince who had been humbly obeyed all his
   life by so many good and brave men. The King had ordered
   several cruel prisons to be made; some were cages of iron, and
   some of wood, but all were covered with iron plates both
   within and without, with terrible locks, about eight feet wide
   and seven high; the first contriver of them was the Bishop of
   Verdun, who was immediately put in the first of them that was
   made, where he continued fourteen years. Many bitter curses he
   has had since for his invention, and some from me as I lay in
   one of them eight months together in the minority of our
   present King. He also ordered heavy and terrible fetters to be
   made in Germany, and particularly a certain ring for the feet,
   which was extremely hard to be opened, and fitted like an iron
   collar, with a thick weighty chain, and a great globe of iron
   at the end of it, most unreasonably heavy, which engines were
   called the King's Nets. … As in his time this barbarous
   variety of prisons was invented, so before he died he himself
   was in greater torment, and more terrible apprehension than
   those whom he had imprisoned; which I look upon as a great
   mercy towards him, and as it part of his purgatory; and I have
   mentioned it here to show that there is no person, of what
   station or dignity soever, but suffers some time or other,
   either publicly or privately, especially if he has caused
   other people to suffer. The King, towards the latter end of
   his days, caused his castle of Plessis-les-Tours to be
   encompassed with great bars of iron in the form of thick
   grating, and at the four corners of the house four
   sparrow-nests of iron, strong, massy, and thick, were built.
   The grates were without the wall on the other side of the
   ditch, and sank to the bottom. Several spikes of iron were
   fastened into the wall, set as thick by one another as was
   possible, and each furnished with three or four points. He
   likewise placed ten bow-men in the ditches, to shoot at any
   man that durst approach the castle before the opening of the
   gates; and he ordered they should lie in the ditches, but
   retire to the sparrow-nests upon occasion. He was sensible
   enough that this fortification was too weak to keep out an
   army, or any great body of men, but he had no fear of such an
   attack; his great apprehension was, that some of the nobility
   of his kingdom, having intelligence within, might attempt to
   make themselves masters of the castle by night. … Is it
   possible then to keep a prince (with any regard to his
   quality) in a closer prison than he kept himself? The cages
   which were made for other people were about eight feet square;
   and he (though so great a monarch) had but a small court of
   the castle to walk in, and seldom made use of that, but
   generally kept himself in the gallery, out of which he went
   into the chambers on his way to mass, but never passed through
   the court. … I have not recorded these things merely to
   represent our master as a suspicious and mistrustful prince;
   but to show, that by the patience which he expressed in his
   sufferings (like those which he inflicted on other people),
   they may be looked upon, in my judgment, as a punishment which
   our Lord inflicted upon him in this world, in order to deal
   more mercifully with him in the next, as well in regard to
   those things before-mentioned as to the distempers of his
   body, which were great and painful, and much dreaded by him
   before they came upon him; and, likewise, that those princes
   who may be his successors, may learn by his example to be more
   tender and indulgent to their subjects, and less severe in
   their punishments than our master had been: although I will
   not censure him, or say I ever saw a better prince; for though
   he oppressed his subjects himself he would never see them
   injured by anybody else."

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 1, chapter 10,
      and book 6, chapter 11._

{1181}

FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
   The character and reign of Louis XI.
   The League of the Public Weal.

   "Except St. Louis, he [Louis XI.] was the first, as, indeed
   (with the solitary exception of Louis Philippe), he is still
   the only king of France whose mind was ever prepared for the
   duties of that high station by any course of severe and
   systematic study. Before he ascended the throne of his
   ancestors he had profoundly meditated the great Italian
   authors, and the institutions and maxims of the Italian
   republics. From those lessons he had derived a low esteem of
   his fellowmen, and especially of those among them upon whom
   wealth, and rank, and power had descended as an hereditary
   birthright. … He clearly understood, and pursued with
   inflexible steadfastness of purpose the elevation of his
   country and the grandeur of his own royal house and lineage;
   but he pursued them with a torpid imagination, a cold heart,
   and a ruthless will. He regarded mankind as a physiologist
   contemplates the living subjects of his science, or as a
   chess-player surveys the pieces on his board. … It has been
   said of Louis XI., that the appearance of the men of the
   Revolution of 1789 first made him intelligible. … Louis was
   the first of the terrible Ideologists of France—of that class
   of men who, to enthrone an idolized idea, will offer whole
   hecatombs of human sacrifices at the shrine of their idol. The
   Idea of Louis was that of levelling all powers in the state,
   in order that the administration of the affairs, the
   possession of the wealth, and the enjoyment of the honours of
   his kingdom might be grasped by himself and his successors as
   their solitary and unrivalled dominion. … Before his
   accession to the throne, all the great fiefs into which France
   had been divided under the earlier Capetian kings had, with
   the exception of Bretagne, been either annexed to the royal
   domain, or reduced to a state of dependence on the crown. But,
   under the name of Apanages, these ancient divisions of the
   kingdom into separate principalities had reappeared. The
   territorial feudalism of the Middle Ages seemed to be reviving
   in the persons of the younger branches of the royal house. The
   Dukes of Burgundy had thus become the rulers of a state [see
   BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467] which, under the government of more
   politic princes, might readily, in fulfillment of their
   desires, have attained the rank of an independent kingdom. The
   Duke of Bretagne, still asserting the peculiar privileges of
   his duchy, was rather an ally than a subject of the king of
   France. Charles, Duke of Berri, the brother of Louis, aspired
   to the possession of the same advantages. And these three
   great territorial potentates, in alliance with the Duc de
   Bourbon and the Comte de St. Pol, the brothers-in-law of Louis
   and of his queen, united together to form that confederacy
   against him to which they gave the very inappropriate title of
   La Ligue du Bien Public. It was, however, a title which
   recognized the growing strength of the Tiers Étât, and of that
   public opinion to which the Tiers Étât at once gave utterance
   and imparted authority. Selfish ambition was thus compelled to
   assume the mask of patriotism. The princes veiled their
   insatiable appetite for their own personal advantages under
   the popular and plausible demands of administrative
   reforms—of the reduction of imposts—of the government of
   the people by their representatives—and, consequently, of the
   convocation of the States-General. To these pretensions Louis
   was unable to make any effectual resistance." An indecisive
   but bloody battle was fought at Montlehery, near Paris (July
   16, 1465), from which both armies retreated with every
   appearance of defeat. The capital was besieged ineffectually
   for some weeks by the League; then the king yielded, or seemed
   to do so, and the Treaty of Conflans was signed. "He assented,
   in terms at least, to all the demands of his antagonists. He
   granted to the Duke of Berri the duchy of Normandy as an
   apanage transmissible in perpetuity to his male heirs. … The
   confederates then laid down their arms. The wily monarch bided
   his time. He had bestowed on them advantages which he well
   knew would destroy their popularity and so subvert the basis
   of their power, and which he also knew the state of public
   opinion would not allow them to retain. To wrest those
   advantages from their hands, it was only necessary to comply
   with their last stipulation, and to convene the
   States-General. They met accordingly, at Tours, on the 6th of
   April, 1468." As Louis had anticipated—or, rather, as he had
   planned—the States-General cancelled the grant of Normandy to
   the Duke of Berri (which the king had been able already to
   recover possession of, owing to quarrels between the dukes of
   Berri and Brittany) and, generally, took away from the princes
   of the League nearly all that they had extorted in the Treaty
   of Conflans. On the express invitation of the king they
   appointed a commission to reform abuses in the
   government—which commission "attempted little and effected
   nothing"—and, then, having assisted the cunning king to
   overcome his threatening nobles, the States-General were
   dissolved, to meet no more while Louis XI. occupied the
   throne. In a desperate situation he had used the dangerous
   weapon against his enemies with effect; he was too prudent to
   draw it from the sheath a second time.

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 11._

   "The career of Louis XI. presents a curious problem. How could
   a ruler whose morality fell below that of Jonathan Wild yet
   achieve some of the greatest permanent results of patriotic
   statesmanship, and be esteemed not only by himself but by so
   calm an observer as Commines the model of kingly virtue? As to
   Louis's moral character and principles, or want of principle,
   not a doubt can be entertained. To say he committed the acts
   of a villain is to fall far short of the truth. … He
   possessed a kind of religious belief, but it was a species of
   religion which a respectable heathen would have scorned. He
   attempted to bribe heaven, or rather the saints, just as he
   attempted to win over his Swiss allies—that is, by gifts of
   money. … Yet this man, who was daunted by no cruelty, and
   who could be bound by no oath save one, did work which all
   statesmen must admire, and which French patriots must
   fervently approve.
{1182}
   He was the creator of modern France. When he came to the
   throne it seemed more than likely that an utterly selfish and
   treacherous nobility would tear the country in pieces. The
   English still threatened to repeat the horrors of their
   invasions. The House of Burgundy overbalanced the power of the
   crown, and stimulated lawlessness throughout the whole
   country. The peasantry were miserably oppressed, and the
   middle classes could not prosper for want of that rule of law
   which is the first requisite for civilization. When Louis
   died, the existence of France and the power of the French
   crown was secured: 'He had extended the frontiers of his
   kingdom; Picardy, Provence, Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Roussillon
   had been compelled to acknowledge the immediate authority of
   the crown.' He had crushed the feudal oligarchy; he had seen
   his most dangerous enemy destroyed by the resistance of the
   Swiss; he had baffled the attempt to construct a state which
   would have imperilled the national existence of France; he had
   put an end to all risk of English invasion; and he left France
   the most powerful country in Europe. Her internal government
   was no doubt oppressive, but, at any rate, it secured the rule
   of law; and his schemes for her benefit were still unfinished.
   He died regretting that he could not carry out his plans for
   the reform of the law and for the protection of commerce; and,
   in the opinion of Commines, if God had granted him the grace
   of living five or six years more, he would greatly have
   benefited his realm. He died commending his soul to the
   intercession of the Virgin, and the last words caught from his
   lips were: 'Lord, in thee have I trusted; let me never be
   confounded.' Nor should this be taken as the expression of
   hopeless self-delusion or gratuitous hypocrisy. In the opinion
   of Commines, uttered after the king's death, 'he was more
   wise, more liberal, and more virtuous in all things than any
   contemporary sovereign.' The expressions of Commines were, it
   may be said, but the echo of the low moral tone of the age.
   This, no doubt, is true; but the fact that the age did not
   condemn acts which, taken alone, seem to argue the utmost
   depravity, still needs explanation. The matter is the more
   worthy of consideration because Louis represents, though in an
   exaggerated form, the vices and virtues of a special body of
   rulers. He was the incarnation, so to speak, of kingcraft. The
   word and the idea it represents have now become out of date,
   but for about two centuries—say, roughly, from the middle of
   the seventeenth century—the idea of a great king was that of
   a monarch who ruled by means of cunning, intrigue, and
   disregard of ordinary moral rules. We here come across the
   fact which explains both the career and the reputation of
   Louis and of others, such as Henry VII. of England, who were
   masters of kingcraft. The universal feeling of the time,
   shared by subjects no less than by rulers, was that a king was
   not bound by the rules of morality, and especially by the
   rules of honesty, which bind other men. Until you realize this
   fact, nothing is more incomprehensible than the adulation
   lavished by men such as Bacon or Casaubon on a ruler such as
   James I. … The real puzzle is to ascertain how this feeling
   that kings were above the moral law came into existence. The
   facts of history afford the necessary explanation. When the
   modern European world was falling into shape the one thing
   required for national prosperity was the growth of a power
   which might check the disorders of the feudal nobility, and
   secure for the mass of the people the blessings of an orderly
   government. The only power which, in most cases, could achieve
   this end, was the crown. In England the monarchs put an end to
   the wars of the nobility. In France the growth of the monarchy
   secured not only internal quiet, but protection from external
   invasion. In these and in other cases the interest of the
   crown and the interest of the people became for a time
   identical. … Acts which would have seemed villainous when
   done to promote a purely private interest, became mere devices
   of statesmanship when performed in the interest of the public.
   The maxims that the king can do no wrong, and that the safety
   of the people is the highest law, blended together in the
   minds of ambitious rulers. The result was the production of
   men like Louis XI."

      _A. V. Dicey,
      Willert's Louis XI.
      (The Nation, December 7, 1876)._

   "A careful examination of the reign of Louis the Eleventh has
   particularly impressed upon me one fact, that the ends for
   which he toiled and sinned throughout his whole life were
   attained at last rather by circumstances than by his labours.
   The supreme object of all his schemes was to crush that most
   formidable of all his foes, Burgundy. And yet had Charles
   confined his ambition within reasonable limits, had he
   possessed an ordinary share of statecraft, and, above all,
   could he have controlled those fiery passions, which drove him
   to the verge of madness, he would have won the game quite
   easily. Louis lacked one of the essential qualities of
   statecraft—patience; and was wholly destitute of that
   necessity of ambition—boldness. An irritable restlessness
   was one of the salient points of his character. His courtiers
   and attendants were ever intriguing to embroil him in war,
   'because,' says Comines, 'the nature of the King was such,
   that unless he was at war with some foreign prince, he would
   certainly find some quarrel or other at home with his
   servants, domestics, or officers, for his mind must be always
   working.' His mood was ever changing, and he was by turns
   confiding, suspicious, avaricious, prodigal, audacious, and
   timid. He frequently nullified his most crafty schemes by
   impatience for the result. He would sow the seed with the
   utmost care, but he could not wait for the fructification. In
   this he was false to the practice of those Italian statesmen
   who were avowedly his models. It was this irritable
   restlessness which brought down upon him the hatred of all
   classes, from the noble to the serf; for we find him at one
   time cunningly bidding for popularity, and immediately
   afterwards destroying all he had gained by some rash and
   inconsiderate act. His extreme timidity hampered the execution
   of all his plans. He had not even the boldness of the coward
   who will fight when all the strength is on his own side.
   Constantly at war, during a reign of twenty-two years there
   were fought but two battles, Montlehéry and Guingette, both of
   which, strange to say, were undecided, and both of which were
   fought against his will and counsel. … He left France larger
   by one-fourth than he had inherited it; but out of the five
   provinces which he acquired, Provence was bequeathed him,
   Roussillon was pawned to him by the usurping King of Navarre,
   and Burgundy was won for him by the Swiss. His triumphs were
   much more the result of fortune than the efforts of his own
   genius."

      _Louis the Eleventh
      (Temple Bar, volume 46, pages 523-524)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 13._

      _P. F. Willert,
      The Reign of Louis XI._

      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 1, chapters 4-6._

      _P. de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 1._

      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles
      (Johnes' translation),
      book 3, chapters 99-153._

{1183}

FRANCE: A. D. 1467-1477.
   The troubles of Louis XI. with Charles the Bold, of Burgundy.
   Death of the Duke and Louis' acquisition of Burgundy.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468, to 1477.

FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
   The kingdom as left by Louis XI.

   Louis XI., who died Aug. 30, A. D. 1483, "had joined to the
   crown Berry, the apanage of his brother, Provence, the duchy
   of Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Ponthieu, the counties of Auxerre,
   of Mâcon, Charolais, the Free County, Artois, Marche,
   Armagnac, Cerdagne, and Roussilon. … The seven latter
   provinces did not yet remain irrevocably united with France:
   one part was given anew in apanage, and the other part
   restored to foreign sovereigns, and only returned one by one
   to the crown of France. … The principal work of Louis XI.
   was the abasement of the second feudality, which had raised
   itself on the ruins of the first, and which, without him,
   would have replunged France into anarchy. The chiefs of that
   feudality were, however, more formidable, since, for the most
   part, they belonged to the blood royal of France. Their
   powerful houses, which possessed at the accession of that
   prince a considerable part of the kingdom, were those of
   Orleans, Anjou, Burgundy, and Bourbon. They found themselves
   much weakened at his death, and dispossessed in great part, as
   we have seen in the history of the reign, by confiscations,
   treaties, gifts or heritages. By the side of these houses,
   which issued from that of France, there were others whose
   power extended still, at this period, in the limits of France
   proper, over vast domains. Those of Luxembourg and La Mark
   possessed great wealth upon the frontier of the north; that of
   Vaudemont had inherited Lorraine and the duchy of Bar; the
   house of La Tour was powerful in Auvergne; in the south the
   houses of Foix and Albert ruled, the first in the valley of
   Ariége, the second between the Adour and the Pyrenees. In the
   west the house of Brittany had guarded its independence; but
   the moment approached when this beautiful province was to be
   forever united with the crown. Lastly, two foreign sovereigns
   held possessions in France; the Pope had Avignon and the
   county Venaissin; and the Duke of Savoy possessed, between the
   Rhone and the Saône, Bugey and Valromey. The time was still
   distant when the royal authority would be seen freely
   exercised through every territory comprised in the natural
   limits of the kingdom. But Louis XI. did much to attain this
   aim, and after him no princely or vassal house was powerful
   enough to resist the crown by its own forces, and to put the
   throne in peril."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, pages 315-318,
      and foot-note._

FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
   Accession of King Charles VIII.

FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.
   The League of the Princes.

   Charles VIII., son and successor of Louis XI., came to the
   throne at the age of thirteen, on the death of his father in
   1483. His eldest sister, Anne, married to the Lord of Beaujeu,
   made herself practically regent of the kingdom, by sheer
   ability and force of character; and ruled during the minority,
   pursuing the lines of her father's policy. The princes of the
   blood-royal, with the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon at their
   head, formed a league against her. They were supported by many
   nobles, including Philip de Commines, the Count of Dunois and
   the Prince of Orange. They also received aid from the Duke of
   Brittany, and from Maximilian of Austria, who now controlled
   the Netherlands. Anne's general, La Trémouille, defeated the
   league in a decisive battle (A. D. 1487) near St. Aubin du
   Cormier, where the Duke of Orleans, the Prince of Orange, and
   many nobles and knights were made prisoners. The Duke and the
   Prince were sent to Anne, who shut them up in strong places,
   while most of their companions were summarily executed.

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      ch. 26._

FRANCE: A. D. 1491.
   Brittany, the last of the great fiefs, united to the crown.
   The end of the Feudal System.

   See BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.

FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.
   The reigns of Charles VIII. and Louis XII.
   Their Italian Expeditions and Wars.
   The effects on France.
   Beginning of the Renaissance.

   Louis XI. was succeeded by his son, Charles VIII., a boy of
   thirteen years, whose elder sister Anne governed the kingdom
   ably until he came of age. She dealt firmly with a rebellion
   of the nobles and suppressed it. She frustrated an intended
   marriage of Anne of Brittany with Maximilian of Austria, which
   would have drawn the last of the great semi-independent fiefs
   into a dangerous relationship, and she made Charles instead of
   his rival the husband of the Breton heiress. When Charles, who
   had little intelligence, assumed the government, he was
   excited with dreams of making good the pretensions of the
   Second House of Anjou to the Kingdom of Naples. Those
   pretensions, which had been bequeathed to Louis XI., and which
   Charles VIII. had now inherited, had the following origin: "In
   the eleventh century, Robert Guiscard, of the Norman family of
   Hauteville, at the head of a band of adventurers, took
   possession of Sicily and South Italy, then in a state of
   complete anarchy. Roger, the son of Robert, founded the
   Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the Pope's suzerainty. In
   1189 the Guiscard family became extinct, whereupon the German
   Emperor laid claim to the kingdom in right of his wife
   Constance, daughter of one of the Norman kings. The Roman
   Pontiffs, dreading such powerful neighbours, were adverse to
   the arrangement, and in 1254 King Conrad, being succeeded by
   his son Conradin, still a minor, furnished a pretext for
   bestowing the crown of the Two Sicilies on Charles d' Anjou,
   brother of St. Louis. Manfred, guardian of the boy Conradin,
   and a natural son of the Emperor Frederick II., raised an army
   against Charles d' Anjou, but was defeated, and fell in the
   encounter of 1266. Two years later, Prince Conradin was
   cruelly beheaded in Naples. Before his death, however, he made
   a will, by which he invested Peter III. of Aragon, son-in-law
   of Manfred, with full power over the Two Sicilies, exhorting
   him to avenge his death [see ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
{1184}
   This bequest was the origin of the rivalry between the houses
   of Aragon and Anjou, a rivalry which developed into open
   antagonism when the island of Sicily was given up to Peter of
   Aragon and his descendants, while Charles d' Anjou still held
   Naples for himself and his heirs [see ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300].
   In 1435 Joan II., Queen of Naples, bequeathed her estates to
   Alfonso V. of Aragon, surnamed the Magnanimous, to the
   exclusion of Louis III. of Anjou. After a long and bloody
   struggle, Alfonso succeeded in driving the Anjou dynasty out
   of Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414]. Louis
   III. was the last representative of this once-powerful family.
   He returned to France, survived his defeat two-and-twenty
   years, and by his will left all his rights to the Count of
   Maine, his nephew, who, on his death, transferred them to
   Louis XI. The wily Louis was not tempted to claim this
   worthless legacy. His successor, Charles VIII., less
   matter-of-fact, and more romantic, was beguiled into a series
   of brilliant, though sterile, expeditions, disastrous to
   national interests, neglecting the Flemish provinces, the
   liege vassals of France, and thoroughly French at heart.
   Charles VIII. put himself at the head of his nobles, made a
   triumphal entry into Naples and returned without having gained
   an inch of territory [see ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, and 1494-1496].
   De Commines judges the whole affair a mystery; it was,
   in fact, one of those dazzling and chivalrous adventures with
   which the French delighted to astonish Europe. Louis XII.,
   like Charles VIII. [whom he succeeded in 1498], proclaimed his
   right to Naples, and also to the Duchy of Milan, inherited
   from his grandmother, Valentine de Visconti. These pretended
   rights were more than doubtful. The Emperor Wenceslas, on
   conferring the duchy on the Viscontis, excluded women from the
   inheritance, and both Louis XI. and Charles VIII. recognised
   the validity of the Salic law in Milan by concluding an
   alliance with the Sforzas. The seventeen years of Louis XII.'s
   reign was absorbed in these Italian wars, in which the French
   invariably began by victory, and as invariably ended in
   defeat. The League of Cambrai, the Battles of Agnadel,
   Ravenna, Novara, the Treaties of Grenada and Blois, are the
   principal episodes of this unlucky campaign."

      _C. Coignet,
      Francis the First and His Times,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

   "The warriors of France came back from Italy with the wonders
   of the South on their lips and her treasures in their hands.
   They brought with them books and paintings, they brought with
   them armour inlaid with gold and silver, tapestries enriched
   with precious metals, embroidered clothing, and even household
   furniture. Distributed by many hands in many different places,
   each precious thing became a separate centre of initiative
   power. The châteaux of the country nobles boasted the
   treasures which had fallen to the share of their lords at
   Genoa or at Naples; and the great women of the court were
   eager to divide the spoil. The contagion spread rapidly. Even
   in the most fantastic moment of Gothic inspiration, the French
   artist gave evidence that his right hand obeyed a national
   instinct for order, for balance, for completeness, and that
   his eye preferred, in obedience to a national predilection,
   the most refined harmonies of colour. Step by step he had been
   feeling his way; now, the broken link of tradition was again
   made fast; the workmen of Paris and the workmen of Athens
   joined hands, united by the genius of Italy. It must not,
   however, be supposed that no intercourse had previously
   existed between France and Italy. The roads by Narbonne and
   Lyons were worn by many feet. The artists of Tours and
   Poitiers, the artists of Paris and Dijon, were alike familiar
   with the path to Rome. But an intercourse, hitherto
   restricted, was rendered by the wars of Charles VIII. all but
   universal. … Cruelly as the Italians had suffered at the
   hands of Charles VIII. they still looked to France for help;
   they knew that though they had been injured they had not been
   betrayed. But the weak and generous impulses of Charles VIII.
   found no place in the councils of his successors. … The doom
   of Italy was pronounced. Substantially the compact was this.
   Aided by Borgia, the French were to destroy the free cities of
   the north, and in return France was to aid Borgia in breaking
   the power of the independent nobles who yet resisted Papal
   aggression in the south. In July 1499 the work began. At first
   the Italians failed to realise what had taken place. When the
   French army entered the Milanese territory the inhabitants
   fraternised with the troops, Milan, Genoa, Pavia opened their
   gates with joy. But in a few months the course of events, in
   the south, aroused a dread anxiety. There, Borgia, under the
   protection of the French king, and with the assistance of the
   French arms, was triumphantly glutting his brutal rage and
   lust, whilst Frenchmen were forced to look on helpless and
   indignant. Milan, justly terrified, made an attempt to throw
   herself on the mercy of her old ruler. To no purpose. Louis
   went back over the Alps, leaving a strong hand and a strong
   garrison in Milan, and dragging with him the unfortunate Louis
   Sforza, a miserable proof of the final destruction of the most
   brilliant court of Upper Italy. … By the campaign of 1507,
   the work, thus begun, was consummated. The ancient spirit of
   independence still lingered in Genoa, and Venice was not yet
   crushed. There were still fresh laurels to be won. In this
   Holy War the Pope and the Emperor willingly joined forces with
   France. … The deathblow was first given to Genoa. She was
   forced, Marot tells us, 'la corde au coul, la glaive sous la
   gorge, implorer la clémence de ce prince.' Venice was next
   traitorously surprised and irreparably injured. Having thus
   brilliantly achieved the task of first destroying the lettered
   courts, and next the free cities of Italy, Louis died,
   bequeathing to François I. the shame of fighting out a
   hopeless struggle for supremacy against allies who, no longer
   needing help, had combined to drive the French from the field.
   There was, indeed, one other duty to be performed. The
   shattered remains of Italian civilisation might be collected,
   and Paris might receive the men whom Italy could no longer
   employ. The French returned to France empty of honour, gorged
   with plunder, satiated with rape and rapine, boasting of
   cities sacked, and garrisons put to the sword. They had sucked
   the lifeblood of Italy, but her death brought new life to
   France. The impetus thus acquired by art and letters coincided
   with a change in political and social constitutions. The
   gradual process of centralisation which had begun with Louis
   XI. transformed the life of the whole nation. … The royal
   court began to take proportions hitherto unknown.
{1185}
   It gradually became a centre which gathered together the rich,
   the learned, and the skilled. Artists, who had previously been
   limited in training, isolated in life, and narrowed in
   activity by the rigid conservative action of the great guilds
   and corporations, were thus brought into immediate contact
   with the best culture of their day. For the Humanists did not
   form a class apart, and their example incited those with whom
   they lived to effort after attainments as varied as their own,
   whilst the Court made a rallying point for all, which gave a
   sense of countenance and protection even to those who might
   never hope to enter it. … Emancipation of the individual is
   the watchword of the sixteenth century; to the artist it
   brought relief from the trammels of a caste thraldom, and the
   ceaseless efforts of the Humanists find an answer even in the
   new forms seen slowly breaking through the sheath of Gothic
   art."

      _Mrs. Mark Pattison,
      The Renaissance of Art in France,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

FRANCE: 16th Century.
   Renaissance and Reformation.

   "The first point of difference to be noted between the
   Renaissance in France and the Renaissance in Italy is one of
   time. Roughly speaking it may be said that France was a
   hundred years behind Italy. … But if the French Renaissance
   was a later and less rapid growth, it was infinitely hardier.
   The Renaissance literature in Italy was succeeded by a long
   period of darkness, which remained unbroken, save by fitful
   gleams of light, till the days of Alfieri. The Renaissance
   literature in France was the prelude to a literature, which,
   for vigour, variety, and average excellence, has in modern
   times rarely, if ever, been surpassed. The reason for this
   superiority on the part of France, for the fact that the
   Renaissance produced there more abiding and more far-reaching
   results, may be ascribed partly to the natural law that
   precocious and rapid growths are always less hardy than later
   and more gradual ones, partly to the character of the French
   nation, to its being at once more intellectual and less
   imaginative than the Italian, and therefore more influenced by
   the spirit of free inquiry than by the worship of beauty;
   partly to the greater unity and vitality of its political
   life, but in a large measure to the fact that in France the
   Renaissance came hand in hand with the Reformation. … We
   must look upon the Reformation as but a fresh development of
   the Renaissance movement, as the result of the spirit of free
   inquiry carried into theology, as a revolt against the
   authority of the Roman Church. Now the Renaissance in Italy
   preceded the Reformation by more than a century. There is no
   trace in it of any desire to criticise the received theology.
   … In France on the other hand the new learning and the new
   religion, Greek and heresy, became almost controvertible
   terms. Lefèvre d' Étaples, the doyen of French humanists,
   translated the New Testament into French in 1524: the
   Estiennes, the Hebrew scholar François Vatable, Turnèbe,
   Ramus, the great surgeon Ambroise Paré, the artists Bernard
   Palissy and Jean Goujon were all avowed protestants; while
   Clement Marot, Budé, and above all Rabelais, for a time at
   least, looked on the reformation with more or less favour. In
   fact so long as the movement appeared to them merely as a
   revolt against the narrowness and illiberality of monastic
   theology, as an assertion of the freedom of the human
   intellect, the men of letters and culture with hardly an
   exception joined hands with the reformers. It was only when
   they found that it implied a moral as well as an intellectual
   regeneration, that it began to wear for some of them a less
   congenial aspect. This close connexion between the Reformation
   and the revival of learning was, on the whole, a great gain to
   France. It was not as in Germany, where the stronger growth of
   the Reformation completely choked the other. In France they
   met on almost equal terms, and the result was that the whole
   movement was thereby strengthened and elevated both
   intellectually and morally. … French humanism can boast of a
   long roll of names honourable not only for their high
   attainments, but also for their integrity and purity of life.
   Robert Estienne, Turnèbe, Ramus, Cujas, the Chancellor de
   l'Hôpital, Estienne Pasquier, Thou, are men whom any country
   would be proud to claim for her sons. And as with the
   humanists, so it was with the Renaissance generally in France.
   On the whole it was a manly and intelligent movement. … The
   literature of the French Renaissance, though in point of form
   it is far below that of the Italian Renaissance, in manliness
   and vigour and hopefulness is far superior to it. It is in
   short a literature, not of maturity, but of promise. One has
   only to compare its greatest name, Rabelais, with the greatest
   name of the Italian Renaissance, Ariosto, to see the
   difference. How formless! how crude! how gross! how full of
   cumbersome details and wearisome repetitions is Rabelais! How
   limpid! how harmonious is Ariosto! what perfection of style,
   what delicacy of touch! He never wearies us, he never offends
   our taste. And yet one rises from the reading of Rabelais with
   a feeling of buoyant cheerfulness, while Ariosto in spite of
   his wit and gaiety is inexpressibly depressing. The reason is
   that the one bids us hope, the other bids us despair; the one
   believes in truth and goodness and in the future of the human
   race, the other believes in nothing but the pleasures of the
   senses, which come and go like many-coloured bubbles and leave
   behind them a boundless ennui. Rabelais and Ariosto are true
   types of the Renaissance as it appeared in their respective
   countries."

      _A. Tilley,
      The Literature of the French Renaissance,
      chapter 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Treaty of Louis XII. with Ferdinand of Aragon for the
   partition of Naples.
   French and Spanish conquest.
   Quarrel of the confederates, and war.
   The Spaniards in possession of the Neapolitan domain.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

FRANCE: A. D. 1504.
   Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

FRANCE: A. D. 1504-1506.
   The treaties of Blois, with Ferdinand and Maximilian, and the
   abrogation of them.
   Relinquishment of claims on Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

FRANCE: A. D. 1507.
   Revolt and subjugation of Genoa.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.

FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

FRANCE: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The breaking up of the League of Cambrai.
   The Holy League formed by Pope Julius II. against Louis XII.
   The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

{1186}

FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
   English invasion under Henry VIII.
   The Battle of the Spurs.
   Marriage of Louis XII. with Mary of England.
   The King's death.
   Accession of Francis I.

   "The long preparations of Henry VIII. of England for the
   invasion of France [in pursuance of the 'Holy League' against
   Louis XII., formed by Pope Julius II. and renewed by Leo
   X.,—see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513] being completed, that king,
   in the summer of 1513, landed at Calais, whither a great part
   of his army had already been transported. The offer of 100,000
   golden crowns easily persuaded the Emperor to promise his
   assistance, at the head of a body of Swiss and Germans. But at
   the moment Henry was about to penetrate into France, he
   received the excuses of Maximilian, who, notwithstanding a
   large advance received from England, found himself unable to
   levy the promised succours. Nothing disheartened by this
   breach of faith, the King of England had already advanced into
   Artois; when the Emperor, attended by a few German nobles,
   appeared in the English camp, and was cordially welcomed by
   Henry, who duly appreciated his military skill and local
   knowledge. A valuable accession of strength was also obtained
   by the junction of a large body of Swiss, who, encouraged by
   the victory of Novara, had already crossed the Jura, and now
   marched to the seat of war. The poverty of the Emperor
   degraded him to the rank of a mercenary of England; and Henry
   consented to grant him the daily allowance of 100 crowns for
   his table. But humiliating as this compact was to Maximilian,
   the King of England reaped great benefit from his presence. A
   promiscuous multitude of Germans had flocked to the English
   camp, in hopes of partaking in the spoil; and the arrival of
   their valiant Emperor excited a burst of enthusiasm. The siege
   of Terouenne was formed: but the bravery of the besieged
   baffled the efforts of the allies; and a month elapsed, during
   which the English sustained severe loss from frequent and
   successful sorties. By the advice of the Emperor, Henry
   resolved to risk a battle with the French, and the plain of
   Guinegate was once more the field of conflict [August 18,
   1513]. This spot, where Maximilian had formerly struck terror
   into the legions of Louis XI., now became the scene of a rapid
   and undisputed victory. The French were surprised by the
   allies, and gave way to a sudden panic; and the shameful
   flight of the cavalry abandoned the bravest of their leaders
   to the hands of their enemies. The Duke of Longueville, La
   Palisse, Imbercourt, and the renowned Chevalier Bayard, were
   made prisoners; and the ridicule of the conquerors
   commemorated the inglorious flight by designating the rout as
   the Battle of the Spurs. The capture of Terouenne immediately
   followed; and the fall of Tournay soon afterwards opened a
   splendid prospect to the King of England. Meanwhile the safety
   of France was threatened in another quarter. A large body of
   Swiss, levied in the name of Maximilian but paid with the gold
   of the Pope, burst into Burgundy; and Dijon was with difficulty
   saved from capture. From this danger, however, France was
   extricated by the dexterous negotiation of Trémouille; and the
   Swiss were induced to withdraw. … Louis now became seriously
   desirous of peace. He made overtures to the Pope, and was
   received into favour upon consenting to renounce the Council
   of Pisa. He conciliated the Kings of Aragon and England by
   proposals of marriage; he offered his second daughter Renée to
   the young Charles of Spain; and his second Queen, Anne of
   Bretainy, being now dead, he proposed to unite himself with
   Mary of England, the favourite sister of Henry. … But though
   peace was made upon this footing, the former of the projected
   marriages never took place: the latter; however, was
   magnificently solemnized, and proved fatal to Louis. The
   amorous King forgot his advanced age in the arms of his young
   and beautiful bride; his constitution gave way under the
   protracted festivities consequent on his nuptials; and on the
   1st of January, 1515, Louis XII. was snatched from his adoring
   people, in his 53d year. He was succeeded by his kinsman and
   son-in-law, Francis, Count of Angoulême, who stood next in
   hereditary succession, and was reputed one of the most
   accomplished princes that ever mounted the throne of France."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 38 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 1._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 4, sections 7-8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
   Accession of Francis I.
   His invasion of Italy.
   The Battle of Marignano.

   "François I. was in his 21st year when he ascended the throne
   of France. His education in all manly accomplishments was
   perfect, and … he manifested … an intelligence which had
   been carefully cultivated. … Unfortunately his moral
   qualities had been profoundly corrupted by the example of his
   mother, Louise of Savoy, a clever and ambitious woman, but
   selfish, unscrupulous, and above all shamelessly licentious.
   Louise had been an object of jealousy to Anne of Britany, who
   had always kept her in the shade, and she now snatched eagerly
   at the prospect of enjoying power and perhaps of reigning in
   the name of her son, whose love for his mother led him to
   allow her to exercise an influence which was often fatal to
   the interests of his kingdom. … Charles duke of Bourbon, who
   was notoriously the favoured lover of Louise, was appointed to
   the office of constable, which had remained vacant since 1488;
   and one of her favourite ministers, Antoine Duprat, first
   president of the parliament of Paris, was entrusted with the
   seals. Both were men of great capacity; but the first was
   remarkable for his pride, and the latter for his moral
   depravity. The first cares of the new king of France were to
   prepare for war. … Unfortunately for his country, François
   I. shared in the infatuation which had dragged his
   predecessors into the wars in Italy; and all these warlike
   preparations were designed for the reconquest of Milan. He had
   already intimated his design by assuming at his coronation the
   titles of king of France and duke of Milan. … He entered
   into an alliance with Charles of Austria, prince of Castile,
   who had now reached his majority and assumed the government of
   the Netherlands. … A treaty between these two princes,
   concluded on the 24th of March, 1515, guaranteed to each party
   not only the estates they held or which might subsequently
   descend to them, but even their conquests. … The republic of
   Venice and the king of England renewed the alliances into
   which they had entered with the late king, but Ferdinand of
   Aragon refused even to prolong the truce unless the whole of
   Italy were included in it, and he entered into a separate
   alliance with the emperor, the duke of Milan, and the Swiss,
   to oppose the designs of the French king.
{1187}
   The efforts of François I. to gain over the Swiss had been
   defeated by the influence of the cardinal of Sion. Yet the
   pope, Leo X., hesitated, and avoided compromising himself with
   either party. In the course of the month of July [1515], the
   most formidable army which had yet been led from France into
   Italy was assembled in the district between Grenoble and
   Embrun, and the king, after entrusting the regency to his
   mother, Louise, with unlimited powers, proceeded to place
   himself at its head."

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The passes in Italy had already been occupied by the Swiss
   under their captain general Galeazzo Visconti. Galeazzo makes
   their number not more than 6,000. … They were posted at
   Susa, commanding the two roads from Mont Cenis and Geneva, by
   one of which the French must pass or abandon their artillery.
   In this perplexity it was proposed by Triulcio to force a
   lower passage across the Cottian Alps leading to Saluzzo. The
   attempt was attended with almost insurmountable difficulties.
   … But the French troops with wonderful spirits and alacrity
   … were not to be baffled. They dropped their artillery by
   cables from steep to steep; down one range of mountains and up
   another, until five days had been spent in this perilous
   enterprise, and they found themselves safe in the plains of
   Saluzzo. Happily the Swiss, secure in their position at Susa,
   had never dreamed of the possibility of such a passage. …
   Prosper Colonna, who commanded in Italy for the Pope, was
   sitting down to his comfortable dinner at Villa Franca, when a
   scout covered with dust dashed into his apartment announcing
   that the French had crossed the Alps. The next minute the town
   was filled with the advanced guard, under the Sieur
   d'Ymbercourt and the celebrated Bayard. The Swiss at Susa had
   still the advantage of position, and might have hindered the
   passage of the main body of the French; but they had no horse
   to transport their artillery, were badly led, and evidently
   divided in their councils. They retired upon Novara," and to
   Milan, intending to effect a junction with the viceroy of
   Naples, who advanced to Cremona. On the morning of the 13th of
   September, Cardinal Scheimer harangued the Swiss and urged
   them to attack the French in their camp, which was at
   Marignano, or Melignano, twelve miles away. His fatal advice
   was acted on with excitement and haste. "The day was hot and
   dusty. The advanced guard of the French was under the command
   of the Constable of Bourbon, whose vigilance defeated any
   advantage the Swiss might otherwise have gained by the
   suddenness and rapidity of their movements. At nine o'clock in
   the morning, as Bourbon was sitting down at table, a scout,
   dripping with water, made his appearance. He had left Milan
   only a few hours before, had waded the canals, and came to
   announce the approach of the enemy. … The Swiss came on
   apace; they had disencumbered themselves of their hats and
   caps, and thrown off their shoes, the better to fight without
   slipping. They made a dash at the French artillery, and were
   foiled after hard fighting. … It was an autumnal afternoon;
   the sun had gone down; dust and night-fall separated and
   confused the combatants. The French trumpets sounded a
   retreat; both, armies crouched down in the darkness within
   cast of a tennis-ball of each other. … Where they fought,
   there each man laid down to rest when darkness came on, within
   hand-grip of his foe." The next morning, "the autumnal mist
   crawled slowly away, and once more exposed the combatants to
   each other's view. The advantage of the ground was on the side
   of the French. They were drawn up in a valley protected by a
   ditch full of water. Though the Swiss had taken no refreshment
   that night, they renewed the fight with unimpaired animosity
   and vigour. … Francis, surrounded by a body of mounted
   gentlemen, performed prodigies of valour. The night had given
   him opportunity for the better arrangement of his troops; and
   as the day wore on, and the sun grew hot, the Swiss, though
   'marvellously deliberate, brave, and obstinate,' began to give
   way. The arrival of the Venetian general, D'Alviano, with
   fresh troops, made the French victory complete. But the Swiss
   retreated inch by inch with the greatest deliberation,
   carrying off their great guns on their shoulders. … The
   French were too exhausted to follow. And their victory had
   cost them dear; for the Swiss, with peculiar hatred to the
   French gentry and the lance-knights, had shown no mercy. They
   spared none, and made no prisoners. The glory of the battle
   was great. … The Swiss, the best troops in Europe, and
   hitherto reckoned invincible … had been the terror and
   scourge of Italy, equally formidable to friend and foe, and
   now their prestige was extinguished. But it was not in these
   merely military aspects that the battle of Marignano was
   important. No one who reads the French chronicles of the
   times, can fail to perceive that it was a battle of opinions
   and of classes even more than of nations; of a fierce and
   rising democratical element, now rolled back for a short
   season, only to display itself in another form against royalty
   and nobility;—of the burgher classes against feudality. … The
   old romantic element, overlaid for a time by the political
   convulsions of the last century, had once more gained the
   ascendant. It was to blaze forth and revive, before it died
   out entirely, in the Sydneys and Raleighs of Queen Elizabeth's
   reign; it was to lighten up the glorious imagination of
   Spenser before it faded into the dull prose of Puritan
   divinity, and the cold grey dawn of inductive philosophy. But
   its last great battle was the battle of Marignano."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Miss Pardoe,
      Court and Reign of Francis I.,
      volume 1, chapters 6-7._

      _L. Larchey,
      History of Bayard,
      book 3, chapters 1-2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
   Francis I. in possession of Milan.
   His treaties with the Swiss and the Pope.
   Nullification of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   The Concordat of Bologna.

   "On the 15th of September, the day after the battle [of
   Marignano], the Swiss took the road back to their mountains.
   Francis I. entered Milan in triumph. Maximilian Sforza took
   refuge in the castle, and twenty days afterwards on the 4th of
   October, surrendered, consenting to retire to France, with a
   pension of 30,000 crowns, and the promise of being recommended
   for a cardinal's hat, and almost consoled for his downfall 'by
   the pleasure of being delivered from the insolence of the
   Swiss, the exactions of the Emperor Maximilian, and the
   rascalities of the Spaniards.' Fifteen years afterwards, in
   June, 1530, he died in oblivion at Paris.
{1188}
   Francis I. regained possession of all Milaness, adding
   thereto, with the pope's consent, the duchies of Parma and
   Piacenza, which had been detached from it. … Two treaties,
   one of November 7, 1515, and the other of November 29, 1516,
   re-established not only peace, but perpetual alliance, between
   the King of France and the thirteen Swiss Cantons, with
   stipulated conditions in detail. Whilst these negotiations
   were in progress, Francis I. and Leo X., by a treaty published
   at Viterbo, on the 13th of October, proclaimed their hearty
   reconciliation. The pope guaranteed to Francis I. the duchy of
   Milan, restored to him those of Parma and Piacenza, and
   recalled his troops which were still serving against the
   Venetians." At the same time, arrangements were made for a
   personal meeting of the pope and the French king, which took
   place at Bologna in December, 1515. "Francis did not attempt
   to hide his design of reconquering the kingdom of Naples,
   which Ferdinand the Catholic had wrongfully usurped, and he
   demanded the pope's countenance. The pope did not care to
   refuse, but he pointed out to the king that everything
   foretold the very near death of King Ferdinand; and 'Your
   Majesty,' said he, 'will then have a natural opportunity for
   claiming your rights; and as for me, free, as I shall then be,
   from my engagements with the King of Arragon in respect of the
   crown of Naples, I shall find it easier to respond to your
   majesty's wish.' The pope merely wanted to gain time. Francis,
   putting aside for the moment the kingdom of Naples, spoke of
   Charles VII.'s Pragmatic Sanction [see above: A. D. 1438], and
   the necessity of putting an end to the difficulties which had
   arisen on this subject between the court of Rome and the Kings
   of France, his predecessors. 'As to that,' said the pope, 'I
   could not grant what your predecessors demanded; but be not
   uneasy; I have a compensation to propose to you which will
   prove to you how dear your interests are to me.' The two
   sovereigns had, without doubt, already come to an
   understanding on this point, when, after a three days'
   interview with Leo X., Francis I. returned to Milan, leaving
   at Bologna, for the purpose of treating in detail the affair
   of the Pragmatic Sanction, his chancellor, Duprat, who had
   accompanied him during all this campaign as his adviser and
   negotiator. … The popes … had all of them protested since
   the days of Charles VII. against the Pragmatic Sanction as an
   attack upon their rights, and had demanded its abolition. In
   1461, Louis XI. … had yielded for a moment to the demand of
   Pope Pius II., whose countenance he desired to gain, and had
   abrogated the Pragmatic; but, not having obtained what he
   wanted thereby, and having met with strong opposition in the
   Parliament of Paris to his concession, he had let it drop
   without formally retracting it. … This important edict,
   then, was still vigorous in 1515, when Francis I., after his
   victory at Melegnano and his reconciliation with the pope,
   left Chancellor Duprat at Bologna to pursue the negotiation
   reopened on that subject. The 'compensation,' of which Leo X.,
   on redemanding the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, had
   given a peep to Francis I., could not fail to have charms for
   a prince so little scrupulous, and for his still less
   scrupulous chancellor. The pope proposed that the Pragmatic,
   once for all abolished, should be replaced by a Concordat
   between the two sovereigns, and that this Concordat, whilst
   putting a stop to the election of the clergy by the faithful,
   should transfer to the king the right of nomination to
   bishoprics and other great ecclesiastical offices and
   benefices, reserving to the pope the right of presentation of
   prelates nominated by the king. This, considering the
   condition of society and government in the 16th century, in
   the absence of political and religious liberty, was to take
   away from the church her own existence, and divide her between
   two masters, without giving her, as regarded either of them,
   any other guarantee of independence than the mere chance of
   their dissensions and quarrels. … Francis I. and his
   chancellor saw in the proposed Concordat nothing but the great
   increment of influence it secured to them, by making all the
   dignitaries of the church suppliants at first and then clients
   of the kingship. After some difficulties as to points of
   detail, the Concordat was concluded and signed on the 18th of
   August, 1516. Five months afterwards, on the 5th of February,
   1517, the king repaired in person to Parliament, to which he
   had summoned many prelates and doctors of the University. The
   Chancellor explained the points of the Concordat. … The king
   ordered its registration, 'for the good of his kingdom and for
   quittance of the promise he had given the pope.'" For more
   than a year the Parliament of Paris resisted the royal order,
   and it was not until the 22d of March, 1518, that it yielded
   to the king's threats and proceeded to registration of the
   Concordat, with forms and reservations "which were evidence of
   compulsion. The other Parliaments of France followed with more
   or less zeal … the example shown by that of Paris. The
   University was heartily disposed to push resistance farther
   than had been done by Parliament."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 28 (volume 4)._

   "The execution of the Concordat was vigorously contested for
   years afterwards. Cathedrals and monastic chapters proceeded
   to elect bishops and abbots under the provisions of the
   Pragmatic Sanction; and every such case became a fresh source
   of exasperation between the contending powers. … But the
   Parliament, though clamouring loudly for the 'Gallican
   liberties,' and making a gallant stand for national
   independence as against the usurpations of Rome, was unable to
   maintain its ground against the overpowering despotism of the
   Crown. The monarchical authority ultimately achieved a
   complete triumph. In 1527 a peremptory royal ordinance
   prohibited the courts of Parliament from taking further
   cognisance of causes affecting elections to consistorial
   benefices and conventual priories; and all such matters were
   transferred to the sole jurisdiction of the Council of State.
   After this the agitation against the Concordat gradually
   subsided. But although, in virtue of its compulsory
   registration by the Parliament, the Concordat became part of
   the law of the land, it is certain that the Gallican Church
   never accepted this flagrant invasion of its liberties."

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 1, pages 109-110._

{1189}

FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1547.
   The institution of the Court.
   Its baneful influence.

   "Francis I. instituted the Court, and this had a decisive
   influence upon the manners of the nobility. Those lords, whose
   respect royalty had difficulty in keeping when they were at
   their castles, having come to court, prostrated themselves
   before the throne, and yielded obedience with their whole
   hearts. A few words will describe this Court. The king lodged
   and fed in his own large palace, which was fitted for the
   purpose, the flower of the French nobility. Some of these
   lords were in his service, under the title of officers of his
   household—as chamberlains, purveyors, equerries, &c. Large
   numbers of domestic offices were created solely as an excuse
   for their presence. Others lived there, without duties, simply
   as guests. All these, besides lodging and food, had often a
   pension as well. A third class were given only a lodging, and
   provided their own table; but all were amused and entertained
   with various pleasures, at the expense of the king. Balls,
   carousals, stately ceremonials, grand dinners, theatricals,
   conversations inspired by the presence of fair women, constant
   intercourse of all kinds, where each could choose for himself,
   and where the refined and literary found a place as well as
   the vain and profligate,—such was court life, a truly
   different thing from the monotonous and brutal existence of
   the feudal lord at his castle in the depths of his province.
   So, from all sides, nobles flocked to court, to gratify both
   the most refined tastes and the most degraded passions. Some
   came hoping to make their fortune, a word from the king
   sufficing to enrich a man; others came to gain a rank in the
   army, a lucrative post in the finance department, an abbey, or
   a bishopric. From the time kings held court, it became almost
   a law, that nothing should be granted to a nobleman who lived
   beyond its pale. Those lords who persisted in staying on their
   own estates were supposed to rail against the administration, or,
   as we of the present would express it, to be in opposition.
   'They must indeed be men of gross minds who are not tempted by
   the polish of the court; at all events it is very insolent in
   them to show so little wish to see their sovereign, and enjoy
   the honor of living under his roof.' Such was almost precisely
   the opinion of the king in regard to the provincial nobility.
   … Ambition drew the nobles to court; ambition, society, and
   dissipation kept them there. To incur the displeasure of their
   master, and be exiled from court was, first, to lose all hope
   of advancement, and then to fall from paradise into purgatory.
   It killed some people. But life was much more expensive at
   court than in the castles. As in all society where each is
   constantly in the presence of his neighbor, there was
   unbounded rivalry as to who should be most brilliant, most
   superb. The old revenues did not suffice, while, at the same
   time, the inevitable result of the absence of the lords was to
   decrease them. Whilst the expenses of the noblemen at Chambord
   or Versailles were steadily on the increase, his intendant,
   alone and unrestrained upon the estate, filled his own
   pockets, and sent less money every quarter, so that, to keep
   up the proper rank, the lord was forced to beg a pension from
   the king. Low indeed was the downfall of the old pride and
   feudal independence! The question was how to obtain these
   pensions, ranks, offices, and favors of all kinds. The virtues
   most prized and rewarded by the kings were not civic
   virtues,—capacity, and services of value for the public
   good; what pleased them was, naturally, devotion to their
   person, blind obedience, flattery, and subservience."

      _P. Lacombe,
      A Short History of the French People,
      chapter 23._

FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Maximilian's attempt against Milan.
   Diplomatic intrigues.
   The Treaty of Noyon.

   After Francis I. had taken possession of Milan, and while Pope
   Leo X. was making professions of friendship to him at Bologna,
   a scheme took shape among the French king's enemies for
   depriving him of his conquest, and the pope was privy to it.
   "Henry VIII. would not openly break the peace between England
   and France, but he offered to supply Maximilian with Swiss
   troops for an attack upon Milan. It was useless to send money
   to Maximilian, who would have spent it on himself"; but troops
   were hired for the emperor by the English agent, Pace, and "at
   the beginning of March [1516] the joint army of Maximilian and
   the Swiss assembled at Trent. On March 24 they were within a
   few miles of Milan, and their success seemed sure, when
   suddenly Maximilian found that his resources were exhausted
   and refused to proceed; next day he withdrew his troops and
   abandoned his allies. … The expedition was a total failure;
   yet English gold had not been spent in vain, as the Swiss were
   prevented from entirely joining the French, and Francis I. was
   reminded that his position in Italy was by no means secure.
   Leo X., meanwhile, in the words of Pace, 'had played
   marvellously with both hands in this enterprise.' … England
   was now the chief opponent of the ambitious schemes of France,
   and aimed at bringing about a league with Maximilian, Charles
   [who had just succeeded Ferdinand of Spain, deceased January
   23, 1516], the Pope, and the Swiss. But Charles's ministers,
   chief of whom was Croy, lord of Chievres, had a care above all
   for the interests of Flanders, and so were greatly under the
   influence of France. … France and England entered into a
   diplomatic warfare over the alliance with Charles. First,
   England on April 19 recognised Charles as King of Spain,
   Navarre, and the Two Sicilies; then Wolsey strove to make
   peace between Venice and Maximilian as a first step towards
   detaching Venice from its French alliance." On the other hand,
   negotiations were secretly carried on and (August 13) "the
   treaty of Noyon was concluded between Francis I. and Charles.
   Charles was to marry Louise, the daughter of Francis I., an
   infant of one year old, and receive as her dower the French
   claims on Naples; Venice was to pay Maximilian 200,000 ducats
   for Brescia and Verona; in case he refused this offer and
   continued the war, Charles was at liberty to help his
   grandfather, and Francis I. to help the Venetians, without any
   breach of the peace now made between them. … In spite of the
   efforts of England, Francis I. was everywhere successful in
   settling his difficulties. On November 29 a perpetual peace
   was made at Friburg between France and the Swiss Cantons; on
   December 3 the treaty of Noyon was renewed, and Maximilian was
   included in its provisions. Peace was made between him and
   Venice by the provision that Maximilian was to hand over
   Verona to Charles, who in turn should give it up to the King
   of France, who delivered it to the Venetians; Maximilian in
   return received 100,000 ducats from Venice and as much from
   France. The compact was duly carried out: 'On February 8,
   1517,' wrote the Cardinal of Sion, 'Verona belonged to the
   Emperor; on the 9th to the King Catholic; on the 15th to the
   French; on the 17th to the Venetians.' Such was the end of the
   wars that had arisen from the League of Cambrai. After a struggle
   of eight years the powers that had confederated to destroy
   Venice came together to restore her to her former place.
   Venice might well exult in this reward of her long constancy,
   her sacrifices and her disasters."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy, during the Period
      of the Reformation,
      book 5, chapter 19 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapters 4-6 (volume 1)._

{1190}

FRANCE: A. D. 1519.
   Candidacy of Francis I. for Imperial crown.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
   Rivalry of Francis I. and Charles V.
   The Emperor's successes in Italy and Navarre.
   Milan again taken from France.
   The wrongs and the treason of the Constable of Bourbon.

   "With their candidature for the Imperial crown, burst forth
   the inextinguishable rivalry between Francis I. and Charles V.
   The former claimed Naples for himself and Navarre for Henry
   d'Albret: the Emperor demanded the Milanese as a fief of the
   Empire, and the Duchy of Burgundy. Their resources were about
   equal. If the empire of Charles were more extensive the
   kingdom of France was more compact. The Emperor's subjects
   were richer, but his authority more circumscribed. The
   reputation of the French cavalry was not inferior to that of
   the Spanish infantry. Victory would belong to the one who
   should win over the King of England to his side. … Both gave
   pensions to his Prime Minister, Cardinal Wolsey; they each asked
   the hand of his daughter Mary, one for the dauphin, the other
   for himself. Francis I. obtained from him an interview at
   Calais, and forgetting that he wished to gain his favour,
   eclipsed him by his elegance and magnificence [see FIELD OF
   THE CLOTH OF GOLD]. Charles V., more adroit, had anticipated
   this interview by visiting Henry VIII. in England. He had
   secured Wolsey by giving him hopes of the tiara. …
   Everything succeeded with the Emperor. He gained Leo X. to his
   side and thus obtained sufficient influence to raise his
   tutor, Adrian of Utrecht, to the papacy [on the death of Leo,
   December 1, 1521]. The French penetrated into Spain, but arrived
   too late to aid the rising there [in Navarre, 1521]. The
   governor of the Milanese, Lautrec, who is said to have exiled
   from Milan nearly half its inhabitants, was driven out of
   Lombardy [and the Pope retook Parma and Placentia]. He met
   with the same fate again in the following year: the Swiss, who
   were ill-paid, asked either for dismissal or battle, and allowed
   themselves to be beaten at La Bicoque [April 29, 1522]. The
   money intended for the troops had been used for other purposes
   by the Queen-mother, who hated Lautrec. At the moment when
   Francis I. was thinking of re-entering Italy, an internal
   enemy threw France into the utmost danger. Francis had given
   mortal offence to the Constable of Bourbon, one of those who
   had most contributed to the victory of Marignan. Charles,
   Count of Montpensier and Dauphin of Auvergne, held by virtue
   of his wife, a granddaughter of Louis XI., the Duchy of
   Bourbon, and the counties of Clermont, La Marche and other
   domains, which made him the first noble in the kingdom. On the
   death of his wife, the Queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, who had
   wanted to marry the Constable and had been refused by him,
   resolved to ruin him. She disputed with him this rich
   inheritance and obtained from her son that the property should
   be provisionally sequestered. Bourbon, exasperated, resolved
   to pass over to the Emperor (1523). Half a century earlier,
   revolt did not mean disloyalty. The most accomplished knights
   in France, Dunois and John of Calabria, had joined the 'League
   for the public weal.' … But now it was no question of a
   revolt against the king; such a thing was impossible in France
   at this time. It was a conspiracy against the very existence
   of France that Bourbon was plotting with foreigners. He
   promised Charles V. to attack Burgundy as soon as Francis I.
   had crossed the Alps, and to rouse into revolt five provinces
   of which he believed himself master; the kingdom of Provence
   was to be re-established in his favour, and France,
   partitioned between Spain and England, would have ceased to
   exist as a nation. He was soon able to enjoy the reverses of
   his country."

      _J. Michelet,
      Summary of Modern History,
      chapter 6._

   "Henry VIII. and Charles V. were both ready to secure the
   services of the ex-Constable. He decided in favour of Charles
   as the more powerful of the two. … These secret negotiations
   were carried on in the spring of 1523, while Francis I.
   (having sent a sufficient force to protect his northern
   frontier) was preparing to make Italy the seat of war. With
   this object the king ordered a rendezvous of the army at
   Lyons, in the beginning of September, and having arranged to
   pass through Moulins on his way to join the forces, called
   upon the Constable to meet him there and to proceed with him
   to Lyons. Already vague rumours of an understanding between
   the Emperor and Bourbon had reached Francis, who gave no
   credence to them; but on his way M. de Brézé, Seneschal of
   Normandy, attached to the Court of Louise of Savoy, sent such
   precise details of the affair by two Norman gentlemen in the
   Constable's service that doubt was no longer possible."
   Francis accordingly entered Moulins with a considerable force,
   and went straight to Bourbon, who feigned illness. The
   Constable stoutly denied to the king all the charges which the
   latter revealed to him, and Francis, who was strongly urged to
   order his arrest, refused to do so. But a few days later, when
   the king had gone forward to Lyons, Bourbon, pretending to
   follow him, rode away to his strong castle of Chantelles, from
   whence he wrote letters demanding the restitution of his
   estates. As soon as his flight was known, Francis sent forces
   to seize him; but the Constable, taking one companion with
   him, made his way out of the kingdom in disguise. Escaping to
   Italy, he was there placed in command of the imperial army.

      _C. Coignet,
      Francis I. and his Times,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Miss Pardoe,
      The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
      volume 1, chapters 14-19._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.

FRANCE: A. D. 1521.
   Invasion of Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

FRANCE: A. D. 1521-1525.
   Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1524.
   First undertakings in the New World.
   Voyages of Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

{1191}

FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
   The death of Bayard.
   Second invasion of Italy by Francis I.
   His defeat and capture at Pavia.

   "Bonnivet, the personal enemy of Bourbon, was now entrusted
   with the command of the French army. He marched without
   opposition into the Milanese, and might have taken the capital
   had he pushed on to its gates. Having by irresolution lost it,
   he retreated to winter quarters behind the Tesino. The
   operations of the English in Picardy, of the imperialists in
   Champagne, and of the Spaniards near the Pyrenees, were
   equally insignificant. The spring of 1524 brought on an
   action, if the attack of one point can be called such, which
   proved decisive for the time. Bonnivet advanced rashly beyond
   the Tesino. The imperialists, commanded by four able generals,
   Launoi, Pescara, Bourbon, and Sforza, succeeded in almost
   cutting off his retreat. They at the same time refused
   Bonnivet's offer to engage. They hoped to weaken him by
   famine. The Swiss first murmured against the distress
   occasioned by want of precaution. They deserted across the
   river; and Bonnivet, thus abandoned, was obliged to make a
   precipitate and perilous retreat. A bridge was hastily flung
   across the Sessia, near Romagnano; and Bonnivet, with his best
   knights and gensdarmerie, undertook to defend the passage of
   the rest of the army. The imperialists, led on by Bourbon,
   made a furious attack. Bonnivet was wounded, and he gave his
   place to Bayard, who, never entrusted with a high command, was
   always chosen for that of a forlorn hope. The brave Vandenesse
   was soon killed; and Bayard himself received a gun-shot
   through the reins. The gallant chevalier, feeling his wound
   mortal, caused himself to be placed in a sitting posture
   beneath a tree, his face to the enemy, and his sword fixed in
   guise of a cross before him. The constable Bourbon, who led
   the imperialists, soon came up to the dying Bayard, and
   expressed his compassion. 'Weep not for me,' said the
   chevalier, 'but for thyself. I die in performing my duty; thou
   art betraying thine.' Nothing marks more strongly the great
   rise, the sudden sacro-sanctity of the royal authority in
   those days, than the general horror which the treason of
   Bourbon excited. … The fact is, that this sudden horror of
   treason was owing, in a great measure, to the revived study of
   the classics, in which treason to one's country is universally
   mentioned as an impiety and a crime of the deepest dye.
   Feudality, with all its oaths, had no such horror of treason.
   … Bonnivet had evacuated Italy after this defeat at
   Romagnano. Bourbon's animosity stimulated him to push his
   advantage. He urged the emperor to invade France, and
   recommended the Bourbonnais and his own patrimonial provinces
   as those most advisable to invade. Bourbon wanted to raise his
   friends in insurrection against Francis; but Charles descried
   selfishness in this scheme of Bourbon, and directed Pescara to
   march with the constable into the south of France and lay
   siege to Marseilles. … Marseilles made an obstinate
   resistance," and the siege was ineffectual. "Francis, in the
   meantime, alarmed by the invasion, had assembled an army. He
   burned to employ it, and avenge the late affront. The king of
   England, occupied with the Scotch, gave him respite in the
   north; and he resolved to employ this by marching, late as the
   season was, into Italy. His generals, who by this time were
   sick of warring beyond the Alps, opposed the design; but not
   even the death of his queen, Claude, could stop Francis. He
   passed Mount Cenis; marched upon Milan, whose population was
   spiritless and broken by the plague, and took it without
   resistance. It was then mooted whether Lodi or Pavia should be
   besieged. The latter, imprudently, as it is said, was
   preferred. It was at this time that Pope Clement VII., of the
   house of Medici, who had lately succeeded Adrian, made the
   most zealous efforts to restore peace between the monarchies.
   He found Charles and his generals arrogant and unwilling to
   treat. The French, said they, must on no account be allowed a
   footing in Italy. Clement, impelled by pique towards the
   emperor, or generosity to Francis, at once abandoned the
   prudent policy of his predecessors, and formed a league with
   the French king, to whom, after all, he brought no accession
   of force. This step proved afterwards fatal to the city of
   Rome. The siege of Pavia was formed about the middle of
   October [1524]. Antonio de Leyva, an experienced officer,
   supported by veteran troops, commanded in the town. The
   fortifications were strong, and were likely to hold for a
   considerable time. By the month of January the French had made
   no progress; and the impatient Francis despatched a
   considerable portion of his army for the invasion of Naples,
   hearing that the country was drained of troops. This was a
   gross blunder, which Pescara observing, forbore to send any
   force to oppose the expedition. He knew that the fate of Italy
   would be decided before Pavia. Bourbon, in the mean time,
   disgusted with the jealousies and tardiness of the imperial
   generals, employed the winter in raising an army of
   lansquenets on his own account. From the duke of Savoy he
   procured funds; and early in the year 1525 the constable
   joined Pescara at Lodi with a fresh army of 12,000
   mercenaries. They had, besides, some 7,000 foot, and not more
   than 1,500 horse. With these they marched to the relief of
   Pavia. Francis had a force to oppose to them, not only
   inferior in numbers, but so harassed with a winter's siege,
   that all the French generals of experience counselled a
   retreat. Bonnivet and his young troop of courtiers were for
   fighting; and the monarch hearkened to them. Pavia, to the
   north of the river, was covered in great part by the chateau
   and walled park of Mirabel. Adjoining this, and on a rising
   ground, was the French camp, extending to the Tesino. Through
   the camp, or through the park, lay the only ways by which the
   imperialists could reach Pavia. The camp was strongly
   entrenched and defended by artillery, except on the side of
   the park of Mirabel, with which it communicated." On the night
   of February 23, the imperialists made a breach in the park
   wall, through which they pressed next morning, but were driven
   back with heavy loss. "This was victory enough, could the
   French king have been contented with it. But the impatient
   Francis no sooner beheld his enemies in rout, than he was
   eager to chase them in person, and complete the victory with
   his good sword. He rushed forth from his entrenchments at the
   head of his gensdarmerie, flinging himself between the enemy
   and his own artillery, which was thus masked and rendered
   useless. The imperialists rallied as soon as they found
   themselves safe from the fire of the cannon," and the French
   were overwhelmed. "The king … behind a heap of slain,
   defended himself valiantly; so beaten and shattered, so
   begrimed with blood and dust, as to be scarcely
   distinguishable, notwithstanding his conspicuous armour. He
   had received several wounds, one in the forehead; and his
   horse, struck with a ball in the head, reared, fell back, and
   crushed him with his weight: still Francis rose, and laid
   prostrate several of the enemies that rushed upon him." But
   presently he was recognized and was persuaded to surrender his
   sword to Lannoi, the viceroy of Naples. "Such was the signal
   defeat that put an end to all French conquests and claims in
   Italy."

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

      _J. S. Brewer,
      Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      _H. G. Smith,
      Romance of History,
      chapter 6._

{1192}

FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
   The captivity of Francis I. and his deliberate perfidy in the
   Treaty of Madrid.

   The captive king of France was lodged in the castle at
   Pizzighitone. "Instead of bearing his captivity with calmness
   and fortitude, he chafed and fretted under the loss of his
   wonted pleasures; at one moment he called for death to end his
   woes, while at another he was ready to sign disastrous terms
   of peace, meaning to break faith so soon as ever he might be
   free again. … France, at first stupefied by the mishap, soon
   began to recover hope. The Regent, for all her vices and
   faults, was proud and strong; she gathered what force she
   could at Lyons, and looked round for help. … Not only were
   there anxieties at home, but the frontiers were also
   threatened. On the side of Germany a popular movement ['the
   Peasant War'], closely connected with the religious excitement
   of the time, pushed a fierce and cruel rabble into Lorraine,
   whence they proposed to enter France. But they were met by the
   Duke of Guise and the Count of Vaudemont, his brother, at the
   head of the garrisons of Burgundy and Champagne, and were
   easily dispersed. It was thought that during these troubles
   Lannoy would march his army, flushed with victory, from the Po
   to the Rhone. … But Lannoy had no money to pay his men, and
   could not undertake so large a venture. Meanwhile negotiations
   began between Charles V. and the King; the Emperor demanding,
   as ransom, that Bourbon should be invested with Provence and
   Dauphiny, joined to his own lands in Auvergne, and should
   receive the title of king; and secondly that the Duchy of
   Burgundy should be given over to the Emperor as the inheritor
   of the lands and rights of Charles the Bold. But the King of
   France would not listen for a moment. And now the King of
   England and most of the Italian states, alarmed at the great
   power of the Emperor, began to change sides. Henry VIII. came
   first. He signed a treaty of neutrality with the Regent, in
   which it was agreed that not even for the sake of the King's
   deliverance should any part of France be torn from her. The
   Italians joined in a league to restore the King to liberty,
   and to secure the independence of Italy: and Turkey was called
   on for help. … The Emperor now felt that Francis was not in
   secure keeping at Pizzighitone. … He therefore gave orders
   that Francis should at once be removed to Spain." The captive
   king "was set ashore at Valencia, and received with wonderful
   welcome: dances, festivals, entertainments of every kind,
   served to relieve his captivity; it was like a restoration to
   life! But this did not suit the views of the Emperor, who
   wished to weary the King into giving up all thought of
   resistance: he trusted to his impatient and frivolous
   character; his mistake, as he found to his cost, lay in
   thinking that a man of such character would keep his word. He
   therefore had him removed from Valencia to Madrid, where he
   was kept in close and galling confinement, in a high, dreary
   chamber, where he could not even see out of the windows. This
   had the desired effect. The King talked of abdicating; he fell
   ill of ennui, and was like to die: but at last he could hold
   out no longer, and abandoning all thought of honourable
   action, agreed to shameful terms, consoling himself with a
   private protest against the validity of the deed, as having
   been done under compulsion."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 5._

   "By the Treaty of Madrid, signed January 14th, 1526, Francis
   'restored' to the Emperor the Duchy of Burgundy, the county of
   Charolais, and some other smaller fiefs, without reservation
   of any feudal suzerainty, which was also abandoned with regard
   to the counties of Flanders and Artois, the Emperor, however,
   resigning the towns on the Somme, which had been held by
   Charles the Bold. The French King also renounced his claims to
   the kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the county of Asti,
   and the city of Genoa. He contracted an offensive and
   defensive alliance with Charles, undertaking to attend him
   with an army when he should repair to Rome to receive the
   Imperial crown, and to accompany him in person whenever he
   should march against the Turks or heretics. He withdrew his
   protection from the King of Navarre, the Duke of Gelderland,
   and the La Marcks; took upon himself the Emperor's debt to
   England, and agreed to give his two eldest sons as hostages
   for the execution of the treaty. Instead, however, of the
   independent kingdom which Bourbon had expected, all that was
   stipulated in his favour was a free pardon for him and his
   adherents, and their restoration in their forfeited domains.
   … The provisions of the above treaty Francis promised to
   execute on the word and honour of a king, and by an oath sworn
   with his hand upon the holy Gospels: yet only a few hours
   before he was to sign this solemn act, he had called his
   plenipotentiaries, together with some French nobles,
   secretaries, and notaries, into his chamber, where, after
   exacting from them an oath of secrecy, he entered into a long
   discourse touching the Emperor's harshness towards him, and
   signed a protest, declaring that, as the treaty he was about
   to enter into had been extorted from him by force, it was null
   and void from the beginning, and that he never intended to
   execute it: thus, as a French writer has observed,
   establishing by an authentic notarial act that he was going to
   commit a perjury." Treaties have often been shamefully
   violated, yet it would perhaps be impossible to parallel this
   gross and deliberate perjury. In March, Francis was conducted
   to the Spanish frontier, where, on a boat in mid-stream of the
   Bidassoa, "he was exchanged for his two sons, Francis and
   Henry, who were to remain in Spain, as hostages for the
   execution of the treaty. The tears started to his eyes as he
   embraced his children, but he consigned them without remorse
   to a long and dreary exile." As speedily as possible after
   regaining his liberty, Francis assembled the states of his
   kingdom and procured from them a decision "that the King could
   not alienate the patrimony of France, and that the oath which he
   had taken in his captivity did not abrogate the still more
   solemn one which had been administered to him at his
   coronation." After which he deemed himself discharged from the
   obligations of his treaty, and had no thought of surrendering
   himself again a prisoner, as he was honourably bound to do.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. B. Cochrane,
      Francis I. in Captivity._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

      _C. Coignet,
      Francis I. and his Times,
      chapters 5-8._

{1193}

FRANCE: A. D. 1526-1527.
   Holy League with Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
   Bourbon's attack on Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.

FRANCE: A. D. 1527-1529.
   New alliance against Charles V.
   Early successes in Lombardy.
   Disaster at Naples.
   Genoa and all possessions in Italy lost.
   The humiliating Peace of Cambrai.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

FRANCE: A. D. 1529-1535.
   Persecution of the Protestant Reformers and spread of their
   doctrines.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

FRANCE: A. D. 1531.
   Alliance with the Protestant princes of the German League of
   Smalkalde.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

FRANCE: A. D. 1532.
   Final reunion of Brittany with the crown.

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.

FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
   Treaty with the Pope.
   Marriage of Prince Henry with Catherine de' Medici.
   Renewed war with Charles V.
   Alliance with the Turks.
   Victory at Cerisoles.
   Treaty of Crespy.
   Increased persecution of Protestants.
   Massacre of Waldenses.
   War with England.
   Death of Francis I.

   "The 'ladies' peace' … lasted up to 1536; incessantly
   troubled, however, by far from pacific symptoms, proceedings
   and preparations. In October, 1532, Francis I. had, at Calais,
   an interview with Henry VIII., at which they contracted a
   private alliance, and undertook 'to raise between them an army
   of 80,000 men to resist the Turk.'" But when, in 1535, Charles
   V. attacked the seat of the Barbary pirates, and took Tunis,
   Francis "entered into negotiations with Soliman II., and
   concluded a friendly treaty with him against what was called
   'the common enemy.' Francis had been for some time preparing
   to resume his projects of conquest in Italy; he had effected
   an interview at Marseilles, in October, 1533, with Pope
   Clement VII., who was almost at the point of death, and it was
   there that the marriage of Prince Henry of France with
   Catherine de' Medici [daughter of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, and
   granddaughter of Piero de' Medici] was settled. Astonishment was
   expressed that the pope's niece had but a very moderate dowry.
   'You don't see, then,' said Clement VII.'s ambassador, 'that
   she brings France three jewels of great price, Genoa, Milan
   and Naples?' When this language was reported at the court of
   Charles V., it caused great irritation there. In 1536 all
   these combustibles of war exploded; in the month of February,
   a French army entered Piedmont, and occupied Turin; and, in
   the month of July, Charles V. in person entered Provence at
   the head of 50,000 men. Anne de Montmorency, having received
   orders to defend southern France, began by laying it waste in
   order that the enemy might not be able to live in it. …
   Montmorency made up his mind to defend, on the whole coast of
   Provence, only Marseilles and Aries; he pulled down the
   ramparts of the other towns, which were left exposed to the
   enemy. For two months Charles V. prosecuted this campaign
   without a fight, marching through the whole of Provence an
   army which fatigue, shortness of provisions, sickness, and
   ambuscades were decimating ingloriously. At last he decided
   upon retreating. … On returning from his sorry expedition,
   Charles V. learned that those of his lieutenants whom he had
   charged with the conduct of a similar invasion in the north of
   France, in Picardy, had met with no greater success than he
   himself in Provence." A truce for three months was soon
   afterwards arranged, and in June, 1538, through the mediation
   of Pope Paul III., a treaty was signed at Nice which extended
   the truce to ten years. Next month the two sovereigns met at
   Aigues-Mortes and exchanged many assurances of friendship."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 28 (volume 4)._

   In August, 1539, a revolt at Ghent "called Charles V. into
   Flanders; he was then in Spain, and his shortest route was
   through France. He requested permission to cross the kingdom,
   and obtained it, after having promised the Constable
   Montmorency that he would give the investiture of Milan to the
   second son of the King. His sojourn in France was a time of
   expensive fêtes, and cost the treasury four millions; yet, in
   the midst of his pleasures, the Emperor was not without
   uneasiness. … Francis, however, respected the rights of
   hospitality; but Charles did not give to his son the
   investiture of Milan. The King, indignant, exiled the
   constable for having trusted the word of the Emperor without
   exacting his signature, and avenged himself by strengthening
   his alliance with the Turks, the most formidable enemies of
   the empire. … The hatred of the two monarchs was carried to
   its height by these last events; they mutually outraged each
   other by injurious libels, and submitted their differences to
   the Pope. Paul III. refused to decide between them, and they
   again took up arms [1542]. The King invaded Luxembourg, and
   the Dauphin Rousillon; and while a third army in concert with
   the Mussulmans besieged Nice [1542], the last asylum of the
   dukes of Savoy, by land, the terrible Barbarossa, admiral of
   Soliman, attacked it by sea. The town was taken, the castle
   alone resisted, and the siege of it was raised. Barbarossa
   consoled himself for this check by ravaging the coasts of
   Italy, where he made 10,000 captives. The horror which he
   inspired recoiled on Francis I., his ally, whose name became
   odious in Italy and Germany. He was declared the enemy of the
   empire, and the Diet raised against him an army of 24,000 men,
   at the head of which Charles V. penetrated into Champagne,
   while Henry VIII., coalescing with the Emperor, attacked
   Picardy with 10,000 English. The battle of Cerisoles, a
   complete victory, gained during the same year [April 14, 1544],
   in Piedmont, by Francis of Bourbon, Duke d'Enghien, against
   Gast, general of the Imperial troops, did not stop this double
   and formidable invasion. Charles V. advanced almost to
   Château-Thierry. But discord reigned in his army; he ran short
   of provisions, and could easily have been surrounded; he then
   again promised Milan to the Duke of Orleans, the second son of
   the King. This promise irritated the Dauphin Henry, who was
   afraid to see his brother become the head of a house as
   dangerous for France as had been that of Burgundy; he wished
   to reject the offer of the Emperor and to cut off his retreat.
   A rivalry among women, it is said, saved Charles V. …
{1194}
   The war was terminated almost immediately afterwards [1544] by
   the treaty of Crespy in Valois. The Emperor promised his
   daughter to the Duke of Orleans, with the Low Countries and
   Franche-Comté, or one of his nieces, with Milan. Francis
   restored to the Duke of Savoy the greater part of the places
   that he held in Piedmont; he renounced all ulterior
   pretensions to the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and
   likewise to the sovereignty of Flanders and Artois; Charles,
   on his part, gave up the duchy of Burgundy. This treaty put an
   end to the rivalry of the two sovereigns, which had
   ensanguined Europe for 25 years. The death of the Duke of
   Orleans freed the Emperor from dispossessing himself of Milan
   or the Low Countries; he refused all compensation to the King,
   but the peace was not broken. Francis I. profited by it to
   redouble his severity with regard to the Protestants. A
   population of many thousands of Waldenses, an unfortunate
   remnant from the religious persecutions of the 13th century,
   dwelt upon the confines of Provence, and the County Venaissin,
   and a short time back had entered into communion with the
   Calvinists. The King permitted John Mesnier, Baron d'Oppède,
   first president of the Parliament of Aix, to execute [1546] a
   sentence delivered against them five years previously by the
   Parliament. John d'Oppède himself directed this frightful
   execution. Twenty-two towns or villages were burned and
   sacked; the inhabitants, surprised during the night, were
   pursued among the rocks by the glare of the flames which
   devoured their houses. The men perished by executions, but the
   women were delivered over to terrible violences. At Cabrières,
   the principal town of the canton, 700 men were murdered in
   cold blood, and all the women were burnt; lastly, according to
   the tenor of the sentence, the houses were rased, the woods cut
   down, the trees in the gardens torn up, and in a short time
   this country, so fertile and so thickly peopled, became a
   desert and a waste. This dreadful massacre was one of the
   principal causes of the religious wars which desolated France
   for so long a time. … The war continued between [Henry
   VIII.] and Francis I. The English had taken Boulogne, and a
   French fleet ravaged the coasts of England, after taking
   possession of the Isle of Wight [1545]. Hostilities were
   terminated by the treaty of Guines [1547], which the two kings
   signed on the edge of their graves, and it was arranged that
   Boulogne should be restored for the sum of 2,000,000 of gold
   crowns. … Henry VIII. and Francis I. died in the same year
   [1547]."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, pages 363-367._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 6-9 (volume 2)._

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapters 20-23 (volume 4)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1535.
   The voyages of Jacques Cartier and the taking
   possession of Canada.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1560.
   Persecution of the Protestants.
   Their organization.
   Their numbers.

   "Francis I. had long shrunk from persecution, but having once
   begun he showed no further hesitation. During the remainder of
   his reign and the whole of that of his son Henry II.
   (1534-1559) the cruelty of the sufferings inflicted on the
   Reformers increased with the number of the victims. At first
   they were strangled and burnt, then burnt alive, then hung in
   chains to roast over a slow fire. … The Edict of
   Chateaubriand (1551), taking away all right of appeal from
   those convicted of heresy, was followed by an attempt to
   introduce an Inquisition on the model of that of Spain, and
   when this failed owing to the opposition of the lawyers, the
   Edict of Compiègne (1557) denounced capital punishment against
   all who in public or private professed any heterodox doctrine. It
   is a commonplace that persecution avails nothing against the
   truth—that the true Church springs from the blood of martyrs.
   Yet the same cause which triumphed over persecution in France
   was crushed by it in Spain and in the Walloon Netherlands. Was
   it therefore not the truth? The fact would rather seem to be,
   that there is no creed, no sect which cannot be extirpated by
   force. But that it may prevail, persecution must be without
   respect of persons, universal, continuous, protracted. Not one
   of these conditions was fulfilled in France. The opinions of the
   greater nobles and princes, and of those who were their
   immediate followers, were not too narrowly scanned, nor was
   the persecution equally severe at all times and in all places.
   Some governors and judges and not a few of the higher clergy
   inclined to toleration. … The cheerful constancy of the
   French martyrs was admirable. Men, women and children walked
   to execution singing the psalms of Marot and the Song of
   Simeon. This boldness confounded their enemies. Hawkers
   distributed in every part of the country the books issued from
   the press of Geneva and which it was a capital offence even to
   possess. Preachers taught openly in the streets and
   market-places. … The increasing numbers of their converts
   and the high position of some among them gave confidence to
   the Protestants. Delegates from the reformed congregations of
   France were on their way to Paris to take part in the
   deliberations of the first national Synod on the very day
   (April 2, 1559) when the peace of Cateau Cambresis was signed,
   a peace which was to be the prelude to a vigorous and
   concerted effort to root out heresy on the part of the kings
   of France and Spain. The object of the meeting was twofold:
   first to draw up a detailed profession of faith, which was
   submitted to Calvin—there was, he said, little to add, less
   to correct—secondly to determine the 'ecclesiastical
   discipline' of the new Church. The ministers were to be chosen
   by the elders and deacons, but approved by the whole
   congregation. The affairs of each congregation were placed
   under the control of the Consistory, a court composed of the
   pastors, elders and deacons; more important matters were
   reserved for the decision of the provincial 'colloques' or
   synods, which were to meet twice a year, and in which each
   church was represented by its pastor and at least one elder.
   Above all was the national Synod also composed of the clergy
   and of representative laymen. This organisation was thoroughly
   representative and popular, the elected delegates of the
   congregations, the elders and deacons, preponderated in all
   the governing bodies, and all ministers and churches were
   declared equal. The Reformed churches, which, although most
   numerous in the South, spread over almost the whole country,
   are said at this time to have counted some 400,000 members
   (1559). These were of almost all classes, except perhaps the
   lowest, although even among the peasantry there were some
   martyrs for the faith."
{1195}
   On the accession of Charles IX., in 1560, "a quarter of the
   inhabitants of France were, it was said, included in the 2,500
   reformed congregations. This is certainly an exaggeration, but
   it is probable that the number of the Protestants was never
   greater than during the first years of the reign of Charles
   IX. … The most probable estimate is that at the beginning of
   the wars of religion the Huguenots with women and children
   amounted to some 1,500,000 souls out of a population of
   between fifteen and twenty millions. But in this minority were
   included about one-fourth of the lesser nobility, the country
   gentlemen, and a smaller proportion of the great nobles, the
   majority of the better sort of townspeople in many of the most
   important towns, such as Caen, Dieppe, Havre, Nantes, La
   Rochelle, Nimes, Montpellier, Montauban, Châlons, Mâcon,
   Lyons, Valence, Limoges and Grenoble, and an important
   minority in other places, such as Rouen, Orleans, Bordeaux and
   Toulouse. The Protestants were most numerous in the
   South-west, in Poitou, in the Marche, Limousin, Angoumois and
   Perigord, because in those districts, which were the seats of
   long-established and flourishing manufactures, the middle
   classes were most prosperous, intelligent and educated. It is
   doubtful whether the Catholics were not in a large majority,
   even where the superior position, intelligence and vigour of
   the Huguenots gave them the upper hand. Only in some parts of
   the South-west and of Dauphiny do the bulk of the population
   appear to have been decidedly hostile to the old religion.
   During the course of the Civil War the Protestants came to be
   more and more concentrated in certain parts of the country, as
   for instance between the Garonne and the Loire."

      _P. F. Willert,
      Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France,
      chapter 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1543.
   Jacques Cartier's last explorations in Canada.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.

FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1564.
   The rise and influence of Calvinism.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

FRANCE: A. D. 1547.
   Accession of King Henry II.

FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
   The rise of the Guises.
   Alliance with the German Protestants.
   Wars with the emperor, and with Spain and England.
   Acquisition of Les Trois Evêchés, and of Calais.
   Unsuccessful campaign in Italy.
   Battle and siege of St. Quentin.
   Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

   "The son of Francis I., who in 1547 ascended the throne under
   the title of Henry II., was told by his dying father to beware
   of the Guises. … The Guises were a branch of the ducal House
   of Lorraine, which, although the dukedom was a fief of the
   German empire, had long stood in intimate relations with the
   court and nobility of France. The founder of the family was
   Claude, a younger son of René II., Duke of Lorraine, who,
   being naturalised in France in 1505, rendered himself
   conspicuous in the wars of Francis I., and was created first
   Duke of Guise. He died in 1550, leaving five daughters and six
   sons. His eldest daughter, Mary, became the wife of James V.
   of Scotland, and mother of Mary Queen of Scots. The sons were
   all men of extraordinary energy and ambition, and their united
   influence was, for a number of years, more than a match for
   that of the crown. Francis, second Duke of Guise, acquired,
   while still a young man, extraordinary renown as a military
   commander, by carrying out certain ambitious designs of France
   on a neighbouring territory. … As is well known, French
   statesmen have for many centuries cherished the idea that the
   natural boundary of France on the east is the Rhine, from its
   mouth to its source, and thence along the crest of the Alps to
   the Mediterranean. … To begin the realisation of the idea,
   advantage was taken of the war which broke out between the
   Emperor Charles V. and his Protestant subjects in North
   Germany [see GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552]. Although the
   Protestants of France were persecuted to the death, Henry II.,
   with furtively ambitious designs, offered to defend the
   Protestants of Germany against their own emperor; and entered
   into an alliance in 1551 with Maurice of Saxony and other
   princes, undertaking to send an army to their aid. As bases of
   his operations, it was agreed that he might take temporary
   military possession of Toul, Verdun, and Metz, three
   bishoprics [forming a district called the Trois Évêchés], each
   with a portion of territory lying within the area of the duchy
   of Lorraine, but held as distinct fiefs of the German empire—
   such, in fact, being fragments of Lothair's kingdom, which
   fell to Germany, and had in no shape been incorporated with
   France. It was stipulated that, in occupying these places, the
   French were not to interfere with their old connection with
   the empire. The confidence reposed in the French was
   grievously abused. All the stipulations went for nothing. In
   1552, French troops took possession of Toul and Verdun, also
   of Nancy, the capital of Lorraine, treating the duchy,
   generally, as a conquered country. Seeing this, Metz shut her
   gates and trusted to her fortifications. To procure an
   entrance and secure possession, there was a resort to
   stratagems which afford a startling illustration of the tricks
   that French nobles at that time could be guilty of in order to
   gain their ends. The French commander, the Constable
   Montmorency, begged to be allowed to pass through the town
   with a few attendants, while his army made a wide circuit on
   its route. The too credulous custodiers of the city opened the
   gates, and, to their dismay, the whole French forces rushed
   in, and began to rule in true despotic fashion. … Thus was
   Metz secured for France in a way which modern Frenchmen, we
   should imagine, can hardly think of without shame. Germany,
   however, did not relinquish this important fortress without a
   struggle. Furious at its loss, the Emperor Charles V.
   proceeded to besiege it with a large army. The defence was
   undertaken by the Duke of Guise, assisted by a body of French
   nobility. After an investment of four months, and a loss of
   30,000 men, Charles was forced to raise the siege, January 1,
   1553, all his attempts at the capture of the place being
   effectually baffled."

      _W. Chambers,
      France: its History and Revolutions,
      chapter 6._

{1196}

   "The war continued during the two following years; but both
   parties were now growing weary of a contest in which neither
   achieved any decisive superiority"; and the emperor, having
   negotiated an armistice, resigned all his crowns to his son,
   Philip II., and his brother Ferdinand (October, 1555).
   "Meantime Pope Paul IV., who detested the Spaniards and longed
   for the complete subversion of their power in the Peninsula,
   entered into a league with the French king against Philip;
   Francis of Guise was encouraged in his favorite project of
   effecting a restoration of the crown of Naples to his own
   family, as the descendants of René of Anjou; and in December,
   1556, an army of 16,000 men, commanded by the Duke of Guise,
   crossed the Alps, and, marching direct to Rome, prepared to
   attack the Spanish viceroy of Naples, the celebrated Duke of
   Alva. In April, 1557, Guise advanced into the Abruzzi, and
   besieged Civitella; but here he encountered a determined
   resistance, and, after sacrificing a great part of his troops,
   found it necessary to abandon the attempt. He retreated toward
   Rome, closely pursued by the Duke of Alva; and the result was
   that the expedition totally failed. Before his army could
   recover from the fatigues and losses of their fruitless
   campaign, the French general was suddenly recalled by a
   dispatch containing tidings of urgent importance from the
   north of France. The Spanish army in the Netherlands,
   commanded by the Duke of Savoy, having been joined by a body
   of English auxiliaries under the Earl of Pembroke, had invaded
   France and laid siege to St. Quentin. This place was badly
   fortified, and defended by a feeble garrison under the Admiral
   de Coligny. Montmorency advanced with the main army to
   re-enforce it, and on the 10th of August rashly attacked the
   Spaniards, who outnumbered his own troops in the proportion of
   more than two to one, and inflicted on him a fatal and
   irretrievable defeat. The loss of the French amounted,
   according to most accounts, to 4,000 slain in the field, while
   at least an equal number remained prisoners, including the
   Constable himself. The road to Paris lay open to the victors.
   … The Duke of Savoy was eager to advance; but the cautious
   Philip, happily for France, rejected his advice, and ordered
   him to press the siege of St. Quentin. That town made a
   desperate resistance for more than a fortnight longer, and was
   captured by storm on the 27th of August [1557]. … Philip
   took possession of a few other neighbouring fortresses, but
   attempted no serious movement in prosecution of his victory.
   … The Duke of Guise arrived from Italy early in October, to
   the great joy of the king and the nation, and was immediately
   created lieutenant-general of the kingdom, with powers of
   almost unlimited extent. Be applied himself, with his utmost
   ability and perseverance, to repair the late disasters; and
   with such success, that in less than two months he was enabled
   to assemble a fresh and well-appointed army at Compiègne.
   Resolving to strike a vigorous blow before the enemy could
   reappear in the field, he detached a division of his army to
   make a feint in the direction of Luxemburg; and, rapidly
   marching westward with the remainder, presented himself on the
   1st of January, 1558, before the walls of Calais. … The
   French attack was a complete surprise; the two advanced forts
   commanding the approaches to the town were bombarded, and
   surrendered on the 3d of January; three days later the castle
   was carried by assault; and on the 8th, the governor, Lord
   Wentworth, was forced to capitulate. … Guines, no longer
   tenable after the fall of Calais, shared the same fate on the
   21st of January; and thus, within the short space of three
   weeks, were the last remnants of her ancient dominion on the
   Continent snatched from the grasp of England—possessions
   which she had held for upward of 200 years. … This
   remarkable exploit, so flattering to the national pride,
   created universal enthusiasm in France, and carried to the
   highest pitch the reputation and popularity of Guise. From
   this moment his influence became paramount; and the marriage
   of the dauphin to the Queen of Scots, which was solemnised on
   the 24th of April, 1558, seemed to exalt the house of Lorraine
   to a still more towering pinnacle of greatness. It was
   stipulated by a secret article of the marriage-contract that
   the sovereignty of Scotland should be transferred to France,
   and that the two crowns should remain united forever, in case
   of the decease of Mary without issue. Toward the end of the
   year negotiations were opened with a view to peace." They were
   interrupted, however, in November, 1558, by the death of Queen
   Mary of England, wife of Philip of Spain. "When the congress
   reassembled at Le Cateau-Cambresis, in February, 1559, the
   Spanish ministers no longer maintained the interests of
   England; and Elizabeth, thus abandoned, agreed to an
   arrangement which virtually ceded Calais to France, though
   with such nominal qualifications as satisfied the
   sensitiveness of the national honour. Calais was to be
   restored to the English at the end of eight years, with a
   penalty, in case of failure, of 500,000 crowns. At the same
   time, if any hostile proceedings should take place on the part
   of England against France within the period specified, the queen
   was to forego all claim to the fulfillment of the article."
   The treaty between France and England was signed April 2,
   1559, and that between France and Spain the following day. By
   the latter, "the two monarchs mutually restored their
   conquests in Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Picardy, and Artois;
   France abandoned Savoy and Piedmont, with the exception of
   Turin and four other fortresses [restoring Philibert Emanuel,
   Duke of Savoy, to his dominions—see SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D.
   1559-1580]; she evacuated Tuscany, Corsica, and Montferrat,
   and yielded up no less than 189 towns or fortresses in various
   parts of Europe. By way of compensation, Henry preserved the
   district of the 'Trois Évêchés'—Toul, Metz, and Verdun—and
   made the all-important acquisition of Calais. This
   pacification was sealed, according to custom, by
   marriages"—Henry's daughter Elizabeth to Philip of Spain, and
   his sister Marguerite to the Duke of Savoy. In a tournament, at
   Paris, which celebrated these marriages, Henry received an
   injury from the lance of Montgomery, captain of his Scottish
   guards, which caused his death eleven days afterwards—July
   10, 1559.

      _W. H. Jervis,
      Student's History of France,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 1, chapters 2-3 (volume l)._

      _Lady Jackson,
      The Court of France in the 16th Century,
      volume 2, chapters 9-20._

      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1548.
   Marriage of Antoine de Bourbon to Jeanne d'Albret, heiress of
   Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

FRANCE: A. D. 1552.
   Alliance with the Turks.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

FRANCE: A. D. 1554-1565.
   Huguenot attempts at colonization in Brazil and in Florida,
   and their fate.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563; 1564-1565;
      1565, and 1567-1568.

FRANCE: A. D. 1558-1559.
   Aid given to revolt in Corsica.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.

FRANCE: A. D. 1559.
   Accession of King Francis. II.

{1197}

FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
   Francis II., Charles IX., the Guises and Catharine de' Medici.
   The Conspiracy of Amboise.
   Rapid spread and organization of Protestantism.
   Rise of the Huguenot party.
   Disputed origin of its name.

   Henry II. "had been married from political motives to the
   niece of Clement VII., Catharine de Medici. This ambitious
   woman came to France conscious that the marriage was a
   political one, mentally a stranger to her husband; and such
   she always remained. This placed her from the first in a false
   position. The King was influenced by anyone rather than by his
   wife; and a by no means charming mistress, Diana of Poitiers,
   played her part by the side of and above the Queen. …
   Immediately after the death of her husband, in 1559, she
   [Catharine] greedily grasped at power. The young King, Francis
   II., was of age when he entered his fourteenth year. There
   could therefore be no legal regency, though there might be an
   actual one, for a weakly monarch of sixteen was still
   incompetent to govern. But she was thwarted in her first grasp
   at power. Under Francis I., a family [the Guises—see above]
   previously unknown in French history had begun to play a
   prominent part. … The brothers succeeded in bringing about a
   political marriage which promised to throw the King, who was
   mentally a child, entirely into their hands. Their sister Mary
   had been married to James V. of Scotland, whose crown was then
   rather an insignificant one, but was now beginning to gain
   importance. The issue of this marriage was a charming girl,
   who was destined for the King's wife. She was betrothed to him
   without his consent when still a child. The young Queen was
   Mary Stuart. Her misfortunes, her beauty, and her connection
   with European history, have made her a historical personage,
   more conspicuous indeed for what she suffered than for what
   she did; her real importance is not commensurate with the
   position she occupies. This, then, was the position of the
   brothers Guise at court. The King was the husband of their
   niece; both were children in age and mind, and therefore
   doubly required guidance. The brothers, Francis and Charles,
   had the government entirely in their hands; the Duke managed
   the army, the Cardinal the finances and foreign affairs. Two
   such leaders were the mayors of the palace. The whole
   constitution of the court reminds us of the 'rois fainéants'
   and the office of major-domo under the Carlovingians. Thus,
   just when Catharine was about to take advantage of a
   favourable moment, she saw herself once more eclipsed and
   thrust aside, and that by insolent upstarts of whom one thing
   only was certain, that they possessed unusual talents, and
   that their consciences were elastic in the choice of means. It
   was not only from Catharine that the supremacy of the Guises
   met with violent opposition, but also from Protestantism, the
   importance of which was greatly increasing in France. … In
   the time of Henry II., in spite of all the edicts and
   executions, Protestantism had made great progress. … In the
   spring of 1559, interdicted Protestantism had secretly
   reviewed its congregations, and at the first national synod
   drawn up a confession of faith and a constitution for the new
   Church. Preachers and elders had appeared from every part of
   France, and their eighty articles of 28th May, 1559, have
   become the code of laws of French Protestantism. The
   Calvinistic principle of the Congregational Church, with
   choice of its own minister, deacons, and elders; a consistory
   which maintained strict discipline in matters of faith and
   morals … was established upon French soil, and was
   afterwards publicly accepted by the whole party. The more
   adherents this party gained in the upper circles, the bolder
   was its attitude; there was, indeed, no end to the executions,
   or to the edicts against heresy, but a spirit of opposition,
   previously unknown, had gradually gained ground. Prisoners
   were set free, the condemned were rescued from the hands of
   the executioners on the way to the scaffold, and a plan was
   devised among the numerous fugitives in foreign lands for
   producing a turn in the course of events by violent means. La
   Rénaudie, a reformed nobleman from Perigord, who had sworn
   vengeance on the Guises for the execution of his brother, had,
   with a number of other persons of his own way of thinking,
   formed a plan for attacking the Guises, carrying off the King,
   and placing him under the guardianship of the Bourbon agnates.
   … The project was betrayed; the Guises succeeded in placing
   the King in security in the Castle of Amboise; a number of the
   conspirators were seized, another troop overpowered and
   dispersed on their attack upon the castle, on the 17th of
   March, 1560; some were killed, some taken prisoners and at
   once executed. It was then discovered, or pretended, that the
   youngest of the Bourbon princes [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF], Louis
   of Condé, was implicated in the conspiracy [known as the
   Conspiracy or Tumult of Amboise]. … The Guises now ventured,
   in contempt of French historical traditions, to imprison this
   prince of the blood, this agnate of the reigning house; to
   summon him before an arbitrary tribunal of partisans, and to
   condemn him to death. … This affair kept all France in
   suspense. All the nobles, although strongly infected with
   Huguenot ideas, were on Condé's side; even those who condemned
   his religious opinions made his cause their own. They justly
   thought that if he fell none of them would be safe. In the
   midst of this ferment, destiny interposed. On the 5th of
   December, 1560, Francis II. died suddenly, and a complete
   change took place. His death put an end to a net-work of
   intrigues, which aimed at knocking the rebellion, political
   and religious, on the head. … During this confusion one
   individual had been watching the course of events with the
   eagerness of a beast ready to seize on its prey. Catharine of
   Medici was convinced that the time of her dominion had at
   length arrived. … Francis II. was scarcely dead when she
   seized upon the person and the power of Charles IX. He was a
   boy of ten years old, not more promising than his eldest
   brother, sickly and weakly like all the sons of Henry II.,
   more attached to his mother than the others, and he had been
   neglected by the Guises. … One of her first acts was to
   liberate Condé; this was a decided step towards reconciliation
   with the Bourbons and the Protestants. The whole situation was
   all at once changed. The court was ruled by Catharine; her
   feverish thirst for power was satisfied. The Guises and their
   adherents were, indeed, permitted to remain in their offices
   and posts of honour, in order not fatally to offend them; but
   their supremacy was destroyed, and the new power was based
   upon the Queen's understanding with the heads of the Huguenot
   party."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648,
      chapter 25._

{1198}

   "The recent commotion had disclosed the existence of a body of
   malcontents, in part religious, in part also political,
   scattered over the whole kingdom and of unascertained numbers.
   To its adherents the name of Huguenots was now for the first
   time given. What the origin of this celebrated appellation
   was, it is now perhaps impossible to discover. … It has been
   traced back to the name of the Eidgenossen or 'confederates,'
   under which the party of freedom figured in Geneva when the
   authority of the bishop and duke was overthrown; or to the
   'Roy Huguet,' or 'Huguon,' a hobgoblin supposed to haunt the
   vicinity of Tours, to whom the superstitious attributed the
   nocturnal assemblies of the Protestants; or to the gate 'du
   roy Huguon' of the same city, near which those gatherings were
   wont to be made. Some of their enemies maintained the former
   existence of a diminutive coin known as a 'huguenot,' and
   asserted that the appellation, as applied to the reformed,
   arose from their 'not being worth a huguenot,' or farthing;
   And some of their friends, with equal confidence and no less
   improbability, declared that it was invented because the
   adherents of the house of Guise secretly put forward claims
   upon the crown of France in behalf of that house as descended
   from Charlemagne, whereas the Protestants loyally upheld the
   rights of the Valois sprung from Hugh Capet. In the diversity
   of contradictory statements, we may perhaps be excused if we
   suspend our judgment. … Not a week had passed after the
   conspiracy of Amboise before the word was in everybody's
   mouth. Few knew or cared whence it arose. A powerful party,
   whatever name it might bear, had sprung up, as it were, in a
   night. … No feature of the rise of the Reformation in France
   is more remarkable than the sudden impulse which it received
   during the last year or two of Henry II.'s life, and
   especially within the brief limits of the reign of his eldest
   son. … There was not a corner of the kingdom where the
   number of incipient Protestant churches was not considerable.
   Provence alone contained 60, whose delegates this year met in
   a synod at the blood-stained village of Mérindol. In large
   tracts of country the Huguenots had become so numerous that
   they were no longer able or disposed to conceal their
   religious sentiments, nor content to celebrate their rites in
   private or nocturnal assemblies. This was particularly the
   case in Normandy, in Languedoc, and on the banks of the
   Rhone."

      _H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
      book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      4th series, chapter 29._

FRANCE: A. D. 1560.
   Accession of King Charles IX.

FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
   Changed policy of Catharine de' Medici.
   Delusive favors to the Huguenots.
   The Guises and the Catholics again ascendant.
   The massacre of Vassy.
   Outbreak of civil war.
   Battle of Dreux.
   Assassination of Guise.
   Peace and the Edict of Amboise.

   "Catherine de Medici, now regent, thought it wisest to abandon
   the policy which had till then prevailed under the influence
   of the Guises, and while she confirmed the Lorraine princes in
   the important offices they held, she named, on the other hand,
   Antoine de Bourbon [king of Navarre] lieutenant-general of the
   kingdom, and took Michel de l'Hôpital as her chief adviser.
   … Chancellor de l'Hôpital, like the Regent, aimed at the
   destruction of the parties which were rending the kingdom
   asunder; but his political programme was that of an honest man
   and a true liberal. A wise system of religious toleration and
   of administrative reform would, he thought, restore peace and
   satisfy all true Frenchmen. 'Let us,' he said, 'do away with
   the diabolical party-names which cause so many
   seditions—Lutherans, Huguenots, and Papists; let us not alter
   the name of Christians.' … The edicts of Saint Germain and
   of January (1562) were favourable to the Huguenots. Religious
   meetings were allowed in rural districts; all penalties
   previously decreed against Dissenters were suspended on
   condition that the old faith should not be interfered with:
   finally, the Huguenot divines, with Theodore de Bèze at their
   head, were invited to meet the Roman Catholic prelates and
   theologians in a conference (colloque) at Poissy, near Paris.
   Theodore de Bèze, the faithful associate and coadjutor of
   Calvin in the great work of the Reformation, both at Geneva
   and in France, is justly and universally regarded as the
   historian of the early Huguenots. … The speech he delivered
   at the opening of the colloque is an eloquent plea for liberty
   and mutual forbearance. Unfortunately, the conciliatory
   measures he proposed satisfied no one."

      _G. Masson,
      The Huguenots,
      chapter 2._

   "The edict of January … gave permission to Protestants to
   hold meetings for public worship outside the towns, and placed
   their meetings under the protection of the law. … The
   Parliament of Paris refused to register the edict until after
   repeated orders from the Queen-mother. The Parliament of Dijon
   refused to register it. … The Parliament of Aix refused.
   Next, Antoine de Navarre, bribed by a promise of the
   restoration of the Spanish part of his little kingdom,
   announced that the colloquy of Poissy had converted him,
   dismissed Beza and the reformed preachers, sent Jeanne back to
   Beárn, demanded the dismissal of the Chatillons from the
   court, and invited the Duke of Guise and his brother, the
   Cardinal, who were at their château of Joinville, to return to
   Paris. Then occurred—it was only six weeks after the Edict
   of January—the massacre of Vassy. Nine hundred out of
   3,000—the population of that little town—were Protestants.
   Rejoicing in the permission granted them by the new law, they
   were assembled on the Sunday morning, in a barn outside the
   town, for the purpose of public service. The Duke of Guise and
   the Cardinal, with their armed escort of gentlemen and
   soldiers, riding on their way to Paris, heard the bells which
   summoned the people, and asked what they meant. Being told
   that it was a Huguenot 'prêche,' the Duke swore that he would
   Huguenot them to some purpose. He rode straight to the barn
   and entered the place, threatening to murder them all. The
   people relying on the law, barred the doors. Then the massacre
   began. The soldiers burst open the feeble barrier, and began
   to fire among the perfectly unarmed and inoffensive people.
   Sixty-four were killed—men, women, and children; 200 were
   wounded. This was the signal for war. Condé, on the
   intelligence, immediately retired from the court to Meaux,
   whence he issued a proclamation calling on all the Protestants
   of the country to take up arms. Coligny was at Chatillon,
   whither Catharine addressed him letter after letter, urging
   upon him, in ambiguous terms, the defence of the King.
{1199}
   It seems, though this is obscure, that at one time Condé might
   have seized the royal family and held them. But if he had the
   opportunity, he neglected it, and the chance never came again.
   Henceforward, however, we hear no more talk about Catharine
   becoming a Protestant. That pretence will serve her no more.
   Before the clash of arms, there was silence for a space. Men
   waited till the last man in France who had not spoken should
   declare himself. The Huguenots looked to the Admiral, and not
   to Condé. It was on him that the real responsibility lay of
   declaring civil war. It was a responsibility from which the
   strongest man might shrink. … The Admiral having once made
   up his mind, hesitated no longer, and, with a heavy heart, set
   off the next day to join Condé. He wrote to Catharine that he
   took up arms, not against the King, but against those who held
   him captive. He wrote also to his old uncle, the Constable
   [Montmorency]. … The Constable replied. There was no
   bitterness between uncle and nephew. The former was fighting
   to prevent the 'universal ruin' of his country, and for his
   'petits maitres,' the boys, the sons of his old friend, Henry
   II. Montmorency joined the Guises in perfect loyalty, and with
   the firm conviction that it was the right thing for him to do.
   The Chatillon fought in the name of law and justice, and to
   prevent the universal massacre of his people. … Then the
   first civil war began with a gallant exploit—the taking of
   Orleans [April 1562]. Condé rode into it at the head of 2,000
   cavalry, all shouting like schoolboys, and racing for six
   miles who should get into the city first. They pillaged the
   churches, and turned out the Catholics. 'Those who were that
   day turned outside the city wept catholicly that they were
   dispossessed of the magazines of the finest wines in France.'
   Truly a dire misfortune, for the Catholics to lose all the
   best claret districts! Orleans taken, the Huguenots proceeded
   to issue protestations and manifestoes, in all of which the
   hand of the Admiral is visible. They are not fighting against
   the King, who is a prisoner; the war was begun by the Guises.
   … They might have added, truly enough, that Condé and the
   Admiral held in their hands letters from Catharine, urging
   them to carry on the contest for the sake of the young King.
   The fall of Orleans was quickly followed by that of Rouen,
   Tours, Blois, Bourges, Vienne, Valence, and Montauban. The
   civil war was fairly begun. The party was now well organized.
   Condé was commander-in-chief by right of his birth; Coligny
   was real leader by right of his reputation and wisdom. It was
   by him that a Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up, to be
   signed by everyone of the Calvinist chiefs. These were,
   besides Condé and the Chatillons, La Rochefoucauld, …
   Coligny's nephew and Condé's brother-in-law—he was the
   greatest seigneur in Poitou; Rohan, from Dauphine, who was
   Condé's cousin; the Prince of Porcian, who was the husband of
   Condé's niece. Each of these lords came with a following
   worthy of his name. Montgomery, who had slain Henry II.,
   brought his Normans; Genlis, the Picards. … With Andelot
   came a troop of Bretons; with the Count de Grammont came 6,000
   Gascons. Good news poured in every day. Not only Rouen, but
   Havre, Caen, and Dieppe submitted in the North. Angers and
   Nantes followed. The road was open in the end for bringing
   troops from Germany. The country in the southwest was
   altogether in their hands. Meantime, the enemy were not idle.
   They began with massacres. In Paris they murdered 800
   Huguenots in that first summer of the war. From every side
   fugitives poured into Orleans, which became the city of
   refuge. There were massacres at Amiens, Senlis, Cahors,
   Toulouse, Angoulême—everywhere. Coligny advised a march upon
   Paris, where, he urged, the Guises had but a rabble at their
   command. His counsels when war was once commenced, were always
   for vigorous measures. Condé preferred to wait. Andelot was
   sent to Germany, where he raised 3,000 horse. Calvin
   despatched letters in every direction, urging on the churches
   and the Protestant princes to send help to France. Many of
   Coligny's old soldiers of St. Quentin came to fight under his
   banner. Elizabeth of England offered to send an army if Calais
   were restored; when she saw that no Frenchman would give up
   that place again, she still sent men and money, though with
   grudging spirit. At length both armies took the field. The
   Duke of Guise had under him 8,000 men; Condé 7,000. They
   advanced, and met at the little town of Vassodun, where a
   conference was held between the Queen-mother and Navarre on
   the one hand, and Condé and Coligny on the other. Catharine
   proposed that all the chiefs of both sides—Guise, the
   Cardinal de Lorraine, St. Andre, Montmorency, Navarre, Condé,
   and the Chatillon brothers—should all alike go into voluntary
   exile. Condé was nearly persuaded to accept this absurd
   proposal. Another conference was held at Taley. These
   conferences were only delays. An attempt was made by Catharine
   to entrap Condé, which was defeated by the Admiral's prompt
   rescue. The Parliament of Paris issued a decree commanding all
   Romanists in every parish to rise in arms at the sound of the
   bell and to slay every Huguenot. It was said that 50,000 were
   thus murdered. No doubt the numbers were grossly exaggerated.
   … These cruelties naturally provoked retaliation. … An
   English army occupied Havre. English troops set out for Rouen.
   Some few managed to get within the walls. The town was taken
   by the Catholics [October 25, 1562], and, for eight days,
   plundered. Needless to say that Guise hanged every Huguenot he
   could find. Here the King of Navarre was killed. The loss of
   Rouen, together with other disasters, greatly discouraged the
   Huguenots. Their spirits rose, however, when news came that
   Andelot, with 4,000 reiters, was on his way to join them. He
   brought them in safety across France, being himself carried in
   a litter, sick with ague and fever. The Huguenots advanced
   upon Paris, but did not attack the city. At Dreux [December
   19, 1562], they met the army of Guise. Protestant historians
   endeavor to show that the battle was drawn. In fact both sides
   sustained immense losses. St. André was killed, Montmorency
   and Condé were taken prisoners. Yet Coligny had to retire from
   the field—his rival had outgeneralled him. It was
   characteristic of Coligny that he never lost heart. … With
   his German cavalry, a handful of his own infantry, and a small
   troop of English soldiers, Coligny swept over nearly the whole
   of Normandy. It is true that Guise was not there to oppose
   him. Every thing looked well. He was arranging for a 'splendid
   alliance' with England, when news came which stayed his hand.
{1200}
   Guise marched southwards to Orleans. … There was in Orleans
   a young Huguenot soldier named Jean Poltrot de Méré. He was a
   fanatic. … He waited for an opportunity, worked himself into
   the good graces of the Duke, and then shot him with three
   balls, in the shoulder. Guise died three days later. … Then
   a peace was signed [and ratified by the Edict of Amboise,
   March 19, 1563]. Condé, won over and seduced by the sirens of
   the Court, signed it. It was a humiliating and disastrous
   peace. Huguenots were to be considered loyal subjects; foreign
   soldiers should be sent out of the country; churches and
   temples should be restored to their original uses; the suburbs
   of one town in every bailiwick, were to be used for Protestant
   worship (this was a great reduction on the Edict of January,
   which allowed the suburbs of every town); and the nobility and
   gentry were to hold worship in their own houses after their
   own opinions. The Admiral was furious at this weakness. 'You
   have ruined,' he said to Condé, 'more churches by one stroke
   of the pen than the enemy could have done in ten years of
   war.'"

      _W. Besant,
      Gaspard de Coligny.
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duc d' Aumale,
      History of the Princes de Condé,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume l)._

      _E. Bersier,
      Earlier Life of Coligny,
      chapter 21-26._

FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
   Recovery of Havre from the English.
   The Treaty of Troyes.

   Under the terms on which the Huguenot leaders procured help
   from Elizabeth, the English queen held Havre, and refused to
   restore it until after the restoration of Calais to England,
   and the repayment of a loan of 140,000 crowns. The Huguenots,
   having now made peace with their Catholic fellow countrymen,
   were not prepared to fulfill the English contract, according
   to Elizabeth's claims, but demanded that Havre should be given
   up. The Queen refusing, both the parties, lately in arms
   against each other, joined forces, and laid siege to Havre so
   vigorously that it was surrendered to them on the 28th of
   July, 1563. Peace with England was concluded in the April
   following, by a treaty negotiated at Troyes, and the Queen
   lost all her rights over Calais.

      _Duc d'Aumale,
      History of the Princes of Condé,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
      chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1-2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
   The conference at Bayonne.
   Outbreak of the Second Civil War.
   Battle of St. Denis.
   Peace of Longjumeau.
   The Third Civil War.
   Huguenot rally at La Rochelle.
   Appearance of the Queen of Navarre.
   Battle of Jarnac.
   Death of Condé.
   Henry of Navarre chosen to command.
   Battle of Moncontour.
   Peace of St. Germain.

   The religious peace established under the Edict of Amboise
   lasted four years. "Not that the Huguenots enjoyed during
   these years anything like security or repose. The repeated
   abridgment even of those narrow liberties conferred by the
   Edict of Amboise, and the frequent outbreaks of popular hatred
   in which numbers of them perished, kept them in perpetual
   alarm. Still more alarming was the meeting at Bayonne [of
   Catherine de' Medici, the young king, her son, and the Duke of
   Alva, representing Philip II. of Spain] in the summer of 1565.
   … Amid the Court festivities which took place, it was known
   that there had been many secret meetings between Alva,
   Catherine, and, Charles. The darkest suspicions as to their
   objects and results spread over France. It was generally
   believed—falsely, as from Alva's letters it now appears—that
   a simultaneous extermination of all heretics in the French and
   Spanish dominions had been agreed upon. To anticipate this
   stroke, Coligni proposed that the person of the King should be
   seized upon. The Court, but slenderly guarded, was then at
   Monceaux. The project had almost succeeded. Some time,
   however, was lost. The Court got warning and fled to Meaux.
   Six thousand Swiss arrived, and by a rapid march carried the
   King to Paris. After such a failure, nothing was left to the
   Huguenots but the chances of a second civil war. Condé entered
   boldly on the campaign. Though he had with him but 1,500 horse
   and 1,200 infantry, he marched to Paris, and offered battle to
   the royal troops beneath its walls. The Constable
   [Montmorency], who had 18,000 men at his command, accepted the
   challenge, and on the 10th of November 1567, the battle of St.
   Denis was fought. … Neither party could well claim the
   victory, as both retired from the field. The royal army had to
   mourn the loss that day of its aged and gallant commander, the
   Constable. Condé renewed next day the challenge, which was not
   accepted. The winter months were spent by the Huguenots in
   effecting a junction with some German auxiliaries, and in the
   spring they appeared in such force upon the field that, on the
   23d March 1568, the Peace of Longjumeau was ratified, which
   re-established, free from all modifications and restrictions,
   the Edict of Amboise. It was evident from the first that this
   treaty was not intended to be kept; that it had been entered
   into by the government solely to gain time, and to scatter the
   ranks of the Huguenots. Coligni sought Condé at his château of
   Noyers in Burgundy. He had scarcely arrived when secret
   intelligence was given them of a plot upon their lives. They
   had barely time to fly, making many a singular escape by the
   way, and reaching Rochelle, which from this time became the
   head-quarters of the Huguenots, on the 15th September 1568.
   During the first two religious wars … the seat of war was so
   remote from her dominions that the Queen of Navarre [Jeanne
   d'Albret,—see NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563] had satisfied herself
   with opening her country as an asylum for those Huguenots
   driven thither out of the southern counties of France. But
   when she heard that Condé and Coligni … were on their way to
   Rochelle, to raise there once more the Protestant banner,
   convinced that the French Court meditated nothing short of the
   extermination of the Huguenots, she determined openly to cast
   in her lot with her co-religionists, and to give them all the
   help she could. Dexterously deceiving Montluc, who had
   received instructions to watch her movements, and to seize
   upon her person if she showed any intention of leaving her own
   dominions, after a flight as precipitous and almost as
   perilous as that of Condé and Coligni, she reached Rochelle on
   the 29th September, ten days after their arrival. This town,
   for nearly a century the citadel of Protestantism in France,
   having by its own unaided power freed itself from the English
   dominion [in the period between 1368 and 1380] had had
   extraordinary municipal privileges bestowed on it in
   return—among others, that of an entirely independent
   jurisdiction, both civil and military.
{1201}
   Like so many of the great commercial marts of Europe, in which
   the spirit of freedom was cherished, it had early welcomed the
   teaching of the Reformers, and at the time now before us
   nearly the whole of its inhabitants were Huguenots. … About
   the very time that the Queen of Navarre entered Rochelle a
   royal edict appeared, prohibiting, under pain of death, the
   exercise of any other than the Roman Catholic religion in
   France, imposing upon all the observance of its rites and
   ceremonies; and banishing from the realm all preachers of the
   doctrine of Calvin, fifteen days only being allowed them to
   quit the kingdom. It was by the sword that this stern edict
   was to be enforced or rescinded. Two powerful armies of nearly
   equal strength mustered speedily. One was nominally under the
   command of the Duke of Anjou, but really led by Tavannes,
   Biron, Brissac, and the young Duke of Guise, the last burning
   to emulate the military glory of his father; the other under
   the command of Condé and Coligni. The two armies were close
   upon one another; their generals desired to bring them into
   action; they were more than once actually in each other's
   presence; but the unprecedented inclemency of the weather
   prevented an engagement, and at last, without coming into
   collision, both had to retire to winter quarters. The delay
   was fatal to the Huguenots." In the following spring (March
   13, 1569), while their forces were still scattered and
   unprepared, they were forced into battle with the
   better-generaled Royalists, at Jarnac, and were grievously
   defeated. Condé, wounded and taken prisoner, was treated at
   first with respect by the officers who received his sword. But
   "Montesquiou, captain of the Swiss Guard of the Duke of Anjou,
   galloped up to the spot, and, hearing who the prisoner was,
   deliberately levelled his pistol at him and shot him through
   the head. The Duke passed no censure on his officer, and
   expressed no regret at his deed. The grossest indignities were
   afterwards, by his orders, heaped upon the dead body of the
   slain. The defeat of Jarnac, and still more the death of
   Condé, threw the Huguenot army into despair. … The utter
   dissolution of the army seemed at hand. The Admiral sent a
   messenger to the Queen of Navarre at Rochelle, entreating her
   to come to the camp. She was already on her way. On arrival,
   and after a short consultation with the Admiral, the army was
   drawn up to receive her. She rode along the ranks—her son
   Henry on one side, the son of the deceased Condé on the
   other." Then she addressed to the troops an inspiring speech,
   concluding with these heroic words: "Soldiers, I offer you
   everything I have to give,—my dominions, my treasures, my
   life, and, what is dearer to me than all, my children. I make
   here solemn oath before you all—I swear to defend to my last
   sigh the holy cause which now unites us." "The soldiers
   crowded around the Queen, and unanimously, as if by sudden
   impulse, hailed young Henry of Navarre as their future
   general. The Admiral and La Rochefoucauld were the first to
   swear fidelity to the Prince; then came the inferior officers
   and the whole assembled soldiery; and it was thus that, in his
   fifteenth year, the Prince of Béarn was inaugurated as
   general-in-chief of the army of the Huguenots." In June the
   Huguenot army effected a junction at St. Yriex with a division
   of German auxiliaries, led by the Duc de Deux-Ponts, and
   including among its chiefs the Prince of Orange and his
   brother Louis of Nassau. They attacked the Duke of Anjou at La
   Roche-Abeille and gained a slight advantage; but wasted their
   strength during the summer, contrary to the advice of the
   Admiral Coligny, in besieging Poitiers. The Duke of Anjou
   approached with a superior army, and, again in opposition to
   the judgment of Coligny, the Huguenots encountered him at
   Moncontour (October 3, 1569), where they suffered the worst of
   their defeats, leaving 5,000 dead and wounded on the field.
   Meanwhile a French army had entered Navarre, had taken the
   capital and spread destruction everywhere through the small
   kingdom; but the Queen sent Count de Montgomery to rally her
   people, and the invaders were driven out. Coligny and Prince
   Henry wintered their troops in the far south, then moved
   rapidly northwards in the spring, up the valley of the Rhone,
   across the Cevennes, through Burgundy, approaching the Loire,
   and were met by the Marshal de Cosse at Arnay-le-Duc, where
   Henry of Navarre won his first success in arms—Coligny being
   ill. Though it was but a partial victory it brought about a
   breathing time of peace. "This happened in the end of June,
   and on the 8th of August [1570] the Peace of St.
   Germain-en-Laye was signed, and France had two full years of
   quiet."

      _W. Hanna,
      The Wars of the Huguenots,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duc d'Aumale,
      History of the Princes de Condé,
      book 1, chapter 4-5 (volume 1-2)._

      _M. W. Freer,
      Life of Jeanne d'Albret,
      chapters 8-10._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      5th series, chapter 8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1570-1572.
   Coligny at court and his influence with the King.
   Projected war with Spain.
   The desperate step of Catharine de' Medici, and its
   consequence in the plot of Massacre.

   "After the Peace of 1570, it appeared as if a complete change
   of policy was about to take place. The Queen pretended to be
   friendly with the Protestants; her relations with the
   ambitious Guises were distant and cold, and the project of
   uniting the Houses of Bourbon and Valois by marriage [the
   marriage of Henry of Navarre with the king's sister,
   Marguerite] really looked as if she was in earnest. The most
   distinguished leader of the Huguenot party was the Admiral
   Caspar de Coligny. It is quite refreshing at this doleful
   period to meet with such a character. He was a nobleman of the
   old French school and of the best stamp; lived upon his estates
   with his family, his little court, his retainers and subjects,
   in ancient patriarchal style, and on the best terms, and
   regularly went with them to the Protestant worship and the
   communion; a man of unblemished morality and strict
   Calvinistic views of life. Whatever this man said or did was
   the result of his inmost convictions; his life was the
   impersonation of his views and thoughts. In the late turbulent
   times he had become an important person as leader and
   organizer of the Protestant armies. At his call, thousands of
   noblemen and soldiers took up arms, and they submitted under
   his command to very strict discipline. He could not boast of
   having won many battles, but he was famous for having kept his
   resources together after repeated defeats, and for rising up
   stronger than before after every lost engagement. … Now that
   peace was made, 'why,' he asked, 'excite further dissensions
   for the benefit of our common enemies? Let us direct our
   undivided forces against the real enemy of France—against
   Spain, who stirs up intrigues in our civil, wars. Let us crush
   this power, which condemns us to ignominious dependence.'
{1202}
   The war against Spain was Coligny's project. It was the idea
   of a good Huguenot, for it was directed against the most
   blindly fanatical and dangerous foe of the new doctrines; but
   it was also that of a good Frenchman, for a victory over Spain
   would increase the power of France in the direction of
   Burgundy. … From September, 1571, Coligny was at court. On
   his first arrival he was heartily welcomed by the King,
   embraced by Catharine, and loaded with honours and favours by
   both. I am not of opinion that this was a deeply laid scheme
   to entrap the guileless hero, the more easily to ruin him.
   Catharine's ideas did not extend so far. Still less do I
   believe that the young King was trained to play the part of a
   hypocrite, and regarded Coligny as a victim to be cherished
   until the fête day. I think, rather, that Catharine, in her
   changeableness and hatred of the Guises, was now really
   disposed to make peace with the Protestants, and that the
   young King was for the time impressed by this superior
   personage. No youthful mind is so degraded as to be entirely
   inaccessible to such influence. … I believe that the first
   and only happy day in the life of this unfortunate monarch was
   when he met Coligny, who raised him above the degradation of
   vulgar life; and I believe further, that this relation was the
   main cause of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. A new influence
   was threatening to surround the King and to take deep root,
   which Catharine, her son Henry of Anjou, and the strict
   Catholic party, must do their utmost to avert; and it was
   quite in accordance with the King's weak character to allow
   the man to be murdered whom he had just called 'Father.' …
   It appears that about the middle of the year [1572] the matter
   [of war with Spain and help to the revolting Netherlands] was
   as good as decided. The King willingly acceded to Coligny's
   plan … [and] privately gave considerable sums for the
   support of the Flemish patriots, for the equipment of an army
   of 4,000 men, composed of Catholics and Protestants, who
   marched towards Mons, to succour Louis of Nassau. When in July
   this army was beaten, and the majority of the Huguenots were
   in despair, Coligny succeeded in persuading the King to equip
   a fresh and still larger army; but the opposition then
   bestirred itself. …The Queen … had been absent, with her
   married daughter in Lorraine, and on her return she found
   everything changed; the Guises without influence, herself
   thrust on one side. Under the impression of the latest events
   in Flanders, which made it likely that the war with Spain
   would be ruinous, she hastened to the King, told him with
   floods of tears that it would be his ruin; that the Huguenots,
   through Coligny, had stolen the King's confidence,
   unfortunately for himself and the country. She made some
   impression upon him, but it did not last long, and thoughts of
   war gained the upper hand again. The idea now (August, 1572),
   must have been matured in Catharine's mind of venturing on a
   desperate step, in order to save her supremacy and influence.
   … The idea ripened in her mind of getting rid of Coligny by
   assassination. … Entirely of one mind with her son Henry,
   she turned to the Guises, with whom she was at enmity when
   they were in power, but friendly when they were of no more
   consequence than herself. They breathed vengeance against the
   Calvinists, and were ready at once to avenge the murder of
   Francis of Guise by a murderous attack upon Coligny. An
   assassin was hired, and established in a house belonging to
   the Guises, near Coligny's dwelling, and as he came out of the
   palace, on the 22nd of August, a shot was fired at him, which
   wounded but did not kill him. Had Coligny died of his wound,
   Catharine would have been content. … But Coligny did not
   die; the Huguenots defiantly demanded vengeance on the
   well-known instigator of the deed; their threats reached the
   Queen and Prince Henry of Anjou, and the personal fascination
   which Coligny had exercised over King Charles appeared rather
   to increase than to diminish. Thus doubtless arose, during the
   anxious hours after the failure of the assassination, the idea of
   an act of violence on a large scale, which should strike a
   blow at Coligny and his friends before they had time for
   revenge. It certainly had not been in preparation for months,
   not even since the time that Coligny had been at Court; it was
   conceived in the agony of these hours."

      _L. Hausser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      chapter 15._

FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August).
   The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

   "With some proofs, forged or real, in her hand that he was in
   personal danger, the Queen Mother [August 24] presented
   herself to her son. She told him that at the moment she was
   speaking the Huguenots were arming. Sixteen thousand of them
   intended to assemble in the morning, seize the palace, destroy
   herself, the Duke of Anjou, and the Catholic noblemen, and
   carry off Charles. The conspiracy, she said, extended through
   France. The chiefs of the congregations were waiting for a
   signal from Coligny to rise in every province and town. The
   Catholics had discovered the plot, and did not mean to sit
   still to be murdered. If the King refused to act with them,
   they would choose another leader; and whatever happened he
   would be himself destroyed. Unable to say that the story could
   not be true, Charles looked enquiringly at Tavannas and De
   Nevers, and they both confirmed the Queen Mother's words.
   Shaking his incredulity with reminders of Amboise and Meaux,
   Catherine went on to say that one man was the cause of all the
   troubles in the realm. The Admiral aspired to rule all France,
   and she—she admitted, with Anjou and the Guises, had
   conspired to kill him to save the King and the country. She
   dropped all disguise. The King, she said, must now assist them
   or all would be lost. … Charles was a weak, passionate boy,
   alone in the dark conclave of iniquity. He stormed, raved,
   wept, implored, spoke of his honour, his plighted word; swore
   at one moment that the Admiral should not be touched, then
   prayed them to try other means. But clear, cold and venomous,
   Catherine told him it was too late. If there was a judicial
   enquiry, the Guises would shield themselves by telling all
   that they knew. They would betray her; they would betray his
   brother; and, fairly or unfairly, they would not spare
   himself. … For an hour and a half the King continued to
   struggle. 'You refuse, then,' Catherine said at last. … 'Is
   it that you are afraid, Sire?' she hissed in his ear. 'By
   God's death,' he cried, springing to his feet, 'since you will
   kill the Admiral, kill them all.
{1203}
   Kill all the Huguenots in France, that none may be left to
   reproach me. Mort Dieu! Kill them all.' He dashed out of the
   cabinet. A list of those who were to die was instantly drawn
   up. Navarre and Condé were first included; but Catherine
   prudently reflected that to kill the Bourbons would make the
   Guises too strong. Five or six names were added to the
   Admiral's, and these Catherine afterwards asserted were all
   that it was intended should suffer. … Night had now fallen.
   Guise and Aumale were still lurking in the city, and came with
   the Duke of Montpensier at Catherine's summons. The persons
   who were to be killed were in different parts of the town.
   Each took charge of a district. Montpensier promised to see to
   the Palace; Guise and his uncle undertook the Admiral; and below
   these, the word went out to the leaders of the already
   organised sections, who had been disappointed once, but whose
   hour was now come. The Catholics were to recognise one another
   in the confusion by a white handkerchief on the left arm and a
   white cross in their caps. The Royal Guard, Catholics to a
   man, were instruments ready made for the work. Guise assembled
   the officers: he told them that the Huguenots were preparing
   to rise, and that the King had ordered their instant
   punishment. The officers asked no questions, and desired no
   better service. The business was to begin at dawn. The signal
   would be the tolling of the great bell at the Palace of
   Justice, and the first death was to be Coligny's. The soldiers
   stole to their posts. Twelve hundred lay along the Seine,
   between the river and the Hotel de Ville; other companies
   watched at the Louvre. As the darkness waned, the Queen Mother
   went down to the gate. The stillness of the dawn was broken by
   an accidental pistol-shot. Her heart sank, and she sent off a
   messenger to tell Guise to pause. But it was too late. A
   minute later the bell boomed out, and the massacre of St.
   Bartholomew had commenced." The assassins broke into the
   Admiral's dwelling and killed him as he lay wounded in bed.
   "The window was open. 'Is it done?' cried Guise from the court
   below, 'is it done? Fling him out that we may see him.' Still
   breathing, the Admiral was hurled upon the pavement. The
   Bastard of Angoulême wiped the blood from his face to be sure
   of his identity, and then, kicking him as he lay, shouted, 'So
   far well. Courage, my brave boys! now for the rest.' One of
   the Duc de Nevers's people hacked off the head. A rope was
   knotted about the ankles, and the corpse
   was dragged out into the street amidst the howling crowd.
   Teligny, … Rochefoucault, and the rest of the Admiral's
   friends who lodged in the neighbourhood were disposed of in
   the same way, and so complete was the surprise that there was
   not the most faint attempt at resistance. Montpensier had been
   no less successful in the Louvre. The staircases were all
   beset. The retinues of the King of Navarre and the Prince had
   been lodged in the palace at Charles's particular desire.
   Their names were called over, and as they descended unarmed
   into the quadrangle they were hewn in pieces. There, in heaps,
   they fell below the Royal window, under the eyes of the
   miserable King, who was forced forward between his mother and
   his brother that he might be seen as the accomplice of the
   massacre. Most of the victims were killed upon the spot. Some
   fled wounded up the stairs, and were slaughtered in the
   presence of the Princesses. … By seven o'clock the work
   which Guise and his immediate friends had undertaken was
   finished with but one failure. The Count Montgomery and the
   Vidame of Chartres … escaped to England. The mob meanwhile
   was in full enjoyment. … While dukes and lords were killing
   at the Louvre, the bands of the sections imitated them with
   more than success; men, women, and even children, striving
   which should be the first in the pious work of murder. All
   Catholic Paris was at the business, and every Huguenot
   household had neighbours to know and denounce them. Through
   street and lane and quay and causeway, the air rang with yells
   and curses, pistol-shots and crashing windows; the roadways
   were strewed with mangled bodies, the doors were blocked by
   the dead and dying. From garret, closet, roof, or stable,
   crouching creatures were torn shrieking out, and stabbed and
   hacked at; boys practised their hands by strangling babies in
   their cradles, and headless bodies were trailed along the
   trottoirs. … Towards midday some of the quieter people
   attempted to restore order. A party of the town police made
   their way to the palace. Charles caught eagerly at their
   offers of service, and bade them do their utmost to put the
   people down; but it was all in vain. The soldiers, maddened
   with plunder and blood, could not be brought to assist, and
   without them nothing could be done. All that afternoon and
   night, and the next day and the day after, the horrible scenes
   continued, till the flames burnt down at last for want of
   fuel. The number who perished in Paris was computed variously
   from 2,000 to 10,000. In this, as in all such instances, the
   lowest estimate is probably the nearest to the truth. The
   massacre was completed—completed in Paris—only, as it
   proved, to be continued elsewhere. … On the 24th, while the
   havoc was at its height, circulars went round to the provinces
   that a quarrel had broken out between the Houses of Guise and
   Coligny; that the Admiral and many more had been unfortunately
   killed, and that the King himself had been in danger through
   his efforts to control the people. The governors of the
   different towns were commanded to repress at once any symptoms
   of disorder which might show themselves, and particularly to
   allow no injury to be done to the Huguenots." But Guise, when
   he learned of these circulars, which threw upon him the odium
   of the massacre, forced the King to recall them. "The story of
   the Huguenot conspiracy was revived. … The Protestants of
   the provinces, finding themselves denounced from the throne,
   were likely instantly to take arms to defend themselves.
   Couriers were therefore despatched with second orders that
   they should be dealt with as they had been dealt with at
   Paris; and at Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Toulon, Meaux,
   in half the towns and villages of France, the bloody drama was
   played once again. The King, thrown out into the hideous
   torrent of blood, became drunk with frenzy, and let slaughter
   have its way, till even Guise himself affected to be shocked,
   and interposed to put an end to it; not, however, till,
   according to the belief of the times, 100,000 men, women and
   children had been miserably murdered. … The number again may
   be hoped to have been prodigiously exaggerated; with all large
   figures, when unsupported by exact statistics, it is safe to
   divide at least by ten."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
      chapter 23 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. White,
      The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,
      chapters 12-14._

      _Duke of Sully,
      Memoirs,
      book 1._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Massacre of St. Bartholomew
      (New Englander, January, 1880)._

{1204}

FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August-October).
   The king's avowal of responsibility for the Massacre, and
   celebration of his "victory."
   Rejoicings at Rome and Madrid.
   General horror of Europe.
   The effects in France.
   Changed character of the Protestant party.

   "On the morning of the 26th of August, Charles IX. went to
   hold a 'bed of justice' in the parliament, carrying with him
   the king of Navarre, and he then openly avowed that the
   massacre had been perpetrated by his orders, made … excuse
   for it, grounded on a pretended conspiracy of the Huguenots
   against his person, and then directed the parliament to
   commence judicial proceedings against Coligni and his
   accomplices, dead or alive, on the charge of high treason. The
   parliament obeyed, and, after a process of two months, which
   was a mere tissue of falsehoods, they not only found all the
   dead guilty, but they included in the sentence two of the
   principal men who had escaped—the old captain Briquemaut,
   and Arnaud de Cavaignes. … Both were hanged at the Place de
   Grève, in the presence of the king, who compelled the king of
   Navarre also to be a witness of their execution. Having once
   assumed the responsibility of the massacre of the protestants,
   Charles IX. began to glory in the deed. On the 27th of August,
   he went with the whole court to Montfaucon, to contemplate the
   mutilated remains of the admiral. … Next day, a grand
   jubilee procession was headed by the king in celebration of
   his so-called victory. … The 'victory' was also celebrated
   by two medals. … Nevertheless, the minds of Charles and his
   mother were evidently ill at ease, and their misgivings as to
   the effect which would be produced at foreign courts by the
   news of these proceedings are very evident in the varying and
   often contradictory orders which they dispatched into the
   provinces. … The news of these terrible events caused an
   extreme agitation in all the courts throughout Christian
   Europe. Philip of Spain, informed of the massacres by a letter
   from the king and the queen-mother, written on the 29th of
   August, replied by warm congratulations and expressions of
   joy. The cardinal of Lorraine, who was … at Rome, gave a
   reward of 1,000 écus of gold to the courier who brought the
   despatches, and the news was celebrated at Rome by the firing
   of the cannons of the castle of St. Angelo, and by the
   lighting of bon-fires in the streets. The pope (Gregory XIII.)
   and the sacred college went in grand procession to the
   churches to offer their thanks to God. … Not content with
   these demonstrations, the pope caused a medal to be struck.
   … Gregory dispatched immediately to the court of France the
   legate Fabio d'Orsini, with a commission to congratulate the
   king and his mother for the vigour they had shown in the
   repression of heresy, to demand the reception in France of the
   council of Trent, and the establishment of the Inquisition.
   … But the papal legate found the court of France in a
   different temper from that which he anticipated. Catherine,
   alarmed at the effect which these great outrages had produced
   on the protestant sovereigns, found it necessary to give him
   private intimations that the congratulations of the pontiff
   were untimely, and could not be publicly accepted. … The
   policy of the French court at home was no less distasteful to
   the papal legate than its relations abroad. The old edicts
   against the public exercise of the protestant worship were
   gradually revived, and the Huguenots were deprived of the
   offices which they had obtained during the short period of
   toleration, but strict orders were sent round to forbid any
   further massacres, with threats of punishment against those
   who had already offended. On the 8th of October, the king
   published a declaration, inviting such of the protestants as
   had quitted the kingdom in consequence of the massacres to
   return, and promising them safety; but this was soon followed
   by letters to the governors of the provinces, directing them
   to exhort the Huguenot gentry and others to conform to the
   catholic faith, and declaring that he would tolerate only one
   religion in his kingdom. Many, believing that the protestant
   cause was entirely ruined in France, complied, and this
   defection was encouraged by the example of the two princes of
   Bourbon [Henry, now king of Navarre, his mother, Jeanne
   d'Albret, having died June 9, 1572, and Henry, the young
   prince of Condé], who, after some weeks of violent resistance,
   submitted at the end of September, and, at least in outward
   form, became catholics. It has been remarked that the massacre
   of St. Bartholomew's-day produced an entire change in the
   character of the protestant party in France. The Huguenots had
   hitherto been entirely ruled by their aristocracy, who took
   the lead and direction in every movement; but now the great
   mass of the protestant nobility had perished or deserted the
   cause, and from this moment the latter depended for support
   upon the inhabitants of some of the great towns and upon the
   un-noble class of the people; and with this change it took a
   more popular character, in some cases showing even a tendency
   to republicanism. In the towns where the protestants were
   strong enough to offer serious resistance, such as La
   Rochelle, Nimes, Sancerre, and Montauban, the richer burghers,
   and a part at least of the municipal officers, were in favour
   of submission, and they were restrained only by the resolution
   and devotion of the less wealthy portion of the population."

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 3, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

      _A. de Montor,
      Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
      volume 1, pages 810-812._

{1205}

FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
   The Fourth Religious War.
   Siege and successful defence of La Rochelle.
   A favorable peace.

   "The two Reformer-princes, Henry of Navarre and Henry de
   Condé, attended mass on the 29th of September, and, on the 3d
   of October, wrote to the pope, deploring their errors and
   giving hopes of their conversion. Far away from Paris, in the
   mountains of the Pyrenees and of Languedoc, in the towns where
   the Reformers were numerous and confident … the spirit of
   resistance carried the day. An assembly, meeting at Milhau,
   drew up a provisional ordinance for the government of the
   Reformed church, 'until it please God, who has the hearts of
   kings in His keeping, to change that of King Charles IX. and
   restore the state of France to good order, or to raise up such
   neighboring prince as is manifest marked out, by his virtue
   and by distinguishing signs, for to be the liberator of this
   poor afflicted people.' In November, 1572, the fourth
   religious war broke out. The siege of La Rochelle was its only
   important event. Charles IX. and his councillors exerted
   themselves in vain to avoid it. There was everything to
   disquiet them in this enterprise: so sudden a revival of the
   religious war after the grand blow they had just struck, the
   passionate energy manifested by the Protestants in asylum at
   La Rochelle, and the help they had been led to hope for from
   Queen Elizabeth, whom England would never have forgiven for
   indifference in this cause. … The king heard that one of the
   bravest Protestant chiefs, La Noue, 'Ironarm,' had retired to
   Mons with Prince Louis of Nassau. The Duke of Longueville …
   induced him to go to Paris. The king received him with great
   favor … and pressed him to go to La Rochelle and prevail
   upon the inhabitants to keep the peace. … La Noue at last
   consented, and repaired, about the end of November, 1572, to a
   village close by La Rochelle, whither it was arranged that
   deputies from the town would come and confer with him. …
   After hearing him, the senate rejected the pacific overtures
   made to them by La Noue. 'We have no mind [they said] to treat
   specially and for ourselves alone; our cause is that of God
   and of all the churches of France; we will accept nothing but
   what shall seem proper to all our brethren.'" They then
   offered to trust themselves under La Noue's command,
   notwithstanding the commission by which he was acting for the
   king. "La Noue did not hesitate; he became, under the
   authority of the mayor, Jacques Henri, the military head of La
   Rochelle, whither Charles IX. had sent him to make peace. The
   king authorized him to accept this singular position. La Noue
   conducted himself so honorably in it, and everybody was so
   convinced of his good faith as well as bravery, that for three
   months he commanded inside La Rochelle, and superintended the
   preparations for defence, all the while trying to make the
   chances of peace prevail. At the end of February, 1573, he
   recognized the impossibility of his double commission, and he
   went away from La Rochelle, leaving the place in better
   condition than that in which he had found it, without either
   king or Rochellese considering that they had any right to
   complain of him. Biron first and then the Duke of Anjou in
   person took the command of the siege. They brought up, it is
   said, 40,000 men and 60 pieces of artillery. The Rochellese,
   for defensive strength, had but 22 companies of refugees or
   inhabitants, making in all 3,100 men. The siege lasted from
   the 26th of February to the 13th of June, 1573; six assaults
   were made on the place. … La Rochelle was saved. Charles IX.
   was more and more desirous of peace; his brother, the Duke of
   Anjou, had just been elected King of Poland; Charles IX. was
   anxious for him to leave France and go to take possession of
   his new kingdom. Thanks to these complications, the peace of
   La Rochelle was signed on the 6th of July, 1573. Liberty of
   creed and worship was recognized in the three towns of La
   Rochelle, Montauban, and Nimes. They were not obliged to
   receive any royal garrison, on condition of giving hostages to
   be kept by the king for two years. Liberty of worship throughout
   the extent of their jurisdiction continued to be recognized in
   the case of lords high-justiciary. Everywhere else the
   Reformers had promises of not being persecuted for their
   creed, under the obligation of never holding an assembly of
   more than ten persons at a time. These were the most favorable
   conditions they had yet obtained. Certainly this was not what
   Charles IX, had calculated upon when he consented to the
   massacre of the Protestants."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 33._

FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
   Escape of Condé and Navarre.
   Death of Charles IX.
   Accession of Henry III.
   The Fifth Civil War.
   Navarre's repudiation of Catholicism.
   The Peace of Monseur.
   The King's mignons and the nation's disgust.

   "Catherine … had the address to procure the crown of Poland
   for the son of her predilection, Henry duke of Anjou. She had
   lavished her wealth upon the electors for this purpose. No
   sooner was the point gained than she regretted it. The health
   of Charles was now manifestly on the decline, and Catherine
   would fain have retained Henry; but the jealousy of the king
   forbade. After conducting the duke on his way to Poland the
   court returned to St. Germain, and Charles sunk, without hope
   or consolation, on his couch of sickness. Even here he was not
   allowed to repose. The young king of Navarre formed a project
   of escape with the prince of Condé. The duc d' Alençon,
   youngest brother of the king, joined in it. … The vigilance
   of the queen-mother discovered the enterprise, which, for her
   own purposes, she magnified into a serious plot. Charles was
   informed that a huguenot army was coming to surprise him, and
   he was obliged to be removed into a litter, in order to
   escape. … Condé was the only prince that succeeded in making
   his escape. The king of Navarre and the duc d' Alençon were
   imprisoned." The young king of Navarre "had already succeeded
   by his address, his frankness, and high character, in rallying
   to his interests the most honourable of the noblesse, who
   dreaded at once the perfidious Catherine and her children; who
   had renounced their good opinion of young Guise after the day
   of St. Bartholomew; and who, at the same time professing
   Catholicism, were averse to huguenot principles and zeal. This
   party, called the Politiques, professed to follow the middle
   or neutral course, which at one time had been that of
   Catherine of Medicis; but she had long since deserted it, and
   had joined in all the sanguinary and extreme measures of her
   son and of the Guises. Hence she was especially odious to the
   new and moderate party of the Politiques, among whom the
   family of Montmorency held the lead. Catherine feared their
   interference at the moment of the king's death, whilst his
   successor was absent in a remote kingdom; and she swelled the
   project of the princes' escape into a serious conspiracy, in
   order to be mistress of those whom she feared. … In this
   state of the court Charles IX. expired on the 30th of May,
   1574, after having nominated the queen-mother to be regent
   during his successor's absence. … The career of the new king
   [Henry III.], while duke of Anjou, had been glorious. Raised
   to the command of armies at the age of 15, he displayed
   extreme courage as well as generalship.
{1206}
   He had defeated the veteran leader of the protestants at
   Jarnac and at Moncontour; and the fame of his exploits had
   contributed to place him on the elective throne of Poland,
   which he now occupied. Auguring from his past life, a
   brilliant epoch might be anticipated; and yet we enter upon
   the most contemptible reign, perhaps, in the annals of France.
   … Henry was obliged to run away by stealth from his Polish
   subjects [see POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590]. When overtaken by one
   of the nobles of that kingdom, the monarch, instead of
   pleading his natural anxiety to visit France and secure his
   inheritance, excused himself by drawing forth the portrait of
   his mistress, … and declared that it was love which hastened
   his return. At Vienna, however, Henry forgot both crown and
   mistress amidst the feasts that were given him; and he turned
   aside to Venice, to enjoy a similar reception from that rich
   republic. … The hostile parties were in the meantime arming.
   The Politiques, or neutral catholics, for the first time
   showed themselves in the field. They demanded the freedom of
   Cossé and of Montmorency, and at length formed a treaty of
   alliance with the Huguenots. Henry, after indulging in the
   ceremony of being crowned, was obliged to lead an army into
   the field. Sieges were undertaken on both sides, and what is
   called the fifth civil war raged openly. It became more
   serious when the king's brother joined it. This was the duke
   of Alençon, a vain and fickle personage, of whom it pleased
   the king to become jealous. Alençon fled and joined the
   malcontents. The reformers, however, waited but languidly.
   Both parties were without active and zealous leaders; and the
   only notable event of this war was a skirmish in Champagne
   [the battle of Dormans, in which both sides lost heavily],
   where the duke of Guise received a slight wound in the cheek.
   From hence came his surname of 'Le Balafré.'" In February,
   1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from court. "He bent
   his course towards Guienne, and at Niort publicly avowed his
   adherence to the reformed religion, declaring that force alone
   had made him conform to the mass. It was about this time that
   the king, in lieu of leading an army against the malcontents,
   despatched the queen-mother, with her gay and licentious
   court, to win back his brother. She succeeded, though not
   without making large concessions [in a treaty called the
   'Peace of Monsieur']. The duke of Alençon obtained Anjou, and
   other provinces in appanage, and henceforth was styled duke of
   Anjou. More favourable terms were granted to the Huguenots:
   they were allowed ten towns of surety in lieu of six, and the
   appointment of a certain number of judges in the parliament.
   Such weakness in Henry disgusted the body of the catholics;
   and the private habits of his life contributed still more, if
   possible, than his public measures, to render him
   contemptible. He was continually surrounded by a set of young
   and idle favourites, whose affectation it was to unite
   ferocity with frivolity. The king showed them such tender
   affection as he might evince towards woman; they even had the
   unblushing impudence to adopt feminine habits of dress; and
   the monarch passed his time in adorning them and himself with
   robes and ear-rings. … The indescribable tastes and
   amusements of Henry and his mignons, as his favourites were
   called, … raised up throughout the nation one universal cry
   of abhorrence and contempt."

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of France,
      chapters 8-9 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lady Jackson,
      The Last of the Valois,
      volume 2, chapters 2-6._

      _S. Menzies,
      Royal Favourites,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
   The rise of the League.
   Its secret objects and aims.
   Its alliance with Philip II. of Spain.
   The Pope's Bull against Navarre and Condé.

   "The famous association known as the 'Catholic League' or
   'Holy Union,' took its rise from the strangely indulgent terms
   granted to the Huguenots by the 'Peace of Monsieur,' in April,
   1576. Four years had scarcely elapsed since the bloodstained
   Eve of St. Bartholomew. It had been hoped that by means of
   that execrable crime the Reformation would have been finally
   crushed and extinguished in France; but instead of this, a
   treaty was concluded with the heretics, which placed them in a
   more favourable situation than they had ever occupied before.
   … It was regarded by the majority of Catholics as a wicked
   and cowardly betrayal of their most sacred interests. They
   ascribed it to its true source, namely, the hopeless
   incapacity of the reigning monarch, Henry III.; a prince whose
   monstrous vices and gross misgovernment were destined to
   reduce France to a state of disorganization bordering on
   national ruin. The idea of a general confederation of
   Catholics for the defence of the Faith against the inroads of
   heresy had been suggested by the Cardinal of Lorraine during
   the Council of Trent, and had been favourably entertained at
   the Court of Rome. The Duke of Guise was to have been placed
   at the head of this alliance; but his sudden death changed the
   face of affairs, and the project fell into abeyance. The
   Cardinal of Lorraine was now no more; he died at Avignon, at
   the age of 50, in December, 1574. … Henry, the third Duke of
   Guise, inherited in their fullest extent the ambition, the
   religious ardour, the lofty political aspirations, the
   enterprising spirit, the personal popularity, of his
   predecessors. The League of 1576 was conceived entirely in his
   interest. He was the leader naturally pointed out for such a
   movement;—a movement which, although its ulterior objects
   were at first studiously concealed, aimed in reality at
   substituting the family of Lorraine for that of Valois on the
   throne of France. The designs of the confederates, as set
   forth in the original manifesto which was circulated for
   signature, seemed at first sight highly commendable, both with
   regard to religion and politics. According to this document, the
   Union was formed for three great purposes: to uphold the
   Catholic Church; to suppress heresy; and to maintain the
   honour, the authority and prerogatives of the Most Christian
   king and his successors. On closer examination, however,
   expressions were detected which hinted at less constitutional
   projects. … Their secret aims became incontestably manifest
   soon afterwards, when one of their confidential agents, an
   advocate named David, happened to die suddenly on his return
   from Rome, and his papers fell into the hands of the
   Huguenots, who immediately made them public. … A change of
   dynasty in France was the avowed object of the scheme thus
   disclosed. It set forth, in substance, that the Capetian
   monarchs were usurpers,—the throne belonging rightfully to
   the house of Lorraine as the lineal descendants of
   Charlemagne. …
{1207}
   The Duke of Guise, with the advice and permission of the Pope,
   was to imprison Henry for the rest of his days in a monastery,
   after the example of his ancestor Pepin when he dethroned the
   Merovingian Childeric. Lastly, the heir of the Carlovingians
   was to be proclaimed King of France; and, on assuming the
   crown, was to make such arrangements with his Holiness as
   would secure the complete recognition of the sovereignty of
   the Vicar of Christ, by abrogating for ever the so-called
   'liberties of the Gallican Church.' … This revolutionary
   plot … unhappily, was viewed with cordial sympathy, and
   supported with enthusiastic zeal, by many of the prelates, and
   a large majority of the parochial clergy, of France. … The
   death of the Duke of Anjou, presumptive heir to the throne, in
   1584, determined the League to immediate action. In the event
   of the king's dying without issue, which was most
   probable,—the crown would now devolve upon Henry of Bourbon
   [the King of Navarre], the acknowledged leader of the
   Huguenots. … In January, 1585, the chiefs of the League
   signed a secret treaty at Joinville with the King of Spain, by
   which the contracting parties made common cause for the
   extirpation of all sects and heresies in France and the
   Netherlands, and for excluding from the French throne princes
   who were heretics, or who 'treated heretics with public
   impunity.' … Liberal supplies of men and money were to be
   furnished to the insurgents by Philip from the moment that war
   should break out. … The Leaguers lost no time in seeking for
   their enterprise the all-important sanction of the Holy See.
   For this purpose they despatched as their envoy to Rome a
   Jesuit named Claude Matthieu. … The Jesuit fraternity in
   France had embraced with passionate ardour the anti-royalist
   cause. … His Holiness [Gregory XIII.], however, was cautious
   and reserved. He expressed in general terms his consent to the
   project of taking up arms against the heretics, and granted a
   plenary indulgence to those who should aid in the holy work.
   But he declined to countenance the deposition of the king by
   violence. … At length, however [September 9, 1585], Sixtus
   was persuaded to fulminate a bull against the King of Navarre
   and the Prince of Condé, in which … both culprits, together
   with their heirs and posterity were pronounced for ever
   incapable of succeeding to the throne of France or any other
   dignity; their subjects and vassals were released from their
   oath of homage, and forbidden to obey them."

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      chapter 21._

FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
   Rapid spread of the League.
   The Sixth Civil War and the Peace of Bergerac.
   Anjou in the Netherlands.

   The League "spread like lightning over the whole face of
   France; Condé could find no footing in Picardy or even in
   Poitou; Henry of Navarre was refused entrance into Bordeaux
   itself; the heads of the League, the family-party of the Dukes
   of Guise, Mayenne and Nemours, seemed to carry all before
   them; the weak King leant towards them; the Queen Mother,
   intriguing ever, succeeded in separating Anjou from the
   Politiques, and began to seduce Damville. She hoped once more
   to isolate the Huguenots and to use the League to weaken and
   depress them. … The Court and the League seemed to be in
   perfect harmony, the King … in a way, subscribed to the
   League, though the twelve articles were considerably modified
   before they were shown to him. … The Leaguers had succeeded
   in making war [called the Sixth Civil War—1577], and winning
   some successes: but on their heels came the Court with fresh
   negotiations for peace. The heart's desire of the King was to
   crush the stubborn Huguenots and to destroy the moderates, but
   he was afraid to act; and so it came about that, though Anjou
   was won away from them, and compromised on the other side, and
   though Damville also deserted them, and though the whole party
   was in the utmost disorder and seemed likely to disperse,
   still the Court offered them such terms that in the end they
   seemed to have even recovered ground. Under the walls of
   Montpellier, Damville, the King's general, and Chatillon, the
   Admiral's son, at the head of the Huguenots, were actually
   manœuvring to begin a battle, when La Noue came up bearing
   tidings of peace, and at the imminent risk of being shot
   placed himself between the two armies, and stayed their
   uplifted hands. It was the Peace of Bergerac [confirmed by the
   Edict of Poitiers—Sept. 17, 1577], another ineffectual truce,
   which once more granted in the main what that of Chastenoy [or
   the 'Peace of Monseur'] had already promised: it is needless
   to say that the League would have none of it; and
   partisan-warfare, almost objectless, however oppressive to the
   country, went on without a break: the land was overrun by
   adventurers and bandits, sure sign of political death. Nothing
   could be more brutalising or more brutal: but the savage
   traits of civil war are less revolting than the ghastly
   revelries of the Court. All the chiefs were alike—neither the
   King, nor Henry of Navarre, nor Anjou, nor even the strict
   Catholic Guise, disdained to wallow in debauch." Having
   quarreled with his brother, the King, "Anjou fled, in the
   beginning of 1578, to Angers, where, finding that there was a
   prospect of amusement in the Netherlands, he turned his back
   on the high Catholics, and renewed friendship with the
   Huguenot chiefs. He was invited to come to the rescue of the
   distressed Calvinists in their struggle against Philip, and
   appeared in the Netherlands in July 1578."

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1581-1584.

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 2, pages 370-373._

FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
   Treaty of Nérac.
   The Seventh Civil War, known as the War of the Lovers.
   The Peace of Fleix.

   "The King, instead of availing himself of this interval of
   repose [after the Peace of Bergerac] to fortify himself
   against his enemies, only sank deeper and deeper into vice and
   infamy. … The court resembled at once a slaughter-house and
   a brothel, although, amid all this corruption, the King was
   the slave of monks and Jesuits whom he implicitly obeyed. It
   was about this time (December 1578) that he instituted the
   military order of the Holy Ghost, that of St. Michael having
   fallen into contempt through being prostituted to unworthy
   objects. Meanwhile the Guises were using every effort to
   rekindle the war, which Catherine, on the other hand, was
   endeavouring to prevent. With this view she travelled, in
   August, into the southern provinces, and had an interview with
   Henry of Navarre at Nérac, bringing with her Henry's wife, her
   daughter Margaret; a circumstance, however, which did not add
   to the pleasure of their meeting.
{1208}
   Henry received the ladies coldly, and they retired into
   Languedoc, where they passed the remainder of the year.
   Nevertheless the negotiations were sedulously pursued; for a
   peace with the Hugonots was, at this time, indispensable to
   the Court. … In February 1579, a secret treaty was signed at
   Nérac, by which the concessions granted to the Protestants by
   the peace of Bergerac were much extended. … Catherine spent
   nearly the whole of the year 1579 in the south, endeavouring
   to avert a renewal of the war by her intrigues, rather than by
   a faithful observance of the peace. But the King of Navarre
   saw through her Italian artifices, and was prepared to summon
   his friends and captains at the shortest notice. The
   hostilities which he foresaw were not long in breaking out,
   and in a way that would seem impossible in any other country
   than France. When the King of Navarre fled from Court in 1576,
   he expressed his indifference for two things he had left
   behind, the mass and his wife; Margaret, the heroine of a
   thousand amours, was equally indifferent, and though they now
   contrived to cohabit together, it was because each connived at
   the infidelities of the other. Henry was in love with
   Mademoiselle Fosseuse, a girl of fourteen, while Margaret had
   taken for her gallant the young Viscount of Turenne, who had
   lately turned Hugonot. … The Duke of Anjou being at this
   time disposed to renew his connection with the Hugonots,
   Margaret served as the medium of communication between her
   brother and her husband; while Henry III., with a view to
   interrupt this good understanding, wrote to the king of
   Navarre to acquaint him of the intrigues of his wife with
   Turenne. Henry was neither surprised nor afflicted at this
   intelligence; but he laid the letter before the guilty
   parties, who both denied the charge, and Henry affected to
   believe their protestations. The ladies of the Court of Nérac
   were indignant at this act of Henry III., 'the enemy of
   women'; they pressed their lovers to renew hostilities against
   that discourteous monarch; Anjou added his instances to those
   of the ladies; and in 1580 ensued the war called from its
   origin 'la guerre des amoureux,' or war of the lovers: the
   seventh of what are sometimes styled the wars of 'religion'!
   The Prince of Condé, who lived on bad terms with his cousin,
   had already taken the field on his own account, and in
   November 1579 had seized on the little town of La Fère in
   Picardy. In the spring of 1580 the Protestant chiefs in the
   south unfurled their banners. The King of Navarre laid the
   foundation of his military fame by the bravery he displayed at
   the capture of Cahors; but on the whole the movement proved a
   failure. Henry III. had no fewer than three armies in the
   field, which were generally victorious, and the King of
   Navarre found himself menaced in his capital of Nérac by
   Marshal Biron. But Henry III., for fear of the Guises, did not
   wish to press the Hugonots too hard, and at length accepted
   the proffered mediation of the Duke of Anjou, who was at this
   time anxious to enter on the protectorate offered to him by
   the Flemings. Anjou set off for the south, accompanied by his
   mother and her 'flying squadron' [of seductive nymphs];
   conferences were opened at the castle of Fleix in Périgord,
   and on November 26th 1580 a treaty was concluded which was
   almost a literal renewal of that of Bergerac. Thus an
   equivocal peace, or rather truce, was re-established, which
   proved of some duration."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duc d'Aumale,
      History of the Princes de Condé,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
   Henry of Navarre heir apparent to the throne.
   Fresh hostility of the League.
   The Edict of Nemours.
   The Pope's Brutum Fulmen.
   War of the Three Henrys.
   Battle of Coutras.
   The Day of Barricades at Paris.
   Assassination of Guise.
   Assassination of Henry III.

   "The Duc d'Anjou … died in 1584; Henri III. was a worn-out
   and feeble invalid; the reports of the doctors and the known
   virtue of the Queen forbad the hope of direct heirs. The King
   of Navarre was the eldest of the legitimate male descendants
   of Hugues Capet and of Saint-Louis [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF].
   But on the one hand he was a relapsed heretic; on the other,
   his relationship to the King was so distant that he could
   never have been served heir to him in any civil suit. This
   last objection was of small account; the stringent rules which
   govern decisions in private affairs cannot be made applicable
   to matters affecting the tranquillity and well-being of
   nations. … His religion was the only pretext on which
   Navarre could be excluded. France was, and wished to remain,
   Catholic; she could not submit to a Protestant King. The
   managers of the League understood that this very wide-spread
   and even strongly cherished feeling might some day become a
   powerful lever, but that, in order to use it, it was very
   needful for them to avoid offending the national amour-propre;
   and they thought that they had succeeded in finding the means
   of effecting their object. Next to Navarre, the eldest of the
   Royal House was his uncle the Cardinal de Bourbon; the Guises
   acknowledged him as heir to the throne and first Prince of the
   Blood, under the protection of the Pope and of the King of
   Spain. … The feeble-minded old man, whom no one respected,
   was a mere phantom, and could offer no serious resistance,
   when it should be convenient to set him aside. … In every
   class throughout the nation the majority were anxious to
   maintain at once French unity and Catholic unity, disliking
   the Reformation, but equally opposed to ultramontane
   pretensions and to Spanish ambition. … But … this great
   party, already named the 'parti politique,' hung loosely
   together without a leader, and without a policy. For the
   present it was paralyzed by the contempt in which the King was
   held; while the dislike which was entertained for the
   religious opinions of the rightful heir to the throne seemed
   to deprive it of all hope for the future. Henry III. stood in
   need of the assistance of the King of Navarre; he would
   willingly have cleared away the obstacle which kept them
   apart, and he made an overture with a view to bring back that
   Prince to the Catholic religion. But these efforts could not
   be successful. The change of creed on the part of the Béarnais
   was to be a satisfaction offered to France, the pledge of a
   fresh agreement between the nation and his race, and not a
   concession to the threats of enemies. He was not an
   unbeliever; still less was he a hypocrite; but he was placed
   between two fanatical parties, and repelled by the excesses of
   both; so he doubted, honestly doubted, and as his religious
   indecision was no secret, his conversion at the time of which
   we are now speaking would have been ascribed to the worst
   motives."
{1209}
   As it was, he found it necessary to quiet disturbing rumors
   with regard to the proposals of the King by permitting a plain
   account of what had occurred to be made public. "Henry III.,
   having no other answer to make to this publication, which
   justified all the complaints of the Catholics, replied to it
   by the treaty of Nemours and by the edict of July [1585].
   These two acts annulled all the edicts in favour of
   toleration; and placed at the disposal of the League all the
   resources and all the forces of the monarchy." Soon afterwards
   the Pope issued against Navarre and Condé his bull of
   excommunication. By this "the Pontiff did not deprive the
   Bourbons of a single friend, and did not give the slightest
   fresh ardour to their opponents; but he produced a powerful
   reaction among a portion of the clergy, among the magistracy,
   among all the Royalists; wounded the national sensibility,
   consolidated that union between the two Princes which he
   wished to break off, and rallied the whole of the Reformed
   party round their leaders. The Protestant pamphleteers replied
   with no less vehemence, and gave to the Pontiff's bull that
   name of 'Brutum fulmen' by which it is still known. … Still
   the sentence launched from the Vatican had had one very
   decided result—it had fired the train of powder; war broke
   out at once."

      _Duc d'Aumale,
      History of the Princes of Condé,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The war, called from the three leading actors in it [Henry of
   Valois, Henry of Navarre, and Henry of Guise] the War of the
   Three Henrys, now opened in earnest. Seven powerful armies
   were marshalled on the part of the King of France and the
   League. The Huguenots were weak in numbers, but strong in the
   quality of their troops. An immense body of German 'Reiter'
   had been enrolled to act as an auxiliary force, and for some
   time had been hovering on the frontiers. Hearing that at last
   they had entered France, Henry of Navarre set out from
   Rochelle to effect a junction with them. The Duke of Joyeuse,
   one of the French King's chief favourites, who had the charge
   of the army that occupied the midland counties, resolved to
   prevent their junction. By a rapid movement he succeeded in
   crossing the line of Henry's march and forcing him into
   action. The two armies came in front of each other on a plain
   near the village of Coutras, on the 19th of October, 1587. The
   Royalist army numbered from 10,000 to 12,000, the Huguenot
   from 6,000 to 7,000—the usual disparity in numbers; but
   Henry's skilful disposition did more than compensate for his
   numerical inferiority. … The struggle lasted but an hour,
   yet within that hour the Catholic army lost 3,000 men, more
   than 400 of whom were members of the first families in the
   kingdom; 3,000 men were made prisoners. Not more than a third
   part of their entire army escaped. The Huguenots lost only
   about 200 men. … Before night fell he [Navarre] wrote a few
   lines to the French King, which run thus: 'Sire, my Lord and
   Brother,—Thank God, I have beaten your enemies and your
   army.' It was but too true that the poor King's worst enemies
   were to be found in the very armies that were marshalled in
   his name."

      _W. Hanna,
      The Wars of the Huguenots,
      chapter 6._

   "The victory [at Coutras] had only a moral effect. Henry lost
   time by going to lay at the feet of the Countess of Grammont
   the flags taken from the enemy. Meantime the Duke of Guise,
   north of the Loire, triumphed over the Germans under the Baron
   of Dohna at Vimory, near Montargis, and again near Auneau
   (1587). Henry III. was unskilful enough to leave to his rival
   the glory of driving them out of the country. Henry III.
   re-entered Paris. As he passed along, the populace cried out,
   'Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands';
   and a few days after, the Sorbonne decided that 'the
   government could be taken out of the hands of princes who were
   found incapable.' Henry III., alarmed, forbade the Duke of
   Guise to come to Paris, and quartered in the faubourgs 4,000
   Swiss and several companies of the guards. The Sixteen [chiefs
   of sixteen sections of Paris, who controlled the League in
   that city] feared that all was over; they summoned the
   'Balafré' and he came [May 9, 1588]. Cries of 'Hosannah to the
   Son of David!' resounded throughout Paris, and followed him to
   the Louvre. … The king and the chief of the League fortified
   themselves, one in the Louvre, the other in the Hotel Guise.
   Negotiations were carried on for two days. On the morning of
   the 11th the duke, well attended, returned to the Louvre, and
   in loud tones demanded of the king that he should send away
   his counsellors, establish the Inquisition, and push to the
   utmost the war against the heretics. That evening the king
   ordered the companies of the city guards to hold several
   positions, and the next morning he introduced into the city
   the Swiss and 2,000 men of the French guards. But the city
   guards failed him. In two hours all Paris was under arms, all
   the streets were rendered impassable, and the advancing
   barricades soon reached the positions occupied by the troops
   [whence the insurrection became known as 'the Day of
   Barricades']. At this juncture Guise came out of his hôtel,
   dressed in a white doublet, with a small cane in his hand;
   saved the Swiss, who were on the point of being massacred,
   sent them back to the king with insulting scorn, and quieted
   everything as if by magic. He demanded the office of
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom for himself, the convocation
   of the States at Paris, the forfeiture of the Bourbons, and,
   for his friends, provincial governments and all the other
   offices. The queen-mother debated these conditions for three
   hours. During this time the attack was suspended, and Henry
   III. was thus enabled to leave the Louvre and make his escape.
   The Duke of Guise had made a mistake; but if he did not have
   the king, he had Paris. There was now a king of Paris and a
   king of France; negotiations were carried on, and to the
   astonishment of all, Henry III. at length granted what two
   months before he had refused in front of the barricades. He
   swore that he would not lay down his arms until the heretics
   were entirely exterminated; declared that any non-Catholic
   prince forfeited his rights to the throne, appointed the Duke
   of Guise lieutenant-general, and convoked the States at Blois
   [October, 1588]. The States of Blois were composed entirely of
   Leaguers," and were wholly controlled by the Duke of Guise.
   The latter despised the king too much to give heed to repeated
   warnings which he received of a plot against his life.
{1210}
   Summoned to a private interview in the royal cabinet, at an
   early hour on the morning of the 23d of December, he did not
   hesitate to present himself, boldly, alone, and was murdered
   as he entered, by eight of the king's body-guard, whom Henry
   III. had personally ordered to commit the crime. "Killing the
   Duke of Guise was not killing the League. At the news of his
   death Paris was stunned for a moment; then its fury broke
   forth. … The Sorbonne decreed 'that the French people were
   set free from the oath of allegiance taken to Henry III.' …
   Henry III. had gained nothing by the murder; … but he had
   helped the fortunes of the king of Navarre, into whose arms he
   was forced to cast himself. … The junction of the Protestant
   and the royal armies under the same standard completely
   changed the nature of the war. It was no longer feudal
   Protestantism, but the democratic League, which threatened
   royalty; monarchy entered into a struggle with the Catholic
   masses in revolt against it. Henry III. called together, at
   Tours, his useless Parliament, and issued a manifesto against
   Mayenne and the chiefs of the League. Henry of Navarre carried
   on the war energetically. In two months he was master of the
   territory between the Loire and the Seine, and 15,000 Swiss
   and lanzknechts joined him. On the evening of July 30th, 1589,
   the two kings, with 40,000 men, appeared before Paris. The
   Parisians could see the long line of the enemies' fires
   gleaming in a vast semi-circle on the left bank of the Seine.
   The king of Navarre established his headquarters at Meudon;
   Henry III. at Saint-Cloud. The great city was astounded; the
   people had lost energy; but the fury was concentrated in the
   hearts of the chiefs and in the depths of the cloisters. …
   The arm of a fanatic became the instrument of the general
   fury, and put into practice the doctrine of tyrannicide more
   than once asserted in the schools and the pulpit. The assault
   was to be made on August 2d. On the morning of the previous
   day a young friar from the convent of the Dominicans, Jacques
   Clément, came out from Paris," obtained access to the king by
   means of a forged letter, and stabbed him in the abdomen,
   being, himself, slain on the spot by the royal guards. Henry
   III. "died the same night, and with him the race of Valois
   became extinct. The aged Catherine de' Medici had died six
   months before."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of France (abridged),
      chapter 45._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      16th and 17th Centuries, chapters 22-25._

      _W. S. Browning,
      History of the Huguenots,
      chapters 35-42._

FRANCE: A. D. 1585.
   Proffered sovereignty of the United Netherlands declined by
   Henry III.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
   Henry of Navarre as Henry IV. of France.
   His retreat to Normandy.
   The battles at Arques.
   Battle of Ivry.

   "On being made aware that all hope was over, this King [Henry
   III.], whose life had been passed in folly, vanity and
   sensuality … prepared for death like a patriot king and a
   martyr. He summoned his nobles to his bedside, and told them
   that his only regret in dying was that he left the kingdom in
   disorder, and as the best mode of remedying the evil he
   recommended them to recognize the King of Navarre, to whom the
   kingdom belonged of right; making no account of the religious
   difference, because that king, with his sincere and earnest
   nature, must finally return to the bosom of the Church. Then
   turning to Henry, he solemnly warned him: 'Cousin,' he said,
   'I assure you that you will never be King of France if you do
   not become Catholic, and if you do not make your peace with
   the Church.' Directly afterwards he breathed his last,
   reciting the 'Miserere.' This account is substantially
   confirmed by Perefixe. According to Sully, Henry, hearing that
   the King had been stabbed, started for St. Cloud, attended by
   Sully, but did not arrive till he was dead; and D'Aubigny
   says: 'When the King of Navarre entered the chamber where the
   body was lying, he saw amidst the howlings some pulling their
   hats down upon their brows, or throwing them on the ground,
   clenching their fists, plotting, clasping each other's hands,
   making vows and promises.' … Henry's situation was
   embarrassing in the extreme, for only a small number of the
   Catholic nobles gave in an unqualified adhesion: a powerful
   body met and dictated the conditions upon which alone they
   would consent to his being proclaimed King of France: the two
   first being that within six months he would cause himself to
   be instructed in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith; and that
   during this interval he would nominate no Huguenot to offices
   of State. He replied that he was no bigot, and would readily
   seek instruction in the tenets of the Romish faith, but
   declined pledging himself to any description of exclusion or
   intolerance. M. Guadet computes that nine-tenths of his French
   subjects were Catholic, and the temper of the majority may be
   inferred from what was taking place in Paris, where the news
   of the late King's death was the signal for the most unseemly
   rejoicing. … Far from being in a condition to reduce the
   refractory Parisians, Henry was obliged to abandon the siege,
   and retire towards Normandy, where the expected succours from
   England might most easily reach him. Sully says that this
   retreat was equally necessary for the safety of his person and
   the success of his affairs. He was temporarily abandoned by
   several of the Huguenot leaders, who, serving at their own
   expense, were obliged from time to time to go home to recruit
   their finances and their followers. Others were made lukewarm
   by the prospect of his becoming Catholic; so that he was no
   longer served with enthusiasm by either party; and when, after
   making the best arrangements in his power, he entered
   Normandy, he had with him only 3,000 French foot, two
   regiments of Swiss and 1,200 horse; with which, after being
   joined by the Due de Montpensier with 200 gentlemen and 1,500
   foot, he drew near to Rouen, relying on a secret understanding
   within the walls which might give him possession of the place.
   Whilst preparations were making for the siege, sure
   intelligence was brought that the Duc de Mayenne was seeking
   him with an army exceeding 30,000; but, resolved to make head
   against them till the last extremity, Henry entrenched himself
   before Arques, which was only accessible by a causeway." A series
   of engagements ensued, beginning September 15, 1589; but
   finding that he could not dislodge his antagonist, Mayenne
   withdrew after some ten days of fighting, moving his army
   towards Picardy and leaving the road to Paris open. "Being too
   weak to recommence the siege or to occupy the city if taken by
   assault, Henry resolved to give the Parisians a sample of what
   they might expect if they persevered in their contumacy, and
   gave orders for attacking all the suburbs at once.
{1211}
   They were taken and sacked. Davila states that the plunder was
   so abundant that the whole camp was wonderfully relieved and
   sustained." From this attack on the Parisian suburbs, Henry
   proceeded to Tours, where he held his court for a time. Early
   in March, 1590, he laid siege to Dreux. "The Duc de Mayenne,
   reinforced by Spanish troops from the Low Countries under
   Count Egmont, left Paris to effect a diversion, and somewhat
   unexpectedly found himself compelled to accept the battle
   which was eagerly pressed upon him. This was the renowned
   battle of Ivry. The armies presented much the same contrast as
   at Coutras. The numerical superiority on one side, the
   Catholic, was more than compensated by the quality of the
   troops on the other. Henry's soldiers, as described by De
   Thou, were armed to the teeth. 'They displayed neither scarf
   nor decoration, but their accoutrements inspired grim terror.
   The army of the Duc, on the contrary, was magnificent in
   equipment. The officers wore bright-coloured scarves, while
   gold glittered upon their helmets and lances.' The two armies
   were confronted on the 13th of March, 1590, but it was getting
   dark before the dispositions were completed, and the battle
   was deferred till the following morning. The King passed the
   night like Henry V. at Agincourt, and took only a short rest
   in the open air on the field. … At daybreak he mounted his
   horse, and rode from rank to rank, pausing from time to time
   to utter a brief exhortation or encouragement. Prayers were
   offered up by the Huguenot ministers at the head of each
   division, and the bishop [Perefixe] gives the concluding words
   of that in which Divine aid was invoked by the King: 'But,
   Lord, if it has pleased Thee to dispose otherwise, or Thou
   seest that I ought to be one of those kings whom Thou
   punishest in Thy wrath, grant that I may be this day the
   victim of Thy Holy will: so order it that my death may deliver
   France from the calamities of war, and that my blood be the
   last shed in this quarrel.' Then, putting on his helmet with
   the white plume, before closing the vizor, he addressed the
   collected leaders:—'My friends, if you share my fortune this
   day, I also share yours. I am resolved to conquer or to die
   with you. Keep your ranks firmly, I beg; if the heat of the
   combat compels you to quit them, think always of the rally; it
   is the gaining of the battle. You will make it between the
   three trees which you see there [pointing to three pear-trees
   on an eminence], and if you lose your ensigns, pennons and
   banners, do not lose sight of my white plume: you will find it
   always on the road of honour and victory.' It so chanced that his
   white plume was the actual rallying-point at the most critical
   moment. … His standard-bearer fell: a page bearing a white
   pennon was struck down at his side; and the rumour was
   beginning to spread that he himself was killed, when the sight
   of his bay horse and white plume, with the animating sound of
   his voice, gave fresh courage to all around and brought the
   bravest of his followers to the front. The result is told in
   one of his own missives. After stating that the battle began
   between 11 and 12, he continues: 'In less than an hour, after
   having discharged all their anger in two or three charges
   which they made and sustained, all their cavalry began to
   shift for themselves, abandoning their infantry, which was
   very numerous. Seeing which, their Swiss appealed to my pity
   and surrendered—colonels, captains, soldiers, and colours.
   The lansquenets and French had no time to form this
   resolution, for more than 1,200 were cut to pieces, and the
   rest dispersed into the woods at the mercy of the peasants.'
   He urged on the pursuers, crying 'Spare the French, and down
   with the foreigners.' … Instead of pushing on towards Paris,
   which it was thought would have opened its gates to a
   conqueror in the flush of victory, Henry lingered at Mantes,
   where he improvised a Court, which his female favourites were
   summoned to attend."

      _Henry IV. of France
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1879)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Baird,
      The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      _Duke of Sully,
      Memoirs,
      book 3 (volume l)._

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life of Henry IV.,
      books 11-12 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
   The siege of Paris and its horrors.
   Relief at the hands of the Spaniards under Parma.
   Readiness of the League to give the crown to Philip II.

   "The king, yielding to the councils of Biron and other
   catholics, declined attacking the capital, and preferred
   waiting the slow, and in his circumstances eminently
   hazardous, operations of a regular siege. … Whatever may
   have been the cause of the delay, it is certain that the
   golden fruit of victory was not plucked, and that although the
   confederate army had rapidly dissolved, in consequence of
   their defeat, the king's own forces manifested as little
   cohesion. And now began that slow and painful siege, the
   details of which are as terrible, but as universally known, as
   those of any chapters in the blood-stained history of the
   century. Henry seized upon the towns guarding the rivers Seine
   and Marne, twin nurses of Paris. By controlling the course of
   those streams as well as that of the Yonne and Oise—
   especially by taking firm possession of Lagny on the Marne,
   whence a bridge led from the Isle of France to the Brie
   country—great thoroughfare of wine and corn—and of Corbeil
   at the junction of the little river Essonne with the Seine—it
   was easy in that age to stop the vital circulation of the
   imperial city. By midsummer, Paris, unquestionably the first
   city of Europe at that day, was in extremities. … Rarely
   have men at any epoch defended their fatherland against
   foreign oppression with more heroism than that which was
   manifested by the Parisians of 1590 in resisting religious
   toleration, and in obeying a foreign and priestly despotism.
   Men, women, and children cheerfully laid down their lives by
   thousands in order that the papal legate and the king of Spain
   might trample upon that legitimate sovereign of France who was
   one day to become the idol of Paris and of the whole kingdom.
   A census taken at the beginning of the siege had showed a
   population of 200,000 souls, with a sufficiency of provisions,
   it was thought, to last one month. But before the terrible
   summer was over—so completely had the city been invested—the
   bushel of wheat was worth 360 crowns. … The flesh of horses,
   asses, dogs, cats, rats, had become rare luxuries. There was
   nothing cheap, said a citizen bitterly, but sermons. And the
   priests and monks of every order went daily about the streets,
   preaching fortitude in that great resistance to heresy. …
   Trustworthy eye-witnesses of those dreadful days have placed
   the number of the dead during the summer at 30,000. …
{1212}
   The hideous details of the most dreadful sieges recorded in
   ancient or modern times were now reproduced in Paris. … The
   priests … persuaded the populace that it was far more
   righteous to kill their own children, if they had no food to
   give them, than to obtain food by recognizing a heretic king.
   It was related, too, and believed, that in some instances
   mothers had salted the bodies of their dead children and fed
   upon them, day by day, until the hideous repast would no
   longer support their own life. … The bones of the dead were
   taken in considerable quantities from the cemeteries, ground
   into flour, baked into bread, and consumed. It was called
   Madame Montpensier's cake, because the duchess earnestly
   proclaimed its merits to the poor Parisians. 'She was never
   known to taste it herself, however,' bitterly observed one who
   lived in Paris through that horrible summer. She was right to
   abstain, for all who ate of it died. … Lansquenets and other
   soldiers, mad with hunger and rage, when they could no longer
   find dogs to feed on, chased children through the streets, and
   were known in several instances to kill and devour them on the
   spot. … Such then was the condition of Paris during that
   memorable summer of tortures. What now were its hopes of
   deliverance out of this Gehenna? The trust of Frenchmen was in
   Philip of Spain, whose legions, under command of the great
   Italian chieftain [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, commander
   of the Spanish forces in the Netherlands], were daily longed
   for to save them from rendering obedience to their lawful
   prince. For even the king of straw—the imprisoned cardinal
   [Cardinal de Bourbon, whom the League had proclaimed king,
   under the title of Charles X., on the death of Henry
   III.]—was now dead, and there was not even the effigy of any
   other sovereign than Henry of Bourbon to claim authority in
   France. Mayenne, in the course of long interviews with the
   Duke of Parma at Condé and Brussels, had expressed his desire
   to see Philip king of France, and had promised his best
   efforts to bring about such a result." Parma, who was
   struggling hard with the obstinate revolt in the Netherlands,
   having few troops and little money to pay them with, received
   orders from his Spanish master to relieve Paris and conquer
   France. He obeyed the command to the best of his abilities. He
   left the Netherlands at the beginning of August, with 12,000
   foot and 3,000 horse; effected a junction with Mayenne at
   Meaux, ten leagues from Paris, on the 22d, and the united
   armies—5,000 cavalry and 18,000 foot—arrived at Chelles on
   the last day of summer. "The two great captains of the age had
   at last met face to face. … The scientific duel which was
   now to take place was likely to task the genius and to bring
   into full display the peculiar powers and defects of the two."
   The winner in the duel was the Duke of Parma, who foiled
   Henry's attempts to bring him to battle, while he captured
   Lagny under the king's eyes. "The bridges of Charenton and St.
   Maur now fell into Farnese's hands without a contest. In an
   incredibly short space of time provisions and munitions were
   poured into the starving city, 2,000 boat-loads arriving in a
   single day. Paris was relieved. Alexander had made his
   demonstration and solved the problem. … The king was now in
   worse plight than ever. His army fliers, cheated of their
   battle, and having neither food nor forage, rode off by
   hundreds every day." He made one last attempt, by a midnight
   assault on the city, but it failed. Then he followed the
   Spaniards—whom Parma led back to the Netherlands early in
   November—but could not bring about a battle or gain any
   important advantage. But Paris, without the genius of
   Alexander Farnese in its defence, was soon reduced to as
   complete a blockade as before. Lagny was recovered by the
   besieging royalists, the Seine and the Marne were again
   fast-locked, and the rebellious capital deprived of supplies.

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 23 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. W. Freer,
      History of the Reign of Henry IV.,
      book 1._

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
   The siege of Rouen and Parma's second interference.
   General advancement of Henry's cause.
   Restiveness of the Catholics.
   The King's abjuration of Protestantism.

   "It seemed as if Henri IV. had undertaken the work of
   Penelope. After each success, fresh difficulties arose to
   render it fruitless. … Now it was the Swiss who refused to
   go on without their pay; or Elizabeth who exacted seaports in
   return for fresh supplies; or the Catholics who demanded the
   conversion of the King; or the Protestants who complained of
   not being protected. Depressed spirits had to be cheered, some
   to be satisfied, others to be reassured or restrained, allies
   to be managed, and all to be done with very little money and
   without any sacrifice of the national interests. Henri was
   equal to all, both to war and to diplomacy, to great concerns
   and to small. … His pen was as active as his sword. The
   collection of his letters is full of the most charming notes.
   … Public opinion, which was already influential and
   thirsting for news, was not neglected. Every two or three
   months a little publication entitled 'A Discourse,' or 'An
   Authentic Narrative,' or 'Account of all that has occurred in
   the King's Army,' was circulated widely. … Thus it was that
   by means of activity, patience, and tact, Henri V. was enabled
   to retrieve his fortunes and to rally his party; so that by
   the end of the year 1591, he found himself in a position to
   undertake an important operation. … The King laid siege to
   Rouen in December, 1591. He was at the head of the most
   splendid army he had ever commanded; it numbered upwards of
   25,000 men. This was not too great a number; for the
   fortifications were strong, the garrison numerous, well
   commanded by Villars, and warmly supported by the townspeople.
   The siege had lasted for some months when the King learned
   that Mayenne had at last made the Duke of Parma to understand
   the necessity of saving Rouen at all hazards. Thirty thousand
   Spanish and French Leaguers had just arrived on the Somme.
   Rouen, however, was at the last gasp; Henri could not make up
   his mind to throw away the fruits of so much toil and trouble;
   he left all his infantry under the walls, under the command of
   Biron, and marched off with his splendid cavalry." He attacked
   the enemy imprudently, near Aumale, February 5, met with a
   repulse, was wounded and just missed being taken prisoner in a
   precipitate retreat. But both armies were half paralyzed at this
   time by dissensions among their chiefs.
{1213}
   That of the Leaguers fell back to the Somme; but in April it
   approached Rouen again, and Parma was able, despite all
   Henri's efforts, to enter the town. This last check to the
   King "was the signal for a general desertion. Henri, left with
   only a small corps of regular troops and a few gentlemen, was
   obliged to retire rapidly upon Pont de l'Arche. The Duke of
   Parma did not follow him. Always vigilant, he wished before
   everything to establish himself on the Lower Seine, and laid
   siege to Caudebec, which was not likely to detain him long.
   But he received during that operation a severe wound, which
   compelled him to hand over the command to Mayenne." The
   incompetence of the latter soon lost all the advantages which
   Parma had gained. Henri's supporters rallied around him again
   almost as quickly as they had dispersed. "The Leaguers were
   pushed back upon the Seine and confined in the heart of the
   Pays de Caux. They were without provisions; Mayenne was at his
   wits' end; he had to resort for suggestions and for orders to
   the bed of suffering on which the Duke of Parma was held down
   by his wound." The great Italian soldier, dying though he was,
   as the event soon proved, directed operations which baffled
   the keen watchfulness and penetration of his antagonist, and
   extricated his army without giving to Henri the chance for
   battle which he sought. The Spanish army retired to Flemish
   territory. In the meantime, Henri's cause was being advanced
   in the northeast of his kingdom by the skill and valor of
   Turenne, then beginning his great career, and experiencing
   vicissitudes in the southeast, where Lesdiguières was
   contending with the mercenaries of the Pope and the Duke of
   Savoy, as well as with his countrymen of the League. He had
   defeated them with awful slaughter at Pontcharra, September
   19, 1591, and he carried the war next year into the
   territories of the Duke of Savoy, seeking help from the
   Italian Waldenses which he does not seem to have obtained.
   "Nevertheless the king had still some formidable obstacles to
   overcome. Three years had run their course since he had
   promised to become instructed in the Catholic religion, and
   there were no signs as yet that he was preparing to fulfil
   this undertaking. The position in which he found himself, and
   the importance and activity of his military operations, had
   hitherto been a sufficient explanation of his delay. But the
   war had now changed its character. The King had gained
   brilliant successes. There was no longer any large army in the
   field against him. Nothing seemed to be now in the way to
   hinder him from fulfilling his promise. And yet he always
   evaded it. He had to keep on good terms with Elizabeth and the
   Protestants; he wished to make his abjuration the occasion for
   an agreement with the Court of Rome, which took no steps to
   smooth over his difficulties; and lastly, he shrank from
   taking a step which is always painful when it is not the fruit
   of honest conviction. This indecision doubled the ardour of
   his enemies, prevented fresh adhesions, discouraged and
   divided his old followers. … A third party, composed of
   bishops and Royalist noblemen, drew around the cousins of
   Henri IV., the Cardinal de Vendôme and the Comte de Soissons.
   … The avowed object of this third party was to raise one of
   these two Princes to the throne, if the Head of their House
   did not forthwith enter the bosom of the Catholic Church. And
   finally, the deputies of the cities and provinces who had been
   called to Paris by Mayenne were assembling there for the
   election of a king. 'The Satire of Ménippée' has handed down
   the States of the League to immortal ridicule; but however
   decried that assembly has been, and deserved to be, 'it
   decided the conversion of Henri IV.: he does not attempt in
   his despatches to deny this. … In order to take away every
   excuse for such an election, he entered at once into
   conference with the Catholic theologians. After some very
   serious discussion, much deeper than a certain saying which
   has become a proverb [that 'Paris is certainly worth a Mass']
   would seem to imply, he abjured the Protestant religion on the
   25th of July, 1593, before the Archbishop of Bourges. The
   League had received its death-blow."

      _Duc d'Aumale,
      History of the Princes de Condé,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

   "The news of the abjuration produced in the minds of honest
   men, far and near, the most painful impression. Politicians
   might applaud an act intended to conciliate the favor of the
   great majority of the nation, and extol the astuteness of the
   king in choosing the most opportune moment for his change of
   religion—the moment when he would secure the support of the
   Roman Catholics, fatigued by the length of the war and too
   eager for peace to question very closely the sincerity of the
   king's motives, without forfeiting the support of the
   Huguenots. But men of conscience, judging Henry's conduct by a
   standard of morality immutable and eternal, passed a severe
   sentence of condemnation upon the most flagrant instance of a
   betrayal of moral convictions which the age had known."

      _H. M. Baird,
      The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   "What the future history of France would have been if Henry
   had clung to his integrity, is known only to the Omniscient;
   but, with the annals of France in our hands, we have no
   difficulty in perceiving that the day of his impious, because
   pretended conversion, was among the 'dies nefasti' of his
   country. It restored peace indeed to that bleeding land, and
   it gave to himself an undisputed reign of seventeen years; but
   he found them years replete with cares and terrors, and
   disgraced by many shameful vices, and at last abruptly
   terminated by the dagger of an assassin. It rescued France,
   indeed, from the evils of a disputed succession, but it
   consigned her to two centuries of despotism and misgovernment.
   It transmitted the crown, indeed, to seven in succession of
   the posterity of Henry; but of them one died on the scaffold,
   three were deposed by insurrections of their subjects, one has
   left a name pursued by unmitigated and undying infamy, and
   another lived and died in a monastic melancholy, the feeble
   slave of his own minister."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Willert,
      Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France,
      chapters 5-6._

{1214}

FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
   Henry's winning of Paris.
   The first attempt upon his life.
   Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
   War with Spain.
   The Peace of Vervins.

   "A truce of three months had been agreed upon [August 1,
   1593], during which many nobles and several important towns
   made their submissions to the King. Many, however, still held
   out for the League, and among them Paris, as well as Rheims,
   by ancient usage the city appropriated to the coronation of
   the kings of France. Henry IV. deemed that ceremony
   indispensable to sanctify his cause in the eyes of the people,
   and he therefore caused it to be performed at Chartres by the
   bishop of that place, February 27th 1594. But he could hardly
   look upon himself as King of France so long as Paris remained
   in the hands of a faction which disputed his right, and he
   therefore strained every nerve to get possession of that
   capital. … As he wished to get possession of the city
   without bloodshed, he determined to attempt it by corrupting
   the commandant. This was Charles de Cossé, Count of Brissac.
   … Henry promised Brissac, as the price of his admission into
   Paris, the sum of 200,000 crowns and an annual pension of
   20,000, together with the governments of Corbeil and Mantes,
   and the continuance to him of his marshal's bâton. To the
   Parisians was offered an amnesty from which only criminals
   were to be excepted; the confirmation of all their privileges;
   and the prohibition of the Protestant worship within a radius
   of ten leagues. … Before daybreak on the morning of the 22nd
   March 1594 Brissac opened the gates of Paris to Henry's
   troops, who took possession of the city without resistance,
   except at one of the Spanish guard-houses, where a few
   soldiers were killed. When all appeared quiet, Henry himself
   entered, and was astonished at being greeted with joyous
   cheers. … He gave manifold proofs of forbearance and good
   temper, fulfilled all the conditions of his agreement, and
   allowed the Spaniards [4,000] to withdraw unmolested." In May,
   1594, Henry laid siege to Laon, which surrendered in August.
   "Its' example was soon followed by Chateau Thierry, Amiens,
   Cambrai and Noyon. The success of the King induced the Duke of
   Lorraine and the Duke of Guise to make their peace with him." In
   November, an attempt to kill the King was made by a young man
   named Jean Chatel, who confessed that he attended the schools
   of the Jesuits. "All the members of that order were arrested,
   and their papers examined. One of them, named Jean Guignard,
   on whom was found a treatise approving the murder of Henry
   III., and maintaining that his successor deserved a like fate,
   was condemned to the gallows: and the remainder of the order
   were banished from Paris, January 8th 1595, as corrupters of
   youth and enemies of the state. This example, however, was
   followed only by a few of the provincial cities. The
   irritation caused by this event seems to have precipitated
   Henry IV. into a step which he had been some time meditating:
   a declaration of war against his ancient and most bitter enemy
   Philip II. (January 17th 1595). The King of Spain, whom the
   want of money had prevented from giving the League much
   assistance during the two preceding years, was stung into fury
   by this challenge; and he immediately ordered Don Fernando de
   Velasco, constable of Castile, to join Mayenne in Franche
   Comté with 10,000 men. Velasco, however, was no great captain,
   and little of importance was done. The only action worth
   mentioning is an affair of cavalry at Fontaine Française (June
   6th 1595), in which Henry displayed his usual bravery, or
   rather rashness, but came off victorious. He then overran
   nearly all Franche Comté without meeting with any impediment
   from Velasco, but retired at the instance of the Swiss, who
   entreated him to respect the neutrality of that province.
   Meanwhile Henry had made advances to Mayenne, who was
   disgusted with Velasco and the Spaniards, and on the 25th
   September Mayenne, in the name of the League, signed with the
   King a truce of three months, with a view to regulate the
   conditions of future submission. An event had already occurred
   which placed Henry in a much more favourable position with his
   Roman Catholic subjects; he had succeeded [September, 1595] in
   effecting his reconciliation with the Pope. … The war on the
   northern frontiers had not been going on so favourably for the
   King." In January, 1595, "Philip II. ordered the Spaniard
   Fuentés, who, till the arrival of Albert [the Archduke],
   conducted the government of the Netherlands, to invade the
   north of France; and Fuentés … having left Mondragone with
   sufficient forces to keep Prince Maurice in check, set off
   with 15,000 men, with the design of recovering Cambrai.
   Catelet and Doullens yielded to his arms; Ham was betrayed to
   him by the treachery of the governor, and in August Fuentés
   sat down before Cambrai. … The Duke of Anjou had made over
   that place to his mother, Catherine de'Medici, who had
   appointed Balagni to be governor of it. During the civil wars
   of France, Balagni had established himself there as a little
   independent sovereign, and called himself Prince of Cambrai;
   but after the discomfiture of the League he had been compelled
   to declare himself, and had acknowledged his allegiance to the
   King of France. His extortion and tyranny having rendered him
   detested by the inhabitants, they … delivered Cambrai to the
   Spaniards, October 2nd. Fuentés then returned into the
   Netherlands. … The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived at
   Brussels in February 1596, when Fuentés resigned his command.
   … Henry IV. had been engaged since the winter in the siege
   of La Fère, a little town in a strong situation at the
   junction of the Serre and Oise. He had received reinforcements
   from England as well as from Germany and Holland. … Albert
   marched to Valenciennes with about 20,000 men, with the avowed
   intention of relieving La Fère; but instead of attempting that
   enterprise, he despatched De Rosne, a French renegade … with
   the greater part of the forces, to surprise Calais; and that
   important place was taken by assault, April 17th, before Henry
   could arrive for its defence. La Fère surrendered May 22nd;
   and Henry then marched with his army towards the coast of
   Picardy, where he endeavoured, but in vain, to provoke the
   Spaniards to give him battle. After fortifying Calais and
   Ardres, Albert withdrew again into the Netherlands. …
   Elizabeth, alarmed at the occupation by the Spaniards of a
   port which afforded such facilities for the invasion of
   England, soon afterwards concluded another offensive and
   defensive alliance with Henry IV. (May 24th), in which the
   contracting parties pledged themselves to make no separate
   peace or truce with Philip II." The Dutch joined in this
   treaty; but the Protestant princes of Germany refused to
   become parties to it. "The treaty, however, had little
   effect." Early in 1597, the Spaniards dealt Henry an alarming
   blow, by surprising and capturing the city of Amiens, gaining
   access to it by an ingenious stratagem. But Henry recovered
   the place in September, after a vigorous siege. He also put
   down a rising, under the Duke de Mercœur, in Brittany,
   defeating the rebels at Dinan, while his lieutenant,
   Lesdiguières, in the southeast, invaded Savoy once more,
   taking Maurienne, and paralyzing the hostile designs of its
   Duke.
{1215}
   The malignant Spanish king, suffering and near his end,
   discouraged and tired of the war, now sought to make peace.
   Both the Dutch and the English refused to treat with him; but
   Henry IV., notwithstanding the pledges given in 1596 to his
   allies, entered into negotiations which resulted in the Treaty
   of Vervins, signed May 2, 1598. "By the Peace of Vervins the
   Spaniards restored to France Calais, Ardres, Doullens, La
   Capelle, and Le Câtelet in Picardy, and Blavet (port Louis) in
   Brittany, of all their conquests retaining only the citadel of
   Cambrai. The rest of the conditions were referred to the
   treaty of Câteau-Cambresis, which Henry had stipulated should
   form the basis of the negotiations. The Duke of Savoy was
   included in the peace." While this important treaty was
   pending, in April, 1598, Henry quieted the anxieties of his
   Huguenot subjects by the famous Edict of Nantes.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lady Jackson,
      The First of the Bourbons,
      volume 1, chapters 14-18,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-7._

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapters 29-35 (volume 3)._

      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      books 23-24._

FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.
   The Edict of Nantes.

   For the purpose of receiving the submission of the Duke of
   Mercœur and the Breton insurgents, the king proceeded down the
   Loire, and "reached the capital of Brittany, the commercial
   city of Nantes, on the 11th of April, 1598. Two days later he
   signed the edict which has come to be known as the Edict of
   Nantes [and which had been under discussion for some months
   with representatives of a Protestant assembly in session at
   Châtellerault]. … The Edict of Nantes is a long and somewhat
   complicated document. Besides the edict proper, contained in
   95 public articles, there is a further series of 56 'secret'
   articles, and a 'brevet' or patent of the king, all of which
   were signed on the 13th of April; and these documents are
   supplemented by a second set of 23 'secret' articles, dated on
   the last day of the same month. The first of these four papers
   is expressly declared to be a 'perpetual and irrevocable
   edict.' … Our chief concern being with the fortunes of the
   Huguenots, the provisions for the re-establishment of the
   Roman Catholic worship, wherever in the course of the events
   of the last 30 years that worship had been interfered with or
   banished, need not claim our attention. For the benefit of the
   Protestants the cardinal concession was liberty to dwell
   anywhere in the royal dominions, without being subjected to
   inquiry, vexed, molested, or constrained to do anything
   contrary to their conscience. As respects public worship,
   while perfect equality was not established, the dispositions
   were such as to bring it within the power of a Protestant in
   any part of the kingdom to meet his fellow-believers for the
   holiest of acts, at least from time to time. To every
   Protestant nobleman enjoying that extensive authority known as
   'haute justice,' and to noblemen in Normandy distinguished as
   possessors of 'fiefs de haubert,' the permission was granted
   to have religious services on all occasions and for all comers
   at their principal residence, as well as on other lands
   whenever they themselves were present. Noblemen of inferior
   jurisdiction were allowed to have worship on their estates,
   but only for themselves and their families. In addition to
   these seigniorial rights, the Protestant 'people' received
   considerable accessions to the cities where they might meet
   for public religious purposes. The exercise of their worship
   was authorized in all cities and places where such worship had
   been held on several occasions in the years 1596 and 1597, up
   to the month of August; and in all places in which worship had
   been, or ought to have been, established in accordance with
   the Edict of 1577 [the edict of Poitiers—see above: A. D.
   1577-1578], as interpreted by the Conference of Nérac and the
   Peace of Fleix [see above: A. D. 1578-1580]. But in addition
   to these, a fresh gift of a second city in every bailiwick and
   sénéchaussée of the kingdom greatly increased the facilities
   enjoyed by the scattered Huguenots for reaching the assemblies
   of their fellow-believers. … Scholars of both religions were
   to be admitted without distinction of religion to all
   universities, colleges, and schools throughout France. The
   same impartiality was to extend to the reception of the sick
   in the hospitals, and to the poor in the provision made for
   their relief. More than this, the Protestants were permitted
   to establish schools of their own in all places where their
   worship was authorized. … The scandal and inhumanity
   exhibited in the refusal of burial to the Protestant dead, as
   well in the disinterment of such bodies as had been placed in
   consecrated ground, was henceforth precluded by the assignment
   of portions of the public cemeteries or of new cemeteries of
   their own to the Protestants. The civil equality of the
   Protestants was assured by an article which declared them to
   be admissible to all public positions, dignities, offices, and
   charges, and forbade any other examination into their
   qualifications, conduct, and morals than those to which their
   Roman Catholic brethren were subjected. … Provision was made
   for the establishment of a 'chamber of the edict,' as it was
   styled, in the Parliament of Paris, with six Protestants among
   its sixteen counsellors, to take cognizance of cases in which
   Protestants were concerned. A similar chamber was promised in
   each of the parliaments of Rouen and Rennes. In Southern
   France three 'chambres mi-parties' were either continued or
   created, with an equal number of Roman Catholic and Protestant
   judges." In the "brevet" or patent which accompanied the
   edict, the king made a secret provision of 45,000 crowns
   annually from the royal treasury, which was understood to be
   for the support of Protestant ministers, although that purpose
   was concealed. In the second series of secret articles, the
   Protestants were authorized to retain possession for eight
   years of the "cautionary cities" which they held under former
   treaties, and provision was made for paying the garrisons.
   "Such are the main features of a law whose enactment marks an
   important epoch in the history of jurisprudence. … The Edict
   of Nantes was not at once presented to the parliaments; nor
   was it, indeed, until early in the following year that the
   Parliament of Paris formally entered the document upon its
   registers. … There were obstacles from many different
   quarters to be overcome. The clergy, the parliaments, the
   university, raised up difficulty after difficulty." But the
   masterful will of the king bore down all opposition, and the
   Edict was finally accepted as the law of the land. "On the
   17th of March [1599] Henry took steps for its complete
   execution throughout France, by the appointment of
   commissioners—a nobleman and a magistrate from each province
   —to attend to the work."

      _H. M. Baird,
      The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      5th series, chapter 36._

{1216}

   The full text of the Edict of Nantes will be found in the
   following named works:

      _C. Weiss,
      History of French Protestant Refugees,
      volume 2, appendix._

      _A. Maury,
      Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
      (J. Fontaine), appendix._

FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
   Invasion of Savoy.
   Acquisition of the Department of Aisne.
   Ten years of peace and prosperity.
   The great works of Henry IV.
   His foreign policy.
   His assassination.

   "One thing only the peace of Vervins left unsettled. In the
   preceding troubles a small Italian appanage, the Marquisate of
   Saluces, had been seized by Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy,
   and remained still in his possession. The right of France to
   it was not disputed, did not admit indeed of dispute; but the
   Duke was unwilling to part with what constituted one of the
   keys of Italy. He came to Paris in December 1599 to negotiate
   the affair in person," but employed his opportunity to
   intrigue with certain disaffected nobles, including the Duke
   of Biron, marshal of France and governor of Burgundy. "Wearied
   with delays, whose object was transparent, Henry at last had
   recourse to arms. Savoy was speedily overrun with French
   troops, and its chief strongholds taken. Spain was not
   prepared to back her ally, and the affair terminated by
   Henry's accepting in lieu of the Marquisate that part of Savoy
   which now constitutes the Department of Aisne in France."
   Biron, whom the King tried hard to save by repeated warnings
   which were not heeded, paid the penalty of his treasonable
   schemes at last by losing his head. "The ten years from 1600
   to 1610 were years of tranquillity, and gave to Henry the
   opportunity he had so ardently longed for of restoring and
   regenerating France." He applied his energies and his active
   mind to the reorganization of the disordered finances of the
   kingdom, to the improvement of agriculture, to the
   multiplication of industries, to the extending of commerce. He
   gave the first impulse to silk culture and silk manufacture in
   France; he founded the great Gobelin manufactory of tapestry
   at Paris; he built roads and bridges, and encouraged canal
   projects; he began the creation of a navy; he promoted the
   colonization of Canada. "It was, however, in the domain of
   foreign politics that Henry exhibited the acuteness and
   comprehensiveness of his genius, and his marvellous powers of
   contrivance, combination, execution. … The great political
   project, to the maturing of which Henry IV. devoted his
   untiring energies for the last years of his life, was the
   bringing of the … half of Europe into close political
   alliance, and arming it against the house of Austria, and
   striking when the fit time came, such a blow at the ambition
   and intolerance of that house that it might never be able to
   recover. After innumerable negotiations … he had succeeded
   in forming a coalition of twenty separate States, embracing
   England, the United Provinces, Denmark, Sweden, Northern
   Germany, Switzerland. At last the time for action came. The
   Duke of Cleves died, 25th March 1609. The succession was
   disputed. One of the claimants of the Dukedom was supported by
   the Emperor, another by the Protestant Princes of Germany [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618]. The contest about a small German
   Duchy presented the opportunity for bringing into action that
   alliance which Henry had planned and perfected. In the great
   military movements that were projected he was himself to take
   the lead. Four French armies, numbering 100,000, were to be
   launched against the great enemy of European liberty. One of
   these Henry was to command; even our young Prince of Wales was
   to bring 6,000 English with him, and make his first essay in arms
   under the French King. By the end of April, 1610, 35,000 men
   and 50 pieces of cannon had assembled at Chalons. The 20th May
   was fixed as the day on which Henry was to place himself at
   its head." But on the 16th of May (1610) he was struck down by
   the hand of an assassin (François Ravaillac), and the whole
   combination fell to pieces.

      _W. Hanna,
      The Wars of the Huguenots,
      chapter 8._

   "The Emperor, the King of Spain, the Queen of France, the Duke
   d'Epernon, the Jesuits, were all in turn suspected of having
   instigated the crime, because they all profited by it; but the
   assassin declared that he had no accomplices. … He believed
   that the King was at heart a Huguenot, and thought that in
   ridding France of this monarch he was rendering a great
   service to his country."

      _A. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, page 450._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. W. Freer,
      The Last Decade of a Glorious Reign._

      _Duke of Sully,
      Memoirs,
      volumes 2-5._

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 5, chapter 7-8, and volume 6._

FRANCE: A. D. 1603-1605.
   First settlements in Acadia.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605;
      and 1606-1608.

FRANCE: A. D. 1605-1616.
   Champlain's explorations and settlements in the Valley of the
   St. Lawrence.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616; 1616-1628.

FRANCE: A. D. 1610.
   Accession of King Louis XIII.

FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
   The regency of Marie de Medicis.
   The reign of favorites and the riot of factions.
   Distractions of the kingdom.
   The rise of Richelieu.

   "After the death of Henry IV. it was seen how much the power,
   credit, manners, and spirit of a nation frequently depend upon
   a single man. This prince had by a vigorous, yet gentle
   administration, kept all orders of the state in union, lulled
   all factions to sleep, maintained peace between the two
   religions, and kept his people in plenty. He held the balance
   of Europe in his hands by his alliance, his riches, and his
   arms. All these advantages were lost in the very first year of
   the regency of his widow, Mary of Medicis [whom Henry had
   married in 1600, the pope granting a divorce from his first
   wife, Margaret of Valois]. … Mary of Medicis … appointed
   regent [during the minority of her son, Louis XIII.], though
   not mistress of the kingdom, lavished in making of creatures
   all that Henry the Great had amassed to render his nation
   powerful. The army he had raised to carry the war into Germany
   was disbanded, the princes he had taken under his protection
   were abandoned. Charles Emanuel, duke of Savoy, the new ally
   of Henry IV., was obliged to ask pardon of Philip III. of
   Spain for having entered into a treaty with the French king,
   and sent his son to Madrid to implore the mercy of the Spanish
   court, and to humble himself as a subject in his father's name.
{1217}
   The princes of Germany, whom Henry had protected with an army
   of 40,000 men, now found themselves almost without assistance.
   The state lost all its credit abroad, and was distracted at
   home. The princes of the blood and the great nobles filled
   France with factions, as in the times of Francis II., Charles
   IX. and Henry III., and as afterwards, during the minority of
   Lewis XIV. At length [1614] an assembly of the general estates
   was called at Paris, the last that was held in France [prior
   to the States General which assembled on the eve of the
   Revolution of 1789]. … The result of this assembly was the
   laying open all the grievances of the kingdom, without being
   able to redress one. France remained in confusion, and
   governed by one Concini, a Florentine, who rose to be marechal
   of France without ever having drawn a sword, and prime
   minister without knowing anything of the laws. It was
   sufficient that he was a foreigner for the princes to be
   displeased with him. Mary of Medicis was in a very unhappy
   situation, for she could not share her authority with the
   prince of Condé, chief of the malcontents, without being
   deprived of it altogether; nor trust it in the hands of
   Concini, without displeasing the whole kingdom. Henry prince
   of Condé, father of the great Condé, and son to him who had
   gained the battle of Coutras in conjunction with Henry IV.,
   put himself at the head of a party, and took up arms. The
   court made a dissembled peace with him; and afterwards clapt
   him up in the Bastile. This had been the fate of his father
   and grandfather, and was afterwards that of his son. His
   confinement encreased the number of the male contents. The
   Guises, who had formerly been implacable enemies to the Condé
   family, now joined with them. The duke of Vendome, son to
   Henry IV., the duke of Nevers, of the house of Gonzaga, the
   marechal de Bouillon, and all the rest of the male contents,
   fortified themselves in the provinces, protesting that they
   continued true to their king, and made war only against the
   prime minister. Concini, marechal d'Anere, secure of the queen
   regent's protection, braved them all. He raised 7,000 men at
   his own expense, to support the royal authority. … A young
   man of whom he had not the least apprehension, and who was a
   stranger like himself, caused his ruin, and all the
   misfortunes of Mary of Medicis. Charles Albert of Luines, born
   in the county of Avignon, had, with his two brothers, been
   taken into the number of gentlemen in ordinary to the king,
   and the companions of his education. He had insinuated himself
   into the good graces and confidence of the young monarch, by his
   dexterity in bird-catching. It was never supposed that these
   childish amusements would end in a bloody revolution. The
   marechal d'Ancre had given him the government of Amboise,
   thinking by that to make him his creature; but this young man
   conceived the design of murdering his benefactor, banishing
   the queen, and governing himself; all which he accomplished
   without meeting with any obstacle. He soon found means of
   persuading the king that he was capable of reigning alone,
   though he was not then quite 17 years old, and told him that
   the queen-mother and Concini kept him in confinement. The
   young king, to whom in his childhood they had given the name
   of Just, consented to the murder of his prime minister; the
   marquis of Vitri, captain of the king's guards, du Hallier his
   brother, Persan, and others, were sent to dispatch him, who,
   finding him in the court of the Louvre, shot him dead with
   their pistols [April 24, 1617]: upon this they cried out,
   'Vive le roi', as if they had gained a battle, and Lewis
   XIII., appearing at a window, cried out, 'Now I am king.' The
   queen-mother had her guards taken from her, and was confined
   to her own apartment, and afterwards banished to Blois. The
   place of marechal of France, held by Concini, was given to the
   marquis of Vitri, his murderer." Concini's wife, Eleanor
   Galigai, was tried on a charge of sorcery and burned, "and the
   king's favourite, Luines, had the confiscated estates. This
   unfortunate Galigai was the first promoter of cardinal
   Richelieu's fortune; while he was yet very young, and called
   the abbot of Chillon, she procured him the bishopric of Luçon,
   and at length got him made secretary of state in 1616. He was
   involved in the disgrace of his protectors, and … was now
   banished … to a little priory at the farther end of Anjou.
   … The duke of Epernon, who had caused the queen to be
   declared regent, went to the castle of Blois [February 22,
   1619], whither she had been banished, and carried her to his
   estate in Angoulême, like a sovereign who rescues his ally.
   This was manifestly an act of high treason; but a crime that
   was approved by the whole kingdom." The king presently "sought
   an opportunity of reconciliation with his mother, and entered
   into a treaty with the duke of Epernon, as between prince and
   prince. … But the treaty of reconciliation was hardly signed
   when it was broken again; this was the true spirit of the
   times. New parties took up arms in favour of the queen, and
   always to oppose the duke of Luines, as before it had been to
   oppose the marechal d'Ancre, but never against the king. Every
   favourite at that time drew after him a civil war. Lewis and
   his mother in fact made war upon each other. Mary was in Anjou
   at the head of a small army against her son; they engaged each
   other on the bridge of Cé, and the kingdom was on the point of
   ruin. This confusion made the fortune of the famous Richelieu.
   He was comptroller of the queen-mother's household, and had
   supplanted all that princess's confidants, as he afterwards
   did all the king's ministers. His pliable temper and bold
   disposition must necessarily have acquired for him the first
   rank everywhere, or have proved his ruin. He brought about the
   accommodation between the mother and son; and a nomination to
   the purple, which the queen asked of the king for him, was the
   reward of his services. The duke of Epernon was the first to
   lay down arms without making any demands, whilst the rest made
   the king pay them for having taken up arms against him. The
   queen-mother and the king her son had an interview at Brisac,
   where they embraced with a flood of tears, only to quarrel
   again more violently than ever. The weakness, intrigues, and
   divisions of the court spread anarchy through the kingdom. All
   the internal defects with which the state had for a long time
   been attacked were now encreased, and those which Henry IV.
   had removed were revived anew."

      _Voltaire,
      Ancient and Modern History,
      chapter 145
      (works translated by Smollett, volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _S. Menzies,
      Royal Favourites,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

{1218}

FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Renewed jealousy of the Huguenots.
   Their formidable organization and its political pretensions.
   Restoration of Catholicism in Navarre and Béarn.
   Their incorporation with France.
   The Huguenot revolt.
   Treaty of Montpelier.

   "The Huguenot question had become a very serious one, and the
   bigotry of some of the Catholics found its opportunity in the
   insubordination of many of the Protestants. The Huguenots had
   undoubtedly many minor causes for discontent. … But on the
   whole the government and the majority of the people were
   willing to carry out in good faith the provisions of the edict
   of Nantes. The Protestants, within the limits there laid down,
   could have worshipped after their own conscience, free from
   persecution and subject to little molestation. It was,
   perhaps, all that could be expected in a country where the
   mass of the population were Catholic, and where religious
   fanaticism had recently supported the League and fostered the
   wars of religion. But the Protestant party seem to have
   desired a separate political power, which almost justifies the
   charge made against them, that they sought to establish a
   state within a state, or even to form a separate republic.
   Their territorial position afforded a certain facility for
   such endeavors. In the northern provinces their numbers were
   insignificant. They were found chiefly in the southwestern
   provinces—Poitou, Saintonge, Guienne, Provence, and
   Languedoc,—while in Béarn and Navarre they constituted the
   great majority of the population, and they held for their
   protection a large number of strongly fortified cities. …
   Though there is nothing to show that a plan for a separate
   republic was seriously considered, the Huguenots had adopted
   an organization which naturally excited the jealousy and
   ill-will of the general government. They had long maintained a
   system of provincial and general synods for the regulation of
   their faith and discipline. … The assembly which met at
   Saumur immediately after Henry's death, had carried still
   further the organization of the members of their faith. From
   consistories composed of the pastors and certain of the laity,
   delegates were chosen who formed local consistories. These
   again chose delegates who met in provincial synods, and from
   them delegates were sent to the national synod, or general
   assembly of the church. Here not only matters of faith, but of
   state, were regulated, and the general assembly finally
   assumed to declare war, levy taxes, choose generals, and act
   both as a convocation and a parliament. The assembly of Saumur
   added a system of division into eight great circles, covering
   the territory where the Protestants were sufficiently numerous
   to be important. All but two of these were south of the Loire.
   They were subsequently organized as military departments, each
   under the command of some great nobleman. … The Huguenots
   had also shown a willingness to assist those who were in arms
   against the state, had joined Condé, and contemplated a union
   with Mary de Medici in the brief insurrection of 1620. A
   question had now arisen which was regarded by the majority of
   the party as one of vital importance. The edict of Nantes,
   which granted privileges to the Huguenots, had granted also to
   the Catholics the right to the public profession of their
   religion in all parts of France. This had formerly been
   prohibited in Navarre and Béarn, and the population of those
   provinces had become very largely Protestant. The Catholic
   clergy had long petitioned the king to enforce the rights
   which they claimed the edict gave them in Béarn, and to compel
   also a restitution of some portion of the property, formerly
   held by their church, which had been taken by Jeanne d'Albret,
   and the revenues of which the Huguenot clergy still assumed to
   appropriate entirely to themselves. On July 25, 1617, Louis
   finally issued an edict directing the free exercise of the
   Catholic worship in Béarn and the restitution to the clergy of
   the property that had been taken from them. The edict met with
   bitter opposition in Béarn and from all the Huguenot party.
   The Protestants were as unwilling to allow the rites of the
   Catholic Church in a province which they controlled, as the
   Catholics to suffer a Huguenot conventicle within the walls of
   Paris. The persecutions which the Huguenots suffered
   distressed them less than the toleration which they were
   obliged to grant. … In the wars of religion the Huguenots
   had been controlled, not always wisely or unselfishly, by the
   nobles who had espoused their faith, but these were slowly
   drifting back to Catholicism. … The Condés were already
   Catholics. Lesdiguières was only waiting till the bribe for
   his conversion should be sufficiently glittering. [He was
   received into the Church and was made Constable of France in
   July, 1622.] Bouillon's religion was but a catch-weight in his
   political intrigues. The grandson of Coligni was soon to
   receive a marshal's baton for consenting to a peace which was
   disastrous to his party. Sully, Rohan, Soubise, and La Force
   still remained; but La Force's zeal moderated when he also was
   made a marshal, and one hundred years later Rohans and the
   descendants of Sully wore cardinal's hats. The party, slowly
   deserted by the great nobles, came more under the leadership
   of the clergy … and under their guidance the party now
   assumed a political activity which brought on the siege of La
   Rochelle and which made possible the revocation of the edict
   of Nantes. Béarn was not only strongly Protestant, but it
   claimed, with Navarre, to form no part of France, and to be
   governed only by its own laws. Its States met and declared
   their local rights were violated by the king's edict; the
   Parliament of Pau refused to register it, and it was not
   enforced in the province. … The disturbances caused by Mary
   de Medici had delayed any steps for the enforcement of the
   edict, but these troubles were ended by the peace of
   Ponts-de-Cé in 1620. … In October, 1620, Louis led his army
   in Béarn, removed various Huguenot officials, and
   reëstablished the Catholic clergy. … On October 20th, an
   edict was issued by which Navarre and Béarn were declared to
   be united to France, and a parliament was established for the
   two provinces on the same model as the other parliaments of
   the kingdom. … A general assembly of Protestants,
   sympathizing with their brethren of these provinces, was
   called for November 26, 1620, at La Rochelle. The king
   declared those guilty of high treason who should join in that
   meeting. … The meeting was held in defiance of the
   prohibition, and it was there resolved to take up arms. …
   The assembly proceeded in all respects like the legislative
   body of a separate state.
{1219}
   The king prepared for the war with vigor. … He now led his
   forces into southern France, and after some minor engagements
   he laid siege to Montauban. A three months' siege resulted
   disastrously; the campaign closed, and the king returned to
   Paris. The encouragement that the Huguenots drew from this
   success proved very brief. The king's armies proceeded again
   into the south of France in 1622, and met only an irregular
   and inefficient opposition. … Chatillon and La Force each
   made a separate peace, and each was rewarded by the baton of
   marshal from the king and by charges of treachery from his
   associates. … The siege of Montpelier led to the peace
   called by that name, but on terms that were unfavorable to the
   Huguenots. They abandoned all the fortified cities which they
   had held for their security except La Rochelle and Montauban;
   no assemblies could meet without permission of the king,
   except the local synods for ecclesiastical matters alone, and
   the interests of Béarn and Navarre were abandoned. In return
   the edict of Nantes was again confirmed, and their religious
   privileges left undisturbed. Rohan accepted 800,000 livres for
   his expenses and governments, and the king agreed that the
   Fort of St. Louis, which had been built to overawe the
   turbulence of La Rochelle, should be dismantled. La Rochelle,
   the great Huguenot stronghold, continued hostilities for some
   time longer, but at last it made terms. The party was fast
   losing its power and its overthrow could be easily foretold.
   La Rochelle was now the only place capable of making a
   formidable resistance. … In the meantime the career of
   Luines reached its end." He had taken the great office of
   Constable to himself, incurring much ridicule thereby. "The
   exposures of the campaign and its disasters had worn upon him;
   a fever attacked him at the little town of Monheur, and on
   December 14, 1621, he died."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin, with a Review of the
      Administration of Richelieu,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. S. Browning,
      History of the Huguenots,
      chapters 54-56._

FRANCE: A. D. 1621.
   Claims in North America conflicting with England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
   Richelieu in power.
   His combinations against the Austro-Spanish ascendancy.
   The Valtelline War.
   Huguenots again in revolt.
   The second Treaty of Montpelier.
   Treaty of Monzon with Spain.

   "The King was once more without a guide, without a favourite,
   but his fate was upon him. A few months more of uncertain
   drifting and he will fall into the hands of the greatest
   politician France has ever seen, Cardinal Richelieu; under his
   hand the King will be effaced, his cold disposition and narrow
   intelligence will accept and be convinced by the grandeur of
   his master's views; convinced, he will obey, and we shall
   enter on the period in which the disruptive forces in France
   will be coerced, and the elements of freedom and
   constitutional life stamped down; while patriotism, and a firm
   belief in the destinies of the nation will be fostered and
   grow strong; France will assert her high place in Europe.
   Richelieu, who had already in 1622 received the Cardinal's
   hat, entered the King's Council on the
   29th of April, 1624. …

      [Transcriber's note: The date printed is "19/29th of
      April". Wikipedia gives the date as "appointed to the royal
      council of ministers on 29 April 1624, (Lodge & Ketcham,
      1903, p. 85.)".]

   La Vieuville, under whose patronage he had been brought
   forward, welcomed him into the Cabinet. … But La Vieuville
   was not fitted by nature for the chief place; he was rash,
   violent, unpopular and corrupt. He soon had to give place to
   Richelieu, henceforth the virtual head of the Council. La
   Vieuville, thus supplanted, had been the first to reverse the
   ruinous Spanish policy of the Court; … he had promised help
   to the Dutch, to Mansfield, to the Elector Frederick; in a
   word, his policy had been the forecast of that of the
   Cardinal, who owed his rise to him, and now stepped nimbly
   over his head into his place. England had declared war on
   Spain: France joined England in renewing the old offensive and
   defensive alliance with the Dutch, England promising men and
   France money. … The Austro-Spanish power had greatly
   increased during these years: its successes had enabled it to
   knit together all the provinces which owed it allegiance. The
   Palatinate and the Lower Rhine secured their connexion with
   the Spanish Netherlands, as we may now begin to call them, and
   threatened the very existence of the Dutch: the Valtelline
   forts [commanding the valley east of Lake Como, from which one
   pass communicates with the Engadine and the Grisons, and
   another with the Tyrol] … were the roadway between the
   Spanish power at Milan and the Austrians on the Danube and in
   the Tyrol. Richelieu now resolved to attack this threatening
   combination at both critical points. In the North he did not
   propose to interfere in arms: there others should fight, and
   France support them with quiet subsidies and good will. He
   pressed matters on with the English, the Dutch, the North
   German Princes; he negotiated with Maximilian of Bavaria and
   the League, hoping to keep the South German Princes clear of
   the Imperial policy. … The French ambassador at Copenhagen,
   well supported by the English envoy, Sir Robert Anstruther, at
   this time organised a Northern League, headed by Christian IV.
   of Denmark [see GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626]. … The Lutheran
   Princes, alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs, were
   beginning to think that they had made a mistake in leaving the
   Palatinate to be conquered; and turned a more willing ear to
   the French and English proposals for this Northern League. …
   By 1625 the Cardinal's plans in the North seemed to be going
   well: the North-Saxon Princes, though with little heart and
   much difference of opinion, specially in the cities, had
   accepted Christian IV. as their leader; and the progress of
   the Spaniards in the United Provinces was checked. In the
   other point to which Richelieu's attention was directed,
   matters had gone still better. [The inhabitants of the
   Valtelline were mostly Catholics and Italians. They had long
   been subject to the Protestant Grisons or Graubunden. In 1620
   they had risen in revolt, massacred the Protestants of the
   valley, and formed an independent republic, supported by the
   Spaniards and Austrians. Spanish and German troops occupied
   the four strong Valtelline forts, and controlled the important
   passes above referred to. The Grisons resisted and secured the
   support of Savoy, Venice and finally France. In 1623 an
   agreement had been reached, to hand over the Valtelline forts
   to the pope, in deposit, until some terms could be settled.
   But in 1625 this agreement had not been carried out, and
   Richelieu took the affair in hand.] …
{1220}
   Richelieu, never attacking in full face if he could carry his
   point by a side-attack, allied himself with Charles Emmanuel,
   Duke of Savoy, and with Venice; he easily persuaded the
   Savoyard to threaten Genoa, the port by which Spain could
   penetrate into Italy, and her financial mainstay. Meanwhile,
   the Marquis of Cœuvres had been sent to Switzerland, and, late
   in 1624, had persuaded the Cantons to arm for the recovery of
   the Valtelline; then, heading a small army of Swiss and
   French, he had marched into the Grisons. The upper districts
   held by the Austrians revolted: the three Leagues declared
   their freedom, the Austrian troops hastily withdrew. Cœuvres
   at once secured the Tyrolese passes, and descending from the
   Engadine by Poschiavo, entered the Valtelline: in a few weeks
   the Papal and Spanish troops were swept out of the whole
   valley, abandoning all their forts, though the French general
   had no siege-artillery with which to reduce them. … Early in
   1625, the Valtelline being secured to the Grisons and French,
   the aged Lesdiguières was sent forward to undertake the rest
   of the plan, the reduction of Genoa. But just as things were
   going well for the party in Europe opposed to Spain and
   Austria, an unlucky outburst of Huguenot dissatisfaction
   marred all: Soubise in the heart of winter had seized the Isle
   of Ré, and had captured in Blavet harbour on the Breton coast
   six royal ships; he failed however to take the castle which
   commanded the place, and was himself blockaded, escaping only
   with heavy loss. Thence he seized the Isle of Oléron: in May
   the Huguenots were in revolt in Upper Languedoc, Querci, and
   the Cevennes, led by Rohan on land, and Soubise by sea. Their
   rash outbreak [provoked by alleged breaches of the treaty of
   Montpelier, especially in the failure of the king to demolish
   Fort Louis at La Rochelle] came opportunely to the aid of the
   distressed Austrian power, their true enemy. Although very
   many of the Huguenots stood aloof and refused to embarrass the
   government, still enough revolted to cause great uneasiness.
   The war in the Ligurian mountains was not pushed on with
   vigour; for Richelieu could not now think of carrying out the
   large plans which, by his own account, he had already formed,
   for the erection of an independent Italy. … He was for the
   present content to menace Genoa, without a serious siege. At
   this time James I. of England died, and the marriage of the
   young king [Charles I.] with Henriette Marie was pushed on. In
   May Buckingham went to Paris to carry her over to England; he
   tried in vain to persuade Richelieu to couple the Palatinate
   with the Valtelline question. … After this the tide of
   affairs turned sharply against the Cardinal; while Tilly with
   the troops of the Catholic League, and Wallenstein, the new
   general of the Emperor, who begins at this moment his brief
   and marvellous career, easily kept in check the Danes and
   their halfhearted German allies, Lesdiguières and the Duke of
   Savoy were forced by the Austrians and Spaniards to give up
   all thoughts of success in the Genoese country, and the French
   were even threatened in Piedmont and the Valtelline. But the old
   Constable of France was worthy of his ancient fame; he drove
   the Duke of Feria out of Piedmont, and in the Valtelline the
   Spaniards only succeeded in securing the fortress of Riva.
   Richelieu felt that the war was more than France could bear,
   harassed as she was within and without. … He was determined
   to free his hands in Italy, to leave the war to work itself
   out in Germany, and to bring the Huguenots to reason. … The
   joint fleets of, Soubise and of La Rochelle had driven back
   the king's ships, and had taken Ré and Oléron; but in their
   attempt to force an entrance into the harbour of La Rochelle
   they were defeated by Montmorency, who now commanded the royal
   fleet: the islands were retaken, and the Huguenots sued for
   peace. It must be remembered that the bulk of them did not
   agree with the Rochellois, and were quiet through this time.
   Early in 1626 the treaty of Montpellier granted a hollow peace
   on tolerable terms to the reformed churches; and soon after …
   peace was signed with Spain at Monzon in May, 1626. All was
   done so silently that the interested parties, Savoy, the
   Venetians, the Grisons, knew nothing of it till all was
   settled: on Buckingham … the news fell like a thunderclap.
   … The Valtelline remained under the Grisons, with guarantees
   for Catholic worship; France and Spain would jointly see that
   the inhabitants of the valleys were fairly treated: the Pope
   was entrusted with the duty of razing the fortresses: Genoa
   and Savoy were ordered to make peace. It was a treacherous
   affair; and Richelieu comes out of it but ill. We are bound,
   however, to remember … the desperate straits into which the
   Cardinal had come. … He did but fall back in order to make
   that wonderful leap forward which changed the whole face of
   European politics."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapters 3 and 4 (volumes 2-3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapters 40-41._

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin [and Richelieu],
      volume 1, chapters 4-5._

      _G. Masson,
      Richelieu,
      chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628:
   War with England, and Huguenot revolt.
   Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
   His great example of magnanimity and toleration.
   The end of political Huguenotism.

   "Richelieu now found himself dragged into a war against his
   will, and that with the very power with which, for the
   furtherance of his other designs, he most desired to continue
   at peace. James I. of England had been as unable to live
   except under the dominion of a favourite as Louis. Charles …
   had the same unfortunate weakness; and the Duke of Buckingham,
   who had long been paramount at the court of the father,
   retained the same mischievous influence at that of the son.
   … In passing through France in 1623 he [Buckingham] had been
   presented to the queen [Anne of Austria], and had presumed to
   address her in the language of love. When sent to Paris to
   conduct the young Princess Henrietta Maria to England, he had
   repeated this conduct. … There had been some little
   unpleasantness between the two Courts shortly after the
   marriage … owing to the imprudence of Henrietta," who
   paraded her Popery too much in the eyes of Protestant England;
   and there was talk of a renewed treaty, which Buckingham
   sought to make the pretext for another visit to Paris. But his
   motives were understood; Louis "refused to receive him as an
   ambassador, and Buckingham, full of disappointed rage,
   instigated the Duke de Soubise, who was still in London, to
   rouse the Huguenots to a fresh outbreak, promising to send an
   English fleet to Rochelle to assist them. Rochelle was at this
   time the general head-quarters not only of the Huguenots, but
   of all those who, on any account, were discontented with the
   Government. …
{1221}
   Soubise … embraced the duke's offer with eagerness; and in
   July, 1627, without any previous declaration of war, an
   English fleet, with 16,000 men on board, suddenly appeared off
   Rochelle, and prepared to attack the Isle of Rhé. The
   Rochellois were very unwilling to co-operate with it"; but
   they were persuaded, "against their judgment, to connect
   themselves with what each, individually, felt to be a
   desperate enterprise; and Richelieu, to whom the prospect thus
   afforded him of having a fair pretence for crushing the
   Huguenot party made amends for the disappointment of being
   wantonly dragged into a war with England, gladly received the
   intelligence that Rochelle was in rebellion. At first the Duke
   d'Anjou was sent down to command the army, Louis being
   detained in Paris by illness; but by October he had recovered,
   his fondness for military operations revived, and he hastened
   to the scene of action, accompanied by Richelieu, whose early
   education had been of a military kind. … He at once threw
   across reinforcements into the Isle of Rhé, where M. Thoiras
   was holding out a fort known as St. Martin with great
   resolution, though it was unfinished and incompletely armed.
   In the beginning of November, Buckingham raised the siege, and
   returned home, leaving guns, standards and prisoners behind
   him; and Richelieu, anticipating a renewal of the attack the
   next year … undertook a work designed at once to baffle
   foreign enemies and to place the city at his mercy. Along the
   whole front of the port he began to construct a vast wall …
   having only one small opening in the centre which was
   commanded by small batteries. The work was commenced in
   November, 1627; and, in spite of a rather severe winter, was
   carried on with such ceaseless diligence, under the
   superintending eye of the cardinal himself, that before the
   return of spring a great portion of it was completed. …
   When, in May, 1628, the British fleet, under Lord Denbigh, the
   brother-in-law of Buckingham, returned to the attack, they
   found it unassailable, and returned without striking a blow."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

   "Richelieu … was his own engineer, general, admiral,
   prime-minister. While he urged on the army to work upon the
   dike, he organized a French navy, and in due time brought it
   around to that coast and anchored it so as to guard the dike
   and be guarded by it. Yet, daring as all this work was, it was
   but the smallest part of his work. Richelieu found that his
   officers were cheating his soldiers in their pay and
   disheartening them; in face of the enemy he had to reorganize
   the army and to create a new military system. … He found,
   also, as he afterward said, that he had to conquer not only
   the Kings of England and Spain, but also the King of France.
   At the most critical moment of the siege Louis deserted
   him,—went back to Paris,—allowed courtiers to fill him with
   suspicions. Not only Richelieu's place, but his life, was in
   danger, and he well knew it; yet he never left his dike and
   siege-works, but wrought on steadily until they were done; and
   then the King, of his own will, in very shame, broke away from
   his courtiers, and went back to his master. And now a Royal
   Herald summoned the people of La Rochelle to surrender. But
   they were not yet half conquered. Even when they had seen two
   English fleets, sent to aid them, driven back from Richelieu's
   dike, they still held out manfully. … They were reduced to
   feed on their horses,—then on bits of filthy
   shell-fish,—then on stewed leather. They died in multitudes.
   Guiton, the Mayor, kept a dagger on the city council-table to
   stab any man who should speak of surrender. … But at last
   even Guiton had to yield. After the siege had lasted more than
   a year, after 5,000 were found remaining out of 15,000, after
   a mother had been seen to feed her child with her own blood,
   the Cardinal's policy became too strong for him. The people
   yielded [October 27, 1628], and Richelieu entered the city as
   master. And now the victorious statesman showed a greatness of
   soul to which all the rest of his life was as nothing. … All
   Europe … looked for a retribution more terrible than any in
   history. Richelieu allowed nothing of the sort. He destroyed
   the old franchises of the city, for they were incompatible
   with that royal authority which he so earnestly strove to
   build. But this was all. He took no vengeance,—he allowed the
   Protestants to worship as before,—he took many of them into
   the public service,—and to Guiton he showed marks of
   respect. He stretched forth that strong arm of his over the
   city, and warded off all harm. … For his leniency Richelieu
   received the titles of Pope of the Protestants and Patriarch
   of the Atheists. But he had gained the first great object of
   his policy, and he would not abuse it: he had crushed the
   political power of the Huguenots forever."

      _A. D. White,
      The Statesmanship of Richelieu
      (Atlantic Monthly, May, 1862)._

   "Whatever the benefit to France of this great feat, the
   locality was permanently ruined. Two hundred and fifty years
   after the event the Poitevin peasant is fanatic and
   superstitious as the Bretons themselves. Catholic Rochelle is
   still to be seen, with almost one-third less inhabitants
   to-day than it had in 1627. The cardinal's dyke is still
   there, but the insects have seized on the city. A plague of
   white ants, imported from India, have fastened on its
   timbers."

      _R. Heath,
      The Reformation in France,
      volume 1, book 2, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603 to 1642,
      chapters 56, 59-60, and 65._

FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War with Spain, Savoy and the Empire over the succession to
   the duchy of Mantua.
   Successes of Richelieu.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

FRANCE: A. D. 1628.
   New France placed under the Company of the Hundred Associates.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.

FRANCE: A. D. 1628-1632.
   Loss and recovery of New France.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
   The Day of Dupes, and after.

   On the return of Richelieu and the king from their Italian
   expedition, in the beginning of August, 1630, "both the
   monarch and his minister had passed in safety through a whole
   tract infected with the plague; but, shortly after their
   arrival at Lyons, Louis XIII. fell ill, and in a few days his
   physicians pronounced his case hopeless. It was now that all
   the hatred which his power had caused to hide its head, rose
   up openly against Richelieu; and the two queens [Marie de
   Medicis, the queen-mother, and Anne of Austria, the king's
   wife], united only in their enmity towards the minister, never
   quitted the bedside of the king but to form and cement the
   party which was intended to work the cardinal's
   destruction as soon as the monarch should be no more. …
{1222}
   The bold and the rash joined the faction of the queens; and
   the prudent waited with wise doubt till they saw the result
   they hoped for. Happy was it for those who did conceal their
   feelings; for suddenly the internal abscess, which had nearly
   reduced the king to the tomb, broke, passed away, and in a
   very few days he appeared perfectly convalescent. Richelieu
   might now have triumphed securely; … but he acted more
   prudently. He remembered that the queen-mother, the great
   mover of the cabal against him, had formerly been his
   benefactress; and though probably his gratitude was of no very
   sensitive nature, yet he was wise enough to affect a virtue
   that he did not possess, and to suffer the offence to be given
   by her. … At Paris [after the return of the court] … the
   queen-mother herself, unable to restrain any longer the
   violent passions that struggled in her bosom, seemed resolved
   to keep no terms with the cardinal." At an interview with him,
   in the king's presence, "the queen forgot the dignity of her
   station and the softness of her sex, and, in language more fit
   for the markets than the court, called him rogue, and traitor,
   and perturber of the public peace; and, turning to the king,
   she endeavoured to persuade him that Richelieu wished to take
   the crown from his head, in order to place it on that of the
   count de Soissons. Had Richelieu been as sure of the king's
   firmness as he was of his regard, this would have been exactly
   the conduct which he could have desired the queen to hold; but
   he knew Louis to be weak and timid, and easily ruled by those
   who took a tone of authority towards him; and when at length
   he retired at the command of the monarch … he seems to have
   been so uncertain how the whole would end, that he ordered his
   papers and most valuable effects to be secured, and
   preparations to be made for immediate departure. All these
   proceedings had been watched by the courtiers: Richelieu had
   been seen to quit the queen's cabinet troubled and gloomy, his
   niece in tears; and, some time after, the king himself
   followed in a state of excessive agitation, and … left Paris
   for Versailles without seeing his minister. The whole court
   thought the rule of Richelieu at an end, and the saloons of
   the Luxembourg were crowded with eager nobles ready to worship
   the rising authority of the queen-mother." But the king, when he
   reached Versailles, sent this message to his minister: "'Tell
   the cardinal de Richelieu that he has a good master, and bid
   him come hither to me without delay.' Richelieu felt that the
   real power of France was still in his hands; and setting off
   for Versailles, he found Louis full of expressions of regard
   and confidence. Rumours every moment reached Versailles of the
   immense concourse that was flocking to pay court to the
   queen-mother: the king found himself nearly deserted, and all
   that Richelieu had said of her ambition was confirmed in the
   monarch's mind; while his natural good sense told him that a
   minister who depended solely upon him, and who under him
   exercised the greatest power in the realm, was not likely to
   wish his fall. … In the mean time, the news of these …
   events spread to Paris: the halls of the Luxembourg, which the
   day before had been crowded to suffocation, were instantly
   deserted; and the queen-mother found herself abandoned by all
   those fawning sycophants whose confidence and disappointment
   procured for the day of St. Martin, 1630, the title in French
   history of The Day of Dupes."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
      volume 2, pages 88-92._

   The ultimate outcome of The Day of Dupes was the flight of
   Marie de Medicis, who spent the remainder of her life in the
   Netherlands and in England; the trial and execution of Marshal
   de Marillac; the imprisonment or exile and disgrace of
   Bassompierre and other nobles; a senseless revolt, headed by
   Gaston, Duke of Orleans, the king's brother, which was crushed
   in one battle at Castlenaudari, September 1, 1632, and which
   brought the Duke de Montmorency to the block.

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      volume 1, chapters 7-8._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. W. Freer,
      Married Life of Anne of Austria,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History, 6th series,
      chapter 20._

      _Miss Pardoe,
      Life of Marie de Medicis,
      book 3, chapters 7-13 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
   Treaty and negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   Promotion of the Protestant Union.

      See GERMANY: A.D. 1631 (JANUARY);
      1631-1632; and 1632-1634.

FRANCE: A. D. 1632-1641.
   War in Lorraine.
   Occupation and possession of the duchy.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.

FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1638.
   Campaigns on the Flemish frontier.
   Invasion by the Spaniards.
   Paris in Peril.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1639.
   Active participation in the Thirty Years War.
   Treaties with the Germans, Swedes, and Dutch.
   Campaigns of Duke Bernhard in Lorraine, Alsace and
   Franche-Comté.
   The fruit gathered by Richelieu.
   Alsace secured.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1642.
   The war in northern Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

FRANCE: A. D. 1637-1642.
   The war in Spain.
   Revolt of Catalonia.
   Siege and capture of Perpignan.
   Conquest of Roussillon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640, and 1640-1642.

FRANCE: A. D. 1640-1645.
   Campaigns in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645, and 1643-1644.

FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
   The conspiracies of Count de Soissons and Cinq Mars.
   Extinction of the Principality of Sedan.

   "There were revolts in various quarters to resist [the yoke of
   Richelieu], but they were quelled with uniform success. Once,
   and once only, the fate of the Cardinal seemed finally sealed.
   The Count de Soissons, a prince of the blood, headed the
   discontented gentry in open war in 1641, and established the
   headquarters of revolt in the town of Sedan. The Empire and
   Spain came to his support with promises and money. Twelve
   thousand men were under his orders, all influenced with rage
   against Richelieu, and determined to deliver the king from his
   degrading tutelage. Richelieu was taken unprepared; but delay
   would have been ruin. He sent the Marshal Chatillon to the
   borders of Sedan, to watch the proceedings of the
   confederates, and requested the king to summon fresh troops
   and go down to the scene of war. While his obedient Majesty
   was busied in the commission, Chatillon advanced too far.
   Soissons assaulted him near the banks of the Meuse, at a place
   called Marfée, and gave him a total and irremediable
   overthrow. The cavalry on the royalist side retreated at an
   early part of the fight, and forced their way through the
   infantry, not without strong suspicions of collusion with
   their opponents."
{1223}
   Paris itself was in dismay. The King and Cardinal expected to
   hear every hour of the advance of the rebels; but no step was
   taken. It was found, when the hurry of battle was over, that
   Soissons was among the slain. The force of the expedition was
   in that one man; and the defeat was as useful to the Cardinal
   as a victory would have been. The malcontents had no leaders
   of sufficient rank and authority to keep the inferiors in
   check; for the scaffold had thinned the ranks of the great
   hereditary chiefs, and no man could take his first open move
   against the Court without imminent risk to his head. Great
   men, indeed, were rising into fame, but of a totally different
   character from their predecessors. Their minds were cast in a
   monarchical mould from their earliest years. … From this
   time subserviency to the king became a sign of noble birth.
   … Richelieu has the boast, if boast it can be called, of
   having crushed out the last spark of popular independence and
   patrician pride. … One more effort was made [1642] to shake
   off the trammels of the hated Cardinal. A conspiracy was
   entered into to deliver the land by the old Roman method of
   putting the tyrant to death; and the curious part of the
   design is, that it was formed almost in presence of the king.
   His favourite friend, young Cinq Mars, son of the Marshal
   d'Effiat, his brother Gaston of Orleans, and his kinsman the
   Duke de Bouillon, who were round his person at all hours of
   the day, were the chief agents of the perilous undertaking.
   Others, and with them de Thou, the son of the great French
   historian, entered into the plan, but wished the assassination
   to be left out. They would arrest and imprison him; but this
   was evidently not enough. While Richelieu lived, no man could
   be safe, though the Cardinal were in the deepest dungeon of
   the Bastile. Death, however, was busy with their victim,
   without their aid. He was sinking under some deep but
   partially-concealed illness when the threads of the plot came
   into his skilful hands. He made the last use of his strength
   and intelligence in unravelling [it] and punishing the rebels,
   as he called them, against the king's authority. The paltry
   and perfidious Gaston was as usual penitent and pardoned, but
   on Cinq Mars and de Thou the vengeance of the law and the
   Cardinal had its full force. The triumphant but failing
   minister reclined in a state barge upon the Rhone, towing his
   prisoners behind him to certain death. On their arrival at
   Lyons the process was short and fatal. The young men were
   executed together, and the account of their behaviour at the
   block is one of the most affecting narratives in the annals of
   France."

      _J. White,
      History of France,
      chapter 12._

   The Duke de Bouillon, implicated in both these
   conspiracies—that of the Count de Soissons and that of Cinq
   Mars—saved his life on the latter occasion by surrendering to
   the crown the sovereignty of Sedan, which belonged to him, and
   which had been the headquarters of the Soissons revolt. This
   small independent principality—the town and a little
   territory around it—had formerly been in the possession of
   the powerful and troublesome family of La Marck, the last
   heiress of whom brought it, together with the Duchy of
   Bouillon, into the family of La Tour d'Auvergne. The Prince
   and Duke who lost it was the second of that family who bore
   the titles. He was the elder brother of the great soldier,
   Turenne. The Principality of Sedan was extinguished from that
   time.

      _T. O. Cockayne,
      Life of Turenne._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robson,
      Life of Richelieu,
      chapters 11-12._

      _M. W. Freer,
      Married Life of Anne of Austria,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      _Miss Pardoe,
      Life of Marie de Medicis,
      book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
   The death of Richelieu and of Louis XIII.
   Regency of Anne of Austria.
   Cardinal Mazarin and the party of the Importants.
   The victory at Rocroi.

   Cardinal Richelieu died on the 4th of December, 1642. "He was
   dead, but his work survived him. On the very evening of the 3d
   of December, Louis XIII. called to his council Cardinal
   Mazarin [whom Richelieu had commended to him]. … Scarcely
   had the most powerful kings yielded up their last breath when
   their wishes had been at once forgotten: Cardinal Richelieu
   still governed in his grave." But now, after two and a half
   centuries, "the castle of Richelieu is well-nigh destroyed;
   his family, after falling into poverty, is extinct; the
   Palais-Cardinal [his splendid residence, which he built, and
   which he gave to the crown] has assumed the name of the
   Palais-Royal; and pure monarchy, the aim of all his efforts
   and the work of his whole life, has been swept away by the
   blast of revolution. Of the cardinal there remains nothing but
   the great memory of his power and of the services he rendered his
   country. … Richelieu had no conception of that noblest
   ambition on which a human soul can feed, that of governing a
   free country, but he was one of the greatest, the most
   effective, and the boldest, as well as the most prudent
   servants that France ever had." Louis XIII. survived his great
   minister less than half a year, dying May 14, 1643. He had
   never had confidence in Anne of Austria, his wife, and had
   provided, by a declaration which she had signed and sworn to,
   for a council (which included Mazarin) to control the queen's
   regency during the minority of their son, Louis XIV. But the
   queen contrived very soon to break from this obligation, and
   she made Cardinal Mazarin her one counsellor and supreme
   minister. "Continuing to humor all parties, and displaying
   foresight and prudence, the new minister was even now master.
   Louis XIII., without any personal liking, had been faithful to
   Richelieu to the death. With different feelings, Anne of Austria
   was to testify the same constancy towards Mazarin. A stroke of
   fortune came at the very first to strengthen the regent's
   position. Since the death of Cardinal Richelieu, the
   Spaniards, but recently overwhelmed at the close of 1642, had
   recovered courage and boldness; new counsels prevailed at the
   court of Philip IV., who had dismissed Olivarez; the House of
   Austria vigorously resumed the offensive; at the moment of
   Louis XIII.'s death, Don Francisco de Mello, governor of the
   Low Countries, had just invaded French territory by way of the
   Ardennes, and laid siege to Rocroi, on the 12th of May [1643].
   The French army was commanded by the young Duke of Enghien
   [afterwards known as the Great Condé], the prince of Condé's
   son, scarcely 22 years old; Louis XIII. had given him as his
   lieutenant and director the veteran Marshal de l'Hôpital; and
   the latter feared to give battle.
{1224}
   The Duke of Enghien, who 'was dying with impatience to enter
   the enemy's country, resolved to accomplish by address what he
   could not carry by authority. He opened his heart to Gassion
   alone. As he [Gassion, one of the boldest of Condé's officers]
   was a man who saw nothing but what was easy even in the most
   dangerous deeds, he had very soon brought matters to the point
   that the prince desired. Marshal de l'Hôpital found himself
   imperceptibly so near the Spaniards that it was impossible for
   him any longer to hinder an engagement.' … The army was in
   front of Rocroi, and out of the dangerous defile which led to
   the place, without any idea on the part of the marshal and the
   army that Louis XIII. was dead. The Duke of Enghien, who had
   received the news, had kept it secret. He had merely said in
   the tone of a master 'that he meant to fight, and would answer
   for the issue.'" The battle, which was fought May 19, 1643,
   resulted in the destruction, almost total, of the Spanish
   army. Of 18,000 men who formed its infantry, nearly 9,000 were
   killed and 7,000 were made prisoners. The whole of the Spanish
   artillery and 300 of their standards fell into the hands of
   the victors, who lost, according to their own reports, only
   2,000 men, killed and wounded. "'The prince was a born
   captain,' said Cardinal de Retz. And all France said so with
   him on hearing of the victory of Rocroi. The delight was all
   the keener in the queen's circle, because the house of Condé
   openly supported Cardinal Mazarin, bitterly attacked as he was
   by the Importants [a court faction or party so called, which
   was made up of 'those meddlers of the court at whose head
   marched the Duke of Beaufort, all puffed up with the
   confidence lately shown to him by her Majesty,' and all
   expecting to count importantly among the queen's favorites],
   who accused him of reviving the tyranny of Richelieu. … And,
   indeed, on pretext offered by a feminine quarrel [August,
   1643] between the young Duchess of Longueville, daughter of
   the prince of Condé, and the Duchess of Montbazon, the Duke of
   Beaufort and some of his friends resolved to assassinate the
   cardinal. The attempt was a failure, but the Duke of Beaufort,
   who was arrested on the 2d of September, was taken to the
   castle of Vincennes. Madame de Chevreuse, recently returned
   [after being exiled by Richelieu] to court, where she would
   fain have exacted from the queen the reward for her services
   and her past sufferings, was sent into exile, as well as the
   Duke of Vendôme. Madame d'Hautefort, but lately summoned by
   Anne of Austria to be near her, was soon involved in the same
   disgrace. … The party of the Importants was dead, and the
   power of Cardinal Mazarin seemed to be firmly established. 'It
   was not the thing just then for any decent man to be on bad
   terms with the court,' says Cardinal de Retz."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapters 41-43._

   "Cardinal Richelieu was not so much a minister, in the precise
   sense of the word, as a person invested with the whole power
   of the crown. His preponderating influence in the council
   suspended the exercise of the hereditary power, without which
   the monarchy must cease to exist; and it seems as if that may
   have taken place in order that the social progress, violently
   arrested since the last reign, might resume its course at the
   instigation of a kind of dictator, whose spirit was free from
   the influences which the interest of family and dynasty
   exercises over the characters of kings. By a strange
   concurrence of circumstances, it happened that the weak
   prince, whose destiny it was to lend his name to the reign of
   the great minister, had in his character, his instincts, his
   good or bad qualities, all that could supply the requirements
   of such a post. Louis XIII., who had a mind without energy but
   not without intelligence, could not live without a master; after
   having possessed and lost many, he took and kept the one, who
   he found was capable of conducting France to the point, which
   he himself had a faint glimpse of, and to which he vaguely
   aspired in his melancholy reveries. … In his attempts at
   innovation, Richelieu, as simple minister, much surpassed the
   great king who had preceded him, in boldness. He undertook to
   accelerate the movement towards civil unity and equality so
   much, and to carry it so far, that hereafter it should be
   impossible to recede. … The work of Louis XI. had been
   nearly lost in the depth of the troubles of the sixteenth
   century; and that of Henry IV. was compromised by fifteen
   years of disorder and weakness. To save it from perishing,
   three things were necessary: that the high nobility should be
   constrained to obedience to the king and to the law; that
   Protestantism should cease to be an armed party in the State;
   that France should be able to choose her allies freely in
   behalf of her own interest and in that of European
   independence. On this triple object the king-minister employed
   his powerful intellect, his indefatigable activity, ardent
   passions, and an heroic strength of mind. His daily life was a
   desperate struggle against the nobles, the royal family, the
   supreme courts, against all that existed of high institutions,
   and corporations established in the country. For the purpose
   of reducing all to the same level of submission and order, he
   raised the royal power above the ties of family and the tie of
   precedent; he isolated it in its sphere as a pure idea, the
   living idea of the public safety and the national interest.
   … He was as destitute of mercy as he was of fear, and
   trampled under foot the respect due to judicial forms and
   usages. He had sentences of death pronounced by commissioners
   of his own selection: at the very foot of the throne he struck
   the enemies of the public interest, and at the same time of
   his own fortune, and confounded his personal hatreds with the
   vengeance of the State. No one can say whether or not there
   was deceit in that assurance of conscience which he manifested
   in his last moments: God alone could look into the depth of
   his mind. We who have gathered the fruit of his labours and of
   his patriotic devotion at a distance of time—we can only bow,
   before that man of revolution, by whom the ways which led to
   our present state of society were prepared. But something sad
   is still attached to his glory: he sacrificed everything to
   the success of his undertaking; he stifled within himself and
   crushed down in some noble spirits the eternal principles of
   morality and humanity. When we look at the great things which
   he achieved, we admire him with gratitude; we would, but we
   cannot, love his character."

      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État
      or Third Estate in France, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _V. Cousin,
      Secret History of the French Court under
      Richelieu and Mazarin,
      chapters 3-4._

      _V. Cousin,
      The Youth of Madame de Longueville._

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
      chapter 1._

      _Cardinal de Retz,
      Memoirs,
      books 1-2._

      _M'lle de Montpensier,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 2-3._

{1225}

FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
   Accession of Louis XIV.

FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
   Enghien's (Condé's) campaign on the Moselle.
   Siege and capture of Thionville.

   "On the 20th of May … Enghien made his triumphal entry into
   Rocroy. He allowed his troops to repose for two days, and then
   it was towards Guise that he directed his steps. He soon heard
   that Don Francisco de Melo had taken shelter at Phillipeville,
   that he was trying to rally his cavalry, but that of all his
   infantry not above 2,000 men remained to him, and they
   disarmed and nearly naked. No army any longer protected
   Flanders, and the youthful courage of Enghien already
   meditated its conquest. But the Court, which had expected to
   sustain war in its own provinces, was not prepared to carry it
   into foreign countries. It became necessary to give up all
   idea of an invasion of Maritime Flanders and the siege of
   Dunkirk, with which Enghien had at first flattered himself.
   Then finding that the Spaniards had drawn off their troops
   from the fortifications on the Moselle, Enghien proposed to
   march thither, and take possession of them. … Although this
   project was very inferior to his first, its greatness
   surprised the Council of Ministers: they at first refused
   their consent, but the Duke insisted—and what could they
   refuse to the victor of Rocroy? Thionville was at that time
   considered to be one of the best fortresses in Europe. On
   arriving before its walls, after a seven days' march, Enghien
   … established his lines, erected bridges, raised redoubts,
   and opened a double line of trenches on the 25th of June. The
   French were several times repulsed, but always rallied; and
   everywhere the presence of Enghien either prevented or
   repaired the disorder. … The obstinate resistance of the
   garrison obliged the French to have recourse to mines, which,
   by assiduous labor, they pushed forward under the interior of
   the town. Then Enghien, wishing to spare bloodshed, sent a
   flag of truce to the governor, and allowed him a safe conduct
   to visit the state of the works. This visit convinced the
   Spaniards of the impossibility of defending themselves any
   longer. … They evacuated the town on the 22d of August.
   Thionville was then little more than a heap of ruins and
   ashes. … By this conquest Enghien soon became master of the
   whole course of the Moselle down to the gates of Trèves.
   Sierch alone ventured to resist him, but was reduced in 24
   hours. Then, disposing his army in autumn quarters, he set off
   for Paris."

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
      chapter 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1644-1646.
   Campaigns in Catalonia.
   The failures at Lerida.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

FRANCE: A. D. 1645-1648.
   Campaigns in Flanders.
   Capture of Dunkirk.
   Loss of the Dutch alliance.
   Conde's victory at Lens.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1634-1646; 1646-1648; 1647-1648.

FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1648.
   The last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
   Turenne and the Swedes in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1654.
   Hostility to the Pope.
   Siege of Orbitello.
   Attempts to take advantage of the insurrection in Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
   Conflict between Court and Parliament.
   The question of the Paulette.
   Events leading to the First Fronde.

   "The war was conducted with alternate success and failure, but
   with an unintermitted waste of the public revenue; and while
   Guébriant, Turenne, and Condé were maintaining the military
   renown of France, D'Emery, the superintendent of finance, was
   struggling with the far severer difficulty of raising her ways
   and means to the level of her expenditure. The internal
   history of the first five years of the regency is
   thenceforward a record of the contest between the court and
   the Parliament of Paris; between the court, promulgating
   edicts to replenish the exhausted treasury, and the
   Parliament, remonstrating in angry addresses against the
   acceptance of them." Of the four sovereign courts which had
   their seat at that time in the Palais de Justice of Paris, and
   of which the Parliament was the most considerable—the other
   three being the Chamber 'des Comptes,' the Cour des Aides, and
   the Grand Conseil—the counselors or stipendiary judges held
   their offices for life. "But, in virtue of the law called
   Paulette [named from Paulet, its originator, in the reign of
   Henry IV.] … they also held them as an inheritance
   transmissible to their descendants. The Paulette … was a
   royal ordinance which imposed an annual tax on the stipend of
   every judge. It was usually passed for a term of nine years
   only. If the judge died during that term, his heir was
   entitled to succeed to the vacant office. But if the death of
   the judge happened when the Paulette was not in force, his
   heir had no such right. Consequently, the renewal of the tax
   was always welcome to the stipendiary counselors of the
   sovereign courts; and, by refusing or delaying to renew it,
   the king could always exercise a powerful influence over them.
   In April, 1647, the Paulette had expired, and the queen-mother
   proposed the revival of it. But, to relieve the necessities of
   the treasury, she also proposed to increase the annual per
   centage which it imposed on the stipends of the counselors of
   the Chamber 'des Comptes,' of the Cour des Aides, and of the
   Grand Conseil. To concert measures of resistance to the
   contemplated innovation, those counselors held a meeting in
   the Great Hall of St. Louis; and at their request the
   Parliament, though not personally and directly interested in
   the change, joined their assembly." The queen sarcastically
   replied to their remonstrances that the "king would not only
   withdraw his proposal for an increase in the rate of the
   annual tax on their stipends, but would even graciously
   relieve them from that burden altogether. … Exasperated by
   the threatened loss of the heritable tenure of their offices,
   and still more offended by the sarcastic terms in which that
   menace was conveyed, the judges assembled in the hall of St.
   Louis with increased zeal, and harangued there with yet more
   indignant eloquence. Four different times the queen
   interdicted their meetings, and four different times they
   answered her by renewed resolutions for the continuance of
   them. She threatened severe punishments, and they replied by
   remonstrances. A direct collision of authority had thus
   occurred, and it behooved either party to look well to their
   steps." The queen began to adopt a conciliatory manner. "But
   the associated magistrates derived new boldness from the
   lowered tone and apparent fears of the government.
{1226}
   Soaring at once above the humble topic on which they had
   hitherto been engaged into the region of general politics,
   they passed at a step from the question of the Paulette to a
   review of all the public grievances under which their fellow
   subjects were labouring. After having wrought during four
   successive days in this inexhaustible mine of eloquence, they
   at length, on the 30th of June, 1648, commenced the adoption
   of a series of resolutions, which, by the 24th of July, had
   amounted in number to 27, and which may be said to have laid
   the basis of a constitutional revolution. … Important as
   these resolutions were in themselves, they were still more
   important as the assertion, by the associated magistrates, of
   the right to originate laws affecting all the general
   interests of the commonwealth. In fact, a new power in the
   state had suddenly sprung into existence. … That was an age
   in which the minds of men, in every part of Europe, had been
   rudely awakened to the extent to which the unconstitutional
   encroachments of popular bodies might be carried. Charles I.
   was at that time a prisoner in the hands of the English
   Parliament. Louis XIV. was a boy, unripe for an encounter with
   any similar antagonists. … The queen-mother, therefore,
   resolved to spare no concessions by which the disaffected
   magistracy might be conciliated. D'Emery was sacrificed to
   their displeasure; the renewal of the Paulette on its ancient
   terms was offered to them; some of the grievances of which
   they complained were immediately redressed; and the young king
   appeared before them in person, to promise his assent to their
   other demands. In return, he stipulated only for the cessation
   of their combined meetings, and for their desisting from the
   further promulgation of arrêts, to which they ascribed the
   force and authority of law. But the authors of this hasty
   revolution were no longer masters of the spirits whom they had
   summoned to their aid. … With increasing audacity,
   therefore, they persevered in defying the royal power, and in
   requiring from all Frenchmen implicit submission to their own.
   Advancing from one step to another, they adopted, on the 28th
   of August, 1648, an arrêt in direct conflict with a recent
   proclamation of the king, and ordered the prosecution of three
   persons for the offense of presuming to lend him money. At
   that moment their debates were interrupted by shouts and
   discharges of cannon, announcing the great victory of Condé at
   Lens. During the four following days religious festivals and
   public rejoicings suspended their sittings. But in those four
   days, the court had arranged their measures for a coup d'état.
   As the Parliament retired from Notre Dame, where they had
   attended at a solemn thanksgiving for the triumph of the arms
   of France, they observed that the soldiery still stood to the
   posts which, in honour of that ceremonial, had been assigned
   to them in different quarters of the city. Under the
   protection of that force, one of the presidents of the Chamber
   'des Enquêtes,' and De Broussel, the chief of the
   parliamentary agitators, were arrested and consigned to
   different prisons, while three of their colleagues were exiled
   to remote distances from the capital. At the tidings of this
   violence, the Parisian populace were seized with a
   characteristic paroxysm of fury. … In less than three hours,
   Paris had become an entrenched camp. … They dictated their
   own terms. The exiles were recalled and the prisoners
   released. … Then, at the bidding of the Parliament, the
   people laid aside their weapons, threw down the barricades,
   re-opened their shops, and resumed the common business of life
   as quietly as if nothing had occurred. … It was, however, a
   short-lived triumph. The queen, her son, and Mazarin effected
   their escape to St. Germains; and there, by the mediation of
   Condé and of Gaston, duke of Orleans, the uncle of the king, a
   peace was negotiated. The treaty of St. Germains was regarded
   by the court with shame, and by the Parliament with
   exultation." Fresh quarrels over it soon arose. "Condé was a
   great soldier, but an unskillful and impatient peacemaker. By
   his advice and aid, the queen-mother and the king once more
   retired to St. Germains, and commanded the immediate
   adjournment of the Parliament from Paris to Montargis. To
   their remonstrances against that order they could obtain no
   answer, except that if their obedience to it should be any
   longer deferred, an army of 25,000 men would immediately lay,
   siege to the city. War was thus declared."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cardinal De Retz,
      Memoirs,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Acquisition of Alsace, etc.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
   The First Fronde.
   Doubtful origin of the name.
   Siege of Paris by Condé.
   Dishonorable conduct of Turenne.
   Deserted by his army.
   The Peace of Reuil.

   "The very name of this movement is obscure, and it is only
   certain that it was adopted in jest, from a child's game. It
   was fitting that the struggle which became only a mischievous
   burlesque on a revolution should be named from the sport of
   gamins and school-boys. Fronde is the name of a sling, and the
   boys of the street used this weapon in their mimic contests.
   How it came to be applied to the opponents of the government
   is uncertain. Some claimed it was because the members of the
   Parliament, like the young frondeurs, hurled their weapons at
   Mazarin, but were ready to fly when the officers of the police
   appeared. Others said the term had been used by chance by some
   counsellor, and had been adopted by the writers of epigrams
   and mazarinades. However derived, it was not ill applied."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France Under Mazarin,
      chapter 9 (volume 1)._

   "Paul de Gondi, Coadjutor of Paris [Coadjutor, that is, of the
   Archbishop of Paris, who was his uncle], famous afterwards
   under the name of Cardinal de Retz, placed himself at the head
   of the revolution. … The Prince of Conti, brother of Condé,
   the Duke of Longueville, the Duke of Beaufort, and the Duke of
   Bouillon adopted the party of the coadjutor and the
   parliament. Generals were chosen for an army with which to
   resist the court. Although taxes levied by Mazarin had been
   resisted, taxes were freely paid to raise troops—12,000 men
   were raised; Condé [commanding for the queen] had 8,000
   soldiers. These he threw around Paris, and invested 100,000
   burgesses, and threatened to starve the town. The citizens,
   adorned with feathers and ribbons, made sorties occasionally,
   but their manœuvres were the subject of scorn by the soldiers.
   … As Voltaire says, the tone of the civil discords which
   afflicted England at the same time mark well the difference
   between the national characters.
{1227}
   The English had thrown into their civil war a balanced fury
   and a mournful determination. … The French on the other hand
   threw themselves into their civil strife with caprice,
   laughter, dissolution and debauchery. Women were the leaders
   of factions—love made and broke cabals. The Duchess of
   Longueville urged Turenne, only a short time back appointed
   Marshal of France, to encourage his army to revolt, which he
   was commanding for his king. Nothing can justify Turenne's
   action in this matter. Had he laid down his command and taken
   the side of his brother [the Duke de Bouillon], on account of
   his family grievance [the loss of the principality of
   Sedan—see above, A. D. 1641-1642], the feudal spirit which in
   those days held affection for family higher than affection for
   country, might have excused him; but, while in the service of
   a sovereign and intrusted with the command of an army, to
   endeavour to lead his troops over to the enemy can be regarded
   as nothing short of the work of a traitor. He himself pleads
   as his apology that Condé was starving the population of Paris
   by the investment. … As it was he sacrificed his honour, and
   allowed his fair fame to be tarnished for the sake of a
   worthless woman who secretly jeered at his passion, and cared
   nothing for his heart, but merely for his sword for her own
   worldly advantage. As it was he endeavoured to persuade his
   army to declare for the parliament, and purposed taking it
   into Champagne, and marching for the relief of the capital;
   but the treachery of the marshal was no match for the subtlety
   of the cardinal. Before Turenne issued his declaration to his
   troops the colonels of his regiment had already been tampered
   with. The cardinal's emissaries had promised them pensions,
   and distributed £800,000 among the officers and soldiers. This
   was a decisive argument for mercenaries, who taught Turenne by
   forsaking him that mercenary services can only be commanded by
   money. D'Erlach had also stood firm. The regiments of Turenne,
   six German regiments, called by d'Erlach, marched one night to
   join him at Brisach. Three regiments of infantry threw
   themselves under the guns of Philipsburg. Only a small force
   was left to Turenne, who, finding the blow he intended
   hopeless, sent the troops still with him to join d'Erlach at
   Brisach, and retired himself with fifteen or twenty of his
   friends to Heilbron, thence to Holland, where he awaited the
   termination of the civil war. The news of the abandonment of
   Turenne was received with despair at Paris, with wild joy at
   St. Germain. His banishment, however, was not long. The
   leaders of the parliament became aware that the princes of the
   Fronde were trying to obtain foreign assistance to overturn
   the monarchy; that their generals were negotiating a treaty
   with Spain. They felt that order, peace, and the independence
   of parliament, which would in this case become dependent upon
   the nobility, was in danger. They took the patriotic
   resolution quickly to act of their own accord. A conference
   had been opened between the parliament and the Court. Peace
   was concluded at Reuil, which, notwithstanding the
   remonstrances of Conti [brother of Condé, the family being
   divided in the First Fronde], Bouillon, and the other nobles
   of the Fronde, was accepted by the whole parliament. Peace was
   proclaimed in Paris to the discontent of the populace. …
   Turenne, on the conclusion of the treaty of Reuil, embarked in
   Zeeland, landed at Dieppe, and posted to Paris."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapter 6._

   "After the signing of the peace, the Château of St. Germain
   became the resort of many Frondeurs; the Duchess de
   Longueville, the Prince of Conti, and nearly all the other
   chiefs of the party, hastened to pay their respects to the
   Queen. She received everybody without bitterness, some even
   with friendship; and the Minister on his part affected much
   general good-will. … One of the first effects of the peace
   between the parties was a reconciliation in the House of
   Condé. The Princess Dowager employed herself with zeal and
   success in reestablishing harmony between her children. Condé,
   who despised his brother too much to hate him, readily agreed
   to a reconciliation with him. As to his sister, he had always
   felt for her great affection and confidence, and she no less
   for him: these sentiments were revived at their very first
   interview at Ruel, and he not only gave her back his
   friendship, but began to enter into her views, and even to be
   guided by her counsels. The Prince's policy was to make
   Royalty powerful and respected, but not absolute. He said
   publicly that he had done what he ought in upholding Mazarin,
   because he had promised to do so: but for the future, if
   things took a different line, he should not be bound by the
   past. … A prey to a thousand conflicting feelings, and
   discontented with everybody, and perhaps with himself, he took
   the resolution of retiring for several months to his
   government in Burgundy. On returning from Dijon in the month
   of August, the Prince found the Queen and the Cardinal at
   Compiègne, and very much dejected. … He … pressed her to
   return to Paris with her Minister, answering for Mazarin's
   safety, at the risk of his own head. … Their entry into
   Paris took place a few days after."

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
      chapter 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Guy Joli,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1._

      _Cardinal De Retz,
      Memoirs,
      book 2._

      _Miss Pardoe,
      Louis XIV.,
      chapters 9-11._

FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
   The New Fronde, or the Petits Maitres.
   Its alliance with Spain and defeat at Rethel.
   Revolt, siege and reduction of Bordeaux.

   "Faction, laid asleep for one night, woke again fresh and
   vigorous next morning. There was a Parliamentary party, a De
   Retz party, and a Condé party, and each party plotted and
   schemed unceasingly to discredit the others and to evoke
   popular feeling against all except itself. … Neither of the
   leaders, each pretending fear of assassination, ever stirred
   abroad unless in the company of 400 or 500 gentlemen, thus
   holding the city in hourly peril of an 'émeute.' Condé's
   arrogance and insolence becoming at last totally unbearable,
   the Court proceeded to the bold measure of arresting him. New
   combinations: De Retz and Orleans coalesce once more; De Retz
   coquets with Mazarin and is promised a cardinal's hat. Wily
   Mazarin strongly supports De Retz's nomination in public, and
   privately urges every member of the council to vote against it
   and to beseech the Queen to refuse the dignity. It was
   refused; upon which De Retz turned his energies upon a general
   union of parties for the purpose of effecting the release of
   Condé and the overthrow of the minister.'

      _De Retz and the Fronde
      (Temple Bar, volume 38, pages 535-536)._

{1228}

   Condé, his brother Conti, and his brother-in-law Longueville,
   were arrested and conducted to Vincennes on the 18th of
   January, 1650. "This was the second crisis of the sedition.
   The old Fronde had expired; its leaders had sold themselves to
   the Court; but in its place sprang up the New Fronde, called
   also, from the affected airs of its leaders, the Petits
   Maîtres. The beautiful Duchess of Longueville was the soul of
   it, aided by her admirer, Marsillac, afterwards Duke de la
   Rochefoucauld, and by the Duke of Bouillon. On the arrest of
   her husband and her brother, the duchess had fled to Holland,
   and afterwards to Stenai; where she and Bouillon's brother,
   Turenne, who styled himself the 'King's Lieutenant-General for
   the liberation of the Princes,' entered into negotiations with
   the Archduke Leopold. Bouillon himself had retired into
   Guienne, which province was alienated from the Court because
   Mazarine maintained as its governor the detested Epernon. In
   July Bouillon and his allies publicly received a Spanish envoy
   at Bordeaux. Condé's wife and infant son had been received in
   that city with enthusiasm. But on the approach of Mazarine
   with the royal army, the inhabitants of Guienne, alarmed for
   their vintage, now approaching maturity, showed signs of
   submission; after a short siege Bordeaux surrendered, on
   condition of an amnesty, in which Bouillon and La
   Rochefoucauld were included; and the Princess of Condé was
   permitted to retire (October 1st 1650). In the north, the
   Frondeurs, with their Spanish allies, seemed at first more
   successful. In the summer Leopold had entered Champagne,
   penetrated to Ferté Milon, and some of his marauding parties
   had even reached Dammartin. Turenne tried to persuade the
   Archduke to march to Vincennes and liberate the princes; but
   while he was hesitating, Gaston transferred the captives to
   Marcoussis, whence they were soon after conveyed to Havre.
   Leopold and Turenne, after a vain attempt to rouse the
   Parisians, retreated to the Meuse and laid siege to Mouzon.
   The Cardinal himself, like his master Richelieu, now assumed
   the character of a general. Uniting with his troops in the
   north the army of Guienne, he took up his quarters at Rethel,
   which had been captured by Du Plessis Praslin. Hence he
   ordered an attack to be made on the Spaniards. In the battle
   which ensued, these were entirely defeated, many of their
   principal officers were captured, and even Turenne himself
   narrowly escaped the same fate (December 15th 1650). The
   Cardinal's elation was unbounded. It was a great thing to have
   defeated Turenne, and though the victory was Du Plessis',
   Mazarine assumed all the credit of it. His head began to turn.
   He forgot that he owed his success to the leaders of the old
   Fronde, and especially to the Coadjutor; he neglected his
   promises to that intriguing prelate, though Gondi plainly
   declared that he must either be a prince of the Church or the
   head of a faction. Mazarine was also imprudent enough to
   offend the Parliament; and he compared them with that sitting
   at London—which indeed was doing them too much honour. The
   Coadjutor went over to the party of the princes, dragging with
   him the feeble-minded Orleans, who had himself been insulted
   by the Queen. Thus was produced a third phase of this singular
   sedition—the union of the old Fronde with the new. The
   Parliament now clamoured for the liberation of the princes. As
   the Queen hesitated, Gaston bluntly declared that the
   dismissal of Mazarine was necessary to the restoration of
   peace; while the Parliament added to their former demand
   another for the Cardinal's banishment. Mazarine saw his
   mistake and endeavoured to rectify it. He hastened to Havre in
   order to liberate the princes in person, and claim the merit
   of a spontaneous act. But it was too late; it was plain that
   he was acting only by constraint. The princes were conducted
   back in triumph to Paris by a large retinue sent to escort
   them. On February 25th 1651, their innocence was established
   by a royal declaration, and they were restored to all their
   dignities and charges. Mazarine, meanwhile, who saw that for
   the present the game was lost, retired into exile; first into
   Bouillon, and afterwards to Brühl on the Rhine, where the
   Elector of Cologne offered him an asylum. From this place he
   corresponded with the Queen, and continued to direct her
   counsels. The anarchy and confusion that had ensued in France
   were such as promised him a speedy return."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      _Miss Pardoe,
      Louis XIV. and the Court of France,
      volume 1, chapter 13-15._

FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1652.
   The loss of Catalonia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.

FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
   The arrogance of Condé and his renewal of civil war.
   The King's majority proclaimed.
   General changing of sides.
   Battle of Porte St. Antoine and massacre of
   the Hôtel de Ville.
   End of the Fronde.
   Condé in the service of Spain.

   "The liberated captives were received with every demonstration
   of joy by all Paris and the Frondeurs, including the Duke of
   Orleans. The Queen, melancholy, and perhaps really ill, lay in
   bed to receive their visit of cold ceremony; but the Duke of
   Orleans gave them a grand supper, and there was universal joy
   at being rid of Mazarin. … There was a promise to assemble
   the States General, while Condé thought himself governing the
   kingdom, and as usual his arrogance gave offence in various
   quarters. One article in the compact which had gained his
   liberty was that the Prince of Conti should marry Mademoiselle
   de Chevreuse, but this alliance offended the pride of the
   elder brother, and he broke the marriage off hastily and
   haughtily. Madame de Chevreuse, much offended, repented of the
   aid she had given, went over to the Queen's party, and took
   with her the coadjutor, who was devoted to the rejected
   daughter, and could always sway the mob of Paris. So many
   persons had thus come to desert the cause of the Prince that
   Anne of Austria thought of again arresting him." Condé,
   supposing himself in danger, fled from the city on the 6th of
   July, and "went to his château of St. Maur, where his family
   and friends joined him; and he held a kind of court. Queen and
   Parliament both sent entreaties to him to return, but he
   disdained them all, and made the condition of his return the
   dismissal of the secretaries whom Mazarin had left. The Queen,
   most unwillingly, made them retire, and Condé did return for a
   short time; but he was haughtier than ever, and openly
   complained of Mazarin's influence, making every preparation
   for a civil war. Strangely violent scenes took place," between
   the Prince and the Coadjutor and their respective adherents;
   and presently the Prince "quitted Paris, went to Chantilly,
   and decided on war.
{1229}
   Mazarin wrote to the Queen that the most prudent course would
   be to ally herself with the Parliament to crush the Princes.
   After they should have been put down the Parliament would be
   easily dealt with. She acted on this advice. The elections for
   the States General were beginning, but in order to quash them,
   and cancel all her promises, the Queen decided on proclaiming
   the majority of the King, and thus the close of her own
   regency. It was of course a farce, since he had only just
   entered his fourteenth year, and his mother still conducted
   the Government; but it made a new beginning, and was an
   occasion for stirring up the loyalty of the people. … Condé
   was unwilling to begin a civil war, and was only driven into
   it by his sister's persuasions and those of his friends.
   'Remember,' he said, 'if I once draw the sword, I shall be the
   last to return it to the scabbard.' On the other side, Anne of
   Austria said, 'Monsieur le Prince shall perish, or I will.'
   From Montrond, Condé directed his forces to take possession of
   the cities in Guyenne, and he afterwards proceeded to
   Bordeaux. On the other hand, Mazarin repaired to Sedan, and
   contrived to raise an army in the frontier cities, with which
   he marched to join the King and Queen at Poitiers. War was
   raging again, still as the Fronde, though there had been a
   general change of sides, the Parliament being now for the
   Court, and the Princes against it, the Duke of Orleans in a
   state of selfish agitation between the two. Learning that the
   royal army was advancing to his own appanage of Orleans, and
   fearing that the city might open its gates to them, he sent
   off his daughter, Mademoiselle [de Montpensier], to keep the
   citizens to what he called their duty to himself. She went
   with only two ladies and her servants … and found the gates
   closed against her." The persevering Mademoiselle succeeded,
   however, in gaining admission to the town, despite the orders
   of the magistrates, and she kept out of it the soldiers of
   both factions in the war. But her own inclinations were
   strongly towards Condé and his side. "She went out to a little
   inn to hold a council with the Dukes of Beaufort and Nemours,
   and had to mediate between them in a violent quarrel. …
   Indeed, Condé's party were ill-agreed; he had even quarreled
   with his sister, and she had broken with De la Rochefoucauld!
   The Duke de Bouillon and his brother Turenne were now on the
   Queen's side, and the command of the royal army was conferred
   on the Viscount. Condé, with only eight persons, dashed across
   France, to take the command of the army over which Beaufort and
   Nemours were disputing. The very morning after he arrived,
   Turenne saw by the disposition of the troops who must be
   opposed to him. 'M. le Prince is come,' he said. They were the
   two greatest captains of the age, and they fought almost in
   sight of the King and Queen at Bleneau. But though there were
   skirmishes [including, at the outset, the serious defeat of a
   division of the royal forces under Hocquincourt], no decisive
   engagement took place. It was a struggle of manœuvres, and in
   this Condé had the disadvantage. … Week after week the two
   armies … watched one another, till at last Condé was driven
   up to the walls of Paris, and there the gates were closed
   against both armies. Condé was at St. Cloud, whence, on the
   2nd of July [1652], he endeavoured to lead his army round to
   Charenton at the confluence of the Seine and the Loire; but
   when he came in front of the Porte St. Antoine, he found that
   a battle was inevitable and that he was caught in a trap,
   where, unless he could escape through the city, his
   destruction was inevitable. He barricaded the three streets
   that met there, heaping up his baggage as a protection, and
   his friends within, many of them wives of gentlemen in his
   army, saw the situation with despair." The only one who had
   energy to act was Mademoiselle. She extorted from her
   hesitating father an order, by virtue of which she persuaded
   the magistrates of the city, not only to open the gates to
   Condé, but to send 2,000 men to the Faubourg St. Antoine.
   "Mademoiselle now repaired to the top of the great square
   tower of the Bastille, whence she could see the terrible
   conflict carried on in the three suburban streets which
   converged at the Porte St. Antoine." Seeing an opportunity to
   turn the cannon of the Bastille on the pursuing troops, she
   did so with effect. "Turenne was obliged to draw back, and at
   last Condé brought his army into the city, where they encamped
   in the open space of the Pré des Clercs. … Condé unworthily
   requited the hospitality wrung from the city. He was resolved
   to overcome the neutrality of the Parliament, and, in concert
   with Beaufort, instigated the mob to violence. Many soldiers
   were disguised as artizans, and mingled with the rabble, when,
   on the 4th of July, he went to the Hotel de Ville, ostensibly
   to thank, the magistrates, but really to demand their support
   against the Crown. These loyal men, however, by a majority of
   votes, decided on a petition to the King to return without
   Mazarin. On this Condé exclaimed publicly, 'These gentlemen
   will do nothing for us. They are Mazarinists. Treat them as
   you please.' Then he retired to the Luxembourg with Gaston,
   while Beaufort let loose the mob. The Hotel de Ville was
   stormed, the rabble poured in at doors and windows, while the
   disguised soldiers fired from the opposite houses, and the
   magistrates were threatened and pursued on all sides. They had
   one advantage, that they knew their way through the intricate
   passages and the mob did not. The first who got out rushed to
   the Luxembourg to entreat the Duke and Prince to stop the
   massacre; but Monsieur only whistled and beat his tattoo, and
   Condé said he knew nothing about sedition. Nor would Beaufort
   interfere till the disturbance had lasted many hours; but
   after all many more of the rabble were killed than of the
   magistrates. It was the last remarkable scene in the strange
   drama of the Fronde. The Parliament suspended its sittings,
   and the King transferred it to Pontoise, whither Molé and all
   the other Presidents proceeded, leaving Paris in disguise.
   This last ferocious proceeding of Condé's, though he tried to
   disavow it, had shocked and alienated everyone, and he soon
   after fell sick of a violent fever. Meanwhile, his castle of
   Montrond was taken after a year's siege, Nemours was killed in
   a duel by the Duke of Beaufort, and the party was falling to
   pieces. … Mazarin saw the opportunity, and again left the
   Court for the German frontier. This was all that was wanting
   to bring back the malcontents. Condé offered to make terms,
   but was haughtily answered that it was no time for
   negotiation, but for submission. Upon this, he proceeded to
   the Low Countries, and offered his sword to the Spaniards.
{1230}
   The King entered Paris in state and held a bed of justice, in
   which he proclaimed an amnesty, excepting from it Condé and
   Conti, and some others of their party, and forbidding the
   Parliament to interfere in State affairs. The Coadjutor, who
   had become a Cardinal, was arrested, and imprisoned until he
   made his escape, dislocating his shoulder in his fall from the
   window, but finally reaching Rome, where he lived till the
   Fronde was forgotten, but never becoming Archbishop of Paris.
   … When all was quiet, Mazarin returned, in February, 1653,
   without the slightest opposition, and thus ended the Fronde,
   in the entire triumph of the Crown. … The misery, distress
   and disease caused by these wars of the Fronde were
   unspeakable. There was nothing to eat in the provinces where
   they had raged but roots, rotten fruit, and bread made of
   bran. … Le misère de la Fronde' was long a proverbial
   expression in France."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Condé,
      chapters 8-9._

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      chapters 11-12._

      _Cardinal de Retz,
      Memoirs,
      books 3-4 (volumes 2-3)._

      _M'lle de Montpensier,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 11-17._

FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
   Loss of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
   Spanish invasion of Picardy.

   "In the spring of 1652, the Spanish forces, under the command
   of the archduke had undertaken the siege of Gravelines, which
   was obliged to capitulate on the 18th of May. The archduke
   next undertook the siege of Dunkirk, but, at the earnest
   desire of the princes, he merely blockaded the place, and sent
   Fuensaldaña with about 14,000 men into Picardy to their
   assistance. … The court, in great alarm, sought first a
   retreat in Normandy, but the Duke of Longueville, who still
   held the government of that province, refused to receive
   Mazarin. The fears of the court were not lessened by this
   proceeding, and it was even proposed to carry the king to
   Lyons; but the wiser counsels of Turenne finally prevailed,
   and it was resolved to establish the army at Compiègne, and
   lodge the court at Pontoise. Fuensaldaña forced the passage of
   the Oise at Chauni, and then joined the duke of Lorraine at
   Fismes, on the 29th of July, when their joint forces amounted
   to full 20,000 men, while Turenne had not more than 11,000 to
   oppose to them. But the Spaniards were, as usual, only
   pursuing a selfish policy, and Fuensaldaña, in pursuance of
   the archduke's orders, left a body of 3,000 cavalry to
   reinforce the duke of Lorraine, and returned with the rest of
   his troops to assist in the siege of Dunkirk," which soon
   surrendered to his arms.

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 2, page 89._

FRANCE: A. D. 1652-1653.
   Last phase of the Fronde at Bordeaux.
   Attempted revolution by the Society of the Ormée.

   See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
   Condé's campaigns against his own country, in the service of
   Spain.

   "Condé, unfortunately for his fame, made no attempts at
   reconciliation, and retired to the Spaniards—an enemy of his
   country! He captured several small places on the [Flemish]
   frontier, and hoped to return in spring victorious. A few days
   after the entry into Paris, Turenne set out to oppose him;
   and, retaking some towns, had the satisfaction, of compelling
   him to seek winter quarters beyond the limits of France. …
   Condé persuaded the Spanish to bring 30,000 men into the field
   for the next campaign: Turenne and La Ferté had but 13,000. To
   paralyze the plans of the enemy, the Viscount proposed, and
   his proposal was allowed, to be always threatening their rear
   and communications; to occupy posts they would not dare to
   attack, and so to avoid fighting, at the same time hindering
   them from all important undertakings. He began by throwing
   himself between two corps of their army, at the point where
   they expected to effect a junction; and in the eight or nine
   days thus gained, he recovered Rhétel, without which it would
   have been, as he declares himself, impossible to defend
   Picardy and Champagne. Rhétel, so much an object of anxiety,
   was taken in three days. Baffled in their original purposes,
   and at a loss, the Spanish expected a large convoy from
   Cambray, escorted by 3,000 horse. Turenne got news of this,
   and, posting himself near Peronne to intercept it, drove it
   back to Cambray [August 11, 1653]. There Condé and Fuensaldaña
   turned upon him; but he took up a position, which they watched
   for three or four days, and there defied their attack. They
   refused the challenge. Thence the enemy drew off," with
   designs on Guise, which Turenne frustrated. "Condé then laid
   siege to Rocroi, where his own first glory had been gained;
   and this place is so hemmed in by woods and defiles, that the
   relief of it was impossible. But Turenne compensated for the
   loss of it by the equally valuable recapture, of Mouson. Thus
   the whole year was spent in marches and countermarches, in
   gains and losses, which had no influence on events. By this
   time the malcontents were so prostrate that Condé's brother,
   the Prince de Conti, and his sister, the Duchesse de
   Longueville, made their peace with the court. … The year
   1654 opened with the siege of Stenay by the young king in
   person, who was carried thither by Mazarin, to overawe Condé's
   governor with the royal name and majesty. That officer was
   more true to his trust than to his allegiance, and Stenay cost
   a siege. … Condé could do no better than imitate Turenne's
   policy of the previous year, and besiege Arras as an
   equivalent for Stenay; to which end he mustered 32,000 men.
   Arras was a town of some value. Condé had caught it at
   disadvantage; the governor, Mondejeu … was put on his
   defence with 2,500 foot and 100 horse. To reinforce this
   slender garrison was the first care of Turenne. … Mazarin
   was anxious for Arras, and offered Turenne to break up the
   siege of Stenay, for the sake of reinforcing the army of
   relief. This proposal the Viscount declined. He must have been
   very confident of his own capacity; for he could collect only
   14,000 men to hover around the enemy's camp. … He proposed
   no attempt upon the intrenchments till he had the aid of the
   troops from Stenay … ; but he disposed his parties around so
   as to prevent the enemy's convoys from reaching them." Stenay
   surrendered on the 6th of August, and Turenne, with
   reinforcements from its besiegers, attacked the Spanish lines
   at Arras on the night of the 24th, with complete success. The
   Spaniards raised the siege and retreated to Cambray, leaving
   3,000 prisoners and 63 pieces of cannon in the hands of the
   French. "The capture of Quesnoy and Binches filled up the rest
   of the year; the places were weak and the garrisons feeble.
{1231}
   Nor did the next season, 1655, offer anything of interest.
   Turenne reduced Landrecies, Condé, and Guislain, while his
   active opponent was sometimes foiled by his precautions, and
   sometimes baffled by the absurd behaviour of the Spanish
   authorities. … The great event of 1656 was the siege of
   Valenciennes. This place … was invested by Turenne about the
   middle of June: but hardly had his camp been intrenched before
   he repented of his undertaking. The Scheldt flows through the
   town, and by reservoirs and sluices was flooded at the will of
   the enemy. Turenne's camp was largely inundated. … He had
   overestimated his means: so great was the circle of his
   circumvallation that he had not men enough to guard it
   adequately, when Condé and the Spanish appeared with 20,000
   men to the relief of the place." They broke through his lines
   and forced him to retreat, with a heavy loss of prisoners
   taken. "The Viscount retrieved his credit by the bold stand he
   made after the defeat."

      _T. O. Cockayne,
      Life of Marshal Turenne,
      pages 58-69._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Condé,
      chapter 10._

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1660.
   First persecution of the Jansenists.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
   Alliance with the English Commonwealth against Spain.
   The taking of Dunkirk for England and Gravelines for France.
   End of the war.

   "Mazarin was now bent upon an enterprise which, if successful,
   must finish the war. A deadly blow would be struck at the
   strength of Spain if Dunkirk, Mardyck, and Gravelines—the
   possession of which was of vital importance to her
   communication with Flanders, as well as enabling her to ruin
   French commerce on that coast—could be wrested from her. For
   this the cooperation of some maritime power was necessary, and
   Mazarin determined at all costs to secure England. With
   Cromwell, the only diplomatist by whose astuteness he
   confessed himself baffled, he had been negotiating since 1651.
   … At length on November 3, 1655, a treaty was signed at
   Westminster, based upon freedom of commerce and an engagement
   that neither country should assist the enemies or rebels of
   the other; Mazarin consented to expel Charles II., James, and
   twenty named royalists from France. Cromwell similarly agreed
   to dismiss from England the emissaries of Condé. But Mazarin
   was soon anxious for a more effectual bond. … Cromwell had
   equally good reasons for drawing closer to France, for Spain
   was preparing actively to assist Charles II. French and
   English interests thus coinciding, an alliance was signed at
   Paris on March 23, 1657

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

   Gravelines and Dunkirk were to be at once besieged both by
   land and sea. England was to send 6,000 men to assist the
   French army. Gravelines was to become French and Dunkirk
   English; should the former fall first it was to be held by
   England until Dunkirk too was taken. … The alliance was not
   a moment too soon. The campaign of 1657 had opened
   disastrously. The tide was however turned by the arrival of
   the English contingent. Montmédy was immediately besieged, and
   capitulated on August 4. The effect was again to make Mazarin
   hang back from further effort, since it seemed possible now to
   make peace with Spain, and thereby avoid an English occupation
   of Dunkirk. But Cromwell would stand no trifling, and his
   threats were so clear that Mazarin determined to act loyally
   and without delay. On September 30, Turenne laid siege to
   Mardyck, which protected Dunkirk, and took it in four days. It
   was at once handed over to the English." In the spring of 1658
   the siege of Dunkirk was begun. The Spaniards, under Don John
   of Austria and Condé, attempting to relieve the place, were
   defeated (June 13) in the battle of the Dunes, by Turenne and
   Cromwell's Ironsides (see ENGLAND: A. D.1655-1658). "Dunkirk
   immediately surrendered, and on the 25th was in Cromwell's
   possession. Two months later Gravelines also fell. A short and
   brilliant campaign followed, in which Don John and Condé, shut
   up in Brussels and Tournai respectively, were compelled to
   remain inactive while fortress after fortress fell into French
   hands. A few days after the fall of Gravelines Cromwell died;
   but Mazarin was now near his goal. Utterly defeated on her own
   soil, beaten, too, by the Portuguese at Elvas, and threatened
   in Milan, her army ruined, her treasury bankrupt, without a
   single ally in Europe, Spain stood at last powerless before
   him."

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 6._

FRANCE: A. D. 1657.
   Candidacy of Louis XIV. for the imperial crown.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.

FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
   The treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish Infanta.

   "The Spaniards could struggle no longer: they sued for peace.
   Things were prepared for it on every hand: Spain was
   desperate; matters far from settled or safe in France; in
   England the Protector's death had come very opportunely for
   Mazarin; the strong man was no longer there to hold the
   balance between the European powers. Questions as to a Spanish
   marriage and the Spanish succession had been before men since
   1648; the Spaniards had disliked the match, thinking that in
   the end it must subject them to France. But things were
   changed; Philip IV. now had an heir, so that the nations might
   hope to remain under two distinct crowns; moreover, the needs
   of Spain were far greater than in 1648, while the demands of
   France were less. So negociation between Mazarin and Louis de
   Haro on the little Isle of Pheasants in the Bidassoa, under
   the very shadow of the Pyrenees, went on prosperously; even
   the proposal that Louis XIV. should espouse the Infanta of
   Spain, Maria Theresa, was at last agreed to at Madrid. The
   only remaining difficulty arose from" the fact that the young
   King, Louis XIV., had fallen in love with Maria Mancini,
   Cardinal Mazarin's niece, and wished to marry her. "The King
   at last abandoned his youthful and pure passion, and signed
   the Treaty of the Pyrenees [concluded November 7, 1659],
   condemning himself to a marriage of state, which exalted high
   the dignity of the French Crown, only to plunge it in the end
   into the troubles and disasters of the Succession War. The
   treaty of peace begins with articles on trade and navigation:
   then follow cessions, restitutions, and exchanges of
   territories.

{1232}

   1. On the Northern frontier Spain ceded all she had in Artois,
   with exception of Aire and S. Omer; in Flanders itself France
   got Gravelines and its outer defences. In Hainault she became
   mistress of the important towns, Landrecies, Quesnoy, and
   Avesnes, and also strengthened her position by some exchanges:
   in Luxemburg she retained Thionville, Montmédy, and several
   lesser places; so that over her whole northern border France
   advanced her frontier along a line answering to her old
   limits. … In return she restored to Spain several of her
   latest conquests in Flanders: Ypres, Oudenarde, Dixmüden,
   Furnes, and other cities. In Condé's country France recovered
   Rocroy, Le Câtelet and Linchamp, occupied by the Prince's
   soldiers; and so secured the safety and defences of Champagne
   and Paris.

   2. More to the East, the Duke of Lorraine, having submitted
   with such good grace as might be, was reinstated in his Duchy.
   … But France received her price here also, the Duchy of Bar,
   the County of Clermont on the edge of Champagne, Stenay, Dun,
   Jametz, Moyenvic, became hers. The fortifications of Nancy
   were to be rased for ever; the Duke of Lorraine bound himself
   to peace, and agreed to give France free passage to the
   Bishopricks and Alsace. This was the more necessary, because
   Franche-Comté, the other highway into Alsace, was left to the
   Spaniards, and such places in it as were in the King's hands
   were restored to them. Far out in Germany Louis XIV. replaced
   Jülich in the hands of the Duke of Neuberg; and that element
   of controversy, the germ or pretext of these long wars, was
   extinct for ever. On the Savoyard border France retained
   Pinerolo, with all the means and temptations of offence which
   it involved: she restored to the Duke her other conquests
   within his territories, and to the Spaniards whatever she held
   in Lombardy; she also honourably obtained an amnesty for those
   subjects of Spain, Neapolitans or Catalans, who had sided with
   France. Lastly, the Pyrenees became the final, as it was the
   natural, boundary between the two Latin kingdoms. …
   Roussillon and Conflans became French: all French conquests to
   the south of the Pyrenees were restored to Spain. The Spanish
   King renounced all claims on Alsace or Breisach: on the other
   hand the submission of the great Condé was accepted; he was
   restored to all his domains; his son, the young Duke of
   Enghien, being made Grand Master of France, and he himself
   appointed Governor of Burgundy and Bresse: his friends and
   followers were included in the amnesty. Some lesser
   stipulations, with a view to the peace of Europe, for the
   settlement of the differences between Spain and Portugal,
   between the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua, between the Catholic
   and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland, and an agreement to
   help forward peace between the Northern Courts, worthily close
   this great document, this weighty appendix to the Treaties of
   Westphalia. A separate act, as was fitting, regulated all
   questions bearing on the great marriage. It contains a solemn
   renunciation, intended to bar for ever the union of the two
   Crowns under one sceptre, or the absorption into France of
   Flanders, Burgundy, or Charolais. It was a renunciation which,
   as Mazarin foresaw long before, would never hold firm against
   the temptations and exigencies of time. The King's marriage
   with the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain did not take place
   till the next year, by which time Mazarin's work in life
   seemed well nigh over; racked with gout, he had little
   enjoyment of his triumphs. … He betook himself to the
   arrangement of his own affairs: his physicians giving him,
   early in 1661, no hopes of recovery. … These things
   arranged, the Cardinal resigned himself to die 'with a
   serenity more philosophic than Christian'; and passed away on
   the 8th of March, 1661."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

   "The Treaty of the Pyrenees, which completed the great work of
   pacification that had commenced at Munster, is justly
   celebrated as having put an end to such bitter and useless
   animosities. But, it is more famous, as having introduced a
   new æra in European politics. In its provisions all the
   leading events of a century to come had their origin—the wars
   which terminated with the Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle,
   Nimeguen, and Ryswick, and that concerning the Spanish
   succession. So great an epoch in history has the Pyrenean
   Treaty been accounted by politicians, that Lord Bolingbroke
   was of opinion, 'That the only part of history necessary to be
   thoroughly studied, goes no farther back than this treaty,
   since, from that period, a new set of motives and principles
   have prevailed all over Europe.'"

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
      Philip IV. and Charles II., volume 1.
      chapter 11._

FRANCE: A. D. 1660-1688.
   A footing gained in Newfoundland.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

FRANCE: A. D. 1661.
   Personal assumption of the government by Louis XIV.
   The extraordinary characteristics of the reign of the Grand
   Monarch, now begun.

   On the death of Mazarin Louis XIV., then twenty-three years
   old, announced to his council his intention of taking the
   government solely upon himself. His ministers were
   henceforward to receive instructions from him in person; there
   was to be no premier at their head. The reign which then began
   "was the culminating epoch in the history of the French
   Monarchy. What the age of Pericles was in the history of the
   Athenian Democracy, what the age of the Scipios was in the
   history of the Roman Republic, that was the reign of Louis
   XIV. in the history of the old Monarchy of France. … It is
   not only the most conspicuous reign in the history of
   France—it is the most conspicuous reign in the history of
   Monarchy in general. Of the very many kings whom history
   mentions, who have striven to exalt the monarchical principle,
   none of them achieved a success remotely comparable to his. …
   They may have ruled over wider dominions, but they never
   attained the exceptional position of power and prestige which
   he enjoyed for more than half a century. They never were
   obeyed so submissively at home, nor so dreaded, and even
   respected, abroad. For Louis XIV. carried off that last reward
   of complete success, that he for a time silenced even envy,
   and turned it into admiration. We who can examine with cold
   scrutiny the make and composition of this Colossus of a French
   Monarchy; who can perceive how much the brass and clay in it
   exceeded the gold; who know how it afterwards fell with a
   resounding ruin, the last echoes of which have scarcely died
   away, have difficulty in realising the fascination it
   exercised upon contemporaries who witnessed its first setting
   up. Louis XIV.'s reign was the very triumph of commonplace
   greatness, of external magnificence and success, such as the
   vulgar among mankind can best and most sincerely appreciate.
   … His qualities were on the surface, visible and
   comprehensible to all. …
{1233}
   He was indefatigably industrious: worked on an average eight
   hours a day for fifty-four years; had, great tenacity of will;
   that kind of solid judgment which comes of slowness of brain,
   and withal a most majestic port and great dignity of manners.
   He had also as much kindliness of nature as the very great can
   be expected to have. … He must have had great original
   fineness of tact, though it was in the end nearly extinguished
   by adulation and incense. His court was an extraordinary
   creation, and the greatest thing he achieved. He made it the
   microcosm of all that was most brilliant and prominent in
   France. Every order of merit was invited there, and received
   courteous welcome. To no circumstance did he so much owe his
   enduring popularity. By its means he impressed into his
   service that galaxy of great writers, the first and the last
   classic authors of France, whose calm and serene lustre will
   for ever illumine the epoch of his existence. It may even be
   admitted that his share in that lustre was not so accidental
   and undeserved as certain king-haters have supposed. That
   subtle critic, M. Ste. Beuve, thinks he can trace a marked
   rise even in Bossuet's style from the moment he became a
   courtier of Louis XIV. The king brought men together, placed
   them in a position where they were induced and urged to bring
   their talents to a focus. His Court was alternately a
   high-bred gala and a stately university. … But Louis XIV.'s
   reign has better titles than the adulations of courtiers and
   the eulogies of wits and poets to the attention of posterity.
   It marks one of the most memorable epochs in the annals of
   mankind. It stretches across history like a great
   mountain-range, separating ancient France from the France of
   modern times. On the farther slope are Catholicism and
   feudalism in their various stages of splendour and decay—the
   France of crusade and chivalry, of St. Louis and Bayard. On
   the hither side are free-thought, industry, and
   centralization—the France of Voltaire, Turgot and Condorcet.
   When Louis came to the throne, the Thirty Years' War still
   wanted six years of its end, and the heat of theological
   strife was at its intensest glow. When he died, the religious
   temperature had cooled nearly to freezing-point, and a new
   vegetation of science and positive inquiry was overspreading
   the world. This amounts to saying that his reign covers the
   greatest epoch of mental transition through which the human
   mind has hitherto passed, excepting the transition we are
   witnessing in the day which now is. We need but recall the
   names of the writers and thinkers who arose during Louis
   XIV.'s reign, and shed their seminal ideas broadcast upon the
   air, to realise how full a period it was, both of birth and
   decay; of the passing away of the old and the uprising of the
   new forms of thought. To mention only the greatest;—the
   following are among the chiefs who helped to transform the
   mental fabric of Europe in the age of Louis XIV.:—Descartes,
   Newton, Leibnitz, Locke, Boyle. … But the chief interest
   which the reign of Louis XIV. offers to the student of history
   has yet to be mentioned. It was the great turning-point in the
   history of the French people. The triumph, of the Monarchical
   principle was so complete under him, independence and
   self-reliance were so effectually crushed, both in localities
   and individuals, that a permanent bent was given to the
   national mind—a habit of looking to the Government for all
   action and initiative permanently established. Before the
   reign of Louis XIV. it was a question which might fairly be
   considered undecided, whether the country would be able or
   not, willing or not, to co-operate with its rulers in the work
   of the Government and the reform of abuses. On more than one
   occasion such co-operation did not seem entirely impossible or
   improbable. … After the reign of Louis' XIV. such
   co-operation of the ruler and the ruled became impossible. The
   Government of France had become a machine depending upon the
   action of a single spring. Spontaneity in the population at
   large was extinct, and whatever there was to do must be done
   by the central authority. As long as the Government could
   correct abuses it was well; if it ceased to be equal to this
   task they must go uncorrected. When at last the reform of
   secular and gigantic abuses presented itself with imperious
   urgency, the alternative before the Monarchy was either to
   carry the reform with a high hand, or perish in the failure to
   do so. We know how signal the failure was, and could not help
   being, under the circumstances; and through having placed the
   Monarchy between these alternatives, it is no paradox to say
   that Louis XIV. was one of the most direct ancestors of the
   Great Revolution."

      _J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1874)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Policy of Louis XIV.
      (Studies in European History, chapter 11)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.
   Revived and growing persecution of the Huguenots.

   "One of the King's first acts, on assuming the supreme control
   of affairs at the death of Mazarin, was significant, of his
   future policy with regard to the Huguenots. Among the
   representatives of the various public bodies who came to
   tender him their congratulations, there appeared a deputation
   of Protestant ministers, headed by their president Vignole;
   but the King refused to receive them, and directed that they
   should be ordered to leave Paris forthwith. Louis was not slow
   to follow up this intimation by measures of a more positive
   kind, for he had been carefully taught to hate Protestantism;
   and, now that he possessed unrestrained power, he flattered
   himself with the idea of compelling the Huguenots to abandon
   their convictions and adopt his own. His minister Louvois
   wrote to the governors throughout the provinces that 'his
   majesty will not suffer any person in his kingdom but those
   who are of his religion.' … A series of edicts was
   accordingly published with the object of carrying the King's
   purposes into effect. The conferences of the Protestants were
   declared to be suppressed. Though worship was still permitted
   in their churches, the singing of psalms in private dwellings
   was declared to be forbidden. … Protestant children were
   invited to declare themselves against the religion of their
   parents. Boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years old might,
   on embracing Roman Catholicism, become enfranchised and
   entirely free from parental control. … The Huguenots were
   again debarred from holding public offices, though a few, such
   as Marshal Turenne and Admiral Duquesne, who were Protestants,
   broke through this barrier by the splendor of their services
   to the state. In some provinces, the exclusion was so severe
   that a profession of the Roman Catholic faith was required
   from simple artisans. …
{1234}
   Colbert, while, he lived, endeavored to restrain the King, and
   to abate these intolerable persecutions. … He took the
   opportunity of cautioning the King lest the measures he was
   enforcing might tend, if carried out, to the impoverishment of
   France and the aggrandizement of her rivals. … But all
   Colbert's expostulations were in vain; the Jesuits were
   stronger than he was, and the King was in their hands;
   besides, Colbert's power was on the decline. … In 1666 the
   queen-mother died, leaving to her son, as her last bequest,
   that he should suppress and exterminate heresy within his
   dominions. … The Bishop of Meaux exhorted him to press on in
   the path his sainted mother had pointed out to him. … The
   Huguenots had already taken alarm at the renewal of the
   persecution, and such of them as could readily dispose of
   their property and goods were beginning to leave the kingdom
   in considerable numbers for the purpose of establishing
   themselves in foreign countries. To prevent this, the King
   issued an edict forbidding French subjects from proceeding
   abroad without express permission, under penalty of
   confiscation of their goods and property. This was followed by
   a succession of severe measures for the conversion or
   extirpation of such of the Protestants—in numbers about a
   million and a half—as had not by this time contrived to make
   their escape from the kingdom. The kidnapping of Protestant
   children was actively set on foot by the agents of the Roman
   Catholic priests, and their parents were subjected to heavy
   penalties if they ventured to complain. Orders were issued to
   pull down the Protestant places of worship, and as many as
   eighty were shortly destroyed in one diocese. … Protestants
   were forbidden to print books without the authority of
   magistrates of the Romish communion. Protestant teachers were
   interdicted from teaching children any thing more than
   reading, writing, and arithmetic. … Protestants were only
   allowed to bury their dead at daybreak or at nightfall. They
   were prohibited from singing psalms on land or on water, in
   workshops or in dwellings. If a priestly procession passed one
   of their churches while the psalms were being sung, they must
   stop instantly on pain of the fine or imprisonment of the
   officiating minister. In short, from the pettiest annoyance to
   the most exasperating cruelty, nothing was wanting on the part
   of the 'Most Christian King' and his abettors."

      _S. Smiles,
      The Huguenots,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Maury,
      Memoirs of a Huguenot Family (Fontaine),
      chapters 4-7._

      _W. S. Browning,
      History of the Huguenots,
      chapters 59-60._

FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
   The administration of Colbert.
   His economic system and its results.

   "With Colbert the spirit of the great Cardinal came back to
   power. Born at Reims on the 29th of August, 1619, Colbert was
   educated by the Jesuits, and at the early age of nineteen
   entered the War Office, in which department Le Tellier, a
   connection of his family by marriage, filled the post of
   Under-Secretary of State. From the first Colbert distinguished
   himself by his abnormal powers of work, by his extraordinary
   zeal in the public service, and by an equal devotion to his
   own interests. His Jesuit training showed fruit in his
   dealings with all those who, like Le Tellier or Mazarin, could
   be of use to him on his road to power, whilst the old
   tradition of his Scotch blood is favoured by a certain
   'dourness' of character which rendered him in general
   difficult of access. His marvellous strength of brain,
   seconded by rare powers of endurance, enabled him to work
   habitually fourteen hours a day to enter into every detail of
   every branch of the administration, whilst at the same time he
   never lost sight of that noble project of universal reform
   which he had conceived, and which embraced both Church and
   State. … Qualified in every way for the work of
   administration, absolutely indifferent to popularity, Colbert
   seemed destined by nature to lead the final charge against the
   surviving forces of the feudal system. After the troubles of
   the Fronde had died away and the death of Mazarin had left
   Louis XIV. a king in deed as well as in name, these forces of
   the past were personified by Fouquet, and the duel between
   Fouquet and Colbert was the dramatic close of a struggle
   predestined to end in the complete triumph of absolutism. The
   magnificent and brilliant Fouquet, who for years past had
   taken advantage of his position as 'Surintendant des Finances'
   to lavish the resources of the State on his private pleasures,
   was plainly marked out as the object of Colbert's hostility.
   … On the losing side were ranged all the spendthrift princes
   and facile beauties of the Court, all the greedy recipients of
   Fouquet's ostentatious bounties. He had reckoned that the
   greatest names in France would be compromised by his fall, and
   that by their danger his own safety was assured. He had
   reckoned without Colbert; he had reckoned without that power
   which had been steadily growing throughout all vicissitudes of
   fate during the last two generations, and which was now
   centred in the King. No stranger turn of fortune can be
   pictured than that which, on the threshold of the modern era,
   linked the nobles of France in their last struggle for
   independence with the fortunes of a rapacious and fraudulent
   financier, nor can anything be more suggestive of the
   character of the coming epoch than the sight of this last
   battle fought, not in the field of arms, but before a court of
   law. To Colbert, the fall of Fouquet was but the necessary
   preliminary to that reform of every branch of the
   administration which had been ripening in his mind ever since
   he had entered the public service. To bring the financial
   situation into order, it was necessary first to call Fouquet
   to account. … The fall of the chief offender, Fouquet,
   having been brought about, it was easy to force all those who
   had been guilty of similar malversations on a minor scale to
   run the gauntlet of the High Commission. Restitution and
   confiscation became the order of the day, and when the Chamber
   of Justice was finally dissolved in 1669, far beyond any
   advantage which might be reckoned to the Treasury from these
   sources was the gain to the nation in the general sense of
   security and confidence. It was felt that the days of
   wholesale dishonesty and embezzlement were at an end. …
   Colbert went forward from this moment without hesitation,
   devoting his whole energies to the gigantic task of re-shaping
   the whole internal economy of France. … Backed by despotic
   power, his achievements in these directions have to an
   incredible extent determined the destinies of modern industry,
   and have given origin to the whole system of modern
   administration, not only in France, but throughout Europe.
{1235}
   In the teeth of a lavish expenditure which he was utterly
   unable to check, once and again did Colbert succeed in
   establishing a financial equilibrium when the fortunes of
   France seemed desperate. … He aimed … at the fostering of
   home production by an elaborate system of protection, whilst
   at the same time the markets of other countries were to be
   forced open and flooded with French goods. Any attempt on the
   part of a weaker power to imitate his own policy, such for
   instance as that made in the papal states by Alexander VII.
   and Clement IX., was instantly repressed with a high hand. …
   His leading idea was to lower all export dues on national
   produce and manufactures, and, whilst diminishing import
   duties on such raw materials as were required for French
   manufactures, to raise them until they became prohibitive on
   all foreign goods.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).

   The success of the tariff of 1664 misled Colbert. That tariff
   was a splendidly statesmanlike attempt to put an end to the
   conflict and confusion of the duties, dues, and customs then
   existing in the different provinces and ports of France, and
   it was in effect a tariff calculated for purely fiscal
   purposes. Far other were the considerations embodied in the
   tariff of 1667, which led to the Dutch and English wars, and
   which, having been enacted in the supposed interests of home
   industry, eventually stimulated production in other countries.
   … If, however, the industrial policy of Colbert cannot be
   said to have realised his expectations, since it neither
   brought about a great increase in the number of home
   manufactures nor succeeded in securing a larger share of
   foreign trade, there is not a doubt that, in spite even of the
   disastrous wars which it provoked, it powerfully contributed,
   on the whole, to place France in the front rank as a
   commercial nation. … The pitiless and despotic Louvois, who
   had succeeded his father, Colbert's old patron Le Tellier, as
   Secretary of State for War, played on the imperious vanity of
   King Louis, and engaged him in wars big and little, which in
   most cases wanted even the shade of a pretext. … All the
   zeal of the great Minister's strict economy could only stay
   for a while the sure approach of national distress. … When
   Colbert died, on 6th September, 1683, the misery of France,
   exhausted by oppressive taxation, and depopulated by armies
   kept constantly on foot, cried out against the Minister who,
   rather than fall from power, had lent himself to measures
   which he heartily condemned. For the moment men forgot how
   numerous were the benefits which he had conferred … and
   remembered only the harshness with which he had dealt justice
   and stinted mercy. Yet order reigned where, before his advent,
   all had been corruption and confusion; the navy of France had
   been created, her colonies fostered, her forests saved from
   destruction; justice and the authority of the law had been
   carried into the darkest corners of the land; religious
   toleration, socially if not politically, had been advocated;
   whilst the encroachments of the Church had been more or less
   steadfastly opposed. To the material prosperity of the
   nation—even after we have made all possible deductions for
   the evils arising from an exaggerated system of protection—an
   immense and enduring impulse had been given; and although it
   is true that, with the death of Colbert, many parts of his
   splendid scheme fell to the ground, yet it must be confessed
   that the spirit in which it was originated and improved still
   animates France."

      _Lady Dilke,
      France under Colbert
      (Fortnightly Rev., February, 1886)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapters 1-7._

      See, also, TAILLE AND GABELLE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1662.
   The purchase of Dunkirk from Charles II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.

FRANCE: A. D. 1663-1674.
   New France made a Royal Province.
   The French West India Company.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1663-1674.

FRANCE: A. D. 1664.
   Aid given to Austria against the Turks.
   The victory of St. Gothard.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1666.
   War with the piratical Barbary States.
   The Jijeli expedition.
   Treaties with Tunis and Algiers.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1690.
   The building of Versailles.

      See VERSAILLES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
   The Great Days of Auvergne.

   "We must read the curious account of the Great Days of
   Auvergne, written by Fléchier in his youth, if we would form
   an idea of the barbarism in which certain provinces of France
   were still plunged, in the midst of the brilliant civilization
   of the 17th century, and would know how a large number of
   those seigniors, who showed themselves so gallant and tender
   in the boudoirs of Paris, lived on their estates, in the midst
   of their subjects: we might imagine ourselves in the midst of
   feudalism. A moment bewildered by the hammer of the great
   demolisher [Richelieu], which had battered down so many
   Chateaux, the mountain squires of Auvergne, Limousin, Marche
   and Forez had resumed their habits under the feeble government
   of Mazarin. Protected by their remoteness from Paris and the
   parliament, and by the nature of the country they inhabited,
   they intimidated or gained over the subaltern judges, and
   committed with impunity every species of violence and
   exaction. A single feature will enable us to comprehend the
   state of these provinces. There were still, in the remoter
   parts of Auvergne, seigniors who claimed to use the wedding
   right (droit de jambage), or, at the least, to sell exemption
   from this right at a high price to bridegrooms. Serfhood of
   the glebe still existed in some districts. August 31, 1665, a
   royal declaration, for which ample and noble reasons were
   given, ordered the holding of a jurisdiction or court
   'commonly called the Great Days,' in the city of Clermont, for
   Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Nivernais, Forez, Beaujolais, Lyonnais,
   Combrailles, Marche, and Berry. A president of parliament, a
   master of requests, sixteen councillors, an attorney-general,
   and a deputy procurator-general, were designated to hold these
   extraordinary assizes. Their powers were almost absolute. They
   were to judge without appeal all civil and criminal cases, to
   punish the 'abuses and delinquencies of officers of the said
   districts,' to reform bad usages, as well in the style of
   procedure as in the preparation and expedition of trials, and
   to try all criminal cases first. It was enjoined on bailiffs,
   seneschals, their lieutenants and all other judges, to give
   constant information of all kinds of crimes, in order to
   prepare matter for the Great Days. A second declaration
   ordered that a posse should be put into the houses of the
   contumacious, that the chateaux where the least resistance was
   made to the law should be razed; and forbade, under penalty of
   death, the contumacious to be received or assisted.
{1236}
   The publication of the royal edicts, and the prompt arrival of
   Messieurs of the Great Days at Clermont, produced an
   extraordinary commotion in all those regions. The people
   welcomed the Parisian magistrates as liberators, and a
   remarkable monument of their joy has been preserved, the
   popular song or Christmas hymn of the Great Days. Terror, on
   the contrary, hovered over the châteaux; a multitude of
   noblemen left the province, and France, or concealed
   themselves in the mountains; others endeavored to conciliate
   their peasants. … The Great Days at least did with vigor
   what it was their mission to do: neither dignities, nor
   titles, nor high connections preserved the guilty. … The
   Court of Great Days was not content with punishing evil; it
   undertook to prevent its return by wise regulations: first,
   against the abuses of seigniorial courts; second, against the
   vexations of seigniors on account of feudal service due them;
   third, concerning the mode and abbreviation of trials; and
   lastly, concerning the reformation of the clergy, who had no
   less need of being reformed than the nobility. The Great Days
   were brought to a close after three months of assizes (end of
   October, 1665—end of January, 1666), and their recollection
   was consecrated by a medal."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: The Age of Louis XIV:,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

FRANCE: A. D.1665-1670.
   The East India Company.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

FRANCE: A. D. 1666.
   Alliance with Holland against England.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

FRANCE: A. D. 1667.
   The War of the Queen's Rights.
   Conquests in the Spanish Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

FRANCE: A. D. 1668.
   The king's conquests in Flanders checked by the Triple
   Alliance.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

FRANCE: A. D. 1670.
   The secret treaty of Dover.
   The buying of the English king.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

FRANCE: A. D. 1672-1678.
   War with Holland and the Austro-Spanish Coalition.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714;
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
      and 1674-1678.

FRANCE: A. D. 1673-1682.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi
   by Marquette and La Salle.
   Possession taken of Louisiana.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.

FRANCE: A. D. 1678-1679.
   The Peace of Nimeguen.

      See NIMEGUEN. PEACE OF.

FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete absorption of Les Trois-Evêchés and Alsace.
   Assumption of entire sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chambers of Reannexation.
   The seizure of Strasburg.

   "The Lorraine Trois-Evêchés, recovered by France from the Holy
   Roman Empire, had remained in an equivocal position, as to
   public law, during nearly a century, between their old and new
   ties: the treaty of Westphalia had cut the knot by the formal
   renunciation of the Empire to all rights over these countries;
   difficulties nevertheless still subsisted relative to the
   fiefs and the pendencies of Trois-Evêchés possessed by members
   of the Empire. Alsace, in its turn, from the treaty of
   Westphalia to the peace of Nimeguen, had offered analogous and
   still greater difficulties, this province of Teutonic tongue
   not having accepted the annexation to France as easily as the
   Walloon province of Trois-Evêchés, and the treaty of
   Westphalia presenting two contradictory clauses, one of which
   ceded to France all the rights of the Emperor and the Empire,
   and the other of which reserved the 'immediateness' of the
   lords and the ten cities of the prefecture of Alsace towards
   the Empire. …

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

   At last, on the complaints carried to the Germanic Diet by the
   ten Alsacian cities, joined by the German feudatories of
   Trois-Evêchés, Louis, who was then very conciliatory towards
   the Diet, consented to take for arbiters the King of Sweden
   and some princes and towns of Germany (1665). The arbitration
   was protracted for more than six years. In the beginning of
   1672, the arbiters rendered an ambiguous decision which
   decided nothing and satisfied no one. War with Holland broke
   out meanwhile and changed all the relations of France with
   Germany. … Louis XIV. disarmed or took military occupation
   of the ten cities and silenced all opposition. … In the
   conferences of Nimeguen, the representatives of the Emperor
   and the Empire endeavored to return to the 'immediateness,'
   but the King would not listen to a renewal of the arbitration,
   and declared all debate superfluous. 'Not only,' said the
   French plenipotentiaries, 'ought the King to exercise, as in
   fact he does exercise, sovereign domain over the ten cities,
   but he might also extend it over Strasburg, for the treaty of
   Münster furnishes to this city no special title guaranteeing
   its independence better than that of the other cities.' It was
   the first time that Louis had disclosed this bold claim,
   resting on an inaccurate assertion. The Imperialists,
   terrified, yielded as regarded the ten cities, and Alsace was
   not called in question in the treaty of Nimeguen. Only the
   Imperialists protested, by a separate act, against the
   conclusions which might be drawn from this omission. The ten
   cities submitted and took to the King an oath of fidelity,
   without reservation towards the Empire; their submission was
   celebrated by a medal bearing the device: 'Alsatia in
   provinciam reducta' (1680). The treaty of Nimeguen was
   followed by divers measures destined to win the Alsacian
   population. … This wise policy bore its fruits, and Alsace,
   tranquillized, gave no more cause of anxiety to the French
   government. France was thenceforth complete mistress of the
   possessions which had been ceded to her by the Empire; this
   was only the first part of the work; the point in question now
   was, to complete these possessions by joining to them their
   natural appendages which the Empire had not alienated. The
   boundaries of Lower Alsace and the Messin district were ill
   defined, encroached upon, entangled, on the Rhine, on the
   Sarre, and in the Vosges, by the fiefs of a host of petty
   princes and German nobles. This could not be called a
   frontier. Besides, in the very heart of Alsace, the great city
   of Strasburg preserved its independence towards France and its
   connection with the Empire. A pacific method was invented to
   proceed to aggrandizements which it would seem could only be
   demanded by arms; a pacific method, provided that France could
   count on the weakness and irresolution of her neighbors; this
   was to investigate and revendicate everything which, by any
   title and at any epoch whatsoever, had been dependent on
   Alsace and Trois-Evêchés.
{1237}
   We may comprehend whither this would lead, thanks to the
   complications of the feudal epoch; and it was not even
   designed to stop at the feudal system, but to go back to the
   times of the Frankish kings! Chambers of 'reannexation' were
   therefore instituted, in 1679, in the Parliament of Metz, and
   in the sovereign council of Alsace, with a mission which their
   title sufficiently indicated. … Among the nobles summoned,
   figured the Elector of Treves, for Oberstein, Falkenburg,
   etc.; the Landgrave of Hesse, for divers fiefs; the Elector
   Palatine, for Seltz and the canton situated between the Lauter
   and the Keich (Hogenbach, Germersheim, etc.); another prince
   palatine for the county of Veldentz: the Bishop of Speyer, for
   a part of his bishopric; the city of Strasburg, for the
   domains which it possessed beyond the Rhine (Wasselonne and
   Marlenheim); lastly, the King of Sweden, for the duchy of
   Deux-Ponts or Zweibrücken, a territory of considerable extent
   and of irregular form, which intersected the cis-Rhenish
   Palatinate. … By divers decrees rendered in March, August,
   and October, 1680, the sovereign council of Alsace adjudged to
   the King the sovereignty of all the Alsacian seigniories. The
   nobles and inhabitants were summoned to swear fidelity to the
   King, and the nobles were required to recognize the sovereign
   council as judge in last resort. The chamber of Metz acted on
   a still larger scale than the chamber of Breisach. April 12,
   1680, it united to Trois-Evêchés more than 80 fiefs, the
   Lorraine marquisate of Pont-à-Mousson, the principality of
   Salm, the counties of Saarbourg and Veldentz, the seigniories
   of Sarrebourg, Bitche, Homburg, etc. The foundation of the new
   town of Sarre-Louis and the fortification of Bitche
   consolidated this new frontier; and not only was the course of
   the Sarre secured to France, but France, crossing the Sarre,
   encroached deeply on the Palatinate and the Electorate of
   Treves, posted herself on the Nahe and the Blies, and threw,
   as an advance-guard, on a peninsula of the Moselle, the
   fortress of Mont-Royal, half-way from Treves to Coblentz, on
   the territories of the county of Veldentz. The parliament of
   Franche-Comté, newly French as it was, zealously followed the
   example of the two neighboring courts. There was also a
   frontier to round towards the Jura. … The Duke of Würtemberg
   was required to swear allegiance to the King for his county of
   Montbéliard. … The acquisitions made were trifling compared
   with those which remained to be made. He [Louis XIV.] was not
   sure of the Rhine, not sure of Alsace, so long as he had not
   Strasburg, the great city always ready to throw upon the
   French bank of the river the armies of the Empire. France had
   long aimed at this conquest. As soon as she possessed Metz she
   had dreamed of Strasburg. … Though the King and Louvois had
   prevented Créqui from besieging the place during the war, it
   was because they counted on surprising it after peace. This
   great enterprise was most ably manœuvred." The members of the
   regency of the city were gained over, one by one. "The
   Imperial troops had evacuated the city pursuant to the treaty
   of Nimeguen; the magistrates dismissed 1,200 Swiss which the
   city had in its pay; then, on the threatening demands of the
   French, they demolished anew Fort Kehl, which they had rebuilt
   since its destruction by Créqui. When the fruit seemed ripe,
   Louis stretched out his hand to gather it. In the latter part
   of September, 1681, the garrisons of Lorraine, Franche-Comté,
   and Alsace put themselves in motion. … The 28th, 35,000 men
   were found assembled before the city; Baron de Montclar, who
   commanded this army, informed the magistrates that 'the
   sovereign chamber of Breisach having adjudged to the king the
   sovereignty of all Alsace, of which Strasburg was a member,
   his Majesty desired that they should recognize him as their
   sovereign lord, and receive a garrison." On the 30th the
   capitulation of the city was signed; on the 23d of October the
   King entered Strasburg in person and was received as its
   sovereign.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

FRANCE: A. D. 1680.
   Imprisonment of the "Man in the Iron Mask."

      See IRON MASK.

FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1684.
   Threatening relations with the Turks.
   War with the Barbary States.
   Destructive bombardment of Algiers.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
   Climax of the persecution of the Huguenots.
   The Dragonnades.
   The revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
   The great exodus of French Protestants and the consequent
   national loss.

   "Love and war suspended for a considerable time" the ambition
   of the king to extinguish heresy in his dominions and
   establish uniformity of religious worship; "but when Louis
   became satiated at once with glory and pleasure, and when
   Madame de Maintenon, the Duke de Beauvilliers, the Duke de
   Montausier, Bossuet, the Archbishop of Rheims, the Chancellor
   Letellier, and all the religious portion of the court, began
   to direct his now unoccupied and scrupulous mind to the
   interests of religion, Louis XIV. returned to his plans with
   renewed ardor. From bribery they proceeded to compulsion.
   Missionaries, escorted by dragoons, spread themselves at the
   instigation of Bossuet, and even of Fénelon, over the western,
   southern and eastern provinces, and particularly in those
   districts throughout which Protestantism, more firmly rooted
   among a more tenacious people, had as yet resisted all
   attempts at conversion by preaching. … Children from above
   seven years of age were authorized to abjure legally the
   religion of their fathers. The houses of those parents who
   refused to deliver up their sons and daughters were invaded
   and laid under contributions by the royal troops. The
   expropriation of their homes, and the tearing asunder of
   families, compelled the people to fly from persecution. The
   king, uneasy at this growing depopulation, pronounced the
   punishment of the galleys against those who sought liberty in
   flight; he also ordered the confiscation of all the lands and
   houses which were sold by those proprietors who were preparing
   to quit the kingdom. … Very soon the proscription was
   organized en masse: all the cavalry in the kingdom, who, on
   account of the peace, were unemployed, were placed at the
   disposal of the preachers and bishops, to uphold their
   missions [known as the dragonnades] with the sabre. …
   Bossuet approved of these persecutions. Religious and
   political faith, in his eyes, justified their necessity. His
   correspondence is full of evidence, while his actions prove
   that he was an accomplice: even his eloquence … overflowed
   with approbation of, and enthusiasm for, these oppressions of
   the soul and terrors of heresy."

      _A. de Lamartine,
      Memoirs of Celebrated Characters,
      volume 3: Bossuet._

{1238}

   "The heroism of conviction, it has been truly said, was now
   displayed, not in resistance, but, if the paradox may be
   admitted, in flight. The outflow was for the moment arrested
   at the remonstrance of Colbert, now for the last time listened
   to in the royal councils, and by reason of the sympathy
   aroused by the fugitives in England: but not before 3,000
   families had left the country. The retirement and death of the
   great minister were the signal for revived action, wherever an
   assembly of Huguenots larger than usual might warrant or
   colour a suspicion of rebellion. In such excuses, not as yet
   an avowed crusade, the troopers of the duke de Noailles were
   called in at Grenoble, Bourdeaux, and Nimes. Full forty
   churches were demolished in 1683, more than a hundred in 1684.
   But the system of military missions was not organized until in
   1685 the defence of the Spanish frontier offered the
   opportunity for a final subjugation of the Huguenots of Bearn.
   The dragonnade passed through the land like a pestilence. From
   Guienne to Dauphine, from Poitou to Upper Languedoc, no place
   was spared. Then it pervaded the southeast country, about the
   Cevennes and Provence, and ravaged Lyons and the Pays de Gex.
   In the end, the whole of the north was assailed, and the
   failing edict of Nantes was annulled on the 1st of October.
   The sombre mind of Madame de Maintenon had postulated the
   Recall as a preliminary to the marriage which the king had
   already conceded. On the 21st of the month the great church at
   Charenton was doomed; and on the 22nd the 'unadvised and
   precipitate' Edict of Revocation was registered in the Chambre
   des Vacations. … The year 1685 is fitly identified with the
   depopulation of France. And yet, with a blindness that appears
   to us incredible, the government refused to believe in the
   desire or the possibility of escape. The penalties attached to
   capture on the road,—the galleys or the nunnery,—the
   vigilant watch at the frontier, the frigates cruising by every
   coast, all these difficulties seem to have persuaded Louvois
   that few would persist in risking flight. What these measures
   actually effected was doubtless to diminish the exodus, but in
   no marked degree. At length, it came to be thought that the
   emigration was due to its prohibition, as though the Huguenots
   must do a thing from mere perverseness. The watch was relaxed,
   and a result unlooked for issued. It was the signal of the
   greatest of the emigrations, that of 1688. … In the
   statistical question [as to the total number of the Huguenot
   exiles from France after the revocation of the edict of
   Nantes] it is impossible to arrive at a certain result; and
   the range which calculation or conjecture has allowed to
   successive historians may make one pause before attempting a
   dogmatic solution. Basnage, a year after the Recall, reckoned
   the emigrants above 150,000: next year Jurieu raised the total
   above 200,000. Writing later Basnage found between 300,000 and
   400,000; and the estimate has been accepted by Sismondi.
   Lastly Voltaire, followed in our own day by Hase, counted
   500,000. These are a few of the sober calculations, and their
   mean will perhaps supply the ultimate figure. I need only
   mention, among impossible guesses, that of Limiers, which
   raises the account to 800,000, because it has been taken up by
   the Prussian statesman Von Dohm. … The only historian who
   professes to have pursued the enquiry in exact detail is
   Capefigue; and from his minute scrutiny of the cartons des
   généralités, as prepared in the closing years of the 17th
   century, he obtains a computation of 225,000 or 230,000. Such
   a result must be accepted as the absolute minimum; for it was
   the plain interest of the intendants who drew up the returns,
   to put all the facts which revealed the folly of the king's
   action at the lowest cipher. And allowing the accuracy of
   Capefigue's work, there are other reasons for increasing his
   total. … We cannot set the emigration at a lower fraction
   than one-fifth of the total Huguenot society. If the body
   numbered two millions, the outflow will be 400,000. If this
   appear an extreme estimate, it must be remembered that
   one-fifth is also extreme on the other side. Reducing the
   former aggregate to 1,500,000, it will be clearly within the
   bounds of moderation to leave the total exodus a range between
   300,000 and 350,000. How are we to distribute this immense
   aggregation? Holland certainly claims near 100,000; England,
   with Ireland and America, probably 80,000. Switzerland must
   have received 25,000; and Germany, including Brandenburg,
   thrice that number. The remainder will be made up from the
   north of Europe, and from the exiles whom commerce or other
   causes carried in isolated households elsewhere, and of whom
   no record is preserved to us. … The tale then of the
   emigrants was above 300,000. It follows to ask what was the
   material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the
   lowest in his estimate: he will not grant the export of more
   than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux
   himself, that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed
   that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had
   gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier
   merchants deferred their departure in order to carry as much
   as they could with them. Two hundred and fifty traders are
   said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the
   actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions:
   and a calculation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms
   that every individual refugee in England brought with him on
   an average money or effects to the value of £60. … It will
   be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by
   their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical
   of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms had
   but 4,000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the
   same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps
   4,000 work-people. Of its 3,000 ribbon-factories only sixty
   remained: Equally significant was the ruin of the woollen
   trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget-manufacture of
   Coulonges and Châtaigneraie, or of the industry in serges and
   bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between
   Châtaigneraie and Canada, by way of La Rochelle, was in the
   last year of the century absolutely extinct."

      _R. L. Poole,
      History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion,
      chapters 3 and 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Weiss,
      History of the French Protestant Refugees._

      _N. Peyrat,
      The Pastors in the Wilderness,
      volume 1, chapters 5-7._

      _A. Maury,
      Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
      (Fontaine), chapters 4-9._

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapters 11-12._

      _C. W. Baird,
      History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
      chapters 4-8 (volumes 1-2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1686.
   Claims upon the Palatinate.
   Formation of the League of Augsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

{1239}

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
   War of the League of Augsburg.
   The second devastation of the Palatinate.

   "The interference of Lewis in Ireland on behalf of James [the
   Second, the dethroned Stuart king] caused William [prince of
   Orange, now King of England] to mature his plans for a great
   Continental confederacy against France. On May 12, 1689,
   William, as Stadtholder of the United Provinces, had entered
   into an offensive and defensive alliance with the Emperor
   against Lewis. On May 17, as King of England, he declared war
   against France; and on December 30 joined the alliance between
   the Emperor and the Dutch. His example was followed on June 6,
   1690, by the King of Spain, and on October 20 of the same year
   by Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. This confederation was
   called the 'Grand Alliance.' Its main object was declared to
   be to curb the power and ambition of Lewis XIV.; to force him
   to surrender his conquests, and to confine his territories to
   the limits agreed upon between him and the Emperor at the
   treaty of Westphalia (1648), and between France and Spain at
   the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The League of Augsburg,
   which William had with so much trouble brought about, had now
   successfully developed into the Grand Alliance."

      _E. Hale,
      The Fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe,
      chapter 14, section 5._

   "The work at which William had toiled indefatigably during
   many gloomy and anxious years was at length accomplished. The
   great coalition was formed. It was plain that a desperate
   conflict was at hand. The oppressor of Europe would have to
   defend himself against England allied with Charles the Second
   King of Spain, with the Emperor Leopold, and with the Germanic
   and Batavian federations, and was likely to have no ally
   except the Sultan, who was waging war against the House of
   Austria on the Danube. Lewis had, towards the close of the
   preceding year, taken his enemies at a disadvantage, and had
   struck the first blow before they were prepared to parry it.
   But that blow, though heavy, was not aimed at the part where
   it might have been mortal. Had hostilities been commenced on
   the Batavian frontier, William and his army would probably
   have been detained on the continent, and James might have
   continued to govern England. Happily, Lewis, under an
   infatuation which many pious Protestants confidently ascribed
   to the righteous judgment of God, had neglected the point on
   which the fate of the whole civilised world depended, and had
   made a great display of power, promptitude, and energy, in a
   quarter where the most splendid achievements could produce
   nothing more than an illumination and a Te Deum. A French army
   under the command of Marshal Duras had invaded the Palatinate
   and some of the neighbouring principalities. But this
   expedition, though it had been completely successful, and
   though the skill and vigour with which it had been conducted
   had excited general admiration, could not perceptibly affect
   the event of the tremendous struggle which was approaching.
   France would soon be attacked on every side. It would be
   impossible for Duras long to retain possession of the
   provinces which he had surprised and overrun. An atrocious
   thought rose in the mind of Louvois, who, in military affairs,
   had the chief sway at Versailles. … The ironhearted
   statesman submitted his plan, probably with much management
   and with some disguise, to Lewis; and Lewis, in an evil hour
   for his fame, assented. Duras received orders to turn one of
   the fairest regions of Europe into a wilderness. Fifteen years
   had elapsed since Turenne had ravaged part of that fine
   country. But the ravages committed by Turenne, though they
   have left a deep stain on his glory, were mere sport in
   comparison with the horrors of this second devastation. The
   French commander announced to near half a million of human
   beings that he granted them three days of grace, and that,
   within that time, they must shift for themselves. Soon the
   roads and fields, which then lay deep in snow, were blackened
   by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying
   from their homes. Many died of cold and hunger: but enough
   survived to fill the streets of all the cities of Europe with
   lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmers
   and shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The
   flames went up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every
   parish church, every country seat, within the devoted
   provinces. The fields where the corn had been sown were
   ploughed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise of a
   harvest was left on the fertile plains near what had once been
   Frankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on
   the slopes of the sunny hills round what had once been
   Heidelberg. No respect was shown to palaces, to temples, to
   monasteries, to infirmaries, to beautiful works of art, to
   monuments of the illustrious dead. The far-famed castle of the
   Elector Palatine was turned into a heap of ruins. The
   adjoining hospital was sacked. The provisions, the medicines,
   the pallets on which the sick lay, were destroyed. The very
   stones on which Manheim had been built were flung into the
   Rhine. The magnificent Cathedral of Spires perished, and with
   it the marble sepulchres of eight Cæsars. The coffins were
   broken open. The ashes were scattered to the winds. Treves,
   with its fair bridge, its Roman baths and amphitheatre, its
   venerable churches, convents, and colleges, was doomed to the
   same fate. But, before this last crime had been perpetrated,
   Lewis was recalled to a better mind by the execrations of all
   the neighbouring nations, by the silence and confusion of his
   flatterers, and by the expostulations of his wife. … He
   relented; and Treves was spared. In truth he could hardly fail
   to perceive that he had committed a great error. The
   devastation of the Palatinate, while it had not in any
   sensible degree lessened the power of his enemies, had
   inflamed their animosity, and had furnished them with
   inexhaustible matter for invective. The cry of vengeance rose
   on every side. Whatever scruple either branch of the House of
   Austria might have felt about coalescing with Protestants was
   completely removed."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2._

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the German Empire,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume. 3)._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
   Aid to James II. in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

{1240}

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
   Campaigns in the Netherlands and in Savoy.

   "Our limits will not permit us to describe at any length the
   war between Louis XIV. and the Grand Alliance, which lasted
   till the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, but only to note some of
   the chief incidents of the different campaigns. The
   Imperialists had, in 1689, notwithstanding the efforts it was
   still necessary to make against the Turks, brought an army of
   80,000 men into the field, which was divided into three bodies
   under the command of the Duke of Lorraine, the Elector of
   Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg; while the Prince of
   Waldeck, in the Netherlands, was at the head of a large Dutch
   and Spanish force, composed, however, in great part of German
   mercenaries. In this quarter, Marshal d'Humières was opposed
   to Waldeck, while Duras commanded the French army on the
   Rhine. In the south, the Duke of Noailles maintained a French
   force in Catalonia. Nothing of much importance was done this
   year; but on the whole the war went in favour of the
   imperialists, who succeeded in recovering Mentz and Bonn.

   1690: This year, Marshal d'Humières was superseded by the Duke
   of Luxembourg, who infused more vigour into the French
   operations. … Catinat was sent this year into Dauphiné to
   watch the movements of the Duke of Savoy, who was suspected by
   the French Court, and not without reason, of favouring the
   Grand Alliance. The extravagant demands of Louis, who required
   Victor Amadeus to unite his troops with the army of Catinat,
   and to admit a French garrison into Vercelli, Verrua, and even
   the citadel of Turin itself, till a general peace should be
   effected, caused the Duke to enter into treaties with Spain
   and the Emperor, June 3d and 4th; and on October 20th, he
   joined the Grand Alliance by a treaty concluded at the Hague
   with England and the States-General. This last step was taken
   by Victor Amadeus in consequence of his reverses. He had
   sustained from Catinat in the battle of Staffarda (August
   17th) a defeat which only the skill of a youthful general, his
   cousin the Prince Eugene, had saved from becoming a total
   rout. As the fruits of this victory, Catinat occupied Saluzzo,
   Susa, and all the country from the Alps to the Tanaro. During
   these operations another French division had reduced, without
   much resistance, the whole of Savoy, except the fortress of
   Montmélian. The only other event of importance during this
   campaign was the decisive victory gained by Luxembourg over
   Prince Waldeck at Fleurus, July 1st. The captured standards,
   more than a hundred in number, which Luxembourg sent to Paris
   on this occasion, obtained for him the name of the 'Tapassier
   de Notre Dame.' Luxembourg was, however, prevented from
   following up his victory by the orders of Louvois, who forbade
   him to lay siege to Namur or Charleroi. Thus, in this
   campaign, France maintained her preponderance on land as well
   as at sea by the victory off Beachy Head. …

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.

   The Imperialists had this year lost one of their best leaders
   by the death of the Duke of Lorraine (April). He was succeeded
   as commander-in-chief by Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of
   Bavaria; but nothing of importance took place upon the Rhine.

   1691: The campaign of this year was singularly barren of
   events, though both the French and English kings took a
   personal part in it. In March, Louis and Luxembourg, laid
   siege to Mons, the capital of Hainault, which surrendered in
   less than three weeks. King William, who was in the
   neighbourhood, could not muster sufficient troops to venture
   on its relief. Nothing further of importance was done in this
   quarter, and the campaign in Germany was equally a blank. On
   the side of Piedmont, Catinat took Nice, but, being confronted
   by superior numbers, was forced to evacuate Piedmont; though,
   by way of compensation, he completed the conquest of Savoy by
   the capture of Montmélian. Noailles gained some trifling
   successes in Spain; and the celebrated French corsair, Jean
   Bart, distinguished himself by his enterprises at sea. One of
   the most remarkable events of the year was a domestic
   occurrence, the death of Louvois."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 44 (volume 5)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
   The taking of Namur and the victory of Steinkirk, or
   Steenkerke.

   Never perhaps in the whole course of his unresting life were
   the energies of William [of Orange] more severely taxed, and
   never did his great moral and intellectual qualities shine
   forth with a brighter lustre, than in the years 1692-93.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

   The great victory of La Hogue and the destruction of the
   flower of the French fleet did, it is true, relieve England of
   any immediate dread either of insurrection or invasion, and so
   far the prospect before him acquired a slight improvement
   towards the summer of 1692. But this was the only gleam of
   light in the horizon. … The great coalition of Powers which
   he had succeeded in forming to resist the ambition of Louis
   was never nearer dissolution than in the spring of 1692. The
   Scandinavian states, who had held aloof from it from the
   first, were now rapidly changing the benevolence of their
   neutrality into something not easily distinguishable from its
   reverse. The new Pope Innocent XII. showed himself far less
   amicably disposed towards William than his two predecessors.
   The decrepitude of Spain and the arrogant self-will of Austria
   were displaying themselves more conspicuously than ever. Savoy
   was ruled by a duke who was more than half suspected of being
   a traitor. … William did succeed in saving the league from
   dissolution, and in getting their armies once more into the
   field. But not, unfortunately, to any purpose. The campaign of
   the present year was destined to repeat the errors of the
   last, and these errors were to be paid for at a heavier cost.
   … The French king was bent upon the capture of the great
   stronghold of Namur, and the enemy, as in the case of Mons,
   were too slow in their movements and too ineffective in their
   dispositions to prevent it. Marching to the assault of the
   doomed city, with a magnificence of courtly pageantry which
   had never before been witnessed in warfare, Louis sat down
   before Namur, and in eight days its faint-hearted governor,
   the nominee of the Spanish viceroy of the Netherlands,
   surrendered at discretion. Having accomplished, or rather
   having graciously condescended to witness the accomplishment
   of this feat of arms, Louis returned to Versailles, leaving
   his army under the command of Luxembourg. The fall of Namur
   was a severe blow to the hopes of William, but yet worse
   disasters were in store for him. He was now pitted against one
   who enjoyed the reputation of the greatest general of the age,
   and William, a fair but by no means brilliant strategist, was
   unequal to the contest with his accomplished adversary.
{1241}
   Luxembourg lay at Steinkirk, and William approaching him from
   a place named Lambeque, opened his attack upon him by a
   well-conceived surprise which promised at first to throw the
   French army into complete disorder. Luxembourg's resource and
   energy, however, were equal to the emergency. He rallied and
   steadied his troops with astonishing speed, and the nature of
   the ground preventing the allies from advancing as rapidly as
   they had expected, they found the enemy in a posture to
   receive them. The British forces were in the front, commanded
   by Count Solmes, the division of Mackay, a name now honourable
   for many generations in the annals of continental, no less
   than of Scottish, warfare, leading the way. These heroes, for
   so, though as yet untried soldiers, they approved themselves,
   were to have been supported by Count Solmes with a strong body
   of cavalry and infantry, but at the critical moment he failed
   them miserably, and his failure decided the fortunes of the
   day. … The division was practically annihilated. Its five
   regiments, 'Cutt's, Mackay's, Angus's, Graham's, and Leven's,
   all,' as Corporal Trim relates pathetically, cut to pieces,
   and so had the English Life-guards been too, had it not been
   for some regiments on the right, who marched up boldly to
   their relief, and, received the enemy's fire in their faces,
   before anyone of their own platoons discharged a musket.'
   Bitter was the resentment in the English army at the desertion
   of these gallant troops by Count de Solmes, and William gave
   vent to one of his rare outbursts of anger at the sight. We
   have it indeed on the authority above quoted—unimpeachable as
   first-hand tradition, for Sterne had heard the story of these
   wars at the knees of an eye-witness of and actor in them—that
   the King 'would not suffer the Count to come into his presence
   for many months after.' The destruction of Mackay's division
   had indeed decided the issue of the struggle. Luxembourg's
   army was being rapidly strengthened by reinforcements from
   that of Boufflers, and there was nothing for it but retreat.
   The loss on both sides had been great, but the moral effect of
   the victory was still greater. William's reputation for
   generalship, perhaps unduly raised by his recent exploits in
   Ireland, underwent a serious decline."

      _H. D. Traill,
      William the Third,
      chapter 10._

   On the Rhine and on the Spanish frontier nothing of importance
   occurred during 1692. The Duke of Savoy gained some advantages
   on his side and invaded Dauphiny, without any material result.
   The invasion called into action a young heroine, Mademoiselle
   de La Tour-du-Pin, whose portrait has a place at Saint-Denis
   by the side of that of Jeanne D'Arc.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 20._

FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (July).
   The Battle of Neerwinden, or Landen.

   "Lewis had determined not to make any advance towards a
   reconciliation with the new government of England till the
   whole strength of his realm had been put forth in one more
   effort. A mighty effort in truth it was, but too exhausting to
   be repeated. He made an immense display of force at once on
   the Pyrenees and on the Alps, on the Rhine and on the Meuse,
   in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. That nothing might
   be wanting which could excite the martial ardour of a nation
   eminently high-spirited, he instituted, a few days before he
   left his palace for the camp, a new military order of
   knighthood, and placed it under the protection of his own
   sainted ancestor and patron. The cross of Saint Lewis shone on
   the breasts of the gentlemen who had been conspicuous in the
   trenches before Mons and Namur, and on the fields of Fleurus
   and Steinkirk. … On the 18th of May Lewis left Versailles.
   Early in June he was under the walls of Namur. The Princesses,
   who had accompanied him, held their court within the fortress. He
   took under his immediate command the army of Boufflers, which
   was encamped at Gembloux. Little more than a mile off lay the
   army of Luxemburg. The force collected in that neighbourhood
   under the French lilies did not amount to less than 120,000
   men. Lewis had flattered himself that he should be able to
   repeat in 1693 the stratagem by which Mons had been taken in
   1691 and Namur in 1692; and he had determined that either
   Liege or Brussels should be his prey. But William had this
   year been able to assemble in good time a force, inferior
   indeed to that which was opposed to him, but still formidable.
   With this force he took his post near Louvain, on the road
   between the two threatened cities, and watched every movement
   of the enemy. … Just at this conjuncture Lewis announced his
   intention to return instantly to Versailles, and to send the
   Dauphin and Boufflers, with part of the army which was
   assembled near Namur, to join Marshal Lorges who commanded in
   the Palatinate. Luxemburg was thunderstruck. He expostulated
   boldly and earnestly. Never, he said, was such an opportunity
   thrown away. … The Marshal reasoned: he implored: he went on
   his knees: but all was vain; and he quitted the royal presence
   in the deepest dejection. Lewis left the camp a week after he
   had joined it, and never afterwards made war in person. …
   Though the French army in the Netherlands had been weakened by
   the departure of the forces commanded by the Dauphin and
   Boufflers, and though the allied army was daily strengthened
   by the arrival of fresh troops, Luxemburg still had a
   superiority of force; and that superiority he increased by an
   adroit stratagem." He succeeded by a feint in inducing William
   to detach 20,000 men from his army and to send them to Liege.
   He then moved suddenly upon the camp of the allies, with
   80,000 men, and found but 50,000 to oppose him. "It was still
   in the [English] King's power, by a hasty retreat, to put
   between his army and the enemy the narrow, but deep, waters of
   the Gette, which had lately been swollen by rains. But the
   site which he occupied was strong; and it could easily be made
   still stronger. He set all his troops to work. Ditches were
   dug, mounds thrown up, palisades fixed in the earth. In a few
   hours the ground wore a new aspect; and the King trusted that
   he should be able to repel the attack even of a force greatly
   outnumbering his own. … On the left flank, the village of
   Romsdorff rose close to the little stream of Landen, from
   which the English have named the disastrous day. On the right
   was the village of Neerwinden. Both villages were, after the
   fashion of the Low Countries, surrounded by moats and fences.
   "Notwithstanding the strength of the position held by the
   allies, and the valor with which they defended it, they were
   driven out of Neerwinden [July 29]—but only after the
   shattered village had been five times taken and retaken—and
   across the Gette, in confusion and with heavy loss.
{1242}
   "The French were victorious: but they had bought their victory
   dear. More then 10,000 of the best troops of Lewis had fallen.
   Neerwinden was a spectacle at which the oldest soldiers stood
   aghast. The streets were piled breast high with corpses. Among
   the slain were some great lords and some renowned warriors.
   … The region, renowned as the battle field, through many
   ages, of the greatest powers of Europe, has seen only two more
   terrible days, the day of Malplaquet and the day of Waterloo.
   … There was no pursuit, though the sun was still high in the
   heaven when William crossed the Gette. The conquerors were so
   much exhausted by marching and fighting that they could
   scarcely move. … A very short delay was enough for William.
   … Three weeks after his defeat he held a review a few miles
   from Brussels. The number of men under arms was greater than
   on the morning of the bloody day of Landen: their appearance
   was soldierlike; and their spirit seemed unbroken. William now
   wrote to Heinsius that the worst was over. 'The crisis,' he
   said, 'has been a terrible one. Thank God that it has ended
   thus.' He did not, however, think it prudent to try at that
   time the event of another pitched field. He therefore suffered
   the French to besiege and take Charleroi; and this was the
   only advantage which they derived from the most sanguinary
   battle fought in Europe during the seventeenth century."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 5 (1693), volume 4._

      _Duc de Saint-Simon,
      Memoirs (translated by St. John),
      volume 1, chapter 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (October).
   Defeat of the Duke of Savoy at Marsaglia.

   "The great efforts made by Louis in the north prevented him
   from strengthening the army of Catinat sufficiently to act
   with energy against the Savoyard prince, and it was determined
   to restrict the campaign of 1693 to the defensive on the part
   of France. The forces of the duke had in the meantime been
   reinforced from Germany, and he opened the campaign with a
   brilliant and successful movement against Pignerol. … He is
   said to have entertained hopes of carrying the war in that one
   campaign to the very gates of Lyons; but the successes which
   inspired him with such expectations alarmed the court of
   France, and Louis detached in haste a large body of cavalry to
   reinforce Catinat. That general marched at once to fight the Duke
   of Savoy, who, presuming on his strength, suffered the French
   to pour out from the valley of Suza into the plain of
   Piedmont, abandoned the heights, and was consequently defeated
   at Marsaglia on the 4th of October. Catinat, however, could not
   profit by his victory; he was too ill supplied in every
   respect to undertake the siege of Coni, and the state of the
   French armies at this time marks as plainly that Louvois was
   dead, as the state of the finances speaks the loss of
   Colbert."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
   Campaigns without battles.
   Operations at sea.

   In 1694, King William was "in a position to keep an army afoot
   in the Netherlands stronger than any had hitherto been. It was
   reckoned at 31,800 horse, including a corps of dragoons, and
   58,000 foot; so great a force had never been seen within the
   memory of man. All the best-known generals, who had hitherto
   taken part in the wars of western Europe, were gathered round
   him with their troops. The French army, with which the
   Dauphin, but not the King, was present, was not much smaller;
   it was once more led by Marshal Luxembourg. These two hosts
   lay over against one another in their camps for a couple of
   months; neither offered battle to the other. … This campaign
   is notable in the annals of the art of war for the skill with
   which each force pursued or evaded the other; but the results
   were limited to the recovery by the allies of that unimportant
   place, Huy. William had thought himself fortunate in having
   come out of the previous campaign without disaster: in this
   campaign the French were proud to have held their lines in
   presence of a superior force. On the coast also the French
   were successful in repelling a most vehement and perilous
   attack. They had been warned that the English were going to
   fall on Brest, and Vauban was sent down there in haste to
   organise the defence; and in this he was thoroughly
   successful. When the English landed on the coast in Camaret
   Bay (for the fort of that name had first to be taken) they
   were saluted by two batteries, which they had never detected,
   and which were so well placed that every shot told, and the
   grape-shot wounded almost every man who had ventured ashore.
   The gallant General, Talmash, was also hit, and ere long died
   of his wounds. The English fleet, which had come to bombard
   Brest, was itself bombarded from the walls. But though this
   great effort failed, the English fleet still held the mastery
   of the Channel: it also blockaded the northern coast of
   France. After Brest it attacked Dieppe, laying it almost
   entirely in ashes; thence it sailed to Havre, and St. Malo, to
   Calais, and Dunkirk. This was of great use in the conduct of
   the war. King William observes that had not the coasts been
   kept in a state of alarm, all the forces detained there for
   defensive purposes would have been thrown on the Netherlands.
   … But the most important result of the maritime war lay on
   another side. In May, 1694, Noailles pushed into Catalonia,
   supported by Tourville, who lay at anchor with the fleet in
   the Bay of Rosas. … It was of incalculable importance to
   Spain to be in alliance with the maritime powers. Strengthened
   by a Dutch fleet and some Spanish ships, Admiral Russell now
   appeared in the Mediterranean. He secured Barcelona from the
   French, who would never have been kept out of the city by the
   Spaniards alone. The approach of the English fleet had at this
   time the greatest influence in keeping the Duke of Savoy
   staunch to the confederation. In Germany the rise of the house
   of Hanover to the Electoral dignity had now caused most
   unpleasant complications. A shoal of German princes, headed by
   the King of Denmark, as a Prince of the Empire, and offended
   by the preference shown to Hanover, inclined, if not to
   alliance with France, at least to neutrality. … We can have
   no conception, and in this place we cannot possibly
   investigate, with what unbroken watchfulness King William,
   supported by Heinsius, looked after the German and the
   Northern courts, so as to keep their irritation from reacting
   on the course of the great war. … When the French, in June,
   1694, crossed the Rhine, meaning, as they boasted with true
   Gallic arrogance, soon to dip their swords in the Danube, they
   found the Prince of Baden so well prepared, and posted so
   strongly near Wisloch, that they did not venture to attack
   him. … The general result is this: neither side was as yet
   really superior to the other: but the French power was
   everywhere checked and held within bounds by the arms and
   influence of William III."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 20, chapter 6 (volume 5)._

{1243}

FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
   The end of the War of the League of Augsburg.
   Loss of Namur.
   Terms with Savoy.
   The Peace of Ryswick.

   "Military and naval efforts were relaxed on all sides: on the
   Rhine the Prince of Baden and the Marechal de Lorges, both ill
   in health, did little but observe each other; and though the
   Duke of Savoy made himself master of Casal on the 11th July,
   1695, no other military event of any consequence took place on
   the side of Italy, where Louis entered into negotiations with
   the duke, and succeeded, in the following year, in detaching
   him from the league of Augsburg. As the price of his defection
   the whole of his territories were to be restored to him, with
   the exception of Suza, Nice, and Montmeillan, which were
   promised to be delivered also on the signature of a general
   peace. Money was added to render the consent of a needy prince
   more ready. … The duke promised to obtain from the emperor a
   pledge that Italy should be considered as neutral ground, and
   if the allies refused such a pledge, then to join the forces
   of Savoy to those of France, and give a free passage to the
   French through his dominions. In consequence of this treaty
   … he applied to the emperor for a recognition of the
   neutrality of Italy, and was refused. He then hastened, with a
   facility which distinguished him through life, to abandon his
   friends and join his enemies, and within one month was
   generalissimo for the emperor in Italy fighting against
   France, and generalissimo for the King of France in Italy
   fighting against the emperor. Previous to this change,
   however, the King of England opened the campaign of 1695 in
   the Netherlands by the siege of Namur. The death of Luxemburg
   had placed the French army of Flanders under the command of
   the incapable Marshal Villeroi: and William, feeling that his
   enemy was no longer to be much respected, assumed at once the
   offensive. He concealed his design upon Namur under a variety
   of manœuvres which kept the French generals in suspense; and,
   then leaving the Prince of Vaudemont to protect the principal
   Spanish towns in Flanders, he collected his troops suddenly;
   and while the Duke of Bavaria invested Namur, he covered the
   operations of the siege with a considerable force. Villeroi
   now determined to attack the Prince of Vaudemont, but twice
   suffered him to escape: and then, after having apparently
   hesitated for some time how to drive or draw the King of
   England from the attack upon Namur, he resolved to bombard the
   city of Brussels, never pretending to besiege it, but alleging
   as his motive for a proceeding which was merely destructive,
   the bombardment of the maritime towns of France by the
   English. During three days he continued to fire upon the city,
   ruining a great part thereof, and then withdrew to witness the
   surrender of the citadel of Namur on the 2nd September, the
   town itself having capitulated on the 4th of the preceding
   month. As some compensation, though but a poor one, for the
   loss of Namur, and the disgrace of the French arms in
   suffering such a city to be captured in the presence of 80,000
   men, Montal took Dixmude and Deynse in the course of June. …
   The only after-event of any importance which occurred in
   Flanders during this war, was the capture of Ath by the
   French, in the year 1697, while negotiations for peace were
   going on with activity at Ryswick. … Regular communications
   regarding peace having been once established, Ryswick, near
   the Hague, was appointed for the meeting of plenipotentiaries;
   and Harlay, Torci, and Callières appeared at that place as
   representatives of Louis. The articles which had been formerly
   sketched out at Utrecht formed the base of the treaties now
   agreed upon; and Louis yielded far more than could have been
   expected from one so proud and so successful."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 3, book 4 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (April).
   The sacking of Carthagena.

      See CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1697.

FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.

   "The Congress for the treaty or series of treaties that was to
   terminate the great European war, which had now lasted for
   upwards of nine years, was held at Ryswick, a château near the
   Hague. The conferences were opened in May, 1697. Among the
   countries represented were Sweden, Austria, France, Spain,
   England, Holland, Denmark and the various States of the German
   Empire. The treaties were signed, in severalty, between the
   different States, except Austria, in September and October,
   1697, and with the Emperor, in November. The principal
   features of the treaty were, as between France and Spain,
   that, the former country was to deliver to Spain Barcelona,
   and other places in Catalonia; also various places which
   France had taken in the Spanish Netherlands, during the war,
   including Luxembourg and its Duchy, Charleroi, Mons and
   Courtrai. Various others were excepted, to be retained by
   France, as dependencies of French possessions. The principal
   stipulations of the treaty, as between France and Great
   Britain, were that France formally recognized William III. as
   lawful king of Great Britain, and agreed not to trouble him in
   the possession of his dominions, and not to assist his
   enemies, directly or indirectly. This article had particular
   relation to the partisans of the exiled Stuart king, then
   living in France. By another article, all places taken by
   either country in America, during the war, were to be
   relinquished, and the Principality of Orange and its estates
   situated in the south of France were to be restored to
   William. In the treaty with Holland, certain possessions in
   the East Indies were to be restored to the Dutch East India
   Company: and important articles of commerce were appended,
   among which the principle was laid down that free ships should
   make free goods, not contraband of war. By the treaty with the
   Emperor and the German States, the Treaties of Westphalia and
   Nymeguen were recognized as the basis of the Treaty of
   Ryswick, with such exceptions only as were to be provided in
   the latter treaty. France also was to give up all territory
   she had occupied or controlled before or during the war under
   the name of 'reunions,' outside of Alsace, but the Roman
   Catholic religion was to be preserved in Alsace as it then
   existed.
{1244}
   This concession by France included among other places
   Freiburg, Brisach, and Treves; and certain restitutions were
   to be made by France, in favor of Spire, the Electors of
   Treves, and Brandenburg and the Palatinate; also, others in
   favor of certain of the smaller German Princes. The city of
   Strasburg, in return, was formally ceded to France, … and
   the important fort of Kehl was yielded to the Empire. The
   navigation of the Rhine was to be free to all persons. The
   Duke of Lorraine was to be restored to his possessions with
   such exceptions as were provided in the treaty. By the terms
   of this treaty, a more advantageous peace was given to Spain
   than she had any expectation of. … Not only were the places
   taken in Spain, including the numerous fortified places in
   Catalonia, yielded up, but also, with some exceptions, those
   in the Spanish Netherlands, and also the important territory
   of Luxembourg; some places were even yielded to Spain that
   France had gained under former treaties."

      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Peace of Utrecht,
      chapter 4._

   "The restitutions and cessions [from France to Germany]
   comprised Treves, Germersheim, Deux-Ponts, Veldentz,
   Montbéliard, Kehl, Freiburg, Breisach, Philippsburg, the
   Emperor and the Empire ceding in exchange Strasbourg to the
   King of France in complete sovereignty. … Louis XIV. had
   consented somewhat to relax the rigor of the treaty of
   Nimeguen towards the heir of the Duchy of Lorraine, nephew of
   the Emperor by his mother; he restored to the young Duke
   Leopold his inheritance in the condition in which Charles IV.
   had possessed it before the French conquest of 1670; that is
   to say, he restored Nancy, allowing only the ramparts of the
   Old Town to remain, and razing all the rest of the
   fortifications without the power of restoring them; he kept
   Marsal, an interior place calculated to hold Lorraine in
   check, and also Sarre-Louis, a frontier-place which separated
   Lorraine from the Germanic provinces; he restored Bitche and
   Homburg dismantled, without power to reestablish them, and
   kept Longwy in exchange for a domain of similar value in one
   of the Trois-Evêchés; finally, he no longer demanded, as at
   Nimeguen, four great strategic routes through Lorraine, and
   consented that the passage should always be open to his
   troops. The House of Lorraine was thus reestablished in its
   estates after twenty-seven years of exile."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 20, chapter 11 (volume 5)._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

FRANCE: A. D. 1698-1712.
   The colonization of Louisiana.
   Broad claims to the whole valley of the Mississippi.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

FRANCE: A. D. 1700.
   Bequest of the Spanish crown to a French royal prince.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

FRANCE: A. D. 1701-1702.
   Provocation of the Second Grand Alliance
   and War of the Spanish Succession.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702,
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
   The Camisard rising of the French Protestant's in the
   Cévennes.

   "The movement known as the War of the Camisards is an episode
   of the history of Protestantism in France which, though rarely
   studied in detail and perhaps but partially understood, was
   not devoid of significance. When it occurred, in the summer of
   1702, a period of little less than 17 years had elapsed since
   Louis XIV., by his edict of Fontainebleau, October, 1685,
   solemnly revoked the great and fundamental law enacted by his
   grandfather, Henry IV., for the protection of the adherents of
   the Reformed faith, known in history as the Edict of Nantes.
   During the whole of that period the Protestants had submitted,
   with scarcely an attempt at armed resistance, to the
   proscription of their tenets: … The majority, unable to
   escape from the land of oppression, remained at home …
   nearly all of them cherishing the confident hope that the
   king's delusion would be short-lived, and that the edict under
   which they and their ancestors had lived for three generations
   would, before long, be restored to them with the greater part,
   if not the whole, of its beneficent provisions. Meanwhile, all
   the Protestant ministers having been expelled from France by
   the same law that prohibited the expatriation of any of the
   laity, the people of the Reformed faith found themselves
   destitute of the spiritual food they craved. True, the new
   legislation affected to regard that faith as dead, and
   designated all the former adherents of Protestantism, without
   distinction, as the 'New Converts,' 'Nouveaux Convertis.' And,
   in point of fact, the great majority had so far yielded to the
   terrible pressure of the violent measures brought to bear upon
   them … that they had consented to sign a promise to be
   're-united' to the Roman Catholic Church, or had gone at least
   once to mass. But they were still Protestants at heart. …
   Under these circumstances, feeling more than ever the need of
   religious comfort, now that remorse arose for a weak betrayal
   of conscientious conviction, the proscribed Protestants,
   especially in the south of France, began to meet clandestinely
   for divine worship in such retired places as seemed most
   likely to escape the notice of their vigilant enemies. … It
   was not strange that in so exceptional a situation, a phase of
   religious life and feeling equally exceptional should manifest
   itself. I refer to that appearance of prophetic inspiration
   which attracted to the province of Vivarais and to the
   Cévennes Mountains the attention of all Europe. …
   Historically … the influence of the prophets of the Cévennes
   was an important factor in the Protestant problem of the end
   of the 17th and the commencement of the 18th centuries. …
   Various methods were adopted to put an end to the prophets
   with their prophecies, which were for the most part
   denunciatory of Rome as Antichrist and foreshadowed the
   approaching fall of the papacy. But this form of enthusiasm
   had struck a deep root and it was hard to eradicate it.
   Imprisonment, in convent or jail, was the most common
   punishment, especially in the case of women. Not infrequently
   to imprisonment was, added corporal chastisement, and the
   prophets, male and female, were flogged until they might be
   regarded as fully cured of their delusion. … But no
   utterances of prophets, however fervid and impassioned, would
   have sufficed to occasion an uprising of the inhabitants of
   the Cévennes Mountains, had it not been for the virulent
   persecution to which the latter found themselves exposed at
   the hands of the provincial authorities directly instigated
   thereto by the clergy of the established church.
{1245}
   For it must be noticed that a large part of the population of
   the Cévennes was still Protestant, and made no concealment of
   the fact, even though the king's ministers affected to call
   them 'New Catholics,' or 'New Converts.' The region over which
   the Camisard war extended with more or less violence comprised
   six episcopal dioceses, which, in 1698, had an aggregate
   population of about two-thirds of a million of souls. Of these
   souls, though Protestantism had been dead in the eye of the
   law for 13 years, fully one-fourth were still Protestant. …
   The war may be said to have begun on the 24th of July, 1702,
   when the Abbé du Chayla, a noted persecutor, was killed in his
   house, at Pont de Montvert, by a band of 40 or 50 of the
   'Nouveaux Convertis,' whom he had driven to desperation by his
   cruelty to their fellow believers. If we regard its
   termination to be the submission of Jean Cavalier, the most
   picturesque, in the month of May, 1704, the war lasted a
   little less than two years. But, although the French
   government had succeeded, rather by craft than by force, in
   getting rid of the most formidable of its opponents … it was
   not until five or six years later—that is, until 1709 or
   1710—that … comparative peace was finally restored. …
   During the first months of the insurrection the exploits of
   the malcontents were confined to deeds of destruction
   accomplished by companies of venturesome men, who almost
   everywhere eluded the pursuit of the enemy by their superior
   knowledge of the intricacies of the mountain woods and paths.
   The track of these companies could easily be made out; for it
   was marked by the destruction of vicarages and rectories, by
   the smoke of burned churches, too often by the corpses of
   slain priests. The perpetrators of these acts of violence soon
   won for themselves some special designations, to distinguish
   them from the more passive Protestants who remained in their
   homes, taking no open part in the struggle. … About the
   close of 1702, however, or the first months of 1703, a new
   word was coined for the fresh emergency, and the armed
   Protestants received the appellation under which they have
   passed into history—the Camisards. Passing by all the strange
   and fanciful derivations of the word which seem to have no
   claim upon our notice, unless it be their evident absurdity,
   we have no difficulty in connecting it with those nocturnal
   expeditions which were styled 'Camisades'; because the
   warriors who took advantage of the darkness of the night to
   ride out and explore or force the enemy's entrenchments,
   sometimes threw over their armor a shirt that might enable
   them to recognize each other. Others will have it that, though
   the name was derived from the same article of apparel—the
   'camisa' or shirt—it was applied to the Cévenol bands for
   another reason, namely," that when they found opportunities,
   they carried off clean linen from the villages and left their
   soiled garments in exchange. The final overthrow of the
   Camisards "was not accomplished without the employment of
   100,000 troops, certainly far more than ten times the total
   number ever brought into the field by the Camisards. … Not
   less than three officers of the highest grade in the service,
   marshals of France, were successively appointed to put down a
   revolt which it might have been expected a simple colonel
   could suffice to quell—M. de Broglie being succeeded by the
   Marshal de Montrevel, the Marshal de Montrevel by the Marshal
   de Villars, and the Marshal de Villars by the Marshal de
   Berwick."

      _H. M. Baird,
      The Camisard Uprising
      (Papers of the American Society of Church History,
      volume 2, pages 13-34)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Bray,
      The Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes._

      _N. Peyrat,
      The Pastors in the Wilderness._

      _S. Smiles,
      The Huguenots in France after the Revocation of the Edict
      of Nantes, chapters 5-8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1711.
   The War of the Spanish Succession in America
   (called Queen Anne's War).

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1713.
   The War of the Spanish Succession in Europe.

      See
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SPAIN: A.D. 1702, to 1707-1710;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1706-1711;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1715.
   Renewed Jesuitical persecution of the Jansenists.
   The odious Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

A. D. 1710.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: Misery of the nation.
   Overtures for Peace.
   Conferences at Gertruydenberg.

   "France was still reduced to extreme and abject wretchedness.
   Her finances were ruined. Her people were half starving.
   Marlborough declared that in the villages through which he
   passed in the summer of 1710, at least half the inhabitants
   had perished since the beginning of the preceding winter, and
   the rest looked as if they had come out of their graves. All
   the old dreams of French conquests in the Spanish Netherlands,
   in Italy, and in Germany were dispelled, and the French
   generals were now struggling desperately and skilfully to
   defend their own frontier. … In 1710, while the Whig
   ministry [in England] was still in power, but at a time when
   it was manifestly tottering to its fall, Lewis had made one
   more attempt to obtain peace by the most ample concessions.
   The conferences were held at the Dutch fortress of
   Gertruydenberg. Lewis declared himself ready to accept the
   conditions exacted as preliminaries of peace in the preceding
   year, with the exception of the article compelling Philip
   within two months to cede the Spanish throne. He consented, in
   the course of the negotiations, to grant to the Dutch nearly
   all the fortresses of the French and Spanish Netherlands,
   including among others Ypres, Tournay, Lille, Furnes, and even
   Valenciennes, to cede Alsace to the Duke of Lorraine, to destroy
   the fortifications of Dunkirk, and those on the Rhine from
   Bale to Philipsburg. The main difficulty was on the question
   of the Spanish succession. … The French troops had already
   been recalled from Spain, and Lewis consented to recognise the
   Archduke as the sovereign, to engage to give no more
   assistance to his grandchild, to place four cautionary towns
   in the hands of the Dutch as a pledge for the fulfilment of
   the treaty, and even to pay a subsidy to the allies for the
   continuance of the war against Philip. The allies, however,
   insisted that he should join with them in driving his grandson
   by force of arms from Spain, and on this article the
   negotiations were broken off."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 1._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

{1246}

FRANCE: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

FRANCE: A. D. 1714.
   The desertion of the Catalans.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
   Death of Louis XIV.
   The character of his reign.

   Louis XIV. died September 1, 1715, at the age of 77 years,
   having reigned 72 years. "Richelieu, and after him Mazarin,
   governing as if they had been dictators of a republic, had
   extinguished, if I may use the expression, their personality
   in the idea and service of the state. Possessing only the
   exercise of authority, they both conducted themselves as
   responsible agents towards the sovereign and before the
   judgment of the country; while Louis XIV., combining the
   exercise with the right, considered himself exempted from all
   rule but that of his own will, and acknowledged no
   responsibility for his actions except to his own conscience.
   It was this conviction of his universal power, a conviction
   genuine and sincere, excluding both scruples and remorse,
   which made him upset one after the other the twofold system
   founded by Henry IV., of religious liberty at home, and abroad
   of a national preponderance resting upon a generous protection
   of the independence of states and European civilisation. At
   the personal accession of Louis XIV., more than fifty years
   had passed since France had pursued the work of her policy in
   Europe, impartial towards the various communions of
   Christians, the different forms of governments, and the
   internal revolutions of the states. Although France was
   catholic and monarchical, her alliances were, in the first
   place, with the Protestant states of Germany and with
   republican Holland; she had even made friendly terms with
   regicide England. No other interest but that of the
   well-understood development of the national resources had
   weight in her councils, and directed the internal action of
   her government. But all was changed by Louis XIV., and special
   interests, the spawn of royal personality, of the principle of
   the hereditary monarchy, or that of the state religion, were
   admitted, soon to fly upward in the scale. Thence resulted the
   overthrow of the system of the balance of power in Europe,
   which might be justly called the French system, and the
   abandonment of it for dreams of an universal monarchy, revived
   after the example of Charles V. and Philip II. Thence a
   succession of enterprises, formed in opposition to the policy
   of the country, such as the war with Holland, the factions
   made with a view to the Imperial crown, the support given to
   James II. and the counter-revolution in England, the
   acceptance of the throne of Spain for a son of France,
   preserving his rights to the Crown. These causes of
   misfortune, under which the kingdom was obliged to succumb,
   all issued from the circumstance applauded by the nation and
   conformable to the spirit of its tendencies, which, after
   royalty had attained its highest degree of power under two
   ministers, delivered it unlimited into the hands of a prince
   endowed with qualities at once brilliant and solid, an object
   of enthusiastic affection and legitimate admiration. When the
   reign, which was to crown under such auspices the ascendant
   march of the French monarchy, had falsified the unbounded
   hopes which its commencement had excited; when in the midst of
   fruitless victories and continually increasing reverses, the
   people beheld progress in all the branches of public economy
   changed into distress,—the ruin of the finances, industry,
   and agriculture—the exhaustion of all the resources of the
   country,—the impoverishment of all classes of the nation, the
   dreadful misery of the population, they were seized with a
   bitter disappointment of spirit, which took the place of the
   enthusiasm of their confidence and love."

      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers
      État or Third Estate in France,
      chapter 9._

FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
   Accession of King Louis XV.

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
   State of the kingdom at the death of Louis XIV.
   The minority of Louis XV. and Regency of the Duke of Orleans.

   "Louis XIV. … left France excessively exhausted. The State
   was ruined, and seemed to have no resource but bankruptcy.
   This trouble seemed especially imminent in 1715, after the
   war, during which the government had been obliged to borrow at
   400 per cent., to create new taxes, to spend in advance the
   revenue of two years, and to increase the public debt to 2,400
   millions. The acquisition of two provinces (Flanders,
   Franche-Comté) and a few cities (Strassburg, Landau, and
   Dunkirk) was no compensation for such terrible poverty.
   Succeeding generations have remembered only the numerous
   victories, Europe defied, France for twenty years
   preponderant, and the incomparable splendor of the court of
   Versailles, with its marvels of letters and arts, which have
   given to the 17th century the name of the age of Louis XIV. It
   is for history to show the price which France has paid for her
   king's vain attempts abroad to rule over Europe, and at home
   to enslave the wills and consciences of men. … The weight of
   the authority of Louis XIV. had been crushing during his last
   years. When the nation felt it lifted, it breathed more
   freely; the court and the city burst into disrespectful
   demonstrations of joy; the very coffin of the great king was
   insulted. The new king [Louis XV., great-grandson of Louis
   XIV.] was five years old. Who was to govern? Louis XIV. had
   indeed left a will, but he had not deceived himself with
   regard to the value of it. 'As soon as I am dead, it will be
   disregarded; I know too well what became of the will of the
   king, my father!' As after the death of Henry IV. and Louis
   XIII. there was a moment of feudal reaction; but the decline
   of the nobility may be measured by the successive weakening of
   its efforts in each case. Under Mary de'Medici it was still able
   to make a civil war; under Anne of Austria it produced the
   Fronde; after Louis XIV. it only produced memorials. The Duke
   of Saint-Simon desired that the first prince of the blood,
   Philip of Orleans, to whom the will left only a shadow of
   power, should demand the regency from the dukes and peers, as
   heirs and representatives of the ancient grand vassals. But
   the Duke of Orleans convoked Parliament in order to break down
   the posthumous despotism of the old king, feigning that the
   king had committed the government to his hands. The regency,
   with the right to appoint the council of regency as he would,
   was conferred upon him, and the command of the royal household
   was taken from the Duke of Maine [one of the bastard sons of
   Louis XIV.], who yielded this important prerogative only after
   a violent altercation.
{1247}
   As a reward for the services of his two allies, the Duke of
   Orleans called the high nobility into affairs, by substituting
   for the ministries six councils; in which they occupied almost
   all the places, and accorded to Parliament the right of
   remonstrance. But two years had hardly passed when the
   ministries were re-established, and the Parliament again
   condemned to silence. It was plain that neither nobility nor
   Parliament were to be the heirs of the absolute monarchy. …
   Debauchery had, until then, kept within certain limits;
   cynicism of manners as well as of thought was now adopted
   openly. The regent set the example. There had never been seen
   such frivolity of conduct nor such licentious wit as that
   exhibited in the wild meetings of the roués of the Duke of
   Orleans. There had been formerly but one salon in France, that
   of the king; a thousand were now open to a society which, no
   longer occupied with religious questions, or with war, or the
   grave futilities of etiquette, felt that pleasure and change
   were necessities. … Louis XV. attained his majority February
   13, 1723, being then 13 years old. This terminated the regency
   of the Duke of Orleans. But the king was still to remain a
   long time under tutelage; the duke, in order to retain the
   power after resigning the regency, had in advance given
   [Cardinal] Dubois the title of prime minister. At the death of
   the wretched Dubois he took the office himself, but held it
   only four months, dying of apoplexy in December, 1723."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of France,
      chapters 52 and 55._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Taylor,
      Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
      volume 1, chapters 11-17,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-3._

      _F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapter 1._

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under the Regency._

FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1719.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   War with Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
   John Law and his Mississippi Scheme.

   "When the Regent Orleans assumed the government of France, he
   found its affairs in frightful confusion. The public debt was
   three hundred millions; putting the debt on one side, the
   expenditure was only just covered by the revenue. St. Simon
   advised him to declare a national bankruptcy. De Noailles,
   less scrupulous, proposed to debase the coinage. … In such
   desperate circumstances, it was no wonder that the regent was
   ready to catch eagerly at any prospect of success. A remedy
   was proposed to him by the famous John Law of Lauriston. This
   new light of finance had gambled in, and been banished from,
   half the courts of Europe; he had figured in the English 'Hue
   and Cry,' as 'a very tall, black, lean man, well-shaped, above
   six feet high, large pock-holes in his face, big-nosed, speaks
   broad and loud.' He was a big, masterful, bullying man, one of
   keen intellect as well; the hero of a hundred romantic
   stories. … He studied finance at Amsterdam, then the great
   school of commerce, and offered his services and the 'system'
   which he had invented, first to Godolphin, when that nobleman
   was at the head of affairs in England, then to Victor Amadeus,
   duke of Savoy, then to Louis XIV., who, as the story goes,
   refused any credit to a heretic. He invented a new combination
   at cards, which became the despair of all the croupiers in
   Europe; so successful was this last invention, that he arrived
   for the second time at Versailles, in the early days of the
   regency, with upwards of £120,000 at his disposal, and a copy
   of his 'system' in his pocket. … There was a dash of daring
   in the scheme which suited well with the regent's peculiar
   turn of mind; it was gambling on a gigantic scale. …
   Besides, the scheme was plausible and to a certain point
   correct. The regent, with all his faults, was too clever a man
   not to recognize the genius which gleamed in Law's dark eyes.
   Law showed that the trade and commerce of every country was
   crippled by the want of a circulating medium; specie was not
   to be had in sufficient quantities; paper, backed by the
   credit of the state, was the grand secret. He adduced the
   examples of Great Britain, of Genoa, and of Amsterdam to prove
   the advantage of a paper currency; he proposed to institute a
   bank, to be called the 'Bank of France,' and to issue notes
   guaranteed by the government and secured on the crown lands,
   exchangeable at sight for specie, and receivable in payment of
   taxes; the bank was to be conducted in the king's name, and to
   be managed by commissioners appointed by the States-General.
   The scheme of Law was based on principles which are now
   admitted as economical axioms; the danger lay in the enormous
   extent to which it was intended to push the scheme. … While
   the bank was in the hands of Law himself, it appears to have
   been managed with consummate skill; the notes bore some
   proportion to the amount of available specie; they contained a
   promise to pay in silver of the same standard and weight as
   that which existed at the time. A large dividend was declared;
   then the regent stepped in. The name of the bank was changed
   to that of the Royal Bank of France, the promise to pay in
   silver of a certain weight and standard was dropped, and a
   promise substituted to pay 'in silver coin.' This omission, on
   the part of a prince who had already resorted to the expedient
   of debasing the currency, was ominous, and did much to shake
   public confidence; the intelligence that in the first year of
   the new bank 1,000,000,000 of livres were fabricated, was not
   calculated to restore it. But these trifles were forgotten in
   the mad excitement which followed. Law had long been
   elaborating a scheme which is for ever associated with his
   name, and beside which the Bank of France sank into
   insignificance. In 1717, the year before the bank had been
   adopted by the regent, the billets d'état of 500 livres each
   were worth about 160 livres in the market. Law, with the
   assent of the regent, proposed to establish a company which
   should engross all the trade of the kingdom, and all the
   revenues of the crown, should carry on the business of
   merchants in every part of the world, and monopolize the
   farming of the taxes and the coining of money; the stock was
   to be divided into 200,000 shares of 500 livres each. The
   regent nearly marred the scheme at starting by inserting a
   proviso that the depreciated billets d'état were to be
   received at par in payment for the new stock, on which four
   per cent. was guaranteed by the State." Law's company was
   formed, under the name of the Company of the West, and
   obtained for the basis of its operations a monopoly of the
   trade of that vast territory of France in the valley of the
   Mississippi which bore the name of Louisiana. The same
   monopoly had been held for five years by one Crozat, who now
   resigned it because he found it unprofitable; but the fact
   received little attention.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

{1248}

   "Louisiana was described as a paradise. … Shareholders in
   the company were told that they would enjoy the monopoly of
   trade throughout French North America, and the produce of a
   country rich in every kind of mineral wealth. Billets d'état
   were restored to their nominal value; stock in the Mississippi
   scheme was sold at fabulous prices; ingots of gold, which were
   declared to have come from the mines of St. Barbe, were taken
   with great pomp to the mint; 6,000 of the poor of Paris were
   sent out as miners, and provided with tools to work in the new
   diggings. New issues of shares were made; first 50,000, then
   50,000 more; both at an enormous premium. The jobbers of the
   rue Quincampoix found ordinary language inadequate to express
   their delight: they invented a new slang for the occasion, and
   called the new shares 'les filles,' and, 'les petites filles,'
   respectively. Paris was divided between the 'Anti-system' party
   who opposed Law, and the Mississippians who supported him. The
   State borrowed from the company fifteen hundred millions;
   government paid its creditors in warrants on the company. To
   meet them, Law issued 100,000 new shares; which came out at a
   premium of 1,000 per cent. The Mississippians went mad with
   joy—they invented another new slang phrase; the 'cinq cents'
   eclipsed the filles and the petites filles in favour. The
   gates of Law's hotel had to be guarded by a detachment of
   archers; the cashiers were mobbed in their bureaux; applicants
   for shares sat in the ante-rooms; a select body slept for
   several nights on the stairs; gentlemen disguised themselves
   in Law's livery to obtain access to the great man. … By this
   time the charter of the company of Senegal had been merged in
   the bank, which also became sole farmer of the tobacco duties;
   the East India Company had been abolished, and the exclusive
   privilege of trading to the East Indies, China, and the South
   Seas, together with all the possessions of Colbert's company
   were transferred to Law. The bank now assumed the style of the
   Company of the Indies. Before the year [1719] was out the
   regent had transferred to it the exclusive privilege of the
   mint, and the contract of all the great farms. Almost every
   branch of industry in France, its trade, its revenue, its
   police, were now in the hands of Law. Every fresh privilege
   was followed by a new issue of shares. … The shares of 500
   franks were now worth 10,000. The rue Quincampoix became
   impassable, and an army of stockjobbers camped in tents in the
   Place Vendome. … The excitement spread to England [where the
   South Sea Bubble was inflated by the madness of the hour].

      See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

   … Law's system and the South Sea scheme both went down
   together. Both were calculated to last so long, and so long
   only, as universal confidence existed; when it began to be
   whispered that those in the secret were realizing their
   profits and getting out of the impending ruin, the whole
   edifice came down with a crash. … No sooner was it evident
   that the system was about to break down, than Law, the only
   man who could at least have mitigated the blow, was banished."

      _Viscount Bury,
      Exodus of the Western Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _A. Thiers,
      The Mississippi Bubble._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      _C. Gayarre,
      History of Louisiana, second series,
      lecture 1._

      _Duke de Saint-Simon,
      Memoirs:
      abridged translation by St. John, volume 3, chapter 25,
      and volume 4, chapters 4, and 13-15._

FRANCE: A. D. 1720.
   The fortifying of Louisbourg.

      See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.

FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
   Character and reign of Louis XV.
   The King's mistresses and their courtiers
   who conducted the government.
   State and feeling of the nation.

   After the death of the Duke of Orleans, "a short period of
   about two years and a-half comprehends the administration of
   the Duke of Bourbon, or rather of his mistress, la Marquise de
   Prie. Fleury [Cardinal] then appears on the stage, and dies in
   1743. He was, therefore, minister of France for seventeen
   years. On his death, the king (Louis XV.) undertook to be his
   own prime minister; an unpromising experiment for a country at
   any time. In this instance the result was only that the king's
   mistress, Madame de Chateauroux, became the ruler of France,
   and soon after Madame de Pompadour, another mistress, whose
   reign was prolonged from 1745 to 1768. Different courtiers and
   prelates were seen to hold the first offices of the state
   during this apparent premiership of the monarch. The ladies
   seem to have chosen or tolerated Cardinal Tençin, Argençon,
   Orsy, Mauripaux, and Amelot, who, with the Dukes Noailles and
   Richelieu, succeeded to Fleury. Afterwards, we have Argençon
   and Machault, and then come the most celebrated of the
   ministers or favourites of Madame de Pompadour, the Abbé de
   Bemis and the Duc de Choiseul. The last is the most
   distinguished minister after Fleury. He continued in favour
   from 1758, not only to 1763, when Madame de Pompadour died,
   but for a few years after. He was at length disgraced by la
   Comtesse Dubarri, who had become the king's mistress soon
   after the death of Madame de Pompadour, and remained so,
   nearly to the death of the monarch himself, in 1774."

      _W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 3._

   "The regency of the Duke of Orleans lasted only eight years,
   but it was not without a considerable effect upon the
   destinies of the country. It was a break in the political and
   the religious traditions of the reign of Louis XIV. The new
   activity imparted to business during this period was an event
   of equal importance. Nothing is more erroneous than to suppose
   that constantly increasing misery at last excited revolt
   against the government and the institutions of the old regime.
   The Revolution in France at the close of the eighteenth
   century was possible, not because the condition of the people
   had grown worse, but because it had become better. The
   material development of that country, during the fifty years
   that preceded the convocation of the States General, had no
   parallel in its past history. Neither the weight of taxation,
   nor the extravagance of the court, nor the bankruptcy of the
   government, checked an increase in wealth that made France in
   1789 seem like a different land from France in 1715. The lot
   of large classes was still miserable, the burden of taxation
   upon a large part of the population was still grievous, there
   were sections where Arthur Young could truly say that he found
   only poverty and privileges, but the country as a whole was
   more prosperous than Germany or Spain; it was far more
   prosperous than it had been under Louis XIV. …
{1249}
   Such an improvement in material conditions necessitated both
   social and political changes. … But while social conditions
   had altered, political institutions remained unchanged. New
   wine had been poured in, but the old bottles were still used.
   Tailles and corvées were no more severe in the eighteenth than
   in the fifteenth century, but they were more odious. A feudal
   privilege, which had then been accepted as a part of the law
   of nature, was now regarded as contrary to nature. … A
   demand for social equality, for the abolition of privileges
   and immunities by which any class profited at the expense of
   others, was fostered by economical changes. It received an
   additional impetus from the writings of theorists,
   philosophers, and political reformers. The influence of
   literature in France during the eighteenth century was
   important, yet it is possible to overestimate it. The seed of
   political and social change was shown by the writers of the
   period, but the soil was already prepared to receive it. …
   The course of events, the conduct of their rulers, prepared
   the minds of the French people for political change, and
   accounted for the influence which literature acquired. The
   doctrines of philosophers found easy access to the hearts of a
   people with whom reverence for royalty and a tranquil
   acceptance of an established government had been succeeded by
   contempt for the king and hatred for the regime under which
   they lived. We can trace this change of sentiment during the
   reign of Louis XV. The popular affection which encircled his
   cradle accompanied him when he had grown to be a man. … Few
   events are more noticeable in the history of the age than the
   extraordinary expressions of grief and affection that were
   excited by the illness of Louis XV. in 1744. … A preacher
   hailed him as Louis the well beloved, and all the nation
   adopted the title. 'What have I done to be so loved?' the king
   himself asked. Certainly he had done nothing, but the
   explanation was correctly given. 'Louis XV. is dear to his
   people, without having done anything for them, because the
   French are, of all nations, most inclined to love their king.'
   This affection, the result of centuries of fidelity and zeal
   for monarchical institutions, and for the sovereigns by whom
   they were personified, was wholly destroyed by Louis's
   subsequent career. The vices to which he became addicted were
   those which arouse feelings not only of reprehension, but of
   loathing. They excited both aversion and contempt. The
   administration of the country was as despicable as the
   character of the sovereign. Under Louis XIV. there had been
   suffering and there had been disaster, but France had always
   preserved a commanding position in Europe. … But now defeat
   and dishonor were the fate of a people alike powerful and
   proud. … The low profligacy into which the king had sunk,
   the nullity of his character, the turpitude of his mistress,
   the weakness of his administration, the failure of all his
   plans, went far toward destroying the feelings of loyalty that
   had so long existed in the hearts of the French people. Some
   curious figures mark the decline in the estimation in which
   the king was held. In 1744, six thousand masses were said at
   Nôtre Dame for the restoration of Louis XV. to health; in
   1757, after the attempted assassination by Damiens, there were
   six hundred; when the king actually lay dying, in 1774, there
   were only three. The fall from six thousand to three measures
   the decline in the affection and respect of the French people
   for their sovereign. It was with a public whose sentiments had
   thus altered that the new philosophy found acceptance."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under the Regency,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapters 2-8._

      _J. Murray,
      French Finance and Financiers under Louis XV._

FRANCE: A. D. 1725.
   The alliance of Hanover.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

FRANCE: A. D. 1727-1731.
   Ineffectual congress at Soissons.
   The Treaty of Seville, with Spain and England.
   The Second Treaty of Vienna.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
   The First Family Compact of the Bourbons (France and Spain).

   "The two lines of the house of Bourbon [in France and in
   Spain] once more became in the highest degree prominent. …
   As early as November 1733 a Family Compact (the first of the
   series) was concluded between them, in which they contemplated
   the possibility of a war against England, but without waiting
   for it entered into an agreement against the maritime
   supremacy of that power. … The commercial privileges granted
   to the English in the Peace of Utrecht seemed to both courts
   to be intolerable."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England,
      book 22, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

   "It is hardly too much to say that the Family Compact of 1733,
   though even yet not generally known to exist, is the most
   important document of the middle period of the 18th century
   and the most indispensable to history. If that period seems to
   us confused, if we lose ourselves in the medley of its
   wars—war of the Polish election, war of Jenkins's ears, war
   of the Austrian succession, colonial war of 1756—the simple
   reason is that we do not know this treaty, which furnishes the
   clue. From it we may learn that in this period, as in that of
   Louis XIV. and in that of Napoleon, Europe struggled against
   the ambitious and deliberately laid design of an ascendant
   power, with this difference, that those aggressors were
   manifest to all the world and their aims not difficult to
   understand, whereas this aggression proceeded by ambuscade,
   and, being the aggression not of a single state but of an
   alliance, and a secret alliance, did not become clearly
   manifest to Europe even when it had to a considerable extent
   attained its objects. … The first two articles define the
   nature of the alliance, that it involves a mutual guarantee of
   all possessions, and has for its object, first, the honour,
   glory, and interests of both powers, and, secondly, their
   defence against all damage, vexation, and prejudice that may
   threaten them." The first declared object of the Compact is to
   secure the position of Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain,
   afterwards Charles III., in Italy, and "to obtain for him the
   succession in Tuscany, protecting him against any attack that
   may be attempted by the Emperor or by England. Next, France
   undertakes to 'aid Spain with all her forces by land or sea,
   if Spain should suspend England's enjoyment of commerce and
   her other advantages, and England out of revenge should resort
   to hostilities and insults in the dominions and states of the
   crown of Spain, whether within or outside of Europe.'"
{1250}
   Further articles provide for the making of efforts to induce
   Great Britain to restore Gibraltar to Spain; set forth "that
   the foreign policy of both states is to be guided exclusively
   by the interests of the house"; denounce the Austrian
   Pragmatic as "opposed to the security of the house of
   Bourbon." "The King of France engages to send 32,000 infantry
   and 8,000 cavalry into Italy, and to maintain other armies on
   his other frontiers; also to have a squadron ready at Toulon,
   either to join the Spanish fleet or to act separately, and
   another squadron at Brest, 'to keep the English in fear and
   jealousy'; also, in case of war with England breaking out, to
   commission the largest possible number of privateers. Spain
   also promises a fixed number of troops. The 11th and 12th
   articles lay the foundation of a close commercial alliance to
   be formed between France and Spain. Article 13 runs as
   follows:—'His Catholic majesty, recognising all the abuses
   which have been introduced into commerce, chiefly by the
   British nation, in the eradication of which the French and
   Spanish nations are equally interested, has determined to
   bring everything back within rule and into agreement with the
   letter of treaties'"—to which end the two kings make common
   cause. "Finally the 14th article provides that the present
   treaty shall remain profoundly secret as long as the
   contracting parties shall judge it agreeable to their
   interests, and shall be regarded from this day as an eternal
   and irrevocable Family Compact. … Here is the explanation of
   the war which furnished the immediate occasion of the first
   Compact, a war most misleadingly named from the Polish
   election which afforded an ostensible pretext for it, and
   deserving better to be called the Bourbon invasion of Italy.
   Here too is sketched out the course which was afterwards taken
   by the Bourbon courts in the matter of the Pragmatic Sanction.
   Thirdly, here most manifestly is the explanation of that war
   of Jenkins's ears, which we have a habit of representing as
   forced upon Spain by English commercial cupidity, but which
   appears here as deliberately planned in concert by the Bourbon
   courts in order to eradicate the 'abuses which have been
   allowed to creep into trade.'"

      _J. R. Seeley,
      The House of Bourbon
      (English History Review, January, 1886)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
   War with Austria, in Germany and Italy.
   Final acquisition of Lorraine.
   Naples and Sicily transferred to Spain.

   In the war with Austria which was brought about by the
   question of the Polish succession (see POLAND: A. D.
   1732-1733), the French "struck at the Rhine and at Italy,
   while the other powers looked on unmoved; Spain watching her
   moment, at which she might safely interfere for her own
   interests in Italy. The army of the Rhine, which reached
   Strasburg in autumn 1733, was commanded by Marshal Berwick,
   who had been called away from eight years of happy and
   charming leisure at Fitz-James. With him served for the first
   time in the French army their one great general of the coming
   age, and he too a foreigner, Maurice, son of Augustus II. of
   Poland and the lovely Countess of Königsmark. … He is best
   known to us as Marshal Saxe. It was too late to accomplish
   much in 1733, and the French had to content themselves with
   the capture of Kehl: in the winter the Imperialists
   constructed strong lines at Ettlingen, a little place not far
   from Carlsruhe, between Kehl, which the French held, and
   Philipsburg, at which they were aiming. In the spring of 1734
   French preparations were slow and feeble: a new power had
   sprung up at Paris in the person of Belle-Isle, Fouquet's
   grandson, who had much of the persuasive ambition of his
   grandfather. He was full of schemes, and induced the aged
   Fleury to believe him to be the coming genius of French
   generalship; the careful views of Marshal Berwick suited ill
   his soaring spirit; he wanted to march headlong into Saxony
   and Bohemia. Berwick would not allow so reckless a scheme to
   be adopted; still Belle-Isle, as lieutenant-general with an
   almost independent command, was sent to besiege Trarbach on
   the Moselle, an operation which delayed the French advance on
   the Rhine. At last, however, Berwick moved forwards. By
   skilful arrangements he neutralised the Ettlingen lines, and
   without a battle forced the Germans to abandon them. Their
   army withdrew to Heilbronn, where it was joined by Prince
   Eugene. Berwick, freed from their immediate presence, and
   having a great preponderance in force, at once sat down before
   Philipsburg. There, on the 12th of June, as he visited the
   trenches, he was struck by a ball and fell dead. So passed
   away the last but one of the great generals of Louis XIV.:
   France never again saw his like till the genius of the
   Revolution evoked a new race of heroes. It was thought at
   first that Berwick's death, like Turenne's, would end the
   campaign, and that the French army must get back across the
   Rhine. The position seemed critical, Philipsburg in front, and
   Prince Eugene watching without. The Princes of the Empire,
   however, had not put out any strength in this war, regarding
   it chiefly as an Austrian affair; and the Marquis d'Asfeld,
   who took the command of the French forces, was able to hold
   on, and in July to reduce the great fortress of Philipsburg.
   Therewith the campaign of the Rhine closed. In Italy things
   had been carried on with more vigour and variety. The veteran
   Villars, now 81 years old, was in command, under
   Charles-Emmanuel, King of Sardinia. … Villars found it quite
   easy to occupy all the Milanese: farther he could not go; for
   Charles-Emmanuel, after the manner of his family, at once
   began to deal behind his back with the Imperialists and the
   campaign dragged. The old Marshal, little brooking
   interference and delay, for he still was full of fire, threw
   up his command, and started for France: on the way he was
   seized with illness at Turin, and died there five days after
   Berwick had been killed at Philipsburg. With them the long
   series of the generals of Louis XIV. comes to an end. Coigny
   and the Duke de Broglie succeeded to the command. Not far from
   Parma they fought a murderous battle with the Austrians, hotly
   contested, and a Cadmean victory for the French: it arrested
   their forward movement, and two months were spent in enforced
   idleness. In September 1734 the Imperialists inflicted a heavy
   check on the French at the Secchia; afterwards however
   emboldened by this success, they fought a pitched battle at
   Guastalla, in which, after a fierce struggle, the French
   remained masters of the field. Their losses, the advanced time
   of the year, and the uncertainty as to the King of Sardinia's
   movements and intentions, rendered the rest of the campaign
   unimportant.
{1251}
   As however the Imperialists, in order to make head against the
   French in the valley of the Po, had drawn all their available
   force out of the Neapolitan territory, the Spaniards were able
   to slip in behind them, and to secure that great prize. Don
   Carlos landed at Naples and was received with transports of
   joy: the Austrians were defeated at Bitonto; the Spaniards
   then crossed into Sicily, which also welcomed them gladly; the
   two kingdoms passed willingly under the rule of the Spaniards.
   In 1735 Austria made advances in the direction of peace; for
   the French had stirred up their old friend the Turk, who, in
   order to save Poland, proposed to invade Hungary. Fleury, no
   lover of war, and aware that England's neutrality could not
   last forever, was not unwilling to treat: a Congress at Vienna
   followed, and before the end of 1735 peace again reigned in
   Europe. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna (3 October 1735)
   were very favourable to France. Austria ceded Naples and
   Sicily, Elba, and the States degli Presidii to Spain, to be
   erected into a separate kingdom for Don Carlos: France
   obtained Lorraine and Bar, which were given to Stanislaus
   Leczinski on condition that he should renounce all claim to
   the Polish Crown; they were to be governed by him under French
   administration: Francis Stephen the former Duke obtained, as
   an indemnity, the reversion of Tuscany, which fell to him in
   the following year. Parma and Piacenza returned to the
   Emperor, who also obtained from France a guarantee of the
   Pragmatic Sanction. Thus France at last got firm hold of the
   much-desired Lorraine country, though it was not absolutely
   united to her till the death of Stanislaus in 1766."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 52 (volume 6)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1738-1740.
   The Question of the Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

FRANCE: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
   Seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
   French responsibility for the war.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741;
      and 1741 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-JUNE).

FRANCE: A. D. 1741-1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741, to 1743.

FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (October).
   The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

   "France and Spain signed a secret treaty of perpetual alliance
   at Fontainebleau, October 25th, 1743. The treaty is remarkable
   as the precursor of the celebrated Family Compact between the
   French and Spanish Bourbons. The Spaniards, indeed, call it
   the Second Family Compact, the first being the Treaty of
   November 7th, 1733, of which, with regard to colonial affairs,
   it was a renewal. But this treaty had a more special reference
   to Italy. Louis XV. engaged to declare war against Sardinia,
   and to aid Spain in conquering the Milanese. Philip V.
   transferred his claims to that duchy to his son, the Infant
   Don Philip, who was also to be put in possession of Parma and
   Piacenza. All the possessions ceded by France to the King of
   Sardinia, by the Treaty of Utrecht, were to be again wrested
   from him. A public alliance was to be formed, to which the
   Emperor Charles VII. was to accede; whose states, and even
   something more, were to be recovered for him. Under certain
   circumstances war was to be declared against England; in which
   case France was to assist in the recovery of Gibraltar, and
   also, if possible, of Minorca. The new colony of Georgia was
   to be destroyed, the Asiento withdrawn from England, &c."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1743-1752.
   Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

FRANCE: A. D. 1744-1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession in America.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744, and 1745.

A. D. 1741-1747.
   War of the Austrian Succession in Italy,
   Germany and the Netherlands.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744, to 1746-1747;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747.

FRANCE: A. D. 1748 (October).
   Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

FRANCE: A. D. 1748-1754.
   Active measures in America to fortify possession of the Ohio
   valley and the West.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

FRANCE: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Unsettled boundary disputes in America.
   Preludes of the last contest with England for dominion in the
   New World.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
   Causes and provocations of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A.D. 1755-1756;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
   Naval reverse on the Newfoundland coast.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

FRANCE: A. D. 1755-1762.
   The Seven Years War: Campaigns in America.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

FRANCE: A. D. 1756 (May).
   The Seven Years War: Minorca wrested from England.

      See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.

FRANCE: A. D. 1757-1762.
   The Seven Years War: Campaigns in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
      to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1760; and 1761-1762.

FRANCE: A. D. 1758-1761.
   The Seven Years War: Loss of footing and influence in India.
   Count Lally's failure.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

FRANCE: A. D. 1760.
   The Seven Years War: The surrender of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (August).
   The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

   "On the 15th of August [1761] … Grimaldi [Spanish ambassador
   at the French court] and Choiseul [the ruling minister, at the
   time, in France] signed the celebrated Family Compact. By this
   treaty the Kings of France and Spain agreed for the future to
   consider every Power as their enemy which might become the
   enemy of either, and to guarantee the respective dominions in
   all parts of the world which they might possess at the next
   conclusion of peace. Mutual succours by sea and land were
   stipulated, and no proposal of peace to their common enemies
   was to be made, nor negotiation entered upon, unless by common
   consent. The subjects of each residing in the European
   dominions of the other were to enjoy the same commercial
   privileges as the natives.
{1252}
   Moreover, the King of Spain stipulated the accession of his
   son, the King of Naples, to this alliance; but it was agreed
   that no prince or potentate, except of the House of Bourbon,
   should ever be admitted to its participation. Besides this
   treaty, which in its words at least applied only to future and
   contingent wars, and which was intended to be ultimately
   published, there was also signed on the same day a special and
   secret convention. This imported, that in case England and
   France should still be engaged in hostilities on the 1st of
   May 1762 Spain should on that day declare war against England,
   and that France should at the same period restore Minorca to
   Spain. … Not only the terms but the existence of a Family
   Compact were for some time kept scrupulously secret. Mr.
   Stanley, however, gleaned some information from the scattered
   hints of the Duke de Choiseul, and these were confirmed to
   Pitt from several other quarters." As the result of the Family
   Compact, England declared war against Spain on the 4th of
   January, 1762. Pitt had gone out of office in October because
   his colleagues and the King would not then consent to a
   declaration of war against the Spanish Bourbons.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

   The force of circumstances soon brought them to the measure.

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 37 (volume 4)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1761-1764.
   Proceedings against the Jesuits.
   Their expulsion from the kingdom.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
   The end and results of the Seven Years War.
   The Peace of Paris.
   America lost, nothing gained.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
   Rights in the North American fisheries secured by the Treaty
   of Paris.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

FRANCE: A. D. 1768.
   Acquisition of Corsica.

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
   The Court and Government of Louis XV!., his inheritance of
   troubles, his vacillations, his helpless ministers.
   Turgot, Necker, Calonne, Brienne.
   Blind selfishness of the privileged orders.
   The Assembly of Notables.
   The Parliament of Paris.

   "Louis XVI., an equitable prince, moderate in his
   propensities, carelessly educated, but naturally of a good
   disposition, ascended the throne [May 11, 1774] at a very
   early age. He called to his side an old courtier, and
   consigned to him the care of his kingdom; and divided his
   confidence between Maurepas and the Queen, an Austrian
   princess [Marie Antoinette], young, lively, and amiable, who
   possessed a complete ascendency over him. Maurepas and the
   Queen were not good friends. The King, sometimes giving way to
   his minister, at others to his consort, began at an early
   period the long career of his vacillations. … The public
   voice, which was loudly expressed, called for Turgot, one of
   the class of economists, an honest, virtuous man, endowed with
   firmness of character, a slow genius, but obstinate and
   profound. Convinced of his probity, delighted with his plans
   of reform, Louis XVI. frequently repeated: 'There are none
   besides myself and Turgot who are friends of the people.'
   Turgot's reforms were thwarted by the opposition of the
   highest orders in the state, who were interested in
   maintaining all kinds of abuses, which the austere minister
   proposed to suppress. Louis XVI. dismissed him [1776] with
   regret. During his whole life, which was only a long
   martyrdom, he had the mortification to discern what was right,
   to wish it sincerely, but to lack the energy requisite for
   carrying it into execution. The King, placed between the
   court, the parliaments, and the people, exposed to intrigues
   and to suggestions of all sorts, repeatedly changed his
   ministers. Yielding once more to the public voice, and to the
   necessity for reform, he summoned to the finance department
   Necker, a native of Geneva, who had amassed wealth as a
   banker, a partisan and disciple of Colbert, as Turgot was of
   Sully; an economical and upright financier, but a vain man,
   fond of setting himself up for arbitrator in everything. …
   Necker re-established order in the finances, and found means
   to defray the heavy expenses of the American war. … But it
   required something more than financial artifices to put an end
   to the embarrassments of the exchequer, and he had recourse to
   reform. He found the higher orders not less adverse to him
   than they had been to Turgot; the parliaments, apprised of his
   plans, combined against him, and obliged him to retire [1781].
   The conviction of the existence of abuses was universal;
   everybody admitted it. … The courtiers, who derived
   advantage from these abuses, would have been glad to see an
   end put to the embarrassments of the exchequer, but without
   its costing them a single sacrifice. … The parliaments also
   talked of the interests of the people, loudly insisted on the
   sufferings of the poor, and yet opposed the equalization of
   the taxes, as well as the abolition of the remains of feudal
   barbarism. All talked of the public weal, few desired it; and
   the people, not yet knowing who were its true friends,
   applauded all those who resisted power, its most obvious
   enemy. By the removal of Turgot and Necker, the state of
   affairs was not changed: the distress of the treasury remained
   the same. … An intrigue brought forward M. de Calonne [in
   1783, after brief careers in office of M. de Fleury and M.
   d'Ormesson]. … Calonne, clever, brilliant, fertile in
   resources, relied upon his genius, upon fortune, and upon men,
   and awaited the future with the most extraordinary apathy. …
   That future which had been counted upon now approached: it
   became necessary at length to adopt decisive measures. It was
   impossible to burden the people with fresh imposts, and yet
   the coffers were empty. There was but one remedy which could
   be applied; that was to reduce the expenses by the suppression
   of grants; and if this expedient should not suffice, to extend
   the taxes to a greater number of contributors, that is, to the
   nobility and clergy. These plans, attempted successively by
   Turgot and Necker, and resumed by Calonne, appeared to the
   latter not at all likely to succeed, unless the consent of the
   privileged classes themselves could be obtained. Calonne,
   therefore, proposed to collect them together in an assembly,
   to be called the Assembly of the Notables, in order to lay his
   plans before them, and to gain their consent either by address or
   by conviction. The assembly [which met February 22, 1787] was
   composed of distinguished members of the nobility, clergy, and
   magistracy, of a great number of masters of requests and some
   magistrates of the provinces. … Very warm discussions
   ensued." The Notables at length "promised to sanction the
   plans of Calonne, but on condition that a minister more moral
   and more deserving of confidence should be appointed to carry
   them into execution."
{1253}
   Calonne, consequently, was dismissed, and replaced by M. de
   Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. "The Notables, bound by the
   promises which they had made, readily consented to all that
   they had at first refused: land-tax, stamp-duty, suppression
   of the gratuitous services of vassals ('corvées'), provincial
   assemblies, were all cheerfully granted. … Had M. de Brienne
   known how to profit by the advantages of his position; had he
   actively proceeded with the execution of the measures assented
   to by the Notables; had he submitted them all at once and
   without delay to the parliament, at the instant when the
   adhesion of the higher orders seemed to be wrung from
   them—all would probably have been over; the parliament,
   pressed on all sides, would have consented to everything. …
   Nothing of the kind, however, was done. By imprudent delays
   occasion was furnished for relapses; the edicts were submitted
   only one after another; the parliament had time to discuss, to
   gain courage, and to recover from the sort of surprise by
   which the Notables had been taken. It registered, after long
   discussions, the edict enacting the second abolition of the
   'corvées,' and another permitting the free exportation of
   corn. Its animosity was particularly directed against the
   land-tax; but it feared lest by a refusal it should enlighten
   the public, and show that its opposition was entirely selfish.
   It hesitated, when it was spared this embarrassment by the
   simultaneous presentation of the edict on the stamp-duty and
   the land-tax, and especially by opening the deliberations with
   the former. The parliament had thus an opportunity of refusing
   the first without entering into explanations respecting the
   second; and, in attacking the stamp-duty, which affected the
   majority of the payers of taxes, it seemed to defend the
   interest of the public. At a sitting which was attended by the
   peers, it denounced the abuses, the profligacy, and the
   prodigality of the court, and demanded statements of
   expenditure. A councillor, punning upon the 'états'
   (statements) exclaimed … —'It is not statements, but
   States-General that we want.' … The utterance of a single
   word presented an unexpected direction to the public mind: it
   was repeated by every mouth, and States-General were loudly
   demanded."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 1, pages 17-21._

   "There is no doubt that the French administrative body, at the
   time when Louis XVI. began to reign, was corrupt and
   self-seeking. In the management of the finances and of the
   army, illegitimate profits were made. But this was not the
   worst evil from which the public service was suffering. France
   was in fact governed by what in modern times is called 'a
   ring.' The members of such an organization pretend to serve
   the sovereign, or the public, and in some measure actually do
   so; but their rewards are determined by intrigue and favor,
   and are entirely disproportionate to their services. They
   generally prefer jobbery to direct stealing, and will spend a
   million of the state's money in a needless undertaking, in
   order to divert a few thousands into their own pockets. They
   hold together against all the world, while trying to
   circumvent each other. Such a ring in old France was the
   court. By such a ring will every country be governed, where
   the sovereign who possesses the political power is weak in
   moral character or careless of the public interest; whether
   that sovereign be a monarch, a chamber, or the mass of the
   people. Louis XVI., king of France and of Navarre, was more
   dull than stupid, and weaker in will than in intellect. … He
   was … thoroughly conscientious, and had a high sense of the
   responsibility of his great calling. He was not indolent,
   although heavy, and his courage, which was sorely tested, was
   never broken. With these virtues he might have made a good
   king, had he possessed firmness of will enough to support a
   good minister, or to adhere to a good policy. But such
   strength had not been given him. Totally incapable of standing
   by himself, he leant successively, or simultaneously, on his
   aunt, his wife, his ministers, his courtiers, as ready to
   change his policy as his adviser. Yet it was part of his
   weakness to be unwilling to believe himself under the guidance
   of any particular person; he set a high value on his own
   authority, and was inordinately jealous of it. No one,
   therefore, could acquire a permanent influence. Thus a
   well-meaning man became the worst of sovereigns. … Louis XV.
   had been led by his mistresses; Louis XVI. was turned about by
   the last person who happened to speak to him. The courtiers,
   in their turn, were swayed by their feelings, or their
   interests. They formed parties and combinations, and intrigued
   for or against each other. They made bargains, they gave and
   took bribes. In all these intrigues, bribes, and bargains, the
   court ladies had a great share. They were as corrupt as the
   men, and as frivolous. It is probable that in no government
   did women ever exercise so great an influence. The factions
   into which the court was divided tended to group themselves
   round certain rich and influential families. Such were the
   Noailles, an ambitious and powerful house, with which
   Lafayette was connected by marriage; the Broglies, one of whom
   had held the thread of the secret diplomacy which Louis XV.
   had carried on behind the backs of his acknowledged ministers;
   the Polignacs, new people, creatures of Queen Marie
   Antoinette; the Rohans, through the influence of whose great
   name an unworthy member of the family was to rise to high
   dignity in the church and the state, and then to cast a deep
   shadow on the darkening popularity of that ill-starred
   princess. Such families as these formed an upper class among
   nobles. … It is not easy, in looking at the French
   government in the eighteenth century, to decide where the
   working administration ended, and where the useless court that
   answered no real purpose began. … There was the department of
   hunting and that of buildings, a separate one for royal
   journeys, one for the guard, another for police, yet another
   for ceremonies. There were five hundred officers 'of the
   mouth,' table-bearers distinct from chair-bearers. There were
   tradesmen, from apothecaries and armorers at one end of the
   list to saddle-makers, tailors and violinists at the other. …
   The military and civil households of the king and of the
   royal family are said to have consisted of about fifteen
   thousand souls, and to have cost forty-five million francs per
   annum. The holders of many of the places served but three
   months apiece out of every year, so that four officers and
   four salaries were required, instead of one. With such a
   system as this we cannot wonder that the men who administered
   the French government were generally incapable and
   self-seeking. Most of them were politicians rather than
   administrators, and cared more for their places than for their
   country. Of the few conscientious and patriotic men who
   obtained power, the greater number lost it very speedily."

      _E. J. Lowell,
      The Eve of the French Revolution,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapters 9-11._

      _Mme. de Stael,
      Considerations on the Principal Events
      of the French Revolution,
      chapters 3-10 (volume 1)._

      _J. Necker,
      On the French Revolution,
      part. 1, section 1 (volume 1)._

      _Condorcet,
      Life of Turgot,
      chapters 5-6._

      _L. Say,
      Turgot,
      chapters 5-7._

      _C. D. Yonge,
      Life of Marie Antoinette,
      chapters 8-21._

{1254}

FRANCE: A. D. 1778 (February).
   Treaty with the United States of America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778,
      and 1778 (FEBRUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1780 (July).
   Fresh aid to the United States of America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).

FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
   Disastrous naval defeat by Rodney.
   Unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
   The negotiation of Peace between Great Britain and the United
   States of America.
   Dissatisfaction of the French minister.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER),
      and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
   The affair of the Diamond Necklace.

   The chief actor in the affair of the diamond necklace, which
   caused a great scandal and smirched the queen's name, was an
   adventuress who called herself the Comtesse de Lamotte, and
   claimed descent from Henry II., but who had been half servant,
   half companion, to a lady of quality, and had picked up a
   useful acquaintance with the manners and the gossip of court
   society. "Madame de Lamotte's original patroness had a
   visiting acquaintance with the Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan,
   and in her company her protégée learned to know him also.
   Prince Louis, who had helped to receive Marie Antoinette at
   Strasburg, had been the French ambassador at Vienna, where he
   had disgusted and incensed Maria Theresa by his worldliness,
   profligacy, and arrogance. She had at last procured his
   withdrawal, and her letters expressing a positive terror lest
   he should come near Marie Antoinette and acquire an influence
   over her, were not without their effect. He was not allowed to
   appear at Court, and for ten long years fretted and fumed
   under a sense of the royal displeasure. … He was now a man
   bordering on fifty, grey-headed, rosy, 'pursy,' with nothing
   save his blue blood and the great offices which he disgraced
   to recommend him. Madame de Lamotte, hovering about Paris and
   Versailles, where she had lodgings in La Belle Inage, tried to
   make her own of backstairs gossip, and picked up a hint or
   two. Suddenly a great idea struck her, founded on the history
   of a magnificent necklace dangled before bright eyes, over
   which many an excitable imagination gloated. The Queen had a
   court jeweller, Bœhmer, who had formerly been jeweller to the
   King of Saxony at Dresden. … For a period of years he had
   been collecting and assorting the stones which should form an
   incomparable necklace, in row upon row, pendants and tassels
   of lustrous diamonds, till the price reached the royal pitch
   of from eighty to ninety thousand pounds English money. This
   costly 'collar,' according to rumour, was … meant, in the
   beginning, for the Comtesse du Barry. In the end, it … was
   offered with confidence to the Queen. … She declined to
   buy—she had enough diamonds. … There was nothing for it but
   that Bœhmer should 'hawk' his necklace in every Court of
   Europe, without success, till the German declared himself
   ruined, and passionately protested that, if the Queen would
   not buy the diamonds, there was no resource for him save to
   throw himself into the Seine. But there was a resource,
   unhappily for Bœhmer, unhappily for all concerned, most so for
   the poor Queen. Madame de Lamotte, in keeping up her
   acquaintance with Prince Louis de Rohan, began to hint darkly
   that there might be ways of winning the royal favour. She
   threw out cunning words about the degree of importance and
   trust to which she had attained in the highest quarters at
   Versailles; about the emptiness of the Queen's exchequer, with
   consequent difficulties in the discharge of her charities;
   about the secret royal desire for the famous necklace, which
   the King would not enable Marie Antoinette to obtain. The
   blinded and besotted Cardinal drank in these insinuations. The
   black art was called in to deepen his convictions. In an age
   when many men, especially many churchmen, believed in nothing,
   in spite of their professions, naturally they were given over
   to believe a lie. Cagliostro, astrologer and modern magician,
   was flourishing in Paris, and by circles and signs he promised
   the priest, De Rohan, progress in the only suit he had at
   heart. Still the dupe was not so infatuated as to require no
   proof of the validity of these momentous implications, and
   proof was not wanting; notes were handed to him, to be
   afterwards shown to Bœhmer, graciously acknowledging his
   devotion, and authorising him to buy for the Queen the diamond
   necklace. These notes were apparently written in the Queen's
   hand (that school-girl's scrawl of which Maria Theresa was
   wont to complain); but they were signed 'Marie Antoinette de
   France,' a signature which so great a man as the Cardinal
   ought to have known was never employed by the Queen, for the
   very good reason that the termination 'de France' belonged to
   the children and not to the wife of the sovereign. Even a
   further assurance that all was right was granted. The
   Cardinal, trembling in a fever of hope and expectation, was
   told that a private interview with the Queen would be
   vouchsafed to him at midnight in the Park of Versailles. At
   the appointed hour, on the night of the 28th of July, 1784, De
   Rohan, in a blue greatcoat and slouched hat, was stationed,
   amidst shrouding, sultry darkness, in the neighbourhood of the
   palace. Madame de Lamotte, in a black domino, hovered near to
   give the signal of the Queen's approach. The whisper was
   given, 'In the Hornbeam Arbour,' and the Cardinal hurried to
   the spot, where he could dimly descry a tall lady in white,
   with chestnut hair, blue eyes, and a commanding air, if he
   could really have seen all these well-known attributes. He
   knelt, but before he could do more than mutter a word of
   homage and gratitude, the black domino was at his side again
   with another vehement whisper, 'On vient' (They come).
{1255}
   The lady in white dropped a rose, with the significant words,
   'Vous savez ce que cela veut dire' (You know what that means),
   and vanished before the 'Vite, vite' ('Quick, quick ') of the
   black domino, for the sound of approaching footsteps was
   supposed to indicate the approach of Madame and the Comtesse
   d'Artois, and the Cardinal, in his turn, had to flee from
   detection. What more could be required to convince a man of
   the good faith of the lady. … Bœhmer received a hint that he
   might sell his necklace, through the Prince Cardinal Louis de
   Rohan, to one of the great ones of the earth, who was to
   remain in obscurity. The jeweller drew out his terms—sixteen
   hundred thousand livres, to be paid in five equal instalments
   over a year and a-half—to which he and Prince Louis affixed
   their signatures. This paper Madame de Lamotte carried to
   Versailles, and brought it back with the words written on the
   margin, 'Bon Marie Antoinette de France.' In the meantime,
   Bœhmer, the better to keep the secret, gave out that he had
   sold the necklace to the Grand Turk for his favourite Sultana.
   The necklace was, in fact, delivered to Prince Louis and by
   him entrusted to Madame Lamotte, from whose hands it passed
   —not into the Queen's. Having been taken to pieces, it was
   sent in all haste out of the kingdom, while the Cardinal,
   according to his own account, was still played with. … It
   goes without saying that no payment, except a small offer of
   interest on the thirty thousand, was forthcoming. The Cardinal
   and Bœhmer were betrayed into wrath, dismay, and despair.
   Bœhmer took it upon him to apply, in respectful terms, to her
   Majesty for payment; and when she said the whole thing was a
   mistake, the man must be mad, and caused her words to be
   written to him, he sought an interview with Madame Campan, the
   first woman of the bedchamber, at her house at Crespy, where
   he had been dining, and in the gardens there, in the middle of
   a thunder-shower, astounded her with his version of the story.
   … The Cardinal was taken to the Bastille. More arrests
   followed, including those of Madame de Lamotte, staying
   quietly in her house at Bar-sur-Aube, and the girl Gay
   d'Oliva, an unhappy girl, tall and fair haired, taken from the
   streets of Paris, and brought to the park of Versailles to
   personate the Queen. It was said the Queen wept passionately
   over the scandal—well she might. The court in which the case
   was tried might prove the forgery, as in fact it did, though
   not in the way she expected; but every Court in Europe would
   ring with the story, and she had made deadly enemies, if not
   of the Church itself, of the great houses of De Rohan, De
   Soubise, De Guéménée, De Marsan, and their multitude of
   allies. The process lasted nine months, and every exertion was
   made for the deliverance of the princely culprit. … The
   result of the trial was that, though the Queen's signature was
   declared false, Madame de Lamotte was sentenced to be whipped,
   branded, and imprisoned for life, her husband was condemned to
   the galleys, and a man called Villette de Retaux, who was the
   actual fabricator of the Queen's handwriting, was sentenced to
   be banished for life. The Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan was
   fully acquitted, with permission to publish what defence he
   chose to write of his conduct. When he left the court, he was
   escorted by great crowds, hurrahing over his acquittal,
   because it was supposed to cover the Court with
   mortification."

      _Sarah Tytler,
      Marie Antoinette,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      The Diamond Necklace
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 5)._

      _H. Vizetelly,
      The Story of the Diamond Necklace._

FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.
   Struggle of the Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
   The demand for a meeting of the States-General yielded to.
   Double representation of the Third Estate conceded.
   The make-up of the States-General as elected by the three
   Estates.

   Banished to Troyes (August, 1787), in consequence of its
   refusal to register two edicts relating to the stamp-duty and
   the land-tax, the Parliament of Paris "grew weary of exile,
   and the minister recalled it on condition that the two edicts
   should be passed. But this was only a suspension of
   hostilities; the necessities of the crown soon rendered the
   struggle more obstinate and violent. The minister had to make
   fresh applications for money; his existence depended on the
   issue of several successive loans to the amount of
   440,000,000. It was necessary to obtain the enrolment of them.
   Brienne, expecting opposition from the parliament, procured
   the enrolment of this edict, by a 'bed of justice,' and to
   conciliate the magistracy and public opinion, the protestants
   were restored to their rights in the same sitting, and Louis
   XVI. promised an annual publication of the state of finances,
   and the convocation of the states-general before the end of
   five years. But these concessions were no longer sufficient:
   parliament refused the enrolment, and rose against the
   ministerial tyranny. Some of its members, among others the
   duke of Orleans, were banished. Parliament protested by a
   decree against 'lettres de cachet,' and required the recall of
   its members. This decree was annulled by the king, and
   confirmed by parliament. The warfare increased. The magistracy
   of Paris was supported by all the magistracy of France, and
   encouraged by public opinion. It proclaimed the rights of the
   nation, and its own incompetence in matters of taxation; and,
   become liberal from interest, and rendered generous by
   oppression, it exclaimed against arbitrary imprisonment, and
   demanded regularly convoked states-general. After this act of
   courage, it decreed the irremovability of its members, and the
   incompetence of any who might usurp their functions. This bold
   manifesto was followed by the arrest of two members,
   d'Eprémenil and Goislard, by the reform of the body, and the
   establishment of a plenary court. Brienne understood that the
   opposition of the parliament was systematic, that it would be
   renewed on every fresh demand for subsidies, or on the
   authorization of every loan. Exile was but a momentary remedy,
   which suspended opposition, without destroying it. He then
   projected the reduction of this body to judicial functions.
   … All the magistracy of France was exiled on the same day,
   in order that the new judicial organization might take place.
   The keeper of the seals deprived the Parliament of Paris of
   its political attributes, to invest with them a plenary court,
   ministerially composed, and reduced its judicial competence in
   favour of bailiwicks, the jurisdiction of which he extended.
   Public opinion was indignant; the Châtelet protested, the
   provinces rose, and the plenary court could neither be formed
   nor act. Disturbances broke out in Dauphiné, Brittany,
   Provence, Flanders, Languédoc, and Béarn; the ministry,
   instead of the regular opposition of parliament, had to
   encounter one much more animated and factious.
{1256}
   The nobility, the third estate, the provincial states, and
   even the clergy, took part in it. Brienne, pressed for money,
   had called together an extraordinary assembly of the clergy,
   who immediately made an address to the king, demanding the
   abolition of his plenary court, and the recall of the
   states-general: they alone could thenceforth repair the
   disordered state of the finances, secure the national debt,
   and terminate these disputes for power. … Obtaining neither
   taxes nor loans, unable to make use of the plenary court, and
   not wishing to recall the parliaments, Brienne, as a last
   resource, promised the convocation of the states-general. By
   this means he hastened his ruin. … He succumbed on the 25th
   August, 1788. The cause of his fall was a suspension of the
   payment of the interest on the debt, which was the
   commencement of bankruptcy. This minister has been the most
   blamed because he came last. Inheriting the faults, the
   embarrassments of past times, he had to struggle with the
   difficulties of his position with inefficient means. He tried
   intrigue and oppression; he banished, suspended, disorganized
   parliament; everything was an obstacle to him, nothing aided
   him. After a long struggle, he sank under lassitude and
   weakness; I dare not say from incapacity, for had he been far
   stronger and more skilful, had he been a Richelieu or a Sully,
   he would still have fallen. It no longer appertained to anyone
   arbitrarily to raise money or to oppress the people. … The
   states-general had become the only means of government, and
   the last resource of the throne. They had been eagerly
   demanded by parliament and the peers of the kingdom, on the
   13th of July, 1787; by the states of Dauphiné, in the assembly
   of Vizille; by the clergy in its assembly at Paris. The
   provincial states had prepared the public mind for them; and
   the notables were their precursors. The king after having, on
   the 18th of December, 1787, promised their convocation in five
   years, on the 8th of August, 1788, fixed the opening for the
   1st of May, 1789. Necker was recalled, parliament
   re-established, the plenary court abolished, the bailiwicks
   destroyed, and the provinces satisfied; and the new minister
   prepared everything for the election of deputies and the
   holding of the states. At this epoch a great change took place
   in the opposition, which till then had been unanimous. Under
   Brienne, the ministry had encountered opposition from all the
   various bodies of the state, because it had sought to oppress
   them. Under Necker, it met with resistance from the same
   bodies, which desired power for themselves and oppression for
   the people. From being despotic, it had become national, and
   it still had them all equally against it. Parliament had
   maintained a struggle for authority, and not for the public
   welfare; and the nobility had united with the third estate,
   rather against the government than in favour of the people.
   Each of these bodies had demanded the states-general: the
   parliament, in the hope of ruling them as it had done in 1614;
   and the nobility, in the hope of regaining its lost influence.
   Accordingly, the magistracy proposed as a model for the
   states-general of 1789, the form of that of 1614, and public
   opinion abandoned it; the nobility refused its consent to the
   double representation of the third estate, and a division
   broke out between these two orders. This double representation
   was required by the intellect of the age, the necessity of
   reform, and by the importance which the third estate had
   acquired. It had already been admitted into the the provincial
   assemblies. … Opinion became daily more decided, and Necker
   wishing, yet fearing, to satisfy it, and desirous of
   conciliating all orders, of obtaining general approbation,
   convoked a second assembly of notables on the 6th of November,
   1788, to deliberate on the composition of the states-general,
   and the election of its members. … Necker, having been
   unable to make the notables adopt the [double] representation
   of the third estate, caused it to be adopted by the council.
   The royal declaration of the 27th of November decreed, that
   the deputies in the states-general should amount to at least a
   thousand, and that the deputies of the third estate should be
   equal in number to the deputies of the nobility and clergy
   together. Necker moreover obtained the admission of the curés
   into the order of the clergy, and of protestants into that of
   the third estate. The district assemblies were convoked for
   the elections; every one exerted himself to secure the
   nomination of members of his own party, and to draw up
   manifestoes setting forth his views. Parliament had but little
   influence in the elections, and the court none at all. The
   nobility selected a few popular deputies, but for the most
   part devoted to the interests of their order, and as much
   opposed to the third estate as to the oligarchy of the great
   families of the court. The clergy nominated bishops and abbés
   attached to privilege, and cures favourable to the popular
   cause, which was their own; lastly, the third estate selected
   men enlightened, firm and unanimous in their wishes. The
   deputation of the nobility was comprised of 242 gentlemen, and
   28 members of the parliament; that of the clergy, of 48
   archbishops or bishops, 35 abbés or deans, and 208 curés; and
   that of the communes, of two ecclesiastics, 12 noblemen, 18
   magistrates of towns, 200 county members, 212 barristers, 16
   physicians, and 216 merchants and agriculturists. The opening
   of the states-general was fixed for the 5th of May, 1789."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      introd._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 6 (volume 1)._

      _J. Necker,
      On the French Revolution,
      part 1, section 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789.
   The condition of the people on the eve of the great
   Revolution.
   The sources and causes of its destructive fury.

   "In 1789 three classes of persons, the Clergy, the Nobles, and
   the King occupied the most prominent position in the State,
   with all the advantages which it comports; namely, authority,
   property, honors, or, at the very least, privileges,
   immunities, favors, pensions, preferences, and the like. …
   The privileged classes number about 270,000 persons,
   comprising of the nobility 140,000 and of the clergy 130,000.
   This makes from 25,000 to 30,000 noble families; 23,000 monks
   in 2,500 monasteries, and 37,000 nuns in 1,500 convents, and
   60,000 curates and vicars in as many churches and chapels.
   Should the reader desire a more distinct impression of them,
   he may imagine on each square league of territory, and to each
   thousand of inhabitants, one noble family in its weathercock
   mansion, in each village a curate and his church, and, every
   six or seven leagues, a conventual body of men or of women. …
{1257}
   A fifth of the soil belongs to the crown and the communes, a
   fifth to the third estate, a fifth to the rural population, a
   fifth to the nobles and a fifth to the clergy. Accordingly, if
   we deduct the public lands, the privileged classes own one
   half of the kingdom. This large portion, moreover, is at the
   same time the richest, for it comprises almost all the large
   and handsome buildings, the palaces, castles, convents, and
   cathedrals, and almost all the valuable movable property. …
   Such is the total or partial exemption from taxation. The
   tax-collectors halt in their presence, because the king well
   knows that feudal property has the same origin as his own; if
   royalty is one privilege seigniory is another; the king
   himself is simply the most privileged among the privileged.
   … After the assaults of 450 years, taxation, the first of
   fiscal instrumentalities, the most burdensome of all, leaves
   feudal property almost intact. … The privileged person
   avoids or repels taxation, not merely because it despoils him,
   but because it belittles him; it is a mark of plebeian
   condition, that is to say, of former servitude, and he resists
   the fisc as much through pride as through interest. … La
   Bruyère wrote, just a century before 1789, 'Certain
   savage-looking beings, male and female, are seen in the
   country, black, livid and sunburnt, and belonging to the soil
   which they dig and grub with invincible stubbornness. They
   seem capable of articulation, and, when they stand erect they
   display human lineaments. They are, in fact, men. They retire
   at night into their dens, where they live on black bread,
   water and roots. They spare other human beings the trouble of
   sowing, ploughing and harvesting, and thus should not be in
   want of the bread they have planted.' They continue in want of
   it during 25 years after this, and die in herds. I estimate
   that in 1715 more than one-third of the population, six
   millions, perish with hunger and of destitution. The picture,
   accordingly, for the first quarter of the century preceding
   the Revolution, far from being overdrawn, is the reverse; we
   shall see that, during more than half a century, up to the
   death of Louis XV., it is exact; perhaps, instead of weakening
   any of its points, they should be strengthened. . . .
   Undoubtedly the government under Louis XVI. is milder; the
   intendants are more humane, the administration is less rigid,
   the 'taille' becomes less unequal, and the 'corvée' is less
   onerous through its transformation, in short, misery has
   diminished, and yet this is greater than human nature can
   bear. Examine administrative correspondence for the last
   thirty years preceding the Revolution. Countless statements
   reveal excessive suffering, even when not terminating in fury.
   Life to a man of the lower class, to an artisan, or workman,
   subsisting on the labor of his own hands, is evidently
   precarious; he obtains simply enough to keep him from
   starvation and he does not always get that. Here, in four
   districts, 'the inhabitants live only on buckwheat,' and for
   five years, the apple crop having failed, they drink only
   water. There, in a country of vineyards, 'the vine-dressers
   each year are reduced, for the most part, to begging their
   bread during the dull season.' … In a remote canton the
   peasants cut the grain still green and dry it in the oven,
   because they are too hungry to wait. … Between 1750 and
   1760, the idlers who eat suppers begin to regard with
   compassion and alarm the laborers who go without dinners. Why
   are the latter so impoverished, and by what chance, on a soil
   as rich as that of France, do those lack bread who grow the
   grain? In the first place, many farms remain uncultivated,
   and, what is worse, many are deserted. According to the best
   observers 'one-quarter of the soil is absolutely lying waste.
   … Hundreds and hundreds of arpents of heath and moor form
   extensive deserts.' … This is not sterility but decadence.
   The régime invented by Louis XIV. has produced its effect; the
   soil for a century past is reverting back to a wild state. … In
   the second place, cultivation, when it does take place, is
   carried on according to mediæval modes. Arthur Young, in 1789,
   considers that French agriculture has not progressed beyond
   that of the 10th century. Except in Flanders and on the plains
   of Alsace, the fields lie fallow one year out of three and
   oftentimes one year out of two. The implements are poor; there
   are no ploughs made of iron; in many places the plough of
   Virgil's time is still in use. … Arthur Young shows that in
   France those who lived on field labor, and they constituted
   the great majority, are 76 per cent. less comfortable than the
   same laborers in England, while they are 76 per cent. less
   well fed and well clothed, besides being worse treated in
   sickness and in health. The result is that, in seven-eighths
   of the kingdom, there are no farmers but simply métayers.
   ['The poor people,' says Arthur Young, 'who cultivate the soil
   here are métayers, that is, men who hire the land without ability
   to stock it; the proprietor is forced to provide cattle and
   seed, and he and his tenants divide the product.'] … Misery
   begets bitterness in a man; but ownership coupled with misery
   renders him still more bitter"; and, strange as it appears,
   the acquisition of land by the French peasants, in small
   holdings, went on steadily during the 18th century, despite
   the want and suffering which were so universal. "The fact is
   almost incredible, but it is nevertheless true. We can only
   explain it by the character of the French peasant, by his
   sobriety, his tenacity, his rigor with himself, his
   dissimulation, his hereditary passion for property and
   especially for that of the soil. He had lived on privations
   and economized sou after sou. … Towards 1760, one-quarter of
   the soil is said to have already passed into the hands of
   agriculturists. … The small cultivator, however, in becoming
   a possessor of the soil assumed its charges. Simply as
   day-laborer, and with his arms alone, he was only partially
   affected by the taxes; 'where there is nothing the king loses
   his dues.' But now, vainly is he poor and declaring himself
   still poorer; the fisc has a hold on him and on every portion
   of his new possessions. … In 1715, the 'taille' [see TAILLE
   AND GABELLE] and the poll-tax, which he alone pays, or nearly
   alone, amounts to 66,000,000 livres, the amount is 93,000,000
   in 1759 and 110,000,000 in 1789. … 'I am miserable because
   too much is taken from me. Too much is taken from me because
   not enough is taken from the privileged. Not only do the
   privileged force me to pay in their place, but, again, they
   previously deduct from my earnings their ecclesiastical and
   feudal dues. When, out of my income of 100 francs, I have
   parted with 53 francs, and more, to the collector, I am
   obliged again to give 14 francs to the seignior, also more
   than 14 for tithes, and, out of the remaining 18 or 19 francs,
   I have additionally to satisfy the excise-men.
{1258}
   I alone, a poor man, pay two governments, one, the old
   government [the seigniorial government of the feudal regime],
   local and now absent, useless, inconvenient and humiliating,
   and active only through annoyances, exemptions and taxes; and
   the other [the royal government], recent, centralized,
   everywhere present, which, taking upon itself all functions,
   has vast needs and makes my meagre shoulders support its
   enormous weight.' These, in precise terms, are the vague ideas
   beginning to ferment in the popular brain and encountered on
   every page of the records of the States-General. … The
   privileged wrought their own destruction. … At their head,
   the king, creating France by devoting himself to her as if his
   own property, ended by sacrificing her as if his own property;
   the public purse is his private purse, while passions, vanities,
   personal weaknesses, luxurious habits, family solicitudes, the
   intrigues of a mistress and the caprices of a wife, govern a
   state of 26,000,000 men with an arbitrariness, a heedlessness,
   a prodigality, an unskilfulness, an absence of consistency,
   that would scarcely be overlooked in the management of a
   private domain. The king and the privileged excel in one
   direction, in good-breeding, in good taste, in fashion, in the
   talent for self-display and in entertaining, in the gift of
   graceful conversation, in finesse and in gayety, in the art of
   converting life into a brilliant and ingenious festivity. …
   Through the habit, perfection and sway of polished intercourse
   they stamped on the French intellect a classic form, which,
   combined with recent scientific acquisitions, produced the
   philosophy of the 18th century, the ill-repute of tradition,
   the ambition of recasting all human institutions according to
   the sole dictates of reason, the appliance of mathematical
   methods to politics and morals, the catechism of the rights of
   man, and other dogmas of anarchical and despotic character in
   the 'Contrat Social.'—Once this chimera is born they welcome
   it as a drawing-room fancy; they use the little monster as a
   plaything, as yet innocent and decked with ribbons like a
   pastoral lambkin; they never dream of it becoming a raging,
   formidable brute; they nourish it, and caress it, and then,
   opening their doors, they let it descend into the
   streets.—Here, amongst a middle class which the government
   has rendered ill-disposed by compromising its fortunes, which
   the privileged have offended by restricting its ambition,
   which is wounded by inequality through injured self-esteem,
   the revolutionary theory gains rapid accessions, a sudden
   asperity, and, in a few years, it finds itself undisputed
   master of public opinion.—At this moment, and at its summons,
   another colossal monster rises up, a monster with millions of
   heads, a blind, startled animal, an entire people pressed
   down, exasperated and suddenly loosed against the government
   whose exactions have despoiled it, against the privileged
   whose rights have reduced it to starvation."

      _H. A. Taine,
      The Ancient Régime,
      book 1, chapters 1, 2,
      and book 5, chapters 1, 2, 5._

   "When the facts of history are fully and impartially set
   forth, the wonder is rather that sane men put up with the
   chaotic imbecility, the hideous injustices, the shameless
   scandals, of the 'Ancien Regime,' in the earlier half of the
   century, many years before the political 'Philosophes' wrote a
   line,—why the Revolution did not break out in 1754 or 1757,
   as it was on the brink of doing, instead of being delayed, by
   the patient endurance of the people, for another generation.
   It can hardly be doubted that the Revolution of '89 owed many
   of its worst features to the violence of a populace degraded
   to the level of the beasts by the effect of the institutions
   under which they herded together and starved; and that the
   work of reconstruction which it attempted was to carry into
   practice the speculations of Mably and of Rousseau. But, just
   as little, does it seem open to question that, neither the
   writhings of the dregs of the populace in their misery, nor
   the speculative demonstrations of the Philosophers, would have
   come to much, except for the revolutionary movement which had
   been going on ever since the beginning of the century. The
   deeper source of this lay in the just and profound griefs of
   at least 95 per cent. of the population, comprising all its
   most valuable elements, from the agricultural peasants to the
   merchants and the men of letters and science, against the
   system by which they were crushed, or annoyed, whichever way
   they turned. But the surface current was impelled by the
   official defenders of the 'Ancien Régime' themselves. It was
   the Court, the Church, the Parliaments, and, above all, the
   Jesuits, acting in the interests of the despotism of the
   Papacy, who, in the first half of the 18th century,
   effectually undermined all respect for authority, whether
   civil or religious, and justified the worst that was or could
   be said by the 'Philosophes' later on."

      See
      PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715;
      and JESUITS: A.D. 1761-1767.

      _Prof. T. H. Huxley,
      Introduction to F. Rocquain's
      "The Revolutionary Spirit preceding
      the French Revolution"_

   "I took part in the opening of the States-General, and, in
   spite of the pomp with which the royal power was still
   surrounded, I there saw the passing away of the old regime.
   The regime which preceded '89, should, it seems to me, be
   considered from a two-fold aspect: the one, the general
   condition of the country, and the other, the relations
   existing between the government and the country. With regard
   to the former, I firmly believe that, from the earliest days
   of the monarchy, France had at no period been happier than she
   was then. She had not felt the effects of any great misfortune
   since the crash which followed Law's system. The long lasting
   ministry of Cardinal de Fleury, doubtless inglorious, but wise
   and circumspect, had made good the losses and lightened the
   burdens imposed at the end of the reign of Louis XV. If, since
   that time, several wars undertaken with little skill, and
   waged with still less, had compromised the honor of her arms
   and the reputation of her government; if they had even thrown
   her finances into a somewhat alarming state of disorder, it is
   but fair to say that the confusion resulting therefrom had
   merely affected the fortune of a few creditors, and had not
   tapped the sources of public prosperity; on the contrary, what
   is styled the public administration had made constant
   progress. If, on the one hand, the state had not been able to
   boast of any great ministers, on the other, the provinces
   could show many highly enlightened and clever intendants.
   Roads had been opened connecting numerous points, and had been
   greatly improved in all directions. It should not be forgotten
   that these benefits are principally due to the reign of Louis
   XV. Their most important result had been a progressive
   improvement in the condition of agriculture.
{1259}
   The reign of Louis XVI. had continued favoring this wise
   policy, which had not been interrupted by the maritime war
   undertaken on behalf of American independence. Many
   cotton-mills had sprung, up, while considerable progress had
   been made in the manufacture of printed cotton fabrics, and of
   steel, and in the preparing of skins. … I saw the splendors
   of the Empire. Since the Restoration I see daily new fortunes
   spring up and consolidate themselves; still nothing so far
   has, in my eyes, equalled the splendor of Paris during the
   years which elapsed between 1783 and 1789. … Far be it from
   me to shut my eyes to the reality of the public prosperity
   which we are now [1822] enjoying. I am cognizant of the
   improvement in the condition of the country districts, and I
   am aware of the fact that all that rests on this solid
   foundation, even though its appearance may be somewhat more
   humble, is much to be preferred to a grander exterior that
   might hide a less assured solidity. I do not seek to disparage
   the present time—far from it. I am ready to admit the
   advantages which have accrued, in many respects, as the
   results of the Revolution; as, for instance, the partition of
   landed property, so often assailed, and which, so long as it
   does not go beyond certain limits, tends to increase wealth,
   by introducing into many families a well-being hitherto
   unknown to them. But, nevertheless, when I question my reason
   and my conscience as to the possible future of the France of
   1789, if the Revolution had not burst, if the ten years of
   destruction to which it gave birth had not weighed heavily
   upon that beautiful country … I am convinced that France, at
   the time I am writing, would be richer and stronger than she
   is to-day."

      _Chancellor Pasquier,
      Memoirs,
      pages 44-47._

   "In the spring of 1789 who could have foreseen the bloody
   catastrophe? Everything was tinged with hopefulness; the world
   was dreaming of the Golden Age. … Despite the previous
   disorders, and seeds of discord contained in certain cahiers,
   the prevailing sentiment was confidence. … The people
   everywhere hailed with enthusiasm the new era which was
   dawning. With a firm king, with a statesman who knew what he
   wished, and was determined to accomplish it, this confidence
   would have been an incomparable force. With a feeble prince
   like Louis XVI., with an irresolute minister like Necker, it
   was an appalling danger. The public, inflamed by the anarchy
   that had preceded the convocation of the States, disposed,
   through its inexperience, to accept all Utopias, and impelled
   by its peculiar character to desire their immediate
   realization, naturally grew more exacting in proportion as
   they were promised more, and more impatient and irritable as
   their hopes became livelier and appeared better founded. In
   the midst of this general satisfaction there was but one dark
   spot,—the queen. The cheers which greeted the king were
   silent before his wife. Calumny had done its work; and all the
   nobles from the provinces, the country curates, the citizens
   of the small towns, came from the confines of France imbued
   with the most contemptible prejudices against this unfortunate
   princess. Pamphlets, poured out against her by malicious
   enemies; vague and mysterious rumours, circulated everywhere,
   repeated in whispers, without giving any clew to their
   source,—the more dangerous because indefinite, and the more
   readily believed because infamous and absurd,—had so often
   reiterated that the queen was author of all the evil, that the
   world had come to regard her as the cause of the deficit, and
   the only serious obstacle to certain efficacious reforms. 'The
   queen pillages on all sides; she even sends money, it is said,
   to her brother, the emperor,' wrote a priest of Maine, in his
   parochial register, in 1781; and he attributed the motive of
   the reunion of the Notables to these supposed depredations.
   If, in 1781, such reports had penetrated to the remotest parts
   of the country, and found credence with such enlightened men
   as the Curé Boucher, one can judge what it must have been two
   years later, when the convocation of the States-General had
   inflamed the minds of the people. If the States should
   encounter any inevitable obstacle in their path; if certain
   imprudent promises should be unfulfilled; if promised reforms
   should fail,—public resentment and ill-will, always on the
   alert, would be sure to blame Marie Antoinette; they would
   impute to her all the evil done, and all the good left undone.
   The symptoms of this distrust were manifest at the outset.
   'The deputies of the Third Estate,' Madame Campan observes,
   'arrived at Versailles with the strongest prejudice against
   the court. The evil sayings in Paris never failed to be spread
   through the provinces: they believed that the king indulged in
   the pleasures of the table to a most shameful excess; they
   were persuaded that the queen exhausted the State treasury to
   gratify her inordinate love of luxury; almost all wished to
   visit Little Trianon. As the extreme simplicity of this
   pleasure-house did not correspond with their ideas, they
   insisted on being shown even the smallest closets, saying that
   richly furnished apartments were being concealed from them.
   Finally they designated one, which according to their account
   was ornamented with diamonds, and twisted columns studded with
   sapphires and rubies. The queen was amused at these mad
   fancies, and told the king of them.'"

      _M. de la Rocheterie,
      Life of Marie Antoinette,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. de Tocqueville,
      On the State of Society
      in France before the Revolution._

      _A. Young,
      Travels in France, 1787-89._

      _R. H. Dabney,
      Causes of the French Revolution._

      _E. J. Lowell,
      The Eve of the French Revolution._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (May).
   Meeting of the States-General.
   Conflict between the three Estates.
   The question of three Houses or one.

   "The opening of the States-general was fixed for the 5th of
   May, 1789, and Versailles was chosen as the place of their
   meetings. On the 4th, half Paris poured into that town to see
   the court and the deputies marching in procession to the
   solemn religious ceremony, which was to inaugurate the
   important epoch. … On the following day, the States-general,
   to the number of 1,200 persons, assembled in the spacious and
   richly decorated 'salle des menus plaisirs.' The King
   appeared, surrounded by his family, with all the magnificence
   of the ancient court, and was greeted by the enthusiastic
   applause of the deputies and spectators." The king made a
   speech, followed by Barentin, the keeper of the great seal,
   and by Necker. The latter "could not prevail upon himself to
   avow to the Assembly the real state of affairs. He announced
   an annual deficit of 56,000,000 francs, and thereby confused
   the mind of the public, which, since the meeting of the
   Notables, had always been discussing a deficit of from
   120,000,000 to 140,000,000.
{1260}
   He was quite right in assuming that those 56,000,000 might be
   covered by economy in the expenditure; but it was both
   irritating and untrue, when he, on this ground, denied the
   necessity of summoning the States-general, and called their
   convocation a free act of royal favour. … The balance of
   income and expenditure might, indeed, easily be restored in
   the future, but the deficit of former years had been
   heedlessly allowed to accumulate, and by no one more than by
   Necker himself. A floating debt of 550,000,000 had to be
   faced—in other words, therefore, more than a whole year's
   income had been expended in advance. … The real deficit of
   the year, therefore, at the lowest calculation, amounted to
   more than 200,000,000, or nearly half the annual income. …
   These facts, then, were concealed, and thus the ministry was
   necessarily placed in a false position towards the
   States-general; the continuance of the former abuses was
   perpetuated, or a violent catastrophe made inevitable. … For
   the moment the matter was not discussed. Everything yielded to
   the importance of the constitutional question—whether the
   three orders should deliberate in common or apart—whether
   there should be one single representative body, or independent
   corporations. This point was mooted at once in its full extent
   on the question, whether the validity of the elections should
   be scrutinised by each order separately, or by the whole
   Assembly. We need not here enter into the question of right;
   but of this there can be no doubt, that the government, which
   virtually created the States-general afresh [since there had
   been no national meeting of the Estates since the
   States-general of 1614-see above: A. D. 1610-1619], had the
   formal right to convoke them either in one way or the other,
   as it thought fit. … They [the government] infinitely
   lowered their own influence and dignity by leaving a most
   important constitutional question to the decision and the
   wrangling of the three orders; and they frustrated their own
   practical objects, by not decidedly declaring for the union of
   the orders in one assembly. Every important measure of reform,
   which had in view the improvement of the material and
   financial condition of the country, would have been mutilated
   by the clergy and rejected by the nobles. This was
   sufficiently proved by the 'cahiers' of the electors ['written
   instructions given by the electors to the deputies']. The
   States themselves had to undertake what the government had
   neglected. That which the government might have freely and
   legally commanded, now led to violent revolution. But there
   was no choice left; the commons would not tolerate the
   continuance of the privileged orders; and the state could not
   tolerate them if it did not wish to perish. The commons, who
   on this point were unanimous, considered the system of a
   single Assembly as a matter of course. They took care not to
   constitute themselves as 'tiers état,' but remained passive,
   and declared that they would wait until the Assembly should be
   constituted as a whole. Thus slowly and cautiously did they
   enter on their career. … Indisputably the most important and
   influential among them was Count Mirabeau, the representative
   of the town of Aix in Provence, a violent opponent of
   feudalism, and a restless participator in all the recent
   popular commotions. He would have been better able than any
   man to stimulate the Assembly to vigorous action; but even he
   hesitated, and kept back his associates from taking any
   violent steps, because he feared that the inconsistency and
   inexperience of the majority would bring ruin on the state.
   … It was only very gradually that the 'tiers état' began to
   negotiate with the other orders. The nobles shewed themselves
   haughty, dogmatical, and aggressive; and the clergy cautious,
   unctuous, and tenacious. They tried the efficacy of general
   conferences; but as no progress was found to have been made
   after three weeks, they gave up their consultations on the
   25th of May. The impatience of the public, and the necessities
   of the treasury, continually increased; the government,
   therefore, once more intervened, and Necker was called upon to
   propose a compromise," which was coldly rejected by the
   nobles, who "declared that they had long ago finished their
   scrutiny, and constituted themselves as a separate order. They
   thus spared the commons the dreaded honour of being the first
   to break with the crown. The conferences were again closed on
   the 9th of June. The leaders of the commons now saw that they
   must either succumb to the nobility, or force the other orders
   to submission."

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution.,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 8 (volume 1)._

      _Prince de Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 1 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (June).
   The Third Estate seizes the reins, proclaims itself the
   National Assembly, and assumes sovereign powers.
   The passionate excitement of Paris.
   Dismissal of Necker.
   Rising of the mob.

   "At last … on the proposal of Sieyès [the Abbé, deputy for
   Paris] and amid a storm of frantic excitement, the Third
   Estate alone voted themselves 'the National Assembly,' invited
   the other two orders to join them, and pushing their
   pretensions to sovereignty to the highest point, declared that
   the existing taxes, not having been consented to by the
   nation, were all illegal. The National Assembly, however,
   allowed them to be levied till its separation, after which
   they were to cease if not formally regranted. This great
   revolution was effected on June 17, and it at once placed the
   Third Order in a totally new relation both to the other orders
   and to the Crown. There were speedy signs of yielding among
   some members of the privileged orders, and a fierce wave of
   excitement supported the change. Malouet strongly urged that
   the proper course was to dissolve the Assembly and to appeal
   to the constituencies, but Necker declined, and a feeble and
   ineffectual effort of the King to accomplish a reunion, and at
   the same time to overawe the Third Order, precipitated the
   Revolution. The King announced his intention of holding a
   royal session on June 22, and he summoned the three orders to
   meet him. It was his design to direct them to unite in order
   to deliberate in common on matters of common interest, and to
   regain the royal initiative by laying down the lines of a new
   constitution. … On Saturday, the 20th, however, the course
   of events was interrupted by the famous scene in the tennis
   court. Troops had lately been pouring to an alarming extent
   into Paris, and exciting much suspicion in the popular party,
   and the Government very injudiciously selected for the royal
   session on the following Monday the hall in which the Third
   Order assembled. The hall was being prepared for the occasion,
   and therefore no meeting could be held.
{1261}
   The members, ignorant of the fact, went to their chamber and
   were repelled by soldiers. Furious at the insult, they
   adjourned to the neighbouring tennis court [Jeu-de-Paume]. A
   suspicion that the King meant to dissolve them was abroad, and
   they resolved to resist such an attempt. With lifted hands and
   in a transport of genuine, if somewhat theatrical enthusiasm,
   they swore that they would never separate 'till the
   constitution of the kingdom and the regeneration of public
   order were established on a solid basis.' … One single
   member, Martin d'Auche, refused his assent. The Third Estate
   had thus virtually assumed the sole legislative authority in
   France, and like the Long Parliament in England had denied the
   King's power to dissolve them. … Owing to the dissension
   that had arisen, the royal session was postponed till the
   23rd, but on the preceding day the National Assembly met in a
   church, and its session was a very important one, for on this
   occasion a great body of the clergy formally joined it. One
   hundred and forty-eight members of the clergy, of whom 134
   were curés, had now given their adhesion. Two of the nobles,
   separating from their colleagues, took the same course. Next
   day the royal session was held. The project adopted in the
   council differed so much from that of Necker that this
   minister refused to give it the sanction of his presence.
   Instead of commanding the three orders to deliberate together
   in the common interest, it was determined in the revised
   project that the King should merely invite them to do so. …
   It was … determined to withdraw altogether from the common
   deliberation 'the form of the constitution to be given to the
   coming States-General,' and to recognise fully the essential
   distinction of the three orders as political bodies, though
   they might, with the approval of the Sovereign, deliberate in
   common. Necker had proposed … that the King should
   decisively, and of his own authority, abolish all privileges
   of taxation, but in the amended article the King only
   undertook to give his sanction to this measure on condition of
   the two orders renouncing their privileges. On the other hand,
   the King announced to the Assembly a long series of articles
   of reform which would have made France a thoroughly
   constitutional country, and have swept away nearly all the
   great abuses in its government. … He annulled the
   proceedings of June 17, by which the Third Estate alone
   declared itself the Legislature of France. He reminded the
   Assembly that none of its proceedings could acquire the force
   of law without his assent, and he asserted his sole right as
   French Sovereign to the command of the army and police. He
   concluded by directing the three orders to withdraw and to
   meet next day to consider his proposals. The King, with the
   nobles and the majority of the clergy, at once withdrew, but
   the Third Order defiantly remained. It was evident that the
   attempt to conciliate, and the attempt to assert the royal
   authority, had both failed. The Assembly proclaimed itself
   inviolable. It confirmed the decrees which the King had
   annulled. Sieyès declared, in words which excited a transport
   of enthusiasm, that what the Assembly was yesterday it still
   was to-day; and two days later, the triumph of the Assembly
   became still more evident by the adhesion of 47 of the
   nobility. After this defection the King saw the hopelessness
   of resistance, and on the 27th he ordered the remainder of the
   nobles to take the same course. … In the mean time the real
   rulers of the country were coming rapidly to the surface. …
   Groups of local agitators and of the scum of the Paris mob
   began to overawe the representatives of the nation, and to
   direct the course of its policy. Troops were poured into
   Paris, but their presence was an excitement without being a
   protection, for day after day it became more evident that
   their discipline was gone, and that they shared the sympathies
   and the passions of the mob. … At the same time famine grew
   daily more intense, and the mobs more passionate and more
   formidable. The dismissal of Necker on the evening of July 11
   was the spark which produced the conflagration that had long
   been preparing. Next day Paris flew to arms. The troops with
   few exceptions abandoned the King."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 20 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Dumont,
      Recollections of Mirabeau,
      chapters 4-5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
   The mob in arms.
   Anarchy in Paris.
   The taking of the Bastille.

   "On the 12th of July, near noon, on the news of the dismissal
   of Necker, a cry of rage arises in the Palais-Royal; Camille
   Desmoulins, mounted on a table, announces that the Court
   meditates 'a St. Bartholomew of patriots.' The crowd embrace
   him, adopt the green cockade which he has proposed, and oblige
   the dancing-saloons and theatres to close in sign of mourning:
   they hurry off to the residence of Curtius [a plaster-cast
   master], and take the busts of the Duke of Orleans and of
   Necker and carry them about in triumph. Meanwhile, the
   dragoons of the Prince de Lambesc, drawn up on the Place
   Louis-Quinze, find a barricade of chairs at the entrance of
   the Tuilleries, and are greeted with a shower of stones and
   bottles. Elsewhere, on the Boulevard, before the Hôtel
   Montmorency, some of the French Guards, escaped from their
   barracks, fired on a loyal detachment of the 'Royal Allemand.'
   The tocsin is sounding on all sides, the shops where arms are
   sold are pillaged, and the Hôtel-de-Ville is invaded; 15 or 16
   well-disposed electors, who meet there, order the districts to
   be assembled and armed.—The new sovereign, the people in arms
   and in the street, has declared himself. The dregs of society
   at once come to the surface. During the night between the 12th
   and 13th of July, 'all the barriers, from the Faubourg
   Saint-Antoine to the Faubourg Saint-Honoré, besides those of
   the Faubourgs Saint-Marcel and Saint-Jacques, are forced and
   set on fire.' There is no longer an 'octroi'; the city is
   without a revenue just at the moment when it is obliged to
   make the heaviest expenditures. … 'During this fearful
   night, the bourgeoisie kept themselves shut up, each trembling
   at home for himself and those belonging to him.' On the following
   day, the 13th, the capital appears to be given up to bandits
   and the lowest of the low. … During these two days and
   nights, says Bailly, 'Paris ran the risk of being pillaged,
   and was only saved from the marauders by the national guard.'
   … Fortunately the militia organized itself, and the
   principal inhabitants and gentlemen enrol themselves; 48,000
   men are formed into battalions and companies; the bourgeoisie
   buy guns of the vagabonds for three livres apiece, and sabres
   or pistols for twelve sous. At last, some of the offenders are
   hung on the spot, and others disarmed, and the insurrection again
   becomes political.
{1262}
   But, whatever its object, it remains always wild, because it
   is in the hands of the populace. … There is no leader, no
   management. The electors who have converted themselves into
   the representatives of Paris seem to command the crowd, but it
   is the crowd which commands them. One of them, Legrand, to
   save the Hôtel-de-Ville, has no other resource but to send for
   six barrels of gun-powder, and to declare to the assailants
   that he is about to blow everything into the air. The
   commandant whom they themselves have chosen, M. de Salles, has
   twenty bayonets at his breast during a quarter of an hour,
   and, more than once, the whole committee is near being
   massacred. Let the reader imagine, on the premises where the
   discussions are going on, and petitions are being made, 'a
   concourse of 1,500 men pressed by 100,000 others who are
   forcing an entrance,' the wainscoting cracking, the benches
   upset one over another … a tumult such as to bring to mind
   'the day of judgment,' the death-shrieks, songs, yells, and
   'people beside themselves, for the most part not knowing where
   they are nor what they want.' Each district is also a petty
   centre, while the Palais-Royal is the main centre. … One
   wave gathers here and another there, their strategy consists
   in pushing and in being pushed. Yet, their entrance is
   effected only because they are let in. If they get into the
   Invalides it is owing to the connivance of the soldiers.—At
   the Bastille, firearms are discharged from ten in the morning
   to five in the evening against walls 40 feet high and 30 feet
   thick, and it is by chance that one of their shots reaches an
   'invalide' on the towers. They are treated the same as
   children whom one wishes to hurt as little as possible. The
   governor, on the first summons to surrender, orders the cannon
   to be withdrawn from the embrasures; he makes the garrison swear
   not to fire if it is not attacked; he invites the first of the
   deputations to lunch; he allows the messenger dispatched from
   the Hôtel-de-Ville to inspect the fortress; he receives
   several discharges without returning them, and lets the first
   bridge be carried without firing a shot. When, at length, he
   does fire, it is at the last extremity, to defend the second
   bridge, and after having notified the assailants that he is
   going to do so. … The people, in turn, are infatuated with
   the novel sensations of attack and resistance, with the smell
   of gunpowder, with the excitement of the contest; all they can
   think of doing is to rush against the mass of stone, their
   expedients being on a level with their tactics: A brewer
   fancies that he can set fire to this block of masonry by
   pumping over it spikenard and poppy-seed oil mixed with
   phosphorus. A young carpenter, who has some archæological
   notions, proposes to construct a catapult. Some of them think
   that they have seized the governor's daughter, and want to
   burn her in order to make the father surrender. Others set
   fire to a projecting mass of buildings filled with straw, and
   thus close up the passage. 'The Bastille was not taken by main
   force,' says the brave Elie, one of the combatants; 'it was
   surrendered before even it was attacked,' by capitulation, on
   the promise that no harm should be done to anybody. The
   garrison, being perfectly secure, had no longer the heart to
   fire on human beings while themselves risking nothing, and, on
   the other hand, they were unnerved by the sight of the immense
   crowd. Eight or nine hundred men only were concerned in the
   attack, most of them workmen or shopkeepers belonging to the
   faubourg, tailors, wheelwrights, mercers, and wine-dealers,
   mixed with the French Guards. The Place de la Bastille,
   however, and all the streets in the vicinity, were crowded
   with the curious who came to witness the sight; 'among them,'
   says a witness, 'were a number of fashionable women of very
   good appearance, who had left their carriages at some
   distance.' To the 120 men of the garrison, looking down from
   their parapets, it seemed as though all Paris had come out
   against them. It is they, also, who lower the drawbridge and
   introduce the enemy; everybody has lost his head, the besieged
   as well as the besiegers, the latter more completely because
   they are intoxicated with the sense of victory. Scarcely have
   they entered when they begin the work of destruction, and the
   latest arrivals shoot at random those that come earlier; 'each
   one fires without heeding where or on whom his shot tells.'
   Sudden omnipotence and the liberty to kill are a wine too
   strong for human nature. … Elie, who is the first to enter
   the fortress, Cholat, Hulin, the brave fellows who are in
   advance, the French Guards who are cognizant of the laws of
   war, try to keep their word of honour; but the crowd pressing
   on behind them know not whom to strike, and they strike at
   random. They spare the Swiss soldiers who have fired on them,
   and who, in their blue smocks, seem to them to be prisoners;
   on the other hand, by way of compensation, they fall furiously
   on the 'invalides' who opened the gates to them; the man who
   prevented the governor from blowing up the fortress has his
   wrist severed by the blow of a sabre, is twice pierced with a
   sword and is hung, and the hand which had saved one of the
   districts of Paris is promenaded through the streets in
   triumph. The officers are dragged along and five of them are
   killed, with three soldiers, on the spot, or on the way." M.
   de Launay, the governor, after receiving many wounds, while
   being dragged to the Hotel-de-Ville, was finally killed by
   bayonet thrusts, and his head, cut from his body, was
   placarded and borne through the streets upon a pitchfork.

      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "I was present at the taking of the Bastille. What has been
   styled the fight was not serious, for there was absolutely no
   resistance shown. Within the hold's walls were neither
   provisions nor ammunition. It was not even necessary to invest
   it. The regiment of gardes françaises which had led the
   attack, presented itself under the walls on the rue Saint
   Antoine side, opposite the main entrance, which was barred by
   a drawbridge. There was a discharge of a few musket shots, to
   which no reply was made, and then four or five discharges from
   the cannon. It has been claimed that the latter broke the
   chains of the drawbridge. I did not notice this, and yet I was
   standing close to the point of attack. What I did see plainly
   was the action of the soldiers, invalides, or others, grouped
   on the platform of the high tower, holding their muskets stock
   in the air, and expressing by all means employed under similar
   circumstances their desire of surrendering. The result of this
   so-called victory, which brought down so many favors on the
   heads of the so-called victors, is well-known. The truth is,
   that this great fight did not for a moment frighten the
   numerous spectators who had flocked to witness its result.
   Among them were many women of fashion, who, in order to be
   closer to the scene, had left their carriages some distance
   away."

      _Chancellor Pasquier,
      Memoirs,
      pages 55-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Bingham,
      The Bastille,
      volume 2, chapters 9-12._

      _R. A. Davenport,
      History of the Bastile,
      chapter 12._

      _J. Claretie,
      Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
      chapter 1, section 4._

{1263}

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
   Practical surrender of authority by the king.
   Organization of the National Guard with Lafayette in command.
   Disorder and riot in the provinces.
   Hunger in the capital.
   The murder of Foulon and Berthier.

   "The next morning the taking of the Bastille bore its intended
   fruit. Marshal de Broglie, who had found, instead of a loyal
   army, only disaffected regiments which had joined or were
   preparing to join the mob, sent in his resignation. … The
   king, deserted by his army, his authority now quite gone, had
   no means of restoring order except through the Assembly. He
   begged that body to undertake the work, promising to recall
   the dismissed ministers. … The power of the king had now
   passed from him to the National Assembly. But that numerous
   body of men, absorbed in interminable discussions on abstract
   ideas, was totally incapable of applying its power to the
   government of the country. The electors at the Hotel de Ville,
   on the 15th of July, resolved that there must be a mayor to
   direct the affairs of Paris, and a National Guard to preserve
   order. Dangers threatened from every quarter. When the
   question arose as to who should fill these offices, Moreau de
   Saint Méry, the president of the electors, pointed to the bust
   of Lafayette, which had been sent as a gift to the city of
   Paris by the State of Virginia, in 1784. The gesture was
   immediately understood, and Lafayette was chosen by
   acclamation. Not less unanimous was the choice of Bailly for
   mayor. Lafayette was now taken from the Assembly to assume the
   more active employment of commanding the National Guard. While
   the Assembly pursued the destruction of the old order and the
   erection of a new, Lafayette, at the age of 82, became the
   chief depositary of executive power. … Throughout France,
   the deepest interest was exhibited in passing events. … The
   victory of the Assembly over the king and aristocracy led the
   people of the provinces to believe that their cause was
   already won. A general demoralization ensued." After the
   taking of the Bastille, "the example of rebellion thus set was
   speedily followed. Rioting and lawlessness soon prevailed
   everywhere, increased and imbittered by the scarcity of food.
   In the towns, bread riots became continual, and the
   custom-houses, the means of collecting the exorbitant taxes,
   were destroyed. In the rural districts, châteaux were to be
   seen burning on all sides. The towers in which were preserved
   the titles and documents which gave to the nobleman his
   oppressive rights were carried by storm and their contents
   scattered. Law and authority were fast becoming synonymous
   with tyranny; the word 'liberty,' now in every mouth, had no
   other signification than license. Into Paris slunk hordes of
   gaunt foot-pads from all over France; attracted by the
   prospect of disorder and pillage. … From such circumstances
   naturally arose the National Guard. "The king had been asked,
   on the 13th, by a deputation from the Assembly, "to confide
   the care of the city to a militia," and had declined. The
   military organization of citizens was then undertaken by the
   electors at the Hotel de Ville, without his consent, and its
   commander designated without his appointment. "The king was
   obliged to confirm this choice, and he was thus deprived even
   of the merit of naming the chief officer of the guard whose
   existence had been forced upon him." On the 17th the king was
   persuaded to visit the city, for the effect which his personal
   presence would have, it was thought, upon the anxious and
   excited public mind. Lafayette had worked with energy to
   prepare his National Guard for the difficult duty of
   preserving order and protecting the royal visitor on the
   occasion. "So intense was the excitement and the
   insurrectionary spirit of the time, so uncertain were the
   boundaries between rascality and revolutionary zeal, that it
   was difficult to establish the fact that the new guard was
   created to preserve order and not to fight the king and
   pillage the aristocracy. The great armed mob, now in process
   of organization, had to be treated with great tact, lest it
   should refuse to submit to authority in any shape." But short
   as the time was, Lafayette succeeded in giving to the
   powerless monarch a safe and orderly reception. "The king made
   his will and took the sacraments before leaving Versailles,
   for … doubts were entertained that he would live to return."
   He was met at the gates of Paris by the new mayor, Bailly, and
   escorted through a double line of National Guards to the Hotel
   de Ville. There he was obliged to fix on his hat the national
   cockade, just brought into use, and to confirm the
   appointments of Lafayette and Bailly. "Louis XVI. then
   returned to Versailles, on the whole pleased, as the day had
   been less unpleasant than had been expected. But the
   compulsory acceptation of the cockade and the nominations
   meant nothing less than the extinction of his authority. …
   Lafayette recruited his army from the bourgeois class, for the
   good reason that, in the fever then raging for uncontrolled
   freedom, that class was the only one from which the proper
   material could be taken. The importance of order was impressed
   on the bourgeois by the fact that they had, shops and houses
   which they did not wish to see pillaged. … The necessity for
   strict police measures was soon to be terribly illustrated.
   For a week past a large crowd composed of starving workmen,
   country beggars, and army deserters, had thronged the streets,
   angrily demanding food. The city was extremely short of
   provisions, and it was impossible to satisfy the demands made
   upon it. … On July 22, an old man named Foulon, It member of
   the late ministry, who had long been the object of public
   dislike, and was now detested because it was rumored that he
   said that 'the people might eat' grass,' was arrested in the
   country, and brought to the Hotel de Ville, followed by a mob
   who demanded his immediate judgment." Lafayette exerted vainly
   his whole influence and his whole authority to protect the
   wretched old man until he could be lodged in prison. The mob
   tore its victim from his very hands and destroyed him on the
   spot. The next day, Foulon's son-in-law, Berthier, the
   Intendant of Paris, was arrested in the country, and the
   tragedy was re-enacted. "Shocked by these murders and
   disgusted by his own inability to prevent them, Lafayette sent
   his resignation to the electors, and for some time persisted
   in his refusal to resume his office. But no other man could be
   found in Paris equally fitted for the place; so that on the
   personal solicitation of the electors and a deputation from
   the 60 districts of the city, he again took command."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      volume 1, chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      Historical View of the French
      Revolution, book 2, chapters 1-2._

{1264}

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July-August).
   Cause and character of the "Emigration."

   "Everything, or nearly everything, was done by the party
   opposed to the Revolution in the excitement of the moment;
   nothing was the result of reasoning. Who, for instance,
   reasoned out the emigration? It has oftentimes been asked how
   so extraordinary a resolution came to be taken; how it had
   entered the minds of men gifted with a certain amount of sense
   that there was any advantage to be derived from abandoning all
   the posts where they could still exercise power; of giving
   over to the enemy the regiments they commanded, the localities
   over which they had control; of delivering up completely to
   the teachings of the opposite party the peasantry, over whom,
   in a goodly number of provinces, a valuable influence might be
   exerted, and among whom they still had many friends; and all
   this, to return for the purpose of conquering, at the sword's
   point, positions, a number of which at least could be held
   without a fight. No doubt it has been offered as an objection,
   that the peasantry set fire to châteaux, that soldiers
   mutinied against their officers. This was not the case at the
   time of what has been called the first emigration, and, at any
   rate, such doings were not general; but does danger constitute
   sufficient cause for abandoning an important post? … What is
   the answer to all this? Merely what follows. The voluntary
   going into exile of nearly the whole nobility of France, of
   many magistrates who were never to unsheath a sword, and
   lastly, of a large number of women and children,—this
   resolve, without a precedent in history, was not conceived and
   determined upon as a State measure; chance brought it about. A
   few, in the first instance, followed the princes who had been
   obliged, on the 14th of July, to seek safety out of France,
   and others followed them. At first, it was merely in the
   nature of a pleasant excursion. Outside of France, they might
   freely enjoy saying and believing anything and everything. …
   The wealthiest were the first to incur the expense of this
   trip, and a few brilliant and amiable women of the Court
   circle did their share to render most attractive the sojourn
   in a number of foreign towns close to the frontier. Gradually
   the number of these small gatherings increased, and it was
   then that the idea arose of deriving advantage from them. It
   occurred to the minds of a few men in the entourage of the
   Comte d'Artois, and whose moving spirit was M. de Calonne,
   that it would be an easy matter for them to create a kingdom
   for their sovereign outside of France, and that if they could
   not in this fashion succeed in giving him provinces to reign
   over, he would at least reign over subjects, and that this
   would serve to give him a standing in the eyes of foreign
   powers, and determine them to espouse his cause. … Thus in
   '89, '90, and '91, there were a few who were compelled to fly
   from actual danger; a small number were led away by a genuine
   feeling of enthusiasm; many felt themselves bound to leave,
   owing to a point of honor which they obeyed without reasoning
   it out; the mass thought it was the fashion, and that it
   looked well; all, or almost all, were carried away by
   expectations encouraged by the wildest of letters, and by the
   plotting of a few ambitious folk, who were under the
   impression that they were building up their fortunes."

      _Chancellor Pasquier,
      Memoirs,
      pages 64-66._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August).
   The Night of Sacrifices.
   The sweeping out of Feudalism.

   "What was the Assembly doing at this period, when Paris was
   waiting in expectation, and the capture of the Bastille was
   being imitated all over France; when châteaux were burning,
   and nobles flying into exile; when there was positive civil
   war in many a district, and anarchy in every province? Why,
   the Assembly was discussing whether or not the new
   constitution of France should be prefaced by a Declaration of
   the Rights of Man. In the discussion of this extremely
   important question were wasted the precious days which
   followed July 17. … The complacency of these theorists was
   rudely shaken on August 4, when Salomon read to the Assembly
   the report of the Comité des Recherches, or Committee of
   Researches, on the state of France. A terrible report it was.
   Châteaux burning here and there; millers hung; tax-gatherers
   drowned; the warehouses and depots of the gabelle burnt;
   everywhere rioting, and nowhere peace. … Among those who
   listened to the clear and forcible report of Salomon were
   certain of the young liberal noblesse who had just been dining
   with the Duc de la Roehefoucauld-Liancourt, a wise and
   enlightened nobleman. At their head was the Vicomte de
   Noailles, a young man of thirty-three, who had distinguished
   himself at the head of his regiment under his cousin,
   Lafayette, in America. … The Vicomte de Noailles was the
   first to rush to the tribune. 'What is the cause of the evil
   which is agitating the provinces?' he cried; and then he
   showed that it arose from the uncertainty under which the
   people dwelt, as to whether or not the old feudal bonds under
   which they had so long lived and laboured were to be
   perpetuated or abolished, and concluded an impassioned speech
   by proposing to abolish them at once. One after another the
   young liberal noblemen, and then certain deputies of the tiers
   état, followed him with fresh sacrifices. First the old feudal
   rights were abolished; then the rights of the dovecote and the
   game laws; then the old copyhold services; then the tithes
   paid to the Church, in spite of a protest from Siéyès; then
   the rights of certain cities over their immediate suburbs and
   rural districts were sacrificed; and the contention during
   that feverish night was rather to remember something or other
   to sacrifice than to suggest the expediency of maintaining
   anything which was established. In its generosity the Assembly
   even gave away what did not belong to it. The old dues paid to
   the pope were abolished, and it was even declared that the
   territory of Avignon, which had belonged to the pope since the
   Middle Ages, should be united to France if it liked; and the
   sitting closed with a unanimous decree that a statue should be
   erected to Louis XVI., 'the restorer of French liberty.' Well
   might Mirabeau define the night of August 4 as a mere 'orgie.'
   … Noble indeed were the intentions of the deputies. …
{1265}
   Yet the results of this night of sacrifices were bad rather
   than good. As Mirabeau pointed out, the people of France were
   told that all the feudal rights, dues, and tithes had been
   abolished that evening, but they were not told at the same
   time that there must be taxes and other burdens to take their
   place. It was of no use to issue a provisional order that all
   rights, dues, and taxes remained in force for the present,
   because the poor peasant would refuse to pay what was illegal,
   and would not understand the political necessity of supporting
   the revenue. … This ill-considered mass of resolutions was
   what was thrown in the face of France in a state of anarchy to
   restore it to a state of order."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution,
      (American edition), volume 1, pages 81-84.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August-October).
   Constitution-making and the Rights of Man.
   The first emigration of nobles.
   Famine in Paris.
   Rumors of an intended flight of the King.

   "One may look upon the peculiarity of the Assembly as being a
   singular faith in the power of ideas. That was its greatness.
   It firmly believed that truth shaped into laws would be
   invincible. Two months—such was the calculation—would
   suffice to construct the constitution. That constitution by
   its omnipotent virtue would convince all men and bend them to
   its authority, and the revolution would be completed. Such was
   the faith of the National Assembly. The attitude of the people
   was so menacing that many of the courtiers fled. Thus
   commenced the first emigration. … As if the minds of men
   were not sufficiently agitated, there now were heard cries of
   a great conspiracy of the aristocrats. The papers announced
   that a plot had been discovered which was to have delivered
   Brest to the English. Brest, the naval arsenal, wherein France
   for whole centuries had expended her millions and her labours:
   this given up to England! England would once more overrun France!
   … It was amidst these cries of alarm—with on one hand the
   emigration of the nobility, on the other the hunger of a
   maddened people; with here an irresolute aristocracy, startled
   at the audacity of the 'canaille,' and there a resolute
   Assembly, prepared, at the hazard of their lives, to work out
   the liberty of France; amidst reports of famine, of
   insurrections, and wild disorders of all sorts, that we find
   the National Assembly debating upon the rights of man,
   discussing every article with metaphysical quibbling and
   wearisome fluency, and, having finally settled each article,
   making their famous Declaration. This Declaration, which was
   solemnly adopted by the Assembly, on the 18th of August, was
   the product of a whole century of philosophical speculation,
   fixed and reduced to formulas, and bearing unmistakeable
   traces of Rousseau. It declared the original equality of
   mankind, and that the ends of social union are liberty,
   property, security, and resistance to oppression. It declared
   that sovereignty resides in the nation, from whence all power
   emanates; that freedom consists in doing everything which does
   not injure another; that law is the expression of the general
   will; that public burdens should be borne by all the members
   of the state in proportion to their fortunes; that the
   elective franchise should be extended to all; that the
   exercise of natural rights has no other limit than their
   interference with the rights of others; that no man should be
   persecuted for his religious opinions, provided he conform to
   the laws and do not disturb the religion of the state; that
   all men have the right of quitting the state in which they
   were born, and of choosing another country, by renouncing
   their rights of citizenship; that the liberty of the press is
   the foremost support of public liberty, and the law should
   maintain it, at the same time punishing those who abuse it by
   distributing seditious discourses, or calumnies against
   individuals." Having adopted its Declaration of the rights of
   man, the Assembly proceeded to the drawing up of a
   constitution which should embody the principles of the
   Declaration, and soon found itself in passionate debate upon
   the relations to be established between the national
   legislature and the king. Should the king retain a veto upon
   legislation? Should he have any voice in the making of laws?
   "The lovers of England and the English constitution all voted
   in favour of the veto. Even Mirabeau was for it." Robespierre,
   just coming into notice, bore a prominent part in the
   opposition. "The majority of the Assembly shared Robespierre's
   views; and the King's counselors were at length forced to
   propose a compromise in the shape of a suspensive veto;
   namely, that the King should not have the absolute right of
   preventing any law, but only the right of suspending it for
   two, four, or six years. … It was carried by a large
   majority." Meantime, in Paris, "vast and incalculable was the
   misery: crowds of peruke-makers, tailors, and shoemakers, were
   wont to assemble at the Louvre and in the Champs Elysées,
   demanding things impossible to be granted; demanding that the
   old regulations should be maintained, and that new ones should
   be made; demanding that the rate of daily wages should be
   fixed; demanding … that all the Savoyards in the country
   should be sent away, and only Frenchmen employed. The bakers'
   shops were besieged, as early as five o'clock in the morning,
   by hungry crowds who had to stand 'en queue'; happy when they
   had money to purchase miserable bread, even in this
   uncomfortable manner. … Paris was living at the mercy of
   chance: its subsistence dependent on some arrival or other:
   dependent on a convoy from Beauce, or a boat from Corbeuil.
   The city, at immense sacrifices, was obliged to lower the
   price of bread: the consequence was that the population for
   more than ten leagues round came to procure provisions at
   Paris. The uncertainty of the morrow augmented the
   difficulties. Everybody stored up, and concealed provisions.
   The administration sent in every direction, and bought up
   flour, by fair means, or by foul. It often happened that at
   midnight there was but half the flour necessary for the
   morning market. Provisioning Paris was a kind of war. The
   National Guard was sent to protect each arrival; or to secure
   certain purchases by force of arms. Speculators were afraid;
   farmers would not thrash any longer; neither would the miller
   grind. 'I used to see,' says Bailly, 'good tradesmen, mercers
   and goldsmiths, praying to be admitted among the beggars
   employed at Montmartre, in digging the ground.' Then came
   fearful whispers of the King's intention to fly to Metz. What
   will become of us if the King should fly? He must not fly; we
   will have him here; here amongst us in Paris! This produced
   the famous insurrection of women … on the 5th October."

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre,
      chapter 9._

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 1, chapters 3-4 (volume 1)._

{1266}

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
   The Insurrection of Women.
   Their march to Versailles.

   "A thought, or dim raw-material of a thought, was fermenting
   all night [October 4-5], universally in the female head, and
   might explode. In squalid garret, on Monday morning Maternity
   awakes, to hear children weeping for bread. Maternity must
   forth to the streets, to the herb-markets and Bakers'-queues;
   meets there with hunger-stricken Maternity, sympathetic,
   exasperative. O we unhappy women! But, instead of
   Bakers'-queues, why not to Aristocrats' palaces, the root of
   the matter? Allons! Let us assemble. To the Hôtel-de-Ville; to
   Versailles; to the Lanterne! In one of the Guard houses of the
   Quartier Saint-Eustache, 'a young woman' seizes a drum,—for
   how shall National Guards give fire on women, on a young
   woman? The young woman seizes the drum; sets forth, beating
   it, 'uttering cries relative to the dearth of grains.'
   Descend, O mothers; descend, ye Judiths, to food and
   revenge!—All women gather and go; crowds storm all stairs,
   force out all women: the female Insurrectionary Force,
   according to Camille, resembles the English Naval one; there
   is a universal 'Press of women.' Robust Dames of the Halle,
   slim Mantua-makers, assiduous, risen with the dawn; ancient
   Virginity tripping to matins; the Housemaid, with early broom;
   all must go. Rouse ye, O, women; the laggard men will not act;
   they say, we ourselves may act! And so, like snowbreak from
   the mountains, for every staircase is a melted brook, it
   storms; tumultuous, wild-shrilling, towards the
   Hôtel-de-Ville. Tumultuous; with or without drum-music: for
   the Faubourg Saint-Antoine also has tucked-up its gown; and
   with besom-staves, fire-irons, and even rusty pistols (void of
   ammunition), is flowing on. Sound of it flies, with a velocity
   of sound, to the utmost Barriers. By seven o'clock, on this
   raw October morning, fifth of the month, the Townhall will see
   wonders. … Grand it was, says Camille, to see so many
   Judiths, from eight to ten thousand of them in all, rushing
   out to search into the root of the matter! Not unfrightful it
   must have been; ludicro-terrific, and most unmanageable. At
   such hour the overwatched Three Hundred are not yet stirring:
   none but some Clerks, a company of National Guards; and M. de
   Gouvion, the Major-general. Gouvion has fought in America for
   the cause of civil Liberty; a man of no inconsiderable heart,
   but deficient in head. He is, for the moment, in his back
   apartment; assuaging Usher Maillard, the Bastille-sergeant,
   who has come, as too many do, with 'representations.' The
   assuagement is still incomplete when our Judiths arrive. The
   National Guards form on the outer stairs, with levelled
   bayonets; the ten thousand Judiths press up, resistless; with
   obtestations, with outspread hands,—merely to speak to the
   Mayor. The rear forces them; nay from male hands in the rear,
   stones already fly: the National Guard must do one of two
   things; sweep the Place de Greve with cannon, or else open to
   right and left. They open: the living deluge rushes in.
   Through all rooms and cabinets, upwards to the topmost belfry:
   ravenous; seeking arms, seeking Mayors, seeking justice;—
   while, again, the better-dressed speak kindly to the Clerks;
   point out the misery of these poor women; also their ailments,
   some even of an interesting sort. Poor M. de Gouvion is
   shiftless in this extremity;—a man shiftless, perturbed: who
   will one day commit suicide. How happy for him that Usher
   Maillard the shifty was there, at the moment, though making
   representations! Fly back, thou shifty Maillard: seek the
   Bastille Company; and O return fast with it; above all, with
   thy own shifty head! For, behold, the Judiths can find no
   Mayor or Municipal; scarcely, in the topmost belfry, can they
   find poor Abbé Lefèvre the Powder-distributor. Him, for want
   of a better, they suspend there: in the pale morning light;
   over the top of all Paris, which swims in one's failing
   eyes:—a horrible end? Nay the rope broke, as French ropes
   often did; or else an Amazon cut it. Abbe Lefèvre falls, some
   twenty feet, rattling among the leads; and lives long years
   after, though always with 'a tremblement in the limbs.' And
   now doors fly under hatchets; the Judiths have broken the
   Armory; have seized guns and cannons, three money-bags,
   paper-heaps; torches flare: in few minutes, our brave
   Hôtel-de-Ville, which dates from the Fourth Henry, will, with
   all that it holds, be in flames! In flames, truly,—were it
   not that Usher Maillard, swift of foot, shifty of head, has
   returned! Maillard, of his own motion,—for Gouvion or the
   rest would not even sanction him,—snatches a drum: descends
   the Porch-stairs, ran-tan, beating sharp, with loud rolls, his
   Rogues'-march: To Versailles! Allons; à Versailles! As men
   beat on kettle or warming-pan, when angry she-bees, or say,
   flying desperate wasps, are to be hived; and the desperate
   insects hear it, and cluster round it,—simply as round a
   guidance, where there was none: so now these Menads round
   shifty Maillard, Riding-Usher of the Châtelet. The axe pauses
   uplifted; Abbé Lefèvre is left half-hanged: from the belfry
   downwards all vomits itself. What rub-a-dub is that? Stanislas
   Maillard, Bastille hero, will lead us to Versailles? Joy to
   thee, Maillard; blessed art thou above Riding-Ushers! Away,
   then, away! The seized cannon are yoked with seized
   cart-horses: brown-locked Demoiselle Théroigne, with pike and
   helmet, sits there as gunneress. … Maillard (for his drum
   still rolls) is, by heaven-rending acclamation, admitted
   General. Maillard hastens the languid march. … And now
   Maillard has his Menads in the Champs Elysées (Fields
   Tartarean rather); and the Hôtel-de-Ville has suffered
   comparatively nothing. … Great Maillard! A small nucleus of
   Order is round his drum; but his outskirts fluctuate like the
   mad Ocean: for Rascality male and female is flowing in on him,
   from the four winds: guidance there is none but in his single
   head and two drum-sticks. … On the Elysian Fields there is
   pause and fluctuation; but, for Maillard, no return. He
   persuades his Menads, clamorous for arms and the Arsenal, that
   no arms are in the Arsenal; that an unarmed attitude, and
   petition to a National Assembly, will be the best: he hastily
   nominates or sanctions generalesses, captains of tens and
   fifties;—and so, in loosest-flowing order, to the rhythm of
   some 'eight drums' (having laid aside his own), with the
   Bastille Volunteers bringing up his rear, once more takes the
   road. Chaillot, which will promptly yield baked loaves, is not
   plundered; nor are the Sèvres Potteries broken. … The press of
   women still continues, for it is the cause of all Eve's
   Daughters, mothers that are, or that ought to be. No
   carriage-lady, were it with never such hysterics, but must
   dismount, in the mud roads, in her silk shoes, and walk. In
   this manner, amid wild October weather, they, a wild unwinged
   stork-flight, through the astonished country wend their way."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 1, book 7, chapters 4-5._

{1267}

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
   The mob of men at Versailles, with Lafayette
   and the National Guard.
   The king and royal family brought to Paris.

   Before the memorable 5th day of October closed, the movement
   of the women upon Versailles was followed by an outpouring, in
   the same direction, of the masculine mob of Paris, headed by
   the National Guard. "The commander, Lafayette, opposed their
   departure a long time, but in vain; neither his efforts nor
   his popularity could overcome the obstinacy of the people. For
   seven hours he harangued and retained them. At length,
   impatient at this delay, rejecting his advice, they prepared
   to set forward without him; when, feeling that it was now his
   duty to conduct as it had previously been to restrain them, he
   obtained his authorisation from the corporation, and gave the
   word for departure about seven in the evening. "Meantime the
   army of the amazons had arrived at Versailles, and excited the
   terrors of the court. "The troops of Versailles flew to arms
   and surrounded the château, but the intentions of the women
   were not hostile. Maillard, their leader, had recommended them
   to appear as suppliants, and in that attitude they presented
   their complaints successively to the assembly and to the king.
   Accordingly, the first hours of this turbulent evening were
   sufficiently calm. Yet it was impossible but that causes of
   hostility should arise between an excited mob and the
   household troops, the objects of so much irritation. The
   latter were stationed in the court of the château opposite the
   national guard and the Flanders regiment. The space between
   was filled by women and volunteers of the Bastille. In the
   midst of the confusion, necessarily arising from such a
   juxtaposition, a scuffle arose; this was the signal for
   disorder and conflict. An officer of the guards struck a
   Parisian soldier with his sabre, and was in turn shot in the
   arm. The national guards sided against the household troops;
   the conflict became warm, and would have been sanguinary, but
   for the darkness, the bad weather, and the orders given to the
   household troops, first to cease firing and then to retire.
   … During this tumult, the court was in consternation; the
   flight of the king was suggested, and carriages prepared; a
   piquet of the national guard saw them at the gate of the
   orangery, and having made them go back, closed the gate:
   moreover, the king, either ignorant of the designs of the
   court, or conceiving them impracticable, refused to escape.
   Fears were mingled with his pacific intentions, when he
   hesitated to repel the aggression or to take flight.
   Conquered, he apprehended the fate of Charles I. of England;
   absent, he feared that the duke of Orleans would obtain the
   lieutenancy of the kingdom. But, in the meantime, the rain,
   fatigue, and the inaction of the household troops, lessened
   the fury of the multitude, and Lafayette arrived at the head
   of the Parisian army. His presence restored security to the
   court, and the replies of the king to the deputation from
   Paris satisfied the multitude and the army. In a short time,
   Lafayette's activity, the good sense and discipline of the
   Parisian guard, restored order everywhere. Tranquillity
   returned. The crowd of women and volunteers, overcome by
   fatigue, gradually dispersed, and some of the national guard
   were entrusted with the defence of the château, while others
   were lodged with their companions in arms at Versailles. The
   royal family, re-assured after the anxiety and fear of this
   painful night, retired to rest about two o'clock in the
   morning. Towards five, Lafayette, having visited the outposts
   which had been confided to his care, and finding the watch
   well kept, the town calm, and the crowds dispersed or
   sleeping, also took a few moments repose. About six, however,
   some men of the lower class, more enthusiastic than the rest,
   and awake sooner than they, prowled round the château. Finding
   a gate open, they informed their companions, and entered.
   Unfortunately, the interior posts had been entrusted to the
   household guards, and refused to the Parisian army. This fatal
   refusal caused all the misfortunes of the night. The interior
   guard had not even been increased; the gates scarcely visited,
   and the watch kept as negligently as on ordinary occasions. These
   men, excited by all the passions that had brought them to
   Versailles, perceiving one of the household troops at a
   window, began to insult him. He fired, and wounded one of
   them. They then rushed on the household troops, who defended
   the château breast to breast, and sacrificed themselves
   heroically. One of them had time to warn the queen, whom the
   assailants particularly threatened; and, half dressed, she ran
   for refuge to the king. The tumult and danger were extreme in
   the château. Lafayette, apprised of the invasion of the royal
   residence, mounted his horse, and rode hastily to the scene of
   danger. On the square he met some of the household troops
   surrounded by an infuriated mob, who were on the point of
   killing them. He threw himself among them, called some French
   guards who were near, and, having rescued the household troops
   and dispersed their assailants, he hurried to the château. He
   found it already secured by the grenadiers of the French
   guard, who, at the first noise of the tumult, had hastened and
   protected the household troops from the fury of the Parisians.
   But the scene was not over; the crowd assembled again in the
   marble court under the king's balcony, loudly called for him,
   and he appeared. They required his departure for Paris; he
   promised to repair thither with his family, and this promise
   was received with general applause. The queen was resolved, to
   accompany him; but the prejudice against her was so strong
   that the journey was not without danger; it was necessary to
   reconcile her with the multitude. Lafayette proposed to her to
   accompany him to the balcony; after some hesitation, she
   consented. They appeared on it together, and to communicate by
   a sign with the tumultuous crowd, to conquer its animosity, and
   awaken its enthusiasm, Lafayette respectfully kissed the
   queen's hand; the crowd responded with acclamations. It now
   remained to make peace between them and the household troops.
   Lafayette advanced with one of these, placed his own
   tricoloured cockade on his hat, and embraced him before the
   people, who shouted 'Vivent les gardes-du-corps!' Thus
   terminated this scene; the royal family set out for Paris,
   escorted by the army and its guards mixed with it."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of Lafayette,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

{1268}

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.
   The new constitution.
   Appropriation and sale of Church property.
   Issue of Assignats.
   Abolition of titles of honor.
   Civil constitution of the clergy.
   The Feast of the Federation.
   The Émigrés on the border and their conduct.

   "The king was henceforth at the mercy of the mob. Deprived of
   his guards, and at a distance from his army, he was in the
   centre of the revolution; and surrounded by an excited and
   hungry populace. He was followed to Paris by the Assembly;
   and, for the present, was protected from further outrages by
   Lafayette and the national guards. Mirabeau, who was now in
   secret communication with the court, warned the king of his
   danger, in the midst of the revolutionary capital. 'The mob of
   Paris,' he said, 'will scourge the corpses of the king and
   queen.' He saw no hope of safety for them, or for the State,
   but in their withdrawal from this pressing danger, to
   Fontainebleau or Rouen, and in a strong government, supported
   by the Assembly, pursuing liberal measures, and quelling
   anarchy. His counsels were frustrated by events; and the
   revolution had advanced too far to be controlled by this
   secret and suspected adviser of the king. Meanwhile, the
   Assembly was busy with further schemes of revolution and
   desperate finance. France was divided into departments: the
   property of the Church was appropriated to meet the urgent
   necessities of the State; the disastrous assignats were
   issued: the subjection of the clergy to the civil power was
   decreed: the Parliaments were superseded, and the judicature
   of the country was reconstituted, upon a popular basis: titles
   of honour, orders of knighthood, armorial bearings—even
   liveries—were abolished: the army was reorganised, and the
   privileges of birth were made to yield to service and
   seniority. All Frenchmen were henceforth equal, as 'citoyens':
   and their new privileges were wildly celebrated by the
   planting of trees of liberty. The monarchy was still
   recognised, but it stood alone, in the midst of revolution."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   "The monarchy was continued and liberally endowed; but it was
   shorn of most of its ancient prerogatives, and reduced to a
   very feeble Executive; and while it obtained a perilous veto
   on the resolutions and acts of the Legislature, it was
   separated from that power, and placed in opposition to it, by
   the exclusion of the Ministers of the Crown from seats and
   votes in the National Assembly. The Legislature was composed
   of a Legislative Assembly, formed of a single Chamber alone,
   in theory supreme, and almost absolute; but, as we have seen,
   it was liable to come in conflict with the Crown, and it had
   less authority than might be supposed, for it was elected by a
   vote not truly popular, and subordinate powers were allowed to
   possess a very large part of the rights of Sovereignty which
   it ought to have divided with the King. This last portion of
   the scheme was very striking, and was the one, too, that most
   caused alarm among distant political observers. Too great
   centralization having been one of the chief complaints against
   the ancient Monarchy, this evil was met with a radical reform.
   … The towns received extraordinary powers; their
   municipalities had complete control over the National Guards
   to be elected in them, and possessed many other functions of
   Government; and Paris, by these means, became almost a
   separate Commonwealth, independent of the State, and directing
   a vast military force. The same system was applied to the
   country; every Department was formed into petty divisions,
   each with its National Guards, and a considerable share of
   what is usually the power of the government. … Burke's
   saying was strictly correct, 'that France was split into
   thousands of Republics, with Paris predominating and queen of
   all.' With respect to other institutions of the State, the
   appointment of nearly all civil functionaries, judicial and
   otherwise, was taken from the Crown, and abandoned to a like
   popular election; and the same principle was also applied to
   the great and venerable institution of the Church, already
   deprived of its vast estates, though the election of bishops
   and priests by their flocks interfered directly with Roman
   Catholic discipline, and probably, too, with religious dogma.
   … Notwithstanding the opposition of Necker, who, though
   hardly a statesman, understood finance, it was resolved to
   sell the lands of the Church to procure funds for the
   necessities of the State; and the deficit, which was
   increasing rapidly, was met by an inconvertible currency of
   paper, secured on the lands to be sold. This expedient … was
   carried out with injudicious recklessness. The Assignats, as
   the new notes were called, seemed a mine of inexhaustible
   wealth, and they were issued in quantities which, from the
   first moment, disturbed the relations of life and commerce,
   though they created a show of brisk trade for a time. In
   matters of taxation the Assembly, too, exceeded the bounds of
   reason and justice; exemptions previously enjoyed by the rich
   were now indirectly extended to the poor; wealthy owners of
   land were too heavily burdened, while the populace of the
   towns went scot free. … Very large sums, also, belonging to
   the State, were advanced to the Commune of Paris, now rising
   into formidable power. … The funds so obtained were lavishly
   squandered in giving relief to the poor of the capital in the
   most improvident ways—in buying bread dear and reselling it
   cheap, and in finding fanciful employment for artizans out of
   work. The result, of course, was to attract to Paris many
   thousands of the lowest class of rabble, and to add them to
   the scum of the city. … On the first anniversary [July 14,
   1790] of the fall of the Bastille, and before the Constitution
   had been finished … a great national holiday [called the Feast
   of the Federation] was kept; and, amidst multitudes of
   applauding spectators, deputations from every Department in
   France, headed by the authorities of the thronging capital,
   defiled in procession to the broad space known as the Field of
   Mars, along the banks of the Seine. An immense amphitheatre
   had been constructed [converting the plain into a valley, by
   the labor of many thousands, in a single week], and decorated
   with extraordinary pomp; and here, in the presence of a
   splendid Court, of the National Assembly, and of the
   municipalities of the realm, and in the sight of a great
   assemblage surging to and fro with throbbing excitement, the
   King took an oath that he would faithfully respect the order
   of things that was being established, while incense streamed
   from high-raised altars, and the ranks of 70,000 National
   Guards burst into loud cheers and triumphant music; and even
   the Queen, sharing in the passion of the hour, and radiant
   with beauty, lifted up in her arms the young child who was to
   be the future chief of a disenthralled and regenerate people.
   …
{1269}
   The following week was gay with those brilliant displays which
   Paris knows how to arrange so well; flowery arches covered the
   site of the Bastille, fountains ran wine, and the night blazed
   with fire; and the far-extending influence of France was
   attested by enthusiastic deputations of 'friends of liberty'
   from many parts of Europe, hailing the dawn of an era of
   freedom and peace. The work, however, of the National Assembly
   developed some of its effects ere long. The abolition of
   titles of honor filled up the measure of the anger of the
   Nobles; the confiscation of the property of the Church, above
   all, the law as to the election of priests, known as the Civil
   Constitution of the Clergy, shocked all religious or
   superstitious minds. … The emigration of the Nobles, which
   had become very general from the 5th and 6th of October, went
   on in daily augmenting numbers; and, in a short time, the
   frontiers were edged with bands of exiles breathing vengeance
   and hatred. In many districts the priests denounced as
   sacrilege, what had been done to the Church, divided the
   peasantry, and preached a crusade against what they called the
   atheist towns; and angry mutinies broke out in the Army, which
   left behind savage and relentless feelings. The relations
   between the King and the Assembly, too, became strained, if
   not hostile, at every turn of affairs, to the detriment of
   anything like good government; and while Louis sunk into a
   mere puppet, the Assembly, controlled in a great measure by
   demagogues and the pampered mobs of Paris, felt authority
   gradually slipping from it." To all the many destructive and
   revolutionary influences at work was now added "the pitiful
   conduct of those best known by the still dishonorable name of
   'Émigrés.' In a few months the great majority of the
   aristocracy of France had fled the kingdom, abandoned the
   throne around which they had stood, breathing maledictions
   against a contemptuous Nation, as arrogant as ever in the
   impotence of want, and thinking only of a counter-revolution
   that would cover the natal soil with blood. … Their utter
   want of patriotism and of sound feeling made thousands believe
   that the state of society which had bred such creatures ought
   to be swept away."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      The French Revolution and First Empire,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Van Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 1, chapter 5, and book 2, chapters 3-5._

      _M'me de Stael,
      Considerations on the French Revolution,
      part 2, chapters 12-19 (volume l)._

      _E. Burke,
      Reflections on the Revolution in France._

      _A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
      Annals of the French Revolution,
      part 1, chapters 22-35 (volumes 2-3)._

      _Duchess de Tourzell,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 3-11._

      _W. H. Jervis,
      The Gallican Church and the Revolution.,
      chapters 1-4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
   The rise of the Clubs.
   Jacobins, Cordeliers, Feuillants, Club Monarchique, and Club
   of '89.

   "Every party sought to gain the people; it was courted as
   sovereign. After attempting to influence it by religion,
   another means was employed, that of the clubs. At that period,
   clubs were private assemblies, in which the measures of
   government, the business of the state, and the decrees of the
   assembly, were discussed; their deliberations had no
   authority, but they exercised a certain influence. The first
   club owed its origin to the Breton deputies, who already met
   together at Versailles to consider the course of proceeding
   they should take. When the national representatives were
   transferred from Versailles to Paris, the Breton deputies and
   those of the assembly who were of their views held their
   sittings in the old convent of the Jacobins, which
   subsequently gave its name to their meetings. It did not at
   first cease to be a preparatory assembly, but as all things
   increase in time, the Jacobin Club did not confine itself to
   influencing the assembly; it sought also to influence the
   municipality and the people, and received as associates
   members of the municipality and common citizens. Its
   organization became more regular, its action more powerful;
   its sittings were regularly reported in the papers; it created
   branch clubs in the provinces, and raised by the side of legal
   power another power which first counselled and then conducted
   it. The Jacobin Club, as it lost its primitive character and
   became a popular assembly, had been forsaken by part of its
   founders. The latter established another society on the plan
   of the old one, under the name of the Club of '89. Siéyes,
   Chapelier, Lafayette, La Rochefoucauld, directed it, as Lameth
   and Barnave directed that of the Jacobins. Mirabeau belonged
   to both, and by both was equally courted. These clubs, of
   which the one prevailed in the assembly, and the other amongst
   the people, were attached to the new order of things, though
   in different degrees. The aristocracy sought to attack the
   revolution with its own arms; it opened royalist clubs to
   oppose the popular clubs. That first established, under the
   name of the Club des Impartiaux, could not last because it
   addressed itself to no class opinion. Reappearing under the
   name of the Club Monarchique, it included among its members
   all those whose views it represented. It sought to render
   itself popular with the lower classes, and distributed bread;
   but, far from accepting its overtures, the people considered
   such establishments as a counter-revolutionary movement. It
   disturbed their sittings, and obliged them several times to
   change their place of meeting. At length, the municipal
   authority found itself obliged, in January, 1791, to close
   this club, which had been the cause of several riots."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 3._

   "At the end of 1790 the number of Jacobin Clubs was 200, many
   of which—like the one in Marseilles—contained more than a
   thousand members. Their organization extended through the
   whole kingdom, and every impulse given at the centre in Paris
   was felt at the extremities. … It was far indeed from
   embracing the majority of adult Frenchmen, but even at that
   time it had undoubtedly become—by means of its strict
   unity—the greatest power in the kingdom."

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "This Jacobin Club soon divided itself into three other clubs:
   first, that party which looked upon the Jacobins as lukewarm
   patriots left it, and constituted themselves into the Club of
   the Cordeliers, where Danton's voice of thunder made the halls
   ring; and Camille Desmoulins' light, glancing wit played with
   momentous subjects. The other party, which looked upon the
   Jacobins as too fierce, constituted itself into the 'Club of
   1789; friends of the monarchic constitution;' and afterwards
   named Feuillant's Club, because it met in the Feuillant
   Convent. Lafayette was their chief; supported by the
   'respectable' patriots. These clubs generated many others, and
   the provinces imitated them."

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

{1270}

   "The Cordeliers were a Parisian club; the Jacobins an immense
   association extending throughout France. But Paris would stir
   and rise at the fury of the Cordeliers; and Paris being once
   in motion, the political revolutionists were absolutely
   obliged to follow. Individuality was very powerful among the
   Cordeliers. Their journalists, Marat, Desmoulins, Fréron,
   Robert, Hébert and Fabre d'Églantine, wrote each for himself.
   Danton, the omnipotent orator, would never write; but, by way
   of compensation, Marat and Desmoulins, who stammered or
   lisped, used principally to write, and seldom spoke. … The
   Cordeliers formed a sort of tribe, all living in the
   neighbourhood of the club."

      _J. Michelet,
      Historical View of the French Revolution,
      book 4, chapters 7 and 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 5._

      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Revolution at Avignon.
   Reunion of the old Papal province with France decreed.

   "The old residence of the Popes [Avignon] remained until the
   year 1789 under the papal government, which, from its
   distance, exercised its authority with great mildness, and
   left the towns and villages of the country in the enjoyment of
   a great degree of independence. The general condition of the
   population was, however, much the same as in the neighbouring
   districts of France—agitation in the towns and misery in the
   country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the commotion
   of August 4th should extend itself among the subjects of the
   Holy see. Here, too, castles were burned, black mail levied on
   the monasteries, tithes and feudal rights abolished. The city
   of Avignon soon became the centre of a political agitation,
   whose first object was to throw off the papal yoke, and then
   to unite the country with France. … In June, 1790, the
   people of Avignon tore down the papal arms, and the Town
   Council sent a message to Paris, that Avignon wished to be
   united to France." Some French regiments were sent to the city
   to maintain order; but "the greater part of them deserted, and
   marched out with the Democrats of the town to take and sack
   the little town of Cavaillon, which remained faithful to the
   Pope. From this time forward civil war raged without
   intermission. … The Constituent Assembly, on the 14th of
   September, 1791, decreed the reunion of the country with
   France. Before the new government could assert its authority,
   fresh and more dreadful atrocities had taken place," ending
   with the fiendish massacre of 110 prisoners, held by a band of
   ruffians who had taken possession of the papal castle.

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
   The oath of the clergy.
   First movements toward the European coalition
   against French democracy.
   Death of Mirabeau.
   The King's flight and arrest at Varennes.
   Rise of a Republican Party.

   "By a decree of November 27th, 1790, the Assembly required the
   clergy to take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the law and
   the king, and to maintain the constitution. This oath they
   were to take within a week, on pain of deprivation. The King,
   before assenting to this measure, wished to procure the
   consent of the Pope, but was persuaded not to wait for it, and
   gave his sanction, December 3rd. … Of 300 prelates and
   priests, who had seats in the Assembly, those who sat on the
   right unanimously refused to take the oath, while those who
   sat on the left anticipated the day appointed for that
   purpose. Out of 138 archbishops and bishops, only four
   consented to swear, Talleyrand, Loménie de Brienne (now
   Archbishop of Sens), the Bishop of Orleans, and the Bishop of
   Viviers. The oath was also refused by the great majority of
   the curés and vicars, amounting, it is said, to 50,000. Hence
   arose the distinction of 'prêtres sermentés' and
   'insermentés,' or sworn and non-juring priests. The brief of
   Pius VI., forbidding the oath, was burnt at the Palais Royal,
   as well as a mannikin representing the Pope himself in his
   pontificals. Many of the deprived ecclesiastics refused to
   vacate their functions, declared their successors intruders
   and the sacraments they administered null, and excommunicated
   all who recognised and obeyed them. Louis XVI., whose
   religious feelings were very strong, was perhaps more hurt by
   these attacks upon the Church than even by those directed
   against his own prerogative. The death of Mirabeau, April 2nd
   1791, was a great loss to the King, though it may well be
   doubted whether his exertions could have saved the monarchy.
   He fell a victim to his profligate habits, assisted probably
   by the violent exertions he had recently made in the Assembly.
   … He was honoured with a sumptuous funeral at the public
   expense, to which, says a contemporary historian, nothing but
   grief was wanting. In fact, to most of the members of the
   Assembly, eclipsed by his splendid talents and overawed by his
   reckless audacity, his death was a relief. … After
   Mirabeau's death, Duport, Barnave, and Lameth reigned supreme
   in the Assembly, and Robespierre became more prominent. The
   King had now begun to fix his hopes on foreign intervention.
   The injuries inflicted by the decrees of the Assembly on
   August 4th 1789, on several princes of the Empire, through
   their possessions in Alsace, Franche Comté, and Lorraine,
   might afford a pretext for a rupture between the German
   Confederation and France. … The German prelates, injured by
   the Civil Constitution of the clergy, were among the first to
   complain. By this act the Elector of Mentz was deprived of his
   metropolitan rights over the bishoprics of Strasburg and
   Spires; the Elector of Trèves of those over Metz, Toul,
   Verdun, Nanci and St. Diez. The Bishops of Strasburg and Bale
   lost their diocesan rights in Alsace. Some of these princes
   and nobles had called upon the Emperor and the German body in
   January 1790, for protection against the arbitrary acts of the
   National Assembly. This appeal had been favourably
   entertained, both by the Emperor Joseph II. and by the King of
   Prussia; and though the Assembly offered suitable indemnities,
   they were haughtily refused. … The Spanish and Italian
   Bourbons were naturally inclined to support their relative,
   Louis XVI. … The King of Sardinia, connected by
   intermarriages with the French Bourbons, had also family
   interests to maintain. Catherine II. of Russia had witnessed,
   with humiliation and alarm, the fruits of the philosophy which
   she had patronised, and was opposed to the new order of things
   in France. …
{1271}
   All the materials existed for an extensive coalition against
   French democracy. In this posture of affairs the Count
   d'Artois, accompanied by Calonne, who served him as a sort of
   minister, and by the Count de Durfort, who had been despatched
   from the French Court, had a conference with the Emperor, now
   Leopold II., at Mantua, in May 1791, in which it was agreed
   that, towards the following July, Austria should march 35,000
   men towards the frontiers of Flanders; the German Circles
   15,000 towards Alsace; the Swiss 15,000 towards the Lyonnais;
   the King of Sardinia 15,000 towards Dauphiné; while Spain was
   to hold 20,000 in readiness in Catalonia. This agreement, for
   there was not, as some writers have supposed, any formal
   treaty, was drawn up by Calonne, and amended with the
   Emperor's own hand. But the large force to be thus assembled
   was intended only as a threatening demonstration, and
   hostilities were not to be actually commenced without the
   sanction of a congress. … The King's situation had now
   become intolerably irksome. He was, to all intents and
   purposes, a prisoner at Paris. A trip, which he wished to make
   to St. Cloud during the Easter of 1791, was denounced at the
   Jacobin Club as a pretext for flight; and when he attempted to
   leave the Tuileries, April 18th, the tocsin was rung, his
   carriage was surrounded by the mob, and he was compelled to
   return to the palace. … A few days after … the leaders of
   the Revolution, who appear to have suspected his negociations
   abroad, exacted that he should address a circular to his
   ambassadors at foreign courts, in which he entirely approved
   the Revolution, assumed the title of 'Restorer of French
   liberty,' and utterly repudiated the notion that he was not
   free and master of his actions." But the King immediately
   nullified the circular by despatching secret agents with
   letters "in which he notified that any sanction he might give
   to the decrees of the Assembly was to be reputed null; that
   his pretended approval of the constitution was to be
   interpreted in an opposite sense, and that the more strongly
   he should seem to adhere to it, the more he should desire to
   be liberated from the captivity in which he was held. Louis
   soon after resolved on his unfortunate flight to the army of
   the Marquis de Bouillé at Montmédy. … Having, after some
   hair-breadth escapes, succeeded in quitting Paris in a
   travelling berlin, June 20th, they [the King, Queen, and
   family] reached St. Menehould in safety. But here the King was
   recognised by Drouet, the son of the postmaster, who, mounting
   his horse, pursued the royal fugitives to Varennes, raised an
   alarm, and caused them to be captured when they already
   thought themselves out of danger. In consequence of their
   being rather later than was expected, the military
   preparations that had been made for their protection entirely
   failed. The news of the King's flight filled Paris with
   consternation. The Assembly assumed all the executive power of
   the Government, and when the news of the King's arrest
   arrived, they despatched Barnave, Latour, Maubourg and Pétion
   to conduct him and his family back to Paris. … Notices had
   been posted up in Paris, that those who applauded the King
   should be horsewhipped, and that those who insulted him should
   be hanged; hence he was received on entering the capital with
   a dead silence. The streets, however, were traversed without
   accident to the Tuileries, but as the royal party were
   alighting, a rush was made upon them by some ruffians, and
   they were with difficulty saved from injury. The King's
   brother, the count of Provence, who had fled at the same time
   by a different route, escaped safely to Brussels. This time
   the King's intention to fly could not be denied; he had,
   indeed, himself proclaimed it, by sending to the Assembly a
   manifest, in which he explained his reasons for it, declared
   that he did not intend to quit the kingdom, expressed his
   desire to restore liberty and establish a constitution, but
   annulled all that he had done during the last two years. …
   The King, after his return, was provisionally suspended from
   his functions by a decree of the Assembly, June 25th. Guards
   were placed over him and the Queen; the gardens of the
   Tuileries assumed the appearance of a camp; sentinels were
   stationed on the roof of the Palace, and even in the Queen's
   bedchamber. … From the period of the King's flight to
   Varennes must be dated the first decided appearance of a
   republican party in France. During his absence the Assembly
   had been virtually sovereign, and hence men took occasion to
   say, 'You see the public peace has been maintained, affairs
   have gone on, in the usual way in the King's absence.' The
   chief advocates of a republic were Brissot, Condorcet, and the
   recently-established club of the Cordeliers. … The
   arch-democrat, Thomas Payne, who was now at Paris, also
   endeavoured to excite the populace against the King. The
   Jacobin Club had not yet gone this length; they were for
   bringing Louis XVI. to trial and deposing him, but for
   maintaining the monarchy."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapters 2-3 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      Historical View of the French Revolution,
      book 4, chapters 8-14._

      _M'me Campan,
      Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
      volume 2, chapters 5-7._

      _Marquis de Bouillé,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 8-11._

      _Duchess de Tourzel,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _A. B. Cochrane,
      Francis I., and other Historical Studies,
      volume 2 (The Flight of Varennes)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (July-September).
   Attitude of Foreign Powers.
   Coolness of Austria towards the Émigrés.
   The Declaration of Pilnitz.
   Completion of the Constitution.
   Restoration of the King.
   Tumult in the Champs de Mars.
   Dissolution of the Constituent National Assembly.

   "On the 27th of July, Prince Reuss presented a memorial [from
   the Court of Austria] to the Court of Berlin, in which the
   Emperor explained at length his views of a European Concert.
   It was drawn up, throughout, in Leopold's usual cautious and
   circumspect manner. … In case an armed intervention should
   appear necessary—they would take into consideration the
   future constitution of France; but in doing so they were to
   renounce, in honour of the great cause in which they were
   engaged, all views of selfish aggrandizement. We see what a
   small part the desire for war played in the drawing up of this
   far-seeing plan. The document repeatedly urged that no step
   ought to be taken without the concurrence of all the Powers,
   and especially of England; and as England's decided aversion
   to every kind of interference was well known, this stipulation
   alone was sufficient to stamp upon the whole scheme, the
   character of a harmless demonstration."
{1272}
   At the same time Catharine II. of Russia, released from war
   with the Turks, and bent upon the destruction of Poland,
   desired "to implicate the Emperor as inextricably as possible
   in the French quarrel, in order to deprive Poland of its most
   powerful protector; she therefore entered with the greatest
   zeal into the negociations for the support of Louis XVI. Her
   old opponent, the brilliant King Gustavus of Sweden, declared
   his readiness—on receipt of a large subsidy from Russia—to
   conduct a Swedish army by sea to the coast of Flanders, and
   thence, under the guidance of Bouillé, against Paris. … But,
   of course, every word he uttered was only an additional
   warning to Leopold to keep the peace. … Under these
   circumstances he [the Emperor] was most disagreeably surprised
   on the 20th of August, a few days before his departure for
   Pillnitz, by the sudden and entirely unannounced and
   unexpected arrival in Vienna of the Count d'Artois. It was not
   possible to refuse to see him, but Leopold made no secret to
   him of the real position of affairs. … He asked permission
   to accompany the Emperor to Pillnitz, which the latter, with
   cool politeness, said that he had no scruple in granting, but
   that even there no change of policy would take place. …
   Filled with such sentiments, the Emperor Leopold set out for
   the conference with his new ally; and the King of Prussia came
   to meet him with entirely accordant views. … The
   representations of d'Artois, therefore, made just as little
   impression at Pillnitz, as they had done, a week before, at
   Vienna. … On the 27th, d'Artois received the joint answer of
   the two Sovereigns, the tone and purport of which clearly
   testified to the sentiments of its authors. … The Emperor
   and King gave their sanction to the peaceable residence of
   individual Émigrés in their States, but declared that no armed
   preparations would be allowed before the conclusion of an
   agreement between the European Powers. To this rejection the
   two Monarchs added a proposal of their own—contained in a
   joint declaration—in which they spoke of the restoration of
   order and monarchy in France as a question of the greatest
   importance to the whole of Europe. They signified their
   intention of inviting the coöperation of all the European
   Powers. … But as it was well ascertained that England would
   take no part, the expressions they chose were really
   equivalent to a declaration of non-intervention, and were
   evidently made use of by Leopold solely to intimidate the
   Parisian democrats. … Thus ended the conference of Pillnitz,
   after the two Monarchs had agreed to protect the constitution
   of the Empire, to encourage the Elector of Saxony to accept
   the crown of Poland, and to afford each other friendly aid in
   every quarter. The statement, therefore, which has been a
   thousand times repeated, that the first coalition for an
   attack on the French Revolution was formed on this occasion,
   has been shown to be utterly without foundation. As soon as
   the faintest gleam of a reconciliation between Louis and the
   National Assembly appeared, the cause of the Emigrés was
   abandoned by the German Courts."

      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 2, chapter 6. (volume l)._

   At Paris, meantime, "the commissioners charged to make their
   report on the affair of Varennes presented it on the 16th of
   July. In the journey, they said, there was nothing culpable;
   and even if there were, the King was inviolable. Dethronement
   could not result from it, since the King had not staid away
   long enough, and had not resisted the summons of the
   legislative body. Robespierre, Buzot, and Pétion repeated all
   the well known arguments against the inviolability. Duport,
   Barnave, and Salles answered them, and it was at length
   resolved that the King could not be brought to trial on
   account of his flight. … No sooner was this resolution
   passed than Robespierre rose, and protested strongly against
   it, in the name of humanity. On the evening preceding this
   decision, a great tumult had taken place at the Jacobins. A
   petition to the Assembly was there drawn up, praying it to
   declare that the King was deposed as a perfidious traitor to
   his oaths, and that it would seek to supply his place by all
   the constitutional means. It was resolved that this petition
   should be carried on the following day to the Champ de Mars,
   where everyone might sign it on the altar of the country. Next
   day, it was accordingly carried to the place agreed upon, and
   the crowd of the seditious was reinforced by that of the
   curious, who wished to be spectators of the event. At this
   moment the decree was passed, so that it was now too late to
   petition. Lafayette arrived, broke down the barricades already
   erected, was threatened and even fired at, but … at length
   prevailed on the populace to retire. … But the tumult was
   soon renewed. Two invalids, who happened to be, nobody knows
   for what purpose, under the altar of the country, were
   murdered, and then the uproar became unbounded. The Assembly
   sent for the municipality, and charged it to preserve public
   order. Bailly repaired to the Champ de Mars, ordered the red
   flag to be unfurled, and, by virtue of martial law, summoned
   the seditious to retire. … Lafayette at first ordered a few
   shots to be fired in the air: the crowd quitted the altar of
   the country, but soon rallied. Thus driven to extremity, he
   gave the word, 'Fire!' The first discharge killed some of the
   rioters. Their number has been exaggerated. Some have reduced
   it to 30, others have raised it to 400, and others to several
   thousand. The last statement was believed at the moment, and
   the consternation became general. … Lafayette and Bailly
   were vehemently reproached for the proceedings in the Champ de
   Mars; but both of them, considering it their duty to observe
   the law, and to risk popularity and life in its execution,
   felt neither regret nor fear for what they had done. The
   factions were overawed by the energy which they displayed. …
   About this time the Assembly came to a determination which has
   since been censured, but the result of which did not prove so
   mischievous as it has been supposed. It decreed that none of
   its members should be re-elected. Robespierre was the proposer
   of this resolution, and it was attributed to the envy which he
   felt against his colleagues, among whom he had not shone. …
   The new Assembly was thus deprived of men whose enthusiasm was
   somewhat abated, and whose legislative science was matured by
   an experience of three years. … The constitution was …
   completed with some haste, and submitted to the King for his
   acceptance. From that moment his freedom was restored to him;
   or, if that expression be objected to, the strict watch kept
   over the palace ceased. … After a certain number of days he
   declared that he accepted the constitution. … He repaired to
   the Assembly, where he was received as in the most brilliant
   times. Lafayette, who never forgot to repair the inevitable
   evils of political troubles, proposed a general amnesty for
   all acts connected with the Revolution, which was proclaimed
   amidst shouts of joy, and the prisons were instantly thrown
   open. At length, on the 30th of September [1791], Thouret, the
   last president, declared that the Constituent Assembly had
   terminated its sittings."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 1, pages 186-193._

      ALSO IN:
      _M'me de Stael,
      Considerations on the French Revolution,
      part 2, chapters 22-23, and part 3, chapters 1-2._

      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 1., and appendix 1._

{1273}

FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (August).
   Insurrection of slaves in San Domingo.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (September).
   Removal of all disabilities from the Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1791.

FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (October).
   The meeting of the Legislative Assembly.
   Its party divisions.
   The Girondists and their leaders.
   The Mountain.

   "The most glorious destiny was predicted for the Constitution,
   yet it did not live a twelve month; the Assembly that was to
   apply it was but a transition between the Constitutional
   Monarchy and the Republic. It was because the Revolution
   partook much more of a social than of a political overthrow.
   The Constitution had done all it could for the political part,
   but the social fabric remained to be reformed; the ancient
   privileged classes had been scotched, but not killed. … The
   new Legislative Assembly [which met October 1, its members
   having been elected before the dissolution of the Constituent
   Assembly] was composed of 745 deputies, mostly chosen from the
   middle classes and devoted to the Revolution; those of the
   Right and Extreme Right going by the name of Feuillants, those
   of the Left and Extreme Left by the name of Jacobins. The
   Right was composed of Constitutionalists, who counted on the
   support of the National Guard and departmental authorities.
   Their ideas of the Revolution were embodied in the
   Constitution. … They kept up some relations with the Court
   by means of Barnave and the Lameths, but their pillar outside
   the Assembly, their trusty counsellor, seems to have been
   Lafayette. … The Left was composed of men resolved at all
   risks to further the Revolution, even at the expense of the
   Constitution. They intended to go as far as a Republic, only
   they lacked common unity of views, and did not form a compact
   body. … They reckoned among their numbers Vergniaud, Guadet,
   and Gensonné, deputies of the Gironde [the Bordeaux region, on
   the Garonne], powerful and vehement orators, and from whom
   their party afterwards took the name of 'Girondins'; also
   Brissot [de Warville] (born 1754), a talented journalist, who
   had drawn up the petition for the King's deposition; and
   Condorcet (born 1743), an ultra-liberal, but a brilliant
   philosopher. Their leader outside the Assembly was Pétion
   (born 1753), a cold, calculating, and dissembling Republican,
   enjoying great popularity with the masses. The Extreme Left,
   occupying in small numbers the raised seats in the Assembly,
   from which circumstance they afterwards took the name of 'the
   Mountain,' were auxiliaries of the 'Girondins' in their
   attempts to further a Revolution which should be entirely in
   the interest of the people. Their inspirers outside the
   Assembly were Robespierre (born 1759), who controlled the club
   of the Jacobins by his dogmatic rigorism and fame for
   integrity; and Danton (born 1759), surnamed the Mirabeau of
   the 'Breechless' (Sansculottes), a bold and daring spirit, who
   swayed the new club of the Cordeliers. The Centre was composed
   of nonentities, their moderation was inspired by fear, hence
   they nearly always voted with the Left."

      _H. Van Laun,
      The French Revolutionary Epoch,
      book 1, chapter 2, section 3 (volume 1)._

   "The department of the Gironde had given birth to a new
   political party in the twelve citizens who formed its
   deputies. … The names (obscure and unknown up to this
   period), of Ducos, Guadet, Lafond-Ladebat, Grangeneuve,
   Gensonné, Vergniaud, were about to rise into notice and renown
   with the storms and disasters of their country; they were the
   men who were destined to give that impulse to the Revolution
   that had hitherto remained in doubt and indecision, before
   which it still trembled with apprehension, and which was to
   precipitate it into a republic. Why was this impulse fated to
   have birth in the department of the Gironde and not in Paris?
   Nought but conjectures can be offered on this subject. …
   Bordeaux was a commercial city, and commerce, which requires
   liberty through interest, at last desires it through a love of
   freedom. Bordeaux was the great commercial link between
   America and France, and their constant intercourse with
   America had communicated to the Gironde their love for free
   institutions. Moreover Bordeaux … was the birthplace of
   Montaigne and Montesquieu, those two great republicans of the
   French school."

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      book 4, section 1 (volume 1)._

   "In the new National Assembly there was only one powerful and
   active party—that of the Gironde. … When we use the term
   'parties' in reference to this Assembly, nothing more is meant
   by it than small groups of from 12 to 20 persons, who bore the
   sway in the rostra and in the Committees, and who alternately
   carried with them the aimless crowd of Deputies. It is true,
   indeed, that at the commencement of their session, 130
   Deputies entered their names among the Jacobins, and about 200
   among the Feuillants, but this had no lasting influence on the
   divisions, and the majority wavered under the influence of
   temporary motives. The party which was regarded as the 'Right'
   had no opportunity for action, but saw themselves, from the
   very first, obliged to assume an attitude of defence. …
   Outside the Chamber the beau ideal of this party,—General
   Lafayette,—declared himself in favour of an American Senate,
   but without any of the energy of real conviction. As he had
   defended the Monarchy solely from a sense of duty, while all
   the feelings of his heart were inclined towards a Republic, so
   now, though he acknowledged the necessity of an upper Chamber,
   the existing Constitution appeared to him to possess a more
   ideal beauty. He never attained, on this point, either to
   clear ideas or decided actions; and it was at this period that
   he resigned his command of the National guard in Paris, and
   retired for a while to his estate in Auvergne. … The
   Girondist Deputies … were distinguished among the new
   members of the Assembly by personal dignity, regular
   education, and natural ability; and were, moreover, as ardent
   in their radicalism as any Parisian demagogue. They
   consequently soon became the darlings of all those zealous
   patriots for whom the Cordeliers were too dirty and the
   Feuillants too luke warm.
{1274}
   External advantages are not without their weight, even in the
   most terrible political crises, and the Girondists owe to the
   magic of their eloquence, and especially to that of Vergniaud,
   an enduring fame, which neither their principles nor their
   deeds would have earned for them. … The representatives of
   Bordeaux had never occupied a leading position in the
   Girondist party, to which they had given its name. The real
   leadership of the Gironde fell singularly enough into the
   hands of an obscure writer, a political lady, and a priest who
   carried on his operations behind the scenes. It was their
   hands that overthrew the throne of the Capets, and spread
   revolution over Europe. … The writer in this trio was
   Brissot, who on the 16th of July had wished to proclaim the
   Republic, and who now represented the capital in the National
   Assembly, as a constitutional member. … While Brissot shaped
   the foreign policy of the Girondist party, its home affairs
   were directed by Marie Jeanne Roland, wife of the quondam
   Inspector of Factories at Lyons, with whom she had come the
   year before to Paris, and immediately thrown herself into the
   whirlpool of political life. As early as the year 1789, she
   had written to a friend, that the National Assembly must
   demand two illustrious heads, or all would be lost. … She
   was … 36 years old, not beautiful, but interesting,
   enthusiastic and indefatigable; with noble aims, but incapable
   of discerning the narrow line which separates right from
   wrong. … When warned by a friend of the unruly nature of the
   Parisian mob, she replied, that bloodhounds were after all
   indispensable for starting the game. … A less conspicuous,
   but not less important, part in this association, was played
   by the Abbé Sieyès. He did what neither Brissot nor Mad.
   Roland could have done by furnishing his party with a
   comprehensive and prospective plan of operations. … Their
   only clearly defined objects were to possess themselves of the
   reins of government, to carry on the Revolution, and to
   destroy the Monarchy by every weapon within their reach."

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 4, (volume 2)._

      See, also, below.

FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792.
   Growth and spread of anarchy and civil war.
   Activity of the Emigrés and the ejected priests.
   Decrees against them vetoed by the King.
   The Girondists in control of the government.
   War with the German powers forced on by them.

   "It was an ominous proof of the little confidence felt by
   serious men in the permanence of the new Constitution, that
   the funds fell when the King signed it. All the chief
   municipal posts in Paris were passing into the hands of
   Republicans, and when Bailly, in November, ceased to be Mayor
   of Paris, he was succeeded in that great office by Pétion, a
   vehement and intolerant Jacobin. Lafayette had resigned the
   command of the National Guard, which was then divided under
   six commanders, and it could no longer be counted on to
   support the cause of order. Over a great part of France there
   was a total insecurity of life and property, such as had
   perhaps never before existed in a civilised country, except in
   times of foreign invasion or successful rebellion. Almost all
   the towns in the south—Marseilles, Toulon, Nîmes, Arles,
   Avignon, Montpellier, Carpentras, Aix, Montauban—were centres
   of Republicanism, brigandage, or anarchy. The massacres of
   Jourdain at Avignon, in October, are conspicuous even among
   the horrors of the Revolution. Caen in the following month was
   convulsed by a savage and bloody civil war. The civil
   constitution of the clergy having been condemned by the Pope,
   produced an open schism, and crowds of ejected priests were
   exciting the religious fanaticism of the peasantry. In some
   districts in the south, the war between Catholic and
   Protestant was raging as fiercely as in the 17th century,
   while in Brittany, and especially in La Vendée, there were all
   the signs of a great popular insurrection against the new
   Government. Society seemed almost in dissolution, and there
   was scarcely a department in which law was observed and
   property secure. The price of corn, at the same time, was
   rising fast under the influence of a bad harvest in the south,
   aggravated by the want of specie, the depreciation of paper
   money, and the enormously increased difficulties of transport.
   The peasantry were combining to refuse the paper money. It was
   falling rapidly in value. … In the mean time the stream of
   emigrants continued unabated, and it included the great body
   of the officers of the army who had been driven from the
   regiments by their own soldiers. … At Brussels, Worms, and
   Coblentz, emigrants were forming armed organisations."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th century,
      chapter 21 (volume 5)._

   "The revolution was threatened by two dangerous enemies, the
   emigrants, who were urging on a foreign invasion, and the
   non-juring bishops and priests who were doing all in their
   power to excite domestic rebellion. The latter were really the
   more dangerous. … The Girondists clamoured for repressive
   measures. On the 30th of October it was decreed that the count
   of Provence, unless he returned within two months, should
   forfeit all rights to the regency. On the 9th of November an
   edict threatened the emigrants with confiscation and death
   unless they returned to their allegiance before the end of the
   year. On the 29th of November came the attack upon the
   non-jurors. They were called upon to take the oath within
   eight days, when lists were to be drawn up of those who
   refused; these were then to forfeit their pensions, and if any
   disturbance took place in their district they were to be
   removed from it, or if their complicity were proved they were
   to be imprisoned for two years. The king accepted the decree
   against his brother, but he opposed his veto to the other two.
   The Girondists and Jacobins eagerly seized the opportunity for
   a new attack upon the monarchy. … Throughout the winter
   attention was devoted almost exclusively to foreign affairs.
   It has been seen that the emperor was really eager for peace,
   and that as long as he remained in that mood there was little
   risk of any other prince taking the initiative. At the same
   time it must be acknowledged that Leopold's tone towards the
   French government was often too haughty and menacing to be
   conciliatory, and also that the open preparations of the
   emigrants in neighbouring states constituted an insult if not
   a danger to France. The Girondists, the most susceptible of
   men, only expressed the national sentiment in dwelling upon
   this with bitterness, and in calling for vengeance. At the
   same time they had conceived the definite idea that their own
   supremacy could best be obtained and secured by forcing on a
   foreign war.
{1275}
   This was expressly avowed by Brissot, who took the lead of the
   party in this matter. Robespierre, on the other hand, partly
   through temperament and partly through jealousy of his
   brilliant rivals, was inclined to the maintenance of peace.
   But on this point the Feuillants were agreed with the Gironde,
   and so a vast majority was formed to force the unwilling king
   and ministers into war. The first great step was taken when
   Duportail, who had charge of military affairs, was replaced by
   Narbonne, a Feuillant. Louis XVI. was compelled to issue a
   note (14 December, 1791) to the emperor and to the archbishop
   of Trier to the effect that if the military force of the
   emigrants were not disbanded by the 15th of January
   hostilities would be commenced against the elector. The latter
   at once ordered the cessation of the military preparations,
   but the emigrants not only refused to obey but actually
   insulted the French envoy. Leopold expressed his desire for
   peace, but at the same time declared that any attack on the
   electorate of Trier would be regarded as an act of hostility
   to the empire. These answers were unsatisfactory, and Narbonne
   collected three armies on the frontiers, under the command of
   Rochambeau, Lafayette, and Luckner, and amounting together to
   about 150,000 men. On the 25th of January an explicit
   declaration was demanded from the emperor, with a threat that
   war would be declared unless a satisfactory answer was
   received by the 4th of March. Leopold II. saw all his hopes of
   maintaining peace in western Europe gradually disappearing,
   and was compelled to bestir himself. … On the 7th of
   February he finally concluded a treaty with the king of
   Prussia. … On the 1st of March, while still hoping to avoid
   a quarrel, Leopold II. died of a sudden illness, and with him
   perished the last possibility of peace. His son and successor,
   Francis II., who was now 24, had neither his father's ability
   nor his experience, and he was naturally more easily swayed by
   the anti-revolutionary spirit. … The Girondists combined all
   their efforts for an attack upon the minister of foreign
   affairs, Delessart, whom they accused of truckling to the
   enemies of the nation. Delessart was committed to prison, and
   his colleagues at once resigned. The Gironde now came into
   office. The ministry of home affairs was given to Roland; of
   war to Servan; of finance to Clavière. Dumouriez obtained the
   foreign department, Duranthon that of justice, and Lacoste the
   marine. Its enemies called it 'the ministry of the
   Sansculottes.' … On the 20th of April [1792] Louis XVI.
   appeared in the assembly and read with trembling voice a
   declaration of war against the king of Hungary and Bohemia."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 22, section 20-21._

   The sincere desire of the Emperor Leopold II. to avoid war
   with France, and the restraining influence over the King of
   Prussia which he exercised up to the time when Catherine II.
   of Russia overcame it by the Polish temptation, are set forth
   by H. von Sybel in passages quoted elsewhere.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      books 6-14 (volume l)._

      _A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
      Annals of the French Revolution,
      part 2. chapters 1-14 (volume 5-6)._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the Eighteenth Century,
      5th period, 2d division, chapter 1 (volume 6)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April).
   Fête to the Soldiers of Chateauvieux.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April-July).
   Opening of the war with Austria and Prussia.
   French reverses.

   "Hostilities followed close upon the declaration of war. At
   this time the forces destined to come into collision were
   posted as follows: Austria had 40,000 men in Belgium, and
   25,000 on the Rhine. These numbers might easily have been
   increased to 80,000, but the Emperor of Austria did no more
   than collect 7,000 or 8,000 around Brisgau, and some 20,000
   more around Rastadt. The Prussians, now bound into a close
   alliance with Austria, had still a great distance to traverse
   from their base to the theatre of war, and could not hope to
   undertake active operations for a long time to come. France,
   on the other hand, had already three strong armies in the
   field. The Army of the North, under General Rochambeau, nearly
   50,000 strong, held the frontier from Philippeville to
   Dunkirk; General Lafayette commanded a second army of about
   the same strength in observation from Philippeville to the
   Lauter; and a third army of 40,000 men, under Marshal Luckner,
   watched the course of the Rhine from Lauterbourg to the
   confines of Switzerland. The French forces were strong,
   however, on paper only. The French army had been mined, as it
   seemed, by the Revolution, and had fallen almost to pieces.
   The wholesale emigration of the aristocrats had robbed it of
   its commissioned officers, the old experienced leaders whom
   the men were accustomed to follow and obey. Again, the passion
   for political discussion, and the new notions of universal
   equality had fostered a dangerous spirit of license in the
   ranks. … While the regular regiments of the old
   establishment were thus demoralised, the new levies were still
   but imperfectly organised, and the whole army was unfit to
   take the field. It was badly equipped, without transport, and
   without those useful administrative services which are
   indispensable for mobility and efficiency. Moreover, the
   prestige of the French arms was at its lowest ebb. A long and
   enervating peace had followed since the last great war, in
   which the French armies had endured only failure and
   ignominious defeat. It is not strange, then, that the foes
   whom France had so confidently challenged, counted upon an
   easy triumph over the revolutionary troops. The earliest
   operations fully confirmed these anticipations. … France
   after the declaration of war had at once assumed the
   initiative, and proceeded to invade Belgium. Here the Duke
   Albert of Saxe-Teschen, who commanded the Imperialist forces,
   held his forces concentrated in three principal corps: one
   covered the line from the sea to Tournay; the second was at
   Leuze; the third and weakest at Mons. The total of these
   troops rose to barely 40,000, and Mons, the most important
   point in the general line of defence, was the least strongly
   held. All able strategist gathering together 30,000 men from
   each of the French armies of the Centre and North, would have
   struck at Mons with all his strength, cut Duke Albert's
   communications with the Rhine, turned his inner flank, and
   rolled him up into the sea. But no great genius as yet
   directed the military energies of France. … By Dumouriez's
   advice, the French armies were ordered to advance against the
   Austrians by several lines. Four columns of invasion were to
   enter Belgium; one was to follow the sea coast, the second to
   march on Tournay, the third to move from Valenciennes on Mons,
   and the fourth, under Lafayette, on Givet or Namur.
{1276}
   Each, according to the success it might achieve, was to
   reinforce the next nearest to it, and all, finally, were to
   converge on Brussels. At the very outset, however, the French
   encountered the most ludicrous reverses. Their columns fled in
   disorder directly they came within sight of the enemy.
   Lafayette alone continued his march boldly towards Namur; but
   he was soon compelled to retire by the news of the hasty
   flight of the columns north of him. The French troops had
   proved as worthless as their leaders were incapable; whole
   brigades turned tail, crying that they were betrayed, casting
   away their weapons as they ran, and displaying the most abject
   cowardice and terror. Not strangely, after this pitiful
   exhibition, the Austrians—all Europe, indeed—held the
   military power of France in the utmost contempt. … But now
   the national danger stirred France to its inmost depths.
   French spirit was thoroughly roused. The country rose as one
   man, determined to offer a steadfast, stubborn front to its
   foes. Stout-hearted leaders, full of boundless energy and
   enthusiasm, summoned all the resources of the nation to stem
   and roll back the tide of invasion. Immediate steps were taken
   to put the defeated and disgraced armies of the frontier upon
   a new footing. Lafayette replaced Rochambeau, with charge from
   Longwy to the sea, his main body about Sedan; Luckner took the
   line from the Moselle to the Swiss mountains, with
   head-quarters at Metz. A third general, destined to come
   speedily to the front, also joined the army as Lafayette's
   lieutenant. This was Dumouriez, who, wearied and baffled by
   Parisian politics, sought the freedom of the field."

      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapter 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (June-August).
   The King's dismissal of Girondist ministers.
   Mob demonstration of June 20.
   Lafayette in Paris.
   His failure.
   The Country declared to be in Danger.
   Gathering of volunteers in Paris.
   Brunswick's manifesto.
   Mob attack on the Tuileries, August 10.
   Massacre of the Swiss.

   "Servan, the minister of war, proposed the formation of an
   armed camp for the protection of Paris. Much opposition was,
   however, raised to the project, and the Assembly decreed (June
   6) that 20,000 volunteers, recruited in the departments,
   should meet at Paris to take part in the celebration of a
   federal festival on July 14, the third anniversary of the fall
   of the Bastille. The real object of those who supported the
   decree was to have a force at Paris with which to maintain
   mastery over the city should the Allies penetrate into the
   interior. Louis left the decree unsanctioned, as he had the
   one directed against nonjurors. The agitators of the sections
   sought to get up an armed demonstration against this exercise
   of the King's constitutional prerogative. Though armed
   demonstrations were illegal, the municipality offered but a
   perfunctory and half-hearted resistance. … Louis, irritated
   at the pressure put on him by Roland, Clavière, and Servan, to
   sanction the two decrees, dismissed the three ministers from
   office (June 13). Dumouriez, who had quarreled with his
   colleagues, supported the King in taking this step, but in
   face of the hostility of the Assembly himself resigned office
   (June 15). Three days later a letter from Lafayette was read
   in the Assembly. The general denounced the Jacobins as the
   authors of all disorders, called on the Assembly to maintain
   the prerogatives of the crown, and intimated that his army
   would not submit to see the constitution violated (June 18).
   Possibly the dismissal of the ministers and the writing of
   this letter were measures concerted between the King and
   Lafayette. In any case the King's motive was to excite
   division between the constitutionalists and the Girondists, so
   as to weaken the national defence. The dismissal of the ministers
   was, however, regarded by the Girondists as a proof of the
   truth of their worst suspicions, and no measures were taken to
   prevent an execution of the project of making an armed, and
   therefore illegal, demonstration against the royal policy. On
   June 20, thousands of persons, carrying pikes or whatever
   weapon came to hand, and accompanied by several battalions of
   the national guard, marched from St. Antoine to the hall of
   the Assembly. A deputation read an address demanding the
   recall of the ministers. Afterwards the whole of the
   procession, men, women and children, dancing, singing, and
   carrying emblems, defiled through the chamber. Instigated by
   their leaders they broke into the Tuileries. The King, who
   took his stand on a window seat, was mobbed for four hours. To
   please his unwelcome visitors, he put on his head a red cap,
   such as was now commonly worn at the Jacobins as an emblem of
   liberty, in imitation of that which was once worn by the
   emancipated Roman slave. He declared his intention to observe
   the constitution, but neither insult nor menace could prevail
   on him to promise his sanction to the two decrees. The Queen,
   separated from the King, sat behind a table on which she
   placed the Dauphin, exposed to the gaze and taunts of the
   crowds which slowly traversed the palace apartments. At last,
   but not before night, the mob left the Tuileries without doing
   further harm, and order was again restored. This insurrection
   and the slackness, if not connivance, of the municipal
   authorities, excited a widespread feeling of indignation
   amongst constitutionalists. Lafayette came to Paris, and at
   the bar of the Assembly demanded in person what he had before
   demanded by letter (June 28). With him, as with other former
   members of the constituent Assembly, it was a point of honour
   to shield the persons of the King and Queen from harm. Various
   projects for their removal from Paris were formed, but policy
   and sentiment alike forbade Marie Antoinette to take advantage
   of them. … The one gleam of light on the horizon of this
   unhappy Queen was the advance of the Allies. 'Better die,' she
   one day bitterly exclaimed, 'than be saved by Lafayette and
   the constitutionalists.' There was, no doubt, a possibility of
   the Allies reaching Paris that summer, but this enormously
   increased the danger of the internal situation. … To rouse
   the nation to a sense of peril the Assembly [July 11] caused
   public proclamation to be made in every municipality that the
   country was in danger. The appeal was responded to with
   enthusiasm, and within six weeks more than 60,000 volunteers
   enlisted. The Duke of Brunswick, the commander-in-chief of the
   allied forces, published a manifesto, drawn up by the
   emigrants. If the authors of this astounding proclamation had
   deliberately intended to serve the purpose of those Frenchmen
   who were bent on kindling zeal for the war, they could not
   have done anything more likely to serve their purpose.
{1277}
   The powers required the country to submit unconditionally to
   Louis's mercy. All who offered resistance were to be treated
   as rebels to their King, and Paris was to suffer military
   execution if any harm befell the royal family. … Meanwhile,
   a second insurrection, which had for its object the King's
   deposition, was in preparation. The Assembly, after declaring
   the country in danger, had authorised the sections of Paris,
   as well as the administrative authorities throughout France,
   to meet at any moment. The sections had, in consequence, been
   able to render themselves entirely independent of the
   municipality. In each of the sectional or primary assemblies
   from 700 to 3,000 active citizens had the right to vote, but
   few cared to attend, and thus it constantly happened that a
   small active minority spoke and acted in the name of an
   apathetic constitutional majority. Thousands of volunteers
   passed through Paris on their way to the frontier, some of
   whom were purposely retained to take part in the insurrection.
   The municipality of Marseilles, at the request of Barbaroux, a
   young friend of the Rolands, sent up a band of 500 men, who
   first sung in Paris the verses celebrated as the
   'Marseillaise' [see MARSEILLAISE]. The danger was the greater
   since every section had its own cannon and a special body of
   cannoneers, who nearly to a man were on the side of the
   revolutionists. The terrified and oscillating Assembly made no
   attempt to suppress agitation, but acquitted (August 8)
   Lafayette, by 406 against 280 votes, of a charge of treason
   made against him by the left, on the ground that he had sought
   to intimidate the Legislature. This vote was regarded as
   tantamount to a refusal to pass sentence of deposition on
   Louis. On the following night the insurrection began. Its
   centre was in the Faubourg of St. Antoine, and it was
   organised by but a small number of men. Mandat, the
   commander-in-chief of the national guard, was an energetic
   constitutionalist, who had taken well-concerted measures for
   the defence of the Tuileries. But the unscrupulousness of the
   conspirators was more than a match for his zeal. Soon after
   midnight commissioners from 28 sections met together at the
   Hotel de Ville, and forced the Council-General of the
   Municipality to summon Mandat before it, and to send out
   orders to the officers of the guard in contradiction to those
   previously given. Mandat, unaware of what was passing, obeyed
   the summons, and on his arrival was arrested and murdered.
   After this the commissioners dispersed the lawful council and
   usurped its place. At the Tuileries were about 950 Swiss and
   more than 4,000 national guards. Early in the morning the
   first bands of insurgents appeared. On the fidelity of the
   national guards it was impossible to rely; and the royal
   family, attended by a small escort, left the palace, and
   sought refuge with the Assembly [which held its sessions in
   the old Riding-School of the Tuileries, not far from the
   palace, at one side of the gardens]. Before their departure
   orders had been given to the Swiss to repel force by force,
   and soon the sound of firing spread alarm through Paris. The
   King sent the Swiss instructions to retire, which they
   punctually obeyed. One column, passing through the Tuileries
   gardens, was shot down almost to a man. The rest reached the
   Assembly in safety, but several were afterwards massacred on
   their way to prison. For 24 hours the most frightful anarchy
   prevailed. Numerous murders were committed in the streets. The
   assailants, some hundreds of whom had perished, sacked the
   palace, and killed all the men whom they found there."

      _B. M. Gardiner,
      The French Revolution,
      chapter 5._

   "Terror and fury ruled the hour. The Swiss, pressed on from
   without, paralysed from within, have ceased to shoot; but not
   to be shot. What shall they do? Desperate is the moment.
   Shelter or instant death: yet How, Where? One party flies out
   by the Rue de l'Echelle; is destroyed utterly, 'en entier.' A
   second, by the other side, throws itself into the Garden;
   'hurrying across a keen fusillade'; rushes suppliant into the
   National Assembly; finds pity and refuge in the back benches
   there. The third, and largest, darts out in column, 300
   strong, towards the Champs Elysées: 'Ah, could we but reach
   Courbevoye, where other Swiss are!' Wo! see, in such fusillade
   the column 'soon breaks itself by diversity of opinion,' into
   distracted segments, this way and that;—to escape in holes,
   to die fighting from street to street. The firing and
   murdering will not cease: not yet for long. The red Porters of
   Hotels are shot at, be they 'Suisse' by nature, or Suisse only
   in name. The very Firemen, who pump and labour on that smoking
   Carrousel [which the mob had fired]; are shot at; why should
   the Carrousel not burn? Some Swiss take refuge in private
   houses; find that mercy too does still dwell in the heart of
   man. The brave Marseillese are merciful, late so wroth; and
   labour to save. … But the most are butchered, and even
   mangled. Fifty (some say Fourscore) were marched as prisoners,
   by National Guards, to the Hôtel-de-Ville: the ferocious
   people bursts through on them, in the Place-de-Greve;
   massacres them to the last man. 'O Peuple, envy of the
   universe!' Peuple, in mad Gaelic effervescence! Surely few
   things in the history of carnage are painfuler. What
   ineffaceable red streak, flickering so sad in the memory, is
   that, of this poor column of red Swiss, 'breaking itself in
   the confusion of opinions'; dispersing, into blackness and
   death! Honour to you, brave men; honourable pity, through long
   times! Not martyrs were ye; and yet almost more. He was no
   King of yours, this Louis; and he forsook you like a King of
   shreds and patches: ye were but sold to him for some poor
   sixpence a-day; yet would ye work for your wages, keep your
   plighted word: The work now was to die; and ye did it. Honour
   to you, O Kinsmen; and may the old Deutsch 'Biederkeit' and'
   Tapferkeit,' and Valour which is Worth and Truth, be they
   Swiss, be they Saxon, fail in no age!"

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 2, book 6, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 1, pages 266-330._

      _Madame Campan,
      Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
      volume 2, chapters 9-10._

      _J. Claretie,
      Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
      chapter 3, sections 4-5._

      _A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
      Annals of the French Revolution,
      part 2, chapters 18-28 (volumes 6-7)._

      _Duchess de Tourzel,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 8-10._

      _Count M. Dumas,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

{1278}

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
   Power seized by the insurrectionary Commune of Paris.
   Dethronement and imprisonment of the King.
   Conflict between the Girondins of the Assembly and the
   Jacobins of the Commune.
   Alarm at the advance of the Prussians.
   The searching of the city for suspects.
   Arrest of 3,000.

   "While the Swiss were being murdered, the Legislative Assembly
   were informed that a deputation wished to enter. At the head
   of this deputation appeared Huguenin, who announced that a new
   municipality for Paris had been formed, and that the old one
   had resigned. This was, indeed, the fact. On the departure of
   Santerre the commissioners of the sections had given orders to
   the legitimate council-general of the municipality to resign,
   and the council-general, startled by the events which were
   passing, consented. The commissioners then called themselves
   the new municipality, and proceeded, as municipal officers, to
   send a deputation to the Assembly. The deputation almost
   ordered that the Assembly should immediately declare the
   king's dethronement, and, in the presence of the unfortunate
   monarch himself, Vergniaud mounted the tribune, and proposed,
   on behalf of the Committee of Twenty-one, that the French
   people should be invited to elect a National Convention to
   draw up a new Constitution, and that the chief of the
   executive power, as he called the king, should be
   provisionally suspended from his functions until the new
   Convention had pronounced what measures should be adopted to
   establish a new government and the reign of liberty and
   equality. The motion was carried, and was countersigned by one
   of the king's ministers, De Joly; and thus the old monarchy of
   the Bourbons in France came to an end. But the Assembly had
   not yet completed its work. The ministry was dismissed, as not
   having the confidence of the people, and the Minister of War,
   d'Abancourt, was ordered to be tried by the court at Orleans
   for treason, in having brought the Swiss Guards to Paris. The
   Assembly then prepared to elect new ministers. Roland,
   Clavière, and Servan were recalled by acclamation to their
   former posts. … Danton was elected Minister of Justice by
   222 votes against 60; Gaspard Monge, the great mathematician,
   was elected Minister of Marine, on the nomination of
   Condorcet; and Lebrun-Tondu, a friend of Brissot and
   Dumouriez, and a former abbé, to the department of Foreign
   Affairs. At the bidding of the self-elected municipality of
   Paris the king had been suspended, and a new ministry
   inaugurated, and this new municipality, which, it must be
   remembered, only represented 28 sections of Paris, next
   proceeded to send its decrees all over France. It was joined
   on this very day by some of the extreme men who hoped through
   its means to force a republic on France—notably by Camille
   Desmoulins and Dubois-Dubais; and on the 11th it was still
   further reinforced by the presence of Robespierre,
   Billaud-Varenne, and Marat. The Legislative Assembly had
   become a mere instrument in the hands of the Committee of
   Twenty-one [a committee specially charged with watchfulness
   over the safety of the public, and which foreshadowed the
   later famous Committee of Public Safety]. The majority of the
   deputies either left Paris, or, if they belonged to the right,
   hid themselves, while those of the left had to obey every
   order of their leaders, and left the transaction of temporary
   business to the Committee of Twenty-one. This committee
   practically ruled France for forty days, until the meeting of
   the Convention; the Assembly always accepted its propositions
   and sent the deputies it nominated on important missions; its
   only rival was the insurrectionary commune, and the
   internecine warfare between the Jacobins and the Girondins was
   foreshadowed in the struggle between this Commune and the
   Committee of Twenty-one. For, while the extreme Jacobins
   filled the new Commune of Paris, the Committee of Twenty-one
   consisted of Girondins and Feuillants, Brissot was its
   president, Vergniaud its reporter, and Gensonné, Condorcet,
   Lasource, Guadet, Lacépède, Lacuèe, Pastoret, Muraire, Delmas,
   and Guyton-Morveau were amongst its members. On the evening of
   August 10 the Assembly decreed that the difference between
   active and passive citizens should be abolished, and that
   every Frenchman of the age of 25 should have a vote for the
   Convention. … The last sight the king might have seen on the
   night of August 10 was his palace of the Tuileries in flames,
   where, for mischief, fire had been set to the stables. It
   spread from building to building, and the Assembly only took
   steps to check it when it threatened to spread to the houses
   of the Rue Saint Honoré. … On the day after this terrible
   night the king was informed that rooms had been found for him
   in the Convent of the Feuillants; and to four monastic cells,
   which had not been inhabited since the dissolution of the
   monastery two years before, the royal family was led, and
   round them was placed a strong guard. Yet they were no more
   prisoners in the Convent of the Feuillants than they had been
   in the splendid palace of the Tuileries. … The king's
   nominal authority was annihilated; but though the course of
   events left him a prisoner, it cannot be said that his
   influence was diminished, for he had none left to diminish. It
   was to the Girondins, rather than to the king, that the
   results of August 10 brought unpleasant surprises. … The
   real power had gone to the Commune of Paris, and this was very
   clearly perceived by Robespierre and by Marat. … Though
   Marat was received with the loudest cheers by the
   insurrectionary commune, Robespierre was the man who really
   became its leader. He had long expected the shock which had
   just taken place, and had prepared himself for the crisis. The
   first requisition was, of course, for a Convention. This had
   been granted on the very first day. The second demand of the
   Commune was the safe custody of the king, so that he should
   not be able to escape to the army. This was conceded by the
   Assembly on August 12, when they ordered that the king and
   royal family should be taken to the old tower of the Temple,
   and there strictly guarded under the superintendence of the
   insurrectionary commune. Lafayette's sudden flight greatly
   strengthened the position of the Commune of Paris. …
   Relieved from the fear of Lafayette's turning against them,
   both the Girondins in the Legislative Assembly and the
   Jacobins in the insurrectionary commune turned to the pursuit
   of their own special plans, and naturally soon came into
   violent collision. … The Girondins were, above all things,
   men of ideas; the Jacobins, above all things, practical men:
   and of the issue of a struggle between them there could be
   little doubt, though, at this period the Girondins had the
   advantage of the best position. On August 15 the final blow
   was struck at the unfortunate Feuillants, or
   Constitutionalists. The last ministers of the king, as well
   Duport du Tertre, Bertrand de Moleville, and Duportail, were
   all ordered to be arrested, with Barnave and Charles de
   Lameth. The Assembly followed up this action by establishing
   the special tribunal of August 17, which held its first
   sitting on the same evening at the Hotel de Ville.
{1279}
   Robespierre was elected president, and refused the office. …
   The new tribunal was too slow to satisfy the leaders of the
   Commune of Paris, for its first prisoner, Laporte, the old
   intendant of the civil list, was not judged until August 21,
   and then acquitted. This news made the Commune lose all
   patience, and they determined to urge the Assembly to more
   energetic measures. Under the pressure of the Commune the
   Assembly took vigorous measures indeed. All the leaders of the
   émigrés were sequestrated; all ecclesiastics who would not
   take the oath were to be transported to French Guiana, and it
   was decreed that the National Guard should enlist every man,
   whether an active or a passive citizen. Much of this vigour on
   the part of the Assembly was due, not only to the pressure of
   the Commune, but to the rapid advance of the Prussians. …
   The Assembly … decreed that an army of 30,000 men should be
   raised in Paris, and that every man who had a musket issued to
   him should be punished with death if he did not march at once.
   … On August 28, on the motion of Danton, now Minister of
   Justice, a general search for arms and suspects was ordered.
   The gates of the city were closed on August 30; every street
   was ordered to be illuminated; bodies of national guards
   entered each house and searched it from top to bottom. Barely
   1,000 muskets were seized, but more than 8,000 prisoners were
   taken and shut up, not only in the prisons, but in all the
   largest convents of Paris, which were turned into houses of
   detention. Who should be arrested as a suspect depended
   entirely on the municipal officer who happened to examine the
   house, and these men acted under the orders of a special
   committee established by the Commune, at the head of which sat
   Marat. … The residents in Paris at the time of the
   Revolution seem to have been more struck by this
   house-to-house visitation than by many other events which were
   far more horrible."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Grace D. Elliot,
      Journal of My Life during the French Revolution,
      chapter 4._

      _Gouverneur Morris,
      Life and Correspondence.,
      edited by Sparks, volume 2, pages 203-217._

      _G. Long,
      France and its Revolutions,
      chapter 29._

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
   Lafayette's unsuccessful resistance to the Jacobins.
   His withdrawal from France.

   "The news of the 10th of August was carried to Lafayette by
   one of his own officers who happened to be in Paris on
   business. He learned that the throne was overturned and the
   Assembly in subjection, but he could not believe that the
   cause of the constitutional monarchy was abandoned without a
   struggle. He announced to the army the events that had taken
   place, and conjured the men to remain true to the king and
   constitution. The commissioners despatched by the Commune of
   Paris to announce to the different armies the change of
   government and to exact oaths of fidelity to it soon arrived
   at Sedan within Lafayette's command. The general had them
   brought before the municipality of Sedan and interrogated
   regarding their mission. Convinced, from their own account,
   that they were the agents of a faction which had unlawfully
   seized upon power, he ordered their arrest and had them
   imprisoned. Lafayette's moral influence in the army and the
   country was still so great that the Jacobins knew that they
   must either destroy him or win him over to their side. The
   latter course was preferred. … The imprisoned commissioners,
   therefore, requested a private conference with Lafayette, and
   offered him, on the part of their superiors in Paris, whatever
   executive power he desired in the new government. It is
   needless to say that Lafayette, whose sole aim was to
   establish liberty in his country, refused to entertain the
   idea of associating himself with the despotism of the mob. He
   caused his own soldiers to renew their oath of fidelity to the
   king, and communicated with Luckner on the situation. …
   Meanwhile, emissaries from the Commune were sent to Sedan to
   influence the soldiers by bribes and threats to renounce their
   loyalty to their commander. All the other armies and provinces
   to which commissioners had been sent had received them and
   taken the new oaths. Lafayette found himself alone in his
   resistance. His attitude acquired, every day, more the
   appearance of rebellion against authorities recognized by the
   rest of France. New commissioners arrived, bringing with them
   his dismissal from command. The army was wavering between
   attachment to their general and obedience to government. On
   the 19th of August, the Jacobins, seeing that they could not
   win him over, caused the Assembly to declare him a traitor.
   Lafayette had now to take an immediate resolution. France had
   declared for the Paris Commune. The constitutional monarchy
   was irretrievably destroyed. For the general to dispute with
   his appointed successor the command of the army was to provoke
   further disorders in a cause that had ceased to be that of the
   nation and become only his own. Three possible courses
   remained open to him,—to accept the Jacobin overtures and
   become a part of their bloody despotism; to continue his
   resistance and give his head to the guillotine; to leave the
   country. He resolved to seek an asylum in a neutral territory
   with the hope, as he himself somewhat naively expressed it,
   'some day to be again of service to liberty and to France.'
   Lafayette made every preparation for the safety of his troops,
   placing them under the orders of Luckner until the arrival of
   Dumouriez, the new general in command. He publicly
   acknowledged responsibility for the arrest of the
   commissioners and the defiance of Sedan to the Commune, in
   order that the municipal officers who had supported him might
   escape punishment. He included in his party his
   staff-officers, whose association with him would have
   subjected them to the fury of the Commune, and some others who
   had also been declared traitors on account of obedience to his
   orders. He then made his way to Bouillon, on the extreme
   frontier. There, dismissing the escort, and sending back final
   orders for the security of the army, he rode with his
   companions into a foreign land."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of Lafayette,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

{1280}

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August-September).
   The September Massacres in the Paris prisons.

   The house-to-house search for suspects was carried on during
   the night of August 29 and the following day. "The next
   morning, at daybreak, the Mairie, the sections, the ancient
   prisons of Paris, and the convents that had been converted
   into prisons, were crowded with prisoners. They were summarily
   interrogated, and half of them, the victims of error or
   precipitation, were set at liberty, or claimed by their
   sections. The remainder were distributed in the prisons of the
   Abbaye Saint Germain, the Conciergerie, the Châtelet, La
   Force, the Luxembourg, and the ancient monasteries of the
   Bernardins, Saint Firmin, and the Carmes; Bicêtre and the
   Salpêtrière also opened their gates to receive fresh inmates.
   The three days that followed this night were employed by the
   commissaries in making a selection of the prisoners. Already
   their death was projected. … "We must purge the prisons, and
   leave no traitors behind us when we hasten to the frontiers.'
   Such was the cry put into the mouth of the people by Marat and
   Danton. Such was the attitude of Danton on the brink of these
   crimes. As for the part of Robespierre, it was the same as in
   all these crises—on the debate concerning war, on the 20th of
   June, and on the 10th of August. He did not act, he blamed;
   but he left the event to itself, and when once accomplished he
   accepted it as a progressive step of the Revolution. … On
   Sunday, the 2d of September, at three o'clock in the
   afternoon, the signal for the massacre was given by one of
   those accidents that seem so perfectly the effect of chance.
   Five coaches, each containing six priests, started from the
   Hôtel-de-Ville to the prison of the Abbaye … escorted by
   weak detachments of Avignonnais and Marseillais, armed with
   pikes and sabers. … Groups of men, women and children
   insulted them as they passed, and their escort joined in the
   invective threats and outrages of the populace. … The
   émeute, increasing in number at every step across the Rue
   Dauphine, was met by another mob, that blocked up the
   Carrefour Bussy, where municipal officers received enrolments
   in the open air. The carriages stopped; and a man, forcing his
   way through the escort, sprung on the step of the first
   carriage, plunged his saber twice into the body of one of the
   priests, and displayed it reeking with blood: the people
   uttered a cry of horror. 'This frightens you, cowards!' said
   the assassin, with a smile of disdain; 'You must accustom
   yourselves to look on death.' With these [words] he again
   plunged his saber into the carriage and continued to strike.
   … The coaches slowly moved on, and the assassin, passing
   from one to the other, and clinging with one hand to the door,
   stabbed at random at all he could reach; while the assassins
   of Avignon, who formed part of their escort, plunged their
   bayonets into the interior; and the pikes, pointed against the
   windows, prevented any of the priests from leaping into the
   street. The long line of carriages moving slowly on, and
   leaving a bloody trace behind them, the despairing cries and
   gestures of the priests, the ferocious shouts of their
   butchers, the yells of applause of the populace, announced
   from a distance their arrival to the prisoners of the Abbaye.
   The cortège stopped at the door of the prison, and the
   soldiers of the escort dragged out by the feet eight dead
   bodies. The priests who had escaped, or who were only wounded,
   precipitated themselves into the prison; four of them were
   seized and massacred on the threshold. … The prisoners …
   cooped up in the Abbaye heard this prelude to murder at their
   gates. … The internal wickets were closed on them, and they
   received orders to return to their chambers, as if to answer
   the muster-roll. A fearful spectacle was visible in the outer
   court: the last wicket opening into it had been transformed
   into a tribunal; and around a large table—covered with
   papers, writing materials, the registers of the prisons,
   glasses, bottles, pistols, sabers, and pipes—were seated
   twelve judges, whose gloomy features and athletic proportions
   stamped them men of toil, debauch or blood. Their attire was
   that of the laboring classes. … Two or three of them
   attracted attention by the whiteness of their hands and the
   elegance of their shape; and that betrayed the presence of men
   of intellect, purposely mingled with these men of action to
   guide them. A man in a gray coat, a saber at his side, pen in
   his hand, and whose inflexible features seemed as though they
   were petrified, was seated at the center of the table, and
   presided over the tribunal. This was the Huissier Maillard,
   the idol of the mobs of the Faubourg Saint Marceau … an
   actor in the days of October, the 20th of June, and the 10th
   of August. … He had just returned from the Carmes, where he
   had organized the massacre. It was not chance that had brought
   him to the Abbaye at the precise moment of the arrival of the
   prisoners, and with the prison registers in his hand. He had
   received, the previous evening, the secret orders of Marat,
   through the members of the Comité de Surveillance. Danton had
   sent for the registers to the prison, and gone through them;
   and Maillard was shown those he was to acquit and condemn. If
   the prisoner was acquitted, Maillard said, 'Let this gentleman
   be set at liberty'; if condemned, a voice said, 'A la Force.'
   At these words the outer door opened, and the prisoner fell
   dead as he crossed the threshold. The massacre commenced with
   the Swiss, of whom there were 150 at the Abbaye, officers and
   soldiers. … They fell, one after another, like sheep in a
   slaughter-house. The tumbrils were not sufficient to carry
   away the corpses, and they were piled up on each side of the
   court to make room for the rest to die: their commander, Major
   Reding, was the last to fall. … After the Swiss, the king's
   guards, imprisoned in the Abbaye, were judged en masse. …
   Their massacre lasted a long time, for the people, excited by
   what they had drank—brandy mingled with gun-powder-and
   intoxicated by the sight of blood, prolonged their tortures.
   … The whole night was scarcely enough to slay and strip
   them."

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      book 25 (volume 2)._

   "To moral intoxication is added physical intoxication, wine in
   profusion, bumpers at every pause, revelry over corpses. …
   They dance … and sing the 'carmagnole'; they arouse the
   people of the quarter 'to amuse them,' and that they may have
   their share of 'the fine fête.' Benches are arranged for
   'gentlemen' and others for 'ladies': the latter, with greater
   curiosity, are additionally anxious to contemplate at their
   ease 'the aristocrats' already slain; consequently, lights are
   required, and one is placed on the breast of each corpse.
   Meanwhile, slaughter continues, and is carried to perfection.
   A butcher at the Abbaye complains that 'the aristocrats die
   too quick, and that those only who strike first have the
   pleasure of it'; henceforth they are to be struck with the
   backs of the swords only, and made to run between two rows of
   their butchers, like soldiers formerly running a gauntlet. …
{1281}
   All the unfettered instincts that live in the lowest depths of
   the heart start from the human abyss at once, not alone the
   heinous instincts with their fangs, but likewise the foulest
   with their slaver, while both packs fall furiously on women
   whose noble or infamous repute brings them before the world;
   on Madame de Lamballe, the Queen's friend; on Madame Desrues,
   widow of the famous prisoner; on the flower-girl of the
   Palais-Royal, who, two years before, had mutilated her lover,
   a French guardsman, in a fit of jealousy. Ferocity here is
   associated with lubricity to add profanation to torture, while
   life is attacked through attacks on modesty. In Madame de
   Lamballe, killed too quickly, the libidinous butchers could
   only outrage a corpse, but for the widow, and especially the
   flower-girl, they imagine the same as a Nero the fire-circle
   of the Iroquois. … At La Force, Madame de Lamballe is cut to
   pieces. I cannot transcribe what Charlot, the hair-dresser,
   did with her head. I merely state that another wretch, in the
   Rue Saint-Antoine, bore off her heart and 'ate it.' They kill
   and they drink, and drink and kill again. … As the prisons
   are to be cleaned out, it is as well to clean them all out,
   and do it at once. After the Swiss, priests, the aristocrats,
   and the 'white-skin gentlemen,' there remain convicts and
   those confined through the ordinary channels of justice,
   robbers, assassins, and those sentenced to the galleys in the
   Conciergerie, in the Châtelet, and in the Tour St. Bernard,
   with branded women, vagabonds, old beggars and boys confined
   in Bicêtre and the Salpétrière. They are good for nothing,
   cost something to feed, and, probably, cherish evil designs.
   … This time, as the job is more foul, the broom is wielded
   by fouler hands. … At the Salpétrière, 'all the bullies of
   Paris, former spies, … libertines, the rascals of France and
   all Europe, prepare beforehand for the operation,' and rape
   alternates with massacre. … At Bicêtre, however, it is crude
   butchery, the carnivorous instinct alone satisfying itself.
   Among other prisoners are 43 youths of the lowest class, from
   17 to 19 years of age, placed there for correction by their
   parents, or by those to whom they are bound. … These the
   band falls on, beating them to death with clubs. … There are
   six days and five nights of uninterrupted butchery, 171
   murders at the Abbaye, 169 at La Force, 223 at the Châtelet,
   328 at the Conciergerie, 73 at the Tour-Saint-Bernard, 120 at
   the Carmelites, 79 at Saint-Firmin, 170 at Bicêtre, 35 at the
   Salpétrière; among the dead, 250 priests, 3 bishops or
   archbishops, general officers, magistrates, one former
   minister, one royal princess, belonging to the best names in
   France, and, on the other side, one negro, several low class
   women, young scape-graces, convicts, and poor old men. …
   Fournier, Lazowski, and Bécard, the chiefs of robbers and
   assassins, return from Orleans with 1,500 cut-throats. On the
   way they kill M. de Brissac, M. de Lessart, and 42 others
   accused of 'lèse-nation,' whom they arrested from their
   judges' hands, and then, by way of surplus, 'following the
   example of Paris,' 21 prisoners taken from the Versailles
   prisons. At Paris the Minister of Justice thanks them, the
   Commune congratulates them, and the sections feast them and
   embrace them. … All the journals approve, palliate, or keep
   silent; nobody dares offer resistance. Property as well as
   lives belong to whoever wants to take them. … Like a man
   struck on the head with a mallet, Paris, felled to the ground,
   lets things go; the authors of the massacre have fully
   attained their ends. The faction has fast hold of power, and
   will maintain its hold. Neither in the Legislative Assembly
   nor in the Convention will the aims of the Girondists be
   successful against its tenacious usurpation. … The Jacobins,
   through sudden terror, have maintained their illegal
   authority; through a prolongation of terror they are going to
   establish their legal authority. A forced suffrage is going to
   put them in office at the Hotel-de-Ville, in the tribunals, in
   the National Guard, in the sections, and in the various
   administrations."

      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution,
      (American edition.), volume 1, pages 350-368._

      _Sergent Marceau,
      Reminiscences of a Regicide,
      chapter 9._

      _A. Dobson,
      The Princess de Lamballe
      ("Four Frenchwomen," chapter 3)._

      _The Reign of Terror: A collection of Authentic
      Narratives, volume 2._

      _J. B. Cléry,
      Journal of Occurrences at the Temple._

      _Despatches of Earl Gower,
      pages 225-229._

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-November).
   Meeting of the National Convention.
   Abolition of royalty.
   Proclamation of the Republic.
   Adoption of the Era of the Republic.
   Establishment of absolute equality.
   The losing struggle of the Girondists with the Jacobins of the
   Mountain.

   "It was in the midst of these horrors [of the September
   massacres] that the Legislative Assembly approached its
   termination. … The National Convention began [September 22]
   under darker auspices. … The great and inert mass of the
   people were disposed, as in all commotions, to range
   themselves on the victorious side. The sections of Paris,
   under the influence of Robespierre and Marat, returned the
   most revolutionary deputies; those of most other towns
   followed their example. The Jacobins, with their affiliated
   clubs, on this occasion exercised an overwhelming influence
   over all France. … At Paris, where the elections took place
   on the 2d September, amidst all the excitement and horrors of
   the massacres in the prisons, the violent leaders of the
   municipality, who had organized the revolt of August 10th,
   exercised an irresistible sway over the citizens. Robespierre
   and Danton were the first named, amidst unanimous shouts of
   applause; after them Camille Desmoulins, Tallien, Osselin,
   Freron, Anacharsis Clootz, Fabre d'Eglantine, David, the
   celebrated painter, Collot d'Herbois, Billaud Varennes,
   Legendre, Panis, Sergent, almost all implicated in the
   massacres in the prisons, were also chosen. To these was added
   the Duke of Orleans, who had abdicated his titles, and was
   called Philippe Égalité. … The most conservative part of the
   new Assembly were the Girondists who had overturned the
   throne. From the first opening of the Convention, the
   Girondists occupied the right, and the Jacobins the seats on
   the summit of the left; whence their designation of 'The
   Mountain' was derived. The former had the majority of votes,
   the greater part of the departments having returned men of
   comparatively moderate principles. But the latter possessed a
   great advantage, in having on their side all the members of
   the city of Paris, who ruled the mob, … and in being
   supported by the municipality, which had already grown into a
   ruling power in the state, and had become the great centre of
   the democratic party.
{1282}
   A neutral body, composed of those members whose principles
   were not yet declared, was called the Plain, or, Marais; it
   ranged itself with the Girondists, until terror compelled its
   members to coalesce with the victorious side. … The two
   rival parties mutually indulged in recriminations, in order to
   influence the public mind. The Jacobins incessantly reproached
   the Girondists with desiring to dissolve the Republic; to
   establish three-and-twenty separate democratic states, held
   together, like the American provinces, by a mere federal
   union. … Nothing more was requisite to render them in the
   highest degree unpopular in Paris, the very existence of which
   depended on its remaining, through all the phases of government,
   the seat of the ruling power. The Girondists retorted upon
   their adversaries charges better founded, but not so likely to
   inflame the populace. They reproached them with endeavouring
   to establish in the municipality of Paris a power superior to
   the legislature of all France, with overawing the
   deliberations of the Convention by menacing petitions, or the
   open display of brute force; and secretly preparing for their
   favourite leaders, Danton, Robespierre, and Marat, a
   triumvirate of power, which would speedily extinguish all the
   freedom which had been acquired. The first part of the
   accusation was well-founded even then; of the last, time soon
   afforded an ample confirmation. The Convention met at first in
   one of the halls of the Tuileries, but immediately adjourned
   to the Salle du Ménage, where its subsequent sittings were
   held. Its first step was, on the motion of the Abbé Gregoire,
   and amidst unanimous transports, to declare Royalty abolished
   in France, and to proclaim a republic; and by another decree
   it was ordered, that the old calendar taken from the year of
   Christ's birth should be abandoned, and that all public acts
   should be dated from the first year of the French republic.
   This era began on the 22d September 1792. [See, also, below:
   A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).] … A still more democratic
   constitution than that framed by the Constituent and
   Legislative Assemblies was at the same time established. All
   the requisites for election to any office whatever were, on
   the motion of the Duke of Orleans, abolished. It was no longer
   necessary to select judges from legal men, nor magistrates
   from the class of proprietors. All persons, in whatever rank,
   were declared eligible to every situation; and the right of
   voting in the primary assemblies was conferred on every man
   above the age of 21 years. Absolute equality, in its literal
   sense, was universally established. Universal suffrage was the
   basis on which government rested." The leaders of the
   Girondists soon opened attacks upon Robespierre and Marat,
   accusing the former of aspiring to a dictatorship, and also
   holding him responsible, with Marat and Danton, for the
   September massacres; but Louvet and others who made the attack
   were feebly supported by their party. Louvet "repeatedly
   appealed to Pétion, Vergniaud, and the other leaders, to
   support his statements; but they had not the firmness boldly
   to state the truth. Had they testified a fourth part of what
   they knew, the accusation must have been instantly voted, and
   the tyrant crushed at once. As it was, Robespierre, fearful of
   its effects, demanded eight days to prepare for his defence.
   In the interval, the whole machinery of terror was put in
   force. The Jacobins thundered out accusations against the
   intrepid accuser, and all the leaders of the Mountain were
   indefatigable in their efforts to strike fear into their
   opponents. … By degrees the impression cooled, fear resumed
   its sway, and the accused mounted the tribune at the end of
   the week with the air of a victor. … It was now evident that
   the Girondists were no match for their terrible adversaries.
   The men of action on their side, Louvet, Barbaroux, and
   Lanjuinais, in vain strove to rouse them to the necessity of
   vigorous measures in contending with such enemies. Their
   constant reply was, that they would not be the first to
   commence the shedding of blood. Their whole vigour manifested
   itself in declamation, their whole wisdom in abstract
   discussion. They had now become humane in intention, and
   moderate in counsel, though they were far from having been so
   in the earlier stages of the Revolution. … They were too
   honourable to believe in the wickedness of their opponents,
   too scrupulous to adopt the measures requisite to disarm, too
   destitute of moral courage to be able to crush them. … The
   Jacobins … while they were daily strengthening and
   increasing the armed force of the sections at the command of
   the municipality, … strenuously resisted the slightest
   approach towards the establishment of any guard or civic force
   for the defence of the Convention. … Aware of their weakness
   from this cause, the Girondists brought forward a proposal for
   an armed guard for the Convention. The populace was
   immediately put in motion," and the overawed Convention
   abandoned the measure. "In the midst of these vehement
   passions, laws still more stringent and sanguinary were passed
   against the priests and emigrants. … First, it was decreed
   that every Frenchman taken with arms in his hands against
   France should be punished with death; and soon after, that
   'the French emigrants are forever banished from the territory
   of France, and those who return shall be punished with death.'
   A third decree directed that all their property, movable and
   immovable, should be confiscated to the service of the state.
   These decrees were rigidly executed: and though almost
   unnoticed amidst the bloody deeds which at the same period
   stained the Revolution, ultimately produced the most lasting
   and irremediable effects. At length the prostration of the
   Assembly before the armed sections of Paris had become so
   excessive, that Buzot and Barbaroux, the most intrepid of the
   Girondists, brought forward two measures which, if they could
   have been carried, would have emancipated the legislature from
   this odious thraldom. Buzot proposed to establish a guard,
   specially for the protection of the Convention, drawn from
   young men chosen from the different departments. Barbaroux at
   the same time brought forward four decrees. … By the first,
   the capital was to cease to be the seat of the legislature,
   when it lost its claim to their presence by failing to protect
   them from insult. By the second, the troops of the Fédérés and
   the national cavalry were to be charged, along with the armed
   sections, with the protection of the legislature. By the
   third, the Convention was to constitute itself into a court of
   justice, for the trial of all conspirators against its
   authority. By the fourth, the Convention suspended the
   municipality of Paris. … The Jacobins skilfully availed
   themselves of these impotent manifestations of distrust, to
   give additional currency to the report that the Girondists
   intended to transport the seat of government to the southern
   provinces. This rumour rapidly gained ground with the
   populace, and augmented their dislike at the ministry. … All
   these preliminary struggles were essays of strength by the two
   parties, prior to the grand question which was now destined to
   attract the eyes of Europe and the world. This was the trial
   of Louis XVI."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe,
      chapter 8 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre,
      chapter 16._

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      books 29-31._

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 43 (volume 4)._

      _J. Moore,
      Journal in France, 1792,
      volume 2._

{1283}

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-December).
   The war on the northern frontier.
   Battle of Valmy.
   Retreat of the invading army.
   Custine in Germany and Dumouriez in the Netherlands.
   Annexation of Savoy and Nice.
   The Decree of December 15.
   Proclamation of a republican crusade.

   "The defence of France rested on General Dumouriez. …
   Happily for France the slow advance of the Prussian general
   permitted Dumouriez to occupy the difficult country of the
   Argonnes, where, while waiting for his reinforcements, he was
   able for some time to hold the invaders in check. At length
   Brunswick made his way past the defile which Dumouriez had
   chosen for his first line of defence; but it was only to find
   the French posted in such strength on his flank that any
   further advance would imperil his own army. If the advance was
   to be continued, Dumouriez must be dislodged. Accordingly, on
   the 20th of September, Brunswick, facing half-round from his
   line of march, directed his artillery against the hills of
   Valmy, where Kellermann and the French left were encamped. The
   cannonade continued for some hours, but it was followed by no
   general attack. Already, before a blow had been struck, the
   German forces were wasting away with disease. … The King of
   Prussia began to listen to the proposals of peace which were
   sent to him by Dumouriez. A week spent in negotiations served
   only to strengthen the French and to aggravate the scarcity
   and sickness within the German camp. Dissensions broke out
   between the Prussian and Austrian commanders; a retreat was
   ordered; and, to the astonishment of Europe, the veteran
   forces of Brunswick fell back before the mutinous soldiery and
   unknown generals of the Revolution. … In the meantime the
   Legislative Assembly had decreed its own dissolution … and
   had ordered the election of representatives to frame a
   constitution for France. … The Girondins, who had been the
   party of extremes in the Legislative Assembly, were the party
   of moderation and order in the Convention. … Monarchy was
   abolished, and France declared a Republic (September 21).
   Office continued in the hands of the Gironde; but the
   vehement, uncompromising spirit of their rivals, the so-called
   party of the Mountain, quickly made itself felt in all the
   relations of France to foreign powers. The intention of
   conquest might still be as sincerely disavowed as it had been
   five months before; but were the converts to liberty to be
   denied the right of uniting themselves to the French people by
   their own free will? … The scruples which had lately
   condemned all annexation of territory vanished in that orgy of
   patriotism which followed the expulsion of the invader and the
   discovery that the Revolution was already a power in other
   lands than France. … Along the entire frontier, from Dunkirk
   to the Maritime Alps, France nowhere touched a strong united, and
   independent people; and along this entire frontier, except in
   the country opposite Alsace, the armed proselytism of the
   French Revolution proved a greater force than the influences
   on which the existing order of things depended. In the Low
   Countries, in the Principalities of the Rhine, in Switzerland,
   in Savoy, in Piedmont itself, the doctrines of the Revolution
   were welcomed by a more or less numerous class, and the armies
   of France appeared for a moment as the missionaries of liberty
   and right rather than as an invading enemy. No sooner had
   Brunswick been brought to a stand by Dumouriez at Valmy than a
   French division under Custine crossed the Alsatian frontier
   and advanced upon Spires, where Brunswick had left large
   stores of war. The garrison was defeated in an encounter
   outside the town; Spires and Worms surrendered to Custine. In
   the neighbouring fortress of Mainz, the key to western
   Germany, Custine's advance was watched with anxious
   satisfaction by a republican party among the inhabitants, from
   whom the French general learnt that he had only to appear
   before the city to become its master. … At the news of the
   capture of Spires, the Archbishop retired into the interior of
   Germany, leaving the administration to a board of
   ecclesiastics and officials, who published a manifesto calling
   upon their 'beloved brethren' the citizens to defend
   themselves to the last extremity, and then followed their
   master's example. A council of war declared the city to be
   untenable; and, before Custine had brought up a single
   siege-gun, the garrison capitulated, and the French were
   welcomed into Mainz by the partisans of the Republic (October
   20). … Although the mass of the inhabitants held aloof, a
   Republic was finally proclaimed, and incorporated with the
   Republic of France. The success of Custine's raid into Germany
   did not divert the Convention from the design of attacking
   Austria in the Netherlands, which Dumouriez had from the first
   pressed upon the Government. It was not three years since the
   Netherlands had been in full revolt against the Emperor
   Joseph. … Thus the ground was everywhere prepared for a
   French occupation. Dumouriez crossed the frontier. The border
   fortresses no longer existed: and after a single battle won by
   the French at Jemappes on the 6th November, the Austrians,
   finding the population universally hostile, abandoned the
   Netherlands without a struggle. The victory of Jemappes, the
   first pitched battle won by the Republic, excited an outburst
   of revolutionary fervour in the Convention which deeply
   affected the relations of France to Great Britain, hitherto a
   neutral spectator of the war. A decree was passed for the
   publication of a manifesto in all languages, declaring that
   the French nation offered its alliance to all peoples who
   wished to recover their freedom, and charging the generals of
   the Republic to give their protection to all persons who had
   suffered or might suffer in the cause of liberty. (November
   19.) A week later Savoy and Nice were annexed to France, the
   population of Savoy having almost unanimously declared in
   favour of France on the outbreak of war between France and
   Sardinia.
{1284}
   On the 15th December the Convention proclaimed that a system
   of social and political revolution was henceforth to accompany
   every movement of its armies on foreign soil. 'In every
   country that shall be occupied by the armies of the French
   Republic'—such was the substance of the Decree of December
   15th—'the generals shall announce the abolition of all
   existing authorities; of nobility, of serfage, of every feudal
   right and every monopoly; they shall proclaim the sovereignty
   of the people. … The French nation will treat as enemies any
   people which, refusing liberty and equality, desires to
   preserve its prince and privileged castes, or to make any
   accommodation with them.' This singular announcement of a new
   crusade caused the Government of Great Britain to arm."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1._

      _E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book 1, chapters 3-5 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A.D. 1792 (November-December).
   Charges against the King.
   Jacobin clamor for his condemnation.
   The contest in Convention.

   "There were, without a doubt, in this conjuncture, a great
   number of Mountaineers who, on this occasion, acted with the
   greatest sincerity, and only as republicans, in whose eyes
   Louis XVI. appeared guilty with respect to the revolution; and
   a dethroned king was dangerous to a young democracy. But this
   party would have been more clement, had it not had to ruin the
   Gironde at the same time with Louis XVI. … Party motives and
   popular animosities combined against this unfortunate prince.
   Those who, two months before, would have repelled the idea of
   exposing him to any other punishment than that of
   dethronement, were stupefied; so quickly does man lose in
   moments of crisis the right to defend his opinions! … After
   the 10th of August, there were found in the offices of the
   civil list documents which proved the secret correspondence of
   Louis XVI. with the discontented princes, with the emigration,
   and with Europe. In a report, drawn up at the command of the
   legislative assembly, he was accused of intending to betray
   the state and overthrow the revolution. He was accused of
   having written, on the 16th April, 1791, to the bishop of
   Clermont, that if he regained his power he would restore the
   former government, and the clergy to the state in which they
   previously were; of having afterwards proposed war, merely to
   hasten the approach of his deliverers; … of having been on
   terms with his brothers, whom his public measures had
   discountenanced; and, lastly, of having constantly opposed the
   revolution. Fresh documents were soon brought forward in
   support of this accusation. In the Tuileries, behind a panel
   in the wainscot, there was a hole wrought in the wall, and
   closed by an iron door. This secret closet was pointed out by
   the minister, Roland, and there were discovered proofs of all
   the conspiracies and intrigues of the court against the
   revolution; projects with the popular leaders to strengthen
   the constitutional power of the king, to restore the ancient
   regime and the aristocrats; the manœuvres of Talon, the
   arrangements with Mirabeau, the propositions accepted by
   Bouillé, under the constituent assembly, and some new plots
   under the legislative assembly. This discovery increased the
   exasperation against Louis XVI. Mirabeau's bust was broken by
   the Jacobins, and the convention covered the one which stood
   in the hall where it held its sittings. For some time there
   had been a question in the assembly as to the trial of this
   prince, who, having been dethroned, could no longer be
   proceeded against. There was no tribunal empowered to
   pronounce his sentence, no punishment which could be inflicted
   on him: accordingly, they plunged into false interpretations
   of the inviolability granted to Louis XVI., in order to
   condemn him legally. … The committee of legislation,
   commissioned to draw up a report on the question as to whether
   Louis XVI. could be tried, and whether he could be tried by
   the convention, decided in the affirmative. … The discussion
   commenced on the 13th of November, six days after the report
   of the committee. … This violent party [the Mountain], who
   wished to substitute a coup d'etat for a sentence, to follow
   no law, no form, but to strike Louis XVI. like a conquered
   prisoner, by making hostilities even survive victory, had but
   a very feeble majority in the convention; but without, it was
   strongly supported by the Jacobins and the commune.
   Notwithstanding the terror which it already inspired, its
   murderous suggestions were repelled by the convention; and the
   partisans of inviolability, in their turn, courageously
   asserted reasons of public interest at the same time as rules
   of justice and humanity. They maintained that the same men
   could not be judges and legislators, the jury and the
   accusers. … In a political view, they showed the
   consequences of the king's condemnation, as it would affect
   the anarchical party of the kingdom, rendering it still more
   insolent; and with regard to Europe, whose still neutral
   powers it would induce to join the coalition against the
   republic. But Robespierre, who during this long debate
   displayed a daring and perseverance that presaged his power,
   appeared at the tribune to support Saint Just, to reproach the
   convention with involving in doubt what the insurrection had
   decided, and with restoring, by sympathy and the publicity of
   a defence, the fallen royalist party. 'The assembly,' said
   Robespierre, 'has involuntarily been led far away from the
   real question. Here we have nothing to do with trial: Louis is
   not an accused man; you are not judges, you are, and can only
   be statesmen. You have no sentence to pronounce for or against
   a man, but you are called on to adopt a measure of public
   safety; to perform an act of national precaution. A dethroned
   king is only fit for two purposes, to disturb the tranquillity
   of the state, and shake its freedom, or to strengthen one or
   the other of them. Louis was king; the republic is founded;
   the famous question you are discussing is decided in these few
   words. Louis cannot be tried; he is already tried, he is
   condemned, or the republic is not absolved.' He required that
   the convention should declare Louis XVI. a traitor towards the
   French, criminal towards humanity, and sentence him at once to
   death, by virtue of the insurrection. The Mountaineers, by
   these extreme propositions, by the popularity they attained
   without, rendered condemnation in a measure inevitable. By
   gaining an extraordinary advance on the other parties, it
   obliged them to follow it, though at a distance. The majority
   of the convention, composed in a large part of Girondists, who
   dared not pronounce Louis XVI. inviolable, and of the Plain,
   decided, on Pétion's proposition, against the opinion of the
   fanatical Mountaineers and against that of the partisans of
   inviolability, that Louis XVI. should be tried by the
   convention. Robert Lindet then made, in the name of the
   commission of the twenty-one, his report respecting Louis XVI.
   The arraignment, setting forth the offences imputed to him,
   was drawn up, and the convention summoned the prisoner to its
   bar."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre,
      chapter 17._

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      books 32-33 (volume 2)._

      _A. de Beauchesne,
      Louis XVII.: His Life, his Suffering, his Death,
      book 9._

{1285}

FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-January).
   The King's Trial and death sentence.

   "On December 11, the ill-fated monarch, taken from his prison
   to his former palace, appeared at the bar of his republican
   judges, was received in silence and with covered heads, and
   answered interrogatories addressed to him as 'Louis Capet,'
   though with an air of deference. His passive constancy touched
   many hearts. … On the 26th the advocates of the King made an
   eloquent defence for their discrowned client, and Louis added,
   in a few simple words, that the 'blood of the 10th of August
   should not be laid to his charge.' The debates in the Assembly
   now began, and it soon became evident that the Jacobin faction
   were making the question the means to further their objects,
   and to hold up their opponents to popular hatred. They
   clamored for immediate vengeance on the tyrant, declared that
   the Republic could not be safe until the Court was smitten on
   its head, and a great example had been given to Europe, and
   denounced as reactionary and as concealed royalists all who
   resisted the demands of patriotism. These ferocious invectives
   were aided by the expedients so often employed with success,
   and the capital and its mobs were arrayed to intimidate any
   deputies who hesitated in the 'cause of the Nation.' The
   Moderates, on the other hand, were divided in mind; a
   majority, perhaps, condemning the King, but also wishing to
   spare his life: and the Gironde leaders, halting between their
   convictions, their feelings, their desires, and their fears,
   shrank from a courageous and resolute course. The result was
   such as usually follows when energy and will encounter
   indecision. On January 14 [the 15th, according to Thiers and
   others], 1793, the Convention declared Louis XVI. guilty, and
   on the following day [the speaking and voting lasted through
   the night of the 16th and the day after it] sentence of
   immediate death was pronounced by a majority of one [but the
   minority, in this view, included 26 votes that were cast for
   death but in favor of a postponement of the penalty, on
   grounds of political expediency], proposals for a respite and
   an appeal to the people having been rejected at the critical
   moment. The votes had been taken after a solemn call of the
   deputies at a sitting protracted for days; and the spectacle
   of the vast dim hall, of the shadowy figures of the awestruck
   judges meting out the fate of their former Sovereign, and tier
   upon tier of half-seen faces, looking, as in a theatre, on the
   drama below, and breaking out into discordant clamor, made a
   fearful impression on many eye-witnesses. One vote excited a
   sensation of disgust even among the most ruthless chiefs of
   the Mountain, though it was remarked that many of the
   abandoned women who crowded the galleries shrieked
   approbation. The Duke of Orleans, whose Jacobin professions
   had caused him to be returned for Paris, with a voice in which
   effrontery mingled with terror, pronounced for the immediate
   execution of his kinsman. The minister of justice—Danton had
   resigned—announced on the 20th the sentence to the King. The
   captive received the message calmly, asked for three days to
   get ready to die (a request, however, at once refused), and
   prayed that he might see his family and have a confessor."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      The French Revolution, and First Empire,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 44-72._

      _A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
      Private Memoirs, relative to the last year of Louis XVI.,
      chapters 39-40._

      _J. B. Cléry,
      Journal of Occurrences at the Temple._

FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-February).
   Determination to incorporate the Austrian Netherlands and to
   attack Holland.
   Pitt's unavailing struggle for peace.
   England driven to arms.
   War with the Maritime Powers declared by the French.

   "Since the beginning of December, the French government had
   contracted their far-reaching schemes within definite limits.
   They were compelled to give up the hope of revolutionizing the
   German Empire and establishing a Republic in the British
   Islands; but they were all the more determined in the resolve
   to subject the countries which had hitherto been occupied in
   the name of freedom, to the rule of France. This object was
   more especially pursued in Belgium by Danton and three other
   deputies, who were sent as Commissioners of the Convention to
   that country on the 30th of November. They were directed to
   enquire into the condition of the Provinces, and to consider
   Dumouriez's complaints against Pache [the Minister at War] and
   the Committee formed to purchase supplies for the army."
   Danton became resolute in the determination to incorporate
   Belgium and pressed the project inexorably. "It was a matter
   of course that England would interpose both by word and deed
   directly France prepared to take possession of Belgium. …
   England had guaranteed the possession of Belgium to the
   Emperor in 1790—and the closing of the Scheldt to the Dutch,
   and its political position in Holland to the House of Orange
   in 1788. Under an imperative sense of her own interests, she
   had struggled to prevent the French from gaining a footing in
   Antwerp and Ostend. Prudence, fidelity to treaties, the
   retrospect of the past and the hopes of the future—all called
   loudly upon her not to allow the balance of Europe to be
   disturbed, and least of all in Belgium."

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   "The French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered
   its generals to enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt. To
   do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was
   already pressing every day harder upon Pitt [see ENGLAND: A.
   D. 1793-1796]. … Across the Channel his moderation was only
   taken for fear. … The rejection of his last offers indeed
   made a contest inevitable. Both sides ceased from diplomatic
   communications, and in February 1793 France issued her
   Declaration of War."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 22 (volume 6)._

      _Earl Stanhope,
      Life of Pitt,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      _Despatches of Earl Gower,
      page 256-309._

{1286}

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (January).
   The execution of the king.

   "To this conclusion, then, hast thou come, O hapless Louis!
   The Son of Sixty Kings is to die on the Scaffold by form of
   Law. Under Sixty Kings this same form of law, form of Society,
   has been fashioning itself together these thousand years; and
   has become, one way and other, a most strange Machine. Surely,
   if needful, it is also frightful, this Machine: dead, blind:
   not what it should be: which with swift stroke, or by cold
   slow torture, has wasted the lives and souls of innumerable
   men. And behold now a King himself or say rather Kinghood in
   his person, is to expire here in cruel tortures;—like a
   Phalaris shut in the belly of his own red-heated Brazen Bull!
   It is ever so; and thou shouldst know it, O haughty tyrannous
   man: injustice breeds injustice: curses and falsehoods do
   verily return 'always home,' wide as they may wander. Innocent
   Louis bears the sins of many generations: he too experiences
   that man's tribunal is not in this Earth: that if he had no
   higher one, it were not well with him. A King dying by such
   violence appeals impressively to the imagination; as the like
   must do, and ought to do. And yet at bottom it is not the King
   dying, but the man! Kingship is a coat: the grand loss is of
   the skin. The man from whom you take his Life, to him can the
   whole combined world do more? … A Confessor has come; Abbé
   Edgeworth, of Irish extraction, whom the King knew by good
   report, has come promptly on this solemn mission. Leave the
   Earth alone, then, thou hapless King; it with its malice will
   go its way, thou also canst go thine. A hard scene yet
   remains: the parting with our loved ones. Kind hearts,
   environed in the same grim peril with us; to be left here! Let
   the reader look with the eyes of Valet Cléry through these
   glass-doors, where also the Municipality watches: and see the
   cruelest of scenes: 'At half-past eight, the door of the
   ante-room opened: the Queen appeared first, leading her Son by
   the hand: then Madame Royale and Madame Elizabeth: they all
   flung themselves into the arms of the King. Silence reigned
   for some minutes; interrupted only by sobs.' … For nearly
   two hours this agony lasts; then they tear themselves asunder.
   'Promise that you will see us on the morrow.' He promises:
   —Ah yes, yes: yet once; and go now, ye loved ones: cry to God
   for yourselves and met!—It was a hard scene, but it is over.
   He will not see them on the morrow. The Queen in passing
   through the ante-room, glanced at the Cerberus Municipals;
   and, with woman's vehemence, said through her tears, 'Vous
   étes tous des scélérats.' King Louis slept sound, till five in
   the morning, when Cléry, as he had been ordered, awoke him.
   Cléry dressed his hair: while this went forward, Louis took a
   ring from his watch, and kept trying it on his finger: it was
   his wedding-ring, which he is now to return to the Queen as a
   mute farewell. At half-past six, he took the Sacrament, and
   continued in devotion, and conference with Abbé Edgeworth. He
   will not see his family: it were too hard to bear. At eight
   the Municipals enter: the King gives them his Will, and
   messages and effects; which they, at first, brutally refuse to
   take charge of: he gives them a roll of gold pieces, a hundred
   and twenty-five louis; these are to be returned to
   Malesherbes, who had lent them. At nine, Santerre says the
   hour is come. The King begs yet to retire for three minutes.
   At the end of three minutes, Santerre again says the hour is
   come. 'Stamping on the ground with his right-foot, Louis
   answers: Partons, Let us go.'—How the rolling of those drums
   comes in, through the Temple bastions and bulwarks, on the
   heart of a queenly wife; soon to be a widow! He is gone, then,
   and has not seen us? … At the Temple Gate were some faint
   cries, perhaps from voices of pitiful women: Grace! Grace!
   Through the rest of the streets there is silence as of the
   grave. No man not armed is allowed to be there: the armed, did
   any even pity, dare not express it, each man overawed by all
   his neighbours. All windows are down, none seen looking
   through them. All shops are shut. No wheel-carriage rolls,
   this morning, in these streets but one only. 80,000 armed men
   stand ranked, like armed statues of men; cannons bristle,
   cannoneers with match burning, but no word or movement: it is
   as a city enchanted into silence and stone: one carriage with
   its escort, slowly rumbling, is the only sound. Louis reads,
   in his Book of Devotion, the Prayers of the Dying: clatter of
   this death-march falls sharp on the ear, in the great silence;
   but the thought would fain struggle heavenward, and forget the
   Earth. As the clock strikes ten, behold the Place de la
   Revolution, once Place de Louis Quinze: the Guillotine,
   mounted near the old Pedestal where once stood the Statue of
   that Louis! Far round, all bristles with cannons and armed
   men: spectators crowding in the rear; D'Orléans Egalité there
   in cabriolet. … Heedless of all Louis reads his Prayers of
   the Dying; not till five minutes yet has he finished: then the
   Carriage opens. What temper he is in? Ten different witnesses
   will give ten different accounts of it. He is in the collision
   of all tempers; arrived now at the black Mahlstrom and descent
   of Death: in sorrow, in indignation, in resignation struggling
   to be resigned. 'Take care of M. Edgeworth,' he straitly
   charges the Lieutenant who is sitting with them: then they two
   descend. The drums are beating: 'Taisez-vous, Silence!' he
   cries 'in a terrible voice, d'une voix terrible.' He mounts
   the scaffold, not without delay; he is in puce coat, breeches
   of gray, white stockings. He strips off the coat; stands
   disclosed in a sleeve-waistcoat of white flannel. The
   executioners approach to bind him: he spurns, resists; Abbé
   Edgeworth has to remind him how the Saviour, in whom men
   trust, submitted to be bound. His hands are tied, his head
   bare; the fatal moment is come. He advances to the edge of the
   Scaffold, 'his face very red,' and says: 'Frenchmen, I die
   innocent: it is from the Scaffold and near appearing before
   God that I tell you so. I pardon my enemies; I desire that
   France—' A General on horseback, Santerre or another, prances
   out with uplifted hand: 'Tambours!' The drums drown the voice.
   'Executioners, do your duty!' The Executioners, desperate lest
   themselves be murdered (for Santerre and his Armed Ranks will
   strike, if they do not), seize the hapless Louis: six of them
   desperate, him singly desperate, struggling there; and bind
   him to their plank. Abbé Edgeworth, stooping, bespeaks him:
   'Son of Saint Louis, ascend to Heaven.' The Axe clanks down; a
   King's Life is shorn away. It is Monday the 21st of January
   1793. He was aged 38 years four months and 28 days.
{1287}
   Executioner Samson shows the Head: fierce shouts of Vive la
   République rises, and swells; caps raised on bayonets, hats
   waving: students of the College of Four Nations take it up, on
   the far Quais; fling it over Paris. D'Orléans drives off in
   his cabriolet: the Townhall Councillors rub their hands,
   saying, 'It is done, It is done.' … In the coffee-houses
   that evening, says Prudhomme, Patriot shook hands with Patriot
   in a more cordial manner than usual. Not till some days after,
   according to Mercier, did public men see what a grave thing it
   was. A grave thing it indisputably is; and will have
   consequences. … At home this Killing of a King has divided
   all friends; and abroad it has united all enemies. Fraternity
   of Peoples, Revolutionary Propagandism; Atheism, Regicide;
   total destruction of social order in this world! All Kings,
   and lovers of Kings, and haters of Anarchy, rank in coalition;
   as in a war for life."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 3, book 2, chapter 8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
   Increasing anarchy.
   Degradation of manners.
   Formation of the terrible Revolutionary Tribunal.
   Treacherous designs of Dumouriez.
   His invasion of Holland.
   His defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
   His flight to the enemy.

   "While the French were … throwing down the gauntlet to all
   Europe, their own country seemed sinking into anarchical
   dissolution. Paris was filled with tumult, insurrection and
   robbery. At the denunciations of Marat against 'forestallers,'
   the shops were entered by the mob, who carried off articles at
   their own prices, and sometimes without paying at all. The
   populace was agitated by the harangues of low itinerant
   demagogues. Rough and brutal manners were affected, and all
   the courtesies of life abolished. The revolutionary leaders
   adopted a dress called the 'carmagnole,' consisting of
   enormous black pantaloons, a short jacket, a three-coloured
   waistcoat, and a Jacobite wig of short black hair, a terrible
   moustache, the 'bonnet rouge,' and an enormous sabre. [The
   name Carmagnole was also given to a tune and a dance; it is
   supposed to have borne originally some reference not now
   understood to Carmagnola in Piedmont.] Moderate persons of no
   strong political opinions were denounced as 'suspected,' and
   their crime stigmatised by the newly coined word of
   'moderantisme.' The variations of popular feeling were
   recorded like the heat of the weather, or the rising of a
   flood. The principal articles in the journals were entitled
   'Thermometer of the Public Mind;' the Jacobins talked of …
   being 'up to the level.' Many of the provinces were in a
   disturbed state. A movement had been organising in Brittany
   ever since 1791, but the death of the Marquis de la Rouarie,
   its principal leader, had for the present suspended it. A more
   formidable insurrection was preparing in La Vendée. … It was
   in the midst of these disturbances, aggravated by a suspicion
   of General Dumouriez's treachery, which we shall presently
   have to relate, that the terrible court known as the
   Revolutionary Tribunal was established. It was first formally
   proposed in the Convention March 9th, by Carrier, the
   miscreant afterwards notorious by his massacres at Nantes,
   urged by Cambacérès on the 10th, and completed that very night
   at the instance of Danton, who rushed to the tribune, insisted
   that the Assembly should not separate, till the new Court had
   been organised. … The extraordinary tribunal of August 1792
   had not been found to work fast enough, and it was now
   superseded by this new one, which became in fact only a method
   of massacring under the form of law. The Revolutionary
   Tribunal was designed to take cognisance of all
   counter-revolutionary attempts, of all attacks upon liberty,
   equality, the unity and indivisibility of the Republic, the
   internal and external safety of the State. A commission of six
   members of the Convention was to examine and report upon the
   cases to be brought before it, to draw up and present the acts
   of accusation. The tribunal was to be composed of a jury to
   decide upon the facts, five judges to apply the law, a public
   accuser, and two substitutes; from its sentence there was no
   appeal. Meanwhile Dumouriez had returned to the army, very
   dissatisfied that he had failed in his attempts to save the
   King and baffle the Jacobins. He had formed the design of
   invading Holland, dissolving the Revolutionary Committee in
   that country, annulling the decree of December 15th, offering
   neutrality to the English, a suspension of arms to the
   Austrians, reuniting the Belgian and Batavian republics, and
   proposing to France a re-union with them. In case of refusal,
   he designed to march upon Paris, dissolve the Convention,
   extinguish Jacobinism; in short, to play the part of Monk in
   England. This plan was confided to four persons only, among
   whom Danton is said to have been one. … Dumouriez, having
   directed General Miranda to lay siege to Maestricht, left
   Antwerp for Holland, February 22nd, and by March 4th had
   seized Breda, Klundert and Gertruydenberg. Austria, at the
   instance of England, had pushed forward 112,000 men under
   Prince Josias of Saxe-Coburg. Clairfait, with his army, at
   this time occupied Berghem, where he was separated from the
   French only by the little river Roer and the fortress of
   Juliers. Coburg, having joined Clairfait, March 1st, crossed
   the Roer, defeated the French under Dampierre at Altenhoven,
   and thus compelled Miranda to raise the siege of Maestricht,
   and retire towards Tongres. Aix-la-Chapelle was entered by the
   Austrians after a smart contest, and the French compelled to
   retreat upon Liege, while the divisions under Stengel and
   Neuilly, being cut off by this movement, were thrown back into
   Limburg. The Austrians then crossed the Meuse, and took Liege,
   March 6th. Dumouriez was now compelled to concentrate his
   forces at Louvain. From this place he wrote a threatening
   letter to the Convention, March 11th, denouncing the
   proceedings of the ministry, the acts of oppression committed
   in Belgium, and the decree of December 15th. This letter threw
   the Committee of General Defence into consternation. It was
   resolved to keep it secret, and Danton and Lacroix set off for
   Dumouriez's camp, to try what they could do with him, but
   found him inflexible. His proceedings had already unmasked his
   designs. At Antwerp he had ordered the Jacobin Club to be
   closed, and the members to be imprisoned, at Brussels he had
   dissolved the legion of 'sans-culottes.' Dumouriez was
   defeated by Prince Coburg at Neerwinden, March 18th, and again
   on the 22nd at Louvain. In a secret interview with the
   Austrian Colonel Mack, a day or two after, at Ath, he
   announced to that officer his intention to march on Paris and
   establish a constitutional monarchy, but nothing was said as
   to who was to wear the crown.
{1288}
   The Austrians were to support Dumouriez's advance upon Paris,
   but not to show themselves except in case of need, and he was
   to have the command of what Austrian troops he might select.
   The French now continued their retreat, which, in consequence
   of these negociations, was unmolested. The Archduke Charles
   and Prince Coburg entered Brussels March 25th, and the Dutch
   towns were shortly after retaken. When Dumouriez arrived with
   his van at Courtrai, he was met by three emissaries of the
   Jacobins, sent apparently to sound him. He bluntly told them
   that his design was to save France, whether they called him
   Cæsar, Cromwell or Monk, denounced the Convention as an
   assembly of tyrants, said that he despised their decrees. …
   At St. Amand he was met by Beurnonville, then minister of war,
   who was to supersede him in the command, and by four
   commissaries despatched by the Convention." Dumouriez arrested
   these, delivered them to Clairfait, and they were sent to
   Maestricht. "The allies were so sanguine that Dumouriez's
   defection would put an end to the Revolution, that Lord
   Auckland and Count Stahremberg, the Austrian minister, looking
   upon the dissolution and flight of the Convention as certain,
   addressed a joint note to the States-General, requesting them
   not to shelter such members of it as had taken any part in the
   condemnation of Louis XVI. But Dumouriez's army was not with
   him. On the road to Condé he was fired on by a body of
   volunteers and compelled to fly for his life (April 4th)." The
   day following he abandoned his army and went over to the
   Austrian quarters at Tournay, with a few companions, thus
   ending his political and military career. "The situation of
   France at this time seemed almost desperate. The army of the
   North was completely disorganised through the treachery of
   Dumouriez; the armies of the Rhine and Moselle were
   retreating; those of the Alps and Italy were expecting an
   attack; on the eastern side of the Pyrenees the troops were
   without artillery, without generals, almost without bread,
   while on the western side the Spaniards were advancing towards
   Bayonne. Brest, Cherbourg, the coasts of Brittany, were
   threatened by the English. The ocean ports contained only six
   ships of the line ready for sea, and the Mediterranean fleet
   was being repaired at Toulon. But the energy of the
   revolutionary leaders was equal to the occasion."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapter 5._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1-2._

      _C. MacFarlane,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

FRANCE: A. D: 1793 (March-April).
   The insurrection in La Vendee.

   "Ever since the abolition of royalty and the constitution of
   1790, that is, since the 10th of August, a condemnatory and
   threatening silence had prevailed in Normandy. Bretagne
   exhibited still more hostile sentiments, and the people there
   were engrossed by fondness for the priests and the gentry.
   Nearer to the banks of the Loire, this attachment amounted to
   insurrection; and lastly, on the left bank of that river, in
   the Bocage, Le Loroux, and La Vendée, the insurrection was
   complete, and large armies of ten and twenty thousand men were
   already in the field. … It was particularly on this left
   bank, in Anjou, and Upper and Lower Poitou, that the famous
   war of La Vendée had broken out. It was in this part of France
   that the influence of time was least felt, and that it had
   produced least change in the ancient manners. The feudal
   system had there acquired a truly patriarchal character; and
   the Revolution, instead of operating a beneficial reform in
   the country, had shocked the most kindly habits and been
   received as a persecution. The Bocage and the Marais
   constitute a singular country, which it is necessary to
   describe, in order to convey an idea of the manners of the
   population, and the kind of society that was formed there.
   Setting out from Nantes and Saumur and proceeding from the
   Loire to the sands of Olonne, Lucon, Fontenay, and Niort, you
   meet with an unequal undulating soil, intersected by ravines
   and crossed by a multitude of hedges, which serve to fence in
   each field, and which have on this account obtained for the
   country the name of the Bocage. As you approach the sea the
   ground declines, till it terminates in salt marshes, and is
   everywhere cut up by a multitude of small canals, which render
   access almost impossible. This is what is called the Marais.
   The only abundant produce in this country is pasturage,
   consequently cattle are plentiful. The peasants there grew
   only just sufficient corn for their own consumption, and
   employed the produce of their herds and flocks as a medium of
   exchange. It is well known that no people are more simple than
   those subsisting by this kind of industry. Few great towns had
   been built in these parts. They contained only large villages
   of two or three thousand souls. Between the two high-roads
   leading, the one from Tours to Poitiers, and the other from
   Nantes to La Rochelle, extended a tract thirty leagues in
   breadth, where there were none but cross-roads leading to
   villages and hamlets. The country was divided into a great
   number of small farms paying a rent of from five to six
   hundred francs, each let to a single family, which divided the
   produce of the cattle with the proprietor of the land. From
   this division of farms, the seigneurs had to treat with each
   family, and kept up a continual and easy intercourse with
   them. The simplest mode of life prevailed in the mansions of
   the gentry: they were fond of the chase, on account of the
   abundance of game; the gentry and the peasants hunted
   together, and they were all celebrated for their skill and
   vigour. The priests, men of extraordinary purity of character,
   exercised there a truly paternal ministry. … When the
   Revolution, so beneficent in other quarters, reached this
   country, with its iron level, it produced profound agitation.
   It had been well if it could have made an exception there, but
   that was impossible. … When the removal of the non-juring
   priests deprived the peasants of the ministers in whom they
   had confidence, they were vehemently exasperated, and, as in
   Bretagne, they ran into the woods and travelled to a
   considerable distance to attend the ceremonies of a worship,
   the only true one in their estimation. From that moment a
   violent hatred was kindled in their souls, and the priests
   neglected no means of fanning the flames. The 10th of August
   drove several Poitevin nobles back to their estates; the 21st
   of January estranged them, and they communicated their
   indignation to those about them. They did not conspire,
   however, as some have conceived.
{1289}
   The known dispositions of the country had incited men who were
   strangers to it to frame plans of conspiracy. One had been
   hatched in Bretagne, but none was formed in the Bocage; there
   was no concerted plan there; the people suffered themselves to
   be driven to extremity. At length, the levy of 300,000 men
   excited in the month of March a general insurrection. …
   Obliged to take arms, they chose rather to fight against the
   republic than for it. Nearly about the same time, that is, at
   the beginning of March, the drawing was the occasion of an
   insurrection in the Upper Bocage and in the Marais. On the
   10th of March, the drawing was to take place at St. Florent,
   near Ancenis, in Anjou. The young men refused to draw. The
   guard endeavoured to force them to comply. The military
   commandant ordered a piece of cannon to be pointed and fired
   at the mutineers. They dashed forward with their bludgeons,
   made themselves masters of the piece, disarmed the guard, and
   were, at the same time, not a little astonished at their own
   temerity. A carrier, named Cathelineau, a man highly esteemed
   in that part of the country, possessing great bravery and
   powers of persuasion, quitting his farm on hearing the
   tidings, hastened to join them, rallied them, roused their
   courage, and gave some consistency to the insurrection by his
   skill in keeping it up. The very same day he resolved to
   attack a republican post consisting of eighty men. The
   peasants followed him with their bludgeons and their muskets.
   After a first volley, every shot of which told, because they
   were excellent marksmen, they rushed upon the post, disarmed
   it, and made themselves master of the position. Next day,
   Cathelineau proceeded to Chemillé, which he likewise took, in
   spite of 200 republicans and three pieces of cannon. A
   gamekeeper at the château of Maulevrier, named Stofflet, and a
   young peasant of the village of Chanzeau, had on their part
   collected a band of peasants. These came and joined
   Cathelineau, who conceived the daring design of attacking
   Chollet, the most considerable town in the country, the chief
   place of a district, and guarded by 500 republicans. … The
   victorious band of Cathelineau entered Chollet, seized all the
   arms that it could find, and made cartridges out of the
   charges of the cannon. It was always in this manner that the
   Vendeans procured ammunition. … Another much more general
   revolt had broken out in the Marais and the department of La
   Vendée. At Machecoul and Challans, the recruiting was the
   occasion of a universal insurrection. … Three hundred
   republicans were shot by parties of 20 or 30. …In the
   department of La Vendée, that is, to the south of the theatre
   of this war, the insurrection assumed still more consistence.
   The national guards of Fontenay, having set out on their march
   for Chantonnay, were repulsed and beaten. Chantonnay was
   plundered. General Verteuil, who commanded the 11th military
   division, on receiving intelligence of this defeat, dispatched
   General Marcé with 1,200 men, partly troops of the line, and
   partly national guards. The rebels who were met at St.
   Vincent, were repulsed. General Marcé had time to add 1,200
   more men and nine pieces of cannon to his little army. In
   marching upon St. Fulgent, he again fell in with the Vendeans
   in a valley and stopped to restore a bridge which they had
   destroyed. About four in the afternoon of the 18th of March,
   the Vendeans, taking the initiative, advanced and attacked him
   … and made themselves masters of the artillery, the
   ammunition, and the arms, which the soldiers threw away that
   they might be the lighter in their flight. These more
   important successes in the department of La Vendée properly so
   called, procured for the insurgents the name of Vendeans,
   which they afterwards retained, though the war was far more
   active out of La Vendée. The pillage committed by them in the
   Marais caused them to be called brigands, though the greater
   number did not deserve that appellation. The insurrection
   extended into the Marais from the environs of Nantes to Les
   Sables, and into Anjou and Poitou, as far as the environs of
   Vihiers and Parthenay. … Easter recalled all the insurgents
   to their homes, from which they never would stay away long. To
   them a war was a sort of sporting excursion of several days;
   they carried with them a sufficient quantity of bread for the
   time, and then returned to inflame their neighbours by the
   accounts which they gave. Places of meeting were appointed for
   the month of April. The insurrection was then general and
   extended over the whole surface of the country. It might be
   comprised in a line which, commencing at Nantes, would pass
   through Pornic, the Isle of Noirmoutiers, Les Sables, Luçon,
   Fontenay, Niort, and Parthenay, and return by Airvault,
   Thouar, Doué, and St. Florent, to the Loire. The insurrection,
   begun by men who were not superior to the peasants whom they
   commanded, excepting by their natural qualities, was soon
   continued by men of a higher rank. The peasants went to the
   mansions and forced the nobles to put themselves at their
   head. The whole Marais insisted on being commanded by
   Charette. … In the Bocage, the peasants applied to Messrs.
   de Bonchamps, d'Elbée, and de Laroche-Jacquelein, and forced
   them from their mansions to place them at their head." These
   gentlemen were afterwards joined by M. de Lescure, a cousin of
   Henri de Laroche-Jacquelin.

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 146-152._

      ALSO IN
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe,
      chapter 12, (volume 3)._

      _Marquise de Larochejaquelein,
      Memoirs._

      _Henri Larochejaquelein and the War in La Vendée,
      (Chambers Miscellany, volume 2)._

      _L. I. Guiney,
      Monsieur Henri
      (de La Rochejaquelein.)_

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-June).
   Vigorous measures of the Revolutionary government.
   The Committee of Public Safety.
   The final struggle of Jacobins and Girondins.
   The fall of the Girondins.

   The news of the defeat of Dumouriez at Neerwinden, which
   reached Paris on the 21st, "brought about two important
   measures. Jean Debry, on behalf of the Diplomatic Committee,
   proposed that all strangers should be expelled from France
   within eight days who could not give a good reason for their
   residence, and on the same evening the Committee of General
   Defence was reorganized and placed on another footing. This
   committee had come into existence in January, 1793. It
   originally consisted of 21 members, who were not directly
   elected by the Convention, but were chosen from the seven most
   important committees.
{1290}
   But now, after the news of Neerwinden, a powerful committee
   was directly elected. It consisted of 24 members, and the
   first committee contained nine Girondins, nine deputies of the
   Plain, and six Jacobins, including every representative man in
   the Convention. … The new Committee was given the greatest
   powers, and after first proposing to the Convention that the
   penalty of death should be decreed against every emigre over
   fourteen, and to everyone who protected an emigre, it proposed
   that Dumouriez should be summoned to the bar of the
   Convention." Early in April, news of the desertion of
   Dumouriez and the retreat of Custine, "made the Convention
   decide on yet further measures to strengthen the executive.
   Marat, who, like Danton and Robespierre, was statesman enough
   to perceive the need of strengthening the executive, proposed
   that enlarged powers should be given to the committees; and
   Isnard, as the reporter of the Committee of General Defence,
   proposed the establishment of a smaller committee of nine,
   with supreme and unlimited executive powers—a proposal which
   was warmly supported by every statesman in the Convention. …
   It is noticeable that every measure which strengthened the
   terror when it was finally established was decreed while the
   Girondins could command a majority in: the Convention, and
   that it was a Girondin, Isnard, who proposed the immense
   powers of the Committee of Public Safety [Comité de Salut
   Public]. Upon April 6 Isnard brought up a decree defining the
   powers of the new committee. It was to consist of nine
   deputies; to confer in secret; to have supreme executive
   power, and authority to spend certain sums of' money without
   accounting for them, and it was to present a weekly report to
   the Convention. These immense powers were granted under the
   pressure of news from the frontier, and it was obvious that it
   would not be long before such a powerful executive could
   conquer the independence of the Convention. Isnard's proposals
   were opposed by Buzot, but decreed; and on April 7 the first
   Committee of Public Safety was elected. It consisted of the
   following members:—Barère, Delmas, Bréard, Cambon, Danton,
   Guyton-Morveau, Treilhard, Lacroix, and Robert Lindet. The
   very first proposal of the new committee was that it should
   appoint three representatives with every army from among the
   deputies of the Convention, with unlimited powers, who were to
   report to the committee itself. This motion was followed by a
   very statesmanlike one from Danton. He perceived the folly of
   the decree of November 18, which declared universal war
   against all kings. … On his proposition the fatal decree …
   was withdrawn, and it was made possible for France again to
   enter into the comity of European nations. It is very obvious
   that it was the foreign war which had developed the progress
   of the Revolution with such astonishing rapidity in France. It
   was Brunswick's manifesto which mainly caused the attack on
   the Tuileries on August 10; it was the surrender of Verdun
   which directly caused the massacres of September. It was the
   battle of Neerwinden which established the Revolutionary
   Tribunal, and that defeat and the desertion of Dumouriez which
   brought about the establishment of the Committee of Public
   Safety. The Girondins were chiefly responsible for the great
   war, and its first result was to destroy them as a party. …
   Their early influence over the deputies of the Plain rested on
   a belief in their statesmanlike powers, but as time went on
   that influence steadily diminished. It was in vain for Danton
   to attempt to make peace in the Convention; bitter words on
   both sides had left too strong an impression ever to be
   effaced. The Jacobin leaders despised the Girondins; the
   Girondins hated the Jacobins for having won away power from
   them. The Jacobins formed a small but very united body, of
   which every member knew its own mind; they were determined to
   carry on the Republic at all costs, and to destroy the
   Girondins as quickly as they could. … The desertion of
   Dumouriez had caused strong measures to be taken by the
   Convention, … and all parties had concurred. … But as soon
   as these important measures had been taken, which the majority
   of the Convention believed would enable France once more to
   free her frontiers from the invaders, the Girondins and
   Jacobins turned upon each other with redoubled ardour, and the
   death-struggle between them recommenced. The Girondins
   reopened the struggle with an attack upon Marat. Few steps
   could have been more foolish, for Marat, though in many ways a
   real statesman, had from the exaggeration of his language
   never obtained the influence in the Convention to which his
   abilities entitled him. … But he remained the idol of the
   people of Paris, and in attacking him the Girondins
   exasperated the people of Paris in the person of their beloved
   journalist. On April 11 Guadet read a placard in the
   Convention, which Marat had posted on the walls of Paris, full
   of his usual libellous abuse of the Girondins. It was referred
   to the Committee of Legislation with other writings of Marat,"
   and two days later, on the report of the Committee, it was
   voted by the Convention (half of its members being absent),
   that Marat should be sent before the Tribunal for trial. This
   called out immediate demonstrations from Marat's Parisian
   admirers. "On April 15, in the name of 35 sections of Paris,
   Pache and Hébert demanded the expulsion from the Convention of
   22 of the leading Girondists as 'disturbers of the public peace,'
   including Brissot, Guadet, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Buzot,
   Barbaroux, Louvet, Petion, and Lanjuinais. … On April 22 the
   trial of Marat took place. He was unanimously acquitted, although
   most of the judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal sympathized
   with the Girondins. … The acquittal of Marat was a fearful
   blow to the Girondin party; they had in no way discredited the
   Jacobins, and had only made themselves unpopular in Paris. …
   The Commune of Paris steadily organized the more advanced
   republicans of the city for an open attack upon the Girondins.
   … Throughout the month of May, preparations for the final
   struggle went on; it was recognized by both parties that they
   must appeal to force, and arrangements for appealing to force
   were made as openly for the coup d'état of May 31 as they had
   been for that of August 10. On the one side, the Commune of
   Paris steadily concentrated its armed strength and formed its
   plan of action; on the other, the leading Girondins met daily
   at the house of Valazé, and prepared to move decrees in the
   Convention.'" But the Girondins were still divided among
   themselves.
{1291}
   Some wished to appeal to the provinces, against Paris, which
   meant civil war; others opposed this as unpatriotic. On the
   31st of May, and on the two days following, the Commune of
   Paris called out its mob to execute the determined coup
   d'état. On the last of these three days (June 2), the
   Convention surrounded, imprisoned and terrorized by armed
   ruffians, led by Henriot, lately appointed Commander of the
   National Guard, submissively decreed that the proscribed
   Girondin deputies, with others, to the number altogether of
   31, should be placed under arrest in their own houses. This
   "left the members of the Mountain predominant in the
   Convention. The deputies of the Marsh or Plain were now docile
   to the voice of the Jacobin leaders," whose supremacy was now
   without dispute. On the preceding day, an attempt had been
   made, on the order of the Commune, to arrest M. Roland and two
   others of the ministers. Roland escaped, but Madame Roland,
   the more important Girondist leader, was taken and consigned
   to the Abbaye.

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 7-8._

      ALSO IN
      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 4, chapter 13._

      _W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 37 (volume 2)._

      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 7, chapters 1-3 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-September).
   Formation of the great European Coalition against
   Revolutionary France.
   The seeds of dissension and weakness in it.

   "The impression made at St. Petersburg by the execution of
   Louis was fully as vivid as at London: already it was evident
   that these two capitals were the centres of the great contest
   which was approaching. … An intimate and confidential
   correspondence immediately commenced between Count Woronzoff,
   the Russian ambassador at London, and Lord Grenville, the
   British secretary of state for foreign affairs, which
   terminated in a treaty between the powers, signed in London on
   the 25th of March. By this convention, which laid the basis of
   the grand alliance which afterwards brought the war to a
   glorious termination, it was provided that the two powers
   should 'employ their respective forces, as far as
   circumstances shall permit, in carrying on the just and
   necessary war in which they find themselves engaged against
   France; and they reciprocally engage not to lay down their
   arms without restitution of all the conquests which may have
   been made upon either of the respective powers, or upon such
   other states or allies to whom, by common consent, they shall
   extend the benefit of this treaty.' … Shortly after [April
   25], a similar convention was entered into between Great
   Britain and Sardinia, by which the latter power was to receive
   an annual subsidy of £200,000 during the whole continuance of
   the war, and the former to keep on foot an army of 50,000 men;
   and the English government engaged to procure for it entire
   restitution of its dominions as they stood at the commencement
   of the war. By another convention, with the cabinet of Madrid,
   signed at Aranjuez on the 25th of May, they engaged not to
   make peace till they had obtained full restitution for the
   Spaniards 'of all places, towns, and territories which
   belonged to them at the commencement of the war, and which the
   enemy may have taken during its continuance.' A similar treaty
   was entered into with the court of the Two Sicilies, and with
   Prussia [July 12 and 14], in which the clauses, prohibiting
   all exportation to France, and preventing the trade of
   neutrals with it, were the same as in the Russian treaty.
   Treaties of the same tenor were concluded in the course of the
   summer with the Emperor of Germany [August 30], and the King
   of Portugal [September 26]. Thus was all Europe arrayed in a
   great league against Republican France, and thus did the
   regicides of that country, as the first fruits of their cruel
   triumph, find themselves excluded from the pale of civilized
   nations. … But while all Europe thus resounded with the note
   of military preparation against France, Russia had other and
   more interested designs in view. Amidst the general
   consternation at the triumphs of the French republicans,
   Catharine conceived that she would be permitted to pursue,
   without molestation, her ambitious designs against Poland [See
   POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796]. She constantly represented the
   disturbances in that kingdom as the fruit of revolutionary
   propagandism, which it was indispensable to crush in the first
   instance. … The ambitious views of Prussia were also …
   strongly turned in the same direction. … Nor was it only the
   ambitious projects of Russia and Prussia against the
   independence of Poland which already gave ground for gloomy
   augury as to the issue of the war. Its issue was more
   immediately affected by the jealousy of Austria and Prussia,
   which now broke out in the most undisguised manner, and
   occasioned such a division of the allied forces as effectually
   prevented any cordial or effective co-operation continuing to
   exist between them. The Prussian cabinet, mortified at the
   lead which the Imperial generals took in the common
   operations, insisted upon the formation of two independent
   German armies; one composed of Prussians, the other of
   Austrians, to one or other of which the forces of all the
   minor states should be joined: those of Saxony, Hanover, and
   Hesse being grouped around the standards of Prussia; those of
   Bavaria, Wirtemburg, Swabia, the Palatinate, and Franconia,
   following the double-headed eagles of Austria. By this means,
   all unity of action between the two grand allied armies was
   broken up. … Prince Cobourg was appointed generalissimo of
   the allied Armies from the Rhine to the German ocean." In
   April, a corps of 20,000 English had been landed in Holland,
   "under the command of the Duke of York, and being united to
   10,000 Hanoverians and Hessians, formed a total of 30,000 men
   in British pay." Holland, as an ally of England, was already
   in the Coalition, the French having declared war, in February,
   against the two maritime powers, simultaneously.

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe,
      chapter 13 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume  6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3_.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (April-August):
   Minister Genet in America.
   Washington's proclamation of neutrality.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

{1292}

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June).
   Flight of most of the Girondists.
   Their appeal to the country.
   Insurrection in the provinces.
   The rising at Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Toulon.
   Progress of the Vendean revolt.

   "After this day [of the events which culminated on the 2d of
   June, but which are commonly referred to as being of 'the 31st
   of May,' when they began], when the people made no other use
   of their power than to display and to exercise the pressure of
   Paris over the representation, they separated without
   committing any excess. … La Montaigne caused the committees
   to be reinstated on the morrow, with the exception of that of
   public safety. They threw into the majority their most decided
   members. … They deposed those ministers suspected of
   attachment to the' conquered; sent commissioners into the
   doubtful departments; annulled the project of the constitution
   proposed by the Girondists; and charged the committee of
   safety to draw up in eight days a project for the constitution
   entirely democratical. They pressed forward the recruiting and
   armament of the revolutionary army—that levy of patriotism en
   masse. They decreed a forced loan of a million upon the rich.
   They sent one after the other, accused upon accused, to the
   revolutionary tribunal. Their sittings were no longer
   deliberation, but cursory motions, decreed on the instant by
   acclamation, and sent immediately to the different committees
   for execution. They stripped the executive power of the little
   independence and responsibility it heretofore retained.
   Continually called into the bosom of their committees,
   ministers became no more than the passive executors of the
   measures they decreed. From this day, also, discussion was at
   an end; action was all. The disappearance of the Girondists
   deprived the Revolution of its voice. Eloquence was proscribed
   with Vergniaud, with the exception of those few days when the
   great party chiefs, Danton and Robespierre, spoke, not to
   refute opinions, but to intimate their will, and promulgate
   their orders. The Assemblies became almost mute. A dead
   silence reigned henceforth in the Convention. In the meanwhile
   the 22 Girondists [excepting Vergniaud, Gensonné, Ducos,
   Tonfrède, and a few others, who remained under the decree of
   arrest, facing all consequences], the members of the
   Commission of Twelve, and a certain number of their friends,
   warned of their danger by this first blow of ostracism, fled
   into their departments, and hurried to protest against the
   mutilation of the country. … Robespierre, Danton, the
   Committee of Public Safety, and even the people themselves,
   seemed to shut their eyes to these evasions, as if desirous to
   be rid of victims whom it would pain them to strike. Buzot,
   Barbaroux, Guadet, Louvet, Salles, Pétion, Bergoing, Lesage,
   Cressy, Kervélégan and Lanjuinais, threw themselves into
   Normandy; and after having traversed it, inciting all the
   departments between Paris and the Ocean, established at Caen
   the focus and centre of insurrection against the tyranny of
   Paris. They gave themselves the name of the Central Assembly
   of Resistance to Oppression. Biroteau and Chasset had arrived
   at Lyons. The armed sections of this town were agitated with
   contrary and already bloody commotion [the Jacobin
   municipality having been overthrown, after hard fighting, and
   its chief, Chalier, put to death]. Brissot fled to Moulins,
   Robaut St. Etienne to Nismes. Grangeneuve, sent by Vergniaud,
   Tonfrède, and Ducos, to Bordeaux, raised troops ready to march
   upon the capital. Toulouse followed the same impulse of
   resistance to Paris. The departments of the west were on fire,
   and rejoiced to see the republic, torn into contending
   factions, offer them the aid of one of the two parties for the
   restoration of royalty. The mountainous centre of France …
   was agitated. … Marseilles enrolled 10,000 men at the voice
   of Rebecqui and the young friends of Barbaroux. They
   imprisoned the commissioners of the Convention, Roux and
   Antiboul. Royalty, always brooding in the south, insensibly
   transformed this movement of patriotism into a monarchical
   insurrection. Rebecqui, in despair … at seeing loyalty avail
   itself of the rising in the south, escaped remorse by suicide,
   throwing himself into the sea. Lyons and Bordeaux likewise
   imprisoned the envoys of the Convention as Maratists. The
   first columns of the combined army of the departments began to
   move in all directions; 6,000 Marseillais were already at
   Avignon, ready to reascend the Rhone, and form a junction with
   the insurgents of Nismes and of Lyons. Brittany and Normandy
   uniting, concentrated their first forces at Evreux."

      _A de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      book 43 (volume 3)._

    The royalists of the west, "during this almost general rising
    of the departments, continued to extend their enterprises.
    After their first victories, the Vendeans seized on Bressure,
    Argenton, and Thouars. Entirely masters of their own country,
    they proposed getting possession of the frontiers, and
    opening the way to revolutionary France, as well as
    communications with England. On the 6th of June, the Vendean
    army, composed of 40,000 men, under Cathelineau, Lescure,
    Stofflet, and La Rochejacquelin, marched on Saumur, which it
    took by storm. It then prepared to attack and capture Nantes,
    to secure the possession of its own country, and become
    masters of the course of the Loire. Cathelineau, at the head
    of the Vendean troops, left a garrison in Saumur, took
    Angers, crossed the Loire, pretended to advance upon Tours
    and Lemans, and then rapidly threw himself upon Nantes, which
    he attacked on the right bank, while Charette was to attack
    it on the left."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June-October).
   The new Jacobin Constitution postponed.
   Concentration of power in the Committee of Public Safety.
   The irresistible machine of revolutionary government.

   "It was while affairs were in this critical condition that the
   Mountain undertook the sole conduct of the government in
   France. They had hitherto resisted all attempts of the
   Girondists to establish a new constitution in place of that of
   1791. They now undertook the work themselves, and in four days
   drew up a constitution, as simple as it was democratic, which
   was issued on the 24th of June. Every citizen of the age of 21
   could vote directly in the election of deputies, who were
   chosen for a year at a time and were to sit in a single
   assembly. The assembly had the sole power of making laws, but
   a period was fixed during which the constituents could protest
   against its enactments. The executive power was entrusted to
   24 men, who were chosen by the assembly from candidates
   nominated by electors chosen by the original voters. Twelve
   out of the 24 were to be renewed every six months. But this
   constitution was intended merely to satisfy the departments,
   and was never put into practice. The condition of France
   required a greater concentration of power, and this was
   supplied by the Committee of Public Safety.
{1293}
   Ever since the 6th of April the original members of the
   Committee had been re-elected, but on the 10th of July its
   composition was changed. Danton ceased to be a member, and
   Barère was joined by Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon,
   Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois, and, in a short time,
   Carnot. These men became the absolute rulers of France. The
   Committee had no difficulty in carrying their measures in the
   Convention, from which the opposition party had disappeared.
   All the state obligations were rendered uniform and inscribed
   in 'the great book of the national debt.' The treasury was
   filled by a compulsory loan from the rich. Every income
   between 1,000 and 10,000 francs had to pay ten per cent., and
   every excess over 10,000 francs had to be contributed in its
   entirety for one year. To recruit the army a levee en masse
   was decreed. 'The young men shall go to war; the married men
   shall forge arms and transport supplies; the wives shall make
   tents and clothes and serve in the hospitals; the children
   shall tear old linen into lint; the aged shall resort to the
   public places to excite the courage of the warriors and hatred
   against kings.' Nor were measures neglected against domestic
   enemies. On the 6th of September a revolutionary army,
   consisting of 6,000 men and 1,200 artillery men, was placed at
   the disposal of the Committee to carry out its orders
   throughout France. On the 17th the famous 'law of the
   suspects' was carried. Under the term  'suspect' were included
   all those who by words, acts or writings had shown themselves
   in favour of monarchy or of federalism, the relatives of the
   emigrants, etc., and they were to be imprisoned until the
   peace. As the people were in danger of famine, a maximum
   price, already established for corn, was decreed for all
   necessaries; if a merchant gave up his trade he became a
   suspect, and the hoarding of provisions was punished by death.
   On the 10th of October the Convention definitely transferred
   its powers to the Committee, by subjecting all officials to
   its authority and by postponing the trial of the new
   constitution until the peace."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 23, section 11._

   The Committee of Public Safety—the "Revolutionary
   Government," as Danton had named it, on the 2d of August, when
   he demanded the fearful powers that were given to
   it—"disposed of all the national forces; it appointed and
   dismissed the ministers, generals, Representatives on Mission,
   the judges and juries of the Revolutionary Tribunal. The
   latter instrument became its strong arm; it was, in fact, a
   court martial worked by civil magistrates. By its agents it
   directed the departments and armies, the political situation
   without and within, striking down at the same time the rebels
   within and the enemies without: for, together with the
   constitution were, of course, suspended the municipal laws and
   the political machinery of the communes; and thus cities and
   villages hitherto indifferent or opposed to the Revolution
   were republicanized. By the Tribunal it disposed of the
   persons of individuals; by requisition and the law of maximum
   (with which we are going to be better acquainted) it disposed
   of their fortunes. It can, indeed, be said that the whole of
   France was placed in a state of siege; but that was the price
   of its salvation. … But Danton has committed, a great
   mistake,—one that he and especially France, will come to rue.
   He has declined to become a member of the Revolutionary
   Government, which has been established on his motion. 'It is
   my firm resolve not to be a member of such a government,' he
   had said. In other words, he has declined re-election as a
   member of the Committee de Salut Public, now it has been
   erected into a dictatorship. He unfortunately lacked all
   ambition. … When afterwards, on September 8, one Gaston
   tells the Convention, 'Danton has a mighty revolutionary head.
   No one understands so well as he to execute what he himself
   proposes. I therefore move that he be added to the
   Revolutionary Government, in spite of his protest,' and it is
   so unanimously ordered, he again peremptorily declines. 'No, I
   will not be a member; but as a spy on it I intend to work.' A
   most fateful resignation! for while he still for a short time
   continues to exercise his old influence on the government,
   both from the outside, in his own person, and inside the
   Committee, in the person of Hérault de Sechelles, selected in
   his place, he very soon loses ground more and more,—so much
   so even that Hérault, his friend, is 'put in quarantine,' as
   was said in the Committee. And very natural. A statesman
   cannot have power when he shirks responsibility, and without
   power he soon loses all influence with the multitude. Those
   who now succeed him in power are Robespierre, Barère,
   Billaud-Varennes, and Carnot,—the two last very good working
   members, good men of the second rank, but after Danton not a
   single man is left fit to be leader."

      _L. Gronlund,
      Ça Ira! or Danton in the French Revolution,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN
      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution.
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 1, and appendix 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July).
   The assassination of Marat.

   "Amongst those who had placed faith in the Girondists and
   their ideals was a young woman of Normandy, Charlotte Corday.
   … When the mob of Paris rose and drove with insult from the
   Convention those who in her eyes were the heroic defenders of
   the universal principles of truth and justice, she bitterly
   resented the wrong that had been done, not only to the men
   themselves, but to that France of which she regarded them as
   the true representatives. Owing to Marat's persistent cry for
   a dictatorship and for shedding of blood, it was he who, in
   the departments, was accounted especially responsible both for
   the expulsion of the Girondists and for the tyranny which now
   began to weigh as heavily upon the whole country as it had
   long weighed upon the capital. Incapable as all then were of
   comprehending the causes which had brought about the fall of
   the Girondists, Charlotte Corday imagined that by putting an
   end to this man's life, she could also put an end to the
   system of government which he advocated. Informing her friends
   that she wished to visit England, she left Caen and travelled
   in the diligence to Paris. On her arrival she purchased a
   knife, and afterwards obtained entrance into Marat's house on
   the pretext that she brought news which she desired to
   communicate to him. She knew that he would be eager to obtain
   intelligence of the movements of the Girondist deputies still
   in Normandy. Marat was ill at the time, and in a bath when
   Charlotte Corday was admitted.
{1294}
   She gave him the names of the deputies who were at Caen. 'In a
   few days,' he said, as he wrote them hastily down, 'I will
   have them all guillotined in Paris.' As she heard these words
   she plunged the knife into his body and killed him on the
   spot. The cry uttered by the murdered man was heard, and
   Charlotte, who did not attempt to escape, was captured and
   conveyed to prison amid the murmurs of an angry crowd. It had
   been from the first her intention to sacrifice her life for
   the cause of her country, and, glorying in her deed, she met
   death with stoical indifference. 'I killed one man,' she said,
   when brought before the revolutionary court, 'in order to save
   the lives of 100,000 others.' … His [Marat's] murder brought
   about contrary results to those which the woman who ignorantly
   and rashly had flung away her life hoped by the sacrifice to
   effect. … He was regarded as a martyr by no small portion of
   the working population of Paris. … His murder excited
   indignation beyond the comparatively narrow circle of those
   who took an active part in political life, while at the same
   time it added a new impulse to the growing cry for blood."

      _B. M. Gardiner,
      The French Revolution,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Mac Farlane,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 3, chapter 13._

      _J. Michelet,
      Women of the French Revolution,
      chapter 18-19._

      _Mrs. R. K. Van Alstine,
      Charlotte Corday._

      _A. Dobson,
      Four French Women,
      chapter 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
   The civil war.
   Sieges of Lyons and Toulon.
   Submission of Caen, Marseilles and Bordeaux.
   Crushing of the Vendeans.

   "The insurgents in Calvados [Normandy] were easily suppressed;
   at the very first skirmish at Vernon [July 13], the insurgent
   troops fled. Wimpfen endeavoured to rally them in vain. The
   moderate class, those who had taken up the defence of the
   Girondists, displayed little ardour or activity. When the
   constitution was accepted by the other departments, it saw the
   opportunity for admitting that it had been in error, when it
   thought it was taking arms against a mere factious minority.
   This retractation was made at Caen, which had been the
   headquarters of the revolt. The Mountain commissioners did not
   sully this first victory with executions. General Carteaux on
   the other hand, marched at the head of some troops against the
   sectionary army of the south; he defeated its force, pursued
   it to Marseilles, entered the town [August 23] after it, and
   Provence would have been brought into subjection like
   Calvados, if the royalists, who had taken refuge at Toulon,
   after their defeat, had not called in the English to their
   aid, and placed in their hands this key to France. Admiral
   Hood entered the town in the name of Louis XVII., whom he
   proclaimed king, disarmed the fleet, sent for 8,000 Spaniards
   by sea, occupied the surrounding forts, and forced Carteaux,
   who was advancing against Toulon, to fall back on Marseilles.
   Notwithstanding this check, the conventionalists succeeded in
   isolating the insurrection, and this was a great point. The
   Mountain commissioners had made their entry into the rebel
   capitals; Robert Lindet into Caen; Tallien into Bordeaux;
   Barras and Fréron into Marseilles. Only two towns remained to
   be taken Toulon and Lyons. A simultaneous attack from the
   south, west, and centre was no longer apprehended, and in the
   interior the enemy was only on the defensive. Lyons was
   besieged by Kellermann, general of the army of the Alps; three
   corps pressed the town on all sides. The veteran soldiers of
   the Alps, the revolutionary battalions and the newly levied
   troops, reinforced the besiegers every day. The people of
   Lyons defended themselves with all the courage of despair. At
   first, they relied on the assistance of the insurgents of the
   south; but these having been repulsed by Carteaux, the
   Lyonnese placed their last hope in the army of Piedmont, which
   attempted a diversion in their favour, but was beaten by
   Kellermann. Pressed still more energetically, they saw their
   first position carried. Famine began to be felt, and courage
   forsook them. The royalist leaders, convinced of the inutility
   of longer resistance, left the town, and the republican army
   entered the walls [October 9], where they awaited the orders
   of the convention. A few months after, Toulon itself [in the
   siege of which Napoleon Bonaparte commanded the artillery],
   defended by veteran troops and formidable fortifications, fell
   into the power of the republicans. The battalions of the army
   of Italy, reinforced by those which the taking of Lyons left
   disposable, pressed the place closely. After repeated attacks
   and prodigies of skill and valour, they made themselves
   masters of it, and the capture of Toulon finished what that of
   Lyons had begun [December 19]. Everywhere the convention was
   victorious. The Vendeans had failed in their attempt upon
   Nantes, after having lost many men, and their
   general-in-chief, Cathelineau. This attack put an end to the
   aggressive and previously promising movement of the Vendean
   insurrection. The royalists repassed the Loire, abandoned
   Saumur, and resumed their former cantonments. They were,
   however, still formidable; and the republicans, who pursued
   them, were again beaten in La Vendée. General Biron, who had
   succeeded General Berruyer, unsuccessfully continued the war
   with small bodies of troops; his moderation and defective
   system of attack caused him to be replaced by Canclaux and
   Rossignol, who were not more fortunate than he. There were two
   leaders, two armies, and two centres of operation; … The
   committee of public safety soon remedied this, by appointing
   one sole general-in-chief, Lechelle, and by introducing war on
   a large scale into La Vendée. This new method, aided by the
   garrison of Mayence, consisting of 17,000 veterans, who,
   relieved from operations against the coalesced powers after
   the capitulation, were employed in the interior, entirely
   changed the face of the war. The royalists underwent four
   consecutive defeats, two at Châtillon, two at Cholet [the last
   being October 17]. Lescure, Bonchamps, and d'Elbée were
   mortally wounded: and the insurgents, completely beaten in
   Upper Vendée, and fearing that they should be exterminated if
   they took refuge in Lower Vendée, determined to leave their
   country to the number of 80,000 persons. This emigration
   through Brittany, which they hoped to arouse to insurrection,
   became fatal to them. Repulsed before Granville, utterly
   routed at Mons [Le Mans, December 12], they were destroyed at
   Savenay [December 23], and barely a few thousand men, the
   wreck of this vast emigration, returned to Vendée. These
   disasters, irreparable for the royalist cause, the taking of
   their land of Noir-moutiers from Charette, the dispersion of
   the troops of that leader, the death of Laroche jacquelin,
   rendered the republicans masters of the country.
{1295}
   The committee of public safety, thinking, not without reason,
   that its enemies were beaten but not subjugated, adopted a
   terrible system of extermination to prevent them from rising
   again. General Thurreau surrounded Vendée with sixteen
   entrenched camps; twelve movable columns, called the infernal
   columns, overran the country in every direction, sword and
   fire in hand, scoured the woods, dispersed the assemblies, and
   diffused terror throughout this unhappy country."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 328-335,
      and 398-410._

      _Marchioness de Larochejaquelain,
      Memoirs._

      _A. des Echerolles,
      Early Life,
      volume 1, chapters 5-7._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
   Progress of the war of the Coalition.
   Dissensions among the Allies.
   Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
   French Victories of Hondschotten and Wattignies.
   Operations on the Rhine and elsewhere.

   "The civil war in which France for a moment appeared engulfed
   was soon confined to a few narrowing centres. What, in the
   meantime, had been the achievements of the mighty Coalition of
   banded Europe? Success, that might have been great, was
   attained on the Alpine and Pyrenean frontiers; and had the
   Piedmontese and Spaniards been well led they could have
   overrun Provence and Rousillon, and made the insurrection of
   the South fatal. But here, as elsewhere, the Allies did
   little; and, though defeated in almost every encounter, the
   republican levies held their ground against enemies who
   nowhere advanced. It was, however, in the North and the
   North-east that the real prize of victory was placed; and no
   doubt can exist that had unanimity in the councils of the
   Coalition prevailed, or had a great commander been in its
   camp, Paris might have been captured without difficulty, and
   the Revolution been summarily put down. But the Austrians, the
   Prussians, and the English, were divided in mind; they had no
   General capable of rising above the most ordinary routine of
   war; and the result was that the allied armies advanced
   tardily on an immense front, each leader thinking of his own
   plans only, and no one venturing to press forward boldly, or
   to pass the fortresses on the hostile frontiers, though
   obstacles like these could be of little use without the aid of
   powerful forces in the field. In this manner half the summer
   was lost in besieging Mayence, Valenciennes, and Condé; and
   when, after the fall of these places [July-August], an attempt
   was made to invade Picardy, dissensions between the Allies
   broke out, and the British contingent was detached to besiege
   Dunkirk, while the Austrians lingered in French Flanders,
   intent on enlarging by conquest Belgium, at that period an
   Austrian Province. Time was thus gained for the French armies,
   which, though they had made an honorable resistance, had been
   obliged to fall back at all points, and were in no condition
   to oppose their enemy; and the French army in the North,
   though driven nearly to the Somme, within a few marches of the
   capital, was allowed an opportunity to recruit its strength,
   and was not, as it might have been easily, destroyed. A part
   of the hastily raised levies was now incorporated in its
   ranks; and as these were largely composed of seasoned men from
   the old army of the Bourbon Monarchy, and from the volunteers
   of Valmy and Jemmapes, a respectable force was before long
   mustered. At the peremptory command of the Jacobin Government,
   this was at once directed against the invaders, who did not
   know what an invasion meant. The Duke of York, assailed with
   vigor and skill, was compelled to raise the siege of Dunkirk
   [by the French victory at Hondschotten, September 8]; and, to
   the astonishment of Europe, the divided forces of the halting
   and irresolute Coalition began to recede before the enemies,
   who saw victory yielded to them, and who, feeble soldiers as
   they often were, were nevertheless fired by ardent patriotism.
   As the autumn closed the trembling balance of fortune inclined
   decidedly on the side of the Republic. The French recruits,
   hurried to the frontier in masses, became gradually better
   soldiers, under the influence of increasing success. Carnot, a
   man of great but overrated powers, took the general direction
   of military affairs; and though his strategy was not sound, it
   was much better than the imbecility of his foes. At the same
   time, the Generals of the fallen Monarchy having disappeared,
   or, for the most part, failed, brilliant names began to emerge
   from the ranks, and to lead the suddenly raised armies; and
   though worthless selections were not seldom made, more than
   one private and sergeant gave proof of capacity of no common
   order. Terror certainly added strength to patriotism, for
   thousands were driven to the camp by force, and death was the
   usual penalty of a defeated chief; but it was not the less a
   great national movement, and high honor is justly due to a
   people which, in a situation that might have seemed hopeless,
   made such heroic: and noble efforts, even though it triumphed
   through the weakness of its foe. Owing to a happy inspiration
   of Carnot, a detachment was rapidly marched from the Rhine,
   where the Prussians remained in complete inaction; and with
   this reinforcement Jourdan gained a victory at Wattignies
   [October 16] over the Austrians, and opened the way into the
   Low Countries. At the close of the year the youthful Hoche,
   once a corporal, but a man of genius, who had given studious
   hours to the theory of war, divided Brunswick from the
   Austrian Würmser by a daring and able march through the
   Vosges; and the baffled Allies were driven out of Alsace, the
   borders of which they had just invaded. By these operations
   the great Northern frontier, the really vulnerable part of
   France, was almost freed from the invaders' presence; and,
   though less was achieved on the Southern frontier, the enemies
   of the Republic began to lose courage."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      The French Revolution,
      chapter 6._

   "The Prussians had remained wholly inactive for two months
   after the fall of Mayence, contenting themselves with watching
   the French in their lines at Weissenburg. Wearied at length by
   the torpor of his opponents, Moreau assumed the initiative,
   and attacked the Prussian corps at Pirmasens. This bold
   attempt was repulsed (September 14) with the loss of 4,000
   men; but it was not till a month later (October 13) that the
   Allies resumed the offensive, when the Weissenburg lines were
   stormed by a mixed force of Austrians and Prussians, and the
   French fled in confusion almost to Strasburg. But this
   important advantage led to no results, though the defeat of
   the Republican movement was hailed by a royalist movement in
   Alsace.
{1296}
   The Austrians, immovable in their plans of conquest, refused
   to occupy Strasburg in the name of Louis XVII.; and the
   unfortunate royalists, abandoned to Republican vengeance, were
   indiscriminately consigned to the guillotine by a decree of
   the Convention, while the confederate army was occupied in the
   siege of Landau. But the lukewarmness of the Prussians had now
   become so evident, that it was only by the most vehement
   remonstrances of the Austrian cabinet that they were prevented
   from seceding altogether from the league; and the Republicans,
   taking advantage of the disunion of their enemies, again
   attacked the Allies (December 26), who were routed and driven
   over the Rhine [abandoning the siege of Landau]; while the
   victors, following up their success, retook Spires, and
   advanced to the gates of Mannheim. The operations in the
   Pyrenees and on the side of Savoy, during this campaign, led
   to no important results. On the western extremity of the
   Pyrenees, the Spaniards [had] entered France in the middle of
   April, routed their opponents in several encounters, and drove
   them into St. Jean Pied-de-Poet. An invasion of Roussillon, at
   the same time, was equally successful; and the Spaniards
   maintained themselves in the province till the end of the
   year, taking the fortresses of Bellegarde and Collioure, and
   routing two armies which attempted to dislodge them, at Truellas
   (September 22) and Boulon (December 7). An attempt of the
   Sardinians to expel the French from their conquests in Savoy
   was less fortunate; and, at the close of the campaign, both
   parties remained in their former position."

      _A. Alison,
      Epitome of History of Europe,
      pages 58-59 (chapter 13,
      volume 4 of complete work)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 8, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

      _E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      volume 1, chapters 9-11._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (August).
   Emancipation in San Domingo proclaimed.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (September-December).
   The "Reign of Terror" becomes the "Order of the Day."
   Trial and execution of Marie Antoinette, Madame Roland, and
   the Girondists.

   "On the 16th of September, the Faubourg Saint-Antoine
   surrounded the Hôtel de Ville, clamoring for 'Bread.' Hébert
   and Chaumette appeased the mob by vociferous harangues against
   rich men and monopolists, and by promising to raise a
   revolutionary army with orders to scour the country, empty the
   granaries, and put the grain within reach of the people. 'The
   next thing will he a guillotine for the monopolists,' added
   Hébert. This had been demanded by memorials from the most
   ultra provincial Jacobins. The next day the Convention
   witnessed the terrible reaction of this scene. At the opening
   of the session Merlin de Douai proposed and carried a vote for
   the division of the revolutionary tribunal into four sections,
   in order to remedy the dilatoriness complained of by
   Robespierre and the Jacobins. The municipality soon arrived,
   followed by a great crowd; Chaumette, in a furious harangue,
   demanded a revolutionary army with a travelling guillotine.
   The ferocious Billaud-Varennes declared that this was not
   enough, and that all suspected persons must be arrested
   immediately. Danton interposed with the powerful eloquence of
   his palmy days; he approved of an immediate decree for the
   formation of a revolutionary army, but made no mention of the
   guillotine. … Danton's words were impetuous, but his ideas
   were politic and deliberate. His motions were carried, amid
   general acclamation. But the violent propositions of
   Billaud-Varennes and others were also carried. The decree
   forbidding domiciliary visits and night arrests, which had
   been due to the Girondists, was revoked. A deputation from the
   Jacobins and the sections demanded the indictment of the
   'monster' Brissot with his accomplices, Vergniaud, Gensonné,
   and other 'miscreants.' 'Lawgivers,' said the spokesman of the
   deputation, 'let the Reign of Terror be the order of the day!'
   Barère, in the name of the Committee of Public Safety,
   obtained the passage of a decree organizing an armed force to
   restrain counter-revolutionists and protect supplies. Fear led
   him to unite with the most violent, and to adopt the great
   motto of the Paris Commune, 'Let the Reign of Terror be the
   order of the day!' 'The royalists are conspiring,' he said;
   'they want blood. Well they shall have that of the
   conspirators, of the Brissots and Marie Antoinettes!' The
   association of these two names shows what frenzy prevailed in
   the minds of the people. The next day September 6, two of the
   most formidable Jacobins, the cold, implacable
   Billaud-Varennes and the fiery Collot d'Herbois, were added to
   the Committee of Public Safety. Danton persisted in his
   refusal to return to it. This proves how mistaken the
   Girondists had been in accusing him of aspiring to the
   dictatorship. He kept aloof from the Committee chiefly because
   he knew that they were lost, and did not wish to contribute to
   their fall. Before leaving the ministry Garat had tried to
   prevent the Girondists from being brought to trial; upon
   making known his wish to Robespierre and Danton, he found
   Robespierre implacable, while Danton, with tears coursing down
   his rugged cheeks replied, 'I cannot save them!' … On the 10th
   of October Saint-Just, in the name of the Committee of Public
   Safety, read to the Assembly an important report upon the
   situation of the Republic. It was violent and menacing to
   others beside the enemies of the Mountain; Hébert and his gang
   might well tremble. He inveighed not only against those who
   were plundering the government, but against the whole
   administration. … Saint-Just's report had been preceded on
   the 3d of October by a report from the new Committee of Public
   Safety, concluding with the indictment of 40 deputies; 39 were
   Girondists or friends of the Gironde; the fortieth was the
   ex-Duke of Orleans. Twenty-one of these 39 were now in the
   hands of their enemies, and of these 21 only 9 belonged to
   the first deputies indicted on the 2d of June; the remainder
   had left Paris hoping to organize outside resistance, and had
   been declared outlawed. The deputies subsequently added to
   this number were members of the Right who had signed protests
   against the violation of the national representation on that
   fatal day. … It was decided at the same session to bring the
   40 deputies, together with Marie Antoinette, to trial. The
   Jacobins and the commune had long been demanding the trial of
   the unhappy queen, and were raising loud clamors over the
   plots for her deliverance.
{1297}
   She might perhaps have escaped from the Temple if she would
   have consented to leave her children. During July a sorrow
   equal to that of the 21st of January had been inflicted on
   her; she had been separated from her young son under the
   pretence that she treated him like a king, and was bringing
   him up to make 'a tyrant of him.' The child was placed in
   another part of the Temple, and his education was intrusted to
   a vulgar and brutal shoemaker, named Simon. Nevertheless the
   fate of Marie Antoinette at this epoch was still doubtful;
   neither the Committee of Public Safety nor the ministry
   desired her death. While Lebrun, the friend of the Girondists,
   was minister of foreign affairs, a project had been formed
   which would have saved her life. Danton knew of it and aided
   it. … This plan was a negotiation with Venice, Tuscany, and
   Naples, the three Italian States yet neutral, who were to
   pledge themselves to maintain their wavering neutrality, in
   consideration of a guaranty of the safety of Marie Antoinette
   and her family. Two diplomatic agents who afterwards held high
   posts in France, Marat and Sémonville, were intrusted with
   this affair. As they were crossing from Switzerland into
   Italy, they were arrested, in violation of the law of nations,
   upon the neutral territory of the Grisons by an Austrian
   detachment (July 25). … At tidings of the arrest of the
   French envoys, Marie Antoinette was separated from her
   daughter and sister-in-law Elizabeth, and transferred to the
   Conciergerie. On the 14th of October she appeared before the
   revolutionary tribunal. To the accusation of the public
   prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville, made up of calumnies against
   her private life, and for the most part well-founded
   imputations against her political conduct, she opposed a
   plausible defence, which effaced as far as possible her part
   in the late government. … The following questions were put
   to the jurors: 'Has Marie Antoinette aided in movements
   designed to assist the foreign enemies of the Republic to open
   French territory to them and to facilitate the progress of
   their arms? Has she taken part in a conspiracy tending to
   incite civil war?' The answer was in the affirmative, and the
   sentence of death was passed on her. The decisive portions
   which we now possess of the queen's correspondence with
   Austria had not then been made public; but enough was known to
   leave no doubt of her guilt, which had the same moral excuses
   as that of her husband. … She met death [October 16] with
   courage and resignation. The populace who had hated her so
   much did not insult her last moments. … A week after the
   queen's death the Girondists were summoned before the
   revolutionary tribunal. Brissot and Lasource alone had tried
   to escape this bloody ordeal, and to stir up resistance
   against it in the South. Vergniaud, Gensonné, and Valazé
   remained unshaken in their resolve to await trial. Gensonné,
   who had been placed in the keeping of a Swiss whose life he
   had saved on the 10th of August, and who had become a
   gendarme, might have escaped, but he refused to profit by this
   man's gratitude. … The act of indictment drawn up by the
   ex-Feuillant Amar was only a repetition of the monstrous
   calumnies which had circulated through the clubs and the
   journals. Brissot was accused of having ruined the colonies by
   advocating the liberation of slaves, and of having drawn
   foreign arms upon France by declaring war on kings. The whole
   trial corresponded to this beginning. … On the 29th the
   Jacobins appeared at the bar of the Convention, and called for
   a decree giving the jurors of the revolutionary tribunal the
   right to bring the proceedings to a close as soon as they
   believed themselves sufficiently enlightened. Robespierre and
   Barère supported the Jacobin demand. Upon Robespierre's motion
   it was decreed that after three days' proceedings, the jurors
   might declare themselves ready to render their verdict. The
   next day the jurors availed themselves of their privilege, and
   declared themselves sufficiently informed, although they had
   not heard the evidence for acquittal, neither the accused nor
   their counsel having been allowed to plead their cause.
   Brissot, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Valazé, Bishop Fauchet, Ducos,
   Boyer-Fonfrède, Lasource, and their friends were declared
   guilty of having conspired against the unity and
   indivisibility of the Republic, and against the liberty and
   safety of the French people. … Danton, who had not been an
   accomplice in their death, had retired to his mother's home at
   Arcis-sur-Aube, that he might not be a witness thereof. The
   condemned were brought back to hear their sentence. The
   greater part of them rose up with a common impulse, and cried,
   'We are innocent! People, they are deceiving you!' The crowd
   remained motionless and silent. … At midnight they partook
   of a last repast, passing the rest of the night in converse
   about their native land, their remnant of life being cheered
   by news of victory and pleasant sallies from young Ducos, who
   might have escaped, but preferred to share his friend
   Fonfréde's fate. Vergniaud had been given a subtle poison by
   Condorcet, but threw it away, choosing to die with his
   companions. One of his noble utterances gives us the key to
   his life. 'Others sought to consummate the Revolution by
   terror; I would accomplish it by love.' Next day, October 31,
   at noon, the prisoners were led forth, and as the five carts
   containing them left the Conciergerie, they struck up the
   national hymn … and shouts of 'Long live the Republic.' The
   sounds died away as their number decreased, but did not cease
   until the last of the 21 mounted the fatal platform. … The
   murderers of the Girondists were not likely to spare the
   illustrious woman who was at once the inspiration and the
   honor of that party, and the very same day Madame Roland who
   had been for five months a prisoner at St. Pelagie and the
   Abbaye, was transferred to the Conciergerie. Hébert and his
   followers had long clamored for her head. During her captivity
   she wrote her Memoirs, which unfortunately have not been
   preserved complete; no other souvenir of the Revolution equals
   this, although it is not always reliable, for Madame Roland
   had feminine weaknesses of intellect, despite her masculine
   strength of soul; she was prejudiced against all who disagreed
   with her, and regarded caution and compromise with a noble but
   impolitic scorn. … The 18th Brumaire (November 10), she was
   summoned before the revolutionary tribunal; when she left her
   cell, clad in white, her dark hair, floating loosely over her
   shoulders, a smile on her lips and her face sparkling with
   life and animation. …
{1298}
   She was condemned in advance, not being allowed a word in her
   own defence, and was declared guilty of being an author or
   accomplice 'of a monstrous conspiracy against the unity and
   indivisibility of the Republic.' She heard her sentence
   calmly, saying to the judges: 'You deem me worthy the fate of
   the great men you have murdered. I will try to display the
   same courage on the scaffold.' She was taken directly to the
   Place de la Revolution, a man condemned for treason being
   placed in the same cart, who was overwhelmed with terror. She
   passed the mournful journey in soothing him, and on reaching
   the scaffold bid him mount first, that his sufferings might
   not be prolonged. As she took her place in turn, her eye fell
   on a colossal statue of Liberty, erected August 10, 1793. 'O
   Liberty,' she cried, 'what crimes are committed in thy name!'
   Some say that she said, 'O Liberty, how they have deceived
   thee!' Thus died the noblest woman in history since the
   incomparable Joan, who saved France! … The bloody tribunal
   never paused; famous men of every party succeeded each other
   at the fatal bar, the ex-Duke of Orleans among them, but four
   days earlier than Madame Roland. … The day after Madame
   Roland's trial began that of the venerable Bailli, ex-mayor of
   Paris and ex-president of the Constituent Assembly, a man who
   played a great part early in the Revolution, but faded out of
   sight with the constituent power."

      _Henry Martin,
      Popular History of France, 1789-1877,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

      ALSO IN
      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      chapters 46-52 (volume 3)._

      _C. D. Yonge,
      Life of Marie Antoinette,
      chapter 39._

      _Madame Campan,
      Memoirs of the Private Life of Marie Antoinette,
      volume 2, conclusion._

      _S. Marceau,
      Reminiscences of a Regicide,
      chapter 11._

      _Count Beugnot,
      Life,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      _Lord R. Gower,
      Last Days of Marie Antoinette._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
   Life in Paris during the Reign of Terror.
   Gaiety in the Prisons.
   The Tricoteuses, or knitting women.
   Revolutionary costumes and modes of speech.
   The guillotine as plaything and ornament.

   "By the end of October, 1793, the Committee of General
   Security had mastered Paris, and established the Reign of
   Terror there by means of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and could
   answer to the Great Committee of Public Safety for the
   tranquillity of the capital. There were no more riots; men
   were afraid even to express their opinions, much less to
   quarrel about them; the system of denunciation made Paris into
   a hive of unpaid spies, and ordinary crimes, pocket-picking
   and the like, vanished as if by magic. Yet it must not be
   supposed that Paris was gloomy or dull; on the contrary, the
   vast majority of citizens seemed glad to have an excuse to
   avoid politics, of which they had had a surfeit during the
   last four years, and to turn their thoughts to the literary
   side of their favourite journals, to the theatres, and to art.
   … The dull places of Paris were the Revolutionary
   Committees, the Jacobin Club, the Convention, the Hôtel de
   Brienne, where the Committee of General Security sat, and the
   Pavillon de l'Egalité, formerly the Pavillon de Flore, in the
   Tuileries, where the Great Committee of Public Safety
   laboured. … Elsewhere men were lighthearted and gay,
   following their usual avocations, and busy in their pursuit of
   pleasure or of gain. It is most essential to grasp the fact
   that there was no particular difference, for the vast majority
   of the population, in living in Paris during the Reign of
   Terror and at other times. The imagination of posterity,
   steeped in tales of the tumbrils bearing their burden to the
   guillotine, and of similar stories of horror, has conceived a
   ghastly picture of life at that extraordinary period, and it
   is only after living for months amongst the journals, memoirs,
   and letters of the time that one can realize the fact that to
   the average Parisian the necessity of getting his dinner or
   his evening's amusement remained the paramount thought of his
   daily life. … Strange to say, nowhere was life more happy
   and gay than in the prisons of Paris, where the inmates lived
   in the constant expectation that the haphazard chance of being
   brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned to
   death might befall them at any moment. … A little more must
   be said about the market-women, the tricoteuses, or
   knitting-women of infamous memory. These market-women had been
   treated as heroines ever since their march to Versailles in
   October, 1789. … They formed their societies after the
   fashion of the Jacobin Club, presided over by Renée Audu,
   Agnès Lefevre, Marie Louise Bouju, and Rose Lacombe, and went
   about the streets of Paris insulting respectably dressed
   people, and hounding on the sans-culottes to deeds of
   atrocity. These Mænads were encouraged by Marat, and played an
   important part in the street history of Paris, up to the Reign
   of Terror, when their power was suddenly taken from them. On
   May 21, 1793, they were excluded by a decree from the
   galleries of the Convention; on May 26 they were forbidden to
   form part of any political assembly; and when they appealed
   from the Convention to the Commune of Paris, Chaumette
   abruptly told them 'that the Republic had no need of Joans of
   Arc.' Thus deprived of active participation in politics, the
   market-women became the tricoteuses, or knitting-women, who
   used to take their seats in the Place de la Revolution, and
   watch the guillotine as they knitted. Their active power for
   good or harm was gone. … Life during the Terror in Paris …
   differed in little things, in little affectations of liberty
   and equality, which are amusing to study. The fashions of
   dress everywhere betrayed the new order of things. A few men,
   such as Robespierre, might still go about with powdered hair
   and in knee-breeches, but the ordinary male costume of the
   time was designed to contrast in every way with the costume of
   a dandy of the 'ancien régime.' Instead of breeches, the
   fashion was to wear trousers; instead of shoes, top-boots; and
   instead of shaving, the young Parisian prided himself on letting
   his moustache grow. In female costume a different motive was
   at work. Only David's art disciples ventured to imitate the
   male apparel of ancient Greece and Rome, but such imitation
   became the fashion among women. Waists disappeared; and
   instead of stiffened skirts and narrow bodices, women wore
   short loose robes, which they fancied resembled Greek chitons;
   sandals took the place of high-heeled shoes; and the hair,
   instead of being worked up into elaborate edifices, was
   allowed to flow down freely. For ornaments, gun-metal and
   steel took the place of gold, silver and precious stones. …
   The favourite design was the guillotine.
{1299}
   Little guillotines were worn as brooches, as earrings and as
   clasps, and the women of the time simply followed the fashion
   without realizing what it meant. Indeed, the worship of the
   guillotine was one of the most curious features of the epoch.
   Children had toy guillotines given them; models were made to
   cut off imitation heads, when wine or sweet syrup flowed in
   place of blood; and hymns were written to La Sainte
   Guillotine, and jokes made upon it, as the 'national razor.'
   … It is well known that the desire to emphasize the
   abolition of titles was followed by the abolition of the terms
   'Monsieur' and 'Madame,' and that their places were taken by
   'Citizen' and 'Citizeness;' and also how the use of the second
   person plural was dropped, and it was considered a sign of a
   good republican to tutoyer everyone, that is, to call them
   'thou' and 'thee.' … The Reign of Terror in Paris seems to
   us an age of unique experiences, a time unparalleled in the
   history of the world; yet to the great majority of
   contemporaries it did not appear so; they lived their ordinary
   lives, and it was only in exceptional cases that the serenity
   of their days was interrupted, or that their minds were
   exercised by anything more than the necessity of earning their
   daily bread."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Michelet,
      Women of the French Revolution,
      chapters 20-30._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
   The new republican calendar.

   "Before the year ended the legislators of Paris voted that
   there was no God, and destroyed or altered nearly everything
   that had any reference to Christianity. Robespierre, who would
   have stopped short at deism, and who would have preserved the
   external decencies, was overruled and intimidated by Hébert
   and his frowsy crew, who had either crept into the governing
   committees or had otherwise made themselves a power in the
   state. … All popular journalists, patriots, and public
   bodies, had begun dating 'First Year of Liberty,' or 'First
   Year of the Republic;' and the old calendar had come to be
   considered as superstitious and slavish, as an abomination in
   the highest degree disgraceful to free and enlightened
   Frenchmen. Various petitions for a change had been presented;
   and at length the Convention had employed the mathematicians
   Romme and Monge, and the astronomer Laplace, to make a new
   republican calendar for the new era. These three philosophers,
   aided by Fabre d'Eglantine, who, as a poet, furnished the
   names, soon finished their work, which was sanctioned by the
   Convention and decreed into universal use as early as the 5th
   of October. It divided the year into four equal seasons, and
   twelve equal months of 30 days each. The five odd days which
   remained were to be festivals, and to bear the name of
   'Sansculottides.' … One of these five days was to be
   consecrated to Genius, one to Industry, the third to Fine
   Actions, the fourth to Rewards, the fifth to Opinion. … In
   leap-years, when there would be six days to dispose of, the
   last of those days or Sansculottides was to be consecrated to
   the Revolution, and to be observed in all times with all
   possible solemnity. The months were divided into three
   decades, or portions of ten days each, and, instead of the
   Christian sabbath, once in seven days, the décadi, or tenth
   day, was to be the day of rest. … The decimal method of
   calculation … was to preside over all divisions: thus,
   instead of our twenty-four hours to the day, and sixty minutes
   to the hour, the day was divided into ten parts, and the tenth
   was to be subdivided by tens and again by tens to the minutest
   division of time. New dials were ordered to mark the time in
   this new way, but, before they were finished, it was found
   that the people were puzzled and perplexed by this last
   alteration, and therefore this part of the calendar was
   adjourned for a year, and the hours, minutes and seconds were
   left as they were. As the republic commenced on the 21st of
   September close on the [autumnal] equinox, the republican year
   was made to commence at that season. The first month in the
   year (Fabre d'Eglantine being god-father to them all) was
   called Vendémiaire, or the vintage month, the second Brumaire,
   or the foggy month, the third Frimaire, or the frosty month.
   These were the three autumn months. Nivôse, Pluviôse, and
   Ventôse, or the snowy, rainy and windy, were the three winter
   months. Germinal, Floreal, and Prairial, or the bud month, the
   flower month, and the meadow month, formed the spring season.
   Messidor, Thermidor and Fructidor, or reaping month, heat
   month, and fruit month, made the summer, and completed the
   republican year. In more ways than one all this was calculated
   for the meridian of Paris, and could suit no other physical or
   moral climate. … But the strangest thing about this
   republican calendar was its duration. It lasted till the 1st
   of January, 1806."

      _C. Mac Farlane,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 4, volume 3._

   The Republican Calendar for the Year Two of the Republic
   (September 22, 1793-Sept. 21, 1794) is synchronized with the
   Gregorian Calendar as follows:
   1 Vendémiaire = September 22;
   1 Brumaire = October 22;
   1 Frimaire = November 21;
   1 Nivôse = December 21;
   1 Pluviôse = January 20;
   1 Ventôse = February 19;
   1 Germinal = March 21;
   1 Floreal = April 20;
   1 Prairial = May 20;
   1 Messidor = June 19;
   1 Thermidor = July 19;
   1 Fructidor= August 18;
   1st to 5th Sansculottides = September 17-21.

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, appendix 12._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 364-365._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (November).
   Abandonment of Christianity.
   The Worship of Reason instituted.

   "The earliest steps towards a public abandonment of
   Christianity appear to have been taken by Fouché, the future
   minister of Police, and Duke of Otranto. … He published at
   Nevers (October 10, 1793) a decree" ordaining that "no forms
   of religious worship be practised except within their
   respective temples;" that "ministers of religion are
   forbidden, under pain of imprisonment, to wear their official
   costumes in any other places besides their temples;" and that
   the inscription, "Death is an eternal sleep," should be placed
   over the entrance to the cemetery. "This decree was reported
   to the municipality of Paris by Chaumette, the fanatical
   procureur of the Commune, and was warmly applauded. … The
   atheistical cabal of which he was the leader (his chief
   associates being the infamous Hébert, the Prussian baron
   Anacharsis Clootz, and Chabot, a renegade priest), now judged
   that public feeling was ripe for an avowed and combined
   onslaught on the profession of Christianity. … They decreed
   that on the 10th of November the 'Worship of Reason' should be
   inaugurated at Notre Dame.
{1300}
   On that day the venerable cathedral was profaned by a series
   of sacrilegious outrages unparalleled in the history of
   Christendom. A temple dedicated to 'Philosophy' was erected on
   a platform in the middle of the choir. A motley procession of
   citizens of both sexes, headed by the constituted authorities,
   advanced towards it; on their approach, the Goddess of Reason,
   impersonated by Mademoiselle Maillard, a well known figurante
   of the opera, took her seat upon a grassy throne in front of
   the temple; a hymn, composed in her honour by the poet
   Chenier, was sung by a body of young girls dressed in white
   and bedecked with flowers; and the multitude bowed the knee
   before her in profound adoration. It was the 'abomination of
   desolation sitting in the holy place.' At the close of this
   grotesque ceremony the whole cortège proceeded to the hall of
   the Convention, carrying with them their 'goddess,' who was
   borne aloft in a chair of state on the shoulders of four men.
   Having deposited her in front of the president, Chaumette
   harangued the Assembly. … He proceeded to demand that the
   ci-devant metropolitical church should henceforth be the
   temple of Reason and Liberty; which proposition was
   immediately adopted. The 'goddess' was then conducted to the
   president, and he and other officers of the House saluted her
   with the 'fraternal kiss,' amid thunders of applause. After
   this, upon the motion of Thuriot, the Convention in a body
   joined the mass of the people, and marched in their company to
   the temple of Reason, to witness a repetition of the impieties
   above described. These demonstrations were zealously imitated
   in the other churches of the capital. … The interior of St.
   Eustache was transformed into a 'guinguette,' or place of low
   public entertainment. … At St. Gervais a ball was given in
   the chapel of the Virgin. In other churches theatrical
   spectacles took place. … Representatives of the people
   thought it no shame to quit their curule chairs in order to
   dance the 'carmagnole' with abandoned women in the streets
   attired in sacerdotal garments. On Sunday, the 17th of
   November, all the parish churches of Paris were closed by
   authority, with three exceptions. … Chaumette, at a sitting
   of the Commune on the 26th of November, called for further
   measures for the extermination of every vestige of Christian
   worship;" and the Council of the Commune, on his demand,
   ordered the closing of all churches and temples, of every
   religious denomination; made priests and ministers of religion
   responsible for any troubles that might arise from religious
   opinions, and commanded the arrest as a "suspect" of any
   person who should ask for the reopening of a church. "The
   example set by Paris, at this melancholy period, was
   faithfully repeated, if not surpassed in atrocity, throughout
   the provinces. Religion was proscribed, churches closed,
   Christian ordinances interdicted; the dreary gloom of
   atheistical despotism overspread the land. … These infamies
   were too monstrous to be tolerated for any length of time. …
   Robespierre, who had marked the symptoms of a coming reaction,
   boldly seized the opportunity, and denounced without mercy the
   hypocritical faction which disputed his own march towards
   absolute dictatorship."

      _W. H. Jervis,
      The Gallican Church and the Revolution,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN
      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      book 52 (volume 3)._

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      _E. de Pressense,
      Religion and the Reign of Terror,
      book 2, chapter 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (October-April).
   The Terror in the Provinces.
   Republican vengeance at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon,
   Bordeaux, Nantes.
   Fusillades and Noyades.

   "The insurgents of Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, and Bordeaux,
   were punished with pitiless severity. Lyons had revolted, and
   the convention decreed [October 12] the destruction of the
   city, the confiscation of the property of the rich, for the
   benefit of the patriots, and the punishment of the insurgents
   by martial law. Couthon, a commissioner well tried in cruelty,
   hesitated to carry into execution this monstrous decree, and
   was superseded by Collot d'Herbois and Fouché. Thousands of
   workmen were employed in the work of destruction: whole
   streets fell under their pickaxes: the prisons were gorged:
   the guillotine was too slow for revolutionary vengeance, and
   crowds of prisoners were shot, in murderous 'mitraillades.'
   … At Marseilles, 12,000 of the richest citizens fled from
   the vengeance of the revolutionists, and their property was
   confiscated, and plundered. When Toulon fell before the
   strategy of Bonaparte, the savage vengeance and cruelty of the
   conquerors were indulged without restraint. … The dockyard
   labourers were put to the sword: gangs of prisoners were
   brought out and executed by fusillades: the guillotine also
   claimed its victims: the sans-culottes rioted in confiscation
   and plunder. At Bordeaux, Tallien threw 15,000 citizens into
   prison. Hundreds fell under the guillotine; and the
   possessions and property of the rich were offered up to
   outrage and robbery. But all these atrocities were far
   surpassed in La Vendee. … The barbarities of warfare were
   yet surpassed by the vengeance of the conquerors, when the
   insurrection was, at last, overcome. At Nantes, the monster
   Carrier outstripped his rivals in cruelty and insatiable
   thirst for blood. Not contented with wholesale mitraillades,
   he designed that masterpiece of cruelty, the noyades; and
   thousands of men, women and children who escaped the muskets
   of the rabble soldiery were deliberately drowned in the waters
   of the Loire. In four months, his victims reached 15,000. At
   Angers, and other towns in La Vendee, these hideous noyades
   were added to the terrors of the guillotine and the
   fusillades."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      chapter 14._

   "One begins to be sick of 'death vomited in great floods.'
   Nevertheless, hearest thou not, O Reader (for the sound
   reaches through centuries), in the dead December and January
   nights, over Nantes Town,—confused noises, as of musketry and
   tumult, as of rage and lamentation; mingling with the
   everlasting moan of the Loire waters there? Nantes Town is
   sunk in sleep; but Représentant Carrier is not sleeping, the
   wool-capped Company of Marat is not sleeping. Why unmoors that
   flatbottomed craft, that 'gabarre'; about eleven at night;
   with Ninety Priests under hatches? They are going to Belle
   Isle? In the middle of the Loire stream, on signal given, the
   gabarre is scuttled; she sinks with all her cargo. 'Sentence
   of Deportation,' writes Carrier, 'was executed vertically.'
   The Ninety Priests, with their gabarre-coffin, lie deep! It is
   the first of the Noyades [November 16], what we may call
   'Drownages' of Carrier; which have become famous forever.
{1301}
   Guillotining there was at Nantes, till the Headsman sank worn
   out: then fusillading 'in the Plain of Saint-Mauve;' little
   children fusilladed, and women with children at the breast;
   children and women, by the hundred and twenty; and by the five
   hundred, so hot is La Véndee: till the very Jacobins grew
   sick, and all but the Company of Marat cried, Hold! Wherefore
   now we have got Noyading; and on the 24th night of Frostarious
   year 2, which is 14th of December 1793, we have a second
   Noyade; consisting of '138 persons.' Or why waste a gabarre,
   sinking it with them? Fling them out; fling them out, with
   their hands tied: pour a continual hail of lead over all the
   space, till the last struggler of them be sunk! Unsound
   sleepers of Nantes, and the Sea-Villages there-abouts, hear
   the musketry amid the night-winds; wonder what the meaning of
   it is. And women were in that gabarre; whom the Red Nightcaps
   were stripping naked; who begged, in their agony, that their
   smocks might not be stript from them. And young children were
   thrown in, their mothers vainly pleading: 'Wolflings,'
   answered the Company of Marat, 'who would grow to be wolves.'
   By degrees, daylight itself witnesses Noyades: women and men
   are tied together, feet and feet, hands and hands; and flung
   in: this they call Mariage Républicain, Republican Marriage.
   Cruel is the panther of the woods, the she-bear bereaved of
   her whelps: but there is in man a hatred crueler than that.
   Dumb, out of suffering now, as pale swollen corpses, the
   victims tumble confusedly seaward along the Loire stream; the
   tide rolling them back: clouds of ravens darken the River;
   wolves prowl on the shoal-places: Carrier writes, 'Quel
   torrent révolutionnaire, What a torrent of Revolution!' For
   the man is rabid; and the Time is rabid. These are the Noyades
   of Carrier; twenty-five by the tale, for what is done in
   darkness comes to be investigated in sunlight: not to be
   forgotten for centuries. … Men are all rabid; as the Time
   is. Representative Lebon, at Arras, dashes his sword into the
   blood flowing from the Guillotine; exclaims, 'How I like it!'
   Mothers, they say, by his orders, have to stand by while the
   Guillotine devours their children: a band of music is
   stationed near; and, at the fall of every head, strikes up its
   'Ça-ira.'"

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 3, book 5, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 5, chapter 1, section 9 (volume 3)._

      _Horrors of the Prison of Arras
      ("The Reign of Terror: A Collection of Authentic
      Narratives," volume 2)._

      _Duchesse de Duras,
      Prison Journals during the French Revolution_

      _A. des Echerolles,
      Early Life,
      volume 1, chapters 7-13, and volume 2, chapter l._

      See, also, FRANCE: 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (November-June).
   The factions of the Mountain devour one another.
   Destruction of the Hebertists.
   Danton and his followers brought to the knife.
   Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.
   The Feast of the Supreme Being.

   "Robespierre was unutterably outraged by the proceedings of
   the atheists. They perplexed him as a politician intent upon
   order, and they afflicted him sorely as an ardent disciple of
   the Savoyard Vicar. Hébert, however, was so strong that it
   needed some courage to attack him, nor did Robespierre dare to
   withstand him to the face. But he did not flinch from making
   an energetic assault upon atheism and the excesses of its
   partisans. His admirers usually count his speech of the 21st
   of November one of the most admirable of his oratorical
   successes. … 'Atheism [he said] is aristocratic. The idea of
   a great being who watches over oppressed innocence and
   punishes triumphant crime is essentially the idea of the
   people. This is the sentiment of Europe and the Universe; it
   is the sentiment of the French nation. That people is attached
   neither to priests, nor to superstitions, nor to ceremonies;
   it is attached only to worship in itself, or in other words to
   the idea of an incomprehensible Power, the terror of
   wrong-doers, the stay and comfort of virtue, to which it
   delights to render words of homage that are all so many
   anathemas against injustice and triumphant crime.' This is
   Robespierre's favourite attitude, the priest posing as
   statesman. … Danton followed practically the same line,
   though saying much less about it. 'If Greece,' he said in the
   Convention, 'had its Olympian games, France too shall
   solemnize her sans-culottid days. … If we have not honoured
   the priest of error and fanaticism, neither do we wish to
   honour the priest of incredulity: we wish to serve the people.
   I demand that there shall be an end of these anti-religious
   masquerades in the Convention.' There was an end of the
   masquerading, but the Hébertists still kept their ground.
   Danton, Robespierre, and the Committee were all equally
   impotent against them for some months longer. The
   revolutionary force had been too strong to be resisted by any
   government since the Paris insurgents had carried both king
   and assembly in triumph from Versailles in the October of
   1789. It was now too strong for those who had begun to strive
   with all their might to build a new government out of the
   agencies that had shattered the old to pieces. For some months
   the battle which had been opened by Robespierre's remonstrance
   against atheistic intolerance, degenerated into a series of
   masked skirmishes. … Collot D'Herbois had come back in hot
   haste from Lyons. … Carrier was recalled from Nantes. …
   The presence of these men of blood gave new courage and
   resolution to the Hébertists. Though the alliance was
   informal, yet as against Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and the
   rest of the Indulgents, as well as against Robespierre, they
   made common cause. Camille Desmoulins attacked Hébert in
   successive numbers of a journal ['Le Vieux Cordelier'] that is
   perhaps the one truly literary monument of this stage of the
   revolution. Hébert retaliated by impugning the patriotism of
   Desmoulins in the Club, and the unfortunate wit,
   notwithstanding the efforts of Robespierre on his behalf, was
   for a while turned out of the sacred precincts. … Even
   Danton himself was attacked (December, 1793) and the integrity
   of his patriotism brought into question. Robespierre made an
   energetic defence of his great rival in the hierarchy of
   revolution. … Robespierre, in whom spasmodical courage and
   timidity ruled by rapid turns, began to suspect that he had
   been premature; and a convenient illness, which some supposed
   to have been feigned, excused his withdrawal for some weeks
   from a scene where he felt that he could no longer see clear.
   We cannot doubt that both he and Danton were perfectly assured
   that the anarchic party must unavoidably roll headlong into the
   abyss.
{1302}
   But the hour of doom was uncertain. To make a mistake in the
   right moment, to hurry the crisis, was instant death.
   Robespierre was a more adroit calculator than Danton. … His
   absence during the final crisis of the anarchic party allowed
   events to ripen, without committing him to that initiative in
   dangerous action which he had dreaded on the 10th of August,
   as he dreaded it on every other decisive day of this burning
   time. The party of the Commune became more and more daring in
   their invectives against the Convention and the Committees. At
   length they proclaimed open insurrection. But Paris was cold,
   and opinion was divided. In the night of the 13th of March,
   Hébert, Chaumette, Clootz, were arrested. The next day
   Robespierre recovered sufficiently to appear at the Jacobin
   Club. He joined his colleagues of the Committee of Public
   Safety in striking the blow. On the 24th of March the
   Ultra-Revolutionist leaders were beheaded. The first bloody
   breach in the Jacobin ranks was speedily followed by the
   second. The Right wing of the opposition to the Committee soon
   followed the Left down the ways to dusty death, and the
   execution of the Anarchists only preceded by a week the arrest
   of the Moderates. When the seizure of Danton had once before
   been discussed in the Committee, Robespierre resisted the
   proposal violently. We have already seen how he defended
   Danton at the Jacobin Club. … What produced this sudden
   tack? … His acquiescence in the ruin of Danton is
   intelligible enough on the grounds of selfish policy. The
   Committee [of Public Safety] hated Danton for the good reason
   that he had openly attacked them, and his cry for clemency was
   an inflammatory and dangerous protest against their system.
   Now Robespierre, rightly or wrongly, had made up his mind that
   the Committee was the instrument by which, and which only, he
   could work out his own vague schemes of power and
   reconstruction. And, in any case, how could he resist the
   Committee? … All goes to show that Robespierre was really
   moved by nothing more than his invariable dread of being left
   behind, of finding himself on the weaker side, of not seeming
   practical and political enough. And having made up his mind
   that the stronger party was bent on the destruction of the
   Dantonists, he became fiercer than Billaud himself. … Danton
   had gone, as he often did, to his native village of
   Arcis-sur-Aube, to seek repose and a little clearness of sight
   in the night that wrapped him about. He was devoid of personal
   ambition; he never had any humour for mere factious struggles.
   … It is not clear that he could have done anything. The
   balance of force, after the suppression of the Hébertists, was
   irretrievably against him, as calculation had already revealed to
   Robespierre. … After the arrest, and on the proceedings to
   obtain the assent of the Convention to the trial of Danton and
   others of its members, one only of their friends had the
   courage to rise and demand that they should be heard at the
   bar. Robespierre burst out in cold rage; he asked whether they
   had undergone so many heroic sacrifices, counting among them
   these acts of 'painful severity,' only to fall under the yoke
   of a band of domineering intriguers; and he cried out
   impatiently that they would brook no claim of privilege, and
   suffer no rotten idol. The word was felicitously chosen, for
   the Convention dreaded to have its independence suspected, and
   it dreaded this all the more because at this time its
   independence did not really exist. The vote against Danton was
   unanimous, and the fact that it was so is the deepest stain on
   the fame of this assembly. On the afternoon of the 16th
   Germinal (April 5, 1794), Paris in amazement and some
   stupefaction saw the once dreaded Titan of the Mountain fast
   bound in the tumbril, and faring towards the sharp-clanging
   knife [with Camille Desmoulins and others]. 'I leave it all in
   a frightful welter,' Danton is reported to have said. 'Not a
   man of them has an idea of government. Robespierre will follow
   me; he is dragged down by me. Ah, better be a poor fisherman
   than meddle with the governing of men!' … After the fall of
   the anarchists and the death of Danton, the relations between
   Robespierre and the Committees underwent a change. He, who had
   hitherto been on the side of government, became in turn an
   agency of opposition. He did this in the interest of ultimate
   stability, but the difference between the new position and the
   old is that he now distinctly associated the idea of a stable
   republic with the ascendency of his own religious conceptions.
   … The base of Robespierre's scheme of social reconstruction
   now came clearly into view; and what a base! An official
   Supreme Being and a regulated Terror. … How can we speak
   with decent patience of a man who seriously thought that he
   should conciliate the conservative and theological elements of
   the society at his feet, by such an odious opera-piece as the
   Feast of the Supreme Being. This was designed as a triumphant
   ripost to the Feast of Reason, which Chaumette and his friends
   had celebrated in the winter. … Robespierre persuaded the
   Convention to decree an official recognition of the Supreme
   Being, and to attend a commemorative festival in honour of
   their mystic patron. He contrived to be chosen president for
   the decade in which the festival would fall. When the day came
   (20th Prairial, June 8, 1794), he clothed himself with more
   than even his usual care. As he looked out from the windows of
   the Tuileries upon the jubilant crowd in the gardens, he was
   intoxicated with enthusiasm. 'O Nature,' he cried, 'how
   sublime thy power, how full of delight! How tyrants must grow
   pale at the idea of such a festival as this!' In pontifical
   pride he walked at the head of the procession, with flowers
   and wheat-ears in his hand, to the sound of chants and
   symphonies and choruses of maidens. On the first of the great
   basins in the gardens, David, the artist, had devised an
   allegorical structure for which an inauspicious doom was
   prepared. Atheism, a statue of life size, was throned in the
   midst of an amiable group of human Vices, with Madness by her
   side, and Wisdom menacing them with lofty wrath. Great are the
   perils of symbolism. Robespierre applied a torch to Atheism, but
   alas, the wind was hostile, or else Atheism and Madness were
   damp. They obstinately resisted the torch, and it was hapless
   Wisdom who took fire. … The whole mummery was pagan. … It
   stands as the most disgusting and contemptible anachronism in
   history."

      _J. Morley,
      Robespierre
      (Critical Miscellanies, Second Series)._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 3, book 6._

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre,
      chapters 19-20._

      _L. Gronlund,
      Ça ira: or Danton in the French Revolution,
      chapter 6._

      _J. Claretie,
      Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
      chapters 5-6._

{1303}

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (March-July).
   Withdrawal of Prussia from the European Coalition as an ally,
   to become a mercenary.
   Successes of the Republic.
   Conquest of the Austrian Netherlands.
   Advance to the Rhine.
   Loss of Corsica.
   Naval defeat off Ushant.

   "While the alliance of the Great Powers was on the point of
   dissolution from selfishness and jealousy, the French, with an
   energy and determination, which, considering their
   unparalleled difficulties, were truly heroic, had assembled
   armies numbering nearly a million of men. The aggregate of the
   allied forces did not much exceed 300,000. The campaign on the
   Dutch and Flemish frontiers of France was planned at Vienna,
   but had nearly been disconcerted at the outset by the refusal
   of the Duke of York to serve under General Clairfait. … The
   Emperor settled the difficulty by signifying his intention to
   take the command in person. Thus one incompetent prince who
   knew little, was to be commanded by another incompetent prince
   who knew nothing, about war; and the success of a great
   enterprise was made subservient to considerations of punctilio
   and etiquette. The main object of the Austrian plan was to
   complete the reduction of the frontier fortresses by the
   capture of Landrecy on the Sambre, and then to advance through
   the plains of Picardy on Paris;—a plan which might have been
   feasible the year before. … The King of Prussia formally
   withdrew from the alliance [March 13]; but condescended to
   assume the character of a mercenary. In the spring of the
   year, by a treaty with the English Government, his Prussian
   Majesty undertook to furnish 62,000 men for a year, in
   consideration of the sum of £1,800,000, of which Holland, by a
   separate convention, engaged to supply somewhat less than a
   fourth part. The organisation of the French army was effected
   under the direction of Carnot. … The policy of terror was
   nevertheless applied to the administration of the army.
   Custine and Houchard, who had commanded the last campaign, …
   were sent to the scaffold, because the arms of the republic
   had failed to achieve a complete triumph under their
   direction. … Pichegru, the officer now selected to lead the
   hosts of France, went forth to assume his command with the
   knife of the executioner suspended over his head. His orders
   were to expel the invaders from the soil and strongholds of
   the republic, and to reconquer Belgium. The first step towards
   the fulfilment of this commission was the recovery of the
   three great frontier towns, Condé, Valenciennes, and Quesnoy.
   The siege of Quesnoy was immediately formed; and Pichegru,
   informed of or anticipating the plans of the Allies, disposed
   a large force in front of Cambray, to intercept the operations
   of … the allied army upon Landrecy. … On the 17th
   [of April] a great action was fought in which the allies
   obtained a success, sufficient to enable them to press the
   siege of Landrecy. … Pichegru, a few days after [April 26,
   at the redoubts of Troisville] sustained a signal repulse from
   the British, in an attempt to raise the siege of Landrecy; but
   by a rapid and daring movement, he improved his defeat, and
   seized the important post of Moucron. The results were, that
   Clairfait was forced to fall back on Tournay; Courtray and
   Menin surrendered to the French; and thus the right flanks of
   the Allies were exposed. Landrecy, which, about the same time,
   fell into the hands of the Allies, was but a poor compensation
   for the reverses in West Flanders. The Duke of York, at the
   urgent instance of the Emperor, marched to the relief of
   Clairfait; but, in the meantime, the Austrian general, being
   hard pressed, was compelled to fall back upon a position which
   would enable him for a time to cover Bruges, Ghent, and
   Ostend. The English had also to sustain a vigorous attack near
   Tournay; but the enemy were defeated with the loss of 4,000
   men. It now became necessary to risk a general action to save
   Flanders, by cutting off that division of the French army
   which had outflanked the Allies. By bad management and want of
   concert this movement, which had been contrived by Colonel
   Mack, the chief military adviser of the Emperor, was wholly
   defeated [at Tourcoign, May 18]. … The French took 1,500
   prisoners and 60 pieces of cannon. A thousand English soldiers
   lay dead on the field, and the Duke [of York] himself escaped
   with difficulty. Four days after, Pichegru having collected a
   great force, amounting, it has been stated, to 100,000 men,
   made a grand attack upon the allied army [at Pont Achin]. …
   The battle raged from five in the morning until nine at night,
   and was at length determined by the bayonet. … In consequence
   of this check, Pichegru fell back upon Lisle." It was after
   this repulse that "the French executive, on the flimsy
   pretence of a supposed attempt to assassinate Robespierre,
   instigated by the British Government, procured a decree from
   the Convention, that no English or Hanoverian prisoners should
   be made. In reply to this atrocious edict, the Duke of York
   issued a general order, enjoining forbearance to the troops
   under his command. Most of the French generals … refused to
   become assassins. … The decree was carried into execution in
   a few instances only. … The Allies gained no military
   advantage by the action of Pont Achin on the 22nd of May. …
   The Emperor … abandoned the army and retired to Vienna. He
   left some orders and proclamations behind him, to which nobody
   thought it worth while to pay any attention. On the 5th of June,
   Pichegru invested Ypres, which Clairfait made two attempts to
   retain, but without success. The place surrendered on the
   17th; Clairfait retreated to Ghent; Walmoden abandoned Bruges;
   and the Duke of York, forced to quit his position at Tournay,
   encamped near Oudenarde. It was now determined by the Prince
   of Coburg, who resumed the chief command after the departure
   of the Emperor, to risk the fate of Belgium on a general
   action, which was fought at Fleurus on the 26th of June. The
   Austrians, after a desperate struggle, were defeated at all
   points by the French army of the Sambre under Jourdan.
   Charleroi having surrendered to the French … and the Duke of
   York being forced to retreat, any further attempt to save the
   Netherlands was hopeless. Ostend and Mons, Ghent, Tournay, and
   Oudenarde, were successively evacuated; and the French were
   established at Brussels. When it was too late, the English
   army was reinforced. … It now only remained for the French
   to recapture the fortresses on their own frontier which had
   been taken from them in the last campaign. …
{1304}
   Landrecy … fell without a struggle. Quesnoy … made a
   gallant [but vain] resistance. … Valenciennes and Condé …
   opened their gates. … The victorious armies of the Republic
   were thus prepared for the conquest of Holland. … The Prince
   of Orange made an appeal to the patriotism of his countrymen;
   but the republicans preferred the ascendancy of their faction
   to the liberties of their country. … The other military
   operation's of the year, in which England was engaged, do not
   require prolonged notice. The Corsicans, under the guidance of
   their veteran chief, Paoli, … sought the aid of England to
   throw off the French yoke, and offered in return allegiance of
   his countrymen to the British Crown. … A small force was
   despatched, and, after a series of petty operations, Corsica
   was occupied by British troops, and proclaimed a part of the
   British dominions. An expedition on a greater scale was sent
   to the West Indies. Martinique, St. Lucie and Guadaloupe were
   easily taken; but the large island of St. Domingo, relieved by
   a timely arrival of succours from France, offered a formidable
   [and successful] resistance. … The campaign on the Rhine was
   undertaken by the Allies under auspices ill calculated to
   inspire confidence, or even hope. The King of Prussia, not
   content with abandoning the cause, had done everything in his
   power to thwart and defeat the operations of the Allies. …
   On the 22d of May, the Austrians crossed the Rhine and
   attacked the French in their intrenchments without success. On
   the same day, the Prussians defeated a division of the Republican
   army [at Kaiserslautern], and advanced their head-quarters to
   Deux-Ponts. Content with this achievement, the German armies
   remained inactive for several weeks, when the French, having
   obtained reinforcements, attacked the whole line of the German
   posts. … Before the end of the year the Allies were in full
   retreat, and the Republicans in their turn had become the
   invaders of Germany. They occupied the Electorate of Treves,
   and they captured the important fort of Mannheim. Mentz also
   was placed under a close blockade. … At sea, England
   maintained her ancient reputation. The French had made great
   exertions to fit out a fleet, and 26 ships of the line were
   assembled in the port of Brest," for the protecting of a
   merchant fleet, laden with much needed food-supplies, expected
   from America. Lord Howe, with an English fleet of 25 ships of
   the line, was on the watch for the Brest fleet when it put to
   sea. On the 1st of June he sighted and attacked it off Ushant,
   performing the celebrated manœuvre of breaking the enemy's
   line. Seven of the French ships were taken, one was sunk
   during the battle, and 18, much crippled, escaped. The victory
   caused great exultation in England, but it was fruitless, for
   the American convoy was brought safely into Brest.

      _W. Massey,
      History of England during the reign of George III.,
      chapter 35 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 16 (volume 4)._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3._

      _Capt. A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution
      and Empire, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (June-July).
   The monstrous Law of the 22d Prairial.
   The climax of the Reign of Terror.
   A summary of its horrors.

   "On the day of the Feast of the Supreme Being, the guillotine
   was concealed in the folds of rich hangings. It was the 20th
   of Prairial. Two days later Couthon proposed to the Convention
   the memorable Law of the 22d Prairial [June 10]. Robespierre
   was the draftsman, and the text of it still remains in his own
   writing. This monstrous law is simply the complete abrogation
   of all law. Of all laws ever passed in the world it is the
   most nakedly iniquitous. … After the probity and good
   judgment of the tribunal, the two cardinal guarantees in state
   trials are accurate definition, and proof. The offence must be
   capable of precise description, and the proof against an
   offender must conform to strict rule. The Law of Prairial
   violently infringed all three of these essential conditions of
   judicial equity. First, the number of the jury who had power
   to convict was reduced. Second, treason was made to consist in
   such vague and infinitely elastic kinds of action as inspiring
   discouragement, misleading opinion, depraving manners,
   corrupting patriots, abusing the principles of the Revolution
   by perfidious applications. Third, proof was to lie in the
   conscience of the jury; there was an end of preliminary
   inquiry, of witnesses in defence, and of counsel for the
   accused. Any kind of testimony was evidence, whether material
   or moral, verbal or written, if it was of a kind 'likely to
   gain the assent of a man of reasonable mind.' Now, what was
   Robespierre's motive in devising this infernal instrument? …
   To us the answer seems clear. We know what was the general aim
   in Robespierre's mind at this point in the history of the
   Revolution. His brother Augustin was then the representative
   of the Convention with the army of Italy, and General
   Bonaparte was on terms of close intimacy with him. Bonaparte
   said long afterwards … that he saw long letters from
   Maximilian to Augustin Robespierre, all blaming the
   Conventional Commissioners [sent to the provinces]—Tallien,
   Fouché, Barras, Collot, and the rest—for the horrors they
   perpetrated, and accusing them of ruining the Revolution by
   their atrocities. Again, there is abundant testimony that
   Robespierre did his best to induce the Committee of Public
   Safety to bring those odious malefactors to justice. The text
   of the Law … discloses the same object. The vague phrases of
   depraving manners and applying revolutionary principles
   perfidiously, were exactly calculated to smite the band of
   violent men whose conduct was to Robespierre the scandal of
   the Revolution. And there was a curious clause in the law as
   originally presented, which deprived the Convention of the
   right of preventing measures against its own members.
   Robespierre's general design in short was to effect a further
   purgation of the Convention. … If Robespierre's design was
   what we believe it to have been, the result was a ghastly
   failure. The Committee of Public Safety would not consent to
   apply his law against the men for whom he had specially
   designed it. The frightful weapon which he had forged was
   seized by the Committee of General Security, and Paris was
   plunged into the fearful days of the Great Terror. The number
   of persons put to death by the Revolutionary Tribunal before
   the Law of Prairial had been comparatively moderate. From the
   creation of the Tribunal in April 1793, down to the execution
   of the Hébertists in March 1794, the number of persons
   condemned to death was 505.
{1305}
   From the death of the Hébertists down to the death of
   Robespierre, the number of the condemned was 2,158. One-half
   of the entire number of victims, namely, 1,356, were
   guillotined after the Law of Prairial. … A man was informed
   against; he was seized in his bed at five in the morning; at
   seven he was taken to the Conciergerie; at nine he received
   information of the charge against him; at ten he went into the
   dock; by two in the afternoon he was condemned; by four his
   head lay in the executioner's basket."

      _J. Morley,
      Robespierre
      (Critical Miscellanies: Second Series)._

   "Single indictments comprehended 20 or 30 people taken
   promiscuously—great noblemen from Paris, day labourers from
   Marseilles, sailors from Brest, peasants from Alsace—who were
   accused of conspiring together to destroy the Republic. All
   examination, discussion, and evidence were dispensed with; the
   names of the victims were hardly read out to the jury, and it
   happened, more than once, that the son was mistaken for the
   father—an entirely innocent person for the one really
   charged—and sent to the guillotine. The judges urged the jury
   to pass sentences of death, with loud threats; members of the
   Government committees attended daily, and applauded the bloody
   verdicts with ribald jests. On this spot at least the strife
   of parties was hushed."

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 4)._

   "The first murders committed in 1793 proceeded from a real
   irritation caused by danger. Such perils had now ceased; the
   republic was victorious; people now slaughtered not from
   indignation, but from the atrocious habit which they had
   contracted. … According to the law, the testimony of
   witnesses was to be dispensed with only when there existed
   material or moral proofs; nevertheless no witnesses were
   called, as it was alleged that proofs of this kind existed in
   every case. The jurors did not take the trouble to retire to
   the consultation room. They gave their opinions before the
   audience, and sentence was immediately pronounced. The accused
   had scarcely time to rise and to mention their names. One day,
   there was a prisoner whose name was not upon the list of the
   accused, and who said to the Court, 'I am not accused; my name
   is not on your list.' 'What signifies that?' said Fouquier,
   'give it quick!' He gave it, and was sent to the scaffold like
   the others. … The most extraordinary blunders were
   committed. … More than once victims were called long after
   they had perished. There were hundreds of acts of accusation
   quite ready, to which there was nothing to add but the
   designation of the individuals. … The printing-office was
   contiguous to the hall of the tribunal: the forms were kept
   standing, the title, the motives, were ready composed; there
   was nothing but the names to be added. These were handed
   through a small loop-hole to the overseer. Thousands of copies
   were immediately worked off and plunged families into mourning
   and struck terror into the prisons. The hawkers came to sell
   the bulletin of the tribunal under the prisoners' windows,
   crying, 'Here are the names of those who have gained prizes in
   the lottery of St. Guillotine.' The accused were executed on
   the breaking up of the court, or at latest on the morrow, if
   the day was too far advanced. Ever since the passing of the
   Law of the 22d of Prairial, victims perished at the rate of 50
   or 60 a day. 'That goes well,' said Fouquier-Tinville; 'heads
   fall like tiles:' and he added, 'It must go better still next
   decade; I must have 450 at least.'"

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 3, pages 63-66._

   "One hundred and seventy-eight tribunals, of which 40 are
   ambulatory, pronounce in every part of the territory sentences
   of death which are immediately executed on the spot. Between
   April 6, 1793, and Thermidor 9, year II. [July 27, 1794], that
   of Paris has 2,625 persons guillotined, while the provincial
   judges do as much work as the Paris judges. In the small town
   of Orange alone, they guillotine 331 persons. In the single
   town of Arras they have 299 men and 93 women guillotined. At
   Nantes, the revolutionary tribunals and military committees
   have, on the average, 100 persons a day guillotined, or shot,
   in all 1971. In the city of Lyons the revolutionary committee
   admit 1684 executions, while Cadillot, one of Robespierre's
   correspondents, advises him of 6,000.—The statement of these
   murders is not complete, but 17,000 have been enumerated. …
   Even excepting those who had died fighting or who, taken with
   arms in their hands, were shot down or sabred on the spot,
   there were 10,000 persons slaughtered without trial in the
   province of Anjou alone. … It is estimated that, in the
   eleven western departments, the dead of both sexes and of all
   ages exceeded 400,000.—Considering the programme and
   principles of the Jacobin sect, this is no great number; they
   might have killed a good many more. But time was wanting;
   during their short reign they did what they could with the
   instrument in their hands. Look at their machine. …
   Organised March 30 and April 6, 1793, the Revolutionary
   Committees and the Revolutionary Tribunal had but seventeen
   months in which to do their work. They did not drive ahead
   with all their might until after the fall of the Girondists,
   and especially after September, 1793, that is to say for a
   period of eleven months. Its loose wheels were not screwed up
   and the whole was not in running order under the impulse of
   the central motor until after December, 1793, that is to say
   during eight months. Perfected by the Law of Prairial 22, it
   works for the past two months faster and better than before.
   … Baudot and Jean Bon St. Andre, Carrier, Antonelle and
   Guffroy had already estimated the lives to be taken at several
   millions, and, according to Collot d'Herbois, who had a lively
   imagination, 'the political perspiration should go on freely,
   and not stop until from twelve to fifteen million Frenchmen
   had been destroyed.'"

      _H. A. Taine,
      The French Revolution,
      book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      Lectures 39-42 (volume 2)._

      _Abbé Dumesnil,
      Recollections of the Reign of Terror._

      _Count Beugnot,
      Life,
      volume 1, chapters 7-8._

      _J. Wilson,
      The Reign of Terror and its Secret Police
      (Studies in Modern Mind, etc.), chapter 7._

      _The Reign of Terror:
      A collection of authentic narratives,
      2 volumes._

{1306}

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (July).
   The Fall of Robespierre.
   End of the Reign of Terror.

   Robespierre "was already feeling himself unequal to the task
   laid upon him. He said himself on one occasion: 'I was not
   made to rule, I was made to combat the enemies of the
   Revolution;' and so the possession of supreme power produced
   in him no feeling of exultation. On the contrary, it preyed
   upon his spirits, and made him fancy himself the object of
   universal hatred. A guard now slept nightly at his house, and
   followed him in all his walks. Two pistols lay ever at his
   side. He would not eat food till some one else had tasted from
   the dish. His jealous fears were awakened by every sign of
   popularity in another. Even the successes of his generals
   filled him with anxiety, lest they should raise up dangerous
   rivals. He had, indeed … grounds enough for anxiety. In the
   Committee of Public Safety every member, except St. Just and
   Couthon, viewed him with hatred and suspicion. Carnot resented
   his interferences. The Terrorists were contemptuous of his
   religious festivals, and disliked his decided supremacy. The
   friends of Mercy saw with indignation that the number of
   victims was increasing. The friends of Disorder found
   themselves restrained, and were bored by his long speeches
   about virtue and simplicity of life. He was hated for what was
   good and for what was evil in his government; and meanwhile
   the national distress was growing, and the cry of starvation
   was heard louder than ever. Fortunately there was a splendid
   harvest in 1794; but before it was gathered in Robespierre had
   fallen. A somewhat frivolous incident did much to discredit
   him. A certain old woman named Catherine Théot, living in an
   obscure part of Paris, had taken to seeing visions. Some of
   the Terrorists produced a paper, purporting to be written by
   her, and declaring that Robespierre was the Messiah. The paper
   was a forgery, but it served to cover Robespierre with
   ridicule, and to rouse in him a fierce determination to
   suppress those whom he considered his enemies in the Committee
   and the Convention. For some time he had taken little part in
   the proceedings of either of these bodies. His reliance was
   chiefly on the Jacobin Club, the reorganized Commune, and the
   National Guards, still under the command of Henriot. But on
   July 26th [8th Thermidor] Robespierre came to the Convention
   and delivered one of his most elaborate speeches, maintaining
   that the affairs of France had been mismanaged; that the army
   had been allowed to become dangerously independent; that the
   Government must be strengthened and simplified; and that
   traitors must be punished. He made no definite proposals, and
   did not name his intended victims. The real meaning of the
   speech was evidently that he ought to be made Dictator, but
   that in order to obtain his end, it was necessary to conceal
   the use he meant to make of his power. The members of the
   Convention naturally felt that some of themselves were aimed
   at. Few felt themselves safe; but Robespierre's dominance had
   become so established that no one ventured at first to
   criticize. It was proposed, and carried unanimously, that the
   speech should be printed and circulated throughout France.
   Then at length a deputy named Cambon rose to answer
   Robespierre's attacks on the recent management of the
   finances. Finding himself favourably listened to, he went on
   to attack Robespierre himself. Other members of the hitherto
   docile Convention now took courage; and it was decided that
   the speech should be referred to the Committees before it was
   printed. The crisis was now at hand. Robespierre went down as
   usual to the Jacobin Club, where he was received with the
   usual enthusiasm. The members swore to die with their leader,
   or to suppress his enemies. On the following day [9th
   Thermidor] St. Just attacked Billaud and Collot. Billaud
   [followed and supported by Tallien] replied by asserting that
   on the previous night the Jacobins had pledged themselves to
   massacre the deputies. Then the storm burst. A cry of horror
   and indignation arose; and as Billaud proceeded to give
   details of the alleged conspiracy, shouts of 'Down with the
   tyrant!' began to rise from the benches. Robespierre vainly
   strove to obtain a hearing. He rushed about the chamber,
   appealing to the several groups. As he went up to the higher
   benches on the Left, he was met with the cry, 'Back, tyrant,
   the shade of Danton repels you!' and when he sought shelter
   among the deputies on the Right, and actually sat down in
   their midst, they indignantly exclaimed, 'Wretch, that was
   Vergniaud's seat!' Baited on all sides, his attempts to speak
   became shrieks, which were scarcely audible, however, amid the
   shouts and interruptions that rose from all the groups. His
   voice grew hoarser … till at length it failed him
   altogether. Then one of the Mountain cried, 'The blood of
   Danton chokes him!' Amid a scene of indescribable excitement
   and uproar, a decree was passed that Robespierre and some of
   his leading followers should be arrested. They were seized by
   the officers of the Convention, and hurried off to different
   prisons; so that, in case of a rescue, only one of them might
   be released. There was room enough for fear. The Commune
   organized an insurrection, as soon as they heard what the
   Convention had done; and by a sudden attack the prisoners were
   all delivered from the hands of their guards. Both parties now
   hastily gathered armed forces. Those of the municipality were
   by far the most numerous, and Henriot confidently ordered them
   to advance. But the men refused to obey. The Sections mostly
   declared for the Convention, and thus by an unexpected
   reaction the Robespierian leaders found themselves almost
   deserted. A detachment of soldiers forced their way into the
   room where the small band of fanatics were drawing up a
   Proclamation. A pistol was fired; and no one knows with
   certainty whether Robespierre attempted suicide, or was shot
   by one of his opponents. At any rate his jaw was fractured,
   and he was laid out, a ghastly spectacle, on an adjacent
   table. The room was soon crowded. Some spat at the prostrate
   form. Others stabbed him with their knives. Soon he was
   dragged [along with Couthon, St. Just, Henriot, and others]
   before the Tribunal which he himself had instituted. The
   necessary formalities were hurried through, and the mangled
   body was borne to the guillotine, where what remained to him
   of life was quickly extinguished. Then, from the crowd, a man
   stepped quickly up to the blood-stained corpse, and uttered
   over him the words, 'Yes, Robespierre, there is a God!'"

      _J. E. Symes.
      The French Revolution,
      chapter 13._

{1307}

   "Samson's work done, there bursts forth shout on shout of
   applause. Shout, which prolongs itself not only over Paris,
   but over France, but over Europe, and down to this generation.
   Deservedly, and also undeservedly. O unhappiest Advocate of
   Arras, wert thou worse than other Advocates? Stricter man,
   according to his Formula, to his Credo and his Cant, of
   probities, benevolences, pleasures-of-virtue, and suchlike,
   lived not in that age. A man fitted, in some luckier settled
   age, to have become one of those incorruptible barren
   Pattern-Figures, and have had marble-tablets and
   funeral-sermons. His poor landlord, the Cabinet-maker in the
   Rue Saint-Honorè, loved him; his Brother died for him. May God
   be merciful to him and to us! This is the end of the Reign of
   Terror; new glorious Revolution named 'of Thermidor'; of
   Thermidor 9th, year 2; which being interpreted into old
   slave-style means 27th of July, 1794."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      book 6, chapter 7 (volume 3)._

   "He [Robespierre] had qualities, it is true, which we must
   respect; he was honest, sincere, self-denying and consistent.
   But he was cowardly, relentless, pedantic, unloving, intensely
   vain and morbidly envious. … He has not left the legacy to
   mankind of one grand thought, nor the example of one generous
   and exalted action."

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre.
      Conclusion._

   "The ninth of Thermidor is one of the great epochs in the
   history of Europe. It is true that the three members of the
   Committee of Public Safety [Billaud, Collot, and Barère],
   who triumphed were by no means better men than the three
   [Robespierre, Couthon, and St. Just], who fell. Indeed, we are
   inclined to think that of these six statesmen the least bad
   were Robespierre and St. Just, whose cruelty was the effect of
   sincere fanaticism operating on narrow understandings and
   acrimonious tempers. The worst of the six was, beyond all
   doubt, Barère, who had no faith in any part of the system
   which he upheld by persecution."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Barère's Memoirs
      (Essays, volume 5)._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Everitt,
      Guillotine the Great,
      chapter 2._

      _J. W. Croker,
      Robespierre (Quarterly Review,
      September, 1835, volume 34)._

      _W. Chambers,
      Robespierre
      (Chambers' Edin. Journal, 1852)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (July-April).
   Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
   The Thermidorians and the Jeunesse Doree.
   End of the Jacobin Club.
   Insurrection of Germinal 12.
   Fall of the Montagnards.
   The White Terror in the Provinces.

   "On the morning of the 10th of Thermidor all the people who
   lived near the prisons of Paris crowded on the roofs of their
   houses and cried, 'All is over! Robespierre is dead!' The
   thousands of prisoners, who had believed themselves doomed to
   death, imagined themselves rescued from the tomb. Many were
   set free the same day, and all the rest regained hope and
   confidence. Their feeling of deliverance was shared throughout
   France. The Reign of Terror had become a sort of nightmare
   that stifled the nation, and the Reign of Terror and
   Robespierre were identical in the sight of the great majority.
   … The Convention presented a strange aspect. Party remnants
   were united in the coalition party called the 'Thermidorians.'
   Many of the Mountaineers and of those who had been fiercest in
   their missions presently took seats with the Right or Centre;
   and the periodic change of Committees, so long contested, was
   determined upon. Lots were drawn, and Barère, Lindet, and
   Prieur went out; Carnot, indispensable in the war, was
   re-elected until the coming spring; Billaud and Collot,
   feeling out of place in the new order of things, resigned.
   Danton's friends now prevailed; but, alas! the Dantonists were
   not Danton."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      chapter 22 (volume l)._

   "The Reign of Terror was practically over, but the
   ground-swell which follows a storm continued for some time
   longer. Twenty-one victims suffered on the same day with
   Robespierre, 70 on the next; altogether 114 were condemned and
   executed in the three days which followed his death. … A
   strong reaction against the 'Terreur' now set in. Upwards of
   10,000 'suspects' were set free, and Robespierre's law of the
   22 Prairial was abolished. Fréron, a leading Thermidorien,
   organized a band of young men who called themselves the
   Jeunesse Dorée [gilded youth], or Muscadins, and chiefly
   frequented the Palais Royal. They wore a ridiculous dress, 'a
   la Victime' [large cravat, black or green collar, and crape
   around the arm, signifying relationship to some of the victims
   of the revolutionary tribunal.—Thiers], and devoted
   themselves to punishing the Jacobins. They had their hymn, 'Le
   réveil du Peuple.' which they sang about the street, often
   coming into collision with the sans-culottes shouting the
   Marseillaise. On the 11th of November the Muscadins broke open
   the hall of the celebrated club, turned out the members, and
   shut it up for ever. … The committees of Salut Public and
   Sureté Générale were entirely remodelled and their powers much
   restrained; also the Revolutionary Tribunal was reorganized on
   the lines advocated by Camille Desmoulins in his proposal for
   a Comité de Clémence—which cost him his life. Carrier and
   Lebon suffered death for their atrocious conduct in La Vendée
   and [Arras]; 73 members who had protested against the arrest
   of the Girondins were recalled, and the survivors of the
   leading Girondists, Louvet, Lanjuinais, Isnard,
   Larévillière-Lépeaux and others, 22 in number, were restored
   to their seats in the Convention."

      _Sergent Marceau,
      Reminiscences of a Regicide,
      part 2, chapter 12._

   "Billaud, Collot, and other marked Terrorists, already
   denounced in the Convention by Danton's friends, felt that
   danger was every day drawing nearer to themselves. Their fate
   was to all appearance sealed by the readmission to the
   Convention (December 8) of the 73 deputies of the right,
   imprisoned in 1793 for signing protests against the expulsion
   of the Girondists. By the return of these deputies the
   complexion of the Assembly was entirely altered. … They now
   sought to undo the work of the Convention since the
   insurrection by which their party had been overwhelmed. They
   demanded that confiscated property should be restored to the
   relatives of persons condemned by the revolutionary courts;
   that emigrants who had fled in consequence of Terrorist
   persecutions should be allowed to return; that those deputies
   proscribed on June 2, 1793, who yet survived, should be
   recalled to their seats. The Mountain, as a body, violently
   opposed even the discussion of such questions. The
   Thermidorians split into two divisions. Some in alarm rejoined
   the Mountain; while others, headed by Tallien and Fréron,
   sought their safety by coalescing with the returned members of
   the right. A committee was appointed to report on accusations
   brought against Collot, Billaud, Barère, and Vadier (December
   27, 1794). In a few weeks the survivors of the proscribed
   deputies entered the Convention amidst applause (March 8,
   1795). … There was at this time great misery prevalent in
   Paris, and imminent peril of insurrection.
{1308}
   After Robespierre's fall, maximum prices were no longer
   observed, and assignats were only accepted in payment of goods
   at their real value compared with coin. The result was a rapid
   rise in prices, so that in December prices were double what
   they had been in July, and were continuing to rise in
   proportion as assignats decreased in value. … The maximum
   laws, already a dead letter, were repealed (December 24). The
   abolition of maximum prices and requisitions increased the
   already lavish expenditure of the Government, which, to meet
   the deficit in its revenues, had no resource but to create
   more assignats, and the faster these were issued the faster
   they fell in value and the higher prices rose. In July 1794,
   they had been worth 34 per cent. of their nominal value. In
   December they were worth 22 per cent., and in May 1795 they
   were worth only 7 per cent. … At this time a pound of bread
   cost eight shillings, of rice thirteen, of sugar seventeen,
   and other articles were all proportionately dear. It is
   literally true that more than half the population of Paris was
   only kept alive by occasional distributions of meat and other
   articles at low prices, and the daily distribution of bread at
   three half-pence a pound. In February, however, this source of
   relief threatened to fail. … On April 1, or Germinal 12,
   bread riots, begun by women, broke out in every section. Bands
   collected and forced their way into the Convention, shouting
   for bread, but offering no violence to the deputies. … The
   crowd was already dispersing when forces arrived from the
   sections and cleared the House. The insurrection was a
   spontaneous rising for bread, without method or combination.
   The Terrorists had sought, but vainly, to obtain direction of
   it. Had they succeeded, the Mountain would have had an
   opportunity of proscribing the right. Their failure gave the
   right the opportunity of proscribing the left. The
   transportation to Cayenne of Billaud, Collot, Barère, and
   Vadier was decreed, and the arrest of fifteen other
   Montagnards, accused without proof, in several cases without
   probability, of having been accomplices of the insurgents. …
   The insurrection of Germinal 12 gave increased strength to the
   party of reaction. The Convention, in dread of the Terrorists,
   was compelled to look to it for support. … In the
   departments famine, disorder, and crime prevailed, as well as
   in Paris. … From the first the reaction proceeded in the
   departments with a more rapid step and in bolder form than in
   Paris. … In the departments of the south-east, where the
   Royalists had always possessed a strong following, emigrants
   of all descriptions readily made their way back; and here the
   opponents of the Republic, instigated by a desire for
   vengeance, or merely by party spirit, commenced a reaction
   stained by crimes as atrocious as any committed during the
   course of the revolution. Young men belonging to the upper and
   middle classes were organised in bands bearing the names of
   companies of Jesus and companies of the Sun, and first at
   Lyons, then at Aix, Toulon, Marseilles, and other towns, they
   broke into the prisons and murdered their inmates without
   distinction of age or sex. Besides the Terrorist and the
   Jacobin, neither the Republican nor the purchaser of State
   lands was safe from their knives; and in the country numerous
   isolated murders were committed. This lawless and brutal
   movement, called the White Terror in distinction to the Red
   Terror preceding Thermidor 9, was suffered for weeks to run
   its course unchecked, and counted its victims by many
   hundreds, spreading over the whole of Provence, besides the
   departments of Rhone, Gard, Loire, Ain, and Jura."

      _B. M. Gardiner,
      The French Revolution,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution (American edition),
      volume 3, pages 109-136; 149-175; 193-225._

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 12, chapters 1-3._

      _J. Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapters 5._

      _A. des Echerolles,
      Early Life,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (October-May).
   Subjugation of Holland.
   Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
   Peace of Basle with Prussia.
   Successes on the Spanish and Italian frontiers.
   Crumbling of the Coalition.

   "Pichegru having taken Bois le Duc, October 9th, the Duke of
   York retreated to the Ar, and thence beyond the Waal. Venloo
   fell October 27th, Maestricht November 4th, and the capture of
   Nimeguen on the 9th, which the English abandoned after the
   fall of Maestricht, opened to the French the road into
   Holland. The Duke of York resigned the command to General
   Walmoden, December 2nd, and returned into England. His
   departure showed that the English government had abandoned all
   hope of saving Holland. It had, indeed, consented that the
   States-General should propose terms of accommodation to the
   French; and two Dutch envoys had been despatched to Paris to
   offer to the Committee of Public Welfare the recognition by
   their government of the French Republic, and the payment of
   200,000,000 florins within a year. But the Committee,
   suspecting that these offers were made only with the view of
   gaining time, paid no attention to them. The French were
   repulsed in their first attempt to cross the Waal by General
   Duncan with 8,000 English; but a severe frost enabled them to
   pass over on the ice, January 11th, 1795. Nothing but a
   victory could now save Holland. But Walmoden, instead of
   concentrating his troops for the purpose of giving battle,
   retreated over the Yssel, and finally over the Ems into
   Westphalia, whence the troops were carried to England by sea
   from Bremen. … General Alvinzi, who held the Rhine between
   Emmerich and Arnheim, having retired upon Wesel, Pichegru had
   only to advance. On entering Holland, he called upon the
   patriots to rise, and his occupation of the Dutch towns was
   immediately followed by a revolution. The Prince of Orange,
   the hereditary Stadtholder, embarked for England, January
   19th, on which day Pichegru's advanced columns entered
   Amsterdam. Next day the Dutch fleet, frozen up in the Texel,
   was captured by the French hussars. Before the end of January
   the reduction of Holland had been completed, and a provincial
   [provisional?] government established at the Hague. The
   States-General, assembled February 24th, 1795, having
   received, through French influence, a new infusion of the
   patriot party, pronounced the abolition of the Stadtholderate,
   proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the establishment
   of the Batavian Republic. A treaty of Peace with France
   followed, May 16th, and an-offensive alliance against all
   enemies whatsoever till the end of the war, and against
   England for ever.
{1309}
   The sea and land forces to be provided by the Dutch were to
   serve under French commanders. Thus the new republic became a
   mere dependency of France. Dutch Flanders, the district on the
   left bank of the Hondt, Maestricht, Venloo, were retained by
   the French as a just indemnity for the expenses of the war, on
   which account the Dutch were also to pay 100,000,000 florins;
   but they were to receive, at the general peace, an equivalent
   for the ceded territories. By secret articles, the Dutch were
   to lend the French seven ships of war, to support a French
   army of 25,000 men, &c. Over and above the requisitions of the
   treaty, they were also called upon to reclothe the French
   troops, and to furnish them with provisions. In short, though
   the Dutch patriots had 'fraternised' with the French, and
   received them with open arms, they were treated little better
   than a conquered people. Secret negotiations had been for some
   time going on between France and Prussia for a peace. …
   Frederick William II., … satisfied with his acquisitions in
   Poland, to which the English and Dutch subsidies had helped
   him, … abandoned himself to his voluptuous habits," and made
   overtures to the French. "Perhaps not the least influential
   among Frederick William's motives, was the refusal of the
   maritime Powers any longer to subsidise him for doing nothing.
   … The Peace of Basle, between the French Republic and the
   King of Prussia, was signed April 5th 1795. The French troops
   were allowed to continue the occupation of the Rhenish
   provinces on the left bank. An article, that neither party
   should permit troops of the enemies of either to pass over its
   territories, was calculated to embarrass the Austrians. France
   agreed to accept the mediation of Prussia for princes of the
   Empire. … Prussia should engage in no hostile enterprise
   against Holland, or any other country occupied by French
   troops; while the French agreed not to push their enterprises
   in Germany beyond a certain line of demarcation, including the
   Circles of Westphalia, Higher and Lower Saxony; Franconia, and
   that part of the two Circles of the Rhine situate on the right
   bank of the Main. … Thus the King of Prussia, originally the
   most ardent promoter of the Coalition, was one of the first to
   desert it. By signing the Peace of Basle, he sacrificed
   Holland, facilitated the invasion of the Empire by the French,
   and thus prepared the ruin of the ancient German
   constitution." In the meantime the French had been pushing war
   with success on their Spanish frontier, recovering the ground
   which they had lost in the early part of 1794. In the eastern
   Pyrenees, Dugommier "retook Bellegarde in September, the last
   position held by the Spaniards in France, and by the battle of
   the Montagne Noire, which lasted from November 17th to the
   20th, opened the way into Catalonia. But at the beginning of
   this battle Dugommier was killed. Figuières surrendered
   November 24th, through the influence of the French democratic
   propaganda. On the west, Moncey captured St. Sebastian and
   Fuentarabia in August, and was preparing to attack Pampeluna,
   when terrible storms … compelled him to retreat on the
   Bidassoa, and closed the campaign in that quarter. On the side
   of Piedmont, the French, after some reverses, succeeded in
   making themselves masters of Mont Cenis and the passes of the
   Maritime Alps, thus holding the keys of Italy; but the
   Government, content with this success, ventured not at present
   to undertake the invasion of that country." The King of
   Sardinia, Victor Amadeus, remained faithful to his engagements
   with Austria, although the French tempted him with an offer of
   the Milanese, "and the exchange of the island of Sardinia for
   territory more conveniently situated. With the Grand Duke of
   Tuscany they were more successful. … On February 9th 1795, a
   treaty was signed by which the Grand Duke revoked his adhesion
   to the Coalition. … Thus Ferdinand was the first to desert
   the Emperor, his brother. The example of Tuscany was followed
   by the Regent of Sweden."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 7 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN
      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 4, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

      _L. P. Segur,
      History of the Reign of Frederick William II. of Prussia,
      volume 3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
   Brigandage in La Vendée.
   Chouannerie in Brittany.
   The Disastrous Quiberon expedition.
   End of the Vendean War.

   "Since the defeat at Savenay, the Vendée was no longer the
   scene of grand operations, but of brigandage and atrocities
   without result. The peasants, though detesting the Revolution,
   were anxious for peace; but, as there were still two chiefs,
   Charette and Stoffiet, in the field, who hated each other,
   this wish could scarcely be gratified. General Thurieu, sent
   by the former Revolutionary Committee, had but increased this
   detestation by allowing pillage and incendiarism. After the
   death of Robespierre he was replaced by General Clancaux, who
   had orders to employ more conciliatory measures. The defeat of
   the rebel troops at Savenay, and their subsequent dispersion,
   had led to a kind of guerilla warfare throughout the whole of
   Brittany, known by the name of Chouannerie. ['A poor peasant,
   named Jean Cottereau, had distinguished himself in this
   movement above all his companions, and his family bore the
   name of Chouans (Chat-huans) or night-owls. … The name of
   Chouan passed from him to all the insurgents of Bretagne,
   although he himself never led more than a few hundred
   peasants, who obeyed him, as they said, out of friendship.']

      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 4, page 238._

   The Chouans attacked the public conveyances, infested the high
   roads, murdered isolated bands of soldiers and functionaries.
   Their chiefs were Scepeaux, Bourmont, Cadoudal, but especially
   Puisaye … formerly general of the Girondins, and who wanted
   to raise a more formidable insurrection than had hitherto been
   organised. Against them was sent Hoche [September, 1794], who
   accustomed his soldiers to pacify rather than destroy, and
   taught them to respect the habits, but above all the religion,
   of the inhabitants. After some difficult negotiations with
   Charette peace was concluded (15th February), but the
   suppression of the Chouans was more difficult still, and Hoche
   … displayed in this ungrateful mission all the talents and
   humanity for which he was ever celebrated. Puisaye himself was
   in England, having obtained Pitt's promise of a fleet and an
   army, but his aide-de-camp concluded in his absence a treaty
   similar to that of Charette. … Stoffiet surrendered the
   last.
{1310}
   Not much dependence could be placed on either of these
   pacifications, Charette himself having confessed in a letter
   to the Count de Provence that they were but a trap for the
   Republicans; but they proved useful, nevertheless, by
   accustoming the country to peace." This deceptive state of
   peace came to an end early in the summer of 1795. "The
   conspiracy organised in London by Puisaye, assisted and
   subsidised by Pitt, … fitted out a fleet, which harassed the
   French naval squadron, and then set sail for Brittany, where
   the expedition made itself master of the peninsula of Quiberon
   and the fort Penthièvre (27th June). The Brittany peasants,
   suspicious of the Vendeans and hating the English, did not
   respond to the call for revolt, and occasioned a loss of time
   to the invaders, of which Hoche took advantage to bring
   together his troops and to march on Quiberon, where he
   defeated the vanguard of the émigrés, and surrounded them in
   the peninsula. Puisaye [who had, it is said, about 10,000 men,
   émigrés and Chouans] attempted to crush Hoche by an attack in
   the rear, but was eventually out-manœuvred, Fort Penthièvre
   was scaled during the night, and the émigrés were routed;
   whilst the English squadron was caught in a hurricane and
   could not come to their assistance, save with one ship, which
   fired indiscriminately on friend and foe alike. Most of the
   Royalists rushed into the sea, where nearly all of them
   perished. Scarcely a thousand men remained, and these fought
   heroically. It is said that a promise was given to them that
   if they surrendered their lives should be spared, and,
   accordingly, 711 laid down their arms (21st July). By order of
   the Convention … these 711 émigrés were shot. … From his
   camp at Belleville, Charette, one of the insurgent generals,
   responded to this execution by the massacre of 2,000
   Republican prisoners." In the following October another
   expedition of Royalists, fitted out in England under the
   auspices of Pitt, "landed at the Ile Dieu … a small island
   about eight miles from the mainland of Poitou, and was
   composed of 2,500 men, who were destined to be the nucleus of
   several regiments; it also had on board a large store of arms,
   ammunition, and the Count d'Artois. Charette, named general
   commander of the Catholic forces, was awaiting him with 10,000
   men. The whole of the Vendée was ready to rise the moment the
   prince touched French soil, but frivolous and undecided, he
   waited six weeks in idleness, endeavouring to obtain from
   England his recall. Hoche, to whom the command of the
   Republican forces had been entrusted, took advantage of this
   delay to cut off Charette from his communications, while he
   held Stoffiet and the rest of the Brittany chiefs in check,
   and occupied the coast with 30,000 men. The Count d'Artois,
   whom Pitt would not recall, entreated the English commander to
   set sail for England (December 17th, 1795), and the latter,
   unable to manage his fleet on a coast without shelter,
   complied with his request, leaving the prince on his arrival
   to the deserved contempt of even his own partisans. Charette
   in despair attempted another rising, hoping to be seconded by
   Stofflet, but he was beaten on all sides by Hoche. This
   general, who combined the astuteness of the statesman with the
   valour of the soldier, succeeded in a short time in pacifying
   the country by his generous but firm behaviour towards the
   inhabitants. Charette, tracked from shelter to shelter, was
   finally compelled to surrender, brought to Nantes, and shot
   (March 24th). The same lot had befallen Stofflet a month
   before at Angers. After these events Hoche led his troops into
   Brittany, where he succeeded in putting an end to the
   'Chouannerie.' The west returned to its normal condition."

      _H. Van Laun,
      The French Revolutionary Epoch,
      book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 3, pages 144-145; 188-193;
      230-240; 281-305; 343-345; 358-363; 384-389._

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (April).
   The question of the Constitution.
   Insurrection of the 1st Prairial and its failure.
   Disarming of the Faubourgs.
   End of Sansculottism.
   Bourgeoisie dominant again.

   "The events of the 12th of Germinal decided nothing. The
   faubourgs had been repulsed, but not conquered. … After so
   many questions decided against the democratists, there still
   remained one of the utmost importance—the constitution. On
   this depended the ascendancy of the multitude or of the
   bourgeoisie. The supporters of the revolutionary government
   then fell back on the democratic constitution of '93, which
   presented to them the means of resuming the authority they had
   lost. Their opponents, on the other hand, endeavoured to
   replace it by a constitution which would secure all the
   advantage to them, by concentrating the government a little
   more, and giving it to the middle class. For a month, both
   parties were preparing for this last contest. The constitution
   of 1793, having been sanctioned by the people, enjoyed a great
   prestige. It was accordingly attacked with infinite
   precaution. At first its assailants engaged to carry it into
   execution without restriction; next they appointed a
   commission of eleven members to prepare the 'lois organiques'
   which were to render it practicable; by and by, they ventured
   to suggest objections to it on the ground that it distributed
   power too loosely, and only recognised one assembly dependent
   on the people, even in its measures of legislation. At last, a
   sectionary deputation went so far as to term the constitution
   of '93 a decemviral constitution, dictated by terror. All its
   partisans, at once indignant and filled with fears, organized
   an insurrection to maintain it. … The conspirators, warned
   by the failure of the risings of the 1st and 12th Germinal,
   omitted nothing to make up for their want of direct object and
   of organization. On the 1st Prairial (20th of May) in the name
   of the people, insurgent for the purpose of obtaining bread
   and their rights, they decreed the abolition of the
   revolutionary government, the establishment of the democratic
   constitution of '93, the dismissal and arrest of the members
   of the existing government, the liberation of the patriots,
   the convocation of the primary assemblies on the 25th
   Prairial, the convocation of the legislative assembly,
   destined to replace the convention, on the 25th Messidor, and
   the suspension of all authority not emanating from the people.
   They determined on forming a new municipality, to serve as a
   common centre; to seize on the barriers, telegraph, cannon,
   tocsins, drums, and not to rest till they had secured repose,
   happiness, liberty, and means of subsistence for all the
   French nation. They invited the artillery, gendarmes, horse
   and foot soldiers, to join the banners of the people, and
   marched on the convention. Meantime, the latter was
   deliberating on the means of preventing the insurrection. …
{1311}
   The committees came in all haste to apprise it of its danger;
   it immediately declared its sitting permanent, voted Paris
   responsible for the safety of the representatives of the
   republic, closed its doors, outlawed all the leaders of the
   mob, summoned the citizens of the sections to arms, and
   appointed as their leaders eight commissioners, among whom
   were Legendre, Henri la Riviere, Kervelegan, &c. These
   deputies had scarcely gone, when a loud noise was heard
   without. An outer door had been forced, and numbers of women
   rushed into the galleries, crying 'Bread and the constitution
   of '93!' … The galleries were … cleared; but the
   insurgents of the faubourgs soon reached the inner doors, and,
   finding them closed, forced them with hatchets and hammers,
   and then rushed in amidst the convention. The Hall now became
   a field of battle. The veterans and gendarmes, to whom the
   guard of the assembly was confided, cried 'To arms!' The
   deputy Auguis, sword in hand, headed them, and succeeded in
   repelling the assailants, and even made a few of them
   prisoners. But the insurgents, more numerous, returned to the
   charge, and again rushed into the house. The deputy Feraud
   entered precipitately, pursued by the insurgents, who fired
   some shots in the house. They took aim at Boissy d'Anglas, who
   was occupying the president's chair. … Feraud ran to the
   tribune, to shield him with his body; he was struck at with
   pikes and sabres, and fell dangerously wounded. The insurgents
   dragged him into the lobby, and, mistaking him for Freron, cut
   off his head and placed it on a pike. After this skirmish they
   became masters of the Hall. Most of the deputies had taken
   flight. There only remained the members of the Crête [the
   'Crest'—a name now given to the remnant of the party of 'The
   Mountain'] and Boissy d'Anglas, who, calm, his hat on,
   heedless of threat and insult, protested in the name of the
   convention against this popular violence. They held out to him
   the bleeding head of Feraud; he bowed respectfully before it.
   They tried to force him, by placing pikes at his breast, to
   put the propositions of the insurgents to the vote; he
   steadily and courageously refused. But the Crêtois, who
   approved of the insurrection, took possession of the bureaux
   and of the tribune, and decreed, amidst the applause of the
   multitude, all the articles contained in the manifesto of the
   insurrection." Meantime "the commissioners despatched to the
   sections had quickly gathered them together. … The aspect of
   affairs then underwent a change; Legendre, Kervelagan, and
   Auguis besieged the insurgents, in their turn, at the head of
   the sectionaries," and drove them at last from the hall of the
   convention. "The assembly again became complete; the sections
   received a vote of thanks, and the deliberations were resumed.
   All the measures adopted in the interim were annulled, and
   fourteen representatives, to whom were afterwards joined
   fourteen others, were arrested, for organizing the
   insurrection or approving it in their speeches. It was then
   midnight; at five in the morning the prisoners were already
   six leagues from Paris. Despite this defeat, the Faubourgs did
   not consider themselves beaten; and the next day they advanced
   en masse with their cannon against the convention. The
   sections, on their side, marched for its defence." But a
   collision was averted by negotiations, and the insurgents
   withdrew, "after having received an assurance that the
   Convention would assiduously attend to the question of
   provisions, and would soon publish the organic laws of the
   constitution of '93. … Six democratic Mountaineers, Goujon,
   Bourbotte, Romme, Duroy, Duquesnoy, and Soubrany were brought
   before a military commission … and … condemned to death.
   They all stabbed themselves with the same knife, which was
   transferred from one to the other, exclaiming, 'Vive la
   République!' Romme, Goujon, and Duquesnoy were fortunate
   enough to wound themselves fatally; the other three were
   conducted to the scaffold in a dying state, but faced death
   with serene countenances. Meantime, the Faubourgs, though
   repelled on the 1st, and diverted from their object on the 2nd
   of Prairial, still had the means of rising," and the
   convention ordered them to be disarmed. "They were encompassed
   by all the interior sections. After attempting to resist, they
   yielded, giving up some of their leaders, their arms, and
   artillery. … The inferior class was entirely excluded from
   the government of the state; the revolutionary committees
   which formed its assemblies were destroyed; the cannoneers
   forming its armed force were disarmed; the constitution of
   '93, which was its code, was abolished; and here the rule of
   the multitude terminated. … From that period, the middle
   class resumed the management of the revolution without, and
   the assembly was as united under the Girondists as it had
   been, after the 2nd of June, under the Mountaineers."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duchesse d'Abrantes,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 12-14 (volume l)._

      _T. Carlyle,
      The French Revolution,
      volume 3, book 7, chapters 4-6._

      _G. Long,
      France and its Revolutions,
      chapter 53._

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-September).
   Framing and adoption of the Constitution of the Year III.
   Self-renewing decrees of the Convention.
   Hostility in Paris to them.
   Intrigues of the Royalists.

   "The royalist party, beaten on the frontiers, and deserted by
   the court of Spain, on which it placed most reliance, was now
   obliged to confine itself to intrigues in the interior; and it
   must be confessed that, at this moment, Paris offered a wide
   field for such intrigues. The work of the constitution was
   advancing; the time when the Convention was to resign its
   powers, when France should meet to elect fresh
   representatives, when a new Assembly should succeed that which
   had so long reigned, was more favourable than any other for
   counter-revolutionary manœuvres. The most vehement passions
   were in agitation in the sections of Paris. The members of
   them were not royalists, but they served the cause of royalty
   without being aware of it. They had made a point of opposing
   the Terrorists; they had animated themselves by the conflict;
   they wished to persecute also; and they were exasperated
   against the Convention, which would not permit this
   persecution to be carried too far. They were always ready to
   remember that Terror had sprung from its bosom; they demanded
   of it a constitution and laws, and the end of the long
   dictatorship which it had exercised. … Behind this mass the
   royalists concealed themselves. … The constitution had been
   presented by the commission of eleven. It was discussed during
   the three months of Messidor, Thermidor, and Fructidor
   [June-August], and was successively decreed with very little
   alteration."
{1312}
   The principal features of the constitution so framed, known as
   the Constitution of the Year III., were the following: "A
   Council, called 'The Council of the Five Hundred,' composed of
   500 members, of, at least, thirty years of age, having
   exclusively the right of proposing laws, one-third to be
   renewed every year. A Council called 'The Council of the
   Ancients,' composed of 250 members, of, at least, forty years
   of age, all either widowers or married, having the sanction of
   the laws, to be renewed also by one-third. An executive
   Directory, composed of five members, deciding by a majority,
   to be renewed annually by one-fifth, having responsible
   ministers. … The mode of nominating these powers was the
   following: All the citizens of the age of twenty-one met of
   right in primary assembly on every first day of the month of
   Prairial, and nominated electoral assemblies. These electoral
   assemblies met every 20th of Prairial, and nominated the two
   Councils; and the two Councils nominated the Directory. …
   The judicial authority was committed to elective judges. …
   There were to be no communal assemblies, but municipal and
   departmental administrations, composed of three, five, or more
   members, according to the population: they were to be formed
   by way of election. … The press was entirely free. The
   emigrants were banished for ever from the territory of the
   republic; the national domains were irrevocably secured to the
   purchasers; all religions were declared free, but were neither
   acknowledged nor paid by the state. … One important question
   was started. The Constituent Assembly, from a parade of
   disinterestedness, had excluded itself from the new
   legislative body [the Legislative Assembly of 1791]; would the
   Convention do the same?" The members of the Convention decided
   this question in the negative, and "decreed, on the 5th of
   Fructidor (August 22d), that the new legislative body should
   be composed of two-thirds of the Convention, and that one new
   third only should be elected. The question to be decided was,
   whether the Convention should itself designate the two-thirds
   to be retained, or whether it should leave that duty to the
   electoral assemblies. After a tremendous dispute, it was
   agreed on the 13th of Fructidor (August 30), that this choice
   should be left to the electoral assemblies. It was decided
   that the primary assemblies should meet on the 20th of
   Fructidor (September 6th), to accept the constitution and the
   two decrees of the 5th and the 13th of Fructidor. It was
   likewise decided that, after giving their votes upon the
   constitution and the decrees, the primary assemblies should
   again meet and proceed forthwith, that is to say, in the year
   III. (1795), to the elections for the 1st of Prairial in the
   following year." The right of voting upon the constitution was
   extended, by another decree, to the armies in the field. "No
   sooner were these resolutions adopted, than the enemies of the
   Convention, so numerous and so diverse, were deeply mortified
   by them. … The Convention, they said, was determined to
   cling to power; … it wished to retain by force a majority
   composed of men who had covered France with scaffolds. … All
   the sections of Paris, excepting that of the Quinze-Vingts,
   accepted the Constitution and rejected the decrees. The result
   was not the same in the rest of France. … On the 1st of
   Vendémiaire, year IV. (September 23, 1795), the general result
   of the votes was proclaimed. The constitution was accepted
   almost unanimously, and the decrees by an immense majority of
   the voters." The Convention now decreed that the new
   legislative body should be elected in October and meet
   November 6.

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 3, pages 305-315._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 12, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 1, and appendix 3._

      _J. Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-December).
   Death of the late King's son (Louis XVII.)
   Treaty of Basle with Spain.
   Acquisition of Spanish San Domingo.
   Ineffectual campaign on the Rhine.
   Victory at Loano.

   "The Committees had formed great plans for the campaign of
   1795; meaning to invade the territories of the allies, take
   Mayence, and enter Southern Germany, go down into Italy, and
   reach the very heart of Spain. But Carnot, Lindet, and Prieur
   were no longer on the Committee, and their successors were not
   their equals; army discipline was relaxed; a vulgar
   reactionist had replaced Carnot in the war department and was
   working ruin. … The attack in Spain was to begin with the
   Lower Pyrenees, by the capture of Pampeluna and a march upon
   Castile, but famine and fever decimated the army of the
   Western Pyrenees, and General Moncey was forced to postpone
   all serious action till the summer. At the other end of the
   Pyrenees, the French and Spaniards were fighting aimlessly at
   the entry to Catalonia. The war was at a standstill; but the
   negotiations went on between the two countries. The king of
   Spain, as in honor bound, made the liberation of his young
   kinsman, the son of Louis XVI., a condition of peace. This the
   Republic would not grant, but the prisoner's death (June 8,
   1795) removed the obstacle. The counter-revolutionists accused
   the Committees of poisoning the child styled by the royalist
   party Louis XVII. This charge was false; the poor little
   prisoner died of scrofula, developed by inaction, ennui, and
   the sufferings of a pitiless imprisonment, increased by the
   cruel treatment of his jailers, a cobbler named Simon and his
   wife. A rumor was also spread that the child was not dead, but
   had been taken away and an impostor substituted, who had died.
   Only one of the royal family now remained in the Temple, Louis
   XVI.'s daughter, afterwards the Duchesse d'Angoulême. Spain
   interceded for her, and she was exchanged. … Peace with
   Spain was also hastened by French successes beyond the
   Pyrenees; General Marceau, being reinforced, took Vittoria and
   Bilboa, and pushed on to the Ebro. On the 22d of July,
   Barthelémi, the able French diplomatist, signed a treaty of
   peace with Spain at Basle, restoring her Biscayan and
   Catalonian provinces, and accepting Spanish mediation in favor
   of the king of Naples, Duke of Parma, king of Portugal, and
   'the other Italian powers,' including, though not mentioning,
   the Pope; and Spain yielded her share of San Domingo, which
   put a brighter face on French affairs in America. …
   Guadeloupe, Santa Lucia, and St. Eustache were restored to the
   French. … Spain soon made overtures for an alliance with
   France, wishing to put down the English desire to rule the
   seas; and, before the new treaty was signed, the army of the
   Eastern Pyrenees was sent to reinforce the armies of the Alps
   and Italy, who had only held their positions in the Apennines
   and on the Ligurian coast against the Austrians and
   Piedmontese by sheer force of will; but in the autumn of 1795
   the face of affairs was changed.
{1313}
   Now that Prussia had left the coalition, war on the Rhine went
   on between France and Austria, sustained by the South German
   States; France had to complete her mastery of the left bank by
   taking Mayence and Luxembourg; and Austria's aim was to
   dispute them with her. The French government charged Marceau
   to besiege Mayence during the winter of 1794-95, but did not
   furnish him the necessary resources, and, France not holding
   the right bank, Kléber could only partially invest the town,
   and both his soldiers and those blockading Luxembourg suffered
   greatly from cold and privation. Early in March, 1795,
   Pichegru was put in command of the armies of the Rhine and
   Moselle, and Jourdan was ordered to support him on the left
   (the Lower Rhine) with the army of Sambre-et-Meuse. Austria
   took no advantage of the feeble state of the French troops,
   and Luxembourg, one of the strongest posts in Europe,
   receiving no help, surrendered (June 24) with 800 cannon and
   huge store of provisions. The French now had the upper hand,
   Pichegru and Jourdan commanding 160,000 men on the Rhine. One
   of these men was upright and brave, but the other had treason
   in his soul; though everybody admired Pichegru, 'the conqueror
   of Holland.' … In August, 1795, an agent of the Prince of
   Condé, who was then at Brisgau, in the Black Forest, with his
   corps of emigrants, offered Pichegru, who was in Alsace, the
   title of Marshal of France and Governor of Alsace, the royal
   castle of Chambord, a million down, an annuity of 200,000
   livres, and a house in Paris, in the 'king's' name, thus
   flattering at once his vanity and his greed. … He was
   checked by no scruples; utterly devoid of moral sense, he
   hoped to gain his army by money and wine, and had no
   discussion with the Prince of Condé save as to the manner of
   his treason." In the end, Pichegru was not able to make his
   treason as effective as he had bargained to do; but he
   succeeded in spoiling the campaign of 1795 on the Rhine.
   Jourdan crossed the river and took Dusseldorf, with 168
   cannon, on the 6th of September, expecting a simultaneous
   movement on the part of Pichegru, to occupy the enemy in the
   latter's front. But Pichegru, though he took Mannheim, on the
   18th of September, threw a corps of 10,000 men into the hands
   of the Austrians, by placing it where it could be easily
   overwhelmed, and permitted his opponent, Wurmser, to send
   reinforcements to Clairfait, who forced Jourdan, in October,
   to retreat across the Rhine. "Pichegru's perfidy had thwarted
   a campaign which must have been decisive, and Jourdan's
   retreat was followed by the enemy's offensive return to the
   left bank [retaking Mannheim and raising the siege of
   Mayence], and by reverses which would have been fatal had they
   coincided with the outburst of royalist and reactionary plots
   and insurrections in the West, and in Paris itself; but they
   had luckily been stifled some time since, and as the
   Convention concluded its career, the direction of the war
   returned to the hands which guided it so well in 1793 and
   1794."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      chapter 24 (volume 1)._

   "The peace with Spain … enabled the government to detach the
   whole Pyrenean army to the support of General Scherer, who had
   succeeded Kellermann in the command of the army of Italy. On
   the 23d of November, the French attacked the Austrians in
   their position at Loano, and, after a conflict of two days,
   the enemy's centre was forced by Massena and Augereau, and the
   Imperialists fled with the loss of 7,000 men, 80 guns, and all
   their stores. But the season was too far advanced to prosecute
   this success, and the victors took up winter quarters on the
   ground they had occupied. … The capture of the Cape of Good
   Hope (September 16) by the British under Sir James Craig, was
   the only other important event of this year."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 154 and 157
      (chapter 18 of the complete work)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapter 13._

      _E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book. 1, chapters 19-20 (volume l)._

      _A. de Beauchesne,
      Louis XVII.: His Life, his Sufferings, his Death._

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (October-December).
   The Insurrection of the 13th Vendemiare, put down by
   Napoleon Bonaparte.
   Dissolution of the National Convention.
   Organization of the government of the Directory.
   Licentiousness of the time.

   "The Parisians … proclaimed their hostility to the
   Convention and its designs. The National Guard, consisting of
   armed citizens, almost unanimously sided with the enemies of
   the Convention; and it was openly proposed to march to the
   Tuilleries, and compel a change of measures by force of arms.
   The Convention perceiving their unpopularity and danger, began
   to look about them anxiously for the means of defence. There
   were in and near Paris 5,000 regular troops, on whom they
   thought they might rely, and who of course contemned the
   National Guard as only half soldiers. They had besides some
   hundreds of artillery men; and they now organised what they
   called 'the Sacred Band,' a body of 1,500 ruffians, the most
   part of them old and tried instruments of Robespierre. With
   these means they prepared to arrange a plan of defence; and it
   was obvious that they did not want materials, provided they
   could find a skilful and determined head. The insurgent
   sections placed themselves under the command of Danican, an
   old general of no great skill or reputation. The Convention
   opposed to him Menou; and he marched at the head of a column
   into the section Le Pelletier to disarm the National Guard of
   that district—one of the wealthiest of the capital. The
   National Guard were found drawn up in readiness to receive him
   at the end of the Rue Vivienne; and Menou, becoming alarmed,
   and hampered by the presence of some of the' Representatives
   of the People,' entered into a parley, and retired without
   having struck a blow. The Convention judged that Menou was not
   master of nerves for such a crisis; and consulted eagerly
   about a successor to his command. Barras, one of their number,
   had happened to be present at Toulon and to have appreciated
   the character of Buonaparte. He had, probably, been applied to
   by Napoleon in his recent pursuit of employment. Deliberating
   with Tallien and Carnot, his colleagues, he suddenly said, 'I
   have the man whom you want; it is a little Corsican officer,
   who will not stand upon ceremony.' These words decided the
   fate of Napoleon and of France. Buonaparte had been in the
   Odeon Theatre when the affair of Le Pelletier occurred, had
   run out, and witnessed the result. He now happened to be in
   the gallery, and heard the discussion concerning the conduct
   of Menou.
{1314}
   He was presently sent for, and asked his opinion as to that
   officer's retreat. He explained what had happened, and how the
   evil might have been avoided, in a manner which gave
   satisfaction. He was desired to assume the command, and
   arranged his plan of defence as well as the circumstances
   might permit; for it was already late at night, and the
   decisive assault on the Tuilleries was expected to take place
   next morning. Buonaparte stated that the failure of the march
   of Menou had been chiefly owing to the presence of the
   'Representatives of the People,' and refused to accept the
   command unless he received it free from all such interference.
   They yielded: Barras was named commander-in-chief; and
   Buonaparte second, with the virtual control. His first care
   was to despatch Murat, then a major of chasseurs, to Sablons,
   five miles off, where fifty great guns were posted. The
   Sectionaries sent a stronger detachment for these cannon
   immediately afterwards; and Murat, who passed them in the
   dark, would have gone in vain had he received his orders but a
   few minutes later. On the 4th of October (called in the
   revolutionary almanac the 13th Vendemiaire) the affray
   accordingly occurred. Thirty thousand National Guards advanced
   about two P. M., by different streets, to the siege of the
   palace: but its defence was now in far other hands than those
   of Louis XVI. Buonaparte, having planted artillery on all the
   bridges, had effectually secured the command of the river, and
   the safety of the Tuilleries on one side. He had placed cannon
   also at all the crossings of the streets by which the National
   Guard could advance towards the other front; and having posted
   his battalions in the garden of the Tuilleries and Place du
   Carousel, he awaited the attack. The insurgents had no cannon;
   and they came along the narrow streets of Paris in close and
   heavy columns. When one party reached the church of St. Roche,
   in the Rue St. Honoré, they found a body of Buonaparte's
   troops drawn up there, with two cannons. It is disputed on
   which side the firing began; but in an instant the artillery
   swept the streets and lanes, scattering grape-shot among the
   National Guards, and producing such confusion that they were
   compelled to give way. The first shot was a signal for all the
   batteries which Buonaparte had established; the quays of the
   Seine, opposite to the Tuilleries, were commanded by his guns
   below the palace and on the bridges. In less than an hour the
   action was over. The insurgents fled in all directions,
   leaving the streets covered with dead and wounded; the troops
   of the Convention marched into the various sections, disarmed
   the terrified inhabitants, and before nightfall everything was
   quiet. This eminent service secured the triumph of the
   Conventionalists. … Within five days from the Day of the
   Sections Buonaparte was named second in command of the army of
   the interior; and shortly afterwards, Barras finding his
   duties as Director sufficient to occupy his time, gave up the
   command-in-chief of the same army to his 'little Corsican
   officer.'"

      _J. G. Lockhart,
      Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
      chapter 3._

   The victory of the 13th Vendemiaire "enabled the Convention
   immediately to devote its attention to the formation of the
   Councils proposed by it, two-thirds of which were to consist
   of its own members. The first third, which was freely elected,
   had already been nominated by the Reactionary party. The
   members of the Directory were chosen, and the deputies of the
   Convention, believing that for their own interests the
   regicides should be at the head of the Government, nominated
   La Réveillère-Lepeaux, Sièyes, Rewbel, Le Tourneur, and
   Barras. Sièyes refused to act, and Carnot was elected in his
   place. Immediately after this, the Convention declared its
   session at an end, after it had had three years of existence,
   from the 21st September, 1792, to the 28th October, 1795 (4th
   Brumaire, Year IV.). … The Directors were all, with the
   exception of Carnot, of moderate capacity, and concurred in
   rendering their own position the more difficult. At this
   period there was no element of order or good government in the
   Republic; anarchy and uneasiness everywhere prevailed, famine
   had become chronic, the troops were without clothes,
   provisions or horses; the Convention had spent an immense
   capital represented by assignats, and had sold almost half of
   the Republican territory, belonging to the proscribed classes
   …; the excessive degree of discredit to which paper money
   had fallen, after the issue of thirty-eight thousand millions,
   had destroyed all confidence and all legitimate commerce. …
   Such was the general poverty, that when the Directors entered
   the palace which had been assigned to them as a dwelling, they
   found no furniture there, and were compelled to borrow of the
   porter a few straw chairs and a wooden table, on the latter of
   which they drew up the decree by which they were appointed to
   office. Their first care was to establish their power, and
   they succeeded in doing this by frankly following at first the
   rules laid down by the Constitution. In a short time industry
   and commerce began to raise their heads, the supply of
   provisions became tolerably abundant, and the clubs were
   abandoned for the workshops and the fields. The Directory
   exerted itself to revive agriculture, industry, and the arts,
   re-established the public exhibitions, and founded primary,
   central, and normal schools. … This period was distinguished
   by a great licentiousness in manners. The wealthy classes, who
   had been so long forced into retirement by the Reign of
   Terror, now gave themselves up to the pursuit of pleasure
   without stint, and indulged in a course of unbridled luxury,
   which was outwardly displayed in balls, festivities, rich
   costumes and sumptuous equipages. Barras, who was a man of
   pleasure, favoured this dangerous sign of the reaction, and
   his palace soon became the rendezvous of the most frivolous
   and corrupt society. In spite of this, however, the wealthy
   classes were still the victims, under the government of the
   Directory, of violent and spoliative measures."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 2. pages 270-273._

{1315}

FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (April-October).
   Triple attack on Austria.
   Bonaparte's first campaign in Italy.
   Submission of Sardinia.
   Armistice with Naples and the Pope.
   Pillage of art treasures.
   Hostile designs upon Venice.
   Expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy.
   Failure of the campaign beyond the Rhine.

   "With the opening of the year 1796 the leading interest of
   European history passes to a new scene. … The Directory was
   now able … to throw its whole force into the struggle with
   Austria. By the advice of Bonaparte a threefold movement was
   undertaken against Vienna, by way of Lombardy, by the valley
   of the Danube, and by the valley of the Main. General Jourdan,
   in command of the army that had conquered the Netherlands, was
   ordered to enter Germany by Frankfort; Moreau, a Breton
   law-student in 1792, now one of the most skilful soldiers in
   Europe, crossed the Rhine at Strasburg; Bonaparte himself,
   drawing his scanty supplies along the coast-road from Nice,
   faced the allied forces of Austria and Sardinia upon the
   slopes of the Maritime Apennines, forty miles to the west of
   Genoa. … Bonaparte entered Italy proclaiming himself the
   restorer of Italian freedom, but with the deliberate purpose
   of using Italy as a means of recruiting the exhausted treasury
   of France. His correspondence with the Directory exposes with
   brazen frankness this well·considered system of plunder and
   deceit, in which the general and the Government were cordially
   at one. … The campaign of 1796 commenced in April, in the
   mountains above the coast-road connecting Nice and Genoa. …
   Bonaparte … for four days … reiterated his attacks at
   Montenotte and at Millesimo, until he had forced his own army
   into a position in the centre of the Allies [Austrians and
   Piedmontese]; then, leaving a small force to watch the
   Austrians, he threw the mass of his troops upon the
   Piedmontese, and drove them back to within thirty miles of
   Turin. The terror-stricken Government, anticipating an
   outbreak in the capital itself, accepted an armistice from
   Bonaparte at Cherasco (April 28). … The armistice, which was
   soon followed by a treaty of peace between France and
   Sardinia, ceding Savoy to the Republic, left him free to
   follow the Austrians, untroubled by the existence of some of
   the strongest fortresses of Europe behind him. In the
   negotiations with Sardinia, Bonaparte demanded the surrender
   of the town of Valenza, as necessary to secure his passage
   over the river Po. Having thus artfully led the Austrian
   Beaulieu to concentrate his forces at this point, he suddenly
   moved eastward along the southern bank of the river, and
   crossed at Piacenza, 50 miles below the spot where Beaulieu
   was awaiting him. … The Austrian general, taken in the rear,
   had no alternative but to abandon Milan and all the country
   west of it, and to fall back upon the line of the Adda.
   Bonaparte followed, and on the 10th of May attacked the
   Austrians at Lodi. He himself stormed the bridge of Lodi at
   the head of his Grenadiers. The battle was so disastrous to
   the Austrians that they could risk no second engagement, and
   retired upon Mantua and the line of the Mincio. Bonaparte now
   made his triumphal entry into Milan (May 15). … In return
   for the gift of liberty, the Milanese were invited to offer to
   their deliverers 20,000,000 francs, and a selection from the
   paintings in their churches and galleries. The Dukes of Parma
   and Modena, in return for an armistice, were required to hand
   over forty of their best pictures, and a sum of money
   proportioned to their revenues. The Dukes and the townspeople
   paid their contributions with a good grace: the peasantry of
   Lombardy, whose cattle were seized in order to supply an army
   that marched without any stores of its own, rose in arms, and
   threw themselves into Pavia, after killing all the French
   soldiers who fell in their way. The revolt was instantly
   suppressed, and the town of Pavia given up to pillage. …
   Instead of crossing the Apennines, Bonaparte advanced against
   the Austrian positions upon the Mincio. … A battle was
   fought and lost by the Austrians at Borghetto. … Beaulieu's
   strength was exhausted; he could meet the enemy no more in the
   field, and led his army out of Italy into the Tyrol, leaving
   Mantua to be invested by the French. The first care of the
   conqueror was to make Venice pay for the crime of possessing
   territory intervening between the eastern and western extremes
   of the Austrian district. Bonaparte affected to believe that
   the Venetians had permitted Beaulieu to occupy Peschiera
   before he seized upon Brescia himself. … 'I have purposely
   devised this rupture,' he wrote to the Directory (June 7th),
   'in case you should wish to obtain five or six millions of
   francs from Venice. If you have more decided intentions, I
   think it would be well to keep up the quarrel.' The intention
   referred to was the disgraceful project of sacrificing Venice
   to Austria in return for the cession of the Netherlands. …
   The Austrians were fairly driven out of Lombardy, and
   Bonaparte was now free to deal with Southern Italy. He
   advanced into the States of the Church, and expelled the Papal
   Legate from Bologna. Ferdinand of Naples … asked for a
   suspension of hostilities against his own kingdom … and
   Bonaparte granted the king an armistice on easy terms. The
   Pope, in order to gain a few months' truce, had to permit the
   occupation of Ferrara, Ravenna, and Ancona, and to recognise
   the necessities, the learning, the taste, and the virtue of
   his conquerors by a gift of 20,000,000 francs, 500
   manuscripts, 100 pictures, and the busts of Marcus and Lucius
   Brutus. … Tuscany had indeed made peace with the French
   Republic a year before, but … while Bonaparte paid a
   respectful visit to the Grand Duke at Florence, Murat
   descended upon Leghorn, and seized upon everything that was
   not removed before his approach. Once established in Leghorn,
   the French declined to quit it. Mantua was meanwhile invested,
   and thither Bonaparte returned. Towards the end of July an
   Austrian relieving army, nearly double the strength of
   Bonaparte's, descended from the Tyrol. It was divided into
   three corps: one, under Quasdanovich, advanced by the road on
   the west of Lake Garda; the others, under Wurmser, the
   commander-in-chief, by the roads between the lake and the
   river Adige. … Bonaparte … instantly broke up the siege of
   Mantua, and withdrew from every position east of the river. On
   the 30th July, Quasdanovich was attacked and checked at
   Lonato. … Wurmser, unaware of his colleague's repulse,
   entered Mantua in triumph, and then set out, expecting to
   envelop Bonaparte between two fires. But the French were ready
   for his approach. Wurmser was stopped and defeated at
   Castiglione (Aug. 3), while the western Austrian divisions
   were still held in check at Lonato. … In five days the skill
   of Bonaparte and the unsparing exertions of his soldiery had
   more than retrieved all that appeared to have been lost. The
   Austrians retired into the Tyrol, leaving 15,000 prisoners in
   the hands of the enemy. Bonaparte now prepared to force his
   way into Germany by the Adige, in fulfilment of the original
   plan of the campaign. In the first days of September he again
   routed the Austrians, and gained possession of Roveredo and
   Trent.
{1316}
   Wurmser hereupon attempted to shut the French up in the
   mountains by a movement southwards; but, while he operated
   with insufficient forces between the Brenta and the Adige,
   with a view of cutting Bonaparte off from Italy, he was
   himself [defeated at Bassano, September 8, and] cut off from
   Germany, and only escaped capture by throwing himself into
   Mantua with the shattered remnant of his army. The road into
   Germany through the Tyrol now lay open; but in the midst of
   his victories Bonaparte learnt that the northern armies of
   Moreau and Jourdan, with which he had intended to co-operate
   in an attack upon Vienna, were in full retreat. Moreau's
   advance into the valley of the Danube had, during the months
   of July and August, been attended with unbroken military and
   political success. The Archduke Charles, who was entrusted
   with the defence of the Empire," fell back before Moreau, in
   order to unite his forces with those of Wartensleben, who
   commanded an army which confronted Jourdan. "The design of the
   Archduke succeeded in the end, but it opened Germany to the
   French for six weeks, and revealed how worthless was the
   military constitution of the Empire, and how little the
   Germans had to expect from one another. … At length the
   retreating movement of the Austrians stopped [and the Archduke
   fought an indecisive battle with Moreau at Neresheim, August
   11]. Leaving 30,000 men on the Lech to disguise his motions
   from Moreau, Charles turned suddenly northwards from Neuberg
   on the 17th August, met Wartensleben at Amberg, and attacked
   Jourdan … with greatly superior numbers. Jourdan was
   defeated [September 3, at Würtzburg] and driven back in
   confusion towards the Rhine. The issue of the campaign was
   decided before Moreau heard of his colleague's danger. It only
   remained for him to save his own army by a skilful retreat,"
   in the course of which he defeated the Austrian general Latour
   at Biberach, October 2, and fought two indecisive battles with
   the Archduke, at Emmendingen, October 19, and at Huningen on
   the 24th.

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapters 14-15._

      _General Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book 1, chapter 22 (volume 1)._

      _C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,
      chapter 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (September).
   Evacuation of Corsica by the English.
   Its reoccupation by the French.

   "Corsica, which had been delivered to the English by Paoli,
   and occupied by them as a fourth kingdom annexed to the crown
   of the King of Great Britain, had just been evacuated by its
   new masters. They had never succeeded in subduing the interior
   of the island, frequent insurrections had kept them in
   continual alarm, and free communication between the various
   towns could only be effected by sea. The victories of the
   French army in Italy, under the command of one of their
   countrymen, had redoubled this internal ferment in Corsica,
   and the English had decided on entirely abandoning their
   conquest. In September 1796 they withdrew their troops, and
   also removed from Corsica their chief partisans, such as
   General Paoli, Pozzo di Borgo, Beraldi and others, who sought
   an asylum in England. On the first intelligence of the English
   preparations for evacuating the island, Buonaparte despatched
   General Gentili thither at the head of two or three hundred
   banished Corsicans, and with this little band Gentili took
   possession of the principal strongholds. … On the 5th
   Frimaire, year V. (November 25, 1796), I received a decree of
   the Executive Directory … appointing me
   Commissioner-Extraordinary of the Government in Corsica, and
   ordering me to proceed thither at once."

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (October).
   Failure of peace negotiations with England.
   Treaties with Naples and Genoa.

   "It was France itself, more even than Italy, which was
   succumbing under the victories in Italy, and was falling
   rapidly under the military despotism of Bonaparte; while what
   had begun as a mere war of defence was already becoming a war
   of aggression against everybody. … The more patriotic
   members of the legislative bodies were opposed to what they
   considered only a war of personal ambitions, and were desirous
   of peace, and a considerable peace party was forming
   throughout the country. The opportunity was taken by the
   English government for making proposals for peace, and a
   pass-port was obtained from the directory for lord Malmesbury,
   who was sent to Paris as the English plenipotentiary. Lord
   Malmesbury arrived in Paris on the 2nd of Brumaire (the 23rd
   of October, 1796), and next day had his first interview with
   the French minister Delacroix, who was chosen by the directory
   to act as their representative. There was from the first an
   evident want of cordiality and sincerity on the part of the
   French government in this negotiation; and the demands they
   made, and the political views entertained by them, were so
   unreasonable, that, after it had dragged on slowly for about a
   month, it ended without a result. The directory were secretly
   making great preparations for the invasion of Ireland, and
   they had hopes of making a separate and very advantageous
   peace with Austria. Bonaparte had, during this time, become
   uneasy on account of his position in Italy," and "urged the
   directory to enter into negotiations with the different
   Italian states in his rear, such as Naples, Rome, and Genoa,
   and to form an offensive and defensive alliance with the king
   of Sardinia, so that he might be able to raise reinforcements
   in Italy. For this purpose he asked for authority to proclaim
   the independence of Lombardy and of the states of Modena; so
   that, by forming both into republics, he might create a
   powerful French party, through which he might obtain both men
   and provisions. The directory was not unwilling to second the
   wishes of Bonaparte, and on the 19th of Vendemiaire (the 10th
   of October) a peace was signed with Naples, which was followed
   by a treaty with Genoa. This latter state paid two millions of
   francs as an indemnity for the acts of hostility formerly
   committed against France, and added two millions more as a
   loan." The negotiation for an offensive alliance with Sardinia
   failed, because the king demanded Lombardy.

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 2, page 758._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 27 (volume 7)._

      _E. Burke,
      Letters on a Regicide Peace._

{1317}

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (October-April).
   Bonaparte's continued victories in Italy.
   His advance into Carinthia and the Tyrol.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

   "The failure of the French invasion of Germany … enabled the
   Austrians to make a fresh effort for the relief of [Würmser]
   in Mantua. 40,000 men under Alvinzi and 18,000 under
   Davidowich entered Italy from the Tyrol and marched by
   different routes towards Verona. Bonaparte had employed the
   recent interlude in consolidating French influence in Italy.
   Against the wishes of the Directors he dethroned the duke of
   Modena, and formed his territories into the Cispadane
   Republic. Then he tried to induce Piedmont and Venice to join
   France, but both states preferred to retain their neutral
   position. This was another of the charges which the general
   was preparing against Venice. On the news of the Austrian
   advance, Bonaparte marched against Alvinzi, and checked him at
   Carmignano (6 November). But meanwhile Davidowich had taken
   Trent and was approaching Rivoli. Bonaparte, in danger of
   being surrounded, was compelled to give way, and retreated to
   Verona, while Alvinzi followed him. Never was the French
   position more critical, and nothing but a very bold move could
   save them. With reckless courage Bonaparte attacked Alvinzi at
   Arcola, and after three days' hard fighting [November 15-17,
   on the dykes and causeways of a marshy region] won a complete
   victory. He then forced Davidowich to retreat to the Tyrol.
   The danger was averted, and the blockade of Mantua was
   continued. But Austria, as if its resources were
   inexhaustible, determined on a fourth effort in January, 1797.
   Alvinzi was again entrusted with the command, while another
   detachment under Provera advanced from Friuli. Bonaparte
   collected all his forces, marched against Alvinzi, and crushed
   him at Rivoli (15 January). But meanwhile Provera had reached
   Mantua, where Bonaparte, by a forced march, overtook him, and
   won another complete victory in the battle of La Favorita. The
   fate of Mantua was at last decided, and the city surrendered
   on the 2nd of February. With a generosity worthy of the glory
   which he had obtained, Bonaparte allowed Würmser and the
   garrison to march out with the honours of war. He now turned
   to Romagna, occupied Bologna and terrified the Pope into
   signing the treaty of Tolentino. The temporal power was
   allowed to exist, but within very curtailed limits. Not only
   Avignon, but the whole of Romagna, with Ancona, was
   surrendered to France. Even these terms, harsh as they were,
   were not so severe as the Directors had wished. But Bonaparte
   was beginning to play his own game; he saw that Catholicism
   was regaining ground in France, and he wished to make friends
   on what might prove after all the winning side. Affairs in
   Italy were now fairly settled: two republics, the Cisalpine in
   Lombardy, and the Cispadane, which included Modena, Ferrara,
   and Bologna, had been created to secure French influence in
   Italy. … The French had occupied the Venetian territory from
   Bergamo to Verona, and had established close relations with
   those classes who were dissatisfied with their exclusion from
   political power. When the republic armed against the danger of
   a revolt, Bonaparte treated it as another ground for that
   quarrel which he artfully fomented for his own purposes. But
   at present he had other objects more immediately pressing than
   the oppression of Venice. Jourdan's army on the Rhine had been
   entrusted to Hoche, whose ambition had long chafed at the want
   of an opportunity, and who was burning to acquire glory by
   retrieving the disasters of the last campaign. Bonaparte, on
   the other hand, was eager to anticipate a possible rival, and
   determined to hurry on his own invasion of Austria, in order
   to keep the war and the negotiations in his own hands. The
   task of meeting him was entrusted to the archduke Charles, who
   had won such a brilliant reputation in 1796, but who was
   placed at a great disadvantage to his opponent by having to
   obey instructions from Vienna. The French carried all before
   them, Joubert occupied Tyrol, Masséna forced the route to
   Carinthia, and Bonaparte himself, after defeating the archduke
   on the Tagliamento, occupied Trieste and Carniola. The French
   now marched over the Alps, driving the Austrians before them.
   At Leoben, which they reached on 7th April, they were less
   than eighty miles from Vienna. Here Austrian envoys arrived to
   open negotiations. They consented to surrender Belgium,
   Lombardy, and the Rhine frontier, but they demanded
   compensation in Bavaria. This demand Bonaparte refused, but
   offered to compensate Austria at the expense of a neutral
   state, Venice. The preliminaries of Leoben, signed on the 18th
   April, gave to Austria, Istria, Dalmatia, and the Venetian
   provinces between the Oglio, the Po, and the Adriatic. At this
   moment, Hoche and Moreau, after overcoming the obstacles
   interposed by a sluggish government, were crossing the Rhine
   to bring their armies to bear against Austria. They had
   already gained several successes when the unwelcome news
   reached them from Leoben, and they had to retreat. Bonaparte
   may have failed to extort the most extreme terms from Austria,
   but he had at any rate kept both power and fame to himself."

      _R. Lodge,
      English of Modern Europe,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon I.,
      volume 1, chapters 5-7._

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 4, chapters 1-4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (December-January):
   Hoche's expedition to Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1791-1798.

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (February-October).
   British naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (April-May).
   The overthrow of Venice by Bonaparte.

   When Napoleon, in March, entered upon his campaign against the
   Archduke Charles, "the animosity existing between France and
   Venice had … attained a height that threatened an open
   rupture between the two republics, and was, therefore, of some
   advantage to Austria. The Signoria saw plainly what its fate
   would be should the French prove victorious; but though they
   had 12,000 or 15,000 Slavonian troops ready at hand, and
   mostly assembled in the capital, they never ventured to use
   them till the moment for acting was past. On the Terra Firma,
   the citizens of Brescia and Bergamo had openly renounced the
   authority of St. Mark, and espoused the cause of France; the
   country people, on the other hand, were bitterly hostile to
   the new Republicans. Oppressed by requisitions, plundered and
   insulted by the troops, the peasants had slain straggling and
   marauding French soldiers; the comrades of the sufferers had
   retaliated, and an open revolt was more than once expected.
   General Battaglia, the Venetian providatore, remonstrated
   against the open violence practised on the subjects of Venice;
   Buonaparte replied by accusing the government of partiality
   for Austria, and went so far as to employ General Andrieux to
   instigate the people to rise against the senate. The
   Directory, however, desired him to pause, and not to 'drive
   the Venetians to extremity, till the opportunity, should have
   arrived for carrying into effect the future projects
   entertained against that state.'
{1318}
   Both parties were watching their time, but the craven watches
   in vain, for he is struck down long before his time to strike
   arrives." A month later, when Napoleon was believed to be
   involved in difficulties in Carinthia and the Tyrol, Venice
   "had thrown off the mask of neutrality; the tocsin had sounded
   through the communes of the Terra Firma, and a body of troops
   had joined the insurgents in the attack on the citadel of
   Verona. Not only were the French assailed wherever they were
   found in arms, but the very sick were inhumanly slain in the
   hospitals by the infuriated peasantry; the principal massacre
   took place at Verona on Easter Monday [April 17], and cast a
   deep stain on the Venetian cause and character." But even
   while these sinister events were in progress, Bonaparte had
   made peace with the humiliated Austrians, and had signed the
   preliminary treaty of Leoben, which promised to give Venice to
   them in exchange for the Netherlands. And now, with all his
   forces set free, he was prepared to crush the venerable
   Republic, and make it subservient to his ambitious schemes. He
   "refused to hear of any accommodation: and, unfortunately, the
   base massacre of Verona blackened the Venetian cause so much
   as almost to gloss over the unprincipled violence of their
   adversaries. 'If you could offer me the treasures of Peru,'
   said Napoleon to the terrified deputies who came to sue for
   pardon and offer reparation, 'if you could cover your whole
   dominions with gold, the atonement would be insufficient.
   French blood has been treacherously shed, and the Lion of St.
   Mark must bite the dust.' On the 3d of May he declared war
   against the republic, and French troops immediately advanced
   to the shores of the lagunes. Here, however, the waves of the
   Adriatic arrested their progress, for they had not a single
   boat at command, whereas the Venetians had a good fleet in the
   harbour, and an army of 10,000 or 15,000 soldiers in the
   capital: they only wanted the courage to use them. Instead of
   fighting, however, they deliberated; and tried to purchase
   safety by gold, instead of maintaining it by arms. Finding the
   enemy relentless, the Great Council proposed to modify their
   government,—to render it more democratic, in order to please
   the French commander,—to lay their very institutions at the
   feet of the conqueror; and, strange to say, only 21 patricians
   out of 690 dissented from this act of national degradation.
   The democratic party, supported by the intrigues of Vittelan,
   the French secretary of legation, exerted themselves to the
   utmost. The Slavonian troops were disbanded, or embarked for
   Dalmatia; the fleet was dismantled, and the Senate were
   rapidly divesting themselves of every privilege, when, on the
   31st of May, a popular tumult broke out in the capital. The
   Great Council were in deliberation when shots were fired
   beneath the windows of the ducal palace. The trembling
   senators thought that the rising was directed against them,
   and that their lives were in danger, and hastened to divest
   themselves of every remnant of power and authority at the very
   moment when the populace were taking arms in their favour.
   'Long live St. Mark, and down with foreign dominion!' was the
   cry of the insurgents, but nothing could communicate one spark
   of gallant fire to the Venetian aristocracy. In the midst of
   the general confusion, while the adverse parties were firing
   on each other, and the disbanded Slavonians threatening to
   plunder the city, these unhappy legislators could only
   delegate their power to a hastily assembled provisional
   government, and then separate in shame and for ever. The
   democratic government commenced their career in a manner as
   dishonourable as that of the aristocracy had been closed."
   They "immediately despatched the flotilla to bring over the
   French troops. A brigade under Baraguai d'Hilliers soon landed
   [May 15] at the place of St. Mark; and Venice, which had
   braved the thunders of the Vatican, the power of the emperors,
   and the arms of the Othmans, … now sunk for ever, and
   without striking one manly blow or firing one single shot for
   honour and fame! Venice counted 1300 years of independence,
   centuries of power and renown, and many also of greatness and
   glory, but ended in a manner more dishonourable than any state
   of which history makes mention. The French went through the
   form of acknowledging the new democratic government, but
   retained the power in their own hands. Heavy contributions
   were levied, all the naval and military stores were taken
   possession of, and the fleet, having conveyed French troops to
   the Ionian islands, was sent to Toulon."

      _T. Mitchell,
      Principal Campaigns in the Rise of Napoleon,
      chapter 6 (Fraser's Magazine, April, 1846)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Flagg,
      Venice: The City of the Sea,
      part 1, chapters 1-4 (volume 1)._

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 4, chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (May-October).
   Napoleon's political work in Italy.
   Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
   Dismemberment of the Graubunden.
   The Peace of Campo-Formio.
   Venice given over to Austria, and Lombardy and the Netherlands
   taken away.

   "The revolution in Venice was soon followed by another in
   Genoa, also organised by the plots of the French minister
   there, Faypoult. The Genoese had in general shown themselves
   favourable to France; but there existed among the nobles an
   anti-French party; the Senate, like that of Venice, was too
   aristocratic to suit Bonaparte's or the Directory's notions;
   and it was considered that Genoa, under a democratic
   constitution, would be more subservient to French interests.
   An insurrection, prepared by Faypoult, of some 700 or 800 of
   the lowest class of Genoese, aided by Frenchmen and Lombards,
   broke out on May 22nd, but was put down by the great mass of
   the real Genoese people. Bonaparte, however, was determined to
   effect his object. He directed a force of 12,000 men on Genoa,
   and despatched Lavalette with a letter to the Doge. …
   Bonaparte's threats were attended by the same magical effects
   at Genoa as had followed them at Venice. The Senate
   immediately despatched three nobles to treat with him, and on
   June 6th was concluded the Treaty of Montebello. The
   Government of Genoa recognised by this treaty the sovereignty
   of the people, confided the legislative power to two Councils,
   one of 300, the other of 500 members, the executive power to a
   Senate of twelve, presided over by the Doge. Meanwhile a
   provisional government was to be established. By a secret
   article a contribution of four millions, disguised under the
   name of a loan, was imposed upon Genoa.
{1319}
   Her obedience was recompensed with a considerable augmentation
   of territory, and the incorporation of the districts known as
   the 'imperial fiefs.' Such was the origin of the Ligurian
   Republic. Austrian Lombardy, after its conquest, had also been
   formed into the 'Lombard Republic'; but the Directory had not
   recognised it, awaiting a final settlement of Italy through a
   peace with Austria. Bonaparte, after taking possession of the
   Duchy of Modena and the Legations, had, at first, thought of
   erecting them into an independent state under the name of the
   'Cispadane Republic'; but he afterwards changed his mind and
   united these states with Lombardy under the title of the
   Cisalpine Republic. He declared, in the name of the Directory,
   the independence of this new republic, June 29th 1797;
   reserving, however, the right of nominating, for the first
   time, the members of the Government and of the legislative
   body. The districts of the Valteline, Chiavenna, and Bormio,
   subject to the Grison League, in which discontent and
   disturbance had been excited by French agents, were united in
   October to the new state; whose constitution was modelled on
   that of the French Republic. Bonaparte was commissioned by the
   Directory to negociate a definitive peace with Austria, and
   conferences were opened for that purpose at Montebello,
   Bonaparte's residence near Milan. The negociations were
   chiefly managed by himself, and on the part of Austria by the
   Marquis di Gallo, the Neapolitan ambassador at Vienna, and
   Count Meerfeld. … The negociations were protracted six
   months, partly through Bonaparte's engagements in arranging
   the affairs of the new Italian republics, but more especially
   by divisions and feuds in the French Directory." The Peace of
   Campo Formio was concluded October 17. "It derived this name
   from its having been signed in a ruined castle situated in a
   small village of that name near Udine; a place selected on
   grounds of etiquette in preference to the residence of either
   of the negociators. By this treaty the Emperor ceded the
   Austrian Netherlands to France; abandoned to the Cisalpine
   Republic, which he recognised, Bergamo, Brescia, Crema,
   Peschiera, the town and fortress of Mantua with their
   territories, and all that part of the former Venetian
   possessions to the south and west of a line which, commencing
   in the Tyrol, traversed the Lago di Garda, the left bank of
   the Adige, but including Porto Legnago on the right bank, and
   thence along the left bank of the Po to its mouth. France was
   to possess the Ionian Islands, and all the Venetian
   settlements in Albania below the Gulf of Lodrino; the French
   Republic agreeing on its side that the Emperor should have
   Istria, Dalmatia, the Venetian isles in the Adriatic, the
   mouths of the Cattaro, the city of Venice, the Lagoons, and
   all the former Venetian terra firma to the line before
   described. The Emperor ceded the Breisgau to the Duke of
   Modena, to be held on the same conditions as he had held the
   Modenese. A congress composed of the plenipotentiaries of the
   German Federation was to assemble immediately, to treat of a
   peace between France and the Empire. To this patent treaty was
   added another secret one, by the principal article of which
   the Emperor consented that France should have the frontier of
   the Rhine, except the Prussian possessions, and stipulated
   that the Imperial troops should enter Venice on the same day
   that the French entered Mentz. He also promised to use his
   influence to obtain the accession of the Empire to this
   arrangement; and if that body withheld its consent, to give it
   no more assistance than his contingent. The navigation of the
   Rhine to be declared free. If, at the peace with the Empire,
   the French Republic should make any acquisitions in Germany,
   the Emperor was to obtain an equivalent there, and vice versa.
   The Dutch Stadtholder to have a territorial indemnity. To the
   King of Prussia were to be restored his possessions on the
   left bank of the Rhine, and he was consequently to have no new
   acquisitions in Germany. Princes and States of the Empire,
   damnified by this treaty, to obtain a suitable indemnity. …
   By the Treaty of Campo Formio was terminated not only the
   Italian campaign, but also the first continental war of the
   Revolution. The establishment of Bonaparte's prestige and
   power by the former was a result still more momentous in its
   consequences for Europe than the fall of Venice and the
   revolutionising of Northern Italy."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 8 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 4, pages 214-225._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
      chapter 28._

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      chapters 6-8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (September).
   Conflict of the Directory and the two Councils.
   The Revolutionary Coup d'État of the 18th of Fructidor.
   Suppression of the Royalists and Moderates.
   Practical overthrow of the Constitution.

   "The inevitable dissension between the executive power and the
   electoral power had already displayed itself at the conclusion
   of the elections of the Year V. The elections were made for
   the most part under the influence of the reactionary party,
   which, whilst it refrained from conspiring for the overthrow
   of the new Constitution, saw with terror that the executive
   power was in the hands of men who had taken part in the
   excesses and crimes of the Convention. Pichegru, whose
   intrigues with the princes of the House of Bourbon were not
   yet known, was enthusiastically made President of the Council
   of Five Hundred, and Barbé-Marbois was made President of the
   Ancients. Le Tourneur having become, by lot, the retiring
   member of the Directory, Barthélemy, an upright and moderate
   man, was chosen in his place. He, as well as his colleague,
   Carnot, were opposed to violent measures; but they only formed
   in the Directorate a minority which was powerless against the
   Triumvirs Barras, Rewbel, and La Réveillère, who soon entered
   upon a struggle with the two Councils. … There were,
   doubtless, amongst [their opponents] in the two Councils, some
   Royalists, and ardent reactionists, who desired with all their
   hearts the restoration of the Bourbons; but, according to the
   very best testimony, the majority of the names which were
   drawn from the electoral urn since the promulgation of the
   Constitution of the Year III. were strangers to the Royalist
   party. 'They did not desire,' to use the words of an eminent
   and impartial historian of our own day [De Barante, 'Life of
   Royer-Collard'], 'a counter-revolution, but the abolition of
   the revolutionary laws which were still in force. They wished
   for peace and true liberty, and the successive purification of
   a Directorate which was the direct heir of the Convention. …
   But the Directorate was as much opposed to the Moderates as to
   the Royalists.'
{1320}
   It pretended to regard these two parties as one, and falsely
   represented them as conspiring in common for the overthrow of
   the Republic and the re-establishment of monarchy. … If
   there were few Royalists in the two Councils, there were also
   few men determined to provoke on the part of the Directors a
   recourse to violence against their colleagues. But as a great
   number of their members had sat in the Convention, they
   naturally feared a too complete reaction, and, affecting a
   great zeal for the Constitution, they founded at the Hotel
   Salm, under the name of the Constitutional Club, an
   association which was widely opposed in its spirit and
   tendency to that of the Hotel Clichy, in which were assembled
   the most ardent members of the reactionary party [and hence
   called Clichyans]. … The Council of Five Hundred, on the
   motion of a member of the Clichy Club, energetically demanded
   that the Legislative power should have a share in determining
   questions of peace or war. No general had exercised, in this
   respect, a more arbitrary power than had Bonaparte, who had
   negotiated of his own mere authority several treaties, and the
   preliminaries of the peace of Campo Formio. He was offended at
   these pretensions on the part of the Council of Five Hundred,
   and entreated the Government to look to the army for support
   against the Councils and the reactionary press. He even sent
   to Paris, as a support to the policy of the Directors, General
   Augereau, one of the bravest men of his army, but by no means
   scrupulous as to the employment of violent means, and disposed
   to regard the sword as the supreme argument in politics,
   whether at home or abroad. The Directory gave him the command
   of the military division of Paris. … Henceforth a coup
   d'état appeared inevitable. The Directors now marched some
   regiments upon the capital, in defiance of a clause of the
   Constitution which prohibited the presence of troops within a
   distance of twelve leagues of Paris, unless in accordance with
   a special law passed in or near Paris itself. The Councils
   burst forth into reproaches and threats against the Directors,
   to which the latter replied by fiery addresses to the armies,
   and to the Councils themselves. It was in vain that the
   Directors Carnot and Barthélemy endeavoured to quell the
   rising storm; their three colleagues refused to listen to
   them, and fixed the 18th Fructidor [September 4] for the
   execution of their criminal projects. During the night
   preceding that day, Augereau marched 12,000 men into Paris,
   and in the morning these troops, under his own command,
   supported by 40 pieces of cannon, surrounded the Tuileries, in
   which the Councils held their sittings. The grenadiers of the
   Councils' guard joined Augereau, who arrested with his own
   hand the brave Ramel, who commanded that guard, and General
   Pichegru, the President of the Council of Five Hundred. …
   The Directors … published a letter written by Moreau, which
   revealed Pichegru's treason; and at the same time nominated a
   Committee for the purpose of watching over the public safety.
   … Forty-two members of the Council of Five Hundred, eleven
   members of that of the Ancients, and two of the Directors,
   Carnot [who escaped, however, into Switzerland] and
   Barthélemy, were condemned to be transported to the fatal
   district of Sinnamari. … The Directors also made the editors
   of 35 journals the victims of their resentment. They had the
   laws passed in favour of the priests and emigrants reversed,
   and annulled the elections of 48 departments. Merlin de Douai
   and François de Neufchâteau were chosen as successors to
   Carnot and Barthélemy, who had been banished and proscribed by
   their colleagues. That which took place on the 18th Fructidor
   ruined the Constitutional and Moderate party, whilst it
   resuscitated that of the Revolution."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France, 4th period,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   "During these two days, Paris continued perfectly quiet. The
   patriots of the fauxbourgs deemed the punishment of
   transportation too mild. … These groups, however, which were
   far from numerous, disturbed not in the least the peace of
   Paris. The sectionaries of Vendemiaire … had no longer
   sufficient energy to take up arms spontaneously. They suffered
   the stroke of policy to be carried into effect without
   opposition. For the rest, public opinion continued uncertain.
   The sincere republicans clearly perceived that the royalist
   faction had rendered an energetic measure inevitable, but they
   deplored the violation of the laws and the intervention of the
   military power. They almost doubted the culpability of the
   conspirators on seeing such a man as Carnot mingled in their
   ranks. They apprehended that hatred had too strongly
   influenced the determinations of the Directory. Lastly, even,
   though considering its determinations as necessary, they were
   sad, and not without reason: for it became evident that that
   constitution, on which they had placed all their hope, was not
   the termination of our troubles and our discord. The mass of
   the population submitted and detached itself much on that day
   from political events. … From that day, political zeal began
   to cool. Such were the consequences of the stroke of policy
   accomplished on the 18th of Fructidor. It has been asserted
   that it had become useless at the moment when it was executed;
   that the Directory, in frightening the royalist faction, had
   already succeeded in overawing it; that, by persisting in this
   stretch of power, it paved the way to military usurpation. …
   But … the royalist faction … on the junction of the new
   third … would infallibly have overturned everything, and
   mastered the Directory. Civil war would then have ensued
   between it and the armies. The Directory, in foreseeing this
   movement and timely repressing it, prevented a civil war; and,
   if it placed itself under the protection of the military, it
   submitted to a melancholy but inevitable necessity."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 4, pages 205-206._

FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
   Revolutionary intrigues in Rome.
   French troops in possession of the city.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

   "At Rome a permanent conspiracy was established at the French
   Embassy, where Joseph Bonaparte, as the ambassador of the
   Republic, was the centre of a knot of conspirators. On the
   28th of December, 1797, came the first open attempt at
   insurrection. General Duphot, a hot-headed young man, one of
   the military attaches of the French Embassy, put himself at
   the head of a handful of the disaffected, and led them to the
   attack of one of the posts of the pontifical troops. In the
   ensuing skirmish a chance shot struck down the French general,
   and the rabble which followed him dispersed in all directions.
   It was just the opportunity for which the Directory had been
   waiting in order to break the treaty of Tolentino and seize
   upon Rome.
{1321}
   Joseph Bonaparte left the city the morning after the émeute,
   and a column of troops was immediately detached from his
   brother's army in the north of Italy and ordered to march on
   Rome. It consisted of General Berthier's division and 6,000
   Poles under Dombrowski, and it received the ominous title of
   l'armée vengeresse—the avenging army. As they advanced
   through the Papal territory they met with no sympathy, no
   assistance, from the inhabitants, who looked upon them as
   invaders rather than deliverers. 'The army,' Berthier wrote to
   Bonaparte, 'has met with nothing but the most profound
   consternation in this country, without seeing one glimpse of
   the spirit of independence; only one single patriot came to
   me, and offered to set at liberty 2,000 convicts.' This
   liberal offer of a re-inforcement of 2,000 scoundrels the
   French general thought it better to decline. … At length, on
   the 10th of February, Berthier appeared before Rome. …
   Wishing to avoid a useless effusion of blood, Pius VI. ordered
   the gates to be thrown open, contenting himself with
   addressing, through the commandant of St. Angelo, a protest to
   the French general, in which he declared that he yielded only
   to overwhelming force. A few days after, a self-elected
   deputation of Romans waited upon Berthier, to request him to
   proclaim Rome a republic, under the protection of France. As
   Berthier had been one of the most active agents in getting up
   this deputation, he, of course, immediately yielded to their
   request. The French general then demanded of the Pope that he
   should formally resign his temporal power, and accept the new
   order of things. His reply was the same as that of every Pope
   of whom such a demand has been made: 'We cannot—we will not!'
   In the midst of a violent thunder-storm he was torn from his
   palace, forced into a carriage, and carried away to Viterbo,
   and thence to Siena, where he was kept a prisoner for three
   months. Rome was ruled by the iron hand of a military
   governor. … Meanwhile, alarmed at the rising in Italy, the
   Directory were conveying the Pope to a French prison. …
   After a short stay at Grenoble he was transferred to the
   fortress of Valence, where, broken down by the fatigues of his
   journey, he died on August 19th, 1799, praying for his enemies
   with his last breath."

      _Chevalier O'Clery.
      History of the Italian Revolution,
      chapter 2, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 8, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

      _J. E. Darras,
      History of the Catholic Church, 8th period,
      chapter 6 (volume 4)._

      _T. Roscoe,
      Memoirs of Scipio de Ricci.
      volume 2, chapter 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-September).
   Invasion and subjugation of Switzerland.
   Creation of the Helvetic Republic.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1799.
   Hostile attitude toward the United States.
   The X, Y, Z correspondence.
   Nearness of war.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.

FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (May-August).
   Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt.
   His seizure of Malta.
   Pursuit by the English fleet under Nelson.
   The Battle of the Nile.

   "The treaty of Campo Formio, by which Austria obtained terms
   highly advantageous to her interests, dissolved the offensive
   and defensive alliance of the continental powers, and left
   England alone in arms. The humiliation of this country was to
   be the last and the greatest achievement of French ambition.
   … During the autumn and winter of this year [1797-8],
   preparations for a great armament were proceeding at Toulon,
   and other harbours in possession of the French. The army of
   Italy, clamorous for a promised donation of 1,000,000,000
   francs, which the Directory were unable to pay, had been
   flattered by the title of the army of England, and appeased by
   the prospect of the plunder of this country. But whatever
   might be the view of the Directory, or the expectation of the
   army, Bonaparte had no intention of undertaking an enterprise
   so rash as a descent upon the coast of England, while the
   fleets of England kept possession of the seas. There was
   another quarter from which the British Empire might be menaced
   with a better chance of success. India could never be secure
   while Egypt and the great eastern port of the Mediterranean
   were in the possession of one of the great maritime powers.
   Egypt had been an object of French ambition since the time of
   Louis XIV. … It was for Egypt, therefore, that the great
   armament of Toulon was destined. The project was not indeed
   considered a very hopeful one at Paris; but such was the dread
   and hatred of the ruling faction for the great military genius
   which had sprung out of the anarchy of France, and of the
   30,000 creditors whom they were unable to satisfy, that the
   issue of the expedition which they most desired was, that it
   might never return from the banks of the Nile. … The fleet,
   consisting of thirteen ships of the line, with several
   frigates, smaller vessels, and transports conveying 28,000
   picked troops, with the full equipment for every kind of
   military service, set sail on the 14th of May. Attached to
   this singular expedition, destined for the invasion of a
   friendly country, and the destruction of an unoffending
   people, was a staff of professors, furnished with books, maps,
   and philosophical instruments for prosecuting scientific
   researches in a land which, to a Christian and a philosopher,
   was the most interesting portion of the globe. The great
   armament commenced its career of rapine by seizing on the
   important island of Malta. Under the shallow pretence of
   taking in water for a squadron which had left its anchorage
   only two days, a portion of the troops were landed, and, after
   a show of resistance, the degenerate knights, who had already
   been corrupted, surrendered Malta, Gozo, and Cumino, to the
   French Republic. A great amount of treasure and of munitions
   of war, besides the possession of the strongest place in the
   Mediterranean, were thus acquired without loss or delay. A
   conquest of such importance would have amply repaid and
   justified the expedition, if no ulterior object had been
   pursued. But Bonaparte suffered himself to be detained no more
   than twenty-four hours by this achievement; and having left a
   garrison of 4,000 men in the island, and established a form of
   civil government, after the French pattern, he shaped his
   course direct for Alexandria. On the 1st of July, the first
   division of the French troops were landed at Marabou, a few
   miles from the city. Aboukir and Rosetta, which commanded the
   mouths of the Nile, were occupied without difficulty.
   Alexandria itself was incapable of any effectual defence, and,
   after a few skirmishes with the handful of Janissaries which
   constituted the garrison, the French entered the place; and
   for several hours the inhabitants were given up to an
   indiscriminate massacre.
{1322}
   Bonaparte pushed forward with his usual rapidity, undeterred
   by the horrors of the sandy desert, and the sufferings of his
   troops. After two victories over the Mamelukes, one of which
   was obtained within sight of the Pyramids [and called the
   Battle of the Pyramids], the French advanced to Cairo; and
   such was the terror which they had inspired, that the capital
   of Egypt was surrendered without a blow. Thus in three weeks
   the country had been overrun. The invaders had nothing to fear
   from the hostility of the people; a rich and fertile country,
   the frontier of Asia, was in their possession; but, in order
   to hold the possession secure, it was necessary to retain the
   command of the sea. The English Government, on their side,
   considered the capture of the Toulon armament an object of
   paramount importance; and Earl St. Vincent, who was still
   blockading the Spanish ports, was ordered to leave Cadiz, if
   necessary, with his whole fleet, in search of the French; but
   at all events, to detach a squadron, under Sir Horatio Nelson,
   on that service. … Nelson left Gibraltar on the 8th of May,
   with three ships of the line, four frigates, and a sloop. …
   He was reinforced, on the 5th of June, with ten sail of the
   line. His frigates had parted company with him on the 20th of
   May, and never returned." Suspecting that Egypt was
   Bonaparte's destination, he made sail for Alexandria, but
   passed the French expedition, at night, on the way, arrived in
   advance of it, and, thinking his surmise mistaken, steered
   away for the Morea and thence to Naples. It was not until the
   1st of August that he reached the Egyptian coast a second
   time, and found the French fleet, of sixteen sail, "at anchor
   in line of battle, in the Bay of Aboukir. Nelson, having
   determined to fight whenever he came up with the enemy,
   whether by day or by night, immediately made the signal for
   action. Although the French fleet lay in an open roadstead,
   they had taken up a position so strong as to justify their
   belief that they could not be successfully attacked by a force
   less than double their own. They lay close in shore, with a
   large shoal in their rear; in the advance of their line was an
   island, on which a formidable battery had been erected; and
   their flanks were covered by numerous gun-boats. … The
   general action commenced at sunset, and continued throughout
   the night until six o'clock the following morning, a period of
   nearly twelve hours. But in less than two hours, five of the
   enemy's ships had struck; and, soon after nine o'clock, the
   sea and shore, for miles around, were illuminated by a fire
   which burst from the decks of the 'Orient,' the French
   flag-ship, of 120 guns. In about half an hour she blew up,
   with an explosion so appalling that for some minutes the
   action was suspended, as if by tacit consent. At this time the
   French Admiral Brueys was dead, … killed by a chain-shot
   before the ship took fire. Nelson also had been carried below,
   with a wound which was, at first, supposed to be mortal. He
   had been struck in the head with a fragment of langridge shot,
   which tore away a part of the scalp. … At three o'clock in
   the morning four more of the French ships were destroyed or
   taken. There was then an interval of two hours, during which
   hardly a shot was fired on either side. At ten minutes to
   seven another ship of the line, after a feeble attempt at
   resistance, hauled down her colours. The action was now over.
   Of the thirteen French ships of the line, nine had been taken,
   and two had been burnt." Two ships of the line and two
   frigates escaped. "The British killed and wounded were 895.
   The loss of the French, including prisoners, was 5,225. Such
   was the great battle of the Nile."

      _W. Massey,
      History of England during the Reign of George III.,
      chapter 39 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. J. De La Gravière,
      Sketches of the Last Naval War,
      volume 1, part 3._

      _R. Southey,
      Life of Nelson,
      chapter 5._

      _Despatches and Letters of Lord Nelson,
      volume 3._

      _Bonaparte,
      Memoirs Dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 2._

      _A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and
      Empire,
      chapter 9 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-April).
   Arming against the Second European Coalition.
   The conscription.
   Overthrow of the Neapolitan kingdom.
   Seizure of Piedmont.
   Campaigns in Switzerland, Italy, and on the upper Danube.
   Early successes and final reverses.

   "The Porte declared war against the French, and, entered into
   an alliance with Russia and England (12th August). A Russian
   fleet sailed from Sebastopol, and blockaded the Ionian
   Islands; the English vessels found every Turkish port open to
   them, and gained possession of the Levant trade, to the
   detriment of France. Thus the failure of the Egyptian
   expedition delivered the Ottoman Empire into the hands of two
   Powers, the one intent upon its dismemberment, the other eager
   to make itself master of its commerce; it gave England the
   supremacy in the Mediterranean; it inaugurated the appearance
   of Russia in southern Europe; it was the signal for a second
   coalition." Russia, "under Catherine, had but taken a nominal
   part in the first coalition, being too much occupied with the
   annihilation of Poland. … But now Catherine was dead, Paul
   I., her son and successor, took the émigrés in his pay,
   offered the Pretender an asylum at Mittau, promised his
   protection to the Congress at Rastadt, and fitted out 100,000
   troops. Naples had been in a great ferment since the creation
   of the Roman Republic. The nobles and middle classes, imbued
   with French ideas, detested a Court sold to the English, and
   presided over by the imbecile Ferdinand, who left the cares of
   his government to his dissolute Queen. She hated the French,
   and now solicited Tuscany and Piedmont to unite with her to
   deliver Italy from the sway of these Republicans. The Austrian
   Court, of which Bonaparte had been the conscious or
   unconscious dupe, instead of disarming after the Treaty of
   Campo-Formio, continued its armaments with redoubled vigour,
   and now demanded indemnities, on the pretext that it had
   suffered from the Republican system which the French
   introduced into Switzerland and Italy. The Directory very
   naturally refused to accede to this; and thereupon Austria
   prepared for war, and endeavoured to drag Prussia and the
   German Empire into it. … But Frederick William's successor
   and the princess of the empire declined to recommence
   hostilities with France, of which they had reason to fear the
   enmity, though at present she was scarcely able to resist a
   second coalition. The French nation, in fact, was sincerely
   eager for peace. …
{1323}
   Nevertheless, and though there was little unity amongst them,
   the Councils and the Directory prepared their measures of
   defence; they increased the revenue, by creating a tax on
   doors and windows; they authorised the sale of national
   property to the amount of 125,000,000 francs; and finally, on
   the report of Jourdan, they passed the famous law of
   conscription (5th September), which compelled every Frenchman
   to serve in the army from the age of 20 to that of 25, the
   first immediate levy to consist of 200,000 troops. When the
   victory of the Nile became known at Naples the court was a
   prey to frenzied excitement. Taxes had already been doubled, a
   fifth of the population called to arms, the nobles and middle
   classes were tortured into submission. And when the report
   spread that the Russians were marching through Poland, it was
   resolved to commence hostilities by attacking the Roman
   Republic, and to rouse Piedmont and Tuscany to rebellion.
   Forty thousand Neapolitans, scarcely provided with arms,
   headed by the Austrian general Mack, made their way into the
   Roman states, guarded only by 18,000 French troops, dispersed
   between the two seas (12th November). Championnet, their
   commander, abandoned Rome, took up a position on the Tiber,
   near Civita-Castellana, and concentrated all his forces on
   that point. The King of Naples entered Rome, while Mack went
   to encounter Championnet. The latter beat him, routed or
   captured the best of his troops, and compelled him to retire
   in disorder to the Neapolitan territory. Championnet, now at
   the head of 25,000 men, returned to Rome, previous to marching
   on Naples, where the greatest disorder prevailed. At the news
   of his approach the Court armed the lazzaroni, and fled with
   its treasures to the English fleet, abandoning the town to
   pillage and anarchy (20th December, 1798). Mack, seeing his
   army deserting him, and his officers making common cause with
   the Republicans, concluded an armistice with Championnet, but
   his soldiers revolted and compelled him to seek safety in the
   French camp. On Championnet's appearance before Naples, which
   the lazzaroni defended with fury, a violent battle ensued,
   lasting for three days; however, some of the citizens
   delivered the fort of St. Elmo to the French, and then the mob
   laid down its arms (23rd January, 1799). The Parthenopeian
   Republic [so called from one of the ancient names of the city
   of Naples] was immediately proclaimed, a provisional
   government organised, the citizens formed themselves into a
   National Guard, and the kingdom accepted the Revolution. The
   demand of Championnet for a war contribution of 27,000,000
   francs roused the Calabrians to revolt; anarchy prevailed
   everywhere; commissioners were sent by the Directory to
   re-establish order. The French general had them arrested, but
   he was deposed and succeeded by Macdonald. In commencing its
   aggression the court of Naples had counted on the aid of the
   King of Sardinia and the Grand Duke of Tuscany. But Piedmont,
   placed between three republics, was herself sharing the
   Revolutionary ferment; the King, who had concluded an alliance
   with Austria, proscribed the democrats, who, in their turn,
   declared war against him by means of the Ligurian Republic,
   whither they had fled. When Championnet was compelled to
   evacuate Rome, the Directory, afraid that Sardinia would
   harass the French rear, had ordered Joubert, commanding the
   army of Italy, to occupy Piedmont. The Piedmontese troops
   opened every place to the French, entered into their ranks,
   and the King [December 8, 1798] was forced to give up all
   claims to Piedmont, and to take refuge in Sardinia …
   [retaining the latter, but abdicating the sovereignty of
   Piedmont]. Tuscany being also occupied by the Republican
   troops, the moment war was declared against Austria, Italy was
   virtually under French dominion. These events but increased
   the enmity of the Coalition, which hurried its preparations,
   while the Directory, cheered by its successes, resolved to
   take the offensive on all points. … In the present struggle,
   however, the conditions of warfare were changed. The lines of
   invasion were no longer, as formerly, short and isolated, but
   stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Gulf of Tarentum, open to
   be attacked in Holland from the rear, and at Naples by the
   English fleet. … Seventy thousand troops, under the Archduke
   Charles, occupied Bavaria; General Hotze occupied the
   Vorarlberg with 25,000 men; Bellegarde was with 45,000 in the
   Tyrol; and 70,000 guarded the line of the Adige, headed by
   Marshal Kray. Eighty thousand Russians, in two equal
   divisions, were on their way to join the Austrians. The
   division under Suwarroff was to operate with Kray, that one
   under Korsakoff with the Archduke. Finally, 40,000 English and
   Russians were to land in Holland, and 20,000 English and
   Sicilians in Naples. The Directory, instead of concentrating
   its forces on the Adige and near the sources of the Danube,
   divided them. Fifteen thousand troops were posted in Holland,
   under Brune; 8,000 at Mayence, under Bernadotte; 40,000 from
   Strasburg to Bâle, under Jourdan; 30,000 in Switzerland, under
   Masséna; 50,000 on the Adige, under Schérer; 30,000 at Naples,
   under Macdonald. These various divisions were in reality meant
   to form but one army, of which Massena was the centre, Jourdan
   and Schérer the wings, Brune and Macdonald the extremities. To
   Massena was confided the principal operation, namely, to
   possess himself of the central Alps, in order to isolate the
   two imperial armies of the Adige and Danube and to neutralise
   their efforts. The Coalition having hit upon the same plan as
   the Directory, ordered the Austrians under Bellegarde to
   invade the Grisons, while on the other side a division was to
   descend into the Valteline." Masséna's right wing, under
   Lecourbe, defeated Bellegarde, crossed the upper Rhine and
   made its way to the Inn. Schérer also advanced by the
   Valteline to the upper Adige and joined operations with
   Lecourbe. "While these two generals were spreading terror in
   the Tyrol, Masséna made himself master of the Rhine from its
   sources to the lake of Constance, receiving but one check in
   the fruitless siege of Feldkirch, a position he coveted in
   order to be able to support with his right wing the army of
   the Danube, or with his left that of Italy. This check
   compelled Lecourbe and Dessoles to slacken their progress, and
   the various events on the Danube and the Po necessitated their
   recall in a short time. Jourdan had crossed the Rhine at Kehl,
   Bâle, and Schaffhausen (1st March), penetrated into the defile
   of the upper Danube, and reached the village of Ostrach, where
   he was confronted by the Archduke Charles, who had passed the
   Iller, and who, after a sanguinary battle [March 21],
   compelled him to retreat upon Tutlingen. The tidings of
   Masséna's success having reached Jourdan, he wished to support
   it by marching to Stockach, the key to the roads of
   Switzerland and Germany; but he was once more defeated (25th
   March), and retreated, not into Switzerland, whence he could
   have joined Masséna, but to the Rhine, which he imagined to be
   threatened. …
{1324}
   In Italy the Directory had given orders to Schérer to force
   the Adige, and to drive the Austrians over the Piave and the
   Brenta." He attacked and carried the Austrian camp of
   Pastrengo, near Rivoli, on the 25th of March, 1799, inflicting
   a loss of 8,000 on the enemy; but on the 5th of April, when
   moving to force the lower Adige, he was defeated by Kray at
   Magnano. "Schérer lost his head, fled precipitately, and did
   not stop until he had put a safe distance between himself and
   the enemy. … The army of Switzerland, under Masséna,
   dispersed in the mountains, with both its flanks threatened,
   had no other means of salvation than to fall back behind the
   Rhine."

      _H. Van Laun,
      The French Revolutionary Epoch,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R Southey,
      Life of Nelson,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapter 18._

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples,
      book 3, chapter 2; book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-August).
   Bonaparte's organization of government in Egypt.
   His advance into Syria and repulse at Acre.
   His victory at Aboukir and return to France.

   "On hearing of the battle of Aboukir [better known as 'the
   battle of the Nile'], a solitary sigh escaped from Napoleon.
   'To France,' said he, 'the fates have decreed the empire of
   the land—to England that of the sea.' He endured this great
   calamity with the equanimity of a masculine spirit. He gave
   orders that the seamen landed at Alexandria should be formed
   into a marine brigade, and thus gained a valuable addition to
   his army; and proceeded himself to organise a system of
   government, under which the great natural resources of the
   country might be turned to the best advantage. … He was
   careful to advance no claim to the sovereignty of Egypt, but
   asserted, that having rescued it from the Mameluke usurpation,
   it remained for him to administer law and justice, until the
   time should come for restoring the province to the dominion of
   the Grand Seignior. He then established two councils,
   consisting of natives, principally of Arab chiefs and Moslem
   of the church and the law, by whose advice all measures were,
   nominally, to be regulated. They formed of course a very
   subservient senate. … The virtuosi and artists in his train,
   meanwhile, pursued with indefatigable energy their scientific
   researches; they ransacked the monuments of Egypt, and laid
   the foundation, at least, of all the wonderful discoveries
   which have since been made concerning the knowledge, arts,
   polity (and even language), of the ancient nation. Nor were
   their objects merely those of curiosity. They, under the
   General's direction, examined into the long-smothered traces
   of many an ancient device for improving the agriculture of the
   country. Canals that had been shut up for centuries were
   reopened; the waters of the Nile flowed once more where they
   had been guided by the skill of the Pharaohs or the Ptolemies.
   Cultivation was extended; property secured; and it cannot be
   doubted that the signal improvements since introduced in
   Egypt, are attributable mainly to the wise example of the
   French administration. … In such labours Napoleon passed the
   autumn of 1798. … General Dessaix, meanwhile, had pursued
   Mourad Bey into Upper Egypt, where the Mamelukes hardly made a
   single stand against him, but contrived by the excellence of
   their horses, and their familiarity with the deserts, to avoid
   any total disruption of their forces. … The General, during
   this interval of repose, received no communication from the
   French Government; but rumours now began to reach his quarters
   which might well give him new anxieties. The report of another
   rupture with Austria gradually met with more credence; and it
   was before long placed beyond a doubt, that the Ottoman Porte,
   instead of being tempted into any recognition of the French
   establishment in Egypt, had declared war against the Republic,
   and summoned all the strength of her empire to pour in
   overwhelming numbers on the isolated army of Buonaparte. …
   The General despatched a trusty messenger into India, inviting
   Tippoo Saib to inform him exactly of the condition of the
   English army in that region, and signifying that Egypt was
   only the first post in a march destined to surpass that of
   Alexander! 'He spent whole days,' writes his secretary, 'in
   lying flat on the ground stretched upon maps of Asia.' At
   length the time for action came. Leaving 15,000 in and about
   Cairo, the division of Dessaix in Upper Egypt, and garrisons
   in the chief towns,—Buonaparte on the 11th of February 1799
   marched for Syria at the head of 10,000 picked men, with the
   intention of crushing the Turkish armament in that quarter,
   before their chief force (which he now knew was assembling at
   Rhodes) should have time to reach Egypt by sea. Traversing the
   desert which divides Africa from Asia, he took possession of the
   fortress El-Arish (February 15), whose garrison, after a
   vigorous assault, capitulated on condition that they should be
   permitted to retreat into Syria, pledging their parole not to
   serve again during the war. Pursuing his march, he took Gazah
   (that ancient city of the Philistines) without opposition; but
   at Jaffa (the Joppa of holy writ), the Moslem made a resolute
   defence. The walls were carried by storm, 3,000 Turks died
   with arms in their hands, and the town was given up during
   three hours to the fury of the French soldiery—who never, as
   Napoleon confessed, availed themselves of the license of war
   more savagely than on this occasion. A party of the
   garrison—amounting, according to Buonaparte, to 1,200 men,
   but stated by others as nearly 3,000 in number—held out for
   some hours longer in the mosques and citadel; but at length,
   seeing no chance of rescue, grounded their arms on the 7th of
   March. … On the 10th—three days after their surrender—the
   prisoners were marched out of Jaffa, in the centre of a
   battalion under General Bon. When they had reached the
   sand-hills, at some distance from the town, they were divided
   into small parties, and shot or bayoneted to a man. They, like
   true fatalists, submitted in silence; and their bodies were
   gathered together into a pyramid, where, after the lapse of
   thirty years, their bones are still visible whitening the
   sand. Such was the massacre of Jaffa, which will ever form one
   of the darkest stains on the name of Napoleon. He admitted the
   fact himself;—and justified it on the double plea, that he
   could not afford soldiers to guard so many prisoners, and that
   he could not grant them the benefit of their parole, because
   they were the very men who had already been set free on such
   terms at' El-Arish. …
{1325}
   Buonaparte had now ascertained that the Pacha of Syria,
   Achmet-Djezzar, was at St. Jean D'Acre (so renowned in the
   history of the crusades), and determined to defend that place
   to extremity, with the forces which had already been assembled
   for the invasion of Egypt. He in vain endeavoured to seduce
   this ferocious chief from his allegiance to the Porte, by
   holding out the hope of a separate independent government,
   under the protection of France. The first of Napoleon's
   messengers returned without an answer; the second was put to
   death; and the army moved on Acre in all the zeal of revenge,
   while the necessary apparatus of a siege was ordered to be
   sent round by sea from Alexandria. Sir Sidney Smith was then
   cruising in the Levant with two British ships of the line, the
   Tigre and the Theseus; and, being informed by the Pacha of the
   approaching storm, hastened to support him, in the defence of
   Acre. Napoleon's vessels, conveying guns and stores from
   Egypt, fell into his hands, and he appeared off the town two
   days before the French army came in view of it. He had on
   board his ship Colonel Philippeaux, a French royalist of great
   talents (formerly Buonaparte's school-fellow at Brienne); and
   the Pacha willingly permitted the English commodore and this
   skilful ally to regulate for him, as far as was possible, the
   plan of his defence. The loss of his own heavy artillery, and
   the presence of two English ships, were inauspicious omens;
   yet Buonaparte doubted not that the Turkish garrison would
   shrink before his onset, and he instantly commenced the siege.
   He opened his trenches on the 18th of March. 'On that little
   town' said he to one of his generals, as they were standing
   together on an eminence, which still bears the name of Richard
   Cœur-de-Lion—'on yonder little town depends the fate of the
   East. Behold the Key of Constantinople, or of India.' …
   Meanwhile a vast Mussulman army had been gathered among the
   mountains of Samaria, and was preparing to descend upon Acre,
   and attack the besiegers in concert with the garrison of
   Djezzar. Junot, with his division, marched to encounter them,
   and would have been overwhelmed by their numbers, had not
   Napoleon himself followed and rescued him (April 8) at
   Nazareth, where the splendid cavalry of the Orientals were, as
   usual, unable to resist the solid squares and well-directed
   musketry of the French. Kleber with another division, was in
   like manner endangered, and in like manner rescued by the
   general-in-chief at Mount Tabor (April 15). The Mussulmans
   dispersed on all hands; and Napoleon, returning to his siege,
   pressed it on with desperate assaults, day after day, in which
   his best soldiers were thinned, before the united efforts of
   Djezzar's gallantry, and the skill of his allies." On the 21st
   of May, when the siege had been prosecuted for more than two
   months, Napoleon commanded a final assault. "The plague had
   some time before this appeared in the camp; every day the
   ranks of his legions were thinned by this pestilence, as well
   as by the weapons of the defenders of Acre. The hearts of all
   men were quickly sinking. The Turkish fleet was at hand to
   reinforce Djezzar; and upon the utter failure of the attack of
   the 21st of May, Napoleon yielded to stern necessity, and
   began his retreat upon Jaffa. … The name of Jaffa was
   already sufficiently stained; but fame speedily represented
   Napoleon as having now made it the scene of another atrocity,
   not less shocking than that of the massacre of the Turkish
   prisoners. The accusation, which for many years made so much
   noise throughout Europe, amounts to this: that on the 27th of
   May, when it was necessary for Napoleon to pursue his march
   from Jaffa for Egypt, a certain number of the plague-patients
   in the hospital were found to be in a state that held out no
   hope whatever of their recovery; that the general, being
   unwilling to leave them to the tender mercies of the Turks,
   conceived the notion of administering opium, and so procuring
   for them at least a speedy and an easy death; and that a
   number of men were accordingly taken off in this method by his
   command. … Whether the opium was really administered or
   not—that the audacious proposal to that effect was made by
   Napoleon, we have his own admission; and every reader must
   form his opinion—as to the degree of guilt which attaches to
   the fact of having meditated and designed the deed. … The
   march onwards was a continued scene of misery; for the wounded
   and the sick were many, the heat oppressive, the thirst
   intolerable; and the ferocious Djezzar was hard behind, and
   the wild Arabs of the desert hovered round them on every side,
   so that he who fell behind his company was sure to be slain.
   … Having at length accomplished this perilous journey [June
   14], Buonaparte repaired to his old head-quarters at Cairo,
   and re-entered on his great functions as the establisher of a
   new government in the state of Egypt. But he had not long
   occupied himself thus, ere new rumours concerning the beys on
   the Upper Nile, who seemed to have some strong and urgent
   motive for endeavouring to force a passage downwards, began to
   be mingled with, and by degrees explained by, tidings daily
   repeated of some grand disembarkation of the Ottomans,
   designed to have place in the neighbourhood of Alexandria.
   Leaving Dessaix, therefore, once more in command at Cairo, he
   himself descended the Nile, and travelled with all speed to
   Alexandria, where he found his presence most necessary. For,
   in effect, the great Turkish fleet had already run into the
   bay of Aboukir; and an army of 18,000, having gained the
   fortress, were there strengthening themselves, with the view
   of awaiting the promised descent and junction of the
   Mamelukes, and then, with overwhelming superiority of numbers,
   advancing to Alexandria, and completing the ruin of the French
   invaders. Buonaparte, reaching Alexandria on the evening of
   the 24th of July, found his army already posted in the
   neighbourhood of Aboukir, and prepared to anticipate the
   attack of the Turks on the morrow. … The Turkish outposts
   were assaulted early next morning, and driven in with great
   slaughter; but the French, when they advanced, came within the
   range of the batteries and also of the shipping that lay close
   by the shore, and were checked. Their retreat might have ended
   in a route, but for the undisciplined eagerness with which the
   Turks engaged in the task of spoiling and maiming those that
   fell before them—thus giving to Murat the opportunity of
   charging their main body in flank with his cavalry, at the
   moment when the French infantry, profiting by their disordered
   and scattered condition, and rallying under the eye of
   Napoleon, forced a passage to the entrenchments. From that
   moment the battle was a massacre. … Six thousand surrendered
   at discretion: 12,000 perished on the field or in the sea. …
   Napoleon once more returned to Cairo on the 9th of August; but
   it was only to make some parting arrangements as to the
   administration, civil and military; for, from the moment of
   his victory at Aboukir, he had resolved to entrust Egypt to
   other hands, and Admiral Gantheaume was already preparing in
   secret the means of his removal to France."

      _J. G. Lockhart,
      Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duke of Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 9-11._

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 2._

      _Letters from the army of Bonaparte in Egypt._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 1. chapter 15-23._

{1326}

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (April-September).
      Murder of the French envoys at Rastadt.
      Disasters in North Italy.
      Suwarroff's victories.
      Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland and
      capture of the Dutch Fleet.

   "While the French armies were thus humiliated in the field,
   the representatives of the republic at the congress of Rastadt
   [where peace negotiations with the states of the empire had
   been in progress for months] became the victims of a
   sanguinary tragedy. As France had declared war against the
   emperor [as sovereign of Austria], and not against the empire,
   the congress had not necessarily been broken off; but the
   representatives of the German states were withdrawn one after
   another, until the successes of the Austrians rendered the
   position of the French ministers no longer secure. At length
   they received notice, from the nearest Austrian commander, to
   depart within twenty-four hours; and the French
   ministers—Jean Debry, Bonnier, and Roberjeot—left Rastadt
   with their families and attendants late in the evening of the
   8th of Floréal (the 28th of April). The night was very dark,
   and they appear to have been apprehensive of danger. At a very
   short distance from Rastadt they were surrounded by a troop of
   Austrian hussars, who stopped the carriages, dragged the three
   ministers out, and massacred them in the presence of their
   wives and children. The hussars then plundered the carriages,
   and took away, especially, all the papers. Fortunately for
   Jean Debry, he had been stunned, but not mortally wounded; and
   after the murderers were gone the cold air of the night
   restored him to life. This crime was supposed to have been
   perpetrated at the instigation of the imperial court, for
   reasons which have not been very clearly explained; but the
   representatives of the German states proclaimed loudly their
   indignation. The reverses of the republican arms, and the
   tragedy of Rastadt, were eagerly embraced by the opposition in
   France as occasions for raising a violent outcry against the
   directory. … It was in the midst of this general
   unpopularity of the directors that the elections of the year
   VII. of the republic took place, and a great majority of the
   patriots obtained admission to the councils, and thus
   increased the numerical force of the opposition. … The
   directory had made great efforts to repair the reverses which
   had marked the opening of the campaign. Jourdain had been
   deprived of the command of the army of the Danube, which had
   been placed, along with that of Switzerland, under the orders
   of Masséna. The command of the army of Italy had been
   transferred from Scherer to Moreau; and Macdonald had received
   orders to withdraw his forces from Naples and the papal
   states, in order to unite them with the army in Upper Italy.
   The Russians under Suwarrow had now joined the Austrian army
   in Italy; and this chief, who was in the height of his
   reputation as a military leader, was made commander-in-chief
   of the combined Austro-Russian forces, Melas commanding the
   Austrians under him. Suwarrow advanced rapidly upon the Adda,
   which protected the French lines; and, on the 8th of Floreal
   (the 27th of April), forced the passage of that river in two
   places, at Brivio and Trezzo, above and below the position
   occupied by the division of Serrurier, which formed the French
   left, and which was thus cut off from the rest of the army.
   Moreau, who took the command of the French forces on the
   evening of the same day, made a vain attempt to drive the
   enemy back over the Adda at Trezzo, and thus recover his
   communication with Serrurier; and that division was
   surrounded, and, after a desperate resistance, obliged to lay
   down its arms, with the exception of a small number of men who
   made their way across the mountains into Piedmont. Victor's
   division effected its retreat without much loss, and Moreau
   concentrated his forces in the neighbourhood of Milan. This
   disastrous engagement, which took place on the 9th of Floreal,
   was known as the battle of Cassano. Moreau remained at Milan
   two days to give the members of the government of the
   Cisalpine republic, and all the Milanese families who were
   politically compromised, time to make their escape in his
   rear; after which he continued his retreat. … He was allowed
   to make this retreat without any serious interruption; for
   Suwarrow, instead of pursuing him actively, lost his time at
   Milan in celebrating the triumph of the anti-revolutionary
   party." Moreau first "established his army in a strong
   position at the confluence of the Tanaro and the Po, covered
   by both rivers, and commanding all the roads to Genoa; so that
   he could there, without great danger, wait the arrival of
   Macdonald." But soon, finding his position made critical by a
   general insurrection in Piedmont, he retired towards the
   mountains of Genoa. "On the 6th of Prairial (the 25th of May),
   Macdonald was at Florence; but he lost much time there; and it
   was only towards the end of the republican month (the middle
   of June), that he at length advanced into the plains of
   Piacenza to form his junction with Moreau." On the Trebbia he
   encountered Suwarrow's advance, under General Ott, and rashly
   attacked it. Having forced back Ott's advanced guard, the
   French suddenly found themselves confronted by Suwarrow
   himself and the main body of his army. "Macdonald now resolved
   to unite all his forces behind the Trebbia, and there risk a
   battle; but he was anticipated by Suwarrow, who attacked him
   next morning, and, after a very severe and sanguinary
   engagement, the French were driven over the Trebbia. The
   combat was continued next day, and ended again to the
   disadvantage of the French; and their position had become so
   critical, that Macdonald found it necessary to retreat upon
   the river Nura, and to make his way round the Apennines to
   Genoa. The French, closely pursued, experienced considerable
   loss in their retreat, until Suwarrow, hearing Moreau's cannon
   in his rear, discontinued the pursuit, in order to meet him."
   Moreau routed Bellegarde, in Suwarrow's rear, and took 3,000
   prisoners; but no further collision of importance occurred
   during the next two months of the summer.
{1327}
   "Suwarrow had been prevented by the orders of the Aulic
   Council from following up with vigour his victory on the
   Trebbia, and had been obliged to occupy himself with sieges
   which employed with little advantage valuable time. Recruits
   were reaching the French armies in Italy, and they were
   restored to a state of greater efficiency. It was already the
   month of Thermidor (the middle of July), and Moreau saw the
   necessity of assuming the offensive and attacking the
   Austro-Russians while they were occupied with the sieges; but
   he was restrained by the orders of the directory to wait the
   arrival of Joubert. The latter, who had just contracted an
   advantageous marriage, by which the moderate party had hoped
   to attach him to their cause, lost an entire month in the
   celebration of his nuptial festivities, and only reached the
   army of Italy in the middle of Thermidor (the beginning of
   August), where he immediately succeeded Moreau in the command;
   but he prevailed upon that able general to remain with him, at
   least until after his first battle. The French army had taken
   a good position in advance of Novi, and were preparing to act
   against the enemy while he was still occupied in the sieges,
   when news arrived that Alessandria and Mantua had surrendered,
   and that Suwarrow was preparing to unite against them the
   whole strength of his forces. Joubert immediately resolved to
   fall back upon the Apennines, and there act upon the
   defensive; but it was already too late, for Suwarrow had
   advanced with such rapidity that he was forced to accept
   battle in the position he occupied, which was a very strong
   one. The battle began early in the morning of the 28th of
   Thermidor (the 15th of August); and very early in the action
   Joubert received a mortal wound from a ball which struck him
   near the heart. The engagement continued with great fury
   during the greater part of the day, but ended in the entire
   defeat of the French, who retreated from the field of battle
   in great confusion. The French lost about 10,000 men in killed
   and wounded, and a great number of prisoners. The news of this
   reverse was soon followed by disastrous intelligence from
   another quarter. The English had prepared an expedition
   against Holland, which was to be assisted by a detachment of
   Russian troops. The English forces, under Abercromby, landed
   near the mouth of the Helder in North Holland, on the 10th of
   Fructidor (the 27th of August), and defeated the French and
   Dutch republican army, commanded by Brune, in a decisive
   engagement [at the English camp, established on a well-drained
   morass, called the Zyp] on the 22nd of Fructidor (the 8th of
   September). Brune retreated upon Amsterdam; and the Russian
   contingent was thus enabled to effect its junction with the
   English without opposition. As one of the first consequences
   of this invasion, the English obtained possession of the whole
   Dutch fleet, upon the assistance of which the French
   government had counted in its designs against England. This
   succession of ill news excited the revolutionary party to a
   most unusual degree of violence."

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapters 22-23 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Spalding,
      Suvóroff,
      chapters 7-8._

      _L. M. P. de Laverne,
      Life of Field-Marshal Souvarof,
      chapter 6._

      _E. Vehse,
      Memoirs of the Court of Austria,
      chapter 15, section 2 (volume 2)._

      _J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapter 108 (volume 7)._

      _General Sir H. Bunbury,
      Narratives of the Great War with France,
      pages 1-58._

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
   Campaign in Switzerland.
   Battle of Zurich.
   Defeat of the Russians.
   Suwarroff's retreat across the Alps.
   Reverses in Italy, and on the Rhine.
   Fall of the Parthenopean and Roman Republics.

   Since the retreat of Massena in June, the Archduke Charles had
   been watching the French on the Limmat and expecting the
   arrival of Russian reinforcements under Korsakoff; "but the
   Aulic Council, with unaccountable infatuation, ordered him at
   this important juncture to repair with the bulk of his army to
   the Rhine, leaving Switzerland to Korsakoff and the Russians.
   Before these injudicious orders, however, could be carried
   into effect, Massena had boldly assumed the offensive (August
   14) by a false attack on Zurich, intended to mask the
   operations of his right wing, which meanwhile, under Lecourbe,
   was directed against the St. Gothard, in order to cut off the
   communication between the allied forces in Switzerland and in
   Italy. These attacks proved completely successful, … a
   French detachment … seizing the St. Gothard, and
   establishing itself at Airolo, on the southern declivity.
   Lecourbe's left had meanwhile cleared the banks of the lake of
   Zurich of the enemy, who were driven back into Glarus. To
   obtain these brilliant successes on the right, Massena had
   been obliged to weaken his left wing; and the Archduke, now
   reinforced by 20, 000 Russians, attempted to avail himself of
   this circumstance to force the passage of the Limmat, below
   Zurich (August 16 and 17); but this enterprise, the success of
   which might have altered the fate of the war, failed from the
   defective construction of the pontoons; and the positive
   orders of the Aulic Council forbade his remaining longer in
   Switzerland. Accordingly, leaving 25,000 men under Hotze to
   support Korsakoff, he marched for the Upper Rhine, where the
   French, at his approach, abandoned the siege of Philipsburg,
   and retired to Mannheim; but this important post, the defences
   of which were imperfectly restored, was carried by a
   coup-de-main (September 18), and the French driven with severe
   loss over the Rhine. But this success was dearly bought by the
   disasters in Switzerland, which followed the Archduke's
   departure. It had been arranged that Suwarroff was to move
   from Bellinzona (September 21), and after retaking the St.
   Gothard combine with Korsakoff in a front attack on Massena,
   while Hotze assailed him in flank. But Massena, who was now
   the superior in numbers, determined to anticipate the arrival
   of Suwarroff by striking a blow, for which the presumptuous
   confidence of Korsakoff gave him increased facility. On the
   evening of 24th September, the passage of the river was
   surprised below Zurich, and the heights of Closter-Fahr
   carried by storm; and, in the course of the next day,
   Korsakoff, with his main army, was completely hemmed in at
   Zurich by the superior generalship of the French commander,
   who summoned the Russians to surrender. But the bravery shown
   by Korsakoff in these desperate circumstances equalled his
   former arrogance: on the 28th the Russian columns, issuing
   from the town, forced their way with the courage of despair
   through the surrounding masses of French, while a slender
   rear-guard defended the ramparts of Zurich till the remainder
   had extricated themselves.
{1328}
   The town was at length entered, and a frightful carnage ensued
   in the streets, in the midst of which the illustrious Lavater
   was barbarously shot by a French soldier: while Korsakoff,
   after losing 8,000 killed and wounded, 5,000 prisoners, 100
   pieces of cannon, and all his ammunition, stores, and military
   chest, succeeded in reaching Schaffhausen. The attack of Soult
   above the lake (September 25) was equally triumphant. The
   gallant Hotze, who commanded in that quarter, was killed in
   the first encounter; and the Austrians, giving way in
   consternation, were driven over the Thur, and at length over
   the Rhine, with the loss of 20 guns and 3,000 prisoners.
   Suwarroff in the meantime was gallantly performing his part of
   the plan. On the 23d of September, the French posts at Airolo
   and St. Gothard were carried, after a desperate resistance, by
   the Russian main force, while their flank was turned by
   Rosenberg; and Lecourbe, hastily retreating, broke down the
   Devil's Bridge to check the advance of the enemy. A scene of
   useless butchery followed, the two parties firing on each
   other from the opposite brinks of the impassable abyss; but
   the flank of the French was at length turned, the bridge
   repaired, and the Russians, pressing on in triumph, joined the
   Austrian division of Auffenberg, at Wasen, and repulsed the
   French beyond Altdorf. But this was the limit of the old
   marshal's success. After effecting with severe loss the
   passage of the tremendous defiles and ridges of the
   Schachenthal, between Altdorf and Mutten, he found that Linken
   and Jellachich, who were to have moved from Coire to
   co-operate with him, had again retreated on learning the
   disaster at Zurich; and Suwarroff found himself in the midst
   of the enemy, with Massena on one side and Molitor on the
   other. With the utmost difficulty the veteran conqueror was
   prevailed upon, for the first time in his life, to order a
   retreat; which had become indispensable, and the heads of his
   columns were turned towards Glarus and the Grisons. But though
   the attack of Massena on their rear in the Muttenthal was
   repulsed with the loss of 2,000 men, their onward route was
   barred at Naefels by Molitor, who defied all the efforts of
   Prince Bagrathion to dislodge him; and in the midst of a heavy
   fall of snow, which obliterated the mountain paths, the
   Russian army wound its way (October 5) in single file over the
   rugged and sterile peaks of the Alps of Glarus. Numbers
   perished of cold, or fell over the precipices; but nothing
   could overcome the unconquerable spirit of the soldiers:
   without fire or stores, and compelled to bivouac on the snow,
   they still struggled on through incredible hardships, till the
   dreadful march terminated (October 10) at Ilantz. Such was the
   famous, passage of the Alps by Suwarroff. Korsakoff in the
   meanwhile (October 1-7) had maintained a desperate conflict
   near Constance, till the return of the Archduke checked the
   efforts of the French; and the Allies, abandoning the St.
   Gothard, and all the other posts they still held in
   Switzerland, concentrated their forces on the Rhine, which
   became the boundary of the two armies. … In Italy, after the
   disastrous battle of Novi, the Directory had given the
   leadership of the armies, both of Italy and Savoy, to the
   gallant Championnet, but he could muster only 54,000 troops
   and 6,000 raw conscripts to oppose Melas, who had succeeded
   Suwarroff in the command, and who had 68,000, besides his
   garrisons and detachments. The proposition of Championnet had
   been to fall back, with his army still entire, to the other
   side of the Alps: but his orders were positive to attempt the
   relief of Coni, then besieged by the Austrians; and after a
   desultory warfare for several weeks, he commenced a decisive
   movement for that purpose at the end of October, with 35,000
   men. But before the different French columns could effect a
   junction, they were separately assailed by Melas: the
   divisions of Grenier and Victor were overwhelmed at Genola
   (November 4), and defeated with the loss of 7,000 men; and
   though St. Cyr repulsed the Imperialists (November 10) on the
   plateau of Novi, Coni was left to its fate, and surrendered
   with all its garrison (December 4). An epidemic disorder broke
   out in the French army, to which Championnet himself, and
   numerous soldiers, fell victims: the troops giving way to
   despair, abandoned their standards by hundreds and returned to
   France; and it was with difficulty that the eloquent
   exhortations of St. Cyr succeeded in keeping together a
   sufficient number to defend the Bochetta pass, in front of
   Genoa, the loss of which would have entailed destruction on
   the whole army. The discomfited Republicans were driven back
   on their own frontiers; and, excepting Genoa, the tricolor
   flag was everywhere expelled from Italy. At the same time the
   campaign on the Rhine was drawing to a close. The army of
   Massena was not strong enough to follow up the brilliant
   success at Zurich, and the jealousies of the Austrians and
   Russians, who mutually laid on each other the blame of the
   late disasters, prevented their acting cordially in concert
   against him. Suwarroff at length, in a fit of exasperation,
   drew off his troops to winter quarters in Bavaria, and took no
   further share in the war; and a fruitless attempt in November
   against Philipsburg, by Lecourbe, who had been transferred to
   the command on the lower Rhine, closed the operations in that
   quarter."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 245-251
      (chapter 28, volume 7 of complete work)._

   Meantime, the French had been entirely expelled from southern
   Italy. On the withdrawal of Macdonald, with most of his army,
   from Naples, "Cardinal Ruffo, a soldier, churchman, and
   politician, put himself at the head of a numerous body of
   insurgents, and commenced war against such French troops as
   had been left in the south and in the middle of Italy. This
   movement was actively supported by the British fleet. Lord
   Nelson recovered Naples; Rome surrendered to Commodore
   Trowbridge. Thus the Parthenopean and Roman republics were
   extinguished forever. The royal family returned to Naples, and
   that fine city and country were once more a kingdom. Rome, the
   capital of the world, was occupied by Neapolitan troops."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 38._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. M. P. de Laverne,
      Life of Souvarof,
      chapter 6._

      _H. Spalding,
      Suvoroff._

      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples,
      book 4, chapter 2 and book 5,
      chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._

      _T. J. Pettigrew,
      Memoirs of Lord Nelson,
      volume 1, chapters 8-9._

{1329}

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (September-October).
   Disastrous ending of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.
   Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

   "It is very obvious that the Duke of York was selected in an
   unlucky hour to be the commander-in-chief of this
   Anglo-Russian expedition, when we compare the time in which
   Abercrombie was alone on the marshy promontory of the Helder
   … with the subsequent period. On the 10th of September
   Abercrombie successfully repulsed the attack of General Brune,
   who had come for the purpose from Haarlem to Alkmar; on the
   19th the Duke of York landed, and soon ruined everything. The
   first division of the Russians had at length arrived on the
   15th, under the command of General Herrmann, for whom it was
   originally destined, although unhappily it afterwards came
   into the hands of General Korsakoff. The duke therefore
   thought he might venture on a general attack on the 19th. In
   this attack Herrmann led the right wing, which was formed by
   the Russians, and Abercrombie, with whom was the Prince of
   Orange, the left, whilst the centre was left to the Duke of
   York, the commander-in-chief. This decisive battle was fought
   at Bergen, a place situated to the north of Alkmar. The
   combined army was victorious on both wings; and Horn, on the
   Zuyder Zee, was occupied; the Duke of York, who was only a
   general for parades and reviews, merely indulged the centre
   with a few manœuvres hither and thither. … The Russians,
   therefore, who were left alone in impassible marshes,
   traversed by ditches, and unknown to their officers, lost many
   men, and were at length surrounded, and even their general
   taken prisoner. The duke concerned himself very little about
   the Russians, and had long before prudently retired into his
   trenches; and, as the Russians were lost, Abercrombie and the
   Crown Prince were obliged to relinquish Horn." The incapacity
   of the commander-in-chief held the army paralyzed during the
   fortnight following, suffering from sickness and want, while
   it would still have been practicable to push forward to South
   Holland. "A series of bloody engagements took place from the
   2nd till the 6th of October, and the object of the attack upon
   the whole line of the French and Batavian army would have been
   attained had Abercrombie alone commanded. The English and
   Russians, who call this the battle of Alkmar, were
   indisputably victorious in the engagements of the 2nd and 3rd
   of October. They even drove the enemy before them to the
   neighbourhood of Haarlem, after having taken possession of
   Alkmar; but on the 6th, Brune, who owes his otherwise very
   moderate military renown to this engagement alone, having
   received a reinforcement of some thousands on the 4th and 5th,
   renewed the battle. The fighting on this day took place at
   Castricum, on a narrow strip of land between the sea and the
   lake of Haarlem, a position favourable to the French. The
   French report is, as usual, full of the boasts of a splendid
   victory; the English, however, remained in possession of the
   field, and did not retire to their trenches behind Alkmar and
   to the marshes of Zyp till the 7th. … In not more than eight
   days afterwards, the want in the army and the anxiety of its
   incapable commander-in-chief became so great, the number of
   the sick increased so rapidly, and the fear of the
   difficulties of embarkation in winter so grew and spread, that
   the duke accepted the most shameful capitulation that had ever
   been offered to an English general, except at Saratoga. This
   capitulation, concluded on the 19th of October, was only
   granted because the English, by destroying the dykes, had it
   in their power to ruin the country."

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the Eighteenth Century,
      volume 7, pages 149-151._

   "For the failure in accomplishing the great objects of
   emancipating Holland and restoring its legitimate ruler; for
   the clamorous joy with which her enemies, foreign and
   domestic, hailed the event; the government of Great Britain
   had many consolations. … The Dutch fleet, which, in the
   hands of an enterprising enemy, might have been so injuriously
   employed, was a capture of immense importance: if Holland was
   ever to become a friend and ally, we had abundant means of
   promoting her prosperity and re-establishing her greatness; if
   an enemy, her means of injury and hopes of rivalship were
   effectually suppressed. Her East-India Company, … long the
   rival of our own in power and prosperity, whose dividends in
   some years had risen to the amount of 40 per cent., now
   finally closed its career, making a paltry final payment in
   part of the arrears of dividends for the present and three
   preceding years."

      _J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapter 109 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. R. Gleig,
      Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November).
   Return of Bonaparte from Egypt.
   The first Napoleonic Coup d'État.
   Revolution of the 18th Brumaire.
   End of the First Republic.
   Creation of the Consulate.

   "When Bonaparte, by means of the bundle of papers which Sidney
   Smith caused to find their way through the French lines,
   learned the condition of affairs in Europe, there was but one
   course consistent with his character for him to pursue. There
   was nothing more to be done in Egypt; there was everything to
   be done in France. If he were to lead his army back, even in
   case he should, by some miracle, elude the eager eyes of Lord
   Nelson, the act would be generally regarded as a confession of
   disaster. If he were to remain with the army, he could, at
   best, do nothing but pursue a purely defensive policy; and if
   the army were to be overwhelmed, it was no part of Napoleonism
   to be involved in the disaster. … It would be far shrewder
   to throw the responsibility of the future of Egypt on another,
   and to transfer himself to the field that was fast ripening
   for the coveted harvest. Of course Bonaparte, under such
   circumstances, did not hesitate as to which course to pursue.
   Robbing the army of such good officers as survived, he left it
   in command of the only one who had dared to raise his voice in
   opposition to the work of the 18th Fructidor … the heroic
   but indignant Kléber. Was there ever a more exquisite revenge?
   … On the arrival of Bonaparte in Paris everything seemed
   ready to his hand. … The policy which, in the seizure of
   Switzerland and the Papal States, he had taken pains to
   inaugurate before his departure for Egypt had borne its
   natural fruit. As never before in the history of Europe,
   England, Holland, Russia, Austria, Naples, and even Turkey had
   joined hands in a common cause, and as a natural consequence
   the Directory had been defeated at every point. Nor was it
   unnatural for the people to attribute all these disasters to
   the inefficiency of the government. The Directory had really
   fallen into general contempt, and at the new election on the
   30th Prairial it had been practically overthrown.
{1330}
   Rewbell, who by his influence had stood at the head of
   affairs, had been obliged to give way," and Sieyès had been
   put in his place. "By the side of this fantastic statesman …
   Barras had been retained, probably for no other reason than
   that he was sure to be found with the majority, while the
   other members, Gohier, Moulins, and Roger-Ducos were men from
   whose supposed mediocrity no very decided opposition could be
   anticipated. Thus the popular party was not only revenged for
   the outrages of Fructidor, but it had also made up the new
   Directory of men who seemed likely to be nothing but clay in
   the hands of Bonaparte. … The manner in which the General
   was received can have left no possible doubt remaining in his
   mind as to the strength of his hold on the hearts of the
   people. It must have been apparent to all that he needed but
   to declare himself, in order to secure a well-nigh unanimous
   support and following of the masses. But with the political
   leaders the case, for obvious reasons, was far different. …
   His popularity was so overwhelming, that in his enmity the
   leaders could anticipate nothing but annihilation, in his
   friendship nothing but insignificance. … The member of the
   government who, at the time, wielded most influence, was
   Sieyès, a man to whom personally the General had so
   unconquerable an aversion, that Josephine was accustomed to
   refer to him as her husband's béte noir. It was evident that
   Sieyès was the most formidable obstacle to the General's
   advance." As a first movement, Bonaparte endeavored to bring
   about the removal of Sieyès from the Directory and his own
   election to the place. Failing this, his party attempted the
   immediate creation of a dictatorship. When that, too, was
   found impracticable, Sieyès was persuaded to a reconciliation
   and alliance with the ambitious soldier, and the two, at a
   meeting, planned the proceedings "which led to that dark day
   in French history known as the 18th Brumaire [November 9,
   1799]. It remained only to get absolute control of the
   military forces, a task at that time in no way difficult. The
   officers who had returned with Bonaparte from Egypt were
   impatient to follow wherever their master might lead. Moreau,
   who, since the death of Hoche, was regarded as standing next
   to Bonaparte in military ability, was not reluctant to cast in
   his lot with the others, and Macdonald as well as Serurier
   soon followed his example. Bernadotte alone would yield to
   neither flattery nor intimidation. … While Bonaparte was
   thus marshalling his forces in the Rue de la Victoire, the way
   was opening in the Councils. A commission of the Ancients,
   made up of the leading conspirators, had worked all night
   drawing up the proposed articles, in order that in the morning
   the Council might have nothing to do but to vote them. The
   meeting was called for seven o'clock, and care was taken not
   to notify those members whose opposition there was reason to
   fear. … The articles were adopted without discussion. Those
   present voted, first, to remove the sessions of the Councils
   from Paris to Saint Cloud (a privilege which the constitution
   conferred upon the Ancients alone), thus putting them at once
   beyond the power of influencing the populace and of standing
   in the way of Bonaparte. They then passed a decree giving to
   Bonaparte the command of the military forces, at the same time
   inviting him to come to the Assembly for the purpose of taking
   the oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Bonaparte
   appeared, accordingly, before the Council; but instead of
   taking an oath of allegiance to the constitution, he made a
   speech which he closed by declaring: "We want a Republic
   founded on true liberty and national representation. We will
   have it, I swear; I swear it in my own name and that of my
   companions in arms." "Thus the mockery of the oath-taking in
   the Council of Ancients was accomplished. The General had now
   a more difficult part to perform in the Council of Five
   Hundred. As the meeting of the Assembly was not to occur until
   twelve o'clock of the following day, Bonaparte made use of the
   intervening time in posting his forces and in disposing of the
   Directory. … There was one locality in the city where it was
   probable aggressive force would be required. The Luxembourg
   was the seat of the Directory, and the Directory must at all
   hazards be crushed. … Bonaparte knew well how to turn all
   such ignominious service to account. In close imitation of
   that policy which had left Kleber in Egypt, he placed the
   Luxembourg in charge of the only man in the nation who could
   now be regarded as his rival for popular favor. Moreau fell
   into the snare, and by so doing lost a popularity which he was
   never afterwards able to regain. Having thus placed his
   military forces, Bonaparte turned his attention to the
   Directors. The resignations of Sieyès and of Roger-Ducos he
   already had upon his table. It remained only to procure the
   others. Barras, without warning, was confronted by Talleyrand
   and Bruix, who asked him without circumlocution to resign his
   office," which he did, after slight hesitation. Gohier and
   Moulins were addressed by Bonaparte in person, but firmly
   resisted his importunities and his threats. They were then
   made prisoners by Moreau. "The night of the 18th passed in
   comparative tranquillity. The fact that there was no organized
   resistance is accounted for by Lanfrey with a single mournful
   statement, that 'nothing of the kind could be expected of a
   nation that had been decapitated. All the men of rank in
   France for the previous ten years, either by character or
   genius or virtue, had been mown down, first by the scaffolds
   and proscriptions, next by war.'" On the morrow, the 19th of
   Brumaire (November 10) the sitting of the two councils began
   at two o'clock. In the Council of Five Hundred the partisans
   of Bonaparte were less numerous than in that of the Ancients,
   and a powerful indignation at the doings of the previous day
   began quickly to show itself. In the midst of a warm debate
   upon the resignation of Barras, which had just been received,
   "the door was opened, and Bonaparte, surrounded by his
   grenadiers, entered the hall. A burst of indignation at once
   arose. Every member sprang to his feet. 'What is this?' they
   cried, 'swords here! armed men! Away! we will have no dictator
   here.' Then some of the deputies, bolder than the others,
   surrounded Bonaparte and overwhelmed him with invectives. 'You
   are violating the sanctity of the laws; what are you doing,
   rash man?' exclaimed Bigonnet. 'Is it for this that you have
   conquered?' demanded Destrem, advancing towards him. Others
   seized him by the collar of his coat, and, shaking him
   violently, reproached him with treason. This reception, though
   the General had come with the purpose of intimidating the
   Assembly, fairly overwhelmed him.
{1331}
   Eye-witnesses declare that he turned pale, and fell fainting
   into the arms of his soldiers, who drew him out of the hall."
   His brother Lucien, who was President of the Council, showed
   better nerve. By refusing to put motions that were made to
   vote, and finally by resigning his office and quitting the
   chair, he threw the Council into confusion. Then, appearing to
   the troops outside, who supposed him to be still President of
   the Council, he harangued them and summoned them to clear the
   chamber. "The grenadiers poured into the hall. A last cry of
   'Vive la République' was raised, and a moment later the hall
   was empty. Thus the crime of the conspirators was consummated,
   and the First French Republic was at an end. After this action
   it remained only to put into the hands of Bonaparte the
   semblance of regular authority. … A phantom of the Council
   of Five Hundred—Cornet, one of them, says 30 members—met in
   the evening and voted the measures which had been previously
   agreed upon by the conspirators. Bonaparte, Sieyès, and
   Roger-Ducos were appointed provisional consuls; 57 members of
   the Council who had been most prominent in their opposition
   were excluded from their seats; a list of proscriptions was
   prepared; two commissioners chosen from the assemblies were
   appointed to assist the consuls in their work of organization;
   and, finally, … they adjourned the legislative body until
   the 20th of February."

      _C. K. Adams,
      Democracy and Monarchy in France,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon I._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 4, pages 407-430._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume l, chapter 24-27._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 9._

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November-December).
   The constitution of the consulate.
   Bonaparte as First Consul.

   "During the three months which followed the 18th Brumaire,
   approbation and expectation were general. A provisional
   government had been appointed, composed of three consuls,
   Bonaparte, Siéyes, and Roger-Ducos, with two legislative
   commissioners, entrusted to prepare the constitution and a
   definitive order of things. The consuls and the two
   commissioners were installed on the 21st Brumaire. This
   provisional government abolished the law respecting hostages
   and compulsory loans; it permitted the return of the priests
   proscribed since the 18th Fructidor; it released from prison
   and sent out of the republic the emigrants who had been
   ship-wrecked on the coast of Calais, and who for four years
   were captives in France, and were exposed to the heavy
   punishment of the emigrant army. All these measures were very
   favourably received. But public opinion revolted at a
   proscription put in force against the extreme republicans.
   Thirty-six of them were sentenced to transportation to Guiana,
   and twenty-one were put under serveillance in the department
   of Charante-Inférieure, merely by a decree of the consuls on
   the report of Fouché, minister of police. The public viewed
   unfavourably all who attacked the government, but at the same
   time it exclaimed against an act so arbitrary and unjust. The
   consuls, accordingly, recoiled before their own act; they
   first commuted transportation into surveillance, and soon
   withdrew surveillance itself. It was not long before a rupture
   broke out between the authors of the 18th Brumaire. During
   their provisional authority it did not create much noise,
   because it took place in the legislative commissions. The new
   constitution was the cause of it. Siéyes and Bonaparte could
   not agree on this subject: the former wished to institute
   France, the latter to govern it as a master. … Bonaparte
   took part in the deliberations of the constituent committee,
   with his instinct of power, he seized upon everything in the
   ideas of Siéyes which was calculated to serve his projects,
   and caused the rest to be rejected. … On the 24th of
   December, 1799 (Nivose, year VIII.), forty-five days after the
   18th Brumaire, was published the constitution of the year
   VIII.; it was composed of the wrecks of that of Siéyes, now
   become a constitution of servitude."

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of the French Revolution,
      chapter 14._

   "The new constitution was still republic in name and
   appearance, but monarchical in fact, the latter concealed, by
   the government being committed, not to the hand of one
   individual, but of three. The three persons so fixed upon were
   denominated consuls, and appointed for ten years;—one of
   them, however, was really ruler, although he only obtained the
   modest name of First Consul. The rights which Bonaparte caused
   to be given to himself made all the rest nothing more than
   mere deception. The First Consul was to invite the others
   merely to consultation on affairs of state, whilst he himself,
   either immediately or through the senate, was to appoint to
   all places of trust and authority, to decide absolutely upon
   questions of peace or war, and to be assisted by a council of
   state. … In order to cover and conceal the power of the
   First Consul, especially in reference to the appointment of
   persons to offices of trust and authority, a senate was
   created, which neither belonged to the people nor to the
   government, but immediately from the very beginning was an
   assembly of courtiers and placemen, and at a later period
   became the mere tool of every kind of despotism, by rendering
   it easy to dispense with the legislative body. The senate
   consisted of eighty members, a part of whom were to be
   immediately nominated from the lists of notability, and the
   senate to fill up its own body from persons submitted to them
   by the First Consul, the tribunate, and the legislative body.
   Each senator was to have a salary of 25,000 f.; their meetings
   were not public, and their business very small. From the
   national lists the senate was also to select consuls,
   legislators, tribunes, and judges of the Court of Cassation.
   Large lists were first presented to the communes, on which,
   according to Roederer, there stood some 500,000 names, out of
   which the communes selected 50,000 for the departmental lists,
   from which again 5,000 were to be chosen for the national
   list. From these 5,000 names, selected from the departmental
   list, or from what was termed the national list, the senate
   was afterwards to elect the members of the legislature and the
   high officers of government. The legislature was to consist of
   two chambers, the tribunate and the legislative body—the
   former composed of 100, and the latter of 300 members. The
   chambers had no power of taking the initiative, that is, they
   were obliged to wait till bills were submitted to them, and
   could of themselves originate nothing: they were, however,
   permitted to express wishes of all kinds to the government.
   Each bill (projet de loi) was introduced into the tribunate by
   three members of the council of state, and there defended by
   them, because the tribunate alone had the right of discussion,
   whilst the mere power of saying Yea or Nay was conferred upon
   the members of the legislative body.
{1332}
   The tribunate, having accepted the bill, sent three of its
   members, accompanied by the members from the council of state,
   to defend the measure in the assembly of the legislative body.
   Every year one-fifth of the members of the legislative body
   was to retire from office, being, however, always re-eligible
   as long as their names remained on the national list. The
   sittings of the legislative body alone were public, because
   they were only permitted to be silent listeners to the
   addresses of the tribunes or councillors of state, and to
   assent to, or dissent from, the proposed law. Not above 100
   persons were, however, allowed to be present as auditors; the
   sittings were not allowed to continue longer than four months;
   both chambers, however, might be summoned to an extraordinary
   sitting. … When the constitution was ready to be brought
   into operation, Sieyes terminated merely as he had begun, and
   Bonaparte saw with pleasure that he showed himself both
   contemptible and venal. He became a dumb senator, with a
   yearly income of 25,000 f.; and obtained 800,000 f. from the
   directorial treasury, whilst Roger Ducos was obliged to go
   away contented with a douceur of 120,000 f.; and, last of all,
   Sieyes condescended to accept from Bonaparte a present of the
   national domain of Crosne, which he afterwards exchanged for
   another estate. For colleagues in his new dignity Bonaparte
   selected very able and skilful men, but wholly destitute of
   all nobility of mind, and to whom it never once occurred to
   offer him any opposition; these were Cambacérès and Lebrun.
   The former, a celebrated lawyer, although formerly a vehement
   Jacobin, impatiently waited till Bonaparte brought forth again
   all the old plunder; and then, covered with orders, he
   strutted up and down the Palais Royal like a peacock, and
   exhibited himself as a show. Lebrun, who was afterwards
   created a duke, at a later period distinguished himself by
   being the first to revive the use of hair powder; in fact, he
   was completely a child and partisan of the olden times,
   although for a time he had played the part of a Girondist. …
   As early as the 25th and 26th of December the First Consul took
   up his abode in the Tuileries. There the name of citizen
   altogether disappeared, for the consul's wife caused herself
   again to be addressed as Madame. Everything which concerned
   the government now began to assume full activity, and the
   adjourned legislative councils were summoned for the 1st of
   January, in order that they might be dissolved."

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the Eighteenth Century,
      volume 7, pages 189-192._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon I.,
      volume 1, chapters 13-14._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and Empire,
      books 1-2 (volume 1)._

      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 2 and appendix 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1800.
   Convention with the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (January-June).
   Affairs in Egypt.
   The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
   Kléber's victory at Heliopolis.
   His assassination.

   "Affairs in Egypt had been on the whole unfavourable to the
   French, since that army had lost the presence of the
   commander-in-chief. Kléber, on whom the command devolved, was
   discontented both at the unceremonious and sudden manner in
   which the duty had been imposed upon him, and with the
   scarcity of means left to support his defence. Perceiving
   himself threatened by a large Turkish force, which was
   collecting for the purpose of avenging the defeat of the
   vizier at Aboukir, he became desirous of giving up a
   settlement which he despaired of maintaining. He signed
   accordingly a convention with the Turkish plenipotentiaries,
   and Sir Sidney Smith on the part of the British [at El Arish,
   January 28, 1800], by which it was provided that the French
   should evacuate Egypt, and that Kléber and his army should be
   transported to France in safety, without being molested by the
   British fleet. When the British government received advice of
   this convention they refused to ratify it, on the ground that
   Sir Sidney Smith had exceeded his powers in entering into it.
   The Earl of Elgin having been sent out as plenipotentiary to
   the Porte, it was asserted that Sir Sidney's ministerial
   powers were superseded by his appointment. … The truth was
   that the arrival of Kléber and his army in the south of
   France, at the very moment when the successes of Suwarrow gave
   strong hopes of making some impression on her frontier, might
   have had a most material effect upon the events of the war.
   … The treaty of El Arish was in consequence broken off.
   Kléber, disappointed of this mode of extricating himself, had
   recourse to arms. The Vizier Jousseff Pacha, having crossed
   the Desert and entered Egypt, received a bloody and decisive
   defeat from the French general, near the ruins of the ancient
   city of Heliopolis, on the 20th of March, 1800 [following
   which Kléber crushed with great slaughter a revolt that had
   broken out in Cairo]. The measures which Kléber adopted after
   this victory were well calculated to maintain the possession
   of the country, and reconcile the inhabitants to the French
   government. … While busied in these measures, he was cut
   short by the blow of an assassin. A fanatic Turk, called
   Soliman Haleby, a native of Aleppo, imagined he was inspired
   by Heaven to slay the enemy of the Prophet and the Grand
   Seignior. He concealed himself in a cistern, and springing out
   on Kléber when there was only one man in company with him,
   stabbed him dead [June 14]. … The Baron Menou, on whom the
   command now devolved, was an inferior person to Kléber. …
   Menou altered for the worse several of the regulations of
   Kléber, and, carrying into literal execution what Buonaparte
   had only written and spoken of, he became an actual
   Mahommedan."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
      chapter 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and Empire,
      book 5 (volume 1)._

{1333}

FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (May-February).
   Bonaparte's second Italian campaign.
   The crossing of the Alps.
   The Battle of Marengo.
   Moreau in Germany.
   Hohenlinden.
   Austrian siege of Genoa.

   "Preparations for the new campaign in spring were completed.
   Moreau was made commander-in-chief of the army of the Rhine,
   150,000 strong. The plan of the campaign was concerted between
   the First Consul and Carnot, who had superseded Berthier as
   Minister at War. The operations were conducted with the utmost
   secrecy. Napoleon had determined to strike the decisive blow
   against Austria in Italy, and to command there in person. By
   an article in the Constitution the First Consul was forbidden
   to take command of an army. To this interdiction he cheerfully
   assented; but he evaded it, as soon as the occasion was ripe,
   by giving the nominal command of the army of Italy to
   Berthier. He began to collect troops at Dijon, which were, he
   publicly announced, intended to advance upon Italy. They
   consisted chiefly of conscripts and invalids, with a numerous
   staff, and were called 'the army of reserve.' Meantime, while
   caricatures of some ancient men with wooden legs and little
   boys of twelve years old, entitled 'Bonaparte's Army of
   Reserve,' were amusing the Austrian public, the real army of
   Italy was formed in the heart of France, and was marching by
   various roads towards Switzerland. … The artillery was sent
   piecemeal from different arsenals; the provisions necessary to
   an army about to cross barren mountains were forwarded to
   Geneva, embarked on the lake, and landed at Villeneuve, near
   the entrance to the valley of the Simplon. The situation of
   the French army in Italy had become critical. Massena had
   thrown himself into Genoa with 12,000 men, and was enduring
   all the rigours of a siege, pressed by 30,000 Austrians under
   General Ott, seconded by the British fleet. Suchet, with the
   remainder of the French army, about 10,000 strong, completely
   cut off from communication with Massena, had concentrated his
   forces on the Var, was maintaining an unequal contest with
   Melas, the Austrian commander-in-chief, and strenuously
   defending the French frontier. Napoleon's plan was to
   transport his army across the Alps, plant himself in the rear
   of the Austrians, intercept their communications, then
   manœuvre so as to place his own army and that of Massena on
   the Austrian right and left flanks respectively, cut off their
   retreat, and finally give them battle at the decisive moment.
   While all Europe imagined that the multifarious concerns of
   the Government held the First Consul at Paris, he was
   travelling at a rapid rate towards Geneva, accompanied only by
   his secretary. He left Paris on the 6th of May, at two in the
   morning, leaving Cambacérès to preside until his return, and
   ordering Fouché to announce that he was about to review the
   army at Dijon, and might possibly go as far as Geneva, but
   would return in a fortnight. 'Should anything happen,' he
   significantly added, 'I shall be back like a thunderbolt.' …
   On the 13th the First Consul reviewed the vanguard of his
   army, commanded by General Lannes, at Lausanne. The whole army
   consisted of nearly 70,000 men. Two columns, each of about
   6,000 men, were put in motion, one under Tureau, the other
   under Chabran, to take the routes of Mont Cenis and the Little
   St. Bernard. A division consisting of 15,000 men, under
   Moncey, detached from the army of the Rhine, was to march by
   St. Gothard. Moreau kept the Austrian army of the Rhine, under
   General Kray, on the defensive before Ulm [to which he had
   forced his way in a series of important engagements, at Engen,
   May 2, at Moeskirch, May 4, at Biberach, May 9, and at
   Hochstadt, June 19], and held himself in readiness to cover
   the operations of the First Consul in Italy. The main body of
   the French army, in numbers about 40,000, nominally commanded
   by Berthier, but in fact by the First Consul himself, marched
   on the 15th from Lausanne to the village of St. Pierre, at the
   foot of the Great St. Bernard, at which all trace of a
   practicable road entirely ceased. General Marescot, the
   engineer who had been sent forward from Geneva to reconnoitre,
   reported the paths to be 'barely passable.' 'Set forward
   immediately!' wrote Napoleon. Field forges were established at
   St. Pierre to dismount the guns, the carriages and wheels were
   slung on poles, and the ammunition-boxes carried by mules. A
   number of trees were felled, then hollowed out, and the
   pieces, being jammed into these rough cases, 100 soldiers were
   attached to each and ordered to drag them up the steeps. …
   The whole army effected the passage of the Great St. Bernard
   in three days."

      _R. H. Horne,
      History of Napoleon Bonaparte,
      chapter 18._

   "From May 16 to May 19, the solitudes of the vast mountain
   track echoed to the din and tumult of war, as the French
   soldiery swept over its heights to reach the valley of the Po
   and the plains of Lombardy. A hill fort, for a time, stopped
   the daring invaders, but the obstacle was passed by an
   ingenious stratagem; and before long Bonaparte, exulting in
   hope, was marching from the verge of Piedmont on Milan, having
   made a demonstration against Turin, in order to hide his real
   purpose. By June 2 the whole French army, joined by the
   reinforcement sent by Moreau, was in possession of the Lombard
   capital, and threatened the line of its enemy's retreat, having
   successfully accomplished the first part of the brilliant
   design of its great leader. While Bonaparte was thus
   descending from the Alps, the Austrian commander had been
   pressing forward the siege of Genoa and his operations on the
   Var. Masséna, however, stubbornly held out in Genoa; and
   Suchet had defended the defiles of Provence with a weak force
   with such marked skill that his adversary had made little
   progress. When first informed of the terrible apparition of a
   hostile army gathering upon his rear, Melas disbelieved what
   he thought impossible; and when he could no longer discredit
   what he heard, the movements by Mont Cenis and against Turin,
   intended to perplex him, had made him hesitate. As soon,
   however, as the real design of the First Consul was fully
   revealed, the brave Austrian chief resolved to force his way
   to the Adige at any cost; and, directing Ott to raise the
   siege of Genoa, and leaving a subordinate to hold Suchet in
   check, he began to draw his divided army together, in order to
   make a desperate attack on the audacious foe upon his line of
   retreat. Ott, however, delayed some days to receive the keys
   of Genoa, which fell [June 4] after a defence memorable in the
   annals of war; and, as the Austrian forces had been widely
   scattered, it was June 12 [after a severe defeat at
   Montebello, on the 9th, by Lannes] before 50,000 men were
   assembled for an offensive movement round the well-known
   fortresses of Alessandria. Meanwhile, the First Consul had
   broken up from Milan; and, whether ill-informed of his enemy's
   operations, or apprehensive that, after the fall of Genoa,
   Melas would escape by a march southwards, he had advanced from
   a strong position he had taken between the Ticino, the Adda,
   and the Po, and had crossed the Scrivia into the plains of
   Marengo, with forces disseminated far too widely. Melas boldly
   seized the opportunity to escape from the weakened meshes of
   the net thrown round him; and attacked Bonaparte on the
   morning of June 14 with a vigor and energy which did him
   honor.
{1334}
   The battle raged confusedly for several hours; but the French
   had begun to give way and fly, when the arrival of an isolated
   division on the field [that of Desaix, who had been sent
   southward by Bonaparte, and who turned back, on his own
   responsibility, when he heard the sounds of battle] and the
   unexpected charge of a small body of horsemen, suddenly
   changed defeat into a brilliant victory. The importance was
   then seen of the commanding position of Bonaparte on the rear
   of his foe; the Austrian army, its retreat cut off, was
   obliged to come to terms after a single reverse; and within a
   few days an armistice was signed by which Italy to the Mincio
   was restored to the French, and the disasters of 1799 were
   effaced. … While Italy had been regained at one stroke, the
   campaign in Germany had progressed slowly; and though Moreau
   was largely superior in force, he had met more than one check
   near Ulm, on the Danube. The stand, however, made ably by
   Kray, could not lessen the effects of Marengo; and Austria,
   after that terrible reverse, endeavored to negotiate with the
   dreaded conqueror. Bonaparte, however, following out a purpose
   which he had already made a maxim of policy, and resolved if
   possible to divide the Coalition, refused to treat with
   Austria jointly with England, except on conditions known to be
   futile; and after a pause of a few weeks hostilities were
   resumed with increased energy. By this time, however, the
   French armies had acquired largely preponderating strength;
   and while Brune advanced victoriously to the Adige—the First
   Consul had returned to the seat of government—Moreau in
   Bavaria marched on the rivers which, descending from the Alps
   to the Danube, form one of the bulwarks of the Austrian
   Monarchy. He was attacked incautiously by the Archduke
   John—the Archduke Charles, who ought to have been in command,
   was in temporary disgrace at the Court—and soon afterwards
   [December 3] he won a great battle at Hohenlinden, between the
   Iser and the Inn, the success of the French being complete and
   decisive, though the conduct of their chief has not escaped
   criticism. This last disaster proved overwhelming, and Austria
   and the States of the Empire were forced to submit to the
   terms of Bonaparte. After a brief delay peace was made at
   Luneville in February 1801."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      The French Revolution and First Empire,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 1-2._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 6 (volume l)._

      _C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe
      from 1796 to 1870, chapter 2._

      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 19-20._

FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (June-February).
   The King of Naples spared at the intercession of the Russian
   Czar.
   The Czar won away from the Coalition.
   The Pope befriended.

   "Replaced in his richest territories by the allies, the King
   of Naples was bound by every tie to assist them in the
   campaign of 1800. He accordingly sent an army into the march
   of Ancona, under the command of Count Roger de Damas. …
   Undeterred by the battle of Marengo, the Count de Damas
   marched against the French general Miollis, who commanded in
   Tuscany, and sustained a defeat by him near Sienna. Retreat
   became now necessary, the more especially as the armistice
   which was entered into by General Melas deprived the
   Neapolitans of any assistance from the Austrians, and rendered
   their whole expedition utterly hopeless. They were not even
   included by name in the armistice, and were thus left exposed
   to the whole vengeance of the French. … At this desperate
   crisis, the Queen of the Two Sicilies took a resolution which
   seemed almost as desperate, and could only have been adopted
   by a woman of a bold and decisive character. She resolved,
   notwithstanding the severity of the season, to repair in
   person to the court of the Emperor Paul, and implore his
   intercession with the First Consul, in behalf of her husband
   and his territories." The Russian autocrat was more than ready
   to accede to her request. Disgusted and enraged at the
   discomfiture of Suwarrow in Switzerland, dissatisfied with the
   conduct of Austria in that unfortunate campaign, and equally
   dissatisfied with England in the joint invasion of the
   Batavian republic, he made prompt preparations to quit the
   coalition and to ally himself with the First Consul of France.
   Bonaparte welcomed his overtures and gave them every
   flattering encouragement, conceding instantly the grace which
   he asked on behalf of the King and Queen of Naples. "The
   respect paid by the First Consul to the wishes of Paul saved
   for the present the royal family of Naples; but Murat [who
   commanded the army sent to central and southern Italy],
   nevertheless, made them experience a full portion of the
   bitter cup which the vanquished are generally doomed to
   swallow. General Damas was commanded in the haughtiest terms
   to evacuate the Roman States, and not to presume to claim any
   benefit from the armistice which had been extended to the
   Austrians. At the same time, while the Neapolitans were thus
   compelled hastily to evacuate the Roman territories, general
   surprise was exhibited when, instead of marching to Rome, and
   re-establishing the authority of the Roman Republic, Murat,
   according to the orders which he had received from the First
   Consul, carefully respected the territory of the Church, and
   reinstalled the officers of the Pope in what had been long
   termed the patrimony of St. Peter's. This unexpected turn of
   circumstances originated in high policy on the part of
   Buonaparte. … Besides evacuating the Ecclesiastical States,
   the Neapolitans were compelled by Murat to restore various
   paintings, statues, and other objects of art, which they had,
   in imitation of Buonaparte, taken forcibly from the
   Romans,—so captivating is the influence of bad example. A
   French army of about 18,000 men was to be quartered in
   Calabria. … The harbours of the Neapolitan dominions were of
   course to be closed against the English. A cession of part of
   the isle of Elba, and the relinquishment of all pretensions
   upon Tuscany, summed up the sacrifices of the King of Naples
   [stipulated in the treaty of Foligno, signed in February,
   1801], who, considering how often he had braved Napoleon, had
   great reason to thank the Emperor of Russia for his effectual
   mediation."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 38._

FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (February).
   The Peace of Luneville.
   The Rhine boundary confirmed.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (March).
   Recovery of Louisiana from Spain.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

FRANCE: A. D. 1801.
   Expedition against the Blacks of Hayti.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

{1335}

FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
   The import of the Peace of Luneville.
   Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with England.
   The Northern Maritime League.
   English bombardment of Copenhagen and
   summary crushing of the League.
   Murder of the Russian Czar.
   English expedition to Egypt.
   Surrender of the French army.
   Peace of Amiens.

   "The treaty of Luneville was of far greater import than the
   treaties which had ended the struggle of the first coalition.
   … The significance then of the Peace of Luneville lay in
   this, not only that it was the close of the earlier
   revolutionary struggle for supremacy in Europe, the
   abandonment by France of her effort to 'liberate the peoples,'
   to force new institutions on the nations about her by sheer
   dint of arms; but that it marked the concentration of all her
   energies on a struggle with Britain for the supremacy of the
   world. For England herself the event which accompanied it, the
   sudden withdrawal of William Pitt from office, which took
   place in the very month of the treaty, was hardly less
   significant. … The bulk of the old Ministry returned in a
   few days to office with Mr. Addington at their head, and his
   administration received the support of the whole Tory party in
   Parliament. … It was with anxiety that England found itself
   guided by men like these. … The country stood utterly alone;
   while the peace of Luneville secured France from all hostility
   on the Continent. … To strike at England's wealth had been
   among the projects of the Directory: it was now the dream of
   the First Consul. It was in vain for England to produce, if he
   shut her out of every market. Her carrying-trade must be
   annihilated if he closed every port against her ships. It was
   this gigantic project of a 'Continental System' that revealed
   itself as soon as Buonaparte became finally master of France.
   From France itself and its dependencies in Holland and the
   Netherlands English trade was already excluded. But Italy also
   was shut against her after the Peace of Luneville [and the
   Treaty of Foligno with the King of Naples], and Spain not only
   closed her own ports but forced Portugal to break with her
   English ally. In the Baltic, Buonaparte was more active than
   even in the Mediterranean. In a treaty with America, which was
   destined to bring this power also in the end into his great
   attack, he had formally recognized the rights of neutral
   vessels which England was hourly disputing. … The only
   powers which now possessed naval resources were the powers of
   the North. … Both the Scandinavian states resented the
   severity with which Britain enforced that right of search
   which had brought about their armed neutrality at the close of
   the American war; while Denmark was besides an old ally of
   France; and her sympathies were still believed to be French.
   The First Consul therefore had little trouble in enlisting
   them in a league of Neutrals, which was in effect a
   declaration of war against England, and which Prussia as
   before showed herself ready to join. Russia indeed seemed
   harder to gain." But Paul, the Czar, afraid of the opposition
   of England to his designs upon Turkey, dissatisfied with the
   operations of the coalition, and flattered by Bonaparte, gave
   himself up to the influence of the latter. "It was to check
   the action of Britain in the East that the Czar now turned to
   the French Consul, and seconded his efforts for the formation
   of a naval confederacy in the North, while his minister,
   Rostopchin, planned a division of the Turkish Empire in Europe
   between Russia and her allies. … A squabble over Malta,
   which had been blockaded since its capture by Buonaparte, and
   which surrendered at last [September, 1800] to a British
   fleet, but whose possession the Czar claimed as his own on the
   ground of an alleged election as Grand Master of the Order of
   St. John, served as a pretext for a quarrel with England; and
   at the close of· 1800 Paul openly prepared for hostilities.
   … The Danes, who throughout the year had been struggling to
   evade the British right of search, at once joined this neutral
   league, and were followed by Sweden in their course. … But
   dexterous as the combination was, it was shattered at a blow.
   On the 1st of April, 1801, a British fleet of 18 men-of-war
   [under Sir Hyde Parker, with Nelson second in command] forced
   the passage of the Belt; appeared before Copenhagen, and at
   once attacked the city and its fleet. In spite of a brave
   resistance from the Danish batteries and gunboats six Danish
   ships were taken, and the Crown Prince was forced to conclude
   an armistice which enabled the English ships to enter the
   Baltic. … But their work was really over. The seizure of
   English goods and the declaration of war had bitterly
   irritated the Russian nobles, whose sole outlet for the sale
   of the produce of their vast estates was thus closed to them;
   and on the 24th of March, nine days before the battle of
   Copenhagen, Paul fell in a midnight attack by conspirators in
   his own palace. With Paul fell the Confederacy of the North.
   … At the very moment of the attack on Copenhagen, a stroke
   as effective wrecked his projects in the East. … In March,
   1801, a force of 15,000 men under General Abercrombie anchored
   in Aboukir Bay. Deserted as they were by Buonaparte, the
   French had firmly maintained their hold on Egypt. … But
   their army was foolishly scattered, and Abercrombie was able
   to force a landing five days after his arrival on the coast.
   The French however rapidly concentrated; and on the 21st of
   March their general attacked the English army on the ground it
   had won, with a force equal to its own. The battle [known as
   the battle of Alexandria] was a stubborn one, and Abercrombie
   fell mortally wounded ere its close; but after six hours'
   fighting the French drew off with heavy loss; and their
   retreat was followed by the investment of Alexandria and
   Cairo. … At the close of June the capitulation of the 13,000
   soldiers who remained closed the French rule over Egypt."
   Threatening preparations for an invasion of England were kept
   up, and gunboats and flatboats collected at Boulogne, which
   Nelson attacked unsuccessfully in August, 1801. "The First
   Consul opened negotiations for peace at the close of 1801. His
   offers were at once met by the English Government. … The
   negotiations which went on through the winter between England
   and the three allied Powers of France, Spain, and the Dutch,
   brought about in March, 1802, the Peace of Amiens." The treaty
   secured "a pledge on the part of France to withdraw its forces
   from Southern Italy, and to leave to themselves the republics
   it had set up along its border in Holland, Switzerland, and
   Piedmont. In exchange for this pledge, England recognized the
   French government, restored all the colonies which they had
   lost, save Ceylon and Trinidad, to France and its allies
   [including the restoration to Holland of the Cape of Good Hope
   and Dutch Guiana, and of Minorca and the citadel of Port Mahon
   to Spain, while Turkey regained possession of Egypt],
   acknowledged the Ionian Islands as a free republic, and
   engaged to restore Malta within three months to its old
   masters, the Knights of St. John."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 9, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      Life of Nelson,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      _J. Gifford,
      Political Life of Pitt,
      chapter 47 (volume 6)._

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 11-12._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._

{1336}

FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Domestic measures of Bonaparte.
   His Legion of Honor.
   His wretched educational scheme.
   He is made First Consul for life.
   His whittling away of the Constitution.
   Revolutions instigated and dictated in the Dutch,
   Swiss, and Cisalpine Republics.
   Bonaparte president of the Italian Republic.

   "The concordat was succeeded by the emigrants' recall, which
   resolution was presented and passed April 26. The
   irrevocability of the sale of national property was again
   established, and amnesty granted to all emigrants but the
   leaders of armed forces, and some few whose offences were
   specially grave. The property of emigrants remaining unsold
   was restored, excepting forests, which Bonaparte reserved to
   be gradually returned as bribes to great families. … Two
   important projects were presented to the Tribunal and
   Legislative Corps, the Legion of Honor, and free schools. The
   Convention awarded prizes to the troops for special acts of
   daring, and the First Consul increased and arranged the
   distribution, but that was not enough: he wanted a vast system
   of rewards, adapted to excite amour propre, repay service, and
   give him a new and potent means of influencing civilians as
   well as soldiers. He therefore conceived the idea of the
   Legion of Honor, embracing all kinds of service and title to
   public distinction. … But this plan for forming an order of
   chivalry was contested even by the Council of State as
   offensive to that equality which its members were to defend
   [under the oath prescribed to the Legion], and as a renewal of
   aristocracy. It only passed the Tribunal and Legislative Corps
   by a very small majority, and this after the removal of so
   many of the opposition party. The institution of the Legion of
   Honor was specious, and, despite the opposition it met within
   its early days, suits a people who love distinction, despite
   their passion for equality, provided it be not hereditary. As
   for the educational scheme, it was wretched, doing absolutely
   nothing for the primary schools. The state had no share in it.
   The Commune was to provide the buildings when the pupils could
   pay a teacher, thus forsaking the plans of the great
   assemblies. The wisest statesmen desired to sustain in an
   improved form the central schools founded by the Convention;
   but Bonaparte meant to substitute barracks to educate young
   men for his service. … He diminished scientific study;
   suppressed history and philosophy, which were incompatible
   with despotism; and completed his system of secondary
   instruction by creating 6,000 scholarships, to be used as
   means of influence, like the ribbon of the Legion of Honor.
   … All his measures succeeded, and yet he was not content: he
   wanted to extend his power. … Cambacérès … , when the
   Amiens treaty was presented to the Tribunal and Legislature,
   … proposed, through the president of the former, that the
   Senate should be invited to give the First Consul some token
   of national gratitude (May 6, 1802). … The Senate only voted
   to prolong the First Consul's power for ten years (May 8),
   with but one protesting voice, that of Lanjuinais, who
   denounced the flagrant usurpation that threatened the
   Republic. This was the last echo of the Gironde ringing
   through the tame assemblies of the Consulate. Bonaparte was
   very angry, having expected more; but Cambacérès' calmed him
   and suggested a mode of evading the question, namely, to reply
   that an extension of power could only be granted by the
   people, and then to make the Council of State dictate the
   formula to be submitted to the people, substituting a life
   consulate for ten years. This was accordingly done. … The
   Council of State even added the First Consul's right to name
   his successor. This he thought premature and likely to make
   trouble, and therefore erased it. … Registers were opened at
   the record offices and mayoralties to receive votes, and there
   were three million and a half votes in the affirmative; a few
   thousand only daring to refuse, and many abstaining from
   voting. La Fayette registered a 'no' … and sent the First
   Consul a noble letter. … La Fayette then ceased the
   relations he had hitherto maintained with the First Consul
   since his return to France. … The Senate counted the popular
   vote on the proposal they did not make, and carried the result
   to the Tuileries in a body, August 8, 1802; and the result was
   proclaimed in the form of a Senatus-Consultum, in these terms:
   'The French people name and the Senate proclaim Napoleon
   Bonaparte First Consul for life.' This was the first official
   use of the prenomen Napoleon, which was soon, in conformity
   with royal custom, to be substituted for the family name of
   Bonaparte. … The next day various modifications of the
   Constitution were offered to the Council of State. … The
   Senate were given the right to interpret and complete the
   Constitution, to dissolve the Legislature and Tribunal, and,
   what was even more, to break the judgment of tribunals, thus
   subordinating justice to policy. But these extravagant
   prerogatives could only be used at the request of the
   government, The Senate was limited to 120 members, 40 of whom
   the First Consul was to elect. The Tribunal was reduced to 50
   members, and condemned to discuss with closed doors, divided
   into sections. … Despotism concentrated more and more.
   Bonaparte took back his refusal to choose his successor, and
   now claimed that right. He also formed a civil list of six
   millions. … The Senate agreed to everything, and the
   Senatus-Consultum was published August 5. … The Republic was
   now but a name; … Early in 1808 things grew dark on the
   English shore," and "the loss of San Domingo [to which
   Bonaparte had sent an expedition at the beginning of 1801]
   seemed inevitable [see HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1808]. While making
   this expedition, doomed to so fatal an end, Bonaparte
   continued his haughty policy on the European continent. By
   article second of the Luneville treaty France and Austria
   mutually guaranteed the independence of the Dutch, Swiss,
   Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics, and their freedom in the
   adoption of whatever form of government they saw fit to
   choose.
{1337}
   Bonaparte interpreted this article by substituting for
   independence his own more or less direct rule in those
   republics. … During the negotiations preceding the Amiens
   treaty he stirred up a revolution in Holland. That country had
   a Directory and two Chambers, as in the French Constitution of
   year III., and he wished to impose a new constitution on the
   Chambers, putting them more into his power; they refused, and
   he expelled them by means of the Directory, whom he had won
   over to his side. The Dutch Directory, in this imitation of
   November 9, was sustained by French troops, occupying Holland
   under Augereau, now reconciled to Bonaparte (September, 1801).
   The new Constitution was put to popular vote. A certain number
   voted against it. The majority did not vote. Silence was taken
   for consent, and the new Constitution was proclaimed October
   17, 1801. … The English government protested, but did not
   resist. At the same time he [Bonaparte] imposed on the
   Cisalpine republic, but without conflict or opposition, a
   constitution even more anti-liberal than the French one of
   year VIII.; the president who there replaced the First Consul
   having supreme power. But who was to be that President? The
   Cisalpines for an instant were simple enough to think that
   they could choose an Italian: they decided on Count Melzi,
   well known in the Milanese. They were soon undeceived, when
   Bonaparte called Cisalpine delegates to Lyons in midwinter.
   These delegates were landowners, scholars, and merchants, some
   hundreds in number, and his agents explained to them that none
   but Bonaparte 'was worthy to govern their republic or able to
   maintain it.' They eagerly offered him the presidency, which
   he accepted in lofty terms, and took Melzi for vice-president
   (January 25, 1802). Italian patriots were consoled for this
   subjection by the change of name from Cisalpine to Italian
   Republic, which seemed to promise the unity of Italy.
   Bonaparte threw out this hope, never meaning to gratify it.
   … He acted as master in Switzerland as well as Italy and
   Holland. Since Switzerland had ceased to be the scene of war,
   she had been given over to agitation, fluctuating between
   revolutionary democracy and the old aristocracy joined to the
   retrograde democracy of the small Catholic cantons. Modern
   democracy was at strife with itself. … Bonaparte encouraged
   the strife, that Switzerland might call him in as arbiter.
   Suddenly, late in July, 1802, he withdrew his troops, which
   had occupied Switzerland ever since 1798. Civil war broke out
   at once; the smaller Catholic cantons and the aristocrats of
   Berne and Zurich overthrew the government established at Berne
   by the moderate democrats. The government retired to Lausanne,
   and the country was thus divided. Bonaparte then announced
   that he would not suffer a Swiss counter-revolution, and that
   if the parties could not agree he must mediate between them.
   He summoned the insurrectional powers of Berne to dissolve,
   and invited all citizens who had held office in the central
   Swiss government within three years, to meet at Paris and
   confer with him, announcing that 30,000 men under General Ney
   were ready to support his mediation. The democratic government
   at Lausanne were willing to receive the French; the
   aristocratic government at Berne, anxious to restore the
   Austrians, appealed to European powers, who replied by
   silence, England only protesting against French interference.
   … Bonaparte responded to the English protest by so
   extraordinary a letter that his charge d'Affaires at London
   dared not communicate it verbatim. It said that, if England
   succeeded in drawing the continental powers into her cause,
   the result would be to force France to 'conquer Europe! Who
   knows how long it would take the First-Consul to revive the
   Empire of the West?' (October 23, 1802). … There was slight
   resistance to Ney's troops in Switzerland. All the politicians
   of the new democracy and some of the aristocrats went to Paris
   at the First Consul's summons. He did not treat their country
   as he had Holland and Italy, but gave her, instead, a vain
   show of institutions, a constitution imposing on the different
   parties a specious compromise. … Switzerland was dependent
   on France in regard to general policy, and was bound to
   furnish her with troops; but, at least, she administered her
   own affairs (January, 1803)."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 8-9._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 7, pages 286-302._

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Story of Switzerland,
      chapters 30-31._

      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 3._

      _M. Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapters 20-26._

      _Duchess D' Abrantes,
      Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 1, chapter 80._

      _Count M. Dumas,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _H. A. Taine,
      The Modern Regime,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
   The Civil Code and the Concordat.

   "Four years of peace separated the Treaty of Luneville from
   the next outbreak of war between France and any Continental
   Power. They were years of the extension of French influence in
   every neighbouring State; in France itself, years of the
   consolidation of Bonaparte's power, and of the decline of
   everything that checked his personal rule. … Among the
   institutions which date from this period, two, equally
   associated with the name of Napoleon, have taken a prominent
   place in history, the Civil Code and the Concordat. Since the
   middle of the 18th century the codification of law had been
   pursued with more or less success by almost every Government
   in the western continent. The Constituent Assembly of 1789 had
   ordered the statutes by which it superseded the variety of
   local customs in France to be thus cast into a systematic
   form. … Bonaparte instinctively threw himself into a task so
   congenial to his own systematizing spirit, and stimulated the
   efforts of the best jurists in France by his own personal
   interest and pride in the work of legislation. A Commission of
   lawyers, appointed by the First Consul, presented the
   successive chapters of a Civil Code to the Council of State.
   In the discussions in the Council of State Bonaparte himself
   took an active, though not always a beneficial, part. … In
   March, 1804, France received the Code which, with few
   alterations, has formed from that time to the present the
   basis of its civil rights. … It is probable that a majority
   of the inhabitants of Western Europe believe that Napoleon
   actually invented the laws which bear his name. As a matter of
   fact, the substance of these laws was fixed by the successive
   Assemblies of the Revolution; and, in the final revision which
   produced the Civil Code, Napoleon appears to have originated
   neither more nor less than several of the members of his
   Council whose names have long been forgotten.
{1338}
   He is unquestionably entitled to the honour of a great
   legislator, not, however, as one who, like Solon or like
   Mahomet, himself created a new body of law. … Four other
   Codes, appearing at intervals from the year 1804 to the year
   1810, embodied, in a corresponding form, the Law of Commerce,
   the Criminal Law, and the Rules of Civil and of Criminal
   Process. … Far more distinctively the work of Napoleon
   himself was the reconciliation with the Church of Rome
   effected by the Concordat [July, 1801]. It was a restoration
   of religion similar to that restoration of political order
   which made the public service the engine of a single will. The
   bishops and priests, whose appointment the Concordat
   transferred from their congregations to the Government, were
   as much instruments of the First Consul as his prefects and
   his gensdarmes. … An alliance with the Pope offered to
   Bonaparte the means of supplanting the popular organisation of
   the Constitutional Church by an imposing hierarchy, rigid in
   its orthodoxy and unquestioning in its devotion to himself. In
   return for the consecration of his own rule, Bonaparte did not
   shrink from inviting the Pope to an exercise of authority such
   as the Holy See had never even claimed in France. The whole of
   the existing French Bishops, both the exiled non-jurors and
   those of the Constitutional Church, were summoned to resign
   their sees into the hands of the Pope; against all who refused
   to do so sentence of deposition was pronounced by the Pontiff.
   … The sees were reorganised, and filled up by nominees of the
   First Consul. The position of the great body of the clergy was
   substantially altered in its relation to the Bishops.
   Episcopal power was made despotic, like all other powers in
   France. … In the greater cycle of religious change, the
   Concordat of Bonaparte appears in another light. … It
   converted the Catholicism of France from a faith already far
   more independent than that of Fénélon and Bossuet into the
   Catholicism which in our day has outstripped the bigotry of
   Spain and Austria in welcoming the dogma of Papal
   infallibility."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   "It is … easy, from the official reports which have been
   preserved, to see what part the First Consul took in the
   framing of the Civil Code. While we recognise that his
   intervention was advantageous on some minor points, … we
   must say that his views on the subjects of legislation in
   which this intervention was most conspicuous, were most often
   inspired by suggestions of personal interest, or by political
   considerations which ought to have no weight with the
   legislator. … Bonaparte came by degrees to consider himself
   the principal creator of a collective work to which he
   contributed little more than his name, and which probably
   would have been much better if the suggestions of a man of
   action and executive authority had not been blended with the
   views, necessarily more disinterested, larger and more humane,
   of the eminent jurisconsults whose glory he tried to usurp."

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      volume 1, books 12-14._

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      volume 4, pages 547-554._

      _The Code Napoleon,
      translated by Richards._

FRANCE: A. D. 1802.
   Fourcroy's education law.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
      FRANCE: A. D. 1565-1802.

FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (August-September).
   Annexation of Piedmont, Parma, and the Isle of Elba.

   A "flagrant act of the First Consul's at this time was the
   seizure and annexation of Piedmont. Although that country was
   reconquered by the Austro-Russian army in 1799, the-King of
   Sardinia had not been restored when, by the battle of Marengo,
   it came again into the possession of the French. Bonaparte
   then united part of it to the Cisalpine Republic, and promised
   to erect the rest into a separate State; but he afterwards
   changed his mind; and by a decree of April 20th 1801, ordered
   that Piedmont should form a military division of France. …
   Charles Emanuel, disgusted with the injustice and insults to
   which he was exposed, having abdicated his throne in favour of
   his brother Victor Emanuel, Duke of Aosta, June 4th 1802,
   Bonaparte … caused that part of Piedmont which had not been
   united to the Italian Republic to be annexed to France, as the
   27th Military Department, by a formal Senatus-Consulte of
   September 11th 1802. A little after, October 11th, on the
   death of Ferdinand de Bourbon, Duke of Parma, father of the
   King of Etruria, that duchy was also seized by the rapacious
   French Republic. The isle of Elba had also been united to
   France by a Senatus-Consulte of August 26th."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 11 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
   Complaints against the English press.
   The Peltier trial.
   The First Consul's rage.
   War declared by Great Britain.
   Detention of all the English in France, Italy, Switzerland and
   the Netherlands.
   Occupation of Hanover.

   "Mr. Addington was wont to say in after years that the ink was
   scarcely dry, after the signature of the treaty of Amiens,
   when discontents arose which perilled the new peace. On the
   24th of May [1802], M. Otto told Lord Glenbervie that if the
   English press were not controlled from censuring Napoleon,
   there must be a war to the death: and in the course of the
   summer, six requisitions were formally made to the British
   government, the purport of which was that the press must be
   controlled; the royal emigrants sent to Warsaw; the island of
   Jersey cleared of persons disaffected to the French
   government; and all Frenchmen dismissed from Great Britain who
   wore the decorations of the old monarchy. The reply was, that
   the press was free in England; and that if any of the
   emigrants broke the laws, they should be punished; but that
   otherwise they could not be molested. The government, however,
   used its influence in remonstrance with the editors of
   newspapers which were abusive of the French. Cobbet was
   pointed out by name by Napoleon, as a libeller who must be
   punished; and Peltier, a royalist emigrant, who had published
   some incentives to the assassination of the French ruler, or
   prophecies which might at such a crisis be fairly regarded as
   incentives. M. Peltier's object was to use his knowledge of
   the tools of Napoleon, and his great political and literary
   experience, in laying bare the character and policy of
   Napoleon; and he began, in the summer of 1802, a journal, the
   first number of which occasioned the demand for his
   punishment.
{1339}
   He was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and defended by Sir
   James Mackintosh, in a speech which was translated into nearly
   all the languages of Europe, and universally considered one of
   the most prodigious efforts of oratory ever listened to in any
   age. The Attorney-General, Mr. Percival, declared in Court,
   that he could hardly hope for an impartial decision from a
   jury whose faculties had been so roused, dazzled and charmed.
   … M. Peltier was found guilty; but the Attorney-General did
   not call for judgment on the instant. War was then—at the
   close of February [1808]—imminent; and the matter was
   dropped. M: Peltier was regarded as a martyr, and, as far as
   public opinion went, was rather rewarded than punished in
   England. He was wont to say that he was tried in England and
   punished in France. His property was confiscated by the
   consular agents; and his only near relations, his aged father
   and his sister, died at Nantes, through terror at his trial.
   By this time the merchants of Great Britain were thoroughly
   disgusted with France. Not only had Napoleon prevented all
   commercial intercourse between the nations throughout the
   year, but he had begun to, confiscate English merchant
   vessels, driven by stress of weather into his ports. By this
   time, too, the Minister's mind was made up as to the
   impossibility of avoiding war. … Napoleon had published
   [January 30, 1803] a Report of an official agent of his,
   Sebastiani, who had explored the Levant, striving as he went
   to rouse the Mediterranean States to a desertion of England
   and an alliance with France. He, reported of the British force
   at Alexandria, and of the means of attack and defence there;
   and his employer put forth this statement in the 'Moniteur,'
   his own paper, while complaining of the insults of the English
   press towards himself. Our ambassador at Paris, Lord
   Whitworth, desired an explanation: and the reception of his
   demand by the First Consul … was characteristic. … He sent
   for Lord Whitworth to wait on him at nine in the morning of
   the 18th; made him sit down; and then poured out his wrath 'in
   the style of an Italian bully,' as the record has it: and the
   term is not too strong; for he would not allow Lord Whitworth
   to speak. The first impression was, that it was his design to
   terrify England: but Talleyrand's anxiety to smooth matters
   afterwards, and to explain away what his master had said,
   shows that the ebullition was one of mere temper. And this was
   presently confirmed by his behaviour to Lord Whitworth at a
   levee, when the saloon was crowded with foreign ambassadors
   and their suites, as well as with French courtiers. The whole
   scene was set forth in the newspapers of every country.
   Napoleon walked about, transported with passion: asked Lord
   Whitworth if he did not know that a terrible storm had arisen
   between the two governments; declared that England was a
   violator of treaties; took to witness the foreigners present
   that if England did not immediately surrender Malta, war was
   declared; and condescended to appeal to them whether the right
   was not on his side; and, when Lord Whitworth would have
   replied, silenced him by a gesture, and observed that, Lady
   Whitworth being out of health, her native air would be of
   service to her; and she should, have it, sooner than she
   expected.—After this, there could be little hope of peace in
   the most sanguine mind. … Lord Whitworth left Paris on the
   12th of May; and at Dover met General Andreossi, on his way to
   Paris. On the 16th, it became publicly known that war was
   declared: and on the same day Admiral Cornwallis received
   telegraphic orders which caused him to appear before Brest on
   the 18th. On the 17th, an Order in Council, directing
   reprisals, was issued; and with it the proclamation of an
   embargo being laid on all French and Dutch ships in British
   ports. … On the next day, May 18th, 1803, the Declaration of
   War was laid before parliament, and the feverish state, called
   peace, which had lasted for one year and sixteen days, passed
   into one of open hostility. The reason why the vessels of the
   Dutch were to be seized with those of the French was that
   Napoleon had filled Holland with French troops, and was
   virtually master of the country. … In July, the militia
   force amounted to 173,000 men; and the deficiency was in
   officers to command them. The minister proposed, in addition
   to all the forces actually in existence, the formation of an
   army of reserve, amounting to 50,000 men: and this was
   presently agreed to. There was little that the parliament and
   people of England would not have agreed to at this moment,
   under the provocation of Napoleon's treatment of the English
   in France. His first act was to order the detention, as
   prisoners of war, of all the English then in the country,
   between the ages of 18 and 60. The exasperation caused by this
   cruel measure was all that he could have expected or desired.
   Many were the young men thus doomed to lose, in wearing
   expectation or despair, twelve of the best years of their
   lives, cut off from family, profession, marriage,
   citizenship—everything that young men most value. Many were
   the parents separated for twelve long years from the young
   creatures at home, whom they had left for a mere pleasure
   trip: and many were the grey-haired fathers and mothers at
   home who went down to the grave during those twelve years
   without another sight of the son or daughter who was pining in
   some small provincial town in France, without natural
   occupation, and well nigh without hope. In June, the English
   in Rouen were removed to the neighbourhood of Amiens; those in
   Calais to, Lisle; those at Brussels to Valenciennes. Before
   the month was out, all the English in Italy and Switzerland,
   in addition to those in Holland, were made prisoners. How many
   the whole amounted to does not appear to have been
   ascertained: but  it was believed at the time that there were
   11,000 in France, and 1,800 in Holland. The first pretence was
   that these travellers were detained as hostages for the prizes
   which Napoleon accused us of taking before the regular
   declaration of war; but when proposals were made for an
   exchange, he sent a savage answer that he would keep his
   prisoners till the end of the war. It is difficult to conceive
   how there could be two opinions about the nature of the man
   after this act. The naval captures of which Napoleon
   complained, as made prior to a declaration of war, were of two
   merchant Ships taken by English frigates: and we find notices
   of such being brought into port on the 25th of May. Whether
   they were captured before the 18th, there is no record that we
   can find. … On the sea, our successes seemed a matter of
   course; but meantime a blow was struck at Great Britain, and
   especially at her sovereign, which proved that the national
   exasperation against France was even yet capable of increase.
{1340}
   On the breaking out of the war; George III. issued a
   proclamation, as Elector of Hanover, declaring to Germany that
   the Germanic states had nothing to fear in regard to the new
   hostilities, as he was entering into war as King of Great
   Britain, and not as Elector of Hanover. Whatever military
   preparations were going forward in Hanover were merely of a
   defensive character. Napoleon, however, set such defence at
   defiance. On the 13th of June, news arrived of the total
   surrender of Hanover to the French. … Government resolved to
   declare the Elbe and the Weser, and all the ports of Western
   Germany, in a state of blockade; as the French had now command
   over all the intermediate rivers. It was calculated that this
   would annoy and injure Napoleon effectually, as it would cause
   the ruin of foreign merchants trading from the whole series of
   ports. English merchants would suffer deeply; but it was
   calculated that English capital and stock would hold out
   longer than those of foreign merchants. Thus was the sickening
   process of private ruin, as a check to public aggression,
   entered upon, before war had been declared a month."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book l, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapters 28-30._

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      Speech in Defense of Jean Peltier
      (Miscellaneous Works)._

      _J. Ashton,
      English Caricature and Satire on Napoleon I.,
      volume 1, chapters 24-87._

FRANCE: A. D. 1803 (April-May).
   Sale or Louisiana to the United States of America.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1808;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.

FRANCE: A. D. 1803.
   Loss of San Domingo, or Hayti.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1803.

FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Royalist plots and Bonaparte's use or them.
   The abduction and execution or the Duc d'Enghien.
   The First Consul becomes Emperor.
   His coronation by the Pope.
   His acceptance of the crown or Italy.
   Annexation of Genoa to France.

   The rupture with England furnished Bonaparte "with the
   occasion of throwing off the last disguise and openly
   restoring monarchy. It was a step which required all his
   audacity and cunning. He had crushed Jacobinism, but two great
   parties remained. There was first the more moderate
   republicanism, which might be called Girondism, and was widely
   spread among all classes and particularly in the army.
   Secondly, there was the old royalism, which after many years
   of helpless weakness had revived since Brumaire. These two
   parties, though hostile to each other, were forced into a sort
   of alliance by the new attitude of Bonaparte, who was hurrying
   France at once into a new revolution at home and into an abyss
   of war abroad. England, too, after the rupture, favoured the
   efforts of these parties. Royalism from England began to open
   communications with moderate republicanism in France. Pichegru
   acted for the former, and the great representative of the
   latter was Moreau, who had helped to make Brumaire in the
   tacit expectation probably of rising to the consulate in due
   course when Bonaparte's term should have expired, and was
   therefore hurt in his personal claims as well as in his
   republican principles. Bonaparte watched the movement through
   his ubiquitous police, and with characteristic strategy
   determined not merely to defeat it but to make it his
   stepping-stone to monarchy. He would ruin Moreau by fastening
   on him the stigma of royalism; he would persuade France to
   make him emperor in order to keep out the Bourbons. He
   achieved this with the peculiar mastery which he always showed
   in villainous intrigue. … Pichegru [who had returned
   secretly to France from England some time in January, 1804]
   brought with him wilder partisans, such as Georges [Cadoudal]
   the Chouan. No doubt Moreau would gladly have seen and gladly
   have helped an insurrection against Bonaparte. … But
   Bonaparte succeeded in associating him with royalist schemes
   and with schemes of assassination. Controlling the Senate, he
   was able to suppress the jury; controlling every avenue of
   publicity, he was able to suppress opinion; and the army,
   Moreau's fortress, was won through its hatred of royalism. In
   this way Bonaparte's last personal rival was removed. There
   remained the royalists, and Bonaparte hoped to seize their
   leader, the Comte d'Artois, who was expected, as the police
   knew, soon to join Pichegru and Georges at Paris. What
   Bonaparte would have done with him we may judge from the
   course he took when the Comte did not come. On March 15, 1804,
   the Duc d'Enghien, grandson of the Prince de Condé, residing
   at Ettenheim in Baden, was seized at midnight by a party of
   dragoons, brought to Paris, where he arrived on the 20th,
   confined in the castle of Vincennes, brought before a military
   commission at two o'clock the next morning, asked whether he had
   not borne arms against the republic, which he acknowledged
   himself to have done, conducted to a staircase above the moat,
   and there shot and buried in the moat. … That the Due
   d'Enghien was innocent of the conspiracy, was nothing to the
   purpose; the act was political, not judicial; accordingly he
   was not even charged with complicity. That the execution would
   strike horror into the cabinets, and perhaps bring about a new
   Coalition, belonged to a class of considerations which at this
   time Bonaparte systematically disregarded. This affair led
   immediately to the thought of giving heredity to Bonaparte's
   power. The thought seems to have commended itself irresistibly
   even to strong republicans and to those who were most shocked
   by the murder. To make Bonaparte's position more secure seemed
   the only way of averting a new Reign of Terror or new
   convulsions. He himself felt some embarrassment. Like
   Cromwell, he was afraid of the republicanism of the army, and
   heredity pure and simple brought him face to face with the
   question of divorcing Josephine. To propitiate the army, he
   chose from the titles suggested to him—consul, stadtholder,
   &c.—that of emperor, undoubtedly the most accurate, and
   having a sufficiently military sound. The other difficulty
   after much furious dissension between the two families of
   Bonaparte and Beauharnais, was evaded by giving Napoleon
   himself (but none of his successors) a power of adoption, and
   fixing the succession, in default of a direct heir, natural or
   adoptive, first in Joseph and his descendants, then in Louis
   and his descendants. Except abstaining from the regal title,
   no attempt was made to conceal the abolition of republicanism.
   … The change was made by the constituent power of the
   Senate, and the Senatus-Consulte is dated May 18, 1804. The
   title of Emperor had an ulterior meaning.
{1341}
   Adopted at the moment when Napoleon began to feel himself
   master both in Italy and Germany, it revived the memory of
   Charles the Great. To himself it was the more satisfactory on
   that account, and, strange to say, it gave satisfaction rather
   than offence to the Head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II.
   Since Joseph, the Habsburg Emperors had been tired of their
   title, which, being elective, was precarious. They were
   desirous of becoming hereditary emperors in Austria, and they
   now took this title (though without as yet giving up the
   other). Francis II. bartered his acknowledgement of Napoleon's
   new title against Napoleon's acknowledgement of his own. It
   required some impudence to condemn Moreau for royalism at the
   very moment that his rival was re-establishing monarchy. Yet
   his trial began on May 15th. The death of Pichegru, nominally
   by suicide, on April 6th, had already furnished the rising
   sultanism with its first dark mystery. Moreau was condemned to
   two years' imprisonment, but was allowed to retire to the
   United States."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Short History of Napoleon I.,
      chapter 8, section 4._

      _C. C. Fauriel,
      The Last Days of the Consulate._

   Chancellor Pasquier, in his Memoirs, narrates the
   circumstances of the seizure of the Duc d'Enghien at
   considerable length, and says: "This is what really occurred,
   according to what I have been told by those better situated to
   know. A council was held on the 9th of March: It is almost
   certain that previous to this council, which was a kind of
   official affair, a more secret one had been held at the house
   of Joseph Bonaparte. At the first council, to which were
   convened only a few persons, all on a footing of family
   intimacy, it was discussed by order of the First Consul, what
   would be proper to do with a prince of the House of Bourbon,
   in case one should have him in one's power, and the decision
   reached was that if he was captured on French territory, one
   had the right to take his life, but not otherwise. At the
   council held on the 9th, and which was composed of the three
   Consuls, the Chief Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
   and M. Fouché, although the latter had not then resumed the
   post of Minister of Police, the two men who expressed contrary
   opinions were M. de Talleyrand and M. de Cambacérès. M. de
   Talleyrand declared that the prince should be sent to his
   death. M. Lebrun, the Third Consul, contented himself with
   saying that such an event would have a terrible echo
   throughout the world. M. de Cambacérès contended earnestly
   that it would be sufficient to hold the prince as hostage for
   the safety of the First Consul. The latter sided with M. de
   Talleyrand, whose counsels then prevailed. The discussion was
   a heated one, and when the meeting of the council was over, M.
   de Cambacérès thought it his duty to make a last attempt, so
   he followed Bonaparte into his study, and laid before him with
   perhaps more strength than might be expected from his
   character, the consequences of the deed he was about to
   perpetrate, and the universal horror it would excite. … He
   spoke in vain. In the privacy of his study, Bonaparte
   expressed himself even with greater violence than he had done
   at the council. He answered that the death of the duke would
   seem to the world but a just reprisal for what was being
   attempted against him personally; that it was necessary to
   teach the House of Bourbon that the blows struck with its
   sanction were liable to recoil on its own head; that this was
   the only way of compelling it to abstain from its dastardly
   schemes, and lastly, that matters had gone too far to retrace
   one's steps. M. de Talleyrand supplied this last argument."

      _Chancellor Pasquier,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, pages 190-191._

   "Bonaparte's accession to the Empire was proclaimed with the
   greatest pomp, without waiting to inquire whether the people
   approved of his promotion or otherwise. The proclamation was
   coldly received, even by the populace, and excited little
   enthusiasm. … The Emperor was recognised by the soldiery
   with more warmth. He visited the encampments at Boulogne,"
   and, afterwards, "accompanied with his Empress, who bore her
   honours both gracefully and meekly, visited Aix-la-Chapelle
   and the frontiers of Germany. They received the
   congratulations of all the powers of Europe, excepting
   England, Russia, and Sweden, upon their new exaltation. …
   But the most splendid and public recognition of his new rank
   was yet to be made, by the formal act of coronation, which,
   therefore, Napoleon determined should take place with
   circumstances of solemnity which had been beyond the reach of
   any temporal prince, however powerful, for many ages. …
   Though Charlemagne had repaired to Rome to receive
   inauguration from the hands of the Pontiff of that day,
   Napoleon resolved that he who now owned the proud, and in
   Protestant eyes profane, title of Vicar of Christ, should
   travel to France to perform the coronation. … The Pope, and
   the cardinals whom he consulted, implored the illumination of
   Heaven upon their councils; but it was the stern voice of
   necessity which assured them that, except at the risk of
   dividing the Church by a schism, they could not refuse to
   comply with Buonaparte's requisition. The Pope left Rome on
   the 5th November. … On the 2d December [1804] the coronation
   took place in the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame. … The
   crown having been blessed by the Pope, Napoleon took it from
   the altar with his own hands, and placed it on his brows. He
   then put the diadem on the head of his Empress, as if
   determined to show that his authority was the child of his own
   actions. … The northern states of Italy had followed the
   example of France through all her change of models. … The
   authorities of the Italian (late Cisalpine) Republic, had a
   prescient guess of what was expected of them. A deputation
   appeared at Paris to declare the absolute necessity which they
   felt, that their government should assume a monarchical and
   hereditary form. On the 17th March [1805], they obtained an
   audience of the Emperor, to whom they intimated the unanimous
   desire of their countrymen that Napoleon, founder of the
   Italian Republic, should be monarch of the Italian Kingdom.
   … Buonaparte granted the petition of the Italian States, and
   … upon the 11th April, … with his Empress, set off to go
   through the form of coronation as King of Italy. … The new
   kingdom was, in all respects, modeled on the same plan with
   the French Empire. An order, called 'of the Iron Crown,' was
   established on the footing of that of the Legion of Honour. A
   large French force was taken into Italian pay, and Eugene
   Beauharnais, the son of Josephine by her former marriage, who
   enjoyed and merited the confidence of his father-in-law, was
   created viceroy, and appointed to represent, in that
   character, the dignity of Napoleon. Napoleon did not leave
   Italy without further extension of his empire. Genoa, once the
   proud and the powerful, resigned her independence, and her
   Doge presented to the Emperor a request that the Ligurian
   Republic … should be considered in future as a part of the
   French nation."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 48 (Paris edition, 1828)._

{1342}

   "Genoa and the Ligurian Republic were incorporated with
   France, June 3d 1805. … The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza,
   which, together with Guastalla, had been already seized, were
   declared dependencies of the French Empire by an imperial
   decree of July 21st. The principality of Piombino was bestowed
   on Napoleon's sister Eliza, wife of the Senator Bacciocchi,
   but on conditions which retained it under the Emperor's
   suzerainty: and the little state was increased by the addition
   of the Republic of Lucca."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapter 11 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 3-4._

      _Memoirs dictated by Napoleon to his
      Generals at St. Helena,
      volume 6, pages 219-225._

      _J. Fouché,
      Memoirs,
      pages 260-274._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 16-17._

      _W. Hazlitt,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapters 38-34 (volume 2)._

      _Madame de Rémusat,
      Memoirs,
      book 1, chapters 4-10 (volume 1)._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapters 9-10._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 1-12._

FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
   The Third European Coalition.

   "In England Pitt returned to office in May, 1804, and this in
   itself was an evil omen for France. He enjoyed the confidence,
   not only of his own nation but of Europe, and he at once set
   to work to resume the threads of that coalition of which
   England had formerly directed the resources. Alexander I. of
   Russia had begun to see through the designs of Napoleon; he
   found that he had been duped in the joint mediation in
   Germany, he resented the occupation of Hanover and he ordered
   his court to put on mourning for the duke of Enghien. Before
   long he broke off diplomatic relations with France (September
   1804), and a Russian war was now only a question of time.
   Austria was the power most closely affected by Napoleon's
   assumption of the imperial title. … While hastening to
   acknowledge Napoleon, Austria was busied in military
   preparations and began to resume its old connection with
   England. Prussia was the power on which France was accustomed
   to rely with implicit confidence. But the occupation of
   Hanover and the interference with the commerce of the Elbe had
   weakened Frederick William III.'s belief in the advantages of
   a neutral policy, and, though he could not make up his mind to
   definite action, he began to open negotiations with Russia in
   view of a rupture with France. The fluctuations of Prussian
   policy may be followed in the alternating influence of the two
   ministers of foreign affairs, Haugwitz and Hardenberg.
   Meanwhile Napoleon, ignorant or reckless of the growing
   hostility of the great powers, continued his aggressions at
   the expense of the lesser states. … These acts gave the
   final impulse to the hostile powers, and before Napoleon
   quitted Italy the Coalition had been formed. On the 11th of
   April, 1805, a final treaty was signed between Russia and
   England. The two powers pledged themselves to form an European
   league against France, to conclude no peace without mutual
   consent, to settle disputed points in a congress at the end of
   the war, and to form a federal tribunal for the maintenance of
   the system which should, then be established. The immediate
   objects of the allies were the abolition of French rule in
   Italy, Holland, Switzerland, and Hanover; the restoration of
   Piedmont to the king of Sardinia; the protection of Naples;
   and the erection of a permanent barrier against France by the
   union of Holland and Belgium under the House of Orange. The
   coalition was at once joined by Gustavus IV. of Sweden, who
   inherited his father's devotion to the cause of legitimate
   monarchy, and who hoped to recover power in Pomerania.
   Austria, terrified for its Italian possessions by Bonaparte's
   evident intention to subdue the whole peninsula, was driven
   into the league. Prussia, in spite of the attraction of
   recovering honour and independence, refused to listen to the
   solicitations of England and Russia, and adhered to its feeble
   neutrality. Of the other German states Bavaria, Baden, and
   Wurtemberg were allies of France. As far as effective
   operations were concerned, the coalition consisted only of
   Austria and Russia. Sweden and Naples, which had joined
   secretly, could not make efforts on a great scale, and England
   was as yet content with providing subsidies and the invaluable
   services of its fleet. It was arranged that, one Austrian army
   under the archduke Charles should invade Lombardy, while Mack,
   with a second army and the aid of Russia, should occupy
   Bavaria and advance upon the Rhine."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 24, sections 13-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 39 (volume 9)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (March-December).
   Napoleon's plans and preparations for the invasion of England.
   Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleets.
   His victory and death at Trafalgar.
   Napoleon's rapid march to the Danube.
   Capitulation of Mack at Ulm.
   The French in Vienna.
   The great battle of Austerlitz.

   "While the coalition was forming, and Napoleon seemed wantonly
   to be insulting Europe and ignoring the danger of exciting
   fresh enemies, he was in fact urging on with all rapidity his
   schemes for the invasion of England, which he probably hoped
   might be so successful as to paralyse all action on the part
   of the European powers. The constantly repeated
   representations of his naval officers had forced him, much
   against his will, to believe that his descent upon England
   would be impracticable unless secured by the presence of his
   fleet. In spite of the general voice of those who knew the
   condition of the French navy, he determined to act with his
   fleet on the same principles as he would have acted with his
   army; a gigantic combination of various squadrons was to be
   effected, and a fleet great enough to destroy all hope of
   opposition to sweep the Channel. For this purpose the 18 ships
   of the line at Brest under Admiral Gantheaume, the squadron at
   Rochefort under Villeneuve, and the Toulon fleet under
   Latouche-Tréville, were to unite. The last mentioned admiral
   was intrusted with the chief command. Sailing up the coast of
   France, he was to liberate from their blockade the squadrons
   of Rochefort and Brest, and with their combined fleets appear
   before Boulogne. But Latouche-Tréville died, and Napoleon
   intrusted his plans to Villeneuve.
{1343}
   Those plans, all of them arranged without regard to the bad
   condition of the French ships, or to the uncertainty of the
   weather, were frequently changed; at one time Villeneuve from
   Toulon, and Missiessy, his successor, at Rochefort, were to
   proceed to the West Indies, drawing the English fleet thither;
   then Gantheaume was to appear from Brest, throw troops into
   Ireland, and thus cover the flotilla. At another time, all the
   fleets were to assemble at the West Indies, and, joining with
   the Spanish fleet at Ferrol, appear in the Straits of Calais.
   To complete this last measure Villeneuve set sail from Toulon
   on the 30th of March 1805, joined Gravina at Cadiz, and
   reached Martinique on the 13th of May with 20 ships of the
   line, and 7 frigates. His voyage was so slow that Missiessy
   had returned from the West Indies to France, and the junction
   failed. In hot pursuit of Villeneuve, Nelson, who had at
   length found out his destination, had hurried. At Martinique
   Gantheaume, with the Brest fleet, should have joined
   Villeneuve; unfortunately for him, Admiral Cornwallis
   blockaded his fleet. Villeneuve therefore had to return to
   Europe alone, sailing for Ferrol to pick up a squadron of 15
   ships. He was then, at the head of 35 ships, ordered to appear
   before Brest, liberate Gantheaume, and appear in the Channel.
   Back again in pursuit of him Nelson sailed, but supposed that
   he would return to the Mediterranean and not to Ferrol; he
   therefore again missed him; but as he had found means to
   inform the English Government that Villeneuve was returning to
   Europe, Calder, with a fleet of 15 ships, was sent to
   intercept him. The fleets encountered off Cape Finisterre
   [Northwest corner of Spain]. The French had 27 vessels, Calder
   but 18, and after an indecisive battle, in which two Spanish
   ships were taken, he was afraid to renew the engagement; and
   Villeneuve was thus enabled to reach Ferrol in safety.
   However, all the operations towards concentration had led to
   absolutely nothing, and the English fleets, which the
   movements towards the West Indies were to have decoyed from
   the Channel, were either still off the coast of France or in
   immediate pursuit of the fleet of Villeneuve. Nelson returned
   to Gibralter, and as soon as he found out where Villeneuve
   was, he joined his fleet to that of Cornwallis before Brest,
   and himself returned to England. … Meanwhile Villeneuve had
   not been able to get ready for sea till the 11th of August.
   … He was afraid to venture northwards, and with the full
   approbation of his Spanish colleague Gravina, determined to
   avail himself of a last alternative which Napoleon had
   suggested, and sailed to Cadiz. This was a fatal blow to the
   gigantic schemes of Napoleon. Up till the 22nd of August he
   still believed that Villeneuve would make his appearance, and
   in fact wrote to him that day at Brest, closing his letter
   with the words, 'England is ours.' As the time for his great
   stroke drew near he grew nervously anxious, constantly
   watching the Channel for the approach of the fleet, and at
   last, when his Minister of Marine, Decrès, told him that the
   fleet had gone to Cadiz, he broke forth in bitter wrath
   against both his Minister and Villeneuve, whom he accused of
   the most shameful weakness. But Napoleon was not a man who let
   his success be staked upon one plan alone. Though studiously
   hiding from his people the existence of the coalition, and not
   scrupling to have recourse to forged letters and fabricated
   news for the purpose, he was fully aware of its existence. …
   Without much difficulty, therefore, he at once resigned his
   great plans upon England, and directed his army towards the
   eastern frontier."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, period 3,
      pages 1261-1264._

   "In the first days of September, 1805, Napoleon's great army
   was in full march across France and Germany, to attain the
   Danube. … The Allies … had projected four separate and
   ill-combined attacks; the first on Hanover and Holland by a
   Russian and British force; the second, on Lower Italy by a
   similar body; the third, by a great Austrian army on Upper
   Italy; and the fourth, by a United Austrian and Russian army,
   moving across Southern Germany to the Rhine. … By this time,
   the Austrian Mack had drawn close to the Inn, in order to
   compel Bavaria to join the Allies, and was even making his way
   to the Iller, but his army was far distant from that of the
   Russian chief, Kutusoff, and still further from that of
   Buxhöwden, the one in Galicia, the other in Poland. …
   Napoleon had seized this position of affairs, with the
   comprehensive knowledge of the theatre of war, and the skill
   of arranging armies upon it, in which he has no equals among
   modern captains. He opposed Masséna to the Archdukes, with a
   much weaker force, confident that his great lieutenant could
   hold them in check. He neglected the attacks from the North
   Sea, and the South; but he resolved to strike down Mack, in
   overwhelming strength, should he advance without his Russian
   supports. … The great mass of the Grand Army had reached the
   Main and Rhine by the last week of September. The left wing,
   joined by the Bavarian forces, and commanded by Bernadotte and
   Marmont, had marched from Hanover and Holland, and was around
   Würtzburg; the centre, the corps of Soult, and Davoust, moved
   from the channel, was at Spire and Mannheim, and the right
   wing, formed of the corps of Ney and Lannes, with the Imperial
   Guard, and the horse of Murat, filled the region between
   Carlsruhe and Strasburg, the extreme right under Augereau,
   which had advanced from Brittany, being still behind but
   drawing towards Huningen. By this time Mack was upon the
   Iller, holding the fortress of Ulm on the upper Danube, and
   extending his forces thence to Memmingen. … By the first
   days of October the great French masses … were in full march
   from the Rhine to the Main, across Würtemberg and the
   Franconian plains; and cavalry filled the approaches to the
   Black Forest, in order to deceive and perplex Mack. … The
   Danube ere long was reached and crossed, at Donauwörth,
   Ingolstadt, and other points; and Napoleon already stood on
   the rear of his enemy, interposing between him and Vienna, and
   cut him off from the Russians, even now distant. The net was
   quickly drawn round the ill-fated Mack. … By the third week
   of October, the Grand Army had encompassed the Austrians on
   every side, and Napoleon held his quarry in his grasp. Mack
   … had not the heart to strike a desperate stroke, and to
   risk a battle; and he capitulated at Ulm on the 19th of
   October. Two divisions of his army had contrived to break out;
   but one was pursued and nearly destroyed by Murat, and the
   other was compelled by Augereau to lay down its arms, as it
   was on its way to the hills of the Tyrol. An army of 85,000
   men had thus, so to speak, been well-nigh effaced; and not
   20,000 had effected their escape. France meanwhile had met a
   crushing disaster on the element which England had made her
   own.
{1344}
   We have seen how Villeneuve had put into Cadiz, afraid to face
   the hostile fleets off Brest; and how this had baffled the
   project of the descent. Napoleon was indignant with his
   ill-fated admiral. … At a hint of disgrace the susceptible
   Frenchman made up his mind, at any risk, to fight. By this
   time Nelson had left England, and was off Cadiz with a
   powerful fleet; and he actually weakened his force by four
   sail-of-the-line, in order to lure his adversary out. On the
   20th of October, 1805, the allied fleet was in the open sea;
   it had been declared at a council of war, that a lost battle
   was almost certain, so bad was the condition of many of the
   crews; but Villeneuve was bent on challenging Fate; and almost
   courted defeat, in his despair. … On the morning of the
   21st, the allied fleet, 33 war ships, and a number of
   frigates, was off Cape Trafalgar [25 miles west of Gibraltar
   on the coast of Spain], making for the Straits. … Nelson
   advanced slowly against his doomed enemy, with 27 ships and
   their attendant frigates; the famous signal floated from his
   mast, 'England expects every man to do his duty'; and, at
   about noon, Collingwood pierced Villeneuve's centre; nearly
   destroying the Santa Anna with a single broadside. Ere long
   Nelson had, broken Villeneuve's line, with the Victory,
   causing frightful destruction; and as other British ships came
   up by degrees they relieved the leading ships from the
   pressure of their foes, and completed the ruin already begun.
   At about one, Nelson met his death wound, struck by a shot
   from the tops of the Redoutable. … Pierced through and
   through, the shattered allied centre was soon a collection of
   captured wrecks. … Only 11 ships out of 33 escaped; and the
   burning Achille, like the Orient at the Nile, added to the
   grandeur and horrors of an appalling scene. Villeneuve, who
   had fought most honourably in the Bucentaure, was compelled to
   strike his flag before the death of Nelson. The van of the
   allies that had fled at Trafalgar, was soon afterwards
   captured by a British squadron. Though dearly bought by the
   death of Nelson, the victory may be compared to Lepanto; and
   it blotted France out as a great Power on the ocean; Napoleon
   … never tried afterwards to meet England at sea. … His
   success, at this moment, had been so wonderful, that what he
   called 'the loss of a few ships at sea,' seemed a trifling and
   passing rebuff of fortune. … He had discomfitted the whole
   plan of the Allies; and the failure of the attack on the main
   scene of the theatre had caused all the secondary attacks to
   fail. … Napoleon, throwing out detachments to protect his
   flanks, had entered Vienna on the 14th of November. … The
   House of Hapsburg and its chief had fled. … Extraordinary as
   his success had been, the position of the Emperor had, in a
   few days, become grave. … Napoleon had not one hundred
   thousand men in hand—apart from the bodies that covered his
   flanks—to make head against his converging enemies. Always
   daring, however, he resolved to attack the Allies before they
   could receive aid from Prussia; and he marched from Vienna
   towards the close of November; having taken careful
   precautions to guard his rear. … By this time the Allies
   were around Olmütz, the Archdukes were not many marches away,
   and a Prussian army was nearly ready to move. Had the Russians
   and Austrians fallen back from Olmütz and effected their
   junction with the Archdukes, they could, therefore, have.
   opposed the French with a force more than two-fold in numbers.
   … But the folly and presumption which reigned among the young
   nobles surrounding the Czar—Alexander was now at the head of
   his army—brought on the Coalition deserved punishment, and
   pedantry had its part in an immense disaster. The force of
   Napoleon appeared small, his natural line of retreat was
   exposed, and a theorist in the Austrian camp persuaded the
   Czar and the Austrian Emperor, who was at the head of his
   troops at Olmütz, to consent to a magnificent plan of
   assailing Napoleon by the well-known method of Frederick the
   Great, in the Seven Years' War, of turning his right wing, by
   an attack made, in the oblique order, in great force, and of
   cutting him off from his base at Vienna, and driving him,
   routed, into, Bohemia. This grand project on paper, which
   involved a march across the front of the hostile army within
   reach of the greatest of masters of war, was hailed with
   exultation. … The Allies were soon in full march from
   Olmütz, and preparations were made for the decisive movement
   in the night of the 1st December, 1805. Napoleon had watched
   the reckless false step being made by his foes with unfeigned
   delight; 'that army is mine,' he proudly exclaimed. … The
   sun of Austerlitz rose on the 2nd, the light of victory often
   invoked by Napoleon. … The dawn of the winter's day revealed
   three large columns, succeeded by a fourth at no great
   distance, toiling through a tract of marshes and frozen lakes,
   to outflank Napoleon's right on the Goldbach, the allied
   centre, on the tableland of Prätzen, immediately before the
   French front, having been dangerously weakened by this great
   turning movement. The assailants were opposed by a small force
   only, under Davoust, one of the best of the marshals. … Ere
   long Napoleon, who, like a beast of prey, had reserved his
   strength until it was time to spring, launched Soult in force
   against the Russian and Austrian centre, enfeebled by the
   detachment against the French right and exposed to the whole
   weight of Napoleon's attacks; and Prätzen was stormed after a
   fierce struggle, in which Bernadotte gave the required aid to
   Soult. The allied centre was thus rent asunder. Lannes
   meanwhile had defeated the allied right. … Napoleon now
   turned with terrible energy and in overwhelming strength
   against the four columns, that had assailed his right, but had
   begun to retreat. His victorious centre was aided by his
   right, now set free; the Russians and Austrians were struck
   with panic, a horrible scene of destruction followed, the
   flying troops were slain or captured in thousands; and
   multitudes perished, engulfed in the lakes, the French
   artillery shattering their icy surface. The rout was decisive,
   complete, and appalling; about 80,000 of the Allies were
   engaged; they lost all their guns and nearly half their
   numbers, and the remains of their army were a worthless wreck.
   Napoleon had only 60,000 men in the fight. … The memorable
   campaign of 1805 is, perhaps, the grandest of Napoleon's
   exploits in war."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      Napoleon,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and Empire,
      book 22 (volume 2)._

      _R. Southey,
      Life of Nelson,
      chapters 8-9 (volume 2)._

      _W. C. Russell,
      Nelson and the Naval Supremacy of England,
      chapters 17-20._

      _Lord Nelson,
      Dispatches and Letters,
      volumes 6-7._

      _Capt. E. J. de la Gravière,
      Sketches of the last Naval War,
      part 6 (volume 2)._

      _C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe, from 1796 to 1870,
      chapter 3._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 20-23._

      _A. T. Mahan,
      Influences of Sea Power upon the French Revolution,
      chapters 15-16 (volume 2)._

{1345}

FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-August).
   The Peace of Presburg.
   Humiliation of Austria.
   Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
   Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
   The goading of Prussia to war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806;
      and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-September).
   Dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
   Bestowal of the crown upon Joseph Bonaparte.

   The treaty of Presburg was "immediately followed by a measure
   hitherto unprecedented in European history—the pronouncing a
   sentence of dethronement against an independent, sovereign,
   for no other cause than his having contemplated hostilities
   against the French Emperor; On the 26th December [1805] a
   menacing proclamation proceeded from Presburg … which
   evidently bore marks of Napoleon's composition, against the
   house of Naples. The conqueror announced that Marshal St. Cyr
   would advance by rapid strides to Naples, 'to punish the
   treason of a criminal queen, and precipitate her from the
   throne. We have pardoned that infatuated king, who thrice has
   done everything to ruin himself. Shall we pardon him a fourth
   time? … No! The dynasty of Naples has ceased to reign—its
   existence is incompatible with the repose of Europe and the
   honour of my crown.' … The ominous announcement, made from
   the depths of Moravia, that the dynasty of Naples had ceased
   to reign, was not long allowed to remain a dead letter.
   Massena was busily employed, in January, in collecting his
   forces in the centre of Italy, and before the end of that
   month 50,000 men, under the command of Joseph Buonaparte, had
   crossed the Pontifical States and entered the Neapolitan
   territory in three columns, which marched on Gaeta, Capua, and
   Itri. Resistance was impossible; the feeble Russian and
   English forces which had disembarked to support the Italian
   levies, finding the whole weight of the war likely to be
   directed against them, withdrew to Sicily; the court,
   thunderstruck by the menacing proclamation of 27th December,
   speedily followed their example. … In vain the intrepid
   Queen Caroline, who still remained at Naples, armed the
   lazzaroni, and sought to infuse into the troops a portion of
   her own indomitable courage; she was seconded by none; Capua
   opened its gates; Gaeta was invested; the Campagna filled with
   the invaders; she, vanquished but not subdued, compelled to
   yield to necessity, followed her timid consort to Sicily; and,
   on the 15th February, Naples beheld its future sovereign,
   Joseph Buonaparte, enter its walls. … During the first
   tumult of invasion, the peasantry of Calabria … submitted to
   the enemy. … But the protraction of the siege of Gaeta,
   which occupied Massena with the principal army of the French,
   gave them time to recover from their consternation. … A
   general insurrection took place in the beginning of March, and
   the peasants stood firm in more than one position; but they
   were unable to withstand the shock of the veterans of France,
   and in a decisive action in the plain of Campo-Tenese their
   tumultuary levies, though 15,000 strong, were entirely
   dispersed. The victorious Reynier penetrated even to Reggio,
   and the standards of Napoleon waved on its towers, in sight of
   the English videtts on the shores of Sicily. When hostilities
   had subsided, Joseph repaired in person to the theatre of war.
   … He received at Savigliano, the principal town of the
   province, the decree, by which Napoleon created him king of
   the two Sicilies. By so doing, however, he was declared not to
   lose his contingent right of succession to the throne of
   France; but the two crowns were never to be united."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 40, section 150,
      and chapter 42, sections 21-23,(volume 9)._

   "Joseph's tenure of his new dominion was yet incomplete. The
   fortress of Gaeta still held out, … and the British in
   Sicily (who had already taken the Isle of Capri, close to the
   capital) sent 5,000 men to their aid under Sir John Stuart,
   who encountered at Maida (July 6) a French corps of 7.500,
   under Reynier. The battle presented one of the rare instances
   in which French and British troops have actually crossed
   bayonets; but French enthusiasm sank before British
   intrepidity, and the enemy were driven from the field with the
   loss of half their number. The victory of Maida had a
   prodigious moral effect in raising the spirits and
   self-confidence of the British soldiery; but its immediate
   results were less considerable. The French were indeed driven
   from Calabria, but the fall of Gaeta (July 18th), after the
   loss of its brave governor, the Prince of Hesse-Philipsthal,
   released the main army under Massena: the British exposed to
   be attacked by overwhelming numbers, re-embarked (September 5)
   for Palermo, and the Calabrian insurrection was suppressed with
   great bloodshed. But an amnesty was at length … published by
   Joseph, who devoted himself with great zeal and admirable
   judgment to heal the wounds of his distracted kingdom."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      section 398._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples,
      book 5, chapter 4, and book 6, chapters 1-3._

      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (January-October).
   Napoleon's triumphant return to Paris.
   Death of Pitt.
   Peace negotiations with England.
   King making and prince making by the Corsican Cæsar.

   ON the 27th of December, the day after the signing of the
   Treaty of Presburg, Napoleon left Vienna for Paris. "En route
   for Paris he remained a week at Munich to be present at the
   marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to the Princess Augusta,
   daughter of the King of Bavaria. Josephine joined him, and the
   whole time was passed in fêtes and rejoicings. On this
   occasion he proclaimed Eugene his adopted son, and, in default
   of issue of his own, his successor in the kingdom of Italy.
   Accompanied by Josephine, Napoleon re-entered Paris on the
   26th of January, 1806, amidst the most enthusiastic
   acclamations. The national vanity was raised to the highest
   pitch by the glory and extent of territory he had acquired.
   The Senate at a solemn audience besought him to accept the
   title of 'the Great'; and public rejoicings lasting many days
   attested his popularity. An important political event in
   England opened new views of security and peace to the empire,
   William Pitt, the implacable enemy of the Revolution, had died
   on the 23rd of January, at the early age of 47; and the
   Government was entrusted to the hands of his great opponent,
   Charles James Fox.
{1346}
   The disastrous results of the war of which Pitt had been the
   mainstay probably hastened his death. After the capitulation
   of Ulm he never rallied. The well-known friendship of Fox for
   Napoleon, added to his avowed principles, afforded the
   strongest hopes that England and France were at length
   destined to cement the peace of the world by entering into
   friendly relations. Aided by Talleyrand, who earnestly
   counselled peace, Napoleon made overtures to the English
   Government through Lord Yarmouth, who was among the détenus.
   He offered to yield the long-contested point of
   Malta—consenting to the continued possession of that island,
   the Cape of Good Hope, and other conquests in the East and
   West Indies by Great Britain, and proposing generally that the
   treaty should be conducted on the uti possidetis principle:
   that is, allowing each party to retain whatever it had
   acquired in the course of the war. Turkey acknowledged
   Napoleon as Emperor and entered into amicable relations with
   the French nation; and what was still more important, Russia
   signed a treaty of peace in July, influenced by the pacific
   inclinations of the English Minister. Napoleon resolved to
   surround his throne with an order of nobles, and to place
   members of his family on the thrones of the conquered
   countries adjoining France in order that they might become
   parts of his system and co-operate in his plans. Two decrees
   of the 31st of March declared Joseph Bonaparte King of Naples,
   and Murat Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. Louis Bonaparte was
   made King of Holland a few months afterwards, and Jerome King
   of Westphalia in the following year. The Princess Pauline
   received the principality of Guastalla, and Talleyrand,
   Bernadotte, and Berthier those of Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, and
   Neufchâtel. Fifteen dukedoms were created and bestowed on the
   most distinguished statesmen and generals of the empire, each
   with an income amounting to a fifteenth part of the revenue of
   the province attached to it. These became grand fiefs of the
   empire. Cambacérès and Lebrun were made Dukes of Parma and
   Placenza; Savary, Duke of Rovigo; Junot, of Abrantes; Lannes,
   of Montebello, &c. The manners of some of these Republican
   soldiers were ill adapted to courtly forms, and afforded
   amusement to the members of the ancient and legitimate order.
   … Napoleon's desire to conciliate and form alliances with
   the established dynasties and aristocracies of Europe kept
   pace with his daring encroachments on their hitherto exclusive
   dignity. Besides the marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to a
   Princess of Bavaria, an alliance was concluded between the
   hereditary Prince of Baden and Mademoiselle Stephanie
   Beauharnais, a niece of the Empress. The old French noblesse
   were also encouraged to appear at the Tuileries. During the
   Emperor's visit at Munich the Republican calendar was
   abolished and the usual mode of computing time restored in
   France. … The negotiations with England went on tardily, and
   the news of Fox's alarming state of health excited the gravest
   fears in the French Government. Lord Lauderdale arrived in
   Paris, on the part of England, in the month of August; but
   difficulties were continually started, and before anything was
   decided the death of Fox gave the finishing blow to all hope
   of peace. Lord Lauderdale demanded his passports and left
   Paris in October. Napoleon wished to add Sicily to his
   brother's new kingdom of Naples; but British ships were able
   to protect the King and Queen of Naples in that insular
   position, and the English Government refused to desert their
   allies on this occasion or to consent to any compensation or
   adjustment offered. On this point principally turned the
   failure of the attempt at peace as far as can be discovered
   from the account of the negotiations."

      _R. H. Horne,
      History of Napoleon,
      chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _Madame de Rémusat,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 16-21 (volume 2)._

      _Duke of Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, part 2, chapters 18-21._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 15._

FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (October).
   The subjugation of Prussia at Jena.

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

FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
   Eylau and Friedland.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807;
      and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

FRANCE: A.D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial warfare with England.
   British Orders in Council and Napoleon's Berlin and Milan
   Decrees.
   The "Continental System."

   "As the war advanced, after the Peace of Amiens, the neutrals
   became bolder and more aggressive. "American ships were
   constantly arriving at Dutch and French ports with sugar,
   coffee, and other productions of the French and Spanish West
   Indies. And East India goods were imported by them into Spain,
   Holland, and France. … By the rivers and canals of Germany
   and Flanders goods were floated into the warehouses of the
   enemy, or circulated far the supply of his customers in
   neutral countries. … It was a general complaint, therefore,
   that the enemy carried on colonial commerce under the neutral
   flag, cheaply as well as safely; that he was enabled not only
   to elude British hostilities, but to rival British merchants
   and planters in the European markets; that by the same means
   the hostile treasuries were filled with a copious stream of
   revenue; and that by this licentious use of the neutral flag,
   the enemy was enabled to employ his whole military marine for
   purposes of offensive war, without being obliged to maintain a
   squadron or a ship for the defence of his colonial ports. …
   Such complaints made against neutral states found a powerful
   exposition in a work entitled 'War in Disguise and the Frauds
   of the Neutral Flag,' supposed to have been written by Mr.
   James Stephen, the real author of the orders in Council. The
   British Government did not see its way at once to proceed in
   the direction of prohibiting to neutral ships the colonial
   trade, which they had enjoyed for a considerable time; but the
   first step was taken to paralyse the resources of the enemy,
   and to restrict the trade of neutrals, by the issue of an
   order in Council in May 1806, declaring that all the coasts,
   ports, and rivers from the Elbe to Brest should be considered
   blockaded, though the only portion of those coasts rigorously
   blockaded was that included between the Ostend and the mouth
   of the Seine, in the ports of which preparations were made for
   the invasion of England. The northern ports of Germany and
   Holland were left partly open, and the navigation of the
   Baltic altogether free. Napoleon, then in the zenith of his
   power, saw, in this order in Council, a fresh act of
   wantonness, and he met it by the issue of the Berlin decree of
   November 21, 1806. In that document, remarkable for its
   boldness and vigour, Napoleon charged England with having set
   at nought the dictates of international law, with having made
   prisoners of war of private individuals, and with having taken
   the crews out of merchant ships.
{1347}
   He charged this country with having captured private property
   at sea extended to commercial parts the restrictions of
   blockade applicable only to fortified places, declared as
   blockaded places which were not invested by naval forces, and
   abused the right of blockade in order to benefit her own trade
   at the expense of the commerce of Continental states. He
   asserted the right of combating the enemy with the same arms
   used against himself, especially when such enemy ignored all
   ideas of justice and every liberal sentiment which
   civilisation imposes. He announced his resolution to apply to
   England the same usages which she had established in her
   maritime legislation. He laid dawn the principles which France
   was resolved to act upon until England should recognise that
   the rights of war are the same on land as on sea. … And upon
   these premises the decree ordered,

      1st, That the British islands should be declared in a state
      of blockade.

      2nd, That all commerce and correspondence with the British
      islands should be prohibited; and that letters addressed to
      England or Englishmen, written in the English language,
      should be detained and taken.

      3rd, That every British subject found in a country occupied
      by French troops, or by those of their allies, should be
      made a prisoner of war.

      4th, That all merchandise and property belonging to British
      subjects should be deemed a good prize.

      5th, That all commerce in English merchandise should be
      prohibited, and that all merchandise belonging to England
      or her colonies, and of British manufacture, should be
      deemed a good prize. And

      6th, That no vessel coming direct from England or her
      colonies be allowed to enter any French port, or any port
      subject to French authority; and that every vessel which,
      by means of a false declaration, should evade such
      regulations, should at once be captured.

   The British Government lost no time in retaliating against
   France far so bald a course; and, on January 7, 1807, an order
   in Council was issued, which, after reference to the orders
   issued by France, enjoined that no vessel should be allowed to
   trade from one enemy's port to another, or from one port to
   another of a French ally's coast shut against English vessels;
   and ordered the commanders of the ships of war and privateers
   to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port, and
   destined to another such port, to discontinue her voyage, and
   that any vessel, after being so warned, which should be found
   proceeding to another such port should be captured and
   considered as lawful prize. This order in Council having
   reached Napoleon at Warsaw, he immediately ordered the
   confiscation of all English merchandise and colonial produce
   found in the Hanseatic Towns. … But Britain, in return, went
   a step further, and, by order in Council of November 11, 1807,
   declared all the ports and places of France, and those of her
   allies, and of all countries where the English flag was
   excluded, even though they were not at war with Britain,
   should be placed under the same restrictions for commerce and
   navigation as if they were blockaded, and consequently that
   ships destined to those ports should be liable to the visit of
   British cruisers at a British station, and there subjected to
   a tax to be imposed by the British Parliament. Napoleon was at
   Milan when this order in Council was issued, and forthwith, on
   December 17, the famous decree appeared, by which he imposed
   on neutrals just the contrary of what was prescribed to them
   by England, and further declared that every vessel, of
   whatever nation, that submitted to the order in Council of
   November 11, should by that very act become denationalised,
   considered as British property, and condemned as a good prize.
   The decree placed the British islands in a state of blockade,
   and ordered that every ship, of whatever nation, and with
   whatever cargo, proceeding from English ports or English
   colonies to countries occupied by English troops, or going to
   England, should be a good prize. This England answered by the
   order in Council of April 26, 1809, which revoked the order of
   1807 as regards America, but confirmed the blockade of all the
   parts of France and Holland, their colonies and dependencies.
   And then France, still further incensed against England,
   issued the tariff of Trianon, dated August 5, 1810, completed
   by the decree of St. Cloud of September 12, and of
   Fontainebleau of October 19, which went the length of ordering
   the seizure and burning of all British goods found in France,
   Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and in every place occupied by
   French troops. … The princes of the Rhenish Confederation
   hastened to execute it, same for the purpose of enriching
   themselves by the wicked deed, same out of hatred towards the
   English, and some to show their devotion towards their master.
   From Carlsruhe to Munich, from Cassel to Dresden and Hamburg,
   everywhere, bonfires were made of English goods. And so
   exacting were the French that when Frankfort exhibited the
   least hesitation in carrying out the decree, French troops
   were sent to execute the order. By means such as these [known
   as the Continental System of Napoleon] the commerce of the
   world was greatly deranged, if not destroyed altogether, and
   none suffered more from them than England herself."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      part 2, chapter 4
      (with appended text of Orders and Decrees)._

   "The object of the Orders in Council was … twofold: to
   embarrass France and Napoleon by the prohibition of direct
   import and export trade, of all external commerce, which for
   them could only be carried on by neutrals; and at the same
   time to force into the Continent all the British products or
   manufactures that it could take. … The whole system was
   then, and has since been, roundly abused as being in no sense
   a military measure, but merely a gigantic exhibition of
   commercial greed; but this simply begs the question. To win
   her fight Great Britain was obliged not only to weaken
   Napoleon, but to increase her own strength. The battle between
   the sea and the land was to be fought out on Commerce. England
   had no army wherewith to meet Napo lean; Napoleon had no navy
   to cope with that of his enemy. As in the case of an
   impregnable fortress, the only alternative for either of these
   contestants was to reduce the other by starvation. On the
   common frontier, the coast line, they met in a deadly strife
   in which no weapon was drawn. The imperial soldiers were
   turned into coast-guards-men to shut out Great Britain from
   her markets; the British ships became revenue cutters to
   prohibit the trade of France. The neutral carrier, pocketing
   his pride, offered his service to either for pay, and the
   other then regarded him as taking part in hostilities.
{1348}
   The ministry, in the exigencies of debate, betrayed some lack
   of definite conviction as to their precise aim. Sometimes the
   Orders were justified as a military measure of retaliation;
   sometimes the need of supporting British commerce as essential
   to her life and to her naval strength was alleged; and, their
   opponents in either case taunted them with inconsistency.
   Napoleon, with despotic simplicity, announced clearly his
   purpose of ruining England through her trade, and the ministry
   really needed no other arguments than his avowals. 'Salus
   civitatis suprema lex.' To call the measures of either not
   military, is as inaccurate as it would be to call the ancient
   practice of circumvallation, unmilitary, because the only
   weapon used for it was the spade. … The Orders in Council
   received various modifications, due largely to the importance
   to Great Britain of the American market, which absorbed a
   great part of her manufactures; but these modifications,
   though sensibly lightening the burden upon neutrals and
   introducing some changes of form, in no sense departed from
   the spirit of the originals. The entire series was finally
   withdrawn in June, 1812, but too late to avert the war with
   the United States, which was declared in the same month.
   Napoleon never revoked his Berlin and Milan decrees, although
   by a trick he induced an over-eager President of the United
   States to believe that he had done so. … The true function
   of Great Britain in this long struggle can scarcely be
   recognized unless there be a clear appreciation of the fact
   that a really great national movement, like the French
   Revolution, or a really great military power under an
   incomparable general, like the French Empire under Napoleon,
   is not to be brought to terms by ordinary military successes,
   which simply destroy the organized force opposed. … If the
   course of aggression which Bonaparte had inherited from the
   Revolution was to continue, there were needed, not the
   resources of the Continent only, but of the world. There was
   needed also a diminution of ultimate resistance below the
   stored-up aggressive strength of France; otherwise, however
   procrastinated, the time must come when the latter should
   fail. On both these points Great Britain withstood Napoleon.
   She shut him off from the world, and by the same act prolonged
   her own powers of endurance beyond his power of aggression.
   This in the retrospect of history was the function of Great
   Britain, in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period; and that
   the successive ministries of Pitt and his followers pursued
   the course best fitted, upon the whole, to discharge that
   function, is their justification to posterity."

      _Capt. A. T. Mahan,
      The Influence of Sea Power upon the
      French Revolution and Empire,
      chapters 18-19 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapters 4 and 16,
      and volume 4, chapter 4._

      _Lord Brougham,
      Life and Times, by himself,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      See also:
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (February-September).
   The Turkish alliance.
   Ineffective attempts of England against Constantinople
   and in Egypt.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
   The Treaties of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia.
   The latter shorn of half her territory.
   Formation of the kingdom of Westphalia.
   Secret understandings between Napoleon and the Czar.

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

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (July-December).
   The seeming power and real weakness of Napoleon's empire.

   "The dangers … that lay hid under the new arrangement of the
   map of Europe [by, the Treaty of Tilsit], and in the results
   of French conquests, were as yet withdrawn from almost every
   eye; and the power of Napoleon was now at its height, though
   his empire was afterwards somewhat enlarged. … If England
   still stood in arms against it, she was without an avowed ally
   on the Continent; and, drawing to itself the great Power of
   the North, it appeared to threaten the civilized world with
   that universal and settled domination which had not been seen
   since the fall of Rome. The Sovereign of France from the
   Scheldt to the Pyrenees, and of Italy from the Alps to the
   Tiber, Napoleon held under his immediate sway the fairest and
   most favored part of the Continent; and yet this was only the
   seat and centre of that far-spreading and immense authority.
   One of his brothers, Louis, governed the Batavian Republic,
   converted into the kingdom of Holland; another, Joseph wore
   the old Crown of Naples; and a third, Jerome, sat on the new
   throne of Westphalia; and he had reduced Spain to a simple
   dependency, while, with Austria humbled and Prussia crushed,
   he was supreme in Germany from the Rhine to the Vistula,
   through his confederate, subject, or allied States. This
   enormous Empire, with its vassal appendages, rested on great
   and victorious armies in possession of every point of vantage
   from the Niemen to the Adige and the Garonne, and proved as
   yet to be irresistible; and as Germany, Holland, Poland, and
   Italy swelled the forces of France with large contingents, the
   whole fabric of conquest seemed firmly cemented. Nor was the
   Empire the mere creation of brute force and the spoil of the
   sword; its author endeavoured, in some measure, to consolidate
   it through better and more lasting influences. Napoleon,
   indeed, suppressed the ideas of 1789 everywhere, but he
   introduced his Code and large social reforms into most of the
   vassal or allied States; he completed the work of destroying
   Feudalism which the Revolution had daringly begun and he left
   a permanent mark on the face of Europe, far beyond the limit
   of Republican France, in innumerable monuments of material
   splendour. … Nor did the Empire at this time appear more
   firmly established abroad than within the limits of the
   dominant State which had become mistress of Continental
   Europe. The prosperity of the greater part of France was
   immense; the finances, fed by the contributions of war, seemed
   overflowing and on the increase; and if sounds of discontent
   were occasionally heard, they were lost in the universal
   acclaim which greeted the author of the national greatness,
   and the restorer of social order and welfare. … In the
   splendour and success of the Imperial era, the animosities and
   divisions of the past disappeared, and France seemed to form a
   united people. If, too, the cost of conquest was great, and
   exacted a tribute of French blood, the military power of the
   Empire shone with the brightest radiance of martial renown;
   Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland could in part console
   even thinned households. …
{1349}
   The magnificent public works with which Napoleon adorned this
   part of his reign increased this sentiment of national
   grandeur; it was now that the Madeleine raised its front, and
   the Column, moulded from captured cannon; … and Paris,
   decked out with triumphal arches, with temples of glory, and
   with stately streets, put on the aspect of ancient Rome,
   gathering into her lap the gorgeous spoils of subjugated and
   dependent races. … Yet, notwithstanding its apparent
   strength, this structure of conquest and domination was
   essentially weak, and liable to decay. The work of the sword,
   and of new-made power, it was in opposition to the nature of
   things. … The material and even social benefits conferred by
   the Code, and reform of abuses, could not compensate
   vanquished but martial races for the misery and disgrace of
   subjection; and, apart from the commercial oppression [of the
   Continental System, which destroyed commerce in order to do
   injury to England], … the exasperating pressure of French
   officials, the exactions of the victorious French armies, and
   the severities of the conscription introduced among them,
   provoked discontent in the vassal States on which the yoke of
   the Empire weighed. … The prostration, too, of Austria and
   Prussia … had a direct tendency to make these powers forget
   their old discords in common suffering, and to bring to an end
   the internal divisions through which France had become supreme
   in Germany. … The triumphant policy of Tilsit contained the
   germs of a Coalition against France more formidable than she
   had yet experienced. At the same time, the real strength of
   the instrument by which Napoleon maintained his power was
   being gradually but surely impaired; the imperial armies were
   more and more filled with raw conscripts and ill-affected
   allies, as their size increased with the extension of his
   rule; and the French element in them, on which alone reliance
   could be placed in possible defeat, was being dissipated,
   exhausted, and wasted. … Nor was the Empire, within France
   itself, free from elements of instability and decline. The
   finances, well administered as they were, were so burdened by
   the charges of war that they were only sustained by conquest;
   and flourishing as their condition seemed, they had been often
   cruelly strained of late, and were unable to bear the shock of
   disaster. The seaports were beginning to suffer from the
   policy adopted to subdue England. … Meanwhile, the continual
   demands on the youth of the nation for never-ceasing wars were
   gradually telling on its military power; Napoleon, after
   Eylau, had had recourse to the ruinous expedient of taking
   beforehand the levies which the conscription raised; and
   though complaints were as yet rare, the anticipation of the
   resources of France, which filled the armies with feeble boys,
   unequal to the hardships of a rude campaign, had been noticed
   at home as well as abroad. Nor were the moral ills of this
   splendid despotism less certain than its bad material results.
   … The inevitable tendency of the Empire, even at the time of
   its highest glory, was to lessen manliness and self-reliance,
   to fetter and demoralize the human mind, and to weaken
   whatever public virtue and mental independence France
   possessed; and its authority had already begun to disclose
   some of the harsher features of Cæsarian despotism."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      The French Revolution and First Empire,
      chapter 12._

   "Notwithstanding so many brilliant and specious appearances,
   France did not possess either true prosperity or true
   greatness. She was not really prosperous; for not only was
   there no feeling of security, a necessary condition for the
   welfare of nations, but all the evils produced by so many
   years of war still weighed heavily on her. … She was not
   really great, for all her great men had either been banished
   or put to silence. She could still point with pride to her
   generals and soldiers, although the army, which, if brave as
   ever, had gradually sunk from the worship of the country and
   liberty to that of glory, and from the worship of glory to
   that of riches, was corrupt and degenerate; but where were her
   great citizens? Where were her great orators, her great
   politicians, her great philosophers, her great writers of
   every kind? Where, at least, were their descendants? All who
   had shown a spark of genius or pride had been sacrificed for
   the benefit of a single man. They had disappeared; some
   crushed under the wheels of his chariot, others forced to live
   obscurely in some unknown retreat, and, what was graver still,
   their race seemed extinct. … France was imprisoned, as it
   were, in an iron net, and the issues were closed to all the
   generous and ardent youth that had either intellectual or
   moral activity."

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. A. Taine;
      The Modern Regime,
      book 1, chapter 2,
      and book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (September-November).
   Forcible seizure of the Danish fleet by the English.
   Frustration of Napoleon's plans.
   Alliance with Denmark.
   War with Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (October-November).
   French invasion and occupation of Portugal.
   Flight of the royal family to Brazil.
   Delusive treaty of partition with Spain.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's alienation of Talleyrand and others.

   Charles Maurice Talleyrand de Perigord, made Bishop of Autun
   by King Louis XVI:, in 1789, and Prince of Benevento by
   Napoleon, in 1806, had made his first appearance in public
   life as one of the clerical deputies in the States-General of
   1789, and had taken the popular side. He was the only bishop
   having a benefice in France who took the new oath required of
   the clergy, and he proposed the appropriation of church
   property to the wants of the public treasury. He subsequently
   consecrated the first French bishops appointed under the new
   constitution, and was excommunicated therefor by the Pope. On
   the approach of the Terror he escaped from France and took
   refuge first in England, afterwards in the United States. In
   1795 he was permitted to return to Paris, and he took an
   important part in the revolution of the 18th Brumaire which
   overthrew the Directory and made Napoleon First Consul. In the
   new government he received the post of Minister of Foreign
   Affairs, which he retained under the Empire, until 1807, when
   he obtained permission to retire, with the title of
   "vice-grand electeur." "M. de Talleyrand, the Empire once
   established and fortunate, had attached himself to it with a
   sort of enthusiasm. The poesy of victory, and the eloquence of
   an exalted imagination, subdued for a time the usual
   nonchalance and moderation of his character. He entered into
   all Napoleon's plans for reconstituting an empire of the
   Francs, and reviving the system of fiefs and feudal
   dignitaries. …
{1350}
   'Any other system,' he said, 'but a military one, is in our
   circumstances at present impossible. I am, then, for making
   that system splendid, and compensating France for her liberty
   by her grandeur.' The principality he enjoyed, though it by no
   means satisfied him, was a link between him and the policy
   under which he held it. … But he had a strong instinct for
   the practical; all governments, according to his theory, might
   be made good, except an impossible one. A government depending
   on constant success in difficult undertakings, at home and
   abroad, was, according to his notions, impossible. This idea,
   after the Peace of Tilsit, more or less haunted him. It made
   him, in spite of himself, bitter against his chief—bitter at
   first, more because he liked him than because he disliked him.
   He would still have aided to save the Empire, but he was
   irritated because he thought he saw the Empire drifting into a
   system which would not admit of its being saved. A sentiment of
   this kind, however, is as little likely to be pardoned by one
   who is accustomed to consider that his will must be law, as a
   sentiment of a more hostile nature. Napoleon began little by
   little to hate the man for whom he had felt at one time a
   predilection, and if he disliked anyone, he did that which it
   is most dangerous to do, and most useless; that is, he wounded
   his pride without diminishing his importance. It is true that
   M. de Talleyrand never gave any visible sign of being
   irritated. But few, whatever the philosophy with which they
   forgive an injury, pardon an humiliation; and thus, stronger
   and stronger grew by degrees that mutual dissatisfaction which
   the one vented at times in furious reproaches, and the other
   disguised under a studiously respectful indifference. This
   carelessness as to the feelings of those whom it would have
   been wiser not to offend, was one of the most fatal errors of
   the conqueror. … He had become at this time equally
   indifferent to the hatred and affection of his adherents; and
   … fancied that everything depended on his own merits, and
   nothing on the merits of his agents. The victory of Wagram,
   and the marriage with Marie-Louise, commenced, indeed, a new
   era in his history. Fouché was dismissed, though not without
   meriting a reprimand for his intrigues; and Talleyrand fell
   into unequivocal disgrace, in some degree provoked by his
   witticisms; whilst round these two men gathered a quiet and
   observant opposition, descending with the clever adventurer to
   the lowest classes, and ascending with the dissatisfied noble
   to the highest. … M. de Talleyrand's house then (the only
   place, perhaps, open to all persons, where the government of
   the day was treated without reserve) became a sort of
   'rendezvous' for a circle which replied to a victory by a bon
   mot, and confronted the borrowed ceremonies of a new court by
   the natural graces and acknowledged fashions of an old one."

      _Sir H. L. Bulwer,
      Historical Characters,
      volume 1: Talleyrand, part 4, sections 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. K. McHarg,
      Life of Prince Talleyrand,
      chapters 1-13._

      _Memoirs of Talleyrand,
      volume 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's over-ingenious plottings in Spain
   for the theft of the crown.
   The popular rising.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (November-February).
   Napoleon in Italy.
   His arbitrary changes in the Italian constitution.
   His annexation of Tuscany to France.
   His quarrel with the Pope and seizure of the Papal States.

   "Napoleon … set out for Italy, where great political changes
   were in progress. Destined, like all the subordinate thrones
   which surrounded the great nation, to share in the rapid
   mutations which its government underwent, the kingdom of Italy
   was soon called upon to accept a change in its constitution.
   Napoleon, in consequence, suppressed the legislative body, and
   substituted in its room a Senate, which was exclusively
   intrusted with the power of submitting observations to
   government on the public wants, and of superintending the
   budget and public expenditure. As the members of this Senate
   were nominated and paid by government; this last shadow of
   representative institutions became a perfect mockery.
   Nevertheless Napoleon was received with unbounded adulation by
   all the towns of Italy; their deputies, who waited upon him at
   Milan, vied with each other in elegant flattery. He was the
   Redeemer of France, but the Creator of Italy: they had
   supplicated heaven for his safety, for his victories; they
   offered him the tribute of their eternal love and fidelity.
   Napoleon received their adulation in the most gracious manner;
   but he was careful not to lose sight of the main object of his
   policy, the consolidation of his dominions, the rendering them
   all dependent on his imperial crown, and the fostering of a
   military spirit among his subjects. … From Milan the Emperor
   travelled by Verona and Padua to Venice; he there admired the
   marble palaces, varied scenery, and gorgeous architecture of
   the Queen of the Adriatic, which appeared to extraordinary
   advantage amidst illuminations, fireworks, and rejoicings; and
   returning to Milan, arranged, with an authoritative hand, all
   the affairs of the peninsula. The discontent of Melzi, who
   still retained a lingering partiality for the democratic
   institutions which he had vainly hoped to see established in
   his country, was stifled by the title of Duke of Lodi. Tuscany
   was taken from the King of Etruria, on whom Napoleon had
   settled it, and united to France by the title of the
   department of Taro; while magnificent public works were set on
   foot at Milan to dazzle the ardent imagination of the
   Italians, and console them for the entire loss of their
   national independence and civil liberty. The cathedral was
   daily adorned with fresh works of sculpture; its exterior
   decorated and restored to its original purity, while thousands
   of pinnacles and statues rose on all sides, glittering in
   spotless brilliancy in the blue vault of heaven. The Forum of
   Buonaparte was rapidly advancing; the beautiful basso-relievos
   of the arch of the Simplon already entranced the admiring gaze
   of thousands; the roads of the Simplon and Mount Cenis were
   kept in the finest order, and daily attracted fresh crowds of
   strangers to the Italian plains. But in the midst of all this
   external splendour, the remains of which still throw a halo
   round the recollection of the French domination in Italy, the
   finances of all the states were involved in hopeless
   embarrassment, and suffering of the most grinding kind
   pervaded all classes of the people. … The encroachments thus
   made on the Italian peninsula were not the only ones which
   Napoleon effected, in consequence of the liberty to dispose of
   western Europe acquired by him at the treaty of Tilsit. The
   territory of the great nation was rounded also on the side of
   Germany and Holland.
{1351}
   On the 11th of November, the important town and territory of
   Flushing were ceded to France by the King of Holland, who
   obtained, in return, merely an elusory equivalent in East
   Friesland. On the 21st of January following, a decree of the
   senate united to the French empire, besides these places, the
   important towns of Kehl Cassel, and Wesel, on the right bank
   of the Rhine. Shortly after, the French troops, who had
   already taken possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of
   the resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
   Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
   capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
   St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
   dispossessed the papal troops [see PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814].
   … France now, without disguise, assumed the right of
   annexing neutral and independent states to its already
   extensive dominions, by no other authority than the decree of
   its own legislature."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 51, sections 51-53 (volume 11)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1809.
   The American embargo and non-intercourse laws.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

FRANCE: A.D. 1808 (May-September).
   Bestowal of the Spanish crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
   The national revolt.
   French reverses.
   Flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
   Landing of British forces in the Peninsula.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
   Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
   The assemblage of kings.

   "Napoleon's relations with the Court of Russia, at one time
   very formal, became far more amicable, according as Spanish
   affairs grew complicated. After the capitulation of Baylen
   they became positively affectionate. The Czar was too
   clear-sighted not to understand the meaning of this gradation.
   He quickly understood that the more difficulties Napoleon
   might create for himself in Spain, the more would he be forced
   to make concessions to Russia. … The Russian alliance, which
   at Tilsit had only been an arrangement to flatter Napoleon's
   ambition, had now become a necessity to him. Each side felt
   this; hence the two sovereigns were equally impatient to meet
   again; the one to strengthen an alliance so indispensable to
   the success of his plans, the other to derive from it all the
   promised advantages. It was settled, therefore, that the
   desired interview should take place at Erfurt towards the end
   of September, 1808. … The two Emperors met on the 27th of
   September, on the road between Weimar and Erfurt. They
   embraced each other with that air of perfect cordiality of
   which kings alone possess the secret, especially when their
   intention is rather to stifle than to embrace. They made their
   entry into the town on horseback together, amidst an immense
   concourse of people. Napoleon had wished by its magnificence
   to render the reception worthy of the illustrious guests who
   had agreed to meet at Erfurt. He had sent thither from the
   storehouses of the crown, bronzes, porcelain, the richest
   hangings, and the most sumptuous furniture. He desired that
   the Comédie-Française should heighten the brilliant effects of
   these fêtes by performing the chief masterpieces of our stage,
   from 'Cinna' down to 'La Mort de César,' before this royal
   audience. … All the natural adherents of Napoleon hastened
   to answer his appeal by flocking to Erfurt, for he did not
   lose sight of his principal object, and his desire was to
   appear before Europe surrounded by a court composed of kings.
   In this cortege were to be seen those of Bavaria, of
   Wurtemburg, of Saxony, of Westphalia, and Prince William of
   Prussia; and beside these stars of first magnitude twinkled
   the obscure Pleiades of the Rhenish Confederation. The
   reunion, almost exclusively German, was meant to prove to
   German idealists the vanity of their dreams. Were not all
   present who had any weight in Germany from their power, rank,
   or riches? Was it not even hinted that the Emperor of Austria
   had implored the favour, without being able to obtain it, of
   admission to the conferences of Erfurt? This report was most
   improbable. … The kings of intellect came in their turn to
   bow down before Cæsar. Goethe and Wieland were presented to
   Napoleon; they appeared at his court, and by their glory
   adorned his triumph. German patriotism was severely tried at
   Erfurt; but it may be said that of all its humiliations the
   one which the Germans most deeply resented was that of
   beholding their greatest literary genius decking himself out
   with Napoleon's favours [the decoration of the Legion of
   Honour, which Goethe accepted]. … The theatrical effect
   which Napoleon had in view in this solemn show at Erfurt
   having once been produced, his principal object was attained,
   for the political questions which remained for settlement with
   Alexander could not raise any serious difficulty. In view of
   the immediate and certain session of two such important
   provinces as those of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Czar,
   without much trouble, renounced that division of the Ottoman
   Empire with which he had been tantalised for more than a year.
   … He bound himself … by the Treaty of Erfurt to continue his
   co-operation with Napoleon in the war against England (Article
   2), and, should it so befall, also against Austria (Article
   10); but the affairs in Spain threw every attack upon England
   into the background. … The only very distinct engagement
   which the treaty imposed on Alexander was the recognition of
   the new order of things established by France in Spain.'"

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Prince Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Reverses in Portugal.
   Napoleon in the field.
   French victories resumed.
   The check at Corunna.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (January-September).
   Reopened war with Austria.
   Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
   His defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram.
   The Peace of Schönbrunn.
   Fresh acquisitions of territory.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE),
      and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
   Wellington's check to the French in Spain and Portugal.
   His passage of the Douro.
   Battle of Talavera.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (May).
   Annexation of the States of the Church.
   Removal of the Pope to Savona.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (December).
   Withdrawal of the English from Spain into Portugal.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

{1352}

FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (February-December).
   Annexations of territory to the empire.
   Holland, the Hanse Towns, and the Valais in Switzerland.
   Other reconstructions of the map of Germany.

   "It was not till December 10th 1810 [after the abdication of
   King Louis—see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1806-1810] that
   Holland was united to France by a formal senatus-consulte. By
   the first article of the same law, the Hanse Towns [Hamburg,
   Bremen, and Lubeck], the Duchy of Lauenburg, and the countries
   situated between the North Sea and a line drawn from the
   confluence of the Lippe with the Rhine to Halteren, from
   Halteren to the Ems above Telgte, from the Ems to the
   confluence of the Werra with the Weser, and from Stolzenau on
   that river to the Elbe, above the confluence of the Stecknitz,
   were at the same time incorporated with the French Empire. …
   The line described would include the northern part of
   Westphalia and Hanover, and the duchy of Oldenburg. … The
   Duke of Oldenburg having appealed to the Emperor of Russia,
   the head of his house, against this spoliation, Napoleon
   offered to compensate him with the town and territory of
   Erfurt and the lordship of Blankenheim, which had remained
   under French administration since the Peace of Tilsit. But
   this offer was at once rejected, and Alexander reserved, by a
   formal protest, the rights of his relative. This annexation
   was only the complement of other incorporations with the
   French Empire during the year 1810. Early in the year, the
   Electorate of Hanover had been annexed to the Kingdom of
   Westphalia. On February 16th Napoleon had erected the Grand
   Duchy of Frankfort, and presented it to the Prince Primate of
   the Confederation of the Rhine, with a reversal in favour of
   Eugene Beauharnais. On November 12th the Valais in Switzerland
   was also annexed to France, with the view of securing the road
   over the Simplon. Of all these annexations, that of the Hanse
   Towns and the districts on the North Sea was the most
   important, and one of the principal causes of the war that
   ensued between France and Russia. These annexations were made
   without the slightest negociation with any European cabinet,
   and it would be superfluous to add, without even a pretext of
   right, though the necessity of them from the war with England
   was alleged as the motive."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 15, with foot-note (volume 4)._

   "'The English,' said Napoleon, 'have torn asunder the public
   rights of Europe; a new order of things governs the universe.
   Fresh guarantees having become necessary to me, the annexation
   of the mouths of the Scheldt, of the Meuse, of the Rhine, of
   the Ems, of the Weser, and of the Elbe to the Empire appears
   to me to be the first and the most important. … The
   annexation of the Valais is the anticipated result of the
   immense works that I have been making for the past ten years
   in that part of the Alps.' And this was all. To justify such
   violence he did not condescend to allege any pretext—to urge
   forward opportunities that were too long in developing, or to
   make trickery subserve the use of force—he consulted nothing
   but his policy; in other words, his good pleasure. To take
   possession of a country, it was sufficient that the country
   suited him: he said so openly, as the simplest thing in the
   world, and thought proper to add that these new usurpations
   were but a beginning, the first, according to his own
   expression, of those which seemed to him still necessary. And
   it was Europe, discontented, humbled, driven wild by the
   barbarous follies of the continental system, that he thus
   defied, as though he wished at any cost to convince every one
   that no amicable arrangement or conciliation was possible; and
   that there was but one course for governments or men of spirit
   to adopt, that of fighting unto death."

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Continued hostile attitude towards
   the United States of America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
   The War in the Peninsula.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French retreat from Portugal.
   English advance into Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
      and 1810-1812.

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to
   Marie-Louise of Austria.
   His rupture with the Czar and
   preparations for war with Russia.

   "Napoleon now revived the idea which he had often entertained
   before, of allying himself with one of the great ruling
   families. A compliant senate and a packed ecclesiastical
   council pronounced his separation from Josephine Beauharnais,
   who retired with a magnificent pension to Malmaison, where she
   died. As previous marriage proposals to the Russian court had
   not been cordially received, Napoleon now turned to Austria.
   The matter was speedily arranged with Metternich, and in
   March, 1810, the archduchess Maria Louisa arrived in France as
   the emperor's wife. The great importance of the marriage was
   that it broke the last links which bound Russia to France, and
   thus overthrew the alliance of Tilsit. Alexander had been
   exasperated by the addition of Western Galicia to the
   grand-duchy of Warsaw, which he regarded as a step towards the
   restoration of Poland, and therefore as a breach of the
   engagement made at Tilsit. The annexation of Oldenburg, whose
   duke was a relative of the Czar, was a distinct personal
   insult. Alexander showed his irritation by formally deserting
   the continental system, which was more ruinous to Russia than
   to almost any other country, and by throwing his ports open to
   British commerce (December 1810). … The chief grievance to
   Russia was the apparent intention of Napoleon to do something
   for the Poles. The increase of the grand-duchy of Warsaw by
   the treaty of Vienna was so annoying to Alexander, that he
   began to meditate on the possibility of restoring Poland
   himself, and making it a dependent kingdom for the Czar, in
   the same way as Napoleon had treated Italy. He even went so
   far as to sound the Poles on the subject; but he found that
   they had not forgotten the three partitions of their country,
   and that their sympathies were rather with France than with
   Russia. At the same time Napoleon was convinced that until
   Russia was subdued his empire was unsafe, and all hopes of
   avenging himself upon England were at an end. All through the
   year 1811 it was known that war was inevitable, but neither
   power was in a hurry to take the initiative. Meanwhile the
   various powers that retained nominal independence had to make
   up their minds as to the policy they would pursue. For no
   country was the decision harder than for Prussia. Neutrality
   was out of the question, as the Prussian territories, lying
   between the two combatants, must be occupied by one or the
   other.
{1353}
   The friends and former Colleagues of Stein were unanimous for
   a Russian alliance and a desperate struggle for liberty. But
   Hardenberg, who had become chancellor in 1810, was too prudent
   to embark in a contest, which at the time was hopeless. The
   Czar had not been so consistent in his policy as to be a very
   desirable ally; and, even with Russian assistance, it was
   certain that the Prussian frontiers could not be defended
   against the French, who had already garrisons in the chief
   fortresses. Hardenberg fully sympathised with the patriots,
   but he sacrificed enthusiasm to prudence, and offered the
   support of Prussia to France. The treaty was arranged on the
   24th of February, 1812. Frederick William gave the French a
   free passage through his territories, and undertook to furnish
   20,000 men for service in the field, and as many more for
   garrison duty. In return for this Napoleon guaranteed the
   security of the Prussian kingdom as it stood, and held out the
   prospect of additions to it. It was an unnatural and hollow
   alliance, and was understood to be so by the Czar.
   Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other friends of Stein resigned
   their posts, and many Prussian officers entered the service of
   the Czar. Austria, actuated by similar motives, adopted the same
   policy, but with less reluctance. After this example had been
   set by the two great powers, none of the lesser states of
   Germany dared to disobey the peremptory orders of Napoleon.
   But Turkey and Sweden, both of them old allies of France, were
   at this crisis in the opposition. … The Swedes were
   threatened with starvation by Napoleon's stern command to
   close their ports not only against English, but against all
   German vessels. Bernadotte, who had just been adopted as the
   heir of the childless Charles XIII.; determined to throw in
   his lot with his new country, rather than with his old
   commander. He had also hopes of compensating Sweden for the
   loss of Finland by wresting Norway from the Danes, and this
   would never be agreed to by France. Accordingly Sweden
   prepared to support the cause of Alexander."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 24, sections 88 and 41._

   "Napoleon's Russian expedition should not be regarded as an
   isolated freak of insane pride. He himself regarded it as the
   unfortunate effect of a fatality, and he betrayed throughout
   an unwonted reluctance and perplexity. 'The war must take
   place,' he said, 'it lies in the nature of things.' That is,
   it arose naturally, like the other Napoleonic wars, out of the
   quarrel with England. Upon the Continental system he had
   staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade
   against England, and no state, least of all such a state as
   Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically
   joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt
   obliged to make war on Russia, he should have chosen to wage
   it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion. For an
   ordinary war his resources were greatly superior to those of
   Russia. A campaign on the Lithuanian frontier would no doubt
   have been unfavourable to Alexander, and might have forced him
   to concede the points at issue. Napoleon had already
   experienced in Spain the danger of rousing national spirit. It
   seems, however, that this lesson had been lost on him."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Short History of Napoleon,
      chapter 5, section 3._

   "Warnings and cautions were not … wanting to him. He had
   been at several different times informed of the desperate
   plans of Russia and her savage resolve to destroy all around
   him, provided he could be involved in the destruction of the
   Empire. He was cautioned, with even more earnestness, of the
   German conspiracies. Alquier transmitted to him from Stockholm
   a significant remark of Alexander's: 'If the Emperor Napoleon
   should experience a reverse, the whole of Germany will rise to
   oppose his retreat, or to prevent the arrival of his
   reinforcements.' His brother Jerome, who was still better
   situated for knowing what was going on in Germany, informed
   him, in the month of January, 1811, of the proposal that had
   been made to him to enter into a secret league against France,
   but the only thanks he received from Napoleon was reproach for
   having encouraged such overtures by his equivocal conduct. …
   Marshal Davout and General Rapp transmitted him identically
   the same information from Hamburg and Dantzig. But far from
   encouraging such confidential communications, Napoleon was
   irritated by them. … 'I do not know why Rapp meddles in what
   does not concern him [he wrote]. … I beg you will not place
   such rhapsodies under my eyes. My time is too precious to
   waste on such twaddle.' … In presence of such hallucination,
   caused by pride and infatuation, we seem to hear Macbeth in
   his delirium insulting the messengers who announced to him the
   approach· of the enemy's armies."

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

   "That period ought to have been esteemed the happiest of
   Napoleon's life. What more could the wildest ambition desire?
   … All obeyed him. Nothing was wanting to make him happy!
   Nothing, if he could be happy who possessed not a love of
   justice. … The being never existed who possessed ampler
   means for promoting the happiness of mankind. Nothing was
   required but justice and prudence. The nation expected these
   from him, and granted him that unlimited confidence which he
   afterwards so cruelly abused. … Instead of considering with
   calmness and moderation how he might best employ his vast
   resources, he ruminated on projects beyond the power of man to
   execute; forgetting what innumerable victims must be
   sacrificed in the vain attempt. … He aspired at universal
   despotism, for no other reason than because a nation, isolated
   from the continent and profiting by its happy situation, had
   refused to submit to his intolerable·yoke. … In the hope of
   conquering that invincible enemy, he vainly endeavoured to
   grasp the extremities of Europe. … Misled by his rash and
   hasty temper, he adopted a false line of politics, and
   converted in the north, as he had done before in the south,
   the most useful and powerful of his allies into a dangerous
   enemy."

      _E. Labaume,
      Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
      part 1, book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      _Imbert de Saint Amand,
      Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise._

FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June).
   The captive Pope brought to Fontainebleau.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
   Defeat by the English in Spain at Salamanca.
   Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

{1354}

FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-December).
   Napoleon's Russian campaign.
   The advance to Moscow.
   The burning of the city.
   The retreat and its horrors.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812.

FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813 (December-March)
   Napoleon's return from Russia.
   His measures for creating a new army.

   "Whilst Europe, agitated at once by hope, by fear, and by
   hatred, was inquiring what had become of Napoleon, whether he
   had perished or had been saved, he was crossing in a
   sledge—accompanied by the Duke of Vicenza, the Grand Marshal
   Duroc, Count Lobau, General Lefevre-Desnouettes, and the
   Mameluke Rustan—the vast, plains of Lithuania, of Poland, and
   of Saxony, concealed by thick furs; for if his name had been
   imprudently uttered, or his countenance recognised, a tragical
   catastrophe would have instantly ensued. The man who had so
   greatly excited the admiration of nations, who was the object
   of their … superstition, would not at that moment have
   escaped their fury. In two places only did he allow himself to
   be known, Warsaw and Dresden.  … That he might not occasion
   too great surprise, he caused himself to be preceded by an
   officer with a few lines for the 'Moniteur,' saying that on
   December 5 he had assembled his generals at Smorgoni, had
   delegated  the command to King Murat, only so long as military
   operations were interrupted by the cold, that he had traversed
   Warsaw and Dresden, and that he was about to arrive in Paris
   to take in hand the affairs of the Empire. … Napoleon
   followed close on the steps of the officer who was to announce
   his arrival. On December 18, at half-past 11 P. M., he entered
   the Tuileries. … On the next morning, the 19th, he received
   the ministers and grandees of the court … with extreme
   hauteur, maintaining a tranquil but severe aspect, appearing
   to expect explanations instead of affording them himself,
   treating foreign affairs as of minor consequence, and those of
   a domestic nature as of principal import, demanding some light
   upon these last,—in short, questioning others in order to
   avoid being questioned himself. … On Sunday, the 20th of
   December, the second day after his arrival, Napoleon received
   the Senate, the Council of State, and the principal branches
   of the administration," which severally addressed to him the
   most fulsome flatteries and assurances of support. "After an
   infuriated populace basely outraging vanquished princes,
   nothing can be seen more melancholy than these great bodies
   prostrating themselves at the feet of a power, bestowing upon
   it a degree of admiration which increases with its errors,
   speaking with ardour of their fidelity, already about to
   expire, and swearing to die in its cause when they are on the
   eve of hailing the accession of another. Happy are those
   countries whose established Constitutions spare them these
   humiliating spectacles!" As speedily as possible, Napoleon
   applied himself to the recreation of his lost army, by
   anticipating the conscription for 1814, and by making new
   calls upon the classes which had already furnished their
   contingents. All his measures were submissively sanctioned by
   the obsequious Senate; but many murmurs of discontent were
   heard among the people, and some movements of resistance
   needed to be put down. "However, when the enlightened classes
   of a country approve a measure, their support is extremely
   efficacious. In France, all those classes perceiving that it
   was necessary energetically to defend the country against a
   foreign enemy, though the Government had been still more in
   the wrong than they were, the levies were effected, and the
   high functionaries, sustained by a moral acquiescence which
   they had not always obtained, fulfilled their duty, though in
   heart full of sad and sinister forebodings."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      book 47 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duchess d'Abrantes,
      Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 43._

FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Germanic rising against Napoleon.
   War of Liberation.
   Lützen.
   Bautzen.
   Dresden.
   Leipsic.
   The retreat of the French from beyond the Rhine.

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
         to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (February-March).
   The new Concordat signed and retracted by the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (June-November).
   Defeat at Vittoria and in the Pyrenees.
   Retreat from Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (November-December).
   Dutch independence regained.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1813.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January).
   The Pope set free to return to Rome.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-March).
   The allied invasion.
   Napoleon's campaign of defense.
   His cause lost.
   Surrender of Paris.

   "The battle of Leipzig was the overthrow of the French rule in
   Germany; there only remained, as evidence of what they had
   lost, 150,000 men, garrisons of the fortresses of the Vistula,
   the Oder, and the Elbe. Each success of the allies had been
   marked by the desertion of one of the peoples that had
   furnished its contingent to the Grand Army of 1812: after
   Prussia, Austria; at Leipzig the Saxons: the French had not
   been able to regain the Rhine except by passing over the
   bodies of the Bavarians at Hanau. Baden, Wurtemberg, Hesse,
   and Darmstadt declared their defection at nearly the same
   time; the sovereigns were still hesitating whether to separate
   themselves from Napoleon, when their people and regiments,
   worked upon by the German patriots, had already passed into
   the allied camp. Jerome Bonaparte had again quitted Cassel;
   Denmark found Itself forced to adhere to the Coalition.
   Napoleon had retired to the left bank of the Rhine. Would
   Alexander cross this natural frontier of revolutionary France?
   'Convinced,' says M. Bogdanovitch, 'by the experience of many
   years, that neither losses inflicted on Napoleon, nor treaties
   concluded with him, could check his insatiable ambition,
   Alexander would not stop at setting free the involuntary
   allies of France, and resolved to pursue the war till he had
   overthrown his enemy.' The allied sovereigns found themselves
   reunited at Frankfort, and an immediate march to Paris was
   discussed. Alexander, Stein. Blücher, Gneisenau, and all the
   Prussians were on the side of decisive action. The Emperor
   Francis and Metternich only desired Napoleon to be weakened,
   as his downfall would expose Austria to another danger, the
   preponderance of Russia on the Continent. Bernadotte insisted
   on Napoleon's dethronement, with the ridiculous design of
   appropriating the crown of France, traitor as he was to her
   cause. England would have preferred a solid and immediate
   peace to a war which would exhaust her in subsidies, and
   augment her already enormous debt. These divergencies, these
   hesitations, gave Napoleon time to strengthen his position.
{1355}
   After Hanau, in the opinion of Ney, 'the allies might have
   counted their stages to Paris.' Napoleon had re-opened the
   negotiations. The relinquishment of Italy (when Murat on his
   side negotiated the preservation of his kingdom of Naples), of
   Holland, of Germany, and of Spain, and the confinement of
   France between her natural boundaries of the Rhine and the
   Alps; such were the 'Conditions of Frankfort.' Napoleon sent
   an answer to Metternich, 'that he consented to the opening of
   a congress at Mannheim: that the conclusion of a peace which
   would insure the independence of all the nations of the earth
   had always been the aim of his policy.' This reply seems
   evasive, but could the proposals of the allies have been
   serious? Encouraged by disloyal Frenchmen, they published the
   declaration of Frankfort, by which they affirmed 'that they
   did not make war with France, but against the preponderance
   which Napoleon had long exercised beyond the limits of his
   empire.' Deceitful assurance, too obvious snare, which could
   only take in a nation weary of war, enervated by twenty-two
   years of sterile victories, and at the end of its resources!
   During this time Alexander, with the deputies of the Helvetian
   Diet summoned at Frankfort, discussed the basis of a new Swiss
   Confederation. Holland was already raised by the partisans of
   the house of Orange, and entered by the Prussians. The
   campaign of France began. Alexander issued at Freiburg a
   proclamation to his troops. … He refused to receive
   Caulaincourt at Freiburg, declaring that he would only treat
   in France. 'Let us spare the French negotiator the trouble of
   the journey,' he said to Metternich. 'It does not seem to me a
   matter of indifference to the allied sovereigns, whether the
   peace with France is signed on this side of the Rhine, or on
   the other, in the very heart of France. Such an historical
   event is well worth a change of quarters.' Without counting
   the armies of Italy and the Pyrenees, Napoleon had now a mere
   handful of troops, 80,000 men, spread from Nimeguen to Bâle,
   to resist 500,000 allies. The army of the North
   (Wintzingerode) invaded Holland, Belgium, and the Rhenish
   provinces; the army of Silesia (Blücher) crossed the Rhine
   between Mannheim and Coblentz and entered Nancy; the army of
   Bohemia (Schwartzenberg) passed through Switzerland, and
   advanced on Troyes, where the Royalists demanded the
   restoration of the Bourbons. Napoleon was still able to bar
   for some time the way to his capital. He first attacked the
   army of Silesia; he defeated the vanguard, the Russians of
   Sacken, at St. Didier, and Blücher at Brienne; but at La
   Rothière he encountered the formidable masses of the Silesian
   and Bohemian armies, and after a fierce battle (1st February,
   1814) had to fall back on Troyes. After this victory had
   secured their junction, the two armies separated again, the
   one to go down the Marne, the other the Seine, with the
   intention of reuniting at Paris. Napoleon profited by this
   mistake. He threw himself on the left flank of the army of
   Silesia, near Champeaubert, where he dispersed the troops of
   Olsoufief and Poltaratski, inflicting on them a loss of 2,500
   men, and took the generals prisoners. At Montmirail, in spite
   of the heroism of Zigrote and Lapoukhine, he defeated Sacken;
   the Russians alone lost 2,800 men and five guns (11th
   February). At Château Thierry, he defeated Sacken and York
   reunited, and again the Russians lost 1,500 men and five guns.
   At Vauchamp it was the turn of Blücher, who lost 2,000
   Russians, 4,000 Prussians, and fifteen guns. The army of
   Silesia was in terrible disorder. 'The peasants, exasperated
   by the disorder inseparable from a retreat, and excited by
   exaggerated rumours of French successes, took up arms, and
   refused supplies. The soldiers suffered both from cold and
   hunger, Champagne affording no wood for bivouac fires. When
   the weather became milder, their shoes wore out, and the men,
   obliged to make forced marches with bare feet, were carried by
   hundreds into the hospitals of the country' (Bogdanovitch).
   Whilst the army of Silesia retreated in disorder on the army
   of the North, Napoleon, with 50,000 soldiers full of
   enthusiasm, turned on that of Bohemia, crushed the Bavarians
   and Russians at Mormans, the Wurtembergers at Montereau, the
   Prussians at Méry: these Prussians made part of the army of
   Blücher, who had detached a corps to hang on the rear of
   Napoleon. This campaign made a profound impression on the
   allies. Castlereagh expressed, in Alexander's presence, the
   opinion that peace should be made before they were driven
   across the Rhine. The military chiefs began to feel uneasy.
   Sesslavine sent news from Joigny that Napoleon had 180,000 men
   at Troyes. A general insurrection of the eastern provinces was
   expected in the rear of the allies. It was the firmness of
   Alexander which maintained the Coalition, it was the military
   energy of Blücher which saved it. Soon after his disasters he
   received reinforcements from the army of the North, and took
   the offensive against the marshals; then, hearing of the
   arrival of Napoleon at La Ferté Gaucher, he retreated in great
   haste, finding an unexpected refuge at Soissons, which had
   just been taken by the army of the North. At Craonne (March 7)
   and at Laon (10th to 12th March), with 100,000 men against
   80,000, and with strong positions, he managed to repulse all
   the attacks of Napoleon. At Craonne, however, the Russian loss
   amounted to 5,000 men, the third of their effective force. The
   battle of Laon cost them 4,000 men. Meanwhile, De Saint
   Priest, a general in Alexander's service, had taken Rheims by
   assault, but was dislodged by Napoleon after a fierce
   struggle, where the émigré commander was badly wounded, and
   4,000 of his men were killed (13th, March). The Congress of
   Châtillon-sur-Seine was opened on the 28th of February. Russia
   was represented by Razoumovski and Nesselrode, Napoleon by
   Caulaincourt, Austria by Stadion and Metternich. The
   conditions proposed to Napoleon were the reduction of France
   to its frontiers of 1792, and the right of the allies to
   dispose, without reference to him, of the reconquered
   countries. Germany was to be a confederation of independent
   States, Italy to be divided into free States, Spain to be
   restored to Ferdinand, and Holland to the house of Orange.
   Leave France smaller than I found her? Never!' said Napoleon.
   Alexander and the Prussians would not hear of a peace which
   left Napoleon on the throne. Still, however, they negotiated.
   Austria and England were both agreed not to push him to
   extremities, and many times proposed to treat. After
   Napoleon's great success against Blücher, Castlereagh declared
   for peace.  'It would not be a peace,' cried the Emperor of
   Russia; 'it would be a truce which would not allow us to
   disarm one moment. I cannot come 400 leagues every day to your
   assistance.
{1356}
   No peace, as long as Napoleon is on the throne.' Napoleon, in
   his turn, intoxicated by his success, enjoined Caulaincourt
   only to treat on the basis of Frankfort—natural frontiers.
   … As fortune returned· to the allies, the congress was
   dissolved (19th of March). The Bourbon princes were already in
   France; Louis XVIII. was on the point of being proclaimed.
   Alexander, tired of seeing the armies of Bohemia and Silesia
   fly in turn before thirty or forty thousand French, caused the
   allies to adopt the fatal plan of a march on Paris, which was
   executed in eight days. Blücher and Schwartzenberg united,
   with 200,000 men, were to bear down all opposition on their
   passage. The first act in the drama was the battle of
   Arcissur-Aube, where the Russians took six guns from Napoleon.
   The latter conceived a bold scheme, which perhaps might have
   saved him if Paris could have resisted, but which was his
   ruin. He threw himself on the rear of the allied army,
   abandoning to them the route to Paris, but reckoning on
   raising Eastern France, and cutting off their retreat to the
   Rhine. The allies, uneasy for one moment, were reassured by an
   intercepted letter of Napoleon's, and by the letters of the
   Parisian royalists, which revealed to them the weakness of the
   capital. 'Dare all!' writes Talleyrand to them. They, in their
   turn, deceived Napoleon, by causing him to be followed by a
   troop of cavalry, continued their march, defeated Marmont and
   Mortier, crushed the National Guards of Pacthod (battle of La
   Fère-Champenoise); and arrived in sight of Paris. Barclay de
   Tolly, forming the centre, first attacked the plateau of
   Romainville, defended by Marmont; on his left, the Prince of
   Wurtemberg threatened Vincennes; and on his right, Blücher
   deployed before Montmartre, which was defended by Mortier. The
   heights of Chaumont and those of Montmartre were taken;
   Marmont and Mortier with Moncey were thrown back on the
   ramparts. Marmont obtained an armistice from Colonel Orlof, to
   treat for the capitulation of Paris. King Joseph, the Empress
   Marie-Louise, and all the Imperial Government had already fled
   to the Loire. Paris was recommended to the generosity of the
   allied monarchs'; the army could retire on the road to
   Orleans. Such was the battle of Paris; it had cost, according
   to M. Bogdanovitch, 8,400 men to the allies, and 4,000 to the
   French (30th March).  … The allied troops maintained a
   strict discipline, and were not quartered on the inhabitants.
   Alexander had not come as a friend of the Bourbons—the
   fiercest enemy of Napoleon, was least bitter against the
   French; he intended leaving them the choice of their
   government. He had not favoured any of the intrigues of the
   émigrés, and had scornfully remarked to Jomini, 'What are the
   Bourbons to me?'"

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

      _M. de Beauchamp,
      Narrative of the Invasions of France, 1814-15._

      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 3, part 2, chapters 20-32._

      _J. Philippart,
      Campaign in Germany and France, 1818,
      volume 1, pages 279 and after, and volume 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-May).
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   Murat's treaty with the allies.
   French evacuation of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (February-April).
   Reverses in the south.
   Wellington's invasion.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (March-April).
   Friendly reception of the Allies in Paris.
   Collapse of the empire.
   Abdication of Napoleon.
   Treaty of Fontainebleau.

   "At an early hour in the morning [of the 31st of March], the
   Allied troops had taken possession of the barriers, and
   occupied the principal avenues leading to the city. Picquets
   of the Cossacks of the Guard were stationed at the corners of
   the principal streets. Vast multitudes thronged the
   Boulevards, in anxious and silent expectation of pending
   events. The royalists alone were active. The leaders, a small
   band indeed, had early assembled in the Place Louis XV.,
   whence, with Bourbon banners displayed, they proceeded along
   the principal streets, haranguing the people and National
   Guard; but though not interfered with by the police,—for all
   seemed to feel that the Imperial government was at an
   end,—they were listened to with such perfect indifference,
   that many began to think their cause absolutely hopeless. It
   was between ten and eleven o'clock when the procession began
   to enter the city. Light horsemen of the Russian Guard opened
   the march; at the head of the main column rode the Emperor of
   Russia and the King of Prussia. … Then followed 35,000 men,
   cavalry, infantry, and artillery, the elite of the armies, in
   all the pride and circumstance of war and conquest. At first
   the multitude looked on in silent amazement; but the
   affability of the officers, above all, the condescending
   manner of the Czar, dispelled any fear they might still
   entertain; and shouts of 'Vive Alexander!' began to be heard;
   cries of 'Vive le Roi de Prusse!' were soon added. … The
   shouts of welcome increased at every step. The conquerors were
   now hailed as liberators; 'Vivent les Allies!' 'Vivent nos
   liberateurs!' sounded through the air, mingled at last with
   the long-forgotten cry of 'Vive le Roi!' 'Vivent les
   Bourbons!' … The Emperor Alexander had no sooner seen the
   troops file past on the Place Louis XV., than he repaired to
   the hôtel of Talleyrand, where in the evening, a council was
   assembled to deliberate on the important step next to be
   taken, and, on the best mode of turning the glorious victories
   achieved to an honourable and beneficial account. … The
   points discussed were:

      I. The possibility, on sufficient guarantees, of a peace
      with Napoleon;

      II. The plan of regency under Marie Louise; and,

      III. The restoration of the Bourbons.

   The choice was not without difficulties. The first plan was
   easily dismissed; as the reception of the Allies proved
   clearly that the power of Napoleon was broken. The second
   seemed more likely to find favour, as promising to please the
   Emperor of Austria; but was finally rejected, as being, in
   fact, nothing more than a continuance of the Imperial reign
   under a different title. Against the restoration of the
   Bourbons, it was urged that the nation at large had evinced no
   desire for their recall, and seemed to have almost forgotten
   them. This, Talleyrand said, was owing entirely to the
   Congress of Chatillon, and the negotiations carried on with
   Napoleon; introducing at the same time, the Abbé de Pradt and
   Baron Louis, who fully confirmed the assertion. On being asked
   how he expected to obtain a declaration in favour of the
   exiled family, Talleyrand replied, that he was certain of the
   Senate; and that their vote would influence Paris, the example
   of which would be followed by all France.
{1357}
   Alexander having on this assurance taken the opinion of the
   King of Prussia and Prince Schwarzenberg, signed a declaration
   to the effect that 'the Allies would treat no more with
   Napoleon Bonaparte, or with any member of his family.' A
   proclamation was issued at the same time, calling on the
   conservative Senate to assemble and form a provisional
   government, for the purpose of drawing up a constitution
   suitable to the wishes of the French people. This the Allies
   promised to guarantee; as it was their wish, they said, to see
   France 'powerful, happy, and prosperous.' A printer was ready
   in attendance; and before dark, this memorable decree was seen
   placarded in all the streets of Paris. The inconstant populace
   had not even waited for such a sig   nal, and had been already
   engaged in destroying the emblems of the Imperial government; an
   attempt had even been made to pull down the statue of Napoleon
   from the summit of the column of Austerlitz, in the Place
   Vendome! The decisive impulse thus given, events moved rapidly
   forward. Caulaincourt's zealous efforts in favour of his
   master could effect nothing after the declaration already
   noticed. On the 2d, he took his departure for Fontainbleau;
   having, however, received the assurance that Napoleon would be
   suitably provided for. … The funds rose five per cent., and all
   other public securities in proportion, on the very day after
   the occupation of the capital; and wherever the Allied
   Sovereigns appeared in public, they were loudly cheered and
   hailed as liberators. From the first, officers of the Allied
   armies filled the public walks, theatres, and coffee-houses,
   and mixed with the people as welcome guests rather than as
   conquering invaders. The press, so long enslaved by Napoleon,
   took the most decided part against its oppressor; and from
   every quarter injurious pamphlets, epigrams, and satires, now
   poured upon the fallen ruler. Madame de Staël had
   characterised him as 'Robespierre on horseback'; De Pradt had
   more wittily termed him 'Jupiter Scapin'; and these sayings
   were not forgotten. But by far the most vivid sensation was
   produced by Chateaubriand's tract of 'Bonaparte and the
   Bourbons'; 30,000 copies of which are said to have been sold
   in two days. In proportion as the popular hatred of the
   Emperor evinced itself, grew the boldness of his adversaries.
   On the first of April, the Municipal Council of Paris met and
   already declared the throne vacant; on the next day, the
   Conservative Senate formed a Provisional Government, and
   issued a decree, declaring, first,'That Napoleon Bonaparte had
   forfeited the throne and the right of inheritance established in
   his family; 2d, That the people and army of France were
   disengaged and freed from the oath of fidelity which they had
   taken to him and his constitution.' … The members of the
   Legislative Assembly who happened to be in Paris, followed the
   example of the Senate. The Assembly had been dissolved in
   January, and could not meet constitutionally unless summoned
   by the Sovereign; this objection was, however, set aside, and
   the Assembly having met, ratified the act of deposition passed
   by the Senate. All the public functionaries, authorities and
   constituted bodies in and near Paris, hastened to send in
   their submission to the new powers: it was a general race in
   which honour was not always the prize of speed; for every
   address, every act of submission sent in to the new
   government, teemed with invectives against the deposed ruler.
   … It was in the night between the 2d and 3d, that
   Caulaincourt returned from his mission, and informed Napoleon
   of the events which had passed. … In what manner the Emperor
   received these fatal tidings we are not told. … At first it
   would seem that he entertained, or affected to entertain,
   thoughts of resorting to arms; for in the morning he reviewed
   his Guard, and addressed them in the following
   terms:—'Officers and soldiers of my Old Guard, the enemy has
   gained three marches on us, and outstripped us at Paris. Some
   factious men, emigrants whom I had pardoned, have surrounded
   the Emperor Alexander; they have mounted the white cockade,
   and would force us to do the same. In a few days I shall
   attack the enemy, and force them to quit the capital. I rely
   on you: am I right?' The troops readily replied with loud
   cheers to this address, calling out 'To Paris! 'to Paris!' but
   the Marshals and senior officers were by no means so zealous
   in the cause. … The Generals and Marshals … followed the
   Emperor to his apartments after the review; and having advised
   him to negotiate with the Allies, on the principle of a
   personal abdication, ended by informing him, that they would
   not accompany him if he persisted in the proposed attack on
   Paris. The scene which followed seems to have been of a very
   undignified description. Napoleon was almost convulsed with
   rage; he tore and trampled under foot the decree of the
   Senate; vowed vengeance against the whole body, who should
   yet, he said, be made to pay for their deed of 'felony'; but
   ended, nevertheless, by ignobly signing the abdication
   demanded of him. We say ignobly; for nothing can be more
   debasing in character, than to sink down from a very tempest
   of passion to tame submission. … The act of abdication was
   worded in the following terms: 'The Allied powers having
   proclaimed that the Emperor Napoleon is the sole obstacle to
   the re-establishment of peace in Europe, the Emperor Napoleon,
   faithful to his oath, declares that he is ready to descend
   from the throne, to quit France, and even to relinquish life,
   for the good of the country, which is inseparable from the
   rights of his son, from those of the regency in the person of
   the Empress, and from the maintenance of the laws of the
   empire. Done at our Palace of Fontainbleau, 4th April 1814.
   Napoleon.' Caulaincourt, Marshals Ney and M'Donald, were
   appointed to carry this conditional abdication to Paris. …
   The commissioners on returning to Fontainbleau found the
   Emperor in his cabinet, impatiently awaiting the result of
   their mission. Marshal Ney was the first to speak; and in that
   abrupt, harsh and not very respectful tone which he had lately
   assumed towards his falling sovereign, told him at once, that
   'France, the army and the cause of peace, demanded his
   unconditional abdication.' Caulaincourt added, that the full
   sovereignty of the Isle of Elba, with a suitable
   establishment, had been offered by the Emperor Alexander; and
   Marshal M'Donald, who had so zealously defended the cause of
   his master, confirmed the statement,—declaring also that, 'in
   his opinion, the Imperial cause was completely lost, as they
   had all three'—the commissioners—'failed against a
   resolution irrevocably fixed.' 'What!' exclaimed Napoleon,
   'not only my own abdication, but that of Marie Louise, and of
   my son? This is rather too much at once.'
{1358}
   And with these words he delayed the answer till next day,
   intending, he said, to consider the subject, and consult the
   army; … Words ran high between the fallen chieftain and his
   former subordinates; there were altercations, recriminations,
   and painful scenes, and it was only when Napoleon had signed
   the following unconditional abdication that perfect calm was
   restored:—'The Allied Sovereigns having declared that the
   Emperor Napoleon is the only obstacle to the re-establishment
   of a general peace, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his
   oath, declares, that he renounces, for himself and his heirs,
   the throne of France and Italy; and that there is no personal
   sacrifice, not even that of life itself, which he is not
   willing to make for the interest of France. Napoleon.
   Fontainbleau, 6th April 1814.' This deplorable document is
   written in so agitated and faltering a hand as to be almost
   illegible. … According to the treaty signed at Paris on the
   10th, and usually called the Treaty of Fontainbleau, Napoleon,
   from being Emperor of France and King of Italy, became Emperor
   of Elba! He was to have a guard and a navy suited to the
   extent of his dominions, and to receive from France a pension
   of six millions of francs annually. The Duchies of Parma,
   Placentia and Guastala, were to be conferred in sovereignty on
   Marie Louise and her heirs. Two millions and a half of francs
   were further to be paid annually by the French government to
   the Empress Josephine and other members of the Bonaparte
   family. Splendid as these terms were for a dethroned and
   defenceless monarch, Napoleon ratified the treaty with
   reluctance, and delayed the signature as long as possible;
   still clinging, it would seem, to some vague hope of returning
   fortune. It is even related by Fain, Norvins, Constant, and in
   the pretended Memoirs of Caulaincourt, that he attempted to
   commit suicide by taking poison, 'and was only saved by the
   weakness of the dose, and the remedies administered by his
   attendants, who, hearing his groans, hastened to his bedside.
   It is certain that he was very unwell on the following
   morning, the 18th April, a circumstance easily accounted for
   by the anxiety he had undergone; but there can be little
   difficulty in rejecting the tale of poison, for, it is
   mentioned in none of the St. Helena Memoirs."

      _Lieutenant-Colonel J. Mitchell,
      The Fall of Napoleon,
      book 8, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapters 20-23._

      _Duke of Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 4, part 1, chapters 4-10._

      _Prince Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 7 (volume 2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (April-June).
   Departure of Napoleon for Elba.
   Louis XVIII. called to the throne.
   Settlement of the constitution.
   Evacuation of France by the Allies.
   The Treaty of Paris.
   Determination of the new boundaries of the kingdom.

   "April 20, everything being ready for Napoleon's journey, and
   the commissioners of the four great powers who were to
   accompany him having arrived, the former drew up the imperial
   guard in the grand courtyard at Fontainebleau to take leave of
   them. 'Soldiers,' said he, 'I have one mission left to fulfil
   in life,—to recount to posterity the glorious deeds we have
   done together.' Would to Heaven he had kept his word and done
   nothing else! He kissed the flag, and his brave soldiers, who
   only saw the man who so often led them on to victory, burst
   into tears. Seven or eight hundred of them were to form the
   army left to him who had had a million soldiers at his
   command, and they were sent in advance, Napoleon going by
   another road, unescorted save by General Drouot, Bertrand, and
   the four foreign commissioners with their people. In the first
   departments through which they passed … the people who had
   been eye-witnesses of the invasion forgot the evil wrought by
   Napoleon, and only saw the defender of his country. They
   shouted 'Long live the Emperor! Down with foreigners!' But
   beyond Lyons, where the foe never penetrated, the population
   became hostile: old royalist and Catholic passions were
   revived in proportion as they went farther south; the mob
   cried 'Long live the King! down with the tyrant!' and others
   howled 'Long live the allies!' At Avignon and Organ a furious
   rabble attacked the carriages, demanding that the tyrant
   should be handed over to them to be hung or thrown into the
   Rhone. The man who braved the storm of shot and shell with
   utter indifference gave way before these ignoble perils, and
   disguised himself; otherwise the commissioners could scarcely
   have saved his life at Orgon. The sad journey closed at the
   Gulf of St. Raphael, on the coast of Provence. … An English
   frigate awaited him and bore him to Elba, where he landed at
   Porto-Ferraio, May 4. While the Empire was crumbling to dust
   … and the fallen Emperor went into exile, the new government
   was working hard to hold its own at Paris. The royalists were
   at sword's points with the national sovereignty party in the
   commission chosen by the senate to draw up a constitution. The
   pretender's agent, Abbé de Montesquiou, failed to win
   acceptance of the principle that royal right is superior to
   the nation's will; and the formula adopted was as follows:
   'The French people freely call to the throne of France, Louis
   Stanislas Xavier de France, brother of the late king, and,
   after him, the other members of the house of Bourbon.' Thus
   they did not recognize in the king whom they elected the title
   of Louis XVIII., and did not admit that between him and his
   brother, Louis XVI., there had been a rightful king, the poor
   child who died in the Temple and whom royalists called Louis
   XVII. The reign of Louis Stanislas Xavier was to date from the
   day when he swore allegiance to the Constitution: the
   executive power was vested in the king, who shared the
   legislative power with the Senate and a Chamber of Deputies.
   The Constitution sanctioned individual liberty, freedom of
   worship and the press, the sale of national goods, the public
   debt, and proclaimed oblivion of all acts committed since the
   beginning of the Revolution. The principles of 1789 were
   maintained, and in the sad state of France there was nothing
   better to be done than to rally round this Constitution, which
   was voted by the Senate, April 6, and accepted by the
   Legislature. … The Senate's lack of popularity gave the
   royalist party hope that the act of April 6 might be
   retracted, and at this time that party won a faint success in
   a matter on which they laid great stress. Count d' Artois was
   on his way to Paris, and declared that he would not lay aside
   the white cockade on entering. The temporary government
   ordered the national guard to assume the white cockade, and
   let Count d'Artois in without conditions (April 12), He was
   received in solemn state, the marshals marching before him,
   still wearing their tri-colored cockades and plumes, which the
   government dared not attack.
{1359}
   The rabble was cold, but the middle classes received the
   prince favorably and he proved gracious to every one. …
   D'Artois … insisted on being recognized, unconditionally, as
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom, as he had entered Paris
   without making terms; but this time the Senate and temporary
   government did not yield. They intended that the prince should
   make a solemn promise, in his brother's name, in regard to the
   Constitution. The czar interfered and explained to D' Artois
   that the allies were pledged to the Senate and the nation, and
   he was forced to submit and receive the lieutenant-generalcy
   of the kingdom from the Senate, 'until Louis Stanislas Xavier
   of France should accept the Constitutional Charter.' … The
   day after his proclamation as lieutenant-general, the white
   cockade was finally adopted, and … imposed upon the army and
   various public buildings, though the national cockade was
   still worn by many French soldiers from the Garonne to the
   Elbe, and many warlike deeds still signalized the final
   efforts of their arms, even after Napoleon had laid aside his
   sword. … By degrees the truce became universal, and the next
   question was to fix the terms of peace. … The enemy held
   nothing but Paris and the unfortified towns, French garrisons
   still occupying all the strongholds of France, old and new,
   and several important places far beyond the Rhine. … This
   was a powerful means of gaining, not the preservation of the
   natural frontiers, which could no longer be hoped for, but at
   least an important advance on the limits of the ancient
   monarchy. Unluckily a movement, natural but hasty, broke out
   all over France, to claim the immediate evacuation of her soil
   by foreign armies;"—an impatience which allowed no time for
   bargaining in the matter, and which precipitated an agreement
   (April 23) with the allied powers "to leave the French
   dominion as it had been on the 1st of January, 1792, in
   proportion as the places still occupied beyond those limits by
   French troops should be evacuated and restored to the allies.
   … This compact surrendered to the allies, without any
   compensation, 58 strongholds, 12,600 pieces of ordnance,
   arsenals and magazines filled with vast supplies." The new
   king, calling himself Louis XVIII., arrived in Paris on the 3d
   of May, from England, where he had latterly resided. He had
   offended the czar, ruffled public feeling in France, even
   before he arrived, by saying publicly to the English people
   that he owed his restoration, under Providence, to them.
   Negotiations for a definite treaty of peace were opened at
   once. "At Metternich's suggestion, the allies decided to
   conclude their arrangements with France in Paris, and to
   reserve general arrangements with Europe for a congress at
   Vienna.

      See VIENNA: THE CONGRESS OF.

   Talleyrand did not object, although this plan was evidently
   unfavorable to France. … The royal council directed
   Talleyrand to try to win for the northern frontier those
   million people promised beyond the old limits; but Louis X
   VIII., by angering the czar, completed the sad work of April
   23. Alexander thought of renewing with the Bourbons the
   alliance that he had planned with Napoleon, and marrying to
   the Duke de Berri, Louis's nephew, that one of his sisters to
   whom Napoleon preferred Marie Louise. Louis … responded
   churlishly to the czar's advances. Accordingly, when France
   demanded a solid frontier, including the South of Belgium, …
   Lord Castlereagh absolutely refused, and was supported by
   Prussia, hostile to France, and by Austria, indifferent on
   that score, but disposed to follow England in everything.
   Russia did not side with France. … The allies were willing
   to grant, in place of the old dominion of the monarchy, on the
   Rhine side, the line of the Queich, which opened communication
   with Landau, and to the southeast the department of Vaucluse
   (once County Venaissin) given up by the Pope, besides Chambéry
   and a part of Savoy; finally, in the Jura region, Montbéliard.
   This made nearly 600,000 people. As for the colonies, England
   reluctantly returned Martinique, Guadeloupe, and the Isle of
   Bourbon, but refused to restore the Isle de France [or
   Mauritius, captured in 1810], that great military post which
   is to the Indian Ocean what Malta is to the Mediterranean.
   This island was bravely defended for some years by its
   governor. … The English declared that they would also keep
   Malta, taken from France, and the Cape of Good Hope, wrested
   from Holland, saying that all these belonged to them, being on
   the road to India. … Secret articles provided that Holland,
   under the rule of the House of Orange, should be increased by
   the countries ceded by France, between the sea, the French
   frontier of 1790, and the Meuse (Austrian Netherlands and
   Liége). The countries ceded by France on the left bank of the
   Rhine were to be divided as 'compensation' among the German
   states. Austria was to have the country bounded by the Po,
   Ticino, and Lake Maggiore, that is, the old Venetian states,
   Milan, and Mantua. The territory of the former Republic of
   Genoa was to be given to the King of Sardinia. Such was the
   end of the wars of the Empire. Republican France reached the
   goal of the old monarchy, the natural limits of ancient Gaul;
   the Empire lost them."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France,
      volume 2, chapter 17._

   "The Peace of Paris [signed May 30] was followed by some
   subsidiary treaties. … By a Convention of June 3rd between
   Austria and Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph restored to Austria the
   Tyrol with the Vorarlberg, the principality of Salzburg, the
   district of the Inn and the Hausrück. During the visit of the
   Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia to London in June,
   it was agreed that the Article of the Peace of Paris
   stipulating the aggrandisement of Holland, should, be carried
   out by the annexation of Belgium to that country, an
   arrangement which was accepted by the Sovereign of the
   Netherlands, July 21st 1814."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Restoration,
      books 13-14 and 16 (volumes 1-2)._

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{1360}

FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Ten months of Bourbon rule and its follies.
   Return of Napoleon from Elba.
   Flight of the King.
   The Hundred Days.
   Preparations for war.

   "The peace of Paris did not endure a year. Ten months of
   Bourbon rule, vengeful, implacable, stupid; alike violent in
   act and in language; sufficed to bring France once more to the
   brink of revolution. Two acts alone are sufficient to
   demonstrate the folly of the royalists—the resumption of the
   white flag, and the changing of the numbers of the regiments.
   A prudent king would have adopted the tricolour when he agreed
   to a constitutional charter, and would have refrained from
   wounding military sensibility by destroying the numbers of the
   regiments. But more stupid than these acts was the political
   policy pursued, a policy which aroused on all sides suspicions
   of what was worse than the grinding but gilded despotism of
   Napoleon—namely, that the Government favoured a forcible
   resumption of the confiscated lands, the restoration of
   tithes, and of the abolished exactions and imposts of
   feudalism. It has been surmised, and with much reason, that
   had Napoleon not reappeared a popular movement would have
   extorted from the king a really constitutional government. In
   that case France might have taken some real steps towards a
   free government, and the bases of liberty rather than of
   equality might have been laid. But while the Powers were
   wrangling at Vienna, and the Bourbons were irritating France,
   Napoleon was watching from Elba for the opportunity of
   resuming empire. It was not in the nature of the man to yield
   passively to anything, even to the inevitable. So long as a
   chance remained he looked out keenly for the propitious hour.
   He selected Elba as a residence because thence 'he could keep
   an eye upon France and upon the Bourbons.' It was his duty, he
   said, to guard the throne of France for his family and for his
   son. Thus, in making peace at Fontainebleau, he only bowed to
   a storm he could not then resist, and cherished in his mind
   the project of an imperial restoration. The hour for which he
   waited came at length. February, 1815, he had arrived at the
   conclusion that with the aid of the army he could overthrow
   the Bourbons, whose government, he said, was good for priests,
   nobles, and countesses of the old time, but worth nothing to
   the living generation. The army, he knew, was still, and would
   be always, devoted to him. … He had weighed all the chances
   for and against the success of his enterprise, and he had
   arrived at the conclusion that he should succeed; for,
   'Fortune had never deserted him on great occasions.' It has
   been said that his departure was precipitated by a report of
   the dissolution of the Congress of Vienna. … It is possible,
   indeed, that the rumour of an intention to confine him upon an
   island in the Atlantic may have exercised some influence over
   him; but the real reasons for the selection of the 26th of
   February were that he was tired of inactivity, and convinced
   that the favourable moment had arrived. Therefore, instructing
   Murat to second him by assuming a strong position in front of
   Ancona, he embarked his faithful Thousand, and set sail for
   France. On the 1st of March he landed on the shores of the
   Gulf of Juan, and on the 20th he entered the Tuileries. As he
   had predicted, the army rallied to the tricolour; the generals
   could neither restrain nor guide their soldiers; the Bourbon
   dukes and princes, and the brave Duchess of Angoulême—'the
   only man of the family'—were utterly powerless before the
   universal military disaffection; and one after the other they
   were chased out of France. The army had restored Napoleon.
   Louis XVIII. drove out of Paris by the road to St. Denis on
   the 19th, a few hours before Napoleon, on the 20th, drove in
   by the Barrier of Italy; and on the 23rd, after a short stay
   at Lille, the King was safe in Ghent. 'The great question is,'
   wrote Lord Castlereagh to the Duke of Wellington three days
   afterwards, while yet in ignorance of the event, 'can the
   Bourbons get Frenchmen to fight for them against Frenchmen?'
   The result showed that they could not. In the then state of
   France the army was master of France. Louis and his ministers
   had done nothing to conciliate, and almost everything to
   irritate, the people; and even so early as November, 1814,
   Wellington did not see what means the King had of resisting
   the attack of a few hundred officers determined to risk
   everything. During the period occupied by Napoleon in passing
   from Elba to Paris, the conduct of' the sovereigns and
   diplomatists assembled at Vienna offered a striking contrast
   to the weakness and inaptitude of the Bourbons. … That there
   was fear in Vienna is manifest, but the acts of the Allied
   Powers show that fear speedily gave place to resolution. For,
   as early as the 12th of' March, before the Allies knew where
   Napoleon was, or anything about him, except that he was
   somewhere at large in France, they drew up that famous
   declaration, and signed it the next day, in which they
   declared that he had broken the sole legal tie to which his
   existence was attached, and that it was possible to keep with
   him 'neither peace nor truce.' 'The Powers, in consequence,'
   so runs this document, 'declare that Napoleon Buonaparte is
   placed beyond the pale of civil and social relations, and
   that, as a common enemy and disturber of the peace of the
   world, he has delivered himself over to public justice.' This
   declaration, which has been the subject of vehement criticism,
   was the natural consequence of the prevailing and correct
   appreciation of Napoleon's character. There was not a nation
   in Europe which felt the slightest particle of confidence or
   trust in him. Hence this declaration, made so promptly, was
   drawn up in ignorance of any professions he might make,
   because, beforehand, Europe felt that no professions of his
   could be relied on. The news of his success was followed by a
   treaty, adopted on the 25th of March, renewing the alliance of
   Chaumont, whereby Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia
   bound themselves to provide each 150,000 men; to employ, in
   addition, all their resources, and to work together for the
   common end—the maintenance of the Treaty of Paris, and of the
   stipulations determined on and signed at the Congress of
   Vienna. Further, they engaged not to lay down their arms but
   by common consent; nor before the object of the war should
   have been attained; nor, continues the document, 'until
   Buonaparte shall have been rendered absolutely unable to
   create disturbance, and to renew attempts for possessing
   himself of supreme power in France.' All the Powers of Europe
   generally, and Louis XVIII. specially, were invited to accede
   to the treaty; but, at the instance of Lord Castlereagh, the
   Four Great Powers declared in the most solemn manner that,
   although they desired to see his Most Christian Majesty
   restored to the throne, and also to contribute to that
   'auspicious result,' yet that their 'principles' would not
   permit them to prosecute the war 'with a view of imposing any
   particular Government on France.' With Napoleon they refused
   to hold any communication whatever; and when he sent couriers
   to announce that he intended to observe existing treaties,
   they were stopped on the frontiers. …
{1361}
   Wellington, on his own responsibility, acted for England,
   signed treaties, undertook heavy engagements in her name, and
   agreed to command an army to be assembled in Belgium; and
   having satisfied, as well as he could, the clamour of 'all'
   for subsidies from England, he took his departure from Vienna
   on the 29th of March, and arrived in Brussels on the 4th of
   April. The British Parliament and nation confirmed readily the
   proceedings of the Government and of the Duke of Wellington at
   Vienna. … Napoleon had formed a Ministry on the very evening
   of his return to the Tuileries. … He felt certain that war
   would ensue. Knowing that at the moment when he returned from
   Elba a large part of the best troops of England were in
   America, that the German force on the Rhine was weak, and that
   the Russian armies were in Poland, he calculated that the
   Allied Powers would not be in a position to open the campaign,
   at the earliest, until the middle of July; and, for a moment,
   he hoped that, by working on the feelings of his
   father-in-law, the Emperor of Austria, and by rousing the
   anger of the Emperor Alexander against his allies, he would be
   able, if not to reduce his enemies to two, England and
   Prussia, at least to defer the period of hostilities until the
   autumn. … Before his great schemes of military preparation
   were half complete he found himself compelled by events to
   begin the war. What he actually did accomplish between March
   and June has been the subject of fierce controversy. His
   friends exaggerate, his enemies undervalue, his exertions and
   their results. But no candid inquirer can fail to see, that if
   his energetic activity during this period is far below that of
   the Convention when threatened by Europe, it is far above the
   standard fixed by his passionate crimes. The real reason why
   he failed to raise a larger military force during the hundred
   days was that his genius worked upon exhausted materials. The
   nation, to use an expressive vulgarism, was 'used up.' … The
   proper conscription for 1815 had been levied in the autumn of
   1813. The drafts on the rising generation had been
   anticipated, and hence there remained little available except
   the old soldiers. … The result of Napoleon's prodigious
   exertions to augment the military force of France appears to
   be this: Napoleon found ready to his hand a force of 228,972
   men of all arms, officers included, giving a disposable
   effective of 155,000 men ready to take the field. By the 18th
   of June he had raised this force to 276,982 men, officers
   included: that is 247,609 of the line, and 29,373 of the
   Imperial Guard. The number disposable for war was 198,180; and
   it therefore follows that Napoleon had increased the general
   effective by 53,010 men, and that part of it disposable for
   war by 48, 180."

      _G. Hooper,
      Waterloo,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Imbert de Saint-Amand,
      The Duchess of Angouléme and the two Restorations,
      part 1._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Memoirs of My Time,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      _J. C. Ropes,
      The First Napoleon,
      lecture 6._

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
      volume 1, chapters 4-6._

      _R. H. Horne,
      Life of Napoleon, chapters 41-42._

      _General Sir N. Campbell,
      Napoleon at Fontainebleau and Elba._

FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Congress of Vienna and the fruits of its labors.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June).
   Napoleon's last campaign.
   His final defeat and overthrow at Waterloo.

   "The nearest troops of the allies were the Prussian army in
   the Rhenish provinces, and the army of British, Dutch,
   Belgians, Bunswickers, and Hanoverians, occupying Belgium.
   Napoleon's scheme, the best in his desperate circumstances,
   was to expel the British and Prussians, who were moving west,
   from Belgium, win the Rhine frontier—to arouse the enthusiasm
   of all France—before the Austrians were ready, and carry the
   war out of France. The Duke of Wellington proceeded to
   Belgium, for the first and last time to measure his skill with
   Napoleon's, and Marshal Blücher took over from Kleist the
   command of the Prussians. The two armies, the Prussian and the
   British, took up a line extending from Liege to the sea. The
   country on this line was open along the west, affording by
   nature little means of resisting an invasion, but most of the
   fortresses commanding the roads had been put in a state of
   moderate repair. The Prussians held the line of the Meuse and
   Sambre to beyond Charleroi, the head-quarters being at Namur.
   They numbered about 117,000 men … with 312 guns. … The
   motley mass of the British and their allies numbered 106,000
   men … with 196 guns. … So entirely ignorant were the
   allies of Napoleon's movements, that on the very day on which
   he burst across the frontier, Wellington wrote to the Czar,
   who was at Vienna, respecting the general invasion of France.
   At that time the frontier of France approached within six
   miles of Charleroi (which is itself but 34 miles by the main
   road from Brussels). The Charleroi road was not only the most
   direct to Brussels, but was unprotected by fortresses; and the
   line of the allied armies was weakest here at the point of
   junction between them. … It was against the central weak
   point that Napoleon resolved to move, down the basins of the
   Sambre and the Meuse. … The mass of the troops was being
   assembled within a league of the frontier, but behind some
   small hills which completely screened them from the enemy's
   outposts. To conceal his designs to the last moment, the line
   of sentries along the frontier was tripled, and any attempt to
   pass the line was forbidden under pain of death. The
   arrangements were being carried out by Soult, who on the 2nd
   June had been appointed chief of the staff. … The army
   concentrated on the frontier consisted (according to Colonel
   Chesney) of 90,000 infantry and 22,000 cavalry—in all 112,000
   men—344 guns. … Napoleon, accompanied by his brother
   Jerome, arrived in the camp, and in the evening of the 14th
   his soldiers, already elated by his presence, were excited to
   the highest pitch of enthusiasm by an address from Napoleon.
   … A general order fixed the attack upon the allies' position
   for three o'clock in the following morning (15th)." At the
   appointed time "the French left was in motion, Reille
   proceeding from Solre down the right bank of the Sambre. He
   was soon brought into collision with the Prussian outposts
   near Thuin: he drove them back and secured at ten o'clock the
   bridge of Marchiennes." The movements of other corps were
   delayed by various causes. Nevertheless, "of the Prussians
   only Ziethen's corps, and of Wellington's army only
   Perponcher's Dutch-Belgians, were as yet near the menaced
   position; while 40,000 French had passed the Sambre at
   Marchiennes and 70,000 more were entering Charleroi. When
   Reille deployed in front of Gosselies, the Prussians called in
   their detachments and retired from it, upon Fleurus, …
   leaving open the road through Quatre Bras to Brussels.
{1362}
   Ney, who had just come up, then took command of the left, …
   which was now directed upon Quatre Bras; and Napoleon galloped
   off to the road between Charleroi and Fleurus, where the
   retiring Prussians were concentrating. … At dark Ziethen
   [with the First Prussian corps] still held Fleurus with his
   advanced guard, and the wood on its south, the bulk of his
   troops lay for the night upon the hill of Ligny, above the
   village of Bry. His loss during the day's manœuvring has been
   estimated at 2,000. On the French left, Ney… had come in
   contact with the advance guard of Wellington's army, a
   battalion of Nassauers and a light battery, in front of the
   village of Frasnes, two miles from Quatre Bras, the name
   applied to the farm-buildings at the intersection of the four
   main roads,—Brussels, Nivelles, Charleroi, Namur. … After a
   few cannon-shots the outpost fell back from Frasnes to Quatre
   Bras." Ney, after a reconnoissance, postponed attack until
   morning. "It had been intended by Napoleon that the whole army
   should have crossed the Sambre before noon; but from the
   several delays … when night fell on the 15th, half of the
   cavalry of the guard, two of Grouchy's reserve divisions,
   Lobau's corps, and one-half of Gérard's corps were still on
   the south of the river. Apparently relying on secret
   information from Paris—which contradicted the rumours that
   Napoleon was about to join the army—Wellington had been
   lulled into a false security, and the reports as to the
   concentration had been neglected. News of the enemy's advance
   across the Sambre did not reach him till three o'clock in the
   afternoon of the 15th, when the Prince of Orange in person
   reported the skirmish at Thuin. As he did not yet know the
   point of concentration, the British general, 'never
   precipitate or nervous' (Hooper), merely issued orders for all
   the troops to be in readiness. … At night intelligence was
   received from Mons that the French concentration was at
   Charleroi, and orders were issued for the immediate movement
   of the troops. … Wellington and the Prince of Orange, with
   several of the staff' officers, went—it is said, to prevent a
   panic in Brussels—to the Duchess of Richmond's ball, where
   'Belgium's capital had gathered then her beauty and her
   chivalry,' and, 'while all went merry as a marriage bell,' the
   staff officers stole away one by one. The Duke himself,
   'throwing away golden minutes' (Hamley), as if to show his
   confidence in his fortunes, remained to a late hour to return
   thanks after supper for the health of the Prince Regent of
   Great Britain, which the Prince of Orange proposed. …
   Blücher had received, at his head-quarters at Namur, news on
   the morning of the 14th of the French concentration, and he
   had ordered forward the corps of Pirch and Thielemann. …
   Napoleon did not foresee Blücher's promptitude, and nothing
   was done in the early morning of the 16th to proceed with the
   execution of the intended surprise. . . …. No orders were
   issued by the Emperor till eight, when Napoleon's resolution
   was taken,—to strike at the Prussians, who would, he
   believed, if defeated, retire upon their natural base of
   communications, through Namur and Liege, and he would thus be
   left to deal separately with the British, who could not move
   from their base, the sea. The French army was to advance in
   two wings, the left under Ney, the right under Grouchy, with
   the reserve under the Emperor himself. Ney was to capture
   Quatre Bras, reconnoitre the Brussels road, and hold himself
   in readiness to march to Brussels, which Napoleon hoped to be
   able to enter the following morning. … Napoleon had 64,000
   men to attack the position at Ligny; Ney on the left wing had
   45,000 for Quatre Bras; Lobau had 10,000 to support either
   wing of the Grand Army; 5,000 troops were in the rear; and the
   victorious wing, whether Ney's or Grouchy's, was to wheel
   round and manœuvre in the direction of the other. Thielemann
   having come up before the French delivered their attack,
   Blücher had 85,000 men on the field. Wellington arrived at
   Quatre Bras (which is 20 miles from Brussels) at 11 o'clock in
   the forenoon. As Marshal Ney gave no sign of an imminent
   attack, Wellington galloped over, about seven miles, to confer
   with Blücher. … Wellington, after some discussion, in which
   he expressed his disapproval of Blücher's position, agreed to
   move to the rear of the Prussians, to act as a reserve, if his
   own position at Quatre Bras were not attacked. … He reached
   Quatre Bras when his own position was being assailed, and no
   help could be sent to Blücher. … At about three o'clock,
   when the heavy cannonade a few miles to the west intimated
   that a desperate battle was in progress at Quatre Bras, the
   signal for attack [on the Prussians, at Ligny] was given. The
   French left sped forward with impetuosity; the resistance was
   vigorous but futile, and the enemy streamed through the
   village. Blücher immediately moved forward fresh troops and
   re-took the village, but was unable to retain it. … Thrice
   the Grenadiers forced their way into and through the village,
   but only to be driven back again." But "Blücher gradually
   exhausted his reserves, and when, in the dusk, Napoleon saw
   the last battalion moved forward and the ground behind Ligny
   vacant, he exclaimed, 'they are lost!' The Guards and the
   Cuirassiers were immediately ordered to attack," and the
   wearied Prussian infantry were broken by their onset. "The
   fugitives led precipitately over the fields and along the
   roads to the east, and the order for the whole to retire was
   immediately given. … Blücher himself gathered a few of his
   squadrons to check the hot pursuit near Sombreffe, and thrice
   led them to the charge. His squadrons were broken, and after
   the last charge his horse fell dead, and the veteran marshal
   lay under it. His aid-de-camp, Nostitz, stood by him, and
   covered him with a cloak; the Cuirassiers galloped past
   without noticing him. … Gneisenau, who took temporary
   command from the accident to Blücher, ordered a retreat upon
   Wavre, with the view of joining Bülow's corps and keeping open
   the communications with Wellington. … The loss on each side
   has been very variously estimated. Napoleon put his own loss
   at 7,000 men, Charras puts it at 11,000, and the loss of the
   Prussians at 18,000. The retreat upon Wavre abandoned the
   communications with Namur and Liege, through which the
   Prussian supplies came from the lower Rhine, for a new line by
   Louvain, but it kept the Prussians on a line parallel to the
   road on which Wellington must retreat, and thus still enabled
   the two armies to aid each other. 'This noble daring at once
   snatched from Napoleon the hoped-for fruits of his victory,
   and the danger Ligny had for a few hours averted was left
   impending over him' (Chesney)."

      _H. R. Clinton,
      The War in the Peninsula and Wellington's Campaigns
      in France and Belgium, chapter 12._

{1363}

   On Wellington's return to Quatre Bras from his interview with
   Blücher, he found, as stated above, that the Prince of Orange
   had already became desperately engaged with the superior
   forces of Ney. "The Duke's presence gave new life to the
   battle, and when Picton's division, followed by the
   Brunswickers and Van Merle's Belgian horse, arrived, he took
   the offensive, pushing forward right up to the edge of the
   farm of Gemioncourt. Ney, reinforced by the rest of Reille's
   corps and part of Kellerman's cavalry, violently retorted, and
   in the charge, which partially broke into spray before the
   squares, Wellington ran the risk of death or capture. But he
   leaped his horse over the 92d Highlanders lining the ditch on
   the Namur road, while his gallant pursuers, cut up by the
   infantry fire, were killed or driven off. Ney was further
   reinforced by more guns and cavalry, and Wellington's brigades
   continued to arrive in parcels. The Marshal was always
   superior in horsemen and cannon, but after 5 o'clock his
   opponent had larger numbers of foot. Holding firmly to the
   cross-roads and, the highway to Namur, Wellington became the
   stronger as the day waned; and when the Guards emerged from
   the Nivelles road and the Allies pressed forward, Ney, who had
   no fresh troops, was driven back, and his antagonist remained
   at sundown master of the whole field of battle. The position
   was maintained, but the cost was great, for there were no
   fewer than 4,600 killed and wounded, more than half being
   British soldiers. The thunder of cannon to the eastward had
   also died away, but none knew as yet at Quatre Bras how
   Blücher had fared at the hands of his redoubtable foe.
   Wellington, who slept at his head-quarters in Genappe, was on
   the field and scrutinising his outposts at daybreak an the
   17th. Soon after came a report, confirmed a little later, that
   the Prussians had retreated on Wavre. … Napoleon had a
   belief that Blücher would retreat upon Liège, which caused him
   at a late hour in the day to despatch Grouchy to that side,
   and thus touch was lost. While the French were cooking and
   Napoleon was pondering, definite intelligence was brought to
   Wellington, who, learning for certain that Blücher was at
   Wavre, promised to stand fast himself at Mont St. Jean and
   fight, if Blücher would support him with two corps. The
   intrepid Marshal replied that he would came with his whole
   army, and Wellington got the famous answer before night. Thus
   was made, between generals who thoroughly trusted each other,
   that combination which led to the Battle of Waterloo. It was
   no chance combat, but the result of a deliberate design,
   rendered capable of execution, even when Blücher was wounded,
   by his resolve to retreat upon Wavre, and by Napoleon, who
   acted on conjecture that the Prussians would hurry towards
   their base at Liege. The morning at Quatre Bras was peaceful;
   the Allies cooked their food before starting rearward.
   Wellington, it is said, lay down for a moment, and snatched
   perhaps a little sleep. There was no stir in front or on the
   exposed left flank; and, covered by a strong display of
   horsemen, the Allied divisions tramped steadily towards Mont
   St. Jean. … The retreat continued all day. A thunderstorm,
   so often a precursor of Wellington's battles, deluged the
   fields with rain, and pursuer and pursued struggling through
   the mire, were drenched to the skin by nightfall. … The
   results of two days' warfare may be thus summed up. Napoleon
   had inflicted a defeat, yet not a decisive defeat, upon the
   Prussians, who escaped from his ken to Wavre. He had then, at
   a late hour on the 17th, detached Grouchy with 33,000 men to
   follow them, and Grouchy at night from Gembloux reported that
   they had retired in three directions. Moving himself in the
   afternoon, Napoleon, uniting with Ney, had pursued Wellington
   to Mont St. Jean, and slept in the comfortable belief that he
   had separated the Allies. At that very time Wellington, who
   had assembled his whole force except 17,000 men, … was in
   close communication with Blücher, and intended on the 18th to
   stop Napoleon by delivering battle, and to hold him fast until
   Blücher could cut in on his right flank and rear. Thus it was
   the Allies who were united practically, and the French army
   which was separated into two groups unable to support each
   other. … The tempest which burst over the retreating columns
   on the 17th followed them to their bivouacs and raged all
   night, and did not cease until late on the fateful Sunday.
   Wellington, mounting his faithful Copenhagen at break of day,
   rode from the village of Waterloo to the field, where the
   armies on both sides, protected by watchful sentries, were
   still contending with the mischiefs inflicted by the storm.
   The position was the crest of a gentle slope stretching from
   Smohain to the Nivelles road, having upon and in advance of
   its right the château, garden, and wood of Hougoumont, and in
   the centre, where the Charleroi road cut through the little
   ridge, the farm of La Haye Sainte. Both these posts were
   occupied, but the latter, unfortunately, not so solidly as
   Hougoumont. … The position was well filled by the 69,000 men
   of all arms and 156 guns which were present that day.
   Napoleon, who slept at the farm of Caillou, and who had been
   out on foot to the front during the night, was also early in
   the field, and glad of the gift which he thought fortune had
   placed in his hands. When Reille had joined him from Genappe,
   he had 72,000 men, all admirable soldiers, and 240 guns, with
   which to engage in combat, and he reckoned that the chances
   were ninety to ten in his favour. He mounted his charger,
   reconnoitred his opponent's position, and then gave the orders
   which, promptly and finely obeyed, disclosed the French array.
   … It was now nearly eleven o'clock, and, although his
   opponent knew it not, Wellington had got news of the march
   from Wavre of Bulow, whose leading troops were actually, at
   that time, close to the wood of St. Lambert on the French
   right; while Grouchy was at Sart les Walhain, between Gembloux
   and Wavre. It is not practicable here to give a full account of
   the battle of Waterloo; we can only describe its broad
   outlines. The first gun was fired about twenty or thirty
   minutes past eleven, and preluded a dashing and sustained
   attack an Hougoumont, which failed to carry the house, garden,
   or orchard, but did gain the wood. It was probably intended to
   divert attention from the attack on the left and centre, which
   Ney, massing his guns opposite the British left, was preparing
   to execute. Wellington watched and in some measure controlled
   the fight for Hougoumont, and then rode off to the centre,
   taking post at a solitary tree which grew near the Charleroi
   road above La Haye Sainte.
{1364}
   Ney at half past one sent forward the whole of D'Erlon's
   corps, and although some of them pushed close up to and over
   the Wavre road, stormed the orchard of La Haye Sainte and took
   the Pappelotte farm, yet at the critical moment Sir William
   Ponsonby's Union Brigade of horse charged into the French
   infantry, already shattered by the fire of Picton's troops,
   and the net result of the combined operation was that two
   eagles and 3,000 prisoners were captured, while nearly that
   number of killed and wounded remained on the ground. On the
   other side of La Haye Sainte the Household Brigade, led by
   Lord Anglesea in person, charged in upon and routed a large
   body of French cuirassiers. The grand attack thus completely
   failed, and the centre, like the right, remained intact. It
   was just before this combat began that Napoleon saw something
   like troops towards St. Lambert and despatched two brigades of
   light cavalry to reconnoitre. A Prussian staff officer was
   caught beyond Planchenoit, and from him came the unexpected
   and unwelcome information that the whole Prussian army was
   approaching. … The signs of danger on his right flank, the
   punishment of D'Erlon's corps, the ineffectual attempt upon
   the British Guards in and about Hougoumont, were followed by a
   kind of pause and the combat reverted to cannonading and
   skirmishing. But towards four o'clock Napoleon, increasing the
   fire of his artillery, threw forward a mass of cavalry, forty
   squadrons, and then began that series of reiterated onsets of
   horse which lasted for two hours. … Twice they were driven
   down the slope, and the third time, when they came on, they
   were strengthened by Kellerman and Guyot until they reached a
   force of 77 squadrons, or 12,000 men; but these also were
   repulsed, the British horse, what remained of them, charging
   when the French were entangled among the squares and
   disordered by the musketry and guns. Four times these fine
   troopers charged, yet utterly failed to penetrate or move a
   single foot battalion. But some time before the final effort,
   Ney by a fierce attack got possession of La Haye Sainte, and
   thus, just as the cavalry were exhausted, the French infantry
   were established within sixty yards of the Allied centre. And
   although the Emperor was obliged to detach one-half of his
   Guard to the right, because Blucher had brought into play
   beyond Planchenoit against Lobau nearly 80,000 men, still the
   capture of La Haye Sainte was justly regarded as a grave
   event. Wellington during the cavalry fight had moved three
   brigades on his right nearer to Hougoumont, and had called up
   Chassé and his Belgians to support them; and it was a little
   before this time that he cried out to Brigadier-General Adam,
   'By G—, Adam, I think we shall beat them yet! … The crisis
   of the battle had come for Napoleon. Unable after eight hours'
   conflict to do more than capture La Haye Sainte; hardly
   pressed by the Prussians, now strong and aggressive; owing
   such success as he had obtained to the valour and discipline
   of his soldiers—the Emperor delivered his last stroke, not
   for victory—he could no longer hope to win—but for safety.
   He sent forward the last ten battalions of his Guard to assail
   the British right, and directed the whole remaining infantry
   force available to attack all along the line. The Guard
   marched onward in two columns, which came successively in
   contact with their opponents. Napier's guns and the British
   Guards, who rising from the ground showed across the head of
   the first column, fired heavily and charging drove them in
   confusion back towards La Belle Alliance; and the second
   column, struck in flank by the musketry of the 52nd and 95th
   was next broken by a bayonet charge and pursued by Colonel
   Colborne to and beyond the Charleroi road. As Ziethen's
   Prussians were falling upon the French near Pappelotte, and
   Pirch and Bulow wrestling with the Imperial Guard in
   Planchenoit, Wellington ordered the whole of the British line
   to advance. The cheers arising on the right where he was,
   extended along the front and gave new strength to the wearied
   soldiers. He led the way. As he neared the Charleroi road, the
   riflemen, full of Peninsular memories, began to cheer him as
   he galloped up, but he called out, 'No cheering, my lads;
   forward and complete your victory.' He found that good
   soldier, Colborne, halted for a moment before three squares of
   the rallied Imperial Guard. 'Go on, Colborne,' he said;
   'better attack them, they won't stand.' Nor did they.
   Wellington then turned to the right, where Vivian's Light
   Cavalry were active in the gloom, and we next find him once
   more with the 52nd near Rossomme, the farthest point of the
   advance, where that regiment halted after its grand march over
   the battlefield. Somewhere on the highway he met Blucher, who had
   so nobly kept his word, and it was then that Gneisenau
   undertook to chase the fugitives over the frontier. The
   French, or perhaps we should say the Napoleonic army, was
   destroyed, and the power which its mighty leader had built up
   on the basis of its astonishing successes was gone for ever."

      _G. Hooper,
      Wellington,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Gardner,
      Quatre Bras, Ligny, and Waterloo._

      _Lieutenant Colonel C. C. Chesney,
      Waterloo Lectures._

      _W. Siborne,
      History of the War in France and Belgium in 1819._

      _General Sir J. S. Kennedy,
      Notes on the Battle of Waterloo._

      _W. H. Maxwell,
      Life of Wellington,
      volume 8, chapters 28-32._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Story of the Battle of Waterloo._

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      Great Commanders of Modern Times,
      and the Campaign of 1815._

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June-August).
   Napoleon's return to Paris.
   His final abdication.
   His surrender of himself to the English.
   His captivity at St. Helena.

   "The vanquished army had lost 200 pieces of ordnance, and
   80,000 men hors de combat or prisoners; as many more remained,
   independently of Grouchy's 85,000 men; but the difficulty was
   to rally them in presence of an enemy, that had taken lessons
   in audacity and activity from Napoleon himself. The loss of
   the allies was not less considerable, but there remained to
   them 150,000 men, the confidence of victory, and the certainty
   of being seconded by 300,000 allies, who were crossing the
   Rhine from Mentz to Bäle. Such was the issue of this struggle,
   commenced under such happy auspices, and which resulted more
   fatal to France than the battles of Poitiers and Azincourt. It
   must be admitted, that this disaster was the work of a
   multitude of unheard-of circumstances: if Napoleon can be
   reproached for certain faults, it must be allowed that fortune
   dealt cruelly with him in the lesser details, and that his
   enemies, in return, were as fortunate as they showed
   themselves skillful.
{1365}
   However unjust be the spirit of party, we are forced to render
   homage to the merits of two generals, who, unexpectedly
   attacked in their cantonments extending from Dinant and Liège
   to Renaix, near Tournay, had taken such wise measures as to be
   in condition next morning for giving battle to equal forces,
   and for afterwards conquering by an able concentration of the
   two armies. … In the very battle of Waterloo, the French
   might be censured for having attempted the first attack in
   masses too deep. This system was never successful against the
   murderous fire of English infantry and artillery.  … There
   were likewise extraordinary charges of cavalry, which, being
   devoid of support, became heroic but useless struggles.
   Notwithstanding all this, it is almost certain that Napoleon
   would have remained master of the field of battle, but for the
   arrival of 65,000 Prussians on his rear; a decisive and
   disastrous circumstance, that to prevent was not entirely in
   his power. As soon as the enemy led 130,000 men on the
   battle-field, with scarcely 50,000 to oppose them, all was
   lost. … Napoleon had but one course left him, which was to
   direct Grouchy through the Ardennes on Laon; to collect at
   this point all that could be drawn from the interior, from
   Metz and from Rapp's corps, leaving but garrisons in Lorraine
   and Alsace. The imperial cause was very much shaken, put not
   entirely lost; should all Frenchmen determine on opposing
   Europe with the courage of the Spartans of Leonidas, the
   energy of the Russians in 1812, or of the Spaniards of
   Palafox. Unfortunately for them, as·for Napoleon, opinion was
   very much divided on this subject, and the majority still
   believing that the struggle interested only the power of the
   emperor and his family, the fate of the country seemed of
   little consequence. Prince Jerome had collected 25,000 men in
   rear of Avesnes: he was ordered to lead them to Laon; there
   remained 200 pieces of artillery, beside those of Grouchy. …
   Reaching Loon on the 19th, where he had at first resolved to
   await the junction of Grouchy and Jerome, the emperor
   discussed, with the small number of the trustworthy who had
   followed him, the course he should adopt after this frightful
   disaster. Should he repair to Paris, and concert with the
   chambers and his ministers, or else remain with the army,
   demanding of the chambers to invest him with dictatorial power
   and an unlimited confidence, under the conviction that he
   would obtain from them the most energetic measures, for saving
   France and conquering her independence, on heaps of ruins? As
   it always happens, his generals were divided in opinion; some
   wished him to proceed to Paris, and deposit the crown into the
   hands of the nation's delegates, or receive it from them a
   second time, with the means of defending it. Others, with a
   better appreciation of the views of the deputies, affirmed,
   that far from sympathizing with Napoleon, and seconding him,
   they would accuse him of having lost France, and would
   endeavor to save the country by losing the emperor. …
   Lastly, the most prudent thought that Napoleon should not go
   to Paris, but remain at the head of the army, in order to
   treat with the sovereigns himself, by offering to abdicate in
   favor of his son. It is said, that Napoleon inclined to the
   idea of remaining at Laon with the army; but the advice of the
   greatest number determined him, and he departed for Paris."

      _Baron de Jomini,
      History of the Campaign of Waterloo,
      pages 184-189._

   "It was a moment of unrelieved despair for the public men who
   gathered round him on his return to Paris, and among these
   were several whose fame was of earlier date than his own. La
   Fayette, the man of 1789; Carnot, organizer of victory to the
   Convention; Lucien, who had decided the revolution of
   Brumaire,—all these met in that comfortless deliberation.
   Carnot was for a dictatorship of public safety, that is, for
   renewing his great days of 1793; Lucien too liked the Roman
   sound of the word dictator. 'Dare!' he said to his brother,
   but the spring of that terrible will was broken at last. 'I
   have dared too much already;' said Napoleon. Meanwhile, in the
   Chamber of Representatives the word was not dictatorship but
   liberty. Here La Fayette caused the assembly to vote itself
   permanent, and to declare guilty of high treason whoever
   should attempt to dissolve it. He hinted that, if the word
   abdication were not soon pronounced on the other side, he
   would himself pronounce the word 'dechéance.' The second
   abdication took place on June 22d. 'I offer myself a sacrifice
   to the hatred of the enemies of France. My public life is
   finished, and I proclaim my son, under the title of Napoleon
   II., Emperor of the French.' On the 25th he retired to
   Malmaison, where Josephine had died the year before. He had by
   no means yet ceased to hope. When his son was passed over by
   the Chamber of Representatives, who named an executive
   commission of five, he protested that he had not intended to
   make way for a new Directory. … On the 27th he went so far
   as to offer his services once more as general, 'regarding
   myself still as the first soldier of the nation;' He was met
   by a refusal, and left Malmaison on the 29th for Rochefort,
   well furnished with books on the United States. France was by
   this time entering upon another Reign of Terror. Massacre had
   begun at Marseilles as early as the 25th. What should Napoleon
   do? He had been formerly the enemy of every other nation, and
   now he was the worst enemy, if not of France, yet of the
   triumphant faction in France. He lingered some days at
   Rochefort, where he had arrived on July 3d, and then, finding
   it impossible to escape the vigilance of the English cruisers,
   went on the 15th on board the 'Bellerophon' and surrendered
   himself to Captain Maitland. It was explained to him that no
   conditions could be accepted, but that he would be 'conveyed
   to England to be received in such manner as the Prince Regent
   should deem expedient:' He had written at the Île d'Aix the
   following characteristic letter to the Prince Regent:—'Royal
   Highness,—A prey to the factions which divide my country and
   to the enmity of the powers of Europe, I have terminated my
   public career, and I come, like Themistocles, to seat myself
   at the hearth of the British people. I place myself under the
   protection of its laws, which I claim from your Royal Highness
   as the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous
   of my enemies.' It was perhaps the only course open to him. In
   France his life could scarcely have been spared, and Blücher
   talked of executing him on the spot where the Duc d'Enghien
   had fallen. He therefore could do nothing but what he did. His
   reference to Themistocles shows that he was conscious of
   being the worst enemy that England had ever had.
{1366}
   Perhaps he remembered that at the rupture of the treaty of
   Amiens he had studied to envenom the contest by detaining the
   English residents in France. Still he might reflect, on the
   other hand, that England was the only great country which had
   not been trampled down and covered with massacre by his
   soldiers. It would have been inexcusable if the English
   Government had given way to vindictive feelings, especially as
   they could well afford to be magnanimous, having just won the
   greatest of all victories. But it was necessary to deprive him
   of the power of exciting new wars, and the experiment of Elba
   had shown that this involved depriving him of his liberty. The
   frenzy which had cost·the lives of millions must be checked. This
   was the principle laid down in the declaration of March 15th,
   by which he had been excommunicated as a public enemy. It was
   therefore necessary to impose some restraint upon him. He must
   be separated from his party and from all the revolutionary
   party in Europe. So long as he remained in Europe this would
   involve positive imprisonment. The only arrangement therefore
   which would allow him tolerable personal comfort and enjoyment
   of life, was to send him out of Europe. From these
   considerations grew the decision of the Government to send him
   to St. Helena. An Act of Parliament was passed 'for the better
   detaining in custody Napoleon Bonaparte,' and another Act for
   subjecting St. Helena to a special system of government. He
   was kept on board the 'Bellerophon' till August 4th, when he
   was transferred to the 'Northumberland.' On October 15th he
   arrived at St. Helena, accompanied by Counts Montholon, Las
   Cases, and Bertrand, with their families, General Gourgaud,
   and a number of servants. In April, 1816, arrived Sir Hudson
   Lowe, an officer who had been knighted for bringing the news
   of the capture of Paris in 1814, as governor. The rest of his
   life, which continued till May 5, 1821, was occupied partly in
   quarrels with this governor, which have now lost their
   interest, partly in the task he had undertaken at the time of
   his first abdication, that of relating his past life. He did
   not himself write this narrative, nor does it appear that he
   even dictated it word for word. It is a report made partly by
   General Gourgaud, partly by Count Montholon, of Napoleon's
   impassioned recitals; but they assure us that this report, as
   published, has been read and corrected throughout by him. It
   gives a tolerably complete account of the period between the
   siege of Toulon and the battle of Marengo. On the later period
   there is little, except a memoir on the campaign of 1815, to
   which the editors of the Correspondence have been able to add
   another on Elba and the Hundred Days."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Short History of Napoleon I.,
      chapter 6, section 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count de Las Cases,
      Life, Exile and Conversations of Napoleon._

      _General Count Montholon,
      History of the Captivity of Napoleon._

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of the Captivity of Napoleon._

      _B. E. O'Meara,
      Napoleon in Exile._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapters 49-56._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      chapters 61-62 (volume 5)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (July-November).
   English and Prussian armies in Paris.
   Return of Louis XVIII.
   Restoration of the art-spoils or Napoleon.
   Indemnities demanded.
   Russian, Austrian and Spanish armies on French soil.
   The second Treaty or Paris.

   "The 7th of July was the proudest day in the annals of
   England. On that day her victorious army, beaded by
   Wellington, made their public entry, along with the Prussians,
   into Paris, where an English drum had not been heard for
   nearly four hundred years. … The French regarded them with
   melancholy hearts and anxious looks. Few persons were to be
   seen in the streets. … The English established themselves in
   the Bois de Boulogne in a regular camp; the Prussians
   bivouacked in the churches, on the quays, and in the principal
   streets. On the following day Louis, who had followed in the
   rear of the English army from Ghent, made his public entrance,
   escorted by the national guard. But his entry was attended by
   still more melancholy circumstances, and of sinister augury to
   the future stability of his dynasty. Even the royalists were
   downcast; their patriotic feelings were deeply wounded by the
   defeat of France. … There was something in the restoration
   of the monarch by the arms of the old rivals and enemies of
   France which added inexpressibly to its bitterness. … The
   reality of subjugation was before their eyes. Blucher kept
   aloof from all intercourse with the court, and haughtily
   demanded a contribution of 100,000,000 francs … for the pay
   of his troops, as Napoleon had done from the Prussians at
   Berlin. Already the Prussian soldiers insisted with loud cries
   that the pillar of Austerlitz should be pulled down, as
   Napoleon had destroyed the pillar of Rosbach; and Blucher was
   so resolute to destroy the bridge of Jena, that he had
   actually begun operations by running mines under the arches
   for blowing it up. … Wellington as steadily resisted the
   ruthless act, but he had great difficulty in maintaining his
   point; and it was only by his placing a sentinel on the
   bridge, and repeated and earnest remonstrances, that the
   destruction of that beautiful monument was prevented. … A
   still more melancholy humiliation than they had yet
   experienced ere long befell the French nation. The Allied
   sovereigns now arrived in Paris, and insisted upon the
   restoration of the objects of art in the museum of the Louvre,
   which had been pillaged from their respective states by the
   orders of Napoleon. The justice of this demand could not be
   contested: it was only wresting the prey from the robber. …
   Nothing wounded the French so profoundly as this breaking up
   of the trophies of the war. It told them, in language not to
   be misunderstood, that conquest had now reached their doors:
   the iron went into the soul of the nation. A memorial from all
   the artists of Europe at Rome claimed for the Eternal City the
   entire restoration of the immortal works of art which had once
   adorned it. The Allied sovereigns acceded to the just demand;
   and Canova, impassioned for the arts and the city of his
   choice, hastened to Paris to superintend the removal. It was
   most effectually done. The bronze horses … [from Venice]
   were restored to their old station in front of the Church of
   St. Mark. The Transfiguration and the Last Communion of St.
   Jerome resumed their place in the halls of the Vatican; the
   Apollo and the Laocoon again adorned the precincts of St.
   Peter's; the Venus was enshrined anew amidst beauty in the
   Tribune of Florence; and the Descent from the Cross by Rubens
   was restored to the devout worship of the Flemings in the
   cathedral of Antwerp. …
{1367}
   The claims preferred by the different Allied powers for
   restitution not merely of celebrated objects of art, but of
   curiosities and valuable articles of all kinds, which had been
   carried off by the French during their occupation of the
   different countries of Europe, especially under Napoleon, were
   immense, and demonstrated at once the almost incredible length
   to which the system of spoliation and robbery had been carried
   by the republican and imperial authorities. Their amount may
   be estimated by one instance from an official list, prepared
   by the Prussian authorities in 1815, It appears that, during
   the years 1806 and 1807, there had been violently taken from
   the Prussian states, on the requisition of M. Donore, and
   brought to Paris,—statues, paintings, antiquities, cameos,
   manuscripts, maps, gems, antiques, rarities, and other
   valuable articles, the catalogue of which occupies 53 closely
   printed pages of M. Schoell's valuable Recueil. Among them are
   127 paintings, many of them of the very highest value, taken from
   the palaces of Berlin and Potsdam alone; 187 statues, chiefly
   antique, taken from the same palaces during the same period;
   and 86 valuable manuscripts and documents seized in the city
   of Aix-la-Chapelle, on the occupation of that city, then a
   neutral power, in 1803, by the armies of the First Consul on
   the invasion of Hanover. The total articles reclaimed by the
   Prussians exceeded two thousand. … The claims of states and
   cities for indemnity on account of' the enormous exactions
   made from them by the French generals, under the authority of
   the Convention and the Emperor, were still more extraordinary.
   … The vast amount of these claims for indemnities in money
   or territories, and the angry feelings with which they were
   urged, were of sinister augury to the French nation, and
   augmented, in a most serious degree, the difficulties
   experienced by those who were intrusted with the conduct of
   the negotiations. But, be they what they may, the French had
   no means of resisting them; all they could trust to was the
   moderation or jealousies of their conquerors. The force which,
   during the months of July and August, advanced from all
   quarters into their devoted territory, was immense, and such
   as demonstrated that, if Napoleon had not succeeded in
   dissolving the alliance by an early victory in the
   Netherlands, the contest, even without the battle of Waterloo,
   would have been hopeless. The united armies of Russians and
   Austrians, 350,000 strong, under Schwartzenberg and Barclay de
   Tolly, crossed the Rhine in various places from Bâle to
   Coblentz, and, pressing rapidly forward, soon occupied the
   whole eastern provinces of France. The Austrians and
   Piedmontese, a hundred thousand more; passed Mont Cenis, or
   descended the Rhone, from Geneva to Lyons. The Spaniards made
   their appearance in Bearn or Roussillon. The armies of Blucher
   and Wellington, now reinforced to 200,000 effective men,
   occupied Paris, its environs, Normandy, and Picardy. Eighty
   thousand Prussians and Germans, in addition, were advancing
   through the Rhenish provinces and Belgium. Before the Allied
   sovereigns returned to Paris, in the middle of July, the
   French territory was occupied by 800,000 men, to oppose which
   no considerable force remained but the army beyond the Loire,
   which mustered 65,000 combatants. … Austria insisted upon
   getting back Lorraine and Alsace; Spain put in a claim to the
   Basque provinces; Prussia alleged that her security would be
   incomplete unless Mayence, Luxembourg, and all the frontier
   provinces of France adjoining her territory, were ceded to
   her; and the King of the Netherlands claimed the whole of the
   French fortresses of the Flemish barrier. The monarchy of
   Louis seemed on the eve of dissolution; and so complete was
   the prostration of the vanquished, that there appeared no
   power capable of preventing it. It was with no small
   difficulty, and more from the mutual jealousies of the
   different powers than any other cause, that these natural
   reprisals for French rapacity were prevented from taking
   place. The negotiation was protracted at Paris till late in
   autumn; Russia, which had nothing to gain by the proposed
   partition, took part with France throughout its whole
   continuance; and the different powers, to support their
   pretensions in this debate, maintained their armies, who had
   entered on all sides, on the French soil; so that above
   800,000 foreign troops were quartered on its inhabitants for
   several months. At length, however, by the persevering efforts
   of Lord Castlereagh, M. Nesselrode, and M. Talleyrand, all
   difficulties were adjusted, and the second treaty of Paris was
   concluded in November 1815, between France and the whole
   Allied powers. By this treaty, and the relative conventions
   which were signed the same day, conditions of a very onerous
   kind were imposed upon the restored government. The French
   frontier was restored to the state in which it stood in 1790,
   by which means the whole of the territory, far from
   inconsiderable, gained by the treaty of 1814, was resumed by
   the Allies. In consequence of this, France lost the fortresses
   of Landau, Sarre-Louis, Philipville, and Marienburg, with the
   adjacent territory of each. Versoix, with a small district
   round it, was ceded to the canton of Geneva; the fortress of
   Huningen was to be demolished; but the little country of the
   Venaisin, the first conquest of the Revolution, was preserved
   to France. Seven hundred millions of francs (£28,000,000
   sterling) were to be paid to the Allied powers for the
   expenses of the war; in addition to which it was stipulated
   that an army of 150,000 men, composed of 80,000 from each of
   the great powers of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and
   the lesser powers of Germany, was to occupy, for a period not
   less than three, or more than five years, the whole frontier
   fortresses of France; … and this large force was to be
   maintained entirely at the expense of the French government.
   In addition to this, the different powers obtained indemnities
   for the spoliations inflicted on them by France during the
   Revolution, which amounted to the enormous sum of 735,000,000
   of francs more (£29,400,000 sterling). A hundred millions of
   francs were also provided to the smaller powers as an
   indemnity for the expenses of the war; so that the total sums
   which France had to pay, besides maintaining the army of
   occupation, amounted to no less than fifteen hundred and
   thirty-five millions of francs, or £61,400,000 sterling. …
   Great Britain, in a worthy spirit, surrendered the whole sum
   falling to her out of the indemnity for the war, amounting to
   nearly £5,000,000 sterling, to the King of the Netherlands, to
   restore the famous barrier against France which Joseph II. had
   so insanely demolished."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 95 (volume 20)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Prince de Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 9 (volume 8)._

      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      Number 40 (volume 1)._

{1368}

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (September).
   The Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
   The restored monarchy.
   Louis XVIII. and Charles X.
   Career of the Reactionaries.
   Conquest of Algiers.
   Ordinances of July.
   Revolution.
   Abdication and exile of the king.

   "France was defeated but not crushed. Indeed she had gained
   Avignon and some districts of Alsace since 1792, and she had
   gained social and political stability by having millions of
   peasants as small proprietors in the soil; moreover, as
   Napoleon always waged his wars at the expense of his conquered
   foes, the French national debt was after all the wars only
   one-sixth of the debt of Great Britain. So France soon rose to
   a position of strength and prosperity hardly equalled in all
   Europe, in spite of bad harvests, political unrest, and the
   foreign occupation which ended in 1818. The royalists, after a
   quarter of a century of repression, now revenged themselves
   with truly French vehemence. In France a victorious party
   generally crushes its opponents; and the elections, held
   during the full swing of the royalist reaction, sent up to
   Paris a Legislative Assembly 'more royalist than the king
   himself.' Before it assembled, Louis XVIII., in spite of his
   promise only to punish those who were declared by the Assembly
   to be traitors, proscribed fifty-seven persons who had
   deserted to Napoleon in the 'Hundred Days.' … Of the
   proscribed men thirty-eight were banished and a few were shot.
   Among the latter the most illustrious was Marshal Ney, whose
   past bravery did not shield him from the extreme penalty for
   the betrayal of the military oath. … This impolitic
   execution rankled deep in the breasts of all Napoleon's old
   soldiers, but for the present all opposition was swept away in
   the furious tide of reaction. Brune, one of Napoleon's
   marshals, was killed by the royalist populace of Avignon; and
   the Protestants of the south, who were suspected of favouring
   Napoleon's home policy, suffered terrible outrages at Nimes
   and Uzès in this 'white terror.' The restored monarchy had far
   stronger executive powers than the old system wielded before
   1789, for it now drew into its hands the centralised powers
   which, under the Directory and the Empire, had replaced the
   old cumbrous provincial system; but even this gain of power
   did not satisfy the hot-headed royalists of the Chamber. They
   instituted judicial courts under a provost (prévôt), which
   passed severe sentences without right of appeal. Dismissing
   the comparatively Liberal ministers Talleyrand and Fouché,
   Louis in September 1816 summoned a more royalist ministry
   under the Duc de Richelieu, which was itself hurried on by the
   reactionaries. Chateaubriand fanned the flames of royalist
   passion by his writings, until the king even found it
   necessary to dissolve this mischievous Chamber, and the new
   deputies who assembled (February 1817) showed a more moderate
   spirit. France was soon delivered from the foreign armies of
   occupation, for the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and
   Prussia, meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle (September 1818), in order
   to combat revolutionary attempts, decided that an early
   evacuation of French territory would strengthen the Bourbon
   rule in France; and they renewed the Quadruple Alliance, which
   aimed at upholding existing treaties. The discontent in
   Germany and Italy awakened a sympathetic echo in France, which
   showed itself in the retirement of the Duc de Richelieu and
   the accession of a more progressive minister, Decazes
   (November 1819). This check to the royalist reaction was soon
   swept away by an event of sinister import. The Duc de Berry,
   second son of the Comte d'Artois, was assassinated (February
   1820), as he was leaving the opera-house, by a fanatic who
   aimed at cutting off the direct Bourbon line (February 1820).
   His design utterly failed, for a posthumous son, the
   celebrated Comte de Chambord, was born in September 1820; and
   the only result was a new outburst of royalist fury. Liberty
   of the press was suspended, and a new complicated electoral
   system restricted the franchise to those who paid at least
   1,000 francs a year in direct taxation: the Chamber of
   Deputies, a fifth part of which was renewed every year by an
   electorate now representing only the wealthy, became every
   year more reactionary, while the Left saw its numbers decline.
   The Ultra-royalist ministry of Villèle soon in its turn
   aroused secret conspiracies, for the death of Napoleon (May 5,
   1821) was now awakening a feeling of regret for the
   comparative liberty enjoyed in France during the Empire.
   Military conspiracies were formed, only to be discovered and
   crushed, and the veteran republican Lafayette was thought to
   be concerned in a great attempt projected in the eastern
   departments with its headquarters at Belfort; and the terrible
   society of the Carbonari secretly spread its arms through the
   south of France, where it found soil as favourable as in Italy
   itself. … A revolution in Spain held Ferdinand a prisoner in
   his palace at Madrid. Louis determined to uphold the throne of
   his Bourbon relative, and sent an army which quickly effected
   its object (1823). 'The Pyrenees no longer exist,' exclaimed
   Louis XVIII. In fact, everywhere in Europe absolutism seemed
   to be triumphant, and the elections of December 1823 sent up a
   further reinforcement to the royalist party; also the
   approaching end of the sensible old king foreshadowed a period
   of still more violent reaction under his hot-headed brother
   Charles. Louis XVIII. died on September 16, 1824, At his death
   the restoration seemed firmly established. … France had
   quickly recovered from twenty years of warfare, and was
   thought to have the strongest government in Europe. Always the
   chief of the reactionary nobles, Charles had said, 'It is only
   Lafayette and I who have not changed since 1789.' Honest,
   sincere, and affable as the new king was, yet his popularity
   soon vanished when it was seen how entirely he was under the
   control of his confessor; and the ceremonies of his coronation
   at Rheims showed that he intended to revive the almost
   forgotten past. In Guizot's words, 'Louis XVIII was a moderate
   of the old system and a liberal-minded inheritor of the 18th
   century: Charles X. was a true Émigré, and a submissive bigot'
   Among the first bills which Charles proposed to the Chambers was
   one to indemnify those who had lost their lands in the
   Revolution. To give these lands back would have caused general
   unsettlement among thousands of small cultivators; but the
   former landowners received an indemnity of a milliard of
   francs, which they exclaimed against for its insufficiency
   just as loudly as the radicals did for its extravagance: by
   this tardy act of justice the State endeavoured to repair some
   of the unjust confiscations of the revolutionary era. …
{1369}
   The attempts made by the Jesuits to regain their legal status
   in France, in spite of the prohibition dating from before the
   fall of the old regime, aroused further hostility to the king,
   who was well known to favour their cause. Nothing, however, so
   strengthened the growing opposition in the Chambers and in the
   country at large as a rigorous measure aimed at the
   newspapers, pamphlets, and books which combated the clerical
   reaction. These publications were to pay a stamp duty per
   page, while crushing fines were devised to ruin the offending
   critics. One of the leaders of the opposition, Casimir Périer,
   exclaimed against this measure as ruinous to trade: 'Printing
   would be suppressed in France and transferred to Belgium.' The
   king persevered in his mad enterprise: he refused to receive a
   petition from the most august literary society in Europe, the
   Académie Française, and cashiered its promoters as if they
   were clerks under his orders. Strange to say, the Chamber of
   Deputies passed the measure, while that of the Peers rejected
   it—an event greeted by illuminations all over Paris (April
   1827). A few days afterwards, at a review of the National
   Guards in Paris, the troops raised cries for the liberty of
   the press and for the charter granted in 1815. The next day
   they were disbanded by royal command, but were foolishly
   allowed to retain their arms, which were soon to be used
   against the government. Charles next created seventy-six new
   peers to outvote his opponents in the Upper House. He also
   dissolved the Chamber of Deputies, but found the new members
   less pliable. Finally, Charles had to give way for the time,
   and accept a more moderate ministry under Martignac in place
   of the reactionary Villèle Cabinet. … Charles was soon able
   to dismiss this ministry, the last hope of conciliation, and
   formed (August 1829) a ministry under Count Polignac, one of
   whose colleagues was the General Bourmont who had deserted to
   the allies the day before Waterloo. The king's speech at the
   opening of the next session (March 1830) was curt and
   threatening, and the Chamber was soon prorogued. Reform
   banquets, a custom which the French borrowed from English
   reformers, increased the agitation, which the Polignac
   ministry vainly sought to divert by ambitious projects of
   invasion and partition of some neighbouring States. The only
   practical outcome of these projects was the conquest of the
   pirate stronghold of Algiers. This powerful fortress had been
   bombarded and reduced by Lord Exmouth with the British fleet
   in 1816, and the captives, mostly Italians, were released from
   that den of slave-dealers; but the Dey of Algiers had resumed
   his old habits, complaints from the French were met by
   defiance, and at last the French envoy quitted the harbor amid
   a shower of bullets. A powerful expedition effected a landing
   near the strongly-fortified harbour, and easily beat back the
   native attack; and then from the land side soon battered down
   the defences of the city.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

   Thus the city which had long been the terror of Mediterranean
   sailors became the nucleus of the important French colony of
   Algeria (July 4, 1830). The design of Charles X. and of his
   reactionary Polignac ministry to divert the French people from
   domestic grievances to foreign conquest needed the genius and
   strength of a Napoleon to ensure success. The mere fact of the
   expedition being Under the command of the hated General
   Bourmont had made it unpopular. … So, although the victory
   was triumphantly announced throughout France, yet the
   elections sent up a majority hostile to the king.
   Nevertheless, with his usual blind obstinacy, Charles on the
   25th July 1830 issued the famous ordinances which brought
   matters to a crisis. The first suspended the liberty of the
   press, and placed books under a strict censorship; the second
   dissolved the newly-elected Chamber of Deputies; the third
   excluded licensed dealers (patentés) from the franchise; the
   fourth summoned a new Chamber under the new conditions, every
   one of which violated the charter granted by the late king.
   The Parisians at once flew to arms, and raised barricades in
   the many narrow streets which then favoured street-defence.
   Marmont, hated by the people as being the first of Napoleon's
   marshals who had treated with the allies, was to quell the
   disturbances with some 20,000 troops of the line; but on the
   second day's fighting (July 28) the insurgents, aided by the
   disbanded National Guards, and veterans of the empire, beat
   back the troops; and on the third day the royal troops, cut
   off from food and supplies, and exhausted by the heat, gave
   way before the tri-colour flag; the defection of two line
   regiments left the Louvre unguarded; a panic spread among
   other regiments, and soon the tri-colour floated above the
   Tuileries. Charles thereupon set the undignified example, soon
   to be followed by so many kings and, princes, of giving way
   when it was too late. He offered to withdraw the hated
   ordinances, but was forced to flee from St. Cloud. He then
   tried the last expedient, also doomed to failure, of
   abdicating in favour of his little grandson the Duc de
   Bordeaux, since better known as the Comte de Chambord.
   Retiring slowly with his family to Cherbourg, the baffled
   monarch set out for a second and last exile, spent first at
   Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, and ended at Göritz in Bohemia.
   More than 5,000 civilians and 700 soldiers were killed or
   wounded in these terrible 'three days' of July 1830, which
   ended all attempts to re-establish the tyranny of the old
   régime. The victims were appropriately buried in the Place de
   la Bastille. They freed not France alone, but dealt a fierce
   blow at the system of Metternich."

      _J. H. Rose,
      Century of Continental History,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Turnbull,
      The French Revolution of 1830._

      _A. de Lamartine,
      The Restoration of Monarchy in France,
      books 32-50 (volumes 3-4)._

      _E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII.
      and Charles X._

      _Prince de Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 10 (volumes 3-4)._

      _G. L. Dickinson,
      Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
      chapter 3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1822:
   The Congress of Verona.
   French intervention in Spain approved.

      See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.

FRANCE: A. D. 1823-1827.
   Interference in Spain to suppress the revolution and reinstate
   King Ferdinand.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

FRANCE: A. D. 1827-1829.
   Intervention on behalf of Greece.
   Battle of Navarino.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

{1370}

FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
   The monarchy renewed under Louis Philippe.
   Its steady drift from the constitutional course.

   "The Constitutional party set their hopes on Louis Philippe,
   Duke of Orleans. This prince, born in 1773, was the son of
   that notorious 'Egalité' who during the revolution had ended
   his checkered career under the guillotine. His grandmother was
   the noble Elizabeth Charlotte, a native of the Palatinate, who
   had the misfortune to be the wife of the effeminate Duke of
   Orleans, brother of Louis XIV. Louis Philippe was a Bourbon,
   like King Charles; but the opposition of several members of
   this Orleans branch of the royal house had caused it to be
   regarded as a separate family. From his youth up he had
   displayed a great deal of popular spirit and common-sense. …
   Seemingly created by his nature and career to be a citizen
   king, he had long since, as early as 1814, determined to
   accept the throne in case it were offered him." The offer came
   in 1830 with the revolution of July. On the 31st of that month
   he accepted the office of lieutenant-general of the kingdom,
   conferred by the vote of a meeting of fifty delegates. "The
   'Society of the Friends of the People' [an organization of the
   pronounced republicans], not very well pleased with this result
   of the 'great week' [as the week of the revolution was
   called], laid before Lafayette, on the following day," their
   programme, "and commissioned him to make the duke guarantee
   the popular rights therein set forth by his signature. With
   this document in his pocket, Lafayette made his … visit to
   Louis Philippe in the Palais Royal. In the course of
   conversation he said to him, 'You know that I am a republican,
   and consider the American constitution the most perfect.' 'I
   am of the same opinion,' replied the duke; 'no one could have
   been two years in America and not share that view. But do you
   think that that constitution could be adopted in France in its
   present condition—with the present state of popular opinion?'
   'No,' said Lafayette; 'what France needs is a popular monarchy
   surrounded by republican—thoroughly
   republican—institutions.' 'There I quite agree with you,'
   rejoined Louis Philippe. Enchanted with this political
   harmony, the old general considered it unnecessary to present
   the programme, and went security to the republicans for the
   duke, the patriot, of 1789. … On the 3d of August the
   Chamber was opened by the Duke of Orleans, and the abdication
   of the king and dauphin announced. … The question whether
   the constitution was to be changed, and how, gave rise to an
   animated contest between radicals and liberals. The confidence
   in Louis Philippe was so great, that they were content with a
   few improvements. The throne was declared vacant, and Louis
   Philippe proclaimed king of the French. … August 8th, Louis
   Philippe appeared in the Palais Bourbon, took the oath to the
   constitution, and was thereupon proclaimed king. … None of
   the great monarchs had so difficult a task as Louis Philippe.
   If he attached himself to the majority of his people and
   showed himself in earnest with 'the republican institutions
   which ought to surround the throne,' he had all the
   continental powers against him; if he inclined toward the
   absolute system of the latter, then not alone the extreme
   parties, but also the men of the constitutional monarchy, …
   rose against him. … His system, which he himself named a
   happy medium (juste milieu), would have been a happy medium if
   he had struck the middle and kept it; but he gradually swerved
   so much toward the right that the middle was far to his left.
   From the outset he had three parties against him—Legitimists,
   Bonapartists, and Republicans." At intervals, there were
   demonstrations and insurrections undertaken in the interest of
   each of these. In July, 1835, the assassination of the king
   was attempted, by the explosion of an infernal machine, which
   killed and wounded sixty people. "The whole Republican party
   was unjustly made responsible for this attempt, and new blows
   were struck at the juries and the Press. Every Press offence
   involving a libel of the king or the administration was to be
   tried from this time on before the Court of Peers, and the
   composition of that body rendered conviction certain. With
   these September laws' the reaction was complete, the power of
   the Republicans was broken. Their activity did not cease,
   however. Their numerous societies continued to exist in
   secret, and to the political affiliated themselves the social
   societies, which … demanded, among other impossibilities,
   the abolition of private property. It was these baleful
   excrescences which deprived republicanism of all credit, and
   outbreaks like that of May 12th, 1839, where a few hundred
   members of the 'Society of the Seasons,' with Barbès and
   Blanqui at their head, disarmed military posts and proclaimed
   the republic, found not the slightest response. The repeated
   attempts which were made on the king's life were also
   unsuccessful." The relations of Louis Philippe "to foreign
   powers became better the more he approximated to their system,
   putting restraints upon societies, the Press, and juries, and
   energetically crushing popular revolts. Naturally he was by
   this very means constantly further estranging the mass of the
   people. … What the Legitimists and Republicans had not
   effected—a change of government—the Napoleonids now took in
   hand." Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of ex-king Louis of
   Holland and Hortense Beauharnais, made his appearance among
   the soldiers of the garrison at Strasburg, October 30, 1836,
   with the expectation that they would proclaim him emperor and
   set the example of a rising in his favor. But the attempt was
   a wretched failure; Louis Napoleon was arrested and
   contemptuously sent out of the country, to America, without
   punishment. In 1840 he repeated his undertaking, at Boulogne,
   more abortively than in the first instance; was again made
   prisoner, and was consigned, this time, to the castle of Ham,
   from which he escaped six years later. "All the world laughed
   at his folly; but without the scenes of Strasburg and
   Boulogne, and the martyrdom of a six years' imprisonment, his
   name certainly would not have produced such an effect in the
   year 1848."

      _W. Miller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      sections 7 and 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Blanc,
      History of Ten Years, 1830-1840._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time,
      volumes 3-4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Intervention in the Netherlands.
   Siege of Antwerp.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1840.
   The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1846.
   The subjugation of Algeria.
   War with Abd-el-Kader.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D.1830-1846.

{1371}

FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
   The limited electoral body and its corruption.
   Agitation for reform.
   The suppressed banquet at Paris and the
   revolution which followed.
   Abdication and flight of the king.

   "The monarchy of Louis Philippe lasted for 18 years. But the
   experiment was practicable only so long as the throne rested
   on a small body of obedient electors. The qualification for
   the franchise was so high that it was held only by 200,000
   people. So small a constituency could, be 'managed' by the
   skill of M. Guizot and M. Thiers [who were the chief rivals of
   the time in political leadership]. It could be 'managed'
   through gifts of places, bribes, the influence of local
   magnates, and the pressure of public officials. There was
   never perhaps so corrupt an electoral body. … M. Guizot, who
   was an austere puritan at home, and who has entered into a
   competition with Saint Augustin as a writer of religious
   meditations, raised many sneers to the lips of worldlings, not
   only by lending his hand to the infamous intrigue of the
   Spanish Marriages, but by allowing his subordinates to traffic
   in places for the sake of getting votes. His own hands, of
   course, were clean; no one spoke a whisper against his
   personal purity. But he seemed to have much practical sympathy
   with the advice which Pitt, in one of Landor's 'Imaginary
   Conversations,' gives to his young disciple Canning. Pecuniary
   corruption was the very breath of life to the constitutional
   monarchy. The voters were bought as freely as if they had
   stood in the market-place. The system admirably suited the
   purpose of the little family party of princes and
   parliamentary chiefs who ruled the country. But it was as
   artificial and fleeting as the sand castles which a child
   builds on the edge of the advancing tide."

   _J. Macdonell,
   France since the First Empire,
   pages 172-174._

   "The population of France was then 34,000,000, and the
   privilege of the political franchise was vested exclusively in
   those who paid in direct taxes a sum not less than £8. This
   class numbered little more than 200,000. … The government
   had 130,000 places at its disposal, and the use which was made
   of these during the 18 years of Louis Philippe's reign was
   productive of corruption more widespread and shameless than
   France had known since the first revolution. In the scarcely
   exaggerated language used by M. de Lamartine, the government
   had 'succeeded in making of a nation of citizens a vile band
   of beggars.' It was obvious to all who desired the
   regeneration of France that reform must begin with the
   representation of the people. To this end the liberals
   directed much effort. They did not as yet propose universal
   suffrage, and their leaders were divided between an extension
   of the franchise to all who paid £2 of direct taxes and an
   extension, which went no lower than £4. The demand for reform
   was resisted by the government. … Among the leaders of the
   liberal party were men of high character and commanding
   influence. Arago, Odillon Barrot, Louis Blanc, Thiers,
   Lamartine, were formidable assailants for the strongest
   government to encounter. Under their guidance the agitation
   for reform assumed dimensions exceedingly embarrassing and
   even alarming. For once France borrowed from England her
   method of political agitation. Reform banquets, attended by
   thousands of persons, were held in all the chief towns, and
   the pressure of a peaceful public opinion was employed to
   obtain the remedy of a great wrong. The police made feeble
   attempts to prevent such gatherings, but were ordinarily
   unsuccessful. But the king and M. Guizot, strong in the
   support of the army and a purchased majority of the deputies,
   and apparently little aware of the vehemence of the popular
   desire, made no effort to satisfy or propitiate. Louis
   Philippe had wisely set a high value on the maintenance of
   cordial relations with England. … The Queen of England
   gratified him by a visit [1843], which he returned a few
   months after. … During these visits there was much
   conversation regarding a Spanish matter which was then of some
   interest. The Spanish government was looking around to find
   suitable husbands for their young queen and her sister. The
   hands of the princesses were offered to two sons of Louis
   Philippe. But … England looked with disfavour upon a close
   alliance between the crowns of France and Spain. The king
   would not offend England. He declined the hand of the Spanish
   queen, but accepted that of her sister for his fourth son, the
   Duc de Montpensier. Queen Victoria and her ministers approved
   of that marriage on the condition voluntarily offered by King
   Louis, that it should not take place till the Spanish queen
   was married and had children. But in a few years the king
   violated his pledge, and pressed upon Spain an arrangement
   under which the two marriages were celebrated together [1846].
   … To Louis Philippe himself the transaction was calamitous.
   He had broken his kingly word, and he stood before Europe and
   before his own people a dishonoured man. … Circumstances
   made it easy for the opposition to enhance the general
   discontent. Many evidences of shameless corruption were at
   this time brought to light. … The crops failed in 1845 and
   1846, and prices rose to a famine point. … The demand for
   parliamentary reform became constantly more urgent; but M.
   Guizot heeded it not. The reformers took up again their work
   of agitation. They announced a great procession and reform
   banquet. The police, somewhat hesitatingly, interdicted the
   demonstration, and its promoters resolved to submit; but the
   people, insufficiently informed of these movements, gathered
   for the procession in the early morning. All that day
   [February 22, 1848] the streets were thronged, and the
   excitement of the people increased from hour to hour; but few
   soldiers were seen, and consequently no conflict occurred.
   Next morning the strategic points of the city were garrisoned
   by a strong force of soldiers and national guards, and the
   people saw that the government feared them. Business was
   suspended, and the constantly rising agitation foretold
   irrepressible tumults. The men of the faubourgs appeared once
   more. Towards evening a few barricades were thrown up, and a
   few gunsmiths' shops were plundered. Worst of all, the
   national guard appeared to sympathize with the people. … To
   appease the angry mob, no measure seemed so hopeful as the
   sacrifice of the ministry. Guizot resigned. Thiers and Odillon
   Barrot, chiefs of the liberal party, were received into the
   cabinet. Marshal Bugeaud was appointed to command the troops.
   But before the day closed a disaster had occurred which made
   all concession vain. Before one of the public offices there
   was stationed a battalion of infantry, around which there
   surged an excited crowd. A shot came from the crowd, and was
   promptly responded to by a volley which killed or wounded 50
   persons.
{1372}
   The bodies of the victims were placed on waggons and drawn
   along the streets, that the fury of the people might be
   excited to the highest pitch. During that sleepless night,
   Marshal Bugeaud, skilfully directing the forces which he
   commanded, had taken the barricades and effectively checked
   the rioters. But in early morning the new ministers ordered
   him to desist and withdraw his troops. They deemed it useless
   to resist. Concession was, in their view, the only avenue to
   tranquillity. The soldiers retired; the crowds pressed on to
   the Tuileries." The king, terrified by their approach, was
   persuaded to sign an abdication in favor of his grandson, the
   Comte de Paris, and to fly in haste, with his family, from the
   palace and from Paris. A week later the royal family "reached
   the coast and embarked for England, … their majesties
   travelling under the lowly but well-chosen incognito of Mr.
   and Mrs. Smith. … Immediately on the departure of the king,
   a provisional government was organized, with M. Lamartine at
   its head."

      _R. Mackenzie,
      The Nineteenth Century,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      France under Louis Philippe._

      _M. Caussidière,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1._

FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (February-May).
   The three months of Provisional Government.
   Its extraordinary measures.
   Its absolutism.
   Creation or the Ateliers Nationaux.
   The consequences.

   On the morning of February 24th—the morning of the king's
   flight—M. de Lamartine, entering the Palais Bourbon, where
   the Chamber of Deputies held its meetings, found in the
   vestibule seven or eight persons waiting for him. "Who they
   were we are not told—or what they were, except that they
   belonged to the newspaper press. Even the names of the papers
   with which they were connected are not expressly
   stated—though the 'National' and 'Réforme' are indicated.
   They demanded a secret conference. Lamartine took them into a
   distant apartment." There they "proposed to him to substitute
   for Louis-Philippe the Comte de Paris as king, and the Duchess
   of Orleans as regent, and to place him [Lamartine] over them
   minister." "Lamartine does not appear to have been surprised
   at the proposal. He does not appear to have doubted the power
   of seven or eight journalists to dethrone a king, create a
   regent, and appoint a minister! And he was right. The
   'National' and the 'Réforme,' whose representatives stood
   before him, did more than all this, a couple of hours after.
   … He objected to their scheme that such an arrangement would
   not last, and declared himself in favour of a republic, based
   on universal suffrage; … they expressed their conviction,
   and separated, agreed, apparently, on the course of action to
   be pursued.' A few hours later, the Chamber was invaded by a
   body of rioters, fresh from the sack of the Tuileries. The
   Duchess of Orleans, who had presented herself at the Chamber
   with her two children, fled before them. "M. Sauzet, the
   President, disappeared. Lamartine [who was speaking] remained
   in the tribune, and desired Dupont de l'Eure to take the
   vacant chair." Thereupon a Provisional Government was
   appointed, in some fashion not clearly detailed. It underwent
   certain changes, by unexplained additions, within the
   following day or two, but "in the 'Moniteur' of February 27
   (the third day of the existence of the Provisional
   Government), its members are arranged thus:—MM. Arago, Dupont
   de l'Eure, Albert (ouvrier), F. Marrast, F. Flocon, Lamartine,
   Marie, L. Blanc, Crémieux, Ledru Rollin, Garnier Pagès. …
   Within two days after its formation it was on the brink of
   ruin under an attack from the Terrorists [or Red Republicans,
   who assumed the red flag as their standard]. … The contest
   had left the members of the government in a state of mind
   which M. de Lamartine thinks peculiarly favourable to wise
   legislation. … 'Every member of the Council sought [he
   says], in the depths of his heart and of his intellect, for
   some great reform, some great legislative, political, or moral
   improvement. Some proposed the instantaneous abolition of
   negro slavery. Others, the abolition of the restrictions
   imposed by the laws of September upon the press. Some, the
   proclamation of fraternity among nations, in order to abolish
   war by abolishing conquest. Some, the abolition of the
   qualification of electors. And all, the principles of mutual
   charity among all classes of citizens. As quickly as these
   great democratic truths, rather felt than discussed, were
   converted into decrees, they were printed in a press set up at
   the door of the council-room, thrown from the windows to the
   crowd, and despatched by couriers through the departments.'
   … The important decrees, which actually bear date February
   25 or 26, and which may therefore be referred to this evening
   of instinct, inspiration, and enthusiasm, are these:—The
   18th, which sets at liberty all persons detained on political
   grounds. The 19th, by which the government—

      1, Engages to secure the existence of the operative
      (ouvrier) by employment:

      2, Engages to secure employment (garantir du travail) to
      all citizens:

      3, Admits that operatives ought to combine in order to
      enjoy the fruits of their labour:

      4, And promises to return to the operatives, whose property
      it is, the million which will fall in from the civil list.

   The 22nd, which dissolves the Municipal Guards. The 26th,
   which declares that the actual government of France is
   republican, and that the nation will immediately be called on
   to ratify by its votes this resolution of the government and
   of the people of Paris. The 29th, which declares that Royalty,
   under any name whatever, … is abolished. … And the 30th,
   which directs the immediate establishment of national
   workshops (ateliers natlonaux). We confess that, we agree with
   Lamartine in thinking that they bear the stamp of instinct
   much more than that of reason. … The declaration that the
   actual government of France was republican … was palpably
   untrue. The actual government of France at that time was as
   far removed from republicanism as it was possible for a
   government to be. It was a many-headed Dictatorship—a
   despotic oligarchy. Eleven men—some appointed in the offices
   of a newspaper, and the others by a mob which had broken into
   the Chamber of Deputies—ruled France, during three months,
   with an absoluteness of which there is no other example in
   history. … They dissolved the Chamber of Deputies; they
   forbade the peers to meet; they added 200,000 men to the
   regular army, and raised a new metropolitan army of 20,000
   more at double the ordinary pay; to meet this expense they
   added 45 centimes to the direct taxes; they restricted the
   Bank from cash payments; they made its paper a legal tender,
   and then required it to lend them fifty millions; … they
   altered the hours of labour throughout France, and, subjected
   to heavy fines any master who should allow his operatives to
   remain at work for the accustomed period. …
{1373}
   The necessary consequence of the 19th decree, promising
   employment to all applicants, was the creation of the ateliers
   nationaux by the 30th. These workshops were immediately opened
   in the outskirts Of Paris. A person who wished to take
   advantage of the offers of the Government took from the person
   with whom he lodged a certificate that he was an inhabitant of
   the Department de la Seine. This certificate he carried to the
   mairie of his arrondissement, and obtained an order of
   admission to an atelier. If he was received and employed
   there, he obtained an order on his mairie for forty sous. If
   he was not received, after having applied at all of them, and
   found them all full, he received an order for thirty sous.
   Thirty sous is not high pay; but it was to be had for doing
   nothing; and hopes of advancement were held out. Every body of
   eleven persons formed an escouade; and their head, the
   escouadier, elected by his companions, got half a franc a day
   extra. Five escouades formed a brigade; and the brigadier,
   also elected by his subordinates, received three francs a day.
   Above these again were the lieutenants, the chefs de
   compagnie, the chefs de service, and the chefs
   d'arrondissement, appointed by the Government, and receiving
   progressively higher salaries. Besides this, bread was
   distributed to their families in proportion to the number of
   children. The hours supposed to be employed in labour were
   nine and a half. … This semi-military organisation, regular
   payment, and nominal work produced results which we cannot
   suppose to have been unexpected by the Government. M. Emile
   Thomas tells us that in one mairie, that containing the
   Faubourg St.-Antoine, a mere supplemental bureau enrolled,
   from March 12 to 20, more than 1,000 new applicants every day.
   We have before us a list of those who had been enrolled on May
   19, and it amounts to 87,942. A month later it amounted to
   125,000—representing, at 4 to a family, 600,000 persons—more
   than one half of the population of Paris. To suppose that such
   an army as this could be regularly organised, fed, and paid,
   for months in idleness, and then quietly disbanded, was a
   folly of which the Provisional Government was not long guilty.
   They soon saw that the monster which they had created could
   not be subdued, if it could be subdued at all, by any means
   short of civil war. … 'A thunder-cloud (says M. de
   Lamartine) was always before our eyes. It was formed by the
   ateliers nationaux; This army of 120,000 work-people, the
   great part of whom were idlers and agitators, was the deposit
   of the misery, the laziness, the vagrancy, the vice, and the
   sedition which the flood of the revolution had cast up and
   left on its shores.' … As they were managed, the ateliers
   nationaux, it is now admitted, produced or aggravated the very
   evils which they professed to cure or to palliate. They
   produced or continued the stagnation of business which they
   were to remedy; and, when they became absolutely intolerable,
   the attempt to put an end to them occasioned the civil war
   which they were to prevent."

      _N. W. Senior,
      Journals kept in France and Italy, 1848-1852,
      volume 1, pages 14-59._

      ALSO IN:
      _Marquis of Normandy,
      A Year of Revolution,
      chapters 8-11 (volume l)._

      _L. Blanc,
Historical Revelations, 1848._

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Revolution of 1848._

      _J. P. Simpson,
      Pictures from Revolutionary Paris._

FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (April-December).
   The Constituent National Assembly, and the Constitution of the
   Second Republic.
   Savage and terrible insurrection of the workmen of the
   Ateliers Nationaux.
   Vigorous dictatorship of Cavaignac.
   Appearance of Louis Napoleon.
   His election to the Presidency of the Republic.

   The election by universal suffrage of a Constituent National
   Assembly, twice deferred on account of fears of popular
   turbulence, took place on the 23d of April, and resulted in
   the return of a very Conservative majority, largely composed
   of Napoleonists, Legitimists and Orleanists. The meeting of
   the Assembly was opened on the 7th of May. "The moderates were
   anxious to invest M. de Lamartine with a dictatorial
   authority," which he declined. "Eventually an executive
   commission of five was appointed. … The commission consisted
   of Arago, Garnier Pagès, Marie, Lamartine, and Ledru Rollin.
   … This conciliatory executive commission was elected by the
   Assembly on the 10th of May. On the 15th, the 'concilliated'
   mob broke into the chamber, insulted the deputies, turned them
   out, proclaimed a provisional government, and then marched to
   the Hôtel de Ville, where they were installed with due
   revolutionary solemnity;" but the National Guard rallied to
   the support of the government, and the insurrection was
   promptly suppressed. "Eleven vacancies in the Assembly had to
   be filled in the department of the Seine, on account of double
   returns. These elections produced fresh uneasiness in Paris.
   Eighth on the list stood Louis Napoleon Bonaparte; and among
   the names mentioned as candidates was that of Prince de
   Joinville, the most popular of the Orleans princes. The
   executive commission appears to have been more afraid of the
   latter than of the former; and to prevent the disagreeable
   circumstance of France returning him to the Assembly as one of
   her representatives, they thought themselves justified in
   declaring the whole Orleans family incapable of serving France
   in any capacity. … Louis Napoleon, on the first proclamation
   of the Republic, had at once offered his services; but was by
   the Provisional Government requested to withdraw, as his great
   name might trouble the republic. … Two Bonapartes had been
   elected members for Corsica, and three sat in the Assembly;
   but, as the next heir of the Emperor, Louis Napoleon caused
   them much uneasiness. … Already mobs had gone about the
   Boulevard crying 'Vive l'Empereur.' The name of Bonaparte was
   not unpopular with the bourgeoisie; it was a guarantee of
   united and strong government to all. On his election, Louis
   Napoleon wrote to the President of the Assembly: a phrase in
   his letter gave considerable offence. Some days before,
   Lamartine had proposed his exclusion from the Assembly and the
   country; but, as it appeared he was in no way implicated in
   the seditious cries, they voted his admission by a large
   majority. The phrase which gave umbrage was: 'If the country
   imposes duties upon me, I shall know how to fulfill them.' …
   However, by a subsequent letter, dated the 15th, he restored
   confidence by saying he would resign rather than be a cause of
   tumult. But the real difficulties of the government arose from
   a different cause.
{1374}
   The National Assembly bore with impatience the expense of the
   Ateliers Nationaux: It was enough to submit to the factious
   spirit of those bodies; but it was too much to pay them for
   keeping on foot an organized insurrection, ever ready to break
   out and deluge the capital in blood. The executive commission
   had been desirous of finding means gradually to lessen the
   numbers receiving wages; and on the 12th of May, it was
   resolved to close the lists. The commission foresaw that if
   the Ateliers were at once abolished, it would produce a
   rebellion in Paris; and they hoped, first, by preventing any
   more being inscribed, and then by setting them to task-work,
   that they should gradually get the numbers reduced. … But
   the Assembly would not wait; they ordered all the workmen
   between 18 and 25 years old, and unmarried, to be drafted into
   the army, or to be discharged; and they were breaking them up
   so rapidly, that if the workmen wanted to fight it was evident
   that it must be done at once or not at all. … General
   Cavaignac, who had been sent for from Africa, was on his
   arrival in Paris named Minister at War, and had command of the
   troops. … Preparations for the conflict commenced on Thursday
   the 22nd of June; but it was noon of the following day ere the
   first shot was fired. It is said, that had the executive
   commission known what they were about, the heads of the
   insurrection might have been all arrested in the meantime, for
   they were walking about all day, and at one time met in the
   Jardin des Plantes. The fighting on the 23d continued all day,
   with much slaughter, and little practical result. … The
   extent of the insurgent lines swallowed up the troops, so
   that, though great numbers were in Paris, there appeared to be
   a deficiency of them, and loud complaints were made against
   the inefficiency of the executive commission. During the night
   the fighting ceased, and both parties were occupied in
   strengthening their positions. The Assembly was sitting in
   permanence; they were highly incensed against the executive
   commission, and wished them to send in their resignations; but
   the latter refused, saying it was cowardly to do so in the face
   of insurrection. The Assembly then formally deposed the
   commission, and appointed Cavaignac dictator; to which
   arrangement the executive commission at once assented. The
   General instantly ordered the National Guards to prevent
   assemblages in the streets, and that no one should go out
   without a pass: anyone going about, out of uniform, without
   permission, was walked home. In this manner many persons
   carrying ammunition to the insurgents were arrested. At noon,
   he sent a flag of truce with a proclamation, offering an
   amnesty to the rebels, at the suggestion of the ex-prefect
   Caussidière; but it was unhesitatingly rejected. This latter
   personage, though he was not among the barricades, was by many
   thought to be the head of the insurrection. The troops of the
   insurgents were managed with great military skill, showing
   that persons of military knowledge must have had the command;
   though no one knew who were their leaders. … During the
   early part of the day, the fighting was mainly on the southern
   side of the river. The church of St. Gervais and the bridges
   were carried with great slaughter, as well as the church of
   St. Severin, and their great head-quarters the Pantheon; and
   by four o'clock, the troops had conquered the whole of the
   south bank of the Seine. On the other side, a hot engagement
   was going on in the Faubourgs Poissonnière and St. Denis:
   these were carried with great loss at a late hour, whence the
   insurrection was forced back to its great stronghold, the Clos
   St. Lazare; which defied every effort of General Lamoricière
   to take it on Saturday. An unfinished hospital served as a
   citadel, and several churches and public buildings as
   out-posts; while the old city wall, which they had loop-holed,
   enabled them to fire on the troops in comparative security;
   but the buildings were breached with cannon, and the
   insurgents by four o'clock on Sunday were dispersed. … A
   desperate struggle was going on at a late hour in the Faubourg
   du Temple; and on the Monday morning the insurgents made a
   stand behind the Canal St. Martin, where they sent to treat on
   condition of retaining their arms. But Cavaignac would hear of
   no terms. It was thought, at one time, that they had
   surrendered; when some soldiers, going within the lines, were
   surprised and murdered. Hostilities at once began again, and
   the insurgents were finally subdued by one o'clock on Monday
   the 26th. The victory was dearly bought: 8,000 were
   ascertained to have been killed or wounded; and, as many
   bodies were thrown into the Seine unrecognised, this is much
   under the number. Nearly 14,000 prisoners were taken, and
   3,000 of these died of gaol fever. … The excellent
   Archbishop of Paris, Denis Auguste Affre, fell a sacrifice to
   his Christian benevolence. Horrified at the slaughter, he,
   attended by two of his vicars carrying the olive-branch of
   peace, passed between the combatants. The firing ceased at his
   appearance; but, from the discharge of a single musket, it
   began again: he, nevertheless, mounted the barricade and
   descended into the midst of the insurgents, and was, in the
   act of addressing them, when some patriot, fearing the effect
   of his exhortations, shot him from a window. … General
   Cavaignac, immediately after the pacification of Paris, laid
   down the temporary dictatorship with which he had been
   invested by the Assembly; but their gratitude for the
   salvation of society led them to appoint him President of the
   Council, with the power to name his own Ministry. He at once
   sent adrift all the red republican party, and chose a Ministry
   from among the moderate class of republicans; to which he
   afterwards added some members of the old opposition. …
   Prince Louis Napoleon was again thrust upon the Assembly, by
   being elected for Corsica; but he wrote a letter on the 8th of
   July, saying, that though he did not renounce the honour of
   one day sitting as a representative of the people, he would
   wait till the time when his return to France could not in any
   way serve as a pretext to the enemies of the republic. … On
   Tuesday, the 26th of September, shortly after the president
   had taken his seat, Louis Napoleon appeared quietly in the
   chamber, and placed himself on one of the back benches. …
   The discussion of the constitution, which had been referred to
   a committee, was the only subject of interest, except the
   important question of how the president should be elected. It
   was proposed by some that the assembly itself should elect a
   president, a proposition which was eventually negatived by a
   large majority.
{1375}
   The real object was to exclude Louis Napoleon, whose great
   name gave him every chance of success, if an appeal were made
   to the universal suffrage of the nation, which the republicans
   distrusted. Another amendment was moved to exclude all
   pretenders to the throne; on which, allusion being made to
   Louis Napoleon, he mounted the rostrum, and denied that he was
   a pretender. … The red republicans were desirous of having
   no president, and that the constituent assembly itself should
   name the ministers. It was not the only constitutional point
   in dispute: for weeks and months, the debate on the
   constitution dragged its weary length along; amendments were
   discussed, and the work when turned out was, as might have
   been expected, a botch after all. … It was eventually
   agreed, that to give validity to the election of a president
   it should be necessary that he should have more than a half of
   all the votes given; that is to say, more votes than all the
   other candidates put together; if not, the assembly was to
   choose between the highest candidate on the list and his
   competitors, by which means they hoped to be able to get rid
   of Bonaparte. … The constitution was proclaimed on the 10th
   of November. … The legitimist and Orleanist parties refused
   to start a candidate for fear of weakening Bonaparte, and thus
   throwing the choice into the hands of the assembly, who would
   choose General Cavaignac. Both these parties gave the former
   at least a negative support; and as M. Thiers declared that
   nine-tenths of the country were opposed to the General as too
   revolutionary, it was clear that in the country itself
   reaction was going on faster than in the assembly. … Louis
   Napoleon's chief support was from the inhabitants of the
   country districts, the peasantry. … On the 10th of December,
   5,534,520 votes were recorded for Louis Napoleon. General
   Cavaignac had 1,448,302. Then came Ledru Rollin; then Raspail.
   Lamartine got 17,914; 23,219 were disallowed, as being given
   for some of the banished royal family. The total number of
   voters was 7,449,471."

      _E. S. Cayley,
      The European Revolution of 1848,
      volume 1, chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Corkran,
      History of the Constituent
      National Assembly from May, 1848._

      _Marquis of Normanby,
      A Year of Revolution,
      chapters 13-15(volume 2)._

      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 5, and appendix 8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1849.
   Intervention at Rome, to crush the revolutionary republic and
   restore the Pope.
   French capture and occupation of the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

FRANCE: A. D. 1849-1850.
   Disagreement with England in Greece.
   The Don Pacifico affair.

      See GREECE: A. D.1846-1850.

FRANCE: A. D.1851.
   The plot of the Coup d'État.

   "In the beginning of the winter of 1851 France was still a
   republic; but the Constitution of 1848 had struck no root.
   There was a feeling that the country had been surprised and
   coerced into the act of declaring itself a republic, and that
   a monarchical system of government was the only one adapted
   for France. The sense of instability which sprang from this
   belief was connected with an agonising dread of insurrections.
   … Moreover, to those who watched and feared, it seemed that
   the shadow on the dial was moving on with a terrible
   steadiness to the hour when a return to anarchy was, as it
   were, pre-ordained by law; for the constitution requited that
   a new president should be chosen in the spring of the
   following year. … In general, France thought it best that,
   notwithstanding the Rule of the Constitution, which stood in
   the way, the then President should be quietly re-elected; and
   a large majority of the Assembly, faithfully representing this
   opinion, had come to a vote which sought to give it effect;
   but their desire was baffled by an unwise provision of the
   Republican Charter which had laid it down that no
   constitutional change should take place without the sanction
   of three-fourths of the Assembly. By this clumsy bar the
   action of the State system was hampered, and many whose minds
   generally inclined them to respect legality were forced to
   acknowledge that the Constitution wanted a wrench." The
   President of the republic, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte,
   "had always wished to bring about a change in the
   constitution, but, originally, he had hoped to be able to do
   this with the aid and approval of some at least of the
   statesmen and eminent generals of the country." But, "although
   there were numbers in France who would have been heartily glad
   to see the Republic crushed by some able dictator, there were
   hardly any public men who believed that in the President of
   the Republic they would find the man they wanted. Therefore
   his overtures to the gentlemen of France were always rejected.
   Every statesman to whom he applied refused to entertain his
   proposals. Every general whom he urged always said that for
   whatever he did he must have 'an order from the Minister of
   War.' The President being thus rebuffed, his plan of changing
   the form of government with the assent of some of the leading
   statesmen and generals of the country degenerated into schemes
   of a very different kind; and at length he fell into the hands
   of persons of the quality of Persigny, Morny, and Fleury. …
   The President had been a promoter of the law of the 31st of
   May, restricting the franchise, but he now became the champion
   of universal suffrage. To minds versed in politics this change
   might have sufficed to disclose the nature of the schemes upon
   which the Chief of the State was brooding; but, from first to
   last, words tending to allay suspicion had been used with
   great industry and skill. From the moment of his coming before
   the public in February 1848, the Prince laid hold of almost
   every occasion he could find for vowing, again and again, that
   he harbored no schemes against the Constitution. … It was
   natural that in looking at the operation which changed the
   Republic into an Empire, the attention of the observer should
   be concentrated upon the person who, already the Chief of the
   State, was about to attain to the throne; and there seems to
   be no doubt, that what may be called the literary part of the
   transaction was performed by the President in person. He was
   the lawyer of the confederacy. He no doubt wrote the
   Proclamations, the Plebiscites, and the Constitutions, and all
   such like things; but it seems that the propelling power which
   brought the plot to bear was mainly supplied by Count de Morny,
   and by a resolute Major, named Fleury. M. Morny was a man of
   great daring, and gifted with more than common powers of
   fascination. He had been a member of the Chamber of Deputies
   in the time of the monarchy; but he was rather known to the
   world as a speculator than as a politician. He was a buyer and
   seller of those fractional and volatile interests in trading
   adventures, which go by the name of 'Shares.' …
{1376}
   He knew how to found a 'company,' and he now undertook to
   establish institutions which were destined to be more
   lucrative to him than any of his former adventures; … It
   seems, however, that the man who was the most able to make the
   President act, to drive him deep into his own plot, and
   fiercely carry him through it, was Major Fleury. … He was
   daring and resolute, and his daring was of the kind which
   holds good in the moment of danger. If Prince Louis Bonaparte
   was bold and ingenious in designing, Fleury was the man to
   execute. … The language held by the generals who declared
   that they would act under the authority of the Minister of War
   and not without it, suggested the contrivance which was
   resorted to. Fleury determined to find a military man capable
   of command, capable of secrecy, and capable of a great
   venture. The person chosen was to be properly sounded, and if
   he seemed willing, was to be admitted into the plot. He was
   then to be made Minister of War, in order that through him the
   whole of the land forces should be at the disposal of the
   plotters. Fleury went to Algeria to find the instrument
   required, and he so well performed his task that he hit upon a
   general officer who was christened, it seems, Jacques Arnaud
   Le Roy, but was known at this time as Achille St. Arnaud. …
   He readily entered into the plot. From the moment that Prince
   Louis Bonaparte and his associates had entrusted their secret
   to the man of Fleury's selection, it was perhaps hardly
   possible for them to flinch, for the exigencies of St. Arnaud,
   formerly Le Roy, were not likely to be on so modest a scale as
   to consist with the financial arrangements of a Republic
   governed by law, and the discontent of a person of his quality
   with a secret like that in his charge would plainly bring the
   rest of the brethren into danger. He was made Minister of War.
   This was on the 27th of October. At the same time M. Maupas or
   de Maupas was brought into the Ministry. … Persigny,
   properly Fialin, was in the plot. He was descended on one side
   of an ancient family, and disliking his father's name he seems
   to have called himself for many years after the name of his
   maternal grandfather. … It was necessary to take measures
   for paralyzing the National Guard, but the force was under the
   command of General Perrot, a man whose honesty could not be
   tampered with. To dismiss him suddenly would be to excite
   suspicion. The following expedient was adopted: the President
   appointed as Chief of the Staff of the National Guard, a
   person named Vieyra. The past life and the then repute of this
   person were of such a kind, that General Perrot, it seems,
   conceived himself insulted by the nomination, and instantly
   resigned. That was what the brethren of the Elysée wanted. On
   Sunday, the 30th, General Lawæstine was appointed to the
   command. … His function was—not to lead the force of which
   he took the command but—to prevent it from acting. … Care
   had been taken to bring into Paris and its neighborhood the
   regiments most likely to serve the purpose of the Elysée, and
   to give the command to generals who might be expected to act
   without scruples. The forces in Paris and its neighborhood
   were under the orders of General Magnan. … From time to time
   the, common soldiery were gratified with presents of food and
   wine, as well, as with an abundance of flattering words, and
   their exasperation against civilians was so well kept alive
   that men used to African warfare were brought into the humor
   for calling the Parisians 'Bedouins.' There was massacre in
   the very sound. The army of Paris was in the temper required.
   It was necessary for the plotters to have the concurrence of
   M. St. Georges, the director Of the state printing-office. M.
   St. Georges was suborned. Then all was ready. On the Monday
   night between the 1st and 2d of December, the President had
   his usual assembly at the Elysée. Ministers who were loyally
   ignorant of what was going on were mingled with those who were
   in the plot. … At the usual hour the assembly began to
   disperse, and by eleven o'clock there were only three guests
   who remained. These were Morny (who had previously taken care
   to show himself at one of the theatres), Maupas, and St.
   Arnaud, formerly Le Roy. There was, besides, an orderly
   officer of the President, called Colonel Beville, who was
   initiated in the secret. … They were to strike the blow that
   night. … By and by they were apprised that an order which had
   been given for the movement of a battalion of gendarmerie, had
   duly taken effect without exciting remark. … The President
   entrusted a packet of manuscripts to Colonel Beville, and
   despatched him to the state printing office. It was in the
   streets which surround this building that the battalion of
   gendarmerie had been collected. When Paris was hushed in
   sleep, the battalion came quietly out, and folded round the
   state printing-office. From that moment until their work was
   done the printers were all close captives, for no one of them
   was suffered to go out. … It is said that there was
   something like resistance, but in the end, if not at first,
   the printers obeyed. Each compositor stood whilst he worked
   between two policemen, and, the manuscript being cut into many
   pieces, no one could make out the sense of what he was
   printing. By these proclamations the President asserted that
   the Assembly was a hot-bed of plots; declared it dissolved;
   pronounced for universal suffrage; proposed a new
   constitution; vowed anew that his duty was to maintain the
   Republic; and placed Paris and the twelve surrounding
   departments under martial law. In one of the proclamations, he
   appealed to the army, and strove to whet its enmity against
   civilians, by reminding it of the defeats inflicted upon the
   troops in 1830 and 1848. The President wrote letters
   dismissing the members of the government who were not in the
   plot; but he did not cause these letters to be delivered until
   the following morning. He also signed a paper appointing Morny
   to the Home Office. … The order from the Minister of War was
   probably signed by half-past two in the morning, for at three it
   was in the hands of Magnan. At the same hour Maupas (assigning
   for pretext the expected arrival of foreign refugees), caused
   a number of Commissaries to be summoned in all haste to the
   Prefecture of Police. At half-past three in the morning these
   men were in attendance. … It was then that, for the first
   time, the main secret of the confederates passed into the
   hands of a number of subordinate agents. During some hours of
   that night every one of those humble Commissaries had the
   destinies of France in his hands; for he might either obey the
   Minister, and so place his country in the power of the Elysée,
   or he might obey the law, denounce the plot, and bring its
   contrivers to trial. Maupas gave orders for the seizure at the
   same minute of the foremost Generals of France, and several of
   her leading Statesmen.
{1377}
   Parties of the police, each under the orders of a Commissary,
   were to be at the doors of the persons to be arrested some
   time beforehand, but the seizures were not to take place until
   a quarter past six. … At the appointed minute, and whilst it
   was still dark, the designated houses were entered. The most
   famous generals of France were seized. General Changarnier,
   General Bedeau, General Lamoricière, General Cavaignac, and
   General Leflô were taken from their beds, and carried away
   through the sleeping city and thrown into prison. In the same
   minute the like was done with some of the chief members and
   officers of the Assembly, and amongst others with Thiers,
   Miot, Baze, Colonel Charras, Roger du Nord, and several of the
   democratic leaders. Some men believed to be the chiefs of
   secret societies were also seized. The general object of these
   night arrests was that, when morning broke, the army should be
   without generals inclined to observe the law, that the
   Assembly should be without the machinery for convoking it, and
   that all the political parties in the State should be
   paralyzed by the disappearance of their chiefs. The number of
   men thus seized in the dark was seventy-eight. Eighteen of
   these were members of the Assembly. Whilst it was still dark,
   Morny, escorted by a body of infantry, took possession of the
   Home Office, and prepared to touch the springs of that
   wondrous machinery by which a clerk can dictate to a nation.
   Already he began to tell 40,000 communes of the enthusiasm
   with which the sleeping city had received the announcement of
   measures not hitherto disclosed. When the light of the morning
   dawned, people saw the Proclamations on the walls, and slowly
   came to hear that numbers of the foremost men of France had
   been seized in the night-time, and that every General to whom
   the friends of law and order could look for help was lying in
   one or other of the prisons. The newspapers, to which a man
   might run in order to know truly what others thought and
   intended, were all seized and stopped. The gates of the
   Assembly were closed and guarded, but the Deputies, who began
   to flock thither, found means to enter by passing through one
   of the official residences which formed Part of the building.
   They had assembled in the Chamber in large numbers, and some
   of them having caught Dupin, their reluctant President, were
   forcing him to come and take the chair, when a body of
   infantry burst in and drove them out, striking some of them
   with the butt-ends of their muskets. … Driven from their
   Chamber, the Deputies assembled at the Mayoralty of the 10th
   arrondissement. There, upon the motion of the illustrious,
   Berryer, they resolved that the act of Louis Bonaparte was a
   forfeiture of the Presidency, and they directed the judges of
   the Supreme Court to meet and proceed to the judgment of the
   President and his accomplices. These resolutions had just been
   voted, when a battalion of the Chasseurs de Vincennes entered
   the courtyard. … An aide-de-camp of General Magnan came with
   a written order directing the officer in command of the
   battalion to clear the hall, to do this if necessary by force,
   and to carry off to the prison of Mazas any Deputies offering
   resistance. … The number of Deputies present at this moment
   was 220. The whole Assembly declared that they resisted, and
   would yield to nothing short of force. … They were carried
   off, some to the Fort of Mount Valerian, some to the fortress
   of Vincennes, and some to the prison of Mazas. … By the laws
   of the Republic, the duty of taking cognizance of offences
   against the Constitution was cast upon the Supreme Court. The
   Court was sitting, when an armed force entered the hall, and
   the judges were driven from the bench, but not until they had
   made a judicial order for the impeachment of the President."

      _A. W. Kinglake,
      The Invasion of the Crimea,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Tênot,
      Paris in December, 1851,
      chapters 1-4._

      _V. Hugo,
      Napoleon the Little._

      _M. de Maupas,
      The Story of the Coup d'État._

      _B. Jerrold,
      Life of Napoleon III.,
      book 8 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1851.
   The bloody Triumph of the Coup d'État.
   Destruction of the Second Republic.

   "The second part of the Coup d'État, which drenched the
   boulevards with innocent blood, has cast a shade of horror
   over the whole transaction that time has been unable to
   efface. Paris is never so reduced in a crisis, whether the
   cause be just or unjust, that she is bereft of hands to erect
   and defend barricades in her streets. In the Faubourg St.
   Antoine an incipient rising on the 2d was suppressed
   immediately by the troops. The volcanic district from the
   Hôtel de Ville northward to the boulevards also showed signs
   of uneasiness, and throughout the morning of the 3d the
   military were busy pulling down partially completed barricades
   and dispersing small bodies of insurgents. There seems to be
   little question that the army was embittered against the
   populace. If this were so, the proclamation circulated by the
   president through the ranks on the 2d was not calculated to
   appease it. He styled the soldiers as the 'flower of the
   nation.' He pointed out to them that his interests and theirs
   were the same, and that they had suffered together in the past
   from the course of the Assembly. He reminded them of the years
   1830 and 1848, when the army had fought the people in the
   streets of Paris, and concluded by an allusion to the military
   grandeur of the Bonapartes. During the afternoon of the 3d and
   morning of the 4th the troops remained inactive; pending
   orders from the minister of war, and in this interval several
   strong barricades were erected in the restless quarters. On
   the afternoon of the 4th the boulevards, from the Madeleine to
   the Rue du Sentier, were occupied by a great body of troops
   awaiting orders to move east through the Boulevard Bonne
   Nouvelle upon the barricaded district. The soldiers stood at
   ease, and the officers lounged about, smoking their cigars.
   The sidewalks, windows, and balconies were crowded with men,
   women, and children, thoughtless onlookers of the great
   military display. Suddenly a single shot was heard. It was
   fired from a window near the Rue du Sentier. The troops at the
   head of the column faced sharply to the south, and commenced a
   deliberate fusillade upon the crowded walks and balconies. The
   battalions farther west caught the murderous contagion, until
   the line of fire extended into the Boulevard des Italiens. In
   a few moments the beautiful boulevards were converted into a
   bloody pandemonium. The sidewalks were strewn with corpses and
   stained with blood. The air was rent with shrieks and groans
   and the breaking of glass, while the steady, incessant
   rattling of the musketry was intensified by an occasional
   cannon-shot, that brought down with a crash the masonry from
   some fine façade.
{1378}
   This continued for nearly twenty minutes, when a lack of
   people to kill seems to have restrained the mad volleys of the
   troops. If any attempt was made by officers to check their
   men, it was wholly unavailing, and in some cases miserable
   fugitives were followed into buildings and massacred. Later in
   the day the barricades were attacked, and their defenders
   easily overcome. By night-fall insurgent Paris was thoroughly
   cowed. These allegations, though conflicting with sworn
   statements of Republicans and Imperialists, can hardly be
   refuted. The efforts of the Napoleonic faction to portray the
   thoughtless crowd of the boulevards as desperate and
   bloody-minded rebels have never been successful, while the
   opposition so brilliantly represented by the author of
   'Histoire d'un Crime' have been too fierce and immoderate in
   their accusations to win public credence. The questions as to
   who fired the first shot, and whether it was fired as a signal
   for, or a menace against the military, are points on which
   Frenchmen of different political parties still debate. It is
   charitable to accept M. Hugo's insinuation that the soldiery
   were drunk with the president's wine, even though the fact
   implies a low state of discipline in the service. To what
   extent was the president responsible for the boulevard horror?
   M. Victor Hugo and M. de Maupas do not agree upon this point,
   and it seems useless to discuss it. Certain facts are
   indisputable. We know the army bore small love toward the
   Parisians, and we know it was in the streets by order of the
   president. We know that the latter was in bad company, and
   playing a dangerous game. We may discard M. Victor Hugo's
   statement as to the orders issued by the president from the
   Elysée on the fatal day, but we cannot disguise the fact that
   the boulevard horror subdued Paris, and crowned his cause with
   success. In other words, Louis Napoleon was the gainer by the
   slaughter of unoffending men, women, and children, and in
   after-years, when referring to the 4th of December, he found
   it for his interest to distort facts, and make figures lie.
   … Louis Napoleon had expressly stated in the proclamation
   that astonished Paris on the 2d that he made the people judge
   between him and the Assembly. The citizens of France were
   called upon to vote on the 20th and 21st of December 'Yes' or
   'No' to the question as to whether the president should be
   sustained in the measures he had taken, should be empowered to
   draw up a new constitution, and should retain the presidential
   chair for a period of ten years."

      _H. Murdock,
      The Reconstruction of Europe,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _V. Hugo,
      History of a Crime._

      _E. Tênot,
      Paris in December, 1851,
      chapters 5-6._

      _M. de Maupas,
      Story of the Coup d'État,
      chapters 18-24 (volume 2)._

      _Count H. de Viel Castel,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.
   Transportation and exile of republicans.
   The dictator's constitution for France.
   Rapid progress of despotism.
   The Second Empire ordained.
   Elevation of Napoleon III. to the throne.

   "The struggle was over: terror of the victors followed.
   Thirty-two departments were in a state of siege. More than
   100,000 citizens were languishing in prison. Trial followed
   trial in rapid succession, the cases being classed under three
   heads: 1st, persons found armed, or against whom serious
   charges existed; 2d, persons charged with minor offences; 3d,
   dangerous persons. The first class was judged at once by a
   council of war, the second sent to various tribunals, the
   third transported without trial. Many prisoners were not even
   questioned. Numbers were set free; but multitudes were still
   held. Under these conditions the date of the plebiscite,
   December 20 and 21, approached. Notices were posted to the
   effect that 'any person seeking to disturb the polls or to
   question the result of the ballot would be tried by a council
   of war.' All liberty of choice was taken from the electors,
   many of whom were arrested on suspicion of exciting others to
   vote against the president of the republic. When the lists
   were published it was found that the 'ayes' had carried the
   day, although many did not vote at all. Indubitably the
   figures were notably swelled by violence and fraud. …
   December 31, ex-Minister Baroche presented the result of the
   ballots to the prince-president,—a strange title now given to
   Louis Napoleon, for the time being, in lieu of another. …
   Next day, January 1, 1852, Archbishop Sibour celebrated a Te
   Deum in Notre Dame, the prince-president sitting under a
   canopy. … While the man of December 2 lodged in the palace
   of kings, the chief representatives of the republic were cast
   into exile. The executors of the plot treated the captive
   representatives very differently according as they were
   conservative or republican. When the prisoners were told that
   a distinction was to be made among them, they honorably
   refused to give their names, but they were betrayed by an
   usher of the Assembly. The republicans were then sent to
   Mazas, and treated like common thieves, M. Thiers alone being
   allowed a bed instead of the ordinary hammock. The other party
   were soon set free, with but few exceptions, and on the 8th of
   January the generals imprisoned at Ham, with their companion,
   Questor Baze, were sent to Belgium. Next day a series of
   proscriptions came out. All persons 'convicted of taking part
   in the recent insurrections' were to be transported, some to
   Guiana, some to Algiers. A second decree expelled from France,
   Algiers, and the French colonies, 'as a measure of public
   safety,' sixty representatives of the Left, including Victor
   Hugo and certain others, for whom it was reserved to aid in
   the foundation of a third republic. A third decree commanded
   the temporary absence from France and Algiers of eighteen
   other representatives, including the generals, with Thiers, De
   Rémusat, and several members of the Left, among them Edgar
   Quinet and Emile de Girardin. … The next step was to
   establish the famous 'mixed commissions' in every province.
   These commissions were to try the numerous prisoners still
   held captive. … The mixed commissions of 1852, as the
   historian of the coup d'état (M. Eugène Ténot) declares,
   'decided, without legal proceedings, without hearing of
   witnesses, without public trial, the fate of thousands and
   thousands of republicans.' They have left the indelible memory
   of one of the most monstrous events known in history. An act
   equally extraordinary in another way was the promulgation of
   the new constitution framed by the dictator alone (January 14,
   1852). … The constitution of 1852 began by a 'recognition,
   confirmation, and guarantee of the great principles proclaimed
   in 1789, which are the foundation of the public rights and
   laws of France.'
{1379}
   But it did not say one word about the freedom of the press,
   nor about freedom of clubs and association. … 'The
   government of the French republic is intrusted to Prince Louis
   Napoleon Bonaparte for the term of ten years.' In the preface
   Louis Napoleon threw aside the fiction of irresponsibility
   'which deceives public sentiment'; the constitution therefore
   declares the leader of the state responsible to the French
   people, but omits to say how this responsibility may be
   realized; the French people have no resource save revolution.
   … The legislative body was to consist of 262 members (one
   for each 3,500 electors), chosen for five years by universal
   suffrage. This body would vote upon the laws and taxes. Louis
   Napoleon, having profited so largely by the repeal of the law
   of May 31, could scarcely refuse to retain direct universal
   suffrage, but he essentially altered its character by various
   modifications. He also so reduced the importance of the only
   great body still elective, that he had little or nothing to
   fear from it. Another assembly, the Senate, was to be composed
   of eighty members, which number might be increased to 150. The
   senators were irremovable, and were to be chosen by the
   president of the republic, with the exception of cardinals,
   marshals, and admirals, who were senators by right. The
   president might give each senator an income of 80,000 francs.
   The Senate was the guardian of the constitution and of 'the
   public liberty.' … The executive power chose all mayors, and
   was at liberty to select them outside the town council. In
   fact, the constitution of 1852 surpassed the constitution of
   the year VIII. as a piece of monarchic reaction. It entailed
   no consulate, but an empire,—dictatorship and total
   confiscation of public liberty. … Despotism spread daily in
   every direction. On the 17th of February the liberty of the
   press was notably reduced, and severe penalties were affixed
   to any infraction. In fact, the press was made dependent on
   the good-will of the president. Education was next attacked, a
   decree of March 9, 1852, stripping the professors of the
   University of all the pledges and principles granted by the
   First Empire. … The new power, in 1852, labored to turn all
   the forces of the country to material interests, while it
   stifled all moral interests. It suppressed education and the
   press, and constantly stimulated the financial and industrial
   movement. … Numberless railroad companies now sprang to
   life, and roads were rapidly built upon a grand scale. The
   government adopted the system of grants on a long term of
   years,—say ninety-nine,—plus the guarantee of a small rate
   of interest. In everything the cry was for instant success, at
   any cost. Great financial operations followed on the heels of
   the first grants to railroad companies. … This year's
   budget, like the constitution, was the work of a single man.
   The dictator settled it by a decree; then, having ordered the
   elections for his Chamber of Deputies, just before his
   constitution went into operation, he raised the universal
   state of siege (March 28). This was only a feint, for his
   government was a permanent state of siege. … The official
   candidates presented, or rather imposed, were generally
   elected; the republicans failed to vote throughout a great
   part of the country. … March 29, the prince-president
   proceeded to install the great state bodies at the Tuileries.
   It was thought that he would hint in his speech that he
   expected the title of Emperor, but he left that point vague,
   and still talked of preserving the republic. … During the
   session a rumor was current that Louis Napoleon was to be
   proclaimed emperor on the 10th of May, after the distribution
   of eagles to the army; but this was not carried out. The
   dictator had no desire to be made emperor in this fashion. He
   meant to do it more artfully, and to make it seem that the
   nation forced the accomplishment of his wishes upon him. He
   therefore undertook a fresh journey through the provinces. …
   The watchword was everywhere given by the authorities and
   influential persons, whose example was imitated by the crowd,
   irreconcilable opponents keeping silent. … He returned to
   Paris, October 16, and was received in state at the Orleans
   station. The official bodies greeted him with shouts of 'Long
   live the Emperor!' … Next day, the following paragraph
   appeared in the 'Moniteur': 'The tremendous desire for the
   restoration of the empire manifested throughout France, makes
   it incumbent upon the president to consult the Senate upon the
   subject.' The Senate and Legislature were convened November 4;
   the latter was to verify the votes, should the Senate decide
   that the people must be consulted in regard to a change in the
   form of government, which no one doubted would be the case.
   … The Senate … passed a decree for the submission of the
   restoration of the hereditary empire for popular acceptance
   (November 7); the senators then went in a body to St. Cloud to
   inform the prince-president of this decision. … The people
   were then called upon to vote for the plebiscite decreed by
   the Senate (November 20 and 21). Republican and legitimist
   protests were circulated in despite of the police, the
   government publishing them in the official organ, the
   'Moniteur,' as if in defiance, thinking that the excessive
   violence of the republican proscripts of London and Guernsey
   would alarm the peace-loving public. The result of the vote
   was even greater than that of December 20, 1851; the
   authenticity of the figures may indeed be doubted, but there
   is not a doubt that there was really a large majority in favor
   of the plebiscite. France abandoned the struggle! On the
   evening of December 1, the three great state bodies, the two
   Chambers and the State Council, went to St. Cloud, and the
   president of the Legislature presented the result of the
   ballot to the new emperor, who sat enthroned, between his
   uncle Jerome and his cousin Napoleon."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France,
      1789-1878, volume 3, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 6, and appendix 9._

FRANCE: A. D. 1853-1856.
   The Crimean war.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

FRANCE: A. D. 1857-1860.
   Allied operations with England in China.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858.
   The Orsini attempt to assassinate Napoleon III.
   Complaints against England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

FRANCE: A. D. 1859.
   Alliance with Sardinia and war with Austria.
   Victories of Magenta and Solferino.
   Liberation of Lombardy.
   Peace of Villafranca.
   Acquisition of Savoy and Nice.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

{1380}

FRANCE: A. D. 1860.
   The Chevalier-Cobden commercial treaty with England.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1858-1860.

FRANCE: A. D.1860-1870.
   Modifications of the imperial constitution.

   "Originally … the power of the Legislative Body was limited
   to voting and rejecting as a whole the laws submitted to it by
   the Executive; there was no such thing as criticism or control
   of the general policy of the reign: but the year 1860 opened a
   period of development in the direction of liberty; by a decree
   of the November of that year the Emperor permitted the
   Deputies to draw up an address in answer to his speech, giving
   them thereby the opportunity to criticise his policy; by that
   of December 1861 he allowed them to vote the budget by
   sections, that is to say, to discuss and, if desirable, reject
   its items; by that of January 1867 he substituted for the
   Address the right of questioning the Ministers, who might be
   delegated to the Chamber by the Emperor to take part in
   certain definite discussions; lastly, by that of September
   1869 he gave to the Legislative Body the right of initiating
   laws, removed the restrictions hitherto retained on the right
   of amendment and of questions, and made the Ministers
   responsible to the Chamber. Thus the Constitution was
   deliberately modified, by the initiative of the Emperor
   himself, from the form of imperial despotism to that of
   parliamentary monarchy: this modified Constitution was
   submitted to a plebiscite in May 1870, and once more the
   people ratified the Empire by over seven million votes against
   a million and a half."

      _G. L. Dickinson,
      Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
      chapter 7, section 8._

FRANCE: A. D.1861-1867.
   Intervention in Mexico and its humiliating failure.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

FRANCE: A. D. 1862.
   Commercial treaty with Germany.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

FRANCE: A. D. 1866.
   Withdrawal of troops from Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

FRANCE: A. D. 1866-1870.
   Territorial concessions demanded from Germany.
   The Luxemburg question.
   War temporarily averted.

      See GERMANY. A.D. 1866-1870.

FRANCE: A. D. 1867.
   Last defense of Papal sovereignty at Rome.
   Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.

      See ITALY: A.D. 1867-1870.

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
   "The Hohenzollern incident."
   Unjustifiable declaration of war against Prussia.

   "Towards the last of June, 1870, there arose what is known as
   the 'Hohenzollern incident,' which assumed so much importance,
   as it led up to the Franco-German War. In June, 1868, Queen
   Isabella had been chased from Spain, and had sought refuge in
   France. The Spanish Cortes, maintaining the monarchical form,
   offered the Crown of Spain to Prince Hohenzollern, a relation
   of the King of Prussia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1878.

   The French Minister at Madrid telegraphed that Prince Leopold
   Hohenzollern had been nominated to the throne of Spain, and
   had accepted. This produced the utmost excitement and
   indignation among the French people. The Paris press teemed
   with articles more or less violent, calling on the government
   to prevent this outrage, even at the cost of war. The journals
   of all shades were unanimous in the matter, contending that it
   was an insult and a peril to France, and could not be
   tolerated. The Opposition in the Chamber made the incident an
   occasion for attacking the government, alleging that it was
   owing to its weak and vacillating policy that France was
   indebted to her fresh humiliation. The government journals,
   however, laid the whole blame upon the ambition of Count
   Bismarck, who had become to them a bête noire. … Both
   parties vied with each other in showing the extent of their
   dislike to the great Prussian Chancellor. Much pressure was
   soon brought to bear in the proper quarters; the result of
   this was the withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidacy.
   Explanations were made, better counsels seemed to prevail, and
   all immediate trouble appeared averted. It seemed quite
   certain that all danger of a war between France and Germany
   was at an end, and all being quiet on the banks of the Seine,
   on the 3d of July I left Paris in pursuit of health and
   recreation at the healing waters of Carlsbad, of far-off
   Bohemia. I was in excellent relations with the Duke de
   Gramont, and everything appeared to be serene. I had hardly
   reached Carlsbad, when scanty news was received of a somewhat
   threatening character. I could hardly believe that anything
   very serious was likely to result; yet I was somewhat uneasy.
   Going to drink the water at one of the health-giving springs,
   early in the morning of July 15th, my Alsatian valet brought
   me the startling news, that a private telegram, received at
   midnight, gave the intelligence that France had declared war
   against Germany. The news fell upon the thousands of visitors
   and the people of Carlsbad, like a clap of thunder in a
   cloudless sky, and the most intense excitement prevailed. The
   nearest railroad station to Carlsbad, at that time, was Eger.
   … I rode all night from Carlsbad to Eger. Taking the
   railroad from Eger to Paris, and passing through Bavaria,
   Baden, Darmstadt and the valley of the Rhine, the excitement
   was something prodigious, recalling to me the days at home of
   the firing upon Sumter, in 1861. The troops were rushing to
   the depots; the trains were all blocked, and confusion
   everywhere reigned supreme. After great delays, and much
   discomfort, and a journey of fifty-two hours, I reached Paris
   at ten o'clock at night, July 18th. The great masses of
   people, naturally so excitable and turbulent, had been
   maddened by the false news so skilfully disseminated, that
   King William, at Ems, had insulted the French nation through
   its Ambassador. … It soon turned out that all the reports
   which had been spread over Paris, that King William had
   insulted the French Ambassador were utterly false, and had not
   the slightest foundation. The French Ambassador, M. Benedetti,
   denied that he had received the least indignity from the
   Emperor. The plain truth seemed to be that the French
   Ambassador courteously approached the Emperor, while walking
   in the garden of the Kursaal, and spoke to him in relation to
   the pending difficulties then existing between the two
   countries. The good old king was kind and polite, as he always
   is to every one with whom he comes in contact, and when M.
   Benedetti commenced talking in relation to matters of such a
   grave character, he politely stated that he would have to talk
   upon such questions with the German Foreign Office. All that
   was very proper, and nobody thought of it, or supposed that
   there was any indignity, as there was not the slightest
   intended. …
{1381}
   The exaggerations in Paris and France of this simple incident
   surpassed all bounds, and they were apparently made to inflame
   the people still more. It really appeared that the Government
   of France had determined to have war with Germany, coûte que
   coûte [at all costs]. The alleged causes growing out of the
   talk that Germany was to put a German prince on the throne of
   Spain were but a mere pretext. The Hohenzollern candidature
   had been withdrawn, and there was no necessity or sense in any
   further trouble. But the truth was that, after eighteen years
   of peace, the courtiers and adventurers who surrounded the
   Emperor seemed to think that it was about time to have a war,
   to awaken the martial spirit of the French people, to plant
   the French eagles in triumph in the capital of some foreign
   country, and, as a consequence, to fix firmly on the throne
   the son of Napoleon the Third, and restore to the Imperial
   crown the lustre it had lost."

      _E. B. Washburne,
      Recollections of a Minister to France,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 25._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Refounding of the German Empire,
      chapter 11;_

      _W. Rüstow,
      The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (July-August).
   Disastrous opening of the war.
   Defeats at Wörth, Spichern and Gravelotte.
   Bazaine's army shut up in Metz.

   "July 23d Napoleon intrusted the regency to the empress for
   the period of his absence from Paris. … On the 28th, …
   accompanied by his son, [he] left for Metz, to assume command
   of the army. … The army consisted of eight corps. Of these,
   the 1st, under Marshal MacMahon, was stationed at Strasburg;
   the 2d, under General Frossard, at St. Avold; the 3d, under
   Marshal Bazaine, at Metz; the 4th, under General Ladmirault,
   at Diedenhofen (Thionville); the 5th, under General Failly, at
   Bitsch; the 6th, under Marshal Canrobert, in the camp at
   Châlons; the 7th, under General Felix Douay, at Belfort; the
   8th,—the Imperial Guard—under General Bourbaki, at Nancy.
   Accordingly, the French forces were divided into two groups,
   the larger stationed on the Moselle, and the smaller in
   Alsace. To the latter belonged the 1st and 7th corps, both of
   which were placed under the command of Marshal MacMahon, with
   orders to prevent the crown prince's army from entering
   Alsace. The larger group comprised the 2d, 3d, and 4th corps.
   … The 6th and 8th were to have formed the reserve; but the
   greatly superior numbers of Prince Frederic Charles and
   Steinmetz, who were advancing against this larger group,
   necessitated the immediate bringing of those corps to the
   front. The connection between the two groups was to be
   maintained by the 5th corps, stationed at Bitsch. Skirmishing
   of the advanced posts and collisions between reconnoitering
   parties began on the 19th of July. The most important of these
   minor engagements was that at Saarbrücken, on the 2d of August
   [the French claiming a victory]. … August 4th the crown
   prince crossed the French frontier and attacked the town of
   Weissenburg, on the little river Lauter. … Weissenburg was
   successfully carried by Prussian and Bavarian battalions
   combined, and the Geisberg by sixteen battalions of Prussians
   alone. … August 5th MacMahon with his corps took up his
   position at Wörth, fortifying the heights westward from
   Sauerbach, together with the villages of Froschweiler and
   Elsasshausen, in the intention of meeting at that place the
   advancing columns of the crown prince, whose attack he
   expected on the 7th. To strengthen his army sufficiently for
   the task required of it he endeavored to bring up General
   Felix Douay's corps from Belfort and Mühlhausen, and that of
   General Failly from Bitsch; but only one division of the
   former arrived in time, and a division of the latter which was
   sent to his support did not reach the neighborhood of the
   battle-field until the evening of the 6th, in time to afford a
   partial protection on the retreat. Consequently, MacMahon was
   left with not more than 45,000 men to face the crown prince's
   whole army. … On the morning of the 6th the advance guard of
   the 5th corps became involved in a sharp action with the
   enemy," and "from a mere skirmish of the advance guard
   resulted the decisive battle of Wörth. … After Wörth itself
   had been carried, the fighting was most severe around the
   fortified village of Froschweiler. This was finally taken, and
   a desperate charge of the French cuirassiers repulsed.
   Thereupon MacMahon's army broke and fled in wild confusion,
   some toward the passes of the Vosges, others to Strasburg or
   Bitsch. … The trophies of victory were numerous and
   valuable: 200 officers and 9,000 men prisoners. … The French
   lost 6,000 dead and wounded; the German loss was 489 officers
   and 10,153 men—a loss greater than that of Sadowa. …
   MacMahon, with about 15,000 of his defeated troops, reached
   Zabern on the morning of the 7th, and set out thence for
   Châlons, whither Generals Douay and Failly were also directed
   to lead their forces. A new army was to be formed at that
   point, and northern Alsace was abandoned to the crown prince's
   victorious troops. The Badish division received orders to march
   against Strasburg, and by the 9th the whole corps was
   assembled before that city, Hagenau having been taken by the
   cavalry on the way. … Preparations for a siege were made, a
   regular siege corps being formed … and placed under the
   command of General Werder. With the remainder of the third
   army the crown prince left Wörth on the 8th of August, marched
   through the unguarded passes of the Vosges, and entered Nancy
   on the 16th. … Detachments were left behind to blockade
   Bitsch and Pfalzburg. At Nancy the prince rested for a few
   days and waited for decisive news from the Saar and Moselle. A
   second victory was won on the 6th of August at Spichern [or
   Forbach]. Like the battle of Wörth, this action was not the
   result of a strategical combination, but rather of a
   misunderstanding. … Frossard [whose corps was encountered at
   Spichern] fell back on Metz by way of Saargemünd. Bazaine, who,
   although not more than seven or eight miles from the field of
   battle, had made no attempt to come to Frossard's assistance,
   led his corps to the same place. In this battle, owing to the
   unfavorable nature of the ground, the losses of the conquerors
   were heavier than those of the conquered. The Germans had 223
   officers and 4,648 men dead, wounded, and missing; while the
   French, according to their own reports, lost 249 officers and
   3,829 men, 2,000 of whom were taken prisoners. August 7th the
   victors continued their forward march, capturing great stores
   of provisions in Forbach. On the 9th St. Avold was taken, and
   foraging parties advanced almost to Metz.
{1382}
   Marching through the Rhenish Palatinate, part of Prince
   Frederic Charles's army directed its course toward Metz by way
   of Saarbrücken, and part through Saargemünd. … In the
   imperial head-quarters at Metz the greatest consternation
   prevailed. … It was [finally] decided to concentrate five
   army corps on the right bank of the Moselle, at Metz, and to
   form a second army, consisting of four corps, under MacMahon's
   command, in the camp at Châlons. The first line of defence on
   the Rhine and Saar had been abandoned, and France was to be
   defended on the Moselle. By this decision Alsace and Lorraine
   were surrendered to the foe at the very outset." On the 9th of
   August the French emperor transferred the chief command from
   himself to Marshal Bazaine, while Lebœuf at the same time
   withdrew from the direction of the staff. Simultaneously, at
   Paris, the Grammont-Ollivier ministry resigned, and was
   succeeded by a cabinet formed under the presidency of Count
   Palikao (General Montauban). "New levies were called into the
   field, comprising all unmarried men between the ages of 25 and
   30 not already enrolled in the 'garde mobile.' … In the
   German head-quarters … it was resolved in some way to make
   Bazaine's army harmless, either by shutting him up in Metz or
   by pushing him northward to the Belgian frontier. … The task
   was a difficult one. … All depended upon what course Bazaine
   might conclude to pursue, and the energy with which he
   executed his plans. It was his purpose to leave Metz with the
   field army and join MacMahon at Châlons. There would then be
   300,000 French at that place to block the German march to
   Paris. In that event the Germans would have to leave 60,000
   men before Metz … and Diedenhofen, and would not have enough
   left to venture an attack on the united and well-intrenched
   armies at Châlons. Accordingly, the union of those two armies
   must be prevented at any price, and Bazaine be attacked before
   Metz. The execution of this plan led to the severe fighting
   near that city—the battle of Colombey-Nouilly (Borny), on the
   14th, Vionville on the 16th, and Gravelotte on the 18th." The
   battle of Gravelotte was "the first battle in the war in which
   a pre-arranged plan [Moltke's] was actually carried out. … It
   was a brilliant victory, and followed by important results.
   Bazaine's army was shut up in the fortress and among the
   outlying forts, and rendered unavailable for further service
   in the field. The losses of the French amounted to about
   13,000 men, including 600 officers; the German loss was 899
   officers and 19,260 men, of whom 328 officers and 4,909 men
   were killed outright. The number of combatants on the side of
   the French was about 140,000, on the side of the Germans
   178,818, the former having 550, and the latter 822 cannon. It
   must be remembered, however, that the French occupied a
   position very much of the nature of a fortress, which had to
   be carried by storm."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count H. von Moltke,
      The Franro-German War of 1870-71,
      section 1._

      _Colonel A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
      The Franco-German War,
      chapters 10-29._

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (August-September).
   Investment of Metz by the Germans.
   Disastrous attempt of MacMahon to rescue Bazaine.
   The catastrophe at Sedan.

   "The huge, stubborn, vehement and bloody conflict waged in the
   rural tract between the northern edges of the Bois de Vaux and
   the Forest of Jaumont, which the French Marshal called the
   'Defence of the Lines of Amanvillers,' the French Army, 'the
   Battle of St. Privat,' and the Germans the battle of
   'Gravelotte—St. Privat,' established the mastery of the
   latter over 'the Army of the Rhine.' Marshal Bazaine had not
   proved strong enough to extricate the Army he was suddenly
   appointed to command from the false position in which it had
   been placed by the errors and hesitations of the Emperor and
   Marshal Lebœuf. … The German leaders forthwith resolved, and
   acted on the resolve, to take the largest advantage of success.
   When the broadening day showed that the French were encamped
   under the guns of the fort, and that they did not betray the
   faintest symptom of fighting for egress on any side, the place
   was deliberately invested. … Soon the blockade was so far
   completed that only adventurous scouts were able at rare
   intervals to work their way through the German lines. As early
   as the forenoon of the 19th, the King had decided to form what
   came to be called the 'Army of the Meuse' out of the Corps
   which were not needed to uphold the investment of Metz, and
   thus place himself in a condition to assail the French Army
   collecting at Chalons. … This formidable force was put under
   the command of the Crown Prince of Saxony, who had shown
   himself to be an able soldier. Consequently, there remained
   behind to invest Bazaine, seven Corps d'Armée and a Division
   of Reserve under General von Kummer. … One Army had been
   literally imprisoned, another remained at large, and behind it
   were the vast resources of France. Three Marshals were cooped
   up in the cage on the Moselle; one, MacMahon, and the Emperor
   were still in the field; and upon the forces with them it was
   resolved to advance at once, because prudence required that
   they should be shattered before they could be completely
   organized, and while the moral effect of the resounding blows
   struck in Alsace and Lorraine had lost none of its terrible
   power. Therefore the King and General von Moltke started on
   the morrow of victory to march on Paris through the plains of
   Champagne."

      _G. Hooper,
      The Campaign of Sedan,
      chapter 10._

   "While the German invasion had thus been rolling from Lorraine
   into the flats of Champagne, the shattered right wing of the
   army of the Rhine, with reinforcements sent off from Paris,
   had been drawn together in the well-known plains made
   memorable by the defeat of Attila. By 20 August the first and
   fifth French corps marched rapidly from the Upper Moselle to
   the Marne, had been joined by the seventh corps from Belfort
   and by the twelfth formed in and despatched from Paris; and
   this force, numbering perhaps 130,000 men, with from 400 to
   500 guns, had been concentrated round the great camp of
   Châlons. Macmahon was given the supreme command, and the first
   operations of the experienced chief showed that he understood
   the present state of affairs, and were in accord with the
   rules of strategy. Bazaine, he knew, was in peril near Metz,
   and certainly had not attained the Meuse; and he was at the
   head of the last army which France could assemble for the
   defence of her capital.
{1383}
   In these circumstances, impressed perhaps by the grand
   memories of the campaign of 1814, he most properly resolved to
   fall back towards Paris; but as Bazaine was possibly not far
   distant, and a position on the flank of the German advance
   might afford a favourable opportunity to strike, he withdrew
   northwards on the 21st to Rheims, in the double hope that he
   would approach his colleague and threaten the communications
   of the advancing enemy. This, we repeat, was following the art
   of war, and had Macmahon firmly adhered to his purpose, there
   would have been no Sedan and no treaty of Frankfort. Unhappily
   the marshal, a hero in the field, was deficient in real
   strength of character, and at this critical moment evil
   counsels and false information shook, and at last changed, a
   resolve that ought to have never faltered. A new
   administration had been formed in Paris, and Palikao, the
   minister of war, devoted to the Empire, and especially bent on
   satisfying the demands of the excited capital, which
   passionately insisted on the relief of Bazaine, had conceived
   a project by which he hoped that this great object would be
   effected and the 'dynasty' be restored in popular opinion. The
   army of the Meuse, he argued, was near that stream, round
   Verdun; the third army was far away to the south; there was a
   considerable interval between the two masses; and the army of
   Châlons, then at Rheims, was not far from the Upper Meuse. In
   those circumstances it was quite practicable, should Macmahon
   rapidly advance to the Meuse, to overpower with his largely
   superior force the army of the Meuse before support could be
   sent from the distant third army; and the enemy in his path
   being swept aside, the marshal could then descend on Metz,
   fall with the collected strength of the army of Châlons on the
   divided fragments of the investing force, and triumphantly
   effect his junction with Bazaine, having routed, perhaps, the
   first and second armies before the third could appear on the
   scene. The defiles and woods of the Argonne and the Ardennes,
   stretching between the French and the German armies, Palikao
   insisted, would form a screen to conceal the advance of the
   army of Chãlons, and would greatly facilitate the proposed
   movement. This project reached Macmahon on 21 August, and may
   be pronounced one of the most reckless ever designed by a
   desperate gambler in war. … Macmahon at first refused to
   listen to what he condemned as a hopeless project; but bad
   advisers found their way to him, and his resolution was
   already yielding when a calamitous event fixed his shifting
   purpose. A despatch from Bazaine, obscure and untrue,
   announced that he was on his way northward. Macmahon inferred
   that his beleaguered colleague had left Metz and eluded his
   foes, and, thinking that he would reach Bazaine before long,
   in an evil hour for France and for himself, he consented to
   attempt the march to the Meuse."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      The Campaign of Sedan
      (English Historical Review., April, 1888)._

   "It was not until the afternoon of August 23 that MacMahon's
   army passed through Rheims. Anxious, and knowing that
   everything depended on speed, he addressed some columns as
   they toiled onwards, reminding them that French soldiers had
   marched thirty miles a day under the sun of Africa. The
   difference, however, was great between raids made by a few
   light regiments and the advance of a raw unwieldy mass; and
   though the marshal endeavoured to hurry them forward, he was
   confronted with almost insurmountable obstacles. Scarcely had
   the army made a march towards establishing itself at
   Bethniville, on the Suippe, when commissariat difficulties
   obliged him to re-approach the line of the railway. He made a
   movement on his left, and reached Rethel on the 24th, in order
   to obtain for his troops several days' subsistence. This
   distribution occupied the whole of the 25th. … As the
   direction of the French movement could not now be concealed,
   at this point MacMahon made arrangements for marching with all
   possible rapidity. It may be doubted, however, whether
   Napoleon himself, at the head of the grand army could have
   made the haste which the marshal designed with his raw and
   partly demoralized troops. … His army was altogether unequal
   to forced marches, and moved at this critical moment with the
   sluggishness inherent in its defective organization.
   Encumbered with stragglers, badly pioneered, and checked by
   hindrances of every kind, it made hardly ten miles a day; and
   it was the 27th of August before its right column, still far
   from the Meuse, passed through Vouziers, and the left reached
   Le Chêne. … On the 27th it was openly boasted of in Paris
   that MacMahon had gained at least forty-eight hours' start of
   the Crown Prince, and his coming success was firmly counted on
   by the imperialist cabinet, whereas, in reality, the whole
   scheme was foiled beforehand by Von Moltke's and General
   Blumenthal's prompt combination. … If in fighting, in the
   boldness of their cavalry, the activity of their staff, the
   cool firing of their infantry, and the skilful tactical use of
   their guns, the superiority of the Germans to their
   antagonists had been already proved; it only required the
   contrast now presented between the movements of the two armies
   to show, that in no point had the difference of training and
   moral feeling told more in favour of the invaders than in that
   of the marching, on which the elder Napoleon so often relied
   for his advantage over these very Germans. … Between the
   27th and the morning of the 29th, the right column of the
   French army had only its outposts at Buzancy, while the left,
   though its outposts touched Stenay, was only at Stonne and
   Beaumont, both columns spreading a long way backward; in other
   words, they were still a march from the Meuse, which they
   ought to have passed three days before, and their rearward
   divisions were yet distant. The German armies, from the 26th
   to the 29th, made astonishing exertions to close on MacMahon
   as he crossed towards the Meuse, and success was already
   within their grasp. The force of the Crown Prince of Saxony,
   in two columns, had reached the Meuse at Dun on the 27th, and
   was thus in a position to arrest and retard the vanguard of
   the French whenever it attempted to cross the river. Meanwhile
   the army of the Crown Prince of Prussia, hastening forward by
   Varennes and Grand Prè, and to the left by Senuc and Suippe,
   had arrived close to the line of march of MacMahon's right
   column, and by the evening of the 28th had occupied it about
   Vouziers. A step farther, and this immense army would be upon
   the positions of the luckless French, who, assailed in flank
   and rear by superior numbers, could not fail to be involved in
   terrible disaster. … MacMahon [on the 27th], observing that
   the enemy so completely surrounded him, felt more than ever
   satisfied that it would be impossible to carry out the plan
   which had been prescribed to him at Paris; and to save, if
   possible, the sole army which France had at her disposal, he
   accordingly resolved to turn back in a westerly direction. …
{1384}
   The same evening he sent … [a] telegram to the Count
   Palikao, at Paris. … In reply to this, the government sent a
   telegram to the emperor at eleven o'clock the same night,
   telling him that if they abandoned Bazaine there would
   certainly be a revolution in Paris, and they would themselves
   be attacked by all the enemy's forces. … The emperor admits
   that he could unquestionably have set this order aside, but
   'he was resolved not to oppose the decision of the regency,
   and had resigned himself to submit to the consequences of the
   fatality which attached itself to all the resolutions of the
   government.' 'As for MacMahon, he again bowed to the decision
   intimated to him from Paris, and once more turned towards
   Metz. These orders and counter-orders naturally occasioned
   further delay, and the French headquarters had reached no
   farther than Stonne on the 28th. … On Monday, August 29, De
   Failly occupied the country between Beaumont and Stonne, on
   the left bank of the Meuse; while the main body of the French
   army, under MacMahon in person, had crossed the river, and
   were encamped on the right bank at Vaux, between Mouzon and
   Carignan, and on the morning of the 30th the emperor
   telegraphed to Paris that a brilliant victory might be
   expected. MacMahon's position was in a sharp wedge of country
   formed by the confluence of the rivers Meuse and Chiers, and
   it was his intention to advance towards Montmèdy. The other
   part of his army was close to the river on its left bank. …
   The battle—or rather series of battles, for the fighting
   extended over three days—which was to decide whether or not
   he would reach Metz and liberate Bazaine, began in earnest a
   little before noon on Tuesday, August 30."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      The Franco-Prussian War,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

   "The retreating French were concentrated, or rather massed,
   under the walls of Sedan, in a valley commonly called the Sink
   of Givonne. The army consisted of twenty-nine brigades,
   fifteen divisions, and four corps d'armée, numbering ninety
   thousand men. 'It was there,' says Victor Hugo, 'no one could
   guess what for, without order, without discipline, a mere
   crowd of men, waiting, as it seemed, to be seized by an
   immensely powerful hand. It seemed to be under no particular
   anxiety. The men who composed it knew, or thought they knew,
   that the enemy was far away. Calculating four leagues as a
   day's march, they believed the Germans to be at three days'
   distance. The commanders, however, towards nightfall, made
   some preparations for safety. The whole army formed a sort of
   horse-shoe, its point turning towards Sedan. This disposition
   proved that its chiefs believed themselves in safety. The
   valley was one of those which the Emperor Napoleon used to
   call a "bowl," and which Admiral Van Tromp designated by a
   less polite name. No place could have been better calculated
   to shut in an army. Its very numbers were against it. Once in,
   if the way out were blocked, it could never leave it again.
   Some of the generals,—General Wimpfen among them—saw this,
   and were uneasy; but the little court around the emperor was
   confident of safety. "At worst," they said, "we can always
   reach the Belgian frontier." The commonest military
   precautions were neglected. The army slept soundly on the
   night of August 31. At the worst they believed themselves to
   have a line of retreat open to Mézières, a town on the
   frontier of Belgium. No cavalry reconnoissance was made that
   night; the guards were not doubled. The French believed
   themselves more than forty miles from the German army. They
   behaved as if they thought that army unconcentrated and
   ill-informed, attempting vaguely several things at once, and
   incapable of converging on one point, namely, Sedan. They
   thought they knew that the column under the Prince of Saxony
   was marching upon Châlons, and that the Crown Prince of
   Prussia was marching upon Metz. But that night, while the
   French army, in fancied security, was sleeping at Sedan, this
   is what was passing among the enemy. By a quarter to two A. M.
   the army of the Prince of Saxony was on its march eastward
   with orders not to fire a shot till five o'clock, and to make
   as little noise as possible. They marched without baggage of
   any kind. At the same hour another division of the Prussian
   army marched, with equal noiselessness, from another direction
   on Sedan, while the Würtemburgers secured the road to
   Mézières, thereby cutting off the possibility of a retreat
   into Belgium. At the same moment, namely, five o'clock,—on
   all the hills around Sedan, at all points of the compass,
   appeared a dense dark mass of German troops, with their
   commanders and artillery. Not one sound had been heard by the
   French army, not even an order. Two hundred and fifty thousand
   men were in a Circle on the heights round the Sink of Givonne.
   They had come as stealthily and as silently as serpents. They
   were there when the sun rose, and the French army were
   prisoners.'

      _Victor Hugo,
      Choses Vues._

   The battle was one of artillery. The German guns commanded
   every part of the crowded valley. Indeed the fight was simply
   a massacre. There was no hope for the French, though they
   fought bravely. Their best troops, the Garde Impériale, were
   with Bazaine at Metz. Marshal MacMahon was wounded very early
   in the day. The command passed first to General Ducrot, who
   was also disabled, and afterwards to Wimpfen, a brave African
   general who had hurried from Algeria just in time to take part
   in this disastrous day. He told the emperor that the only hope
   was for the troops to cut their way out of the valley; but the
   army was too closely crowded, too disorganized, to make this
   practicable. One Zouave regiment accomplished this feat, and
   reached Belgium. That night—the night of September 1—an
   aide-de-camp of the Emperor Napoleon carried this note to the
   camp of the king of Prussia:—Monsieur Mon Frère,—Not having
   been able to die in midst of my troops, it only remains for me
   to place my sword in the hands of your Majesty. I am your
   Majesty's good brother, Napoleon. … With Napoleon III. fell
   not only his own reputation as a ruler, but the glory of his
   uncle and the prestige of his name. The fallen emperor and
   Bismarck met in a little house upon the banks of the Meuse.
   Chairs were brought out, and they talked in the open air. It
   was a glorious autumn morning. The emperor looked care-worn,
   as well he might. He wished to see the king of Prussia before
   the articles of capitulation were drawn up: but King William
   declined the interview. When the capitulation was signed,
   however, he drove over to visit the captive emperor at a
   château where the latter had taken refuge.
{1385}
   Their interview was private; only the two sovereigns were
   present. The French emperor afterwards expressed to the Crown
   Prince of Prussia his deep sense of the courtesy shown him. He
   was desirous of passing as unnoticed as possible through
   French territory, where, indeed, exasperation against him, as
   the first cause of the misfortunes of France, was so great
   that his life would have been in peril. The next day he
   proceeded to the beautiful palace at Cassel called
   Wilhelmshöhe, or William's Rest. It had been built at ruinous
   expense by Jerome Bonaparte while king of Westphalia, and was
   then called Napoleon's Rest. … Thus eighty thousand men
   capitulated at Sedan, and were marched as prisoners into
   Germany; one hundred and seventy-five thousand French soldiers
   remained shut up in Metz, besides a few thousand more in
   Strasburg, Phalsbourg, Toul, and Belfort. But the road was
   open to Paris, and thither the various German armies marched,
   leaving the Landwehr, which could not be ordered to serve
   beyond the limits of Germany, to hold Alsace and Lorraine,
   already considered a part of the Fatherland."

      _E. W. Latimer,
      France in the Nineteenth Century,
      chapter 12._

   "The German army had lost in the battle of Sedan about 460
   officers and 8,500 men killed and wounded. On the French side
   the loss sustained in the battle and at the capitulation
   amounted according to their returns to the following: Killed
   3,000 men; wounded 14,000; prisoners (in the battle) 21,000;
   prisoners (at the capitulation) 83,000; disarmed in Belgium
   3,000; total 124,000."

      _The Franco-German War: German Official Account,
      part 1, volume 2, page 408._

      ALSO IN:
      _Capt. G. Fitz-George,
      Plan of the battle of Sedan, with Memoir._

      _A. Forbes,
      My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
      part 1, chapter 4 (volume l)._

      _Colonel. A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
      The Franco-German War,
      chapters 30-40._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Refounding of the German Empire,
      chapter 14._

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September).
   Revolution at Paris.
   Collapse of the empire.
   Self-constitution of the Government of National Defense.

   At Paris, the whole truth of the tremendous disaster at Sedan
   was but slowly learned. On the afternoon of Saturday,
   September 3, Count de Palikao intimated a little part of it,
   only, "in a statement to the Corps Législatif, announcing that
   Marshal Bazaine, after a vigorous sally, had been obliged to
   retire again under the walls of Metz, and that Macmahon, after
   a series of combats, attended by reverses and successes—
   having at the outset driven a part of the enemy's army into
   the Meuse—had been compelled to retreat to Sedan and
   Mézières, a portion of his army having taken refuge in
   Belgium. The junction of the two armies had therefore not been
   made. The situation was serious, calmly observed the Minister
   of War, but not hopeless. Not hopeless! when the truth was
   that one army was blockaded and the other prisoner, and that
   there were no reserves. … At a midnight sitting Count de
   Palikao, still determined to conceal a portion of the truth,
   intimated that part of Marshal Macmahon's army had been driven
   back into Sedan, that the remainder had capitulated, and that
   the Emperor had been made prisoner. M. Jules Favre met this
   announcement of fresh disasters by a motion, declaring the
   Emperor and his dynasty to have forfeited all rights conferred
   by the Constitution, demanding the appointment of a
   Parliamentary Committee invested with the governing power, and
   having for its special mission the expulsion of the enemy from
   French territory, and further maintaining General Trochu in
   his post as Governor of Paris. The Chamber then adjourned till
   the morrow. But Paris had touched one of those crises when, as
   Pascal says, a grain of sand will give a turn to history and
   change the life of nations, and the morrow brought with it the
   downfall of the Ministry, of the dynasty, of the Empire, and of
   that bizarre constitutional edifice which had been kept
   waiting so long for its complemental crown. … It had been
   intimated that the Corps Législatif would reassemble at noon,
   before which time numerous groups collected on the Place de la
   Concorde, and eventually swelled to a considerable crowd. The
   bridge leading to the Palais Bourbon was guarded by a
   detachment of mounted gendarmes, and numerous
   sergents-de-ville. … Battalions of National Guards having,
   however, arrived, the gendarmes, after flourishing their
   swords, opened their ranks and allowed them to pass, followed
   by a considerable portion of the crowd, shouting 'Vive la
   République!' and singing the 'Chant du Départ.' The iron gates
   of the Palais Bourbon having been opened to admit a deputation
   of National Guards, the crowd precipitated itself forward, and
   in a few minutes the steps and courtyard were alike invaded.
   Cries of 'Vive la Garde Nationale!' 'Vive la Ligne!' 'Vive la
   République!' resounded on all sides, and the soldiers who
   occupied the court of the Palais Bourbon, after making a show
   of resistance, ended by hoisting the butt ends of their rifles
   in the air in sign of sympathy, joining at the same time in the
   shouts of the crowd, while the latter, encountering no further
   opposition, proceeded to invade the passages of the Chamber,
   at the moment Count de Kératry was attacking the Ministry for
   surrounding the Corps Législatif with troops and
   sergents-de-ville, contrary to the orders of General Trochu.
   Count de Palikao, having explained the relative positions of
   the Governor of Paris and the Minister of War, introduced a
   bill instituting a Council of Government and National Defence,
   composed of five members elected by the Legislative Body, the
   ministers to be appointed with the approval of the members of
   this Council, and he, Count de Palikao, to occupy the post of
   Lieutenant-General. M. Jules Favre having claimed priority for
   the motion which he had introduced the day before, M. Thiers,
   pleading the necessity for union, next moved that:—'In view
   of existing circumstances, the Chamber appoints a Commission
   of Government and National Defence. A Constituent Assembly
   will be convoked as soon as circumstances permit.' The Chamber
   having declared in favour of their urgency, these several
   propositions were eventually referred to the Bureau, and the
   sitting was suspended. It was during this period that the
   crowd penetrated into the Salles des Quatre Colonnes and de la
   Paix. … At half-past two, when the sitting was resumed, the
   galleries were crowded and very noisy. The members of the Left
   only were in their places. It was in vain the President
   attempted to obtain silence, in vain the solemn huissiers
   commanded it. MM. Gambetta and Crémieux appeared together at
   the tribune, and the former begged of the people to remain
   quiet. …
{1386}
   A partial silence having been secured, Count de Palikao,
   followed by a few members of the majority, entered the
   Chamber, but did not essay to speak. … A minute or two
   afterwards, the clamour arose again, and a noisy multitude
   commenced invading the floor of the hall. … Nothing was left
   to the President but to put on his hat and retire, which he
   did, together with Count de Palikao and the members by whom
   the latter had been accompanied. By this time the Chamber was
   completely invaded by National and Mobile Guards, in company
   with an excited crowd, whose advance it was in vain now to
   attempt to repel. M. Jules Favre, having mounted the tribune,
   obtained a moment's silence. 'No scenes of violence,' cried
   he; 'let us reserve our arms for our enemies.' Finding it
   utterly impossible to obtain any further hearing inside the
   Chamber, M. Gambetta, accompanied by the members of the Left,
   proceeded to the steps of the peristyle, and there announced
   the dethronement of the Emperor to the people assembled
   outside. Accompanied by one section of the crowd, they now
   hurried to the Hôtel de Ville, and there installed themselves
   as a Provisional Government, whilst another section took
   possession of the Tuileries—whence the Empress had that
   morning taken flight—as national property. A select band of
   Republicans, mindful of what Count—now Citoyen—Henri
   Rochefort had done to bring Imperialism into disrepute,
   proceeded to the prison of Sainte Pélagie and conducted the
   author of the Lanterne, and other political prisoners, in
   triumph to the Hôtel de Ville. The deputies who quitted the
   Chamber when it was invaded by the mob, met that same
   afternoon at the President's residence, and sent a deputation
   to the Hôtel de Ville, with a proposal to act in common with
   the new Government. This proposition was, however, declined,
   on the score of the Republic having been already proclaimed
   and accepted by the population of Paris. At an evening meeting
   of nearly two hundred deputies, held under the presidency of
   M. Thiers, MM. Jules Favre and Simon attended on the part of
   the Provisional Government to explain that they were anxious
   to secure the support of the deputies, whom they hinted,
   however, could best serve their country in the departments.
   After this unequivocal rebuff, the deputies, who had in the
   meantime been apprised that seals had been placed on the doors
   of the Corps Législatif, saw that nothing remained to them but
   to protest, and protest they accordingly did against the
   events of the afternoon. … Not one of the two hundred
   deputies present so much as dared suggest the breaking of the
   seals and the assembling in the Legislative Chamber. … The
   Government which grasped the reins of power on the utter
   collapse of Imperial institutions was a mob-named one in the
   fullest sense of the term, the names having been chalked by
   the populace on the pillars of the portico of the Palais
   Bourbon during that invasion of the Chamber on the Sunday
   afternoon which resulted in the overthrow of the Imperial
   regime. The list appears to have been accepted by the
   principal members of the Left, who, although they would have
   preferred disassociating themselves from M. Rochefort,
   nevertheless felt that it was impossible to leave him out of
   the combination, and therefore adroitly—and not
   inappropriately, as the safety of Paris was especially in
   their keeping—made it embrace all the deputies for Paris,
   save, as M. Jules Simon observed, the most illustrious
   —meaning M. Thiers, who refused to join it. … The
   Government of National Defence, as it elected to style itself,
   on M. Rochefort's suggestion, was composed of the following
   members:—General Trochu, president; Jules Favre, Vice
   President and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Emanuel Arago;
   Crémieux, Minister of Justice; Jules Ferry, Secretary; Leon
   Gambetta, Minister of the Interior; Garnier-Pagès;
   Glais-Bizoin; Eugene Pelletan; Ernest Picard, Minister of
   Finance; Henri Rochefort; and Jules Simon, Minister of Public
   Instruction. Subsequently it associated with it General Le
   Flô, Minister of War; Admiral Fourichon, Minister of Marine;
   M. Dorian, Minister of Public Works; and M. Magnin, Minister
   of Agriculture and Commerce. These, with Count de Kératry,
   charged with the Prefecture of Police, M. Etienne Arago,
   appointed Mayor of Paris, composed altogether no less than
   eighteen members, upwards of two-thirds of whom were Bretons,
   advocates, or journalists. … For some days the new
   Government was prodigal of proclamations and decrees. Its
   first acts were to close the doors of the Palais Bourbon and
   the Palais du Luxembourg, and dissolve the Corps Législatif
   and abolish the Senate as bouches inutiles politiques, to
   issue proclamations to the army, or rather the debris of one,
   justifying the Revolution and appealing to the troops to
   continue their heroic efforts for the defence of the country,
   and to the National Guard, thanking them for their past, and
   asking for their future patriotism. It released all
   functionaries from their oaths, dismissed the ambassadors at
   foreign courts, appointed prefects in all the departments, and
   new mayors in the twenty arrondissements of the capital,
   proclaimed the complete liberty of the press, ordered all
   Germans not provided with special permission to remain, to
   quit the departments of the Seine and Seine-et-Oise within
   four-and-twenty hours. … It pressed forward the provisioning
   of the city and its works of defence, increased the herds of
   sheep and oxen and the stores of corn and flour, provisionally
   abolished all local customs and octroi dues, and fixed the price
   of butcher's meat, armed the outer forts and the enceinte,
   blew up or mined all the bridges and fired all the woods in
   the environs, razed thousands of houses to the ground, felled
   roadside trees, and constructed huge barricades with them;
   laid in fact all the beautiful suburbs in waste; listened to
   the thousand and one wild schemes put forth by patriotic
   madmen for exterminating the invaders, and launched a huge
   captive balloon, which hovered daily over Paris to give timely
   notice of their dreaded arrival."

      _H. Vizetelly, editor,
      Paris in Peril,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Favre,
      The Government of the National Defence, June-October._

      _W. Rüstow,
      The War for the Rhine Frontier,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

{1387}

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September-October).
   Futile striving for allies and for peace without
   territorial sacrifices.
   Investment of Paris.
   Gambetta's organization of defense in the provinces.
   Bazaine's surrender at Metz.

   "The Government of National Defence … imagined that the fall
   of the Empire would simplify the cruel position of France
   towards the enemy. The Dynasty which had declared war being
   reversed, and the men now in power having been throughout
   opposed to war and in favour of German unity, and now
   demanding nothing but peace, what motive could the King of
   Prussia have to continue the invasion of France? It was
   further to be considered that free France would defend her
   integrity to the last drop of her blood; that she would
   voluntarily give up neither an inch of her territory nor a
   stone of her fortresses. Such were the ideas which the new
   Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Jules Favre, expressed on the
   6th of September, in a circular addressed to the French agents
   in foreign countries. The Cabinet of Berlin was not slow in
   disabusing him of these convictions. Far from accepting the
   view that the Emperor Napoleon was the sole promoter of war,
   Count Bismarck, in two despatches of the 13th and of the 16th
   of September, threw the responsibility of the conflict on the
   French nation. He stated that the vast majority of the
   Chambers had voted for war, and that the Emperor was justified
   in assuring the King that he had been forced into a war to
   which he was personally averse. … In order to be secure
   against future aggression, Germany would ask for guarantees
   from the French nation itself, and not from a transitory
   Government. … In any case, Germany would require Strasburg
   and Metz. Thus the accession to power of the Republican
   Government did not modify the reciprocal positions of the two
   belligerents. Nevertheless, hope was entertained in Paris that
   the friendly intervention of the great powers might induce the
   victor to soften his rigour;" but intervention was declined by
   the Berlin Cabinet and not undertaken. "On the 19th of
   September the investment of Paris was completed. At the desire
   of the French Government, the English Cabinet applied to the
   German head-quarters, with the object of obtaining for M.
   Jules Favre an interview with Count Bismarck. This request
   having been granted, the two statesmen held conferences, on
   the 19th and 20th of September, at Ferrières, a castle of
   Baron Rothschild near Meaux. During these interviews the
   French Minister was sentimental and the German Minister coldly
   logical. They could not come to an agreement on any single
   point. … The Government of Paris … again proclaimed that
   France would not cede an inch of her territory. Meanwhile, in
   consequence of the investment of Paris, the Government of
   National Defence was divided into two parts; some of its
   Delegates withdrew to Tours, forming a delegation of the
   central Government which remained in Paris. The German armies
   had continued their onward march, as well as their operations
   against the fortresses. Toul capitulated on the 23rd and
   Strasburg on the 28th of September. On the 5th of October,
   King William had established his headquarters at Versailles."
   Meantime "the Government of National Defence made a last
   attempt to secure allies, or at least the help of powerful
   mediators. With this object M. Thiers, who had placed himself
   at the disposal of the Administration of the 4th of September,
   was sent on a mission to the European Courts. From the 12th of
   September till the 20th of October, the old statesman visited
   in succession London, Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Florence. In
   none of these cities were his measures attended with happy
   results." At St. Petersburg and at London he was told—and he
   was himself convinced—"that the King of Prussia was
   compelled to consider the public opinion of Germany, and that
   France would have to resign herself to territorial
   sacrifices." He returned to France to advise, and to procure
   authority for, a conference with the German Chancellor. But
   events had already occurred which aggravated the forlorn
   condition of France. "The youngest and most enterprising
   member of the Government of Paris, M. Gambetta, had left the
   Capital on the 8th of October in a balloon for Tours. It was
   his intention to organise national defence in the Provinces.
   The day after his arrival at Tours, he issued a fiery
   Proclamation to the French people. … With an energy that
   called forth universal admiration, the Government of Tours,
   over which Gambetta presided as Dictator, organised
   resistance, formed a new army, and gathered together every
   possible resource for defence both in men and in materials.
   All these efforts could not arrest the progress of the
   invasion. From the 11th to the 31st of October, the Germans
   took successively Orleans, Soissons, Schlestadt and Dijon.
   Round Paris they repulsed the sallies of Malmaison, Champigny,
   and le Bourget. But all these defeats of heroic soldiers waned
   when compared to the appalling and decisive catastrophe of
   Metz. After the battle of Gravelotte, Marshal Bazaine had
   unsuccessfully attempted several sallies. … On the 7th of
   October, after an unfortunate battle at Woippy, lasting nine
   hours, Bazaine considered the situation desperate. His only
   thought was to obtain the most favourable conditions he could,
   and with this object he sent General Boyer to the headquarters
   at Versailles." After two weeks of negotiation, "on the 21st
   of October, the army encamped within the walls of Metz found
   itself without provisions. … Negotiations with Prince
   Frederick Charles, nephew of the King and Commander-in-chief
   of the besieging Army, were opened on the 25th, and terminated
   on the 27th of October. The conditions were identical with
   those of Sedan: capitulation of the town and its forts with
   all the material of war, all the army of the Rhine to be
   prisoners and the officers to be liberated on parole."

      _E. Simon,
      The Emperor William and his Reign,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   "The French Army of the Rhine at the time of the surrender
   still numbered 173,000 men, inclusive of 6,000 officers and
   20,000 men remaining temporarily in Metz as sick or
   convalescent."

      _The Franco-German War: German Official Account,
      part 2, volume 1, page 201._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Forbes,
      My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
      part 2 (volume 1)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
   The war in the provinces.
   Unsuccessful attempts to relieve the capital.
   Distress in Paris.
   Capitulation and armistice.

   "The surrender of Metz and the release of the great army of
   Prince Frederick Charles by which it was besieged fatally
   changed the conditions of the French war of national defence.
   Two hundred thousand of the victorious troops of Germany under
   some of their ablest generals were set free to attack the
   still untrained levies on the Loire and in the north of
   France, which, with more time for organisation, might well
   have forced the Germans to raise the siege of Paris. The army
   once commanded by Steinmetz was now reconstituted, and
   despatched under General Manteuffel towards Amiens; Prince
   Frederick Charles moved with the remainder of his troops
   towards the Loire. Aware that his approach could not long be
   delayed, Gambetta insisted that Aurelle de Paladines should
   begin the march on Paris.
{1388}
   The general attacked Tann at Coulmiers on the 9th of November,
   defeated him, and re-occupied Orleans, the first real success
   that the French had gained in the war. There was great alarm
   at the German headquarters at Versailles; the possibility of a
   failure of the siege was discussed; and 40,000 troops were
   sent southwards in haste to the support of the Bavarian
   general. Aurelle, however, did not move upon the capital: his
   troops were still unfit for the enterprise; and he remained
   stationary on the north of Orleans, in order to improve his
   organisation, to await reinforcements, and to meet the attack
   of Frederick Charles in a strong position. In the third week
   of November the leading divisions of the army of Metz
   approached, and took post between Orleans and Paris. Gambetta
   now insisted that the effort should be made to relieve the
   capital. Aurelle resisted, but was forced to obey. The
   garrison of Paris had already made several unsuccessful
   attacks upon the lines of their besiegers, the most vigorous
   being that of Le Bourget on the 30th of October, in which
   bayonets were crossed. It was arranged that in the last days
   of November General Trochu should endeavour to break out on
   the southern side, and that simultaneously the army of the
   Loire should fall upon the enemy in front of it and endeavour
   to force its way to the capital. On the 28th the attack upon
   the Germans on the north of Orleans began. For several days
   the struggle was renewed by one division after another of the
   armies of Aurelle and Prince Frederick Charles. Victory
   remained at last with the Germans; the centre of the French
   position was carried; the right and left wings of the army
   were severed from one another and forced to retreat, the one
   up the Loire, the other towards the west. Orleans on the 5th
   of December passed back into the hands of the Germans. The
   sortie from Paris, which began with a successful attack by
   General Ducrot upon Champigny beyond the Marne, ended after
   some days of combat in the recovery by the Germans of the
   positions which they had lost, and in the retreat of Ducrot
   into Paris. In the same week Manteuffel, moving against the
   relieving army of the north, encountered it near Amiens,
   defeated it after a hard struggle, and gained possession of
   Amiens itself. After the fall of Amiens, Manteuffel moved upon
   Rouen. This city fell into his hands without resistance. …
   But the Republican armies, unlike those which the Germans had
   first encountered, were not to be crushed at a single blow.
   Under the energetic command of Faidherbe the army of the north
   advanced again upon Amiens. Goeben, who was left to defend the
   line of the Somme, went out to meet him, defeated him on the
   23rd of December, and drove him back to Arras. But again,
   after a week's interval, Faidherbe pushed forward. On the 3rd
   of January he fell upon Goeben's weak division at Bapaume, and
   handled it so severely that the Germans would on the following
   day have abandoned their position, if the French had not
   themselves been the first to retire. Faidherbe, however, had
   only fallen back to receive reinforcements. After some days'
   rest he once more sought to gain the road to Paris, advancing
   this time by the eastward line through St. Quentin. In front
   of this town Goeben attacked him. The last battle of the army
   of the North was fought on the 19th of January. The French
   general endeavoured to disguise his defeat, but the German
   commander had won all that he desired. Faidherbe's army was
   compelled to retreat northwards in disorder; its part in the
   war was at an end. During the last three weeks of December
   there was a pause in the operations of the Germans on the
   Loire. … Gambetta … had … determined to throw the army
   of Bourbaki, strengthened by reinforcements from the south,
   upon Germany itself. The design was a daring one, and had the
   … French armies been capable of performing the work which
   Gambetta required of them, an inroad into Baden, or even the
   reconquest of Alsace, would most seriously have affected the
   position of the Germans before Paris. But Gambetta
   miscalculated the power of young, untrained troops,
   imperfectly armed, badly fed, against a veteran army. In a
   series of hard-fought struggles the army of the Loire under
   General Chanzy was driven back at the beginning of January
   from Vendôme to Le Mans. On the 12th, Chanzy took post before
   this city and fought his last battle. While he was making a
   vigorous resistance in the centre of the line, the Breton
   regiments stationed on his right gave way; the Germans pressed
   round him, and gained possession of the town. Chanzy retreated
   towards Laval, leaving thousands of prisoners in the hands of the
   enemy, and saving only the debris of an army. Bourbaki in the
   meantime, with a numerous but miserably equipped force, had
   almost reached Belfort. … Werder had evacuated Dijon and
   fallen back upon Vesoul; part of his army was still occupied
   in the siege of Belfort. As Bourbaki approached he fell back
   with the greater part of his troops in order to cover the
   besieging force, leaving one of his lieutenants to make a
   flank attack upon Bourbaki at Villersexel. This attack, one of
   the fiercest in the war, delayed the French for two days, and
   gave Werder time to occupy the strong positions that he had
   chosen about Montbéliard. Here, on the 15th of January, began
   a struggle which lasted for three days. The French, starving
   and perishing with cold, though far superior in number to
   their enemy, were led with little effect against the German
   entrenchments. On the 18th Bourbaki began his retreat. Werder
   was unable to follow him; Manteuffel with a weak force was
   still at some distance, and for a moment it seemed possible
   that Bourbaki, by a rapid movement westwards, might crush this
   isolated foe. Gambetta ordered Bourbaki to make the attempt:
   the commander refused to court further disaster with troops
   who were not fit to face an enemy, and retreated towards
   Pontarlier in the hope of making his way to Lyons. But
   Manteuffel now descended in front of him; divisions of
   Werder's army pressed down from the north; the retreat was cut
   off; and the unfortunate French general, whom a telegram from
   Gambetta removed from his command, attempted to take his own
   life. On the 1st of February, the wreck of his army, still
   numbering 85,000 men, but reduced to the extremity of weakness
   and misery, sought refuge beyond the Swiss frontier. The war
   was now over. Two days after Bourbaki's repulse at Montbéliard
   the last unsuccessful sortie was made from Paris. There now
   remained provisions only for another fortnight; above 40,000
   of the inhabitants had succumbed to the privations of the
   siege; all hope of assistance from the relieving armies before
   actual famine should begin disappeared.
{1389}
   On the 23rd of January Favre sought the German Chancellor at
   Versailles in order to discuss the conditions of a general
   armistice and of the capitulation of Paris. The negotiations
   lasted for several days; on the 28th an armistice was signed
   with the declared object that elections might at once be
   freely held for a National Assembly, which should decide
   whether the war should be continued, or on what conditions
   peace should be made. The conditions of the armistice were
   that the forts of Paris and all their material of war should
   be handed over to the German army; that the artillery of the
   enceinte should be dismounted; and that the regular troops in
   Paris should, as prisoners of war, surrender their arms. The
   National Guard were permitted to retain their weapons and
   their artillery. Immediately upon the fulfilment of the first
   two conditions all facilities were to be given for the entry
   of supplies of food into Paris. The articles of the armistice
   were duly executed, and on the 30th of January the Prussian
   flag waved over the forts of the French capital."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 3, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Murdock,
      The Reconstruction of Europe,
      chapters 29-30._

      _Daily News Correspondence of the War
      chapters 13-21._

      _Cassell's History of the War,
      volume 1, chapter 36,
      volume 2; chapters 1-18._

      _Comte d'Herrison,
      Journal of a Staff Officer in Paris._

      _E. B. Washburne,
      Recollections of a Minister to France,
      volume 1, chapters 5-10._

      _J. A. O'Shea,
      An Iron-bound City._

      _F. T. Marzials,
      Life of Gambetta,
      chapter 5._

      _H. von Moltke,
      The Franco-German War of 1870-71,
      sections 3-7._

      _T. G. Bowles,
      The Defence of Paris._

      _W. Rüstow,
      The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
      volume 3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (January-May).
   Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles.
   The Treaty of Frankfort.
   Cession of Alsace and one-fifth of Lorraine.
   Five milliards of indemnity.

   "On the afternoon of January 28 [1871] the capitulation of
   Paris was signed, and an armistice agreed upon to expire on
   February 19 at noon. The provinces occupied by the armies of
   Bourbaki and Munteuffel were alone excluded from this
   agreement. On January 29 the German troops quietly took
   possession of the Paris forts. The regulars and mobiles became
   prisoners of war, with the exception of 12,000 men who were
   left under arms to preserve order. At the earnest request of
   Favre the National Guard were allowed to retain their arms. If
   Favre urged this as a measure to counteract the imperialistic
   ideas supposed to be still cherished by the prisoners
   returning from Germany, it was a political crime as well as a
   military folly. The National Guard became the armed Commune.
   … While the armies withdrew to the lines stipulated in the
   armistice, the elections went quietly forward. The assembly
   convened at Bordeaux, and manifested a spirit that won for it
   universal respect. On February 17 M. Thiers was appointed
   chief of the executive power, and having named his ministry,
   he repaired to Versailles to arrange the preliminaries of
   peace. The conferences that followed with the German
   chancellor were perhaps the most trying ordeals to which the
   Frenchman had ever been subjected. No peace was possible save
   on the basis of the cession of miles of territory and the
   strongest of fortresses. France must also pay a war indemnity
   of no less than five milliards of francs. Bismarck, it is
   true, thought Thiers 'too sentimental for business, … hardly
   fit indeed to buy or sell a horse,' but no diplomatist,
   however astute, could have made better terms for stricken
   France. So thought the assembly at Bordeaux; and when Thiers
   announced the result of his mission with a quivering lip, he
   had its sympathy and support. On the 2d of March the assembly
   formally ratified the peace preliminaries by a vote of 546 to
   107. It had been stipulated in the armistice that the German
   troops should not occupy Paris. The extension of time granted
   by the Germans entitled them to some compensation, and the
   entry of Paris was the compensation claimed. The troops
   detailed for this purpose were not chosen at random. To the
   Frenchman who on the 1st day of March beheld them pass along
   the Avenue de Malakoff or the Champs Elysées it was an ominous
   pageant. It was a German and not a Prussian army that he
   beheld. … That night the Hessians smoked their pipes on the
   Trocadéro, and the Bavarians stacked their arms in the Place
   de la Concorde, while the lights blazing from the palace of
   the Elysée announced the German military headquarters. On the
   third day of the month, the Bordeaux Assembly having ratified
   the peace preliminaries, the German troops marched out, and
   Paris was left to herself again. The war was over. Beyond the
   Rhineland, in Bavaria and Würtemberg as well as in the north,
   all was joy and enthusiasm over the return of the army that
   had answered before the world the question, 'What is the
   German Fatherland?' On the 10th of May the definite treaty of
   peace was signed at Frankfort by which France ceded Alsace and
   a portion of Lorraine, including the fortresses of Metz and
   Strasburg, to her conqueror."

      _H. Murdock,
      The Reconstruction of Europe,
      chapter 30._

   The following are the heads of the Preliminary Treaty
   concluded at Versailles, to which the final Treaty of
   Frankfort conformed:

   "1. France renounces in favour of the German Empire the
   following rights: the fifth part of Lorraine including Metz
   and Thionville, and Alsace less Belfort.

   2. France will pay the sum of five milliards of francs, of
   which one milliard is to be paid in 1871 and the remaining
   four milliards by instalments extending over three years.

   3. The German troops will begin to evacuate the French
   territory as soon as the Treaty is ratified. They will then
   evacuate the interior of Paris and some departments lying in
   the western region. The evacuation of the other departments
   will take place gradually after payment of the first milliard,
   and proportionately to the payment of the other four
   milliards. Interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum
   will be paid on the amount remaining due from the date of the
   ratification of the Treaty.

   4. The German troops will not levy any requisitions in the
   departments occupied by them, but will be maintained at the
   cost of France. A delay will be granted to the inhabitants of
   the territories annexed to choose between the two
   nationalities.

   6. Prisoners of war will be immediately set at liberty.

   7. Negotiations for a definitive Treaty of Peace will be
   opened at Brussels after the ratification of this Treaty.

   8. The administration of the departments occupied by the
   German troops will be entrusted to French officials, but under
   the control of the chiefs of the German Corps of occupation.

   9. The present Treaty confers upon the Germans no rights
   whatever in the portions of territories not occupied.

   10. This Treaty will have to be ratified by the

   National Assembly of France."

      _C. Lowe,
      Prince Bismarck,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 3, numbers 438 and 446._

{1390}

FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
   Insurrection of the Communists of Paris.
   Second siege and reduction of the capital.

   "On the 3d of March the German army of occupation—which had
   been in the assigned part of the city since the 1st—marched
   off through the Arc de Triomphe, and on the 7th the German
   headquarters were moved from Versailles. The great
   Franco-Prussian War was over. … But before … peace could
   be attained, the country had yet to suffer from the so-called
   patriots of the Red Republicans worse outrage than it had
   endured at the hands of the German invaders. When the
   negotiations for the capitulation of Paris were in progress,
   Count Bismarck had warned M. Favre of the danger of allowing,
   as he proposed, the National Guard to retain their arms; and
   the members of the Government of National Defence might
   themselves have seen the risk they were incurring, had they
   calmly considered the various émeutes that had taken place
   during the siege, and in which the National Guard had always
   played such a conspicuous part on the side of disaffection.
   Now, in the full consciousness of their strength—somewhere
   about 100,000—and in their possession of a powerful
   artillery,—for during the German occupation they had, on the
   pretext of keeping them safe, got a large number of cannon
   into their hands,—they seemed determined to attempt the
   revival of the Reign of Terror. … The appointment of General
   d'Aurelle de Paladines as their commander gave great offence,
   and on the 9th March an attempt to place the tricolor on the
   column in the Place de la Bastille instead of the red flag of
   revolution led to an outbreak. A promise in the event of the
   cannon being given up, of the continuance of pay till
   'ordinary work was resumed,' was disregarded, and the
   dismissal of D'Aurelle and the full recognition of the right
   of the National Guard to elect its own officers demanded. An
   effort of the government to seize the cannon in the Place des
   Vosges failed, and it was now clear enough that more energetic
   action than negotiations must take place. On the morning of the
   18th March a large force of regular troops under Generals
   Vinoy and Lecomte proceeded to Montmarte and took possession
   of the guns; but the want of horses for their immediate
   removal gave time for the Reds to assemble and frustrate the
   effort, while, worst of all, a large number of the regular
   troops fraternized with the insurgents. General Lecomte and
   General Clement Thomas were taken prisoners and almost
   immediately shot. The outbreak, thus begun, spread rapidly;
   for, through some unaccountable timidity of the government,
   the government forces were withdrawn from the city, and the
   insurgents left free to act as they pleased. They seized
   General Chanzy at the Orleans railway station, took possession
   of the Ministry of Justice and the Hôtel de Ville, and threw
   up barricades round all the revolutionary quarters. The
   Central Committee of the National Guard, the leading man of
   which was Assi, … summoned the people of Paris to meet 'in
   their comitia for the communal elections,' and declared their
   intention of resigning their power into the hands of the
   Commune thus chosen. The National Assembly removed from
   Bordeaux and held its sittings at Versailles: but bitter as
   was the feeling of the majority of the Deputies against the
   new turbulence, the position of affairs prevented any action
   from being taken against the insurgents. The removal of
   General d'Aurelle and the appointment of Admiral Saisset in
   his place was of no avail. A number of the inhabitants of
   Paris, styling themselves 'Men of Order,' attempted to
   influence affairs by a display of moral force, but they were
   fired on and dispersed. The Assembly was timid, and apparently
   quite unable to bring its troops into play. … Through
   Admiral Saisset concessions were offered, but the demands of
   the Communists increased with the prospect of obtaining
   anything. They now modestly demanded that they should
   supersede the Assembly wherever there was any prospect of
   collision of power, and be allowed to control the finances;
   and as a very natural consequence the negotiations were
   abandoned. This was on the 25th of March, and on the 26th the
   Commune was elected, the victory of the Reds being very easily
   gained, as hardly any of those opposed to them voted. Two days
   afterwards the Commune was proclaimed at the Hôtel de Ville,
   the members who had been elected being seated on a platform in
   red arm-chairs. The leading man of the new system was the
   honest but hot-headed and utopian Deleseluze; Cluseret, a man
   of considerable military genius, who had led a life of a very
   wild nature in America, and who was the soul of the resistance
   when the actual fighting began, was Delegate of War; Grousset,
   of Foreign Affairs; and Rigault, of Public Safety. The new
   government applied itself vigorously to changes; conscription
   was abolished, and the authority of the Versailles government
   declared 'null and void.' Seeing that a desperate struggle
   must inevitably ensue, a very large number of the inhabitants
   of Paris quitted the city, and the German authorities allowed
   the prisoners from Metz and Sedan to return so as to swell the
   forces at the disposal of M. Thiers. They also intimated that,
   in view of the altered circumstances, it might again become
   necessary for them to occupy the forts they had already
   evacuated. The first shot in the second siege of Paris, in
   which Frenchmen were arrayed against Frenchmen, was fired on
   the 2d April, when a strong division of the Versailles army
   advanced against the National Guards posted at Courbevoie, and
   drove them into Paris across the Pont de Neuilly. During the
   ensuing night a large force of insurgents gathered, and were
   on the morning of the 3d led in three columns against
   Versailles. Great hopes had been placed on the sympathy of the
   regular troops, but they were doomed to disappointment. …
   The expedition … not only failed, but it … cost the
   Commune two of its leading men,—Duval, and that Flourens who
   had already made himself so conspicuous in connection with
   revolutionary outbreaks under the Empire and the Government of
   National Defence,—both of whom were taken and promptly shot
   by the Versailles authorities. The failure and the executions
   proved so exasperating that the 'Commune of Paris' issued a
   proclamation denouncing the Versailles soldiers as banditti.
   … They had ample means of gratifying their passion for
   revenge, for they had in their hands a number of leading men,
   including Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and M. Bonjean,
   President of the Court of Cassation, and these—two hundred in
   all—they proclaimed their intention of holding as hostages.
{1391}
   M. Thiers was still hesitating, and waiting for a force
   sufficiently powerful to crush all opposition; and in this he
   was no doubt right, for any success of the Communists, even of
   the most temporary character, would have proved highly
   dangerous. The Germans had granted permission to the
   government to increase their original 30,000 troops to
   150,000, and prisoners of Metz and Sedan had been pouring
   steadily back from Germany for this purpose. On the 8th April
   Marshal MacMahon took command of the forces at Versailles. A
   premature attack on the forts of Issy, Vanves, and Montrouge
   on the 11th failed, but on the 17th and 19th several of the
   insurgent positions were carried; on the 25th the bombardment
   of Issy and Vanves was begun, and from that time onwards
   operations against the city were carried on with the greatest
   activity, the insurgents being on all occasions put to the
   sword in a most merciless manner. Issy was taken on the 8th
   May, and Vanves on the 4th, and the enceinte laid bare. Inside
   Paris all this time there was nothing but jealousy. … First
   one leader, and then another, was tried, found wanting, and
   disgraced. … On the 21st May the defenders of the wall at
   the gate of St. Cloud were driven from their positions by the
   heavy artillery fire, and the besieging army, having become
   aware of the fact, pushed forward and secured this entrance to
   the city; and by the evening of the 22d there were 80,000
   Versaillists within the walls. Next day they gained fresh
   ground, and were ready to re-occupy the Tuileries and the
   Hôtel de Ville; but before this was possible the Communists,
   mad with despair, had resolved on that series of outrages
   against humanity that will make their names detested and their
   cause distrusted as long as the story of their crimes stands
   recorded in the annals of history. They had already
   perpetrated more than one act of vandalism. … On the 12th
   May, in accordance with a public decree, they had destroyed
   the private residence of M. Thiers with all its pictures and
   books; on the 16th the magnificent column erected in the Place
   Vendome in memory of Napoleon I., and crowned by his statue,
   was undermined at one side and then pulled to the ground by
   means of ropes and utterly destroyed; and now on the 24th, in
   the last efforts of despairing rage, bands of men and women,
   still more frantic and eager for blood than were those of the
   Reign of Terror, rushed through the doomed city. Early in the
   morning the Tuileries, the Hôtel de Ville, the Ministry of
   Finance, the Palais d'Orsay, and other public and private
   buildings were seen to be on fire. The Louvre, too, with all
   its inestimable treasures, was in flames, and was saved with
   the greatest difficulty. If the Commune was to perish, it had
   clearly resolved that the city was to perish with it. Men and
   women marched about in bands with petroleum, and aided the
   spread of the conflagration by firing the city in different
   places. Heedless of the flames, the Versailles troops pressed
   on, eager, if possible, to save the lives of the 200 hostages,
   but, alas, in vain. A passion for blood had seized on the
   Commune, and its last expiring effort was to murder in cold
   blood, not only a large number of the hostages, but also
   batches of fresh victims, seized indiscriminately about the
   streets by bands of men and women, and dragged off to instant
   death. On the 26th Belleville was captured, and on the 27th
   and 28th the Cemetery of Père la Chaise was the scene of the
   final struggle,—a struggle of such a desperate nature—for
   there was no quarter—that, for days after, the air of the
   district was literally fraught with pestilence. Many of the
   leaders of the Commune had fallen in the final contest, and
   all the others who were captured by the Versailles troops
   during the fighting were at once shot. Of the 30,000 prisoners
   who had fallen into the hands of the government, a large
   number, both men and women, were executed without mercy, and
   the rest distributed in various prisons to await trial, as
   also were Rossel, Assi, Grousset, and others, who were
   captured after the resistance was at an end. Cluseret
   succeeded in making good his escape. … Of the prisoners,
   about 10,000 were set free without trial, and the others were
   sentenced by various courts-martial during the following
   months and on through the coming year, either to death,
   transportation or imprisonment."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      volume 3, chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. B. Washburne,
      Recollections of a Minister to France,
      volume 2, chapters 5-7._

      _P. Vésinier,
      History of the Commune of Paris._

      _P. O. Lissagaray,
      History of the Commune of 1871._

      _W. P. Fetridge,
      Rise and Fall of the Paris Commune._

      _J. Leighton,
      Paris under the Commune._

FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (April-May).
   The government of the Commune in Paris.

   "For the conduct of affairs the Communal Council divided
   itself into ten 'commissions,' of finance, war, public safety,
   external relations, education, justice, labour and exchange,
   provisions, the public service, and the general executive. Of
   these the most efficient appears to have been that of finance;
   by advances from the bank and by the revenues of the post, the
   telegraph, the octrois, &c., means were found to provide for
   the current expenditure. The other commissions were admittedly
   inefficient, and especially the one which was most important
   for the moment, that of war:—'as to a general plan,' says
   Lissagaray, 'there never was one: the men were abandoned to
   themselves, being neither cared for nor controlled;' 'at the
   Ministry,' says Gastyne, 'no one is at his place. They pass
   their time in running after one another. The most
   insignificant Lieutenant will take orders from nobody, and
   wants to give them to everybody. They smoke, chat and chaff.
   They dispute with the contractors. They buy irresponsibly
   right and left because the dealers give commissions or have
   private relations with the officials;' 'in the army of
   Versailles,' said a member of the Commune, 'they don't get
   drunk: in ours they are never sober;' 'the administration of
   war,' said another, 'is the organisation of disorganisation;'
   'I feel myself,' said Rossel, on resigning his command,
   'incapable of any longer bearing the responsibility of a
   command where everyone deliberates and no one obeys. The
   central committee of artillery has deliberated and prescribed
   nothing. The Commune has deliberated and resolved upon
   nothing. The Central Committee deliberates and has not yet
   known how to act. … My predecessor committed the fault of
   struggling against this absurd situation. I retire, and have
   the honour to ask you for a cell at Mazas.' The same
   incompetence, leading to the same result of anarchy, was
   displayed by the Executive Commission:—'in less than a
   fortnight,' said Grosset, 'conflicts of every kind had arisen;
   the Executive Commission gave orders which were not executed;
   each particular commission, thinking itself sovereign in its
   turn, gave orders too, so that the Executive Commission could
   have no real responsibility.'
{1392}
   On April 20 the Executive Commission was replaced by a
   committee, composed of a delegate from each of the nine other
   commissions; still efficiency could not be secured, and at the
   end of the month it was proposed to establish a Committee of
   Public Safety. This proposition was prompted by the traditions
   of 1793, and brought into overt antagonism the two conflicting
   tendencies of the Commune: there were some of its members who
   were ready to save the movement by a despotism, to secure at
   every cost a strong administration, and impose the Commune, if
   need be by terror, upon Paris and the provinces. … On the
   other hand there was a strong minority which opposed the
   proposal, on the ground that it was tantamount to an
   abdication on the part of the Communal Council. … The
   appointment of the Committee was carried by forty-five votes
   to twenty-three; many of those who voted for it regarded it as
   merely another 'Executive Commission,' subordinate to, and at
   any moment subject to dismissal by, the Commune; and so, in
   effect, it proved; it was neither more terrible nor more
   efficient than the body to which it succeeded; it came into
   existence on the 1st of May, and on the 9th the complaint was
   already advanced that 'your Committee of Public Safety has not
   answered our expectations; it has been an obstacle, instead of a
   stimulus;' on the 10th a new committee was appointed, with
   similar results; all that the innovation achieved was to bring
   into clear relief the fact that there existed in the Commune a
   Jacobin element ready to recur to the traditions of 1793, and
   to make Paris the mistress of France by the guillotine or its
   modern equivalent."

      _G. L. Dickinson,
      Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
      pages 267-270._

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
   The Assembly at Bordeaux.
   Thiers elected Chief of the Executive Power.
   The founding of the Republic.
   The recovery of order and prosperity.
   Resignation of Thiers.
   Election of Marshal MacMahon.
   Plans of the Monarchists defeated.
   Adoption of the Constitution of 1875.

   "The elections passed off more quietly than was to be
   expected, and the Assembly which came together at Bordeaux on
   the 13th of February exactly represented the sentiment of the
   nation at that particular moment. France being eager for
   peace, the Assembly was pacific. It was also somewhat
   unrepublican, for the Republic had been represented in the
   provinces only by Gambetta, the promoter of war to the knife,
   who had sacrificed the interests of the Republic to what he
   conceived to be the interests of the national honor. Politics
   had, in truth, been little thought of, and Thiers was elected
   in 27 departments upon very diverse tickets, rather on account
   of his opposition to the war and his efforts in favor of peace
   than on account of his fame as a liberal orator and historian.
   Moved by the same impulse, the Assembly almost unanimously
   appointed him Chief of the Executive Power of the French
   Republic, and intrusted to him the double task of governing
   the country and of treating with the German Emperor. … It
   was apparently in the name of the Republic that peace was
   negotiated and the Government gradually reconstructed. … The
   Assembly, however, which was all-powerful, held that to change
   the form of government was one of its rights. It might have
   been urged that the electors had scarcely contemplated this,
   and that the Monarchists were in the majority simply because
   they represented peace, while in the provinces the Republic
   had meant nothing but war to the hilt. But these distinctions
   were not thought of in the press of more urgent business,
   namely, the treaty which was to check the shedding of blood,
   and the rudiments of administrative reconstruction. No
   monarchy would have been willing to assume the responsibility
   of this Treaty. … The Right accordingly consented to accept
   the name of Republic as a makeshift, provided it should be
   talked about as little as possible. Thiers had come to think,
   especially since the beginning of the war, that the Republic
   was the natural heir of Napoleon III. … He had, however,
   been struck with the circumstance that so many Legitimists had
   been elected to the Assembly, and he was no more eager than
   they to stop to discuss constitutions. … He was the more
   disposed to wait, inasmuch as he saw in the Chamber the very
   rapid formation and growth of a group in which he had great
   confidence. Of these deputies M. Jules Simon has given a
   better definition than they could themselves formulate,—for
   this political philosopher has written a masterly history of
   these years. … Here is what Simon says of this party in the
   Assembly: 'There were in this body some five-score firm
   spirits who were alike incapable either of forsaking the
   principles whereon all society rests, or of giving up freedom.
   Of all forms of government they would have preferred
   constitutional monarchy, had they found it established, or
   could they have restored it by a vote without resort to force.
   But they quickly perceived that neither the Legitimists nor
   the Bonapartists would consent to the constitutional form;
   that such a monarchy could obtain a majority neither in the
   Parliament nor among the people. … Some of these men
   entertained for the Republic a distrust which, at first,
   amounted to aversion. Being persuaded, however, that they must
   choose between the Republic and the Empire … they did not
   despair of forming a Republic at once liberal and
   conservative. In a word, they thrust aside the Legitimate
   Monarchy as chimerical, Republican and Cæsarian dictatorship
   as alike hateful. … Of this party M. Thiers was not merely
   the head, but the body also.' … But there was another party,
   which, although the least numerous in the Assembly and split
   into factions at that, was the most numerous in the
   country,—the Republican party."

      _P. de Rémusat,
      Thiers,
      chapters 6-7._

{1393}

   "In the wake of Thiers followed such men as Rémusat, Casimir
   Périer, Leon Say, and Lafayette. This added strength made the
   Republicans the almost equal rivals of the other parties
   combined. So great was Thiers' influence that, despite his
   conversion to Republicanism, he was still able to control the
   Monarchical Assembly. A threat of resignation, so great was
   the dread of what might follow it, and so jealous were the
   Monarchists of two shades and the Imperialists of each other,
   was enough to bring the majority to the President's terms. It
   was under such political conditions that the infant Republic,
   during its first year, undertook the tasks of preserving
   peace, of maintaining internal order, of retrieving disaster,
   of tempting back prosperity and thrift to the desolated land,
   of relieving it of the burdens imposed by war, and, at the
   same time, of acquiring for itself greater security and
   permanency. The recovery of France was wonderfully rapid; her
   people began once more to taste sweet draughts of liberty; the
   indemnity was almost half diminished; and her industries, at
   the end of the year, were once more in full career. But the
   Republic was a long way from complete and unquestioned
   recognition. The second year of the Republic (1872-73) was
   passed amid constant conflicts between the rival parties.
   Thiers still maintained his ascendency, and stoutly adhered to
   his defence of Republican institutions; but the Assembly was
   restive under him, and energetic attempts were made to bring
   about a fusion between the Legitimists and the Orleanists.
   These attempts were rendered futile by the obstinacy of the
   Count of Chambord, who would yield nothing, either of
   principle or even of symbol, to his cousin of Orleans. The
   want of harmony among the Monarchists postponed the
   consideration of what should be the permanent political
   constitution of France until November of the year 1872, when a
   committee of thirty was chosen to recommend constitutional
   articles. Against this the Republicans protested. They
   declared that the Assembly had only been elected to make peace
   with Germany; … that dissolution was the only further act
   that the Assembly was competent to perform. This indicated the
   confidence of the Republicans in their increased strength in
   the country; and the fact that the Monarchists refused to
   dissolve shows that they were not far from holding this
   opinion of their opponents. Despite the rivalries and
   bitterness of the factions, the Republic met with no serious
   blow from the time of its provisional establishment in
   February, 1871, until May, 1873. Up to the latter period two
   thirds of the enormous indemnity had been paid, and the German
   force of occupation had almost entirely retired from French
   territory. … But in Italy, 1873, a grave misfortune, alike
   to France and to the Republican institutions, occurred. At
   last the Monarchical reactionists of the Assembly had gathered
   courage to make open war upon President Thiers. Perceiving
   that his policy was having the effect of nourishing and adding
   ever new strength to the Republican cause, and that every
   month drifted them further from the opportunity and hope of
   restoring Monarchy or Empire … they now forgot their own
   differences, and resolved, at all hazards, to get rid of the
   Republic's most powerful protector. … The Duc de Broglie,
   the leader of the reactionary Monarchists, offered a
   resolution in the Assembly which was tantamount to a
   proposition of want of confidence in President Thiers. After
   an acrimonious debate, in which Thiers himself took part, De
   Broglie's motion was passed by a majority of fourteen. The
   President had no alternative but to resign; and thus the
   executive power, at a critical moment, passed out of
   Republican into Monarchical hands. Marshal MacMahon was at
   once chosen President. … MacMahon was strongly Catholic in
   religion; and so far as he was known to have any political
   opinions, they wavered between Legitimism and
   Imperialism—they were certainly as far as possible from
   Republicanism. Now was formed and matured a deliberate project
   to overthrow the young Republic, and to set up Monarchy in its
   place. All circumstances combined to favor its success. The
   new President was found to be at least willing that the thing
   should, if it could, be done. His principal minister, De
   Broglie, entered warmly into the plot. The Orleanist princes
   agreed to waive their claims, and the Count of Paris was
   persuaded to pay a visit to the Count of Chambord at his
   retreat at Frohsdorf, to acknowledge the elder Bourbon's right
   to the throne, and to abandon his own pretensions. The
   Assembly was carefully canvassed, and it was found that a
   majority could be relied upon to proclaim, at the ripe moment,
   Chambord as king, with the title of Henry V. The Republic was
   now, in the early autumn of 1873, in the most serious and real
   peril. It needed but a word from the Bourbon pretender to
   overthrow it, and to replace it by the throne of the Capets
   and the Valois. Happily, the old leaven of Bourbon bigotry
   existed in 'Henry V.' He conceded the point of reigning with
   parliamentary institutions, but he would not accept the
   tricolor as the flag of the restored monarchy. He insisted
   upon returning to France under the white banner of his
   ancestors. To him the throne was not worth a piece of cloth.
   To his obstinacy in clinging to this trifle of symbolism the
   Republic owed its salvation. The scheme to restore the
   monarchy thus fell through. The result was that the two wings
   of Monarchists flew apart again, and the Republicans, being
   now united and patient under the splendid leadership of
   Gambetta, once more began to wax in strength. It only remained
   to the Conservatives to make the best of the situation—to
   proceed to the forming of a Constitution, and to at least
   postpone to as late a period as possible the permanent
   establishment of the Republic. The first step was to confirm
   MacMahon in the Presidency for a definite period; and 'the
   Septennate,' giving him a lease of power for seven years—that
   is, until the autumn of 1880—was voted. … It was not until
   late in the year 1875 that the Constitution which is now the
   organic law of France was finally adopted.

      See CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.

   The chief circumstance which impelled a majority of the
   Assembly to take this decisive step was the alarming revival
   of Imperialism in the country. This was shown in the success
   of Bonapartists in isolated elections to fill vacancies. Much
   as the Royalists distrusted a Republic, they dreaded yet more
   the restoration of the Empire; and the rapid progress made by
   the partisans of the Empire forced them to adopt what was
   really a moderate Republican Constitution. This Constitution
   provided that the President of the Republic should be elected
   by a joint convention of the Senate and the Chamber of
   Deputies; that the Senate should consist of 300 members, of
   whom 75 were to be elected for life by the Assembly, and the
   remaining 225 by electoral colleges, composed of the deputies,
   the councillors-general, the members of the councils
   d'arrondissement, and delegates chosen from municipal
   councils; that the vacancies in the life senatorships should
   be filled by the Senate itself, while the term of the Senators
   elected by the colleges should be nine years, one third
   retiring every three years; that the Chamber of Deputies
   should consist of 533 members, and that the deputies should be
   chosen by single districts, instead of, as formerly, in groups
   by departments: that the President could only dissolve the
   Chamber of Deputies with the consent of the Senate; that money
   bills should originate in the Lower Chamber, and that the
   President should have the right of veto.
{1394}
   The 'Septennate' organized and the Constitution adopted, the
   Assembly, which had clung to power for about five years, had
   no reason for continued existence, and at last dissolved early
   in 1876, having provided that the first general election under
   the new order of things should take place in February. … The
   result of the elections proved three things—the remarkable
   growth of Republican sentiment; the great progress made, in
   spite of the memory of Sedan, by the Bonapartist propaganda;
   and the utter hopelessness of any attempt at a Royalist
   restoration."

      _G. M. Towle,
      Modern France,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Simon,
      The Government of M. Thiers._

      _F. Le Goff,
      Life of Thiers,
      chapters 8-9._

FRANCE: A. D. 1872-1889.
   Reform of Public Instruction.

      See
      EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.

FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
   Stable settlements of the Republic.
   Presidencies of MacMahon and Grevy.
   Military operations in Tunis, Madagascar and Tonquin.
   Revision of the constitution.
   Expulsion of the princes.
   Boulangerism.
   Election of M. Sadi Carnot to the presidency.

   "The last day of the year 1875 saw a final prorogation of this
   monarchist assembly which had established the Republic. It had
   been in existence nearly five years. The elections to the
   Senate gave a small majority to the Republicans. Those to the
   Chamber of Deputies (February, 1876) gave about two-thirds of
   its 532 seats to Republicans, mostly moderate Republicans. The
   ministry to which the leadership of this assembly was soon
   confided, was therefore naturally a ministry of moderate
   Republicans. M. Dufaure was prime minister, and M. Léon Say
   minister of finance. … The Dufaure ministry was not
   long-lived, being succeeded before the year 1876 closed, by a
   ministry led by M. Jules Simon, a distinguished orator and
   writer. The tenure of French cabinets in general has been so
   little permanent under the Third Republic, that in the
   nineteen years which have elapsed since the fall of the
   Empire, twenty-five cabinets have had charge of the executive
   government. … Few events had marked the history of the Simon
   ministry when, suddenly, in May, 1877, the President of the
   Republic demanded its resignation. Much influenced of late by
   Monarchist advisers, he had concluded that the moderate
   Republican cabinets did not possess the confidence of the
   chambers, and, feeling that the responsibility of maintaining
   the repose and security of France rested upon him, had
   resolved, rather than allow the management of the affairs of
   the country to fall into the hands of M. Gambetta and the
   Radicals, to appoint a ministry of conservatives, trusting
   that the country would ratify the step. A ministry was
   organized under the Duke of Broglie, and the Chamber of
   Deputies was first prorogued, and then, with the consent of
   the Senate, dissolved. The death of M. Thiers in September
   caused a great national demonstration in honor of that
   patriotic statesman, 'the liberator of the territory.' The
   result of the ensuing elections was a complete victory for the
   Republicans, who secured nearly three-fourths of the seats in
   the new Chamber. The Marshal, appointing a ministry composed
   of adherents of his policy who were not members of the
   Assembly, attempted to make head against the majority, but was
   forced in December to yield to the will of the people and of
   their representatives, and to recall M. Dufaure and the
   moderate Republicans to office. The year 1878 therefore passed
   off quietly, being especially distinguished by the great
   success of the universal exhibition held at Paris. … At the
   beginning of 1879 elections were held in pursuance of the
   provisions of the constitution, for the renewal of a portion
   of the Senate. … Elections were held for the filling of 82
   seats. Of these the Republicans won 66, the Monarchist groups
   16. This was a loss of 42 seats on the part of the latter, and
   assured to the Republicans a full control of the Senate. It
   had also the effect of definitively establishing the Republic
   as the permanent government of France. The Republican leaders
   therefore resolved to insist upon extensive changes in the
   personnel of the Council of State and the judiciary body. …
   When they also proposed to make extensive changes in other
   departments, Marshal MacMahon, who foresaw the impossibility
   of maintaining harmonious relations with the cabinets which
   the Republican majority would now demand, took these new
   measures as a pretext, and, on January 30, 1879, resigned the
   office of President of the Republic. On the same day the
   Senate and Chamber, united in National Assembly, elected as
   his successor, for the constitutional term of seven years, M.
   Jules Grevy, president of the Chamber of Deputies a moderate
   Republican who enjoyed general respect. M. Grévy was 71 years
   old. M. Gambetta was chosen to succeed him as president of the
   Chamber. The cabinet was remodelled, M. Dufaure resigning his
   office and being succeeded by M. Waddington. In the
   reorganized ministry one of the most prominent of the new
   members was M. Jules Ferry, its minister of education. He soon
   brought forward two measures which excited violent discussion:
   the one dealing with the regulation of superior education, the
   other with the constitution of the Supreme Council of Public
   Instruction. … In March, 1880, the Senate rejected the bill
   respecting universities. The ministry, now composed of members
   of the 'pure Left' (instead of a mixture of these and the Left
   Centre) under M. de Freycinet, resolved to enforce the
   existing laws against non-authorized congregations. The
   Jesuits were warned to close their establishments; the others,
   to apply for authorization. Failing to carry out these
   decrees, M. de Freycinet was forced to resign, and was
   succeeded as prime minister by M. Ferry, under whose orders
   the decrees were executed in October and November,
   establishments of the Jesuits and others, to the number of
   nearly 300, being forcibly closed and their inmates dispersed.
   Laws were also passed in the same year and in 1881 for the
   extension of public education, and a general amnesty
   proclaimed for persons engaged in the insurrection of the
   commune. In April and May, 1881, on pretext of chastising
   tribes on the Tunisian frontier of Algeria, who had committed
   depredations on the French territories in Northern Africa, a
   military force from Algeria entered Tunis, occupied the
   capital, and forced the Bey to sign a treaty by which he put
   himself and his country under the protectorate of France. …
{1395}
   The elections, in August, resulted in a Chamber composed of
   467 Republicans, 47 Bonapartists, and 43 Royalists, whereas
   its predecessor had consisted of 387 Republicans, 81
   Bonapartists, and 61 Royalists. In response to a general
   demand, M. Gambetta became prime minister on the meeting of
   the new Assembly in the autumn. … But his measures failed to
   receive the support of the Chamber, and he was forced to
   resign after having held the office of prime minister but two
   months and a half (January, 1882). On the last day of that
   year M. Gambetta, still the most eminent French statesman of
   the time, died at Paris, aged forty-four. … The death of
   Gambetta aroused the Monarchists to renewed activity. Prince
   Napoleon issued a violent manifesto, and was arrested. Bills
   were brought in which were designed to exclude from the soil
   of France and of French possessions all members of families
   formerly reigning in France. Finally, however, after a
   prolonged contest, a decree suspending the dukes of Aumale,
   Chartres, and Alençon from their functions in the army was
   signed by the President. Some months later, August, 1883, the
   Count of Chambord ('Henry V.') died at Frohsdorf; by this
   event the elder branch of the house of Bourbon became extinct
   and the claims urged by both Legitimists and Orleanists were
   united in the person of the Count of Paris. During the year
   1882 alleged encroachments upon French privileges and
   interests in the northwestern portion of Madagascar had
   embroiled France in conflict with the Hovas, the leading tribe
   of that island. The French admiral commanding the squadron in
   the Indian Ocean demanded in 1883 the placing of the
   northwestern part of the island under a French protectorate,
   and the payment of a large indemnity. These terms being
   refused by the queen of the Hovas, Tamatave was bombarded and
   occupied, and desultory operations continued until the summer
   of 1883, when an expedition of the Hovas resulted in a signal
   defeat of the French. A treaty was then negotiated, in
   accordance with which the foreign relations of the island were
   put under the control of France, while the queen of Madagascar
   retained the control of internal affairs and paid certain
   claims. A treaty executed in 1874 between the emperor of Annam
   and the French had conceded to the latter a protectorate over
   that country. His failure completely to carry out his
   agreement, and the presence of Chinese troops in Tonquin, were
   regarded as threatening the security of the French colony of
   Cochin China. A small expedition sent out [1882] under
   Commander Rivière to enforce the provision of the treaty was
   destroyed at Hanoi. Reinforcements were sent out. But the
   situation was complicated by the presence of bands of 'Black
   Flags,' brigands said to be unauthorized by the Annam
   government, and by claims on the part of China to a suzerainty
   over Tonquin. A treaty was made with Annam in August, 1883,
   providing for the cession of a province to France, and the
   establishment of a French protectorate over Annam and Tonquin.
   This, however, did not by any means wholly conclude
   hostilities in that province. Sontay was taken from the Black
   Flags in December, and Bacninh occupied in March, 1884. The
   advance of the French into regions over which China claimed
   suzerainty, and which were occupied by Chinese troops, brought
   on hostilities with that empire. In August, 1884, Admiral
   Courbet destroyed the Chinese fleet and arsenal at Foo-chow;
   in October he seized points on the northern end of the island
   of Formosa, and proclaimed a blockade of that portion of the
   island. On the frontier between Tonquin and China the French
   gained some successes, particularly in the capture of
   Lang-Sön; yet the climate, and the numbers and determination
   of the Chinese troops, rendered it impossible for them to
   secure substantial results from victories. Finally, after a
   desultory and destructive war, a treaty was signed in June,
   1885, which arranged that Formosa should be evacuated, that
   Annam should in future have no diplomatic relations except
   through France, and that France should have virtually complete
   control over both it and Tonquin, though the question of
   Chinese suzerainty was left unsettled. … It was not felt
   that the expeditions against Madagascar, Annam, and China had
   achieved brilliant success. They had, moreover, been a source
   of much expense to France; at first popular, they finally
   caused the downfall of the ministry which ordered them. That
   ministry, the ministry of M. Jules Ferry, … remained in
   power an unusual length of time,—a little more than two
   years. Its principal achievement in domestic affairs consisted
   in bringing about the revision of the constitution, which,
   framed by the Versailles Assembly in 1875, was felt by many to
   contain an excessive number of Monarchical elements. … In
   1885, after the fall of the Ferry cabinet, a law was passed
   providing for scrutin de liste; each department being entitled
   to a number of deputies proportioned to the number of its
   citizens, the deputies for each were to be chosen on a general
   or departmental ticket. In the same year a law was passed
   declaring ineligible to the office of President of the
   Republic, senator or deputy, any prince of families formerly
   reigning in France. … In December the National Assembly
   re-elected M. Grévy President of the Republic. In the ministry
   led by M. de Freycinet, which held office during the year 1886,
   great prominence was attained by the minister of war, General
   Boulanger, whose management of his department and political
   conduct won him great popularity. … The increasing activity
   of the agents of the Monarchist party, the strength which that
   party had shown in the elections of the preceding year, and
   the demonstrations which attended the marriage of the daughter
   of the Count of Paris to the crown prince of Portugal, incited
   the Republican leaders to more stringent measures against the
   princes of houses formerly reigning in France. The government
   was intrusted by law with discretionary power to expel them
   all from France, and definitely charged to expel actual
   Claimants of the throne and their direct heirs. The Count of
   Paris and his son the Duke of Orleans, Prince Napoleon and his
   son Prince Victor, were accordingly banished by presidential
   decree in June, 1886. General Boulanger struck off from the
   army-roll the names of all princes of the Bonaparte and
   Bourbon families. The Duke of Aumale, indignantly protesting,
   was also banished; in the spring of 1889 he was permitted to
   return. Meanwhile, within the Republican ranks, dissensions
   increased. The popularity of General Boulanger became more and
   more threatening to the cabinets of which he was a member. An
   agitation in his favor, conducted with much skill, caused fear
   lest he were aspiring to a military dictatorship
   of France. …
{1396}
   In the autumn of 1887, an inquiry into the conduct of General
   Caffarel, deputy to the commander-in-chief, accused of selling
   decorations, implicated by Daniel Wilson, son-in-law of M.
   Grévy, who was alleged to have undertaken to obtain
   appointments to office and lucrative contracts in return for
   money. M. Grévy's unwise attempts to shield his son-in-law
   brought about his own fall. The chambers, determined to force
   his resignation, refused to accept any ministry proposed by
   him. After much resistance and irritating delays he submitted,
   and resigned the presidency of the Republic on December 2,
   1887. On the next day the houses met in National Assembly at
   Versailles to chose the successor of M. Grévy. … The most
   prominent candidates for the Republicans were M. Ferry and M.
   de Freycinet; the former, however, was unpopular with the
   country. The followers of both, finding their election
   impossible, resolved to cast their votes for M. Sadi Carnot, a
   Republican of the highest integrity and universally respected.
   M. Carnot, a distinguished engineer, grandson of the Carnot
   who had, as minister of war, organized the victories of the
   armies of the Revolution, was accordingly elected President of
   the French Republic. … The chief difficulties encountered by
   the cabinet arose out of the active propagandism exercised in
   behalf of General Boulanger. … His name … became the
   rallying-point of those who were hostile to the parliamentary
   system, or to the Republican government in its present form.
   Alarmed both by his singular popularity and by his political
   intrigues, the government instituted a prosecution of him
   before the High Court of Justice; upon this he fled from the
   country, and the dangers of the agitation in his favor were,
   for the time at least, quieted. On May 5, 1889, the
   one-hundredth anniversary of the assembly of the
   States-General was held at Versailles. On the next day,
   President Carnot formally opened the Universal Exhibition at
   Paris, the greatest of the world's fairs which have been held
   in that city."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of France,
      pages 666-677._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 7, and appendix 10._

      _J. G. Scott,
      France and Tonkin._

      _F. T. Marzials,
      Life of Gambetta._

      _E. W. Latimer,
      France in the 19th Century,
      chapters 18-20._

      _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
      Science, March, 1893, supplement._

FRANCE: A. D. 1877-1882.
   Anglo-French control of Egyptian finances.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882 and 1882-1883.

FRANCE: A. D. 1884-1885.
   Territorial claims in Africa.
   The Berlin Conference.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

FRANCE: A. D. 1892-1893.
   The Panama Canal scandal.

      See PANAMA CANAL.

FRANCE: A. D. 1893.
   Election of Deputies.

   Elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held in France,
   ending on Sunday, September 3, 1893. The resulting division of
   parties in the Chamber is stated as follows: "Opportunists
   [those, that is, who would shape political action by
   circumstances—by opportunities—and not by hard and fast
   principles], 292; Converted Monarchists [who accept the
   Republic as a fixed fact], 35; Unconverted Monarchists, 58;
   and Radicals, including Socialists, 187. As the Converted
   Monarchists will vote with the Government, there will be a
   heavy Government majority to begin with; but … it is not
   perfectly reliable, and is singularly deficient in marked
   men."

      _Spectator, Sept. 9, 1893._

----------FRANCE: End----------

FRANCESCO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1521-1535.

FRANCESCO SFORZA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1450-1466.

FRANCHE COMTÉ.

   In the dissolution of the last kingdom of Burgundy (see
   BURGUNDY, THE LAST KINGDOM: A. D. 1032), its northern part
   maintained a connection with the Empire, which had then become
   Germanic, much longer than the southern. It became divided
   into two chief states—the County Palatine of Burgundy, known
   afterwards as Franche Comté, or the "free county," and Lesser
   Burgundy, which embraced western Switzerland and northern
   Savoy. "The County Palatine of Burgundy often passed from one
   dynasty to another, and it is remarkable for the number of
   times that it was held as a separate state by several of the
   great princes of Europe. It was held by the Emperor Frederick
   Barbarossa in right of his wife; the marriage of one of his
   female descendants carried it to Philip the Fifth of France.
   Then it became united with the French duchy of Burgundy under
   the dukes of the House of Valois. Saving a momentary French
   occupation after the death of Charles the Bold, it remained
   with them and their Austrian and Spanish representatives. …
   But, through all these changes of dynasty, it remained an
   acknowledged fief of the Empire, till its annexation to France
   under Lewis the Fourteenth. The capital of this county, it
   must be remembered, was Dole. The ecclesiastical metropolis of
   Besançon, though surrounded by the county, remained a free
   city of the Empire from the days of Frederick Barbarossa [A.
   D. 1152-1190] to those of Ferdinand the Third [A. D.
   1637-1657]. It was then merged in the county, and along with
   the county it passed to France."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 5._

FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1512.
   Included in the Circle of Burgundy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1648.
   Still held to form a part of the Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1659.
   Secured to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1674.
   Final conquest by Louis XIV. and incorporation with France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

----------FRANCHE COMTÉ: End----------

FRANCHISE, Elective, in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

FRANCIA, Doctor, The dictatorship of.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

FRANCIA.

      See FRANCE: 9TH CENTURY.
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

FRANCIS
   (called Phœbus), King of Navarre, A. D. 1479-1503.

   Francis I. (of Lorraine), Germanic Emperor, 1745-1765.

   Francis I., King of France, 1515-1547.

   Francis I., King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1825-1830.

   Francis II.,
      Germanic Emperor, 1792-1806;
      Emperor of Austria, 1806-1835;
      King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1792-1835.

   Francis II., King of France, 1559-1560.

   Francis II., King of Naples or the Two Sicilies,
   A. D. 1859-18.61.

   Francis Joseph I., Emperor of Austria, 1848;

   King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1848-.

{1397}

FRANCISCANS.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS,
      also, BEGUINES, ETC.

FRANCO-GERMAN, OR FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY), to 1870-1871.

FRANCONIA: The Duchy and the Circle.

   "Among the great duchies [of the old Germanic kingdom or
   empire of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries], that of
   Eastern Francia, Franken, or Franconia, is of much less
   importance in European history than that of Saxony. It gave
   the ducal title to the bishops of Würzburg; but it cannot be
   said to be in any sense continued in any modern state. Its
   name gradually retreated, and the circle of Franken or
   Franconia took in only the most eastern part of the ancient
   duchy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

   The western and northern part of the duchy, together with a
   good deal of territory which was strictly Lotharingian, became
   part of the two Rhenish circles. Thus Fulda, the greatest of
   German abbeys, passed away from the Frankish name. In
   north-eastern Francia, the Hessian principalities grew up to
   the north-west. Within the Franconian circle lay Würzburg, the
   see of the bishops who bore the ducal title, the other great
   bishopric of Bamberg, together with the free city of Nürnberg,
   and various smaller principalities. In the Rhenish lands, both
   within and without the old Francia, one chief characteristic
   is the predominance of the ecclesiastical principalities,
   Mainz, Köln, Worms, Speyer, and Strassburg. The chief temporal
   power which arose in this region was the Palatinate of the
   Rhine, a power which, like others, went through many unions
   and divisions, and spread into four circles, those of Upper
   and Lower Rhine, Westfalia and Bavaria. This last district,
   though united with the Palatine Electorate, was, from the
   early part of the fourteenth century, distinguished from the
   Palatinate of the Rhine as the Oberpfalz or Upper Palatinate."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 1.

      See, also,
      ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

FRANCONIA, The Electorate of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

FRANCONIAN OR SALIC IMPERIAL HOUSE.

   The emperors, Conrad II., Henry III., Henry IV., and Henry V.,
   who reigned from 1024 until 1125, over the Germanic-Roman or
   Holy Roman Empire, were of the Salic or Franconian house.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

FRANKALMOIGN.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

FRANKFORT, Treaty of.
      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN, Origin of.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1287.
   Declared an imperial city.

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1525.
   Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1744.
   The "Union" formed by Frederick the Great.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1759.
   Surprised by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1806.
   Loss of municipal freedom.
   Transfer, as a grand duchy, to the ancient Elector of Mayence.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810.
   Erected into a grand duchy by Napoleon.

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

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810-1815.
   Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Meeting of the German National Assembly.
   Its work, its failure, and its end.
   Riotous outbreak in the city.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER)
      and 1848-1850.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1866.
   Absorption by Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

----------FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: End----------

FRANKLIN, Benjamin, and the early American Press.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: His plan of Union in 1754.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
   Colonial representative in England.
   Return to America.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A.D. 1757-1762;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765-1768, 1766, 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH),
      and (APRIL-JUNE).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Signing of the Declaration of Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Mission to France:

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1778, 1778 (FEBRUARY),
      1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
   Framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

FRANKLIN, The ephemeral state of.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785;
      and 1785-1796.

FRANKLIN, Tennessee, Battles at and near.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE),
      and 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

FRANKLIN, OR FRANKLEYN, The.

   "'There is scarce a small village,' says Sir John Fortescue
   [15th century] 'in which you may not find a knight, an
   esquire, or some substantial householder (paterfamilias)
   commonly called a frankleyn, possessed of considerable estate;
   besides others who are called freeholders, and many yeomen of
   estate sufficient to make a substantial jury.' … By a
   frankleyn in this place we are to understand what we call a
   country squire, like the frankleyn of Chaucer; for the word
   esquire in Fortescue's time was only used in its limited
   sense, for the sons of peers and knights, or such as had
   obtained the title by creation or some other legal means."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 8, part 3, with note (volume 3)._

FRANKPLEDGE.

   An old English law required all men to combine in associations
   of ten, and to become standing sureties for one another,
   —which was called "frankpledge."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 41._

{1398}

FRANKS: Origin and earliest history.

   "It is well known that the name of 'Frank' is not to be found
   in the long list of German tribes preserved to us in the
   'Germania' of Tacitus. Little or nothing is heard of them
   before the reign of Gordian III. In A. D. 240 Aurelian, then a
   tribune of the sixth legion stationed on the Rhine, encountered a
   body of marauding Franks near Mayence and drove them back into
   their marshes. The word 'Francia' is also found at a still
   earlier date, in the old Roman chart called the 'Charta
   Peutingeria,' and occupies on the map the right bank of the
   Rhine from opposite Coblentz to the sea. The origin of the
   Franks has been the subject of frequent debate, to which
   French patriotism has occasionally lent some asperity. … At
   the present day, however, historians of every nation,
   including the French, are unanimous in considering the Franks
   as a powerful confederacy of German tribes, who in the time of
   Tacitus inhabited the north-western parts of Germany bordering
   on the Rhine. And this theory is so well supported by many
   scattered notices, slight in themselves, but powerful when
   combined, that we can only wonder that it should ever have
   been called in question. Nor was this aggregation of tribes
   under the new name of Franks a singular instance; the same
   took place in the case of the Alemanni and Saxons. … The
   etymology of the name adopted by the new confederacy is also
   uncertain. The conjecture which has most probability in its
   favour is that adopted long ago by Gibbon, and confirmed in
   recent times by the authority of Grimm, which connects it with
   the German word Frank (free). … Tacitus speaks of nearly all
   the tribes, whose various appellations were afterwards merged
   in that of Frank, as living in the neighbourhood of the Rhine.
   Of these the principal were the Sicambri (the chief people of
   the old Iscævonian tribe), who, as there is reason to believe,
   were identical with the Salian Franks. The confederation
   further comprised the Bructeri, the Chamavi, Ansibarii,
   Tubantes, Marsi, and Chasuarii, of whom the five last had
   formerly belonged to the celebrated Cheruscan league, which,
   under the hero Arminius, destroyed three Roman legions in the
   Teutoburgian Forest. The strongest evidence of the identity of
   these tribes with the Franks, is the fact that, long after
   their settlement in Gaul, the distinctive names of the
   original people were still occasionally used as synonymous
   with that of the confederation. … The Franks advanced upon
   Gaul from two different directions, and under the different
   names of Salians, and Ripuarians, the former of whom we have
   reason to connect more particularly with the Sicambrian tribe.
   The origin of the words Salian and Ripuarian, which are first
   used respectively by Ammianus Marcellinus and Jornandes, is
   very obscure, and has served to exercise the ingenuity of
   ethnographers. There are, however, no sufficient grounds for a
   decided opinion. At the same time it is by no means improbable
   that the river Yssel, Isala or Sal (for it has borne all these
   appellations), may have given its name to that portion of the
   Franks who lived along its course. With still greater
   probability may the name Ripuarii, or Riparii, be derived from
   'Ripa,' a term used by the Romans to signify the Rhine. These
   dwellers on 'the Bank' were those that remained in their
   ancient settlements while their Salian kinsmen were advancing
   into the heart of Gaul."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapters 9 and 11._

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 2, chapter 3._

FRANKS: A. D. 253.
   First appearance in the Roman world.

   "When in the year 253 the different generals of Rome were once
   more fighting each other for the imperial dignity, and the
   Rhine-legions marched to Italy to fight out the cause of their
   emperor Valerianus against … Aemilianus of the Danube-army,
   this seems to have been the signal for the Germans pushing
   forward, especially towards the lower Rhine. These Germans
   were the Franks, who appear here for the first time, perhaps
   new opponents only in name; for, although the identification
   of them, already to be met with in later antiquity, with
   tribes formerly named on the lower Rhine—partly, the Chamavi
   settled beside the Bructeri, partly the Sugambri formerly
   mentioned subject to the Romans—is uncertain and at least
   inadequate, there is here greater probability than in the case
   of the Alamanni that the Germans hitherto dependent on Rome, on
   the right bank of the Rhine, and the Germanic tribes
   previously dislodged from the Rhine, took at that time—under
   the collective name of the 'Free'—the offensive in concert
   against the Romans."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4._

FRANKS: A. D. 277.
   Repulse from Gaul, by Probus.

      See GAUL: A. D. 277.

FRANKS: A. D. 279.
   Escape from Pontus.

      See SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.

FRANKS: A. D. 295-297.
   In Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

FRANKS: A. D. 306.
   Defeat by Constantine.

   Constantine the Great, A. D. 306, fought and defeated the
   Salian Franks in a great battle and "carried off a large
   number of captives to Treves, the chief residence of the
   emperor, and a rival of Rome itself in the splendour of its
   public buildings. It was in the circus of this city, and in
   the presence of Constantine, that the notorious 'Ludi
   Francici' were celebrated; at which several thousand Franks,
   including their kings Regaisus and Ascaricus, were compelled
   to fight with wild beasts, to the inexpressible delight of the
   Christian spectators."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 2._

FRANKS: A. D. 355.
   Settlement in Toxandria.

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361;
      also, TOXANDRIA.

FRANKS: 5th-10th Centuries.
   Barbarities of the conquest of Gaul.
   State of society under the rule of the conquerors.
   Evolution of Feudalism.

      See GAUL: 5TH-8TH, and 5TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FRANKS: A. D. 406-409.
   Defense of Roman Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.
   The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.

   After vainly opposing the entrance of Vandals, Burgundians and
   Sueves into Gaul, A. D. 406, "the Franks, the valiant and
   faithful allies of the Roman republic, were soon [about A. D.
   410-420] tempted to imitate the invaders whom they had so
   bravely resisted. Treves, the capital of Gaul, was pillaged by
   their lawless bands; and the humble colony which they so long
   maintained in the district of Toxandria, in Brabant,
   insensibly multiplied along the banks of the Meuse and
   Scheldt, till their independent power filled the whole extent
   of the Second, or Lower, Germany. … The ruin of the opulent
   provinces of Gaul may be dated from the establishment of these
   barbarians, whose alliance was dangerous and oppressive, and
   who were capriciously impelled, by interest or passion, to
   violate the public peace."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31._

{1399}

   "They [the Franks] resisted the great invasion of the Vandals
   in the time of Stilicho, but did not scruple to take part in
   the subsequent ravages. Among the confusions of that
   disastrous period, indeed, it is not improbable that they
   seized the cities of Spires, Strasburg, Amiens, Arras,
   Therouane and Tournai, and by their assaults on Trèves
   compelled the removal of the præfectural government to Arles.
   Chroniclers who flourished two centuries later refer to the
   year 418 large and permanent conquests in Gaul by a visionary
   king called Pharamund, from whom the French monarchy is
   usually dated. But history seeks in vain for any authentic
   marks of his performances."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 11, section 5._

FRANKS: A. D. 448-456.
   Origin of the Merovingian dynasty.

   The royal dynasty of the kingdom of the Franks as founded by
   Clovis is called the Merovingian. "It is thought that the
   kings of the different Frankish people were all of the same
   family, of which the primitive ancestor was Meroveus
   (Meer-wig, warrior of the sea). After him those princes were
   called Merovingians (Meer-wings); they were distinguished by
   their long hair, which they never cut. A Meroveus, grandfather
   of Clovis, reigned, it is said, over the Franks between 448
   and 456; but only his name remains, in some antient
   historians, and we know absolutely nothing more either of his
   family, his power, or of the tribe which obeyed him: so that
   we see no reason why his descendants had taken his name. …
   The Franks appear in history for the first time in the year
   241. Some great captain only could, at this period, unite
   twenty different people in a new confederation; this chief
   was, apparently, the Meroveus, whose name appeared for such a
   long time as a title of glory for his descendants, although
   tradition has not preserved any trace of his victories."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 3._

FRANKS: A. D. 451.
   At the battle of Châlons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
   The kingdom of Clovis.

   "The Salian Franks had … associated a Roman or a Romanized
   Gaul, Aegidius, with their native chief in the leadership of
   the tribe. But, in the year 481, the native leadership passed
   into the hands of a chief who would not endure a Roman
   colleague, or the narrow limits within which, in the general
   turmoil of the world, his tribe was cramped. He is known to
   history by the name of Clovis, or Chlodvig, which through many
   transformations, became the later Ludwig and Louis. Clovis
   soon made himself feared as the most ambitious, the most
   unscrupulous, and the most energetic of the new Teutonic
   founders of states. Ten years after the fall of the Western
   empire [which was in 476], seven years before the rise of the
   Gothic kingdom of Theoderic, Clovis challenged the Roman
   patrician, Syagrius of Soissons, who had succeeded to
   Aegidius, defeated him in a pitched field, at Nogent, near
   Soissons (486), and finally crushed Latin rivalry in northern
   Gaul. Ten years later (496), in another famous battle, Tolbiac
   (Zülpich), near Cologne, he also crushed Teutonic rivalry, and
   established his supremacy over the kindred Alamanni of the
   Upper Rhine. Then he turned himself with bitter hostility
   against the Gothic power in Gaul. The Franks hated the Goths,
   as the ruder and fiercer of the same stock hate those who are
   a degree above them in the arts of peace, and are supposed to
   be below them in courage and the pursuits of war. There was
   another cause of antipathy. The Goths were zealous Arians; and
   Clovis, under the influence of his wife Clotildis, the niece
   of the Burgundian Gundobad, and in consequence, it is said, of
   a vow made in battle at Tolbiac, had received Catholic baptism
   from St. Remigius of Rheims.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

   The Frank king threw his sword into the scale against the
   Arian cause, and became the champion and hope of the Catholic
   population all over Gaul. Clovis was victorious. He crippled
   the Burgundian kingdom (500), which was finally destroyed by
   his sons (534). In a battle near Poitiers, he broke the power
   of the West Goths in Gaul; he drove them out of Aquitaine,
   leaving them but a narrow slip of coast, to seek their last
   settlement and resting-place in Spain; and, when he died, he
   was recognized by all the world, by Theoderic, by the Eastern
   emperor, who honoured him with the title of the consulship, as
   the master of Gaul. Nor was his a temporary conquest. The
   kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the
   kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived who
   were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the
   Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and
   Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to
   be the religion of these great realms."

      _R. W. Church,
      Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 2._

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      translated by Bellingham,
      chapters 4-5._

      See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

FRANKS: A. D. 481-768.
   Supremacy in Germany, before Charlemagne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

FRANKS: A. D. 496.
   Conversion to Christianity.

      See above: A. D. 481-511;
      also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

FRANKS: A. D. 496-504.
   Overthrow of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.

FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
   The house of Clovis.
   Ascendancy of the Austrasian Mayors of the Palace.

   On the death of Clovis, his dominion, or, speaking more
   strictly, the kingly office in his dominion, was divided among
   his four sons, who were lads, then, ranging in age from twelve
   to eighteen. The eldest reigned in Metz, the second at
   Orleans, the third in Paris, and the youngest at Soissons.
   These princes extended the conquests of their father, subduing
   the Thuringians (A. D. 515-528), overthrowing the kingdom of
   the Burgundians (A. D. 523-534), diminishing the possessions
   of the Visigoths in Gaul (A. D. 531-532), acquiring Provence
   from the Ostrogoths of Italy and securing from the Emperor
   Justinian a clear Roman-imperial title to the whole of Gaul.
   The last survivor of the four brother-kings, Clotaire I.,
   reunited the whole Frank empire under his own sceptre, and on
   his death, A. D. 561, it was again divided among his four
   sons. Six years later, on the death of the elder, it was
   redivided among the three survivors. Neustria fell to
   Chilperic, whose capital was at Soissons, Austrasia to
   Sigebert, who reigned at Metz, and Burgundia to Guntram, who
   had his seat of government at Orleans. Each of the kings took
   additionally a third of Aquitaine, and Provence was shared
   between Sigebert and Guntram. "It was agreed on this occasion
   that Paris, which was rising into great importance, should be
   held in common by all, but visited by none of the three kings
   without the consent of the others." The reign of these three
   brothers and their sons, from 561 to 613, was one long
   revolting tragedy of civil war, murder, lust, and treachery,
   made horribly interesting by the rival careers of the evil
   Fredegunda and the great unfortunate Brunhilda, queens of
   Neustria and Austrasia, respectively.
{1400}
   In 613 a second Clotaire surviving his royal kin, united the
   Frank monarchy once more under a single crown. But power was
   fast slipping from the hands of the feeble creature who wore
   the crown, and passing to that one of his ministers who
   succeeded in making himself the representative of
   royalty—namely, the Mayor of the Palace. There was a little
   stir of energy in his son, Dagobert, but from generation to
   generation, after him, the Merovingian kings sank lower into
   that character which gave them the name of the fainéant kings
   ("rois fainéans")—the slothful or lazy kings—while the
   mayors of the palace ruled vigorously in their name and
   tumbled them, at last, from the throne. "While the Merovingian
   race in its decline is notorious in history as having produced
   an unexampled number of imbecile monarchs, the family which
   was destined to supplant them was no less wonderfully prolific
   in warriors and statesmen of the highest class. It is not
   often that great endowments are transmitted even from father
   to sou, but the line from which Charlemagne sprang presents to
   our admiring gaze an almost uninterrupted succession of five
   remarkable men, within little more than a single century. Of
   these the first three held the mayoralty of Austrasia [Pepin
   of Landen, Pepin of Heristal, and Carl, or Charles Martel, the
   Hammer]; and it was they who prevented the permanent
   establishment of absolute power on the Roman model, and
   secured to the German population of Austrasia an abiding
   victory over that amalgam of degraded Romans and corrupted
   Gauls which threatened to leaven the European world. To them,
   under Providence, we owe it that the centre of Europe is at
   this day German, and not Gallo-Latin." Pepin of Heristal,
   Mayor in Austrasia, broke the power of a rival Neustrian
   family in a decisive battle fought near the village of Testri,
   A. D. 687, and gathered the reins of the three kingdoms
   (Burgundy included) into his own hands. His still more
   vigorous son, Charles Martel, won the same ascendancy for
   himself afresh, after a struggle which was signalized by three
   sanguinary battles, at Amblève (A. D. 716), at Vinci, near
   Cambrai (717) and at Soissons (718). When firm in power at
   home, he turned his arms against the Frisians and the
   Bavarians, whom he subdued, and against the obstinate Saxons,
   whose country he harried six times without bringing them to
   submission. His great exploit in war, however, was the repulse
   of the invading Arabs and Moors, on the memorable battle-field
   of Tours (A. D.732), where the wave of Mahommedan invasion was
   rolled back in western Europe, never to advance beyond the
   Pyrenees again. Karl died in 741, leaving three sons, among
   whom his power was, in the Frank fashion, divided. But one of
   them resigned, in a few years, his sovereignty, to become a
   monk; another was deposed, and the third, Pepin, surnamed "The
   Little," or "The Short," became supreme. He contented himself, as
   his father, his grandfather, and his great grandfather had
   done, with the title of Mayor of the Palace, until 752, when,
   with the approval of the Pope and by the act of a great
   assembly of leudes and bishops at Soissons, he was lifted on
   the shield and crowned and anointed king of the Franks, while
   the last of the Merovingians was shorn of his long royal locks
   and placed in a monastery. The friendliness of the Pope in this
   matter was the result and the cementation of an alliance which
   bore important fruits. As the champion of the church, Pepin
   made war on the Lombards and conquered for the Papacy the
   first of its temporal dominions in Italy. In his own realm, he
   completed the expulsion of the Moors from Septimania, crushed
   an obstinate revolt in Aquitaine, and gave a firm footing to
   the two thrones which, when he died in 768, he left to his
   sons, Carl and Carloman, and which became in a few years the
   single throne of one vast empire, under Carl—Carl the Great—
   Charlemagne.

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapters 3-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 12-15._

      J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapters 6-13.

      See, also,
      AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, and MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

FRANKS: A. D. 528.
   Conquest of Thuringia.

      See THURINGIANS, THE.

FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.
   Invasion of Italy.
   Formal relinquishment of Gaul to them.

   During the Gothic war in Italy,—when Belisarius was
   reconquering the cradle of the Roman Empire for the Eastern
   Empire which still called itself Roman, although its seat was
   at Constantinople,—both sides solicited the help of the
   Franks. Theudebert, who reigned at Metz, promised his aid to
   both, and kept his word. "He advanced [A. D. 539, with 100,000
   men] toward Pavia, where the Greeks and Goths were met, about
   to encounter, and, with an unexpected impartiality, attacked
   the astonished Goths, whom he drove to Ravenna, and then,
   while the Greeks were yet rejoicing over his performance, fell
   upon them with merciless fury, and dispersed them through
   Tuscany." Theudebert now became fired with an ambition to
   conquer all Italy; but his savage army destroyed everything in
   its path so recklessly, and pursued so unbridled a course,
   that famine and pestilence soon compelled a retreat and only
   one-third of its original number recrossed the Alps.
   Notwithstanding, this treachery, the emperor Justinian renewed
   his offers of alliance with the Franks (A.D. 540), and
   "pledged to them, as the price of their fidelity to his cause,
   besides the usual subsidies, the relinquishment of every
   lingering claim, real or pretended, which the empire might
   assert to the sovereignty of the Gauls. The Franks accepted
   the terms, and 'from that time,' say the Byzantine
   authorities, 'the German chiefs presided at the games of the
   circus, and struck money no longer, as usual, with the effigy
   of the emperors, but with their own image and superscription.
   Theudebert, who was the principal agent of these transactions,
   if he ratified the provisions of the treaty, did not fulfill
   them in person, but satisfied himself with sending a few
   tributaries to the aid of his ally. But his first example
   proved to be more powerful than his later, and large swarms of
   Germans took advantage of the troubles in Italy to overrun the
   country and plunder and slay at will. For twelve years, under
   various leaders, but chiefly under two brothers of the
   Alemans, Lutherr and Bukhelin, they continued to harass the
   unhappy object of all barbaric resentments, till the sword of
   Narses finally exterminated them [A. D. 553]."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 41._

{1401}

FRANKS: A. D. 547.
   Subjugation of Bavarians and Alemanni.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
   Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans.

   As a crowned dynasty, the Carlovingians or Carolingians or
   Carlings begin their history with Pepin the Short. As an
   established sovereign house, they find their founder in 'King
   Pepin's father, the great palace mayor, Carl, or Charles
   Martel, if not in his grandfather, Pepin Heristal. But the
   imperial splendor of the house came to it from the second of
   its kings, whom the French call 'Charlemagne,' but whom
   English readers ought to know as Charles the Great. The French
   form of the name has been always tending to represent
   'Charlemagne' as a king of France, and modern historians
   object to it for that reason. "France, as it was to be and as
   we know it, had not come into existence in his [Charlemagne's]
   days. What was to be the France of history was then but one
   province of the Frank kingdom, and one with which Charles was
   personally least connected. … Charles, king of the Franks,
   was, above all things, a German. … It is entirely to mistake
   his place and his work to consider him in the light of a
   specially 'French' king, a predecessor of the kings who
   reigned at Paris and brought glory upon France. … Charles
   did nothing to make modern France. The Frank power on which he
   rose to the empire was in those days still mainly German; and
   his characteristic work was to lay the foundations of modern
   and civilized Germany, and, indirectly, of the new
   commonwealth of nations, which was to arise in the West of
   Europe."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginnings of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 7._

   "At the death of King Pippin the kingdom of the Franks was
   divided into two parts, or rather … the government over the
   kingdom was divided, for some large parts of the territory
   seem to have been in the hands of the two brothers together.
   The fact is, that we know next to nothing about this division,
   and hardly more about the joint reign of the brothers. The
   only thing really clear is, that they did not get along very
   well together, that Karl was distinctly the more active and
   capable of the two, and that after four years the younger
   brother, Karlmann, died, leaving two sons. Here was a chance
   for the old miseries of division to begin again; but
   fortunately the Franks seem by this time to have had enough of
   that, and to have seen that their greatest hope for the future
   lay in a united government. The widow and children of Karlmann
   went to the court of the Lombard king Desiderius and were
   cared for by him. The whole Frankish people acknowledged
   Charlemagne as their king. Of course he was not yet called
   Charlemagne, but simply Karl, and he was yet to show himself
   worthy of the addition 'Magnus.' … The settlement of Saxony
   went on, with occasional military episodes, by the slower, but
   more certain, processes of education and religious conversion.
   It appears to us to be anything but wise to force a religion
   upon a people at the point of the sword; but the singular fact
   is, that in two generations there was no more truly devout
   Christian people, according to the standards of the time, than
   just these same Saxons. A little more than a hundred years
   from the time when Charlemagne had thrashed the nation into
   unwilling acceptance of Frankish control, the crown of the
   Empire he founded was set upon the head of a Saxon prince. The
   progress in friendly relations between the two peoples is seen in
   the second of the great ordinances by which Saxon affairs were
   regulated. This edict, called the 'Capitulum Saxonicum,' was
   published after a great diet at Aachen, in 797, at which, we
   are told, there came together not only Franks, but also Saxon
   leaders from all parts of their country, who gave their
   approval to the new legislation. The general drift of these
   new laws is in the direction of moderation. … The object of
   this legislation was, now that the armed resistance seemed to
   be broken, to give the Saxons a government which should be as
   nearly as possible like that of the Franks. The absolute
   respect and subjection to the Christian Church is here, as it
   was formerly, kept always in sight. The churches and
   monasteries are still to be the centres from which every
   effort at civilization is to go out. There can be no doubt
   that the real agency in this whole process was the organized
   Church. The fruit of the great alliance between Frankish
   kingdom and Roman papacy was beginning to be seen. The papacy
   was ready to sanction any act of her ally for the fair promise
   of winning the great territory of North Germany to its
   spiritual allegiance. The most solid result of the campaigns
   of Charlemagne was the founding of the great bishoprics of
   Minden, Paderborn, Verden, Bremen, Osnabrück, and Halberstadt.
   … About these bishoprics, as, on the whole, the safest
   places, men came to settle. Roads were built to connect them;
   markets sprang up in their neighborhood; and thus gradually,
   during a development of centuries, great cities grew up, which
   came to be the homes of powerful and wealthy traders, and gave
   shape to the whole politics of the North. Saxony was become a
   part of the Frankish Empire, and all the more thoroughly so,
   because there was no royal or ducal line there which had to be
   kept in place."

      _E. Emerton,
      Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 13._

   Between 768 and 800 Charlemagne extinguished the Lombard
   kingdom and made himself master of Italy, as the ally and
   patron of the Pope, bearing the old Roman title of Patrician;
   he crossed the Pyrenees, drove the Saracens southward to the
   Ebro, and added a "Spanish March" to his empire (see SPAIN: A.
   D. 778); he broke the obstinate turbulence of the Saxons, in a
   series of bloody campaigns which (see SAXONS: A. D. 772-804)
   consumed a generation; he extirpated the troublesome Avars,
   still entrenched along the Danube, and he held with an always
   firm hand the whole dominion that came to him by inheritance
   from his father. "He had won his victories with Frankish arms,
   and he had taken possession of the conquered countries in the
   name of the Frankish people. Every step which he had taken had
   been with the advice and consent of the nation assembled in
   the great meetings of the springtime, and his public documents
   carefully express the share of the nation in his great
   achievements. Saxony, Bavaria, Lombardy, Aquitaine, the
   Spanish Mark, all these great countries, lying outside the
   territory of Frankland proper, had been made a part of its
   possession by the might of his arm and the wisdom of his
   counsel. But when this had all been done, the question arose,
   by what right he should hold all this power, and secure it so
   that it should not fall apart as soon as he should be gone.
{1402}
   As king of the Franks it was impossible that he should not
   seem to the conquered peoples, however mild and beneficent his
   rule might be, a foreign prince; and though he might be able
   to force them to follow his banner in war, and submit to his
   judgment in peace, there was still wanting the one common
   interest which should bind all these peoples, strangers to the
   Franks and to each other, into one united nation. About the
   year 800 this problem seems to have been very much before the
   mind of Charlemagne. If we look at the boundaries of his
   kingdom, reaching from the Eider in the north to the Ebro and
   the Garigliano in the south, and from the ocean in the west to
   the Elbe and the Enns in the east, we shall say as the people
   of his own time did, 'this power is Imperial.' That word may
   mean little to us, but in fact it has often in history been
   used to describe just the kind of power which Charlemagne in
   the year 800 really had. … The idea of empire includes under
   this one term, kingdoms, duchies, or whatever powers might be
   in existence; all, however, subject to some one higher force,
   which they feel to be necessary for their support. … But
   where was the model upon which Charlemagne might build his new
   empire? Surely nowhere but in that great Roman Empire whose
   western representative had been finally allowed to disappear
   by Odoacer the Herulian in the year 476. … After Odoacer the
   Eastern Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, still
   lived on, and claimed for itself all the rights which had
   belonged to both parts. That Eastern Empire was still alive at
   the time of Charlemagne. We have met with it once or twice in
   our study of the Franks. Even Clovis had been tickled with the
   present of the title of Consul, sent him by the Eastern
   Emperor; and from time to time, as the Franks had meddled with
   the affairs of Italy, they had been reminded that Italy was in
   name still a part of the Imperial lands. … But now, when
   Charlemagne himself was thinking of taking the title of
   Emperor, he found himself forced to meet squarely the
   question, whether there could be two independent Christian
   Emperors at the same time. … On Christmas Day, in the year
   800, Charlemagne was at Rome. He had gone thither at the
   request of the Pope Leo, who had been accused of dreadful
   crimes by his enemies in the city, and had been for a time
   deprived of his office. Charlemagne had acted as judge in the
   case, and had decided in favor of Leo. According to good
   Teutonic custom, the pope had purified himself of his charges
   by a tremendous oath on the Holy Trinity, and had again
   assumed the duties of the papacy. The Christmas service was
   held in great state at St. Peter's. While Charlemagne was
   kneeling in prayer at the grave of the Apostle, the pope
   suddenly approached him, and, in the presence of all the
   people, placed upon his head a golden crown. As he did so, the
   people cried out with one voice, 'Long life and victory to
   Charles Augustus, the mighty Emperor, the Peace-bringer,
   crowned by God!' Einhard, who ought to have known, assures us
   that Charles was totally surprised by the coronation, and
   often said afterward that if he had known of the plan he would
   not have gone into the church, even upon so high a festival.
   It is altogether probable that the king had not meant to be
   crowned at just that moment and in just that way; but that he
   had never thought of such a possibility seems utterly
   incredible. By this act Charlemagne was presented to the world
   as the successor of the ancient Roman Emperors of the West,
   and so far as power was concerned, he was that. But he was
   more. His power rested, not upon any inherited ideas, but upon
   two great facts: first, he was the head of the Germanic Race;
   and second, he was the temporal head of the Christian Church.
   The new empire which he founded rested on these two
   foundations."

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

   The great empire which Charles labored, during all the
   remainder of his life, to organize in this Roman imperial
   character, was vast in its extent. "As an organized mass of
   provinces, regularly governed by imperial officers, it seems
   to have been nearly bounded, in Germany, by the Elbe, the
   Saale, the Bohemian mountains, and a line drawn from thence
   crossing the Danube above Vienna, and prolonged to the Gulf of
   Istria. Part of Dalmatia was comprised in the duchy of Friuli.
   In Italy the empire extended not much beyond the modern
   frontier of Naples, if we exclude, as was the fact, the duchy
   of Benevento from anything more than a titular subjection. The
   Spanish boundary … was the Ebro."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1._

   "The centre of his realm was the Rhine; his capitals Aachen
   [or Aix-la-Chapelle] and Engilenheim [or Ingelheim]; his army
   Frankish; his sympathies as they are shewn in the gathering of
   the old hero-lays, the composition of a German grammar, …
   were all for the race from which he sprang. … There were in
   his Empire, as in his own mind, two elements; those two from
   the union and mutual action and reaction of which modern
   civilization has arisen. These vast domains, reaching from the
   Ebro to the Carpathian mountains, from the Eyder to the Liris,
   were all the conquests of the Frankish sword, and were still
   governed almost exclusively by viceroys and officers of
   Frankish blood. But the conception of the Empire, that which
   made it a State and not a mere mass of subject tribes, … was
   inherited from an older and a grander system, was not Teutonic
   but Roman—Roman in its ordered rule, in its uniformity and
   precision, in its endeavour to subject the individual to the
   system—Roman in its effort to realize a certain limited and
   human perfection, whose very completeness shall exclude the
   hope of further progress." With the death of Charles in 814
   the territorial disruption of his great empire began. "The
   returning wave of anarchy and barbarism swept up violent as
   ever, yet it could not wholly obliterate the past: the Empire,
   maimed and shattered though it was, had struck its roots too
   deep to be overthrown by force." The Teutonic part and the
   Romanized or Latinized part of the empire were broken in two,
   never to unite again; but, in another century, it was on the
   German and not the Gallo-Latin side of the line of its
   disruption that the imperial ideas and the imperial titles of
   Charlemagne came to life again, and his Teutonic Roman
   Empire—the "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called—was
   resurrected by Otto the Great, and established for eight
   centuries and a half of enduring influence in the politics of
   the world.

   _J. Bryce,
   The Holy Roman Empire,
   chapter 5._

{1403}

   "Gibbon has remarked, that of all the heroes to whom the title
   of 'The Great' has been given, Charlemagne alone has retained
   it as a permanent addition to his name. The reason may perhaps
   be, that in no other man were ever united, in so large a
   measure, and in such perfect harmony, the qualities which, in
   their combination, constitute the heroic character, such as
   energy, or the love of action; ambition, or the love of power;
   curiosity, or the love of knowledge; and sensibility, or the
   love of pleasure—not, indeed, the love of forbidden, of
   unhallowed, or of enervating pleasure, but the keen relish for
   those blameless delights by which the burdened mind and jaded
   spirits recruit and renovate their powers. … For the charms
   of social intercourse, the play of a buoyant fancy, the
   exhilaration of honest mirth, and even the refreshment of
   athletic exercises, require for their perfect enjoyment that
   robust and absolute health of body and of mind which none but
   the noblest natures possess, and in the possession of which
   Charlemagne exceeded all other men. His lofty stature, his
   open countenance, his large and brilliant eyes, and the
   dome-like structure of his head, imparted, as we learn from
   Eginhard, to all his attitudes the dignity which becomes a
   king, relieved by the graceful activity of a practiced
   warrior. … Whether he was engaged in a frolic or a chase—
   composed verses or listened to homilies—fought or
   negotiated—cast down thrones or built them up—studied,
   conversed, or legislated, it seemed as if he, and he alone,
   were the one wakeful and really living agent in the midst of
   an inert, visionary, and somnolent generation. The rank held
   by Charlemagne among great commanders was achieved far more by
   this strange and almost superhuman activity than by any
   pre-eminent proficiency in the art or science of war. He was
   seldom engaged in any general action, and never undertook any
   considerable siege, excepting that of Pavia, which, in fact,
   was little more than a protracted blockade. But, during
   forty-six years of almost unintermitted warfare, he swept over
   the whole surface of Europe, from the Ebro to the Oder, from
   Bretagne to Hungary, from Denmark to Capua, with such a
   velocity of movement, and such a decision of purpose, that no
   power, civilized or barbarous, ever provoked his resentment
   without rapidly sinking beneath his prompt and irresistible
   blows. And though it be true, as Gibbon has observed, that he
   seldom, if ever, encountered in the field a really formidable
   antagonist, it is not less true that, but for his military
   skill, animated by his sleepless energy, the countless
   assailants by whom he was encompassed must rapidly have become
   too formidable for resistance. For to Charlemagne is due the
   introduction into modern warfare of the art by which a general
   compensates for the numerical inferiority of his own forces to
   that of his antagonists—the art of moving detached bodies of
   men along remote but converging lines with such mutual concert
   as to throw their united forces at the same moment on any
   meditated point of attack. Neither the Alpine marches of
   Hannibal nor those of Napoleon were combined with greater
   foresight, or executed with greater precision, than the
   simultaneous passages of Charlemagne and Count Bernard across
   the same mountain ranges, and their ultimate union in the
   vicinity of their Lombard enemies."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 800.

FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.
   Dissolution of the Carolingian Empire.

   Charlemagne, at his death, was succeeded by his son Ludwig, or
   Louis the Pious—the single survivor of three sons among whom
   he had intended that his great empire should be shared. Mild
   in temper, conscientious in character, Louis reigned with
   success for sixteen years, and then lost all power of control,
   through the turbulence of his family and the disorders of his
   times. He "tried in vain to satisfy his sons (Lothar, Lewis,
   and Charles) by dividing and redividing: they rebelled; he was
   deposed, and forced by the bishops to do penance, again
   restored, but without power, a tool in the hands of contending
   factions. On his death the sons flew to arms, and the first of
   the dynastic quarrels of modern Europe was fought out on the
   field of Fontenay. In the partition treaty of Verdun [A. D.
   843] which followed, the Teutonic principle of equal division
   among heirs triumphed over the Roman one of the transmission
   of an indivisible Empire: the practical sovereignty of all
   three brothers was admitted in their respective territories, a
   barren precedence only reserved to Lothar, with the imperial
   title which he, as the eldest, already enjoyed. A more
   important result was the separation of the Gaulish and German
   nationalities. … Modern Germany proclaims the era of A. D.
   843 the beginning of her national existence and celebrated its
   thousandth anniversary [in 1843]. To Charles the Bald was
   given Francia Occidentalis; that is to say, Neustria and
   Aquitaine; to Lothar, who as Emperor must possess the two
   capitals, Rome and Aachen, a long and narrow kingdom
   stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and
   including the northern half of Italy; Lewis (surnamed, from
   his kingdom, the German) received all east of the Rhine,
   Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, Austria, Carinthia, with possible
   supremacies over Czechs and Moravians beyond. Throughout these
   regions German was spoken; through Charles's kingdom a corrupt
   tongue, equally removed from Latin and from modern French.
   Lothar's, being mixed and having no national basis, was the
   weakest of the three, and soon dissolved into the separate
   sovereignties of Italy, Burgundy and Lotharingia, or, as we
   call it, Lorraine. On the tangled history of the period that
   follows it is not possible to do more than touch. After
   passing from one branch of the Carolingian line to another,
   the imperial sceptre was at last possessed and disgraced by
   Charles the Fat, who united all the dominions of his
   great-grandfather. This unworthy heir could not avail himself
   of recovered territory to strengthen or defend the expiring
   monarchy. He was driven out of Italy in A. D. 887 and his
   death in 888 has been usually taken as the date of the
   extinction of the Carolingian Empire of the West. … From all
   sides the torrent of barbarism which Charles the Great had
   stemmed was rushing down upon his empire. … Under such
   strokes the already loosened fabric swiftly dissolved. No one
   thought of common defence or wide organization: the strong
   built castles, the weak became their bondsmen, or took shelter
   under the cowl: the governor—count, abbot, or
   bishop—tightened his grasp, turned a delegated into an
   independent, a personal into a territorial authority, and
   hardly owned a distant and feeble suzerain. … In Germany,
   the greatness of the evil worked at last its cure.

[1404 moved to end of FRANKS.]
{1405}

   When the male line of the eastern branch of the Carolingians
   had ended in Lewis (surnamed the Child), son of Arnulf [A. D.
   911], the chieftains chose and the people accepted Conrad the
   Franconian, and after him Henry the Saxon duke, both
   representing the female line of Charles. Henry laid the
   foundations of a firm monarchy, driving back the Magyars and
   Wends, recovering Lotharingia, founding towns to be centres of
   orderly life and strongholds against Hungarian irruptions. He
   had meant to claim at Rome his kingdom's rights, rights which
   Conrad's weakness had at least asserted by the demand of
   tribute; but death overtook him, and the plan was left to be
   fulfilled by Otto his son."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 6._

   "The division of 888 was really the beginning of the modern
   states and the modern divisions of Europe. The Carolingian
   Empire was broken up into four separate kingdoms: the Western
   Kingdom, answering roughly to France, the Eastern Kingdom or
   Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Of these, the three first remain
   as the greatest nations of the Continent: Burgundy, by that
   name, has vanished; but its place as a European power is
   occupied, far more worthily than by any King or Cæsar, by the
   noble confederation of Switzerland."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Franks and the Gauls.
      (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7.)_

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, numbers 3._

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 18._

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 8._

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 24._

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and France,
      volumes 1-2._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 843-962;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 843, and after.

FRANKS: A. D. 843-962.
   Kingdom of the East Franks.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

----------End: FRANKS ----------

[Image: Central Europe (page 1404)]

CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF VERDUN 843 A. D.

CENTRAL EUROPE 888 A. D.

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

FRATRES MINORES.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

FRATRICELLI, The.

      See BEGUINES, ETC.

FRAZIER'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

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

FREDERICIA, Battle of (1849).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

FREDERICIA, Siege of (1864).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

FREDERICK I.
   (called Barbarossa), Emperor, A. D. 1155-1190;
   King of Germany, 1152-1190;
   King of Italy, 1155-1190.

   Frederick I., King of Denmark and Norway, 1523-1533.

   Frederick I., King of Prussia, 1701-1713;

   Frederick III., Elector of Brandenburg, 1688-1713.

   Frederick I., Elector of Brandenburg, 1417-1440.

   Frederick II.,
   Emperor, 1220-1250;
   King of Germany, 1212-1250.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

   Frederick II., King of Denmark and Norway, 1558-1588.

   Frederick II., King of Naples, 1496-1503.

   Frederick II. (called The Great),
   King of Prussia, 1740-1786.

   Frederick II., King of Sicily, 1295-1337.

   Frederick II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1440-1470.

   Frederick III., Emperor, and King of Germany, 1440-1493.

   Frederick III., German Emperor and King of Prussia,
   1888, March-June.

   Frederick III., King of Denmark and Norway, 1648-1670.

   Frederick III., King of Sicily, 1355-1377.

   Frederick IV., King of Denmark and Norway, 1609-1730.

   Frederick V., King of Denmark and Norway, 1746-1766.

   Frederick V., Elector of the Palatinate
   (and King-elect of Bohemia),
   and the Thirty Years' War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, 1620, 1621-1623,
      1631-1632, and 1648.

   Frederick VI.,
      King of Denmark and Norway, 1808-1814;
      King of Denmark, 1814-1839.

   Frederick VII., King of Denmark, 1848-1863.

   Frederick Augustus I.,
      Elector of Saxony, 1694-1733;
      King of Poland, 1697-1704 (deposed), and 1709-1733.

   Frederick Augustus II.,
   Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, 1733-1763.

   Frederick Henry, Stadtholder of the United Provinces,
   1625-1647.

   Frederick William (called The Great Elector),
   Elector of Brandenburg, 1640-1688.

   Frederick William I., King of Prussia, 1713-1740.

   Frederick William II., King of Prussia, 1786-1797.

   Frederick William III., King of Prussia, 1797-1840.

   Frederick William IV., King of Prussia, 1840-1861.

----------FREDERICK: End----------

FREDERICKSBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1862 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

FREDERICKSBURG:
   Sedgwick's demonstration against.

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

----------FREDERICKSBURG: End----------

FREDERICKSHALL.
   Siege by the Swedes.
   Death of Charles XII. (1718).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

FREDERICKSHAMM, Peace of (1809).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

FREDLINGEN, Battle of (1703).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

FREE CITIES.

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

FREE COMPANIES, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

FREE LANCES.

      See LANCES, FREE.

FREE MASONS.

   "The fall of the Knights Templars has been connected with the
   origin of the Freemasons, and the idea has prevailed that the
   only secret purpose of the latter was the reestablishment of
   the suppressed order. Jacques de Molai, while a prisoner in
   Paris, is said to have created four new lodges, and the day
   after his execution, eight knights, disguised as masons, are
   said to have gone to gather up the ashes of their late Grand
   Master. To conceal their designs, the new Templars assumed the
   symbols of the trade, but took, it is said, the name of Francs
   'Maçons' to distinguish themselves from ordinary craftsmen,
   and also in memory of the general appellation given to them in
   Palestine. Even the allegories of Freemasonry, and the ceremonies
   of its initiations, have been explained by a reference to the
   history of the persecutions of the Templars. The Abbé Barruel
   says, that 'every thing—the signs, the language, the names of
   grand master, of knight, of temple—all, in a word, betray the
   Freemasons as descendants of the proscribed knights.' Lessing,
   in Germany, gave some authority to this opinion, by asserting
   positively that 'the lodges of the Templars were in the very
   highest repute in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and
   that out of such a lodge, which had been constantly kept up in
   London, was established the society of Freemasons, in the
   seventeenth century, by Sir Christopher Wren.'
{1406}
   Lessing is of opinion that the name Mason has nothing to do
   with the English meaning of the word, but comes from
   Massonney, a 'lodge' of the Knights Templars. This idea may
   have caused the Freemasons to amalgamate the external ritual
   of the Templars with their own, and to found the higher French
   degrees which have given colour to the very hypothesis which
   gave rise to their introduction. But the whole story appears
   to be most improbable, and only rests upon the slight
   foundation of fancied or accidental analogies. Attempts have
   also been made to show that the Freemasons are only a
   continuation of the fraternities of architects which are
   supposed to have originated at the time of the building of
   Solomon's Temple. The Egyptian priests are supposed to have
   taught those who were initiated a secret and sacred system of
   architecture; this is said to have been transmitted to the
   Dionysiac architects, of whom the first historical traces are
   to be found in Asia Minor, where they were organized into a
   secret fraternity. … It is, however; a mere matter of
   speculation whether the Jewish and Dionysiac architects were
   closely connected, but there is some analogy between the
   latter and the Roman guilds, which Numa is said to have first
   introduced, and which were probably the prototypes of the
   later associations of masons which flourished until the end of
   the Roman Empire. The hordes of barbarians which then
   ruthlessly swept away whatever bore the semblance of luxury
   and elegance, did not spare the noblest specimens of art, and
   it was only when they became converted to Christianity, that
   the guilds were re-established. During the Lombard rule they
   became numerous in Italy. … As their numbers increased,
   Lombardy no longer sufficed for the exercise of their art, and
   they travelled into all the countries where Christianity, only
   recently established, required religious buildings. … These
   associations, however, became nearly crushed by the power of
   the monastic institutions, so that in the early part of the
   Middle Ages the words artist and priest became nearly
   synonymous; but in the twelfth century they emancipated
   themselves, and sprang into new life. The names of the authors
   of the great architectural creations of this period are almost
   all unknown; for these were not the work of individuals, but
   of fraternities. … In England guilds of masons are said to
   have existed in the year 926, but this tradition is not
   supported by history; in Scotland similar associations were
   established towards the end of the fifteenth century. The Abbé
   Grandidier regards Freemasonry as nothing more than a servile
   imitation of the ancient and useful fraternity of true masons
   established during the building of the Cathedral of Strasburg,
   one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture, and which caused
   the fame of its builders to spread throughout Europe. In many
   towns similar fraternities were established. … The origin of
   the Freemasons of the present day is not to be attributed to
   these fraternities, but to the Rosicrucians [see ROSICRUCIANS]
   who first appeared at the beginning of the seventeenth
   century."

      _A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapters 7-8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Findel,
      History of Freemasonry._

      _C. W. Heckethorn,
      Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries,
      book 8 (volume 1)._

FREE-SOIL PARTY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

FREE SPIRIT, Brethren and Sisters of the.

      See BEGUINES.

FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839;
      1842; 1845-1846; and 1846-1879.

FREEDMEN OF THE SOUTH.

   The emancipated slaves of the United States of America.

FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
   Expiration of the Censorship law in England.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1695.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
   Zenger's trial at New York.
   Vindication of the rights of the colonial Press.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1755.
   Liberty attained in Massachusetts.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1762-1764.
   Prosecution of John Wilkes.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
   Last contest of the British Parliament with the Press.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
   The trials of William Hone.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

----------FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: End----------

FREEHOLD.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

FREEMAN'S FARM, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

FREGELLÆ.

   Fregellæ, a Latin colony, founded by the Romans, B. C. 329, in
   the Volscian territory, on the Liris, revolted in B. C. 125.
   and was totally destroyed. A Roman colony, named Fabrateria,
   was founded near the site.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 17._

FREIBURG (in the Breisgau).

   Freiburg became a free city in 1120, but lost its freedom a
   century later, and passed, in 1368, under the domination of
   the Hapsburgs.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1638.
   Capture by Duke Bernhard.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1644.
   Siege and capture by the Imperialists.
   Attempted recovery by Condé and Turenne.
   The three days battle.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1677.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1679.
   Retained by France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to Germany.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Taken and given up by the French.

   See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1744-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Germany.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

----------FREIBURG: End----------

FREJUS, Origin of.

      See FORUM JULII.

FREMONT, General John C.,
   The conquest of California.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

   Defeat in Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.

   Command in the west.
   Proclamation of Freedom.
   Removal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI),
      and (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

   Command in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

{1407}

FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR.

   The four intercolonial wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, in
   America, commonly known, respectively, as "King William's
   War," "Queen Anne's War," "King George's War," and the French
   and Indian War, were all of them conflicts with the French and
   Indians of Canada, or New France; but the last of the series
   (coincident with the "Seven Years War" in Europe) became
   especially characterized in the colonies by that designation.
   Its causes and chief events are to be found related under the
   following headings:

      CANADA: A.D. 1750-1753, 1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758,
      1759, 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;
      also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War,
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

FRENCH FURY, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

FRENCHTOWN (now Monroe, Mich.), Battle at.

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

      HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

FRENTANIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

FRIARS.
   "Carmelite Friars,"
   "White Friars."

      See CARMELITE FRIARS.

   Austin Friars;

      See AUSTIN CANONS.

   "Preaching Friars,"
   "Begging Friars,"
   "Minor Friars,"
   "Black Friars,"
   "Grey Friars."

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

FRIEDLAND, Battle of.

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

FRIEDLINGEN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.

FRIENDS, The Society of.

      See QUAKERS.

FRIENDS OF THE PEOPLE; The Society of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

FRIESLAND.
   Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy (1430).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

FRIGIDUS, Battle of the (A. D. 394).

      See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

FRILING, The.

      See LÆTI.

FRIMAIRE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

FRISIANS, The.

   "Beyond the Batavians, upon the north, dwelt the great Frisian
   family, occupying the regions between the Rhine and Ems. The
   Zuyder Zee and the Dollart, both caused by the terrific
   inundations of the 13th century, and not existing at this
   period [the early Roman Empire], did not then interpose
   boundaries between kindred tribes."

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section. 2._

   "The Frisians, adjoining [the Batavi] … in the coast
   district that is still named after them, as far as the lower
   Ems, submitted to Drusus and obtained a position similar to
   that of the Batavi. There was imposed on them instead of
   tribute simply the delivery of a number of bullocks' hides for
   the wants of the army; on the other hand they had to furnish
   comparatively large numbers of men for the Roman service. They
   were the most faithful allies of Drusus as afterwards of
   Germanicus."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4._

FRISIANS: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

FRITH-GUILDS.

      See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

FROEBEL AND THE KINDERGARTEN.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: 1816-1892.

FROG'S POINT, Battle At.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FRONDE, FRONDEURS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648, 1649, 1650-1651, 1651-1653;
      and BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

FRONT ROYAL, Stonewall Jackson's capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

FRONTENAC, Count, in New France.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687, to 1696.

FRONTENAC, Fort.

      See KINGSTON, CANADA.

FRUCTIDOR, The Month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

FRUCTIDOR: The Coup d'Etat of the Eighteenth of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

FRUELA I.,
   King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 757-768.

   Fruela II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
   A. D. 923-925.

FRUMENTARIAN LAW, The First.

      See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

FUEGIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

FUENTES D'ONORO, Battle of (1811).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

FUFIAN LAW, The.

      See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.

FUGGERS, The.

   "Hans Fugger was the founder of the Fugger family, whose
   members still possess extensive estates and authority as
   princes and counts in Bavaria and Wurtemburg. He came to
   Augsburg in 1365 as a poor but energetic weaver's apprentice,
   acquired citizenship by marrying a burgher's daughter, and,
   after completing an excellent masterpiece, was admitted into
   the guild of weavers. … Hans Fugger died in 1409, leaving
   behind him a fortune of 3,000 florins, which he had made by
   his skill and diligence. This was a considerable sum in those
   days, for the gold mines of the New World had not yet been
   opened up, and the necessaries of life sold for very low
   prices. The sons carried on their father's business, and with
   so much skill and success that they were always called the
   rich Fuggers. The importance and wealth of the family
   increased every day. By the year 1500 it was not easy to find
   a frequented route by sea or land where Fugger's wares were
   not to be seen. On one occasion the powerful Hanseatic league
   seized twenty of their ships, which were sailing with a cargo
   of Hungarian copper, down the Vistula to Cracow and Dantzic.
   Below ground the miner worked for Fugger, above it the
   artisan. In 1448 they lent 150,000 florins to the then
   Archdukes of Austria, the Emperor Frederick the Third (father
   of Maximilian) and his brother Albert. In 1509 a century had
   passed since the weaver Hans Fugger had died leaving his
   fortune of 3,000 florins, acquired by his laborious industry.
   His grand-children were now the richest merchants in Europe;
   without the aid of their money the mightiest princes of the
   continent could not complete any important enterprise, and
   their family was connected with the noblest houses by the ties
   of relationship. They were raised to the rank of noblemen and
   endowed with honourable privileges by the Emperor Maximilian
   the First."

      _A. W. Grube,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 13._

{1408}

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND ITS REPEAL.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1850, and 1864 (JUNE).

FULAHS, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

FULFORD, Battle of.

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

FULTON'S FIRST STEAMBOAT.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT OF NEW HAVEN.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

FUORUSCITI.

   In Italy, during the Guelf and Ghibelline contests of the 13th
   and 14th centuries (see ITALY: A. D. 1215-1293), "almost every
   city had its body of 'fuorusciti';—literally, 'those who had
   gone out';—proscripts and exiles, in fact, who represented
   the minorities … in the different communities;—Ghibelline
   fuorusciti from Guelph cities, and Guelph fuorusciti from
   Ghibelline cities."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      volume 1, page 380._

FÜRST.
   Prince; the equivalent German title.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

FURY, The French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

FURY, The Spanish.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

FUSILLADES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

FUTTEH ALI SHAH.

   Shah of Persia, A. D. 1798-1834.

FUTTEHPORE, Battle of (1857).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

FYLFOT-CROSS, The.

      See TRI-SKELION.

FYRD, The.

   "The one national army [in Saxon England, before the Norman
   Conquest] was the fyrd, a force which had already received in
   the Karolingian legislation the name of landwehr by which the
   German knows it still. The fyrd was in fact composed of the
   whole mass of free landowners who formed the folk: and to the
   last it could only be summoned by the voice of the folk-moot.
   In theory therefore such a host represented the whole
   available force of the country. But in actual warfare its
   attendance at the king's war-call was limited by practical
   difficulties. Arms were costly; and the greater part of the
   fyrd came equipped with bludgeons and hedge-stakes, which
   could do little to meet the spear and battleaxe of the
   invader."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      p. 133._

G.

GA, The.

      See GAU.

GABELLE The.

   "In the spring of the year 1343, the king [Philip de Valois,
   king of France] published an ordinance by which no one was
   allowed to sell salt in France unless he bought it from the
   store-houses of the crown, which gave him the power of
   committing any degree of extortion in an article that was of
   the utmost necessity to his subjects. This obnoxious tax,
   which at a subsequent period became one of the chief sources
   of the revenue of the crown of France, was termed a gabelle, a
   word of Frankish or Teutonic origin, which had been in use
   from the earliest period to signify a tax in general, but
   which was from this time almost restricted to the
   extraordinary duty on salt. … This word gabelle is the same
   as the Anglo-Saxon word 'gafol,' a tax."

      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 1, page 364, and foot-note._

      See, also, TAILEE AND GABELLE.

GABINIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B.C. 69-63.

GACHUPINES AND GUADALUPES.

   In the last days of Spanish rule in Mexico, the Spanish
   official party bore the name of Gachupines, while the native
   party, which prepared for revolution, were called Guadalupes.

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      p. 303._

   The name of the Guadalupes was adopted by the Mexicans "in
   honour of 'Our Lady of Guadalupe,' the tutelar protectress of
   Mexico;" while that of the Gachupines "was a sobriquet
   gratuitously bestowed upon the Spanish faction."

      _W. H. Chynoweth,
      The Fall of Maximilian,
      page 3._

GADEBUSCH, Battle of (1712).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

GADENI, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

GADES (Modern Cadiz); Ancient commerce of.

   "At this period [early in the last century before Christ]
   Gades was undoubtedly one of the most important emporiums of
   trade in the world: her citizens having absorbed a large part
   of the commerce that had previously belonged to Carthage. In
   the time of Strabo they still retained almost the whole trade
   with the Outer Sea, or Atlantic coasts."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 18, section 6 (volume 2)._

      See, also, UTICA.

GADSDEN PURCHASE, The.

      See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

GAEL.

      See CELTS.

GAETA: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Siege and Capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

GAETA: A. D. 1848.
   The refuge of Pope Pius IX.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

GAFOL.

   A payment in money, or kind, or work, rendered in the way of
   rent by a villein-tenant to his lord, among the Saxons and
   early English. The word signified tribute.

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapters 2 and 5._

GAG, The Atherton.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

GAGE, General Thomas, in the command and government at Boston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
      1775 (APRIL), (APRIL-MAY), and (JUNE).

GAI SABER, El.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

GAINAS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

GAINES' MILL, Battle of.

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

GALATA, The Genoese colony.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299;
      also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453, and 1348-1355.

{1409}

GALATÆ, The.

      See GAULS.

GALATIA.-GALATIANS.

   In 280 B. C. a body of Gauls, or Celts, invaded Greece, under
   Brennus, and in the following year three tribes of them
   crossed into Asia Minor. There, as in Greece, they committed
   terrible ravages, and were a desolating scourge to the land,
   sometimes employed as mercenaries by one and another of the
   princes who fought over the fragments of Alexander's Empire,
   and sometimes roaming for plunder on their own account.
   Antiochus, son of Seleueus, of Syria, is said to have won a
   great victory over them; but it was not until 239 B. C. that
   they were seriously checked by Attalus, King of Pergamus, who
   defeated them in a great battle and forced them to settle in
   the part of ancient Phrygia which afterwards took its name
   from them, being called Galatia, or Gallo-Græcia, or Eastern
   Gaul. When the Romans subjugated Asia Minor they found the
   Galatæ among their most formidable enemies. The latter were
   permitted for a time to retain a certain degree of
   independence, under tetrarchs, and afterwards under kings of
   their own. But finally Galatia became a Roman province. "When
   St. Paul preached among them, they seemed fused into the
   Hellenistic world, speaking Greek like the rest of Asia; yet
   the Celtic language long lingered among them and St. Jerome
   says he found the country people still using it in his day
   (fourth century A. D.)."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
      INVASION OF GREECE.

GALBA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 68-69.

GALEAZZO MARIO, Duke of Milan, A.D. 1466-1476.

GALERIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-311.

GALICIA (Spain), Settlement of Sueves and Vandals in.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

GALILEE.

   The Hebrew name Galil, applied originally to a little section
   of country, became in the Roman age, as Galilæa, the name of
   the whole region in Palestine north of Samaria and west of the
   river Jordan and the Sea of Galilee. Ewald interprets the name
   as meaning the "march" or frontier land; but in Smith's
   "Dictionary of the Bible" it is said to signify a "circle" or
   "circuit." It had many heathen inhabitants and was called
   Galilee of the Gentiles.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 1._

GALLAS, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES;
      and ABYSSINIA: 15th-19th CENTURIES.

GALLATIN, Albert, Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

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

GALLDACHT.

      See PALE, THE ENGLISH.

GALLEON OR GALEON.
GALERA.
GALEAZA.
GALEASSES.

      See CARAVELS;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1588;
      also, PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

GALLI, The.

      See GAULS.

GALLIA.

      See GAUL.

GALLIA BRACCATA, COMATA AND TOGATA.

   "The antient historians make some allusion to another division
   of Gaul, perhaps introduced by the soldiers, for it was
   founded solely upon the costume of the inhabitants. Gallia
   Togata, near the Rhone, comprehended the Gauls who had adopted
   the toga and the Roman manners. In Gallia Comata, to the north
   of the Loire, the inhabitants wore long plaited hair, which we
   find to this day among the Bas Britons. Gallia Bracata, to the
   south of the Loire, wore, for the national costume, trousers
   reaching from the hips to the ancles, called 'braccæ.'"

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      translated by Bellingham,
      chapter 2, note._

GALLIA CISALPINA.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1268.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1438.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., affirming some of the
   decrees of the reforming Council of Basel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1438.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1515-1518.
   Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction.
   The Concordat of Bologna.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1653-1713.
   The conflict of Jesuits and Jansenists.
   Persecution of the latter.
   The Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1791-1792.
   The civil constitution of the clergy.
   The oath prescribed by the National Assembly.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1790-1791;
      and 1791-1792.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1793.
   Suppression of Christian worship in Paris and other parts of
   France.
   The worship of Reason.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1802.
   The Concordat of Napoleon.
   Its Ultramontane influence.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1833-1880.
   The Church and the Schools.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.

----------GALLICAN CHURCH: End----------

GALLICIA, The kingdom of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

GALLIENUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253-268.

GALLOGLASSES.

   The heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the
   Irish in their battles with the
   English during the 14th century.

      See, also, RAPPAREE.

GALLS.

   See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

GALLUS, Trebonianus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 251-253.

GAMA, Voyage of Vasco da.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

GAMBETTA AND THE DEFENSE OF FRANCE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
      and 1870-1871.

GAMMADION, The.

      See TRI-SKELION.

GAMORI.

      See GEOMORI.

GANAWESE OR KANAWHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

GANDARIANS, The.

      See GEDROSIANS.

GANDASTOGUES, OR CONESTOGAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

GANGANI, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

{1410}

GANGWAY, The.

   On the floor of the English House of Commons, "the long lines
   of seats rise gradually on each side of the chair—those to
   the Speaker's right being occupied by the upholders of the
   Government, and those to the left accommodating the
   Opposition. One length of seating runs in an unbroken line
   beneath each of the side galleries, and these are known as the
   'back benches.' The other lengths are divided into two nearly
   equal parts by an unseated gap of about a yard wide. This is
   'the gangway.' Though nothing more than a convenient means of
   access for members, this space has come to be regarded as the
   barrier that separates the thick and thin supporters of the
   rival leaders from their less fettered colleagues—that is to
   say, the steady men from the Radicals, Nationalists, and
   free-lances generally."

      _Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
      page 6._

GAON.-THE GAONATE.

      See JEWS: 7th CENTURY.

GARAMANTES, The.

   The ancient inhabitants of the north African region now called
   Fezzan, were known as the Garamantes.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 8, section 1._

GARCIA,
   King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 910-914.

   Garcia I., King of Navarre, 885-891.

   Garcia II., King of Spain, 925-970.

   Garcia III., King of Navarre, 1035-1054.

   Garcia IV., King of Navarre, 1134-1150.

GARFIELD, General James A.
   Campaign in Kentucky.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY; KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

   Presidential election.
   Administration.
   Assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880, and 1881.

GARIBALD, King of the Lombards, A. D. 672-673.

GARIBALDI'S ITALIAN CAMPAIGNS.

      See ITALY; A. D. 1848-:1849; 1856-1859;
      1859-1861; 1862-1866; and 1867-1870.

GARIGLIANO, Battle of the (1503).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

GARITIES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

GARRISON, William Lloyd, and the American Abolitionists.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

GARTER, Knights of the Order of the.

   "About this time [A. D. 1343] the king of England [Edward
   III.] resolved to rebuild and embellish the great castle of
   Windsor, which king Arthur had first founded in time past, and
   where he had erected and established that noble round table
   from whence so many gallant knights had issued forth, and
   displayed the valiant prowess of their deeds at arms over the
   world. King Edward, therefore, determined to establish an
   order of knighthood, consisting of himself, his children, and
   the most gallant knights in Christendom, to the number of
   forty. He ordered it to be denominated 'knights of the blue
   garter,' and that the feast should be celebrated every year at
   Windsor, upon St. George's day. He summoned, therefore, all
   the earls, barons, and knights of his realm, to inform them of
   his intentions; they heard it with great pleasure; for it
   appeared to them highly honourable, and capable of increasing
   love and friendship. Forty knights were then elected,
   according to report and estimation the bravest in Christendom,
   who sealed, and swore to maintain and keep the feast and the
   statutes which had been made. The king founded a chapel at
   Windsor, in honour of St. George, and established canons,
   there to serve God, with a handsome endowment. He then issued
   his proclamation for this feast by his heralds, whom he sent
   to France, Scotland, Burgundy, Hainault, Flanders, Brabant,
   and the empire of Germany, and offered to all knights and
   squires, that might come to this ceremony, passports to last
   for fifteen days after it was over. The celebration of this
   order was fixed for St. George's day next ensuing, to be held
   at Windsor, 1344."

      _Froissart (Johnes),
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapter 100._

   "The popular tradition, derived from Polydore Vergil, is that,
   having a festival at Court, a lady chanced to drop her garter,
   when it was picked up by the King. Observing that the incident
   made the bye-standers smile significantly, Edward exclaimed in
   a tone of rebuke, 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'—'Dishonoured
   be he who thinks evil of it': and to prevent any further
   innuendos, he tied the garter round his own knee. This
   anecdote, it is true, has been characterized by some as an
   improbable fable; why, we know not. … Be the origin of the
   institution, however, what it may, no Order in Europe is so
   ancient, none so illustrious, for 'it exceeds in majesty,
   honour and fame all chivalrous fraternities in the world.' …
   By a Statute passed on the 17th January, 1805, the Order is to
   consist of the Sovereign and twenty-five Knights Companions,
   together with such lineal descendants of George III. as may be
   elected, always excepting the Prince of Wales, who is a
   constituent part of the original institution. Special Statutes
   have since, at different times, been proclaimed for the
   admission of Sovereigns and extra Knights."

      _Sir B. Burke,
      Book of Orders of Knighthood,
      page 98._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Buswell,
      Historical Account of the Knights of the Garter._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      2d series, chapter 3._

GARUMNI, The Tribe of the.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

GASCONY.
GASCONS: Origin.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.

GASCONY: A. D. 778.
   The ambuscade at Roncesvalles.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

GASCONY: A. D. 781.
   Embraced in Aquitaine.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

GASCONY: 11th Century.
   The Founding of the Dukedom.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

----------GASCONY: End----------

GASIND, The.

      See COMITATUS.

GASPE, The burning of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

GASTEIN, Convention of (1865).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

GATES, General Horatio, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1777 (JULY-OCTOBER);
      1777-1778; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781.

GATH.

      See PHILISTINES.

GATHAS, The.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

{1411}

GAU, OR GA, The.

   "Next [after the Mark, in the settlements of the Germanic
   peoples] in order of constitution, if not of time, is the
   union of two, three, or more Marks in a federal bond for
   purposes of a religious, judicial, or even political
   character. The technical name for such a union is in Germany a
   Gau or Bant; in England the ancient name Ga has been almost
   universally superseded by that of Scir or Shire. For the most
   part the natural divisions of the country are the divisions
   also of the Ga; and the size of this depends upon such
   accidental limits as well as upon the character and
   dispositions of the several collective bodies which we have
   called Marks. The Ga is the second and final form of unsevered
   possession; for every larger aggregate is but the result of a
   gradual reduction of such districts, under a higher political
   or administrative unity, different only in degree and not in
   kind from what prevailed individually in each. The kingdom is
   only a larger Ga than ordinary; indeed the Ga itself was the
   original kingdom. … Some of the modern shire-divisions of
   England in all probability have remained unchanged from the
   earliest times; so that here and there a now existent Shire
   may be identical in territory with an ancient Ga. But it may
   be doubted whether this observation can be very extensively
   applied."

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England.
      book 1, chapter 8._

GAUGAMELA, OR ARBELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 384-380.

GAUL: described by Cæsar.

   "Gallia, in the widest sense of the term, is divided into
   three parts, one part occupied by the Belgae, a second by the
   Aquitani, and a third by a people whom the Romans name Galli,
   but in their own tongue they are named Celtae. These three
   people differ in language and social institutions. The Garumna
   (Garonne) is the boundary between the Aquitani and the Celtae:
   the rivers Matrona (Marne, a branch of the Seine) and the
   Sequana (Seine) separate the Celtae from the Belgae. … That
   part of Gallia which is occupied by the Celtae begins at the
   river Rhone: it is bounded by the Garonne, the Ocean and the
   territory of the Belgae; on the side of the Sequani and the
   Helvetii it also extends to the Rhine. It looks to the north.
   The territory of the Belgae begins where that of the Celtae
   ends: it extends to the lower part of the Rhine; it looks
   towards the north and the rising sun. Aquitania extends from
   the Garonne to the Pyrenean mountains and that part of the
   Ocean which borders on Spain. It looks in a direction between
   the setting sun and the north."

      _Julius Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 1, chapter 1;
      translated by G. Long
      (Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 8, chapter 22)._

GAUL: B. C. 125-121.
   First Roman conquests.

      See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
   Cæsar's conquest.

   Cæsar was consul for the year 695 A. U. (B. C. 59). At the
   expiration of his consulship he secured, by vote of the
   people, the government of the two Gauls (see ROME: B. C.
   68-58), not for one year, which was the customary term, but
   for five years—afterwards extended to ten. Cisalpine Gaul
   (northern Italy) had been fully subjugated and was tranquil;
   Transalpine Gaul (Gaul west and north of the Alps, or modern
   France, Switzerland and Belgium) was troubled and threatening.
   In Transalpine Gaul the Romans had made no conquests beyond
   the Rhone, as yet, except along the coast at the south. The
   country between the Alps and the Rhone, excepting certain
   territories of Massilia (Marseilles) which still continued to
   be a free city, in alliance with Rome, had been fully
   appropriated and organized as a province—the Provence of
   later times. The territory between the Rhone and the Cevennes
   mountains was less fully occupied and controlled. Cæsar's
   first proceeding as proconsul in Gaul was to arrest the
   migration of the Helvetii, who had determined to abandon their
   Swiss valleys and to seize some new territory in Gaul. He blocked
   their passage through Roman Gaul, then followed them in their
   movement eastward of the Rhone, attacked and defeated them
   with great slaughter, and forced the small remnant to return
   to their deserted mountain homes. The same year (B. C. 58) he
   drove out of Gaul a formidable body of Suevic Germans who had
   crossed the Rhine some years before under their king,
   Ariovistus. They were almost annihilated. The next year (B. C.
   57) he reduced to submission the powerful tribes of the
   Belgian region, who had provoked attack by leaguing themselves
   against the Roman intrusion in Gaul. The most obstinate of
   those tribes—the Nervii—were destroyed. In the following
   year (B. C. 56) Cæsar attacked and nearly exterminated the
   Veneti, a remarkable maritime people, who occupied part of
   Armorica (modern Brittany); he also reduced the coast tribes
   northwards to submission, while one of his lieutenants,
   Crassus, made a conquest of Aquitania. The conquest of Gaul
   was now apparently complete, and next year (B. C. 55), after
   routing and cutting to pieces another horde of Germanic
   invaders—the Usipetes and Tenctheri—who had ventured across
   the lower Rhine, Cæsar traversed the channel and invaded
   Britain. This first invasion, which had been little more than
   a reconnoissance, was repeated the year following (B. C. 54),
   with a larger force. It was an expedition having small
   results, and Cæsar returned from it in the early autumn to
   find his power in Gaul undermined everywhere by rebellious
   conspiracies. The first outbreak occurred among the Belgæ, and
   found its vigorous leader in a young chief of the Eburones,
   Ambiorix by name. Two legions, stationed in the midst of the
   Eburones, were cut to pieces while attempting to retreat. But
   the effect of this great disaster was broken by the bold
   energy of Cæsar, who led two legions, numbering barely 7,000
   men, to the rescue of his lieutenant Cicero (brother of the
   orator) whose single legion, camped in the Nervian territory,
   was surrounded and besieged by 60,000 of the enemy. Cæsar and
   his 7,000 veterans sufficed to rout the 60,000 Belgians.
   Proceeding with similar vigor to further operations, and
   raising new legions to increase his force, the proconsul had
   stamped the rebellion out before the close of the year 58 B.
   C., and the Eburones, who led in it, had ceased to exist. But
   the next year (B. C. 52) brought upon him a still more serious
   rising, of the Gallic tribes in central Gaul, leagued with the
   Belgians. Its leader was Vercingetorix, a gallant and able
   young chief of the Arverni. It was begun by the Carnutes, who
   massacred the Roman settlers in their town of Genabum
   (probably modern Orleans, but some say Gien, farther up the
   Loire). Cæsar was on the Italian side of the Alps when the
   news reached him, and the Gauls expected to be able to prevent
   his joining the scattered Roman forces in their country. But
   his energy baffled them, as it had baffled them many times
   before. He was across the Alps, across the Rhone, over the
   Cevennes—through six feet of snow in the passes—and in
   their midst, with such troops as he could gather in the
   Province, before they dreamed of lying in wait for him. Then,
   leaving most of these forces with Decimus Brutus, in a strong
   position, he stole away secretly, recrossed the Cevennes, put
   himself at the head of a small body of cavalry at Vienne on
   the Rhone, and rode straight through the country of the
   insurgents to join his veteran legions, first at Langres and
   afterwards at Sens.
{1412}
   In a few weeks he was at the head of a strong army, had taken
   the guilty town of Genabum and had given it up to fire and the
   sword. A little later the capital of the Bituriges, Avaricum
   (modern Bourges), suffered the same fate. Next, attempting to
   reduce the Arvernian town of Gergovia, he met with a check and
   was placed in a serious strait. But with the able help of his
   lieutenant Labienus, who defeated a powerful combination of
   the Gauls near Lutetia (modern Paris), he broke the toils,
   reunited his army, which he had divided, routed Vercingetorix
   in a great battle fought in the valley of the Vingeanne, and
   shut him up, with 80,000 men, in the city of Alesia. The siege
   of Alesia (modern Alise-Sainte-Reine, west of Dijon) which
   followed, was the most extraordinary of Cæsar's military
   exploits in Gaul. Holding his circumvallation of the town,
   against 80,000 within its walls and thrice as many swarming
   outside of it, he scattered the latter and forced the
   surrender of the former. His triumph was his greatest shame.
   Like a very savage, he dragged the knightly Vercingetorix in
   his captive train, exhibited him at a subsequent "triumph" in
   Rome, and then sent him to be put to death in the ghastly
   Tullianum. The fall of Alesia practically ended the revolt;
   although even the next year found some fighting to be done,
   and one stronghold of the Cadurci, Uxellodunum (modern
   Puy-d'Issolu, near Vayrac), held out with great obstinacy. It
   was taken by tapping with a tunnel the spring which supplied
   the besieged with water, and Cæsar punished the obstinacy of
   the garrison by cutting off their hands. Gaul was then deemed
   to be conquered and pacified, and Cæsar was prepared for the
   final contest with his rivals and enemies at Rome.

      _Cæsar,
      Gallic War._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 6-7, 10, and 12 (volumes 1-2)._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Cæsar,
      chapters 4-25._

GAUL: 2d-3d Century.
   Introduction of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (GAUL).

GAUL: A. D. 277.
   The invaders driven back by Probus.

   "The most important service which Probus [Roman Emperor, A. D.
   276-282] rendered to the republic was the deliverance of Gaul,
   and the recovery of seventy flourishing cities oppressed by
   the barbarians of Germany, who, since the death of Aurelian,
   had ravaged that great province with impunity. Among the
   various multitude of those fierce invaders, we may
   distinguish, with some degree of clearness, three great
   armies, or rather nations, successively vanquished by the
   valour of Probus. He drove back the Franks into their
   morasses; a descriptive circumstance from whence we may infer
   that the confederacy known by the manly appellation of 'Free'
   already occupied the flat maritime country, intersected and
   almost overflown by the stagnating waters of the Rhine, and
   that several tribes of the Frisians and Batavians had acceded
   to their alliance. He vanquished the Burgundians [and the
   Lygians]. … The deliverance of Gaul is reported to have cost
   the lives of 400,000 of the invaders—a work of labour to the
   Romans, and of expense to the emperor, who gave a piece of
   gold for the head of every barbarian."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 12._

      See, also, LYGIANS.

GAUL: A. D. 287.
   Insurrection of the Bagauds.

      See BAGAUDS;
      also, DEDITITIUS.

GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
   Julian's recovery of the province from the barbarians.

   During the civil wars and religious quarrels which followed
   the death of Constantine the Great—more especially in the
   three years of the usurpation of Magnentius, in the west (A.
   D. 350-353), Gaul was not only abandoned, for the most part,
   to the barbarians of Germany, but Franks and Alemanni were
   invited by Constantius to enter it. "In a little while a large
   part of the north and east of Gaul were in their almost
   undisputed possession. The Alamans seized upon the countries
   which are now called Alsace and Lorraine; the Franks secured
   for themselves Batavia and Toxandria: forty-five flourishing
   cities, among them Cologne, Treves, Spires, Worms, and
   Strasburg, were ravaged; and, in short, from the sources of
   the Rhine to its mouth, forty miles inland, there remained no
   safety for the population but in the strongly fortified
   towns." In this condition of the Gallic provinces, Julian, the
   young nephew of the emperor, was raised to the rank of Cæsar
   and sent thither with a trifling force of men to take the
   command. "During an administration of six years [A. D.
   355-361] this latest Cæsar revived in Gaul the memory of the
   indefatigable exploits and the vigorous rule of the first
   Cæsar. Insufficient and ill-disciplined as his forces were,
   and baffled and betrayed as he was by those who should have
   been his aids, he drove the fierce and powerful tribes of the
   Alamans, who were now the hydra of the western provinces,
   beyond the Upper Rhine; the Chamaves, another warlike tribe,
   he pursued into the heart of their native forests; while the
   still fiercer and more warlike Franks were dislodged from
   their habitations on the Meuse, to accept of conditions from
   his hands. … A part of these, called the Salians, and
   destined to figure hereafter, were allowed to settle in
   permanence in Toxandria, between the Meuse and the Scheld,
   near the modern Tongres. … By three successful expeditions
   beyond the Rhine [he] restored to their friends a multitude of
   Roman captives, recovered the broken and down-trodden lines of
   the empire, humiliated many of the proud chiefs of the
   Germans, and impressed a salutary awe and respect upon their
   truculent followers. … He spent the intervals of peace which
   his valor procured in recuperating the wasted energies of the
   inhabitants. Their dilapidated cities were repaired, the
   excesses of taxation retrenched, the deficient harvests
   compensated by large importations of corn from Britain, and
   the resources of suspended industry stimulated into new
   action. Once more, says Libanius, the Gauls ascended from the
   tombs to marry, to travel, to enjoy the festivals, and to
   celebrate the public games."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 19._

GAUL: A. D. 365-367.
   Expulsion of the Alemanni by Valentinian.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

GAUL: A. D. 378.
   Invasion of the Alemanni.
   Their destruction by Gratian.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

{1413}

GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
   The breaking of the Rhine barrier.

   The same year (A. D. 406) in which Radagaisus, with his motley
   barbaric horde, invaded Italy and was destroyed by Stilicho, a
   more fatal assault was made upon Gaul. Two armies, in which
   were gathered up a vast multitude of Suevi, Vandals, Alans and
   Burgundians, passed the Rhine. The Franks opposed them as
   faithful allies of the Roman power, and defeated a Vandal army
   in one great battle, where 20,000 of the invaders were slain;
   but the Alans came opportunely to the rescue of their friends
   and forced the Frank defenders of Gaul to give way. "The
   victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last
   day of the year, in a season when the waters of the Rhine were
   most probably frozen, they entered without opposition the
   defenceless provinces of Gaul. This memorable passage of the
   Suevi, the Vandals, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who never
   afterwards retreated, may be considered as the fall of the
   Roman empire in the countries beyond the Alps; and the
   barriers which had so long separated the savage and the
   civilized nations of the earth were, from that fatal moment,
   levelled with the ground. … The flourishing city of Mentz
   was surprised and destroyed, and many thousand Christians were
   inhumanly massacred in the church. Worms perished after a long
   and obstinate siege; Strasburg, Spires, Rheims, Tournay,
   Arras, Amiens, experienced the cruel oppression of the German
   yoke; and the consuming flames of war spread from the banks of
   the Rhine over the greatest part of the seventeen provinces of
   Gaul. That rich and extensive country, as far as the ocean,
   the Alps, and the Pyrenees, was delivered to the barbarians,
   who drove before them in a promiscuous crowd the bishop, the
   senator, and the virgin, laden with the spoils of their houses
   and altars."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30._

GAUL: A. D. 407-411.
   Reign of the usurper Constantine.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

GAUL: A. D. 410-419.
   Establishment of the Visigoths in the kingdom of Toulouse.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

GAUL: A. D. 410-420.
   The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.

GAUL: 5th-8th Centuries.
   Barbarities of the Frank conquest.

   The conquests of the Franks in Gaul, under Clovis, began in
   486 and ended with his death in 511 (see FRANKS: A. D.
   481-511). "In the year 532, Theoderik, one of the sons and
   successors of Chlodowig, said to those Frankish warriors whom
   he commanded: 'Follow me as far as Auvergne, and I will make
   you enter a country where you will take as much gold and
   silver as you possibly can desire; where you can carry away in
   abundance flocks, slaves, and garments.' The Franks took up
   arms and once more crossing the Loire, they advanced on the
   territory of the Bituriges and Arvernes. These paid with
   interest for the resistance they had dared to the first
   invasion. Everything amongst them was devastated; the churches
   and monasteries were razed to their foundations. The young men
   and women were dragged, their hands bound, after the luggage
   to be sold as slaves. The inhabitants of this unfortunate
   country perished in large numbers or were ruined by the
   pillage. Nothing was left them of what they had possessed,
   says an ancient chronicle, except the land, which the
   barbarians could not carry away. Such were the neighbourly
   relations kept up by the Franks with the Gallic populations
   which had remained beyond their limits. Their conduct with
   respect to the natives of the northern provinces was hardly
   less hostile. When Hilperik, the son of Chlother, wished, in
   the year 584, to send his daughter in marriage to the king of
   the West Goths, or Visigoths, settled in Spain, he came to
   Paris and carried away from the houses belonging to the 'fisc'
   a great number of men and women, who were heaped up in
   chariots to accompany and serve the bride elect. Those who
   refused to depart, and wept, were put in prison: several
   strangled themselves in despair. Many people of the best
   families enlisted by force into this procession, made their
   will, and gave their property to the churches. 'The son,' says
   a contemporary, 'was separated from his father, the mother
   from her daughter; they departed sobbing, and pronouncing deep
   curses; so many persons in Paris were in tears that it might
   be compared to the desolation of Egypt.' In their domestic
   misfortunes the kings of the Franks sometimes felt remorse,
   and trembled at the evil they had done. … But this momentary
   repentance soon yielded to the love of riches, the most
   violent passion of the Franks. Their incursions into the south
   of Gaul recommenced as soon as that country, recovered from its
   terrors and defeats, no longer admitted their garrisons nor
   tax collectors. Karle, to whom the fear of his arms gave the
   surname of Marteau, made an inroad as far as Marseilles; he
   took possession of Lyons, Arles, and Vienne, and carried off
   an immense booty to the territory of the Franks. When this
   same Karle, to insure his frontiers, went to fight the
   Saracens in Aquitania, he put the whole country to fire and
   sword; he burnt Bérgiers, Agde, and Nûnes; the arenas of the
   latter city still bear traces of the fire. At death of Karle,
   his two sons, Karlemann and Peppin, continued the great
   enterprise of replacing the inhabitants of the south, to whom
   the name of Romans was still given, under the yoke of the
   Franks. … Southern Gaul was to the sons of the Franks what
   entire Gaul had been to their fathers; a country, the riches
   and climate of which attracted them incessantly, and saw them
   return as enemies, as soon as it did not purchase peace of
   them."

      _A. Thierry,
      Narratives of the Merovingian Era, Historical Essays, etc.,
      essay 24._

GAUL: 5th-10th Centuries.
   The conquerors and the conquered.
   State of society under the barbarian rule.
   The evolution of Feudalism.

   "After the conclusion of the great struggles which took place
   in the fourth and fifth centuries, whether between the German
   conquerors and the last forces of the empire, or between the
   nations which had occupied different portions of Gaul, until
   the Franks remained sole masters of the country, two races,
   two populations, which had nothing in common but religion,
   appear forcibly brought together, and, as it were, face to
   face with each other, in one political community. The
   Gallo-Roman population presents under the same law very
   different and very unequal conditions; the barbarian
   population comprises, together with its own peculiar
   classifications of ranks and conditions, distinct laws and
   nationalities. In the first we find citizens absolutely free,
   coloni, or husbandmen belonging to the lands of a proprietor,
   and domestic slaves deprived of all civil rights; in the
   second, we see the Frankish race divided into two tribes, each
   having its own peculiar law [the law of the Salic Franks or Salic
   law, and the law of the Ripuarian Franks or Ripuarian law];
   the Burgundians, the Goths, and the rest of the Teutonic
   races, who became subjected, either of their own accord or by
   force, to, the Frankish empire, governed by other and entirely
   different laws; but among them all, as well as among the
   Franks, we find at least three social conditions—two degrees
   of liberty, and slavery.
{1414}
   Among these incongruous states of existence, the criminal law
   of the dominant race established, by means of the scale of
   damages for crime or personal injury, a kind of hierarchy—
   the starting-point of that movement towards an assimilation
   and gradual transformation, which, after the lapse of four
   centuries, from the fifth to the tenth, gave rise to the
   society of the feudal times. The first rank in the civil order
   belonged to the man of Frankish origin, and to the Barbarian who
   lived under the law of the Franks; in the second rank was
   placed the Barbarian, who lived under the law of his own
   country; next came the native freeman and proprietor, the
   Roman possessor, and, in the same degree, the Lidus or German
   colonus; after them, the Roman tributary—i. e., the native
   colonus; and, last of all, the slave, without distinction of
   origin. These various classes, separated on the one hand by
   distance of rank, on the other by difference of laws, manners,
   and language, were far from being equally distributed between
   the cities and the rural districts. All that was elevated in
   the Gallo-Roman population, of whatever character it might be,
   was found in the cities, where its noble, rich, and
   industrious families dwelt, surrounded by their domestic
   slaves; and, among the people of that race, the only constant
   residents in the country were the half-servile coloni and the
   agricultural slaves. On the contrary, the superior class of
   the German population established itself in the country, where
   each family, independent and proprietary, was maintained on
   its own domain by the labour of the Lidi whom it had brought
   thither, or of the old race of coloni who belonged to the
   soil. The only Germans who resided in the cities were a small
   number of officers in the service of the Crown, and of
   individuals without family and patrimony, who, in spite of
   their original habits, sought a livelihood by following some
   employment. The social superiority of the dominant race rooted
   itself firmly in the localities inhabited by them, and passed,
   as has been already remarked, from the cities to the rural
   districts. By degrees, also, it came to pass that the latter
   drew off from the former the upper portion of their
   population, who, in order to raise themselves still higher,
   and to mix with the conquerors, imitated, as far as they were
   able, their mode of life. … While Barbarism was thus
   occupying or usurping all the vantage points of the social
   state, and civil life in the intermediate classes was arrested
   in its progress, and sinking gradually to the lowest
   condition, even to that of personal servitude, an ameliorating
   movement already commenced before the fall of the empire,
   still continued, and declared itself more and more loudly. The
   dogma of a common brotherhood in the eyes of God, and of one
   sole redemption for all mankind, preached by the Church to the
   faithful of every race, touched the heart and awakened the
   mind in favour of the slave, and, in consequence,
   enfranchisements became more frequent, or a treatment more
   humane was adopted on the part of the masters, whether Gauls
   or Germans by origin. The latter, moreover, had imported from
   their country, where the mode of life was simple and without
   luxury, usages favourable to a modified slavery. The rich
   barbarian was waited upon by free persons—by the children of
   his relatives, his clients and his friends; the tendency of
   his national manners, different from that of the Roman,
   induced him to send the slave out of his house, and to
   establish him as a labourer or artisan on some portion of land
   to which he then became permanently attached, and the
   destination of which he followed, whether it were inherited or
   sold. … Domestic slavery made the man a chattel, a mere
   piece of moveable property. The slave, settled on a spot of
   land, from that time entered into the category of real
   property. At the same time that this last class, which
   properly bore the name of serfs, was increased at the expense
   of the first, the classes of the coloni and Lidi would
   naturally multiply simultaneously, by the very casualties of
   ruin and adverse circumstances which, at a period of incessant
   commotions, injured the condition of the freemen. … In the
   very heart of the Barbarian society, the class of small
   proprietors, which had originally formed its strength and
   glory, decreased, and finally became extinct by sinking into
   vassalage, or a state of still more ignoble dependence, which
   partook more or less of the character of actual servitude. …
   The freemen depressed towards servitude met the slave who had
   reached a sort of half liberty. Thus, through the whole extent
   of Gaul, was formed a vast body of agricultural labourers and
   rural artisans, whose lot, though never uniform, was brought
   more and more to a level of equality; and the creative wants
   of society produced a new sphere of industry in the country,
   while the cities remained stationary, or sank more and more
   into decay. … On every large estate where improvement
   flourished, the cabins of those employed, Lidi, coloni or
   slaves, grouped as necessity or convenience suggested, were
   multiplied and peopled more numerously, till they assumed the
   form of a hamlet. When these hamlets were situated in a
   favourable position … they continued to increase till they
   became villages. … The building of a church soon raised the
   village to the rank of a parish; and, as a consequence, the
   new parish took its place among the rural circonscriptions.
   … Thence sprung, altogether spontaneously, under the
   sanction of the intendant, joined to that of the priest, rude
   outlines of a municipal organization, in which the church
   became the depository of the acts which, in accordance with
   the Roman law, were inscribed on the registers of the city. It
   is in this way that beyond the towns, the cities, and the
   boroughs, where the remains of the old social condition
   lingered in an increasing state of degradation, elements of
   future improvement were formed. … This modification, already
   considerably advanced in the ninth century, was completed in
   the course of the tenth. At that period, the last class of the
   Gallo-Frankish society disappeared—viz., that of persons
   held as chattels, bought, exchanged, transferred from one
   place to another, like any other kind of moveable goods. The
   slave now belonged to the soil rather than to the person; his
   service, hitherto arbitrary, was changed into customary dues
   and regulated employment; he had a settled abode, and, in
   consequence, a right of possession in the soil on which he was
   dependent. This is the earliest form in which we distinctly
   trace the first impress of the modern world upon the civil
   state.
{1415}
   The word serf henceforward took its definite meaning; it
   became the generic name of a mixed condition of servitude and
   freedom, in which we find blended together the states of the
   colonus and Lidus—two names which occur less and less
   frequently in the tenth century, till they entirely disappear.
   This century, the point to which all the social efforts of the
   four preceding ones which had elapsed since the Frankish
   conquest had been tending, saw the intestine struggle between
   the Roman and German manners brought to a conclusion by an
   important revolution. The latter definitively prevailed, and
   from their triumph arose the feudal system; that is to say, a
   new form of the state, a new constitution of property and
   domestic life, a parcelling out of the sovereignty and
   jurisdiction, all the public powers transformed into demesnial
   privileges, the idea of nobility devoted to the profession of
   arms, and that of ignobility to industry and labour. By a
   remarkable coincidence, the complete establishment of this
   system is the epoch when the distinction of races terminates
   in Frankish Gaul—when all the legal consequences of
   diversity of origin between Barbarians and Romans, conquerors
   and subjects, disappear. The law ceases to be personal, and
   becomes local; the German codes and the Roman code itself are
   replaced by custom; it is the territory and not the descent
   which distinguishes the inhabitant of the Gallic soil;
   finally, instead of national distinctions, one mixed
   population appears, to which the historian is able
   henceforward to give the name of French."

      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

GAUL: A. D. 412-453.
   The mixed administration, Roman and barbarian.

   "A prætorian prefect still resided at Trèves; a vicar of the
   seventeen Gallic provinces at Aries: each of these provinces
   had its Roman duke; each of the hundred and fifteen cities of
   Gaul had its count; each city its curia, or municipality. But,
   collaterally with this Roman organisation, the barbarians,
   assembled in their 'mallum,' of which their kings were
   presidents, decided on peace and war, made laws, or
   administered justice. Each division of the army had its Graf
   Jarl, or Count; each subdivision its centenary, or
   hundred-man; and all these fractions of the free population
   had the same right of deciding by suffrage in their own
   mallums, or peculiar courts, all their common affairs. In
   cases of opposition between the barbarian and the Roman
   jurisdiction, the overbearing arrogance of the one, and the
   abject baseness of the other, soon decided the question of
   supremacy. In some provinces the two powers were not
   concurrent: there were no barbarians between the Loire and the
   Meuse, nor between the Alps and the Rhone; but the feebleness
   of the Roman government was only the more conspicuous. A few
   great proprietors cultivated a part of the province with the
   aid of slaves; the rest was desert, or only inhabited by
   Bagaudæ, runaway slaves, who lived by robbery. Some towns
   still maintained a show of opulence, but not one gave the
   slightest sign of strength; not one enrolled its militia, nor
   repaired its fortifications. … Honorius wished to confer on
   the cities of southern Gaul a diet, at which they might have
   deliberated on public affairs: he did not even find public
   spirit enough to accept the offered privilege."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

GAUL: A. D. 451.
   Attila's invasion.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

GAUL: A. D. 453-484.
   Extension of the Visigothic kingdom.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484.

GAUL: A. D. 457-486.
   The last Roman sovereignty.

   The last definite survival of Roman sovereignty in Gaul
   lingered until 486 in a district north of the Seine, between
   the Marne and the Oise, which had Soissons for its capital. It
   was maintained there, in the first instance, by Ægidius, a
   Gallic noble whom Marjorian, one of the last of the emperors
   at Rome, made Master-General of Gaul. The respect commanded by
   Ægidius among the surrounding barbarians was so great that the
   Salian Franks invited him to rule over them, in place of a
   licentious young king, Childeric, whom they had driven into
   exile. He was king of these Franks, according to Gregory of
   Tours, for eight years (457-464), until he died. Childeric
   then returned, was reinstated in his kingdom and became the
   father of Clovis (or Chlodwig), the founder of the great Frank
   monarchy. But a son of Ægidius, named Syagrius, was still the
   inheritor of a kingdom, known as, the "Kingdom of Syagrius,"
   embracing, as has been said, the country around Soissons,
   between the Seine, the Marne and the Oise, and also including,
   in the opinion of some writers, Troyes and Auxerre. The first
   exploit of Clovis—the beginning of his career of
   conquest—was the overthrow of this "king of the Romans," as
   Syagrius was called, in a decisive battle fought at Soissons,
   A. D. 486, and the incorporation of his kingdom into the Frank
   dominions. Syagrius escaped to Toulouse, but was surrendered
   to Clovis and put to death.

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 2._

GAUL: A. D. 474.
   Invasion of Ostrogoths.

      See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-474.

GAUL: A. D. 507-509.
   Expulsion of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

GAUL: A. D. 540.
   Formal relinquishment of the country to the Franks by
   Justinian.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

GAULS.

   "The Gauls, properly so called, the Galatæ of the Greeks, the
   Galli of the Romans, and the Gael of modern history, formed
   the van of the great Celtic migration which had poured
   westward at various intervals during many hundred years. …
   Having overrun the south of Gaul and penetrated into Spain,
   they lost a part of the territory thus acquired, and the
   restoration of the Iberian fugitives to Aquitania placed a
   barrier between the Celts in Spain and their brethren whom
   they had left behind them in the north. In the time of the
   Romans the Galli were found established in the centre and east
   of the country denominated Gaul, forming for the most part a
   great confederation, at the head of which stood the Arverni.
   It was the policy of the Romans to raise the Ædui into
   competition with this dominant tribe. … The Arverni, whose
   name is retained in the modern appellation of Auvergne,
   occupied a large district in the middle and south of Gaul, and
   were surrounded by tributary or dependent clans. The Ædui lay
   more to the north and east, and the centre of their
   possessions is marked by the position of their capital
   Bibracte, the modern Autun, situated in the highlands which
   separate the waters of the Loire, the Seine and the Saone. …
{1416}
   Other Gallic tribes stretched beyond the Saone: the Sequani,
   who afterwards made an attempt to usurp this coveted
   preeminence (the valley of the Doubs formed the centre of the
   Sequanese territory, which reached to the Jura and the Rhine);
   the Helvetii and other mountain races, whose scanty pastures
   extended to the sources of the Rhine; the Allobroges, who
   dwelt upon the Isere and Rhone, and who were the first of
   their race to meet and the first to succumb before the prowess
   of the Roman legions. According to the classification both of
   Cæsar and Strabo, the Turones, Pictones and Santones must be
   comprised under the same general denomination."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      See, also, CELTS.

GAUL: B. C. 390-347.
   Invasions of Italy.
   Destruction of Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

GAUL: B. C. 295-191.
   Roman conquest of the Cisalpine tribes.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

GAUL: B. C. 280-279.
   Invasion of Greece.

   In the year 280 B. C. the Gauls, who had long before passed
   from northern Italy around the Adriatic to its eastern coast,
   made their first appearance in Macedonia and northern Greece.
   The Macedonian throne was occupied at the time by the infamous
   usurper, Ptolemy Ceraunus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280), and
   the Celtic savages did one good service to Greece by slaying
   him, in the single battle that was fought. The whole open
   country was abandoned to them, for a time, and they swept it,
   as far southward as the valley of the Peneus, in Thessaly; but
   the walled cities were safe. After ravaging the country for
   some months the Gauls appear to have retired; but it was only
   to return again the next year in more formidable numbers and
   under a chief, Brennus, of more vigor and capability. On this
   occasion the country suffered fearfully from the barbaric
   swarm, but defended itself with something like the spirit of
   the Greece of two centuries before. The Ætolians were
   conspicuous in the struggle; the Peloponnesian states gave
   little assistance. The policy of defense was much the same as
   at the time of the Persian invasion, and the enemy was
   confronted in force at the pass of Thermopylæ. Brennus made a
   more desperate attempt to force the pass than Xerxes had done
   and was beaten back with a tremendous slaughter of his Gauls.
   But he found traitors, as Xerxes had done, to guide him over
   the mountains, and the Greeks at Thermopylæ, surrounded by the
   enemy, could only escape by sea. The Gauls marched on Delphi,
   eager for the plunder of the great temple, and there they met
   with some fatal disaster. Precisely what occurred is not
   known. According to the Greeks, the god protected his
   sanctuary, and the accounts they have left are full of
   miracles and prodigies—of earthquakes, lightnings, tempests,
   and disease. The only clear facts seem to be that Delphi was
   successfully defended; that the Gauls retreated in disorder
   and were destroyed in vast numbers before the remnant of them
   got away from the country. Brennus is said to have killed
   himself to escape the wrath of his people for the failure of
   the expedition. One large body of the great army had separated
   from the rest and gone eastward into Thrace, before the
   catastrophe occurred. These subsequently passed over to Asia
   and pursued there an adventurous career, leaving a historic
   name in the country.

      See GALATIA.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60._

----------GAUL: End----------

GAULS, Præfect of the.

      See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

GAUSARAPOS, OR GUUCHIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GAVELKIND, Irish.

   "The Irish law of succession in landed property, known as that
   of Irish gavelkind, was a logical consequence of the theory of
   tribal ownership. If a member of the tribe died, his piece of
   land did not descend by right to his eldest son, or even to
   all his children equally. Originally, it reverted to its sole
   absolute owner, the tribe, every member of which had a right
   to use proportionate to his tribal status. This was
   undoubtedly the essential principle of inheritance by
   gavelkind."

      _S. Bryant,
      Celtic Ireland,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir H. Maine,
      Early History of Institutions,
      lecture 7._

GAVELKIND, Kentish.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

GAVEREN, Battle of (1453).

      See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

GAZA: Early history.

      See PHILISTINES.

GAZA: B. C. 332.
   Siege by Alexander.

   In his march from Phœnicia to Egypt (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C.
   334-330), Alexander the Great was compelled to pause for
   several months and lay siege to the ancient Philistine city of
   Gaza. It was defended for the Persian king by a brave eunuch
   named Batis. In the course of the siege, Alexander received a
   severe wound in the shoulder, which irritated his savage
   temper. When the town was at length taken by storm, he gave no
   quarter. Its male inhabitants were put to the sword and the
   women and children sold to slavery. The eunuch Batis, being
   captured alive, but wounded, was dragged by the feet at the
   tail of a chariot, driven at full speed by Alexander himself.
   The "greatest of conquerors" proved himself often enough, in
   this way, to be the greatest of barbarians—in his age.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 93._

GAZA: B. C. 312.
   Battle between Ptolemy and Demetrius.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.

GAZA: B. C. 100.
   Destruction by Alexander Jannæus.

   Gaza having sided with the Egyptian king, in a war between
   Alexander Jannæus, one of the Asmonean kings of the Jews, and
   Ptolemy Lathyrus of Egypt and Cyprus, the former laid siege to
   the city, about 100 B. C., and acquired possession of it after
   several months, through treachery. He took his revenge by
   massacring the inhabitants and reducing the city to ruins. It
   was rebuilt not long afterwards by the Romans.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 9._

GAZA: A. D. 1516.
   Defeat of the Mamelukes by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

----------GAZA: End----------

GAZACA.

      See ECBATANA.

GAZARI, The.

      See CATHARISTS.

GAZNEVIDES, OR GHAZNEVIDES.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

GEARY ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

GEDDES, Jenny, and her stool.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

{1417}

GEDROSIANS, The.

   "Close to the Indus, and beyond the bare, hot, treeless shores
   of the ocean, the southern part of the plain [of eastern Iran]
   consists of sandy flats, in which nothing grows but prickly
   herbs and a few palms. The springs are a day's journey from
   each other, and often more. This region was possessed by a
   people whom Herodotus calls Sattagydæ and the companions of
   Alexander of Macedonia, Gedrosians. … Neighbours of the
   Gandarians, who, as we know, dwelt on the right bank of the
   Indus down to the Cabul, the Gedrosians led a wandering,
   predatory life; under the Persian kings, they were united into
   one satrapy with the Gandarians."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

GEIZA II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1141-1160.

GELA, Founding of.

      See SYRACUSE, FOUNDING OF.

GELASIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1118-1119.

GELEONTES.

      See PHYLÆ.

GELHEIM, Battle of (1298).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

GELONI, The.

   An ancient colony of Greeks intermixed with natives which
   shared the country of the Budini, on the steppes between the
   Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, volume 3, chapter 17._

GELVES, Battle of (1510).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

GEMARA, The.

      See TALMUD.

GEMBLOURS, Battle of (1578).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

GEMEINDE.
GEMEINDERATH.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

GEMOT.

   A meeting, assembly, council, moot.

      See WITENAGEMOT.

GENABUM, OR CENABUM.

   The principal town of the Gallic tribe called the Carnutes;
   identified by most archæologists with the modern city of
   Orleans, France, though some think its site was at Gien.

      See GAUL, CÆSAR'S CONQUEST OF.

GENAUNI, The.

      See RHÆTIANS.

GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

GENERALS, Execution of the Athenian.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

GENET, "Citizen," the mission of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

GENEVA: Beginnings of the city.

      See HELVETII, THE ARRESTED MIGRATION OF THE.

GENEVA: A. D. 500.
   Under the Burgundians.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

GENEVA: 10th Century.
   In the kingdom of Arles.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

GENEVA: A. D. 1401.
   Acquisition of the Genevois, or County, by the House of Savoy.
   The city surrounded.

      See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
   The emancipation of the city from the Vidomme and the
   Prince-Bishop.
   Triumph of the Reformation.

   "Geneva was nominally a free city of the Empire, but had in
   reality been governed for some centuries by its own bishop,
   associated with a committee of lay-assessors, and controlled
   by the general body of the citizens, in whose hands the
   ultimate power of taxation, and of election of the magistrates
   and regulation of the police, rested. The prince-bishop did
   not exercise his temporal jurisdiction directly, but through
   an officer called the Vidomme (vice-dominus), whose rights had
   in the 15th century become hereditary in the dukes of Savoy.
   These rights appear to have been exercised without any
   considerable attempt at encroachment till the beginning of the
   following century, when Charles III. succeeded to the ducal
   crown (1504). To his ambition the bishop, John, a weak and
   willing tool of the Savoy family, to which he was nearly
   allied, ceded everything; and the result was a tyrannical
   attempt to destroy the liberties of the Genevese. The Assembly
   of the citizens rose in arms; a bitter and sanguinary contest
   ensued between the Eidgenossen [Confederates] or Patriot party
   on the one side, and the Mamelukes or monarchical party on the
   other side. By the help of the free Helvetian states,
   particularly Berne and Friburg, the Patriots triumphed, the
   friends of Savoy were banished, the Vidommate abolished, and
   its powers transferred to a board of magistrates. The conduct
   of the bishops in this conflict … helped greatly, as may be
   imagined, to shake the old hierarchical authority in Geneva;
   and when, in 1532, Farel first made his appearance in the
   city, he found a party not indisposed to join him in his eager
   and zealous projects of reform. He had a hard fight for it,
   however, and was at first obliged to yield, and leave the city
   for a time; and it was not till August 1535 that he and Viret
   and Froment succeeded in abolishing the mass, and establishing
   the Protestant faith."

      _J. Tulloch,
      Leaders of the Reformation,
      pages 161-162._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Planta,
      History of the Helvetic Confederacy,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _I. Spon,
      History of the City and State of Geneva,
      book 2._

      See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

GENEVA: A. D. 1536.
   The coming of Calvin.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
   Calvin's Ecclesiastical State.

   "Humanly speaking, it was a mere accident which caused Calvin
   to yield to the entreaties of his friends to remain in the
   city where he was to begin his renowned efforts in the cause
   of reform. Geneva had been from ancient times one of the most
   flourishing imperial cities of the Burgundian territory; it
   was situated on the frontiers of several countries where the
   cross roads of various nationalities met. The city, which in
   itself was remarkable, belonged originally to the German
   empire; the language of its inhabitants was Romanic; it was
   bounded on one side by Burgundy, on the other by German
   Switzerland. … Geneva was apparently in a state of
   political, ecclesiastical, and moral decay. With the
   puritanical strictness of Geneva, as it afterwards became,
   before the mind's eye, it is difficult to picture the Geneva
   of that day. An unbridled love of pleasure, a reckless
   wantonness, a licentious frivolity had taken possession of
   Genevan life, while the State was the plaything of intestine
   and foreign feuds. … Reformers had already appeared in the
   city: Vinet, Farel, Theodore Beza; they were Frenchmen, Farel
   a near neighbour of Geneva. These French Reformers are of
   quite a different stamp from our Germans, who, according as
   Luther or Melancthon is taken as their type, have either a
   plebeian popular, or learned theological character. They are
   either popular orators of great power and little polish, or
   they belong to the learned circles, and keep strictly to this
   character. In France they were mostly men belonging not to the
   lower, but to the middle and higher ranks of society, refined
   and cultivated; and in this fact lay the weakness of
   Calvinism, which knew well how to rule the masses, but never
   to gain their affection. …
{1418}
   His [Calvin's] greatness … was shown in the fanatical zeal
   with which he entered the city, ready to stake his life for
   his cause. He began to teach, to found a school, to labour on
   the structure which was the idea of his life, to introduce
   reforms in doctrine, worship, the constitution and discipline
   of the Church, and he preached with that powerful eloquence
   only possessed by those in whom character and teaching are in
   unison. The purified worship was to take place within bare,
   unadorned walls; no picture of Christ, nor pomp of any kind,
   was to disturb the aspirations of the soul. Life outside the
   temple was also to be a service of God; games, swearing,
   dancing, singing, worldly amusements, and pleasure were
   regarded by him as sins, as much as real vice and crime. He
   began to form little congregations, like those in the early
   ages of the Church, and it need scarcely be said that even in
   this worldly and pleasure-loving city the apparition of this
   man, in the full vigour of life, all conviction and
   determination, half prophet and half tribune, produced a
   powerful impression. The number of his outward followers
   increased, but they were outward followers only. Most of them
   thought it would be well to make use of the bold Reformer to
   oppose the bishop, and that he would find means of
   establishing a new and independent Church, but they seemed to
   regard freedom as libertinism. Calvin therefore regarded the
   course things were taking with profound dissatisfaction. …
   So he delivered some extremely severe sermons, which half
   frightened and half estranged his hearers; and at Easter,
   1538, when the congregation came to partake of the Lord's
   Supper, he took the unheard-of step of sending them all back
   from the altar, saying, 'You are not worthy to partake of the
   Lord's body; you are just what you were before; your
   sentiments, your morals, and your conduct are unchanged.' This
   was more than could be hazarded without peril to his life. The
   effect was indescribable; his own friends disapproved of the
   step. But that did not dismay him. He had barely time to flee
   for his life, and he had to leave Geneva in a state of
   transition—a chaos which justified a saying of his own, that
   defection from one Church is not renovation by another. He was
   now once more an exile. He wandered about on the frontiers of
   his country, in the German cities of Strasburg, Basle, &c.,
   and we several times meet with him in the religious
   discussions between 1540 and 1550. … But a time came when
   they wished him back at Geneva. … In September, 1541, he
   returned and began his celebrated labours. Endowed with
   supreme power, like Lycurgus at Sparta, he set to work to make
   Geneva a city of the Lord—to found an ecclesiastical state in
   which religion, public life, government, and the worship of
   God were to be all of a piece, and an extraordinary task it
   was. Calvinistic Geneva became the school of reform for
   western Europe, and scattered far and wide the germs of
   similar institutions. In times when Protestantism elsewhere
   had become cool, this school carried on the conflict with the
   mediæval Church. Calvin was implacable in his determination to
   purify the worship of God of all needless adjuncts. All that
   was calculated to charm and affect the senses was abolished;
   spiritual worship should be independent of all earthly things,
   and should consist of edification by the word, and simple
   spiritual songs. All the traditional externals that Luther had
   retained—altars, pictures, ceremonials, and decorations of
   every kind—were dispensed with. … Calvin next established a
   system of Church discipline which controlled the individual in
   every relation of life, and ruled him from the cradle to the
   grave. He retained all the means by which ecclesiastical
   authority enforced obedience on the faithful in the Middle
   Ages—baptism, education up to confirmation, penance, penal
   discipline, and excommunication. … Calvin began his labours
   late in the autumn of 1541, and he acquired and maintained
   more power than was ever exercised by the most powerful popes.
   He was indeed only the 'preacher of the word,' but through his
   great influence he was the lawgiver, the administrator, the
   dictator of the State of Geneva. There was nothing in the
   commonwealth that had not been ordained by him, and this
   indicates a remarkable aspect of his character. The
   organization of the State of Geneva began with the ordinances
   of the 2nd of January, 1542. There were four orders of
   officials—pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. The
   Consistory was formed of the pastors and elders. … It was
   the special duty of the Consistory, which was composed of the
   clergy and twelve laymen, to see that the ordinances were duly
   observed, and it was the supreme tribunal of morals. The
   twelve laymen were elected for a year, by the council of two
   hundred, on the nomination by the clergy. The Consistory met
   every Thursday to see that everything in the church was in
   order. They had the power of excommunication, but this only
   consisted in exclusion from the community of the faithful, and
   the loss of the privilege of partaking of the Lord's Supper.
   It also decided questions relating to marriage. The deacons
   had the care of the poor and of almsgiving. Calvin himself was
   the soul of the whole organization. But he was a cold, stiff,
   almost gloomy being, and his character produces a very
   different impression from the genial warmth of Luther, who
   could be cheerful and merry with his family. Half Old
   Testament prophet, half Republican demagogue, Calvin could do
   anything in his State, but it was by means of his personal
   influence, the authority of his words, 'the majesty of his
   character,' as was said by a magistrate of Geneva after his
   death. He was to the last the simple minister, whose frugal
   mode of life appeared to his enemies like niggardliness. After
   a reign of twenty-three years, he left behind him the
   possessions of a mendicant monk. … No other reformer
   established so rigid a church discipline. … All noisy games,
   games of chance, dancing, singing of profane songs, cursing
   and swearing, were forbidden, and … church-going and
   Sabbath-keeping were strictly enjoined. The moral police took
   account of everything. Every citizen had to be at home by nine
   o'clock, under heavy penalties. Adultery, which had previously
   been punished by a few days' imprisonment and a small fine,
   was now punished by death. … At a time when Europe had no
   solid results of reform to show, this little State of Geneva
   stood up as a great power; year by year it sent forth apostles
   into the world, who preached its doctrines everywhere, and it
   became the most dreaded counterpoise to Rome, when Rome no
   longer had any bulwark to defend her. … It formed a weighty
   counterpoise to the desperate efforts which the ancient Church
   and monarchical power were making to crush the spirit of the
   Reformation.
{1419}
   It was impossible to oppose Caraffa, Philip II., and the
   Stuarts, with Luther's passive resistance; men were wanted who
   were ready to wage war to the knife, and such was the
   Calvinistic school. It everywhere accepted the challenge;
   throughout all the conflicts for political and religious
   liberty, up to the time of the first emigration to America, in
   France, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, we recognise
   the Genevan school. A little bit of the world's history was
   enacted in Geneva, which forms the proudest portion of the
   sixteenth and seventeenth centuries."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Henry,
      Life and Times of Calvin,
      parts 2-3._

      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin,
      books 9 and 11._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Calvin,
      chapters 12-22._

      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 16th-17th Centuries,
      chapter 8._

GENEVA: A. D. 1570.
   Treaty with the Duke of Savoy.
   Agreement of non-molestation.

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.
   The escalade of the Savoyards and its repulse.
   Treaty of St. Julien.

   Finding a pretext in some hostile manifestations which had
   appeared among the Genevese during a conflict between the
   French king and himself, Charles Emanuel I., duke of Savoy,
   chose to consider himself at war with Geneva, and "determined
   to fight out his quarrel without further notice. The night of
   the 11th to the 12th of December, 1602. is forever memorable
   in the annals of Geneva. 4,000 Savoyards, aided by darkness,
   attempted the escalade of its walls; an unforeseen accident
   disconcerted them; the citizens exhibited the most heroic
   presence of mind; the ladders by which the aggressors ascended
   were shot down by a random cannon-ball; the troops outside
   fell into confusion; those who had already entered the town
   were either mowed down in fight or hung on the scaffold on the
   morrow; thus the whole enterprise miscarried. It was in vain
   that the Duke came forward with his whole host, and tried to
   prevail by open force where stratagem had failed. He was
   thwarted by the intervention of the French and Swiss, and
   compelled by their threats to sign the Treaty of St. Julien
   (July 21st, 1603), which secured the independence of the
   Genevese. Charles nevertheless did not, to his last day, give
   up his designs upon that city."

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

GENEVA: A. D. 1798.
   Forcibly united to the French Republic.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

GENEVA: A. D. 1814.
   United with the Swiss Confederation.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

GENEVA: A. D. 1815.
   United as a canton to the Swiss Confederation, by the Congress
   of Vienna.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

----------GENEVA: End----------

GENEVA CONVENTION, The.

      See RED CROSS.

GENEVA TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871, and 1871-1872.

GENEVOIS, The.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

GENGHIS KHAN, The conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

GENOA:
   Origin and rise of the city.

   "Genoa, anciently Genua, was the chief maritime city of
   Liguria, and afterwards a Roman municipium. Under the Lombards
   the constant invasions of the Saracens united the professions
   of trade and war, and its greatest merchants became also its
   greatest generals, while its naval captains were also
   merchants. The Crusades were of great advantage to Genoa [see
   CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111] in enabling it to establish trading
   settlements as far as the Black Sea; but the power of Pisa in
   the East, as well as its possession of Corsica and Sardinia,
   led to wars between it and Genoa, in which the Genoese took
   Corsica [see CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY] and drove the Pisans out
   of Sardinia. By land the Genoese territory was extended to
   Nice on one side and to Spezia on the other."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Cities of Northern and Central Italy,
      volume 1, page 30._

GENOA: A. D. 1256-1257.
   Battles with the Venetians at Acre.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
   The supplanting of Venice at Constantinople and in the Black
   Sea trade.
   Colonies in the Crimea.
   Wars with Venice.
   Victory at Curzola and favorable treaty of peace.

   During the Latin dynasty in Constantinople the Genoese never
   gained the first place in the commerce of the Black Sea. …
   It was Venice who held the key of all this commerce, at
   Constantinople; when, after diverting the whole course of the
   fourth Crusade, she induced Christendom to waste its energies
   on subduing the Greek empire for her benefit [see BYZANTINE
   EMPIRE: A.D. 1203-1204]. With the exiled Greek dynasty,
   however, the Genoese were always on the best of terms, at
   Trebizond, Nicea, and in Roumania; and recognizing that as
   long as the Latins were all-powerful in Constantinople she
   would have to relinquish the cream of the Black Sea commerce
   to the Queen of the Adriatic, she at length determined to
   strike a bold stroke and replace a Greek again on the throne."
   This was accomplished in 1261, when Baldwin II. fled from the
   Byzantine capital and Michael Paleologus took possession of
   his throne and crown (see GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D.
   1204-1261). For the assistance given in that revolution, the
   Genoese obtained the treaty of Ninfeo, "which firmly
   established their influence in the Black Sea. … Thus did the
   brave mariner-town of Genoa turn the scale of the vast, but
   rotten, Eastern Empire; and her reward was manifold. The
   grateful emperor gave her streets and quays in Constantinople,
   immunity from tribute, and a free passage for her commerce.
   … In addition to these excellent terms in the treaty of
   Ninfeo, the emperor conceded to various Genoese private
   families numerous islands in the Archipelago. … But the
   great nucleus of this power was the streets, churches, and
   quays in Constantinople which were allotted to the Genoese,
   and formed a vast emporium of strength and commerce, which
   must have eventually led to entire possession of
   Constantinople, had not the 'podesta,' or ruler of the Genoese
   colony there, thought fit, from personal motives, or from large
   offers made him by the Venetians, to attempt a restoration of
   the Latin line. … His conspiracy was discovered, and the
   Genoese were sent away in a body to Eraclea. However, on
   representation from home that it was none of their doing, and
   that Guercio had been acting entirely on his own account, the
   emperor yielded in perpetuity to the Genoese the town of Pera,
   on the sole condition that the governors should do him homage
   [see, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453]. …
{1420}
   Thus were the Genoese established in this commanding position;
   here they had a separate government of their own, from here
   they ruled the road of commerce from China to Europe; and,
   taking advantage of the weakness of the emperors, they were
   able to do much as they wished about building fortresses and
   palaces, with gardens to the water's edge; and thus from Pera,
   with its citadel of Galata behind it, they were enabled to
   dictate what terms they pleased to ships passing to and from
   the Bosphorus." In the Black Sea, "from time immemorial, the
   small tongue of land now known as the Crimea, then as the
   Tauric Chersonese, was the mart towards which all the caravan
   trade of Asia was directed by this northern road, and upon
   this tongue of land sprang up a group of noble cities which,
   until finally seized by the Turks, were without exception
   Genoese property. Of these, Caffa was the chief. When this
   city was built on the ruins of Theodosia, and by whom, is
   somewhat shrouded in mystery. Certain it is that Genoa had a
   colony here soon after the first Crusade. … Second only to
   Caffa in importance, and better known to us by name, was the
   town of Crim, which gave its name eventually to the whole
   peninsula, which originally it had got from the Crim Tatars.
   … Prior to its cession to the Genoese, it had been the
   residence of a Tatar emperor. … Here, then, in this narrow
   tongue of land, which we now call the Crimea, was the kernel
   of Genoese prosperity. As long as she flourished here she
   flourished at home. And when at length the Turkish scourge
   swept over this peninsula and swallowed up her colonies, the
   Ligurian Republic, by a process of slow decay, withered like a
   sapless tree." The supplanting of the Venetians at
   Constantinople by the Genoese, and the great advantages gained
   by the latter in the commerce of the Black Sea, led
   necessarily to war between the rival republics. "To maintain
   her newly acquired influence in the East, Genoa sent forth a
   fleet under the joint command of Pierino Grimaldi, a noble,
   and Perchelto Mallone, the people's representative. They
   encountered the Venetian squadron at Malvasia [1263] which was
   greatly inferior to their own. But as the combatants were just
   warming to their work, Mallone, actuated by party spirit,
   withdrew his ships and sailed away. The Venetians could
   scarcely believe what they saw; they anticipated some deep
   laid stratagem, and withdrew for a while from the contest.
   When however they beheld Mallone's galleys fairly under sail,
   they wonderingly attacked Grimaldi and his 13 ships and
   obtained an easy victory. Grimaldi fell at his post. … This
   fatal day of Malvasia [sometimes called the battle of Sette
   Pozzi] might easily have secured Venice her lost place in the
   Black Sea had she been able to follow up her victory, but with
   inexplicable want of vigour she remained inactive." Genoa,
   meantime, recovered from the disaster and sent out another
   fleet which captured a rich squadron of Venetian merchant
   ships in the Adriatic, taking large booty. "It surprises us
   immensely to find how for the next thirty years Genoa was able
   to keep up a desultory warfare with Venice, when she was at
   the height of her struggle with Pisa; and it surprises us
   still more that Venice raised not a hand to assist Pisa,
   though she was on most friendly terms with her, and when by so
   doing she could have ruined Genoa. … After the fall of Pisa
   at Meloria, in 1296 [1284], Genoa could transfer her attention
   with all the greater vigour to her contest against Venice.
   Four years after this victory men's minds were again bent on
   war. Venice cared not to pay a tax to her rival on all ships
   which went to Caffa, Genoa resented the treatment she had
   received in Cyprus, and thus the rivals prepared for another
   and more determined contest for supremacy." The Venetians sent
   a fleet to operate in the Black Sea. "Fire was set to the
   houses of Galata, irreparable damage was done to Caffa, and in
   the Archipelago everything Genoese was burnt, and then off
   they sailed for Cyprus, whilst the Genoese were squabbling
   amongst themselves. With much trouble the many rulers of Genoa
   succeeded at length in adjusting their difference, and a
   goodly array of 76 galleys was entrusted to the care of Lamba
   D'Oria to punish the Venetians for their depredations. …
   Much larger was the force Venice produced for the contest, and
   when the combatants met off Curzola, amongst the Dalmatian
   islands, the Genoese were anxious to come to terms, and sought
   them, but the Venetians haughtily refused. … This battle of
   Curzola [September 8, 1298] was a sharp and vehement struggle,
   and resulted in terrible loss to the Venetians, four of whose
   galleys alone escaped to tell the tale. … Had Lamba D'Oria
   but driven the contest home, Venice was ill-prepared to meet
   him; as it was, he determined to sail off to Genoa, taking
   with him the Venetian admiral … Dandolo. Chained to the mast
   of his own vessel, and unable to sustain the effects of his
   humiliation, there, as he stood, Dandolo dashed his head
   against the mast and died. … The natural result of such a
   victory was a most favourable peace for Genoa, signed under
   the direction of Matteo Visconti, lord of Milan, in 1299; and
   thus the century closed on Genoa as without doubt the most
   powerful state in Italy, and unquestionably the mistress of
   the Mediterranean. … The next outbreak of war between the
   two Republics had its origin in the occupation of the island
   of Chios, in 1349," and Genoa in that struggle encountered not
   the Venetians alone, but the Greeks and Catalans in alliance
   with them.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa: How the Republic rose and fell,
      chapters 6 and 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

GENOA: A. D. 1282-1290.
   War with Pisa.
   The great victory of Meloria.
   Capture of the chain of the Pisan harbor.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

GENOA: A. D. 1313.
   Alliance with the Emperor Henry VII. against Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

GENOA: A. D. 1318-1319.
   Feuds of the four great families.
   Siege of the city by the exiles and the Lombard princes, and
   its defense by the King of Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

GENOA: A. D. 1348-1355.
   War with the Greeks, Venetians and Aragonese.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: AD. 1348-1355.

GENOA: A. D. 1353.
   Annexed by the Visconti to their Milanese principality.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

GENOA: A. D. 1378-1379.
   Renewed war with Venice.
   The victory at Pola.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

{1421}

GENOA: A. D. 1379-1381.
   The disastrous war of Chioggia.
   Venice triumphant.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
   A succession of foreign masters.
   The King of France, the Marquis of Monferrat
   and the Duke of Milan.

   The history of Genoa for more than a century after the
   disastrous War of Chioggia "is one long and melancholy tissue
   of internal and external troubles, coming faster and faster
   upon one another as the inherent vitality of the Republic grew
   weaker. … During this period we have a constant and
   unhealthy craving for foreign masters, be they Marquises of
   Monferrato, Dukes of Milan, or the more formidable subverters
   of freedom, the kings of France. … In 1396 … Adorno [then
   doge of Genoa], finding himself unable to tyrannize as he
   wished, decided on handing over the government to Charles VI.
   of France. In this he was ably backed up by many members of
   the old nobility, as the signatures to the treaty testify. The
   king was to be entitled 'Defender of the Commune and People,'
   and was to respect in every way the existing order of things.
   So on the 27th of November, in that year, the great bell in
   the tower of the ducal palace was rung, the French standard
   was raised by the side of the red cross of Genoa, and in the
   great council hall, where her rulers had sat for centuries,
   now sat enthroned the French ambassadors, whilst Antoniotto
   Adorno handed over to them the sceptre and keys of the city.
   These symbols of government were graciously restored to him,
   with the admonition that he should no longer be styled 'doge,'
   but 'governor' in the name of France. Thus did Adorno sell his
   country for the love of power, preferring to be the head of
   many slaves, rather than to live as a subordinate in a free
   community. The first two governors sent by France after
   Adorno's death were unable to cope with the seething mass of
   corruption they found within the city walls, until the Marshal
   Boucicault was sent, whose name was far famed for cruelty in
   Spain against the Moors, in Bulgaria against the Turks, and in
   France against the rebels." The government of Boucicault was
   hard and cruel, and "his name is handed down by the Genoese as
   the most hateful of her many tyrants." In 1409 they took
   advantage of his absence from the city to bring in the Marquis
   of Monferrato, who established himself in his place. "It was
   but for a brief period that the Genoese submitted to the
   Marquis of Monferrato; they preferred to return to their doges
   and internal quarrels. … Throughout the city nothing was
   heard but the din of arms. Brother fought against brother,
   father against son, and for the whole of an unusually chill
   December, in 1414, there was not a by-path in Genoa which was
   not paved with lances, battle-axes and dead bodies. … Out of
   this fiery trial Genoa at length emerged with Tommaso
   Campofregoso as her doge, one of the few bright lights which
   illumined Liguria during the early part of this century. …
   The Genoese arms during this time of quiescence again shone
   forth with something of their ancient brilliancy. Corsica was
   subdued, and a substantial league was formed with Henry V. of
   England, … 1421, by which perpetual friendship and peace by
   land and sea was sworn. Short, however, was the period during
   which Genoa could rest contented at home. Campofregoso was
   driven from the dogeship, and Filippo Maria, Visconti of
   Milan, was appointed protector of the Republic [1422], and
   through this allegiance the Genoese were drawn into an
   unprofitable war for the succession in Naples, in which the
   Duke of Milan and the Pope supported the claims of Queen
   Joanna and her adopted son, Louis of Anjou, against Alphonso
   of Aragon."

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 9._

      _The Universal History,
      chapter 73, sections 3-4 (volume 25)._

GENOA: A. D. 1385-1386.
   Residence of Pope Urban VI.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
   The Bank of St. George.

   "The Bank of St. George was founded in Genoa in the year 1407.
   It was an immense success and a great support to the
   government. It gradually became a republic within the
   republic, more peaceful and better regulated than its
   mistress." In 1448 the administration of Corsica and of the
   Genoese colonies in the Levant was transferred to the Bank,
   which thenceforward appointed governors and conducted colonial
   affairs.

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Studies from Genoese History,
      page 75._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 11._

      See, also,
      CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY.

GENOA: A. D. 1421-1435.
   Submission to the Duke of Milan, and recovery of the freedom
   of the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
   Renewed struggles of domestic faction and changes of foreign
   masters.
   Submission to the Dukes of Milan.

   "Genoa, wearied with internal convulsions, which followed each
   other incessantly, had lost all influence over the rest of
   Italy; continually oppressed by faction, it no longer
   preserved even the recollection of liberty. In 1458, it had
   submitted to the king of France, then Charles VII.; and John
   of Anjou, duke of Calabria, had come to exercise the functions
   of governor in the king's name. He made it, at the same time,
   his fortress, from whence to attack the kingdom of Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

   But this war had worn out the patience of the Genoese; they
   rose against the French; and, on the 17th of July, 1461,
   destroyed the army sent to subdue them by René of Anjou. The
   Genoese had no sooner thrown off a foreign yoke than they
   became divided into two factions,—the Adorni and the Fregosi,
   [severally partisans of two families of that name which
   contended for the control of the republic]: both had at
   different times, and more than once, given them a doge. The
   more violent and tyrannical of these factious magistrates was
   Paolo Fregoso, also archbishop of Genoa, who had returned to
   his country, in 1462, as chief of banditti; and left it again,
   two years afterwards, as chief of a band of pirates. The
   Genoese, disgusted with their independence, which was
   disgraced by so many crimes and disturbances, had, on the 13th
   of April, 1464, yielded to Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan;
   and afterwards remained subject to his son Galeazzo."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Duffy,
      The Tuscan Republics,
      chapter 23._

GENOA: A. D. 1475.
   Loss of possessions in the Crimea.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

{1422}

GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
   Capitulation to Louis XII. of France, conqueror of Milan.
   Revolt and subjugation.

   By the conquest of Milan (see ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500), Louis
   XII. of France acquired the signoria of Genoa, which had been
   held by the deposed duke, Ludovico Sforza. "According to the
   capitulation, one half of the magistrates of Genoa should be
   noble, the other half plebeian. They were to be chosen by the
   suffrages of their fellow-citizens; they were to retain the
   government of the whole of Liguria, and the administration of
   their own finances, with the reservation of a fixed sum
   payable yearly to the king of France. But the French could
   never comprehend that nobles were on an equality with
   villains; that a king was bound by conditions imposed by his
   subjects; or that money could be refused to him who had force.
   All the capitulations of Genoa were successively violated; while
   the Genoese nobles ranged themselves on the side of a king
   against their country: they were known to carry insolently
   about them a dagger, on which was inscribed, 'Chastise
   villains'; so impatient were they to separate themselves from
   the people, even by meanness and assassination. That people
   could not support the double yoke of a foreign master and of
   nobles who betrayed their country. On the 7th of February,
   1507, they revolted, drove out the French, proclaimed the
   republic, and named a new doge; but time failed them to
   organize their defence. On the 3d of April, Louis advanced
   from Grenoble with a powerful army. He soon arrived before
   Genoa: the newly-raised militia, unable to withstand veteran
   troops, were defeated. Louis entered Genoa on the 29th of
   April; and immediately sent the doge and the greater number of
   the generous citizens, who had signalized themselves in the
   defence of their country, to the scaffold."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      page 260._

GENOA: A. D. 1527-1528.
   French dominion momentarily restored and then overthrown by
   Andrew Doria.
   The republic revived.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
   The conspiracy of Fiesco and its failure.
   Revolt and recovery of Corsica.

   "Sustained by the ability of Doria, and protected by the arms
   of Charles V., the Republic, during near nineteen years
   subsequent to this auspicious revolution, continued in the
   enjoyment of dignified independence and repose. But, the
   memorable conspiracy of Louis Fiesco, Count of Lavagna, the
   Catiline of Liguria, had nearly subverted Genoa, and reduced
   it anew to the obedience of France, or exposed it once more to
   all the misfortunes of anarchy. The massacre of Doria and his
   family constituted one of the primary objects of the plot;
   while the dissimulation, intrepidity, and capacity, which
   marked its leader … have rendered the attempt one of the
   most extraordinary related in modern history. It was
   accompanied with complete success till the moment of its
   termination. Jeannetin Doria, the heir of that house, having
   perished by the dagger, and Andrew, his uncle, being with
   difficulty saved by his servants, who transported him out of
   the city, the Genoese Senate was about to submit
   unconditionally to Fiesco, when that nobleman, by a sudden and
   accidental death, at once rendered abortive his own hopes and
   those of his followers. The government, resuming courage,
   expelled the surviving conspirators; and Doria, on his return
   to the city, sullied the lustre of his high character, by
   proceeding to acts of cruelty against the brothers and
   adherents of the Count of Lavagna. Notwithstanding this
   culpable and vindictive excess, he continued invariably firm
   to the political principles which he had inculcated, for
   maintaining the freedom of the Commonwealth. Philip, Prince of
   Spain, son of Charles V., having visited Genoa in the
   succeeding year, attempted to induce the senate, under
   specious pretences of securing their safety, to consent to the
   construction of a citadel, garrisoned by Spaniards. But he found
   in that assembly, as well as in Doria, an insurmountable
   opposition to the measure, which was rejected with unanimous
   indignation. The island of Corsica, which had been subjected
   for ages to Genoa, and which was oppressed by a tyrannical
   administration, took up arms at this period [1558-1559]; and
   the French having aided the insurgents, they maintained a long
   and successful struggle against their oppressors. But the
   peace concluded at Cateau between Philip, King of Spain, and
   Henry II., in which the Spanish court dictated terms to
   France, obliged that nation to evacuate their Corsican
   acquisitions, and to restore the island to the Genoese.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   Soon afterwards [1559], at the very advanced age of ninety,
   Andrew Doria expired in his own palace, surrounded by the
   people on whom he had conferred freedom and tranquillity;
   leaving the Commonwealth in domestic repose and undisturbed by
   foreign war."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 2, pages 43-44._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Studies from Genoese History,
      chapter 1-3._

GENOA: A. D. 1625-1626.
   Unsuccessful attack by France and Savoy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

GENOA: A. D. 1745.
   The republic sides with Spain and France in the War of the
   Austrian Succession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

GENOA: A. D. 1746-1747.
   Surrendered to the Austrians.
   Popular rising.
   Expulsion of the Austrian garrison.
   Long siege and deliverance of the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

GENOA: A. D. 1748.
   Territory secured by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

GENOA: A. D. 1768.
   Cession of Corsica to France.

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

GENOA: A. D. 1796.
   Treaty of peace with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).

GENOA: A. D. 1797.
   Revolution forced by Bonaparte.
   Creation of the Ligurian Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

GENOA: A. D. 1800.
   Siege by the Austrians.
   Masséna's defense.
   Surrender of the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

GENOA: A. D. 1805.
   Surrender of independence.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

GENOA: A. D. 1814.
   Reduction of the forts by English troops.
   Surrender of the French garrison.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

GENOA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

----------GENOA: End----------

GENOLA, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

{1423}

GENS, GENTES, GENTILES.

   "When Roman history begins, there were within the city, and
   subordinate to the common city government, a large number of
   smaller bodies, each of which preserved its individuality and
   some semblance of governmental machinery. These were clans
   [gens], and in prehistoric times each of them is taken to have
   had an independent political existence, living apart, worshiping
   its own gods, and ruled over by its own chieftain. This clan
   organization is not supposed to have been peculiar at all to
   Rome, but ancient society in general was composed of an
   indefinite number of such bodies, which, at the outset,
   treated with each other in a small way as nations might treat
   with each other to-day. It needs to be noted, however, that,
   at any rate, so far as Rome is concerned, this is a matter of
   inference, not of historical proof. The earliest political
   divisions in Latium of which we have any trace consisted of
   such clans united into communities. If they ever existed,
   separately, therefore their union must have been deliberate
   and artificial, and the body thus formed was the canton
   ('civitas' or 'populus'). Each canton had a fixed common
   stronghold ('capitolium,' 'height,' or 'arx'—cf. 'arceo'
   —'citadel') situated on some central elevation. The clans
   dwelt around in hamlets ('vici' or 'pagi') scattered through
   the canton. Originally, the central stronghold was not a place
   of residence like the 'pagi,' but a place of refuge … and a
   place of meeting. … In all of this, therefore, the clan
   seems to lie at the very foundation. … Any clan in the
   beginning, of course, must have been simply a family. When it
   grew so large as to be divided into sections, the sections
   were known as families ('familiæ') and their union was the
   clan. In this view the family, as we find it existing in the
   Roman state, was a subdivision of the clan. In other words,
   historically, families did not unite to form clans, but the
   clan was the primitive thing, and the families were its
   branches. Men thus recognized kinship of a double character.
   They were related to all the members of their clan as
   'gentiles,' and again more closely to all the members of their
   branch of the clan at once as 'gentiles' and also as 'agnati.'
   As already stated, men belonged to the same family ('agnati')
   when they could trace their descent through males from a
   common ancestor who gave its name to the family, or, what is
   the same thing, was its eponym. Between the members of a clan
   the chief evidence of relationship in historical times was
   tradition. … We have thus outlined what is known as the
   patriarchal theory of society, and hinted at its application
   to certain facts in Roman history. It should be remembered,
   however, that it is only a theory, and that it is open to some
   apparent and to some real criticism."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 2._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome, book 1,
      chapter 5._

   "The patricians were divided into certain private
   associations, called Gentes, which we may translate Houses or
   Clans. All the members of each Gens were called gentiles; and
   they bore the same name, which always ended in -ius; as for
   instance, every member of the Julian Gens was a Julius; every
   member of the Cornelian Gens was a Cornelius, and so on. Now
   in every Gens there were a number of Families which were
   distinguished by a name added to the name of the Gens. Thus
   the Scipios, Sullas, Cinnas, Cethegi, Lentuli, were all
   families of the Cornelian Gens. Lastly, every person of every
   Family was denoted by a name prefixed to the name of the Gens.
   The name of the person was, in Latin, prænomen; that of the
   Gens or House, nomen, that of the Family, cognomen. Thus Caius
   Julius Cæsar was a person of the Cæsar Family in the Julian
   Gens; Lucius Cornelius Scipio was a person of the Scipio
   Family in the Cornelian Gens; and so forth."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   "There is no word in the English language which satisfactorily
   renders the Latin word 'gens.' The term 'clan' is apt to
   mislead; for the Scotch Highland clans were very different
   from the Roman 'gentes.' The word 'House' is not quite
   correct, for it always implies relationship, which was not
   essential in the 'gens'; but for want of a better word we
   shall use 'House' to express 'gens,' except where the spirit
   of the language rejects the term and requires 'family'
   instead. The German language has in the word 'Geschlecht' an
   almost equivalent term for the Latin 'gens'."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 13, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 2, chapter 10._

      On the Greek gens, see PHYLÆ.

GENSERIC AND THE VANDALS.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

GENTILES.

      See GENS.

GENUCIAN LAW, The.

   A law which prohibited the taking of interest for loans is
   said to have been adopted at Rome, B. C. 342, on the proposal
   of the tribune Genucius; but modern historians are skeptical
   as to the actual enactment of the law.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 5._

GEOK TEPE, Siege and capture of (1881).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

GEOMORI, OR GAMORI, The.

   "As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace,
   these early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which
   the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves
   more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous
   barriers between the component parts of the population, than
   the oligarchies of later days. … The oligarchy was not (like
   the government so denominated in subsequent times) the
   government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but
   that of a peculiar order, sometimes a Patrician order, over
   all the remaining society. … The country-population, or
   villagers who tilled the land, seem in these early times to
   have been held to a painful dependence on the great
   proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been
   distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often
   drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. … The governing
   proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori,
   according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in
   describing them, since they were found in states belonging to
   one race as well as to the other. They appear to have
   constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to
   their children, but admitting no new members to a
   participation. The principle called by Greek thinkers a
   Timocracy (the apportionment of political rights and
   privileges according to comparative property) seems to have
   been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times. We know
   no example of it earlier than Solon."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 9._

GEONIM, The.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

GEORGE I.,
   King of England (first of the Hanoverian or Brunswick line),
   A. D. 1714-1727.

   George II., King of England," 1727-1760.

   George III., King of England, 1760-1820.

   George IV., King of England, 1820-1830.

   George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia, 1458-1471.

   George William, Elector of Brandenburg, 1619-1640.

----------GEORGE: End----------

{1424}

GEORGIA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES,
      MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1539-1542.
   Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
   Clarendon, and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
   Oglethorpe's colony.

   "Among the members of Parliament during the rule of Sir Robert
   Walpole was one almost unknown to us now, but deserving of
   honour beyond most men of his time. His name was James
   Oglethorpe. He was a soldier, and had fought against the Turks
   and in the great Marlborough wars against Louis XIV. In
   advanced life he became the friend of Samuel Johnson. Dr.
   Johnson urged him to write some account of his adventures. 'I
   know no one,' he said, 'whose life would be more interesting:
   if I were furnished with materials I should be very glad to
   write it.' Edmund Burke considered him 'a more extraordinary
   person than any he had ever read of.' John Wesley 'blessed God
   that ever he was born.' Oglethorpe attained the great age of
   ninety-six, and died in the year 1785. … In Oglethorpe's
   time it was in the power of a creditor to imprison, according
   to his pleasure, the man who owed him money and was not able
   to pay it. It was a common circumstance that a man should be
   imprisoned during a long series of years for a trifling debt.
   Oglethorpe had a friend upon whom this hard fate had fallen.
   His attention was thus painfully called to the cruelties which
   were inflicted upon the unfortunate and helpless. He appealed
   to Parliament, and after inquiry a partial remedy was
   obtained. The benevolent exertions of Oglethorpe procured
   liberty for multitudes who but for him might have ended their
   lives in captivity. This, however, did not content him.
   Liberty was an incomplete gift to men who had lost, or perhaps
   had scarcely ever possessed, the faculty of earning their own
   maintenance. Oglethorpe devised how lie might carry these
   unfortunates to a new world, where, under happier auspices,
   they might open a fresh career. He obtained [A. D. 1732] from
   King George II. a charter by which the country between the
   Savannah and the Alatamaha, and stretching westward to the
   Pacific, was erected into the province of Georgia. It was to
   be a refuge for the deserving poor, and next to them for
   Protestants suffering persecution. Parliament voted £10,000 in
   aid of the humane enterprise, and many benevolent persons were
   liberal with their gifts. In November the first exodus of the
   insolvent took place. Oglethorpe sailed with 120 emigrants,
   mainly selected from the prisons—penniless, but of good
   repute. He surveyed the coasts of Georgia, and chose a site
   for the capital of his new State. He pitched his tent where
   Savannah now stands, and at once proceeded to mark out the
   line of streets and squares. Next year the colony was joined
   by about a hundred German Protestants, who were then under
   persecution for their beliefs. … The fame of Oglethorpe's
   enterprise spread over Europe. All struggling men, against
   whom the battle of life went hard, looked to Georgia as a land
   of promise. They were the men who most urgently required to
   emigrate; but they were not always the men best fitted to
   conquer the difficulties of the immigrant's life. The progress
   of the colony was slow. The poor persons of whom it was
   originally composed were honest but ineffective, and could not
   in Georgia more than in England find out the way to become
   self-supporting. Encouragements were given which drew from
   Germany, from Switzerland, and from the Highlands of Scotland
   men of firmer texture of mind—better fitted to subdue the
   wilderness and bring forth its treasures. With Oglethorpe
   there went out, on his second expedition to Georgia [1736],
   the two brothers John and Charles Wesley. Charles went as
   secretary to the Governor. John was even then, although a very
   young man, a preacher of unusual promise. … He spent two
   years in Georgia, and these were unsuccessful years. His
   character was unformed; his zeal out of proportion to his
   discretion. The people felt that he preached 'personal
   satires' at them. He involved himself in quarrels, and at last
   had to leave the colony secretly, fearing arrest at the
   instance of some whom he had offended. He returned to begin
   his great career in England, with the feeling that his
   residence in Georgia had been of much value to himself, but of
   very little to the people whom he sought to benefit. Just as
   Wesley reached England, his fellow-labourer George Whitefield
   sailed for Georgia. … He founded an Orphan-House at
   Savannah, and supported it by contributions—obtained easily
   from men under the power of his unequalled eloquence. He
   visited Georgia very frequently, and his love for that colony
   remained with him to the last. Slavery was, at the outset,
   forbidden in Georgia. It was opposed to the gospel, Oglethorpe
   said, and therefore not to be allowed. He foresaw, besides, what
   has been so bitterly experienced since, that slavery must
   degrade the poor white labourer. But soon a desire sprung up
   among the less scrupulous of the settlers to have the use of
   slaves. Within seven years from the first landing, slave-ships
   were discharging their cargo at Savannah."

      _R. Mackenzie,
      America: A History,
      book 1, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. M. Harris,
      Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe,
      chapters 1-10._

      _R. Wright,
      Memoir of General James Oglethorpe,
      chapters 1-9._

   For text of charter, etc., see in

      _G. White,
      Historical Collections of Georgia,
      pages. 1-20._

GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
   The settlement of the Salzburgers.

   "As early as October the 12th, 1732, the 'Society for the
   Propagation of Christian Knowledge' expressed to the Trustees
   a desire 'that the persecuted Salzburgers should have an
   asylum provided for them in Georgia.' … These Germans
   belonged to the Archbishopric of Salzburg, then the most
   eastern district of Bavaria; but now forming a detached
   district in upper Austria, and called Salzburg from the broad
   valley of the Salzer, which is made by the approximating of
   the Norric and Rhetian Alps. Their ancestors, the Vallenges of
   Piedmont, had been compelled by the barbarities of the Dukes
   of Savoy, to find a shelter from the storms of persecution in
   the Alpine passes and vales of Salzburg and the Tyrol, before
   the Reformation; and frequently since had they been hunted out
   by the hirelings and soldiery of the Church of Rome. …
{1425}
   The quietness which they had enjoyed for nearly half a century
   was now rudely broken in upon by Leopold, Count of Firmian and
   Archbishop of Salzburg, who determined to reduce them to the
   Papal faith and power. He began in the year 1729, and, ere he
   ended in 1732, not far from 30,000 had been driven from their
   homes, to seek among the Protestant States of Europe that
   charity and peace which were denied them in the glens and
   fastnesses of their native Alps. More than two-thirds settled
   in the Prussian States; the rest spread themselves over
   England, Holland, and other Protestant countries. Thrilling is
   the story of their exile. The march of these Salzburgers
   constitutes an epoch in the history of Germany. … The
   sympathies of Reformed Christendom were awakened on their
   behalf, and the most hospitable entertainment and assistance
   were everywhere given them." Forty-two families, numbering 78
   persons, accepted an invitation to settle in Georgia,
   receiving allotments of land and provisions until they could
   gather a harvest. They arrived at Savannah in March, 1734, and
   were settled at a spot which they selected for themselves,
   about thirty miles in the interior. "Oglethorpe marked out for
   them a town; ordered workmen to assist in building houses; and
   soon the whole body of Germans went up to their new home at
   Ebenezer."

       _W. B. Stevens,
       History of Georgia,
       book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Shoberl,
      Persecutions of Popery,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _E. B. Speirs,
      The Salzburgers
      (English History Review, October, 1890)._

GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
   The Slavery question.
   Original exclusion and subsequent admission of negro slaves.

   Among the fundamental regulations of the Trustees was one
   prohibiting negro slavery in the colony. "It was policy and
   not philanthropy which prohibited slavery; for, though one of
   the Trustees, in a sermon to recommend charity, declared, 'Let
   avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in
   humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of
   our own species as our wealth and possessions'; and though
   Oglethorpe himself, speaking of slavery as against 'the gospel
   as well as the fundamental law of England', asserted, 'we
   refused, as Trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid
   crime'; yet in the official publications of that body its
   inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not
   on humane and liberal grounds; and even Oglethorpe owned a
   plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina,
   about forty miles above Savannah. … Their [the Trustees']
   design was to provide for poor but honest persons, to erect a
   barrier between South Carolina and the Spanish settlements,
   and to establish a wine and silk-growing colony. It was
   thought by the Trustees that neither of these designs could be
   secured if slavery was introduced. … But while the Trustees
   disallowed negroes, they instituted a system of white slavery
   which was fraught with evil to the servants and to the colony.
   These were white servants, consisting of Welch, English, or
   German, males and females—families and individuals—who were
   indented to individuals or the Trustees, for a period of from
   four to fourteen years. … On arriving in Georgia, their
   service was sold for the term of indenture, or apportioned to
   the inhabitants by the magistrates, as their necessities
   required. … Two years had not elapsed since the landing of
   Oglethorpe before many complaints originated from this cause;
   and in the summer of 1735 a petition, signed by seventeen
   freeholders, setting forth the unprofitableness of white
   servants, and the necessity for negroes, was carried by Mr.
   Hugh Sterling to the Trustees, who, however, resented the
   appeal as an insult to their honour. … The plan for
   substituting white for black labour failed through the
   sparseness of the supply and the refractoriness of the
   servants. As a consequence of the inability of the settlers to
   procure adequate help, the lands granted them remained
   uncleared, and even those which the temporary industry of the
   first occupants prepared remained uncultivated. … There
   accumulated on the Trustees' hands a body of idle, clamourous,
   mischief-making men, who employed their time in declaiming
   against the very government whose charity both fed and clothed
   them. … For nearly fifteen years from 1735, the date of the
   first petition for negroes, and the date of their express law
   against their importation, the Trustees refused to listen to
   any similar representations, except to condemn them," and they
   were supported by the Salzburgers and the Highlanders, both of
   whom opposed the introduction of negro slaves. But finally, in
   1749, the firmness of the Trustees gave way and they yielded
   to the clamor of the discontented colony. The importation of
   black slaves was permitted, under certain regulations intended
   to diminish the evils of the institution. "The change in the
   tenure of grants, and the permission to hold slaves, had an
   immediate effect on the prosperity of the colony."

      _W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 1)._

GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
   War with the Spaniards of Florida.
   Discontents in the colony.

   "The assiento enjoyed under the treaty of Utrecht by the
   English South Sea Company, the privilege, that is, of
   transporting to the Spanish colonies a certain number of
   slaves annually, … was made a cover for an extensive
   smuggling trade on the part of the English, into which private
   merchants also entered. … To guard against these systematic
   infractions of their laws, the Spaniards maintained a numerous
   fleet of vessels in the preventive service, known as 'guarda
   costas,' by which some severities were occasionally exercised
   on suspected or detected smugglers. These severities, grossly
   exaggerated, and resounded throughout the British dominions,
   served to revive in England and the colonies a hatred of the
   Spaniards, which, since the time of Philip II., had never
   wholly died out. Such was the temper and position of the two
   nations when the colonization of Georgia was begun, of which
   one avowed object was to erect a barrier against the
   Spaniards, among whom the runaway slaves of South Carolina
   were accustomed to find shelter, receiving in Florida an
   assignment of lands, and being armed and organized into
   companies, as a means of strengthening that feeble colony. A
   message sent to St. Augustine to demand the surrender of the
   South Carolina runaways met with a point blank refusal, and
   the feeling against the Spaniards ran very high in
   consequence. … Oglethorpe … returned from his second visit
   to England [Sept. 1738], with a newly-enlisted regiment of
   soldiers, and the appointment, also, of military commander for
   Georgia and the Carolinas, with orders 'to give no offense,
   but to repel force by force.' Both in Spain and England the
   administrators of the government were anxious for peace. …
   The ferocious clamors of the merchants and the mob …
   absolutely forced Walpole into a war.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.—THE WAR OF JENKINS' EAR.

{1426}

   Travelling 300 miles through the forests, Oglethorpe held at
   Coweta, on the Chattahoochee, just below the present site of
   Columbus, a new treaty with the Creeks, by which they
   confirmed their former cessions, acknowledged themselves
   subject to the King of Great Britain, and promised to exclude
   from their territories all but English settlers. After
   finishing the treaty, Oglethorpe returned through the woods by
   way of Augusta to Savannah, where he found orders from England
   to make an attack on Florida. He called at once on South
   Carolina and the Creeks for aid, and in the mean time made an
   expedition, in which he captured the Fort of Picolata, over
   against St. Augustine, thus securing the navigation of the St.
   John's, and cutting off the Spaniards from their forts at St.
   Mark's and Pensacola. South Carolina entered very eagerly into
   the enterprise. Money was voted; a regiment, 500 strong, was
   enlisted, partly in North Carolina and Virginia. This addition
   raised Oglethorpe's force to 1,200 men. The Indians that
   joined him were as many more. Having marched into Florida, he
   took a small fort or two, and, assisted by several ships of
   war, laid siege to St. Augustine. But the garrison was 1,000
   strong, besides militia. The fortifications proved more
   formidable than had been expected. A considerable loss was
   experienced by a sortie from the town, falling heavily on the
   Highland Rangers. Presently the Indians deserted, followed by
   part of the Carolina regiment, and Oglethorpe was obliged to
   give over the enterprise. … From the time of this repulse,
   the good feeling of the Carolinians toward Oglethorpe came to
   an end. Many of the disappointed Georgia emigrants had removed
   to Charleston, and many calumnies against Oglethorpe were
   propagated, and embodied in a pamphlet published there. The
   Moravians also left Georgia, unwilling to violate their
   consciences by bearing arms. Most unfortunately for the new
   colony, the Spanish war withdrew the Highlanders and others of
   the best settlers from their farms to convert them into
   soldiers."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

   "After the late incursion into Florida, the General kept
   possession of a southern region which the Spaniards had
   claimed as their own; and, as they had taken encouragement
   from the successful defence of St. Augustine, and the
   well-known dissensions on the English side, it was to be
   expected that they would embrace the earliest opportunity of
   taking their revenge. … The storm, which had been so long
   anticipated, burst upon the colony in the year 1742. The
   Spaniards had … fitted out, at Havana, a fleet said to
   consist of 56 sail and 7,000 or 8,000 men. The force was
   probably not quite so great; if it was, it did not all reach
   its destination," being dispersed by a storm, "so that only a
   part of the whole number succeeded in reaching St. Augustine.
   The force was there placed under the command of Don Manuel de
   Monteano, the Governor of that place. … The fleet made its
   appearance on the coast of Georgia on the 21st of June"; but
   all its attempts, first to take possession of the Island of
   Amelia, and afterwards to reduce the forts at Frederica, were
   defeated by the vigor and skill of General Oglethorpe. After
   losing heavily in a fight called the Battle of the Bloody
   Marsh, the Spaniards retreated about the middle of July. The
   following year they prepared another attempt; but Oglethorpe
   anticipated it by a second demonstration on his own part
   against St. Augustine, which had no other result than to
   disconcert the plans of the enemy.

      _W. B. O. Peabody,
      Life of Oglethorpe
      (Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volume 2),
      chapters 11-12._

   "While Oglethorpe was engaged in repelling the Spaniards, the
   trustees of Georgia had been fiercely assailed by their
   discontented colonists. They sent Thomas Stevens to England
   with a petition containing many charges of mismanagement,
   extravagance, and peculation, to which the trustees put in an
   answer. After a thorough examination of documents and
   witnesses in committee of the whole, and hearing counsel, the
   House of Commons resolved that 'the petition of Thomas Stevens
   contains false, scandalous, and malicious charges'; in
   consequence of which Stevens, the next day, was brought to the
   bar, and reprimanded on his knees. … Oglethorpe himself had
   been a special mark of the malice and obloquy of the
   discontented settlers. … Presently his lieutenant colonel, a
   man who owed everything to Oglethorpe's favor, re-echoing the
   slanders of the colonists, lodged formal charges against him.
   Oglethorpe proceeded to England to vindicate his character,
   and the accuser, convicted by a court of inquiry of falsehood,
   was disgraced and deprived of his commission. Appointed a
   major general, ordered to join the army assembled to oppose
   the landing of the Pretender, marrying also about this time,
   Oglethorpe did not again return to Georgia. The former scheme
   of administration having given rise to innumerable complaints,
   the government of that colony was intrusted to a president and
   four counselors."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter. 25 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Jones,
      History of Georgia,
      chapters 17-22 (volume 1)._

GEORGIA: A. D. 1743-1764.
   Surrender to the Crown.
   Government as a royal province.

   "On Oglethorpe's departure [1743], William Stephens, the
   secretary, was made President, and continued in office until
   1751, when he was succeeded by Henry Parker. The colony, when
   Stephens came into office, comprised about 1,500 persons. It
   was almost at a stand-still. The brilliant prospects of the
   early days were dissipated, and immigration had ceased, thanks
   to the narrow policy and feeble government of the Trustees. An
   Indian rising, in 1749, headed by Mary Musgrove, Oglethorpe's
   Indian interpreter, and her husband, one Bosomworth, who laid
   claim to the whole country, came near causing the destruction
   of the colony, and was only repressed by much negotiation and
   lavish bribes. The colony, thus feeble and threatened,
   struggled on, until it was relieved from danger from the
   Indians and from the restrictive laws, and encouraged by the
   appointment of Parker, and the establishment of a
   representative government. This produced a turn in the affairs
   of Georgia. Trade revived, immigration was renewed, and
   everything began to wear again a more hopeful look. Just at
   this time, however, the original trust was on the point of
   expiring by limitation.
{1427}
   There was a party in the colony who desired a renewal of the
   charter; but the Trustees felt that their scheme had failed in
   every way, except perhaps as a defence to South Carolina, and
   when the limit of the charter was reached, they turned the
   colony over to the Crown. … A form of government was
   established similar to those of the other royal provinces, and
   Captain John Reynolds was sent out as the first Governor." The
   administration of Reynolds produced wide discontent, and in
   1757 he was recalled, being "succeeded by Henry Ellis as
   Lieutenant-governor. The change proved fortunate, and brought
   rest to the colony. Ellis ruled peaceably and with general
   respect for more than two years, and was then promoted to the
   governorship of Nova Scotia. In the same year his successor
   arrived at Savannah, in the person of James Wright, who
   continued to govern the province until it was severed from
   England by the Revolution. The feebleness of Georgia had
   prevented her taking part in the union of the colonies, and
   she was not represented in the Congress at Albany. Georgia
   also escaped the ravages of the French war, partly by her
   distant situation, and partly by the prudence of Governor
   Ellis; and the conclusion of that war gave Florida to England,
   and relieved the colony from the continual menace of Spanish
   aggression. A great Congress of southern Governors and Indian
   chiefs followed, in which Wright, more active than his
   predecessor, took a prominent part. Under his energetic and
   firm rule, the colony began to prosper greatly, and trade
   increased rapidly; but the Governor gained at the same time so
   much influence, and was a man of so much address, that he not
   only held the colony down at the time of the Stamp Act, but
   seriously hampered its action in the years which led to
   revolution."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 9._

GEORGIA: A. D. 1760-1775.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.
   The end of royal government.
   Constitutional organization of the state."

   The news of the battle of Lexington reached Savannah on the
   night of the 10th of May, 1775, and produced intense
   excitement among all classes. On the night of the 11th, Noble
   Wimberly Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward Telfair, and a few
   others, impressed with the necessity of securing all military
   stores, and preserving them for colonial use, took from the
   King's magazine, in Savannah, about 500 pounds of powder. …
   Tradition asserts that part of this powder was sent to Boston,
   and used by the militia at the battle of Bunker Hill. … The
   activity of the Liberty party, and its rapid increase, …
   gave Governor Wright just cause for alarm; and he wrote to
   General Gage, expressing his amazement that these southern
   provinces should be left in the situation they are, and the
   Governors and King's officers, and friends of Government,
   naked and exposed to the resentment of an enraged people.' …
   The assistance so earnestly solicited in these letters would
   have been promptly rendered, but that they never reached their
   destination. The Committee of Safety at Charleston withdrew them
   from their envelopes, as they passed through the port, and
   substituted others, stating that Georgia was quiet, and there
   existed no need either of troops or vessels." The position of
   Governor Wright soon became one of complete powerlessness and
   he begged to be recalled. In January, 1776, however, he was
   placed under arrest, by order of the Council of Safety, and
   gave his parole not to leave town, nor communicate with the
   men-of-war which had just arrived at Tybee; notwithstanding
   which he made his escape to one of the King's ships on the
   11th of February. "The first effective organization of the
   friends of liberty in the province took place among the
   deputies from several parishes, who met in Savannah, on the
   18th January, 1775, and formed what has been called 'A
   Provincial Congress.' Guided by the action of the other
   colonies, a 'Council of Safety' was created, on the 22d June,
   1775, to whom was confided the general direction of the
   measures proper to be pursued in carrying out resistance to
   the tyrannical designs of the King and Parliament. William
   Ewen was the first President of this Council of Safety, and
   Seth John Cuthbert was the Secretary. On the 4th July, the
   Provincial Congress (now properly called such, as every parish
   and district was represented) met in Savannah, and elected as
   its presiding officer Archibald Bulloch. This Congress
   conferred upon the 'Council of Safety,' 'full power upon every
   emergency during the recess of Congress.'" Soon finding the
   need of a more definite order of government, the Provincial
   Congress, on the 15th of April, 1776, adopted provisionally,
   for six months, a series of "Rules and Regulations," under
   which Archibald Bulloch was elected President and
   Commander-in-chief of Georgia, and John Glen, Chief Justice.
   After the Declaration of Independence, steps were taken toward
   the settling of the government of the state on a permanent
   basis. On the proclamation of President Bulloch a convention
   was elected which met in Savannah in October, and which framed
   a constitution that was ratified on the 5th of February, 1777.

      _W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 2,
      and book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

GEORGIA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The war in the North.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A.D. 1776, to 1778.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Savannah taken and the state subjugated by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1779.
   Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the French and Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1780.
   Successes of the British arms in South Carolina.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   Greene's campaign in the South.
   Lafayette and Washington in Virginia.
   Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
      A. D. 1780, to 1783.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
    The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

GEORGIA: A. D. 1802.
   Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  A. D. 1781-1786
      and MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1816-1818.
   The First Seminole War.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

{1428}

GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
   Savannah threatened.
   The Union forces in possession of the mouth of the river.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
   Reduction of Fort Pulaski and sealing up of the port of
   Savannah by the National Forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
   Sherman's campaign against Atlanta.
   The capture of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
      and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
   Military occupation of Atlanta.
   Removal of the inhabitants.
   Hood's Raid to Sherman's rear.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (November-December).
   Destruction of Atlanta.
   Sherman's March to the Sea.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1865 (March-May).
   Wilson's Raid.
   Capture of Jefferson Davis.
   End of the Rebellion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

----------GEORGIA: End----------

GEOUGEN, The.

      See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

GEPIDÆ, The.

      See GOTHS: ORIGIN OF;
      HUNS; LOMBARDS: EARLY HISTORY;
      and AVARS.

GERALDINES, The.

    The Geraldines of Irish history were descendants of Maurice
    and William Fitzgerald, two of the first among the
    Anglo-Norman adventurers to engage in the conquest of
    Ireland, A. D. 1169-1170. Their mother was a Welsh princess,
    named Nest, or Nesta, who is said to have been the mistress
    of Henry I. of England, and afterwards to have married the
    Norman baron, Gerald Fitz Walter, who became the father of
    the Fitzgeralds.  "Maurice Fitzgerald, the eldest of the
    brothers, became the ancestor both of the Earls of Kildare
    and Desmond; William, the younger, obtained an immense grant
    of land in Kerry from the McCarthys, indeed as time went on
    the lordship of the Desmond Fitzgeralds grew larger and
    larger, until it covered nearly as much ground as many a
    small European kingdom. Nor was this all. The White Knight,
    the Knight of Glyn, and the Knight of Kerry were all three
    Fitzgeralds, all descended from the same root, and all owned
    large tracts of country. The position of the Geraldines of
    Kildare was even more important, on account of their close
    proximity to Dublin. In later times their great keep at
    Maynooth dominated the whole Pale, while their followers
    swarmed everywhere, each man with a 'G' embroidered upon his
    breast in token of his allegiance. By the beginning of the
    16th century their power had reached to, perhaps, the highest
    point ever attained in these islands by any subject. Whoever
    might be called the Viceroy in Ireland it was the Earl of
    Kildare who practically governed the country."

      _Hon. E. Lawless,
      The Story of Ireland,
      chapter 14._

      See, also,
      IRELAND: A. D. 1515;
      and for some account of the subsequent rebellion and fall
      of the Geraldines, see
      IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

GERALDINES, League of the.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

GERBA, OR JERBA, The disaster at. (1560).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

GEREFA.

   "The most general name for the fiscal, administrative and
   executive officer among the Anglosaxons was Gerefa, or as it
   is written, in very early documents geroefa: but the peculiar
   functions of the individuals comprehended under it were
   further defined by a prefix compounded with it, as scirgerefa,
   the reeve of the shire or sheriff: tungerefa, the reeve of the
   farm or bailiff. The exact meaning and etymology of this name
   have hitherto eluded the researches of our best scholars."

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      See, also, SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

GERGESENES, The.

   One of the tribes of the Canaanites, whose territory is
   believed by Lenormant to have "included all Decapolis and even
   Galilee," and whose capital he places at Gerasa, now Djerash,
   in Perea.

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

GERGITHIAN SIBYL.

      See CUMÆ.

GERGITHIANS, The.

      See TROJA;
      and, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

   "The site of Gergovia of the Arverni is supposed to be a hill
   on the bank of the Allier, two miles from the modern Clermont
   in Auvergne. The Romans seem to have neglected Gergovia, and
   to have founded the neighbouring city, to which they gave the
   name Augustonemetum. The Roman city became known afterwards as
   Civitas Arvernorum, in the middle ages Arverna, and then, from
   the situation of its castle, clarus mons, Clermont."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 12 (volume 2, page 20, foot-note)._

   For an account of Cæsar's reverse at Gergovia of the Arverni,

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

GERGOVIA OF THE BOIANS.

      See BOIANS.

GERIZIM.

   "The sacred centre of the Samaritans is Gerizim, the 'Mount of
   Blessings.' On. its summit a sacred rock marks the site where,
   according to their tradition, Joshua placed the Tabernacle and
   afterwards built a temple, restored later by Sanballat on the
   return of the Israelites from captivity. On the slope of the
   mountain the Feast of the Passover is still celebrated in
   accordance with the injunctions of the Law."

      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone Lore,
      chapter 4._

GERMAN, High and Low.

   The distinction, made between High German and Low German is
   that resulting from differences of language, etc., between the
   Germanic peoples which dwelt anciently in the low, flat
   countries along the German Ocean and the Baltic, and those
   which occupied the higher regions of the upper Rhine, Elbe and
   Danube.

GERMAN EAST AFRICAN AND WEST AFRICAN ASSOCIATIONS.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

GERMAN EMPIRE, The Constitution of the new.

      See CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

----------------------------------
A Logical Outline of German History

Ethnological
Social and political.
Intellectual, moral and religious.
Foreign.


IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.


3d-5th Centurles. The Wanderinag of the nations.

   Germany was slow in finding the definite place in geography
   and history that belongs to it at the present day. It was no
   more at first than a name, applied with large vagueness to the
   country beyond the Rhine and the Danube, where many restless
   tribes, of kindred language and character, were unstably
   distributed. In time, the tribes crowded one another into wide
   wandering movements, were pushed and pressed together into
   confederacies and nations, and went swarming over the Danube
   and the Rhine into Roman provinces, to take possession of them
   and to be the new masters of the European world; but it was
   the Germans, not Germany, who began then to be historic.

5th-9th Centuries—Empire of the Franks.

   As a fact in history, Germany emerged first with the Franks,
   out of the dust-clouds of the wandering time and the darker
   clouds of the Gallic conquest. Fast seated on the great
   dividing river, the Rhine, the Franks reached backward into
   the land which gave them birth, and forward into the land
   which took their name, and gathered a broad empire out of
   both. But always the two parts of it refused to be held
   together. Neither by Clovis, the first conqueror, nor by
   Charlemagne, after three hundred years, were the Kingdom of
   the East Franks and the Kingdom of the West Franks bound fast
   into one.  Under Charlemagne's successors, the Kingdom of the
   East Franks began to be Germany, in the growing of the fact as
   well as the name.

A. D. 962.—The Holy Roman Empire.

   But no sooner had a Kingdom of Germany been created than it
   was strangely deprived of the distinctness needful to the
   making of a nation. The adventurous Otho, its second Saxon
   king, who reclaimed Italy and revived the imperial sovereignty
   of Charlemagne, diminished the weight and dignity of his
   Germanic realm as much as he advanced himself and his
   successors in title and rank. By that elevation of its kings
   to a pseudo-Roman throne, Germany lost its own proper place in
   history, and was obscured by the shadow of an empire which
   soon existed as a shadow only. Its elective kings, forsaking
   the title of Kings of Germany, and calling themselves Kings of
   the Romans, even while they waited for an imperial coronation
   at the hands of the Pope, made the nationalizing of Germany,
   as France was being nationalized, by its monarchy, impossible.

10th-18th Centuries.—Contests In Italy.

   For three centuries, the ambitions and the interests of the
   imperialized monarchy were ultramontane. Its Teutonic seat was
   a mere resting-place between Italian expeditions. Its quarrels
   with the Popes cast all questions of German politics into the
   background. It took no root in German feeling, rallied no
   national sentiment, gathered no increase of authority, sent
   out from itself no centralizing influences, judicial or
   administrative, to resist the dissolving forces of feudalism.
   And nowhere else in Europe was the action of those forces so
   destructive of political unity. That great Fatherland of the
   German peoples, where the slow solidification of a nation
   should have been going on as surely as in France, was crumbled
   by them into petty principalities, which time only hardened in
   their separateness.

A. D. 1273-1440—Rise of the House of Hapsburg.

   When, at last, the crown came to be settled in one fast-rooted
   and enduring House, it was not fortunately placed. Territorially
   the Hapsburgs were planted on the verge of the Teutonic land,
   where they fronted the Hungarians and the Svavs and were
   threatened by the approaching Turks. Speaking figuratively,
   they stood with their backs to Germany, facing their greater
   dangers and their greater opportunities, east and south.

   Their personal dominions were acquired for the most part
   outside of the Teutonic line. Their immediate subjects were of
   many alien races, with a few of Greman blood. Their kingship
   of Hungary was more substantial in its political weight than
   any Germanic sovereignty that they held. From the beginning of
   its remarkable dynastic career, the House of Austria was in
   all respects quite at one side of the great people whose crown
   had unhappily passed to its keeping. The emperor-kings, throned
   with less reality at Vienna than at Presburg and Prague, lost
   more and more their German character, receded more and more
   from the range of German influence. Thus Germany was robbed
   again of the centralizing constraints which a vigorous, rising
   monarchy of the true stamp, not falsified by a fictitious
   imperialization, would have brought to bear upon it, for the
   unifying of a great nation.

A. D. 1477-1496.—Burgundian and Spanish marriages.

   The marriagcs which linked the Austrian House with the
   sovereign families of Burgundy and Spain only drew it still
   farther away, and made it more alien than before to the people
   of the German North. The imperial government was brought then
   under influences from Spain which opposed every tendency of
   their feeling and thought. While the strong Teutonic mind
   worked its slow way towards personal freedom,—towards
   fearless inquiry and independent belief,—a contrary movement
   went on in the Austrian court. Between Germany at large and
   the circle in which Vienna stood really a center and a
   capital, a widening inteliectual breach began when the
   Hapsburg brain was narrowed by the astringent blood of
   Castile. This appeared, not alone in the rupture of the
   religious Reformation, but in all the advances that were made,
   from the sixteenth century down, in science, philosophy,
   literature and art.

   Some advance was always made; but the modern impulses which
   woke early in the German race were wastefully spent, during
   many generations, for want of any national concentration. No
   large channel opened to them; no worthy spirit directed them.
   The pettiness of petty politics and courts belittled in most
   ways, for a lamentable time, the workings of German energy and
   genius.

A. D. 1618.—Brandenburg—Prussia.

   The Thirty Years War made chaos in Germany complete. No
   semblance of substance in the empire remained. The Kaiser had
   become a sovereign less honored than the King of France,
   and Vienna a capital less considered than Paris. But the
   first nucleus of nationality took form in that chaos, when
   Brandenburg drew Prussia to itself, in the union which
   produced a new kingdom at the North. The rise of Prussia was
   the rise of German nationality. It brought to bear on the
   German people the first centralizing influence that had acted
   upon them since their kings took the crown of Rome. For the
   first time in their history they felt the pull of a force
   which drew them towards common lines of action.

A. D. 1740-1786.—Frederick the Great.
A. D. 1800-1813.—Struggle with Napoleon.

   The aggrandizement of Prussia by Frederick the Great, though
   iniquitous when considered in itself, was splendid work for
   Germany. It prepared, for the perils of the next generation, a
   power which Napoleon could humble at the moment, but which he
   could not crush. It gave footing for the great heroic rally of
   the Germanic people, whereby they conquered their place in the
   world and secured their future.

A. D. 1866.—The Seven Weeks War
A. D. 1870-1871.—The Franco-German War.
A. D. 1871.—The Empire.

   In all that has come to pass since Leipsic and Waterloo, the
   logical sequence is plainer than history is wont to show it.
   From men of the first decade in this century, who put the
   school and the camp side by side in Prussian training, there
   came more than from Bismarck or Moltke of the power which
   triumphed at Sadowa and Sedan, which has constructed a new and
   true Empire of Germany, with its capital at Berlin, and which
   has dismissed Austria from German reckonings as mistress or as
   rival, but to make of her an ally and a friend.

   Within the last third of the nineteenth century, the Germans
   may be said to have opened a great national career, such as
   the English, their kinsmen, had entered upon nearly two
   hundred years before. The energies of their powerful race have
   been centered at last, and are acting with new potency, in
   commerce and colonization, abroad, and in all modes of human
   advancement, at home.

----------End: A Logical Outline of German History ------

{1429}

GERMAN FLATS: A. D.1765.
   Treaty with the Indians.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

GERMAN FLATS: A. D. 1778.
   Destruction by Brant.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

GERMAN NATIONS, The wandering of.

      See GOTHS; FRANKS; ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI;
      QUADI; GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES; BURGUNDIANS;
      VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS.

GERMAN UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

GERMANIA.

   "On the origin of the name Germania see Waitz D. V. G. i. 24;
   he rejects all German derivations and concludes that it is
   originally Gallic, the name given (as Tacitus indicates) by
   the Gauls first to the Tungri, and afterwards to all the
   kindred tribes. The meaning may be either 'good shouters'
   (Grimm), or, according to other writers, 'East-men,' or
   'neighbours.'"

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, page 17, note._

GERMANIANS, The.

      See CARMANIANS.

GERMANIC CONFEDERATION,
   The First.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

   The Second.

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

GERMANIC DIET, The.

      See DIET, GERMANIC.

GERMANIC PEOPLES OF THE ALEMANNIC LEAGUE.

      See ALEMANNI: A.-D. 213.

GERMANICUS, Campaigns of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

GERMANTOWN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

GERMANY:
   The national name.

   "The nations of the Germania had no common name recognised by
   themselves, and were content, when, ages after, they had
   realised their unity of tongue and descent, to speak of their
   language simply as the Lingua Theotisca, the language of the
   people (theod).  … Whence the name 'Deutsch.' Zeuss derives
   it rather from the root of 'deuten,' to explain, so that
   'theotisc' should mean 'significant.' But the root of 'theod'
   and 'deuten' is the same. … The general name by which the
   Romans knew them [Germani] was one which they had received
   from their Gallic neighbours."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 3, and foot-note._

   "In Gothic we have 'thiuda,' people; 'thiudisks,' belonging to
   the people. … The High-German, which looks upon Sanskrit 't'
   and Gothic 'th' as 'd,' possesses the same word, as 'diot,'
   people; 'diutisc,' popularis; hence Deutsch, German, and
   'deuten,' to explain, literally to Germanize."

      _F. Max Müller,
      Lectures on the Science of Language,
      2d series, lecture. 5._

   The account which Tacitus gives of the origin of the name
   Germany is this: "The name Germany … they [the Germans] say,
   is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes
   which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are
   now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was
   the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed,
   till all called themselves by this self-invented name of
   Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire
   terror."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany;
      translated by Church and Brodribb, chapter 2._

   "It is only at the mouth of the Elbe that the Germany of the
   really historical period begins: and this is a Germany only in
   the eyes of scholars, antiquarians, and generalizing
   ethnologists. Not one of the populations to whom the name is
   here extended would have attached any meaning to the word,
   except so far as they had been instructed by men who had
   studied certain Latin writers. There was no name which was, at
   one and the same time, native and general. There were native
   names, but they were limited to special populations. There was
   a general name, but it was one which was applied by strangers
   and enemies. What this name was for the northern districts, we
   know beforehand. It was that of Saxones and Saxonia in Latin;
   of Sachsen and Sachsenland in the ordinary German. Evidence,
   however, that any German population ever so named itself is
   wholly wanting, though it is not impossible that some
   unimportant tribe may have done so: the only one so called
   being the Saxons of Ptolemy, who places them, along with
   several others, in the small district between the Elbe and the
   Eyder, and on three of the islands off the coast. … The
   Franks gave it its currency and generality; for, in the eyes
   of a Frank, Saxony and Friesland contained all those parts of
   Germany which, partly from their difference of dialect, partly
   from their rudeness, partly from their paganism, and partly
   from the obstinacy of their resistance, stood in contrast to
   the Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. A Saxon was an
   enemy whom the Franks had to coerce, a heathen whom they had
   to convert. What more the term meant is uncertain."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Introduction to Kemble's "Horæ Ferales."_

      See, also, TEUTONES.

GERMANY: As known to Tacitus.

   "Germany is separated from the Galli, the Rhæti, and Pannonii,
   by the rivers Rhine and Danube; mountain ranges, or the fear
   which each feels for the other, divide it from the Sarmatæ and
   Daci. Elsewhere ocean girds it, embracing broad peninsulas and
   islands of unexplored extent, where certain tribes and
   kingdoms are newly known to us, revealed by war. The Rhine
   springs from a precipitous and inaccessible height of the
   Rhætian Alps, bends slightly westward, and mingles with the
   Northern Ocean. The Danube pours down from the gradual and
   gently rising slope of Mount Abnoba, and visits many nations,
   to force its way at last through six channels into the Pontus;
   a seventh mouth is lost in marshes. The Germans themselves I
   should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other
   races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former
   times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who
   sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to
   speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail
   from our world. And, besides the perils of rough and unknown
   seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa, or Italy for Germany,
   with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners
   and aspect, unless indeed it were his home?
{1430}
   In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or
   recording the past, they celebrate an earth-born god, Tuisco,
   and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their
   founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names,
   they say, the coast tribes are called Ingævones; those of the
   interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istævones. Some, with the
   freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the
   god had several descendants, and the nation several
   appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that
   these are genuine old names. The name Germany, on the other
   hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany:
      translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
      chapters 1-2._

GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.
   Campaigns of Drusus.

   The first serious advance of the Roman arms beyond the Rhine
   was made in the reign of Augustus, by the emperor's step-son,
   Drusus. Cæsar had crossed the river, only to chastise and
   terrify the tribes on the right bank which threatened Gaul.
   Agrippa, some years later, repeated the operation, and
   withdrew, as Cæsar had done. But Drusus invaded Germany with
   intentions of conquest and occupation. His first campaign was
   undertaken in the spring of the year 12 B. C. He crossed the
   Rhine and drove the Usipetes into their strongholds; after
   which he embarked his legions on transport ships and moved
   them down the river to the ocean, thence to coast northwards
   to the mouth of the Ems, and so penetrate to the heart of the
   enemy's country. To facilitate this bold movement, he had
   caused a channel to be cut from the Rhine, at modern Arnheim,
   to the Zuyder Zee, utilizing the river Yssel. The expedition
   was not successful and retreated overland from the Frisian
   coast after considerable disaster and loss. The next year,
   Drusus returned to the attack, marching directly into the
   German country and advancing to the banks of the Weser, but
   retreating, again, with little to show of substantial results.
   He established a fortified outpost, however, on the Lippe, and
   named it Aliso. During the same summer, he is said to have
   fixed another post in the country of the Chatti. Two years
   then passed before Drusus was again permitted by the emperor
   to cross the Rhine. On his third campaign he passed the Weser
   and penetrated the Hercynian forest as far as the Elbe,—the
   Germans declining everywhere to give him battle. Erecting a
   trophy on the bank of the Elbe, he retraced his steps, but
   suffered a fall from his horse, on the homeward march, which
   caused his death. "If the Germans were neither reduced to
   subjection, nor even overthrown in any decisive engagement, as
   the Romans vainly pretended, yet their spirit of aggression
   was finally checked and from thenceforth, for many
   generations, they were fully occupied with the task of
   defending themselves."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 36._

GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
   Campaigns of Tiberius.

   The work of Roman conquest in Germany, left unfinished by
   Drusus, was taken up by his brother Tiberius (afterwards
   emperor) under the direction of Augustus. Tiberius crossed the
   Rhine, for the first time, B. C. 8. The frontier tribes made
   no resistance, but offered submission at once. Tiberius sent
   their chiefs to Augustus, then holding his court at Lugdunum
   (Lyons), to make terms with the emperor in person, and
   Augustus basely treated them as captives and threw them into
   prison. The following year found the German tribes again under
   arms, and Tiberius again crossed the Rhine; but it was only to
   ravage the country, and not to remain. Then followed a period
   of ten years, during which the emperor's step-son,
   dissatisfied with his position and on ill terms with Augustus,
   retired to Rhodes. In the summer of A. D. 4, he returned to
   the command of the legions on the Rhine. Meantime, under other
   generals,—Domitius and Vinicius,—they had made several
   campaigns beyond the river; had momentarily crossed the Elbe;
   had constructed a road to the outposts on the Weser; had
   fought the Cherusci, with doubtful results, but had not
   settled the Roman power in Germany. Tiberius invaded the
   country once more, with a powerful force, and seems to have
   crushed all resistance in the region between the lower Rhine
   and the Weser. The following spring, he repeated, with more
   success, the movement of Drusus by land and sea, sending a
   flotilla around to the Elbe and up that stream, to a point
   where it met and co-operated with a column moved overland,
   through the wilderness. A single battle was fought and the
   Germans defeated; but, once more, when winter approached, the
   Romans retired and no permanent conquest was made. Two years
   later (A. D. 6), Tiberius turned his arms against the powerful
   nation of the Marcomanni, which had removed itself from the
   German mark, or border, into the country formerly occupied, by
   the Boii—modern Bohemia. Here, under their able chief Marbod,
   or Maroboduus, they developed a formidable military
   organization and became threatening to the Roman frontiers on
   the Upper Danube. Two converging expeditions, from the Danube
   and from the Rhine, were at the point of crushing the
   Marcomanni between them, when news of the alarming revolt, in
   Pannonia and Dalmatia, called the "Batonian War," caused the
   making of a hasty peace with Maroboduus. The Batonian or
   Pannonian war occupied Tiberius for nearly three years. He had
   just brought it to a close, when intelligence reached Rome of
   a disaster in Germany which filled the empire with horror and
   dismay. The tribes in northwestern Germany, between the lower
   Rhine and the Elbe, supposed to be cowed and submissive, had
   now found a leader who could unite them and excite them to
   disdain the Roman yoke. This leader was Arminius, or Hermann,
   a young chief of the Cherusci, who had been trained in the
   Roman military service and admitted to Roman citizenship, but
   who hated the oppressors of his country with implacable
   bitterness. The scheme of insurrection organized by Arminius
   was made easy of execution by the insolent carelessness and
   the incapacity of the Roman commander in Germany, L.
   Quintilius Varus. It succeeded so well that Varus and his
   army,—three entire legions, horse, foot and
   auxiliaries,—probably 20,000 men in all,—were overwhelmed in
   the Teutoburger Wald, north of the Lippe, and destroyed. Only
   a few skulking fugitives reached the Rhine and escaped to tell
   the fate of the rest. This was late in the summer of A. D. 9.
   In the following spring Tiberius was sent again to the Rhine
   frontier, with as powerful a levy of men and equipments as the
   empire could collect. He was accompanied by his nephew,
   Germanicus, son of Drusus, destined to be his successor in the
   field of German conquest.
{1431}
   But dread and fear were in the Roman heart, and the campaign
   of Tiberius, delayed another twelve months, until A. D. 11,
   was conducted too cautiously to accomplish any important
   result. He traversed and ravaged a considerable region of the
   German country, but withdrew again across the Rhine and left
   it, apparently, unoccupied. This was his last campaign.
   Returning to Rome, he waited only two years longer for the
   imperial sovereignty to which he succeeded on the death of
   Augustus, who had made him, by adoption, his son and his heir.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 36-38._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 1._

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 5._

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius, part 1,
      chapters 4-6._

GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
   Campaigns of Germanicus.

   Germanicus—the son of Drusus—was given the command on the
   Rhine at the beginning of the year 13 A. D. The following
   year, Augustus died and Tiberius became emperor; whereupon
   Germanicus found himself no longer restrained from crossing
   the river and assuming the offensive against Arminius and his
   tribes. His first movement, that autumn, was up the valley of
   the Lippe, which he laid waste, far and wide. The next spring,
   he led one column, from Mentz, against the Chatti, as far as
   the upper branches of the Weser, while he sent another farther
   north to chastise the Cherusci and the Marsi, surprising and
   massacring the latter at their feast of Tanfana. Later in the
   same year, he penetrated, by a double expedition,—moving by
   sea and by land, as his father had done before,—to the
   country between the Ems and the Lippe, and laid waste the
   territory of the Bructeri, and their neighbors. He also
   visited the spot where the army of Varus had perished, and
   erected a monument to the dead. On the return from this
   expedition, four legions, under Cæcina, were beset in the same
   manner that Varus had been, and under like difficulties; but
   their commander was of different stuff and brought them safely
   through, after punishing his pursuers severely. But the army
   had been given up as lost, and only the resolute opposition of
   Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus, had prevented the Roman
   commander at Vetera, on the Rhine, from destroying the bridge
   there, and abandoning the legions to their supposed fate. In
   the spring of A. D. 16, Germanicus again embarked his army,
   80,000 strong, at the mouth of the Rhine, on board transports,
   and moved it to the mouth of the Ems, where the fleet
   remained. Thence he marched up the Ems and across to the
   Weser, and was encountered, in the country of the Cherusci, by
   a general levy of the German tribes, led by Arminius and
   Inguiomerus. Two great battles were fought, in which the
   Romans were victorious. But, when returning from this
   campaign, the fleet encountered a storm in which so much of it
   perished, with the troops on board, that the disaster threw a
   heavy cloud of gloom over the triumph of Germanicus. The young
   general was soon afterwards recalled, and three years later he
   died,—of poison, as is supposed,—at Antioch. "The central
   government ceased from this time to take any warm interest in
   the subjugation of the Germans; and the dissensions of their
   states and princes, which peace was not slow in developing,
   attracted no Roman emissaries to the barbarian camps, and
   rarely led the legions beyond the frontier, which was now
   allowed to recede finally to the Rhine."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 42._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 1._

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 1, chapter 7._

GERMANY: 3d Century.
   Beginning of the "Wandering of the Nations."

   "Towards the middle of the third century, … a change becomes
   perceptible in the relations and attitude of the German
   peoples. Many of the nations, which have been celebrated in
   the annals of the classical writers, disappear silently from
   history; new races, new combinations and confederacies start
   into life, and the names which have achieved an imperishable
   notoriety from their connection with the long decay and the
   overthrow of the Roman Empire, come forward, and still
   survive. On the soil whereon the Sigambri, Marsi, Chauci, and
   Cherusci had struggled to preserve a rude independence, Franks
   and Saxons lived free and formidable; Alemanni were gathered
   along the foot of the Roman wall which connected the Danube
   with the Rhine, and had, hitherto, preserved inviolate the
   Agri decumates; while eastern Germany, allured by the hope of
   spoil, or impelled by external pressure, precipitated itself
   under the collective term of Goths upon the shrinking
   settlements of the Dacia and the Danube. The new appellations
   which appear in western Germany in the third century have not
   unnaturally given rise to the presumption that unknown peoples
   had penetrated through the land, and overpowered the ancient
   tribes, and national vanity has contributed to the delusion.
   As the Burgundians … were flattered by being told they were
   descendants of Roman colonists, so the barbarian writers of a
   later period busied their imaginations in the solitude of
   monastic life to enhance the glory of their countrymen, by the
   invention of what their inkling of classical knowledge led
   them to imagine a more illustrious origin. … Fictions like
   these may be referred to as an index of the time when the
   young barbarian spirit, eager after fame, and incapable of
   balancing probabilities, first gloated over the marvels of
   classical literature, though its refined and delicate beauties
   eluded their grosser taste; but they require no critical
   examination; there are no grounds for believing that Franks,
   Saxons, or Alemanni, were other than the original inhabitants
   of the country, though there is a natural difficulty arising
   from the want of written contemporary evidence in tracing the
   transition, and determining the tribes of which the new
   confederacies were formed. At the same time, though no
   immigration of strangers was possible, a movement of a
   particular tribe was not unfrequent. The constant internal
   dissensions of the Germans, combined with their spirit of
   warlike enterprise, led to frequent domestic wars; and the
   vanquished sometimes chose rather to seek an asylum far from
   their native soil, where they might live in freedom, than
   continue as bondmen or tributaries to the conqueror. Of such a
   nature were the wanderings of the Usipites and Teuchteri
   [Tenchteri] in Cæsar's time, the removal of the Ubii from
   Nassau to the neighbourhood of Cöln and Xanthen; and to this
   must be ascribed the appearance of the Burgundians, who had
   dwelt beyond the Oder, in the vicinity of the Main and the
   Necker. Another class of national emigrations, were those
   which implied a final abandonment of the native Germany with
   the object of seeking a new settlement among the possessions
   of the sinking empire.
{1432}
   Those of the Goths, Vandals, Alans, Sueves, the second
   movement of the Burgundians, may be included in this category;
   the invasions of the Franks, Alemanni, and Saxons, on the
   contrary, cannot be called national emigrations, for they
   never abandoned, with their families, their original
   birthplace; their outwanderings, like the emigrations of the
   present day, were partial; their occupation of the enemy's
   territory was, in character, military and progressive; and,
   with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain,
   their connection with the original stock was never
   interrupted. In all the migrations of German peoples spoken of
   from Cæsar downwards, the numbers of the emigrants appear to
   be enormously exaggerated. The Usipites and Teuchteri are
   estimated by Cæsar at 430,000 souls. How could such a
   multitude find nourishment during a three years' wandering? If
   80,000 Burgundian Wehrmen came to the Rhine to the assistance
   of Valentinian, as Cassiodorius, Jerome, and other chroniclers
   state, the numbers of the whole nation must have approached
   400,000, and it is impossible to believe that such a mass
   could obtain support in the narrow district lying between the
   Alemanni, the Hermunduri, and the Chatti. In other cases,
   vague expressions, and still more the wonderful achievements
   of the Germans in the course of their emigrations, have led to
   the supposition of enormous numbers; but Germany could not
   find nourishment for the multitudes which have been ascribed
   to it. Corn at that period was little cultivated; it was not
   the food of the people, whose chief support was flesh. … The
   conquests of the barbarians may be ascribed as much to the
   weakness of their adversaries, to their want of energy and
   union, as to their own strength. There was, in fact, no enemy
   to meet them in the field; and their domination was, at least,
   as acceptable to the provincial inhabitants as that of the
   imbecile, but rapacious ministers of the Roman government. …
   It was not the lust of wandering, but the influence of
   external circumstances which brought them to the vicinity of
   the Danube: at first the aggressions of the Romans, then the
   pressure of the Huns and the Sclavonic tribes. The whole
   intercourse of Germany with Rome must be considered as one
   long war, which began with the invasion of Cæsar; which, long
   restrained by the superior power of the enemy, warmed with his
   growing weakness, and only ended with the extinction of the
   Roman name. The wars of the third, fourth, and fifth
   centuries, were only a continuance of the ancient hostility.
   There might be partial truce, or occasional intermission; some
   tribes might be almost extirpated by the sword; some, for a
   time, bought off by money; but Rome was the universal enemy,
   and much of the internal restlessness of the Germans was no
   more than the natural movement towards the hostile borders. As
   the invasion of northern Germany gave rise to the first great
   northern union, so the conquest of Dacia brought Goths from
   the Vistula to the south, while the erection of the giant wall
   naturally gathered the Suevic tribes along its limits, only
   waiting for the opportunity to break through. Step by step
   this battle of centuries was fought; from the time of
   Caracalla the flood turned, wave followed wave like the
   encroaching tide, and the ancient landmarks receded bit by
   bit, till Rome itself was buried beneath the waters. … Three
   great confederacies of German tribes, more or less united by
   birth, position, interest, or language, may be discerned,
   during this period, in immediate contact with the Romans---the
   Alemanni, the Goths, and the Franks. A fourth, the Saxons, was
   chiefly known from its maritime voyages off the coast of Gaul
   and Britain. There were also many independent peoples which
   cannot be enumerated among any of the political confederacies,
   but which acted for themselves, and pursued their individual
   ends: such were the Burgundians, the Alans, the Vandals, and
   the Lombards."

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. G. Latham,
      Nationalities of Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

      See, also,
      ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI; QUADI; GOTHS;
      GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES, FRANKS;
      BURGUNDIANS; VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS;
      and, also, Appendix A, volume 1.

GERMANY: A. D. 277.
   Invasion by Probus.

   The vigorous emperor Probus, who, in the year 277, drove from
   Gaul the swarms of invaders that had ravaged the unhappy
   province with impunity for two years past, then crossed the
   Rhine and harried the country of the marauders, as far as the
   Elbe and the Neckar. "Germany, exhausted by the ill success of
   the last emigration, was astonished by his presence. Nine of
   the most considerable princes repaired to his camp and fell
   prostrate at his feet. Such a treaty was humbly received by
   the Germans as it pleased the conqueror to dictate." Probus
   then caused a stone wall, strengthened at intervals with
   towers, to be built from the Danube, near Neustadt and
   Ratisbon, to Wimpfen on the Neckar, and thence to the Rhine,
   for the protection of the settlers of the "Agri Decumates."
   But the wall was thrown down, a few years afterwards, by the
   Alemanni.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 12._

GERMANY: 5th Century.
   Conversion of the Franks.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
   Acquisition of supremacy by the Franks.

   The original dominions of Clovis, or Chlodwig—with whose
   reign the career of the Franks as a consolidated people
   began—corresponded nearly to the modern kingdom of Belgium.
   His first conquests were from the Romans, in the neighboring
   parts of Gaul, and when those were finished, "the king of the
   Franks began to look round upon the other German nations
   settled upon its soil, with a view to the further extension of
   his power. A quarrel with the Alemanni supplied the first
   opportunity for the gratification of his ambition. For more
   than a century the Alemanni had been in undisturbed possession
   of Alsace, and the adjoining districts; Mainz, Worms, Speyer,
   Strasburg, Basel, Constanz, Bregenz, lay within their
   territory. … The Vosegen range was a bulwark on the side of
   Gaul, waste lands separated them from the Burgundians, who
   were settled about the Jura and in the south-west part of
   Helvetia, and the Moselle divided them from the Ripuarian
   Franks. It is unknown whether they formed a state distinct
   from their brethren on the right of the Rhine; probably such
   was the case, for the Alemanni, at all times, were divided
   into separate tribes, between which, however, was generally a
   common union; nor is it certain whether the Alsatian Alemanni
   were under one or several Adelings; a single king is mentioned
   as having fallen in the battle with Chlodwig, who may have
   been merely an elected military leader.

{1433 and 1434 moved forward for continuity}

{1435}
   Equally obscure is the cause of their war with Chlodwig,
   though it has been assumed, perhaps too hastily, by all recent
   historians, that the Frank king became involved in it as an
   ally of the Ripuarians. The Ripuarian Franks were settled, as
   the name imports, upon the banks of the Rhine, from the
   Moselle downwards; their chief seat was the city of Cologne.
   It is probable that they consisted of the remains of the
   ancient Ubii, strengthened by the adventurers who crossed over
   on the first invasion, and the name implies that they were
   regarded by the Romans as a kind of limitanean soldiery. For,
   in the common parlance of the Romans of that period, the tract
   of land lying along the Rhine was called Ripa, in an absolute
   sense, and even the river itself was not unfrequently
   denominated by the same title. Ripuarii are Ripa-wehren,
   Hreop, or Hrepa-wehren, defenders of the shore. About the
   close of the fifth century these Ripuarii were under the
   government of a king, named Sigebert, usually called 'the
   lance.' The story told by modern writers is, that this
   Sigebert, having fallen into dispute with the Alemanni, called
   upon Chlodwig for assistance, a call which the young king
   willingly listened to. The Alemanni had invaded the Ripuarian
   territory, and advanced within a short distance of Cologne,
   when Chlodwig and his Franks joined the Ripuarii; a battle
   took place at Zülpich, about twenty-two English miles from
   Cologne, which, after a fierce struggle, ended in the defeat
   of the Alemanni. … Chlodwig was following up his victory
   over the Alemanni, perhaps with unnecessary ferocity, when he
   was stopped in his course by a flattering embassy from the
   great Theodorich. Many of the Alemanni had submitted, after
   the death of their chief, on the field of battle. 'Spare us,'
   they cried, 'for we are now thy people!' but there were many
   who, abhorring the Frank yoke, fled towards the south, and
   threw themselves under the protection of the Ostrogothic king,
   who had possessed himself of the ancient Rhætia and
   Vindelicia."

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 2, chapter 4._

   The sons of Clovis pushed their conquests on the Germanic as
   well as on the Gallic side of the Rhine. Theodoric, or
   Theuderik, who reigned at Metz, with the aid of his brother
   Clotaire, or Chlother, of Soissons, subjugated the
   Thuringians, between A. D. 515 and 528. "How he [Theuderik]
   acquired authority over the Alemans and the Bavarians is not
   known. Perhaps in the subjugation of Thuringia he had taken
   occasion to extend his sway over other nations; but from this
   time forth we find not only these, but the Saxons more to the
   north, regarded as the associates or tributaries of the
   Eastern or Ripuarian Franks. From the Elbe to the Meuse, and
   from the Northern Ocean to the sources of the Rhine, a region
   comprising a great part of ancient Germany, the ascendency of
   the Franks was practically acknowledged, and a kingdom was
   formed [Austrasia—Oster-rike—the Eastern Kingdom] which was
   destined to overshadow all the other Mérovingian states; The
   various tribes which composed its Germanic accretions, remote
   and exempt from the influences of the Roman civilization,
   retained their fierce customs and their rude superstitions,
   and continued to be governed by their hereditary dukes; but
   their wild masses marched under the standards of the Franks,
   and conceded to those formidable conquerors a certain degree
   of political supremacy." When, in 558, Clotaire, by the death
   of his brothers, became the sole king of the Franks, his
   empire embraced all Roman Gaul, except Septimania, still held
   by the Visigoths, and Brittany, but slightly subjected; "while
   in ancient Germany, from the Rhine to the Weser, the powerful
   duchies of the Alemans, the Thuringians, the Bavarians, the
   Frisons, and the Saxons, were regarded not entirely as
   subject, and yet as tributary provinces." During the next
   century and a half, the feebleness of the Merovingians lost
   their hold upon these German tributaries. "As early as the
   time of Chlother II. the Langobards had recovered their
   freedom; under Dagobert [622-638], the Saxons; under Sighebert
   II. [638-656], the Thuringians; and now, during the late
   broils [670-687], the Alemans, the Bavarians and the Frisons."
   But the vigorous Mayors of the Palace, Pepin Heristal and Karl
   Martel, applied themselves resolutely to the restoration of
   the Frank supremacy, in Germany as well as in Aquitaine. Pepin
   "found the task nearly impossible. Time and again he assailed the
   Frisons, the Saxons, the Bavarians, and the Alemans, but could
   bind them to no truce nor peace for any length of time. No
   less than ten times the Frisons resumed their arms, while the
   revolts of the others were so incessant that he was compelled
   to abandon all hope of recovering the southern or Roman part
   of Gaul, in order to direct his attention exclusively to the
   Germans. The aid which he received from the Christian
   missionaries rendered him more successful among them. Those
   intrepid propagandists pierced where his armies could not. …
   The Franks and the Popes of Rome had a common interest in this
   work of the conversion of the Germans, the Franks to restrain
   irruptions, and the Popes to carry their spiritual sway over
   Europe." Pepin left these unfinished German wars to his son
   Karl, the Hammer, and Karl prosecuted them with characteristic
   energy during his first years of power. "Almost every month he
   was forced into some expedition beyond the Rhine. … The
   Alemans, the Bavarians, and the Frisons, he succeeded in
   subjecting to a formal confession at least of the Frankish
   supremacy; but the turbulent and implacable Saxons baffled his
   most strenuous efforts. Their wild tribes had become, within a
   few years, a powerful and numerous nation; they had
   appropriated the lands of the Thuringians and Hassi, or Catti,
   and joined to themselves other confederations and tribes; and,
   stretching from the Rhine to the Elbe, offered their marshes
   and forests a free asylum to all the persecuted sectaries of
   Odhinn, to all the lovers of native and savage independence.
   Six times in succession the armies of Karl penetrated the
   wilderness they called their home, ravaging their fields and
   burning their cabins, but the Saxon war was still renewed. He
   left it to the energetic labors of other conquerors, to
   Christian missionaries, … to break the way of civilization
   into those rude and darkened realms." Karl's sons Pepin and
   Karloman crushed revolts of the Alemans, or Suabians, and the
   Bavarians in 742, and Karloman humbled the Saxons in a great
   campaign (744), compelling them in large numbers to submit to
   Christian baptism. After that, Germany waited for its first
   entire master—Charlemagne.

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 12-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapters 2-6._

      See, also,
      FRANKS, and AUSTRASIA.


{1433 moved here for continuity}

FIFTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

* Uncertain date.

A. D. 402.
   Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.

   Birth of Phocion* (d. 317).

404.
   Removal of the capital of the Western Empire from Rome to
   Ravenna.*

   Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom, from
   Constantinople; burning of the Church of Saint Sophia.

406.
   Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy.

   Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
   overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans, Suevi, and
   Burgundians.

407.
   Usurpation of Constantine in Britain and Gaul.

408.
   Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, and accession of
   Theodosius II.

   Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
   massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
   blockade of Rome by Alaric.

409.
   Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans.

410.
   Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric; his death.

   Abandonment of Britain by the Empire.

   The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.

412.
   Gaul entered by the Visigoths

   Cyril made Patriarch of Alexandria.

414.
   Title of Augusta taken by Pulcheria at Constantinople.

415.
   Visigothic conquest of Spain begun.

   Persecution of Jews at Alexandria; death of Hypatia.

418.
   Founding of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse in Aquitaine.

422.
   War between Persia and the Eastern Empire
   partition of Armenia.

423.
   Death of Honorius, Emperor in the West;
   usurpation of John the Notary.

425.
   Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III., under the
   regency of Placidia; formal and legal separation of the
   Eastern and Western Empires.

428.
   Conquests of the Vandals in Spain.

   Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.

429.
   Vandal conquests in Africa begun.

430.
   Siege of Hippo Regius in Africa;
   death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

431.
   Third General Council of the Church, held at Ephesus.

433.
   Beginning of the reign of Attila, king of the Huns. *

435.
   Nestorius exiled to the Libyan desert.

439.
   Carthage taken by the Vandals.

440.
   Leo the Great elected Pope.

441.
   Invasion of the Eastern Empire by Attila and the Huns.

443.
   Conquest and settlement of Savoy by the Burgundians.

446.
   Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
   humiliating purchase of peace with them by the Eastern
   Emperor.

449.
   Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.*
   Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

450.
   Death of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II., and accession of
   Pulcheria.

451.
   Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons;
   retreat of Attila from Gaul.

   Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.

452.
   Invasion of Italy by Attila; origin of Venice.

453.
   Death of Attila; dissolution of his empire.

   Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.

455.
   Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West;
   usurpation of Maximus.

   Rome pillaged by the Vandals.

   Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).

456.
   Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian mercenaries,
   in the Western Empire; Avitus deposed.

457.
   Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer, raised to
   the throne of the Western Empire.

   Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.

461.
   Marjorian deposed; Severus made Emperor in the West.

   Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.

467.
   Anthemius made Emperor in the West.

472.
   Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
   death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
   Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

473.
   Ostrogothic invasion of Italy diverted to Gaul.

474.
   Julius Nepos Emperor in the West;
   accession of Zeno in the Eastern Empire.

475.
   Romulus Augustulus made Emperor in the West.

476.
   Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer:
   extinction for more than three centuries of the Western line
   of emperors.

477.
   Beginning of Saxon conquests in Britain.

480.
   Birth of Saint Benedict (d. 543).

481.
   Founding of the Frank kingdom by Clovis.

486.
   Overthrow of the kingdom of Syagrius, the last Roman
   sovereignty in Gaul.

488.
   Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the Eastern
   Emperor to invade Italy.

489.
   Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Verona.

491.
   Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East.

   Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.

492.
   Election of Pope Gelasius I.

493.
   Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna;
   his murder;
   Theodoric king of Italy.

494. Landing of Cerdic and his band of Saxons in Britain. *

496.
   Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis, king of the Franks;
   baptism of Clovis.


{1434 moved here for continuity}

SIXTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

* Uncertain date.

A. D. 504.
   Expulsion of the Alemanni from the Middle Rhine by the Franks.

505.
   Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

507.
   Overthrow of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse by Clovis.

511.
   Death of Clovis;
   partition of the Frank kingdom among his sons.

   Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

512.
   Second Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

515.
   Publication of the monastic rule of Saint Benedict.

518.
   Death of the Eastern Emperor, Anastasius, and accession of
   Justin I.

519.
   Cerdic and Cynric become kings of the West Saxons.

525.
   Execution of Boethius and Symmachus by Theodoric, king of
   Italy.

526.
   Death of Theodoric and accession of Athalaric.

   Great earthquake at Antioch.

   War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

527.
   Accession of Justinian in the Eastern Empire.

528.
   Conquest of Thuringia by the Franks.

529.
   Defeat of the Persians, at Dara, by the Roman general
   Belisarius.

   Closing of the schools at Athens.

   Publication of the Code of Justinian.

531.
   Accession of Chosroes, or Nushirvan, to the throne of Persia.

532.
   End of War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

   Nika sedition at Constantinople.

533.
   Overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius.

   Publication of the Pandects of Justinian.

534.
   Conquest of the Burgundians by the Franks.

535.
   Recovery of Sicily from the Goths by Belisarius.

536.
   Rome taken from the Goths by Belisarius for Justinian.

537.
   Unsuccessful siege of Rome by the Goths.

539.
   Destruction of Milan by the Goths.

   Invasion of Italy by the Franks.

540.
   Surrender of Ravenna to Belisarius;
   his removal from command.

   Invasion of Syria by Chosroes, king of Persia;
   storming and sacking of Antioch.

   Formal relinquishment of Gaul to the Franks by Justinian.

   Vigilius made Pope.

541.
   Gothic successes under Totila, in Italy.

   End of the succession of. Roman Consuls.

   Defense of the East by Belisarius.

542.
   Great Plague in the Roman Empire.

543.
   Surrender of Naples to Totila.

   Death of Saint Benedict.

   Invasion of Spain by the Franks.

544.
   Belisarius again in command in Italy.

546.
   Totila's siege, capture and pillage of Rome.

547.
   The city of Rome totally deserted for six weeks.

   Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia (afterward included in
   Northumberland) in England.

   Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

548.
   Death of the Eastern Empress, Theodora.

549.
   Second siege and capture of Rome by Totila.

   Beginning of the Lazic War.

552.
   Totila defeated and killed by the imperial army under Narses.

553.
   End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
   restoration of the imperial sovereignty.

   Fifth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople.

   Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna, representing the
   Emperor at Constantinople.

555.
   Pelagius I. made Pope.

558.
   Reunion of the Frank empire under Clothaire I.

560.
   John III. made Pope.

563.
   Founding of the monastery of Iona, in Scotland, by Saint Columba.

565.
   Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
   accession of Justin II.

566.
   Conquest of the Gepidæ in Dacia by the Lombards and Avars.

567.
   Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms of
   Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.

568.
   Invasion of Italy by the Lombards;
   siege of Pavia.

570.
   Birth of Mahomet. *

572.
   Renewed war of the Eastern Empire with Persia.

573.
   Murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards.

   Subjugation of the Suevi by the Visigoths in Spain.

574.
   Benedict I. made Pope.

578.
   Accession of the Eastern Emperor Tiberius Constantinus.

   Pelagius II. made Pope.

582.
   Accession of Maurice, Emperor in the East.

588.
   Kingdom of Northumberland, in England, founded by the union of
   Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.

589.
   Abandonment of Arianism by the Goths in Spain.

590.
   Gregory the Great elected Pope.

591.
   Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

597.
   Mission of Saint Augustine to England.

   Death of Saint Columba.

---------End of moved pages 1433 and 1434----------

{1436}

GERMANY: A. D. 687-800.
   Rise of the Carolingians and the Empire of Charlemagne.

   "Towards the close of the Merovingian period, … the kingdom
   of the Franks … was divided into four great districts, or
   kingdoms as they were called: Austrasia, or the eastern
   kingdom, from the river Rhine to the Meuse, with Metz as its
   principal city; Neustria, or the western kingdom, extending
   from Austrasia to the ocean on the west, and to the Loire on
   the south; Aquitaine, south of that river to the foot of the
   Pyrenees; and Burgundy, from the Rhone to the Alps, including
   Switzerland. These four kingdoms became, before the extinction
   of the Merovingian race, consolidated into two,—viz., Austrasia
   and Neustria, Eastern and Western Francia,—modern Germany
   and modern France, roughly speaking,—of which the first was
   to gain the pre-eminence, as it was the seat of the power of
   that race of Charlemagne which seized upon the kingdoms of the
   Merovingians. But in these kingdoms, while the family of
   Clovis occupied them, the royal power became more and more
   feeble as time went on, a condition which is illustrated by
   the title given in history to these kings,—that of 'rois
   fainéants.'… The most powerful officer of a Frankish king
   was his steward, or, as he was called, the mayor of his
   palace. … In Austrasia the office had become hereditary in
   the family of Pepin of Landen (a small village near Liège),
   and under its guidance the degenerate children of Clovis in
   that kingdom fought for the supremacy with those equally
   degenerate in Neustria, at that time also under the real
   control of another mayor of the palace, called Ebroin. The
   result of this struggle, after much bloodshed and misery, was
   reached in the year 687 at the battle of Testry, in which the
   Austrasians completely defeated the Neustrians. … The
   Merovingian princes were still nominally kings, while all the
   real power was in the hands of the descendants of Pepin of
   Landen, mayors of the palace, and the policy of government was
   as fully settled by them as if they had been kings de jure as
   well as de facto. This family produced in its earlier days
   some persons who have become among the most conspicuous
   figures in history:—Pepin, the founder; Pepin le Gros, of
   Héristal; Charles, his son, commonly called Martel, or the
   Hammerer; Pepin le Bref, under whom the Carlovingian dynasty
   was, by aid of the Pope, recognized as the lawful successor of
   the Merovingians, even before the extinction of that race;
   and, lastly, Charles, surnamed the Great, or Charlemagne, one
   of the few men of the human race who, by common consent, have
   occupied the foremost rank in history. … The object of Pepin
   of Héristal was two-fold,—to repress the disposition of the
   turbulent nobles to encroach upon the royal authority, and to
   bring again under the yoke of the Franks those tribes in
   Germany who had revolted against the Frankish rule owing to
   the weakness of the Merovingian government. He measurably
   accomplished both objects. … He seems to have had what
   perhaps is the best test at all times of the claims of a man
   to be a real statesman: some consciousness of the true nature
   of his mission,—the establishment of order. … His son and
   successor, Charles Martel, was even more conspicuous for the
   possession of this genius of statesmanship, but he exhibited
   it in a somewhat different direction. He, too, strove to hold
   the nobles in check, and to break the power of the Frisian and
   the Saxon tribes; and he fought besides, fortunately for his
   fame, one of the fifteen decisive battles in the history of
   the world, that of Poitiers, in 732, by which the Saracens,
   who had conquered Spain, and who had strong hopes of gaining
   possession of the whole of Western Europe, were driven back
   from Northern France, never to return. … His son, Pepin le
   Bref, is equally conspicuous with the rest in history, but in
   a somewhat different way. He continued the never-ending wars
   in Germany and in Gaul with the object of securing peace by
   the sword, and with more or less success. But his career is
   noteworthy principally because he completed the actual
   deposition of the last of the Merovingian race, whose nominal
   servants but real masters he and his predecessors, mayors of
   the palace, had been, and because he sought and obtained the
   sanction of the Church for this usurpation. … The Pope's
   position at this time was one of very great embarrassment.
   Harassed by the Lombards, who were not only robbers, but who
   were also Arians, and who admitted none of the Catholic clergy
   to their councils,—with no succor from the Emperors at
   Constantinople (whose subject he nominally was) against the
   Lombards, and, indeed, in open revolt against them because as
   bishop and patriarch of the West he had forbidden the
   execution of the decree against the placing of images in the
   churches,—for these and many such reasons he sorely needed
   succor, and naturally in his necessity he turned to the
   powerful King of the Franks. The coronation of Pepin le Bref,
   first by St. Boniface, and then by the Pope himself, was the
   first step in the fulfilment of the alliance on his part.
   Pepin was soon called upon to do his share of the work. Twice
   at the bidding of the Pope he descended from the Alps, and,
   defeating the Lombards, was rewarded by him and the people of
   Rome with the title of Patrician. … On the death of Pepin,
   the Lombards again took up arms and harassed the Church's
   territory. Charlemagne, his successor, was called upon to come
   to the rescue, and he swept the Lombard power in Italy out of
   existence, annexing its territory to the Frankish kingdom, and
   confirming the grant of the Exarchate and of the Pentapolis
   which his father had made to the Popes. This was in the year
   774. … For twenty-five years Charlemagne ruled Rome
   nominally as Patrician, under the supremacy, equally nominal,
   of the Emperor at Constantinople. The true sovereign,
   recognized as such, was the Pope or Bishop of Rome, but the
   actual power was in the hands of the mob, who at one time
   towards the close of the century, in the absence of both
   Emperor and Patrician, assaulted the Pope while conducting a
   procession, and forced him to abandon the city. This Pope,
   Leo, with a fine instinct as to the quarter from which succor
   could alone come, hurried to seek Charlemagne, who was then in
   Germany engaged in one of his never-ending wars against the
   Saxons. The appeal for aid was not made in vain, and Charles
   descended once more from the Alps in the summer of 799, with
   his Frankish hosts. On Christmas day, A. D. 800, in the Church
   of St. Peter … Pope Leo, during the mass, and after the
   reading of the gospel, placed upon the brow of Charlemagne,
   who had abandoned his northern furs for the dress of a Roman
   patrician, the diadem of the Cæsars, and hailed him Imperator
   Semper Augustus, while the multitude shouted, 'Carolo, Augusto
   a Deo coronato magno et pacifico Imperatori Vita et Victoria.'
   In that shout and from that moment one of the most fruitful
   epochs of history begins."

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Studies in Mediæval History,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

{1437}

GERMANY: A. D. 800.
   Charlemagne's restoration of the Roman Empire.

   "Three hundred and twenty-four years had passed since the last
   Cæsar of the West resigned his power into the hands of the
   senate, and left to his Eastern brother the sole headship of
   the Roman world. To the latter Italy had from that time been
   nominally subject; but it was only during one brief interval,
   between the death of Totila the last Ostrogothic king and the
   descent of Alboin the first Lombard, that his power had been
   really effective. In the further provinces, Gaul, Spain,
   Britain, it was only a memory. But the idea of a Roman Empire
   as a necessary part of the world's order had not vanished: it
   had been admitted by those who seemed to be destroying it; it
   had been cherished by the Church; was still recalled by laws
   and customs; was dear to the subject populations, who fondly
   looked back to the days when slavery was at least mitigated by
   peace and order. … Both the extinction of the Western Empire
   in [A.D. 476] … and its revival in A. D. 800 have been very
   generally misunderstood in modern times. … When Odoacer
   compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not
   abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but caused it
   to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from
   that time there was, as there had been before Diocletian, a
   single undivided Roman Empire. In A. D. 800 the very memory of
   the separate Western Empire, as it had stood from the death of
   Theodosius till Odoacer, had, so far as appears, been long
   since lost, and neither Leo nor Charles nor anyone among their
   advisers dreamt of reviving it. They, too, like their
   predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible,
   and proposed by the coronation of the Frankish king, not to
   proclaim a severance of the East and West, but to reverse the
   act of Constantine, and make Old Rome again the civil as well
   as the ecclesiastical capital of the Empire that bore her
   name. … Although therefore we must in practice speak during
   the next seven centuries (down till A. D. 1453, when
   Constantinople fell before the Mohammedan) of an Eastern and a
   Western Empire, the phrase is in strictness incorrect, and was
   one which either court ought to have repudiated. The
   Byzantines always did repudiate it; the Latins usually;
   although, yielding to facts, they sometimes condescended to
   employ it themselves. But their theory was always the same.
   Charles was held to be the legitimate successor, not of
   Romulus Augustulus, but of Basil, Heraclius, Justinian,
   Arcadius, and all the Eastern line. … North Italy and Rome
   ceased for ever to own the supremacy of Byzantium; and while
   the Eastern princes paid a shameful tribute to the Mussulman,
   the Frankish Emperor—as the recognised head of
   Christendom—received from the patriarch of Jerusalem the keys
   of the Holy Sepulchre and the banner of Calvary; the gift of
   the Sepulchre itself, says Eginhard, from Aaron king of the
   Persians [the Caliph Haroun el Rashid]. … Four centuries
   later, when Papacy and Empire had been forced into the mortal
   struggle by which the fate of both was decided, three distinct
   theories regarding the coronation of Charles will be found
   advocated by three different parties, all of them plausible,
   all of them to some extent misleading. The Swabian Emperors
   held the crown to have been won by their great predecessor as
   the prize of conquest, and drew the conclusion that the
   citizens and bishop of Rome had no rights as against
   themselves. The patriotic party among the Romans, appealing to
   the early history of the Empire, declared that by nothing but the
   voice of their senate and people could an Emperor be lawfully
   created, he being only their chief magistrate, the temporary
   depositary of their authority. The Popes pointed to the
   indisputable fact that Leo imposed the crown, and argued that
   as God's earthly vicar it was then his, and must always
   continue to be their right to give to whomsoever they would an
   office which was created to be the handmaid of their own. Of
   these three it was the last view that eventually prevailed."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      chapter 14._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

GERMANY: A. D. 805.
   Conquest of the Avars.
   Creation of the Austrian March.

      See AVARS, and AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

GERMANY: A. D. 814-843.
   Division of the Empire of Charlemagne.

   "There was a manifest conflict, during his later years, in the
   court, in the councils, in the mind of Charlemagne [who died
   in 814], between the King of the Franks and the Emperor of the
   West; between the dissociating, independent Teutonic
   principle, and the Roman principle of one code, one dominion,
   one sovereign. The Church, though Teutonic in descent, was
   Roman in the sentiment of unity. … That unity had been
   threatened by the proclaimed division of the realm between the
   sons of Charlemagne. The old Teutonic usage of equal
   distribution seemed doomed to prevail over the august unity of
   the Roman Empire. What may appear more extraordinary, the
   kingdom of Italy was the inferior appanage: it carried not
   with it the Empire, which was still to retain a certain
   supremacy; that was reserved for the Teutonic sovereign. It
   might seem as if this were but the continuation of the Lombard
   kingdom, which Charlemagne still held by the right of
   conquest. It was bestowed on Pepin; after his death entrusted
   to Bernhard, Pepin's illegitimate but only son. Wiser counsels
   prevailed. The two elder sons of Charlemagne died without
   issue; Louis the third son was summoned from his kingdom of
   Aquitaine, and solemnly crowned [813] at Aix-la-Chapelle, as
   successor to the whole Empire."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

{1438}

   "Instead of being preoccupied with the care of keeping the
   empire united, Louis divided it in the year 817 by giving
   kingdoms to his three sons. The eldest, Lothaire, had Italy;
   Louis, Bavaria; Pepin, Aquitaine. A nephew of the emperor,
   Bernard, imagined himself wronged by this partition, and took
   up arms to hold Italy. Vanquished without striking a blow, he
   delivered himself up to his uncle, who caused his eyes to be
   put out. He expired under that torture. Louis reproached
   himself later for that cruel death, and to expiate it,
   subjected himself to a public penance. In 823, there was born
   to him a fourth son. To make him a sharer of his inheritance,
   the emperor, annulling in 829 the partition of 817, gave him
   Germany, thus depriving his elder sons of part of the
   inheritance previously assigned them. This provoked the
   resentment of those princes; they rose in rebellion against
   their father, and the rest of the reign of Louis was only a
   succession of impious contests with his turbulent sons. In
   833, he deposed Pepin, and gave his kingdom of Aquitaine to
   his youngest born, Charles. Twice deposed himself, and twice
   restored, Louis only emerged from the cloister, for which he
   was so well fitted, to repeat the same faults. When Louis the
   Good-natured died in 840, it was not his cause only which he
   had lost through his weakness, but that of the empire. Those
   intestine quarrels presaged its dismemberment, which ere long
   happened. The sons of Louis, to serve their own ambition, had
   revived the national antipathies of the different races.
   Lothaire placed himself at the head of the Italians; Louis
   rallied the Germans round him, and Charles the Bald the Franks
   of Gaul, who were henceforward called Frenchmen. Those three
   peoples aspired to break up the union whose bond Charlemagne
   had imposed upon them, as the three brothers aspired to form
   each for himself a kingdom. The question was decided at the
   great battle of Fontanet, near Auxerre, in 841. Lothaire, who
   fought therein for the preservation of the empire and of his
   authority, was conquered. By the treaty of Verdun [843—see
   VERDUN, TREATY OF] it was decided that Louis should have
   Germany to the east of the Rhine; Charles, France to the west
   of the Scheld, the Meuse, the Saone, and the Rhone; finally,
   Lothaire, Italy, with the long range of country comprised
   between the Alps and the Cevennes, the Jura, the Saone, the
   Rhine, and the Meuse, which from his name was called
   Lotharingia. This designation is still to be traced in one of
   the recently French provinces, Lorraine."

      _S. Menzies,
      History of Europe from the Decadence  of
      the Western Empire to the Reformation,
      chapter. 13._

GERMANY: A. D. 843.
   Accession of Louis II.

GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
   Treaty of Verdun.
   Definite separation from France.
   The kingdom of the East Franks.

   The partition of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
   grandsons, by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, gave to Charles
   the Bald a kingdom which nearly coincided with France, as
   afterwards existing under that name, "before its Burgundian
   and German annexations.

      See VERDUN, TREATY OF;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.

   It also founded a kingdom which roughly answered to the later
   Germany before its great extension to the East at the expense
   of the Slavonic nations. And as the Western kingdom was formed
   by the addition of Aquitaine to the Western Francia, so the
   Eastern kingdom was formed by the addition of the Eastern
   Francia to Bavaria. Lewis of Bavaria [surnamed 'the German']
   became king of a kingdom which we are tempted to call the
   kingdom of Germany. Still it would as yet be premature to
   speak of France at all, or even to speak of Germany, except in
   the geographical sense. The two kingdoms are severally the
   kingdoms of the Eastern and of the Western Franks. … The
   Kings had no special titles, and their dominions had no
   special names recognized in formal use. Every king who ruled
   over any part of the ancient Francia was a king of the Franks.
   … The Eastern part of the Frankish dominions, the lot of
   Lewis the German and his successors, is thus called the
   Eastern Kingdom, the Teutonic Kingdom. Its king is the King of
   the East-Franks, sometimes simply the King of the Eastern men,
   sometimes the King of Germany. … The title of King of
   Germany is often found in the ninth century as a description,
   but it was not a formal title. The Eastern king, like other
   kings, for the most part simply calls himself' Rex,' till the
   time came when his rank as King of Germany, or of the
   East-Franks, became simply a step towards the higher title of
   Emperor of the Romans. … This Eastern or German kingdom, as
   it came out of the division of 887 [after the deposition of
   Charles III., called Charles the Fat,. who came to the throne
   in 881, and who had, momentarily reunited all the Frankish
   crowns, except that of Burgundy], had, from north to south,.
   nearly the same extent as the Germany of later times. It
   stretched from the Alps to the Eider. Its southern boundaries
   were somewhat fluctuating. Verona and Aquileia are sometimes
   counted as a German march, and the boundary between, Germany
   and Burgundy, crossing the modern Switzerland, often changed.
   To the north-east the kingdom hardly stretched beyond the
   Elbe, except in the small Saxon land between the Elbe and the
   Eider [called 'Saxony beyond the Elbe'—modern Holstein]. The
   great extension of the German power over the Slavonic lands
   beyond the Elbe had hardly yet begun. To the southeast lay the
   two border-lands or marks; the Eastern Mark, which grew into
   the later duchy of, Oesterreich or the modern Austria, and to
   the south of it the mark of Kärnthen or Carinthia. But the
   main part of the kingdom consisted of the great duchies of
   Saxony, Eastern Francia, Alemannia, and Bavaria. Of these the
   two names of Saxony and Bavaria must be carefully marked as
   having widely different meanings from those which they bear on
   the modern map. Ancient Saxony lies, speaking roughly, between
   the Eider, the Elbe, and the Rhine, though it never actually
   touches the last-named river. To the south of Saxony lies the
   Eastern Francia, the centre and kernel of the German kingdom.
   The Main and the Neckar both join the Rhine within its
   borders. To the south of Francia lie Alemannia and Bavaria.
   This last, it must be remembered, borders on Italy, with
   Bötzen for its frontier town. Alemannia is the land in which
   both the Rhine and the Danube take their source; it stretches
   on both sides of the Bodensee or Lake of Constanz, with the
   Rætian Alps as its southern boundary. For several ages to
   come, there is no distinction, national or even provincial,
   between the lands north and south of the Bodensee."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volumes 1-2._

   On the indefiniteness of the name of the Germanic kingdom in
   this period,

      See FRANCE: 9TH CENTURY.

GERMANY: A. D. 881.
   Accession of Charles III. (called The Fat), afterwards King of
   all the Franks and Emperor.

GERMANY: A. D. 888.
   Accession of Arnulf, afterwards Emperor.

GERMANY: A. D. 899.
   Accession of Louis III. (called The Child).

GERMANY: A. D. 911.
   Election of Conrad I.

{1439}

GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.
   Conrad the Franconian and Henry the Fowler.
   Beginning of the Saxon line.
   Hungarian invasion.
   The building of towns.

   In 911, on the death of Louis, surnamed the Child, the German
   or East-Frank branch of the dynasty of Charlemagne had become
   extinct. "There remained indeed Charles the Simple,
   acknowledged as king in some parts of France, but rejected in
   others, and possessing no personal claims to respect. The
   Germans therefore wisely determined to chose a sovereign from
   among themselves. They were at this time divided into five
   nations, each under its own duke, and distinguished by
   difference of laws, as well as of origin; the Franks, whose
   territory, comprising Franconia and the modern Palatinate, was
   considered as the cradle of the empire, and who seem to have
   arrogated some superiority over the rest, the Suabians, the
   Bavarians, the Saxons … and the Lorrainers, who occupied the
   left bank of the Rhine as far as its termination. The choice
   of these nations in their general assembly fell upon Conrad,
   duke of Franconia, according to some writers, or at least a
   man of high rank, and descended through females from
   Charlemagne. Conrad dying without male issue, the crown of
   Germany was bestowed [A. D. 919] upon Henry the Fowler, duke
   of Saxony, ancestor of the three Othos, who followed him in
   direct succession. To Henry, and to the first Otho [A. D.
   936-973], Germany was more indebted than to any sovereign
   since Charlemagne."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

   "In 924, the Hungarians, who were as much dreaded as the angel
   of destruction, re-appeared. They came from the grassy plains
   of Hungary, mounted on small and ugly, but strong horses, and
   swept along the Danube like a hailstorm. Wherever they came
   they set fire to farms, hamlets, and towns, and killed all
   living creatures or carried them off. And often they bound
   their prisoners to the tails of their horses, and dragged them
   along till they died from the dreadful torture. Their very
   figures inspired disgust and terror, for their faces were
   brown, and disfigured by scars to absolute hideousness; their
   heads were shaven, and brutal ferocity and rapacity shone out
   of their deep-set eyes. And though the Germans fought bravely,
   these enemies always overmatched them, because they appeared
   now here, now there, on their fleet horses, and fell upon
   isolated districts before they were expected or could be
   stopped. … When on a sudden the terrible cry, 'The
   Hungarians are coming, the Hungarians are coming,' resounded
   through the land, all fled who could, as if the wild legions
   of hell were marching through Saxony and Thuringia. King
   Henry, however, would not fly, but encountered them in combat,
   like a true knight. Yet he lost the battle, either because he
   was ill, or because his soldiers were too few, and
   unaccustomed to the enemy's mode of fighting, which enabled
   them to conquer while they were fleeing. Henry was obliged to
   shut himself up in the royal palace of Werla, near Goslar,
   which he bravely defended. The Hungarians stormed it again and
   again, but they could not scale the walls; while Henry's men
   by a daring sally took a Hungarian chieftain prisoner, which
   so terrified the besiegers that they concluded a truce for
   nine years on condition that their chief should be released,
   and that Henry should engage to pay a yearly tribute. Henry
   submitted to the dishonourable sacrifice that he might husband
   his strength for better times. … How important it was to
   have fortified places which could not be stormed by cavalry,
   and therefore afforded a safe refuge to the neighbouring
   peasantry, Henry recognised in 929, when the Hungarians
   marched through Bavaria and Suabia to Lorraine, plundered the
   time-honoured monastery of St. Gall, and burnt the suburbs of
   Constance, but could not take the fortified town itself.
   Henry, accordingly, published an order throughout the land,
   that at suitable places large fortresses should be built, in
   which every ninth man from the neighbouring district must take
   garrison duty. Certainly living in towns was contrary to the
   customs of the North Germans, and here and there there was
   much resistance; but they soon recognised the wisdom of the
   royal order, and worked night and day with such diligence that
   there soon arose throughout the land towns with stately towers
   and strong walls, behind whose battlements the armed burghers
   defiantly awaited the Hungarians. Hamburg was then fortified,
   Itzehoe built, the walls of Magdeburg, Halle, and Erfurt
   extended, for these towns had stood since the time of
   Charlemagne. Quedlinburg, Merseburg, Meissen, Wittenberg,
   Goslar, Soest, Nordhausen, Duderstadt, Gronau, Pölde, were
   rebuilt, and many others of which the old chroniclers say
   nothing. Those who dwelt in the cities were called burghers,
   and in order that they might not be idle they began to
   practise many kinds of industry, and to barter their goods
   with the peasants. The emperor encouraged the building of
   towns, and granted emancipation to every slave who repaired to
   a town, allowed the towns to hold fairs and markets, granted
   to them the right of coining money and levying taxes, and gave
   them many landed estates and forests. Under such encouragement
   town life rapidly developed, and the emperor, in his disputes
   with the lawless nobility, always received loyal support from
   his disciplined burghers. After a few centuries the towns,
   which had now generally become republics, under the name of
   'free imperial towns,' became the seats of the perfection of
   European trade, science, and culture. … These incalculable
   benefits are due to Henry's order to build towns."

      _A. W. Grübe,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 8._

   At the expiration of the nine years truce, the Hungarians
   resumed their attacks, and were defeated by Henry in two
   bloody battles.

GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.
   Restoration of the Roman Empire by
   Otho I. called the Great.

   "Otho the Great, son and successor of Henry I., added the
   kingdom of Italy to the conquests of his father, and procured
   also the Imperial dignity for himself, and his successors in
   Germany. Italy had become a distinct kingdom since the
   revolution, which happened (888) at the death of the Emperor
   Charles the Fat. Ten princes in succession occupied the throne
   during the space of seventy-three years. Several of these
   princes, such as Guy, Lambert, Arnulf, Louis of Burgundy, and
   Berenger I., were invested with the Imperial dignity. Berenger
   I., having been assassinated (924), this latter dignity ceased
   entirely, and the city of Rome was even dismembered from the
   kingdom of Italy. The sovereignty of that city was seized by
   the famous Marozia, widow of a nobleman named Alberic. She
   raised her son to the pontificate by the title of John XI.;
   and the better to establish her dominion, she espoused Hugo
   King of Italy (932), who became, in consequence of this
   marriage, master of Rome. But Alberic, another son of Marozia,
   soon stirred up the people against this aspiring princess and
   her husband Hugo.
{1440}
   Having driven Hugo from the throne, and shut up his mother in
   prison, he assumed to himself the sovereign authority, under
   the title of Patrician of the Romans. At his death (954) he
   transmitted the sovereignty to his son Octavian, who, though
   only nineteen years of age, caused himself to be elected pope,
   by the title of John XII. This epoch was one most disastrous
   for Italy. The weakness of the government excited factions
   among the nobility, gave birth to anarchy, and fresh
   opportunity for the depredations of the Hungarians and Arabs,
   who, at this period, were the scourge of Italy, which they
   ravaged with impunity. Pavia, the capital of the kingdom, was
   taken, and burnt by the Hungarians. These troubles increased
   on the accession of Berenger II. (950), grandson of Berenger
   I. That prince associated his son Adelbert with him in the
   royal dignity; and the public voice accused them of having
   caused the death of King Lothaire, son and successor of Hugo.
   Lothaire left a young widow, named Adelaide, daughter of
   Rodolph II., King of Burgundy and Italy. To avoid the
   importunities of Berenger II., who wished to compel her to
   marry his son Adelbert, this princess called in the King of
   Germany to her aid. Otho complied with the solicitations of
   the distressed queen; and, on this occasion, undertook his
   first expedition into Italy (951). The city of Pavia, and
   several other places, having fallen into his hands, he made
   himself be proclaimed King of Italy, and married the young
   queen, his protégée. Berenger and his son, being driven for
   shelter to their strongholds, had recourse to negociation.
   They succeeded in obtaining for themselves a confirmation of
   the royal title of Italy, on condition of doing homage for it
   to the King of Germany. … It appears that it was not without
   the regret, and even contrary to the wish of Adelaide, that
   Otho agreed to enter into terms of accommodation with
   Berenger. … Afterwards; however, he lent a favourable ear to
   the complaints which Pope John XII. and some Italian noblemen
   had addressed to him against Berenger and his son; and took
   occasion, on their account, to conduct a new army into Italy
   (961). Berenger, too feeble to oppose him, retired a second
   time within his fortifications. Otho marched from Pavia to
   Milan, and there made himself be crowned King of Italy; from
   thence he passed to Rome, about the commencement of the
   following year. Pope John XII., who had himself invited him,
   and again implored his protection against Berenger, gave him,
   at first, a very brilliant reception; and revived the Imperial
   dignity in his favour, which had been dormant for thirty-eight
   years. It was on the 2d of February, 962, that the Pope
   consecrated and crowned him Emperor; but he had soon cause to
   repent of this proceeding. Otho, immediately after his
   coronation at Rome, undertook the siege of St. Leon, a
   fortress in Umbria, where Berenger and his queen had taken
   refuge. While engaged in the siege, he received frequent
   intimations from Rome, of the misconduct and immoralities of
   the Pope. The remonstrances which he thought it his duty to
   make on this subject, offended the young pontiff, who
   resolved, in consequence, to break off union with the Emperor.
   Hurried on by the impetuosity of his character, he entered
   into a negociation with Adelbert; and even persuaded him to
   come to Rome, in order to concert with him measures of
   defence. On the first news of this event, Otho put himself at
   the head of a large detachment, with which he marched directly
   to Rome. The Pope, however, did not think it advisable to wait
   his approach, but fled with the King, his new ally. Otho, on
   arriving at the capital, exacted a solemn oath from the clergy
   and the people, that henceforth they would elect no pope
   without his counsel, and that of the Emperor and his
   successors. Having then assembled a council, he caused Pope
   John XII. to be deposed; and Leo VIII. was elected in his
   place. This latter Pontiff was maintained in the papacy, in
   spite of all the efforts which his adversary made to regain
   it. Berenger II., after having sustained a long siege at St.
   Leon, fell at length (964) into the hands of the conqueror,
   who sent him into exile at Bamberg, and compelled his son,
   Adelbert, to take refuge in the court of Constantinople. All
   Italy, to the extent of the ancient kingdom of the Lombards,
   fell under the dominion of the Germans; only a few maritime
   towns in Lower Italy, with the greater part of Apulia and
   Calabria, still remained in the power of the Greeks. This
   kingdom, together with the Imperial dignity, Otho transmitted
   to his successors on the throne of Germany. From this time the
   Germans held it to be an inviolable principle, that as the
   Imperial dignity was strictly united with the royalty of
   Italy, kings elected by the German nation should, at the same
   time, in virtue of that election, become Kings of Italy and
   Emperors. The practice of this triple coronation, viz., of
   Germany, Italy, and Rome, continued for many centuries; and
   from Otho the Great, till Maximilian I. (1508), no king of
   Germany took the title of Emperor, until after he had been
   formally crowned by the Pope."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe,
      period 3._

   "At the first glance it would seem as if the relation in which
   Otho now stood to the pope was the same as that occupied by
   Charlemagne; on a closer inspection, however; we find a wide
   difference. Charlemagne's connexion with the see of Rome was
   produced by mutual need; it was the result of long epochs of
   political combination embracing the development of various
   nations; their mutual understanding rested on an internal
   necessity, before which all opposing views and interests gave
   way. The sovereignty of Otho the Great, on the contrary,
   rested on a principle fundamentally opposed to the
   encroachment of spiritual influences. The alliance was
   momentary; the disruption of it inevitable. But when, soon
   after, the same pope who had invoked his aid, John XII.,
   placed himself at the head of a rebellious faction, Otho was
   compelled to cause him to be formally deposed, and to crush
   the faction that supported him by repeated, exertions of
   force, before he could obtain perfect obedience; he was
   obliged to raise to the papal chair a pope on whose
   co-operation he could rely. The popes have often asserted that
   they transferred the empire to the Germans; and if they
   confined this assertion to the Carolingian race, they are not
   entirely wrong. The coronation of Charlemagne was the result
   of their free determination. But if they allude to the German
   emperors, properly so called, the contrary of their statement
   is just as true; not only Carlmann and Otho the Great, but
   their successors, constantly had to conquer the imperial
   throne, and to defend it, when conquered, sword in hand.
{1441}
   It has been said that the Germans would have done more wisely
   if they had not meddled with the empire; or, at least, if they
   had first worked out their own internal political
   institutions, and then, with matured minds, taken part in the
   general affairs of Europe. But the things of this world are
   not wont to develop themselves so methodically. A nation is
   often compelled by circumstances to increase its territorial
   extent, before its internal growth is completed. For was it of
   slight importance to its inward progress that Germany thus
   remained in unbroken connexion with Italy?—the depository of
   all that remained of ancient civilisation, the source whence
   all the forms of Christianity had been derived. The mind of
   Germany has always unfolded itself by contact with the spirit
   of antiquity, and of the nations of Roman origin. … The
   German imperial government revived the civilising and
   Christianising tendencies which had distinguished the reigns
   of Charles Martell and Charlemagne. Otho the Great, in
   following the course marked out by his illustrious
   predecessors, gave it a fresh national importance by planting
   German colonies in Slavonian countries simultaneously with the
   diffusion of Christianity. He Germanised as well as converted
   the population he had subdued. He confirmed his father's
   conquests on the Saale and the Elbe, by the establishment of
   the bishoprics of Meissen and Osterland. After having
   conquered the tribes on the other side the Elbe in those long
   and perilous campaigns where he commanded in person, he
   established there, too, three bishoprics, which for a time
   gave an extraordinary impulse to the progress of conversion.
   … And even where the project of Germanising the population
   was out of the question, the supremacy of the German name was
   firmly and actively maintained. In Bohemia and Poland
   bishoprics were erected under German metropolitans; from
   Hamburg Christianity found its way into the north;
   missionaries from Passau traversed Hungary, nor is it
   improbable that the influence of these vast and sublime
   efforts extended even to Russia. The German empire was the
   centre of the conquering religion; as itself advanced, it
   extended the ecclesiastico-military State of which the Church
   was an integral part; it was the chief representative of the
   unity of western Christendom, and hence arose the necessity
   under which it lay of acquiring a decided ascendancy over the
   papacy. This secular and Germanic principle long retained the
   predominancy it had triumphantly acquired. … How magnificent
   was the position now occupied by the German nation,
   represented in the persons of the mightiest princes of Europe
   and united under their sceptre; at the head of an advancing
   civilisation, and of the whole of western Christendom; in the
   fullness of youthful aspiring strength! We must here however
   remark and confess, that Germany did not wholly understand her
   position, nor fulfil her mission. Above all, she did not
   succeed in giving complete reality to the idea of a western
   empire, such as appeared about to be established under Otho I.
   Independent and often hostile, though Christian powers arose
   through all the borders of Germany; in Hungary and in Poland,
   in the northern as well as in the southern possessions of the
   Normans; England and France were snatched again from German
   influence. Spain laughed at the German claims to a universal
   supremacy; her kings thought themselves emperors; even the
   enterprises nearest home—those across the Elbe—were for a
   time stationary or retrograde. If we seek for the causes of
   these unfavourable results, we need only turn our eyes on the
   internal condition of the empire, where we find an incessant
   and tempestuous struggle of all the forces of the nation.
   Unfortunately the establishment of a fixed rule of succession
   to the imperial crown was continually prevented by events."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      introduction._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 961-1039;
      and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY.

GERMANY: A. D. 955.
   Great defeat and repulse of the Hungarians by Otho I.

      See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
   End of the Saxon line.
   Election of the Franconians.
   Reformation of the Papacy.
   Contest of Henry IV. with the Head of the Church.
   The question of Investitures.

   "Otho II. had a short and troubled reign, 973-983 A. D.,
   having to repress the Slavi, the Danes, the Greeks of Lower
   Italy, and to defend Lorraine against the French. He died at
   Rome in his twenty-eighth year. 983 A. D. Otho III. (aged
   three years) succeeded under the regency of his mother,
   Theophania (a Greek princess), who had to contend with the
   rebellious nobles, the Slavi, the Poles, the Bohemians, and
   with France, which desired to conquer Lorraine. This able lady
   died 991 A. D. Otho III. made three expeditions into Italy,
   and in 998 A. D. put down the republic of Rome, which had been
   created by the patrician Crescentius. The resistance of
   Crescentius had been pardoned the preceding year, but on this
   occasion he was publicly beheaded on the battlements of Rome,
   in view of the army and of the people. In 999 A. D. Otho
   placed his tutor Gerbert in the papal chair as Sylvester II.
   The tutor and the emperor were in advance of their age. The
   former had gleaned from Saracen translations from the Greek,
   as well as from Latin literature, and was master of the
   science of the day. It is supposed that they had planned to
   remove the seat of empire to Rome—a project which, had he
   lived, he would not have been able to carry out, for the
   centre of political power had long moved northward: he died at
   the early age of twenty-two, 1002 A. D. Henry II. (the Holy),
   Duke of Bavaria, was elected emperor, and had to battle, like
   his predecessors, with rebellious nobles, with the Poles, and
   Bohemians, and the Slavi. He was thrice in Italy, and died
   1024 A. D. 'Perhaps, with the single exception of St. Louis
   IX., there was no other prince of the middle ages so uniformly
   swayed by justice.' Conrad II. (the Salic) of Franconia was
   elected emperor in a diet in the plains between Mentz and
   Worms, near Oppenheim, which was attended by princes, nobles,
   and 50,000 people altogether. His reign was remarkable for the
   justice and mercy which he always kept in view. The kingdom of
   Aries and Burgundy was united to the empire, 1033 A. D. He
   checked the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Lombards, and gave
   Schleswiek to Denmark as a fief. In 1037 A. D. he granted to
   the lower vassals of the empire the hereditary succession to
   their offices and estates, and so extended the privileges of
   the great nobles, as to make them almost independent of the
   crown. Henry III. succeeded, 1039 A. D., and established the
   imperial power with a high hand."

      _W. B. Boyce,
      Introduction to the Study of History,
      pages 230-231._

{1442}

   "Henry III. was, as sovereign, able, upright, and resolute;
   and his early death—for his reign was cut short by disasters
   that preyed upon his health—is one of the calamities of
   history. The cause of the Roman Court he judged with vigor and
   good sense. His strong hand, more than any man's, dragged the
   Church out of the slough it had fallen into [see ROME: A. D.
   962-1057]. … A few years before, in 1033, a child ten years
   old, son of one of the noble houses, had been put on the papal
   throne, under the name of Benedict IX.; and was restored to it
   by force of arms, five years later, when he had grown into a
   lewd, violent, and wilful boy of fifteen. At the age of
   twenty-one he was weary of the struggle, and sold out, for a
   large sum of money paid down, to a rich purchaser,—first
   plundering the papal treasury of all the funds he could lay
   his hands on. His successor, Gregory VI., naturally complained
   of his hard bargain, which was made harder by another claimant
   (Sylvester III.), elected by a different party; while no law
   that could possibly be quoted or invented would make valid the
   purchase and sale of the spiritual sovereignty of the world,
   which in theory the Papacy still was. Gregory appears to have
   been a respectable and even conscientious magistrate, by the
   standard of that evil time. But his open purchase of the
   dignity not only gave a shock to whatever right feeling there
   was left, but it made the extraordinary dilemma and scandal of
   three popes at once,—a knot which the German king, now
   Emperor, was called in to cut. … The worthless Benedict was
   dismissed, as having betrayed his charge. The impotent
   Sylvester was not recognized at all. The respectable Gregory
   was duly convinced of his deep guilt of Simony,—because he
   had 'thought that the gift of God could be purchased with
   money,'—and was suffered as a penitent to end his days in
   peace. A fourth, a German ecclesiastic, who was clean of all
   these intrigues, was set in the chair of Peter, where he
   reigned righteously for two years under the name of Clement
   II."

      _J. H. Allen,
      Christian History in its Three Great Periods:
      Second period,
      pages 57-58._

   "With the popes of Henry's appointment a new and most powerful
   force rose to the control of the papacy—a strong and earnest
   movement for reformation which had arisen outside the circle
   of papal influence during the darkest days of its degradation,
   indeed, and entirely independent of the empire. This had
   started from the monastery of Cluny, founded in 910, in
   eastern France, as a reformation of the monastic life, but it
   involved gradually ideas of a wider reformation throughout the
   whole church. Two great sins of the time, as it regarded them,
   were especially attacked, the marriage of priests and simony,
   or the purchase of ecclesiastical preferment for money,
   including also appointments to church offices by temporal
   rulers. … The earnest spirit of Henry III. was not out of
   sympathy with the demand for a real reformation, and with the
   third pope of his appointment, Leo IX., in 1048, the ideas of
   Cluny obtained the direction of affairs. … One apparently
   insignificant act of Leo's had important consequences. He
   brought back with him to Rome the monk Hildebrand. He had been
   brought up in a monastery in Rome in the strictest ideas of
   Cluny, had been a supporter of Gregory VI., one of the three
   rival popes deposed by Henry, who, notwithstanding his
   outright purchase of the papacy, represented the new reform
   demand, and had gone with him into exile on his deposition. It
   does not appear that he exercised any decisive influence
   during the reign of Leo IX., but so great was his ability and
   such the power of his personality that very soon he became the
   directing spirit in the papal policy, though his influence
   over the papacy before his own pontificate was not so great
   nor so constant as it has sometimes been said to have been. So
   long as Henry lived the balance of power was decidedly in favor
   of the emperor, but in 1056 happened that disastrous event,
   which occurred so many times at critical points of imperial
   history, from Arnulf to Henry VI., the premature death of the
   emperor. His son, Henry IV., was only six years old at his
   father's death, and a minority followed just in the crisis of
   time needed to enable the feudal princes of Germany to recover
   and strengthen their independence against the central
   government, and to give free hands to the papacy to carry out
   its plans for throwing off the imperial control. Never again
   did an emperor occupy, in respect either to Germany or the
   papacy, the vantage-ground on which Henry III. had stood. …
   The triumph of the reform movement and of its ecclesiastical
   theory is especially connected with the name of Hildebrand, or
   Gregory VII., as he called himself when pope, and was very
   largely, if not entirely, due to his indomitable spirit and
   iron will, which would yield to no persuasion or threats or
   actual force. He is one of the most interesting personalities
   of history. … The three chief points which the reform party
   attempted to gain were the independence of the church from all
   outside control in the election of the pope, the celibacy of
   the clergy, and the abolition of simony or the purchase of
   ecclesiastical preferment. The foundation for the first of
   these was laid under Nicholas II. by assigning the selection
   of the pope to the college of cardinals in Rome, though it was
   only after some considerable time that this reform was fully
   secured. The second point, the celibacy of the clergy, had
   long been demanded by the church, but the requirement had not
   been strictly enforced, and in many parts of Europe married
   clergy were the rule. … As interpreted by the reformers, the
   third of their demands, the suppression of simony, was as great a
   step in advance and as revolutionary as the first.
   Technically, simony was the sin of securing an ecclesiastical
   office by bribery, named from the incident recorded in the
   eighth chapter of the Acts concerning Simon Magus. But at this
   time the desire for the complete independence of the church
   had given to it a new and wider meaning which made it include
   all appointment to positions in the church by laymen,
   including kings and the emperor. … According to the
   conception of the public law the bishop was an officer of the
   state. He had, in the great majority of cases, political
   duties to perform as important as his ecclesiastical duties.
   The lands which formed the endowment of his office had always
   been considered as being, still more directly than any other
   feudal land, the property of the state. …
{1443}
   It was a matter of vital importance whether officers
   exercising such important functions and controlling so large a
   part of its area—probably everywhere as much as one-third of
   the territory—should be selected by the state or by some
   foreign power beyond its reach and having its own peculiar
   interests to seek. But this question of lay investiture was as
   vitally important for the church as for the state. … It was
   as necessary to the centralization and independence of the
   church that it should choose these officers as that it should
   elect the head of all—the pope. This was not a question for
   Germany alone. Every northern state had to face the same
   difficulty. … The struggle was so much more bitter and
   obstinate with the emperor than with any other sovereign
   because of the close relation of the two powers one to
   another, and because the whole question of their relative
   rights was bound up with it. It was an act of rebellion on the
   part of the papacy against the sovereign, who had controlled
   it with almost absolute power for a century, and it was rising
   into an equal, or even superior, place beside the emperor of
   what was practically a new power, a rival for his imperial
   position. … It was absolutely impossible that a conflict
   with these new claims should be avoided as soon as Henry IV.
   arrived at an age to take the government into his own hands
   and attempted to exercise his imperial rights as he understood
   them."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization During the Middle Ages,
      chapter 10._

   "At Gregory's accession, he [Henry] was a young man of
   twenty-three. His violence had already driven a whole district
   into rebellion. … The Pope sided with the insurgents. He
   summoned the young king to his judgment-seat at Rome;
   threatened at his refusal to 'cut him off as a rotten limb';
   and passed on him the awful sentence of excommunication. The
   double terror of rebellion at home and the Church's curse at
   length broke down the passionate pride of Henry. Humbled and
   helpless, he crossed the Alps in midwinter, groping among the
   bleak precipices and ice-fields,—the peasants passing him in
   a rude sledge of hide down those dreadful slopes,—and went
   to beg absolution of Gregory at the mountain castle of
   Canossa. History has few scenes more dramatic than that which
   shows the proud, irascible, crest-fallen young sovereign
   confronted with the fiery, little, indomitable old man. To
   quote Gregory's own words:—'Here he came with few attendants,
   and for three days before the gate—his royal apparel laid
   aside, barefoot, clad in wool, and weeping abundantly—he
   never ceased to implore the aid and comfort of apostolic
   mercy, till all there present were moved with pity and
   compassion; insomuch that, interceding for him with many
   prayers and tears they all wondered at my strange severity,
   and some even cried out that it was not so much the severe
   dignity of an apostle as the cruel wrath of a tyrant. Overcome
   at length by the urgency of his appeal and the entreaties of
   all present, I relaxed the bond of anathema, and received him
   to the favor of communion and the bosom of our holy Mother the
   Church.' It was a truce which one party did not mean nor the
   other hope to keep. It was policy, not real terror or
   conviction, that had led Henry to humble himself before the
   Pope. It was policy, not contrition or compassion, that had
   led Gregory (against his better judgment, it is said) to
   accept his Sovereign's penance. In the war of policy, the man
   of the world prevailed. Freed of the Church's curse, he
   quickly won back the strength he had lost. He overthrew in
   battle the rival whom Gregory upheld. He swept his rebellious
   lands with sword and flame. He carried his victorious army to
   Rome, and was there crowned Emperor by a rival Pope [1084].
   Gregory himself was only saved by his ferocious allies, Norman
   and Saracen, at cost of the devastation of half the
   capital,—that broad belt of ruin which still covers the half
   mile between the Coliseum and the Lateran gate. Then, hardly
   rescued from the popular wrath, he went away to die, defeated
   and heart-broken, at Salerno, with the almost despairing words
   on his lips: 'I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and
   therefore I die in exile!' But 'a spirit hath not flesh or
   bones,' as a body hath, and so it will not stay mangled and
   bruised. The victory lay, after all, with the combatant who
   could appeal to fanaticism as well as force."

      _J. H. Allen,
      Christian History in its Three Great Periods:
      second period,
      pages 69-72._

   "Meanwhile, the Saxons had recognized Hermann of Luxemburg as
   their King, but in 1087 he resigned the crown: and another
   claimant, Eckbert, Margrave of Meissen, was murdered. The
   Saxons were now thoroughly' weary of strife, and as years and
   bitter experience had softened the character of Henry, they
   were the more willing to return to their allegiance. Peace was
   therefore, for a time, restored in Germany. The Papacy did not
   forgive Henry. He was excommunicated several times, and in
   1091 his son Conrad was excited to rebel against him. In 1104
   a more serious rebellion was headed by the Emperor's second
   son Henry, who had been crowned King, on promising not to
   seize the government during his father's lifetime, in 1099.
   The Emperor was treated very cruelly, and had to sign his own
   abdication at Ingelheim in 1105. A last effort was made on his
   behalf by the Duke of Lotharingia; but worn out by his sorrows
   and struggles, Henry died in August, 1106. His body lay in a
   stone coffin in an unconsecrated chapel at Speyer for five
   years. Not till 1111, when the sentence of excommunication was
   removed, was it properly buried. Henry V. was not so obedient
   to the Church as the Papal party had hoped. He stoutly
   maintained the very point which had brought so much trouble on
   his father. The right of investiture, he declared, had always
   belonged to his predecessors, and he was not to give up what
   they had handed on to him. In 1110 he went to Rome,
   accompanied by a large army. Next year Pope Paschal II. was
   forced to crown him Emperor: but as soon as the Germans had
   crossed the Alps again Paschal renewed all his old demands.
   The struggle soon spread to Germany. The Emperor was
   excommunicated; and the discontented princes, as eager as ever
   to break the royal power, sided with the Pope against him. Peace
   was not restored till 1122, when Calixtus II. was Pope. In
   that year, in a Diet held at Worms, both parties agreed to a
   compromise, called the Concordat of Worms."

      _J. Sime,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 8._

{1444}

   "The long-desired reconciliation was effected in the form of
   the following concordat. The emperor renounced the right of
   investiture with the ring and crosier, and conceded that all
   bishoprics of the empire should be filled by canonical
   election and free consecration; the election of the German
   bishops (not of the Italian and Burgundian) should be held in
   presence of the emperor; the bishops elect should receive
   investiture, but only of their fiefs and regalia, by the
   sceptre in Germany before, in Italy and in Burgundy after,
   their consecration; for these grants they should promise
   fidelity to the emperor; contested elections should be decided
   by the emperor in favour of him who should be considered by
   the provincial synod to possess the better right. Finally he
   should restore to the Roman Church all the possessions and
   regalia of St. Peter. This convention secured to the Church
   many things, and above all, the freedom of ecclesiastical
   elections. Hitherto, the different Churches had been compelled
   to give their consent to elections that had been made by the
   king; but now the king was pledged to consent to the elections
   made by the Churches; and although these elections took place
   in his presence, he could not refuse his consent and
   investiture without violating the treaty, in which he had
   promised that for the future elections should be according to
   the canons. This, and the great difference, that the king,
   when he gave the ring and crosier, invested the bishop elect
   with his chief dignity, namely, his bishopric, but now granted
   him by investiture with the sceptre, only the accessories,
   namely the regalia, was felt by Lothaire, the successor of
   Henry, when he required of pope Innocent II. the restoration
   of the right of investiture. Upon one important point, the
   homage which was to be sworn to the king, the concordat was
   silent. By not speaking of it, Calixtus seemed to tolerate it,
   and the Roman see therefore permitted it, although it had been
   prohibited by Urban and Paschal. It is certain that Calixtus
   was as fully convinced as his predecessors, that the condition
   of vassals, to which bishops and abbots were reduced by their
   oath of homage, could hardly be reconciled with the nature and
   dignity of the episcopacy, or with the freedom of the Church,
   but he perhaps foresaw, that by insisting too strongly upon
   its discontinuance, he might awaken again the unholy war, and
   without any hopes of benefit, inflict many evils upon the
   Church. Sometime later Adrian endeavoured to free the Italian
   bishops from the homage, instead of which, the emperor was to
   be content with an oath of fidelity: but Frederick I. would
   not renounce the homage unless they resigned the regalia. The
   greatest concession made by the papal see in this concordat,
   was, that by its silence it appeared to have admitted the
   former pretensions of the emperors to take a part in the
   election of the Roman pontiff. … In the following year the
   concordat was ratified in the great council of three hundred
   bishops, the ninth general council of the Church, which was
   convened by Calixtus in Rome."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 3, pages 345-347._

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      CANOSSA; ROME: A. D. 1081-1084;
      and SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      book 2._

      _Comte C. F. Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 19._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      books 6-8._

      _W. R. W. Stephens,
      Hildebrand and His Times._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4._

GERMANY: A. D. 1101.
   Disastrous Crusade under Duke Welf of Bavaria.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

GERMANY: A. D. 1125.
   Election of Lothaire II., King, afterwards Emperor.

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
   The rise of the College of Electors.

   The election of Lothaire II., in 1125, when a great assembly
   of nobles and church dignitaries was convened at Mentz, and
   when certain of the chiefs made a selection of candidates to
   be voted for, has been regarded by some historians—Hallam,
   Comyn and Dunham, for example—as indicating the origin of the
   German electoral college. They have held that a right of
   "pretaxation," or preliminary choice, was gradually acquired
   by certain princes, which grew into the finally settled
   electoral right. But this view is now looked upon as more than
   questionable, and is not supported by the best authorities.
   "The phrase electoral princes (electores principes) first
   occurs in the Privilegium majus Austriacum, which dates from
   1156, but it does not appear what princes were intended, and
   the accounts extant of the elections of the rival kings,
   Philip and Otho (IV.) in 1198, show beyond question that the
   right of election was not then limited to a few princes. The
   election of Frederick II. (1213) is only described by the
   authorities in general terms. They inform us that many princes
   took part in the proceedings. The following brief passage
   concerning the royal elections occurs in the Auctor Vetus de
   Beneficiis: 'When the king elected by the Germans goes to Rome
   to be 'consecrated (the) six princes who first cast their
   votes for him shall by rights accompany him that the justice
   of his election may be evident to the Pope.' The
   Sachsenspiegel Lehurecht substantially copies this sentence,
   but designates as the six princes: 'the Bishop of Mentz and of
   Treves and of Cologne, and the Palsgrave of the Rhine, the
   Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg.' The
   Sachsenspiegel of Landrecht is still more explicit: 'In voting
   for Emperor, the first shall be the Bishop of Mentz; the
   second, the (Bishop) of Treves; the third, the (Bishop) of
   Cologne. The first of the laymen to vote is the Palsgrave of
   the Rhine, the steward of the Empire; the second, the Duke of
   Saxony, the marshal; the third, the Margrave of Brandenburg,
   the chamberlain. The butler of the Empire (is) the King of
   Bohemia. He has no vote because he is not German.' The obvious
   inference is that these three temporal princes voted before
   the rest because they were respectively the steward, marshal,
   and chamberlain. In the chronicle of Albert of Stade, the
   inference is given as fact in these words: 'The Palsgrave
   votes because he is steward, the Duke of Saxony because (he
   is) marshal, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, because (he is)
   chamberlain.' The mere fact that the right of casting the
   first six votes attached to six particular princes implies
   that their votes greatly outweighed those of their
   fellow-princes, and this is well known to have been the case
   in all the elections held in the thirteenth century subsequent
   to that of Frederick II. Only two others were associated with
   them in the double election of Richard of Cornwall and
   Alphonso of Castile (1256), namely, the King of Bohemia and
   the Duke of Bavaria. The whole number of participants was
   therefore eight, yet Urban IV., in a letter written March 31,
   1263, to Richard of Cornwall, mentions the King of Bohemia
   alone as associated with them, and incidentally states that
   the 'princes having a voice' in the royal elections were
   'seven in number.' It seems as if this must have been the
   statement of an idea rather than of a fact, although a college
   of seven electors was a recognized institution ten years
   later, as the circumstances attending the election of Rudolph
   of Hapsburg, demonstrate."

      _S. E. Turner,
      A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution,
      chapter 4._

{1445}

   The Mark of Brandenburg was raised to the rank of an
   Electorate in 1356—not in 1152 as erroneously stated by
   Carlyle. The Margraf then became Kurfürst—"one of the Seven
   who have a right … to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser;
   and who are therefore called Kur Princes, Kurfürste, or
   Electors. … Fürst (prince) I suppose is equivalent
   originally to our noun of number, 'First.' The old verb
   'kieren' (participle 'erkoren' still in use, not to mention
   'Val-kyr' and other instances) is essentially the same word as
   our 'choose,' being written 'kiesen' as well as 'kieren.' Nay,
   say the etymologists, it is also written 'Küssen ('to
   kiss,'—to choose with such emphasis!), and is not likely to
   fall obsolete in that form.—The other Six Electoral
   Dignitaries, who grew to Eight by degrees, and may be worth
   noting once by the readers of this book, are:

   1. Three Ecclesiastical, Mainz, Cöln, Trier (Mentz, Cologne,
   Treves), Archbishops all. …

   2. Three Secular, Sachsen, Pfalz, Böhmen (Saxony, Palatinate,
   Bohemia); of which the last, Böhmen, since it fell from being
   a kingdom in itself, to being a Province of Austria, is not
   very vocal in the Diets.

   These Six, with Brandenburg, are the Seven Kurfürsts in old
   time; Septemvirs of the Country, so to speak. But now Pfalz,
   in the Thirty-Years War (under our Prince Rupert's Father,
   whom the Germans call the 'Winter-King'), got abrogated, put
   to the ban, so far as an indignant Kaiser could; and the vote
   and Kur of Pfalz was given to his Cousin of Baiern
   (Bavaria),—so far as an indignant Kaiser could.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

   However, at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) it was found
   incompetent to any Kaiser to abrogate Pfalz or the like of
   Pfalz, a Kurfürst of the Empire. So, after jargon
   inconceivable, it was settled, that Pfalz must be reinstated,
   though with territories much clipped, and at the bottom of the
   list, not the top as formerly; and that Baiern, who could not
   stand to be balked after twenty-years possession, must be made
   Eighth Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

   The Ninth, we saw (Year 1692), was Gentleman Ernst of Hanover.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.

   There never was any Tenth."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 4._

   "All the rules and requisites of the election were settled by
   Charles the Fourth in the Golden Bull [A. D. 1356—see below:
   A. D. 1347-1493], thenceforward a fundamental law of the
   Empire."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 14._

GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
   The house of Suabia, or the Hohenstaufen.
   Its struggles in Germany and Italy, and its end.
   The Factions of the
   Guelfs and Ghibellines.
   Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick the Second.

   On the death of Henry V., in 1125, the male line of the house
   of Franconia became extinct. Frederick, duke of Suabia, and
   his brother Conrad, duke of the Franks, were grandchildren of
   Henry IV. on their mother's side, and, inheriting the
   patrimonial estates, were plainly the heirs of the crown, if
   the crown was to be recognized as hereditary and dynastic. But
   jealousy of their house and a desire to reassert the elective
   dependence of the imperial office prevailed against their
   claims and their ambition. At an election which was denounced
   as irregular, the choice fell upon Lothaire of Saxony. The old
   imperial family was not only set aside, but its bitterest
   enemies were raised over it. The consequences were a feud and
   a struggle which grew and widened into the long-lasting,
   far-reaching, historical conflict of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
      also, SAXONY: DISSOLUTION OF THE OLD DUCHY.

   The Saxon emperor Lothaire found his strongest support in the
   great Wölf, Welf, or Guelf nobleman, Henry the Proud, duke of
   Bavaria, to whom he (Lothaire) now gave his daughter in
   marriage, together with the dukedom of Saxony, and whom he
   intended to make his successor on the imperial throne. But the
   scheme failed. On Lothaire's death, in 1138, the partisans of
   the Suabian family carried the election of Conrad (the
   Crusader—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149), and the dynasty most
   commonly called Hohenstaufen rose to power. It took the name
   of Hohenstaufen from its original family seat on the lofty
   hill of Staufen, in Suabia, overlooking the valley of the
   Rems. Its party, in the wars and factions of the time,
   received the name of the Waiblingen, from the birth-place of
   the Suabian duke Frederick—the little town of Waiblingen in
   Franconia. Under the tongue of the Italians, when these party
   names and war-cries were carried across the Alps, Waiblingen
   became Ghibelline and Welf became Guelf. During the first half
   century of the reign of the Hohenstaufen, the history of
   Germany is the history, for the most part, of the strife in
   which the Guelf dukes, Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, are
   the central figures, and which ended in the breaking up of the
   old powerful duchy of Saxony. But Italy was the great
   historical field of the energies and the ambitions of the
   Hohenstaufen emperors. There, Frederick Barbarossa (Frederick
   Red beard, as the Italians called him), the second of the
   line, and Frederick II., his adventurous grandson, fought
   their long, losing battle with the popes and with the
   city-republics of Lombardy and Tuscany.

      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen._

   Frederick Barbarossa, elected Emperor in 1152, passed into
   Italy in 1154. "He came there on the invitation of the Pope,
   of the Prince of Capua, and of the towns which had been
   subjected to the ambition of Milan. He marched at the head of
   his German feudatories, a splendid and imposing array. His
   first object was to crush the power of Milan, and to exalt
   that of Pavia, the head of a rival league. Nothing could stand
   against him. At Viterbo he was compelled to hold the stirrup
   of the Pope, and in return for this submission he received the
   crown from the Pontiff's hands in the Basilica of St. Peter.
   He returned northwards by the valley of the Tiber, dismissed
   his army at Ancona, and with difficulty escaped safely into
   Bavaria. His passage left little that was solid and durable
   behind it. He had effected nothing against the King of Naples.
   His friendship with the Pope was illusory and short-lived. The
   dissensions of the North, which had been hushed for a moment
   by his presence, broke out again as soon as his back was
   turned. He had, however, received the crown of Charles the
   Great from the hands of the successor of St. Peter. But
   Frederick was not a man to brook easily the miscarriage of his
   designs. In 1158 he collected another army at Ulm. Brescia was
   quickly subdued; Lodi, which had been destroyed by the
   Milanese, was rebuilt, and Milan itself was reduced to terms.
{1446}
   This peace lasted but for a short time; Milan revolted, and
   was placed under the ban of the Empire. The fate of Cremona
   taught the Milanese what they had to expect from the clemency
   of the Emperor. After a desultory warfare, regular siege was
   laid to the town. On March 1, 1162, Milan, reduced by famine,
   surrendered at discretion, and a fortnight later all the
   inhabitants were ordered to leave the town. The circuit of the
   walls was partitioned out among the most pitiless enemies of
   its former greatness, and the inhabitants of Lodi, of Cremona,
   of Pavia, of Novara, and of Como were encouraged to wreak
   their vengeance on their defeated rival. For six days the
   imperial army laboured to overturn the walls and public
   buildings, and when the Emperor left for Pavia, on Palm Sunday
   1162, not a fiftieth part of the city was standing. This terrible
   vengeance produced a violent reaction. The homeless fugitives
   were received by their ancient enemies, and local jealousies
   were merged in common hatred of the common foe. Frederick had
   already been excommunicated by Pope Alexander III. as the
   supporter of his rival Victor. Verona undertook to be the
   public vindicator of discontent. Five years after the
   destruction of Milan the Lombard league numbered fifteen towns
   amongst its members. Venice, Verona, Vicenza, Treviso,
   Ferrara, Brescia, Bergamo, Cremona, Milan, Lodi, Piacenza,
   Parma, Modena, and Bologna. The confederation solemnly engaged
   to expel the Emperor from Italy. The towns on the frontier of
   Piedmont asked and obtained admission to the league, and to
   mark the dawn of freedom a new town was founded on the low
   marshy ground which is drained by the Bormida and the Tanaro,
   and which afterwards witnessed the victory of Marengo. It was
   named by its founders Alessandria, in honour of the Pope, who
   had vindicated their independence of the Empire. … The
   Lombard league had unfortunately a very imperfect
   constitution. It had no common treasure, no uniform rules for
   the apportionment of contributions; it existed solely for the
   purposes of defence against the external foe. The time was not
   yet come when self-sacrifice and self-abnegation could lay the
   foundations of a united Italy. Frederick spent six years in
   preparing vengeance. In 1174 he laid siege to the new
   Alexandria, but did not succeed in taking it. A severe
   struggle took place two years later. In 1176 a new army
   arrived from Germany, and on May 29 Frederick Barbarossa was
   entirely defeated at Legnano. In 1876 the seventh hundred
   anniversary of the battle was celebrated on the spot where it
   was gained, and it is still regarded as the birthday of
   Italian freedom."

      _O. Browning,
      Guelphs and Ghibellines,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162 to 1174-1183.

   "The end was that the Emperor had to make peace with both the
   Pope and the cities, and in 1183 the rights of the cities were
   acknowledged in a treaty or law of the Empire, passed at
   Constanz or Constance in Swabia. In the last years of his
   reign, Frederick went on the third Crusade, and died on the
   way.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

   Frederick was succeeded by his son Henry the Sixth, who had
   already been chosen King, and who in the next year, 1191, was
   crowned Emperor. The chief event of his reign was the conquest
   of the Kingdom of Sicily, which he claimed in right of his
   wife Constance, the daughter of the first King William. He
   died in 1197, leaving his son Frederick a young child, who had
   already been chosen King in Germany, and who succeeded as
   hereditary King in Sicily. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily thus
   came to an end, except so far as it was continued through
   Frederick, who was descended from the Norman Kings through his
   mother. On the death of the Emperor Henry, the election of
   young Frederick seems to have been quite forgotten, and the
   crown was disputed between his uncle Philip of Swabia and Otto
   of Saxony. He was son of Henry the Lion, who had been Duke of
   Saxony and Bavaria, but who had lost the more part of his
   dominions in the time of Frederick Barbarossa. Otto's mother
   was Matilda, daughter of Henry the Second of England. … Both
   Kings were crowned, and, after the death of Philip, Otto was
   crowned Emperor in 1209. But presently young Frederick was
   again chosen, and in 1220 he was crowned Emperor, and reigned
   thirty years till his death in 1250. This Frederick the
   Second, who joined together so many crowns, was called the
   Wonder of the World. And he well deserved the name, for
   perhaps no King that ever reigned had greater natural gifts,
   and in thought and learning he was far above the age in which
   he lived. In his own kingdom of Sicily he could do pretty much
   as he pleased, and it flourished wonderfully in his time. But in
   Germany and Italy he had constantly to struggle against
   enemies of all kinds. In Germany he had to win the support of
   the Princes by granting them privileges which did much to
   undermine the royal power, and on the other hand he showed no
   favour to the rising power of the cities. In Italy he had
   endless strivings with one Pope after another, with Innocent
   the Third; Honorius the Third, Gregory the Ninth, and Innocent
   the Fourth; as well as with the Guelfic cities, which
   withstood him much as they had withstood his grandfather. He
   was more than once excommunicated by the Popes, and in 1245
   Pope Innocent the Fourth held a Council at Lyons, in which he
   professed to depose the Emperor. More than one King was chosen
   in opposition to him in Germany, just as had been done in the
   time of Henry the Fourth, and there were civil wars all his
   time, both in Germany and in Italy, while a great part of the
   Kingdom of Burgundy was beginning to slip away from the Empire
   altogether."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      General Sketch of European History,
      chapter 11._

   "It is probable that there never lived a human being endowed
   with greater natural gifts, or whose natural gifts were,
   according to the means afforded him by his age, more
   sedulously cultivated, than the last Emperor of the House of
   Swabia. There seems to be no aspect of human nature which was
   not developed to the highest degree in his person. In
   versatility of gifts, in what we may call manysidedness of
   character, he appears as a sort of mediæval Alkibiadês, while
   he was undoubtedly far removed from Alkibiadês' utter lack of
   principle or steadiness of any kind. Warrior, statesman,
   lawgiver, scholar, there was nothing in the compass of the
   political or intellectual world of his age which he failed to
   grasp. In an age of change, when, in every corner of Europe
   and civilized Asia, old kingdoms, nations, systems, were
   falling and new ones rising, Frederick was emphatically the
   man of change, the author of things new and unheard of—he was
   stupor mundi et immutator mirabilis.
{1447}
   A suspected heretic, a suspected Mahometan, he was the subject
   of all kinds of absurd and self-contradictory charges; but the
   charges mark real features in the character of the man. He was
   something unlike any other Emperor or any other man. … Of
   all men, Frederick the Second might have been expected to be
   the founder of something, the beginner of some new era,
   political or intellectual. He was a man to whom some great
   institution might well have looked back as its creator, to
   whom some large body of men, some sect or party or nation,
   might well have looked back as their prophet or founder or
   deliverer. But the most gifted of the sons of men has left
   behind him no such memory, while men whose gifts cannot bear a
   comparison with his are reverenced as founders by grateful
   nations, churches, political and philosophical parties.
   Frederick in fact founded nothing, and he sowed the seeds of
   the destruction of many things. His great charters to the
   spiritual and temporal princes of Germany dealt the death-blow
   to the Imperial power, while he, to say the least, looked
   coldly on the rising power of the cities and on those
   commercial Leagues which were in his time the best element of
   German political life. In fact, in whatever aspect we look at
   Frederick the Second, we find him, not the first, but the
   last, of every series to which he belongs. An English writer
   [Capgrave], two hundred years after his time, had the
   penetration to see that he was really the last Emperor. He was
   the last Prince in whose style the Imperial titles do not seem
   a mockery; he was the last under whose rule the three Imperial
   kingdoms retained any practical connexion with one another and
   with the ancient capital of all. … He was not only the last
   Emperor of the whole Empire; he might almost be called the
   last King of its several Kingdoms. After his time Burgundy
   vanishes as a kingdom. … Italy too, after Frederick,
   vanishes as a kingdom; any later exercise of the royal
   authority in Italy was something which came and went wholly by
   fits and starts. … Germany did not utterly vanish, or utterly
   split in pieces, like the sister kingdoms; but after Frederick
   came the Great Interregnum, and after the Great Interregnum
   the royal power in Germany never was what it had been before.
   In his hereditary Kingdom of Sicily he was not absolutely the
   last of his dynasty, for his son Manfred ruled prosperously
   and gloriously for some years after his death. But it is none
   the less clear that from Frederick's time the Sicilian Kingdom
   was doomed. … Still more conspicuously than all was
   Frederick the last Christian King of Jerusalem, the last
   baptized man who really ruled the Holy Land or wore a crown in
   the Holy City. … In the world of elegant letters Frederick
   has some claim to be looked on as the founder of that modern
   Italian language and literature which first assumed a
   distinctive shape at his Sicilian court. But in the wider
   field of political history Frederick appears nowhere as a
   creator, but rather everywhere as an involuntary destroyer.
   … Under Frederick the Empire and everything connected with
   it seems to crumble and decay while preserving its external
   splendour. As soon as its brilliant possessor is gone, it at
   once falls asunder. It is a significant fact that one who in
   mere genius, in mere accomplishments, was surely the greatest
   prince who ever wore a crown, a prince who held the greatest
   place on earth, and who was concerned during a long reign in
   some of the greatest transactions of one of the greatest ages,
   seems never, even from his own flatterers, to have received
   that title of Great which has been so lavishly bestowed on far
   smaller men. … Many causes combined to produce this singular
   result, that a man of the extraordinary genius of Frederick,
   and possessed of every advantage of birth, office, and
   opportunity, should have had so little direct effect upon the
   world. It is not enough to attribute his failure to the many
   and great faults of his moral character. Doubtless they were
   one cause among others. But a man who influences future ages
   is not necessarily a good man. … The weak side in the
   brilliant career of Frederick is one which seems to have been
   partly inherent in his character, and partly the result of the
   circumstances in which he found himself. Capable of every
   part, and in fact playing every part by turns, he had no
   single definite object, pursued honestly and steadfastly,
   throughout his whole life. With all his powers, with all his
   brilliancy, his course throughout life seems to have been in a
   manner determined for him by others. He was ever drifting into
   wars, into schemes of policy, which seem to be hardly ever of
   his own choosing. He was the mightiest and most dangerous
   adversary that the Papacy ever had. But he does not seem to
   have withstood the Papacy from any personal choice, or as the
   voluntary champion of any opposing principle. He became the
   enemy of the Papacy, he planned schemes which involved the
   utter overthrow of Papacy, yet he did so simply because he
   found that no Pope would ever let him alone. … The most
   really successful feature in Frederick's career, his
   acquisition of Jerusalem [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229], is
   not only a mere episode in his life, but it is something that
   was absolutely forced upon him against his will. … With
   other Crusaders the Holy War was, in some cases, the main
   business of their lives; in all cases it was something
   seriously undertaken as a matter either of policy or of
   religious duty. But the Crusade of the man who actually did
   recover the Holy City is simply a grotesque episode in his
   life. Excommunicated for not going, excommunicated again for
   going, excommunicated again for coming back, threatened on
   every side, he still went, and he succeeded. What others had
   failed to win by arms, he contrived to win by address, and all
   that came of his success was that it was made the ground of
   fresh accusations against him. … For a man to influence his
   age, he must in some sort belong to his age. He should be
   above it, before it, but he should not be foreign to it. …
   But Frederick belongs to no age; intellectually he is above
   his own age, above every age; morally it can hardly be denied
   that he was below his age; but in nothing was he of his age."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Emperor Frederick the Second
      (Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10)._

   For an account of Frederick's brilliant Sicilian court, and of
   some of the distinguishing features of his reign in Southern
   Italy, as well as of the end of his family, in the tragical
   deaths of his son Manfred and his grandson Conradin (1268).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

      ALSO IN:
      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick the Second._

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 10-13._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8, chapter 7, and book 9._

{1448}

GERMANY: A. D. 1142-1152.
   Creation of the Electorate of Brandenburg.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

GERMANY: A. D. 1156.
   The Margravate of Austria created a Duchy.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

GERMANY: A. D. 1180-1214.
   Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine acquired by the house
   of Wittelsbach.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

GERMANY: A. D. 1196-1197.
   The Fourth Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

GERMANY: 13th Century.
   The rise of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

GERMANY: 13th Century.
   Cause of the multiplication of petty principalities and
   states.

   "While the duchies and counties of Germany retained their
   original character of offices or governments, they were of
   course, even though considered as hereditary, not subject to
   partition among children. When they acquired the nature of
   fiefs, it was still consonant to the principles of a feudal
   tenure that the eldest son should inherit according to the law
   of primogeniture; an inferior provision or appanage, at most,
   being reserved for the younger children. The law of England
   favoured the eldest exclusively; that of France gave him great
   advantages. But in Germany a different rule began to prevail
   about the thirteenth century. An equal partition of the
   inheritance, without the least regard to priority of birth,
   was the general law of its principalities. Sometimes this was
   effected by undivided possession, or tenancy in common; the
   brothers residing together, and reigning jointly. This tended
   to preserve the integrity of dominion; but as it was
   frequently incommodious, a more usual practice was to divide
   the territory. From such partitions are derived those numerous
   independent principalities of the same house, many of which still
   subsist in Germany. In 1589 there were eight reigning princes
   of the Palatine family; and fourteen, in 1675, of that of
   Saxony. Originally these partitions were in general absolute
   and without reversion; but, as their effect in weakening
   families became evident, a practice was introduced of making
   compacts of reciprocal succession, by which a fief was
   prevented from escheating to the empire, until all the male
   posterity of the first feudatory should be extinct. Thus,
   while the German empire survived, all the princes of Hesse or
   of Saxony had reciprocal contingencies of succession, or what
   our lawyers call cross-remainders, to each other's dominions.
   A different system was gradually adopted. By the Golden Bull
   of Charles IV. the electoral territory, that is, the
   particular district to which the electoral suffrage was
   inseparably attached, became incapable of partition, and was
   to descend to the eldest son. In the 15th century the present
   house of Brandenburg set the first example of establishing
   primogeniture by law; the principalities of Anspach and
   Bayreuth were dismembered from it for the benefit of younger
   branches; but it was declared that all the other dominions of
   the family should for the future belong exclusively to the
   reigning elector. This politic measure was adopted in several
   other families; but, even in the 16th century, the prejudice
   was not removed, and some German princes denounced curses on
   their posterity, if they should introduce the impious custom
   of primogeniture. … Weakened by these subdivisions, the
   principalities of Germany in the 14th and 15th centuries
   shrink to a more and more diminutive size in the scale of
   nations."

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

      See, also,
      CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

GERMANY: A. D. 1212.
   The Children's Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

GERMANY: A. D. 1231-1315.
   Relations of the Swiss Forest Cantons to the Empire and to the
   House of Austria.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
   Degradation of the Holy Roman Empire.
   The Great Interregnum.
   Anarchy and disorder universal.
   Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

   "With Frederick [the Second] fell the Empire. From the ruin
   that overwhelmed the greatest of its houses it emerged, living
   indeed, and destined to a long life, but so shattered,
   crippled, and degraded, that it could never more be to Europe
   and to Germany what it once had been. … The German kingdom
   broke down beneath the weight of the Roman Empire. To be
   universal sovereign Germany had sacrificed her own political
   existence. The necessity which their projects in Italy and
   disputes with the Pope laid the Emperors under of purchasing
   by concessions the support of their own princes, the ease with
   which in their absence the magnates could usurp, the
   difficulty which the monarch returning found in resuming the
   privileges of his crown, the temptation to revolt and set up
   pretenders to the throne which the Holy See held out, these
   were the causes whose steady action laid the foundation of
   that territorial independence which rose into a stable fabric
   at the era of the Great Interregnum. Frederick II. had, by two
   Pragmatic Sanctions, A. D. 1220 and 1232, granted, or rather
   confirmed, rights already customary, such as to give the
   bishops and nobles legal sovereignty in their own towns and
   territories, except when the Emperor should be present; and
   thus his direct jurisdiction became restricted to his narrowed
   domain, and to the cities immediately dependent on the crown.
   With so much less to do, an Emperor became altogether a less
   necessary personage; and hence the seven magnates of the
   realm, now by law or custom sole electors, were in no haste to
   fill up the place of Conrad IV., whom the supporters of his
   father Frederick had acknowledged. William of Holland [A. D.
   1254] was in the field, but rejected by the Swabian party: on
   his death a new election was called for, and at last set on
   foot. The archbishop of Cologne advised his brethren to choose
   some one rich enough to support the dignity, not strong enough
   to be feared by the electors: both requisites met in the
   Plantagenet Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of the English
   Henry III. He received three, eventually four votes, came to
   Germany, and was crowned at Aachen [A. D. 1256]. But three of
   the electors, finding that his bribe to them was lower than to
   the others, seceded in disgust, and chose Alfonso X. of
   Castile, who, shrewder than his competitor, continued to watch
   the stars at Toledo, enjoying the splendours of his title
   while troubling himself about it no further than to issue now
   and then a proclamation. Meantime the condition of Germany was
   frightful. The new Didius Julianus, the chosen of princes
   baser than the prætorians whom they copied, had neither the
   character nor the outward power and resources to make himself
   respected. Every floodgate of anarchy was opened: prelates and
   barons extended their domains by war: robber-knights infested
   the highways and the rivers: the misery of the weak, the
   tyranny and violence of the strong, were such as had not been
   seen for centuries.
{1449}
   Things were even worse than under the Saxon and Franconian
   Emperors; for the petty nobles who had then been in some
   measure controlled by their dukes were now, after the
   extinction of the great houses, left without any feudal
   superior. Only in the cities was shelter or peace to be found.
   Those of the Rhine had already leagued themselves for mutual
   defence, and maintained a struggle in the interests of
   commerce and order against universal brigandage. At last, when
   Richard had been some time dead, it was felt that such things
   could not go on for ever: with no public law, and no courts of
   justice, an Emperor, the embodiment of legal government, was
   the only resource. The Pope himself, having now sufficiently
   improved the weakness of his enemy, found the disorganization
   of Germany beginning to tell upon his revenues, and threatened
   that if the electors did not appoint an Emperor, he would.
   Thus urged, they chose, in 1272 [1273?], Rudolf, count of
   Hapsburg, founder of the house of Austria. From this point
   there begins a new era. We have seen the Roman Empire revived
   in A. D. 800, by a prince whose vast dominions gave ground to
   his claim of universal monarchy; again erected, in A. D. 962,
   on the narrower but firmer basis of the German kingdom. We
   have seen Otto the Great and his successors during the three
   following centuries, a line of monarchs of unrivalled vigour
   and abilities, strain every nerve to make good the pretensions
   of their office against the rebels in Italy and the
   ecclesiastical power. Those efforts had now failed signally
   and hopelessly. Each successive Emperor had entered the strife
   with resources scantier than his predecessors, each had been
   more decisively vanquished by the Pope, the cities, and the
   princes. The Roman Empire might, and, so far as its practical
   utility was concerned, ought now to have been suffered to
   expire; nor could it have ended more gloriously than with the
   last of the Hohenstaufen. That it did not so expire, but lived
   on 600 years more, till it became a piece of antiquarianism
   hardly more venerable than ridiculous—till, as Voltaire said,
   all that could be said about it was that it was neither holy,
   nor Roman, nor an empire—was owing partly indeed to the
   belief, still unshaken, that it was a necessary part of the
   world's order, yet chiefly to its connection, which was by
   this time indissoluble, with the German kingdom. The Germans
   had confounded the two characters of their sovereign so long,
   and had grown so fond of the style and pretensions of a
   dignity whose possession appeared to exalt them above the
   other peoples of Europe, that it was now too late for them to
   separate the local from the universal monarch. If a German
   king was to be maintained at all, he must be Roman Emperor;
   and a German king there must still be. … That head, however,
   was no longer what he had been. The relative position of
   Germany and France was now exactly the reverse of that which
   they had occupied two centuries earlier. Rudolf was as
   conspicuously a weaker sovereign than Philip III. of France,
   as the Franconian Emperor Henry III. had been stronger than
   the Capetian Philip I. In every other state of Europe the
   tendency of events had been to centralize the administration
   and increase the power of the monarch, even in England not to
   diminish it: in Germany alone had political union become
   weaker, and the independence of the princes more confirmed."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
   The first Hapsburg kings of the Romans, Rodolph and Albert.

   The choice made (A. D. 1273) by the German Electors of Rodolph
   of Hapsburg for King of the Romans (see AUSTRIA: A. D.
   1246-1282), was duly approved and confirmed by Pope Gregory
   X., who silenced, by his spiritual admonitions, the rival
   claims of King Alfonso of Castile. But Rodolph, to secure this
   papal confirmation of his title, found it necessary to
   promise, through his ambassadors, a renewal of the
   Capitulation of Otho IV., respecting the temporalities of the
   Pope. This he repeated in person, on meeting the Pope at
   Lausanne, in 1275, On that occasion, "an agreement was entered
   into which afterwards ratified to the Church the long disputed
   gift of Charlemagne, comprising Ravenna, Æmilia, Bobbio,
   Cesena, Forumpopoli, Forli, Faenza, Imola, Bologna, Ferrara,
   Comacchio, Adria, Rimini, Urbino, Monteferetro, and the
   territory of Bagno. Rodolph also bound himself to protect the
   privileges of the Church, and to maintain the freedom of
   Episcopal elections, and the right of appeal in all
   ecclesiastical causes; and having stipulated for receiving the
   imperial crown in Rome he promised to undertake an expedition
   to the holy land. If Rodolph were sincere in these last
   engagements, the disturbed state of his German dominions
   afforded him an apology for their present non-fulfilment: but
   there is good reason for believing that he never intended to
   visit either Rome or Palestine; and his indifference to Italy
   has even been the theme of panegyric with his admirers. The
   repeated and mortifying reverses of the two Frederics were
   before his eyes; there was little to excite his sympathy with
   the Italians; and though Lombardy seemed ready to acknowledge
   his supremacy, the Tuscan cities evinced aspirations after
   independence." During the early years of Rodolph's reign he
   was employed in establishing his authority, as against the
   contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia, and the Duke of Bavaria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

   Meantime, Gregory X. and three short-lived successors in the
   papal office passed away, and Nicholas III. had come to it
   (1277). That vigorous pontiff called Rodolph to account for
   not having yet surrendered the states of the Church in due
   form, and whispered a hint of excommunication and interdict.
   "Rodolph was too prudent to disregard this admonition: he
   evaded the projected crusade and journey to Rome; but he took
   care to send thither an emissary, who in his name surrendered
   to the Pope the territory already agreed on. … During his
   entire reign Rodolph maintained his indifference towards
   Italy." His views "were rather directed to the wilds of
   Hungary and Germany than to the delicious regions of the
   south. … He compelled Philip, Count of Savoy, to surrender
   Morat, Payerne, and Guminen, which had been usurped from the
   Empire. By a successful expedition across the Jura, he brought
   back to obedience Otho IV. Count of Burgundy; and forced him
   to renounce the allegiance he had proffered to Philip III.
   King of France. … He crushed an insurrection headed by an
   impostor, who had persuaded the infatuated multitude to
   believe that he was the Emperor Frederic II.
{1450}
   And he freed his dominions from rapine and desolation by the
   destruction of several castles, whose owners infested the
   country with their predatory incursions." Before his death, in
   1291, Rodolph "grew anxious to secure to his son Albert the
   succession to the throne, and his nomination by the Electors
   ere the grave closed upon himself. … But all his entreaties
   were unavailing; he was coldly reminded that he himself was
   still the 'King,' and that the Empire was too poor to support
   two kings. Rodolph might now repent his neglect to assume the
   imperial crown: but the character of Albert seems to have been
   the real obstacle to his elevation. With many of the great
   qualities of his father, this prince was deficient in his
   milder virtues; and his personal bravery and perseverance were
   tainted with pride, haughtiness; and avarice." On Rodolph's
   death, the Electors chose for his successor Adolphus, Count of
   Nassau, a choice of which they soon found reason to repent. By
   taking pay from Edward I. of England, for an alliance with the
   latter against the King of France, and by attempts to enforce
   a purchased claim upon the Landgraviate of Thuringia, Adolphus
   brought himself into contempt, and in 1298 he was solemnly
   deposed by the Electors, who now conferred the kingship upon
   Albert of Austria whom they had rejected six years before.
   "The deposed sovereign was, however, strongly supported; and
   he promptly collected his adherents, and marched at the head
   of a vast army against Albert, who was not unprepared for his
   reception. A great battle took place at Gelheim, near Worms;
   and, after a bloody contest, the troops of Adolphus were
   entirely defeated," and he himself was slain. But Albert, now
   unopposed in Germany, found his title disputed at Rome.
   Boniface VIII., the most arrogant of all popes, refused to
   acknowledge the validity of his election, and drove him into a
   close alliance with the Pope's implacable and finally
   triumphant enemy, Philip IV. of France (see PAPACY: A. D.
   1294-1348). He was soon at enmity, moreover, with a majority
   of the Electors who had given the crown to him, and they,
   stimulated by the Pope, were preparing to depose him, as they
   had deposed Adolphus. But Albert's energy broke up their
   plans. He humbled their leader, the Archbishop-Elector of
   Mentz, and the rest became submissive. The Pope now came to
   terms with him, and invited him to Rome to receive the
   imperial crown; also offering to him the crown of France, if
   he would take it from the head of the excommunicated Philip;
   but while these proposals were under discussion, Boniface
   suffered humiliations at the hands of the French king which
   caused his death. During most of his reign, Albert was busy
   with undertakings of ambition and rapacity which had no
   success. He attempted to seize the counties of Holland,
   Zealand, and Friesland, as fiefs reverting to the crown, on
   the death of John, Count of Holland, in 1299. He claimed the
   Bohemian crown in 1306, when Wenceslaus V., the young king,
   was assassinated, and invaded the country; but only to be
   beaten back. He was defeated at Lucka, in 1308, when
   attempting to grasp the inheritance of the Landgrave of
   Thuringia—under the very transaction which had chiefly caused
   his predecessor Adolphus to be deposed, and he himself
   invested with the Roman crown. Finally, he was in hostilities
   with the Swiss Forest Cantons, and was leading his forces
   against them, in May, 1308, when he was assassinated by
   several nobles, including his cousin John, whose enmity he had
   incurred.

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapters 14-17 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN;
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1282.
   Acquisition of the duchy of Austria by the House of Hapsburg.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.
   The reign of Henry of Luxemburg.

   The king (subsequently crowned emperor) chosen to succeed
   Albert was Count Henry of Luxemburg, an able and excellent
   prince. The new sovereign was crowned as Henry VII. "Henry did
   not make the extension of his private domains his object, yet
   favoring fortune brought it to him in the largest measure.
   Since the death of Wenzel III., the succession to the throne
   of Bohemia had been a subject of constant struggles. A very
   small party was in favor of Austria; but the chief power was
   in the hands of Henry of Carinthia, husband of Anna, Wenzel's
   eldest daughter. But he was hated by the people, whose hopes
   turned more and more to Elizabeth, a younger daughter of
   Wenzel; though she was kept in close confinement by Henry, who
   was about to marry her, it was supposed, below her rank. She
   escaped, fled to the emperor, and implored his aid. He gave
   her in marriage to his young son John, sending him to Bohemia
   in charge of Peter Aichspalter; to take possession of the
   kingdom. He did so, and it remained for more than a century in
   the Luxemburg family. This King John of Bohemia was a man of
   mark. His life was spent in the ceaseless pursuit of
   adventure—from tournament to tournament, from war to war,
   from one enterprise to another. We meet him now in Avignon,
   and now in Paris; then on the Rhine, in Prussia, Poland, or
   Hungary, and then prosecuting large plans in Italy, but hardly
   ever in his own kingdom. Yet his restless activity
   accomplished very little, apart from some important
   acquisitions in Silesia. Henry then gave attention to the
   public peace; came to an understanding with Leopold and
   Frederick, the proud sons of Albert, and put under the ban
   Everard of Wirtemberg, long a fomenter of disturbances,
   sending against him a strong imperial army. … At the Diet of
   Spires, in September, 1309, it was cheerfully resolved to
   carry out Henry's cherished plan of reviving the traditional
   dignity of the Roman emperors by an expedition to the Eternal
   City. Henry expected thus to renew the authority of his title
   at home, as well as in Italy, where, in the traditional view,
   the imperial crown was as important and as necessary as in
   Germany. Every thing here had gone to confusion and ruin since
   the Hohenstaufens had succumbed to the bitter hostility of the
   popes. The contending parties still called themselves Guelphs
   and Ghibellines, though they retained little of the original
   characteristics attached to these names. A formal embassy,
   with Matteo Visconti at its head, invited Henry to Milan; and
   the parties every where anticipated his coming with hope. The
   great Florentine poet, Dante, hailed him as a saviour for
   distracted Italy. Thus, with the pope's approval, he crossed
   the Alps in the autumn of 1310, attended by a splendid escort
   of princes of the empire.
{1451}
   The news of his approach excited general wonder and
   expectation, and his reception at Milan in December was like a
   triumph. He was crowned King of Lombardy without opposition.
   But when, in the true imperial spirit, he announced that he
   had come to serve the nation, and not one or another party,
   and proved his sincerity by treating both parties alike, all
   whose selfish hopes were deceived conspired against him.
   Brescia endured a frightful siege for four months, showing
   that the national hatred of German rule still survived. At
   length a union of all his adversaries was formed under King
   Robert of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, who put
   Conradin to death. Meanwhile Henry VII. went to Rome, May
   1312, and received the crown of the Cæsars from four
   cardinals, plenipotentiaries of the pope, in the church of St.
   John Lateran, south of the Tiber, St. Peter's being occupied
   by the Neapolitan troops. But many of his German soldiers left
   him, and he retired, with a small army, to Pisa, after an
   unsuccessful effort to take Florence. From the faithful city
   of Pisa he proclaimed King Robert under the ban, and, in
   concert with Frederick of Sicily, prepared for war by land and
   sea. But the pope, now a mere tool of the King of France,
   commanded an armistice; and when Henry, in an independent
   spirit, hesitated to obey, Clement V. pronounced the ban of
   the Church against him. It never reached the emperor, who died
   suddenly in the monastery of Buon-Convento: poisoned, as the
   German annalists assert, by a Dominican monk, in the
   sacramental cup, August 24, 1313. He was buried at Pisa.
   Meanwhile his army in Bohemia had been completely successful
   in establishing King John on the throne."

       _C. T. Lewis,
       A History of Germany,
       book 3, chapter 10._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
   Election of rival emperors, Lewis (Ludowic) of Bavaria and
   Frederic of Austria.
   Triumph of Lewis at the Battle of Mühldorf.
   Papal interference and excommunication of Lewis.
   Germany under interdict.
   Unrelenting hostility of the Church.

   "The death of Heinric [Henry] replunged Germany into horrors
   to which, since the extinction of the Swabian line of
   emperors, it had been a stranger. The Austrian princes, who
   had never forgiven the elevation of the Luxemburg family,
   espoused the interests of Frederic, their head; the Bohemians
   as naturally opposed them. From the accession of John, the two
   houses were of necessity hostile; and it was evident that
   there could be no peace in Germany until one of them was
   subjected to the other. The Bohemians, indeed, could not hope
   to place their king on the vacant throne, since their project
   would have found an insurmountable obstacle in the jealousy of
   the electors; but they were at least resolved to support the
   pretensions of a prince hostile to the Austrians. … The diet
   being convoked at Frankfort, the electors repaired thither,
   but with very different views; for, as their suffrages were
   already engaged, while the more numerous party proclaimed the
   duke of Bavaria as Ludowic V., another no less eagerly
   proclaimed Frederic. Although Ludowic was a member of the
   Austro-Hapsburg family—his mother being a daughter of Rodolf
   I.—he had always been the enemy of the Austrian princes, and
   in the same degree the ally of the Luxemburg faction. The two
   candidates being respectively crowned kings of the Romans,
   Ludowic at Aix-la-Chapelle, by the archbishop of
   Mentz—Frederic at Bonn, by the metropolitan of Cologne, a
   civil war was inevitable: neither had virtue enough to
   sacrifice his own rights to the good of the state. … The
   contest would have ended in favour of the Austrians, but for
   the rashness of Frederic, who, in September 1322, without
   waiting for the arrival of his brother Leopold, assailed
   Ludowic between Mahldorf and Ettingen in Bavaria. … The
   battle was maintained with equal valour from the rising to the
   setting sun; and was evidently in favour of the Austrians,
   when an unexpected charge in flank by a body of cavalry under
   the margrave of Nuremburg decided the fortune of the day.
   Heinric of Austria was first taken prisoner; and Frederic
   himself, who disdained to flee, was soon in the same
   condition. To his everlasting honour, Ludowic received
   Frederic with the highest assurances of esteem; and though the
   latter was conveyed to the strong fortress of Trapnitz, in the
   Upper Palatinate, he was treated with every indulgence
   consistent with his safe custody. But the contest was not yet
   decided; the valiant Leopold was still at the head of a
   separate force; and pope John XXII., the natural enemy of the
   Ghibelins, incensed at some succours which Ludowic sent to
   that party in Lombardy, excommunicated the king of the Romans,
   and declared him deposed from his dignity. Among the
   ecclesiastics of the empire this iniquitous sentence had its
   weight; but had not other events been disastrous to the king,
   he might have safely despised it. By Leopold he was signally
   defeated; he had the mortification to see the inconstant king
   of Bohemia join the party of Austria; and the still heavier
   misfortune to learn that the ecclesiastical and two or three
   secular electors were proceeding to another choice—that of
   Charles de Valois, whose interests were warmly supported by
   the pope. In this emergency, his only chance of safety was a
   reconciliation with his enemies; and Frederic was released on
   condition of his renouncing all claim to the empire. But
   though Frederic sincerely resolved to fulfil his share of the
   compact, Leopold and the other princes of his family refused;
   and their refusal was approved by the pope. With the
   magnanimity of his character, Frederic, unable to execute the
   engagements which he had made, voluntarily surrendered himself
   to his enemy. But Ludowic, who would not be outdone in
   generosity, received him, not as a prisoner, but a friend.
   'They ate,' says a contemporary writer, 'at the same table,
   slept on the same couch;' and when the King left Bavaria, the
   administration of that duchy was confided to Frederic. Two
   such men could not long remain even politically hostile; and
   by another treaty, it was agreed that they should exercise
   conjointly the government of the empire. When this arrangement
   was condemned both by the pope and the electors, Ludowic
   proposed to take Italy as his seat of government, and leave
   Germany to Frederic. But the death [1326] of the war-like
   Leopold—the great support of the Austrian cause—and the
   continued opposition of the states to any compromise, enabled
   Ludowic to retain the sceptre of the kingdom; and in 1329,
   that of Frederic strengthened his party. But his reign was
   destined to be one of troubles. … His open warfare against
   the head of the church did not much improve his affairs, the
   vindictive pope, in addition to the former sentence, placing
   all Germany under an interdict. …
{1452}
   In 1338, the diet of Frankfort issued a declaration for ever
   memorable in the annals of freedom. That the imperial
   authority depended on God alone; that the pope had no temporal
   influence, direct or indirect, within the empire; … it
   concluded by empowering the emperor (Ludowic while in Italy
   [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330] had received the imperial crown
   from the anti-pope whom he had created in opposition to John
   XXII.) to raise, of his own authority, the interdict which,
   during four years, had oppressed the country. Another diet,
   held the following year, ratified this bold declaration. …
   But this conduct of the diet was above the comprehension of
   the vulgar, who still regarded Ludowic as under the curse of
   God and the church. … Unfortunately for the national
   independence, Ludowic himself contradicted the tenor of his
   hitherto spirited conduct, by mean submissions, by humiliating
   applications for absolution. They were unsuccessful; and he
   had the mortification to see the king of Bohemia, who had
   always acted an unaccountable part, become his bitter enemy.
   … From this moment the fate of Ludowic was decided. In
   conjunction with the pope and the French king, Charles of
   Bohemia, who in 1346 succeeded to his father's kingdom and
   antipathy, commenced a civil war; and in the midst of these
   troubled scenes the emperor breathed his last [October 11,
   1347]. Twelve months before the decease of Ludowic, Charles of
   Bohemia [son of John, the blind king of Bohemia, who fell,
   fighting for the French, at the battle of Crecy], assisted by
   Clement VI., was elected king of the Romans."

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

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapter 5._

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 8, chapter 2, V. 7._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 2._

GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
   The Golden Bull of Charles IV.

   The Luxemburg line of emperors, and the reappearance of the
   Hapsburgs.
   The Holy Roman Empire as it was at the end of the Middle Ages.

   "John king of Bohemia did not himself wear the imperial crown;
   but three of his descendants possessed it, with less
   interruption than could have been expected. His son Charles
   IV. succeeded Louis of Bavaria in 1347; not indeed without
   opposition, for a double election and a civil war were matters
   of course in Germany. Charles IV. has been treated with more
   derision by his contemporaries, and consequently by later
   writers, than almost any prince in history; yet he was
   remarkably successful in the only objects that he seriously
   pursued. Deficient in personal courage, insensible of
   humiliation, bending without shame to the pope, to the
   Italians, to the electors, so poor and so little reverenced as
   to be arrested by a butcher at Worms for want of paying his
   demand, Charles IV. affords a proof that a certain dexterity
   and cold-blooded perseverance may occasionally supply, in a
   sovereign, the want of more respectable qualities. He has been
   reproached with neglecting the empire. But he never deigned to
   trouble himself about the empire, except for his private'
   ends. He did not neglect the kingdom of Bohemia, to which he
   almost seemed to render Germany a province. Bohemia had been
   long considered as a fief of the empire, and indeed could
   pretend to an electoral vote by no other title. Charles,
   however, gave the states by law the right of choosing a king,
   on the extinction of the royal family, which seems derogatory
   to the imperial prerogative. … He constantly resided at
   Prague, where he founded a celebrated university, and
   embellished the city with buildings. This kingdom, augmented
   also during his reign by the acquisition of Silesia, he
   bequeathed to his son Wenceslaus, for whom, by pliancy towards
   the electors and the court of Rome, he had procured, against
   all recent example, the imperial succession. The reign of
   Charles IV. is distinguished in the constitutional history of
   the empire by his Golden Bull [1356]; an instrument which
   finally ascertained the prerogatives of the electoral college.

      See above: A. D. 1125-1152.

   The Golden Bull terminated the disputes which had arisen
   between different members of the same house as to their right
   of suffrage, which was declared inherent in certain definite
   territories. The number was absolutely restrained to seven.
   The place of legal imperial elections was fixed at Frankfort;
   of coronations, at Aix-la-Chapelle: and the latter ceremony
   was to be performed by the arch-bishop of Cologne. These
   regulations, though consonant to ancient usage, had not always
   been observed, and their neglect had sometimes excited
   questions as to the validity of elections. The dignity of
   elector was enhanced by the Golden Bull as highly as an
   imperial edict could carry it: they were declared equal to
   kings, and conspiracy against their persons incurred the
   penalty of high treason. Many other privileges are granted to
   render them more completely sovereign within their dominions.
   It seems extraordinary that Charles should have voluntarily
   elevated an oligarchy, from whose pretensions his predecessors
   had frequently suffered injury. But he had more to apprehend
   from the two great families of Bavaria and Austria, whom he
   relatively depressed by giving such a preponderance to the
   seven electors, than from any members of the college. By his
   compact with Brandenburg [see BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417] he
   had a fair prospect of adding a second vote to his own. …
   The next reign, nevertheless, evinced the danger of investing
   the electors with such preponderating authority. Wenceslaus
   [elected in 1378], a supine and voluptuous man, less
   respected, and more negligent of Germany, if possible, than
   his father, was regularly deposed by a majority of the
   electoral college in 1400. … They chose Robert count
   palatine instead of Wenceslaus; and though the latter did not
   cease to have some adherents, Robert has generally been
   counted among the lawful emperors. Upon his death [1410] the
   empire returned to the house of Luxemburg; Wenceslaus himself
   waiving his rights in favour of his brother Sigismund of
   Hungary." On the death of Sigismund, in 1437, the house of
   Austria regained the imperial throne, in the person of Albert,
   duke of Austria, who had married Sigismund's only daughter,
   the queen of Hungary and Bohemia. "He died in two years,
   leaving his wife pregnant with a son, Ladislaus Posthumus, who
   afterwards reigned in the two kingdoms just mentioned; and the
   choice of the electors fell upon Frederic duke of Styria,
   second-cousin of the last emperor, from whose posterity it
   never departed, except in a single instance, upon the
   extinction of his male line in 1740.
{1453}
   Frederic III. reigned 53 years [1440-1493], a longer period
   than any of his predecessors; and his personal character was
   more insignificant. … Frederic, always poor, and scarcely
   able to protect himself in Austria from the seditions of his
   subjects, or the inroads of the king of Hungary, was yet
   another founder of his family, and left their fortunes
   incomparably more prosperous than at his accession. The
   marriage of his son Maximilian with the heiress of Burgundy
   [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477] began that aggrandizement of the
   house of Austria which Frederic seems to have anticipated. The
   electors, who had lost a good deal of their former spirit, and
   were grown sensible of the necessity of choosing a powerful
   sovereign, made no opposition to Maximilian's becoming king of
   the Romans in his father's lifetime."

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

   "It is important to remark that, for more than a century after
   Charles IV. had fixed his seat in Bohemia, no emperor
   appeared, endowed with the vigour necessary to uphold and
   govern the empire. The bare fact that Charles's successor,
   Wenceslas, was a prisoner in the hands of the Bohemians,
   remained for a long time unknown in Germany: a simple decree
   of the electors' sufficed to dethrone him. Rupert the Palatine
   only escaped a similar fate by death. When Sigismund of
   Luxemburg, (who, after many disputed elections, kept
   possession of the field,) four years after his election,
   entered the territory of the empire of which he was to be
   crowned sovereign, he found so little sympathy that he was for
   a moment inclined to return to Hungary without accomplishing
   the object of his journey. The active part he took in the
   affairs of Bohemia, and of Europe generally, has given him a
   name; but in and for the empire, he did nothing worthy of
   note. Between the years 1422 and 1430 he never made his
   appearance beyond Vienna; from the autumn of 1431 to that of
   1433 he was occupied with his coronation journey to Rome; and
   during the three years from 1434 to his death he never got
   beyond Bohemia and Moravia; nor did Albert II., who has been
   the subject of such lavish eulogy, ever visit the dominions of
   the empire. Frederic III., however, far outdid all his
   predecessors. During seven-and-twenty years, from 1444 to
   1471, he was never seen within the boundaries of the empire.
   Hence it happened that the central action and the visible
   manifestation of sovereignty, in as far as any such existed in
   the empire, fell to the share of the princes, and more
   especially of the prince-electors. In the reign of Sigismund
   we find them convoking the diets, and leading the armies into
   the field against the Hussites: the operations against the
   Bohemians were attributed entirely to them. In this manner the
   empire became, like the papacy, a power which acted from a
   distance, and rested chiefly upon opinion. … The emperor was
   regarded, in the first place, as the supreme feudal lord, who
   conferred on property its highest and most sacred sanction.
   … Although he was regarded as the head and source of all
   temporal jurisdiction, yet no tribunal found more doubtful
   obedience than his own. The fact that royalty existed in
   Germany had almost been suffered to fall into oblivion; even
   the title had been lost. Henry VII. thought it an affront to
   be called King of Germany, and not, as he had a right to be
   called before any ceremony of coronation, King of the Romans.
   In the 15th century the emperor was regarded pre-eminently as
   the successor of the ancient Roman Cæsars, whose rights and
   dignities had been transferred, first to the Greeks, and then
   to the Germans in the persons of Charlemagne and Otho the
   Great; as the true secular head of Christendom. … The
   opinion was confidently entertained in Germany that the other
   sovereigns of Christendom, especially those of England, Spain,
   and France, were legally subject to the crown of the empire:
   the only controversy was, whether their disobedience was
   venial, or ought to be regarded as sinful."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      volume 1, pages 52-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 24 (volume l)._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, number 10._

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364, to 1471-1491.

GERMANY: A. D. 1363-1364.
   Tyrol acquired by the House of Austria, with the reversion of
   the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

GERMANY: A. D. 1378.
   Final surrender of the Arelate to France.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

GERMANY: A. D. 1386-1388.
   Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

GERMANY: A. D. 1405-1434.
   The Bohemian Reformation and the Hussite wars.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415, and 1419-1434.

GERMANY: A. D. 1414-1418.
   Failure of demands for Church Reform in the Council of
   Constance.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

GERMANY: A. D. 1417.
   The Electorate of Brandenburg conferred on the Hohenzollerns.

   "The March of Brandenburg is one of those districts which was
   first peopled by the advance of the German nation towards the
   east during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was in
   the beginning, like Silesia, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Prussia,
   and Livonia, a German colony settled upon an almost
   uncultivated soil: from the very first, however, it seems to
   have given the greatest promise of vigour. … Possession was
   taken of the soil upon the ground of the rights of the
   princely Ascanian house—we know not whether these rights were
   founded upon inheritance, purchase, or cession. The process of
   occupation was so gradual that the institutions of the old
   German provinces, like those constituting the northern march,
   had time to take firm root in the newly-acquired territory;
   and owing to the constant necessity for unsheathing the sword,
   the colonists acquired warlike habits which tended to give them
   spirit and energy. … The Ascanians were a warlike but
   cultivated race, incessantly acquiring new possessions, but
   generous and openhanded; and new life followed in their
   footsteps. They soon took up an important political position
   among the German princely houses: their possessions extended
   over a great part of Thuringia, Moravia, Lausitz, and Silesia;
   the electoral dignity which they assumed gave to them and to
   their country a high rank in the Empire. In the Neumark and in
   Pomerelllen the Poles retreated before them, and on the
   Pomeranian coasts they protected the towns founded by the
   Teutonic order from the invasion of the Danes. It has been
   asked whether this race might not have greatly extended its
   power; but they were not destined even to make the attempt.
{1454}
   It is said that at the beginning of the fourteenth century
   nineteen members of this family were assembled on the
   Margrave's Hill near Rathenau. In the year 1320, of all these
   not one remained, or had even left an heir. … In Brandenburg
   … it really appeared as if the extinction of the ruling
   family would entail ruin upon the country. It had formed a
   close alliance with the imperial power—which at that moment
   was the subject of contention between the two great families
   of Wittelsbach and Luxemburg—was involved in the quarrels of
   those two races, injured by all their alternations of fortune,
   and sacrificed to their domestic and foreign policy, which was
   totally at variance with the interests of Brandenburg. At the
   very beginning of the struggle the March of Brandenburg lost
   its dependencies. … At length the Emperor Sigmund, the last
   of the house of Luxemburg, found himself so fully occupied
   with the disturbances in the Empire and the dissensions in the
   Church, that he could no longer maintain his power in the
   March, and intrusted the task to his friend and relation,
   Frederick, Burgrave of Nürnberg, to whom he lay under very
   great obligations, and who had assisted him with money at his
   need. … It was a great point gained, after so long a period
   of anarchy, to find a powerful and prudent prince ready to
   undertake the government of the province. He could do nothing
   in the open field against the revolted nobles, but he assailed
   and vanquished them in their hitherto impregnable strong-holds
   surrounded with walls fifteen feet thick, which he demolished
   with his clumsy but effective artillery. In a few years he had
   so far succeeded that he was able to proclaim a Landfriede, or
   public peace, according to which each and everyone who was an
   enemy to him, or to those comprehended in the peace, was
   considered and treated as the enemy of all. But the effect of
   all this would have been but transient, had not the Emperor,
   who had no son, and who was won by Frederick's numerous
   services and by his talents for action, made the Electorate
   hereditary in his family. … The most important day in the
   history of the March of Brandenburg and the family of Zollern
   was the 18th of April, 1417, when in the market-place of
   Constance the Emperor Sigmund formally invested the Burgrave
   with the dignity of Elector, placed in his hands the flag with
   the arms of the March and received from him the oath of
   allegiance. From this moment a prospect was afforded to the
   territory of Brandenburg of recovering its former prosperity
   and increasing its importance, while to the house of Zollern a
   career of glory and usefulness was opened worthy of powers
   which were thus called into action."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417;
      and HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF.

GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1471.
   Crusade against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1477.
   Relations of Charles the Bold of Burgundy to the Empire.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467, and 1476-1477.

GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
   The Bundschuh insurrections of the Peasantry.

   Several risings of the German peasantry, in the later part of
   the 15th and early part of the 16th century, were named from
   the Bundschuh, or peasants' clog, which the insurgents bore as
   their emblem or pictured on their banners. "While the peasants
   in the Rhætian Alps were gradually throwing off the yoke of
   the nobles and forming the 'Graubund' [see SWITZERLAND: A. D.
   1396-1499], a struggle, was going on between the neighbouring
   peasantry of Kempten (to the east of Lake Constance) and their
   feudal lord, the Abbot of Kempten. It began in 1423, and came
   to an open rebellion in 1492. It was a rebellion against new
   demands not sanctioned by ancient custom, and though it was
   crushed, and ended in little good to the peasantry (many of
   whom fled into Switzerland), yet it is worthy of note because
   in it for the first time appears the banner of the Bundschuh.
   The next rising was in Elsass (Alsace), in 1493, the peasants
   finding allies in the burghers of the towns along the Rhine,
   who had their own grievances. The Bundschuh was again their
   banner, and it was to Switzerland that their anxious eyes were
   turned for help. This movement also was prematurely discovered
   and put down. Then, in 1501, other peasants, close neighbours
   to those of Kempten, caught the infection, and in 1502, again
   in Elsass, but this time further north, in the region about
   Speyer and the Neckar, lower down the Rhine, nearer Franconia,
   the Bundschuh was raised again. It numbered on its recruit
   rolls many thousands of peasants from the country round, along
   the Neckar and the Rhine. The wild notion was to rise in arms,
   to make themselves free, like the Swiss, by the sword, to
   acknowledge no superior but the Emperor, and all Germany was
   to join the League. They were to pay no taxes or dues, and
   commons, forests, and rivers were to be free to all. Here,
   again, they mixed up religion with their demands, and 'Only
   what is just before God' was the motto on the banner of the
   Bundschuh. They, too, were betrayed, and in savage triumph the
   Emperor Maximilian ordered their property to be confiscated,
   their wives and children to be banished, and themselves to be
   quartered alive. … Few … really fell victims to this cruel
   order of the Emperor. The ringleaders dispersed, fleeing some
   into Switzerland and some into the Black Forest. For ten years
   now there was silence. The Bundschuh banner was furled, but
   only for a while. In 1512 and 1513, on the east side of the
   Rhine, in the Black Forest and the neighbouring districts of
   Würtemberg, the movement was again on foot on a still larger
   scale. It had found a leader in Joss Fritz. A soldier, with
   commanding presence and great natural eloquence, … he bided
   his time. … Again the League was betrayed … and Joss
   Fritz, with the banner under his clothes, had to fly for his
   life to Switzerland. … He returned after a while to the
   Black Forest, went about his secret errands, and again bided
   his time. In 1514 the peasantry of the Duke Ulrich of
   Würtemberg rose to resist the tyranny of their lord [in a
   combination called 'the League of Poor Conrad']. … The same
   year, in the valleys of the Austrian Alps, in Carinthia,
   Styria, and Crain, similar risings of the peasantry took
   place, all of them ending in the triumph of the nobles."

      _F. Seebohm,
      The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
      part 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, below: A. D. 1524-1525.

GERMANY: A. D. 1493.
   Maximilian I. becomes emperor.

{1455}

GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
   The reign of Maximilian.
   His personal importance and his imperial powerlessness.
   Constitutional reforms in the Empire.
   The Imperial Chamber.
   The Circles.
   The Aulic Council.

   "Frederic [the Third] died in 1493, after a protracted and
   inglorious reign of 53 years. … On the death of his father,
   Maximilian had been seven years king of the Romans; and his
   accession to the imperial crown encountered no opposition. …
   Scarcely had he ascended the throne, when Charles VIII., king
   of France, passed through the Milanese into the south of
   Italy, and seized on Naples without opposition.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

   Maximilian endeavoured to rouse the German nation to a sense
   of its danger, but in vain. … With difficulty he was able to
   despatch 3,000 men to aid the league, which Spain, the pope,
   the Milanese, and the Venetians had formed, to expel the
   ambitious intruders from Italy. To cement his alliance with
   Fernando the Catholic, he married his son Philip to Juana, the
   daughter of the Spaniard. The confederacy triumphed; not
   through the efforts of Maximilian, but through the hatred of
   the Italians to the Gallic yoke. … Louis XII., who succeeded
   to Charles (1498), … forced Philip to do homage for
   Flanders; surrendering, indeed, three inconsiderable towns,
   that he might be at liberty to renew the designs of his house
   on Lombardy and Naples. … The French had little difficulty
   in expelling Ludovico Moro, the usurper of Milan, and in
   retaining possession of the country during the latter part of
   Maximilian's reign.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

   Louis, indeed, did homage for the duchy to the Germanic head;
   but such homage was merely nominal: it involved no tribute, no
   dependence. The occupation of this fine province by the French
   made no impression on the Germans; they regarded it as a fief
   of the house of Austria, not of the empire: but even if it had
   stood in the latter relation, they would not have moved one
   man, or voted one florin, to avert its fate. That the French
   did not obtain similar possession of Naples, and thereby
   become enabled to oppose Maximilian with greater effect, was
   owing to the valour of the Spanish troops, who retained the
   crown in the house of Aragon. His disputes with the Venetians
   were inglorious to his arms; they defeated his armies, and
   encroached considerably on his Italian possessions. He was
   equally unsuccessful with the Swiss, whom he vainly persuaded
   to acknowledge the supremacy of his house. … For many of his
   failures … he is not to be blamed. To carry on his vast
   enterprises he could command only the resources of Austria:
   had he been able to wield those of the empire, his name would
   have been more formidable to his enemies; and it is no slight
   praise, that with means so contracted he could preserve the
   Netherlands against the open violence, no less than the subtle
   duplicity, of France. But the internal transactions of
   Maximilian's reign are those only to which the attention of
   the reader can be directed with pleasure. In 1495 we witness
   the entire abolition of the right of diffidation [private
   warfare, see LANDFRIEDE],—a right which from time immemorial
   had been the curse of the empire. … The passing of the
   decree which for ever secured the public peace, by placing
   under the ban of the empire, and fining at 2,000 marks in
   gold, every city, every individual that should hereafter send
   or accept a defiance, was nearly unanimous. In regard to the
   long-proposed tribunal [to take cognizance of all violations
   of the public tranquillity], which was to retain the name of
   the Imperial chamber, Maximilian relaxed much from the
   pretensions of his father. … It was solemnly decreed that
   the new court should consist of one grand judge, and of 16
   assessors, who were presented by the states, and nominated by
   the emperor. … Though a new tribunal was formed, its
   competency, its operation, its support, its constitution, the
   enforcement of its decisions, were left to chance; and many
   successive diets—even many generations—were passed before
   anything like an organised system could be introduced into it.
   For the execution of its decrees the Swabian league was soon
   employed; then another new authority, the Council of Regency.
   … But these authorities were insufficient to enforce the
   execution of the decrees emanating from the chamber; and it
   was found necessary to restore the proposition of the circles,
   which had been agitated in the reign of Albert II. …

   Originally they comprised only:
   1. Bavaria,
   2. Franconia,
   3. Saxony,
   4. the Rhine,
   5. Swabia,  and
   6. Westphalia; thus excluding the states of Austria and the
   electorates. But this exclusion was the voluntary act of the
   electors, who were jealous of a tribunal which might encroach
   on their own privileges. In 1512, however, the opposition of
   most appears to have been removed; for four new circles were
   added.
   7. The circle of Austria comprised the hereditary dominions of
   that house.
   8. That of Burgundy contained the states inherited from
   Charles the Rash in Franche-Comté; and the Netherlands.
   9. That of the Lower Rhine comprehended the three
   ecclesiastical electorates and the Palatinate.
   10. That of Upper Saxony extended over the electorate of that
   name and the march of Brandenburg. …

   Bohemia and Prussia … refused to be thus partitioned. Each
   of these circles had its internal organisations, the elements
   of which were promulgated in 1512, but which was considerably
   improved by succeeding diets. Each had its hereditary
   president, or director, and its hereditary prince convoked,
   both offices being frequently vested in the same individual.
   … Each circle had its military chief, elected by the local
   states, whose duty it was to execute the decrees of the
   imperial Chamber. Generally this office was held by the prince
   director. … The establishment of the Imperial Chamber was
   … disagreeable to the emperor. To rescue from its
   jurisdiction such causes as he considered lay more peculiarly
   within the range of his prerogative, and to encroach by
   degrees on the jurisdiction of this odious tribunal,
   Maximilian, in 1501, laid the foundation of the celebrated
   Aulic Council. But the competency of this tribunal was soon
   extended; from political affairs, investitures, charters, and
   the numerous matters which concerned the Imperial chancery, it
   immediately passed to judicial crimes. … By an imperial
   edict of 1518, the Aulic Council was to consist of 18 members,
   all nominated by the emperor. Five only were to be chosen from
   the states of the empire, the rest from those of Austria.
   About half were legists, the other half nobles, but all
   dependent on their chief. … When he [Maximilian] laboured to
   make this council as arbitrary in the empire as in Austria, he
   met with great opposition. … But his purpose was that of
   encroachment no less than of defence; and his example was so
   well imitated by his successors, that in most cases the Aulic
   Council was at length acknowledged to have a concurrent
   jurisdiction with the Imperial Chamber, in many the right of
   prevention over its rival."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

{1456}

   "The received opinion which recognises in [Maximilian] the
   creative founder of the later constitution of the empire, must
   be abandoned. … He had not the power of keeping the princes
   of the empire together; … on the contrary, everything about
   him split into parties. It followed of necessity that abroad
   he rather lost than gained ground. … The glory which
   surrounds the memory of Maximilian, the high renown which he
   enjoyed even among his contemporaries, were therefore not won
   by the success of his enterprises, but by his personal
   qualities. Every good gift of nature had been lavished upon
   him in profusion. … He was a man … formed to excite
   admiration, and to inspire enthusiastic attachment; formed to
   be the romantic hero, the exhaustless theme of the people."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      volume 1, pages 379-381._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 1, chapter 3,
      and book 2, chapters 2 and 4._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

GERMANY: A. D.1496-1499.
   The Swabian war.
   Practical separation of the Swiss Confederacy from the Empire.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GERMANY: A. D. .1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

GERMANY: A. D. 1513-1515.
   The emperor in the pay of England.
   Peace with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

GERMANY: A. D. 1516.
   Abortive invasion of Milaness by Maximilian.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.
   Beginning of the movement of Religious Reformation.
   Papal Indulgences, and Luther's attack on them.

   "The Reformation, like all other great social convulsions, was
   long in preparation. It was one part of that general progress,
   complex in its character, which marked the fifteenth century
   and the opening of the sixteenth as the period of transition
   from the Middle Ages to modern civilization. … But while the
   Reformation was one part of a change extending over the whole
   sphere of human knowledge and activity, it had its own
   specific origin and significance. These are still, to some
   extent, a subject of controversy. … One of its causes, as
   well as one of the sources of its great power, was the
   increasing discontent with the prevailing corruption and
   misgovernment in the Church, and with papal interference in
   civil affairs. … The misconduct of the popes in the last
   half of the fifteenth century was not more flagrant than that
   of their predecessors in the tenth century. But the fifteenth
   century was an age of light. What was done by the pontiffs was
   not done in a corner, but under the eyes of all Europe.
   Besides, there was now a deep-seated craving, especially in
   the Teutonic peoples, who had so long been under the tutelage
   of a legal, judaizing form of Christianity, for a more
   spiritual type of religion. … The Reformation may be viewed
   in two aspects. On the one hand it is a religious revolution
   affecting the beliefs, the rites, the ecclesiastical
   organization of the Church, and the form of Christian life. On
   the other hand, it is a great movement in which sovereigns and
   nations are involved; the occasion of wars and treaties; the
   close of an old, and the introduction of a new, period in the
   history of culture and civilization. Germany, including the
   Netherlands and Switzerland, was the stronghold of the
   Reformation. It was natural that such a movement should spring
   up and rise to its highest power among a people in whom a love of
   independence was mingled with a yearning for a more spiritual
   form of religion than was encouraged by mediæval
   ecclesiasticism. Hegel has dwelt with eloquence upon the fact
   that while the rest of the world was gone out to America or to
   the Indies, in quest of riches and a dominion that should
   encircle the globe, a simple monk, turning away from empty
   forms and the things of sense, was finding him whom the
   disciples once sought in a sepulchre of stone. Unquestionably
   the hero of the Reformation was Martin Luther. … As an
   English writer has pointed out, Luther's whole nature was
   identified with his great work, and while other leaders, like
   Melancthon and even Calvin, can be separated in thought from
   the Reformation, Luther, apart from the Reformation, would
   cease to be Luther.' … In 1517 John Tetzel, a hawker of
   indulgences, the proceeds of which were to help pay for the
   building of St. Peter's Church, appeared in the neighborhood
   of Wittenberg. To persuade the people to buy his spiritual
   wares, he told them, as Luther himself testifies, that as soon
   as their money clinked in the bottom of the chest the souls of
   their deceased friends forthwith went up to heaven. Luther was
   so struck with the enormity of this traffic that he determined
   to stop it. He preached against it, and on October 31, 1517,
   he posted on the door of the Church of All Saints, at
   Wittenberg, his ninety-five theses. [For the full text of
   these, see PAPACY: A. D. 1517], relating to the doctrine and
   practice of selling indulgences. Indulgences … were at first
   commutations of penance by the payment of money. The right to
   issue them had gradually become the exclusive prerogative of
   the popes. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted
   or commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
   pope or his agents, by a grant of indulgences, to remove the
   temporal or terminable penalties, which might extend into
   purgatory. For the benefit of the needy he could draw upon the
   treasury of merit stored up by Christ and the saints. Although
   it was expressly declared by Pope Sixtus IV., that souls are
   delivered from purgatorial fires in a way analogous to the
   efficacy of prayer, and although contrition was theoretically
   required of the recipient of an indulgence, it often appeared
   to the people as a simple bargain, according to which, on
   payment of a stipulated sum, the individual obtained a full
   discharge from the penalties of sin, or procured the release
   of a soul from the flames. Luther's theses assailed the
   doctrines which made this baneful traffic possible. …
   Unconsciously to their author, they struck a blow at the
   authority of Rome and of the priesthood. Luther had no thought
   of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman Church. Even his
   theses were only propositions, propounded for academic debate,
   according to the custom in mediæval universities. He concluded
   them with the solemn declaration that he affirmed nothing, but
   left all to the judgment of the Church. …
{1457}
   The theses stirred up a commotion all over Germany. … A
   controversy arose between the new champion of reform and the
   defenders of indulgences. It was during this dispute that
   Luther began to realize that human authority was against him
   and to see the necessity of planting himself more distinctly
   on the Scriptures. His clear arguments and resolute attitude
   won the respect of the Elector of Saxony, who, though he often
   sought to restrain his vehemence, nevertheless protected him
   from his enemies. This the elector was able to do because of
   his political importance, which became still greater when,
   after the death of Maximilian, he was made regent of Northern
   Germany."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 287-293._

   "At first neither Luther, nor others, saw to what the contest
   about the indulgences would lead. The Humanists believed it to
   be only a scholastic disputation, and Hutten laughed to see
   theologians engaged in a fight with each other. It was not
   till the Leipzig disputation (1519), where Luther stood
   forward to defend his views against Eck, that the matter
   assumed a grave aspect, took another turn, and after the
   appearance of Luther's appeals 'To the Christian Nobility of
   the German Nation,' 'On the Babylonian Captivity,' and against
   Church abuses, that it assumed national importance. All the
   combustible materials were ready, the spark was thrown among
   them, and the flames broke out from every quarter. Hundreds of
   thousands of German hearts glowed responsive to the complaints
   which the Wittenberg monk flung against Papal Rome, in a
   language whose sonorous splendour and iron strength were now
   first heard in all the fulness, force, and beauty of the
   German idiom. That was an imperishable service rendered to his
   country by Luther. He wrote in German, and he wrote such
   German. The papal ban hurled back against him in 1520 was
   disregarded. He burnt it outside the gate of Wittenberg by the
   leper hospital, in the place where the rags and plague-stained
   garments of the lepers were wont to be consumed. The nobility,
   the burghers, the peasants, all thrilled at his call. Now the
   moment had come for a great emperor, a second Charlemagne, to
   stand forward and regenerate at once religion and the empire.
   There was, however, at the head of the state, only Charles V.,
   the grandson of Maximilian, a man weak where he ought to have
   been strong, and strong where he ought to have been weak, a
   Spanish Burgundian prince, of Romance stock, who despised and
   disliked the German tongue, the tongue of the people whose
   imperial crown he bore, a prince whose policy was to combat
   France and humble it. It was convenient for him, at the time,
   to have the pope on his side, so he looked with dissatisfied
   eyes on the agitation in Germany. The noblest hearts among the
   princes bounded with hope that he would take the lead in the
   new movement. The lesser nobility, the cities, the peasantry,
   all expected of the emperor a reformation of the empire
   politically and religiously. … But all hopes were dashed.
   Charles V. as little saw his occasion as had Maximilian. He
   took up a hostile position to the new movement at once. He
   was, however, brought by the influential friends of Luther,
   among whom first of all was the Elector of Saxony, to hear
   what the reformer had to say for himself, before he placed him
   under the ban of the empire. Luther received the imperial
   safe-conduct, and was summoned to the Diet of Worms, there to
   defend himself. He went, notwithstanding that he was warned
   and reminded of the fate of Huss. 'I will go to Worms,' said
   he, 'even were as many devils set against me as there are
   tiles on the roofs.' It was probably on this journey that the
   thoughts entered his mind which afterwards (1530) found their
   expression in that famous chorale, 'Eine feste Burg ist unser
   Gott,' which became the battle-song of Protestants. Those were
   memorable days, the 17th and 18th of April, 1521, in which a
   poor monk stood up before the emperor and all the estates of
   the empire, undazzled by their threatening splendour, and
   conducted his own case. At that moment when he closed his
   defence with the stirring words, 'Let me be contradicted out
   of Holy Scripture—till that is done I will not recant. Here
   stand I. I can do no other, so help me God, amen!' then he had
   reached the pinnacle of his greatness. The result is well known.
   The emperor and his papal adviser remained unmoved, and the
   ban was pronounced against the heretic. Luther was carried off
   by his protector, the Elector of Saxony, and concealed in the
   Wartburg, where he worked at his translation of the Bible. …
   Brandenburg, Hesse, and Saxony declared in favour of reform.
   In 1523 Magdeburg, Wismar, Rostock, Stettin, Danzig, Riga,
   expelled the monks and priests, and appointed Lutheran
   preachers. Nürnberg and Breslau hailed the Reformation with
   delight."

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Church in Germany,
      chapter 18._

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1522-1525.

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany._

      _L. Hausser,
      The Period of the Reformation._

      _J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation._

      _M. J. Spaulding,
      History of the Protestant Reformation._

      _F. Seebohm,
      The Era of the Protestant Revolution._

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther._

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation._

      _J. Köstlin,
      Life of Luther._

GERMANY: A. D. 1519,
   Contest for the imperial crown,
   Three royal candidates in the field.
   Election of Charles V., the Austro-Spanish monarch of many
   thrones.

   In his last years, Maximilian made great efforts to secure the
   Imperial Crown for his grandson Charles, who had already
   inherited, through his mother Joanna, of Spain, the kingdoms
   of Castile, Aragon, and the Two Sicilies, and through his
   father, Philip of Austria, the duchy of Burgundy and the many
   lordships of the Netherlands. "In 1518 he obtained the consent
   of the majority of the electors to the Roman crown being
   bestowed on that prince. The electors of Treves and Saxony
   alone opposed the project, on the ground that, as Maximilian
   had never received the Imperial crown [but was styled Emperor
   Elect] he was himself still King of the Romans, and that
   consequently Charles could not assume a dignity that was not
   vacant. To obviate this objection, Maximilian pressed Leo to
   send the golden crown to Vienna; but this plan was defeated by
   the intrigues of the French court. Francis, who intended to
   become a candidate for the Imperial crown, intreated the Pope
   not to commit himself by such an act; and while these
   negociations were pending, Maximilian died at Wels, in Upper
   Austria, January 12th 1519. … Three candidates for the
   Imperial crown appeared in the field: the Kings of Spain,
   France, and England.
{1458}
   Francis I. [of France] was now at the height of his
   reputation. His enterprises had hitherto been crowned with
   success, the popular test of ability, and the world
   accordingly gave him credit for a political wisdom which he
   was far from possessing. He appears to have gained three or
   four of the Electors by the lavish distribution of his money,
   which his agent, Bonnivet, was obliged to carry through
   Germany on the backs of horses; for the Fuggers, the rich
   bankers of Augsburg, were in the interest of Charles, and
   refused to give the French any accommodation. But the bought
   votes of these venal Electors could not be depended on, some
   of whom sold themselves more than once to different parties.
   The infamy of Albert, Elector of Mentz, in these transactions,
   was particularly notorious. The chances of Henry VIII. [of
   England] were throughout but slender. Henry's hopes, like
   those of Francis, were chiefly founded on the corruptibility
   of the Electors, and on the expectation that both his rivals,
   from the very magnitude of their power, might be deemed
   ineligible. Of the three candidates the claims of Charles
   seemed the best founded and the most deserving of success. The
   House of Austria had already furnished six emperors, of whom
   the last three had reigned eighty years, as if by an
   hereditary succession. Charles's Austrian possessions made him
   a German prince, and from their situation constituted him the
   natural protector of Germany against the Turks. The previous
   canvass of Maximilian had been of some service to his cause,
   and all these advantages he seconded, like his competitors, by
   the free use of bribery. … Leo X., the weight of whose
   authority was sought both by Charles and Francis, though he
   seemed to favour each, desired the success of neither. He
   secretly advised the Electors to choose an emperor from among
   their own body; and as this seemed an easy solution of the
   difficulty, they unanimously offered the crown to Frederick
   the Wise, Elector of Saxony. But Frederick magnanimously
   refused it, and succeeded in uniting the suffrages of the
   Electors in favour of Charles; principally on the ground that
   he was the sovereign best qualified to meet the great danger
   impending from the Turk. … The new Emperor, now in his 20th
   year, assumed the title of Charles V. … He was proclaimed as
   'Emperor Elect,' the title borne by his grandfather, which he
   subsequently altered to that of 'Emperor Elect of the Romans,'
   a designation adopted by his successors, with the omission of
   the word 'elect,' down to the dissolution of the empire."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume l)._

   On his election to the Imperial throne, Charles ceded to his
   younger brother, Ferdinand, all the German possessions of the
   family. The latter, therefore, became Archduke of Austria, and
   the German branch of the House of Austria was continued
   through him; while Charles himself became the founder of a new
   branch of the House—the Spanish.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 1._

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      _J. Van Praet,
      Essays on the Political History of the 15th-17th Centuries,
      chapter 2, (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.
   The Capitulation of Charles V.
   His first Diet, at Worms, and its political measures.

   The election of Charles V. "was accompanied with a new and
   essential alteration in the constitution of the empire.
   Hitherto a general and verbal promise to confirm the Germanic
   privileges had been deemed a sufficient security; but as the
   enormous power and vast possessions of the new emperor
   rendered him the object of greater jealousy and alarm than his
   predecessors, the electors digested into a formal deed or
   capitulation all their laws, customs, and privileges, which
   the ambassadors of Charles signed before his election, and
   which he himself ratified before his coronation; and this
   example has been followed by his successors. It consisted of
   36 articles, partly relating to the Germanic body in general,
   and partly to the electors and states in particular. Of those
   relating to the Germanic body in general, the most prominent
   were, not to confer the escheated fiefs, but to re-unite and
   consolidate them, for the benefit of the emperor and empire;
   not to intrust the charges of the empire to any but Germans;
   not to grant dispensations of the common law; to use the
   German language in the proceedings of the chancery; and to put
   no one arbitrarily to the ban, who had not been previously
   condemned by the diet or imperial chamber. He was to maintain
   the Germanic body in the exercise of its legislative powers,
   in its right of declaring war and making peace, of passing
   laws on commerce and coinage, of regulating the contingents,
   imposing and directing the perception of ordinary
   contributions, of establishing and superintending the superior
   tribunals, and of judging the personal causes of the states.
   Finally, he promised not to cite the members of the Germanic
   body before any tribunal except those of the empire, and to
   maintain them in their legitimate privileges of territorial
   sovereignty. The articles which regarded the electors were of
   the utmost importance, because they confirmed the rights which
   had been long contested with the emperors. … Besides these
   concessions, be promised not to make any attempt to render the
   imperial crown hereditary in his family, and to re-establish the
   council of regency, in conformity with the advice of the
   electors and great princes of the empire. On the 6th of
   January, 1521, Charles assembled his first diet at Worms,
   where he presided in person. At his proposition the states
   passed regulations to terminate the troubles which had already
   arisen during the short interval of the interregnum, and to
   prevent the revival of similar disorders. … The imperial
   chamber was re-established in all its authority, and the
   public peace again promulgated, and enforced by new penalties.
   In order to direct the affairs of the empire during the
   absence of Charles, a council of regency was established. …
   It was to consist of a lieutenant-general, appointed by the
   emperor, and 22 assessors, of' whom 18 were nominated by the
   states, and four by Charles, as possessor of the circles of
   Burgundy and Austria. … At the same time an aid of 20,000
   foot and 4,000 horse was granted, to accompany the emperor in
   his expedition to Rome; but the diet endeavoured to prevent
   him from interfering, as Maximilian had done, in the affairs
   of Italy, by stipulating that these troops were only to be
   employed as an escort, and not for the purpose of aggression."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 26 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

{1459}

GERMANY: A. D. 1522-1525.
   Systematic organization and adoption in northern Germany of
   the Lutheran Reformation.
   The Diets at Nuremberg.
   The Catholic League of Ratisbon.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
   The Peasants' War.

   "A political ferment, very different from that produced by the
   Gospel, had long been troubling the empire. The people,
   weighed down under civil and ecclesiastical oppression,
   attached in many places to the lands belonging to the lords,
   and sold with them, threatened to rise, and furiously burst
   their chains. In Holland, at the end of the preceding century,
   the peasants had mustered around standards inscribed with the
   words 'bread' and 'cheese,' to them the two necessaries of
   life. In 1503 the 'Cobblers' League' ['Bundschuh'—see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514] had burst forth in the neighbourhood
   of Spires. In 1513 this was renewed in Brisgau, and encouraged
   by the priests. In 1514 Wurtemburg had witnessed 'the League
   of poor Conrad,' the object of which was to uphold 'the
   justice of God' by revolt. In 1515 terrible commotions had
   taken place in Carinthia and Hungary. These insurrections were
   stifled by torrents of blood, but no relief had been given to
   the peoples. A political reform was as much wanted as a
   religious one. The people had a right to it, but they were not
   ripe to enjoy it. Since the commencement of the Reformation
   these popular agitations had been suspended, the minds of men
   being absorbed with other thoughts. … But everything showed
   that peace would not last long. … The main dykes which had
   hitherto kept the torrent back were broken, and nothing could
   restrain its fury. Perhaps it must be admitted that the
   movement communicated to the people by the Reform gave new
   force to the discontent which was fermenting in the nation.
   … Erasmus did not hesitate to say to Luther: 'We are now
   reaping the fruits of the seed you have sown.' … The evil
   was augmented by the pretensions of certain fanatical men, who
   laid claim to celestial inspirations. … The most
   distinguished of these enthusiasts was Thomas Münzer. … His
   first appearance was at Zwickau. He left Wittenberg after
   Luther's return [from his concealment at Wartburg, 1522],
   dissatisfied with the inferior part he had played, and he
   became pastor of the little town of Alstadt in Thuringia.
   There he could not long be at rest, and he accused the
   reformers of founding a new papacy by their attachment to the
   letter, and of forming churches which were not pure and holy.
   He regarded himself as called of God to bear a remedy for so
   great an evil. … He maintained that to obey princes,
   'destitute of reason,' was to serve God and Belial at the same
   time. Then, marching at the head of his parishioners, to a
   chapel which was visited by pilgrims from all quarters, he
   pulled it to the ground. After this exploit he was obliged to
   quit the country, wandered over Germany, and came to
   Switzerland, spreading as he went, wherever people would hear
   him, his plan for a universal revolution. In every place he
   found elements ready for his purpose. He threw his powder upon
   the burning coals, and a violent explosion soon followed. …
   The revolt commenced in those regions of the Black Forest, and
   the sources of the Danube, which were so often the scene of
   popular disturbances. On the 19th of July, 1524, the
   Thurgovian peasantry rose against the Abbot of Reichenau, who
   would not grant them an evangelical preacher. Thousands soon
   gathered around the little town of Tengen, to liberate an
   ecclesiastic who was imprisoned there. The revolt spread, with
   inconceivable rapidity, from Suabia to the Rhine countries, to
   Franconia, to Thuringia, and to Saxony. In January, 1525, the
   whole of these countries were in insurrection. Towards the end
   of that month the peasants published a declaration in twelve
   articles, asking the liberty to choose their own pastors, the
   abolition of petty tithes, serfdom, the duties on inheritance,
   and liberty to hunt, fish, cut wood, &c., and each demand was
   supported by a passage of Scripture."

      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigné,
      The Story of the Reformation,
      part 3, chapter 8,
      (History of the Reformation, book 10, chapters 10-11)._

   "Had the feudal lords granted proper and fair reforms long
   ago, they would never have heard of these twelve articles. But
   they had refused reform, and they now had to meet revolution.
   And they knew of but one way of meeting it, namely, by the
   sword. The lords of the Swabian League sent their army of foot
   and horsemen, under their captain, George Truchsess. The poor
   peasants could not hold out against trained soldiers and
   cavalry. Two battles on the Danube, in which thousands of
   peasants were slain, or drowned in the river, and a third
   equally bloody one in Algau, near the Boden See, crushed this
   rebellion in Swabia, as former rebellions had so often been
   crushed before. This was early in April 1525. But in the
   meantime the revolution had spread further north. In the
   valley of the Neckar a body of 6,000 peasants had come
   together, enraged by the news of the slaughter of their fellow
   peasants in the south of Swabia." They stormed the castle of the
   young Count von Helfenstein, who had recently cut the throats
   of some peasants who met him on the road, and put the Count to
   death, with 60 of his companions. "A yell of horror was raised
   through Germany at the news of the peasants' revenge. No yell
   had risen when the Count cut peasants' throats, or the Swabian
   lords slew thousands of peasant rebels. Europe had not yet
   learned to mete out the same measure of justice to noble and
   common blood. … The revolution spread, and the reign of
   terror spread with it. North and east of the valley of the
   Neckar, among the little towns of Franconia, and in the
   valleys of the Maine, other bands of peasants, mustering by
   thousands, destroyed alike cloisters and castles. Two hundred
   of these lighted the night with their flames during the few
   weeks of their temporary triumph. And here another feature of
   the revolution became prominent. The little towns were already
   … passing through an internal revolution. The artisans were
   rising against the wealthier burghers, overturning the town
   councils, and electing committees of artisans in their place,
   making sudden changes in religion, putting down the Mass,
   unfrocking priests and monks, and in fact, in the interests of
   what they thought to be the gospel, turning all things upside
   down. … It was during the Franconian rebellion that the
   peasants chose the robber knight Goetz von Berlichingen as
   their leader. It did them no good. More than a robber chief
   was needed to cope with soldiers used to war. … While all
   this was going on in the valleys of the Maine, the revolution
   had crossed the Rhine into Elsass and Lothringen, and the
   Palatinate about Spires and Worms, and in the month of May had
   been crushed in blood, as in Swabia and Franconia.
{1460}
   South and east, in Bavaria, in the Tyrol, and in Carinthia
   also, castles and monasteries went up in flames, and then,
   when the tide of victory turned, the burning houses and farms
   of the peasants lit up the night and their blood flowed
   freely. Meanwhile Münzer, who had done so much to stir up the
   peasantry in the south to rebel, had gone north into
   Thuringia, and headed a revolution in the town of Mülhausen,
   and became a sort of Savonarola of a madder kind. … But the
   end was coming. The princes, with their disciplined troops,
   came nearer and nearer. What could Münzer do with his 8,000
   peasants? He pointed to a rainbow and expected a miracle, but
   no miracle came. The battle, of course, was lost; 5,000
   peasants lay dead upon the field near the little town of
   Frankenhausen, where it was fought. Münzer fled and concealed
   himself in a bed, but was found and taken before the princes,
   thrust into a dungeon, and afterwards beheaded. So ended the
   wild career of this misguided, fanatical, self-deceived, but
   yet, as we must think, earnest and in many ways heroic spirit.
   … The princes and nobles now everywhere prevailed over the
   insurgent peasants. Luther, writing on June 21, 1525,
   says:—'It is a certain fact, that in Franconia 11,000
   peasants have been slain. Markgraf Casimir is cruelly severe
   upon his peasants, who have twice broken faith with him. In
   the Duchy of Wurtemberg, 6,000 have been killed; in different
   places in Swabia, 10,000. It is said that in Alsace the Duke
   of Lorraine has slain 20,000. Thus everywhere the wretched
   peasants are cut down.' … Before the Peasants' War was ended
   at least 100,000 perished, or twenty times as many as were put
   to death in Paris during the Reign of Terror in 1793. …
   Luther, throughout the Peasants' War, sided with the ruling
   powers. … The reform he sought was by means of the civil
   power; and in order to clear himself and his cause from all
   participation in the wild doings of the peasantry, he publicly
   exhorted the princes to crush their rebellion."

      _F. Seebohm,
      The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
      part 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther: His Life and Work,
      book 11 (volume 2)._

      _J. Köstlin,
      Life of Luther,
      part 4, chapter 5._

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      The German Peasant War of 1525
      (English History Review, volume 5)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1525-1529.
   League of Torgau.
   The Diets at Spires.
   Legal recognition of the Reformed Religion, and the withdrawal
   of it.
   The Protest which gave rise to the name "Protestants."

      See PAPACY: A. D.1525-1529.

GERMANY: A. D. 1529.
   Turkish invasion of Austria.
   Siege of Vienna.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

GERMANY: A. D. 1530.
   The Diet at Augsburg.
   The signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The condemnatory decree.
   Breach between the Protestants and the emperor.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
   The Augsburg Decree.
   Alarm of the Protestants.
   Their League of Smalkalde and alliance with the king of
   France.
   Pacification of Nuremberg with the emperor.
   Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.

   The decree issued by the Diet at Augsburg was condemnatory of
   most of the tenets peculiar to the protestants, "forbidding
   any person to protect or tolerate such as taught them,
   enjoining a strict observance of the established rites, and
   prohibiting any farther innovation, under severe penalties.
   All orders of men were required to assist with their persons
   and fortunes in carrying this decree into execution; and such
   as refused to obey it were declared incapable of acting as
   judges, or of appearing as parties in the imperial chamber,
   the supreme court of judicature in the empire. To all which
   was subjoined a promise, that an application should be made to
   the pope, requiring him to call a general council within six
   months, in order to terminate all controversies by its
   sovereign decisions. The severity of this decree, which was
   considered as a prelude to the most violent persecution,
   alarmed the protestants, and convinced them that the emperor
   was resolved on their destruction." Under these circumstances,
   the protestant princes met at Smalkalde, December 22, 1530,
   and there "concluded a league of mutual defence against all
   aggressors, by which they formed the protestant states of the
   empire into one regular body, and, beginning already to
   consider themselves as such, they resolved to apply to the
   kings of France and England, and to implore them to patronise
   and assist their new confederacy. An affair not connected with
   religion furnished them with a pretence for courting the aid
   of foreign princes.'" This was the election of the emperor's
   brother, Ferdinand, to be King of the Romans, against, which
   they had protested vigorously. "When the protestants, who
   were' assembled a second time at Smalkalde [February, 1531],
   received an account of this transaction, and heard, at the
   same time, that prosecutions were commenced in the imperial
   chamber against some of their number, on account of their
   religious principles, they thought it necessary, not only to
   renew their former confederacy, but immediately to despatch
   their ambassadors into France and England." The king of France
   "listened with the utmost eagerness to the complaints of the
   protestant princes; and, without seeming to countenance their
   religious opinions, determined secretly to cherish those
   sparks of political discord which might be afterwards kindled
   into a flame. For this purpose he sent William de Bellay, one
   of the ablest negotiators in France, into Germany, who,
   visiting the courts of the malecontent princes, and
   heightening their ill-humour by various arts, concluded an
   alliance between them, and his master, which, though concealed
   at that time, and productive of no immediate effects, laid the
   foundation of a union fatal on many occasions to Charles's
   ambitious projects. … The king of England [Henry VIII.],
   highly incensed against Charles, in complaisance to whom, the
   pope had long retarded, and now openly opposed, his divorce
   [from Catharine of Aragon], was no less disposed than Francis
   to strengthen a league which might be rendered so formidable
   to the emperor. But his favourite project of the divorce led
   him into such a labyrinth of schemes and negotiations, and he
   was, at the same time, so intent on abolishing the papal
   jurisdiction in England, that he had no leisure for foreign
   affairs. This obliged him to rest satisfied with giving
   general promises, together with a small supply in money, to
   the confederates of Smalkalde. Meanwhile, many circumstances
   convinced Charles that this was not a juncture" in which he
   could afford to let his zeal for the church push him to
   extremities with the protestants.
{1461}
   "Negotiations were, accordingly, carried on by his direction
   with the elector of Saxony and his associates; after many
   delays … terms of pacification were agreed upon at Nuremberg
   [July 23], and ratified solemnly in the diet at Ratisbon
   [August 3]. In this treaty it was stipulated: that universal
   peace be established in Germany, until the meeting of a
   general council, the convocation of which within six months
   the emperor shall endeavour to procure; that no person shall
   be molested on account of religion; that a stop shall be put
   to all processes begun by the imperial chamber against
   protestants, and the sentences already passed to their
   detriment shall be declared void. On their part, the
   protestants engaged to assist the emperor with all their
   forces in resisting the invasion of the Turks. … The
   protestants of Germany, who had hitherto been viewed only as a
   religious sect, came henceforth to be considered as a
   political body of no small consequence. The intelligence which
   Charles received of Solyman's having entered Hungary, at the
   head of 300,000 men, brought the deliberations of the diet at
   Ratisbon to a period. … The protestants, as a testimony of
   their gratitude to the emperor, exerted themselves with
   extraordinary zeal, and brought into the field forces which
   exceeded in number the quota imposed on them; and the
   catholics imitating their example, one of the greatest and
   best-appointed armies that had ever been levied in Germany
   assembled near Vienna. … It amounted in all to 90,000
   disciplined foot, and 30,000 horse, besides a prodigious swarm
   of irregulars. Of this vast army … the emperor took the
   command in person; and mankind waited in suspense the issue of
   a decisive battle between the two greatest monarchs in the
   world. But each of them dreading the other's power and good
   fortune, they both conducted their operations with such
   excessive caution, that a campaign for which such immense
   preparations had been made ended without any memorable event.
   Solyman, finding it impossible to gain ground upon an enemy
   always attentive and on his guard, marched back to
   Constantinople towards the end of autumn. … About the
   beginning of this campaign, the elector of Saxony died, and
   was succeeded by his son John Frederick. … Immediately after
   the retreat of the Turks, Charles, impatient to revisit Spain,
   set out, on his way thither, for Italy."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 6, chapters 1-8 (volume 3)._

      _H. Stebbing,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapters 12-13 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1532-1536.
   Fanaticism of the Anabaptists of Münster.
   Siege and capture of the city.

      See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
   Mercenary aspects of the Reformation.
   Protestant intolerance.
   Union with the Swiss Reformers.
   The Catholic Holy League.
   Preparations for war.

   "During the next few years [after the peace concluded at
   Nuremberg] there was no open hostility between the two
   religious parties. … But there was dissension enough. In the
   first place there was much disputation as to the meaning of
   the articles concluded at Nuremberg. The catholic princes,
   under the pretext that, if no man was to be disturbed for his
   faith, or for things depending on faith, he was still amenable
   for certain offences against the church, which were purely of a
   civil nature, were eager that the imperial chamber should take
   cognisance of future cases, at least, where protestants should
   seek to invade the temporalities of the church. … But
   nothing was effected; the tribunal was too powerless to
   enforce its decrees. In 1534, the protestants, in a public
   assembly, renounced all obedience to the chamber; yet they did
   not cease to appropriate to themselves the property of such
   monasteries and churches as, by the conversion of catholics to
   their faith—and that faith was continually progressive—lay
   within their jurisdiction. We need scarcely observe, that the
   prospect of spoliation was often the most powerful inducement
   with the princes and nobles to change their religion. When
   they, or the magistracy of any particular city, renounced the
   faith hitherto established, the people were expected to follow
   the example: the moment Lutheranism was established in its place,
   the ancient faith was abolished; nobody was allowed to profess
   it; and, with one common accord, all who had any prospect of
   benefiting by the change threw themselves on the domains of
   the expelled clergy. That the latter should complain before
   the only tribunal where justice could be expected, was
   natural; nor can we be surprised that the plunderers should
   soon deny, in religious affairs, the jurisdiction of that
   tribunal. From the departure of the emperor to the year 1538,
   some hundreds of domains were thus seized, and some hundreds
   of complaints addressed to him by parties who resolved to
   interpret the articles of Nuremberg in their own way. The
   protestants declared, in a letter to him, that their
   consciences would not allow them to tolerate any papist in
   their states. … By espousing the cause of the exiled duke of
   Wittemberg, they procured a powerful ally. … But a greater
   advantage was the union of the sacramentarians [the Swiss
   reformers, who accepted the doctrine of Zwingli respecting the
   purely symbolical significance of the commemoration of the
   Lord's Supper—see SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531] with the
   Lutherans. Of such a result, at the diet of Augsburg, there
   was not the least hope; but Bucer, being deputed by the
   imperial cities to ascertain whether a union might not be
   effected, laboured so zealously at the task that it was
   effected. He consented to modify some of his former opinions;
   or at least to wrap them in language so equivocal that they
   might mean anything or nothing at the pleasure of the holder.
   The Swiss, indeed, especially those of Zurich, refused to
   sanction the articles on which Luther and Bucer had agreed.
   Still, by the union of all protestant Germany under the same
   banners, much was gained. … In the meantime, the dissensions
   between the two great parties augmented from day to day. To
   pacify them, Charles sent fruitless embassies. Roused by the
   apparent danger, in 1538, the catholic princes formed, at
   Nuremberg, a counter league to that of Smalcald [calling it
   the Holy League]. … The death of Luther's old enemy, George,
   duke of Saxony [1539], transferred the dominion of that
   prince's states into the hands of [his brother Henry] a
   Lutheran. Henry, duke of Brunswick, was now the only great
   secular prince in the north of Germany who adhered to the
   Roman catholic faith. … A truce was concluded at Frankfort,
   in 1539; but it could not remove the existing animosity, which
   was daily augmented. Both parties were in the wrong. …
{1462}
   At the close of 1540, Worms was the scene of a conference very
   different from that where, 20 years before, Luther had been
   proscribed. There was an interminable theological disputation.
   … As little good resulted, Charles, who was hastening from
   the Low Countries to his German dominions, evoked the affair
   before a diet at Ratisbon, in April, 1541. … The diet of
   Ratisbon was well attended; and never did prince exert himself
   more zealously than Charles to make peace between his angry
   subjects. But … all that could be obtained was, that things
   should be suffered to remain in their present state until a
   future diet or a general council. The reduction of Buda,
   however, by the Turks, rendered king Ferdinand, his brother,
   and the whole of Germany, eager for an immediate settlement of
   the dispute. … Hence the diet of Spires in 1542. If, in
   regard to religion, nothing definitive was arranged, except
   the selection of Trent as the place most suitable for a
   general council, one good end was secured—supplies for the
   war with the Turks. The campaign, however, which passed
   without an action, was inglorious to the Germans, who appear
   to have been in a lamentable state of discipline. Nor was the
   public satisfaction much increased by the disputes of the
   Smalcald league with Henry of Brunswick. The duke was angry
   with his subjects of Brunswick and Breslau, who adhered to the
   protestant league; and though he had reason enough to be
   dissatisfied with both, nothing could be more vexatious than
   his conduct towards them. In revenge, the league of Smalcald
   sent 19,000 men into the field,—a formidable display of
   protestant power!—and Henry was expelled from his hereditary
   states, which were seized by the victors. He invoked the aid
   of the imperial chamber, which cited the chiefs of the league;
   but as, in 1538, the competency of that tribunal had been
   denied in religious, so now it was denied in civil matters.
   … The following years exhibit on both sides the same
   jealousy, the same duplicity, often the same violence where
   the mask was no longer required, with as many ineffectual
   attempts to procure a union between them. … The progress of
   events continued to favour the reformers. They had already two
   votes in the electoral college,—those of Saxony and Brandenburg;
   they were now to have the preponderance; for the elector
   palatine and Herman archbishop of Cologne abjured their
   religion, thus placing at the command of the reformed party
   four votes against three. But this numerical superiority did
   not long remain. … The pope excommunicated the archbishop,
   deposed him from his dignity, and ordered the chapter to
   proceed to a new election; and when Herman refused to obey,
   Charles sent troops to expel him, and to install the
   archbishop elect, Count Adolf of Nassau. Herman retired to his
   patrimonial estates, where he died in the profession of the
   reformed religion. These events mortified the members of the
   Smalcald league; but they were soon partially consoled by the
   capture of Henry duke of Brunswick [1546], who had the
   temerity to collect troops and invade his patrimonial
   dominions. Their success gave umbrage to the emperor. … He
   knew that the confederates had already 20,000 men under arms,
   and that they were actively, however secretly, augmenting
   their forces. His first care was to cause troops to be as
   secretly collected in his hereditary states; his second, to
   seduce, if possible, some leaders of the protestants. With
   Maurice duke of Saxony he was soon successful; and eventually
   with the two margraves of Brandenburg, who agreed to make
   preparations for a campaign and join him at the proper moment.
   … His convocation of the diet at Ratisbon [1546], which
   after a vain parade ended in nothing, was only to hide his
   real designs. As he began to throw off the mask, the reformed
   theologians precipitately withdrew; and both parties took the
   field, but not until they had each published a manifesto to
   justify this extreme proceeding. In each there was much truth,
   and more falsehood."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1544.
   War with Francis I. of France.
   Battle of Cerisoles.
   Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1563.
   The beginning of the Roman Catholic reaction.
   The Council of Trent.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
   War of Charles against the Protestants.
   The treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
   The battle of Muhlberg.
   The emperor's proposed "Interim" and its failure.
   His reverse of fortune.
   Protestantism triumphant.
   The Treaty of Passau.

   "Luther's death [which occurred in 1546] made no change in the
   resolution which Charles had at last taken to crush the
   Reformation in his German dominions by force of arms; on the
   contrary, he was more than ever stimulated to carry out his
   purpose by two occurrences: the adoption of the new religion
   by one who was not only an Elector of the Empire, but one of
   the chief prelates of the Church, the Prince-Archbishop of
   Cologne. … The other event that influenced him was the
   refusal of the Protestants to accept as binding the decrees of
   the Council of Trent, which was composed of scarcely any
   members but a few Italian and Spanish prelates, and from which
   they appealed to either a free general Council or a national
   Council of the Empire; offering, at the same time, if Charles
   should prefer it, to submit the whole question of religion to
   a joint Commission, composed of divines of each party. These
   remonstrances, however, the Emperor treated with contempt. He
   had been for some time secretly raising troops in different
   quarters; and, early in 1546, he made a fresh treaty with the
   Pope, by which he bound himself instantly to commence warlike
   operations, and which, though it had been negotiated, as a
   secret treaty, Paul instantly published, to prevent any
   retraction or delay on his part. War therefore now began,
   though Charles professed to enter upon it, not for the purpose
   of enforcing a particular religious belief on the recusants,
   but for that of re-establishing the Imperial authority, which,
   as he affirmed, many of the confederate princes had disowned.
   Such a pretext he expected to sow disunion in the body, some
   members of which were far from desirous to weaken the great
   confederacy of the Empire: and, in effect, it did produce a
   hesitation in their early steps that had the most important
   consequences on the first campaign; for, in spite of the
   length of time during which he had secretly been preparing for
   war, when it came they were more ready than he. They at once
   took the field with an army of 90,000 men and 120 guns, while
   he, for the first few weeks after the declaration of war, had
   hardly 10,000 men with him in Ratisbon. …
{1463}
   But the advantage of a single over a divided command was
   perhaps never more clearly exemplified than in the first
   operations of the two armies. He, as the weaker party, took up
   a defensive position near Ingolstadt; but, though they
   advanced within sight of his lines, they could not agree on
   the mode of attack, or even on the prudence of attacking him
   at all. … At last, the confederates actually drew off, and
   Charles, advancing, made himself master of many important
   towns, which their irresolution alone had enabled him to
   approach." Meanwhile the Emperor had won an important ally.
   This was Duke Maurice, of the Albertine line of the House of
   Saxony (see SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553), to whom several
   opportune deaths had given the ducal seat unexpectedly, in
   1541, and whose ambition now hungered for the Electorate,
   which was held by the other (the Ernestine) branch of the
   family. He conceived the idea of profiting by the troubles of
   the time to win possession of it. "With this view, though he
   also was a Protestant, he tendered his services to the
   Emperor, who, in spite of his youth, discerned in him a
   promise of very superior capacity, gladly accepted his aid,
   and promised to reward him with the territories which he
   coveted. The advantages which Protestantism eventually derived
   from Maurice's success has blinded some historians to the
   infamy of the conduct by which he achieved it. … The Elector
   [John Frederick] was his [second] cousin; the Landgrave of
   Hesse was his father-in-law. Pleading an unwillingness while
   so young (he was barely 21) to engage in the war, he
   volunteered to undertake the protection of his cousin's
   dominions during his absence in the field. His offer was
   thankfully accepted; but he was no sooner installed in his
   charge than he began to negotiate with the enemy to invade the
   territories which he had bound himself to protect. And on
   receiving from Charles a copy of a decree, called the Ban of
   the Empire, which had just been issued against both the
   Elector and the Landgrave, he at once raised a force of his
   own, with which he overran one portion of [the Elector's]
   dominions, while a division of the Imperial army attacked the
   rest; and he would probably have succeeded at once in subduing
   the whole Electorate, had the main body of the Protestants
   been able to maintain the war on the Danube." But Charles's
   successes there brought about a suspension ol hostilities
   which enabled the Elector to return and "chastise Maurice for
   his treachery; to drive him not only from the towns and
   districts which he had seized, but to strip him also of the
   greater part of the territory which belonged to him by
   inheritance." Charles was unable, at first, to give any
   assistance to his ally. The Elector, however, who was the
   worst of generals, so scattered his forces that when, "on the
   23d of April [1547], Charles reached the Elbe and prepared to
   attack him, he had no advantage over his assailant but that of
   position. That indeed was very strong. He lay at Muhlberg, on
   the right bank of the river, which at that point is 300 yards
   wide and more than four feet deep, with a stream so rapid as
   to render the passage, even for horsemen, a task of great
   difficulty and danger." Against the remonstrances of his
   ablest general, the Duke of Alva, Charles, favored by a heavy
   fog, led his army across the river and boldly attacked. The
   Ejector attempted to retreat, but his retreat became a rout.
   Many fell, but many more were taken prisoners, including the
   Elector and the Landgrave of Hesse. The victory was decisive
   for the time, and Charles used it without moderation or
   generosity. He declared a forfeiture of the whole Electorate
   of Saxony by John Frederick, and conferred it upon the
   treacherous Maurice; and, "though Maurice was son-in-law of
   the Landgrave of Hesse, he stripped that prince of his
   territories, and, by a device scarcely removed from the tricks
   of a kidnapper, threw him also into prison." Charles seemed
   now to be completely master of the situation in Germany, and
   there was little opposition to his will in a diet which he
   convened at Augsburg.

      _C. D. Yonge,
      Three Centuries of Modern History,
      chapter 4._

   "He opened the Diet of Augsburg (September 1, 1547), in the
   hope of finally bringing about the union so long desired and
   so frequently attempted, but which he despaired of effecting
   through a council which the Protestants had rejected in
   advance. … By the famous 'Interim' of Augsburg—the joint
   production of Julius von Pflug, Bishop of Naumberg; Michael
   Helding, coadjutor of Mentz; and the wily and subtle John
   Agricola, preacher to the Elector of Brandenburg—Protestants
   were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist under both kinds;
   the Protestant clergy already married to retain their wives;
   and a tacit approval given to the retention of property
   already taken from the Church. This instrument was, from
   beginning to end, a masterpiece of duplicity, and as such
   satisfied no party. The Catholics of Germany, the Protestants,
   and the Court of Rome, each took exception to it. … Maurice,
   the new Elector of Saxony, unwilling to give the Interim an
   unconditional approval, consulted with a number of Protestant
   theologians, headed by Melancthon, as to how far he might
   accept its provisions with a safe conscience. In reply they
   drew up what is known as the Leipsig Interim (1548), in which
   they stated that questions of ritual and ceremony, and others
   of minor importance, which they designated by the generic word
   adiaphora, might be wholly overlooked; and even in points of a
   strictly doctrinal character, they expressed themselves
   favourable to concession and compromise. … Such Lutheran
   preachers as professed to be faithful followers of their
   master, made a determined opposition to the 'Interim,' and
   began a vigorous assault upon its adiaphoristic clauses. The
   Anti-adiaphorists, as they were called, were headed by Flacius
   Illyricus, who being an ardent disciple of Luther's, and
   possessing somewhat of his courage and energy, repaired to
   Magdeburg, whose bold citizens were as defiant of imperial
   power as they were contemptuous of papal authority. But in
   spite of this spirited opposition, the Interim was gradually
   accepted by several Protestant countries and cities—a fact
   which encouraged the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1550,
   to make a final effort to have the Protestants attend the
   sessions of the Council of Trent, again opened by Pope Julius
   III. … After a short delay, deputies from Brandenburg,
   Würtemberg, and Saxony began to appear at Trent; and even the
   Wittenberg theologians, headed by Melancthon, were already on
   their way to the Council, when Maurice of Saxony, having
   secured all the advantages he hoped to obtain by an alliance
   with the Catholic party, and regardless of the obligations by
   which he was bound, proceeded to betray both the emperor and
   his country.
{1464}
   Having received a commission to carry into effect the ban of
   the empire passed upon Magdeburg, he was in a position to
   assemble a large body of troops in Germany without exciting
   suspicion, or revealing his ulterior purposes. Besides uniting
   to himself, as confederates in his plot, John Albert, Duke of
   Mecklenburg; Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg; and William,
   Landgrave of Hesse, eldest son of Philip of Hesse, he entered
   into a secret treaty (Oct. 5, 1551) with Henry II., King of
   France, who, as was pretended, coming into Germany as the
   saviour of the country, seized the cities of Metz, Toul, and
   Verdun. Maurice also held out to Henry the prospect of
   securing the imperial crown. Everything being in readiness for
   action, Maurice advancing through Thuringia, seized the city
   of Augsburg, and suddenly made his appearance before
   Innspruck, whence the emperor, who lay sick of a severe attack
   of the gout, was hastily conveyed on a litter, through the
   passes of the mountains, to Villach, in Carinthia. While
   Maurice was thus making himself master of Innspruck, the King
   of the French was carrying out his part of the programme by
   actively prosecuting the war in Lorraine. Charles V., now
   destitute of the material resources necessary to carry on a
   successful campaign against the combined armies of the French
   king and the German princes, and despairing of putting an end
   to the obstinate conflict by his personal endeavours, resolved
   to re-establish, if possible, his waning power by peaceful
   negotiations. To this end, he commissioned his brother
   Ferdinand to conclude the Treaty of Passau (July 30, 1552),
   which provided that Philip of Hesse should be set at liberty,
   and gave pledges for the speedy settlement of all religious
   and political differences by a Diet, to be summoned at an
   early day. It further provided that neither the emperor nor
   the Protestant princes should put any restraint upon freedom
   of conscience, and that all questions arising in the interval
   between the two parties should be referred for settlement to
   an Imperial Commission, composed of an equal number of
   Catholics and Protestants. In consequence of the war then
   being carried on by the empire against France for the recovery
   of the three bishoprics of Lorraine of which the French had
   taken possession, the Diet did not convene until February 5,
   1555."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, pages 276-279._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      books 8-10 (volume 2-3)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      chapter 6._

      _E. E. Crowe,
      Cardinal Granvelle and Maurice of Saxony
      (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1)._

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 15-17._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapter 5._

      _F. Kohlrausch,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 20._

GERMANY: A. D. 1547.
   Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V., changing the relations of
   the Netherland provinces to the Empire.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
   Battle of Sievershausen and death of Maurice.
   The Religious Peace of Augsburg.
   Abdication of Charles V.
   Succession of Ferdinand I.
   The halting of the Reformation and the rally of Catholic
   resistance.

   By the treaty of Passau, Maurice of Saxony bound himself to
   defend the empire against the French and the Turks. "He
   accordingly took the field against the latter, but with little
   success, the imperial commander, Castaldo, contravening all
   his efforts by plundering Hungary and drawing upon himself the
   hatred of the people. Charles, meanwhile, marched against the
   French, and, without hesitation, again deposed the corporative
   governments reinstated by Maurice, on his way through
   Augsburg, Ulm, Esslingen, etc. Metz, valiantly defended by the
   Duke de Guise, was vainly besieged for some months, and the
   Emperor was at length forced to retreat. The French were,
   nevertheless, driven out of Italy. The aged emperor now sighed
   for peace. Ferdinand, averse to open warfare, placed his hopes
   on the imperceptible effect of a consistently pursued system
   of suppression and Jesuitical obscurantism. Maurice was
   answerable for the continuance of the peace, the terms of
   which he had prescribed. … Albert the Wild [of Brandenburg]
   was the only one among the princes who was still desirous of
   war. Indifferent to aught else, he marched at the head of some
   thousand followers through central Germany, murdering and
   plundering as he passed along, with the intent of once more
   laying the Franconian and Saxon bishoprics waste in the name
   of the gospel. The princes at length formed the Heidelberg
   confederacy against this monster and the emperor put him under
   the bann of the empire, which Maurice undertook to execute,
   although he had been his old friend and companion in arms.
   Albert was engaged in plundering the archbishopric of
   Magdeburg, when Maurice came up with him at Sievershausen. A
   murderous engagement took place (A. D. 1553). Three of the
   princes of Brunswick were slain. Albert was severely wounded,
   and Maurice fell at the moment when victory declared in his
   favour, in the 33d year of his age, in the midst of his
   promising career. … Every obstacle was now removed, and a
   peace, known as the religious peace of Augsburg, was concluded
   by the diet held in that city, A. D. 1555. This peace was
   naturally a mere political agreement provisionally entered
   into by the princes for the benefit, not of religion, but of
   themselves. Popular opinion was dumb, knights, burgesses, and
   peasants bending in lowly submission to the mandate of their
   sovereigns. By this treaty, branded in history as the most
   lawless ever concerted in Germany, the principle 'cujus regio,
   ejus religio,' the faith of the prince must be that of the
   people, was laid down, By it not only all the Reformed
   subjects of a Catholic prince were exposed to the utmost
   cruelty and tyranny, but the religion of each separate country
   was rendered dependent on the caprice of the reigning prince;
   of this the Pfalz offered a sad example, the religion of the
   people being thus four times arbitrarily changed. … Freedom
   of belief, confined to the immediate subjects of the empire,
   for instance, to the reigning princes, the free nobility, and
   the city councillors, was monopolized by at most 20,000
   privileged persons. … The false peace concluded at Augsburg
   was immediately followed by Charles V. 's abdication of his
   numerous crowns [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555]. He would
   willingly have resigned that of the empire to his son Philip,
   had not the Spanish education of that prince, his gloomy and
   bigoted character, inspired the Germans with an aversion as
   unconquerable as that with which he beheld them.
{1465}
   Ferdinand had, moreover, gained the favour of the German
   princes. Charles, nevertheless, influenced by affection
   towards his son, bestowed upon him one of the finest of the
   German provinces, the Netherlands, besides Spain, Milan,
   Naples, and the West Indies (America). Ferdinand received the
   rest of the German hereditary possessions of his house,
   besides Bohemia and Hungary. … Ferdinand I., opposed in his
   hereditary provinces by a predominating Protestant party,
   which he was compelled to tolerate, was politically
   overbalanced by his nephew, Philip II., in Spain and Italy,
   where Catholicism flourished. The preponderance of the Spanish
   over the Austrian branch of the house of Habsburg exercised
   the most pernicious influence on the whole of Germany, by
   securing to the Catholics a support which rendered
   reconciliation impossible. … The religious disputes and
   petty egotism of the several estates of the empire had utterly
   stifled every sentiment of patriotism, and not a dissentient
   voice was raised against the will of Charles V., which
   bestowed the whole of the Netherlands, one of the finest of
   the provinces of Germany, upon Spain, the division and
   consequent weakening of the powerful house of Habsburg being
   regarded by the princes with delight. At the same time that
   the power of the Protestant party was shaken by the peace of
   Augsburg, Cardinal Caraffa mounted the pontifical throne as
   Paul IV., the first pope who, following the plan of the
   Jesuits, abandoned the system of defence for that of attack.
   The Reformation no sooner ceased to progress, than a
   preventive movement began [see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563]. …
   Ferdinand I. was in a difficult position. Paul IV. refused to
   acknowledge him on account of the peace concluded between him
   and the Protestants, whom he was unable to oppose, and whose
   tenets he refused to embrace, notwithstanding the expressed
   wish of the majority of his subjects. Like his brother, he
   intrigued and diplomatized until his Jesuitical confessor,
   Bobadilla, and the new pope, Pius IV., again placed him on
   good terms with Rome, A. D. 1559. … Augustus, elector of
   Saxony, the brother of Maurice, alarmed at the fresh alliance
   between the emperor and pope, convoked a meeting of the
   Protestant leaders at Naumberg. His fears were, however,
   allayed by the peaceful proposals of the emperor (A. D. 1561).
   … A last attempt to save the unity of the German church, in
   the event of its separation from that of Rome, was made by
   Ferdinand, who convoked the spiritual electoral princes, the
   archbishops and bishops, for that purpose to Vienna, but the
   consideration with which he was compelled to treat the pope
   rendered his efforts weak and ineffectual. … The
   Protestants, blind to the unity and strength resulting from
   the policy of the Catholics, weakened themselves more and more
   by division."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      sections 197-198 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1558.
   Abdication of the emperor, Charles V., and election of his
   brother, Ferdinand.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.
   The degeneracy of the Reformation.
   Internal hostilities of Protestantism.
   Tolerant reigns of Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II.
   Renewed persecution under Rudolf II.
   The risings against him.
   His cessions and abdications.

   "Germany was externally at peace. When the peace was broken in
   Protestant states, the Protestants themselves, that is, a part
   of their divines, were the cause of' the disturbance. These
   were 'frantic' Lutherans. The theologian Flacius, at Jena,
   openly attacked Melancthon as a 'traitor to the church,' on
   account of his strivings for peace. The religious
   controversies in the bosom of the adherents of the Augsburg
   Confession had been since Luther's death inflamed to madness
   by a strict Lutheran party, by slaves of the letter, who raged
   not only against the Zwinglian and Calvinistic reformations,
   but against Melancthon and those who sympathized with him. The
   theological pugilists disgraced Protestantism, and aroused such
   a spirit of persecution that Melancthon died on the 19th of
   April, 1560, 'weary and full of anxiety of soul about the
   future of the Reformation and the German nation.' His
   followers, 'Lutheran' preachers and professors, were
   persecuted, banished, imprisoned, on account of suspicion of
   being inclined to the 'Reformed' [Calvinistic] as
   distinguished from 'Evangelical' views; prayers for the
   'extirpation of heresy' were offered in the churches of
   Saxony, and a medal struck 'to commemorate the victory of
   Christ over the Devil and Reason,' that is, over Melancthon
   and his moderate party. … Each parson and professor held
   himself to be a divinely inspired watchman of Zion, who had to
   watch over purity of doctrine. … The universal prevalence of
   'trials for witchcraft' in Protestant districts, with their
   chambers of torture and burnings at the stake, marked the new
   priestcraft of Lutheran Protestantism in its debasement into a
   dogmatizing church. This quickly degenerating Protestant Church
   comprised a mass of separate churches, because the vanity and
   selfishness of the court clergy at every court, and the
   professors of every university, would have a church of their
   own. … Every misfortune to the 'Reformed' churches caused a
   malevolent joy in the Lutheran camp, and every common measure
   against the common enemy was rejected by the Lutheran clergy
   from hatred to the 'Reformed.' … The emperor Ferdinand I.
   had long been convinced that some change was required in the
   Church of Rome. As he wrote to his ambassador in Trent, 'If a
   reform of the Church did not proceed from the Church herself,
   he would undertake the charge of it in Germany.' He never
   ceased to offer his mediation between the two religious
   parties. He thought, and thought justly, that a compromise was
   possible in Germany. … The change which gradually took place
   in the head and heart of Ferdinand had not extended to those
   who sat in St. Peter's chair. Ferdinand I., to improve the
   moral state of the old Church, insisted most strongly on the
   abolition of the celibacy of the clergy; this the Pope
   declared the most indispensable prop of the Papacy. As thus
   his proposals came to naught, he attempted to introduce the
   proposed reformation into his hereditary domains; but just as
   he was beginning to be the Reformer of these provinces, death
   removed him from the world, on the 25th of July, 1564. … His
   oldest son and successor, Maximilian II., … was out and out
   German. Growing up in the great movement of the time, the
   Emperor Maximilian II. was warmly devoted to the new ideas. He
   hated the Jesuits and the Papacy. …
{1466}
   He remained in the middle between Protestants and Catholics,'
   but really above both. … He favored the Reformation in his
   Austrian dominions; at the very time when Philip II. of Spain,
   the son of Charles V., had commenced the bloodiest persecution
   against the Reformed Church in the Netherlands … ; at the
   very time when the French court, ruled and led by Jesuits, put
   into execution the long-prepared conspiracy of St.
   Bartholomew. … He never ceased to call the kings of France
   and Spain to gentleness and toleration. … 'I have no power,'
   said the emperor, 'over consciences, and may constrain no
   man's faith.' The princes unanimously elected the son of
   Maximilian as King of the Romans, and Max received another
   gratification: he was elected king by the gallant nation of
   the Poles. Thus the house of Austria was again powerfully
   strengthened. Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, and Germany, united
   under one ruler, formed a power which could meet Turkey and
   Russia. The Turks and the Russians were pressing forward. The
   Turkish wars, more than anything else, prevented Max from
   carrying out his long-cherished plan and giving a constitution
   to the empire and church of the Germans. He who towered high
   above the Papal party and the miserable controversies of
   Protestant divines, and whose clear mind saw what the times
   required, would have had every qualification for such a task.
   But in the midst of his great projects, Maximilian II. died,
   in his 49th year, on the 12th of October, 1576; as emperor,
   honest, mild and wise, and elevated above all religious
   controversies to a degree that no prince has ever reached. He
   had always been a rock of offence to the Catholic party. …
   But Rudolf [son of Maximilian II.], when he became emperor
   [1576], surrounded by secret Jesuits who had been his teachers
   and advisers, became the humblest slave of the order and let
   it do what it would. Rudolf had been sent by his father for
   the interests of his own house to the Spanish court; a
   terrible punishment now followed this self-seeking. Rudolf
   confirmed liberty of conscience only to the nobles, not to the
   citizens or peasants. He forbade the two latter classes to
   visit the Evangelical churches, he closed their schools,
   ordered them to frequent Catholic churches, threatened
   disobedience with banishment, and even in the case of nobles
   he dismissed from his court charges all who were not strict
   papists. The people of Vienna and Austria hated him for these
   orders. … Without any judicial investigation he threatened
   free cities with 'execution.' Aix la Chapelle expelled his
   troops. Gebhard, the elector of Cologne, married a Countess
   von Mansfeld and went over to Protestantism. … The
   Protestants supported him badly; Lutherans and Calvinists were
   at bitter feud with each other, and weakened themselves in the
   struggle. … It was a croaking of ravens, and a great field
   of the dead was not far off. … The Emperor Rudolf, … on a
   return journey from Rome, vowed to Our Lady of Loretto, 'his
   Generalissima,' to extirpate heretics at the risk of his life.
   In his hereditary estates he ordered all who were not papists
   to leave the territory. Soon afterwards he pulled down the
   Evangelical churches, and dispersed the citizens by arms. He
   intended soon to begin the same proceedings in Hungary and
   Bohemia; but in Hungary the nation rose in defence of its
   liberty and faith. The receipt of the intelligence that the
   Hungarian malcontents were progressing victoriously
   produced—what there had been symptoms of before—insanity.
   The members of the house of Austria assembled, and declared
   'The Emperor Rudolf can be no longer head of the house,
   because unfortunately it is too plain that his Roman Imperial
   Majesty … was not competent or fit to govern the kingdoms.'
   The Archduke Matthias [eldest brother of Rudolf] was elected
   head of the Austrian house [1606]. He collected an army of
   20,000 men, and made known that he would depose the emperor
   from the government of his hereditary domains. Rudolf's
   Jesuitical flatterers had named him the 'Bohemian Solomon.' He
   now, in terror, without drawing sword, ceded Hungary and Austria
   to Matthias, and gave him also the government of Moravia.
   Matthias guaranteed religious liberty to the Austrians. Rudolf
   did the same to the Bohemians and Silesians by the 'Letters of
   Majesty.' Rudolf, to escape deposition by Matthias, abdicated
   the throne of Bohemia."

      _W. Zimmerman,
      Popular History of Germany,
      book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Kohlrausch,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 21._

GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
   The Evangelical Union and the Catholic League.
   The Jülich-Cleve contest.
   Troubles in Bohemia.
   The beginning of the Thirty Years War.

   "Many Protestants were alarmed by the attempts Rudolf had made
   to put them down, and especially by his allowing the Duke of
   Bavaria to seize the free city of Donauwörth, formerly a
   Bavarian town, and make it Catholic. In 1608 a number of
   Protestants joined together and formed, for ten years, a
   league called The Union. Its formation was due chiefly to the
   exertions of Prince Christian of Anhalt, who had busily
   intrigued with Henry IV. of France; but its head was the
   Elector Palatine. As the latter belonged to the Reformed
   Church, the Lutherans for the most part treated the Union
   coldly; and the Elector of Saxony would have nothing to do
   with it. It soon had an opportunity of acting. Duke William of
   Jülich, who held Jülich, Cleve, and other lands, died in 1609.
   John Sigmund, Elector of Brandenburg, and the Palsgrave of
   Neuberg, both members of the Union, claimed to be his heirs,
   and took possession of his lands. The Emperor Rudolf sent his
   brother, the Archduke Leopold, Bishop of Passau, to drive out
   these princes. The Union thereupon formed an alliance with
   Henry IV. of France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610], and, coming
   to the aid of its members, scattered the forces of the
   Archduke in 1610. The Catholics now took fright, and hastened
   to form a League which should hold the Union in check. It was
   formed for nine years, and the supreme command was given to
   Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria. The death of Henry IV. took away
   from the Union its chief source of strength, so that it shrank
   from a general war. The two princes, however, who had given
   rise to the quarrel, kept for a time the Jülich-Cleve
   territory. In 1611 [1618] the power of the Elector of
   Brandenburg was further increased by his succeeding to the
   Duchy of Prussia. From this time East Prussia was always
   joined to the Mark or Electorate of Brandenburg. It was now,
   therefore, that the house of Brandenburg laid the foundations
   of its future greatness. Matthias, in order to pacify the
   Austrian States, granted them full religious liberty.
{1467}
   In 1609 the Bohemian States also obtained from Rudolf a Royal
   Charter, called 'The Letter of Majesty,' conceding to
   nobility, knights and towns perfect freedom in religious
   matters, and the right to build Protestant churches and
   schools on their own and on the royal lands. Bohemia showed no
   gratitude for this favour. Suspecting his designs, the
   Bohemians even shut Rudolf up in his castle at Prague in 1611,
   and asked Matthias to come to their aid. He did so, and seized
   the supreme power. Next year Rudolf died. Matthias was crowned
   at Frankfurt with great pomp, but he was no better fitted for
   the throne than his brother. He was compelled to yield much to
   the Protestants, yet favoured the Jesuits in their continued
   efforts to convert Germany. His government was so feeble that
   his brothers at length made him accept Ferdinand, Duke of
   Styria, as his coadjutor. In 1617 Ferdinand was elected as
   Rudolf's successor to the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary, and
   from this time all real power in the Habsburg possessions was
   wielded by him. Ferdinand was a young man, but had already
   given proof of great energy of character. … The Protestants
   looked forward with dread to his reign if he should receive
   the Imperial crown. Styria had become almost wholly Lutheran.
   When Ferdinand succeeded his father, he had driven out the
   Protestant families, and made the land altogether Catholic. No
   Catholic prince had ever shown himself more reckless as to the
   means by which he served his church. The Protestants,
   therefore, had good reason to fear that if he became Emperor
   he would renew the policy of Charles V., and try to bring back
   the old state of things, in which there was but one Church as
   there was but one Empire. Events proved that these fears were
   well founded. The last days of Matthias were very troubled.
   Two Protestant churches were built in Bohemia, one in the
   territory of the Archbishop of Prague, the other in that of
   the Abbot of Braunau. These princes, with permission of the
   Emperor, pulled down one of the churches and shut up the
   other. The Protestants complained; but their appeal was met by
   the reply that the Letter of Majesty did not permit them to
   build churches on the lands of ecclesiastics. This answer
   excited great indignation in Bohemia; and a rumour was got up
   that it had not come from the Emperor, but had been written in
   Prague. On May 23, 1618, a number of Protestants, headed by Count
   Thurn, marched to the Council Hall of the Royal Castle, and
   demanded to be told the real facts. When the councillors
   hesitated, two of them, with the private secretary, were
   seized and thrown out of the window.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

   The Protestants then took possession of the Royal Castle,
   drove the Jesuits out of Bohemia, and appointed a council of
   thirty nobles to carry on the government." These events formed
   the beginning of the "Thirty Years War."

      _J. Sime,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 14._

   "The Thirty Years' War was the last struggle which marked the
   progress of the Reformation. This war, whose direction and
   object were equally undetermined, may be divided into four
   distinct portions, in which the Elector Palatine, Denmark,
   Sweden, and France played in succession the principal part. It
   became more and more complicated, until it spread over the
   whole of Europe. It was prolonged indefinitely by various
   causes.

   I. The intimate union between the two branches of the house of
   Austria and of the Catholic party—their opponents, on the
   other hand, were not homogeneous.

   II. The inaction of England, the tardy intervention of France,
   the poverty of Denmark and Sweden, &c. The armies which took
   part in the Thirty Years' War were no longer feudal militias,
   they were permanent armies, although their sovereigns were
   incapable of supporting them. They lived at the expense of the
   countries which they laid waste. The ruined peasant turned
   soldier and sold himself to the first comer."

      _J. Michelet,
      Summary of Modern History,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      chapters 1-3 (volume 1)._

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick the Great,
      book 3, chapter 14 (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1612.
   Election of the Emperor Matthias.

GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
   The Thirty Years War: Hostilities in Bohemia precipitated by
   Ferdinand.
   His election to the imperial throne and his deposition in
   Bohemia.
   Acceptance of the Bohemian crown by Frederick, the Palatine
   Elector.
   His unsupported situation.
   The Treaty of Ulm.

   "The emperor was not a little disconcerted when he received
   the news of what was passing [in Bohemia]. For whence could he
   receive the aid necessary to put down these revolutionary acts
   and restore order in Bohemia? Discontent, indeed, was scarcely
   less formidably expressed even in his Austrian territories,
   whilst in Hungary its demonstration was equally as serious.
   Conciliation appeared to be the only means of preserving to
   the house of Austria that important country, and even the
   confessor and usual counsellor of the emperor, Cardinal
   Klesel, the most zealous opponent of the Protestants, advised
   that course. But such considerations were most strenuously
   opposed by young Ferdinand. … At his instigation, and that
   of the other archdukes, backed by the pope, the pacific
   Cardinal Klesel was unexpectedly arrested, and charged with a
   variety of crimes. The intention was to remove him from the
   presence of the old and weak emperor, who was now without
   support, and obliged to resign all to the archdukes. From this
   moment the impotency of the emperor was complete, and all
   hopes of an amicable pacification of Bohemia lost. The
   Bohemians, likewise, took to arms, and possessed themselves of
   every city in their country as far as Budweis and Pilsen,
   which were still occupied by the imperial troops. They
   obtained assistance, quite unlooked for, in the person of one
   who may be regarded as one of the most remarkable heroes of
   that day. … Count Ernest of Mansfield, a warrior from his
   youth, was of a bold and enterprising spirit; he had already
   encountered many dangers, and had just been raising some
   troops for the Duke of Savoy against the Spaniards. The duke,
   who now no longer required them, gave him permission to serve
   in the cause of the Evangelical Union in Germany; and by that
   body he was despatched with 3,000 men to Bohemia, as having
   apparently received his appointment from that country. He
   appeared there quite unexpectedly, and immediately took from
   the imperial army the important city of Pilsen [November 21,
   1618]. … The Emperor Matthias died on the 10th of March,
   1619 … and the Bohemians, who acknowledged his sovereignty
   while living, now resolved to renounce his successor
   Ferdinand, whose hostile intentions were already too clearly
   expressed. Ferdinand attained the throne under circumstances
   the most perplexing.
{1468}
   Bohemia in arms, and threatening Vienna itself with invasion;
   Silesia and Moravia in alliance with them; Austria much
   disposed to unite with them; Hungary by no means firmly
   attached, and externally menaced by the Turks; besides which,
   encountering in every direction the hatred of the Protestants,
   against whom his zeal was undisguised. … Count Thurn
   advanced upon Vienna with a Bohemian army. … He came before
   Vienna, and his men fired, even upon the imperial castle
   itself, where Ferdinand, surrounded by open and secret foes,
   had taken up his quarters. He dared not leave his capital, for
   by so doing Austria, and with it the preservation of the
   empire itself, must have been sacrificed. But his enemies
   looked upon him as lost; and they already spoke of confining
   him in a convent, and educating his children in the Protestant
   faith. … Count Thurn was obliged soon to return to Bohemia,
   as Prague was menaced by the armies of Austria, and Ferdinand
   availed himself of this moment in order to undertake another
   hazardous and daring project. … He … resolved to proceed
   to Frankfort to attend the election of emperor. The spiritual
   electors had been gained over; Saxony also adhered closely to
   the house of Austria; Brandenburg was not unfriendly; hence
   the opposition of the palatinate alone against him could
   accomplish nothing; accordingly Ferdinand was unanimously
   chosen emperor on the 28th of August, 1619." Just two days
   previously, on the 26th of August, the Bohemians, at a general
   assembly of the states, had formally deposed Ferdinand from
   the kingship of their nation, and proceeded to elect another
   king in his place. "The Catholics proposed the Duke of Savoy
   and Maximilian of Bavaria, whilst, in the Protestant interest,
   the Elector John George of Saxony, and Frederick V., of the
   palatinate, were put forward. The latter obtained the
   election, being a son-in-law of King James I. of England, from
   whom they expected assistance, and who personally was regarded
   as resolute, magnanimous, and generous. The incorporated
   provinces of Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia supported the
   election, and even the Catholic states of Bohemia pledged
   their fidelity and obedience. Frederick was warned against
   accepting so dangerous a crown by Saxony, Bavaria, and even by
   his father-in-law; but his chaplain, Scultetus, and his own
   consort, Elizabeth, who as the daughter of a king aspired to a
   royal crown, persuaded him with all their influence to accept
   it. Frederick was accordingly ruled by them, received the
   regal dignity in Bohemia, and was crowned at Prague with great
   pomp on the 25th of October, 1619. … Ferdinand in returning
   from Frankfort passed on to Munich, and there concluded with
   the Duke of Bavaria that important treaty which secured to him
   the possession of Bohemia. These two princes had been
   companions in youth, and the Evangelical Union had by several
   incautious proceedings irritated the duke. Maximilian
   undertook the chief command in the cause of the Catholic
   party, and stipulated with the house of Austria that he should
   be indemnified for every outlay and loss incurred, to the
   extent even, if necessary, of the surrender of the territories
   of Austria itself into his hands. With Spain, also, the
   emperor succeeded in forming an alliance, and the Spanish
   general, Spinola, received orders to invade the countries of
   the palatinate from the Netherlands. Subsequently the Elector
   of Mentz arranged a convention at Mülhausen with the Elector
   John George of Saxony, the Elector of Cologne, and the
   Landgrave Lewis of Darmstadt, wherein it was determined to
   render all possible assistance to the emperor for the
   maintenance of his kingdom and the imperial dignity.
   Frederick, the new Bohemian king, was now left with no other
   auxiliary but the Evangelical Union; for the Transylvanian
   prince, Bethlen Gabor, was, notwithstanding all his promises,
   a very dubious and uncertain ally, whilst the troops he sent
   into Moravia and Bohemia were not unlike a horde of savage
   banditti. Meanwhile the union commenced its preparations for
   war, as well as the league. The whole of Germany resembled a
   grand depot for recruiting. Every eye was directed to the
   Swabian district, where the two armies were to meet; there,
   however, at Ulm, on the 3rd of July, 1620, they unexpectedly
   entered into a compact, in which the forces of the union
   engaged to lay down their arms, and both parties pledged each
   other to preserve peace and tranquillity. The unionists felt
   themselves too weak to maintain the contest, since Saxony was
   now likewise against them, and Spinola threatened them from
   the Netherlands. It was, however, a great advantage for the
   emperor, that Bohemia was excluded from this treaty, for, now
   the forces of the league were at liberty to aid him in
   subjugating his royal adversary. Maximilian of Bavaria,
   therefore, immediately took his departure, and on his war
   reduced the states of Upper Austria to the obedience due to
   Ferdinand, joined the imperial army, and made a spirited
   attack upon Bohemia. On the other side, the Elector of Saxony
   took possession of Lusatia in the name of the emperor."

      _F. Kohlrausch,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapters 29-32 (volume 3)._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 46-48 (volume 2)._

      _Miss Benger,
      Memoirs of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia,
      chapters 6-9 (volumes 1-2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
   The Thirty Years War: Disappointment of the Bohemians in
   their elected king.
   Frederick's offensive Calvinism.
   Defeat of his army before Prague.
   Loss of Bohemian liberties.
   Prostration of Protestantism.

   "The defection of the Union accelerated the downfall of
   Frederick; but its cordial support could scarcely have
   hindered it. For the Bohemians had been disappointed in their
   king, disappointed in the strength they had expected from him
   through his connexions, equally disappointed in the man, and
   in the hopes of protection and sympathy which they had
   expected from him in the exercise of their religion. Within a
   month of his coronation the metropolitan church was spoiled of
   its images, the crucifix cut in pieces, the statues of the
   saints cast out, broken, and burnt, the ornaments used in
   divine service, and venerable in the eyes of Catholics and
   Lutherans alike, scattered here and there, and turned upside
   down with contempt and execration. These proceedings, which
   were presumed, not without reason, to have the king's
   authority—for during their enactment the court chaplain
   addressed the people in praise of this purgation of the
   temple—called forth loud complaints and increased the
   disaffection which, more than any external force brought
   against Frederick, produced his ruin.
{1469}
   Early in November Maximilian appeared before Prague, and found
   the Bohemians, under Christian van Anhalt, skilfully and
   strongly posted on the Weissenberg [White Mountain] to offer
   battle. The cautious Bucquoi would have declined the offer,
   and attacked the city from another point; but an enthusiastic
   friar who broke in upon the conference of the leaders, and,
   exhibiting a mutilated image of the Virgin, reproached them
   with their hesitation, put to flight all timid counsels. The
   battle began at twelve o'clock. It was a Sunday, the octave of
   the festival of All Saints [November 8, 1620]. … In the
   Catholic army Bucquoi was at the head of the Imperial
   division. Tilly commanded in chief, and led the front to the
   battle. He was received with a heavy fire; and for half an
   hour the victory trembled in the balance: then the Hungarians,
   who had been defeated by the Croats the day before, fled, and
   all the efforts of the Duke of Saxe Weimar to rally them
   proved fruitless. Soon the whole Bohemian army, Germans,
   English, horse and foot, fled in disorder. One gallant little
   band of Moravians only, under the Count of Thurn and the young
   Count of Sehlick, maintained their position, and, with the
   exception of their leaders, fell almost to a man. The battle
   lasted only an hour; but the victory was not the less
   complete. A hundred banners, ten guns, and a rich spoil fell
   into the hands of the victors. Four thousand of the Bohemian
   army, but scarcely as many hundreds of their opponents (if we
   may believe their account), lay dead upon the field. …
   Frederick had returned from the army the day before, with the
   intelligence that the Bavarians were only eight (English)
   miles distant; but relying on the 28,000 men which he had to
   cover his capital, he felt that night no uneasiness. … He
   had invited the English ambassadors to dine; and he remained
   to entertain them. After dinner he mounted his horse to ride
   to the Star Park; but before he could get out of the city
   gate, he was met with the news of the total overthrow of his
   army. His negotiations with Maximilian failing, or receiving
   no answer, the next morning he prepared for flight. …
   Accompanied by his queen, Van Anhalt, the Prince of Hohenlohe,
   and the Count of Thurn, he made a precipitate retreat from
   Prague, leaving behind him the insignia of that monarchy which
   he had not the wisdom to firmly establish, nor resolution to
   defend to the last. It must be confessed, however, that his
   position, after the defeat at Prague, was not altogether so
   promising, and consequently his abandonment of his capital not
   altogether so pusillanimous, as some have represented."

      _B. Chapman,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapter 5._

   "Frederick fled for his life through North Germany, till he
   found a refuge at the Hague. The reign of the Bohemian
   aristocracy was at an end. … The chiefs perished on the
   scaffold. Their lands were confiscated, and a new German and
   Catholic nobility arose. … The Royal Charter was declared to
   have been forfeited by rebellion, and the Protestant churches
   in the towns and on the royal estates had nothing to depend on
   but the will of the conqueror. The ministers of one great body
   —the Bohemian Brethren—were expelled at once. The Lutherans
   were spared for a time."

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The Thirty Years' War,
      chapter 3, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Peschek,
      Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648;
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The Elector Palatine placed under the ban.
   Dissolution of the Evangelical Union.
   Invasion and conquest of the Palatinate.
   Transfer of the electoral dignity to the Duke of Bavaria.

   "Ferdinand, though firm, patient, and resigned in adversity,
   was stern, vengeful, and overbearing in prosperity. He was
   urged by many motives of resentment, policy, and zeal to
   complete the ruin of the elector Palatine, and he did not
   possess sufficient magnanimity to resist the temptation.
   Having squandered away the confiscated property among his
   Jesuits and favourites, he had still many allies and adherents
   whose fidelity he was desirous to reward; he was anxious to
   recover Upper Austria, which he had mortgaged to the duke of
   Bavaria, as a pledge for the expenses of the war; he wished to
   regain possession of Lusatia; and he was bound in honour to
   satisfy the elector of Saxony for his opportune assistance.
   … These motives overbearing an considerations of justice and
   prudence, Ferdinand published the ban of the empire [January
   22, 1621], of his own authority, against the elector Palatine
   and his adherents the prince of Anhalt, the count of
   Hohenlohe, and the duke of Jaegendorf. The execution of this
   informal sentence he intrusted to the archduke Albert, as
   possessor of the circle of Burgundy, and to the duke of
   Bavaria, commanding the former to occupy the Lower, and the
   latter the Upper Palatinate. This vigorous act was instantly
   followed by the most decisive effects; for the Protestants
   were terrified by the prospect of sharing the fate of the
   unfortunate elector. The members of the union now felt the
   fatal consequences of their own indecision and want of
   foresight. … Threatened at once by Spinola [commanding the
   Spanish auxiliaries from the Netherlands] and the duke of
   Bavaria, and confounded by the growing power of the emperor,
   they vied in abandoning a confederacy which exposed them to
   his vengeance. On the 12th of April, 1621, they concluded at
   Mentz a treaty of neutrality, by which they promised not to
   interfere in the affairs of the Palatinate, agreed to disband
   their troops within a month, and to enter into no new
   confederacy to the disadvantage of the emperor. This
   dishonourable treaty was followed by the dissolution of the
   union, which, on its expiration, was not renewed. During these
   events, Spinola, having completed the reduction of the Lower
   Palatinate, was occupied in the siege of Frankendahl, which
   was on the point of surrendering, and its capture must have
   been followed by the submission of Heidelberg and Manheim. The
   duke of Bavaria had been still more successful in the Upper
   Palatinate, and had rapidly subjugated the whole province,
   together with the district of Cham. The elector Palatine,
   deserted by the Protestant union, and almost abandoned by his
   relatives, the kings of England and Denmark, owed the first
   revival of his hopes of restoration to Mansfeld, an
   illegitimate adventurer, with no other resources than plunder
   and devastation. Christian of Brunswick, administrator of
   Halberstadt, distinguished indeed by illustrious birth, but
   equally an adventurer, and equally destitute of territory or
   resources, espoused his cause, as well from ties of affinity
   [he was the cousin of Elizabeth, the electress Palatine, or
   queen of Bohemia, as she preferred to be called] as from a
   chivalrous attachment to his beautiful consort; and George
   Frederic, margrave of Baden, even abdicated his dignity to
   devote himself to his support."
{1470}
   Mansfeld, who had held his ground in Bohemia for nearly a year
   after the battle of the White Mountain, now became hard
   pressed there by Tilly, and suddenly escaped by forced marches
   (October, 1621,) into the Lower Palatinate. "Here he found a
   more favourable field of action; for Spinola being recalled
   with the greater part of the Spanish forces, had left the
   remainder to Gonzales de Cordova, who, after reducing several
   minor fortresses, was pressing the siege of Frankendahl. The
   name of the brave adventurer drew to his standard multitudes
   of the troops, who had been disbanded by the Protestant union,
   and he was joined by a party of English, who had been sent for
   the defence of the Palatinate. Finding himself at the head of
   20,000 men, he cleared the country in his passage, relieved
   Frankendahl, and provided for the safety of Heidelberg and
   Manheim. Unable, however, to subsist in a district so recently
   the seat of war, he turned into Alsace, where he increased his
   forces; from thence he invaded the neighbouring bishoprics of
   Spire and Strasburgh, levying heavy contributions, and giving
   up the rich domains of those sees to the devastations of his
   troops. Encouraged by this gleam of hope, the elector Palatine
   quitted his asylum in Holland, passed in disguise through
   Loraine and Alsace, joined Mansfeld, and gave his name and
   countenance to this predatory army." Mansfeld, recrossing the
   Rhine, effected a junction with the margrave of Baden; and
   Christian of Brunswick, after pillaging the rich sees of Lower
   Saxony, was on his way with a considerable force to unite with
   both. "At the same time the duke of Wirtemberg, the landgrave
   of Hesse, and other Protestant princes, began to arm, and
   hopes were even entertained of the revival of the Protestant
   union. Tilly, who had followed Mansfeld from Bohemia, had in
   vain endeavoured to prevent his junction with the margrave of
   Baden. Defeated at Mingelsheim by Mansfeld, on the 29th of
   April, 1622, he had been reduced to the defensive, and in this
   situation saw a powerful combination rising on every side
   against the house of Austria. He waited therefore for an
   opportunity of attacking those enemies singly, whom he could
   not resist when united, and that opportunity was presented by
   the separation of the margrave of Baden from Mansfeld, and his
   attempt to penetrate into Bavaria. Tilly suddenly drew
   together the Spanish troops, and with this accession of force
   defeated, on the 6th of May, the margrave at Wimpfen, with the
   loss of half his army, and took his whole train of artillery
   and military chest. Leaving Mansfeld employed in the siege of
   Ladenburgh, he next directed his attention to Christian of
   Brunswick, routed him on the 20th of June, at Hoechst
   [Höchst], as he was crossing the Main, pursued him till his
   junction with Mansfeld, and drove their united forces beyond
   the Rhine, again to seek a refuge and subsistence in Alsace.
   These successes revived the cause of Ferdinand; the margrave
   of Baden retired from the contest; the duke of Wirtemberg and
   the other Protestant princes suspended their armaments; and
   although Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick laid siege to
   Saverne, and evinced a resolution to maintain the contest to
   the last extremity, yet the elector Palatine again gave way to
   that weakness which had already lost him a crown." He was
   persuaded by his witless father-in-law, James I. of England,
   to trust his cause to negotiations in which the latter was
   being duped by the emperor. He consented, accordingly, "to
   disavow his intrepid defenders, to dismiss them from his
   service, to retire again into Holland, and wait the mercy of
   the emperor. By this disavowal, Mansfeld and Christian were
   left without a name to countenance their operations; and after
   various negotiations, feigned or real, for entering into the
   service of the emperor, Spain, or France, they accepted the
   overtures of the Prince of Orange and forced their way through
   the Spanish army which attempted to oppose their passage, to
   join at Breda the troops of the United Provinces. The places
   in Alsace and the bishopric of Spire which had been occupied
   by the enemy were recovered by the archduke Leopold; and
   Tilly, having completed the conquest of the Palatinate by the
   capture of Heidelberg and Manheim, directed his attacks
   against the forces which Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick
   had again assembled. After a short continuance in Holland,
   Mansfeld, in November, had led his predatory army into the
   rich province of East Friesland, conquered the principal
   fortresses, and extorted enormous contributions from the duke,
   who was in alliance with Spain. On the other hand, Christian,
   passing into Lower Saxony, persuaded the states of the circle
   to collect an army of observation amounting to 12,000 men, and
   intrust him with the command; and he soon increased this army
   to almost double that number, by the usual incitements of
   pillage and plunder. These levies attracting the attention of
   the emperor, his threats, together with the advance of Tilly,
   compelled the Saxon states to dismiss Christian and his army.
   Thus left a second time without authority, he pushed towards
   Westphalia, with the hope of joining Mansfeld and renewing
   hostilities in the Palatinate; his design was however
   anticipated by Tilly, who overtook him at Loen [or Stadtlohn],
   in the district of Munster, and defeated him with the loss of
   6,000 killed and 4,000 prisoners, in August, 1623. The
   victorious general then turned towards East Friesland; but
   Mansfeld, who had hitherto maintained himself in that country,
   avoided an unequal contest by disbanding his troops, and
   withdrawing into Holland, in January, 1624. … Having
   despoiled the elector Palatine of all his dominions, and
   delivered himself from his enemies in Germany, Ferdinand had
   proceeded to carry his plans into execution, by transferring
   the electoral dignity to the duke of Bavaria, and dividing the
   conquered territories among his adherents. … He gained the
   elector of Saxony, by promising him the revenues and perhaps
   the cession of Lusatia; and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt,
   by offering to favour his pretensions to the succession of
   Marburgh, which he was contesting with the landgrave of Hesse
   Cassel. … Having thus gained those whose opposition was most
   likely to frustrate his design, he paid little regard to the
   feeble threats of James, and to the remonstrances of the king
   of Denmark. … He summoned, on the 25th of February, 1623, a
   meeting of the electors and princes who were most devoted to
   his cause at Ratisbon, and, in concurrence with the majority
   of this irregular assembly, transferred the Palatine
   electorate, with all its honours, privileges, and offices, to
   Maximilian, duke of Bavaria.
{1471}
   To keep up, however, the hopes of the elector Palatine and his
   adherents, and not to drive his family and connections to
   desperation, the whole extent of the plan was not developed;
   the partition of his territories was deferred, the transfer of
   the electorate was made only for the life of Maximilian, and
   the rights of the sons and collateral heirs of the unfortunate
   elector were expressly reserved."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 49 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      book 2._

      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres;
      part 2, chapter 3._

GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Alliance of England, Holland, and Denmark to support the
   Protestant cause.
   Creation of the imperial army of Wallenstein, and its first
   campaigns.

   "Had the Emperor been as wise as he was resolute, it is
   probable that, victorious in every direction, he might have
   been able to conclude a permanent peace with the Protestant
   Party. But the bigotry which was a very part of his nature was
   spurred on by his easy triumphs to refuse to sheathe the sword
   until heresy had been rooted out from the land. In vain did
   the Protestant princes, who had maintained a selfish and
   foolish neutrality, remonstrate against the continuance of
   hostilities after the avowed object for which those
   hostilities were undertaken had been gained. In the opinion of
   Ferdinand II. the real object still remained to be
   accomplished. Under these critical circumstances the
   emigrants, now grown numerous [see BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648],
   and the awakened Protestant princes, earnestly besought the
   aid of a foreign power. It was their representations which at
   length induced three nations of the reformed faith—England,
   Holland, and Denmark—to ally themselves to assist their
   oppressed brethren.

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

   England agreed to send subsidies, Holland to supply troops.
   The command of the delivering army was confided to Christian
   IV., King of Denmark (1625). He was to be supported in Germany
   by the partisan Mansfeldt, by Prince Christian of Brunswick,
   and by the Protestants of Lower Saxony, who had armed
   themselves to resist the exactions of the Emperor. Ferdinand
   II., after vainly endeavouring to ward off hostilities by
   negotiations, despatched Tilly to the Weser to meet the enemy.
   Tilly followed the course of that river as far as Minden,
   causing to be occupied, as he marched, the places which
   commanded its passage. Pursuing his course northwards, he
   crossed the river at Neuburg (midway between Minden and
   Bremen), and occupied the principality of Kalenberg. The King
   of Denmark was near at hand, in the Duchy of Brunswick,
   anxious, for the moment, to avoid a battle. Tilly, superior to
   him in numbers, was as anxious to fight one. As though the
   position of the King of Denmark were not already sufficiently
   embarrassing, the Emperor proceeded at this period to make it
   almost unendurable by launching upon him likewise an imperial
   army. … Up to the period of the complete overthrow and
   expulsion from the Palatinate of Frederic V., ex-King of
   Bohemia, Ferdinand had been indebted for all his successes to
   Maximilian of Bavaria. It was Maximilian who, as head of the
   Holy League, had reconquered Bohemia for the Emperor: it was
   Maximilian's general, Tilly, who had driven the Protestant
   armies from the Palatinate; and it was the same general who
   was now opposing the Protestants of the north in the lands
   watered by the Weser. Maximilian had been rewarded by the
   cession to him of the Palatinate, but it was not advisable
   that so near a neighbour of Austria should be made too strong.
   It was this feeling, this jealousy of Maximilian, which now
   prompted Ferdinand to raise, for the first time in this war,
   an imperial army, and to send it to the north. This army was
   raised by and at the expense of Albert Wenzel Eusebius of
   Waldstein, known in history as Wallenstein. A Czech by
   nationality, born in 1583 of noble parents, who belonged to
   one of the most advanced sects of the reformers but who died
   whilst their son was yet young, Wallenstein had, when yet a
   child, been committed to the care of his uncle, Albert
   Slavata, an adherent of the Jesuits, and by him educated at
   Olmütz in the strictest Catholic faith." By marrying, first, a
   rich widow, who soon died, and then an heiress, daughter of
   Count Harrach, and by purchasing with the fortune thus
   acquired many confiscated estates, he had become possessed of
   enormous wealth. He had already won distinction as a soldier.
   "For his faithful services, Ferdinand in 1623 nominated
   Wallenstein to be Prince, a title changed, the year following,
   into that of Duke of Friedland. At this time the yearly income
   he derived from his various estates, all economically managed,
   was calculated to be 30,000,000 florins—little short of
   £2,500,000." Wallenstein now, in 1625, "divining his master's
   wishes, and animated by the ambition born of natural ability,
   offered to raise and maintain, at his own cost, an army of
   50,000 men, and to lead it against the enemy. Ferdinand
   eagerly accepted the offer. Named Generalissimo and Field
   Marshal in July of the same year, Wallenstein marched at the
   head of 30,000 men, a number which increased almost daily,
   first to the Weser, thence, after noticing the positions of
   Tilly and of King Christian, to the banks of the Elbe, where
   he wintered. … In the spring … Mansfeldt, with the view to
   prevent a junction between Tilly and Wallenstein, marched
   against the latter, and, though his troops were fewer in
   number, took up a position at Dessau in full view of the
   imperial camp, and there intrenched himself. Here Wallenstein
   attacked (25 April 1626) and completely defeated him. Not
   discouraged by this overthrow, and still bearing in mind the
   main object of the campaign, Mansfeldt fell back into
   Brandenburg, recruited there his army, called to himself the
   Duke of Saxe-Weimar and then suddenly dashed, by forced
   marches, towards Silesia and Moravia, with the intention of
   reaching Hungary, where Bethlen Gabor had promised to meet
   him." Wallenstein followed and "pressed him so hard that,
   though Mansfeldt did effect a junction with Bethlen Gabor, it
   was with but the skeleton of his army. Despairing of success
   against numbers vastly superior, Bethlen Gabor withdrew from
   his new colleague, and Mansfeldt, reduced to despair,
   disbanded his remaining soldiers, and sold his camp-equipage
   to supply himself with the means of flight (September).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

{1472}

   He died soon after (30th November). … Wallenstein then
   retraced his steps to the north. Meanwhile Tilly, left to deal
   with Christian IV., had followed that prince into Lower
   Saxony, had caught, attacked, and completely defeated him at
   Lutter (am Barenberge), the 27th July 1626. This victory gave
   him complete possession of that disaffected province, and,
   despite a vigorous attempt made by the Margrave George
   Frederic of Baden to wrest it from him, he held it till the
   return of Wallenstein from the pursuit of Mansfeldt. As two
   stars of so great a magnitude could not shine in the same
   hemisphere, it was then decided that Tilly should carry the
   war into Holland, whilst to Wallenstein should be left the
   honour of dealing with the King of Denmark and the Protestant
   princes of the north."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Zimmermann,
      Popular History of Germany,
      book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Wallenstein's campaign against the Danes.
   His power and his oppression in Germany.
   The country devoured by his army.
   Unsuccessful siege of Stralsund.
   First succor from the king of Sweden.
   The Peace of Lubeck.
   The Edict of Restitution.

   "Wallenstein opened the campaign of 1627 at the head of a
   refreshed and well-equipped army of 40,000 men. His first
   effort was directed against Silesia; and the Danish troops,
   few in number, and ill commanded, gave way at his approach. To
   prevent the fugitives from infringing on the neutrality of
   Brandenburg, he occupied the whole electorate. Mecklenburg and
   Pomerania soon shared the same fate. Remonstrances and
   assurances of perfect neutrality were treated with absolute
   scorn; and Wallenstein declared, in his usual haughty style,
   that 'the time had arrived for dispensing altogether with
   electors; and that Germany ought to be governed like France
   and Spain, by a single and absolute sovereign.' In his rapid
   march towards the frontiers of Holstein, he acted fully up to
   the principle he had laid down, and naturally exercised
   despotic power, as the representative of the absolute monarch
   of whom he spoke. … He … followed up the Danes, defeated
   their armies in a series of actions near Heiligenhausen,
   overran the whole peninsula of Jutland before the end of the
   campaign, and forced the unhappy king to seek shelter, with
   the wrecks of his army, in the islands beyond the Belt. …
   Brilliant as the campaign of 1627 proved in its general
   result, few very striking feats of arms were performed during
   its progress. … Now it was that the princes and states of
   Lower Germany began to feel the consequences of their
   pusillanimous conduct; and the very provinces which had just
   before refused to raise troops for their own protection, were
   obliged to submit, without a murmur, to every species of
   insult and exaction. Wallenstein's army, augmented to 100,000
   men, occupied the whole country; and the lordly leader
   following, on a far greater scale, the principle on which
   Mansfeld had acted, made the war maintain the war, and
   trampled alike on the rights of sovereigns and of subjects.
   And terrible was the penalty now paid for the short-sighted
   policy which avarice and cowardice had suggested, and which
   cunning had vainly tried to disguise beneath affected
   philanthropy, and a generous love of peace. Provided with
   imperial authority, and at the head of a force that could no
   longer be resisted, Wallenstein made the empire serve as a
   vast storehouse, and wealthy treasury for the benefit of the
   imperial army. He forbade even sovereigns and electors to
   raise supplies in their own countries, and was justly termed
   'the princes' scourge, and soldiers' idol.' The system of
   living by contributions had completely demoralised the troops.
   Honour and discipline were entirely gone; and it was only
   beneath the eye of the stern and unrelenting commander, that
   anything like order continued to be observed. Dissipation and
   profligacy reigned in all ranks: bands of dissolute persons
   accompanied every regiment, and helped to extinguish the last
   sparks of morality in the breast of the soldier. The generals
   levied arbitrary taxes; the inferior officers followed the
   example of their superiors; and the privates, soon ceasing to
   obey those whom they ceased to respect, plundered in every
   direction; while blows, insults, or death awaited all who
   dared to resist. … The sums extorted, in this manner, prove
   that Germany must have been a wealthy country in the 17th
   century; for the money pressed out of some districts, by the
   imperial troops, far exceeds anything which the same quarters
   could now be made to furnish. Complaints against the author of
   such evils were, of course, not wanting; but the man
   complained of had rendered the Emperor all-powerful in
   Germany: from the Adriatic to the Baltic, Ferdinand reigned
   absolute, as no monarch had reigned since the days of the
   Othos. This supremacy was due to Wallenstein alone; and what
   could the voice of the humble and oppressed effect against
   such an offender? Or when did the voice of suffering nations,
   arrest the progress of power and ambition? During the winter
   that followed on the campaign of 1627, Wallenstein repaired to
   Prague, to claim [and to receive] from the Emperor, who was
   residing in the Bohemian capital, additional rewards for the
   important services so lately rendered. The boon solicited was
   nothing less than the Duchy of Mecklenburg, which was to be
   taken from its legitimate princes, on the ground of their
   having joined the King of Denmark, and bestowed on the
   successful general. … Hitherto the ocean had alone arrested
   the progress of Wallenstein: a fleet was now to be formed,
   which should enable him to give laws beyond the Belts, and
   perhaps beyond the Baltic also. Every seaport in Mecklenburg
   and Pomerania is ordered to be taken possession of and
   fortified. … The siege of Stralsund, which was resolved upon
   early in 1628, constitutes one of the most memorable
   operations of the war. Not merely because it furnishes an
   additional proof of what may be effected by skill, courage and
   resolution, against vastly superior forces, but because its
   result influenced, in an eminent degree, some of the most
   important events that followed. When Wallenstein ordered the
   seaports along the coast of Pomerania to be occupied,
   Stralsund, claiming its privilege as an imperial and Hanseatic
   free town, refused to admit his troops. … After a good deal
   of negotiation, which only cost the people of Stralsund some
   large sums of money, paid away in presents to the imperial
   officers, Arnheim invested the place on the 7th of May with
   8,000 men. …
{1473}
   The town … , unable to obtain assistance from the Duke of
   Pomerania, the lord superior of the province, who, however
   willing, had no means of furnishing relief, placed itself
   under the protection of Sweden; and Gustavus Adolphus, fully
   sensible of the importance of the place, immediately
   dispatched the celebrated David Leslie, at the head of 600
   men, to aid in its defence. Count Brahe, with 1,000 more, soon
   followed; so that when Wallenstein reached the army on the
   27th of June, he found himself opposed by a garrison of
   experienced soldiers, who had already retaken all the outworks
   which Arnheim had captured in the first instance. … Rain
   began to fall in such torrents that the trenches were entirely
   filled, and the flat moor ground, on which the army was encamped,
   became completely inundated and untenable. The proud spirit of
   Friedland, unused to yield, still persevered; but sickness
   attacked the troops, and the Danes having landed at Jasmund,
   he was obliged to march against them with the best part of his
   forces; and in fact to raise the siege. … The Danes having
   effected their object, in causing the siege of Stralsund to be
   raised, withdrew their troops from Jasmund, and landed them
   again at Wolgast. Here, however, Wallenstein surprised, and
   defeated them with great loss. … There being on all sides a
   willingness to bring the war to an end, peace was …
   concluded at Lubeck in January 1629. By this treaty the Danes
   recovered, without reserve or indemnity, all their former
   possessions; only pledging themselves not again to interfere
   in the affairs of the Empire. … The peace of Lubeck left
   Wallenstein absolute master in Germany, and without an equal
   in greatness: his spirit seemed to hover like a storm-charged
   cloud over the land, crushing to the earth every hope of
   liberty and successful resistance. Mansfeld and Christian of
   Brunswick had disappeared from the scene; Frederick V. had
   retired into obscurity. Tilly and Pappenheim, his former
   rivals, now condescended to receive favours, and to solicit
   pensions and rewards through the medium of his intercession.
   Even Maximilian of Bavaria was second in greatness to the
   all-dreaded Duke of Friedland: Europe held no uncrowned head
   that was his equal in fame, and no crowned head that surpassed
   him in power. … Ferdinand, elated with success, had
   neglected the opportunity, again afforded him by the peace of
   Lubeck, for restoring tranquillity to the empire. … Instead
   of a general peace, Ferdinand signed the fatal Edict of
   Restitution, by which the Protestants were called upon to
   restore all the Catholic Church property they had sequestrated
   since the religious pacification of 1555: such sequestration
   being, according to the Emperor's interpretation, contrary to
   the spirit of the treaty of Passau. The right of
   long-established possession was here entirely overlooked; and
   Ferdinand forgot, in his zeal for the church, that he was
   actually setting himself up as a judge, in a case in which he
   was a party also. It was farther added, that, according to the
   same treaty, freedom of departure from Catholic countries, was
   the only privilege which Protestants had a right to claim from
   Catholic princes. This decree came like a thunder-burst over
   Protestant Germany. Two archbishopricks, 12 bishopricks, and a
   countless number of convents and clerical domains, which the
   Protestants had confiscated, and applied to their own
   purposes, were now to be surrendered. Imperial commissioners
   were appointed to carry the mandate into effect, and, to
   secure immediate obedience, troops were placed at the disposal
   of the new officials. Wherever these functionaries appeared,
   the Protestant service was instantly suspended; the churches
   deprived of their bells; altars and pulpits pulled down; all
   Protestant books, bibles and catechisms were seized; and
   gibbets were erected to terrify those who might be disposed to
   resist. All Protestants who refused to change their religion
   were expelled from Augsburg: summary proceedings of the same
   kind were resorted to in other places. Armed with absolute
   power, the commissioners soon proceeded from reclaiming the
   property of the church to seize that of individuals. The
   estates of all persons who had served under Mansfeld, Baden,
   Christian of Brunswick; of all who had aided Frederick V., or
   rendered themselves obnoxious to the Emperor, were seized and
   confiscated. … The Duke of Friedland, who now ruled with
   dictatorial sway over Germany, had been ordered to carry the
   Edict of Restitution into effect, in all the countries
   occupied by his troops. The task, if we believe historians,
   was executed with unbending rigour."

      _J. Mitchell,
      Life of Wallenstein,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      1517 to 1648, chapter 33._

GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War of the Emperor and Spain with France, over the succession
   to the duchy of Mantua.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

GERMANY: A. D. 1630.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Universal hostility to Wallenstein.
   His dismissal by the Emperor.
   The rising of a new champion of Protestantism in Sweden.

   "Wallenstein had ever shown great toleration in his own
   domains; but it is not to be denied that … he aided to carry
   out the edict [of Restitution] in the most barbarous and
   relentless manner. It would be as tedious as painful to dwell
   upon all the cruelties which were committed, and the
   oppression that was exercised, by the imperial commissioners;
   but a spirit of resistance was aroused in the hearts of the
   German people, which only waited for opportunity to display
   itself. Nor was it alone against the emperor that wrath and
   indignation was excited. Wallenstein drew down upon his head
   even more dangerous enmity than that which sprung up against
   Ferdinand. He ruled in Germany with almost despotic sway; for
   the emperor himself seemed at this time little more than a
   tool in his hands. His manners were unpopular, stern,
   reserved, and gloomy. … Princes were kept waiting in his
   ante-chamber; and all petitions and remonstrances against his
   stern decrees were treated with the mortifying scorn which
   adds insult to injury. The magnificence of his train, the
   splendor of his household, the luxury and profusion that
   spread every where around him, afforded continual sources of
   envy and jealous hate to the ancient nobility of the empire.
   The Protestants throughout the land were his avowed and
   implacable enemies; and the Roman Catholic princes viewed him
   with fear and suspicion. Maximilian of Bavaria, whose star had
   waned under the growing luster of Wallenstein's renown, who
   had lost that authority in the empire which he knew to be due
   to his services and his genius, solely by the rise and
   influence of Wallenstein, and whose ambitious designs of
   ruling Germany through an emperor dependent upon him for
   power, had been frustrated entirely by the genius which placed
   the imperial throne upon a firm and independent basis, took no
   pains to conceal his hostility to the Duke of Friedland. …
{1474}
   Though the soldiery still generally loved him, their officers
   hated the hand that put a limit to the oppression by which
   they throve, and would fain have resisted its power. … While
   these feelings were gathering strength in Germany; while
   Wallenstein, with no friends, though many supporters, saw
   himself an object of jealousy or hatred to the leaders of
   every party throughout the empire; and while the suppressed
   but cherished indignation of all Protestant Germany was
   preparing for the emperor a dreadful day of reckoning, events
   were taking place in other countries which hurried on rapidly
   the dangers that Wallenstein had foreseen. In France, a weak
   king, and a powerful, politic, and relentless minister,
   appeared in undissembled hostility to the house of Austria;
   and the famous Cardinal de Richelieu busied himself,
   successfully, to raise up enemies to the German branch of that
   family. … In Poland, Sigismund, after vainly contending with
   Gustavus Adolphus, and receiving an inefficient aid from
   Germany, was anxious to conclude the disastrous war with
   Sweden. Richelieu interfered; Oxenstiern negotiated on the
   part of Gustavus; and a truce of six years was concluded in
   August, 1629, by which the veteran and victorious Swedish
   troops were set free to act in any other direction. A great
   part of Livonia was virtually ceded to Gustavus, together with
   the towns and territories of Memel, Braunsberg and Elbingen,
   and the strong fortress of Pillau. At the same time, Richelieu
   impressed upon the mind of Gustavus the honor, the advantage,
   and the necessity of reducing the immense power of the
   emperor, and delivering the Protestant states of Germany from
   the oppression under which they groaned. … Confident in his
   own powers of mind and warlike skill, supported by the love
   and admiration of his people, relying on the valor and
   discipline of' his troops, and foreseeing all the mighty
   combinations which were certain to take place in his favor,
   Gustavus hesitated but little. He consulted with his
   ministers, indeed heard and answered every objection that
   could be raised; and then applied to the Senate at Stockholm
   to insure that his plans were approved, and that his efforts
   would be seconded by his people. His enterprise met with the
   most enthusiastic approbation; and then succeeded all the
   bustle of active preparation. … While this storm was
   gathering in the North, while the towns of Sweden were
   bristling with arms, and her ports filled with ships,
   Ferdinand was driven or persuaded to an act the most fatal to
   himself, and the most favorable to the King of Sweden. A Diet
   was summoned to meet at Ratisbon early in the year 1630; and
   the chief object of the emperor in taking a step so dangerous
   to the power he had really acquired, and to the projects so
   boldly put forth in his name, seems to have been to cause his
   son to be elected King of the Romans. … The name of the
   archduke, King of Hungary, is proposed to the Diet for
   election as King of the Romans, and a scene of indescribable
   confusion and murmuring takes place: A voice demands that,
   before any such election is considered, the complaints of the
   people of Germany against the imperial armies shall be heard;
   and then a perfect storm of accusations pours down. Every sort
   of tyranny and oppression, every sort of cruelty and exaction,
   every sort of licentiousness and vice is attributed to the
   emperor's troops; but the hatred and the charges all
   concentrate themselves upon the head of the great commander of
   the imperial forces; and there is a shout for his instant
   dismissal. … Ferdinand hesitated, and affected much surprise
   at the charges brought against his general and his armies. He
   yielded in the end, however; and it is said, upon very good
   authority, that his ruinous decision was brought about by the
   arts of the same skillful politician who had conjured up the
   storm which now menaced the empire from the north. Richelieu
   had sent an embassador to Ratisbon. … In the train of the
   embassador came the well-known intriguing friar, Father
   Joseph, the most unscrupulous and cunning of the cardinal's
   emissaries; and he, we are assured, found means to persuade
   the emperor that, by yielding to the demand of the electors
   and removing Wallenstein for a time, he might obtain the
   election of the King of Hungary, and then reinstate the Duke
   of Friedland in his command as soon as popular anger had
   subsided. However that might be, Ferdinand, as I have said,
   yielded, openly expressing his regret at the step he was about
   to take, and the apprehensions which he entertained for the
   consequences. Count Questenberg and another nobleman, who had
   been long on intimate terms with Wallenstein, were sent to the
   camp to notify to him his removal from command, and to soften
   the disgrace by assuring him of the emperor's gratitude and
   affection."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Dark Scenes of History: Wallenstein,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The Thirty Years' War,
      chapter 7, section 3._

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The Coming of Gustavus Adolphus.
   His occupation of Pomerania and Brandenburg.
   The horrible fate of Magdeburg at the hands of Tilly's
   ruffians.

   "On June 24, 1630, one hundred years, to a day, after the
   Augsburg Confession was promulgated, Gustavus Adolphus landed
   on the coast of Pomerania, near the mouth of the river Peene,
   with 13,000 men, veteran troops, whose rigid discipline was
   sustained by their piety, and who were simple-minded, noble,
   and glowing with the spirit of the battle. He had reasons
   enough for declaring war against Ferdinand, even if 10,000 of
   Wallenstein's troops had not been sent to aid Sigismund
   against him. But the controlling motive, in his own mind, was
   to succor the imperiled cause of religious freedom in Germany.
   Coming as the protector of the evangelic Church, he expected
   to be joined by the Protestant princes. But he was
   disappointed. Only the trampled and tortured people of North
   Germany, who in their despair were ready for revolts and
   conspiracies of their own, welcomed him as their deliverer
   from the bandits of Wallenstein and the League. Gustavus
   Adolphus appeared before Stettin, and by threats compelled the
   old duke, Bogislaw XIV., to open to him his capital city, He
   then took measures to secure possession of Pomerania. His army
   grew rapidly, while that of the emperor was widely dispersed,
   so that he now advanced into Brandenburg. George William, the
   elector, was a weak prince, though a Protestant, and a brother
   of the Queen of Sweden; he was guided by his Catholic
   chancellor, Schwarzenberg, and had painfully striven to keep
   neutral throughout the war, neither side, however, respecting
   his neutrality.
{1475}
   In dread of the plans of Gustavus Adolphus concerning
   Pomerania and Prussia, he held aloof from him. Meanwhile
   Tilly, general-in-chief of the troops of the emperor and the
   League, drew near, but suddenly turned aside to New
   Brandenburg, in the Mecklenburg territory, now occupied by the
   Swedes, captured it after three assaults, and put the garrison
   to the sword (1631). He then laid siege to Magdeburg. Gustavus
   Adolphus took Frankfort-on-the-Oder, where there was an
   imperial garrison, and treated it, in retaliation, with the
   same severity. Thence, in the spring of 1631, he set out for
   Berlin. … In Potsdam he heard of the fall of Magdeburg. He
   then marched with flying banners into Berlin, and compelled
   the elector to become his ally. Magdeburg was the strong
   refuge of Protestantism, and the most important trading centre
   in North Germany. It had resisted the Augsburg Interim of
   1548, and now resisted the Edict of Restitution, rejected the
   newly appointed prince bishop, Leopold William, son of the
   emperor himself, and refused to receive the emperor's
   garrison. The city was therefore banned by the emperor, and
   was besieged for many weeks by Pappenheim, a general of the
   League, who was then reinforced by Tilly himself with his
   army. Gustavus Adolphus was unable to make an advance, in view
   of the equivocal attitude of the two great Protestant electors,
   without exposing his rear to garrisoned fortresses. From
   Brandenburg as well as Saxony he asked in vain for help to
   save the Protestant city. Thus Magdeburg fell, May 10, 1631.
   The citizens were deceived by a pretended withdrawal of the
   enemy. But suddenly, at early dawn, the badly guarded
   fortifications were stormed."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 18, sections 3-4._

   Two gates of the city having been opened by the storming
   party, "Tilly marched in with part of his infantry.
   Immediately occupying the principal streets, he drove the
   citizens with pointed cannon into their dwellings, there to
   await their destiny. They were not long held in suspense; a
   word from Tilly decided the fate of Magdeburg. Even a more
   humane general would in vain have recommended mercy to such
   soldiers; but Tilly never made the attempt. Left by their
   general's silence masters of the lives of all the citizens,
   the soldiery broke into the houses to satiate their most
   brutal appetites. The prayers of innocence excited some
   compassion in the hearts of the Germans, but none in the rude
   breasts of Pappenheim's Walloons. Scarcely had the savage
   cruelty commenced, when the other gates were thrown open, and
   the cavalry, with the fearful hordes of the Croats, poured in
   upon the devoted inhabitants. Here commenced a scene of
   horrors for which history has no language—poetry no pencil.
   Neither innocent childhood, nor helpless old age; neither
   youth, sex, rank, nor beauty, could disarm the fury of the
   conquerors. Wives were abused in the arms of their husbands,
   daughters at the feet of their parents; and the defenceless
   sex exposed to the double sacrifice of virtue and life. No
   situation, however obscure, or however sacred, escaped the
   rapacity of the enemy. In a single church fifty-three women
   were found beheaded. The Croats amused themselves with
   throwing children into the flames; Pappenheim's Walloons with
   stabbing infants at the mother's breast. Some officers of the
   League, horror-struck at this dreadful scene, ventured to
   remind Tilly that he had it in his power to stop the carnage.
   'Return in an hour,' was his answer; 'I will see what I can
   do; the soldier must have some reward for his danger and
   toils.' These horrors lasted with unabated fury, till at last
   the smoke and flames proved a check to the plunderers. To
   augment the confusion and to divert the resistance of the
   inhabitants, the Imperialists had, in the commencement of the
   assault, fired the town in several places. The wind rising
   rapidly, spread the flames, till the blaze became universal.
   Fearful, indeed, was the tumult amid clouds of smoke, heaps of
   dead bodies, the clash of swords, the crash of falling ruins,
   and streams of blood. The atmosphere glowed; and the
   intolerable heat forced at last even the murderers to take
   refuge in their camp. In less than twelve hours, this strong,
   populous, and flourishing city, one of the finest in Germany,
   was reduced to ashes, with the exception of two churches and a
   few houses. … The avarice of the officers had saved 400 of
   the richest citizens, in the hope of extorting from them an
   exorbitant ransom. But this humanity was confined to the
   officers of the League, whom the ruthless barbarity of the
   Imperialists caused to be regarded as guardian angels.
   Scarcely had the fury of the flames abated, when the
   Imperialists returned to renew the pillage amid the ruins and
   ashes of the town. Many were suffocated by the smoke; many
   found rich booty in the cellars, where the citizens had
   concealed their more valuable effects. On the 13th of May,
   Tilly himself appeared in the town, after the streets had been
   cleared of ashes and dead bodies. Horrible and revolting to
   humanity was the scene that presented itself. The living
   crawling from under the dead, children wandering about with
   heart-rending cries, calling for their parents; and infants
   still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers. More than
   6,000 bodies were thrown into the Elbe to clear the streets; a
   much greater number had been consumed by the flames. The whole
   number of the slain was reckoned at not less than 30,000. The
   entrance of the general, which took place on the 14th, put a
   stop to the plunder, and saved the few who had hitherto
   contrived to escape. About a thousand people were taken out of
   the cathedral, where they had remained three days and two
   nights, without food, and in momentary fear of death."

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      book 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the
      Thirty Years' War, part 1._

GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (January).
   The Thirty Years War:
   The Treaty of Bärwalde between Gustavus Adolphus and the king
   of France.

   "On the 13th of January, 1631, the Treaty of Barwalde was
   concluded between France and Sweden. Hard cash had been the
   principal subject of the negotiation, and Louis XIII. had
   agreed to pay Gustavus a lump sum of $120,000 in consideration
   of his recent expenditure,—a further sum of $400,000 a year
   for six years to come. Until that time, or until a general
   peace, if such should supervene earlier, Sweden was to keep in
   the field an army of 30,000 foot and 6, 000 horse. The object
   of the alliance was declared to be 'the protection of their
   common friends, the security of the Baltic, the freedom of
   commerce, the restitution of the oppressed members of the
   Empire, the destruction of the newly erected fortresses in the
   Baltic, the North Sea, and in the Grisons territory, so that
   all should be left in the state in which it was before the
   German war had begun.'
{1476}
   Sweden was not to 'violate the Imperial constitution' where
   she conquered; she was to leave the Catholic religion
   undisturbed in all districts where she found it existing. She
   was to observe towards Bavaria and the League—the spoilt
   darlings of Richelieu's anti-Austrian policy—friendship or
   neutrality, so far as they would observe it towards her. If,
   at the end of six years, the objects were not accomplished,
   the treaty was to be renewed."

      _C. R. L. Fletcher,
      Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle
      of Protestantism for Existence,
      chapter 9._

GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The elector of Brandenburg brought to terms by the king of
   Sweden.
   The elector of Saxony frightened into line.
   Defeat of Tilly at Leipsig (Breitenfeld).
   Effects of the great victory.

   "Loud were the cries against Gustavus for not having relieved
   Magdeburg. To answer them he felt himself bound to publish a
   careful apology. In this document he declared, among other
   things, that if he could have obtained from the Elector of
   Brandenburg the passage of Küstrin he might not only have
   raised the siege of Magdeburg but have destroyed the whole of
   the Imperial army. The passage, however, had been denied him;
   and though the preservation of Magdeburg so much concerned the
   Elector of Saxony, he could obtain from him a passage toward
   it neither by Wittemberg, nor the Bridge of Dessau, nor such
   assistance in provision and shipping as was necessary for the
   success of the enterprise. … Something more than mere
   persuasion had induced the Elector of Brandenburg, after the
   capture of Francfort, to grant Gustavus possession of Spandau
   for a month. The month expired on the 8th of June; and the
   elector demanded back his stronghold. The king, fettered by
   his promise, surrendered it; but the next day, having marched
   to Berlin and pointed his guns against the palace, the ladies
   came forth as mediators, and the elector consented both to
   surrender Spandau again and to pay, for the maintenance of the
   Swedish troops, a monthly subsidy of 30,000 rix-dollars. At
   the end of May Tilly removed from Magdeburg and the Elbe to
   Ascherleben. This enabled the king to take Werben, on the
   confluence of the Elbe and Havel, where, after the reduction
   of Tangermünde and Havelberg, he established his celebrated
   camp." In the latter part of July, Tilly made two attacks on
   the king's camp at Werben, and was repulsed on both occasions
   with heavy loss. "In the middle of August, Gustavus broke up
   his camp. His force at that time, according to the
   muster-rolls, amounted to 13,000 foot, and 8,850 cavalry. He
   drew towards Leipsig, then threatened by Tilly, who, having
   been joined at Eisleben by 15,000 men under Fürstenburg, now
   possessed an army 40,000 strong to enforce the emperor's ban
   against the Leipsig decrees [or resolutions of a congress of
   Protestant princes which had assembled at Leipsig in February,
   1631, moved to some organized common action by the Edict of
   Restitution] within the limits of the electorate. The Elector
   of Saxony was almost frightened out of his wits by the
   impending danger. … His grief and rage at the fall of
   Magdeburg had been so great that, for two days after receiving
   the news, he would admit no one into his presence. But that
   dire event only added to his perplexity; he could resolve
   neither upon submission, nor upon vengeance. In May, indeed,
   terrified by the threats of Ferdinand, he discontinued his
   levies, and disbanded a part of his troops already enlisted:
   but in June he sent Arnim to Gustavus with such overtures that
   the king drank his health, and seemed to have grown sanguine
   in the hope of his alliance. In July, his courage still
   rising, he permitted Gustavus to recruit in his dominions. In
   August, his courage falling again at the approach of
   Fürstenburg, he gave him and his troops a free passage through
   Thuringia." But now, later in the same month, he sent word to
   Gustavus Adolphus "that not only Wittemberg but the whole
   electorate was open to him; that not only his son, but
   himself, would serve under the king; that he would advance one
   month's payment for the Swedish troops immediately, and give
   security for two monthly payments more. … Gustavus rejoiced
   to find the Duke of Saxony in this temper, and, in pursuance
   of a league now entered into with him, and the Elector of
   Brandenburg, crossed the Elbe at Wittemberg on the 4th of
   September. The Saxons, from 16,000 to 20,000 strong, moving
   simultaneously from Torgau, the confederated armies met at
   Düben on the Mulda, three leagues from Leipsig. At a
   conference held there, it was debated whether it would be
   better to protract the war or to hazard a battle. The king
   took the former side, but yielded to the strong
   representations of the Duke of Saxony. … On the 6th of
   September the allies came within six or eight miles of the
   enemy, where they halted for the night. … Breitenfeld, the
   place at which Tilly, urged by the importunity of Pappenheim,
   had chosen to offer battle, was an extensive plain, in part
   recently ploughed, about a mile from Leipsig and near the
   cemetery of that city. Leipsig had surrendered to Tilly two
   days before. The Imperial army, estimated at 44,000 men,
   occupied a rising ground on the plain. … The army was drawn
   up in one line of great depth, having the infantry in the
   centre, the cavalry on the wings, according to the Spanish
   order of battle, The king subdivided his army, about 20,000
   strong, into centre and wings, each of which consisted of two
   lines and a reserve. … To this disposition is attributed, in
   a great degree, the success of the day. … The files being so
   comparatively shallow, artillery made less havoc among them.
   Then, again, the division of the army into small maniples,
   with considerable intervals between each, gave space for
   evolutions, and the power of throwing the troops with rapidity
   wherever their services or support might be found requisite.
   … The battle began at 12 o'clock." It only ended with the
   setting of the sun; but long before that time the great army
   of Tilly was substantially destroyed. It had scattered the
   Saxons easily enough, and sent them flying, with their
   worthless elector; but Gustavus and his disciplined, brave,
   powerfully handled Swedes had broken and ruined the stout but
   clumsy imperial lines. "It is scarcely possible to exaggerate
   the importance of this success. On the event of that day, as
   Gustavus himself said, the whole (Protestant) cause, 'summa
   rei,' depended. The success was great in itself. The numbers
   engaged on either side had been nearly equal. Not so their
   loss. The Imperial loss in killed and wounded, according to
   Swedish computation, was from 8,000 to 10,000; according to
   the enemy's own account, between 6,000 and 7,000; while all
   seem to agree that the loss on the side of the allies was only
   2,700, of which 2,000 were Saxon, 700 Swedes. Besides,
   Gustavus won the whole of the enemy's artillery, and more than
   100 standards. Then the army of Tilly being annihilated left
   him free to choose his next point of attack, almost his next
   victory."

      _B. Chapman,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapter 8._

{1477}

   "The battle of Breitenfeld was an epoch in war, and it was an
   epoch in history. It was an epoch in war, because first in it
   was displayed on a great scale the superiority of mobility
   over weight. It was an epoch in history, because it broke the
   force upon which the revived Catholicism had relied for the
   extension of its empire over Europe. … 'Germany might tear
   herself and be torn to pieces for yet another half-generation,
   but the actual result of the Thirty-Years' War was as good as
   achieved.'"

      _C. R. L. Fletcher,
      Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle
      of Protestantism for Existence,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 1._

GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Movements and plans of the Swedish king in southern Germany.
   Temporary recovery of the Palatinate.
   Occupation of Bavaria.
   The Saxons in Bohemia.
   Battle of the Lech.
   Death of Tilly.
   Wallenstein's recall.
   Siege and relief of Nuremberg.
   Battle of Lützen, and death of Gustavus Adolphus.

   "This battle, sometimes called Breitenwald [Breitenfeld],
   sometimes the First Battle of Leipsic, … was the first
   victory on the Protestant side that had been achieved. It was
   Tilly's first defeat after thirty battles. It filled with joy
   those who had hitherto been depressed and hopeless. Cities
   which had dreaded to declare themselves for fear of the fate
   of Magdeburg began to lift up their heads, and vacillating
   princes to think that they could safely take the part which
   they preferred. Gustavus knew, however, that he must let the
   Germans do as much as possible for themselves, or he should
   arouse their national jealousy of him as a foreign conqueror.
   So he sent the Elector of Saxony to awaken the old spirit in
   Bohemia. As for himself, his great counsellor, Oxenstierna,
   wanted him to march straight on Vienna, but this was not his
   object. He wanted primarily to deliver the northern states,
   and to encourage the merchant cities, Ulm, Augsburg,
   Nuremberg, which had all along been Protestant, and to deliver
   the Palatinate from its oppressors. And, out of mortification,
   a strange ally offered himself, namely, Wallenstein, who
   wanted revenge on the Catholic League which had insisted on
   his dismissal, and the Emperor who had yielded to them. … He
   said that if Gustavus would trust him, he would soon get his
   old army together again, and chase Ferdinand and the Jesuits
   beyond the Alps. But Gustavus did not trust him, though he sat
   quiet at Prague while the Saxons were in possession of the
   city, plundering everywhere, and the Elector sending off to
   Dresden fifty waggon-loads filled with the treasures of the
   Emperor Rudolf's museum. … Many exiles returned, and there
   was a general resumption of the Hussite form of worship.
   Gustavus had marched to Erfurt, and then turned towards the
   Maine, where there was a long row of those prince bishoprics
   established on the frontier by the policy of
   Charlemagne—Wurtzburg, Bamberg, Fulda, Köln, Triers, Mentz,
   Wurms, Spiers. These had never been secularised and were
   popularly called the Priests' Lane. They had given all their
   forces to the Catholic League, and Gustavus meant to repay
   himself upon them. He permitted no cruelties, no persecutions;
   but he levied heavy contributions, and his troops made merry
   with the good Rhenish wine when he kept his Christmas at
   Mentz. He invited the dispossessed Elector Palatine to join
   him, and Frederick started for the camp, after the christening
   of his thirteenth child. … The suite was numerous enough to
   fill forty coaches, escorted by seventy horse—pretty well
   for an exiled prince dependent on the bounty of Holland and
   England. … There was the utmost enthusiasm for the Swede in
   England, and the Marquess of Hamilton obtained permission to
   raise a body of volunteers to join the Swedish standards, and
   in the August of 1631 brought 6,000 English and Scots in four
   small regiments; but they proved of little use … many dying.
   … So far as the King's plans can be understood, he meant to
   have formed a number of Protestant principalities, and united
   them in what he called 'Corpus Evangelicorum' around the
   Baltic and the Elbe, as a balance to the Austrian Roman
   Catholic power in southern Germany. Frederick wanted to raise
   an army of his own people and take the command, but to this
   Gustavus would not consent, having probably no great
   confidence in his capacity. All the Palatinate was free from
   the enemy except the three fortresses of Heidelberg,
   Frankenthal, and Kreuznach, and the last of these was
   immediately besieged. … In the midst of the exultation
   Frederick was grieved to learn that his beautiful home at
   Heidelberg had been ravaged by fire, probably by the Spanish
   garrison in expectation of having to abandon it. But as Tilly
   was collecting his forces again, Gustavus would not wait to
   master that place or Frankenthal, and recrossed the Rhine. Sir
   Harry Vane had been sent as ambassador from Charles I. to
   arrange for the restoration of the Palatinate, the King
   offering £10,000 a mouth for the expense of the war, and
   proposing that if, as was only too probable, he should be
   prevented from performing this promise, some of the fortresses
   should be left as guarantees in the hands of the Swedes.
   Frederick took great and petulant offence at this stipulation,
   and complained, with tears in his eyes, to Vane and the
   Marquess of Hamilton. … He persuaded them to suppress this
   article, though they warned him that if the treaty failed it
   would be by his own fault. It did in fact fail, for, as usual,
   the English money was not forthcoming, and even if it had
   been, Gustavus declared that he would be no man's servant for
   a few thousand pounds. Frederick also refused the King's own
   stipulation, that Lutherans should enjoy equal rights with
   Calvinists. Moreover, the Swedish success had been
   considerably more than was desired by his French allies. …
   Louis XIII. was distressed, but Richelieu silenced him, only
   attempting to make a treaty with the Swedes by which the
   Elector of Bavaria and the Catholic League should be neutral
   on condition of the restoration of the bishops. To this,
   however, Gustavus could not fully consent, and imposed
   conditions which the Catholics could not accept. Tilly was
   collecting his forces and threatening Nuremberg, but the Swedes
   advanced, and he was forced to retreat, so that it was as a
   deliverer that, on the 31st March [1632], Gustavus was received
   in beautiful old Nuremberg with a rapture of welcome. …
{1478}
   Tilly had taken post on the Lech, and Maximilian was
   collecting an army in Bavaria. The object of Gustavus was now
   to beat one or other of them before they could join together:
   so he marched forward, took Donauwerth, and tried to take
   Ingoldstadt, but found it would occupy too much time, and,
   though all the generals were of a contrary opinion, resolved
   to attack Tilly and force the passage of the Lech. The
   Imperialists had fortified it to the utmost, but in their very
   teeth the Swedes succeeded in taking advantage of a bend in
   the river to play on them with their formidable artillery,
   construct a pontoon bridge, and, after a desperate struggle,
   effect a passage. Tilly was struck by a cannon-shot in the
   knee," and died soon afterwards. "On went Gustavus to Augsburg
   … where the Emperor had expelled the Lutheran pastors and
   cleared the municipal council of Protestant burgomasters. In
   restoring the former state of things, Gustavus took a fresh
   step, making the magistrates not only swear fidelity to him as
   an ally till the end of the war, but as a sovereign. This made
   the Germans begin to wonder what were his ulterior views. Then
   he marched on upon Bavaria, intending to bridge the Danube and
   take Ratisbon, but two strong forts prevented this. … He,
   however, made his way into the country between the Inn and the
   Lech, Maximilian retreating before him. … At Munich the
   inhabitants brought him their keys. As they knelt he said,
   'Rise, worship God, not man.' … To compensate the soldiers
   for not plundering the city, the King gave them each a crown
   on the day of their entrance. … Catholic Germany was in
   despair. There was only one general in whom there was any
   hope, and that was the discarded Wallenstein. … He made
   himself be courted. He would not come to Vienna, only to Znaim
   in Moravia, where he made his terms like an independent
   prince. … At last he undertook to collect an army, but
   refused to take the command for more than three months. His
   name was enough to bring his Friedlanders flocking to his
   standard. Not only Catholics, but Protestants came, viewing
   Gustavus as a foreign invader. … Wallenstein received
   subsidies not only from the Emperor, but from the Pope and the
   King of Spain, towards levying and equipping them, and by the
   end of the three months he had the full 40,000 all in full
   order for the march. Then he resigned the command. … He
   affected to be bent only on going back to his tower and his
   stars at Prague [the study of astrology being his favorite
   occupation], and to yield slowly to the proposals made him. He
   was to be Generalissimo, neither Emperor nor Archduke was ever
   to enter his camp; he was to name all his officers, and have
   absolute control. … Moreover, he might levy contributions as
   he chose, and dispose as he pleased of lands and property
   taken from the enemy; Mecklenburg was to be secured to him,
   together with further rewards yet unspecified; and when
   Bohemia was freed from the enemy, the Emperor was to live
   there, no doubt under his control. … There was no help for
   it, and Wallenstein thus became the chief power in the Empire,
   in fact a dictator. The power was conferred on him in April.
   The first thing he did was to turn the Saxons out of Bohemia,
   which was an easy matter." At Egra, Wallenstein was joined by
   the Elector of Bavaria, which raised the Catholic force to
   60,000. "The whole army marched upon Nuremberg, and Gustavus,
   with only 20,000 men, dashed back to its defence. Wallenstein
   had intrenched himself on an eminence called Fürth." As
   Nuremberg was terribly distressed, his own army suffering, and
   being infected with the lawless habits of German warfare,
   Gustavus found it necessary to attempt (August 24) the
   storming of the Imperialists' camp. He was repulsed, after
   losing 3,000 of his Swedes and thrice as many Germans. He then
   returned to Bavaria, while Wallenstein, abandoning his hope of
   taking Nuremberg, moved into Saxony and began ravaging the
   country. The Swedish king followed him so quickly that he had,
   no time to establish the fortified camp he had intended, but
   was forced to take up an intrenched position at Lützen. There
   he was attacked on the 6th of November, 1632, and defeated in
   a desperate battle, which became one of the memorable
   conflicts in history because it brought to an end the great
   and splendid career of Gustavus Adolphus, the Swede. The king
   fell as he was leading a charge, and the fierce fight went on
   over his body until the enemy had been driven from the field.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      6th series, chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapters 2-3._

      _R. C. Trench,
      Gustavus Adolphus in Germany._

      _J. L. Stevens,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapters 15-18._

GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1641.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The war in Lorraine.
   Possession of the duchy taken by the French.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.

GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Retirement of Wallenstein to Bohemia.
   Oxenstiern in the leadership of the Protestant cause.
   Union of Heilbronn.
   Inaction and suspicious conduct of Wallenstein.
    The Ban pronounced against him.
   His assassination.

   "The account of the battle [of Lützen] transmitted by
   Wallenstein to the Imperial Court, led Ferdinand to think that
   he had gained the day. … But … the reputed conqueror was
   glad to shelter himself behind the mountains of the Bohemian
   frontier. After the battle, Wallenstein found it necessary to
   evacuate Saxony in all haste; and, leaving garrisons at
   Leipsic, Plauen, Zwickau, Chemnitz, Freiberg, Meissen, and
   Frauenstein, he reached Bohemia without further loss, and put
   his army into winter-quarters. After his arrival at Prague, he
   caused many of his officers to be executed for their conduct
   at Lützen, among whom were several who belonged to families of
   distinction, nor would he allow them to plead the Emperor's
   pardon. A few he rewarded. The harshness of his proceedings
   increased the hatred already felt for him by many of his
   officers, and especially the Italian portion: of them. …
   Axel Oxenstiern, the Swedish Chancellor, succeeded, on the
   death of Gustavus Adolphus, to the supreme direction of the
   affairs of Sweden in Germany, and was invested by the Council
   at Stockholm with full powers both to direct the army and to
   negotiate with the German courts. Duke Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar
   retained the military command of the Swedish-German army,
   divisions of which were cantoned from the Baltic to the
   Danube.
{1479}
   After driving the Imperialists from Saxony, Bernhard had
   hastened into Franconia, the bishoprics of which, according to
   a promise of Gustavus, were to be erected in his favour into a
   duchy; but, after taking Bamberg, his assistance was invoked
   by General Horn, on the Upper Danube. One of the first cares
   of Oxenstiern was to consolidate the German alliance; and, in
   March 1633, he summoned a meeting at Heilbronn of the States
   of the four Circles of the Upper and Lower Rhine, Franconia,
   and Suabia, as well as deputies from Nuremberg, Strasburg,
   Frankfort, Ulm, Augsburg, and other cities of the empire. The
   assembly was also attended by ambassadors from France,
   England, and Holland; and on April 9th was effected the Union
   of Heilbronn. Brandenburg and Saxony stood aloof; nor was
   France, though she renewed the alliance with Sweden, included
   in the Union. The French minister at Heilbronn assisted,
   however, in the formation of the Union, although he
   endeavoured to limit the power of Oxenstiern, to whom the
   conduct of the war was intrusted. At the same time, the Swedes
   also concluded a treaty with the Palatinate, now governed, or
   rather claimed to be governed, by Louis Philip, brother of the
   Elector Frederick V., as guardian and regent for the latter's
   youthful son Charles Louis. The unfortunate Frederick had
   expired at Mentz in his 37th year, not many days after the
   death of Gustavus Adolphus. … Swedish garrisons were to be
   maintained in Frankenthal, Bacharach, Kaub, and other places;
   Mannheim was to be at the disposal of the Swedes so long as
   the war should last. … After the junction of Duke Bernhard
   with Horn, the Swedish army,—for so we shall continue to call
   it, though composed in great part of Germans,—endeavoured to
   penetrate into Bavaria; but the Imperial General Altringer,
   aided by John von Werth, a commander of distinction, succeeded
   in covering Munich, and enabled Maximilian to return to his
   capital. The Swedish generals were also embarrassed by a
   mutiny of their mercenaries, as well as by their own
   misunderstandings and quarrels; and all that Duke Bernhard was
   able to accomplish in the campaign of 1633, besides some
   forays into Bavaria, was the capture of Ratisbon in November."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 4, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

   Wallenstein, meantime, had been doing little. "After a long
   period of inaction in Bohemia, he marched during the summer of
   1633, with imperial pomp and splendor, into Silesia. There he
   found a mixed army of Swedes, Saxons, and Brandenburgers, with
   Matthias Thurn, who began the war, among them. Wallenstein
   finally shut in this army [at Steinau] so that he might have
   captured it; but he let it go, and went back to Bohemia, where
   he began to negotiate with Saxony for peace. Meanwhile the
   alliance formed at Heilbronn had brought Maximilian of Bavaria
   into great distress. Regensburg [Ratisbon], hitherto occupied by
   him, and regarded as an outwork of Bavaria and Austria, had
   been taken by Bernard of Weimar. But Wallenstein, whom the
   emperor sent to the rescue, only went into the Upper
   Palatinate, and then returned to Bohemia. He seemed to look
   upon that country as a strong and commanding position from
   which he could dictate peace. He carried on secret
   negotiations with France, Sweden, and all the emperor's
   enemies. He had, indeed, the power to do this under his
   commission; but his attitude toward his master became
   constantly more equivocal. The emperor was anxious to be rid
   of him without making him an enemy, and wished to give to his
   own son, the young King of Hungary, the command in chief. But
   the danger of losing his place drove Wallenstein to bolder
   schemes. At his camp at Pilsen, all his principal officers
   were induced by him to unite in a written request that he
   should in no case desert them—a step which seemed much like a
   conspiracy. But some of the generals, as Gallas, Aldringer,
   and Piccolomini, soon abandoned Wallenstein, and gave warning
   to the emperor. He secretly signed a patent deposing
   Wallenstein, and placed it in the hands of Piccolomini and
   Gallas, January 24, 1634, but acted with the profoundest
   dissimulation until he had made sure of most of the commanders
   who served under him. Then, suddenly, on February 18,
   Wallenstein, his brother-in-law Tertzski, Ilow, Neumann, and
   Kinsky were put under the ban, and the general's possessions
   were confiscated. Now, at length, Wallenstein openly revolted,
   and began to treat with the Swedes for desertion to them; but
   they did not fully trust him. Attended only by five Sclavonic
   regiments, who remained faithful to him, he went to Eger,
   where he was to meet troops of Bernard of Weimar; but before
   he could join them, he and the friends named above were
   assassinated, February 25, by traitors who had remained in his
   intimate companionship, and whom he trusted, under the command
   of Colonel Butler, an Irishman, employed by Piccolomini."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 18, section 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      book 4._

      _J. Mitchell,
      Life of Wallenstein,
      chapters 8-10._

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
      part 1._

GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Successes of the Imperialists.
   Their victory at Nördlingen.
   Richelieu and France become active in the war.
   Duke Bernhard's conquest of Alsace.
   Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

   "Want of union among the Protestants prevented them from
   deriving all the benefit which they had at first anticipated
   from Wallenstein's death. The King of Hungary assumed the
   command of the army, and by the aid of money, which was
   plentifully distributed, the soldiers were, without
   difficulty, kept in obedience; not the slightest attempt was
   any where made to resist the Emperor's orders. On the other
   hand, Bernhard of Weimar and Field-Marshal Horn were masters
   of Bavaria. In July 1634, they gained a complete victory at
   Landshut, over General Altringer, who was slain in the action.
   … The Swedes, who had so long been victorious, were, in their
   turn, destined to taste the bitterness of defeat. 15,000
   Spaniards, under the Cardinal Infant, son of Philip III.,
   entered Germany [see NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1621-1633, and
   1635-1638], and in conjunction with the imperial army, under
   the King of Hungary, laid siege to Nördlingen. Field-Marshal
   Horn, and Bernhard of Weimar, hurried to the relief of the
   place. Owing to the superiority of the enemy, who was besides
   strongly intrenched, the Swedish commanders had no intention
   to hazard a battle, before the arrival of the Rhin-graff Count
   Otho, with another division of the army, which was already
   close at hand; but the impetuosity of the Duke of Weimar lost
   every thing.
{1480}
   Horn had succeeded in carrying a hill, called the Amsberg, a
   strong point, which placed him in communication with the town,
   and almost secured the victory. Bernhard, thinking that so
   favourable an opening should not be neglected, hurried on to
   the attack of another post. It was taken and retaken; both
   armies were gradually, and without method, drawn into the
   combat, which, after eight hours' duration, ended in the
   complete defeat of the Swedes. Horn was made prisoner; and
   Bernhard escaped on a borrowed horse. … The defeat of'
   Nördlingen almost ruined the Swedish cause in Germany; the
   spell of invincibility was gone, and the effects of the panic
   far surpassed those which the sword had produced. Strong
   fortresses were abandoned before the enemy came in sight;
   provinces were evacuated, and armies, that had been deemed
   almost inconquerable, deserted their chiefs, and broke into
   bands of lawless robbers, who pillaged their way in every
   direction. Bavaria, Suabia and Franconia were lost; and it was
   only behind the Rhine that the scattered fugitives could again
   be brought into something like order. … The Emperor refused
   to grant the Swedes any other terms of peace than permission
   to retire from the empire. The Elector of Saxony, forgetful of
   what was due to his religion, and forgetful of all that Sweden
   had done for his country, concluded, at Prague, a separate
   peace with the Emperor; and soon afterwards joined the
   Imperialists against his former allies. The fortunes of the
   Protestants would have sunk beneath this additional blow, had
   not France come to their aid. Richelieu had before only
   nourished the war by means of subsidies, and had, at one time,
   become nearly as jealous of the Swedes as of the Austrians;
   but no sooner was their power broken, than the crafty priest
   took an active share in the contest."

      _J. Mitchell,
      Life of Wallenstein,
      chapter 10._

   "Richelieu entered resolutely into the contest, and in 1635
   displayed enormous diplomatic activity. He wished not only to
   reduce Austria, but, at the same time, Spain. Spanish
   soldiers, Spanish treasure, and Spanish generals made in great
   part the strength of the imperial armies, and Spain besides
   never ceased to ferment internal troubles in France. Richelieu
   signed the treaty of Compiegne with the Swedes against
   Ferdinand II. By its conditions he granted them considerable
   subsidies in order that they should continue the war in
   Germany. He made the treaty of St. Germain en Laye with
   Bernard of Saxe Weimar, to whom he promised an annual
   allowance of money as well as Alsace, provided that he should
   remain in arms to wrest Franche-Comté from Philip IV. He made
   the treaty of Paris with the Dutch, who were to help the King
   of France to conquer Flanders, which was to be divided between
   France and the United Provinces. He made the treaty of Rivoli
   with the dukes of Savoy, of Parma, and of Mantua, who were to
   undertake in concert with France the invasion of the
   territories of Milan and to receive a portion of the spoils of
   Spain. At the same time he declared war against the Spanish
   Government, which had arrested and imprisoned the Elector of
   Trèves, the ally of France, and refused to surrender him when
   demanded. Hostilities immediately began on five different
   theatres of war—in the Low Countries, on the Rhine, in
   Eastern Germany, in Italy, and in Spain. The army of the
   Rhine, commanded by Cardinal de la Valette, was to operate in
   conjunction with the corps of Bernard of Saxe Weimar against
   the Imperialists, commanded by Count Gallas. To this army
   Turenne was attached. It consisted of 20,000 infantry, 5,000
   cavalry, and 14 guns. This was the army upon which Richelieu
   mainly relied. … Valette was to annoy the enemy without
   exposing himself, and was not to approach the Rhine; but
   induced by Bernard, who had a dashing spirit and wished to
   reconquer all he had lost, encouraged by the terror of the
   Imperialists who raised the siege of Mayence, he determined to
   pass the river. He was not long in repenting of that step. He
   established his troops round Mayence and revictualled this
   place, which was occupied by a Swedish garrison, throwing in
   all the supplies of which the town had need. The Imperialists,
   who had calculated on this imprudence, immediately took to
   cutting off his supplies, so that soon everything was wanting
   in the French camp. … The scourge of famine threatened the
   French: it was necessary to retreat, to recross the Rhine, to
   pass the Sarre, and seek a refuge at Metz. Few retreats have
   been so difficult and so sad. The army was in such a pitiable
   condition that round Mayence the men had to be fed with roots
   and green grapes, and the horses with branches of trees. …
   The sick and the weary were abandoned, the guns were buried,
   villages were burnt to stay the pursuit of the enemy, and to
   prevent the wretched soldiers who would fall out of the ranks
   from taking refuge in them."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapter 2._

   "Meanwhile, Saxony had concluded with the Emperor at Pirna, at
   the close of 1634, a convention which ripened into a treaty of
   alliance, to which almost all the princes of Northern Germany
   subscribed, at Prague, in the month of May following. The
   Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg were thus changed into
   enemies of Sweden. The Swedish General, Banner [or Baner],
   who, at the period of the battle of Nördlingen, had been
   encamped side by side with the Saxon army on the White Hill
   near Prague, had, on the first indication of wavering on the
   part of its Elector, managed skilfully to withdraw his troops
   from the dangerous proximity. On the 22nd October 1635, he
   defeated the Saxon army, at Dömitz on the Elbe, then invaded
   Brandenburg, took Havelberg, and even threatened Berlin.
   Compelled by the approach of a Saxon and Imperialist army to
   quit his prey, he turned and beat the combined army at
   Wittstock (24th September 1636). After that battle, he drew
   the reinforced Imperialists, commanded by Gallas, after him
   into Pomerania; there he caused them great losses by cutting
   off their supplies, then forced them back into Saxony, and,
   following them up closely, attacked and beat them badly at
   Chemnitz (4th April, 1639)." In the south, Duke Bernhard had
   gained meantime some solid successes. After his retreat from
   Mayence, in 1635, he had concluded his secret treaty with
   Richelieu, placing himself wholly at the service of France,
   and receiving the promise of 4,000,000 francs yearly, for the
   support of his army, and the ultimate sovereignty of Alsace
   for himself. "Having concerted measures with La Valette
   [1636],  … he invaded Lorraine, drove the enemy thence,
   taking Saarburg and Pfalzburg, and then, entering Alsace, took
   Saverne. His career of conquest in Alsace was checked by the
   invasion of Burgundy by Gallas, with an army of 40,000 men.
{1481}
   Duke Bernhard marched with all haste to Dijon, and forced
   Gallas to fall back, with great loss, beyond the Saone
   (November 1636). Pursuing his advantages, early the following
   year he forced the passage of the Saone at Gray, despite the
   vivid resistance of Prince Charles of Lorraine (June 1637),
   and pursued that commander as far as Besançon. Reinforced
   during the autumn, he marched towards the Upper Rhine, and,
   undertaking a winter campaign, captured Lauffenburg, after a
   skirmish with John of Werth; then Säckingen and Waldshut, and
   laid siege to Rheinfelden. The Imperialist army, led by John
   of Werth, succeeded, indeed, after a very hot encounter, in
   relieving that place; but three days later Duke Bernhard
   attacked and completely defeated it (21st February 1638),
   taking prisoners not only John of Werth himself, but the
   generals, Savelli, Enkefort, and Sperreuter. The consequences
   of this victory were the fall of Rheinfelden, Rötteln,
   Neuenberg, and Freiburg. Duke Bernhard then laid siege to
   Breisach (July 1638). … The Imperial general, Götz, advanced
   at the head of a force considerably outnumbering that of Duke
   Bernhard. Leaving a portion of his army before the place, Duke
   Bernhard then drew to himself Turenne, who was lying in the
   vicinity with 3,000 men, fell upon the Imperialists at
   Wittenweiher (30th July), completely defeated them, and
   captured their whole convoy. Another Imperialist army, led by
   the Duke of Lorraine in person, shared a similar fate at
   Thann, in the Sundgau, on the 4th October following. Götz, who
   was hastening with a strengthened army to support the Duke of
   Lorraine, attacked Duke Bernhard ten days later, but was
   repulsed with great loss. Breisach capitulated on the 7th
   December. Duke Bernhard took possession of it in his own name,
   and foiled all the efforts of Richelieu to secure it for
   France, by garrisoning it with German soldiers. To compensate
   the French Cardinal Minister for Breisach, Duke Bernhard
   undertook a winter campaign to drive the Imperialists from
   Franche-Comté. Entering that province at the end of December,
   he speedily made himself master of its richest part. He then
   returned to Alsace with the resolution to cross the Rhine and
   carry the war once again into Bavaria," and then, in junction
   with Banner, to Vienna. "He had made all the necessary
   preparations for this enterprise, had actually sent his army
   across the Rhine, when he died very suddenly, not without
   suspicion of poison, at Neuberg am Rhein (8th July, 1639). The
   lands he had conquered he bequeathed to his brother. … But
   Richelieu paid no attention to the wishes of the dead general.
   Before any of the family could interfere, he had secured all
   the fortresses in Alsace, even Breisach, which was its key,
   for France."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 5._

   "During [1639] Piccolomini, at the head of the Imperialist and
   Spanish troops, gave battle to the French at Diedenhofen. The
   battle took place on the 7th of June, and the French were
   beaten and suffered great losses."

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
      part 2._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The Thirty Years' War,
      chapter 9, section 5._

GERMANY: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Campaigns in the Netherlands.
   The Dutch and French against the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.
   Diet at Ratisbon.
   Attempted negotiations of peace.
   Death of the Emperor Ferdinand II

   "An electoral diet was assembled at Ratisbon, by the emperor
   in person, on the 15th of September, 1636, for the ostensible
   purpose of restoring peace, for which some vague negotiations
   had been opened under the mediation of the pope and the king
   of Denmark, and congresses appointed at Hamburgh and Cologne;
   but with the real view of procuring the election of his son
   Ferdinand as king of the Romans. … Ferdinand was elected
   with only the fruitless protest of the Palatine family, and
   the dissenting voice of the elector of Treves. … The emperor
   did not long survive this happy event. He died on the 15th of
   February, 1637. … Ferdinand … seems to have been the first
   who formally established the right of primogeniture in all his
   hereditary territories. By his testament, dated May 10th.
   1621, he ordered that all his Austrian dominions should
   devolve on his eldest male descendant, and fixed the majority
   at 18 years."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 56 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1637.
   Election of the Emperor Ferdinand III.

GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.
   The second Breitenfeld.
   Jankowitz.
   Mergentheim.
   Allerheim.
   War in Denmark.
   Swedish army in Austria.
   Saxony forced to neutrality.

   "The war still went on for eight years, but the only influence
   that it exerted upon the subsequent Peace was that it overcame
   the last doubts of the Imperial court as to the indispensable
   principles of the Peace. … The first event of importance on
   the theatre of war after Bernhard's death was Baner's attempt
   to join the army of Weimar in central Germany. Not in a
   condition to pass the winter in Bohemia, and threatened in
   Saxony and Silesia, he … commenced [March, 1640] a retreat
   amidst fearful devastations, crossed the Elbe at Leitmeritz,
   and arrived April 3rd at Zwickau. He succeeded in joining with
   the mercenaries of Weimar and the troops of Lüneburg and Hesse
   at Saalfeld;" but no joint action was found possible. "Until
   December, the war on both sides consisted of marches hither
   and thither, accompanied with horrible devastation; but
   nothing decisive occurred. In September the Diet met at
   Ratisbon. While wearisome attempts were being made to bend the
   obstinacy of Austria, Baner resolved to compel her to yield by
   a bold stroke, to invade the Upper Palatinate, to surprise
   Ratisbon, and to put an end to the Diet and Emperor together.
   … Not without difficulty Guebriant [commanding the French in
   Alsace] was induced to follow, and to join Baner at Erfurt.
   … But the surprise of Ratisbon was a failure. … The armies
   now separated again. Baner exhausted his powers of persuasion
   in vain to induce Guebriant to go with him. The French went
   westward. Hard pressed himself, Baner proceeded by forced
   marches towards Bohemia, and by the end of March reached
   Zwickau, where he met Guebriant again, and they had a sharp
   conflict with the Imperialists on the Saal. There Baner died,
   on the 21st of May, 1641, leaving his army in a most critical
   condition, The warfare of the Swedish-French arms was come to
   a standstill.
{1482}
   Both armies were near dissolution, when, in November,
   Torstenson, the last of the Gustavus Adolphus school of
   generals, and the one who most nearly equalled the master,
   appeared with the Swedish army, and by a few vigorous strokes,
   which followed each other with unexampled rapidity, restored
   the supremacy of its arms. … After three months of rest,
   which he mainly devoted to the reorganization and payment of
   his army, by the middle of January [1642] he had advanced
   towards the Elbe and the Altmark; and as the Imperial forces
   were weakened by sending troops to the Rhine, he formed the
   great project of proceeding through Silesia to the Austrian
   hereditary dominions. On April 3rd he crossed the Elbe at
   Werben, between the Imperial troops, increased his army to
   20,000 men, stormed Glogau on May 4th, stood before
   Schweidnitz on the 30th, and defeated Francis Albert of
   Lauenburg; Schweidnitz, Neisse, and Oppeln fell into his
   hands. Meanwhile Guebriant, after subduing the defiant and
   mutinous spirit of his troops by means of money and promises,
   had, on January 17th, defeated the Imperialists near Kempen,
   not far from Crefeld [at Hulst], for which he was honoured
   with the dignity of marshal. But this was a short-lived gleam
   of light, and was soon followed by dark days, occasioned by
   want of money and discontent in the camp. … He had turned
   eastward from the Rhine to seek quarters for his murmuring
   troops in nether Germany, when Torstenson effected a decision
   in Saxony. After relieving Glogau, and having in vain tried to
   enter Bohemia, he had joined the detachments of Königsmark and
   Wrangel, and on October 30th he appeared before Leipzig. On
   November 2nd there was a battle near Breitenfeld, which ended
   in a disastrous defeat of the Imperialists and Leipzig
   surrendered to Torstenson three weeks afterwards. In spite of
   all the advantages which Torstenson gained for himself, it
   never came to a united action with the French; and the first
   victory won by the French in the Netherlands, in May, 1643,
   did not alter this state of things. Torstenson … was
   suddenly called to a remote scene of war in the north. King
   Christian IV. of Denmark had been persuaded, by means of the
   old Danish jealousy of Sweden, to take up arms for the
   Emperor. He declared war just as Torstenson was proceeding to
   Austria. Vienna was now saved; but so much the worse for
   Denmark. In forced marches, which were justly admired,
   Torstenson set out from Silesia towards Denmark at the end of
   October, conducted a masterly campaign against the Danes, beat
   them wherever he met with them, conquered Holstein and
   Schleswig, pushed on to Jutland, then, while Wrangel and Horn
   carried on the war (till the peace of Brömsebro, August,
   1645), he returned and again took up the war against the
   Imperialists, everywhere an unvanquished general. The
   Imperialists under the incompetent Gallas intended to give
   Denmark breathing-time by creating a diversion; but it did not
   save Denmark, and brought another defeat upon themselves.
   Gallas did not bring back more than 2,000 men from Magdeburg
   to Bohemia, and they were in a very disorganized state. He was
   pursued by Torstenson, while Ragoczy threatened Hungary. The
   Emperor hastily collected what forces he could command, and
   resolved to give battle. Torstenson had advanced as far as
   Glattau in February, and on March 6th, 1645, a battle was
   fought near Jankowitz, three miles from Tabor. It was the most
   brilliant victory ever gained by the Swedes. The Imperial army
   was cut to pieces; several of its leaders imprisoned or
   killed. In a few weeks Torstenson conquered Moravia and
   Austria as far as the Danube. Not far from the capital itself
   he took possession of the Wolfsbrücke. As in 1618, Vienna was
   in great danger." But the ill-success of the French "always
   counterbalanced the Swedes' advantages. Either they were
   beaten just as the Swedes were victorious, or could not turn a
   victory to account. So it was during this year [1645]. The
   west frontier of the empire was guarded on the imperial side
   by Mercy, together with John of Werth, after he was liberated
   from prison. On 26th March, Turenne crossed the Rhine, and
   advanced towards Franconia. There he encamped near Mergentheim
   and Rosenberg. On 5th May, a battle near Mergentheim ended
   with the entire defeat of the French, and Turenne escaped with
   the greatest difficulty by way of Hammelburg, towards Fulda.
   The victors pushed on to the Rhine. To avenge this defeat,
   Enghien was sent from Paris, and, at the beginning of July,
   arrived at Spires, with 12,000 men. His forces, together with
   Königsmark's, the remnant of Turenne's and the Hessians,
   amounted to 30,000 men. At first Mercy dexterously avoided a
   battle under unfavourable circumstances, but on August 3d the
   contest was inevitable. A bloody battle was fought between
   Nördlingen and Donauwörth, near Allerheim [called the battle
   of Nordlingen, by the French], which was long doubtful, but,
   after tremendous losses, resulted in the victory of the
   French. Mercy's fall, Werth's imprudent advance, and a final
   brave assault of the Hessians, decided the day. But the
   victors were so weakened that they could not fully take
   advantage of it. Condé was ill; and in the autumn Turenne was
   compelled, not without perceptible damage to the cause, to
   retreat with his army to the Neckar and the Rhine. Neither had
   Torstenson been able to maintain his position in Austria. He
   had been obliged to raise the siege of Brunn, and learnt at
   the same time that Ragoczy had just made peace with the
   Emperor. Obliged to retire to Bohemia, he found his forces
   considerably diminished. Meanwhile, Kônigsmark had won an
   important advantage. While Torstenson was in Austria he gained
   a firm footing in Saxony. Then came the news of Allerheim, and
   of the peace of Brömsebro. Except Dresden and Königstein, all
   the important points were in the hands of the Swedes; so, on
   the 6th of September [1645], the Elector John George concluded
   a treaty of neutrality for six months. Besides money and
   supplies, the Swedes received Leipzig, Torgau, and the right
   of passage through the country. Meanwhile, Torstenson had
   retreated into the north-east of Bohemia, and severe physical
   sufferings compelled him to give up the command. He was
   succeeded by Charles Gustavus Wrangel."

      _L. Hausser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      1517 to 1648, chapter 39._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 58 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1642-1643.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Condé's victory at Rocroi and campaign on the Moselle.

      See FRANCE: A.D. 1642-1648, and 1643.

{1483}

GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Campaigns of Turenne and Condé against Merci, on the Upper
   Rhine.
   Dütlingen.
   Freiburg.
   Philipsburg.

   "After the death of Bernard of Saxe Weimar, Marshal Guébriant
   had been placed in command of the troops of Weimar. He had
   besieged and taken Rottweil in Suabia, but had there been
   killed. Rantzau, who succeeded him in command of the Weimar
   army, marched (24-25 November, 1643) upon Dütlingen [or
   Tuttlingen], on the Upper Rhine, was there beaten by Mercy and
   made prisoner, with the loss of many officers and 7,000
   soldiers. This was a great triumph for the Bavarians; a
   terrible disaster for France. The whole of the German infantry
   in the French service was dispersed or taken, the cavalry
   retreated as they best could upon the Rhine. … Circumstances
   required active measures. Plenipotentiaries had just assembled
   at Münster to begin the negotiations which ended with the
   peace of Westphalia. It was desired that the French Government
   should support the French diplomatist by quick successes. …
   Turenne was sent to the Rhine with reinforcements. … He
   re-established discipline, and breathed into [the army] a new
   spirit. … At the same time, by negotiations, the prisoners
   who had been taken at Dütlingen were restored to France, the
   gaps in the ranks were filled up, and in the spring of 1644
   Turenne found himself at the head of 9,000 men, of whom 5,000
   were cavalry, and was in a position to take the field." He
   "pushed through the Black Forest, and near the source of the
   Danube gained a success over a Bavarian detachment. For some
   reason which is not clear he threw a garrison into Freiburg,
   and retired across the Rhine. Had he remained near the town he
   would have prevented Mercy from investing it. So soon as
   Turenne was over the river, Mercy besieged Freiburg, and
   although Turenne advanced to relieve the place, a stupid error
   of some of his infantry made him fail, and Freiburg
   capitulated to Mercy."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapter 3 and 5._

   "Affairs being in so bad a state about the Black Forest, the
   Great Condé, at that time Duc d'Enghien, was brought up, with
   10,000 men; thus raising the French to a number above the
   enemy's. He came crowned with the immortal laurels of Rocroi;
   and in virtue of his birth, as a prince of the blood-royal,
   took precedence of the highest officers in the service. Merci,
   a capable and daring general, aware of his inferiority, now
   posted himself a short distance from Freyburg, in a position
   almost inaccessible. He garnished it with felled trees and
   intrenchments, mountains, woods, and marshes, which of
   themselves defied attack." Turenne advocated a flank movement,
   instead of a direct assault upon Merci's position; but Condé,
   reckless of his soldiers' lives, persisted in leading them
   against the enemy's works. "A terrible action ensued (August
   3, 1644). Turenne made a long detour through a defile; Condé,
   awaiting his arrival on the ground, postponed the assault till
   three hours before sunset, and then ascended the steep. Merci
   had the worse, and retreated to a fresh position on the Black
   Mountain, where he successfully repulsed for one day Condé's
   columns (August 5). In this action Gaspard Merci was killed.
   Condé now adopted the flank movement, which, originally
   recommended by Turenne, would have saved much bloodshed; and
   Merci, hard pressed, escaped by a rapid retreat, leaving
   behind him his artillery and baggage (August 9). These are the
   'three days of Freyburg.' To retake the captured Freyburg after
   their victory … was the natural suggestion first heard." But
   Turenne persuaded Condé that the reduction of Philipsburg was
   more important. "Philipsburg was taken after a short siege;
   and its fall was accompanied by the submission of the adjacent
   towns of Germersheim, Speier, Worms, Mentz, Oppenheim and
   Landau. Condé at this conjuncture left the Upper Rhine, and
   took away his regiments with him."

      _T. O. Cockayne,
      Life of Turenne,
      pages 20-22._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 6._

GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Its final campaigns.
   The sufferings of Bavaria.
   Truce and peace negotiations initiated by the Elector
   Maximilian.
   The ending of the war at Prague.

   "The retreat of the French [after the battle of Allerheim]
   enabled the enemy to turn his whole force upon the Swedes in
   Bohemia. Gustavus Wrangel, no unworthy successor of Banner and
   Torstensohn, had, in 1646, been appointed Commander-in-chief
   of the Swedish army. … The Archduke, after reinforcing his
   army … moved against Wrangel, in the hope of being able to
   overwhelm him by his superior force before Koenigsmark could
   join him, or the French effect a diversion in his favour.
   Wrangel, however, did not await him." He moved through Upper
   Saxony and Hesse, to Weimar, where he was joined by the flying
   corps of Koenigsmark. Finally, after much delay, he was joined
   likewise by Turenne and the French. "The junction took place
   at Giessen, and they now felt themselves strong enough to meet
   the enemy. The latter had followed the Swedes into Hesse, in
   order to intercept their commissariat, and to prevent their
   union with Turenne. In both designs they had been
   unsuccessful; and the Imperialists now saw themselves cut off
   from the Maine, and exposed to great scarcity and want from
   the loss of their magazines. Wrangel took advantage of their
   weakness to execute a plan by which he hoped to give a new
   turn to the war. … He determined to follow the course of the
   Danube, and to break into the Austrian territories through the
   midst of Bavaria. … He moved hastily, … defeated a
   Bavarian corps near Donauwerth, and passed that river, as well
   as the Lech, unopposed. But by wasting his time in the
   unsuccessful siege of Augsburg, he gave opportunity to the
   Imperialists, not only to relieve that city, but also to
   repulse him as far as Lauingen. No sooner, however, had they
   turned towards Suabia, with a view to remove the war from
   Bavaria, than, seizing the opportunity, he repassed the Lech,
   and guarded the passage of it against the Imperialists
   themselves. Bavaria now lay open and defenceless before him;
   the French and Swedes quickly overran it; and the soldiery
   indemnified themselves for all dangers by frightful outrages,
   robberies, and extortions. The arrival of the Imperial troops,
   who at last succeeded in passing the Lech at Thierhaupten,
   only increased the misery of this country, which friend and
   foe indiscriminately plundered. And now, for the first time
   during the whole course of this war, the courage of
   Maximilian, which for eight-and-twenty years had stood
   unshaken amidst fearful dangers, began to waver. Ferdinand
   II., his school-companion at Ingolstadt, and the friend of his
   youth, was no more; and, with the death of his friend and
   benefactor, the strong tie was dissolved which had linked the
   Elector to the House of Austria. …
{1484}
   Accordingly, the motives which the artifices of France now put
   in operation, in order to detach him from the Austrian
   alliance, and to induce him to lay down his arms, were drawn
   entirely from political considerations. … The Elector of
   Bavaria was unfortunately led to believe that the Spaniards
   alone were disinclined to peace, and that nothing but Spanish
   influence had induced the Emperor so long to resist a
   cessation of hostilities. Maximilian detested the Spaniards,
   and could never forgive their having opposed his application
   for the Palatine Electorate. … All doubts disappeared; and,
   convinced of the necessity of this step, he thought he should
   sufficiently discharge his obligations to the Emperor if he
   invited him also to share in the benefit of the truce. The
   deputies of the three crowns, and of Bavaria, met at Ulm, to
   adjust the conditions. But it was soon evident, from the
   instructions of the Austrian ambassador, that it was not the
   intention of the Emperor to second the conclusion of a truce,
   but if possible· to prevent it. … The good intentions of the
   Elector of Bavaria, to include the Emperor in the benefit of
   the truce, having been thus rendered unavailing, he felt
   himself justified in providing for his own safety. … He
   agreed to the Swedes extending their quarters in Suabia and
   Franconia, and to his own being restricted to Bavaria and the
   Palatinate. The conquests which he had made in Suabia were
   ceded to the allies, who, on their part, restored to him what
   they had taken from Bavaria. Cologne and Hesse Cassel were
   also included in the truce. After the conclusion of this
   treaty, upon the 14th March, 1647, the French and Swedes left
   Bavaria. … Turenne, according to agreement, marched into
   Wurtemburg, where he forced the Landgrave of Darmstadt and the
   Elector of Mentz to imitate the example of Bavaria, and to
   embrace the neutrality. And now, at last, France seemed to
   have attained the great object of its policy, that of
   depriving the Emperor of the support of the League, and of his
   Protestant allies. … But … after a brief crisis, the
   fallen power of Austria rose again to a formidable strength.
   The jealousy which France entertained of Sweden, prevented it
   from permitting the total ruin of the Emperor, or allowing the
   Swedes to obtain such a preponderance in Germany, which might
   have been destructive to France herself. Accordingly, the
   French minister declined to take advantage of the distresses
   of Austria; and the army of Turenne, separating from that of
   Wrangel, retired to the frontiers of the Netherlands. Wrangel,
   indeed, after moving from Suabia into Franconia, taking
   Schweinfurt, … attempted to make his way into Bohemia, and
   laid siege to Egra, the key of that kingdom. To relieve this
   fortress, the Emperor, put his last army in motion, and placed
   himself at its head. But … on his arrival Egra was already
   taken." Meantime the Emperor had engaged in intrigues with the
   Bavarian officers and had nearly seduced the whole army of the
   Elector. The latter discovered this conspiracy in time to
   thwart it; but he now suddenly, on his own behalf, struck
   hands with the Emperor again, and threw over his late
   agreements with the Swedes and French. "He had not derived
   from the truce the advantages he expected. Far from tending to
   accelerate a general peace, it had a pernicious influence upon
   the negociations at Munster and Osnaburg, and had made the
   allies bolder in their demands." Maximilian, therefore,
   renounced the truce and began hostilities anew. "This
   resolution, and the assistance which he immediately despatched
   to the Emperor in Bohemia, threatened materially to injure the
   Swedes, and Wrangel was compelled in haste to evacuate that
   kingdom. He retired through Thuringia into Westphalia and
   Lunenburg, in the hope of forming a junction with the French
   army under Turenne, while the Imperial and Bavarian army
   followed him to the Weser, under Melander and Gronsfeld. His
   ruin was inevitable if the enemy should overtake him before
   his junction with Turenne; but the same consideration which
   had just saved the Emperor now proved the salvation of the
   Swedes. … The Elector of Bavaria could not allow the Emperor
   to obtain so decisive a preponderance as, by the sudden
   alteration of affairs, might delay the chances of a general
   peace. … Now that the power of the Emperor threatened once
   more to attain a dangerous superiority, Maximilian at once
   ceased to pursue the Swedes. … Melander, prevented by the
   Bavarians from further pursuing Wrangel, crossed by Jena and
   Erfurt into Hesse. … In this exhausted country, his army was
   oppressed by want, while Wrangel was recruiting his strength,
   and remounting his cavalry in Lunenburg. Too weak to maintain
   his wretched quarters against the Swedish general, when he
   opened the campaign in the winter of 1648, and marched against
   Hesse, he was obliged to retire with disgrace, and take refuge
   on the banks of the Danube. … Turenne received permission to
   join the Swedes; and the last campaign of this eventful war
   was now opened by the united armies. Driving Melander before
   them along the Danube, they threw supplies into Egra, which
   was besieged by the Imperialists, and defeated the Imperial
   and Bavarian armies on the Danube, which ventured to oppose
   them at Susmarshausen, where Melander was mortally wounded."
   They then forced a passage of the Lech, at the point where
   Gustavus Adolphus formerly overcame Tilly, and ravaged Bavaria
   once more; while nothing but a prolonged rain-storm, which
   flooded the Inn, saved Austria from a similar devastation.
   Koenigsmark, with his flying corps, entered Bohemia,
   penetrated to Prague and surprised and captured the lesser
   side of the city (the Kleinsite), thus acquiring the
   reputation of "closing the Thirty Years' War by the last
   brilliant achievement. This decisive stroke, which vanquished
   the Emperor's irresolution, cost the Swedes only the loss of a
   single man. But the old town, the larger half of Prague, which
   is divided into two parts by the Moldau, by its vigorous
   resistance wearied out the efforts of the Palatine, Charles
   Gustavus, the successor of Christina on the throne, who had
   arrived from Sweden with fresh troops. … The approach of
   winter at last drove the besiegers into their quarters, and in
   the meantime the intelligence arrived that a peace had been
   signed at Munster, on the 24th October,"—the "solemn and ever
   memorable and sacred treaty which is known by the name of the
   Peace of Westphalia."

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      book 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 7._

{1485}

GERMANY: The Thirty Years War:
   Its horrors.
   Its destructiveness.
   The state of the country at its close.

   "The materials of which the armies were composed passed
   inevitably from bad to worse. This, which had been a civil war
   at the first, did not continue such for long; or rather it
   united presently all the dreadfulness of a civil war and a
   foreign. It was not long before the hosts which trampled the
   German soil had in large part ceased to be German; every
   region of Europe sending of its children, and, as it would
   seem, of those whom it must have been gladdest to be rid of,
   to swell the ranks of the destroyers. … From all quarters
   they came trooping, not singly, but in whole battalions. …
   All armies draw after them a train of camp-followers; they are
   a plague which in the very nature of things is inevitable. But
   never perhaps did this evil rise to so enormous a height as
   now. Toward the close of this War an Imperial army of 40,000
   men was found to be attended by the ugly accompaniment of
   140,000 of these. The conflict had in fact by this time lasted
   so long that the soldiery had become as a distinct nation,
   camping in the midst of another; and the march of an army like
   the migration of some wild nomade horde, moving with wives and
   children through the land. And not with these only. There were
   others too in its train, as may easily be supposed. … It is
   a thought to make one shudder, the passage of one of these
   armies with its foul retinue through some fair and smiling and
   well-ordered region—what it found, and what it must have left
   it, and what its doings there will have been. Bear in mind
   that there was seldom in these armies any attempt whatever at
   a regular commissariat; rations being never issued except to
   the actual soldiers, and most irregularly to them; that the
   soldier's pay too was almost always enormously in arrear, so
   that he could not purchase even if he would. … It was indeed
   the bitterest irony of all, that this War, which claimed at the
   outset to be waged for the highest religious objects, for the
   glory of God and for the highest interests of His Church,
   should be signalized ere long by a more shameless treading
   under foot of all laws human and divine, disgraced by worse
   and wickeder outrages against God, and against man, the image
   of God, than probably any war which modern Christendom has
   seen. The three master sins of our fallen nature, hate, lust,
   and covetousness, were all rampant to the full. … Soon it
   became evident that there was no safety in almost any
   remoteness from that which might be the scene of warfare at
   the actual moment. When all in their immediate neighbourhood
   was wasted, armed bands variously disguised, as merchants, as
   gipsies, as travellers, or sometimes as women, would penetrate
   far into the land. … Nor was the condition of the larger
   towns much better. … It did not need actual siege or capture
   to make them acquainted with the miseries of the time. With no
   draught-cattle to bring firewood in, there was no help for it
   but that abandoned houses, by degrees whole streets, and
   sometimes the greater part of a town, should be pulled down to
   prevent those of its inhabitants who remained from perishing
   by cold, the city thus living upon and gradually consuming
   itself. … Under conditions like these, it is not wonderful
   that the fields were left nearly or altogether untilled; for
   who would sow what he could never hope to reap? … What
   wonder that famine, thus invited, should before long have
   arrived? … Persons were found dead in the fields with grass
   in their mouths; while the tanners' and knackers' yards were
   beset for the putrid carcasses of beasts; the multitudes,
   fierce with hunger, hardly enduring to wait till the skin had
   been stript away. The bodies of malefactors, broken on the
   wheel, were secretly removed to serve for food; or men climbed
   up the gibbets, and tore down the bodies which were suspended
   there, and devoured them. This, indeed, was a supply which was
   not likely to fail. … Prisoners in Alsace were killed that
   they might be eaten. Children were enticed from home. …
   Putting all together, it is not too much to say that the
   crowning horrors of Samaria, of Jerusalem, of Saguntum, found
   their parallels, and often worse than their parallels, in
   Christian Germany only two centuries ago. I had thought at one
   time that there were isolated examples of these horrors, one
   here, one there, just enough to warrant the assertion that
   such things were done; but my conviction now is that they were
   very frequent indeed, and in almost every part of the land.
   … Districts which had for centuries been in the occupation
   of civilized men were repossessed by forests. … When Peace
   was at length proclaimed, and Germany had leisure to take an
   inventory of her losses, it was not altogether impossible to
   make a rude and rough estimate. … The statistics, so far as
   they were got together, tell a terrible tale. … Of the
   population it was found that three-fourths, in some parts a
   far larger proportion, had perished; or, not having perished,
   were not less effectually lost to their native land, having
   fled to Switzerland, to Holland, and to other countries, never
   to return from them again. Thus in one group of twenty
   villages which had not exceptionally suffered, 85 per cent.,
   or more than four-fifths of the inhabitants, had disappeared.
   … Of the houses, three-fourths were destroyed. … Careful
   German writers assure us that there are districts which at
   this present day [1872] have just attained the population, the
   agricultural wealth, the productive powers which they had when
   the War commenced."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, and other
      Lectures on the Thirty Years' War,
      lectures 3 and 5._

      See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Cession of Alsace to France.
   Separation of Switzerland from the Empire.
   Loosening of the constitutional bonds of the Empire.

   "The opening of the peace negotiations between the Emperor and
   his enemies was … fixed for the 25th of March, 1642, and the
   cities of Münster and Osnabrück as the places of the sitting;
   but neither in this year nor in the next did it take place. It
   was not until the year 1644 that in the former of these
   cities" were assembled the following: The Papal Nuncio and the
   envoy of the Republic of Venice, acting as mediators, two
   imperial ambassadors, two representatives of France, three of
   Spain, and the Catholic Electors; later came also the Catholic
   Princes. To Osnabrück, Sweden sent two ambassadors and France
   three, while the Electors, the German Princes and the imperial
   cities were represented. Questions of etiquette, which demanded
   prior settlement, occupied months, and serious matters when
   reached were dealt with slowly and jealously, with many
   interruptions. It was not until the 24th of October, 1648,
   that the articles of peace forming the two treaties of Münster
   and Osnabrück, and known together as the Peace of Westphalia,
   were signed by all the negotiators at Münster.
{1486}
   The more important of the provisions of the two instruments
   were the following "To France was secured the perpetual
   possession of the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, as
   also Moyenvic and Pignerol, with the right to keep a garrison
   in Philipsburg, and finally Breisach, Alsace, with its ten
   imperial cities, and the Sundgau. The Emperor bound himself to
   gain the assent of the Archduke Ferdinand, of Tyrol and Spain,
   to this last-named cession. France made good to the Archduke this
   loss by the payment of 3,000,000 francs. Although it was not
   expressly provided that the connection with the Empire of the
   German provinces ceded to France should be dissolved, yet the
   separation became, as a matter of fact, a complete one. The
   Emperor did not summon the Kings of France to the Diets of the
   Empire, and the latter made no demand for such summons. … In
   relation to Italy, the French treaty provided that the peace
   concluded in 1631 [see ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631] should remain
   in force, except the part relating to Pignerol. ['Pinerolo was
   definitely put under the French overlordship.']

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 3, page 98._

   Switzerland was made independent of the German Empire; but the
   Circle of Burgundy [the Spanish Netherlands and Franche-Comté]
   was still to form a part of the Empire, and after the close of
   the war between France and Spain, in which the Emperor and the
   Empire were to take no part, was to be included in the peace.
   No aid was to be rendered to the Duke of Lorraine against
   France, although the Emperor and the Empire were left free to
   mediate for him a peace. Sweden received Hither Pomerania,
   including the Island of Rügen, from Further Pomerania the
   Island of Wollin and several cities, with their surroundings,
   among which were Stettin, as also the expectancy of Further
   Pomerania in case of the extinction of the house of
   Brandenburg. Furthermore, it received the city of Wismar, in
   Mecklenburg, and the Bishoprics of Bremen [secularized and
   made a Grand Duchy] and Verden, with reservation of the rights
   and immunities of the city of Bremen. Sweden was to hold all
   the ceded territory as feudal tenures of the Empire, and be
   represented for them in the Imperial Diet. … Brandenburg
   received for its loss of Pomerania the Bishoprics of
   Halberstadt, Minden, and Camin, and the expectancy of that of
   Magdeburg as soon as this should become vacant by the death of
   its Administrator, the Saxon Prince, although the four
   bailiwicks separated from it were to remain with Saxony as
   provided in the Peace of Prague. … The house of
   Brunswick-Lüneberg was to renounce its right to the
   coadjutorship of Magdeburg, Bremen, Halberstadt, and
   Ratzeburg, and, in return for this renunciation, was to
   alternate with a Catholic prelate in the possession of the
   Bishopric of Osnabrück. … To Duke Maximilian of Bavaria was
   conveyed the Electorate, together with the Upper Palatinate,
   to be hereditary in his family of the line of William, for
   which he, on the other hand, was to surrender to the Emperor
   the account of the 13,000,000 florins which he had made for
   the execution of the sentence against the Palsgrave Frederic.
   To the Palsgrave, Charles Lewis, son of the proscribed Elector
   [Frederic, who had died in 1632], was given back the Lower
   Palatinate, while a new Electorate, the eighth, was created
   for him. … There were numerous provisions relating to the
   restoration of the Dukes of Würtemberg, the Margraves of
   Baden, and the Counts of Nassau and those of Hanau to several
   parts of the territories which either belonged to them or were
   contested. A general amnesty was indeed provided, and everyone
   was to be restored to the possession of the lands which he had
   held before the war. This general article was, however,
   limited by various special provisions, as that in relation to
   the Palsgrave, and was not to be applied to Austria at all.
   … Specially important are the sections which relate to the
   settlement of religious grievances. The treaty of Passau and
   the Augsburg religious peace were confirmed; the 1st of
   January, 1624, was fixed as the time which was to govern
   mutual reclamations between the Catholics and Protestants;
   both parties were secured the right to all ecclesiastical
   foundations, whether in mediate or immediate connection with
   the Empire, which they severally held in possession on the
   first day of January, 1624; if any such had been taken from
   them after this date, restoration was to be made, unless
   otherwise specially provided. The Ecclesiastical Reservation
   was acknowledged by the Protestants, and Protestant holders of
   ecclesiastical property were freely admitted to the Imperial
   Diets. The right of reformation was conceded to the Estates,
   and permission to emigrate to the subjects; while it was at
   the same time provided that, if in 1624 Protestant subjects of
   Catholic Princes, or the reverse, enjoyed freedom of religion,
   this right should not in the future be diminished. It was
   specially granted for Silesia that all the concessions which
   had been made before the war to the Dukes of Liegnitz,
   Münsterburg, and Oels, and to the city of Breslau, relating to
   the free exercise of the Augsburg Confession, should remain in
   force. … Finally, the Reformed—that is, the adherents of
   Calvinism—were placed upon the same ground with those of the
   Augsburg Confession; and it was provided that if a Lutheran
   Estate of the Empire should become a Calvinist, or the
   reverse, his subjects should not be forced to change with
   their Prince."

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,'
      volume 2, chapter 10._

   "The emperor, in his own name, and in behalf of his family and
   the 'empire, ceded the full sovereignty of Upper and Lower
   Alsace, with the prefecture of Haguenau, or the ten towns
   [Haguenau, Schelestadt, Weissemburgh, Colmar, Landau,
   Oberenheim, Rosheim, Munster in the Val de St. Gregoire,
   Kaiserberg, and Turingheim], and their dependencies. But by
   one of those contradictions which are common in treaties, when
   both parties wish to preserve their respective claims, another
   article was introduced, binding the king of France to leave
   the ecclesiastics and immediate nobility of those provinces in
   the immediacy which they had hitherto possessed with regard to
   the Roman empire, and not to pretend to any sovereignty over
   them, but to remain content with such rights as belonged to
   the house of Austria. Yet this was again contradicted by a
   declaration, that this exception should not derogate from the
   supreme sovereignty before yielded to the king of France."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 59 (volume 2)._

[Image: Germany at the peace of Westphalia.]

{1487}

   "Respecting the rights of sovereignty due to the princes and
   the relations of the states of the empire with the emperor,
   the Peace of Westphalia contained such regulations as must in
   the course of time produce a still greater relaxation of those
   ties, already partially loosened, which held together the
   empire in one entirety. … At the Peace of Westphalia the
   independence of the princes was made completely legal. They
   received the entire right of sovereignty over their territory,
   together with the power of making war, concluding peace, and
   forming alliances among themselves, as well as with foreign
   powers, provided such alliances were not to the injury of the
   empire. But what a feeble obstacle must this clause have
   presented? For henceforward, if a prince of the empire, having
   formed an alliance with a foreign power, became hostile to the
   emperor, he could immediately avail himself of the pretext
   that it was for the benefit of the empire, the maintenance of
   his rights, and the liberty of Germany. And in order that the
   said pretext might, with some appearance of right, be made
   available on every occasion, foreigners established themselves
   as the guardians of the empire; and accordingly France and
   Sweden took upon themselves the responsibility of legislating
   as guarantees, not only for the Germanic constitution, but for
   everything else that was concluded in the Peace of Westphalia
   at Münster and Osnaburg. Added to this, in reference to the
   imperial cities, whose rights had hitherto never been
   definitively fixed, it was now declared that they should
   always be included under the head of the other states, and
   that they should command a decisive voice in the diets;
   thenceforth, therefore, their votes and those of the other
   states—the electoral and other princes—should be of equal
   validity."

      _F. Kohlrausch,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 26._

   Peace between Spain and the United Provinces was embodied in a
   separate treaty, but negotiated at Münster, and concluded and
   signed a few months earlier in the same year. The war between
   Spain and France went on.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
   Effects of the Peace of Westphalia on the Empire.
   It becomes a loose confederacy and purely German.

   "It may … be said of this famous peace, as of the other
   so-called 'fundamental law of the Empire,' the Golden Bull,
   that it did no more than legalize a condition of things
   already in existence, but which by being legalized acquired
   new importance. … While the political situation, to use a
   current phrase, had changed within the last two hundred years,
   the eyes with which men regarded it had changed still more.
   Never by their fiercest enemies in earlier times, not once by
   the Popes or Lombard republicans in the heat of their strife
   with the Franconian and Swabian Cæsars, had the Emperors been
   reproached as mere German kings, or their claim to be the
   lawful heirs of Rome denied. The Protestant jurists of the
   16th or rather of the 17th century were the first persons who
   ventured to scoff at the pretended lordship of the world, and
   declare their Empire to be nothing more than a German
   monarchy, in dealing with which no superstitious reverence
   need prevent its subjects from making the best terms they
   could for themselves, and controlling a sovereign whose
   religious predilections made him the friend of their enemies.
   … It was by these views … that the states, or rather
   France and Sweden acting on their behalf, were guided in the
   negotiations of Osnabrück and Münster. By extorting a full
   recognition of the sovereignty of all the princes, Catholics
   and Protestants alike, in their respective territories, they
   bound the Emperor from any direct interference with the
   administration, either in particular districts or throughout
   the Empire. All affairs of public importance, including the
   rights of making war or peace, of levying contributions,
   raising troops, building fortresses, passing or interpreting
   laws, were henceforth to be left entirely in the hands of the
   Diet. … Both Lutherans and Calvinists were declared free
   from all jurisdiction of the Pope or any Catholic prelate.
   Thus the last link which bound Germany to Rome was snapped,
   the last of the principles by virtue of which the Empire had
   existed was abandoned. For the Empire now contained and
   recognized as its members persons who formed a visible body at
   open war with the Holy Roman Church; and its constitution
   admitted schismatics to a full share in all those civil rights
   which, according to the doctrines of the early Middle Age,
   could be enjoyed by no one who was out of the communion of the
   Catholic Church. The Peace of Westphalia was therefore an
   abrogation of the sovereignty of Rome, and of the theory of
   Church and State with which the name of Rome was associated.
   And in this light was it regarded by Pope Innocent X., who
   commanded his legate to protest against it, and subsequently
   declared it void by the bull 'Zelo domus Dei.' … The Peace
   of Westphalia is an era in imperial history not less clearly
   marked than the coronation of Otto the Great, or the death of
   Frederick II. As from the days of Maximilian it had borne a
   mixed or transitional character, well expressed by the name
   Romano-Germanic, so henceforth it is in everything but title
   purely and solely a German Empire. Properly, indeed, it was no
   longer an empire at all, but a Confederation, and that of the
   loosest sort. For it had no common treasury, no efficient
   common tribunals, no means of coercing a refractory member;
   its states were of different religions, were governed
   according to different forms, were administered judicially and
   financially without any regard to each other. … There were
   300 petty principalities between the Alps and the Baltic, each
   with its own laws, its own courts, … its little armies, its
   separate coinage, its tolls and custom-houses on the frontier,
   its crowd of meddlesome and pedantic officials. … This
   vicious system, which paralyzed the trade, the literature, and
   the political thought of Germany, had been forming itself for
   some time, but did not become fully established until the
   Peace of Westphalia, by emancipating the princes from imperial
   control, had made them despots in their own territories."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 19._

{1488}

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.
   After the Peace of Westphalia.
   French influence in the Empire.
   Creation of the Ninth Elector.

   After the Peace of Westphalia, the remainder of the reign of
   Ferdinand III. "passed in tranquillity. … He caused his son
   to be elected king of the Romans, under the title of Ferdinand
   IV.; but the young prince, already king of Bohemia and
   Hungary, preceded him to the tomb, and left the question of
   the succession to be decided by a diet. Ferdinand III. died in
   1657. … The interregnum, and, indeed, the century which
   followed the death of Ferdinand, showed the alarming
   preponderance of the influence gained by France in the affairs
   of the empire, and the consequent criminality of the princes
   who had first invoked the assistance of that power. Her recent
   victories, her character as joint guarantee of the treaty of
   Westphalia, and the contiguity of her possessions to the
   states of the empire, encouraged her ministers to demand the
   imperial crown for the youthful Louis XIV. Still more
   extraordinary is the fact that four of the electors were
   gained, by that monarch's gold, to espouse his views. …
   Fortunately for Germany and for Europe, the electors of
   Treves, Brandenburg, and Saxony, were too patriotic to
   sanction this infatuated proposal; they threatened to elect a
   native prince of their own authority,—a menace which caused
   the rest to co-operate with them; so that, after some
   fruitless negotiations, Leopold, son of the late emperor, king
   of Bohemia and of Hungary, was raised to the vacant dignity.
   His reign was one of great humiliation to his house and to the
   empire. Without talents for government, without generosity,
   feeble, bigoted, and pusillanimous, he was little qualified to
   augment the glory of the country. … Throughout his long
   reign [1657-1705], he had the mortification to witness, on the
   part of Louis XIV., a series of the most unprovoked, wanton, and
   unprincipled usurpations ever recorded in history. …
   Internally, the reign of Leopold affords some interesting
   particulars. … Not the least is the establishment of a ninth
   electoral dignity in favour of Ernest Augustus, Duke of
   Brunswick Lunenburg, who then became (1692) the first elector
   of Hanover. This was the act of Leopold, in return for
   important aid in money and troops from two princes of that
   house; but it could not be effected without the concurrence of
   the electoral body, who long resisted it. … The
   establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the
   electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of
   the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

      See, DIET, THE GERMANIC.

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1780.
   The Austrian incubus.

   "Before the Thirty Years' War the territories of the German
   Hapsburgs were not very considerable. The greatest part of
   Hungary was in the hands of the Turks; the Tyrol belonged to a
   collateral line; and, in the other provinces, the independence
   of the Nobility was much stronger than the sovereignty of the
   Archdukes. The Nobles were all zealous protestants, so that a
   monarchical power could only be created after a victory of the
   Catholic faith. For the first time since 1621, the crown was
   seen in these regions to assume a really dominant position.
   Efforts in this direction had been zealously carried on since
   1648; the Tyrolese Estates now lost their most important
   privileges; and, above all, the Emperor succeeded, by the help
   of Polish and German troops, in driving out the Turks from
   Hungary, and at the same time crushing the national freedom of
   the Magyars with frightful bloodshed. By these victories the
   Monarchy gained, in the first place, a large increase of
   territory—which placed it nearly on a level with France. In
   the second place it acquired at home the power of raising as
   many taxes and soldiers as were necessary to increase the army
   to the extent of its wishes; and of distributing its officials
   and troops—without distinction of nation—as imperial
   servants, throughout its dominions. And thus it secured
   submission at home and disposable strength for its operations
   abroad. Here it stopped short. As it had no national, and,
   consequently, no warm and natural relation to any of its
   provinces—which were merely used as passive tools to promote
   the lofty aims of the Hapsburg family—the Government had no
   intention of using its power at home for the furtherance of
   the public good, or the building up of a generally useful
   Administration. The Nobility had no longer the strength to
   resist the demands of the Crown for men and money, but it
   still retained exemption from taxes, the jurisdiction and
   police among its own peasants, and a multitude of feudal
   rights, which, often enough, degraded the peasant to the
   condition of a serf, and everywhere bound down agriculture in
   the most galling bonds. Of manufactures there were little or
   none; trade was carried on on the system of guilds. The State
   officials exercised but little influence over the internal
   affairs of the Communes, or Provinces; and the privileged
   orders had full liberty to prosecute their own interests among
   their inferiors with inconsiderate selfishness. In this
   aristocracy, the Church, from its wealth and its close
   internal unity, assumed the first place; and its superior
   importance was still farther enhanced by the fact of its being
   the chief bond of unity between the otherwise so loosely
   compacted portions of the Empire. … The Church attached the
   Nobility to the Government; for we must not forget that a very
   considerable portion of the estates of the Nobles had passed
   into the hands of new possessors who had received them as a
   reward for being good catholics. The Church, too, taught all
   the youth of the Empire—in all its different languages—
   obedience to the House of Hapsburg, and received from the
   Crown, in return, exclusive control of the national education.
   It formed, in spite of the resistance of nationalities, a sort
   of public opinion in favour of the unity of the Empire; and the
   Crown, in return, excluded all non-catholic opinions from the
   schools, from literature and religion. Austria, therefore,
   continued to be catholic, even after 1648; and by this we
   mean, not only that its Princes were personally devout—or
   that the Catholic clergy were supported in the performance of
   their spiritual functions—or that the institutions of the
   Church were liberally supported—but also that the State
   directed its policy according to ecclesiastical views, made
   use of the Church for political purposes, and crushed every
   movement hostile to it in all other spheres of the national
   life. In Austria, therefore, it was not merely a question of
   theological differences, but of the deepest and most
   comprehensive points of distinction between the mediæval and
   the modern world. Austria was still, in its whole nature, a
   Mediæval State or Confederacy of States. The consequences of
   this condition were most strikingly seen in its relation to
   Germany. In the first place, there was a complete separation,
   in regard to all mental and spiritual matters, between the
   great body of the Empire, and its powerful Eastern member.
   This was the period, in which Germany was awaking to a new
   intellectual life in modern Europe, and laying the foundation
   of its modern science in every branch—in History and
   Statistics, Chemistry and Geology, Jurisprudence and
   Philosophy—and assuming by its Literature, an equal rank with
   other nations in national refinement and civilization.
{1489}
   By the works of genius which this period produced Austria
   remained entirely uninfluenced; and it has been said, that
   Werther had only been made known to the Viennese in the form
   of fireworks in the Prater. The literary policy allowed no
   seed of modern culture to enter the Empire; and the Jesuit
   schools had rendered the soil unfit for its reception. All the
   progress of German civilization, at this period, was based on
   the principle of the independence of the mind in art and
   science. The education of the Jesuits, on the contrary, though
   unsurpassed where the object is to prepare men for a special
   purpose, commences by disowning individual peculiarities, and
   the right of a man to choose his own career. There was, at
   this time, no other characteristic of an Austrian than an
   entire estrangement from the progress of the German mind. …
   The progress of the people in science and art, in politics and
   military strength, was only seen in the larger secular
   territories, which, after 1648, enjoyed their own sovereignty;
   and even these were checked in their movements at every step
   by the remnants of the Imperial Constitution. The Members of
   the Empire alone, in whom the decaying remains of Mediæval
   existence still lingered on—the Ecclesiastical Princes—the
   small Counts—the Imperial Knights and the Imperial
   Towns,—clung to the Emperor and the Imperial Diet. In these,
   partly from their small extent of territory, partly from the
   inefficiency of their institutions, neither active industry,
   nor public spirit, nor national pride, were to be found. In
   all which tended to elevate the nation, and raise its hopes
   for the future, they took, at this period, as little part as
   Austria herself. … The Imperial constitution, therefore, was
   inwardly decayed, and stood in no relation to the internal
   growth of the nation. … There was the same divergence
   between Austria and Germany with respect to their foreign
   interests, as we have observed in their internal relations.
   After the Turks had been driven from Hungary, and the Swedes
   from the half of' Pomerania, Germany had only two neighbours
   whom it was a matter of vital importance to watch,—the Poles
   and the French. In the South, on the contrary, it had no
   interests in opposition to Italy, except the protection of its
   frontier by the possession or the neutrality of the Alpine
   passes. And yet it was just towards Italy that the eyes of the
   House of Hapsburg had been uninterruptedly directed for centuries
   past. The favourite traditions of the family, and their
   political and ecclesiastical interest in securing the support
   of the Pope, and thereby that of the Clergy, constantly
   impelled them to consolidate and extend their dominion in that
   country. All other considerations yielded to this; and this is
   intelligible enough from an Austrian point of view; but it was
   not on that account less injurious to the German Empire. How
   strikingly was this opposition of interests displayed at the
   end of the glorious war of the Spanish succession, when the
   Emperor rejected a peace which would have restored Strasburg
   and Alsace to the Empire, because only Naples, and not Sicily
   also, was offered to Austria! How sharply defined do the same
   relations present themselves to our view, in the last years of
   the Hapsburg dynasty, at the peace of Vienna in 1738!—on
   which occasion the Emperor—in order at least to gain Tuscany,
   as a compensation for the loss of Naples,—gave up Lorraine to
   the French, without even consulting the Empire, which he had
   dragged into the war. Austria thus maintained a predominant
   influence in Italy; but the Empire, during the whole century
   after the Peace of Westphalia, did not obtain a single
   noteworthy advantage over France. How much more was this the
   case with respect to Poland, which during the whole period of
   the religious wars had been the most zealous ally of Spain and
   the Hapsburgs, and which subsequently seemed to threaten no
   danger to Austrian interests."

      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1658.
   Election of the Emperor, Leopold I.

GERMANY: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Renewed war with the Turks.
   Victory of St. Gothard.
   Transylvania liberated.
   A twenty years truce.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

GERMANY: A. D. 1672-1679.
   The war of the Coalition against Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
      and 1674-1678;
      also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

GERMANY: A. D. 1675-1678.
   War with Sweden.
   Battle of Fehrbellin.

      See BRANDENBURG: A.D. 1640-1688;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

GERMANY: A. D. 1679-1681.
   The final absorption of Alsace and Les Trois-Evêchés by
   France, with boundaries widened.
   Bold encroachments of the French Chambers of Reannexation.
   The seizure of Strasburg.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

   "The Duke of Orleans, the French King's brother, had married
   the sister of the Elector Palatine, the last of the House of
   Simmern, who died in May 1685, when his next relative, the
   Count Palatine Philip William, Duke of Neuberg, took
   possession of the Electorate. The Duchess of Orleans had by
   her marriage contract renounced all her feudal rights to the
   Palatinate, but not her claims to the allodial property and
   the moveables of her family." These latter claims, taken in
   hand by Louis XIV. on behalf of his sister-in-law, were made
   so formidable that the new Elector appealed to the Empire for
   protection, "and, thus redoubled the uneasiness felt in
   Germany, and indeed throughout the greater part of Europe,
   respecting the schemes of Louis. The Prince of Orange availed
   himself of these suspicions to forward his plans against
   Louis. He artfully inflamed the general alarm, and at length
   succeeded in inducing the Emperor Leopold, the Kings of Spain,
   and Sweden, as princes of the Empire, the Electors of Saxony
   and Bavaria, the circles of Suabia, Franconia, Upper Saxony,
   and Bavaria, to enter into the celebrated League of Augsburg
   (July 9th 1686). The object of this league was to maintain the
   Treaties of Münster and Nimeguen and the Truce of Ratisbon. If
   any of the members of it was attacked he was to be assisted by
   the whole confederacy; 60,000 men were to be raised, who were
   to be frequently drilled, and to form a camp during some weeks
   of every year, and a common fund for their support was to be
   established at Frankfort. The League was to be in force only
   for three years, but might be prolonged at the expiration of
   that term should the public safety require it. The Elector
   Palatine, who was in fact the party most directly interested,
   acceded to the League early in September, as well as the Duke
   of Holstein Gottorp."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

{1490}

   "To Madame's great anger France set up a claim to the
   Palatinate on her behalf, Louvois persuading the King and the
   royal family that with a few vigorous measures the Palatinate
   would be abandoned by the Neubourgs and annexed to France as
   part of Madame's dowry. This led to the devastation of the
   states, to which Madame [Charlotte Elizabeth, the Duchess of
   Orleans] so often and so bitterly alludes during the next ten
   years. Obliged by Louis XIV. 's policy to represent herself as
   desirous to recover her rights over her father's and brother's
   succession, in many documents which she was never even shown,
   Madame protested in all her private letters against France's
   action in the matter, and made every one at court thoroughly
   aware of her grief and disapproval of what the king was doing
   on her behalf."

      _Life and Letters of Charlotte Elizabeth,
      Princess Palatine,
      chapter 2._

GERMANY: A. D. 1689-1696.
   The War of the League of Augsburg, or Grand Alliance,
   against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1695-1696.

GERMANY: A. D. 1690.
   The second Devastation of the Palatinate.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

GERMANY: A. D. 1700.
   Interest in the question of the Spanish Succession.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

GERMANY: A. D. 1700.
   Prussia raised to the dignity of a kingdom.

      See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

GERMANY: A. D. 1700-1740.
   The first king of Prussia and his shabby court.
   The second king, his Brobdingnagian army
   and his extraordinary character.
   The up-bringing of Frederick the Great.

   The "Great Elector" of Brandenburg "left to his son Frederic a
   principality as considerable as any which was not called a
   kingdom."

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

   "Frederic aspired to the style of royalty. Ostentatious and
   profuse, negligent of his true interests and of his high
   duties, insatiably eager for frivolous distinctions, he added
   nothing to the real weight of the state which he governed:
   perhaps he transmitted his inheritance to his children
   impaired rather than augmented in value; but he succeeded in
   gaining the great object of his life, the title of King. In
   the year 1700 he assumed this new dignity. He had, on that
   occasion to undergo all the mortifications which fall to the
   lot of ambitious upstarts. Compared with the other crowned
   heads of Europe, he made a figure resembling that which a
   Nabob or a Commissary, who had bought a title, would make in
   the company of Peers whose ancestors had been attainted for
   treason against the Plantagenets. The envy of the class which
   Frederic quitted, and the civil scorn of the class into which
   he intruded himself, were marked in very significant ways. …
   Frederic was succeeded by his son, Frederic William, a prince
   who must be allowed to have possessed some talents for
   administration, but whose character as disfigured by odious
   vices, and whose eccentricities were such as had never before
   been seen out of a madhouse. He was exact and diligent in the
   transacting of business; and he was the first who formed the
   design of obtaining for Prussia a place among the European
   powers, altogether out of proportion to her extent and
   population, by means of a strong military organization. Strict
   economy enabled him to keep up a peace establishment of 60,000
   troops. These troops were disciplined in such a manner, that,
   placed beside them, the household regiments of Versailles and
   St. James's would have appeared an awkward squad. The master
   of such a force could not but be regarded by all his
   neighbours as a formidable enemy and a valuable ally. But the
   mind of Frederic William was so ill regulated, that all his
   inclinations became passions, and all his passions partook of
   the character of moral and intellectual disease. His parsimony
   degenerated into sordid avarice. His taste for military pomp
   and order became a mania, like that of a Dutch burgomaster for
   tulips, or that of a member of the Roxburghe Club for Caxtons.
   While the envoys of the Court of Berlin were in a state of
   such squalid poverty as moved the laughter of foreign
   capitals; while the food placed before the princes and
   princesses of the blood-royal of Prussia was too scanty to
   appease hunger, and so bad that even hunger loathed it, no
   price was thought too extravagant for tall recruits. The
   ambition of the king was to form a brigade of giants, and
   every country was ransacked by his agents for men above the
   ordinary stature. … Though his dominant passion was the love
   of military display, he was yet one of the most pacific of
   princes. We are afraid that his aversion to war was not the
   effect of humanity, but was merely one of his thousand whims.
   His feeling about his troops seems to have resembled a miser's
   feeling about his money. He loved to collect them, to count
   them, to see them increase; but he could not find it in his
   heart to break in upon the precious hoard. He looked forward
   to some future time when his Patagonian battalions were to
   drive hostile infantry before them like sheep: but this future
   time was always receding; and it is probable that, if his life
   had been prolonged 30 years, his superb army would never have
   seen any harder service than a sham fight in the fields near
   Berlin. But the great military means which he had collected
   were destined to be employed by a spirit far more daring and
   inventive than his own. Frederic, surnamed the Great, son of
   Frederic William, was born in January 1712. It may safely be
   pronounced that he had received from nature a strong and sharp
   understanding, and a rare firmness of temper and intensity of
   will. As to the other parts of his character, it is difficult
   to say whether they are to be ascribed to nature, or to the
   strange training which he underwent. The history of his
   boyhood is painfully interesting. Oliver Twist in the parish
   work-house, Smike at Dotheboys Hall, were petted children when
   compared with this wretched heir-apparent of a crown. The
   nature of Frederic William was hard and bad, and the habit of
   exercising arbitrary power had made him frightfully savage.
   His rage constantly vented itself to right and left in curses
   and blows. When his Majesty took a walk, every human being
   fled before him, as if a tiger had broken loose from a
   menagerie. … But it was in his own house that he was most
   unreasonable and ferocious. His palace was hell, and he the
   most execrable of fiends. … Early in the year 1740, Frederic
   William met death with a firmness and dignity worthy of a
   better and wiser man; and Frederic, who had just completed his
   28th year, became king of Prussia."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Frederic the Great (Essays)._

{1491}

   "Frederick William I. became … the founder of the first
   modern State in Germany. His was a nature in which the
   repulsive and the imposing, the uncouth and the admirable,
   were closely united. In his manners a rough and unrefined
   peasant, in his family a tyrant, in his government a despot,
   choleric almost to madness, his reign would have been a curse
   to the country, had he not united with his unlimited power a
   rare executive ability and an incorruptible fidelity to duty;
   and from first to last he consecrated all his powers to the
   common weal. By him effective limitations were put upon the
   independent action of the provinces, and upon the overgrown
   privileges of the estates. He did not do away with the guilds
   of the different orders, but placed them under the strict
   control of a strongly centralized superintendence, and
   compelled their members to make every necessary sacrifice for
   the sake of assisting him in his efforts for the prosperity
   and power of Prussia. It is astonishing to see with what
   practical judgment he recognized a needed measure both in
   general and in detail; how he trained a body of officials,
   suited in all grades to the requirements of their position;
   how he disciplined them in activity, prudence, and rectitude,
   by strict inspection, by encouraging instruction, and by
   brutal punishments; how he enforced order and economy in the
   public finances; how he improved the administration of his own
   domains, so that it became a fruitful example to all
   proprietors; and how, full of the desire to make the peasants
   free owners of the soil, although he did not yet venture on
   such a radical measure, he nevertheless constantly protected
   the poor against the arbitrariness and oppression of the
   higher classes. … There was no department of life to which
   he did not give encouragement and assistance; it is also true
   that there was none which he did not render subservient to his
   own will, and the products of which he did not make conducive
   to the one great end,—the independence and aggrandizement of
   the State. So that he who was the ruler of, at most, three
   million people, created, without exhausting the country, a
   standing army of eighty thousand men: a remarkably skilful and
   ready army, which he disciplined with barbarous severity on
   the slightest occasion, at the same time that he looked out
   for the welfare of every soldier even in the smallest detail,
   according to his saying, that 'a king's warrior must live
   better than a gentleman's servant.' What he had in his mind,
   almost a hundred years before Scharnhorst, was the universal
   obligation of military service; but it fared with him in
   regard to this as in regard to the freedom of the peasants:
   strong as he was, he could not turn the world he lived in
   upside down; he contented himself with bequeathing his best
   ideas to a more propitious future. The foundations of the
   government rested upon the estates in spite of all monarchical
   reforms. Thus, beside the federative Empire of the Hapsburgs,
   arose the small, compact Prussian State, which, by reason of
   the concentration of its forces, was a match for its
   five-times-larger rival."

      _H. Von Sybel,
      The Founding of the German Empire by William I.,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick II., called the Great,
      book 3, chapter 19, books 5-10 (volumes 1-2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Siege of Landau.
   Battle of Friedlingen.

   On the part of the Imperialists, the War of the Spanish
   Succession was opened on the Rhine frontier in June 1702, by a
   movement of the army commanded by the Margrave Louis of Baden,
   which "came over the Rhine and laid siege to the important
   fortress of Landau,—the bulwark of Alsace as it was then
   regarded. The Margrave was subsequently joined by the
   Emperor's eldest son, the young King of the Romans, who
   desired to share in the glory, though not in the toils of the
   expected conquest. … The Maréchal de Catinat, one of the
   soldiers of whom France has most reason to be proud,—the
   virtuous Catinat as Rousseau terms him—held command at this
   period in Alsace. So inferior were his numbers that he could
   make no attempt to relieve Landau. But after its reduction an
   opportunity appeared in which by detaching a portion of his
   army he might retrieve the fortunes of France in another
   quarter. The Elector of Bavaria, after much irresolution, had
   openly espoused the cause of Louis. He seized upon the city of
   Ulm and issued a proclamation in favor of his new ally. To
   support his movements an enterprising and ambitious officer,
   the Marquis de Villars, was sent across the Rhine with part of
   the army of Alsace. The declaration of the Elector of Bavaria
   and the advance of Villars into Germany disquieted in no
   slight degree the Prince Louis of Baden. Leaving a sufficient
   garrison in Landau, he also passed the Rhine. The two armies
   met at Friedlingen on the 14th of October. Louis of Baden, a
   ponderous tactician bred in the wars against the Turks, might
   out-manœuvre some Grand Vizier, but was no match for the
   quick-witted Frenchman. He was signally defeated with the loss
   of 3,000 men; soon after which, the season being now far
   advanced, Villars led back his army to winter quarters in
   France. His victory of Friedlingen gained for him at
   Versailles the rank of Maréchal de France."

      _Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon),
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 68 (volume 2).

      See, also; NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704,
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Campaigns on the Upper Rhine and in Bavaria.

   "Early in June [A. D. 1703], Marshal Tallard assumed the
   command of the French forces in Alsace, … took Prissac on
   the 7th of September, and invested Landau on the 16th of
   October. The allies, under the Prince of Hesse, attempted to
   raise the siege, but were defeated with considerable loss;
   and, soon after, Landau surrendered, thus terminating with
   disaster the campaign on the Upper Rhine. Still more
   considerable were the losses sustained in Bavaria. Marshal
   Villars commanded there, and, at the head of the French and
   Bavarians, defeated General Stirum, who headed the
   Imperialists, on the 20th of September. In December, Marshal
   Marsin, who had succeeded Villars in the command, made himself
   master of the important city of Augsburg, and in January,
   1704, the Bavarians got possession of Passau. Meanwhile, a
   formidable insurrection had broken out in Hungary, which so
   distracted the cabinet of Vienna that the capital seemed to be
   threatened by the combined forces of the French and Bavarians
   after the fall of Passau. … Instead of confining the war to
   one of posts and sieges in Flanders and Italy, it was resolved
   [by the French] to throw the bulk of their forces at once into
   Bavaria, and operate against Austria from the heart of
   Germany, by pouring down the valley of the Danube.
{1492}
   The advanced post held there by the Elector of Bavaria in
   front, forming a salient angle, penetrating, as it were, into
   the Imperial dominions, the menacing aspect of the Hungarian
   insurrection in the rear, promised the most successful issue
   to this decisive operation. For this purpose, Marshal Tallard,
   with the French army on the Upper Rhine, received orders to
   cross the Black Forest and advance into Swabia, and unite with
   the Elector of Bavaria, which he accordingly did at Donawerth,
   in the beginning of July. Marshal Villeroy, with forty
   battalions and thirty-nine squadrons, was to break off from
   the army in Flanders and support the advance by a movement on
   the Moselle, so as to be in a condition to join the main army
   on the Danube, of which it would form, as it were, the left
   wing; while Vendôme, with the army of Italy, was to penetrate
   into the Tyrol, and advance by Innspruck on Salzburg. The
   united armies, which it was calculated, after deducting all
   the losses of the campaign, would muster 80,000 combatants,
   was then to move direct by Lintz and the valley of the Danube
   on Vienna, while a large detachment penetrated into Hungary to
   lend a hand to the already formidable insurrection in that
   kingdom. The plan was grandly conceived. … Marlborough, by
   means of the secret information which he obtained from the
   French head-quarters, had got full intelligence of it, and its
   dangers to the allies, if it succeeded, struck him as much as
   the chances of great advantage to them if ably thwarted. His
   line was instantly taken."

      _A. Alison,
      Military Life of Marlborough,
      chapter 2, sections 30-33._

   The measures taken by Marlborough to defeat the plans of the
   French in this campaign are briefly stated in the account of
   his first campaigns in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 5.

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 69 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Marlborough and Prince Eugene on the Danube.
   The Battle of Blenheim.

   "Marlborough, with his motley army of English, Dutch, Danes
   and Germans, concealing his main purpose, was marching south
   along the Rhine, with a design to strike his critical blow, by
   attacking the French armies that were forming for the campaign
   of the Danube, and thus protect the Emperor and Vienna, and
   punish the Elector of Bavaria, whose territories would be then
   exposed. On the route, Marlborough was joined by Prince Eugene
   and the Margrave of Baden: but as a new French force was
   approaching, Prince Eugene was sent to keep it in check.
   Marlborough and the Prince of Baden, with united forces of
   about 60,000 men, then advanced, in rapid marches, and took,
   by gallant assault, the fortifications of the Schellenberg in
   Bavaria, and the old town of Donauworth, a critical and
   commanding position on the Danube. The allies were now masters
   of the main passages of the Danube—and had a strong place as
   a basis of action. The allied leaders thereupon sent troops
   into the heart of Bavaria, and devastated the country even to
   the vicinity of Munich—burning and destroying as they
   marched, and taking several minor fortresses. Marlborough's
   forces and those of Prince Eugene were distant from each other
   some forty miles, when came the news of the march of a French
   army of 25,000 men under Tallard, to form a junction with the
   others, to succor the Elector, and take revenge for the defeat
   of the Schellenberg. Two French Marshals, Tallard and Marsin,
   were now in command: their design was to attack Marlborough
   and Eugene's armies in detail. By rapid marches, Marlborough
   crossed the Danube and joined Prince Eugene near Donauworth,
   and thereupon occurred one of the most important and decisive
   contests of modern times, fought between the old town of
   Hochstadt and the village of Blenheim, about fifteen miles
   south of Donauworth. The skilful tactics of the allied
   generals precipitated the battle. The allied French and
   Bavarians numbered 60,000 [56,000; Malleson] men—the English,
   Dutch and Germans and other allies, about 53,000 [52,000;
   Malleson]. The allies were allowed to cross an intervening
   brook without opposition, and form their lines. A great
   charge, in full force, of the allies was then made; they broke
   the enemy's extended line; and an ensuing charge of cavalry
   scattered his forces right and left, and drove many into the
   Danube. More than 14,000 French and Bavarians, who had not
   struck a blow, except to defend their position, entrenched and
   shut up in the village of Blenheim, waiting for orders to
   move, were then surrounded by the victorious allies, and
   compelled to surrender as prisoners of war. The scattered
   remnants of the French and Bavarian army either disbanded, or
   were driven over the Rhine. The garrison at Ulm capitulated,
   and the Elector fled into France."

      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Peace of Utrecht,
      chapter 16._

   "The armies of Marchin and of Max Emanuel [of Bavaria] had
   been defeated; that of Tallard had been annihilated. Whilst
   the loss of the victors in killed and wounded reached 12,000
   men, that of the French and Bavarians exceeded 14,000. In
   addition, the latter lost 13,000 men taken prisoners, 47
   pieces of cannon, 25 standards, and 90 colours. Such was the
   battle of Blenheim. It was one of the decisive battles of
   history, and it changed the character of the war. Up to that
   moment, the action of France against. Germany had been
   aggressive; thenceforward it became purely defensive.
   Blenheim, in fact, dashed to the ground the hopes of Louis
   XIV. and Max Emanuel of Bavaria. It saved the house of
   Habsburg in Germany, and helped it greatly in Hungary. It
   showed likewise that it was possible to inflict a crushing
   defeat on the armies of Louis XIV."

      _Colonel G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapter 6._

   "Marlborough [after the battle], having detached part of his
   force to besiege Ulm, drew near with the bulk of his army to
   the Rhine, which he passed near Philipsburg on the 6th of
   September, and soon after commenced the siege of Landau, on
   the French side; Prince Louis, with 20,000 men, forming the
   besieging force, and Eugene and Marlborough, with 30,000, the
   covering army. Villeroi, with the French army, abandoned an
   intrenched camp which he had constructed to cover the town.
   Marlborough followed, and made every effort to bring the
   French marshal to battle, but in vain. … Ulm surrendered on
   the 16th of September, … which gave the allies a solid
   foundation on the Danube, and effectually crushed the power of
   the Elector of Bavaria, who, isolated now in the midst of his
   enemies, had no alternative but to abandon his dominions and
   seek refuge in Brussels, where he arrived in the end of
   September. …
{1493}
   The Electress of Bavaria, who had been left regent of that
   state in the absence of the Elector in Flanders, had now no
   resource left but submission; and a treaty was accordingly
   concluded in the beginning of November, by which she agreed to
   disband all her troops. Trêves and Traerbach were taken in the
   end of December; the Hungarian insurrection was suppressed;
   Landau capitulated in the beginning of the same month; a
   diversion which the enemy attempted toward Trêves was defeated
   by Marlborough's activity and vigilance, and that city put in
   a sufficient posture of defense; and, the campaign being now
   finished, that accomplished commander returned to the Hague
   and London."

      _A. Alison,
      Military Life of Marlborough,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 10._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 22-26 (volume 1)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
   The Election of the Emperor Joseph I.

GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The dissolution of Bavaria.

   "The campaign of 1705 was destitute of any important events on
   the side of Germany. … In Bavaria, the peasants, irritated
   by the oppressions of the Austrian government, rose in a body
   in the autumn, and, could they have been supported by France,
   would have placed the Emperor in great danger; but without
   that aid the insurrection only proved fatal to themselves. The
   insurgents were beaten in detail, and the Emperor now resolved
   on the complete dissolution of Bavaria as a state. The four
   elder sons of Maximilian were carried to Klagenfurt in
   Carinthia, to be there educated under the strictest inspection
   as Counts of Wittelsbach, while the younger sons were
   consigned to the care of a court lady at Munich, and the
   daughters sent to a convent. The Electress, who had been on a
   visit to Venice, was not permitted to return to her dominions,
   and the Elector Maximilian, as well as the Elector of Cologne,
   was, by a decree of the Electoral College, placed under the
   ban of the Empire. The Upper Palatinate was restored to the
   Elector Palatine. … The remaining Bavarian territories were
   confiscated, and divided among various princes."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 72 (volume 3)._

   The campaign of 1705 in the Netherlands was unimportant; but
   in Spain it had brilliant results.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.

GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Successes of the French.

   During 1706, little was attempted on either side by the forces
   which watched each other along the Rhine. In 1707 Villars, the
   French commander, obtained liberty to act. "The Emperor,
   greatly preoccupied with Hungary, had furnished but
   indifferent resources to the new general of the army of the
   Rhine, Brandenburg-Baireuth; the German army was ill paid and
   in bad condition in its immense lines on the right bank, which
   extended along the Rhine from Philippsburg as far as
   Stolhofen, then, in a square, from Stolhofen to the Black
   Mountains by Bühl. May 22, the lines were attacked
   simultaneously at four points. … The success was complete;
   the enemy fled into the mountains, abandoning artillery,
   baggage, and munitions, and did not stop till beyond the
   Neckar. The lines were razed; Swabia and a part of Franconia
   were put under contribution. Villars marched on Stuttgart,
   crossed the Neckar, and subjected the whole country to ransom
   as far as the Danube. The enemies in vain rallied and
   reinforced themselves with tardy contingents of the Empire;
   they could not prevent Villars from laying under contribution
   the Lower Neckar, then the country between the Danube and Lake
   Constance, and from maintaining himself beyond the Rhine till
   he went into winter-quarters. French parties scoured the
   country as conquerors as far as the fatal field of Hochstadt."
   At the beginning of the campaign of 1708, it was the plan of
   the allies to make their chief attack on France "by the way of
   the Rhine and the Moselle, with two armies of 60,000 men each,
   under the command of the Elector of Hanover and Eugene, whilst
   Marlborough occupied the great French army in Flanders." But
   this plan was changed. "Eugene left the Elector of Hanover in
   the north of Swabia, behind the lines of Etlingen, which the
   allies had raised during the winter to replace the lines of
   Bühl at Stolhofen, and, with 24,000 soldiers collected on the
   Moselle, he marched by the way of Coblentz towards Belgium
   (June 30). The French forces of the Rhine and the Moselle
   followed this movement." The campaign then ensuing in the
   Netherlands was that which was signalized by Marlborough and
   Eugene's victory at Oudenarde and the siege of Lille. In 1709,
   "the attention of Europe, as in 1708, was chiefly directed to
   Flanders; but it was not only on that side that France was
   menaced. France was to be encroached upon at once on the north
   and the east. Whilst the great allied army penetrated into
   Artois, the army of the Rhine and the army of the Alps were to
   penetrate, the latter into Bresse by the way of Savoy, the
   former into Franche-Comté by the way of Alsace, and to combine
   their operations. … The Germans had not taken the offensive
   in Alsace till in the month of August. Marshal Harcourt, with
   over 20,000 men, had covered himself with the lines of the
   Lauter: the Elector of Hanover, who had crossed the Rhine at
   Philippsburg with superior forces, did not attack Harcourt,
   and strove to amuse him whilst 8,000 or 9,000 Germans, left in
   Swabia with General Merci, moved rapidly on Neuberg … and
   established there a tête-du-pont in order to enter Upper
   Alsace." By swiftly sending a sufficient force to attack and
   defeat Merci at Neuberg, August 26, Harcourt completely
   frustrated these plans. "The Elector of Hanover recrossed the
   river and retired behind the lines of Etlingen." During the
   two following years the French and German forces on the side
   of the Rhine did little more than observe one another.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV:,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

   Meantime, Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet had been fought
   in the Netherlands; Prince Eugene had won his victory at
   Turin, and the contest had been practically decided in Spain,
   at Almanza.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707,
      1708-1709, 1710-1712;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1706, 1707,  and 1707-1710;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 75-79 (volume 3)._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 45 (volume 5)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1711.
   Election of the Emperor Charles VI.

{1494}

GERMANY: A. D. 1711.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Change in the circumstances of the war.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

GERMANY: A. D. 1713-1719.
   The Emperor's continued differences with the King of Spain.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

GERMANY: A. D. 1714.
   Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession:
   The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

GERMANY: A. D. 1732-1733.
   Interference in the election of the King of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

GERMANY: A. D. 1733-1735.
   The War of the Polish Succession.
   Cession of Lorraine to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

GERMANY: A. D. 1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   The Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

GERMANY: A. D. 1740-1756.
   Early years of the reign of Frederick the Great in Prussia.
   The War of the Austrian Succession.

   When Frederick II., known as Frederick the Great, succeeded
   his father, in 1740, "nobody had the least suspicion that a
   tyrant of extraordinary military and political talents, of
   industry more extraordinary still, without fear, without
   faith, and without mercy, had ascended the throne."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Frederic the Great (Essays)._

   The reign of Frederick II. "was expected to be an effeminate
   one; but when at the age of twenty-nine he became king, he
   forgot his pleasures, thought of nothing but glory, and no
   longer employed himself but in attention to his finances, his
   army, his policy, and his laws. His provinces were scattered,
   his resources weak, his power precarious; his army of seventy
   thousand soldiers was more remarkable for handsomeness of the
   men, and the elegance of their appearance, than for their
   discipline. He augmented it, instructed it, exercised it, and
   fortune began to open the field of glory to him at the moment
   he was fully prepared to enjoy her favours. Charles XII. was
   dead, and his station filled by a king without authority.
   Russia, deprived of Peter the Great, who had only rough-hewn
   her civilization, languished under the feeble government of
   the Empress Anne, and of a cruel and ignorant minister.
   Augustus III. King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, a Prince
   devoid of character, could not inspire him with any dread.
   Louis XV., a weak and peaceable king, was governed by Cardinal
   Fleuri, who loved peace, but always by his weakness suffered
   himself to be drawn into war. He presented to Frederic rather
   a support than an obstacle. The court of France had espoused
   the cause of Charles VII. against Francis I. Maria Theresa,
   wife of Francis, and Queen of Hungary, saw herself threatened
   by England, Holland, and France; and whilst she had but little
   reason to hope the preservation of her hereditary dominions,
   that arrogant princess wished to place her husband on the
   Imperial Throne. This quarrel kindled the flames of war in
   Europe; the genius of Frederic saw by a single glance that the
   moment was arrived for elevating Prussia to the second order of
   powers; he made an offer to Maria Theresa to defend her, if
   she would cede Silesia to him, and threatened her with war in
   case of refusal. The Empress, whose firmness nothing could
   shake, impoliticly refused that proposition; war was declared,
   and Frederic entered Silesia at the head of eighty thousand
   men. This first war lasted eighteen months.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 to 1741.

   Frederic, by gaining five battles, shewed that Europe would
   recognize one great man more in her bloody annals. He had
   begun the war from ambition, and contrary to strict justice;
   he concluded it with ability, but by the abandonment of France
   his ally, without giving her information of it, and he thus
   put in practice, when he was seated on the throne, the
   principles of Machiavel, whom he had refuted before he
   ascended it. Men judge according to the event. The hero was
   absolved by victory from the wrongs with which justice
   reproached him; and this brilliant example serves to confirm
   men in that error, too generally and too lightly adopted, that
   ability in politics is incompatible with the strict rule of
   morality. Four years after, in [1744], Frederic again took up
   arms.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744 to 1744-1745.

   He invaded Bohemia, Upper Silesia, and Moravia. Vienna thought
   him at her gates; but the defection of the Bavarians, the
   retreat of the French, and the return of Prince Charles into
   Bohemia, rapidly changed the face of affairs. The position of
   Frederic became as dangerous as it had been menacing; he was
   on the point of being lost, and he saw himself compelled to
   retire with as much precipitation, as he had advanced with
   boldness. The gaining the battle of Hohen-Friedberg saved him.
   That retreat and that victory fixed the seal to his
   reputation. It was after this action that he wrote to Louis
   XV. 'I have just discharged in Silesia the bill of exchange
   which your majesty drew on me at Fontenoy.' A letter so much
   the more modest, as Frederic had conquered, and Louis had only
   been witness to a victory. He displayed the same genius and the
   same activity in the campaign of 1745, and once more abandoned
   France in making his separate peace at Dresden. By this treaty
   Francis was peaceably assured of the empire, and the cession
   of Silesia was confirmed to Frederic. France during this war
   committed some wrongs, which might palliate the abandonment of
   Prussia. The French did not keep Prince Charles within bounds,
   they made no diversion into Germany, and fought no where but
   in Flanders. … In 1756, Europe was again in a flame. France
   and England declared war against each other, and both sought
   alliances; Frederic ranged himself on the side of England, and
   by that became the object of the unreflecting vengeance of the
   French, and of the alliance of that power with Austria;
   Austria also formed an alliance with the Court of Petersburg
   by means of a Saxon secretary; Frederic discovered the project
   of the Courts of Petersburg, Dresden, and Vienna, to invade
   the Prussian dominions. He was before-hand with them, and
   began the war by some conquests."

      _L. P. Ségur, the elder,
      History of the Principal Events of the Reign of Frederic
      William II., King of Prussia,
      volume 1, pages 2-6._

GERMANY: A. D. 1742.
   The Elector of Bavaria crowned Emperor (Charles VII.).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1745.
   The consort of Maria Theresa elected Emperor (Francis I.).
   Rise of the imperial house of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D.1745 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
      also, 1744-1745.

GERMANY: A. D. 1748.
   End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. THE CONGRESS.

{1495}

GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.
   The Seven Years War:
   Its causes and provocations.

   "The great national quarrel between England and the powers
   which restrained her free movements on the sea and her
   extension of colonies, had never ceased. England would have
   the freedom of the sea: and on land she pushed population and
   ploughs where France paraded soldiers. In such a struggle war
   must come, but, by laws invariable as the laws of nature, the
   population will win in the end. After much bickering, blows
   began in 1754, and at the beginning of 1755 England despatched
   the ill-fated Braddock with a small force, which was destroyed
   in July. … As yet, however, the quarrel was only colonial.
   England embittered it by seizing French ships without any
   declaration of war. But why did Frederick [of Prussia] strike
   in, if indeed he desired peace? In truth there was no choice
   for him. As early as 1752-53 his secret agents had discovered
   that Austria, Russia and Saxony were hatching a plot for the
   destruction of Prussia, and such a partition as afterwards
   befell unhappy Poland. In 1753 a Saxon official, Mentzel by
   name, began to supply the Prussian agents with copies of
   secret documents from the archives at Dresden, which proved
   that, during the whole of the peace, negotiations had been
   proceeding for a simultaneous attack on Frederick, though the
   astute Brühl [Saxon minister], mindful of former defeats,
   objected to playing the part of jackal to the neighbouring
   lions. In short, by the end of 1755 the king knew that
   preparations were already on foot in Austria and Russia, and
   that he would probably be attacked next year certainly, or, at
   latest, the year after. A great war was coming between England
   and France, in which the continental power would attack
   Hanover, and tread closely on the skirts of Prussia. The
   situation was dangerous, and became terribly menacing when
   England bargained with Russia to subsidise a Muscovite army of
   55,000 men for defence of Hanover. Russia consented with
   alacrity. Money was all that the czarina needed for her
   preparations against Frederick, and in the autumn of 1755 she
   assembled, not 55,000, but 70,000 men on the Prussian
   frontier, nominally for the use of England. But throughout the
   winter all the talk at St. Petersburg was of Frederick's
   destruction in the coming spring. It was time for him to stir.
   His first move was one of policy. He offered England a
   'neutrality convention' by which the two powers jointly should
   guarantee the German Reich against all foreign intervention
   during the coming war. On the 16th of January, 1756, the
   convention was signed in London, and the Russian agreement
   thrown over, as it could well be, since it had not been
   ratified. Europe was now ranking herself for the struggle. In
   preceding years, the Austrian diplomatist, Kaunitz, had so
   managed the French court, especially through the medium of
   Madame de Pompadour, that Louis XV. was now on the side of
   Maria Theresa, who had bowed her neck so far as to write to
   the French king's mistress as 'Ma Cousine,' while Frederick
   forgot policy, and spoke of the Pompadour in slighting terms.
   'Je ne la connais pas,' said he once, and was never forgiven.
   … The agreement with Russia to partition Prussia had already
   been made, and Frederick's sharp tongue had betrayed him into
   calling the czarina that 'Infame catin du nord.' Saxony waited
   for the appearance of her stronger neighbours in order to join
   them. England alone was Frederick's ally."

      _Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
      Frederick the Great,
      chapter 9._

   "The secret sources of the Third Silesian War, since called
   'Seven-Years War,' go back to 1745; nay, we may say, to the
   First Invasion of Silesia in 1740. For it was in Maria
   Theresa's incurable sorrow at loss of Silesia, and her
   inextinguishable hope to reconquer it, that this and all
   Friedrich's other Wars had their origin. … Traitor Menzel
   the Saxon Kanzellist … has been busy for Prussia ever since
   'the end of 1752.' Got admittance to the Presses; sent his
   first Excerpt 'about the time of Easter-Fair 1753,'—time of
   Voltaire's taking wing. And has been at work ever since.
   Copying Despatches from the most secret Saxon Repositories;
   ready always on Excellency Maltzahn's indicating the Piece
   wanted [Maltzahn being the Prussian Minister at Dresden]. …
   Menzel … lasted in free activity till 1757; and was then put
   under lock and key. Was not hanged: sat prisoner for
   twenty-seven years after; over-grown with hair, legs and arms
   chained together, heavy iron-bar uniting both ankles; diet
   bread-and-water;—for the rest, healthy; and died, not very
   miserable it is said, in 1784."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II. of Prussia,
      book 17, chapter 1 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duc de Broglie,
      The King's Secret,
      chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._

      _Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 2), chapter 3._

      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1745-1756
      (volume 3), chapters 6-9._

      _F. Von Raumer,
      Contributions to Modern History:
      Frederick II. and his Times, chapters 24-28._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.

GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
   The Seven Years War:
   Frederick strikes the first blow.
   Saxony subdued.

   "Finding that the storm was wholly inevitable, and must burst
   on him next year, he [Frederick], with bold sagacity,
   determined to forestall it. First, then, in August, 1756, his
   ambassador at Vienna had orders to demand of the Empress Queen
   a statement of her intentions, to announce war as the
   alternative, and to declare that he would accept no answer 'in
   the style of an oracle.' The answer, as he expected, was
   evasive. Without further delay an army of 60,000 Prussians,
   headed by Frederick in person, poured into Saxony. The Queen
   of Poland was taken in Dresden: the King of Poland [Augustus
   III. Elector of Saxony, and, by election, King of Poland] and
   his troops were blockaded in Pirna. Thus did Frederick
   commence that mighty struggle which is known to Germans by the
   name of the Seven Years' War. The first object of the Prussian
   monarch at Dresden was to obtain possession of the original
   documents of the coalition against him, whose existence he
   knew by means of the traitor Menzel. The Queen of Poland, no
   less aware than Frederick of the importance of these papers,
   had carried them to her own bed-chamber. She sat down on the
   trunk which contained the most material ones, and declared to
   the Prussian officer sent to seize them that nothing but force
   should move her from the spot. [The official account of this
   occurrence which Carlyle produces represents the Queen as
   'standing before the door' of the 'archive apartment' in which
   the compromising documents were locked up, she having
   previously sealed the door.] This officer was of Scottish
   blood, General Keith, the Earl Marischal's brother.
{1496}
   'All Europe,' said the Queen, 'would exclaim against this
   outrage; and then, sir, you will be the victim; depend upon
   it, your King is a man to sacrifice you to his own honour!'
   Keith, who knew Frederick's character, was startled, and sent
   for further orders; but on receiving a reiteration of the
   first he did his duty. The papers were then made public,
   appended to a manifesto in vindication of Frederick's conduct;
   and they convinced the world that, although the apparent
   aggressor in his invasion of Saxony, he had only acted on the
   principles of self-defence. Meanwhile, the Prussian army
   closely blockaded the Saxon in Pirna, but the Austrian, under
   Marshal Brown, an officer of British extraction, was advancing
   to its relief through the mountain passes of Bohemia.
   Frederick left a sufficient force to maintain the blockade,
   marched against Brown with the remainder, and gave him battle
   at Lowositz [or Lobositz] on the 1st of October. It proved a
   hard-fought day; the King no longer found, as he says in one
   of his letters, the old Austrians he remembered; and his loss
   in killed and wounded was greater than theirs [3,308 against
   2,984]; but victory declared on his side. Then retracing his
   steps towards Pirna he compelled, by the pressure of famine,
   the whole Saxon army, 17,000 strong, to an unconditional
   surrender. The officers were sent home on parole, but the
   soldiers were induced, partly by force and partly by
   persuasion, to enlist in the Prussian ranks, and swear
   fidelity to Frederick. Their former sovereign, King Augustus,
   remained securely perched on his castle-rock of Königstein,
   but, becoming weary of confinement, solicited, and was most
   readily granted, passports to Warsaw. During the whole winter
   Frederick fixed his head-quarters at Dresden, treating Saxony
   in all respects as a conquered province, or as one of his own.
   Troops and taxes were levied throughout that rich and populous
   land with unsparing rigour, and were directed against the very
   cause which the sovereign of that land had embraced."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 33 (volume  4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.,
      book 17, chapters 4-8 (volume 7)._

      _Lord Dover,
      Life of Frederick IL,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

GERMANY: A.-D. 1756-1757.
   The Seven Years War:
   Frederick under the Ban of the Empire.
   The coalition against Frederick.

   "All through the winter Austria strained every nerve to
   consolidate her alliances, and she did not scruple to use her
   position at the head of the Empire, in order to drag that body
   into the quarrel that had arisen between two of its members.
   On his own responsibility, without consulting the electors,
   princes, and cities, the Emperor passed sentence on Frederick,
   and condemned him, unheard, as a disturber of the peace. Many
   of the great cities altogether refused to publish the
   Emperor's decree, and even among the states generally
   subservient to Austria there were some that were alarmed at so
   flagrant a disregard of law and precedent. It may have seemed
   a sign of what was to be expected should Prussia be
   annihilated, and no state remain in Germany that dared to lift
   up its voice against Austria. Nevertheless, in spite of this
   feeling, and in spite of the opposition of nearly all the
   Protestant states, Austria succeeded in inducing the Empire to
   espouse her cause. In all three colleges of electors, princes,
   and cities she obtained a majority, and at a diet held on
   January 17, 1757, it was resolved that an army of the Empire
   should be set on foot for the purpose of making war on
   Prussia. Some months later Frederick was put to the ban of the
   Empire. But the use of this antiquated weapon served rather to
   throw ridicule on those who employed it than to injure him
   against whom it was launched. … It has been calculated that
   the population of the States arrayed against Frederick the
   Great amounted to 90,000,000, and that they put 430,000 men
   into the field in the year 1757. The population of Prussia was
   4,500,000, her army 200,000 strong; but, after deducting the
   garrisons of the fortresses, there remained little over
   150,000 men available for service in the field. The odds
   against Frederick were great, but they were not absolutely
   overwhelming. His territories were scattered and difficult of
   defence, the extremities hardly defensible at all; but he
   occupied a central position from which he might, by rapidity
   of movement, be able to take his assailants in detail, unless
   their plans were distinguished by a harmony unusual in the
   efforts of a coalition."

      _F. W. Longman,
      Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War,
      chapter 8, section 3._

GERMANY: A. D. 1756-1758.
   War of Prussia with Sweden in Pomerania.

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

GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (April-June).
   The Seven Years War:
   Frederick's, invasion of Bohemia.
   Victory at Prague and defeat at Kolin.

   "At the commencement of 1757, the grand confederacy against
   the king of Prussia was consolidated by the efforts and
   intrigues of the court of Vienna. The French had drawn
   together 80,000 men on the Rhine, under the command of marshal
   d' Etrées; the army of execution was assembling in the empire;
   the Swedes were preparing to penetrate into Pomerania, and
   60,000 Russians were stationed on the frontiers of Livonia,
   waiting the season of action to burst into the kingdom of
   Prussia. With this favourable aspect of affairs, the empress
   prepared for the campaign by augmenting her forces in Hungary
   and Bohemia to 150,000 men; the main army, stationed in the
   vicinity of Prague, was commanded by Prince Charles, who was
   assisted by the skill of marshal Brown, and the other corps
   intrusted to count Daun. Frederic possessed too much foresight
   and vigilance to remain inactive while his enemies were
   collecting their forces; he therefore resolved to carry the
   war into the heart of the Austrian territories, and by a
   decisive stroke to shake the basis of the confederacy. He
   covered this plan with consummate address; he affected great
   trepidation and uncertainty, and, to deceive the Austrians
   into a belief that he only intended to maintain himself in
   Saxony, put Dresden in a state of defence, broke down the
   bridges, and marked out various camps in the vicinity. In the
   midst of this apparent alarm three Prussian columns burst into
   Bohemia, in April, and rapidly advanced towards Prague. …
   The Austrians, pressed on all sides, retreated with
   precipitation under the walls of Prague, on the southern side
   of the Moldau, while the Prussians advancing towards the
   capital formed two bodies; one under Schwerin remaining at
   Jung Bunzlau, and the other, headed by the king, occupying the
   heights between the Moldau and the Weisseberg.
{1497}
   Expecting to be joined by marshal Daun, who was hastening from
   Moravia, the Austrians remained on the defensive; but prince
   Charles took so strong a position as seemed to defy all
   apprehensions of an attack. … These obstacles, however, were
   insufficient to arrest the daring spirit of Frederic, who
   resolved to attack the Austrians before the arrival of Daun.
   Leaving a corps under prince Maurice above Prague, he crossed
   the Moldau near Rostock and Podabe on the 5th of May, with
   16,000 men, and on the following morning at break of day was
   joined by the corps under marshal Schwerin. … Victory
   declared on the side of the Prussians, but was purchased by
   the loss of their best troops, not less than 18,000, even by
   the avowal of the king, being killed, with many of his bravest
   officers, and Schwerin, the father of the Prussian discipline,
   and the guide of Frederic in the career of victory. Of the
   Austrians 8,000 were killed and wounded, 9,000 made prisoners,
   and 28,000 shut up within the walls of Prague. … A column of
   16,000 Austrians made good their retreat along the Moldau to
   join the army of marshal Daun. Prague was instantly blockaded
   by the victorious army, and not less than 100,000 souls were
   confined within the walls, almost without the means of
   subsistence. They were soon reduced to the greatest
   extremities. … In this disastrous moment the house of
   Austria was preserved from impending destruction by the skill
   and caution of a general, who now, for the first time,
   appeared at the head of an army. This general was Leopold
   count Daun, a native of Bohemia. … Daun had marched through
   Moravia towards Prague, to effect a junction with prince
   Charles. On arriving at Boehmischgrod, within a few miles of
   Prague, he was apprised of the recent defeat, and halted a few
   days to collect the fugitives, till his corps swelled so
   considerably that Frederic detached against him the prince of
   Bevern with 20,000 men." Daun declined battle and retreated,
   until he had collected an army of 60,000 men and restored
   their courage. He then advanced, forcing back the prince of
   Bevern, and when Frederick, joining the latter with
   reinforcements, attacked him at Kolin, on the 18th of June, he
   inflicted on the Prussian king a disastrous defeat—the first
   which Frederick had known. The Prussian troops, "for the first
   time defeated, gave way to despondency, and in their retreat
   exclaimed, 'This is our Pultawa.' Daun purchased the victory
   with the loss of 9,000 men; but on the side of the Prussians
   not less than 14,000 were killed, wounded, and taken
   prisoners, and 43 pieces of artillery, with 22 standards, fell
   into the hands of the Austrians. Maria Theresa … conveyed in
   person the news of this important victory to the countess
   Daun, and instituted the military order of merit, or the Order
   of Maria Theresa, with which she decorated the commander and
   officers who had most signalised themselves, and dated its
   commencement from the æra of that glorious victory. To give
   repose to the troops, and to replace the magazines which had
   been destroyed by the Prussians, Daun remained several days on
   the field of battle; and as he advanced to Prague found that
   the Prussians had raised the siege on the 20th of June, and
   were retreating with precipitation towards Saxony and
   Lusatia."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 112 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
      Frederick the Great,
      chapters 11-12._

      _F. Kugler,
      Pict. History of Germany during the
      Reign of Frederick the Great,
      chapter 25._

GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (July-December).
   The Seven Years War:
   Darkening and brightening of Frederick's career.
   Closter-Seven.
   Rossbach.
   Leuthen.

   The enemies of the King of Prussia "were now closing upon him
   from every side. The provinces beyond the Vistula became the
   prey of Russian hordes, to which only one division of
   Prussians under Marshal Lehwald was opposed. In the result,
   however, their own devastations, and the consequent want of
   supplies, proved a check to their further progress during this
   campaign. In Westphalia above 80,000 effective French soldiers
   were advancing, commanded by the Mareschal d'Estrées, a
   grandson of the famous minister Louvois. The Duke of
   Cumberland, who had undertaken to defend his father's
   electorate against them, was at the head of a motley army of
   scarce 50,000 men. … His military talents were not such as
   to supply his want of numbers or of combination; he allowed
   the French to pass the deep and rapid Weser unopposed; he gave
   them no disturbance when laying waste great part of the
   Electorate; he only fell back from position to position until
   at length the enemy came up with him at the village of
   Hastenback near Hameln. There, on the 26th of July, an action
   was fought, and the Duke was worsted with the loss of several
   hundred men, The only resource of His Royal Highness was a
   retreat across the wide Lüneberg moors, to cover the town of
   Stade towards the mouth of the Elbe, where the archives and
   other valuable effects from Hanover had been already deposited
   for safety." Intrigue at Versailles having recalled D'Estrées
   and sent the Duke de Richelieu into his place, the latter
   pressed the Duke of Cumberland so closely, hemming him in and
   cutting off his communications, that he was soon glad to make
   terms. On the 8th of September the English Duke signed, at
   Closter-Seven, a convention under which the auxiliary troops
   in his army were sent home, the Hanoverians dispersed, and
   only a garrison left at Stade. "After the battle of Kolin and
   the Convention of Closter-Seven, the position of Frederick,—
   hemmed in on almost every side by victorious enemies,—was not
   only most dangerous but well-nigh desperate. To his own eyes
   it seemed so. He resolved in his thoughts, and discussed with
   his friends, the voluntary death of Otho as a worthy example
   to follow. Fully resolved never to fall alive into the hands
   of his enemies, nor yet to survive any decisive overthrow, he
   carried about his person a sure poison in a small glass phial.
   Yet … he could still, with indomitable skill and energy, make
   every preparation for encountering the Prince de Soubise. He
   marched against the French commander at the head of only
   22,000 men; but these were veterans, trained in the strictest
   discipline, and full of confidence in their chief. Soubise, on
   the other hand, owed his appointment in part to his
   illustrious lineage, as head of the House of Rohan, and still
   more to Court-favour, as the minion of Madame de Pompadour,
   but in no degree to his own experience or abilities. He had
   under his orders nearly 40,000 of his countrymen, and nearly
   20,000 troops of the Empire; for the Germanic diet also had
   been induced to join the league against Frederick. On the 5th
   of November the two armies came to a battle at Rosbach [or
   Rossbach], close to the plain of Lützen, where in the
   preceding century Gustavus Adolphus conquered and fell.
{1498}
   By the skilful manœvres of Frederick the French were brought
   to believe that the Prussians intended nothing but retreat,
   and they advanced in high spirits as if only to pursue the
   fugitives. Of a sudden they found themselves attacked with all
   the compactness of discipline, and all the courage of despair.
   The troops of the Empire, a motley crew, fled at the first
   fire. … So rapid was the victory that the right wing of the
   Prussians, under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, was never
   engaged at all. Great numbers of the French were cut down in
   their flight by the Prussian cavalry, not a few perished in
   the waters of the Saale, and full 7,000 were made prisoners,
   with a large amount of baggage, artillery and standards. …
   The battle of Rosbach was not more remarkable for its military
   results than for its moral influence. It was hailed throughout
   Germany as a triumph of the Teutonic over the Gallic race. …
   So precarious was now Frederick's position that the battle of
   Rosbach, as he said himself, gained him nothing but leisure to
   fight another battle elsewhere. During his absence on the
   Saale, the Austrian armies had poured over the mountains into
   Silesia; they had defeated the Prussians under the Duke of
   Bevern; they had taken the main fortress, Schweidnitz, and the
   capital, Breslau; nearly the whole province was already
   theirs. A flying detachment of 4,000 cavalry, under General
   Haddick, had even pushed into Brandenburg, and levied a
   contribution from the city of Berlin [entering one of the
   suburbs of the Prussian capital and holding it for twelve
   hours]. The advancing season seemed to require winter
   quarters, but Frederick never dreamed of rest until Silesia
   was recovered. He hastened by forced marches from the Saale to
   the Oder, gathering reinforcements while he went along. As he
   drew near Breslau, the Imperial commander, Prince Charles of
   Lorraine, flushed with recent victory and confident in
   superior numbers, disregarded the prudent advice of Marshal
   Daun, and descended from an almost inaccessible position to
   give the King of Prussia battle on the open plain. … On the
   5th of December, one month from the battle of Rosbach, the two
   armies met at Leuthen, a small village near Breslau, Frederick
   with 40,000, Prince Charles of Lorraine with between 60,000
   and 70,000 men. For several hours did the conflict rage
   doubtfully and fiercely. It was decided mainly by the skill
   and the spirit of the Prussian monarch. 'The battle of
   Leuthen,' says Napoleon, 'was a master-piece. Did it even
   stand alone it would of itself entitle Frederick to immortal
   fame.' In killed, wounded and taken, the Austrians lost no
   less than 27,000 men; above 50 standards, above 100 cannon,
   above 4,000 waggons, became the spoil of the victors; Breslau
   was taken, Schweidnitz blockaded, Silesia recovered; the
   remnant of the Imperial forces fled back across the mountains;
   and Frederick, after one of the longest and most glorious
   campaigns that History records, at length allowed himself and
   his soldiers some repose."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 34 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.,
      book 18, chapters 5-10._

      _Lord Dover,
      Life of Frederick II.,
      volume 2, chapters 3-4._

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, pages 217-240._

GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
   The Seven Years War:
   Campaign in Hanover.
   Siege of Olmütz.
   Russian defeat at Zorndorf.
   Prussian defeat at Hochkirch.

   "Before the end of 1757, England began to take a more active
   part on the Continent. Lord Chatham brought about the
   rejection of the Convention of Closter-Zeven by Parliament,
   and the recall of Cumberland by the king. The efficient Prince
   Ferdinand of Brunswick was proposed by Frederick and made
   commander of the English and Hanoverian forces. He opened the
   campaign of 1758 in the winter. The French, under Clermont,
   being without discipline or control, he drove them in headlong
   flight out of their winter-quarters in Hanover and Westphalia,
   to the Rhine and across it; and on June 23 defeated them at
   the battle of Crefeld. A French army under Soubise afterward
   crossed the Rhine higher up, and Ferdinand, retreated, but
   succeeded in protecting the west as far as the Weser against
   General Contades. Frederick first retook Schweidnitz, April
   16. He then, in order to prevent the junction of the Russians
   and Austrians, ventured to attack Austria, and invaded
   Moravia. His brother, Prince Henry, had but a small force in
   Saxony, and Frederick thought that he could best cover that
   country by an attack on Austria. But the siege of Olmütz
   detained him from May until July, and his prospects grew more
   doubtful. The Austrians captured a convoy of 300 wagons of
   military stores, which Ziethen was to have escorted to him.
   [Instead of 800, the convoy comprised 3,000 to 4,000 wagons,
   of which only 200 reached the Prussian camp, and its
   destruction by General Loudon completely frustrated
   Frederick's plan of campaign.] Frederick raised the siege,
   and, by an admirable retreat, brought his army through Bohemia
   by way of Königgrätz to Landshut. Here he received bad news.
   The Russians, under Fermor, were again in Prussia, occupying
   the eastern province, but treating it mildly as a conquered
   country, where the empress already received the homage of the
   people. They then advanced, with frightful ravages, through
   Pomerania and Neumark to the Oder, and were now near Küstrin,
   which they laid in ashes. Frederick made haste to meet them.
   He was so indignant at the desolation of the country and the
   suffering of his people that he forbade quarter to be given.
   The report of this fact also embittered the Russians. At
   Zorndorf, Frederick met the enemy, 50,000 strong, August 25,
   1758. They were drawn up in a great square or phalanx, in the
   ancient, half-barbarous manner. A frightfully bloody fight
   followed, since the Russians would not yield, and were cut
   down in heaps. Seidlitz, the victor of Rossbach, by a timely
   charge of his cavalry, captured the Russian artillery, and
   crushed their right wing. On the second day the Russians were
   driven back, but not without inflicting heavy loss on the
   Prussians, who, though they suffered much less than their
   enemies, left more than one third of their force on the field.
   The Russians were compelled to withdraw from Prussia.
   Frederick then hastened to Saxony, where his brother Henry was
   sorely pressed by Daun and the imperial army. He could not
   even wait to relieve Silesia, where Neisse, his principal
   fortress, was threatened. Daun, hearing of his approach, took
   up a position in his way, between Bautzen and Görlitz. But
   Frederick, whose contempt for this prudent and slow general
   was excessive, occupied a camp in a weak and exposed position,
   at Hochkirch, under Daun's very eyes, against the protest of
   his own generals.
{1499}
   He remained there three days unmolested; but on October 14,
   the day fixed for advancing, the Austrians attacked him with
   twice his numbers. A desperate fight took place in the burning
   village; the Prussians were driven out, and lost many guns.
   Frederick himself was in imminent danger, and his friends
   Keith and Duke Francis of Brunswick fell at his side. Yet the
   army did not lose its spirit or its discipline. Within eleven
   days Frederick, who had been joined by his brother Henry, was
   in Silesia, and relieved Neisse and Kosel. Thus the campaign
   of 1758 ended favorably to Frederick. The pope sent Daun a
   consecrated hat and sword, as a testimonial for his victory at
   Hochkirch."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 5, chapter 23, sections 7-9._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Military Life of Loudon,
      chapters 7-8._

      _F. Kugler,
      Pict. History of Germany during the
      Reign of Frederick the Great,
      chapters 29-31._

      _Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 2),  chapter 8._

GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (April-August).
   The Seven Years War:
   Prince Ferdinand's Hanoverian campaign.
   Defeat at Bergen and victory at Minden.

   In the Hanoverian field of war, where Prince Ferdinand of
   Brunswick held command, the campaign of 1759 was important,
   and prosperous in the end for the allies of Prussia. "Besides
   the Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, he [Prince
   Ferdinand] had under his direction 10,000 or 12,000 British
   soldiers, amongst whom, since the death of the Duke of
   Marlborough, Lord George Sackville was the senior officer. The
   French, on their part, were making great exertions, under the
   new administration of the Duke de Choiseul; large
   reinforcements were sent into Germany, and early in the year
   they surprised by stratagem the free city of Frankfort and
   made it the place of arms for their southern army. No object
   could be of greater moment to Ferdinand than to dislodge them
   from this important post." Marching quickly, with 30,000 of
   his army, he attacked the French, under the Duke de Broglie,
   at Bergen, on the Nidda, in front of Frankfort, April 13, and
   was repulsed, after heavy fighting, with a loss of 2,000 men.
   "This reverse would, it was supposed, reduce Prince Ferdinand
   to the defensive during the remainder of the campaign. Both De
   Broglie and Contades eagerly pushed forward, their opponents
   giving way before them. Combining their forces, they reduced
   Cassel, Munster, and Minden, and they felt assured that the
   whole Electorate must soon again be theirs. Already had the
   archives and the most valuable property been sent off from
   Hanover to Stade. Already did a new Hastenbeck—a new
   Closter-Seven—rise in view. But it was under such
   difficulties that the genius of Ferdinand shone forth. With a
   far inferior army (for thus much is acknowledged, although I
   do not find the French numbers clearly or precisely stated),
   he still maintained his ground on the left of the Weser, and
   supplied every defect by his superiority of tactics. He left a
   detachment of 5,000 men exposed, and seemingly unguarded, as a
   bait to lure De Contades from his strong position at Minden.
   The French Mareschal was deceived by the feint, and directed
   the Duke De Broglie to march forward and profit by the
   blunder, as he deemed it to be. On the 1st of August,
   accordingly, De Broglie advanced into the plain, his force
   divided in eight columns." Instead of the small corps
   expected, he found the whole army of the allies in front of
   him. De Contades hurried to his assistance, and the French,
   forced to accept battle in an unfavorable position, were
   overcome. At the decisive moment of their retreat, "the Prince
   sent his orders to Lord George Sackville, who commanded the
   whole English and some German cavalry on the right wing of the
   Allies, and who had hitherto been kept back as a reserve. The
   orders were to charge and overwhelm the French in their
   retreat, before they could reach any clear ground to rally.
   Had these orders been duly fulfilled, it is acknowledged by
   French writers that their army must have been utterly
   destroyed; but Lord George either could not or would not
   understand what was enjoined on him. … Under such
   circumstances the victory of Minden would not have been signal
   or complete but for a previous and most high-spirited
   precaution of Prince Ferdinand. He had sent round to the rear
   of the French a body of 10,000 men, under his nephew—and also
   the King of Prussia's—the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick.
   … Thus Ferdinand became master of the passes, and the French
   were constrained to continue their retreat in disorder. Upon the
   whole, their loss was 8,000 men killed, wounded, or taken, 30
   pieces of artillery, and 17 standards. … Great was the
   rejoicing in England at the victory of Minden"; but loud the
   outcry against Lord George Sackville, who was recalled and
   dismissed from all his employments.

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 36 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, pages 327-333._

GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (July-November).
   The Seven Years War:
   Disasters of Frederick.
   Kunersdorf.
   Dresden.
   Maxen.

   "Three years of the war were gone and the ardour of
   Frederick's' enemies showed no signs of abating. The war was
   unpopular in the Russian army, but the Czarina thought no
   sacrifice too great for the gratification of her hatred.
   France was sick of it too, and tottering on the verge of
   national bankruptcy, but Louis was kept true to his
   engagements by domestic influences and by the unbending
   determination of Maria Theresa never to lay down arms until
   Prussia was thoroughly humbled. … Already Frederick was at
   his wits' end for men and money. Of the splendid infantry
   which had stormed the heights at Prague, and stemmed the rout
   of Kollin, very little now remained. … Moreover, Austria,
   relying on her vastly larger population, had ceased to
   exchange prisoners, and after the end of 1759 Russia followed
   her example. … Frederick's pecuniary difficulties were even
   greater still. But for the English subsidy he could hardly
   have subsisted at all. … The summer was half gone before
   there was any serious fighting. Frederick had got together
   125,000 men of some sort, besides garrison troops, but he no
   longer felt strong enough to take the initiative, and the
   Austrians were equally indisposed to attack without the
   co-operation of their allies. Towards the middle of July the
   Russians, under Count Soltikoff, issued from Posen, advanced
   to the Oder', and, after defeating a weak Prussian corps near
   Kay, took possession of Frankfort.
{1500}
   It now became necessary for the king to march in person
   against them, the more especially as Laudon [or Loudon] with
   18,000 Austrians was on his way to join Soltikoff. Before he
   could reach Frankfort, Laudon, eluding with much dexterity the
   vigilance of his enemies, effected his junction, and
   Frederick, with 48,000 men, found himself confronted by an
   army 78,000 strong. The Russians were encamped on the heights
   of Kunersdorf, east of Frankfort." Frederick attacked them,
   August 12, with brilliant success at first, routing their left
   wing and taking 70 guns, with several thousand prisoners. "The
   Prussian generals then besought the king to rest content with
   the advantage he had gained. The day was intensely hot; his
   soldiers had been on foot for twelve hours, and were suffering
   severely from thirst and exhaustion; moreover, if the Russians
   were let alone, they would probably go off quietly in the
   night, as they had done after Zorndorf. Unhappily Frederick
   refused to take counsel. He wanted to destroy the Russian
   army, not merely to defeat it; he had seized the Frankfort
   bridge and cut off its retreat." He persisted in his attack
   and was beaten off. "The Prussians were in full retreat when
   Laudon swept down upon them with eighteen fresh squadrons. The
   retreat became a rout more disorderly than in any battle of
   the war except Rossbach. The king, stupefied with his
   disaster, could hardly be induced to quit the field, and was
   heard to mutter, 'Is there then no cursed bullet that can
   reach me?' The defeat was overwhelming. Had it been properly
   followed up, it must have put an end to the war, and
   Kunersdorf would have ranked among the decisive battles of the
   world. Berlin lay open to the enemy; the royal family fled to
   Magdeburg. For the first (and last) time in his life Frederick
   gave way utterly to despair. 'I have no resources left,' he wrote
   to the minister Finckenstein the evening after the battle,
   'and to tell the truth I hold all for lost. I shall not
   survive the ruin of my country. Farewell for ever.' The same
   night he resigned the command of the army to General Finck.
   Eighteen thousand, five hundred of his soldiers were killed,
   wounded, or prisoners, and the rest were so scattered that no
   more than 3,000 remained under his command. All the artillery
   was lost, and most of his best generals were killed or
   wounded. … By degrees, however, the prospect brightened. The
   fugitives kept coming in, and the enemy neglected to give the
   finishing stroke. Frederick shook off his despair, and resumed
   the command of his army. Artillery was ordered up from Berlin,
   and the troops serving against the Swedes were recalled from
   Pomerania. Within a week of Kunersdorf he was at the head of
   33,000 men, and in a position to send relief to Dresden, which
   was besieged by an Austrian and Imperialist army. The relief,
   as it happened, arrived just too late." Dresden was
   surrendered by its commandant, Schmettau, on the 4th of
   September, to the great wrath of Frederick. By a wonderful
   march of fifty-eight miles in fifty hours, Prince Henry, the
   brother of Frederick, prevented the Austrians from gaining the
   whole electorate of Saxony. The Russians and the Austrians
   quarrelled, the former complaining that they were left to do
   all the fighting, and presently they withdrew into Poland.
   "With the departure of the Russians, the campaign would
   probably have ended, had not Frederick's desire to close it
   with a victory led him into a fresh disaster, hardly less
   serious and far more disgraceful than that of Kunersdorf. …
   With the view of hastening the retreat of the Austrians, and
   of driving them, if possible, into the difficult Pirna
   country, he ordered General Finck to take post with his corps
   at Maxen, to bar their direct line of communications with
   Bohemia." As the result, Finck, with his whole corps, of
   12,000, were overwhelmed and taken prisoners. "The
   capitulation of Maxen was no less destructive of Frederick's
   plans than galling to his pride. The Austrians now retained
   Dresden, a place of great strategical importance, though the
   king, in the hope of dislodging them, exposed the wrecks of
   his army to the ruinous hardships of a winter campaign, in
   weather of unusual severity, and borrowed 12,000 men of
   Ferdinand of Brunswick to cover his flank while so engaged.
   The new year had commenced before he allowed his harassed
   troops to go into winter-quarters."

      _F. W. Longman,
      Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
      chapter 10, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.;
      book 19, chapters 4-7._

      _Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 10._

GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
   The Seven Years War:
   Saxony reconquered by Frederick.
   Dresden bombarded.
   Battles of Liegnitz, Torgau and Warburg.

   "The campaign of 1759 had extended far into the winter, and
   Frederick conceived the bold idea of renewing it while the
   vigilance of his enemies was relaxed in winter quarters, and
   of making another effort to drive the Austrians from Saxony.
   His head-quarters were at Freyberg. Having received
   reinforcements from Prince Ferdinand, and been joined by
   12,000 men under the hereditary prince, he left the latter to
   keep guard behind the Mulde, and in January 1760, at a time
   when the snow lay deep upon the ground, he made a fierce
   spring upon the Austrians, who were posted at Dippoldiswalde;
   but General Maguire, who commanded there, baffled him by the
   vigilance and skill with which he guarded every pass, and
   compelled him to retrace his steps to Freyberg. When the
   winter had passed and the regular campaign had opened, Laudohn
   [Loudon], one of the most active of the Austrian generals—the
   same who had borne a great part in the victories of
   Hochkirchen and Kunersdorf—entered Silesia, surprised with a
   greatly superior force the Prussian General Fouqué, compelled
   him, with some thousands of soldiers, to surrender [at
   Landshut, June 22], and a few days later reduced the important
   fortress of Glatz [July 26]. Frederick, at the first news of
   the danger of Fouqué, marched rapidly towards Silesia, Daun
   slowly following, while an Austrian corps, under General Lacy,
   impeded his march by incessant skirmishes. On learning the
   surrender of Fouqué, Frederick at once turned and hastened
   towards Dresden. It was July, and the heat was so intense that
   on a single day more than a hundred of his soldiers dropped dead
   upon the march. He hoped to gain some days upon Daun, who was
   still pursuing, and to become master of Dresden before
   succours arrived. As he expected, he soon outstripped the
   Austrian general, and the materials for the siege were
   collected with astonishing rapidity, but General Maguire, who
   commanded at Dresden, defended it with complete success till
   the approach of the Austrian army obliged Frederick to retire.
{1501}
   Baffled in his design, he took a characteristic vengeance by
   bombarding that beautiful city with red-hot balls,
   slaughtering multitudes of its peaceable inhabitants, and
   reducing whole quarters to ashes; and he then darted again
   upon Silesia, still followed by the Austrian general. Laudohn
   had just met with his first reverse, having failed in the
   siege of Breslau [an attempted surprise and a brief
   bombardment]; on August 15, when Daun was still far off,
   Frederick fell upon him and beat him in the battle of
   Liegnitz. [The statement that 'Daun was still far off' appears
   to be erroneous. Loudon and Daun had formed a junction four
   days before, and had planned a concerted attack on Frederick's
   camp; Loudon was struck and defeated while making the movement
   agreed upon, and Daun was only a few miles away at the time.]
   Soon after, however, this success was counterbalanced by Lacy
   and Totleben, who; at the head of some Austrians and Russians,
   had marched upon Berlin, which, after a brave resistance, was
   once more captured and ruthlessly plundered; but on the
   approach of Frederick the enemy speedily retreated. Frederick
   then turned again towards Saxony, which was again occupied by
   Daun, and on November 3 he attacked his old enemy in his
   strong entrenchments at Torgau. Daun, in addition to the
   advantage of position, had the advantage of great numerical
   superiority, for his army was reckoned at 65,000, while that
   of Frederick was not more than 44,000. But the generalship of
   Frederick gained the victory. General Ziethen succeeded in
   attacking the Austrians in the rear, gaining the height, and
   throwing them into confusion. Daun was wounded and disabled,
   and General O'Donnell, who was next in command, was unable to
   restore the Austrian line. The day was conspicuous for its
   carnage, even among the bloody battles of the Seven Years'
   War: 20,000 Austrians were killed, wounded, or prisoners,
   while 14,000 Prussians were left on the field. The battle
   closed the campaign for the year, leaving all Saxony in the
   possession of the Prussians, with the exception of Dresden,
   which was still held by Maguire. The English and German army,
   under Prince Ferdinand, succeeded in the meantime in keeping
   at bay a very superior French army, under Marshal Broglio; and
   several slight skirmishes took place, with various results.
   The battle of Warburg, which was the most important, was won
   chiefly by the British cavalry, but Prince Ferdinand failed in
   his attempts to take Wesel and Gottingen; and at the close of
   the year the French took up their quarters at Cassel."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 115 (volume 3)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Military Life of Loudon,
      chapter 10._

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.,
      book 20, chapters 1-6._

GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
   The Seven Years War:
   The closing campaigns.

   "All Frederick's exertions produced him only 96,000 men for
   defence of Silesia and Saxony this year [1761]. Prince Henry
   had to face Daun in Saxony; the king himself stood in Silesia
   against Loudon and the Russians under Butterlin. Loudon opened
   the campaign by advancing against Goltz, near Schweidnitz, in
   April. Goltz had only 12,000 to his adversary's 30,000, but
   posted himself so well that Loudon could not attack him.
   Reinforcements came gradually to Loudon, raising his army to
   72,000, but orders from Vienna obliged him to remain inactive
   till he could be joined near Neisse by the Russians with
   60,000. Goltz, manœuvring against the Russians, was taken
   prisoner. The king himself delayed the junction of his enemies
   for some time, but could not now offer battle. The junction
   took place the 18th of August. He then struck at Loudon's
   communications, but the thrust was well parried, and on the
   20th of August, Frederick, for the first time, was reduced to
   an attitude of pure defence. He formed an intrenched camp at
   Bunzelwitz, and lay there, blocking the way to Schweidnitz.
   Loudon's intreaties could not persuade the Russians to join
   him in full force to attack the position, and on the 9th of
   September Butterlin's army fell back across the Oder, leaving
   20,000 of his men to act under Loudon. Frederick remained a
   fortnight longer in the camp of Bunzelwitz, but was then
   forced to go, as his army was eating up the magazines of
   Schweidnitz. Again he moved against Loudon's magazines, but
   the Austrian general boldly marched for Schweidnitz, and
   captured the place by assault on the night of the 30th
   September—1st October. No fight took place between London and
   the king. They both went into winter quarters in
   December—Prussians at Strehlen, Austrians at Kunzendorf, and
   Russians about Glatz. … In the western theatre Ferdinand
   defeated Broglio and Soubise at Vellinghausen [or
   Wellinghausen, or Kirch-Denkern, as the battle, fought July
   15, is differently called], the English contingent again
   behaving gloriously. … Prince Henry and Daun manœuvred
   skilfully throughout the campaign, but never came to serious
   blows. Frederick is described as being very gloomy in mind
   this winter. The end of the year left him with but 60,000 men
   in Saxony, Silesia, and the north. Eugene of Wurtemburg had
   5,000 to hold back the Swedes, Prince Henry 25,000 in Saxony,
   the king himself 30,000. But the agony of France was
   increasing; Maria Theresa had to discharge 20,000 men from
   want of money, and Frederick's bitter enemy, 'cette infame
   Catin du Nord' [the czarina Elizabeth], was failing fast in
   health. A worse blow to the king than the loss of a battle had
   been the fall of Pitt, in October, and with him all hope of
   English subsidies. Still, the enemies of Prussia were almost
   exhausted. One more year of brave and stubborn resistance, and
   Prussia must be left in peace. By extraordinary exertions, and
   a power of administrative organisation which was one of his
   greatest qualities, Frederick not only kept up his 60, 000,
   but doubled their number. In the spring he had 70,000 for his
   Silesian army, 40,000 for Prince Henry in Saxony, and 10,000
   for the Swedes or other purposes. Best news of all, the
   czarina died on the 5th of January, 1762, and Peter, who
   succeeded her—only for a short time, poor boy—was an ardent
   admirer of the great king. Frederick at once released and sent
   home his Russian prisoners, an act which brought back his
   Prussians from Russia. On the 23rd February Peter declared his
   intention to be at peace and amity with Frederick, concluded
   peace on the 5th of May, and a treaty of alliance a month
   later. The Swedes, following suit, declared peace on the 22nd
   of May, and Frederick could now give his sole attention to the
   Austrians." For a few weeks, only, the Prussian king had a
   Russian contingent of 20,000 in alliance with him, but could
   make no use of it.
{1502}
   It was recalled in July, by the revolution at St. Petersburg,
   which deposed the young czar, Peter, in favour of his
   ambitious consort, Catherine. Frederick succeeded in
   concealing the fact long enough to frighten Daun by a show of
   preparations for attacking him, with the Russian troops
   included in his army, and the Austrian general retired to
   Glatz and Bohemia. Frederick then took Schweidnitz, and
   marched on Dresden. "Daun followed heavily. Like a
   prize-fighter knocked out of time, he had no more fight in
   him. Prince Henry had two affairs with the Reich's army and
   its Austrian contingent. Forced to retire from Freyburg on the
   15th, he afterwards attacked them on the 29th of October and
   defeated them by a turning movement. They had 40,000, he 30,
   000. The Austrian contingent suffered most. In the western
   theatre Ferdinand held his own and had his usual successes.
   His part in the war was to defend only, and he never failed to
   show high qualities as a general. Thus, nowhere had
   Frederick's enemies succeeded in crushing his defences. For
   seven years the little kingdom of Prussia had held her ground
   against the three great military powers, France, Austria, and
   Russia. All were now equally exhausted. The constancy,
   courage, and ability of Frederick were rewarded at last; on
   the 15th of February, 1763, the treaty of Hubertsburg was
   signed, by which Austria once more agreed to the cession of
   Silesia. Prussia was now a Great Power like the rest, her
   greatness resting on no shams, as she had proved."

      _Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
      Frederick the Great,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 3, pages 57-87._

      _Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapters 14-16._

GERMANY: A. D. 1763.
   The end, results and costs of the Seven Years War.
   The Peace of Hubertsburg and Peace of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

GERMANY: A. D. 1763-1790.
   A period of peace and progress.
   Intellectual cultivation.
   Accession of the Emperor Joseph II.
   His character and his reforms.
   Accession of Leopold II.

   "The peace of nearly thirty years which followed the
   Seven-Years' War in Germany was a time of rich mental activity
   and growth. Court life itself, if its vanities were not
   abolished, still acquired a more enlightened and humane tone.
   The fierce passions of the princes no longer exclusively
   controlled it: there was something of regard for education,
   for art and science, and for the public welfare. This is
   particularly true of courts which were intimately connected
   with Prussia; as that of Brunswick, where Duke Charles,
   Frederick II.'s brother-in-law, though personally an
   extravagant prince, founded an institution of learning which
   brought together many of the best intellects of Germany (1740
   to 1760), or that of Anhalt-Dessau, where the famous
   'Philanthropinum' was established. Several princes imitated
   Frederick's military administration, and that sometimes on a
   scale so small as to be ludicrous. Prince William of
   Lippe-Schaumburg founded in his little territory a fortress
   and a school of war. But this school educated Scharnhorst, and
   the prince himself won fame in distant lands. He invited
   Herder to his little court at Bückeburg. Weimar, too, imitated
   Frederick's example, where the Duchess Amalie, daughter of
   Charles of Brunswick, and her intellectual son, Charles
   Augustus, made their little cities Weimar and Jena places of
   gathering for the greatest men of genius of the time. Among
   the petty Thuringian princes of this period, there were others
   of noble character. In 1764 the Saxon throne was ascended by
   Frederick Augustus, grandson of Augustus III., but, being a
   minor, he could not be elected king of Poland. This put an end
   to the union of the two titles, which had been the cause of
   immeasurable evil to Saxony and to Germany. When the young
   elector attained his majority, the government of Saxony was
   greatly improved, and a period of prosperity followed. Duke
   Charles Eugene of Wirtemberg (1737-1793), during his early
   years, rivaled Louis XV. in extravagance and immorality, but
   in after-days was greatly changed. He founded the Charles
   School, at which Schiller was educated. Baden enjoyed a high
   degree of prosperity under Charles Frederick (1746-1811). Even
   the spiritual lords, on the whole, threw their influence in
   favor of enlightenment and progress. … The prelates of
   Cologne, Trèves, Mayence, and Salzburg, strange to say, agreed
   at Ems in 1786 to renounce the supremacy of Rome, and to found
   an independent German Catholic Church; but the plan was broken
   down by the resistance of the inferior clergy and of the
   Emperor Joseph II. Some of the German states were slow to take
   part in the general progress. Bavaria was constantly retarded
   by the influence of the Jesuits. … The Palatinate, too, was
   under luxurious and idle rulers, mostly in the pay of France.
   In some territories the boundless extravagance of the princes
   was a terrible burden upon their subjects. … Men who
   professed enlightenment and humanity were often shamefully
   tyrannical. The courts of Cassel and Wirtemberg sold their
   people by regiments to England, to fight against the
   independence of the North American Colonies. …

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

   Austria shared in the general intellectual awakening of
   Germany. Maria Theresa was a firm, strong character, with a
   clear mind and sincere desire for the people's welfare. She
   found Austria in decay, and was able to introduce many
   reforms. She alleviated the condition of the peasants, who
   were still mostly serfs. The nobles had before lived mainly
   for show, but she provided institutions for their education.
   … It was a condition of the Peace of Hubertsburg that
   Frederick II. should give his electoral vote for the eldest
   son of Francis I. None of the other electors objected to the
   choice, and on March 27, 1764, they performed the ceremony of
   choosing Joseph 'King of the Romans,' but without power to
   interfere with the government during his father's life.
   Francis I. died August 18, 1765, and his son Joseph II.
   (1765-1790) was then crowned emperor in the traditional
   fashion. He was also associated with his mother in the
   government of' Austria; but she retained the royal power
   mainly in her own hands, assigning to her son the executive
   control of military affairs. Joseph II. was an impetuous and
   intellectual character, all aglow with the new ideas of
   enlightenment and progress, and was perhaps more deeply
   impressed by the example of Frederick II. than any other
   prince of the age. … At the same time, Joseph II. was eager
   to aggrandize Austria, and at least to obtain an equivalent
   for Silesia.
{1503}
   For a long time Austria had been longing to acquire Bavaria,
   and there now seemed to be some reason to hope for success,
   The ancient line of electors of the house of Wittelsbach died
   out in 1777 with Maximilian Joseph (December 30). The next
   heir was the Elector Palatine, Charles Theodore, also Duke of
   Jülich and Berg, who was not eager to obtain Bavaria, since,
   by the Peace of Westphalia, he must then forfeit the
   electorate of the Palatinate. … Under these circumstances
   Joseph II. made an unfounded claim to Lower Bavaria, under a
   pretended grant of the Emperor Sigismund in 1426. A secret
   treaty was made by him with Charles Theodore, by which he was
   to pay that prince a large sum of money for Lower Bavaria; and
   soon after Maximilian Joseph's death, Joseph II. occupied the
   land with troops. Frederick II., who was ever jealous of the
   growth of Austria, resolved to prevent this acquisition. …

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

   Thus the war of the Bavarian Succession broke out (1778-79).
   … By the death of Maria Theresa, November 29, 1780, her son
   Joseph II. became sole monarch of Austria. … Joseph II. was
   a man of large mind and noble aims. Like Frederick, he was
   unwearying in labor, accessible to everyone, and eager to
   assume his share of work or responsibility. The books and the
   people's memory are full of anecdotes of him, though he was
   far from popular during his life. But he lacked the strong
   practical sense and calculating foresight of the veteran
   Prussian king. In his zeal for reforms he hastened to heap one
   upon another in confusion. Torture was abolished, and for a
   time even the death penalty. Rigid equality before the law was
   introduced, and slavery done away.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

   His reforms in the Church were still more sweeping. He closed
   more than half of the monasteries, and devoted their estates
   to public instruction; he introduced German hymns of praise
   and the German Bible. By his Edict of Toleration, June 22,
   1781, he secured to all Protestants throughout the Austrian
   states their civil rights and freedom of worship, 'in houses
   of prayer without bells or towers.' … He zealously followed
   up Maria Theresa's policy of consolidating Austria into one
   state; and it was this course which made him enemies. He
   offended the powerful nobility of Hungary by abolishing
   serfdom (November 1, 1781), and the whole people by the
   measures he took to promote the use of the German language. In
   the Netherlands, he alienated from him the powerful clergy by
   his innovations; and they stirred up against him the people,
   already aggrieved by the loss of some of their ancient
   liberties. A revolution broke out among them in 1788, and was
   threatening to extend to Hungary and Bohemia, when the emperor
   suddenly died, still in the full vigor of manhood, at the age
   of forty-nine, February 20, 1790. … After his death, the
   progress of reform was checked in Austria; but he had awakened
   new and strong forces there, and a complete return to the
   ancient system was impossible. … Leopold II. (1790-1792),
   who succeeded his brother Joseph II., both in Austria and as
   emperor, was a self-indulgent but prudent ruler."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 5, chapter 24, sections 8-18._

GERMANY: A. D. 1772-1773.
   The first Partition of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

GERMANY: A. D. 1787.
   Prussian intervention in Holland.
   Restoration of the expelled stadtholder.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

GERMANY: A. D. 1791.
   The forming of the Coalition against French democracy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      and 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.
   The question of war with France, and the question of the
   Partition of Poland.
   Motives and action of Prussia and Austria.

   "After the acceptance of the Constitution by Louis XVI.
   [September—see FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER)], the
   Emperor indulged for a time a confident hope, that the French
   question was solved, and that he was relieved from all fear of
   trouble from that quarter. He had cares enough upon him to
   make him heartily congratulate himself on this result. … In
   foreign affairs, the Polish question—the next in importance
   to the French—was still unsettled, and daily presented fresh
   difficulties. … The fact that Russia began to show the
   greatest favour to the Emigrés, and to preach at Berlin and
   Vienna a crusade against the wicked Jacobins, only served to
   confirm the Emperor in his peaceful sentiments. He rightly
   concluded that Catharine wished to entangle the German Powers
   in a struggle with France, that she might have her own way in
   Poland; and he was not at all inclined to be the dupe of so
   shallow an artifice. … At the same time he set about
   bringing his alliance with Prussia to a definite conclusion,
   in order to secure to himself a firm support for every
   emergency. On the 17th of November—a week after the
   enactment of the first edict against the Emigrés—Prince Reuss
   made a communication on this subject to the Prussian Ministry,
   and on this occasion declared himself empowered to commence at
   any moment the formal draft of an alliance. … 'We are now
   convinced,' wrote the Ministers to their ambassador at Vienna,
   'that Austria will undertake nothing against France.' This
   persuasion was soon afterwards fully confirmed by Kaunitz, who
   descanted in the severest terms on the intrigues of the
   Emigrés on the Rhine, which it was not in the interest of any
   Power to support. It was ridiculous, he said, in the French
   Princes, and in Russia and Spain, to declare the acceptance of
   the constitution by the King compulsory, and therefore void;
   and still more so to dispute the right of Louis XVI. to alter
   the constitution at all. He said that they would vainly
   endeavour to goad Austria into a war, which could only have
   the very worst consequences for Louis and the present
   predominance of the moderate party in France. … Here, again,
   we see that without the machinations of the Girondists, the
   revolutionary war would never have been commenced. It is true,
   indeed, that at this time a very perceptible change took place
   in the opinions of the second German potentate—the King of
   Prussia. Immediately after the Congress of Pillnitz, great
   numbers of French Emigrés, who had been driven from Vienna by
   the coldness of Leopold, had betaken themselves to Berlin. At
   the Prussian Court they met with a hospitable reception, and
   aroused in the King, by their graphic descriptions, a warm
   interest for the victims of the Revolution. … He loaded the
   Emigrés with marks of favour of every kind, and thereby
   excited in them the most exaggerated hopes.
{1504}
   Yet the King was far from intending to risk any important
   interest of the State for the sake of his protégés; he had no
   idea of pursuing an aggressive policy towards France; and the
   only point in which he differed from Leopold was in the
   feeling with which he regarded the development of the warlike
   tendencies of the French. His Ministers, moreover, were,
   without exception, possessed by the same idea as Prince
   Kaunitz; that a French war would be a misfortune to all
   Europe." As the year 1791 drew towards its close,
   "unfavourable news arrived from Paris. The attempts of the
   Feuillants had failed; Lafayette had separated himself from
   them and from the Court; and the zeal and confidence of
   victory among the Democrats were greater than ever. The
   Emigrés in Berlin were jubilant; they had always declared that
   no impression was to be made upon the Jacobins except by the
   edge of the sword, and that all hopes founded on the stability
   of a moderate middle party were futile. The King of Prussia
   agreed with them, and determined to begin the unavoidable
   struggle as quickly as possible. He told his Ministers that
   war was certain, and that Bischoffswerder ought to go once
   more to the Emperor. … Bischoffswerder, having received
   instructions from the King himself, left Berlin, and arrived
   in Vienna, after a speedy journey, on the 28th of February.
   But he was not destined again to discuss the fate of Europe
   with his Imperial patron; for on the 29th the smallpox showed
   itself, of which Leopold died after three days sickness. The
   greatest consternation and confusion reigned in Vienna. … No
   one knew to whom the young King Francis—he was as yet only
   king of Hungary and Bohemia—would give his confidence, or
   what course he would take; nay, his weakly and nervous
   constitution rendered it doubtful whether he could bear—even
   for a short period—the burdens of his office. For the present
   he confirmed the Ministers in their places, and expressed to them
   his wish to adhere to the political system of his father. …
   He … ordered one of his most experienced Generals, Prince
   Hohenlohe-Kirchberg, to be summoned to Vienna, that he might
   take council with Bischoffswerder respecting the warlike
   measures to be adopted by both Powers, in case of a French
   attack. At the same time, however, the Polish question was, if
   possible, to be brought to a decision, and Leopold's plan in
   all its details was to be categorically recommended for
   adoption, both in Berlin and Petersburg. … The Austrian
   Minister, Spielmann, had prepared the memorial on Poland,
   which Prince Reuss presented at Berlin, on the 10th of March.
   It represented that Austria and Prussia had the same interest
   in stopping a source of eternal embarrassment and discussion,
   by strengthening the cause of peace and order in Poland. That
   herein lay an especially powerful motive to make the crown of
   that country hereditary; that for both Powers the Elector of
   Saxony would be the most acceptable wearer of that crown. …
   The important point, the memorial went on to say, was this,
   that Poland should no longer be dependent on the predominant
   influence of any one neighbouring Power. … When the King had
   read this memorial, in which the Saxon-Polish union was
   brought forward, not as an idea of the feeble Elector, but as
   a proposal of powerful Austria; he cried out, 'We must never
   give our consent to this.' He agreed with his Ministers in the
   conclusion that nothing would be more dangerous to Prussia,
   than the formation of such a Power as would result from the
   proposed lasting union of Poland and Saxony—a Power, which,
   in alliance with Austria, could immediately overrun Silesia,
   and in alliance with Russia, might be fatal to East Prussia.
   … In the midst of this angry and anxious excitement, which
   for a moment alienated his heart from Austria, the King
   received a fresh and no less important despatch from
   Petersburg. Count Golz announced the first direct
   communication of Russia respecting Poland. 'Should Poland'
   [wrote the Russian Vice Chancellor] 'be firmly and lastingly
   united to Saxony, a Power of the first rank will arise, and
   one which will be able to exercise the most sensible pressure
   upon each of its neighbours. We are greatly concerned in this,
   in consequence of the extension of our Polish frontier; and
   Prussia is no less so, from the inevitable increase which
   would ensue of Saxon influence in the German Empire. We
   therefore suggest, that Prussia, Austria, and Russia, should
   come to an intimate understanding with one another on this
   most important subject.' … This communication sounded
   differently in the ears of the King from that which he had
   received from Austria. The fears which agitated his own mind
   and those of the Russian chancellor were identical. While
   Austria called upon him to commit a political suicide, Russia
   offered her aid in averting the most harassing danger, and
   even opened a prospect of a considerable territorial increase.
   The King had no doubt to which of the two Powers he ought to
   incline. He would have come to terms with Russia on the spot,
   had not an insurmountable obstacle existed in the new path
   which was opened to the aggrandizement of Prussia,—viz., the
   Polish treaty of 1790; in which Prussia had expressly bound
   herself to protect the independence and integrity of Poland.
   … He decided that there was no middle course between the
   Russian and Austrian plans. On the one side was his Polish
   treaty of 1790, the immediate consequence of which would be a
   new breach, and perhaps a war, with Russia, and the final
   result such a strengthening of Poland, as would throw back the
   Prussian State into that subordinate position, both in Germany
   and Europe, which it had occupied in the seventeenth century.
   On the other side there was, indeed, a manifest breach of
   faith, but also the salvation of Prussia from a perilous
   dilemma, and perhaps the extension of her boundaries by a
   goodly Polish Province. If he wavered at all in this conflict
   of feeling, the Parisian complications soon put an end to his
   doubts. In quick succession came the announcements that
   Delessart's peaceful Ministry had fallen; that King Louis had
   suffered the deepest humiliation; and that the helm of the
   State had passed into the hands of the Girondist war party. A
   declaration of war on the part of France against Francis· II.
   might be daily expected, and the Russian-Polish contest would
   then only form the less important moiety of the European
   catastrophe. Austria would now be occupied for a long time in
   the West; there could be no more question of the formation of
   a Polish-Saxon State; and Austria could no longer be reckoned
   upon to protect the constitution of 1791, or even to repel a
   Russian invasion of Poland. Prussia was bound to aid the
   Austrians against France, and for many months the King had
   cherished no more ardent wish than to fulfil this obligation
   with all his power.
{1505}
   Simultaneously to oppose the Empress Catharine, was out of the
   question. … The King wrote on the 12th of March to his
   Ministers as follows: … 'Russia is not far removed from
   thoughts of a new partition; and this would indeed be the most
   effectual means of limiting the power of a Polish King,
   whether hereditary or elective. I doubt, however, whether in
   this case a suitable compensation could be found for Austria;
   and whether, after such a curtailment of the power of Poland,
   the Elector of Saxony would accept the crown. Yet if Austria
   could be compensated, the Russian plan would be the most
   advantageous for Prussia,—always provided that Prussia
   received the whole left bank of the Vistula, by the
   acquisition of which that distant frontier—so hard to be
   defended—would be well rounded off. This is my judgment
   respecting Polish affairs.' This was Poland's sentence of
   death. It was not, as we have seen, the result of a
   long-existing greed, but a suddenly seized expedient, which
   seemed to be accompanied with the least evil, in the midst of
   an unexampled European crisis. … On the 20th of April the
   French National Assembly proclaimed war against the King of
   Hungary and Bohemia. A fortnight later the Prince of
   Hohenlohe-Kirchberg appeared in Berlin to settle some common
   plan for the campaign; and at the same time Kaunitz directed
   Prince Reuss to enter into negociations on the political
   question of expenditure and compensation. Count Schulenburg
   … immediately sent a reply to the Prince, to the effect that
   Prussia—as it had uniformly declared since the previous
   summer—could only engage in the war on condition of receiving
   an adequate compensation. … Both statesmen well knew with
   what secret mistrust each of these Powers contemplated the
   aggrandizement of the other; their deliberations were
   therefore conducted with slow and anxious caution, and months
   passed by before their respective demands were reduced to any
   definite shape."

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1792.
   Accession of the Emperor Francis II.

GERMANY: A. D. 1792-1793.
   War with Revolutionary France.
   The Coalition.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY),
      and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);
      1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
      and (JULY-DECEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1192-1796.
   The second and third Partitions of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792; and 1793-1796.

GERMANY: A. D. 1794.
   Withdrawal of Prussia from the Coalition.
   French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and successes on
   the Rhine.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1795.
   Treaty of Basle between Prussia and France.
   Crumbling of the Coalition.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Expulsion of Austria from Italy.
   Bonaparte's first campaigns.
   Advance of Moreau and Jourdan beyond the Rhine.
   Their retreat.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

GERMANY: A. D. 1797 (October).
   The Treaty of Campo Formio between Austria and France.
   Austrian cession of the Netherlands and Lombardy and
   acquisition of Venice.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1798.
   The second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
   Prussia and the Empire withheld from it.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

GERMANY: A. D. 1799.
   The Congress at Rastadt.
   Murder of French envoys.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1800 (May-December).
    The disastrous campaigns of Marengo and Hohenlinden.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
   The Peace of Luneville.
   Territorial cessions and changes.
   The settlement of indemnities in the Empire.
   Confiscation and secularization of the ecclesiastical
   principalities.
   Absorption of Free Cities.
   Re-constitution of the Electoral College.

   "By the treaty of Luneville, which the Emperor Francis was
   obliged to subscribe, 'not only as Emperor of Austria, but in
   the name of the German empire,' Belgium and all the left bank
   of the Rhine were again formally ceded to France; Lombardy was
   erected into an independent state, and the Adige declared the
   boundary betwixt it and the dominions of Austria; Venice, with
   all its territorial possessions as far as the Adige, was
   guaranteed to Austria; the Duke of Modena received the Brisgau
   in exchange for his duchy, which was annexed to the Cisalpine
   republic; the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Emperor's brother,
   gave up his dominions to the infant Duke of Parma, a branch of
   the Spanish family [who was thereupon raised to royal rank by the
   fiat of Bonaparte, who transformed the grand-duchy of Tuscany
   into the kingdom of Etruria], on the promise of an indemnity
   in Germany; France abandoned Kehl, Cassel, and
   Ehrenbreitstein, on condition that these forts should remain
   in the situation in which they were when given up; the princes
   dispossessed by the cession of the left bank of the Rhine were
   promised an indemnity in the bosom of the Empire; the
   independence of the Batavian, Helvetic, Cisalpine and Ligurian
   republics was guaranteed, and their inhabitants declared 'to
   have the power of choosing whatever form of government they
   preferred.' These conditions did not differ materially from
   those contained in the treaty of Campo Formio, or from those
   offered by Napoleon previous to the renewal of the war. …
   The article which compelled the Emperor to subscribe this
   treaty as head of the empire, as well as Emperor of Austria,
   gave rise in the sequel … to the most painful internal
   divisions in Germany. By a fundamental law of the empire, the
   Emperor could not bind the electors and states of which he was
   the head, without either their concurrence or express powers
   to that effect previously conferred. … The emperor hesitated
   long before he subscribed such a condition, which left the
   seeds of interminable discord in the Germanic body; but the
   conqueror was inexorable, and no means of evasion could be
   found. He vindicated himself to the electors in a dignified
   letter, dated 8th February 1801, the day before that when the
   treaty was signed. … The electors and princes of the empire
   felt the force of this touching appeal; they commiserated the
   situation of the first monarch in Christendom, compelled to
   throw himself on his subjects for forgiveness of a step which
   he could not avoid; and one of the first steps of the Diet of
   the empire, assembled after the treaty of Luneville was
   signed, was to give it their solemn ratification, grounded on
   the extraordinary situation in which the Emperor was then
   placed.
{1506}
   But the question of indemnities to the dispossessed princes
   was long and warmly agitated. It continued for above two years
   to distract the Germanic body; the intervention both of France
   and Russia was required to prevent the sword being drawn in
   these internal disputes; and by the magnitude of the changes
   which were ultimately made, and the habit of looking to
   foreign protection which was acquired, the foundation was laid
   of that league to support separate interests which afterwards,
   under the name of the Confederation of the Rhine, so well
   served the purposes of French ambition, and broke up the
   venerable fabric of the German empire."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 32 (volume 7)._

   "Germany: lost by this treaty about 24,000 square miles of its
   best territory and 3,500,000 of its people; while the princes
   were indemnified by the plunder of their peers. But the
   hardest task, the satisfactory distribution of this plunder,
   remained. While the Diet at Regensburg, after much complaint
   and management, assigned the arrangement of these affairs to a
   committee, the princely bargainers were in Paris, employing
   the most disgraceful means to obtain the favor of Talleyrand
   and other influential diplomatists. On the 25th of February,
   1803, the final decision of the delegation or committee of the
   empire was adopted by the Diet, and promulgated with the approval
   of the emperor, Francis II., and of Prussia and Bavaria. It
   confiscated all the spiritual principalities in Germany,
   except that the Elector of Mayence, Charles Theodore of
   Dalberg, received Regensburg, Aschaffenburg, and Wetzlar, as
   an indemnity, and retained a seat and a voice in the imperial
   Diet. Of the 48 free cities of the empire, six only
   remained—Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck, Frankfort, Nuremburg, and
   Augsburg. Austria obtained the bishoprics of Trent and Brixen;
   Prussia, as a compensation for the loss of 1,018 square miles
   with 122,000 inhabitants west of the Rhine, received 4,875
   square miles, with 580,000 inhabitants, including the
   endowments of the religious houses of Hildesheim and
   Paderborn, and most of Münster; also Erfurt and Eichsfeld, and
   the free cities of Nordhausen, Mülhausen, and Goslar; Hanover
   obtained Osnabruck; to Bavaria, in exchange for the
   Palatinate, were assigned Würzburg, Bamberg, Freisingen,
   Augsburg, and Passau, besides a number of cities of the
   empire, in all about 6,150 square miles, to compensate for
   4,240, vastly increasing its political importance. Wirtemberg,
   too, was richly compensated for the loss of the Mömpelgard by
   the confiscation of monastery endowments and free cities in
   Suabia. But Baden made the best bargain of all, receiving
   about 1,270 square miles of land, formerly belonging to
   bishops or to the Palatinate, in exchange for 170. After this
   acquisition, Baden extended, though in patches, from the
   Neckar to the Swiss border. By building up these three South
   German states, Napoleon sought to erect a barrier for himself
   against Austria and Prussia. With the same design,
   Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau were much enlarged. There were
   multitudes of smaller changes, under the name of
   'compensations and indemnities.' Four new lay electorates were
   established in the place of the three secularized prelacies,
   and were given to Baden, Wirtemberg, Hesse-Cassel, and
   Salzburg. But they never had occasion to take part in the
   election of an emperor."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 25, sections 26-27._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      books 7 and 15 (volume 1)._

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1803.
   Bonaparte's seizure of Hanover in his war with England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

GERMANY: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
   The third Coalition against France.
   Prussian Neutrality.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

GERMANY: A. D. 1805 (September-December).
   Napoleon's overwhelming campaign.
   The catastrophes at Ulm and Austerlitz.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
   The Peace of Presburg.
   Territorial losses of Austria.
   Aggrandizement of Bavaria and Würtemberg, which become
   kingdoms, and Baden a grand duchy.
   The Confederation of the Rhine.
   End of the Holy Roman Empire.

   "On the 6th of December, hostilities ceased, and the Russians
   retired by way of Galicia, but in accordance with the terms of
   the armistice, the French troops continued to occupy all the
   lands they had invaded, Austria, Tyrol, Venetia, Carniola,
   Carinthia, and Styria; within Bohemia they were to have the
   circle of Tabor, together with Brno and Znoymo in Moravia and
   Pozsony (Pressburg) in Hungary. The Morava (March) and the
   Hungarian frontier formed the line of demarcation between the
   two armies. A definitive peace was signed at Pressburg on the
   26th of December, 1805. Austria recognized the conquests of
   France in Holland and Switzerland and the annexation of Genoa,
   and ceded to the kingdom of Italy Friuli, Istria, Dalmatia with
   its islands, and the Bocche di Cattaro. A little later, by the
   explanatory Act of Fontainebleau, she lost the last of her
   possessions to the west of the Isonzo, when she exchanged
   those portions of the counties of Gorico and Gradisca which
   are situated on the right bank of that river for the county of
   Montefalcone in Istria. The new kingdoms of Bavaria and
   Würtemberg [brought into existence by this treaty, through the
   recognition of them by the Emperor Francis] were aggrandized
   at the expense of Austria. Bavaria obtained Vorarlberg, the
   county of Hohenembs, the town of Lindau, and the whole of
   Tyrol, with Brixen and Trent. Austrian Suabia was given to
   Würtemberg, while Breisgau and the Ortenau were bestowed on
   the new grand duke of Baden. One compensation alone, the duchy
   of Salzburg, fell to Austria for all her sacrifices, and this
   has remained in her possession ever since. The old bishopric
   of Würzburg was created an electorate and granted to Ferdinand
   III. of Tuscany and Salzburg. Altogether the monarchy lost
   about 25,400 square miles and nearly 3,000,000 of inhabitants.
   She lost Tyrol with its brave and loyal inhabitants and the
   Vörlande which had assured Austrian influence in Germany;
   every possession on the Rhine, in the Black Forest, and on the
   Lower Danube; she no longer touched either Switzerland or
   Italy, and she ceased to be a maritime power. Besides all
   this, she had to pay forty millions for the expenses of the
   war, while she was exhausted by contributions and
   requisitions. Vienna had suffered much, and the French army
   had carried off the 2,000 cannons and the 100,000 guns which
   had been contained in her arsenals. On the 16th of January,
   1806, the emperor Francis returned to his capital.
{1507}
   He was enthusiastically received, and the Viennese returned to
   the luxurious and easy way of life which has always
   characterized them. … Austria seemed no longer to have any
   part to play in German politics. Bavaria, Würtemberg and Baden
   had been formed into a separate league—the Confederation of
   the Rhine—under French protection. On the 1st of August,
   1806, these states announced to the Reichstag at Ratisbon that
   they looked upon the empire as at an end, and on the 6th,
   Francis II. formally resigned the empire altogether, and
   released all the Imperial officials from their engagements to
   him. Thus the sceptre of Charlemagne fell from the hands of
   the dynasty which had held it without interruption from 1438."

       _L. Leger,
       History of Austro-Hungary,
       chapter 25._

   "Every bond of union was dissolved with the diet of the empire
   and with the imperial chamber. The barons and counts of the
   empire and the petty princes were mediatised; the princes of
   Hohenlohe, Oettingen, Schwarzenberg, Thurn, and Taxis, the
   Truchsess von Waldburg, Fürstenberg, Fugger, Leiningen,
   Löwenstein, Solms, Hesse-Homburg, Wied-Runkel, and
   Orange-Fulda, became subject to the neighbouring Rhenish
   confederated princes. Of the remaining six imperial free
   cities, Augsburg and Nuremberg fell to Bavaria; Frankfurt,
   under the title of grand-duchy, to the ancient elector of
   Mayence, who was again transferred thither from Ratisbon. The
   ancient Hanse-towns, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen, alone
   retained their freedom."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 253 (volume 3)._

   "A swift succession of triumphs had left only one thing still
   preventing the full recognition of the Corsican warrior as
   sovereign of Western Europe, and that one was the existence of
   the old Romano-Germanic Empire. Napoleon had not long assumed
   his new title when he began to mark a distinction between 'la
   France' and 'l'Empire Française.' France had, since A. D.
   1792, advanced to the Rhine, and, by the annexation of
   Piedmont, had overstepped the Alps; the French Empire
   included, besides the kingdom of Italy, a mass of dependent
   states, Naples, Holland, Switzerland, and many German
   principalities, the allies of France in the same sense in
   which the 'socii populi Romani' were allies of Rome. When the
   last of Pitt's coalitions had been destroyed at Austerlitz,
   and Austria had made her submission by the peace of Presburg,
   the conqueror felt that his hour was come. He had now overcome
   two Emperors, those of Austria and Russia, claiming to
   represent the old and new Rome respectively, and had in
   eighteen months created more kings than the occupants of the
   Germanic throne in as many centuries. It was time, he thought,
   to sweep away obsolete pretensions, and claim the sole
   inheritance of that Western Empire, of which the titles and
   ceremonies of his court presented a grotesque imitation. The
   task was an easy one after what had been already accomplished.
   Previous wars and treaties had so redistributed the
   territories and changed the constitution of the Germanic
   Empire that it could hardly be said to exist in anything but
   name. … The Emperor Francis, partly foreboding the events
   that were at hand, partly in order to meet Napoleon's
   assumption of the imperial name by depriving that name of its
   peculiar meaning, began in A. D. 1805 to style himself
   'Hereditary Emperor of Austria,' while retaining at the same
   time his former title. The next act of the drama was one in
   which we may more readily pardon the ambition of a foreign
   conqueror than the traitorous selfishness of the German
   princes, who broke every tie of ancient friendship and duty to
   grovel at his throne. By the Act of the Confederation of the
   Rhine, signed at Paris, July 12th, 1806, Bavaria, Würtemberg,
   Baden, and several other states, sixteen in all, withdrew from
   the body and repudiated the laws of the Empire, while on
   August 1st the French envoy at Regensburg announced to the
   Diet that his master, who had consented to become Protector of
   the Confederate princes, no longer recognized the existence of
   the Empire. Francis II. resolved at once to anticipate this
   new Odoacer, and by a declaration, dated August 6th, 1806,
   resigned the imperial dignity. His deed states that finding it
   impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfil the
   obligations imposed by his capitulation, he considers as
   dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body,
   releases from their allegiance the states who formed it, and
   retires to the government of his hereditary dominions under
   the title of 'Emperor of Austria.' Throughout, the term
   'German Empire' (Deutsches Reich) is employed. But it was the
   crown of Augustus, of Constantine, of Charles, of Maximilian,
   that Francis of Hapsburg laid down, and a new era in the
   world's history was marked by the fall of its most venerable
   institution. One thousand and six years after Leo the Pope had
   crowned the Frankish king, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight
   years after Cæsar had conquered at Pharsalia, the Holy Roman
   Empire came to its end."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 20._

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (January-August).
   The Confederation of the Rhine.
   Cession of Hanover to Prussia.
   Double dealing and weakness of the latter.
   Her submission to Napoleon's insults and wrongs.
   Final goading of the nation to war.

   "The object at which all French politicians had aimed since
   the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the exclusion of both
   Austria and Prussia from influence in Western Germany, was now
   completely attained. The triumph of French statesmanship, the
   consummation of two centuries of German discord, was seen in
   the Act of Federation subscribed by the Western German
   Sovereigns in the summer of 1806. By this Act the Kings of
   Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and 13 minor
   princes, united themselves, in the League known as the Rhenish
   Confederacy, under the protection of the French Emperor, and
   undertook to furnish contingents, amounting to 63,000 men, in
   all wars in which the French Empire should engage. Their
   connection with the ancient Germanic Body was completely
   severed; the very town in which the Diet of the Empire had
   held its meetings was annexed by one of the members of the
   Confederacy. The Confederacy itself, with a population of
   8,000,000, became for all purposes of war and foreign policy a
   part of France. Its armies were organised by French officers;
   its frontiers were fortified by French engineers; its treaties
   were made for it at Paris. In the domestic changes which took
   place within these States the work of consolidation begun in
   1801 was carried forward with increased vigour. Scores of tiny
   principalities which had escaped dissolution in the earlier
   movement were now absorbed by their stronger neighbours. …
{1508}
   With the establishment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the
   conquest of Naples, Napoleon's empire reached, but did not
   overpass, the limits within which the sovereignty of France
   might probably have been long maintained. … If we may judge
   from the feeling with which Napoleon was regarded in Germany
   down to the middle of the year 1806, and in Italy down to a
   much later date, the Empire then founded might have been
   permanently upheld, if Napoleon had abstained from attacking
   other States." During the winter of 1806, Count Haugwitz, the
   Prussian minister, had visited Paris "for the purpose of
   obtaining some modification in the treaty which he had signed
   [at the palace of Schönbrunn, near Vienna] on behalf of
   Prussia after the battle of Austerlitz. The principal feature
   in that treaty had been the grant of Hanover to Prussia by the
   French Emperor in return for its alliance. This was the point
   which above all others excited King Frederick William's fears
   and scruples; He desired to acquire Hanover, but he also
   desired to derive his title rather from its English owner
   [King George III., who was also Elector of Hanover] than from
   its French invader. It was the object of Haugwitz' visit to
   Paris to obtain an alteration in the terms of the treaty which
   should make the Prussian occupation of Hanover appear to be
   merely provisional, and reserve to the King of England at
   least a nominal voice in its ultimate transfer. In full
   confidence that Napoleon would agree to such a change, the
   King of Prussia, on taking possession of Hanover in January,
   1806, concealed the fact of its cession to himself by
   Napoleon, and published an untruthful proclamation. … The
   bitter truth that the treaty between France and Prussia
   contained no single word reserving the rights of the Elector,
   and that the very idea of qualifying the absolute cession of
   Hanover was an afterthought, lay hidden in the conscience of
   the Prussian Government. Never had a Government more
   completely placed itself at the mercy of a pitiless enemy.
   Count Haugwitz, on reaching Paris, was received by Napoleon
   with a storm of indignation and contempt. Napoleon declared
   that the ill-faith of Prussia had made an end even of that
   miserable pact which had been extorted after Austerlitz, and
   insisted that Prussia should openly defy Great Britain by
   closing the ports of Northern Germany to British vessels, and
   by declaring itself endowed by Napoleon with Hanover in virtue
   of Napoleon's own right of conquest. Haugwitz signed a second
   and more humiliating treaty [February 15] embodying these
   conditions; and the Prussian Government, now brought into the
   depths of contempt, but unready for immediate war, executed
   the orders of its master. … A decree was published excluding
   the ships of England from the ports of Prussia and from those
   of Hanover itself (March 28, 1806). It was promptly followed
   by the seizure of 400 Prussian vessels in British harbours,
   and by the total extinction of Prussian maritime commerce by
   British privateers. Scarcely was Prussia committed to this
   ruinous conflict with Great Britain when Napoleon opened
   negotiations for peace with Mr. Fox's Government. The first
   condition required by Great Britain was the restitution of
   Hanover to King George III. It was unhesitatingly granted by
   Napoleon. Thus was Prussia to be mocked of its prey, after it
   had been robbed of all its honour. … There was scarcely a
   courtier in Berlin who did not feel that the yoke of the
   French had become past endurance; even Haugwitz himself now
   considered war as a question of time. The patriotic party in
   the capital and the younger officers of the army bitterly
   denounced the dishonoured Government, and urged the King to
   strike for the credit of his country. … Brunswick was
   summoned to the King's council to form plans of a campaign;
   and appeals for help were sent to Vienna, to St. Petersburg,
   and even to the hostile Court of London. The condition of
   Prussia at this critical moment was one which filled with the
   deepest alarm those few patriotic statesmen who were not
   blinded by national vanity or by a slavery to routine. …
   Early in the year 1806 a paper was drawn up by Stein,
   exposing, in language seldom used by a statesman, the
   character of the men by whom Frederick William was surrounded,
   and declaring that nothing but a speedy change of system could
   save the Prussian State from utter downfall and ruin. Two
   measures of immediate necessity were specified by Stein, the
   establishment of a responsible council of Ministers, and the
   removal of Haugwitz and all his friends from power. … The
   army of Prussia … was nothing but the army of Frederick the
   Great grown twenty years older. … All Southern Germany was
   still in Napoleon's hands. The appearance of a Russian force
   in Dalmatia, after that country had been ceded by Austria to
   the French Emperor, had given Napoleon an excuse for
   maintaining his troops in their positions beyond the Rhine. As
   the probability of a war with Prussia became greater and greater,
   Napoleon tightened his grasp upon the Confederate States.
   Publications originating among the patriotic circles of
   Austria were beginning to appeal to the German people to unite
   against a foreign oppressor. An anonymous pamphlet, entitled
   'Germany in its Deep Humiliation,' was sold by various
   booksellers in Bavaria, among others by Palm, a citizen of
   Nuremberg. There is no evidence that Palm was even acquainted
   with the contents of the pamphlet; but … Napoleon …
   required a victim to terrify those who, among the German
   people, might be inclined to listen to the call of patriotism.
   Palm was not too obscure for the new Charlemagne. The innocent
   and unoffending man, innocent even of the honourable crime of
   attempting to save his country, was dragged before a tribunal
   of French soldiers, and executed within twenty-four hours of
   his trial, in pursuance of the imperative orders of Napoleon
   (August 26). … Several years later, … the story of Palm's
   death was one of those that kindled the bitterest sense of
   wrong; at the time, it exercised no influence upon the course
   of political events. Prussia had already resolved upon war."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapters 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapters 51-52._

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 2, chapters 4-5 (volume 1)._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 15._

{1509}

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (October).
   Napoleon's sudden invasion of Prussia.
   The decisive battle of Jena.
   Prostration of the Prussian Kingdom.

   "The Emperor of Russia … visited Berlin, when the feelings
   of Prussia, and indeed of all the neighbouring states, were in
   this fever of excitement. He again urged Frederick William to
   take up arms in the common cause, and offered to back him with
   all the forces of his own great empire. The English
   government, taking advantage of the same crisis, sent Lord
   Morpeth to Berlin, with offers of pecuniary supplies—about
   the acceptance of which, however, the anxiety of Prussia on
   the subject of Hanover created some difficulty. Lastly,
   Buonaparte, well informed of what was passing in Berlin, and
   desirous, since war must be, to hurry Frederick into the field
   ere the armies of the Czar could be joined with his, now
   poured out in the 'Moniteur' such abuse on the persons and
   characters of the Queen, Prince Louis, and every illustrious
   patriot throughout Prussia, that the general wrath could no
   longer be held in check. War-like preparations of every kind
   filled the kingdom during August and September. On the 1st of
   October the Prussian minister at Paris presented a note to
   Talleyrand, demanding, among other things, that the formation
   of a confederacy in the north of Germany should no longer be
   thwarted by French interference, and that the French troops
   within the territories of the Rhenish League should recross
   the Rhine into France, by the 8th of the same month of
   October. But Napoleon was already in person on the German side
   of the Rhine; and his answer to the Prussian note was a
   general order to his own troops, in which he called on them to
   observe in what manner a German sovereign still dared to
   insult the soldiers of Austerlitz. The conduct of Prussia, in
   thus rushing into hostilities without waiting for the advance
   of the Russians, was as rash as her holding back from Austria
   during the campaign of Austerlitz had been cowardly. As if
   determined to profit by no lesson, the Prussian council also
   directed their army to advance towards the French, instead of
   lying on their own frontier—a repetition of the great leading
   blunder of the Austrians in the preceding year. The Prussian
   army accordingly invaded the Saxon provinces, and the Elector
   … was compelled to accept the alliance which the cabinet of
   Berlin urged on him, and to join his troops with those of the
   power by which he had been thus insulted and wronged. No
   sooner did Napoleon know that the Prussians had advanced into
   the heart of Saxony, than he formed the plan of his campaign;
   and they, persisting in their advance, and taking up their
   position finally on the Saale, afforded him, as if studiously,
   the means of repeating, at their expense, the very manœvres which
   had ruined the Austrians in the preceding campaign." The flank
   of the Prussian position was turned,—the bridge across the
   Saale, at Saalfield, having been secured, after a hot
   engagement with the corps of Prince Louis of Prussia who fell
   in the fight,—"the French army passed entirely round them;
   Napoleon seized Naumburg and blew up the magazines
   there,—announcing, for the first time, by this explosion, to
   the King of Prussia and his generalissimo the Duke of
   Brunswick, that he was in their rear. From this moment the
   Prussians were isolated, and cut off from all their resources,
   as completely as the army of Mack was at Ulm, when the French
   had passed the Danube and overrun Suabia. The Duke of
   Brunswick hastily endeavoured to concentrate his forces for
   the purpose of cutting his way back again to the frontier
   which he had so rashly abandoned. Napoleon, meantime, had
   posted his divisions so as to watch the chief passages of the
   Saale, and expected, in confidence, the assault of his
   outwitted opponent. It was now that he found leisure to answer
   the manifesto of Frederick William. … His letter, dated at
   Gera, is written in the most elaborate style of insult. …
   The Prussian King understood well, on learning the fall of
   Naumburg, the imminent danger of his position; and his army
   was forthwith set in motion, in two great masses; the former,
   where he was in person present, advancing towards Naumburg;
   the latter attempting, in like manner, to force their passage
   through the French line in the neighbourhood of Jena. The
   King's march was arrested at Auerstadt by Davoust, who, after
   a severely contested action, at length repelled the assailant.
   Napoleon himself, meanwhile, was engaged with the other great
   body of the Prussians. Arriving on the evening of the 13th
   October at Jena, he perceived that the enemy were ready to
   attempt the advance next morning, while his own heavy train
   was still six-and-thirty hours' march in his rear. Not
   discouraged with this adverse circumstance, the Emperor
   laboured all night in directing and encouraging his soldiery
   to cut a road through the rocks, and draw up by that means
   such light guns as he had at command to a position on a lofty
   plateau in front of Jena, where no man could have expected
   beforehand that any artillery whatever should be planted. …
   Lannes commanded the centre, Augereau the right, Soult the
   left, and Murat the reserve and cavalry. Soult had to sustain
   the first assault of the Prussians, which was violent—and
   sudden; for the mist lay so thick on the field that the armies
   were within half-gunshot of each other ere the sun and wind
   rose and discovered them, and on that instant Mollendorf
   charged. The battle was contested well for some time on this
   point; but at length Ney appeared in the rear of the Emperor
   with a fresh division; and then the French centre advanced to
   a general charge, before which the Prussians were forced to
   retire. They moved for some space in good order; but Murat now
   poured his masses of cavalry on them, storm after storm, with
   such rapidity and vehemence that their rout became inevitable.
   It ended in the complete breaking up of the army—horse and
   foot all flying together, in the confusion of panic, upon the
   road to Weimar. At that point the fugitives met and mingled
   with their brethren flying, as confusedly as themselves, from
   Auerstadt. In the course of this disastrous day 20,000
   Prussians were killed or taken, 300 guns, 20 generals, and 60
   standards. The Commander-in-Chief, the Duke of Brunswick,
   being wounded in the face with a grape-shot, was carried early
   off the field, never to recover. … The various routed
   divisions roamed about the country, seeking separately the
   means of escape: they were in consequence destined to fall an
   easy prey. … The Prince of Hohenlohe at length drew together
   not less than 50,000 of these wandering soldiers," and retreated
   towards the Oder; but was forced, in the end, to lay down his
   arms at Prentzlow. "His rear, consisting of about 10,000,
   under the command of the celebrated General Blucher, was so
   far behind as to render it possible for them to attempt
   escape. Their heroic leader traversed the country with them
   for some time unbroken, and sustained a variety of assaults,
   from far superior numbers, with the most obstinate resolution.
{1510}
   By degrees, however, the French, under Soult, hemmed him in on
   one side, Murat on the other, and Bernadotte appeared close
   behind him. He was thus forced to throw himself into Lubeck,
   where a severe action was fought in the streets of the town,
   on the 6th of November. The Prussian, in this battle, lost
   4,000 prisoners, besides the slain and wounded: he retreated
   to Schwerta, and there, it being impossible for him to go
   farther without violating the neutrality of Denmark, on the
   morning of the 7th, Blucher at length laid down his arms. …
   The strong fortresses of the Prussian monarchy made as
   ineffectual resistance as the armies in the field. …
   Buonaparte, in person, entered Berlin on the 25th of October;
   and before the end of November, except Konigsberg—where the
   King himself had found refuge, and gathered round, him a few
   thousand troops … —and a few less important fortresses, the
   whole of the German possessions of the house of Brandenburg
   were in the hands of the conqueror. Louis Buonaparte, King of
   Holland, meanwhile had advanced into Westphalia and occupied
   that territory also, with great part of Hanover, East
   Friesland, Embden, and the dominions of Hesse-Cassel."

      _J. G. Lockhart,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870,
      chapter. 4._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 9 (volume 2),_

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 6, pages 60-72._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 43 (volume 10)._

      _Duke of Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, part 2, chapters 21-23._

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (October-December).
   Napoleon's ungenerous use of his victory.
   His insults to the Queen of Prussia.
   The kingdom governed as conquered territory.
   The French advance into Poland, to meet the Russians.
   Saxony made a kingdom.

   "Napoleon made a severe and ungenerous use of his victory. The
   old Duke of Brunswick, respectable from his age, his
   achievements under the Great Frederick, and the honourable
   wounds he had recently received on the field of battle, and
   who had written a letter to Napoleon, after the battle of
   Jena, recommending his subjects to his generosity, was in an
   especial manner the object of invective. His states were
   overrun, and the official bulletins disgraced by a puerile
   tirade against a general who had done nothing but discharge
   his duty to his sovereign. For this he was punished by the
   total confiscation of his dominions. So virulent was the
   language employed, and such the apprehensions in consequence
   inspired, that the wounded general was compelled, with great
   personal suffering, to take refuge in Altona, where he soon
   after died. The Queen, whose spirit in prosperous and
   constancy in adverse fortune had justly endeared her to her
   subjects, and rendered her the admiration of all Europe, was
   pursued in successive bulletins with unmanly sarcasms; and a
   heroic princess, whose only fault, if fault it was, had been
   an excess of patriotic ardour, was compared to Helen, whose
   faithless vices had involved her country in the calamities
   consequent on the siege of Troy. The whole dominions of the
   Elector of Hesse Cassel were next seized; and that prince, who
   had not even combated at Jena, but merely permitted, when he
   could not prevent, the entry of the Prussians into his
   dominions, was dethroned and deprived of all his possessions.
   … The Prince of Orange, brother-in-law to the King of
   Prussia, … shared the same fate: while to the nobles of
   Berlin he used publicly the cruel expression, more withering
   to his own reputation than theirs,—'I will render that
   noblesse so poor that they shall be obliged to beg their
   bread.' … Meanwhile the French armies, without any further
   resistance, took possession of the whole country between the
   Rhine and the Oder; and in the rear of the victorious bands
   appeared, in severity unprecedented even in the revolutionary
   armies, the dismal scourge of contributions. Resolved to
   maintain the war exclusively on the provinces which were to be
   its theatre, Napoleon had taken only 24,000 francs in specie
   across the Rhine in the military chest of the army. It soon
   appeared from whom the deficiency was to be supplied. On the
   day after the battle of Jena appeared a proclamation,
   directing the levy of an extraordinary war contribution of
   159,000,000 francs (£6,300,000) on the countries at war with
   France, of which 100,000,000 was to be borne by the Prussian
   states to the west of the Vistula, 25,000,000 by the Elector
   of Saxony [who had already detached himself from his alliance
   with Prussia], and the remainder by the lesser states in the
   Prussian confederacy. This enormous burden … was levied with
   unrelenting severity. … Nor was this all. The whole civil
   authorities who remained in the abandoned provinces were
   compelled to take an oath of fidelity to the French
   Emperor,—an unprecedented step, which clearly indicated the
   intention of annexing the Prussian dominions to the great
   nation. … Early in November there appeared an elaborate
   ordinance, which provided for the complete civil organisation
   and military occupation of the whole country from the Rhine to
   the Vistula. By this decree the conquered states were divided
   into four departments; those of Berlin, of Magdeburg, of
   Stettin, and of Custrin; the military and civil government of
   the whole conquered territory was intrusted to a
   governor-general at Berlin, having under him eight commanders
   of provinces into which it was divided. … The same system of
   government was extended to the duchy of Brunswick, the states
   of Hesse and Hanover, the duchy of Mecklenburg, and the Hanse
   towns, including Hamburg, which was speedily oppressed by
   grievous contributions. … The Emperor openly announced his
   determination to retain possession of all these states till
   England consented to his demands on the subject of the liberty
   of the seas. … Meanwhile the negotiations for the conclusion of
   a separate peace between France and Prussia were resumed. …
   The severity of the terms demanded, as well as … express
   assurances that no concessions, how great soever, could lead
   to a separate accommodation, as Napoleon was resolved to
   retain all his conquests until a general peace, led, as might
   have been expected, to the rupture of the negotiations.
   Desperate as the fortunes of Prussia were, … the King …
   declared his resolution to stand or fall with the Emperor of
   Russia [who was vigorously preparing to fulfil his promise of
   help to the stricken nation]. This refusal was anticipated by
   Napoleon. It reached him at Posen, whither he had advanced on
   his road to the Vistula; and nothing remained but to enter
   vigorously on the prosecution of the war in Poland.
{1511}
   To this period of the war belongs the famous Berlin decree
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810] of the 21st November against the
   commerce of Great Britain. … Napoleon … at Posen, in
   Prussian Poland, gave audience to the deputies of that unhappy
   kingdom, who came to implore his support to the remains of its
   once mighty dominion. His words were calculated to excite
   hopes which his subsequent conduct never realised. … While
   the main body of the French army was advancing by rapid
   strides from the Oder to the Vistula, Napoleon, ever anxious
   to secure his communications, and clear his rear of hostile
   bodies, caused two different armies to advance to support the
   flanks of the invading force. … The whole of the north of
   Germany was overrun by French troops, while 100,000 were
   assembling to meet the formidable legions of Russia in the
   heart of Poland. Vast as the forces of Napoleon were, such
   prodigious efforts, over so great an extent of surface,
   rendered fresh supplies indispensable. The senate at Paris was
   ready to furnish them; and on the requisition of the Emperor
   80,000 were voted from the youth who were to arrive at the
   military age in 1807. … A treaty, offensive and defensive,
   between Saxony and France, was the natural result of these
   successes. This convention, arranged by Talleyrand, was signed
   at Posen, on the 12th December. It stipulated that the Elector
   of Saxony should be elevated to the dignity of king; he was
   admitted into the Confederation of the Rhine, and his
   contingent fixed at 20,000 men. By a separate article, it was
   provided that the passage of foreign troops across the kingdom
   of Saxony should take place without the consent of the sovereign:
   a provision which sufficiently pointed it out as a military
   outpost of the great nation—while, by a subsidiary treaty,
   signed at Posen three days afterwards, the whole minor princes
   of the House of Saxony were also admitted into the
   Confederacy."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 43, sections 87-99 (volume 10)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 16._

      _Mrs. S. Austin,
      Germany from 1760 to 1814,
      page 294, and after._

      _E. H. Hudson,
      Life and Times of Louisa,
      Queen of Prussia, volume 2, chapters 8-9._

GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Opening of Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
   The deluding of the Poles.
   indecisive battle of Eylau.

   The campaign against the Russians "opened early in the winter.
   The 1st of November, the Russians and French marched towards
   the Vistula, the former from the Memel, the latter from the
   Oder. Fifty thousand Russians pressed forward under General
   Benningsen; a second and equal army followed at a distance
   with a reserve force. Some of the Russian forces on the
   Turkish frontier were recalled, but were still remote. The
   first two Russian armies, with the remaining Prussians,
   numbered about 120,000. England made many promises and kept
   few of them, thinking more of conquering Spanish and Dutch
   colonies than of helping her allies. Her aid was limited to a
   small reinforcement of the Swedes guarding Swedish Pomerania,
   the only portion of Northern Germany not yet in French power.
   Gustavus II., the young King of Sweden, weak and impulsive,
   rushed headlong, without a motive, into the … alliance
   [against Napoleon], destined to be so fatal to Sweden. …
   Eighty thousand men under Murat crossed the Oder and entered
   Prussian Poland, and an equal number stood ready to sustain
   them. November 9, Davout's division entered Posen, the
   principal town of the Polish provinces still preserving the
   national sentiment, and whose people detested Prussian rule
   and resented the treachery with which Prussia dismembered
   Poland after swearing alliance with her. All along the road,
   the peasants hastened to meet the French; and at Posen, Davout
   was hailed with an enthusiasm which moved even him, cold and
   severe as he was, and he urged Napoleon to justify the hopes
   of Poland, who looked to him as her savior. The Russian
   vanguard reached Warsaw before the French, but made no effort
   to remain there, and recrossed the Vistula. November 28,
   Davout and Murat entered the town, and public delight knew no
   bounds. It would be a mere illusion to fancy that sentiments
   of right and justice had any share in Napoleon's resolve, and
   that he was stirred by a desire to repair great wrongs. His
   only question was whether the resurrection of Poland would
   increase his greatness or not; and if he told the Sultan that
   he meant to restore Poland, it was because he thought Turkey
   would assist him the more willingly against Russia. He also
   offered part of Silesia to Austria, if she would aid him in
   the restoration of Poland by the cession of her Polish
   provinces; but it was not a sufficient offer, and therefore
   not serious. The truth was that he wanted promises from the
   Poles before he made any to them. … Thousands of Poles
   enlisted under the French flag and joined the Polish legions
   left from the Italian war. Napoleon established a provisional
   government of well-known Poles in Warsaw, and required nothing
   but volunteers of the country. He had seized without a blow
   that line of the Vistula which the Prussian king would not
   barter for a truce, and might have gone into winter-quarters
   there; but the Russians were close at hand on the opposite
   shore, in two great divisions 100,000 strong, in a wooded and
   marshy country forming a sort of triangle, whose point touches
   the union of the Narew and Ukra rivers with the Vistula, a few
   leagues below Warsaw. The Russians communicated with the sea
   by a Prussian corps stationed between them and Dantzic.
   Napoleon would not permit them to hold this post, and resolved
   to strike a blow, before going into winter-quarters, which
   should cut them off from the sea and drive them back towards
   the Memel and Lithuania. He crossed the Vistula, December 23,
   and attacked the Russians between the Narew and the Ukra. A
   series of bloody battles followed [the most important being at
   Pultusk and Golymin, December 26] in the dense forests and deep
   bogs of the thawing land. Napoleon said that he had discovered
   a fifth element in Poland,—mud. Men and horses stuck in the
   swamp and the cannons could not be extricated. Luckily the
   Russians were in the incompetent hands of General Kamenski,
   and both parties fought in the dark, the labyrinth of swamps
   and woods preventing either army from guessing the other's
   movements. The Russians were finally driven, with great loss,
   beyond the Narew towards the forests of Belostok, and a
   Prussian corps striving to assist them was driven back to the
   sea. … The grand army did not long enjoy the rest it so much
   needed; for the Russians, whose losses were more than made up
   by the arrival of their reserves, suddenly resumed the
   offensive.
{1512}
   General Benningsen, who gave a fearful proof of his sinister
   energy by the murder of Paul I., had been put in command in
   Kamenski's place. Marching round the forests and traversing
   the line of lakes which divide the basin of the Narew from
   those watercourses flowing directly to the sea, he reached the
   maritime part of old Prussia, intending to cross the Vistula
   and drive the French from their position in Poland. He had
   hoped to surprise the French left wing, lying between the
   Passarge and Lower Vistula, but arrived too late. Ney and
   Bernadotte rapidly concentrated their forces and fought with a
   bravery which arrested the Russians (January 25 and 27).
   Napoleon came to the rescue, and having once driven the enemy
   into the woods and marshes of the interior, now strove to turn
   those who meant to turn him, by an inverse action forcing them
   to the sea-coast. … Benningsen then halted beyond Eylau, and
   massed his forces to receive battle next day [February 8]. He
   had about 70,000 men, twice the artillery of Napoleon (400
   guns against 200), and hoped to be joined betimes by a
   Prussian corps. Napoleon could only dispose of 60,000 out of
   his 300,000 men,—Ney being some leagues away and Bernadotte
   out of reach. … The battlefield was a fearful sight next
   day. Twelve thousand Russians and 10,000 French lay dying and
   dead on the vast fields of snow reddened with blood. The
   Russians, besides, carried off 15,000 wounded. 'What an
   ineffectual massacre" cried Ney, as he traversed the scene of
   carnage. This was too true; for although Napoleon drove the
   Russians to the sea, it was not in the way he desired.
   Benningsen succeeded in reaching Konigsberg, where he could
   rest and reinforce his army, and Napoleon was not strong
   enough to drive him from this last shelter."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from 1789,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      _J. C. Ropes,
      The First Napoleon,
      lecture 3._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 29-30._

GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
   Napoleon's Decrees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (February-June).
   Closer alliance of Prussia and Russia.
   Treaty of Bartenstein.
   Napoleon's victory at Friedland.
   End of the campaign.

   The effect produced in Europe by the doubtful battle of Eylau
   "was unlucky for France; in Paris the Funds fell. Bennigsen
   boldly ordered the Te Deum to be sung. In order to confirm his
   victory, re-organise his army, reassure France, re-establish
   the opinion of Europe, encourage the Polish insurrection, and
   to curb the ill-will of Germany and Austria, Napoleon remained
   a week at Eylau. He negotiated: on one side he caused
   Talleyrand to write to Zastrow, the Prussian foreign minister,
   to propose peace and his alliance; he sent Bertrand to Memel
   to offer to re-establish the King of Prussia, on the condition
   of no foreign intervention. He also tried to negotiate with
   Bennigsen; to which the latter made answer, 'that his master
   had charged him to fight, and not negotiate.' After some
   hesitation, Prussia ended by joining her fortunes to those of
   Russia. By the convention of Bartenstein (25th April, 1807)
   the two sovereigns came to terms on the following points:
   1. The re-establishment of Prussia within the limits of 1805.
   2. The dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine.
   3. The restitution to Austria of the Tyrol and Venice.
   4. The accession of England to the coalition, and the
   aggrandisement of Hanover.
   5. The co-operation of Sweden.
   6. The restoration of the house of Orange, and indemnities to
   the kings of Naples and Sardinia.

   This document is important; it nearly reproduces the
   conditions offered to Napoleon at the Congress of Prague, in
   1813. Russia and Prussia proposed then to make a more pressing
   appeal to Austria, Sweden, and England; but the Emperor
   Francis was naturally undecided, and the Archduke Charles,
   alleging the state of the finances and the army, strongly
   advised him against any new intervention. Sweden was too weak;
   and notwithstanding his fury against Napoleon, Gustavus III.
   had just been forced to treat with Mortier. The English
   minister showed a remarkable inability to conceive the
   situation; he refused to guarantee the new Russian loan of a
   hundred and fifty millions, and would lend himself to no
   maritime diversion. Napoleon showed the greatest diplomatic
   activity. The Sultan Selim III. declared war against Russia;
   General Sebastiani, the envoy at Constantinople, put the
   Bosphorus in a state of defence, and repulsed the English
   fleet [see TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807]; General Gardane left for
   Ispahan, with a mission to cause a Persian outbreak in the
   Caucasus. Dantzig had capitulated [May 24, after a long
   siege], and Lefèbvre's 40,000 men were therefore ready for
   service. Masséna took 36,000 of them into Italy, In the
   spring, Bennigsen, who had been reinforced by 10,000 regular
   troops, 6,000 Cossacks, and the Imperial Guard, being now at
   the head of 100,000 men, took the offensive; Gortchakof
   commanding the right and Bagration the left. He tried, as in
   the preceding year, to seize Ney's division; but the latter
   fought, as he retired, two bloody fights, at Gutstadt and
   Ankendorff. Bennigsen, again in danger of being surrounded,
   retired on Heilsberg. He defended himself bravely (June 10);
   but the French, extending their line on his right, marched on
   Eylau, so as to cut him off from Konigsberg. The Russian
   generalissimo retreated; but being pressed, he had to draw up
   at Friedland, on the Alle. The position he had taken up was
   most dangerous. All his army was enclosed in an angle of the
   Alle, with the steep bed of the river at their backs, which in
   case of misfortune left them only one means of retreat, over
   the three bridges of Friedland. … 'Where are the Russians
   concealed?' asked Napoleon when he came up. When he had noted
   their situation, he exclaimed, 'It is not every day that one
   surprises the enemy in such a fault.' He put Lannes and Victor
   in reserve, ordered Mortier to oppose Gortchakof on the left
   and to remain still, as the movement which 'would be made by
   the right would pivot on the left.' As to Ney, he was to cope
   on the right with Bagration, who was shut in by the angle of
   the river; he was to meet them 'with his head down,' without
   taking any care of his own safety. Ney led the charge with
   irresistible fury; the Russians were riddled by his artillery
   at 150 paces: he successively crushed the chasseurs of the
   Russian Guard, the Ismaïlovski, and the Horse Guards, burnt
   Friedland by shells, and cannonaded the bridges which were the
   only means of retreat. … The Russian left wing was almost
   thrown into the river; Bagration, with the Semenovski and
   other troops, was hardly able to cover the defeat.
{1513}
   On the Russian right, Gortchakof, who had advanced to attack
   the immovable Mortier, had only time to ford the Alle. Count
   Lambert retired with 29 guns by the left bank; the rest fled
   by the right bank, closely pursued by the cavalry. Meanwhile
   Murat, Davoust, and Soult, who had taken no part in the
   battle, arrived before Konigsberg. Lestocq, with 25,000 men,
   tried to defend it, but on learning the disaster of Friedland
   he hastily evacuated it. Only one fortress now remained to
   Frederick William—the little town of Memel. The Russians had
   lost at Friedland from 15,000 to 20,000 men, besides 80 guns
   (June 14, 1807). … Alexander had no longer an army. Only one
   man, Barclay de Tolly, proposed to continue the war; but in
   order to do this it would be necessary to re-enter Russia, to
   penetrate into the very heart of the empire, to burn
   everything on the way, and only present a desert to the enemy.
   Alexander hoped to get off more cheaply. He wrote a severe
   letter to Bennigsen, and gave him powers to treat."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, part 1, chapters 4-6._

GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
   The Treaty of Tilsit.
   Its known and its unknown agreements.

   "Alexander I. now determined to negotiate in person with the
   rival emperor, and on the 25th of June the two sovereigns met
   at Tilsit, on a raft which was moored in the middle of the
   Niemen. The details of the conference are a secret, as
   Napoleon's subsequent account of it is untrustworthy, and no
   witnesses were present. All that is certain is that Alexander
   I., whose character was a curious mixture of nobility and
   weakness, was completely won over by his conqueror. …
   Napoleon, … instead of attempting to impose extreme terms
   upon a country which it was impossible to conquer, … offered
   to share with Russia the supremacy in Europe which had been
   won by French arms. The only conditions were the abandonment
   of the cause of the old monarchies, which seemed hopeless, and
   an alliance with France against England. Alexander had several
   grievances against the English government, especially the
   lukewarm support that had been given in recent operations, and
   made no objection to resume the policy of his predecessors in
   this respect. Two interviews sufficed to arrange the basis of
   an agreement. Both sovereigns abandoned their allies without
   scruple. Alexander gave up Prussia and Sweden, while Napoleon
   deserted the cause of the Poles, who had trusted to his zeal
   for their independence, and of the Turks, whom his envoy had
   recently induced to make war upon Russia. The Treaty of Tilsit
   was speedily drawn up; on the 7th of July peace was signed
   between France and Russia, on the 9th between France and
   Prussia. Frederick William III. had to resign the whole of his
   kingdom west of the Elbe, together with all the acquisitions
   which Prussia had made in the second and third partitions of
   Poland. The provinces that were left, amounting to barely half
   of what he had inherited, were burthened with the payment of
   an enormous sum as compensation to France. The district west
   of the Elbe was united with Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, and
   ultimately with Hanover, to form the kingdom of Westphalia,
   which was given to Napoleon's youngest brother, Jerome. Of
   Polish Prussia, one province, Bialystock, was added to Russia,
   and the rest was made into the grand duchy of Warsaw, and
   transferred to Saxony. Danzig, with the surrounding territory,
   was declared a free state under Prussian and Saxon protection,
   but it was really subject to France, and remained a centre of
   French power on the Baltic. All trade between Prussia and
   England was cut off. Alexander I., on his side, recognised all
   Napoleon's new creations in Europe—the Confederation of the
   Rhine, the kingdoms of Italy, Naples, Holland, and Westphalia,
   and undertook to mediate between France and England. But the
   really important agreement between France and Russia was to be
   found, not in the formal treaties, but in the secret
   conventions which were arranged by the two emperors. The exact
   text of these has never been made public, and it is probable
   that some of the terms rested upon verbal rather than on
   written understandings, but the general drift of them is
   unquestionable. The bribe offered to Alexander was the
   aggrandisement of Russia in the East. To make him an
   accomplice in the acts of Napoleon, he was to be allowed to
   annex Finland from Sweden, and Moldavia and Wallachia from
   Turkey. With regard to England, Russia undertook to adopt
   Napoleon's blockade-system, and to obtain the adhesion of
   those states which still remained open to English
   trade—Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal."

      _H. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 24, section 25._

   "'I thought,' said Napoleon at St. Helena, 'it would benefit
   the world to drive these brutes, the Turks, out of Europe. But
   when I reflected what power it would give to Russia, from the
   number of Greeks in the Turkish dominions who may be
   considered Russians, I refused to consent to it, especially as
   Alexander wanted Constantinople, which would have destroyed
   the equilibrium of power in Europe. France would gain Egypt,
   Syria, and the islands; but those were nothing to what Russia
   would have obtained.' This coincides with Savary's [Duke de
   Rovigo's] statement, that Alexander told him Napoleon said he
   was under no engagements to the new Sultan, and that changes
   in the world inevitably changed the relations of states to one
   another; and again, Alexander said that, in their
   conversations at Tilsit, Napoleon often told him he did not
   require the evacuation of Moldavia and Wallachia; he would
   place things in a train to dispense with it, and it was not
   possible to suffer longer the presence of the Turks in Europe.
   'He even left me,' said Alexander, 'to entertain the project
   of driving them back into Asia. It is only since that he has
   returned to the idea of leaving Constantinople to them, and
   some surrounding provinces.' Due day, when Napoleon was
   talking to Alexander, he asked his secretary, M. Meneval, for
   the map of Turkey, opened it, then renewed the conversation;
   and placing his finger on Constantinople said several times to
   the secretary, though not loud enough to be heard by
   Alexander, 'Constantinople, Constantinople, never. It is the
   capital of the world.' … It is very evident in their
   conversations that Napoleon agreed to his [Alexander's]
   possessing himself of the Turkish Empire up to the Balkan, if
   not beyond; though Bignon denies that any plan for the actual
   partition of Turkey was embodied in the treaty of Tilsit.
   Hardenberg, not always well informed, asserts that it was.
{1514}
   Savary says he could not believe that Napoleon would have
   abandoned the Turks without a compensation in some other
   quarter; and he felt certain Alexander had agreed in return to
   Napoleon's project for the conquest of Spain, 'which the
   Emperor had very much at heart'"

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 46 (volume 10)._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 24._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      chapters 3-4._

      _Prince de Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 3 (volume 1)._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      book 27 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (July).
   The collapse of Prussia and its Causes.

   "For the five years that followed, Prussia is to be conceived,
   in addition to all her other humiliations, as in the hands of
   a remorseless creditor whose claims are decided by himself
   without appeal, and who wants more than all he can get. She is
   to be thought of as supporting for more than a year after the
   conclusion of the Treaty a French army of more than 150,000
   men, then as supporting a French garrison in three principal
   fortresses, and finally, just before the period ends, as
   having to support the huge Russian expedition in its passage
   through the country. … It was not in fact from the Treaty of
   Tilsit, but from the systematic breach of it, that the
   sufferings of Prussia between 1807 and 1813 arose. It is
   indeed hardly too much to say that the advantage of the Treaty
   was received only by France, and that the only object Napoleon
   can have had in signing it was to inflict more harm on Prussia
   than he could inflict by simply continuing the war. Such was
   the downfall of Prussia. The tremendousness of the catastrophe
   strikes us less because we know that it was soon retrieved,
   and that Prussia rose again and became greater than ever. But
   could this recovery be anticipated? A great nation, we say,
   cannot be dissolved by a few disasters; patriotism and energy
   will retrieve everything. But precisely these seemed wanting.
   The State seemed to have fallen in pieces because it had no
   principle of cohesion, and was only held together by an
   artificial bureaucracy. It had been created by the energy of
   its government and the efficiency of its soldiers, and now it
   appeared to come to an end because its government had ceased
   to be energetic and its soldiers to be efficient. The
   catastrophe could not but seem as irremediable as it was
   sudden and complete." There may be discerned "three distinct
   causes for it. First, the undecided and pusillanimous policy
   pursued by the Prussian government since 1803 had an evident
   influence upon the result by making the great Powers,
   particularly England and Austria, slow to render it
   assistance, and also by making the commanders, especially
   Brunswick, irresolute in action because they could not, even
   at the last moment, believe the war to be serious. This
   indecision we have observed to have been connected with a
   mal-organisation of the Foreign Department. Secondly, the
   corruption of the military system, which led to the surrender
   of the fortresses. Thirdly, a misfortune for which Prussia was
   not responsible, its desertion by Russia at a critical moment,
   and the formation of a close alliance between Russia and
   France."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
   The great Revolutionary Reforms of Hardenberg, Stein and
   Scharnhorst.
   Edict of Emancipation.
   Military reorganization.
   Beginning of local self-government.
   Seeds of a new national life.

   "The work of those who resisted Napoleon—even if no one of
   them should ever be placed in the highest class of the
   benefactors of mankind—has in some cases proved enduring, and
   nowhere so much as in Germany. They began two great works—the
   reorganisation of Prussia and the revival of the German
   nationality, and time has deliberately ratified their views.
   Without retrogression, without mistake, except the mistake
   which in such matters is the most venial that can be
   committed, that, namely, of over-caution, of excessive
   hesitation, the edifice which was then founded has been raised
   higher and higher till it is near completion. … Because
   Frederick-William III. remains quietly seated on the throne
   through the whole period, we remain totally unaware that a
   Prussian revolution took place then—a revolution so
   comprehensive that the old reign and glories of Frederick may
   fairly be said to belong to another world—to an 'ancien
   regime' that has utterly passed away. It was a revolution
   which, though it did not touch the actual framework of
   government in such a way as to substitute one of Aristotle's
   forms of government for another, yet went so far beyond
   government, and made such a transformation both in industry
   and culture, that it deserves the name of revolution far more,
   for instance, than our English Revolution of the 17th century.
   … In Prussia few of the most distinguished statesmen, few even
   of those who took the lead in her liberation from Napoleon,
   were Prussians. Blücher himself began life in the service of
   Sweden, Scharnhorst was a Hanoverian, so was Hardenberg, and
   Stein came from Nassau. Niebuhr was enticed to Berlin from the
   Bank of Copenhagen. Hardenberg served George III. and
   afterwards the Duke of Brunswick before he entered the service
   of Frederick-William II.; and when Stein was dismissed by
   Frederick-William III. in the midst of the war of 1806, though
   he was a man of property and rank, he took measures to
   ascertain whether they were in want of a Finance Minister at
   St. Petersburg. … We misapprehend the nature of what took
   place when we say, as we usually do, that some important and
   useful reforms were introduced by Stein, Hardenberg, and
   Scharnhorst. In the first place, such a word as reform is not
   properly applied to changes so vast, and in the second place.
   the changes then made or at least commenced, went far beyond
   legislation. We want some word stronger than reform which
   shall convey that one of the greatest events of modern history
   now took place in Prussia. Revolution would convey this, but
   unfortunately we appropriate that word to changes in the form
   of government, or even mere changes of dynasty, provided they
   are violent, though such changes are commonly quite
   insignificant compared to what now took place in Prussia. …
   The form of government indeed was not changed. Not merely did
   the king continue to reign, but no Parliament was created even
   with powers ever so restricted. Another generation had to pass
   away before this innovation, which to us seems the beginning
   of political life, took place. But a nation must be made
   before it can be made free, and, as we have said, in Prussia
   there was an administration (in great disorder) and an army,
   but no nation.
{1515}
   When Stein was placed at the head of affairs in the autumn of
   1807, he seems, at first, hardly to have been aware that
   anything was called for beyond the reform of the
   administration, and the removal of some abuses in the army.
   Accordingly he did reform the administration from the top to
   the bottom, remodelling the whole machinery both of central
   and local government which had come down from the father of
   Frederick the Great. But the other work also was forced upon
   him, and he began to create the nation by emancipating the
   peasantry, while Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were brooding over
   the ideas which, five years later, took shape in the Landwehr
   of East Prussia. Besides emancipating the peasant he
   emancipated industry,—everywhere abolishing that strange
   caste system which divided the population rigidly into nobles,
   citizens, and peasants, and even stamped every acre of land in
   the country with its own unalterable rank as noble, or
   citizen, or peasant land. Emancipation, so to speak, had to be
   given before enfranchisement. The peasant must have something
   to live for; freewill must be awakened in the citizen; and he
   must be taught to fight for something before he could receive
   political liberty. Of such liberty Stein only provided one
   modest germ. By his Städteordnung he introduced popular
   election into the towns. Thus Prussia and France set out
   towards political liberty by different roads. Prussia began
   modestly with local liberties, but did not for a long time
   attempt a Parliament. France with her charte, and in imitation
   of France many of the small German States, had grand popular
   Parliaments, but no local liberties. And so for a long time
   Prussia was regarded as a backward State. … It was only by
   accident that Stein stopped short at municipal liberties and
   created no Parliament. He would have gone further, and in the
   last years of the wartime Hardenberg did summon deliberative
   assemblies, which, however, fell into disuse again after the
   peace. … In spite however of all reaction, the change
   irrevocably made by the legislation of that time was similar
   to that made in France by the Revolution, and caused the age
   before Jena to be regarded as an 'ancien regime.' But in
   addition to this, a change had been made in men's minds and
   thoughts by the shocks of the time, which prepared the way for
   legislative changes which have taken place since. How
   unprecedented in Prussia, for instance, was the dictatorial
   authority wielded by Hardenberg early in 1807, by Stein in the
   latter part of that year and in 1808, and by Hardenberg again
   from 1810 onwards! Before that time in the history of Prussia
   we find no subject eclipsing or even approaching the King in
   importance. Prussia had been made what she was almost entirely
   by her electors and kings. In war and organisation alike all
   had been done by the Great Elector or Frederick-William I., or
   Frederick the Great. But now this is suddenly changed. Everything
   now turns on the minister. Weak ministers are expelled by
   pressure put upon the king, strong ones are forced upon him.
   He is compelled to create a new ministerial power much greater
   than that of an English Prime Minister, and more like that of
   a Grand Vizier, and by these dictators the most comprehensive
   innovations are made. The loyalty of the people was not
   impaired by this; on the contrary, Stein and Hardenberg saved
   the Monarchy; but it evidently transferred the Monarchy,
   though safely, to a lower pedestal."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Prussian History (Macmillan's Magazine,
      volume 36, pages 342-351)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      parts 3-5 (volumes 1-2)._

      _R. B. D. Morier,
      Agrarian Legislation of Prussia
      (Systems of Land Tenure: Cobden Club Essays,
      chapter 5)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1808.
   The Awakening of the national spirit.
   Effects of the Spanish rising, and of Fichte's Addresses.

   The beginnings of the great rising in Spain against Napoleon
   (see SPAIN: A. D. 1808, and after) "were watched by Stein from
   Berlin while he was engaged in negotiating with Daru; we can
   imagine with what feelings! His cause had been, since his
   ministry began, substantially the same as that of Spain; but
   he had perhaps understood it himself but dimly, at any rate
   hoped but faintly to see it prosper. But now he ripens at once
   into a great nationality statesman; the reforms of Prussia
   begin at once to take a more military stamp, and to point more
   decisively to a great uprising of the German race against the
   foreign oppressor. The change of feeling which took place in
   Prussia after the beginning of the Spanish troubles is very
   clearly marked in Stein's autobiography. After describing the
   negotiations at Paris and Berlin, … he begins a new
   paragraph thus: 'The popular war which had broken out in Spain
   and was attended with good success, had heightened the
   irritation of the inhabitants of the Prussian State caused by
   the humiliation they had suffered. All thirsted for revenge;
   plans of insurrection, which aimed at exterminating the French
   scattered about the country, were arranged; among others, one
   was to be carried out at Berlin, and I had the greatest
   trouble to keep the leaders, who confided their intentions to
   me, from a premature outbreak. We all watched the progress of
   the Spanish war and the commencement of the Austrian, for the
   preparations of that Power had not remained a secret;
   expectation was strained to the highest point; pains were
   necessary to moderate the excited eagerness for resistance in
   order to profit by it in more favourable circumstances. …
   Fichte's Addresses to the Germans, delivered during the French
   occupation of Berlin and printed under the censorship of M.
   Bignon, the Intendant, had a great effect upon the feelings of
   the cultivated class.' … That in the midst of such weighty
   matters he should remember to mention Fichte's Addresses is a
   remarkable testimony to the effect produced by them on the
   public mind, and at the same time it leads us to conjecture
   that they must have strongly influenced his own. They had been
   delivered in the winter at Berlin and of course could not be
   heard by Stein, who was then with the King, but they were not
   published till April. As affecting public opinion therefore,
   and also as known to Stein, the book was almost exactly of the
   same date as the Spanish Rebellion, and it is not unnatural
   that he should mention the two influences together. … When
   the lectures were delivered at Berlin a rising in Spain was
   not dreamed of, and even when they were published it had not
   taken place, nor could clearly be foreseen. And yet they teach
   the same lesson. That doctrine of nationality which was taught
   affirmatively by Spain had been suggested to Fichte's mind by
   the reductio ad absurdum which events had given to the
   negation of it in Germany.
{1516}
   Nothing could be more convincing than the concurrence of the
   two methods of proof at the same moment, and the prophetic
   elevation of these discourses (which may have furnished a
   model to Carlyle) was well fitted to drive the lesson home,
   particularly to a mind like Stein's, which was quite capable
   of being impressed by large principles. … Fichte's Addresses
   do not profess to have in the first instance nationality for
   their subject. They profess to inquire whether there exists
   any grand comprehensive remedy for the evils with which
   Germany is afflicted. They find such a remedy where Turgot
   long before had looked for deliverance from the selfishness to
   which he traced all the abuses of the old regime, that is, in
   a grand system of national education. Fichte reiterates the
   favourite doctrine of modern Liberalism, that education as
   hitherto conducted by the Church has aimed only at securing
   for men happiness in another life, and that this is not
   enough, inasmuch as they need also to be taught how to bear
   themselves in the present life so as to do their duty to the
   state, to others and themselves. He is as sure as Turgot that
   a system of national education will work so powerfully upon
   the nation that in a few years they will not be recognisable,
   and he explains at great length what should be the nature of
   this system, dwelling principally upon the importance of
   instilling a love of duty for its own sake rather than for
   reward. The method to be adopted is that of Pestalozzi. Out of
   fourteen lectures the first three are entirely occupied with
   this. But then the subject is changed, and we find ourselves
   plunged into a long discussion of the peculiar characteristics
   which distinguish Germany from other nations and particularly
   other nations of German origin. At the present day this
   discussion, which occupies four lectures, seems hardly
   satisfactory; but it is a striking deviation from the fashion
   of that age. … But up to this point we perceive only that
   the subject of German nationality occupies Fichte's mind very
   much, and that there was more significance than we first
   remarked in the title, Addresses to the German Nation;
   otherwise we have met with nothing likely to seem of great
   importance to a statesman. But the eighth Lecture propounds
   the question, 'What is a Nation in the higher signification of
   the word, and what is patriotism? It is here that he delivers
   what might seem a commentary on the Spanish Revolution, which
   had not yet taken place. … Fichte proclaims the Nation not
   only to be different from the State, but to be something far
   higher and greater. … Applied to Germany this doctrine would
   lead to the practical conclusion that a united German State
   ought to be set up in which the separate German States should
   be absorbed. … In the lecture before us he contents himself
   with advising that patriotism as distinguished from loyalty to
   the State should be carefully inculcated in the new education,
   and should influence the individual German Governments. It
   would not indeed have been safe for Fichte to propose a
   political reform, but it rather appears that he thought it an
   advantage rather than a disadvantage that the Nation and the
   State should be distinct. … I should not have lingered so
   long over this book if it did not strike me as the prophetical
   or canonical book which announces and explains a great
   transition in Modern Europe, and the prophecies of which began
   to be fulfilled immediately after its publication by the
   rising in Spain. … It is this Spanish Revolution which when
   it has extended to the other countries we call the
   Anti-Napoleonic Revolution of Europe. It gave Europe years of
   unparalleled bloodshed, but at the same time years over which
   there broods a light of poetry; for no conception can be more
   profoundly poetical than that which now woke up in every part
   of Europe, the conception of the Nation. Those years also led
   the way to the great movements which have filled so much of
   the nineteenth century, and have rearranged the whole central
   part of the map of Europe on a more natural system."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (January).
   Kehl, Cassel and Wesel annexed to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (April-December).
   The Tugendbund, and Stein's relations to it.

   "English people think of Stein almost exclusively in connexion
   with land laws. But the second and more warlike period of his
   Ministry has also left a faint impression in the minds of many
   among us, who are in the habit of regarding him as the founder
   of the Tugendbund. In August and September [1808], the very
   months in which Stein was taking up his new position, this
   society was attracting general attention, and accordingly this
   is the place to consider Stein's relation to it. That he was
   secretly animating and urging it on must have seemed at the
   time more than probable, almost self-evident. It aimed at the
   very objects which he had at heart, it spoke of him with warm
   admiration, and in general it used language which seemed an
   echo of his own. … Whatever his connexion with the
   Tugendbund may have been, it cannot have commenced till April,
   1808, for it was in that month that the Tugendbund began its
   existence, and therefore nothing can be more absurd than to
   represent Stein as beginning to revolutionise the country with
   the help of the Tugendbund, for his revolutionary edict had
   been promulgated in the October before. … In his
   autobiography … Stein [says]: 'An effect and not the cause
   of this passionate national indignation at the despotism of
   Napoleon was the Tugendbund, of which I was no more the
   founder than I was a member, as I can assert on my honour and
   as is well known to its originators. About July, 1808, there
   was formed at Königsberg a society consisting of several
   officers, for example, Colonel Gneisenau, Grolmann, &c., and
   learned men, such as Professor Krug, in order to combat
   selfishness and to rouse the nobler moral feelings; and
   according to the requirements of the existing laws they
   communicated their statutes and the list of their members to
   the King's Majesty, who sanctioned the former without any
   action on my part, it being my belief in general that there
   was no need of any other institute but to put new life into
   the spirit of Christian patriotism, the germ of which lay
   already in the existing institutions of State and Church. The
   new Society held its meetings, but of the proceedings I knew
   nothing, and when later it proposed to exert an indirect
   influence upon educational and military institutions I
   rejected the proposal as encroaching on the department of the
   civil and ecclesiastical governing bodies. As I was driven
   soon afterwards out of the public service, I know nothing
   of the further operations of this Society.' …
{1517}
   He certainly seems to intend his readers to understand that he
   had not even any indirect or underhand connexion with it, but
   from first to last stood entirely aloof, except in one case
   when he interfered to restrain its action. It is even possible
   that by telling us that he had nothing to do with the step
   taken by the King when he sanctioned the statutes of the
   society he means to hint that; had his advice been taken, the
   society would not have been even allowed to exist. … The
   principal fact affirmed by Stein is indeed now beyond
   controversy; Stein was certainly not either the founder or a
   member of the Tugendbund. The society commonly known by that
   name, which however designated itself as the Moral and
   Scientific Union, was founded by a number of persons, of whom
   many were Freemasons, at Konigsberg in the month of April.
   Professor Krug, mentioned by Stein, was one of them; Gneisenau
   and Grolmann, whom he also mentions, were not among the first
   members, and Gneisenau, it seems, was never a member. The
   statutes were drawn by Krug, Bardeleben and Baersch, and if
   anyone person can be called the Founder of the Tugendbund, the
   second of these, Bardeleben, seems best to deserve the title.
   The Order of Cabinet by which the society was licensed is
   dated Konigsberg, June 30th, and runs as follows: 'The revival
   of morality, religion, serious taste and public spirit, is
   assuredly most commendable; and, so far as the society now
   being formed under the name of a Virtue Union (Tugendverein)
   is occupied with this within the limits of the laws of the
   country and without any interference in politics or public
   administration, His Majesty the King of Prussia approves the
   object and constitution of the society.' … From Konigsberg
   missionaries went forth who established branch associations,
   called Chambers, in other towns, first those of the Province
   of Prussia, Braunsberg, Elbing, Graudenz, Eylau, Hohenstein,
   Memel, Stallupöhnen; then in August and September Bardeleben
   spread the movement with great success through Silesia. The
   spirit which animated the new society could not but be
   approved by every patriot. They had been deeply struck with
   the decay of the nation, as shown in the occurrences of the
   war, and their views of the way in which it might be revived
   were much the same as those of Stein and Fichte. The only
   question was whether they were wise in organising a society in
   order to promulgate these views, whether such a society was
   likely to do much good, and also whether it might not by
   possibility do much harm. Stein's view, as he has given it,
   was that it was not likely to do much good, and that such an
   organisation was unnecessary. … It did not follow because he
   desired Estates or Parliaments that he was prepared to
   sanction a political club. … It may well have seemed to him
   that to suffer a political club to come into existence was to
   allow the guidance of the Revolution which he had begun to
   pass out of his hands. There appears, then, when we consider
   it closely, nothing unnatural in the course which Stein
   declares himself to have taken."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 4, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Frost,
      Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
   Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (January-June).
   Outburst of Austrian feeling against France.
   Reopening of war.
   Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
   His defeat at Aspern and perilous situation.
   Austrian reverses in Italy and Hungary.

   "The one man of all the Austrians who felt the least amount of
   hatred against France, was, perhaps, the Emperor. All his
   family and all his people—nobles and priests, the middle
   classes and the peasantry—evinced a feeling full of anger
   against the nation which had upset Europe. … By reason of
   the French, the disturbers and spoilers, the enemies of the
   human race, despisers of morality and religion alike, Princes
   were suffering in their palaces, workmen in their shops,
   business men in their offices, priests in their churches,
   soldiers in their camps, peasants in their huts. The movement
   of exasperation was irresistible. Everyone said that it was a
   mistake to have laid down their arms; that they ought against
   France to have fought on to the bitter end, and to have
   sacrificed the last man and the last florin; that they had
   been wrong in not having gone to the assistance of Prussia
   after the Jena Campaign; and that the moment had arrived for
   all the Powers to coalesce against the common enemy and crush
   him. … All Europe had arrived at a paroxysm of indignation.
   What was she waiting for before rising? A signal. That signal
   Austria was about to give. And this time with what chances of
   success! The motto was to be 'victory or death.' But they were
   sure of victory. The French army, scattered from the Oder to
   the Tagus, from the mountains of Bohemia to the Sierra Morena,
   would not be able to resist the onslaught of so many nations
   eager to break their bonds. … Vienna, in 1809, indulged in
   the same language, and felt the same passions, that Berlin did
   in 1806. … The Landwehr, then only organized a few months,
   were impatiently awaiting the hour when they should measure
   themselves against the Veterans of the French army. Volunteers
   flocked in crowds to the colours. Patriotic subscriptions
   flowed in. … Boys wanted to leave school to fight. All
   classes of society vied with each other in zeal, courage, and
   a spirit of sacrifice. When the news was made public that the
   Archduke Charles had, on the 20th of February, 1809, been
   appointed Generalissimo, there was an outburst of joy and
   confidence from one end of the Empire to the other."

      _Imbert de Saint-Amand,
      Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise,
      part 1, chapter 2._

   "On receiving decisive intelligence of these hostile
   preparations, Napoleon returned with extraordinary expedition
   from Spain to Paris, in January, 1809, and gave orders to
   concentrate his forces in Germany, and call out the full
   contingents of the Confederation of the Rhine. Some further
   time was consumed by the preparations on either side. At last,
   on the 8th of April, the Austrian troops crossed the frontiers
   at once on the Inn, in Bohemia, in the Tyrol and in Italy. The
   whole burthen of the war rested on Austria alone, for Prussia
   remained neutral, and Russia, now allied to France, was even
   bound to make a show at least, though it were no more, of
   hostility to Austria. On the same day on which the Austrian
   forces crossed the frontiers, the Tyrol rose in insurrection
   [see below: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY)], and was swept
   clear of the enemy in four days, with the exception of a
   Bavarian garrison, that still held out in Kufstein.
{1518}
   The French army was at this time dispersed over a line of
   forty leagues in extent, with numerous undefended apertures
   between the corps; so that the fairest possible opportunity
   presented itself to the Austrians for cutting to pieces the
   scattered forces of the French, and marching in triumph to the
   Rhine. As usual, however, the archduke's early movements were
   subjected to most impolitic delays by the Aulic Council; and
   time was allowed Napoleon to arrive on the theatre of war
   (April 17), and repair the faults committed by his
   adjutant-general, Berthier. He instantly extricated his army
   from its perilous position—almost cut in two by the advance
   of the Austrians—and, beginning on the 19th, he beat the
   latter in five battles on five successive days, at Thaun,
   Abensberg, Landshut, Eckmühl, and Ratisbon. The Archduke
   Charles retired into Bohemia to collect reinforcements, but
   General Hiller was, in consequence of the delay in repairing
   the fortifications of Linz, unable to maintain that place, the
   possession of which was important, on account of its forming a
   connecting point between Bohemia and the Austrian Oberland.
   Hiller, however, at least saved his honour by pushing forward
   to the Traun, and in a fearfully bloody encounter at
   Ebersberg, captured three French eagles, one of his colours
   alone falling into the enemy's hands. He was, nevertheless,
   compelled to retire before the superior forces of the French,
   and crossing over at Krems to the left bank of the Danube, he
   formed a junction with the Archduke Charles. The way was now
   clear to Vienna, which, after a slight show of defence,
   capitulated to Napoleon on the 12th of May. The Archduke
   Charles had hoped to reach the capital before the French, and
   to give battle to them beneath its walls; but as he had to
   make a circuit whilst the French pushed forward in a direct
   line, his plan was frustrated, and he arrived, when too late,
   from Bohemia. Both armies, separated by the Danube, stood
   opposed to one another in the vicinity of the imperial city.
   Both commanders were desirous of coming to a decisive
   engagement. The French had secured the island of Lobau, to
   serve as a mustering place, and point of transit across the
   Danube. The archduke allowed them to establish a bridge of
   boats, being resolved to await them on the Marchfeld. There it
   was that Rudolph of Habsburg, in the battle against Ottakar,
   had laid the foundation of the greatness of the house of
   Austria; and there the political existence of that house and
   the fate of the monarchy were now to be decided. Having
   crossed the river, Napoleon was received on the opposite bank,
   near Aspern and Esslingen, by his opponent, and, after a
   dreadful battle [in which Marshal Lannes was killed], that was
   carried on with unwearied animosity for two days, May 21st and
   22nd, 1809, he was completely beaten, and compelled to fly for
   refuge to the island of Lobau. The rising stream had,
   meanwhile, carried away the bridge, Napoleon's sole chance of
   escape to the opposite bank. For two days he remained on the
   island with his defeated troops, without provisions, and in
   hourly expectation of being cut to pieces; the Austrians,
   however, neglected to turn the opportunity to advantage, and
   allowed the French leisure to rebuild the bridge, a work of
   extreme difficulty. During six weeks afterwards, the two
   armies continued to occupy their former positions under the
   walls of Vienna, on the right and left banks of the Danube,
   narrowly watching each other's movements, and preparing for a
   final struggle. Whilst these events were in progress, the
   Archduke John had successfully penetrated into Italy, where he
   had totally defeated the Viceroy Eugene at Salice, on the 16th
   of April. Favoured by the simultaneous revolt of the Tyrolese,
   he might have obtained the most decisive results from this
   victory, but the extraordinary progress of Napoleon down the
   valley of the Danube rendered necessary the concentration of
   the whole forces of the monarchy for the defence of the
   capital. Having begun a retreat, he was pursued by Eugene, and
   defeated on the Piave, with great loss, on the 8th of May.
   Escaping thence, without further molestation, to Villach, in
   Carinthia, he received intelligence of the fall of Vienna,
   together with a letter from the Archduke Charles, of the 15th
   of May, directing him to move with all his forces upon Lintz,
   to act on the rear and communications of Napoleon. Instead of
   obeying these orders, he thought proper to march into Hungary,
   abandoning the Tyrol and the whole projected operations on the
   Upper Danube to their fate. His disobedience was disastrous to
   the fortunes of his house, for it caused the fruits of the
   victory at Aspern to be lost. He might have arrived, with
   50,000 men, on the 24th or 25th, at Lintz, where no one
   remained but Bernadotte and the Saxons, who were incapable of
   offering any serious resistance. Such a force, concentrated on
   the direct line of Napoleon's communications, immediately
   after his defeat at Aspern, on the 22nd, would have deprived
   him of all means of extricating himself from the most perilous
   situation in which he had yet been placed since ascending the
   consular throne. After totally defeating Jellachich in the
   valley of the Muhr, Eugene desisted from his pursuit of the
   army of Italy, and joined Napoleon at Vienna. The Archduke
   John united his forces at Raab with those of the Hungarian
   insurrection, under his brother, the Palatine. The viceroy
   again marched against him, and defeated him at Raab on the
   14th of June. The Palatine remained with the Hungarian
   insurrection in Komorn; Archduke John moved on to Presburg. In
   the north, the Archduke Ferdinand, who had advanced as far as
   Warsaw, had been driven back by the Poles: under Poniatowsky,
   and by a Russian force sent by the Emperor Alexander to their
   aid, which, on this success, invaded Galicia."

      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of the House of Austria (Continuation of Coxe),
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 56-57 (volume 12)._

      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, part 2, chapters 3-12._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 14 (volume 3)._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 42-48._

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (April-July).
   Risings against the French in the North.

   "A general revolt against the French had nearly taken place in
   Saxony and Westphalia, where the enormous burdens imposed on
   the people, and the insolence of the French troops, had
   kindled a deadly spirit of hostility against the oppressors.
   Everywhere the Tugendbund were in activity; and the advance of
   the Austrians towards Franconia and Saxony, at the beginning
   of the war, blew up the flame. The two first attempts at
   insurrection, headed respectively by Katt, a Prussian officer
   (April 3), and Dornberg, a Westphalian colonel (April 23),
   proved abortive; but the enterprise of the celebrated Schill
   was of a more formidable character.
{1519}
   This enthusiastic patriot, then a colonel in the Prussian
   army, had been compromised in the revolt of Dornberg; and
   finding himself discovered, he boldly raised the standard
   (April 29) at the head of 600 soldiers. His force speedily
   received accessions, but failing in his attempts on Wittenberg
   and Magdeburg, he moved towards the Baltic, in hope of succour
   from the British cruisers, and at last threw himself into
   Stralsund. Here he was speedily invested; the place was
   stormed (May 31), and the gallant Schill slain in the assault,
   a few hours only before the appearance of the British vessels
   —the timely arrival of which might have secured the place,
   and spread the rising over all Northern Germany. The Duke of
   Brunswick-Oels, with his 'black band' of volunteers, had at
   the same time invaded Saxony from Bohemia; and though then
   obliged to retreat, he made a second incursion in June,
   occupied Dresden and Leipsic, and drove the King of Westphalia
   into France. After the battle of Wagram he made his way across
   all Northern Germany, and was eventually conveyed, with his
   gallant followers, still 2,000 strong, to England."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 525-526._

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (July-September).
   Napoleon's victory at Wagram.
   The Peace of Schonbrunn.
   Immense surrender of Austrian territory.

   "The operation of establishing the bridges between the French
   camp and the left bank of the Danube commenced on the night of
   the 30th of June; and during the night of the 4th of July the
   whole French army, passing between the villages of Enzersdorf
   and Muhlleuten, debouched on the Marchfeld, wheeling to their
   left. Napoleon was on horseback in the midst of them by
   daylight; all the Austrian fortifications erected to defend
   the former bridge were turned, the villages occupied by their
   army taken, and the Archduke Charles was menaced both in flank
   and rear, the French line of battle appuyed on Enzersdorf
   being at a right angle to his left wing. Under these
   circumstances the Archduke, retiring his left, attempted to
   outflank the French right, while Napoleon bore down upon his
   centre at Wagram. This village became the scene of a
   sanguinary struggle, and one house only remained standing when
   night closed in. The Archduke sent courier after courier to
   hasten the advance of his brother, between whom and himself
   was Napoleon, whose line on the night of the 5th extended from
   Loibersdorf on the right to some two miles beyond Wagram on
   the left. Napoleon passed the night in massing his centre,
   still determining to manœuvre by his left in order to throw
   back the Archduke Charles on that side before the Archduke
   John could come up on the other. At six o'clock on the morning
   of the 6th of July he commanded the attack in person.
   Disregarding all risk, he appeared throughout the day in the
   hottest of the fire, mounted on a snow-white charger,
   Euphrates, a present from the Shah of Persia. The Archduke
   Charles as usual committed the error which Napoleon's enemies
   had not even yet learned was invariably fatal to them:
   extending his line too greatly he weakened his centre, at the
   same time opening tremendous assaults on the French wings,
   which suffered dreadfully. Napoleon ordered Lauriston to
   advance upon the Austrian centre with a hundred guns,
   supported by two whole divisions of infantry in column. The
   artillery, when within half cannon-shot, opened a terrific
   fire: nothing could withstand such a shock. The infantry, led
   by Macdonald, charged; the Austrian line was broken and the
   centre driven back in confusion. The right, in a panic,
   retrograded; the French cavalry then bore down upon them and
   decided the battle, the Archduke still fighting to secure his
   retreat, which he at length effected in tolerably good order.
   By noon the whole Austrian army was abandoning the contest.
   Their defeat so demoralized them that the Archduke John, who
   came up on Napoleon's right before the battle was over, was
   glad to retire with the rest, unnoticed by the enemy. That
   evening the Marchfeld and Wagram were in possession of the
   French. The population of Vienna had watched the battle from
   the roofs and ramparts of the city, and saw the retreat of
   their army with fear and gloom. Between 300,000 and 400,000
   men were engaged, and the loss on both sides was nearly equal.
   About 20,000 dead and 30,000 wounded strewed the ground; the
   latter were conveyed to the hospitals of Vienna. … Twenty
   thousand Austrians were taken prisoners, but the number would
   have been greater had the French cavalry acted with their
   usual spirit. Bernadotte, issuing a bulletin, almost assuming
   to himself the sole merit of the victory, was removed from his
   command. Macdonald was created a marshal of the empire on the
   morning after the battle. … The battle of Wagram was won
   more by good fortune than skill. Napoleon's strategy was at
   fault, and had the Austrians fought as stoutly as they did at
   Aspern, Napoleon would have been signally defeated. Had the
   Archduke John acted promptly and vigorously, he might have
   united with his brother's left—which was intact—and
   overwhelmed the French. … The defeated army retired to
   Znaim, followed by the French; but further resistance was
   abandoned by the Emperor of Austria. The Archduke Charles
   solicited an armistice on the 9th; hostilities ceased, and
   Napoleon returned to the palace of Schonbrunn while the
   plenipotentiaries settled the terms of peace. … English
   Ministers displayed another instance of their customary spirit
   of procrastination. Exactly eight days after the armistice of
   Znaim, which assured them that Austria was no longer in a
   position to profit by or co-operate with their proceedings,
   they sent more than 80,000 fighting men, under the command of
   Lord Chatham, to besiege Antwerp. …

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

   Operations against Naples proved equally abortive. … In
   Spain alone English arms were successful. Sir Arthur Wellesley
   won the battle of Talavera on the 28th of July. …

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

   A treaty of peace, between France and Austria was signed on
   the 14th of October at Vienna [sometimes called the Treaty of
   Vienna, but more commonly the Peace of Schonbrunn]. The
   Emperor of Austria ceded Salzburg and a part of Upper Austria
   to the Confederation of the Rhine; part of Bohemia, Cracow,
   and Western Galicia to the King of Saxony as Grand Duke of
   Warsaw; part of Eastern Galicia to the Emperor of Russia; and
   Trieste, Carniola, Friuli, Villach, and some part of Croatia
   and Dalmatia to France: thus connecting the kingdom of Italy
   with Napoleon's Illyrian possessions, making him master of the
   entire coast of the Adriatic, and depriving Austria of its
   last seaport. It was computed that the Emperor Francis gave up
   territory to the amount of 45,000 square miles, with a
   population of nearly 4,000,000. He also paid a large
   contribution in money."

      _R. H. Horne,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 32._

{1520}

   "The cessions made directly to Napoleon were the county of
   Görtz, or Goricia, and that of Montefalcone, forming the
   Austrian Friuli; the town and government of Trieste, Carniola,
   the circle of Villach in Carinthia, part of Croatia and
   Dalmatia, and the lordship of Räzuns in the Grison territory.
   All these provinces, with the exception of Räzuns, were
   incorporated by a decree of Napoleon, with Dalmatia and its
   islands, into a single state with the name of the Illyrian
   Provinces. They were never united with France, but always
   governed by Napoleon as an independent state. A few districts
   before possessed by Napoleon were also incorporated with them:
   as Venetian Istria and Dalmatia with the Bocca di Cattaro,
   Ragusa, and part of the Tyrol. … The only other articles of
   the treaty of much importance are the recognition by Austria
   of any changes made, or to be made, in Spain, Portugal, and
   Italy; the adherence of the Emperor to the prohibitive system
   adopted by France and Russia, and his engaging to cease all
   correspondence and relationship with Great Britain. By a
   decree made at Ratisbon, April 24th, 1809, Napoleon had
   suppressed the Teutonic Order in all the States belonging to
   the Rhenish Confederation, reannexed its possessions to the
   domains of the prince in which they were situated, and
   incorporated Mergentheim, with the rights, domains, and
   revenues attached to the Grand Mastership of the Order, with
   the Kingdom of Würtemberg. These dispositions were confirmed
   by the Treaty of Schönbrunn. The effect aimed at by the Treaty
   of Schönbrunn was to surround Austria with powerful states,
   and thus to paralyse all her military efforts. … The Emperor
   of Russia … was very ill satisfied with the small portion of
   the spoils assigned to him, and the augmentation awarded to
   the duchy of Warsaw. Hence the first occasion of coldness
   between him and Napoleon, whom he suspected of a design to
   reestablish the Kingdom of Poland."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapters 59-60 (volume 13)._

      _General Count M. Dumas,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      _E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

      _J. C. Ropes,
      The First Napoleon,
      lecture 4._

GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810.
   Humboldt's reform of Public Instruction in Prussia.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN:
      EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. PRUSSIA: A. D. 1809.

GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (April-February).
   The revolt in the Tyrol.
   Heroic struggle of Andrew Hofer and his countrymen.

   "The Tyrol, for centuries a possession of Austria, was ceded
   to Bavaria by the Peace of Presburg in 1805. The Bavarians
   made many innovations, in the French style, some good and some
   bad; but the mountaineers, clinging to their ancient ways,
   resisted them all alike. They hated the Bavarians as foreign
   masters forced upon them; and especially detested the military
   conscription, to which Austria had never subjected them. The
   priests had an almost unlimited influence over these faithful
   Catholics, and the Bavarians, who treated them rudely, were
   regarded as innovators and allies of revolutionary France.
   Thus the country submitted restlessly to the yoke of the Rhine
   League until the spring of 1809. A secret understanding was
   maintained with Austria and the Archduke John, and the people
   never abandoned the hope of returning to their Austrian
   allegiance. When the great war of 1809 began, the Emperor
   Francis summoned all his people to arms. The Tyrolese answered
   the call. … They are a people trained in early life to the
   use of arms, and to activity, courage, and ready devices in
   hunting, and in traveling on their mountain paths. Austria
   could be sure of the faithfulness of the Tyrol, and made haste
   to occupy the country. When the first troops were seen entering
   the passes, the people arose and drove away the Bavarian
   garrisons. The alarm was soon sounded through the deepest
   ravines of the land. Never was there a more united people, and
   each troop or company chose its own officers, in the ancient
   German style, from among their strongest and best men. Their
   commanders were hunters, shepherds, priests: the former
   gamekeeper, Speckbacher; the innkeeper, Martin Teimer; the
   fiery Capuchin monk, Haspinger, whose sole weapon in the field
   was a huge ebony crucifix, and many more of like peaceful
   occupations. At the head of the whole army was a man who, like
   Saul, towered by a head above all others, while his handsome
   black beard fell to his girdle—Andrew Hofer, formerly an
   innkeeper at Passeyr—a man of humble piety and simple
   faithfulness, who fairly represented the people he led. He
   regarded the war as dutiful service to his religion, his
   emperor, and his country. The whole land soon swarmed with
   little bands of men, making their way to Innsprück (April,
   1809), whence the Bavarian garrison fled. Meanwhile a small
   French corps came from Italy to relieve them. Though fired
   upon by the peasants from every ravine and hill, they passed
   the Brenner, and reached the Iselberg, near Innsprück. But
   here they were surrounded on every side, and forced to
   surrender. The first Austrian soldiers, under General
   Chasteler, then reached the capital, and their welcome was a
   popular festival. The liberators, as the Tyrolese soldiers
   regarded themselves, committed no cruelties, but carried on
   their enterprise in the spirit of a national jubilee. The
   tidings of the disasters at Regensburg [Ratisbon] now came
   upon them like a thunderbolt. The withdrawal of the Austrian
   army then left the Tyrol without protection. Napoleon treated
   the war as a mutiny, and set a price upon Chasteler's head.
   Neither Chasteler nor any of the Austrian officers with him
   understood the warfare of the peasantry. The Tyrolese were
   left almost wholly to themselves, but they resolved to defend
   their mountains. On May 11 the Bavarians under Wrede again set
   out, from Salzburg, captured the pass of the Strub after a
   bloody fight, and then climbed into the valley of the Inn.
   They practiced frightful cruelties in their way. A fierce
   struggle took place at the little village of Schwatz; the
   Bavarians burned the place, and marched to Innsprück.
   Chasteler withdrew, and the Bavarians and French, under Wrede
   and Lefevre, entered the capital. The country again appeared
   to be subdued. But cruelty had embittered the people. Wrede
   was recalled, with his corps, by Napoleon; and now Hofer, with
   his South Tyrolese, recrossed the Brenner Pass. Again the
   general alarm was given, the leaders called to arms, and again
   every pass, every wall of rock, every narrow road was seized.
   The struggle took place at the Iselberg.
{1521}
   The Bavarians, 7,000 in number, were defeated with heavy loss.
   The Tyrol now remained for several months undisturbed, during
   the campaign around Vienna. After the battle of Aspern, an
   imperial proclamation formally assured the Tyrolese that they
   should never be severed from the Austrian Empire; and that no
   peace should be signed unless their indissoluble union with
   the monarchy were recognized. The Tyrolese quietly trusted the
   emperor's promise, until the armistice of Znaim. But in this
   the Tyrol was not mentioned, and the French and their allies
   prepared to chastise the loyal and abandoned country."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 28._

   "In the mouth of July, an army of 40,000 French and Bavarians
   attacked the Tyrol from the German side; while from Italy,
   General Rusca, with 18,000 men, entered from Clagenfurth, on
   the southern side of the Tyrolese Alps. Undismayed by this
   double and formidable invasion, they assailed the invaders as
   they penetrated into their fastnesses, defeated and destroyed
   them. The fate of a division of 10,000 men, belonging to the
   French and Bavarian army, which entered the Upper Innthal, or
   Valley of the Inn, will explain in part the means by which
   these victories were obtained. The invading troops advanced in
   a long column up a road bordered on the one side by the river
   Inn, there a deep and rapid torrent, where cliffs of immense
   height overhang both road and river. The vanguard was
   permitted to advance unopposed as far as Prutz, the object of
   their expedition. The rest of the army were therefore induced
   to trust themselves still deeper in this tremendous pass,
   where the precipices, becoming more and more narrow as they
   advanced, seemed about to close above their heads. No sound
   but of the screaming of the eagles disturbed from, their
   eyries, and the roar of the river, reached the ears of the
   soldier, and on the precipices, partly enveloped in a hazy
   mist, no human forms showed themselves. At length the voice of
   a man was heard calling across the ravine, 'Shall we
   begin?'—'No,' was returned in an authoritative tone of voice,
   by one who, like the first speaker, seemed the inhabitant of
   some upper region. The Bavarian detachment halted, and sent to
   the general for orders;' when presently was heard the terrible
   signal, 'In the name of the Holy Trinity, cut all loose!' Huge
   rocks, and trunks of trees, long prepared and laid in heaps
   for the purpose, began now to descend rapidly in every
   direction, while the deadly fire of the Tyrolese, who never
   throw away a shot, opened from every bush, crag, or corner of
   rock, which would afford the shooter cover. As this dreadful
   attack was made on the whole line at once, two-thirds of the
   enemy were instantly destroyed; while the Tyrolese, rushing
   from their shelter, with swords, spears, axes, scythes, clubs
   and all other rustic instruments which could be converted into
   weapons, beat down and routed the shattered remainder. As the
   vanguard, which had reached Prutz, was obliged to surrender,
   very few of the 10,000 invaders are computed to have
   extricated themselves from the fatal pass. But not all the
   courage of the Tyrolese, not all the strength of their
   country, could possibly enable them to defend themselves, when
   the peace with Austria had permitted Buonaparte to engage his
   whole immense means for the acquisition of these mountains.
   Austria too—Austria herself, in whose cause they had
   incurred all the dangers of war, instead of securing their
   indemnity by some stipulations in the treaty, sent them a cold
   exhortation to lay down their arms. Resistance, therefore, was
   abandoned as fruitless; Hofer, chief commander of the
   Tyrolese, resigned his command, and the Bavarians regained the
   possession of a country which they could never have won back
   by their own efforts. Hofer, and about thirty chiefs of these
   valiant defenders of their country, were put to death
   [February, 1810], in poor revenge for the loss their bravery
   had occasioned. But their fame, as their immortal spirit, was
   beyond the power of the judge alike and executioner; and the
   place where their blood was shed, becomes sacred to the
   thoughts of freedom, as the precincts of a temple to those of
   religion."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 58 (volume 12)._

      _History of Hofer
      (Quarterly Review, July, 1817)._

      _C. H. Hall,
      Life of Andrew Hofer._

GERMANY: A. D. 1810.
   Annexation of the Hanse Towns and territory on the North Sea
   to France.

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

GERMANY: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Marriage of the Archduchess Marie Louise
   of Austria to Napoleon.
   Alliance of German powers with Napoleon against Russia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

GERMANY: A. D. 1812.
   The Russian campaign of Napoleon and its disastrous ending.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER),
      (SEPTEMBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
   The Teutonic uprising against Napoleon.
   Beginning of the War of Liberation.
   Alliance of Prussia and Russia.

   "During Napoleon's march on Moscow and his fatal return,
   Macdonald remained on the Lower Dwina, before Riga, with an
   observation corps of Prussians and Poles, nor had he ever
   received an order to retreat from Napoleon. Learning of the
   misfortunes of the grand army, he went from the Dwina towards
   the Niemen. As he passed through Courland, General York,
   commander of the Prussian troops, allowed him to lead the way
   with the Poles, and then signed an agreement of neutrality
   with the Russians (December 30, 1812). The Prussian troops,
   from a military spirit of honor, had fought the Russians
   bravely; they retained some scruples relative to the worthy
   marshal under whom they served, and forsook without betraying
   him, that is, they left him time to escape. This was a most
   important event and the beginning of the inevitable defection
   of Germany. The attitude of Czar Alexander decided General
   York; the former was completely dazzled by his triumphs, and
   aspired to nothing less than to destroy Napoleon and liberate
   Europe, even France! With mingled enthusiasm and calculation,
   he promised all things to all men; on returning to Wilna, he
   granted an amnesty for all acts committed in Poland against
   Russian authority. On the one hand, he circulated a rumor that
   he was about to make himself King of Poland, and, on the other
   hand, he announced to the Prussians that he was ready to
   restore the Polish provinces taken from them by Napoleon. He
   authorized ex-Minister Stein to take possession, as we may
   say, of Old Prussia, just evacuated by the French, and to
   promise the speedy enfranchisement of Germany, protesting, at
   the same time, that he would not dispute 'the legitimate
   greatness' of France.
{1522}
   The French army, on hearing of York's defection, left
   Königsberg with ten or twelve thousand sick men and eight or
   ten thousand armed troops, withdrawing to the Vistula and
   thence to Warta and Posen. General Rapp had succeeded in
   gathering at Dantzic, the great French depot of stores and
   reserves, 25,000 men, few of whom had gone through the Russian
   campaign, and a division of almost equal numbers occupied
   Berlin. The French had in all barely 80,000 men, from Dantzic
   to the Rhine, not including their Austrian and Saxon allies,
   who had fallen back on Warsaw and seemed disposed to fight no
   more. Murat, to whom Napoleon confided the remains of the
   grand army, followed the Emperor's example and set out to
   defend his Neapolitan kingdom, leaving the chief command to
   Prince Eugene. Great agitation prevailed around the feeble
   French forces still occupying Germany. The Russians
   themselves, worn out, did not press the French very hotly; but
   York and Stein, masters of Königsberg, organized and armed Old
   Prussia without awaiting authorization from the king, who was
   not considered as a free agent, being under foreign rule.
   Pamphlets, proclamations, and popular songs were circulated
   everywhere, provoking the people to rebellion. The idea of
   German union ran like wildfire from the Niemen to the Rhine;
   federal union, not unity in a single body or state, which was
   not thought of then."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from 1789,
      volume 2, chapter 16._

   "The king of Prussia had suddenly abandoned Berlin [January,
   1813], which was still in the hands of the French, for
   Breslau, whence he declared war against France. A conference
   also took place between him and the emperor Alexander at
   Calisch [Kalisch], and, on the 28th of February, 1813, an
   offensive and defensive alliance was concluded between them.
   The hour for vengeance had at length arrived. The whole
   Prussian nation, eager to throw off the hated yoke of the
   foreigner, to obliterate their disgrace in 1806, to regain
   their ancient name, cheerfully hastened to place their lives
   and property at the service of the impoverished government.
   The whole of the able-bodied population was put under arms.
   The standing army was increased: to each regiment were
   appended troops of volunteers, Jaegers, composed of young' men
   belonging to the higher classes, who furnished their own
   equipments: a numerous Landwehr, a sort of militia, was, as in
   Austria, raised besides the standing army, and measures were
   even taken to call out, in case of necessity, the heads of
   families and elderly men remaining at home, under the name of
   the Landsturm. The enthusiastic people, besides furnishing the
   customary supplies and paying the taxes, contributed to the
   full extent of their means towards defraying the immense
   expense of this general arming. Every heart throbbed high with
   pride and hope. … More loudly than even in 1809 in Austria
   was the German cause now discussed, the great name of the
   German empire now invoked in Prussia, for in that name alone
   could all the races of Germany be united against their
   hereditary foe. The celebrated proclamation, promising
   external and internal liberty to Germany, was, with this view,
   published at Calisch by Prussia and Russia. Nor was the appeal
   vain. It found an echo in every German heart, and such plain
   demonstrations of the state of the popular feeling on this
   side the Rhine were made, that Davoust sent serious warning to
   Napoleon, who contemptuously replied, 'Pah! Germans never can
   become Spaniards!' With his customary rapidity he levied in
   France a fresh army 300,000 strong, with which he so
   completely awed the Rhenish confederation as to compel it once
   more to take the field with thousands of Germans against their
   brother Germans. The troops, however, reluctantly obeyed, and
   even the traitors were but lukewarm, for they doubted of
   success. Mecklenburg alone sided with Prussia. Austria
   remained neutral. A Russian corps under General Tettenborn had
   preceded the rest of the troops and reached the coasts of the
   Baltic. As early as the 24th of March, 1813, it appeared in
   Hamburg and expelled the French authorities from the city. The
   heavily oppressed people of Hamburg, whose commerce had been
   totally annihilated by the continental system, gave way to the
   utmost demonstrations of delight, received their deliverers
   with open arms, revived their ancient rights, and immediately
   raised a Hanseatic corps destined to take the field against
   Napoleon. Dörnberg, the ancient foe to France, with another
   flying squadron took the French division under Morand
   prisoner, and the Prussian, Major Hellwig (the same who, in
   1806, liberated the garrison of Erfurt), dispersed, with
   merely 120 hussars, a Bavarian regiment 1,300 strong and
   captured five pieces of artillery. In January, the peasantry
   of the upper country had already revolted against the
   conscription, and, in February, patriotic proclamations had
   been disseminated throughout Westphalia under the signature of
   the Baron von Stein. In this month, also, Captain Maas and two
   other patriots, who had attempted to raise a rebellion, were
   executed. As the army advanced, Stein was nominated chief of
   the provisional government of the still unconquered provinces
   of Western Germany. The first Russian army, 17,000 strong,
   under Wittgenstein, pushed forward to Magdeburg, and, at
   Mökern, repulsed 40,000 French who were advancing upon Berlin.
   The Prussians, under their veteran general, Blücher, entered
   Saxony and garrisoned Dresden, on the 27th of March, 1813,
   after an arch of the fine bridge across the Elbe [had] been
   uselessly blown up by the French. Blücher, whose gallantry in
   the former wars had gained for him the general esteem and
   whose kind and generous disposition had won the affection of
   the soldiery, was nominated generalissimo of the Prussian
   forces, but subordinate in command to Wittgenstein, who
   replaced Kutusow as generalissimo of the united forces of
   Russia and Prussia. The Emperor of Russia and the King of
   Prussia accompanied the army and were received with loud
   acclamations by the people of Dresden and Leipzig."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 260 (volume 3)._

   Bernadotte, the adopted Crown Prince and expectant King of
   Sweden, had been finally thrown into the arms of the new
   Coalition against Napoleon, by the refusal of the latter to
   take Norway from Denmark and give it to Sweden. "The
   disastrous retreat of the French from Moscow … led to the
   signature of the Treaty of Stockholm on the 2d of March, 1813,
   by which England acceded to the union of Norway to Sweden, and a
   Swedish force was sent to Pomerania under General Sandels. On
   the 18th of May, 1813, Bernadotte landed at Stralsund."

      _Lady Bloomfield,
      Biographical Sketch of Bernadotte
      (Memoir of Lord Bloomfield, volume 1, page 31)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 7 (volume 3)._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      book 47 (volume 4)._

{1523}

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (April-May).
   Battle of Lützen.
   Humiliation of the King of Saxony.

   "On the 14th April, Napoleon left Paris to assume the command
   of the army. Previous to his departure, with a view, perhaps,
   of paying a compliment to the Emperor of Austria, the Empress
   Marie Louise was appointed regent in his absence; but Prince
   Schwarzenberg, who had arrived on a special mission from
   Vienna, was treated only as the commander of an auxiliary
   corps, to which orders would immediately be transmitted. On
   the 16th he reached Mayence, where, for the last time, vassal
   princes assembled courtier-like around him; and on the 20th he
   was already at Erfurt, in the midst of his newly-raised army.
   The roads were everywhere crowded with troops and artillery,
   closing in towards the banks of the Saale. From Italy, Marshal
   Bertrand joined with 40,000 men, old trained soldiers; the
   Viceroy brought an equal number from the vicinity of
   Magdeburg; and Marshal Macdonald having, on the 29th, taken
   Merseburg by assault, the whole army, which Bade, the ablest
   and most accurate of the authors who have written on this
   campaign, estimates at 140,000 men, was assembled for action.
   With this mighty force Napoleon determined to seek out the
   enemy, and bring them quickly to battle. The Russian and
   Prussian armies were no sooner united, after the alliance
   concluded between the sovereigns, than they crossed the Elbe,
   occupied Dresden, which the King of Saxony had abandoned, and
   advanced to the banks of the Saale. General Blücher commanded
   the Prussians, and Count Wittgenstein the Russian corps; and,
   death having closed the career of old Marshal Kutusoff, …
   the command of both armies devolved upon the last mentioned
   officer. Informed of the rapid advance of the French, the
   allied monarchs joined their forces, which were drawn together
   in the plains between the Saale and the Elbe; their numerous
   cavalry giving them perfect command of this wide and open
   country. Napoleon, always anxious for battle, determined to
   press on towards Leipzig, behind which he expected to find the
   Allied army, who, as it proved, were much nearer than he
   anticipated. At the passage of the Rippach, a small stream
   that borders the wide plain of Lützen, he already encountered
   a body of Russian cavalry and artillery under Count
   Winzingerode; and as the French were weak in horse, they had
   to bring the whole of Marshal Ney's corps into action before
   they could oblige the Russians to retire. Marshal Bessieres,
   the commander of the Imperial Guard, was killed. … On the
   evening of the 1st of May, Napoleon established his quarters
   in the small town of Lützen. The Allies, conscious of the vast
   numerical superiority of the French, did not intend to risk a
   general action on the left bank of the Elbe; but the length of
   the hostile column of march, which extended from beyond
   Naumberg almost to the gates of Leipzig, induced Scharnhorst
   to propose an advance from the direction of Borna and Pegau
   against the right flank of the enemy, and a sudden attack on
   the centre of their line in the plain of Lützen. It was
   expected that a decisive blow might be struck against this
   centre, and the hostile army broken before the distant wings
   could close up and take an effective part in the battle. The
   open nature of the country, well adapted to the action of
   cavalry, which formed the principal strength of the Allies,
   spoke in favour of the plan. … The bold attempt was
   immediately resolved upon, and the onset fixed for the
   following morning. The annals of war can hardly offer a plan
   of battle more skilfully conceived than the one of which we
   have here spoken; but unfortunately the execution fell far
   short of the admirable conception. Napoleon, with his Guards
   and the corps of Lauriston, was already at the gates of
   Leipzig, preparing for an attack on the city, when about one
   o'clock [May 2] the roar of artillery burst suddenly on the
   ear, and gathering thicker and thicker as it rolled along,
   proclaimed that a general action was engaged in the plain of
   Lützen,—proclaimed that the army was taken completely at
   fault, and placed in the most imminent peril. … The Allies,
   who, by means of their numerous cavalry, could easily mask
   their movement, had advanced unobserved into the plain of
   Lützen," and the action was begun by a brigade of Blücher's
   corps attacking the French in the village of Great-Görschen
   (Gross-Görschen). "Reinforcements … poured in from both
   sides, and the narrow and intersected ground between the
   villages became the scene of a most murderous and
   closely-contested combat of infantry. … But no attempt was
   made to employ the numerous and splendid cavalry, that stood
   idly exposed, on open plain, to the shot of the French
   artillery. … When night put an end to the combat,
   Great-Görschen was the sole trophy of the murderous fight that
   remained in the hands of the Allies. … On the side of the
   Allies, 2,000 Russians and 8,000 Prussians had been killed or
   wounded: among the slain was Prince Leopold of Hessen-Homburg;
   among the wounded was the admirable Scharnhorst, who died a
   few weeks afterwards. … The loss sustained by the French is
   not exactly known; but … Jomini tells us that the 3d corps,
   to which he was attached as chief of the staff, had alone 500
   officers and 12,000 men 'hors de combat.' Both parties laid
   claim to the victory: the French, because the Allies retired
   on the day after the action; the Allies, because they remained
   masters of part of the captured battlefield, had taken two
   pieces of artillery, and 800 prisoners. … The Allies
   alleged, or pretended perhaps, that it was their intention to
   renew the action on the following morning: in the Prussian
   army every man, from the king to the humblest soldier, was
   anxious indeed to continue the fray; and the wrath of Blücher,
   who deemed victory certain, was altogether boundless when he
   found the retreat determined upon. But … opinion has, by
   degrees, justified Count Wittgenstein's resolution to recross
   the Elbe and fall back on the reinforcements advancing to join
   the army. … On the 8th of May, Napoleon held his triumphal
   entrance into Dresden. … On the advance of the Allies, the
   Saxon monarch had retired to Ratisbon, and from thence to
   Prague, intending, as he informed Napoleon, to join his
   efforts to the mediation of Austria. Orders had, at the same
   time, been given to General Thielman, commanding the Saxon
   troops at Torgau, to maintain the most perfect neutrality, and
   to admit neither of the contending parties within the walls of
   the fortress. Exasperated by this show of independence,
   Napoleon caused the following demands to be submitted to the
   King, allowing him only six hours to determine on their
   acceptance or refusal;

{1524}

   1. 'General Thielman and the Saxon troops instantly evacuate
   Torgau, and form the 7th corps under General Réynier; and all
   the resources of the country to be at the disposal of the
   Emperor, in conformity with the principles of the
   Confederation of the Rhine.'

   2. 'The Saxon Cavalry'—some regiments had accompanied the
   King—'return immediately to Dresden.'

   3. 'The King declares, in a letter to the Emperor, that he is
   still a member of the Confederation of the Rhine, and ready to
   fulfil all the obligations which it imposes upon him.'

   'If these conditions are not immediately complied with,' says
   Napoleon in the instructions to his messenger, 'you will cause
   his Majesty to be informed that he is guilty of felony, has
   forfeited the Imperial protection, and has ceased to reign.'
   … Frederick Augustus, finding himself threatened with the
   loss of his crown by an overbearing conqueror already in
   possession of his capital, … yielded in an evil hour to
   those imperious demands, and returned to Dresden. … Fortune
   appeared again to smile upon her spoiled and favoured child;
   and he resolved, on his part, to leave no expedient untried to
   make the most of her returning aid. The mediation of Austria,
   which from the first had been galling to his pride, became
   more hateful every day, as it gradually assumed the appearance
   of an armed interference, ready to enforce its demands by
   military means. … Tidings having arrived that the allied
   army, instead of continuing their retreat, had halted and
   taken post at Bautzen, he immediately resolved to strike a
   decisive blow in the field, as the best means of thwarting the
   pacific efforts of his father-in-law."

      _Lieutenant Colonel J. Mitchell,
      The Fall of Napoleon,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 75 (volume 13)._

      _Duchess d'Abrantes,
      Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 44._

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (May-August).
   Battle of Bautzen.
   Armistice of Pleswitz.
   Accession of Austria and Great Britain to the Coalition
   against Napoleon.

   "While the Emperor paused at Dresden, Ney made various
   demonstrations in the direction of Berlin, with the view of
   inducing the Allies to quit Bautzen; but it soon became
   manifest that they had resolved to sacrifice the Prussian
   capital, if it were necessary, rather than forego their
   position. … Having replaced by wood-work some arches of the
   magnificent bridge over the Elbe at Dresden, which the Allies
   had blown up on their retreat, Napoleon now moved towards
   Bautzen, and came in sight of the position on the morning of
   the 21st of May. Its strength was obviously great. In their
   front was the river Spree: wooded hills supported their right,
   and eminences well fortified their left. The action began with
   an attempt to turn their right, but Barclay de Tolly
   anticipated this movement, and repelled it with such vigour
   that a whole column of 7,000 dispersed and fled into the hills
   of Bohemia for safety. The Emperor then determined to pass the
   Spree in front of the enemy, and they permitted him to do so,
   rather than come down from their position. He took up his
   quarters in the town of Bautzen, and his whole army bivouacked
   in presence of the Allies. The battle was resumed at daybreak
   on the 22d; when Ney on the right, and Oudinot on the left;
   attempted simultaneously to turn the flanks of the position;
   while Soult and Napoleon himself directed charge after charge
   on the centre. During four hours the struggle was maintained
   with unflinching obstinacy; the wooded heights, where Blucher
   commanded, had been taken and retaken several times—the
   bloodshed on either side had been terrible—ere … the Allies
   perceived the necessity either of retiring, or of continuing
   the fight against superior numbers on disadvantageous ground.
   They withdrew accordingly; but still with all the deliberate
   coolness of a parade, halting at every favourable spot and
   renewing their cannonade. 'What,' exclaimed Napoleon, 'no
   results! not a gun! not a prisoner!—these people will not
   leave me so much as a nail.' During the whole day he urged the
   pursuit with impetuous rage, reproaching even his chosen
   generals as 'creeping scoundrels,' and exposing his own person
   in the very hottest of the fire." His closest friend, Duroc,
   Grand Master of the Palace, was mortally wounded by his side,
   before he gave up the pursuit. "The Allies, being strongly
   posted during most of the day, had suffered less than the
   French; the latter had lost 15,000, the former 10,000 men.
   They continued their retreat into Upper Silesia; and
   Buonaparte advanced to Breslau, and released the garrison of
   Glogau. Meanwhile the Austrian, having watched these
   indecisive though bloody fields, once more renewed his offers
   of mediation. The sovereigns of Russia and Prussia expressed
   great willingness to accept it; and Napoleon also appears to
   have been sincerely desirous for the moment of bringing his
   disputes to a peaceful termination. He agreed to an armistice
   [of six weeks], and in arranging its conditions agreed to fall
   back out of Silesia; thus enabling the allied princes to
   reopen communications with Berlin. The lines of country to be
   occupied by the armies, respectively, during the truce, were
   at length settled, and it was signed on the 1st of June [at
   Poischwitz, though the negotiations were mostly carried on at
   Pleswitz, whence the Armistice is usually named]. The French
   Emperor then returned to Dresden, and a general congress of
   diplomatists prepared to meet at Prague. England alone refused
   to send any representative to Prague, alleging that Buonaparte
   had as yet signified no disposition to recede from his
   pretensions on Spain, and that he had consented to the
   armistice with the sole view of gaining time for political
   intrigue and further military preparation. It may be doubted
   whether any of the allied powers who took part in the Congress
   did so with much hope that the disputes with Napoleon could
   find a peaceful end. … But it was of the utmost importance
   to gain time for the advance of Bernadotte; for the arrival of
   new reinforcements from Russia; for the completion of the
   Prussian organization; and, above all, for determining the
   policy of Vienna. Metternich, the Austrian minister, repaired
   in person to Dresden, and while inferior diplomatists wasted
   time in endless discussions at Prague, one interview between
   him and Napoleon brought the whole question to a definite
   issue. The Emperor … assumed at once that Austria had no
   wish but to drive a good bargain for herself, and asked
   broadly, 'What is your price? Will Illyria satisfy you? I only
   wish you to be neutral—I can deal with these Russians and
   Prussians single-handed.'
{1525}
   Metternich stated plainly that the time in which Austria could
   be neutral was past; that the situation of Europe at large
   must be considered; … that events had proved the
   impossibility of a steadfast peace unless the sovereigns of
   the Continent were restored to the rank of independence; in a
   word, that the Rhenish Confederacy must be broken up; that
   France must be contented with the boundary of the Rhine, and
   pretend no longer to maintain her usurped and unnatural
   influence in Germany. Napoleon replied by a gross personal
   insult: 'Come, Metternich,' said he, 'tell me honestly how
   much the English have given you to take their part against
   me.' The Austrian court at length sent a formal document,
   containing its ultimatum, the tenor of which Metternich had
   sufficiently indicated in this conversation. Talleyrand and
   Fouché, who had now arrived from Paris, urged the Emperor to
   accede to the proffered terms. They represented to him the
   madness of rousing all Europe to conspire for his destruction,
   and insinuated that the progress of discontent was rapid in
   France itself. Their arguments were backed by intelligence of
   the most disastrous character from Spain. …

     See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

   Napoleon was urged by his military as well as political
   advisers, to appreciate duly the crisis which his affairs had
   reached. … He proceeded to insult both ministers and
   generals … and ended by announcing that he did not wish for
   any plans of theirs, but their service in the execution of
   his. Thus blinded by arrogance and self-confidence, and
   incapable of weighing any other considerations against what he
   considered as the essence of his personal glory, Napoleon
   refused to abate one iota of his pretensions—until it was too
   late. Then, indeed, … he did show some symptoms of
   concession. A courier arrived at Prague with a note, in which
   he signified his willingness to accede to a considerable
   number of the Austrian stipulations. But this was on the 11th
   of August. The day preceding was that on which, by the
   agreement, the armistice was to end. On that day Austria had
   to sign an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Russia and
   Prussia. On the night between the 10th and 11th, rockets
   answering rockets, from height to height along the frontiers
   of Bohemia and Silesia, had announced to all the armies of the
   Allies this accession of strength, and the immediate
   recommencement of hostilities."

      _J. G. Lockhart,
      Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
      chapters 32-33._

   "On the 14th of June Great Britain had become a party to the
   treaty concluded between Russia and Prussia. She had promised
   assistance in this great struggle; but no aid could have been
   more effectual than that which she was rendering in the
   Peninsula."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      chapter 32 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. R. Gleig,
      The Leipsic Campaign,
      chapters 7-16._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      book 48-49 (volume 4)._

      _Prince Metternich,
      Memoirs, 1773-1815,
      book 1, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 7, chapters 4-5 (volume 3)._

      _J. Philippart,
      Northern Campaign, 1812-1813,
      volume 2._

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (August).
   Great battle and victory of Napoleon at Dresden.
   French defeats at Kulm, Gross-Beeren and the Katzbach.

   "Dresden, during the armistice, had been converted by Napoleon
   into such a place of strength that it might be called one
   citadel. All the trees in the neighbourhood, as well as those
   which had formed the ornament of the public gardens and walks
   of that beautiful capital, were cut down and converted into
   abattis and palisades; redoubts, field-works, and fosses had
   been constructed. The chain of fortresses garrisoned by French
   troops secured to Napoleon the rich valley of the Elbe.
   Hamburg, Dantzic, and many strong places on the Oder and
   Vistula were in his possession. … His army assembled at the
   seat of war amounted to nearly 300,000 men, including the
   Bavarian reserve of 25,000 under General Wrede, and he had
   greatly increased his cavalry. This powerful force was divided
   into eleven army corps, commanded by Vandamme, Victor, Bertrand,
   Ney, Lauriston, Marmont, Reynier, Poniatowski, Macdonald,
   Oudinot, and St. Cyr. Murat, who, roused by the news of the
   victories of Lutzen and Bautzen, had left his capital, was
   made commander-in-chief of all the cavalry. … Davoust held
   Hamburg with 20,000 men. Augereau with 24,000 occupied
   Bavaria. The armies of the allies were computed at nearly
   400,000 men, including the divisions destined to invade Italy.
   Those ready for action at the seat of war in Germany were
   divided into three great masses,—the army of Bohemia,
   consisting mainly of Austrians commanded by Prince
   Schwartzenburg; the army of Silesia, commanded by Blucher; and
   the troops under the command of Bernadotte, stationed near
   Berlin. These immense hosts were strong in cavalry and
   artillery, and in discipline and experience far exceeded the
   French soldiers, who were nearly all young conscripts. Two
   Frenchmen of eminence were leaders in the ranks of the enemies
   of France,—Bernadotte and Moreau; Jomini, late chief of the
   engineer department in Napoleon's army, was a Swiss. These
   three men, well instructed by the great master of the art of
   war, directed the counsels of the allied Sovereigns and taught
   them how to conquer. Bernadotte pointed out that Napoleon lay
   in Dresden with his guard of five-and-twenty thousand men,
   while his marshals were stationed in various strong positions
   on the frontiers of Saxony. The moment a French corps d'armée
   was attacked Napoleon would spring from his central point upon
   the flank of the assailants, and as such a blow would be
   irresistible he would thus beat the allied armies in detail.
   To obviate this danger Bernadotte recommended that the first
   general who attacked a French division and brought Napoleon
   into the field should retreat, luring the Emperor onward in
   pursuit, when the other bodies of allied troops,
   simultaneously closing upon his rear, should surround him and
   cut him off from his, base. This plan was followed: Blucher
   advanced from Silesia, menacing the armies of Macdonald and
   Ney, and Napoleon, with the activity expected, issued from
   Dresden on the 15th of August, rapidly reached the point of
   danger, and assumed the offensive. But he was unable to bring
   the Prussian general to a decisive action, for Blucher,
   continuing to retreat before him, the pursuit was only
   arrested by an estafette reporting on the 23rd that the main
   body of the allies threatened Dresden. On the 25th, at 4 in
   the afternoon, 200,000 allied troops led by Schwartzenburg
   appeared before that city. St. Cyr, who had been left to
   observe the passes of the Bohemian mountains with 20,000 men,
   retreated before the irresistible torrent and threw himself
   into the Saxon capital, which he prepared to defend with his
   own forces and the garrison left by the Emperor.
{1526}
   It was a service of the last importance. With Dresden Napoleon
   would lose his recruiting depot and supplies of every kind.
   … The Austrian commander-in-chief deferred the attack till
   the following day, replying to the expostulations of Jomini
   that Napoleon was engaged in the Silesian passes. Early on the
   morning of the 26th the allies advanced to the assault in six
   columns, under cover of a tremendous artillery fire. They
   carried one great redoubt, then another, and closed with the
   defenders of the city at every point, shells and balls falling
   thick on the houses, many of which were on fire. St. Cyr
   conducted the defence with heroism; but before midday a
   surrender was talked of. … Suddenly, from the opposite bank
   of the Elbe columns of soldiers were seen hastening towards
   the city. They pressed across the bridges, swept through the
   streets, and with loud shouts demanded to be led into battle,
   although they had made forced marches from the frontiers of
   Silesia. Napoleon, with the Old Guard and cuirassiers, was in
   the midst of them. His enemies had calculated on only half his
   energy and rapidity, and had forgotten that he could return as
   quickly as he left. The Prussians had penetrated the Grosse
   Garten on the French left, and so close was the Russian fire
   that Witgenstein's guns enfiladed the road by which Napoleon
   had to pass; consequently, to reach the city in safety, he was
   compelled to dismount at the most exposed part, and, according
   to Baron Odeleben (one of his aides-de-camp), creep along on his
   hands and knees (ventre à terre). Napoleon halted at the
   palace to reassure the King of Saxony, and then joined his
   troops who were already at the gates. Sallies were made by Ney
   and Mortier under his direction. The astonished assailants
   were driven back. The Young Guard recaptured the redoubts, and
   the French army deployed on the plateau lately in possession
   of their enemies. … The fury of the fight gradually
   slackened, and the armies took up their positions for the
   night. The French wings bivouacked to the right and left of
   the city, which itself formed Napoleon's centre. The allies
   were ranged in a semicircle cresting the heights. … They had
   not greatly the advantage in numbers, for Klenau's division
   never came up; and Napoleon, now that Victor and Marmont's
   corps had arrived, concentrated nearly 200,000 men. … The
   next day broke in a tempest of wind and rain. At six o'clock
   Napoleon was on horseback, and ordered his columns to advance.
   Their order of battle has been aptly compared to 'a fan when
   it expands.' Their position could scarcely have been worse.
   … Knowing that in case of disaster retreat would be almost
   an impossibility, Napoleon began an attack on both flanks of
   the allied army, certain that their defeat would demoralize
   the centre, which he could overwhelm by a simultaneous
   concentric attack, supported by the fire of 100 guns. The
   stormy weather which concealed their movements favoured them;
   and Murat turning and breaking the Austrian left, and Ney
   completely rolling up the Austrian right, the result was a
   decisive victory. By three in the afternoon of the 27th the
   battle was concluded, and the allies were in full retreat,
   pursued by the French. The roads to Bohemia and those to the
   south were barred by Murat's and Vandamme's corps, and the
   allied Sovereigns were obliged to take such country paths and
   byways as they could find—which had been rendered almost
   impassable by the heavy rain. They lost 25,000 prisoners, 40
   standards, 60 pieces of cannon, and many waggons. The killed
   and wounded amounted on each side to seven or eight thousand.
   The first cannon-shot fired by the guard under the
   direction of Napoleon mortally wounded Moreau while talking to
   the Emperor Alexander. … The French left wing, composed of
   the three corps of Vandamme, St. Cyr, and Marmont, were
   ordered to march by their left along the Pirna road in pursuit
   of the foe, who was retreating into Bohemia in three columns,
   and had traversed the gorges of the Hartz Mountains in safety,
   though much baggage, several ammunition waggons, and 2,000
   prisoners, fell into the hands of the French. The Russians,
   under Ostermann, halted on the plain of Culm [or Kulm] for the
   arrival of Kleist's Prussians; the Austrians hurried along the
   Prague route. Vandamme marched boldly on, neglecting even the
   precaution of guarding the defile of Peterswald in his rear.
   Trusting to the rapid advance of the other French corps, he
   was lured on by the hope of capturing the allied Sovereigns in
   their headquarters at Toplitz. Barclay de Tolly, having
   executed a rapid detour from left to right, brought the bulk
   of his Russian forces to bear on Vandamme, who, on reaching
   Culm, was attacked in front and rear [August 29-30], surprised
   and taken, losing the whole of his artillery and between 7,000
   and 8,000 prisoners; the rest of his corps escaped and
   rejoined the army. This disaster totally deranged Napoleon's
   plans, which would have led him to follow up the pursuit
   towards Bohemia in person. Oudinot was ordered to march
   against Bülow's corps at Berlin and the Swedes commanded by
   Bernadotte, taking with him the divisions of Bertrand and
   Reynier—a force of 80,000 men. Reynier, who marched in
   advance, fell in with the allies at Gross-Beeren, attacked
   them precipitately and suffered severely, his division,
   chiefly composed of Saxons, taking flight. Oudinot also
   sustained considerable losses, and retreated to Torgau on the
   Elbe. Girard, sallying out of Magdeburg with 5,000 or 6,000
   men, was defeated near Leibnitz, with the loss of 1,000 men,
   and some cannon and baggage. Macdonald encountered Blucher in
   the plains between Wahlstadt and the Katzbach under
   disadvantageous circumstances [August 26], and was obliged to
   retire in disorder."

      _R. H. Horne,
      History of Napoleon,
      chapter 37._

   "The great battle of the Katzbach, the counterpart to that of
   Hohenlinden, [was] one of the most glorious ever gained in the
   annals of European fame. Its trophies were immense. …
   Eighteen thousand prisoners, 103 pieces of cannon, and 230
   caissons, besides 7,000 killed and wounded, presented a total
   loss to the French of 25,000 men."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe,
      chapter 80, section 68 (volume 17)._

   "Of the battle of Kulm it is not too much to say that it was
   the most critical in the whole war of German liberation. The
   fate of the coalition was determined absolutely by its
   results. Had Vandamme been strong enough to keep his hold of
   Bohemia, and to block up from them the mouths of the passes,
   the allied columns, forced back into the exhausted mountain
   district through which they were retreating, must have
   perished for lack of food, or dissolved themselves."

      _G. R. Gleig,
      The Leipzig Campaign,
      chapter 27._

{1527}

      ALSO IN:
      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

      _Major C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe,
      1796 to 1870, chapter 5._

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (September-October).
   French reverse at Dennewitz.
   Napoleon's evacuation of Dresden.
   Allied concentration at Leipsic.
   Preparations for the decisive battle.

   "The [allied] Army of the North had been nearly idle since the
   battle of Grossbeeren. The Prussian generals were extremely
   indignant against Bernadotte, whose slowness and inaction were
   intolerable to them. It took them, under his orders, a
   fortnight to advance as far as a good footman could march in a
   day. They then unexpectedly met a new French army advancing
   against them from a fortified camp at Wittenberg. Napoleon had
   now assigned to Marshal Ney—the bravest of the brave'—the
   work of beating 'the Cossack hordes and the poor militia,' and
   taking Berlin. Under him were Oudinot, Regnier, Bertrand, and
   Arrighi, with 70,000 men. On September 6 Tauenzien met their
   superior forces at Jüterbogk, but sustained himself valiantly
   through a perilous fight. Bernadotte was but two hours' march
   away, but as usual disregarded Bülow's request to bring aid.
   But Bülow himself brought up his corps on the right, and took
   the brunt of the battle, extending it through the villages
   south of Jüterbogk, of which Dennewitz was the centre. The
   Prussians took these villages by storm, and when evening came
   their victory was complete, though Bernadotte had not
   stretched out a hand to help them. … Bülow bore the name of
   Dennewitz afterward in honor of his victory. Ney reported to
   his master that he was entirely defeated. Napoleon unwisely
   ascribed his defeat entirely to the Saxons, who fought well
   that day for him, but for the last time. By his reproaches he
   entirely alienated the people from him. The French loss in
   this battle was 10,000 killed and wounded, and 10,000
   prisoners, besides 80 guns. The Prussians lost in killed and
   wounded more than 5,000. Thus five victories had been won by
   the Allies in a fortnight, compensating fully for the loss of
   the battle of Dresden. The way to the Elbe lay open to the
   Army of the North. But Bernadotte continued to move with
   extreme slowness. Bülow and Tauenzien seriously proposed to
   Blücher to leave the Swedish prince, whom they openly
   denounced as a traitor. Blücher approached the Elbe across the
   Lausitz from Bohemia, and it would have been easy to cross the
   river and unite the two armies, threatening Napoleon's rear,
   and making Dresden untenable for him. Napoleon advanced in
   vain against Blücher to Bausitz. The Prussian general wisely
   avoided a battle. Then the emperor turned against the Army of
   Bohemia, but it was too strong in its position in the valley
   of Teplitz, with the mountains in its rear, to be attacked.
   Then again he moved toward Blücher, but again failed to bring
   about an action. At this time public opinion throughout Europe
   was undergoing a rapid change, and Napoleon's name was losing
   its magic. The near prospect of his fall made the nations he
   had oppressed eager and impatient for it, and his German
   allies and subjects lost all regard and hope for his cause. On
   October 8 the Bavarian plenipotentiary, General Wrede,
   concluded a treaty with Austria at Ried, by the terms of which
   Bavaria left Napoleon and joined the allies. This important
   defection, though it had been for some weeks expected, was
   felt by the French emperor as a severe blow to his prospects.
   Napoleon's circle of movement around Dresden began to be
   narrowed. The Russian reserves under Benningsen, 57,000
   strong, were also advancing through Silesia toward Bohemia.
   Blücher was therefore not needed in Bohemia, and he pressed
   forward vigorously to cross the Elbe. His army advanced along
   the right bank of the Black Elster to its mouth above
   Wittenberg. On the opposite bank of the Elbe, in the bend of
   the stream, stands the village of Wartenburg, and just at the
   bend Blücher built two bridges of boats without opposition. On
   October 3 York's corps crossed the river. But now on the west
   side, among the thickets and swamps before the village, arose
   a furious struggle with a body of 20,000 French, Italians, and
   Germans of the Rhine League under Bertrand. York displayed
   eminent patience, coolness, and judgment, and won a decided
   victory out of a great danger. Bernadotte, though with much
   hesitation, also crossed the Elbe at the mouth of the Mulde,
   and the army of the North and of Silesia were thus united in
   Napoleon's rear. It was now evident that the successes of
   these armies had brought the French into extreme danger, and
   the allied sovereigns resolved upon a concerted attack.
   Leipsic was designated as the point at which the armies should
   combine. Napoleon could no longer hold Dresden, lest he should
   be cut off from France by a vastly superior force. The
   partisan corps of the allies were also growing bolder and more
   active far in Napoleon's rear, and on October 1 Czernicheff
   drove Jerome out of Cassel and proclaimed the kingdom of
   Westphalia dissolved. This was the work of a handful of
   Cossacks, without infantry and artillery; but though Jerome
   soon returned, the moral effect of this sudden and easy
   overthrow of one of Napoleon's military kingdoms was immense.
   On October 7 Napoleon left Dresden, and marched to the Mulde.
   Blücher's forces were arrayed along both sides of this stream,
   below Düben. But he quietly and successfully retired, on
   perceiving Napoleon's purpose to attack him, and moved
   westward to the Saale, in order to draw after him Bernadotte
   and the Northern army. The plan was successful, and the united
   armies took up a position behind the Saale, extending from
   Merseburg to Alsleben, Bernadotte occupying the northern end
   of the line next to the Elbe. Napoleon, disappointed in his
   first effort, now formed a plan whose boldness astonished both
   friend and foe. He resolved to cross the Elbe, to seize Berlin
   and the Marches, now uncovered, and thus, supported by his
   fortresses of Magdeburg, Stettin, Dantzic, and Hamburg, where
   he still had bodies of troops and magazines, to give the war
   an entirely new aspect. But the murmurs of his worn-out
   troops, and even of his generals, compelled him to abandon
   this plan, which was desperate, but might have been effectual.
   The suggestion of it terrified Bernadotte, whose province of
   Lower Pomerania would be threatened, and he would have
   withdrawn in headlong haste across the Elbe had not Blücher
   persisted in detaining him. Napoleon now resolved to march
   against the Bohemian army at Leipsic. On October 14, on
   approaching the city from the north, he heard cannon-shots on
   the opposite side. It was the advanced guard of the main army,
   which was descending from the Erz-Gebirge range, after a sharp
   but indecisive cavalry battle with Murat at the village of
   Liebertwolkwitz, south of Dresden.
{1528}
   In the broad, thickly settled plains around Leipsic, the
   armies of Europe now assembled for the final and decisive
   conflict. Napoleon's command included Portuguese, Spaniards,
   Neapolitans, and large contingents of Germans from the Rhine
   League, as well as the flower of the French youth; while the
   allies brought against him Cossacks and Calmucks, Swedes and
   Magyars, besides all the resources of Prussian patriotism and
   Austrian discipline. Never since the awful struggle at
   Chalons, which saved Western civilization from Attila, had
   there been a strife so well deserving the name of 'the battle
   of the nations.' West of the city of Leipsic runs the Pleisse,
   and flows into the Elster on the northwest side. Above their
   junction, the two streams run for some distance near one
   another, inclosing a sharp angle of swampy land. The great
   highway to Lindenau from Leipsic crosses the Elster, and then
   runs southwesterly to Lützen and Weissenfels. South of the
   city and east of the Pleisse lie a number of villages, of
   which Wachau, Liebertwolkwitz, and Probstheida, nearer the
   city, were important points during the battle. The little
   river Partha approaches the city on the east, and then runs
   north, reaching the Elster at Gohlis. Napoleon occupied the
   villages north, east and south of the city, in a small circle
   around it."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 30, sections 7-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book 4, chapter 23 (volume 3)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (October).
   "The Battle of the Nations."

   "The town of Leipsic has four sides and four gates. … On the
   south is the rising ground called the Swedish Camp; and
   another called the Sheep-walk, bordering on the banks of the
   Pleisse. To this quarter the Grand Army of the Allies was seen
   advancing on the 15th of October. Buonaparte made his
   arrangements accordingly. Bertrand and Poniatowski defended
   Lindenau and the east side of the city, by which the French
   must retreat. Augereau was posted farther to the left, on the
   elevated plain of Wachau, and on the south, Victor, Lauriston,
   and Macdonald confronted the advance of the Allies with the
   Imperial Guards placed as a reserve. On the north, Marmont was
   placed between Mœckern and Euterist, to make head against
   Blücher, should he arrive in time to take part in the battle.
   On the opposite quarter, the sentinels of the two armies were
   within musket-shot of each other, when evening fell. … The
   number of men who engaged the next morning was estimated at
   136,000 French, and 230,000 on the part of the Allies. …
   Napoleon remained all night in the rear of his own Guards,
   behind the central position, facing a village called Gossa,
   occupied by the Austrians. At daybreak on the 16th of October
   the battle began, The French position was assailed along all
   the southern front with the greatest fury. … The Allies
   having made six desperate attempts, … all of them
   unsuccessful, Napoleon in turn assumed the offensive. … This
   was about noon. The village of Gossa was carried by the
   bayonet. Macdonald made himself master of the Swedish Camp;
   and the eminence called the Sheep-walk was near being taken in
   the same manner. The impetuosity of the French had fairly
   broken through the centre of the Allies, and Napoleon sent the
   tidings of his success to the King of Saxony, who ordered all
   the bells in the city to be rung. … The King of Naples, with
   Latour-Maubourg and Kellermann, poured through the gap in the
   enemy's centre at the head of the whole body of cavalry, and
   thundered forward as far as Magdeburg, a village in the rear
   of the Allies, bearing down General Rayefskoi with the
   Grenadiers of the Russian reserve. At this moment, while the
   French were disordered by their own success, Alexander, who
   was present, ordered forward the Cossacks of his Guard, who,
   with their long lances, bore back the dense body of cavalry
   that had so nearly carried the day. Meantime, as had been
   apprehended, Blücher arrived before the city, and suddenly
   came into action with Marmont, being three times his numbers.
   He in consequence obtained great and decided advantages; and
   before night-fall had taken the village of Mœckern, together
   with 20 pieces of artillery and 2,000 prisoners. But on the
   south side the contest continued doubtful. Gossa was still
   disputed. … General Mehrfeldt fell into the hands of the
   French. The battle raged till night-fall, when it ceased by
   mutual consent. … The armies slept on the ground they had
   occupied during the day. The French on the southern side had
   not relinquished one foot of their original position, though
   attacked by such superior numbers. Marmont had indeed been
   forced back by Blücher, and compelled to crowd his line of
   defence nearer the walls of Leipsic. Thus pressed on all sides
   with doubtful issues, Buonaparte availed himself of the
   capture of General Mehrfeldt to demand an armistice and to
   signify his acceptance of the terms proposed by the Allies,
   but which were now found to be too moderate. … Napoleon
   received no answer till his troops had recrossed the Rhine;
   and the reason assigned is, that the Allies had pledged
   themselves solemnly to each other to enter into no treaty with
   him 'while a single individual of the French army remained in
   Germany.' … The 17th was spent in preparations on both
   sides, without any actual hostilities. At eight o'clock on the
   morning of the 18th they were renewed with tenfold fury.
   Napoleon had considerably contracted his circuit of defence,
   and the French were posted on an inner line, nearer to
   Leipsic, of which Probtsheyda was the central point. …
   Barclay, Wittgenstein, and Kleist advanced on Probtsheyda,
   where they were opposed by Murat, Victor, Augereau, and
   Lauriston, under the eye of Napoleon himself. On the left
   Macdonald had drawn back his division to a village called
   Stoetteritz. Along this whole line the contest was maintained
   furiously on both sides; nor could the terrified spectators,
   from the walls and steeples of Leipsic, perceive that it
   either receded or advanced. About two o'clock the Allies
   forced their way … into Probtsheyda; the camp-followers
   began to fly; the tumult was excessive. Napoleon … placed
   the reserve of the Old Guard in order, led them in person to
   recover the village, and saw them force their entrance ere he
   withdrew to the eminence from whence he watched the battle.
   … The Allies, at length, felt themselves obliged to desist
   from the murderous attacks on the villages which cost them so
   dear; and, withdrawing their troops, kept up a dreadful fire
   with their artillery.
{1529}
   The French replied with equal spirit, though they had fewer
   guns; and, besides, their ammunition was falling short. Still,
   however, Napoleon completely maintained the day on the south
   of Leipsic, where he commanded in person. On the northern
   side, the yet greater superiority of numbers placed Ney in a
   precarious situation; and, pressed hard both by Blücher and
   the Crown-Prince, he was compelled to draw nearer the town,
   and had made a stand on an eminence called Heiterblick, when
   on a sudden the Saxons, who were stationed in that part of the
   field, deserted from the French and went over to the enemy. In
   consequence of this unexpected disaster, Ney was unable any
   longer to defend himself. It was in vain that Buonaparte
   dispatched his reserves of cavalry to·fill up the chasm that
   had been made; and Ney drew up the remainder of his forces
   close under the walls of Leipsic. The battle once more ceased
   at all points. … Although the French army had thus kept its
   ground up to the last moment on these two days, yet there was
   no prospect of their being able to hold out much longer at
   Leipsic. … All things counselled a retreat, which was
   destined (like the rest of late) to be unfortunate. … The
   retreat was commenced in the night-time; and Napoleon spent a
   third harassing night in giving the necessary orders for the
   march. He appointed Macdonald and Poniatowski … to defend
   the rear. … A temporary bridge which had been erected had
   given way, and the old bridge on the road to Lindenau was the
   only one that remained for the passage of the whole French
   army. But the defence of the suburbs had been so gallant and
   obstinate that time was allowed for this purpose. At length
   the rear-guard itself was about to retreat, when, as they
   approached the banks of the river, the bridge blew up by the
   mistake of a sergeant of a company of sappers who … set fire
   to the mine of which he had charge before the proper moment.
   This catastrophe effectually barred the escape of all those
   who still remained on the Leipsic side of the river, except a
   few who succeeded in swimming across, among whom was Marshal
   Macdonald. Poniatowski … was drowned in making the same
   attempt. In him, it might be said, perished the last of the
   Poles. About 25,000 French were made prisoners of war, with a
   great quantity of artillery and baggage."

       _W. Hazlitt,
       Life of Napoleon,
       chapter 50 (volume 3)._

   "The battle of Leipsic was over. Already had the allied
   sovereigns entered the town, and forcing, not without
   difficulty, their way through the crowd, passed on to the
   market-place. Here, the house in which the King of Saxony had
   lodged was at once made known to them by the appearance of the
   Saxon troops whom Napoleon had left to guard their master. …
   Moreover, the King himself … stood bare-headed on the steps
   of the stairs. But the Emperor of Russia, who appears at once
   to have assumed the chief direction of affairs, took no notice
   of the suppliants. … The battle of Leipsic constitutes one
   of those great hinges on which the fortunes of the world may
   be said from time to time to turn. The importance of its
   political consequence cannot be overestimated. … As a great
   military operation, the one feature which forces itself
   prominently upon our notice is the enormous extent of the
   means employed on both sides to accomplish an end. Never since
   the days when Persia poured her millions into Greece had armies
   so numerous been marshalled against each other. Nor does
   history tell of trains of artillery so vast having been at any
   time brought into action with more murderous effect. … About
   1,300 pieces, on the one side, were answered, during two days,
   by little short of 1,000 on the other. … We look in vain for
   any manifestations of genius or military skill, either in the
   combinations which rendered the battle of Leipsic inevitable,
   or in the arrangements according to which the attack and
   defence of the field were conducted. … It was the triumph,
   not of military skill, but of numbers."

      _G. R. Gleig,
      The Leipsic Campaign,
      chapter 41._

   "No more here than at Moscow must we seek in the failure of
   the leader's talents the cause of such deplorable results,—
   for he was never more fruitful in resource, more bold, more
   resolute, nor more a soldier,—but in the illusions of pride,
   in the wish to regain at a blow an immense fortune which he
   had lost, in the difficulty of acknowledging to himself his
   defeat in time, in a word, in all those errors which we may
   discern in miniature and caricature in an ordinary gambler,
   who madly risks riches acquired by folly; errors which are
   found on a large and terrible scale in this gigantic gambler,
   who plays with human blood as others play with money. As
   gamblers lose their fortunes twice,—once from not knowing
   where to stop, and a second time from wishing to restore it at
   a single cast,—so Napoleon endangered his at Moscow by wishing
   to make it exorbitantly large, and in the Dresden campaign by
   seeking to restore it in its full extent. The cause was always
   the same, the alteration not in the genius, but in the
   character, by the deteriorating influence of unlimited power
   and success."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      book 50 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 3, part 2, chapter 17._

      _J. C. Ropes,
      The First Napoleon._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapter  38-39._

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (October-December).
   Retreat of Napoleon beyond the Rhine.
   Battle of Hanau.
   Fall of the kingdom of Westphalia.
   Surrender of French garrisons and forces.
   Liberation achieved.

   "Blucher, with Langeron and Sacken, moved in pursuit of the
   French army, which, disorganised and dejected, was wending its
   way towards the Rhine. At the passage of the Unstrutt, at
   Freyberg, 1,000 prisoners and 18 guns were captured by the
   Prussian hussars; but on the 23d the French reached Erfurth,
   the citadels and magazines of which afforded them at once
   security and relief from their privations. Here Napoleon
   halted two days, employed in reorganising his army, the
   thirteen corps of which were now formed into six, commanded by
   Victor, Ney, Bertrand, Augereau, Marmont, and Macdonald, and
   amounting in all to less than 90,000 men; while twice that
   number were left blockaded in the fortresses on the Elbe, the
   Oder, and the Vistula. On the 25th, after parting for the last
   time with Murat, who here quitted him and returned to Naples,
   he resumed his march, retreating with such rapidity through
   the Thuringian forest, that the Cossacks alone of the pursuing
   army could keep up with the retiring columns—while the men
   dropped, exhausted by fatigue and hunger, or deserted their
   ranks by hundreds; so that when the fugitive host approached
   the Maine, not more than 50,000 remained effective round their
   colours—10,000 had fallen or been made prisoners, and at
   least 30,000 were straggling in the rear. But here fresh
   dangers awaited them.
{1530}
   After the treaty of the 8th October, by which Bavaria had
   acceded to the grand alliance, an Austro-Bavarian force under
   Marshal Wrede had moved in the direction of Frankfort, and was
   posted, to the number of 45,000 men, in the oak forest near
   Hanau across the great road to Mayence, and blocking up
   entirely the French line of retreat. The battle commenced at
   11 A. M. on the 30th; but the French van, under Victor and
   Macdonald, after fighting its way through the forest, was
   arrested, when attempting to issue from its skirts, by the
   concentric fire of 70 pieces of cannon, and for four hours the
   combat continued, till the arrival of the guards and main body
   changed the aspect of affairs. Under cover of the terrible
   fire of Drouot's artillery, Sebastiani and Nansouty charged
   with the cavalry of the guard, and overthrew everything
   opposed to them, and Wrede at length drew off his shattered
   army behind the Kinzig. Hanau was bombarded and taken, and
   Mortier and Marmont, with the rear divisions, cut their way
   through on the following day, with considerable loss to their
   opponents. The total losses of the Allies amounted to 10,900
   men, of whom 4,000 were prisoners; and the victory threw a
   parting ray of glory over the long career of the revolutionary
   arms in Germany. On the 2d of November the French reached
   Mayence, and Napoleon, after remaining there six days to
   collect the remains of his army, set out for Paris, where he
   arrived on the 9th; and thus the French eagles bade a final
   adieu to the German plains. In the mean time, the Allied
   troops, following closely on the footsteps of the retreating
   French, poured in prodigious strength down the valley of the
   Maine. On the 5th of November the Emperor Alexander entered
   Frankfort in triumph, at the head of 20,000 horse; and on the
   9th the fortified post of Hochheim, in advance of the
   tête-du-pont of Mayence at Cassel, was stormed by Giulay. From
   the heights beyond the town the victorious armies of Germany
   beheld the winding stream of the Rhine; a shout of enthusiasm
   ran from rank to rank as they saw the mighty river of the
   Fatherland, which their arms had liberated; those in the rear
   hurried to the front, and soon a hundred thousand voices
   joined in the cheers which told the world that the war of
   independence was ended and Germany delivered. Nothing now
   remained but to reap the fruits of this mighty victory; yet so
   vast was the ruin that even this was a task of time and
   difficulty. The rickety kingdom of Westphalia fell at once,
   never more to rise; the revolutionary dynasty in Berg followed
   its fate; and the authority of the King of Britain was
   re-established by acclamation in Hanover, at the first
   appearance of Bernadotte and Benningsen. The reduction of
   Davoust, who had been left in Hamburg with 25,000 French and
   10,000 Danes, was an undertaking of more difficulty; and
   against him Walmoden and Bernadotte moved with 40,000 men. The
   French marshal had taken up a position on the Stecknitz; but,
   fearful of being cut off from Hamburg, he retired behind the
   Bille on the advance of the Allies, separating himself from
   the Danes, who were compelled to capitulate. The operations of
   the Crown-Prince against Denmark, the ancient rival of Sweden,
   were now pushed with a vigour and activity strongly
   contrasting with his luke-warmness in the general campaign;
   and the court of Copenhagen, seeing its dominions on the point
   of being overrun, signed an armistice on the 15th December, on
   which was soon after based a permanent treaty [of Kiel]. …

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

   When Napoleon (Oct. 7) marched northwards from Dresden, he had
   left St. Cyr in that city with 30,000 men, opposed only by a
   newly-raised Russian corps under Tolstoi, which St. Cyr, by a
   sudden attack, routed with the loss of 3,000 men and 10 guns.
   But no sooner was the battle of Leipsic decided, than Dresden
   was again blockaded by 50.000 men under Klenau and Tolstoi;
   and St. Cyr, who was encumbered with a vast number of sick and
   wounded, and was almost without provisions, was obliged, after
   a fruitless sortie on the 6th November, to surrender on the
   11th, on condition of being sent with his troops to France.
   The capitulation, however, was disallowed by Schwartzenberg,
   and the whole were made prisoners of war—a proceeding which
   the French, not without some justice, declaim against as a
   gross breach of faith—and thus no less than 32 generals,
   1,795 officers, and 33,000 rank and file, with 240 pieces of
   cannon, fell into the power of the Allies. The fall of Dresden
   was soon followed by that of the other fortresses on the
   Vistula and the Oder. Stettin, with 8,000 men and 350 guns,
   surrendered on the 21st November; and Torgau, which contained
   the military hospitals and reserve parks of artillery left by
   the grand army on its retreat from the Elbe, yielded at
   discretion to Tauenzein (December 26), after a siege of two
   months. But such was the dreadful state of the garrison, from
   the ravages of typhus fever, that the Allies dared not enter
   this great pest-house till the 10th January; and the terrible
   epidemic which issued, from its walls made the circuit, during
   the four following years, of every country in Europe. Dantzic,
   with its motley garrison of 35,000 men, had been blockaded
   ever since the Moscow retreat; but the blockading corps, which
   was not of greater strength, could not confine the French
   within the walls; and Rapp made several sorties in force
   during the spring and summer, by which he procured abundance
   of provisions. It was not till after the termination of the
   armistice of Pleswitz that the siege was commenced in form;
   and after sustaining a severe bombardment, Rapp, deprived of
   all hope by the battle of Leipsic, capitulated (November 29)
   with his garrison, now reduced by the sword, sickness, and
   desertion, to 16,000 men. Zamosc, with 3,000 men, surrendered
   on the 22d December, and Modlin, with 1,200, on the 25th; and
   at the close of the year, France retained beyond the Rhine
   only Hamburg, Magdeburg, and Wittenberg, on the Elbe; Custrin
   and Glogau on the Oder; and the citadels of Erfurth and
   Würtzburg, which held out after the capitulation of the
   towns."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 737-742
      (chapter 82, volume 17, in complete work)._

   "The princes of the Confederation of the Rhine, with the
   exception of the captive King of Saxony, and one or two minor
   princes, deserted Napoleon, and entered into treaties with the
   Allies."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 4, page 538._

      ALSO IN:
      M. Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 16.

      The Year of Liberation: Journal of the Defence of Hamburgh.

      _J. Philippart,
      Campaign in Germany and France, 1813,
      volume 1, pages 230-278._

GERMANY: A. D. 1814.
   The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
   Fall of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
      and (MARCH-APRIL).

{1531}

GERMANY: A. D. 1814 (May).
   Readjustment of French boundaries by the Treaty of Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Congress of Vienna.
   Its territorial and political readjustments.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
   Reconstruction of Germany.
   The Germanic Confederation and its constitution.

   "Germany was now utterly disintegrated. The Holy Roman Empire
   had ceased to exist; the Confederation of the Rhine had
   followed it; and from the Black Forest to the Russian frontier
   there was nothing but angry ambitions, vengeances, and fears.
   If there was ever to be peace again in all these wide regions,
   it was clearly necessary to create something new. What was to
   be created was a far more difficult question; but already, on
   the 30th of May 1814, the powers had come to some sort of
   understanding, if not with regard to the means to be pursued,
   at least with regard to the end to be attained. In the Treaty
   of Paris we find these words: 'Les états de l'Allemagne seront
   indépendants et unis par un lien fédératif.' But how was this to
   be effected? There were some who wished the Holy Roman Empire
   to be restored. … Of course neither Prussia, Bavaria, nor
   Wurtemberg, could look kindly upon a plan so obviously
   unfavourable to them; but not even Austria really wished it,
   and indeed it had few powerful friends. Then there was a
   project of a North and South Germany, with the Maine for
   boundary; but this was very much the reverse of acceptable to
   the minor princes, who had no idea of being grouped like so
   many satellites, some around Austria and some around Prussia.
   Next came a plan of reconstruction by circles, the effect of
   which would have been to have thrown all the power of Germany
   into the hands of a few of the larger states. To this all the
   smaller independent states were bitterly opposed, and it broke
   down, although supported by the great authority of Stein, as
   well as by Gagern. If Germany had been in a later phase of
   political development, public opinion would perhaps have
   forced the sovereigns to consent to the formation of a really
   united Fatherland with a powerful executive and a national
   parliament—but the time for that had not arrived. What was
   the opposition of a few hundred clear-sighted men with their
   few thousand followers, that it should prevail over the
   masters of so many legions? What these potentates cared most
   about were their sovereign rights, and the dream of German
   unity was very readily sacrificed to the determination of each
   of them to be, as far as he possibly could, absolute master in
   his own dominions. Therefore it was that it soon became
   evident that the results of the deliberation on the future of
   Germany would be, not a federative state, but a confederation
   of states—a Staaten-Bund, not a Bundes-Staat. There is no
   doubt, however, that much mischief might have been avoided if
   all the stronger powers had worked conscientiously together to
   give this Staaten-Bund as national a character as possible.
   … Prussia was really honestly desirous to effect something
   of this kind, and Stein, Hardenberg, William von Humboldt,
   Count Münster, and other statesmen, laboured hard to bring it
   about. Austria, on the other hand, aided by Bavaria,
   Wurtemberg, and Baden, did all she could to oppose such
   projects. Things would perhaps have been settled better than
   they ultimately were, if the return of Napoleon from Elba had
   not frightened all Europe from its propriety, and turned the
   attention of the sovereigns towards warlike preparations. …
   The document by which the Germanic Confederation is created is
   of so much importance that we may say a word about the various
   stages through which it passed. First, then, it appears as a
   paper drawn up by Stein in March 1814, and submitted to
   Hardenberg, Count Münster, and the Emperor Alexander. Next, in
   the month of September, it took the form of an official plan,
   handed by Hardenberg to Metternich, and consisting of
   forty-one articles. This plan contemplated the creation of a
   confederation which should have the character rather of a
   Bundes-Staat than of a Staaten-Bund; but it went to pieces in
   consequence of the difficulties which we have noticed above,
   and out of it, and of ten other official proposals, twelve
   articles were sublimated by the rival chemistry of Hardenberg
   and Metternich. Upon these twelve articles the representatives
   of Austria, Prussia, Hanover, and Wurtemberg, deliberated.
   Their sittings were cut short partly by the ominous appearance
   which was presented in the autumn of 1814 by the Saxon and Polish
   questions, and partly by the difficulties from the side of
   Bavaria and Wurtemberg, which we have already noticed. The
   spring brought a project of the Austrian statesman Wessenberg,
   who proposed a Staaten-Bund rather than a Bundes-Staat; and
   out of this and a new Prussian project drawn up by W. von
   Humboldt, grew the last sketch, which was submitted on the 23d
   of May 1815 to the general conference of the plenipotentiaries
   of all Germany. They made short work of it at the last, and
   the Federal-Act (Bundes-Acte) bears date June 8th, 1815. This
   is the document which is incorporated in the principal act of
   the Congress of Vienna, and placed under the guarantee of
   eight European powers, including France and England.
   Wurtemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Homburg, did not form part of the
   Confederation for some little time—the latter not till 1817;
   but after they were added to the powers at first consenting,
   the number of the sovereign states in the Confederation was
   altogether thirty-nine. … The following are the chief
   stipulations of the Federal Act. The object of the
   Confederation is the external and internal security of
   Germany, and the independence and inviolability of the
   confederate states. A diète fédérative (Bundes-Versammlung) is
   to be created, and its attributions are sketched. The Diet is,
   as soon as possible, to draw up the fundamental laws of the
   Confederation. No state is to make war with another on any
   pretence. All federal territories are mutually guaranteed.
   There is to be in each state a 'Landständische
   Verfassung'—'il y aura des assemblées d'états dans tous les
   pays de la Confedération.' Art. 14 reserves many rights to the
   mediatised princes. Equal civil and political rights are
   guaranteed to all Christians in all German States, and
   stipulations are made in favour of the Jews. The Diet did not
   actually assemble before the 5th of November 1816. Its first
   measures, and, above all, its first words, were not unpopular.
   The Holy Allies, however, pressed with each succeeding month
   more heavily upon Germany, and got at last the control of the
   Confederation entirely into their hands.
{1532}
   The chief epochs in this sad history were the Congress of
   Carlsbad, 1819—the resolutions of which against the freedom
   of the press were pronounced by Gentz to be a victory more
   glorious than Leipzig; the ministerial conferences which
   immediately succeeded it at Vienna; and the adoption by the
   Diet of the Final Act (Sehluss Acte) of the Confederation on
   the 8th of June 1820. The following are the chief stipulations
   of the Final Act:—The Confederation is indissoluble. No new
   member can be admitted without the unanimous consent of all
   the states, and no federal territory can be ceded to a foreign
   power without their permission. The regulations for the
   conduct of business by the Diet are amplified and more
   carefully defined. All quarrels between members of the
   Confederation are to be stopped before recourse is had to
   violence. The Diet may interfere to keep order in a state
   where the government of that state is notoriously incapable of
   doing so. Federal execution is provided for in case any
   government resists the authority of the Diet. Other articles
   declare the right of the Confederation to make war and peace
   as a body, to guard the rights of each separate state from
   injury, to take into consideration the differences between its
   members and foreign nations, to mediate between them, to
   maintain the neutrality of its territory, to make war when a
   state belonging to the Confederation is attacked in its
   non-federal territory if the attack seems likely to endanger
   Germany."

      _M. E. G. Duff,
      Studies in European Politics,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 8 (volume 3)._

      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 1, number 26
      (Text of Federative Constitution)._

      See, also, VIENNA: CONGRESS OF.

GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
   Napoleon's return from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo campaign and its results.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
   Final Overthrow of Napoleon.
   The Allies again in Paris.
   Second treaty with France.
   Restitutions and indemnities.
   French frontier of 1790 re-established.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE),
      (JULY-NOVEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
   The Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.
   The Burschenschaft.
   Assassination of Kotzebue.
   The Karlsbad Conference.

   "In 1817, the students of several Universities assembled at
   the Wartburg in order to celebrate the tercentenary of the
   Reformation. In the evening, a small number of them, the
   majority having already left, were carried away by
   enthusiastic zeal, and, in imitation of Luther, burnt a number
   of writings recently published against German freedom,
   together with other emblems of what was considered hateful in
   the institutions of some of the German States. These youthful
   excesses were viewed by the Governments as symptoms of grave
   peril. At the same time, a large number of students united to
   form one great German Burschenschaft [association of
   students], whose aim was the cultivation of a love of country,
   a love of freedom, and the moral sense. Thereupon increased
   anxiety on the part of the Governments, followed by vexatious
   police interference. Matters grew worse in consequence of the
   rash act of a fanatical student, named Sand. It became known
   that the Russian Government was using all its powerful
   influence to have liberal ideas suppressed in Germany, and
   that the play-wright Kotzebue had secretly sent to Russia
   slanderous and libellous reports on German patriots. Sand
   travelled to Mannheim and thrust a dagger into Kotzebue's
   heart. The consequences were most disastrous to the cause of
   freedom in Germany. The distrust of the Governments reached
   its height: it was held that this bloody deed must needs be
   the result of a wide-spread conspiracy: the authorities
   suspected demagogues everywhere. Ministers, of course at the
   instigation of Metternich, met at Karlsbad, and determined on
   repressive measures. These were afterwards adopted by the
   Federal Diet at Frankfort, which henceforth became an
   instrument in the hands of the Emperor Francis and his
   Minister for guiding the internal policy of the German States.
   Accordingly, the cession of state-constitutions was opposed,
   and prosecutions were instituted throughout Germany against
   all who identified themselves with the popular movement; many
   young men were thrown into prison; gymnastic and other
   societies were arbitrarily suppressed; a rigid censorship of
   the press was established, and the freedom of the Universities
   restrained; various professors, among them Arndt, whose songs had
   helped to fire the enthusiasm of the Freiheitskämpfer—the
   soldiers of Freedom—in the recent war, were deprived of their
   offices; the Burschenschaft was dissolved, and the wearing of
   their colours, the future colours of the German Empire, black,
   red, and gold, was forbidden. … The Universities continued
   to uphold the national idea; the Burschenschaft soon secretly
   revived as a private association, and as early as 1820 there
   again existed at most German Universities, Burschenschaften,
   which, though their aims were not sharply defined, bore a
   political colouring and placed the demand for German Unity in
   the foreground."

      _G. Krause,
      The Growth of German Unity,
      chapter 8._

GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
   Arbitrary rulers and discontented subjects.
   The ferment before revolution.
   Formation of the Zollverein.

   "The history of Germany during the thirty years of peace which
   followed [the Congress of Carlsbad] is marked by very few
   events of importance. It was a season of gradual reaction on
   the part of the rulers; and of increasing impatience and
   enmity on the part of the people. Instead of becoming loving
   families, as the Holy Alliance designed, the States (except
   some of the little principalities) were divided into two
   hostile classes. There was material growth everywhere; the
   wounds left by war and foreign occupation were gradually
   healed; there was order, security for all who abstained from
   politics, and a comfortable repose for such as were
   indifferent to the future. But it was a sad and disheartening
   period for the men who were able to see clearly how Germany,
   with all the elements of a freer and stronger life existing in
   her people, was falling behind the political development of
   other countries. The three days' Revolution of 1830, which
   placed Louis Philippe on the throne of France, was followed by
   popular uprisings in some parts of Germany. Prussia and
   Austria were too strong, and their people too well held in
   check, to be affected; but in Brunswick the despotic Duke,
   Karl, was deposed, Saxony and Hesse-Cassel were obliged to
   accept co-rulers (out of their reigning families) and the
   English Duke, Ernest Augustus, was made viceroy of Hannover.
{1533}
   These four States also adopted a constitutional form of
   government. The German Diet, as a matter of course, used what
   power it possessed to counteract these movements, but its
   influence was limited by its own laws of action. The hopes and
   aspirations of the people were kept alive, in spite of the
   system of repression, and some of the smaller States took
   advantage of their independence to introduce various measures
   of reform. As industry, commerce and travel increased, the
   existence of so many boundaries, with their custom-houses,
   taxes and other hindrances, became an unendurable burden.
   Bavaria and Würtemberg formed a customs union in 1828, Prussia
   followed, and by 1836 all of Germany except Austria was united
   in the Zollverein (Tariff Union) [see TARIFF LEGISLATION
   (GERMANY): A. D. 1833], which was not only a great material
   advantage, but helped to inculcate the idea of a closer
   political union. On the other hand, however, the monarchical
   reaction against liberal government was stronger than ever.
   Ernest Augustus of Hannover arbitrarily overthrew the
   constitution he had accepted, and Ludwig I. of Bavaria,
   renouncing all his former professions, made his land a very
   nest of absolutism and Jesuitism. In Prussia, such men as
   Stein, Gneisenau, and Wilhelm von Humboldt had long lost their
   influence, while others of less personal renown, but of
   similar political sentiments, were subjected to contemptible
   forms of persecution. In March, 1835, Francis II. of Austria
   died, and was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., a man of
   such weak intellect that he was in some respects idiotic. On
   the 7th of June, 1840, Frederick William III. of Prussia died,
   and was also succeeded by his son, Frederick William IV., a
   man of great wit and intelligence, who had made himself
   popular as Crown-prince, and whose accession the people hailed
   with joy, in the enthusiastic belief that better days were
   coming. The two dead monarchs, each of whom had reigned 43
   years, left behind them a better memory among their people
   than they actually deserved. They were both weak, unstable and
   narrow-minded; had they not been controlled by others, they
   would have ruined Germany; but they were alike of excellent
   personal character, amiable, and very kindly disposed towards
   their subjects so long as the latter were perfectly obedient
   and reverential. There was no change in the condition of
   Austria, for Metternich remained the real ruler, as before. In
   Prussia a few unimportant concessions were made, an amnesty
   for political offences was declared, Alexander von Humboldt
   became the king's chosen associate, and much was done for
   science and art; but in their main hope of a liberal
   reorganization of the government, the people were bitterly
   deceived. Frederick William IV. took no steps towards the
   adoption of a Constitution; he made the censorship and the
   supervision of the police more severe; he interfered in the
   most arbitrary and bigoted manner in the system of religious
   instruction in the schools; and all his acts showed that his
   policy was to strengthen his throne by the support of the
   nobility and the civil service, without regard to the just
   claims of the people. Thus, in spite of the external quiet and
   order, the political atmosphere gradually became more sultry
   and disturbed. … There were signs of impatience in all
   quarters; various local outbreaks occurred, and the aspects
   were so threatening that in February, 1847, Frederick William
   IV. endeavored to silence the growing opposition by ordering
   the formation of a Legislative Assembly. But the provinces
   were represented, not the people, and the measure only
   emboldened the latter to clamor for a direct representation.
   Thereupon, the king closed the Assembly, after a short
   session, and the attempt was probably productive of more harm
   than good. In most of the other German States, the situation
   was very similar; everywhere there were elements of
   opposition, all the more violent and dangerous, because they
   had been kept down with a strong hand for so many years."

      _B. Taylor,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 37._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapters 5 and 7._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D.1815-1835.

GERMANY: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GERMANY: A. D. 1835-1846.
   Death of the Emperor Francis I. of Austria.
   Accession of Ferdinand I.
   Extinction of the Polish republic of Cracow.
   Its annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

GERMANY: A. D. 1839-1840.
   The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
   Quadruple Alliance.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March).
   Revolutionary outbreaks.
   The King of Prussia heads a national movement.
   Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens at Berlin.

   "The French revolution of February, the flight of Louis
   Philippe and the fall of the throne of the barricades, and the
   proclamation of a republic, had kindled from one end to the
   other of Europe the enthusiasm of the republican party. The
   conflagration rapidly extended itself. The Rhenish provinces
   of Prussia, whose near neighbourhood and former connexion with
   France made them more peculiarly combustible, broke out with a
   cry for the most extensive reforms; that is to say, for
   representative institutions, the passion for which had spread
   over the whole of Germany. … The reform fever which had
   attacked the Rhenish provinces quickly spread to the rest of
   the body politic. The urban populace—a class in all countries
   rarely incited to agitation—took the lead. They were headed
   by the students. Breslau, Königsberg, and Berlin, were in
   violent commotion. In the month of March, a great open air
   meeting was held at Berlin: it ended in a riot. The troops
   were called out to act against the mob. For near a week,
   Berlin was in a state of chronic disturbance. The troops acted
   with great firmness. The mob gathered together, but did not
   show much fight; but they were dispersed with difficulty, and
   continued to offer a passive resistance to the soldiers. On
   the 15th, ten persons were said to have been killed, and over
   100 wounded. At the same time, similar scenes were, being
   enacted at Breslau and Königsberg, where several persons lost
   their lives. A deputation from the Rhenish provinces arrived
   at Berlin on the 18th, bearing a petition from Cologne to the
   king for reform. He promised to grant it. … Finding he could
   not keep the movement in check, he resolved to put himself at
   the head of it. It was probably the only course open to him,
   if he would preserve his crown. …
{1534}
   The king must have previously had the questions which were
   agitating Germany under careful consideration; for he at once
   published a proclamation embodying the whole of them: the
   unity of Germany, by forming it into a federal state, with a
   federal representation; representative institutions for the
   separate states; a general military system for all Germany,
   under one federal banner; a German fleet; a tribunal for
   settling disputes between the states, and a right for all
   Germans to settle and trade in any part of Germany they
   thought fit; the whole of Germany formed into one customs
   union, and included in the Zollverein; one system of money,
   weights, and measures; and the freedom of the press. These
   were the subjects touched upon. … The popularity of the
   proclamation with the mob-leaders was unbounded, and the mob
   shouted. Every line of it contained their own ideas,
   vigorously expressed. Their delight was proportionate to their
   astonishment. A crowd got together at the palace to express
   their gratitude; the king came out of a window, and was loudly
   cheered. Two regiments of dragoons unluckily mistook the
   cheering for an attack, and began pushing them back by forcing
   their horses forward. … Unfortunately, as the conflict (if
   conflict it could be called, which was only a bout of which
   could push hardest) was going forward, two musket-shots were
   fired by a regiment of infantry. It appears that the muskets
   went off accidentally. No one was injured by them. It is not
   clear they were not blank cartridges; but the people took
   fright. They imagined that there was a design to slaughter
   them. At once they rushed to arms; barricades were thrown up
   in every street. … Sharpshooters placed themselves in the
   windows and behind the barricades, and opened a fire on the
   soldiery. These, exasperated by what they thought an unfair
   species of fighting, were by no means unwilling for the fray.
   … The troops carried barricade after barricade, and gave no
   quarter even to the unresisting. As they took the houses, they
   slaughtered all the sharpshooters they found in them, not very
   accurately discriminating those engaged in hostilities from
   those who were not. Horrible cruelties were committed on both
   sides. … The flight raged for fifteen hours. Either the king
   lost his head when it began, or the troops, having their blood
   up, would not stop. … The firing began at two o'clock on the
   18th of March, and the authorities succeeded in withdrawing
   the troops and stopping it the next morning at five o'clock,
   they having been during that time successful at all points.
   … The king put out a manifesto at seven o'clock, declaring
   that the whole business arose from an unlucky misunderstanding
   between the troops and the people, as it unquestionably did,
   and the people appear to have been aware of the fact and
   ashamed of themselves. … A general amnesty was proclaimed
   for all parties concerned, and orders were given to form at
   once a burgher guard to supply the place of the military, who
   were to be withdrawn. A new ministry was appointed, of a
   liberal character. … The troops were marched out of the
   town, and were cheered by the people. … It is estimated
   that, of the populace, about 200 were killed: 187 received a
   public funeral. No accurate account of the wounded can be
   obtained. … Of the troops, according to the official
   returns, there fell 3 officers and 17 non-commissioned
   officers and privates; of wounded there were 14 officers, 14
   non-commissioned officers, and 225 privates, and 1 surgeon.
   … The king's object was to divert popular enthusiasm into
   another channel; he therefore assumed the lead in the
   regeneration of Germany. On the 21st he issued a proclamation,
   enlarging on these views, and rode through the streets with
   the proscribed German tricolor on his helmet, and was
   vociferously cheered as he passed along. Prussia was not the
   first of the German states where the old order of things was
   overturned. During the whole of the month of March, Germany
   underwent the process of revolution. … On the 3d of March
   … the new order of things … began at Wurtemberg. The Duke
   of Hesse-Darmstadt abdicated. In Bavaria, things took a more
   practical turn. The people insisted on the dismissal of the
   king's mistress, Lola Montez: she was sent away, but, trusting
   to the king's dotage, she came back, police or no police—was
   received by the king—he created her Countess of Lansfeldt.
   This was a climax to which the people were not prepared to
   submit. … The king was compelled to expel her, to annul her
   patent of naturalization, and resume the grant he had made of
   property in her favour. This was more than he could stand, and
   he shortly after abdicated in favour of his heir. In Saxony
   the king gave way, after his troops had refused to act, and
   the freedom of the press was established, and other popular
   demands granted. In Vienna, the old system of Metternich was
   abolished, after a revolution which was little more than a
   street row. The king of Hanover refused to move, but was
   eventually induced to receive Stube as one of his ministers,
   who had been previously in prison for his opinions. However,
   he was firmer than most of his brother monarchs, and his
   country suffered less than the rest of Germany in
   consequence."

      _E. S. Cayley,
      The European Revolutions of 1848,
      volume 2: Germany, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. E. Maurice,
      The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-9,
      chapter 7._

GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March-September).
   Election and meeting of the National Assembly at Frankfort.
   Resignation of the Diet.
   Election of Archduke John to be Administrator of Germany.
   Powerlessness of the new government.
   Troubles rising from the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Outbreak at Frankfort.
   The setting in of Reaction.

   "In south-western Germany the liberal party set itself at the
   head of the movement. … The Heidelberg assembly of March
   5th, consisting of the former opposition leaders in the
   various Chambers, issued a call to the German nation, and
   chose a commission of seven men, who were to make propositions
   with regard to a permanent parliament and to summon a
   preliminary parliament at Frankfort. This preliminary
   parliament assembled in St. Paul's church, March 31st. … The
   majority, consisting of constitutional monarchists, resolved
   that an assembly chosen by direct vote of the people …
   should meet in the month of May, with full and sovereign power
   to frame a constitution for all Germany. … These measures
   did not satisfy the radical party, whose leaders were Hecker
   and Struve. As their proposition to set up a sovereign
   assembly, and republicanize Germany, was rejected, they left
   Frankfort, and held in the highlands of Baden popular meetings
   at which they demanded the proclamation of the republic.
{1535}
   A Hesse-Darmstadt corps under Frederic von Gagern … was sent
   to disperse them. An engagement took place at Kandern, in
   which Gagern was shot, but Hecker and his followers were put
   to flight. … The disturbances in Odenwald, and in the Main
   and Tauber districts, once the home of the peasant war, were
   of a different description. There the country people rose
   against the landed proprietors, destroyed the archives, with
   the odious tithe and rental books, and demolished a few
   castles. The Diet, which in the meantime continued its
   illusory existence, thought to extricate itself from the
   present difficulties by a few concessions. It … invited the
   governments to send confidential delegates to undertake, along
   with its members, a revision of the constitution of the
   confederation. … These confidential delegates, among them
   the poet Uhland, from Würtemberg, began their work on the 30th
   of March. The elections for the National Assembly stirred to
   their innermost fibres the German people, dreaming of the
   restoration of their former greatness. May 18th about 320
   delegates assembled in the Imperial Hall, in the Römer (the
   Rathhaus), at Frankfort. … Never has a political assembly
   contained a greater number of intellectual and scholarly
   men—men of character and capable of self-sacrifice; but it
   certainly was not the forte of these numerous professors and
   jurists to conduct practical politics. The moderate party was
   decidedly in the majority. … It was decided … that a
   provisional central executive should be created in the place
   of the Diet, and created, not by the National Assembly in
   concert with the princes, but by the National Assembly alone.
   June 27th, following out the bold conception of its president,
   the assembly decided to appoint an irresponsible
   administrator, with a responsible ministry; and June 29th,
   Archduke John of Austria was chosen Administrator of Germany
   by 436 votes out of 546. He made his entry into Frankfort July
   11th, and entered upon his office on the following day. The
   hour of the Diet had struck, apparently for the last time. It
   resigned its authority into the hands of the Administrator,
   and, after an existence of 32 years, left the stage unmourned.
   Archduke John was a popular prince, who found more pleasure in
   the mountain air of Tyrol and Styria than in the perfumed
   atmosphere of the Vienna court. But, as a novice 66 years of
   age, he was not equal to the task of governing, and as a
   thorough Austrian he lacked a heart for all Germany. The main
   question for him and for the National Assembly was, what force
   they could apply in case the individual governments refused
   obedience to the decrees issued in the name of the National
   Assembly. This was the Achilles's heel of the German
   revolution. … Orders were issued by the federal minister of
   war that all the troops of the Confederation should swear
   allegiance to the federal administrator on the 6th of August;
   but Prussia and Austria, with the exception of the Vienna
   garrison, paid no attention to these orders; Ernest Augustus,
   in Hanover, successfully set his hard head against them, and
   only the lesser states obeyed. … There certainly was no
   other way out of the difficulty than by the formation of a
   parliamentary army. … Instead of meeting these dangers
   resolutely, and in a common-sense way, the Assembly left
   matters to go as they would, outside of Frankfort. One
   humiliation was submitted to after another, while the
   Assembly, busying itself for months with a theoretical
   question, as if it were a juristic faculty, entered into a
   detailed consideration of the fundamental rights of the German
   people. The Schleswig-Holstein question, which had just
   entered upon a new phase of its existence, was the first
   matter of any importance to manifest the disagreement between
   the central administration and the separate governments; and
   it opened, as well, a dangerous gulf in the Assembly itself.
   The question at issue was one of succession [see SCANDINAVIAN
   STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862]. … The Estates of the
   duchies [Schleswig and Holstein] established a provisional
   government, applied at Frankfort for the admission of
   Schleswig into the German confederation, and besought armed
   assistance both there and at Berlin. The preliminary
   parliament [this having occurred in April, before the meeting
   of the National Assembly] approved the application of
   Schleswig for admission, and commissioned Prussia, in
   conjunction with the 10th army corps of the Confederation, to
   occupy Schleswig and Holstein. On the 21st of April, 1848,
   General Wrangel crossed the Eider as commander of the forces
   of the Confederation; and on the 23d, in conjunction with the
   Schleswig-Holstein troops, he drove the Danes out of the
   Danewerk. On the following day the Danes were defeated at
   Oeversee by the 10th army corps, and all Schleswig-Holstein
   was free. Wrangel entered Jutland and imposed a war tax of
   3,000,000 thalers (about $2,250,000). He meant to occupy this
   province until the Danes—who, owing to the inexcusable
   smallness of the Prussian navy, were in a position unhindered
   to injure the commerce of the Baltic—had indemnified Prussia
   for her losses; but Prussia, touched to the quick by the
   destruction of her commerce, and intimidated by the
   threatening attitude of Russia, Sweden, and England, recalled
   her troops, and concluded an armistice at Malmö, in Sweden, on
   the 26th of August. All measures of the provisional government
   were pronounced invalid; a common government for the duchies
   was to be appointed, one half by Denmark, and the other by the
   German confederation; the Schleswig troops were to be
   separated from those of Holstein; and the war was not to be
   renewed before the 1st of April, 1849—i. e., not in the
   winter, a time unfavorable for the Danes. This treaty was
   unquestionably no masterpiece on the part of the Prussians.
   All the advantage was on the side of the conquered Danes. …
   It was not merely the radicals who urged, if not the final
   rejection, at least a provisional cessation of the armistice,
   and the countermanding of the order to retreat. … A bill to
   that effect, demanded by the honor of Germany, had scarcely
   been passed by the majority, on the 5th of September, when the
   moderate party reflected that such action, involving a breach
   with Prussia, must lead to civil war and revolution, and call
   into play the wildest passions of the already excited people.
   In consequence of this the previous vote was rescinded, and
   the armistice of Malmö accepted by the Assembly, after the
   most excited debates, September 16th. This gave the radicals a
   welcome opportunity to appeal to the fists of the lower
   classes, and imitate the June outbreak of the social democrats
   in Paris. …
{1536}
   A collision ensued [September 18]; barricades were erected,
   but were carried by the troops without much bloodshed. …
   General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowsky, riding on horseback
   near the city, were followed by a mob. They took refuge in a
   gardener's house on the Bornheimer-heide, but were dragged out
   and murdered with the most disgraceful atrocities. Thereupon
   the city was declared in a state of siege, all societies were
   forbidden, and strong measures were taken for the maintenance
   of order. The March revolution had passed its season, and
   reaction was again beginning to bloom. … Reaction drew
   moderate men to its side, and then used them as
   stepping-stones to immoderation."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapter 53._

GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary.
   Bombardment of Vienna.
   The war in Hungary.
   Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
   Accession of Francis Joseph.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
   The Prussian National Assembly, and its dissolution.
   The work and the failure of the National Assembly of
   Frankfort.
   Refusal of the imperial crown by the King of Prussia.
   End of the movement for Germanic unity.

   "The elections for the new Prussian Constituent Assembly, as
   well as for the Frankfort Parliament, were to take place (May
   1). The Prussian National Assembly was to meet May 22. The
   Prussian people, under the new election law, if left to
   themselves, would have quietly chosen a body of competent
   representatives; but the revolutionary party thought nothing
   could be done without the ax and the musket. … The people of
   Berlin, from March to October, were … really in the hands of
   the mob. … The newly-elected Prussian National Assembly was
   opened by the king, May 21. … One of the first resolutions
   proceeded from Behrend of the Extreme Left. 'The Assembly
   recognizes the revolution, and declares that the combatants
   who fought at the barricades, on March 18 and 19, merit the
   thanks of the country.' … The motion was rejected. On
   issuing from the building into the street, after the sitting,
   the members who had voted against it, were received by the mob
   with threats and insults. … In the evening of the same day,
   in consequence of the rejection of the Behrend resolution, the
   arsenal was attacked by a large body of laborers. The
   burgher-guard were not prepared, and made a feeble defense.
   There was a great riot. The building was stormed and partially
   plundered. … The sketch of a constitution proposed by the
   king was now laid before the Assembly. It provided two
   Chambers—a House of Lords, and a House of Commons. The last
   to be elected by the democratic electoral law; the first to
   consist of all the princes of the royal house in their own
   right, and, in addition, 60 members from the wealthiest of the
   kingdom to be selected by the king, their office hereditary.
   This constitution was immediately rejected. On the rejection
   of the constitution the ministry Camphausen resigned. … The
   Assembly, elected exclusively to frame a constitution, instead
   of performing its duty … attempted to legislate, with
   despotic power, on subjects over which it had no jurisdiction.
   As the drama drew nearer its close, the Assembly became more
   open in its intention to overthrow the monarchy. On October 12
   discussions began upon a resolution to strike from the king's
   title the words, 'By the grace of God,' and to abolish all
   titles of nobility and distinctions of rank. The Assembly
   building, during the sitting, was generally surrounded by
   threatening crowds. … Of course, during this period business
   was suspended, and want, beggary, and drunkenness, as well as
   lawless disorder, increased. … The writer was one day alone
   in the diplomatic box, following an excited debate. A speaker
   in the tribune was urging the overthrow of the monarchy, when
   suddenly the entire Assembly was struck mute with
   stupefaction. The Prince of Prussia, the late Emperor William
   I., supposed to be in England, in terror for his life,
   appeared at the door, accompanied by two officers, all three
   in full uniform, and marched directly up to the tribune. The
   Assembly could not have been more astounded had old Barbarossa
   himself, with his seven-hundred-years-long beard, marched into
   the hall out of his mountain cave. … After a slight delay,
   the President, Mr. von Grabow, accorded the tribune to the
   prince. He ascended and made a short address, which was
   listened to, with breathless attention, by every individual
   present. He spoke with the assurance of an heir to a throne
   which was not in the slightest danger of being abolished; but
   he spoke with the modesty and good sense of a prince who
   frankly accepted the vast transformation which the government
   had undergone, and who intended honestly to endeavor to carry
   out the will of the whole nation. … This was one of many
   occasions on which the honesty and superiority of the prince's
   character made itself felt even by his enemies. … Berlin was
   now thoroughly tired of street tumults and the horn of the
   burgher-guard. … The Prussian troops which had been engaged
   in the Schleswig-Holstein war, were now placed under General
   Wrangel. … He proceeded without delay to encircle the city
   with the 25,000 troops. At the same time, a cabinet order of
   the king (September 21) named a new ministry. … At this
   moment, the revolution over all Europe was nearly exhausted.
   Cavaignac had put down the June insurrection. The Prussian
   flag waved above the flag of Germany. The Frankfort Parliament
   was rapidly dying out. … On November 2, Count Brandenburg
   stated to the Assembly that the king had requested him to form
   a new ministry. … On the same day, Count Brandenburg, with
   his colleagues, appeared in the hall of the Prussian National
   Assembly, and announced his desire to read a message from his
   Majesty the King. … 'As the debates are no longer free in
   Berlin, the Assembly is hereby adjourned to November 27. It
   will then meet, and thereafter hold its meetings, not in
   Berlin, but in Brandenburg' (fifty miles from Berlin). After
   reading the message, Count Brandenburg, his colleagues, and
   all the members of the Right retired. … The Assembly …
   adjourned, and met again in the evening. … On November 10,
   the Assembly met again. Their debates were interrupted by
   General Wrangel, who had entered Berlin by the Brandenburg
   gate, at the head of 25,000 troops. … An officer from
   General Wrangel entered the hall and politely announced that
   he had received orders to disperse the Assembly. The members
   submitted, and left the hall. …
{1537}
   An order was now issued dissolving the burgher-guard. On the
   12th, Berlin was declared in a state of siege. … During the
   state of siege, the Assembly met again under the presidency of
   Mr. von Unruh. A body of troops entered the hall, and
   commanded the persons present to leave it. President von Unruh
   declared he could not consistently obey the order. There was,
   he said, no power higher than the Assembly. The soldiers did
   not fire on him, or cut him down with their sabers; but
   good-naturedly lifted his chair with him in it, and gently
   deposited both in the street. … On November 27, Count
   Brandenburg went to Brandenburg to open the Assembly; but he
   could not find any. It had split into two parts. … There was
   no longer a quorum. Thus the Prussian National Assembly
   disappeared. On December 5; appeared a royal decree,
   dissolving the National Assembly. … Then appeared a
   provisional octroyirte electoral law, for the election of two
   Chambers. … The new Chambers met February 26, 1849. …
   Prussia had thus closed the revolution of 1848, as far as she
   was concerned. Bismarck was elected member of the Second
   Chamber." Meantime, in the Frankfort Parliament, "the great
   question, Austria's position with regard to the new Germany,
   came up in the early part of November, 1848. Among many
   propositions, we mention three: I. Austria should abandon her
   German provinces. … II. Austria should remain as a separate
   whole, with all her provinces. … III. The Austrian plan. All
   the German States, and all the Austrian provinces (German and
   non-German), should be united into one gigantic empire …
   with Austria at the head. … Meanwhile, the debates went on
   upon the questions: What shall be the form, and who shall be
   the chief of what may be called the Prussian-Germany? Among
   the various propositions (all rejected) were the following: 1.
   A Directory, consisting of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
   Würtemberg, and Saxony. II. The King of Prussia and Emperor of
   Austria to alternate in succession every six years, as
   Emperor. III. A chief magistracy, to which every German
   citizen might aspire. IV. Revival of the old Bundestag, with
   certain improvements. On January 23, 1849, the resolution that
   one of the reigning German princes should be elected, with the
   title of Emperor of Germany, was adopted (258 against 211). As
   it was plain the throne could be offered to no one but
   Prussia, this was a breach between the Parliament and Austria.
   … The first reading of the constitution was completed,
   February 3, 1849. The middle and smaller German States
   declared themselves ready to accept it, but the kingdoms
   remained silent. … The real question before the Parliament
   was, whether Prussia or Austria should be leader of Germany.
   … On March 27, the hereditability passed by a majority of
   four. On March 28, the constitution, with the democratic
   electoral law, universal suffrage, the ballot, and the
   suspensive veto, was voted and accepted. … President Simson
   then called the name of each member to vote upon the question
   of the Emperor. There were 290 votes for Frederic William IV.
   … A deputation, consisting of 30 of the most distinguished
   members, was immediately sent to Berlin to communicate to the
   king his election as Emperor. … To the offer of the crown,
   his Majesty replied he 'could not accept without the consent
   of all the governments, and without having more carefully
   examined the constitution.' … Austria instantly rejected the
   constitution, protested against the authority of the
   Parliament, and recalled all her representatives from
   Frankfort. The King of Würtemberg accepted; but rejected the
   House of Hohenzollern as head of the Empire. Bavaria, Hanover,
   Saxony, rejected; 28 of the smaller German States accepted. In
   these were included the free-cities Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck.
   … On April 28, Prussia addressed a circular note to the
   governments, inviting them to send representatives to Berlin,
   for the purpose of framing a new constitution. The note added:
   In case of any attempt to force the Frankfort constitution
   upon the country, Prussia was ready to render to the
   governments all necessary assistance. … On May 3, an
   insurrection broke out in Saxony. … On May 6, Prussian
   troops appeared, called by the Saxon government, and attacked
   the barricades. The battle lasted three days. … The
   insurgents abandoned the city. Dresden was declared in a state
   of siege. … The King of Prussia now recalled [from the
   Frankfort Parliament] all the Prussian representatives. … By
   the gradual disappearance of most of the moderate members …
   the Parliament, now a mere revolutionary committee, dwindled
   down to about 100 members. A resolution, proposed by Carl
   Vogt, was passed to transfer the sittings to Stuttgart. … On
   June 6, the Rump Parliament in Stuttgart elected a central
   government of its own. … The Assembly was then dispersed.
   … The German revolutions commenced and ended in the Grand
   Duchy of Baden. … By a mutiny in the regular army, it
   intrenched itself in the first-class fortress, Rastadt. There
   were, in all, three attempts at revolution in Baden [and one
   in the Palatinate]. … A large number of the leaders were
   tried and shot. … It was for taking part in this
   insurrection that Gottfried Kinkel was sentenced to
   imprisonment for life in the fortress of Spandau. Carl Schurz
   aided him in escaping."

      _T. S. Fay,
      The Three Germanys,
      chapters 25-26 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      _H. von Sybel,
      The Founding of the German Empire,
      books 2-5 (volumes 1-2)._

      See, also, CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.

GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1862.
   Opening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   War with Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

GERMANY: A. D. 1853-1875.
   Commercial treaties with Austria and France.
   Progress towards free trade.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
   Advent of King William I. and Prince Bismarck in Prussia.
   Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Conquest of the duchies by Prussia and Austria.
   Consequent quarrel and war.

   "King Frederic William IV. [of Prussia], never a man of strong
   head, had for years been growing weaker and more eccentric.
   … In the early part of 1857, symptoms of softening of the
   brain began to show themselves. That disorder so developed
   itself that in October, 1857, he gave a delegation to the
   Prince of Prussia [his brother] to act as regent; but the
   first commission was only for three months. … The Prince's
   temporary commission was renewed from time to time; but it
   soon became apparent that Frederic William's case was
   hopeless, and his brother was formally installed as Regent in
   October, 1858.
{1538}
   Ultimately, the King died in January, 1861, and his brother
   succeeded to the throne as William I." In September, 1862,
   Otto von Bismarck became the new King's chief minister, with
   General Roon for Minister of War, appointed to carry out a
   reorganization of the Prussian army which King William had
   determined to effect. Bismarck found his first opportunity for
   the aggrandizement of Prussia in a reopening of the
   Schleswig-Holstein question, which came about in November,
   1863, when "Frederic of Denmark died, and Prince Christian
   succeeded to the throne of that kingdom. Already before his
   accession, the duchies were possessions of the Danish
   monarchy, but had in certain respects a separate
   administrative existence. This Denmark, in the year of
   Christian's accession, had materially infringed in the case of
   Sleswig, by a law which virtually incorporated that duchy with
   the Danish monarchy. The German Confederation protested
   against this 'Danification' of Sleswig, and having pronounced
   a decree of Federal execution against the new King of Denmark
   as Duke of Holstein and, in virtue of that duchy, a member of
   the German Confederation, sent into Holstein Federal troops
   belonging to the smaller States of the Confederation. The
   Confederation, as a collective body, favoured the
   establishment of the independence of the duchies, and had with
   it the wishes probably of the great mass of the German nation.
   But the independence of Sleswig and Holstein scarcely suited
   the views of Bismarck. He desired the annexation to Prussia of
   at all events Holstein, because in Holstein is the great
   harbour of Kiel, all important in view of the new fleet with
   which he purposed equipping Prussia; if Sleswig could be
   compassed along with Holstein, so much the better. But there
   were two difficulties in Bismarck's way. Prussia was a
   co-signatory of the Treaty of London. If he were to grasp at
   the duchies single-handed, a host of enemies might confront
   him. England was burning to take up arms in the cause of the
   father of the beautiful princess she had adopted as her own.
   The German Confederation would oppose Prussia's naked effort
   to aggrandise herself; and Austria, in the double character of
   a party to the Treaty of London and of a member of the
   Confederation, would rejoice in the opportunity to strike a
   blow at a power of whose rising pretensions she had begun to
   be jealous. The wily Bismarck had to dissemble. He made the
   proposal to Austria that the two states should ignore their
   participation as individual States in the Treaty of London,
   and that as corporate members of the German Confederation they
   should constitute themselves the executors of the Federal
   decree, and put aside the minor states whose troops had been
   charged with that office. Austria acceded. It was a bad hour
   for her when she did, yet she moves no compassion for the
   misfortunes which befell her as the issue. … The Diet had to
   submit. The Austro-Prussian troops marched through Holstein
   into Sleswig, and on the 2nd of February, 1864, struck at the
   Danes occupying the Dannewerke. … The venerable Marshal
   Wrangel was commander-in-chief of the combined forces until
   after the fall of Düppel, when Prince Frederic Charles
   succeeded him in that position; but throughout the campaign
   the control of the dispositions was mainly exercised by the
   Red Prince. But neither strategy nor tactics were very
   strenuously brought into use for the discomfiture of the
   unfortunate Danes. Their ruin was wrought partly because of
   the overwhelmingly superior force of their allied opponents,
   partly because of their own unpreparedness for war in almost
   everything save the possession of heroic bravery; but most of
   all by the fire of the needle-gun and the Prussian advantage
   in the possession of rifled artillery. Only part of the
   Prussian infantry had used the needle-gun in the reduction of
   the Baden insurrection in 1848; now, however, the whole army
   was equipped with it. … In their retreat from the Dannewerke
   into the Düppel position, the Danes suffered severely from the
   inclemency of the weather, and fought a desperate rear-guard
   engagement with the Austrians. … The Prussians undertook the
   task of reducing Düppel; the Austrians marched northward into
   Jutland, and driving back the Danish troops they encountered
   in their march, sat down before the fortress of Fredericia,
   and swept the Little Belt with their cannon. The sieges, both
   of Düppel and of Fredericia, were conducted with extreme
   inertness." But the former was taken and the latter abandoned.
   "The Danish war was terminated by the Treaty of Vienna on the
   30th October, 1864, under which the duchies of Sleswig,
   Holstein, and Lauenburg were handed over to the sovereigns of
   Austria and Prussia. … Out of the Danish war of 1864 grew
   almost inevitably the war of 1866, between Prussia and
   Austria. The wolves quite naturally wrangled over the carcase,
   and the astuter wolf had so much the better of the wrangle
   that the duller one, unless he chose to be partly bullied,
   partly tricked out of his share, had no alternative but to
   fight for it, with the result that he clean lost that and a
   great deal more besides. The future of the Elbe Duchies was
   played at pitch and toss with between Prussia and Austria for
   the best part of a year; the details of the game were too
   intricate to be followed here. The condominium of the two
   Powers in the duchies produced constant friction, which was
   probably Bismarck's intention, especially as Prussia had taken
   care to keep stationed in them twice as many troops as Austria
   had left there. Relations were becoming very strained when in
   August, 1865, the Emperor Francis Joseph and King William met
   at the little watering-place of Gastein, and from their
   interview originated the short-lived arrangement known as the
   Convention of Gastein. By that compact, while the two Powers
   preserved the common sovereignty over the duchies, Austria
   accepted the administration of Holstein, Prussia undertaking
   that of Sleswig. Prussia was to have rights of way through
   Holstein to Sleswig, was given over the right of construction
   of a North Sea and Baltic Canal; and while Kiel was
   constituted a Federal harbour, Prussia was authorised to
   construct there the requisite fortifications and marine
   establishments, and to maintain an adequate force for the
   protection of these. Assuming the arrangement to be
   provisional, as on all hands it was regarded, Prussia clearly
   had the advantage under it. … But the Gastein Convention
   contained another provision—that Austria should sell to
   Prussia all her rights in the duchy of Lauenburg (an outlying
   appanage of Holstein) for the sum of 2,500,000 thalers: thus
   making market of rights of which she was but a trustee for the
   German Confederation.
{1539}
   The Convention of Gastein pleased nobody, but that mattered
   little to Bismarck. … Bickerings recommenced before the year
   1865 was out, and early in 1866 Austria began to arm. … In
   March, 1866, a secret treaty was formed between Italy and
   Prussia. … Prussia threw the Convention of Gastein to the
   winds by civilly but masterfully turning the Austrian brigade
   of occupation out of Holstein. Then Austria in the Federal
   Diet, complaining that by this act Prussia had disturbed the
   peace of the German Confederation, moved for a decree of
   Federal execution against that state, to be enforced by the
   Confederation's armed strength. On the 14th June, Austria's
   motion was carried by the Diet, its last act; for Prussia next
   day wrecked the flimsy organisation of the German Confederation,
   by declaring war against three of its component members,
   Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony. There was no formal declaration of
   war between Austria and Prussia, only a notification of
   intended hostile action sent by the Prussian commanders to the
   Austrian foreposts. On the 17th the Emperor Francis Joseph
   published his war manifesto; King William on the 18th emitted
   his to 'My People;' on the 20th, Italy declared war against
   Austria and Bavaria."

      _A. Forbes,
      William of Germany,
      chapters 7-8._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Sybel,
      The Founding of the German Empire,
      books 9-16 (volumes 3-4)._

      _C. Lowe,
      Prince Bismarck,
      chapters 5-7 (volume 1),
      and appendices. A, B, C (volume 2)._

      _J. G. L. Hesekiel,
      Life of Bismarck,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      _Count von Beust,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 22-28._

GERMANY: A. D. 1862.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Defeat of Austria.
   Victory and Supremacy of Prussia.
   Her Absorption of Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, Frankfort and
   Schleswig-Holstein.
   Formation of the North German Confederation.
   Exclusion of Austria from the Germanic organization.

   "Prussia had built excellent railroads throughout the country,
   and quietly placed her troops on the frontier; within 14 days
   she had 500,000 men under arms. By the end of May they were on
   the frontiers ready for action, while Austria was only half
   prepared, and her allies only beginning to arm. On the 14th of
   June the diet, by a vote of nine to six, had ordered the
   immediate mobilization of a federal army; whereupon Prussia
   declared the federal compact dissolved and extinguished. In
   Vienna and the petty courts men said, 'Within fourteen days
   after the outbreak of hostilities the allied armies will enter
   Berlin in triumph and dictate peace; the power of Prussia will
   be broken by two blows.' The Legitimists were exultant; even
   the majority of the democracy in South Germany joined with the
   Ultramontane party in shouting for Austria. On the 10th of June,
   Bismark laid before the German governments the outlines of a
   new federal constitution, but was not listened to; on the 15th
   he made proposals to the states in the immediate neighborhood
   of Prussia for a peace on these foundations, and demanded
   their neutrality, adding that if they declined his peaceful
   offers he would treat them as enemies. The cabinets of Dresden
   and Hanover, of Cassel and Wiesbaden, declined them.
   Immediately, on the night of the 15th and 16th of June,
   Prussian troops entered Hanover, Hesse and Saxony. In four or
   five days Prussia had disarmed all North Germany, and broken
   all resistance from the North Sea to the Main. On the 18th of
   June, the Prussian general Bayer entered Cassel; the Elector
   was surprised at Wilhelmshöhe. As he still refused all terms
   he was arrested by the direct order of the king of Prussia and
   sent as a prisoner to Stettin. On the 17th, General Vogel von
   Falkenstein entered Hanover. King George with his army of
   18,000 men sought to escape to South Germany. After a gallant
   struggle at Langensalza on the 27th, his brave troops were
   surrounded. The King capitulated on the 29th. His army was
   disbanded, he himself allowed to go to Vienna. On the 18th the
   Prussians were in Dresden; on the 19th, in Leipzig; by the
   20th, all Saxony except the fortress of Königstein was in
   their hands. The king and army of Saxony, on the approach of
   the Prussians, had left the country by the railroads to
   Bohemia to form a junction with the Austrians. The Saxon army
   consisted of 23,000 men and 60 cannon. Everyone had expected
   Austria to occupy a country of such strategic value as Saxony
   before the Prussians could touch it. The Austrian army
   consisted of seven corps, 180,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry,
   762 guns. The popular opinion had forced the emperor to make
   Benedek the commander-in-chief in Bohemia. Everything there
   was new to him. The Prussians were divided into three armies:
   the army of the Elbe, 40,000 men, under Herwarth von
   Bittenfeld; the first army, 100,000 men, under Prince
   Frederick Charles; the second or Silesian army under the Crown
   Prince, 116,000 strong. The reserve consisted of 24,000
   Landwehr. The whole force in this quarter numbered 280,000 men
   and 800 guns. … The Prussians knew what they were fighting
   for. To the Austrians the idea of this war was something
   strange. At Vienna, Benedek had spoken against war; after the
   first Prussian successes, he had in confidence advised the
   emperor to make peace as soon as possible. As he was unable,
   from want of means, to attack, he concentrated his army
   between Josephstadt and the county of Glatz. He thought only
   of defence. … On the 23rd of June the great Prussian army
   commenced contemporaneously its march to Bohemia from the
   Riesengebirge, from Lusatia, from Dresden. It advanced from
   four points to Josephstadt-Koniggrätz, where the junction was
   to take place. Bismarck had ordered, from financial as well as
   political reasons, that the war must be short. The Prussian
   armies had at all points debouched from the passes and entered
   Bohemia before a single Austrian corps had come near these
   passes. … In a couple of days Benedek lost in a series of
   fights against the three Prussian advancing armies nearly
   35,000 men; five of his seven corps had been beaten. He
   concentrated these seven corps at Koniggrätz in the ground
   before this fortress; he determined to accept battle between
   the Elbe and the Bistritz. He had, however, previously
   reported to the emperor that his army after its losses was not
   in a condition for a pitched battle. He wished to retire to
   Moravia and avoid a battle till he had received
   reinforcements. This telegram of Benedek arrived in the middle
   of the exultation which filled the court of Vienna after
   hearing of the victory over the Italians at Custozza.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

{1540}

   The emperor replied by ordering him briefly to give battle
   immediately. Benedek, on the 1st of July, again sent word to
   the emperor, 'Your majesty must conclude peace.' Yet on these
   repeated warnings came the order to fight at once. Benedek had
   provided for such an answer by his arrangements for July the
   2nd. He had placed his 500 guns in the most favorable
   positions, and occupied the country between the Elbe and the
   little river Bistritz for the extent of a league. As soon as
   the Prussians heard of this movement they resolved to attack
   the Austrians on the 3d. On the 2d the king, accompanied by
   Count Bismarck, Von Roon and Von Moltke, had joined the army.
   He assumed command of the three armies. The Crown Prince and
   Herwarth were ordered to advance against Königgrätz. Part of
   the Crown Prince's army were still five German miles from the
   intended battle ground. Prince Frederick Charles and Herwarth
   had alone sustained the whole force of Austria in the struggle
   around Sadowa, which began at 8 o'clock in the morning.
   Frederick Charles attacked in the centre over against Sadowa;
   Herwarth on the right at Nechanitz; the Crown Prince was to
   advance on the left from Königinhof. The Crown Prince received
   orders at four o'clock in the morning; he could not in all
   probability reach the field before one or two o'clock after
   noon. All depended on his arrival in good time. Prince
   Frederick Charles forced the passage of the Bistritz and took
   Sadowa and other places, but could not take the heights. His
   troops suffered terribly from the awful fire of the Austrian
   batteries. The King himself and his staff came under fire,
   from which the earnest entreaties of Bismarck induced him to
   retire. About one o'clock the danger in the Prussian centre
   was great. After five hours of fighting they could not
   advance, and began to talk of retreat. On the right, things
   were better. Herwarth had defeated the Saxons, and threatened
   the Austrian left. Yet, if the army of the Crown Prince did
   not arrive, the battle was lost, for the Prussian centre was
   broken. But the Crown Prince brought the expected succor.
   About two o'clock came the news that a part of the Crown
   Prince's army had been engaged since one o'clock. The
   Austrians, attacked on their right flank and rear, had to give
   way in front. Under loud shouts of 'Forward,' Prince Frederick
   Charles took the Wood of Sadowa at three, and the heights of
   Lipa at four o'clock. At this very time, four o'clock, Benedek
   had already given orders to retreat. … From the … first
   the Prussians were superior to the Austrians in ammunition,
   provisions and supplies. They had a better organization,
   better preparation, and the needle-gun, which proved very
   destructive to the Austrians. The Austrian troops fought with
   thorough gallantry. … Respecting this campaign, an Austrian
   writes: 'Given in Vienna a powerful coterie which reserves to
   itself all the high commands and regards the army as its
   private estate for its own private benefit, and defeat is
   inevitable.' The Austrians lost at Sadowa, according to the
   official accounts at Vienna, 174 cannon, 18,000 prisoners. 11
   colors, 4,190 killed, 11,900 wounded, 21,400 missing,
   including the prisoners. The Prussians acknowledged a loss of
   only 10,000 men. The result of the battle was heavier for
   Austria than the loss in the action and the retreat. The
   armistice which Benedek asked for on the 4th of July was
   refused by the Prussians: a second request on the 10th was
   also rejected. On the 5th of July the emperor of Austria
   sought the mediation of France to restore peace. … All
   further movements were put a stop to by the five days'
   armistice, which began on the 22d of July at noon, and was
   followed by an armistice for four weeks. … Hostilities were
   at an end on Austrian territory when the war began on the Main
   against the allies of Austria. The Bavarian army, under the
   aged Prince Charles, distinguished itself by being driven by
   the less numerous forces of Prussia under General Falkenstein
   across the Saale and the Main. … The eighth federal army
   corps of 50,000 men, composed of contingents from Baden,
   Würtemberg, Electoral Hesse, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and
   12,000 Austrians under Prince Alexander of Hesse, was so
   mismanaged that the Würtemberg contingent believed itself sold
   and betrayed. … On the 16th of July, in the evening,
   Falkenstein entered Frankfort, and in the name of the king of
   Prussia took possession of this Free City, of Upper Hesse and
   Nassau. Frankfort, on account of its Austrian sympathies, had
   to pay a contribution of six millions of gulden to
   Falkenstein, and on the 19th of July a further sum of nineteen
   millions to Manteuffel, the successor of Falkenstein. The
   latter sum was remitted when the hitherto Free City became a
   Prussian city. Manteuffel, in several actions from the 23d to
   the 26th of July, drove the federal army back to Würzburg;
   Göben defeated the army of Baden at Werbach, and that of
   Würtemberg at Tauberbischofsheim; before this the eighth
   federal army corps joined the Bavarian army, and on the 25th
   and 26th of July the united forces were defeated at Gerschheim
   and Rossbrunn, and on the 27th, the citadel of Würzburg was
   invested. The court of Vienna had abandoned its South German
   allies when it concluded the armistice; it had not included
   its allies either in the armistice or the truce. … On the
   29th of July, the Baden troops marched off homewards in the
   night, the Austrians marched to Bohemia, the Bavarians
   purchased an armistice by surrendering Würzburg to the
   Prussians. Thus of the eighth army corps, the Würtembergers
   and Hessians alone kept the field. On the 2d of August these
   remains of the eighth army corps were included in the
   armistice of Nicholsburg. … On the 23d of August peace was
   signed between Austria and Prussia at Prague. Bismarck treated
   Austria with great consideration, and demanded only twenty
   millions of thalers as war indemnity; Würtemberg had to pay
   eight millions of gulden, Baden six millions, Hesse-Darmstadt
   three millions, Bavaria thirty millions of gulden. The
   Würtemberg minister, Varnbüler, and the Baden minister,
   Freydorf, offered to form an offensive and defensive alliance
   with Prussia for the purpose of saving the ruling families,
   and in alarm lest Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt might seek in
   their territories compensation for cessions to Prussia.
   Bavaria also formed an alliance with Prussia, and ceded a
   small district in the north. Hesse-Darmstadt ceded
   Hesse-Homburg and some pieces of territory, and entered the
   North German Confederation, giving to Prussia the right of
   keeping a garrison in Mainz.
{1541}
   Austria renounced her claims on Schleswig and Holstein,
   acknowledged the dissolution of the German Confederation and a
   modification of Germany by which Austria was excluded. It
   recognized the creation of the North German Confederation, the
   union of Venetia to Italy, the territorial alterations in
   North Germany. Prussia acknowledged the territorial
   possessions of Austria with the sole exception of Venetia; and
   also of Saxony; and undertook to obtain the assent of the King
   of Italy to the peace. Prussia announced the incorporation of
   Schleswig-Holstein, the Free City of Frankfort, the Kingdom of
   Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse, and the Duchy of Nassau,
   subject to the payment of annual incomes to the deposed
   princes. The Kingdom of Saxony, the two Mecklenburgs, the
   Hanse-towns, Oldenburg, Brunswick, and the Thuringian states
   entered the North German Confederation. Prussia now contained
   twenty-four millions of inhabitants, or including the Northern
   Confederation, twenty-nine millions. The military forces of
   the Confederation were placed under the command of Prussia.
   The states north of the Main were at liberty to form a
   Southern Confederation, the connection of which with the
   Northern Confederation was to be a subject of future
   discussion. Moreover, Bavaria, Baden and Würtemberg had
   engaged 'in case of war to place their whole military force at
   the disposal of Prussia,' and Prussia guaranteed their
   sovereignty and the integrity of their territory. Saxony paid
   ten millions of thalers as a war indemnity. Prussia received
   on the whole, as war indemnities, eighty-two millions of
   gulden. Thus ended in the year 1866 the struggle [known as the
   Seven Weeks War] between Austria and Prussia for the
   leadership of Germany."

      _W. Zimmermann,
      Popular History of Germany,
      book 6, chapter 3 (v. 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Sybel,
      The Founding of the German Empire,
      books 17-20 (volume 5)._

      _Major C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870,
      chapter 10._

      _Count von Beust,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 29-34._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Refounding of the German Empire,
      chapters 6-10._

[Image: Germany after the congress of Vienna.]

GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1867.
   Foreshadowings of the new Empire.

   "We may make the statement that in the autumn of 1866 the
   German Empire was founded. … The Southern States were not
   yet members of the Confederation, but were already, to use an
   old expression, relatives of the Confederation
   (Bundesverwandte) in virtue of the offensive and defensive
   alliances with Prussia and of the new organization of the
   Tariff-Union. … The natural and inevitable course of events
   must here irresistibly break its way, unless some circumstance
   not to be foreseen should throw down the barriers beforehand.
   How soon such a crisis might take place no one could at that
   time estimate. But in regard to the certainty of the final
   result there was in Germany no longer any doubt. …
   Three-fourths of the territory of this Empire was dominated by
   a Government that was in the first place efficient in military
   organization, guided by the firm hand of King William,
   counselled by the representatives of the North German
   Sovereigns, and recognized by all the Powers of Europe. The
   opening of that Parliament was near at hand, that should in
   common with this Government determine the limitations to be
   placed upon the powers of the Confederation in its relation to
   the individual states and also the functions of the new
   Reichstag in the legislation and in the control of the
   finances of the Confederation. … It was, in the first place,
   certain that the functions of the future supreme Confederate
   authority would be in general the same as those specified in
   the Imperial Constitution of 1849. … The most radical
   difference between 1849 and 1866 consisted in the form of the
   Confederate Government. The former period aimed at the
   appointment of a Constitutional and hereditary emperor, with
   responsible ministers, to the utter exclusion of the German
   sovereigns: whereas now the plan included all of these
   sovereigns in a Confederate Council (Bundesrath) organized
   after the fashion of the old Confederate Diet, with committees
   for the various branches of the administration, and under the
   presidency of the King of Prussia, who should occupy a
   superior position in virtue of the conduct, placed in his
   hands once for all, of the foreign policy, the army and the
   navy, but who otherwise in the Confederate Council, in spite
   of the increase of his votes, could be outvoted like every
   other prince by a decree of the Majority. … Before the time
   of the peace-conferences, when all definite arrangements of
   Germany's future seemed suspended in the balance and
   undecided, the Crown Prince Frederick William, who in general
   had in mind for the supreme head of the Confederation a higher
   rank and position of power than did the Ring, maintained that
   his father should bear the title of King of Germany. Bismarck
   reminded him that there were other Kings in Germany: the Kings
   of Hanover, of Saxony, etc. 'These,' was the reply, 'will then
   take the title of Dukes.' 'But they will not agree to that.'
   'They will have to!' cried His Royal Highness. After the
   further course of events, the Crown Prince indeed gave up his
   project; but in the early part of 1867 he asserted that the
   King should assume the title of German Emperor, arguing that
   the people would connect no tangible idea with the title of
   President of the Confederation, whereas the renewal of the
   imperial dignity would represent to them the actual
   incorporation of the unity finally attained, and the
   remembrance of the old glory and power of the Empire would
   kindle all hearts. This idea, as we have experienced and
   continue to experience its realization, was in itself
   perfectly correct: But it was evidently at that time
   premature: a North German empire would have aroused no
   enthusiasm in the north, and would have seriously hindered the
   accomplishment of the national aim in the south. King William
   rejected this proposition very decidedly: in his own simple
   way he wished to be nothing more than Confederate
   Commander-in-chief and the first among his peers."

      _H. von Sybel,
      The Founding of the German Empire by William I.,
      book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

{1542}

GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
   Territorial concessions demanded by France.
   Rapid progress of German unification.
   The Zollparlament.
   The Luxemburg question.
   French determination for war.

   "The conditions of peace … left it open to the Southern
   States to choose what relationship they would form with the
   Northern Confederation. This was a compromise between Bismarck
   and Napoleon, the latter fearing a United Germany, the former
   preferring to restrict himself to what was attainable at the
   time, and taking care not to humiliate or seriously to injure
   Austria, whose friendship he foresaw that Germany would need.
   Meanwhile Napoleon's interference continued. Scarcely had
   Benedetti, who had followed Bismarck to the battle-fields,
   returned to Berlin, when he received orders from his
   Government to demand not less than the left bank of the Rhine
   as a compensation for Prussia's increase of territory. For
   this purpose he submitted the draft of a treaty by which
   Prussia was even to bind herself to lend an active support to
   the cession of the Bavarian and Hessian possessions west of
   the Rhine! … Bismarck would listen to no mention of ceding
   German territory. 'Si vous refusez,' said the conceited
   Corsican, 'c'est la guerre.'—'Eh bien, la guerre,' replied
   Bismarck calmly. Just as little success had Benedetti with
   King William. 'Not a clod of German soil, not a chimney of a
   German village,' was William's kingly reply. Napoleon was not
   disposed at the time to carry out his threat. He disavowed
   Benedetti's action, declaring that the instructions had been
   obtained from him during his illness and that he wished to
   live in peace and friendship with Prussia. Napoleon's
   covetousness had at least one good effect: it furthered the
   work of German union. Bavaria and Würtemberg, who during the
   war had sided with Austria, had at first appealed to Napoleon
   to mediate between them and Prussia. But when the Ministers of
   the four South German States appeared at Berlin to negotiate
   with Bismarck, and Benedetti's draft-treaty was communicated
   to them, there was a complete change of disposition. They then
   wished to go much further than the Prussian Statesman was
   prepared to go: they asked, in order to be protected from
   French encroachments, to be admitted into the North German
   Confederation. But Bismarck would not depart from the
   stipulations of the Treaty of Nikolsburg. The most important
   result of the negotiations was that secret treaties were
   concluded by which the Southern States bound themselves to an
   alliance with the Northern Confederation for the defence of
   Germany, and engaged to place their troops under the supreme
   command of the Prussian King in the event of any attack by a
   foreign Power. In a military sense Klein-Deutschland was now
   one, though not yet politically. … That Prussia was the
   truly representative German State had been obvious to the
   thoughtful long before: the fact now stood out in clear light
   to all who would open their eyes to see. Progress had
   meanwhile been made with the construction of the North German
   Confederation, which embraced all the States to the north of
   the river Main. Its affairs were to be regulated by a
   Reichstag elected by universal suffrage and by a Federal
   Council formed of the representatives of the North German
   Governments. In a military sense it was a Single State,
   politically a Confederate State, with the King of Prussia as
   President. This arrangement was not of course regarded as
   final: and in his speech from the throne to the North German
   Reichstag, King William emphasized the declaration that
   Germany, so long torn, so long powerless, so long the theatre
   of war for foreign nations, would henceforth strive to recover
   the greatness of her past. … A first step towards 'bridging
   over the Main,' i. e., causing South and North to join hands
   again, was taken by the creation of a Zollparlament, or
   'Customs Parliament, which was elected by the whole of
   Klein-Deutschland, and met at Berlin, henceforth the capital
   of Germany. It was also a step in advance that Baden and
   Hesse-Darmstadt signed conventions, by which their military
   system was put on the same footing as that of the North German
   Confederation. Baden indeed would willingly have entered into
   political union with the North, had the same disposition
   prevailed at the time in the other South German States. The
   National Liberals however had to contend with strong
   opposition from the Democrats in Würtemberg, and from the
   Ultramontanes in Bavaria. The latter were hostile to Prussia
   on account of her Protestantism, the former on account of the
   stern principles and severe discipline that pervaded her
   administration. … In the work of German unification the
   Bonapartes have an important share. … By outraging the
   principle of nationality, Napoleon I. had re-awakened the
   feeling of nationality among Germans: Napoleon III., by
   attempting to prevent the unification of Germany, actually
   hastened it on. … When King William had replied that he
   would not yield up an inch of German soil, 'patriotic pangs'
   at Prussian successes and the thirst for 'compensation'
   continued to disturb the sleep of the French Emperor, and as
   he was unwilling to appear baffled in his purpose, he returned
   to the charge. On the 16th of August, 1866, through his
   Ambassador Benedetti, he demanded 'the cession of Landau,
   Saarbrücken, Saarlouis, and Luxemburg, together with Prussia's
   consent to the annexation of Belgium by France. If that could
   not be obtained, he would be satisfied with Luxemburg and
   Belgium; he would even exclude Antwerp from the territory
   claimed that it might be created a free town. Thus he hoped to
   spare the susceptibilities of England. As a gracious return he
   offered the alliance of France. After his first interview
   Benedetti gave up his demand for the three German towns, and
   submitted a new scheme, according to which Germany should
   induce the King of the Netherlands to a cession of Luxemburg,
   and should support France in the conquest of Belgium; whilst,
   on his part, Napoleon would permit the formation of a federal
   union between the Northern Confederation and the South German
   States, and would enter into a defensive and offensive
   alliance with Germany. Count Bismarck treated these
   propositions, as he himself has stated, 'in a dilatory
   manner,' that is to say, he did not reject them, but he took
   good care not to make any definite promises. When the Prussian
   Prime Minister returned from his furlough to Berlin, towards
   the end of 1866, Benedetti resumed his negotiations, but now
   only with regard to Luxemburg, still garrisoned by Prussian
   troops as at the time of the old Germanic Confederation.
   Though the Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg did not belong to the new
   North German Confederation, Bismarck was not willing to allow
   it to be annexed by France. Moltke moreover declared that the
   fortress could only be evacuated by the Prussian troops if the
   fortifications were razed. But without its fortifications
   Napoleon would not have it. And when, with regard to the
   Emperor's intentions upon Belgium, Prussia offered no active
   support, but only promised observance of neutrality, France
   renounced the idea of an alliance with Prussia, and entered
   into direct negotiations with the King of Holland, as
   Grand-Duke of Luxemburg.
{1543}
   Great excitement was thereby caused in Germany, and, as a
   timely warning to France, Bismarck surprised the world with
   the publication of the secret treaties between Prussia and the
   South German States. But when it became known that the King of
   Holland was actually consenting to the sale of his rights in
   Luxemburg to Napoleon, there was so loud a cry of indignation
   in all parts of Germany, there was so powerful a protest in
   the North German Parliament against any sale of German
   territory by the King of Holland, that Count Bismarck, himself
   surprised at the vigour of the patriotic outburst, declared to
   the Government of the Hague that the cession of Luxemburg
   would be considered a casus belli. This peremptory declaration
   had the desired effect: the cession did not take place. This
   was the first success in European politics of a united
   Germany, united not yet politically, but in spirit. That was
   satisfactory. A Conference of the Great Powers then met in
   London [May, 1867]: by its decision, Luxemburg was separated
   from Germany, and,—to give some kind of satisfaction to the
   Emperor of the French,—was formed into a neutral State. From
   a national point of view, that was unsatisfactory. … The
   danger of an outbreak of war between France and Germany had
   only been warded off for a time by the international
   settlement of the Luxemburg question. … In the early part of
   July, 1870, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, at the
   request of the Spanish Government; became a candidate for the
   Spanish throne. Napoleon III. seized the occasion to carry
   into effect his hostile intentions against Germany."

      _G. Krause,
      The Growth of German Unity,
      chapter 13-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Simon,
      The Emperor William and his Reign,
      chapter 9-10 (volume l)._

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 3, chapter 5-6._

GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
   "The Hohenzollern incident."
   French Declaration of War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (September-December).
   The Germanic Confederation completed.
   Federative treaties with the states of South Germany.
   Suggestion of the Empire.

   "Having decided on taking Strasburg and Metz from France"
   Prussia "could only justify that conquest by considerations of
   the safety of South Germany, and she could only defend these
   interests by effecting the union of North and South. She found
   it necessary to realise this union at any price, even by some
   concessions in favour of the autonomy of those States, and
   especially of Bavaria. Such was the spirit in which
   negotiations were opened, in the middle of September, 1870,
   between Bavaria and Prussia, with the participation of Baden,
   Wurtemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt. … Prussia asked at first for
   entire and unreserved adhesion to the Northern Confederation,
   a solution acceptable to Baden, Wurtemberg and
   Hesse-Darmstadt, but not to Bavaria, who demanded for herself
   the preservation of certain rights, and for her King a
   privileged position in the future Confederation next to the
   King of Prussia. The negotiations with Baden and
   Hesse-Darmstadt came to a conclusion on the 15th of November;
   and on the 25th, Wurtemberg accepted the same arrangement.
   These three States agreed to the constitution, slightly
   modified, of the Northern Confederation; the new treaties were
   completed by military conventions, establishing the fusion of
   the respective Corps d'Armée with the Federal Army of the
   North, under the command of the King of Prussia. The Treaty
   with Bavaria was signed at Versailles on the 23rd of November.
   The concessions obtained by the Cabinet of Munich were reduced
   to mere trifles. … The King of Bavaria was allowed the
   command of his army in time of peace. He was granted the
   administration of the Post-Office and partial autonomy of
   indirect contributions. A committee was conceded, in the
   Federal Council, for Foreign Affairs, under the Presidency of
   Bavaria. The right of the King of Prussia, as President of
   this Council, to declare war, was made conditional on its
   consent. Such were the Treaties submitted on the 24th of
   November to the sanction of the Parliament of the North,
   assembled in an Extraordinary Session. They met with intense
   opposition from the National Liberal and from the Progressive
   Party," but "the Parliament sanctioned the treaties on the
   10th of December. According to the Treaties, the new
   association received the title of Germanic Confederation, and
   the King of Prussia that of its President. These titles were
   soon to undergo an important alteration. The King of Bavaria,
   satisfied with the concessions, more apparent than real, made
   by the Prussian Cabinet to his rights of sovereignty,
   consented to defer to the wishes of King William. On the 4th
   of December, King Louis addressed him [King William] a letter,
   informing him that he had invited the Confederate sovereigns
   to revive the German Empire and confer the title of Emperor on
   the President of the Confederation. … The sovereigns
   immediately gave their consent, so that the Imperial titles
   could be introduced into the new Constitution before the final
   ote of the Parliament of the North. … To tell the truth, King
   William attached slight importance to the votes of the various
   Chambers. He was not desirous of receiving his new dignity
   from the hands of a Parliament; the assent of the sovereigns
   was in his eyes far more essential."

      _E. Simon,
      The Emperor William and his Reign,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Freytag,
      The Crown Prince and the Imperial Crown._

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Victorious war with France.
   Siege of Paris.
   Occupation of the city.
   Enormous indemnity exacted.
   Acquisition of Alsace and part of Lorraine.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST)
      to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (January).
   Assumption of the Imperial dignity by King William,
   at Versailles.

   "Early in December the proposition came from King Ludwig of
   Bavaria to King William, that the possession of the
   presidential rights of the Confederacy vested in the Prussian
   monarch should be coupled with the imperial title. The King of
   Saxony spoke to the same purport; and in one day a measure
   providing for the amendment of the Constitution by the
   substitution of the words 'Emperor' and 'Empire' for
   'President' and 'Confederation' was passed through the North
   German Parliament, which voted also an address to his Majesty,
   from which the following is an extract: 'The North German
   Parliament, in unison with the Princes of Germany, approaches
   with the prayer that your Majesty will deign to consecrate the
   work of unification by accepting the Imperial Crown of Germany.
{1544}
   The Teutonic Crown on the head of your Majesty will
   inaugurate, for the re-established Empire of the German
   nation, an era of power, of peace, of well-being, and of
   liberty secured under the protection of the laws.' The address
   of the German Parliament was presented to the King at
   Versailles on Sunday, the 18th of December, by its speaker,
   Herr Simson, who, as speaker of the Frankfort Parliament in
   1848, had made the identical proffer to William's brother and
   predecessor [see above: A. D. 1848-1850]. … The formal
   ratification of assent to the Prussian King's assumption of
   the imperial dignity had yet to be received from the minor
   German States; but this was a foregone conclusion, and the
   unification of Germany really dates from that 18th of
   December, and from the solemn ceremonial in the prefecture of
   Versailles."

      _A. Forbes,
      William of Germany,
      chapter 12._

   King William's formal assumption of the Imperial dignity took
   place on the 18th of January, 1871. "The Crown Prince was
   entrusted with all the preparations for the ceremony. Every
   regiment in the army of investment was instructed to send its
   colours in charge of an officer and two non-commissioned
   officers to Versailles, and all the higher officers who could
   be spared from duty were ordered to attend, for the army was
   to represent the German nation at this memorable scene. The
   Crown Prince escorted his father from the Prefecture to the
   palace of Versailles, where all the German Princes or their
   representatives were assembled in the Galerie des Glaces. A
   special service was read by the military chaplains, and then
   the Emperor, mounting on the dais, announced his assumption of
   Imperial authority, and instructed his Chancellor to read the
   Proclamation issued to the whole German nation. Then the Crown
   Prince, as the first subject of the Empire, came forward and
   performed the solemn act of homage, kneeling down before his
   Imperial Father. The Emperor raised him and clasped to his
   arms the son who had toiled and fought and borne so great a
   share in achieving what many generations had desired in vain."

      _R. Rodd,
      Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Lowe,
      Prince Bismarck,
      chapter 9 (volume 1)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (April).
   The Constitution of the new Empire.

   By a proclamation dated April 16, 1871, the German Emperor
   ordered, "in the name of the German Empire, by and with the
   consent of the Council of the Confederation and of the
   Imperial Diet," that "in the place of the Constitution of the
   German Confederation," as agreed to in November 1870, there be
   substituted a Constitution for the German Empire,—the text of
   which appeared as an appendix to this imperial decree. For a
   full translation of the text of the Constitution,

      See CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 3, Number 442._

      _C. Lowe,
      Prince Bismarck,
      appendix F. (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
   Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as an
   imperial province.

   "How to garner the territorial harvest of the
   war—Alsace-Lorraine—was a question which greatly vexed the
   parliamentary mind. Several possible solutions had presented
   themselves. The conquered provinces might be made neutral
   territory, which, with Belgium on one side, and Switzerland on
   the other, would thus interpose a continuous barrier against
   French aggression from the mouth of the Rhine to its source.
   But one fatal objection, among several others, to the adoption
   of this course, was the utter lack, in the Alsace-Lorrainers,
   of the primary condition of the existence of all neutral
   States—a determination on the part of the neutralised people
   themselves to be and remain neutral. And none knew better than
   Bismarck that it would take years of the most careful nursing
   to reconcile the kidnapped children of France to their
   adoptive parent. For him, the only serious question was
   whether Alsace-Lorraine should be annexed to Prussia, or be
   made an immediate Reichsland (Imperial Province). 'From the
   very first,' he said, 'I was most decidedly for the latter
   alternative, first—because there is no reason why dynastic
   questions should be mixed up with political ones; and,
   secondly—because I think it will be easier for the Alsatians
   to take to the name of "German" than to that at of "Prussian,"
   the latter being detested in France in comparison with the
   other.' In its first session, accordingly, the Diet was asked
   to pass a law incorporating Alsace-Lorraine with the Empire,
   and placing the annexed provinces under a provisional
   dictatorship till the 1st January, 1874, when they would enter
   into the enjoyment of constitutional rights in common with the
   rest of the nation. But the latter clause provoked much
   controversy. … A compromise was ultimately effected by which
   the duration of the dictatorship, or period within which the
   Imperial Government alone was to have the right of making laws
   for Alsace-Lorraine, was shortened till 1st January, 1873;
   while the Diet, on the other hand, was only to have
   supervision of such loans or guarantees as affected the
   Empire. In the following year, however, the Diet came to the
   conclusion that, after all, the original term fixed for the
   dictatorship was the more advisable of the two, and prolonged
   it accordingly. For the next three years, therefore, the
   Reichsland was governed from the Wilhelmstrasse, as India is
   ruled from Downing Street. … In the beginning of 1874 …
   fifteen deputies from Alsace-Lorraine—now thus far admitted
   within the pale of the Constitution—took their seats in the
   second German Parliament. Of these fifteen deputies, five were
   out-and-out French Protesters, and the rest Clericals—seven
   of the latter being clergymen, including the Bishops of Metz
   and Strasburg. They entered the Diet in a body, with much
   theatrical pomp, the clergy wearing their robes; and one of
   the French Protesters—bearing the unfortunate name of
   Teutsch—immediately tabled a motion that the inhabitants of
   Alsace-Lorraine, having been annexed to Germany without being
   themselves consulted, should now be granted an opportunity of
   expressing their opinion on the subject by a plebiscite. …
   The motion of French Mr. Teutsch, who spoke fluent German, was
   of course rejected; whereupon he and several of his
   compatriots straightway returned home, and left the Diet to
   deal with the interests of their constituents as it liked.
   Those of his colleagues who remained behind only did so to
   complain of the 'intolerable tyranny' under which the
   provinces were groaning, and to move for the repeal of the law
   (of December, 1871) which invested the local Government with
   dictatorial powers. …
{1545}
   Believing home-rule to be one of the best guarantees of
   federal cohesion, Bismarck determined to try the effect of
   this cementing agency on the newest part of the Imperial
   edifice; and, in the autumn of 1874, he advised the Emperor to
   grant the Alsace-Lorrainers (not by law, but by ordinance,
   which could easily be revoked) a previous voice on all bills
   to be submitted to the Reichstag on the domestic and fiscal
   affairs of the provinces. … In the following summer (June,
   1875), therefore, there met at Strasburg the first
   Landesausschuss, or Provincial Committee, composed of
   delegates, thirty in number, from the administrative District
   Councils. … So well, indeed, on the whole, did this
   arrangement work, that within two years of its creation the
   Landesausschuss was invested with much broader powers. …
   Thus it came about that, while the Reichsland continued to be
   governed from Berlin, the making of its laws was more and more
   confined to Strasburg. … The party of the Irreconcilables
   had been gradually giving way to the Autonomists, or those who
   subordinated the question of nationality to that of home-rule.
   Rapidly gaining in strength, this latter party at last (in the
   spring of 1879) petitioned the Reichstag for an independent
   Government, with its seat in Strasburg, for the representation
   of the Reichsland in the Federal Council, and for an
   enlargement of the functions of the Provincial Committee.
   Nothing could have been more gratifying to Bismarck than this
   request, amounting, as it did, to a reluctant recognition of
   the Treaty of Frankfort on the part of the Alsace-Lorrainers.
   He therefore replied that he was quite willing to confer on
   the provinces 'the highest degree of independence compatible
   with the military security of the Empire.' The Diet, without
   distinction of party, applauded his words; and not only that,
   but it hastened to pass a bill embodying ideas at which the
   Chancellor himself had hinted in the previous year. By this
   bill, the government of Alsace-Lorraine was to centre in a
   Statthalter, or Imperial Viceroy, living at Strasburg, instead
   of, as heretofore, in the chancellor. … Without being a
   Sovereign, this Statthalter was to exercise all but sovereign
   rights. … For this high office the Emperor selected the
   brilliant soldier-statesman, Marshal Manteuffel. …
   Certainly, His Majesty could not possibly have chosen a better
   man for the responsible office, which the Marshal assumed on
   the 1st October, 1879. Henceforth, the conquered provinces
   entered an entirely new phase of their existence. … Whether
   the Reichsland will ever ripen into an integral part of
   Prussia, or into a regular Federal State with a Prussian
   prince for its Sovereign, the future alone can show."

      _C. Lowe,
      Prince Bismarck,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
   The Culturkampf.
   The "May Laws" and their repeal.

   "The German Culturkampf, or civilization-fight, as its
   illustrious chief promoter is said to have named it, may
   equally well be styled the religion combat, or education
   strife. … The arena of the Culturkampf in Germany is,
   strictly speaking, Prussia and Hesse Darmstadt—pre-eminently
   the former. According to the last census, taken December 1,
   1880, the population of Prussia is 27,278,911. Of these, the
   Protestants are 17,645,462, being 64.7 per cent., and the
   Catholics 9,205,136, or 34.1 per cent., of the total
   population. The remainder are principally Jews, amounting to
   363,790, or 1.334 per cent. It was on the 9th of January,
   1873, that Dr. Falk, Minister of Public Worship, first
   introduced into the Prussian Diet the bills, which were
   afterwards to be known as the May Laws [so called because they
   were generally passed in the month of May, although in
   different years, but also called the Falk Laws, from the
   Minister who framed them]. These laws, which, for the future,
   were to regulate the relations of Church and State, purported
   to apply to the Evangelical or united Protestant State Church
   of Prussia … as well as to the Catholic Church. Their
   professed main objects were: first, to insure greater liberty
   to individual lay members of those churches; secondly, to
   secure a German and national, rather than an 'Ultramontane'
   and non-national, training for the clergy; and, thirdly, to
   protect the inferior clergy against the tyranny of their
   superiors—which simply meant, as proved in the sequel, the
   withdrawal of priests and people, in matters spiritual, from
   the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the separation of
   Catholic Prussia from the Centre of Unity; thus substituting a
   local or national Church, bound hand and foot, under State
   regulation, for a flourishing branch of the Universal Church.
   To promote these objects, it was provided, that all
   Ecclesiastical seminaries should be placed under State
   control; and that all candidates for the priesthood should
   pass a State examination in the usual subjects of a liberal
   education; and it was further provided, that the State should
   have the right to confirm or to reject all appointments of
   clergy. These bills were readily passed: and all the religious
   orders and congregations were suppressed, with the provisional
   exception of those which devoted themselves to the care of the
   sick; and all Catholic seminaries were closed. … The Bishops
   refused to obey the new laws, which in conscience they could
   not accept; and they subscribed a collective declaration to
   this effect, on the 26th of May 1873. On the 7th of August
   following, Pope Pius IX. addressed a strong letter of
   remonstrance to the Emperor William; but entirely without
   effect, as may be seen in the Imperial reply of the 5th of
   September. In punishment of their opposition, several of the
   Bishops and great numbers of their clergy were fined,
   imprisoned, exiled, and deprived of their salaries. Especially
   notable among the victims of persecution, were the venerable
   Archbishop of Cologne, Primate of Prussia, the Bishop of
   Munster, the Prince Bishop of Breslau, the Bishop of
   Paderborn, and Cardinal Ledochowski, Archbishop of Gnesen and
   Posen, on whom, then in prison, a Cardinal's hat was conferred
   by the Pope, in March 1875, as a mark of sympathy, encouragement,
   and approval. … The fifteen Catholic dioceses of Prussia
   comprised, in January 1873, a Catholic aggregate of 8,711,535
   souls. They were administered by 4,627 parish-priests, and
   3,812 coadjutor-priests, or curates, being a total of 8,439
   clergy. Eight years later, owing to the operation of the May
   Laws, there were exiled or dead, without being replaced, 1,770
   of these clergy, viz., 1,125 parish-priests, and 645,
   coadjutor-priests; and there were 601 parishes, comprising
   644,697 souls, quite destitute of clerical care, and 584
   parishes, or 1,501,994 souls, partially destitute thereof.
   Besides these 1,770 secular priests, dead or exiled, and not
   replaced, there were the regular clergy (the members of
   religious orders), all of whom had been expelled."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 29._

{1546}

   "Why was the Kulturkampf undertaken? This is a question often
   asked, and answered in different ways. That Ultramontanism is
   a danger to the Empire is the usual explanation; but proof is
   not producible. … Ultramontanism, as it is understood in
   France and Belgium, has never taken root in Germany. It was
   represented by the Jesuits, and when they were got rid of,
   Catholicism remained as a religion, but not as a political
   factor. … The real purpose of the Kulturkampf has been, I
   conceive, centralisation. It has not been waged against the
   Roman Church only, for the same process has been followed with
   the Protestant Churches. It was intolerable in a strong
   centralising Government to have a Calvinist and a Lutheran
   Church side by side, and both to call themselves Protestant.
   It interfered with systematic and neat account-keeping of
   public expenditure for religious purposes. Consequently, in
   1839, the King of Prussia suppressed Calvinism and
   Lutheranism, and established a new Evangelical Church on their
   ruins, with constitution and liturgy chiefly of his own
   drawing up. The Protestant churches of Baden, Nassau, Hesse,
   and the Bavarian Palatinate have also been fused and organised
   on the Prussian pattern. In Schleswig-Holstein and in Hanover
   existed pure Lutherans, but they, for uniformity's sake, have
   been also recently unified and melted into the Landeskirche of
   Prussia. A military government cannot tolerate any sort of
   double allegiance in its subjects. Education and religion,
   medicine and jurisprudence, telegraphs and post-office, must
   be under the jurisdiction of the State. … From the point of
   view of a military despotism, the May laws are reasonable and
   necessary. As Germany is a great camp, the clergy, Protestant
   and Catholic, must be military chaplains amenable to the
   general in command. … I have no doubt whatever that this is
   the real explanation of the Kulturkampf, and that all other
   explanations are excuses and inventions. … The Chancellor,
   when he began the crusade, had probably no idea of the
   opposition he would meet with, and when the opposition
   manifested itself, it irritated him, and made him more dogged
   in pursuing his scheme."

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      Germany, Present and Past,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   "The passive resistance of the clergy and laity, standing on
   their own ground, and acting together in complete agreement,
   succeeded in the end. The laity had recognised their own
   priests, even when suspended by government, and had resolutely
   refused to receive others; and both priests and laity insisted
   upon the Church regulating its own theological education.
   Prussia and Baden became weary of the contest. In 1880 and
   1881 the 'May Laws' were suspended, and, after negotiation
   with Leo XIII., they were to a large extent repealed. By this
   change, completed In April, 1887, the obligations of civil
   marriage and the vesting of Catholic property in the hands of
   lay trustees were retained, but the legislative interference
   with the administration of the Church, including the education
   required for the priesthood, was wholly abandoned. The
   Prussian Government had entirely miscalculated its power with
   the Church."

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Church in Germany,
      chapter 21._

   By the Bill passed in 1887, "all religious congregations which
   existed before the passing of the law of May 31, 1875, were to
   be allowed to re-establish themselves, provided their objects
   were purely religious, charitable, or contemplative. … The
   Society of Jesus, which is a teaching order, was not included
   in this permission. But Prince Bismarck's determination never
   to readmit the Jesuits is well known. … The Bill left very
   few vestiges of the May laws remaining."

      _Annual Register, 1887,
      part 1, page 245._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Lowe,
      Prince Bismarck,
      chapters 12-13 (volume 2)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1879.
   Prince Bismarck's economic revolution.
   Adoption of the Protective policy.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1893.
   The Socialist Parties.

      See SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

GERMANY: A. D. 1882.
   The Triple Alliance.

      See TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

GERMANY: A. D. 1884-1889.
   Colonization in Africa.
   Territorial seizures.
   The Berlin Conference.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
   Death of the Emperor William I.
   Accession and death of Frederick III.
   Accession of William II.

   The Emperor William died on the 9th of March, 1888. He was
   succeeded by his son, proclaimed under the title of Frederick
   III. The new Emperor was then at San Remo, undergoing
   treatment for a mortal malady of the throat. He returned at
   once to Berlin, where an unfavorable turn of the disease soon
   appeared. "Consequently an Imperial decree, dated the 21st of
   March, was addressed to the Crown Prince and published,
   expressing the wish of the Emperor that the Prince should make
   himself conversant with the affairs of State by immediate
   participation therein. His Imperial Highness was accordingly
   entrusted with the preparation and discharge of such State
   business as the Emperor should assign to him, and he was
   empowered in the performance of this duty to affix all
   necessary signatures, as the representative of the Emperor,
   without obtaining an especial authorisation on each occasion.
   … The insidious malady from which the Emperor suffered
   exhibited many fluctuations," but the end came on the 15th of
   June, his reign having lasted only three months. He was
   succeeded by his eldest son, who became Emperor William II.

      _Eminent Persons:
      Biographies reprinted from The Times,
      volume 4, pages 112-115._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Rodd,
      Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor._

      _G. Freytag,
      The Crown Prince._

GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
   The end of the Free Cities.

   "The last two cities to uphold the name and traditions of the
   Hanseatic League, Hamburg and Bremen, have been incorporated
   into the German Zoll Verein, thus finally surrendering their
   old historical privileges as free ports. Lübeck took this step
   some twenty-two years ago [1866], Hamburg and Bremen not till
   October, 1888—so long had they resisted Prince Bismarck's
   more or less gentle suasions to enter his Protection League.
   … They, and Hamburg in particular, held out nobly, jealous,
   and rightly jealous, of the curtailment of those privileges
   which distinguished them from the other cities of the German
   Empire. It was after the foundation of this empire that the
   claim of the two cities to remain free ports was conceded and
   ratified in the Imperial Constitution of April, 1871, though
   the privilege, in the case of Hamburg, was restricted to the
   city and port, and withdrawn from the rest of the State, which
   extends to the mouth of the Elbe and embraces about 160 square
   miles, while the free-port territory was reduced to 28 square
   miles.
{1547}
   This was the first serious interference with the city's
   liberty, and others followed, perhaps rather of a petty,
   annoying, than of a seriously aggressive, character, but
   enough to show the direction in which the wind was blowing. It
   was in 1880 that the proposal to include Hamburg in the
   Customs Union was first politically discussed. … In May,
   1881, … was drafted a proposal to the effect that the whole
   of the city and port of Hamburg should be included in the Zoll
   Verein." After long and earnest discussion the proposition was
   adopted by the Senate and the House of Burgesses. "The details
   for carrying into effect this conclusion have occupied seven
   years, and the event was finally celebrated with great pomp,
   the Emperor William II. coming in person to enhance the
   solemnity of the sacrifice brought by the burghers of the erst
   free city for the common weal of the German Fatherland. …
   The last and only privilege the three once powerful Hanseatic
   cities retain is that of being entitled, like the greatest
   States in the empire, to send their own representatives to the
   Bundesrath and to the Reichstag."

      _H. Zimmern,
      The Hansa Towns, period 3,
      chapter 8, note._

GERMANY: A. D. 1888-1889.
   Prussian Free School laws.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      PRUSSIA: 1885-1889.

GERMANY: A. D. 1889-1890.
   Rupture between Emperor William II. and Chancellor Bismarck.
   Retirement of the great Chancellor.

   Soon after the accession of William II., signs of discord
   between the young Emperor and the veteran statesman,
   Chancellor Bismarck, began to appear. "In March, 1889, the
   Minister of Finance had drawn up a Bill for the reform of the
   income tax, which had been sanctioned by the Emperor; suddenly
   Prince Bismarck interfered, declaring that it was against the
   agrarian interest, and the Landtag, summoned expressly to vote
   that Bill, was dismissed 're inacta.' Count Waldersee, the
   Chief of the General Staff, an eminent and independent man,
   and standing high in favour, had for years been a thorn in the
   Chancellor's side, who looked upon him as a possible rival; he
   had tried to overthrow him under Frederic III., but had not
   succeeded, Moltke protesting that the general was
   indispensable to the army. When Waldersee, in the summer of
   1889, accompanied the Emperor to Norway, a letter appeared in
   the Hamburger Nachrichten, to the effect that in a Memoir he
   had directed his sovereign's attention to the threatening
   character of the Russian armaments, and had advised, in
   contradiction to the Chancellor's policy, the forcing of war
   upon Russia. The Count from Trondhjem addressed a telegraphic
   denial to the paper, stating that he had never presented such
   a Memoir; but the Nachrichten registered this declaration in a
   garbled form and in small type, and the Norddeutsche Zeitung,
   which at the same time had published an article, to the effect
   that according to General von Clausewitz, war is only the
   continuation of a certain policy, and that therefore the Chief
   of the General Staff must needs be under the order of the
   Foreign Minister, took no notice of the Count's protest. …
   In the winter session of the Reichstag the Government
   presented a Bill tending to make the law against
   Social-Democracy a permanent one, but even the pliant National
   Liberals objected to the clause that the police should be
   entitled to expel Social-Democrats from the large towns. They
   would have been ready to grant that permission for two years,
   but the Government did not accept this, and the Bill fell to
   the ground. The reason, which at that time was not generally
   understood, was, that there existed already a hitch between
   the policy of the Chancellor and that of the Emperor, who had
   arrived at the conviction that the law against Social
   Democrats was not only barren, but had increased their power.
   This difference was accentuated by the Imperial decree of
   February 4 in favour of the protection of children's and
   women's labour, which the Chancellor had steadily resisted,
   and by the invitation of an international conference for that
   end. Prince Bismarck resigned the Ministry of Commerce, and
   was replaced by Herr von Berlepsch, who was to preside at the
   conference. The elections for the Reichstag were now at hand,
   a new surprise was expected for maintaining the majority
   obtained by the cry of 1887; but it did not come, and the
   result was a crushing defeat of the Chancellor. Perhaps even
   then the Emperor had discerned that he could not go on with
   Bismarck, and that it would be difficult to get rid of him, if
   he obtained another majority for five years. At least it seems
   certain that William II. already in the beginning of February
   had asked General von Caprivi whether he would be ready to
   take the Chancellor's place. Affairs were now rapidly pushing
   to a crisis. Bismarck asked the Emperor that, in virtue of a
   Cabinet order of 1852, his colleagues should be bound to
   submit beforehand to him any proposals of political importance
   before bringing it to the cognizance of the Sovereign. The
   Emperor refused, and insisted upon that order being cancelled.
   The last drop which made the cup overflow was an interview of the
   Chancellor with Windthorst. The Emperor, calling upon Bismarck
   the next morning, asked to hear what had passed in that
   conversation; the Chancellor declined to give any account of
   it, as he could not submit his intercourse with deputies to
   any control, and added that he was ready to resign."

      _The Change of Government in Germany
      (Fortnightly Review, August, 1890),
      pages 301-304._

   "Early on the 17th of March the Emperor sent word that he was
   waiting for Bismarck's resignation. The Prince refused to
   resign, on grounds of conscience and of self-respect. … The
   Emperor must dismiss him. A second messenger came, in the
   course of the day, with a direct order from the Emperor that
   the Prince should send in his resignation within a given
   number of hours. At the same time Bismarck was informed that
   the Emperor intended to make him Duke of Lauenburg. The Prince
   responded that he might have had that title before if he had
   wished it. He was then assured (referring to the grounds on
   which he had previously declined the title) that the Emperor
   would pledge himself to secure such a legislative grant as
   would suffice for the proper maintenance of the ducal dignity.
   Bismarck declined this also, declaring that he could not be
   expected to close such a career as his had been 'by running
   after a gratuity such as is given to a faithful letter-carrier
   at New Year's.' His resignation, of course, he would send in
   as soon as possible, but he owed it to himself and to history
   to draw up a proper memorial. This he took two days to write.
   … He has since repeatedly demanded the publication of this
   memorial, but without success. … On March 20, the Emperor,
   in a most graciously worded letter (which was immediately
   published), accepted Bismarck's 'resignation.' … The
   immediate nomination of his successor [General von Caprivi]
   forced Bismarck to quit the Chancellor's official residence in
   such haste that … 'Bismarck himself compared his exit to the
   expulsion of a German family from Paris in 1870.'"

      _Nation, March 22, 1894 (reviewing 'Das Deutsche
      Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks,' von Dr. Hans Blum)._

{1548}

GERMANY: A. D. 1890.
   Settlement of African claims with England.
   Acquisition of Heligoland.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

GERMANY: A. D. 1894.
   Reconciliation of Bismarck with the Emperor.

   In January, 1894, the complete rupture of friendly relations
   between Prince Bismarck and the Emperor, and the Emperor's
   government, which had existed since the dismissal of the
   former, was terminated by a dramatic reconciliation. The
   Emperor made a peace-offering, upon the occasion of the
   Prince's recovery from an illness, by sending his
   congratulations, with a gift of wine. Prince Bismarck
   responded amiably, and was then invited to Berlin, to be
   entertained as a guest in the royal palace. The invitation was
   accepted, the visit promptly made on the 26th of January, and
   an enthusiastic reception was accorded to the venerable
   ex-chancellor at the capital, by court and populace alike.

----------GERMANY: End----------

GERMINAL, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

GERONA, Siege of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809. (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

GERONTES.
   Spartan senators, or members of the Gerusia.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

GERONTOCRACY.

      See HAYTI: A.D. 1804-1880.

GEROUSIA.

      See GERUSIA.

GERRY, Elbridge, and the framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

GERRYMANDERING.

   "In the composition of the House of Representatives [of the
   Congress of the United States] the state legislatures play a
   very important part. For the purposes of the election a state
   is divided into districts corresponding to the number of
   representatives the state is entitled to send to Congress.
   These electoral districts are marked out by the legislature,
   and the division is apt to be made by the preponderating party
   with an unfairness that is at once shameful and ridiculous.
   The aim, of course, is so to lay out the districts 'as to
   secure in the greatest possible number of them a majority for
   the party which conducts the operation. This is done sometimes
   by throwing the greatest possible number of hostile voters
   into a district which is anyhow certain to be hostile,
   sometimes by adding to a district where parties are equally
   divided some place in which the majority of friendly voters is
   sufficient to turn the scale. There is a district in
   Mississippi (the so-called Shoe-String District) 250 miles
   long by 30 broad, and another in Pennsylvania resembling a
   dumb-bell. … In Missouri a district has been contrived
   longer, if measured along its windings, than the state itself,
   into which as large a number as possible of the negro voters
   have been thrown.' This trick is called gerrymandering, from
   Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who was vice-president of
   the United States from 1813 to 1817. It seems to have been
   first devised in 1788 by the enemies of the Federal
   Constitution in Virginia, in order to prevent the election of
   James Madison to the first Congress, and fortunately it was
   unsuccessful. It was introduced some years afterward into
   Massachusetts. In 1812, while Gerry was governor of that
   state, the Republican legislature redistributed the districts
   in such wise that the shapes of the towns forming a single
   district in Essex county gave to the district a somewhat
   dragon-like contour. This was indicated upon a map of
   Massachusetts which Benjamin Russell, an ardent Federalist and
   editor of the 'Centinel,' hung up over the desk in his office.
   The celebrated painter, Gilbert Stuart, coming into the office
   one day and observing the uncouth figure, added with his
   pencil a head, wings and claws, and exclaimed, 'That will do
   for a salamander!' 'Better say a Gerrymander!' growled the
   editor; and the outlandish name, thus duly coined, soon came
   into general currency."

      _J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the U. S.,
      pages 216-218._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      volume 1, page 121._

      _J. W. Dean,
      The Gerrymander (New England History
      and Genealogical Register, October, 1892)._

GERSCHHEIM, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

GERTRUYDENBERG: Prince Maurice's siege and capture of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

GERTRUYDENBERG: Conferences at.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1710.

GERUSIA, OR GEROUSIA, The.

   "There is the strongest reason to believe that among the
   Dorians, as in all the heroic states, there was, from time
   immemorial, a council of elders. Not only is it utterly
   incredible that the Spartan council (called the gerusia, or
   senate) was first instituted by Lycurgus, it is not even clear
   that he introduced any important alteration in its
   constitution or functions. It was composed of thirty members,
   corresponding to the number of the 'obes,' a division as
   ancient as that of the tribes, which alone would suffice to
   refute the legend that the first council was formed of the
   thirty who aided Lycurgus in his enterprise, even without the
   conclusive fact that two of the 'obes' were represented by the
   kings. … So far as we know, the twenty-eight colleagues of
   the kings were always elected by the people, without regard to
   any qualification besides age and personal merit. The mode of
   election breathes a spirit of primitive simplicity: the
   candidates, who were required to have reached the age of
   sixty, presented themselves in succession to the assembly, and
   were received with applause proportioned to the esteem in
   which they were held by their fellow-citizens. These
   manifestations of popular feeling were noted by persons
   appointed for the purpose, who were shut up in an adjacent
   room, where they could hear the shouts, but could not see the
   competitors. He who in their judgment had been greeted with
   the loudest plaudits, won the prize—the highest dignity in
   the commonwealth next to the throne. The senators held their
   office for life."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

{1549}

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schöman,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

GES TRIBES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      TUPI.
      GUARANI.
      TUPUYAS.

GESITHS.
GESITHCUND.

      See COMITATUS;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

GESORIACUM.

   The principal Roman port and naval station on the Gallic side
   of the English Channel—afterwards called Bononia-modern
   Boulogne. "Gesoriacum was the terminus of the great highway,
   or military marching road, which had been constructed by
   Agrippa across Gaul."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 4._

GETA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-212.

GETÆ, The.

      See DACIA; THRACIANS; SARMATIA;
      and GOTHS, ORIGIN OF.

GETTYSBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

GETULIANS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

GEWISSAS, The.

   This was the earlier name of the West Saxons.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

GHAZNEVIDES, OR GAZNEVIDES.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

GHENT: A. D. 1337.
   Revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.

GHENT: A. D. 1345.
   The end of Jacques Van Arteveld.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1345.

GHENT: A. D. 1379-1381.
   The revolt of the White-Hoods.
   The captaincy of Philip Van Arteveld.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

GHENT: A. D. 1382-1384.
   Resistance to the Duke of Burgundy.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.
   Revolt against the taxes of Philip of Burgundy.

   In 1450, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, having exhausted his usual
   revenues, rich as they were, by the unbounded extravagance of
   his court, laid a heavy tax on salt in Flanders. The sturdy
   men of Ghent were little disposed to submit to an imposition
   so hateful as the French "gabelle"; still less when, the next
   year, a new duty on grain was demanded from them. They rose in
   revolt, put on their white hoods, and prepared for war. It was
   an unfortunate contest for them. They were defeated in nearly
   every engagement; each encounter was a massacre, with no
   quarter given on either side; the surrounding country was laid
   waste and depopulated. A final battle, fought at Gavre, or
   Gaveren, July 22, 1453, went against them so murderously that
   they submitted and went on their knees to the duke—not
   metaphorically, but actually. "The citizens were deprived of
   the banners of their guilds; and the duke was henceforward to
   have an equal voice with them in the appointment of their
   magistrates, whose judicial authority was considerably
   abridged; the inhabitants likewise bound themselves to
   liquidate the expenses of the war, and to pay the gabelle for
   the future." The Hollanders and Zealanders lent their
   assistance to the duke against Ghent, and were rewarded by
   some important concessions.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The city lost her jurisdiction, her dominion over the
   surrounding country. She had no longer any subjects, was
   reduced to a commune, and a commune, too, in ward two gates,
   walled up forever, were to remind her of this grave change of
   state. The sovereign banner of Ghent, and the trades' banners,
   were handed over to Toison d'Or, who unceremoniously thrust
   them into a sack and carried them off."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 12, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

GHENT: A. D. 1482-1488.
   In trouble with the Austrian ducal guardian.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
   The last peal of the great bell Roland.

   Once more, in 1539, Ghent became the scene of a memorable
   rising of the people against the oppressive exactions of their
   foreign masters. "The origin of the present dispute between
   the Ghenters and the court was the subsidy of 1,200,000
   guilders, demanded by the governess [sister of the emperor
   Charles V.] in 1536, which … it was found impossible to levy
   by a general tax throughout the provinces. It was therefore
   divided in proportional shares to each; that of Flanders being
   fixed at 400,000 guilders, or one-third of the whole. … The
   citizens of Ghent … persisted in refusing the demand,
   offering, instead, to serve the emperor as of old time, with
   their own troops assembled under the great standard of the
   town. … The other cities of Flanders showed themselves
   unwilling to espouse the cause of the Ghenters, who, finding
   they had no hope of support from them, or of redress from the
   emperor, took up arms, possessed themselves of the forts in
   the vicinity of Ghent, and despatched an embassy to Paris to
   offer the sovereignty of their city to the king." The French
   king, Francis I., not only gave them no encouragement, but
   permitted the emperor, then in Spain, to pass through France,
   in order to reach the scene of disturbance more promptly. In
   the winter of 1540, the latter presented himself before Ghent,
   at the head of a German army, and the unhappy city could do
   nothing but yield itself to him.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   At the time of this unsuccessful revolt and the submission of
   the city to Charles V., "Ghent was, in all respects, one of
   the most important cities in Europe. Erasmus, who, as a
   Hollander and a courtier, was not likely to be partial to the
   turbulent Flemings, asserted that there was no town in all
   Christendom to be compared to it for size, power, political
   constitution, or the culture of its inhabitants. It was, said
   one of its inhabitants at the epoch of the insurrection,
   rather a country than a city. … Its streets and squares were
   spacious and elegant, its churches and other public buildings
   numerous and splendid. The sumptuous church of Saint John or
   Saint Bavon, where Charles V. had been baptized, the ancient
   castle whither Baldwin Bras de Fer had brought the daughter of
   Charles the Bald [see FLANDERS: A. D. 863], the city hall with
   its graceful Moorish front, the well-known belfry, where for
   three centuries had perched the dragon sent by the Emperor
   Baldwin of Flanders from Constantinople, and where swung the
   famous Roland, whose iron tongue had called the citizens,
   generation after generation, to arms, whether to win battles
   over foreign kings at the head of their chivalry, or to plunge
   their swords in each others' breasts, were all conspicuous in
   the city and celebrated in the land. Especially the great bell
   was the object of the burghers' affection, and, generally, of
   the sovereign's hatred; while to all it seemed, as it were, a
   living historical personage, endowed with the human powers and
   passions which it had so long directed and inflamed. …
   Charles allowed a month of awful suspense to intervene between
   his arrival and his vengeance.
{1550}
   Despair and hope alternated during the interval. On the 17th
   of March, the spell was broken by the execution of 19 persons,
   who were beheaded as ringleaders. On the 29th of April, he
   pronounced sentence upon the city. … It annulled all the
   charters, privileges, and laws of Ghent. It confiscated all
   its public property, rents, revenues, houses, artillery,
   munitions of war, and in general everything which the
   corporation, or the traders, each and all, possessed in
   common. In particular, the great bell Roland was condemned and
   sentenced to immediate removal. It was decreed that the
   400,000 florins, which had caused the revolt, should forthwith
   be paid, together with an additional fine by Ghent of 150,000,
   besides 6,000 a year, forever after."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 11._

GHENT: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.
   The treaty of the "Pacification of Ghent."

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

GHENT: A. D. 1584.
   Disgraceful surrender to the Spaniards.
   Decline of the city.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

GHENT: A. D. 1678.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

GHENT: A. D. 1678.
   Restored to Spain.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

GHENT: A. D. 1706.
   Occupied by Marlborough.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

GHENT: A. D. 1708-1709.
   Taken by the French and retaken by the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

GHENT: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Surrendered to the French, and restored to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D.1745;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

GHENT: A. D. 1814.
   Negotiation of the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
   the United States.

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

----------GHENT: End----------

GHERIAH, Battle of (1763).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

GHIBELINS.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.

GHILDE.

      See GUILDS.

GHORKAS, OR GOORKAS, English war with the.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

GIAN GALEAZZO,
   Lord of Milan, A. D. 1378-1396;
   Duke, 1396-1402.
   Gian Galeazzo II., Duke of Milan, 1476-1494.

GIBBORIM, The.

   King David's chosen band of six hundred, his heroes, his
   "mighty men," his standing army.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 3._

GIBEON, Battle of.

      See BETH-HORON, BATTLES OF.

GIBEONITES, The.

   The Gibeonites were a "remnant of the Amorites, and the
   children of Israel had sworn unto them" (ii Samuel xxi., 2).
   Saul violated the pledged faith of his nation to these people
   and "sought to slay them." After Saul's death there came a
   famine which was attributed to his crime against the
   Gibeonites; whereupon David sought to make atonement to them.
   They would accept nothing but the execution of vengeance upon
   seven of Saul's family, and David gave up to them two sons of
   Saul's concubine, Rizpah, and five sons of Michel, the
   daughter of Saul, whom they hanged.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 3._

GIBRALTAR, Origin of the name.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1309-1460.
   Taken by the Christians, recovered by the Moors, and finally
   wrested from them, after several sieges.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1704.
   Capture by the English.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded by Spain to England.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1727.
   Abortive siege by the Spaniards.
   The lines of San Roque.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1780-1782.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and French.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

----------GIBRALTAR: End----------

GILBERT, Sir Humphrey:
   Expedition to Newfoundland.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

GILBOA, Battles of.

      See MEGIDDO.

GILDO, Revolt of.

      See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

GILDS.

      See GUILDS.

GILEAD.

      See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

GILLMORE, General Q. A.
   Siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

   The siege of Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: S. CAROLINA),
      and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

GIOVANNA.

      See JOANNA.

GIOVANNI MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1402-1412.

GIPSIES.

      See GYPSIES.

GIRONDINS.
GIRONDISTS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1791-1792;
      1792 (JUNE-AUGUST), (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1793 (MARCH-JUNE), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER),
      (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

GIRTON COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: 1865-1883.

GITANOS.

      See GYPSIES.

GIURGEVO, Battle of (1595).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

GLADIATORS, Revolt of the.

      See SPARTACUS.

GLADSTONE MINISTRIES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870; 1873-1880 to 1885;
      1885-1886; and 1892-1893.

GLATZ, Capture of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

GLENCO, Massacre of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

GLENDALE, Battle of.

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

GLENDOWER'S REBELLION.

      See WALES: A. D. 1402-1413.

GLENMALURE, Battle of (1580).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

GLEVUM.

   Glevum was a large colonial city of the Romans in Britain,
   represented by the modern city of Gloucester. It "was a town
   of great importance, as standing not only on the Severn, near
   the place where it opened out into the Bristol Channel, but
   also as being close to the great Roman iron district of the
   Forest of Dean."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

{1551}

GLOGAU, The storming of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

GLOSSATORS, The.

      See BOLOGNA: 11TH CENTURY.—SCHOOL OF LAW.

GLOUCESTER, Origin of.

      See GLEVUM.

GLOUCESTER: A. D. 1643.
   Siege of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

GLYCERIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 473-474.

GNOSTICS-GNOSTICISM.

   "In a word … Gnosticism was a philosophy of religion; but in
   what sense was it this? The name of Gnosticism—Gnosis—does
   not belong exclusively to the group of phenomena with whose
   historical explanation we are here concerned. Gnosis is a
   general idea; it is only as defined in one particular manner
   that it signifies Christian Gnosticism in a special sense:
   Gnosis is higher Knowledge, Knowledge that has a clear
   perception of the foundations on which it rests, and the
   manner in which its structure has been built up; a Knowledge
   that is completely that which, as Knowledge, it is called to
   be. In this sense it forms the natural antithesis to Pistis,
   Faith [whence Pistics, believing Christians]: if it is desired
   to denote Knowledge in its specific difference from faith, no
   word will mark the distinction more significantly than Gnosis.
   But we find that, even in this general sense, the Knowledge
   termed Gnosis is a religious Knowledge rather than any other;
   for it is not speculative Knowledge in general, but only such
   as is concerned with religion. … In its form and contents
   Christian Gnosticism is the expansion and development of
   Alexandrian religious philosophy; which was itself an offshoot
   of Greek philosophy. … The fundamental character of
   Gnosticism in all its forms is dualistic. It is its
   sharply-defined, all-pervading dualism that, more than
   anything else, marks it directly for an offspring of paganism.
   … In Gnosticism the two principles, spirit and matter, form
   the great and general antithesis, within the bounds of which
   the systems move with all that they contain. … A further
   leading Gnostic conception is the Demiurgus. The two highest
   principles being spirit and matter, and the true conception of
   a creation of the world being thus excluded, it follows in the
   Gnostic systems, and is a characteristic feature of them, that
   they separate the creator of the world from the supreme God,
   and give him a position subordinate to the latter. He is
   therefore rather the artificer than the creator of the world.
   … The oldest Gnostic sects are without doubt those whose
   name is not derived from a special founder, but only stand for
   the general notion of Gnosticism. Such a name is that of the
   Ophites or Naassenes. The Gnostics are called Ophites,
   brethren of the Serpent, not after the serpent with which the
   fathers compared Gnosticism, meaning to indicate the dangerous
   poison of its doctrine, and to suggest that it was the hydra,
   which as soon as it lost one head at once put forth another;
   but because the serpent was the accepted symbol of their lofty
   Knowledge. … The first priests and supporters of the dogma
   were, according to the author of the Philosophoumena, the
   so-caned Naassenes—a name derived from the Hebrew name of
   the serpent. They afterwards called themselves Gnostics,
   because they asserted that they alone knew the things that are
   deepest. From this root the one heresy divided into various
   branches; for though these heretics all taught a like
   doctrine, their dogmas were various."

      _F. C. Baur,
      The Church History of the First Three Centuries,
      volume 1, pages 187-202._

   "Bigotry has destroyed their [the Gnostics'] writings so
   thoroughly, that we know little of them except from hostile
   sources. They called themselves Christians, but cared little
   for the authority of bishops or apostles, and borrowed freely
   from cabalists, Parsees, astrologers, and Greek philosophers,
   in building up their fantastic systems. … Much as we may
   fear that the Gnostic literature was more remarkable for
   boldness in speculation than for, clearness of reasoning or
   respect for facts, it is a great pity that it should have been
   almost entirely destroyed by ecclesiastical bigotry."

      _F. M. Holland,
      The Rise of Intellectual Liberty,
      chapter 3, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity,
      century 1,
      sections 60-70, century 2, sections 41-65._

      _C. W. King,
      The Gnostics and their Remains._

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 2._

      See, also, DOCETISM.

GOA, Acquisition by the Portuguese (1510).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.

GODERICH MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.

GODFREY DE BOUILLON:
   His crusade and his kingdom of Jerusalem.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
      and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.

GODOLO, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

GODOLPHIN AND THE ENGLISH TREASURY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

GODWINE, Earl: Ascendancy in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066.

GOIDEL, The.

      See CELTS, THE.

GOITO, Battles of(1848).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

GOLD DISCOVERY IN AUSTRALIA.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

GOLD DISCOVERY IN CALIFORNIA.

   See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

GOLDEN BIBLE, The.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

GOLDEN BOOK OF VENICE.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

GOLDEN BOUGH, The.

      See ARICIAN GROVE.

GOLDEN BULL, Byzantine.

   A document to which the emperor attached his golden seal was
   called by the Byzantines, for that reason, a chrysobulum or
   golden bull. The term was adopted in the Western or Holy Roman
   Empire.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      page 190._

GOLDEN BULL OF CHARLES IV., The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493;
      and 13TH CENTURY.

GOLDEN BULL OF HUNGARY.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

GOLDEN CHERSONESE.

      See CHRYSE.

{1552}

GOLDEN CIRCLE, Knights of the.

    David Christy published his 'Cotton is King' in the year
    [1856] in which Buchanan was elected [President of the United
    States], and the Knights of the Golden Circle appear to have
    organized about the same time. The Golden Circle had its
    centre at Havana, Cuba, and with a radius of sixteen degrees
    (about 1,200 miles) its circumference took in Baltimore, St.
    Louis, about half of Mexico, all of Central America, and the
    best portions of the coast along the Caribbean Sea. The
    project was, to establish an empire with this circle for its
    territory, and by controlling four great staples—rice,
    tobacco, sugar, and cotton—practically govern the
    commercial world. Just how great a part this secret
    organization played in the scheme of secession, nobody that
    was not in its counsels can say; but it is certain that it
    boasted, probably with truth, a membership of many
    thousands."

      _Rossiter Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      page 24._

   During the American Civil War, the Order of the Knights of
   the Golden Circle was extended (1862-1864) through the
   Northern States, as a secret treasonable organization, in aid
   of the Southern Rebellion.

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

GOLDEN FLEECE, Knights of the Order of the.

   "It was on the occasion of his marriage [A. D. 1430] that
   Philip [Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders,
   etc.], desirous of instituting a national order of knighthood,
   chose for its insignia a 'golden fleece,' with the motto,
   'Pretium non vile laborum,'—not to be condemned is the reward
   of labour. … For the first time labour was given heraldic
   honours. The pride of the country had become laden with
   industrial recollections, its hope full of industrial
   triumphs; if feudalism would keep its hold, it must adopt or
   affect the national feeling. No longer despised was the
   recompense of toil; upon the honour of knighthood it should so
   be sworn; nay knighthood would henceforth wear appended to its
   collar of gold no other emblem than its earliest and most
   valued object—a golden fleece."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

   "This order of fraternity, of equality between nobles, in
   which the duke was admonished, 'chaptered,' just the same as
   any other, this council, to which he pretended to communicate
   his affairs, was at bottom a tribunal where the haughtiest
   found the duke their judge; he could honour or dishonour them
   by a sentence of the order. Their scutcheon answered for them;
   hung up in St. Jean's, Ghent, it could either be erased or
   blackened. … The great easily consoled themselves for
   degradation at Paris by lawyers, when they were glorified by
   the duke of Burgundy in a court of chivalry in which kings
   took their seat."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 12, chapter 4._

   "The number of the members was originally fixed at 31,
   including the sovereign, as the head and chief of the
   institution. They were to be: 'Gentilshommes de nom et d'armes
   sans reproche.' In 1516, Pope Leo X. consented to increase the
   number to 52, including the head. After the accession of
   Charles V., in 1556, the Austro-Spanish, or, rather, the
   Spanish-Dutch line of the house of Austria, remained in
   possession of the Order. In 1700, the Emperor Charles VI. and
   King Philip of Spain both laid claim to it. … It now passes
   by the respective names of the Spanish or Austrian. 'Order of
   the Golden Fleece,' according to the country where it is
   issued."

      _Sir B. Burke,
      Book of Orders of Knighthood,
      page 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 1, chapter 2._

GOLDEN GATE, The.

   "The Bay of San Francisco is separated by [from] the sea by
   low mountain ranges. Looking from the peaks of the Sierra
   Nevada, the coast mountains present an apparently continuous
   line, with only a single gap, resembling a mountain pass. This
   is the entrance to the great bay. … On the south, the
   bordering mountains come down in a narrow ridge of broken
   hills, terminating in a precipitous point, against which the
   sea breaks heavily. On the northern side, the mountain
   presents a bold promontory, rising in a few miles to a height
   of two or three thousand feet. Between these points is the
   strait—about one mile broad in the narrowest part, and five
   miles long from the sea to the bay. To this Gate I gave the
   name of Chrysopylæ, or Golden Gate; for the same reasons that
   the harbor of Byzantium (Constantinople afterwards), was
   called Chrysoceras, or Golden Horn. Passing through this gate,
   the bay opens to the right and left, extending in each
   direction about 35 miles, making a total length of more than
   70, and a coast of about 275 miles."

      _J. C. Fremont,
      Memoirs of my life,
      volume 1, page 512._

GOLDEN HORDE, The.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

GOLDEN HORN, The.

      See BYZANTIUM.

GOLDEN HORSESHOE, Knights of the.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

GOLDEN HOUSE, The.

   The imperial palace at Rome, as restored by Nero after the
   great fire, was called the Golden House. It was destroyed by
   Vespasian.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 53 and 90._

GOLDEN, OR BORROMEAN, LEAGUE, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

GOLDEN SPUR, Order of the.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1550 by Pope Paul III.

GOLDSBORO, General Sherman's march to.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
      and (FEBRUARY-MARCH: N. CAROLINA).

GOLIAD, Massacre at (1836).

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

GOLOWSTSCHIN, Battle of (1708).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

GOLYMIN, Battle of (1806).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

GOMER, OR OMER, The.

      See EPHAH.

GOMERISTS. See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

GOMPHI.

   Gomphi, a city on the border of Thessaly, shut its gates
   against Cæsar, shortly before the battle of Pharsalia. He
   halted one day in his march, stormed the town and gave it up
   to his soldiers to be sacked.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 15._

GONDS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

GONFALONIERE.

      See CARROCCIO.

GONZAGA, The House of.

   "The house of Gonzaga held sovereign power at Mantua, first as
   captains, then as marquesses, then as dukes, for nearly 400
   years" (1328-1708).

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      volume 1, page 243._

GOOD ESTATE OF RIENZI, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

GOOD HOPE, Cape of:
   The Discovery and the Name.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D.1463-1498.

GOOD HOPE, Cape of:
   The Colonization.

      See SOUTH AFRICA.

{1553}

GOORKAS, OR GURKHAS, OR GHORKAS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and A. D. 1805-1816.

GOOROO, OR GURU.

      See SIKHS.

GORDIAN I. and II., Roman Emperors, A. D. 238.
   Gordian III., Roman Emperor, A. D. 238-244.

GORDIAN KNOT, Cutting the.

   "It was about February or March 333 B. C., when Alexander
   reached Gordium; where he appears to have halted for some
   time, giving to the troops which had been with him in Pisidia
   a repose doubtless needful. While at Gordium, he performed the
   memorable exploit familiarly known as the cutting of the
   Gordian knot. There was preserved in the citadel an ancient
   waggon of rude structure, said by the legend to have once
   belonged to the peasant Gordius and his son Midas—the
   primitive rustic kings of Phrygia, designated as such by the
   Gods and chosen by the people. The cord (composed of fibres
   from the bark of the cornel tree), attaching the yoke of this
   waggon to the pole, was so twisted and entangled as to form a
   knot of singular complexity, which no one had ever been able
   to untie. An oracle had pronounced, that to the person who
   should untie it the empire of Asia was destined. …
   Alexander, on inspecting the knot, was as much perplexed as
   others had been before him, until at length, in a fit of
   impatience, he drew his sword and severed the cord in two. By
   everyone this was accepted as a solution of the problem."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 93._

GORDON, General Charles George,
   In China.

      See CHINA: A. D.1850-1864.

   In the Soudan.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

GORDON RIOTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

GORDYENE, OR CORDYENE, OR CORDUENE.

   The tribes of the Carduchi which anciently occupied the region
   of northern Mesopotamia, east of the Tigris, have given their
   name permanently to the country, but in variously modified
   forms. In the Greek and Roman period it was known as Gordyene,
   Cordyene, Corduene; at the present day it is Kurdistan. Under
   the Parthian domination in Asia, Gordyene was a tributary
   kingdom. In the early part of the last century B. C. it was
   conquered by Tigranes, king of Armenia, who chose a site
   within it for building his vast new capital, Tigranocerta, to
   populate which twelve Greek cities were stripped of
   inhabitants. It was included among the conquests of Trajan for
   the Romans, but relinquished by Hadrian.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10, and after._

      See, also, CARDUCHI, THE.

GORGES, Sir Ferdinando, and the colonization of Maine.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631, and 1635;
      also MAINE: A. D. 1639.

GORM, King of Denmark, A. D. 883-941.

GOROSZLO, Battle of (1601).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES
      (ROUMANIA, &c.).

GORTYN.

      See CRETE.

GOSHEN, Land of.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

GOSNOLD'S VOYAGE TO NEW ENGLAND.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

GOSPORT NAVY YARD, Abandonment and destruction of the.

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

GOTHA, Origin of the Dukedom of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

GOTHI MINORES, The.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

GOTHIA, in central Europe.

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

GOTHIA, in Gaul.

   Septimania, the strip of land along the Mediterranean between
   the Pyrenees and the Rhone, was the last possession of the
   Goths in Gaul, and the name Gothia became for a time attached
   to it.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 5, section 5._

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

GOTHINI, The.

   The Gotini or Gothini were a people of ancient Germany who
   "are probably to be placed in Silesia, about Breslau." "The
   Gotini and Osi [who held a part of modern Gallicia, under the
   Carpathian mountains] are proved by their respective Gallic
   and Pannonian tongues, as well as by the fact of their
   enduring tribute, not to be Germans. … The Gotini, to
   complete their degradation, actually work iron mines."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor Works,
      translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany, with geographical notes._

GOTHLAND IN SWEDEN.

      See GOTHS: ORIGIN OF THE.

GOTHONES, The.

   A tribe in ancient Germany, mentioned by Tacitus. They
   "probably dwelt on either side of the Vistula, the Baltic
   being their northern boundary. Consequently, their settlements
   would coincide with portions of Pomerania and Prussia. Dr.
   Latham thinks they were identical with the Æstii."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

      See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

GOTHS, Origin of the.

   "The Scandinavian origin of the Goths has given rise to much
   discussion, and has been denied by several eminent modern
   scholars. The only reasons in favor of their Scandinavian
   origin are the testimony of Jornandes and the existence of the
   name of Gothland in Sweden; but the testimony of Jornandes
   contains at the best only the tradition of the people
   respecting their origin, which is never of much value; and the
   mere fact of the existence of the name of Gothland in Sweden
   is not sufficient to prove that this country was the original
   abode of the people. When the Romans first saw the Goths, in
   the reign of Caracalla, they dwelt in the land of the Getæ [on
   the northern side of the lower Danube]. Hence Jornandes,
   Procopius, and many other writers, both ancient and modern,
   supposed the Goths to be the same as the Getæ of the earlier
   historians. But the latter writers always regarded the Getæ as
   Thracians; and if their opinion was correct, they could have
   had no connection with the Goths. Still, it is a startling
   fact that a nation called Gothi should have emigrated from
   Germany, and settled accidentally in the country of a people
   with a name so like their own as that of Getæ. This may have
   happened by accident, but certainly all the probabilities are
   against it. Two hypotheses have been brought forward in modern
   times to meet this difficulty. One is that of Grimm, in his
   History of the German Language, who supposes that there was no
   migration of the Goths at all, that they were on the Lower
   Danube from the beginning, and that they were known to the
   earlier Greek and Latin writers as Getæ: but the great
   objection to this opinion is the general belief of the earlier
   writers that the Getæ were Thracians, and the latter were
   certainly not Germans.
{1554}
   The other is that of Latham, who supposes, with much
   ingenuity, that the name of Get, or Goth, was the general name
   given by the Slavonic nations to the Lithuanians. According to
   this theory, the Goth-ones, or Guth-ones, at the mouth of the
   Vistula, mentioned by Tacitus and Ptolemy, are Lithuanians,
   and the Get-æ, on the Danube, belong to the same nation.
   Latham also believes that the Goths of a later period were
   Germans who migrated to the Danube, but that they did not bear
   the name of Goths till they settled in the country of the
   Getæ.

      See _Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus,
      Epil., p. xxxviii., seq._"

      _W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

   "The first clear utterance of tradition among the Goths points
   to Sweden as their home. It is true that this theory of the
   Swedish origin of the Goths has of late been strenuously
   combatted, but until it is actually disproved (if that be
   possible) it seems better to accept it as a 'working
   hypothesis,' and, at the very least, a legend which influenced
   the thoughts and feelings of the nation itself. Condensing the
   narrative of Jornandes … we get some such results as these:
   'The island of Scanzia [peninsula of Norway and Sweden] lies
   in the Northern Ocean, opposite the mouths of the Vistula, in
   shape like a cedar-leaf. In this island, a warehouse of
   nations ("officina gentium"), dwelt the Goths, with many other
   tribes,' whose uncouth names are for the most part forgotten,
   though the Swedes, the Fins, the Heruli, are familiar to us.
   'From this island the Goths, under their king Berig, set forth
   in search of new homes. They had but three ships, and as one
   of these during their passage always lagged behind, they
   called her "Gepanta," "the torpid one," and her crew, who ever
   after showed themselves more sluggish and clumsy than their
   companions when they became a nation, bore a name derived from
   this circumstance, Gepidae, the Loiterers'." Settling, first,
   near the mouth of the Vistula, these Gothic wanderers
   increased in numbers until they were forced once more to
   migrate southward and eastward, seeking a larger and more
   satisfactory home. In time, they reached the shores of the
   Euxine. "The date of this migration of the Goths is uncertain;
   but, as far as we can judge from the indications afforded by
   contemporary Roman events, it was somewhere between 100 and
   200 A. D. At any rate, by the middle of the third century, we
   find them firmly planted in the South of Russia. They are now
   divided into three nations, the Ostrogoths on the East, the
   Visigoths on the West, the lazy Gepidae a little to the
   rear—that is, to the North of both. … It is important for
   us to remember that these men are Teutons of the Teutons. …
   Moreover, the evidence of language shows that among the
   Teutonic races they belonged to the Low German family of
   peoples: more nearly allied, that is to say, to the Dutch, the
   Frieslanders, and to our own Saxon forefathers, all of whom
   dwelt by the flat shores of the German Ocean or the Baltic
   Sea, than to the Suabians and other High German tribes who
   dwelt among the hills."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      introduction, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 2, chapter 2._

      See, also, VANDALS.

GOTHS:
   Acquisition of Bosphorus.

   "The little kingdom of Bosphorus; whose capital was situated
   on the straits through which the Mæotis communicates itself to
   the Euxine, was composed of degenerate Greeks and
   half-civilized barbarians. It subsisted as an independent
   state from the time of the Peloponnesian war, was at last
   swallowed up by the ambition of Mithridates, and, with the
   rest of his dominions, sunk under the weight of the Roman
   arms. From the reign of Augustus the kings of Bosphorus were
   the humble but not useless allies of the empire. By presents,
   by arms, and by a slight fortification drawn across the
   isthmus, they effectually guarded, against the roving
   plunderers of Sarmatia, the access of a country which, from
   its peculiar situation and convenient harbours, commanded the
   Euxine Sea and Asia Minor. As long as the sceptre was
   possessed by a lineal succession of kings, they acquitted
   themselves of their important charge with vigilance and
   success. Domestic factions, and the fears or private interest
   of obscure usurpers who seized on the vacant throne, admitted
   the Goths [already, in the third century, in possession of the
   neighboring region about the mouth of the Dneiper] into the
   heart of Bosphorus. With the acquisition of a superfluous
   waste of fertile soil, the conquerors obtained the command of
   a naval force sufficient to transport their armies to the
   coast of Asia."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.
   First invasions of the Roman Empire.

   As early as the reign of Alexander Severus (A. D. 222-235) the
   Goths, then inhabiting the Ukraine, had troubled Dacia with
   incursions; but it was not until the time of the Emperor
   Philip, called the Arabian (244-249), that they invaded the
   Empire in force, passing through Dacia and crossing the Danube
   into Mœsia (Bulgaria). They had been bribed by a subsidy to
   refrain from pillaging Roman territory, but complained that
   their "stipendia" had not been paid. They made their way
   without opposition to the city of Marcianopolis, which Trajan
   had founded in honor of his sister, and which was the capital
   of one of the two provinces into which Mœsia had been divided.
   The inhabitants ransomed themselves by the payment of a large
   sum of money, and the barbarians retired. But their expedition
   had been successful enough to tempt a speedy repetition of it,
   and the year 250 found them, again, in Mœsia, ravaging the
   country with little hindrance. The following year they crossed
   the Hæmus or Balkan mountains and laid siege to the important
   city of Philippopolis—capital of Thrace, founded by Philip of
   Macedon. Now, however, a capable and vigorous emperor, Decius,
   was briefly wearing the Roman purple. He met the Goths and
   fought them so valiantly that 30,000 are said to have been
   slain; yet the victory remained with the barbarians, and
   Philippopolis was not saved. They took it by storm, put
   100,000 of its inhabitants to the sword and left nothing in
   the ruins of the city worth carrying away. Meantime the
   enterprising Roman emperor had reanimated and recruited his
   troops and had secured positions which cut off the retreat of
   the Gothic host. The peril of the barbarians seemed so great,
   in fact, that they offered to surrender their whole booty and
   their captives, if they might, on so doing, march out of the
   country undisturbed. Decius sternly rejected the proposition,
   and so provoked his dangerous enemies to a despair which was
   fatal to him. In a terrible battle that was fought before the
   close of the year 251, at a place in Mœsia called Forum
   Trebonii, the Roman emperor perished, with the greater part of
   his army. The successor of Decius, Gallus, made haste to
   arrange a payment of annual peace-money to the Goths, which
   persuaded them to retire across the Danube.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      introduction, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

{1555}

GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
   Naval expeditions in the East.

   Having acquired command of a port and a navy by their conquest
   of or alliance with the little kingdom of Bosporus in the
   Chersonesus Taurica (modern Crimea), the Goths launched forth
   boldly upon a series of naval marauding expeditions, which
   spread terror and destruction along the coasts of the Euxine,
   the Ægean and the straits between. The first city to suffer
   was Pityus, on the Euxine, which they totally destroyed, A. D.
   258. The next was Trebizond, which fell a victim to the
   negligence with which its strong walls were guarded. The Goths
   loaded their ships with the enormous booty that they took from
   Trebizond, and left it almost a ruined city of the dead.
   Another expedition reached Bithynia, where the rich and
   splendid cities of Chalcedon, Nicea, Nicomedia, Prusa, Apamæa,
   nd others were pillaged and more or less wantonly destroyed. "In
   the year 267, another fleet, consisting of 500 vessels, manned
   chiefly by the Goths and Heruls [or Heruli], passed the
   Bosphorus and the Hellespont. They seized Byzantium and
   Chrysopolis, and advanced, plundering the islands and coasts
   of the Ægean Sea, and laying waste many of the principal
   cities of the Peloponnesus. Cyzicus, Lemnos, Skyros, Corinth,
   Sparta, and Argos are named as having suffered by their
   ravages. From the time of Sylla's conquest of Athens, a period
   of nearly 350 years had elapsed, during which Attica had
   escaped the evils of war; yet when the Athenians were called
   upon to defend their homes against the Goths, they displayed a
   spirit worthy of their ancient fame. An officer, named
   Cleodamus, had been sent by the government from Byzantium to
   Athens, in order to repair the fortifications, but a division
   of these Goths landed at the Piræus and succeeded in carrying
   Athens by storm, before any means were taken for its defence.
   Dexippus, an Athenian of rank in the Roman service, soon
   contrived to reassemble the garrison of the Acropolis; and by
   joining to it such of the citizens as possessed some knowledge
   of military discipline, or some spirit for warlike enterprise,
   he formed a little army of 2,000 men. Choosing a strong
   position in the Olive Grove, he circumscribed the movements of
   the Goths, and so harassed them by a close blockade that they
   were soon compelled to abandon Athens. Cleodamus, who was not
   at Athens when it was surprised, had in the meantime assembled
   a fleet and gained a naval victory over a division of the
   barbarian fleet, These reverses were a prelude to the ruin of
   the Goths. A Roman fleet entered the Archipelago, and a Roman
   army, under the emperor Gaillenus, marched into Illyricum; the
   separate divisions of the Gothic expedition were everywhere
   overtaken by these forces, and destroyed in detail. During
   this invasion of the empire, one of the divisions of the
   Gothic army crossed the Hellespont into Asia, and succeeded in
   plundering the cities of the Troad, and in destroying the
   celebrated temple of Diana of Ephesus. … The celebrity of
   Athens, and the presence of the historian Dexippus, have given
   to this incursion of the barbarians a prominent place in
   history; but many expeditions are casually mentioned which
   must have inflicted greater losses on the Greeks, and spread
   devastation more widely over the country."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece Under the Romans,
      chapter 1, section 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.
   Defeat by Claudius.

   "Claudius II. and his successor Aurelian, notwithstanding the
   shortness of their reigns, effectually dissipated the
   mosquito-swarms of barbarian invaders and provincial usurpers
   who were ruining the unhappy dominions of Gallienus. The two
   campaigns (of 268 and 269) in which the Emperor Claudius
   vanquished the barbarians are related with great brevity, and
   in such a shape that it is not easy to harmonise even the
   scanty details which are preserved for us. It seems clear,
   however, that the Goths (both Ostrogoths and Visigoths), with
   all their kindred tribes, poured themselves upon Thrace and
   Macedonia in vaster numbers than ever. The previous movements
   of these nations had been probably but robber-inroads: this
   was a national immigration. … A few years earlier, so vast
   an irruption must inevitably have ruined the Roman Empire. But
   now, under Claudius, the army, once more subjected to strict
   discipline, had regained, or was rapidly regaining, its tone,
   and the Gothic multitudes, vainly precipitating themselves
   against it, by the very vastness of their unwieldy masses,
   hastened their own destruction. A great battle was fought at
   Naissus (Nisch, in Servia), a battle which was not a complete
   victory, which according to one authority was even a defeat
   for the Romans, but since the barbarians as an immediate
   consequence of it lost 50,000 men, their doubtful victory may
   fairly be counted as a defeat. In the next campaign they were
   shut up in the intricate passes of the Balkans by the Roman
   cavalry. Under the pressure of famine they killed and ate the
   cattle that drew their waggons, so parting with their last
   chance of return to their northern homes. … At length the
   remnants of the huge host seem to have disbanded, some to have
   entered the service of their conqueror as 'foederati,' and
   many to have remained as hired labourers to plough the fields
   which they had once hoped to conquer. … The vast number of
   unburied corpses bred a pestilence, to which the Emperor fell
   a victim. His successor Aurelian, the conqueror of Zenobia …
   made peace wisely as well as war bravely, and, prudently
   determining on the final abandonment of the Roman province of
   Dacia, he conceded to the Goths the undisturbed possession of
   that region [A. D. 270], on condition of their not crossing
   the Danube to molest Moesia. Translating these terms into the
   language of modern geography, we may say, roughly, that the
   repose of Servia and Bulgaria was guaranteed by the final
   separation from the Roman Empire of Hungary, Transylvania,
   Moldavia, and Wallachia, which became from this time forward
   the acknowledged home of the Gothic nation. … For about a
   century (from 270 to 365) the Goths appear to have been with
   little exception at peace with Rome."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      introduction, chapter 3._

{1556}

GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.
   Conversion to Christianity.

   The introduction of Christianity among the Goths seems to have
   begun while they were yet on the northern side of the Danube
   and the Black Sea. It first resulted, no doubt, from the
   influence of many Christian captives who were swept from their
   homes in Mœsia, Greece, and Asia Minor, and carried away to
   spend their lives in slavery among the barbarians. To these
   were probably added a considerable number of Christian
   refugees from Roman persecution, before the period of
   Constantine. But it was not until the time of Ulfilas, the
   great apostle and bishop of the Goths (supposed to have held
   the office of bishop among them from about A. D. 341 to 381),
   that the development and organization of Christianity in the
   Gothic nation assumed importance. Ulfilas is represented to
   have been a descendant of one of the Christian captives
   alluded to above. Either as an ambassador or as a hostage, he
   seems to have passed some years in his early manhood at
   Constantinople. There he acquired a familiar knowledge of the
   Greek and Latin languages, and became fitted for his great
   work—the reducing of the Gothic language to a written form,
   with an alphabet partly invented, partly adapted from the
   Greek, and the translation of the Bible into that tongue. The
   early labors of Ulfilas among his countrymen beyond the Danube
   were interrupted by an outbreak of persecution, which drove
   him, with a considerable body of Christian Goths, to seek
   shelter within the Roman empire. They were permitted to settle
   in Mœsia, at the foot of the Balkans, round about Nicopolis,
   and near the site of modern Tirnova. There they acquired the
   name of the Gothi Minores, or Lesser Goths. From this Gothic
   settlement of Ulfilas in Mœsia the alphabet and written
   language to which he gave form have been called Mœso-Gothic.
   The Bible of Ulfilas—the first missionary translation of the
   Scriptures—with the personal labors of the apostle and his
   disciples, were powerfully influential, without doubt, in the
   Christianizing of the whole body of the Goths, and of their
   German neighbors, likewise. But Ulfilas had imbibed the
   doctrines of Arianism, or of Semi-Arianism, at Constantinople,
   and he communicated that heresy (as it was branded by the
   Athanasian triumph) to all the barbarian world within the
   range of Gothic influence. It followed that, when the kingdoms
   of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Burgundians were
   established in the west, they had to contend with the
   hostility of the orthodox or Catholic western church, and were
   undermined by it. That hostility had much to do with the
   breaking down of those states and with the better success of
   the orthodox Franks.

      _C. A. A. Scott,
      Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths) A. D. 350-375.
   The empire of Ermanaric or Hermanric.

   "Ermanaric, who seems to have been chosen king about the year
   350, was a great warrior, like many of his predecessors; but
   his policy, and the objects for which he fought, were markedly
   different from theirs. … Ermanaric made no attempt to invade
   the provinces of the Roman Empire; but he resolved to make his
   Ostrogothic kingdom the centre of a great empire of his own.
   The seat of his kingdom was, as tradition tells us, on the
   banks of the Dnieper [and it extended to the Baltic]. … A
   Roman historian compares Ermanaric to Alexander the Great; and
   many ages afterwards his fame survived in the poetic
   traditions of Germans, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. …
   Ermanaric was the first king since Ostrogotha who belonged to
   the Amaling family. … Henceforward the kingship of the
   Ostrogoths became hereditary among the descendants of
   Ermanaric. During this time the Visigoths appear to have been
   practically independent, divided into separate tribes ruled by
   their own 'judges' or chieftains; but … it is probable that in
   theory they acknowledged the supremacy of the Ostrogothic
   king. … Ermanaric died in the year 375, and the Ostrogoths
   were subdued by the Hunnish king Balamber. For a whole century
   they remained subject to the Huns." One section of the
   Ostrogothic nation escaped from the Hunnish conquest and
   joined the Visigoths, who found a refuge on the Roman side of
   the Danube. The bulk of the nation bore the yoke until the
   death of the great Hun king, Attila, in 453, when the strife
   between his sons gave them an opportunity to throw it off.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 5._

   "The forecast of European history which then [during the reign
   of Hermanric] seemed probable would have been that a great
   Teutonic Empire, stretching from the Danube to the Don, would
   take the place which the colossal Slav Empire now holds in the
   map of Europe, and would be ready, as a civilised and
   Christianised power, to step into the place of Eastern Rome
   when, in the fulness of centuries, the sceptre should drop
   from the nerveless hands of the Cæsars of Byzantium."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 1._

GOTHS: (Visigoths) A. D. 376.
   Admission into the Roman Empire.

   "Let us suppose that we have arrived at the year (364) when
   the feeble and timid Valens was placed on the Eastern throne
   by his brother Valentinian. At that time, Ulfilas would be in
   the fifty-third year of his age and the twenty-third of his
   episcopate. Hermanric, king of the Ostrogoths, a centenarian
   and more, was still the most important figure in the loosely
   welded Gothic confederacy. His special royalty may possibly
   have extended over Northern Hungary, Lithuania, and Southern
   Russia. The 'torpid' Gepidæ, dwelt to the north of him, to the
   south and west the Visigoths, whose settlements may perhaps
   have occupied the modern countries of Roumania, Transylvania
   and Southern Hungary. The two great nations, the Ostrogoths
   and Visigoths, were known at this time to the Romans, perhaps
   among themselves also, by the respective names of the
   Gruthungi and Thervingi, but it will be more convenient to
   disregard these appellations and speak of them by the names
   which they made conspicuous in later history."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      introduction, chapter 3._

   This was the situation of Gothia, or the Gothic Empire of
   Central Europe, when the Huns made their appearance on the
   scene. "An empire, formerly powerful, the first monarchy of
   the Huns, had been overthrown by the Sienpi, at a distance of
   500 leagues from the Roman frontier, and near to that of
   China, in the first century of the Christian era. … The
   entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to the Sienpi its
   ancient pastures bordering on China, had traversed the whole
   north of Asia by a march of 1,300 leagues. This immense horde,
   swelled by all the conquered nations whom it carried along in
   its passage, bore down on the plains of the Alans, and
   defeated them on the banks of the Tanais in a great battle.
{1557}
   It received into its body a part of the vanquished tribe,
   accompanied by which it continued to advance towards the West;
   while other Alans, too haughty to renounce their independence,
   had retreated, some into Germany, whence we shall see them
   afterwards pass into Gaul; others into the Caucasian
   mountains, where they preserve their name to this day. The
   Goths, who bordered on the Alans, had fertilised by their
   labours the rich plains which lie to the north of the Danube
   and of the Black Sea. More civilised than any of the kindred
   Germanic tribes, they began to make rapid progress in the
   social sciences. … This comparatively fortunate state of
   things was suddenly interrupted by the appearance of the
   Huns,—the unlooked-for arrival of that savage nation,
   which, from the moment it crossed the Borysthenes, or the
   Dnieper, began to burn their villages and their crops; to
   massacre, without pity, men, women, and children; to devastate
   and destroy whatever came within the reach of a Scythian
   horseman. … The great Hermanric, whose kingdom extended from
   the Baltic to the Black Sea, would not have abandoned his
   sceptre to the Huns without a struggle; but at this very time
   he was murdered by a domestic enemy. The nations he had
   subjugated prepared on every side for rebellion. The
   Ostrogoths, after a vain resistance, broke their alliance with
   the Visigoths; while the latter, like an affrighted flock of
   sheep, trooping together from all parts of their vast
   territory to the right bank of the Danube, refused to combat
   those superhuman beings by whom they were pursued. They
   stretched out their supplicating hands to the Romans on the
   other bank, entreating that they might be permitted to seek a
   refuge from the butchery which threatened them, in those wilds
   of Mœsia and Thrace which were, almost valueless to the
   empire." Their prayer was granted by the Emperor Valens, on
   the condition that they surrender their arms and that the sons
   of their chief men be given as hostages to the Romans. The
   great Visigothic nation was then (A. D. 376) transported
   across the Danube to the Mœsian shore—200,000 warriors in
   number, besides children and women and slaves in proportion.
   But the Roman officers charged with the reception of the Goths
   were so busy in plundering the goods and outraging the
   daughters and wives of their guests that they neglected to
   secure the arms of the grim warriors of the migration. Whence
   great calamities ensued.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 3 and 5 (volume 1)._

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 378.
   Defeat and destruction of Valens.

   When the Visigothic nation was permitted to cross the Danube,
   A. D. 376, to escape from the Huns, and was admitted into
   Lower Mœsia, nothing seems to have been left undone that would
   exasperate and make enemies of these unwelcome colonists.
   Every possible extortion and outrage was practised upon them.
   To buy food, they were driven to part, first, with their
   slaves, then with their household goods, and finally with
   their children, whom they sold. In despair, at last, they
   showed signs of revolt, and the fatuous Roman commander
   precipitated it by a murderous outrage at Marcianople (modern
   Shumla). In a battle which soon followed near that town, the
   Romans were disastrously beaten. The Visigoths were now joined
   by a large body of Ostrogoths, who passed the Danube without
   resistance, and received into their ranks, moreover, a
   considerable force of Gothic soldiers who had long been in the
   service of the empire. The open country of Mœsia and Thrace was
   now fully exposed to them (the fortified cities they could not
   reduce), and they devastated it for a time without restraint.
   But Valens, the emperor in the east, and Gratian in the west,
   exerted themselves in co-operation to gather forces against
   them, and for two years there was a doubtful struggle carried
   on. The most serious battle, that of The Willows (Ad Salices),
   fought in the region now called the Dobrudscha, was a victory
   to neither side. On the whole the Romans appear to have had
   some advantage in these campaigns, and to have narrowed the
   range of the Gothic depredations. But the host of the
   barbarians was continually increased by fresh reinforcements
   from beyond the Danube. Even their own ferocious enemies, Huns
   and Alans, were permitted to join their standard. Yet, in face
   of this fact, the folly and jealousy of the Emperor Valens led
   him to stake all on the chances of a battle which he made
   haste to rush into, when he learned that his nephew Gratian
   was marching to his assistance from the west. He coveted the
   sole honors of a victory; but death and infamy for himself and
   an overwhelming calamity to the empire were what he achieved.
   The battle was fought near Hadrianople, on the 9th day of
   August, A. D. 378. Two-thirds of the Roman army perished on
   the awful field, and the body of the emperor was never found.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 26._

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 363-379.

GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
   Settlement of the Goths by Theodosius, in Mœsia and Thrace.

   "The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
   terrible battle of Adrianople: more than 60,000 Roman soldiers
   perished in the fight or in the pursuit; and the time was long
   past when such a loss could have been easily repaired by fresh
   levies. Nevertheless, even after this frightful massacre, the
   walls of Adrianople still opposed an unconquerable resistance
   to the barbarians. Valour may supply the place of military
   science in the open field, but civilised nations recover all
   the advantages of the art of war in the attack or defence of
   fortified towns. … The Goths, leaving Adrianople in their
   rear, advanced, ravaging all around them, to the foot of the
   walls of Constantinople; and, after some unimportant
   skirmishes, returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus and
   Dalmatia. From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was
   marked by conflagration and blood. Whilst the European
   provinces of the Greek empire sunk under these calamities, the
   Asiatic provinces took a horrible vengeance on the authors of
   them." The Gothic youths who had been required as hostages
   when the nation crossed the Danube, and those who were
   afterwards sold by their starving parents, were now gathered
   together in different cities of the Asiatic provinces and
   massacred in cold blood, at a given signal, on the same day
   and hour. By this atrocious act, all possible reconciliation
   with the Goths might well seem to be destroyed. The prospect
   was discouraging enough to the new emperor who now ascended
   the vacant throne of Valens (A. D. 379),—the soldier
   Theodosius, son of Theodosius who delivered Britain from the
   Scots.
{1558}
   Chosen by the Emperor Gratian to be his colleague and Emperor
   of the East, Theodosius undertook a most formidable task. "The
   abandonment of the Danube had opened the entrance of the
   empire, not only to the Goths, but to all the tribes of
   Germany and Scythia. … The blood of the young Goths which
   had been shed in Asia was daily avenged with interest over all
   that remained of Mœsian, Thrasian, Dalmatian, or Grecian race.
   It was more particularly during these four years of
   extermination that the Goths acquired the fatal celebrity
   attached to their name, which is still that of the destroyers
   of civilisation. Theodosius began by strengthening the
   fortified cities, recruiting the garrisons, and exercising his
   soldiers in small engagements whenever he felt assured of
   success; he then waited to take advantage of circumstances; he
   sought to divide his enemies by intrigue, and, above all,
   strenuously disavowed the rapacity of the ministers of Valens,
   or the cruelty of Julius; he took every occasion of declaring
   his attachment and esteem for the Gothic people, and at length
   succeeded in persuading them that his friendship was sincere.
   … The very victories of the Goths, their pride, their
   intemperance, at length impaired their energy. Fritigern, who,
   in the most difficult moments, had led them on with so much
   ability, was dead; the jealousies of independent tribes were
   rekindled. … It was by a series of treaties, with as many
   independent chieftains, that the nation was at length induced
   to lay down its arms: the last of these treaties was concluded
   on the 30th of October, 382. It restored peace to the Eastern
   empire, six years after the Goths crossed the Danube. This
   formidable nation was thus finally established within the
   boundary of the empire of the East. The vast regions they had
   ravaged were abandoned to them, if not in absolute
   sovereignty, at least on terms little at variance with their
   independence. The Goths settled in the bosom of the empire had
   no kings; their hereditary chiefs were consulted under the
   name of judges, but their power was unchanged. … The Goths
   gave a vague sort of recognition to the sovereignty of the
   Roman emperor; but they submitted neither to his laws, his
   magistrates, nor his taxes. They engaged to maintain 40,000
   men for the service of Theodosius; but they were to remain a
   distinct army. … It was, probably, at this period that their
   apostle, bishop Ulphilas, who had translated the Gospels into
   their tongue, invented the Mœso-Gothic character, which bears
   the name of their new abode."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26._

GOTHS: A. D. 395.
   Alaric's invasion of Greece.

   "The death of Theodosius [A. D. 395] threw the administration
   of the Eastern Empire into the hands of Rufinus, the minister
   of Arcadius; and that of the Western into those of Stilicho,
   the guardian of Honorius. The discordant elements which
   composed the Roman empire began to reveal all their
   incongruities under these two ministers. … The two ministers
   hated one another with all the violence of aspiring ambition."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2, section 8._

   "The animosity existing between Stilicho and the successive
   ministers of the Eastern Emperor (an animosity which does not
   necessarily imply any fault on the part of the former) was one
   most potent cause of the downfall of the Western Empire. …
   Alaric (the all-ruler) surnamed Baltha (the bold) was the
   Visigothic chieftain whose genius taught him the means of
   turning this estrangement between the two Empires to the best
   account. He was probably born about 360. His birth-place was
   the island Peuce, in the Delta of the Danube, apparently south
   of what is now termed the Sulina mouth of that river. We have
   already met with him crossing the Alps as a leader of
   auxiliaries in the army of Theodosius."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "At this time [A. D. 395] Alaric, partly from disgust at not
   receiving all the preferment which he expected, and partly in
   the hope of compelling the government of the Eastern Empire to
   agree to his terms, quitted the imperial service and retired
   towards the frontiers, where he assembled a force sufficiently
   large to enable him to act independently of all authority.
   Availing himself of the disputes between the ministers of the
   two emperors, and perhaps instigated by Rufinus or Stilicho to
   aid their intrigues, he established himself in the provinces
   to the south of the Danube. In the year 395 he advanced to the
   walls of Constantinople; but the movement was evidently a
   feint. … After this demonstration, Alaric marched into
   Thrace and Macedonia, and extended his ravages into Thessaly.
   … When the Goth found the northern provinces exhausted, he
   resolved to invade Greece and Peloponnesus, which had long
   enjoyed profound tranquillity. … Thermopylæ was left
   unguarded, and Alaric entered Greece without encountering any
   resistance. The ravages committed by Alaric's army have been
   described in fearful terms; villages and towns were burnt, the
   men were murdered, and the women and children carried away to
   be sold as slaves by the Goths. … The walls of Thebes had
   been rebuilt, and it was in such a state of defence that
   Alaric could not venture to besiege it, but hurried forward to
   Athens. He concluded a treaty with the civil and military
   authorities, which enabled him to enter that city without
   opposition. … Athens evidently owed its good treatment to
   the condition of its population, and perhaps to the strength
   of its walls, which imposed some respect on the Goths; for the
   rest of Attica did not escape the usual fate of the districts
   through which the barbarians marched. The town of Eleusis, and
   the great temple of Ceres, were plundered and then destroyed.
   … Alaric marched unopposed into the Peloponnesus, and, in a
   short time, captured almost every city in it without meeting
   with any resistance. Corinth, Argos, and Sparta were all
   plundered by the Goths." Alaric wintered in the Peloponnesus;
   in the following spring he was attacked, not only by the
   forces of the Eastern Empire, whose subjects he had outraged,
   but by Stilicho, the energetic minister of the Roman West.
   Stilicho, in a vigorous campaign, drove the Goths into the
   mountains on the borders of Elis and Arcadia; but they escaped
   and reached Epirus, with their plunder (see ROME: A. D.
   396-398). "The truth appears to be that Alaric availed himself
   so ably of the jealousy with which the court of Constantinople
   viewed the proceedings of Stilicho, as to negotiate a treaty,
   by which he was received into the Roman service, and that he
   really entered Epirus as a general of Arcadius. … He
   obtained the appointment of Commander-in-chief of the imperial
   forces in Eastern' Illyricum, which be held for four years.
   During this time he prepared his troops to seek his fortune in
   the Western Empire."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2, section 8._

{1559}

   "The birth of Alaric, the glory of his past exploits, and the
   confidence in his future designs, insensibly united the body
   of the nation under his victorious standard; and, with the
   unanimous consent of the barbarian chieftains, the
   Master-general of Illyricum was elevated, according to ancient
   custom, on a shield, and solemnly proclaimed king of the
   Visigoths."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30._

GOTHS: A. D. 400.
   Failure of Gainas at Constantinople.
   His defeat and death.

      See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 400-403.
   Alaric's first invasion of Italy.

   After Alaric had become a commissioned general of the Eastern
   Empire and had been placed in command of the great præfecture
   of Eastern Illyricum, he "remained quiet for three years,
   arming and drilling his followers, and waiting for the
   opportunity to make a bold stroke for a wider and more secure
   dominion. In the autumn of the year 400, knowing that Stilicho
   was absent on a campaign in Gaul, Alaric entered Italy. For
   about a year and a half the Goths ranged almost unresisted
   over the northern part of the peninsula. The emperor, whose
   court was then at Milan, made preparations for taking refuge
   in Gaul; and the walls of Rome were hurriedly repaired in
   expectation of an attack. On the Easter Sunday of the year 402
   (March 19), the camp of Alaric, near Pollentia, was surprised
   by Stilicho, who rightly guessed that the Goths would be
   engaged in worship, and would not imagine their Roman
   fellow-Christians less observant of the sacred day than
   themselves. Though unprepared for battle, the barbarians made
   a desperate stand, but at last they were beaten. … Alaric
   was able to retreat in good order, and he soon after crossed
   the Po with the intention of marching against Rome. However,
   his troops began to desert in large numbers, and he had to
   change his purpose. In the first place he thought of invading
   Gaul, but Stilicho overtook him and defeated him heavily at
   Verona [A. D. 403]. Alaric himself narrowly escaped capture by
   the swiftness of his horse. Stilicho, however, was not very
   anxious for the destruction of Alaric, as he thought he might
   some day find him a convenient tool in his quarrels with the
   ministers of Arcadius [the Emperor of the East]. So he offered
   Alaric a handsome bribe to go away from Italy"—[back to
   Illyria].

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30._

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 408-410.
   Alaric's three sieges and sack of Rome.
   His death.

      See ROME: A. D. 408-410.

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 410-419.
   Founding of the kingdom of Toulouse.

   On the death of Alaric (A. D. 410), his brother-in-law,
   Ataulphus, or Atawulfs, was chosen king by the wandering
   Visigothic nation, and the new king succeeded in negotiating a
   treaty of peace with the court at Ravenna. As the result of
   it, the Goths moved northwards and, at the beginning of the
   year 412, they passed out of Italy into Gaul. A number of
   usurpers had risen in the western provinces, during the five
   years since 407, encouraged by the disorders of the time, and
   Ataulphus accepted a commission from Honorius to put them down
   and to restore the imperial authority in southern Gaul. The
   commission was faithfully executed in one of its parts; but
   the authority which the Gothic king established was, rather,
   his own, than that of the imperial puppet at Ravenna. Before
   the end of 413, he was master of most of the Gallic region on
   the Mediterranean (though Marseilles resisted him), and
   westward to the Atlantic. Then, at Narbonne, he married Galla
   Placidia, sister of Honorius, who had been a prisoner in the
   camp of the Goths for four years, but who was gallantly wooed,
   it would seem, and gently and truly won, by her Gothic lover.
   Apparently still commissioned by the Roman emperor, though
   half at war with him, and though his marriage with Placidia
   was haughtily forbidden and unrecognized, Ataulphus next
   carried his arms into Spain, already ravaged by Vandals, Alans
   and Suevic bands. But there he was cut off in the midst of his
   conquests, by assassination, in August, 415. The Goths,
   however, pursued their career under another valiant king,
   Wallia, who conquered the whole of Spain and meditated the
   invasion of Africa; but was persuaded to give up both
   conquests and prospects to Honorius, in exchange for a
   dominion which embraced the fairest portions of Gaul. "His
   victorious Goths, forty-three years after they had passed the
   Danube, were established, according to the faith of treaties,
   in the possession of the second Aquitaine, a maritime province
   between the Garonne and the Loire, under the civil and
   ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bordeaux. … The Gothic limits
   were enlarged by the additional gift of some neighboring
   dioceses; and the successors of Alaric fixed their royal
   residence at Toulouse, which included five populous quarters,
   or cities, within the spacious circuit of its walls. … The
   Gothic limits contained the territories of seven
   cities—namely, those of Bordeaux, Périgueux, Angoulême, Agen,
   Saintes, Poitiers, and Toulouse. Hence the district obtained
   the name of Septimania."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31 (with note by Dr. Wm. Smith)._

   It was at the end of the year 418, that the Goths settled
   themselves in their new kingdom, of Toulouse. The next year,
   Wallia died, and was succeeded by Theodoric, a valorous
   soldier of the race of the Balthings, who played a
   considerable part in the history of the next thirty years.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 11-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

GOTHS: (The Visigoths): A. D.419-451.
   The Kingdom of Toulouse.

   "By the peace which their king Wallia concluded with Honorius
   (416) after the restoration of Placidia, they [the Visigoths]
   had obtained legal possession of the district called Aquitania
   Secunda, together with the territory round Toulouse, all of
   which allotment went by the name of Septimania or Gothia. For
   ten years (419-429) there had been firm peace between
   Visigoths and Romans; then, for ten years more (429-439),
   fierce and almost continued war, Theodoric, king of the
   Visigoths, endeavouring to take Arles and Narbonne; Aetius and
   his subordinate Litorius striving to take the Gothic capital
   of Toulouse, and all but succeeding. And in these wars Aetius
   had availed himself of his long-standing friendship with the
   Huns to enlist them as auxiliaries against the warriors of
   Theodoric, dangerous allies who plundered friends and enemies.
   … For the last twelve years (439-451) there had been peace,
   but scarcely friendship, between the Courts of Ravenna and
   Toulouse."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

{1560}

   As the successor of Wallia, who died in 419, the Visigoths
   chose Theoderic, "who seems to have been a Balthing, though
   not related either to Wallia or to Atawulf. You must be
   careful not to confound this Visigoth Theoderic, or his son of
   the same name, with the great Theoderic the Amaling, who began
   to reign over the Ostrogoths about the year 475. Theoderic the
   Visigoth was not such a great man as his namesake, but he must
   have been both a brave soldier and an able ruler, or he could
   not have kept the affection and obedience of his people for
   thirty-two years. His great object was to extend his kingdom,
   which was hemmed in on the north by the Franks, … and on the
   west by another people of German invaders, the Burgunds; while
   the Roman Empire still kept possession of some rich cities,
   such as Arles and Narbonne [the first named of which Theoderic
   besieged unsuccessfully in 425, the last named in 437], which
   were temptingly close to the Gothic boundary on the south. …
   In the year 450 the Visigoths and the Romans were drawn more
   closely together by the approach of a great common danger. …
   The Huns … had, under their famous king, Attila, moved
   westward, and were threatening to over-run both Gaul and
   Italy."

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 12._

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths and Visigoths): A. D. 451.
   At the battle of Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 453.
   Breaking the yoke of the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 453.

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 453-484.
   Extension of the kingdom of Toulouse.

   "The Visigoths were governed from 453 to 466 by Theodoric the
   Second, son of Theodoric the First, and grandson of Alaric.
   … The reign of Theodoric was distinguished by conquests. On
   the one hand he drove the Suevians as far as the extremity of
   Gallicia. … On the other hand, in 462, he rendered himself
   master of the town of Narbon, which was delivered up to him by
   its count; he also carried his arms towards the Loire; but his
   brother Frederic, whom he had charged with the conquest of the
   Armorici, and who had taken possession of Chinon, was killed
   in 463 near Orleans, in a battle which he gave to Count
   Ægidius. Theodoric finally extended the dominion of the
   Visigoths to the Rhone; he even attacked Arles and Marseille,
   but he could not subjugate them. After a glorious reign of
   thirteen years, he was killed in the month of August, 466, by
   his brother Euric, by whom he was succeeded. … Euric …
   attacked, in 473, the province of Auvergne. … He conquered
   it in 475 and caused his possession of it to be confirmed by
   the emperor Nepos. He had at that period acquired the Loire
   and the Rhone as frontiers; in Spain he subjected the whole of
   the province of Taragon. … He afterwards conquered Provence,
   and was acknowledged a sovereign in Arles and at Marseille,
   towards the year 480. No prince, whether civilized or
   barbarian, was at that period so much feared as Euric; and,
   had he lived longer, it would undoubtedly have been to the
   Visigoths, and not to the Franks, that the honor would have
   belonged of reconstituting the Gallic provinces; but he died
   at Arles towards the end of the year 484, leaving an only son
   of tender age, who was crowned under the name of Alaric the
   Second."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians;
      translated by Bellingham, chapter 4._

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 473-474.
   Invasions of Italy and Gaul.

   "The Ostrogothic brother-kings, who served under Attila at the
   battle in Champagne, on the overthrow of the Hunnish Empire
   obtained for themselves a goodly settlement in Pannonia, on
   the western bank of the Danube. For near twenty years they had
   been engaged in desultory hostilities with their barbarian
   neighbours, with Sueves and Rugians on the north, with Huns
   and Sarmatians on the south. Now, as their countryman,
   Jornandes, tells us with admirable frankness, 'the spoils of
   these neighbouring nations were dwindling, and food and
   clothing began to fail the Goths.' … They clustered round
   their kings, and clamoured to be led forth to war—whither
   they cared not, but war must be. Theodemir, the elder king,
   took counsel with his brother Widemir, and they resolved to
   commence a campaign against the Roman Empire. Theodemir, as
   the more powerful chieftain, was to attack the stronger Empire
   of the East; Widemir, with his weaker forces, was to enter
   Italy. He did so, but, like so many of the northern
   conquerors, he soon found a grave in the beautiful but deathly
   land. His son, the younger Widemir, succeeded to his designs
   of conquest, but Glycerius [Roman emperor, for the moment]
   approached him with presents and smooth words, and was not
   ashamed to suggest that he should transfer his arms to Gaul,
   which was still in theory, and partially in fact, a province
   of the Empire. The sturdy bands of Widemir's Ostrogoths
   descended accordingly into the valleys of the Rhone and the
   Loire; they speedily renewed the ancient alliance with the
   Visigothic members of their scattered nationality, and helped
   to ruin yet more utterly the already desperate cause of
   Gallo-Roman freedom."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 473-488.
   Rise of Theodoric.

   The greater mass of the Ostrogoth nation who followed
   Theodemir (or Theudemer) the elder of the royal brothers, into
   the territories of the Eastern Empire, were rapidly successful
   in their adventures. The Court at Constantinople made little
   attempt to oppose them with arms, but bribed them to peace by
   gifts of money and a large cession of territory in Macedonia.
   "Amongst the cities which were abandoned to them was Pella,
   famous as the birthplace of Alexander the Great. Just after
   the conclusion of this treaty (in the year 474) Theudemer
   died, and his son Theoderic, at the age of twenty years, began
   his long and glorious reign as king of the Ostrogoths."
   Theodoric had been reared in the imperial court at
   Constantinople, from his eighth to his eighteenth year, his
   father having pledged him to the emperor as a hostage for the
   fulfilment of a treaty of peace. He understood, therefore, the
   corrupt politics of the empire and its weakness, and he made the
   most of his knowledge.
{1561}
   Sometimes at peace with the reigning powers and sometimes at
   war; sometimes ravaging the country to the very gates of the
   impregnable capital, and sometimes settled quietly on lands
   along the southern bank of the Danube which he had taken in
   exchange for the Maeedonian tract; sometimes in league and
   sometimes in furious rivalry with another Gothic chieftain and
   adventurer, called Theodoric Strabo, whose origin and whose
   power are somewhat of a mystery—the seriousness to the
   Eastern Empire of the position and the strength of Theodoric
   and his Ostrogoths went on developing until the year 488. That
   year, the statesmen at Constantinople were illuminated by an
   idea. They proposed to Theodoric to migrate with his nation
   into Italy and to conquer a kingdom there. The Emperor Zeno,
   to whom the Roman senate had surrendered the sovereignty of
   the Western Roman Empire, and into whose hands the barbarian
   who extinguished it, Odoacer, or Odovacar, had delivered the
   purple robes—the Emperor Zeno, in the exercise of his
   imperial function, authorized the conquest to be made.
   Theodoric did not hesitate to accept a commission so
   scrupulously legal.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapters 14-15._

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 488-526.
   The kingdom of Theodoric in Italy.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 493-525.
   Theodoric in German legend.

      See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-509.
   The kingdom of Toulouse overthrown by the Franks.

   "If the successors of Euric had been endowed with genius and
   energy equal to his, it is possible that the Visigoths might
   have made themselves masters of the whole Western world. But
   there was in the kingdom one fatal element of weakness, which
   perhaps not even a succession of rulers like Euric could have
   long prevented from working the destruction of the State. The
   Visigoth kings were Arians; the great mass of their subjects
   in Gaul were Catholics, and the hatred between religious
   parties was so great that it was almost impossible for a
   sovereign to win the attachment of subjects who regarded him
   as a heretic." After 496, when Clovis, the king of the Franks,
   renounced his heathenism, professed Christianity, and was
   baptized by a Catholic bishop, the Catholics of Southern Gaul
   began almost openly to invite him to the conquest of their
   country. In the year 507 he responded to the invitation, and
   declared war against the Visigoth, giving simply as his ground
   of war that it grieved him to see the fairest part of Gaul in
   the hands of the Arians. "The rapidity of Clovis's advance was
   something quite unexpected by the Visigoths. Alaric still
   clung to the hope of being able to avoid a battle until the
   arrival of Theodoric's Ostrogoths [from his great kinsman in
   Italy] and wished to retreat," but the opinion of his officers
   forced him to make a stand. "He drew up his army on 'the field
   of Voclad' (the name still survives as Vouillé or Vouglé), on
   the banks of the Clain, a few miles south of Poitiers, and
   prepared to receive the attack of the Franks. The battle which
   followed decided the fate of Gaul. The Visigoths were totally
   defeated, and their king was killed. Alaric's son, Amalaric, a
   child five years of age, was carried across the Pyrenees into
   Spain. During the next two years Clovis conquered, with very
   little resistance, almost all the Gaulish dominions of the
   Visigoths, and added them to his own. The 'Kingdom of
   Toulouse' was no more. … But Clovis was not allowed to
   fulfil his intention of thoroughly destroying their [the
   Visigothic] power, for the great Theoderic of Italy took up
   the cause of his grandson Amalaric. The final result of many
   struggles between Theoderic and the Franks was that the
   Visigoths were allowed to remain masters of Spain, and of a
   strip of sea-coast bordering on the Gulf of Lyons. … This
   diminished kingdom … lasted just 200 years."

      _H. Bradley,
      The Story of the Goths,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 9._

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 2._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 38._

      See, also, ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-711.
   The kingdom in Spain.

   The conquests of Clovis, king of the Franks, reduced the
   dominion of the Visigoths on the northern side of the Pyrenees
   to a small strip of Roman Narbonensis, along the gulf of
   Lyons; but most of Spain had come under their rule at that
   time and remained so. Amalaric, son of Alaric II. (and
   grandson, on the maternal side, of the great Ostrogothic king,
   Theodoric, who ruled both Gothic kingdoms during the minority
   of Amalaric), reigned after the death of Theodoric until 531,
   when he was murdered. He had made Narbonne his capital, until
   he was driven from it, in a war with one of the sons of
   Clovis. It was recovered; but the seat of government became
   fixed at Toledo. During the reign of his successor, the Franks
   invaded Spain (A.D. 543), but were beaten back from the walls
   of Cæsaraugusta (modern Saragossa), and retreated with
   difficulty and disaster. The Visigoths were now able to hold
   their ground against the conquerors of Gaul, and the limits of
   their kingdom underwent little subsequent change, until the
   coming of the Moors. "The Gothic kings, in spite of bloody
   changes and fierce opposition from their nobility, succeeded
   in identifying themselves with the land and the people whom
   they had conquered. They guided the fortunes of the country
   with a distinct purpose and vigorous hand. By Leovigild
   (572-586) the power of the rebellious nobility was broken, and
   the independence and name of the Sueves of Gallicia
   extinguished. The still more dangerous religious conflict
   between the Catholic population and the inherited Arianism of
   the Goths was put down, but at the cost of the life of his
   son, Herminigild, who had married a Frank and Catholic
   princess, and who placed himself at the head of the Catholics.
   But Leovigild was the last Arian king. This cause of
   dissension was taken away by his son Reccared (568-601), who
   solemnly abandoned Arianism, and embraced with zeal the
   popular Catholic creed. He was followed by the greater part of
   his Arian subjects, but the change throughout the land was not
   accomplished without some fierce resistance. It led among
   other things to the disappearance of the Gothic language, and
   of all that recalled the Arian days, and to the destruction in
   Spain of what there was of Gothic literature, such as the
   translation of the Bible, supposed to be tainted with
   Arianism. But it determined the complete fusion of the Gothic
   and Latin population. After Reccared, two marked features of
   the later Spanish character began to show themselves. One was
   the great prominence in the state of the ecclesiastical
   element. The Spanish kings sought in the clergy a counterpoise
   to their turbulent nobility. The great church councils of
   Toledo became the legislative assemblies of the nation; the
   bishops in them took precedence of the nobles; laws were made
   there as well as canons; and seventeen of these councils are
   recorded between the end of the fourth century and the end of
   the seventh.
{1562}
   The other feature was that stern and systematic intolerance
   which became characteristic of Spain. Under Sisebut (612-620),
   took place the first expulsion of the Jews. … The Gothic
   realm of Spain was the most flourishing and the most advanced
   of the new Teutonic kingdoms. … But however the Goths in
   Spain might have worked out their political career, their
   course was rudely arrested. … While the Goths had been
   settling their laws, while their kings had been marshalling
   their court after the order of Byzantium, the Saracens had
   been drawing nearer and nearer."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapters 29-35._

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 2._

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 2._

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 535-553.
   Fall of the kingdom of Theodoric.
   Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 553.
   Their disappearance from History.

   "Totila and Teia, last of the race of Ostrogoth kings, fell as
   became their heroic blood, sword in hand, upon the field of
   battle. Then occurred a singular phenomenon,—the
   annihilation and disappearance of a great and powerful people
   from the world's history. … A great people, which had
   organized an enlightened government, and sent 200,000 fighting
   men into the field of battle, is annihilated and forgotten. A
   wretched remnant, transported by Narses to Constantinople,
   were soon absorbed in the miserable proletariat of a
   metropolitan city. The rest fell by the sword, or were
   gradually amalgamated with the mixed population of the
   peninsula. The Visigoth kingdom in Gaul and Spain, which had
   been overshadowed by the glories of the great Theodoric,
   emerges into independent renown, and takes up the traditions
   of the Gothic name. In the annals of Europe, the Ostrogoth is
   heard of no more."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      The Fall of Rome,
      lecture 6._

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 711-713.
   Fall of the kingdom in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

----------GOTHS: End----------

GOURGUES, Dominic de, The vengeance of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568.

GOWRIE PLOT, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.

GRACCHI, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

GRACES OF CHARLES I. TO THE IRISH.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1625.

GRAF.-GRAFIO.

   "The highest official dignitary of which the Salic law [law of
   the Sulian Franks] makes mention is the Grafio (Graf, Count),
   who was appointed by the king, and therefore protected by a
   triple … leodis [weregild]. His authority and jurisdiction
   extended over a district answering to the gau (canton) of
   later times, in which he acted as the representative of the
   king, and was civil and military governor of the people."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

      See, also, MARGRAVE.

GRAFTON-CHATHAM MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.1765-1768, and 1770.

GRAHAM'S DIKE.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

GRAMPIANS, OR MONS GRANPIUS.

   Victoriously fought by the Romans under Agricola with the
   tribes of Caledonia, A. D. 86. Mr. Skene fixes the battle
   ground at the junction of the Isla with the Tay.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

GRAN CHACO, The.

   "This tract of flat country, lying between the tropic and 29°
   South, extends eastward to the Parana and Paraguay, and
   westward to the province of Santiago del Estero. Its area is
   180,000 square miles. About one-third belongs to Paraguay, and
   a small part to Bolivia, but the bulk is in the Argentine
   Republic. … The Gran Chaco is no desert, but a rich alluvial
   lowland, fitted for colonization, which is hindered by the
   want of knowledge of the rivers and their shiftings."

      _The American Naturalist,
      volume 23, page 799._

   "In the Quitchoane language, which is the original language of
   Peru, they call 'chacu,' those great flocks of deer, goats,
   and such other wild animals, which the inhabitants of this
   part of America drive together when they hunt them; and this
   name was given to the country we speak of, because at the time
   Francis Pizarro made himself master of a great part of the
   Peruvian empire, a great number of its inhabitants took refuge
   there. Of 'Chacu', which the Spaniards pronounce 'Chacou"
   custom has made 'Chaco.' It appears that, at first, they
   comprehended nothing under this name but the country lying
   between the mountains of the Cordilliere, the Pilco Mayo, and
   the Red River; and that they extended it, in process of time,
   in proportion as other nations joined the Peruvians, who had
   taken refuge there to defend their liberties against the
   Spaniards."

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of Paraguay,
      book 3 (volume l)._

   For an account of the tribes of the Gran Chaco,

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GRANADA:
   The rise of the city.

   Granada "was small and unimportant until the year 1012. Before
   that time, it was considered a dependency of Elvira [the
   neighboring ancient Roman city of Illiberis]; but, little by
   little, the people of Elvira migrated to it, and as it grew
   Elvira dwindled into insignificance."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 6, chapter 5, note (volume 2)._

GRANADA: A. D. 711.
   Taken by the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

GRANADA: A. D. 1238.
   The founding of the Moorish kingdom.
   Its vassalage to the King of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

GRANADA: A. D. 1238-1273.
   The kingdom under its founder.
   The building of the Alhambra.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

GRANADA: A. D. 1273-1460.
   Slow decay and crumbling of the Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GRANADA: A. D. 1476-1492.
   The fall of the Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

----------GRANADA: End----------

GRANADA, Treaty of.

   See ITALY: A. D: 1501-1504.

GRANADINE CONFEDERATION, The.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

GRAND ALLIANCES against Louis XIV.

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

{1563}

GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC.

   "The Grand Army of the Republic was organized April 6, 1866,
   in Decatur, the county seat of Macon County, Illinois. Its
   originator was Dr. Benjamin F. Stephenson, a physician of
   Springfield, Illinois, who had served during the war as
   surgeon of the 14th Illinois Infantry. He had spent many weeks
   in study and plans so that the Order might be one that would
   meet with the general approval of the surviving comrades of
   the war, and thus insure their hearty co-operation. He made a
   draft of a ritual, and sent it by Captain John S. Phelps to
   Decatur, where two veterans, Messrs. Coltrin and Prior, had a
   printing-office. These gentlemen, with their employees, who
   had been in the service, were first obligated to secrecy, and
   the ritual was then placed in type in their office. Captain
   Phelps returned to Springfield with proofs of the ritual, but
   the comrades in Decatur were so interested in the project,
   that, with the active assistance of Captain M. F. Kanan and
   Dr. J. W. Routh, a sufficient number of names were at once
   secured to an application for charter, and these gentlemen
   went to Springfield to request Dr. Stephenson to return with
   them and organize a post at Decatur. The formation of a post
   was under way in Springfield, but not being ready for muster,
   Dr. Stephenson, accompanied by several comrades, proceeded to
   Decatur, and, as stated, on April 6, 1866, mustered post No.1,
   with General Isaac C. Pugh as post commander, and Captain
   Kanan as adjutant. The latter gave material aid to Dr.
   Stephenson in the work of organizing other posts, and Dr.
   Routh served as chairman of a committee to revise the ritual.
   The title, 'The Grand Army of the Republic, U. S.,' was
   formally adopted that night. Soon after this, post No.2 was
   organized at Springfield with General Jules C. Webber as
   commander. … Nothing was done in the Eastern States about
   establishing posts until the opportunity was given for
   consultation on this subject at a national soldiers' and
   sailors' convention, held in Pittsburg in September, 1866,
   when prominent representatives from Eastern States were
   obligated and authorized to organize posts. The first posts so
   established were posts Nos. 1 in Philadelphia, and 3 in
   Pittsburg, by charters direct from the acting
   commander-in-chief, Dr. Stephenson; and post 2, Philadelphia,
   by charter received from General J. K. Proudfit, department
   commander of Wisconsin. A department convention was held at
   Springfield, Illinois, July 12, 1866, and adopted resolutions
   declaring the objects of the G. A. R. General John W. Palmer
   was elected the first Department Commander. … The first
   national convention was held at Indianapolis, Ind., November
   20, 1866. … General Stephen A. Hurlbut, of Illinois, was
   elected Commander-in-Chief. General Thomas B. McKean, of New
   York, Senior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; General Nathan Kimball,
   of Indiana, Junior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; and Dr.
   Stephenson, Adjutant-General. The objects of the Order cannot
   be more briefly stated than from the articles and regulations.

   1. To preserve and strengthen those kind and fraternal
   feelings which bind together the Soldiers, Sailors, and
   Marines who united to suppress the late Rebellion, and to
   perpetuate the memory and history of the dead.

   2. To assist such former comrades in arms as need help and
   protection, and to extend needful aid to the widows and
   orphans of those who have fallen.

   3. To maintain true allegiance to the United States of
   America, based upon a paramount respect for, and fidelity to,
   its Constitution and laws, to discountenance whatever tends to
   weaken loyalty, incites to insurrection, treason, or
   rebellion, or in any manner impairs the efficiency and
   permanency of our free institutions; and to encourage the
   spread of universal liberty, equal rights, and justice to all
   men.

   Article IV. defines the qualifications of members in the
   following terms: Soldiers and Sailors of the United States
   Army, Navy, or Marine Corps who served between April 12, 1861,
   and April 29, 1865, in the war for the suppression of the
   Rebellion, and those having been honorably discharged
   therefrom after such service, and of such State regiments as
   were called into active service and subject to the orders of
   United States general officers, between the dates mentioned,
   shall be eligible to membership in the Grand Army of the
   Republic. No person shall be eligible who has at any time
   borne arms against the United States. … The second national
   encampment was held in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pa.,
   January 15, 1868. … General John A. Logan, of Illinois, was
   elected Commander-in-Chief. … That which tended most to
   attract public attention to the organization was the issuance
   of the order of General Logan early in his administration, in
   1868, directing the observance of May 30th as Memorial Day.
   … At the national encampment, held May 11, 1870, at
   Washington, D. C., the following article was adopted as a part
   of the rules and regulations: 'The national encampment hereby
   establishes a Memorial Day, to be observed by the members of
   the Grand Army of the Republic, on the 30th day of May
   annually, in commemoration of the deeds of our fallen
   comrades. When such day occurs on Sunday, the preceding day
   shall be observed, except where, by legal enactment, the
   succeeding day is made a legal holiday, when such day shall be
   observed.' Memorial Day has been observed as such every year
   since throughout the country wherever a post of the Grand Army
   of the Republic has been established. In most of the States
   the day has been designated as a holiday."

      _W. H. Ward, editor,
      Records of Members of the
      Grand Army of the Republic,
      pages 6-9._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. S. Merrill,
      The Grand Army of the Republic
      (New England Magazine, August, 1890)._

GRAND ARMY REMONSTRANCE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

GRAND COUNCIL, The.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

GRAND MODEL, The.

   The "fundamental constitutions" framed by the philosopher,
   John Locke, for the Carolinas, were so called in their day.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

GRAND PENSIONARY, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

GRAND REMONSTRANCE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (NOVEMBER).

GRAND SERJEANTY.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

GRAND SHUPANES.

      See SHUPANES.

GRANDELLA, OR BENEVENTO, Battle of (1266).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

GRANDI OF FLORENCE, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

GRANGE, The.
   Grangers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

GRANICUS, Battle of the (B. C. 334).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

{1564}

GRANSON, Battle of (1476).

   See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

GRANT, General Ulysses S.
   First Battle at Belmont.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
      (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Capture of Forts Henry and Donelson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

   Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

   Under Halleck at Corinth.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   Command of the Armies of the Mississippi and Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   Iuka and Corinth.

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

   Campaign against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),
      and (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The Chattanooga campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   In chief command of the whole army.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MARCH-APRIL).

   Last campaign.
      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: VIRGINIA) to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

   Presidential election, re-election and Administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868
      (NOVEMBER), to 1876-1877.

GRANVELLE'S MINISTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS.

   See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, to 1562-1566.

GRASSHOPPER WAR, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

GRATIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 367-383.

GRAUBUNDEN: Achievement of independence.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

   The Valtelline revolt and war.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

   Dismemberment by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

GRAVE: A. D. 1586.
   Siege and capture by the Prince of Parma.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

----------GRAVE: End----------

GRAVELINES: A. D. 1383.
   Capture and destruction by the English.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

GRAVELINES: A. D. 1652.
    Taken by the Spaniards.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

GRAVELINES: A. D. 1658.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

GRAVELINES: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

----------GRAVELINES: End----------

GRAVELOTTE, OR ST. PRIVAT, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

GRAYBACKS, BOYS IN GRAY.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

GREAT BELL ROLAND, The.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

GREAT BRIDGE, Battle at (1775).

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

GREAT BRITAIN: Adoption of the name for the United Kingdoms of
England and Scotland.

   See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

GREAT CAPTAIN, The.

   This was the title commonly given to the Spanish general,
   Gonsalvo de Cordova, after his campaign against the French in
   Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

GREAT COMPANY, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

GREAT CONDÉ, The.

      See CONDÉ.

GREAT DAYS OF AUVERGNE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.

GREAT ELECTOR, The.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

GREAT INTERREGNUM, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

GREAT KANAWHA, Battle of the.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

GREAT KING, The.

   A title often applied to the kings of the ancient Persian
   monarchy.

GREAT MEADOWS, Washington's first battle and capitulation at.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

GREAT MOGULS.
   The Mongol sovereigns of India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

GREAT PEACE, The.

      See BRETIGNY, TREATY OF.

GREAT POWERS, The.

   The six larger and stronger nations of Europe,—England,
   Germany, France, Austria, Russia and Italy,—are often
   referred to as "the great powers." Until the rise of united
   Italy, the "great powers" of Europe were five in number.

GREAT PRIVILEGE, or Great Charter of Holland, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1477, and after.

GREAT RUSSIA.

      See RUSSIA, GREAT.

GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, The founding of.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

GREAT SCHISM, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1378.

GREAT TREK, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA. A. D. 1806-1881.

GREAT WALL OF CHINA.

      See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

GREAT WEEK, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

GREAT YAHNI, Battle of (1877).

      See TURKS: A.D. 1877-1878.

GREAVES.

   The greaves which formed part of the armour of the ancient
   Greeks were "leggings formed of a pewter-like metal, which
   covered the lower limbs down to the instep; and they were
   fastened by clasps. … Homer designates them as 'flexible';
   and he frequently speaks of the Greek soldiery as being
   well-equipped with this important defence—not only, that is,
   well provided with greaves, but also having them so well
   formed and adjusted that they would protect the limbs of the
   warrior without in any degree affecting his freedom of
   movement and action. These greaves, as has been stated, appear
   to have been formed of a metal resembling the alloy that we
   know as pewter."

      _C. Boutell,
      Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, section 3._

   ----------Volume 2: End--------

   ----------Volume 3: Start--------

List Of Maps.

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

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

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

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

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


Logical Outline, In Colors.

Irish History, To follow page 1754


Chronological Tables.

The Seventh Century, On page 2073

The Eighth Century, On page 2074


{1565}

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

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

GREECE:
   The Land.

   Its geographical characteristics, and their influence upon the
   People.

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

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

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

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

GREECE: Ancient inhabitants.
   Tribal divisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

GREECE:
   Mycenæ and its kings.
   The unburied memorials.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Schliemann,
      Mycenæ._

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

GREECE:
   Ancient political and geographical divisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

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

      See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

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

{1571}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      book 6._

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

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

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

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

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

      SEE ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{1575}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

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

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

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

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Cimon; Pericles._

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

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

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

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

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

{1579}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      books 2-3._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{1585}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Alcibiades._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

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

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{1588}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{1590}

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

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

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

      _Plutarch,
      Alcibiades._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Plutarch,
      Lysander._

      _Xenophon,
      Hellenica,
      book 2, chapter 1._

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See THEBES: B. C. 378.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Pelopidas_.

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

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

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

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

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

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

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

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

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

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

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

      See, also,
      HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Polybius,
      History._

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

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

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

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

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

      _Polybius,
      General History._

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

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

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

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

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

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

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

      See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

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

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

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

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

      See ROME: B. C. 48.

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

      See GOTHS.

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

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

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

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

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

      See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

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

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

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

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

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

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

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

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

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

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

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

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

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

      _T. Gordon,
      History of the Greek Revolution._

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

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

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

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

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

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

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

      _L. Sergeant,
      Greece,
      chapter 5._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREEK, Origin of the name.

      See HELLAS.

GREEK CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.

GREEK EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

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

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

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

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

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

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

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

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

GREEK EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND.

      See TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.

GREEK FIRE.

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

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

GREEK GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

      See HELLENIC GENIUS, &c.

GREELEY, Horace,
   The Peace Conference at Niagara.

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

   Presidential candidacy and defeat.

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

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

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

GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

GREENBACK PARTY, The.

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

GREENE, General Nathaniel, and the American Revolution.

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

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

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

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

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

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

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

{1613}

GREENS, Roman Faction of the.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

GREENVILLE TREATY WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES.

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

GREGORIAN CALENDAR.—GREGORIAN ERA.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

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

GRENVILLE MINISTRY, The.

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

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

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

GREY, Earl, The Ministry of.

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

GREY FRIARS.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

GREY LEAGUES, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GREYS, OR BIGI, of Florence, The.

      See BIGI.

GRIERSON'S RAID.

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

GRIQUAS.—GRIQUALAND.

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

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

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

GRISONS, The.
   Achievement of democratic independence.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GRISONS: The Valtelline revolt and war.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

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

GROCHOW, Battles of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

GROL, Capture of (1627).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

GROS VENTRE INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

GROSS BEEREN, Battle of.

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

GROSS GÖRSCHEN, OR LUTZEN, Battle of.

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

GROSSE RATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

GROSSWARDEIN, Treaty of.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

GROTIUS, HUGO, Imprisonment and escape of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

GROVETON, Battle of.

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

GRUTHUNGI, The.

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

GRÜTLI, OR RÜTLI, The Meadow of.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

GRYNEUM, The Oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

GUADACELITO OR SALADO, Battle of (1340).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GUADALETE, Battle of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

GUADALOUPE HIDALGO, Treaty of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

GUADALUPES.

      See GACHUPINES.

GUAICARUS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUAJIRA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

GUANAJUATO, Battles of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

GUANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUANCHES, The.

      See LIBYANS.

GUARANI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

GUASTALLA, Battle of (1734).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

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

GUATEMALA:
   The name.

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

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

GUATEMALA:
   Aboriginal inhabitants, and ruins of Ancient Civilization.

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

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

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

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

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

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

GUAYANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{1614}

GUCK OR COCO TRIBES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

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

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

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

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

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

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

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

GUELF PARTY, Captains of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GUÉLFS. White and Black (Bianchi and Neri).

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

GUELPHS OF HANOVER, The Order of the.

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

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

GUERANDE. Treaty of.

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

GUERNSEY, The Isle of.

      See JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.

GUERRA DOS CABANOS.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

GUERRILLAS.

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

GUEUX OF THE NETHERLAND REVOLT.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

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

GUIANA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

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

      See EL DORADO.

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

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

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

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

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

GUIENNE, OR GUYENNE.

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

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

GUILDS, OR GILDS, Mediæval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See, also, COMMUNE.

GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

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

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

GUILDS OF FLORENCE.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

GUILFORD COURT HOUSE, Battle of (1781).

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

GUILLOTINE, The origin of the.

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

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

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

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

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

GUINEGATE, Battle of (1478).

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

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

GUINEGATE: Battle of (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

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

GUINES, Treaty of (1547).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

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

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

GUISE, Duke of, Assassination.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

GUISES, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

GUIZOT'S MINISTRY.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

GUJERAT, Battle of (1849).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

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

{1619}

GUNPOWDER PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

GURKHAS, OR GOORKAS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

GURU, OR GOOROO.

      See SIKHS.

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

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

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

   Campaigns and death in Germany.

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

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

   Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1792-1809.

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

GUTENBERG, and the invention of Printing.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

GUTSTADT, Battle of.

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

GUTHRIE, The founding of the city of.

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

GUTTONES, The.

      See PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

GUUCHIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUY FAWKES' DAY.

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

GWENT.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

GWLEDIG.

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

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, ARTHUR, KING.

GWYNEDD.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

GYLIPPUS, and the defense of Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

GYMNASIA, German.

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

GYMNASIA, Greek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.

{1620}

GYMNASIARCH.

      See LITURGIES.

GYPSIES, The.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _The Athenæum,
      March 31, 1894._

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

      _W. Simson.
      History of the Gipsies._

GYRWAS.

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

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{1622}

H

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

HABEAS CORPUS, Act and Writ of.

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

HABSBURG, or HAPSBURG, Origin of the House of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

HABSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

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

HACKINSACKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

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

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

HADRIANOPLE.

      See ADRIANOPLE.

HADRIAN'S MAUSOLEUM.

      See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

HADRIAN'S WALL.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

HADRUMETUM, OR ADRUMETUM.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

HÆDUI, The.

      See ÆDUI.

HÆMUS, Mount.

   The ancient name of the Balkan chain of mountains.

HÆRRED, The.

      See HUNDRED, THE.

HAGENAU, Treaty of (1330).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HAGUE, The:
   Origin and Name.

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

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

HAGUENAU: Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

HAIDAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

HAIDERABAD, OR HYDERABAD, The Nizam of.

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

HAINAULT.

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 922-1345.

HAITI.

      See HAYTI.

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

HALF-BREEDS.

      See STALWARTS.

HALFWAY COVENANT, The.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

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

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

HALICARNASSUS.

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

HALIDON HILL, Battle of (1333).

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

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

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

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

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

HALIFAX CURRENCY.

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

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

HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD.

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

HALLECK, General Henry W. Command in Missouri.

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

   Command in the Valley of the Mississippi.

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

   Command of all the armies.

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

HAMADAN.

   The capital city of ancient Media.

HAMATH, Kingdom of.

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

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

{1623}

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

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

      See HANSA TOWNS.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

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

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

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

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

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

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

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

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

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

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

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

HAMILCAR BARCA, and the First Punic War.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

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

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

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

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

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   The Federal Party.

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

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   Fatal duel with Aaron Burr.

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

HAMITES.—HAMITIC LANGUAGES.

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

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

HAMPDEN, John.

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

HAMPDEN CLUBS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

HAMPTON ROADS PEACE CONFERENCE.

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

HANAU, Battle of.

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

HANCOCK, John, and the American Revolution.

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

HANDVESTS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.

HANES.

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

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

HANNIBAL, The war of, with Rome.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

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

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

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

HANOVER:
   The Guelf connection.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
      and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

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

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

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

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

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

{1624}

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

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

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

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

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

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

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

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Neutrality declared.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

HANOVER: A. D. 1745.
   The English-Hanoverian defeat at Fontenoy.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.

HANOVER: A. D. 1757-1762.
   French attack and British defense of the electorate in the
   Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), to 1761-1762.

HANOVER: A. D. 1763.
   The Peace of Paris, ending the Seven Years War.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HANOVER: A. D. 1776.
   Troops hired to Great Britain for service in the American War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
     A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

HANOVER: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Annexation of Osnabruck.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

HANOVER: A. D. 1803-1806.
   Seizure by the French.
   Cession to Prussia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803;
      and GERMANY: 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

HANOVER: A. D. 1807.
   Absorbed in the kingdom of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

HANOVER: A. D. 1810.
   Northern part annexed to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

HANOVER: A. D. 1813.
   Deliverance from Napoleon.
   Restoration to the King of England.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

HANOVER: A. D. 1815.
   Raised to the rank of a kingdom, with territorial enlargement.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HANOVER: A. D. 1837,
   Separation of the Crown from that of Great Britain.

   "From the hour that the Crown of these kingdoms [Great Britain
   and Ireland] devolved upon Queen Victoria, dates a change
   which was a real blessing in the relations of the Sovereign to
   the Continent of Europe. Hanover was at that instant wholly
   separated from Great Britain. By the law of that country a
   female could not reign except in default of heirs male in the
   Royal family. But in addition to the great advantage of
   separating the policy of England wholly from the intrigues and
   complications of a petty German State, it was an immediate
   happiness that the most hated and in some respects the most
   dangerous man in these islands was removed to a sphere where
   his political system might be worked out with less danger to
   the good of society than amongst a people where his influence
   was associated with the grossest follies of Toryism and the
   darkest designs of Orangeism. On the 24th of June the duke of
   Cumberland, now become Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, left
   London. On the 28th he made a solemn entrance into the capital
   of his states, and at once exhibited to his new subjects his
   character and disposition by refusing to receive a deputation
   of the Chambers, who came to offer him their homage and their
   congratulations. By a proclamation of the 5th of July he
   announced his intention to abolish the representative
   constitution, which he had previously refused to recognize by
   the customary oath. We shall have little further occasion to
   notice the course of this worst disciple of the old school of
   intolerance and irresponsible government, and we may therefore
   at once state that he succeeded in depriving Hanover of the
   forms of freedom under which she had begun to live; ejected
   from their offices and banished some of the ablest professors
   of the University of Gottingen, who had ventured to think that
   letters would flourish best in a free soil; and reached the
   height of his ambition in becoming the representative of
   whatever in sovereign power was most repugnant to the spirit
   of the age."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 23._

HANOVER: A. D. 1866.
   Extinction of the kingdom.
   Absorption by Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

   ----------HANOVER: End--------

HANOVER, The Alliance of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

HANOVER JUNCTION, Engagement at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
     A. D. 18112 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HANSA TOWNS, The.

   "In consequence of the liberty and security enjoyed by the
   inhabitants of the free towns [of Germany—see CITIES:
   IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY], while the rest of the country
   was a prey to all the evils of feudal anarchy and oppression,
   they made a comparatively rapid progress in wealth and
   population. Nuremberg, Augsburg, Worms, Spires, Frankfort, and
   other cities, became at an early period celebrated alike for
   the extent of their commerce, the magnificence of their
   buildings, and the opulence of their citizens. … The
   commercial spirit awakened in the north about the same time as
   in the south of Germany. Hamburgh was founded by Charlemagne
   in the beginning of the ninth century, in the intention of
   serving as a fort to bridle the Saxons, who had been
   subjugated by the emperor. Its favourable situation on the
   Elbe necessarily rendered it a commercial emporium. Towards
   the close of the twelfth century, the inhabitants, who had
   already been extensively engaged in naval enterprizes, began
   to form the design of emancipating themselves from the
   authority of their counts, and of becoming a sovereign and
   independent state; and in 1189 they obtained an Imperial
   charter which gave them various privileges, including among
   others the power of electing councillors, or aldermen, to
   whom, in conjunction with the deputy of the count, the
   government of the town was to be entrusted. Not long after
   Hamburgh became entirely free. In 1224 the citizens purchased
   from Count Albert the renunciation of all his rights, whether
   real or pretended, to any property in or sovereignty over the
   town, and its immediate vicinity. And the government was thus
   early placed on that liberal footing on which it has ever
   since remained. Lubeck, situated on the Trave, was founded
   about the middle of the twelfth century. It rapidly grew to be
   a place of great trade.
{1625}
   It became the principal emporium for the commerce of the
   Baltic, and its merchants extended their dealings to Italy and
   the Levant. At a period when navigation was still imperfect,
   and when the seas were infested with pirates, it was of great
   importance to be able to maintain a safe intercourse by land
   between Lubeck and Hamburgh, as by that means the difficult
   and dangerous navigation of the Sound was avoided. And it is
   said by some, that the first political union between these
   cities had the protection of merchandize carried between them
   by land for its sole object. But this is contradicted by
   Lambec in his 'Origines Hamburgenses' (lib. xi., pa. 26). …
   But whatever may have been the motives which led to the
   alliance between these two cities, it was the origin of the
   famous Hanseatic League, so called from the German word
   'hansa,' signifying a corporation. There is no very distinct
   evidence as to the time when the alliance in question was
   established; but the more general opinion seems to be that it
   dates from the year 1241. … From the beginning of the
   twelfth century, the progress of commerce and navigation in
   the north was exceedingly rapid. The countries which stretch
   along the bottom of the Baltic from Holstein to Russia, and
   which had been occupied by barbarous tribes of Sclavonic
   origin, were then subjugated by the Kings of Denmark, the
   Dukes of Saxony, and other princes. The greater part of the
   inhabitants being exterminated, their place was filled by
   German colonists, who founded the towns of Stralsund, Rostock,
   Wismar, etc. Prussia and Poland were afterwards subjugated by
   the Christian princes, and the Knights of the Teutonic order.
   So that in a comparatively short period, the foundations of
   civilization and the arts were laid in countries whose
   barbarism had ever remained impervious to the Roman power. The
   cities that were established along the coasts of the Baltic,
   and even in the interior of the countries bordering upon it,
   eagerly joined the Hanseatic confederation. They were indebted
   to the merchants of Lubeck for supplies of the commodities
   produced in more civilized countries, and they looked up to
   them for protection against the barbarians by whom they were
   surrounded. The progress of the league was in consequence
   singularly rapid. Previously to the end of the thirteenth
   century it embraced every considerable city in all those vast
   countries extending from Livonia to Holland; and was a match
   for the most powerful monarchs. The Hanseatic confederacy was
   at its highest degree of power and splendour during the
   fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It then comprised from
   sixty to eighty cities, which were distributed into four
   classes or circles. Lubeck was at the head of the first
   circle, and had under it Hamburgh, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar,
   etc. Cologne was at the head of the second circle, with
   twenty-nine towns under it. Brunswick was at the head of the
   third circle, consisting of thirteen towns. Dantzic was at the
   head of the fourth circle, having under it eight towns in its
   vicinity, besides several that were more remote. The supreme
   authority of the League was vested in the deputies of the
   different towns assembled in Congress. In it they discussed
   all their measures; decided upon the sum that each city should
   contribute to the common fund; and upon the questions that
   arose between the confederacy and other powers, as well as
   those that frequently arose between the different members of
   the confederacy. The place for the meeting of Congress was not
   fixed, but it was most frequently held at Lubeck, which was
   considered as the capital of the League, and there its
   archives were kept. … Besides the towns already mentioned,
   there were others that were denominated confederated cities,
   or allies. … The Golden Bull proscribed all sorts of leagues
   and associations, as contrary to the fundamental laws of the
   empire, and to the subordination due to the emperor and the
   different princes. But Charles IV., the author of this famous
   edict, judged it expedient to conciliate the Hanseatic League;
   and his successors seem generally to have followed his
   example. As the power of the confederated cities was increased
   and consolidated, they became more ambitious. Instead of
   limiting their efforts to the mere advancement of commerce and
   their own protection, they endeavoured to acquire the monopoly
   of the trade of the North, and to exercise the same sort of
   dominion over the Baltic that the Venetians exercised over the
   Adriatic. For this purpose they succeeded in obtaining, partly
   in return for loans of money, and partly by force, various
   privileges and immunities from the Northern sovereigns which
   secured to them almost the whole foreign commerce of
   Scandinavia, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Russia, etc. They
   exclusively carried on the herring-fishery of the Sound, at
   the same time that they endeavoured to obstruct and hinder the
   navigation of foreign vessels in the Baltic. … The Kings of
   Denmark, Sweden and Norway were frequently engaged in
   hostilities with the Hanse towns. They regarded, and it must
   be admitted not without pretty good reason, the privileges
   acquired by the League in their kingdoms as so many
   usurpations. But their efforts to abolish these privileges
   served, for more than two centuries, only to augment and
   extend them. … Waldemar III., who ascended the Danish throne
   in 1340, engaged in a furious contest with the League. Success
   seemed at first rather to incline to his arms. Ultimately,
   however, he was completely defeated by the forces of the
   League and its allies, and was even obliged to fly from his
   kingdom. In his exile he prevailed on the Emperor and the Pope
   to interpose in his favour. But neither the imperial rescripts
   nor the thunders of the Vatican were able to divert the
   confederated cities from their purposes. At length, in 1370,
   the regents, to whom the government of Denmark had been
   intrusted during the absence of the monarch, concluded a peace
   with the League on the conditions dictated by the latter; one
   of which was that most of the strong places in the kingdom
   should be given up to the League for fifteen years, in
   security for the faithful performance of the treaty. Waldemar
   having assented to these humiliating terms, returned soon
   after to Denmark. In the early part of the fifteenth century
   the Hanse towns having espoused the side of the Count of
   Holstein, who was at war with Eric X., King of Denmark, sent
   an armament of upwards of 200 ships, having more than 12,000
   troops on board, to the assistance of their ally. This
   powerful aid decided the contest in his favour. Nearly at the
   same time the League raised their ally, Albert of
   Mecklenburgh, to the throne of Norway, who confirmed to them
   several important commercial privileges.
{1626}
   In their contests with Sweden, during the fourteenth and
   fifteenth centuries, the League were equally successful. Such,
   indeed, was their ascendancy in that kingdom, that they were
   authorized to nominate some of the principal magistrates in
   most of the Swedish maritime towns of any importance! … The
   town of Wisby, situated on the west coast of the island of
   Gothland, became, during the ascendancy of the League, one of
   its principal depots, and also one of the best frequented
   emporiums of the North. But Wisby is chiefly famous from its
   name having become identified with the code of maritime laws
   that was long of paramount authority in the Baltic. … The
   principal Northern jurists and historians regard the Wisby
   code, or compilation, as anterior to the code, or compilation,
   denominated the Rules or Judgments of Oleron, and as being in
   fact the most ancient monument of the maritime laws of the
   middle ages. But no learning or ingenuity can give
   plausibility to so improbable a theory. … In order to
   facilitate and extend their commercial transactions, the
   League established various factories in foreign countries, the
   principal of which were at Novogorod in Russia, London in
   England, Bruges in the Netherlands, and Bergen in Norway.
   Novogorod, situated at the confluence of the Volkof with the
   Imler Lake, was, for a lengthened period, the most renowned
   emporium in the north-eastern parts of Europe. … The
   merchants of the Hanse towns, or Hansards, as they were then
   commonly termed, were established in London at a very early
   period, and their factory here was of considerable magnitude
   and importance. They enjoyed various privileges and
   immunities; they were permitted to govern themselves by their
   own laws and regulations; the custody of one of the gates of
   the city (Bishopsgate) was committed to their care; and the
   duties on various sorts of imported commodities were
   considerably reduced in their favour. These privileges
   necessarily excited the ill-will and animosity of the English
   merchants. … The League exerted themselves vigorously in
   defence of their privileges; and having declared war against
   England, they succeeded in excluding our vessels from the
   Baltic, and acted with such energy, that Edward IV. was glad
   to come to an accommodation with them, on terms which were
   anything but honourable to the English. In the treaty for this
   purpose, negotiated in 1474, the privileges of the merchants
   of the Hanse towns were renewed, and the king assigned to
   them, in absolute property, a large space of ground, with the
   buildings upon it, in Thames Street, denominated the Steel
   Yard, whence the Hanse merchants have been commonly
   denominated the Association of the Steel Yard. … In 1498,
   all direct commerce with the Netherlands being suspended, the
   trade fell into the hands of the Hanse merchants, whose
   commerce was in consequence very greatly extended. But,
   according as the spirit of commercial enterprise awakened in
   the nation, and as the benefits resulting from the prosecution
   of foreign trade came to be better known, the privileges of
   the Hanse merchants became more and more obnoxious. They were
   in consequence considerably modified in the reigns of Henry
   VII. and Henry VIII., and were at length wholly abolished in
   1597. The different individuals belonging to the factory in
   London, as well as those belonging to the other factories of
   the League, lived together at a common table, and were
   enjoined to observe the strictest celibacy. … By means of
   their factory at Bergen, and of the privileges which had been
   either granted to or usurped by them, the League enjoyed for a
   lengthened period the monopoly of the commerce of Norway. But
   the principal factory of the League was at Bruges in the
   Netherlands. Bruges became, at a very early period, one of the
   first commercial cities of Europe, and the centre of the most
   extensive trade carried on to the north of Italy. The art of
   navigation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was so
   imperfect, that a voyage from Italy to the Baltic and back
   again could not be performed in a single season, and hence,
   for the sake of their mutual convenience, the Italian and
   Hanseatic merchants determined on establishing a magazine or
   store-house of their respective products in some intermediate
   situation. Bruges was fixed upon for this purpose, a
   distinction which it seems to have owed as much to the freedom
   enjoyed by the inhabitants, and the liberality of the
   government of the Low Countries, as to the conveniency of its
   situation. In consequence of this preference, Bruges speedily
   rose to the very highest rank among commercial cities, and
   became a place of vast wealth. … From the middle of the
   fifteenth century the power of the confederacy, though still
   very formidable, began to decline. This was not owing to any
   misconduct on the part of its leaders, but to the progress of
   that improvement it had done so much to promote. … Lubeck,
   Hamburgh, Bremen, and the towns in their vicinity, were
   latterly the only ones that had any interest in its
   maintenance. The cities in Zealand and Holland joined it,
   chiefly because they would otherwise have been excluded from
   the commerce of the Baltic; and those of Prussia, Poland and
   Russia did the same, because, had they not belonged to it,
   they would have been shut out from all intercourse with
   strangers. When, however, the Zealanders and Hollanders became
   sufficiently powerful at sea to be able to vindicate their
   right to the free navigation of the Baltic by force of arms,
   they immediately seceded from the League; and no sooner had
   the ships of the Dutch, the English, etc., begun to trade
   directly with the Polish and Prussian Hanse Towns, than these
   nations also embraced the first opportunity of withdrawing
   from it. … At the middle of the seventeenth century the
   cities of Lubeck, Hamburgh, and Bremen were all that continued
   to acknowledge the authority of the League."

      History of the Hanseatic League
      (Foreign Quarterly Review, January, 1831).

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      _C. Walford,
      Outline History of the Hanseatic League
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 9)._

      _H. Zimmern,
      The Hansa Towns
      (Stories of the Nations)._

      _J. Yeats,
      The Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce._

      See, also,
      CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

HANSE OF LONDON, The Flemish.

      See FLANDERS: 13TH CENTURY.

HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

HAOMA.

      See SOMA.

HAPSBURG, OR HABSBURG,
   Origin and rise of the House of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

{1627}

HAPSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

      See AUSTRIA; A. D. 1745 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

HARALD IV.,
   King of Norway, A. D. 1134-1136.

   Harald Blaatand, King of Denmark, 941-991.

   Harald Graafield, King of Norway, 963-977.

   Harald Hardrade, King of Norway, 1047-1066.

   Harald Harfager, King of Norway, 863-934.

   Harald Sweynson, King of Denmark, 1076-1080.

HARAN.

   "From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the
   northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from
   Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should
   have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle,
   and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong
   localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have
   at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian
   epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the
   rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of
   the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and
   the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian
   one, signifying 'the road.'"

     _A. H. Sayce,
     Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
     chapter 2._

   The site of Haran is generally identified with that of the
   later city of Carrhæ.

HARD-SHELL DEMOCRATS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

HARDENBURG'S REFORM MEASURES IN PRUSSIA.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

HARDICANUTE, OR HARTHACNUT,
   King of Denmark, A. D. 1035-1042;
   King of England, A. D. 1040-1042.

HARDINGE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

HARFLEUR.
   Capture by Henry V.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

HARGREAVE'S SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

HARII, OR ARII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

HARLAW, Battle of (1411).

   A very memorable battle in Scottish history, fought July 24,
   1411, between the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the country.
   Donald, Lord of the Isles, was then practically an independent
   sovereign of the western Highlands of Scotland, as well as the
   islands opposite their shore. He claimed still larger domains
   and invaded the lowland districts to make his claim good. The
   defeat inflicted upon him, at heavy cost to the victors, was
   felt, says Mr. Benton in his "History of Scotland," as a more
   memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn. The
   independence of the Lord of the Isle was not extinguished
   until sixty years later. "The battle of Harlaw and its
   consequences were of the highest importance, since they might
   be said to decide the superiority of the more civilized
   regions of Scotland over those inhabited by the Celtic tribes,
   who remained almost as savage as their forefathers the
   Dalriads."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 17._

HARLEM.

      See HAARLEM.

HARMAR'S EXPEDITION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

HARMOSTS.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

HAROLD (the Dane),
   King of England, A. D. 1037-1040.
   Harold (the Saxon), King of England, 1066.

HAROUN AL RASCHID, Caliph, A. D. 786-809.

   ----------HARPER'S FERRY: Start--------

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown's invasion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Arsenal destroyed and abandoned by the Federal garrison.
   Occupied by the Rebels.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1862.
   Capture by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

   ----------HARPER'S FERRY: End--------

HARRISON, General Benjamin,
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888, to 1892.

HARRISON, General William Henry:
   Indian campaign and battle of Tippecanoe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

   In the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

   Presidency for one month.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.

HARRISON'S LANDING,
   The Army of the Potomac at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

HARROW SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.-ENGLAND.

   ----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: Start--------

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
   The beginnings of the city.

      See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1631; and 1634-1637.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
   The Treaty with the Dutch of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1687.
   The hiding of the Charter.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

   ----------HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: End--------

HARTFORD CONVENTION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

HARTHACNUT.

      See HARDICANUTE.

HARUSPICES, The.

   "The haruspices, nearly related to the augures, were of
   Etruscan origin. Under the [Roman] Republic they were
   consulted only in a few individual cases: under the emperors
   they gained more importance, remaining, however, inferior to
   the other priestly colleges. They also expounded and procured
   lightnings and 'prodigies,' and moreover examined the
   intestines of sacrificed animals. … Heart, liver and lungs
   were carefully examined, every anomaly being explained in a
   favourable or unfavourable sense."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103._

HARVARD ANNEX.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

HARVARD COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635, and 1636.

HASHEM, Caliph: A. D. 724-743.

HASMONEANS, OR ASMONEANS.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

HASSAN, Caliph: A. D. 661.

HASSIDIN, The.

   A sect of Jewish mystics which rose during the 17th century in
   Podolia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Hungary and neighboring regions.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, book 28._

HASTATI.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

HASTENBACK, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

{1628}

HASTING, The Northman.

      See Normans: A. D. 849-860.

HASTINGS, Marquis of (Lord Moira).
   The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

HASTINGS, Warren:
   His administration in India.
   His impeachment and Trial.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785; and 1785-1795.

HASTINGS, OR SENLAC, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).

HATFIELD CHASE.
   A vast swamp in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 180,000
   acres in extent, which was sold by the crown in the reign of
   Charles I. to a Hollander who drained and reclaimed it. It had
   been a forest in early times and was the scene of a great
   battle between Penda, King of Mercia, and Edwin of
   Northumberland.

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England,
      part 1, chapter. 2, section 2._

HATRA.

   "Hatra [in central Mesopotamia] became known as a place of
   importance in the early part of the second century after
   Christ. It successfully resisted Trajan in A. D. 116, and
   Severus in A. D. 198. It is then described as a large and
   populous city, defended by strong and extensive walls, and
   containing within it a temple of the Sun, celebrated for the
   great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own kings at this
   time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were among
   the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the
   year A. D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described
   as 'long since deserted.' Its flourishing period thus belongs
   to the space between A. D. 100 and A. D. 300." The ruins of
   Hatra, now called El-Hadhr, were "visited by Mr. Layard in
   1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume
   of the 'Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,' as well as
   by Mr. Fergusson, in his 'History of Architecture.'"

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 22._

HATS AND CAPS, Parties of the.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

HATTERAS EXPEDITION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

HATUNTAQUI, Battle of.

      See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

HAVANA.

      See CUBA: A. D.1514-1851.

HAVELOCK'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

HAVRE: A. D. 1563-1564.
   Occupation by the English.
   Siege and recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, The.

   The Hawaiian or Sandwich Archipelago, in the North Pacific
   ocean, "consists of the seven large and inhabited volcanic
   islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and
   Hawaii, and the four bare and rocky islets of Kaula, Lehua,
   Kahoolawe, and Molokini, with a total area of 8,000 square
   miles, and a population of scarcely more than 50,000 souls.
   … The Kanakas, as the natives are called, are amongst the
   finest and most intelligent races of the Pacific, and have
   become thoroughly 'Europeanised,' or, perhaps rather,
   'Americanised.' … The Hawaiians, like all other Polynesians,
   are visibly decreasing in a constantly increasing ratio."

      _Stanford's Compendium of Geography: Australasia,
      chapter 24._

   "Gaetano discovered one of the Sandwich [Hawaiian] Islands in
   1542; and, following him, Quiros found Tahiti and the New
   Hebrides. Sea voyages in the Pacific multiplied, but that sea
   long continued the exclusive theatre of the enterprises of the
   Spaniards and Portuguese. … Native traditions refer to the
   arrival of strangers a long time before Cook's appearance. In
   the seventeenth century Spanish merchantmen were crossing the
   Pacific, and might have refreshed at these islands. The
   buccaneers, too, may have found the small harbour a convenient
   place of concealment."

      _M. Hopkins,
      Hawaii: The Past, Present and Future of the Island Kingdom,
      pages 83, 87._

   "It is about a century since His Majesty's ships 'Resolution'
   and 'Adventure,' Captains Cook and Clerke, turned back from
   Behring Strait after an unsuccessful attempt to discover the
   North-West Passage. But the adventurers were destined to light
   upon fairer lands than those which they had failed to find. On
   the 18th of January, 1778, whilst sailing through the Pacific,
   the look-out man reported land ahead, and in the evening they
   anchored on the shores of that lovely group of twelve islands,
   which they named in honour of the then First Lord of the
   Admiralty—Lord Sandwich—better known to the satirists of his
   day as 'Jemmy Tickler,' one of the greatest of statesmen and
   most abandoned of men. The natives received the strangers
   gladly; but on the 14th of February, 1779, in an altercation
   consequent on the theft of a boat, Captain Cook was killed in
   Kealakcakua or Karakakoa Bay, in the Island of Hawaii, or
   Owhyhee, from which the official name of the country—the
   kingdom of Hawaii—takes its name."

      _R. Brown,
      The Countries of the World,
      volume 4, page 22._

   The several islands of the Hawaiian group were politically
   independent of each other and ruled by different chiefs at the
   time of Captain Cook's visit; but a few years later a chief
   named Kaméhaméha, of remarkable qualities and capabilities,
   succeeded to the sovereignty in the Island of Hawaii, and made
   himself master in time of the whole group. Dying in 1819, he
   left a consolidated kingdom to his son Liholiho, or Kaméhaméha
   II., in whose reign "tabu" and idolatry were abolished and
   Christian missionaries began their labors. The dynasty founded
   by Kaméhaméha held the throne until 1872. In 1840 a
   constitution was proclaimed, which created a legislative body,
   composed of hereditary nobles and seven representatives
   informally elected by the people. In 1842 the United States,
   by an official letter from Daniel Webster, then Secretary of
   State, "recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
   and declared, 'as the sense of the government of the United
   States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to
   be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the
   islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of
   colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue
   control over the existing government, or any exclusive
   privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.'" The
   following year, France and England formally recognized "the
   existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of
   providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign
   nations," and agreed "never to take possession, either
   directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any
   other form, of any part of the territory of which they are
   composed." In 1852 the constitution was revised. The
   legislature, formerly sitting in one body, was now divided
   into two houses and both enlarged.
{1629}
   In 1864, however, King Kaméhaméha V. forced the adoption of a
   new constitution which reversed this bicameral arrangement and
   restored the single chamber. A double qualification of the
   suffrage, by property and by education, was also introduced.
   With the death of Kaméhaméha V., in 1872, his line ended. His
   successor, Lunalilo, was elected by the legislature, and the
   choice ratified by a popular vote. The reign of Lunalilo
   lasted but two years. His successor, David Kalakaua, was
   raised to the throne by election. In the year after his
   accession, Kalakaua visited the United States, and soon
   afterwards, in 1875, a treaty of reciprocity between the two
   countries was negotiated. This was renewed and enlarged in
   1887. In 1881 the King made a tour of the world. In the fall
   of 1890 he came to California for his health; in January,
   1891, he died at San Francisco. His sister, Liliuokulani,
   widow of an American resident, succeeded him.

      _W. D. Alexander,
      Brief History of the Hawaiian People._

   In 1887 a new constitution had been adopted. "This new
   constitution was not framed by the king but by the people
   through their own appointed citizens and members of the
   courts. The legislative powers of the crown which had been
   abridged by the constitution of 1864 were now entirely removed
   and vested in the representatives of the people. By this the
   crown became an executive. In addition to this provision there
   was one making the ministry a responsible body and depriving
   the king of the right to nominate members of the house of
   nobles. … The legislature consists of a House of Nobles
   composed of twenty-four members, who are elected for a term of
   six years, and a House of Representatives consisting of from
   twenty-four to forty-two members elected for two years. The
   Houses sit in joint session. In addition to these public
   officers there is a cabinet composed of four ministers
   appointed by the sovereign holding executive power and who may
   be removed upon sufficient cause by the legislature. Such was
   the form of government in vogue up to the time of the recent
   revolution which has excited the interest of the American
   government. On the 15th of January (1893) … Queen
   Liliuokalani made the attempt to promulgate a new
   constitution, obviously for the purpose of increasing her
   power in the government. It has been hinted that the queen
   desired to benefit in a pecuniary way by granting concessions
   for the establishment of a lottery, and the importation of
   opium into the kingdom, both of which had until a year ago
   been prohibited. It is best, however, to adhere to fact. The
   queen desired more power. This new constitution, as framed by
   her, deprived foreigners of the right of franchise, abrogated
   the House of Nobles, and gave to the queen herself the power
   to appoint a new House. This blow aimed directly at the
   foreigners, who are the largest property holders in the
   kingdom, stirred them to prompt action. The queen's own
   ministry were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade her
   from the attempt to put the new constitution into effect. The
   resolve was not to be shaken, however, and her determination
   to carry out her plan incited the people, chiefly the
   foreigners, to oppose the measure. The outcome was a
   revolution in which not a single life was sacrificed."

      _A. A. Black,
      The Hawaiian Islands
      (Chautauquan, April, 1893, pages 54-57)._

   A provisional government set up by the revolutionists was
   immediately recognized by the United States Minister, Mr.
   Stevens, and commissioners were sent to Washington to apply
   for the annexation of the islands to the United States. On the
   16th of February, 1893, the President of the United States,
   Mr. Harrison, sent a message to the Senate, submitting an
   annexation treaty and recommending its ratification. Meantime,
   at Honolulu, on the 9th of February, the United States
   Minister, acting without instructions, had established a
   protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands, in the name of the
   United States. On the 4th of March, a change in the Presidency
   of the United States occurred, Mr. Cleveland succeeding Mr.
   Harrison. One of the earliest acts of President Cleveland was
   to send a message to the Senate, withdrawing the annexation
   treaty of his predecessor. A commissioner, Mr. Blount, was
   then sent to the Hawaiian Islands to examine and report upon
   the circumstances attending the change of government. On the
   18th of the following December the report of Commissioner
   Blount was sent to Congress, with an accompanying message from
   the President, in which latter paper the facts set forth by
   the Commissioner, and the conclusions reached and action taken
   by the United States Government, were summarized partly as
   follows: "On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii,
   who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new
   constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and
   remonstrances of her Cabinet, renounced it for the present at
   least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action,
   citizens of Honolulu, numbering from fifty to one hundred,
   mostly resident aliens, met in a private room and selected a
   so-culled committee of safety composed of thirteen persons,
   nine of whom were foreign subjects, and composed of seven
   Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee,
   though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less
   than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday,
   the 14th, and the following Sunday, the 18th of
   January—though exactly what action was taken may never be
   revealed—they were certainly in communication with the United
   States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her Cabinet
   made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially
   served upon the representatives of all foreign governments,
   that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in
   the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at the
   call and under the auspices of the committee of safety, a mass
   meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against
   the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and
   purpose. Even at this meeting the committee of safety
   continued to disguise their real purpose and contented
   themselves with procuring the passage of a resolution
   denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee to devise
   ways and means 'to secure the permanent maintenance of law and
   order and the protection of life, liberty, and property in
   Hawaii.' This meeting adjourned between 3 and 4 o'clock in the
   afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after such
   adjournment, the committee, unwilling to take further steps
   without the co-operation of the United States Minister,
   addressed him a note representing that the public safety was
   menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and
   concluded as follows: 'We are unable to protect ourselves
   without aid, and therefore pray for the protection of the
   United States forces.'
{1630}
   Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note,
   the absolute truth of this latter statement is incontestable.
   When the note was written and delivered, the committee, so far
   as it appears, had neither a man nor a gun at their command,
   and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken at their
   position that they sent some of their number to interview the
   Minister and request him not to land the United States forces
   till the next morning, but he replied the troops had been
   ordered and whether the committee were ready or not the
   landing should take place. And so it happened that on the 16th
   day of January, 1893, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the
   afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States
   steamship Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at
   Honolulu. The men, upwards of one hundred and sixty in all,
   were supplied with double cartridge belts, filled with
   ammunition, and with haversacks and canteens, and were
   accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical
   supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of
   Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with
   the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide
   purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of the
   citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any
   such consent on the part of the Government of Hawaii, which at
   that time was undisputed, and was both the de facto and the de
   jure Government. In point of fact the Government, instead of
   requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against
   it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces
   landed for the security of American life and property. …
   When these armed men were landed the city of Honolulu was in
   its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no
   symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. … Thus it
   appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United
   States forces without the consent or wish of the Government of
   the Islands, or anybody else so far as known, except the
   United States Minister. Therefore, the military occupation of
   Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly
   without satisfaction, either as an occupation by consent or as
   an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American
   life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way
   and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are
   neither obscure nor far to seek. The United States forces
   being now on the scene and favorably stationed, the committee
   proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the
   next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of
   temporary government and fixed upon its principal officers,
   who were drawn from 13 members of the committee of safety.
   Between 1 and 2 o'clock, by squads and by different routes to
   avoid notice, and having first taken the precaution of
   ascertaining whether there was anyone there to oppose them,
   they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new
   Government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon
   an American citizen began to read the proclamation from the
   steps of the Government Building almost entirely without
   auditors. It is said that before the reading was finished
   quite a concourse of persons, variously estimated at from 50
   to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about the
   committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is
   not important, since the one controlling factor in the whole
   affair was unquestionably the United States marines, who,
   drawn up under arms with artillery in readiness only 76 yards
   distant, dominated the situation. The Provisional Government
   thus proclaimed was by the terms of the proclamation 'to exist
   until terms of the Union with the United States had been
   negotiated and agreed upon.' The United States Minister,
   pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this Government within
   an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before 5
   o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and
   her Cabinet, announced that he had done so. … Some hours
   after the recognition of the Provisional Government by the
   United States Minister, the barracks and the police station,
   with all the military resources of the country, were delivered
   up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her
   cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while
   protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the
   United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops
   to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support
   the Provisional Government, and that she yielded her authority
   to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life, and
   only until such time as the United States, upon the facts
   being presented to it, should undo the action of its
   representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed
   as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. This
   protest was delivered to the chief of the Provisional
   Government, who indorsed it in his acknowledgment of its
   receipt. … As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face
   to face with the fact that the lawful government of Hawaii was
   overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a
   shot, by a process every step of which, it may safely be
   asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its
   success upon the agency of the United States acting through
   its diplomatic and naval representatives. … Believing,
   therefore, that the United States could not, under the
   circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly
   incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable
   methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to
   the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to
   Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I
   have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government. But
   in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end
   with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. …
   I mistake the American people if they favor the odious
   doctrine that there is no such thing as international
   morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and
   another for a weak one; and that even by indirection a strong
   power may, with impunity, despoil a weak one of its territory.
   … The Queen surrendered, not to the Provisional Government,
   but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and
   permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such
   facts could be considered by the United States. …
{1631}
   In view of the fact that both the Queen and the Provisional
   Government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a
   reference of the entire case to the United States Government,
   and considering the further fact that, in any event, the
   Provisional Government, by its own declared limitation, was
   only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of
   America have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that
   after the assurance to the members of that Government that
   such union could not be consummated, I might compass a
   peaceful adjustment of the difficulty. Actuated by these
   desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the inherent
   perplexities of the situation nor limitations upon my part, I
   instructed Mr. Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters
   of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing
   before the lawless landing of the United States forces at
   Honolulu on the 17th of January last, if such restoration
   could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as
   justice to all parties concerned. The conditions suggested
   contemplated a general amnesty to those concerned in setting
   up the Provisional Government and a recognition of all the
   bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that
   the past should be buried, and that the restored Government
   should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not
   been interrupted. These conditions have not proved acceptable
   to the Queen, and though she has been informed that they will
   be insisted upon, and that unless acceded to the effort of the
   President to aid in the restoration of her Government will
   cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to
   yield them her acquiescence." The refusal of the Queen to
   consent to a general amnesty forbade further thought of her
   restoration; while the project of annexation to the United
   States was extinguished for the time by the just action of
   President Cleveland, sustained by the Senate. The unauthorized
   protectorate assumed by Minister Stevens having been
   withdrawn, the Provisional government remains (March, 1894) in
   control of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and a
   republican constitution is said to be in preparation.

HAWKINS' FIRST THREE VOYAGES.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

HAWKWOOD, Sir John, The Free Company of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

HAWLEY, Jesse, and the origin of the Erie Canal.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

HAYES, General Rutherford B.,
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877, to 1881.

HAYNE AND WEBSTER DEBATE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   ----------HAYTI: Start--------

HAYTI, HAITI, OR SAN DOMINGO (Originally called Hispaniola):
   Its names.
   Its beauty.

   "Columbus called the island Hispaniola, and it has also been
   called St. Domingo from the city of that name on its
   southeastern coast; but Hayti or Haiti (the mountainous
   country) was its original Carrib name. The French bestowed
   upon it the deserved name of 'la Reine des Antilles.' All
   descriptions of its magnificence and beauty, even those of
   'Washington Irving in his history of Columbus, fall far short
   of the reality. It seems beyond the power of language to
   exaggerate its beauties, its productiveness, the loveliness of
   its climate, and its desirableness as an abode for man.
   Columbus labored hard to prove to Isabella that he had found
   here the original garden of Eden."

      _W. H. Pearson,
      Hayti and the Haitians
      (Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1854)._

HAYTI: A. D. 1492-1505.
   Discovery and occupation by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496; and 1498-1505.

HAYTI: A. D. 1499-1542.
   The enslavement of the natives.
   System of Repartimentos and Encomiendas.
   Introduction of negro slavery.
   Humane and reforming labors of Las Casas.

      See SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS,
      and SLAVERY, NEGRO: ITS BEGINNINGS.

HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
   Partly possessed France and partly by Spain.
   Revolt of the Slaves and rise of Toussaint L'Ouverture to power.
   Extinction of Slavery.
   Treachery of the French.
   Independence of the island acquired.

   "About 1632 the French took possession of the western shore,
   and increased so rapidly that the Spaniards found it
   impossible to drive them out; and the footing they had gained
   was recognized by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, when the
   western portion of Haiti was confirmed to France. The latter
   nation was fully conscious of the importance of the new
   acquirement, and under French rule it became of great value,
   supplying almost all Europe with cotton and sugar. But the
   larger eastern portion of the island, which still belonged to
   Spain, had no share in this progress, remaining much in the
   same condition as formerly; and thus matters stood—a sluggish
   community side by side with a thriving one—when the French
   Revolution broke out, and plunged the island into a state of
   ferment. In 1790 the population of the western colony
   consisted of half a million, of which number 38,360 were of
   European origin, 28,370 free people of colour, and the whole
   of the remainder negro slaves. The government of the island
   excluded the free people of colour—mostly mulattoes—from
   all political privileges, although they were in many cases
   well-educated men, and themselves the owners of large estates.
   … On the 15th May, 1790, the French National Assembly passed
   a decree declaring that people of colour, born of free
   parents, were entitled to all the privileges of French
   citizens. When this news reached the colony, it set the
   inhabitants in a perfect frenzy, the mulattoes manifesting an
   unbounded joy, whilst the whites boiled at the indignity their
   class had sustained. The representations of the latter caused
   the governor to delay the operation of the decree until the
   home government could be communicated with—a measure that
   aroused the greatest indignation amongst the mulattoes, and
   civil war appeared inevitable, when a third and wholly
   unexpected party stepped into the arena. The slaves rose in
   insurrection on August 23rd, 1791, marching with the body of a
   white infant on a spear-head as a standard, and murdering all
   Europeans indiscriminately. In the utmost consternation the
   whites conceded the required terms to the mulattoes, and,
   together with the help of the military, the rising was
   suppressed, and there seemed a prospect of peace, when the
   Assembly at Paris repealed the decree of the 15th May. The
   mulattoes now flew to arms, and for several years a terrible
   struggle was sustained, the horrors of which were augmented by
   vindictive ferocity on both sides. Commissioners sent from
   France could effect no settlement, for the camp of the whites
   was divided into two hostile sections, royalist and
   republican.
{1632}
   The English and Spaniards both descended on the island, and
   the blacks, under able chiefs, held impregnable positions in
   the mountains. Apprehensive of a British invasion in force,
   the Commissioners, finding they could not conquer the blacks,
   resolved on conciliating them; and in August, 1793, universal
   freedom was proclaimed—a measure ratified by the National
   Convention early in the following year. Meanwhile the English
   had taken Port-au-Prince, and were besieging the French
   governor in Port de la Paix, when the blacks, relying on the
   recent proclamation, came to his assistance, under the command
   of Toussaint L'Ouverture, and effected his release. …
   François Dominique Toussaint, a negro of pure blood, a slave
   and the offspring of slaves, was born in 1743, and on
   attaining manhood was first employed as a coachman, and
   afterwards held a post of trust in connexion with the sugar
   manufactory of the estate to which he belonged. The overseer
   having taken a fancy to him, he was taught to read and write,
   and even picked up some slight knowledge of Latin and
   mathematics." He was slow to join the rising of the blacks;
   "but at length, after having secured the escape of his master
   and family, he joined the negro army in a medical capacity,"
   but quickly rose to leadership. "At first the blacks fought
   with the Spaniards against the French;" but Toussaint came to
   the conclusion that they had more to hope from the French, and
   persuaded his followers to march to the relief of the French
   governor, Levaux. When the latter heard that Toussaint had won
   the blacks to this alliance, he exclaimed, "'Mais cet homme
   fait ouverture partout,' and from that day the black
   commander-in-chief received the surname of L'Ouverture, by
   which he is best known in history. Acting with wonderful
   energy, Toussaint effected a junction with Levaux, drove the
   English from their positions, took 28 Spanish batteries in
   four days, and finally the British abandoned the island,
   whilst the Spaniards [1797] gave up all claim to its western
   end. Toussaint L'Ouverture—now holding the position of
   commander-in-chief, but virtually dictator—succeeded with
   great skill in combining all the hostile elements of the
   colony. Peace was restored, commerce and agriculture revived,
   the whites were encouraged to reclaim their estates, and by a
   variety of prudent and temperate measures Toussaint showed the
   remarkable administrative abilities that he possessed. At this
   stage he assumed great state in public, being always guarded
   by a chosen body of 1,500 men in brilliant uniform, but in
   private life he was frugal and moderate. In the administration
   of affairs he was assisted by a council of nine, of whom eight
   were white planters. This body drew up a Constitution by which
   L'Ouverture was named president for life, and free trade
   established. The draft of this constitution, together with an
   autograph letter, he forwarded to Bonaparte; but the First
   Consul had no toleration for fellow-upstarts, and replied, 'He
   is a revolted slave whom we must punish; the honour of France
   is outraged.' At this time the whole island of Haiti was under
   Toussaint's sway. As some excuse for Bonaparte it must be
   acknowledged that Toussaint undoubtedly contemplated
   independence. … Anxious to divest his new presidency of even
   nominal subjection to France, he declared the independence of
   the island, with himself as supreme chief, in July 1801. Most
   unfortunately for the Haitian general, hostilities had for the
   moment ceased between Great Britain and France, and the First
   Consul was enabled to bestow his close attention on the former
   French colony. Determined to repossess it, Bonaparte sent out
   an army of 30,000 men, with 66 ships of war, under the command
   of his brother-in-law General Leclerc. … During Toussaint's
   presidency he had abolished slavery, the negroes still working
   the plantations, but as free men, and under the name of
   'cultivators.' … Leclerc now endeavoured by proclamations to
   turn the cultivators against their chief, and also laboured to
   sow dissension in the ranks of the black army, by making the
   officers tempting offers, which they too often believed in and
   accepted. For months a bloody war raged, in which great
   cruelties were inflicted; but the discipline of the French was
   slowly telling in their favour, when Leclerc made a political
   blunder that destroyed the advantages he had gained. Thinking
   that all obstacles were overcome, he threw off the mask, and
   boldly declared the real object of the expedition—the
   re-enslavement of the negro population. This news fell like a
   thunderbolt amongst the blacks, who rallied round Toussaint in
   thousands." Alarmed at the effect, Leclerc recalled his
   proclamation, acknowledged it to be an error, and promised the
   summoning of an assembly representative of all races alike.
   "This specious programme won over Cristophe, Dessalines, and
   other negro generals; and finally, on receiving solemn
   assurances from Leclerc, Toussaint accepted his offers, and
   peace was concluded." Soon afterwards, by an act of the
   blackest treachery, the negro statesman and soldier was lured
   into the hands of his mean enemy, and sent, a prisoner, to
   France. Confined, without trial, or any hearing, in the
   dungeons of the Château Joux, in the department of Doubs, he
   was there allowed to pine away, without warm clothing and
   with insufficient food. … Finally the governor of the prison
   went away for four days, leaving his captive without food or
   drink. On his return Toussaint was dead, and the rats had
   gnawed his feet. It was given out that apoplexy was the cause
   of death. … This breach of faith on the part of the French
   aroused the fury and indignation of the blacks. … Under
   Dessalines, Cristophe, Clerveaux, and others, the fires of
   insurrection blazed out afresh." At the same time yellow fever
   raged and Leclerc was among the victims. General Rochambeau,
   who succeeded him, continued the war with unmeasured
   barbarity, but also with continued defeat and discouragement,
   until he was driven, in 1803, to surrender, and "the power of
   the French was lost on the island."

      _C. H. Eden,
      The West Indies,
      chapter 13._

      _Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography.
      (by J. R. Beard) and an Autobiography._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martineau,
      The Hour and the Man._

      _J. Brown,
      History of St. Domingo._

      _H. Adams,
      Historical Essays,
      chapter 4._

HAYTI: A. D. 1639-1700.
   The Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

{1633}

HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
   Massacre of whites.
   The Empire of Dessalines.
   The kingdom of Christophe.
   The Republic of Pétion and Boyer.
   Separation of the independent Republic of San Domingo.
   The Empire of Soulouque.
   The restored Republic of Hayti.

   "In the beginning of 1804 the independence of the negroes
   under Dessalines was sufficiently assured: but they were not
   satisfied until they had completed a general massacre of
   nearly the whole of the whites, including aged men, women and
   children, who remained in the island, numbering, according to
   the lowest estimate, 2,500 souls. Thus did Dessalines, in his
   own savage words, render war for war, crime for crime, and
   outrage for outrage, to the European cannibals who had so long
   preyed upon his unhappy race. The negroes declared Dessalines
   Emperor: and in October 1804 he was crowned at Port-au-Prince
   by the title of James I. Dessalines was at once a brave man
   and a cruel and avaricious tyrant. He acquired great influence
   over the negroes, who long remembered him with affectionate
   regret: but he was not warmly supported by the mulattoes, who
   were by far the most intelligent of the Haytians. He abolished
   the militia, and set up a standing army of 40,000 men, whom he
   found himself unable to pay, from the universal ruin which had
   overtaken the island. The plantation labourers refused to
   work. … Dessalines authorised the landowners to flog them.
   Dessalines was himself a large planter: he had 32 large
   plantations of his own at work, and he forced his labourers to
   work on them at the point of the bayonet. Both he and his
   successor, Christophe, like Mahomed Ali in Egypt, grew rich by
   being the chief merchants in their own dominions. … He
   failed in an expedition against St. Domingo, the Spanish part
   of the island, whence the French general Ferrand still
   threatened him: and at length some sanguinary acts of tyranny
   roused against him an insurrection headed by his old comrade
   Christophe. The insurgents marched on Port-au-Prince, and the
   first black Emperor was shot by an ambuscade at the Pont Rouge
   outside the town. The death of Dessalines delivered up Hayti
   once more to the horrors of civil war. The negroes and
   mulattoes, who had joined cordially enough to exterminate
   their common enemies, would no longer hold together; and ever
   since the death of Dessalines their jealousies and differences
   have been a source of weakness in the black republic. In the
   old times, Hayti, as the French part of the island of Española
   was henceforth called, had been divided into three provinces:
   South, East, and North. After the death of Dessalines each of
   these provinces became for a time a separate state. Christophe
   wished to maintain the unlimited imperialism which Dessalines
   had set up: but the Constituent Assembly, which he summoned at
   Port-au-Prince in 1806, had other views. They resolved upon a
   Republican constitution." Christophe, not contented with the
   offered presidency, "collected an army with the view of
   dispersing the Constituent Assembly: but they collected one of
   their own, under Pétion, and forced him to retire from the
   capital. Christophe maintained himself in Cap François, or, as
   it is now called, Cap Haytien; and here he ruled for 14 years.
   In 1811, despising the imperial title which Dessalines had
   desecrated, he took the royal style by the name of Henry I.
   Christophe, as a man, was nearly as great a monster as
   Dessalines. … Yet Christophe at his best was a man capable
   of great aims, and a sagacious and energetic ruler." In 1820,
   finding himself deserted in the face of a mulatto
   insurrection, he committed suicide. "In a month or two after
   Christophe's suicide the whole island was united under the
   rule of President Boyer." Boyer was the successor of Pétion,
   who had been elected in the North, under the republican
   constitution which Christophe refused submission to. Pétion,
   "a mulatto of the best type," educated at the military academy
   of Paris, and full of European ideas, had ruled the province
   which he controlled ably and well for eleven years. In
   discouragement he then took his own life, and was succeeded,
   in 1818, by his lieutenant, Jean Pierre Boyer, a mulatto. "On
   the suicide of Christophe, the army of the Northern Province,
   weary of the tyranny of one of their own race, declared for
   Boyer. The French part of the island was now once more under a
   single government: and Boyer turned his attention to the much
   larger Spanish territory, with the old capital of St. Domingo,
   where a Spaniard named Muñez de Caceres, with the aid of the
   negroes, had now followed the example in the West, and
   proclaimed an independent government. The Dominicans, however,
   were still afraid of Spain, and were glad to put themselves
   under the wing of Hayti: Boyer was not unwilling to take
   possession of the Spanish colony, and thus it happened that in
   1822 he united the whole island under his Presidency. In the
   same year he was elected President for life under the
   constitution of Pétion, whose general policy he maintained:
   but his government, especially in his later years, was almost
   as despotic as that of Christophe. Boyer was the first Haytian
   who united the blacks and mulattoes under his rule. It was
   mainly through confidence in him that the government of Hayti
   won the recognition of the European powers. … In 1825 its
   independence was formally recognised by France, on a
   compensation of 150,000,000 of francs being guaranteed to the
   exiled planters and to the home government. This vast sum was
   afterwards reduced: but it still weighed heavily on the
   impoverished state, and the discontents which the necessary
   taxation produced led to Boyer's downfall," in 1843, when he
   withdrew to Jamaica, and afterwards to Paris, where he died in
   1850. A singular state of affairs ensued. The eastern, or
   Spanish, part of the island resumed its independence (1844),
   under a republican constitution resembling that of Venezuela,
   and with Pedro Santana for its President, and has been known
   since that time as the Republic of San Domingo, or the
   Dominican Republic. In the Western, or Haytian Republic, large
   numbers of the negroes, "under the names of Piquets and
   Zinglins, now formed themselves into armed bands, and sought
   to obtain a general division of property under some
   communistic monarch of their own race. The mulatto officials
   now cajoled the poor negroes by bribing some old negro, whose
   name was well known to the mass of the people as one of the
   heroes of the war of liberty, to allow himself to be set up as
   President. The Boyerists, as the mulatto oligarchy were
   called, thus succeeded in re-establishing their power," and
   their system (for describing which the word "gerontocracy" has
   been invented) was carried on for some years, until it
   resulted, in 1847, in the election to the Presidency of
   General Faustin Soulouque. "Soulouque was an illiterate negro
   whose recommendations to power were that he was old enough to
   have taken part in the War of Independence, having been a
   lieutenant under Pétion, and that he was popular with the
   negroes, being devotedly attached to the strange mixture of
   freemasonry and fetish worship by which the Haytian blacks
   maintain their political organisation."
{1634}
   The new President took his elevation more seriously than was
   expected, and proved to be more than a match for the mulattoes
   who thought to make him their puppet. He gathered the reins
   into his own hands, and crushed the mulattoes at
   Port-au-Prince by a general massacre. He then "caused himself
   to be proclaimed Emperor, by the title of Faustinus the First
   (1849)," and established a grotesque imperial court, with a
   fantastic nobility, in which a Duke de Lemonade figured by the
   side of a Prince Tape-à-l'œil. This lasted until December
   1858, when Soulouque was dethroned and sent out of the
   country, to take refuge in Jamaica, and the republic was
   restored, with Fabre Nicholas Geffrard, a mulatto general, at
   its head. Geffrard held the Presidency for eight years, when
   he followed his predecessor into exile in Jamaica, and was
   succeeded by General Salnave, a negro, who tried to
   re-establish the Empire and was shot, 1869. Since that time
   revolutions have been frequent and nothing has been constant
   except the disorder and decline of the country. Meantime, the
   Dominican Republic has suffered scarcely less, from its own
   disorders and the attacks of its Haytian neighbors. In 1861 it
   was surrendered by a provisional government to Spain, but
   recovered independence three years later. Soon afterwards one
   of its parties sought annexation to the United States, and in
   1869 the President of the latter republic, General Grant,
   concluded a treaty with the Dominican government for the
   cession of the peninsula of Samana, and for the placing of San
   Domingo under American protection. But the Senate of the
   United States refused to ratify the treaty.

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir S. St. John,
      Hayti, or the Black Republic,
      chapter 3._

   ----------HAYTI: End--------

HEAD-CENTER, Fenian.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

HEARTS OF OAK BOYS.
HEARTS OF STEEL BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D.1760-1798.

HEAVENFIELD.
   Battle of the (635).

   Defeat of the Welsh, with the death of Cadwallon, the "last
   great hero of the British race," by the English of Bernicia,
   A.D. 635. "The victory of the Heaven-field indeed is memorable
   as the close of the last rally which the Britons ever made
   against their conquerors."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 275._

      ALSO IN:
      _Bede,
      Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, chapters 1-2._

HÉBERT AND THE HÉBERTISTS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790; 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
      (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

HEBREW, The Name.

      See JEWS: THEIR NATIONAL NAMES.

   ----------HEBRIDES: Start--------

HEBRIDES OR WESTERN ISLANDS, The.

   "The Hebrides or Western Islands comprise all the numerous
   islands and islets which extend along nearly all the west
   coast of Scotland; and they anciently comprised also the
   peninsula of Cantyre, the islands of the Clyde, the isle of
   Rachlin, and even for some time the isle of Man."

      _Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
      volume 3, page 60._

HEBRIDES: 9th-13th Centuries.
   The dominion of the Northmen.

      See
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,
      and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES;
      also, SODOR AND MAN.

HEBRIDES: A. D. 1266.
   Cession to Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1266.

HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.
   The Lords of the Isles.

   In 1346, the dominion of most of the Hebrides became
   consolidated under John, son of Ronald or Angus Oig, of Islay,
   and he assumed the title of "Lord of the Isles." The Lords of
   the Isles became substantially independent of the Scottish
   crown until the battle of Harlaw, in 1411 (see HARLAW, BATTLE
   OF). The lordship was extinguished in 1504 (see SCOTLAND: A.
   D. 1502-1504).

      _Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
      pages 65-72._

   ----------HEBRIDES: End--------

HEBRON.

   In the settlement of the tribes of Israel, after the conquest
   of Canaan, Caleb, one of the heroes of Judah, "took possession
   of the territory round the famous old city of Hebron, and
   thereby gained for his tribe a seat held sacred from
   Patriarchal times. … Beginning with Hebron, he acquired for
   himself a considerable territory, which even in David's time
   was named simply Caleb, and was distinguished from the rest of
   Judah as a peculiar district. … Hebron remained till after
   David's time celebrated as the main seat and central point of
   the entire tribe, around which it is evident that all the rest
   of Judah gradually clustered in good order."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 3, A._

   "Hebron was a Hittite city, the centre of an ancient
   civilization, which to some extent had been inherited by the
   tribe of Judah. It was undoubtedly the capital of Judah, a
   city of the highest religious character full of recollections
   and traditions. It could boast of fine public buildings, good
   water, and a vast and well-kept pool. The unification of
   Israel had just been accomplished there. It was only natural
   that Hebron should become the capital of the new kingdom [of
   David]. … It is not easy to say what induced David to leave
   a city which had such ancient and evident claims for a hamlet
   like Jebus [Jerusalem], which did not yet belong to him. It is
   probable that he found Hebron too exclusively Judahite."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 2, chapter 18._

      See, also, ZOAN;
      and JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

HECANA, Kingdom of.

   One of the small, short-lived kingdoms of the Angles in early
   England, its territory was in modern Herefordshire.

      _N. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 70._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HECATOMB

   "Large sacrifices, where a great number of animals were
   slaughtered, [among the ancient Greeks] are called hecatombs."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      page 60._

HECATOMBÆON, Battle of.

   Fought, B. C. 224, by Cleomenes of Sparta with the forces of
   the Achæan League, over which he won a complete victory. The
   result was the calling in of Antigonus Doson, king of
   Macedonia, to become the ally of the League, and to be aided
   by it in crushing the last independent political life of
   Peloponnesian Greece.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62._

{1635}

HECATOMPEDON, The.

      See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

HECATOMPYLOS.

   The chief city of Parthia Proper, founded by Alexander the
   Great, and long remaining one of the capitals of the Parthian
   empire.

HEDGELEY MOOR, Battle of (1464)

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

HEDWIGA, Queen of Poland, A. D. 1382-1386.

HEELERS.

      See BOSSISM.

HEERBAN, The.

   The "heerban" was a military system instituted by Charlemagne,
   which gave way to the feudal system under his successors. "The
   basis of the heerban system was the duty of every fighting man
   to answer directly the call of the king to arms. The freeman,
   not only of the Franks, but of all the subject peoples, owed
   military service to the king alone. This duty is insisted upon
   in the laws of Charlemagne with constant repetition. The
   summons (heerban) was issued at the spring meeting, and sent
   out by the counts or missi. The soldier was obliged to present
   himself at the given time, fully armed and equipped with all
   provision for the campaign, except fire, water, and fodder for
   the horses."

      _E. Emerton,
      Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 14._

HEGEMONY.

   "A hegemony, the political ascendancy of some one city or
   community over a number of subject commonwealths."

      _Sir H. S. Maine,
      Dissertations on Early Law and Custom,
      page 131._

HEGIRA, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

HEGIRA, Era of the.

      See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

   ----------HEIDELBERG: Start--------

HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1622.
   Capture by Tilly.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1631.
   Burning of the Castle.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1690.
   Final destruction of the Castle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

   ----------HEIDELBERG: End--------

HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

HEILBRONN, Union of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

HELAM, OR HALAMAH, Battle of.

   A decisive victory won by King David over the Syrians.

      _II. Samuel,
      x. 15-19._

HELENA, Arkansas, The defense of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HELEPOLIS, The.

      See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

HELIÆA, The.

   Under Solon's constitution for the government of Athens, "a
   body of 6,000 citizens was every year created by lot to form a
   supreme court, called Heliæa, which was divided into several
   smaller ones, not limited to any precise number of persons.
   The qualifications required for this were the same with those
   which gave admission into the general assembly, except that
   the members of the former might not be under the age of
   thirty. It was, therefore, in fact, a select portion of the
   latter, in which the powers of the larger body were
   concentrated and exercised under a judicial form."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11._

HELICON.

      See THESSALY.

HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1814.
   Acquisition by Great Britain.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1890.
   Cession to Germany.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

   ----------HELIOPOLIS: Start--------

HELIOPOLIS.

      See ON.

HELIOPOLIS: Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

   ----------HELIOPOLIS: End--------

HELLAS.
HELLENES.
GRAIKOI.
GREEKS.

   "To the Greek of the historical ages the idea of Hellas was
   not associated with any definite geographical limits. Wherever
   a Greek settlement existed, there for the colonists was
   Hellas. … Of a Hellas lying within certain specified bounds,
   and containing within it only Greek inhabitants, they knew
   nothing."

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "Their language was, … from the beginning, the token of
   recognition among the Hellenes. … Where this language was
   spoken—in Asia, in Europe, or in Africa—there was Hellas.
   … A considerable number of the Greek tribes which immigrated
   by land [from Asia] into the European peninsula [of Greece]
   followed the tracks of the Italicans, and, taking a westward
   route through Pæonia and Macedonia, penetrated through Illyria
   into the western half of the Alpine country of Northern
   Greece, which the formation of its hill ranges and valleys
   renders more easily accessible from the north than Thessaly in
   its secluded hollow. The numerous rivers, abounding in water,
   which flow close by one another through long gorges into the
   Ionian Sea, here facilitated an advance into the south; and
   the rich pasture-land invited immigration; so that Epirus
   became the dwelling-place of a dense crowd of population,
   which commenced its civilized career in the fertile lowlands
   of the country. Among them three main tribes were marked out,
   of which the Chaones were regarded as the most ancient. …
   Farther to the south the Thesprotians had settled, and more
   inland, in the direction of Pindus, the Molossians. A more
   ancient appellation than those of this triple division is that
   of the Greeks (Graikoi), which the Hellenes thought the
   earliest designation of their ancestors. The same name of
   Græci (Greeks) the Italicans applied to the whole family of
   peoples with whom they had once dwelt together in these
   districts. This is the first collective name of the Hellenic
   tribes in Europe. … Far away from the coast, in the
   seclusion of the hills, where lie closely together the springs
   of the Thyamis, Aous, Aracthus, and Achelous, extends at the
   base of Tomarus the lake Ioannina, on the thickly wooded banks
   of which, between fields of corn and damp meadows, lay Dodona,
   a chosen seat of the Pelasgian Zeus, the invisible God, who
   announced his presence in the rustling of the oaks, whose
   altar was surrounded by a vast circle of tripods, for a sign
   that he was the first to unite the domestic hearths and civic
   communities into a great association centering in himself.
   This Dodona was the central seat of the Græci; it was a sacred
   centre of the whole district before the Italicans commenced
   their westward journey; and at the same time the place where
   the subsequent national name of the Greeks can be first proved
   to have prevailed; for the chosen of the people, who
   administered the worship of Zeus, were called Selli or Helli,
   and after them the surrounding country Hellopia or Hellas."

{1636}

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapters 1 and 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Juventus Mundi,
      chapter 4._

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.
HELLENIC AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE.
HELLENISM.

   "It was the privilege of the Greeks to discover the sovereign
   efficacy of reason. They entered on the pursuit of knowledge
   with a sure and joyous instinct. Baffled and puzzled they
   might be, but they never grew weary of the quest. The
   speculative faculty which reached its height in Plato and
   Aristotle, was, when we make due allowance for time and
   circumstance, scarcely less eminent in the Ionian
   philosophers; and it was Ionia that gave birth to an idea,
   which was foreign to the East, but has become the
   starting-point of modern science,—the idea that Nature works
   by fixed laws. A fragment of Euripides speaks of him as 'happy
   who has learned to search into causes,' who 'discerns the
   deathless and ageless order of nature, whence it arose, the
   how and the why.' The early poet-philosophers of Ionia gave
   the impulse which has carried the human intellect forward
   across the line which separates empirical from scientific
   knowledge; and the Greek precocity of mind in this direction,
   unlike that of the Orientals, had in it the promise of
   uninterrupted advance in the future,—of great discoveries in
   mathematics, geometry, experimental physics, in medicine also
   and physiology. … By the middle of the fifth century B. C.
   the general conception of law in the physical world was firmly
   established in the mind of Greek thinkers. Even the more
   obscure phenomena of disease were brought within the rule.
   Hippocrates writing about a malady which was common among the
   Scythians and was thought to be preternatural says: 'As for me
   I think that these maladies are divine like all others, but
   that none is more divine or more human than another. Each has
   its natural principle and none exists without its natural
   cause.' Again, the Greeks set themselves to discover a
   rational basis for conduct. Rigorously they brought their
   actions to the test of reason, and that not only by the mouth
   of philosophers, but through their poets, historians, and
   orators. Thinking and doing—clear thought and noble
   action—did not stand opposed to the Greek mind. The
   antithesis rather marks a period when the Hellenic spirit was
   past its prime, and had taken a one-sided bent. The Athenians
   of the Periclean age—in whom we must recognise the purest
   embodiment of Hellenism—had in truth the peculiar power,
   which Thucydides claims for them, of thinking before they
   acted and of acting also. … To Greece … we owe the love of
   Science, the love of Art, the love of Freedom: not Science
   alone, Art alone, or Freedom alone, but these vitally
   correlated with one another and brought into organic union.
   And in this union we recognise the distinctive features of the
   West. The Greek genius is the European genius in its first and
   brightest bloom. From a vivifying contact with the Greek
   spirit Europe derived that new and mighty impulse which we
   call Progress. Strange it is to think that these Greeks, like
   the other members of the Indo-European family, probably had
   their cradle in the East; that behind Greek civilisation,
   Greek language, Greek mythology, there is that Eastern
   background to which the comparative sciences seem to point.
   But it is no more than a background. In spite of an
   resemblances, in spite of common customs, common words, common
   syntax, common gods, the spirit of the Greeks and of their
   Eastern kinsmen—the spirit of their civilisation, art,
   language, and mythology—remains essentially distinct. …
   From Greece came that first mighty impulse, whose far-off
   workings are felt by us to-day, and which has brought it about
   that progress has been accepted as the law and goal of human
   endeavour. Greece first took up the task of equipping man with
   all that fits him for civil life and promotes his secular well
   being; of unfolding and expanding every inborn faculty and
   energy, bodily and mental; of striving restlessly after the
   perfection of the whole, and finding in this effort after an
   unattainable ideal that by which man becomes like to the gods.
   The life of the Hellenes, like that of their Epic hero
   Achilles, was brief and brilliant. But they have been endowed
   with the gift of renewing their youth. Renan, speaking of the
   nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history,
   says 'that they must die first that the world may live through
   them;' that a people must choose between the prolonged life,
   the tranquil and obscure destiny of one who lives for himself,
   and the troubled stormy career of one who lives for humanity.
   The nation which revolves within its breast social and
   religious problems is always weak politically. Thus it was
   with the Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of
   the world must needs disappear as a nation.' 'They lost a
   material city, they opened the reign of the spiritual
   Jerusalem.' So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased
   to be. When her freedom was overthrown at Chaeronea, the page
   of her history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that
   moment she was to enter on a larger life and on universal
   empire. Already during the last days of her independence it
   had been possible to speak of a new Hellenism, which rested
   not on ties of blood but on spiritual kinship. This
   presentiment of Isocrates was marvellously realised. As
   Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to the
   East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilisation whose seeds
   had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror in
   turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered
   Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too
   Greece has been the great civiliser, the oecumenical teacher,
   the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is
   the source of most of the quickening ideas which re-make
   nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our
   secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the
   larger share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life
   she has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs
   to the present order of things and to the visible world."

      _S. H. Butcher,
      Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,
      pages 9-43._

   "The part assigned to [the Greeks] in the drama of the nations
   was to create forms of beauty, to unfold ideas which should
   remain operative when the short bloom of their own existence
   was over, and thus to give a new impulse, a new direction, to
   the whole current of human life.
{1637}
   The prediction which Thucydides puts into the mouth of the
   Athenian orator has been fulfilled, though not in the sense
   literally conveyed; 'Assuredly we shall not be without
   witnesses,' says Pericles; 'there are mighty documents of our
   power, which shall make us the wonder of this age, and of ages
   to come.' He was thinking of those wide-spread settlements
   which attested the empire of Athens. But the immortal
   witnesses of his race are of another kind. Like the victims of
   the war, whose epitaph he was pronouncing, the Hellenes have
   their memorial in all lands, graven, not on stone, but in the
   hearts of mankind. … Are we not warranted by what we know of
   Greek work, imperfect though our knowledge is, in saying that
   no people has yet appeared in the world whose faculty for art,
   in the largest sense of the term, has been so comprehensive?
   And there is a further point that may be noted. It has been
   said that the man of genius sometimes is such in virtue of
   combining the temperament distinctive of his nation with some
   gift of his own which is foreign to that temperament; as in
   Shakespeare the basis is English, and the individual gift a
   flexibility of spirit which is not normally English. But we
   cannot apply this remark to the greatest of ancient Greek
   writers. They present certainly a wide range of individual
   differences. Yet so distinctive and so potent is the Hellenic
   nature that, if any two of such writers be compared, however
   wide the individual differences may be,—as between
   Aristophanes and Plato, or Pindar and Demosthenes,—such
   individual differences are less significant than those common
   characteristics of the Hellenic mind which separate both the
   men compared from all who are not Hellenes. If it were
   possible to trace the process by which the Hellenic race was
   originally separated from their Aryan kinsfolk, the
   physiological basis of their qualities might perhaps be traced
   in the mingling of different tribal ingredients. As it is,
   there is no clue to these secrets of nature's alchemy: the
   Hellenes appear in the dawn of their history with that unique
   temperament already distinct: we can point only to one cause,
   and that a subordinate cause, which must have aided its
   development, namely, the geographical position of Greece. No
   people of the ancient world were so fortunately placed.
   Nowhere are the aspects of external nature more beautiful,
   more varied, more stimulating to the energies of body and
   mind. A climate which, within three parallels of latitude,
   nourishes the beeches of Pindus and the palms of the Cyclades;
   mountain barriers which at once created a framework for the
   growth of local federations, and encouraged a sturdy spirit of
   freedom; coasts abounding in natural harbors; a sea dotted
   with islands, and notable for the regularity of its
   wind-currents; ready access alike to Asia and to the western
   Mediterranean,—these were circumstances happily congenial to
   the inborn faculties of the Greek race, and admirably fitted
   to expand them."

      _R. C. Jebb,
      The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      pages 27-31._

   "The sense of beauty which the Greeks possessed to a greater
   extent than any other people could not fail to be caught by
   the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings in which they
   lived; and their literature, at any rate their poetry, bears
   abundant testimony to the fact. Small though Greece is, it
   contains a greater variety, both in harmony and contrast, of
   natural beauty than most countries, however great. Its
   latitude gives it a southern climate, while its mountains
   allow of the growth of a vegetation found in more northern
   climes. Within a short space occur all the degrees of
   transition from snow-topped hills to vine-clad fountains. And
   the joy with which the beauty of their country filled the
   Greeks may be traced through all their poetry. … The two
   leading facts in the physical aspect of Greece are the sea and
   the mountains. As Europe is the most indented and has
   relatively the longest coast-line of all the continents of the
   world, so of all the countries of Europe the land of Greece is
   the most interpenetrated with arms of the sea. …

      'Two voices are there: one is of the Sea,
      One of the Mountains; each a mighty voice:
      In both from age to age thou didst rejoice;
      They were thy chosen music, Liberty!'

   Both voices spoke impressively to Greece, and her literature
   echoes their tones. So long as Greece was free and the spirit
   of freedom animated the Greeks, so long their literature was
   creative and genius marked it. When liberty perished,
   literature declined. The field of Chæronea was fatal alike to
   the political liberty and to the literature of Greece. The
   love of liberty was indeed pushed even to an extreme in
   Greece; and this also was due to the physical configuration of
   the country. Mountains, it has been said, divide; seas unite.
   The rise and the long continuance in so small a country of so
   many cities, having their own laws, constitution, separate
   history, and independent existence, can only be explained by
   the fact that in their early growth they were protected, each
   by the mountains which surrounded it, so effectually, and the
   love of liberty in this time was developed to such an extent,
   that no single city was able to establish its dominion over
   the others. … Everyone of the numerous states, whose
   separate political existence was guaranteed by the mountains,
   was actually or potentially a separate centre of civilisation
   and of literature. In some one of these states each kind of
   literature could find the conditions appropriate or necessary
   to its development. Even a state which produced no men of
   literary genius itself might become the centre at which poets
   collected and encouraged the literature it could not produce,
   as was the case with Sparta, to which Greece owed the
   development of choral lyric. … The eastern basin of the
   Mediterranean has deserved well of literature, for it brought
   Greece into communication with her colonies on the islands and
   on the surrounding coasts, and enabled the numerous Greek
   cities to co-operate in the production of a rich and varied
   literature, instead of being confined each to a one-sided and
   incomplete development. The process of communication began in
   the earliest times, as is shown by the spread of epic
   literature. Originating in Ionia, it was taken up in Cyprus,
   where the epic called the Cypria was composed, and, at the
   beginning of the sixth century it was on the coast of Africa
   in the colony of Cyrene. The rapid spread of elegiac poetry is
   even more strikingly illustrated, for we find Solon in Athens
   quoting from his contemporary Mimnermus of Colophon. Choral
   lyric, which originated in Asia Minor, was conveyed to Sparta
   by Alcman, and by Simonides of Ceos all over the Greek world.
   But although in early times we find as much interchange and
   reaction in the colonies amongst themselves as between the
   colonies and the mother-country, with the advance of time we
   find the centripetal tendency becoming dominant.
{1638}
   The mother-country becomes more and more the centre to which
   all literature and art gravitates. At the beginning of the
   sixth century Sparta attracted poets from the colonies in Asia
   Minor, but the only form of literature which Sparta rewarded
   and encouraged was choral lyric. No such narrowness
   characterised Athens, and when she established herself as the
   intellectual capital of Greece, all men of genius received a
   welcome there, and we find all forms of literature deserting
   their native homes, even their native dialects, to come to
   Athens. … As long as literature had many centres, there was
   no danger of all falling by a single stroke; but when it was
   centralised in Athens, and the blow delivered by Philip at
   Chæronea had fallen on Athens, classical Greek literature
   perished in a generation. It is somewhat difficult to
   distinguish race-qualities from the characteristics impressed
   on a people by the conditions under which it lives, since the
   latter by accumulation and transmission from generation to
   generation eventually become race-qualities. Thus the Spartans
   possessed qualities common to them and the Dorians, of whom
   they were a branch, and also qualities peculiar to themselves,
   which distinguished them from other Dorians. … The ordinary
   life of a Spartan citizen was that of a soldier in camp or
   garrison, rather than that of a member of a political
   community, and this system of life was highly unfavourable to
   literature. … Other Dorians, not hemmed in by such
   unfavourable conditions as the Spartans, did provide some
   contributions to the literature of Greece, and in the nature
   of their contributions we may detect the qualities of the
   race. The Dorians in Sicily sowed the seeds of rhetoric and
   carried comedy to considerable perfection. Of imagination the
   race seems destitute: it did not produce poets. On the other
   hand, the race is eminently practical as well as prosaic, and
   their humour was of a nature which corresponded to these
   qualities. … The Æolians form a contrast both to the
   Spartans and to the Athenians. The development of
   individuality is as characteristic of the Æolians as its
   absence is of the Spartans. But the Æolians, first of all
   Greeks, possessed a cavalry, and this means that they were
   wealthy and aristocratic. … This gives us the distinction
   between the Æolians and the Athenians: among the former,
   individuality was developed in the aristocracy alone; among
   the latter, in all the citizens. The Æolians added to the
   crown of Greek literature one of the brightest of its
   jewels-lyric poetry, as we understand lyric in modern times,
   that is, the expression of the poet's feelings, on any subject
   whatever, as his individual feeling. … But it was the
   Ionians who rendered the greatest services to Greek
   literature. They were a quick-witted race, full of enterprise,
   full of resources. In them we see reflected the character of
   the sea, as in the Dorians the character of the mountains. The
   latter partook of the narrowness and exclusiveness of their
   own homes, hemmed in by mountains, and by them protected from
   the incursion of strangers and strange innovations. The
   Ionians, on the other hand, were open as the sea, and had as
   many moods. They were eminently susceptible to beauty in all
   its forms, to the charm of change and to novelty. They were
   ever ready to put any belief or institution to the test of
   discussion, and were governed as much by ideas as by
   sentiments. Keenness of intellect, taste in all matters of
   literature and art, grace in expression, and measure in
   everything distinguished them above all Greeks. The
   development of epic poetry, the origin of prose, the
   cultivation of philosophy, are the proud distinction of the
   Ionian race. In Athens we have the qualities of the Ionian
   race in their finest flower."

      _F. B. Jevons,
      A History of Greek Literature,
      pages 485-490._

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
   Hellenism and the Jews.

   "The Jewish region … was, in ancient times as well as in the
   Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen
   districts. Only at Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element
   advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere, even to the west, it
   was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine and
   Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish.
   These heathen lands were far more deeply penetrated by
   Hellenism, than the country of the Jews. No reaction like the
   rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it, besides
   which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different
   manner from Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While
   therefore the further advance of Hellenism was obstructed by
   religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it had
   attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant
   entry under Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance
   over Oriental culture. Hence, long before the commencement of
   the Roman period, the educated world, especially in the great
   cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well
   say, completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata
   of the populations and the dwellers in rural districts, that
   this must not be equally assumed. Besides however the border
   lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were
   occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis … and the town
   of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been
   planted by Alexander the Great … while the national
   Samaritans had their central point at Sichem. The victorious
   penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and
   comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native
   religions, especially in the Philistine and Phenician cities,
   did indeed in many respects maintain themselves in their
   essential character; but still in such wise, that they were
   transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides
   these the purely Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in
   many places entirely supplanted the former. Unfortunately our
   sources of information do not furnish us the means of
   separating the Greek period proper from the Roman; the best
   are afforded by coins, and these for the most part belong to
   the Roman. On the whole however the picture, which we obtain,
   holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we entirely
   without direct notices of this age. … In the Jewish region
   proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly
   repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after
   the overthrow of Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian
   and Hadrian, that an entrance for heathen rites was forcibly
   obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do not
   assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained
   altogether unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a
   civilising power, which extended itself to every department of
   life.
{1639}
   It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the
   state, legislation, the administration of justice, public
   arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the
   customs of daily life down to fashion and ornaments, and thus
   impressed upon every department of life, wherever its
   influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true
   that Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The
   importance of the former on the contrary lay in the fact, that
   by its reception of the available elements of all foreign
   cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this
   very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in
   which the preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote.
   Into the stream of this Hellenistic culture the Jewish people
   was also drawn; slowly indeed and with reluctance, but yet
   irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish
   heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it
   could not for any length of time restrain the tide of
   Hellenistic culture in other departments of life. Its several
   stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect
   that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every
   side by Hellenistic regions, with which it was compelled, even
   for the sake of trade, to hold continual intercourse, and when
   we remember, that even the rising of the Maccabees was in the
   main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only
   against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore
   in every respect a Hellenistic stamp-employed foreign
   mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek names, etc., and
   that some of them, e. g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers
   of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be
   assumed, that Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the
   Maccabees, gained access in no inconsiderable measure into
   Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman period."

      _E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
      division 2, volume 1, pages 29-30._

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
   Hellenism and the Romans.

   "In the Alexandrian age, with all its close study and
   imitation of the classical models, nothing is more remarkable
   than the absence of any promise that the Hellenic spirit which
   animated those masterpieces was destined to have any abiding
   influence in the world. … And yet it is true that the vital
   power of the Hellenic genius was not fully revealed, until,
   after suffering some temporary eclipse in the superficially
   Greek civilizations of Asia and Egypt, it emerged in a new
   quality, as a source of illumination to the literature and the
   art of Rome. Early Roman literature was indebted to Greece for
   the greater part of its material; but a more important debt
   was in respect to the forms and moulds of composition. The
   Latin language of the third century B. C. was already in full
   possession of the qualities which always remained distinctive
   of it; it was clear, strong, weighty, precise, a language made
   to be spoken in the imperative mood, a fitting interpreter of
   government and law. But it was not flexible or graceful,
   musical or rapid; it was not suited to express delicate shades
   of thought or feeling; for literary purposes, it was, in
   comparison with Greek, a poor and rude idiom. The development
   of Latin into the language of Cicero and Virgil was gradually
   and laboriously accomplished under the constant influence of
   Greece. That finish of form, known as classical, which Roman
   writers share with Greek, was a lesson which Greece slowly
   impressed upon Rome. … A close and prolonged study of the
   Greek models could not end in a mere discipline of form; the
   beauty of the best Greek models depends too much on their
   vital spirit. Not only was the Roman imagination enriched, but
   the Roman intellect, through literary intercourse with the
   Greek, gradually acquired a flexibility and a plastic power
   which had not been among its original gifts. Through Roman
   literature the Greek influence was transmitted to later times
   in a shape which obscured, indeed, much of its charm, but
   which was also fitted to extend its empire, and to win an
   entrance for it in regions which would have been less
   accessible to a purer form of its manifestation."

      _R. C. Jebb,
      The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      chapter 8._

   "Italy had been subject to the influence of Greece, ever since
   it had a history at all. … But the Hellenism of the Romans
   of the present period [second century B. C.] was, in its
   causes as well as its consequences, something essentially new.
   The Romans began to feel the lack of a richer intellectual
   life, and to be startled as it were at their own utter want of
   mental culture; and, if even nations of artistic gifts, such
   as the English and Germans, have not disdained in the pauses
   of their own productiveness to avail themselves of the paltry
   French culture for filling up the gap, it need excite no
   surprise that the Italian nation now flung itself with eager
   zeal on the glorious treasures as well as on the vile refuse
   of the intellectual development of Hellas. But it was an
   impulse still more profound and deep-rooted which carried the
   Romans irresistibly into the Hellenic vortex. Hellenic
   civilization still assumed that name, but it was Hellenic no
   longer; it was, it fact, humanistic and cosmopolitan. It had
   solved the problem of moulding a mass of different nations
   into one whole completely in the field of intellect, and to a
   certain degree in that of politics, and, now when the same
   task on a wider scale devolved on Rome, she entered on the
   possession of Hellenism along with the rest of the inheritance
   of Alexander the Great. Hellenism therefore was no longer a
   mere stimulus, or subordinate influence; it penetrated the
   Italian nation to the very core. Of course, the vigorous home
   life of Italy strove against the foreign element. It was only
   after a most vehement struggle that the Italian farmer
   abandoned the field to the cosmopolite of the capital; and, as
   in Germany the French coat called forth the national Germanic
   frock, so the reaction against Hellenism aroused in Rome a
   tendency, which opposed the influence of Greece on principle
   in a style to which earlier centuries were altogether
   unaccustomed, and in doing so fell not unfrequently into
   downright follies and absurdities. No department of human
   action or thought remained unaffected by this struggle between
   the new fashion and the old. Even political relations were
   largely influenced by it. The whimsical project of
   emancipating the Hellenes, … the kindred, likewise Hellenic,
   idea of combining republics in a common opposition to kings,
   and the desire of propagating Hellenic polity at the expense
   of eastern despotism—which were the two principles that
   regulated, for instance, the treatment of Macedonia—were
   fixed ideas of the new school, just as dread of the
   Carthaginians was the fixed idea of the old; and, if Cato
   pushed the latter to a ridiculous excess, Philhellenism now
   and then indulged in extravagances at least as foolish. …
{1640}
   But the real struggle between Hellenism and its national
   antagonists during the present period was carried on in the
   field of faith, of manners, and of art and literature. … If
   Italy still possessed—what had long been a mere antiquarian
   curiosity in Hellas—a national religion, it was already
   visibly beginning to be ossified into theology. The torpor
   creeping over faith is nowhere perhaps so distinctly apparent
   as in the alterations in the economy of divine service and of
   the priesthood. The public service of the gods became not only
   more tedious, but above all more and more costly. … An augur
   like Lucius Paullus, who regarded the priesthood as a science
   and not as a mere title, was already a rare exception; and
   could not but be so, when the government more and more openly
   and unhesitatingly employed the auspices for the
   accomplishment of its political designs, or, in other words,
   treated the national religion in accordance with the view of
   Polybius as a superstition useful for imposing on the public
   at large. Where the way was thus paved, the Hellenistic
   irreligious spirit found free course. In connection with the
   incipient taste for art the sacred images of the gods began
   even in Cato's time to be employed, like other furniture, to
   embellish the chambers of the rich. More dangerous wounds were
   inflicted on religion by the rising literature. … Thus the
   old national religion was visibly on the decline; and, as the
   great trees of the primeval forest were uprooted, the soil
   became covered with a rank growth of thorns and briars and
   with weeds that had never been seen before. Native
   superstitions and foreign impostures of the most various hues
   mingled, competed and conflicted with each other. … The
   Hellenism of that epoch, already denationalized and pervaded
   by Oriental mysticism, introduced not only unbelief but also
   superstition in its most offensive and dangerous forms to
   Italy; and these vagaries, moreover, had a special charm,
   precisely because they were foreign. … Rites of the most
   abominable character came to the knowledge of the Roman
   authorities: a secret nocturnal festival in honour of the god
   Bacchus had been first introduced into Etruria by a Greek
   priest, and spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome
   and propagated itself over all Italy, everywhere corrupting
   families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes,
   unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and
   murdering by poison. More than 7,000 men were sentenced to
   punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and
   rigorous enactments were issued as to the future. … The ties
   of family life became relaxed with fearful rapidity. The evil
   of grisettes and boy-favourites spread like a pestilence. …
   Luxury prevailed more and more in dress, ornaments and
   furniture, in the buildings and on the tables. Especially
   after the expedition to Asia Minor, which took place in 564,
   [B. C. 190] Asiatico-Hellenic luxury, such as prevailed at
   Ephesus and Alexandria, transferred its empty refinement and
   its petty trifling, destructive alike of money, time, and
   pleasure, to Rome. … As a matter of course, this revolution
   in life and manners brought an economic revolution in its
   train. Residence in the capital became more and more coveted
   as well as more costly. Rents rose to an unexampled height.
   Extravagant prices were paid for the new articles of luxury.
   … The influences which stimulated the growth of Roman
   literature were of a character altogether peculiar and hardly
   paralleled in any other nation. … By means of the Italian
   slaves and freedmen, a very large portion of whom were Greek
   or half Greek by birth, the Greek language and Greek knowledge
   to a certain extent reached even the lower ranks of the
   population, especially in the capital. The comedies of this
   period indicate that even the humbler classes of the capital
   were familiar with a sort of Latin, which could no more be
   properly understood without a knowledge of Greek than Sterne's
   English or Wieland's German without a knowledge of French. Men
   of senatorial families, however, not only addressed a Greek
   audience in Greek, but even published their speeches. …
   Under the influence of such circumstances Roman education
   developed itself. It is a mistaken opinion, that antiquity was
   materially inferior to our own times in the general diffusion
   of elementary attainments. Even among the lower classes and
   slaves there was considerable knowledge of reading, writing,
   and counting. … Elementary instruction, as well us
   instruction in Greek, must have been long ere this period
   imparted to a very considerable extent in Rome. But the epoch
   now before us initiated an education, the aim of which was to
   communicate not merely an outward expertness, but a real
   mental culture. The internal decomposition of Italian
   nationality had already, particularly in the aristocracy,
   advanced so far as to render the substitution of a broader
   human culture for that nationality inevitable: and the craving
   after a more advanced civilization was already powerfully
   stirring men's minds. The study of the Greek language as it
   were spontaneously met this craving. The classical literature
   of Greece, the Iliad and still more the Odyssey, had all along
   formed the basis of instruction; the overflowing treasures of
   Hellenic art and science were already by this means spread
   before the eyes of the Italians. Without any outward
   revolution, strictly speaking, in the character of instruction
   the natural result was, that the empirical study of the
   language became converted into a higher study of the
   literature; that the general culture connected with such
   literary studies was communicated in increased measure to the
   scholars; and that these availed themselves of the knowledge
   thus acquired to dive into that Greek literature which most
   powerfully influenced the spirit of the age—the tragedies of
   Euripides and the comedies of Menander. In a similar way
   greater importance came to be attached to the study of Latin.
   The higher society of Rome began to feel the need, if not of
   exchanging their mother-tongue for Greek, at least of refining
   it and adapting it to the changed state of culture. … But a
   Latin culture presupposed a literature, and no such literature
   existed in Rome. … The Romans desired a theatre, but the
   pieces were wanting. On these elements Roman literature was
   based; and its defective character was from the first and
   necessarily the result of such an origin. … Roman poetry in
   particular had its immediate origin not in the inward impulse
   of the poet, but in the outward demands of the school, which
   needed Latin manuals, and of the stage, which needed Latin
   dramas. Now both institutions—the school and the stage—were
   thoroughly anti-Roman and revolutionary. … The school and
   the theatre became the most effective levers in the hands of
   the new spirit of the age, and all the more so that they used
   the Latin tongue.
{1641}
   Men might perhaps speak and write Greek, and yet not cease to
   be Romans; but in this case they were in the habit of speaking
   in the Roman language, while the whole inward being and life
   were Greek. It is one of the most pleasing, but it is one of
   the most remarkable and in a historical point of view most
   instructive, facts in this brilliant era of Roman
   conservatism, that during its course Hellenism struck root in
   the whole field of intellect not immediately political, and
   that the school-master and the maître de plaisir of the great
   public in close alliance created a Roman literature."

      _T. Mommsen,
      The History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   Panætius was the founder of "that Roman Stoicism which plays
   so prominent a part in the history of the Empire. He came from
   Rhodes, and was a pupil of Diogenes at Athens. The most
   important part of his life was, however, spent at Rome, in the
   house of Scipio Æmilianus, the centre of the Scipionic circle,
   where he trained up a number of Roman nobles to understand and
   to adopt his views. He seems to have taken the place of
   Polybius, and to have accompanied Scipio in his tour to the
   East (143 B. C.). He died as head of the Stoic school in
   Athens about 110 B. C. This was the man who, under the
   influence of the age, really modified the rigid tenets of his
   sect to make it the practical rule of life for statesmen,
   politicians, magnates, who had no time to sit all day and
   dispute, but who required something better than effete
   polytheism to give them dignity in their leisure, and
   steadfastness in the day of trial. … With the pupils of
   Panætius begins the long roll of Roman Stoics. … Here then,
   after all the dissolute and disintegrating influences of
   Hellenism,—its comœdia palliata, its parasites, its panders,
   its minions, its chicanery, its mendacity—had produced their
   terrible effect, came an antidote which, above all the human
   influences we know, purified and ennobled the world. It
   affected, unfortunately, only the higher classes at Rome; and
   even among them, as among any of the lower classes that
   speculated at all, it had as a dangerous rival that cheap and
   vulgar Epicureanism, which puffs up common natures with the
   belief that their trivial and coarse reflections have some
   philosophic basis, and can be defended with subtle arguments.
   But among the best of the Romans Hellenism produced a type
   seldom excelled in the world's history, a type as superior to
   the old Roman model as the nobleman is to the burgher in most
   countries—a type we see in Rutilius Rufus, as compared with
   the elder Cato. … It was in this way that Hellenistic
   philosophy made itself a home in Italy, and acquired pupils
   who in the next generation became masters in their way, and
   showed in Cicero and Lucretius no mean rivals of the
   contemporary Greek. … Till the poem of Lucretius and the
   works of Cicero, we may say nothing in Latin worth reading
   existed on the subject. Whoever wanted to study philosophy,
   therefore, down to that time (60 B. C.) studied it in Greek.
   Nearly the same thing may be said of the arts of architecture,
   painting, and sculpture. There were indeed distinctly Roman
   features in architecture, but they were mere matters of
   building, and whatever was done in the way of design, in the
   way of adding beauty to strength, was done wholly under the
   advice and direction of Greeks. The subservience to Hellenism
   in the way of internal household ornament was even more
   complete. … And with the ornaments of the house, the proper
   serving of the house, especially the more delicate
   departments—the cooking of state dinners, the attendance upon
   guests, the care of the great man's intimate comforts—could
   only be done fashionably by Greek slaves. … But of course
   these lower sides of Hellenism had no more potent effect in
   civilising Rome than the employing of French cooks and valets
   and the purchase of French ornaments and furniture had in
   improving our grandfathers. Much more serious was the
   acknowledged supremacy of the Greeks in literature of all
   kinds, and still more their insistence that this superiority
   depended mainly upon a careful system of intellectual
   education. … This is the point where Polybius, after his
   seventeen years' experience of Roman life, finds the capital
   flaw in the conduct of public affairs. In every Hellenistic
   state, he says, nothing engrosses the attention of legislators
   more than the question of education, whereas at Rome a most
   moral and serious government leaves the training of the young
   to the mistakes and hazards of private enterprise. That this
   was a grave blunder as regards the lower classes is probably
   true. … But when Rome grew from a city controlling Italy to
   an empire directing the world, such men as Æmilius Paullus saw
   plainly that they must do something more to fit their children
   for the splendid position they had themselves attained, and so
   they were obliged to keep foreign teachers of literature and
   art in their houses as private tutors. The highest class of
   these private tutors was that of the philosophers, whom we
   have considered, and while the State set itself against their
   public establishments, great men in the State openly
   encouraged them and kept them in their houses. … As regards
   literature, however, in the close of the second century B. C.
   a change was visible, which announced the new and marvellous
   results of the first. … Even in letters Roman culture began
   to take its place beside Greek, and the whole civilised world
   was divided into those who knew Greek letters and those who
   knew Roman only. There was no antagonism in spirit between
   them, for the Romans never ceased to venerate Greek letters or
   to prize a knowledge of that language. But of course there
   were great domains in the West beyond the influence of the
   most western Greeks, even of Massilia, where the first higher
   civilisation introduced was with the Roman legions and
   traders, and where culture assumed permanently a Latin form.
   In the East, though the Romans asserted themselves as
   conquerors, they always condescended to use Greek, and there
   were prætors proud to give their decisions at Roman assize
   courts in that language."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Greek World under Roman Sway,
      chapter 5._

HELLENION, The.

      See NAUKRATIS.

HELLESPONT, The.

   The ancient Greek name of what is now called the straits of
   The Dardanelles, the channel which unites the Sea of Marmora
   with the Ægean. The name (Sea of Helle) came from the myth of
   Helle, who was said to have been drowned in these waters.

HELLESPONTINE SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

HELLULAND.

      See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

HELOTS.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

HELVECONES, The.

      See LYGIANS.

{1642}

HELVETIAN REPUBLIC, The.

   Switzerland is sometimes called the Helvetian Republic, for no
   better reason than is found in the fact that the country
   occupied by the Helvetii of Cæsar is embraced in the modern
   Swiss Confederacy. But the original confederation, out of
   which grew the federal republic of Switzerland, did not touch
   Helvetian ground.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS,
      and A. D. 1332-1460.

HELVETIC REPUBLIC OF 1798, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

HELVETII, The arrested migration of the.

   "The Helvetii, who inhabited a great part of modern
   Switzerland, had grown impatient of the narrow limits in which
   they were crowded together, and harassed at the same time by
   the encroachments of the advancing German tide. The Alps and
   Jura formed barriers to their diffusion on the south and west,
   and the population thus confined outgrew the scanty means of
   support afforded by its mountain valleys. … The Helvetii
   determined to force their way through the country of the
   Allobroges, and to trust either to arms or persuasion to
   obtain a passage through the [Roman] province and across the
   Rhone into the centre of Gaul. … Having completed their
   preparations, [they] appointed the 28th day of March [B. C.
   58] for the meeting of their combined forces at the western
   outlet of the Lake Lemanus. The whole population of the
   assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, including the
   women and children; the number that bore arms was 92,000. They
   cut themselves off from the means of retreat by giving
   ruthlessly to the flames every city and village of their land;
   twelve of one class and four hundred of the other were thus
   sacrificed, and with them all their superfluous stores, their
   furniture, arms and implements." When the news of this
   portentous movement reached Rome, Cæsar, then lately appointed
   to the government of the two Gauls, was raising levies, but
   had no force ready for the field. He flew to the scene in
   person, making the journey from Rome to Geneva in eight days.
   At Geneva, the frontier town of the conquered Allobroges, the
   Romans had a garrison, and Cæsar quickly gathered to that
   point the one legion stationed in the province. Breaking down
   the bridge which had spanned the river and constructing with
   characteristic energy a ditch and rampart from the outlet of
   the lake to the gorge of the Jura, he held the passage of the
   river with his single legion and forced the migratory horde to
   move off by the difficult route down the right bank of the
   Rhone. This accomplished, Cæsar hastened back to Italy, got
   five legions together, led them over the Cottian Alps, crossed
   the Rhone above Lyons, and caught up with the Helvetii before
   the last of their cumbrous train had got beyond the Saone.
   Attacking and cutting to pieces this rear-guard (it was the
   tribe of the Tigurini, which the Romans had encountered
   disastrously half a century before), he bridged the Saone and
   crossed it to pursue the main body of the enemy. For many days
   he followed them, refusing to give battle to the great
   barbarian army until he saw the moment opportune. His blow was
   struck at last in the neighborhood of the city of Bibracte,
   the capital of the Ædui—modern Autun. The defeat of the
   Helvetii was complete, and, although a great body of them
   escaped, they were set upon by the Gauls of the country and
   were soon glad to surrender themselves unconditionally to the
   Roman proconsul. Cæsar compelled them—110,000 survivors, of
   the 368,000 who left Switzerland in the spring—to go back to
   their mountains and rebuild and reoccupy the homes they had
   destroyed.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      chapters 1-29._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 1._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Julius Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)_.

HELVII, The.

   The Helvii were a tribe of Gauls whose country was between the
   Rhone and the Cevennes, in the modern department of the
   Ardêche.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 17._

HENGESTESDUN, Battle of.

   Defeat of the Danes and Welsh by Ecgbehrt, the West Saxon
   king, A. D. 835.

HENNERSDORF, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HENOTICON OF ZENO, The.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

HENRICIANS.

      See PETROBRUSIANS.

HENRY,
   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1206-1216.

   Henry (of Corinthia), King of Bohemia, 1307-1310.

   Henry, King of Navarre, 1270-1274.

   Henry, King of Portugal, 1578-1580.

   Henry, Count of Portugal, 1093-1112.

   Henry (called the Lion), The ruin of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

   Henry (called the Navigator), Prince, The explorations of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

   Henry (called the Proud), The fall of.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.

   Henry I., King of Castile, 1214-1217.

   Henry I., King of England, 1100-1135.

   Henry I., King of France, 1031-1060.

   Henry I. (called The Fowler), King of the East Franks
   (Germany), 919-936.

   Henry II.,
   Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;
   King of Italy, 1004-1024.

   Henry II. (of Trastamare),
   King of Castile and Leon, 1369-1379.

   Henry II. (first of the Plantagenets),
   King of England, 1154-1189.

   Henry II., King of France, 1547-1559.

   Henry III., Emperor, King of Germany,
   and King of Burgundy, 1089-1056.

   Henry III., King of Castile and Leon, 1390-1407.

   Henry III., King of England, 1216-1272.

   Henry III.,
   King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;
   King of Poland, 1573-1574.

   Henry IV.,
   Emperor, 1077-1106;
   King of Germany, 1056-1106.

   Henry IV., King of Castile and Leon, 1454-1474.

   Henry IV., King of England
   (first of the Lancastrian royal line), 1399-1413.

   Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre
   (the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610.
   Abjuration.

         See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

   Assassination.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

   Henry V.,
   Emperor, 1112-1125;
   King of Germany, 1106-1125.

   Henry V., King of England, 1413-1422.

   Henry VI.,
   King of Germany, 1190-1197;
   Emperor, 1191-1197;
   King of Sicily, 1194-1197.

   Henry VI., King of England, 1422-1461.

   Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),
   King of Germany, 1308-1313;
   King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.

   Henry VII., King of England, 1485-1509.

   Henry VIII., King of England, 1509-1547.

HENRY, Patrick,
   The Parson's cause.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

{1643}

HENRY, Patrick:
   The American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
      RECEPTION OF THE NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT, 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
      1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST;
      also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

HENRY, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

HEPTANOMIS, The.

   The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven
   provinces, or nomes; whence its name.

HEPTARCHY, The so-called Saxon.

      See ENGLAND: 7th CENTURY.

HERACLEA.
   The earliest capital of the Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

HERACLEA, Battle of (B. C. 280).

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

HERACLEA PONTICA,
   Siege of.

   Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian
   coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other
   towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the
   Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered
   through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the
   ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The
   Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for
   appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous
   statue of Hercules, with a golden club.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

HERACLEIDÆ, OR HERAKLEIDS, The.

   Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the
   demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous.
   "Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear
   his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his
   descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês
   is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their
   principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the
   Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which
   at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of
   all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even
   to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
   character, was the expedition of the Dorians into
   Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is
   'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of
   the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the
   Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of
   Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But
   through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency
   and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless
   he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his
   claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards
   made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having
   also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his
   descendants were always entitled to the possession of
   one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was
   therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were
   made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as
   reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in
   former times."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

HERACLEIDÆ OF LYDIA.

   The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the
   Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is
   represented as ending with Candaules.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17._

HERACLEONAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641.

HERACLIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 610-641.

   ----------HERAT: Start--------

HERAT: B. C. 330.
   Founding of the city by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

HERAT: A. D. 1221.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

   ----------HERAT: End--------

HERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

HERCULANEUM.

      See POMPEII.

HERCULIANS AND JOVIANS.

      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

HERCYNIAN FOREST, The.

   "The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and
   some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this
   forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey
   to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the
   territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the
   straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the
   Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different
   directions from the river, and extended to the territory of
   many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he
   had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a
   journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did
   terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest.
   … The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the
   Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we
   assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the
   Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would
   correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on
   the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle
   nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern
   parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the
   Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still
   farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named
   Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is
   this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated
   the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it
   is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge,
   Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which
   separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder
   and the Vistula."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 2._

HERETOGA.

      See EALDORMAN.

HEREWARD'S CAMP IN THE FENS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

HERIBANN.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

HERKIMER, General, and the Battle of Oriskany.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

HERMÆ AT ATHENS, Mutilation of the.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

{1644}

HERMÆAN PROMONTORY.

   The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of
   Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old
   treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships
   must not go.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 5._

HERMANDAD, The.

   See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

HERMANRIC, OR ERMANARIC, The empire of.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 350-375; and 376.

HERMANSTADT,
   Battle of (1442).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

   (Or Schellenberg,) Battle of (1599).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, &c.).

HERMINSAULE, The.

      See SAXONS: A.D. 772-804.

HERMIONES, The.

      See GERMANY: As KNOWN TO TACITUS.

HERMITS.

      See ANCHORITES.

HERMONTHIS.

      See ON.

HERMUNDURI, The.

   Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people
   loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade
   not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in
   the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia.
   Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while
   to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to
   them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which
   they do not covet."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany._

   "The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,
   and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far
   as Bohemia and Saxony."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany.
      Geography notes._

HERNICANS, The.

   A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower
   Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were
   leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians
   and the Æquians.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 6._

HERODEANS, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
      REIGN OF THE HERODEANS.

HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.

      See GREECE: THE HEROES.

HEROÖPOLIS.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

HERRINGS, The Battle of the (1429).

   In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground
   in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten
   provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from
   Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir
   John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the
   convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the
   best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English
   entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the
   attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French
   chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered
   thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named
   the Battle of the Herrings.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      2d series, chapter 35._

HERRNHUT.

      See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

HERULI, The.

   The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in
   their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great
   piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which
   struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The
   Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After
   the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found
   occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the
   Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules
   were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman
   army in the last days of the empire.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

   ----------HERZEGOVINA: Start--------

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.
   Revolt against Turkish rule.
   Interposition of the Powers.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1878.
   Given over to Austria by the Treaty of Berlin.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

   ----------HERZEGOVINA: End--------

HESSE: A. D. 1866.
   Extinction of the electorate.
   Absorption by Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

HESSIANS, The, in the American War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
      A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

HESTIASIS.

   The feasting of the tribes at Athens.

      See LITURGIES.

HESYCHASTS, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

HETÆRIES, Ancient.

   Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens;
   associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy
   citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly
   pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of
   political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or
   defence of official men after the period of office had
   expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c.
   … They furnished, when taken together, a formidable
   anti-popular force."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 62 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

HETAIRA.
HETAIRISTS, Modern.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

HETMAN.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
      also, COSSACKS.

HEXHAM, Battle of (1464).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

HEYDUCS.

   Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish
   domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and
   robbers were called Heyducs.

      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 3._

HIAWATHA AND THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERATION.

      See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HIBERNIA.

      See IRELAND.

HICKS PASHA, Destruction of the army of (1883).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.

HIDALGO.

   "Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later
   applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more
   particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted
   showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman
   colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from
   imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called
   'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 252, foot-note._

HIDATSA INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA.

{1645}

HIDE OF LAND.
CARUCATE.
VIRGATE.

   "In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series
   of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice
   of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the
   number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show
   clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a
   virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2)
   That the hide did not always contain the same number of
   virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in
   Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts.
   … We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred
   Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as
   a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really
   important consequence resulting from this is the recognition
   of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many
   scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it
   consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a
   bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in
   the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason
   of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate
   is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost
   everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of
   hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a
   manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and
   expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough
   or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for
   both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate
   seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but
   other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is
   the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage,
   therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the
   soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In
   pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may
   possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a
   hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of
   such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the
   'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture;
   but the fact of the connexion is clear."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 2, section 4,
      and chapter 10, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, MANORS.

HIERATIC WRITING.

      See HIEROGLYPHICS.

HIERODULI, The.

   In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or
   ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to
   certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of
   some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on
   the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as
   an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at
   Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more
   than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma,
   who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona.
   In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers,
   whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of
   Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may
   consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo.
   They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said
   to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and
   dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are
   told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese,
   whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too
   there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of
   whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax
   from their earnings to the goddess."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 4._

      See, also, DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Egyptian.

   "The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred
   Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed
   entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very
   inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers,
   and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot
   now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a
   long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for
   which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a
   hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last
   succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a
   prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean
   François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d
   of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March,
   1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in
   the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a
   solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous
   scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would
   … be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as
   always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are
   symbolical characters among them, generally easy to
   understand; as also there are, and in very great number,
   figurative characters directly representing the object to be
   designated; but the majority of the signs found in every
   hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is,
   representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to
   offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an
   only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also
   pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian
   name commenced with the letter in question, while also the
   syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects
   designated by that syllable."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier.
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians
   was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they
   first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still
   lived in their original home. We, however, know of no
   inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for
   the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain
   alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of
   writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …
   Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon
   temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies
   of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest
   hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the
   monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the
   Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates
   from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for
   writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes
   until the third century after Christ, at least.
{1646}
   Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the
   priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during
   the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in
   hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic
   is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of
   Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a
   thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably
   inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were
   written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a
   comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies
   of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the
   fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely
   conventional modification of hieratic characters, which
   preserve little of their original form, and was used for
   social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian
   decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing
   appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived
   until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of
   the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by
   side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,
   and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the
   ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.
   247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king
   had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,
   set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy
   V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the
   benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.
   … A century or two after the Christian era Greek had
   obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the
   native Christian population, the disciples and followers of
   Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write
   down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the
   books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six
   signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to
   express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."

      _E. A. Wallis Budge,
      The Mummy,
      pages 353-354._

      See, also, ROSETTA STONE.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Mexican (so-called).

      See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

HIERONYMITES, The.

   "A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain,
   Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and
   called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had
   compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or
   because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken
   St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by
   Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of
   Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its
   wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just,
   where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life,
   attest their wonderful energy and zeal."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149._

HIGH CHURCH AND LOW CHURCH:
   First use of the names.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

      See CURIA REGIS.

HIGH GERMANY, Old League of.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

HIGH MIGHTINESSES, Their.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE, The.

   William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United
   States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of
   California into the Union as a Free State, used the following
   language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our
   stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to
   justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is
   a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our
   authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble
   purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of
   the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the
   Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so
   discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable
   degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator
   of the United States that the laws of the Creator were
   'higher' than those of human enactment excited much
   astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress
   and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall
      of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, pages 262-263._

   In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the
   Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures
   attending the admission of California, this Higher Law
   Doctrine was much talked about.

HIGHLAND CLANS.

      See CLANS.

HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

      See SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

HIKENILDE—STRETE.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

HILDEBRAND (Pope Gregory VII.), and the Papacy.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
      and CANOSSA.

HILDEBRAND, KING OF THE LOMBARDS, A. D. 743-744.

HILL, Isaac, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

HILL, Rowland, and the adoption of penny-postage.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.

HILTON HEAD, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

HIMATION, The.

   An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men
   and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that
   the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so
   as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the
   back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to
   cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to
   the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained
   uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the
   left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A
   second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm
   free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in
   pictures."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 42._

   ----------HIMERA: Start--------

HIMERA, Battle of.

      See SICILY: B. C. 480.

HIMERA:
   Destroyed by Hannibal.

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

   ----------HIMERA: End--------

HIMYARITES, The.

      See ARABIA.

HIN, The.

      See EPHAH.

HINDMAN, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

{1647}

HINDOO KOOSH, The Name of the.

      See CAUCASUS, THE INDIAN.

HINDUISM.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

HINDUSTAN.

      See INDIA: THE NAME.

HINKSTON'S FORK, Battle of (1782).

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

HIONG-NU, The.

      See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

HIPPARCH.

   A commander of cavalry in the military organization of the
   ancient Athenians.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

HIPPEIS.

   Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights,
   was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred
   young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not
   reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called
   Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as
   hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in
   which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term
   Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes
   into which Solon divided the population,—their property
   obliging them to serve as cavalry.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece, The State,
      part 3, chapters 1 and 3._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

HIPPIS, Battle of the.

   Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between
   the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the
   other. The latter were the victors.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 20._

   ----------HIPPO: Start--------

HIPPO, OR HIPPO REGIUS.

   An ancient city of north Africa, on the Numidian coast.

      See NUMIDIANS; and CARTHAGE: DOMINION OF.

HIPPO: A. D. 430-431.
   Siege by the Vandals.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

   ----------HIPPO: End--------

HIPPOBOTÆ, The.

   See EUBŒA.

HIPPODROME.
STADION.
THEATER.

   "The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at
   the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took
   place were modified according to their varieties. The races
   both on horseback and in chariots took place in the
   hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served
   the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical
   and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans
      (translated by Hueffer),
      sections 28-30._

HIPPOTOXOTÆ, The.

      See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

HIRA.

   "The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of
   the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or
   affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans
   and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was
   allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira
   were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward
   of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy
   and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith
   inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to
   excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the
   familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to
   despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50 (volume 5)._

   "The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced
   Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the
   desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed
   was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the
   6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as
   an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."

      _Sir William Muir,
      Life of Mahomet,
      introduction, chapter 1._

   In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the
   greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651;
      also, BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

HISPALIS.

   The name of Seville under the Romans.

      See SEVILLE.

HISPANIA CITERIOR AND HISPANIA ULTERIOR.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

HISPANIOLA.

   The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between
   the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496, and after;
      and HAYTI.

HISSARLIK.

   The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the
   excavations of Dr. Schliemann.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      also, TROJA, and HOMER.

   ----------HISTORY: Start--------

HISTORY:
   Definitions.

   "With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all
   modern languages, signifies either a form of literary
   composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such
   composition—either a narrative of events, or events which
   may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this
   doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole,
   to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may,
   with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so
   related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two
   things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word
   history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot
   have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a
   form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when
   either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd
   that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done
   were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule
   rather than the exception. The majority of so-called
   definitions of history are definitions only of the records of
   history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not
   to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although
   given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not
   apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history.
   They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they
   cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of
   history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this
   latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of
   history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant
   history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as
   a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one,
   'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the
   exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des
   Geschehenen).
{1648}
   The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and
   explicit indication of what history as effectuated or
   transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It
   is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has
   happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is
   history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things
   or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and
   comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as
   distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a
   neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the
   English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das
   Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander
   des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we
   have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the
   name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human
   history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency
   and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which
   have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have
   been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word
   history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse
   than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and
   pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on
   certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may
   perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary
   of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses
   dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth
   remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species.
   According to such definitions history consists of exceptional
   things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and
   actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements
   in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and
   literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of
   history. History is made up of what is little as well as of
   what is great, of what is common as well as of what is
   strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted
   noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography
   of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether
   undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all
   history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a
   certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow,
   however, that biography is a more general notion than history,
   and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not
   only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the
   history of an individual as to say that history is the
   biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography
   in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical
   sense, not the word history in the former case. … According
   to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are
   present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any
   logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying
   that politics and history are the same, and may both be
   divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what
   either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is
   not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that
   something may be called either this or that. Besides, the
   identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been
   already indicated, on a view of history which is at once
   narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that
   mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are
   present history, as that political history is past politics
   and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past
   was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is
   nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

      _R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 5-10._

HISTORY:
   The subjects and objects of History.

   "The position for which I have always striven is this, that
   history is past politics, that politics are present history.
   The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the
   name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of
   an organized society, governed according to law. History, in
   any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I
   am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the
   merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is
   necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits
   of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the
   pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind.
   Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and
   special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or
   manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are
   constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The
   collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are
   materials for history, materials of which the historian makes
   grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to
   in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no
   kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the
   historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his
   subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch,
   sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all
   other things are secondary, is man as the member of a
   political community. Rightly to understand man in that
   character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the
   developments, that political society has taken. Effects have
   to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up
   to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those
   needful processes if we confine our studies either to the
   political societies of our own day or to political societies
   on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch
   the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human
   nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in
   all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all
   circumstances under which we have any means of studying it.
   … In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always
   repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to
   say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical
   position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical
   position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has
   gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is
   unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the
   working of like causes, still the two results can never be
   exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself
   takes its place among the causes of the later result.
   Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and
   they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from
   being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully
   distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the
   oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy
   that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from
   small occasions.
{1649}
   A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with
   gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in
   telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest
   causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by
   some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal
   quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal
   of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both
   in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal
   of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without
   notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a
   certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes
   and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories
   which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great
   events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak
   of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the
   causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to
   be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of
   really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its
   place among determining causes. In any large view of history,
   we must always be on our guard against either underrating or
   overrating the actions of individual men. History is something
   more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most
   important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand,
   that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them,
   can direct the course of history according to their own will
   and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no
   danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run
   counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal
   or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that
   the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it
   is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that
   there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small
   men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk
   of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we
   should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man
   has some influence on the course of history."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 207-215._

HISTORY:
   The Philosophy of History

   "The philosophy of history is not a something separate from
   the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The
   more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets
   into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the
   rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and
   essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever
   species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not
   something separate and distinct from, something over and
   above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation.
   He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special
   development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is
   and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character
   it has, and what its relation is to the general development of
   humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of
   that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is
   sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is
   most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which
   is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to
   work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as
   reason and research can ascertain. History always participates
   in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected
   according to some real or supposed principle either of
   efficient or final causation."

      _R. Flint,
      Philosophy of History,
      introduction._

HISTORY:
   The possibility of a Science of History.
   Mr. Buckle's theory.

   "The believer in the possibility of a science of history is
   not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined
   events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions
   which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to
   concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we
   perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that
   those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that,
   therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the
   antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we
   could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their
   immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the
   view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by
   system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence
   actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical
   dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined
   events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of
   men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a
   character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely
   the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same
   results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out
   of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the
   results—in other words, all the changes of which history is
   full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress
   or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the
   fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon
   the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena.
   These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can
   alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind
   obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled
   by external agents, developing itself according to the
   conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have
   what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but
   incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men,
   exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and
   therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would
   not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man
   modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this
   reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring.
   The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method
   of discovering the laws of this double modification."

      _H. T. Buckle,
      History of Civilization in England,
      chapter 1._

   "Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the
   unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as
   an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital
   phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are
   the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which
   others have incidentally broached under some formula about
   'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and
   merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others,
   as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have
   developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a
   comprehensive historical exposition. …
{1650}
   He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to
   demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the
   way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest
   conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those
   indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all
   probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will
   and predestination, that both are in a great degree
   'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate
   proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which
   History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the
   human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its
   misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of
   outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature
   upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered
   the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore
   elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does
   not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with
   divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an
   illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of
   philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A
   thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call
   all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A
   arises out of _a + x, a_ embracing all that comes to the
   man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people,
   age, etc., while the vanishingly little _x_ is his own
   contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly
   small this _x_ may be, it is of infinite value. Morally
   and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the
   brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which
   he had not created. He had learned from one and another master
   to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of
   the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in
   church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him
   at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material
   and technical conditions and such traditions and
   contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would
   be, in the formula A = _a + x_, the service of the
   vanishing little _x_. Similarly everywhere. Let
   statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so
   many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A
   = _a + x_ this _a_ includes all the elements which
   'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty,
   thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each
   individual case of the kind has its history, how often a
   touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have
   fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing
   that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the
   tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one
   of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A =
   _a + x_ the vanishing little _x_ is of immeasurable
   weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the
   human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man
   will think of denying that the statistical method of
   considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not
   forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant
   to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a
   legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for
   the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists'
   definitions concerning intellectual property."

      _J. G. Droysen,
      Outline of the Principles of History
      pages 62-64 and 77-79._

HISTORY:
   History as the root of all Science.
   Lost History.

   "History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the
   first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest
   expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both
   before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,
   unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,
   in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the
   meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,
   are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:
   but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not
   attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough
   to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,
   with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with
   earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or
   cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the
   White, lives between two eternities, and warring against
   Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious
   relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,
   with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History
   may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a
   certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory
   written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,
   conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without
   philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,
   and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably
   recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,
   you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what
   they have thought, which indeed were often a very small
   matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,
   which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off
   from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even
   among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among
   the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but
   enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in
   that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.
   For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but
   recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;
   therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and
   Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the
   aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute
   society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.
   But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and
   recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points
   unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the
   very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we
   know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest
   innovator, which was the more important personage in man's
   history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the
   victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who
   first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak
   tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred
   acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.
{1651}
   Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and
   with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like
   tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,
   are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,
   political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house
   wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of
   the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and
   traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our
   existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of
   Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,
   of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the
   long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the
   first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to
   act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well
   may we say that of our History the more important part is lost
   without recovery."

      _T. Carlyle,
      On History
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2)._

HISTORY:
   Interpretation of the Past by the Present.

   "But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from
   the Present, if there are no institutions in the present
   answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example,
   in England at the present time, how then are we to understand
   a state of Society of which they were a component element? The
   answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the
   relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and
   dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between
   the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves
   the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to
   correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in
   early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion
   and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This
   method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been
   followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with
   such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give
   us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and
   other sources the broad historical facts, the form of
   Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and
   Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life
   and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on
   the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects
   existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows
   for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and
   religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real
   and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the
   working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the
   husks with which the historians have furnished us."

      _J. B. Crozier,
      Civilization and Progress,
      page 35._

HISTORY:
   The Moral lessons of History.

   "Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had
   he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe
   at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the
   world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace
   in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles
   bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day;
   and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of
   destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what
   are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and
   nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a
   study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the
   centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners
   change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on
   the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous
   deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the
   price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief
   offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone
   endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived,
   but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and
   other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is
   that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect
   little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Short Studies on Great Subjects,
      pages 27-28._

HISTORY:
   The Educational and Practical value of History.

   "It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of
   reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches
   men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of
   evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of
   authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more
   than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am
   inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of
   formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no
   doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with
   demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many
   excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of
   the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is
   largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the
   conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about
   historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your
   notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place
   yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each
   side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the
   point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up
   upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can
   give them. You will find that few practices do more to
   elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      The Political Value of History,
      pages 47-49._

   "He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action
   must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself
   to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling
   to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason
   to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly
   accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in
   statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic
   professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by
   those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of
   probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.
   This is the essential reason why the study of history is so
   important an element in the work of improving the judgment,
   and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger
   interests of communities and states. It is a study of
   humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.
   The student of history surveys the relations of life in
   essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys
   them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical
   method is the method that must be used in the common affairs
   of everyday life.
{1652}
   The premises from which the man of business has to draw his
   conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.
   The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the
   endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other
   quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is
   the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points
   of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches
   its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable
   process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value
   and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to
   reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly
   logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the
   most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it
   comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of
   necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and
   contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this
   method of studying men that the historical student has to use.
   His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his
   conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day
   life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product
   of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to
   explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures
   history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why
   the study of history is so necessary a part of a good
   preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.
   Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and
   politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who
   can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics
   are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent
   reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political
   judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of
   all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be
   said that the most important elements of success are the same
   in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of
   statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been
   essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,
   from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.
   It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No
   part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely
   useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may
   be in himself."

      _C. K. Adams,
      A Manual of Historical Literature,
      pp. 15-16._

   "To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not
   like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere
   grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as
   regards the training of the study and the information attained
   in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities;
   it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a
   politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all;
   beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose,
   beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it
   has something of the preciousness of everything that is
   clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its
   value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a
   term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value
   analogous to the value of science; a value as something that
   is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own
   and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial
   attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of
   knowing something that the world does not know,—that
   doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to
   be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It
   is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with
   every step of investigation new points of view open out, and
   new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that
   investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be
   ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible
   materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one
   that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the
   man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages,
   new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not
   all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science,
   in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a
   consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the
   workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of
   History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its
   own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its
   own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and
   most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most
   wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human
   will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is
   not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the
   freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its
   variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to
   classification, on the generalisations of which we may
   formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are
   far more diversified and less reducible than any other
   phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power
   to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or
   geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,
   in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in
   the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the
   subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which
   it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the
   pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the
   development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the
   ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating
   destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the
   roll of sciences."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
      Medieval and Modern History,
      lectures 1 and 4._

   "There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that
   I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are
   deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can
   find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another;
   and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more
   excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of
   it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are,
   without superstition, without imposture, without error, and
   without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the
   harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I
   say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to
   the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it
   enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that
   habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all
   mere amusement or even information that we may gather from
   it."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      English Studies,
      page 382._

{1653}

   "To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not
   Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No
   one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.
   Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge
   as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,
   and for this purpose no study is its equal."

      _W. P. Atkinson,
      On History and the Study of History,
      page 107._

HISTORY:
   The Writing of History.
   Macaulay's view.

   "A history in which every particular incident may be true may
   on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most
   influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners
   and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to
   wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to
   humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions.
   Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are
   pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by
   armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no
   treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in
   every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters,
   at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society
   presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the
   direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats
   and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable
   amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the
   fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate
   favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the
   good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the
   good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of
   historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that
   produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is
   transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions.
   He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by
   contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of
   manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as
   contracted as if they had never stirred from their own
   market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of
   many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet
   be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the
   character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He
   relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his
   characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient
   testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and
   arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have
   been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination
   is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire.
   But the scale on which he represents them is increased or
   diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons
   concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they
   elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He
   shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us
   also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of
   manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his
   notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the
   operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark
   the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be
   described, but will be made intimately known to us."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History
      (Essays, volume 1)._

HISTORY:
   The Writing of History.
   Truthfulness in Style.

   "That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of
   being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any
   truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by
   reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the
   truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets,
   of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith
   in any narration is much influenced by the personal
   appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There
   is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must
   look into that well before you can know what faith to give
   him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and
   references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in
   him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not
   be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical,
   vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both
   inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as
   to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it,
   sad work they make between them of the memories of former
   days."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Friends in Council,
      volume 1, pages 199-200._

HISTORY:
   Historical Romance and Romantic History.
   Sir Walter Scott.

   "The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the
   historical romance has made to the stories of elevated
   literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of
   the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the
   novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott
   appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular
   in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real
   genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply
   because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of
   human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in
   the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but
   imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the
   composer; because they were confined to one circle and class
   of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which
   it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of
   variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous
   ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the
   inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how
   ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out,
   and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of
   time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a
   new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when
   literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for
   above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels
   of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of
   history were exhausted, and that modern story would never
   present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of
   the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of
   Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to
   the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less
   decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard
   afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original
   thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the
   sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote
   'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through
   the clouds."

      _Historical Romance
      (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845)._

{1654}

   "Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having
   falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget
   the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally
   presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of
   events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in
   painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of
   detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined
   important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of
   all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has
   pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Historical Romance
      (Westminster Review, March, 1846)._

   "The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the
   invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry
   Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period,
   at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king
   and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he
   means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the
   examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct
   interests and conditions, two nations, a double language,
   customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny
   and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real
   developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle
   of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of
   the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places
   the world which does and always will exist, that is to say,
   human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything
   peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the
   aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and
   manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and
   yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details
   is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the
   past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain
   men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there
   is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England
   than in the philosophically false compilations which still
   possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in
   the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old
   Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,'
   and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

      _A. Thierry,
      Narratives of the Merovingian Era,
      Historical Essays, etc., essay 9._

   "We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought
   history home to people who would never have looked into the
   ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us
   confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods
   which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either
   of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators.
   Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott
   to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great
   personages of history were after all men and women of flesh
   and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical
   literature there is visible the effort to make history more
   personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly
   read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving
   that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its
   origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay
   grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his
   sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had
   read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the
   clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of
   the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally
   possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again
   in his essays, and which at last he realized with such
   wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make
   history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the
   most famous of a large group of writers who have been
   possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical
   romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history.
   And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this
   is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have
   genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind
   of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it.
   Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose
   perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national
   events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the
   elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not
   like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than
   is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to
   submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of
   life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like
   romance, so history when it is studied in original documents
   looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which
   historians have accustomed us to."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      History and Polities
      (Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879)._

HISTORY:
   How to study History.

   "The object of the historical student is to bring before his
   mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times
   which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from
   a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more
   elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system
   of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to
   read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three
   things carefully, the historical student carries away an
   impression of his period which will never be effaced."

      _Prof. A. B. Hart,
      How to Study History
      (Chautauquan, October, 1893)._

HISTORY:
   The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.

   "When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil
   thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before
   he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,
   and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.
   Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on
   the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his
   learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his
   insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish
   to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which
   have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them
   is universal history, the general course of the history of the
   world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more
   important for the consideration of any human being than the
   knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since
   the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now
   attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to
   know how affairs came into that position. Besides the
   satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we
   can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere
   survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in
   the character of the community.
{1655}
   Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German
   parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two
   books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the
   present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these
   universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In
   England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,
   and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an
   essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is
   taken as a subject under certain conditions in the
   Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the
   notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject
   who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,
   mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the
   student did know, and still more at what he was expected to
   know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of
   all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of
   Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper
   text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the
   attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no
   difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly
   every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the
   enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic
   march of human events and the preparation for any future
   course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German
   professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few
   English boys or even English men have any notion of their
   centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked
   a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.
   or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.
   D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar
   answer."

      _O. Browning,
      The Teaching of History in Schools
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
      new series, volume 4)._

HISTORY:
   The Importance of Local History.

   "From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded
   that one of the best introductions to history that can be
   given in American high schools, and even in those of lower
   grade, is through a study of the community in which the school
   is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best
   American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local
   interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his
   native country best.' The best students of universal history
   are those who know some one country or some one subject well.
   The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the
   parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are
   historically the ways by which men have approached national
   and international life. It was a preliminary study of the
   geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to
   study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to
   establish the new science of comparative geography. He says:
   'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over
   the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one
   capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the
   globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of
   geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the
   district where we live. … American local history should be
   studied as a contribution to national history. This country
   will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic
   growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm
   of state life. And some day this country will be studied in
   its international relations, as an organic part of a larger
   organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely
   developing through the operation of economic, legal, social,
   and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and
   British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American
   history in its widest relations is not to be written by any
   one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow
   with the nation and with its developing consciousness of
   internationality. The present possibilities for the real
   progress of historic and economic science lie, first and
   foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and
   practical historians, who realize that history is past
   politics and politics present history; secondly, in the
   expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of
   its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations
   of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power
   in these days of growing centralization. National and
   international life can best develop upon the constitutional
   basis of local self-government in church and state. … If
   young Americans are to appreciate their religious and
   political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth.
   They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things
   around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for
   town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to
   speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the
   majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as
   the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen
   as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English
   reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught
   to see in the town common or village green a survival of that
   primitive institution of land-community upon which town and
   state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and
   family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place
   hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences
   around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive
   town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a
   name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the
   most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. …
   It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development
   of historical science in America if teachers in our public
   schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils
   with special reference to the local environment. … A
   multitude of historical associations gather around every old
   town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and
   traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and
   grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest
   inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old
   documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the
   early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of
   information more authentic than tradition, and yet often
   entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not
   necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban
   dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe,
   or even with the presidents of the United States. These
   subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for
   beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of
   greater interest and vitality.
{1656}
   The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the
   world is from a local environment through widening circles of
   interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the
   broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study
   of the community in which the student dwells will serve to
   connect that community not only with the origin and growth of
   the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the
   German fatherland, with village communities throughout the
   Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome;
   from these classic lands to Persia and India."

      _H. B. Adams,
      Methods of Historical Study
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2),
      pages 16-21._

   ----------HISTORY: Start--------

HITCHITIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

HITTIN, Battle of (1187).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

HITTITES, The.

   The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or
   Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war.
   Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized
   and powerful nation and played a more important part in the
   early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed.
   Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria
   which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the
   Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but
   scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be
   found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the
   Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of
   empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from
   the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is
   conjectured that these people were originally from the
   Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are
   still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the
   plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the
   language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that
   language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper
   names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show
   that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 5._

   "We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the
   existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is
   certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also
   by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses
   II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks
   allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already
   exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of
   Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the
   Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could
   summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north.
   Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as
   powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful,
   and there was always a refuge among them for those who were
   oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a
   Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It
   was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject
   provinces were consolidated together under a central
   authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It
   was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the
   Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented
   the organised union of numerous states and nations under a
   single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact,
   empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a
   foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces
   had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could
   be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be
   crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an
   empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia
   Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the
   distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the
   Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the
   tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the
   command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they
   acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and
   followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief.
   If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean,
   and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact
   homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have
   had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its
   wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors
   would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There
   was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the
   western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had
   their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this
   period lingered on into classical days."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      The Hittites,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Wright,
      The Empire of the Hittites._

      See, also,
      AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.

HIVITES, The.

   The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the
   Israelites invaded it.

      See AMALEKITES.

HLÆFDIGE.

      See LADY.

HLAFORD.

      See LORD.

HLUDWIG.

      See LOUIS.

HOARD.
HORDERE.

      See STALLER.

HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

HOCHE, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

HOCHELAGA.

   The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of
   the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of
   surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name
   Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river
   of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535,
      and CANADA: NAMES.

HOCHHEIM, The storming of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

   ----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------

HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

   The great battle which English historians name from the
   village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the
   neighboring town of Hochstadt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

   ----------HOCHSTADT: End--------

{1657}

HODEIBIA, Truce of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

HOHENZOLLERN:
   Rise of the House of.

   "Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the
   sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north
   from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs
   of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is
   perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old
   Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black
   Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful
   Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name
   'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls.
   Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper
   'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars
   climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus
   far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in
   unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but
   we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known:
   That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing
   anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its
   'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable
   way ever since."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 5._

   "The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in
   the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the
   Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of
   Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his
   descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired
   extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and
   their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight
   in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was
   enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made
   his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter
   confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained
   knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the
   Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the
   margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 3, chapter 12, section 1._

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

   ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND:
   The country and its Name.

      See NETHERLANDS.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1430.
   Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

   See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1477.
   The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.
   The Bread and Cheese War.
   End of the Party of the Hooks.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.
   The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.
   Friesland detached.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.
   The Austro-Spanish tyranny.
   Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
   Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747.
   Wars with England and France.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1746.
   The restored Stadtholdership.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.
   French invasion and conquest.
   The Batavian Republic.
   The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
   Independence regained.
   Belgium annexed.
   The kingdom of the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

   ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HOLOCAUST.

   "The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was
   kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by
   the ancient Greeks.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      page 60._

   ----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866.
   Annexation to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

   ----------HOLSTEIN: End--------

HOLY ALLIANCE, The.

   "The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched
   at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the
   Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by
   [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated
   conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was
   suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia
   after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the
   influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of
   the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher
   Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the
   deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar
   dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by
   the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia
   signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,
   without attaching much importance to what he did. … The
   emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first
   declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a
   political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a
   religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich
   accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du
   verbiage.'
{1658}
   Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,
   with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it
   seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi
   observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of
   events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest
   real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance
   of the good understanding between the powers who had put down
   Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good
   understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the
   20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers
   should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to
   regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It
   was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up
   close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and
   Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the
   Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to
   be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of
   repression."

      _M. E. G. Duff,
      Studies in European Polities,
      chapter 2._

   The text of the Treaty is as follows:

   "In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy
   Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their
   Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the
   Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events
   which have marked the course of the three last years in
   Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased
   Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place
   their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the
   intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to
   be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon
   the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour
   teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no
   other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world,
   their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their
   respective States, and in their political relations with every
   other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of
   that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian
   Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to
   private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the
   councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the
   only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying
   their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have
   agreed on the following Articles:—

      Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures,
      which command all men to consider each other as brethren,
      the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the
      bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and
      considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on
      all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and
      assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their
      subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead
      them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are
      animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

      Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force,
      whether between the said Governments or between their
      Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal
      service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the
      mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to
      consider themselves all as members of one and the same
      Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on
      themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern
      three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia,
      and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of
      which they and their people form a part, has in reality no
      other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really
      belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures
      of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God,
      our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of
      Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their
      people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means
      of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience,
      and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every
      day more and more in the principles and exercise of the
      duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

      Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow
      the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act,
      and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness
      of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should
      henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the
      influence which belongs to them, will be received with
      equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in
      triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815,
      14/26th September."

   "It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of
   the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to
   it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and
   Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither
   the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

      _E. Hertslet,
      Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319._

   "The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name
   of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received
   a letter declaring that his principles had the personal
   approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The
   Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and
   in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and
   of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

   "Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as
   'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a
   religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would
   misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none
   knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,
   and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many
   crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made
   Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe
   conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.
   Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose
   common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein
   approved. He exerted his influence over each of them
   separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his
   minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch
   against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he
   won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked
   every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He
   told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he
   prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for
   truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by
   which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were
   governed.
{1659}
   In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning
   nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel
   in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of
   craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his
   competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal
   than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and
   nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,
   sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg
   dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that
   House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.
   But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,
   whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose
   preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of
   his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all
   change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface
   smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a
   spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'
   he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the
   spiders only because they die naturally so young that they
   have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the
   nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his
   forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due
   quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He
   seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might
   have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick
   William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty
   in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most
   dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment
   of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth
   century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the
   resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort
   towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names
   have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.
   The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than
   Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in
   inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and
   all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he
   flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish
   Inquisitors had for heretics."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.

   Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in
   Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which
   sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely
   compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the
   celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association
   was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the
   lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very
   adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed
   at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a
   regularly organized police, it then consisted of a
   confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a
   solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties
   in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by
   deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,
   transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws
   which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the
   sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed
   force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of
   1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and
   inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …
   In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that
   if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his
   property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to
   the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the
   king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be
   put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand
   and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the
   license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,
   and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was
   one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project
   for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into
   the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at
   Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially
   from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial
   in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;
   and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,
   against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the
   suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the
   maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its
   jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the
   highways or in the open country, and in cities by such
   offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;
   and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of
   18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or
   householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,
   whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence
   of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the
   villages through which he was supposed to have passed were
   sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,
   stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with
   such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of
   two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty
   families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction
   of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified
   cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of
   deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually
   convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions
   were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the
   execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular
   constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages
   attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so
   decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the
   check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it
   required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect
   its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting
   from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation
   by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of
   the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in
   1498, the objects for which it was established having been
   completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the
   nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.
   The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate
   functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,
   over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate
   jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa
   Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,
   dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with
   various modifications of form, down to the present century."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      introduction, section 1, with foot-note,
      and part 1, chapter 6._

{1660}

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

HOLY JUNTA, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

   ----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

HOLY LEAGUES:
   Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

   German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of
   Smalcald.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

   Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

   Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

   Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia
   against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

   ----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

HOLY OFFICE, The.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
   Its origin.

      See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

   Its extinction.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

   "A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine
   of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,
   and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their
   kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round
   which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the
   Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.
   The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to
   frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it
   a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as
   Holyrood House."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

   The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was
   carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"
   by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and
   then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which
   it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

HOMAGE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

   "When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person
   historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the
   main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful
   poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the
   world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is
   conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different
   from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'
   … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the
   poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a
   school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making
   it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the
   question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,
   whether they present substantially the character of what may
   be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually
   diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of
   the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a
   far greater amount of information than is to be found in any
   other literary production of the same compass. In the second
   place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be
   had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the
   utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to
   us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most
   gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they
   became such as in later times we know them. … And this
   picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars
   and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an
   age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …
   probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place
   to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his
   knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an
   ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …
   It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of
   Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the
   time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching
   revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for
   those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this
   belief involves the further proposition that the poet was
   severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects
   of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon
   the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a
   perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an
   historical character. … The question … has to be decided …
   by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I
   venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an
   European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian
   Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when
   the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the
   race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its
   close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy
   was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking
   the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol
   of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform
   assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length
   pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After
   slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the
   publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.
   … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,
   or till long after, the period of their composition; and that
   works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written
   characters, could not have been transmitted through a course
   of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they
   could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at
   a later date."

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Homer (Literature Primers),
      chapters 1-2._

{1661}

   "Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total
   unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion
   reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so
   remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition
   that when they were composed the revolution in question had
   not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

      _A. M. Clerke,
      Familiar Studies in Homer,
      chapter 1._

   "It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have
   the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards
   the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of
   the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer
   makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist
   a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions
   for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city
   'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such
   as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

      See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

   It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the
   poems describe was one which really existed in the place where
   they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking
   illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that
   we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time
   before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the
   traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But
   the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for
   there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation
   which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which
   we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered
   by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of
   these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with
   Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be
   far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in
   dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains
   the question of the historical basis which may underlie the
   story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of
   Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that
   the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But
   here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those
   of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to
   confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the
   tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey
   are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been
   gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued
   at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century
   ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,
   and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical
   view."

      _W. Leaf,
      Companion to the Iliad,
      introd._

   "It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and
   Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,
   Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far
   from the coast on which these three names were attached to
   successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the
   ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must
   turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims
   of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the
   chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient
   seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not
   actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the
   seat of Achæan empire."

      _D. B. Monro,
      Homer and the Early History of Greece
      (English Historical Review, January, 1886)._

   "I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a
   single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration
   which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This
   primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.
   C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,
   and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original
   nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece
   proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was
   carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;
   and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local
   traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and
   Ionian society."

      _R. C. Jebb,
      The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      page 14._

      _R. C. Jebb,
      Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey._

   "We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The
   inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory
   seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly
   exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great
   harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and
   sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more
   difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may
   make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we
   have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,
   the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to
   do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and
   compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse
   places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,
   demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the
   opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of
   literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the
   'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

      _A. Lang,
      Homer and the Epic,
      chapters 7 and 13._

HOMERITES, The.

      See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).

HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

   A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding
   army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by
   the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the
   Battle of Humbledon.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

      SEE ARIANISM.

HOMS, Battle of (1832).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

   ----------HONDURAS: Start--------

HONDURAS:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.
   Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.
   Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

{1662}

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain and independence.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.
   The British colony.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

   ----------HONDURAS: End--------

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.
   Ceded to Great Britain.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONG MERCHANTS.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONORIUS,
   Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
   Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
   Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
   Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
   Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

   "When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the
   hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated
   with the general body of the county or counties in which it
   lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole
   apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under
   the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession
   of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out
   again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

       _W. Stubbs,
       Constitutional History of England,
       chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1)._

HOOD, General John B.
   The Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA),
      and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Transfer to Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

   At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      also, 1482-1493.

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

HOPLITES.

   Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

      See PHYLÆ.

HORESTII, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

HORIKANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

HORITES, The.

   The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At
   the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed
   many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.
   They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests
   very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel, introduction,
      section 4._

   F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided
   into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim
   and the Anakim.

      _Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      See, also,
      JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

HORMUZ, Battle of.

   The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,
   in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was
   overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New
   Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape.
   Discovered by Drake (1578).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

HOSPES.
HOSPITES.
HOSPITIUM.

   "In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and
   Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent
   tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger
   was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for
   a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation
   which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form
   previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who
   might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his
   protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.
   … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the
   parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to
   each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double
   signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an
   entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the
   covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …
   The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …
   The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their
   descendants might recognise each other. This token, called
   'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process
   of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common
   for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any
   individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of
   the whole community."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3._

   ----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:
   A. D. 1115-1310.
   The origin and rise of the order.

   "Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
   had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
   of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
   the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
   Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
   were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
   nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
   pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
   to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
   Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
   to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
   bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
   faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
   attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
   Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
   hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
   sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
   Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
   his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
   Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
   the monastery.
{1663}
   They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
   for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
   points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
   to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
   brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
   the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
   of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
   Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
   the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

   To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military
   character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care
   of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which
   characterized the Knights of St. John during all their
   subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was
   drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three
   classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms
   and form a military body for service in the field against the
   enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem
   in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or
   gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,
   the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,
   and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the
   care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were
   considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual
   three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the
   Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order
   spread and the number of its members and convents increased,
   it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or
   'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were
   ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,
   Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black
   robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight
   points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all
   Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;
   but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights
   should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.
   … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the
   exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were
   always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every
   battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their
   gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted
   fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of
   every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the
   King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal
   kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its
   ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see
   JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there
   the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and
   fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel
   and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their
   pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and
   turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the
   Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to
   cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying
   pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the
   enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence
   they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in
   a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
      part 1, chapter 3-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Abbe de Vertot,
      History of the Knights Hospitallers,
      books 1-3 (volume 1)._

      _A. Sutherland,
      Achievements of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 1-9 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.
   Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

   "The most important conquest of the time … was that of
   Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
   both from its durability and from the renown of the
   conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had
   been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to
   remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form
   a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests
   from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to
   maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
   permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the
   Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and
   bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,
   besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under
   the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,
   the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.
   So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they
   sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to
   withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its
   dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him
   with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus
   dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
   siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the
   city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this
   beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian
   Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
   chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb
   at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a
   romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained
   the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening
   to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a
   class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The
   little realm they governed as an independent state consisted
   of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,
   Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite
   continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,
   and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
   overhang the sea."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Porter,
      History of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 7-10 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.
   Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.
   Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

   In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
   his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
   that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
   state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
   Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
   field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
   appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
   5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
   de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
   rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
   juncture.
{1664}
   No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
   vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
   Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
   enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
   to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
   trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
   against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
   with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
   exhorted the contending powers to forget their private
   quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
   from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
   name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
   parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
   of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
   exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
   operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
   grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
   patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
   months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
   post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
   numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
   the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
   surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
   and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
   of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
   ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
   each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
   equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
   the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
   they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
   and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
   the infidels."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Torr,
      Rhodes in Modern Times,
      chapter 1. _

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
   Occupation of Malta.
   Improvement and fortification of the island.
   The great siege.
   The Turks repelled.

   "Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
   predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
   of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
   the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
   interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
   revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
   with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
   frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
   dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
   transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
   not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
   account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
   his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
   brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
   was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
   blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
   brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
   Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
   rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
   soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
   a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
   which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
   garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
   was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
   accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
   until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
   now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
   that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
   of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
   battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
   of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
   of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
   Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
   East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
   "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
   knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
   driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
   formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
   la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
   in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
   for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
   addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
   summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
   Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
   struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
   military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
   of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
   men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
   Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
   strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
   for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
   could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
   men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
   arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
   way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
   Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
   comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
   number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
   independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
   was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
   command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
   of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
   Spaniards at Gelves.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

   He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
   were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
   The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
   island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
   speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
   over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
   the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
   of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
   the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
   the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
   called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
   mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
   and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
   episodes of war in the 16th century.
{1665}
   The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
   assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
   Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
   these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
   its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
   at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
   of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
   and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
   After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
   concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
   from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
   peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
   extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
   works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
   of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
   fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
   batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
   they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
   repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
   Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
   and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
   knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
   relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
   disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
   Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
   reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
   … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
   30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
   grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
   soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
   children,—are said to have perished."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 4, chapters 2-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Porter,
      History of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
      chapter 13._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
   Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

   "The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
   Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
   the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
   and affluence produced gradually their usual
   consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
   'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
   years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
   united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
   become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
   the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
   nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
   received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
   grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
   contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
   his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
   confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
   the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

      _W. Tallack,
      Malta,
      section 8._

   "In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
   and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
   to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
   executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
   Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
   there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
   incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
   Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
   had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
   doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
   rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
   (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
   troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
   Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
   troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
   at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
   Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
   sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
   refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
   taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
   French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
   taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
   would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
   rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
   palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
   knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
   the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
   Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
   capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
   France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
   within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
   taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
   collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
   following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
   obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
   remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
   Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
   practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
   Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
   to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
   Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
   mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
   Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
   for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
   undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
   Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
   restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
   nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
   into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
   again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
   England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
   Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
   Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
   do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
   Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
   knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
   Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
   appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
   Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
{1666}
   [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
   titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
   In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
   capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
   or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
   the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
   Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
   Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
   Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
   hospitals."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
      part 1, chapter 20._

   ----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------

HOSPODAR.

   "A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =
   Lord)."

      _J. Samuelson,
      Roumania,
      page 209, foot-note._

HOSTIS.

      See PEREGRINI.

HOTTENTOTS, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and A. D. 1486-1806;
      also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
      and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

      See MANX KINGDOM.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

      See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSECARLS.

   "No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
   military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
   1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
   under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
   were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
   much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
   were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
   institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
   as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
   Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
   their head."

       _E. A. Freeman,
       Norman Conquest,
       chapter 6, section 2,
       and appendix, note kkk (volume 1)._

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

HOVAS, The.

      See MALAYAN RACE.

HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,
and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

   Naval Victory (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American
Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
      1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

      See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

HUAMABOYA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

HUANCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

HUASTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

      See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,
   Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

HUECOS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

   ----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

HUGUENOTS.
   First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
   Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
   Ascendancy in Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
   Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
   The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
   The Wars of Religion in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
   The Edict of Nantes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
   Continued desertion of nobles.
   Leadership of the clergy.
   Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
   Renewed revolt.
   Second Treaty of Montpellier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
   End of political Huguenotism in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
   Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
   The climax of persecution in France.
   The Dragonnades.
   The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
   The great exodus.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
   The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

   ----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

   Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
   after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
   Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
   October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 12._

      See, also,
      WINCEBY FIGHT.

HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HULST, Battle of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

HUMANISM.

      See RENAISSANCE.

HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

{1667}

HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

      See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

HUNDRED, The.

   "The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
   judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
   known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
   to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
   'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
   which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
   has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
   of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
   comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
   its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
   judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
   abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
   of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
   the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
   enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
   be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
   organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
   hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
   capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
   regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
   land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
   the host; as representing the original settlement of the
   hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
   which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
   to English history, and the same result may have followed from
   very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
   here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
   stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
   hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
   carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
   reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
   we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
   hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
   court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
   day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
   attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
   stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
   reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
   jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
   court leet."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1)._

   "By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
   diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
   township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
   the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
   everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
   had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
   its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
   should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
   the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
   they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
   soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
   for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
   flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
   New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
   district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
   was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
   its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
   like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
   enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
   exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
   they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
   in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
   county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this
   day."

      _J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the United States,
      chapter 4, section 1._

HUNDRED DAYS, The.

   The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
   return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
   Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
   Hundred Days.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

      See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

   ----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------

HUNGARIANS, The.

   "Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
   Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
   original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
   Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
   mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
   who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
   most important of the western branches are the Finns and
   Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
   Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
   Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
   tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
   plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
   reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
   They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
   name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
   been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
   difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
   foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
   degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
   historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
   but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
   the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
   ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
   with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

      _Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55._

   "That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
   Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
   being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
   whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
   Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
   Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 11._

   "According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
   caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
   the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
   and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
   rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Patterson,
      The Magyars,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

{1668}

HUNGARIANS:
   Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

   "The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
   probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
   internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
   for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
   of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
   struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
   very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
   eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
   chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
   frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
   conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
   about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
   and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
   country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
   central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
   into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
   and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
   Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
   his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
   centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
   dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
   unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
   victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
   land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
   same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
   Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
   Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
   the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
   Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
   from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
   adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
   by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
   Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
   The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
   the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
   from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
   to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
   of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
   mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
   the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
   simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
   inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
   Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
   repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
   tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
   geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
   these new neighbours."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
   Ravages in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
   Repulse from Germany.

   "The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
   the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
   in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
   Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
   Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
   son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
   estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
   faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
   they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
   heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
   dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
   unless they were true to each other, their religion and
   country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
   reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
   eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
   tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
   … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
   passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
   Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
   baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
   battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
   Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
   an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
   under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
   merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
   years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
   flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
   of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
   hope of mercy."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
      chapter 55._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 135 (volume 1)._

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 2, pages 656-665._

      _A. W. Grube,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 8._

   ----------HUNGARIANS: End--------

HUNGARY:
   Ancient.

      See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

HUNGARY:
   The Huns in possession.

      See HUNS.

HUNGARY:
   The Avars in possession.

      See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
   Christianization of the Magyars.
   Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
   Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

   "King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
   EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
   Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
   never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
   Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
   they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
   exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
   they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
   the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
   develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
   gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
   Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
   of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
   and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
   influence in favour of her religion.
{1669}
   She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
   to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
   Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
   conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
   'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
   the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
   sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
   able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
   Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
   continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
   Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
   solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
   of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
   of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
   from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
   relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
   empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
   presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
   daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
   Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
   married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
   Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
   states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
   Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
   position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
   conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
   historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
   invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
   Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
   persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
   hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
   ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
   graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
   and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
   he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
   Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
   Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
   of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
   the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
   of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
   however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
   still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
   great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
   between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
   Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
   His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
   the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
   son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
   his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
   a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
   harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
   August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
   nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
   driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
   country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
   tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
   Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
   Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
   revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
   1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
   in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
   prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
   IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
   position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
   of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
   having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
   to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
   against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
   the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
   to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
   the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
   was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
   make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
   dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
   The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
   was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
   elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
   the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
   himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
   himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
   Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
   Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
   them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
   crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
   time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
   much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
   in later times."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapters 5-6._

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
   Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
   The Golden Bull of King Bela.
   Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
   The end of the Arpad dynasty.

   "Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
   after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
   important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
   the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
   Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
   ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
   several important events. Having entirely reduced
   Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
   kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
   Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
   German settlers received from the king a separate district,
   being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
   particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
   century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
   and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
   war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
   More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
   throne in 1205. …
{1670}
   Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
   to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
   nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
   the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
   afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
   scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
   unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
   favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
   oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
   king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
   arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
   addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
   the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
   became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
   privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
   Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
   of this charter were as follows:

   1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
   either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

   2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
   previously tried and legally sentenced;

   3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
   property of the nobles;

   4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
   of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

   5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
   given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

   The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
   conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
   of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
   contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
   clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
   determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
   the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
   charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
   of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
   caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
   in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
   after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
   Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
   greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
   with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
   Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
   Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
   Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
   facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
   the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
   total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
   astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
   few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
   contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
   snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
   their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
   of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
   was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
   state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
   proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
   [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
   the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
   people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
   homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
   of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
   then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
   the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
   Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
   assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
   prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
   Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
   Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
   death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
   by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
   was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
   himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
   and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
   the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
   dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
   continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
   tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
   was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
   house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
   Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
   son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
   before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
   sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
   having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
   matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
   Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
   Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
   who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
   his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
   them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
   Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 2._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
   Wallachian struggle for independence.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
   The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
   Conquests of Louis the Great.
   Beginning of wars with the Turks.
   The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

   On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
   line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
   crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
   fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
   of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
   Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
   Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
   crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
   prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
   distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
   from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
   Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
   Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
   at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
   uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
   him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
{1671}
   This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
   Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
   united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
   reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
   to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
   the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
   formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
   Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
   1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
   Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
   disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
   Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
   Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
   which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
   provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
   acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
   Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
   the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
   protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
   Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
   Austria, who reigned only two years."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 5._

   "Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
   prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
   Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
   Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
   married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
   Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
   for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
   Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
   to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
   her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
   40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
   husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
   Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
   to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
   nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
   dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
   expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
   after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
   immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
   agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
   He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
   … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
   to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
   expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
   before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
   forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
   and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
   Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
   while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king
   in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
   the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
   clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
   feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
   were now adopted respecting the military system of the
   kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
   to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
   [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
   the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
   Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
   Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
   minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
   to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
   should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
   that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
   endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
   duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
   Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
   … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
   court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
   brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
   was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
   the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
   arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
   of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
   the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
   Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
   accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
   … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
   headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
   compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,
   carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her
   infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick
   III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and
   Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed
   upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that
   one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the
   contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, December 24th,
   1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the
   ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the
   great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over
   the Turks gave him enormous influence."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      introduction (volume 1)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.
   Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.
   Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.
   Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
   The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
   Regency of Huniades.
   His defeat of the Turks and his death.
   His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

   Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement
   that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary
   until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be
   possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without
   issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two
   daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother
   Casimir.
{1672}
   The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;
   and the administration during his minority vested in two
   Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the
   Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George
   Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in
   the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a
   ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young
   Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians
   entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the
   redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the
   Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found
   himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the
   Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of
   the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the
   age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the
   Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign
   at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of
   Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were
   directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government
   caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the
   custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,
   and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a
   force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;
   he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and
   compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person
   of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then
   assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in
   their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together
   with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal
   great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic
   does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following
   year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant
   of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a
   level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia
   at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to
   visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the
   power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as
   to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An
   attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;
   but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and
   prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an
   apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the
   regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the
   credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the
   moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over
   his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks
   [1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;
   the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the
   Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;
   whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.
   … The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain
   preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,
   were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to
   30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see
   TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long
   survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the
   enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.
   Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who
   were as much the idols of their country as they were objects
   of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took
   care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but
   the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus
   Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,
   Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his
   favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King
   Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured
   into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].
   Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the
   indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his
   prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant
   disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering
   for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged
   the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the
   Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,
   whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians
   rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on
   the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified
   their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing
   his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for
   40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled
   himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and
   his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him
   in a war with the new King of Hungary."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 28 (volume 2)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.
   Wallachia taken from the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
   King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
   Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
   The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
   Turks.
   Conquest and occupation of Austria.

   Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
   George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
   father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
   involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
   agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
   breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
   Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
   subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
   the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
   Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
   Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
   prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
   he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
   by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
   an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
   united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
   sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
   and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
   repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
   Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
   reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
   [on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
   100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
   side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
{1673}
   Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
   dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
   gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
   afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
   Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
   abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
   fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
   Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
   and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
   conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
   Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
   (1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
   "Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
   smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
   the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
   either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
   as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
   and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
   imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
   of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
   when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
   hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
   his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
   acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
   Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
   1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
   death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
   arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
   former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
   years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
   the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
   they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
   neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
   Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
   residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
   dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
   of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
   convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
   Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
   small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
   the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
   consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
   November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
   to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
   Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
   the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
   period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 18 (volume 1)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
   Death of Matthias.
   Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
   Jagellon.
   Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
   Loss of the Austrian provinces.
   Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
   Insurrection of the Kurucs.
   Loss of Belgrade.
   Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
   The end of Hungarian independence.

   "When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,
   who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his
   power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present
   time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power
   had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of
   Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had
   no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his
   natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his
   successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,
   without having arranged anything definitely for the future of
   his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the
   reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to
   watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of
   rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned
   to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of
   Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old
   rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.
   Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by
   Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against
   Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.
   Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the
   Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against
   his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of
   Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …
   whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed
   to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in
   case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in
   which the king disposed of the country without consulting the
   diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks
   thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet
   II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not
   be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,
   and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly
   disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by
   the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in
   his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and
   later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave
   the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to
   Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …
   To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a
   terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz
   came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade
   against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,
   as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then
   turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible
   insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection
   of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief
   leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the
   Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle
   near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their
   vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on
   a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a
   red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage
   that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died
   in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be
   summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the
   defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was
   corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and
   his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.
{1674}
   The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the
   leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of
   sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the
   greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever
   deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign
   who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before
   he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his
   subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,
   captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took
   it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The
   key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King
   Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes
   were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when
   joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies
   of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman
   quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300
   cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against
   the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the
   captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey
   of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the
   Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured
   Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the
   right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army
   was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,
   archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom
   Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by
   Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi
   wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help
   to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the
   impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At
   first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the
   Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his
   army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that
   then the main body of his troops should close around them.
   When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were
   overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.
   They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them
   lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;
   seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the
   field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and
   after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they
   reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias
   Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were
   either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the
   tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land
   covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended
   with Louis II."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 3._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
   Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
   Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
   Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
   Great invasion by Soliman.
   Siege of Vienna.
   The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
   Progress of the Reformation.
   Soliman's last invasion.

   "No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
   under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
   electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
   to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
   far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
   was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
   the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
   found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
   and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
   Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
   which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
   king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
   receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
   palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
   first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
   widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
   enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
   role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
   to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
   repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
   arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
   party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
   Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
   representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
   Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
   beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
   Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
   capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
   mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
   himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
   for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
   renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
   the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
   great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
   no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
   enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
   "Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
   His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
   himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
   pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
   his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
   native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
   Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
   mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
   [1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
   Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
   Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
   forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
   neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
   advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
   Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
   way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
   numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
   boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
   the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
   surrounding country terribly ravaged.
{1675}
   Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
   of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
   the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
   "an epoch in the history of the world."]

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 9. _

   … Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over
   the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to
   Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on
   between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda
   had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf;
   but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to
   eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the
   Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to
   the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in
   vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it
   was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein,
   which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the
   country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to
   Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to
   Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya
   should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was
   to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense
   indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and
   ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of
   momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development
   of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which
   removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the
   very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he
   had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the
   undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of
   Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John
   Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was
   supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George
   Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand
   and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged
   suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to
   Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army
   occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made
   his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep
   permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and
   assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade
   her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice
   which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust.
   Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of
   Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally,
   became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new
   complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when
   Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of
   guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country,
   began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand,
   aware of these circumstances, marched an army into
   Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain
   over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a
   cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced
   into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this
   about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk
   Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his
   own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the
   Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by
   his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of
   Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of
   the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain
   to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his
   Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked
   his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through
   the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian
   throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons.
   Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria;
   Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son,
   got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his
   Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to
   that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as
   his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part
   of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his
   authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left
   Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor,
   although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he
   observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and
   progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious
   reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the
   political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of
   Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many
   persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the
   Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it
   in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might
   win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus
   increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian
   spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its
   way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of
   considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a
   smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's
   followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its
   centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In
   1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from
   his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and
   against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another
   formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress
   of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth,
   by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny.
   These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for
   nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without
   surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of
   20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor
   caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This
   brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new
   peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute
   of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also
   relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a
   sudden death."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. W. Fraser,
      Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
      chapters 12-13._

{1676}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
   Successive disturbances in Transylvania.
   Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and
   consequent revolt.
   Religious persecutions of Rodolph.
   Successful rebellion of Botskai.
   Continued war with the Turks.

   John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the
   peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored
   to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed,
   and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace
   offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both
   parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of
   Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to
   acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in
   addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he
   was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch,
   with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could
   recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to
   confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to
   him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the
   death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was
   to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the
   crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place,
   for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon
   after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to
   Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori,
   who had acted with great reputation as the general and
   minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had
   recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice.
   … The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by
   Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the
   crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship
   and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a
   delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the
   last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his
   dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first
   obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son
   Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at
   Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the
   Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king
   of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later,
   the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which
   secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter
   crown fell to him the following year, when his father died.
   Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was
   easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father,
   and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against
   the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in
   Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance.
   "The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions
   in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the
   enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the
   side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the
   empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the
   contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for
   its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of
   Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital
   of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance.
   He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures,
   which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every
   nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony.
   This feudal establishment gradually extended along the
   frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed,
   at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but
   afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though
   formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats,
   Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror
   among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. …
   Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by
   Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a
   predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The
   truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by
   Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to
   Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines,
   with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, …
   Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his
   numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following
   years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended
   with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage
   ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of
   Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary
   turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of
   the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of
   Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother
   Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and,
   dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the
   protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high
   spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the
   reins of government before he liberated himself from the
   galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive
   alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain
   Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of
   Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. …
   The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. …
   By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered
   from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a
   powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond
   signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill;
   uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he
   defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and
   drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople.
   Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were
   likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the
   Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran
   and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet,
   the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596,
   at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau,
   and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the
   lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his
   arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the
   loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time
   tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without
   vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action.
   But this year, though little distinguished by military events,
   was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by
   the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships
   of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension."
{1677}
   The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his
   bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion,
   but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again
   to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and
   disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent
   finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then
   placed under the government of the imperial general Basta.
   "His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to
   despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other
   magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of
   the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks.
   Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies
   of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by
   numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the
   capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and
   inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was
   scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for,
   before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated
   by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion
   of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers
   dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the
   principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania,
   Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the
   Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with
   little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the
   confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the
   complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and
   indifference; and the German troops being free from control,
   filled the country with devastation and pillage. While,
   however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to
   chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter
   his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most
   intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in
   various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing
   in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the
   principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond
   Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the
   same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed
   to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a
   Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into
   Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally
   inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested
   or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of
   Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him].
   … He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if
   he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he
   conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh;
   at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and
   Novigrad."

      _W. Coxe
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 38-42 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,
      chapters 12-20._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
   The Turkish war.
   Great defeat at Cerestes.
   The Peace of Sitvatorok.

   'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in
   Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious
   that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great
   ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an
   auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The
   Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian
   Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian
   Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the
   Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts
   from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,
   had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the
   loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,
   Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the
   monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for
   the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the
   sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time
   was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the
   True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan
   Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders
   under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded
   the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers
   of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and
   captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a
   junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,
   advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October
   23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on
   the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the
   Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of
   battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished
   to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was
   persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though
   safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle
   was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry
   under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division
   of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the
   time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund
   were flying for their lives, without a single Christian
   regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally
   and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians
   perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …
   Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to
   Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his
   victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.
   The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the
   peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of
   Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in
   the territorial possessions of either party, except that the
   Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,
   and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,
   independent of the Ottoman Empire."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 12._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
   The Pacification of Vienna.
   Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
   Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

   In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
   to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
   by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
   the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
   Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
   restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
   Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
   of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
   that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
   revert to the House of Austria.
{1678}
   "This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
   expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
   of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
   wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
   divisions into which it had been split up by the various
   factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
   was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
   Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
   possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
   736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
   and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
   abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
   plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
   of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
   giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
   Mathias, came to a head.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.

   Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble
   resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and
   compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria
   and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the
   crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of
   king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.
   Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,
   which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his
   coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign
   a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that
   the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of
   that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be
   filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real
   property in the country. The peace of the country was soon
   disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel
   Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of
   the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him
   into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly
   fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel
   Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was
   unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the
   sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full
   measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from
   the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,
   however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had
   been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,
   by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now
   anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present
   opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in
   wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a
   diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in
   1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all
   aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan
   for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made
   in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus
   tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving
   his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the
   renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in
   his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.
   1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'
   War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.
   "Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the
   Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took
   Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under
   Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got
   possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the
   regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of
   the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a
   long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier
   successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained
   considerable advantages over two generals of ability and
   reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,
   according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal
   title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in
   Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,
   Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration
   to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and
   war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000
   men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of
   the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over
   the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw
   of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,
   captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid
   siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the
   famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking
   their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into
   Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive
   in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the
   approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.
   The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem
   began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now
   be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of
   Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and
   Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his
   soldiers.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

   … The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
   Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
   1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
   place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
   enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
   disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
   the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
   against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
   of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
   Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
   became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
   Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
   very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
   Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
   of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
   reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
   his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
   period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
   any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
   revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
{1679}
   No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
   attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
   oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
   left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
   nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend
   it."

      _E. L. Godkin,
      History of Hungary,
      chapters 15-17._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
   The battle of St. Gothard.
   Liberation of Transylvania.
   A twenty years truce.

   "Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman
   empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was
   suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part
   of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting
   like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George
   Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat
   against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the
   House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper
   Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the
   Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The
   Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the
   service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a
   part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;
   Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their
   protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their
   attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these
   alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and
   Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two
   oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid
   themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the
   present master. … Religious distrust also complicated
   political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,
   remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor
   demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the
   Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis
   XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,
   replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the
   Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half
   to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;
   that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The
   Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the
   aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing
   danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a
   great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the
   Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in
   the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting
   men, invaded the country between the Danube and the
   Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg
   and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to
   maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast
   intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and
   Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after
   another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to
   Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the
   urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no
   effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the
   Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on
   condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,
   certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty
   of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States
   furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but
   soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000
   Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the
   junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the
   Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the
   offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the
   year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of
   Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed
   them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the
   right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of
   the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army
   was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive
   moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the
   bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the
   French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab
   to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the
   Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the
   Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river
   and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the
   Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were
   continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon
   found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed
   lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet
   Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with
   their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,
   asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the
   terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the
   Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate
   army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward
   and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first
   slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and
   fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire
   of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The
   fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters
   of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all
   the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the
   immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the
   opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of
   their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them
   expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with
   astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the
   approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he
   seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty
   years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand
   Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its
   elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept
   his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which
   they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the
   Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins
   tribute."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 62 (volume 2)._

{1680}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
   Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
   Tekeli's revolt.
   The Turks again called in.
   Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
   Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

   In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive
   Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by
   the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the
   Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to
   the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the
   Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to
   the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to
   all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence
   and devastations of the generals and the German
   administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.
   The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated
   their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints
   Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared
   not even the families of the most illustrious; several
   magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such
   oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a
   conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain
   Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and
   frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count
   Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at
   the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed
   any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much
   military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House
   of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,
   defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied
   the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled
   the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the
   truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,
   which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same
   time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of
   Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this
   conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an
   appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish
   and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]
   determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader
   offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
   Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave
   him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into
   Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,
   Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against
   Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria
   and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded
   to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support
   Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of
   1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a
   large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of
   Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

      _S. Menzies,
      Turkey, Old and New,
      book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1)._

   "The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led
   to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in
   his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The
   attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any
   but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the
   Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It
   is probable that not less than half a million of men were set
   in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans
   against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor
   money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of
   invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a
   promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had
   previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish
   army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from
   Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious
   check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the
   strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city
   of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count
   Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the
   Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was
   besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted
   from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which
   the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison
   and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by
   the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and
   in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander
   sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,
   at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by
   storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a
   general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as
   Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the
   Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city
   would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he
   would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if
   the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the
   soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops
   before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted
   to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and
   some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a
   considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at
   Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled
   round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of
   Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.
   The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to
   the progress of the relieving army through the difficult
   country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of
   September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount
   Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.
   Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,
   and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a
   sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly
   encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat
   him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down
   from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult
   for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an
   able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the
   Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,
   had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of
   action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and
   imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the
   campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the
   chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the
   city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down
   which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.
{1691}
   In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially
   intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was
   obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a
   direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent
   was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of
   Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really
   among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and
   turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman
   army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha
   with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left
   in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the
   garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the
   whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans
   became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a
   victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid
   trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as
   Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was
   rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement
   of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in
   Europe."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 16._

   "It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the
   King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared
   the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if
   the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the
   Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans
   would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and
   Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna
   would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to
   internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph
   of their cause would have consoled few for their individual
   destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir
   William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall
   of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent
   increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there
   were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The
   Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France
   and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side
   of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,
   and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the
   French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the
   controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be
   decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not
   stand neutral."

      _H. E. Malden,
      Vienna, 1683,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-Fields of Germany,
      chapter 9._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
   End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
   Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
   The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

   The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the
   insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the
   Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla
   warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the
   capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end
   [1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long
   an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to
   Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in
   Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of
   the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately
   afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming
   the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He
   established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this
   tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in
   the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,
   Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of
   concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the
   monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should
   now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity
   with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in
   the male line of the house of Habsburg."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 20._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
   Expulsion of the Turks.
   Battle of Zenta.
   Peace of Carlowitz.

   After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
   expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
   the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
   the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
   and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
   defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
   they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
   which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
   laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
   June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
   September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
   regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
   years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
   year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
   lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
   battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
   became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
   House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
   this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
   became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
   battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
   Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
   and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
   what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
   reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
   than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
   was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
   end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
   Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
   Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
   river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
   Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
   Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
   expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
   Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
   Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
   Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
   another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
   little progress in the war was made on either side; until
   Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
   wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
{1682}
   The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
   person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
   their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
   11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
   literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
   the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
   reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
   Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
   Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
   Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
   booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
   Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
   was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
   cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
   and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
   of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
   Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
   telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
   inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
   mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
   Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
   Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
   representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
   Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
   after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
   concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
   Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
   territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
   the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
   frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
   only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
   Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
   distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
   country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
   yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
   Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
   Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
   Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
   had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
   and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
   and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
   Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
   its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
   Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
   Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 2 and 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 17._

      See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"
      against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only
      a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
   The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
   The Treaty of Szathmar.
   Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

   "The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
   territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
   States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
   itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
   considerably increased by the general policy continually
   pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
   Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
   perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
   the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
   entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
   were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
   they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
   Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
   peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
   the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
   rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
   struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
   Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
   became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
   Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
   proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
   Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
   Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
   the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
   became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
   occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
   government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
   reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
   more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
   which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
   correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
   France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
   Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
   decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
   of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
   abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
   which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
   discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
   Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
   help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
   command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
   Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
   the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
   as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
   to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
   besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
   the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
   Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
   Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
   remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
   had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
   which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
   After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
   different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
   century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
   lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
   VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
   war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
   Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
   the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
   Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
   seen, to his own destruction.
{1683}
   After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
   at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
   all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
   the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
   lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
   whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
   heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
   all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
   1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
   The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
   Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
   between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
   provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
   fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
   of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
   Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapter 5-6._

      ALSO in:
      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 4._

      See, also,
      TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:
   Belgrade restored to the Turks.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   The Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
   Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
   His seizure of Silesia.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
   Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
   Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

   "The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of
   Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two
   countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry
   out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.
   With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him
   nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the
   nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the
   political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to
   him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing
   the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He
   never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws
   against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never
   succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of
   April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought
   to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To
   confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the
   eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the
   nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this
   time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a
   neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various
   parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal
   principles in substituting German, and that language took the
   place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not
   wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict
   which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new
   birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.
   Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'
   of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an
   end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national
   liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in
   demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the
   long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The
   revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt
   even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in
   its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of
   equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great
   nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political
   element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which
   were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the
   Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had
   found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was
   toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to
   be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were
   themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic
   party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to
   the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.
   the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support
   their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight
   the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very
   soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and
   money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures
   carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity
   which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The
   censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the
   persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in
   which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active
   part—all helped to create discontent."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapters 23 and 28._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.
   War with the Turks.
   Treaty of Sistova.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
   The wakening of the national spirit.
   Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

   "The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible
   struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years
   been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed
   freely … and their first act was to enter into a league
   against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and
   break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those
   who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of
   Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated
   promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting
   him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults
   of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he
   emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to
   convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it
   for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a
   pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to
   yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the
   diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars
   with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was
   … rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of
   trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in
   connexion with subsequent events.
{1684}
   It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first
   speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary
   man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved
   by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the
   dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of
   eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that
   his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no
   private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,
   perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as
   the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than
   of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first
   object to which his attention was directed was the restoration
   of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts
   of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the
   higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national
   language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But
   the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.
   Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and
   official documents, and German and French were alone used in
   good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of
   reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and
   disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways
   to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he
   rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,
   made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the
   magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The
   diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period
   Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which
   he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon
   considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,
   which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so
   successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was
   compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,
   formally to recognize the independence of the country, and
   promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three
   years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing
   the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was
   still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and
   communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the
   want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where
   political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same
   party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the
   establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the
   London clubs. He next turned his attention to the
   establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …
   rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black
   Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,
   went over to England, studied the principles of the
   steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English
   engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the
   multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the
   sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was
   accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which
   followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed
   up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to
   his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely
   the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of
   them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,
   the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a
   system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the
   equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the
   commercial code and of internal communication, and though
   last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were
   all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any
   practical result. The next meeting was for a long time
   delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened
   in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important
   that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles
   was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of
   these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent
   looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,
   but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period
   were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians
   had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was
   still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was
   known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world
   without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since
   become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been
   heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the
   apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary
   proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this
   defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would
   otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully
   reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all
   over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of
   the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet
   caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth
   rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often
   even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon
   took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the
   Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the
   reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.
   He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to
   act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of
   the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript
   throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and
   new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the
   session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by
   reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were
   then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped
   his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of
   messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to
   village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a
   flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest
   Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a
   prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not
   brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four
   years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that
   he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real
   ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had
   circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his
   liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short
   period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of
   recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly
   abstained from taking any part in public affairs.
{1685}
   On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,
   named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal
   entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the
   editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition
   that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of
   his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of
   his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country
   where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.
   He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the
   noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower
   classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of
   ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the
   editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which
   now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

      _E. L. Godkin,
      History of Hungary,
      chapter 21._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
   The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

   "A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many
   years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.
   The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,
   was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,
   all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race
   apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand
   V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the
   Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince
   Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was
   laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash
   of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other
   tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,
   began to make separate demands, and to show themselves
   stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It
   was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the
   Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian
   constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their
   national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,
   they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not
   be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they
   distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the
   same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed
   ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was
   great, for these insurgents called the constitutional
   government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding
   the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the
   Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a
   high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been
   appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his
   wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich
   advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that
   in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,
   and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was
   defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace
   Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of
   the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely
   murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a
   lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish
   General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz
   and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and
   Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of
   October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the
   rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then
   prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very
   different matter, since the constitutional government there
   had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of
   Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore
   thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public
   safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.
   Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable
   of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a
   family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had
   retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that
   his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in
   favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable
   young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate
   matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the
   new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional
   government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce
   to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to
   repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both
   in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,
   the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of
   Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their
   throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince
   Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable
   army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting
   together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded
   by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the
   mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,
   though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five
   considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,
   and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube
   out of the country."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Landmarks of Recent History,
      chapter 3, part 5._

   "On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
   promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
   but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
   completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
   institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
   Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
   which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
   all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
   from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
   Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
   late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
   For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
   despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
   that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
   time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
   itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
   raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
   Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
   in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
   arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
   cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
   second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
   political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
   always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
   revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
   danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
   empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
   Hungary.'
{1686}
   … In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
   army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
   was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
   instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
   the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
   August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
   down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
   the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
   300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
   Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
   over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
   of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
   Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
   and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
   the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
   refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
   with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
   and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
   bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
   influence of time, and still more of that great work of
   reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
   effected between the two countries."

      _Francis Deak,
      Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,
      chapter 14._

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
   Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
   the United States.
   The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
   Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
   Restoration of pure absolutism.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
   Recovery of nationality.
   Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

   In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty
   against the political offenders, and in the following year he
   decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps
   were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859
   other concessions were made, notably as to provincial
   Governments in Hungary, and they were given free
   administration as to their educational and religious rites in
   the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,
   and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to
   Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and
   Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for
   so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,
   did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for
   their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which
   therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the
   Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who
   gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further
   details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out
   between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these
   from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's
   promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the
   Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the
   Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed
   in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the
   dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria
   presided for so many years. The final result of this was that
   a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the
   Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect
   freedom and independence as to the administration of its
   affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so
   to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian
   Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also
   described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir
   Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as
   follows:

   I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
   consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for
   Finance.

   II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry
   of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and
   National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President
   of the Council.

   III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of
   353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both
   cases by direct election.

   IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members
   from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from
   amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in
   each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian
   and Hungarian Legislatures.

   V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and
   Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being
   confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard
   to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the
   Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of
   disagreement between the two Delegations the question of
   policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written
   messages; drawn up in the official language—German or
   Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and
   accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of
   the Delegation to which it is addressed.

   VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an
   agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the
   question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.
   The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an
   equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,
   the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

   VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,
   the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the
   Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,
   to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

   VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all
   international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by
   their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,
   that whilst the appointment to the military command of the
   whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,
   is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters
   affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and
   pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the
   Hungarian Legislature.

{1687}

   IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to
   the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,
   currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,
   subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases
   where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each
   retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with
   their own special interests.

   X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
   Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
   by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
   Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
   Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

   It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented
   Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have
   by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these
   concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was
   reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who
   escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its
   Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in
   great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the
   greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Francis Deak: a memoir,
      chapters 26-31._

      _Count von Beust,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapter 38._

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
   Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
   Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.
   Death of Kossuth.

   Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of
   1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged
   ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be
   reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to
   countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual
   nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and
   remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were
   brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on
   Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national
   demonstration of respect.

   ----------HUNGARY: End--------

HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
      and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNINGEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

HUNKERS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

   ----------HUNS: Start--------

HUNS, Gothic account of the.

   "We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who
   surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When
   Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from
   Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have
   before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women,
   whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or
   Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of
   his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander
   up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made
   concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most
   fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul,
   emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing
   only the shadow of human speech by way of language. …
   Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight
   fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call
   them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with
   little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or
   chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep
   furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show
   the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity
   they apply to every male child that is born among them. …
   They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their
   motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered,
   good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and
   always holding their heads high in their pride."

      _Jornandes,
      De Rebus Geticis,
      translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 1._

HUNS:
   First appearance in Europe.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 376.

HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
   The empire of Attila.

   After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had
   halted in their march westward for something more than a
   generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern
   frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in
   its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute,
   and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable
   correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in
   the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman
   soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian
   parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable
   antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps.
   … About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the
   Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their
   king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the
   Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred
   of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts,
   their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his
   systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his
   rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his
   insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning
   which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant
   arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in
   his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless
   cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,
   and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish
   barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the
   civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's
   daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic
   tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his
   nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.
   Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted
   an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and
   preserve, in which men and their works should supply the
   objects and zest of the chase."

      _R. W. Church,
      Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1._

{1688}

   "He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was
   formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the
   art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the
   Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of
   the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian
   Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and
   Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had
   remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a
   century before."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   "The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy
   Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts
   is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.
   Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the
   only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.
   The impression left upon us by what history records of him is
   that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers
   unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some
   doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the
   wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China
   on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in
   front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who
   ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his
   right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep
   as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with
   Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember
   that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can
   have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and
   Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His
   own personal government, if government it can be called, may
   very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the
   modern Hungary and Transylvania."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

   "As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of
   Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated
   between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian
   hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in
   the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin
   it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the
   long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled
   into a huge village."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 34._

HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
   Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.

   Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed
   against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had
   been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.
   "It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had
   surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the
   Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns
   immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,
   and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and
   carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople
   the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor
   thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to
   be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate
   the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his
   merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague
   terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,
   its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south
   of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both
   of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A
   truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated
   its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they
   reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result
   the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.
   Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities
   levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of
   his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen
   days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of
   6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an
   annual tribute."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4._

HUNS: A. D. 451.
   Attila's invasion of Gaul.

   In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host
   which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward
   the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was
   said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects
   of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in
   Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused
   tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.
   The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with
   the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its
   provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of
   conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage
   riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and
   Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the
   warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the
   plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and
   after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the
   conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by
   the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of
   Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a
   bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with
   resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the
   Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who
   served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of
   danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the
   flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary
   chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly
   stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into
   the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a
   long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of
   Orleans."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35._

   Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
   who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
   Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
   barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
   included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
   Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
   Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
   of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
   and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
   latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
   were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
   banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
   retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
   within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
   Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
   surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
   451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
   Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
{1689}
   The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
   according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
   victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
   king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
   own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
   quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
   best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
   As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
   chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
   reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
   Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
   the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
   battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

   "It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian
   hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and
   said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement
   of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of
   terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he
   was most widely and most fearfully known."

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 6._

HUNS: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion of Italy.

   In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain
   of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters
   in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he
   nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he
   set his host in motion again, directing its march to the
   Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of
   Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,
   was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of
   the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of
   abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his
   shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns
   to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was
   carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the
   defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to
   Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila
   was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was
   absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of
   the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …
   When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used
   fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as
   Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the
   siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses
   may have been left standing, and others must have slowly
   gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained
   all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old
   ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately
   cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the
   City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.
   … The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more
   terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through
   the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),
   Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At
   Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns
   were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who
   did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the
   fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the
   islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of
   the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in
   time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The
   valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the
   invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome
   as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the
   world? This was the great question that was being debated in
   the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all
   for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into
   the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later
   ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut
   off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of
   Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently
   insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was
   prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from
   Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the
   head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo
   I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific
   disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly
   ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to
   peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in
   fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the
   Appennines, but not beyond.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35._

      See, also,
      VENICE: A. D. 452.

HUNS: A. D. 453.
   Death of Attila and fall of his empire.

   Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a
   drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year
   453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under
   which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his
   death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of
   his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on
   the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority
   of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the
   Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned
   allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the
   Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital
   struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less
   famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with
   that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of
   civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;
   but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered
   the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of
   the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the
   royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in
   the barbarian world."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4._

   "Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
   upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
   rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
   over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
   Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
   saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
   Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
   the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
   we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
   Scythia.'
{1690}
   Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
   the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
   fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
   himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
   north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
   domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
   victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
   Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
   Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
   kings of the Ostrogoths."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

HUNS:
   Attila in Teutonic legend.

   "Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror
   it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over
   the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon
   forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a
   long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in
   the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,
   before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,
   with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter
   bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that
   Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen
   Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is
   surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.
   Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of
   a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of
   his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,
   fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a
   by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the
   impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little
   more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people
   for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by
   which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a
   far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

      _G. T. Dippold,
      Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,
      chapter 4._

   ----------HUNS: End--------

HUNS, The White.

   "It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of
   Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced
   between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east
   which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the
   middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of
   the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom
   Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called
   Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to
   be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and
   the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be
   quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the
   Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the
   Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or
   sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the
   Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during
   the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east
   of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and
   that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic
   or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,
   had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White
   Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were
   quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.
   … They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were
   decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns
   were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns
   were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well
   civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they
   belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 14._

   "We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these
   formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march
   towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these
   colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and
   extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the
   Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the
   epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their
   manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly
   improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long
   residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain
   a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a
   name which they derived from the change of their complexion,
   soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,
   under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a
   temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who
   exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their
   luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

      _E. Gibbon.
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26._

   The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.

      See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

HUNTER, General David.
   Command in Kansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

   Emancipation Order.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY).

   Command in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

   ----------HURON, Lake: Start--------

HURON, Lake:
   Discovery.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.

HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.
   Navigated by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

   ----------HURON, Lake: End--------

HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

HUSCARLS.

      See HOUSECARLS.

HUSSARS.

   Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in
   1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the
   attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.
   Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the
   utmost speed, the most important of which was the
   establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was
   enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the
   'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      page 50._

HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.

{1691}

HUSTINGS.
COURT OF HUSTING.

   "The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of
   London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of
   Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway
   once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.
   The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and
   [dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,
   according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'
   in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in
   Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term
   'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied
   at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,
   usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of
   electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its
   strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The
   Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the
   City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling
   disputes between citizen and citizen."

      _R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to Calendar of Wills,
      Court of Husting, London._

HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,
   and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
      NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).

HWICCAS.

   A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in
   Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was
   conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king
   Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.
   The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from
   the throne.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      pages 129-208._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.

   "The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ
   [Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month
   Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …
   Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,
   was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the
   flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast
   seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a
   lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by
   the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over
   death itself.'

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      Note, book 9, section 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, page 222._

HYBLA.

   "There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as
   the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here
   with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were
   called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,
   now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the
   place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.
   This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous
   for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount
   Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is
   now called Paterno."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Story of Sicily,
      page 33._

HYDASPES, The.

   The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,
   on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain
   attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 53._

HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB,
   English Wars with.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;
      and 1785-1793.

HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD,
   The Nizam of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; and 1877.

HY-IVAR, The.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

HYKSOS, The.

      See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

HYLLEANS, The.

   "The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,
   but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to
   have been known to the geographers only from mythological
   writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of
   Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      volume 1, introduction._

HYMETTUS.

   One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its
   excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,
   which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

      _M. and R. P. Willson,
      Mosaics of Grecian History,
      page 9._

HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.

   "As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or
   anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families
   are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan
   names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the
   south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,
   their mutual ancestors."

      _T. D. McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

HYPATIA.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.

HYPERBOREANS, The.

   A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond
   the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in
   the extreme north.

HYPHASIS, The.
   The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.

HYRCANIA.
HYRCANIAN SEA.

   "The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]
   on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of
   Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner
   of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three
   degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty
   ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian
   region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east
   longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel
   to one another, having a general direction of east and west.
   … Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;
   and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania
   (Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined
   came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the
   region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains
   were celebrated by the ancient writers."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

   "In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]
   is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,
   according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with
   forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in
   the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down
   to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen
   grains without any special sowing."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also, PARTHIA.

{1692}

I.

IAPYGIANS, The.

      See ITALY, ANCIENT;
      also, ŒNOTRIANS.

IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.

      See LIMIGANTES.

IBERA, Battle at.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

IBERIANS, The eastern.

   "The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of
   later writers. The name is found under the various forms of
   Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence
   the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented
   as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so
   that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of
   the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe
   that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their
   neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the
   original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which
   have defied the destroying touch of time for more than
   twenty-four centuries."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 7, appendix 1._

      See, also, ALARODIANS.

   If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin
   of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection
   does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and
   subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

      See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.

IBERIANS, The western.

   "The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess
   exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the
   Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and
   may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking
   peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which
   occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and
   north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be
   any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people
   being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have
   left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of
   their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they
   were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars
   of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and
   Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was
   apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout
   the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it
   is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical
   characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new
   invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of
   history. … These two races were in possession of Spain
   during the very earliest times recorded in history, the
   Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or
   Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along
   the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,
   as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution
   of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have
   noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian
   Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,
   the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection
   also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred
   from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …
   Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul
   as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so
   they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of
   Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the
   Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were
   subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English
   invaders."

      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Early Man in Britain,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 5._

      See CELTS; LIGURIANS;
      AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;
      AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;
      and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.

IBERION.

      See ALBION.

IBRAHIM,
   Caliph, A. D. 744.

   Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.

ICARIA, Attica.

   One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where
   Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making
   by Dionysus.

ICARIA, in the Ægean.

   An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,
   who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

   ----------ICELAND: Start--------

ICELAND:
   Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.

      See THULE.

ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
   Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
   A Norse Commonwealth.
   Development of the Saga Literature.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.
   Political relations with Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

   ----------ICELAND: End--------

ICELANDIC "THING," The.

      See THING.

ICENI, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.

ICONIUM, Sultans of.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.

   "Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth
   century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the
   worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence
   spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both
   to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it
   appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the
   Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of
   the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the
   portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the
   sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom
   the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to
   Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the
   churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only
   protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having
   assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to
   be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These
   first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the
   emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a
   very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far
   more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with
   the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping
   religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the
   Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil
   entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all
   images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the
   cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of
   them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.
{1693}
   … A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the
   Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For
   the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by
   the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of
   gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true
   religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and
   Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …
   The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of
   the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either
   massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by
   these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,
   and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented
   him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and
   indignation, he vented his fury against images and their
   worshippers, much more violently than before. For having
   assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of
   Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted
   Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be
   committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments
   upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity
   was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two
   parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and
   worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,
   who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties
   furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and
   assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly
   prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine
   at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either
   of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss
   of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is
   to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in
   behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus
   by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to
   the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he
   laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,
   in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the
   monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than
   his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were
   governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious
   matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at
   Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this
   controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general
   council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,
   according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned
   images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death
   of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his
   father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of
   images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle
   measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.
   being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his
   perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became
   triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire
   during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to
   establish her authority, after entering into a league with
   Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in
   Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the
   second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,
   together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,
   were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was
   established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the
   Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground
   between the contending parties; for they decided, that images
   were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,
   but that no religious worship could be offered to them without
   dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at
   the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with
   the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be
   drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to
   the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his
   approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of
   the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely
   and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by
   such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his
   formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in
   the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the
   Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council
   approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,
   and forbid the worship of images."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 10, section 101._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1._

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 6._

      See, also,
      PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ICTIS.

   An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to
   have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to
   Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the
   mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's
   Mount, is a disputed question.

IDA, Mount.

      See TROJA.

   ----------IDAHO: Start--------

IDAHO:
   The Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IDAHO: A. D. 1863.
   Organized as a Territory.

   The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of
Congress passed March 3, 1863.

IDAHO: A. D. 1890.
   Admission to the Union as a State.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

   ----------IDAHO: End--------

IDES.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

IDLE, Battle of the.

   Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,
   and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

IDOMENE, Battle of.

   One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
   Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
   Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6)._

IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

IDUMEANS, The.

      See EDOMITES.

IERNE.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

{1694}

IGANIE, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

IGUALA, The Plan of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

IKENILD-STRETE.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

ILA.
ILARCH.

   The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
   their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
   commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

ILERDA.

   Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign
   against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

ILIAD, The.

      See HOMER.

ILIUM.

      See TROJA.

ILKHANS, The.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

ILLINOIA,
   The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
      THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

   ----------ILLINOIS: Start--------

ILLINOIS:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.
   Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.
   LaSalle's fort and colony.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.
   The French occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.
   The "Illinois country" under the French.

   "For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the
   region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,
   and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.
   The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but
   little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a
   later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the
   'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate
   government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the
   Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were
   remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with
   the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy
   amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their
   settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,
   patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around
   their old men and patriarchs."

      _J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
      the Mississippi,
      volume 1, pages 181-183._

      See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
   Settlements and population.

   "Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
   Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
   respective villages. These were:

   1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
   miles below the present site of St. Louis;

   2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
   above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

   3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve
   miles above Kaskaskia;

   4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles
   above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the
   Mississippi River;

   5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;

   6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and
   about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

   These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the
   Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the
   French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or
   3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of
   France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500
   souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to
   460 souls, in 1773."

      _J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and Settlement
      of the Mississippi Valley,
      volume 1, pages 167-168._

   "The population of the French and Indian villages in the
   district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is
   largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis
   Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,
   and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have
   here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the
   cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three
   villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five
   leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river
   called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,
   eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red
   slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain
   more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does
   not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of
   Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois
   nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of
   that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or
   five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen
   families, except at the principal village, where there were
   three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near
   eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all
   tribes."

      _J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
      chapter 16._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
      THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
   Possession taken by the English.

   "The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
   to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
   Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
   held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
   Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
   and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
   will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
   Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
   elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
   had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
   follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
   'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
   begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
   their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word
   for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask
   how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley
   of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.
   Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear
   arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of
   negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn
   from another source, were occupied by about 110 French
   families, most of which were at Vincennes.
{1695}
   Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of
   an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed
   to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from
   English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her
   territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,
   an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois
   nations agreed that the English should take possession of all
   the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain
   Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down
   the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,
   St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,
   gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th
   of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the
   Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at
   St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,
   while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February
   1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration
   of the British commander, already counted about twice that
   number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western
   side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant
   territory, the government then instituted was the absolute
   rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all
   disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the
   country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 151-152._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774.
   Early years of English rule.

   "Just before and during the first years of the English
   domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants
   from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British
   rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the
   wealthier and more influential families, removed with their
   slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or
   down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them
   settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set
   by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis,
   which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana.
   … At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of
   inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois,
   excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post
   Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand
   persons; and, during the entire period of British possession,
   the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with
   the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers
   and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising
   traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be
   seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the
   purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country
   by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained
   essentially French, with whom there was no taste for
   innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American
   had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great
   Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct
   with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be
   introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the
   Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military
   government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and
   liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and
   loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further
   exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On
   the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major
   Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment
   of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after
   exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and
   feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel
   Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at
   Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres
   about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to
   him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early
   in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who
   proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became
   so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that
   he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John
   Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had
   formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived
   from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768.
   He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for
   garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of
   Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which
   he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled
   to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
   without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey
   to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel
   Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became
   unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him,
   including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for
   an official investigation, claiming that he was able to
   justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in
   September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the
   following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment,
   became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in
   command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774,
   Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province
   of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the
   territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate
   successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not
   positively determined."

      _J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,
      chapter 20._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and
   annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
      CLARK'S CONQUEST.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and
   Polypotamia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
   and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.
   Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

{1696}

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818.
   Admission into the Union as a State.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818;
      and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

   "In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes,
   by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United
   States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their
   country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60
   years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned
   with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock
   Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of
   about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and
   penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came
   only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not
   restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare
   soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at
   Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals
   Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement,
   which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and
   desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers,
   and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched
   against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General
   Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on
   Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The
   Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River;
   and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again
   overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the
   Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water
   while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a
   little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50
   prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and
   children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon
   closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and
   other chiefs."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 4-5._

      _J. B. Patterson, editor,
      History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.
      Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 10._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846.
   The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.

   ----------ILLINOIS: End--------

ILLUMINATI, The.

      See ROSICRUCIANS.

ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ILLYRIANS, The.

   "Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more
   numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name
   of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east
   by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of
   Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper
   Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of
   Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north
   and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others
   consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and
   Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at
   the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians
   generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in
   battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom
   of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices:
   moreover, they were always ready to sell their military
   service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in
   whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable
   admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian
   kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its
   capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies
   in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing
   period of Grecian history."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.

   "The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general
   appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were
   esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to
   be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia,
   Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia,
   and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more
   properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the
   Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the
   Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.

IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

IMAMS.
THE IMAMATE.

   "When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam
   is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate
   their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so,
   and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up
   on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the
   business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law
   himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The
   election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite
   in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical
   soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that
   Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the
   'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.
   But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting.
   They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince
   who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in
   Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was
   that the sovereign thus reigning should be a
   member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, ISLAM.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
   Promulgation of the Dogma of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

IMMORTALS, The.

   A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under
   the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

   ----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------

IMPEACHMENT:
   Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

{1697}

IMPEACHMENT:
   Revival of the right.

   In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on
   the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a
   committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed.
   The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that
   of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient
   right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of
   an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which
   had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk
   in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse,
   partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly
   through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of
   attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power
   wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to
   inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting
   to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the
   spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of
   impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the
   Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular
   power."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 13._

   ----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------

IMPEACHMENTS:
   Warren Hastings.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

   President Johnson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY)

   Strafford.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

   ----------IMPERATOR: Start--------

IMPERATOR.

   "There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly
   signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably
   have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom
   Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however,
   equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with
   the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the
   title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those
   who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much
   valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it
   seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed
   their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of
   battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the
   commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. …
   But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in
   a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which
   we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct
   testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who
   tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius
   Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had
   hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but
   as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power,
   and in this signification it was transmitted to his
   successors, without, however, suppressing the original import
   of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power,
   comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and
   Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the
   name of the individual to whom it is applied."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      ROME: B. C. 45-44.

IMPERATOR:
   Final Signification of the Roman title.

   "When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of
   their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and
   nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of
   proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it
   had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican
   extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they
   still distinguished their high station by the appellation of
   Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and
   more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the
   Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name
   of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was
   associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of
   Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was
   expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his
   subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the
   despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing
   it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence
   by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more
   feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of
   'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but
   was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

   ----------IMPERATOR: End--------

IMPERIAL CHAMBER, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION.

      See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: BRITANNIC FEDERATION.

IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.

      See INDICTIONS.

IMPERIUM, The.

   "The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman
   Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but
   also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the
   imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by
   virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his
   fellow-citizens."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

IMPORTANTS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

INCAS, OR YNCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

INCUNABULA.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

INDEPENDENCE, MO.,
   Confederate capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

INDEPENDENCE DAY.

   The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence,
   adopted July 4, 1776.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

INDEPENDENCE HALL.
   The Liberty Bell.

   The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at
   Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American
   Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental
   Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,
   which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully
   preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,
   except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special
   occasion opens its doors to the public.
{1698}
   Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except
   two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of
   which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by
   Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration
   of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,
   where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four
   feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the
   heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends
   from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names
   of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore
   the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …
   The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for
   the State House was imported from England. On the first
   trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was
   recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the
   direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the
   Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in
   English America,' which now hangs in the old State House
   steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its
   crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental
   Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:
   'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the
   inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell
   the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed
   liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result
   was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of
   that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the
   land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the
   joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume I, chapters 15 and 17._

INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

   ----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------

INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS:
   Their origin and opinions.

   "The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing
   courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it
   was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that
   the disposition was manifested among them to break away from
   the church altogether, and to form communities of their own.
   And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the
   more sober part remained in the church. The communities of
   persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in
   London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those
   had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil
   Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or
   Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first
   they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a
   divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer
   of the duty of separation."

      _J. Hunter,
      The Founders of New Plymouth,
      pages 12-13._

   "The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief
   that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church
   was that of the voluntary association of believers into local
   congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and
   managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring
   congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly
   conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to
   profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,
   this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between
   neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,
   until the true independency of each voluntary society of
   Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in
   Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a
   district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or
   Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the
   primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I
   believe, though with varieties of expression, English
   Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original
   warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the
   practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the
   theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new
   process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,
   and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate
   beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
   propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert
   Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a
   preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished
   from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as
   they were called, had persisted in their course, through
   execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the
   pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans
   disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable
   numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and
   throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them
   in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting
   from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
   elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,
   the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London
   Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more
   ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in
   general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …
   Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,
   then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His
   feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for
   those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the
   most, a very small number of very silly and base people here
   and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to
   God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and
   worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon
   was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.
   Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast
   out."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2._

   "The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
   those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
   heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
   a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
   relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
   had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
   came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
   denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
   blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
{1699}
   To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
   studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
   with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
   called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
   charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
   and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
   the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
   the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
   Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
   house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
   courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
   of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
   vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
   the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
   England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
   to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
   made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7._

      _L. Bacon,
      Genesis of the New England Churches._

      _B. Hanbury,
      Historical Memorials of the Independents,
      volume 1._

      _G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 3._

      _H. M. Dexter,
      The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
      lectures 1-5._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:
      IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
   The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

   "The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from
   becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That
   honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country
   gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."
   After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan
   divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,
   nonconformity began to assume among the churches more
   decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict
   was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had
   not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.
   Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a
   company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service
   in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this
   independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully
   aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was
   then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at
   Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare
   sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a
   broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the
   Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike
   bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the
   comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in
   points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing
   that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth
   colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of
   Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding
   influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another
   important member of the Scrooby congregation was William
   Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a
   lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of
   intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of
   Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of
   his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure
   and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of
   the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.
   It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent
   threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.
   Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered
   so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began
   to think of following the example of former heretics and
   escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the
   autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in
   accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to
   find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had
   preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,
   that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:
   This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise
   counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting
   divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as
   the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless
   task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the
   Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the
   Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various
   occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more
   than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,
   however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new
   home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that
   this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete
   toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they
   come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might
   have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot
   refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.
   But they had come as an organized community, and absorption
   into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished
   to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep
   up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they
   might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The
   spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of
   self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which
   could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not
   been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of
   Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late
   in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon
   European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.
   The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of
   America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed
   the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of
   disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length
   been founded in Virginia."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 1, chapters 12-15._

      _G. Sumner,
      Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
      volume 9)._

      _A. Steele,
      Life and Time of Brewster,
      chapters 8-14._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

{1700}

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.
   Preparations for the exodus to New England.

   "'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have
   them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn
   love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led
   them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of
   England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with
   the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'
   hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to
   live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent
   of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in
   1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven
   articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be
   submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These
   articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in
   religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the
   theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of
   persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian
   sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their
   concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire
   of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and
   all civil authority derived from him, including the civil
   authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done
   to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,
   active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or
   passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical
   bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …
   The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,
   so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,
   through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious
   gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been
   taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the
   multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the
   pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands
   of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers
   of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the
   Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,
   to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they
   encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the
   negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the
   Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and
   nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than
   an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,
   being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If
   there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they
   communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as
   the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall
   or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'
   Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company
   for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who
   from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his
   presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the
   company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which
   being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a
   large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed
   to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was
   never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after
   investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to
   execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for
   aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the
   number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to
   emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a
   new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the
   states general. The 'West India company was willing to
   transport them without charge, and to furnish them with
   cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general
   to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence
   from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict
   with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The
   members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the
   Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now
   trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.
   The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English
   merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a
   partnership between their employers and men of business in
   London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital
   of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be
   reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,
   and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be
   divided among the share-holders according to their respective
   interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive
   for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his
   services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to
   the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not
   interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And
   now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and
   in themselves, made ready for their departure."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620.
   The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.
   In the English Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);
      1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

   ----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

   ----------INDIA: Start--------

INDIA.
   The name.

   "To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
   marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
   the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
   always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
   country. To them for a long time the word India was for
   practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
   the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
   refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
   information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
   about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
   natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
   region. For there is a very marked difference between the
   northern and southern parts of it.
{1701}
   The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
   Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
   great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
   Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
   northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
   and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
   a political name, but only a geographical expression like
   Europe or Africa."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      The Expansion of England,
      pages 221-222._

   "The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has
   been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.
   … The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the
   northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the
   'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …
   The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may
   be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from
   having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the
   river.'"

      _E. G. Keene,
      Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
      page 1._

   "Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of
   the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since
   it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the
   Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river
   Sindus, instead of Indus."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1, note._

INDIA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

   "Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling
   for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had
   lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who
   called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,
   speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful
   gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.
   The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the
   land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the
   mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The
   comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now
   nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung
   chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present
   Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early
   tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The
   Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided
   themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for
   'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan
   poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000
   years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the
   Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the
   black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own
   'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter
   the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed
   features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.
   One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or
   flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'
   gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been
   savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the
   Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'
   The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and
   some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by
   non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive
   peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the
   Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in
   the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in
   hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which
   we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of
   culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the
   isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of
   Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as
   dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands
   in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the
   midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals
   with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by
   plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,
   in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.
   The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,
   mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.
   Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but
   wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They
   shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and
   seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,
   small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a
   higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence
   over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great
   stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient
   non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of
   South-Western India, still keep up the old system of
   polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several
   husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,
   but to his sister's children. This system also appears among
   the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of
   India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a
   large part of the population. In certain localities they
   amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important
   race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the
   wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the
   chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the
   approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the
   Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in
   number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'
   Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few
   strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves
   before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of
   India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled
   by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam
   hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by
   any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the
   number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the
   way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,
   undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,
   therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as
   that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years
   ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities
   of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder
   ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and
   I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of
   them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their
   home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in
   Lower Bengal.
{1702}
   They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of
   the plains, and number about a million. Although still
   clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have
   learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful
   husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is
   supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the
   village. … Until near the end of the last century, the
   Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under
   British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …
   The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about
   100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges
   which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is
   purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the
   father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,
   but live in his house with their wives and children, and all
   share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of
   the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.
   … The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way
   between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan
   tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence
   came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in
   the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still
   scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?
   Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us
   little. But from their languages we find that they belong to
   three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered
   India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of
   the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have
   entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly
   along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland
   which covers the southern half of India. Third, the
   Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their
   way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now
   inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far
   down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a
   rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,
   loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while
   even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into
   clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the
   troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and
   some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us
   Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the
   Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian
   army, and lately covered themselves with honour in
   Afghanistan."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown,
      Races of Mankind,
      volume 4, chapter 1._

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,
      chapter 3._

      See, also,
      TURANIAN RACES.

INDIA:
   The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
   The hymns and prayers of their religion.
   Vedism.
   Brahmanism.
   Hinduism

   "The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
   west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
   the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
   eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
   them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
   Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
   with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
   very close connection with the language of the monuments of
   Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
   religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
   striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
   number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
   customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
   always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
   Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
   borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
   Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
   settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the
   Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas
   denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha
   (Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already
   established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it
   is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights
   of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five
   tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from
   the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures
   and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which
   separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river
   which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped
   the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,
   Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the
   Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the
   land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The
   inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.
   These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products
   of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of
   the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under
   names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must
   have been settled there for centuries previously. For this
   reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further
   on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of
   the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time
   when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the
   Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the
   dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by
   the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,
   whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement
   there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a
   collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,
   'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or
   collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the
   priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these
   families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain
   with exactness the region in which the greater number of these
   poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:
   the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the
   Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself
   and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the
   east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The
   seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the
   seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has
   already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta
   sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the
   Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,
   we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of
   Iran.
{1703}
   As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …
   and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at
   all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the
   songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to
   the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to
   move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather
   from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were
   not one civic community. They were governed by a number of
   princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,
   others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes
   combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but
   against each other."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4)._

   "When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in
   the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the
   15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship.
   It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in
   operation around them for production, destruction, and
   reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more
   distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism,
   and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as
   something more than radiant beings, and something more than
   powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers,
   guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in
   formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas).
   These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit
   language, at different times—perhaps during several
   centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light
   and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were
   afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal
   saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been
   directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis,
   and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal
   word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or
   hymns were arranged in three principal collections or
   continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called
   the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns,
   arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first
   bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism.
   … Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian
   branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of
   Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in
   one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which,
   when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter);
   when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā
   (masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men,
   was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a
   philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine
   was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It
   was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a
   confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. …
   Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in
   this—that it takes little account of the primordial,
   impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal
   manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma
   and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu.
   Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism
   is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily
   there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. …
   Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and
   superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and
   Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians,
   and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified
   by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering
   races, such as Islam and Christianity."

      _M. Williams,
      Religious Thought and Life in India,
      part 1, chapter 1, and introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Mitra,
      Indo-Aryans._

      _F. Max Müller,
      History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature._

      _F. Max Müller, editor,
      Sacred Books of the East,
      volume. 1, and others._

      _A. Barth,
      Religions of India._

      _Rig-Veda Sanhita,
      translated by H. H. Wilson._

      See, also,
      ARYANS.

INDIA: 6th Century, B. C.
   Invasion of Darius.

      See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
   Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.
   Expulsion of the Greeks.
   Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

   "The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of
   India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed
   since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha
   was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and
   Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the
   banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was
   leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the
   river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of
   the Punjab.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

   … The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions
   westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and
   then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and
   march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,
   crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to
   pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and
   Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or
   Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.
   … After crossing the Indus, there were at least three
   kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,
   namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;
   that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and
   that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.
   … When Alexander had fully established his authority in
   Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted
   some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having
   submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,
   and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite
   bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with
   chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on
   the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient
   story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the
   admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled
   to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.
   … The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of
   Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question
   between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new
   communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian
   Ocean.
{1704}
   He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the
   northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he
   founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of
   the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,
   Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that
   river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at
   his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder
   Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he
   was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.
   "But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their
   campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead
   them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of
   necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they
   were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with
   his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a
   portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army
   marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost
   due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he
   reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the
   phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched
   through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted
   the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the
   same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the
   rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about
   the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as
   his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of
   mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander
   was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the
   news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the
   mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain
   by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately
   despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry
   on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could
   appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems
   to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.
   323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can
   scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took
   advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was
   ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians
   by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,
   and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to
   have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute
   his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of
   Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the
   Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole
   of Hindustan and the Punjab."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      Arrian,
      _Anabasis of Alexander
      (translated by Chinnock),
      books 4-6._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Alexander,
      chapters 38-43._

INDIA: B. C. 312
   Chandragupta and Asoka.
   The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

   "The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the
   era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya
   dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra
   (Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),
   extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a
   determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos
   Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about
   312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his
   kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by
   Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an
   alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman
   Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this
   circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian
   manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent
   observer who was not a native, and this narrative of
   Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which
   we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism
   existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth
   century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King
   Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in
   public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any
   rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did
   for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an
   impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.
   Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith
   of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great
   portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical
   with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of
   their history are similar. He is probably the same as King
   Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'
   or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are
   scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the
   west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.
   What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it
   arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common
   with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with
   each other, yet they are very different from each other.
   Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all
   theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.
   Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but
   rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without
   real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an
   epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one
   who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all
   existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or
   'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.
   The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a
   series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the
   universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at
   the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana
   being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being
   the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the
   Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name
   of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is
   said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi
   tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),
   at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to
   have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon
   afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of
   Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are
   equal.
{1705}
   … We have five marked features of Buddhism:

   1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

   2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

   3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

   4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity,
   and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all
   action;

   5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute
   extinction of all being.

   There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy
   of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The
   only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A
   Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on
   the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining
   Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have
   blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each
   had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted
   something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism
   was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct
   persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of
   Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares.
   Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found
   Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in
   the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's
   doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date,
   and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon
   after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In
   other parts of India there was probably a period of
   Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution;
   but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back
   into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who
   met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an
   incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the
   Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are
   probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are
   found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially
   on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it
   may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has
   disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted),
   and that it has not done so without having largely contributed
   towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the
   present day."

      _M. Williams,
      Hinduism,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),
      Buddhism._

      _H. Oldenburg,
      Buddha._

      _P. Bigandet,
      Life and Legend of Gaudama._

      _A. Lillie,
      Buddha and the Early Buddhists._

      _W. W. Rockhill,
      The Life of the Buddha._

INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
   Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

   "Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in
   uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,
   the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.
   The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;
   worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion
   that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the
   caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of
   its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became
   disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by
   land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the
   state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia
   began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the
   Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the
   Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no
   wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the
   Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the
   Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were
   spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of
   Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had
   perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.
   Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of
   Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the
   Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was
   Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and
   popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once
   ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan
   was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled
   from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.
   D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired
   his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the
   succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the
   Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as
   Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated
   Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to
   Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a
   reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,
   inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their
   idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,
   Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his
   enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at
   Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one
   hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and
   Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe
   of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the
   Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,
   but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in
   a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.
   D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.
   Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had
   lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the
   invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a
   narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers
   would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated
   Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;
   and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and
   Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he
   repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He
   was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of
   Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and
   ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his
   acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time
   been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first
   undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and
   temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the
   materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for
   the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin
   Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.
{1706}
   But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the
   difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so
   remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'
   accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.
   Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate
   Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …
   Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now
   known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul
   leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.
   The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful
   campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power
   was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern
   Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death
   of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The
   Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;
   the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a
   Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of
   these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at
   Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as
   Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named
   Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation
   of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.
   … Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became
   Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to
   obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of
   which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that
   Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later
   Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some
   of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable
   barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,
   under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

   They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and
   occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among
   the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to
   settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh
   and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the
   Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their
   capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests
   south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he
   turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was
   routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or
   was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior
   (in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus
   under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his
   tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he
   demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the
   following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed
   to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after
   a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest
   son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died
   before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,
   Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the
   Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was
   besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence
   against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm
   and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was
   a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men
   in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned
   among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who
   penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by
   Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated
   Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched
   against them and met with a partial success. This turned into
   evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was
   organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his
   uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June
   1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal
   exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of
   the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire
   in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his
   grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined
   to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern
   and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a
   girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He
   gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be
   murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at
   Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death
   (1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

      _H. G. Keene,
      Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
      book 1, chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, part 1, chapter 2._

      _A. Dow,
      History of Hindustan
      (from the Persian of Ferishta),
      volume 1._

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.
   From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

   "In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
   assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
   the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
   made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
   Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
   acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
   was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
   conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
   Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
   troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
   enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
   turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
   Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
   to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
   Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
   and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
   Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
   and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
   invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
   off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
   raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
   followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
   been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
   had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
   Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
   revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
   The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
   character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
   and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
   Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
   themselves on Korans.
{1707}
   The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
   end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
   of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
   throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
   The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
   regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
   Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
   Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
   is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
   the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
   in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
   history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
   blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
   his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
   which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
   Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
   to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
   was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
   Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
   only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
   rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
   separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
   Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
   army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
   of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
   him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
   history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
   Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
   He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
   empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
   subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
   temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
   Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
   Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
   TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
   they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
   may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
   Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
   to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
   1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
   fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
   At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
   invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Elphinstone,
      History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
      book 6. chapters 2-3._

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.
   Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

      See TIMOUR.

[Image: Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century,
and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.]

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
   The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
   The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

   "The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority
   already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for
   twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan
   Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family
   which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in
   history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern
   India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a
   powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to
   endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The
   Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the
   rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed
   provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,
   in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by
   the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles
   of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.
   Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to
   the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …
   Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by
   Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each
   had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as
   far eastward as the country immediately to the north of
   Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded
   on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole
   authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar
   Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he
   subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,
   and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of
   Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated
   under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;
   the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part
   of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,
   the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of
   Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in
   calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant
   of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which
   he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had
   made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),
   establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the
   Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in
   1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second
   invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth
   occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth
   expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great
   battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the
   24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of
   Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra
   were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of
   Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of
   Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal
   (synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great
   Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in
   1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in
   the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,
   Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond
   of union or of common interest, except that which had been
   concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal
   dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,
   had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Akbar,
      chapters 4-5._

{1708}

   Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul
   and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.
   Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and
   at the same time was deprived of the country from which his
   father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early
   Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new
   Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the
   Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of
   India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of
   Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his
   famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).
   Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the
   rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,
   under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the
   Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.
   Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his
   thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate
   battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the
   Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and
   Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again
   for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the
   Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for
   two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.
   … His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to
   1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own
   Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a
   small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the
   Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a
   reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty
   kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,
   in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by
   Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan
   population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced
   these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many
   of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their
   independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence
   upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by
   force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the
   Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the
   support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,
   and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against
   the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan
   faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal
   Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar
   subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious
   annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not
   only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,
   he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into
   Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or
   viceroy, with full civil and military control."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 10._

   "I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did
   for the improvement of the country and the people of
   Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or
   rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir
   Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of
   land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,
   by dividing it into three classes, according to the
   productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third
   of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be
   paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in
   money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,
   and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding
   years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate
   was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to
   pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the
   collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well
   calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,
   they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has
   been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no
   principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to
   the rural population, by opening paths by which it might
   spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions
   within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were
   liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly
   administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal
   punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,
   except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were
   considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well
   organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he
   suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery
   prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the
   burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and
   uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical
   lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was
   derived rather from the personal character of the man than
   from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not
   to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be
   computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to
   be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of
   what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under
   the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up
   the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to
   perfect its internal economy."

      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Company,
      part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN: 3
      _W. Erskine,
      History of India under Baber and Humayun._

      _A. Dow,
      History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
      volume 2._

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
   Portuguese trade and settlements.

   In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached
   Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first
   European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape
   of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a
   hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next
   voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the
   following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to
   establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor'
   (or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This
   factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives,
   chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted
   in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory.
   Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received
   with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the
   country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin
   and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar
   pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native
   allies, had to fight desperately for their safety.
{1709}
   They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504
   large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded
   Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and
   fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India
   generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly
   set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to
   maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of
   Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined
   these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their
   ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from
   Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place,
   and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort
   Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for
   a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval
   victory which once and for all firmly established the
   Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's
   rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession
   of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian
   dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands,
   together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city
   of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The
   next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty
   in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists
   practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe,
   from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years
   after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was
   virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any
   rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at
   the climax of their power in the east. The way in which
   Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of
   the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very
   often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers
   in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of
   course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as
   direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but
   even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate
   commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e.,
   China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was
   reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a
   great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that
   the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The
   merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon,
   bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This
   voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the
   imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of
   accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by
   the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made
   by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese
   merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade
   with other European countries in the goods they had brought
   back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch,
   English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The
   colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly
   acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether
   hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys
   and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their
   whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and
   defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions,
   hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east
   had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal
   was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The
   Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and
   engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only
   of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese
   fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very
   eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept
   to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations
   remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

      _H. de B. Gibbins,
      History of Commerce in Europe,
      book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. McMurdo,
      History of Portugal,
      volume 3, books 2-5._

      _Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque
      (Hakluyt Society Publications)._

      _E. Grey,
      Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle
      (Hakluyt Society Publications)._

      _H. M. Stephens,
      Albuquerque._

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
   Beginnings of English trade.
   The chartering of the English East India Company.
   Its early footholds in Hindostan.
   The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
   The three Presidencies.

   "For some time it appears to have been thought by other
   European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round
   Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its
   navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal
   by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed
   establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands,
   aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an
   Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum
   was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a
   petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen
   Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh
   entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the
   boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed
   at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the
   title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London
   trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained
   the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the
   monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the
   direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in
   Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of
   the new Company was not only renewed but rendered
   perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any
   national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these
   exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease
   and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the
   new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of
   four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in
   bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin,
   cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of
   smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint
   Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in
   bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their
   capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100
   per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the
   decline of every other branch of trade and industry.
{1710}
   But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a
   new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges
   but vested in them authority, through their agents in India,
   to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being
   Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as
   prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well
   be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this
   last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period
   of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that
   of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its
   object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and
   supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said
   that the competition of these two Companies with the private
   traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An
   Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to
   their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings
   till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great
   Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and
   separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India
   for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were
   fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the
   grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth
   of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were
   fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal
   sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims
   were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam,
   from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best
   part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants
   were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at
   Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did
   these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the
   Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and
   that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the
   'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and
   confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and
   nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final
   result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam
   and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer
   settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into
   importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a
   Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining
   the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they
   proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. …
   In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About
   twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to
   Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay
   were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's
   dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to
   evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was
   not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was
   compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to
   cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to
   the East India Company, and became one of their principal
   stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and
   richness of that province, a proverb was already current among
   the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and
   not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the
   English had established their factories at or near the town of
   Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the
   Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of
   some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul
   junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found
   it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down
   the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty
   hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of
   India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of
   these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total
   expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he
   was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders,
   and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this
   commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have
   resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new
   station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul,
   on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it
   stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its
   defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter
   there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of
   Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the
   same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast
   of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by
   purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened
   with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras
   for its government. Thus then before the accession of the
   House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William,
   Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into
   Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as
   at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each
   independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and
   a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of
   Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications,
   and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly
   native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were
   either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters
   from other services in India. Among these the descendants of
   the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called
   Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of
   turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were
   known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian
   word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English
   scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope);
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 39 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 1 (volume 1)._

      _P. Anderson,
      The English in Western India,
      chapters 1-10._

      _H. Stevens, editor.,
      Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:
      Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603._

      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Company,
      chapters 3-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620.
   Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

{1711}

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
   Jahangir and Nur Mahal.
   Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.
   Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

   "Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year
   of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of
   Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he
   reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne,
   he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father
   gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the
   throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and
   took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her,
   and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She
   was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur
   Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in
   1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe,
   arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere,
   where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made
   him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful
   English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He
   received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him
   marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a
   firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The
   later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family
   intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent
   part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her
   son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest
   living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into
   retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house
   of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of
   the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects
   the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan
   dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the
   Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and
   successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to
   perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other
   emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he
   erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. …
   This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his
   favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which
   name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption],
   'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had
   attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th),
   he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his
   debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a
   civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the
   throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja,
   Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict
   Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of
   the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the
   last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped
   to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor,
   who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra,
   with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be
   proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah
   Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial
   reconciliation took place between him and his son, who,
   however, did not release him from his confinement."

      _J. Samuelson,
      India, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, chapters 5-7._

      Sir T. Roe,
      Journal of Embassy
      (Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

      _M. Elphinstone,
      History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
      book 10._

INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
   The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas.
   The Mahratta empire.
   Invasion of Nadir Shah.
   Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

   "Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in
   destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year
   1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to
   attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing
   more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of
   the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of
   Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body
   only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the
   lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the
   constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the
   head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of
   them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a
   conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur
   to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this
   vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture
   of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the
   standard of revolt against that government, introduced a
   spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and
   may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In
   1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul
   territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a
   regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough
   to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle.
   This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul
   empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the
   chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted
   by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to
   madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in
   the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on
   infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of
   his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at
   length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the
   Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western
   portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and
   continued in a state of hostility more or less active during
   the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the
   Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and
   Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of
   regular government from that distracted portion of the
   country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the
   adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died,
   and successors of less talent filled the throne of the
   robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the
   progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the
   natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its
   military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat.
   Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns;
   … and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old
   age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th
   of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the
   next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than
   five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being
   distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident
   indications of the gradual decline of the empire.
{1712}
   During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo
   dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation
   of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into
   warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union
   into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706
   the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for
   their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in
   1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely
   consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so
   celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of
   the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of
   Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia,
   which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more
   remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose
   descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the
   title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad]
   of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by
   internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the
   Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had
   taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon
   the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing
   Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of
   conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and
   Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into
   Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of
   Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. …
   The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where
   Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the
   populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants
   to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000
   to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his
   invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the
   inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were
   suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned
   to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the
   country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and
   plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of
   great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne
   of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with
   diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being
   spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

      _Tavernier's Travels,
      translated and edited by V. Ball,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in
   1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which
   might be expected."

      _Leitch Ritchie,
      History of the Indian Empire,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the
   Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more
   than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which
   the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging
   to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he
   founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The
   Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province]
   erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the
   decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and
   quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the
   royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial
   Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still
   bears."

      _H. G. Keene,
      Madhava Rao Sindhia,
      chapter 1._

   "The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own
   natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among
   revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent
   tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of
   mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless
   multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and
   clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed
   likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the
   assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able
   to discharge the most elementary functions of government in
   the preservation of life and property. In short, the people
   were scattered without a leader or protector; while the
   political system under which they had long lived was
   disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this
   period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English
   first appeared upon the political arena in India."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Rise of the British Dominion in India,
      chapter 4, sections 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Aurangzib,
      chapters 9-12._

      _A. Dow,
      History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
      volume 3._

      _J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1._

      _C. R. Markham,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 12._

INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
   Commercial undertakings of the French.
   Their settlement at Pondicherry.

   "Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French]
   earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company,
   chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which
   there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were
   two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601.
   These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and
   their commander did not return to France for ten years.
   Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of
   which the most that can be said is that they met with no great
   disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and
   Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely
   failed. The first operations of the French East India Company
   were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large
   commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for
   the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the
   officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the
   company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a
   colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was
   frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the
   French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the
   Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought
   refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had
   purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693,
   Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the
   fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace
   of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the
   French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect
   common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and
   discretion of its governors than to the home government. M.
   Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from
   ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of
   money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King
   of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also
   procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the
   other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      part 3, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the French in India,
      chapters 1-3._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

{1713}

INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
   Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan.
   Clive against Dupleix.
   The founding of British empire.

   "England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as
   also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to
   realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken
   out [1743] between France and England.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

   Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East
   India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in
   the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably
   repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton,
   the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate,
   after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral,
   Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving
   Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements,
   defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that
   series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every
   discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent
   mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India
   for more than the next half century, only to meet on their
   return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais,
   who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of
   Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined
   a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he
   entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile
   broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the
   city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to
   surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were
   placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a
   moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he
   denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded
   the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through
   Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter
   place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains
   came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and
   stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of
   Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost
   several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9).
   News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a
   very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being
   restored, with fortifications much improved. The English
   fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to
   their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of
   interfering in the internal politics of the country.
   Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined
   the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the
   so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take
   Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the
   first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the
   natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a
   valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had
   appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the
   East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton,
   born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a
   naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had
   been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had
   twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras,
   disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the
   capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one,
   and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major
   Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

      _J. M. Ludlow,
      British India,
      lecture 7._

   "Clive and others who escaped [from Madras] betook themselves
   to Fort St. David's—a small English settlement a few miles
   south of Pondicherry. There Clive prepared himself for the
   military vocation for which nature had clearly destined him.
   … At Fort St. David's the English intrigued with the native
   chiefs, much as the French had done, and not more creditably.
   They took sides, and changed sides, in the disputes of rival
   claimants to the province of Tanjore, under the inducement of
   the possession of Devi-cottah, a coast station at the mouth of
   the Coleroon. There was no great honour in the results, any
   more than in the conception, of this first little war. We
   obtained Devi-cottah; but we did not improve our reputation
   for good faith, nor lessen the distance between the French and
   ourselves in military prestige. But Dupleix was meantime
   providing the opportunity for Clive to determine whether the
   Deccan should be under French or English influence. … The
   greatest of the southern princes, the Nizam al Mulk, Viceroy
   of the Deccan, died in 1748; and rivals rose up, as usual, to
   claim both his throne and the richest province under his
   rule—the Carnatic. The pretenders on one side applied to the
   French for assistance, and obtained reinforcements to the
   extent of 400 French soldiers and 2,000 trained sepoys. This
   aid secured victory; the opposing prince was slain; and his
   son, the well-known Mohammed Ali, 'the Nabob of Arcot' of the
   last century, took refuge, with a few remaining troops, at
   Trichinopoly. In a little while, the French seemed to be
   supreme throughout the country. Dupleix was deferred to as the
   arbiter of the destinies of the native princes, while he was
   actually declared Governor of India, from the Kistna to Cape
   Comorin—a region as large as France, inhabited by 30,000,000
   of people, and defended by a force so large that the cavalry
   alone amounted to 7,000 under the command of Dupleix. In the
   midst of this dominion, the English looked like a handful of
   dispirited and helpless settlers, awaiting the disposal of the
   haughty Frenchman. Their native ally had lost everything but
   Trichinopoly; and Trichinopoly itself was now besieged by the
   Nabob of the Carnatic and his French supporters. Dupleix was
   greater than even the Mogul sovereign; he had erected a column
   in his own honour, displaying on its four sides inscriptions
   in four languages, proclaiming his glory as the first man of
   the East; and a town had sprung up round this column, called
   his City of Victory. To the fatalistic mind of the native
   races it seemed a settled matter that the French rule was
   supreme, and that the English must perish out of the land.
   Major Lawrence had gone home; and the small force of the
   English had no commander. Clive was as yet only a commissary,
   with the rank of captain, and regarded more as a civilian than
   a soldier.
{1714}
   He was only five-and-twenty. His superiors were in extreme
   alarm, foreseeing that when Trichinopoly was taken, the next
   step would be the destruction of Madras. Nothing could make
   their position worse; and they caught at every chance of
   making it better. Clive offered to attack Arcot, the capital
   of the Carnatic, in the hope that this would draw away the
   besiegers from Trichinopoly; and the offer was accepted. The
   force consisted of 200 British and 300 native soldiers,
   commanded, under Clive, by four factors and four military men,
   only two of whom had ever been in action. Everything was
   against them, from numbers and repute to the weather; but
   Clive took Arcot [September 11, 1751], and (what was much more
   difficult) kept it. The garrison had fled in a panic; but it
   was invested by 10,000 men before the British had repaired
   half its dilapidations and deficiencies, or recruited their
   numbers, now reduced to 320 men in all, commanded by four
   officers. For fifty days, amidst fatigue, hunger, and a
   hundred pressing dangers, the little band sustained the siege.
   … A series of victories followed, and men and opinion came
   round to the side of the victors. There was no energy at
   headquarters to sustain Clive in his career. … In his
   absence, the enemy appeared again before Fort George, and did
   much damage; but Clive came up, and 100 of the French soldiers
   were killed or taken. He uprooted Dupleix's boasting monument,
   and levelled the city to the ground, thereby reversing the
   native impression of the respective destinies of the French
   and English. Major Lawrence returned. Dupleix's military
   incapacity was proved, and his personal courage found wanting
   as soon as fortune deserted him. Trichinopoly was relieved,
   and the besiegers were beaten, and their candidate prince put
   to death. Dupleix struggled in desperation for some time
   longer before he gave up the contest; and Clive had his
   difficulties in completing the dislodgement of the French. …
   He did it; but nearly at the sacrifice of his life. When the
   British supremacy in the Deccan was completely established, he
   returned [1752] in bad health to England. … He left behind
   him Dupleix, for whom a summons home in disgrace was on the
   way."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of British Rule in India,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the French in India,
      chapters 3-6._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Founders of the Indian Empire: Lord Clive,
      chapters 1-6._

      _Colonel Sir C. Wilson,
      Lord Clive,
      chapters 2-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
   The Duranee power in Afghanistan.
   Conflict of the Afghans and the Mahrattas.
   Great defeat of the latter at Panniput.
   Fall of the shattered Moghul empire.
   The state of things which invited British conquest.

   On the death of Nadir Shah, who was murdered in 1747, his
   Afghan kingdom was acquired by a native chief, Ahmed Abdalee,
   who, first a prisoner and a slave to Nadir Shah, had become
   one of the trusted officers of his court and army. "Ahmed
   Abdalee had acquired so great an ascendency among the troops
   that upon this event [the death of Nadir Shah] several
   commanders and their followers joined his standard; and he
   drew off toward his own country. He fell in with and seized a
   convoy of treasure, which was proceeding to the camp. This
   enabled him to engage in his pay a still larger body of his
   countrymen. He proclaimed himself king of the Afghauns; and
   took the title of Doordowran, or pearl of the age, which being
   corrupted into Dooranee,[or Duranee], gave one of their names
   to himself and his Abdallees. He marched towards Candahar
   which submitted to his arms; and next proceeded to Cabul …
   and this province also fell into the hands of the Afghaun."
   Lahore was next added to his dominions, and he then, in 1747,
   invaded India, intent upon the capture of Delhi; but met with
   sufficient resistance to discourage his undertaking, and fell
   back to Cabul. In 1748, and again in 1749, he passed the
   Indus, and made himself master of the Punjab. In 1755-6 he
   marched to Delhi, which opened its gates to him and received
   him, pretendedly as a guest, but really as a master. A plague
   breaking out in his army caused him to return to his own
   country. He "left his son Governor of Lahore and Multan;
   disordered by revolutions, wasted and turbulent. A chief …
   incited the Seiks [Sikhs] to join him in molesting the
   Dooranees; and they gained several important advantages over
   their principal commanders. They invited the Mahratta
   generals, Ragonaut Raow, Shumsheer Bahadur, and Holkar, who
   had advanced into the neighbourhood of Delhi, to join them in
   driving the Abdalees from Lahore. No occupation could be more
   agreeable to the Mahrattas. After taking Sirhind, they
   advanced to Lahore, where the Abdalee Prince made but a feeble
   resistance and fled. This event put them in possession of both
   Multan and Lahore. … The whole Indian continent appeared now
   about to be swallowed up by the Mahrattas. … Ahmed Shah [the
   Abdalee, or Dooranee] was not only roused by the loss of his
   two provinces, and the disgrace imprinted on his arms, but he
   was invited by the chiefs and people of Hindustan, groaning
   under the depredations of the Mahrattas, to march to their
   succour and become their King. … For some days the Dooranees
   hovered round the Mahratta camp; when the Mahrattas, who were
   distressed for provisions, came out and offered battle. Their
   army, consisting of 80,000 veteran cavalry, was almost wholly
   destroyed; and Duttah Sindia, their General, was among the
   slain. A detachment of horse sent against another body of
   Mahrattas, who were marauding under Holkar in the
   neighbourhood of Secundra, surprised them so completely that
   Holkar fled naked, with a handful of followers, and the rest,
   with the exception of a few prisoners and fugitives, were all
   put to the sword. During the rainy season, while the Dooranee
   Shah was quartered at Secundra, the news of this disaster and
   disgrace excited the Mahrattas to the greatest exertions. A
   vast army was collected, and … the Mahrattas marched to
   gratify the resentments, and fulfil the unbounded hopes of the
   nation. … They arrived at the Jumna before it was
   sufficiently fallen to permit either the Mahrattas on the
   other side, or the Dooranees, to cross. In the meantime they
   marched to Delhi, of which after some resistance they took
   possession; plundered it with their usual rapacity, tearing
   away even the gold and silver ornaments of the palace;
   proclaimed Sultan Jewan Bukht, the son of Alee Gohur [or Shah
   Alum, absent son of the late nominal Emperor at Delhi,
   Alumgeer II., who had recently been put to death by his own
   vizir], Emperor; and named Sujah ad Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, his
   Vizir.
{1715}
   Impatient at intelligence of these and some other
   transactions, Ahmed Shah swam the Jumna, still deemed
   impassable, with his whole army. This daring adventure, and
   the remembrance of the late disaster, shook the courage of the
   Mahrattas; and they entrenched their camp on a plain near
   Panniput. The Dooranee, having surrounded their position with
   parties of troops, to prevent the passage of supplies,
   contented himself for some days with skirmishing. At last he
   tried an assault; when the Rohilla infantry … forced their
   way into the Mahratta works, and Bulwant Raow with other
   chiefs was killed; but night put an end to the conflict.
   Meanwhile scarcity prevailed and filth accumulated in the
   Mahratta camp. The vigilance of Ahmed intercepted their
   convoys. In a little time famine and pestilence "raged. A
   battle became the only resource [January 7, 1761]. The Abdalee
   restrained his troops till the Mahrattas had advanced a
   considerable way from their works; when he rushed upon them
   with so much rapidity as left them hardly any time for using
   their cannon. The Bhaow was killed early in the action;
   confusion soon pervaded the army, and a dreadful carnage
   ensued. The field was floated with blood. Twenty-two thousand
   men and women were taken prisoners. Of those who escaped from
   the field of battle, the greater part were butchered by the
   people of the country, who had suffered from their
   depredations. Of an army of 140,000 horse, commanded by the
   most celebrated generals of the nation, only three chiefs of
   any rank, and a mere residue of the troops, found their way to
   Deccan. The Dooranee Shah made but little use of this mighty
   victory. After remaining a few months at Delhi, he recognized
   Alee Gohur as Emperor, by the title of Shah Aulum II.; and
   entrusting Nujeeb ad Dowlah with the superintendence of
   affairs, till his master should return from Bengal, he marched
   back to his capital of Cabul in the end of the year 1760
   [1761]. With Aulum-geer II. the empire of the Moguls may be
   justly considered as having arrived at its close. The unhappy
   Prince who now received the name of Emperor, and who, after a
   life of misery and disaster, ended his days a pensioner of
   English merchants, never possessed a sufficient degree of
   power to consider himself for one moment as master of the
   throne."

      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   "The words 'wonderful,' 'strange,' are often applied to great
   historical events, and there is no event to which they have
   been applied more freely than to our [the English] conquest of
   India. … But the event was not wonderful in a sense that it
   is difficult to discover adequate causes by which it could
   have been produced. If we begin by remarking that authority in
   India had fallen on the ground through the decay of the Mogul
   Empire, that it lay there waiting to be picked up by somebody,
   and that all over India in that period adventurers of one kind
   or another were founding Empires, it is really not surprising
   that a mercantile corporation which had money to pay a
   mercenary force should be able to compete with other
   adventurers, nor yet that it should outstrip all its
   competitors by bringing into the field English military
   science and generalship, especially when it was backed over
   and over again by the whole power and credit of England and
   directed by English statesmen. … England did not in the
   strict sense conquer India, but … certain Englishmen, who
   happened to reside in India at the time when the Mogul Empire
   fell, had a fortune like that of Hyder Ali or Runjeet Singh
   and rose to supreme power there."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      The Expansion of England,
      course 2, lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 2, chapters 2-5._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of Afghanistan,
      chapter 8._

      _H. G. Keene,
      Madhava Rao Sindhia,
      chapter 2._

INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.
   Capture of Calcutta by Surajah Dowlah.
   The tragedy of the Black Hole.
   Clive's recovery of the Fort and settlement.

   Clive remained three years in England, where he sought an
   election to Parliament, as a supporter of Fox, but was
   unseated by the Tories. On suffering this disappointment, he
   re-entered the service of the East India Company, as governor
   of Fort St. David, with the commission of a lieutenant-colonel
   in the British army, received from the king, and returned to
   India in 1755. Soon after his arrival at Fort St. David, "he
   received intelligence which called forth all the energy of his
   bold and active mind. Of the provinces which had been subject
   to the house of Tamerlane, the wealthiest was Bengal. No part
   of India possessed such natural advantages both for
   agriculture and for commerce. … The great commercial
   companies of Europe had long possessed factories in Bengal.
   The French were settled, as they still are, at Chandernagore
   on the Hoogley. Higher up the stream the Dutch traders held
   Chinsurah. Nearer to the sea, the English had built Fort
   William. A church and ample warehouses rose in the vicinity. A
   row of spacious houses, belonging to the chief factors of the
   East India Company, lined the banks of the river; and in the
   neighbourhood had sprung up a large and busy native town,
   where some Hindoo merchants of great opulence had fixed their
   abode. But the tract now covered by the palaces of Chowringhee
   contained only a few miserable huts thatched with straw. A
   jungle, abandoned to water-fowl and alligators, covered the
   site of the present Citadel, and the Course, which is now
   daily crowded at sunset with the gayest equipages of Calcutta.
   For the ground on which the settlement stood, the English,
   like other great landholders, paid rent to the government; and
   they were, like other great landholders, permitted to exercise
   a certain jurisdiction within their domain. The great province
   of Bengal, together with Orissa and Bahar, had long been
   governed by a viceroy, whom the English called Aliverdy Khan,
   and who, like the other viceroys of the Mogul, had become
   virtually independent. He died in 1756, and the sovereignty
   descended to his grandson, a youth under twenty years of age,
   who bore the name of Surajah Dowlah. … From a child Surajah
   Dowlah had hated the English. It was his whim to do so; and
   his whims were never opposed. He had also formed a very
   exaggerated notion of the wealth which might be obtained by
   plundering them; and his feeble and uncultivated mind was
   incapable of perceiving that the riches of Calcutta, had they
   been even greater than he imagined, would not compensate him
   for what he must lose, if the European trade, of which Bengal
   was a chief seat, should be driven by his violence to some
   other Quarter. Pretexts for a quarrel were readily found.
{1716}
   The English, in expectation of a war with France, had begun to
   fortify their settlement without special permission from the
   Nabob. A rich native, whom he longed to plunder, had taken
   refuge at Calcutta, and had not been delivered up. On such
   grounds as these Surajah Dowlah marched with a great army
   against Fort William. The servants of the Company at Madras
   had been forced by Dupleix to become statesmen and soldiers.
   Those in Bengal were still mere traders, and were terrified
   and bewildered by the approaching danger. … The fort was
   taken [June 20, 1756] after a feeble resistance; and great
   numbers of the English fell into the hands of the conquerors.
   The Nabob seated himself with regal pomp in the principal hall
   of the factory, and ordered Mr. Holwell, the first in rank
   among the prisoners, to be brought before him. His Highness
   talked about the insolence of the English, and grumbled at the
   smallness of the treasure which he had found; but promised to
   spare their lives, and retired to rest. Then was committed
   that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity,
   memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was
   followed. The English captives were left at the mercy of the
   guards, and the guards determined to secure them for the night
   in the prison of the garrison, a chamber known by the fearful
   name of the Black Hole. Even for a single European malefactor,
   that dungeon would, in such a climate, have been too close and
   narrow. The space was only twenty feet square. The air-holes
   were small and obstructed. It was the summer solstice, the
   season when the fierce heat of Bengal can scarcely be rendered
   tolerable to natives of England by lofty halls and by the
   constant waving of fans. The number of the prisoners was 146.
   When they were ordered to enter the cell, they imagined that
   the soldiers were joking; and, being in high spirits on
   account of the promise of the Nabob to spare their lives, they
   laughed and jested at the absurdity of the notion. They soon
   discovered their mistake. They expostulated; they entreated;
   but in vain. The guards threatened to cut down all who
   hesitated. The captives were driven into the cell at the point
   of the sword, and the door was instantly shut and locked upon
   them. Nothing in history or fiction, not even the story which
   Ugolino told in the sea of everlasting ice, after he had wiped
   his bloody lips on the scalp of his murderer, approaches the
   horrors which were recounted by the few survivors of that
   night. They cried for mercy. They strove to burst the door.
   Holwell who, even in that extremity, retained some presence of
   mind, offered large bribes to the gaolers. But the answer was
   that nothing could be done without the Nabob's orders, that
   the Nabob was asleep, and that he would be angry if anybody
   woke him. Then the prisoners went mad with despair. They
   trampled each other down, fought for the places at the
   windows, fought for the pittance of water with which the cruel
   mercy of the murderers mocked their agonies, raved, prayed,
   blasphemed, implored the guards to fire among them. The
   gaolers in the mean time held lights to the bars, and shouted
   with laughter at the frantic struggles of their victims. At
   length the tumult died away in low gaspings and moanings. The
   day broke. The Nabob had slept off his debauch, and permitted
   the door to be opened. But it was some time before the
   soldiers could make a lane for the survivors, by piling up on
   each side the heaps of corpses on which the burning climate
   had already begun to do its loathsome work. When at length a
   passage was made, twenty-three ghastly figures, such as their
   own mothers would not have known, staggered one by one out of
   the charnel-house. A pit was instantly dug. The dead bodies,
   123 in number, were flung into it promiscuously and covered
   up. … One Englishwoman had survived that night. She was
   placed in the harem of the Prince at Moorshedabad. Surajah
   Dowlah, in the mean time, sent letters to his nominal
   sovereign at Delhi, describing the late conquest in the most
   pompous language. He placed a garrison in Fort William,
   forbade Englishmen to dwell in the neighbourhood, and directed
   that, in memory of his great actions, Calcutta should
   thenceforward be called Alinagore, that is to say, the Port of
   God. In August the news of the fall of Calcutta reached
   Madras, and excited the fiercest and bitterest resentment. The
   cry of the whole settlement was for vengeance. Within
   forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence it was
   determined that an expedition should be sent to the Hoogley,
   and that Clive should be at the head of the land forces. The
   naval armament was under the command of Admiral Watson. Nine
   hundred English infantry, fine troops and full of spirit, and
   1,500 sepoys, composed the army which sailed to punish a
   Prince who had more subjects than Lewis XV. or the Empress
   Maria Theresa. In October the expedition sailed; but it had to
   make its way against adverse winds, and did not reach Bengal
   till December. The Nabob was revelling in fancied security at
   Moorshedabad. He was so profoundly ignorant of the state of
   foreign countries that he often used to say that there were
   not ten thousand men in all Europe; and it had never occurred
   to him as possible, that the English would dare to invade his
   dominions. But, though undisturbed by any fear of their
   military power, he began to miss them greatly. His revenues
   fell off. … He was already disposed to permit the company to
   resume its mercantile operations in his country, when he
   received the news that an English armament was in the Hoogley.
   He instantly ordered all his troops to assemble at
   Moorshedabad, and marched towards Calcutta. Clive had
   commenced operations with his usual vigour. He took
   Budgebudge, routed the garrison of Fort William, recovered
   Calcutta, stormed and sacked Hoogley. The Nabob, already
   disposed to make some concessions to the English, was
   confirmed in his pacific disposition by these proofs of their
   power and spirit. He accordingly made overtures to the chiefs
   of the invading armament, and offered to restore the factory,
   and to give compensation to those whom he had despoiled.
   Clive's profession, was war; and he felt that there was
   something discreditable in an accommodation with Surajah
   Dowlah. But his power was limited. … The promises of the
   Nabob were large, the chances of a contest doubtful; and Clive
   consented to treat, though he expressed his regret that things
   should not be concluded in so glorious a manner as he could
   have wished. With this negotiation commences a new chapter in
   the life of Clive. Hitherto he had been merely a soldier
   carrying into effect, with eminent ability and valour, the
   plans of others. Henceforth he is to be chiefly regarded as a
   statesman; and his military movements are to be considered as
   subordinate to his political designs."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Lord Clive (Essays)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      Life of Lord Clive,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

      _H. E. Busteed,
      Echoes from Old Calcutta,
      chapter 1._

{1717}

INDIA: A. D. 1757.
   A Treacherous conspiracy against Surajah Dowlah.
   His overthrow at the battle of Plassey.
   The counterfeit Treaty with Omichund.
   Elevation of Meer Jaffier to the Subahdar's throne.

   The unsatisfactory treaty entered into with Surajah Dowlah had
   been pressed upon Clive by the Calcutta merchants, who
   "thought the alliance would enable them to get rid of the
   rival French station at Chandernagore. The Subahdar gave a
   doubtful answer to their proposal to attack this settlement,
   which Clive interpreted as an assent. The French were
   overpowered, and surrendered their fort. Surajah Dowlah was
   now indignant against his recent allies; and sought the
   friendship of the French officers. Clive, called by the
   natives 'the daring in war,' was also the most adroit,
   and,—for the truth cannot be disguised,—the most
   unscrupulous in policy. The English resident at the Court of
   Moorshedabad, under Clive's instructions, encouraged a
   conspiracy to depose the Subahdar, and to raise his general,
   Meer Jaffier, to the supreme power. A Hindoo of great wealth
   and influence, Omichund, engaged in this conspiracy. After it
   had proceeded so far as to become the subject of a treaty
   between a Select Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier,
   Omichund demanded that a condition should be inserted in that
   treaty, to pay him thirty lacs of rupees as a reward for his
   service. The merchants at Calcutta desired the largest share
   of any donation from Meer Jaffier, as a consideration for
   themselves, and were by no means willing that £300,000 should
   go to a crafty Hindoo. Clive suggested an expedient to secure
   Omichund's fidelity, and yet not to comply with his
   demands—to have two treaties drawn; a real one on red paper,
   a fictitious one on white. The white treaty was to be shown to
   Omichund, and he was to see with his own eyes that he had been
   properly cared for. Clive and the Committee signed this; as
   well as the red treaty which was to go to Meer Jaffier.
   Admiral Watson refused to sign the treacherous document. On
   the 19th of May, 1773, Clive stood up in his place in the
   House of Commons, to defend himself upon this charge against
   him, amongst other accusations. He boldly acknowledged that
   the stratagem of the two treaties was his invention;—that
   admiral Watson did not sign it; but that he should have
   thought himself authorised to sign for him in consequence of a
   conversation; that the person who did sign thought he had
   sufficient authority for so doing. 'He (Clive) forged admiral
   Watson's name, says lord Macaulay. … The courage, the
   perseverance, the unconquerable energy of Clive have furnished
   examples to many in India who have emulated his true glory.
   Thank God, the innate integrity of the British character has,
   for the most part, preserved us from such exhibitions of 'true
   policy and justice.' The English resident, Mr. Watts, left
   Moorshedabad. Clive wrote a letter of defiance to Surajah
   Dowlah, and marched towards his capital. The Subahdar had come
   forth from his city, as populous as the London of a century
   ago, to annihilate the paltry army of 1,000 English, and their
   2,000 Sepoys disciplined by English officers, who dared to
   encounter his 60,000. He reached the village of Plassey with
   all the panoply of oriental warfare. His artillery alone
   appeared sufficient to sweep away those who brought only eight
   field pieces and two howitzers to meet his fifty heavy guns.
   Each gun was drawn by forty yoke of oxen; and a trained
   elephant was behind each gun to urge it over rough ground or
   up steep ascents. Meer Jaffier had not performed his promise
   to join the English with a division of the Subahdar's army. It
   was a time of terrible anxiety with the English commander.
   Should he venture to give battle without the aid of a native
   force? He submitted his doubt to a Council of War. Twelve
   officers, himself amongst the number, voted for delay. Seven
   voted for instant action. Clive reviewed the arguments on each
   side, and finally cast away his doubts. He determined to
   fight, without which departure from the opinion of the
   majority, he afterwards said, the English would never have
   been masters of Bengal. On the 22nd of June [1757], his little
   army marched fifteen miles, passed the Hooghly, and at one
   o'clock of the morning of the 23rd rested under the
   mangoe-trees of Plassey. As the day broke, the vast legions of
   the Subahdar,—15,000 cavalry, 45,000 infantry,—some armed
   with muskets, some with bows and arrows, began to surround the
   mangoe-grove and the hunting-lodge where Clive had watched
   through the night. There was a cannonade for several hours.
   The great guns of Surajah Dowlah did little execution. The
   small field-pieces of Clive were well served. One of the chief
   Mohammedan leaders having fallen, disorder ensued, and the
   Subahdar was advised to retreat. He himself fled upon a swift
   camel to Moorshedabad. When the British forces began to
   pursue, the victory became complete. Meer Jaffier joined the
   conquerors the next day. Surajah Dowlah did not consider
   himself safe in his capital; and he preferred to seek the
   protection of a French detachment at Patna. He escaped from
   his palace disguised; ascended the Ganges in a small boat; and
   fancied himself secure. A peasant whose ears he had cut off
   recognised his oppressor, and with some soldiers brought him
   back to Moorshedabad. In his presence-chamber now sat Meer
   Jaffier, to whose knees the wretched youth crawled for mercy.
   That night Surajah Dowlah was murdered in his prison, by the
   orders of Meer Jaffier's son, a boy as blood-thirsty as
   himself."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 6, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Founders of the Indian Empire: Clive,
      chapters 8-10._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Lord Clive (Rulers of India)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 3._

      _E. Thornton,
      History of British Empire in India,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
   Clive's Administration in Bengal.
   Decisive war with the Moghul Emperor and the Nawab of Oudh.
   English Supremacy established.

   "The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an
   anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was
   at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the
   beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate
   results of the victory were comparatively small, and several
   years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would
   admit the superiority of the British arms.
{1718}
   For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive,
   again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon
   the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a
   patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums
   were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. …
   At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the
   zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of
   country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the
   Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square
   miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari
   rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents,
   with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D.
   1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the
   land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was
   granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the
   Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his
   own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the
   property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in
   1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a
   new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to
   Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the
   Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the
   Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's
   settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On
   the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as
   the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and
   Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was
   advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the
   south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was
   overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive
   exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was
   anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested
   Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army
   of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army
   dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive
   despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which
   recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently
   established British influence throughout the Northern Circars,
   and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch,
   the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to
   the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and
   their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on
   sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had
   left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the
   tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from
   the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was
   found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the
   English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his
   son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides
   private donations, the English received a grant of the three
   Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to
   yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim
   soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of
   independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority
   was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at
   Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr.
   Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of
   Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the
   controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired
   upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms
   [1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at
   Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various
   parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans,
   were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir
   Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were
   defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and
   at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir
   of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a
   prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his
   father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of
   Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the
   English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in
   the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This
   was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who
   ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old
   Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive
   battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the
   conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to
   the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice
   found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of
   Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of
   Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as
   Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand
   out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although
   not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a
   grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify
   the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and
   guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither
   respect were his plans carried out by his immediate
   successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from
   this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy
   had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced
   rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in
   person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back
   to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million
   sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of
   Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were
   handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to
   the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal,
   Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of
   the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at
   Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of
   £600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the
   Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual
   system of government, by which the English received all the
   revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the
   criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In
   Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was
   nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained
   for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord
   Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767.
{1719}
   Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in
   1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the
   terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have
   swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of
   government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a
   failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company,
   distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for
   knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the
   Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a
   predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court
   had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon
   themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire
   care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of
   this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to
   Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now
   familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue
   collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the
   territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal.
   Hastings may be said to have created a British administration
   for that Empire."

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India)
      volume 4, pages 389-394._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M, Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapters 4-6._

      _Sir C. Wilson,
      Lord Clive,
      chapters 7-9._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 7._

INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
   Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic.
   The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

   "In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an
   entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry.
   It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally,
   who had been appointed Governor-General of the French
   possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at
   Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St.
   David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the
   French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught
   cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally
   overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort
   St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary
   to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to
   help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis
   de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern
   Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which
   had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of
   the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of
   seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The
   departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to
   the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the
   French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an
   English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of
   Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated
   the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9],
   and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast
   which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was
   actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege
   of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the
   destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march
   northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from
   Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December,
   1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began
   the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which
   commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were
   enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At
   last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived
   at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to
   raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst
   the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was
   received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The
   career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely
   from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of
   hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan,
   Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the
   departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to
   the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and
   he despaired of obtaining further help from the French.
   Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and
   the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured
   factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a
   fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern
   Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic
   affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam
   Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in
   confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as
   ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in
   despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote
   at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up
   negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in
   Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At
   the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry.
   Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and
   fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January,
   1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the
   town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few
   weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the
   strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the
   Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally
   to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the
   French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris.
   … In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to
   immediate execution."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 3, chapter 2._

   "The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side
   were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the
   decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and
   decisive blow to French domination in India."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the French in India,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
   The first war with Hyder Ali.

   "At this period, the main point of interest changes from the
   Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the
   English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had
   now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and
   daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in
   India—Hyder Ali.
{1720}
   He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir'
   or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no
   less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted
   to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a
   partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and
   commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position
   he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. …
   Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely
   the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of
   Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a
   new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By
   various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller
   princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to
   the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore
   especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he
   applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline
   his troops according to the European models. The English at
   Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully
   appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767
   engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy
   against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as
   that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the
   arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought
   off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was
   only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert
   with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but
   soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off
   his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near
   Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him
   no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the
   forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably
   with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory,
   as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at
   Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of
   peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus
   proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of
   Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the
   southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of
   the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of
   Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often
   underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of
   1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to
   extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he
   drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of
   Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder
   himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of
   that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in
   their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder
   and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever
   might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms
   were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual
   restoration of conquests should take place, and that the
   contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all
   defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no
   means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed
   himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He
   did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power
   and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the
   Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no
   great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost
   none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources,
   they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of
   money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government
   at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of
   such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in
   goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the
   very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had
   begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by
   Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their
   half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its
   reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of
   1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 67._

      ALSO IN:
      _Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
      History of Hydur Naik,
      chapters 1-17._

      _L. B. Bowring,
      Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
      chapter 8._

INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Climax of English misrule.
   Break-down of the East India Company's government.
   The Indian Act of Lord North.

   "In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of
   the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and
   it was estimated that more than a third part of its
   inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in
   spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy
   of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at
   home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as
   permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all
   this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors
   were obliged to confess that the sum required for the
   necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to
   the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the
   Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform
   him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from
   the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system
   of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The
   division between the Directors and a large part of the
   proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in
   England and those in India, the private and selfish interests
   of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the
   continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a
   policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation
   of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally
   weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was
   rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great
   country by a commercial company was radically and incurably
   false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772,
   at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions
   were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the
   Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North,
   and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of
   Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the
   territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee,
   consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament
   to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was
   not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken.
{1721}
   The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North
   commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on
   Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the
   Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to
   pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills
   which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773,
   of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of
   maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a
   wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government
   was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the
   charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating
   power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous
   majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in
   1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the
   history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers
   met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an
   interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of
   £400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was
   restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till
   the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till
   its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to
   submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the
   Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its
   servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged
   to export to the British settlements within its limits British
   goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole
   constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre
   of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All
   the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be
   submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and
   three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General
   of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary
   of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of
   £8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made
   subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and
   Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India
   Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act,
   and to hold their offices for five years; after that period
   the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject
   to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's
   correspondence with India relating to civil and military
   affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the
   service of the King or of the Company might receive presents,
   and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were
   excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this
   memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was
   completely subverted, and the government of India passed
   mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief
   management of affairs was vested in persons in whose
   appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who
   might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who
   nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large
   salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified
   only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was
   obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. …
   Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell,
   Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four
   Councillors."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 13 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
   The First English Governor-General.
   Administration of Warren Hastings.
   Execution of Nuncomar.
   The Rohilla War.
   Annexation of Benares.
   Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

   "The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage
   he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a
   dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home)
   had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no
   superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an
   equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended
   chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two
   out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and
   without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place
   in which to follow the history of the first general council
   and its factions, apart from the consequences to British
   interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three
   out of four of the council (and those the new officials from
   England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that
   the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double
   system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This
   functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a
   high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold
   the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, …
   eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and
   much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin,
   and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah
   Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that;
   and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as
   to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob.
   Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere
   else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to
   the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside
   Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza
   Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest
   office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman
   administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became
   Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant
   Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied
   the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal
   dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in
   London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors
   that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties
   and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they
   sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman,
   and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar
   had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order
   and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not
   punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided
   his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to
   overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That
   turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the
   Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and
   Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to
   prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings.
{1722}
   Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings
   prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of
   the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the
   greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and
   resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach
   him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the
   Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief
   Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge
   brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six
   years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared
   very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was
   found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death
   by the judges."

      _H. Martineau,
      British Rule in India,
      chapter 9._

   "It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried
   over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many
   different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the
   course of a century it has been made the theme of historical,
   political, and biographical discussions; all the points have
   been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it
   has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to
   impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily,
   though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the
   Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and
   nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly
   suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary
   English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen,
   after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most
   skilful analysis, after examining every document and every
   fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has
   pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was
   perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the
   prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of
   conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in
   relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective
   than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and
   demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs,
   the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven
   demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey
   based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never
   before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be
   accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence
   can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the
   innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature
   affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply
   than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political
   transactions, which are little understood and leniently
   condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to
   prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that
   he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James
   Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the
   general motives of human action, the moral certainty that
   Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that
   the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his
   demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole
   there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who
   treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and
   Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute
   of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar
   openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations,
   became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his
   accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for
   forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence
   exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Warren Hastings,
      chapter 3._

   "James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole
   administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings
   than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by
   William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's
   story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present
   day, is known to English people in general only by the
   terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay
   on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of
   mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English
   ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.'
   'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in
   order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when
   he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully
   dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest
   consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of
   much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen,
   believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an
   affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my
   father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few
   injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one
   which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his
   successor in office, and am better able than most persons to
   appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to
   India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair
   a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a
   kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient
   grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey,
   and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to
   the effect which his language produced. He did not know his
   own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences
   which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a
   man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is
   that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than
   Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute
   fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his
   duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he
   said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to
   favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with
   justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out
   favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to
   me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from
   my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my
   personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own
   earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that
   every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the
   first matter which directed my attention to the subject was
   the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in
   the State Trials and his character as described by Lord
   Macaulay.
{1723}
   There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have
   been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the
   case has not suggested to me a single observation in
   Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the
   verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it.
   Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is
   impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of
   course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to
   the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the
   exhibits."

      _J. F. Stephen,
      The Story of Nuncomar,
      pages 2-3, 186-187._

   "Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla
   War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against
   the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The
   Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was
   therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but
   it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations
   urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay.
   Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of
   having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke
   called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation
   on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted
   the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for
   himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to
   Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike
   down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows
   beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion.
   … 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the
   destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke
   as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous
   nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively
   small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had
   imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population;
   and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The
   north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the
   course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years
   before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which
   was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing
   class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population
   of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the
   Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no
   more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty
   years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But
   the fact that the corner of what geographically was our
   barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for
   us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas.
   Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to
   help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain
   their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772,
   however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in
   getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of
   Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla
   chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to
   be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the
   Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he
   coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes,
   into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this
   treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they
   could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined
   the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred
   twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling
   them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas,
   he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from
   a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip
   the land they had conquered."

      _The Spectator,
      April 2, 1892._

      _Sir John Strachey,
      Hastings and the Rohillas._

   "The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of
   dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in
   the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the
   Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of
   Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money
   must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved.
   Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of
   Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an
   adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from
   the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had
   been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the
   Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them
   with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of
   rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which
   Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue
   of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his
   private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made
   in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance
   with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had
   repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his
   body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings
   required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike
   purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings
   with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like
   a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances,
   which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The
   Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve
   him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and
   lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his
   own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern
   dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by
   malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of
   the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who
   have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter
   of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious
   vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger
   to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine
   would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill
   his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had
   already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in
   Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each
   other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering
   of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved
   it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of
   twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no
   mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands.
{1724}
   He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in
   quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with
   Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling,
   as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little
   parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the
   populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar,
   the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue,
   in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He
   even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the
   haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer
   for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at
   Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper
   stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an
   explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to
   Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in
   substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as
   Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods,
   that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah
   under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly
   arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers
   were flocking into the city from his strong castle of
   Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they
   provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys
   guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded
   muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been
   forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers.
   Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the
   narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult
   Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a
   rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to
   Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared
   betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with
   his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have
   paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But
   the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the
   nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. …
   Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham,
   bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The
   beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a
   campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and
   Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of
   richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th
   November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty,
   amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors;
   and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury
   at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and
   improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's
   forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute
   hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing
   another object of his journey up the country."

      _L. J. Trotter,
      Warren Hastings,
      chapter 6._

   "It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely
   aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point
   the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections
   from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign
   Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W.
   Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth,
   the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied
   war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master,
   the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis
   faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the
   mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing
   the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure
   which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly
   protested against a transaction which he was powerless to
   prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and
   their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to
   have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to
   govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army
   mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of
   the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that
   the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the
   Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with
   the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by
   the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give
   Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and
   misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's
   dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in
   Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no
   doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest
   men may still hold different opinions. But on all the
   weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for
   further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for
   instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help
   in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he
   prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for
   plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that
   he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's
   own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn
   compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

      _L. J. Trotter,
      Warren Hastings and his Libellers
      (Westminster Review, March, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapters 7-11._

      _H. E. Busteed,
      Echoes from Old Calcutta._

      _G. W. Forrest,
      The Administration of Warren Hastings._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Memoirs of Warren Hastings,
      volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2._

INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The second war with Hyder Ali (Second Mysore War).

   "The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the
   French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all
   direct competition between the two nations in that country
   impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to
   stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest
   of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once
   more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in
   1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the
   Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces,
   both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed
   no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief
   invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance
   they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to
   afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent
   proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some
   instances hostile to his interest.
{1725}
   As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the
   balance of power established by the rivalry between the
   British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with
   French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely
   possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder
   Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible.
   Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of
   1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations
   had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst.
   At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including
   30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and
   soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts
   of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated
   a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns
   were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of
   his principal officers acted with gross treachery or
   cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies
   were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in
   imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers
   held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable
   bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and
   by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect
   a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the
   small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than
   3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000
   men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a
   similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and
   much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the
   Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged
   for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November.
   Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the
   chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French
   fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared
   almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in
   Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the
   energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by
   extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a
   few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to
   Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved
   himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius
   to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the
   long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is
   sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of
   about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he
   succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to
   abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French
   fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found
   to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an
   army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least
   eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the
   great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the
   Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south
   of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of
   Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent
   struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at
   Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish
   them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were
   afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill
   and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro,
   and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was
   weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months
   before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and
   Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783,
   Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace,
   which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a
   mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so
   many other great wars, neither of the contending parties
   gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the
   expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of
   nearly four years."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 14 (volume 5)._

   "The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal,
   which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by
   a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian
   government of that time could carry on a campaign by war
   loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of
   revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers;
   and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the
   men, but also the chief political direction and military
   leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the
   calamities of the English in the western and southern
   Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when
   Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius,
   could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there
   could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the
   English position in India, had tested the firmness of its
   foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the
   only period in the long contest between England and the native
   powers, during which our position in India was for a time
   seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from
   this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a
   result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings.
   … Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary
   influence at a time when the great families and the House of
   Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in
   his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India
   Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed
   by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate
   Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial
   establishments, and at the same time to find money for
   carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been
   involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had
   been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying
   and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home
   dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans,
   so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was
   thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at
   Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as
   crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation
   in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national
   interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of
   sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and
   he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed
   with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England;
   the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his
   impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and
   to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible
   procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years'
   trial before the House of Lords."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Rise of the British Dominion in India,
      chapter 11, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
      History of Hydur Naik,
      chapters 27-31._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 8._

      _L. B. Bowring,
      Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
      chapters 14-15._

{1726}

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
   State of India.
   Extent of English rule.
   Administration of Lord Cornwallis.
   War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War).
   The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal,
   and its fruit.

   "When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply
   the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west,
   Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the
   Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost
   exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties
   of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that
   of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan
   had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained
   by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers
   that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen
   Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided
   between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia,
   Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the
   supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on
   the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he
   had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old
   Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of
   Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore,
   had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the
   Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the
   English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great
   event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three
   great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides
   Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the
   north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the
   province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the
   jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large
   stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the
   peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad
   were their dependent allies; they administered the country of
   the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller
   potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor
   to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office,
   however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to
   urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord
   Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began
   with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom
   the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken,
   in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by
   Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an
   ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other
   defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was,
   however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the
   town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered
   into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war
   upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all
   Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be
   restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which,
   notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage
   rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a
   decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took
   the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with
   great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the
   besieged. However, so wretched had been the English
   preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons,
   and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis,
   after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat
   and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other
   equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in
   the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same
   (1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well
   provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next
   campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of
   several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of
   Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord
   Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island
   formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided
   with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the
   river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy
   artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000
   infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is
   celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success
   on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg,
   whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the
   whole island was carried and all preparations made for the
   siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such
   confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire
   discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should
   give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war
   expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded
   territory was divided between the allies, the Company
   obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending
   eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out
   of war between England and the French Republic, the French
   settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord
   Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal
   government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government
   as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India
   Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the
   scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced
   them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the
   administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He
   separated the connection of the revenues from the
   administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn.
   … He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the
   Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent
   Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

      _J. M. Ludlow,
      British India,
      lecture 9 (volume 1)._

{1727}

   "In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue
   was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the
   Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or
   Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land
   revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a
   matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the
   office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had
   never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was
   supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time
   that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class
   of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars
   were the only people that seemed available for the purpose,
   and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It
   was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to
   others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class,
   that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to
   immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights
   in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised,
   and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has
   been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given
   to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the
   intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to
   confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the
   country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of
   property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights
   which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the
   State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they
   should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing
   the share of the produce or rental to which the State was
   entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue
   to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in
   the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it
   was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those
   rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention
   was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.
   Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. …
   The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it
   be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can
   wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government,
   Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in
   India, the amount now received by the State from the land in
   Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum
   that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a
   moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is
   given away in return for no service to the State or to the
   public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with
   exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take
   no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few
   years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens.
   The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the
   maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British
   Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer
   classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the
   millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were
   all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. …
   'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent
   Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to
   record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and
   Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings,
   all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments;
   and every five years there was to be filed in the public
   offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task
   was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. …
   The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of
   the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the
   rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and
   even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was
   maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences
   of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately
   prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth
   increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom
   began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots
   became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other
   circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights
   of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the
   ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to
   the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of
   the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000;
   according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of
   the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that
   the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value
   of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of
   the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is
   not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual
   rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made
   some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called
   £17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much
   more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about
   £3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last
   century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No
   portion of this increase has been due to the action of the
   zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to
   whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the
   peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of
   the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of
   poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,'
   it is this."

      _Sir J. Strachey,
      India,
      lecture 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Co.,
      part 2, chapter 2._

      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

      _W. S. Seton-Karr,
      The Marquess Cornwallis,
      chapter 2._

      _Sir R. Temple,
      James Thomason,
      chapter 9._

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.
   The Impeachment and Trial of Warren Hastings.

   "Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785,
   and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he
   wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with
   evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess
   the good opinion of my country." But underneath this
   superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which
   had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the
   Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud
   through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the
   movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before
   Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session
   of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords.
   On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court
   commenced.
{1728}
   There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more
   gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to
   grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at
   Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well
   calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an
   imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which
   belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to
   the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the
   talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by
   liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every
   advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and
   from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind
   either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days
   when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far
   away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living
   under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing
   strange characters from right to left. The High Court of
   Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the
   days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of
   exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares,
   and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place
   was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William
   Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the
   inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the
   just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the
   hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed
   and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment,
   the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of
   Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his
   fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues
   were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by
   cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled
   by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their
   vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law.
   Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper
   House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from
   their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey
   old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were
   crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or
   the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together,
   from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous
   empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the
   representatives of every science and of every art. … The
   Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and
   bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that
   great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous
   country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies,
   had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he
   had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had
   loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to
   glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like
   a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom
   were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the
   highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded
   Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more
   humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the
   Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later,
   successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of
   Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and
   Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates
   attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the
   blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green
   benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke
   at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of
   gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so
   regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious
   tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had
   refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and
   his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to
   that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the
   answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two
   whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would
   otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of
   Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable
   poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied
   by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general
   introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought
   and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the
   highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the
   character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted
   the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had
   originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and
   of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr.
   Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte
   Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and
   hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the
   Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was
   intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him
   was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation
   lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation
   during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been
   paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded,
   contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father
   might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the
   arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous
   admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not
   last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the
   impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty
   charges. On two only of these had even the case for the
   prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings
   had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in
   the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to
   the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the
   Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The
   spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great
   displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went
   on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had
   the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other
   business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the
   impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only
   seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At
   length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced,
   near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the
   Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords.
{1729}
   … Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found
   Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to
   the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was
   still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was
   then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that
   the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He
   bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision
   had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. …
   It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was
   guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment
   of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was
   also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal
   law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions
   against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on
   different principles, and that a man who had governed an
   empire during thirteen years might have done some very
   reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving
   of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Warren Hastings (Essays)._

   "The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a
   cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false
   notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the
   standard which the English people would in future insist upon
   maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the
   East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an
   example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national
   conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a
   burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of
   loading him with curses and driving him away into the
   wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor
   that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on
   his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that
   menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the
   prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of
   justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted
   its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and
   impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Warren Hastings,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Burke,
      Works,
      volumes 8-12._

      _Speeches of Managers and Counsel
      in the Trial of Warren Hastings,
      edited by E. A. Bond._

INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
   The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley.
   Treaty with the Nizam.
   Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore.
   War with the Mahrattas.
   Assaye and Laswari.
   Territorial acquisitions.

   "The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from
   1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was
   uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the
   Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with
   imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the
   country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from
   whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political
   vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first
   he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must
   be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native
   princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by
   surrendering their political independence. The history of
   India since his time has been but the gradual development of
   this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen
   Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of
   January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French
   invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the
   governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this
   time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards
   occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was
   the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments
   guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of
   Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were
   disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of
   Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French
   Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his
   dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as
   'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded
   a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for
   the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon
   Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of
   Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his
   hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme
   of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing
   himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower
   Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings
   had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century,
   our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high
   up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow
   made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between
   the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In
   Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before
   Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay.
   Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi
   in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south
   to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's
   government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his
   opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of
   faith. The time had arrived when the English must either
   become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal
   Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass
   either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to
   the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the
   British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the
   British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The
   treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as
   the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and
   established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those
   limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically
   held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord
   Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the
   second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for
   dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern
   India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of
   his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower
   throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power
   of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily
   handled.
{1730}
   Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample
   provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern
   India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely
   organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to
   live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance
   had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy
   of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did
   not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself
   to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of
   Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a
   possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions
   at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by
   treaty not to take any European into his service without the
   consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in
   every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley
   next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu,
   whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's
   intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an
   opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his
   refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in
   viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in
   person, and to watch over the course of events. One English
   army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a
   contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western
   coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired
   into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died
   fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of
   Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination
   as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a
   peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing
   with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation.
   The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was
   restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom
   Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was
   partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English.
   At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of
   South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the
   principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British
   administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost
   as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had
   been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with
   Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were
   they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The
   Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The
   recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona,
   who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of
   the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was
   annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In
   Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and
   Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards
   the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the
   coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several
   Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In
   1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by
   Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory,
   induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged
   himself to the British to hold communications with no other
   power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the
   maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the
   English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it
   led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the
   Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the
   Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are
   perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms
   in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of
   resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the
   indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The
   armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of
   Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley
   operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won
   the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and
   Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign
   in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received
   less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh
   [August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the
   cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of
   Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of
   the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end
   of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for
   peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the
   Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more
   under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the
   English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in
   1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by
   every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The
   concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a
   series of operations against Holkar, which brought little
   credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel
   Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the
   convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel
   Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person
   at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an
   instance of a British army in India having to turn back with
   its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally
   taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office
   carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In
   Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the
   North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British
   rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new
   Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from
   the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered
   Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the
   Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Maxwell,
      Life of the Duke of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 2-12._

      _J. M. Wilson.
      Memoir of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 2-9._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapters 9-10._

      _W. H. Hutton,
      The Marquess Wellesley._

      _J. S. Cotton,
      Mountstuart Elphinstone,
      chapter 4._

{1731}

INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
   Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy.
   Sepoy revolt at Vellore.
   Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs.
   Conquest of the Mauritius.
   The Ghorka War.

   "The retreat of Monson was not only a disastrous blow to
   British prestige, but ruined for a while the reputation of
   Lord Wellesley. Because a Mahratta freebooter had broken loose
   in Hindustan, the Home authorities imagined that all the
   Mahratta powers had risen against the imperial policy of the
   Governor-General. Lord Wellesley was recalled from his post,
   and Lord Cornwallis was sent out to take his place, to reverse
   the policy of his illustrious predecessor, to scuttle out of
   Western Hindustan, to restore all the ceded territories, to
   surrender all the captured fortresses, and to abandon large
   tracts of country to be plundered and devastated by the
   Mahrattas, as they had been from the days of Sivaji to those
   of Wellesley and Lake. Before Lord Cornwallis reached Bengal
   the political outlook had brightened. … But Lord Cornwallis
   was sixty-seven years of age, and had lost the nerve which he
   had displayed in his wars against Tippu; and he would have
   ignored the turn of the tide, and persisted in falling back on
   the old policy of conciliation and non-intervention, had not
   death cut short his career before he had been ten weeks in the
   country. Sir George Barlow, a Bengal civilian, succeeded for a
   while to the post of Governor-General, as a provisional
   arrangement. He had been a member of Council under both
   Wellesley and Cornwallis, and he halted between the two. He
   refused to restore the conquered territories to Sindia and the
   Bhonsla, but he gave back the Indore principality to Holkar,
   together with the captured fortresses. Worst of all, he
   annulled most of the protective treaties with the Rajput
   princes on the ground that they had deserted the British
   government during Monson's retreat from Jaswant Rao Holkar.
   For some years the policy of the British government was a
   half-hearted system of non-intervention. … The Mahratta
   princes were left to plunder and collect chout [a blackmail
   extortion, levied by the Mahrattas for a century] in
   Rajputana, and practically to make war on each other, so long
   as they respected the territories of the British government
   and its allies. … All this while an under-current of
   intrigue was at work between Indian courts, which served in
   the end to revive wild hopes of getting rid of British
   supremacy, and rekindling the old aspirations for war and
   rapine. In 1806 the peace of India was broken by an alarm from
   a very different quarter. In those days India was so remote
   from the British Isles that the existence of the British
   government mainly depended on the loyalty of its sepoy armies.
   Suddenly it was discovered that the Madras army was on the
   brink of mutiny. The British authorities at Madras had
   introduced an obnoxious head-dress resembling a European hat,
   in the place of the old time-honoured turban, and had,
   moreover, forbidden the sepoys to appear on parade with
   earrings and caste marks. India was astounded by a revolt of
   the Madras sepoys at the fortress of Vellore, about eight
   miles to the westward of Arcot. … The garrison at Vellore
   consisted of about 400 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys. At
   midnight, without warning, the sepoys rose in mutiny. One body
   fired on the European barracks until half the soldiers were
   killed or wounded. Another body fired on the houses of the
   British officers, and shot them down as they rushed out to
   know the cause of the uproar. All this while provisions were
   distributed amongst the sepoys by the Mysore princes, and the
   flag of Mysore was hoisted over the fortress. Fortunately the
   news was carried to Arcot, where Colonel Gillespie commanded a
   British garrison. Gillespie at once galloped to Vellore with a
   troop of British dragoons and two field guns. The gates of
   Vellore were blown open; the soldiers rushed in; 400 mutineers
   were cut down, and the outbreak was over. … In 1807 Lord
   Minto succeeded Barlow as Governor-General. He broke the spell
   of non-intervention. … Lord Minto's main work was to keep
   Napoleon and the French out of India. The north-west frontier
   was still vulnerable, but the Afghans had retired from the
   Punjab, and the once famous Runjeet Singh had founded a Sikh
   kingdom between the Indus and the Sutlej. As far as the
   British were concerned, the Sikhs formed a barrier against the
   Afghans; and Runjeet Singh was apparently friendly, for he had
   refused to shelter Jaswant Rao Holkar in his flight from Lord
   Lake. But there was no knowing what Runjeet Singh might do if
   the French found their way to Lahore. To crown the perplexity,
   the Sikh princes on the British side of the river Sutlej, who
   had done homage to the British government during the campaigns
   of Lord Lake, were being conquered by Runjeet Singh, and were
   appealing to the British government for protection. In 1808-9
   a young Bengal civilian, named Charles Metcalfe, was sent on a
   mission to Lahore. The work before him was difficult and
   complicated, and somewhat trying to the nerves. The object was
   to secure Runjeet Singh as a useful ally against the French
   and Afghans, whilst protecting the Sikh states on the British
   side of the Sutlej, namely, Jhind, Nabha, and Patiala. Runjeet
   Singh was naturally disgusted at being checked by British
   interference. It was unfair, he said, for the British to wait
   until he had conquered the three states, and then to demand
   possession. Metcalfe cleverly dropped the question of justice,
   and appealed to Runjeet Singh's self-interest. By giving up
   the three states, Runjeet Singh would secure an alliance with
   the British, a strong frontier on the Sutlej, and freedom to
   push his conquests on the north and west. Runjeet Singh took
   the hint. He withdrew his pretensions from the British side of
   the Sutlej, and professed a friendship which remained unbroken
   until his death in 1839; but he knew what he was about. He
   conquered Cashmere on the north, and he wrested Peshawar from
   the Afghans; but he refused to open his dominions to British
   trade, and he was jealous to the last of any attempt to enter
   his territories. … Meanwhile the war against France and
   Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the
   Mauritius had become a French depot for frigates and
   privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java,
   until the East India Company reckoned its losses by millions,
   and private traders were brought to the brink of ruin. Lord
   Minto sent one expedition [1810], which wrested the Mauritius
   from the French; and he conducted another expedition in
   person, which wrested the island of Java from the Dutch, who
   at that time were the allies of France. The Mauritius has
   remained a British possession until this day, but Java was
   restored to Holland at the conclusion of the war. …
   Meanwhile war clouds were gathering on the southern slopes of
   the Himalayas.
{1732}
   Down to the middle of the 18th century, the territory of Nipal
   had been peopled by a peaceful and industrious race of
   Buddhists known as Newars, but about the year 1767, when the
   British had taken over the Bengal provinces, the Newars were
   conquered by a Rajput tribe from Cashmere, known as Ghorkas.
   The Ghorka conquest of Nipal was as complete as the Norman
   conquest of England. The Ghorkas established a military
   despotism with Brahmanical institutions, and parcelled out the
   country amongst feudal nobles known as Bharadars. … During
   the early years of the 19th century the Ghorkas began to
   encroach on British territory, annexing villages and revenues
   from Darjeeling to Simla without right or reason. They were
   obviously bent on extending their dominion southward to the
   Ganges, and for a long time aggressions were overlooked for
   the sake of peace. At last two districts were appropriated to
   which the Ghorkas had not a shadow of a claim, and it was
   absolutely necessary to make a stand against their
   pretensions. Accordingly, Lord Minto sent an ultimatum to
   Khatmandu, declaring that unless the districts were restored
   they would be recovered by force of arms. Before the answer
   arrived, Lord Minto was succeeded in the post of
   Governor-General by Lord Moira, better known by his later
   title of Marquis of Hastings. Lord Moira landed at Calcutta in
   1813. Shortly after his arrival an answer was received from
   the Ghorka government, that the disputed districts belonged to
   Nipal, and would not be surrendered. Lord Moira at once fixed
   a day on which the districts were to be restored; and when the
   day had passed without any action being taken by the Ghorkas,
   a British detachment entered the districts and set up police
   stations. … The council of Bharadars resolved on war, but
   they did not declare it in European fashion. A Ghorka army
   suddenly entered the disputed districts, surrounded the police
   stations, and murdered many of the constables, and then
   returned to Khatmandu to await the action of the British
   government in the way of reprisals. The war against the
   Ghorkas was more remote and more serious than the wars against
   the Mahrattas. … Those who have ascended the Himalayas to
   Darjeeling or Simla may realise something of the difficulties
   of an invasion of Nipal. The British army advanced in four
   divisions by four different routes. … General David
   Ochterlony, who advanced his division along the valley of the
   Sutlej, gained the most brilliant successes. He was one of the
   half-forgotten heroes of the East India Company. … For five
   months in the worst season of the year he carried one fortress
   after another, until the enemy made a final stand at Maloun on
   a shelf of the Himalayas. The Ghorkas made a desperate attack
   on the British works, but the attempt failed; and when the
   British batteries were about to open fire, the Ghorka garrison
   came to terms, and were permitted to march out with the
   honours of war. The fall of Maloun shook the faith of the
   Ghorka government in their heaven-built fortresses.
   Commissioners were sent to conclude a peace. Nipal agreed to
   cede Kumaon in the west, and the southern belt of forest and
   jungle known as the Terai. It also agreed to receive a British
   Resident at Khatmandu. Lord Moira had actually signed the
   treaty, when the Ghorkas raised the question of whether the
   Terai included the forest or only the swamp. War was renewed.
   Ochterlony advanced an army within fifty miles of Khatmandu,
   and then the Ghorkas concluded the treaty [1816], and the
   British army withdrew from Nipal. The Terai, however, was a
   bone of contention for many years afterwards. Nothing was said
   about a subsidiary army, and to this day Nipal is outside the
   pale of subsidiary alliances; but Nipal is bound over not to
   take any European into her service without the consent of the
   British government."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      India under British Rule,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Cunningham,
      History of the Sikhs,
      chapters 5-6._

      _E. Thornton,
      History of British Empire in India,
      chapters 21-24 (volume 4)._

INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
   Suppression of the Pindaris.
   Overthrow of the Mahratta power.
   The last of the Peshwas.

   "For some time past the Pindaris, a vast brotherhood of
   mounted freebooters, who were ready to fight under any
   standard for the chance of unbounded plunder, had been playing
   a more and more prominent part in the wars of native princes.
   As Free Lances, they had fought for the Peshwa at Panipat, had
   shared in the frequent struggles of the Sindhias and Holkars
   in Hindustan and Southern India, and made war on their own
   account with every native prince whose weakness at any moment
   seemed to invite attack. … From the hills and glens of
   Central India thousands of armed ruffians sallied forth year
   after year in quest of plunder, sparing no cruelty to gain
   their ends, and widening the circle of their ravages with each
   new raid, until in 1811 the smoke of their camp-fires could be
   seen from Gaya and Mirzapur. … To thwart Maratha intrigues
   and punish Pindari aggressions was the Governor-General's next
   aim. In spite of hindrances offered by his own council and the
   Court of Directors, he set himself to revive and extend Lord
   Wellesley's policy of securing peace and order throughout
   India by means of treaties, which placed one native prince
   after another in a kind of vassalage to the paramount power
   that ruled from Fort William. … By means of a little timely
   compulsion, the able and accomplished Elphinstone baffled for
   a while the plots which the Peshwa, Baji Rao, and his
   villainous accomplice, Trimbakji Danglia, had woven against
   their English allies. The treaty of June, 1817, left Lord
   Hastings master of Sagar and Bundalkhand, while it bound the
   Peshwa to renounce his friend Trimbakji, his own claims to the
   headship of the Maratha League, to make no treaties with any
   other native prince, and to accept in all things the counsel
   and control of the Company's Government. Hard as these terms
   may seem, there was no choice, averred Lord Hastings, between
   thus crippling a secret foe and depriving him of the crown he
   had fairly forfeited. Meanwhile Lord Hastings' fearless energy
   had already saved the Rajputs of Jaipur from further suffering
   at the hands of their Pathan oppressor, Amir Khan, and forced
   from Sindia himself a reluctant promise to aid in suppressing
   the Pindari hordes, whose fearful ravages had at length been
   felt by the peaceful villagers in the Northern Sarkars. In the
   autumn of 1817 Hastings took the field at the head of an army
   which, counting native contingents, mustered nearly 120,000
   strong, with some 300 guns. From east, west, north, and south,
   a dozen columns set forth to hunt down the merciless ruffians
   who had so long been allowed to harry the fairest provinces of
   India.
{1733}
   In spite of the havoc wrought among our troops by the great
   cholera outbreak of that year, and of a sudden rising among
   the Maratha princes for one last struggle with their former
   conquerors, our arms were everywhere successful against
   Marathas and Pindaris alike. The latter, hunted into the hills
   and jungles of Central India, found no safety anywhere except
   in small bodies and constant flight … and the famous
   robber-league passed into a tale of yore. Not less swift and
   sure was the punishment dealt upon the Maratha leaders who
   joined the Peshwa in his sudden uprising against the British
   power. His late submission had been nothing but a mask for
   renewed plottings. Elphinstone, however, saw through the mask
   which had taken in the confiding Malcolm. Before the end of
   October an English regiment, summoned in hot haste from
   Bombay, pitched its camp at Kirki, about two miles from Puna,
   beside the small Sepoy brigade already quartered there. In the
   first days of November Baji Rao began to assume a bolder tone
   as his plans grew ripe for instant execution. On the 5th, a
   body of Marathas attacked and destroyed the Residency, which
   Elphinstone had quitted in the nick of time. A great Maratha
   army then marched forth to overwhelm the little garrison at
   Kirki, before fresh troops could come up to its aid from
   Sirur. Elphinstone, however, who knew his foe, had no idea of
   awaiting the attack. Colonel Burr at once led out his men, not
   3,000 all told. A brilliant charge of Maratha horse was
   heavily repulsed by a Sepoy regiment, and the English steadily
   advancing drove the enemy from the field. A few days later
   General Smith, at the head of a larger force, advanced on
   Puna, occupied the city, and pursued the frightened Peshwa
   from place to place. The heroic defence of Karigaum, a small
   village on the Bhima, by Captain Staunton and 800 Sepoys, with
   only two light guns, against 25,000 Marathas during a whole
   day, proved once more how nobly native troops could fight
   under English leading. Happily for Staunton's weary and
   diminished band, Smith came up the next morning, and the
   desponding Peshwa continued his retreat. Turn where he would,
   there was no rest for his jaded soldiers. Munro with a weak
   force, partly of his own raising, headed him on his way to the
   Carnatic, took several of his strong places, and drove him
   northwards within reach of General Smith. On the 19th
   February, 1818, that officer overtook and routed the flying
   foe at the village of Ashti. Bapu Gokla, the Peshwa's
   staunchest and ablest follower, perished in the field, while
   covering the retreat of his cowardly master. For some weeks
   longer Baji Rao fled hither and thither before his resolute
   pursuers. But at length all hope forsook him as the circle of
   escape grew daily narrower; and in the middle of May the
   great-grandson of Balaji Vishwanath yielded himself to Sir
   John Malcolm at Indor, on terms far more liberal than he had
   any reason to expect. Even for the faithful few who still
   shared his fortunes due provision was made at his request. He
   himself spent the rest of his days a princely pensioner at
   Bithur, near Cawnpore; but the sceptre which he and his sires
   had wielded for a hundred years passed into English hands,
   while the Rajah of Satara, the long-neglected heir of the
   house of Sivaji, was restored to the nominal headship of the
   Maratha power. Meanwhile Appa Sahib, the usurping Rajah of
   Berar, had no sooner heard of the outbreak at Puna, than he,
   too, like the Peshwa, threw off his mask. On the evening of
   the 24th November, 1817, his troops, to the number of 18,000,
   suddenly attacked the weak English and Sepoy force of 1,400
   men with four guns, posted on the Sitabaldi Hills, outside
   Nagpur. A terrible fight for eighteen hours ended in the
   repulse of the assailants, with a loss to the victors of more
   than 300 men and twelve officers. A few weeks later Nagpur
   itself was occupied after another fight. Even then the Rajah
   might have kept his throne, for his conquerors were merciful
   and hoped the best. But they hoped in vain. It was not long
   before Appa Sahib, caught out in fresh intrigues, was sent off
   a prisoner towards Allahabad. Escaping from his captors, he
   wandered about the country for several years, and died at
   Lahor a pensioner on the bounty of Ranjit Singh. The house of
   Holkar had also paid the penalty of its rash resistance to our
   arms. … On the 6th January, 1818, the young Holkar was glad
   to sign a treaty which placed him and his heirs under English
   protection at the cost of his independence and of some part of
   his realm. Luckily for himself, Sindia had remained quiet, if
   not quite loyal, throughout this last struggle between the
   English and his Maratha kinsfolk. Thus in one short and
   decisive campaign, the great Maratha power, which had survived
   the slaughter of Panipat, fell shattered to pieces by the same
   blow which crushed the Pindaris, and raised an English
   merchant-company to the paramount lordship of all India. The
   last of the Peshwas had ceased to reign, the Rajah of Berar
   was a discrowned fugitive, the Rajah of Satara a king only in
   name, while Sindia, Holkar, and the Nizam were dependent
   princes who reigned only by sufferance of an English
   Governor-General at Calcutta. The Moghal Empire lingered only
   in the Palace of Dehli; its former viceroy, the Nawab of Audh,
   was our obedient vassal; the haughty princes of Rajputana
   bowed their necks, more or less cheerfully, to the yoke of
   masters merciful as Akbar and mightier than Aurangzib. Ranjit
   Singh himself cultivated the goodwill of those powerful
   neighbours who had sheltered the Sikhs of Sirhind from his
   ambitious inroads. With the final overthrow of the Marathas a
   new reign of peace, order, and general progress began for
   peoples who, during a hundred and fifty years, had lived in a
   ceaseless whirl of anarchy and armed strife. With the capture
   of Asirgarh in April, 1819, the fighting in Southern India
   came to an end."

      _L. J. Trotter,
      History of India,
      book 5, chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapters 19-20._

      _J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 3, chapters 17-20._

      _Major Ross-of-Bladensburg,
      The Marquess of Hastings,
      chapters 4-7._

INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
   The first Burmese War.
   English acquisition of Assam and Aracan.
   Suppression of Suttee and Thuggee.
   Rechartering of the East India Company.
   It is deprived of its last trading monopoly.

   "On Hastings' retirement, in 1823, the choice of the ministry
   fell upon Canning. … Canning ultimately resigning the
   Governor-Generalship, the choice of the authorities fell upon
   Lord Amherst. The new Governor-General reached India at a time
   when the authorities in London had a right to expect a long
   period of peace.
{1734}
   In fact, both in Hindostan and in the Deccan, the victories of
   Hastings had left the Company no more enemies to conquer.
   Unfortunately, however, for the prospects of peace, nature,
   which had given India an impenetrable boundary on the north,
   had left her with an undefined and open frontier on the east.
   On the shores of the Bay of Bengal, opposite Calcutta, a
   struggle had raged during the eighteenth century between the
   inhabitants of Ava and Pegu. The former, known as Burmans or
   Burmese, had the good fortune to find a capable leader, who
   rapidly ensured their own victory and founded a Burmese
   Empire. The successful competitors were not satisfied with
   their own predominance in Pegu—they conquered Aracan, they
   overran Assam, and they wrested from Siam a considerable
   territory on the Tenasserim coast. The conquest of Aracan
   brought the Burmese to the confines of the Company's dominions
   in Chittagong. The conquered people, disliking the severe rule
   of the conquerors, crossed the frontier and settled in British
   territory. Many of them used their new home as a secure basis
   for hostile raids on the Burmese. … The river Naf ran for a
   portion of its course between the possessions of the British
   in Chittagong and those of the Burmese in Aracan. With the
   object of preventing the repetition of outrages, which had
   occurred on the river, a small British guard was stationed on
   a little island, called Shaporee, near its mouth. The Burmese,
   claiming the island as their own, attacked the guard and drove
   it from the post. It was impossible to ignore such a
   challenge. The island was reoccupied; but the
   Governor-General, still anxious for peace, offered to treat
   its occupation by the Burmese as an action unauthorised by the
   Burmese Government. The Burmese Court, however, instead of
   accepting this offer, sent an army to reoccupy the island;
   collisions almost simultaneously occurred between the British
   and the Burmese on other parts of the frontier, and in
   February 1824 the first Burmese war began. … If the war of
   1824 may be excused as inevitable, its conduct must be
   condemned as careless. No pains were taken to ascertain the
   nature of the country which it was requisite to invade, or the
   strength of the enemy whom it was decided to encounter. …
   Burma is watered by two great rivers, the Irawaddy and the
   Salwen. … In its upper waters the Irawaddy is a rapid
   stream; in its lower waters it flows through alluvial plains,
   and finds its way through a delta with nine mouths into the
   Bay of Bengal. On one of its western mouths is the town of
   Bassein, on one of its eastern mouths the great commercial
   port of Rangoon. The banks of the river are clothed with
   jungle and with forest; and malaria, the curse of all
   low-lying tropical lands, always lingers in the marshes. The
   authorities decided on invading Burma through the Rangoon
   branch of the river. They gave Sir Archibald Campbell, an
   officer who had won distinction in the Peninsula, the command
   of the expedition, and, as a preliminary measure, they
   determined to seize Rangoon. Its capture was accomplished with
   ease, and the Burmese retired from the town. But the victory
   was the precursor of difficulty. The troops dared not advance
   in an unhealthy season; the supplies which they had brought
   with them proved insufficient for their support; and the men
   perished by scores during their period of forced inaction. …
   When more favourable weather returned with the autumn,
   Campbell was again able to advance. Burma was then attacked
   from three separate bases. A force under Colonel Richards,
   moving along the valley of the Bramaputra, conquered Assam; an
   expedition under General Morrison, marching from Chittagong,
   occupied Aracan; while Campbell himself, dividing his army
   into two divisions, one moving by water, the other by land,
   passed up the Irawaddy and captured Donabue and Prome. The
   climate improved as the troops ascended the river, and the hot
   weather of 1825 proved less injurious than the summer of 1824.
   … The operations in 1825-6 drove home the lesson which the
   campaign of 1824-5 had already taught. The Burmese realised
   their impotence to resist, and consented to accept the terms
   which the British were still ready to offer them. Assam,
   Aracan, and the Tenasserim Coast were ceded to the Company;
   the King of Burma consented to receive a Resident at his
   capital, and to pay a very large sum of
   money—£1,000,000—towards the expenses of the war. … The
   increasing credit which the Company thus acquired did not add
   to the reputation of the Governor-General. … The Company
   complained of the vast additions which his rule had made to
   expenditure, and they doubted the expediency of acquiring new
   and unnecessary territory beyond the confines of India itself.
   The ministry thought that these acquisitions were opposed to
   the policy which Parliament had laid down, and to the true
   interests of the empire. It decided on his recall. … William
   Bentinck, whom Canning selected as Amherst's successor, was no
   stranger to Indian soil. More than twenty years before he had
   served as Governor of Madras. … Bentinck arrived in Calcutta
   in difficult times. Amherst's war had saddled the Government
   with a debt, and his successor with a deficit. …
   Retrenchment, in the opinion of every one qualified to judge,
   was absolutely indispensable, and Bentinck, as a matter of
   fact, brought out specific instructions to retrench. … In
   two other matters … Bentinck effected a change which
   deserves to be recollected with gratitude. He had the courage
   to abolish flogging in the native Indian army; he had the
   still higher courage to abolish suttee. … In Bengal the
   suttee, or 'the pure and virtuous woman,' who became a widow,
   was required to show her devotion to her husband by
   sacrificing herself on his funeral pile. … Successive
   Governors-General, whose attention had been directed to this
   barbarous practice, had feared to incur the unpopularity of
   abolishing it. … Cornwallis and Wellesley, Hastings and
   Amherst, were all afraid to prohibit murder which was
   identified with religion, and it was accordingly reserved to
   Bentinck to remove the reproach of its existence. With the
   consent of his Council, suttee was declared illegal. The
   danger which others had apprehended from its prohibition
   proved a mere phantom. The Hindoos complied with the order
   without attempting to resist it, and the horrible rite which
   had disgraced the soil of India for centuries became entirely
   unknown. For these humane regulations Bentinck deserves to be
   remembered with gratitude. Yet it should not be forgotten that
   these reforms were as much the work of his age as of himself.
   … One other great abuse was terminated under Bentinck.
{1735}
   In Central India life was made unsafe and travelling dangerous
   by the establishment of a secret band of robbers known as
   Thugs. The Thugs mingled with any travellers whom they met,
   disarmed them by their conversation and courtesy, and availed
   themselves of the first convenient spot in their journey to
   strangle them with a rope and to rob them of their money. The
   burial of the victim usually concealed all traces of the
   crime; the secrecy of the confederates made its revelation
   unlikely; and, to make treachery more improbable, the Thugs
   usually consecrated their murders with religious rites, and
   claimed their god as the patron of their misdoings. Bentinck
   selected an active officer, Major Sleeman, whom he charged to
   put down Thuggee. Sleeman's exertions were rewarded by a
   gratifying success. The Thugs, like all secret societies, were
   assailable in one way. The first discovery of crime always
   produces an approver. The timid conspirator, conscious of his
   guilt, is glad to purchase his own safety by sacrificing his
   associates, and when one man turns traitor every member of the
   band is anxious to secure the rewards and immunity of
   treachery. Hence the first clue towards the practices of the
   Thugs led to the unveiling of the whole organisation; and the
   same statesman, who had the merit of forbidding suttee,
   succeeded in extirpating Thuggee from the dominions over which
   he ruled. Social reforms of this character occupy the greater
   portion of the history of Bentinck's government. In politics
   he almost always pursued a policy of non-intervention. The
   British during his rule made few additions to their
   possessions; they rarely interfered in the affairs of Native
   states. … The privileges which the East India, Company
   enjoyed had from time to time been renewed by the British
   Parliament. The charter of the Company had been extended for a
   period of twenty years in 1773, in 1793, and in 1813. But the
   conditions on which it was continued in 1813 were very
   different from those on which it had been originally granted.
   Instead of maintaining its exclusive right of trade,
   Parliament decided on throwing open the trade with India to
   all British subjects. It left the Company a monopoly of the
   China trade alone. The Act of 1813 of course excited the
   strenuous opposition of the Company. The highest authorities
   were brought forward to prove that the trade with India would
   not be increased by a termination of the monopoly. Their
   views, however, were proved false by the result, and the stern
   logic of facts consequently pointed in 1833 to the further
   extension of the policy of 1813 [see CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842].
   … The inclination towards free trade was, in fact, so
   prevalent, that it is doubtful whether, even if the Tories had
   remained in office, they would have consented to preserve the
   monopoly. … The fall of the Wellington administration made
   its termination a certainty [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833].
   … The Government consented to compensate the Company for the
   loss of its monopoly by an annuity of £630,000 charged on the
   territorial revenues of India. It is a remarkable circumstance
   that the change of ministry which deprived the Company of its
   trade possibly preserved its political power for nearly a
   quarter of a century. … The Whig ministry shrank from
   proposing an alteration for which the country was not
   prepared, and which might have aroused the opposition by which
   the Coalition of 1783 had been destroyed. Though, however, it
   left the rule with Leadenhall Street, it altered the machinery
   of government. The Governor-General of Bengal was made
   Governor-General of India. A fourth member—an English
   jurist—was added to his Council, and the Governor-General in
   Council was authorised to legislate for the whole of India. At
   the same time the disabilities which still clung to the
   natives were in theory swept away, and Europeans were for the
   first time allowed to hold land in India. These important
   proposals were carried at the close of the first session of
   the first reformed Parliament."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 25 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      Administration of the East India Company,
      parts 3-4._

      Sir C. Trevelyan,
      The Thugs
      (Edin. Review, January, 1837).

      _Illustrations of the History of the Thugs._

      _M. Taylor,
      Confessions of a Thug, introduction._

      _D. C. Boulger,
      Lord William Bentinck,
      chapters 4-6._

INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
   The first Afghan war and its catastrophe.
   Conquest and annexation of Scinde.
   Threatened trouble with the Sikhs.

   "With the accession of Lord Auckland, Bentinck's successor,
   began a new era in Anglo-Indian history, in which the
   long-sown seeds of fresh political complications, which even
   now seem as far from solution as ever, began to put forth
   fruit. All danger from French ambition had passed away: but
   Russian intrigue was busy against us. We had brought the
   danger on ourselves. False to an alliance with Persia, which
   dated from the beginning of the century, we had turned a deaf
   ear to her entreaties for help against Russian aggression, and
   had allowed her to fall under the power of her tyrant, who
   thenceforth used her as an instrument of his ambition. The
   result of our selfish indifference appeared in 1837, when
   Persia, acting under Russian influence, laid siege to Herat,
   which was then under Afghan rule. While Herat was still
   holding out, the Shah was at last threatened with war, and
   raised the siege. Then was the time for Auckland to destroy
   the Russian danger once for all, by making a friend of the
   power which seemed to be the natural barrier against invasion
   from the north-west. After a long series of revolutions, Dost
   Mahomed, the representative of the now famous tribe of
   Baruckzyes, had established himself upon the throne, with the
   warm approval of the majority of the people; while Shah Sooja,
   the leader of the rival Suddozyes, was an exile. The ruling
   prince did not wait for Auckland to seek his friendship. He
   treated the Russian advances with contempt, and desired
   nothing better than to be an ally of the English. Auckland was
   urged to seize the opportunity. It was in his power to deal
   Russia a crushing blow, and to avert those troubles which are
   even now harassing British statesmen. He did not let slip the
   opportunity. He flung it from him, and clutched at a policy
   that was to bring misery to thousands of families in England,
   in India, and in Afghanistan, and to prove disastrous to the
   political interests of all three countries. … Those who are
   least interested in Indian history are not likely to forget
   how the Afghan mob murdered the British Envoy and his
   associates; how the British commander, putting faith in the
   chiefs of a people whom no treaties can bind, began that
   retreat from which but one man escaped to tell how 16,000 had
   perished; how poor Auckland, unmanned by the disaster, lacked
   the energy to retrieve it; how the heroic Sale held out at
   Jellalabad till Pollock relieved him; how Auckland's
   successor, Lord Ellenborough, dreading fresh disasters,
   hesitated to allow his generals to act till, yielding to their
   indignant zeal, he threw upon them the responsibility of that
   advance to Cabul which retrieved the lost prestige of our
   arms.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842, and 1842-1869.

{1736}

   Thus closed the first act of a still unfinished drama. After
   celebrating the triumph of the victorious army, Ellenborough
   sent Charles Napier to punish the Ameers of Scinde [see
   SCINDE], who, emboldened by the retreat from Cabul, had
   violated a treaty which they had concluded with the British
   Government. The result of the war was the annexation of the
   country: but the whole series of transactions is only
   remembered now as having given rise to the dispute on the
   question of the guilt of the Ameers between Napier and James
   Outram. Less talked of at the time, but historically more
   important, was Ellenborough's reconstitution of the British
   relations with the Sindia of the day. Political disturbances
   had for some time agitated that prince's court, while his army
   had swollen to a dangerous size, and, like the Sikh army since
   Runjeet Singh's death, which had taken place a few years
   before, had passed beyond the control of the civil power. In
   these two armies Ellenborough saw a danger which might disturb
   the peace of Hindostan. He foresaw that the Sikh soldiers,
   released from the stern discipline of Runjeet Singh, would
   soon force a government which they despised to let them cross
   the Sutlej in quest of plunder. Two years later his character
   as a prophet was vindicated; and, if he had not now, in
   anticipation of the invasion which then took place, disbanded
   the greater part of Sindia's army, and over-awed the remainder
   by a native contingent under the command of British officers,
   the Sikhs would probably have joined their forces with the
   Mahrattas. … But the Directors took a different view of
   their Governor-General's conduct of affairs. In June, 1844,
   all India was astonished by the news that Ellenborough had
   been recalled. He had helped to bring about his own downfall,
   for in the controversies with his masters in which he, like
   some of the ablest of his predecessors, had found himself
   involved, he had shown an unfortunate want of discretion; but,
   though by bombastic proclamations and a theatrical love of
   display he had sometimes exposed himself to ridicule, many of
   his subordinates felt that in him they had lost a vigorous and
   able ruler. Sir Henry Hardinge, who was raised to the peerage
   before the close of his administration, succeeded to the
   office of Governor-General, and waited anxiously for the
   breaking of the storm which his predecessor had seen
   gathering. The Sikhs, the Puritans of India [see SIKHS], who
   were not strictly speaking a nation, but a religious
   brotherhood of warriors called the Khalsa, were animated by
   two passions equally dangerous to the peace of those around
   them, a fierce enthusiasm, half military, half religious, for
   the glory of their order, and an insatiable desire for
   plunder. By giving them full scope for the indulgence of these
   passions, and by punishing all disobedience with merciless
   severity, Runjeet Singh had governed his turbulent subjects
   for forty years: but, when he died, they broke loose from all
   control; and the weak Government of Lahore found that they
   could only save their own capital from being plundered by the
   Khalsa army by sending it to seek plunder in British
   territory. Thus began the first Sikh war."

      _T. R. E. Holmes,
      History of the Indian Mutiny,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir L. Griffin,
      Ranjit Singh._

      _L. J. Trotter,
      The Earl of Auckland,
      chapters 4-13._

INDIA: A. D. 1843.
   Conquest of Scinde.

      See SCINDE.

INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
   The Sikh Wars.
   Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

   "There had always been an expectation that whenever Runjeet
   Singh died, there would be trouble with his soldiery; and it
   soon appeared that some incursion was in contemplation, for
   which the Sikh troops were prepared by an able European
   training under French officers. While the strife about the
   succession was going on in the Punjaub, the military element
   of society there became supreme; and the government at
   Calcutta considered it necessary to move troops to the
   frontier to preserve peace, and reassure the inhabitants of
   whole districts which dreaded the incursions of a haughty and
   lawless soldiery. The Sikhs were alarmed at the approach of
   English troops, and adopted the same course towards us that we
   had tried with their western neighbours—they crossed the
   frontier to forestall our doing it. Whether this move was a
   device of the Sikh chiefs, as some say it was, to get rid of
   the army, and perhaps to cause its destruction by the British,
   and thus to clear the field for their own factions; or whether
   war with the British was considered so inevitable that the
   invasion of our territory was intended as a measure of
   prudence, we need not here decide. The fact was that the Sikh
   soldiery gathered round the tomb of Runjeet Singh, preparing
   themselves for a great battle soon to happen; and that war was
   virtually declared at Lahore in November, 1845, and fairly
   begun by the troops crossing the Sutlej on the 11th of
   December, and taking up a position near Ferozepore. The old
   error prevailed in the British councils, the mistake denounced
   by Charles Metcalfe as fatal—that of undervaluing the enemy.
   The Sikhs had been considered unworthy to be opposed to the
   Afghans in Runjeet's time; and now we expected to drive them
   into the Sutlej at once; but we had never yet, in India, so
   nearly met with our match. The battle of Moodkee was fought
   under Sir Hugh Gough, on the 18th of December, and 'the
   rabble' from the Punjaub astonished both Europeans and Sepoys
   by standing firm, manœuvring well, and rendering it no easy
   matter to close the day with honour to the English arms. This
   ill-timed contempt was truly calamitous, as it had caused
   miscalculations about ammunition, carriage, hospital-stores,
   and everything necessary for a campaign. All these things were
   left behind at Delhi or Agra; and the desperate necessity of
   winning a battle was only enough barely to save the day. The
   advantage was with the British in the battle of Moodkee, but
   not so decisively as all parties had expected. After a
   junction with reinforcements, the British fought the invaders
   again on the 21st and 22nd, at Ferozeshur. On the first night
   our troops were hardly masters of the ground they stood on,
   and had no reserve, while their gallant enemy had large
   reinforcements within reach.
{1737}
   The next day might easily have been made fatal to the English
   army, at times when their ammunition fell short; but the Sikhs
   were badly commanded at a critical moment, then deserted by a
   traitorous leader, and finally driven back. For a month after
   this nothing was done by the British, and the Sikhs crossed
   the Sutlej at their ease. The valour of Gough and of Hardinge,
   who, while Governor-General, had put himself under the orders
   of the Commander-in-Chief, had saved the honour of the
   English; but their prestige was weakened among their own
   Sepoys, and even the European regiments; much more among the
   Sikhs; and most of all in the eyes of the vigilant surrounding
   states. It was a matter of life and death now to bring up
   guns, ammunition and treasure. A considerable portion fell
   into the enemy's hands on the 21st of January, on its way to
   the relief of Loodeeana; but the battle of Aliwal on the 28th
   was again a true British fight. The Sikhs were driven into the
   Sutlej; and as soon as they had collected in their stronghold
   of Sobraon on the other side, they were driven thence by a
   closing struggle on the 10th of February. The Sikhs were
   beaten, with a slaughter of 5,000 (some say 8,000) men;
   against 320 killed and 2,000 wounded on our side. The
   Maharajah submitted, the road to Lahore lay open, and the
   Governor-General could make his own terms. He flattered
   himself that he had arranged a protectorate of the Punjaub
   which would render annexation unnecessary; and all who could
   believe in it rejoiced that means had been found to escape the
   necessity of adding new conquests to a territory already much
   too large. As the Punjaub could not pay its amount of tribute
   to the Company, Cashmere and some other territory was accepted
   instead, and given, as a kingdom, to Gholab Singh … on his
   paying a portion of the debt, thus reimbursing the Company,
   and lessening the overgrown power of the Punjaub rulers. When,
   at the close of 1846, the English troops should be withdrawing
   from Lahore, the Sikh chiefs begged that they might remain,
   and take care of the Punjaub till the young Maharajah should
   grow up to manhood."

      _H. Martineau,
      British Rule in India,
      chapter 20._

   "Lord Hardinge entrusted the government of the Punjab to a
   Council of Regency, consisting of Sikh nobles under the
   guidance of Sir Henry Lawrence as British Resident. He refused
   to create a subsidiary army, but he left a British force to
   protect the government until the boy Dhuleep Singh reached his
   majority. Two-thirds of the Sikh army of the Khalsa were
   disbanded. The Jullunder Doab between the Sutlej and the Beyas
   was added to the British empire. … Lord Dalhousie succeeded
   Lord Hardinge in 1848. Shortly afterwards the Punjab was again
   in commotion. Sikh government under British protection had
   failed to keep the peace. The army of the Khalsa had
   disappeared, but the old love of license and plunder was
   burning in the hearts of the disbanded soldiery. The Sikh
   governor of Multan revolted; two Englishmen were murdered. A
   British force besieged the rebels in Multan. It was joined by
   a Sikh force in the service of the Council of Regency
   commanded by Shere Singh. So far the revolt at Multan was
   regarded as a single outbreak which would be soon suppressed
   by the capture of the fortress. In reality it was the
   beginning of a general insurrection. Shere Singh, who
   commanded the Sikh force in the besieging army, suddenly
   deserted the British force and joined his father Chutter
   Singh, who was already in open rebellion. The revolt was
   secretly promoted by the queen mother, and spread over the
   Punjab like wildfire. The old soldiers of the Khalsa rallied
   round Shere Singh and his father. The half-and-half government
   set up by Lord Hardinge was unable to cope with a revolution
   which was restoring the old anarchy. In November, 1848, Lord
   Gough advanced against the rebel army. Then followed the
   famous campaign between the Chenab and Jhelum rivers about 100
   miles to the north of Lahore. In January, 1849, Lord Gough
   fought the dubious battle of Chillianwallah, near the spot
   where Alexander the Great crossed the Jhelum and defeated the
   army of Porus. Meanwhile Multan surrendered, and the besieging
   force joined Lord Gough. In February the Sikh army was utterly
   defeated at Gujerat."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Indian History,
      chapter 11._

   "Gujrat was essentially a forenoon battle, with the whole day
   before the combatants to finish their work. It commenced with
   a magnificent duel of artillery; the British infantry
   occupying post after post as they were abandoned by the enemy;
   and the British cavalry breaking up the Sikh masses and
   scattering them by pursuit. Of the sixty Sikh guns engaged,
   fifty-three were taken. Lord Dalhousie resolved to make the
   victory a final one. 'The war,' he declared, 'must be
   prosecuted now to the entire defeat and dispersion of all who
   are in arms against us, whether Sikhs or Afghans.' General
   Gilbert hurried out with a pursuing force of 12,000, horse,
   foot and artillery, the day after the battle. In the
   breathless chase which followed across the plains of the
   Punjab to the frontier mountain-wall, the Sikh military power
   was destroyed for ever. On the 12th of March, 1849, General
   Gilbert received the submission of the entire Sikh army at
   Rawal Pindi, together with the last forty-one of the 160 Sikh
   cannon captured by the British during the war. While the Sikh
   army heaped up their swords and shields and matchlocks in
   submissive piles, and salamed one by one as they passed
   disarmed along the British line, their Afghan allies were
   chased relentlessly westwards, and reached the safety of the
   Khaibar Pass panting, and barely twenty miles in front of the
   English hunters. The horsemen of Afghanistan, it was said,
   'had ridden down through the hills like lions and ran back
   into them like dogs.' The question remained what to do with
   the Punjab. The victory of Sobraon in 1846 gave to Lord
   Hardinge the right of conquest: the victory at Gujrat in 1849
   compelled Lord Dalhousie to assert that right. Lord Hardinge
   at the end of the first Punjab war in 1846, tried, as we have
   seen, an intermediate method of ruling the province by British
   officers for the benefit of the infant prince. This method had
   failed. … In determining the future arrangements for the
   Punjab, Lord Dalhousie had as his advisers the two Lawrences.
   Sir Henry Lawrence, the former Resident at Lahore; hurried
   back from his sick-leave in England on the breaking out of the
   war. He was of opinion that the annexation of the Punjab might
   perhaps be just, but that it would be inexpedient. His brother
   John, afterwards Lord Lawrence, who had also acted as
   Resident, although as much averse in general principle to
   annexation as Henry, was convinced that, in this case,
   annexation was not only just, but that its expediency was
   'both undeniable and pressing.'
{1738}
   Lord Dalhousie, after a full review of the efforts which had
   been made to convert the Sikh nation into a friendly power
   without annexation, decided that no course now remained to the
   British Government but to annex. … The annexation of the
   Punjab was deliberately approved of by the Court of Directors,
   by Parliament, and by the English nation."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      The Marquess of Dalhousie,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir H. B. Edwardes and H. Merivale,
      Life of Sir Henry Lawrence._

      _R. B. Smith,
      Life of Lord Lawrence,
      volume 1, chapters 7-11._

      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      volume 1, chapters 1-7._

      _H. B. Edwardes,
      A Year on the Punjab Frontier, 1848-49._

      _Sir R. Temple,
      Men and Events of My Time in India,
      chapters 3-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856.
   Lord Dalhousie's minor annexations.
   The lapse of dependent Native States.
   The case of Nana Sahib.

   "In applying the doctrine of lapse to the Hindu chiefdoms, on
   default of natural successors or of an heir legally adopted
   with the sanction of the Ruling Power, Lord Dalhousie merely
   carried out the declared law of the case, and the deliberately
   formulated policy of the Government of India, years before he
   arrived in the country. In so doing, however, Lord Dalhousie
   became the unconscious but effective instrument by which the
   old India of Lord Wellesley at the beginning of the century
   was prepared for its conversion, in 1858, into the new India
   of the Queen. … The fundamental question was whether we
   should allow the government of a dependent State, in absence
   of natural heirs, to pass like mere private property to an
   adopted son. The Court of Directors had at one time permitted
   the adoption of a successor in special cases to a principality
   on failure of natural heirs. It declared, however, in 1834,
   that such an 'indulgence should be the exception, not the
   rule.' … As the evils of the old system of government by
   sham royalties further developed themselves, the Government of
   India determined in 1841 to enforce a more uniform policy. …
   What Lord Dalhousie did, therefore, was not to invent a new
   principle of Indian law, but to steadily apply an old
   principle. … The first case in which this principle came to
   be applied, shortly after Lord Dalhousie's arrival, was the
   Native State of Satara. That Maratha principality had been
   constituted by the British Government on the general break up
   of the Maratha power in 1818, and confirmed to the 'sons and
   heirs, and successors' of the recipient in 1819. In 1839 the
   reigning prince was deposed for misconduct by the British
   Government in the exercise of its Suzerain rights. By the same
   rights the British Government then set up the brother of the
   deposed prince on the throne. … The Raja, whom in 1839 we
   had placed on the throne, applied for permission to adopt a
   son. The British Government deliberately withheld the
   permission; and in the last hours of his life the Raja, in
   1848, hastily adopted a son without the consent of the
   Government." Lord Dalhousie, with the advice of the Court of
   Directors, declared in this case that the territory of Satara
   had lapsed, on the death of the Raja, by failure of heirs, to
   the Power which deposed, and it was annexed, accordingly, to
   the British dominions. Under kindred circumstances the Native
   States of Sambalpur, on the south-western frontier of Lower
   Bengal, and Jhansi, a fragment of the Maratha dominions in
   Northern India, were absorbed. "The same principle of lapse on
   failure of heirs was applied by Lord Dalhousie to several
   other dependent States. Jaitpur in Bundelkhand, Baghat a petty
   hill Chiefdom of 36 square miles in the Punjab, Udaipur on the
   Western frontier of Lower Bengal, and Budawal in Khandesh,
   passed under direct British rule from this cause. The fort and
   military fief of Tanjore were annexed after Lord Dalhousie's
   departure from India, but practically on the grounds set forth
   by his government. … By far the largest accession of
   territory made during Lord Dalhousie's rule, to the British
   dominions on the failure of heirs, was the great central tract
   of India known as Nagpur. This Maratha principality as now
   constituted into the Central Provinces, and after various
   rectifications of frontier, has an area of 113,279 square
   miles, with a population of 12,000,000 souls. The territories
   annexed by Lord Dalhousie in 1854 make nearly four-fifths of
   the present Central Provinces. … It is difficult to find any
   ground for the charge which Mr. Kaye brought in 1865 against
   Lord Dalhousie, for 'harshness' towards the man afterwards
   known as the infamous Nana Sahib [see below: A. D. 1857
   (MAY-AUGUST)]. As this charge, however, is still occasionally
   repeated, and as it has even been suggested that Lord
   Dalhousie was to some extent responsible for the Mutiny of
   1857, in consequence of his action towards Nana Sahib in 1851,
   I must briefly state the facts. In 1818, the Peshwa of the
   Marathas, completely beaten in the field, threw himself on the
   generosity of the British. Sir John Malcolm, then the
   Governor-General's Agent in the Deccan, assured him of his
   protection, and engaged that he should receive an allowance of
   £80,000 a year for his support. … There could not be the
   slightest pretension that it was ever anything more than a
   personal annuity; and from first to last all mention of heirs
   is carefully excluded. The records show that the ex-Peshwa,
   Baji Rao, was well aware of this. Baji Rao lived until 1851,
   leaving to his adopted son, Nana Sahib, an immense fortune
   admitted to amount to £280,000, and believed by the Government
   of the North-western Provinces to greatly exceed that sum. The
   Government of India at once acknowledged the adopted son's
   title to this splendid heritage, and out of its own
   beneficence added to it the Jaghir, or grant of land, on which
   his father had resided in the North-western Provinces. But the
   pension, paid out of the tax-payers' pockets, lapsed upon the
   death of the annuitant."

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      The Marquess of Dalhousie,
      chapters 6-7._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      India under Dalhousie and Canning._

INDIA: A. D. 1849-1893.
   The life in exile of Dhuleep Singh, heir to the Sikh throne.

   "Few careers have ever been more instructive to those who can
   see than that of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who died in
   Paris on Sunday [October 22, 1893] of apoplexy. He finished
   life a despised exile, but no man of modern days ever had such
   chances, or had seen them snatched, partly by fate, partly by
   fault, so completely from his lips. But for an accident, if
   there is such a thing as accident, he would have been the
   Hindoo Emperor of India.
{1739}
   His father, Runjeet Singh, that strange combination of Louis
   XI. and Charles the Bold, had formed and knew how to control
   an army which would have struck down all the native powers of
   India much more easily than did any of the Tartar conquerors.
   Without its master at its head, that army defeated the
   British, and but for a magnificent bribe paid to its General
   (vide Cunningham's 'History of the Sikhs') would have driven
   the English from India, and placed the child, Dhuleep Singh,
   upon the throne of the Peninsula, to be supported there by
   Sikh and Rajpoot, Mahratta, and Beharee. Apart from the
   English, there was nothing to resist them; and they were
   guided by a woman, the Ranee Chunda Kour; who of all modern
   women was most like Mary of Scots as her enemies have painted
   her, and of whom, after her fall, Lord Dalhousie said that her
   capture would be worth the sacrifice of a brigade. How Dhuleep
   Singh would have reigned had Runjeet Singh's destiny completed
   itself is another matter—probably like a Hindoo Humayoon—for
   even if not the son of Runjeet Singh, who, be it remembered,
   acknowledged him, he inherited ability from his mother; he was
   a bold man, and he was, as his career showed, capable of wild
   and daring adventure. He fell, however, from his throne under
   the shock of the second Sikh War, and began a new and, to all
   appearance, most promising career. Lord Dalhousie had a pity
   for the boy, and the English Court—we never quite understood
   why—an unusually kindly feeling. A fortune of £40,000 a year
   was settled on him, he was sent to England, and he was granted
   rank hardly less than that of a Prince of the Blood. He turned
   Christian—apparently from conviction, though subsequent
   events throw doubt on that—a tutor, who was quite competent,
   devoted himself to his education, and from the time he became
   of age he was regarded as in all respects a great English
   noble. He knew, too, how to sustain that character,—made no
   social blunders, became a great sportsman, and succeeded in
   maintaining for years the sustained stateliness of life which
   in England is held to confer social dignity. Confidence was
   first shaken by his marriage, which, though it did not turn
   out unsuccessfully, and though the lady was in after-life
   greatly liked and respected, was a whim, his bride being a
   half Coptic, half English girl whom he saw in an Egyptian
   school-room, and who, by all English as well as Indian ideas
   of rank, was an unfitting bride. Then he began over-spending,
   without the slightest necessity, for his great income was
   unburdened by a vast estate; and at last reduced his finances
   to such a condition that the India Office, which had made him
   advance after advance, closed its treasury and left him, as he
   thought, face to face with ruin. Then the fierce Asiatic blood
   in him came out. He declared himself wronged, perhaps believed
   himself oppressed, dropped the whole varnish of civilisation
   from him, and resolved to make an effort for the vengeance
   over which he had probably brooded for years. He publicly
   repudiated Christianity, and went through a ceremony intended
   to readmit him within the pale of the Sikh variety of the
   Hindoo faith. Whether it did readmit him, greater doctors than
   we must decide. That an ordinary Hindoo who has eaten beef
   cannot be readmitted to his own caste, even if the eating is
   involuntary, is certain, as witness the tradition of the
   Tagore family; but the rights of the Royal are, even in
   Hindooism, extraordinarily wide, and we fancy that, had
   Dhuleep Singh succeeded in his enterprise, Sikh doctors of
   theology would have declared his re-admission legal. He did
   not, however, succeed. He set out for the Punjab intending, it
   can hardly be doubted, if the Sikhs acknowledged him, to make
   a stroke for the throne, if not of India, at least of Runjeet
   Singh; but he was arrested at Aden, and after months of fierce
   dispute, let go, on condition that he should not return to
   India. He sought protection in Russia, which he did not
   obtain, and at last gave up the struggle, made his peace with
   the India Office, took his pension again, and lived, chiefly
   in Paris, the life of a disappointed but wealthy idler. There
   was some spirit in his adventure, though it was unwisely
   carried out. The English generally thought it a bit of
   foolhardiness, or a dodge to extract a loan from the India
   Office; but those who were responsible held a different
   opinion, and would have gone nearly any length to prevent his
   reaching the Punjab. They were probably wise. The heir of
   Runjeet might have been ridiculed by the Sikhs as a Christian,
   but he might also have been accepted as a reconverted man; and
   one successful skirmish in a district might have called to
   arms all the 'children of the sugar and the sword,' and set
   all India on fire. The Sikhs are our very good friends, and
   stood by us against any revival of the Empire of Delhi, their
   sworn hereditary foe; but they have not forgotten Runjeet
   Singh, and a chance of the Empire for themselves might have
   turned many of their heads."

      _The Spectator,
      October 28, 1893._

INDIA: A. D. 1852.
   The second Burmese War.
   Annexation of Pegu.

   "While Lord Dalhousie was laying out the Punjab like a Scotch
   estate, on the most approved principles of planting,
   road-making, culture, and general management, the chance of
   another conquest at the opposite extremity of his vice-kingdom
   summoned him to Calcutta. The master of a trading barque from
   Chittagong, who was charged unjustly with cruelty to a pilot,
   had been fined £100 by the authorities of Rangoon, and the
   captain of a brig had in like manner been amerced for alleged
   ill-treatment of his crew. To support a claim for restitution,
   two English ships of war had been sent to the mouth of the
   Irrawadi. … Misunderstandings arose on some inexplicable
   point of etiquette;" the British commodore seized a royal
   yacht which lay in the river; the angry Burmese opened fire on
   his ships from their forts; and, "with an unprecedented
   economy of time and trouble in the discovery or making of
   plausible pretexts, a second war with Burmah was thus begun. A
   long catalogue of affronts, wrongs, and injuries, now for the
   first time poured in. … The subjects of the 'Golden Foot'
   … must make an official apology for their misbehaviour, pay
   ten lacs compensation, and receive a permanent Resident at
   Rangoon. If these demands were not met within five weeks,
   further reparation would be exacted otherwise, and as there
   was no fear that they would, preparations were made for an
   expedition. … The Governor-General threw himself with
   enthusiasm into an undertaking which promised him another
   chance of gratifying, as his biographer says, his 'passion for
   imperial symmetry.'
{1740}
   He resolved 'to take in kingdoms wherever they made a gap in
   the red line running round his dominions or broke its internal
   continuity.' There was a gap in the ring-fence between Arracan
   and Moulmein, which Pegu would fill. The logical inference was
   clear, the duty of appropriation obvious. Let us have Pegu.
   Ten millions of silver happening just then to lie in the
   coffers of Fort William, how could they be better invested
   than in a jungle on the sea coast, inhabited by quadrupeds and
   bipeds after their various kinds, alike unworthy of being
   consulted as to their future destiny? … In April, Martaban
   and Rangoon were taken with trifling loss. Operations being
   suspended during the rainy season, the city of Prome was not
   attacked till October, and after a few hours' struggle it
   fell, with the loss of a single sepoy on the side of the
   victors. There was in fact no serious danger to encounter,
   save from the climate; but that unfailing ally fought with
   terrible effect upon the side of Ava. … On the 20th
   December, 1852, a proclamation was issued, which, after
   reciting undisguisedly the ineffably inadequate pretext for
   the war, informed the inhabitants that the Governor in Council
   had resolved that the maritime province of Pegu should
   henceforth form a portion of the British territories in the
   East, and warning the King of Ava, 'should he fail to renew
   his former relations of friendship with the British
   Government, and seek to dispute its quiet possession of the
   province, the Governor-General would again put forth the power
   he held, which would lead to the total subversion of the
   Burman State, and to the ruin and exile of the King and his
   race.' But no depth of humiliation could bring the Sovereign
   or his Ministers to acknowledge the hopelessness of defeat or
   the permanency of dismemberment. … Twenty years have passed,
   and no treaty recognising the alienation of Pegu has yet [in
   1872] been signed."

      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapters 15-16 (volume 2)._

INDIA: A. D. 1856.
   The annexation of Oudh.

      See OUDH.

INDIA: A. D. 1857.
   Causes of the Sepoy Mutiny.

   "The various motives assigned for the Mutiny appear inadequate
   to the European mind. The truth seems to be that Native
   opinion throughout India was in a ferment, predisposing men to
   believe the wildest stories, and to rush into action in a
   paroxysm of terror. Panic acts on an Oriental population like
   drink upon a European mob. The annexation policy of Lord
   Dalhousie, although dictated by the most enlightened
   considerations, was distasteful to the Native mind. The spread
   of education, the appearance at the same moment of the
   steam-engine and the telegraph wire, seemed to reveal a deep
   plan for substituting an English for an Indian civilisation.
   The Bengal sepoys especially thought that they could see
   further than the rest of their countrymen. Most of them were
   Hindus of high caste; many of them were recruited from Oudh.
   They regarded our reforms on Western lines as attacks on their
   own nationality, and they knew at first hand what annexation
   meant. They believed it was by their prowess that the Punjab
   had been conquered, and that all India was held. The numerous
   dethroned princes, or their heirs and widows, were the first
   to learn and to take advantage of this spirit of disaffection
   and panic. They had heard of the Crimean war, and were told
   that Russia was the perpetual enemy of England. Our munificent
   pensions had supplied the funds with which they could buy the
   aid of skilful intriguers. They had much to gain, and little
   to lose, by a revolution. In this critical state of affairs,
   of which the Government had no official knowledge, a rumour
   ran through the cantonments that the cartridges of the Bengal
   army had been greased with the fat of pigs,—animals unclean
   alike to Hindu and Muhammadan. No assurances could quiet the
   minds of the sepoys. Fires occurred nightly in the Native
   lines; officers were insulted by their men; confidence was
   gone, and only the form of discipline remained. In addition,
   the outbreak of the storm found the Native regiments denuded
   of many of their best officers. The administration of the
   great empire to which Dalhousie put the corner-stone, required
   a larger staff than the civil service could supply. The
   practice of selecting able military men for civil posts, which
   had long existed, received a sudden and vast development.
   Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, British Burma, were
   administered to a large extent by picked officers from the
   Company's regiments. Good and skilful commanders remained; but
   the Native army had nevertheless been drained of many of its
   brightest intellects and firmest wills at the very crisis of
   its fate."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 15._

   "The annexation of Oudh had nothing to do with the Mutiny in
   the first place, though that measure certainly did add to the
   number of our enemies after the Mutiny commenced. The old
   government of Oudh was extremely obnoxious to the mass of our
   native soldiers of the regular army, who came from Oudh and
   the adjacent province of Behar, and with whom the Mutiny
   originated. These men were the sons and kinsmen of the Hindu
   yeomen of the country, all of whom benefited more or less by
   annexation; while Oudh was ruled by a Muhammadan family which
   had never identified itself with the people, and whose
   government was extremely oppressive to all classes except its
   immediate creatures and followers. But when the introduction
   of the greased cartridges had excited the Native Army to
   revolt, when the mutineers saw nothing before them short of
   escape on the one hand or destruction on the other, they, and
   all who sympathised with them, were driven to the most
   desperate measures. All who could be influenced by love or
   fear rallied round them. All who had little or nothing to lose
   joined their ranks. All that dangerous class of religious
   fanatics and devotees who abound in India, all the political
   intriguers, who in peaceful times can do no mischief, swelled
   the numbers of the enemy, and gave spirit and direction to
   their measures. India is full of races of men, who, from time
   immemorial, have lived by service or by plunder, and who are
   ready to join in any disturbance which may promise them
   employment. Oudh was full of disbanded soldiers who had not
   had time to settle down. Our gaols furnished thousands of
   desperate men let loose on society. The cry throughout the
   country, as cantonment after cantonment became the scene of
   triumphant mutiny was, 'The English rule is at an end. Let us
   plunder and enjoy ourselves.' The industrious classes
   throughout India were on our side, but for a long time feared
   to act.
{1741}
   On the one side they saw the few English in the country shot
   down or flying for their lives, or at the best standing on the
   defensive, sorely pressed; on the other side they saw summary
   punishment, in the shape of the plunder and destruction of
   their houses, dealt out to those who aided us. But when we
   evinced signs of vigour, when we began to assume the offensive
   and vindicate our authority, many of these people came forward
   and identified themselves with our cause."

      _Lord Lawrence,
      Speech at Glasgow, 1860 (quoted by Sir O. T. Burne,
      in "Clyde and Strathnairn," chapter 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War in India,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Indian Mutiny of 1857,
      chapters 1-5._

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May).
   The outbreak at Meerut.
   Seizure of Delhi by the Mutineers.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Explosion of the magazine.

   "The station of Meerut, some 40 miles north-east of Delhi, was
   one of the very few in India where adequate means existed for
   quelling an outbreak of native troops. There was a regiment of
   English Dragoons, a battalion of the 60th Rifles, and a strong
   force of Horse and Foot Artillery, far more than sufficient to
   deal with the three native regiments who were also quartered
   in the cantonment. The court-martial on … eighty-five men of
   the 3rd N. C., who had refused to take their cartridges, had
   by this time completed its inquiry. The men were sentenced to
   long terms of imprisonment. The sentence was carried out with
   impressive solemnity. On a morning [May 9] presently to become
   historical—the heavens sombre with rolling clouds—the
   brigade assembled to hear their comrades' doom—to see them
   stripped of their uniform and secured with felons' manacles.
   The scene produced intense emotion. Resistance was impossible.
   There were entreaties, tears, imprecations, as the prisoners
   were marched away to jail. Discipline had been vindicated by a
   terrible example. The next day was Sunday. In the evening, as
   the European Riflemen were gathering for Church, a sudden
   movement took place in the native quarters. The Cavalry dashed
   off to the jail to rescue their imprisoned companions. The two
   Infantry regiments, after a moment's wavering, threw in their
   lot with the mutineers. Then ensued a scene such as,
   unhappily, became too familiar in Upper India within the next
   few weeks. Officers were shot, houses fired, Europeans—men,
   women, and children, wherever found, were put to the sword. A
   crowd of miscreants from the jail, suddenly set free, made a
   long night of pillage. Meanwhile, paralysed by the sudden
   catastrophe, the English General of the Division and the
   Brigadier of the Station forbore to act, refused to let their
   subordinates act, and the Sepoys who had fled, a disorganised
   mob, in different directions, soon found themselves gathering
   on the march for Delhi. In the early morning at Delhi, where
   courts and offices had already begun the day's work, a line of
   horsemen were descried galloping on the Meerut road. They
   found their way into the city, into the presence of the King;
   cut down the European officials, and, as they were gradually
   reinforced by the arrival of fresh companions, commenced a
   general massacre of the Christian population. A brave
   telegraph clerk, as the mutineers burst in upon him, had just
   time to flash the dreadful tidings to Lahore. Before evening,
   the native regiments fired upon their officers and joined the
   mutineers. After weary hours of hope for the help from Meerut
   which never came, the British officers in command were
   compelled to recognise that the only chance of safety lay in
   flight. Ere the day closed, every European who had risen that
   morning in Delhi, was dead, or awaiting death, or wandering
   about the country in the desperate endeavor to reach a place
   of safety. A day dark with disaster was, however, illumined by
   the first of those heroic acts which will make the siege of
   Delhi immortal. The insurgents had their first taste of the
   quality of the race whose ascendancy they had elected to
   assail. Lieutenant Willoughby, the officer in charge of the
   Magazine, and eight gallant companions, resolved, early in the
   day, that, if they could not defend their invaluable supply of
   ammunition, they would destroy it, though its destruction
   would almost certainly involve their own. For hours they
   defended their stronghold against an overpowering crowd of
   assailants. The train was laid: the sergeant who was to fire
   it stood ready: Willoughby took a last look out upon the
   Meerut road: the assailants were swarming on the walls. The
   word was spoken: a vast column of flame and smoke shot upward.
   Two thousand of the assailants were blown into the air [and
   five of the defenders perished, while Willoughby and three of
   his companions escaped]. The thunder of that explosion
   announced to the mutineers that one great object in the
   seizure of Delhi had escaped their grasp."

      _H. S. Cunningham,
      Earl Canning,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War in India,
      book 4, chapters 1-3 (volume 2)._

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May-August).
   The situation at Delhi.
   Siege of the English at Cawnpur.
   Their surrender and massacre.
   The siege of Lucknow.

   "A few days of inactivity allowed the flame to blaze up beyond
   possibility of immediate extinction. The unchallenged
   occupation of the Mughal capital by rebel sepoys and badmashes
   was followed by risings and massacres in almost every station
   within range of the example; and from Firozpur, Bareilly,
   Moradabad, Shahjahanpur, Cawnpur, and numerous other places
   came harrowing tales of massacre, suffering, and heroism. When
   this terrible news reached army head-quarters, it was received
   with a perhaps natural incredulity. Nevertheless, a force was
   hastily assembled at Ambala; and with the troops thus
   mobilised, General Anson, then Commander-in-Chief, made
   preparations to march against the renowned city of the Mughal.
   The little force had hardly started, however, when its leader
   died of cholera (May 27th). It was not until the 1st of June
   that General Barnard, who had succeeded temporarily to the
   chief command, advanced in earnest against the now jubilant
   rebels. Meanwhile, a small body of troops under Brigadier
   Archdale Wilson marched out from Meerut, after a disastrous
   delay; and the combined force, amounting to about 3,000
   Europeans and one battalion of Gurkhas, fought its way onwards
   till it reached the outskirts of the city on the 8th of June,
   1857. We may now refer to the three great points,—Delhi,
   Cawnpur, and Lucknow, round which the Mutiny was, so to speak,
   centred during the earlier period of the revolt; namely, from
   May, 1857, till the arrival in India of Sir Colin Campbell in
   August of that year.
{1742}
   The modern city of Delhi was founded by the Emperor Jahangir
   in 1631. Situated on the right bank of a branch of the Jumna
   river it was, as it still is, surrounded by a high wall some
   seven miles in extent, strengthened by bastions and by a
   capacious dry ditch. The British force held the elevated
   ground known as the Ridge, which extends two miles along the
   northern and western faces of the city—a position taken up
   some centuries before by Timur Shah and his Tartar hordes when
   advancing to attack old Delhi. At intervals along the Ridge
   stood the Flagstaff Tower, the Observatory, a large mansion
   called Hindu Rao's house, and other defensible buildings. The
   space between the city and the Ridge was thickly planted, for
   the most part with trees and shrubs; in the midst of which
   might be seen numerous mosques and large houses, and the ruins
   of older buildings. It soon became evident that the position
   held by the British force on the Ridge was a false one; and
   the question arose whether the city might not be taken by a
   coup de main, seeing that it was impossible either to invest
   it or to attempt a regular siege with any chance of success. A
   plan of assault, to be carried out on the 12th of June, was
   drawn up by a young Engineer officer and sanctioned. Had this
   assault been delivered the city would in all likelihood have
   been taken and held. … But owing to a series of accidents,
   the plan fell through—a miscarriage the more to be regretted
   because the early recapture of the city would in all human
   probability have put a stop to further outbreaks. As matters
   stood, however, the gallant little force before Delhi could
   barely hold its own. It was an army of observation perpetually
   harassed by an active enemy. As time went on, therefore, the
   question of raising the siege in favour of a movement towards
   Agra was more than once seriously discussed, but was
   fortunately abandoned. On July 5th, 1857, General Barnard
   died, worn out with fatigue and anxiety. He was succeeded in
   command by General Archdale Wilson, an officer who, possessing
   no special force of character, did little more than secure the
   safe defence of the position until the arrival of Brigadier
   Nicholson from the Punjab, August 14th, 1857, with a moveable
   column of 2,500 men, Europeans and Sikhs. And here we may
   leave Delhi, for the moment, deferring till later any further
   details of the siege. The city of Cawnpur, situated on the
   south bank of the river Ganges, 42 miles south-west of Lucknow
   and 270 miles from Delhi, lies about a mile from the river in
   a large sandy plain. On the strip of land between the river
   and the town, a space broken by ravines, stretched the Civil
   Station and cantonments. A more difficult position to hold in
   an extremity cannot well be conceived, occupied as it was by
   four disaffected Sepoy regiments with but sixty European
   artillerymen to overawe them. There was, moreover, an
   incompetent commander. Realising after the disasters at Meerut
   and Delhi that his native garrison was not to be trusted, Sir
   Hugh Wheeler threw up a make-shift entrenchment close to the
   Sepoy lines. Commanded on all sides, it was totally unfitted
   to stand a siege. But a worse mistake was to follow. Alarmed
   as time went on at his growing difficulties, Sir Hugh Wheeler
   at length asked the notorious Nana Sahib [see above: A. D.
   1848-1856], who lived a few miles off at Bithur, to assist him
   with troops to guard the Treasury. For some months previously
   this archtraitor's emissaries had been spreading discontent
   throughout India, but he himself had taken care to remain on
   good terms with his European neighbours. He now saw his
   opportunity. Cawnpur, delivered into his hands by the
   misplaced confidence of its defenders, was virtually in his
   keeping. Of European succour there was no immediate hope. The
   place was doomed. The crash came three days before General
   Barnard's force reached Delhi. With the exception of a few
   devoted natives who remained faithful to their salt, the whole
   Sepoy force on the 5th of June rose in revolt, opened the
   doors of the jail, robbed the treasury, and made themselves
   masters of the magazine. The Nana cast aside all further
   pretence of friendship and, joined by the mutinous troops,
   laid siege to the entrenchment already mentioned, which with
   culpable military ignorance had been thrown up in one of the
   worst positions that could have been chosen. The besieging
   army numbered some 3,000 men. The besieged could only muster
   about 400 English soldiers, more than 70 of which number were
   invalids. For twenty-one days the little garrison suffered
   untold horrors from starvation, heat, and the onslaughts of
   the rebels; until the General in command listened to overtures
   for surrender, and the garrison marched out on the 27th of
   June, to the number of about 450 souls, provided with a
   promise of safeguard from the Nana, who would allow them, as
   they thought, to embark in country boats for Allahabad. Tantia
   Topi, who afterwards became notorious in Central India,
   superintended the embarkation. No sooner, however, were the
   Europeans placed in the boats, in apparent safety, than a
   battery of guns concealed on the river banks opened fire,
   while at the same time a deadly fusillade of musketry was
   poured on the luckless refugees. The Nana at length ordered
   the massacre to cease. He celebrated what he called his
   glorious victory by proclaiming himself Peshwa or Maratha
   Sovereign, and by rewarding his troops for their 'splendid
   achievements,' while the wretched survivors of his treachery,
   numbering about 5 men and 206 women and children, were taken
   back to Cawnpur and confined in a small building for further
   vengeance and insult. On the 15th of July came the last act of
   this tragedy. The Nana, having suffered a crushing defeat at
   the hands of Brigadier Havelock's force within a day's march
   of Cawnpur, as will presently be recorded, put the whole of
   his prisoners to death. The men were brought out and killed in
   his presence, while the women and children were hacked to
   pieces by Muhammadan butchers and others in their prison.
   Their bodies were thrown into what is now known as the
   Cawnpur Well.' Lucknow, at the time of the Mutiny, was in
   population, in extent, and in the number and importance of its
   principal buildings, one of the foremost cities of India. …
   The Residency stood on a hill gently sloping towards the
   river, and was an imposing edifice of three stories. Near it
   were the iron and stone bridges over the river. … At the
   outbreak of the Mutiny the Sepoy regiments were stationed in
   various localities within the city; while the 32nd Foot, the
   only European regiment on the spot, was quartered in a barrack
   about a mile or so from the Residency.
{1743}
   As was the case elsewhere, so it happened at Lucknow. While
   the population and native garrison were seething with
   sedition, the British authorities were hampered by ignorance
   of popular feeling, by the want of European troops, and by
   divided counsels. So, by the end of May, 1857, the rebellion
   in Oudh became an accomplished fact, although matters went on
   with comparative smoothness in Lucknow itself. At length,
   after a serious disaster at Chinhat, the British garrison was
   forced to withdraw to the Residency and its adjacent
   buildings; and on the 1st of July commenced the famous
   investment of this position by the rebel forces. The position
   was ill adapted for defence; for the lofty windows of the
   Residency itself not only allowed free access to the enemy's
   missiles, but its roof was wholly exposed. On the opposite
   side of the street, leading from the Bailey Guard Gate, was
   the house of the Residency Surgeon, Dr. (now Sir Joseph)
   Fayrer. It was a large but not lofty building with a flat roof
   which, protected by sand bags, afforded a good cover for our
   riflemen, and with a tyekhana, or underground story, that
   afforded good shelter for the women and children. But as a
   whole, the defences of the Residency were more formidable in
   name than in reality, and were greatly weakened by the
   proximity of high buildings from which the rebels without
   danger to themselves poured an unceasing fire. The siege had
   an ominous commencement. On July 4th the much-beloved Sir
   Henry Lawrence, the Resident, died of a wound received two
   days before from an enemy's shell that had fallen into his
   room. Brigadier Inglis succeeded him in command; and for three
   months the heroic garrison of about 1,700 souls held their
   weak position, amid inconceivable hardships and dangers,
   against thousands of the rebels who were constantly reinforced
   by fresh levies. It was well said in a general order by Lord
   Canning that there could not be found in the annals of war an
   achievement more heroic than this defence."

      _General Sir O. T. Burne,
      Clyde and Strathnairn,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War,
      book 9, chapters 1-3 (volume 3)._

      _G. O. Trevelyan,
      Cawnpore._

      _T. R. E. Holmes,
      History of the Indian Mutiny,
      chapters 8-10._

      _Lady Inglis,
      The Siege of Lucknow._

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (June-September).
   The siege, the storming and the capture of Delhi.
   Murder of the Moghul princes.

   "During the four months that followed the revolt at Delhi on
   the 11th of May, all political interest was centred at the
   ancient capital of the sovereigns of Hindustan. The public
   mind was occasionally distracted by the current of events at
   Cawnpore and Lukhnow, as well as at other stations which need
   not be particularised; but so long as Delhi remained in the
   hands of the rebels, the native princes were bewildered and
   alarmed; and its prompt recapture was deemed of vital
   importance to the prestige of the British government, and the
   re-establishment of British sovereignty in Hindustan. The
   Great Moghul had been little better than a mummy for more than
   half a century, and Bahadur Shah was a mere tool and puppet in
   the hands of rebel sepoys; but nevertheless the British
   government had to deal with the astounding fact that the
   rebels were fighting under his name and standard, just as
   Afghans and Mahrattas had done in the days of Ahmad Shah
   Durani and Mahadaji Sindia. To make matters worse, the roads
   to Delhi were open from the south and east; and nearly every
   outbreak in Hindustan was followed by a stampede of mutineers
   to the old capital of the Moghuls. Meanwhile, in the absence
   of railways, there were unfortunate delays in bringing up
   troops and guns to stamp out the fires of rebellion at the
   head centre. The highway from Calcutta to Delhi was blocked up
   by mutiny and insurrection; and every European soldier sent up
   from Calcutta was stopped for the relief of Benares,
   Allahabad, Cawnpore, or Lukhnow. But the possession of the
   Punjab at this crisis proved to be the salvation of the
   empire. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner, was called
   upon to perform almost superhuman work:—to maintain order in
   a newly conquered province; to suppress mutiny and
   disaffection amongst the very sepoy regiments from Bengal who
   were supposed to garrison the country; and to send
   reinforcements of troops and guns, and supplies of all
   descriptions, to the siege of Delhi. Fortunately the Sikhs had
   been only a few short years under British administration; they
   had not forgotten the miseries that prevailed under the native
   government, and could appreciate the many blessings they
   enjoyed under British rule. They were staunch to the British
   government, and eager to be led against the rebels. In some
   cases terrible punishment was meted out to mutinous Bengal
   sepoys within the Punjab; but the imperial interests at stake
   were sufficient to justify every severity, although all must
   regret the painful necessity that called for such extreme
   measures. … The defences of Delhi covered an area of three
   square miles. The walls consisted of a series of bastions,
   about sixteen feet high, connected by long curtains, with
   occasional martello towers to aid the flanking fire. … There
   were seven gates to the city, namely, Lahore gate, Ajmir gate,
   Turkoman gate, Delhi gate, Mori gate, Kabul gate, and Kashmir
   gate. The principal street was the Chandni Chouk, which ran in
   a direct line from the Delhi gate to the palace of the
   Moghuls. … For many weeks the British army on the Ridge was
   unable to attempt siege operations. It was, in fact, the
   besieged, rather than the besiegers; for, although the bridges
   in the rear were blown up, the camp was exposed to continual
   assaults from all the other sides. On the 23rd of June, the
   hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassy, the enemy made
   a greater effort than ever to carry the British position. The
   attack began on the right from the Subzi Mundi, its object
   being to capture the Mound battery. Finding it impossible to
   carry the battery, the rebels confined themselves to a hand to
   hand conflict in the Subzi Mundi. The deadly struggle
   continued for many hours; and as the rebels came up in
   overwhelming numbers, it was fortunate that the two bridges in
   the rear had been blown up the night before, or the assault
   might have had a different termination. It was not until after
   sunset that the enemy was compelled to retire with the loss of
   a thousand men. Similar actions were frequent during the month
   of August; but meanwhile reinforcements were coming up, and
   the end was drawing nigh. In the middle of August, Brigadier
   John Nicholson, one of the most distinguished officers of the
   time, came up from the Punjab with a brigade and siege train.
   On the 4th of September a heavy train of artillery was brought
   in from Ferozepore.
{1744}
   The British force on the Ridge now exceeded 8,000 men.
   Hitherto the artillery had been too weak to attempt to breach
   the City walls; but now fifty-four heavy guns were brought
   into position and the siege began in earnest. From the 8th to
   the 12th of September four batteries poured in a constant
   storm of shot and shell; number one was directed against the
   Kashmir bastion, number two against the right flank of the
   Kashmir bastion, number three against the Water bastion, and
   number four against the Kashmir and Water gates and bastions.
   On the 13th of September the breaches were declared to be
   practicable, and the following morning was fixed for the final
   assault upon the doomed city. At three o'clock in the morning
   of the 14th September, three assaulting columns were formed in
   the trenches, whilst a fourth was kept in reserve. The first
   column was led by Brigadier Nicholson; the second by Brigadier
   Jones; the third by Colonel Campbell; and the fourth, or
   reserve, by Brigadier Longfield. The powder bags were laid at
   the Kashmir gate by Lieutenants Home and Salkeld. The
   explosion followed, and the third column rushed in, and pushed
   towards the Juma Musjid. Meanwhile the first column under
   Nicholson escaladed the breaches near the Kashmir gate, and
   pushed along the ramparts towards the Kabul gate, carrying the
   several bastions in the way. Here it was met by the second
   column under Brigadier Jones, who had escaladed the breach at
   the Water bastion. The advancing columns were met by a
   ceaseless fire from terraced houses, mosques, and other
   buildings; and John Nicholson, the hero of the day, whilst
   attempting to storm a narrow street near the Kabul gate, was
   struck down by a shot and mortally wounded."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 3, chapter 25._

   "The long autumn day was over, and we were in Delhi. But Delhi
   was, by no means, ours. Sixty-six officers and 1,100 men—
   nearly a third, that is, of the whole attacking force—had
   fallen; while, as yet, not a sixth part of the town was in our
   power. How many men, it might well be asked, would be left to
   us by the time that we had conquered the remainder? We held
   the line of ramparts which we had attacked and the portions of
   the city immediately adjoining, but nothing more. The Lahore
   Gate and the Magazine, the Jumma Musjid and the Palace, were
   still untouched, and were keeping up a heavy fire on our
   position. Worse than this, a large number of our troops had
   fallen victims to the temptation which, more formidable than
   themselves, our foes had left behind them, and were wallowing
   in a state of bestial intoxication. The enemy, meanwhile, had
   been able to maintain their position outside the town; and if
   only, at this supreme hour, a heaven-sent General had appeared
   amongst them, they might have attacked our camp, defended as
   it was mainly by the sick, and the maimed, and the halt. …
   Never, perhaps, in the history of the Mutiny were we in quite
   so perilous a position as on the night which followed our
   greatest military success. General Wilson, indeed, proposed,
   as might have been expected from a man in his enfeebled
   condition of mind and body, to withdraw the guns, to fall back
   on the camp and wait for reinforcements there; a step which,
   it is needless to point out, would have given us all the
   deadly work to do over again, even if our force should prove
   able to maintain itself on the Ridge till reinforcements came.
   But the urgent remonstrances of Baird Smith and others, by
   word of mouth; of Chamberlain, by letter; and, perhaps, also,
   the echoes which may have reached him from the tempest-tossed
   hero who lay chafing against his cruel destiny on his
   death-bed, and exclaimed in a wild paroxysm of passion, when
   he heard of the move which was in contemplation, 'Thank God, I
   have strength enough left to shoot that man,' turned the
   General once more from his purpose. On the following day, the
   15th, vast quantities of the intoxicating drinks, which had
   wrought such havoc amongst our men, were destroyed by General
   Wilson's order, and the streets literally ran with rivers of
   beer, and wine, and brandy. Meanwhile, the troops were
   sleeping off their drunken debauch; and on the 16th active
   operations were resumed. On that day the Magazine was taken,
   and its vast stores of shot and shell, and of all the
   'material' of war, fell once more into the hands of their
   proper owners. By sapping gradually from house to house we
   managed, for three days more, to avoid the street-fighting
   which, once and again, has proved so demoralising to
   Englishmen; and, slowly but surely, we pressed back the
   defenders into that ever-narrowing part of the city of which,
   fortunately for themselves, they still held the bolt-holes.
   Many of them had already begun, like rats, to quit the sinking
   vessel. And now the unarmed population of the city flocked in
   one continuous stream out of the open gates, hoping to save
   their lives, if nothing else, from our avenging swords. On the
   19th, the palace of the Moguls, which had witnessed the last
   expiring flicker of life in an effete dynasty, and the cruel
   murder of English men, and women, and children, fell into our
   hands; and by Sunday, the 20th, the whole of the city—in
   large part already a city of the dead—was at our mercy. But
   what of the King himself and the Princes of the royal house?
   They had slunk off to the tomb of Humayoun, a huge building,
   almost a city in itself, some miles from the modern Delhi, and
   there, swayed this way and that, now by the bolder spirits of
   his army who pressed him to put himself at their head and
   fight it out to the death, as became the descendant of
   Tamerlane and Baber, now by the entreaties of his young wife,
   who was anxious chiefly for her own safety and that of her
   son, the heir of the Moguls; and now, again, by the plausible
   suggestions of a double-dyed traitor of his own house who was
   in Hodson's pay, and who, approaching the head of his family
   with a kiss of peace, was endeavoring to detain him where he
   was till he could hand him over to his employer and receive
   the price of blood, the poor old monarch dozed or fooled away
   the few hours of his sovereignty which remained, the hours
   which might still make or mar him, in paroxysms of imbecile
   vacillation and despair. The traitor gained the day, and
   Hodson, who could play the game of force as well as of fraud,
   and was an equal adept at either, learning from his
   craven-hearted tool that the King was prepared to surrender on
   the promise of his life, went to Wilson and obtained leave, on
   that condition, to bring him into Delhi. The errand, with such
   a promise tacked on to it, was only half to Hodson's taste.
{1745}
   'If I get into the Palace,' he had written in cool blood some
   days before, 'the house of Timour will not be worth five
   minutes' purchase, I ween.' … After two hours of bargaining
   for his own life and that of his queen and favourite son, the
   poor old Priam tottered forth and was taken back, in a
   bullock-cart, a prisoner, to his own city and Palace, and was
   there handed over to the civil authorities. But there were
   other members of the royal family, as Hodson knew well from
   his informants, also lurking in Humayoun's tomb. … With a
   hundred of his famous horse Hodson started for Humayoun's
   tomb, and, after three hours of negotiation, the three
   princes, two of them the sons, the other the grandson of the
   King, surrendered unconditionally into his hands. … Their
   arms were taken from them, and, escorted by some of his
   horsemen, they too were despatched in bullock-carts towards
   Delhi. With the rest of his horse, Hodson stayed behind to
   disarm the large and nerveless crowd, who, as sheep having no
   shepherd, and unable, in their paralysed condition, to see
   what the brute weight even of a flock of sheep might do by a
   sudden rush, were overawed by his resolute bearing. This done,
   he galloped after his prey and caught them up just before the
   cavalcade reached the walls of Delhi. He ordered the princes
   roughly to get out of the cart and strip,—for, even in his
   thirst for their blood, he had, as it would seem, an eye to
   the value of their outer clothes,—he ordered them into the
   cart again, he seized a carbine from one of his troopers, and
   then and there, with his own hand, shot them down deliberately
   one after the other. It was a stupid, cold-blooded, three-fold
   murder. … Had they been put upon their trial, disclosures of
   great importance as to the origin of the Mutiny could hardly
   fail to have been elicited. Their punishment would have been
   proportioned to their offence, and would have been meted out
   to them with all the patient majesty of offended law."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Life of Lord Lawrence,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir R. Temple,
      Lord Lawrence,
      chapter 7._

      _Sir R. Temple,
      Men and Events of my Time in India,
      chapter 7._

      _J. Cave-Brown,
      The Punjab and Delhi in 1857._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the Indian Mutiny,
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _Major Hodson,
      Twelve Years of a Soldier's Life in India,
      part 2: The Delhi Campaign._

INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (July-June).
   General Havelock's campaign.
   Sir Colin Campbell's.
   The Relief of Lucknow.
   Substantial suppression of the Mutiny.

   "Meanwhile the greatest anxiety prevailed with regard to our
   countrymen and countrywomen at Lucknow and Cawnpore. The
   Indian government made every effort to relieve them; but the
   reinforcements which had been despatched from England and
   China came in slowly, and the demands made for assistance far
   exceeded the means at the disposal of the government. … The
   task of relieving the city was entrusted to the heroic General
   Havelock, who marched out with a mere handful of men, of whom
   only 1,400 were British soldiers, to encounter a large army
   and a whole country in rebellion. At Futtehpore, on the 12th
   of July, he defeated a vastly superior force, posted in a very
   strong position. After giving his men a day's rest, he
   advanced again on the 14th, and routed the enemy in two
   pitched battles. Next morning he renewed his advance, and with
   a force of less than 900 men attacked 5,000 strongly
   entrenched, and commanded by Nana Sahib. They were
   outmanœuvred, out-flanked, beaten and dispersed. But for this
   signal defeat they wreaked their vengeance on the unfortunate
   women and children who still remained at Cawnpore. On the very
   day on which the battle occurred, they were massacred under
   circumstances of cruelty over which we must throw a veil. The
   well of Cawnpore, in which their hacked and mutilated bodies
   were flung, presented a spectacle from which soldiers who had
   regarded unmoved the carnage of numerous battle-fields shrank
   with horror. Of all the atrocities perpetrated during this
   war, so fruitful in horrors, this was the most awful; and it
   was followed by a terrible retribution. It steeled the hearts,
   and lent a furious and fearless energy to the arms, of the
   British soldiery. Wherever they came, they gave no quarter to
   the mutineers; a few men often frantically attacked hundreds,
   frantically but vainly defending themselves; and never ceased
   till all had been bayoneted, or shot, or hewn in pieces. All
   those who could be shown to have been accomplices in the
   perpetration of the murders that had been committed were hung,
   or blown from the cannon's mouth. Though the intrepid Havelock
   was unable to save the women and children who had been
   imprisoned in Cawnpore, he pressed forward to Lucknow. But the
   force under his command was too small to enable him to drive
   off the enemy. Meanwhile Sir J. Outram, who was now returning
   from the Persian war, which had been brought to a successful
   conclusion, was sent to Oude as chief commissioner, with full
   civil and military power. This appointment was fully deserved;
   but it had the effect, probably not thought of by those who
   made it, of superseding Havelock just as he was about to
   achieve the crowning success of his rapid and glorious career.
   Outram, however, with a generosity which did him more real
   honour than a thousand victories would have conferred, wrote
   to Havelock to inform him that he intended to join him with
   adequate reinforcements; adding: 'To you shall be left the
   glory of relieving Lucknow, for which you have already
   struggled so much. I shall accompany you only in my civil
   capacity as commissioner, placing my military service at your
   disposal, should you please, and serving under you as a
   volunteer.' Thus Havelock, after gaining no fewer than twelve
   battles against forces far superior in numbers to the little
   band he originally led, was enabled at length, on the 25th of
   August, to preserve the civilians, the women, and children of
   Lucknow from the impending horrors of another massacre, which
   would no doubt have been as fearful as that of Cawnpore. The
   Highlanders were the first to enter, and were welcomed with
   grateful enthusiasm by those whom they had saved from a fate
   worse than death. However, the enemy, recovering from the
   panic which the arrival of Havelock and his troops had caused,
   renewed the siege. Sir Colin Campbell, who had assumed the
   command of the Indian army, had determined to march to the
   relief of Lucknow. He set out from Cawnpore on the 9th of
   November, but was obliged to wait till the 14th for
   reinforcements, which were on the way to join him, and which
   raised the force under his command to 5,000—a force
   numerically far inferior to that which it was to attack.
{1746}
   On the 17th of November the relief of Lucknow was effected.
   The music of the Highland regiments, playing 'The Campbells
   are coming,' announced to their delighted countrymen inside
   the city that the commander-in-chief himself was with the
   relieving force. Little time, however, was allowed for
   congratulations and rejoicings. The ladies, the civilians, and
   the garrison were quietly withdrawn; the guns, which it was
   thought not desirable to remove, were burst; and a retreat
   effected, without affording the enemy the slightest suspicion
   of what was going on until some hours after the town had been
   evacuated by its defenders. The retreating force reached
   Dilhasha on the 24th, without having sustained any serious
   molestation. There the gallant Havelock sank under the trials
   and hardships to which he had been exposed, and yielded up the
   life which was instrumental in preserving so many others from
   the most terrible of deaths. While Sir Colin Campbell was
   engaged in effecting the relief of Lucknow, intelligence
   reached Cawnpore that a large hostile army was making towards
   it. General Windham, who commanded there, unacquainted with
   the number or the position of the approaching force, marched
   forth to meet it, in the hope that he should be able to rout
   and cut up the advanced guard before the main body of the
   enemy could come to its assistance. But in this expectation he
   was disappointed. Instead of having to deal with the van, he
   engaged with the whole rebel army, and his little force,
   assailed on all sides, was obliged to retire. He at once
   despatched a letter to the commander-in-chief, requesting him
   to hasten to his assistance; but it was intercepted by the
   enemy. Fortunately Sir Colin Campbell, though ignorant of the
   critical position of his subordinate, came up just at the
   moment when the danger was at its height. This was on the 28th
   of November. He was, however, in no haste to attack the foe,
   and was content for the present merely to hold them in check.
   His first care was for the safety of the civilians, the women,
   and the children, which was not secured till the 30th; and he
   continued to protect them till the 5th of December, when they
   were all safely lodged at Allahabad. The enemy, unaware of the
   motive of his seeming inaction, imputed it to fear, and became
   every day more confident and audacious. On the 6th he at
   length turned fiercely on them, completely defeated them, and
   seized their baggage; he then dispersed and drove away another
   large force, under the command of Nana Sahib, which was
   watching the engagement at a little distance. The army entered
   the residence of Nana Sahib at Bithoor, and took possession of
   much treasure, which had been concealed in a well. Nearly the
   whole of the enemy's artillery was captured; and the army,
   being overtaken as they were in the act of crossing into Oude,
   great numbers of them were destroyed. Of course, for the
   moment Lucknow, being no longer garrisoned, had fallen into
   the hands of the insurgents; but they were not long permitted
   to retain it. Strong reinforcements arrived, and the Indian
   government was enabled to send a force against Lucknow
   sufficient to overwhelm all resistance; and on the 15th of
   December this important city was in the undisputed possession
   of the British troops. This final recovery of the capital of
   Oude decided the reconquest of that country. A struggle was,
   indeed, maintained for some time longer; innumerable battles
   were fought; and the final subjugation of the country was
   effected in the month of June, 1858."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Forbes,
      Havelock,
      chapters 5-7._

      _General Sir O. T. Burne,
      Clyde and Strathnairn._

      _General Shadwell,
      Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clyde,
      volume 1, chapter 11,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-18._

      _T. Lowe,
      Central India during 1857-8._

INDIA: A. D. 1858.
   The Governor-General's Proclamation,
   Termination of the rule of the East India Company.
   The government transferred to the Crown.

   "By a singular circumstance, when the mutiny was suppressed in
   1858, the Governor-General, who in the previous year had been
   condemned for leniency which was thought ill-timed, was
   destined to receive censure for harshness which was declared
   unnecessary. On the eve of the fall of Lucknow, he drew up a
   proclamation confiscating the lands of all the great
   landowners in Oudh. Exceptions were, indeed, made to this
   sweeping decree. Landowners who could prove their loyalty were
   promised exemption from it, just as rebels who unconditionally
   surrendered, and whose hands were not stained with British
   blood, were offered pardon. There is no doubt that Canning, in
   drawing up this proclamation, relied on the exceptions which
   it contained, while there is equally no doubt that the critics
   who objected to it overlooked its parentheses. But its issue
   was made the basis of an attack which well-nigh proved fatal
   to the Governor-General's administration. The chances of party
   warfare had replaced Palmerston with Derby; and the
   Conservative minister had entrusted the Board of Control to
   the brilliant but erratic statesman who, fifteen years before,
   had astonished India with pageant and proclamation. …
   Ellenborough thought proper to condemn Canning's proclamation
   in a severe despatch, and to allow his censure to be made
   public. For a short time it seemed impossible that the
   Governor-General who had received such a despatch could
   continue his government. But the lapse of a few days showed
   that the minister who had framed the despatch, and not the
   Viceroy who had received it, was to suffer from the
   transaction. The public, recollecting the justice of Canning's
   rule, the mercy of his administration, almost unanimously
   considered that he should not have been hastily condemned for
   a document which, it was gradually evident, had only been
   imperfectly understood; and Ellenborough, to save his
   colleagues, volunteered to play the part of Jonah, and retired
   from the ministry. His retirement closes, in one sense, the
   history of the Indian Mutiny. But the transactions of the
   Mutiny had, almost for the first time, taught the public to
   consider the anomalies of Indian government. In the course of
   a hundred years a Company had been suffered to acquire an
   empire nearly ten times as large and as populous as Great
   Britain. It was true that the rule of the Company was in many
   respects nominal. The President of the Board of Control was
   the true head of the Indian Government, and spoke and acted
   through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. But
   this very circumstance only accentuated the anomaly. If the
   President of the Board of Control was in fact Indian minister,
   it was far simpler to make him Indian minister by name, and to
   do away with the clumsy expedient which alone enabled him to
   exercise his authority.
{1747}
   Hence it was generally decided that the rule of the Company
   should cease, and that India should thenceforward become one
   of the possessions of the crown. … A great danger thus led
   to the removal of a great anomaly, and the vast Indian empire
   which Englishmen had won was thenceforward taken into a
   nation's keeping."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 27 (volume 5)._

   The act "for the better government of India," which was passed
   in the autumn of 1858, "provided that all the territories
   previously under the government of the East India Company were
   to be vested in her Majesty, and all the Company's powers to
   be exercised in her name. One of her Majesty's principal
   Secretaries of State was to have all the power previously
   exercised by the Company, or by the Board of Control. The
   Secretary was to be assisted by a Council of India, to consist
   of fifteen members, of whom seven were to be elected by the
   Court of Directors from their own body, and eight nominated by
   the Crown. The vacancies among the nominated were to be filled
   up by the Crown; those among the elected by the remaining
   members of the Council for a certain time, but afterward by
   the Secretary of State for India. The competitive principle
   for the Civil Service was extended in its application, and
   made thoroughly practical. The military and naval forces of
   the Company were to be deemed the forces of her Majesty. A
   clause was introduced declaring that, except for the purpose
   of preventing or repelling actual invasion of India, the
   Indian revenues should not, without the consent of both Houses
   of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any
   military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of
   her Majesty's Indian possessions. Another clause enacted that
   whenever an order was sent to India directing the commencement
   of hostilities by her Majesty's forces there, the fact should
   be communicated to Parliament within three months, if
   Parliament were then sitting, or, if not, within one month
   after its next meeting. These clauses were heard of more than
   once in later days. The Viceroy and Governor-General was to be
   supreme in India, but was to be assisted by a Council. India
   now has nine provinces, each under its own civil government,
   and independent of the others, but all subordinate to the
   authority of the Viceroy. In accordance with this Act the
   government of the Company, the famed 'John Company,' formally
   ceased on September 1st, 1858; and the Queen was proclaimed
   throughout India in the following November, with Lord Canning
   for her first Viceroy."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 36 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir H. S. Cunningham,
      Earl Canning,
      chapters 7-9._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      India Under Dalhousie and Canning._

INDIA: A. D. 1861.
   Institution of the Order of the Star of India.

      See STAR OF INDIA.

INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
   Vice-regal administrations of
   Lords Lawrence, Mayo and Northbrook.

   Lord Canning was succeeded as Viceroy by Lord Elgin, in 1862;
   but Elgin only lived until November, 1863, and his successor
   was Sir John Lawrence, the savior of the Punjab. "Sir John
   Lawrence's Viceroyalty was an uneventful time. Great natural
   calamities by famine and cyclone fell upon the country, which
   called forth the philanthropic energies of Government and
   people. Commerce passed through an unexampled crisis, taxing
   skill and foresight. But the political atmosphere was calm.
   With the exception of little frontier wars, wasteful of
   resources that were sorely needed, there was nothing to divert
   the Government from the prosecution of schemes for the
   improvement of the physical and moral condition of the
   people." Sir John Lawrence held the Viceroyalty until January,
   1869, when he was succeeded by Lord Mayo and returned to
   England. He was raised, in that year, to the peerage, under
   the title of Baron Lawrence of Punjab and Grateley. He died
   ten years later.

      _Sir C. Aitchison,
      Lord Lawrence,
      chapters 7-12._

   Lord Lawrence's immediate successor, Lord Mayo, was
   assassinated, while Viceroy, in 1872, by a convict—a
   Highlander—at the convict settlement on the Andaman Islands,
   for no reason of personal hatred, but only because he
   represented the governing authority which had condemned the
   man. Lord Mayo was succeeded by Lord Northbrook, who held the
   office from 1872 to 1876.

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      The Earl of Mayo._

INDIA: A. D. 1876.
   Lord Lytton, Viceroy.

   The successor of Lord Northbrook in the Vice-regal
   office was Lord Lytton, appointed in 1876.

INDIA: A. D. 1877.
   The Native States and their quasi feudatory relation to the
   British Crown.
   Queen Victoria's assumption of the title of Empress of India.

   "In some sense the Indians were accustomed to consider the
   Company, as they now consider the Queen, to be the heir of the
   Great Mughal, and therefore universal suzerain by right of
   succession. But it is easy to exaggerate the force of this
   claim, which is itself a mere restatement of the fact of
   conquest. Politically, India is divided into two parts,
   commonly known as British territory and the native states. The
   first portion alone is ruled directly by English officials,
   and its inhabitants alone are subjects of the Queen. The
   native states are sometimes called feudatory—a convenient
   term to express their vague relation to the British crown. To
   define that relation precisely would be impossible. It has
   arisen at different times and by different methods; it varies
   from semi-independence to complete subjection. Some chiefs are
   the representatives of those whom we found on our first
   arrival in the country; others owe their existence to our
   creation. Some are parties to treaties entered into as between
   equal powers; others have consented to receive patents from
   their suzerain recording their limited rights; with others,
   again, there are no written engagements at all. Some have
   fought with us and come out of the struggle without dishonour.
   Some pay tribute; others pay none. Their extent and power vary
   as greatly as their political status. The Nizam of Haidarabad
   governs a kingdom of 80,000 square miles and 10,000,000
   inhabitants. Some of the petty chieftains of Kathiawar
   exercise authority over only a few acres. It is, however,
   necessary to draw a line sharply circumscribing the native
   states, as a class, from British territory. Every native chief
   possesses a certain measure of local authority, which is not
   derivative but inherent. English control, when and as
   exercised, is not so much of an administrative as of a
   diplomatic nature. In Anglo-Indian terminology this shade of
   meaning is expressed by the word 'political.' … As a general
   proposition, and excepting the quite insignificant states, it
   may be stated that the government is carried on not only in
   the name but also by the initiative of the native chief.
{1748}
   At all the large capitals, and at certain centres round which
   minor states are grouped, a British officer is stationed under
   the style of Resident or Agent. Through him all diplomatic
   affairs are conducted. He is at once an ambassador and a
   controller. His duty is to represent the majesty of the
   suzerain power, to keep a watchful eye upon abuses, and to
   encourage reforms."

      _J. S. Cotton,
      Colonies and Dependencies,
      part 1, chapter 3._

   "The supremacy of the British Government over all the Native
   States in India was declared in 1877, in a more emphatic form
   than it had received before, by the assumption by the Queen of
   the title of Kaisar-i-Hind, Empress of India. No such
   gathering of chiefs and princes has taken place in historical
   times as that seen at Delhi in January, 1877, when the rulers
   of all the principal States of India formally acknowledged
   their dependence on the British Crown. The political effect of
   the assertion of the supremacy of the paramount power, thus
   formally made for the first time in India, has been marked and
   extremely important."

      _Sir J. Strachey,
      India,
      lecture 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Historical Sketch of the Native States of India._

INDIA: A. D. 1878-1881.
   The second Afghan War.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.
   Recent Viceroys.

   On the defeat of the Conservative Beaconsfield Ministry in
   England, in 1880, Lord Lytton resigned the Viceroyalty and was
   succeeded by the Marquis of Ripon, who gave place in turn to
   the Marquis of Dufferin in 1884. In 1888, the Marquis of
   Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin, and was himself succeeded
   in 1893 by Sir Henry Norman.

INDIA: A. D. 1893.
   Suspension of the free coinage of silver.

   In June, 1893, the Indian Government, with the approval of the
   British Cabinet, stopped the free coinage of silver, with a
   view to the introduction of a gold standard. The Government,
   it was announced, while stopping the coinage of the declining
   metal for private persons, would continue on its own account
   to coin rupees in exchange for gold at a ratio then fixed at
   sixteen pence sterling per rupee. "The closing of the mints of
   British India to the coinage of silver coins of
   full-debt-paying power is the most momentous event in the
   monetary history of the present century. It is the final and
   disastrous blow to the use of silver as a measure of value and
   as money of full-debt-paying power, and the relegation of it
   to the position of a subsidiary, or token metal. It is the
   culmination of the evolution from a silver to a gold standard
   which has been progressing with startling rapidity in recent
   years. … The remarkable series of events which have
   characterized, or made manifest, this evolution from a silver
   to a gold standard are nearly all condensed in the brief
   period of twenty years, and are probably without a parallel in
   ancient or modern monetary history. … With the single
   exception of England, all Europe forty years ago had the
   silver standard, not only legally but actually—silver coins
   constituting the great bulk of the money of actual
   transactions. To-day, not a mint in Europe is open to the
   coinage of full-debt-paying silver coins, and the gateways of
   the Orient have been closed against it. Twenty years ago one
   ounce of gold exchanged in the markets of the world for
   fifteen and one-half ounces of silver; to-day, one ounce of
   gold will buy nearly thirty ounces of silver. … There is a
   general impression that silver has been the money of India
   from remote generations. This is a fallacy. It has not been a
   great many years since India adopted the silver standard. The
   ancient money of the Hindoos was gold, which in 1818 was
   supplemented by silver, but gold coins remained legal tender
   until 1835, when silver was made the sole standard of value
   and legal tender money in British India, and gold was
   demonetized. … During the last fifty odd years, India has
   absorbed vast quantities of silver."

      _E. O. Leech,
      The Doom of Silver
      (The Forum, August, 1893)._

   ----------INDIA: End--------

INDIAN EMPIRE, The Order of the.

   An Order instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.

   ----------INDIAN TERRITORY: Start--------

INDIAN TERRITORY: 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

INDIAN TERRITORY: A. D. 1824.
   Set off from Arkansas Territory.

      See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

   ----------INDIAN TERRITORY: End--------

INDIANA.
   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      ALLEGHANS, and DELAWARES.

INDIANA: A. D. 1700-1735.
   Occupation by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

INDIANA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

INDIANA: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

INDIANA: A. D. 1765.
   Possession taken by the English.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

INDIANA: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

INDIANA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark, and
   annexation to the Kentucky district of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUEST.

INDIANA: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Metropotamia,
   Illinoia and Polypotamia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

INDIANA: A. D. 1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Connecticut,
   ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

INDIANA: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

INDIANA: A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian War.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
   decisive victory.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

INDIANA: A. D. 1800.
   The Territory of Indiana organized.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

{1749}

INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
   Successive partitions of the Territory.
   Michigan and Illinois detached.
   The remaining Indiana admitted as a State.

   "Indiana Territory as originally organized [in 1800] …
   included the county of Knox, upon the Wabash, from which has
   sprung the State of Indiana; the county of St. Clair, on the
   Upper Mississippi, or Illinois River, from which has sprung
   the State of Illinois; and the county of Wayne, upon the
   Detroit River, from which has sprung the State of Michigan.
   … At this time, the inhabitants contained in all of them did
   not amount to more than 5,640 souls, while the aggregate
   number of the Indian tribes within the extreme limits of the
   territory was more than 100,000. … By successive treaties,
   the Indian title was extinguished gradually to all the country
   lying upon the waters of the White River, and upon all the
   lower tributaries of the Wabash, upon the Little Wabash, the
   Kaskaskia, and east of the Mississippi, below the mouth of the
   Illinois. Thus, before the close of the year 1805, nearly all
   the southern half of the present State of Indiana, and one
   third of the State of Illinois, was open to the advance of the
   enterprising pioneer. … In 1807, the Federal government, in
   like manner, purchased from the Indians extensive regions west
   of Detroit River, and within the present State of Michigan,
   far beyond the limits of the white settlements in that
   quarter. Meantime, the settlements formerly comprised in Wayne
   county, having increased in inhabitants and importance, had
   been erected into a separate territorial government, known and
   designated as the 'Territory of Michigan.' On the 1st of July,
   1805, the territory entered upon the first grade of
   territorial government, under the provisions of the ordinance
   of 1787; and William Hull, formerly a lieutenant in the
   Revolutionary army, was made the first governor. … Detroit
   … was made the seat of the territorial government. … By
   the close of the year 1808, the Indiana Territory east of the
   Wabash had received such an increase in numbers that it was
   desirable to assume the second grade of territorial
   government. Having a population of 5,000 free white males,
   Congress, with a view to a future state government, by an act
   approved February 3d, 1809, restricted its limits, and
   authorized a territorial Legislature. … The Indiana
   Territory, from this time, was bounded on the west by a line
   extending up the middle of the Wabash, from its mouth to
   Vincennes, and thence by a meridian due north to the southern
   extremity of Lake Michigan. On the north, it was bounded by
   the southern line of the Michigan Territory. That portion west
   of the Wabash was erected into a separate territorial
   government of the first grade, known and designated as the
   'Illinois Territory.' The inhabitants of the Indiana Territory
   soon began to augment more rapidly. … In 1810 the people had
   increased in numbers to 24,500, and in the newly-erected
   Territory of Illinois there was an aggregate of 12,300
   persons." In 1816 "it was ascertained that the Indiana
   Territory possessed a population which entitled it to an
   independent state government. Congress authorized the election
   of a convention to form a state Constitution," and "the new
   'State of Indiana' was formally admitted into the Union on the
   19th of April, 1816." Two years later, on the 3d of December,
   1818, the Territory of Illinois was similarly transformed and
   became one of the states of the Union.

      _J. W. Monette,
      The Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
      book 5, chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Dillon,
      History of Indiana,
      chapters 31-47._

      _A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 20-26._

      _T. M. Cooley,
      Michigan,
      chapter 8._

INDIANA: A. D. 1811.
   General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
   The Battle of Tippecanoe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

INDIANA: A. D. 1863.
   John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

   ----------INDIANS: Start--------

INDIANS:
   American: The Name.

   "As Columbus supposed himself to have landed on an island at
   the extremity of India, he called the natives by the general
   appellation of Indians, which was universally adopted before
   the true nature of his discovery was known, and has since been
   extended to all the aboriginals of the New World."

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The Spanish writers from the outset, beginning with Columbus
   in his letters, call the natives of America, Indians, and
   their English translators do the same. So, too, Richard Eden,
   the earliest English writer on American travel, applies the
   name to the natives of Peru and Mexico. It is used in the same
   way, both in translations and original accounts, during the
   rest of the century, but it is always limited to those races
   with whom the Spaniards were in contact. In its wider and
   later application the word does not seem to have established
   itself in English till the next century. The earliest instance
   I can find, where it is applied to the natives of North
   America generally in any original work, is by Hakluyt. In 1587
   he translated Laudonnière's 'History of the French Colony in
   Florida,' and dedicated his translation to Sir Walter Raleigh.
   In this dedication he once uses the term Indian for the
   natives of North America. Heriot and the other writers who
   describe the various attempts at settlement in Virginia during
   the sixteenth century, invariably call the natives 'savages.'
   Perhaps the earliest instance where an English writer uses the
   name Indian specially to describe the occupants of the land
   afterwards colonized by the English is in the account of
   Archer's voyage to Virginia in 1602. This account, written by
   James Rosier, is published in Purchas (volume iv. b. viii.).
   From that time onward the use of the term in the wider sense
   becomes more common. We may reasonably infer that the use of
   it was an indication of the growing knowledge of the fact that
   the lands conquered by the Spaniards and those explored by the
   English formed one continent."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      appendix A._

INDIANS: The tribes and families.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

   ----------INDIANS: End--------

INDICTIONS, The.

   The indiction "was a cycle of 15 years, used only by the
   Romans, for appointing the times of certain public taxes; as
   appears from the title in the Code, 'De tributo indicto.' It
   was established by Constantine, A. D. 312, in the room of the
   heathen Olympiads; and was used in the acts of the General
   Councils, Emperors, and Popes."

      _W. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume 1, book 1._

   "The indictions consisted of a revolution of 15 years, which
   are separately reckoned as indiction 1, indiction 2, &c., up
   to 15; when they recommence with indiction 1. … Doubt exists
   as to the commencement of the indictions; some writers
   assigning the first indiction to the year 312; the greater
   number to the year 313; others to 314; whilst some place it
   in the year 315.
{1750}
   In 'L'Art de vérifier les Dates,' the year 313 is fixed upon
   as that of the first indiction. There are four descriptions of
   indictions. The first is that of Constantinople, which was
   instituted by Constantine in A. D. 312, and began on the 1st
   of September. The second, and more common in England and
   France, was the Imperial or Cæsarean indiction, which began on
   the 24th of September. The third kind of indiction is called
   the Roman or Pontifical, from its being generally used in
   papal bulls, at least from the ninth to the fourteenth
   century; it commences on the 25th of December or 1st of
   January, accordingly as either of these days was considered
   the first of the year. The fourth kind of indiction, which is
   to be found in the register of the parliaments of Paris, began
   in the month of October. … After the 12th century, the
   indiction was rarely mentioned in public instruments. … But
   in France, in private charters, and in ecclesiastical
   documents, the usage continued until the end of the 15th
   century."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      pages 6-7._

      _ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17._

INDO-EUROPEAN.
INDO-GERMANIC.

      See ARYAN.

INDULGENCE: Declarations of: by Charles II.

         See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

INDULGENCE: By James II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

INDULGENCES: The Doctrine.
   Tetzel's sale.
   Luther's attack.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517; and 1517.

INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1886.

INE, Laws of (or Dooms of).

      See DOOMS OF INE.

INEXPIABLE WAR, The.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

INFALLIBILITY, Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

INGÆVONES, The.

      See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

INGAGO, Battle of (1881).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

INGE I.,
   King of Norway, A. D. 1157-1161.

   Inge I. (called the Good), King of Sweden, 1090-1112.

   Inge II., King of Norway, 1205-1207.

   Inge II., King of Sweden, 1118-1129.

INGENUI.
LIBERTINI.

   "Free men [among the Romans] might be either persons born free
   (ingenui) and who had never been in slavery to a Roman, or
   persons who had once been slaves but had been emancipated
   (libertini)."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3._

INI, King of West Saxons, A. D. 688-726.

INIS-FAIL.
INIS-EALGA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

      See REFERENDUM.

INKERMANN, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

INNOCENT II., Pope, A. D. 1130-1143.
   Innocent III., Pope, 1198-1216.

   Innocent IV., Pope, 1243-1254.

   Innocent V., Pope, 1276, January to June.

   Innocent VI., Pope, 1352-1362.

   Innocent VII., Pope, 1404-1406.

   Innocent VIII., Pope, 1484-1492.

   Innocent IX., Pope, 1591, October to December.

   Innocent X., Pope, 1644-1655.

   Innocent XI., Pope, 1676-1689.

   Innocent XII., Pope, 1691-1700.

   Innocent XIII., Pope, 1721-1724.

INNUITS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

   ----------INQUISITION: Start----------

INQUISITION, The: A. D. 1203-1525.
   Origin of the Holy Office.
   St. Dominic and the Dominicans.
   The Episcopal Inquisition.
   The Apostolical or Papal Inquisition.
   The Spanish Inquisition and its terrible rule.
   Estimate of victims.
   Expulsion of Jews and Moors.

   "In the earlier ages of the Church, the definition of heresy
   had been committed to episcopal authority. But the cognisance
   of heretics and the determination of their punishment remained
   in the hands of secular magistrates. At the end of the 12th
   century the wide diffusion of the Albigensian heterodoxy
   through Languedoc and Northern Italy alarmed the chiefs of
   Christendom, and furnished the Papacy with a good pretext for
   extending its prerogatives. Innocent III. in 1203 empowered
   two French Cistercians, Pierre de Castelnau and Raoul, to
   preach against the heretics of Provence. In the following year
   he ratified this commission by a Bull, which censured the
   negligence and coldness of the bishops, appointed the Abbot of
   Citeaux Papal delegate in matters of heresy, and gave him
   authority to judge and punish misbelievers. This was the first
   germ of the Holy Office as a separate Tribunal. … Being a
   distinct encroachment of the Papacy upon the episcopal
   jurisdiction and prerogatives, the Inquisition met at first
   with some opposition from the bishops. The people for whose
   persecution it was designed, and at whose expense it carried
   on its work, broke into rebellion; the first years of its
   annals were rendered illustrious by the murder of one of its
   founders, Pierre de Castelnau. He was canonised, and became
   the first Saint of the Inquisition. … In spite of
   opposition, the Papal institution took root and flourished.
   Philip Augustus responded to the appeals of Innocent; and a
   crusade began against the Albigenses, in which Simon de
   Montfort won his sinister celebrity. During those bloody wars
   the Inquisition developed itself as a force of formidable
   expansive energy. Material assistance to the cause was
   rendered by a Spanish monk of the Augustine order, who settled
   in Provence on his way back from Rome in 1206. Domenigo de
   Guzman, known to universal history as S. Dominic, organised a
   new militia for the service of the orthodox Church between the
   years 1215 and 1219. His order, called the Order of the
   Preachers, was originally designed to repress heresy and
   confirm the faith by diffusing Catholic doctrine and
   maintaining the creed in its purity. It consisted of three
   sections: the Preaching Friars; nuns living in conventual
   retreat; and laymen, entitled the Third Order of Penitence or
   the Militia of Christ, who in after years were merged with the
   Congregation of S. Peter Martyr, and corresponded to the
   familiars of the Inquisition. Since the Dominicans were
   established in the heat and passion of a crusade against
   heresy, by a rigid Spaniard who employed his energies in
   persecuting misbelievers, they assumed at the outset a
   belligerent and inquisitorial attitude. Yet it is not strictly
   accurate to represent S. Dominic himself as the first Grand
   Inquisitor.
{1751}
   The Papacy proceeded with caution in its design of forming a
   tribunal dependent on the Holy See and independent of the
   bishops. Papal Legates with plenipotentiary authority were
   sent to Languedoc, and decrees were issued against the
   heretics, in which the Inquisition was rather implied than
   directly named; nor can I find that S. Dominic, though he
   continued to be the soul of the new institution until his
   death, in 1221, obtained the title of Inquisitor.
   Notwithstanding this vagueness, the Holy Office may be said to
   have been founded by S. Dominic; and it soon became apparent
   that the order he had formed was destined to monopolise its
   functions. … This Apostolical Inquisition was at once
   introduced into Lombardy, Romagna and the Marches of Treviso.
   The extreme rigour of its proceedings, the extortions of
   monks, and the violent resistance offered by the communes, led
   to some relaxation of its original constitution. More
   authority had to be conceded to the bishops; and the right of
   the Inquisitors to levy taxes on the people was modified. Yet
   it retained its true form of a Papal organ, superseding the
   episcopal prerogatives, and overriding the secular
   magistrates, who were bound to execute its biddings. As such
   it was admitted into Tuscany, and established in Aragon.
   Venice received it in 1289, with certain reservations that
   placed its proceedings under the control of Doge and Council.
   In Languedoc, the country of its birth, it remained rooted at
   Toulouse and Carcassonne; but the Inquisition did not extend
   its authority over central and northern France. In Paris its
   functions were performed by the Sorbonne. Nor did it obtain a
   footing in England, although the statute 'De Haeretico
   Comburendo,' passed in 1401 at the instance of the higher
   clergy, sanctioned the principles on which it existed. … The
   revival of the Holy Office on a new and far more murderous
   basis, took place in 1484. We have seen that hitherto there
   had been two types of inquisition into heresy. The first,
   which remained in force up to the year 1203, may be called the
   episcopal. The second was the Apostolical or Dominican: it
   transferred this jurisdiction from the bishops to the Papacy,
   who employed the order of S. Dominic for the special service
   of the tribunal instituted by the Imperial Decrees of
   Frederick II. The third deserves no other name than Spanish,
   though, after it had taken shape in Spain, it was transferred
   to Portugal, applied in all the Spanish and Portuguese
   colonies, and communicated with some modifications to Italy
   and the Netherlands. Both the second and the third types of
   inquisition into heresy were Spanish inventions, patented by
   the Roman Pontiffs and monopolised by the Dominican order. But
   the third and final form of the Holy Office in Spain
   distinguished itself by emancipation from Papal and Royal
   control, and by a specific organisation which rendered it the
   most formidable of irresponsible engines in the annals of
   religious institutions. … Castile had hitherto been free
   from the pest. But the conditions of that kingdom offered a
   good occasion for its introduction at the date which I have
   named. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Castile acquired
   vast wealth and influence. Few families but felt the burden of
   their bonds and mortgages. Religious fanaticism, social
   jealousy, and pecuniary distress exasperated the Christian
   population; and as early as the year 1391, more than 5,000
   Jews were massacred in one popular uprising. The Jews, in
   fear, adopted Christianity. It is said that in the 15th
   century the population counted some million of
   converts—called New Christians, or, in contempt, Marranos: a
   word which may probably be derived from the Hebrew Maranatha.
   These converted Jews, by their ability and wealth, crept into
   high offices of state, obtained titles of aristocracy, and
   founded noble houses. … It was a Sicilian Inquisitor, Philip
   Barberis, who suggested to Ferdinand the Catholic the
   advantage he might secure by extending the Holy Office to
   Castile. Ferdinand avowed his willingness; and Sixtus IV. gave
   the project his approval in 1478. But it met with opposition
   from the gentler-natured Isabella. … Then Isabella yielded;
   and in 1481 the Holy Office was founded at Seville. It began
   its work by publishing a comprehensive edict against all New
   Christians suspected of Judaising, which offence was so
   constructed as to cover the most innocent observance of
   national customs. Resting from labour on Saturday; performing
   ablutions at stated times; refusing to eat pork or puddings
   made of blood; and abstaining from wine, sufficed to colour
   accusations of heresy. … Upon the publication of this edict,
   there was an exodus of Jews by thousands into the fiefs of
   independent vassals of the crown—the Duke of Medina Sidonia,
   the Marquis of Cadiz, and the Count of Arcos. All emigrants
   were 'ipso facto' declared heretics by the Holy Office. During
   the first year after its foundation, Seville beheld 298
   persons burned alive, and 79 condemned to perpetual
   imprisonment. A large square stage of stone, called the
   Quemadero, was erected for the execution of those multitudes
   who were destined to suffer death by hanging or by flame. In
   the same year, 2,000 were burned and 17,000 condemned to
   public penitence, while even a larger number were burned in
   effigy, in other parts of the kingdom. … In 1483 Thomas of
   Torquemada was nominated Inquisitor General for Castile and
   Aragon. Under his rule a Supreme Council was established, over
   which he presided for life. … In 1484 a General Council was
   held, and the constitution of the Inquisition was established
   by articles. … The two most formidable features of the
   Inquisition as thus constituted were the exclusion of the
   bishops from its tribunal and the secrecy of its procedure.
   … In the autumn of 1484 the Inquisition was introduced into
   Aragon; and Saragossa became its headquarters in that State.
   … The Spanish Inquisition was now firmly grounded. Directed
   by Torquemada, it began to encroach upon the crown, to insult
   the episcopacy, to defy the Papacy, to grind the Commons, and
   to outrage by its insolence the aristocracy. … The Holy
   Office grew every year in pride, pretensions and exactions. It
   arrogated to its tribunal crimes of usury, bigamy, blasphemous
   swearing, and unnatural vice, which appertained by right to
   the secular courts. It depopulated Spain by the extermination
   and banishment of at least three million industrious subjects
   during the first 139 years of its existence. … Torquemada
   was the genius of evil who created and presided over this foul
   instrument of human crime and folly.
{1752}
   During his eighteen years of administration, reckoning from
   1480 to 1498, he sacrificed, according to Llorente's
   calculation, above 114,000 victims, of whom 10,220 were burned
   alive, 6,860 burned in effigy, and 97,000 condemned to
   perpetual imprisonment or public penitence. He, too, it was
   who in 1492 compelled Ferdinand to drive the Jews from his
   dominions. … The edict of expulsion was issued on the last
   of March. Before the last of July all Jews were sentenced to
   depart, carrying no gold or silver with them. They disposed of
   their lands, houses, and goods for next to nothing, and went
   forth to die by thousands on the shores of Africa and Italy.
   … The exodus of the Jews was followed in 1502 by a similar
   exodus of Moors from Castile, and in 1524 by an exodus of
   Mauresques from Aragon. To compute the loss of wealth and
   population inflicted upon Spain by these mad edicts would be
   impossible. … After Torquemada, Diego Deza reigned as second
   Inquisitor General from 1498 to 1507. In these years,
   according to the same calculation, 2,592 were burned alive,
   896 burned in effigy, 34,952 condemned to prison or public
   penitence. Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros followed between 1507
   and 1517. The victims of this decade were 3,564 burned alive.
   … Adrian, Bishop of Tortosa, tutor to Charles V., and
   afterwards Pope, was Inquisitor General between 1516 and 1525.
   Castile, Aragon, and Catalonia, at this epoch, simultaneously
   demanded a reform of the Holy Office from their youthful
   sovereign. But Charles refused, and the tale of Adrian's
   administration was 1,620 burned alive, 560 burned in effigy,
   21,845 condemned to prison or public penitence. The total,
   during 43 years, between 1481 and 1525, amounted to 234,526,
   including all descriptions of condemned heretics. These
   figures are of necessity vague, for the Holy Office left but
   meagre records of its proceedings.".

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 3 (part 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Lea,
      History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages._

      _J. A. Llorente,
      History of the Inquisition,
      chapters 1-12._

      _W. H. Rule,
      History of the Inquisition,
      chapters 1-14._

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapters 7 and 17._

      See, also,
      JEWS: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES; and MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1521-1568.
   Introduction and work in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555; 1559-1562; and 1568.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1546.
   Successful revolt against the Holy Office at Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1550-1816.
   Establishment in Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1814-1820.
   Restoration and abolition in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

   ----------INQUISITION: End----------

INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER).

INSUBRIANS AND CENOMANIANS, The.

   "North of the Po, in the country about Milan, dwelt [3d
   century, B. C.] the great people of the Insubrians, while to
   the east of these on the Mincio and the Adige lay the
   Cenomanians; but these tribes, little inclined, seemingly, to
   make common cause with their countrymen [the Boian and
   Senonian Gauls] remained neutral in all the hostilities
   against Rome." But the Insubrians were attacked and subdued,
   B. C. 223.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 295-191.

INTERDICTS.

      See EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

INTERIM OF CHARLES V., The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

"INTERNATIONAL," The.

   "The year of the London Exhibition, and under the auspices of
   the Emperor Napoleon III., a number of Paris working-men
   visited the English capital. They were welcomed by a London
   Committee of artisans, and on this occasion the wish for a
   closer union between the labourers of different countries was
   expressed on both sides. Then the Polish insurrection broke
   out, and masses of London and Paris working-men took steps
   simultaneously to manifest sympathy with the insurgents. A
   deputation was again sent over from Paris, and the result of
   this measure was a resolution to delay preparations for
   co-operation no longer. For some time the international idea
   was carefully given prominence in labour circles in various
   countries, and on September 28th, 1864, a congress of many
   nations was held in St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
   presidency of Professor Beesly. A committee was appointed,
   representing England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and
   Switzerland, for the drawing up of statutes for an
   International Working Men's Association, whose seat should be
   London. … It was not long before the International
   Association became a power which caused alarm to not a few
   European Governments."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 13._

INTERREGNUM, The Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

INTERREX.

   A temporary king, in ancient Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 509; also, SENATE, ROMAN.

INTRANSIGENTISTS.

   In European politics, the extreme radicals—the uncompromising
   and irreconcilable factions—are frequently so called.

INVERLOCHY, Battle of (1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

INVESTITURES, The War of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

INVISIBLE EMPIRE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

IONA, Monastery and Schools of.

      See COLUMBAN CHURCH;
      and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.

IONIA.

   The Ionian cities on the coast of Asia Minor bore collectively
   the name Ionia, though no national union was signified by the
   designation.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES, and after.

IONIAN (DELIAN) CONFEDERACY, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

   ----------IONIAN ISLANDS: Start--------

IONIAN ISLANDS:
   To 1814.
   Under Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Venetian and French rule.

   "Acarnania, as a glance at the map will show, is the most
   western part of continental Greece. But in close proximity to
   the mainland there stretch along the west coast a number of
   islands, some of them of considerable area, the history and
   traditions of which are inseparably intertwined with those of
   Hellas. They have long been known as the Ionian Islands,
   deriving the name, in all likelihood, from the sea in which
   they are situated; for their ancient inhabitants were not, so
   far as is known, of Ionic descent.
{1753}
   They are very numerous, but only six of them are of
   any historic importance. The most northerly is Corcyra
   (Corfu), a long, narrow island, which extends like a lofty
   breakwater in front of the coast of Epirus." The other five
   are Paxos (Paxo), Leucadia (Santa Maura), Cephallenia
   (Cephalonia), Ithaca (Thiaki), Zacynthus (Zante), and Cythera
   (Cerigo). "Though not the largest, Corcyra is the most
   populous and important of the islands. It has a place in the
   mythic tradition, and a still greater one in the ascertained
   history, of ancient Hellas.

      See KORKYRA;
      also, GREECE: B. C. 435-432, and 432.

   … With the other islands in the Ionian Sea, Corcyra passed
   under the dominion of Rome, and subsequently became part of
   the Eastern Empire. In 540 A. D. the fleet of the Gothic
   leader Totila ravaged the coasts of the island, but did not
   capture the city, the fortifications of which had been greatly
   strengthened by the Romans. Five centuries later the island
   and its capital fell into the hands of a more formidable
   invader—the Norman Robert Guiscard, who captured them on his
   way from Italy to prosecute that invasion of the Byzantine
   Empire which was at one time so nearly attended with success.
   The first Norman supremacy did not last long; but in 1144 A.
   D., Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, took occasion of a
   rising of the Corcyreans (or, as they now began to be called,
   the Corfiotes) against the Byzantine Emperor Manuel to
   introduce a garrison into the city. Four years later Manuel,
   who was an energetic and warlike prince, laid siege to Corfu,
   and was assisted by the Venetians. The Norman garrison offered
   a most determined resistance, but were ultimately obliged to
   surrender on honourable terms. After the overthrow of the
   Byzantine emperors, in the early part of the 13th century,
   Corfu, with the other Ionian Islands, became part of the
   dominions of the Venetian republic, and so continued, with
   brief intervals, for nearly 500 years. The Venetian rule was
   on the whole favourable to the material prosperity of the
   island: it was admirably cultivated, and became the centre of
   a large commerce. Unlike most of the other possessions of
   Venice in the eastern Mediterranean, Corfu never fell into the
   hands of the Turks. They overran and ravaged the island in
   1537, carrying off, according to their custom, many of the
   young women and children as slaves; and they besieged the
   capital, but its fortifications had been much strengthened by
   the Venetians, and the garrison was able to offer a successful
   resistance. In 1716 another memorable siege [see TURKS: A. D.
   1714-1718] took place, during the war in which Sultan Achmet
   III. engaged with Austria and the Venetian republic. A large
   Ottoman army under Kara Mustapha beleaguered Corfu; but the
   garrison was commanded by a distinguished soldier, Count
   Schulemburg, who baffled an the efforts of the Turks, and at
   last compelled them to withdraw to their ships after they had
   lost 15,000 men. By the Treaty of Campo Formio, dictated in
   1797 to Austria by Napoleon after his marvellous Italian
   campaign, the Ionian Islands were transferred to France [see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER)], the rest of the Venetian
   territories falling to the share of Austria. The French
   garrisons were, however, expelled in 1799 by a Russo-Turkish
   expedition, and the islands constituted a republic [called the
   Republic of the Seven Islands]. But in 1807, when the course
   of events had changed Russia into an ally of the French
   emperor, the latter again obtained possession of the islands
   under the Treaty of Tilsit. The English, being masters of the
   Mediterranean, soon drove the French out of all the islands
   except Corfu. This was under French rule till 1814; and it is
   only fair to say that they did much for the improvement of the
   island, constructing some substantial roads in the interior.
   In 1814, during the general cataclysm of the gigantic empire
   of Napoleon, the French garrison was driven out of the island
   after a gallant resistance, and in the following year the
   Ionian Islands were reconstituted a republic under British
   protection and supremacy."

      _C. H. Hanson,
      The Land of Greece,
      chapter 4._

IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.
   The British protectorate.
   Its relinquishment.
   Annexation to the kingdom of Greece.

   "These seven islands [the Ionian] were constituted a sort of
   republic or commonwealth by the Treaty of Vienna [1815]. But
   they were consigned to the protectorate of Great Britain;
   which had the right of maintaining garrisons in them. Great
   Britain used to appoint a Lord High Commissioner, who was
   generally a military man, and whose office combined the duties
   of Commander-in-Chief with those of Civil Governor. The little
   republic had a Senate of six members and a Legislative
   Assembly of forty members. It seems almost a waste of words to
   say that the islanders were not content with British
   government. For good or ill, the Hellenes, wherever they are
   found, are sure to be filled with an impassioned longing for
   Hellenic independence. The people of the Ionian Islands were
   eager to be allowed to enter into one system with the kingdom
   of Greece. It was idle to try to amuse them by telling them
   they constituted an independent republic, and were actually
   governing themselves, … while they saw themselves presided
   over by an English Lord High Commissioner who was also the
   Commander-in-Chief of a goodly British army garrisoned in
   their midst. … It is certain that they got a great deal of
   material benefit from the presence of the energetic
   road-making British power. But they wanted to be, above all
   things, Greek. … Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton [who was
   then—1858—Secretary for the Colonies in the British
   Government] … thought the causes of the complaints and the
   dissatisfaction were well worth looking into, and he resolved
   on sending a statesman of distinction out to the islands to
   make the enquiry. Mr. Gladstone had been for some years out of
   office. He had been acting as an independent supporter of Lord
   Palmerston's Government. It occurred to Sir Edward Bulwer
   Lytton that Mr. Gladstone was the man best fitted to conduct
   the enquiry. … He offered, therefore, to Mr. Gladstone the
   office of Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian
   Islands, and Mr. Gladstone accepted the offer and its duties."
   Arriving in Corfu in November, 1858, "he called together the
   Senate, and endeavoured to satisfy them as to the real nature
   of his mission. He explained that he had not come there to
   discuss the propriety of maintaining the English protectorate,
   but only to enquire into the manner in which the just claims
   of the Ionian Islands might be secured by means of that
   protectorate."
{1754}
   But "the population of the islands persisted in regarding him,
   not as the commissioner of a Conservative English Government,
   but as 'Gladstone the Philhellene.' He was received wherever
   he went with the honours due to a liberator. … The visit of
   Mr. Gladstone, whatever purpose it may have been intended to
   fulfil, had the effect of making them [the Ionians] agitate
   more strenuously than ever for annexation to the kingdom of
   Greece. Their wish, however, was not to be granted yet. A new
   Lord High Commissioner was sent out after Mr. Gladstone's
   return. … Still … the idea held ground that sooner or
   later Great Britain would give up the charge of the islands. A
   few years after, an opportunity occurred for making the
   cession. The Greeks got rid quietly of their heavy German king
   Otho [see GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862], and on the advice chiefly
   of England they elected as sovereign a brother of the Princess
   of Wales. … The second son of the King of Denmark was made
   King of Greece; and Lord John Russell, on behalf of the
   English Government, then [1862] handed over to the kingdom of
   Greece the islands of which Great Britain had had so long to
   bear the unwilling charge."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of our Own Times,
      chapter 39 (volume 3)._

   ----------IONIAN ISLANDS: End--------

IONIAN REVOLT, The.

   See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

IONIANS, The.

      See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

   "There existed at the commencement of historical Greece, in
   776 B. C., besides the Ionians in Attica and the Cyclades,
   twelve Ionian cities of note on or near the coast of Asia
   Minor, besides a few others less important. Enumerated from
   south to north, they stand—Milêtus, Myûs, Priênê, Samos,
   Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Erythræ, Chios, Klazomenæ,
   Phôkæa. … Milêtus, Myûs and Priênê were situated on or near
   the productive plain of the river Mæander; while Ephesus was
   in like manner planted near the mouth of the Kaïster … :
   Kolophon is only a very few miles north of the same river.
   Possessing the best means of communication with the interior,
   these towns seem to have thriven with greater rapidity than
   the rest; and they, together with the neighbouring island of
   Samos, constituted in early times the strength of the
   Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony. The situation of the sacred precinct of
   Poseidôn (where this festival was celebrated) on the north
   side of the promontory of Mykalê, near Priênê, and between
   Ephesus and Milêtus, seems to show that these towns formed the
   primitive centre to which the other Ionian settlements became
   gradually aggregated. For it was by no means a centrical site
   with reference to all the twelve. … Moreover, it seems that
   the Pan-Ionic festival [the celebration of which constituted
   the Amphiktyony], though still formally continued, had lost
   its importance before the time of Thucydidês, and had become
   practically superseded by the more splendid festival of the
   Ephesia, near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a more
   attractive place of meeting."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece
      part 2, chapter 13 (volume 3)_.

   ----------IOWA: Start--------

IOWA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

IOWA: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IOWA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Joined to Michigan Territory;
   then to Wisconsin;
   then separately organized.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

IOWA: A. D. 1845.
   Admission into the Union, with Florida for a slave-state
   counterweight.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.

   ----------IOWA: End--------

IOWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

IPSUS, Battle of (B. C. 301).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

IQUIQUE, Battle of (1891).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

IRACA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

IRAK.

   At the time of the Mahometan conquest, "Chaldea and Babylonia
   occupied the rich region south of the river Tigris, watered by
   the Euphrates, and were known as Irak of the Arabs, as
   distinguished from Irak of the Persians, which corresponded
   somewhat nearly to the modern kingdom of Persia. … Irak of
   Arabia was at this time under the jurisdiction of Persia, and
   the wandering Arabs who roamed over the broad desert were
   tributary to Persia when they pitched their tents on the
   eastern side, and to Rome when sojourning on the side towards
   Syria; though they were at no time trusty allies or subjects.
   The region of Irak contains many relics of a former
   civilization; there are the mounds that mark the site of old
   Babylon."

      _A. Gilman,
      Story of the Saracens,
      pages 226-227._

IRAN, Table-Land of.

   "Between the valley of the Indus and the land of the Euphrates
   and Tigris, bounded on the south by the ocean and the Persian
   Gulf, on the north by the broad steppes which the Oxus and
   Jaxartes vainly attempt to fertilise, by the Caspian Sea and
   the valley of the Aras [embracing modern Persia, Baluchistan,
   Afghanistan and Russian Turkestan], lies the table-land of
   Iran. Rising to an average height of 4,000 feet above the
   level of the sea, it forms an oblong, the length of which from
   east to west is something more than 1,500 miles. … As far
   back as our information extends, we find the table-land of
   Iran occupied by a group of nations closely related to each
   other, and speaking dialects of the same language."

       _M. Duncker,
       History of Antiquity,
       book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also, ARYANS.

IRDJAR, Russian defeat at.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

   ----------IRELAND: Start--------


   A Logical Outline of Irish History

   In Which The Dominant Conditions And
   Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

   Physical or material. (Red)
   Ethnological. (Blue)
   Social and political. (Green)
   Intellectual, moral and religious. (Tan)
   Foreign. (Black)


(Blue)
   In the history of the two islands which form the United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland there is a contrast of
   fortune which nothing will account for save unexplainable
   qualities of race. The Celtic warmth prevailing on one side of
   St. George's Channel has worked ill in politics as against the
   Teutonic coolness on the other; and it is probable that no
   change of circumstances or conditions would have altered
   greatly the relations of the two peoples. In their situation
   as close neighbors, it was inevitable that one should dominate
   the other. It seems to have been no less inevitable that the
   mastery should settle where it did; and simply by the force of
   more masterful qualities in the English race.

(Red)
   If those who dwelt nearer to the mainland of Europe held
   advantages over those of the farther island, they took nothing
   from them in the earlier generations, but were overleaped and
   passed by when the first movements of Christianity and
   Christian culture into the West began; and it was Ireland, not
   England, for three centuries, which nourished the purest faith
   and the highest civilization of the age. If other advantages
   belonged to the island which was richer in iron and coal, the
   English were not helped by them to an ascendancy which they
   had won before the mining of their riches began.

(Green)
   In the early years of the eleventh century, when most of the
   island had submitted to the rule of Brian Born, and when he
   had shaken the grasp of the intruding Danes on the seaports of
   the eastern and southern coasts, the state and prospects of
   Ireland would have seemed to be well-nigh as good as those of
   England at the same time. But that appearance vanished soon,
   and it never returned. Among the English, the tendency toward
   national union grew stronger with every generation; among the
   Irish it got no growth. The political genius of the race,
   remarkable to the present day in municipal politics, but
   rarely successful in the greater political arenas, has always
   been tribal or provincial in its range, and wanting in a
   national comprehensiveness.

(Tan)
   The Norman conquest of England was helpful to the
   consolidation of an English kingdom. The Anglo-Norman conquest
   of Ireland occurring a century later, promoted, on the
   contrary, the divisions and disorders of the island. It
   brought a new faction into Irish quarrels, instead of a new
   sovereign to extinguish them. It was complete enough to forbid
   the growth of order from any native root of influence or
   authority, but not complete enough to carry order with itself.
   In the full sense of the term it was never a conquest. It was
   rather a persistent invasion, continued and repeated through
   more than five centuries. In every generation it inflamed anew
   the fierce animosity which an incomplete conquest will not
   suffer to die out, until the very descendants of the older
   intruders were infected with the native hatred of their
   later-coming kindred. After four hundred years of inconclusive
   conflict, the English were hardly nearer to mastery, the Irish
   hardly nearer to submission, than at first.

   Then arose between them a new difference to embitter their
   antagonism. The Reformation of religion was accepted by one
   race as naturally as it was rejected by the other. But
   Protestantism under English patronage assumed a more hateful
   aspect in Irish eyes, and Irishmen as Papists became doubly
   odious to the English mind. So political hostilities and
   religious enmities fomented one another, from that time, while
   the primitive antagonism of race gave energy to both.

   Under Cromwell and under William of Orange the subjugation was
   completed at last in the spirit of a Protestant crusade, and
   used as crusading victories have been wont to be used. The
   triumphant Church, planting its strong settlements in the
   land, assumed to itself all civil and political rights. Every
   office and every honorable profession were closed against the
   adherents of the defeated faith; its ministrations were
   forbidden; its priests were expelled.

(Green)
   But this was not all. As British commerce grew and British
   industries were built up, they contributed yet another to the
   malign confederacy of passions which oppressed the Irish
   people. The merchant, the manufacturer, the landowner and the
   farmer, on the English side, were banded by common jealousies
   to suppress competition in Ireland. They hindered the
   improvement of its resources and paralyzed its energies by
   atrocious legislation. They reduced its population to
   dependence on the most restricted production, leaving little
   except husbandry for a vocation, and that under grinding
   terms. They created by such measures a nation of peasants, as
   poor and as helpless as serfs, living wretchedly on precarious
   holdings of soil, at the mercy of landlords who regarded them
   with dislike and contempt.

   It was under such crushing conditions as these that Ireland
   remained until near the end of the eighteenth century, always
   hating the oppressors, often resisting the oppression, but
   weakly or rashly, without judgment or enduring resolution.
   Then began a great change in the tenor of her history. Two
   influences of the age came into play, one acting on the
   conscience of the English people, the other on the mind and
   temper of the Irish. One has worked to the yielding of
   justice, the other to the firmer pressing of demands for it.

   At this day it may be said that oppression in Ireland, whether
   religious or political, is wholly and forever extinct; that
   whatever remains in dispute between Celt and Saxon is from
   questions such as rise in every nation, and that the
   bitterness which stays in Anglo-Irish politics is the
   lingering rancor of a hateful past, not quickly to be
   extinguished.

   ----------A Logical Outline of Irish History: End--------

IRELAND:
   The name.

   "Ireland was known by many names from very early ages. Thus,
   in the Celtic it was called Inis-Fall, the isle of destiny;
   Inis-Ealga, the noble island; Fiodh-Inis, the woody island;
   and Eire, Fodhla, and Banba. By the Greeks it was called
   Ierne, probably from the vernacular name of Eire, by
   inflection Erin; whence, also, no doubt, its Latin name of
   Juverna; Plutarch calls it Ogygia, or the ancient land; the
   early Roman writers generally called it Hibernia, probably
   from its Iberian inhabitants, and the later Romans and
   mediæval writers Scotia, and sometimes Hibernia; and finally
   its name of Ireland was formed by the Anglo-Normans from its
   native name of Eire."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 76, note._

      See, also,
      SCOTLAND: THE NAME;
      and IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

{1755}

IRELAND:
   The primitive inhabitants.

   "The first people … of whose existence in Ireland we can be
   said to know anything are commonly asserted to have been of
   Turanian origin, and are known as 'Formorians.' As far as we
   can gather, they were a dark, low-browed, stunted race,
   although, oddly enough, the word Formorian in early Irish
   legend is always used as synonymous with the word giant. They
   were, at any rate, a race of utterly savage hunters and
   fishermen, ignorant of metal, of pottery, possibly even of the
   use of fire; using the stone hammers or hatchets of which vast
   numbers remain in Ireland to this day, and specimens of which
   may be seen in every museum. How long they held possession no
   one can tell, although Irish philologists believe several
   local Irish names to date from this almost inconceivably
   remote epoch. Perhaps if we think of the Lapps of the present
   day, and picture them wandering about the country, … it will
   give us a fairly good notion of what these very earliest
   inhabitants of Ireland were probably like.

      See FOMORIANS.

   Next followed a Belgic colony, known as the Firbolgs, who
   overran the country, and appear to have been of a somewhat
   higher ethnological grade, although, like the Formorians,
   short, dark, and swarthy. Doubtless the latter were not
   entirely exterminated to make way for the Firbolgs, any more
   than the Firbolgs to make way for the Danaans, Milesians, and
   other successive races; such wholesale exterminations being,
   in fact, very rare, especially in a country which like Ireland
   seems specially laid out by kindly nature for the protection
   of a weaker race struggling in the grip of a stronger one.
   After the Firbolgs, though I should be sorry to be obliged to
   say how long after, fresh and more important tribes of
   invaders began to appear. The first of these were the
   Tuatha-da-Danaans, who arrived under the leadership of their
   king Nuad, and took possession of the east of the country.
   These Tuatha-da-Danaans are believed to have been large,
   blue-eyed people of Scandinavian origin, kinsmen and possibly
   ancestors of those Norsemen or 'Danes' who in years to come
   were destined to work such woe and havoc upon the island. …
   What their end was no man can tell you, save that they, too,
   were, in their turn, conquered by the Milesians or 'Scoti,'
   who next overran the country, giving to it their own name' of
   Scotia, by which name it was known down to the end of the
   twelfth century, and driving the earlier settlers before them,
   who thereupon fled to the hills, and took refuge in the
   forests, whence they emerged, doubtless, with unpleasant
   effect upon their conquerors, as another defeated race did
   upon their conquerors in later days."

      _E. Lawless,
      The Story of Ireland,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

IRELAND:
   Tribes of early Celtic inhabitants.

   "On the northern coast dwelt the Veniconii, in the modern
   county of Donegal, and the Robogdii, in Londonderry and
   Antrim. Adjoining to the Veniconii, westward, were the Erdini
   or Erpeditani, and next to them the Magnatæ, all in Donegal.
   Farther south were the Auteri, in Sligo; the Gangani, in Mayo;
   and the Velibori, or Ellebri, in the district between Galway
   and the Shannon. The south-west part of the island, with a
   great portion of the interior, was inhabited by the Iverni,
   who gave name not only to the great river but to the whole
   island, and who may, perhaps, be considered as the aboriginal
   inhabitants. … In the modern counties of Waterford and
   Tipperary, Ptolemy places a tribe called the Usdiæ or Vodiæ,
   according to the variations of the manuscripts. In the modern
   county of Wexford dwelt the Brigantes; and northward from them
   were the Coriondi, in Wicklow; the Menapii, in Dublin; the
   Cauci, on the banks of the Boyne; the Blanii, or Eblani, on
   the bay of Dundalk; the Voluntii, in Down; and the Darini,
   bordering on the Robogdii, in Antrim. Three, at least, of the
   tribes who held the eastern coast of Ireland, the Brigantes,
   the Menapii, and the Voluntii, were, no doubt, colonies from
   the opposite shores of Britain."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 2._

IRELAND:
   5th-8th Centuries.
   The coming of St. Patrick and the Christianizing of the Island.
   Its Schools and its Missionaries.

   "Lying on the extreme verge of Europe, the last land then
   known to the adventurous Scandinavian, and beyond which fable
   had scarcely projected its dreams, it was in the fifth century
   since the Redemption that Christianity reached them.
   Patricius, a Celt of Gaul it is said, carried into Erin as a
   slave by one of the Pagan kings, some of whom made military
   expeditions to North and South Britain, and even to the Alps
   and the Loire, became the Apostle of Ireland. Patrick escaped
   from slavery, was educated at Rome, but in mature manhood
   insisted on returning to the place of his bondage, to preach
   Christianity to a people who seem to have exercised over the
   imagination of the Apostle the same spell of sympathy which in
   later times subdued strangers of many nations. He was received
   with extraordinary favour, and before his death nearly the
   whole island had embraced Christianity. The coming of Patrick
   took place in the year of our Lord 432, and he laboured for
   sixty years after; planting churches and schools, rooting out
   the practices and monuments of Paganism, and disciplining the
   people in religion and humanity. It was a noble service, and
   it impressed itself for ever on the memory of the race whom he
   served. … In the succeeding century the Church which he
   planted became possessed by a passion which it has never
   entirely lost, the passion for missionary enterprise. Its
   fathers projected the conversion of the fierce natives of the
   Continent to the new creed of humility and self-denial, and by
   the same humane agents which Patrick had employed in
   Ireland—persuasion and prayer; a task as generous as any of
   which history has preserved the record. In this epoch Ireland
   may, without exaggeration, be said to have been a Christian
   Greece, the nurse of science and civilisation. The Pagan
   annals of the country are overlaid by fable and extravagance,
   but the foundation of Oxford or the mission of St. Augustine
   does not lie more visibly within the boundaries of legitimate
   history than the Irish schools, which attracted students from
   Britain and Gaul, and sent out missionaries through the
   countries now known as Western Europe.

{1756}

   Among the forests of Germany, on the desert shores of the
   Hebrides, in the camp of Alfred, at the court of Charlemagne,
   in the capital of the Christian world, where Michelet
   describes their eloquence as charming the counsellors of the
   Emperor, there might be found the fervid preachers and subtle
   doctors of the Western Isle. It was then that the island won
   the title still fondly cherished, 'insula sanctorum'. The
   venerable Bede describes nobles and students at this epoch as
   quitting the island of Britain to seek education in Ireland,
   and he tells us that the hospitable Celts found them teachers,
   books, food and shelter at the cost of the nation. The school
   at Armagh, where St. Patrick had established the primacy of
   the Church, is reputed to have attracted 7,000 students, and
   there were schools at Lismore, Bangor, Clonmacnoise, and Mayo,
   which rivalled it in importance. Monasteries multiplied in a
   still greater number, and with results as beneficial. …
   Writers who are little disposed to make any other concession
   to Ireland admit that this was a period of extraordinary
   intellectual activity, and of memorable services to
   civilization. The arts, as far as they were the handmaidens of
   religion, attained a surprising development. The illuminated
   copies of the Scripture, the croziers and chalices which have
   come down to us from those days, the Celtic crosses and Celtic
   harps, the bells and tabernacles, are witnesses of a distinct
   and remarkable national culture. The people were still partly
   shepherds and husbandmen, partly soldiers, ruled by the Chief,
   the Brehon, and the Priest. … After this generous work had
   obtained a remarkable success, it was disturbed by contests
   with the Sea Kings. … The Cathedral and city of St. Patrick,
   the schools of Bangor, the cloisters of Clonmacnoise, and many
   more seats of piety and learning, fell into their hands. The
   sacred vessels of the altar were turned into drinking cups,
   and the missals, blazing with precious stones, were torn from
   their costly bindings to furnish ornaments for their sword
   hilts, and gifts to the Scalds who sang their achievements.
   These pagans burned monasteries, sacked churches, and murdered
   women and priests, for plunder or sport. … Before the
   dangers and troubles of a long internecine war, the School of
   the West gradually dwindled away, and it had fallen into
   complete decay before Brian Borhoime, at the beginning of the
   11th century, finally subdued the invaders."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      A Bird's Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 7-12 (or chapter 4, in "Young Ireland")._

   "Ireland, that virgin island on which proconsul never set
   foot, which never knew either the orgies or the exactions of
   Rome, was also the only place in the world of which the Gospel
   took possession without bloodshed. … From the moment that
   this Green Erin, situated at the extremity of the known world,
   had seen the sun of faith rise upon her, she had vowed herself
   to it with an ardent and tender devotion which became her very
   life. The course of ages has not interrupted this; the most
   bloody and implacable of persecutions has not shaken it; the
   defection of all northern Europe has not led her astray; and
   she maintains still, amid the splendours and miseries of
   modern civilisation and Anglo-Saxon supremacy, an
   inextinguishable centre of faith, where survives, along with
   the completest orthodoxy, that admirable purity of manners
   which no conqueror and no adversary has ever been able to
   dispute, to equal, or to diminish. … The Irish communities,
   joined by the monks from Gaul and Rome, whom the example of
   Patrick had drawn upon his steps, entered into rivalry with
   the great monastic schools of Gaul. They explained Ovid there;
   they copied Virgil; they devoted themselves especially to
   Greek literature; they drew back from no inquiry, from no
   discussion. … A characteristic still more distinctive of the
   Irish monks, as of all their nation, was the imperious
   necessity of spreading themselves without, of seeking or
   carrying knowledge and faith afar, and of penetrating into the
   most distant regions to watch or combat paganism. This monastic
   nation, therefore, became the missionary nation 'par
   excellence'."

      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 10-14 (volume 1),
      and chapter 18 (volume 2)._

      _D. DeVinné,
      The Irish Primitive Church._

      See, also, CHRISTIANITY; 5TH-9TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: 9th-10th Centuries.
   The Danish conquests and settlements.

   "The people popularly known in our history as Danes comprised
   swarms from various countries in the north of Europe, from
   Norway, Sweden, Zealand, Jutland, and, in general, from all
   the shores and islands of the Baltic. … In the Irish annals
   they are variously called Galls, or foreigners; Geinti, or
   Gentiles; and Lochlanni, or inhabitants of Lochlann, or
   Lake-land, that is, Norway; and they are distinguished as the
   Finn Galls, or White Foreigners, who are supposed to have been
   the inhabitants of Norway; and the Dubh Galls, or Black
   Foreigners, who were probably the people of Jutland, and of
   the southern shores of the Baltic Sea. A large tract of
   country north of Dublin still retains the name of the former.
   … The Danes never obtained the dominion of Ireland as they
   did that of England."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapters 13-14._

   "Ireland was as yet [in the 9th century] a more tempting prey
   for the pirates than even Gaul. It was at the monasteries that
   these earlier raids were mainly aimed; and nowhere were the
   monastic houses so many and so rich. It was in these retreats
   indeed, sheltered as men deemed by their holiness from the
   greed of the spoiler, that the whole wealth of the country was
   stored; and the gold work and jewelry of their shrines, their
   precious chalices, the silver-bound horn which king or noble
   dedicated at their altars, the curiously-wrought covering of
   their mass-books, the hoard of their treasure-chests, fired
   the imagination of the northern marauders as the treasures of
   the Incas fired that of the soldiers of Spain. News spread
   fast up dale and fiord how wealth such as men never dreamed of
   was heaped up in houses guarded only by priests and shavelings
   who dared not draw sword. The Wikings had long been drawing
   closer to this tempting prey. From the coast of Norway a sail
   of twenty-four hours with a fair wind brings the sailor in
   sight of the Shetlands; Shetlands and Orkneys furnished a base
   for the advance of the pirates along the western shores of
   Britain, where they found a land like their own in the dales
   and lochs of Ross and Argyll, and where the names of Caithness
   and Sutherland tell of their conquest and settlement on the
   mainland; while the physical appearance of the people still
   records their colonization of the Hebrides. Names such as that
   of the Orm's Head mark their entrance at last into the Irish
   Channel."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 2._

{1757}

   "The 9th century was the period of Danish plunder, and of
   settlement along the coasts and in convenient places for
   purposes of plunder. Towards the latter end of this century
   the Irish in Ireland, like the English in England, succeeded
   in driving out the enemy, and there was peace for forty years.
   Then came the Danes again, but bent more definitely than
   before on permanent settlement; and their most notable work
   was the establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin, with
   its centre at one of their old haunts, Ath Cliath on the
   Liffey, where the city of Dublin was built by them. The
   establishment of this kingdom dates from the year 919, and its
   extent may be traced to-day as conterminous with the diocese
   of Dublin, extending from Holmpatrick and Skerries on the
   north, to Arklow and Wicklow on the south, and inland no
   farther than seven or eight miles to Leixlip. Until quite
   recently this was also the district over which extended the
   jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor of Dublin as Admiral of the
   Port of Dublin. On College Green used to be held the assembly
   of the freemen of the kingdom of Dublin, while the chiefs took
   their seats on the steep hill that once stood where St.
   Andrew's Church now stands, opposite to 'the old house on
   College Green,' which is so dear to the national aspirations
   of the modern Irishmen. There the Danes held their
   parliaments, agreeing on laws, consenting to judgments and
   contracts, feasting and making merry, just as the old Irish
   held their parliaments at Tara, Carman, Armagh, and elsewhere.
   Nor was Dublin the only Danish city. Limerick, Cork,
   Waterford, Wexford, all became the centres of petty Danish
   kingdoms, active in commerce, skilful for those times, in
   domestic architecture, and with political and legislative
   ideas identical in their essence with those of the people
   among whom they settled. In the course of the 10th century the
   Danes nominally became, for the most part, converts to
   Christianity. But it appears that they derived their
   Christianity mainly from English sources; and when they began
   to organize their Church, they did so after the Roman manner,
   and in connection with the see of Canterbury. It was not,
   however, till after the wars of Brian Born that Danish
   Christianity became either very real or at all organized."

      _S. Bryant,
      Celtic Ireland,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Haliday,
      The Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 6_.

      See, also,
      NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
   The Battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.

   By a revolution which occurred in the year 1000, Malachy II.
   of the dynasty which had reigned long at Tara, was deposed
   from the chief sovereignty, and Brian Boromh or Boru, of the
   royal family of Munster, who had fought his way up to
   masterful power, became the Ardrigh or over-king of Ireland.
   In 1014 Brian was called upon to face a great combination
   which the Danes of Dublin had effected with their fellow
   Northmen, including those of Denmark, Norway, Scotland and all
   the isles. It was the Danish intention now to accomplish
   completely the conquest of Ireland and bring their long
   struggle with its Celtic inhabitants to an effectual close,
   King Brian and his countrymen made equal exertions on their
   side to meet the attack, and the great battle of Clontarf,
   fought on Good Friday of the year 1014, gave them a decisive
   victory. "Clontarf, the lawn or meadow of bulls, stretches
   along the crescent-shaped north strand of Dublin harbor, from
   the ancient salmon weir at Ballyboght bridge, towards the
   promontory of Howth. Both horns of the crescent were held by
   the enemy, and communicated with his ships: the inland point
   terminating in the roofs of Dublin, and the seaward marked by
   the lion-like head of Howth. The meadow land between sloped
   gently upward and inward from the beach, and for the myriad
   duels which formed the ancient battle, no field could present
   less positive vantage ground to combatants on either side. The
   invading force had possession of both wings, so that Brian's
   army, which had first encamped at Kilmainham, must have
   crossed the Liffey higher up, and marched round by the present
   Drumcondra in order to reach the appointed field. The day
   seems to have been decided on by formal challenge. … The
   forces on both sides could not have fallen short of 20,000
   men. … The utmost fury was displayed on all sides. …
   Hardly a nobly born man escaped, or sought to escape. The ten
   hundred in armor, and 3,000 others of the enemy, with about an
   equal number of the men of Ireland, lay dead upon the field.
   One division of the enemy were, towards sunset, retreating to
   their ships, when Brodar the Viking, perceiving the tent of
   Brian, standing apart, without a guard, and the aged king on
   his knees before the Crucifix, rushed in, cut him down with a
   single blow, and then continued his flight. … The deceased
   hero took his place at once in history, national and foreign.
   … The fame of the event went out through all nations. The
   chronicles of Wales, of Scotland, and of Man; the annals of
   Ademar and Marianus; the Sagas of Denmark and the Isles, all
   record the event. … 'Brian's battle,' as it is called in the
   Sagas, was, in short, such a defeat as prevented any general
   northern combination for the subsequent invasion of Ireland.
   Not that the country was entirely free from their attacks till
   the end of the 11th century; but, from the day of Clontarf
   forward, the long cherished Northern idea of a conquest of
   Ireland seems to have been gloomily abandoned by that
   indomitable people."

      _T. D'Arcy McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: 12th Century.
   The great tribes and kingdoms and the ruling families.

   "Ireland was now [immediately before Strongbow's conquest]
   divided into four confederations of tribes. The O'Neils held
   Ulidia, which is now called Ulster; the O'Connors Conacia, or
   Connaught; the O'Briens and the M'Carthys Mononia, or Munster;
   and the Macmurroughs Lagenia, or Leinster—all under the
   paramount but often-disputed rule of a branch of the Ulster
   O'Neils. The royal demesne of Meath, the appanage of the
   Ulster family, which included Westmeath, Longford, and a part
   of King's County, was sometimes counted a fifth kingdom. In
   the wild north, O'Neil, O'Donnel, O'Kane, O'Hara, O'Sheel,
   O'Carrol, were mighty names.
{1758}
   On the northern-most peninsula, where the Atlantic runs into
   Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly, O'Dogherty reigned supreme. In
   Connaught, O'Rourke, O'Reilly, O'Kelly, O'Flaherty, O'Malley,
   O'Dowd, were lords. In Meath and Leinster, MacGeogeghan,
   O'Farrell, O'Connor, O'Moore, O'Brennan, Macmurrough, ruled.
   In Munster, by the western shore, MacCarthy More held sway.
   MacCarthy Reagh swayed the south, by the pleasant waters of
   Cork Bay. O'Sullivan Beare was lord of the fair promontory
   between Bantry Bay and Kenmare River. O'Mahony reigned by
   roaring Water Bay. O'Donoghue was chieftain by the haunted
   Killarney Lakes. MacMahon ruled north of the Shannon. O'Loglin
   looked on Galway Bay. All Ireland, with the exception of a few
   seaport towns where the Danes had settled, was in the hands of
   Irish chiefs of old descent and famous lineage. They
   quarrelled amongst themselves as readily and as fiercely as if
   they had been the heads of so many Greek states. The Danes had
   been their Persians; their Romans were now to come."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Outline of Irish History,
      chapter 3._

IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
   The Anglo-Norman conquest.

   "The conquest of Ireland is among the most important episodes
   in the reign of Henry II. … There were reasons, besides the
   mere lust of conquest, why an English king should desire to
   reduce Ireland. It had given harbours and recruits to the
   Northmen on their expeditions; Irish soldiers had fought at
   Brunanbeorh [or Brunnanburgh] against Athelstane; English
   exiles, like the sons of Harold, repeatedly fled to the
   island, and awaited the opportunity of reprisals upon their
   own government. Irish pirates infested the English coasts, and
   carried off prisoners, whom they sold as slaves. Accordingly,
   William the Conqueror had meditated subjugating Ireland, if he
   lived two years longer; William Rufus once declared, as he
   stood on the coast of Wales, that he would bridge St. George's
   Channel with a fleet of ships. But it was reserved for John of
   Salisbury to obtain from his intimate friend, the English
   pope, Adrian IV., a grant of Ireland to the English crown [by
   the Bull 'Laudabilitur'] as a hereditary fief (A. D. 1154).
   … Nevertheless, the difficulty of invading Ireland seemed
   greater than any profit likely to result from it. The king's
   council opposed the enterprise; and for some years the project
   was suffered to sleep. But the wretched disorders of Irish
   politics invited the invader." Diarmaid MacMurchad, king of
   Leinster, having been driven from his dominions, "repaired to
   the court of Henry II. in Aquitaine. The offer to hold
   Leinster, if Henry would reinstate him, as an English fief,
   procured Diarmaid free quarters in Bristol, to which he
   speedily returned, and letters patent authorizing any English
   subject to assist him. Diarmaid published these, and promised
   large rewards in land to those who would help him to win back
   his kingdom. The most powerful ally whom Diarmaid's offers
   attracted was Richard de Clare, surnamed Strongbow, earl of
   Pembroke, and distant cousin to the king. … Three other
   adventurers were enlisted. Two of them, Robert Fitz-Stephen
   and Maurice Fitz-Gerald, were sons, by different fathers, of
   Nest, a Welsh princess; the third was Maurice de Prendergast."
   In May, 1169, Fitz-Stephen, with a small following, crossed
   the channel and captured Wexford. Some other successes soon
   enabled Diarmaid to make peace with his enemies and recover
   his kingdom, even before Strongbow's expedition had left
   Wales. "Diarmaid was reinstated, and English subjects had no
   authority to carry on war on their own account in Ireland.
   Strongbow accordingly went to Normandy, and asked permission
   to push the advantages gained. Obtaining only an ambiguous
   answer from the king, he determined to consider it in his
   favour, and went back into Wales to prepare an expedition. In
   May, A. D. 1170, he sent over Raymond le Gros, Fitz-Stephen's
   half nephew, as his precursor." Raymond defeated the Irish
   with great slaughter, in a battle near Waterford, and savagely
   murdered seventy prisoners. "In August, A. D. 1170, as
   Strongbow was preparing to embark, he received an explicit
   order from the king not to proceed. Quietly disregarding it,
   he crossed with a little army of 1,200 men, out of whom 200
   were knights. The storm of Waterford was his first exploit;
   and it illustrates the Irish architecture of the times, that
   the city walls were trenched by cutting away the wooden props
   of a house that was built into them. The frightful carnage of
   the storm was succeeded by the earl's marriage with Eva
   [daughter of King Diarmaid], who brought a kingdom as her
   dower. Then the united forces marched upon Dublin." The Danish
   city was treacherously stormed in the midst of a negotiation,
   and "the inhabitants experienced the worst miseries of the
   conquered. Hasculf [the Danish or Norse governor], and Asgall,
   king of the Northmen, escaped on board some small vessels to
   their countrymen in the Orkneys." The next year Hasculf
   reappeared with 60 ships from the Orkneys and Norway and laid
   siege to Dublin. He was defeated, taken prisoner and killed;
   but another fleet soon arrived and Dublin was again under
   siege. Reduced to a desperate strait, the small garrison
   sallied and routed the besiegers; but meantime Strongbow had
   lost ground elsewhere and Dublin and Waterford were the only
   possessions he retained. The anger of King Henry at his
   disobedience caused many of his followers to desert him, and
   he soon found it necessary to make peace with his offended
   sovereign. Crossing over to England, he succeeded in winning
   the royal pardon, and Henry returned to Ireland with him, to
   assist in the completing of the conquest. They were
   accompanied by a fleet of 400 ships and some 4,000 men. The
   appearance of the king was followed by a general submission of
   the Irish princes, and he made a royal progress to Cashel,
   where, in 1172, a synod was held to effect the Church reforms
   which were, ostensibly, the chief object of the conquest. "The
   court held at Lismore to establish order among the English
   settlers is better evidence than any synod of the real objects
   of the conquest. The country was partially distributed among
   Norman nobles; but as the English conquest of Ireland, more
   rapid than the Norman of England, had been effected by fewer
   men, and was more insecure, the changes in the property and
   laws of the nation were proportionately smaller. Meath, as the
   appanage of royalty, of course accrued to the English crown,
   and Henry assigned the whole of it to Hugh de Lacy, whom he
   made justiciary of the realm and governor of Dublin. The
   object of this enormous grant, no doubt, was to balance
   Strongbow's power.
{1759}
   The families of Desmond, Ormond, and Vernon received other
   estates. But the number of those invested was small. … The
   slightness of the change, no doubt, mainly contributed to the
   readiness with which the supremacy of the English crown was
   accepted. In April, A. D. 1172, Henry was able to return to
   England, leaving only Ulster behind him nominally unsubdued. A
   series of petty wars between Irish chiefs and Norman nobles
   soon broke out. The precarious nature of the English dominion
   became manifest; and Henry was forced to publish the papal
   grant of Ireland, which he had hitherto suppressed. At last,
   in A. D. 1175, Roderic O'Connor [king of Connaught, and
   previously recognized over-king of Ireland] made a treaty with
   the English crown, and agreed to render homage and submission,
   and a tribute of every tenth hide, in return for royal rights
   in his own kingdom of Connaught. At the same time, the limits
   of the English pale, as it was afterwards called, were
   defined. This district, which was immediately subject to the
   king of England and his barons, comprised Dublin with its
   appurtenances, Meath, Leinster, and the country from Waterford
   to Dungarvon. … From the English point of view, the kings of
   England were henceforth lords-paramount of Ireland, with the
   fee of the soil vested in them, and all Irish princes in
   future were no more than tenants-in-chief. From the Irish
   point of view, the English kings were nothing more than
   military suzerains in the districts outside the pale."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. J. R. Green,
      Henry the Second,
      chapter 8._

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapters 6-7._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 2, chapters 1-2._

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapters 26-29._

      _F. P. Barnard, editor,
      Strongbow's Conquest of Ireland:
      From Contemporary Writers._

IRELAND: 13th-14th Centuries.
   Under the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

   "The feudal system as established in Ireland differed in
   important respects from that existing in England. It is usual
   for Irish writers to attribute much of the sufferings of
   Ireland to the misgovernment of England and the introduction
   of feudalism, whereas most of these evils may be referred
   rather to English non-government and to the peculiar anomalies
   of the Irish feudal system. The feudal system as introduced
   into Ireland, like most other institutions imported from
   England, was altered in such a manner as to retain all its
   evils, and lose all its advantages. The Crown in Ireland
   possessed no power of controlling its vassals. … In Ireland
   there were no manor or valuable estates that the Crown could
   appropriate—the entire country had to be conquered; and as
   the Crown did not assist in the conquest, it received no part
   of the spoils. Thus we find the Crown had absolutely no
   demesnes of its own, and, being deprived of any military force
   of its own, it had to rely upon such of the great feudal
   vassals as might remain loyal for the purpose of crushing
   those who might be in rebellion. The inevitable result of this
   policy was to kindle a civil war and excite personal feuds in
   the attempt to maintain order. … We have thus a feudal
   system, in which the Crown is powerless to fulfil its duties,
   yet active in preventing the greater nobles from exercising
   that influence which might have secured a reasonable degree of
   order. The whole energy of the nobles was turned away from
   government to war; and lest they should become local
   potentates, they were allowed to degenerate into local
   tyrants. But what, meanwhile, had become of the Irish nation?
   As the feudal system ignored their existence, we have
   permitted them to fall out of our view; but they still
   existed, and still were politically independent. The invaders
   had occupied the flat country, suitable for the operation of
   their forces, and the original inhabitants had retired into
   either the mountainous districts, impassable to cavalry, or
   into districts protected by the bogs, and difficult of access;
   nay, even in some parts of the island, where the Normans were
   not in force, they had re-occupied large portions of the open
   country. They did not retire as disorganised fugitives, but
   the tribes retreated, keeping their social organisation
   unbroken; and, although removed from their original
   habitations, still preserved their social identity. The
   remarkable point in the conquest was, that the Celtic
   population was not driven back upon anyone portion of the
   kingdom, but remained as it was, interpolated among the new
   arrivals. … The Celtic population possessed no definite
   legal position, filled no place in the feudal hierarchy, and
   was in the eyes of the English Government hostile and alien;
   the only exception to this was the case of the O'Briens, who,
   though not actually feudal vassals, had their estates secured
   by a charter, and five Irish families, through some unknown
   reason, were considered as the king's men and entitled to his
   protection; these were known as the five bloods, who enjoyed
   the law of England to the extent of the privilege to sue in
   the king's courts, viz., O'Neill, O'Molaghlin, O'Connor,
   O'Brien, and M'Murrough. … The Irish in Ireland were treated
   by the king's courts in Ireland as an alien and hostile
   nation; an Irishman out of the king's peace could not bring an
   action against an Englishman. … But, though legally ignored,
   the Irish tribes could not be politically disregarded. The
   English Government used their assistance to repress the
   rebellions of insurgent vassals. … They were called on to
   furnish assistance to the English armies, and on many
   occasions we find their chiefs summoned by writ of Parliament,
   as if feudal vassals; but the mode in which they were treated
   depended upon the immediate objects and want of the English
   Government, and the general course of conduct pursued towards
   them was such as has been previously stated. … We thus find
   the English and Irish races hopelessly at variance, and it
   would seem that one or other must have been crushed out in the
   contest; but such was not the result; they both survived, and,
   contrary to reasonable expectations, the Irish exhibited the
   greater vitality. The expulsion of the English colony was an
   effort beyond the power of the disunited Irish tribes; for in
   the darkest hours of the English settlement the power of
   England was ready, by some sudden effort, to reassert the
   English supremacy. But why did the Anglo-Normans wholly fail
   to subdue the Irish? …

   1. The large extent comprised in the grants made to the first
   colonists led to a dispersion of the Norman nobles over the
   more fertile portions of the country. The English colony never
   formed one compact body capable of combined action. …

{1760}

   2. The military equipment of the Normans, and their mode of
   carrying on war, rendered their forces wholly inefficient,
   when, leaving the flat country, they attempted to penetrate
   the fastnesses of the native tribes. …

   3. From the absence of any central government, civil wars
   continually arose between the several Norman lords; thus the
   military power of the colonists was frittered away in
   dissensions. …

   4. The English Government continually called upon the Irish
   barons for aids and military service, to be employed in wars
   elsewhere than in Ireland. …

   5. Many of the estates of the Norman nobles descended to
   heiresses who married Englishmen already possessing estates in
   England: hence arose absenteeism.

   6. Even the lords who resided constantly upon their Irish
   estates gradually lost their Norman habits, and tended to
   assimilate themselves to the manners, and to adopt the
   language, of the Irish."

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. W. Joyce,
      Short History of Ireland,
      part 3._

      See, also,
      PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES;
      and GERALDINES.

IRELAND:
   The Celticizing of the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

   "Prior to experience, it would have been equally reasonable to
   expect that the modern Englishman would adopt the habits of
   the Hindoo or the Mohican, as that the fiery knights of
   Normandy would have stooped to imitate a race whom they
   despised as slaves; that they would have flung away their very
   knightly names to assume a barbarous equivalent [the De Burghs
   became Bourkes or Burkes, the M'Sweenies had been Veres in
   England, and the Munster Geraldines merged their family name
   in that of Desmond.—Foot-note]; and would so utterly have
   cast aside the commanding features of their Northern
   extraction, that their children's children could be
   distinguished neither in soul nor body, neither in look, in
   dress, in language, nor in disposition, from the Celts whom
   they had subdued. Such, however, was the extraordinary fact.
   The Irish who had been conquered in the field revenged their
   defeat on the minds and hearts of their conquerors; and in
   yielding, yielded only to fling over their new masters the
   subtle spell of the Celtic disposition. In vain the government
   attempted to stem the evil. Statute was passed after statute
   forbidding the 'Englishry' of Ireland to use the Irish
   language, or intermarry with Irish families, or copy Irish
   habits. Penalties were multiplied on penalties; fines,
   forfeitures, and at last death itself, were threatened for
   such offences. But all in vain. The stealthy evil crept on
   irresistibly. Fresh colonists were sent over to restore the
   system, but only for themselves or their children to be swept
   into the stream; and from the century which succeeded the
   Conquest till the reign of the eighth Henry, the strange
   phenomenon repeated itself, generation after generation,
   baffling the wisdom of statesmen, and paralysing every effort
   at a remedy."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.
   Edward Bruce's invasion.

   The crushing defeat of the English by the Scotch at
   Bannockburn (1314) rekindled a spirit of rebellion in Ireland,
   and the discontented chiefs made haste to solicit aid from
   Scotland, offering the sovereignty of their island to Edward
   Bruce, brother of king Robert, if he would come to their help
   and conquer it. "By consent of king Robert, who was pleased to
   make a diversion against England upon a vulnerable point, and
   not, perhaps, sorry to be rid of a restless spirit, which
   became impatient in the lack of employment, Edward invaded
   Ireland at the head of a force of 6,000 Scots. He fought many
   battles, and gained them all. He became master of the province
   of Ulster, and was solemnly crowned king of Ireland; but found
   himself amid his successes obliged to intreat the assistance
   of king Robert with fresh supplies; for the impetuous Edward,
   who never spared his own person, was equally reckless of
   exposing his followers; and his successes were misfortunes, in
   so far as they wasted the brave men with whose lives they were
   purchased. Robert Bruce led supplies to his brother's
   assistance, with an army which enabled him to overrun Ireland,
   but without gaining any permanent advantage. He threatened
   Dublin, and penetrated as far as Limerick in the west, but was
   compelled, by scarcity of provisions, to retire again into
   Ulster, in the spring of 1317. He shortly after returned to
   Scotland, leaving a part of his troops with Edward, though
   probably convinced that his brother was engaged in a desperate
   and fruitless enterprise. … After his brother's departure,
   Edward's career of ambition was closed at the battle of
   Dundalk, where, October 5th, 1318, fortune at length failed a
   warrior who had tried her patience by so many hazards. On that
   fatal day he encountered, against the advice of his officers,
   an Anglo-Irish army ten times more numerous than his own. A
   strong champion among the English, named John Maupas, singling
   out the person of Edward, slew him, and received death at his
   hands. … A general officer of the Scots, called John
   Thomson, led back the remnant of the Scottish force to their
   own country. And thus ended the Scottish invasion of Ireland,
   with the loss of many brave soldiers."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 3, chapter 36._

IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.
   Oppressions of the reign of Edward III.

   "Of all the legislative measures of this period the most
   notable was the Statute of Kilkenny, passed at a Parliament
   held in that town, in the last year of the decade, in the Lent
   session of 1367. This 'famous, or infamous,' enactment
   gathered up into one, and recapitulated with additional
   aggravations and insults, all the former oppressive,
   exasperating, and iniquitous ordinances by which English
   legislation for Ireland had hitherto been disgraced. … Among
   the earliest measures passed in the reign of Edward III. was a
   statute directed against absenteeism, obliging all Englishmen
   who were Irish proprietors either to reside on their estates
   or to provide soldiers to defend them. But this enactment was
   unproductive of good results. The O'Neills drove the colonists
   out of the 'liberty of Ulster,' and the English De Burghs, so
   far from helping to uphold English ascendency, appropriated to
   themselves the entire lordship of Connaught, made common cause
   with the native tribes, and adopting their dress, language,
   and customs, became 'Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores,' threw off
   their allegiance to King Edward, and bade defiance to the
   King's authority. Thus it came to pass that before many years
   of this reign had elapsed more than a third part of the
   territories of the Pale was again in the hands of its original
   possessors. … Edward III. inherited the barbarous and
   iniquitous traditions of English rule in Ireland, but he
   improved upon them.
{1761}
   He ordered all his officers in that country who had Irish
   estates to be removed and give place to Englishmen with no
   Irish ties. He next declared void every grant of land in
   Ireland since the time of Edward II., and made new grants of
   the lands thus recovered to the Crown. The tendency of this
   monstrous measure was to create two more antagonistic parties
   in Ireland, destined by their bitter dissensions to bring
   about the result that ere long 'all the King's land in Ireland
   was on the point of passing away from the Crown of England,'—
   viz., the 'English by blood,' as the established settlers were
   called, and the 'English by birth,' or new grantees. Some of
   the chief of the former, in despair of a career, or even of a
   quiet life, at home, were about to bid good-bye to Ireland and
   seek their fortunes elsewhere, when they were arrested by a
   proclamation making it penal for any English subject capable
   of bearing arms to leave the country. … The 'English by
   blood' became more and more intimately connected and
   identified with the native Irish, and the 'English by birth'
   became more and more powerless to maintain the English
   ascendency; till at last, in 1361, the King determined on
   sending over a viceroy of the blood royal, and appointed to
   the post his son Lionel, created shortly afterwards Duke of
   Clarence, whom he had married to Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter
   and representative of the last Earl of Ulster. But though
   Prince Lionel, on his arrival, took the precaution of
   forbidding any man born in Ireland to approach his camp, his
   position soon became so critical that the King issued writs
   commanding all the absentee Irish lords to hasten to Ireland
   to the assistance of the Prince, 'for that his very dear son
   and his companions in Ireland were in imminent peril.' The
   next step was the passing of the Statute of Kilkenny. It
   re-enacted the prohibition of marriage and foster-nursing,
   rendered obligatory the adoption of the English language and
   customs, forbade the national games of 'hurlings and
   quoitings,' and the use of the ancient Gaelic code called the
   Senchus Mor; a code by which the native brehons, or judges, of
   the Irish septs had decided causes among them since the time
   of the conversion of the race to Christianity in the fifth
   century."

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III., 4th decade,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Longman,
      Life and Times of Edward III.,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 2, chapters 4-5 (volume 1)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1494.
   Poynings' Laws.

   During the Wars of the Roses, "if Ireland had any preference
   for either of the great contending parties in England, it was
   … for the House of York; and from this cause chiefly sprang
   the change of Henry VII.'s mode of governing the dependency
   which on ascending the throne he had found all but severed
   from his dominions. At first he had thought it best to employ
   the native nobility for this purpose, and had chosen for
   Deputy the Earl of Kildare—setting him, as the story ran, to
   rule all Ireland, because all Ireland could not rule him.
   When, however, he had time to reflect on the dangers springing
   from the Irish support of Simnel and Warbeck, from which he
   and his dynasty had escaped so narrowly, he perceived the
   necessity of bringing the country under a more regular
   government. Accordingly he sent over in 1494 (at the time when
   Warbeck was preparing for his descent on England) Sir Edward
   Poynings as Lord Deputy, a statesman and commander well
   experienced in the most important affairs of the time."

      _C. E. Moberly,
      The Early Tudors,
      chapter 6._

   After some military operations, which he found to be beset
   with treacheries and difficulties, the new Lord Deputy held a
   Parliament at Drogheda—"perhaps the most memorable that was
   ever held in Ireland, as certainly no other Parliament in that
   country made laws which endured so long as two which were then
   enacted, and were known for centuries afterwards as the
   'Poynings Acts.' By the first of these it was ordained that no
   Parliament should be held in Ireland in future until the
   king's Council in England had approved not only of its being
   summoned, but also of the Acts which the Lieutenant and
   Council of Ireland proposed to pass in it. By the second the
   laws enacted before that time in England were extended to
   Ireland also. Thus the Irish legislature was made entirely
   dependent upon England. The Irish Parliament had no power to
   originate anything, but was only free to accept or (if they
   were very bold) to reject measures drawn up by the Irish
   Council and approved already by the king and his Council in
   England before they were submitted to discussion. Little as
   this looks like parliamentary government, such was the state
   of subjection in which the Irish Parliament remained by virtue
   of this law for nearly three centuries later. Almost the whole
   time, that is to say, that Ireland had a separate Parliament
   at all it remained in this manner restricted in its action by
   the legislation of Sir Edward Poynings. … It should be
   remembered, however, that Henry VII. merely sought to do in
   Ireland what there is every reason to suppose he practically
   did in England. Legislation was not at this time considered to
   be the chief business of a Parliament."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Henry the Seventh,
      chapter. 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Bagwell,
      Ireland Under the Tudors,
      chapter 8._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 2, chapter 4, section 7._

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1515.
   The English Pale and the Clans and Chiefs beyond it.

   "The events on which we are about to enter require for their
   understanding a sketch of the position of the various chiefs,
   as they were at this time scattered over the island. The
   English pale, originally comprising 'the four shires,' as they
   were called, of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Uriel or Louth,
   had been shorn down to half its old dimensions. The line
   extended from Dundalk to Ardee; from Ardee by Castletown to
   Kells; thence through Athboy and Trim to the Castle of
   Maynooth; from Maynooth it crossed to Claine upon the Liffey,
   and then followed up the line of the river to Ballimore
   Eustace, from which place it skirted back at the rear of the
   Wicklow and Dublin mountains to the forts at Dalkey, seven
   miles south of Dublin. This narrow strip alone, some fifty
   miles long and twenty broad, was in any sense English. Beyond
   the borders the common law of England was of no authority; the
   king's writ was but a strip of parchment; and the country was
   parcelled among a multitude of independent chiefs, who
   acknowledged no sovereignty but that of strength, who levied
   tribute on the inhabitants of the pale as a reward for a
   nominal protection of their rights, and as a compensation for
   abstaining from the plunder of their farms. …
{1762}
   These chiefs, with their dependent clans, were distributed
   over the four provinces in the following order. The
   Geraldines, the most powerful of the remaining Normans, were
   divided into two branches. The Geraldines of the south, under
   the Earls of Desmond, held Limerick, Cork, and Kerry; the
   Geraldines of Leinster lay along the frontiers of the English
   pale; and the heads of the house, the Earls of Kildare, were
   the feudal superiors of the greater portion of the English
   counties. To the Butlers, Earls of Ormond and Ossory, belonged
   Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary. The De Burghs, or Bourkes, as
   they called themselves, were scattered over Galway, Roscommon,
   and the south of Sligo, occupying the broad plains which lie
   between the Shannon and the mountains of Connemara and Mayo.
   This was the relative position into which these clans had
   settled at the Conquest, and it had been maintained with
   little variation. The north, which had fallen to the Lacies
   and the De Courcies, had been wholly recovered by the Irish.
   The Lacies had become extinct. The De Courcies, once Earls of
   Ulster, had migrated to the south, and were reduced to the
   petty fief of Kinsale, which they held under the Desmonds. The
   Celtic chieftains had returned from the mountains to which
   they had been driven, bringing back with them, more intensely
   than ever, the Irish habits and traditions. … The O'Neils
   and O'Donnells had spread down over Ulster to the frontiers of
   the pale. The O'Connors and O'Carrolls had recrossed the
   Shannon and pushed forwards into Kildare; the O'Connor Don was
   established in a castle near Portarlington, said to be one of
   the strongest in Ireland; and the O'Carrolls had seized Leap,
   an ancient Danish fortress, surrounded by bog and forest, a
   few miles from Parsonstown. O'Brien of Inchiquin, Prince—as
   he styled himself—of Thomond, no longer contented with his
   principality of Clare, had thrown a bridge across the Shannon
   five miles above Limerick, and was thus enabled to enter
   Munster at his pleasure and spread his authority towards the
   south; while the M'Carties and O'Sullivans, in Cork and Kerry,
   were only not dangerous to the Earls of Desmond, because the
   Desmonds were more Irish than themselves, and were accepted as
   their natural chiefs. In Tipperary and Kilkenny only the
   Celtic reaction was held in check. The Earls of Ormond,
   although they were obliged themselves to live as Irish
   chieftains, and to govern by the Irish law, yet … remained
   true to their allegiance, and maintained the English authority
   as far as their power extended. … Wexford, Wicklow, and the
   mountains of Dublin, were occupied by the Highland tribes of
   O'Bryne and O'Toole, who, in their wild glens and dangerous
   gorges, defied attempts to conquer them, and who were able, at
   all times, issuing down out of the passes of the hills, to cut
   off communication with the pale. Thus the Butlers had no means
   of reaching Dublin except through the county of Kildare, the
   home of their hereditary rivals and foes. This is a general
   account of the situation of the various parties in Ireland at
   the beginning of the 16th century. I have spoken only of the
   leading families. … 'There be sixty counties, called
   regions, in Ireland,' says the report of 1515, 'inhabited with
   the king's Irish enemies.'"

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      PALE, THE ENGLISH.

IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
   The reconquest under Henry VIII. and
   the fall of the Geraldines.
   The political pacification and the religious alienation.

   "To Henry VIII. the policy which had been pursued by his
   father was utterly hateful. His purpose was to rule in Ireland
   as thoroughly and effectively as he ruled in England. … The
   Geraldines, who had been suffered under the preceding reign to
   govern Ireland in the name of the Crown, were quick to
   discover that the Crown would no longer stoop to be their
   tool. They resolved to frighten England again into a
   conviction of its helplessness; and the rising of Lord Thomas
   Fitzgerald followed the usual fashion of Irish revolts. A
   murder of the Archbishop of Dublin, a capture of the city, a
   repulse before its castle, a harrying of the Pale, ended in a
   sudden disappearance of the rebels among the bogs and forests
   of the border on the advance of the English forces. …
   Unluckily for the Geraldines, Henry had resolved to take
   Ireland seriously in hand, and he had Cromwell [Sir Thomas] to
   execute his will. Skeffington, the new Lord Deputy, brought
   with him a train of artillery, which worked a startling change
   in the political aspect of the island. The castles which had
   hitherto sheltered rebellion were battered into ruins. … Not
   only was the power of the great Norman house which had towered
   over Ireland utterly broken, but only a single boy was left to
   preserve its name. With the fall of the Geraldines Ireland
   felt itself in a master's grasp. … In seven years, partly
   through the vigour of Skeffington's successor, Lord Leonard
   Grey, and still more through the resolute will of Henry and
   Cromwell, the power of the Crown, which had been limited to
   the walls of Dublin, was acknowledged over the length and
   breadth of Ireland. … Chieftain after chieftain was won over
   to the acceptance of the indenture which guaranteed him in the
   possession of his lands, and left his authority over his
   tribesmen untouched, on conditions of a pledge of loyalty, of
   abstinence from illegal wars and exactions on his
   fellow-subjects, and of rendering a fixed tribute and service
   in war-time to the Crown. … [This] firm and conciliatory
   policy must in the end have won, but for the fatal blunder
   which plunged Ireland into religions strife at the moment when
   her civil strife seemed about to come to an end. … In
   Ireland the spirit of the Reformation never existed among the
   people at all. They accepted the legislative measures passed
   in the English Parliament without any dream of theological
   consequences, or of any change in the doctrine or ceremonies
   of the Church. … The mission of Archbishop Browne 'for the
   plucking-down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry' was the
   first step in the long effort of the English Government to
   force a new faith on a people who to a man clung passionately
   to their old religion. Browne's attempts at 'tuning the
   pulpits' were met by a sullen and significant opposition. …
   Protestantism had failed to wrest a single Irishman from his
   older convictions, but it succeeded in uniting all Ireland
   against the Crown. … The population within the Pale and
   without it became one, 'not as the Irish nation,' it has been
   acutely said, 'but as Catholics.' A new sense of national
   identity was found in the identity of religion."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 7, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Bagwell,
      Ireland Under the Tudors,
      volume 1, chapters 9-15._

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 30._

{1763}

IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
   The wars of Shane O'Neil and Hugh O'Neil, Earls of Tyrone.
   The League of the Geraldines and the Ulster Confederacy.

   "The Reformation begun under Henry VIII. was carried out with
   pitiless determination under Edward VI., and was met by the
   Catholics with unflinching opposition. Under Mary there was a
   period of respite, but the strife was renewed with greater
   fierceness in the succeeding reign. As authentic Irish history
   begins with St. Patrick, so with Elizabeth modern Irish
   history may be said to begin. … At her accession, Elizabeth
   was too much occupied with foreign complications to pay much
   heed to Ireland. Trouble first began in a conflict between the
   feudal laws and the old Irish law of Tanistry. Con O'Neil,
   Earl of Tyrone, had taken his title from Henry VIII., subject
   to the English law of succession; but when Con died, the clan
   O'Neil, disregarding the English principle of hereditary
   succession, chose Shane O'Neil, an illegitimate son of Con,
   and the hero of his Sept, to be The O'Neil. Shane O'Neil at
   once put himself forward as the champion of Irish liberty, the
   supporter of the Irish right to rule themselves in their own
   way and pay no heed to England. Under the pretence of
   governing the country, Elizabeth overran it with a soldiery
   who, as even Mr. Froude acknowledges, lived almost universally
   on plunder, and were little better than bandits. The time was
   an appropriate one for a champion of Irish rights. Shane
   O'Neil boldly stood out as sovereign of Ulster, and pitted
   himself against Elizabeth. … Shane fought bravely against
   his fate, but he was defeated [A. D. 1567], put to flight, and
   murdered by his enemies, the Scots of Antrim, in whose
   strongholds he madly sought refuge. His head was struck off,
   and sent to adorn the walls of Dublin Castle. His lands were
   declared forfeit, and his vassals, vassals of the Crown.
   English soldiers of fortune were given grants from Shane's
   escheated territory, but when they attempted to settle they
   were killed by the O'Neils. Others came in their place, under
   Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, and did their best to simplify
   the process of colonization by exterminating the O'Neils, men,
   women, and children, wherever they could be got at. After two
   years of struggle Essex was compelled to abandon his
   settlement. But other colonizers were not disheartened. Some
   West of England gentlemen, under Peter Carew, seized on Cork,
   Limerick and Kerry, and sought to hold them by extirpating the
   obnoxious natives. Against these English inroads the great
   Geraldine League was formed. In the reign of Mary, that boy of
   twelve whom Henry VIII. had not been able to include in the
   general doom of his house had been allowed to return to
   Ireland, and to resume his ancestral honours, Once more the
   Geraldines were a great and powerful family in Ireland."
   Defeated in their first rising, "the Geraldines and their
   companion chiefs got encouragement in Rome and pledges from
   Spain, and they rose again under the Earl of Desmond and Sir
   James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald. At first they had some
   successes, They had many wrongs to avenge. … Sir Francis
   Cosby, the Queen's representative in Leix and Offaly, had
   conceived and executed the idea of preventing any further
   possible rising of the chiefs in those districts by summoning
   them and their kinsmen to a great banquet in the fort of
   Mullaghmast, and there massacring them all. Out of 400 guests,
   only one man, a Lalor, escaped from that feast of blood. …
   With such memories in their minds, the tribes rose in all
   directions to the Desmond call. … Elizabeth sent over more
   troops to Ireland under the new Lord Deputy, Sir William
   Pelham, who had with him as ally Ormonde, the head of the
   house of Butler, hereditary foes of the Geraldines, and easily
   induced to act against them. Pelham and Ormonde cut their way
   over Munster, reducing the province by unexampled ferocity.
   Ormonde boasted that he had put to death nearly 6,000
   disaffected persons. Just at this moment some of the chiefs of
   the Pale rose, and rose too late. They gained one victory over
   Lord Grey de Wilton in the pass of Glenmalure [August, 1580].
   … Grey immediately abandoned the Pale to the insurgents, and
   turned to Smerwick [A. D. 1580], where some 800 Spanish and
   Italian soldiers had just landed, too late to be of any
   service to the rebellion, and had occupied the dismantled
   fort. It was at once blockaded by sea and by land. In Grey's
   army Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser both held commands.
   Smerwick surrendered at discretion, and the prisoners were
   killed by Raleigh and his men in cold blood. Flushed by this
   success, Grey returned to the Pale and carried all before him.
   The Geraldines were disheartened, and were defeated wherever
   they made a stand. … Munster was so vigorously laid waste
   that Mr. Froude declares that 'the lowing of a cow or the
   sound of a ploughboy's whistle was not to be heard from
   Valentia to the Rock of Cashel.' Holinshed declares the
   traveller would not meet any man, woman, or child, saving in
   towns or cities, and would not see any beast; and Spenser
   gives a melancholy picture of the misery of the inhabitants,
   'as that any stony heart would rue the same.' … The next
   step was to confiscate the estates of the rebellious
   chieftains. … The estates of Desmond and some 140 of his
   followers came to the Crown. The land was then distributed at
   the cheapest rate in large tracts to English nobles and
   gentlemen adventurers, who were pledged to colonize it with
   English labourers and tradesmen. But of these labourers and
   tradesmen not many came over, and those who did soon returned,
   tired of struggling for their foothold with the dispossessed
   Irish." During all this Geraldine or Desmond rebellion Ulster
   had remained quiet; but in 1594 it began to show signs of
   disturbance. "Hugh O'Neil, the grandson of that Con O'Neil
   whom Henry VIII. had made Earl of Tyrone, had been brought up
   at the English court, and confirmed in the lordship of Tyrone
   by the English Government. In the brilliant court of Elizabeth
   the young Irish chief was distinguished for his gifts of mind
   and body. When he came of age he was allowed to return to
   Ireland to his earldom. Once within his own country, he
   assumed his ancestral title of The O'Neil, and revived all the
   customs of independent Irish chieftains. For long enough he
   took no part in any plots or movements against the Crown; but
   many things, the ties of friendship and of love, combined to
   drive him into rebellion.

{1764}

   … Tyrone in the end consented to give the powerful support
   of his name and his arms to a skilfully planned confederation
   of the tribes. On all sides the Irish chiefs entered into the
   insurrection. O'Neil was certainly the most formidable Irish
   leader the English had yet encountered. … Victory followed
   victory [that of the Yellow Ford, 1598, being the most
   important]. In a little while all Ireland, with the exception
   of Dublin and a few garrison towns, was in the hands of the
   rebels. Essex, and the largest army ever sent to Ireland,
   crossed the Channel to cope with him; but Essex made no
   serious move, and after an interview with Tyrone, in which he
   promised more than he could perform, he returned to England to
   his death. His place was taken by Lord Mountjoy, who, for all
   his love of angling and of Elizabethan 'play-books,' was a
   stronger man. Tyrone met him, was defeated [at Kinsale, 1601].
   From that hour the rebellion was over. … At last Tyrone was
   compelled to come to terms. He surrendered his estates,
   renounced all claim to the title of The O'Neil, abjured
   alliance with all foreign powers, and promised to introduce
   English laws and customs into Tyrone. In return he received a
   free pardon and a re-grant of his title and lands by letters
   patent. Rory O'Donnell, Red Hugh's brother, also submitted,
   and was allowed to retain the title of Earl of Tyrconnel.
   Elizabeth was already dead, and the son of Mary Stuart [James
   I.] was King of England when these terms were made; but they
   were not destined to do much good."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Outline of Irish History,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. D. McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 8, chapters 3-11 (volumes 1-2)._

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapters 32-35._

      _R. Bagwell,
      Ireland under the Tudors,
      volume 2._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 4, chapters 1-5 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
   The flight of the Earls and the Plantation of Ulster.

   "With the submission of the Earl of Tyrone terminated the
   struggle between the Tudor princes and the native Celtic
   tribes. No chieftain henceforward claimed to rule his district
   in independence of the Crown of England. The Celtic land
   tenure, the Brehon laws, the language, customs, and traditions
   of the defeated race were doomed to gradual yet certain
   extinction. … Before Elizabeth was laid in the grave, the
   object for which during so many years she had striven was thus
   at length accomplished; … but between the wars of the Tudors
   and the civil government of the Stuarts, still remain (the
   intermediate link, as it were, between the two) the fall of
   the able man who had created and so long conducted an almost
   national resistance, and the colonisation by English settlers
   of his demesnes and the adjoining parts of Ulster."

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapter 20._

   "Lord Bacon, with whom ideas grew plentifully, had a
   suggestion at the service of the new king as profitable as the
   'princelie policie' which he taught his predecessor. He was of
   opinion that a great settlement of English husbandmen in
   Ireland, able to guard as well as to till the land, would help
   to secure the interest of the Crown. Till this was done
   Ireland was not effectually reduced, as Sir Edward Coke
   afterwards declared, 'for there was ever a back-door in the
   north.' The only question was where to plant them. O'Neill and
   Tyrconnell had proved dangerous adversaries; they possessed a
   fertile territory, and as their 'loose order of inheritance'
   had been duly changed into 'an orderly succession,' they were
   quite ripe for confiscation. But they had been ostentatiously
   received into favour at the close of the late war, and some
   decent pretence for destroying them so soon was indispensable.
   It was found in a letter conveniently dropped in the precincts
   of Dublin Castle, disclosing a new conspiracy. Of a conspiracy
   there was not then, and has not been since discovered, any
   evidence worth recording. The letter was probably forged,
   according to the practise of the times; but where so noble a
   booty was to be distributed by the Crown, one can conceive how
   ill-timed and disloyal any doubt of their treason would have
   appeared at the Court of James, or of the Lord Deputy. They
   were proclaimed traitors, and fled to the Continent to solicit
   aid from the Catholic Powers. Without delay James and his
   counsellors set to work. The King applied to the City of
   London to take up the lands of the wild Irish. They were well
   watered, he assured them, plentifully supplied with fuel, with
   good store of all the necessaries for man's sustenance; and
   moreover yielded timber, hides, tallow, canvas, and cordage
   for the purposes of commerce. The Companies of Skinners,
   Fishmongers, Haberdashers, Vintners and the like thereupon
   became Absentee Proprietors, and have guzzled Irish rents in
   city feasts and holiday excursions to Ireland from that day to
   this. Six counties in Ulster were confiscated, and not merely
   the chiefs, but the entire population dispossessed. The
   fruitful plains of Armagh, the deep pastoral glens that lie
   between the sheltering hills of Donegal, the undulating meadow
   lands stretching by the noble lakes and rivers of Fermanagh,
   passed from the race which had possessed them since before the
   redemption of mankind. … The alluvial lands were given to
   English courtiers whom the Scotch king found it necessary to
   placate, and to Scotch partisans whom he dared not reward in
   England. The peasants driven out of the tribal lands to burrow
   in the hills or bogs were not treated according to any law
   known among civilised men. Under Celtic tenure the treason of
   the chief, if he committed treason, affected them no more than
   the offences of a tenant for life affect a remainder man in
   our modern practice. Under the feudal system they were
   innocent feudatories who would pass with the forfeited land to
   the Crown, with all their personal rights undisturbed. The
   method of settlement is stated with commendable simplicity by
   the latest historian. The 'plantators' got all the land worth
   their having; what was not worth their having—the barren
   mountains and trackless morass, which after two centuries
   still in many cases yield no human food—were left to those
   who in the language of an Act of Parliament of the period were
   'natives of the realm of Irish blood, being descended from
   those who did inherit and possess the land.' Lest the
   frugality of the Celts should enable them to peacefully regain
   some of their possessions, it was strictly conditioned that no
   plantator or servitor should alienate his portion, or any part
   thereof, to the mere Irish. The confiscated territory amounted
   to two millions of acres. 'Of these a million and a half' says
   Mr. Froude, 'bog, forest, and mountain were restored to the
   Irish. The half million acres of fertile land were settled
   with families of Scottish and English Protestants.' It was in
   this manner that the famous Plantation of Ulster was founded."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 74-78
      (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland")._

{1765}

   "The City of London had taken in hand the settlement of Derry,
   which was now to be rebuilt under the name of Londonderry, and
   to give its name to the county in which it stood, and which
   had hitherto been known as the county of Coleraine."

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. D'Arcy McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 9, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _J. Harrison,
      The Scot in Ulster,
      chapter 3._

      _C. P. Meehan,
      Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone,
      and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel._

IRELAND: A. D. 1625.
   The Graces of Charles I.

   On the accession of Charles I., "one more effort was made by
   the Irish gentry to persuade, or rather to bribe, the
   Government to allow them to remain undisturbed in the
   possession of their property. They offered to raise by
   voluntary assessment the large sum of £120,000 in three annual
   instalments of £40,000, on condition of obtaining certain
   Graces from the King. These Graces, the Irish analogue of the
   Petition of Rights, were of the most moderate and equitable
   description. The most important were that undisturbed
   possession of sixty years should secure a landed proprietor
   from all older claims on the part of the Crown, that the
   inhabitants of Connaught should be secured from litigation by
   the enrolment of their patents, and that Popish recusants
   should be permitted, without taking the Oath of Supremacy, to
   sue for livery of their estates in the Court of Arches, and to
   practise in the courts of law. The terms were accepted. The
   promise of the King was given. The Graces were transmitted by
   way of instruction to the Lord Deputy and Council, and the
   Government also engaged, as a further security to all
   proprietors, that their estates should be formally confirmed
   to them and to their heirs by the next Parliament which should
   be held in Ireland. The sequel forms one of the most shameful
   passages in the history of English government of Ireland. In
   distinct violation of the King's solemn promise, after the
   subsidies that were made on the faith of that promise had been
   duly obtained, without provocation or pretext or excuse,
   Wentworth, who now presided with stern despotism over the
   government of Ireland, announced the withdrawal of the two
   principal articles of the Graces, the limitation of Crown
   claims by a possession of sixty years and the legalisation of
   the Connaught titles."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
   Wentworth's system of "Thorough."

   In the summer of 1633, Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of
   Strafford, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. "It was
   during his tenure of office as viceroy that he attempted to
   establish absolutism in Ireland, in order that, by the thereby
   enhanced power of the monarchy, he might be enabled to turn
   the scale in favour of a despotic government in England. And,
   never at a loss in the choice of his expedients, he contended
   for his scheme with an energy and a recklessness
   characteristic of the man. In the prosecution of his ends, he
   treated some of the most influential English noblemen resident
   in Ireland with the utmost indignity, simply with the object
   of intimidating them, at the outset, from any further
   opposition. One of them, Lord Mountnorris, was even condemned
   to death on a charge of sedition and mutiny, merely for having
   made use of a disrespectful expression with reference to the
   lord-lieutenant, the representative of the sovereign. …
   Every longing of the Irish Protestant Church for independence
   was suppressed by Wentworth. According to his views, supreme
   authority in Church matters belonged absolutely and
   unconditionally to the king. He, therefore, abolished, in
   1634, the 'Irish Articles,' which granted some concessions to
   Puritanism, and which had been introduced by Archbishop Usher
   in the reign of James I., and, at the same time, he united the
   Irish Established Church indissolubly with that of England.
   But above all things he considered it to be his duty to
   increase the army, which had hitherto been in a disorganised
   condition, and to put it in a state of complete efficiency; in
   order to do this, however, it was of the first importance to
   augment the revenue of the Crown, and in pursuance of this
   object he disdained no means. He extorted large sums of money
   from the Catholics by reminding them that, in case their
   contributions were too niggardly, there still existed laws
   against the Papists which could easily be put into operation
   again. The City of London Company, which some years before had
   effected the colonization of Londonderry, was suddenly called
   to account for not having fulfilled the stipulations contained
   in its charter, and condemned to pay a fine of £70,000. In the
   same spirit he conceived the idea of obtaining additions to
   the royal exchequer by a fresh settlement of Connaught; and,
   accordingly, he induced the Government, regardless of the
   engagements made some years previously at the granting of the
   'graces,' to re-assert the claims it had formerly advanced to
   the possession of this province. And now, as in the worst days
   of James I., there again prevailed the old system of
   investigation into the validity of the titles by which the
   landed gentry of Connaught held their estates. Such persons as
   were practised in disinterring these unregistered titles were
   looked upon with favour, and as a means of inciting to more
   vigorous efforts, a premium of 20 per cent. on the receipts
   realized during the first year by the confiscation of property
   thus imperfectly registered was guaranteed to the presidents
   of the commission. With a cynical frankness, Wentworth
   declared that no money was ever so judiciously expended as
   this, for now the people entered into the business with as
   much ardour and assiduity as if it were their own private
   concern. … The collective titles of the province of
   Connaught were at the unlimited disposal of the
   lord-lieutenant; and, although, notwithstanding this result,
   he, at the last moment, recoiled from the final act, and
   shrank from ejecting the present owners, and re-settling the
   province, it was not from any conscientious scruples that he
   refrained from taking this last decisive step: to the man
   whose motto was 'Thorough,' such scruples were unknown. …
   Practical considerations alone … induced Wentworth to pause
   in the path upon which he had entered.
{1766}
   Just at that time the Crown was engaged in a contest with
   Puritanism in Scotland, while, in England, the attempts of
   Charles to make his rule absolute had produced a state of
   public feeling which was in the highest degree critical. …
   In view of these considerations, therefore, Strafford
   postponed the colonization of the western province to a more
   favourable season. While we turn with just abhorrence from the
   contemplation of the reckless and despotic acts of this
   remarkable man, we must not, on the other hand, fail to
   acknowledge that his administration has features which present
   a brighter aspect. … In the exercise of a certain
   toleration, dictated, it is true, only by policy, he declined
   to meddle directly in the religious affairs of the Catholics.
   His greatest merit, however, consists in having advanced the
   material well-being of the country. He took a lively interest
   in agriculture and cattle-rearing, and by causing the rude and
   antiquated methods of husbandry which prevailed among the
   Irish agriculturalists to be superseded by more modern
   appliances, he contributed very materially to the advancement
   of this branch of industry. He also largely encouraged
   navigation, in consequence of which the number of Irish ships
   increased from year to year; and although it can not be denied
   that he endeavoured to suppress the trade in woollen cloth,
   from an apprehension that it might come into dangerous
   competition with English manufactures, he, nevertheless,
   sought to compensate the Irish in other ways, and the
   development of the Irish linen industry in the north was
   essentially his work. … The Irish revenue annually
   increased, and the customs returns alone were trebled during
   the administration of Lord Strafford. He was, accordingly, in
   a position to place at the disposal of his royal master a
   standing army of 9,000 men. … It was, therefore, no idle
   boast, but a statement in strict accordance with the truth,
   which he made when writing to Archbishop Laud on 16th
   December, 1634: 'I can now say that the king is here as truly
   absolute as any sovereign in the world can be.'"

      _R. Hassencamp,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 3._

   "Of all the suggesters of the infamous counsels of Charles,
   Laud and Wentworth were the most sincere:—Laud, from the
   intense faith with which he looked forward to the possible
   supremacy of the ecclesiastical power, and to which he was
   bent upon going, 'thorough', through every
   obstacle;—Wentworth, from that strong sense, with which birth
   and education had perverted his genius, of the superior
   excellence of despotic rule. … The letters which passed
   between them partook of a more intimate character, in respect
   of the avowal of ulterior designs, than either of them,
   probably, chose to avow elsewhere. … Laud had to regret his
   position in England, contrasted with that of the Irish deputy.
   'My lord,' he writes to Wentworth, speaking of the general
   affairs of church and state, 'to speak freely, you may easily
   promise more in either kind than I can perform: for, as for
   the church, it is so bound up in the forms of the common law,
   that it is not possible for me, or for any man, to do that
   good which he would, or is bound to do. … And for the state,
   indeed, my lord, I am for Thorough; but I see that both thick
   and thin stays somebody, where I conceive it should not; and
   it is impossible for me to go thorough alone.' … Every new
   act of despotism which struck terror into Ireland shot comfort
   to the heart of Laud. 'As for my marginal note,' exclaims the
   archbishop, 'I see you deciphered it well, and I see you make
   use of it too,—do so still; thorow and thorow. Oh that I were
   where I might go so too I but I am shackled between delays and
   uncertainties. You have a great deal of honour here for your
   proceedings. Go on a God's name!' And on Wentworth went,
   stopping at no gratuitous quarrel that had the slightest
   chance of pleasing the archbishop, even to the demolishing the
   family tomb of the earl of Cork,—since his grace, among his
   select ecclesiastical researches, had discovered that the spot
   occupied by my lord of Cork's family monuments, was precisely
   that spot upon which the communion-table, to answer the
   purposes of heaven, ought to stand!"

      _R. Browning,
      Thomas Wentworth (Eminent British Statesmen, volume 2,
      published under the name of John Forster)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 5, section 4._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England,
      chapter 76 (volume 8) and
      chapter 90 (volume 9)._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      volume 2, book 3, chapter 1._

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 4, chapters 22-24._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 5, chapter 1._

IRELAND: A. D. 1641.
   The Catholic rising and alleged Massacres of Protestants.

   "The government which Strafford had established in Ireland
   fell with him, the office of viceroy was entrusted to some of
   the judges, and shorn of the powers which gave it authority
   over the whole country. The Irish army, which had been formed
   with so much difficulty, and maintained in spite of so much
   opposition, was disbanded without any attention being
   vouchsafed to the King's wish that it should be allowed to
   enter the Spanish service. … Under the influence of events
   in England, government based on prerogative, and on its
   connexion with the English hierarchy, as it had existed in
   Ireland since Elizabeth's time, fell to the ground. This
   revolution however might entail important results. The Irish
   people was Catholic: while the Protestant settlers were split
   into two hostile factions, and thereby the highest authority
   in the land, which bore a really Protestant character, was
   systematically weakened and almost destroyed, the thought of
   ridding themselves of it altogether was sure to arise in the
   nation. The steed, never completely broken in, felt itself
   suddenly free from the tight rein which hitherto it had
   unwillingly obeyed. … It was the common object of all
   Catholics, alike of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic origin, to
   restore to the Catholic Church the possession of the goods and
   houses that had been taken from her, and above all to put an
   end to the colonies established since James I. in which
   Puritan tendencies prevailed. The Catholics of the old
   settlements were as eager for this as the natives. The idea
   originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish extraction,
   Roger O'More and Lord Macguire, who had been involved in
   Tyrone's ruin, but were connected by marriage with several
   English families. The first man whom O'More won over was Lord
   Mayo, the most powerful magnate of old English descent in
   Connaught, of the house of De Burgh. … The best military
   leader in the confederacy, Colonel Plunkett, was a Catholic of
   old English origin. … Among the natives the most notable
   personage was Phelim O'Neil, who, after having been long in
   England, and learning Protestantism there, on his return to
   Ireland went back to the old faith and the old customs: he was
   reckoned the rightful heir of Tyrone, and possessed unbounded
   popular influence.
{1767}
   The plan for which the Catholics of both Irish and English
   extraction now united was a very far-reaching one. It involved
   making the Catholic religion altogether dominant in Ireland:
   even of the old nobility none but the Catholics were to be
   tolerated: all the lands that had been seized for the new
   settlements were to be given back to the previous possessors
   or their heirs. In each district a distinguished family was to
   be answerable for order, and to maintain an armed force for
   the purpose. They would not revolt from the King, but still
   would leave him no real share in the government. Two lords
   justices, both Catholic, one of Irish, the other of old
   English family, were to be at the head of the government. …
   The preparations were made in profound silence: a man could
   travel across the country without perceiving any stir or
   uneasiness. But on the appointed day, October 23, the day of
   St. Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out." Dublin
   was saved, by a disclosure of the plot to the government, on
   the evening of the 22d, by a Protestant Irishman who had
   gained knowledge of it. "Several other places also held out,
   as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded places to which
   the Protestants might fly. But no one can paint the rage and
   cruelty which was vented, far and wide over the land, upon the
   unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands perished: their
   corpses filled the land and served as food for the kites. …
   Religious abhorrence entered into a dreadful league with the
   fury of national hatred. The motives of the Sicilian Vespers
   and of the night of St. Bartholomew were united. Sir Phelim,
   who at once was proclaimed Lord and Master in Ulster, with the
   title of the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and who in
   his proclamations assumed the tone of a sovereign, was not at
   all the man to check these cruelties. … With all this
   letting loose of ancient barbarism there was still some
   holding back. The Scottish settlements were spared, although
   they were the most hated of all, for fear of incurring the
   hostility of the Scottish as well as of the English nation.
   Immediately there was a rising in the five counties of the old
   English Pale: the gentry of Louth, under the leadership of the
   sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The younger men of Meath
   assembled on the Boyne, and commenced hostilities against the
   Protestants: so completely had their religious sympathies
   prevailed over their patriotism."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 8, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "Some reference to the notorious story of the massacre of 1641
   is required, not because the account of it is true and is a
   part of history, nor because it is false and needs refutation,
   but because it is a State fiction, a falsehood with a purpose,
   and as such deserves mention as much as the levying of troops
   or the passing of laws. The record of the period is not the
   history of a massacre, but of the deliberate invention of a
   massacre. … No word of massacre had been heard of in the
   first State document that referred to the so-called rebellion.
   The Catholic lords of the Pale would never have united their
   names and fortunes with those of murderers. … The royalists
   again and again urged in their treaties with their opponents
   that an investigation of the cruelties committed on both sides
   should be made, and the proposal was always absolutely
   refused."

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 5 (volume 2)._

   "There were few places of strength in Ulster which had not
   fallen by the end of the first week into the hands of the
   insurgents. Sir Phelim O'Neill already found himself at the
   head of some 30,000 men, as yet of course undisciplined, and
   but few of them efficiently armed; and it is not to be
   expected that such an irregular multitude, with wild passions
   let loose, and so many wrongs and insults to be avenged, could
   have been engaged in scenes of war, even so long, without
   committing some deeds of blood which the laws of regular
   warfare would not sanction. … Life was taken in some few
   instances where the act deserved the name of murder; but the
   cases of this nature, on the Irish side, at the commencement
   of the rebellion, were isolated ones; and nothing can be more
   unjust and false than to describe the outbreak of this war as
   a 'massacre'."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 37._

   "This [Sir Wm. Petty's] estimate of 37,000 Protestants
   supposed to have been murdered makes no allowance for those
   who escaped to England and Scotland, and never returned to
   Ireland. It seems to me more likely that about 27,000
   Protestants were murdered by the sword, gun, rope, drowning,
   &c., in the first three or four years of the rebellion. The
   evidence of the depositions, after deducting all doubtful
   exaggerations, leaves little doubt that the number so
   destroyed could hardly have been less than 25,000 at all
   events. But the truth is that no accurate estimate is
   possible. After the Portnaw massacre the Protestants,
   especially the Scotch, took an awful vengeance on their
   enemies. Henceforward one side vied in cruelty with the
   other."

      _M. Hickson,
      Ireland in the 17th Century,
      introduction, page 163._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carte,
      Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
      book 3 (chapters 1-2)._

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 5, chapters 3-4 (volume 3)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1643.
   The king makes Peace with the rebels.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

IRELAND: A. D. 1645.
   King Charles' treaty with the Catholics.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
   The Rebels become Royalists.

   "The truce [offered by King Charles to the rebels in 1643]
   appears to have been well observed by each party, and resulted
   in a treaty of peace which was signed in July, 1646, by which
   the Roman Catholics obtained every demand which they put
   forward. This peace was nevertheless at once broken, and
   Ormond (who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant in January,
   1643) was closely besieged in Dublin by a force, headed by
   Cardinal Rinuccini, the Papal Nuncio, who had assumed the
   command of the Irish Catholics. Finding himself in so
   dangerous a position, Ormond, by express direction from the
   king, offered his submission to the English Parliament, to
   whom he surrendered Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and such other
   garrisons as remained in his hands. This transaction was
   completed on the 25th of July, 1647, when Colonel Jones took
   command of Dublin for the Parliament, and was made by them
   Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; his total force however
   amounted to but 5,000 men. The war now continued with varying
   success, the commanders for the Parliament being, in addition
   to Jones, Monk in Ulster and Lord Inchiquin in Munster;
{1768}
   The latter in 1648 joined Ormond, who in September, upon the
   invitation of the Catholics, returned to Ireland, the Papal
   Nuncio having been driven from the country by his own party,
   who were alienated from him by his folly and insolence. At the
   end of 1648 there were therefore two parties in Ireland; the
   Parliamentary, which had been the English, holding Dublin and
   a few garrisons, and the Catholics, who, formerly rebels, were
   now held as Royalists, and whose new leader Ormond, on the
   death of Charles I., proclaimed the Prince of Wales, on the
   16th of February, 1649, at Carrick, as King of England,
   Scotland, France, and Ireland. The English Parliament now at
   last resolved to put an end to disorder in Ireland, and with
   this object, in March, 1649, appointed Cromwell to the supreme
   command." Before Cromwell arrived in Ireland, however, the
   Irish Royalists had reduced every garrisoned place except
   Dublin and Londonderry, defeating Monk, who held Dundalk, but
   being defeated (August 2) by Jones when they laid siege to the
   capital. Though fought at the gates of Dublin, this was called
   the battle of Rathmines, Ormond retreated with a loss of 4,000
   killed and 2,500 prisoners.

      _N. L. Walford,
      Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carte,
      Life of James Duke of Ormond,
      books 4-5 (volume 3)._

      _D. Murphy,
      Cromwell in Ireland,
      chapters 1-3._

IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
   Cromwell's campaign.
   The slaughter at Drogheda and Wexford.

   'When Cromwell arrived in Ireland at the head of 12,000 men,
   he found almost the whole country under the power of the
   Royalists (August 15th). A Parliamentary garrison in Dublin
   itself had only escaped a siege by surprising the enemy on the
   banks of the Liffey (August 2nd). The general first marched
   against Drogheda, then called Droghdagh or Tredah, and
   summoned the garrison to surrender; Sir Arthur Ashton, the
   governor, refused; he had 3,000 of the choicest troops of the
   confederates and enough provisions to enable him to hold out
   till winter should compel the enemy to raise the siege. But
   within twenty-four hours the English batteries had made a
   breach in the wall, Oliver, after twice seeing his soldiers
   beaten off, led them on in person and carried the breach. A
   terrible massacre followed. 'Being in the heat of action I
   forbade them,' Cromwell wrote in his despatch to the
   Parliament, 'to spare any that were in arms in the town; and I
   think that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men.' Of
   these, one-half probably fell in the streets; the other half
   Cromwell describes as having been slain at early dawn in St.
   Peter's Church. This he looks upon as a judgment for their
   previous proceedings there. 'It is remarkable,' he writes,
   'that these people at first set up the mass in some places of
   the town that had been monasteries; but afterwards grew so
   insolent that, the last Lord's day before the storm, the
   Protestants were thrust out of the great church called St.
   Peter's, and they had public mass there; and in this very
   place near 1,000 of them were put to the sword, fleeing
   thither for safety. I believe all the friars were knocked on
   the head promiscuously but two.' … Royalist accounts assert
   that many hundreds of women and children were slain in St.
   Peter's Church: It is, of course, possible that some of the
   townspeople, fleeing thither for safety, lost their lives in
   the general massacre of the garrison. There is, however, no
   trustworthy witness for any lives being taken except those of
   soldiers and friars. Cromwell did not sanction the killing of
   any but those with arms in their hands, though he seems to
   have approved of the fate of the friars. The fanatical zeal of
   his letter, and the fact that he takes the full credit, or
   discredit, for the slaughter of the garrison; makes it
   improbable that he concealed anything; and this substantiated
   by his subsequent declaration, in which he gives this
   challenge:—'Give us an instance of one man, since my coming
   into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed, or banished,
   concerning the massacre or the destruction of whom justice
   hath not been done, or endeavoured to be done.' With the
   enemy's troops Cromwell carried out the determined mode of
   warfare which he began at Drogheda. They were mostly scattered
   over the country, occupied in garrison duty. Before whatever
   town he came he demanded immediate surrender, or threatened to
   refuse quarter. Town after town opened its gates to this grim
   summons. Wexford, which refused to surrender, was stormed, and
   the whole garrison, 2,000 in number, put to the sword (October
   11th). … In other respects, while Cromwell's rigour and
   determination saved bloodshed in the end by the rapidity and
   completeness of his conquests, his conduct in Ireland
   contrasted favourably on many points with that of the
   Royalists there. His own soldiers, for ill-using the people
   contrary to regulations, were sometimes cashiered the army,
   sometimes hanged. When a treaty was made, he kept faithfully
   to its terms. Garrisons that yielded on summons were allowed
   either to march away with arms and baggage, or else to go
   abroad and enter the service of any government at peace with
   England. Before the war was over he had rid the country, on
   these terms, of some 45,000 soldiers. Taking advantage of the
   divisions of his enemies, he persuaded several garrisons of
   English soldiers to desert the cause of Charles Stuart for the
   Commonwealth. His conduct of the war was so successful that,
   during the nine months of his stay in Ireland, the forces of
   the Royalists were shattered, and the provinces of Leinster
   and Munster recovered for the Parliament. Cromwell returned to
   England in May, 1650, leaving his son-in-law Ireton to
   complete the conquest of the country. The last garrisons in
   Ulster and Munster surrendered during the course of the
   ensuing summer and autumn. Ireton crossed the Shannon and
   drove the Irish back into the bogs and mountain fastnesses of
   Connaught, their last refuge, where fighting still continued
   for two years after all the rest of the country had been
   reduced (1651-2)."

      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapter 12._

   "No admiration for Cromwell, for his genius, courage, and
   earnestness—no sympathy with the cause that he upheld in
   England—can blind us to the truth, that the lurid light of
   this great crime [the massacre at Drogheda] burns still after
   centuries across the history of England and of Ireland; that
   it is one of those damning charges which the Puritan theology
   has yet to answer at the bar of humanity."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 8._

{1769}

   "Oliver's proceedings here [at Drogheda] have been the theme
   of much loud criticism, and sibylline execration; into which
   it is not our plan to enter at present. … To those who think
   that a land overrun with Sanguinary Quacks can be healed by
   sprinkling it with rose-water, these letters must be very
   horrible. Terrible Surgery this: but is it Surgery and
   Judgment, or atrocious Murder merely? That is a question which
   should be asked; and answered. Oliver Cromwell did believe in
   God's Judgments; and did not believe in the rose-water plan of
   Surgery;—which, in fact, is this Editor's case too. … Here
   is a man whose word represents a thing! Not bluster this, and
   false jargon scattering itself to the winds: what this man
   speaks out of him comes to pass as a fact; speech with this
   man is accurately prophetic of deed. This is the first King's
   face poor Ireland ever saw; the first Friend's face, little as
   it recognises him,—poor Ireland! … To our Irish friends we
   ought to say likewise that this Garrison of Tredah consisted,
   in good part, of Englishmen. Perfectly certain this:—and
   therefore let 'the bloody hoof of the Saxon,' &c., forbear to
   continue itself on that matter."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 5._

   "Cromwell met with little resistance: wherever he came, he
   held out the promise of life and liberty of conscience; …
   liberty of conscience he explained to mean liberty of internal
   belief, not of external worship; … but the rejection of the
   offer, though it were afterwards accepted, was punished with
   the blood of the officers; and, if the place were taken by
   force, with indiscriminate slaughter."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 5, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Murphy,
      Cromwell in Ireland._

IRELAND: A. D. 1651.
   The Massachusetts colonists invited to Ireland by Cromwell.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

IRELAND: A. D. 1652.
   The Kilkenny Articles.

   "On 12th May, 1652, the Leinster army of the Irish surrendered
   on terms signed at Kilkenny, which were adopted successively
   by the other principal armies between that time and the
   September following, when the Ulster forces surrendered. By
   these Kilkenny articles, all except those who were guilty of
   the first blood were received into protection, on laying down
   their arms; those who should not be satisfied with the
   conclusions the Parliament might come to concerning the Irish
   nation, and should desire to transport themselves with their
   men to serve any foreign state in amity with the Parliament,
   should have liberty to treat with their agents for that
   purpose."

      _J. P. Prendergast,
      The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,
      part 1, section 2._

IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
   The Cromwellian Settlement.

   "By the term Cromwellian Settlement is to be understood the
   history of the dealings of the Commonwealth of England with
   the lands and habitations of the people of Ireland after their
   conquest of the country in the year 1652. … The officers of
   the army were eager to take Irish lands in lieu of their
   arrears, though it does not appear that the common soldiers
   were, who had small debentures and no capital, and no chance
   of founding families and leaving estates to their posterity.
   But the adventurers [national creditors, who had loaned money
   to the government for the Irish War] must be first settled
   with, as they had a claim to about one million of acres, to
   satisfy the sums advanced for putting down the rebellion on
   the faith of the Act of 17 Charles I. (A. D. 1642), and
   subsequent Acts and Ordinances, commonly called 'The Acts of
   Subscription.' By these, lands for the adventurers must be
   first ascertained, before the rest of the country could be
   free for disposal by the Parliament to the army. … Towards
   the close of the year 1653, the island seemed sufficiently
   desolated to allow the English to occupy it. On the 26th of
   September in that year, the Parliament passed an Act for the
   new planting of Ireland with English. The government reserved
   for themselves all the towns, all the church lands and tithes;
   for they abolished all archbishops, bishops, deans, and other
   officers, belonging to that hierarchy, and in those days the
   Church of Christ sat in Chichester House on College-green.
   They reserved also for themselves the four counties of Dublin,
   Kildare, Carlow, and Cork. Out of the lands and tithes thus
   reserved, the government were to satisfy public debts, private
   favourites, eminent friends of the republican cause in
   Parliament, regicides, and the most active of the English
   rebels, not being of the army. They next made ample provision
   for the adventurers. The amount due to the adventurers was
   £360,000. This they divided into three lots, of which £110,000
   was to be satisfied in Munster, £205,000 in Leinster, and
   £45,000 in Ulster, and the moiety of ten counties was charged
   with their payment:—Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in
   Munster; Meath, Westmeath, King's and Queen's Counties, in
   Leinster; and Antrim, Down, and Armagh, in Ulster. But, as all
   was required by the Adventurers Act to be done by lot, a
   lottery was appointed to be held in Grocers' Hall, London, for
   the 20th July, 1653. … A lot was then to be drawn by the
   adventurers, and by some officer appointed by the Lord General
   Cromwell on behalf of the soldiery, to ascertain which
   baronies in the ten counties should be for the adventurers,
   and which for the soldiers. The rest of Ireland, except
   Connaught, was to be set out amongst the officers and
   soldiers, for their arrears, amounting to £1,550,000, and to
   satisfy debts of money or provisions due for supplies advanced
   to the army of the Commonwealth, amounting to £1,750,000.
   Connaught was by the Parliament reserved and appointed for the
   habitation of the Irish nation; and all English and
   Protestants having lands there, who should desire to remove
   out of Connaught into the provinces inhabited by the English,
   were to receive estates in the English parts, of equal value,
   in exchange. … The Earl of Ormond, Primate Bramhall, and all
   the Catholic nobility, and many of the gentry, were declared
   incapable of pardon of life or estate, and were banished. …
   Connaught was selected for the habitation of all the Irish
   nation by reason of its being surrounded by the sea and the
   Shannon, all but ten miles, and the whole easily made into one
   line by a few forts. To further secure the imprisonment of the
   nation, and cut them off from relief by sea, a belt four miles
   wide, commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and so winging
   along the coast and Shannon, was reserved by the Act of 27th
   September, 1653, from being set out to the Irish, and was
   given to the soldiery to plant. Thither all the Irish were to
   remove at latest by the first day of May, 1654, except Irish
   women married to English Protestants before the 2d December,
   1650, provided they became Protestants; except, also, boys
   under fourteen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service
   and to be brought up Protestants; and, lastly, those who had
   shown during the ten years' war in Ireland their constant good
   affection to the Parliament of England in preference to the
   king.
{1770}
   There they were to dwell without entering a walled town, or
   coming within five miles of some, on pain of death. All were
   to remove thither by the 1st of May, 1654, at latest, under
   pain of being put to death by sentence of a court of military
   officers, if found after that date on the English side of the
   Shannon." In the actual enforcement of the law—found
   impracticable in all its rigor—there were many special
   dispensations granted, and extensions of time.

      _J. P. Prendergast,
      The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,
      preface, and parts 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland in the 18th Century,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 6._

IRELAND: A. D. 1655.
   Cromwell's deportation of Girls to Jamaica.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
   The restored Stuarts and their Act of Settlement.

   "On the fall of Richard Cromwell, a council of officers was
   established in Dublin; these summoned a convention of deputies
   from the protestant proprietors; and the convention tendered
   to Charles the obedience of his ancient kingdom of Ireland.
   … To secure the royal protection, they made the king an
   offer of a considerable sum of money, assured him, though
   falsely, that the Irish Catholics meditated a general
   insurrection, and prayed him to summon a protestant parliament
   in Ireland, which might confirm the existing proprietors in
   the undisturbed possession of their estates. The present was
   graciously accepted, and the penal laws against the Irish
   Catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced; but Charles
   was unwilling to call a parliament, because it would
   necessarily consist of men whose principles, both civil and
   religious, he had been taught to distrust. The first measure
   recommended to him by his English advisers, with respect to
   Ireland, was the re-establishment of episcopacy. For this no
   legislative enactment was requisite. His return had given to
   the ancient laws their pristine authority. … In a short time
   the episcopal hierarchy was quietly restored to the enjoyment
   of its former rights, and the exercise of its former
   jurisdiction. To this, a work of easy accomplishment,
   succeeded a much more difficult attempt,—the settlement of
   landed property in Ireland. The military, whom it was
   dangerous to disoblige, and the adventurers, whose pretensions
   had been sanctioned by Charles I., demanded the royal
   confirmation of the titles by which they held their estates;
   and the demand was opposed by a multitude of petitioners
   claiming restitution or compensation [protestant royalists,
   loyal Catholics, &c.]. … Humanity, gratitude, and justice,
   called on the king to listen to many of these claims. … From
   an estimate delivered to the king, it appeared that there
   still remained at his disposal forfeited lands of the yearly
   rental of from eighty to one hundred thousand pounds; a fund
   sufficiently ample, it was contended, to 'reprize' or
   compensate all the Irish really deserving of the royal favour.
   Under this impression, Charles published his celebrated
   declaration for the settlement of Ireland. It provided that no
   person deriving his title from the adventurers under the
   parliament, or the soldiers under the commonwealth, should be
   disturbed in the possession of his lands, without receiving an
   equivalent from the fund for reprisals; that all innocents,
   whether protestants or Catholics, that is, persons who had
   never adhered either to the parliament or the confederates,
   should be restored to their rightful estates." After much
   contention between deputations from both sides sent to the
   king, an act was passed through the Irish parliament
   substantially according to the royal declaration. "But to
   execute this act was found to be a task of considerable
   difficulty. By improvident grants of lands to the church, the
   dukes of York, Ormond, and Albemarle, the earls of Orrery,
   Montrath, Kingston, Massarene, and several others, the fund
   for reprisals had been almost exhausted." New controversies
   and agitations arose, which finally induced the soldiers,
   adventurers, and grantees of the crown to surrender one third
   of their acquisitions, for the augmenting of the fund for
   reprisals. "The king, by this measure, was placed in a
   situation [August, 1665], not indeed to do justice, but to
   silence the most importunate or most deserving among the
   petitioners. … But when compensation had thus been made to a
   few of the sufferers, what, it may be asked, became of the
   officers who had followed the royal fortune abroad, or of the
   3,000 Catholics who had entered their claims of innocence? To
   all these, the promises which had been made by the act of
   settlement were broken; the unfortunate claimants were
   deprived of their rights, and debarred from all hope of future
   relief. A measure of such sweeping and appalling oppression is
   perhaps without a parallel in the history of civilized
   nations. Its injustice could not be denied; and the only
   apology offered in its behalf was the stern necessity of
   quieting the fears and jealousies of the Cromwellian settlers,
   and of establishing on a permanent basis the protestant
   ascendancy in Ireland. … The following is the general
   result. The protestants were previously [i. e., before the
   Cromwellian Settlement] in possession of about one moiety of
   all the profitable lands in the island; of the second moiety,
   which had been forfeited under the commonwealth, something
   less than two-thirds was by the act confirmed to the
   protestants; and of the remainder a portion almost equal in
   quantity, but not in quality, to one-third, was appropriated
   to the Catholics."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. Carte,
      Life of James Duke of Ormond,
      book 6 (volume 4)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
   The reign of James II.
   Domination of Tyrconnel and the Catholics.

   "At the accession of James II., in 1685, he found the native
   Irish, all of whom were Roman Catholics, opposed to the
   English rule, as to that of a conquering minority. … Of the
   settlers, the Scotch Presbyterians shared the feelings of
   their brethren in their native country, and hated
   Episcopalians with the true religious fury. In the Irish
   Parliament the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were nearly
   balanced, whilst the Protestant Nonconformists, in numbers
   almost equalling the other two parties, had but few seats in
   the Parliament. The Episcopalians alone were hearty supporters
   of the house of Stuart; the Presbyterians and Nonconformists
   were Whigs. James was in a most favourable position for
   tranquilising Ireland, for, as a Roman Catholic, he was much
   more acceptable to the native Irish than his predecessors had
   been.
{1771}
   Had he followed his true interests, he would have endeavoured,
   firstly, to unite together, as firmly as possible, the English
   settlers in Ireland, and secondly, by wise acts of mediation,
   to bridge over the differences between the English and Irish.
   Thus he might have welded them into one people. James,
   however, followed a directly opposite policy, and the results
   of this misgovernment of Ireland are visible at the present
   day. The Duke of Ormond was at the time of the death of
   Charles II. both lord lieutenant and commander of the forces.
   … Soon after his accession James recalled him, and the
   office of lord lieutenant was bestowed on his own
   brother-in-law, Lord Clarendon, whilst the post of general of
   the troops was given to Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel.
   Talbot … was a coarse, vulgar, truculent ruffian, greedy and
   unprincipled; but in the eyes of James he had great virtues,
   for he was devoted to the Romish Church and to his sovereign.
   'Lying Dick Talbot,' as he was called, was raised by James to
   the peerage as Earl of Tyrconnel. Lord Clarendon was, from the
   time of his appointment, hampered by his associate," who,
   finally, in 1687, supplanted him, gathering the reins of
   government into his own hands, "not indeed as lord lieutenant,
   but with the power which Ormond had formerly held, although
   under a new title, that of lord deputy. The rule of Tyrconnel
   entirely subverted the old order of things. Protestants were
   disarmed and Protestant soldiers were disbanded. The militia
   was composed wholly of Roman Catholics. The dispensing power
   in the royal prerogative set aside the statutes of the
   kingdom, and the bench and privy council were occupied by
   Roman Catholics. Vacant bishoprics of the Established Church
   remained unfilled, and their revenues were devoted to Romish
   priests. Tithes were with impunity withheld from the clergy of
   the Establishment. … The hatred of the Irish Roman Catholics
   towards the Protestant settlers was excited to the utmost
   under Tyrconnel's rule. The former now hoped to mete out to
   the latter a full measure of retaliation. The breach was
   widened owing to the fear and distrust openly showed by the
   Protestants, and has never since been effectually repaired."
   Before the occurrence of the Revolution which drove James from
   his throne, in 1688, "Tyrconnel had disarmed all the
   Protestants, except those in the North. He had a large force
   of 20,000 men under arms, and of this force all the officers
   were trustworthy and Papists. He had filled the corporations
   of the towns with adherents of James. He had shown himself to
   be, as ever, tyrannical and unscrupulous. It was universally
   believed by the Protestants that a general massacre, a second
   St. Bartholomew, was intended. Even a day, December 9, was,
   they thought, fixed for the expected outbreak. The garrison of
   Londonderry had been temporarily withdrawn. On December 8,
   Lord Antrim arrived in command of 12,000 [1,200?] soldiers to
   form the new garrison. Without any warning, the Protestant
   apprentices ('the prentice boys of Derry') shut the gates of
   the city in his face. The inhabitants, in spite of the
   entreaties of the bishop and of the town council, refused to
   allow them to be opened. Antrim was compelled to withdraw.
   Thus one rallying-point was gained for the opponents of James.
   Another was found in Enniskillen, sixty miles south of
   Londonderry. Into these two towns poured all the Protestants
   from the surrounding districts. With these two exceptions, the
   boast of Tyrconnel that Ireland was true, was well founded."

      _E. Hale,
      The Fall of the Stuarts,
      chapters 10 and 13._

   "He [James II.] deliberately resolved, not merely to give to
   the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland the entire dominion of
   their own country, but also to use them as his instruments for
   setting up arbitrary government in England. The event was such
   as might have been foreseen. The colonists turned to bay with
   the stubborn hardihood of their race. The mother country
   justly regarded their cause as her own. Then came a desperate
   struggle for a tremendous stake. … The contest was terrible
   but short. The weaker went down. His fate was cruel; and yet
   for the cruelty with which he was treated there was, not
   indeed a defence, but an excuse: for though he suffered all
   that tyranny could inflict, he suffered nothing that he would
   not himself have inflicted. The effect of the insane attempt
   to subjugate England by means of Ireland was that the Irish
   became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the English. …
   The momentary ascendency of Popery produced such a series of
   barbarous laws against Popery as made the statute book of
   Ireland a proverb of infamy throughout Christendom. Such were
   the bitter fruits of the policy of James."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. O'Flanagan,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland,
      chapter 28 (volume 1)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.
   Enniskillen and the Battle of Newton Butler.

   Enniskillen, then a village, surrounding an ancient castle,
   was, in 1688-89, one of the two rallying points of the
   Protestant colonists in Ireland, who supported the Revolution
   by which James II. was dethroned and William and Mary were
   crowned. The chief stronghold of their cause was Londonderry;
   but Enniskillen bore a scarcely less important part. "In
   December, 1688, Tyrconnel's troops, being two companies of
   Popish infantry, advanced upon Enniskillen. The inhabitants,
   reinforced by 200 foot and 150 horse, contributed by the
   neighbouring gentry, marched out to oppose them. Tyrconnel's
   men fled to Cavan. The Enniskilleners, then, arming themselves
   as well as they could, and converting all the country-houses
   round Lough Erne into garrisons, appointed Gustavus Hamilton
   their governor and resolved upon defence. … Early in May,
   1689, the Enniskilleners routed Tyrconnel's troops, sent from
   Connaught into Donegal. They next drove 1,500 men out of the
   County Cavan—destroyed the Castle of Ballincarrig—and then
   entered the County Meath, whence they carried off oxen and
   sheep. Colonel Hugh Sutherland was sent with a regiment of
   dragoons and two regiments of foot against the Enniskilleners,
   who, however, defeated them, and took Belturbet, where they
   found muskets, gunpowder, and provisions; but unfortunately
   they were unable to relieve Derry, then beleaguered and sorely
   distressed. The Enniskilleners held out against all attacks,
   and refused all terms of surrender. They were now assailed
   from various points; by Macarthy (then by James created
   Viscount Mountcashel) from the east, by another body from the
   west, and by the Duke of Berwick from the north.
{1772}
   The Enniskilleners sent to Colonel Kirke [commanding the
   English forces first sent to Ireland by William of Orange] who
   had arrived in Lough Foyle, and received from him some arms
   and ammunition; and Colonel Wolseley and Lieutenant-Colonel
   Berry came from him to their assistance. Colonel Wolseley took
   the command." Under Wolseley, the men of Enniskillen, 3,000
   strong, encountered 5,000 of the enemy, under Mountcashel,
   near the town of Newton Butler, on the 31st of July, three
   days after Derry had been relieved. Their victory was
   complete. "The whole Irish force was totally and hopelessly
   routed. Their slaughter was dreadful—l,500 killed, and 500
   drowned in Lough Erne, whither they were driven. Mountcashel
   was wounded and taken prisoner. The Enniskilleners lost only
   twenty killed and fifty wounded. They took 400 prisoners, some
   cannons, fourteen barrels of gunpowder, and all the colours
   and drums. … The victory became known at Strabane to the
   Irish army retreating from Derry, which thereupon broke up in
   confusion and fled to Omagh, and thence to Charlemont."

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 12 (volume 3)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
   The War of the Revolution.
   The Orange conquest.

   Supported by a French fleet, supplied moderately with French
   gold, and accompanied by a picked body of French officers, for
   the organizing and disciplining of raw Irish troops, James II.
   landed in Ireland, at Kinsale, on the 12th of March, 1689, to
   take personal possession of the government still maintained
   there in his name. From Kinsale he hastened to Dublin, "and
   summoned a Parliament, which met on May 7, 1689, and sat until
   July 18. This Parliament of James has been described as a
   Parliament of Irish Celts, yet out of the 228 members of the
   House of Commons about one-fourth only belonged to the native
   race, and even including members of families Anglicized or of
   doubtful origin, not one-third of the House of Commons
   belonged to the so-called Celts. Of the thirty-two lay peers
   who attended, not more than two or three bore old Irish names.
   The four spiritual peers were Protestant bishops."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1, of Two Centuries of Irish History
      chapter 1._

   "The members of the House of Commons were almost all new men,
   completely inexperienced in public business and animated by
   the resentment of the bitterest wrongs. Many of them were sons
   of some of the 3,000 proprietors who without trial and without
   compensation had been deprived by the Act of Settlement of the
   estates of their ancestors. To all of them the confiscations
   of Ulster, the fraud of Strafford, the long train of
   calamities that followed were recent and vivid events. … It
   will hardly appear surprising to candid men that a Parliament
   so constituted and called together amid the excitement of a
   civil war, should have displayed much violence, much disregard
   for vested interests. Its measures, indeed, were not all
   criminal. By one Act which was far in advance of the age, it
   established perfect religious liberty in Ireland. … By
   another Act, repealing Poynings' law, and asserting its own
   legislative independence, it anticipated the doctrine of
   Molyneux, Swift, and Grattan. … A third measure abolished
   the payments to Protestant clergy in the corporate towns,
   while a fourth ordered that the Catholics throughout Ireland
   should henceforth pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical
   dues to their own priests and not to the Protestant clergy.
   The Protestants were still to pay their tithes to their own
   clergy. … Several other measures—most of them now only
   known by their titles—were passed for developing the
   resources of the country or remedying some great abuse. … If
   these had been the only measures of the Irish Parliament it
   would have left an eminently honourable reputation. But,
   unfortunately, one of its main objects was to re-establish at
   all costs the descendants of the old proprietors in their
   land, and to annul by measures of sweeping violence the
   grievous wrongs and spoliations their fathers and their
   grandfathers had undergone. The first and most important
   measure with this object was the repeal of the Acts of
   Settlement and Explanation. … The preamble asserts that the
   outbreak of 1641 had been solely due to the intolerable
   oppression and to the disloyal conduct of the Lords Justices
   and Puritan party, that the Catholics of Ireland before the
   struggle had concluded had been fully reconciled to the
   sovereign, that they had received from the sovereign a full
   and formal pardon, and that the royal word had been in
   consequence pledged to the restitution of their properties.
   This pledge by the Act of Settlement had been to a great
   extent broken, and the Irish legislators maintained that the
   twenty-four years which had elapsed since that Act had not
   annulled the rights of the old proprietors or their
   descendants. They maintained that these claims were not only
   valid but were prior to all others, and they accordingly
   enacted that the heirs of all persons who had possessed landed
   property in Ireland on October 22, 1641, and who had been
   deprived of their inheritance by the Act of Settlement, should
   enter at once into possession of their old properties. … The
   long succession of confiscations of Irish land which had taken
   place from the days of Mary to the Act of Settlement had been
   mainly based upon real or pretended plots of the owners of the
   soil, which enabled the Government, on the plea of high
   treason, to appropriate the land which they desired. In 1689
   the great bulk of the English proprietors of Irish soil were
   in actual correspondence with William, and were therefore
   legally guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now
   proceeded to follow the example of the British Governments,
   and by a clause of extreme severity they pronounced the real
   estates of all Irish proprietors who dwelt in any part of the
   three kingdoms which did not acknowledge King James, or who
   aided, abetted or corresponded with the rebels, to be
   forfeited and vested in the Crown, and from this source they
   proposed to compensate the purchasers under the Act of
   Settlement. … The measure of repeal, however, was speedily
   followed by another Act of much more sweeping and violent
   injustice. The Act of Attainder, which was introduced in the
   latter part of June, aimed at nothing less than a complete
   overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland. A list
   divided into several groups, but containing in all more than
   2,000 names, was drawn up of landowners who were to be
   attainted of high treason. …
{1773}
   Few persons will question the tyranny of an Act which in this
   manner made a very large proportion of the Irish landlords
   liable to the penalties of high treason, unless they could
   prove their innocence, even though the only crime that could
   be alleged against them was that of living out of Ireland in a
   time of civil war. … It is … a curious illustration of the
   carelessness or partiality with which Irish history is
   written, that no popular historian has noticed that five days
   before this Act, which has been described as 'without a
   parallel in the history of civilised countries,' was
   introduced into the Irish Parliament, a Bill which appears, in
   its essential characteristics, to have been precisely similar
   was introduced into the Parliament of England; that it passed
   the English House of Commons; that it passed, with slight
   amendments, the English House of Lords; and that it was only
   lost, in its last stage, by a prorogation. … These facts
   will show how far the Irish Act of Attainder was from having
   the unique character that has been ascribed to it. It is not
   possible to say how that Act would have been executed, for the
   days of Jacobite ascendency were now few and evil. The
   Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of July, one of its last
   Acts being to vest in the King the property of those who were
   still absentees."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

   While James' Irish Parliament sat, "sufficient men had
   presented themselves to form fifty regiments of infantry and a
   proportionate number of cavalry. But … these levies were
   undisciplined, and their officers, with few exceptions, were
   without military training and experience. There were no
   arsenals, and in the government stores only about 1,000
   serviceable firearms were found; there was no artillery and no
   supply of ammunition. … What coin was in circulation was
   small in quantity and debased in quality. James's Government
   issued a brass coinage, which had no currency outside the
   kingdom, and even within it practically circulated only among
   the partisans of James, and could not consequently help in
   purchasing arms, ammunition, and military stores, which had to
   be imported from without. Under such unfavourable
   circumstances the war began. The first campaign comprised the
   siege, or rather blockade, of Derry—for the Irish, having no
   artillery, could not undertake a regular siege—which was
   gallantly defended by the Scoto-English colonists; the check
   of Mountcashel by the Enniskilleners, who had followed the
   example of Derry; the landing of Schomberg with an army of
   Dutch, French Protestants, and English, who went into winter
   quarters near Dundalk, where he lost nearly half his troops
   from sickness; and, lastly, the military parade of James, who
   marched out from Dublin, and, failing to force Schomberg to
   fight, went into winter quarters himself. The result of the
   campaign was the successful defence of Derry, and the signal
   exhibition of James's incapacity as a general. At the opening
   of the second campaign, an exchange of troops was made between
   James and Louis XIV., with the view of giving prestige to the
   cause of the former. Six thousand French troops, under a
   drawing-room general, the well-known Comte de Lauzun, arrived
   in Ireland, and the same ships carried back an equal number of
   Irish troops—the brigade of Mountcashel, the best-trained and
   best-equipped body of troops in the Irish army. … The wasted
   army of Schomberg was strengthened by the arrival of William
   himself on June 14, 1690, with a considerable force. The
   united armies, composed of the most heterogeneous materials,
   one-half being foreigners of various nationalities, amounted
   to between 36,000 and 48,000 men. … To meet William, James
   set out from Dublin with an army of about 23,000 men. The
   French troops and the Irish cavalry were good, but the
   infantry was not well trained, and the artillery consisted
   only of twelve field-pieces. The battle took place on July 1,
   1690, at the passage of the River Boyne, a few miles above
   Drogheda [the rout of James's army being complete and its loss
   about 1,500 men. William lost but 500; but the number included
   Schomberg, one of the great soldiers of his age. James was
   among the first in the flight, and he scarcely paused until he
   had put himself on board of a French frigate and quitted
   Ireland forever]. The Irish fell back on Dublin and thence
   retired behind the line of the Shannon. About 20,000
   half-armed infantry and about 3,500 horse concentrated at
   Limerick. The English having failed in taking Athlone, the key
   of the upper Shannon, William gathered together about 38,000
   men in the neighbourhood of Limerick. Lauzun having declared
   that Limerick could not be defended, and might be taken with
   roasted apples, withdrew with the whole of the French troops
   to Galway, to await the first opportunity of returning to
   France. On August 9, 1690, William moved his whole army close
   to the town and summoned the garrison to surrender; but having
   failed, with a loss of 2,000 men, to carry the town by
   assault, he raised the siege and went to England. The third
   and last campaign began late in 1691. The Irish received many
   promises of assistance from Louis XIV., but his ministers
   fulfilled few or none of them. With scarcely any loss of men,
   and with a small expenditure of stores and money, the Irish
   war enabled Louis to keep William and a veteran army of 40,000
   men out of his way. … The campaign opened in the beginning
   of June with the advance of Ginkel [William's general] on
   Athlone. The chief defence of the place was the River Shannon,
   the works being weak, and mounting only a few field-pieces;
   yet so obstinately was the place defended that, but for the
   discovery of a ford, and some neglect on the part of D'Usson,
   who commanded, it is probable that the siege would have been
   raised. As it was, Ginkel became master of the heap of ruins.
   … St. Ruth [the French officer commanding the Irish] moved
   his camp to Aughrim [or Aghrim], and there was fought the
   final battle of the war on Sunday, July 12, 1691. … St. Ruth
   was killed at a critical moment, and his army defeated, with a
   loss of about 4,000 men, the English loss being about half
   that number. Part of the defeated Irish infantry retreated to
   Galway; but the bulk of the troops, including the whole of the
   cavalry, fell back on Limerick, which surrendered, after a
   gallant resistance, in October, 1691."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapters 12, 16 and 17._

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapters 5 and 21-23._

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 2, books 2-5 (volume 2)._

{1774}

IRELAND: A. D. 1691.
   The Treaty of Limerick and its violation.

   The surrender of Limerick was under the terms of a treaty—or
   of two treaties, one military, the other civil—formally
   negotiated for the terminating of the war. This Treaty of
   Limerick was signed, October 3, 1691, by Baron De Ginkel,
   William's general, and by the lords justices of Ireland, on
   behalf of the English, and by Sarsfield and other chieftains
   on behalf of the Irish. "Its chief provisions were: 'The Roman
   Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the
   exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of
   Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles
   II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit
   them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to
   procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that
   particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the
   account of their said religion. All the inhabitants or
   residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the
   possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in
   arms under any commission of King James, or those authorized
   by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick,
   Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the
   commissioned officers in their Majesties' quarters that belong
   to the Irish regiments now in being that are treated with and
   who are not prisoners of war, or having taken protection, and
   who shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and
   their and every of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy
   all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance; and
   all the rights, titles, and interest, privileges and
   immunities, which they, or every or any of them, held,
   enjoyed, and were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the
   reign of King Charles II.' … A general pardon was to be
   granted to all persons comprised within the treaty, and the
   Lords Justices and the generals commanding King William's army
   were to use their best endeavours to get the attainders of any
   of them attainted repealed. … In the copy of the rough draft
   engrossed for signature the following words, 'and all such as
   are under their protection in the said counties,' which
   immediately followed the enumeration of the several counties
   in the second article, were omitted. This omission, whether
   the result of design or accident, was, however, rectified by
   King William when confirming the treaty in February, 1692. The
   confirming instrument stated that the words had been casually
   omitted; that the omission was not discovered till the
   articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the town
   was surrendered; and that the Lords Justices or General
   Ginkel, or one of them, had promised that the clause should be
   made good, since it was within the intention of the
   capitulation, and had been inserted in the rough draft.
   William then for himself did 'ratify and confirm the said
   omitted words.' The colonists, or at all events the 'new
   interests'—that is, those who shared or expected to share in
   the confiscations—were indignant at the concessions made to
   the native race."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
      chapter 1._

   "The advantages secured to Catholics by the Treaty of Limerick
   were moderate. But when the flower of the Irish army had
   withdrawn to France, and the remnant could be hanged without
   ceremony, they began to look inordinate. The parliament of
   Cromwellian settlers and Government officials in Dublin having
   excluded Catholic members, by requiring from them an oath of
   abjuration, in direct infringement of one of the articles of
   surrender, were free to proceed at their discretion. They
   first passed a stringent statute depriving Catholics of arms,
   and another ordering all 'Popish archbishops, bishops,
   vicars-general, deans, Jesuits, monks, friars, and regulars of
   whatever condition to depart from the kingdom on pain of
   transportation,' and then proceeded to consider the treaty.
   They … resolved by a decisive majority not to keep the
   conditions affecting the Catholics. William … struggled for
   a time to preserve his honour; but it is not convenient for a
   new king to be in conflict with his friends, and after a time
   he gave way. … In Ireland the Treaty of Limerick can never
   be forgotten; it is one of the title deeds of the Irish race
   to their inheritance in their native land. For more than a
   century its sordid and shameless violation was as common a
   reproach to England on the Continent as the partition of
   Poland has been a reproach to Russia in our own day."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 155-156
      (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland")._

   "The Protestant rancour of parliament was more powerful than
   the good will of the prince. The most vital articles of the
   capitulation were ignored, especially in all cases where the
   Catholic religion and the liberties granted to its professors
   were concerned; and 4,000 Irish were denounced as traitors and
   rebels,—by which declamation a fresh confiscation of
   1,060,000 acres was immediately effected. … It has been
   calculated that in 1692 the Irish Catholics, who quadrupled
   the Protestants in number, owned only one-eleventh of the
   soil, and that the most wretched and unproductive portion."

      _A. Perraud,
      Ireland under English Rule,
      introduction, section 8._

IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.
   The peace of despair.
   A century of national death.
   Oppression of the Penal Laws.

   "By the military treaty [of Limerick], those of Sarsfield's
   soldiers who would were suffered to follow him to France; and
   10,000 men, the whole of his force, chose exile rather than
   life in a land where all hope of national freedom was lost.
   When the wild cry of the women who stood watching their
   departure was hushed, the silence of death settled down upon
   Ireland. For a hundred years the country remained at peace,
   but the peace was a peace of despair. The most terrible legal
   tyranny under which a nation has ever groaned avenged the
   rising under Tyrconnell. The conquered people, in Swift's
   bitter words of contempt, became 'hewers of wood and drawers
   of water' to their conquerors; but till the very eve of the
   French Revolution Ireland ceased to be a source of terror and
   anxiety to England."

      _J. H. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 9, section 8._

   "In Ireland there was peace. The domination of the colonists
   was absolute. The native population was tranquil with the
   ghastly tranquillity of exhaustion and of despair. There were
   indeed outrages, robberies, fireraisings, assassinations. But
   more than a century passed away without one general
   insurrection. During that century, two rebellions were raised
   in Great Britain by the adherents of the House of Stuart. But
   neither when the elder Pretender was crowned at Scone, nor
   when the younger held his court at Holyrood, was the standard
   of that House set up in Connaught or Munster.
{1775}
   In 1745, indeed, when the Highlanders were marching towards
   London, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were so quiet that the
   Lord Lieutenant could, without the smallest risk, send several
   regiments across Saint George's Channel to reinforce the army
   of the Duke of Cumberland. Nor was this submission the effect
   of content, but of mere stupefaction and brokenness of heart.
   The iron had entered into the soul. The memory of past
   defeats, the habit of daily enduring insult and oppression,
   had cowed the spirits of the unhappy nation. There were indeed
   Irish Roman Catholics of great ability, energy and ambition;
   but they were to be found everywhere except in Ireland,—at
   Versailles and at Saint lldefonso, in the armies of Frederic
   and in the armies of Maria Theresa. One exile became a Marshal
   of France. Another became Prime Minister of Spain. If he had
   staid in his native land he would have been regarded as an
   inferior by all the ignorant and worthless squireens who had
   signed the Declaration against Transubstantiation. …
   Scattered over all Europe were to be found brave Irish
   generals, dexterous Irish diplomatists, Irish Counts, Irish
   Barons, Irish Knights … who, if they had remained in the
   house of bondage, could not have been ensigns of marching
   regiments or freemen of petty corporations. These men, the
   natural chiefs of their race, having been withdrawn, what
   remained was utterly helpless and passive. A rising of the
   Irishry against the Englishry was no more to be apprehended
   than a rising of the women and children against the men."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 17. _

   "An act of 1695 'deprived the Roman Catholics of the means of
   educating their children, either at home or abroad, and of the
   privilege of being guardians either of their own or of any
   other person's children.' Another Act of the same year
   deprived the Roman Catholics of the right of bearing arms, or
   of keeping any horse which was worth more than £5. An Act of
   1697 ordered the expulsion of every Roman Catholic priest from
   Ireland. The Parliament, which had imposed these disabilities
   on Irish Roman Catholics, proceeded to confirm the Articles of
   Limerick, or 'so much of them as may consist with the safety
   and welfare of your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom,' and
   by a gross act of injustice omitted the whole of the first of
   these articles, and the important paragraph in the second
   article which had been accidentally omitted from the original
   copy of the Treaty, and subsequently restored to it by letters
   patent under the Great Seal. Reasonable men may differ on the
   propriety or impropriety of the conditions on which the
   surrender of Limerick was secured; but it is difficult to read
   the story of their repudiation without a deep sense of shame.
   Three other acts relating to the Roman Catholics were passed
   during the reign of William. An Act of 1697 forbade the
   intermarriage of Protestants and Papists. An Act of 1698
   prevented Papists from being solicitors. Another Act of the
   same year stopped their employment as gamekeepers. William
   died; and the breach of faith which he had countenanced was
   forgotten amidst the pressure of the legislation which
   disgraced the reign of his successor. Two Acts passed in this
   reign, for preventing the further growth of Popery, were
   styled by Burke the 'ferocious Acts of Anne.' By the first of
   these Acts a Papist having a Protestant son was debarred from
   selling, mortgaging, or devising any portion of his estate:
   however young the son might be, he was to be taken from his
   father's hands and confided to the care of a Protestant
   relation. The estate of a Papist who had no Protestant heir
   was to be divided equally among his sons. The Papist was
   declared incapable of purchasing real estate or of taking land
   on lease for more than thirty-one years. A Papist was declared
   incapable of inheriting real estate from a Protestant. He was
   disqualified from holding any office, civil or military. With
   twenty exceptions, a Papist was forbidden to reside in
   Limerick or Galway. Advowsons the property of Papists were
   vested in the Crown. Religious intolerance had now apparently
   done its uttermost. … But the laws failed. Their severity
   insured their failure. … The first of the ferocious Acts of
   Anne was almost openly disregarded. … Its failure only
   induced the intolerant advisers of Anne to supplement it with
   harsher legislation. The Act of 1704 had deprived the Papist
   of the guardianship of his apostate child. An Act of 1709
   empowered the Court of Chancery to oblige the Papist to
   discover his estate, and authorized the Court to make an order
   for the maintenance of the apostate child out of the proceeds
   of it. The Act of 1704 had made it illegal for a Papist to
   take lands on lease; the Act of 1709 disabled him from
   receiving a life annuity. An Act of 1704 had compelled the
   registry of priests. The Act of 1709 forbade their officiating
   in any parish except that in which they were registered.
   These, however, were the least reprehensible features in the
   Act of 1709. Its worst features were the encouragement which
   it gave to the meaner vices of human nature. The wife of a
   Papist, if she became a Protestant, was to receive a jointure
   out of her husband's estate. A Popish priest abandoning his
   religion was to receive an annuity of £30 a year. Rewards were
   to be paid for 'discovering' Popish prelates, priests, and
   schoolmasters. Two justices might compel any Papist to state
   on oath where and when he had heard mass, who had officiated
   at it, and who had been present at it. Encouragement was thus
   given to informers; bribes were thus held out to apostates;
   and Parliament trusted to the combined effects of bribery and
   intimidation to stamp out the last remnant of Popery. The
   penal code, however, was not yet complete. The armoury of
   intolerance was not yet exhausted. An Act of George I.
   disabled Papists from serving in the Irish militia, but
   compelled them to find Protestant substitutes; to pay double
   towards the support of the militia, and rendered their horses
   liable to seizure for militia purposes. By Acts of George II.
   the Papists were disfranchised; barristers or solicitors
   marrying Papists were deemed Papists; all marriages between
   Protestants and Papists were annulled; and Popish priests
   celebrating any illegal marriages were condemned to be hanged.
   By an Act of George III. Papists refusing to deliver up or
   declare their arms were liable to be placed in the pillory or
   to be whipped, as the Court should think proper. Such were the
   laws which the intolerance of a minority imposed on the
   majority of their fellow-subjects. Utterly unjust, they had
   not even the bare merit of success. …
{1776}
   'The great body of the people,' wrote Arthur Young [1780],
   'stripped of their all, were more enraged than converted: they
   adhered to the persuasion of their forefathers with the
   steadiest and the most determined zeal; while the priests,
   actuated by the spirit of a thousand inducements, made
   proselytes among the common Protestants in defiance of every
   danger. … Those laws have crushed all the industry and
   wrested most of the property from the Catholics; but the
   religion triumphs; it is thought to increase.'"

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Madden,
      Historical Notice of Penal Laws against Roman Catholics._

      _A. Perraud,
      Ireland under English Rule: introduction._

      _E. Burke,
      Letter to a Peer of Ireland on the Penal Laws
      (Works, volume 4)._

      _E. Burke,
      Fragments of a Tract on the Popery Laws
      (Works, volume 6)._

      _A. J. Thébaud,
      The Irish Race,
      chapter 12._

IRELAND: A. D. 1710.
   Colonization of Palatines in Munster.

      See PALATINES.

IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.
   Wood's halfpence.
   The Drapier's Letters.

   "A patent had been given [1722, by the Walpole administration]
   to a certain William Wood for supplying Ireland with a copper
   coinage. Many complaints had been made, and in September,
   1723, addresses were voted by the Irish Houses of Parliament,
   declaring that the patent had been obtained by clandestine and
   false representations; that it was mischievous to the country;
   and that Wood had been guilty of frauds in his coinage. They
   were pacified by vague promises; but Walpole went on with the
   scheme on the strength of a favourable report of a committee
   of the Privy Council; and the excitement was already serious
   when (in 1724) Swift published the Drapier's Letters, which
   give him his chief title to eminence as a patriotic agitator.
   Swift either shared or took advantage of the general belief
   that the mysteries of the currency are unfathomable to the
   human intelligence. … There is, however, no real mystery
   about the halfpence. The small coins which do not form part of
   the legal-tender may be considered primarily as counters. A
   penny is a penny, so long as twelve are change for a shilling.
   It is not in the least necessary for this purpose that the
   copper contained in the twelve penny pieces should be worth or
   nearly worth a shilling. … At the present day bronze worth
   only twopence is coined into twelve penny pieces. … The
   effect of Wood's patent was that a mass of copper worth about
   £60,000 became worth £100,800 in the shape of halfpenny
   pieces. There was, therefore, a balance of about £40,000, to
   pay for the expenses of coinage. It would have been waste to
   get rid of this by putting more copper in the coins; but if so
   large a profit arose from the transaction, it would go to
   somebody. At the present day it would be brought into the
   national treasury. This was not the way in which business was
   done in Ireland. Wood was to pay £1,000 a year for fourteen
   years to the Crown. But £14,000 still leaves a large margin
   for profit. 'What was to become of it. According to the
   admiring biographer of Sir R. Walpole the patent had been
   originally given by Lord Sunderland to the Duchess of Kendal,
   a lady whom the King delighted to honour. … It was right and
   proper that a profit should be made on the transaction, but
   shameful that it should be divided between the King's mistress
   and William Wood, and that the bargain should be struck
   without consulting the Irish representatives, and maintained
   in, spite of their protests. The Duchess of Kendal was to be
   allowed to take a share of the wretched halfpence in the
   pocket of every Irish beggar. A more disgraceful transaction
   could hardly be imagined, or one more calculated to justify
   Swift's view of the selfishness and corruption of the English
   rulers. Swift saw his chance and went to work in
   characteristic fashion, with unscrupulous audacity of
   statement, guided by the keenest strategical instinct. … The
   patent was surrendered, and Swift might congratulate himself
   upon a complete victory. … The Irish succeeded in rejecting
   a real benefit at the cost of paying Wood the profit which he
   would have made, had he been allowed to confer it."

      _L. Stephen,
      Swift (English Men of Letters),
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dean Swift,
      Works (Scott's edition),
      volume 6._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      chapter 15._

IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
   Whiteboys.
   Oak Boys.
   Steel Boys.
   Peep of Day Boys.
   Catholic Defenders.

   "The peasantry continued to regard the land as their own; and
   with the general faith that wrong cannot last forever, they
   waited for the time when they would once more have possession
   of it. 'The lineal descendants of the old families,' wrote
   Arthur Young in 1774, 'are now to be found all over the
   kingdom, working as cottiers on the lands which were once
   their own.' … With the growth of what was called
   civilization, absenteeism, the worst disorder of the country,
   had increased. … The rise in prices, the demand for salt
   beef and salt butter for exportation and for the fleets, were
   revolutionizing the agriculture of Munster. The great
   limestone pastures of Limerick and Tipperary, the fertile
   meadow universally, was falling into the hands of capitalist
   graziers, in whose favour the landlords, or the landlords'
   agents, were evicting the smaller tenants. … To the
   peasantry these men were a curse. Common lands, where their
   own cows had been fed, were inclosed and taken from them. The
   change from tillage to grazing destroyed their employment.
   Their sole subsistence was from their potato gardens, the
   rents of which were heavily raised, while, by a curious
   mockery of justice, the grass lands were exempt from tithe,
   and the burden of maintaining the rectors and vicars of the
   Established Church was cast exclusively on the Catholic poor.
   Among a people who are suffering under a common wrong there is
   a sympathy of resentment which links them together without
   visible or discoverable bond. In the spring of 1760 Tipperary
   was suddenly overrun by bands of midnight marauders. Who they
   were was a mystery. Rumours reached England of insurgent
   regiments drilling in the moonlight; of French officers
   observed passing and repassing the Channel; but no French
   officer could be detected in Munster. The most rigid search
   discovered no stands of arms, such as soldiers use or could
   use. This only was certain, that white figures were seen in
   vast numbers, like moving clouds, flitting silently at night
   over field and moor, leaving behind them the tracks of where
   they had passed in levelled fences and houghed and moaning
   cattle; where the owners were specially hateful, in blazing
   homesteads, and the inmates' bodies blackening in the ashes.
   Arrests were generally useless. The country was sworn to
   secrecy.
{1777}
   Through the entire central plains of Ireland the people were
   bound by the most solemn oaths never to reveal the name of a
   confederate, or give evidence in a court of justice. … Thus
   it was long uncertain how the movement originated, who were
   its leaders, and whether there was one or many. Letters
   signed by Captain Dwyer or Joanna Meskell were left at the
   doors of obnoxious persons, ordering lands to be abandoned
   under penalties. If the commands were uncomplied with, the
   penalties were inexorably inflicted. … Torture usually being
   preferred to murder, male offenders against the Whiteboys were
   houghed like their cattle, or their tongues were torn out by
   the roots."

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   The Whiteboys took their name from the practice of wearing a
   white shirt drawn over their other clothing, when they were
   out upon their nocturnal expeditions. "The Oak Boy movement
   took place about 1761-2. … The injustice which led to the
   formation of the 'Oak Boys,' one of the best known of the
   colonial societies, was duty work on roads. Every householder
   was bound to give six days' labour in making and repairing the
   public roads; and if he had a horse, six days' labour of his
   horse. It was complained that this duty work was only levied
   on the poor, and that they were compelled to work on private
   job roads, and even upon what were the avenues and farm roads
   of the gentry. The name Oak Boys, or Hearts of Oak Boys, was
   derived from the members in their raids wearing an oak branch
   in their hats. The organization spread rapidly over the
   greater part of Ulster. Although the grievances were common to
   Protestant and Catholic workmen, and there was nothing
   religious in the objects or constitution of the Oak Boys, the
   society was an exclusively Protestant body, owing to the total
   absence at the period of any association between the
   Protestants and Catholics. … The Steel Boys, or Hearts of
   Steel Boys, followed the Oak Boys [about 1771]. They also were
   exclusively Protestant; the origin of this organization was
   the extravagance and profligacy of a bad landlord, the
   representative of the great land thief, Chichester, of the
   Plantation of King James I. … The Oak Boys and Steel Boys
   did not last long."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
      chapter 5, with foot-note._

   The landlord here referred to, as having provoked the
   organization of the Steel Boys, was the Marquis of Donegal.
   "Many of his Antrim leases having fallen in simultaneously, he
   demanded £100,000 in fines for the renewal of them. The
   tenants, all Protestants, offered the interest of the money in
   addition to the rent.' It could not be. Speculative Belfast
   capitalists paid the fine and took the lands over the heads of
   the tenants, to sublet. … The most substantial of the
   expelled tenantry gathered their effects together and sailed
   to join their countrymen in the New World. … Between those
   who were too poor to emigrate, and the Catholics who were in
   possession of their homes, there grew a protracted feud, which
   took form at last in the conspiracy of the Peep of Day Boys;
   in the fierce and savage expulsion of the intruders, who were
   bidden to go to hell or Connaught; and in the
   counter-organization of the Catholic Defenders, which spread
   over the whole island, and made the army of insurrection in
   1798."

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 5, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
   Concession of Legislative independence by the
   so-called Constitution of 1782.

   "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Over in the
   American colonies Mr. Washington and his rebels were pressing
   hard upon the troops of King George. More than one garrison
   had been compelled to surrender, more than one general had
   given up his bright sword to a revolutionary leader. On the
   hither side of the Atlantic the American flag was scarcely
   less dreaded than at Yorktown and Saratoga. … Ireland,
   drained of troops, lay open to invasion. The terrible Paul
   Jones was drifting about the seas; descents upon Ireland were
   dreaded; if such descents had been made the island was
   practically defenceless. An alarmed Mayor of Belfast,
   appealing to the Government for military aid, was informed
   that no more serious and more formidable assistance could be
   rendered to the chief city of the North than might be given by
   half a troop of dismounted cavalry and half a troop of
   invalids. If the French-American enemy would consent to be
   scared by such a muster, well and good; if not Belfast, and
   for the matter of that, all Ireland, must look to itself.
   Thereupon Ireland, very promptly and decisively, did look to
   itself. A Militia Act was passed empowering the formation of
   volunteer corps—consisting, of course, solely of
   Protestants—for the defence of the island. A fever of
   military enthusiasm swept over the country; north and south
   and east and west men caught up arms, nominally to resist the
   French, really, though they knew it not, to effect one of the
   greatest constitutional revolutions in history. Before a
   startled Government could realise what was occurring 60,000
   men were under arms. For the first time since the surrender of
   Limerick there was an armed force in Ireland able and willing
   to support a national cause. Suddenly, almost in the twinkling
   of an eye, Ireland found herself for the first time for
   generations in the possession of a well-armed,
   well-disciplined, and well-generalled military force. The
   armament that was organised to insure the safety of England
   was destined to achieve the liberties of Ireland. … All talk
   of organisation to resist foreign invasion was silenced; in
   its place the voice of the nation was heard loudly calling for
   the redress of its domestic grievances. Their leader was
   Charlemont; Grattan and Flood were their principal colonels."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Ireland Since the Union,
      chapter 3._

   "When the Parliament met, Grattan moved as an amendment to the
   Address, 'that it was by free export and import only that the
   Nation was to be saved from impending ruin'; and a corps of
   Volunteers, commanded by the Duke of Leinster, lined Dame
   Street as the Speaker and the Commons walked in procession to
   the Castle. Another demonstration of Volunteers in College
   Green excited Dublin a little later on, and (15th November,
   1779) a riotous mob clamoured for Free Trade at the very doors
   of the House. … These events resulted in immediate success.
   Lord North proposed in the British Parliament three articles
   of relief to Irish trade—

   (1) to allow free export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks;
   (2) to allow a free export of glass;
   (3) to allow, under certain conditions, a free trade to all
   the British colonies.

{1778}

   When the news reached Ireland excessive joy prevailed. … But
   this was only a beginning. Poynings' Law, and the 6th of
   George I., required to be swept away too, so that Ireland
   might enjoy not only Free Trade, but also Self-government.
   Grattan moved his two famous resolutions:—

   1. That the King, with the consent of the Lords and Commons of
   Ireland, is alone competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.

   2. That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably united under
   one Sovereign.

   In supporting these resolutions, Grattan cited England's
   dealings with America, to show what Ireland too might effect
   by claiming her just rights. … The Earl of Carlisle became
   Viceroy in 1781, with Mr. Eden as Secretary. Viewing England's
   embroilment in war—in America, in India, with France, and
   Spain, and Holland—the Irish Volunteers, whose numbers had
   swelled, Grattan said, to well-nigh 100,000 men, held meetings
   and reviews in various parts of the country. … The 16th of
   April, 1782, was a memorable day for Dublin. On that date, in
   a city thronged with Volunteers, with bands playing, and
   banners blazoned with gilded harps fluttering in the wind,
   Grattan, in an amendment to the Address which was always
   presented to the King at the opening of Parliament, moved,
   'That Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a separate
   Parliament, and that this Parliament alone has a right to make
   laws for her.' On the 17th of May, the two Secretaries of
   State, Lord Shelburne in the Lords, and Charles James Fox in
   the Commons of Great Britain—proposed the repeal of the 6th
   of George I., a statute which declared the right of the
   English Parliament to make laws for Ireland. The English
   Government frankly and fully acceded to the demands of
   Ireland. Four points were granted—

   (1) an Independent Irish Parliament;
   (2) the abrogation of Poynings' Law, empowering the English
   Privy Council to alter Irish Bills;
   (3) the introduction of a Biennial Mutiny Bill;
   (4) the abolition of the right of appeal to England from the
   Irish law courts.

   These concessions were announced to the Irish Parliament at
   once: in their joy the Irish Houses voted £100,000, and 20,000
   men to the navy of Great Britain. Ireland had at last achieved
   political freedom. Peace and prosperity seemed about to bless
   the land. … That there might be no misunderstanding as to
   the deliberate intention of the English Parliament in granting
   Irish legislative independence, Lord Shelburne had passed an
   Act of Renunciation, declaring that 'the Right claimed by the
   people of Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by His
   Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, is hereby declared
   to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no
   time hereafter be questioned or questionable.' During the same
   session (1782), the two Catholic Relief Bills proposed by Luke
   Gardiner, who afterwards became Viscount Mountjoy, were
   passed. These measures gave Catholics the right to buy
   freeholds, to teach schools, and to educate their children as
   they pleased. The Habeas Corpus Act was now extended to
   Ireland; and marriages by presbyterian ministers were made
   legal."

      _W. F. Collier,
      History of Ireland for Schools,
      period 5, chapter 3._

   "Had the Irish demanded a complete separation it would have
   been yielded without resistance. It would have been better had
   it been. The two countries would have immediately joined on
   terms of equality and of mutual confidence and respect. But
   the more the English Cabinet gave way the less were the Irish
   disposed to press their advantage. A feeling of warm
   attachment to England rapidly took the place of distrust.
   There never existed in Ireland so sincere and friendly a
   spirit of spontaneous union with England as at this moment,
   when the formal bond of union was almost wholly dissolved.
   From the moment when England made a formal surrender of her
   claim to govern Ireland a series of inroads commenced on the
   various interests supposed to be left to their own free
   development by that surrender. Ireland had not, like England,
   a body of Cabinet Ministers responsible to her Parliament. The
   Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Secretary held their offices and
   received their instructions from the English minister. There
   was greater need than ever before for a bribed majority in the
   Irish Commons, and the machinery for securing and managing it
   remained intact."

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 2 (volume 2)._

   "The history of these memorable eighteen years [1782-1800] has
   never been written, and yet these years are the … key to
   Irish political opinion in the 19th [century]. The Government
   which granted the constitution of 1782 began to conspire
   against it immediately. They had taken Poynings' Act away from
   the beginning of its proceedings, and they clapped it on to
   the end of its proceedings, as effectually as if the change
   had not been made. They developed in the Irish mind that
   distrust of all government which has made it so turbulent and
   so docile—turbulent to its administrators, docile to its
   popular leaders."

      _J. E. Thorold Rogers,
      Ireland
      (A. Reid, editor), p. 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: Henry Grattan._

      _J. G. MacCarthy,
      Henry Grattan._

IRELAND: A. D. 1784.
   Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders.

   "Disturbances … commenced in the north between two parties
   called Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders. They originated in 1784
   among some country people, who appear to have been all
   Protestants or Presbyterians; but Catholics having sided with
   one of the parties, the quarrel quickly grew into a religious
   feud, and spread from the county of Armagh, where it
   commenced, to the neighbouring districts of Tyrone and Down.
   Both parties belonged to the humblest classes of the
   community. The Protestant party were well armed, and
   assembling in numbers, attacked the houses of Catholics under
   pretence of searching for arms; insulting their persons, and
   breaking their furniture. These wanton outrages were usually
   committed at an early hour in the morning, whence the name of
   Peep-o'-Day Boys; but the faction was also known as
   'Protestant Boys,' and 'wreckers,' and ultimately merged in
   the Orange Society."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      p. 722._

IRELAND: A. D. 1793.
   Passage of the Catholic Relief Bill.

   "On February 4 (1793) Hobart [Chief Secretary] moved for leave
   to bring in his Catholic Relief Bill, and stated the nature of
   its provisions. It was of a kind which only a year before
   would have appeared utterly impossible, and which was in the
   most glaring opposition to all the doctrines which the
   Government and its partisans had of late been urging. … This
   great measure was before Parliament, with several
   intermissions, for rather more than five weeks. …
{1779}
   The vast preponderance of speakers were in favour of relief to
   Catholics, though there were grave differences as to the degree,
   and speakers of the highest authority represented the genuine
   Protestant feeling of the country as being in its favour. …
   Few things in Irish parliamentary history are more remarkable
   than the facility with which this great measure was carried,
   though it was in all its aspects thoroughly debated. It passed
   its second reading in the House of Commons with only a single
   negative. It was committed with only three negatives, and in
   the critical divisions on its clauses the majorities were at
   least two to one. The qualification required to authorise a
   Catholic to bear arms was raised in committee on the motion of
   the Chancellor, and in addition to the oath of allegiance of
   1774, a new oath was incorporated in the Bill, copied from one
   of the declarations of the Catholics, and abjuring certain
   tenets which had been ascribed to them, among others the
   assertion that the infallibility of the Pope was an article of
   their faith. For the rest the Bill became law almost exactly
   in the form in which it was originally designed. It swept away
   the few remaining disabilities relating to property which grew
   out of the penal code. It enabled Catholics to vote like
   Protestants for members of Parliament and magistrates in
   cities or boroughs; to become elected members of all
   corporations except Trinity College; to keep arms subject to
   some specified conditions; to hold all civil and military
   offices in the kingdom from which they were not specifically
   excluded; to hold the medical professorships on the foundation
   of Sir Patrick Dun; to take degrees and hold offices in any
   mixed college connected with the University of Dublin that
   might hereafter be founded. It also threw open to them the
   degrees of the University, enabling the King to alter its
   statutes to that effect. A long clause enumerated the prizes
   which were still withheld. Catholics might not sit in either
   House of Parliament; they were excluded from almost all
   Government and judicial positions; they could not be Privy
   Councillors, King's Counsel, Fellows of Trinity College,
   sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, or generals of the staff. Nearly
   every post of ambition was still reserved for Protestants, and
   the restrictions weighed most heavily on the Catholics who
   were most educated and most able. In the House of Lords as in
   the House of Commons the Bill passed with little open
   opposition, but a protest, signed among other peers by
   Charlemont, was drawn up against it. … The Catholic Relief
   Bill received the royal assent in April, 1793, and in the same
   month the Catholic Convention dissolved itself. Before doing
   so it passed a resolution recommending the Catholics 'to
   co-operate in all loyal and constitutional means' to obtain
   parliamentary reform. … The Catholic prelates in their
   pastorals expressed their gratitude for the Relief Bill. The
   United Irishmen on their side issued a proclamation warmly
   congratulating the Catholics on the measure for their relief,
   but also urging in passionate strains that parliamentary
   reform was the first of needs."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 25 (volume 6)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
   Organization of the United Irishmen.
   Attempted French invasions.
   The rising of '98.

   "Nothing could be less sinister than the original aims and
   methods of the Society of United Irishmen, which was conceived
   in the idea of uniting Catholics and Protestants 'in pursuit
   of the same object—a repeal of the penal laws, and a
   (parliamentary) reform including in itself an extension of the
   right of suffrage.' This union was founded at Belfast, in
   1791, by Theobald Wolfe Tone, a young barrister of English
   descent, and, like the majority of the United Irishmen, a
   Protestant. Some months later a Dublin branch was founded, the
   chairman being the hon. Simon Butler, a Protestant gentleman
   of high character, and the secretary a tradesman named James
   Napper Tandy. The society grew rapidly, and branches were
   formed throughout Ulster and Leinster. The religious strife of
   the Orange boys and Defenders was a great trouble to the
   United men, who felt that these creed animosities among
   Irishmen were more ruinous to the national cause than any
   corruption of parliament or coercion of government could
   possibly be. Ireland, united, would be quite capable of
   fighting her own battles, but these party factions rendered
   her contemptible and weak. The society accordingly set itself
   the impossible task of drawing together the Defenders and the
   Orange men. Catholic emancipation—one of the great objects of
   the union—naturally appealed very differently to the rival
   parties: it was the great wish of the Defenders, the chief
   dread of the Orangemen. Both factions were composed of the
   poorest and most ignorant peasantry in Ireland, men whose
   political views did not soar above the idea that 'something
   should be done for old Ireland.' The United Irishmen devoted
   themselves to the regeneration of both parties, but the
   Orangemen would have none of them, and the Protestant United
   men found themselves drifting into partnership with the
   Catholic Defenders. To gain influence with this party, Tandy
   took the Defenders' oath. He was informed against; and, as to
   take an illegal oath was then a capital offence in Ireland, he
   had to fly for his life to America. This adventure made Tandy
   the hero of the Defenders, who now joined the union in great
   numbers; but the whole business brought the society into
   disrepute, and connected it with the Defenders, who, like the
   Orange boys, were merely a party of outrage. … One night in
   the May of '94 a government raid was made upon the premises of
   the union. The officers of the society were arrested, their
   papers seized, the type of their newspaper destroyed, and the
   United Irish Society was proclaimed as an illegal
   organisation. Towards the close of this year all need for a
   reform society seemed to have passed. Fitzwilliam was made
   viceroy, and emancipation and reform seemed assured. His
   sudden recall, the reversal of his appointments, the rejection
   of Grattan's Reform Bill, and the renewal of the old coercive
   system, convinced the United men of the powerlessness of
   peaceful agitation to check the growth of the system of
   government by corruption. They accordingly reorganised the
   union, but as a secret society, and with the avowed aim of
   separating Ireland from the British empire. The Fitzwilliam
   affair had greatly strengthened the union, which was joined by
   many men of high birth and position, among them lord Edward
   Fitzgerald, brother of the duke of Leinster, and Arthur
   O'Connor, nephew to lord Longueville, both of whom had been
   members of the House of Commons. … But the ablest man of the
   party was Thomas Addis Emmet, a barrister, and the elder
   brother of Robert Emmet.
{1780}
   The society gradually swelled to the number of 5,000 members,
   but throughout its existence it was perfectly riddled with
   spies and informers, by whom government was supplied with a
   thorough knowledge of its doings. It became known to Pitt that
   the French government had sent an Englishman, named Jackson,
   as an emissary to Ireland. Jackson was convicted of treason,
   and hanged, and Wolfe Tone was sufficiently implicated in his
   guilt … to find it prudent to fly to America. But before
   leaving Ireland he arranged with the directors of the union to
   go from America to France, and to try to persuade the French
   government to assist Ireland in a struggle for separation.
   While Tone was taking his circuitous route to Paris,
   government, to meet the military development of the society,
   placed Ulster and Leinster under a stringent Insurrection Act;
   torture was employed to wring confession from suspected
   persons, and the Protestant militia and yeomanry were drafted
   at free quarters on the wretched Catholic peasantry. The
   barbarity of the soldiers lashed the people of the northern
   provinces into a state of fury. … In the meantime the
   indomitable Tone—unknown, without credentials, without
   influence, and ignorant of the French language—had persuaded
   the French government to lend him a fleet, 10,000 men, and
   40,000 stand of arms, which armament left Brest for Bantry Bay
   on the 16th December, 1796. Ireland was now in the same
   position as England had been when William of Orange had
   appeared outside Torbay. Injustice, corruption, and oppression
   had in both cases goaded the people into rebellion. A calm sea
   and a fierce gale made the difference between the English
   patriot of 1688 and the Irish traitor of 1796. Had the sea
   been calm in the Christmas week of '96, nothing could have
   stopped the French from marching on to Dublin, but just as the
   ships put in to Bantry Bay, so wild a wind sprang up that they
   were driven out to sea, and blown and buffetted about. For a
   month they tossed about within sight of land, but the storm
   did not subside, and, all chance of landing seeming as far off
   as ever, they put back into the French port."

      _Wm. S. Gregg,
      Irish History for English Readers,
      chapter 23._

   "After the failure of Hoche's expedition, another great
   armament was fitted out in the Texel, where it long lay ready
   to come forth, while the English fleet, the only safeguard of
   our coasts, was crippled by the mutiny at the Nore. But the
   wind once more fought for England, and the Batavian fleet came
   out at last only to be destroyed at Camperdown. Tone was
   personally engaged in both expeditions, and his lively Diary,
   the image of his character, gives us vivid accounts of both.
   The third effort of the French Government was feeble, and
   ended in the futile landing of a small force under Humbert.
   … In the last expedition Tone himself was taken prisoner,
   and, having been condemned to death, committed suicide in
   prison. … It was well for Ireland, as well as for England,
   that Tone failed in his enterprise. Had he succeeded, his
   country would for a time have been treated as Switzerland and
   the Batavian Republic were treated by their French
   regenerators, and, in the end, it would have been surely
   reconquered and punished by the power which was mistress of
   the sea. … But now that all is over, we can afford to say
   that Tone gallantly ventured his life in what naturally
   appeared to him, and would to a high-spirited Englishman under
   the same circumstances have appeared, a good cause. One of his
   race had but too much reason then to 'hate the very name of
   England,' and to look forward to the burning of her cities
   with feelings in which pity struggled with revenge for
   mastery, but revenge prevailed. … From the Republicans the
   disturbance spread, as in 1641, to that mass of blind
   disaffection and hatred, national, social, agrarian, and
   religious, which was always smouldering among the Catholic
   peasantry. With these sufferers the political theories of the
   French Revolutionists had no influence; they looked to French
   invasion, as well as to domestic insurrection, merely as a
   deliverance from the oppression under which they groaned. …
   The leading Roman Catholics, both clerical and lay, were on
   the side of the government. The mass of the Catholic
   priesthood were well inclined to take the same side, They
   could have no sympathy with an Atheist Republic, red with the
   blood of priests, as well as with the blood of a son of St.
   Louis. If some of the order were concerned in the movement, it
   was as demagogues, sympathizing with their peasant brethren,
   not as priests. Yet the Protestants insisted on treating the
   Catholic clergy as rebels by nature. They had assuredly done
   their best to make them so. … No sooner did the Catholic
   peasantry begin to move and organize themselves than the
   Protestant gentry and yeomanry as one man became Cromwellians
   again. Then commenced a Reign of Terror scarcely less savage
   than that of the Jacobins, against whom Europe was in arms, as
   a hideous and portentous brood of evil, the scourge and horror
   of the whole human race. The suspected conspirators were
   intimidated, and confessions, or pretended confessions, were
   extorted by loosing upon the homes of the peasantry the
   license and barbarity of an irregular soldiery more cruel than
   a regular invader. Flogging, half-hanging, pitch-capping,
   picketing, went on over a large district, and the most
   barbarous scourgings, without trial, were inflicted in the
   Riding-house at Dublin, in the very seat of government and
   justice. This was styled, 'exerting a vigour beyond the law;'
   and to become the object of such vigour, it was enough, as
   under Robespierre, to be suspected of being suspect. No one
   has yet fairly undertaken the revolting but salutary task of
   writing a faithful and impartial history of that period; but
   from the accounts we have, it appears not unlikely that the
   peasantry, though undoubtedly in a disturbed state, and to a
   great extent secretly organized, might have been kept quiet by
   measures of lenity and firmness; and that they were
   gratuitously scourged and tortured into open rebellion. When
   they did rebel, they shewed, as they had shewn in 1641, what
   the galley-slave is when, having long toiled under the lash,
   he contrives in a storm to slip his chains and become master
   of the vessel. The atrocities of Wexford and Vinegar-Hill
   rivalled the atrocities of Portnadown. Nor when the rebellion
   was vanquished did the victors fail to renew the famous feats
   of Sir Charles Coote and of the regiment of Cole. We now
   possess terrible and overwhelming evidence of their sanguinary
   ferocity in the correspondence of Lord Cornwallis, who was
   certainly no friend to rebels, having fought against them in
   America, but who was a man of sense and heart, most wisely
   sent over to quench the insurrection, and pacify the country.
   …
{1781}
   The murders and other atrocities committed by the Jacobins
   were more numerous than those committed by the Orangemen, and
   as the victims were of higher rank they excited more
   indignation and pity; but in the use of torture the Orangemen
   seem to have reached a pitch of fiendish cruelty which was
   scarcely attained by the Jacobins. … The Jacobin party was
   almost entirely composed of men taken from the lowest of the
   people, whereas among the Irish terrorists were found men of
   high social position and good education."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      Irish History and Irish Character,
      pages 166-175._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Madden,
      The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times._

      _Theobald Wolfe Tone,
      Memoirs._

      _Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapter 16._

      _Viscount Castlereagh,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 1._

      _W. H. Maxwell,
      History of the Irish Rebellion in 1798._

IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
   Formation of the Orange Society.
   Battle of the Diamond.
   Persecution of Catholics by Protestant mobs.

   "The year 1795 is very memorable in Irish history, as the year
   of the formation of the Orange Society, and the beginning of
   the most serious disturbances in the county of Armagh. … The
   old popular feud between the lower ranks of Papists and
   Presbyterians in the northern counties is easy to understand,
   and it is not less easy to see how the recent course of Irish
   politics had increased it. A class which had enjoyed and
   gloried in uncontested ascendency, found this ascendency
   passing from its hands. A class which had formerly been in
   subjection, was elated by new privileges, and looked forward
   to a complete abolition of political disabilities. Catholic
   and Protestant tenants came into a new competition, and the
   demeanour of Catholics towards Protestants was sensibly
   changed. There were boasts in taverns and at fairs, that the
   Protestants would speedily be swept away from the land and the
   descendants of the old proprietors restored, and it was soon
   known that Catholics all over the country were forming
   themselves into committees or societies, and were electing
   representatives for a great Catholic convention at Dublin. The
   riots and outrages of the Peep of Day Boys and Defenders had
   embittered the feeling on both sides. … Members of one or
   other creed were attacked and insulted as they went to their
   places of worship. There were fights on the high roads, at
   fairs, wakes, markets, and country sports, and there were
   occasionally crimes of a much deeper dye. … In September
   1795 riots broke out in this county [Armagh], which continued
   for some days, but at length the parish priest on the one
   side, and a gentleman named Atkinson on the other, succeeded
   in so far appeasing the quarrel that the combatants formally
   agreed to a truce, and were about to retire to their homes,
   when a new party of Defenders, who had marched from the
   adjoining counties to the assistance of their brethren,
   appeared upon the scene, and on September 21 they attacked the
   Protestants at a place called the Diamond. The Catholics on
   this occasion were certainly the aggressors, and they appear
   to have considerably outnumbered their antagonists, but the
   Protestants were better posted, better armed, and better
   organised. A serious conflict ensued, and the Catholics were
   completely defeated, leaving a large number—probably twenty
   or thirty—dead upon the field. It was on the evening of the
   day on which the battle of the Diamond was fought, that the
   Orange Society was formed. It was at first a league of mutual
   defence, binding its members to maintain the laws and the
   peace of the country, and also the Protestant Constitution. No
   Catholic was to be admitted into the society, and the members
   were bound by oath not to reveal its secrets. The doctrine of
   Fitzgibbon, that the King, by assenting to Catholic
   emancipation, would invalidate his title to the throne, was
   remarkably reflected in the oath of the Orangemen, which bound
   them to defend the King and his heirs, 'so long as he or they
   support the Protestant ascendency.' The society took its name
   from William of Orange, the conqueror of the Catholics, and it
   agreed to celebrate annually the battle of the Boyne. In this
   respect there was nothing in it particularly novel. Protestant
   associations, for the purpose of commemorating the events and
   maintaining the principles of the Revolution, had long been
   known. … A very different spirit, however, animated the
   early Orangemen. The upper classes at first generally held
   aloof from the society; for a considerable time it appears to
   have been almost confined to the Protestant peasantry of
   Ulster, and the title of Orangemen was probably assumed by
   numbers who had never joined the organisation, who were simply
   Peep of Day Boys taking a new name, and whose conduct was
   certainly not such as those who instituted the society had
   intended. A terrible persecution of the Catholics immediately
   followed. The animosities between the lower orders of the two
   religions, which had long been little bridled, burst out
   afresh, and after the battle of the Diamond, the Protestant
   rabble of the county of Armagh, and of part of the adjoining
   counties, determined by continuous outrages to drive the
   Catholics from the country. Their cabins were placarded, or,
   as it was termed, 'papered,' with the words, 'To hell or
   Connaught,' and if the occupants did not at once abandon them,
   they were attacked at night by an armed mob. The webs and
   looms of the poor Catholic weavers were cut and destroyed.
   Every article of furniture was shattered or burnt. The houses
   were often set on fire, and the inmates were driven homeless
   into the world. The rioters met with scarcely any resistance
   or disturbance. Twelve or fourteen houses were sometimes
   wrecked in a single night. Several Catholic chapels were
   burnt, and the persecution, which began in the county of
   Armagh, soon extended over a wide area in the counties of
   Tyrone, Down, Antrim, and Derry. … The outrages continued
   with little abatement through a great part of the following
   year. As might have been expected, there were widely differing
   estimates of the number of the victims. According to some
   reports, which were no doubt grossly exaggerated, no less than
   1,400 families, or about 7,000 persons, were driven out of the
   county of Armagh alone. Another, and much more probable
   account, spoke of 700 families, while a certain party among
   the gentry did their utmost to minimise the persecutions."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 27 (volume 7)._

{1782}

IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
   The Legislative Union with Great Britain.

   "No sooner had the rebellion been suppressed than the
   Government proposed, to the Parliament of each country, the
   union of Great Britain and Ireland under a common legislature.
   This was no new idea. It had frequently been in the minds of
   successive generations of statesmen on both sides of the
   Channel; but had not yet been seriously discussed with a view
   to immediate action. Nothing could have been more safely
   predicted than that Ireland must, sooner or later, follow the
   precedent of Scotland, and yield her pretensions to a separate
   legislation. The measures of 1782, which appeared to establish
   the legislative independence of Ireland, really proved the
   vanity of such a pretension. … On the assembling of the
   British Parliament at the commencement of the year [1799], the
   question of the Union was recommended by a message from the
   Crown; and the address, after some opposition, was carried
   without a division. Pitt, at this, the earliest stage,
   pronounced the decision at which the Government had arrived to
   be positive and irrevocable. … Lord Cornwallis [then Lord
   Lieutenant of Ireland] also expressed his conviction that
   union was the only measure which could preserve the country.
   … The day before the intended Union was signified by a royal
   message to the English Parliament, the Irish Houses assembled;
   and the Viceroy's speech, of course, contained a paragraph
   relative to the project. The House of Lords, completely under
   the control of the Castle, agreed to an address in conformity
   with the speech, after a short and languid debate, by a large
   majority; but the Commons were violently agitated. … An
   amendment to the address pledging the House to maintain the
   Union was lost by one vote, after the House had sat twenty-one
   hours; but, on the report, the amendment to omit the paragraph
   referring to the Union was carried by a majority of four. …
   When it was understood that the Government was in earnest …
   there was little difficulty in alarming a people among whom
   the machinery of political agitation had, for some years, been
   extensively organised. The bar of Dublin took the lead, and it
   at once became evident that the policy of the Government had
   effected a union among Irishmen far more formidable than that
   which all the efforts of sedition had been able to accomplish.
   The meeting of the bar included not merely men of different
   religious persuasions, but, what was of more importance in
   Ireland, men of different sides in politics. … However
   conclusive the argument in favour of Union may appear to
   Englishmen, it was difficult for an Irishman to regard the
   Union in any other view than as a measure to deprive his
   country of her independent constitution, and to extinguish her
   national existence. Mr. Foster, the Speaker, took this view.
   … Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
   followed the Speaker. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Prime Serjeant, a
   law officer of the Crown, was on the same side. Ponsonby, the
   leader of the Whigs, was vehement against the scheme; so was
   Grattan; so was Curran. Great efforts were made by the
   Government to quiet the Protestants, and to engage the
   Catholics to support the Union. These efforts were so far
   successful that most of the Orange lodges were persuaded to
   refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. The
   Catholic hierarchy were conciliated by the promise of a
   provision for the clergy, and of an adjustment of the Tithe
   question. Hopes were held out, if promises were not actually
   made, to the Catholic community, that their civil disabilities
   would be removed. … If the Union was to be accomplished by
   constitutional means, it could be effected only by a vote of
   the Irish Parliament, concurring with a vote of the English
   Parliament; and if the Irish assembly were to pronounce an
   unbiased judgment on the question of its extinction, it is
   certain that a very small minority, possibly not a single
   vote, would be found to support the measure. … The vote on
   the address was followed, in a few days, by an address to the
   Crown, in which the Commons pledged themselves to maintain the
   constitution of 1782. The majority in favour of national
   independence had already increased from five to twenty. …
   The votes of the Irish Commons had disposed of the question
   for the current session; but preparations were immediately
   made for its future passage through the Irish Houses. The
   foremost men in Ireland … had first been tempted, but had
   indignantly refused every offer to betray the independence of
   their country. Another class of leading persons was then
   tried, and from these, for the most part, evasive answers were
   received. The minister understood the meaning of these dubious
   utterances. There was one mode of carrying the Union, and one
   mode only. Bribery of every kind must be employed without
   hesitation and without stint."

      _W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George. III.,
      chapter 38 (volume 4)._

   "Lord Cornwallis had to work the system of 'negotiating and
   jobbing,' by promising an Irish Peerage, or a lift in that
   Peerage, or even an English Peerage, to a crowd of eager
   competitors for honours. The other specific for making
   converts was not yet in complete operation. Lord Castlereagh
   [the Irish Chief Secretary] had the plan in his
   portfolio:—borough proprietors to be compensated; … fifty
   barristers in parliament, who always considered a seat as the
   road to preferment, to be compensated; the purchasers of seats
   to be compensated; individuals connected either by residence
   or property with Dublin to be compensated. 'Lord Castlereagh
   considered that £1,500,000 would be required to effect all
   these compensations.' The sum actually paid to the
   borough-mongers alone was £1,260,000. Fifteen thousand pounds
   were allotted to each borough; and 'was apportioned amongst
   the various patrons.' … It had become a contest of bribery
   on both sides. There was an 'Opposition stock-purse,' as Lord
   Castlereagh describes the fund against which he was to
   struggle with the deeper purse at Whitehall. … During the
   administration of Lord Cornwallis, 29 Irish Peerages were
   created; of which seven only were unconnected with the
   question of Union. Six English Peerages were granted on
   account of Irish services; and there were 19 promotions in the
   Irish Peerage, earned by similar assistance." The question of
   Union was virtually decided in the Irish House of Commons on
   the 6th of February, 1800. Lord Castlereagh, on the previous
   day, had read a message from the Lord Lieutenant,
   communicating resolutions adopted by the parliament of Great
   Britain in the previous year. "The question was debated from
   four o'clock in the afternoon of the 5th to one o'clock in the
   afternoon of the 6th.
{1783}
   During that time the streets of Dublin were the scene of a
   great riot, and the peace of the city was maintained only by
   troops of cavalry. … On the division of the 6th there was a
   majority of 43 in favour of the Union." It was not, however,
   until the 7th of June, that the final legislative
   enactment—the Union Bill—was passed in the Irish House of
   Commons. The first article provided "that the kingdoms of
   Great Britain and Ireland should, upon the 1st of January,
   1801, be united into one kingdom, by the name of The United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom was
   to be represented in one and the same parliament. In the
   United Parliament there were to be 28 temporal Peers, elected
   for life by the Irish Peerage; and four spiritual Peers,
   taking their places in rotation. There were to be 100 members
   of the Lower House; each county returning two, as well as the
   cities of Dublin and Cork. The University returned one, and 31
   boroughs each returned one. Of these boroughs 23 remained
   close boroughs till the Reform Bill of 1831. … The Churches
   of England and Ireland were to be united. The proportion of
   Revenue to be levied was fixed at fifteen for Great Britain
   and two for Ireland, for the succeeding twenty years.
   Countervailing duties upon imports to each country were fixed
   by a minute tariff, but some commercial restrictions were to
   be removed."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 7, chapter 21._

   "If the Irish Parliament had consisted mainly, or to any
   appreciable extent, of men who were disloyal to the
   connection, and whose sympathies were on the side of rebellion
   or with the enemies of England, the English Ministers would, I
   think, have been amply justified in employing almost any means
   to abolish it. … But it cannot be too clearly understood or
   too emphatically stated, that the legislative Union was not an
   act of this nature. The Parliament which was abolished was a
   Parliament of the most unqualified loyalists; it had shown
   itself ready to make every sacrifice in its power for the
   maintenance of the Empire, and from the time when Arthur
   O'Connor and Lord Edward Fitzgerald passed beyond its walls,
   it probably did not contain a single man who was really
   disaffected. … It must be added, that it was becoming
   evident that the relation between the two countries
   established by the Constitution of 1782 could not have
   continued unchanged. … Even with the best dispositions, the
   Constitution of 1782 involved many and grave probabilities of
   difference. … Sooner or later the corrupt borough ascendency
   must have broken down, and it was a grave question what was to
   succeed it. … An enormous increase of disloyalty and
   religious animosity had taken place during the last years of
   the century, and it added immensely to the danger of the
   democratic Catholic suffrage, which the Act of 1793 had called
   into existence. This was the strongest argument for hurrying
   on the Union; but when all due weight is assigned to it, it
   does not appear to me to have justified the policy of Pitt."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 32 (volume 8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. D. Ingram,
      History of the Legislative Union._

      _R. Hassencamp,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 14._

      _Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      chapters 19-21 (volumes 2-3)._

      _Viscount Castlereagh,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volumes 2-3._

IRELAND: A. D. 1801.
   Pitt's promise of Catholic Emancipation broken by the king.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

IRELAND: A. D. 1801-1803.
   The Emmet insurrection.

   "Lord Hardwicke succeeded Lord Cornwallis as viceroy in May
   [1801]; and for two years, so far as the British public knew,
   Ireland was undisturbed. The harvest of 1801 was abundant. The
   island was occupied by a military force of 125,000 men.
   Distant rumours of disturbances in Limerick, Tipperary, and
   Waterford were faintly audible. Imports and exports increased.
   The debt increased likewise, but, as it was met by loans and
   uncontrolled by any public assembly, no one protested, and few
   were aware of the fact. Landlords and middlemen throve on high
   rents, and peasants as yet could live. … Early in 1803 the
   murmurs in the southwest became louder. Visions of a fixed
   price for potatoes began to shape themselves, and the invasion
   of 'strangers' ready to take land from which tenants had been
   ejected was resisted. The magistrates urged the viceroy to
   obtain and exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act; but
   the evil was not thought of sufficient magnitude, and their
   request was refused: Amidst the general calm, the insurrection
   of Robert Emmett in July broke like a bolt from the blue. A
   young republican visionary, whose brother had taken an active
   part in the rebellion, he had inspired a few score comrades
   with the quixotic hope of rekindling Irish nationality by
   setting up a factory of pikes in a back street of Dublin. On
   the eve of St. James's Day, Quigley, one of his associates,
   who had been sowing vague hopes among the villages of Kildare,
   brought a mixed crowd into Dublin. When the evening fell, a
   sky-rocket was fired. Emmett and his little band sallied from
   Marshalsea Lane into St. James's Street, and distributed pikes
   to all who would take them. The disorderly mob thus armed
   proceeded to the debtors' prison, which they attacked, killing
   the officer who defended it. Emmett urged them on to the
   Castle. They followed, in a confused column, utterly beyond
   his power to control. On their war they fell in with the
   carriage of the Chief Justice, Lord Kilwarden, dragged him
   out, and killed him. By this time a few handfuls of troops had
   been collected. In half an hour two subalterns, with fifty
   soldiers each, had dispersed the whole gathering. By ten
   o'clock all was over, with the loss of 20 soldiers and 50
   insurgents. Emmett and Russell, another of the leaders who had
   undertaken the agitation of Down and Antrim, were shortly
   afterwards taken and executed; Quigley escaped. Such was the
   last reverberation of the rebellion of 1798, or rather of the
   revolutionary fervour that led the way to that rebellion,
   before it had been tainted with religious animosity. Emmett
   died as Shelley would have died, a martyr and an enthusiast;
   but he knew little of his countrymen's condition, little of
   their aspirations, nothing of their needs. He had no
   successors."

      _J. H. Bridges,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 3, chapter 2._

   "Emmet might easily have escaped to France if he had chosen,
   but he delayed till too late. Emmet was a young man, and Emmet
   was in love. 'The idol of his heart,' as he calls her in his
   dying speech, was Sarah Curran, the daughter of John Philpot
   Curran. … Emmet was determined to see her before he went. He
   placed his life upon the cast and lost it. … The White
   Terror which followed upon the failure of Emmet's rising was
   accompanied by almost all the horrors which marked the hours
   of repression after the rebellion of '98. … The old devil's
   dance of spies and informers went merrily forward; the prisons
   were choked with prisoners."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Ireland Since the Union,
      chapters 5-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Madden,
      The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times,
      volume 3._

      _J. Wills,
      History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen,
      volume 6, pages 68-80._

{1784}

IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
   O'Connell and the agitation for Catholic Emancipation
   and the Repeal of the Union.
   Catholic disabilities removed.

   "There is much reason to believe that almost from the
   commencement of his career" Daniel O'Connell, the great Irish
   agitator, "formed one vast scheme of policy which he pursued
   through life with little deviation, and, it must be added,
   with little scruple. This scheme was to create and lead a
   public spirit among the Roman Catholics; to wrest emancipation
   by this means from the Government; to perpetuate the agitation
   created for that purpose till the Irish Parliament had been
   restored; to disendow the Established Church; and thus to open
   in Ireland a new era, with a separate and independent
   Parliament and perfect religious equality. It would be
   difficult to conceive a scheme of policy exhibiting more
   daring than this. The Roman Catholics had hitherto shown
   themselves absolutely incompetent to take any decisive part in
   politics. … O'Connell, however, perceived that it was
   possible to bring the whole mass of the people into the
   struggle, and to give them an almost unexampled momentum and
   unanimity by applying to politics a great power that lay
   dormant in Ireland—the power of the Catholic priesthood. To
   make the priests the rulers of the country, and himself the
   ruler of the priests, was his first great object. … There
   was a party supported by Keogh, the leader in '93, who
   recommended what was called 'a dignified silence'—in other
   words, a complete abstinence from petitioning and agitation.
   With this party O'Connell successfully grappled. His advice on
   every occasion was, 'Agitate, agitate, agitate!' and Keogh was
   so irritated by the defeat that he retired from the society."
   O'Connell's leadership of the movement for Catholic
   Emancipation became virtually established about the beginning
   of 1811. "He avowed himself repeatedly to be an agitator with
   an 'ulterior object,' and declared that that object was the
   repeal of the Union. 'Desiring, as I do, the repeal of the
   Union,' he said in one of his speeches, in 1813, 'I rejoice to
   see how our enemies promote that great object. … They delay
   the liberties of the Catholics, but they compensate us most
   amply because they advance the restoration of Ireland. By
   leaving one cause of agitation, they have created, and they
   will embody and give shape and form to, a public mind and a
   public spirit.' … Nothing can be more untrue than to
   represent the Repeal agitation as a mere afterthought designed
   to sustain his flagging popularity. Nor can it be said that
   the project was first started by him. The deep indignation
   that the Union had produced in Ireland was fermenting among
   all classes, and assuming the form, sometimes of a French
   party, sometimes of a social war, and sometimes of a
   constitutional agitation. … It would be tedious to follow
   into minute detail the difficulties and the mistakes that
   obstructed the Catholic movement, and were finally overcome by
   the energy or the tact of O'Connell. … Several times the
   movement was menaced by Government proclamations and
   prosecutions. Its great difficulty was to bring the public
   opinion of the whole body of the Roman Catholics actively and
   habitually into the question. … All preceding movements
   since the Revolution (except the passing excitement about
   Wood's halfpence) had been chiefly among the Protestants or
   among the higher order of the Catholics. The mass of the
   people had taken no real interest in politics, had felt no
   real pain at their disabilities, and were politically the
   willing slaves of their landlords. For the first time, under
   the influence of O'Connell, the great swell of a really
   democratic movement was felt. The simplest way of
   concentrating the new enthusiasm would have been by a system
   of delegates, but this had been rendered illegal by the
   Convention Act. On the other hand, the right of petitioning
   was one of the fundamental privileges of the constitution. By
   availing himself of this right O'Connell contrived, with the
   dexterity of a practised lawyer, to violate continually the
   spirit of the Convention Act, while keeping within the letter
   of the law. Proclamation after proclamation was launched
   against his society, but by continually changing its name and
   its form he generally succeeded in evading the prosecutions of
   the Government. These early societies, however, all sink into
   insignificance compared with that great Catholic Association
   which was formed in 1824. The avowed objects of this society
   were to promote religious education, to ascertain the
   numerical strength of the different religions, and to answer
   the charges against the Roman Catholics embodied in the
   hostile petitions. It also 'recommended' petitions
   (unconnected with the society) from every parish, and
   aggregate meetings in every county. The real object was to
   form a gigantic system of organisation, ramifying over the
   entire country, and directed in every parish by the priests,
   for the purpose of petitioning and in every other way
   agitating in favour of emancipation. The Catholic Rent [a
   system of small subscriptions—as small as a penny a
   month—collected from the poorest contributors, throughout
   Ireland] was instituted at this time, and it formed at once a
   powerful instrument of cohesion and a faithful barometer of
   the popular feeling. … The success of the Catholic
   Association became every week more striking. The rent rose
   with an extraordinary rapidity [from £350 a week in October to
   £700 a week in December, 1824]. The meetings in every county
   grew more and more enthusiastic, the triumph of priestly
   influence more and more certain. The Government made a feeble
   and abortive effort to arrest the storm by threatening both
   O'Connell and Sheil [Richard Lalor] with prosecution for
   certain passages in their speeches. … The formation of the
   Wellington Ministry [Wellington and Peel, 1828] seemed
   effectually to crush the present hopes of the Catholics, for
   the stubborn resolution of its leader was as well known as his
   Tory opinions. Yet this Ministry was destined to terminate the
   contest by establishing the principle of religious equality.
   … On the accession of the Wellington Ministry to power the
   Catholic Association passed a resolution to the effect that
   they would oppose with their whole energy any Irish member who
   consented to accept office under it. …
{1785}
   An opportunity for carrying the resolution into effect soon
   occurred. Mr. Fitzgerald, the member for Clare, accepted the
   office of President of the Board of Trade, and was
   consequently obliged to go to his constituents for
   re-election." O'Connell entered the lists against him. "The
   excitement at this announcement rose at once to fever height.
   It extended over every part of Ireland, and penetrated every
   class of society. The whole mass of the Roman Catholics
   prepared to support him, and the vast system of organisation
   which he had framed acted effectually in every direction." For
   the first time, the landlords found that the voting of their
   tenants could not be controlled. Fitzgerald withdrew from the
   contest and O'Connell was elected. "Ireland was now on the
   very verge of revolution. The whole mass of the people had
   been organised like a regular army, and taught to act with the
   most perfect unanimity. … The Ministers, feeling further
   resistance to be hopeless, brought in the Emancipation Bill,
   confessedly because to withhold it would be to kindle a
   rebellion that would extend over the length and breadth of the
   land."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: O'Connell._

   "Peel introduced the Relief Bill on the 5th March [1829]. The
   king had given to it a reluctant assent. At the last hour, the
   intrigues of Eldon and the Duke of Cumberland had so far
   influenced his weak and disingenuous mind that he withdrew his
   assent to his ministers' policy, on the pretence that he had
   not expected, and could not sanction, any modification of the
   Oath of Supremacy. He parted from his ministers with kisses
   and courtesy, and, for a few hours their resignation was in
   his hands. But with night his discretion waxed as his courage
   waned; his ministers were recalled, and their measure
   proceeded. In its main provisions it was thorough and
   far-reaching. It admitted the Roman Catholic to Parliament,
   and to all lay offices under the Crown, except those of
   Regent, Lord Chancellor, whether of England or of Ireland, and
   Lord Lieutenant. It repealed the oath of abjuration, it
   modified the oath of supremacy. … It approximated the Irish
   to the English county franchise by abolishing the
   forty-shilling freeholder, and raising the voters'
   qualifications to £10. All monasteries and institutions of
   Jesuits were suppressed; and Roman Catholic bishops were
   forbidden to assume titles of sees already held by bishops of
   the Church of Ireland. Municipal and other officials were
   forbidden to wear the insignia of their office at Roman
   Catholic ceremonies. Lastly, the new Oath of Supremacy was
   available only for persons thereafter to be elected to
   Parliament"—which nullified O'Connell's election at Clare.
   This petty stroke of malice is said to have been introduced in
   the bill for the gratification of the king. The vote in the
   Commons on the Bill was 353 against 180, and in the Lords 217
   to 112. It received the Royal assent on the 13th of April.

      _J. A. Hamilton,
      Life of Daniel O'Connell,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McCarthy,
      Sir Robert Peel,
      chapters 2-7._

      _W. J. Fitzpatrick,
      Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell,
      with notices of his Life and Times,
      volume 1, chapters 1-5._

      _W. J. Amherst,
      History of Catholic Emancipation._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18
      and volume 2, chapters 1-2._

IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.
   Rise of the Ribbon Society.

   "Throughout the half-century extending from 1820 to 1870, a
   secret oath-bound agrarian confederacy, known as the 'Ribbon
   Society,' was the constant affliction and recurring terror of
   the landed classes of Ireland. The Vehmgericht itself was not
   more dreaded. … It is assuredly strange—indeed, almost
   incredible—that although the existence of this organisation
   was, in a general way, as well and as widely known as the fact
   that Queen Victoria reigned, or that Daniel O'Connell was once
   a living man; although the story of its crimes has thrilled
   judge and jury, and parliamentary committees have filled
   ponderous blue-books with evidence of its proceedings, there
   is to this hour the widest conflict of assertion and
   conclusion as to what exactly were its real aims, its origin,
   structure, character, and purpose. … I long ago satisfied
   myself that the Ribbonism of one period was not the Ribbonism
   of another; that the version of its aims and character
   prevalent amongst its own members in one county or district
   differed widely from that existing elsewhere. In Ulster it
   professed to be a defensive or retaliatory league against
   Orangeism. In Munster it was at first a combination against
   tithe-proctors. In Connaught it was an organisation against
   rack-renting and evictions. In Leinster it often was mere
   trade-unionism. … The Ribbon Society seems to have been
   wholly confined to small farmers, cottiers, labourers, and, in
   the towns, petty shopkeepers, in whose houses the 'lodges'
   were held. … Although from the inception, or first
   appearance, of Ribbonism the Catholic clergy waged a
   determined war upon it … the society was exclusively
   Catholic. Under no circumstances would a Protestant be
   admitted to membership. … The name 'Ribbon Society' was not
   attached to it until about 1826. It was previously known as
   'Liberty Men'; the 'Religious Liberty System'; the 'United
   Sons of Irish Freedom'; 'Sons of the Shamrock'; and by other
   names. … It has been said, and probably with some truth,
   that it has been too much the habit to attribute erroneously
   to the Ribbon organisation every atrocity committed in the
   country, every deed of blood apparently arising out of
   agrarian combination or conspiracy. … But vain is all
   pretence that the Ribbon Society did not become, whatever the
   original design or intention of its members may have been, a
   hideous organisation of outrage and murder. … There was a
   period when Ribbon outrages had, at all events, a conceivable
   provocation; but there came a time when they sickened the
   public conscience by their wantonness. The vengeance of the
   society was ruthless and terrible. … From 1835 to 1855 the
   Ribbon organisation was at its greatest strength. … With the
   emigration of the labouring classes it was carried abroad, to
   England and to America. At one time the most formidable lodges
   were in Lancashire."

      _A. M. Sullivan,
      New Ireland,
      chapter 4._

IRELAND: A. D. 1831.
   Establishment of National Schools.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—IRELAND.

IRELAND: A. D. 1832.
   Parliamentary Representation increased by the Reform Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

{1786}

IRELAND: A. D. 1840-1841.
   Discontent with the results of the Union.
   Condition of the people.
   O'Connell's revival of agitation for Repeal.

   "The Catholics were at length emancipated in 1829; and now,
   surely, their enemies suggested, they must be contented and
   grateful for evermore? Perverse must the people be who, having
   got what they asked, are not satisfied. Let us see. What they
   asked was to be admitted to their just share, or, at any rate
   to some share, of the government of their native country, from
   which they had been excluded for five generations. But on the
   passing of the Emancipation Act not a single Catholic was
   admitted to an office of authority, great or small. The door
   was opened, indeed, but not a soul was permitted to pass in.
   There were murmurs of discontent, and the class who still
   enjoyed all the patronage of the State, the Church, the army,
   the magistracy, and the public service, demanded if there was
   any use in attempting to conciliate a people so intractable
   and unreasonable? The Catholic Association, which had won the
   victory, was rewarded for its public spirit by being dissolved
   by Act of Parliament. Its leader, who had been elected to the
   House of Commons, had his election declared void by a phrase
   imported into the Emancipation Act for this special purpose.
   The forty-shilling freeholders, whose courage and magnanimity
   had made the cause irresistible, were immediately deprived of
   the franchise. By means of a high qualification and an
   ingeniously complicated system of registry, the electors in
   twelve counties were reduced from upwards of 100,000 to less
   than 10,000. Englishmen cannot comprehend our dissatisfaction.
   … Emancipation was speedily followed by a Reform of the
   House of Commons. In England a sweeping and salutary change
   was made both in the franchise, and in the distribution of
   seats; but Ireland did not obtain either the number of
   representatives she was demonstrably entitled to by population
   and resources, or such a reduction of the franchise as had
   been conceded to England. The Whigs were in power, and Ireland
   was well-disposed to the party. … But the idea of treating
   Ireland on perfectly equal terms, and giving her the full
   advantage of the Union which had been forced on her, did not
   exist in the mind of a single statesman of that epoch. After
   Emancipation and Reform, O'Connell had a fierce quarrel with
   the Whigs, during which he raised the question of Ireland's
   right to be governed exclusively by her own Parliament. The
   people responded passionately to his appeal. The party of
   Protestant Ascendancy had demanded the Repeal of the Union
   before Emancipation, but that disturbing event altered their
   policy, and they withheld all aid from O'Connell. After a
   brief time he abandoned the experiment, to substitute for it
   an attempt to obtain what was called 'justice to Ireland.' In
   furtherance of this project he made a compact with the Whigs
   that the Irish Party under his lead should support them in
   parliament. The Whigs in return made fairer appointments to
   judicial and other public employments, restrained jury
   packing, and established an unsectarian system of public
   education; but the national question was thrown back for more
   than a generation. In 1840-1 O'Connell revived the question of
   Repeal, on the ground that the Union had wholly failed to
   accomplish the end for which it was said to be designed.
   Instead of bringing Ireland prosperity, it had brought her
   ruin. The social condition of the country during the
   half-century, then drawing to a close was, indeed, without
   parallel in Europe. The whole population were dependent on
   agriculture. There were minerals, but none found in what
   miners call 'paying quantities.' There was no manufacture
   except linen, and the remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying
   out before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What the
   island chiefly produced was food; which was exported to richer
   countries to enable the cultivator to pay an inordinate rent.
   Foreign travellers saw with amazement an island possessing all
   the natural conditions of a great commerce, as bare of
   commerce as if it lay in some byeway of the world where
   enterprise had not yet penetrated. … The great proprietors
   were two or three hundred—the heirs of the Undertakers, for
   the most part, and Absentees; the mass of the country was
   owned by a couple of thousand others, who lived in splendour,
   and even profusion; and for these the peasant ploughed, sowed,
   tended, and reaped a harvest which he never shared. Rent, in
   other countries, means the surplus after the farmer has been
   liberally paid for his skill and labour; in Ireland it meant
   the whole produce of the soil except a potato-pit. If a farmer
   strove for more, his master knew how to bring him to speedy
   submission. He could carry away his implements of trade by the
   law of distress, or rob him of his sole pursuit in life by the
   law of eviction. He could, and habitually did, seize the
   growing crop, the stools and pots in his miserable cabin, the
   blanket that sheltered his children, the cow that gave them
   nourishment. There were just and humane landlords, men who
   performed the duties which their position imposed, and did not
   exaggerate its rights; but they were a small minority. …
   Famines were frequent, and every other year destitution killed
   a crowd of peasants. For a hundred and fifty years before,
   whoever has described the condition of Ireland—English
   official, foreign visitor, or Irish patriot—described a
   famine more or less acute. Sometimes the tortured serfs rose
   in nocturnal jacquerie against the system; and then a cry of
   'rebellion' was raised, and England was assured that these
   intractable barbarians were again (as the indictment always
   charged) 'levying war against the King's majesty.' There were
   indeed causes enough for national disaffection, but of these
   the poor peasant knew nothing; he was contending for so much
   miserable food as would save his children from starvation.
   There were sometimes barbarous agrarian murders—murders of
   agents and bailiffs chiefly, but occasionally of landlords. It
   would be shameful to forget that these savage crimes were
   often the result of savage provocation. … The country was
   naked of timber, the cabins of the peasantry were squalid and
   unfurnished. Mr. Carlyle reproves a lazy, thriftless people,
   who would not perform the simple operation of planting trees;
   and Mr. Froude frowns upon cottages whose naked walls are
   never draped by climbing roses or flowering creepers. But how
   much more eloquent is fact than rhetoric? The Irish landlords
   made a law that when the tenant planted a tree it became not
   his own property but his master's; and the established
   practice of four-fifths of the Irish landlords, when a tenant
   exhibited such signs of prosperity as a garden, or a
   white-washed cabin, was to reward his industry by increasing
   his rent.
{1787}
   Peasants will not plant or make improvements on these
   conditions, nor, I fancy, would philosophers. … It was
   sometimes made a boast in those days that rank, property,
   station, and professional success distinguished the minority
   in Ireland who were imperialists and Protestants. It was not
   an amazing phenomenon, that those upon whom the law had
   bestowed a monopoly of rank, property, and station, for a
   hundred and fifty years, should have still maintained the
   advantage a dozen years after Emancipation. It was a subject
   of scornful reproach that the districts inhabited by
   Protestants were peaceful and prosperous, while the Catholic
   districts were often poor and disorderly. There is no doubt of
   the facts; the contrast certainly existed. But the mystery
   disappears when one comes to reflect that in Down and Antrim
   the Squire regarded his tenantry with as much sympathy and
   confidence as a Squire in Devon or Essex, that their sons were
   trained to bear arms, and taught from the pulpit and platform
   that they belonged to a superior race, that all the local
   employments, paid out of the public purse, were distributed
   among them, that they had certain well understood rights over
   their holdings on which no landlord could safely trench, and
   that they met their masters, from time to time, in the
   friendly equality of an Orange lodge; while in Tipperary, the
   farmer was a tenant at will who never saw his landlord except
   when he followed the hounds across his corn, or frowned at him
   from the bench; whose rent could be raised, or his tenancy
   terminated at the pleasure of his master; who, on the smallest
   complaint, was carried before a bench of magistrates, where he
   had no expectation, and little chance, of justice; and who
   wanted the essential stimulus to thrift and industry, the
   secure enjoyment of his earnings. As a set-off to this long
   catalogue of discouragements, there were two facts of happy
   augury. In 1842 half a million of children were receiving
   education in the National Schools under a system designed to
   establish religious equality, and administered by Catholic and
   Protestant Commissioners. And the Teetotal movement was at its
   height. Thousands were accepting every week a pledge of total
   abstinence from Father Mathew, a young priest whom the gifts
   of nature and the accidents of fortune combined to qualify for
   the mission of a Reformer. … There was the beginning of
   political reforms also. The Whigs sent a Lord Lieutenant and
   Chief Secretary to Ireland who, for the first time since the
   fall of Limerick, treated the bulk of the nation as the social
   and political equals of the minority. The minority had been so
   long accustomed to make and administer the laws, and to occupy
   the places of authority and distinction, that they regarded
   the change as a revolt; and Lord Mulgrave and Thomas Drummond
   as the successors of Tyrconnel and Nugent. In the interval,
   since Emancipation, a few Catholics were elected to
   Parliament, two Catholic lawyers were raised to the bench, and
   smaller appointments distributed among laymen. … The
   exclusion of Catholics from juries was restrained, and the
   practice of appointing partisans of too shameful antecedents
   to public functions was interrupted. … It was under these
   circumstances that O'Connell for the second time summoned the
   Irish people to demand a Repeal of the Union."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      A Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 242-275._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 4, chapters 1-2._

      _R. M. Martin,
      Ireland before and after the Union._

IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.
   O'Connell's last agitation.
   His trial, imprisonment and release.
   His death.
   The "Young Ireland" Party and its rebellion.

   In 1841, O'Connell "left England and went to Ireland, and
   devoted himself there to the work of organization. A
   succession of monster meetings were held all over the country,
   the far-famed one on Tara Hill being, as is credibly asserted,
   attended by no less than a quarter of a million of people.
   Over this vast multitude gathered together around him the
   magic tones of the great orator's voice swept triumphantly;
   awakening anger, grief, passion, delight, laughter, tears, at
   its own pleasure. They were astonishing triumphs, but they
   were dearly bought. The position was, in fact, an impossible
   one to maintain long. O'Connell had carried the whole mass of
   the people with him up to the very brink of the precipice, but
   how to bring them safely and successfully down again was more
   than even he could accomplish. Resistance he had always
   steadily denounced, yet every day his own words seemed to be
   bringing the inevitable moment of collision nearer and nearer.
   The crisis came on October the 5th. A meeting had been
   summoned to meet at Clontarf, near Dublin, and on the
   afternoon of the 4th the Government suddenly came to the
   resolution of issuing a proclamation forbidding it to
   assemble. The risk was a formidable one for responsible men to
   run. Many of the people were already on their way, and only
   O'Connell's own rapid and vigorous measures in sending out in
   all directions to intercept them hindered the actual shedding
   of blood. His prosecution and that of some of his principal
   adherents was the next important event. By a Dublin jury he
   was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and
   conveyed to prison, still earnestly entreating the people to
   remain quiet, an order which they strictly obeyed. The jury by
   which he had been condemned was known to be strongly biassed
   against him, and an appeal had been forwarded against his
   sentence to the House of Lords. So strong there, too, was the
   feeling against O'Connell, that little expectation was
   entertained of its being favourably received. Greatly to its
   honour, however, the sentence was reversed and he was set
   free. … The enthusiasm shown at his release was frantic and
   delirious. None the less those months in Richmond prison
   proved the death-knell of his power. He was an old man by this
   time; he was already weakened in health, and that buoyancy
   which had hitherto carried him over any and every obstacle
   never again revived. The 'Young Ireland' party, the members of
   which had in the first instance been his allies and
   lieutenants, had now formed a distinct section, and upon the
   vital question of resistance were in fierce hostility to all
   his most cherished principles. The state of the country, too,
   preyed visibly upon his mind. By 1846 had begun that
   succession of disastrous seasons which, by destroying the
   feeble barrier which stood between the peasant and a cruel
   death, brought about a national tragedy, the most terrible
   perhaps with which modern Europe has been confronted. This
   tragedy, though he did not live to see the whole of it,
   O'Connell—himself the incarnation of the people—felt
   acutely.
{1788}
   Deep despondency took hold of him. He retired, to a great
   degree, from public life, leaving the conduct of his
   organization in the hands of others. … In 1847 he resolved
   to leave Ireland, and to end his days in Rome. His last public
   appearance was in the House of Commons, where an attentive and
   deeply respectful audience hung upon the faltering and barely
   articulate accents which fell from his lips. In a few deeply
   moving words he appealed for aid and sympathy for his
   suffering countrymen, and left the House. … The camp and
   council chamber of the 'Young Ireland' party was the editor's
   room of 'The Nation' newspaper. There it found its
   inspiration, and there its plans were matured—so far, that
   is, as they can be said to have been ever matured. For an
   eminently readable and all things considered a wonderfully
   impartial account of this movement, the reader cannot do
   better than consult Sir Charles Gavan Duffy's 'Four Years of
   Irish History,' which has the immense advantage of being
   history taken at first hand, written that is by one who
   himself took a prominent part in the scenes which he
   describes. The most interesting figure in the party had,
   however, died before those memorable four years began. Thomas
   Davis, who was only thirty at the time of his death in 1845,
   was a man of large gifts, nay, might fairly be called a man of
   genius. … The whole movement in fact was, in the first
   instance; a literary quite as much as a political one. Nearly
   all who took part in it Gavan Duffy, John Mitchell, Meagher,
   Dillon, Davis himself—were very young men, many fresh from
   college, all filled with zeal for the cause of liberty and
   nationality. The graver side of the movement only showed
   itself when the struggle with O'Connell began. At first no
   idea of deposing, or even seriously opposing the great leader
   seems to have been intended. The attempt on O'Connell's part
   to carry a formal declaration against the employment under any
   circumstances of physical force was, the origin of that
   division, and what the younger spirits considered 'truckling
   to the Whigs' helped to widen the breach. When, too, O'Connell
   had partially retired into the background, his place was
   filled by his son, John O'Connell, the 'Head conciliator,'
   between whom and the 'Young Irelanders' there waged a fierce
   war, which in the end led to the indignant withdrawal of the
   latter from the Repeal council. Before matters reached this
   point, the younger camp had been strengthened by the adhesion
   of Smith O'Brien, who, though not a man of much intellectual
   calibre, carried no little weight in Ireland. … Early in
   January, 1847, O'Connell left on that journey of his which was
   never completed, and by the middle of May Ireland was suddenly
   startled by the news that her great leader was dead. The
   effect of his death was to produce a sudden and immense
   reaction. A vast revulsion of love and reverence sprang up all
   over the country; an immense sense of his incomparable
   services, and with it a vehement anger against all who had
   opposed him. Upon the 'Young Ireland' party, as was
   inevitable, the weight of that anger fell chiefly, and from
   the moment of O'Connell's death whatever claim they had to
   call themselves a national party vanished utterly. The men
   'who killed the Liberator' could never again hope to carry
   with them the suffrages of any number of their countrymen.
   This contumely, to a great degree undeserved, naturally
   reacted upon the subjects of it. The taunt of treachery and
   ingratitude flung at them wherever they went stung and
   nettled. In the general reaction of gratitude and affection
   for O'Connell, his son John succeeded easily to the position
   of leader. The older members of the Repeal Association
   thereupon rallied about him, and the split between them and
   the younger men grew deeper and wider. A wild, impracticable
   visionary now came to play a part in the movement. A deformed
   misanthrope, called James Lalor, endowed with a considerable
   command of vague, passionate rhetoric, began to write
   incentives to revolt in 'The Nation.' These growing more and
   more violent were by the editor at length prudently
   suppressed. The seed, however, had already sown itself in
   another mind. John Mitchell is described by Mr. Justin
   McCarthy as 'the one formidable man amongst the rebels of '48;
   the one man who distinctly knew what he wanted, and was
   prepared to run any risk to get it.' … To him it was
   intolerable that any human being should be willing to go
   further and to dare more in the cause of Ireland than himself,
   and the result was that after awhile he broke away from his
   connection with The Nation,' and started a new organ under
   the name of 'The United Irishmen,' one definitely pledged from
   the first to the policy of action. From this point matters
   gathered speedily to a head. Mitchell's newspaper proceeded to
   fling out challenge after challenge to the Government, calling
   upon the people to gather and to 'sweep-this island clear of
   the English name and nation.' For some months these challenges
   remained unanswered. It was now, however, '48,' and nearly all
   Europe was in revolution. The necessity of taking some step
   began to be evident, and a Bill making all written incitement
   of insurrection felony was hurried through the House of
   Commons, and almost immediately after Mitchell was arrested.
   Even then he seems to have believed that the country would
   rise to liberate him. The country, however, showed no
   disposition to do anything of the sort. He was tried in
   Dublin, found guilty, sentenced to fourteen years'
   transportation, and a few days afterwards put on board a
   vessel in the harbour and conveyed to Spike Island, whence he
   was sent to Bermuda, and the following April in a convict
   vessel to the Cape, and finally to Tasmania. The other 'Young
   Irelanders,' stung apparently by their own previous inaction,
   thereupon rushed frantically into rebellion. The
   leaders—Smith O'Brien, Meagher, Dillon, and others—went
   about the country holding reviews of 'Confederates,' as they
   now called themselves, a proceeding which caused the
   Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to issue a
   warrant for their arrest. A few more gatherings took place in
   different parts of the country, a few more ineffectual
   attempts were made to induce the people to rise, one very
   small collision with the police occurred, and then the whole
   thing was over. All the leaders in the course of a few days
   were arrested and Smith O'Brien and Meagher were sentenced to
   death, a sentence which was speedily changed into
   transportation. Gavan Duffy was arrested and several times
   tried, but the jury always disagreed, and in the end his
   prosecution was abandoned. The 'Young Ireland' movement,
   however, was dead, and never again revived."

      _E. Lawless,
      The Story of Ireland,
      chapters 55-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Young Ireland._

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Four Years of Irish History, 1845-1849._

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Thomas Davis: Memoirs of an Irish Patriot, 1840-1846._

{1789}

IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.
   The Devon Commission.
   The Encumbered Estates Act.

   In 1843, Mr. Sharman Crawford "succeeded in obtaining the
   appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the
   'occupation of land in Ireland.' This Commission, known from
   its chairman, Lord Devon, as the Devon Commission, marks a
   great epoch in the Irish land question. The Commissioners, in
   their Report, brought out strongly the facts that great misery
   existed in Ireland, and that the cause of the misery was the
   system of land tenure. The following extract from the Report
   indicates the general nature of its conclusions: 'A reference
   to the evidence of most of the witnesses will show that the
   agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to suffer the
   greatest privations and hardships; that he continues to depend
   upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence; that he
   is badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for
   his labour. Our personal experience and observations during
   our enquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of
   these statements, and we cannot forbear expressing our strong
   sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes
   have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe,
   than the people of any other country in Europe have to
   sustain.' And the remedy for the evil is to be found,
   continues the Report, in 'an increased and improved
   cultivation of the soil,' to be gained by securing for the
   tenant' fair remuneration for the outlay of his capital and
   labour.' No sooner was this Report issued than great numbers
   of petitions were presented to the House of Lords, and
   supported by Lord Devon, praying for legislative reform of the
   land evils; and in June, 1845, a bill was introduced into the
   House of Lords by Lord Stanley, on behalf of the government of
   Sir Robert Peel, for 'the purpose of providing compensation to
   tenants in Ireland, in certain cases, on being dispossessed of
   their holdings, for such improvements as they may have made
   during their tenancy.' By the selfish opposition of the Irish
   landlords this bill was thrown out. Two days after its
   rejection in the House of Lords Mr. Sharman Crawford brought
   into the House of Commons a Tenant Right Bill, and met with as
   little success. In 1846 a government bill was introduced,
   bearing a strong resemblance to that of Lord Stanley; but the
   ministry was overthrown, and the bill was dropped. A Liberal
   ministry under Lord John Russell came into power in July,
   1846, and Irish hopes again began to rise. In 1847 the
   indefatigable Mr. Crawford brought in a bill, whose purpose
   was to extend the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland; it
   was thrown out. A well-meant but in the end unsuccessful
   attempt to relieve the burdens of embarrassed landlords
   without redressing the grievances of rack-rented tenants, was
   made in 1848 by the measure well known as the Encumbered
   Estates Act. This Act had for its object to restore capital to
   the land; but with capital it brought in a class of
   proprietors who lacked the virtues as well as the vices of
   their predecessors, and were even more oppressive to the
   tenantry."

      _E. Thursfield,
      England and Ireland,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. L. Jephson,
      Notes on Irish Questions,
      chapter 15._

      _D. B. King,
      The Irish Question,
      chapter 9._

IRELAND: A. D. 1844.
   The Maynooth Grant.

   Towards the close of the session of Parliament in 1844, Sir
   Robert Peel undertook a measure "dealing with higher education
   in Ireland. Means were to be found, in some way, for the
   education of the upper classes of the Irish, and for the more
   efficient education of candidates for the Roman Catholic
   priesthood. Some provision already existed for the education
   of the Irish people. Trinity College, with its considerable
   endowments, afforded opportunities to wealthy Irish. The
   National Board, which Stanley had instituted, had under its
   control 3,153 schools, and 395,000 scholars. But Trinity
   College retained most of its advantages for the benefit of its
   Protestant students, and the 395,000 scholars, whom the
   National Board was educating, did not, after all, include one
   person in every twenty alive in Ireland. The Roman Catholic,
   since 1793, had been allowed to graduate at Trinity; but he
   could hold neither scholarship nor professorship. … Some
   steps had, indeed, been taken for the education of the Roman
   Catholic priesthood. In 1795, Fitzwilliam had proposed, and
   his successor, Camden, had approved, the appropriation of an
   annual sum of money to a college formed at Maynooth for the
   education of Roman Catholic priests. The Irish parliament had
   readily sanctioned the scheme; the payment of the grant had
   been continued, after the Union, by the Parliament of the
   United Kingdom, and, though the sums voted had been reduced to
   £9,000 a year in 1808, this amount had been thenceforward
   regularly allotted to Maynooth. In some respects the grant was
   actually disadvantageous to the college; it was too small to
   maintain the institution; it was large enough to discourage
   voluntary contributions. The surroundings of the college were
   squalid; its professors were wretchedly paid; it was even
   impossible to assign to each of the 440 students a separate
   room; it was dubbed by Macaulay, in a memorable speech, a
   'miserable Dotheboys' Hall,' and it was Peel's deliberate
   opinion that the absolute withdrawal of the grant would be
   better than the continuance of the niggardly allowance." The
   Government "asked Parliament to vote a sum of £30,000 to
   improve the buildings at Maynooth; it proposed that the Board
   of Works should in future be responsible for keeping them in
   repair; it suggested that the salaries of professors should be
   more than doubled; that the position of the students should be
   improved; that the annual grant should be raised from about
   £9,000 to about £26,000, and that this sum, instead of being
   subject to the approval of the legislature once a year, should
   be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Then arose a series of
   debates which have no parallel in the history of the British
   Parliament. … 'The Orangeman raises his howl,' said
   Macaulay, 'and Exeter Hall sets up its bray, and Mr. MacNeile
   is horrified to think that a still larger grant is intended
   for the priests of Baal at the table of Jezebel, and the
   Protestant operatives of Dublin call for the impeachment of
   Ministers in exceedingly bad English.'
{1790}
   A few years later a man, who was both a Christian and a
   gentleman, declared the Irish famine to be a dispensation of
   Providence in return for the Maynooth grant. … Night after
   night it rained petitions; 298 petitions against the bill were
   presented on the 3rd of April, when Peel explained his scheme;
   148 on the 8th; 254 on the 9th; 552 on the 10th; 2,262 on the
   11th, when the bill was put down for a second reading; 662 on
   the 14th; 581 on the 15th; 420 on the 16th; 335 on the 17th;
   371 on the 18th. The petitions hardly allowed a doubt to
   remain as to the opinion of the country. Peel, indeed, was
   again exposed to the full force of the strongest power which
   any British Minister can encounter. The Mussulman, driven to
   his last defence, raises the standard of the Prophet, and
   proclaims a holy war. But the Englishman, if Protestantism be
   in danger, shouts, 'No Popery!' and creates equal enthusiasm.
   … Yet, vast as was the storm which the Minister had
   provoked, the issues which he had directly raised were of the
   smallest proportions. Hardly anyone ventured to propose that
   the original vote to Maynooth should be withdrawn. A grant,
   indeed, which had been sanctioned by George III., which had
   been fixed by Perceval, which had been voted in an unreformed
   Parliament, almost without debate, and which had been
   continued for fifty years, could not be withdrawn. Peel's
   opponents, therefore, were compelled to argue that there was
   no harm in sacrificing £9,000 a year to Baal, but that a
   sacrifice of £26,000 was full of harm. … They debated the
   second reading of the bill for six nights, the third reading
   for three nights, and they seized other opportunities for
   protracting the discussion. Even the Lords forgot their
   customary habits and sat up till a late hour on three
   successive evenings to discuss an amendment for inquiring into
   the class of books used at Maynooth. But this unusual display
   of zeal proved useless. A majority in both Houses steadily
   supported the Minister, and zealous Protestants and
   old-fashioned Tories were unable to defeat a scheme which was
   proposed by Peel and supported by Russell."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 19 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN;
      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 6, chapter 8._

IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.
   The Famine.

   "In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,175,124 souls. By
   1845 it had probably reached to nearly nine millions. … To
   anyone looking beneath the surface the condition of the
   country was painfully precarious. Nine millions of a
   population living at best in a light-hearted and hopeful
   hand-to-mouth contentment, totally dependent on the hazards of
   one crop, destitute of manufacturing industries, and utterly
   without reserve or resource to fall back upon in time of
   reverse; what did all this mean but a state of things critical
   and alarming in the extreme? Yet no one seemed conscious of
   danger. The potato crop had been abundant for four or five
   years, and respite from dearth and distress was comparative
   happiness and prosperity. Moreover, the temperance movement
   [of Father Mathew] had come to make the 'good times' still
   better. Everything looked bright. No one concerned himself to
   discover how slender and treacherous was the foundation for
   this general hopefulness and confidence. Yet signs of the
   coming storm had been given. Partial famine caused by failing
   harvests had indeed been intermittent in Ireland, and, quite
   recently, warnings that ought not to have been mistaken or
   neglected had given notice that the esculent which formed the
   sole dependence of the peasant millions was subject to some
   mysterious blight. In 1844 it was stricken in America, but in
   Ireland the yield was healthy and plentiful as ever. The
   harvest of 1845 promised to be the richest gathered for many
   years. Suddenly, in one short month, in one week it might be
   said, the withering breath of a simoom seemed to sweep the
   land, blasting all in its path. I myself saw whole tracts of
   potato growth changed in one night from smiling luxuriance to
   a shrivelled and blackened waste. A shout of alarm arose. But
   the buoyant nature of the Celtic peasant did not yet give way.
   The crop was so profuse that it was expected the healthy
   portion would reach an average result. Winter revealed the
   alarming fact that the tubers had rotted in pit and
   store-house. Nevertheless the farmers, like hapless men who
   double their stakes to recover losses, made only the more
   strenuous exertions to till a larger breadth in 1846. Although
   already feeling the pinch of sore distress, if not actual
   famine, they worked as if for dear life; they begged and
   borrowed on any terms the means whereby to crop the land once
   more. The pawn-offices were choked with the humble finery that
   had shone at the village dance or the christening feast; the
   banks and local money-lenders were besieged with appeals for
   credit. Meals were stinted, backs were bared. Anything,
   anything to tide over the interval to the harvest of
   'Forty-six.' O God, it is a dreadful thought that all this
   effort was but more surely leading them to ruin! It was this
   harvest of Forty-six that sealed their doom. Not partially but
   completely, utterly, hopelessly, it perished. As in the
   previous year, all promised brightly up to the close of July.
   Then, suddenly, in a night, whole areas were blighted; and
   this time, alas! no portion of the crop escaped. A cry of
   agony and despair went up all over the land. The last
   desperate stake for life had been played, and all was lost.
   The doomed people realised but too well what was before them.
   Last year's premonitory sufferings had exhausted them, and
   now?—they must die! My native district figures largely in the
   gloomy record of that dreadful time. I saw the horrible
   phantasmagoria—would God it were but that!—pass before my
   eyes. Blank stolid dismay, a sort of stupor, fell upon the
   people, contrasting remarkably with the fierce energy put
   forth a year before. It was no uncommon sight to see the
   cottier and his little family seated on the garden fence
   gazing all day long in moody silence at the blighted plot that
   had been their last hope. Nothing could arouse them. You
   spoke; they answered not. You tried to cheer them; they shook
   their heads. I never saw so sudden and so terrible a
   transformation. When first in the autumn of 1845 the partial
   blight appeared, wise voices were raised in warning to the
   Government that a frightful catastrophe was at hand; yet even
   then began that fatal circumlocution and inaptness which it
   maddens one to think of. It would be utter injustice to deny
   that the Government made exertions which judged by ordinary
   emergencies would be prompt and considerable.
{1791}
   But judged by the awful magnitude of the evil then at hand or
   actually befallen, they were fatally tardy and inadequate.
   When at length the executive did hurry, the blunders of
   precipitancy outdid the disasters of excessive deliberation.
   … In October 1845 the Irish Mansion House Relief Committee
   implored the Government to call Parliament together and throw
   open the ports. The Government refused. Again and again the
   terrible urgency of the case, the magnitude of the disaster at
   hand, was pressed on the executive. It was the obstinate
   refusal of Lord John Russell to listen to these remonstrances
   and entreaties, and the sad verification subsequently of these
   apprehensions, that implanted in the Irish mind the bitter
   memories which still occasionally find vent in passionate
   accusation of 'England.' Not but the Government had many and
   weighty arguments in behalf of the course they took. … The
   situation bristled with difficulties. … At first the
   establishment of public soup-kitchens under local relief
   committees, subsidised by Government, was relied upon to
   arrest the famine. I doubt if the world ever saw so huge a
   demoralisation, so great a degradation, visited upon a once
   high-spirited and sensitive people. All over the country large
   iron boilers were set up, in which what was called 'soup' was
   concocted; later on Indian-meal stirabout was boiled. Around
   these boilers on the roadside there daily moaned and shrieked
   and fought and scuffled crowds of gaunt, cadaverous creatures
   that once had been men and women made in the image of God. The
   feeding of dogs in a kennel was far more decent and orderly.
   … I frequently stood and watched the scene till tears
   blinded me and I almost choked with grief and passion. … The
   conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period
   has been variously described, and has been, I believe,
   generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them
   too sweeping. … On many of them no blame too heavy could
   possibly fall. A large number were permanent absentees; their
   ranks were swelled by several who early fled the post of duty
   at home—cowardly and selfish deserters of a brave and
   faithful people. Of those who remained, some may have grown
   callous; it is impossible to contest authentic instances of
   brutal heartlessness here and there. But … the overwhelming
   balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish
   landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. … In
   the autumn of 1846 relief works were set on foot, the
   Government having received parliamentary authority to grant
   baronial loans for such undertakings. There might have been
   found many ways of applying these funds in reproductive
   employment, but the modes decided on were draining and
   road-making. … The result was in every sense deplorable
   failure. The wretched people were by this time too wasted and
   emaciated to work. The endeavour to do so under an inclement
   winter sky only hastened death. They tottered at day-break to
   the roll-call; vainly tried to wheel the barrow or ply the
   pick, but fainted away on the 'cutting,' or lay down on the
   wayside to rise no more. As for the roads on which so much
   money was wasted, and on which so many lives were sacrificed,
   hardly any of them were finished. Miles of grass-grown earth
   works throughout the country now mark their course and
   commemorate for posterity one of the gigantic blunders of the
   famine time. The first remarkable sign of the havoc which
   death was making was the decline, and disappearance of
   funerals. … Soon, alas! neither coffin nor shroud could be
   supplied. Daily in the street and on the footway some poor
   creature lay down as if to sleep, and presently was stiff and
   stark. In our district it was a common occurrence to find, on
   opening the front door in early morning, leaning against it,
   the corpse of some victim who in the night-time had 'rested'
   in its shelter. We raised a public subscription, and employed
   two men with horse and cart to go around each day and gather
   up the dead. One by one they were taken to a great pit at
   Ardnabrahair Abbey and dropped through the hinged bottom of a
   'trap-coffin' into a common grave below. In the remoter rural
   districts even this rude sepulture was impossible. In the
   field and by the ditchside the victims lay as they fell, till
   some charitable hand was found to cover them with the adjacent
   soil. It was the fever which supervened on the famine that
   wrought the greatest slaughter and spread the greatest terror.
   … To come within the reach of this contagion was certain
   death. Whole families perished unvisited and unassisted. By
   levelling above their corpses the sheeling in which they died,
   the neighbours gave them a grave."

      _A. M. Sullivan,
      New Ireland,
      chapter 6._

   "In July 1847 as many as three millions of persons were
   actually receiving separate rations. A loan of £8,000,000 was
   contracted by the Government, expressly to supply such wants,
   and every step was taken by two successive administrations,
   Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's, to alleviate the
   sufferings of the people. Nor was private benevolence lacking.
   The Society of Friends, always ready in acts of charity and
   love, was foremost in the good work. A British Association was
   formed for the relief of Ireland, including Jones Lloyd (Lord
   Overstone), Thomas Baring, and Baron Rothschild. A Queen's
   letter was issued. … Subscriptions were received from almost
   every quarter of the world. The Queen's letter alone produced
   £171,533. The British Association collected £263,000; the
   Society of Friends £43,000; and £168,000 more were entrusted
   to the Dublin Society of Friends. The Sultan of Turkey sent
   £1,000. The Queen gave £2,000, and £500 more to the British
   Ladies' Clothing Fund. Prince Albert gave £500. The National
   Club collected £17,930. America sent two ships of war, the
   'Jamestown' and the 'Macedonian,' full of provisions; and the
   Irish residents in the United States sent upwards of £200,000
   to their relatives, to allow them to emigrate."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      part 4, chapter 4._

   "By the end of 1847 cheap supplies of food began to be brought
   into the country by the ordinary operation of the laws of
   supply and demand, at far cheaper rates, owing to an abundant
   harvest abroad, than if the Government had tried to constitute
   itself the sole distributor. The potato harvest of 1847, if
   not bountiful, was at least comparatively good. … By March,
   1848, the third and last period of the famine may be said to
   have terminated. But, though the direct period of distress was
   over, the economic problems which remained for solution were
   of overwhelming magnitude. … A million and a half of the
   people had disappeared. The land was devastated with fever and
   the diseases which dog the steps of famine. … The waters of the
   great deep were indeed going down, but the land was seen to be
   without form and void."

      _Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 4, chapter 4._

{1792}

   "The famine and plague of 1846-47 was accompanied, and
   succeeded, by a wholesale clearance of congested districts and
   by cruel evictions. The new landlords [who had acquired
   property under the Encumbered Estates Act], bent on
   consolidating their property, turned out their tenants by
   regiments, and in the autumn of 1847 enormous numbers were
   deported. It is absolutely necessary to bear this strictly in
   mind, if we would judge of the intense hatred which prevails
   amongst the Irish in America to Great Britain. The children of
   many of those who were exiled then have raised themselves to
   positions of affluence and prosperity in the United States.
   But they have often heard from their fathers, and some of them
   may perhaps recall, the circumstances under which they were
   driven from their old homes in Ireland. … But there is a
   further and awful memory connected with that time. The people
   who had been suffering from fever carried the plague with them
   on board, and the vessels sometimes became floating
   charnel-houses. During the year 1847, out of 106,000 emigrants
   who crossed the Atlantic for Canada and New Brunswick, 6,100
   perished on the ocean, 4,100 immediately on landing, 5,200
   subsequently in the hospitals, and 1,900 in the towns to which
   they repaired. … Undoubtedly, historical circumstances have
   … had much to do with the political hatred to Great Britain;
   but its newly acquired intensity is owing to the still fresh
   remembrances of what took place after the famine, and to the
   fact that the wholesale clearances of Irish estates were, to
   say the least, not discouraged in the writings and speeches of
   English lawgivers, economists and statesmen."

      _Sir R. Blennerhassett,
      Ireland ("Reign of Queen Victoria,"
      edited by T. H. Ward,
      volume 1, pages 563-565)._

   "The deaths from fever in the year 1846 were 17,145, in the
   following year 57,000, to which 27,000 by dysentery must be
   added."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, page 164._

   "Between the years 1847 and 1851 (both inclusive) the almost
   incredible number of over one million Irish—men, women, and
   children—were conveyed in emigrant ships to America—a
   whole population. In 1847, 215,444 emigrated; in 1849,
   218,842, and in 1851, 249,721."

      _H. L. Jephson,
      Notes on Irish Questions,
      page 298._

   "The population of Ireland by March 30, 1851, at the same
   ratio of increase as held in England and Wales, would have
   been 9,018,799—it was 6,552,385. It was the calculation of
   the Census Commissioners that the deficit, independently of
   the emigration, represented by the mortality in the five
   famine years, was 985,366."

      _T. P. O'Connor,
      The Parnell Movement,
      page 125._

IRELAND: A. D. 1846.
   Defeat of Peel's Coercion Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.

IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.
   Tenant organizations.
   The Ulster Tenant Right.
   The Tenant League.

   "The famine … and the evictions that followed it made the
   people more discontented than ever with the land system. The
   Democratic Association, organized about this time, adopted as
   its rallying cry, 'the land for the people.' … This
   association, whose aims are said to have been 'largely
   communistic and revolutionary,' opposed the Irish Alliance,
   the Nationalist Society organized by Charles Gavan Duffy. …
   During the years '49 and '50 numerous Tenant Protection
   Societies were formed throughout the country, the
   Presbyterians of Ulster taking quite as active a part as the
   Celtic Catholics of the other provinces. In May, 1850, the
   Presbyterian Synod of Ulster … resolved, against the
   protest, it is true, of the more conservative men, to petition
   Parliament to extend to the rest of Ireland the benefits of
   rights and securities similar to those of the Ulster custom.
   … The Ulster tenant right … has occupied an important
   place in the Irish land question for a long time. … The
   right differs much on different estates. On no two does it
   seem to be precisely the same. It is therefore not a right
   capable of being strictly defined. Nor did it have any legal
   sanction until the year 1870. The law did not recognize it.
   One of its chief incidents was that the tenant was entitled to
   live on his farm from year to year indefinitely on condition
   of acting properly, and paying his rent, which the landlord
   might raise from time to time to a reasonable extent, but not
   so as to extinguish the tenant's interest. In the second
   place, if the tenant got in debt, and could not pay the rent,
   or wished for any other reason to leave the holding, he could
   sell his interest, but the landlord had a right to be
   consulted, and could object to the purchaser. In the third
   place, the landlord, if he wanted to take the land for his own
   purposes, must pay the tenant a fair sum for his tenant-right.
   In the fourth place, all arrears of rent must be paid before
   the interest was transferred. These are said to be universal
   characteristics of every Ulster tenant-right custom. There
   were often additional restrictions or provisions, usually in
   limitation of the tenant's right to sell, or of the landlord's
   right to raise the rent, veto the sale of land, or take it for
   his own use. There were commonly established usages in
   reference to fixing a fair rent. Valuators were generally
   employed, and on their estimates, and not on competition in
   open market, the rent was fixed. … The Irish Tenant League
   was organized August 6, 1850, in Dublin. Among the resolutions
   adopted was one, calling for 'a fair valuation of rent between
   landlord and tenant in Ireland,' and another, 'that the tenant
   should not be disturbed in his holding as long as he paid his
   rent.' The question of arrears received a great deal of
   attention. The great majority of the tenants of Ireland were
   in arrears, owing to the successive failures of the crops, and
   were of course liable to eviction. … The Tenant League was a
   very popular one and spread throughout the country. There was
   much agitation, and in the general election in 1852, when the
   excitement was at its height, fifty-eight Tenant Leaguers were
   elected to Parliament. The Tenant League members resolved to
   hold themselves 'independent of and in opposition to all
   governments which do not make it a part of their policy' to
   give the tenants a measure of relief such as the League
   desired. It looked as though the party would hold the balance
   of power and be able to secure its objects. When however
   Sadlier and Keogh, two of the most prominent men in the party
   and men of great influence, accepted positions in the new
   government, 'bribed by office,' it has always been charged by
   the Irish, 'to betray the cause to which they had been most
   solemnly pledged,' the party was broken up without
   accomplishing its purpose."

      _D. B. King,
      The Irish Question,
      chapters 5 and 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      League of the North and South._

      _A. M. Sullivan,
      New Ireland,
      chapter 13._

      _J. Godkin,
      The Land War in Ireland,
      chapter 17._

{1793}

IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.
   The Fenian Movement.

   "The Fenian movement differed from nearly all previous
   movements of the same kind in Ireland, in the fact that it
   arose and grew into strength without the patronage or the help
   of any of those who might be called the natural leaders of the
   people. … Its leaders were not men of high position, or
   distinguished name, or proved ability. They were not of
   aristocratic birth; they were not orators; they were not
   powerful writers. It was not the impulse of the American Civil
   War that engendered Fenianism; although that war had great
   influence on the manner in which Fenianism shaped its course.
   Fenianism had been in existence, in fact, although it had not
   got its peculiar name, long before the American War created a
   new race of Irishmen—the Irish-American soldiers—to turn
   their energies and their military inclination to a new
   purpose. … The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in
   consequence of the 1848 movement, led, as a matter of course,
   to secret association. Before the trials of the Irish leaders
   were well over in that year, a secret association was formed
   by a large number of young Irishmen in cities and towns. …
   After two or three attempts to arrange for a simultaneous
   rising had failed, or had ended only in little abortive and
   isolated ebullitions, the young men became discouraged. Some
   of the leaders went to France, some to the United States, some
   actually to England; and the association melted away. … Some
   years after this, the 'Phœnix' clubs began to be formed in
   Ireland. They were for the most part associations of the
   peasant class, and were on that account, perhaps, the more
   formidable and earnest. … The Phœnix clubs led to some of
   the ordinary prosecutions and convictions; and that was all.
   … After the Phœnix associations came the Fenians. 'This is a
   serious business now,' said a clever English literary man when
   he heard of the Fenian organisation; 'the Irish have got hold
   of a good name this time; the Fenians will last.' The Fenians
   are said to have been the ancient Irish militia. … There was
   an air of Celtic antiquity and of mystery about the name of
   Fenian which merited the artistic approval given to it by the
   impartial English writer whose observation has just been
   quoted. The Fenian agitation began about 1858, and it came to
   perfection about the middle of the American Civil War. It was
   ingeniously arranged on a system by which all authority
   converged towards one centre [called the Head-Centre], and
   those farthest away from the seat of direction knew
   proportionately less and less about the nature of the plans.
   They had to obey instructions only, and it was hoped that by
   this means weak or doubtful men would not have it in their
   power prematurely to reveal, to betray, or to thwart the
   purposes of their leaders. A convention was held in America,
   and the Fenian Association was resolved into a regular
   organised institution. A provisional government was
   established in the neighbourhood of Union Square, New York,
   with all the array and the mechanism of an actual working
   administration. … The Civil War had introduced a new figure
   to the world's stage. This was the Irish-American soldier. …
   Many of these men—thousands of them—were as sincerely
   patriotic in their way as they were simple and brave. It is
   needless to say that they were fastened on in some instances
   by adventurers, who fomented the Fenian movement out of the
   merest and the meanest self-seeking. … Some were making a
   living out of the organisation—out of that, and apparently
   nothing else. The contributions given by poor Irish
   hack-drivers and servant girls, in the sincere belief that
   they were helping to man the ranks of an Irish army of
   independence, enabled some of these self-appointed leaders to
   wear fine clothes and to order expensive dinners. … But in
   the main it is only fair to say that the Fenian movement in
   the United States was got up, organised and manned by persons
   who … were single-hearted, unselfish, and faithfully devoted
   to their cause. … After a while things went so far that the
   Fenian leaders in the United States issued an address,
   announcing that their officers were going to Ireland to raise
   an army there for the recovery of the country's independence.
   Of course the Government here were soon quite prepared to
   receive them; and indeed the authorities easily managed to
   keep themselves informed by means of spies of all that was
   going on in Ireland. … Meanwhile the Head Centre of
   Fenianism in America, James Stephens, who had borne a part in
   the movement of 1848, arrived in Ireland. He was arrested …
   [and] committed to Richmond Prison, Dublin, early in November,
   1865; but before many days had passed the country was startled
   by the news that he had contrived to make his escape. The
   escape was planned with skill and daring. For a time it helped
   to strengthen the impression on the mind of the Irish
   peasantry that in Stephens there had at last been found an
   insurgent leader of adequate courage, craft, and good fortune.
   Stephens disappeared for a moment from the stage. In the
   meantime disputes and dissensions had arisen among the Fenians
   in America. The schism had gone so far as to lead to the
   setting up of two separate associations. There were of course
   distracted plans. One party was for an invasion of Canada;
   another pressed for operations in Ireland itself. The Canadian
   attempt actually was made. …

      See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

   Then Stephens came to the front again. It was only for a
   moment. He had returned to New York, and he now announced that
   he was determined to strike a blow in Ireland. Before long the
   impression was spread abroad that he had actually left the
   States to return to the scene of his proposed insurrection.
   The American-Irish kept streaming across the Atlantic, even in
   the stormy winter months, in the firm belief that before the
   winter had passed away, or at the farthest while the spring
   was yet young, Stephens would appear in Ireland at the head of
   an insurgent army. … Stephens did not reappear in Ireland.
   He made no attempt to keep his warlike promise. He may be said
   to have disappeared from the history of Fenianism. But the
   preparations had gone too far to be suddenly stopped. … It
   was hastily decided that something should be done. One venture
   was a scheme for the capture of Chester Castle [and the arms
   it contained]. … The Government were fully informed of the
   plot in advance; the police were actually on the look-out for
   the arrival of strangers in Chester, and the enterprise melted
   away.
{1794}
   In March, 1867, an attempt at a general rising was made in
   Ireland. It was a total failure; the one thing on which the
   country had to be congratulated was that it failed so
   completely and so quickly as to cause little bloodshed. Every
   influence combined to minimise the waste of life. The snow
   fell that spring as it had scarcely ever fallen before in the
   soft, mild climate of Ireland. … It made the gorges of the
   mountains untenable, and the gorges of the mountains were to
   be the encampments and the retreats of the Fenian insurgents.
   The snow fell for many days and nights, and when it ceased
   falling the insurrectionary movement was over. The
   insurrection was literally buried in that unlooked-for snow.
   There were some attacks on police barracks in various places
   —in Cork, in Kerry, in Limerick, in Tipperary, in Louth;
   there were some conflicts with the police; there were some
   shots fired, many captures made, a few lives lost; and then
   for the time at least all was over. The Fenian attempt thus
   made had not from the beginning a shadow of hope to excuse
   it." Some months afterwards a daring rescue of Fenian
   prisoners at Manchester stirred up a fresh excitement in
   Fenian circles. A policeman was killed in the affair, and
   three of the rescuers were hanged for his murder. On the 13th
   of December, 1867, an attempt was made to blow up the
   Clerkenwell House of Detention, where two Fenian prisoners
   were confined. "Six persons were killed on the spot; about six
   more died from the effects of the injuries they received; some
   120 persons were wounded. … It is not necessary to follow
   out the steps of the Fenian movement any further. There were
   many isolated attempts; there were many arrests, trials,
   imprisonments, banishments. The effect of all this, it must be
   stated as a mere historical fact, was only to increase the
   intensity of dissatisfaction and discontent among the Irish
   peasantry. … There were some public men who saw that the
   time had come when mere repression must no longer be relied
   upon as a cure for Irish discontent."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 53 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. P. O'Connor,
      The Parnell Movement,
      chapters 7._

      _G. P. Macdonell,
      Fenianism,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 5, chapter 4._

IRELAND: A. D. 1868.
   Parliamentary Reform.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

IRELAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
   Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The land question and the recent land laws.

   "The reason for exceptional legislation in Ireland rested
   chiefly on the essential difference between the landlord and
   tenant systems in England and in Ireland. In 1845 the Devon
   Royal Commission reported that the introduction of the English
   system would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable. The
   difference, it said, between the English and Irish systems
   'consisted in this, that in Ireland the landlord builds
   neither dwelling-house nor farm offices, nor puts fences,
   gates, etc., into good order before he lets his land. In most
   cases, whatever is done in the way of building or fencing is
   done by the tenant; and, in the ordinary language of the
   country, houses, farm buildings, and even the making of fences
   are described by the general word "improvements," which is
   thus employed to denote the necessary adjuncts to a farm
   without which in England or Scotland no tenant would be found
   to rent it.' Thirty years later, John Bright summarized the
   matter by saying that if the land of Ireland were stripped of
   the improvements made upon it by the labor of the occupier,
   the face of the country would be 'as bare and naked as an
   American prairie.' This fundamental difference between the
   English and Irish land systems has never been fully
   appreciated in England, where the landlord's expenditure on
   buildings, fences, drainage, farm roads, etc., and on
   maintenance absorbs a large part of the rental. Reform of the
   Irish system began in 1870. Before that time little had been
   done to protect the Irish tenant except to forbid evictions at
   night, on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, and the pulling off
   the roofs of houses until the inmates had been removed. The
   Land Act of 1870 recognized, in principle, the tenant's
   property in his improvements by giving him a right to claim
   compensation if disturbed or evicted. This was not what the
   tenants wanted, viz., security of tenure. The results of
   compensation suits by 'disturbed' tenants were uncertain;
   compensation for improvements was limited in various ways, and
   the animus of the courts administering the act was distinctly
   hostile to the tenants. Many works necessary to the existence
   of tenants on small farms were not improvements in the eyes of
   the landlord, of the law, or of the judges; it was often
   impossible to adduce legal evidence of costly works done
   little by little, and at intervals, representing the savings
   of labor embodied in drainage, reclamation, or fencing.
   Buildings and other works of a superior character might be
   adjudged 'unsuitable' to small farms, and therefore not the
   subject of any compensation; moreover, it was expressly laid
   down that the use and enjoyment by the tenant of works
   effected wholly at his expense were to be accounted
   compensation to him by the landlord, and that, therefore, by
   lapse of time, the tenant's improvements became the landlord's
   property. The act of 1870 tended to make capricious and
   heartless evictions expensive and therefore less common; but
   it gave no security of tenure, and left the landlord still at
   liberty to raise the rent of improving tenants. It left the
   tenant still in a state of dependence and servility; it gave
   him no security for his expenditure, for the landlord's right
   to keep the rent continually rising was freely exercised. Even
   if the act had been liberally administered, it would have
   failed to give contentment, satisfy the demands of justice, or
   encourage the expenditure of capital by tenant farmers.
   Measure after measure proposed by Irish members for further
   reforms were rejected by Parliament between 1870 and 1880, and
   discontent continued to increase. … The Land Law Act of 1881
   was based on the Report in 1880 of the Bessborough Royal
   Commission, but many of the most useful suggestions made were
   disregarded. This act purported to give the Irish yearly
   tenants
   (1) the right to sell their tenancies and improvements;
   (2) the right to have a 'fair' rent fixed by the land courts
   at intervals of fifteen years;
   (3) security of tenure arising from this right to have the
   rent fixed by the court instead of by the landlord.

{1795}

   … No definition of what constituted a fair rent was embodied
   in the act, but what is known as the Healy clause provided that
   'no rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of
   improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors.' … When
   the Irish courts came to interpret it, they held that the term
   improvements' meant only that interest in his improvements for
   which the tenant might have obtained compensation under the
   Land Act of 1870 if he had been disturbed or evicted, and that
   the time during which the tenant had had the use and enjoyment
   of his own expenditure was still to be accounted compensation
   made to him by his landlord, so that by mere lapse of time the
   tenant's improvements became the landlord's property. … In
   view of the continually falling prices of agricultural produce
   and diminishing farm profits, the operation of the land laws
   has not brought about peace between landlords and tenants. …
   In 1887 the Cowper Commission reported that the 200,000 rents
   which had been fixed were too high in consequence of the
   continued fall in prices. As a result of the report of this
   commission the fair-rent provisions of the law were extended
   to leaseholders holding for less than sixty years; but the
   courts still adhering to their former methods of
   interpretation, numbers of leaseholders who had made and
   maintained all the buildings, improvements, and equipments of
   their farms found themselves either excluded on narrow and
   technical points, or expressly rented on their own
   expenditure. In 1891 the fair-rent provisions were further
   extended to leaseholders holding for more than sixty years by
   the Redemption of Rent Act, under which long leasehold tenants
   could compel their landlords either to sell to them, or allow
   a fair rent to be fixed on their farms. … Concurrently with
   these attempts to place the relations of landlord and tenant
   on a peaceful and equitable basis, a system of State loans to
   enable tenants to buy their farms has been in operation. …
   It is now proposed to have an inquiry by a select committee of
   the House of Commons into

   (1) the principles adopted in fixing fair rents, particularly
   with respect to tenants' improvements;
   (2) the system of purchase and security offered for the loans
   of public money;
   (3) the organization and administrative work of the Land
   Commission

   —a department which has cost the country about £100,000 a
   year since 1881. The popular demand for inquiry and reform
   comes as much from the Protestant North as from the Catholic
   South."

      _The Nation,
      February 15, 1894._

IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
   The Home Rule Movement.
   Organization of the Land League.

   "For some years after the failure of the Fenian insurrection
   there was no political agitation in Ireland; but in 1873 a new
   national movement began to make itself felt; this was the Home
   Rule Movement. It had been gradually formed since 1870 by one
   or two leading Irishmen, who thought the time was ripe for a
   new constitutional effort; chief among them was Mr. Isaac
   Butt, a Protestant, an eminent lawyer, and an earnest
   politician. The movement spread rapidly, and took a firm hold
   of the popular mind. After the General Election of 1874, some
   sixty Irish Members were returned who had stood before their
   constituencies as Home Rulers. The Home Rule demand is clear
   and simple enough; it asks for Ireland a separate Government,
   still allied with the Imperial Government, on the principles
   which regulate the alliance between the United States of
   America. The proposed Irish Parliament in College Green would
   bear just the same relation to the Parliament at Westminster
   that the Legislature and Senate of every American State bear
   to the head authority of the Congress in the Capitol at
   Washington. All that relates to local business it was proposed
   to delegate to the Irish Assembly; all questions of imperial
   policy were still to be left to the Imperial Government. There
   was nothing very startling, very daringly innovating, in the
   scheme. In most of the dependencies of Great Britain, Home
   Rule systems of some kind were already established. In Canada,
   in the Australasian Colonies, the principle might be seen at
   work upon a large scale; upon a small scale it was to be
   studied nearer home in the neighbouring Island of Man. … At
   first the Home Rule Party was not very active. Mr. Butt used
   to have a regular Home Rule debate once every Session, when he
   and his followers stated their views, and a division was taken
   and the Home Rulers were of course defeated. Yet, while the
   English House of Commons was thus steadily rejecting year
   after year the demand made for Home Rule by the large majority
   of the Irish Members, it was affording a strong argument in
   favour of some system of local Government, by consistently
   outvoting every proposition brought forward by the bulk of the
   Irish Members relating to Irish Questions. … Mr. Butt and
   his followers had proved the force of the desire for some sort
   of National Government in Ireland, but the strength of the
   movement they had created now called for stronger leaders. A
   new man was coming into Irish political life who was destined
   to be the most remarkable Irish leader since O'Connell. Mr.
   Charles Stuart Parnell, who entered the House of Commons in
   1875 as Member for Meath, was a descendant of the English poet
   Parnell, and of the two Parnells, father and son, John and
   Henry, who stood by Grattan to the last in the struggle
   against the Union. He was a grand-nephew of Sir Henry Parnell,
   the first Lord Congleton, the advanced Reformer and friend of,
   Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. He was Protestant, and a member
   of the Protestant Synod. Mr. Parnell set himself to form a
   party of Irishmen in the House of Commons who should be
   absolutely independent of any English political party, and who
   would go their own way with only the cause of Ireland to
   influence them. Mr. Parnell had all the qualities that go to
   make a good political leader, and he succeeded in his purpose.
   The more advanced men in and out of Parliament began to look
   up to him as the real representative of the popular voice. In
   1878 Mr. Butt died. … The leadership of the Irish
   Parliamentary Party was given to Mr. William Shaw, Member for
   Cork County, an able, intelligent man, who proved himself in
   many ways a good leader. In quieter times his authority might
   have remained unquestioned, but these were unquiet, times. The
   decorous and demure attitude of the early Home Rule Party was
   to be changed into a more aggressive action, and Mr. Parnell
   was the champion of the change. It was soon obvious that he
   was the real leader recognised by the majority of the Irish
   Home Rule Members, and by the country behind them. Mr. Parnell
   and his following have been bitterly denounced for pursuing an
   obstructive policy.
{1796}
   They are often written about as if they had invented
   obstruction; as if obstruction of the most audacious kind had
   never been practised in the House of Commons before Mr.
   Parnell entered it. It may perhaps be admitted that the Irish
   Members made more use of obstruction than had been done before
   their time. … The times undoubtedly were unquiet; the policy
   which was called in England obstructive and in Ireland active
   was obviously popular with the vast majority of the Irish
   people. The Land Question, too, was coming up again, and in a
   stronger form than ever. Mr. Butt, not very long before his
   death, had warned the House of Commons that the old land war
   was going to break out anew, and he was laughed at for his
   vivid fancy by the English Press and by English public
   opinion; but he proved a true prophet. Mr. Parnell had
   carefully studied the condition of the Irish tenant, and he
   saw that the Land Act of 1870 was not the last word of
   legislation on his behalf. Mr. Parnell was at first an ardent
   advocate of what came to be known as the Three F's, fair rent,
   fixity of tenure, and free sale. But the Three F's were soon
   to be put aside in favour of more advanced ideas. Outside
   Parliament a strenuous and earnest man was preparing to
   inaugurate the greatest land agitation ever seen in Ireland.
   Mr. Michael Davitt was the son of an evicted tenant. … When
   he grew to be a young man he joined the Fenians, and in 1870,
   on the evidence of an informer, he was arrested and sentenced
   to fifteen years' penal servitude; seven years later he was
   let out on ticket-of-leave. In his long imprisonment he had
   thought deeply upon the political and social condition of
   Ireland and the best means of improving it; when he came out
   he had abandoned his dreams of armed rebellion, and he went in
   for constitutional agitation to reform the Irish land system.
   The land system needed reforming; the condition of the tenant
   was only humanly endurable in years of good harvest. The three
   years from 1876 to 1879 were years of successive bad harvests.
   … Mr. Davitt had been in America, planning out a land
   organization, and had returned to Ireland to carry out his
   plan. Land meetings were held in many parts of Ireland, and in
   October Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Patrick Egan, and Mr.
   Thomas Brennan founded the Irish National Land League, the
   most powerful political organization that had been formed in
   Ireland since the Union. The objects of the Land League were
   the abolition of the existing landlord system and the
   introduction of peasant proprietorship."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Outline of Irish History,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. P. O'Connor,
      The Parnell Movement,
      chapters 8-10._

      _A. V. Dicey,
      England's Case against Home Rule._

      _G. Baden-Powell, editor,
      The Truth about Home Rule._

IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
   The breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

   "The new Irish party which followed the lead of Mr. Parnell
   has been often represented by the humourist as a sort of
   Falstaffian 'ragged regiment.' … From dint of repetition
   this has come to be almost an article of faith in some
   quarters. Yet it is curiously without foundation. A large
   proportion of Mr. Parnell's followers were journalists. …
   Those who were not journalists in the Irish party were
   generally what is called well-to-do. … At first there seemed
   no reason to expect any serious disunion between the Irish
   members and the Liberal' party. … The Irish vote in England
   had been given to the Liberal cause. The Liberal speakers and
   statesmen, without committing themselves to any definite line
   of policy, had manifested friendly sentiments towards Ireland;
   and though indeed nothing was said which could be construed
   into a recognition of the Home Rule claim, still the new
   Ministry was known to contain men favourable to that claim.
   The Irish members hoped for much from the new Government; and,
   on the other hand, the new Government expected to find cordial
   allies in all sections of the Irish party. The appointment of
   Mr. Forster to the Irish Secretaryship was regarded by many
   Irishmen, especially those allied to Mr. Shaw and his
   following, as a marked sign of the good intentions of the
   Government towards Ireland. … The Queen's Speech announced
   that the Peace Preservation Act would not be renewed. This was
   a very important announcement. Since the Union Ireland had
   hardly been governed by the ordinary law for a single year.
   … Now the Government was going to make the bold experiment
   of trying to rule Ireland without the assistance of coercive
   and exceptional law. The Queen's Speech, however, contained
   only one other reference to Ireland, in a promise that a
   measure would be introduced for the extension of the Irish
   borough franchise. This was in itself an important promise.
   … But extension of the borough franchise did not seem, to
   the Irish members in 1880 the most important form that
   legislation for Ireland could take just then. The country was
   greatly depressed by its recent suffering; the number of
   evictions was beginning to rise enormously. The Irish members
   thought that the Government should have made some promise to
   consider the land question, and above all should have done
   something to stay the alarming increase of evictions.
   Evictions had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 in
   1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on the increase,
   as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found that 2,110
   families were evicted. An amendment to the Address was at once
   brought forward by the Irish party, and debated at some
   length. The Irish party called for some immediate legislation
   on behalf of the land question. Mr. Forster replied, admitting
   the necessity for some legislation, but declaring that there
   would not be time for the introduction of any such measure
   that session. Then the Irish members asked for some temporary
   measure to prevent the evictions … ; but the Chief Secretary
   answered that while the law existed it was necessary to carry
   it out, and he could only appeal to both sides to be moderate.
   Matters slowly drifted on in this way for a short time. …
   Evictions steadily increased, and Mr. O'Connor Power brought
   in a Bill for the purpose of staying evictions. Then the
   Government, while refusing to accept the Irish measure,
   brought in a Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which adopted
   some of the Irish suggestions. … On Friday, June 25, the
   second reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. Forster, who
   denied that it was a concession to the anti-rent agitation,
   and strongly denounced the outrages which were taking place in
   Ireland. … This was the point at which difference between
   the Irish party and the Government first became marked.
{1797}
   The increase of evictions in Ireland, following as it did upon
   the widespread misery caused by the failure of the harvests
   and the partial famine, had generated—as famine and hunger
   have always generated—a certain amount of lawlessness.
   Evictions were occasionally resisted with violence; here and
   there outrages were committed upon bailiffs, process-servers,
   and agents. In different places, too, injuries had been
   inflicted upon the cattle and horses of landowners and land
   agents. … There is no need, there should be no attempt, to
   justify these crimes. But, while condemning all acts of
   violence, whether upon man or beast, it must be remembered
   that these acts were committed by ignorant peasants of the
   lowest class, maddened by hunger, want, and eviction, driven
   to despair by the sufferings of their wives and children,
   convinced of the utter hopelessness of redress, and longing
   for revenge. … The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was
   carried in the Commons after long debates in which the Irish
   party strove to make its principles stronger. … It was sent
   up to the Lords, where it was rejected on Tuesday, August 3,
   by a majority of 231. The Government answered the appeals of
   Irish members by refusing to take any steps to make the Lords
   retract their decision, or to introduce any similar measure
   that session. From that point the agitation and struggle of
   the past four years [1880-1884] may be said to date."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      England under Gladstone, 1880-1884,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Reid,
      Life of William Edward Forster,
      volume 2, chapter 6-7._

IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882.
   The Coercion Bill and the Land Act.
   Arrest of the Irish leaders.
   Suppression of the Land League.
   The alleged Kilmainham Treaty, and release of Mr. Parnell and
   others.

   Early in 1881, the Government armed itself with new powers for
   suppressing the increased lawlessness which showed itself in
   Ireland, and for resisting the systematic policy of
   intimidation which the Nationalists appeared to have planned,
   by the passage of a measure known as the Coercion Bill. This
   was followed, in April, by the introduction of a Land Bill,
   intended to redress the most conspicuous Irish grievance by
   establishing an authoritative tribunal for the determination
   of rents, and by aiding and facilitating the purchase of small
   holdings by the peasants. The Land Bill became law in August;
   but it failed to satisfy the demands of the Land League or to
   produce a more orderly state of feeling in Ireland. Severe
   proceedings were then decided upon by the Government. "The
   Prime Minister, during his visit to Leeds in the first week of
   October, had used language which could bear only one meaning.
   The question, he said, had come to be simply this, 'whether
   law or lawlessness must rule in Ireland;' the Irish people
   must not be deprived of the means of taking advantage of the
   Land Act by force or fear of force. He warned the party of
   disorder that 'the resources of civilisation were not yet
   exhausted.' A few days later Mr. Gladstone, speaking at the
   Guildhall, amid enthusiastic cheers, was able to announce that
   the long-delayed blow had fallen. Mr. Parnell was arrested in
   Dublin under the Coercion Act, and his arrest was followed by
   those of Mr. Sexton, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Kelly, and other
   prominent leaders of the agitation. The warnings of the
   Government had been met at first with derision and defiance,
   and the earlier arrests were furiously denounced; but the
   energy and persistence of the Government soon began to make an
   impression. … A Parthian shot was fired in the issue of a
   manifesto, purporting to be signed, not only by the 'suspects'
   in Kilmainham, but also by [Michael] Davitt, … in Portland
   Prison, which adjured the tenantry to pay no rent whatever
   until the Government had done penance for its tyranny and
   released the victims of British despotism. This open
   incitement to defiance of legal authority and repudiation of
   legal right was instantly met by the Irish Executive in a
   resolute spirit. On the 20th of October a proclamation was
   issued declaring the League to be 'an illegal and criminal
   association, intent on destroying the obligation of contracts
   and subverting law,' and announcing that its operations would
   thenceforward be forcibly suppressed, and those taking part in
   them held responsible."

      _Annual Summaries reprinted from The Times,
      volume 2, page 155._

   "In the month of April [1882] Mr. Parnell was released from
   Kilmainham on parole—urgent business demanding his presence
   in Paris. This parole the Irish National leader faithfully
   kept. Whether the sweets of liberty had special charms for Mr.
   Parnell does not appear; but certain it is that after his
   return to Kilmainham, the Member for Cork wrote to Captain
   O'Shea, one of the Irish Members, and indirectly to the
   Government, intimating that if the question of arrears could
   be introduced in Parliament by way of relieving the tenants of
   holdings and lessening greatly the number of evictions in the
   country for non-payment of rent, and providing the purchase
   clauses of the Land Bill were discussed, steps might be taken
   to lessen the number of outrages. The Government had the
   intimation conveyed to them, in short, which gave to their
   minds the conviction that Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and
   O'Kelly, once released, and having in view the reforms
   indicated to them, would range themselves on the side of law
   and order in Ireland. Without any contract with the three
   members the release of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly
   was ordered, after they had been confined for a period
   bordering on three months. Michael Davitt had been released,
   likewise, and had been elected for Meath; but the seat was
   declared vacant again, owing to the conditions of his
   ticket-of-leave not permitting his return. Much has been said,
   and much has been written with regard to the release of the
   three Irish M. P.'s. The 'Kilmainham Treaty' has been … a
   term of scorn addressed to Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues.
   … As a fact … there was no Kilmainham Treaty. … Mr.
   Forster [the Secretary for Ireland] resigned because he did
   not think it right to share the responsibility of the release
   of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly. The Government had
   detained the Queen's subjects in prison without trial for the
   purpose of preventing crime, not for punishment, Mr. Forster
   said in vindication. Mr. Forster contended that the unwritten
   law, as promulgated by them, had worked the ruin and the
   injury of the Queen's subjects by instructions of one kind and
   another—biddings carried out to such a degree that no power
   on earth could have allowed it to continue without becoming a
   Government not merely in name but in shame.
{1798}
   Mr. Forster would have given the question of the release of
   the three consideration, if they had pledged themselves not to
   set their law up against the law of the land, or if Ireland
   had been quiet, or if there had been an accession of fresh
   powers on behalf of the Government: but these conditions were
   wanting. What Mr. Forster desired was an avowal of a change of
   purpose. He entreated his colleagues 'not to try to buy
   obedience,' as he termed it, and not to rely on appearances.
   The Government did rely on the intimation of Mr. Parnell … ;
   there was no treaty."

      _W. W. Pimblett,
      English Political History, 1880-1885,
      chapter 10._

IRELAND: A. D. 1882.
   The Phœnix Park murders.

   Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, resigned in April,
   1882, and was succeeded by Lord Frederick Cavendish, brother
   of the Marquis of Hartington and son of the Duke of
   Devonshire. Earl Spencer at the same time became Viceroy, in
   place of Lord Cowper, resigned. "On the night of Friday, May
   5th, Earl Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish crossed over to
   Ireland, and arrived in Dublin on the following day. The
   official entry was made in the morning, when the reception
   accorded by the populace to the new officials was described as
   having been very fairly favourable. Events seemed to have
   taken an entirely prosperous turn, and it was hoped that at
   last the long winter of Irish discontent had come to an end.
   On Sunday morning there spread through the United Kingdom the
   intelligence that the insane hatred of English rule had been
   the cause of a crime, even more brutal and unprovoked than any
   of the numerous outrages that had, during the last three
   years, sullied the annals of Ireland. It appeared that Lord
   Frederick Cavendish, having taken the oaths at the Castle,
   took a car about half-past seven in order to drive to the
   Viceregal Lodge. On the way he met Mr. Burke, the Permanent
   Under-Secretary, who, though his life had been repeatedly
   threatened, was walking along, according to his usual custom,
   without any police escort. Lord Frederick dismissed his car,
   and walked with him through the Phœnix Park. There, in broad
   daylight—for it was a fine summer evening—and in the middle
   of a public recreation ground, crowded with people, they were
   surrounded and murdered. More than one spectator witnessed
   what they imagined to be a drunken brawl, saw six men
   struggling together, and four of them drive off outside a car,
   painted red, which had been waiting for them the while, the
   carman sitting still and never turning his head. The bodies of
   the two officials were first discovered by two shop-boys on
   bicycles who had previously passed them alive. Lord Frederick
   Cavendish had six wounds, and Mr. Burke eleven, dealt
   evidently with daggers used by men of considerable strength.
   Lord Spencer himself had witnessed the struggle from the
   windows of the Viceregal Lodge, and thinking that some
   pickpockets had been at work sent a servant to make inquiries.
   A reward of £10,000, together with full pardon to anyone who
   was not one of the actual murderers, was promptly offered, but
   for many long months the telegrams from Dublin closed with the
   significant information—'No definite clue in the hands of the
   police.' All parties in Ireland at once united to express
   their horror and detestation at this dastardly crime."

      _Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. Russell,
      The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech,
      pages 282-291._

IRELAND: A. D. 1884.
   Enlargement of the Suffrage.
   Representation of the People Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

IRELAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Change of opinion in England.
   Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill and Irish Land Bill and
   their defeat.

   "All through the Parliament which sat from 1880 till 1885, the
   Nationalists' party, led by Mr. Parnell, and including at
   first less than half, ultimately about half, of the Irish
   members, was in constant and generally bitter opposition to
   the Government of Mr. Gladstone. But during these five years a
   steady, although silent and often unconscious, process of
   change was passing in the minds of English and Scotch members,
   especially Liberal members, due to their growing sense of the
   mistakes which Parliament committed in handling Irish
   questions, and of the hopelessness of the efforts which the
   Executive was making to pacify the country on the old methods.
   First, they came to feel that the present system was
   indefensible. Then, while still disliking the notion of an
   Irish Legislature, they began to think it deserved
   consideration. Next they admitted, though usually in
   confidence to one another, that although Home Rule might be a
   bad solution, it was a probable one, toward which events
   pointed. Last of all, and not till 1884, they asked themselves
   whether, after all, it would be a bad solution, provided a
   workable scheme could be found. But as no workable scheme had
   been proposed, they still kept their views, perhaps unwisely,
   to themselves, and although the language held at the general
   election of 1885 showed a great advance in the direction of
   favoring Irish self-government, beyond the attitude of 1880,
   it was still vague and hesitating, and could the more easily
   remain so because the constituencies had not (strange as it
   may now seem) realized the supreme importance of the Irish
   question. Few questions were put to candidates on the subject,
   for both candidates and electors wished to avoid it. It was
   disagreeable; it was perplexing; so they agreed to leave it on
   one side. But when the result of the Irish elections showed,
   in December, 1885, an overwhelming majority in favor of the
   Home Rule party, and when they showed, also, that this party
   held the balance of power in Parliament, no one could longer
   ignore the urgency of the issue. There took place what
   chemists call a precipitation of substance held in solution.
   Public opinion on the Irish question had been in a fluid
   state. It now began to crystallize, and the advocates and
   opponents of Irish self-government fell asunder into two
   masses, which soon solidified. This process was hastened by
   the fact that Mr. Gladstone's view, the indications of which,
   given by himself some months before, had been largely
   overlooked, now became generally understood. … In the spring
   of 1886 the question could be no longer evaded or postponed.
   It was necessary to choose between … two courses: the
   refusal of the demand for self-government, coupled with the
   introduction of a severe Coercion Bill, or the concession of
   it by the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. …
{1799}
   How the Government of Ireland Bill was brought into the House
   of Commons on April 8th, amid circumstances of curiosity and
   excitement unparalleled since 1832: how, after debates of
   almost unprecedented length, it was defeated in June, by a
   majority of thirty; how the policy it embodied was brought
   before the country at the general election, and failed to win
   approval; how the Liberal party has been rent in twain upon
   the question; how Mr. Gladstone resigned, and has been
   succeeded by a Tory Ministry, which the dissentient Liberals,
   who condemn Home Rule, are now supporting—all this is …
   well known.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

   … But the causes of the disaster may not be equally
   understood. … First, and most obvious, although not most
   important, was the weight of authority arrayed against the
   scheme. … The two most eminent leaders of the moderate
   Liberal, or, as it is often called, Whig, party, Lord
   Hartington and Mr. Goschen, both declared against the bill,
   and put forth all their oratory and influence against it. At
   the opposite extremity of the party, Mr. John Bright, the
   veteran and honored leader of the Radicals, Mr. Chamberlain,
   the younger and latterly more active and prominent chief of
   that large section, took up the same position of hostility.
   Scarcely less important was the attitude of the social
   magnates of the Liberal party all over the country. … As, at
   the preceding general election, in December, 1885, the
   Liberals had obtained a majority of less than a hundred over
   the Tories, a defection such as this was quite enough to
   involve their defeat. Probably the name of Mr. Bright alone
   turned the issue in some twenty constituencies, which might
   otherwise have cast a Home Rule vote. The mention of this
   cause, however, throws us back on the further question, Why
   was there such a weight of authority against the scheme
   proposed by Mr. Gladstone? How came so many of his former
   colleagues, friends, supporters, to differ and depart from him
   on this occasion? Besides some circumstances attending the
   production of the bill, … which told heavily against it,
   there were three feelings which worked upon men's minds,
   disposing them to reject it. The first of these was dislike
   and fear of the Irish Nationalist members. In the previous
   House of Commons this party had been uniformly and bitterly
   hostile to the Liberal Government. Measures intended for the
   good of Ireland, like the Land Act of 1881, had been
   ungraciously received, treated as concessions extorted, for
   which no thanks were due—inadequate concessions, which must
   be made the starting-point for fresh demands. Obstruction had
   been freely practised to defeat not only bills restraining the
   liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other measures.
   Some members of the Irish party, apparently with the approval
   of the rest, had systematically sought to delay all English
   and Scotch legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work of
   Parliament to a dead stop. … There could be no doubt as to
   the hostility which they, still less as to that which their
   fellow-countrymen in the United States, had expressed toward
   England, for they had openly wished success to Russia while
   war seemed impending with her, and the so-called Mahdi of the
   Sudan was vociferously cheered at many a Nationalist meeting.
   … To many Englishmen, the proposal to create an Irish
   Parliament seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to hand
   over to these men the government of Ireland, with all the
   opportunities thence arising to oppress the opposite party in
   Ireland and to worry England herself. It was all very well to
   urge that the tactics which the Nationalists had pursued when
   their object was to extort Home Rule would be dropped, because
   superfluous, when Home Rule had been granted; or to point out
   that an Irish Parliament would probably contain different men
   from those who had been sent to Westminster as Mr. Parnell's
   nominees. Neither of these arguments could overcome the
   suspicious antipathy which many Englishmen felt. … The
   internal condition of Ireland supplied more substantial
   grounds for alarm. … Three-fourths of the people are Roman
   Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, and this Protestant fourth
   sub-divided into bodies not fond of one another, who have
   little community of sentiment. Besides the Scottish colony in
   Ulster, many English families have settled here and there
   through the country. They have been regarded as intruders by
   the aboriginal Celtic population, and many of them, although
   hundreds of years may have passed since they came, still look
   on themselves as rather English than Irish. … Many people in
   England assumed that an Irish Parliament would be under the
   control of the tenants and the humbler class generally, and
   would therefore be hostile to the landlords. They went
   farther, and made the much bolder assumption that as such a
   Parliament would be chosen by electors, most of whom were
   Roman Catholics, it would be under the control of the Catholic
   priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. Thus they supposed
   that the grant of self-government to Ireland would mean the
   abandonment of the upper and wealthier class, the landlords
   and the Protestants, to the tender mercies of their enemies.
   … The fact stood out that in Ireland two hostile factions
   had been contending for the last sixty years, and that the
   gift of self-government might enable one of them to tyrannize
   over the other. True, that party was the majority, and,
   according to the principles of democratic government,
   therefore entitled to prevail. But it is one thing to admit a
   principle and another to consent to its application. The
   minority had the sympathy of the upper classes in England,
   because the minority contained the landlords. It had the
   sympathy of a large part of the middle class, because it
   contained the Protestants. … There was another anticipation,
   another forecast of evils to follow, which told most of all
   upon English opinion. This was the notion that Home Rule was
   only a stage in the road to the complete separation of the two
   islands."

      _J. Bryce,
      Past and Future of the Irish Question
      (New Princeton Review, January, 1887)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
   The "Plan of Campaign."

   On the 11th of September Mr. Parnell had introduced in the
   House of Commons a bill to make temporary provision for the
   relief of suffering tenants in Ireland, and it had been
   defeated after a sharp debate by a majority of 95. The chief
   argument for the bill had been that "something must be done to
   stay evictions during the approaching winter. The rents would
   be due in November, and the fall in agricultural prices had
   been so great, that the sale of their whole produce by the
   tenants would not, it was contended, bring in money enough to
   enable them to pay in full. … The greatest public interest
   in the subject was roused by Lord Clanricarde's evictions at
   Woodford in Galway. … His quarrel with his Woodford tenants
   was of old standing.
{1800}
   When the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament the National
   League urged them not to bring matters to a crisis, but their
   sufferings were too great to be borne, and they set the
   National League at defiance, and established a Plan of
   Campaign of their own. Lord Clanricarde would grant them no
   reduction, and they leagued themselves together, 316 in
   number, and when the November rent day came round in 1885 they
   resolved not to pay any rent at all if twenty-five per cent.
   reduction was refused. This was refused, and they withheld
   their rent. … The eviction of four of these tenants, in
   August, 1886, attracted general attention by the long fight
   the people made for their homes. Each house was besieged and
   defended like some mediæval city. One stone house, built by a
   tenant at a cost of £200, got the name of Saunders's fort. It
   was held by a garrison of 24, who threw boiling water on their
   assailants, and in one part of the fight threw out among them
   a hive of bees. … To evict these four men the whole
   available forces of the Crown in Galway were employed from
   Thursday the 19th of August to Friday the 27th. Seven hundred
   policemen and soldiers were present to protect the emergency
   men who carried out the evictions, and 60 peasants were taken
   to Galway gaol. It was to meet cases of this kind that, after
   the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill, the Plan
   of Campaign was started. In a speech at Woodford on the 17th
   of October Mr. John Dillon gave an outline of the scheme on
   which he thought a tenants' campaign against unjust rents
   might be started and carried on all over the country. … On
   the 23rd of October the 'Plan of Campaign' was published in
   full detail in 'United Ireland.' The first question to be
   answered, said the 'Plan,' was, How to meet the November
   demand for rent? On every estate the tenantry were to come
   together and decide whether to combine or not in resistance to
   exorbitant rent. When they were assembled, if the priest were
   not with them, they were to 'appoint an intelligent and sturdy
   member of their body as chairman, and after consulting, decide
   by resolution on the amount of abatement they will demand.' A
   committee of six or more and the chairman were then to be
   elected, to be called a Managing Committee, to take charge of
   the half year's rent of each tenant should the landlord refuse
   it. Everyone present was to pledge himself

   (1) To abide by the decision of the majority;
   (2) To hold no communication with the landlord or his agents,
   except in presence of the body of the tenantry;
   (3) To accept no settlement for himself that was not given to
   every tenant on the estate.

   Having thus pledged themselves each to the others they were to
   go to the rent office in a body on the rent day, or the gale
   day, as it is called in Ireland, and if the agent refused to
   see them in a body they were to depute the chairman to act as
   their spokesman and tender the reduced rent. If the agent
   refused to accept it, then the money was to be handed to the
   Managing Committee 'to fight the landlord with.' The fund thus
   got together was to be employed in supporting tenants who were
   dispossessed by sale or ejectment. The National League was to
   guarantee the continuance of the grants if needful after the
   fund was expended, or as long as the majority of the tenants
   held out."

      _P. W. Clayden,
      England under the Coalition,
      chapter. 8._

IRELAND: A. D. 1888-1889.
   The Parnell Commission.

   Early in 1887, certain letters appeared in "The Times"
   newspaper, of London, one of which, printed in facsimile,
   "implied Mr. Parnell's sanction to the Park murders of 1882."
   It created a great sensation, and, "after many bitter debates
   in Parliament, a commission was appointed (1888) consisting of
   three judges to inquire not only into the authenticity of this
   and other letters attributed to several persons as their
   authors, but into the whole course of conduct pursued by many
   of the Irish Members of Parliament, in reference to the
   previous agitation in Ireland and their connexion with an
   extreme faction in America, who tried to intimidate this
   country by dastardly attempts to blow up our public buildings
   on several occasions between the years 1884 and 1887. The
   court sat from the winter months of 1888 until the summer of
   the following year, and examined dozens of witnesses,
   including Mr. Parnell and most of the other accused members,
   as well as dozens of the Irish peasantry who could give
   evidence as to outrages in their several districts. One of the
   witnesses, a mean and discarded Dublin journalist named
   Pigott, turned out to be the forger of the letters; and,
   having fled from the avenging hand of justice to Madrid, there
   put an end to his life by means of a revolver. Meantime, the
   interest in the investigation had flagged, and the report of
   the Commission, which deeply implicated many of the Irish
   members as to their connexion with the Fenian Society previous
   to their entrance to Parliament, on their own acknowledgment,
   fell rather flat on the public ear, wearied out in reiteration
   of Irish crime from the introduction of the Land League until
   the attempt to blow up London Bridge by American filibusters
   (1886). The unfortunate man Pigott had sold his forged letters
   to the over credulous Times newspaper at a fabulous price; and
   even experts in handwriting, so dexterously had they been
   manipulated, were ready to testify in open court to the
   genuineness of the letters before the tragic end of their
   luckless author left not a particle of doubt as to their
   origin."

      _R. Johnston,
      Short History of the Queen's Reign,
      page 65._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. Russell,
      The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech for the Defence._

      _M. Davitt,
      Speech in Defence._

IRELAND: A. D. 1889-1891.
   Political fall and death of Mr. Parnell.

   On the 28th of December, 1889, Captain O'Shea, one of the
   Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament, filed a petition for
   divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery with Mr.
   Parnell. The Irish leader tacitly confessed his guilt by
   making no answer, and in November, 1890, the divorce was
   granted to Captain O'Shea. In the following June Mr. Parnell
   and Mrs. O'Shea were married. The stigma which this affair put
   upon Mr. Parnell caused Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the
   English Liberals, to demand his retirement from the leadership
   of the Home Rule Party. He refused to give way, and was
   supported in the refusal by a minority of his party. The
   majority, however, took action to depose him, and the party
   was torn asunder. A sudden illness ended Mr. Parnell's life on
   the 6th of October, 1891; but his death failed to restore
   peace, and the Irish Nationalists are still divided.

IRELAND: A. D. 1893.
   Passage of the Home Rule Bill by the British House of Commons.
   Its defeat by the House of Lords.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.

   ----------IRELAND: End--------

{1801}

IRENE, Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 797-802.

IRISH NIGHT, The.

      See LONDON: A. D. 1688.

IRMINSUL, The.

      See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

IRON AGE.

      See STONE AGE.

IRON CROSS, Order of the.

   A Prussian order of knighthood instituted in 1815 by Frederick
   William III.

IRON CROWN, The Order of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

IRON CROWN OF LOMBARDY, The.

      See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.

IRON MASK, The Man in the.

   "It is known that a masked and unknown prisoner, the object of
   extraordinary surveillance, died, in 1703, in the Bastille, to
   which he had been taken from the St. Marguerite Isles in 1698;
   he had remained about ten years incarcerated in these isles,
   and traces of him are with certainty found in the fort of
   Exilles, and at Pignerol, as far back as about 1681. This
   singular fact, which began to be vaguely bruited a little
   before the middle of the 18th century, excited immense
   curiosity after Voltaire had availed himself of it in his
   'Siècle de Louis XIV.', wherein he exhibited it in the most
   touching and tragic light. A thousand conjectures circulated:
   no great personage had disappeared in Europe about 1680. What
   interest so powerful had the government of Louis XIV. for
   concealing this mysterious visage from every human eye? Many
   explanations more or less plausible, more or less chimerical,
   have been attempted in regard to the 'man with the iron mask'
   (an erroneous designation that has prevailed; the mask was not
   of iron, but of black velvet; it was probably one of those
   'loups' so long in use), when, in 1837, the bibliophile Jacob
   (M. Paul Lacroix) published a very ingenious book on this
   subject, in which he discussed all the hypotheses, and
   skilfully commented on all the facts and dates, in order to
   establish that, in 1680, Fouquet was represented as dead; that
   he was masked, sequestered anew, and dragged from fortress to
   fortress till his real death in 1703. It is impossible for us
   to admit this solution of the problem; the authenticity of the
   minister Louvois' correspondence with the governor of the
   prison of Pignerol, on the subject of Fouquet's death, in
   March, 1680, appears to us incontestable; and did this
   material proof not exist, we still could not believe in a
   return of rigor so strange, so barbarous, and so unaccountable
   on the part of Louis XIV., when all the official documents
   attest that his resentment had gradually been appeased, and
   that an old man who asked nothing more than a little free air
   before dying had ceased to be feared. There are many more
   presumptions in favor of Baron Heiss' opinion, reproduced by
   several writers, and, in the last instance, by M. Delort
   ('Histoire de l'homme au masque de fer'; 1825),—the opinion
   that the 'man with a mask' was a secretary of the Duke of
   Mantua, named Mattioli, carried off by order of Louis XIV. in
   1679, for having deceived the French government, and having
   sought to form a coalition of the Italian princes against it.
   But however striking, in certain respects, may be the
   resemblances between Mattioli and the 'iron mask,' equally
   guarded by the governor St. Mars at Pignerol and at Exilles,
   however grave may be the testimony according to which Mattioli
   was transferred to the St. Marguerite Isles, the subaltern
   position of Mattioli, whom Catinat and Louvois, in their
   letters, characterize as a 'knave' and St. Mars threatens with
   a cudgel, ill accords, we do not say with the traditions
   relating to the profound respect shown the prisoner by the
   keepers, the governor, and even the minister,—these
   traditions may be contested,—but with the authentic details
   and documents given by the learned and judicious Father
   Griffet in regard to the extreme mystery in which the prisoner
   at the Bastille was enveloped, more than twenty years after
   the abduction of the obscure Mattioli, in regard to the mask
   that he never put off, in regard to the precautions taken
   after his death to annihilate the traces of his sojourn at the
   Bastille, which explains why nothing was found concerning him
   after the taking of that fortress. Many minds will always
   persist in seeking, under this impenetrable mask, a more
   dangerous secret, a mysterious accusing resemblance; and the
   most popular opinion, although the most void of an proof, will
   always doubtless be that suffered to transpire by Voltaire,
   under cover of his publisher, in the eighth edition of his
   'Dictionnaire philosophique' (1771). According to this
   opinion, the honor of the royal household was involved in the
   secret, and the unknown victim was an illegitimate son of Anne
   of Austria. The only private crime of which Louis XIV. was
   perhaps capable, was a crime inspired by fanaticism for
   monarchical honor. However this may be, history has no right
   to pronounce upon what will never emerge from the domain of
   conjecture."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, page 40, foot-note._

   "The Paris correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph' records a
   fact which, if it is correctly reported, goes a long way
   towards clearing up one of the problems of modern history. A
   letter to Louvois by Louis XIV., written in cipher, has been
   long in the archives of the Ministry of War, and has at length
   been deciphered. In it the King orders Louvois to arrest
   General de Burlonde for having raised the siege of Conti
   without permission, to send him to Pignerol, and to conceal
   his features under a 'loup' or black-velvet mask. The order
   was executed, and the presumption is therefore violent that
   the 'Man in the Iron Mask'—it was a black-velvet one with
   iron springs—was General de Burlonde. The story tallies with
   the known fact that the prisoner made repeated attempts to
   communicate his name to soldiers, that he was treated with
   respect by his military jailors, and that Louis XV., who knew
   the truth of the whole affair, declared it to be a matter of
   no importance. The difficulty is to discover the King's motive
   for such a precaution; but he may have feared discontent among
   his great officers, or the soldiery."

      _The Spectator,
      October 14, 1893._

   The cipher despatch above referred to, and the whole subject
   of the imprisonment of General de Burlonde, are discussed at
   length, in the light of official records and correspondence,
   by M. Émile Burgaud and Commandant Bazeries (the latter of
   whom discovered the key to the cipher), in a book entitled "Le
   Masque de Fer: Révélation de la correspondance chiffrée de
   Louis XIV.," published at Paris in 1893. It seems to leave
   small doubt that the mysteriously masked prisoner was no other
   than General de Burlonde.

      ALSO IN:
      _G. A. Ellis,
      True History of the State Prisoner commonly called
      the Iron Mask._

      _E. Lawrence,
      The Man in the Iron Mask
      (Harper's Magazine, volume 43, page 98)._

      _M. Topin,
      The Man in the Iron Mask
      (Cornhill Magazine, volume 21, page 333)._

      _Quarterly Review,
      volume 34, page 19._

{1802}

IRONCLAD OATH.

   An oath popularly styled the "Ironclad oath" was prescribed by
   the Congress of the United States, during the War of the
   Rebellion, in July, 1862, to be taken by every person elected
   or appointed to any office under the Government of the United
   States, the President only excepted. He was required to swear
   that he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United
   States"; that he had "voluntarily given no aid, countenance,
   counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed
   hostility to the National Government"; that he had "neither
   sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions
   of any office whatever under authority or pretended authority
   in hostility to the United States"; that he had "never yielded
   a voluntary support to any pretended Government within the
   United States, hostile or inimical thereto."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, page 88._

IRONSIDES, Cromwell's.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

"IRONSIDES, Old."

   A name popularly given to the American frigate "Constitution."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, The.

   According to their traditions, the founder of the League or
   confederacy which united the five nations of the Iroquois—the
   Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the
   Senecas, was Hiawatha, the hero of Iroquois legend.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

   He was an Onondaga chief, and is supposed to have lived about
   the middle of the 15th century. "Hiawatha had long beheld with
   grief the evils which afflicted not only his own nation, but
   all the other tribes about them, through the continual wars in
   which they were engaged, and the misgovernment and miseries at
   home which these wars produced. With much meditation he had
   elaborated in his mind the scheme of a vast confederation
   which would ensure universal peace. In the mere plan of a
   confederation there was nothing new. There are probably few,
   if any, Indian tribes which have not, at one time or another,
   been members of a league or confederacy. It may almost be said
   to be their normal condition. But the plan which Hiawatha had
   evolved differed from all others in two particulars. The
   system which he devised was to be not a loose and transitory
   league, but a permanent government. While each nation was to
   retain its own council and its management of local affairs,
   the general control was to be lodged in a federal senate,
   composed of representatives elected by each nation, holding
   office during good behavior, and acknowledged as ruling chiefs
   throughout the whole confederacy. Still further, and more
   remarkably, the confederation was not to be a limited one. It
   was to be indefinitely expansible. The avowed design of its
   proposer was to abolish war altogether. He wished the
   federation to extend until all the tribes of men should be
   included in it, and peace should everywhere reign. Such is the
   positive testimony of the Iroquois themselves: and their
   statement, as will be seen, is supported by historical
   evidence. … His conceptions were beyond his time, and beyond
   ours; but their effect, within a limited sphere, was very
   great. For more than three centuries the bond which he devised
   held together the Iroquois nations in perfect amity. It
   proved, moreover, as he intended, elastic. The territory of
   the Iroquois, constantly extending as their united strength
   made itself felt, became the 'Great Asylum' of the Indian
   tribes. … Among the interminable stories with which the
   common people [of the Five Nations] beguile their winter
   nights, the traditions of Atotarho and Hiawatha became
   intermingled with the legends of their mythology. An
   accidental similarity, in the Onondaga dialect, between the
   name of Hiawatha and that of one of their ancient divinities,
   led to a confusion between the two, which has misled some
   investigators. This deity bears, in the sonorous Canienga
   tongue, the name of Taronhiawagon, meaning 'the Holder of the
   Heavens.' The Jesuit missionaries style him 'the great god of
   the Iroquois.' Among the Onondagas of the present day, the
   name is abridged to Taonhiawagi, or Tahiawagi. The confusion
   between this name and that of Hiawatha (which, in another
   form, is pronounced Tahionwatha) seems to have begun more than
   a century ago. … Mr. J. V. H. Clark, in his interesting
   History of Onondaga, makes the name to have been originally
   Ta-own-ya-wat-ha, and describes the bearer as 'the deity who
   presides over fisheries and hunting-grounds.' He came down
   from heaven in a white canoe, and after sundry adventures,
   which remind one of the labors of Hercules, assumed the name
   of Hiawatha (signifying, we are told, 'a very wise man'), and
   dwelt for a time as an ordinary mortal among men, occupied in
   works of benevolence. Finally, after founding the confederacy
   and bestowing many prudent counsels upon the people, he
   returned to the skies by the same conveyance in which he had
   descended. This legend, or, rather, congeries of intermingled
   legends, was communicated by Clark to Schoolcraft, when the
   latter was compiling his 'Notes on the Iroquois.' Mr.
   Schoolcraft, pleased with the poetical cast of the story, and
   the euphonious name, made confusion worse confounded by
   transferring the hero to a distant region and identifying him
   with Manabozho, a fantastic divinity of the Ojibways.
   Schoolcraft's volume, which he chose to entitle 'The Hiawatha
   Legends,' has not in it a single fact or fiction relating
   either to Hiawatha himself or to the Iroquois deity
   Taronhiawagon. Wild Ojibway stories concerning Manabozho and
   his comrades form the staple of its contents. But it is to
   this collection that we owe the charming poem of Longfellow;
   and thus, by an extraordinary fortune, a grave Iroquois
   lawgiver of the fifteenth century has become, in modern
   literature, an Ojibway demigod, son of the West Wind, and
   companion of the tricksy Paupukkeewis, the boastful Iagoo, and
   the strong Kwasind. If a Chinese traveler, during the middle
   ages, inquiring into the history and religion of the western
   nations, had confounded King Alfred with King Arthur, and both
   with Odin, he would not have made a more preposterous
   confusion of names and characters than that which has hitherto
   disguised the genuine personality of the great Onondaga
   reformer."

      _H. Hale, editor,
      The Iroquois Book of Rites
      (Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature,
      number 2, pages 21-36)._

{1803}

IRREDENTISTS.

   "This is the name given to a political organisation formed in
   1878, with the avowed object of freeing all Italians from
   foreign rule, and of reuniting to the Italian kingdom all
   those portions of the Italy of old which have passed under
   foreign dominion. The operations of the 'Italia Irredenta'
   party are chiefly carried on against Austria, in consequence
   of the retention by that Empire of Trieste and the Southern
   Tyrol. Until these territories have been relinquished, Italy,
   or at least a certain part of it, will remain unsatisfied."

      _J. S. Jeans,
      Italy (National Life and Thought, chapter 8)._

ISAAC II. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1057-1059.

   Isaac II. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), 1185-1195.

ISABELLA,
   Queen of Castile
   (wife of Ferdinand II., King of Aragon), A. D. 1474-1504.

   Isabella I., Queen of Spain, 1833-1868.

ISABELLA.
   The city founded by Columbus on the island of Hispaniola, or
   Hayti.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

ISANDLANA, The English disaster at (1879).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ISASZEG, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

ISAURIAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.

ISAURIANS, The.

   The Isaurians were a fierce and savage race of mountaineers,
   who occupied anciently a district in Asia Minor, between
   Cilicia and Pamphylia on the south and Phrygia on the north.
   They were persistently a nation of robbers, living upon the
   spoils taken from their neighbors, who were never able to
   punish them justly in their mountain fastnesses. Even the iron
   hand of the Romans failed to reduce the Isaurians to order,
   although P. Servilius, in 78 B. C., destroyed most of their
   strongholds, and Pompey, eleven years later, in his great
   campaign against the pirates, put an end to the lawless
   depredations on sea and land of the Cilicians, who had become
   confederated with the Isaurians. Five centuries afterwards, in
   the days of the Eastern Empire, the Isaurians were the best
   soldiers of its army, and even gave an emperor to the throne
   at Constantinople in the person of Zeno or Zenon.

      _E. W. Brooks,
      The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
      (English Historical Review, April, 1893)._

ISCA.

   The name of two towns in Roman Britain, one of which is
   identified with modern Exeter and the other with
   Caerleon-on-Usk. The latter was the station of the 2d legion.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 5._

      See EXETER, ORIGIN OF;
      also, CAERLEON.

ISHMAELIANS, The.
   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
   also, ASSASSINS;
   and CARMATHIANS.

ISIDORE, The False Decretals of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

ISINÆ.

      See CAUSENNÆ.

ISLAM.

   "The religion founded by Mahomet is called Islam, a word
   meaning 'the entire surrender of the will to God'; its
   professors are called Mussulmans—'those who have surrendered
   themselves,' or 'Believers,' as opposed to the 'Rejectors' of
   the Divine messengers, who are named 'Kafirs,' or 'Mushrikin,'
   that is, 'those who associate, are [not?] companions or
   sharers with the Deity.' Islam is sometimes divided under the
   two heads of Faith and Practical Religion.

   I. Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent,
   omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good; and in
   Mahomet as his prophet, expressed in the formula 'There is no
   God but God, and Mahomet is the Prophet of God.' It includes,
   also, a belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran,
   in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the
   soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment and in God's
   absolute decree for good and evil.

   II. Practical religion (Din) consists of five observances:
   (1) Recital of the formula of Belief,
   (2) Prayer with Ablution,
   (3) Fasting,
   (4) Almsgiving,
   (5) the Pilgrimage.

   … The standard of Moslem orthodoxy is essentially the Koran
   and to it primary reference is made; but … some more
   extended and discriminating code became necessary. The
   deficiency was supplied by the compilation of the 'Sunnah,' or
   Traditional Law, which is built upon the sayings and practices
   of Mahomet, and, in the opinion of the orthodox, is invested
   with the force of law, and with some of the authority of
   inspiration. … In cases where both the Koran and the Sunnah
   afford no exact precept, the 'Rule of Faith' in their dogmatic
   belief, as well as the decisions of their secular courts, is
   based upon the teaching of one of the four great Imams, or
   founders of the orthodox sects, according as one or another of
   these prevails in any particular country. … The great Sunni
   sect is divided among the orthodox schools mentioned above,
   and is so called from its reception of the 'Sunnah,' as having
   authority concurrent with and supplementary to the Koran. In
   this respect it differs essentially from the Shias, or
   partisans of the house of Ali [the nephew of Mahomet and
   husband of his daughter Fatima] who, adhering to their own
   traditions, reject the authority of the 'Sunnah.' These two
   sects, moreover, have certain observances and matters of
   belief peculiar to themselves, the chief of which is the Shia
   doctrine, that the sovereign Imamat, or temporal and spiritual
   lordship over the faithful, was by divine right vested in Ali
   and in his descendants, through Hasan and Hosein, the children
   of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet. And thus the Persian
   Shias add to the formula of belief the confession, 'Ali is the
   Caliph of God.' In Persia the Shia doctrines prevail, and
   formerly so intense was sectarian hatred that the Sunni
   Mahometans paid a higher capitation tax there than the
   infidels. In Turkey the great majority are Sunni. In India the
   Shias number about one in twenty. The Shias, who reject this
   name, and call themselves Adliyah, or the 'Society of the
   Just,' are subdivided into a great variety of minor sects; but
   these … are united in asserting that the first three
   Caliphs, Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othman were usurpers, who had
   possessed themselves of the rightful and inalienable
   inheritance of Ali."

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapter 10._

   "The twelve Imams, or pontiffs, of the Persian creed, are Ali,
   Hassan, Hosein, and the lineal descendants of Hosein to the ninth
   generation. Without arms, or treasures, or subjects, they
   successively enjoyed the veneration of the people and provoked
   the jealousy of the reigning caliphs. … The twelfth and last
   of the Imams, conspicuous by the title of Mahadi, or the
   Guide, surpassed the solitude and sanctity of his
   predecessors. He concealed himself in a cavern near Bagdad:
   the time and place of his death are unknown; and his votaries
   pretend that he still lives and will appear before the day of
   judgment."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Sell,
      The Faith of Islam._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapters 3 and 7._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Arabs,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism,
      chapters 5-13._

      _R. Bosworth Smith,
      Mohammed and Mohammedanism_

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 3._

      See, also,
      MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

{1804}

ISLAM, Dar-ul-, and Dar-ul-harb.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

ISLAND NUMBER TEN, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

ISLE OF FRANCE.

   The old French province containing Paris. Also the French name
   of Mauritius island, taken by England in 1810.

ISLE ROYALE.

      See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

ISLES, Lords of the.

      See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504,
      and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

ISLES OF THE BLESSED.

      See CANARY ISLANDS.

ISLY, Battle of (1843).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

ISMAIL, Khedive of Egypt, The reign and the fall of.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869; 1870-1883;
      and 1875-1882.

   Ismail I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1502-1523.

   Ismail II., Shah of Persia, 1576-1577.

ISMAIL, Siege and capture of (1790).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

ISMAILEANS, OR ISHMAELIANS.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
      also, ASSASSINS;
      and CARMATHIANS.

ISONOMY.
ISOTIMY.
ISAGORIA.

   "The principle underlying democracy is the struggle for a
   legalised equality which was usually described [by the ancient
   Greeks] by the expressions Isonomy, or equality of law for
   all,—Isotimy, or proportionate regard paid to all,
   —Isagoria, or equal freedom of speech, with special reference
   to courts of justice and popular assemblies."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 12._

ISONZO, Battle of the (A. D. 489).

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

ISOPOLITY.

   "Under Sp. Cassius [B. C. 493], Rome concluded a treaty with
   the Latins, in which the right of isopolity or the 'jus
   municipi' was conceded to them. The idea of isopolity changed
   in the course of time, but its essential features in early
   times were these: between the Romans and Latins and between
   the Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement, that
   any citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the
   other, might forthwith be able to exercise there the rights of
   a citizen."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 13 (volume 1)._

ISRAEL.

      See JEWS.

ISRAEL, Lost Ten Tribes of.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

ISSUS, Battle of (B. C. 333).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ISTÆVONES, The.

      See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

ISTAKR, OR STAKR.

   The native name under the later, or Sassanian, Persian empire,
   of the ancient capital, Persepolis.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3, footnote._

ISTER, The.

   The ancient Greek name of the Danube, below the junction of
   the Theiss and the Save.

ISTHMIAN GAMES.

      See NEMEAN.

   ----------ISTRIA: Start--------

ISTRIA:
   Slavonic Occupation of.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES.

ISTRIA: A. D. 1797.
   Acquisition by Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

   ----------ISTRIA: End--------

ISTRIANS, The.

      See ILLYRIANS.

ISURIUM.

   A Roman town in Britain, which had previously been the chief
   town of the British tribe of the Brigantes. It is identified
   with Aldborough, Yorkshire, "where the excavator meets
   continually with the tessellated floors of the Roman houses."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

ITALI, The.

      See ŒNOTRIANS.

ITALIAN WAR, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ITALIOTES.

      See SICELIOTEB.

   ----------ITALY: Start--------

[Image: Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the
 Seventh Century, and A. D. 1492.]

ITALY:
   Ancient.
   Early Italians.

   "It was not till the close of the Republic, or rather the
   beginning of the Empire, that the name of Italy was employed,
   as we now employ it, to designate the whole Peninsula, from
   the Alps to the Straits of Messina.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

   The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primæval tribe
   who occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually
   adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which
   most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the
   Continents of the world, have received their appellations. In
   the remotest times the name only included Lower Calabria: from
   these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about
   the time of the Punic Wars, its northern boundary ascended the
   little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then
   followed the ridge of the Appennines westward to the source of
   the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream
   to the Gulf of Genoa. When we speak of Italy, therefore, in
   the Roman sense of the word, we must dismiss from our thoughts
   all that fertile country which was at Rome entitled the
   provincial district of Gallia Cisalpina, and Liguria."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section. 2._

   "Philological research teaches us to distinguish three
   primitive Italian stocks, the Iapygian, the Etruscan, and that
   which we shall call the Italian. The last is divided into two
   main branches,—the Latin branch, and that to which the
   dialects of the Umbri, Marsi, Volsci and Samnites belong. As
   to the Iapygian stock, we have but little information.
{1805}
   At the southeastern extremity of Italy, in the Messapian or
   Calabrian peninsula, inscriptions in a peculiar extinct
   language have been found in considerable numbers; undoubtedly
   remains of the dialect of the Iapygians, who are very
   distinctly pronounced by tradition also to have been different
   from the Latin and Samnite stocks. … With the recognition of
   … a general family relationship or peculiar affinity between
   the Iapygians and Hellenes (a recognition, however, which by
   no means goes so far as to warrant our taking the Iapygian
   language to be a rude dialect of Greek), investigation must
   rest content. … The middle of the peninsula was inhabited,
   as far back as reliable tradition reaches, by two peoples or
   rather two branches of the same people, whose position in the
   Indo-Germanic family admits of being determined with greater
   precision than that of the Iapygian nation. We may with
   propriety call this people the Italian, since upon it rests
   the historical significance of the peninsula. It is divided
   into the two branch-stocks of the Latins and the Umbrians; the
   latter including their southern off-shoots, the Marsians and
   Samnites, and the colonies sent forth by the Samnites in
   historical times. … These examples [philological examples,
   given in the work, but omitted from this quotation], selected
   from a great abundance of analogous phenomena, suffice to
   establish the individuality of the Italian stock as
   distinguished from the other members of the Indo-Germanic
   family, and at the same time show it to be linguistically the
   nearest relative, as it is geographically the next neighbour,
   of the Greek. The Greek and the Italian are brothers; the
   Celt, the German and the Slavonian are their cousins. …
   Among the languages of the Italian stock, again, the Latin
   stands in marked contrast with the Umbro-Samnite dialects. It
   is true that of these only two, the Umbrian and the Samnite or
   Oscan, are in some degree known to us. … A conjoint view,
   however, of the facts of language and of history leaves no
   doubt that all these dialects belonged to the Umbro-Samnite
   branch of the great Italian stock. … It may … be regarded
   as certain that the Italians, like the Indians, migrated into
   their peninsula from the north. The advance of the
   Umbro-Sabellian stock along the central mountain-ridge of
   Italy, in a direction from north to south, can still be
   clearly traced; indeed its last phases belong to purely
   historical times. Less is known regarding the route which the
   Latin migration followed. Probably it proceeded in a similar
   direction along the west coast, long, in all likelihood,
   before the first Sabellian stocks began to move."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapters 2-3._

      See, also,
      ETRUSCANS; LATIUM; SABINES; SAMNITES;
      UMBRIANS; MAGNA GRÆCIA;
      also, ROME: B. C. 343-290, and 339-338.

   "In the February number of the 'Civiltà Cattolica,' Padre de
   Cara pleads for a national effort on the part of Italian
   archaeologists to solve the question of the origin of their
   country's civilisation by the systematic exploration and
   excavation of Pelasgic Italy. … In a series of articles,
   extending over several years, the learned father has contended
   for the identity of the Hittites and Proto-Pelasgians on
   archaeological, etymological, and historical grounds; and he
   here repeats that, if 'Italic' means Aryan, then it is among
   the peoples speaking Oscan, Umbrian, Latin, and other dialects
   of the Indo-European family that the parentage of Italian
   civilisation must be sought; but that 'Italy' meant in the
   first place the country of the Hittites (Hethei), and hence of
   the Pelasgians, and that name and civilisation are alike
   Pelasgic. Those who hold it to have been Aryan have not only
   the testimony of Greek and Roman writers against them, but
   also the facts that there were Pelasgians in Italy whose stone
   constructions are standing to this day, and that the Etruscan
   language and culture had no Aryan affinities. The writer
   further points out that the walls of Pelasgic cities, whether
   in Italy, Greece, or Asia Minor, all resemble each other, and
   that the origin of Greek civilisation was also Pelasgian. In
   Greece, as in Italy, the Aryans followed centuries after the
   Hittite-Pelasgians, and Aryan Greece carried the arts of
   Pelasgic Greece to perfection. He believes that, of two
   migratory bands of Hittites, one invaded Greece and the other
   Italy, about the same time. He also draws attention to the
   coincidence that it is not very long since Greece, like Italy
   at the present time, could date its civilisation no further
   back than 700 or 800 B. C. Schliemann recovered centuries for
   Greece, but 'Italy still remains imprisoned in the iron circle
   of the seventh century.' To break it, she must follow
   Schliemann's plan; and as he had steady faith in the
   excavation of the Pelasgic cities and cemeteries of Greece, so
   will like faith and conduct on the part of Italian
   archaeologists let in light upon this once dark problem."

      _Academy,
      March 31, 1894, page 273._

ITALY:
   Under the dominion of Rome.

      See ROME.

ITALY:
   Invasions Repelled by Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347, 282-275; PUNIC WARS;
      CIMBRI AND TEUTONES; ALEMANNI; and RADAGAISUS.

ITALY: A. D. 400-410.
   Alaric's invasions.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403;
      and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ITALY: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion.
   The origin of Venice.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452; and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ITALY: A. D. 476-553.
   The fall of the Western Roman Empire.
   The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric, and its fall.
   Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476, to 535-553.

ITALY: A. D. 539-553.
   Frank invasions.

         See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

ITALY: A. D. 554-800.
   Rule of the Exarchs of Ravenna.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ITALY: A. D. 568-800.
   Lombard conquests and kingdom.
   Rise of the Papal power at Rome.
   Alliance of the Papacy with the sovereigns of the Franks.
   Revival of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

   "Since the invasion of Alboin, Italy had groaned under a
   complication of evils. The Lombards who had entered along with
   that chief in A. D. 568 [see LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573, and
   after] had settled in considerable numbers in the valley of
   the Po, and founded the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,
   leaving the rest of the country to be governed by the exarch
   of Ravenna as viceroy of the Eastern crown. This subjection
   was, however, little better than nominal. Although too few to
   occupy the whole peninsula, the invaders were yet strong
   enough to harass every part of it by inroads which met with no
   resistance from a population unused to arms, and without the
   spirit to use them in self-defence. … Tormented by their
   repeated attacks, Rome sought help in vain from Byzantium,
   whose forces, scarce able to repel from their walls the Avars
   and Saracens, could give no support to the distant exarch of
   Ravenna.
{1806}
   The Popes were the Emperor's subjects; they it waited his
   confirmation, like other bishops; they had more than once been
   the victims of his anger. But as the city became more
   accustomed in independence, and the Pope rose to a
   predominance, real if not yet legal [see ROME: A. D. 590-640,
   and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774], his tone grew bolder than that of
   the Eastern patriarchs. In the controversies that had raged in
   the Church, he had had the wisdom or good fortune to espouse
   (though not always from the first) the orthodox side: it was
   now by another quarrel of religion that his deliverance from
   an unwelcome yoke was accomplished. The Emperor Leo, born
   among the Isaurian mountains, where a purer faith may yet have
   lingered, and stung by the Mohammedan taunt of idolatry,
   determined to abolish the worship of images, which seemed fast
   obscuring the more spiritual part of Christianity. An attempt
   sufficient to cause tumults among the submissive Greeks,
   excited in Italy a fiercer commotion. The populace rose with
   one heart in defence of what had become to them more than a
   symbol: the exarch was slain: the Pope, though unwilling to
   sever himself from the lawful head and protector of the
   Church, must yet excommunicate the prince whom he could not
   reclaim from so hateful a heresy.

      See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

   Liudprand, king of the Lombards, improved his opportunity:
   falling on the exarchate as the champion of images, on Rome as
   the minister of the Greek Emperor, he overran the one, and all
   but succeeded in capturing the other. The Pope escaped for the
   moment, but saw his peril: placed between a heretic and a
   robber, he turned his gaze beyond the Alps, to a Catholic
   chief who had just achieved a signal deliverance for
   Christendom on the field of Poitiers. Gregory II. had already
   opened communications with Charles Martel, mayor of the
   palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm. As the crisis
   becomes more pressing, Gregory III. finds in the same quarter
   his only hope, and appeals to him in urgent letters, to haste
   to the succour of Holy Church. … Charles died before he
   could obey the call; but his son Pipin (surnamed the Short)
   made good use of the new friendship with Rome. He was the
   third of his family who had ruled the Franks with a monarch's
   full power [see FRANKS: A. D. 511-752]: it seemed time to
   abolish the pageant of Merovingian royalty; yet a departure
   from the ancient line might shock the feelings of the people.
   A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy
   See, now for the first time invoked as an international power,
   pronounced the deposition of Childric, and gave to the royal
   office of his successor Pipin a sanctity hitherto unknown. …
   The compact between the chair of Peter and the Teutonic throne
   was hardly sealed, when the latter was summoned to discharge
   its share of the duties. Twice did Aistulf the Lombard assail
   Rome, twice did Pipin descend to the rescue: the second time
   at the bidding of a letter written in the name of St. Peter
   himself. Aistulf could make no resistance; and the Frank
   bestowed on the Papal chair all that belonged to the exarchate
   in North Italy, receiving as the meed of his services the
   title of Patrician [754]. … When on Pipin's death the
   restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the
   possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne
   swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope
   Hadrian, seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed
   himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy
   thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 68-800]. … For the next twenty-four years
   Italy remained quiet. The government of Rome was carried on in
   the name of the Patrician Charles, although it does not appear
   that he sent thither any official representative; while at the
   same time both the city and the exarchate continued to admit
   the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor, employing the
   years of his reign to date documents."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

   "Thus, by German hands, the internal ascendancy of the German
   race in Italy, which had lasted, first under the Goths, and
   then under the Lombards, for 281 years, was finally broken. A
   German was still king over Italy, as for ages Germans were
   still to be. But Roman and native influence reconquered its
   supremacy in Italy, under the management and leadership of the
   bishops of Rome. The Lombards, already becoming Italianized,
   melted into provincial Italians. The Teutonic language
   disappeared, leaving a number of words to Italian dialects,
   and a number of names to Italian families. The last king of
   the Lombards bore an Italian name, Desiderius. The latest of
   Italian national heroes bears the Bavarian and Lombard name of
   Garibaldi. But the overthrow of the Lombards, and the gift of
   provinces and cities to St. Peter had even more eventful
   results. The alliance between the king of the Franks and the
   bishop of Rome had become one of the closest kind. … The
   German king and the Italian pope found themselves together at
   the head of the modern world of the West. But the fascination
   of the name of Rome still, as it had done for centuries, held
   sway over the Teutonic mind. … It was not unnatural that the
   idea should recommend itself, both to the king and the pope,
   of reviving in the West, in close connexion with the Roman
   primacy, that great name which still filled the imagination of
   the world, and which in Roman judgments, Greek Byzantium had
   wrongfully stolen away—the name of Cæsar Augustus, the claim
   to govern the world. There was a longing in the West for the
   restoration of the name and authority, 'lest,' as the
   contemporary writers express it, 'the heathen should mock at
   the Christian if the name of Emperor had ceased among them.'
   And at this moment, the government at Constantinople was in
   the hands of a woman, the Empress Irene. Charles's services to
   the pope were recompensed, and his victorious career of more
   than thirty years crowned, by the restoration at Rome, in his
   person, of the Roman empire and the imperial dignity. The same
   authority which had made him 'patrician,' and consecrated him
   king, now created him Emperor of the Romans. On Christmas day,
   800, when Charles came to pay his devotions before the altar
   of St. Peter's, Pope Leo III.—without Charles's knowledge or
   wish, so Charles declared to his biographer, Einhard, and, it
   may be, prematurely, as regards Charles's own feeling—placed
   a golden crown on his head, while all the people shouted, 'to
   Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the great
   and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, life and victory.' …
{1807}
   Thus a new power arose in Europe, new in reality and in its
   relations to society, though old in name. It was formally but
   the carrying on the line of the successors of Augustus and
   Constantine. But substantially it was something very
   different. Its authors could little foresee its destinies; but
   it was to last, in some sort the political centre of the world
   which was to be, for 1,000 years. And the Roman Church, which
   had done such great things, which had consecrated the new and
   mighty kings of the Franks, and had created for the mightiest
   of them the imperial claim to universal dominion, rose with
   them to a new attitude in the world. … The coronation of
   Charles at Rome, in the face of an imperial line at
   Constantinople, finally determined, though it did not at once
   accomplish, the separation of East and West, of Greek and
   Latin Christianity. This separation had long been impending,
   perhaps, becoming inevitable. … One Roman empire was still
   the only received theory. But one Roman empire, with its seat
   in the West, or one Roman empire, governed in partnership by
   two emperors of East and West, had become impossible in fact.
   The theory of its unity continued for ages; but whether the
   true successor of Augustus and Theodosius sat at
   Constantinople, or somewhere in the West, remained in dispute,
   till the dispute was ended by the extinction of the Eastern
   empire by the Turks on May 29, 1453."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 7._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

ITALY: A. D. 685-1014.
   The founding of the duchy of Tuscany.

      See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

ITALY: A. D. 781.
   Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

   In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
   two separate kingdoms, placing his infant sons Pipin and
   Ludwig on the thrones.

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 16._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 800-1016.
   Conflict of Greeks, Saracens and Franks.

   "The southern provinces [of Italy], which now compose the
   kingdom of Naples, were subject, for the most part [in the 8th
   and 9th centuries], to the Lombard dukes and princes of
   Beneventum—so powerful in war that they checked for a moment
   the genius of Charlemagne—so liberal in peace that they
   maintained in their capital an academy of thirty-two
   philosophers and grammarians. The division of this flourishing
   state produced the rival principalities of Benevento, Salerno,
   and Capua; and the thoughtless ambition or revenge of the
   competitors invited the Saracens to the ruin of their common
   inheritance. During a calamitous period of two hundred years,
   Italy was exposed to a repetition of wounds which the invaders
   were not capable of healing by the union and tranquillity of a
   perfect conquest. Their frequent and almost annual squadrons
   issued from the port of Palermo and were entertained with too
   much indulgence by the Christians of Naples: the more
   formidable fleets were prepared on the African coasts. … A
   colony of Saracens had been planted at Bari, which commands
   the entrance of the Adriatic Gulf; and their impartial
   depredations provoked the resentment and conciliated the union
   of the two emperors. An offensive alliance was concluded
   between Basil the Macedonian [of the Byzantine Empire], the
   first of his race, and Lewis, the great grandson of
   Charlemagne; and each party Supplied the deficiencies of his
   associate. … The fortress of Bari was invested by the
   infantry of the Franks and by the cavalry and galleys of the
   Greeks; and, after a defence of four years, the Arabian emir
   submitted [A. D. 871] to the clemency of Lewis, who commanded
   in person the operations of the siege. This important conquest
   had been achieved by the concord of the East and West; but
   their recent amity was soon embittered by the mutual
   complaints of jealousy and pride. … Whoever might deserve
   the honour, the Greek emperors, Basil and his son Leo, secured
   the advantage of the reduction of Bari. The Italians of Apulia
   and Calabria were persuaded or compelled to acknowledge their
   supremacy, and an ideal line from Mount Garganus to the Bay of
   Salerno leaves the far greater part of the [modern] kingdom of
   Naples under the dominion of the Eastern empire. Beyond that
   line the dukes or republics of Amalfi and Naples, who had
   never forfeited their voluntary allegiance, rejoiced in the
   neighbourhood of their lawful sovereign; and Amalfi was
   enriched by supplying Europe with the produce and manufactures
   of Asia. But the Lombard princes of Benevento, Salerno, and
   Capua, were reluctantly torn from the communion of the Latin
   world, and too often violated their oaths of servitude and
   tribute. The city of Bari rose to dignity and wealth as the
   metropolis of the new theme or province of Lombardy; the title
   of Patrician, and afterwards the singular name of Catapan, was
   assigned to the supreme governor. … As long as the sceptre
   was disputed by the princes of Italy, their efforts were
   feeble and adverse; and the Greeks resisted or eluded the
   forces of Germany which descended from the Alps under the
   imperial standard of the Othos. The first and greatest of
   those Saxon princes was compelled to relinquish the siege of
   Bari: the second, after the loss of his stoutest bishops and
   barons, escaped with honour from the bloody field of Crotona
   (A. D. 983). On that day the scale of war was turned against
   the Franks by the valour of the Saracens. … The Caliph of
   Egypt had transported 40,000 Moslems to the aid of his
   Christian ally. The successors of Basil amused themselves with
   the belief that the conquest of Lombardy had been achieved,
   and was still preserved, by the justice of their laws, the
   virtues of their ministers, and the gratitude of a people whom
   they had rescued from anarchy and oppression. A series of
   rebellions might dart a ray of truth into the palace of
   Constantinople; and the illusions of flattery were dispelled
   by the easy and rapid success of the Norman adventurers."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 56._

ITALY: A. D. 803-810.
   Charlemagne's boundary treaties with the Byzantine Emperor.
   Attempts of Pipin against the Venetians.
   The founding of Modern Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

ITALY: A. D. 810-961.
   Spread of Venetian commerce and naval prowess.

      See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

{1808}

ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
   In the breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire.
   The founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

   In the partition of Charlemagne's Empire among his three
   grandsons, by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, Italy, together
   with the new kingdom called Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was
   assigned to the elder, Lothar, who bore the title of Emperor.
   Lothar, who died in 855, redivided his dominions among three
   sons, and Lorraine, separated from Italy, was soon dismembered
   and shared between Germany and France. The Italian kingdom
   fell to Louis or Ludwig II., who was crowned Emperor, and on
   his death without issue, A. D. 875, it was seized, together
   with the imperial title, by the French Carlovingian king,
   Charles the Bald. Two years afterwards he died, and Italy,
   together with the imperial crown, was acquired by the last
   legitimate survivor of the German Carlovingian line, Charles
   the Fat, who died in 888. "At that memorable era (A. D. 888)
   the four kingdoms which this prince [Charles the Fat] had
   united fell asunder: West France, where Odo or Eudes [Duke of
   Paris, ancestor of the royal line of Capet] then began to
   reign, was never again united to Germany; East France
   (Germany) chose Arnulf; Burgundy split up into two
   principalities, in one of which (Transjurane) Rudolf
   proclaimed himself king, while the other (Cisjurune with
   Provence) submitted to Boso; while Italy was divided between
   the parties of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto. The
   former was chosen king by the estates of Lombardy; the latter,
   and on his speedy death his son Lambert, was crowned Emperor
   by the Pope. Arnulf's [the German king's] descent chased them
   away and vindicated the claims of the Franks, but on his
   flight Italy and the anti-German faction at Rome became again
   free. Berengar was made king of Italy, and afterwards Emperor.
   Lewis of Burgundy, son of Boso, renounced his fealty to
   Arnulf, and procured the imperial dignity, whose vain title he
   retained through years of misery and exile, till A. D. 928.
   None of these Emperors were strong enough to rule well even in
   Italy; beyond it they were not so much as recognized. … In
   A. D. 924 died Berengar, the last of these phantom Emperors.
   After him Hugh of Burgundy and Lothar his son reigned as kings
   of Italy, if puppets in the hands of a riotous aristocracy can
   be so called. Rome was meanwhile ruled by the consul or
   senator Alberic [called variously senator, consul, patrician,
   and prince of the Romans], who had renewed her never quite
   extinct republican institutions, and in the degradation of the
   papacy was almost absolute in the city." Affairs in Italy were
   at this stage when Otto or Otho, the vigorous and chivalrous
   German king of the new line, came in 951 to re-establish and
   reconstitute the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and to make it a
   lasting entity in European politics—the "Holy Roman Empire"
   of modern history.

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 6._

      See GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 24._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      See, also,
      ROME: A. D. 903-964;
      and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

ITALY: A. D. 900-924.
   Ravaged by the Hungarians.

   "The vicinity of Italy had tempted their early inroads; but
   from their camp on the Brenta they beheld with some terror the
   apparent strength and populousness of the new-discovered
   country. They requested leave to retire; their request was
   proudly rejected by the Italian king; and the lives of 20,000
   Christians paid the forfeit of his obstinacy and rashness.
   Among the cities of the West the royal Pavia was conspicuous
   in fame and splendour; and the pre-eminence of Rome itself was
   only derived from the relies of the apostles. The Hungarians
   appeared; Pavia was in flames; forty-three churches were
   consumed; and, after the massacre of the people, they spared
   about 200 wretches who had gathered some bushels of gold and
   silver (a vague exaggeration) from the smoking ruins of their
   country. In these annual excursions from the Alps to the
   neighbourhood of Rome and Capua, the churches that yet escaped
   resounded with a fearful litany: 'Oh! save and deliver us from
   the arrows of the Hungarians!' But the saints were deaf or
   inexorable; and the torrent rolled forward, till it was
   stopped by the extreme land of Calabria."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55._

ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
   Subjection to Germany.

   "Otho I., his son Otho II., and his grandson Otho III., were
   successively acknowledged emperors and kings of Italy, from
   961 to 1002. When this branch of the house of Saxony became
   extinct, Henry II. of Bavaria, and Conrad the Salic of
   Franconia, filled the throne from 1004 to 1039. During this
   period of nearly eighty years, the German emperors twelve
   times entered Italy at the head of their armies, which they
   always drew up in the plains of Roncaglia near Placentia;
   there they held the states of Lombardy, received homage from
   their Italian feudatories, caused the rents due to be paid,
   and promulgated laws for the government of Italy. A foreign
   sovereign, however, almost always absent, known only by his
   incursions at the head of a barbarous army, could not
   efficaciously govern a country which he hardly knew, and where
   his yoke was detested. … The emperors were too happy to
   acknowledge the local authorities, whatever they were,
   whenever they could obtain from them their pecuniary dues:
   sometimes they were dukes or marquises, whose dignities had
   survived the disasters of various invasions and of civil wars;
   sometimes the archbishops and bishops of great cities, whom
   Charlemagne and his successors had frequently invested with
   duchies and counties escheated to the crown, reckoning that
   lords elected for life would remain more dependent than
   hereditary lords; sometimes, finally, they were the
   magistrates themselves, who, although elected by the people,
   received from the monarch the title of imperial vicars, and
   took part with the nobles and prelates in the Plaids
   (placita), or diets of Roncaglia. After a stay of some months,
   the emperor returned with his army into Germany; the nobles
   retired to their castles, the prelates and magistrates to
   their cities: neither of these last acknowledged a superior
   authority to their own, nor reckoned on any other force than
   what they could themselves employ to assert what they called
   their rights. Opposite interests could not fail to produce
   collision, and the war was universal."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 1._

{1809}

   During the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1002-1024), against whom
   a rival king of Italy was set up by the Italians, "there was
   hardly any recognised government, and the Lombards became more
   and more accustomed, through necessity, to protect themselves,
   and to provide for their own internal police. Meanwhile the
   German nation had become odious to the Italians. The rude
   soldiery, insolent and addicted to intoxication, were engaged
   in frequent disputes with the citizens, wherein the latter, as
   is usual in similar cases, were exposed first to the summary
   vengeance of the troops, and afterwards to penal chastisement
   for sedition. In one of these tumults, at the entry of Henry
   II. in 1004, the city of Pavia was burned to the ground, which
   inspired its inhabitants with a constant animosity against
   that emperor. Upon his death, in 1024, the Italians were
   disposed to break once more their connexion with Germany,
   which had elected as sovereign Conrad duke of Franconia. They
   offered their crown to Robert king of France and to William
   duke of Guienne." But neither of these princes would accept
   the troublesome diadem; and, in the end, the archbishop of
   Milan and other Lombard lords "repaired to Constance and
   tendered the crown to Conrad, which he was already disposed to
   claim as a sort of dependency upon Germany. It does not appear
   that either Conrad or his successors were ever regularly
   elected to reign over Italy; but whether this ceremony took
   place or not, we may certainly date from that time the
   subjection of Italy to the Germanic body. It became an
   unquestionable maxim, that the votes of a few German princes
   conferred a right to the sovereignty of a country which had
   never been conquered, and which had never formally recognised
   this superiority."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

   "The Italian Kingdom of the Karlings, the kingdom which was
   reunited to Germany under Otto the Great, was … a
   continuation of the old Lombard kingdom. It consisted of that
   kingdom, enlarged by the Italian lands which fell off from the
   Eastern Empire in the eighth century; that is by the Exarchate
   and the adjoining Pentapolis, and the immediate territory of
   Rome itself."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090.
   Conquests and settlement of the Normans.

   "A pilgrimage first took the Normans to Southern Italy, where
   they were to found a kingdom. Here there were, if I may so
   speak, three wrecks, three ruins of nations—Lombards in the
   mountains, Greeks in the ports, Sicilian and African Saracens
   rambling over the coasts. About the year 1000, some Norman
   pilgrims assist the inhabitants of Salerno to drive out a
   party of Arabs, who were holding them to ransom. Being well
   paid for the service, these Normans attract others of their
   countrymen hither. A Greek of Bari, named Melo or Meles, takes
   them into pay to free his city from the Greeks of Byzantium.
   Next they are settled by the Greek republic of Naples at the
   fort of Aversa, which lay between that city and her enemies,
   the Lombards of Capua (A. D. 1026). Finally, the sons of a
   poor gentleman of the Cotentin, Tancred of Hauteville, seek
   their fortune here. Tancred had twelve children; seven by the
   same mother. It was during William's [the Conqueror's]
   minority, when numbers of the barons endeavoured to withdraw
   themselves from the Bastard's yoke, that these sons of
   Tancred's directed their steps towards Italy, where it was
   said that a simple Norman knight had become count of Aversa.
   They set off penniless, and defrayed the expenses of their
   journey by the sword (A. D. 1037?). The Byzantine governor, or
   Katapan, engaged their services, and led them against the
   Arabs. But their countrymen beginning to flock to them, they
   no sooner saw themselves strong enough than they turned
   against their paymasters, seized Apulia [A. D. 1042], and
   divided it into twelve countships. This republic of
   Condottieri held its assemblies at Melphi. The Greeks
   endeavoured to defend themselves, but fruitlessly. They
   collected an army of 60,000 Italians; to be routed by the
   Normans, who amounted to several hundreds of well-armed men.
   The Byzantines then summoned their enemies, the Germans, to
   their aid; and the two empires, of the East and West,
   confederated against the sons of the gentleman of Coutances.
   The all-powerful emperor, Henry the Black (Henry III.),
   charged Leo IX., who had been nominated pope by him, and who
   was a German and kin to the imperial family, to exterminate
   these brigands. The pope led some Germans and a swarm of
   Italians against them [1053]; but the latter took to flight at
   the very beginning of the battle, and left the warlike pontiff
   in the hands of the enemy. Too wary to ill-treat him, the
   Normans piously cast themselves at their prisoner's feet, and
   compelled him to grant them, as a fief of the Church, all that
   they had taken or might take possession of in Apulia,
   Calabria, and on the other side of the strait; so that, in
   spite of himself, the pope became the suzerain of the kingdom
   of the Two Sicilies (A. D. 1052-1053)."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 2._

   The two elder of the sons of Tancred were now dead, and the
   third son, Humphrey, died not long after. A fourth brother,
   Robert, surnamed Guiscard, who had lately arrived from
   Normandy with reinforcements, then established himself (A. D.
   1057) with some difficulty in the leadership and succession.
   "He accomplished the reduction of almost all the country which
   composes the present kingdom of Naples, and, extinguishing the
   long dominion of the Beneventine Lombards and of the eastern
   empire in Italy [see BENEVENTUM, and AMALFI], finally received
   from Pope Nicholas II. the confirmation of the titles which he
   had assumed, of duke of Calabria and Apulia [A. D. 1080]. …
   While Robert Guiscard was perfecting his dominion on the
   continent, his younger brother Roger engaged in the
   astonishing design of conquering the large and beautiful
   island of Sicily from the Saracens with a few Norman
   volunteers. An air of romantic extravagance breathes over all
   the enterprises of the Normans in Italy; and, even if we
   discard the incredible tales which the legends and chronicles
   of the times have preserved of the valour and corporeal
   strength of these northern warriors, enough will remain in the
   authentic results of their expeditions to stagger the reason
   and warm the imagination with attractive visions of chivalrous
   achievement. … We are assured that 300 Christian knights
   were the greatest number which Roger could for many years
   bring into the field; and that 136 routed a prodigious host of
   Saracens at the battle of Ceramio. … But the Saracens were
   embroiled in internal discord, and their island was broken up
   into numerous petty states; we may, therefore, attribute to
   their dissensions a great part of the success which the
   chroniclers of the Normans have assigned to their good swords
   alone. Roger had, however, embarked in an arduous and
   laborious undertaking, which it required the unbending
   perseverance and patient valour of thirty years [A. D.
   1060-1090] to accomplish. … At length, all Sicily bowed to
   his sway; Norman barons were infeuded over its surface; and
   Roger, with the title of great count, held the island as a
   fief of his brother's duchy."

      _G. Proctor,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 2, part 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 56._

      _J. W. Barlow,
      Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
      chapters 1-7._

{1810}

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1122.
   Beginning of the conflict of the Popes with the Emperors.
   Hildebrand and Henry IV.
   The War of Investitures.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
   The rise of the republican cities.

   "The war of investitures, which lasted more than sixty years,
   accomplished the dissolution of every tie between the
   different members of the kingdom of Italy. Civil wars have at
   least this advantage,—that they force the rulers of the
   people to consult the wishes of their subjects, oblige them to
   gain affections which constitute their strength, and to
   compensate, by the granting of new privileges, the services
   which they require. The prelates, nobles, and cities of Italy
   obeyed, some the emperor, others the pope; not from a blind
   fear, but from choice, from affection, from conscience,
   according as the political or religious sentiment was
   predominant in each. The war was general, but everywhere waged
   with the national forces. Every city armed its militia, which,
   headed by the magistrates, attacked the neighbouring nobles or
   towns of a contrary party. While each city imagined it was
   fighting either for the pope or the emperor, it was habitually
   impelled exclusively by its own sentiments: every town
   considered itself as a whole, as an independent state, which
   had its own allies and enemies; each citizen felt an ardent
   patriotism, not for the kingdom of Italy, or for the empire,
   but for his own city. At the period when either kings or
   emperors had granted to towns the right of raising
   fortifications, that of assembling the citizens at the sound
   of a great bell, to concert together the means of their common
   defence, had been also conceded. This meeting of all the men
   of the state capable of bearing arms was called a parliament.
   It assembled in the great square, and elected annually two
   consuls, charged with the administration of justice at home,
   and the command of the army abroad. … The parliament, which
   named the consuls, appointed also a secret council, called a
   Consilio di Credenza, to assist the government, composed of a
   few members taken from each division; besides a grand council
   of the people, who prepared the decisions to be submitted to
   the parliament. … As industry had rapidly increased, and had
   preceded luxury,—as domestic life was sober, and the produce
   of labour considerable,—wealth had greatly augmented. The
   citizens allowed themselves no other use of their riches than
   that of defending or embellishing their country. It was from
   the year 900 to the year 1200 that the most prodigious works
   were undertaken and accomplished by the towns of Italy. …
   These three regenerating centuries gave an impulse to
   architecture, which soon awakened the other fine arts. The
   republican spirit which now fermented in every city, and gave
   to each of them constitutions so wise, magistrates so zealous,
   and citizens so patriotic, and so capable of great
   achievements, had found in Italy itself the models which had
   contributed to its formation. The war of investitures had
   given wing to this universal spirit of liberty and patriotism
   in all the municipalities of Lombardy, in Piedmont, Venetia,
   Romagna, and Tuscany. But there existed already in Italy other
   free cities. … Venice, … Ravenna, … Genoa, … Pisa, …
   Rome, Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, Bari, were either never conquered
   by the Lombards, or in subjection too short a time to have
   lost their ancient walls, and the habit of guarding them.
   These cities served as the refuge of Roman civilization. …
   Those cities which had accumulated the most wealth, whose
   walls inclosed the greatest population, attempted, from the
   first half of the twelfth century, to secure by force of arms
   the obedience of such of the neighbouring towns as did not
   appear sufficiently strong to resist them, … to force them
   in to a perpetual alliance, so as to share their good or evil
   fortune, and always place their armed force under the standard
   of the dominant city. … Two great towns in the plains of
   Lombardy surpassed every other in power and wealth: Milan,
   which habitually directed the party of the church; and Pavia,
   which directed that of the empire. Both towns, however, seem
   to have changed parties during the reigns of Lothario III. and
   Conrad II., who, from the year 1125 to 1152 placed in
   opposition the two houses of Guelphs and Ghibelines in
   Germany. … Among the towns of Piedmont, Turin took the lead,
   and disputed the authority of the counts of Savoy, who called
   themselves imperial vicars in that country. … The family of
   the Veronese marquises, … who from the time of the Lombard
   kings had to defend the frontier against the Germans, were
   extinct; and the great cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza,
   Treviso, and Mantua, nearly equal in power, maintained their
   independence. Bologna held the first rank among the towns
   south of the Po. … Tuscany, which had also had its powerful
   marquises, saw their family become extinct with the countess
   Matilda, the contemporary and friend of Gregory VII. Florence
   had since risen in power, destroyed Fiesole, and … was
   considered the head of the Tuscan league; and the more so that
   Pisa at this period thought only of her maritime expeditions.
   … Such was the state of Italy, when the Germanic diet,
   assembled at Frankfort in 1152, conferred the crown on
   Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, and of the house of
   Hohenstaufen."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

      _W. K. Williams,
      The Communes of Lombardy
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, 5-6)._

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

      _Europe during the Middle Ages
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclop.,
      volume 1, chapter 1)._

      See, also,
      FLORENCE: 12TH CENTURY.

ITALY: A. D. 1063.
   Birth of Pisan architecture.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

ITALY: A. D. 1077-1102.
   Countess Matilda's donation to the Holy See.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

{1811}

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1081-1194.
   Robert Guiscard's invasions of the Eastern Empire.
   Union of Sicily with Apulia, and creation of the Kingdom of
   the Two Sicilies, or Naples.

   "The success of his brother [Roger, in Sicily—see above:
   A. D. 1000-1090] furnished another spur to the ambition of
   Robert Guiscard. Taking advantage of a dynastic revolution at
   Constantinople, he and his son Bohemund commenced a series of
   invasions of the Eastern Empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
   1081-1085] which only ended with his death. These, though
   unsuccessful in their ultimate result, were influential causes
   of the first crusade, and deeply affected the relations of East
   and West for years to come. Meanwhile in Sicily Roger had been
   succeeded by his son [Roger II.], and, in 1127, this heir of
   the destinies of his race added the dukedom of Apulia to that
   of Sicily, obtained from Pope Anacletus the title of king, and
   finally established the Norman kingdom of Naples [also called
   the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]. His character is thus
   described by a contemporary chronicler: 'He was a lover of
   justice and most severe avenger of crime. He abhorred lying;
   did everything by rule, and never promised what he did not
   mean to perform. He never persecuted his private enemies; and
   in war endeavoured on all occasions to gain his point without
   shedding of blood. Justice and peace were universally observed
   throughout his dominions.' During his reign the intercourse
   between England and Sicily was close. The government was
   organized on principles very similar to that of England. …
   Under his wise rule and that of his immediate successors, the
   south of Italy and Sicily enjoyed a transient gleam of
   prosperity and happiness. Their equal and tolerant government,
   far surpassing anything at that day in Europe, enabled the
   Saracen, the Greek, and the Italian to live together in
   harmony elsewhere unknown. Trade and industry flourished, the
   manufacture of silk enriched the inhabitants, and the kingdom
   of Naples was at peace until she was crushed under the iron
   heel of a Teutonic conqueror."

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Normans at Palermo
      (Historical Essays, 3d series)._

      _J. W. Barlow,
      Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
      chapters 8-11._

ITALY: A. D. 1096-1102.
   The First Crusades.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1101-1102.

ITALY: A. D. 1138.
   The accession of the Hohenstaufens to the Imperial throne, and
   the origin, in Germany, of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
   The first and second expeditions of Frederick Barbarossa.

   Frederick I., the second of the emperors of the Hohenstaufen
   line, called by the Italians Frederick Barbarossa (Red beard),
   was elected king at Frankfort in March, 1152. In October,
   1154, he crossed the Alps and entered Italy with a strong
   German army, having two purposes in view:

   1. To receive the imperial crown, from the hands of the Pope,
   and to place on his own head, at Pavia, the iron crown of
   Lombardy or Italy.

   2. To reduce to order and submission the rising city-republics
   of Lombardy and Tuscany, which had been growing rapidly in
   independence and power during the last four troubled imperial
   reigns.

   At Roncaglia, he held the diet of the kingdom, and listened to
   many complaints, especially against Milan, which had undoubtedly
   oppressed the weaker towns of its neighbourhood and abused its
   strength. Then he moved through the country, making a personal
   inspection of affairs, and giving a taste of his temper by
   burning the villages which failed to supply provisions to his
   troops with satisfactory promptitude. At Tortona he ordered
   the inhabitants to renounce their alliance with the Milanese.
   They refused, and endured in the upper portion of the city a
   siege of two months. Forced by want of water to surrender, at
   last, they were permitted to go free, but their town was
   sacked and burned. Asti, Chieri, Rosate, and other places of
   more or less importance, were destroyed. Frederick did not
   venture yet to attack Milan, but proceeded to Rome, demanding
   the imperial crown. The pope (Adrian IV.) and the Romans were
   alike distrustful of him, and he was not permitted to bring
   his army into the city. After no little wrangling over
   ceremonious details, and after being compelled to lead the
   horse and to hold the stirrup of the haughty pontiff,
   Barbarossa was finally crowned at St. Peter's, in the Vatican
   suburb. The Romans attempted to interrupt the coronation, and
   a terrible tumult occurred in which a thousand of the citizens
   were slain. But the Germans made no attempt to take possession
   of the city. On the contrary, they withdrew with haste, and
   the emperor led his army back to Germany, burning Spoleto on
   the way, because it failed in submissiveness, and marking a
   wide track of ruin and desolation through Italy as he went.
   This was in the summer of 1155. Three years passed, during
   which the Italian cities grew more determined in their
   independence, the emperor and his German subjects more bitter
   in hostility to them, and the pope and the emperor more
   antagonistic in their ambitions. In 1158 Frederick led a
   second expedition into Italy, especially determined to make an
   end of the contumacy of Milan. He began operations by creating
   a desert of blackened country around the offending city, being
   resolved to reduce it by famine. Mediators, however, appeared,
   who brought about a treaty of pacification, which interrupted
   hostilities for a few weeks. Then the Milanese found occasion
   to accuse the emperor of a treacherous violation of the terms
   of the treaty and again took up arms. The war was now to the
   death. But, before settling to the siege of Milan, Frederick
   gave himself the pleasure, first, of reducing the lesser city
   of Crema, which continued to be faithful among the allies of
   the Milanese. He held some children of the town in his hands,
   as hostages, and he bound them to the towers which he moved
   against the walls, compelling the wretched citizens to kill
   their own offspring in the act of their self-defense. By such
   atrocities as this, Crema was taken, at the end of seven
   months, and destroyed. Then Milan was assailed and
   beleaguered, harassed and blockaded, until, at the beginning
   of March, 1162, the starved inhabitants gave up their town.
   Frederick ordered the doomed city "to be completely evacuated,
   so that there should not be left in it a single living being.
   On the 25th of March, he summoned the militias of the rival
   and Ghibeline cities, and gave them orders to rase to the
   earth the houses as well as the walls of the town, so as not
   to leave one stone upon another. Those of the inhabitants of
   Milan whom their poverty, labour and industry attached to the
   soil, were divided into four open villages, built at a
   distance of at least two miles from the walls of their former
   city. Others sought hospitality in the neighbouring towns of
   Italy. …
{1812}
   Their sufferings, the extent of their sacrifices, the
   recollection of their valour, and the example of their noble
   sentiments, made proselytes to the cause of liberty in every
   city into which they were received." Meantime Frederick
   Barbarossa returned to Germany, with his fame as a puissant
   monarch much augmented.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapters 3-5._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.
      against the Communes of Lombardy,
      books 1-6._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Frederick the First, King of Italy
      (Historical Essays, 1st series)._

ITALY: A. D. 1163-1164.
   Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa.
   The rival Popes.

   Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the third time in 1163,
   without an army, but imposingly escorted by his German nobles.
   He imagined that the country had been terrorized sufficiently
   by the savage measures of his previous visitation to need no
   more military repression. But he found the Lombard cities
   undismayed in the assertion of their rights, and drawing
   together in unions which had never been possible among them
   before. The hostility of his relations with the Papacy and
   with the greater part of the Church gave encouragement to
   political revolt. His quarrel with Pope Hadrian had been ended
   by the death of the latter, in 1159, but only to give rise to
   new and more disturbing contentions. It had grown so bitter
   before Hadrian died that the Pope had allied himself by treaty
   with Milan, Crema, and other cities resisting Frederick, and
   had promised to excommunicate the emperor within forty days.
   Sudden death frustrated the combination. At the election of
   Hadrian's successor there was a struggle of factions, each
   determined to put its representative in the papal chair, and
   each claiming success. Two rival popes were proclaimed and
   consecrated, one under the name of Alexander III., the other
   as Victor IV. Frederick recognized the latter, who made
   himself the emperor's creature. The greater part of
   Christendom soon gave its recognition to the former, although
   he had been driven to take refuge in France. Pope Alexander
   excommunicated Frederick and Frederick's pope, and Pope Victor
   retorted like anathemas. Whether the curses of Alexander were
   more effectual, or for other reasons, the authority of Victor
   dwindled, and he himself presently died (April 1164), while
   Frederick was making his third inspection of affairs in Italy.
   The emperor found it impossible to execute his unbending will
   without an army. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso held a
   congress and openly associated themselves for common defense.
   Frederick attempted to make use of the militia forces of
   Pavia, Cremona, and other Ghibelline towns against them; but
   he found even these citizen-soldiers so mutinous with
   disaffection that he dared not pursue the undertaking. He
   returned to Germany for an army more in sympathy with his
   obstinate designs against Italian liberty.

      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8, chapters 7-8._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I. against
      the Communes of Lombardy,
      book 7._

ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
   The fourth expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
   The League of Lombardy.

   "When Frederick, in the month of October, 1166, descended the
   mountains of the Grisons to enter Italy [for the fourth time]
   by the territory of Brescia, he marched his army directly to
   Lodi, without permitting any act of hostility on the way. At
   Lodi, he assembled, towards the end of November, a diet of the
   kingdom of Italy, at which he promised the Lombards to redress
   the grievances occasioned by the abuses of power by his
   podestas, and to respect their just liberties; he was desirous
   of separating their cause from that of the pope and the king
   of Sicily; and to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
   marched his army into central Italy. … The towns of the
   Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
   daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
   diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
   between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
   of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there and joined those
   of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for
   the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
   deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
   destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
   in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
   of Milan. This confederation was called the League of
   Lombardy. The consuls took the oath, and their constituents
   afterwards repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for
   the recovery of the common liberty; that the league for this
   purpose should last twenty years; and, finally, that they
   should aid each other in repairing in common any damage
   experienced in this sacred cause, by anyone member of the
   confederation: extending even to the past this contract for
   reciprocal security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. The
   militias of Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, Mantua, Verona, and
   Treviso, arrived the 27th of April, 1167, on the ground
   covered by the ruins of this great city. They apportioned
   among themselves the labour of restoring the inclosing walls;
   all the Milanese of the four villages, as well as those who
   had taken refuge in the more distant towns, came in crowds to
   take part in this pious work; and in a few weeks the new-grown
   city was in a state to repel the insults of its enemies. Lodi
   was soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the
   oath to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia,
   Parma, Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
   association."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 2._

   Meantime Frederick Barbarossa had made himself master of the
   city of Rome. The Roman citizens had boldly ventured out to
   meet his German army and its allies on the Tusculan hills and
   had suffered a frightful defeat. Then some part of the walls
   of the Leonine City were carried by assault and the
   castellated church of St. Peter's was entered with ax and
   sword. Two German archbishops were among the leaders of the
   force which took the altars of the temple by storm and which
   polluted its floors with blood. Frederick's new 'anti-pope,
   Paschal III., successor to Victor IV., was now enthroned, and
   the empress was formally crowned in the apostolic basilica.
   Pope Alexander, who had been in possession of the city,
   withdrew, and the victorious emperor appeared to have the
   great objects of his burning ambition within his grasp.
   "Destiny willed otherwise. It was now August; the sun was
   burning the arid Campagna and oppressing the weary German
   troops. A slight rain came to refresh them, but the following
   day sudden destruction fell upon the camp.
{1813}
   Deadly fever attacked the army with terrible violence and
   reduced it daily. The men fell in heaps, and when struck down
   in the morning were dead by night. The disease took stronger
   hold owing to the superstitious fears of the army and the idea
   of divine vengeance, for the soldiers remembered in terror the
   profanation of St. Peter's, and they felt the keen edge of the
   destroying angel's sword. Decimated, dismayed, demoralised,
   the imperial army was hopelessly defeated, and Frederick was
   compelled to strike his tents and fly before the in visible
   destroyer. … The flower of his troops lay unburied in the
   furrows, and with difficulty could he manage to carry back to
   their native land the bodies of his noblest and trustiest
   knights. Never perhaps before had Frederick given proofs of
   such unshaken strength of mind. … He returned to Germany
   alone and almost a fugitive, his bravest knights dead, his
   army destroyed, and leaving behind him a whole nation of proud
   and watchful enemies. He returned alone, but his spirit was
   undaunted and dreamt of future victory and of final revenge."

      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8, chapter 10._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.,
      books 8-9._

ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
   The last expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
   The Battle of Legnano, and the Peace of Constance.

   It was not until 1174—seven years after his flight from the
   Roman pestilence—that Barbarossa was able to return to Italy
   and resume his struggle with Pope Alexander and the Lombard
   cities. He had been detained by troubles in Germany—the
   growing quarrel with his most powerful vassal, Henry the Lion,
   of Saxony, more particularly. Meantime, the League of the
   Lombard cities had spread and gained strength, and Pope
   Alexander III. was in active co-operation with it. To better
   fortify the frontiers of Lombardy, the League had built a
   strong new city, at the junction of the Tanaro and Bormida,
   had given it an immediate population of 15,000 people and had
   named it Alessandria, after the Pope. "The Emperor, whose
   arrival in Italy was urgently implored, was retained in
   Germany by his mistrust of Henry the Lion, who, in order to
   furnish himself with a pretext for refusing his assistance in
   the intended campaign without coming to an open breach,
   undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, A. D. 1171; whence, after
   performing his devotions at the holy sepulchre, without
   unsheathing his sword in its defence, he returned to his
   native country. … At length, in 1174, Frederick Barbarossa
   persuaded the sullen duke to perform his duty in the field,
   and for the fourth time [with an army] crossed the Alps. A
   terrible revenge was taken upon Susa, which was burnt to the
   ground. Alexandria [Alessandria] withstood the siege. The
   military science of the age, every 'ruse de guerre,' was
   exhausted by both the besiegers and the besieged, and the
   whole of the winter was fruitlessly expended without any
   signal success on either side. The Lombard league meanwhile
   assembled an immense army in order to oppose Frederick in the
   open field, whilst treason threatened him on another side. …
   Henry also at length acted with open disloyalty, and declared
   to the emperor, who lay sick at Chiavenna, on the lake of
   Como, his intention of abandoning him; and, unshaken by
   Frederick's exhortation in the name of duty and honour to
   renounce his perfidious plans, offered to provide him with
   money on condition of receiving considerable additions to his
   power in Germany, and the free imperial town of Goslar in
   gift. … Frederick, reduced to the alternative of either
   following his insolent vassal, or of exposing himself and his
   weakened forces to total destruction by remaining in his
   present position, courageously resolved to abide the hazard,
   and to await the arrival of fresh reinforcements from Germany;
   the Lombards, however, saw their advantage, and attacked him
   at Legnano, on the 29th of May, 1176. The Swabians (the
   southern Germans still remaining true to their allegiance)
   fought with all the courage of despair, but Berthold von
   Zähringen was taken prisoner, the emperor's horse fell in the
   thickest of the fight, his banner was won by the 'Legion of
   Death,' a chosen Lombard troop, and he was given up as dead.
   He escaped almost by a miracle, whilst his little army was
   entirely overwhelmed."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 151._

   After the disastrous battle of Legnano, Frederic "was at
   length persuaded, through the mediation of the republic of
   Venice, to consent to a truce of six years, the provisional
   terms of which were all favourable to the league. … At the
   expiration of the truce Frederic's anxiety to secure the crown
   for his son overcame his pride, and the famous Peace of
   Constance [A. D. 1183] established the Lombard republics in
   real independence. By the treaty of Constance the cities were
   maintained in the enjoyment of all the regalian rights,
   whether within their walls or in their district, which they
   could claim by usage. Those of levying war, of erecting
   fortifications, and of administering civil and criminal
   justice, were specially mentioned. The nomination of their
   consuls, or other magistrates, was left absolutely to the
   citizens; but they were to receive the investiture of their
   office from an imperial legate. The customary tributes of
   provision during the emperor's residence in Italy were
   preserved; and he was authorized to appoint in every city a
   judge of appeal in civil causes. The Lombard league was
   confirmed, and the cities were permitted to renew it at their
   own discretion; but they were to take every ten years an oath
   of fidelity to the emperor. This just compact preserved, along
   with every security for the liberties and welfare of the
   cities, as much of the imperial prerogatives as could be
   exercised by a foreign sovereign consistently with the
   people's happiness. … The Peace of Constance presented a
   noble opportunity to the Lombards of establishing a permanent
   federal union of small republics. … But dark, long-cherished
   hatreds, and that implacable vindictiveness which, at least in
   former ages, distinguished the private manners of Italy,
   deformed her national character. … For revenge she threw
   away the pearl of great price, and sacrificed even the
   recollection of that liberty which had stalked like a majestic
   spirit among the ruins of Milan."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapter 6._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.,
      book 10._

      See, also,
      VENICE: A.D. 1177.

{1814}

A. D. 1183-1250.
   Frederick II. and the end of the Hohenstaufen struggles.

   After the settlement of the Peace of Constance, Frederick
   Barbarossa made no further attempt to destroy the now well
   established liberties of the north Italian cities. On the
   contrary, he devoted himself, with considerable success, to
   the regaining of their confidence and good-will, as against
   the papacy, with which his relations were not improved. In
   southern Italy, he acquired an important footing by the
   marriage of his son Henry (already crowned King of Rome, as
   Henry VI.), to Constance, the sole heiress of the Norman
   kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Soon after which he went
   crusading to the Holy Land, and perished in Asia Minor (A. D.
   1190). His son and successor, Henry VI., who survived him but
   seven years, was occupied so much in securing the Kingdom of
   the Two Sicilies, already fallen to his wife (1194) by the
   death of the last of the Norman kings, that he had little time
   to trouble the peace of Lombardy or Germany. He was one of the
   meanest of kings, faithless and cold-blooded,—brutal to the
   Normans of the Sicilies and contemptible in his treatment of
   the English King Richard, when his vassal of Austria made a
   chance captive of the lion-hearted prince. He died in 1197,
   leaving as his heir a son but four years old—the Frederick
   II. of later years. There was war at once. Two rival kings
   were elected in Germany, by the two factions, Guelf and
   Ghibelline. The next year, one of them, Philip I., the
   Ghibelline, a younger son of Frederick Barbarossa, was
   assassinated; the other, Otho IV., a son of Henry the Lion,
   was recognized by his opponents, and went to Rome to claim the
   imperial crown. He received it, but soon quarrelled, as all
   his predecessors had done, with the pope (the great pope
   Innocent III. being now on the throne), and, Guelf as he was,
   began to put himself in alliance with the Ghibellines of
   Italy. Meantime, the boy Frederick had become king of the Two
   Sicilies by the death of his mother, and Pope Innocent was his
   guardian. He was now brought forward by the latter as a
   claimant of the Germanic crown, against Otho, and was sent
   into Germany to maintain his claim. The civil war which
   followed was practically ended by the battle of Bouvines (July
   27, 1214—see BOUVINES) in which Otho's cause was lost. Four
   years after, the latter died, and Frederick reigned in
   Germany, Italy and the Two Sicilies, without a rival, holding
   the three separate crowns for five years before he received
   the imperial crown, in 1220. Meantime Innocent III. died, and
   Frederick became involved, even more bitterly than his father
   or his grandfather had been, in quarrels with the succeeding
   popes. He was a man far beyond his age in intellectual
   independence (see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268) and freedom from
   superstitious servility to the priesthood. His tastes were
   cultivated, his accomplishments were many. He welcomed the
   refinements which Europe at that time could borrow from the
   Saracens, and his court was one of gaiety and splendor. His
   papal enemies execrated him as a heretic, a blasphemer and an
   "apocalyptic beast." His greatest original offenses had grown
   out of two promises which he made in his youth:

   1. To lead a crusade for the recovery of Jerusalem,—which he
   was slow in fulfilling;

   2. To resign his Italian possessions to his son, retaining
   only the sovereignty of Germany for himself,—which promise he
   did not fulfil at all.

   The war of the Church against him was implacable, and he was
   under its ban when he died. The pope even pursued him with
   maledictions when he went, at last, upon his crusade, in 1228,
   and when he did, by negotiations, free Jerusalem for a time
   from the Moslems (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229). He was
   involved, moreover, in conflicts with the Lombard cities (see
   FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE) which the papacy
   encouraged and stimulated, and, in 1236, he won a great
   victory over the League, at Cortenuova, capturing the famous
   "Carroccio" of the Milanese and sending it as a gift to the
   Roman Senate. But, attempting to use his victory too
   inflexibly, he lost the fruits of it, and all his later years
   were years of trouble and disastrous war—disastrous to Italy
   and to himself. He died on the 13th of December 1250. "Out of
   the long array of the Germanic successors of Charles, he
   [Frederick II.] is, with Otto III., the only one who comes
   before us with a genius and a frame of character that are not
   those of a Northern or a Teuton. There dwelt in him, it is
   true, all the energy and knightly valour of his father Henry
   and his grandfather Barbarossa. But along with these, and
   changing their direction, were other gifts, inherited perhaps
   from his Italian mother and fostered by his education among
   the orange-groves of Palermo—a love of luxury and beauty, an
   intellect refined, subtle, philosophical. Through the mist of
   calumny and fable it is but dimly that the truth of the man
   can be discerned, and the outlines that appear serve to
   quicken rather than appease the curiosity with which we regard
   one of the most extraordinary personages in history. A
   sensualist, yet also a warrior and a politician; a profound
   lawgiver and an impassioned poet; in his youth fired by
   crusading fervour, in later life persecuting heretics while
   himself accused of blasphemy and unbelief; of winning manners
   and ardently beloved by his followers, but with the stain of
   more than one cruel deed upon his name, he was the marvel of
   his own generation, and succeeding ages looked back with awe,
   not unmingled with pity, upon the inscrutable figure of the
   last Emperor who had braved all the terrors of the Church and
   died beneath her ban, the last who had ruled from the sands of
   the ocean to the shores of the Sicilian sea. But while they
   pitied they condemned. The undying hatred of the Papacy threw
   round his memory a lurid light; him and him alone of all the
   imperial line, Dante, the worshipper of the Empire, must
   perforce deliver to the flames of hell."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

   "The Emperor Frederick was a poet who could not only celebrate
   the charms of his sovereign lady, 'the flower of all flowers,
   the rose of May,' but could also exhibit his appreciation for
   the beauties of nature. … Frederick also delighted in
   sculpture, painting, and architecture. … Under his fostering
   influence every branch of learning was starting into life
   after the slumber of ages. Frederick's age can only be
   compared to that glorious era of the Renaissance, when the sun
   of learning, no longer shorn of his beams, poured a flood of
   light over the dark places of Europe. Frederick was not only
   distinguished for his love of polite literature, but also for
   his ardour in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. He was
   himself an author on medical subjects.
{1815}
   He was a great patron of natural history. He used his friendly
   relations with eastern kings to form a collection of animals
   not often seen in Europe—the elephant, camel, giraffe, and
   camelopard. He also wrote a treatise on Hawking, which is
   still cited with respect. He classifies birds, and treats
   generally of their habits. … But poetry and science were
   very far from occupying all the thoughts of this distinguished
   monarch. His great concern was the internal regulation of the
   kingdom committed to his charge. His code in Sicily and Naples
   was framed with the special view of securing equal rights to
   all classes of his subjects, and of delivering them from the
   yoke of the feudal oppressor. He stripped the nobles and
   prelates of their jurisdiction in criminal cases. He also
   decreed that any count or baron, carrying on war on his own
   account, should lose his head and his goods. These were
   amazing strides in the right direction, but the former was
   quite unprecedented in feudal kingdoms. Many justiciaries were
   appointed throughout the kingdom. No one might hold this
   office without the authorisation of the crown. He strove to
   make his officials as righteous as he was himself. He himself
   came before his courts. So great was his love of justice, that
   he would rather lose his cause than win it if he were in the
   wrong. No advocates were allowed to practise without an
   examination by the judicial bench. They were obliged to take
   an oath that they would allege nothing against their
   conscience. The court furnished widows, orphans, and the poor
   with champions free of expense. The law, by which it was
   guided, endeavoured to secure an even-handed administration of
   justice."

      _A. B. Pennington,
      The Emperor Frederick II.
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series,
      volume 1)._

   Although arbitrary and despotic in temper, the political
   intelligence of Frederick led him to practical ideas of
   government which were extraordinarily liberal for his age. In
   his Sicilian kingdom "the towns were shorn to a great extent
   of their local privileges, but were taught to unite their
   strength for the common good. Twice, at least, in the course
   of his reign, in 1232 and in 1240, Frederick summoned their
   deputies to a conference or Parliament, 'for the weal of the
   Kingdom and the general advantage of the State.' Forty-seven
   cities, all belonging to the Imperial domain, sent two
   deputies each to the Assembly convoked, which must not be
   confounded with the Solemn Courts held by the Sovereign and
   his Barons for the purpose Of revising charters, enacting
   Constitutions, and regulating the government. We should be
   mistaken in supposing that the Sicilian Parliament enjoyed
   much of the power implied by the name. There is no trace of
   any clamour against grievances, of any complaints against
   officials, or of any refusal to grant supplies. The only
   function of the deputies summoned seems to have been the
   assessing of the public burdens. The Emperor demanded a
   certain sum of money, and the deputies, meekly complying,
   regulated the ways and means of raising it. 'Send your
   messengers,' thus runs the writ, 'to see the Serenity of our
   face on your behalf, and to bring you back our will.' Later in
   the century, the Assembly acquired greater authority. It is
   just possible that Simon de Montfort, who is known to have
   visited the Imperial Court, may have borrowed his famous
   improvement on the old English constitution from an Apulian
   source; the gathering of the Commons at Foggia certainly
   preceded their first meeting at Westminster by thirty years.
   Other countries besides our own were indebted to Frederick for
   a better mode of legislation. Shortly after his death, many of
   his innovations were borrowed by his cousin Alonzo the Wise,
   and were inserted in Las Siete Partidas, the new Code of
   Castile. The ideas of the Suabian Emperor were evidently the
   model followed by St. Louis and his successors; in France, as
   well as in Southern Italy, the lawyer was feeling his way
   towards the enjoyment of the power wielded of old by the
   knight and the churchman; Philip the Fair was able to carry
   out the projects which Frederick had merely been able to
   sketch. The world made rapid strides between 1230 and 1300.
   The Northern half of Italy, distracted by endless struggles,
   was not insensible to the improvements introduced into the
   South by her mighty son. But in the North two fatal obstacles
   existed, the Papal power and the municipal spirit of the
   various States, which marred all Frederick's efforts in behalf
   of Italian unity." Frederick's court was the most brilliant
   and refined in Europe. Mr. Kington, his historian, introduces
   us to one of the Emperor's banquets, in the following
   description: "A great variety of strangers meet at the
   banqueting hour. Ambassadors from the Greek Monarch arrive
   with a present of falcons. Some clerical visitors from Germany
   are astounded to find themselves seated close to the turbaned
   men of the East, and shudder on hearing that these are envoys
   from the Sultan of Cairo and the Old Man of the Mountain. The
   honest Germans whisper among themselves some remarks on the
   late end of the Duke of Bavaria, who was stabbed at Kelheim by
   a man, suspected to be an assassin, employed by the mysterious
   Old Man on Frederick's behalf. The Emperor himself eats and
   drinks very little. He is the very model of a host. … The
   Emperor, it must be allowed, is rather loose in his talk.
   Speaking of his late Crusade, he remarks: 'If the God of the
   Jews had seen my Kingdom, the Terra di Lavoro, Calabria,
   Sicily, and Apulia, he would not have so often praised that
   land which he promised to the Jews and bestowed upon them.'
   The Bishops treasure up this unlucky speech, which will one
   day be noised abroad all over Italy. When the meal is over,
   the company are amused by the feats of some of the Almehs,
   brought from the East. Two young Arab girls of rare beauty
   place themselves each upon two balls in the middle of the flat
   pavement. On these they move backwards and forwards, singing
   and beating time with cymbals and castanets, while throwing
   themselves into intricate postures. Games and musical
   instruments, procured for the Empress, form part of the
   entertainment. We hear moreover of a Saracen dancer from
   Aquitaine. Such sports are relished by the guests quite as
   much as the Greek wine and the viands prepared by Berard the
   Court cook, who is famous for his scapece; this dish,
   consisting of fish boiled in salt water and sprinkled with
   saffron, popular to this day in the province of Lecce, has
   been derived from Apicius. … The Emperor now shows his
   guests the wild beasts, which he has brought from Africa and
   the East. There is the huge elephant, soon to be sent to
   Cremona, the bearer of the Imperial banner, guarded by a troop
   of Saracens.
{1816}
   There is the female camelopard, called Seraph by the Arabs and
   Italians. Next come the camels and dromedaries which carry the
   Emperor's treasures when he is on the march. Lions, leopards,
   panthers, and rare birds form part of the collection, and are
   tended by Saracen keepers. Frederick perhaps wishes to show
   his friends some sport in the Apulian plains; he has hawks of
   all breeds, each of which has its name; but what most
   astonishes strangers is his method of bringing down the deer.
   The cheetahs, or hunting leopards of the East, are mounted on
   horseback behind their keepers; these animals, as the Emperor
   says, 'know how to ride.' He is a strict preserver of game; he
   gives orders that the wolves and foxes, which prey upon the
   small animals in his warren at Melazzo, be destroyed by means
   of a poison called wolf's powder. He has many parks and
   fishponds, to which he contrives to attend, even in the midst
   of Lombard wars. He directs the plantation of woods, and when
   a storm blows down his trees, the timber is to be sold at
   Naples. … The treasures, with which Frederick dazzles the
   eyes of his visitors, rival those of Solomon. The Sultan of
   Egypt has given his Christian brother a tent of wonderful
   workmanship, displaying the movements of the sun and moon, and
   telling the hours of the day and night. This prodigy, valued
   at 20,000 marks, is kept at Venosa. There is also a throne of
   gold, decked with pearls and precious stones, doomed to become
   the prey of Charles of Anjou and Pope Clement. There are
   purple robes embroidered with gold, silks from Tripoli, and
   the choicest works of the Eastern loom. Frederick charms the
   ears of his guests with melodies played on silver trumpets by
   black slaves, whom he has had trained. He himself knows how to
   sing. Travellers, jesters, poets, philosophers, knights,
   lawyers, all find a hearty welcome at the Apulian Court; if
   they are natives of the Kingdom they address its Lord in the
   customary second person singular, 'Tu, Messer.' He can well
   appreciate the pretensions of each guest, since he is able to
   converse with all his many subjects, each in his own tongue.
   The Arab from Palestine, the Greek from Calabria, the Italian
   from Tuscany, the Frenchman from Lorraine, the German from
   Thuringia, find that Cæsar understands them all. With Latin,
   of course, he is familiar. Very different is Frederick from
   his Northern grandsire, who could speak nothing but German and
   very bad Latin. Troubadour, Crusader, Lawgiver; German by
   blood, Italian by birth, Arab by training; the pupil, the
   tyrant, the victim of Rome; accused by the world of being by
   turns a Catholic persecutor, a Mohammedan convert, an Infidel
   freethinker; such is Frederick the Second. His character has
   been sketched for us by two men of opposite politics,
   Salimbene the Guelf and Jamsilla the Ghibelline, both of whom
   knew him well. Each does justice to the wonderful genius of
   the Emperor, and to the rapid development of the arts and
   commerce under his fostering care. But all is not fair,
   whatever appearances may be. Every generation of the
   Hohenstaufen Kaisers seemed to add a vice to the shame of
   their house. Cruelty is the one dark stain in the character of
   Barbarossa; cruelty and treachery mar the soaring genius of
   Henry the Sixth; cruelty, treachery, and lewdness are the
   three blots that can never be wiped away from the memory of
   Frederick the Second. He has painted his likeness with his own
   hand. His Registers with their varied entries throw more light
   upon his nature than any panegyrics or diatribes can do. One
   example will be enough. If he wishes to get an impregnable
   castle into his hands, he thus writes to his
   general:—'Pretend some business, and warily call the
   Castellan to you; seize on him if you can, and keep him till
   he cause the castle to be surrendered to you.' … Frederick's
   cruelty is indisputable. His leaden copes, which weighed down
   the victims of his wrath until death came to the rescue, were
   long the talk of Italy and are mentioned by Dante."

      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick the Second, Emperor of the Romans,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "After the death of Frederick II., an interval of twenty-three
   years passed without the appointment of a king of the Romans
   [the Great Interregnum—see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], and an
   interval of sixty years without the recognition of an emperor
   in Italy." Frederick's son Conrad, whom he had caused to be
   crowned, was driven out of Germany and died in 1254. Another
   son, Manfred, acquired the crown of Sicily and reigned for a
   time; but the unrelenting pope persuaded Charles of Anjou to
   make a conquest of the kingdom, and Manfred was slain in
   battle (A. D. 1266). Conrad's young son, Conradin, then
   attempted to recover the Sicilian throne, but was defeated,
   taken prisoner, and perished on the scaffold (1268). He was
   the last of the Hohenstaufen.

      _O. Browning,
      Guelfs and Ghibellines,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 11-13._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Emperor Frederick the Second
      (Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10)._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 4 (volumes 3-4)._

ITALY: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the
   States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

ITALY: 13th Century.
   Political conditions which prepared the way for the despots.

   "The struggle between the Popes and the Hohenstaufen left
   Italy in a political condition which differed essentially from
   that of the other countries of the West. While in France,
   Spain, and England the feudal system was so organised that, at
   the close of its existence, it was naturally transformed into
   a unified monarchy, and while in Germany it helped to
   maintain, at least outwardly, the unity of the empire, Italy
   had shaken it off almost entirely. The Emperors of the
   fourteenth century, even in the most favourable case, were no
   longer received and respected as feudal lords, but as possible
   leaders and supporters of powers already in existence; while
   the Papacy, with its creatures and allies, was strong enough
   to hinder national unity in the future, not strong enough
   itself to bring about that unity. Between the two lay a
   multitude of political units—republics and despots—in part
   of long standing, in part of recent origin, whose existence
   was founded simply on their power to maintain it. In them for
   the first time we detect the modern political spirit of
   Europe, surrendered freely to its own instincts, often
   displaying the worst features of an unbridled egoism,
   outraging every right, and killing every germ of a healthier
   culture.
{1817}
   But, wherever this vicious tendency is overcome or in any way
   compensated, a new fact appears in history—the state as the
   outcome of reflection and calculation, the state as a work of
   art. This new life displays itself in a hundred forms, both in
   the republican and in the despotic states, and determines
   their inward constitution, no less than their foreign policy.
   … The internal condition of the despotically governed states
   had a memorable counterpart in the Norman Empire of Lower
   Italy and Sicily, after its transformation by the Emperor
   Frederick II. Bred amid treason and peril in the neighbourhood
   of the Saracens, Frederick, the first ruler of the modern type
   who sat upon a throne, had early accustomed himself, both in
   criticism and action, to a thoroughly objective treatment of
   affairs. His acquaintance with the internal condition and
   administration of the Saracenic states was close and intimate;
   and the mortal struggle in which he was engaged with the
   Papacy compelled him, no less than his adversaries, to bring
   into the field all the resources at his command. Frederick's
   measures (especially after the year 1231) are aimed at the
   complete destruction of the feudal state, at the
   transformation of the people into a multitude destitute of
   will and of the means of resistance, but profitable in the
   utmost degree to the exchequer. He centralised, in a manner
   hitherto unknown in the West, the whole judicial and political
   administration by establishing the right of appeal from the
   feudal courts, which he did not, however, abolish, to the
   imperial judges. No office was henceforth to be filled by
   popular election, under penalty of the devastation of the
   offending district and of the enslavement of its inhabitants.
   Excise duties were introduced; the taxes, based on a
   comprehensive assessment, and distributed in accordance with
   Mohammedan usages, were collected by those cruel and vexatious
   methods without which, it is true, it is impossible to obtain
   any money from Orientals. Here, in short, we find, not a
   people, but simply a disciplined multitude of subjects. …
   The internal police, and the kernel of the army for foreign
   service, was composed of Saracens who had been brought over
   from Sicily to Nocera and Luceria—men who were deaf to the
   cry of misery and careless of the ban of the Church. At a
   later period the subjects, by whom the use of weapons had long
   been forgotten, were passive witnesses of the fall of Manfred
   and of the seizure of the government by Charles of Anjou; the
   latter continued to use the system which he found already at
   work. At the side of the centralising Emperor appeared an
   usurper of the most peculiar kind: his vicar and son-in-law,
   Ezzelino da Romano. … The conquests and usurpations which
   had hitherto taken place in the Middle Ages rested on real or
   pretended inheritance and other such claims, or else were
   effected against unbelievers and excommunicated persons. Here
   for the first time the attempt was openly made to found a
   throne by wholesale murder and endless barbarities, by the
   adoption, in short, of any means with a view to nothing but
   the end pursued. None of his successors, not even Cæsar
   Borgia, rivalled the colossal guilt of Ezzelino; but the
   example once set was not forgotten. … Immediately after the
   fall of Frederick and Ezzelino, a crowd of tyrants appeared
   upon the scene. The struggle between Guelph and Ghibelline was
   their opportunity. They came forward in general as Ghibelline
   leaders, but at times and under conditions so various, that it
   is impossible not to recognise in the fact a law of supreme
   and universal necessity."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 1, chapter 1, (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1215.
   The beginning, at Florence, the causes and the meaning of the
   strife of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

   "In the year 1215 it chanced that a quarrel occurred at a
   festival between some young nobles of Florence. It was an
   event of as frivolous, and apparently unimportant, a character
   as thousands of other such broils; but this obscure quarrel
   has been treated by the whole body of Florentine historians as
   the origin and starting point of that series of civil wars
   which shaped the entire future fortunes of the community, and
   shook to its centre the whole fabric of society throughout
   central Italy. The story of it has become memorable therefore
   in Florentine annals, and has been rendered famous not only by
   the writers of history, but by many generations of poets,
   painters, novelists, and sculptors." Briefly sketched, the
   story is this: A handsome youth of the Buondelmonti family,
   mixing in a quarrel at the festival alluded to, struck one
   Oddo Arringhi dei Fifanti with his poniard. Common friends of
   the two brought about a reconciliation, by means of an
   arrangement of marriage between Buondelmonte and a niece of
   the injured man. But the lady was plain, and Buondelmonte,
   falling madly in love with another, more charming, whom evil
   chance and a scheming mother threw temptingly in his way, did
   not scruple to break his engagement, and to do it with insult.
   He wedded his new love, who was of the Donati family, on
   Easter Day, and on that same day he was slain by the Amidei,
   whose house he had so grossly affronted. "The assassins
   retired to their fortress houses, and left the bridal party to
   form itself as it might into a funeral procession. 'Great was
   the uproar in the city. He was placed on a bier; and his wife
   took her station on the bier also, and held his head in her
   lap, violently weeping; and in that manner they carried him
   through the whole of the city; and on that day began the ruin
   of Florence.' The last phrase of the above citation marks the
   significance which the Tuscan historians have attributed to
   this incident, and the important place that has always been
   assigned to it in Florentine history. We are told by all the
   earliest historians, especially by Malispini, in whose
   childhood these events must have happened, and whom Villani
   copies almost word for word, that from this quarrel began the
   great, fatal, and world-famous division of Florence into the
   parties of Guelph and Ghibelline. Dante goes so far as to
   consider the conduct of Buondelmonte in this affair so
   entirely the cause of the evils that arose from the Guelph and
   Ghibelline wars, that, had that cause not existed, no such
   misfortunes would have arisen. … Yet the historians admit
   that the party names of Guelph and Ghibelline were known in
   Florence long before; but they say that not till then did the
   city divide itself into two hostile camps under those rallying
   cries. It is curiously clear, from the accounts of Malispini
   and Villani, that, as usual in such matters, the Florentines
   had but a very hazy notion as to the meaning and origin of the
   two names [see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and GERMANY: A. D.
   1138-1268], for the sake of which they were prepared to cut
   each other's throats.
{1818}
   Any name or watchword is good enough for a party rallying cry,
   when once passions have been connected with it; but the
   Florentines understood that Ghibelline meant attachment to the
   Empire in opposition to the Church, and Guelph attachment to
   the Church in opposition to the Empire. … But the quarrel of
   Guelph with Ghibelline in Florence was the expression of a
   still wider spread and more perennial conflict. … The
   Ghibellines were the old Imperial nobles, who, whether more
   anciently or more recently incorporated into the body of
   Florentine citizens, formed the aristocracy of the social
   body, and were naturally Imperialist in their sympathies.
   These Ghibellines were the high Tories of the Florentine
   community. The body of the people were Guelphs, naming
   themselves after the party professing attachment to the Church
   only because the Papacy was in opposition to the Empire. The
   Guelphs were the Whigs of Florence. The Radicals appeared on
   the scene in due time and normal sequence." From Florence, as
   its center, the strife of the two factions spread throughout
   Italy. "Ghibellinism was nearly universal in the north of
   Italy, divided among a number of more or less well known great
   families, of whom the principal were the Visconti at Milan,
   and the Della Scala at Verona. Naples and the States of the
   Church were Guelph; the former, as need hardly be suggested,
   from political circumstances, from opposition to the Empire,
   and from connection, rather than from principle. Tuscany and
   the whole of Central Italy were divided between the two,
   although the real strength and stronghold of genuine Guelphism
   was there. Without Florence, there would have been no Guelph
   party. Had those stout sandalled and leather-jerkined
   Florentine burghers of the 13th century not undertaken and
   persevered in that crusade against the feudal nobles and the
   Ghibelline principle, which … was the leading occupation and
   idea of the Commonwealth during all that century, Ghibellinism
   and Imperialism would have long since possessed and ruled
   Italy from the Alps to the toe of the boot."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 1, chapter 3,
      and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "One party called themselves the Emperor's liegemen, and their
   watchword was authority and law; the other side were the
   liegemen of Holy Church, and their cry was liberty; and the
   distinction as a broad one is true. But a democracy would
   become Ghibelline, without scruple, if its neighbour town was
   Guelf; and among the Guelf liegemen of the Church and liberty,
   the pride of blood and love of power were not a whit inferior
   to that of their opponents. Yet … it is not impossible to
   trace in the two factions differences of temper, of moral and
   political inclinations, which, though visible only on a large
   scale and in the mass, were quite sufficient to give meaning
   and reality to their mutual opposition. … The Ghibellines as
   a body reflected the worldliness, the license, the irreligion,
   the reckless selfishness, the daring insolence, and at the
   same time the gaiety and pomp, the princely magnificence and
   generosity and largeness of mind of the House of Swabia [the
   Hohenstaufen]; they were the men of the court and camp. …
   The Guelfs, on the other hand, were the party of the middle
   classes; they rose out of and held to the people; they were
   strong by their compactness, their organisation in cities,
   their commercial relations and interests, their command of
   money. Further, they were professedly the party of strictness
   and religion. … The genuine Guelf spirit was austere,
   frugal, independent, earnest, religious; fond of its home and
   Church, and of those celebrations which bound together Church
   and home; … in its higher form intolerant of evil, but
   intolerant always of whatever displeased it. Yet there was a
   grave and noble manliness about it which long kept it alive in
   Florence."

      _R. W. Church,
      Dante and other Essays,
      pages 15-18._

      See, also,
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.

ITALY: A. D. 1236-1259.
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the Veronese or Trevisan
   Marches, and the crusade against him.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

ITALY: A. D. 1248-1278.
   The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines in
   Tuscany.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1250-1268.
   Invasion and conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies by
   Charles of Anjou, on the invitation of the Pope.

   "The death of the Emperor Frederic II., in 1250, had been
   followed in less than four years by that of his son and
   successor Conrad IV., from whose son Conradin, at that time an
   infant, the Crown of the Two Sicilies was usurped by his uncle
   Manfred, a natural child of the deceased Frederic. The hatred
   of the See of Rome, notwithstanding the frequent changes which
   had occurred in the Papal Chair, still pursued the Line of
   Hohenstauffen, even in this illegitimate branch, and it was
   transmitted as an hereditary possession from Innocent IV.
   through Alexander IV. and Urban IV., to Clement IV.
   Interference in Germany itself was forbidden by the
   independence of the Electoral Princes: and when it was found
   impossible to obtain the nomination of an Emperor decidedly in
   the Guelph interest, Alexander contented himself by
   endeavouring to separate the Throne of the Two Sicilies from
   that of Germany, and to establish upon the former a Feudatory,
   and therefore a Champion, of the Church. Various alliances for
   this purpose were projected by Alexander, and by his
   successors who adopted a similar policy; and the Crown, which
   was in truth to be conquered from Manfred, was offered as an
   investiture which Rome had a full right to bestow." After long
   negotiations with Henry III. of England, who coveted the
   Sicilian prize for his second son, Edmund, and who paid large
   sums to the papal treasury by way of earnest money, but who
   showed little ability to oust the possessor, Pope Urban, at
   length, closed a bargain with that ambitious speculator in
   royal claims and titles, Charles of Anjou, brother of St.
   Louis, king of France. The honesty of Louis was somewhat
   troubled by the unscrupulous transaction; but his conscience
   submitted itself to the instructions of the Holy Father, and
   he permitted his brother to embark in the evil enterprise.
   "Charles, accordingly, having first accepted the Senator-ship
   of Rome, with which high magistracy he was invested by her
   citizens, negotiated with the Holy See, most ably and much to
   his advantage, for the loftier dignity of Kingship. In little
   more than a month after he had received his Crown from the
   hands of Clement IV., who had become Pope, he totally defeated
   and killed his opponent Manfred, in the battle of Grandella
   [near Benevento, February, 1266].
{1819}
   Conradin, who had now arrived at years of discretion, was
   still his rival; but the capture of the young Prince at
   Tagliacozzo [1268], and his speedy committal to the
   executioner, confirmed Charles of Anjou in his Kingdom, at the
   everlasting ex-pense of his good name. Few incidents in
   History are more calculated to awaken just indignation than
   the untimely end of the brave, wronged, and gallant Conradin.
   Charles of Anjou thus founded the first dynasty of his House
   which reigned over the Sicilies. The pretensions which Aragon
   afterwards advanced to the Crown of that Kingdom rested on a
   marriage between Pedro, the eldest son of King James, and
   Constance, a daughter of Manfred."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 8._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 11, chapter 3 (volume 5)._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 5 (volume 4)._

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1293.
   Development of the popular Constitution of the Florentine
   Commonwealth.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
   The Age of the Despots.
   The rise of Principalities.

   "From the death of Frederick the Second [A. D. 1250] … all
   practical power of an imperial kingdom in Italy may be said to
   have passed away. Presently begins the gradual change of the
   commonwealths into tyrannies, and the grouping together of
   many of them into larger states. We also see the beginning of
   more definite claims of temporal dominion on behalf of the
   Popes. In the course of the 300 years between Frederick the
   Second and Charles the Fifth, these processes gradually
   changed the face of the Italian kingdom. It became in the end
   a collection of principalities, broken only by the survival of
   a few oligarchic commonwealths and by the anomalous dominion
   of Venice on the mainland. Between Frederick the Second and
   Charles the Fifth, we may look on the Empire as practically in
   abeyance in Italy. The coming of an Emperor always caused a
   great stir for the time, but it was only for the time. After
   the grant of Rudolf of Habsburg to the Popes, a distinction
   was drawn between Imperial and papal territory in Italy. While
   certain princes and commonwealths still acknowledged at least
   the nominal superiority of the Emperor, others were now held
   to stand in the same relation of vassalage to the Pope."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

   "During the 14th and 15th centuries we find, roughly speaking,
   six sorts of despots in Italian cities. Of these the First
   class, which is a very small one, had a dynastic or hereditary
   right accruing from long seignorial possession, of their
   several districts. The most eminent are the houses of
   Montferrat and Savoy, the Marquises of Ferrara, the Princes of
   Urbino. … The Second class comprise those nobles who
   obtained the title of Vicars of the Empire, and built an
   illegal power upon the basis of imperial right in Lombardy. Of
   these, the Della Scala and Visconti families are illustrious
   instances. … The Third class is important. Nobles charged
   with military or judicial power, as Capitani or Podestas, by
   the free burghs, used their authority to enslave the cities
   they were chosen to administer. It was thus that almost all
   the numerous tyrants of Lombardy, Carraresi at Padua, Gonzaghi
   at Mantua, Rossi and Correggi at Parma, Torrensi and Visconti
   at Milan, Scotti at Piacenza, and so forth, erected their
   despotic dynasties. … In the Fourth class we find the
   principle of force still more openly at work. To it may be
   assigned those Condottieri who made a prey of cities at their
   pleasure. The illustrious Uguccione della Faggiuola, who
   neglected to follow up his victory over the Guelfs at Monte
   Catini, in order that he might cement his power in Lucca and
   Pisa, is an early instance of this kind of tyrant. His
   successor, Castruccio Castracane, the hero of Machiavelli's
   romance, is another. But it was not until the first half of
   the 15th century that professional Condottieri became powerful
   enough to found such kingdoms as that, for example, of
   Francesco Sforza at Milan. The Fifth class includes the
   nephews or sons of Popes. The Riario principality of Forli,
   the Della Rovere of Urbino, the Borgia of Romagna, the Farnese
   of Parma, form a distinct species of despotisms; but all these
   are of a comparatively late origin. Until the papacy of Sixtus
   IV. and Innocent VIII. the Popes had not bethought them of
   providing in this way for their relatives. … There remains
   the Sixth and last class of despots to be mentioned. This
   again is large and of the first importance. Citizens of
   eminence, like the Medici at Florence, the Bentivogli at
   Bologna, the Baglioni of Perugia, the Gambacorti of Pisa, like
   Pandolfo Petrucci in Siena (1502), Romeo Pepoli, the usurer of
   Bologna (1323), the plebeian Alticlinio and Agolanti of Padua
   (1313), acquired more than their due weight in the conduct of
   affairs, and gradually tended to tyranny. In most of these
   cases great wealth was the original source of despotic
   ascendancy. It was not uncommon to buy cities together with
   their Signory. … But personal qualities and nobility of
   blood might also produce despots of the Sixth class."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1261-1264.
   The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
   Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
   War between the Republics.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

ITALY: A. D. 1273-1291.
   Indifference of Rodolph of Hapsburg to his Italian dominions.
   His neglect to claim the imperial crown.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

ITALY: A. D. 1277-1447.
   Tyranny of the Visconti at Milan.
   Their domination in Lombardy and their fall.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

ITALY: A. D. 1282-1293.
   War between Genoa and Pisa.
   Battle of Meloria.
   War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1282-1300.
   The Sicilian Vespers.
   Severance of the Two Sicilies.
   End of the House of Anjou in the insular kingdom.

   "Peter, King of Aragon, had married Constance, the daughter of
   Manfred, and laid claim to the kingdom of Sicily in her right.
   He sent for help to Michael Palaiologos, the restorer of the
   Eastern Empire. The Emperor agreed to his proposals, for his
   Empire was threatened by Charles of Anjou. These negotiations
   were, it is said, carried on through Giovanni di Procida, a
   Sicilian exile, who, as the story goes, had suffered cruel
   wrongs from the French. Charles knew something of the plans of
   the allies, and both parties were preparing for war, but
   affairs were brought to a crisis by a chance occurrence.
{1820}
   On March 30, 1282, a brutal insult was offered by a French
   soldier to a bride in the presence of her friends and
   neighbours outside the walls of Palermo, and the smothered
   hatred of the people broke out into open violence. The cry
   'Death to the French' was raised, and all who belonged to that
   nation in Palermo were slain without mercy. This massacre,
   which is called 'The Sicilian Vespers,' spread through the
   whole island; the yoke of the oppressor was broken and the
   land was delivered. Charles laid siege to Messina, but he was
   forced to retire by Peter of Aragon, who landed and was
   received as King. Pope Martin in vain excommunicated the
   rebels and their allies, and, in 1284, Charles received a
   great blow, for his son was defeated and taken prisoner by
   Roger of Loria, the Admiral of the Catalan fleet. Charles of
   Anjou died in 1286, and two years later his son, also called
   Charles, ransomed himself from prison."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4._

   Charles of Anjou "died of grief, leaving his son, the prince
   of Salerno, a prisoner, and Martin followed him, before he
   could proclaim a general crusade against the invader of the
   apostolic fief. Pedro, having enjoyed his two crowns to the
   day of his death, left them to his sons, Alphonso and James
   respectively, and both were excommunicated by Honorius IV. for
   their accession. The prince of Salerno, obtaining his release
   by the mediation of Edward of England, was absolved by
   Nicholas IV. from the conditions to which he had sworn, and
   crowned at Rome king of Apulia (i. e., Naples) and Sicily, A.
   D. 1289. His hopes of regaining the island were constantly
   disappointed. James, having succeeded to the crown of Arragon
   by the death of Alphonso, was persuaded to resign Sicily to
   Charles on condition of receiving his daughter in marriage,
   with an ample dowry. Boniface VIII. also graciously gave him
   leave to conquer the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, from the
   republics of Pisa and Genoa. The Sicilians, however, declining
   to be so bartered, bestowed their crown on James's brother
   Frederic [1295]; and though James contributed his fleet to
   reduce him, he retained the island throne [1300], while
   Charles and the pope were obliged to rest content with the
   continental kingdom. Their only satisfaction was to persist in
   calling Naples by the name of Sicily, and to stigmatise their
   rival as king of 'Trinacria.'"

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      page 240._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 4._

ITALY: A. D. 1294-1299.
   War between Venice and Genoa.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

ITALY: A. D. 1297-1319.
   The perfected aristocratic Constitution of Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

ITALY: A. D. 1300-1313.
   New factions of Florence and Tuscany.
   Bianchi and Neri.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

ITALY: 14th Century.
   The Renaissance in its beginning.

   "It was not the revival of antiquity alone, but its union with
   the genius of the Italian people, which achieved the conquest
   of the Western world. … The civilisation of Greece and Rome,
   which, ever since the fourteenth century, obtained so powerful
   a hold on Italian life, as the source and basis of culture, as
   the object and ideal of existence, partly also as an avowed
   reaction against preceding tendencies—this civilisation had
   long been exerting a partial influence on mediæval Europe,
   even beyond the boundaries of Italy. The culture of which
   Charles the Great was a representative was, in face of the
   barbarism of the seventh and eighth centuries, essentially a
   Renaissance, and could appear under no other form. … But the
   resuscitation of antiquity took a different form in Italy from
   that which it assumed in the North. The wave of barbarism had
   scarcely gone by before the people, in whom the former life
   was but half effaced, showed a consciousness of its past and a
   wish to reproduce it. Elsewhere in Europe men deliberately and
   with reflection borrowed this or the other element of
   classical civilisation; in Italy the sympathies both of the
   learned and of the people were naturally engaged on the side
   of antiquity as a whole, which stood to them as a symbol of
   past greatness. The Latin language, too, was easy to an
   Italian, and the numerous monuments and documents in which the
   country abounded facilitated a return to the past. With this
   tendency other elements—the popular character which time had
   now greatly modified, the political institutions imported by
   the Lombards from Germany, chivalry and other northern forms
   of civilisation, and the influence of religion and the
   Church—combined to produce the modern Italian spirit, which
   was destined to serve as a model and ideal for the whole
   western world. How antiquity began to work in plastic art, as
   soon as the flood of barbarism had subsided, is clearly shown
   in the Tuscan buildings of the twelfth and in the sculptures
   of the thirteenth centuries. … But the great and general
   enthusiasm of the Italians for classical antiquity did not
   display itself before the fourteenth century. For this a
   development of civic life was required, which took place only
   in Italy, and there not till then. It was needful that noble
   and burgher should first learn to dwell together on equal
   terms, and that a social world should arise which felt the
   want of culture, and had the leisure and the means to obtain
   it. But culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic
   bonds of the Middle Ages, could not at once and without help
   find its way to the understanding of the physical and
   intellectual world. It needed a guide, and found one in the
   ancient civilisation, with its wealth of truth and knowledge
   in every spiritual interest. Both the form and the substance
   of this civilisation were adopted with admiring gratitude; it
   became the chief part of the culture of the age."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
      chapter 1._

      See RENAISSANCE.

ITALY: A. D. 1305-1309.
   Removal of the Papal Court to Lyons and then to Avignon.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
   Visitation of the Emperor Henry VII.
   Hostility of Florence and siege of the city.
   Repulse from Rome.
   The Emperor's death.

   "No Emperor had come into Italy since the death of Frederic
   II. [1250]. Neither Rudolf nor his two successors [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308] had been crowned Emperor, but on the
   death of Albert of Austria, the King of the Romans, in 1308,
   the electors chose Henry, Count of Luxemburg [Henry VII.]. In
   1310 he entered Italy with a small German army. Unlike most of
   these Imperial expeditions, this was approved of by the Pope.
{1821}
   The French King Philip IV. was really master of Pope Clement
   V., who did not live in Italy, but sometimes within the French
   kingdom, or in the English territory of Bordeaux, or in
   Avignon, a city of the Empire. But Clement did not like
   bearing the French yoke, and was fearful lest some one of
   greater talents than Charles of Valois should make an attempt
   on Italy, and make it impossible for the Pope to get free from
   the power of the French. He therefore favoured the expedition
   of King Henry, and hoped that it would revive the Ghibelin
   party and counteract the influence of the Guelfs, who were on
   the side of France. Dante tells us the feelings which were
   roused by the coming of the King. He seemed to come as God's
   vicegerent, to change the fortunes of men and bring the exiled
   home; by the majesty of his presence to bring the peace for
   which the banished poet longed, and to administer to all men
   justice; judgment and equity. Henry was worthy of these high
   hopes; for he was wise, just, and gracious, courageous in
   fight and honourable in council: but the task was too hard for
   him. At first all seemed to go well with him. The Ghibelins
   were ready to receive him as their natural lord; the Guelfs
   were inclined towards him by the Pope. In Milan the chief
   power was in the hands of Guido della Torre, the descendant of
   Pagano della Torre, who had done good service to the city
   after the battle of Corte Nuova. He was a strong Guelf, and
   was at the head of a large number of troops; for he was very
   rich. His great enemy was the Ghibelin Matteo Visconti, who
   continually struggled with Guido for the mastery. The king was
   willingly received by the Milanese, and Guido was not
   behindhand in bidding him welcome. While he was at Milan, on
   Christmas Day, 1310, he was crowned with the iron crown of the
   Italian kingdom, which was made of steel in the shape of
   laurel leaves, and studded with gems. He made both parties
   enter into an outward reconciliation, and the chiefs of both
   vied with one another in making him large presents. The King's
   need of money soon tired out the Milanese, and an insurrection
   was made in which both Matteo and Guido joined; but Matteo
   betrayed his rival, and Guido and all the Guelfs were driven
   out of Milan, which henceforth remained in the power of the
   Ghibelin Visconti [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. The King's
   demands for money made him unpopular, and each city, as he
   left it, rose against him. Pisa, and the other Tuscan enemies
   of Florence, received him with joy. But the great Guelfic city
   shut her gates against him, and made alliance with Robert, the
   Angevin King of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, and
   afterwards gave him [Robert] the signoria. Rome received a
   garrison from Naples, and the Imperial coronation had to be
   performed in the Church of St. John Lateran,"—Henry being
   repulsed in an attempt to force his entrance to the quarter of
   the Vatican.

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4._

   "The city [of Rome] was divided in feeling, and the emperor's
   position so precarious that he retired to Tivoli at the end of
   August, and moved towards Tuscany, ravaging the Perugian
   territory on his way, being determined to bring Florence and
   all her allies to submission." By rapid movements he reached
   Florence and invested the city before his intentions were
   understood. "A sudden assault would probably have carried the
   city, for the inhabitants were taken by surprise, were in a
   state of consternation, and could scarcely believe that the
   emperor was there in person: their natural energy soon
   returned, the Gonfaloniers assembled their companies, the
   whole population armed themselves, even to the bishop and
   clergy; a camp was formed within the walls, the outer ditch
   palisaded, the gates closed, and thus for two days they
   remained hourly expecting an assault. At last their cavalry
   [which had been cut off by the emperor's movement] were seen
   returning by various ways and in small detachments; succours
   also poured in from Lucca, Prato, Pistoia, Volterra, Colle,
   and San Gimignano; and even Bologna, Rimini, Ravenna, Faenza,
   Cesina, Agobbio, Città di Castello with several other places
   rendered their assistance: indeed so great and extensive was
   Florentine influence and so rapid the communication, that
   within eight days after the investment 4,000 men at arms and
   innumerable infantry were assembled at Florence! As this was
   about double the imperial cavalry and four times its infantry,
   the city gates were thrown open and business proceeded as
   usual, except through that entrance immediately opposite to
   the enemy. For two and forty days did the emperor remain
   within a mile of Florence, ravaging all the country, but
   making no impression on the town; after which he raised the
   siege and moved to San Casciano, eight miles south." Later,
   the Imperialist army was withdrawn to Poggibonzi, and in
   March, 1313, it was moved to Pisa, to prepare for a new
   campaign. "The Florentines had thus from the first, without
   much military skill or enterprise, proved themselves the
   boldest and bitterest enemies of Henry; their opposition had
   never ceased; by letters, promises, and money, they corrupted
   all Lombardy. … Yet party quarrels did not cease. … The
   emperor now turned all his energies to the conquest of Naples,
   as the first step towards that of Italy itself. For this he
   formed a league with Sicily and Genoa; assembled troops from
   Germany and Lombardy; filled his treasury in various ways, and
   soon found himself at the head of 2,500 German cavalry and
   1,500 Italian men-at-arms, besides a Genoese fleet of 70
   galleys under Lamba Doria and 50 more supplied by the King of
   Sicily, who with 1,000 men-at-arms had already invaded
   Calabria by capturing Reggio and other places." On the 5th of
   August, the emperor left Pisa upon his expedition against
   Naples; on the 24th of the same month he died at Buonconvento
   —not without suspicions of poison, although his illness began
   before his departure from Pisa. "The intelligence of this
   event spread joy and consternation amongst his friends and
   enemies; the army soon separated, and his own immediate
   followers with the Pisan auxiliaries carried his body back to
   Pisa where it was magnificently interred."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 15 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1312-1338.
   The rising power and the reverses of the Scaligeri of Verona.
   Mastino's war with Florence and Venice.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338:

{1822}

ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
   Guelf leadership of King Robert of Naples.
   Wars of Pisa and Florence.
   The rise and threatening power of Castruccio Castracani.
   Siege of Genoa.
   Visit of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.
   Subjection and deliverance of Pisa.

   "While the unexpected death of Henry VII. deprived the
   Ghibelin party of its leader, and long wars between rival
   candidates for the succession to the German throne placed the
   imperial authority over Italy in abeyance [see GERMANY: A. D.
   1314-1347], Robert, king of Naples, the chief of the Guelf
   party, the possessor of Provence, and the favourite of the
   church, began to aspire to the general sovereignty of Italy.
   He had succeeded to the crowns of Naples and Provence on the
   death of his father, Charles II., in opposition to the
   recognized laws of inheritance (A. D. 1309). His elder
   brother, Charles Martel, by his marriage with the heiress of
   Hungary, had been called to the throne of that kingdom, and
   had died before his father. His son, Carobert, the reigning
   king of Hungary, on the death of his grandfather, Charles II.,
   asserted his just rights to all the dominions of that monarch;
   but Robert, hastening to Avignon, whither Clement V. had now
   removed his court, obtained from the pope, as feudal superior
   of the royal fief of Naples, a sentence which set aside the
   claims of his nephew in his own favour. The king of Hungary
   did not seriously attempt to oppose this decision, and Robert,
   a prince of wisdom and address, though devoid of military
   talents, soon extended his ambitious views beyond the kingdom
   over which he reigned undisturbed." The death of Henry VII.
   "left him every opportunity both to attempt the subjugation of
   the Ghibelin states, and to convert his alliance with the
   Guelfs into the relation of sovereign and subject. … It was
   in Tuscany that the storm first broke over the Ghibelins after
   the loss of their imperial chief, and that the first ray of
   success unexpectedly beamed on their cause. Florence and the
   other Guelf cities of the province were no sooner delivered
   from the fear of Henry VII. than they prepared to wreak their
   vengeance against Pisa for the succours which she had
   furnished to the emperor. But that republic, in consternation
   at her danger, had taken into pay 1,000 German cavalry, the
   only part of the imperial army which could be prevailed upon
   to remain in Italy, and had chosen for her general Uguccione
   della Faggiuola, a celebrated Ghibelin captain. The ability of
   this commander, and the confidence with which he inspired the
   Pisans, turned the tide of fortune. … The vigour of his arms
   reduced the Guelf people of Lucca to sue for peace; they were
   compelled to restore their Ghibelin exiles; and then
   Uguccione, fomenting the dissensions which were thus created
   within the walls, easily subjected one of the most wealthy and
   flourishing cities of Tuscany to his sword (A. D. 1314). The
   loss of so valuable an ally as Lucca alarmed the Florentines,
   and the whole Guelf party. … King Robert sent two of his
   brothers into Tuscany with a body of gens-d'armerie; the
   Florentines and all the Tuscan Guelfs uniting their forces to
   this succour formed a large army; and the confederates
   advanced to relieve the castle of Montecatini which Uguccione
   was besieging." The Ghibelin commander had a much smaller
   force to resist them with; but he gained, notwithstanding, "a
   memorable victory, near Montecatini, in which both a brother
   and a nephew of the king of Naples were numbered with the
   slain (A. D. 1315). This triumph rendered Uguccione more
   formidable than ever; but his tyranny became insupportable
   both to the Pisans and Lucchese, and a conspiracy was formed
   in concert in both cities. … Excluded from both places and
   deserted by his troops, he retired to the court of the Scala
   at Verona (A. D. 1316). So Pisa recovered her liberty, but
   Lucca was less fortunate or wise, for her citizens only
   transferred the power which Uguccione had usurped to the chief
   of the Ghibelins. Castruccio Castracani degl' Interminelli,
   one of the most celebrated names in Italian history. This
   extraordinary man … had early in life shared the common fate
   of exile with the White Guelfs or Ghibelins of Lucca. Passing
   ten years of banishment in England, France, and the Ghibelin
   cities of Lombardy, he had served a long apprenticeship to
   arms under the best generals of the age. … He had no sooner
   returned to Lucca with the Ghibelin exiles, who were restored
   by the terms of the peace with Pisa, than he became the first
   citizen of the state. His skill and courage mainly contributed
   to the subsequent victory of Montecatini, and endeared him to
   the Lucchese; his influence and intrigues excited the
   jealousy of Uguccione, and caused his imprisonment; and the
   insurrection which delivered Lucca from that chief, liberated
   Castruccio from chains and impending death to sovereign
   command. Chosen annual captain of the people at three
   successive, elections, he at length demanded and obtained the
   suffrages of the senate and citizens for his elevation to the
   dignity of signor (A. D. 1320): … Under his government Lucca
   enjoyed repose for some years. … During these transactions
   in Tuscany, the Lombard plains were still desolated by
   incessant and unsparing warfare. The efforts of the Neapolitan
   king were mainly directed to crush Matteo Visconti [see MILAN:
   A. D. 1277-1447] and the Ghibelins in this part of Italy;" but
   the power of the latter was continually spreading. "In this
   prosperous state of the Ghibelin interests the domestic feuds
   of Genoa attracted the tide of war to her gates. The ambitious
   rivalry of her four great families, of the Grimaldi, the
   Fieschi, the Spinola, and the Doria, had long agitated the
   bosom of the republic; and at the period before us the two
   former, who headed the Guelf party, had, after various
   convulsions, gained possession of the government. The Spinola
   and Doria, retiring from the city, fortified themselves in the
   smaller towns of the Genoese territory, and immediately
   invited the Ghibelin chiefs of Lombardy to their aid. The
   lords of Milan and Verona promptly complied with the demand,
   … and laid siege to the capital. The rulers of Genoa could
   then resort in their terror to no other protection than that
   of the Neapolitan king. Robert, conscious of the importance of
   preserving the republic from subjection to his enemies,
   hastened by sea to its defence, and obtained the absolute
   cession of the Genoese liberties into his hands for ten years
   as the price of his services. … After the possession of the
   suburbs and outworks of Genoa had been obstinately contested
   during ten months, the Ghibelins were compelled to raise the
   siege. But Robert had scarcely quitted the city to pass into
   Provence, when the exiles with aid from Lombardy again
   approached Genoa, and during four years continued a war of
   posts in its vicinity.
{1823}
   But neither the Lombard signors nor Robert engaged in this
   fruitless contest, and Lombardy again became the great theatre
   of warfare." But the power which Matteo Visconti was steadily
   building at Milan, for his family, could not be shaken, even
   though an invasion from France (1320), and a second from
   Germany (1322), was brought about through papal influence. At
   the same time Castruccio Castracani, having consolidated his
   despotism at Lucca, was making war upon the Florentines. When,
   in 1325, he succeeded in gaining possession of the Guelf city
   of Pistoia, "this acquisition, which was highly dangerous to
   Florence, produced such alarm in that republic that she called
   out her whole native force for the more vigorous prosecution
   of the war." Castruccio was heavily outnumbered in the
   campaign, but he gained, nevertheless, a great victory over
   the Florentines near the castle of Altopascio (November 23,
   1325). "The whole Florentine territory was ravaged and
   plundered, and the conqueror carried his insults to the gates
   of the capital. … In the ruin which threatened the Guelf
   party in Tuscany, the Florentines had recourse to King Robert
   of Naples, with entreaties for aid," which he brought to them
   in 1326, but only on the condition "that his absolute command
   over the republic, which had expired in 1321, should be
   renewed for ten years in favour of his son Charles, duke of
   Calabria." But now a new danger to the Guelf interests
   appeared, in the approach of the emperor, Louis IV. of
   Bavaria. "After a long contest for the crown of Henry VII.,
   Louis of Bavaria had triumphed over his rival, Frederic of
   Austria, and taken him prisoner at the sanguinary battle of
   Muhldorf, in 1322. Having since passed five years in
   confirming his authority in Germany, Louis was now tempted by
   ambition and cupidity to undertake an expedition into Italy
   (A. D. 1327)." Halting for some time at Milan, where he
   received the iron crown of Lombardy, and where he deposed and
   imprisoned Galeazzo Visconti, he proceeded into Tuscany "on
   his march to Rome, where he intended to receive the imperial
   crown. He was welcomed with joy by the signor of Lucca, and
   the superior genius of Castruccio at once acquired the entire
   ascendant over the weaker mind of Louis. Against the united
   forces of the emperor and of Castruccio, the duke of Calabria
   and his Guelf army cautiously maintained themselves on the
   defensive; but the passage of Louis through Tuscany was
   attended with disastrous consequences to the most famous
   Ghibelin city of that province." Pisa, notwithstanding the
   long fidelity of that republic to the Ghibelin cause, was
   sacrificed by the emperor to the covetous ambition of
   Castruccio. The forces of the two were joined in a siege to
   which the unfortunate city submitted after a month. "She thus
   fell in reality into the hands of Castruccio, who shortly
   established his absolute authority over her capital and
   territory. After extorting a heavy contribution from the
   Pisans, and rewarding the services of Castruccio by erecting
   the state of Lucca into an imperial duchy in his favour, the
   rapacious emperor pursued his march to Rome. There he consumed
   in the frivolous ceremony of his coronation [January 17,
   1328], and in the vain endeavour to establish an antipope, the
   time which he might have employed, with the forces at his
   command, and in conjunction with Frederic, king of Sicily, in
   crushing for ever the power of Robert of Naples and of all the
   Guelfs of Italy who depended on that monarch." In August of
   the same year Castruccio, who "had now attained an elevation
   which seemed to threaten … the total subjugation of all
   Italy," died suddenly of a fever. "Florence breathed again
   from impending oppression, Pisa recovered her freedom, and
   Lucca sank from ephemeral splendour into lasting obscurity. By
   the death of Castruccio the emperor had lost his best
   counsellor and firmest support, and he soon ceased to be
   formidable to the Guelfs. … Hastily returning into Tuscany,
   he plundered the infant orphans of Castruccio of their
   inheritance to sell Lucca to a new signor, and to impose
   ruinous contributions upon the Pisans, before his return into
   Lombardy delivered them from tyranny. … The first proceeding
   of Louis in Lombardy had been to ruin the Visconti, and to
   drain their states of money: almost his last act in the
   province was to make the restoration of this family to power a
   new source of profit." In 1330 the emperor returned to
   Germany, recalled by troubles in that part of his dominions.

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4, part 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _N. Machiavelli,
      The Florentine Histories,
      book 2._

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapters 15-18 (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1314-1327.
   The election and contest of rival emperors, Louis of Bavaria
   and Frederick of Austria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

ITALY: A. D. 1341-1343.
   Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans, before Lucca.
   Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1343-1389.
   Troubled reign of Joanna I. in Naples.
   Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
   Political effects of the great Schism in the Church.
   The war of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
   Violent course of Pope Urban VI.

   "In Naples itself the house of Anjou fell into disunion.
   Charles II. of Naples gained by marriage the dowry of Hungary
   [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1342], which passed to his eldest son
   Charles Martel, while his second son, Robert, ruled in Naples.
   But Robert survived his only son, and left as heiress of the
   kingdom [1343] his grand-daughter Giovanna [better known as
   Joan, or Joanna]. The attempt to give stability to the rule of
   a female by marriage with her cousin, Andrew of Hungary, only
   aroused the jealousy of the Neapolitan nobles and raised up a
   strong party in opposition to Hungarian influence. Charles II.
   of Naples, Giovanna's great-grand-father, had left many sons
   and daughters, whose descendants of the great houses of
   Durazzo and Tarento, like those of the sons of Edward III. in
   England, hoped to exercise the royal power. When, in 1845,
   Pope Clement VI. was on the point of recognising Andrew as
   King of Naples, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he
   was murdered, with the connivance, as it was currently
   believed, of the Queen. Hereon the feuds in the kingdom blazed
   forth more violently than before; the party of Durazzo ranged
   itself against that of Tarento, and demanded punishment of the
   murderers; Giovanna I., to protect herself, married Lewis of
   Tarento in 1347. King Lewis of Hungary, aided by the party of
   Durazzo, entered Naples to avenge his brother's death, and for
   a while all was confusion. On the death of Lewis of Tarento
   (1362), Giovanna I. married James, King of Majorca, and on his
   death (1374), Otto, Duke of Brunswick.
{1824}
   Giovanna I. was childless, and the slight lull which in the
   last years had come over the war of factions in Naples was
   only owing to the fact that all were preparing for the
   inevitable conflict which her death would bring." Neapolitan
   affairs were at this stage when the great schism occurred (see
   PAPACY; A. D. 1377-1417), which enthroned two rival popes, one
   (Urban VI.) at Rome, and one (Clement VII.) at Avignon. Queen
   Giovanna had inclined first to Urban, but was repelled, and
   gave her adhesion to Clement. Thereupon, Urban, on the 21st of
   April, 1380, "declared her deposed from her throne as a
   heretic, schismatic, and traitor to the Pope. He looked for
   help in carrying out his decree to King Lewis of Hungary, who
   had for a time laid aside his desire for vengeance against
   Giovanna, but was ready to resume his plans of aggrandisement
   when a favourable opportunity offered. … Lewis was not
   himself disposed to leave his kingdom; but he had at his court
   the son of his relative, Lewis of Durazzo, whom he had put to
   death in his Neapolitan campaign for complicity in Andrew's
   murder. Yet he felt compassion for his young son Charles,
   brought him to Hungary, and educated him at his court. As
   Giovanna was childless, Charles of Durazzo, or Carlo della
   Pace, as he was called in Italy, had a strong claim to the
   Neapolitan throne at her death." Charles of Durazzo was
   accordingly furnished with Hungarian troops for an expedition
   against Naples, and reached Rome in November, 1380. "Clement
   VII. on his side bestirred himself in behalf of his ally
   Giovanna, and for this purpose could count on the help of
   France. Failing the house of Durazzo, the house of Valois
   could put forward a claim to the Neapolitan throne, as being
   descended from the daughter of Charles II. The helpless
   Giovanna I. in her need adopted as her heir and successor
   Louis, Duke of Anjou, brother of the French king, and called
   him to her aid. Clement VII. hastened to confer on Louis
   everything that he could; he even formed the States of the
   Church into a kingdom of Adria, and bestowed them on Louis;
   only Rome itself, and the adjacent lands in Tuscany, Campania
   Maritima, and Sabina were reserved for the Pope. The
   Avignonese pretender was resolved to show how little he cared
   for Italy or for the old traditions of the Italian greatness
   of his office. Charles of Durazzo was first in the field, for
   Louis of Anjou was detained in France by the death of Charles
   V. in September, 1380. The accession of Charles VI. at the age
   of twelve threw the government of the kingdom upon the Council
   of Regency, of which Louis of Anjou was the chief member. He
   used his position to gratify his chief failing, avarice, and
   gathered large sums of money for his Neapolitan campaign.
   Meanwhile Charles of Durazzo was in Rome, where Urban VI.
   equipped him for his undertaking." In June, 1381, Charles
   marched against Naples, defeated Otto, the husband of
   Giovanna, at San Germano, and had the gates of Naples opened
   to him by a rising within the city on the 16th of July.
   Giovanna took refuge in the Castel Nuovo, but surrendered it
   on the 26th of August. After nine months of captivity, the
   unfortunate queen was "strangled in her prison on May 12,
   1382, and her corpse was exposed for six days before burial
   that the certainty of her death might be known to all.
   Thenceforth the question between Charles III. and Louis was
   not complicated by any considerations of Giovanna's rights. It
   was a struggle of two dynasties for the Neapolitan crown, a
   struggle which was to continue for the next century. Crowned
   King of Naples by Clement VII., Louis of Anjou quitted Avignon
   at the end of May, accompanied by a brilliant array of French
   barons and knights. He hastened through North Italy, and
   disappointed the hopes of the fervent partisans of Clement
   VII. by pursuing his course over Aquila, through the Abruzzi,
   and refusing to turn aside to Rome, which, they said, he might
   have occupied, seized Urban VI., and so ended the Schism. When
   he entered the territory of Naples he soon received large
   accessions to his forces from discontented barons, while 22
   galleys from Provence occupied Ischia and threatened Naples."
   Charles, having inferior forces, could not meet his adversary
   in the field, but showed great tactical skill, acting on the
   defensive, "cutting off supplies, and harassing his enemy by
   unexpected sallies. The French troops perished miserably from
   the effects of the climate; … Louis saw his splendid army
   rapidly dwindling away." But quarrels now arose between
   Charles and Pope Urban; the latter went to Naples to interfere
   in affairs; the King made him practically a prisoner and
   extorted from him agreements which were not to his liking. But
   Urban, on the 1st of January, 1384, "proclaimed a crusade
   against Louis as a heretic and schismatic, and Charles
   unfurled the banner of the Cross." In May the Pope withdrew
   from Naples to Nocera, and there began a series of
   interferences which convinced Charles "that Urban was a more
   serious adversary than Louis." With the summer came attacks of
   the plague upon both armies; but that of Louis suffered most,
   and Louis himself died, in September, bequeathing his claims
   on Naples to his eldest son. "On the death of Louis the
   remnant of his army dispersed, and Charles was free from one
   antagonist. … War was now declared between the Pope and the
   King. … Charles found adherents amongst Urban's Cardinals."
   Urban discovered the plots of the latter and threw six of them
   into a dungeon, where he tortured them with brutality. Charles
   attacked Nocera and took the town, but the castle in which the
   Pope had fortified himself resisted a long siege. "Three or
   four times a day the dauntless Pope appeared at a window, and
   with bell and torch cursed and excommunicated the besieging
   army." In August, 1385, Urban was rescued by some of his
   partisans, who broke through the camp of the besiegers and
   carried him off, still clinging to his captive cardinals, all
   but one of whom he subsequently put to death. He made his way
   to Trani and was there met by Genoese galleys which conveyed
   him and his party to Genoa. He resided in Genoa rather more
   than a year, very much to the discomfort and expense of the
   Genoese, and then, after much difficulty, found shelter at
   Lucca until September, 1387. Meantime Charles III. had left
   Naples, returning to Hungary to head a revolt against the
   widowed queen and young daughter of Lewis, who died in 1382.
   There he was assassinated in February, 1386. "The death of
   Charles III. again plunged the kingdom of Naples into
   confusion. The Angevin party, which had been powerless against
   Charles, raised against his son Ladislas, a boy of twelve
   years old, the claims of Louis II. of Anjou.
{1825}
   The exactions of the Queen Regent Margaret awoke
   dissatisfaction, and led to the appointment in Naples of a new
   civic magistracy, called the Otto di Buono Stato, who were at
   variance with Margaret. The Angevins rallied under Tommaso of
   Sanseverino, and were reinforced by the arrival of Otto of
   Brunswick. The cause of Louis was still identified with that
   of Clement VII., who, in May 1385, had solemnly invested him
   with the kingdom of Naples. Urban VI., however, refused to
   recognise the claims of the son of Charles, though Margaret
   tried to propitiate him … and though Florence warmly
   supported her prayers for help." The Pope continued obstinate
   in this refusal until his death. He declared that the kingdom
   of Naples had lapsed to the Holy See, and he tried to gather
   money and troops for an expedition to secure it. As a means to
   that end, he ordered that the year 1390 should be a year of
   jubilee—a decade before the end of the century. It was his
   last desperate measure to obtain money. On the 15th of October
   1389 he died and one of the most disastrous pontificates in
   the history of the Papacy came to an end.

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Historical Life of Joanna of Sicily._

      _Mrs. Jameson,
      Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _St. C. Baddeley,
      Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI._

ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
   The "Free Companies."
   Their depredations and the wars employing them.
   The Great Company.
   The Company of Sir John Hawkwood.

   "The practice of hiring troops to fight the battles of the
   Commonwealth [of Florence—but in other Italian states no
   less] had for some time past been continually on the increase.
   … The demand for these mercenary troops,—a demand which …
   preferred strangers from beyond the Alps,—had filled Italy
   with bands of free lances, ready to take service with any
   tyrant, or any free city that was willing to pay them. They
   passed from one service to another, and from one side of a
   quarrel to the other, with the utmost indifference and
   impartiality. But from this manner of life to setting up for
   themselves and warring for their own behoof there was but one
   step. And no prudent man could have doubted that this step
   would ere long be taken. Every circumstance of the age and
   country combined to invite and facilitate it. … Already,
   immediately after the fall of the Duke of Athens [at Florence,
   1343], a German adventurer, one Werner, known in Italian
   history as the Duke Guarnieri, had induced a large number of
   the hired troops, who were then 'unattached' in Italy, mainly
   those dismissed at that time from the service of Pisa, to form
   themselves into an independent company and recognize him as
   their leader. With equal effrontery and accuracy this ruffian
   styled himself 'The enemy of God, of Pity, and of Mercy.' …
   This gang of bandits numbered more than 2,000 horsemen. Their
   first exploit was to threaten the city of Siena. Advancing
   through the Sienese territory towards the city, plundering,
   killing, and burning indiscriminately as they went, they
   inspired so sudden and universal a terror that the city was
   glad to buy them off with a sum of 12,000 florins. From the
   Sienese territory they passed to that of Arezzo, and thence to
   the district around Perugia; and then turning towards the
   Adriatic, overran Romagna, and the Rimini country, then
   governed by the Malatesat family. It is difficult adequately
   to describe, or even to conceive the sufferings, the
   destruction, the panic, the horror, which marked the track of
   such a body of miscreants." Finally, by the skilful management
   of the Lord of Bologna, the company was bought up and sent
   across the Alps, out of Italy, in detachments. "The relief was
   obtained in a manner which was sure to operate as an
   encouragement to the formation of other similar bands. And
   now, after the proclamation of the peace between Florence and
   the Visconti, on the 1st of April, 1353, … the experiment
   which had answered so well in the hands of the German 'Enemy
   to God and to Mercy,' was repeated on a larger scale by a
   French Knight Hospitaller of the name of Montreal, known in
   Italian history as Frà Moriale. … Being out of place, it
   occurred to him to collect all the fighting men in Italy who
   were similarly circumstanced, and form an independent company
   after the example of Guarnieri, with the avowed purpose of
   living by plunder and brigandage. He was so successful that he
   collected in a very short time 1,500 men-at-arms and 2,000
   foot soldiers; who were subsequently increased to 5,000
   cavaliers and 7,000 infantry; and this band was known as 'the
   Great Company.'" There was an attempt made, at first, to
   combine Florence, Siena and Perugia, with the Romagna, in
   resistance to the marauders; but it failed. "The result was
   that the Florentines were obliged to buy off the terrible Frà
   Moriale with a bribe of 28,000 florins, and Pisa with one of
   16,000. … The chief … after Frà Moriale himself, was one
   Conrad, Count of Lando; and under him the Company marched
   towards Lombardy in search of fresh booty, while Moriale
   himself, remaining temporarily behind, went to Rome to confer
   privately, as it was believed, with the Colonna chiefs,
   respecting a project of employing his band against Rienzi, the
   tribune. But whether such was the object of his journey to
   Rome or not, it was fatal to the brigand chief. For Rienzi no
   sooner knew that the notorious Frà Moriale was within his
   jurisdiction than he arrested him, and summarily ordered him
   to execution as a common malefactor. The death of the chief,
   however, did not put an end to 'the Great Company'; for Conrad
   of Lando remained, and succeeded to the command of it." From
   1356 to 1359, Italy in different parts was preyed upon by 'the
   Great Company,' sometimes in the service of the league of the
   lesser Lombard princes against the Visconti of Milan, and once
   in the employ of Siena against Perugia; but generally
   marauding on their own account, independently. Florence,
   alone, stood out in resistance to their exactions, and finally
   sent into the field against them 2,000 men-at-arms, all tried
   troops, 500 Hungarians: and 2,500 cross-bowmen, besides the
   native troops of the city. Subsequently the Florentine forces
   were joined by others from Milan, Padua, and elsewhere. The
   bandits marched all around the Florentine frontier, with much
   bluster, making great threats, but constantly evading an
   engagement. At length, on the 20th of July, 1359, the two
   armies were in such a position that "it was thought in the
   Florentine camp that a decisive battle would be fought on the
   morrow. But when that July morning dawned, Lando and his
   bandit host were already in full march northwards towards
   Genoa, with a precipitation that had all the appearance of
   flight. … 'The Great Company never again dared to show its
   face in Tuscany.'"

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

{1826}

   "Another company, consisting principally of Englishmen [lately
   turned loose in France by the Peace of Bretigny, 1360, which
   terminated the invasion of Edward III.], was brought into
   Italy at a somewhat later period by the Marquis of Montferrat.
   … About the same time another, composed principally of
   Germans, and commanded by Amichino Baumgarten, was raised by
   Galeazzo Visconti, and afterwards employed by the Pisans.
   Another, entitled that of St. George, was formed by Ambrose,
   the natural son of Bernabos Visconti, and let loose by him on
   the territories of Perugia and Sienna. Thus, at the end of the
   14th century, Italy was devastated at one and the same time by
   these four companies of adventurers, or, as they might more
   justly be called, professional robbers. … Of all these
   companies, the military reputation of the English was
   undoubtedly the greatest—a circumstance which may be
   ascribed, in some degree, to the physical superiority of the
   men, but still more to the talents of Sir John Hawkwood, by
   whom they were commanded."

      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   One of the marauding companies left in France after the Peace
   of Bretigny, and which afflicted that wretched country so
   sorely (see FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380), was called the White
   Company, and Sir John Hawkwood was one of its commanders. "The
   White Company crossed into Lombardy, under the command of one
   Albaret, and took service under the Marquis of Montferrat,
   then at war with the Duke of Milan. Hawkwood [called Giovanni
   Aguto by the Italians] entered the Pisan service, and next
   year, when the marquis, being unable to maintain his English
   troops, disbanded them, the Pisans engaged them, and gave
   Hawkwood the command." Hawkwood and his company served Pisa,
   in war with Florence, until 1364, when they experienced a
   great defeat, which led to peace and their discharge. During
   the next three years they lived as independent freebooters,
   the territories of Siena suffering most from their
   depredations. Then they took service with Bernabo Visconti,
   Lord of Milan, making war for him on Florence and its allies;
   but very soon their arms were turned against Milan, and they
   were fighting in the pay of Florence and the Pope. "Within the
   next five years he changed sides twice. He served Galeazzo
   Visconti against the Papal States; and then, brought back to
   fight for Holy Church, defeated his late employer in two
   pitched battles." After this, when the league against an
   aggressive and ambitious pontiff extended, and Florence,
   Bologna and other cities joined Milan, Hawkwood took money
   from both at the same time, and cheated both, preliminarily to
   fighting each in turn. While serving the Pope his ruffians
   wantonly destroyed the captured town of Casena, massacring
   between 4,000 and 5,000 people, women and children included.
   In 1378, when Gregory XI. died, peace followed, and Hawkwood's
   company resumed its old freebooting. In 1381 he was engaged in
   the Neapolitan civil war. In 1387 he seems to have become
   permanently engaged in the service of Florence against the
   Duke of Milan. "In 1391, Florence concluded a general peace
   with all her enemies. Her foreign auxiliaries were dismissed,
   with the exception or Sir John Hawkwood and 1,000 men.
   Hawkwood henceforth remained in her service till his death,
   which took place on the 6th of March, 1393. He was buried at
   the public expense, as a valiant servant of the State."

      _Sir John Hawkwood
      (Bentley's Miscellany,
      volume 54, pages 284-291)._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Browning,
      Guelphs and Ghibellines,
      chapter 12. _

ITALY: A. D. 1347-1354.
   Rienzi's Revolution at Rome.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

ITALY: A. D. 1348-1355.
   War of Genoa against Venice, the Greeks and Aragonese.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

ITALY: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation and revolt of the States of the Church.
   War of the Pope with Florence.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

ITALY: A. D. 1378-1427.
   The democratizing of Florence.
   Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearance of the Medici.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

ITALY: A. D. 1379-1381.
   Final triumph of Venice over Genoa in the War of Chioggia.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1386-1414.
   Renewed Civil War in Naples.
   Defeat of the Angevins and triumph of Ladislas.
   His ambitious career.
   His capture and recapture of Rome.

   "The death of Charles III. involved the kingdom of Naples in
   the most ruinous anarchy; and delivered it for many years a
   prey to all the disorders of a long minority and a disputed
   throne. Charles had left two children, Ladislaus, a boy of ten
   years old, and a daughter, Joanna; and his widow Margaret
   acted as regent for her son. On the other hand, the
   Sanseverini and other baronial families, rallying the Angevin
   party, proclaimed the young son of the late duke of Anjou
   king,—also under the guardianship of his mother, Maria,—by
   the title of Louis II. Thus Naples was disturbed by the rival
   pretensions of two boys, placed beneath the guidance of
   ambitious and intriguing mothers, and severally protected by
   two popes, who excommunicated each other, and laboured to
   crush the minors whom they respectively opposed, only that
   they might establish their own authority over the party which
   they supported. … For several years the Angevin party seemed
   to maintain the ascendancy. Louis II. was withheld in Provence
   from the scene of danger by his mother; but the barons who had
   raised his standard, forcing Margaret of Durazzo and the
   adherents of her son to retire to Greta, possessed themselves
   of the capital and great part of the kingdom. When Louis II.,
   therefore, was at length suffered by his mother to appear at
   Naples, attended by a powerful fleet and a numerous train of
   the warlike nobles of France (A. D. 1390), he disembarked at
   the capital amidst the acclamations of his people, and would
   probably have overpowered the party of Durazzo with ease, if,
   as he advanced towards manhood, he had displayed any energy of
   character. But he proved very unequal, by his indolence and
   love of pleasure, to contend with the son of Charles III.
   Educated in the midst of alarms and danger, and surrounded
   from his infancy by civil wars and conspiracies, Ladislaus had
   early been exercised in courageous enterprise, and trained to
   intrigue and dissimulation.
{1827}
   At the age of 16, his mother Margaret committed him to the
   barons of her party to make his first essay in arms; and from
   this period he was ever at the head of his troops. … A
   fortunate marriage, which his mother had effected for him with
   Constance di Clermont, the heiress of the most opulent noble
   of Sicily, increased his resources by an immense dowry; and
   while he made an able use of these riches [meanly and
   heartlessly divorcing the wife who brought them to him, when
   they had been spent], the new Italian pope, Boniface IX., the
   successor of Urban VI., recognized him for the legitimate son
   and vassal of the church, because Louis was supported by the
   Avignon pontiff. This decision gained him many partizans; …
   his talents and valour hourly advanced his success; and at
   last the Sanseverini and all the barons of the Angevin party,
   following the tide of fortune, went over to his standards, and
   opened to him the gates of Naples (A. D. 1399). Louis …
   retired by sea to his Provençal dominions, and finally
   abandoned the kingdom of Naples. Ladislaus, having thus
   triumphed over his sluggish antagonist, had leisure to
   consolidate his stern authority over the licentious and
   turbulent feudal aristocracy of his kingdom. … He …
   crushed the Sanseverini and other great families, whose power
   might make them dangerous; and having rooted out the seeds of
   all resistance to his sway in his own dominions, he prepared
   to direct his vigorous ambition to schemes of foreign
   conquest."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 5, part 3._

   Until the death of Pope Boniface IX., Ladislas supported that
   pontiff through the hard struggle in which he crushed the
   rebellious Colonna and made himself master of the city of
   Rome. But when Boniface died, in 1404, the Neapolitan king
   began to scheme for bringing the ancient capital and the
   possessions of the Church under his own control. "His plan was
   to set the Pope [the newly elected Innocent, VII.] and the
   Roman people against one another, and by helping now one and
   now the other to get them both into his power. … He trusted
   that the rebellious Romans would drive the Pope from the city,
   and would then be compelled to submit to himself." He had
   entered Rome, four days after the papal election, ostensibly
   as a mediator between the rival factions, and between the Pope
   and the Roman people; and he was easily able to bring about an
   arrangement which gave him every opportunity for interference
   and for turning circumstances to his own advantage. Events
   soon followed as he had expected them, and as he helped,
   through his agents, to guide them. The turbulence of the
   people increased, until, in 1405, the Pope was driven to
   flight. "No sooner had the Pope left Rome than Giovanni
   Colonna, at the head of his troops, burst into the Vatican,
   where he took up his quarters. … The Vatican was sacked;
   even the Papal archives were pillaged, and Bulls, letters and
   registers were scattered about the streets. Many of these were
   afterwards restored, but the loss of historic documents must
   have been great." Ladislas now thought his time for seizing
   Rome was come; but when he sent 5,000 horse to join the
   Colonna, the Romans took alarm, repelled the Neapolitan
   troops, and called back the Pope, who returned in January,
   1406, but who died in the following November. Under the next
   Pope, Gregory XII., there were negotiations with Avignon for
   the ending of the great schism; and all the craft of Ladislas
   was exerted to defeat that purpose; because a reunion of
   western Christendom would not be favorable to his designs. At
   last, a conference of the rival popes was arranged, to take
   place at Savona, near Genoa, and in August, 1407, Gregory XII.
   left Rome, moving slowly northwards, but finding reasons,
   equally with his competitor, for never presenting himself at
   the appointed meeting-place. In his absence the disorders of
   Rome increased, and when Ladislas, in April, 1408; appeared
   before the city with an army of 12,000 horse and as many foot,
   it was surrendered to him without resistance. "The craft of
   Ladislas had gained its end, and the temporal power of the
   Papacy had passed into his hands. … So utterly had the
   prestige of Rome, the memories of her glories, passed away
   from men's minds, that her sister republic of Florence could
   send and congratulate Ladislas on the triumphal victory which
   God and his own manhood had given him in the city of Rome."
   When, in 1408, the disgusted cardinals of both papal courts
   joined in calling a general Council of the Church, to meet at
   Pisa the following year, Ladislas threatened to prevent it. By
   this time "Gregory had sank to the lowest pitch of
   degradation: he sold to Ladislas for the small sum of 25,000
   florins the entire States of the Church, and even Rome itself.
   After this bargain Ladislas set out for Rome, intending to
   proceed into Tuscany and break up the Council." Early in
   April, 1409, he marched northwards and threatened Siena. But
   Florence had now undertaken the defense of the Council, and
   resisted him so effectually that the meeting at Pisa was
   undisturbed. The immediate result of the Council was the
   election of a third claimant of the Papacy, Alexander V. (see
   PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417). Around the new Pope a league was now
   formed which embraced Florence, Siena, and Louis of Anjou,
   whose claim upon Naples was revived. The league made an
   attempt on Rome in the autumn of 1409, and failed; but the
   following January the Neapolitans were expelled and the city
   was occupied by the papal forces. In May, 1410, Alexander V.
   died, and was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa, who took the name
   of John XXIII. The new Pope hastened to identify his cause
   with Louis of Anjou, and succeeded, by his energy, in putting
   into the field an army which comprised the four chief
   "condottieri" in Italy, with their veteran followers. Ladislas
   was attacked and routed completely at Rocca Secca, on the 19th
   of May, 1411. But the worthlessness of Louis and the mercenary
   character of his generals made the victory of no effect.
   Ladislas bought over the best of the troops and their leaders,
   and before the end of summer Louis was back in Provence, again
   abandoning his Neapolitan claims. Ladislas made peace, first,
   with Florence, by selling Cortona to that city, and then with
   the Pope, who recognized him as king, not only of Naples, but
   of Sicily as well. But Ladislas was only gaining time by these
   treaties. In June, 1413, he drove the Pope from Rome, and his
   troops again occupied the city. He seemed to be now well
   prepared for realizing his ambition to found an extended
   Italian kingdom; but his career was cut short by a mortal
   disease, which ended his life on the 6th of August, 1414.

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 1, chapters 3-8 (volume 1)._

{1828}

ITALY: A. D. 1390-1402.
   Resistance of Florence to the spreading tyranny of the Duke of
   Milan.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

ITALY: A. D. 1391-1451.
   Extension of the Italian dominions of the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

ITALY: A. D. 1396-1409.
   The sovereignty of Genoa yielded to the King of France.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.
   The crumbling of the Visconti dominion.
   Aggrandizement of Venice.
   Florentine purchase and conquest of Pisa.
   Decline of that city.

   "The little states of Romagna, which had for the most part
   been conquered by Gian-Galeazzo [Visconti, Duke of Milan],
   were at his death [1402] overrun by the Count of Barbiano, who
   with his famous company entered the service of Pope Boniface
   IX. … The Count of Savoy, the Marquess of Montferrat, and
   the lords of Padua, Ferrara, and Mantua, were the only
   independent Sovereigns in North Italy in 1402. Of these
   Francesco, lord of Padua, was soon to fall. On the death of
   Gian-Galeazzo he seized on Verona. Venice would not allow her
   old enemy to gain this advantage, and made alliance with
   Francesco di Gonzaga, lord of Mantua, and with his help took
   Verona, and closely besieged Padua. After a gallant resistance
   Francesco da Carrara was forced to yield, and he and his two
   sons were taken prisoners to Venice, and were there strangled
   by order of the Council of Ten. This war gave the Venetians
   great power on the mainland. They reconquered Treviso, and
   gained Feltro, Verona [1405], Vicenza, and Padua [1405], and
   from this time Venice became an Italian power. In Tuscany, the
   death of her great enemy delivered Florence from her distress,
   and Siena, which now regained her liberty, placed herself
   under her protection. Pisa [which had been betrayed to
   Gian-Galeazzo in 1399] had been left to Gabriello Visconti, a
   bastard son of the late Duke. He put himself under the
   protection of Jean Boucicault, who governed Genoa for Charles
   VI., King of France, and with his consent he sold Pisa to the
   Florentines. The Pisans resisted this sacrifice of their
   freedom, and the war lasted a year, but in 1406 the city was
   forced to surrender. Many of the people left their homes; for,
   though Florence acted fairly towards her old enemy and new
   subject, yet the Pisans could not bear the yoke, and the
   greatness of the city, its trade and its wealth, vanished
   away."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 6._

   "From that day to this it [Pisa] has never recovered,—not its
   former greatness, wealth, and energy,—but even sufficient
   vitality to arrest it on the downward course. … Of the two
   great political tendencies which were then disputing the world
   between them it made itself the champion and the symbol of the
   losing one. Pisa went down in the world together with the
   feudalism and Ghibellinism with which it was identified."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _The City in the Sea,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 21 (volume 3)._

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages,
      pages 340-367._

ITALY: A. D. 1409.
   The Council of Pisa.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
   Renewed civil war in Naples.
   Defeat of the Angevins by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.
   Reconquest of Lombardy by Filippo Maria Visconti, and his
   wars with Florence, Venice and Naples.

   On the death of Ladislaus, king of Naples (1414), "his sister,
   Joan II., widow of the son of the duke of Austria, succeeded
   him. She was 40 years of age; and, like her brother, abandoned
   to the most unrestrained libertinism. She left the government
   of her kingdom to her lovers, who disputed power by arms: they
   called into her service, or into that of her second husband,
   or of the rival princes whom she in turn adopted, the two
   armies of Sforza and Braccio [the two great mercenary captains
   of that time]. The consequence was the ruin of the kingdom of
   Naples, which ceased to menace the rest of Italy. The moment
   Ladislaus disappeared, a new enemy arose to disturb the
   Florentines—Filippo Maria Visconti [duke of Milan, second son
   of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, and successor to his elder brother
   Gian Maria, on the assassination of the latter, in 1412]. …
   Filippo … married the widow of Facino Cane, the powerful
   condottiere who had retained Gian Maria in 'his dependence,
   and who died the same day that Gian Maria was assassinated. By
   this sudden marriage he secured the army of Facino Cane,—
   which was, in fact, master of the greater part of the
   Milanese: with its aid he undertook, without delay, to recover
   the rest of his states from the hands of those tyrants who had
   divided amongst them the dominions of his father. … During
   the first year of his reign, which was to decide his existence
   as prince or subject, he fought with determined courage; but
   from that time, though he continually made war, he never
   showed himself to his armies. … In the battle of Monza, by
   which he acquired his brother's inheritance, and the only
   battle in which he was ever present, he remarked the brilliant
   courage of Francesco Carmagnola, a Piedmontese soldier of
   fortune, and immediately gave him a command. Carmagnola soon
   justified the duke's choice by the most distinguished talents
   for war, the most brilliant victories, and the most noble
   character. Francesco Carmagnola was, after a few years, placed
   at the head of the duke's armies; and, from the year 1412 to
   that of 1422, successively attacked all the tyrants who had
   divided the heritage of Gian Galeazzo, and brought those small
   states again under the dominion of the duke of Milan. Even the
   republic of Genoa submitted to him, in 1421, on the same
   conditions as those on which it had before submitted to the
   king of France,—reserving all its liberties; and granting the
   duke's lieutenant, who was Carmagnola himself, only those
   prerogatives which the constitution yielded to the doge. As
   soon as Filippo Maria had accomplished the conquest of
   Lombardy, he resumed the projects of his father against
   Romagna and Tuscany. He … renewed his intrigues against the
   republic of Florence, and combined them with those which he at
   the same time carried on in the kingdom of Naples. Joan, who
   had sent back to France her second husband, Jaques, count de
   la Marche, and who had no children, was persuaded, in 1420, by
   one of her lovers, to adopt Alphonso the Magnanimous, king of
   Aragon and Sicily, to whom she intrusted some of the
   fortresses of Naples. She revoked this adoption in 1423; and
   substituted in his place Louis III. of Anjou, son of Louis II.
   The former put himself at the head of the ancient party of
   Durazzo; the latter, of that of Anjou.
{1829}
   The consequence was a civil war, in which the two great
   captains, Sforza and Braccio, were opposed to each other, and
   acquired new titles to glory. The duke of Milan made alliance
   with Joan II. and Louis III. of Anjou: Sforza, named great
   constable of the kingdom, was their general. The Florentines
   remained constant to Braccio, whom Alphonso had made governor
   of the Abruzzi; and who had seized, at the same time, the
   signoria of Perugia, his native city. … But Sforza and
   Braccio both perished, as Italy awaited with anxiety the
   result of the struggle about to be commenced. Sforza was
   drowned at the passage of the Pescara, on the 4th of January,
   1424; Braccio was mortally wounded at the battle of Aquila, on
   the 2d of June of the same year. Francesco, son of the former,
   succeeded to his father's name and the command of his army,
   both of which he was destined to render still more
   illustrious. The son of Braccio, on the contrary, lost the
   sovereignty of Perugia, which resumed its freedom on the 29th
   of July of the same year; and the remnant of the army formed
   by this great captain elected for his chief his most able
   lieutenant, Nicolo Piccinino. This was the moment which
   Filippo Maria chose to push on his army to Romagna, and
   vigorously attack the Florentines. … The Florentines, having
   no tried general at the heart of their troops, experienced,
   from the 6th of September, 1423, to the 17th of October, 1425,
   no less than six successive defeats, either in Liguria or
   Romagna [at Forli, 1423, Zagonara, 1424, Lamone, Rapallo,
   Anghiari and Faggiola, 1425]. Undismayed by defeat, they
   reassembled their army for the seventh time: the patriotism of
   their rich merchants made up for the penury of their exhausted
   treasury. They, at the same time, sent their most
   distinguished statesmen as ambassadors to Venice, to represent
   to that republic that, if it did not join them while they
   still stood, the liberty of Italy was lost forever. … An
   illustrious fugitive, Francesco Carmagnola, who arrived about
   this time at Venice, accomplished what Florence had nearly
   failed in, by discovering to the Venetians the project of the
   duke of Milan to subjugate them." Carmagnola had been
   disgraced and discharged from employment by Filippo Maria,
   whose jealousy was alarmed by his great reputation, and he now
   took service against his late patron. "A league, formed
   between Florence and Venice, was successively joined by the
   marquis of Ferrara, the lord of Mantua, the Siennese, the duke
   Amadeus VIII. of Savoy, and the king Alphonso of Naples, who
   jointly declared war against Filippo Maria Visconti, on the
   27th of January, 1426. … The good fortune of Carmagnola in
   war still attended him in the campaign of 1426. He was as
   successful against the duke of Milan as he had been for him:
   he took from him the city and whole province of Brescia. The
   duke ceded this conquest to the Venetians by treaty on the
   30th of December; but he employed the winter in assembling his
   forces; and in the beginning of spring renewed the war." An
   indecisive engagement occurred at Casalsecco, July 12, 1427,
   and on the 11th of October following, in a marsh near Macalo,
   Carmagnola completely defeated the Milanese army commanded by
   Carlo Malatesta. A new peace was signed on the 18th of April,
   1428; but war recommenced in the latter part of 1430. Fortune
   now abandoned Carmagnola. He suffered a surprise and defeat at
   Soncino, May 17, 1431, and the suspicious senate of Venice
   caused him to be arrested, tortured and put to death. "During
   the remainder of the reign of Filippo Maria he was habitually
   at war with the two republics of Venice and Florence. He …
   almost always lost ground by his distrust of his own generals,
   his versatility, his taste for contradictory intrigues, his
   eagerness to sign peace every year, and to recommence
   hostilities a few weeks afterwards." In 1441, on making peace
   with the two republics, he granted his daughter Bianca in
   marriage to their general, Francesco Sforza, with two
   lordships for her dowry. But he was soon intriguing against
   his son-in-law, soon at war again with Florence and Venice,
   and Sforza was again in the service of the latter. But in 1447
   he made offers of reconciliation which were accepted, and
   Sforza was on his way to Milan when news came to him of the
   death of the duke, which occurred August 13. "The war of
   Lombardy was complicated by its connexion with another war
   which at the same time ravaged the kingdom of Naples. The
   queen, Joan II., had died there, on the 2d of February, 1435;
   three months after the death of her adopted son, Louis III. of
   Anjou: by her will she had substituted for that prince his
   brother René, duke of Lorraine. But Alphonso, king of Aragon
   and Sicily, whom she had primarily adopted, … claimed the
   succession, on the ground of this first adoption, as well as
   of the ancient rights of Manfred, to whom he had succeeded in
   the female line. The kingdom of Naples was divided between the
   parties of Aragon and Anjou. The Genoese, who had voluntarily
   ranged themselves under the protection of the duke of Milan,
   offered their assistance to the duke of Anjou. … On the 5th
   of August, 1435, their fleet met that of Alphonso, before the
   island of Ponza. They defeated it in a great battle, in which
   Alphonso had been made prisoner." Delivered to the duke of
   Milan, Alphonso soon convinced the latter that his alliance
   with the French interest at Naples was a mistake and a danger
   to him, and was set at liberty, with promises of aid. The
   Genoese were indignant at this and drove the Milanese garrison
   from their city, in December, 1435, recovering their freedom.
   "Alphonso, seconded by the duke of Milan, recommenced the war
   against René of Anjou with greater advantage. On the 2d of
   June, 1442, he took from him the city of Naples; from that
   time peace was re-established in that kingdom, and Alphonso
   … established himself amidst a people which he had
   conquered, but whose hearts he gained; and returned no more
   either to Sicily or Aragon. He died at Naples, on the 27th of
   June, 1458."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      books 3-4 (volume 1)._

      _Mrs. Jameson,
      Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _M. A. Hookham,
      Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      volume 1, introduction and chapter 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1433-1464.
   The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

{1830}

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1454.
   End of the Visconti in the duchy of Milan.
   Disputed succession.
   Francesco Sforza in possession.
   War of Venice, Naples and other states
   against Milan and Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
   The Pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Regeneration of the Papacy.
   Revival of letters and art.
   Threatening advance of the Turks.
   Fresh troubles in Naples.
   Expulsion of the French from Genoa.

   "The failure of the Council of Basel [see PAPACY: A. D.
   1431-1448] restored the position of the Papacy, and set it
   free from control. The character and ability of Pope Nicolas
   [V., 1447-1455] made him respected, and the part which he took
   in politics made him rank amongst the great temporal powers in
   Italy. From this time onwards to the end of our history we
   shall see the Popes the undisputed Princes of Rome, and the
   lords of all that part of Italy which they claimed from the
   gift of Kings and Emperors, and not least from the will of the
   Countess Matilda. Pope Nicolas used this power better than any
   of those who came after him, for he used it in the cause of
   peace, and to forward learning and artistic taste. He applied
   himself to the general pacification of Italy, and brought
   about the Peace of Lodi in 1454, which was signed by Venice
   and Milan and by King Alfonso. Christendom had great need of
   peace, for, in 1453, Constantinople had been taken by the
   Infidels and Mahomet the Second was spreading his conquest
   over the East of Europe. Before the fall of the city a great
   many Greeks had come to Italy, on different missions, and
   especially to attend a Council at Florence, where terms of
   union were made between the Greek and Latin Churches. Their
   coming revived the taste for Greek learning, which had been so
   powerfully felt by Petrarca and Boccaccio. Pope Nicolas made
   Rome the centre of this literature, and others followed his
   example. Theodore of Gaza, George of Trebizond, and many more,
   found enlightened patrons in the Pope, the King of Naples,
   Cosmo de'Medici, and Federigo, Count of Urbino. The Pope was a
   lover and patron of art as well as of literature. He rebuilt
   the churches, palaces, and fortifications of Rome and the
   Roman States, and formed the scheme of raising a church worthy
   of the memory of St. Peter, and left behind him the Vatican
   Palace as a worthy residence for the Apostle's successors. The
   Papal Library had been scattered during the Captivity and the
   Schism, but Pope Nicolas made a large collection of
   manuscripts, and thus founded the Library of the Vatican. The
   introduction of printing into Italy about this time gave great
   strength to the revival of learning. In 1452 the Pope crowned
   Frederic the Third Emperor at Rome with great magnificence.
   But he was not without danger in his city, for the next year a
   wild plot was made against him. A large number of Romans were
   displeased at the great power of the Pope. They were headed by
   Stefano Porcaro, who declared that he would free the city
   which had once been mistress of the world from the yoke of
   priests. The rising was to be ushered in by the slaughter of
   the Papal Court and the plunder of its treasures. The plot was
   discovered, and was punished with great severity. This was the
   last and most unworthy of the various attempts of the Romans
   to set up self-government. The advance of the Ottoman Turks
   during the latter part of the 15th century [see TURKS: A. D.
   1451-1481] caused the greatest alarm in Italy. Venice, from
   her possessions and her trade in the Levant, was most exposed
   to the attacks of the Infidels, and she became the great
   champion against them. The learned Æneas Sylvius was chosen
   Pope, in 1458, and took the title of Pius the Second. He
   caused a crusade to be preached against the Turks, but he died
   in 1464, while the forces were gathering. The Venetians were
   constantly defeated in the Archipelago, and lost Eubœa,
   Lesbos, and other islands [see GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479]. In
   1477 a large Turkish army entered Italy by Friuli, defeated
   the Venetians, and crossed the Tagliamento. They laid waste
   the country as far as the Piave, and their destroying fires
   could be seen from the Campanile of St. Mark's. In 1480
   Mahomet's great general, Ahmed Keduk, took the strong city of
   Otranto, and massacred its inhabitants. This expedition was
   secretly favoured by the Venetians to spite the King of
   Naples. The danger to all Italy was very great, for the Sultan
   eagerly longed to conquer the older Rome, but the death of
   Mahomet the Second, and a disputed succession to his throne,
   fortunately checked the further advance of the invaders. When
   Alfonso, King of Aragon, Naples, and Sicily, died in 1458, he
   left Aragon and Sicily, which he had inherited, to his
   legitimate son John; but the crown of Naples, which he had won
   for himself, he left to Ferdinand, his illegitimate son.
   Ferdinand was a cruel and suspicious man, and the barons
   invited John of Calabria to come and help them against him.
   John of Calabria was the son of Réné, who had been adopted by
   Queen Joanna, and who called himself King. He was the French
   Governor of Genoa, and so already had a footing in Italy. He
   applied to Sforza to help him, but the Duke of Milan was
   firmly attached to the Peace of Lodi, and was too justly
   fearful of the French power to do so. Lewis the Eleventh, King
   of France, was too wise to meddle in Italian politics.
   Florence, which was usually on the French side, was now under
   the influence of Cosmo de' Medici, and Cosmo was under the
   influence of Francesco Sforza, so that the Duke of Calabria
   found no allies. The Archbishop of Genoa, Paola Fregoso,
   excited the people to drive out the French [see GENOA: A. D.
   1458-1464] and the Doge Prospero Adorno, who belonged to their
   party. He then defeated King Réné, and the Duke of Calabria
   was forced to give up his attempt on Naples [1464]. The new
   government of Genoa was so oppressive that the Genoese put
   themselves under the protection of Francesco; Lewis the
   Eleventh ceded all his rights to him, and the city thus became
   part of the Duchy of Milan. The hopes of the French party in
   Italy were thus for the present entirely crushed."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy,
      book 4, chapters 3-4 (volume 2)._

      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 7 (volume 2)._

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes,
      volume 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1466-1469.
   Florence under the five agents of Piero de' Medici.

      See FLORENCE: 1458-1469.

ITALY: A. D. 1469-1492.
   The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at
   Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

ITALY: A. D. 1490-1498.
   Savonarola at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

{1831}

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494.
   Charles VIII. of France invited across the Alps to possess
   Naples.
   The hostile disunion of the Italian states.

   With the death of Lorenzo de Medici, which occurred at
   Florence in the spring of 1492, "the power vanished which had
   hitherto kept Naples and Milan quiet, and which, with subtle
   diplomatic skill, had postponed the breach of the peace in
   Italy. We find the comparison used, that Florence with Lorenzo
   at her head stood like a rocky dam between two stormy seas.
   Italy was at that time a free land and independent of foreign
   policy. Venice, with her well-established nobles at her head;
   Naples under the Aragonese, a branch of the family ruling in
   Spain; Milan, with Genoa, under Sforza—all three able powers
   by land and sea—counterbalanced each other. Lorenzo ruled
   central Italy; the small lords of the Romagna were in his pay,
   and the pope was on the best terms of relationship with him.
   But in Milan the mischief lay hidden. Ludovico Sforza, the
   guardian of his nephew Gian Galeazzo, had completely usurped
   the power. He allowed his ward to pine away mentally and
   bodily; he was bringing the young prince slowly to death. But
   his consort, a Neapolitan princess, saw through the treachery,
   and urged her father to change by force their insufferable
   position. Sforza could not alone have resisted Naples. No
   dependence was to be placed on the friendship of Venice;
   Lorenzo mediated as long as he lived, but now, on his death,
   Naples was no longer to be restrained. The first thing that
   happened was [Piero de Medici's] alliance with this power, and
   at the same time Ludovico's appeal for help to France, where a
   young and ambitious king had ascended the throne. The death of
   Innocent VIII., and the election of Alexander Borgia to the
   papacy, completed the confusion which was impending. Long
   diplomatic campaigns took place before war actually broke out.
   The matter in question was not the interests of nations—of
   this there was no thought—nor even the caprices of princes
   alone. The nobles of Italy took a passionate concern in these
   disputes. The contests of corresponding intrigues were fought
   out at the French court. France had been robbed of Naples by
   the Aragonese. The exiled Neapolitan barons, French in their
   interests, whose possessions the Arngonese had given to their
   own adherents, ardently seized the idea of returning
   victoriously to their country; the cardinals, hostile to
   Borgia—foremost among these stood the Cardinal of San Piero
   in Vincula, a nephew of the old Sixtus, and the Cardinal
   Ascanio Sforza, Ludovico's brother—urged for war against
   Alexander VI.; the Florentine nobles, anticipating Piero's
   violent measures, hoped for deliverance through the French,
   and advocated the matter at Lyons, where the court was
   stationed, and a whole colony of Florentine families had in
   time settled. Sforza held out the bait of glory and his just
   claims to the old legitimate possession. The Aragonese, on the
   other hand, proposed an accommodation. Spain, who would not
   forsake her belongings, stood at their side; the pope and
   Piero dei Medici adhered to Naples, and the French nobility
   were not in favour of an expedition to Italy. Venice remained
   neutral; still she might gain by the war, and she did not
   dissuade from it; and this opinion, that something was to be
   gained, gradually took possession of all parties, even of
   those who had at first wished to preserve peace. Spain was a
   direct gainer from the first. France ceded to King Ferdinand a
   disputed province, on the condition that he would afford no
   support to his Neapolitan cousins. Sforza, as lord of Genoa,
   wished to have Lucca and Pisa again, with all that belonged to
   them; the Visconti had possessed them of old, and he raised
   their claims afresh. We have said what were the hopes of Piero
   dei Medici [that he should be able to make himself Duke of
   Florence]. Pisa hoped to become free. The pope hoped by his
   alliance with Naples to make the first step towards the
   attainment of the great plans which he cherished for himself
   and his sons; he thought one day of dividing Italy among them.
   The French hoped to conquer Naples, and then to drive away the
   Turks in a vast crusade. As if for a crusade, the king raised
   the loan in his own country, which he required for the
   campaign. The Venetians hoped to bring the coast cities of the
   Adriatic Sea as much as possible under their authority. In the
   autumn of 1494, Charles of France placed himself at the head
   of his knights and mercenary troops, and crossed the Alps;
   whilst his fleet and artillery, the most fearful weapon of the
   French, went by sea from Marseilles to Genoa."

      _H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 8, chapter 5._

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1503.
   The Papacy in the hands of the Borgias.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
   The invasion by Charles VIII.
   His triumphant march, his easy conquest of Naples,
   and the speedy retreat.
   Effects of the expedition on France and Europe.

   "On the 1st of March [1494] Charles VIII. made his state entry
   into Lyons, to assume the command of the expedition; an
   advanced guard under the Scotchman d'Aubigny was already
   pushing towards the Neapolitan frontier, and the Duke of
   Orleans was at Genoa. The Neapolitans on their side sent the
   Prince of Altamura with 30 galleys towards Genoa, while the
   Duke of Calabria, an inexperienced youth, entered the
   Pontifical States, under the guidance of tried generals. …
   The Pope seemed to have lost his head, and no longer knew what
   course to adopt. … Charles the VIII., having passed the
   Monginevra, entered Asti in the first days of September. He
   soon received intelligence that Don Federico and the
   Neapolitan fleet had been repulsed with heavy losses before
   Porto Venere, and that the Duke of Orleans and his Swiss had
   entered Rapallo, sacked the place, and put all the
   inhabitants, even the sick in the hospital, to the sword,
   thereby striking terror into the Italians, who were
   unaccustomed to carry on war in so sanguinary a fashion. On
   reaching Piacenza, the king learnt that Gio. Galeazzo, whom he
   had recently seen at Pavia, had just died there, poisoned, as
   all men said, by the Moor [Lodovico, the usurping uncle of
   Gio. Galeazzo the young Duke of Milan, was so called], who,
   after celebrating his obsequies at Milan, had entered St.
   Ambrogio, at the hour indicated by his astrologer, to
   consecrate the investiture already granted to him by
   Maximilian, King of the Romans. All this filled the minds of
   the French with suspicion, almost with terror; they were
   beginning to understand the nature of their closest ally's
   good faith.
{1832}
   In fact, while Ludovico with one hand collected men and money
   for their cause, with the other he wove the threads of a
   league intended to drive them from Italy, when the moment
   should arrive. … Nevertheless the fortunes of the French
   prospered rapidly. The Duke of Calabria, having entered
   Romagna, withdrew across the Neapolitan frontier at the first
   glimpse of D'Aubigny's forces; and the bulk of the French
   army, commanded by the King in person, marched through the
   Lunigiana without encountering obstacles of any kind. After
   taking Fivizanno, sacking it, and putting to the sword the
   hundred soldiers who defended it, and part of the inhabitants,
   they pushed on towards Sarzana, through a barren district,
   between the mountains and the sea, where the slightest
   resistance might have proved fatal to them. But the small
   castles, intended for the defence of these valleys, yielded
   one after the other, without any attempt to resist the
   invaders; and hardly had the siege of Sarzana commenced than
   Piero dei Medici arrived, frightened out of his senses,
   surrendered at discretion, and even promised to pay 200,000
   ducats. But on Piero's return to Florence, on the 8th of
   November, he found that the city had risen in revolt, and sent
   ambassadors to the French King on its own account to offer him
   an honourable reception; but that at the same time it was
   making preparations for defence in case of need [see FLORENCE:
   A. D. 1490-1498]. So great was the public indignation that
   Piero took flight to Venice, where his own ambassador,
   Soderini, hardly deigned to look at him, having meanwhile
   declared for the republican government just proclaimed in
   Florence, where everything had been rapidly changed. The
   houses of the Medici and their garden at St. Mark had been
   pillaged, exiles had been recalled and acquitted; a price put
   on Piero's head and that of his brother, the Cardinal. … The
   fabric, so long and so carefully built up by the Medici, was
   now suddenly crumbling into dust. On the 17th November Charles
   VIII., at the head of his formidable army, rode into Florence
   with his lance in rest, believing that that fact sufficed to
   make him master of the city. But the Florentines were armed,
   they had collected 6,000 soldiers within the walls, and they
   knew perfectly well that, from the vantage posts of towers and
   houses, they could easily worst an army scattered through the
   streets. They therefore repulsed the King's insolent
   proposals, and when he threatened to sound his trumpets, Piero
   Capponi, tearing up the offered treaty, replied that the
   Florentines were more ready to ring their bells. Through this
   firmness equitable terms were arranged. The Republic was to
   pay 120,000 florins in three quotas; the fortresses, however,
   were to be speedily restored to her. On the 28th November the
   French left the city, but not without stealing all that
   remained of the collection of antiquities in the Medici
   Palace. … Nevertheless the citizens were thankful to be
   finally delivered alike from old tyrants and new invaders.
   Having reached Rome, Charles VIII., in order to have done with
   the Pope, who now seemed inclined for resistance, pointed his
   guns against the Castle of St. Angelo, and thus matters were
   soon settled. … Scarcely encountering any obstacles, Charles
   led his army on to Naples." Ferdinand I., or Ferrante, had
   died on the 25th of January, 1494, and had been succeeded by
   his son Alfonso II, a prince more cruel and more hated than
   himself. The latter now renounced the throne in favor of his
   son, Ferdinand II., and fled to Sicily. "Ferdinand II., or
   Ferrandino, as he was called, after vainly seeking aid from
   all, even from the Turk, made a fruitless stand at Monte San
   Giovanni, which was taken, destroyed, and all its population
   put to the sword. … Naples rebelled in favour of the French,
   who marched in on the 22d of February [1495]. The following
   day Ferrandino fled to Ischia, then to Messina. And shortly
   the ambassadors of the Italian States appeared to offer
   congratulations to the conqueror. Now at last the Venetians
   were aroused, and having sent their envoys to Milan to know if
   Ludovico were disposed to take up arms to drive out the
   French, they found him not only ready to do so, but full of
   indignation. … He advised that money should be sent to Spain
   and to Maximilian, to induce them to attack France; but added
   that care must be taken not to call them into Italy; 'since
   having already one fever here, we should then have two.' A
   league was in fact concluded between the Venetians, Ludovico,
   the Pope, Spain and Maximilian. … The Neapolitans, soon
   wearied of bad government, had risen in revolt, and Charles
   VIII. after a stay of only 50 days in Naples had to make his
   departure with excessive haste, before every avenue of retreat
   should be cut off, leaving hardly more than 6,000 men in the
   kingdom, and taking with him a numerous army, which however
   only numbered 10,000 real combatants. On the 6th of July a
   pitched battle took place at Fornuovo near the river Taro. The
   allies had assembled about 30,000 men, three-fourths of whom
   were Venetians, the rest composed of Ludovico's soldiers and a
   few Germans sent by Maximilian. … The battle was bloody, and
   it was a disputed question which side obtained the victory;
   but although the Italians were not repulsed, remaining indeed
   masters of the field, the French succeeded in cutting their
   way through, which was the chief object they had in view. …
   Ludovico, taking advantage of the situation, soon made an
   agreement with the French on his own account, without
   concerning himself about the Venetians. … The fortunes of
   the French now declined rapidly in Italy, and all the more
   speedily owing to their bad government in the Neapolitan
   kingdom, and their abominable behaviour towards the few
   friends who had remained faithful to them. … Ferdinand II.,
   with the aid of the Spaniards under Consalvo di Cordova,
   advanced triumphantly through Calabria and entered Naples on
   the 7th of July, 1496. In a short time all the Neapolitan
   fortresses capitulated, and the French who had held them
   returned to their own country, more than decimated and in an
   altogether deplorable condition. On the 6th of October
   Ferdinand II. breathed his last, worn out by the agitation and
   fatigues of the war, and was succeeded by his uncle Don
   Federico, the fifth King [counting Charles VIII. of France]
   who had ascended the Neapolitan throne within the last five
   years. … Naples was now in the absolute power of the
   Spaniards, who were already maturing their iniquitous designs
   upon the kingdom; these, however, were only discovered at a
   later period."

      _P. Villari,
      Machiavelli and his Times,
      volume 1, chapter 4, section 2._

{1833}

   "In spite of its transitory character the invasion of Charles
   VIII. … was a great fact in the history of the
   Renaissance. It was, to use the pregnant phrase of Michelet,
   no less than the revelation of Italy to the nations of the
   North. Like a gale sweeping across a forest of trees in
   blossom, and bearing their fertilizing pollen, after it has
   broken and deflowered their branches, to far distant trees
   that hitherto have bloomed in barrenness, the storm of
   Charles's army carried far and wide through Europe
   thought-dust, imperceptible, but potent to enrich the nations.
   The French, alone, says Michelet, understood Italy. … From
   the Italians the French communicated to the rest of Europe
   what we call the movement of the Renaissance. There is some
   truth in this panegyric of Michelet's. The passage of the army
   of Charles VIII. marks a turning point in modern history, and
   from this epoch dates the diffusion of a spirit of culture
   over Europe."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Villari,
      History of Savonarola and his Times,
      book 2, chapters 1-3 (volume 1)._

      _J. Dennistoun,
      Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino,
      chapters 14-15 (volume 1)._

      _P. de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      books 7-8._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1503.
   The growing power of Venice and the jealousies excited by it. See

      VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

ITALY: A. D. 1424-1509.
   The French deliverance of Pisa.
   The long struggle and the Florentine reconquest.

      See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Invasion and conquest of the Milanese by Louis XII. of France.
   His claim in right of Valentine Visconti.

   Charles VIII. died in April, 1498, and was succeeded by Louis
   of Orleans, who ascended the throne as Louis XII. On his
   coronation, Louis XII. "assumed, besides his title of King of
   France, the titles of King of Naples and of Jerusalem, and
   Duke of Milan. This was as much as to say that he would pursue
   … a warlike and adventurous policy abroad. … By his policy
   at home Louis XII. deserved and obtained the name of 'Father
   of the People;' by his enterprises and wars abroad he involved
   France still more deeply than Charles VIII. had in that mad
   course of distant, reckless, and incoherent conquests for
   which his successor, Francis I., was destined to pay by
   capture at Pavia and by the lamentable treaty of Madrid, in
   1526, as the price of his release. … Outside of France,
   Milaness (the Milanese district) was Louis XII.'s first
   thought, at his accession, and the first object of his desire.
   He looked upon it as his patrimony: His grandmother, Valentine
   Visconti, widow of that Duke of Orleans who had been
   assassinated at Paris in 1407 by order of John the Fearless,
   Duke of Burgundy, had been the last to inherit the duchy of
   Milan, which the Sforzas, in 1450, had seized. When Charles
   VIII. invaded Italy in 1494, 'Now is the time,' said Louis,
   'to enforce the rights of Valentine Visconti, my grandmother,
   to Milaness.' And he, in fact, asserted them openly, and
   proclaimed his intention of vindicating them so soon as he
   found the moment propitious. When he became king, his chance
   of success was great. The Duke of Milan, Ludovic, the Moor,
   had by his sagacity and fertile mind, by his taste for arts
   and sciences and the intelligent patronage he bestowed upon
   them, by his ability in speaking, and by his facile character,
   obtained in Italy a position far beyond his real power. …
   Ludovic was, nevertheless, a turbulent rascal and a greedy
   tyrant. … He had, moreover, embroiled himself with his
   neighbours, the Venetians, who were watching for an
   opportunity of aggrandizing themselves at his expense." Louis
   XII. promptly concluded a treaty with Venice, which provided
   for the making of war in common upon the Duke of Milan, to
   recover the patrimony of the king—the Venetians to receive
   Cremona and certain forts and territory adjacent as their
   share of the expected spoils. "In the month of August, 1499,
   the French army, with a strength of from 20,000 to 25,000 men,
   of whom 5,000 were Swiss, invaded Milaness. Duke Ludovic
   Sforza opposed to it a force pretty near equal in number, but
   far less full of confidence and of far less valour. In less
   than three weeks the duchy was conquered; in only two cases
   was any assault necessary; all the other places were given up
   by traitors or surrendered without a show of resistance. The
   Venetians had the same success on the eastern frontier of the
   duchy. … Louis was at Lyons when he heard of his army's
   victory in Milaness and of Ludovic Sforza's flight. He was
   eager to go and take possession of his conquest, and, on the
   6th of October, 1499, he made his triumphal entry into Milan
   amidst cries of 'Hurrah! for France.' He reduced the heavy
   imposts established by the Sforzas, revoked the vexatious
   game-laws, instituted at Milan a court of justice analogous to
   the French parliaments, loaded with favours the scholars and
   artists who were the honour of Lombardy, and recrossed the
   Alps at the end of some weeks, leaving as governor of Milaness
   John James Trivulzio, the valiant Condottiere, who, four years
   before, had quitted the service of Ferdinand II., King of
   Naples, for that of Charles VIII. Unfortunately Trivulzio was
   himself a Milanese and of the faction of the Guelphs. He had
   the passions of a partisan and the habits of a man of war; and
   he soon became as tyrannical and as much detested in Milaness
   as Ludovic the Moor had but lately been. A plot was formed in
   favour of the fallen tyrant, who was in Germany expecting it,
   and was recruiting, during expectancy, amongst the Germans and
   Swiss, in order to take advantage of it. On the 25th of
   January, 1500, the insurrection broke out; and two months
   later Ludovic Sforza had once more became master of Milaness,
   where the French possessed nothing but the castle of Milan.
   … Louis XII., so soon as he heard of the Milanese
   insurrection, sent into Italy Louis de la Trémoille, the best
   of his captains, and the Cardinal d' Amboise, his privy
   councillor and his friend. … The campaign did not last long.
   The Swiss who had been recruited by Ludovic and those who were
   in Louis XII.'s service had no mind to fight one another; and
   the former capitulated, surrendered the strong place of
   Novara, and promised to evacuate the country on condition of a
   safe-conduct for themselves and their booty." Ludovic
   attempted flight in disguise, but fell into the hands of the
   French and remained in captivity, at the castle of Loches, in
   Touraine, during the remainder of his life,—eight years.
   "And 'thus was the duchy of Milan, within seven months and a
   half, twice conquered by the French,' says John d' Auton in
   his 'Chronique,' 'and for the nonce was ended the war in
   Lombardy, and the authors thereof were captives and exiles.'"

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages:
      Valentine Visconti; The French claim to Milan._

      _E. Walford,
      Story of the Chevalier Bayard,
      chapters 3-4_.

{1834}

ITALY: 15-16th Centuries.
   Renaissance.
   Intellectual advance and moral decline.

   "At the end of the fifteenth century, Italy was the centre of
   European civilization: while the other nations were still
   plunged in a feudal barbarism which seems almost as far
   removed from all our sympathies as is the condition of some
   American or Polynesian savages, the Italians appear to us as
   possessing habits of thought, a mode of life, political,
   social, and literary institutions, not unlike those of to-day;
   as men whom we can thoroughly understand, whose ideas and
   aims, whose general views, resemble our own in that main,
   indefinable characteristic of being modern. They had shaken
   off the morbid monastic ways of feeling, they had thrown aside
   the crooked scholastic modes of thinking, they had trampled
   under foot the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; no
   symbolical mists made them see things vague, strange, and
   distorted; their intellectual atmosphere was as clear as our
   own, and, if they saw less than we do, what they did see
   appeared to them in its true shape and proportions. Almost for
   the first time since the ruin of antique civilization; they
   could show well-organized, well-defined States; artistically
   disciplined armies; rationally devised laws; scientifically
   conducted agriculture; and widely extended, intelligently
   undertaken commerce. For the first time, also, they showed
   regularly built, healthy, and commodious towns; well-drained
   fields; and, more important than all, hundreds of miles of
   country owned not by feudal lords, but by citizens; cultivated
   not by serfs, but by free peasants. While in the rest of
   Europe men were floundering among the stagnant ideas and
   crumbling institutions of the effete Middle Ages, with but
   vague half-consciousness of their own nature, the Italians
   walked calmly through a life as well arranged as their great
   towns, bold, inquisitive, and sceptical; modern
   administrators, modern soldiers, modern politicians, modern
   financiers, scholars, and thinkers. Towards the end of the
   fifteenth century, Italy seemed to have obtained the
   philosophic, literary, and artistic inheritance of Greece; the
   administrative, legal, and military inheritance of Rome,
   increased threefold by her own strong, original, essentially
   modern activities. Yet, at that very time, and almost in
   proportion as all these advantages developed, the moral
   vitality of the Italians was rapidly decreasing, and a
   horrible moral gangrene beginning to spread: liberty was
   extinguished; public good faith seemed to be dying out; even
   private morality flickered ominously; every free State became
   subject to a despot, always unscrupulous and often infamous;
   warfare became a mere pretext for the rapine and extortions of
   mercenaries; diplomacy grew to be a mere swindle; the
   humanists inoculated literature with the filthiest refuse cast
   up by antiquity; nay, even civic and family ties were
   loosened; assassinations and fratricides began to abound, and
   all law, human and divine, to be set at defiance. … The men
   of the Renaissance had to pay a heavy price for …
   intellectual freedom and self-cognizance, which they not only
   enjoyed themselves, but transmitted to the rest of the world;
   the price was the loss of all moral standard, of all fixed
   public feeling. They had thrown aside all accepted rules and
   criteria, they had cast away all faith in traditional
   institutions, they had destroyed and could not yet rebuild. In
   their instinctive and universal disbelief in all that had been
   taught them, they lost all respect for opinion, for rule, for
   what had been called right and wrong. Could it be otherwise?
   Had they not discovered that what had been called right had
   often been unnatural, and what had been called wrong often
   natural? Moral teachings, remonstrances, and judgments
   belonged to that dogmatism from which they had broken loose;
   to those schools and churches where the foolish and the
   unnatural had been taught and worshiped; to those priests and
   monks who themselves most shamefully violated their teachings.
   To profess morality was to be a hypocrite; to reprobate others
   was to be narrow-minded. There was so much error mixed up with
   truth that truth had to share the discredit of error."

      _Vernon Lee,
      Euphorion,
      volume 1, pages 27-29, 47-48._

   "The conditions under which the Italians performed their task
   in the Renaissance were such as seem at first sight
   unfavourable to any great achievement. Yet it is probable
   that, the end in view being the stimulation of mental
   activity; no better circumstances than they enjoyed could have
   been provided. Owing to a series of adverse accidents, and
   owing also to their own instinctive preference for local
   institutions, they failed to attain the coherence and the
   centralised organisation which are necessary to a nation as we
   understand that word. Their dismemberment among rival
   communities proved a fatal source of political and military
   weakness, but it developed all their intellectual energies by
   competition to the utmost. At the middle of the fifteenth
   century their communes had lost political liberty, and were
   ruled by despots. Martial spirit declined. Wars were carried
   on by mercenaries; and the people found itself in a state of
   practical disarmament, when the neighboring nations quarrelled
   for the prize of those rich provinces. At the same time
   society underwent a rapid moral deterioration. When
   Machiavelli called Italy 'the corruption of the world,' he did
   not speak rhetorically. An impure and worldly clergy; an
   irreligious, though superstitious, laity; a self-indulgent and
   materialistic middle class; an idle aristocracy, excluded from
   politics and unused to arms; a public given up to pleasure and
   money-getting; a multitude of scholars, devoted to trifles,
   and vitiated by studies which clashed with the ideals of
   Christianity—from such elements in the nation proceeded a
   widely-spread and ever-increasing degeneracy. Public energy,
   exhausted by the civil wars and debilitated by the arts of the
   tyrants, sank deep and deeper into the lassitude of
   acquiescent lethargy. Religion expired in laughter, irony and
   licence. Domestic simplicity yielded to vice, whereof the
   records are precise and unmistakable. The virile virtues
   disappeared. What survived of courage assumed the forms of
   ruffianism, ferocity and treasonable daring. Still,
   simultaneously with this decline in all the moral qualities
   which constitute a powerful people, the Italians brought their
   arts and some departments of their literature to a perfection
   that can only be paralleled by ancient Greece. The anomaly
   implied in this statement is striking; but it is revealed to
   us by evidence too overwhelming to be rejected. … It was
   through art that the creative instincts of the people found
   their true and adequate channel of expression.
{1835}
   Paramount over all other manifestations of the epoch,
   fundamental beneath all, penetrative to the core of all, is
   the artistic impulse. The slowly self-consolidating life of a
   great kingdom, concentrating all elements of national
   existence by the centripetal force of organic unity, was
   wanting. Commonwealths and despotisms, representing a more
   imperfect stage of political growth, achieved completion and
   decayed. But art survived this disintegration of the medieval
   fabric; and in art the Italians found the cohesion denied them
   as a nation. While speaking thus of art, it is necessary to
   give a wide extension to that word. It must be understood to
   include literature. … We are justified in regarding the
   literary masterpieces of the sixteenth century as the fullest
   and most representative expression of the Italian temperament
   at the climax of its growth. The literature of the golden age
   implies humanism, implies painting. … It is not only
   possible but right to speak of Italy collectively when we
   review her work in the Renaissance. Yet it should not be
   forgotten that Italy at this time was a federation, presenting
   upon a miniature scale the same diversities in her component
   parts as the nations of Europe do now. … At the beginning of
   such a review, we cannot fail to be struck with the
   predominance of Florence. The superiority of the Tuscans was
   threefold. In the first place, they determined the development
   of art in all its branches. In the second place, they gave a
   language to Italy, which, without obliterating the local
   dialects, superseded them in literature when the right moment
   for intellectual community arrived. That moment, in the third
   place, was rendered possible by the humanistic movement, which
   began at Florence. … What the Lombards and Venetians
   produced in fine art and literature was of a later birth. Yet
   the novelists of Lombardy, the Latin lyrists of Garda, the
   school of romantic and dramatic poets at Ferrara, the group of
   sculptors and painters assembled in Milan by the Sforza
   dynasty, the maccaronic Muse of Mantua, the unrivalled
   magnificence of painting at Venice, the transient splendour of
   the Parmese masters, the wit of Modena, the learning of the
   princes of Mirandola and Carpi, must be catalogued among the
   most brilliant and characteristic manifestations of Italian
   genius. In pure literature Venice contributed but little. …
   Her place, as the home of Aldo's Greek press, and as the
   refuge for adventurers like Aretino and Folengo, when the rest
   of Italy was yielding to reactionary despotism, has to be
   commemorated. … The Romans who advanced Italian culture,
   were singularly few. The work of Rome was done almost
   exclusively by aliens, drawn for the most part from Tuscany
   and Lombardy. After Frederick II.'s brilliant reign, the
   Sicilians shared but little in the intellectual activity of
   the nation."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Italian Literature,
      chapter 17._

ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Perfidious treaty for the partition of Naples between Louis
   XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

   "In the spring of 1501, the French army was ready to pursue
   its march to Naples. King Frederick, alarmed at the storm
   which was gathering round his head, had some months before
   renewed the propositions formerly made by his father Ferdinand
   to Charles VIII.; namely, to acknowledge himself a feudatory
   of France, to pay an annual tribute, and to pledge several
   maritime towns as security for the fulfilment of these
   conditions. Louis, however, would not hear of these liberal
   offers, although Ferdinand the Catholic [of Aragon] undertook
   to guarantee the payment of the tribute proffered by
   Frederick, and strongly remonstrated against the contemplated
   expedition of the French King. Ferdinand finding that he could
   not divert Louis from his project, proposed to him to divide
   Naples between them, and a partition was arranged by a treaty
   concluded between the two monarchs at Granada, November 11th,
   1500. Naples, the Terra di Lavoro, and the Abruzzi were
   assigned to Louis, with the title of King of Naples and
   Jerusalem; while Ferdinand was to have Calabria and Apulia
   with the title of Duke." This perfidious arrangement was kept
   secret, of course, from Frederick. "Meanwhile the forces of
   Ferdinand, under Gonsalvo of Cordova [the 'Great Captain,' as
   he was styled after his Italian campaign], were admitted as
   friends into the Neapolitan fortresses, which they afterwards
   held as enemies. Frederick opened to them without suspicion
   his ports and towns, and thus became the instrument of his own
   ruin. The unhappy Frederick had in vain looked around for
   assistance. He had paid the Emperor Maximilian 40,000 ducats
   to make a diversion in his favour by attacking Milan, but
   Maximilian was detached from the Neapolitan alliance by a
   counter bribe, and consented to prolong the truce with France.
   Frederick had then had recourse to Sultan Bajazet II., with as
   little effect; and this application only served to throw an
   odium on his cause. … The French army, which did not exceed
   13,000 men, began its march towards Naples about the end of
   May, 1501, under the command of Stuart d'Aubigny, with Cæsar
   Borgia [son of Pope Alexander VI.] for his lieutenant. When it
   arrived before Rome, June 25th, the French and Spanish
   ambassadors acquainted the Pope with the treaty of Granada,
   and the contemplated partition of Naples, in which the
   suzerainty of this kingdom was guaranteed to the Holy See; a
   communication which Alexander received with more surprise than
   displeasure, and he proceeded at once to invest the Kings of
   France and Aragon with the provinces which they respectively
   claimed. Attacked in front by the French, in the rear by
   Gonsalvo, Frederick did not venture to take the field. He
   cantoned his troops in Naples, Averso, and Capua, of which the
   last alone made any attempt at defence. It was surprised by
   the French while in the act of treating for a capitulation
   (July 24th), and was subjected to the most revolting cruelty;
   7,000 of the male inhabitants were massacred in the streets;
   the women were outraged; and forty of the handsomest reserved
   for Borgia's harem at Rome; where they were in readiness to
   amuse the Court at the extraordinary and disgusting fete given
   at the fourth marriage of Lucretia. Rather than expose his
   subjects to the horrors of a useless war, Frederick entered
   into negociations with d'Aubigny, with the view of
   surrendering himself to Louis XII. … In October, 1501, he
   sailed for France with a small squadron, which remained to him.
{1836}
   In return for his abandonment of the provinces assigned to the
   French King, he was invested with the county of Maine, and a
   life pension of 30,000 ducats, on condition that he should not
   attempt to quit France; a guard was set over him to enforce
   the latter proviso, and this excellent prince died in
   captivity in 1504. Meanwhile Gonsalvo of Cordova was
   proceeding with the reduction of Calabria and Apulia. … The
   Spaniards entered Taranto March 1st, 1502; the other towns of
   southern Italy were soon reduced, and the Neapolitan branch of
   the House of Aragon fell for ever, after reigning 65 years. In
   the autumn of 1501, Louis had entered into negociations with
   the Emperor, in order to obtain formal investiture of the
   Duchy of Milan. With this view, Louis's daughter Claude, then
   only two years of age, was affianced to Charles [afterwards
   the Emperor, Charles V.], grandson of Maximilian, the infant
   child of the Archduke Philip and Joanna of Aragon. A treaty
   was subsequently signed at Trent, October 13th, 1501, by
   Maximilian and the Cardinal d'Amboise, to which the Spanish
   sovereigns find the Archduke Philip were also parties. By this
   instrument Louis engaged, in return for the investiture of
   Milan, to recognise the pretensions of the House of Austria to
   Hungary and Bohemia, and to second Maximilian in an expedition
   which he contemplated against the Turks. It was at this
   conference that those schemes against Venice began to be
   agitated, which ultimately produced the League of Cambray. The
   treaty between Louis and Ferdinand for the partition of Naples
   was so loosely drawn, that it seemed purposely intended to
   produce the quarrels which occurred." Disputes arose as to the
   possession of a couple of provinces, and the Spaniards were
   driven out. "In the course of 1502 the Spaniards were deprived
   of everything, except Barletta and a few towns on the coast of
   Bari. It was in the combats round this place that Bayard, by
   his deeds of courage and generosity, won his reputation as the
   model of chivalry, and became the idol of the French
   soldiery." The crafty and unscrupulous king of Aragon now
   amused Louis with the negotiation of a treaty for the
   relinquishment of the whole Neapolitan domain to the lately
   affianced infants, Charles of Austria and Claude of France,
   while he diligently reinforced the "Great Captain." Then
   "Gonsalvo suddenly resumed the offensive with extraordinary
   vigour and rapidity, and within a week two decisive battles
   were fought"—at Seminara, in Calabria, April 21, 1503, and at
   Cerignola, near Barletta, April 28. In the last named battle
   the French army was dispersed and almost destroyed. On the
   14th of May, Gonsalvo entered Naples, and by the end of July
   the French had completely evacuated the Neapolitan territory.
   The king of France made prompt preparations for vigorous war,
   not only in Naples but in Spain itself, sending two armies to
   the Pyrenees and one across the Alps. The campaign of the
   latter was ruined by Cardinal d'Amboise, who stopped its march
   near Rome, to support his candidacy for the papal chair, just
   vacated by the death of Alexander VI. Malaria made havoc in
   the ranks of the French, and they were badly commanded. They
   advanced to the seat of war in October, and forced the passage
   of the Garigliano, November 9. "Here their progress was
   arrested. … The seasons themselves were hostile to the
   French; heavy rains set in with a constancy quite unusual in
   that climate; and the French soldiers perished by hundreds in
   the mud and swamps of the Garigliano. The Spanish army,
   encamped near Sessa, was better supplied and better
   disciplined; and at length, after two months of inaction,
   Gonsalvo, having received some reinforcements, assumed the
   offensive, and in his turn crossed the river. The French,
   whose quarters were widely dispersed, were not prepared for
   this attack, and attempted to fall back upon Gaeta; but their
   retreat soon became a disorderly flight; many threw down their
   arms without striking a blow; and hence the affair has
   sometimes been called the rout of the Garigliano [December 29,
   1503]. Peter de' Medici, who was following the French army,
   perished in this retreat. … Very few of the French army
   found their way back to France. Gaeta surrendered at the first
   summons, January 1st, 1504. This was the most important of all
   Gonsalvo's victories, as it completed the conquest of Naples.
   The two attacks on Spain had also miscarried. … A truce of
   five months was concluded, November 15th, which was
   subsequently converted into a peace of three years."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494-1514,
      book 1, chapter 4,
      and book 2, chapter 1._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 9, chapters 8-9 (volume 4)._

      _M. J. Quintana,
      The Great Captain
      (Lives of Celebrated Spaniards) _

      _G. P. R. James,
      Memoirs of Great Commanders,
      volume 1: Gonzalvez de Cordoba._

      _L. Larchey,
      History of Bayard,
      book 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
   The Treaties of Blois.
   Tortuous diplomacy of Louis XII.
   His double renunciation of Naples.

   "There was danger [to Louis XII. of France] that the loss of
   the Milanese should follow that of the kingdom of Naples.
   Maximilian was already preparing to assert his imperial rights
   beyond the Alps, and Gonsalvo de Cordova was marching toward
   the northern part of the peninsula. Louis XII. divided and
   disarmed his enemies by three treaties, signed at Blois on the
   same day (1504). By the first Louis and Maximilian agreed to
   attack Venice, and to divide the spoil; by the second Louis
   promised the king of the Romans 200,000 francs in return for
   the investiture of the Milanese; by the third he renounced the
   kingdom of Naples in favor of Maximilian's grandson Charles,
   who was to marry Claude,' daughter of Louis XII., and receive
   as her dowry three French provinces,—Burgundy, Brittany, and
   Blois. A more disastrous agreement could not have been made.
   Charles was to obtain by inheritance from his father, Philip
   the Handsome, the Netherlands; from his mother, Castile; from
   his paternal grandfather, Austria; from his maternal
   grandfather, Aragon. And now he was assured of Italy, and
   France was to be dismembered for him. This was virtually
   giving him the empire of Europe. France protested, and Louis
   XII. seized the first occasion to respond to her wishes. He
   found it in 1505, when Ferdinand the Catholic married Germaine
   de Foix, niece of Louis XII. Louis by treaty made a second
   cession of his rights over the kingdom of Naples to his niece,
   thus breaking one of the principal conditions of his treaty
   with Maximilian. He convoked the States-General at Tours in
   order openly to break the others (1506).
{1837}
   The Assembly declared that the fundamental law of the state
   did not permit alienations of the domains of the crown, and
   besought the king to give his daughter in marriage to his heir
   presumptive, Francis, Duke of Angoulême, in order to insure
   the integrity of the territory and the independence of France.
   Louis XII. found little difficulty in acceding to their
   request. Maximilian and Ferdinand were at the time unable to
   protest."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of France,
      chapter 38._

ITALY: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.
   The continental provinces of the Republic torn away.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
   Dissolution of the League of Cambrai and formation of the Holy
   League against France.
   The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.
   Restoration of the Medici.
   Recovery of Venetian territories.

   As the League of Cambrai began to weaken and fall in pieces,
   the vigorous republic of Venice "came forth again, retook
   Padua, and kept it through a long and terrible siege, at last
   forcing the Emperor to withdraw and send back his French
   allies. The Venetians recovered Vicenza, and threatened
   Verona; Maximilian, once more powerless, appealed to France to
   defend his conquests. Thus things stood [1510] when Julius II.
   made peace with Venice and began to look round him for allies
   against Louis XII. He negotiated with the foreign kings; but
   that was only in order thereby to neutralise their influence,
   sowing discord among them; it was on the Swiss mercenaries
   that he really leant. Now that he had gained all he wanted on
   the northern frontier of the States of the Church, he thought
   that he might safely undertake the high duty of protecting
   Italy against the foreigner: he would accomplish what Cæsar
   Borgia had but dreamed of doing, he would chase the Barbarian
   from the sacred soil of culture. … He 'thanked God,' when he
   heard of the death of the Cardinal of Amboise, 'that now he
   was Pope alone!' … He at once set himself to secure the
   Swiss, and found a ready and capable agent in Matthew
   Schynner, Bishop of Sion in the Valais. … Bishop Schynner
   was rewarded for this traffic with a cardinal's hat. And now,
   deprived by death of the guiding hand [of Cardinal d'Amboise],
   Louis XII. began to follow a difficult and dangerous line of
   policy: he called a National Council at Tours, and laid before
   it, as a case of conscience, the question whether he might
   make war on the Pope. The Council at once declared for the
   King, distinguishing, as well they might under Julius II.,
   between the temporal and the spiritual in the Papacy, and
   declaring that any papal censure that might be launched would
   be null and void. Above all, an appeal was made to a General
   Council. … Meanwhile war went on in Italy. A broadly-planned
   attack on the Milanese, on Genoa, and Ferrara, concerted by
   Julius II. with the Venetians and Swiss, had come to nothing.
   Now the warlike pontiff—one knows his grim face from
   Raphael's picture, and his nervous grasp of the arms of his
   chair, as though he were about to spring forward into
   action—took the field in person. At Bologna he fell ill; they
   thought he would die; and Chaumont of Amboise was marching up
   with the French at his heels to surround and take him there.
   But by skilful treating with the French general Julius gained
   time, till a strong force of Venetians had entered Bologna.
   Then the Pope rose from his sick-bed, in the dead of winter,
   1511, and marched out to besiege Mirandola," which
   capitulated. "Bayard soon after attacked him, and all but took
   him prisoner. A congress at Mantua followed: but the Pope
   sternly refused to make terms with the French: the war must go
   on. Then Louis took a dangerous step. He convoked an
   ecclesiastical council at Pisa, and struck a medal to express
   his contempt and hatred for Julius II. … The Pope had gone
   back to Rome, and Bologna had opened her gates to the French;
   the coming council, which should depose Julius, was proclaimed
   through Northern Italy. But, though the moment seemed
   favourable, nothing but a real agreement of the European
   powers could give success to such a step. And how far men were
   from such an agreement Louis was soon to learn; for Julius,
   finding that the French did not invade the States of the
   Church, resumed negociations with such success that in October
   1511 a 'Holy League' was formed between the Pope, Venice,
   Ferdinand of Aragon, and Henry VIII. of England. Maximilian
   wavered and doubted; the Swiss were to be had—on payment. At
   first Louis showed a bold front; in spite of this strange
   whirl of the wheel of politics from the League of Cambrai to
   the Holy League, he persevered, giving the command of Milan to
   his nephew, Gaston of Foix, Duke of Nemours, a man of 23
   years, the most promising of his younger captains. He relieved
   Bologna, seized Brescia, and pillaged it [1512]; and then
   pushed on to attack Ravenna; it is said that the booty of
   Brescia was so great that the French soldiers, having made
   their fortunes, deserted in crowds, and left the army much
   weakened. With this diminished force Gaston found himself
   caught between the hostile walls of Ravenna, and a relieving
   force of Spaniards, separated from him only by a canal. The
   Spaniards, after their usual way of warfare, made an
   entrenched camp round their position. The French first tried
   to take the city by assault; but being driven back, determined
   to attack the Spanish camp." They made the assault [on Easter
   Day, 1512] and took the camp, with great slaughter; but in his
   reckless pursuit of the retreating enemy Gaston de Foix was
   slain. "The death of the young Prince more than balanced the
   great victory of the day: for with Gaston, as Guicciardini
   says, perished all the vigour of the French army. … Though
   Ravenna was taken, the French could no longer support
   themselves. Their communications with Milan were threatened by
   the Swiss: they left garrisons in the strong places and fell
   back. The council of Pisa also had to take refuge at Milan.
   When the Swiss came down from their mountain-passes to restore
   the Sforza dynasty, the harassed council broke up from Milan,
   and fled to Lyons; there it lingered a while, but it had
   become contemptible; anon it vanished into thin air. The Pope
   retook Bologna, Parma, Piacenza; the Medici returned to
   Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569]; Maximilian Sforza
   was re-established [see MILAN: A. D. 1512], while the Grisons
   Leagues received the Valteline as their reward: the English
   annoyed the coast without any decisive result. … Ferdinand
   seized Navarre, which henceforward became Spanish to the
   Pyrenees.
{1838}
   Before winter, not one foot of Italian soil remained to the
   French. Julius II., the formidable centre of the Alliance,
   died at this moment (1513). … The allies secured the
   election of a Medicean Pope, Leo X., a pontiff hostile to
   France, and certain not to reverse that side of his
   predecessor's policy. … Louis, finding himself menaced on
   every side, suddenly turned about and offered his friendship
   to Venice. … Natural tendencies overbore all resentments on
   both sides, and a treaty between them both guaranteed the
   Milanese to Louis and gave him a strong force of Venetian
   soldiers. Meanwhile, Ferdinand had come to terms with
   Maximilian and boyish Henry VIII., who … had framed a scheme
   for the overthrow of France. The French king, instead of
   staying at home to defend his frontiers, was eager to retake
   Milan, and to join hands with the Venetians. … But the Swiss
   round Maximilian Sforza defended him without fear or
   treachery; and catching the French troops under La Trémoille
   in a wretched position not far from Novara, attacked and
   utterly defeated them (1513). The French withdrew beyond the
   Alps; the Venetians were driven off with great loss by the
   Spaniards, who ravaged their mainland territories down to the
   water's edge. For the short remainder of his life Louis XII.
   had no leisure again to try his fortunes in Italy: he was too
   busy elsewhere."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Villari,
      Life and Times of Machiavelli,
      book 1, chapters 12-14 (volume 3)._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy,
      book 5, chapters 15-16 (volume 4)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapters 37-38 (volume 2)._

      _L. Larchey,
      History of Bayard,
      book 2, chapters 21-44._

      H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 4).

ITALY: A. D. 1515-1516.
   Invasion and reconquest of Milan by Francis I.
   His treaty with the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

ITALY: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Abortive attempt against Milan by the Emperor, Maximilian.
   His peace with Venice and surrender of Verona.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

ITALY: A. D. 1520-1542.
   Early Reformation movements
   and their want of popular support.
   The Council of Trent.

         See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

ITALY: A. D. 1521-1522.
   Re-expulsion of the French from Milan.
   The treason of the Constable Bourbon.
   His appointment to the command of the Imperial army.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
   The double dealings of Pope Clement VII.
   Invasion of Milanese by Francis I. and his defeat and capture
   at Pavia.
   The Holy League against Charles V.
   The attack on Rome by Constable Bourbon.

   Giulio de' Medici, natural son of Guiliano de' Medici, and
   cousin of Leo X., had succeeded Adrian VI. in the Papacy in
   1523, under the name of Clement VII. "Nothing could have been
   more unfortunate than the new Pope's first steps on the
   zig-zag path which he proposed to follow. Becoming alarmed at
   the preponderating power of Charles [the Fifth, Emperor, King
   of Spain and Naples; Duke of Burgundy, and ruler of all the
   Netherlands, in 1524 be entered into a league with Francis
   [the First, king of France];

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

   but scarcely had this been concluded when the memorable battle
   of Pavia resulting in the entire defeat of the French, on the
   24th of February, 1525, and the captivity of the French king,
   frightened him back again into seeking anew the friendship of
   Charles, in April of that year.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525

   Each of these successive treaties was of course duly sworn to
   and declared inviolable; but it could hardly be expected that
   he who exercised the power of annulling other men's oaths
   would submit to be bound by his own, when the observance of
   them became inconvenient. Clement accordingly was not
   prevented by the solemn treaty of April, 1525, from conspiring
   against his new ally in the July following. The object of this
   conspiracy was to induce Ferdinando Francesco d'Avalos,
   Marquis of Pescara, who commanded the army of Charles V.
   before Milan, to revolt against his sovereign, and join the
   Italians in an attempt to put an end for ever to Spanish sway
   in Italy. … But the Spanish general had no sooner secured
   clear evidence of the plans of the conspirators, by pretending
   to listen to their proposals, than he reported the whole to
   Charles. The miscarriage of this scheme, and the exposure
   consequent upon it, necessarily threw the vacillating and
   terrified Pontiff once more into the arms of Francis. 'The
   Most Christian'—as the old Italian historians often
   elliptically call the Kings of France—obtained his release
   from his Madrid prison by promising on oath, on the 17th of
   January, 1526, all that Charles, driving a hard bargain, chose
   to demand of him.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

   And Clement hastened to prove the sincerity of his renewed
   friendship by a professional contribution to the success of
   their new alliance, in the welcome shape of a plenary
   absolution from all observance of the oaths so sworn. … On
   the 22nd of May following [at Cognac], the Pope entered into a
   formal league with Francis [called 'Holy' for the reason that
   the Pope was a party to it]. Venice joined her troops to those
   of the Ecclesiastical States, and they marched together to the
   support of the Milanese, who had risen in revolt against the
   Emperor. Assistance had also been promised by Henry of
   England, who had stipulated, however, that he should not be
   named as a party to the alliance, but only considered as its
   protector. This was the most strenuous and most united attempt
   Italy had yet made to rid herself of the domination of the
   stranger, and patriotic hopes beat high in several Italian
   hearts. … It may be easily imagined that the 'Most Catholic'
   monarch [Charles V.] felt towards Clement at this time in a
   manner which led him to distinguish very nicely between the
   infallible head of the universal Church and the sovereign of
   the Ecclesiastical States. … Though he retained the utmost
   respect and reverence for the vicegerent of heaven, he thought
   that a little correction administered to the sovereign of Rome
   would not be amiss, and nothing could be easier than to find
   means ready to his hand for the infliction of it. The Colonnas
   were of course ready for a rebellion on the slightest
   encouragement. … So when Don Ugo di Moncada, Charles's
   general at Naples, proposed to the Colonnas to join him in a
   little frolic at Clement's expense, the noble and most
   reverend members of that powerful family jumped at the
   proposal. … The united forces of the Viceroy and the
   Colonnas accordingly one morning entered Rome, altogether
   without opposition, and marched at once to the Vatican.
{1839}
   They completely sacked, not only the Pope's palace, and the
   residences of many gentlemen and prelates, but also, says the
   historian [Varchi], 'with unheard-of avarice and impiety,'
   robbed the sacristy of St. Peter of everything it contained.
   Clement had barely time to escape into the castle of St.
   Angelo; but as he found there neither soldiers nor ammunition,
   nor even food for above three days, … he consented to a
   treaty by which the Pope agreed to pardon the Colonnas freely
   for all they had done against him; to take no steps to revenge
   himself on them; to withdraw his troops from Lombardy; and to
   undertake nothing in any way, or under any pretext, against
   the Emperor." As a hostage for the fulfilment of this treaty,
   Pope Clement gave his dear friend Filippo Strozzi; but no
   sooner was he delivered from his captors than he hired seven
   "black companies" of adventurers and 2,000 Swiss, and began a
   furious war of extermination upon the Colonnas and all their
   dependents. At the same time he wrote private letters to the
   heads of his "Holy League," "warning them to pay no heed to
   any statement respecting a treaty made by him with the
   Emperor, and assuring them of his intention to carry on the
   war with the utmost energy." A little later, however, this
   remarkable Holy Father found it convenient to make another
   treaty with the Viceroy of Naples, for the release of his
   friend Strozzi, which bound him still more to friendly
   relations with the Emperor. This latter treaty, of March,
   1527, "would seem in some sort to imply the reconciliation
   once again of the Pope and the Emperor." But Charles had
   already set forces in motion for the chastisement of the
   faithless Pope and his allies, which either he could not or
   did not care to arrest. "The Constable Bourbon, whom the gross
   injustice of Francis I., and the intolerable persecution of
   his infamous mother, Louise de Savoie, had driven to abandon
   his country and allegiance [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], …
   was now … marching southwards, with the imperial troops, to
   chastise the different members of the League against the
   Emperor, which Clement, as has been seen, had formed. George
   Frundsberg, a German leader of reputation, had also crossed
   the Alps with 15,000 men,—'all Lutherans and Lanzknechts,' as
   the Italians write with horror and dismay,—and had joined
   these forces to the Spaniards under Bourbon. … The combined
   force was in all respects more like a rabble rout of brigands
   and bandits than an army; and was assuredly such as must, even
   in those days, have been felt to be a disgrace to any
   sovereign permitting them to call themselves his soldiers.
   Their pay was, as was often the case with the troops of
   Charles V., hopelessly in arrear, and discipline was of course
   proportionably weak among them. … The progress southward of
   this bandit army … filled the cities exposed to their inroad
   with terror and dismay. They had passed like a destroying
   locust swarm over Bologna and Imola, and crossing the
   Apennines, which separate Umbria from Tuscany, had descended
   into the valley of the Arno not far from Arezzo. Florence and
   Rome both trembled. On which would the storm burst? That was
   the all-absorbing question. Pope Clement, with his usual
   avarice-blinded imbecility, had, immediately on concluding the
   above-mentioned treaty with the Neapolitan viceroy, discharged
   all his troops except a body-guard of about 600 men. Florence
   was nearly in as defenceless a position"; but a small army of
   the League, under the Duke of Urbino, was at Incisa, and it
   was "probably the presence of this army, little as it had
   hitherto done to impede the progress of the enemy, which
   decided Bourbon eventually to determine on marching towards
   Rome. It seems doubtful how far they were in so doing,
   executing the orders, or carrying out the wishes, of the
   Emperor. … Upon the whole we are warranted in supposing that
   Bourbon and Frundsberg would hardly have ventured on the
   course they took, if they had not had reason to believe that
   it would not much displease their master. … On the 5th of
   May [1527] Bourbon arrived beneath the walls of Rome. … On
   the evening of the 6th of May the city was stormed and given
   over to the unbridled cupidity and brutality of the soldiers.
   … Bourbon himself had fallen in the first moments of the
   attack."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 10, chapter 3 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      Filippo Strozzi,
      chapter 7._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 4, chapters 1-3._

ITALY: A. D. 1527.
   The Sack of Rome by the Spanish and German Imperialists.

   "Bourbon fell at the first assault; but by evening the Vatican
   suburb was in the hands of the enemy. Clement, who was even
   best informed of the state of things, had not anticipated such
   an issue. He scarcely saved himself by flight from the Vatican
   to the castle of St. Angelo, whither the fugitive population
   hurried, as the shipwrecked crew of an entire fleet hastens to
   a single boat which cannot receive them. In the midst of the
   thronging stream of men, the portcullis was lowered. Whoever
   remained without was lost. Benvenuto Cellini was at that time
   in Rome, and was among the defenders of the walls. He boasted
   that his ball had destroyed Bourbon. He stole fortunately into
   the citadel, before it was closed, and entered the Pope's
   service as bombardier. Even at this last moment, Clement might
   have saved Rome itself, which, situated on the opposite shore
   of the river, had not yet been entered by the enemy. They
   offered to spare it for a ransom; but finding this too high,
   and awaiting hourly Urbino's army, to which, though nothing
   was yet to be seen of it, he looked as a deliverer in the time
   of need, he would hear nothing of it. And thus the undefended
   city fell into the hands of the imperialists. Almost without
   resistance they entered Trastevere, a small quarter of the
   city lying to the west of the Tiber; and then crossing the
   bridges, which no one had demolished, they pressed forwards
   into the heart of Rome. It was the depth of the night.
   Benvenuto Cellini was stationed on the tower of the castle of
   St. Angelo, at the foot of the colossal angel, and saw the
   flames bursting forth in the darkness, and heard the sorrowful
   cry all around. For it was late before the soldiers began to
   cast off all restraint. They had entered quietly. The Germans
   stood in battalions. But when they saw the Spaniards broken up
   and plundering, the desire was aroused in them also; and now a
   spirit of emulation appeared, as to which nation could outdo
   the other in cruelty. The Spaniards, it is asserted by
   impartial Italians, carried the day.
{1840}
   There had been no siege, no bombardment, no flight of any
   great extent; but as if the earth had opened, and had
   disgorged a legion of devils, so suddenly came these hosts.
   Everything was in a moment abandoned to them. We must
   endeavour to conceive what kind of men these German soldiers
   were. They formed an intermediate class between the prime and
   the refuse of the people. Gathered together by the hope of
   booty, indifferent what end was assigned them, rendered wild
   by hunger and tardy pay, left without a master after the death
   of their commander, they found themselves unrestrained in the
   most luxurious city of the world—a city abounding with gold
   and riches, and at the same time decried for centuries in
   Germany, as the infernal nest of the popes, who lived there as
   incarnate devils, in the midst of their Babylonian doings. The
   opinion that the pope of Rome, and Clement VII. in particular,
   was the devil, prevailed not only in Germany, but in Italy and
   in Rome the people called him so. In the midst of plague and
   famine he had doubled the taxes and raised the price of bread.
   What with the Romans, however, was an invective arising from
   indignation, was an article of faith among the Germans. They
   believed they had to do with the real antichrist, whose
   destruction would be a benefit to Christendom. We must
   remember, if we would understand this fury of the German
   soldiery, in whose minds, as in those of all Germans, Lutheran
   ideas at that time prevailed, how Rome had been preached and
   written upon in the north. The city was represented to people
   as a vast abyss of sin; the men as villains, from the lowest
   up to the cardinals; the women as courtesans; the business of
   all as deceit, theft, and murder; and the robbing and deluding
   of men that had for centuries been emanating from Rome, was
   regarded as the universal disease from which the world was
   languishing. Thither for centuries the gold of Germany had
   flowed; there had emperors been humbled or poisoned; from Rome
   every evil had sprung. And thus, while satiating themselves
   with rapine and murder, they believed a good work was being
   done for the welfare of Christendom, and for the avenge of
   Germany. Never, however—this we know—does the nature of man
   exhibit itself more beast-like, than when it becomes furious
   for the sake of ideas of the highest character. Before the
   castle of St. Angelo, which, carefully fortified with walls
   and fosses, alone afforded resistance, the German soldiers
   proclaimed Martin Luther as pope. Luther's name was at that
   time a war-cry against pope and priestcraft. The rude
   multitude surmised not what Luther desired when he attacked
   the papacy. In front of St. Peter's church, they represented
   an imitation of the papal election with the sacred garments
   and utensils. They compelled one priest to give extreme
   unction to a dying mule. One protested that he would not rest
   until he had consumed a piece of the pope's flesh. It is true,
   Italians for the most part relate this, but the German reports
   themselves do not deny the excessive barbarity which was
   permitted. Ten millions of precious metal was carried away.
   How much blood did this money involve, and what was done to
   those from whom it was taken? Fewer were put to death than
   were plundered, says one of the records, but what does that
   imply? It is true, the Germans often quarrelled with the
   Spaniards, because the horrors which they saw them practise
   were too terrible for them. Otherwise the sparing of human
   life was less an act of clemency than of covetousness.
   Prisoners of war were at that time regarded as slaves; they
   were carried away as personal property, or a ransom was
   extorted. … This system was carried to a great pitch in
   Rome. The possessors of palaces were obliged to purchase their
   ransom, the Spanish cardinals as well as the Italian—no
   difference was made. Thus at least escape was possible. …
   And as the people were treated, so were the things. Upon the
   inlaid marble floor of the Vatican, where the Prince of Orange
   took up his abode—the command of the army devolving upon him
   after Bourbon's death—the soldiers lighted their fire. The
   splendid stained glass windows, executed by William of
   Marseilles, were broken for the sake of the lead. Raphael's
   tapestries were pronounced excellent booty; in the paintings
   on the walls the eyes were put out; and valuable documents
   were given as straw to the horses which stood in the Sistine
   Chapel. The statues in the streets were thrown down; the
   images of the Mother of God in the churches were broken to
   pieces. For six months the city thus remained in the power of
   the soldiery, who had lost all discipline, Pestilence and
   famine appeared. Rome had more than 90,000 inhabitants under
   Leo X.; when Clement VII. returned a year after the conquest,
   scarcely a third of that number then existed—poor, famished
   people, who had remained behind, because they knew not whither
   to turn. All this lay on the conscience of the man who now for
   months had been condemned to look down upon this misery from
   the castle of St. Angelo, in which the Spaniards held him
   completely blockaded, and where pestilence and want of
   provisions appeared just as much as down below in Rome. At
   last, after waiting day after day, he saw Urbino's army
   approaching from afar: their watch-fires were to be perceived;
   and every moment he expected that the duke would attack and
   deliver the city. But he moved not. It is thought he intended
   now to avenge the rapine which the Medici under Leo. X. had
   carried on against him. … After having rested for some time
   in sight of the city, in which the imperialists had opened
   their intrenchments round the castle of St. Angelo for a
   regular siege, he withdrew back again to the north, and left
   the pope to his fate."

      _H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapter 10, section 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Benvenuto Cellini,
      Life,
      translated by J. A. Symonds,
      book 1, sections 34-38 (volume 1)._

      _Benvenuto Cellini,
      Life,
      translated by T. Roscoe,
      chapter 7._

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
   Siege and captivity of the Pope.
   New league against the Emperor.
   French invasion and disastrous siege of Naples.
   Genoese independence recovered.
   Treaties of Barcelona and Cambrai.
   Francis renounces all pretensions beyond the Alps.
   Charles V. supreme.

   Shut up in Castle St. Angelo, the Pope, Clement VII.,
   "deprived of every resource, and reduced to such extremity of
   famine as to feed on asses' flesh, was obliged to capitulate
   on such conditions as the conquerors were pleased to
   prescribe. He agreed to pay 400,000 ducats to the army; to
   surrender to the emperor all the places of strength belonging
   to the Church; and, besides giving hostages, to remain a
   prisoner himself until the chief articles were performed. …
   The account of this extraordinary and unexpected event was no
   less surprising than agreeable to the emperor.
{1841}
   But in order to conceal his joy from his subjects, who were
   filled with horror at the success and crimes of their
   countrymen, and to lessen the indignation of the rest of
   Europe, he declared that Rome had been assaulted without any
   order from him. He wrote to all the princes with whom he was
   in alliance, disclaiming his having had any knowledge of
   Bourbon's intention. He put himself and court into mourning;
   commanded the rejoicings which had been ordered for the birth
   of his son Philip to be stopped; and, employing an artifice no
   less hypocritical than gross, he appointed prayers and
   processions throughout all Spain for the recovery of the
   pope's liberty, which, by an order to his generals, he could
   have immediately granted him. … Francis and Henry [of France
   and England], alarmed at the progress of the imperial arms in
   Italy, had, even before the taking of Rome, entered into a
   closer alliance; and, in order to give some check to the
   emperor's ambition, had agreed to make a vigorous diversion in
   the Low Countries. The force of every motive which had
   influenced them at that time was now increased; and to these
   was added the desire of rescuing the pope out of the emperor's
   hands, a measure no less politic than it appeared to be pious.
   This, however, rendered it necessary to abandon their hostile
   intentions against the Low Countries, and to make Italy the
   seat of war. … Besides all … public considerations, Henry
   was influenced by one of a more private nature: having begun,
   about this time, to form his great scheme of divorcing
   Catharine of Aragon, towards the execution of which he knew
   that the sanction of papal authority would be necessary, he
   was desirous to acquire as much merit as possible with
   Clement, by appearing to be the chief instrument of his
   deliverance. … Henry … entered so eagerly into this new
   alliance, that, in order to give Francis the strongest proof
   of his friendship and respect, he formally renounced the
   ancient claim of the English monarchs to the crown of France,
   which had long been the pride and ruin of the nation; as a
   full compensation for which he accepted a pension of 50,000
   crowns, to be paid annually to himself and his successors. The
   pope, being unable to fulfil the conditions of his
   capitulation, still remained a prisoner. … The Florentines
   no sooner heard of what had happened at Rome, than they ran to
   arms … and, declaring themselves a free state, reëstablished
   their ancient popular government.

      See FLORENCE: A. D.1502-1569.

   The Venetians, taking advantage of the calamity of their ally,
   the pope, seized Ravenna, and other places belonging to the
   church, under pretext of keeping them in deposite." On the
   other hand, Lannoy, Charles' viceroy at Naples, "marched to
   Rome, together with Moncada and the Marquis del Guasto, at the
   head of all the troops which they could assemble in the
   kingdom of Naples. The arrival of this reinforcement brought
   new calamities on the unhappy citizens of Rome; for the
   soldiers, envying the wealth of their companions, imitated
   their license, and with the utmost rapacity gathered the
   gleanings which had escaped the avarice of the Spaniards and
   Germans. There was not now any army in Italy capable of making
   head against the imperialists." But the troops who had enjoyed
   months of license and riotous pillage in Rome could not be
   brought back to discipline, and refused to quit the perishing
   city. They had chosen for their general the Prince of Orange,
   who "was obliged to pay more attention to their humours than
   they did to his commands. … This gave the king of France and
   the Venetians leisure to form new schemes, and to enter into
   new arrangements for delivering the pope, and preserving the
   liberties of Italy. The newly-restored republic of Florence
   very imprudently joined with them, and Lautrec … was …
   appointed generalissimo of the league. … The best troops in
   France marched under his command; and the king of England,
   though he had not yet declared war against the emperor,
   advanced a considerable sum towards carrying on the
   expedition. Lautrec's first operations [1527] were prudent,
   vigorous and successful. By the assistance of Andrew Doria,
   the ablest sea-officer of that age, he rendered himself master
   of Genoa, and reëstablished in that republic the faction of
   the Fregosi, together with the dominion of France. He obliged
   Alexandria to surrender after a short siege, and reduced all
   the country on that side of the Tessino. He took Pavia, which
   had so long resisted the arms of his sovereign, by assault,
   and plundered it with … cruelty. … But Lautrec durst not
   complete a conquest which would have been so honourable to
   himself and of such advantage to the league. Francis … was
   afraid that, if Sforza were once reëstablished in Milan, they
   [his confederates] would second but coldly the attack which he
   intended to make on the kingdom of Naples. … Happily the
   importunities of the pope and the solicitations of the
   Florentines, the one for relief, and the other for protection,
   were so urgent as to furnish him with a decent pretext for
   marching forward. … While Lautrec advanced slowly towards
   Rome, the emperor" came to terms with the pope, and Clement
   obtained his liberty at the cost of 350,000 crowns, a tenth of
   the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, and an agreement to take
   no part in the war against Charles. The latter next made
   overtures to the French king, offering some relaxation of the
   treaty of Madrid; but they were received in a manner that
   irritated even his cold temper. He, in turn, provoked his
   antagonist, until a ridiculous exchange of defiances to
   personal combat passed between them. Meantime "Lautrec
   continued his operations, which promised to be more decisive.
   His army, which was now increased to 35,000 men, advanced by
   great marches towards Naples." The remains of the imperial
   army retreated, as he advanced, from Rome, where it had held
   riot for ten months, and took shelter behind the
   fortifications of the Neapolitan capital. Lautrec undertook
   (April, 1528) the siege of Naples, with the co-operation of
   the Genoese admiral, Doria, who blockaded its port. But he was
   neglected by his own frivolous king, and received little aid
   from the Pope, the king of England, or other confederates of
   the league. Moreover, Doria and the Genoese suffered treatment
   so insolent, oppressive and threatening, from the French court
   that the former opened negotiations with the emperor for a
   transfer of his services. "Charles, fully sensible of the
   importance of such an acquisition, granted him whatever terms
   he required.
{1842}
   Doria sent back his commission, together with the collar of
   St. Michael, to Francis, and, hoisting the imperial colours,
   sailed with all his galleys towards Naples, not to block up
   the harbour of that unhappy city, as he had formerly engaged,
   but to bring them protection and deliverance. His arrival
   opened the communication with the sea, and restored plenty in
   Naples, which was now reduced to the last extremity; and the
   French … were soon reduced to great straits for want of
   provisions." With the heat of summer came pestilence; Lautrec
   died, and the wasted French army, attempting to retreat, was
   forced to lay down its arms and march under guard to the
   frontiers of France. "The loss of Genoa followed immediately
   upon the ruin of the army in Naples." Doria took possession of
   the town; the French garrison in the citadel capitulated
   (September 12, 1528), and the citadel was destroyed. "It was
   now in Doria's power to have rendered himself the sovereign of
   his country, which he had so happily delivered from
   oppression." But he magnanimously refused any preeminence
   among his fellow citizens. "Twelve persons were elected to
   new-model the constitution of the republic. The influence of
   Doria's virtue and example communicated itself to his
   countrymen; the factions which had long torn and ruined the
   state seemed to be forgotten; prudent precautions were taken
   to prevent their reviving; and the same form of government
   which hath subsisted with little variation since that time in
   Genoa, was established with universal applause." In Lombardy,
   the French army, under St. Pol, was surprised, defeated and
   ruined at Landriano (June, 1529), as completely as the army in
   Naples had been a few months before. All parties were now
   desirous of peace, but feared to seem too eager in making
   overtures. Two women took the negotiations in hand and carried
   them to a conclusion. "These were Margaret of Austria,
   dutchess dowager of Savoy, the emperor's aunt, and Louise,
   Francis's mother. They agreed on an interview at Cambray, and,
   being lodged in two adjoining houses, between which a
   communication was opened, met together without ceremony or
   observation, and held daily conferences, to which no person
   whatever was admitted." The result was a treaty signed August
   5, 1529, known as the Peace of Cambray, or "the Ladies'
   Peace," or "Peace of the Dames." By its terms, Francis was to
   pay 2,000,000 crowns for the ransom of his sons; restore such
   towns as he still held in the Milanese; resign and renounce
   his pretensions to Naples, Milan, Genoa, and every other place
   beyond the Alps, as well as to Flanders and Artois; and
   consummate his marriage with the emperor's sister, Eleanora.
   On the other hand, the emperor only agreed not to press his
   claims on Burgundy, for the present, but reserved them, in
   full force. Another treaty, that of Barcelona, had already, in
   1529, been concluded between the emperor and the pope. The
   former gave up the papal states which he occupied, and agreed
   to reëstablish the dominion of the Medici in Florence; besides
   giving his natural daughter in marriage to Alexander, the head
   of that family. In return he received the investiture of
   Naples, absolution for all concerned in the plundering of
   Rome, and the grant to himself and his brother of a fourth of
   the ecclesiastical revenues throughout their dominions.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      books 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 28._

      _C. Coignat,
      Francis I. and his Times,
      chapter 9._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Studies from Genoese History,
      chapter 1._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1528-1570.
   Naples under the Spanish Viceroys.
   Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
   Successful revolt against the Inquisition.
   Unsuccessful French invasion under Guise.

   "After the memorable and unfortunate expedition of Lautrec, in
   1528, Philibert of Chalons, Prince of Orange, who commanded
   the Imperial army, exercised the severest vengeance [in
   Naples] on the persons and estates of all those nobles who had
   joined the French, or who appeared to demonstrate any
   attachment towards that nation. … These multiplied … acts
   of oppression received no effectual redress during the short
   administration [1529-1532] of Cardinal Colonna, who succeeded
   to the Prince of Orange. … In the place of Cardinal Colonna
   was substituted Don Pedro de Toledo, who governed Naples with
   almost unlimited powers, during the space of near 21 years.
   His viceroyalty, which forms a memorable Epocha in the annals
   of the country, demands and fixes attention. We are impressed
   with horror at finding, by his own confession, … that during
   the progress of his administration, he put to death near
   18,000 persons, by the hand of the executioner. Yet a fact
   still more extraordinary is that Giannoné, himself a
   Neapolitan, and one of the ablest as well as most impartial
   historians whom the 18th century has produced, not only
   acquits, but even commends Toledo's severity, as equally
   wholesome and necessary," on account of the terrible
   lawlessness and disorder which he found in the country. "The
   inflexible and stern character of the viceroy speedily
   redressed these grievances, and finally restored order in the
   capital. … All the provinces experienced equal attention,
   and became the objects of his personal inspection. The
   unprotected coasts of Calabria and of Apulia, subject to the
   continual devastation of the Turks, who landed from their
   gallies, were fortified with towers and beacons to announce
   the enemy's approach. … Repeated attempts were made by
   Solyman II., Emperor of the Turks, either alone or in
   conjunction with the fleets of France, to effect the conquest
   of Naples, during this period: but the exertions of Toledo
   were happily attended with success in repulsing the Turkish
   invaders. … In no part of the middle ages … were the
   coasts of Naples and Sicily so frequently plundered, ravaged,
   and desolated, as at this period. Thousands of persons of both
   sexes, and of all conditions, were carried off by Barbarossa,
   Dragut, Sinan, and the other Bashaws, or admirals of the
   Porte. Not content with landing on the shores and ravaging the
   provinces, their squadrons perpetually appeared in sight of
   Naples; laid waste the islands of Ischia and Procida, situate
   in its immediate vicinity; attacked the towns of Pouzzoli and
   Baiæ; and committed every outrage of wanton barbarity. … The
   invasion of 1552, when Dragut blocked up the harbour of
   Naples, with 150 large gallies, during near four weeks, spread
   still greater consternation; and if the fleet of France had
   arrived, as had been concerted, it is more than probable that
   the city must have fallen into their hands. But the delays of
   Henry II., Solyman's ally, proved its preservation. The
   Turkish admiral, corrupted by a present of 200,000 ducats,
   which the Viceroy found means of conveying to him, retired and
   made sail for Constantinople. …
{1843}
   The administration of Toledo … was … completely subverted
   from the moment that he attempted [1546] to introduce the
   Inquisition. … The Neapolitans, patient under every other
   species of oppression, instantly revolted. … They even
   forgot, in the general terror, the distinction of ranks; and
   the Barons united with their fellow-citizens to oppose that
   formidable tribunal. The Viceroy, returning to the capital,
   reinforced by 3,000 veteran Spaniards, determined
   nevertheless, to support the measure. Hostilities took place,
   and the city, during near three months, was abandoned to
   anarchy, while the inhabitants, having invested the castle,
   besieged their governor. … The Emperor, convinced by
   experience of the impracticability of success in his attempt,
   at length desisted." Toledo died in 1553, and "was succeeded
   by the Cardinal Pacheco, as Viceroy; and the abdication of
   Charles V., in the following year, devolved on his son Philip
   II. the sovereignty of Naples. Alarmed at the preparations
   made by Henry II., King of France, in conjunction with Paul
   IV., who had newly ascended the papal throne, Philip
   dispatched Ferdinand, Duke of Alva, to the aid of his
   Neapolitan subjects; and to the vigorous measures embraced by
   him on his arrival was due the safety of the kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   … The administration of the Duke of Alcala, to whom Philip
   delegated the supreme power soon after the recall of Alva
   [1558], lasted near 12 years, and was marked by almost every
   species of calamity."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

   "The march of the Mareschal of Lautrec was the last important
   attempt of the French to reconquer Naples. … Spain remained
   in possession of this beautiful country for two centuries. …
   Their [the Spaniards'] ascendancy was owing as well to an iron
   discipline as to that inveterate character of their race, the
   firmness of purpose which had gradually developed itself in
   the long struggle for the country which they wrenched inch by
   inch from their tenacious enemies. The Neapolitans found that
   they had in the Spaniards different rulers from the French."

      _A. de Reumont,
      The Carafas of Maddaloni:
      Naples under Spanish Dominion,
      book 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1529.
   Siege of Florence by the Imperial forces.
   Reinstatement of the Medici.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

ITALY: A. D. 1530-1600.
   Under the Spanish domination, and the Papacy of the
   Counter-Reformation.
   The Inquisition.
   The Jesuits.
   The Vice-regal rule.
   Deplorable state of the country.

   "It will be useful, at this point, to recapitulate the net
   results of Charles's administration of Italian affairs in
   1530. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the island of
   Sardinia and the Duchy of Milan, became Spanish provinces, and
   were ruled henceforth by viceroys. The House of Este was
   confirmed in the Duchy of Ferrara, including Modena and
   Reggio. The Duchies of Savoy and Mantua and the Marquisate of
   Montferrat, which had espoused the Spanish cause, were
   undisturbed. Genoa and Siena, both of them avowed allies of
   Spain, the former under Spanish protection, the latter subject
   to Spanish coercion, remained with the name and empty
   privileges of republics. Venice had made her peace with Spain,
   and though she was still strong enough to pursue an
   independent policy, she showed as yet no inclination, and had,
   indeed, no power, to stir up enemies against the Spanish
   autocrat. The Duchy of Urbino, recognised by Rome and
   subservient to Spanish influence, was permitted to exist. The
   Papacy once more assumed a haughty tone, relying on the firm
   alliance struck with Spain. This league, as years went by, was
   destined to grow still closer, still more fruitful of results.
   Florence alone had been excepted from the articles of peace.
   It was still enduring the horrors of the memorable siege when
   Clement left Bologna at the end of May. … Finally, on August
   12, the town capitulated. Alessandro de' Medici, who had
   received the title of Duke of Florence from Charles at
   Bologna, took up his residence there in July 1531, and held
   the State by help of Spanish mercenaries under the command of
   Alessandro Vitelli. … Though the people endured far less
   misery from foreign armies in the period between 1530 and 1600
   than they had done in the period from 1494 to 1527, yet the
   state of the country grew ever more and more deplorable. This
   was due in the first instance to the insane methods of
   taxation adopted by the Spanish viceroys, who held monopolies
   of corn and other necessary commodities in their hands, and
   who invented imposts for the meanest articles of consumption.
   Their example was followed by the Pope and petty princes. …
   The settlement made by Charles V. in 1530, and the various
   changes which took place in the duchies between that date and
   the end of the century, had then the effect of rendering the
   Papacy and Spain omnipotent in Italy. … What they only
   partially effected in Europe at large, by means of S.
   Bartholomew massacres, exterminations of Jews in Toledo and of
   Mussulmans in Granada, holocausts of victims in the Low
   Countries, wars against French Huguenots and German Lutherans,
   naval expeditions and plots against the state of England,
   assassinations of heretic princes, and occasional burning of
   free thinkers, they achieved with plenary success in Italy.
   … It is the tragic history of the eldest and most beautiful,
   the noblest and most venerable, the freest and most gifted of
   Europe's daughters, delivered over to the devilry that issued
   from the most incompetent and arrogantly stupid of the
   European sisterhood, and to the cruelty, inspired by panic, of
   an impious theocracy. When we use these terms to designate the
   Papacy of the Counter-Reformation, it is not that we forget
   how many of those Popes were men of blameless private life and
   serious views for Catholic Christendom. When we use these
   terms to designate the Spanish race in the sixteenth century,
   it is not that we are ignorant of Spanish chivalry and
   colonising enterprise, of Spanish romance, or of the fact that
   Spain produced great painters, great dramatists, and one great
   novelist in the brief period of her glory. We use them
   deliberately, however, in both cases; because the Papacy at
   this period committed itself to a policy of immoral,
   retrograde, and cowardly repression of the most generous of
   human impulses under the pressure of selfish terror; because
   the Spaniards abandoned themselves to a dark fiend of
   religious fanaticism; because they were merciless in their
   conquests and unintelligent in their administration of
   subjugated provinces; because they glutted their lusts of
   avarice and hatred on industrious folk of other creeds within
   their borders; because they cultivated barren pride and
   self-conceit in social life; because at the great epoch of
   Europe's reawakening they chose the wrong side and adhered to
   it with fatal obstinacy. …
{1844}
   After the year 1530 seven Spanish devils entered Italy. These
   were the devil of the Inquisition, with stake and
   torture-room, and war declared against the will and soul and
   heart and intellect of man; the devil of Jesuitry, with its
   sham learning, shameless lying, and casuistical economy of
   sins; the devil of vice-royal rule, with its life-draining
   monopolies and gross incapacity for government; the devil of
   an insolent soldiery, quartered on the people, clamorous for
   pay, outrageous in their lusts and violences; the devil of
   fantastical taxation, levying tolls upon the bare necessities
   of life, and drying up the founts of national well-being at
   their sources; the devil of petty-princedom, wallowing in
   sloth and cruelty upon a pinchbeck throne; the devil of
   effeminate hidalgoism, ruinous in expenditure, mean and
   grasping, corrupt in private life, in public ostentatious,
   vain of titles, cringing to its masters, arrogant to its
   inferiors. In their train these brought with them seven other
   devils, their pernicious offspring: idleness, disease,
   brigandage, destitution, ignorance, superstition,
   hypocritically sanctioned vice. These fourteen devils were
   welcomed, entertained, and voluptuously lodged in all the
   fairest provinces of Italy. The Popes opened wide for them the
   gates of outraged and depopulated Rome. … After a tranquil
   sojourn of some years in Italy, these devils had every where
   spread desolation and corruption. Broad regions, like the
   Patrimony of S. Peter and Calabria, were given over to
   marauding bandits; wide tracts of fertile country, like the
   Sienese Maremma, were abandoned to malaria; wolves prowled
   through empty villages round Milan; in every city the
   pestilence swept off its hundreds daily; manufactures,
   commerce, agriculture, the industries of town and rural
   district, ceased; the Courts swarmed with petty nobles, who
   vaunted paltry titles, and resigned their wives to cicisbei
   and their sons to sloth; art and learning languished; there
   was not a man who ventured to speak out his thought or write
   the truth; and over the Dead Sea of social putrefaction
   floated the sickening oil of Jesuitical hypocrisy."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      part 1, chapter 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1536-1544.
   French invasion of Piedmont.
   French and Turkish siege of Nice.
   Turkish ravages on the coast.
   The Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

ITALY: A. D. 1545-1556.
   Creation of the duchy of Parma and Placentia,
   under the rule of the House of Farnese.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1580.
   End of the French occupation of Savoy and Piedmont.
   The notable reign of Emanuel Philibert.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1600.
   Peace without Prosperity.
   Foreign and domestic Despotism.
   Exhaustion and helplessness of the country.

   "From the epoch of the treaty of Château Cambresis [1559] to
   the close of the 16th century, Italy remained, in one sense,
   in profound and uninterrupted peace. During this long period
   of 41 years, her provinces were neither troubled by a single
   invasion of foreign armies, nor by any hostilities of
   importance between her own feeble and nerveless powers. But
   this half century presented, nevertheless, anything rather
   than the aspect of public happiness and prosperity. Her
   wretched people enjoyed none of the real blessings of peace.
   Subject either to the oppressive yoke of their native despots,
   or to the more general influence of the arch-tyrant of Spain,
   they were abandoned to all the exactions of arbitrary
   government, and compelled to lavish their blood in foreign
   wars and in quarrels not their own. While France, torn by
   religious and civil dissensions, sank for a time from her
   political station among the powers of the continent, and was
   no longer capable of affording protection or exciting
   jealousy, Philip II. was left free to indulge in the peninsula
   all the obdurate tyranny of his nature. … The popes were
   interested in supporting his career of bigotry and religious
   persecution; the other powers of Italy crouched before him in
   abject submission. To feed the religious wars, in which he
   embarked as a principal or an accessory, in the endeavour to
   crush the protestant cause in France, in the Low Countries,
   and in Germany, he drained Italy of her resources in money and
   in men. … While the Italian soldiery fought with the courage
   of freemen, they continued the slaves of a despot, and while
   the Italian youth were consumed in transalpine warfare, their
   suffering country groaned under an iron yoke, and was
   abandoned a prey to the unresisted assaults of the infidels.
   Her coasts, left without troops, or defences in fortifications
   and shipping, were insulted and ravaged by the constant
   descents of the corsairs of Turkey and Barbary. Her maritime
   villages were burnt, her maritime population dragged off into
   slavery; and her tyrants, while they denied the people the
   power of defending themselves, were unable or careless also to
   afford them protection and safety."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

ITALY: A. D. 1569.
   Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

ITALY: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

ITALY: A. D. 1605-1607.
   Venice under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   Successful contest of the Republic with the Papacy.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

ITALY: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
   Disputed succession to the Duchy of Mantua.
   War of France with Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.

   "About Christmas in the year 1627, Vincenzo II., Duke of
   Mantua, of the house of Gonzaga, died without issue. His next
   of kin, beyond all controversy, was Charles Gonzaga, Duke of
   Nevers, whose family had settled in France some fifty years
   before, and acquired by marriage the dukedoms of Nevers and
   Rethel. Although there was a jealousy on the part both of
   Austria and Spain that French influences should be introduced
   into Upper Italy, there seems to have been no intention, in
   the first instance, of depriving Charles of his Italian
   inheritance. … But … when the old Duke Vincenzo's days
   were evidently numbered, Charles's son, the young Duke of
   Rethel, by collusion with the citizens, arrived at Mantua to
   seize the throne which in a little while death would make
   vacant."
{1845}
   At the same time, he took from a convent in the city a young
   girl who represented whatever claims might exist in the direct
   native line, and married her, the pope granting a
   dispensation. "Both the King of Spain and the Emperor … were
   incensed by conduct which both must needs have regarded as
   indicative of hostility, and the latter as an invasion of his
   feudal rights. Spain flew to arms at once. The emperor
   summoned the young duke before his tribunal, to answer the
   charges of having seized the succession without his
   investiture, and married his ward without his consent. …
   Charles, supported by the promises of Richelieu, refused to
   acknowledge the emperor's rights of superiority, or to submit
   to his jurisdiction."

      _B. Chapman,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapter 8._

   "The emperor … sequestered the disputed territory, and a
   Spanish army invaded Montferrat [embraced in the dominions of
   the Duke of Mantua] and besieged Casale, the capital. Such was
   the paramount importance attached by Richelieu to his
   principle of opposition to the house of Austria, that he
   induced Louis to cross the Alps in person with 36,000 men, in
   order to establish the Duke of Nevers in his new possessions.
   The king and the cardinal forced the pass of Susa in March,
   1629, in spite of the Duke of Savoy, who was another
   competitor for Montferrat, and so decisive was the superiority
   of the French arms that the duke immediately afterward signed
   a treaty of peace and alliance with Louis, by which he
   undertook to procure the abandonment of the siege of Casale
   and the retreat of the Spaniards into their own territory.
   This engagement was fulfilled, and the Duke of Nevers took
   possession of his dominions without farther contest. But the
   triumph was too rapid and easy to be durable."

      _N. W. Jervis,
      Students' History of France,
      chapter 19._

   "The Spaniards remained, however, in Milaness, ready to burst
   again upon the Duke of Mantua. The king was in a hurry to
   return to France, in order to finish the subjugation of the
   Reformers in the south, commanded by the Duke of Rohan. The
   cardinal placed little or no reliance upon the Duke of Savoy.
   … A league … was formed between France, the republic of
   Venice, the Duke of Mantua, and the Duke of Savoy, for the
   defence of Italy in case of fresh aggression on the part of
   the Spaniards; and the king, who had just concluded peace with
   England, took the road back to France. Scarcely had the
   cardinal joined him before Privas when an Imperialist army
   advanced into the Grisons and, supported by the celebrated
   Spanish general Spinola, laid siege to Mantua. Richelieu did
   not hesitate: he entered Piedmont in the month of March, 1630,
   to march before long on Pignerol, an important place
   commanding the passage of the Alps; it, as well as the
   citadel, was carried in a few days. … The Duke of Savoy was
   furious, and had the soldiers who surrendered Pignerol cut in
   pieces. The king [Louis XIII.] had put himself in motion to
   join his army. … The inhabitants of Chambéry opened their
   gates to him; Annecy and Montmélian succumbed after a few
   days' siege; Maurienne in its entirety made its submission,
   and the king fixed his quarters there, whilst the cardinal
   pushed forward to Casale [the siege of which had been resumed
   by Spinola] with the main body of the army. Rejoicings were
   still going on for a success gained before Veillane over the
   troops of the Duke of Savoy, when news arrived of the capture
   of Mantua by the Imperialists. This was the finishing blow to
   the ambitious and restless spirit of the Duke of Savoy. He saw
   Mantua in the hands of the Spaniards, 'who never give back
   aught of what falls into their power' … ; it was all hope
   lost of an exchange which might have given him back Savoy; he
   took to his bed and died on the 26th of July, 1630, telling
   his son that peace must be made on any terms whatever." A
   truce was arranged, followed by negotiations at Ratisbon, and
   Casale was evacuated by both parties—the Spaniards having
   had possession of the city, while the citadel was held by the
   French. "It was only in the month of September, 1631, that the
   states of Savoy and Mantua were finally evacuated by the
   hostile troops. Pignerol had been given up to the new Duke of
   Savoy, but a secret agreement had been entered into between
   that prince and France: French soldiers remained concealed in
   Pignerol; and they retook possession of the place in the name
   of the king, who had purchased the town and its territory, to
   secure himself a passage into Italy. … The affairs of the
   emperor in Germany were in too bad a state for him to rekindle
   war, and France kept Pignerol."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 41._

   "The peace left all parties very nearly in the condition in
   which they were when the war began; the chief loser was the
   emperor, who was now compelled to acknowledge De Nevers as
   Duke of Mantua and Montserrat; and the chief gainer was the
   Duke of Savoy, whose territories were enlarged by the addition
   of Alba, Trino, and some portions of the territory of
   Montserrat which lay nearest to his Piedmontese dominions.
   France; too, made some permanent acquisitions to compensate
   her for the cost of the war. She eluded the stipulation which
   bound her to evacuate Casal, and Victor Amedée subsequently
   suffered her to retain both that fortress and Pignerol, such
   permission, as was generally believed, … having furnished
   the secret reason which influenced Richelieu to consent to the
   duke's obtaining the portion of Montserrat already mentioned,
   the cardinal thus making the Duke of Mantua furnish the
   equivalent for the acquisitions made by Louis."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1631.
   Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

ITALY: A. D. 1635.
   Italian alliances of Richelieu against the Spaniards in Milan.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
   Invasion of Milanese by French and Italian armies.
   Civil war and foreign war in Savoy and Piedmont.
   The extraordinary siege of Turin.
   Treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Restoration of territory to Savoy.

   "Richelieu … having obtained the alliance of the Dukes of
   Savoy, Parma, and Mantua, and having secured the neutrality of
   the Republics of Venice and Genoa, now bent all his efforts to
   expel the Spaniards from Milan, which was at that time but
   weakly defended. … In 1635, a French army of 15,000 men was
   accordingly assembled in Dauphiny, and placed under the
   command of Mareschal Crequi. Having crossed the Alps, it
   formed a junction with 8,000 troops under the Duke of Parma,
   and 12,000 under the Duke of Savoy, to whom the supreme
   command of this formidable army of 35,000 men was entrusted.
{1846}
   Such a force, if properly employed, ought to have proved
   sufficient to overwhelm the Dutchy of Milan, in its present
   unprotected condition. … But the confederates were long
   detained by idle disputes among themselves, their
   licentiousness and love of plunder." When they did advance
   into Milanese, their campaign was ineffective, and they
   finally "separated with mutual disgust," but "kept the field,
   ravaging the open and fertile plains of Milan. They likewise
   took possession of several towns, particularly Bremi, on the
   Po. … On hearing of the distress of Milan, the King of Spain
   took immediate steps for the relief of that bulwark of his
   Italian power. In 1636 he appointed to its government Diego
   Guzman, Marques of Leganez, who was a near relative of
   Olivarez. … He had not long entered on the government
   intrusted to him when he succeeded in expelling the enemy from
   every spot in Milan, with exception of Bremi, which they still
   retained. Milan having been thus delivered, Leganez
   transferred the theatre of war to the States of the Duke of
   Parma, and completely desolated those fertile regions,"
   compelling the Duke to renounce his French alliance (1637).
   "The Duke of Savoy, Victor Amadeus, did not long survive these
   events; and it was strongly suspected, both in Spain and
   Italy, though probably on no just grounds, that he had been
   poisoned. … The demise of the Duke of Mantua occurred nearly
   about the same period; and on the decease of these two
   princes, the Court of Spain used every exertion to detach
   their successors from the French confederacy. Its efforts
   succeeded, at least to a certain extent, with the
   Dutchess-dowager of Mantua. … But the Dutchess of Savoy, …
   being the sister of Louis XIII., could not easily be drawn off
   from the French interests. Olivarez [the Spanish minister],
   despairing to gain this princess, excited by his intrigues the
   brothers of the late Duke [Cardinal Maurice and Prince Thomas]
   to dispute with her the title to the regency." Leganez, now
   (1638) laid siege to Bremi, and Marshal Crequi, in attempting
   to relieve the place, was killed by a cannon shot. "By the
   loss of Bremi, the French were deprived of the last receptacle
   for their supplies or forces in the Dutchy of Milan; and in
   consequence of the death of Crequi, they had now no longer any
   chief of their own nation in Italy. The few French nobility
   who were still in the army returned to their own country, and
   the soldiery dispersed into Montferrat and Piedmont. Leganez,
   availing himself of this favourable posture of affairs,
   marched straightway into Piedmont, at the head of an army of
   20,000 men. … He first laid siege to Vercelli, which, from
   its vicinity to Milan, had always afforded easy access for the
   invasion of that dutchy, by the French and Savoyards." A new
   French army, of 13,000 men, under Cardinal La Valette, was
   sent to the relief of the place, but did not save it from
   surrender. "After the capture of Vercelli, the light troops of
   Leganez ravaged the principality of Piedmont as far as the
   gates of Turin."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, from 1621 to 1700,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   Fabert and Turenne were now sent from France to the assistance
   of La Valette, "and soon changed the aspect of affairs.
   Turenne aided powerfully in driving back Leganez and Prince
   Thomas from Turin, in seizing Chivasso and in organizing a
   decisive success." In November, 1639, the French, through want
   of provisions, were forced to retreat to Carignano, repelling
   an attack made upon them in the course of the retreat. The
   command was now handed over to Turenne, "with instructions to
   revictual the citadel of Turin, which was defended by French
   troops against Prince Thomas, who had gained most of the town.
   Turenne succeeded … in conveying food and munitions into the
   citadel. In the following spring d'Harcourt [resuming command]
   undertook to relieve Casale, which belonged to the Duke of
   Mantua. … The place was besieged by Leganez." The attempt
   succeeded, the besieging army was beaten, and the siege
   raised. "After the relief of Casale d'Harcourt resolved, on
   the advice of Turenne, to besiege Turin. The investment was
   made on the 10th May, 1640. This siege offered a curious
   spectacle; the citadel which the French held was besieged by
   Prince Thomas, who held the town. He himself was besieged by
   the French army, which in its turn was besieged in its lines
   of circumvallation by the Spanish army of Leganez. The place
   capitulated on the 17th September. … Prince Thomas
   surrendered; Leganez recrossed the Po; Marie Christine [the
   Dowager-Duchess] re-entered Turin; and d'Harcourt, being
   recalled to France by the cardinal, left the command of the
   army to Turenne."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapter 2._

   "The fall of Turin did not put an end to the civil war, but
   its main exploits were limited to the taking of Cuneo by
   Harcourt (September 15th, 1641), … and of Revel, which was
   reduced by the Piedmontese troops who fought on the French
   side. … In the meantime the Regent, no less than her
   opponents, began to grow weary of the burdensome protection of
   their respective allies. … Under such circumstances, a
   reconciliation between the hostile parties became practicable,
   and was indeed effected on the 24th of July, 1642. The Princes
   were admitted to a share of the Regent's power, and from that
   time they joined the French standard, and took from the
   Spaniards most of the places they had themselves placed in
   their hands. … In the meanwhile the great agitator of
   Europe, Richelieu, had died (1642), and had been followed by
   the King, Louis XIII., five months later. … The struggle
   between the two great rival powers, France and Spain, scarcely
   interrupted by the celebrated peace of Westphalia, which put
   an end to the Thirty Years' War in the North, in 1648,
   continued throughout the greatest part of this period; but the
   rapid decline of Spain, the factions of Alessio in Sicily and
   of Massaniello in Naples, as much paralysed the efforts of the
   Court of Madrid as the disorders of the Fronde weakened that
   of Paris. The warlike operations in North Italy were languid
   and dull. The taking of Valenza by the French (September 3rd,
   1656) is the greatest event on record, and even that [was]
   void of results. By the treaty of the Pyrenees (November 17th,
   1059) Savoy was restored to her possessions, and Vercelli was
   evacuated by the Spaniards. The citadel of Turin had been
   given up by the French two years before, owing to the
   influence of Mazarin, who married on that occasion his niece
   Olimpia Mancini to Eugene Maurice, son of Thomas, Prince of
   Carignano, and first cousin to Charles Emanuel II. From that
   union, it is well known, was born in Paris, in 1663, Prince
   Eugene of Savoy.
{1847}
   The French nation were highly displeased at the loss of the
   Turin citadel, and never forgave the Cardinal this mere act of
   just and tardy restitution. Pinerola and Perosa, however,
   still remained in their hands, and placed the Court of Turin
   entirely at their discretion. During all this lapse of years,
   and until the latter end of the century, the history of
   Piedmont presents but a melancholy blank."

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
   French hostility to the Pope.
   Siege of Orbitello.
   Masaniello's revolt at Naples.
   French intrigue and failures.

   "The war [of France and Spain] in Italy had for some years
   languished, but hostility to the Pope [on the election of
   Innocent X., which Cardinal Mazarin, then supreme in France,
   had opposed] stirred it again into life. New vessels were
   fitted out for the navy, and large preparations were made for
   the invasion of Italy. … On April 26, 1646, the expedition
   set sail, and on the 9th of May it cast anchor off the
   important city of Orbitello. The fleet consisted of 156 sail,
   and was expected to land 10,000 men, and Mazarin wrote that
   all Italy was in terror. The ships were commanded by the Duke
   of Brézé, and no more skilful or gallant leader could have
   been found. … The command of the land forces was, however,
   entrusted to a leader whose deficiencies more than
   counterbalanced Brézé's skill. Mazarin desired an Italian
   prince to lead his expedition, and Prince Thomas of Savoy had
   been chosen for the command. … Fearing that disease would
   come with the hot weather, Mazarin urged Prince Thomas to
   press forward with the siege. But the most simple advances
   seemed beyond his skill. … A severe misfortune to the navy
   made the situation worse. In a sharp and successful engagement
   with the Spanish fleet, a cannon ball struck and killed the
   Duke of Brézé. His death was more disastrous than would have
   been the loss of 20 sail. The French fleet retired to Provence
   and left the sea open to the Spanish. Sickness was fast
   reducing the army on land, and on July 18th Prince Thomas
   raised the siege, which was no further advanced than when it
   was begun, and led back the remains of his command to
   Piedmont. … So mortifying an end to this expensive venture
   only strengthened Mazarin's resolution to make his power felt
   in Italy. The battered ships and fever-wasted soldiers were
   scarcely back in Provence, when the minister began to prepare
   a second expedition for the same end. … By September a fleet
   of 200 sail, with an army of 8,000 men commanded by the
   Marshals of La Meilleraie and Du Plessis, was under way. The
   expedition was conducted with skill and success. Orbitello was
   not again attacked, but Porto Longone, on the island of Elba,
   and Piombino, on the mainland, both places of much strategic
   importance, were captured after brief sieges. With this result
   came at once the change in the feelings of Innocent X. for
   which Mazarin had hoped," and certain objects of the latter's
   desire—including a cardinal's hat for his brother
   Michael—were brought within his reach. His attention was now
   turned to the more southerly portion of the peninsula. "During
   the expedition to Orbitello in 1646, Mazarin had closely
   watched Naples, whose coming revolution he foresaw. The
   ill-suppressed discontents of the city now showed themselves
   in disturbances, sudden and erratic as the eruptions of
   Vesuvius, and they offered to France an opportunity for
   seizing the richest of the remaining possessions of Spain.
   After the vicissitudes of centuries, Naples and Sicily were
   now subject to the Spanish crown. They were governed by a
   viceroy, and were subjected to the drain of men and money
   which was the result of Spain's necessities and the
   characteristic of her rule. Burdened with taxation, they
   complained that their viceroy, the Duke of Arcos, was sending
   to Spain money raised solely for their own defence. The
   imposition of a duty on fruits, in a country where fruit
   formed a cheap article of diet for the poor, and where almost
   all were poor, kindled the long smouldering discontent. Under
   the leadership of a fisherman [Tommaso Aniello], nicknamed
   Masaniello, the people of Naples in 1647 rose in revolt.
   Springing from utter obscurity, this young man of
   twenty-seven, poor and illiterate, became powerful almost in a
   day. While the Duke of Arcos hid himself away from the revolt,
   Masaniello was made Captain-General of Naples. So sudden a
   change turned his head. At first he had been bold, popular,
   and judicious. He sought only, he said, to deliver the people
   from their taxes, and when that was done, he would return
   again to selling soles and red mullets. But political delirium
   seized him when he reached an elevation which, for him, was as
   dizzy as the throne of the Roman emperors, and like some who
   reached that terrible eminence, his brain was crazed by the
   bewilderment and ecstasy of power. He made wild and incoherent
   speeches. He tore his garments, crying out against popular
   ingratitude, attacking groups of passers-by, riding his horse
   wildly through the multitude, and striking with his lance to
   the right and left. The populace wearied of its darling.
   Exalted to power on July 7th, he was murdered on the 16th,
   with the approval of those who had worshipped him a week
   before. But the revolution did not perish with him. Successive
   chiefs were chosen and deposed by a fickle people. When the
   insurrection was active, the representatives of Spain promised
   untaxed fruits and the privileges allowed by Charles V., and
   they revoked their promises when it appeared to subside. In
   the meantime, Mazarin watched the movement, uncertain as to
   the course he should pursue. … While the minister hesitated,
   the chance was seized by one who was never accused of too
   great caution." This was the Duke of Guise—the fifth Henry of
   that Dukedom—a wild, madcap young nobleman, who accepted an
   invitation from the Neapolitan insurgents to become their
   chief. Guise landed at Naples on the 15th of November, 1647,
   with half a dozen attendants, and a month later he was
   followed by a French fleet. But the latter did nothing, and
   Guise was helplessly without means. "The truth was that
   Mazarin, even if desirous of crippling the Spaniards, was very
   averse to assisting Guise. He believed that the duke either
   desired to form a republic, of which he should be chief, or a
   monarchy, of which he should be king, and neither plan was
   agreeable to the cardinal." At the end of a fortnight the
   fleet sailed away. Guise held his ground as the leader of the
   revolt until the following April, when certain of the
   Neapolitan patriots, corrupted by the enemy, betrayed the city
   into the hands of the Spaniards.
{1848}
   "Guise endeavored, with a handful of followers, to escape
   towards Capua, but they were captured by a detachment of
   Spaniards. … By the petition of powerful friends, and by the
   avowal of France, Guise was saved from the public execution
   which some of his enemies demanded, but he was presently taken
   to Spain, and there was kept a prisoner during four years."
   Meantime, Mazarin had prepared another expedition, which
   appeared before Naples in the summer of 1648, but only to
   discover that the opportunity for deriving any advantage from
   the popular discontent in that city was past. "Receiving no
   popular aid, the expedition, after some ineffective endeavors,
   was abandoned." Six years afterwards, in 1654, Mazarin sent a
   third expedition to Naples, and entrusted it to the command of
   the Duke of Guise, who had lately been released from his
   captivity in Spain. "Guise hoped that the Neapolitans would
   rise in revolt when it was known that their former leader was
   so near, but not a person in the city showed any desire to
   start a movement in behalf of the Duke of Guise. The Spanish
   met him with superior forces." After some slight encounters
   the expedition sailed back to France.

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 8 (volume 1),
      and chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. De Reumont,
      The Carafas of Maddaloni:
      Naples under Spanish Dominion,
      book 3._

      _F. Midon,
      Rise and Fall of Masaniello._

      _Mrs. H. R. St. John,
      Masaniello of Naples._

      _H. G. Smith,
      Romance of History,
      chapter 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
   Savoy and Piedmont.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

   "Compelled to take part, with one of the contending parties
   [in the War of the Spanish Succession—see SPAIN: A. D.
   1698-1700, and 1701-1702], Victor [Duke of Savoy] would have
   been prompted by his interest to an alliance with Austria; but
   he was beset on all sides by the combined forces of France and
   Spain, and was all the more at their mercy as Louis XIV. had
   (April 5th, 1701) obtained from Ferdinand Gonzaga of Mantua
   permission to garrison his capital, in those days already one
   of the strongest places in Italy. The Duke of Savoy had
   already, in 1697, married his daughter, Adelaide, to one of
   Louis's grandsons, the Duke of Burgundy; he now gave his
   younger daughter, Mary Louise, to Burgundy's brother, the new
   King of Spain (September 11th, 1701), and took the field as
   French commander-in-chief. He was opposed by his own cousin,
   Prince Eugene, at the head of the Imperial armies. The war in
   Lombardy was carried on with some remissness, partly owing to
   the natural repugnance or irresolution of the Duke of Savoy,
   partly to the suspicion with which, on that very account, he
   was looked upon by Catinat and Vaudemont, the French and
   Spanish commanders under him. The King, in an evil hour,
   removed his able marshal, Catinat, and substituted for him
   Villeroi, a carpet knight and court warrior, who committed one
   fault after another, allowed himself to be beaten by Eugene at
   Chiari (September 1st), and to be surprised and taken prisoner
   at Cremona (1702, January 21st), to the infinite relief of his
   troops. Vendôme restored the fortunes of the French, and a
   very brilliant but undecisive action was fought at Luzzara
   (August 15th), after which Prince Eugene was driven from the
   neighbourhood of Mantua, and fell back towards the mountains
   of Tyrol. With the success of the French their arrogance
   increased, and with their arrogance the disgust and ill-will
   of Victor Amadeus." The Duke withdrew from the camp and began
   to listen to overtures from the Powers in the Grand Alliance.
   "Report of the secret intercourse of the Duke with Austrian
   agents reached Louis XIV., who sent immediate orders to
   Vendôme to secure and disarm the Piedmontese soldiers (3,800
   to 6,000 in number) who were fighting under French standards
   at Mantua. This was achieved by treachery, at San Benedetto,
   on the 29th of September, 1703. An attempt to seize the Duke
   himself, whilst hunting near Turin, miscarried. Savoy
   retaliated by the arrest of the French and Spanish
   ambassadors, and war was declared (October 5th). The moment
   was ill·chosen. Victor had barely 4,000 men under his orders.
   The whole of Savoy was instantly overrun; and in Piedmont
   Vercelli, Ivrea, Verrua, as well as Susa, Bard, and Pinerolo,
   and even Chivasso, fell into the enemy's hands during the
   campaigns of 1704 and 1705. In the ensuing year the tide of
   invasion reached Nice and Villafranca; nothing was left to
   Victor Amadeus but Cuneo and Turin, and the victorious French
   armies appeared at last under the very walls of the capital
   (March, 1706). The war had, however, been waged with different
   results beyond the Alps, where the allies had crushed the
   French at Blenheim (1704) and at Ramillies (1705). One of the
   heroes of those great achievements, Prince Eugene, now
   hastened to the rescue of his cousin. He met with a severe
   check at Cassano (August 16th, 1705), and again at Calcinato
   (April 19th, 1706); but his skilful antagonist, Vendôme, was
   called away to Flanders, and Prince Eugene so out-manœuvred
   his successors as to be able to join Victor at Turin. The
   French had begun the siege of this place on the 13th of May,
   1706. They had between 50,000 and 60,000 men, and 170 pieces
   of artillery with them." When Prince Eugene, early in
   September, reached the neighborhood of Turin, he concerted
   with Victor Amadeus an attack on the investing army which
   destroyed it completely. "Its relics withdrew in awful
   disorder towards Pinerolo, pursued not only by the victorious
   troops but also by the peasantry, who, besides attachment to
   their princes, obeyed in this instance an instinct of revenge
   against the French, who had barbarously used them. Out of
   50,000 or 60,000 men who had sat down before Turin in March,
   hardly 20,000 recrossed the Alps in September. Three of the
   French generals lay dead on the field; … 6,000 prisoners
   were marched through the streets of the liberated town, and 55
   French banners graced the main altar of the cathedral. In the
   following year, Victor and Eugene, greatly against their
   inclination, were induced by the allies to undertake an
   expedition against Toulon, which, like all previous invasions
   of Provence, led to utter discomfiture, and the loss of 10,000
   combatants (1707, July 1st to September 1st). An attack upon
   Briançon, equally undertaken against the sound judgment of the
   Duke of Savoy, in 1708, led to no better results; but Savoy
   won back Exilles, Perosa, Fenestrelles, and, one by one, all
   the redoubts with which during those wars the Alps were
   bristling.
{1849}
   The war slackened in Italy, and the fates of Europe were
   decided in the Netherlands. … By the Peace of Utrecht [A. D.
   1713] France renounced to Savoy all the invaded territories,
   and, besides, the valleys of Oulx, Cesanne, Bardonneche, and
   Castel Delfino, ancient possessions of Dauphiny, east of the
   Alps, from the 12th century, whilst, for her own part, Savoy
   gave up the western valley of Barcellonette; thus the limits
   between the two nations (with the exception of Savoy and Nice)
   were at last fixed on the mountain-crest, at 'the parting of
   the waters.' By virtue of an agreement signed with Austria,
   November 8th, 1703, the whole of Montferrat, as well as
   Alessandria, Valenza, Lomellina, and Val Sesia, dependencies
   of the duchy of Milan, and the imperial fiefs in the Langhe
   (province of Alba), were ceded to Savoy."

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 5, and 7-9._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 68, 69, 73-75, 77 (volume 2-3)._

      See, also,
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

ITALY: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Milan, Naples and Sardinia ceded to the House of Austria and
   Sicily to the Duke of Savoy.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
   Ambitions of Elizabeth Farnese, the Spanish queen.
   The Austro-Spanish conflict.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   Acquisition of Naples by the Spanish Bourbons.

   By the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V. of Spain
   was left with no dominions in Italy, the Italian possessions
   of the Spanish monarchy having been transferred to Austria.
   Philip might have accepted this arrangement without demur. Not
   so his wife—"Elizabeth Farnese, a lady of the Italian family
   for whom the Duchy of Parma had been created by the Pope. The
   crown of Spain was settled on her step-son. For her own child
   the ambitious queen desired the honours of a crown. Cardinal
   Alberoni, a reckless and ambitious ecclesiastic, was the
   minister of the Spanish court. Under his advice and instigated
   by the queen, Philip claimed the possessions in Italy, which
   in the days of his grandfather had belonged to the Spanish
   crown. When his title to that crown was admitted, he denied
   the right of the other powers of Europe to alienate from it
   its possessions. This was not all: in right of his queen he
   claimed the duchies of Parma and of Tuscany. She determined to
   recover for him all the Italian possessions of the Spanish
   crown, and to add to them the duchies of Parma and Tuscany.
   The Duke of Parma was old and childless. The extinction of the
   reigning line of the Medici was near. Cosmo di Medici, the
   reigning sovereign, was old. His only son, Jean Gaston, was
   not likely to leave heirs. To Parma Elizabeth advanced her
   claims as heiress of the family of Farnese; to Tuscany she
   asserted a more questionable title in right of a descent from
   the family of Medici. These duchies she demanded for her son,
   Don Carlos, in whose behalf she was ready to waive her own
   claims. The success of these demands would have given to the
   Spanish monarchy even greater power than it had before
   enjoyed. To Naples, Sicily, and Milan, would have been added
   the territories of Parma and Tuscany. All Europe denounced the
   ambitious projects of Alberoni as entirely inconsistent with
   that balance of power which it had then become a political
   superstition to uphold. Philip's French relatives were
   determined in opposition to his claims; and to resist them the
   quadruple alliance was formed between Holland, England, France
   and the emperor. The parties to this alliance offered to the
   Spanish Bourbons that the emperor should settle on Don Carlos
   the reversion to the duchies of Parma and Tuscany on their
   lapsing to him by the failure of the reigning families without
   heirs. These proposals were rejected, and it was not until the
   Spanish court found the combination of four powerful monarchs
   too strong for them, that they reluctantly acceded to the
   terms of the Quadruple Alliance, and accepted for Don Carlos
   the promised reversion of Parma and Tuscany. To induce the
   emperor to accede to this arrangement the Duke of Savoy was
   compelled to surrender to him his newly-acquired kingdom of
   Sicily, receiving instead the island of Sardinia with its
   kingly title. It is as kings of Sardinia that the princes of
   Savoy have since been known in European history. The treaty of
   the quadruple alliance was thus the second by which at this
   period the European powers attempted to arrange the affairs of
   Italy. This treaty left the house of Austria in possession of
   Sicily and Naples. It was assented to by Spain in 1720.
   European complications unconnected with Italy produced new
   wars and a new treaty; and the treaty of Seville in 1724,
   followed by one entered into at Vienna two years later,
   confirmed Don Carlos in the duchy of Parma, of which, on the
   death of the last of the Farnese in 1734, he entered into
   possession. A dispute as to the election of a king of Poland
   gave the Spanish court an opportunity of once more attempting
   the resumption of the Neapolitan dominions. Don Carlos, the
   second son of Philip and Elizabeth, was now just grown to
   man's estate. His father placed in his hand the sword which he
   himself had received from Louis XIV. Don Carlos was but
   seventeen years old when he took possession of his sovereignty
   of Parma. In the same year [1734] he was called from it to
   invade the Sicilian dominions of Austria. He conquered in
   succession the continental territories, and the island of
   Sicily; and on the 15th of June, 1734, he was proclaimed as
   King of the Two Sicilies. The war of the Polish Succession was
   ended in the following year by a peace, the preliminaries of
   which were signed at Vienna. In this treaty an entirely new
   arrangement of Italian affairs was introduced. The rights of
   Don Carlos to the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily were
   recognised. Parma was surrendered to the emperor; and, lastly,
   the duchy of Tuscany was disposed of to a new claimant
   [Francis of Lorraine] for the honours of an Italian prince."

      _I. Butt,
      History of Italy,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese,
      chapters 2-10._

      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples, 1734-1856,
      book 1, chapter 1-2._

      See, also,
      SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ITALY: A. D. 1719.
   The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchange Sardinia for
   Sicily.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

ITALY: A. D. 1733-1735.
   Franco-Austrian War.
   Invasion of the Milanese by the French.
   Naples and Sicily occupied by the Spaniards and erected into a
   kingdom for Don Carlos.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

{1850}

ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Ambitious undertakings of Spain.

   "The struggle between England and Spain had altogether merged
   in the great European war, and the chief efforts of the
   Spaniards were directed against the Austrian dominions in
   Italy.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

   The kingdom of Naples, which had passed under Austrian rule
   during the war of the [Spanish] Succession, had, as we have
   seen, been restored to the Spanish line in the war which ended
   in 1740, and Don Carlos, who ruled it, was altogether
   subservient to Spanish policy. The Duke of Lorraine, the
   husband of Maria Theresa, was sovereign of Tuscany; and the
   Austrian possessions consisted of the Duchy of Milan, and the
   provinces of Mantua and Placentia. They were garrisoned at the
   opening of the war by only 15,000 men, and their most
   dangerous enemy was the King of Sardinia, who had gradually
   extended his dominions into Lombardy, and whose army was,
   probably, the largest and most efficient in Italy. 'The
   Milanese,' his father is reported to have said, 'is like an
   artichoke, to be eaten leaf by leaf,' and the skill and
   perseverance with which for many generations the House of
   Savoy pursued that policy, have in our own day had their
   reward. Spanish troops had landed at Naples as early as
   November 1741. The King of Sardinia, the Prince of Modena, and
   the Republic of Genoa were on the same side. Venice was
   completely neutral, Tuscany was compelled to declare herself
   so, and a French army was soon to cross the Alps. The King of
   Sardinia, however, at this critical moment, was alarmed by the
   ambitious projects openly avowed by the Spaniards, and he was
   induced by English influence to change sides. He obtained the
   promise of certain territorial concessions from Austria, and
   of an annual subsidy of £200,000 from England; and on these
   conditions he suddenly marched with an army of 30,000 men to
   the support of the Austrians. An the plans of the confederates
   were disconcerted by this defection. The Spaniards went into
   winter quarters near Bologna in October, fought an
   unsuccessful battle at Campo Santo in the following February
   [1743], and then retired to Rimini, leaving Lombardy in
   complete tranquillity. The British fleet in the Mediterranean
   had been largely strengthened by Carteret, and it did good
   service to the cause. It burnt a Spanish squadron in the
   French port of St. Tropez, compelled the King of Naples, by
   the threat of bombardment, to withdraw his troops from the
   Spanish army, and sign an engagement of neutrality, destroyed
   large provisions of corn collected by the Genoese for the
   Spanish army, and cut off that army from all communications by
   sea."

       _W. E. H. Lecky,
       History of England, 18th Century,
       chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 102 (volume 3)._

ITALY: A. D. 1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Treaty of Worms.

   "By a treaty between Great Britain, the Queen of Hungary, and
   the King of Sardinia, signed at Worms September 23rd, 1743,
   Charles Emanuel renounced his pretensions to Milan; the Queen
   of Hungary ceding to him the Vigevanesco, that part of the
   duchy of Pavia between the Po and the Tessino, the town and
   part of the duchy of Piacenza, and a portion of the district
   of Anghiera. Also whatever rights she might have to the
   marquisate of Finale hoping that the Republic of Genoa would
   facilitate this agreement, in order that the King of Sardinia
   might have a communication with the sea. The Queen of Hungary
   promised to increase her army in Italy to 30,000 men as soon
   as the affairs of Germany would permit; while the King of
   Great Britain engaged to keep a strong fleet in the
   Mediterranean, and to pay Charles Emanuel annually £200,000,
   so long as the war lasted, he keeping in the field an army of
   45,000 men."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

ITALY: A. D. 1743.
   The Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain) for establishing
   Spanish claims.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1744.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Indecisive campaigns.

   "In Italy, the discordant views and mutual jealousies of Maria
   Theresa and the king of Sardinia prevented the good effects
   which might have been derived from their recent union. The
   king was anxious to secure his own dominions on the side of
   France, and to conquer the marquisate of Finale; while Maria
   Theresa was desirous to direct her principal force against
   Naples, and recover possession of the two Sicilies. Hence,
   instead of co-operating for one great object, their forces
   were divided; and, after an arduous and active campaign, the
   Austrians were nearly in the same situation as at the
   commencement of the year. Prince Lobcowitz being reinforced,
   compelled the Spaniards to retreat successively from Pesara
   and Senegallia, attacked them at Loretto and Reconati, and
   drove them beyond the Fronto, the boundary of the kingdom of
   Naples. Alarmed by the advance of the Austrians, the king of
   Naples broke his neutrality, quitted his capital at the head
   of 15,000 men, and hastened to join the Spaniards. But Prince
   Lobcowitz … turned towards Rome, with the hope of
   penetrating into Naples on that side; and, in the commencement
   of June, reached the neighbourhood of Albano. His views were
   anticipated by the king of Naples, who, dividing the Spanish
   and Neapolitan troops into three columns, which were led by
   himself, the duke of Modena, and the count de Gages, passed
   through Anagm, Valmonte, and Monte Tortino, and reunited his
   forces at Veletri, in the Campagna di Roma. In this situation,
   the two hostile armies, separated only by a deep valley,
   harassed each other with continual skirmishes. At length
   prince Lobcowitz, in imitation of prince Eugene at Cremona,
   formed the project of surprising the head-quarters of the king
   of Naples. In the night of August 10th, a corps of Austrians,
   led by count Brown, penetrated into the town of Veletri,
   killed all who resisted, and would have surprised the king and
   the duke of Modena in their beds, had they not been alarmed by
   the French ambassador, and escaped to the camp. The Austrian
   troops, giving way to pillage, were vigorously attacked by a
   corps of Spaniards and Neapolitans, despatched from the camp,
   and driven from the town with great slaughter, and the capture
   of the second in command, the marquis de Novati. In this
   contest, however, the Spanish army lost no less than 3,000
   men. This daring exploit was the last offensive attempt of the
   Austrian forces. Prince Lobcowitz perceiving his troops
   rapidly decrease by the effects of the climate, and the
   unwholesome air of the Pontine marshes, began his retreat in
   the beginning of November, and though followed by an army
   superior in number, returned without loss to Rimini, Pesaro,
   Cesano, and Immola; while the combined Spaniards and
   Neapolitans took up their quarters between Viterbo and Civita
   Vecchia.
{1851}
   In consequence of the expedition against Naples, the king of
   Sardinia was left with 30,000 men, many of them new levies,
   and 6,000 Austrians, to oppose the combined army of French and
   Spaniards, who advanced on the side of Nice. After occupying
   that place, the united army forced the intrenched camp of the
   Sardinians, though defended by the king himself, made
   themselves masters of Montalbano and Villafranca, and prepared
   to penetrate into Piedmont along the sea coast. The Genoese,
   irritated by the transfer of Finale, were inclined to
   facilitate their operations; but were intimidated by the
   presence of an English squadron which threatened to bombard
   their capital. The prince of Conti, who commanded under the
   infant Don Philip, did not, however, relinquish the invasion
   of Piedmont, but formed the spirited project of leading his
   army over the passes of the Alps, although almost every rock
   was a fortress, and the obstacles of nature were assisted by
   all the resources of art. He led his army, with a large train
   of artillery, and numerous squadrons of cavalry, over
   precipices and along beds of torrents, carried the fort of
   Chateau Dauphin, forced the celebrated Barricades which were
   deemed impregnable, descended the valley of the Stura, took
   Demont after a slight resistance, and laid siege to Coni. The
   king of Sardinia, having in vain attempted to stop the
   progress of this torrent which burst the barriers of his
   country, indignantly retired to Saluzzo, to cover his capital.
   Being reinforced by 6,000 Austrians, he attempted to relieve
   Coni, but was repulsed after a severe engagement, though he
   succeeded in throwing succours into the town. This victory,
   however, did not produce any permanent advantage to the
   confederate forces; Coni continuing to hold out, the approach
   of winter and the losses they had sustained, amounting to
   10,000 men, compelled them to raise the siege and repass the
   Alps, which they did not effect without extreme difficulty."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 105 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, chapter 28._

ITALY: A. D. 1745.
   The War of he Austrian Succession:
   Successes of the Spaniards, French and Genoese.

   "The Italian campaign of 1745, in boldness of design and
   rapidity of execution, scarcely finds a parallel in military
   history, and was most unpropitious to the Queen of Hungary and
   King of Sardinia. The experience of preceding years had taught
   the Bourbon Courts that all attempts to carry their arms
   across the Alps would be fruitless, unless they could secure a
   stable footing in the dominions of some Italian state on the
   other side, to counteract the power of their adversary, who
   had the entire command of the passes between Germany and
   Italy, by means of which reinforcements could be continually
   drafted to the scene of action. Accordingly they availed
   themselves of the jealousy and alarm excited at Genoa, by the
   transfer of Finale to the King of Sardinia, to engage that
   republic on their side. The plan was to unite the two armies
   which had wintered on the distant frontiers of Naples and
   Provence, in the vicinity of Genoa, where they were to be
   joined by 10,000 auxiliaries on the part of the republic.
   Charles Emanuel was sensible of the terrible consequences to
   himself, should the Genoese declare openly for the house of
   Bourbon, and sent General Pallavicini, a man of address and
   abilities, to renounce his pretensions to Finale, while
   Admiral Rowley, with a British fleet, hovered on their coasts.
   In spite of all this, nevertheless, the treaty of Aranjuez was
   concluded between France, Spain, and Genoa. After surmounting
   amazing difficulties, and making the most arduous and
   astonishing marches, the army commanded by Don Philip, who was
   accompanied by the French General Maillebois, and that
   commanded by Count de Gages, effected their junction on the
   14th of June, near Genoa, when their united forces, now under
   Don Philip, amounted to 78,000 men. All that the King of
   Sardinia could do under these circumstances, was to make the
   best dispositions to defend the Milanese, the Parmesan, and
   the Plaisantine; but the whole disposable force under the King
   and Count Schulenburg, the successor of Lobkowitz, did not
   amount to above 45,000 men. Count Gages with 30,000 men was to
   be opposed to Schulenburg, and took possession of Serravalle,
   on the Scrivia; then advancing towards Alessandria he obliged
   the Austrians to retire under the cannon of Tortona. Don
   Philip made himself master of Acqui, so that the King of
   Sardinia, with the Austrian General, Count Schulenburg, had to
   retreat behind the Tanaro. On the 24th of July the strong
   citadel of Tortona was taken by the Spaniards, which opened
   the way to the occupation of Parma and Placentia. The combined
   army of French, Spanish, Neapolitans, and Genoese being now
   masters of an extensive tract with all the principal towns
   south of the Po, they readily effected a passage near the
   confluence of the Ticino, and with a detachment surprised
   Pavia. The Austrians, fearful for the Milanese, separated
   accordingly from the Sardinian troops. The Bourbon force
   seeing this, suddenly reunited, gained the Tanaro by a rapid
   movement on the night of the 27th of September, forded it in
   three columns, although the water reached to the very necks of
   the soldiers, fell upon the unsuspecting and unprepared
   Sardinians, broke their cavalry in the first charge, and drove
   the enemy in dismay and confusion to Valenza. Charles Emanuel
   fled to Casale, where he reassembled his broken army, in order
   to save it from utter ruin. The confederate armies still
   advanced, drove the King back and took Trino and Verua, which
   last place lay but twenty miles from his capital: fearful now
   that this might be bombarded he hastened thither, withdrew his
   forces under its cannon, and ordered the pavement of the city
   to be taken up. Maillebois, on his side, penetrated into the
   Milanese, and by the month of October the territories of the
   house of Austria in Italy were wholly subdued. The whole of
   Lombardy being thus open, Don Philip made a triumphant entry
   into Milan on the 20th of December, fondly hoping that he had
   secured for himself an Italian kingdom, as his brother, Don
   Carlos, had done at Naples. The Austrian garrison, however,
   still maintained the citadel of Milan and the fortress of
   Mantua."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, pages 75-76._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

{1852}

ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: A turn of fortune.
   The Spaniards and French abandon North Italy.
   The Austrians in Genoa, and their expulsion from the city.

   "Of all the Austrian possessions in Lombardy, little remained
   except the fortress of Mantua and the citadel of Milan; while
   the citadels of Asti and Alessandria, the keys of Piedmont,
   were expected to fall before the commencement of the ensuing
   campaign. On the return of the season for action, the struggle
   for the mastery of Italy was renewed, and the queen of Spain
   already saw in imagination the crown of Lombardy gracing the
   brow of her second son. On the east, the French and Spanish
   armies had extended themselves as far as Reggio, Placentia,
   and Guastalla; on the north they were masters of the whole
   country between the Adda and Tesino; they blockaded the
   passages by the lake of Como and the Lago Maggiore, and were
   preparing to reduce the citadel of Milan; on the west their
   posts extended as far as Casale and Asti, though of the last
   the citadel was still held by the Sardinians. The main body of
   the French secured the communication with Genoa and the
   country south of the Po; a strong body at Reggio, Parma, and
   Placentia, covered their conquests on the east; and the
   Spaniards commanded the district between the Po and the
   mountains of Tyrol. The Sardinians were collected into the
   neighbourhood of Trino; while the Austrians fell back into the
   Novarrese to effect a junction with the reinforcements which
   were daily expected from Germany. In this situation, a sudden
   revolution took place in the fortune of the war. The empress
   queen [Maria Theresa], by the conclusion of a peace with
   Prussia, was at liberty to reinforce her army in Italy, and
   before the end of February 30,000 men had already descended
   from the Trentine Alps, and spread themselves as far as the
   Po." This change of situation caused the French court to make
   overtures to the king of Sardinia, which gave great offense to
   Spain. The wily Sardinian gained time by his negotiations with
   the French, until he found an opportunity, by suddenly ending
   the armistice, to capture the French garrison in Asti, to
   relieve the citadel of Alessandria and to lay siege to
   Valenza. "These disasters compelled Maillebois [the French
   general] to abandon his distant posts and concentrate his
   forces between Novi and Voghera, in order to maintain the
   communication with Genoa. Nor were the Spaniards beyond the Po
   in a less critical situation. A column of 10,000 Austrians
   under Berenclau having captured Codogno, and advanced to Lodi,
   the Spanish general was compelled to withdraw his troops from
   the passes towards the lakes, to send his artillery to Pavia
   and draw towards the Po. The infant had scarcely quitted Milan
   before a party of Austrian hussars entered the place."
   Meantime, the Spanish general Castelar, blockaded in Parma by
   the Austrians, broke through their lines and gained the
   eastern Riviera, with the loss of half his force. In June, the
   Spaniards and French, concentrated at Placentia, made a
   powerful attack on the Austrians, to arrest their progress,
   but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Sardinians soon
   afterwards formed a junction with the Austrians, which
   compelled the Spaniards and French to evacuate Placentia and
   retreat to Genoa, abandoning stores and artillery and losing
   many men. In the midst of these disasters, the Spanish king,
   Philip V., died, and his widowed queen, Elizabeth Farnese
   —the "Spanish termagant," Carlyle calls her—who had been
   the moving spirit of the struggle for Italy, lost the reins of
   government. His son (by his first wife, Maria Louisa of Savoy)
   who succeeded him, had no ambitions and no passions to
   interest him in the war, and resolved to escape from it. The
   marquis Las Minas, whom he sent to take command of the
   retreating army, speedily announced his intention to abandon
   Italy. "Thus deserted, the situation of the French and Genoese
   became desperate. … Maillebois, after exhorting the Genoese
   to defend their territory to the last extremity, was obliged
   to follow the example of Las Minas in withdrawing towards
   Provence. Abandoned to their fate, the Genoese could not
   withstand the combined attacks of the Austro-Sardinians,
   assisted by the British fleet. The city surrendered almost at
   discretion; the garrison were made prisoners of war; the
   stores, arms and artillery were to be delivered; the doge and
   six senators to repair to Vienna and implore forgiveness. The
   marquis of Botta, who had replaced Lichtenstein in the
   command, took possession of the place with 15,000 men, while
   the king of Sardinia occupied Finale and reduced Savona. In
   consequence of this success the Austrian court meditated the
   re-conquest of Naples and Sicily, which had been drained of
   troops to support the war in Lombardy." But this project was
   overruled by the British government, and the allied army
   crossed the Var, to carry the war into the southeastern
   provinces of France. "Their progress was, however, instantly
   arrested by an insurrection at Genoa, occasioned by the
   exactions and oppressions of the Austrian commanders. The
   garrison was expelled by the tumultuary efforts of the
   populace; and the army, to obviate the mischiefs of this
   unexpected reverse, hastily measured back its steps. Instead
   of completing the disasters of the Bourbon troops, the
   Austro-Sardinians employed the whole winter in the investment
   of Genoa." The siege was protracted but unsuccessful, and the
   allies were forced to abandon it the following summer, on the
   approach of the Bourbon forces, which resumed the offensive
   under Marshal Belleisle. After delivering Genoa, the latter
   sent a detachment of his army into Piedmont, where it met with
   disaster. No further operations of importance were undertaken
   before the conclusion of the peace, which was then being
   negotiated at Aix-la-Chapelle.

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 46-48 (volumes 3-4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 16._

ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Peace in the Peninsula.

   The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle "left nothing to Austria in
   Italy except the duchies of Milan and Mantua. Although the
   grand-duchy of Tuscany was settled on the family of
   Hapsburg-Lorraine, every precaution was taken to prevent that
   province from being united with the German possessions of
   their house. The arrangements of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle
   continued up to the period of the French revolution
   undisturbed. Those arrangements, although the result of a
   compromise of the interests and ambitions of rival statesmen,
   were not, considering the previous state of Italy,
   unfavourable to the cause of Italian independence.
{1853}
   Piedmont, already recognised as the protector of Italian
   nationality, gained not only in rank, but in substantial
   territory, by the acquisition of the island of Sardinia, still
   more by that of the High Novarese, and by extending her
   frontier to the Ticino. Naples and Sicily were released from
   the tyranny of viceroys, and placed under a resident king,
   with a stipulation to secure their future independence, that
   they should never be united to the Spanish crown. … In the
   45 [?] years which elapsed between the treaty of
   Aix-la-Chapelle and the French revolution, Italy enjoyed a
   perfect and uninterrupted peace. In some, at least, of its
   principalities, its progress in prosperity and in legislation
   was rapid. Naples and Sicily, under the government of Charles
   III., and subsequently under the regency of his minister,
   Tanucci, were ruled with energy and prudence. Tuscany
   prospered under the sway of the princes of Lorraine, Milan and
   Mantua were mildly governed by the Austrian court; and
   Lombardy rose from the misery to which the exactions of
   Spanish viceroys had reduced even the great resources of that
   rich and fertile province. In the other Italian States at
   least no change had taken place for the worse. Industry
   everywhere flourished under the presence of the most essential
   of all blessings,—peace."

      _I. Butt,
      History of Italy,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

ITALY: A. D. 1792-1793.
   Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.
   Sardinia and the Two Sicilies in the coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Passes of the Maritime Alps secured by the French.
   The coalition abandoned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
   French successes at Loano.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   French invasion.
   Bonaparte's first campaigns.
   His victories and his pillage.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   French treaties with Genoa and Naples.
   The Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.
   Surrender of Papal territories.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ITALY: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
   Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
   The Peace of Campo-Formio.
   Lombardy relinquished by Austria.
   Venice and Venetian territory made over to her.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
   French occupation of Rome.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

ITALY: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Overthrow of the Neapolitan Kingdom.
   Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.
   Relinquishment of Piedmont by the king of Sardinia.
   French reverses.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-AUGUST).
   Successful Austro-Russian campaign.
   Suwarrow's victories.
   French evacuation of Lombardy, Piedmont and Naples.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   Austrian successes.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Fall of the Parthenopeian and Roman Republics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1800.
   Bonaparte's Marengo campaign.
   Northern Italy recovered by the French.
   Siege and capture of Genoa by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
   The king of Naples spared by Napoleon.
   Restoration of Papal authority at Rome.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1802.
   Name of the Cisalpine Republic changed to Italian Republic.
   Bonaparte president.
   Annexation of part of Piedmont, with Parma and Elba, to
   France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803,
      and 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1805.
   Transformation of the Italian Republic into the Kingdom of
   Italy.
   Election and coronation of Napoleon.
   Annexation of Genoa to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

ITALY: A. D. 1805.
   Cession of Venetian territory by Austria to the Kingdom of
   Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

ITALY: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Napoleon's dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
   Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's visit.
   His arbitrary changes in the constitution.
   His public works.
   His despotism.
   His annexation of Tuscany to France, and seizure of the Papal
   States.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
   The crown of Naples resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of
   Spain) and conferred on Joachim Murat.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1808-1809.
   Beginning of the reign of Murat at Naples.
   Expulsion of the English from Capri.
   Insolence of Murat's soldiery.
   Popular discontent and hatred.
   Rise of the Carbonari.
   Civil war in Calabria.

   "Joachim Murat, the new King of Naples, announced his
   accession to the nation [July, 1808]. 'The august Napoleon,'
   he said, 'had given him the kingdom of the two Sicilies.
   Gratitude to the donor, and a desire to benefit his subjects,
   would divide his heart.' … The commencement of Murat's reign
   was felicitous; the English, however, occupied the island of
   Capri, which, being placed at the opening of the gulf, is the
   key of the bay of Naples. Their presence stimulated all who
   were averse to the new government, intimidated its adherents,
   and impeded the freedom of navigation, to the manifest injury
   of commerce; besides, it was considered disgraceful, that one
   of the Napoleonides should suffer an enemy so near, and that
   enemy the English, who were at once so hated and so despised.
   The indolence of Joseph had patiently suffered the disgrace;
   but Joachim, a spirited soldier, was indignant at it, and he
   thought it necessary to commence his reign by some important
   enterprise. He armed therefore against Capri: Sir Hudson Lowe
   was there in garrison with two regiments collected from all
   the nations of Europe, and which were called the Royal
   Corsican and the Royal Maltese. … A body of French and
   Neapolitans were sent from Naples and Salerno, under the
   command of General Lamarque, to reduce the island; and they
   effected a landing, by means of ladders hung to the rocks by
   iron hooks, and thus possessed themselves of Anacarpi, though
   not without great difficulty, as the English resolutely
   defended themselves. …
{1854}
   The siege proceeded but slowly—succours of men and
   ammunition reached the besieged from Sicily; but fortune
   favoured the enemy, as an adverse wind drove the English out
   to sea. The King, who superintended the operations from the
   shore of Massa, having waited at the point of Campanella,
   seizing the propitious moment, sent fresh squadrons in aid of
   Lamarque, and the English, being already broken, and the forts
   dismantled, now yielded to the conqueror. The Neapolitans were
   highly gratified by the acquisition of Capri, and from that
   event augured well of the new government. The kingdom of
   Naples contained three classes of people—barons, republicans,
   and populace. The barons willingly joined the party of the new
   king, because they were pleased by the honours granted to
   them, and they were not without hopes of recovering their
   ancient privileges, or at least of acquiring new ones. … The
   republicans were, on the contrary, inimical to Joachim, not
   because he was a king, for they easily accommodated themselves
   to royalty; but because his conduct in Tuscany, where he had
   driven them forth or bound them in chains like malefactors,
   had rendered him personally obnoxious to them. They were
   moreover disgusted by his incredible vanity, which led him to
   court and caress with the most zealous adulation every bearer
   of a feudal title. … The populace, who cared no more for
   Joachim than they had done for Joseph, would easily have
   contented themselves with the new government, if it had
   protected them from the oppressions of the barons, and had
   procured for them quiet and abundance. But Joachim, wholly
   intent on courting the nobles, neglected the people, who,
   oppressed by the barons and soldiery, became alienated from
   him. … The spirit of discontent was further increased by his
   introduction of the conscription laws of France. … Joachim,
   a soldier himself, permitted every thing to his soldiery; and
   an insupportable military license was the result. Hence, also,
   they became the sole support of his power, and it took no root
   in the affections of the people. The insolence of the troops
   continually augmented not only every desire, but every caprice
   of the head of a regiment, nay, even of the inferior officers,
   was to be complied with, as if they were the laws of the
   realm; and whosoever even lamented his subjection to their
   will was ill-treated and incurred some risk of being declared
   an enemy to the King. … The discontents produced by the
   enormities committed by the troops of Murat gave hopes to the
   court of Palermo that its fortunes might be re-established in
   the kingdom beyond the Faro. Meanwhile, the civil war raged in
   Calabria; nor were the Abruzzi tranquil. In these disturbances
   there were various factions in arms, and various objects were
   pursued: some of those who fought against Joachim, and had
   fought against Joseph, were adherents of Ferdinand,—others
   were the partisans of a republican constitution. … The sect
   of the Carbonari arose at this period."

      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 5._

   "The most famous, the most widely disseminated, and the most
   powerful of all the secret societies which sprang up in Italy
   was that of the Carbonari, or Charcoal-makers. … The
   Carbonari first began to attract attention in the Kingdom of
   Naples about the year 1808. A Genoese named Maghella, who
   burned with hatred of the French, is said to have initiated
   several Neapolitans into a secret order whose purpose it was
   to goad their countrymen into rebellion. They quitted Naples,
   where Murat's vigilant policy kept too strict a watch on
   conspirators, and retired to the Abruzzi, where in order to
   disarm suspicion they pretended to be engaged in
   charcoal-burning. As their numbers increased, agents were sent
   to establish lodges in the principal towns. The Bourbon king,
   shut up in Sicily, soon heard of them, and as he had not
   hesitated at letting loose with English aid galley-prisoners,
   or at encouraging brigands, to harass Murat, so he eagerly
   connived with these conspirators in the hope of recovering his
   throne. Murat, having striven for several years to suppress
   the Carbonari, at last, when he found his power slipping from
   him, reversed his policy towards them, and strove to
   conciliate them. But it was too late: neither he nor they
   could prevent the restoration of the Bourbons under the
   protection of Austria. The sectaries who had hitherto
   foolishly expected that, if the French could be expelled,
   Ferdinand would grant them a Liberal government, were soon
   cured of their delusion, and they now plotted against him as
   sedulously as they had plotted against his predecessor. Their
   membership increased to myriads; their lodges, starting up in
   every village in the Kingdom of Naples, had relations with
   branch-societies in all parts of the Peninsula: to the anxious
   ears of European despots the name Carbonaro soon meant all
   that was lawless and terrible; it meant anarchy, chaos,
   assassination. But when we read the catechism, or confession
   of faith, of the Carbonari we are surprised by the
   reasonableness of their aims and tenets. The duties of the
   individual Carbonaro were, 'to render to the Almighty the
   worship due to Him; to serve the fatherland with zeal; to
   reverence religion and laws; to fulfil the obligations of
   nature and friendship; to be faithful to promises; to observe
   silence, discretion, and charity; to cause harmony and good
   morals to prevail; to conquer the passions and submit the
   will; and to abhor the seven deadly sins.' The scope of the
   Society was to disseminate instruction; to unite the different
   classes of society under the bond of love; to impress a
   national character on the people, and to interest them in the
   preservation and defense of the fatherland and of religion; to
   destroy by moral culture the source of crimes due to the
   general depravity of mankind; to protect the weak and to raise
   up the unfortunate. … It went still farther and asserted the
   un-Catholic doctrine of liberty of conscience: 'to every
   Carbonaro,' so reads one of its articles, 'belongs the natural
   and unalterable right to worship the Almighty according to his
   own intuition and understanding.' We must not be misled,
   however, by these enlightened professions, into a wrong notion
   of the real purposes of Carbonarism. Politics, in spite of a
   rule forbidding political discussion, were the main business,
   and ethics but the incidental concern of the conspirators.
   They organized their Order under republican forms as if to
   prefigure the ideal towards which they aspired. The Republic
   was subdivided into provinces, each of which was controlled by
   a grand lodge, that of Salerno being the 'parent.' There were
   also four 'Tribes,' each having a council and holding an
   annual diet.
{1855}
   Each tribe had a Senate, which advised a House of
   Representatives, and this framed the laws which a magistracy
   executed. There were courts of the first instance, of appeal,
   and of cessation, and no Carbonaro might bring suit in the
   civil courts against a fellow member, unless he had first
   failed to get redress in one of these. … The Carbonari
   borrowed some of their rites from the Freemasons, with whom
   indeed they were commonly reported to be in such close
   relations that Freemasons who joined the 'Carbonic Republic'
   were spared the formality of initiation; other parts of their
   ceremonial they copied from the New Testament, with such
   additions as the special objects of the order called for."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples,
      book 7 (volume 2)._

      _T. Frost,
      Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _General Sir H. Bunbury,
      The Great War with France,
      page 343, and after._

      _The Chevalier O'Clery,
      History of the Italian Revolution
      chapter 3._

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-MAY).
   Renewed war of Austria with France.
   Austrian advance and retreat.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (MAY-JULY).
   Annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire.
   Removal of the Pope to Savona.
   Rome declared to be a free and imperial city.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ITALY: A. D. 1812.
   Removal of the captive Pope to Fontainebleau.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ITALY: A. D. 1812.
   Participation in Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER), and after.

ITALY: A. D. 1813.
   Participation in the war in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

ITALY: A. D. 1814.
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   His treaty with the Allies.
   Expulsion of the French from the Peninsula.

   Murat, king of Naples, "foreseeing the downfall of the
   Emperor, had attempted to procure from Napoleon, as the price
   of his fidelity, the union under his own sceptre of all Italy
   south of the Po; but, failing in this, he prepared to abandon
   the cause of his benefactor. On the 11th January, 1814, he
   concluded a treaty with the Allies, by which he was guaranteed
   possession of Naples; and forthwith advancing on Rome with
   20,000 men, occupied the second city in his brother-in-law's
   empire (January 19); having previously published a flaming
   proclamation, in which the perfidy and violence of the
   imperial government were denounced in terms which came
   strangely from a chief of the Revolution. … At the end of
   December, 1813, Eugene had withdrawn to the Adige with 36,000
   men, before Bellegarde and 50,000 Austrians; and he was
   already taking measures for a further retreat, when the
   proclamation of Murat, and his hostile advance, rendered such
   a movement inevitable. He had accordingly fallen back to the
   Mincio, when, finding himself threatened on the flank by a
   British expedition from Sicily under Lord William Bentinck, he
   determined on again advancing against Bellegarde, so as to rid
   himself of one enemy before he encountered another. The two
   armies, however, thus mutually acting on the offensive, passed
   each other, and an irregular action at last ensued on the
   Mincio (February 8), in which the advantage was rather with
   the French, who made 1,500 prisoners, and drove Bellegarde
   shortly after over the Mincio, about 3,000 being killed and
   wounded on each side. But, in other quarters, affairs were
   going rapidly to wreck. Verona surrendered to the Austrians on
   the 14th, and Ancona to Murat on the 16th; and the desertion
   of the Italians, unequal to the fatigues of a winter campaign,
   was so great that the Viceroy was compelled to fall back to
   the Po. Fouché, meanwhile, as governor of Rome, had concluded
   a convention (February 20) with the Neapolitan generals for
   the evacuation of Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, and other garrisons
   of the French empire in Italy. A proclamation, however, by the
   hereditary prince of Sicily, who had accompanied Bentinck from
   Sicily, gave Murat such umbrage that he separated his troops
   from the British, and commenced operations, with little
   success, against Eugene on the Po, in which the remainder of
   March passed away. Bentinck, having at length received
   reinforcements from Catalonia, moved forward with 12,000 men,
   and occupied Spezia on the 29th of March, and, driving the
   French (April 8) from their position at Sestri, forced his way
   through the mountains, and appeared on the 16th in front of
   Genoa. On the 17th the forts and positions before the city
   were stormed; and the garrison, seeing preparations made for a
   bombardment, capitulated on the 18th, on condition of being
   allowed to march out with the honours of war. Murat had by
   this time recommenced vigorous operations, and after driving
   the French (April 13) from the Taro, had forced the passage of
   the Stura; but the news of Napoleon's fall put an end to
   hostilities. By a convention with the Austrians, Venice,
   Palma-Nuova, and the other fortresses still held by the
   French, were surrendered; the whole of Lombardy was occupied
   by the Germans; and in the first week of May the French troops
   finally repassed the Alps."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 775, and 807-808._

ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Return of the Despots.
   Restoration of Austrian tyranny in the North.
   The Pope in Rome again.

   "With little resistance, Northern Italy was taken from the
   French. Had it been otherwise, had Murat and Beauharnais
   joined their forces, they might have long held the Austrians
   in check, perhaps even have made a descent on Vienna; and
   although this might not have hindered the ultimate overthrow
   of Napoleon, yet it must have compelled the Allies, at the day
   of settlement, to respect the wishes of the Italians. But
   disunited, and deluded into the belief that they were partners
   in a war of liberation, the Italians woke up to find that they
   had escaped from the talons of the French eagle, only to be
   caught in the clutch of the two-headed monstrosity of Austria.
   They were to be used, in the language of Joseph De Maistre,
   like coins, wherewith the Allies paid their debts. This was
   plain enough when the people of the just-destroyed Kingdom of
   Italy prepared to choose a ruler for themselves: one party
   favored Beauharnais, another wished an Austrian prince, a
   third an Italian, but all agreed in demanding independence.
   Austria quickly informed them that they were her subjects, and
   that their affairs would be decided at Vienna. Thus, almost
   without striking a blow, and without a suspicion of the lot
   awaiting them, the Northern Italians fell back under the
   domination of Austria. In the spring and early summer of 1814
   the exiled princelings returned: Victor Emanuel I. from his
   savage refuge in Sardinia to Turin; Ferdinand III. from
   Würzburg to Florence; Pius VII. from his confinement at
   Fontainebleau and Savona to Rome.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814;

{1856}

   Francis IV. to Modena. Other aspirants anxiously waited for
   the Congress of Vienna to bestow upon them the remaining
   provinces. The Congress … dragged on into the spring of the
   following year. … In Lombardy and Venetia, Metternich soon
   organized a thoroughly Austrian administration. The government
   of the two provinces was separate, that of Lombardy being
   centred at Milan, that of Venetia at Venice; but over all was
   placed an Austrian archduke as Viceroy. Each district had its
   civil and military tribunals, but the men who composed these
   being appointees of the viceroy or his deputies, their
   subservience could usually be reckoned upon. The trials were
   secret, a provision which, especially in political cases, made
   convictions easy. … Feudal privileges, which had been
   abolished by the French, could be recovered by doing homage to
   the Emperor and by paying specific taxes. In some respects
   there was an improvement in the general administration, but in
   others the deterioration was manifest. … Art, science, and
   literature were patronized, and they throve as potted plants
   thrive under the care of a gardener who cuts off every new
   shoot at a certain height. … We may liken the people of the
   Austro-Italian provinces to those Florentine revelers who, at
   the time of the plague, tried to drive away their terror by
   telling each other the merry stories reported by Boccaccio.
   The plague which penetrated every corner of Lombardy and
   Venetia was the Austrian police. Stealthy, but sure, its
   unseen presence was dreaded in palace and hovel, in church,
   tribunal, and closet. … Every police-office was crammed with
   records of the daily habits of each citizen, of his visitors,
   his relatives, his casual conversations,—even his style of
   dress and diet were set down. … Such was the Metternichian
   system of police and espionage that counteracted every mild
   law and every attempt to lessen the repugnance of the
   Italians. They were not to be deceived by blandishments:
   Lombardy was a prison, Venetia was a prison, and they were all
   captives, although they seemed to move about unshackled to
   their work or pleasure."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
      and HOLY ALLIANCE.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1815.
   Murat's attempt to head a national movement.
   His failure, downfall and death.
   Restoration of the Bourbons at Naples.

   "Wild as was the attempt in which, after Napoleon's return
   from Elba, the King of Naples lost his crown, we must yet
   judge of it both by his own character and the circumstances in
   which he was placed. … In the autumn of 1813 communications
   took place at Milan between Murat and the leaders of the
   secret societies which were then attempting to organise
   Italian patriotism in arms. In 1814, when the restoration of
   Austrian rule in Lombardy so cruelly disappointed the national
   hopes, these communications were renewed. The King of Naples
   was assured that he needed but to raise the standard of
   Italian independence to rally round him thousands and tens of
   thousands of volunteers. … These calculations … were
   readily adopted by the rash and vain-glorious monarch to whom
   they were presented. … His proud spirit chafed and fretted
   under the consciousness that he had turned upon Napoleon, and
   the mortification of finding himself deserted by those in
   reliance upon whose faith this sacrifice had been made. The
   events in France had taken him by surprise. In joining the
   alliance against Napoleon he had not calculated on the
   deposition of the emperor, still less had he dreamed of the
   destruction of the empire. … He bitterly reproached his own
   conduct for having lent himself to such results. … When his
   mind was agitated with these mingled feelings, the
   intelligence reached him that Napoleon had actually left Elba,
   on that enterprise in which he staked everything upon
   regaining the imperial throne of France. It came to him direct
   from Napoleon. … He foresaw that the armies of the allied
   powers would be engaged in a gigantic struggle with the
   efforts which Napoleon would be sure to make. Under such
   circumstances, he fancied Italy an easy conquest; once master
   of this he became a power with whom, in the conflict of
   nations, any of the contending parties could only be too happy
   to treat. He determined to place himself at the head of
   Italian nationality, and strike one daring blow for the
   chieftainship of the nation. … His ministers, his friends,
   the French generals, even his queen, Napoleon's sister,
   dissuaded him from such a course. … But with an obstinacy by
   which the vacillating appear sometimes to attempt to atone for
   habitual indecision, he persevered in spite of all advice. …
   He issued a proclamation and ordered his troops to cross the
   Papal frontier. … The Pope appointed a regency and retired,
   accompanied by most of the cardinals, to Florence. … On the
   30th of March his [Murat's] troops attacked the Austrian
   forces at Cesena. The Germans were driven, without offering
   much resistance, from the town. On the evening of that day he
   issued from Rimini his proclamation to the Italian people,
   which was against Austria a declaration of war. … A
   declaration of war on the part of Austria immediately
   followed. … The whole of the Italian army of Austria was
   ordered at once to march upon Naples; and a treaty was
   concluded with Ferdinand, by which Austria engaged to use all
   her endeavours to recover for him his Neapolitan dominions.
   … The army which Murat led northward, instead of numbering
   80,000 as he represented in his proclamation, certainly never
   exceeded 34,000. … Nearly 60,000 Austrians defended the
   banks of the Po. … On the 10th of April, the troops of
   Murat, under the command of General Pepe, were driven back by
   the Austrians, who now in their turn advanced. … A retreat
   to the frontiers of Naples was unanimously resolved on. This
   retreat was one that had all the disasters without any of the
   redeeming glories of war. … At last, as they approached the
   confines of the Neapolitan kingdom, an engagement which took
   place between Macerata and Tolentino, on the 4th of May, ended
   in a total and ignominious rout. … At Macerata most of the
   troops broke up into a disorganised rabble, and with
   difficulty Murat led to Capua a small remnant of an army, that
   could hardly be said to be defeated, because they were worsted
   without anything that deserves to be called a fight.
{1857}
   From Capua, on the 12th of May, the king sent to Naples a
   proclamation granting a free constitution. To conceal the fact
   that this was wrung from him only in distress, he resorted to
   the miserable subterfuge of ante-dating it from Rimini, on the
   30th of March." On the evening of the 18th of May, Murat
   entered Naples quietly on foot, and had his last interview
   with his queen and children. A British squadron was already in
   the harbor. The next night he slipped away to the island of
   Ischia, and thence to Frejus, while Queen Caroline remained to
   discharge the last duties of sovereignty. On the 20th Naples
   was surrendered to the Austrians, and the ex-queen took refuge
   on an English vessel to escape from a threatening mob of the
   lazzaroni. She was conveyed to Trieste, where the Austrian
   emperor had offered her an asylum. The restored Bourbon king,
   Ferdinand, made his entry into the capital on the 17th of
   June. Meantime, Murat, in France, had offered his services to
   Napoleon and they had been declined. After Waterloo, he
   escaped to Corsica, whence, in the following October, he made
   a foolhardy attempt to recover his kingdom, landing with a few
   followers at Pizzo, on the Neapolitan coast, expecting a
   rising of the people to welcome his return. But the rising
   that occurred was hostile instead of friendly. The party was
   quickly overpowered, Murat taken prisoner and delivered to
   Ferdinand's officers. He was summarily tried by court martial
   and shot, October 13, 1815.

      _I. Butt,
      History of Italy,
      volume 2, chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of Naples,
      book 7, chapter 5,
      and book 8, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Revolutionary insurrections in Naples and Sicily.
   Perjury and duplicity of the king.
   The revolt crushed by Austrian troops.
   Abortive insurrection in Piedmont.
   Its end at Novara.
   Abdication of Victor Emmanuel I.
   Accession of Charles Felix.

   "In the last days of February, 1820, a revolution broke out in
   Spain. The object of its leaders was to restore the
   Constitution of 1812, which had been suppressed on the return
   of the Bourbons to the throne. … The Revolution proved
   successful, and for a short time the Spaniards obtained
   possession of a democratic Constitution. Their success stirred
   up the ardour of the Liberal party in the kingdom of the two
   Sicilies, and before many weeks were over a revolutionary
   movement occurred at Naples. The insurrection originated with
   the army under the command of General Pepé, and it is worthy
   of note that the movement was not directed against the
   reigning dynasty, and was not, even nominally, associated with
   any demand for national unity. All the insurgents asked for
   was the establishment of a Constitution similar to that then
   existing in Spain. After a very brief and feeble resistance,
   the King yielded to the demands of the military conspirators,
   who were strongly supported by popular feeling. On the 1st of
   October, a Parliament of the Neapolitan kingdom was opened by
   His Majesty Francis the First, who then and there took a
   solemn oath to observe the Constitution, and even went out of
   his way to profess his profound attachment for the principles
   on which the new Government was based. General Pepé thereupon
   resigned the Dictatorship he had assumed, and constitutional
   liberty was deemed to have been finally established in
   Southern Italy by a bloodless revolution. The rising on the
   mainland was followed after a brief interval by a popular
   insurrection in Sicily. The main object, however, of the
   Sicilian Constitutionalists was to bring about a legislative
   separation between the island and the kingdom of Naples
   proper. … The Sicilian insurrection afforded Francis I. the
   pretext he had looked for, from the commencement, for
   overthrowing the Constitution to which he had personally
   plighted his faith. The Allied Sovereigns took alarm at the
   outbreak of the revolutionary spirit in Sicily, and a Congress
   of the Great Powers was convoked at Laibach [see VERONA, THE
   CONGRESS OF] to consider what steps required to be taken for
   the protection of social order in the kingdom of Naples. …
   By the Neapolitan Constitution the Sovereign was not at
   liberty to leave the kingdom without the consent of the
   Parliament. This consent was only given, after much
   hesitation, in reliance upon the reiterated assurances of the
   King, both publicly and privately, that his one object in
   attending the Congress was to avert, if possible, a foreign
   intervention. His Majesty also pledged himself most solemnly
   not to sanction any change in the Constitution to which he had
   sworn allegiance, and … he promised further that he would
   not be a party to any reprisals being inflicted upon his
   subjects for the part they might have taken in the
   establishment of Constitutional liberty. As soon, however, as
   Francis the First had arrived at Laibach, he yielded without a
   protest to the alleged necessity for a foreign occupation of
   his kingdom, with the avowed object of putting down the
   Constitution. Without any delay being given, the Austrian
   regiments crossed the frontier, preceded by a manifesto from
   the King, calling upon his faithful subjects to receive the
   army of occupation not as enemies, but as friends. … The
   national troops, under General Pepé, were defeated with ease
   by the Austrians, who in the course of a few weeks effected,
   almost without opposition, the military occupation of the
   whole kingdom [February-March, 1821]. Forthwith reprisals
   commenced in grim earnest. On the plea that the resistance
   offered by the Constitutionalists to the invading army
   constituted an act of high treason, the King declared himself
   absolved from all promises he had given previously to his
   departure. A reign of terror was set on foot. … Signor Botta
   thus sums up the net result of the punishments inflicted after
   the return of the King in the Neapolitan provinces alone.
   'About a thousand persons were condemned to death, imprisoned,
   or exiled. Infinitely greater was the number of officers and
   officials who were deprived of their posts by the
   Commissioners of Investigation.' … The establishment of
   Constitutional Government in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies,
   and the resolution adopted at the instigation of Austria, by
   the Congress of Laibach, to suppress the Neapolitan
   Constitution by armed force, produced a profound effect
   throughout Italy, and especially in Sardinia. The fact that
   internal reforms were incompatible with the ascendency of
   Austria in the Peninsula was brought home to the popular mind,
   and, for the first time in the history of Italy, the desire
   for civil liberty became identified with the national aversion
   to foreign rule.
{1858}
   In Piedmont there was a powerful Constitutional party,
   composed chiefly of professional men, and a strong military
   caste, aristocratic by birth and conviction, but opposed on
   national grounds to the domination of Austria over Italy.
   These two parties coalesced for a time upon the common
   platform of Constitutional Reform and war with Austria; and
   the result was the abortive rising of 1821. The insurrection,
   however, though directed against the established Government,
   had about it nothing of an anti-dynastic, or even of a
   revolutionary character. On the contrary, the leaders of the
   revolt professed, and probably with sincerity, that they were
   carrying out the true wishes of their Sovereign. Their theory
   was, that Victor Emmanuel I. was only compelled to adhere to
   the Holy Alliance by considerations of foreign policy, and
   that, if his hands were forced, he would welcome any
   opportunity of severing himself from all complicity with
   Austria. Acting on this belief, they determined to proclaim
   the Constitution by a sort of coup d' état, and then, after
   having declared war on Austria, to invade Lombardy, and thus
   create a diversion in favour of the Neapolitans. It is certain
   that Victor Emmanuel I. gave no sanction to, and was not even
   cognisant of, this mad enterprise. … The troubles and
   calamities of his early life had exhausted his energy; and his
   one desire was to live at peace at home and abroad. On the
   other hand, it is certain that Charles Albert [prince of
   Savoy-Carignan, heir presumptive to the throne of Sardinia]
   was in communication with the leaders of the insurrection,
   though how far he was privy to their actual designs has never
   yet been clearly ascertained. The insurrection broke out just
   about the time when the Austrian troops were approaching the
   Neapolitan frontiers. … The insurrection gained head
   rapidly, and the example of Alexandria was followed by the
   garrison of Turin. Pressure was brought to bear upon Victor
   Emmanuel I., and he was led to believe that the only means of
   averting civil war was to grant the Constitution. The
   pressure, however, overshot its mark. On the one hand, the
   King felt that he could not possibly withstand the demand for
   a Constitution at the cost of having to order the regiments
   which had remained loyal to fire upon the insurgents. On the
   other hand, he did not feel justified in granting the
   Constitution without the sanction of his brother and
   [immediate] heir. In order, therefore, to escape from this
   dilemma, his Majesty abdicated suddenly in favour of Charles
   Felix [his brother]. As, however, the new Sovereign happened
   to be residing at Modena, at the Court of his brother-in-law,
   the Prince of Savoy-Carignan was appointed Regent until such
   time as Charles Felix could return to the capital. Immediately
   upon his abdication, Victor Emmanuel quitted Turin, and
   Charles Albert was left in supreme authority as Regent of the
   State. Within twelve hours of his accession to power, the
   Regent proclaimed the Spanish Constitution as the fundamental
   law of Piedmont. … The probability is … that Charles
   Albert, or rather his advisers, were anxious to tie the hands
   of the new Sovereign. They calculated that Charles Felix, who
   was no longer young, and who was known to be bitterly hostile
   to all Liberal theories of Government, would abdicate sooner
   than accept the Crown of a Constitutional kingdom. This
   calculation proved erroneous. … As soon as his Majesty
   learned the news of what had occurred in his absence, he
   issued a manifesto [March, 1821], declaring all the reforms
   granted under the Regency to be null and void, describing the
   authors of the Constitution as rebels, and avowing his
   intention, in the case of necessity, of calling upon the
   Allied Powers to assist him in restoring the legitimate
   authority of the Crown. Meanwhile, he refused to accept the
   throne till the restoration of order had given Victor Emmanuel
   full freedom to reconsider the propriety of abdication. This
   manifesto was followed by the immediate advance of an Austrian
   corps d'armée to the frontier stream of the Ticino, as well as
   by the announcement that the Russian Government had ordered an
   army of 100,000 men to set out on their march towards Italy,
   with the avowed object of restoring order in the Peninsula.
   The population of Piedmont recognised at once, with their
   practical good sense, that any effective resistance was out of
   the question. … The courage of the insurgents gave way in
   view of the obstacles which they had to encounter, and the
   last blow was dealt to their cause by the sudden defection of
   the Prince Regent. … Unable either to face his coadjutors in
   the Constitutional pronunciamento, or to assume the
   responsibility of an open conflict with the legitimate
   Sovereign, the Regent left Turin secretly [March 21, 1821],
   without giving any notice of his intended departure, and, on
   arriving at Novara, formally resigned his short-lived power.
   The leaders, however, of the insurrection had committed
   themselves too deeply to follow the example of the Regent. A
   Provisional Government was established at Turin, and it was
   determined to march upon Novara, in the hope that the troops
   collected there would fraternise with the insurgents. As soon
   as it was known that the insurgents were advancing in force
   from Turin, the Austrians, under General Bübner, crossed the
   Ticino, and effected a junction with the Royal troops. When
   the insurgents reached Novara, they suddenly found themselves
   confronted, not by their own fellow-countrymen, but by an
   Austrian army. A panic ensued, and the insurrectionary force
   suffered a disastrous, though, fortunately, a comparatively
   bloodless, defeat. After this disaster the insurrection was
   virtually at an end. … The Austrians, with the consent of
   Charles Felix, occupied the principal fortresses of Piedmont.
   The old order of things was restored, and, upon Victor
   Emmanuel's formal refusal to withdraw his abdication, Charles
   Felix assumed the title of King of Sardinia. As soon as
   military resistance had ceased, the insurrection was put down
   with a strong hand."

      _E. Dicey,
      Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 3-4._

   "Henceforth the issue could not be misunderstood. The conflict
   was not simply between the Neapolitans and their Bourbon king,
   or between the Piedmontese and Charles Felix, but between
   Italian Liberalism and European Absolutism. Santarosa and Pepé
   cried out in their disappointment that the just cause would
   have won had their timid colleagues been more daring, had
   promises but been kept; we, however, see clearly that though
   the struggle might have been prolonged, the result would have
   been unchanged. Piedmont and Naples, had each of their
   citizens been a hero, could not have overcome the Holy
   Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE], which was their real antagonist.
{1859}
   The revolutionists had not directly attacked the Holy
   Alliance; they had not thrown down the gauntlet to Austria;
   they had simply insisted that they had a right to
   constitutional government; and Austria, more keen-witted than
   they, had seen that to suffer a constitution at Naples or
   Turin would be to acknowledge the injustice of those
   principles by which the Holy Alliance had decreed that Europe
   should be repressed to the end of time. So when the Carbonari
   aimed at Ferdinand they struck Austria, and Austria struck
   back a deadly blow. … But Austria and the Reactionists were
   not content with simple victory; treating the revolution as a
   crime, they at once proceeded to take vengeance. …
   Ferdinand, the perjured Neapolitan king, tarried behind in
   Florence, whilst the Austrians went down into his kingdom. …
   But as soon as Ferdinand was assured that the Austrian
   regiments were masters of Naples, he sent for that Prince of
   Canosa whom he had been forced unwillingly to dismiss on
   account of his outrageous cruelty five years before, and
   deputed to him the task of restoring genuine Bourbon tyranny
   in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. A better agent of
   vindictive wrath than Canosa could not have been found; he was
   troubled by no humane compunctions, nor by doubts as to the
   justice of his fierce measures; to him, as to Torquemada,
   persecution was a compound of duty and pleasure. … The right
   of assembling, no matter for what purpose, being denied, the
   universities, schools, and lyceums had to close; proscription
   lists were hurriedly drawn up, and they contained not only the
   names of those who had been prominent in the recent rising,
   but also of all who had incurred suspicion for any political
   acts as far back as 1793. … Houses were searched without
   warrant; seals were broken open; some of the revelations of
   the confessional were not sacred. The church-bells tolled
   incessantly for victims led to execution. To strike deeper
   terror, Canosa revived the barbarous torture of scourging in
   public. … How many victims actually suffered during this
   reign of terror we cannot tell. Canosa's list of the
   proscribed had, it is said, more than four thousand names. The
   prisons were choked with persons begging for trial; the
   galleys of Pantelleria, Procida, and the Ponza Islands swarmed
   with victims condemned for life; the scaffolds, erected in the
   public squares of the chief towns, were daily occupied. … At
   length, when his deputies had terrorized the country into
   apparent submission, and when the Austrian regiments made it
   safe for him to travel, Ferdinand quitted Florence and
   returned to Naples. … In Sicily the revolution smouldered
   and spluttered for years, in spite of remorseless efforts to
   stamp it out; on the mainland, robberies and brigandage, and
   outbreaks now political and now criminal, proved how delusive
   was a security based on oppression and lies. Amid these
   conditions Ferdinand passed the later years of his infamous
   reign. … In Piedmont the retaliation was as effectual as in
   Naples, but less blood was shed there. Della Torre took
   command of the kingdom in the name of Charles Felix. …
   Seventy-three officers were condemned to death, one hundred
   and five to the galleys; but as nearly all of them had
   escaped, they were hanged in effigy; only two, Lieutenant
   Lanari and Captain Garelli, were executed. The property of the
   condemned was sequestrated, their families were tormented, and
   the commission, not content with sentencing those who had
   taken an active part in the revolution, cashiered two hundred
   and twenty-one officers who, while holding aloof from
   Santarosa, had refused to join Della Torre at Novara and fight
   against their countrymen. … The King … had soon reason to
   learn the truth of a former epigram of his, 'Austria is a
   bird-lime which you cannot wash off your fingers when you have
   once touched it'; for Austria soon showed that her motive in
   bolstering falling monarchs on their shaky thrones was not
   simply philanthropic nor disinterested. General Bubna, on
   taking possession of Alessandria, sent the keys of that
   fortress to Emperor Francis, in order, he said,—and we wonder
   whether there was no sarcasm in his voice,—in order to give
   Charles Felix 'the pleasure of receiving them back from the
   Emperor's hand.' 'Although I found this a very poor joke,'
   wrote Charles Felix to his brother, 'I dissembled.' How,
   indeed, could he do otherwise? … Charles Felix had in truth
   become but the vassal of the hereditary enemy of his line, and
   that not by conquest, but by his own invitation."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of Naples,
      books 9-10 (volume 2)._

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 6._

      _R. H. Wrightson,
      History of Modern Italy,
      chapters 2-3, and 6._

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Revolt in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States,
   suppressed by Austrian troops.

   "The Revolution of 1830 [in France] made a natural impression
   in a country which had many evils to complain of and which had
   so lately been connected with France. The duke of Modena,
   Francis IV., sought to make use of the liberal movement to
   extend his rule over northern Italy. But at the last moment he
   was terrified by threats from Vienna, turned against his
   fellow-conspirators, and imprisoned them (February 3, 1831).
   The people, however, were so alienated by his treachery that
   he fled with his prisoners to seek safety in Austrian
   territory. A provisional government was formed, and Modena was
   declared a free state. Meanwhile the election of a new pope,
   Gregory XVI., gave occasion for a rising in the papal states.
   Bologna took the lead in throwing off its allegiance to Rome,
   and in a few weeks its example was followed by the whole of
   Romagna, Umbria, and the Marches. The two sons of Louis
   Bonaparte, the late king of Holland, hastened to join the
   insurgents, but the elder died at Forli (17 March), and thus
   an eventful career was opened to the younger brother, the
   future Napoleon III. Parma revolted against Maria Louisa, who
   followed the example of the duke of Modena and fled to
   Austria. The success of the movement, however, was very
   short-lived. Austrian troops marched to the assistance of the
   papacy, the rebellion was put down by force, and the exiled
   rulers were restored. Louis Philippe, on whom the insurgents
   had relied, had no sympathy with a movement in which members
   of the Bonaparte family were engaged. But a temporary revival
   of the insurrection brought the Austrians back to Romagna, and
   a great outcry was raised in France against the king.
{1860}
   To satisfy public opinion, Louis Philippe sent a French force
   to seize Ancona (February 22, 1832), but it was a very
   harmless demonstration, and had been explained beforehand to
   the papal government. In Naples and Sardinia no disturbances
   took place. Ferdinand II. succeeded his father Francis I. on
   the Neapolitan throne in 1830, and satisfied the people by
   introducing a more moderate system of government. Charles
   Albert became king of Sardinia on the death of Charles Felix
   (27 April, 1831), and found himself in a difficult position
   between Austria, which had good reason to mistrust him, and
   the liberal party, which he had betrayed."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. G. Farini,
      The Roman State, 1815-1850,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5._

ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.
   The Mission of Mazzini, the Revolutionist.
   Young Italy.

   "The Revolution of 1830, ineffectual as it seemed to its
   promoters, was yet most significant. It failed in Italy and
   Poland, in Spain and Portugal; it created a mongrel monarchy,
   neither Absolute nor Constitutional, in France; only in
   Belgium did it attain its immediate purpose. Nevertheless, if
   we look beneath the surface, we see that it was one of those
   epoch-marking events of which we can say, 'Things cannot be
   again what until just now they were.' … The late risings in
   the Duchies and Legations had brought no comfort to the
   conspirators, but had taught them, on the contrary, how
   ineffectual, how hopeless was the method of the secret
   societies. After more than fifteen years they had not gained
   an inch; they had only learned that their rulers would concede
   nothing, and that Austria, their great adversary, had staked
   her existence on maintaining thraldom in Italy. Innumerable
   small outbursts and three revolutions had ended in the death
   of hundreds and in the imprisonment or proscription of
   thousands of victims. … Just when conspiracy, through
   repeated failures, was thus discredited, there arose a leader
   so strong and unselfish, so magnetic and patient and zealous,
   that by him, if by anyone, conspiracy might be guided to
   victory. This leader, the Great Conspirator, was Joseph
   Mazzini, one of the half dozen supreme influences in European
   politics during the nineteenth century, whose career will
   interest posterity as long as it is concerned at all in our
   epoch of transition. For just as Metternich was the High
   Priest of the Old Regime, so Mazzini was the Prophet of a
   Social Order, more just, more free, more spiritual than any
   the world has known. He was an Idealist who would hold no
   parley with temporizers, an enthusiast whom half-concessions
   could not beguile: and so he came to be decried as a fanatic
   or a visionary. … Mazzini joined the Carbonari, not without
   suspecting that, under their complex symbolism and
   hierarchical mysteries they concealed a fatal lack of harmony,
   decision, and faith. … As he became better acquainted with
   Carbonarism, his conviction grew stronger that no permanent
   good could be achieved by it. … The open propaganda of his
   Republican and Unitarian doctrines was of course impossible;
   it must be carried on by a secret organization. But he was
   disgusted with the existing secret societies: they lacked
   harmony, they lacked faith, they had no distinct purpose;
   their Masonic mummeries were childish and farcical. …
   Therefore, Mazzini would have none of them; he would organize
   a new secret society, and call it 'Young Italy,' whose
   principles should be plainly understood by every one of its
   members. It was to be composed of men under forty, in order to
   secure the most energetic and disinterested members, and to
   avoid the influence of older men, who, trained by the past
   generation, were not in touch with the aspirations and needs
   of the new. It was to awaken the People, the bone and sinew of
   the nation; whereas the earlier sects had relied too much on
   the upper and middle classes, whose traditions and interests
   were either too aristocratic or too commercial. Roman
   Catholicism had ceased to be spiritual; it no longer purified
   and uplifted the hearts of the Italians. … Young Italy
   aimed, therefore, to substitute for the mediæval dogmas and
   patent idolatries of Rome a religion based on Reason, and so
   simple as to be within the comprehension of the humblest
   peasant. … The doctrines of the new sect spread, but since
   secret societies give the census-taker no account of their
   membership, we cannot cite figures to illustrate the growth of
   Young Italy. Contrary to Mazzini's expectations, it was
   recruited, not so much from the People, as from the Middle
   Class, the professional men, and the tradesmen." In 1831
   Mazzini was forced into exile, at Marseilles, from which city
   he planned an invasion of Savoy. The project was discovered,
   and the Sardinian government revenged itself cruelly upon the
   patriots within its reach. "In a few weeks, eleven alleged
   conspirators had been executed, many more had been sentenced
   to the galleys, and others, who had escaped; were condemned in
   contumacy. Among the men who fled into exile at this time were
   … Vincent Gioberti and Joseph Garibaldi. … To an
   enthusiast less determined than Mazzini, this calamity would
   have been a check; to him, however, it was a spur. Instead of
   abandoning the expedition against Savoy, he worked with might
   and main to hurry it on. … One column, in which were fifty
   Italians and twice as many Poles, … was to enter Savoy by
   way of Annemasse. A second column had orders to push on from
   Nyon; a third, starting from Lyons, was to march towards
   Chambéry. Mazzini, with a musket on his shoulder, accompanied
   the first party. To his surprise, the peasants showed no
   enthusiasm when the tricolor flag was unfurled and the
   invaders shouted 'God and People! Liberty and the Republic!'
   before them. At length some carabineers and a platoon of
   troops appeared. A few shots were fired. Mazzini fainted; his
   comrades dispersed across the Swiss border, taking him with
   them. … His enemies attributed his fainting to cowardice; he
   himself explained it as the result of many nights of
   sleeplessness, of great fatigue, fever and cold. … To all
   but the few concerned in it, this first venture of Young Italy
   seemed a farce, the disproportion between its aim and its
   achievement was so enormous, and Mazzini's personal collapse
   was so ignominious. Nevertheless, Italian conspiracy had now
   and henceforth that head for lack of which it had so long
   floundered amid vague and contradictory purposes. The young
   Idealist had been beaten in his first encounter with obdurate
   Reality, but he was not discouraged. … Now began in earnest
   that 'apostolate' of his, which he laid down only at his
   death.
{1861}
   Young Italy was established beyond the chance of being
   destroyed by an abortive expedition; Young Poland, Young
   Hungary, Young Europe itself, sprang up after the Mazzinian
   pattern; the Liberals and revolutionists of the Continent felt
   that their cause was international, and in their affliction
   they fraternized. No one could draw so fair and reasonable a
   Utopia for them as Mazzini drew; no one could so fire them
   with a sense of duty, with hope, with energy. He became the
   mainspring of the whole machine—truly an infernal machine to
   the autocrats—of European conspiracy. The redemption of Italy
   was always his nearest aim, but his generous principle reached
   out over other nations, for in the world that he prophesied
   every people must be free. Proscribed in Piedmont, expelled
   from Switzerland, denied lodging in France, he took refuge in
   London, there to direct, amid poverty and heartache, the whole
   vast scheme of plots. His bread he earned by writing critical
   and literary essays for the English reviews,—he quickly
   mastered the English language so as to use it with remarkable
   vigor,—and all his leisure he devoted to the preparation of
   political tracts, and to correspondence with numberless
   confederates. … He was the consulting physician for all the
   revolutionary practitioners of Europe. Those who were not his
   partisans disparaged his influence, asserting that he was only
   a man of words; but the best proof of his power lies in the
   anxiety he caused monarchs and cabinets, and in the
   precautions they took to guard against him. … Mazzini and
   Metternich! For nearly twenty years they were the antipodes of
   European politics. One in his London garret, poor, despised,
   yet indomitable and sleepless, sending his influence like an
   electric current through all barriers to revivify the heart of
   Italy and of Liberal Europe; the other in his Vienna palace,
   haughty, famous, equally alert and cunning, … shedding over
   Italy and over Europe his upas-doctrines of torpor and decay!"

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. L. Garrison,
      Joseph Mazzini,
      chapters 2-5._

      _J. Mazzini,
      Collected Works,
      volume 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1848.
   Expulsion of Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection and revolution throughout the peninsula.
   French occupation of Rome.
   Triumph of King "Bomba" in Naples and Sicily.
   Disastrous war of Sardinia with Austria.
   Lombardy and Venice enslaved anew.

   "The revolution of 1831, which affected the States of the
   Church, Modena, and Parma, had been suppressed, like the still
   earlier rebellions in Naples and Piedmont, by Austrian
   intervention. … Hence, all the hatred of the Italians was
   directed against foreign rule, as the only obstacle to the
   freedom and unity of the peninsula. … The secret societies,
   and the exiles in communication with them—especially Joseph
   Mazzini, who issued his commands from London—took care that
   the national spirit should not be buried beneath material
   interests, but should remain ever wakeful. Singularly, the
   first encouragement came from" Rome. "Pope Gregory XVI., …
   had died June 1st, 1846, and been succeeded by the
   fifty-four-year-old Cardinal Count Mastai Ferretti, who took
   the name of Pius IX. If the pious world which visited him was
   charmed by the amiability and clemency of its new head, the
   cardinals were dismayed at the reforms which this new head
   would fain introduce in the States of the Church and in all
   Italy. He published an amnesty for all political offences;
   permitted the exiles to return with impunity; allowed the
   Press freer scope; threw open the highest civil offices to
   laymen; summoned from the notables of the provinces a council
   of state, which was to propose reforms; bestowed a liberal
   municipal constitution on the city of Rome; and endeavored to
   bring about an Italian confederation. … After the French
   revolution of 1848 he granted a constitution. There was a
   first chamber, to be named by the Pope, and a second chamber,
   to be elected by the people, while the irresponsible college
   of cardinals formed a sort of privy council. A new era
   appeared to be dawning. The old-world capital, Rome, once the
   mistress of the nations, still the mistress of all Roman
   Catholic hearts, was to become the central point of Italy. …
   But when the flames of war broke out in the north [see below],
   and the fate of Italy was about to be decided between Sardinia
   and Austria on the old battle fields of Lombardy, the Romans
   demanded from the Pope a declaration of war against Austria,
   and the despatch of Roman troops to join Charles Albert's
   army. Pius rejected their demands as unsuited to his papal
   office, and so broke with the men of the extreme party. … In
   this time of agitation Pius thought that in Count Pellegrino
   Rossi, of Carrara, … he had found the right man to carry out
   a policy of moderate liberalism, and on the 17th of September,
   1848, he set him at the head of a new ministry. The anarchists
   … could not forgive Rossi for grasping the reins with a firm
   hand." On the 15th of November, as he alighted from his
   carriage at the door of the Chambers, he was stabbed in the
   neck by an assassin, and died on the spot. He was about, when
   murdered, to open the Chambers with a speech, in which he
   intended "to promise abolition of the rule of the cardinals
   and introduction of a lay government, and to insist upon
   Italy's independence and unity. … The next day an armed
   crowd appeared before the Quirinal and attacked the guard,
   which consisted of Swiss mercenaries, some of the bullets
   flying into the Pope's antechamber. He had to accept a radical
   ministry and dismiss the Swiss troops. … Pius fled in
   disguise from Rome to Gaeta, November 24th, and sought shelter
   with the King of Naples. Mazzini and his party had free scope.
   A constitutional convention was summoned, which declared the
   temporal power of the Pope abolished (February 5th, 1849), and
   Rome a republic. To them attached itself Tuscany. Grand-duke
   Leopold II. had granted a constitution, February 17th, 1848,
   but nevertheless the republican-minded ministry of Guerrazzi
   compelled him to join the Pope at Gaeta, February 21st, 1849.
   The republic was then proclaimed in Tuscany and union with
   Rome resolved upon." But Louis Napoleon, President of the
   French republic, intervened. "Marshal Oudinot was despatched
   with 8,000 men. He landed in Civita Vecchia, April 26th, 1849,
   and appeared before the walls of Rome on the 30th, expecting
   to take the city without any trouble. But … after a fight of
   several hours, he had to retreat to Civita Vecchia with a loss
   of 700 men.
{1862}
   A few days later the Neapolitan army, which was to attack the
   rebels from the south, was defeated at Velletri; and the
   Spanish troops, the third in the league against the red
   republic, prudently avoided a battle. But Oudinot received
   considerable re-enforcements, and on June 3d he advanced
   against Rome for the second time, with 35,000 men, while the
   force in the city consisted of about 19,000, mostly volunteers
   and national guards. In spite of the bravery of Garibaldi and
   the volunteers, into whom he breathed his spirit, Rome had to
   capitulate, after a long and bloody struggle, owing to the
   superiority of the French artillery. On the 4th of July
   Oudinot entered the silent capital. Garibaldi, Mazzini, and
   their followers fled. … Pius, for whose nerves the Roman
   atmosphere was still too strong, did not return until the 4th
   of April, 1850. His ardor for reform was cooled. … In the
   Legations they had to protect themselves by Austrian bayonets,
   and in Rome and Civita Vecchia by French. This lasted in the
   Legations until 1859, and in Rome and Civita Vecchia until
   1866 and 1870. Simultaneously with Rome the south of Italy had
   entered into the movement so characteristic of the year 1848.
   The scenes of 1820 and 1821 were repeated." The Sicilians
   again demanded independence; expelled the Neapolitan garrison
   from Palermo; refused to accept a constitution proffered by
   King Ferdinand II., which created a united parliament for
   Naples and Sicily; voted in a Sicilian parliament the
   perpetual exclusion of the Bourbon dynasty from the throne,
   and offered the crown of Sicily to a son of the king of
   Sardinia, who declined the gift. In Naples, Ferdinand yielded
   at first to the storm, and sent, under compulsion, a force of
   13,000 Neapolitan troops, commanded by the old revolutionist,
   General Pepé, to join the Sardinians against Austria. This was
   in April, 1848. A month later he crushed the revolution with
   his Swiss mercenaries, recalled his army from northern Italy,
   and was master, again, in his capital and his peninsular
   kingdom. The following summer he landed 8,000 troops in
   Sicily; his army bombarded and stormed Messina in September;
   defeated the insurgents at the foot of Mount Etna; took
   Catania by storm in April, 1849, and entered Palermo, after a
   short bombardment, on the 17th of May, having gained for its
   master the nickname of "King Bomba." "He ordered a general
   disarmament, and established an oppressive military rule over
   the whole island; and there was no more talk of parliament and
   constitution. All these struggles in central and southern
   Italy stood in close connection with the events of 1848 and
   1849 in upper Italy. … In the north the struggle was to
   shake off the Austrian yoke. … During the month of January,
   1848, there was constant friction between the citizens and the
   military in Milan and the university cities of Pavia and
   Padua. … March 18th, Milan rose. All classes took part in
   the fight; and the eighty-two-year-old field-marshal Count
   Joseph Radetzky … was obliged, after a street fight of two
   days, to draw his troops out of the city, call up as quickly
   as possible the garrisons of the neighboring cities, and take
   up his position in the famous Quadrilateral, between
   Peschiera, Verona, Legnano, and Mantua. March 22d, Venice,
   where Count Zichy commanded, was lost for the Austrians," who
   yielded without resistance, releasing their political
   prisoners, one of whom, the celebrated Daniel Manin, a
   Venetian lawyer, took his place at the head of a provisional
   government. "Other cities followed the lead of Venice. The
   little duchies of Modena and Parma could hold out no longer;
   Dukes Francis and Charles fled to Austria, and provisional
   governments sprung up behind them. Like Naples, the duchies
   and Tuscany also sent their troops across the Po to help the
   Sardinians in the decisive struggle. The hopes of all Italy
   were centred on Sardinia and its king. … Charles Albert,
   called to the aid of Lombardy, entered Milan to win for
   himself the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom and the hegemony of
   Italy. He presented himself as the liberator of the peninsula,
   but it was not a part for which he was qualified by his
   antecedents. … He was a brave soldier, but a poor captain.
   … His opponent, Radetzky, was old, but his spirit was still
   young and fresh. … Radetzky received re-enforcements from
   Austria, and on the 6th of May repelled the attack of the
   Sardinian king south-west of Verona [at Santa Lucia]. May
   29th, he carried the intrenchments at Cartatone; but as the
   Sardinians were victorious at Goito and took Peschiera, while
   Garibaldi with his Alpine rangers threatened the Austrian
   rear, he had to desist from further advances, and limit his
   operations to the recapture of Vicenza and the other cities of
   the Venetian main-land. In the mean time the Austrian court,
   chiefly at the instigation of the British embassy, had opened
   negotiations with the Lombards, and offered them their
   independence on condition of their assuming a considerable
   share of the public debt, and concluding a favorable
   commercial treaty with Austria. But, as the Lombards felt sure
   of acquiring their freedom more cheaply, they did not accept
   the proposition. Radetzky was now in a position to assume an
   active offensive. He won a brilliant victory at Custozza, July
   25th. The Sardinians attempted to make a stand at Goito and
   again at Volta, but were driven back, and Radetzky advanced on
   Milan. Charles Albert had to evacuate the city," and on the
   9th of August he concluded an armistice, withdrawing his
   troops from Lombardy and the duchies. But in the following
   March (1849) he was persuaded to renew the war, and he placed
   his army under the command of the Polish general Chrzanowski.
   It was the intention of the Sardinians to advance again into
   Lombardy, but they had no opportunity. "Radetzky crossed the
   Ticino, and in a four days' campaign on Sardinian soil
   defeated the foe so completely—March 21st at Mortara, and
   March 23d at Novara—that there could be no more thought of a
   renewal of the struggle. … Charles Albert, who had vainly
   sought death upon the battle-field, was weary of his throne
   and his life. In the night of March 23d, at Novara, he laid
   down the crown and declared his eldest son king of Sardinia,
   under the title of Victor Emmanuel II. He hoped that the
   latter would obtain a more favorable peace from the Austrians.
   … Then, saying farewell to his wife by letter, attended by
   but two servants, he travelled through France and Spain to
   Portugal. He died at Oporto, July 26th, 1849, of repeated
   strokes of apoplexy." After long negotiations, the new king
   concluded a treaty of peace with Austria on the 6th of August.
   "Sardinia retained its boundaries intact, and paid 75,000,000
   lire as indemnity. The false report of a Sardinian victory at
   Novara had caused the population of Brescia to fall upon the
   Austrian garrison and drive them into the citadel.
{1863}
   General Haynau hastened thither with 4,000 men well provided
   with artillery. The city was bombarded, and on the 1st of
   April it was reoccupied, after a fearful street fight, in
   which even women took part; but Haynau stained his name by
   inhuman cruelties, especially toward the gentler sex. Venice
   was not able to hold out much longer. It had at first attached
   itself to Sardinia, but after the defeat of the Sardinians the
   republic was proclaimed. Without the city, in Haynau's camp,
   swamp fever raged; within, hunger and cholera. On the news of
   the capitulation of Hungary, August 22d, it surrendered, and
   the heads of the revolution, Manin and Pepe, went into exile.
   All Italy was again brought under its old masters."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 16._

   The siege of Venice, "reckoning from April 2, when the
   Assembly voted to resist at any cost, lasted 146 days; but the
   blockade by land began on June 18, 1848, when the Austrians
   first occupied Mestre. During the twenty-one weeks of actual
   siege, 900 Venetian troops were killed, and probably 7,000 or
   8,000 were at different times on the sick-list. Of the
   Austrians, 1,200 were killed in engagements, 8,000 succumbed
   to fevers and cholera, and as many more were in the hospitals:
   80,000 projectiles were fired from the Venetian batteries;
   from the Austrian, more than 120,000. During the seventeen
   months of her independence, Venice raised sixty million
   francs, exclusive of patriotic donations in plate and
   chattels. When Gorzkowsky came to examine the accounts of the
   defunct government he exclaimed, 'I did not believe that such
   Republican dogs were such honest men.' With the fate of Venice
   was quenched the last of the fires of liberty which the
   Revolution had kindled throughout Europe in 1848. Her people,
   whom the world had come to look down upon as degenerate,—mere
   trinket-makers and gondoliers,—had proved themselves second
   to none in heroism, superior to all in stability. At Venice,
   from first to last, we have had to record no excesses, no
   fickle changes, no slipping down of power from level to level
   till it sank in the mire of anarchy. She had her demagogues
   and her passions, but she would be the slave of neither; and
   in nothing did she show her character more worthily than in
   recognizing Manin and making him her leader. He repaid her
   trust by absolute fidelity. I can discover no public act of
   his to which you can impute any other motive than solicitude
   for her welfare. The common people loved him as a father,
   revered him as a patron saint; the upper classes, the
   soldiers, the politicians, whatever may have been the
   preferences of individuals or the ambition of cliques, felt
   that he was indispensable, and gave him wider and wider
   authority as danger increased. … The little lawyer, with the
   large, careworn face and blue eyes, had redeemed Venice from
   her long shame of decadence and servitude. But Europe would
   not suffer his work to stand; Europe preferred that Austria
   rather than freedom should rule at Venice. At daybreak on
   August 28 a mournful throng of the common people collected
   before Manin's house in Piazza San Paterniano. 'Here is our
   good father, poor dear fellow,' they were heard to say. 'He
   has endured so much for us. May God bless him!' They escorted
   him and his family to the shore, whence he embarked on the
   French ship Pluton, for he was among the forty prominent
   Venetians whom the Austrians condemned to banishment. At six
   o'clock the Pluton weighed anchor and passed through the
   winding channel of the lagune, out into the Adriatic. Long
   before the Austrian banners were hoisted that morning on the
   flagstaffs of St. Mark's, Venice, with her fair towers and
   glittering domes, had vanished forever from her Great
   Defender's sight. Outwardly, the Revolutionary Movement had
   failed; in France it had resulted in a spurious Republic, soon
   to become a tinsel Empire; elsewhere, there was not even a
   make-believe success to hide, if but for a while, the failure.
   In Italy, except in Piedmont, Reaction had full play. Bomba
   filled his Neapolitan and Sicilian prisons with political
   victims, and demonstrated again that the Bourbon government
   was a negation of God. Pius IX., having loitered at Naples
   with his Paragon of Virtue until April, 1850, returned to
   Rome, to be henceforth now the puppet and now the accomplice
   of Cardinal Antonelli in every scheme for oppressing his
   subjects, and for resisting Liberal tendencies. He held his
   temporal sovereignty through the kindness of the Bonapartist
   charlatan in France; it was fated that he should lose it
   forever when that charlatan lost his Empire. In Tuscany,
   Leopold thanked Austria for permitting him to rule over a
   people the intelligent part of which despised him. In Modena,
   the Duke was but an Austrian deputy sheriff. Lombardy and
   Venetia were again the prey of the double-beaked eagle of
   Hapsburg. Only in Piedmont did Constitutionalism and liberty
   survive to become, under an honest king and a wise minister,
   the ark of Italy's redemption."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Gleanings of Past Years,
      volume 4, chapters 1-4._

      _L. C. Farini,
      The Roman State from 1815 to 1850,
      books 2-7 (volumes 1-4)._

      _H. Martin,
      Daniel Manin and Venice in 1848-49._

      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      period 2 (volumes 1-2)._

      _L. Mariotti,
      Italy in 1848_.

      _E. A. V.,
      Joseph Mazzini,
      chapters 4-5._

      _The Chevalier O'Clery,
      History of the Italian Revolution,
      chapters 6-7._

ITALY: A. D. 1855.
   Sardinia in the alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
   Austro-Italy before Europe in the Congress of Paris.
   Alliance of France with Sardinia.
   War with Austria.
   Emancipation of Lombardy.
   Peace of Villa-franca.

   "The year 1856 brought an armistice between the contending
   powers [in the Crimea—see RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854 to
   1854-1856], followed by the Congress of Paris, which settled
   the terms of peace. At that Congress Count Cavour and the
   Marquis Villamarina represented their country side by side
   with the envoys of the great European States. The Prime
   Minister of Piedmont, while taking his part in the
   re-establishment of the general peace with a skill and tact
   which won him the favour of his brother plenipotentiaries,
   never lost sight of the further object he had in view, namely,
   that of laying before the Congress the condition of Italy. …
   His efforts were rewarded with success.
{1864}
   On the 30th March, 1856, the treaty of peace was signed, and
   on the 8th April Count Walewski called the attention of the
   members of the Congress to the state of Italy. … Count Buol,
   the Austrian plenipotentiary, would not admit that the
   Congress had any right to deal with the Italian question at
   all; he declined courteously, but firmly, to discuss the
   matter. … But although Austria refused to entertain the
   question, the fact remained that the condition of Italy now
   stood condemned, not by revolutionary chiefs, nor by the
   rulers of Piedmont alone, but by the envoys of some of the
   leading powers of Europe speaking officially in the name of
   their respective sovereigns. It was in truth a great
   diplomatic victory for Italy. … No one in Europe was more
   thoroughly convinced than Napoleon III. that the discontent of
   Italy and the plots of a section of Italians had their origin
   in the despotism which annihilated all national life in the
   Peninsula with the single exception of Piedmont. He felt
   keenly, also, how false, was his own position at Rome. …
   France upheld the Pope as a temporal sovereign, but,
   nevertheless, the latter ruled in a manner which pleased
   Austria and which displeased France. … Count Cavour went
   privately to meet the French Emperor at Plombières in July,
   1858. During that interview it was arranged that France should
   ally herself actively with Piedmont against Austria. … The
   first public indication of the attitude taken up by France
   with regard to Austria and Italy was given on the 1st January,
   1859, when Napoleon III. received the diplomatic corps at the
   Tuileries. Addressing Baron Hubner, the Austrian Ambassador,
   the French Emperor said: 'I regret that the relations between
   us are bad; tell your sovereign, however, that my sentiments
   towards him are not changed.' … The ties which united France
   to Piedmont were strengthened by the marriage, in the end of
   January, 1859, of the Princess Clotilde, the eldest daughter
   of Victor Emmanuel, with Prince Napoleon, the first cousin of
   the French Emperor. … An agreement was made by which the
   Emperor Napoleon promised to give armed assistance to Piedmont
   if she were attacked by Austria. The result, in case the
   allies were successful, was to be the formation of a northern
   kingdom of Italy. … Both Austria and Piedmont increased
   their armaments and raised loans in preparation for war. Men
   of all ranks and conditions of life flocked to Turin from the
   other States of Italy to join the Piedmontese army, or enrol
   themselves among the volunteers of Garibaldi, who had hastened
   to offer his services to the king against Austria. …
   Meanwhile, diplomacy made continual efforts to avert war. …
   The idea of a European Congress was started. … Then came the
   proposition of a general disarmament by way of staying the
   warlike preparations, which were taking ever enlarged
   proportions. On the 18th April, 1859, the Cabinet of Turin
   agreed to the principle of disarmament at the special request
   of England and France, on the condition that Piedmont took her
   seat at the Congress. The Cabinet of Vienna had made no reply
   to this proposition. Then suddenly it addressed, on the 23rd
   April, an ultimatum to the Cabinet of Turin demanding the
   instant disarmament of Piedmont, to which a categorical reply
   was asked for within three days. At the expiration of the
   three days Count Cavour, who was delighted at this hasty step
   of his opponent, remitted to Baron Kellerberg, the Austrian
   envoy, a refusal to comply with the request made. War was now
   inevitable. Victor Emmanuel addressed a stirring proclamation
   to his army on the 27th April, and two days afterwards another
   to the people of his own kingdom and to the people of Italy.
   … On the 30th April some French troops arrived at Turin. On
   the 13th May Napoleon III. disembarked at Genoa. … Although
   the Austrian armies proceeded to cross the Ticino and invade
   the Piedmontese territory, they failed to make a decisive
   march on Turin. Had Count Giúlay, the Austrian commander, done
   so without hesitation, he might well have reached the capital
   of Piedmont before the French had arrived in sufficient force
   to enable the little Piedmontese army to arrest the invasion.
   As it was, the opportunity was lost never to occur again. In
   the first engagements at Montebello and Palestro [May 20, 30
   and 31] the advantage rested decidedly with the allies. … On
   the 4th June the French fought the battle of Magenta, which
   ended, though not without a hard struggle, in the defeat of
   the Austrians. On the 8th the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor
   Emmanuel entered Milan, where they were received with a
   welcome as sincere as it was enthusiastic. The rich Lombard
   capital hastened to recognise the king as its sovereign. While
   there he met in person, Garibaldi, who was in command of the
   volunteer corps, whose members had flocked from all parts of
   Italy to carry on under his command the war in the mountainous
   districts of the north against Austria. … The allied troops
   pursued their march onwards towards the River Mincio, upon
   whose banks two of the fortresses of the famous Quadrilateral
   are situated. On the 24th June they encountered the Austrian
   army at Solferino and San Martino. French, Piedmontese, and
   Austrians, fought with courage and determination. Nor was it
   until after ten or eleven hours of hard fighting that the
   allies forced their enemy to retreat and took possession of
   the positions he had occupied in the morning. While victory
   thus crowned the efforts of France and Piedmont in battle,
   events of no little importance were taking place in Italy.
   Ferdinand II. of Naples died on the 22nd May, just after he
   had received the news of the successes of the allies at
   Montebello and Palestro. He was succeeded by his son, Francis
   II. … Count Salmour was at once despatched by the
   Piedmontese Government … with the offer of a full and fair
   alliance between Turin and Naples. The offer was rejected.
   Francis determined to follow his father's example of
   absolutism at home while giving all his influence to Austria.
   Thus it was that the young Neapolitan king sowed, and as he
   sowed so he reaped. Leopold, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had in
   April refused the proffered alliance of Piedmont. … Finally
   he left Florence and took refuge in the Austrian camp. A
   provisional Government was formed, which placed the Tuscan
   forces at the disposal of Victor Emmanuel. This change was
   effected in a few hours without bloodshed or violence. The
   Duchess of Parma went away to Switzerland with her young son,
   Duke Robert. Francis Duke of Modena betook himself, with what
   treasures he had time to lay his hands on, to the more
   congenial atmosphere of the head-quarters of the Austrian
   army. … 'The deputations which hastened from Tuscany, Parma,
   and Modena, to offer their allegiance to Victor Emmanuel, were
   received without difficulty. It was agreed that their complete
   annexation should be deferred until after the conclusion of
   peace.
{1865}
   In the meanwhile the Piedmontese Government was to assume the
   responsibility of maintaining order and providing for military
   action. … The French and Piedmontese armies had won the
   battle of Solferino, and driven the enemy across the Mincio;
   their fleets were off the lagoons of Venice, and were even
   visible from the lofty Campanile of St. Mark. Italy was
   throbbing with a movement of national life daily gathering
   volume and force. Europe was impatiently expecting the next
   move. It took the unexpected form of an armistice, which the
   Emperor of the French proposed, on his sole responsibility, to
   the Emperor Francis Joseph on the 8th July. On the 12th the
   preliminaries of peace were signed at Villafranca. Victor
   Emmanuel was opposed to this act of his ally, but was unable
   to prevent it. The Italians were bitterly disappointed, and
   their anger was only too faithfully represented by Cavour
   himself. He hastened to the headquarters of the king,
   denounced in vehement language the whole proceeding, advised
   his majesty not to sign the armistice, not to accept Lombardy
   [see below], and to withdraw his troops from the Mincio to the
   Ticino. But Victor Emmanuel, though sympathising with the
   feelings of Italy and of his Minister, took a wiser and more
   judicious course than the one thus recommended. He accepted
   Cavour's resignation and signed the armistice, appending to
   his signature these words:—'J'accepte pour ce qui me
   concerne.' He reserved his liberty of action for the future
   and refused to pledge himself to anything more than a
   cessation of hostilities."

      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy from 1815 to 1890,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Bossoli,
      The War in Italy._

      _C. de Mazade,
      Life of Count Cavour,
      chapters 2-5._

      _C. Arrivabene,
      Italy under Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 1-13 (volume 1)._

      _C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,
      pages 271-340._

      _L. Kossuth,
      Memories of My Exile._

      _Countess E. M. Cesaresco,
      Italian Characters in the Epoch of Unification._

[Image: Two maps of Italy, A. D. 1815 to 1859, and 1861.]

ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
   The Treaty of Zurich and its practical negation.
   Annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia by Plebiscite.
   Revolution in Sicily and Naples.
   Garibaldi's great campaign of liberation.
   The Sardinian army in the Papal States.
   The new Kingdom of Italy proclaimed.

   "The treaty concluded at Zurich in November [1859] between the
   ambassadors of France, Austria, and Sardinia substantially
   ratified the preliminaries arranged at Villafranca. Lombardy
   passed to the king of Sardinia; Venetia was retained by
   Austria. The rulers of Modena and Parma were to be restored,
   the papal power again established in the Legations, while the
   various states of the peninsula, excepting Sardinia and the
   Two Sicilies, were to form a confederation under the
   leadership of the Pope. According to the terms of the treaty
   Lombardy was the only state directly benefited by the war. …
   The people of central Italy showed no inclination to resume
   the old régime. They maintained their position firmly and
   consistently, despite the decisions of the Zurich Congress,
   the advice of the French emperor, and the threatening attitude
   of Naples and Rome. … The year closed without definite
   action, leaving the provisional governments in control. In
   fact, matters were simply drifting, and it seemed imperative
   to take some vigorous measures to terminate so abnormal a
   condition of affairs. Finally the project of a European
   congress was suggested. There was but one opinion as to who
   should represent Italy in such an event. … Cavour …
   returned to the head of affairs in January. This event was
   simultaneous with the removal of M. Walewski at Paris and a
   change in the policy of the French government. The emperor no
   longer advised the central Italians to accept the return of
   their rulers. His influence at Rome was exercised to induce
   the Pope to allow his subjects in the Legations to have their
   will. … The scheme of a European congress was abandoned.
   With France at his back to neutralize Austria, Cavour had
   nothing to fear. … He suggested to the emperor that the
   central Italians be allowed to settle their fate by
   plebiscite. This method was to a certain extent a craze with
   the emperor, … and Cavour was not surprised at the
   affirmative reply he received to his proposal. The elections
   took place in March, and by an overwhelming majority the
   people of Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Legations declared
   for annexation to Sardinia. Austria protested, but could do no
   more in the face of England and France. Naples followed the
   Austrian example, while almost simultaneously with the news of
   the elections there arrived at Turin the papal excommunication
   for Victor Emmanuel and his subjects. On the 2d of April the
   king opened the new parliament and addressed himself to the
   representatives of 12,000,000 Italians. The natural enthusiasm
   attending the session was seriously dampened by the royal
   announcement that, subject to the approval of their citizens
   and the ratification of parliament, Nice and Savoy were to be
   returned to France. It was, in fact, the concluding
   installment of the price arranged at Plombières to be paid for
   the French troops in the campaign of the previous year. …
   General Garibaldi, who sat in the parliament for Nice, was
   especially prominent in the angry debates that followed. …
   When the transfer had been ratified he withdrew to a humble
   retreat in the island of Caprera. … But the excitement over
   the loss of Nice and Savoy was soon diminished by the
   startling intelligence which arrived of rebellion in the
   Neapolitan dominions. Naples was mutinous, while in Sicily,
   Palermo and Messina were in open revolt. Garibaldi's time had
   come. Leaving Caprera, he made for Piedmont, and hastily
   organized a band of volunteers to assist in the popular
   movement. On the night of May 6, with about a thousand
   enthusiastic spirits, he embarked from the coast near Genoa in
   two steamers and sailed for Sicily. Cavour in the mean time
   winked at this extraordinary performance. He dispatched
   Admiral Persano with a squadron ostensibly to intercept the
   expedition, but in reality 'to navigate between it and the
   hostile Neapolitan fleet.' On the 11th Garibaldi landed safely
   at Marsala under the sleepy guns of a Neapolitan man-of-war.
   On the 14th he was at Salemi, where he issued the following
   proclamation: 'Garibaldi, commander-in-chief of the national
   forces in Sicily, on the invitation of the principal citizens,
   and on the deliberation of the free communes of the island,
   considering that in times of war it is necessary that the
   civil and military powers should be united in one person,
   assumes in the name of Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, the
   Dictatorship in Sicily.'" On the 26th Garibaldi attacked
   Palermo; on the 6th of June he was in possession of the city
   and citadel; on the 25th of July Messina was surrendered to him.
{1866}
   "Perhaps the excitement at Turin during these days was second
   only to that which animated the great Sicilian cities. The
   guns of Bomba's fleet at Palermo were no more active than the
   diplomatic artillery which the courts of Central Europe
   trained upon the government at Turin. … Cavour's position at
   this time was a trying, delicate, and from some points of view
   a questionable one. He had publicly expressed regret for
   Garibaldi's expedition, while privately he encouraged it. …
   Cavour's desire to see Garibaldi in Calabria was changed, a
   little later. La Farina was at Palermo in behalf of the
   Sardinian government, to induce Garibaldi to consent to the
   immediate annexation of Sicily to the new Italian kingdom.
   This Garibaldi declined to do, preferring to wait until he
   could lay the entire Neapolitan realm and Rome as well at the
   feet of Victor Emmanuel. This altered the aspect of affairs.
   It was evident that Garibaldi was getting headstrong. It was
   Cavour's constant solicitude to keep the Italian question in
   such a shape as to allow no foreign power a pretext for
   interference. Garibaldi's design against Rome garrisoned by
   French troops would be almost certain to bring on foreign
   complications and ruin the cause of Italian unity." On the
   19th of August, Garibaldi crossed his army from Sicily to the
   mainland and advanced on Naples. "On the evening of September
   6 the king embarked on a Spanish ship, and leaving his
   mutinous navy at anchor in the bay, quit forever those
   beautiful shores which his race had too long defiled. On the
   morning of September 7 Garibaldi was at Salerno; before night
   he had reached Naples, and its teeming thousands had run mad.
   … The Neapolitan fleet went over en masse to Garibaldi, and
   by him was placed under the orders of the Sardinian admiral.
   The Garibaldian troops came swarming into the city, some by
   land and others by sea. … Francis II. had shut himself up in
   the fortress of Gaeta with the remnants of his army, holding
   the line of the Volturno. … At Turin the state of unrest
   continued. Garibaldi's presence at Naples was attended with
   grave perils. Of course his designs upon Rome formed the
   principal danger, but his conspicuous inability as an
   organizer was one of scarcely less gravity. … Sardinian
   troops had become a necessity of the situation. … There was
   no time to lose. There could be no difficulty in finding an
   excuse to enter papal territory. The inhabitants of Umbria and
   the Marches, who had never ceased to appeal for annexation to
   the new kingdom, were suppressed by an army of foreign
   mercenaries that the Pope had mustered beneath his banner. …
   Cavour had interceded in vain with the Vatican to alter its
   course toward its disaffected subjects. At last, on September
   7, the day Garibaldi entered Naples, he sent the royal
   ultimatum to Cardinal Antonelli at Rome. … On the 11th the
   unfavorable reply of Antonelli was received, and the same day
   the Sardinian troops crossed the papal frontier. … Every
   European power except England, which expressed open
   satisfaction, protested against this action. There was an
   imposing flight of ambassadors from Turin, and an ominous
   commotion all along the diplomatic horizon. Cavour had not
   moved, however, without a secret understanding with Napoleon.
   … The Sardinian army advanced rapidly in two columns.
   General Fanti seized Perugia and Spoleto, while Cialdini on
   the east of the Apennines utterly destroyed the main papal
   army under the French general Lamoricière at Castelfidardo
   [September 17]. Lamoricière with a few followers gained
   Ancona, but finding that town covered by the guns of the
   Sardinian fleet, he was compelled to surrender. 'The
   pontifical mercenary corps' became a thing of the past, Cavour
   could turn his whole attention to Naples. He had obtained from
   parliament an enthusiastic permission to receive, if tendered,
   the allegiance of the Two Sicilies. The army was ordered
   across the Neapolitan frontier, and the king left for Ancona
   to take command. In the mean time on October 1 Garibaldi had
   inflicted another severe defeat to the royal Neapolitan army
   on the Volturno. The Sardinian advance was wholly unimpeded.
   … On November 7 the king entered Naples, and on the
   following day was waited upon by a deputation to announce the
   result of the election that Garibaldi had previously decreed.
   'Sire,' said their spokesman, 'The Neapolitan people,
   assembled in Comitia, by an immense majority have proclaimed
   you their king.' … Then followed an event so sublime as to
   be without parallel in these times of selfish ambition.
   Garibaldi bade farewell to his faithful followers, and,
   refusing all rewards, passed again to his quiet home in
   Caprera. … The people of Umbria and the Marches followed the
   lead of Naples in declaring themselves subjects of Victor
   Emmanuel. Except for the patrimony of St. Peter surrounding
   the city of Rome and the Austrian province of Venetia, Italy
   was united under the tricolor. While Garibaldi returned to his
   humble life, Cavour went to Turin to resume his labors. … On
   the 18th of February, 1861, the first national parliament
   representing the north and south met at Turin. Five days
   before, the last stronghold of Francis II. had capitulated,
   and the enthusiasm ran high. The kingdom of Italy was
   proclaimed, and the king confirmed as 'Victor Emmanuel II., by
   the grace of God and the will of the nation King of Italy.'
   … The work was almost done. The scheme that a few years
   before would have provoked a smile in any diplomatic circle in
   Europe had been perfected almost to the capstone. But the man
   who had conceived the plan and carried it through its darkest
   days was, not destined to witness its final consummation.
   Cavour was giving way. On May 29 he was stricken down with a
   violent illness." On June 6 he died. "To Mazzini belongs the
   credit of keeping alive the spirit of patriotism; Garibaldi is
   entitled to the admiration of the world as the pure patriot
   who fired men's souls; but Cavour was greater than either, and
   Mazzini and Garibaldi were but humble instruments in his
   magnificent plan of Italian regeneration."

      _H. Murdock,
      The Reconstruction of Europe,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. de Mazade,
      Life of Count Cavour,
      chapters 5-7._

      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      3d period (volume 2)._

      _E. Dicey,
      Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 27-34._

      _E. About,
      The Roman Question._

      _The Chevalier O'Clery,
      The Making of Italy,
      chapters 7-12._

{1867}

ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
   The Roman question and the Venetian question.
   Impatience of the nation.
   Collision of Garibaldi with the government.
   Alliance with Prussia.
   War with Austria.
   Liberation and annexation of Venetia.

   "The new ministry was formed by Baron Ricasoli. … In the
   month of July, Russia and Prussia followed the example of
   England and France, and acknowledged Italian unity. … Baron
   Ricasoli only held office about nine months; not feeling equal
   to the difficulties he had to encounter, he resigned in March,
   1862, and Signor Ratazzi was empowered to form a new ministry.
   … The volunteer troops had become a source of serious
   embarrassment to the government. … It was found disagreeable
   and dangerous to have two standing armies under separate heads
   and a separate discipline, and it was proposed to amalgamate
   the Garibaldians with the royal troops. Endless disagreements
   arose out of this question. … As soon as this question was
   in a manner accommodated, a more serious one arose. The
   central provinces lost all patience in waiting so long for a
   peaceful solution of the Roman question. The leaders of the
   Young Italy party became more warlike in their language, and
   excited the peasantry to riotous proceedings, which the
   government had to put down forcibly, and this disagreeable
   fact helped to make the Ratazzi ministry unpopular.
   Garibaldi's name had been used as an incentive to those
   disturbances, and now the hot-headed general embarked for
   Sicily, to take the command of a troop who were bound for the
   Eternal City, resolved to cut with the sword the Gordian knot
   of the Roman question. The government used energetic measures
   to maintain its dignity, and not allow an irregular warfare to
   be carried on without its sanction. The times were difficult,
   no doubt, and the ministry had a hard road to tread. … The
   Garibaldians were already in the field, and having crossed
   from Sicily, were marching through Calabria with
   ever-increasing forces and the cry of 'Rome or death' on their
   lips. Victor Emmanuel had now no choice left him but to put
   down rebellion by force of arms. General Cialdini's painful
   duty it was to lead the royal troops on this occasion. He
   encountered the Garibaldians at Aspromonte, in Calabria, and
   on their refusing to surrender to the king, a fight ensued in
   which the volunteers were of course defeated, and their
   officers arrested. Garibaldi, with a ball in his foot, from
   the effects of which he has never recovered, was carried a
   state prisoner to Piedmont. … This unhappy episode was a
   bitter grief to Victor Emmanuel. … Aspromonte gave a final
   blow to the Ratazzi ministry. Never very popular, it was
   utterly shaken by the reaction in favour of Garibaldi. …
   After a good deal of worry and consultation, the king decided
   to call Luigi Carlo Farini to office. … Unhappily his health
   obliged him to retire very soon from public life, and he was
   succeeded by Minghetti. On the whole this first year without
   Cavour had been a very trying one to Victor Emmanuel. …
   Meantime the Roman question remained in abeyance—to the great
   detriment of the nation, for it kept Central and Southern
   Italy in a state of fermentation which the government could
   not long hold in check. The Bourbon intrigues at Rome,
   encouraging brigandage in the Two Sicilies, destroyed all
   security of life and property, and impeded foreigners from
   visiting the country. The Emperor of the French, occupying the
   false position of champion of Italian independence and
   protector of the temporal power of the Pope, would not do
   anything, nor let the Italian Government do anything, towards
   settling the momentous question. … Victor Emmanuel, who had
   his eye on Venice all the time, having a fixed impression that
   if it could be recovered he would find less difficulty in
   getting rid of the foreign occupation in Rome, now adopted
   energetic measures to bring about a settlement of this
   Venetian question, urging the English Government to use its
   influence with Austria to induce her to accept some compromise
   and surrender the Italian province peaceably. … Meantime the
   Italian Government continued to invite the French to withdraw
   their forces from the Roman States, and leave the Pope face to
   face with his own subjects without the aid of foreign
   bayonets. This the emperor, fearing to offend the papal party,
   could not make up his mind to do. But to make the road to Rome
   easier for the Italians, he proposed a transfer of the capital
   from Turin to some more southern town, Florence or Naples—he
   did not care which. The French minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
   said:—'Of course in the end you will go to Rome. But it is
   important that between our evacuation and your going there,
   such an interval of time and such a series of events should
   elapse as to prevent people establishing any connection
   between the two facts. France must not have any
   responsibility.' … The king accepted the conditions, which
   provided that the French were to evacuate Rome in two years,
   and fixed on Florence as the residence of the court. … On
   November 18, 1860, the first Parliament was opened in
   Florence. … The quarrel between Austria and Prussia [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866] was growing all this time, and Italy
   proposed an alliance defensive and offensive with the latter
   power. … The treaty was concluded April 8, 1866. When this
   fact became known, Austria, on the brink of war with Prussia,
   began to think that she must rid herself in some way of the
   worry of the Italians on her southern frontier, in order to be
   free to combat her powerful northern enemy. The cabinet of
   Vienna did not apply directly to the cabinet of Florence, but
   to that arbiter of the destinies of nations, Napoleon III.,
   proposing to cede Venetia on condition that the Italian
   government should detach itself from the Prussian alliance.
   … After an ineffectual attempt to accommodate matters by a
   congress, war was declared against Austria, on June 20, 1866,
   and La Marmora, having appointed Ricasoli as his deputy at the
   head of the council, led the army northwards. … Victor
   Emmanuel appointed his cousin regent, and carried his sons
   along with him to the seat of war. … The forces of Austria
   were led by the able and experienced commander, the Archduke
   Albert, who had distinguished himself at Novara. On the
   ill-omened field of Custozza, where the Italians had been
   defeated in 1849, the opposing armies met [June 24]; and both
   being in good condition, well disciplined and brave, there was
   fought a prolonged and bloody battle, in which the Italians
   were worsted, but not routed. … On July 20 the Italian navy
   suffered an overwhelming defeat at Lissa in the Adriatic, and
   these two great misfortunes plunged Victor Emmanuel into the
   deepest grief. He felt disabled from continuing the war: all
   the sacrifice of life had been in vain: national unity was as
   far off as ever. … Meantime the Prussian arms were
   everywhere victorious over Austria, and about ten days after
   the battle of Custozza it was announced in the Moniteur that
   Austria had asked the Emperor Napoleon's mediation, offering
   to cede him Venice, and that he was making over that province
   to the King of Italy.
{1868}
   Italy could not accept it without the consent of her ally
   Prussia; and while negotiations were going forward on the
   subject, the brief seven weeks' campaign was brought to a
   conclusion by the great victory of Sadowa, and on July 26 the
   preliminaries of peace were signed by the Austrian and
   Prussian plenipotentiaries. … Venice was restored to Italy
   by the Emperor of France, with the approval of Prussia. There
   was a sting in the thought that it was not wrung from the
   talons of the Austrian eagle by the valour of Italian arms,
   but by the force of diplomacy; still it was a delightful fact
   that Venice was free, with the tricolour waving on St. Mark's.
   The Italian soil was delivered from foreign occupation. … As
   soon as the treaty was signed at Vienna, October 2, the
   Venetian Assemblies unanimously elected Victor Emmanuel with
   acclamations, and begged for immediate annexation to the
   Kingdom of Italy. On November 4, in the city of Turin, Victor
   Emmanuel received the deputation which came to proffer him the
   homage of the inhabitants of Venetia. … On November 7 Victor
   Emmanuel made a solemn entry into the most beautiful, and,
   after Rome, the most interesting city of the Italian
   peninsula. … Hot upon the settlement of the Venetian
   question, came the discussion of that of Rome, which after the
   evacuation of the French troops [November, 1866] seemed more
   complicated than ever. The Catholic powers were now anxious to
   accommodate the quarrel between Italy and the Pope, and they
   offered to guarantee him his income and his independence if he
   would reconcile himself to the national will. But Pius IX. was
   immovable in his determination to oppose it to the last."

      _G. S. Godkin,
      Life of Victor Emmanuel II.,
      chapters 23-25 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy from 1815 to 1890,
      chapter 11._

      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      4th period, chapter 1 (volume 2),
      and volume 3, chapter 8._

ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.
   Settlement of the Roman question.
   Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.
   Rome in the possession of the king of Italy.

   Progress made by diplomacy in the settlement of the Roman
   question "was too slow for Garibaldi. He had once more fallen
   under the influence of the extreme republicans, and in 1867 he
   declared that he would delay no longer in planting the
   republican banner on the Vatican. Between these hot-headed and
   fanatical republicans on the one side, the Italian
   Ultramontanes on another, and the French Emperor on the third,
   the position of Victor Emmanuel was anything but enviable. In
   the autumn of 1867 Garibaldi was suddenly arrested by the
   Government, but released on condition that he would remain
   quietly at Caprera. But meanwhile the volunteers under Menotti
   Garibaldi (the great chief's son) had advanced into the Papal
   States. The old warrior was burning to be with them. On the
   14th of October he effected his escape from Caprera, and
   managed eventually to join his son in the Romagna. Together
   they advanced on Rome, and won, after tremendous fighting, the
   great victory at Monte Rotundo. Meanwhile an army of
   occupation sent by the Government from Florence had crossed
   the Roman frontier, and a French force had landed on the
   coast. Garibaldi's position was already critical, but his
   resolution was unbroken. 'The Government of Florence,' he
   said, in a proclamation to the volunteers, 'has invaded the
   Roman territory, already won by us with precious blood from
   the enemies of Italy; we ought to receive our brothers in arms
   with love, and aid them in driving out of Rome the mercenary
   sustainers of tyranny; but if base deeds, the continuation of
   the vile convention of September, in mean consort with
   Jesuitism, shall urge us to lay down our arms in obedience to
   the order of the 2d December, then will I let the world know
   that I alone, a Roman general, with full power, elected by the
   universal suffrage of the only legal Government in Rome, that
   of the republic, have the right to maintain myself in arms in
   this the territory subject to my jurisdiction; and then, if
   any of these my volunteers, champions of liberty and Italian
   unity, wish to have Rome as the capital of Italy, fulfilling
   the vote of parliament and the nation, they must not put down
   their arms until Italy shall have acquired liberty of
   conscience and worship, built upon the ruin of Jesuitism, and
   until the soldiers of tyrants shall be banished from our
   land.' The position taken up by Garibaldi is perfectly
   intelligible. Rome we must have, if possible, by legal
   process, in conjunction with the royal arms'; but if they will
   stand aside, even if they will oppose, none the less Rome must
   be annexed to Italy. Unfortunately Garibaldi had left out of
   account the French force despatched by Napoleon III. to defend
   the Temporal dominions of the Pope, a force which even at this
   moment was advancing to the attack. The two armies met near
   the little village of Mentana, ill matched in every respect.
   The volunteers, numerous indeed but ill disciplined and badly
   armed, brought together, held together simply by the magic of
   a name, the French, admirably disciplined, armed with the
   fatal chassepots, fighting the battle of their ancient Church.
   The Garibaldians were terribly defeated. Victor Emmanuel
   grieved bitterly, like a true, warm-hearted father for the
   fate of his misguided but generous-hearted sons. … To the
   Emperor of the French he wrote an ardent appeal begging him to
   break with the Clericals and put himself at the head of the
   Liberal party in Europe, at the same time warning him that the
   old feeling of gratitude towards the French in Italy had quite
   disappeared. 'The late events have suffocated every
   remembrance of gratitude in the heart of Italy. It is no
   longer in the power of the Government to maintain the alliance
   with France. The chassepot gun at Mentana has given it a
   mortal blow.' At the same time the rebels were visited with
   condign punishment. Garibaldi himself was arrested, but after
   a brief imprisonment at Varignano was permitted to retire once
   more to Caprera. A prisoner so big as Garibaldi is always an
   embarrassment to gaolers. But the last act in the great drama
   … was near at hand. In 1870 the Franco-German War broke out.
   The contest, involving as it did the most momentous
   consequences, was as brief as it was decisive. The French, of
   course, could no longer maintain their position as champions
   of the Temporal power. Once more, therefore, the King of Italy
   attempted, with all the earnestness and with all the
   tenderness at his command, to induce the Pope to come to terms
   and accept the position, at once dignified and independent,
   which the Italian Government was anxious to secure to him. …
{1869}
   But the Pope still unflinchingly adhered to the position he
   had taken up. … A feint of resistance was made, but on the
   20th of September (1870) the royal troops entered Rome, and
   the Tricolour was mounted on the palace of the Capitol. So
   soon as might be a plebiscite was taken. The numbers are
   significant—for the King, 40,788, for the Pope, 46. But
   though the work was thus accomplished in the autumn of 1870,
   it was not until 2d June 1871 that the King made his triumphal
   entry into the capital of Italy."

      _J. A. R. Marriott,
      The Makers of Modern Italy,
      pages 72-76._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      volume 3, chapters 8-9._

      _G. S. Godkin,
      Life of Victor Emmanuel,
      chapter 32 (volume 2)._

ITALY: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The tasks and burdens of the United Nation.
   Military and colonial ambitions.
   The Triple Alliance.

   "Italy now [In 1870] stood before the world as a nation of
   twenty-five million inhabitants, her frontiers well defined,
   her needs very evident. Nevertheless, if her national
   existence was to be more than a name, she must have discipline
   in self-government, and she must as quickly as possible
   acquire the tools and methods of the civilization prevailing
   among those nations into whose company her victories had
   raised her. Two thirds of her people lagged behind the Western
   world not only in material inventions, but in education and
   civic training. Railroads and telegraphs, the wider
   application of steam to industries, schools, courts, the
   police, had all to be provided, and provided quickly.
   Improvements which England and France had added gradually and
   paid for gradually, Italy had to organize and pay for in a few
   years. Hence a levying of heavy taxes, and exorbitant
   borrowing from the future in the public debt. Not only this,
   but ancient traditions, the memories of feuds between town and
   town, had to be obliterated; the people had to be made truly
   one people, so that Venetians, or Neapolitans, or Sicilians
   should each feel that they were first of all Italians.
   National uniformity must supplant provincial peculiarity;
   there must be one language, one code of laws, one common
   interest; in a word, the new nation must be Italianized. The
   ease and rapidity with which the Italians have progressed in
   all these respects have no parallel in modern times. Though
   immense the undertaking, they have, in performing it, revealed
   an adaptability to new conditions, a power of transformation
   which are among the most remarkable characteristics of their
   race, and the strongest proofs that ruin will not now engulf
   them. Only a race incapable of readjusting itself need
   despair. Happy had Italy been if, undistracted by temptation,
   she had pursued the plain course before her; still happy, had
   she resisted such temptation. But nations, like individuals,
   are not made all of one piece: they, too, acknowledge the
   better reason, but follow the worse; they, too, through pride
   or vanity or passion, often forfeit the winnings from years of
   toil. … Italy was recognized as a great power by her
   neighbors, and she willingly persuaded herself that it was her
   duty to do what they did. In this civilized age, the first
   requisite of a great power is a large standing army. … A
   large standing army being the first condition of ranking among
   the great powers, Italy set about preparing one. … Perhaps
   more than any other European nation she was excusable in
   desiring to show that her citizens could become soldiers, for
   she had been taunted time out of mind with her effeminacy, her
   cowardice. It might be argued, too, that she received a larger
   dividend in indirect compensation for her capital invested in
   the army than her neighbors received from theirs. Uniform
   military service helped to blot out provincial lines and to
   Italianize all sections; it also furnished rudimentary
   education to the vast body of illiterate conscripts. These
   ends might have been reached at far less cost by direct and
   natural means; but this fact should not lessen the credit due
   to the Italian military system for furthering them. Tradition,
   example, national sensitiveness, all conspired in this way to
   persuade Italy to saddle an immense army on her back. … One
   evidence of being a 'great power,' according to the political
   standard of the time, consists in ability to establish
   colonies, or at least a protectorate, in distant lands;
   therefore Italian Jingoes goaded their government on to plant
   the Italian flag in Africa. France was already mistress of
   Algiers; Spain held a lien on Morocco; Italy could accordingly
   do no less than spread her influence over Tunis. For a few
   years Italy complacently imagined that she was as good as her
   rivals in the possession of a foreign dependency. Then a
   sudden recrudescence of Jingoism in France caused the French
   to occupy Tunis. The Italians were very angry; but when they
   sounded the situation, they realized that it would be folly to
   go to war over it. … Not warned by this experience, Italy, a
   few years later, plunged yet more deeply into the uncertain
   policy of colonization. England and France having fallen out
   over the control of Egypt, then England, having virtually made
   the Khedive her vassal, suggested that it would be a very fine
   thing for Italy to establish a colony far down on the coast of
   the Red Sea, whence she could command the trade of Abyssinia.
   Italian Jingoes jumped at the suggestion, and for ten years
   the red-white-and-green flag has waved over Massaua. But the
   good that Italy has derived from this acquisition has yet to
   appear. … Equally slow have they been to learn that their
   partnership in the Triple Alliance [see TRIPLE ALLIANCE] has
   entailed upon them sacrifices out of all proportion to the
   benefits. To associate on apparently even terms with Germany
   and Austria was doubtless gratifying to national vanity, …
   but who can show that Italy has been more secure from attack
   since she entered that league than she was before? … For the
   sake … of a delusive honor,—the honor of posing as the
   partner of the arbiters of Europe,—Italy has, since 1882,
   seen her army and her debt increase, and her resources
   proportionately diminish. None of her ministers has had the
   courage to suggest quitting a ruinous policy; on the contrary,
   they have sought hither and thither to find means to
   perpetuate it without actually breaking the country's back.
   … Yet not on this account shall we despair of a country
   which, in spite of folly, has achieved much against great
   odds, and which has shown a wonderful capacity for sloughing
   off her past. Hardship itself, though it be the penalty of
   error, may, by restricting her ability to go astray, lead her
   back to the path of reason."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      Some Causes of the Italian Crisis
      (Atlantic, April, 1894)._

      See, also, IRREDENTISTS.

{1670}

ITHACA.

   One of the seven Ionian islands, small and unimportant, but
   interesting as being the Homeric island-kingdom of
   Ulysses—the principal scene of the story of the Odyssey. The
   island has been more or less explored, with a view to
   identifying the localities mentioned in the epic, by Sir
   William Gell, by Colonel Leake, and by Dr. Schliemann. Some
   account of the latter's work and its results is given in the
   introduction to his "Ilios."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 3, note I (volume 1)._

ITHOME.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 743-510;
      also, MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

ITOCOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

ITONOMOS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ITURBIDE, Empire of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

ITUZAINGO, Battle of (1827).

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

IUKA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

IVAN I.,
   Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1328-1340.

   Ivan II., Grand Prince of Moscow, 1352-1359.

   Ivan III. (called The Great), the first Czar of Muscovy, of
   Russia, 1462-1505.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

   Ivan IV. (called The Terrible), Czar of Russia, 1533-1584.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

   Ivan V., Czar of Russia, 1682-1689.

   Ivan VI., Czar of Russia, 1740-1741.

IVERNI, The.

   See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

IVRY, Battle of (1590).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

IVY LANE CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS, DR. JOHNSON'S.

J.

JACK CADE'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

JACK'S LAND.

      See NO MAN'S LAND (ENGLAND).

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Campaign against the Creek Indians.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Victory at New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Campaign in Florida.

         See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828, to 1837.

JACKSON, STONEWALL (General Thomas J.)
   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   First campaign in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   Second campaign in the Shenandoah.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
    A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   Peninsular campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   Last flank movement.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, Mississippi: A. D. 1863.
   Capture and recapture by the Union forces.
   Sack and ruin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);
      and (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

JACOBIN CLUBS.
JACOBINS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

JACOBITE CHURCH, The.

   The great religious dispute of the 5th century, concerning the
   single or the double nature of Christ, as God and as man,
   left, in the end, two extreme parties, the Monophysites and
   the Nestorians, exposed alike to the persecutions of the
   orthodox church, as established in its faith by the Council of
   Chalcedon, by the Roman Pope and by the emperors Justin and
   Justinian. The Monophysite party, strongest in Syria, was
   threatened with extinction; but a monk named James, or
   Jacobus, Baradæus—"Al Baradai," "the man in rags,"—imparted
   new life to it by his zeal and activity, and its members
   acquired from him the name of Jacobites. Amida (now Diarbekir)
   on the Tigris became the seat of the Jacobite patriarchs and
   remains so to this day. Abulpharagius, the oriental historian
   of the 13th century, was their most distinguished scholar, and
   held the office of Mafrian or vice-patriarch, so to speak, of
   the East. Their communities are mostly confined at present to
   the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and number less
   than 200,000 souls.

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

JACOBITES.

   After the revolution of 1688 in England, which expelled James
   II. from the throne, his partisans, who wished to restore him,
   were called Jacobites, an appellation derived from the Latin
   form of his name—Jacobus. The name adhered after James' death
   to the party which maintained the rights of his son and
   grandson, James Stuart and Charles Edward, the "Old
   Pretender" and the "Young Pretender," as they were
   respectively called.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

   The Jacobites rose twice in rebellion.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715;
      and 1745-1746.

JACQUERIE, The Insurrection of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

   ----------JAFFA: Start--------

JAFFA (ANCIENT JOPPA): A. D. 1196-1197.
   Taken and retaken by the German Crusaders.


      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

JAFFA: A. D. 1799.
   Capture by Bonaparte.
   Massacre of prisoners.
   Reported poisoning of the sick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

   ----------JAFFA: End--------

JAGELLONS, The dynasty of the.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

JAGIR.

   "A jagir [in India] is, literally, land given by a government
   as a reward for services rendered."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Lord Clive,
      page 123, foot-note._

JAHANGIR (Salim),
   Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1605-1627.

JAINISM.
JAINS.

      See INDIA: B. C. 312

JAITCHE, DEFENSE OF (1527).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.).

JALALÆAN ERA.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

{1871}

JALULA, Battle of.

   One of the battles in which the Arabs, under the first
   successors of Mahomet, conquered the Persian empire. Fought A.
   D. 637.

      G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

   ----------JAMAICA: Start--------

JAMAICA: A. D. 1494.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1509.
   Granted to Ojeda and Nicuesa.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655
   The English conquest and colonization.

   In the spring of 1655, having determined upon an alliance with
   France and war with Spain, Cromwell fitted out an expedition
   under admirals Venables and Pen, secretly commissioned to
   attack Cuba and St. Domingo. Frustrated in an attempt against
   the latter island, the expedition made a descent on the island
   of Jamaica with better success. "This great gain was yet held
   insufficient to balance the first defeat; and on the return of
   Pen and Venables they were both committed to the Tower. I may
   pause for an instant here to notice a sound example of
   Cromwell's far-seeing sagacity. Though men scouted in that day
   the acquisition of Jamaica, he saw its value in itself, and
   its importance in relation to future attempts on the continent
   of America. Exerting the inhuman power of a
   despot—occasionally, as hurricanes and other horrors,
   necessary for the purification of the world—he ordered his
   son Henry to seize on 1,000 young girls in Ireland and send
   them over to Jamaica, for the purpose of increasing population
   there. A year later, and while the Italian Sagredo was in
   London, he issued an order that all females of disorderly
   lives should be arrested and shipped for Barbadoes for the
   like purpose. Twelve hundred were accordingly sent in three
   ships."

      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Penn,
      Memorials of Sir Wm. Penn, Admiral,
      volume 2, page 124, and appendix H._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
   Development of the British colony.
   The Buccaneers.
   The Maroon wars.

   "Cromwell set himself to maintain and develop his new
   conquest. He issued a proclamation encouraging trade and
   settlement in the island by exemption from taxes. In order to
   'people and plant' it, he ordered an equal number of young men
   and women to be sent over from Ireland, he instructed the
   Scotch government to apprehend and transport the idle and
   vagrant, and he sent agents to the New England colonies and
   the other West Indian islands in order to attract settlers.
   After the first three or four years this policy of encouraging
   emigration, continued in spite of the Protector's death, bore
   due fruit, and Jamaica became to a singular extent a
   receptacle for the most varied types of settlers, for freemen
   as well as for political offenders or criminals from Newgate,
   and for immigrants from the colonies as well as from the
   mother country. … The death of Cromwell brought over
   adherents of the Parliamentary party, ill content with the
   restoration of the Stuarts; the evacuation of Surinam in
   favour of the Dutch brought in a contingent of planters in
   1675; the survivors of the ill-fated Scotch colony at Darien
   came over in 1699; and the Rye House Plot, Sedgmoor, and the
   risings of 1715 and 1745 all contributed to the population of
   the island. Most of all, however, the buccaneers made Jamaica
   great and prosperous. … Situated as the island was, well
   inside the ring of the Spanish possessions, the English
   occupation of Jamaica was a godsend to the buccaneers, while
   their privateering trade was exactly suited to the restless
   soldiers who formed the large bulk of the early colonists. So
   Port Royal became in a few years a great emporium of
   ill-gotten wealth, and the man who sacked Panama became Sir
   Henry Morgan, Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica. … In 1661
   Charles II. sanctioned the beginnings of civil government. …
   Municipal institutions were introduced, judges and magistrates
   were appointed, land grants were issued, and the island began
   to take the form and substance of an English colony. The
   constitution thenceforward consisted of a Governor, a
   nominated Council, and an elected Assembly; and the first
   Assembly, consisting of 30 persons, met in January, 1664. …
   It was not long before the representative body began to assert
   its independence by opposition to the Crown, and in 1678 the
   Home government invited conflict by trying to apply to Jamaica
   the system which had been introduced into Ireland by the
   notorious Poynings' law. Under this system no Assembly could
   be summoned for legislative purposes except under special
   directions from home, and its functions would have been
   limited to registering consent to laws which had already been
   put into approved shape in England." Conflict over this,
   attempt to deal with Jamaica as "a conquered and tributary
   dependency" did not end until 1728, when the colonists bought
   relief from it by settling on the Crown an "irrevocable
   revenue" of £8,000 per annum. "About the time when the
   constitutional difficulty was settled, the Maroon question was
   pressing itself more and more upon the attention of the
   colonial government. The penalty which Jamaica paid for being
   a large and mountainous island was, that it harboured in its
   forests and ravines a body of men who, throughout its history
   down to the present century, were a source of anxiety and
   danger. The original Maroons, or mountaineers, for that is the
   real meaning of the term, were … the slaves of Spaniards who
   retreated into the interior when the English took the island,
   and sallied out from time to time to harass the invaders and
   cut off stragglers and detached parties. … Maroon or Maron
   is an abbreviation of Cimaron, and is derived from the Spanish
   or Portuguese 'Cima,' or mountain top. Skeat points out that
   the word is probably of Portuguese origin, the 'C' having been
   pronounced as 'S.' Benzoni (edited by the Hakluyt Society),
   who wrote about 1565, speaks of 'Cimaroui' as being the
   Spanish name for outlawed slaves in Hispaniola. … It is
   probable that the danger would have been greater if the
   outlaws had been a united band, but there were divisions of
   race and origin among them. The Maroons proper, the slaves of
   the Spaniards and their descendants, were mainly in the east
   of the island among the Blue Mountains, while the mountains of
   the central district were the refuge of runaways from English
   masters, including Africans of different races, as well as
   Madagascars or Malays. Towards the end of the seventeenth
   century the newer fugitives had found in a negro named Cudjoe
   an able and determined leader, and thenceforward the
   resistance to the government became more organised and
   systematic. …
{1872}
   Finally, in 1738, Governor Trelawny made overtures of peace to
   the rebels, which were accepted. … By this treaty the
   freedom of the negroes was guaranteed, special reserves were
   assigned to them, they were left under the rule of their own
   captains assisted by white superintendents, but were bound
   over to help the government against foreign invasion from
   without and slave rebellions from within. A similar treaty was
   made with the eastern Maroons, and the whole of these blacks,
   some 600 in number, were established in five settlements. …
   Under these conditions the Maroons gave little trouble till
   the end of the 18th century. … The last Maroon war occurred
   in 1795." When the insurgent Maroons surrendered, the next
   year, they were, in violation of the terms made with them,
   transported to Nova Scotia, and afterwards to the warmer
   climate of Sierra Leone. "Thus ended the last Maroon
   rebellion; but … it affected only one section of these negro
   freemen, and even their descendants returned in many cases to
   Jamaica at a later date."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, section 2, chapter 3, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Bridges,
      Annals of Jamaica,
      volume 1, and volume 2, chapters 1-16._

      _R. C. Dallas,
      History of the Maroons._

JAMAICA: A. D. 1689-1762.
   The English slave trade.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.
   Destructive Earthquake.

   "An earthquake of terrible violence laid waste in less than
   three minutes the flourishing colony of Jamaica. Whole
   plantations changed their place. Whole villages were swallowed
   up. Port Royal, the fairest and wealthiest city which the
   English had yet built in the New World, renowned for its
   quays, for its warehouses, and for its stately streets, which
   were said to rival Cheapside, was turned into a mass of ruins.
   Fifteen hundred of the inhabitants were buried under their own
   dwellings."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 19 (volume 4)._

JAMAICA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.
   Governor Eyre's suppression of Insurrection.

   In October, 1865, there occurred an insurrection among the
   colored people of one district of Jamaica, the suppression of
   which throws "a not altogether pleasant light upon English
   methods, when applied to the government of a subject race. …
   The disturbances were confined to the district and parish of
   St. Thomas in the East. There were local grievances arising
   from a dispute between Mr. Gordon, a native [colored]
   proprietor, and Baron Ketelholdt, the custos of the parish.
   Mr. Gordon, a dissenter, and apparently a reformer of abuses
   and unpopular among his fellows, had been deprived of his
   place among the magistrates, and prevented from filling the
   office of churchwarden to which he was elected. The expenses
   of the suits against him had been defrayed from the public
   purse. The native Baptists, the sect to which he belonged,
   were angry with what they regarded as at once an act of
   persecution and a misappropriation of the public money.
   Indignation meetings had been held. … Behind this quarrel,
   which would not of itself have produced much result, there lay
   more general grievances. … There was a real grievance in the
   difficulty of obtaining redress through law administered
   entirely by landlords; and as a natural consequence there had
   grown up a strong mistrust of the law itself, and a complete
   alienation between the employer and the employed. To this was
   added a feeling on the part of the class above the ordinary
   labourer, known as the free settlers, that they were unduly
   rented, and obliged to pay rent for land which they should
   have held free; and there was a very general though vague
   expectation that in some way or other the occupiers would be
   freed from the payment of rent. The insurrection broke out in
   October;" a small riot, at first, at Morant Bay, in which a
   policeman was beaten; then an attempt to arrest one of the
   alleged rioters, a colored preacher, Paul Bogle by name, and a
   formidable resistance to the attempt by 400 of his friends.
   "On the next day, when the Magistrates and Vestry were
   assembled in the Court-House at Morant Bay, a crowd of
   insurgents made their appearance, the volunteers were called
   out, and the Riot Act read; and after a skirmish the
   Court-House was taken and burnt, 18 of the defenders killed
   and 30 wounded. The jail was broken open and several stores
   sacked. There was some evidence that the rising was
   premeditated, and that a good deal of drilling had been going
   on among the blacks under the command of Bogle. From Morant
   Bay armed parties of the insurgents passed inland through the
   country attacking the plantations, driving the inhabitants to
   take refuge in the bush, and putting some of the whites to
   death. The Governor of the Island at the time was Mr. Eyre
   [former explorer of Australia]. He at once summoned his Privy
   Council, and with their advice declared martial law over the
   county of Surrey, With the exception of the town of Kingston.
   Bodies of troops were also at once despatched to surround the
   insurgent district. … 439 persons fell victims to summary
   punishment, and not less than 1,000 dwellings were burnt;
   besides which, it would appear that at least 600 men and women
   were subjected to flogging, in some instances with
   circumstances of unusual cruelty. But the event which chiefly
   fixed the attention of the public in England was the summary
   conviction and execution of Mr. Gordon. He was undoubtedly a
   troublesome person, and there were circumstances raising a
   suspicion that he possessed a guilty knowledge of the intended
   insurrection. They were however far too slight to have secured
   his conviction before a Court of Law. But Governor Eyre caused
   him to be arrested in Kingston, where martial law did not
   exist, hurried on board ship and carried to Morant Bay, within
   the proclaimed district. He was there tried by a
   court-martial, consisting of three young officers," was
   sentenced to death, and immediately hanged.

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England: period 4,
      pages 413-415._

   "When the story reached England, in clear and trustworthy
   form, two antagonistic parties were instantly formed. The
   extreme on the one side glorified Governor Eyre, and held that
   by his prompt action he had saved the white population of
   Jamaica from all the horrors of triumphant negro insurrection.
   The extreme on the other side denounced him as a mere fiend.
   The majority on both sides were more reasonable; but the
   difference between them was only less wide. An association
   called the Jamaica Committee was formed for the avowed purpose
   of seeing that justice was done. It comprised some of the most
   illustrious Englishmen. …
{1873}
   Another association was founded, on the opposite side, for the
   purpose of sustaining Governor Eyre; and it must be owned that
   it too had great names. Mr. Mill may be said to have led the
   one side, and Mr. Carlyle the other. The natural bent of each
   man's genius and temper turned him to the side of the Jamaica
   negroes, or of the Jamaica Governor. Mr. Tennyson, Mr.
   Kingsley, Mr. Ruskin, followed Mr. Carlyle; we know now that
   Mr. Dickens was of the same way of thinking. Mr. Herbert
   Spencer, Professor Huxley, Mr. Goldwin Smith, were in
   agreement with Mr. Mill. … No one needs to be told that Mr.
   Bright took the side of the oppressed, and Mr. Disraeli that
   of authority." A Commission of Inquiry sent out to investigate
   the whole matter, reported in April, 1866, commending the
   vigorous promptitude with which Governor Eyre had dealt with
   the disturbances at the beginning, but condemning the
   brutalities which followed, under cover of martial law, and
   especially the infamous execution of Gordon. The Jamaica
   Committee made repeated efforts to bring Governor Eyre's
   conduct to judicial trial; but without success. "The bills of
   indictment never got beyond the grand jury stage. The grand
   jury always threw them out. On one memorable occasion the
   attempt gave the Lord Chief Justice [Cockburn] of England an
   opportunity of delivering … to the grand jury … a charge
   entitled to the rank of a historical declaration of the law of
   England, and the limits of the military power even in cases of
   insurrection."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 49 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Smith,
      Life and Speeches of John Bright,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      _W. F. Finlason,
      History of the Jamaica Case._

   ----------JAMAICA: End----------

JAMES I.,
   King of Aragon, A. D. 1213-1276.

   James I., King of England, A. D. 1603-1625
   (he being, also, James VI., King of Scotland, 1567-1625).

   James I., King of Scotland, 1406-1437.

   James II., King of Aragon, 1291-1327;
   King of Sicily, 1285-1295.

   James II:, King of England, 1685-1689.

   James II., King of Scotland, 1437-1460.

   James III., King of Scotland, 1460-1488.

   James IV., King of Scotland, 1488-1513.

   James V., King of Scotland, 1513-1542.

JAMES ISLAND, Battle on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

JAMESTOWN, Virginia: A. D. 1607-1610.
   The founding of the colony.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607; and 1607-1610.

JAMNIA, Battle of.

   A defeat by Gorgias, the Syrian general, of part of the army
   of Judas Maccabæus which he left under his generals Joseph and
   Azarius, B. C. 164.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12, chapter 8._

JAMNIA, The School of.

   A famous school of Jewish theology, established by Jochanan,
   who escaped from Jerusalem during the siege by Titus.

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 2, page 327._

JANICULUM, The.

      See LATIUM, and VATICAN.

JANISSARIES, Creation and destruction of the.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359; and 1826.

JANKOWITZ, Battle of (1645).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

JANSENISTS, The.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

JANUS, The Temple of.

      See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

   ----------JAPAN: Start----------

JAPAN:
   Sketch of history to 1869.

   "To the eye of the critical investigator, Japanese history,
   properly so-called, opens only in the latter part of the 5th
   or the beginning of the 6th century after Christ, when the
   gradual spread of Chinese culture, filtering in through Korea,
   had sufficiently dispelled the gloom of original barbarism to
   allow of the keeping of records. The whole question of the
   credibility of the early history of Japan has been carefully
   gone into during the last ten years by Aston and others, with
   the result that the first date pronounced trustworthy is A. D.
   461, and it is discovered that even the annals of the 6th
   century are to be received with caution. We have ourselves no
   doubt of the justice of this negative criticism, and can only
   stand in amazement at the simplicity of most European writers,
   who have accepted without sifting them the uncritical
   statements of the Japanese annalists. … Japanese art and
   literature contain frequent allusions to the early history
   (so-called) of the country … as preserved in the works
   entitled Kojiki and Nihongi, both dating from the 8th century
   after Christ. … We include the mythology under the same
   heading, for the reason that it is absolutely impossible to
   separate the two. Why, indeed, attempt to do so, where both
   are equally fabulous? … Arrived at A. D. 600, we stand on
   terra firma. … About that time occurred the greatest event
   of Japanese history, the conversion of the nation to Buddhism
   (approximately A. D. 552-621). So far as can be gathered from
   the accounts of the early Chinese travellers, Chinese
   civilisation had slowly—very slowly—been gaining ground in
   the archipelago ever since the 3rd century after Christ. But
   when the Buddhist missionaries crossed the water, all Chinese
   institutions followed them and came in with a rush.
   Mathematical instruments and calendars were introduced; books
   began to be written (the earliest that has survived, and
   indeed nearly the earliest of all, is the already mentioned
   Kojiki, dating from A. D. 712); the custom of abdicating the
   throne in order to spend old age in prayer was adopted—a
   custom which, more than anything else, led to the effacement
   of the Mikado's authority during the Middle Ages. Sweeping
   changes in political arrangements began to be made in the year
   645, and before the end of the 8th century, the government had
   been entirely remodelled on the Chinese centralised
   bureaucratic plan, with a regular system of ministers
   responsible to the sovereign, who, as 'Son of Heaven,' was
   theoretically absolute. In practice this absolutism lasted but
   a short time, because the entourage and mode of life of the
   Mikados were not such as to make of them able rulers. They
   passed their time surrounded only by women and priests,
   oscillating between indolence and debauchery, between
   poetastering and gorgeous temple services. This was the
   brilliant age of Japanese classical literature, which lived
   and moved and had its being in the atmosphere of an effeminate
   court. The Fujiwara family engrossed the power of the state
   during this early epoch (A. D. 670-1050). While their sons
   held all the great posts of government, the daughters were
   married to puppet emperors. The next change resulted from the
   impatience of the always manly and warlike Japanese gentry at
   the sight of this sort of petticoat government.
{1874}
   The great clans of Taira and Minamoto arose, and struggled for
   and alternately held the reins of power during the second half
   of the 11th and the whole of the 12th century. … By the
   final overthrow of the Taira family at the sea fight of
   Dan-no-Ura in A. D. 1185, Yoritomo, the chief of the
   Minamotos, rose to supreme power, and obtained from the Court
   at Kyoto the title of Shogun [converted by western tongues
   into Tycoon], literally 'Generalissimo,' which had till then
   been applied in its proper meaning to those generals who were
   sent from time to time to subdue the Ainos or rebellious
   provincials, but which thenceforth took to itself a special
   sense, somewhat as the word Imperator (also meaning originally
   'general') did in Rome. The coincidence is striking. So is the
   contrast. For, as Imperial Rome never ceased to be
   theoretically a republic, Japan contrariwise, though
   practically and indeed avowedly ruled by the Shoguns from A.
   D. 1190 to 1867, always retained the Mikado as theoretical
   head of the state, descendant of the Sun-Goddess, fountain of
   all honour. There never were two emperors, acknowledged as
   such, one spiritual and one secular, as has been so often
   asserted by European writers. There never was but one
   emperor—an emperor powerless it is true, seen only by the
   women who attended him, often a mere infant in arms, who was
   discarded on reaching adolescence for another infant in arms.
   Still, he was the theoretical head of the state, whose
   authority was merely delegated to the Shogun as, so to say,
   Mayor of the Palace. By a curious parallelism of destiny, the
   Shogunate itself more than once showed signs of fading away
   from substance into shadow. Yoritomo's descendants did not
   prove worthy of him, and for more than a century (A. D.
   1205-1333) the real authority was wielded by the so-called
   'Regents' of the Hojo family. … Their rule was made
   memorable by the repulse of the Mongol fleet sent by Kublai
   Khan with the purpose of adding Japan to his gigantic
   dominions. This was at the end of the 13th century, since
   which time Japan has never been attacked from without. During
   the 14th century, even the dowager-like calm of the Court of
   Kyoto was broken by internecine strife. Two branches of the
   Imperial house, supported each by different feudal chiefs,
   disputed the crown. One was called the Hokucho, or 'Northern
   Court,' the other the Nancho, or 'Southern Court.' After
   lasting some sixty years, this contest terminated in A. D.
   1392 by the triumph of the Northern dynasty, whose cause the
   powerful Ashikaga family had espoused. From 1338 to 1565, the
   Ashikagas ruled Japan as Shoguns. … Meanwhile Japan had been
   discovered by the Portuguese (A. D. 1542); and the imprudent
   conduct of the Portuguese and Spanish friars (bateren, as they
   were called—a corruption of the word padre) made of the
   Christian religion an additional source of discord. Japan fell
   into utter anarchy. Each baron in his fastness was a law unto
   himself. Then, in the latter half of the 16th century, there
   arose successively three great men—Ota Nobunaga, the Taiko
   Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. The first of these conceived
   the idea of centralising all the authority of the state in a
   single person; the second, Hideyoshi, who has been called the
   Napoleon of Japan, actually put the idea into practice, and
   joined the conquest of Korea (A. D. 1592-1598) to his domestic
   triumphs. Death overtook him in 1598, while he was revolving
   no less a scheme than the conquest of China. Ieyasu, setting
   Hideyoshi's youthful son aside, stepped into the vacant place.
   An able general, unsurpassed as a diplomat and administrator,
   he first quelled all the turbulent barons, then bestowed a
   considerable portion of their lands on his own kinsmen and
   dependents, and either broke or balanced, by a judicious
   distribution of other fiefs over different provinces of the
   Empire, the might of those greater feudal lords, such as
   Satsuma and Choshu, whom it was impossible to put altogether
   out of the way. The Court of Kyoto was treated by him
   respectfully, and investiture as Shogun for himself and his
   heirs duly obtained from the Mikado. In order further to break
   the might of the daimyos, Ieyasu compelled them to live at
   Yedo, which he had chosen for his capital in 1590, during six
   months of the year, and to leave their wives and families
   there as hostages during the other half. What Ieyasu sketched
   out, the third Shogun of his line, Iemitsu, perfected. From
   that time forward, 'Old Japan,' as we know it from the Dutch
   accounts, from art, from the stage, was crystallised for two
   hundred and fifty years. … Unchangeable to the outward eye
   of contemporaries, Japan had not passed a hundred years under
   the Tokugawa régime before the seeds of the disease which
   finally killed that regime were sown. Strangely enough, the
   instrument of destruction was historical research. Ieyasu
   himself had been a great patron of literature. His grandson,
   the second Prince of Mito, inherited his taste. Under the
   auspices of this Japanese Maecenas, a school of literati arose
   to whom the antiquities of their country were all in
   all—Japanese poetry and romance as against the Chinese
   Classics; the native religion, Shinto, as against the foreign
   religion, Buddhism; hence, by an inevitable extension, the
   ancient legitimate dynasty of the Mikados, as against the
   upstart Shoguns. … When Commodore Perry came with his big
   guns (A. D. 1853-4), he found a government already tottering
   to its fall, many who cared little for the Mikado's abstract
   rights, caring a great deal for the chance of aggrandising
   their own families at the Shogun's expense. The Shogun yielded
   to the demands of Perry and of the representatives of the
   other foreign powers—England, France, Russia—who followed in
   Perry's train, and consented to open Yokohama, Hakodate, and
   certain other ports to foreign trade and residence (1857-9).
   He even sent embassies to the United States and to Europe in
   1860 and 1861. The knowledge of the outer world possessed by
   the Court of Yedo, though not extensive, was sufficient to
   assure the Shogun and his advisers that it was vain to refuse
   what the Western powers claimed. The Court of Kyoto had had no
   means of acquiring even this modicum of worldly wisdom.
   According to its view, Japan, 'the land of the gods,' should
   never be polluted by outsiders, the ports should be closed
   again, and the 'barbarians' expelled at any hazard. What
   specially tended to complicate matters at this crisis was the
   independent action of certain daimyos. One of them, the Prince
   of Choshu, acting, as is believed, under secret instructions
   from the Court of Kyoto, fired on ships belonging to Great
   Britain, France, Holland, and the United States—this, too, at
   the very moment (1863) when the Shogun's government … was
   doing its utmost to effect by diplomacy the departure of the
   foreigners whom it had been driven to admit a few years before.
{1875}
   The consequence of this act was what is called 'the
   Shimonoseki Affair,' namely, the bombardment of Shimonoseki,
   Choshu's chief sea-port, by the combined fleets of the powers
   that had been insulted, and the exaction of an indemnity of
   $3,000,000. Though doubtless no feather, this broke the
   Shogunate's back. The Shogun Iemochi attempted to punish
   Choshu for the humiliation which he had brought on Japan, but
   failed, was himself defeated by the latter's troops, and died.
   Hitotsubashi, the last of his line, succeeded him. But the
   Court of Kyoto, prompted by the great daimyos of Choshu and
   Satsuma, suddenly decided on the abolition of the Shogunate.
   The Shogun submitted to the decree, and those of his followers
   who did not were routed—first at Fushimi near Kyoto (17th
   January, 1868), then at Ueno in Yedo (4th July, 1868), then in
   Aizu (6th November, 1868), and lastly at Hakodate (27th June,
   1869), where some of them had endeavoured to set up an
   independent republic. The government of the country was
   reorganised during 1867-8, nominally on the basis of a pure
   absolutism, with the Mikado as sole wielder of all authority
   both legislative and executive. Thus the literary party had
   triumphed. All their dreams were realised. They were
   henceforth to have Japan for the Japanese. … From this dream
   they were soon roughly wakened. The shrewd clansmen of Satsuma
   find Choshu, who had humoured the ignorance of the Court and
   the fads of the scholars only as long as their common enemy,
   the Shogunate, remained in existence, now turned round, and
   declared in favour, not merely of foreign intercourse, but of
   the Europeanisation of their own country. History has never
   witnessed a more sudden 'volte-face.' History has never
   witnessed a wiser one."

      _B. H. Chamberlain,
      Things Japanese,
      pages 143-160._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. O. Adams,
      History of Japan._

      _Sir E. J. Reed,
      Japan,
      volume 1, chapters 2-16_.

      _W. E. Griffis,
      The Mikado's Empire,
      book 1._

      _R. Hildreth,
      Japan, as it was and is._

JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.
   Jesuit Missions.
   The Century of Christianity.
   Its introduction and extirpation

   Francis Xavier, "the Apostle of the Indies, was both the
   leader and director of a widely spread missionary movement,
   conducted by a rapidly increasing staff, not only of Jesuits,
   but also of priests and missionaries of other orders, as well
   as of native preachers and catechists. Xavier reserved for
   himself the arduous task of travelling to regions as yet
   unvisited by any preachers of Christianity; and his bold and
   impatient imagination was carried away by the idea of bearing
   the Cross to the countries of the farthest East. The islands
   of Japan, already known to Europe through the travels of Marco
   Polo, had been reached by the Portuguese only eight years
   before, namely, in 1541, and Xavier, while at Malacca, had
   conversed with navigators and traders who had visited that
   remote coast. A Japanese, named Angero (Hansiro), pursued for
   homicide, had fled to Malacca in a Portuguese ship. He
   professed a real or feigned desire to be baptized, and was
   presented to Xavier at Malacca, who sent him to Goa. There he
   learned Portuguese quickly, and was baptized under the name of
   Paul of the Holy Faith. … Having carefully arranged the
   affairs of the Seminary of the Holy Faith at Goa and the
   entire machinery of the mission, Francis Xavier took ship for
   Malacca on the 14th April, 1549. On the 24th of June he sailed
   for Japan, along with Angero and his two companions, in a
   Chinese junk belonging to a famous pirate, an ally of the
   Portuguese, who left in their hands hostages for the safety of
   the apostle on the voyage. After a dangerous voyage they
   reached Kagosima, the native town of Angero, under whose
   auspices Xavier was well received by the governor,
   magistrates, and other distinguished people. The apostle was
   unable to commence his mission at once, though, according to
   his biographers, he possessed the gift of tongues. 'We are
   here,' he writes, 'like so many statues. They speak to us, and
   make signs to us, and we remain mute. We have again become
   children, and all our present occupation is to learn the
   elements of the Japanese grammar.' His first impressions of
   Japan were very favourable. … Xavier left Japan on the 20th
   November, 1551, after a stay of two years and four months. In
   his controversies with the Japanese, Xavier had been
   continually met with the objection—how could the Scripture
   history be true when it had escaped the notice of the learned
   men of China? It was Chinese sages who had taught philosophy
   and history to the Japanese, and Chinese missionaries who had
   converted them to Buddhism. To China, then, would he go to
   strike a blow at the root of that mighty superstition.
   Accordingly he sailed from Goa about the middle of April,
   1552. … Being a prey to continual anxiety to reach the new
   scene of his labours, Xavier fell ill, apparently of remittent
   fever, and died on the 2nd of December, 1552. … The result
   of Xavier's labours was the formation of a mission which, from
   Goa as a centre, radiated over much of the coast of Asia from
   Ormuz to Japan. … The two missionaries, whom Xavier had left
   at Japan, were soon after joined by three others: and in 1556
   they were visited by the Provincial of the Order in the
   Indies, Melchior Nunez, who paid much attention to the
   Japanese mission and selected for it the best missionaries, as
   Xavier had recommended. … The Jesuits attached themselves to
   the fortunes of the King of Bungo, a restless and ambitious
   prince, who in the end added four little kingdoms to his own,
   and thus became master of a large part of the island of
   Kiusiu. In his dominions Christianity made such progress that
   the number of converts began to be counted by thousands. …
   The missionaries perseveringly sought to spread their religion
   by preaching, public discussion, the circulation of
   controversial writings, the instruction of the youth, the
   casting out of devils, the performance of those mystery plays
   so common in that age, by the institution of 'confréries' like
   those of Avignon, and, above all, by the well-timed
   administration of alms. Nor need we be surprised to learn that
   their first converts were principally the blind, the infirm,
   and old men one foot in the grave. There are, however, many
   proofs in their letters that they were able both to attract
   proselytes of a better class and to inspire them with an
   enthusiasm which promised well for the growth of the mission.
   In those early days the example of Xavier was still fresh; and
   his immediate successors seem to have inherited his energetic
   and self-denying disposition, though none of them could equal
   the great mental and moral qualities of the Apostle of the
   Indies. They kept at the same time a watchful eye upon the
   political events that were going on around them, and soon
   began to bear a part in them. The hostility between them and
   the Bonzes became more and more bitter."

      _The Hundred Years of Christianity in Japan
      (Quarterly Review, April, 1871)._

{1876}

   "In several of the provinces of Kyushu the princes had become
   converts and had freely used their influence, and sometimes
   their authority, to extend Christianity among their subjects.
   In Kyoto and Yamaguchi, in Osaka and Sakai, as well as in
   Kyusbu, the Jesuit fathers had founded flourishing churches
   and exerted a wide influence. They had established colleges
   where the candidates for the church could be educated and
   trained. They had organized hospitals and asylums at Nagasaki
   and elsewhere, where those needing aid could be received and
   treated. It is true hat the progress of the work had met with
   a severe setback in A. D. 1587, when Taiko Sam a issued an
   edict expelling all foreign religious teachers from Japan. In
   pursuance of this edict nine foreigners who had evaded
   expulsion were burnt at Nagasaki. The reason for this decisive
   action on the part of Taiko Sama is usually attributed to the
   suspicion which had been awakened in him by the loose and
   unguarded talk of a Portuguese sea captain. But other causes
   undoubtedly contributed to produce in him this intolerant
   frame of mind. … In several of the provinces of Japan where
   the Jesuits had attained the ascendancy, the most forcible
   measures had been taken by the Christian princes to compel all
   their subjects to follow their own example and adopt the
   Christian faith. Takeyama, whom the Jesuit fathers designate
   as Justo Ucondono, carried out in his territory at Akashi a
   system of bitter persecution. He gave his subjects the option
   of becoming Christians or leaving his territory. Konishi
   Yukinaga, who received part of the province of Higo as his
   fief after the Korean war, enforced with great persistency the
   acceptance of the Christian faith, and robbed the Buddhist
   priests of their temples and their lands. The princes of Omura
   and Arima, and to a certain extent the princes of Bungo,
   followed the advice of the Jesuit fathers in using their
   authority to advance the cause of Christianity. The fathers
   could scarcely complain of having the system of intolerance
   practised upon them, which, when circumstances were favorable,
   they had advised to be applied to their opponents. … During
   the first years of Ieyasu's supremacy the Christians were not
   disturbed. … He issued in 1606 what may be called a warning
   proclamation, announcing that he had learned with pain that,
   contrary to Taiko Sama's edict, many had embraced the
   Christian religion. He warned all officers of his court to see
   that the edict was strictly enforced, He declared that it was
   for the good of the state that none should embrace the new
   doctrine; and that such as had already done so must change
   immediately. … In the meantime both the English and Dutch
   had appeared on the scene. … Their object was solely trade,
   and as the Portuguese monopoly hitherto had been mainly
   secured by the Jesuit fathers, it was natural for the
   new-comers to represent the motive of these fathers in an
   unfavorable and suspicious light. 'Indeed,' as Hildreth says,
   'they had only to confirm the truth of what the Portuguese and
   Spanish said of each other to excite in the minds of the
   Japanese rulers the gravest distrust as to the designs of the
   priests of both nations.' Whether it is true as charged that
   the minds of the Japanese rulers had been poisoned against the
   Jesuit fathers by misrepresentation and falsehood, it may be
   impossible to determine definitely; but it is fair to infer
   that the cruel and intolerant policy of the Spanish and
   Portuguese would be fully set forth and the danger to the
   Japanese empire from the machinations of the foreign religious
   teachers held up in the worst light. … Ieyasu, evidently
   having made up his mind that for the safety of the empire
   Christianity must be extirpated, in 1614 issued an edict that
   the members of all religious orders, whether European or
   Japanese, should be sent out of the country: that the churches
   which had been erected in various localities should be pulled
   down, and that the native adherents of the faith should be
   compelled to renounce it. In part execution of this edict all
   the members of the Society of Jesus, native and foreign, were
   ordered to be sent to Nagasaki. Native Christians were sent to
   Tsugaru, the northern extremity of the Main island. … In
   accordance with this edict, as many as 300 persons are said to
   have been shipped from Japan October 25, 1614. All the
   resident Jesuits were included in this number, excepting
   eighteen fathers and nine brothers, who concealed themselves
   and thus escaped the search. Following his deportation of
   converts the most persistent efforts continued to be made to
   force the native Christians to renounce their faith. The
   accounts given, both by the foreign and by the Japanese
   writers, of the persecutions which now broke upon the heads of
   the Christians are beyond description horrible. … Rewards
   were offered for information involving Christians of every
   position and rank, even of parents against their children and
   of children against their parents. … The persecution began
   in its worst form about 1616. This was the year in which
   Ieyasu died, but his son and successor carried out the
   terrible programme with heartless thoroughness. It has never
   been surpassed for cruelty and brutality on the part of the
   persecutors, or for courage and constancy on the part of those
   who suffered. … Mr. Gubbins … says: 'We read of Christians
   being executed in a barbarous manner in sight of each other,
   of their being hurled from the tops of precipices, of their
   being buried alive, of their being torn asunder by oxen, of
   their being tied up in rice-bags, which were heaped up
   together, and of the pile thus formed being set on fire.
   Others were tortured before death by the insertion of sharp
   spikes under the nails of their hands and feet, while some
   poor wretches by a refinement of horrid cruelty were shut up
   in cages and there left to starve with food before their eyes.
   Let it not be supposed that we have drawn on the Jesuit
   accounts solely for this information. An examination of the
   Japanese records will show that the case is not overstated.'"

      _D. Murray,
      Story of Japan,
      chapter 11._

   "The persecutions went on, the discovery of Christians
   occasionally occurring for several years, but in 1686 'the few
   remaining had learnt how to conceal their belief and the
   practice of their religion so well, that the Council issued a
   circular to the chief Daimios of the south and west, stating
   that none of the Kirishitan sect had been discovered of late
   years, owing perhaps to laziness on the part of those whose
   duty it was to search for them, and enjoining vigilance'
   (Satow). Traces of the Christian religion and people lingered
   in the country down to our own time."

      _Sir E. J. Reed,
      Japan,
      page 301._

{1877}

JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.
   Opening the ports to foreigners.
   The treaty with the United States and the other treaties which
   followed.

   "It is estimated that about the middle of the present century,
   American capital to the amount of seventeen million dollars
   was invested in the whaling industry in the seas of Japan and
   China. We thus see that it was not a mere outburst of French
   enthusiasm when M. Michelet paid this high tribute to the
   service of the whale to civilization: 'Who opened to men the
   great distant navigation? Who revealed the ocean and marked
   out its zones and its liquid highways? Who discovered the
   secrets of the globe? The Whale and the Whaler.' … There
   were causes other than the mere safety of whalers which led to
   the inception of the American expedition to Japan. On the one
   hand, the rise of industrial and commercial commonwealths on
   the Pacific, the discovery of gold in California, the
   increasing trade with China, the development of steam
   navigation—necessitating coal depots and ports for shelter,
   the opening of highways across the Isthmus of Central America,
   the missionary enterprises on the Asiatic continent, the rise
   of the Hawaiian Islands,—on the other hand, the knowledge of
   foreign nations among the ruling class in Japan, the news of
   the British victory in China, the progress of European
   settlements in the Pacific, the dissemination of western
   science among a progressive class of scholars, the advice from
   the Dutch government to discontinue the antiquated policy of
   exclusion—all these testified that the fulness of time for
   Japan to turn a new page in her history was at hand. … About
   this time, a newspaper article concerning some Japanese waifs
   who had been picked up at sea by the barque Auckland—Captain
   Jennings—and brought to San Francisco, attracted the
   attention of Commodore Aulick. He submitted a proposal to the
   government that it should take advantage of this incident to
   open commercial relations with the Empire, or at least to
   manifest the friendly feelings of the country. This proposal
   was made on the 9th of May, 1851. Daniel Webster was then
   Secretary of State, and in him Aulick found a ready friend.
   … Clothed with full power to negotiate and sign treaties,
   and furnished with a letter from President Fillmore to the
   Emperor, Commodore Aulick was on the eve of departure when for
   some reason he was prevented. Thus the project which began at
   his suggestion was obstructed when it was about to be
   accomplished, and another man, perhaps better fitted for the
   undertaking, entered into his labors. … Commodore [Matthew
   Calbraith] Perry shared the belief in the expediency of
   sending a special mission for the purpose. When Commodore
   Aulick was recalled, Perry proposed to the U. S. Government an
   immediate expedition. The proposal was accepted, and an
   expedition on the most liberal scale was resolved upon. He was
   invested with extraordinary powers, naval and diplomatic. The
   East India and China Seas and Japan were the official
   designation of the field of service, but the real object in
   view was the establishment of a coal depot in Japan. The
   public announcement of the resolution was followed by
   applications from all quarters of Christendom for permission
   to accompany the expedition; all these were, however, refused
   on prudential grounds. … Impatient of the delay caused by
   the tardy preparations of his vessels, Perry sailed from
   Norfolk on the 24th of November, 1852, with one ship, the
   Mississippi, leaving the rest to follow as soon as ready. …
   The Mississippi … touching at, several ports on her way,
   reached Loo Choo in May, where the squadron united. … In the
   afternoon of the 8th of July, 1853, the squadron entered the
   Bay of Yedo in martial order, and about 5 o'clock in the
   evening was anchored off the town of Uraga. No sooner had 'the
   black ships of the evil mien' made their entry into the Bay,
   than the signal guns were fired, followed by the discharge of
   rockets; then were seen on the shore companies of soldiers
   moving from garrison to garrison. The popular commotion in
   Yedo at the news of 'a foreign invasion' was beyond
   description. The whole city was in an uproar. In all
   directions were seen mothers flying with children in their
   arms, and men with mothers on their backs. Rumors of an
   immediate action, exaggerated each time they were communicated
   from mouth to mouth, added horror to the horror-stricken. …
   As the squadron dropped anchor, it was surrounded by junks and
   boats of all sorts, but there was no hostile sign shown. A
   document in French was handed on board, which proved to be a
   warning to any foreign vessel not to come nearer. The next day
   was spent in informal conference between the local officials
   of Uraga and the subordinate officers of the squadron. It was
   Commodore Perry's policy to behave with as much reserve and
   exclusiveness as the Japanese diplomats had done and would do.
   He would neither see, nor talk with, any except the highest
   dignitary of the realm. Meanwhile, the governor of Uraga came
   on board and was received by captains and lieutenants. He
   declared that the laws forbade any foreign communication to be
   held elsewhere than Nagasaki; but to Nagasaki the squadron
   would never go. The vexed governor would send to Yedo for
   further instructions, and the 12th was fixed as a day for
   another conference. Any exchange of thought was either in the
   Dutch language, for which interpreters were provided on both
   sides, or in Chinese, through Dr. S. Wells Williams, and
   afterward in Japanese, through Manjiro Nakahama. … On the
   12th, the Governor of Uraga again appeared on board and
   insisted on the squadron's leaving the Yedo Bay for Nagasaki,
   where the President's letter would be duly received through
   the Dutch or the Chinese. This the Commodore firmly refused to
   do. It was therefore decided at the court of Yedo that the
   letter be received at Kurihama, a few miles from the town of
   Uraga. This procedure was, in the language of the
   commissioners, 'in opposition to the Japanese law;' but, on
   the ground that 'the Admiral, in his quality as Ambassador of
   the President, would be insulted by any other course,' the
   original of Mr. Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor,
   enclosed in a golden box of one thousand dollars in value, was
   delivered on the 14th of July to the commissioners appointed
   by the Shogun. …
{1878}
   Fortunately for Japan, the disturbed state of affairs in
   China made it prudent for Perry to repair to the ports of that
   country, which he did as though he had consulted solely the
   diplomatic convenience of our country. He left word that he
   would come the ensuing spring for our answer. … It was the
   Taiping Rebellion which called for Perry's presence in China.
   The American merchants had large interests at stake
   there—their property in Shanghai alone amounting, it is said,
   to $1,200,000. … While in China, Commodore Perry found that
   the Russian and French admirals, who were staying in Shanghai,
   contemplated a near visit to Japan. That he might not give any
   advantage to them, he left Macao earlier than he had intended,
   and, on the 13th of February, found himself again in the Bay
   of Yedo, with a stately fleet of eight ships. As the place
   where the conference had been held at the previous visit was
   out of the reach of gun-shot from the anchorage, Perry
   expressed a desire of holding negotiations in Yedo, a request
   impossible for the Japanese to comply with. After some
   hesitation, the suburb Kanagawa was mutually agreed upon as a
   suitable site, and there a temporary building was accordingly
   erected for the transaction of the business. On the 8th of
   May, Commodore Perry, arrayed in the paraphernalia befitting
   his rank, was ushered into the house. The reply of the Shogun
   to the President's letter was now given—the purport of which
   was, decidedly in word but reluctantly in spirit, in favor of
   friendly intercourse. Conferences were repeated in the middle
   and latter part of the month, and after many evasions and
   equivocations, deliberations and delays, invitations to
   banquets and exchanges of presents, at last, on Friday, the
   31st of May, the formal treaty was signed; a synopsis of which
   is here presented:

   1. Peace and friendship.
   2. Ports of Shimoda and Hakodate open to American ships,
   and necessary provisions to be supplied them.
   3. Relief to shipwrecked people; expenses thereof not to be
   refunded.
   4. Americans to be free as in other countries, but amenable to
   just laws.
   5. Americans at Shimoda and Hakodate not to be subject to
   restrictions; free to go about within defined limits.
   6. Careful deliberation in transacting business which affects
   the welfare of either party.
   7. Trade in open ports subject to local regulations.
   8. Wood, water, provisions, coal, etc., to be procured through
   Japanese officers only.
   9. Most-favored nation clause.
   10. U. S. ships restricted to ports of Shimoda and Hakodate,
   except when forced by stress of weather.
   11. U. S. Consuls or agents to reside at Shimoda.
   12. Ratifications to be exchanged within eighteen months. …

   His labors at an end, Perry bade the last farewell to Japan
   and started on his home-bound voyage. This was in June, 1854.
   … No sooner had Perry left, carrying off the trophy of
   peaceful victory—the treaty (though the Yedo government was
   in no enjoyment of peaceful rest), than the Russian Admiral
   Pontiatine appeared in Nagasaki. He urged that the same
   privileges be granted his country as were allowed the
   Americans. … Soon, the English Rear Admiral, Sir James
   Stirling, arrives at the same harbor, very kindly to notify
   the government that there may be some fighting in Japanese
   waters between Russians and his countrymen. … The British
   convention was signed October 14, 1854, and followed, in 1858,
   by the Elgin treaty. The treaty with Russia was signed January
   26, 1855; Netherlands, 9th of November the same year; France,
   October 9, 1858; Portugal, 3rd of August, 1860; German Customs
   Union, 25th of January, 1861. The other nations which followed
   the United States were Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium,
   Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Peru, Hawaii,
   China, Corea and Siam; lastly Mexico, with whom we concluded a
   treaty on terms of perfect equality (November 30, 1888)."

      _Inazo (Ota) Nitobe,
      The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. L. Hawks,
      Narrative of the Expedition under Commander Perry._

      _W. E. Griffis,
      Matthew Calbraith Perry,
      chapters 27-33._

JAPAN: A. D. 1869-1890.
   Constitutional development.

   "In 1869 was convened the Kogisho or 'Parliament,' as Sir
   Harry Parkes translates it in his despatch to the Earl of
   Clarendon. … The Kogisho was composed mostly of the
   retainers of the Daimios, for the latter, having no experience
   of the earnest business of life, 'were not eager to devote
   themselves to the labors of an onerous and voluntary office.'
   … The object of the Kogisho was to enable the government to
   sound public opinion on the various topics of the day, and to
   obtain the assistance of the country in the work of
   legislation by ascertaining whether the projects of the
   government were likely to be favorably received. The Kogisho,
   like the Councils of Kuges and Daimios, was nothing but an
   experiment, a mere germ of a deliberative assembly, which only
   time and experience could bring to maturity. … It was a
   quiet, peaceful, obedient debating society. It has left the
   record of its abortive undertakings in the 'Kogisho Nishi' or
   journal of 'Parliament.' The Kogisho was dissolved in the year
   of its birth. And the indifference of the public about its
   dissolution proves how small an influence it really had. But a
   greater event than the dissolution of the Kogisho was pending
   before the public gaze. This was the abolition of feudalism.
   … The measure to abolish feudalism was much discussed in the
   Kogisho before its dissolution. … In the following noted
   memorial, after reviewing the political history of Japan
   during the past few hundred years, these Daimios said: 'Now
   the great Government has been newly restored and the Emperor
   himself undertakes the direction of affairs. This is, indeed,
   a rare and mighty event. We have the name (of an Imperial
   Government), we must also have the fact. Our first duty is to
   illustrate our faithfulness and to prove our loyalty. … The
   place where we live is the Emperor's land and the food which
   we eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How can we make it our
   own? We now reverently offer up the list of our possessions
   and men, with the prayer that the Emperor will take good
   measures for rewarding those to whom reward is due and for
   taking from those to whom punishment is due. Let the imperial
   orders be issued for altering and remodelling the territories
   of the various clans. Let the civil and penal codes, the
   military laws down to the rules for uniform and the
   construction of engines of war, all proceed from the Emperor;
   let all the affairs of the empire, great and small, be
   referred to him.' This memorial was signed by the Daimios of
   Kago, Hizen, Satsuma, Choshiu, Tosa, and some other Daimios of
   the west.
{1879}
   But the real author of the memorial is believed to have been
   Kido, the brain of the Restoration. Thus were the fiefs of the
   most powerful and most wealthy Daimios voluntarily offered to
   the Emperor. The other Daimios soon followed the example of
   their colleagues. And the feudalism which had existed in Japan
   for over eight centuries was abolished by the following
   laconic imperial decree of August, 1871: 'The clans are
   abolished, and prefectures are established in their places.'
   … While the government at home was thus tearing down the old
   framework of state, the Iwakura Embassy in foreign lands was
   gathering materials for the new. This was significant,
   inasmuch as five of the best statesmen of the time, with their
   staff of forty-four able men, came into association for over a
   year with western peoples, and beheld in operation their
   social, political and religious institutions. … In 1873,
   Count Itagaki with his friends had sent in a memorial to the
   government praying for the establishment of a representative
   assembly, but they had not been heeded by the government. In
   July, 1877, Count Itagaki with his Ri-shi-sha again addressed
   a memorial to the Emperor, 'praying for a change in the form
   of government, and setting forth the reasons which, in the
   opinion of the members of the society, rendered such a change
   necessary.' These reasons were nine in number and were
   developed at great length. … The civil war being ended, in
   1878, the year which marks a decade from the establishment of
   the new regime, the government, persuaded that the time for
   popular institutions was fast approaching, not alone through
   representations of the Tosa memorialists, but through many
   other signs of the times, decided to take a step in the
   direction of establishing a national assembly. But the
   government acted cautiously. Thinking that to bring together
   hundreds of members unaccustomed to parliamentary debate and
   its excitement, and to allow them a hand in the administration
   of affairs of the state, might be attended with serious
   dangers, as a preparation for the national assembly the
   government established first local assemblies. Certainly this
   was a wise course. These local assemblies have not only been
   good training schools for popular government, but also proved
   reasonably successful. … The qualifications for electors
   (males only) are: an age of twenty years, registration, and
   payment of a land tax of $5. Voting is by ballot, but the
   names of the voters are to be written by themselves on the
   voting papers. There are now 2,172 members who sit in these
   local assemblies. … The gulf between absolute government and
   popular government was thus widened more and more by the
   institution of local government. The popular tide raised by
   these local assemblies was swelling in volume year by year.
   New waves were set in motion by the younger generation of
   thinkers. Toward the close of the year 1881 the flood rose so
   high that the government thought it wise not to resist longer.
   His Imperial Majesty, hearing the petitions of the people,
   graciously confirmed and expanded his promise of 1868 by the
   famous proclamation of October 12, 1881: 'We have long had it
   in view to gradually establish a constitutional form of
   government. … It was with this object in view that in the
   eighth year of Meiji (1875) we established the Senate, and in
   the eleventh year of Meiji (1878) authorized the formation of
   local assemblies. … We therefore hereby declare that we
   shall, in the twenty-third year of Meiji (1890) establish a
   parliament, in order to carry into full effect the
   determination we have announced; and we charge our faithful
   subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the meantime, all
   necessary preparations to that end.'"

      _T. Iyenaga,
      The Constitutional Development of Japan, 1853-1881
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, number 9)._

      See CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

JAPAN: A. D. 1871-1872.

   Organization of National Education.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: ASIA.

   ----------JAPAN: End----------

JAQUELINE OF HOLLAND AND HAINAULT,
   The Despoiling of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

JAQUES-GILMORE PEACE MISSION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

JARL.

      See EARL; and ETHEL.

JARNAC, Battle of (1569).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

JASPER, Sergeant, The exploit of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).


JASSY, Treaty of (1792).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

JATTS OR JAUTS.

      See GYPSIES.

JAVA: A. D. 1811-1813.
   Taken from the Dutch by the English.
   Restored to Holland.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

JAVAN.

   The Hebrew form of the Greek race-name Ionian; "but in the Old
   Testament it is generally applied to the island of Cyprus,
   which is called the Island of Yavnan, or the Ionians, on the
   Assyrian monuments."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 2._

JAXARTES, The.

   The ancient name of the river now called the Sir, or Sihun,
   which empties into the Sea of Aral.

JAY, John,
   In the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER); and NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

   In diplomatic service.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

   And the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

   Chief justice of the Supreme Court.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

   And the second Treaty with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

JAYHAWKERS AND RED LEGS.

   During the conflict of 1854-1859 in Kansas, certain
   "Free-state men in the Southeast, comparatively isolated,
   having little communication with [the town of] Lawrence, and
   consequently almost wholly without check, developed a
   successful if not very praiseworthy system of retaliation.
   Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery
   outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into
   the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the
   name—whatever its origin may be—of jayhawkers."

      _L. W. Spring,
      Kansas, page 240._

   "The complaints in former years of Border Ruffian forays from
   Missouri into Kansas [see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859], were, as
   soon as the civil war began, paid with interest by a continual
   accusation of incursions of Kansas 'Jayhawkers' and 'Red Legs'
   into Missouri."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, page 370._

JAYME.

      See JAMES.

{1880}

JAZYGES, OR IAZYGES.

      See LIMIGANTES.

JEAN.

      See JOHN.

JEANNE I., Queen of Navarre, A. D. 1274-1305.

   Jeanne II., Queen of Navarre, 1328-1349.

   Jeanne D'Albret, Queen of Navarre, and the Reformation in
   France.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

JEBUSITES, The.

   The Canaanite inhabitants of the city of Jebus, or ancient
   Jerusalem, which they held against the Israelites until David
   took the place by storm and made it the capital of his
   kingdom.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 3, section 1 (volume 3)._

      See JERUSALEM.

JECKER CLAIMS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

JEFFERSON, Thomas:
   Authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

   In the Cabinet of President Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1793.

   Leadership of the Anti-Federalist or Republican Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; and 1798.

   Presidential administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800, to 1806-1807.

JEFFERSON, Provisional Territory of.

      See COLORADO: A. D.1806-1876.

JEFFREYS, and the "Bloody Assizes."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.

JEHAD.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

JELLALABAD, Defense of (1842).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

JEM, OR DJEM, Prince, The story of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JEMAPPES, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

JEMMINGEN, Battle of (1568).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

JENA, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

JENGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

JENKINS' EAR, The War of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

JENKINS' FERRY, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS—MISSOURI).

JENNY GEDDES' STOOL.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

JERBA, OR GELVES, The disaster at.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

JERSEY AND GUERNSEY, The Isles of.

   "Jersey, Guernsey, and their fellows are simply that part of
   the Norman duchy which clave to its dukes when the rest fell
   away. Their people are those Normans who remained Normans
   while the rest stooped to become Frenchmen. The Queen of Great
   Britain has a perfect right, if she will, to call herself
   Duchess of the Normans, a title which, in my ears at least,
   sounds better than that of Empress of India."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Practical Bearings of General European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences), lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. T. Ansted and R. G. Latham,
      The Channel Islands._

JERSEY PRISON SHIP, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
      PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

JERSEYS, The.
   East and West New Jersey.

      See NEW JERSEY.

   ----------JERUSALEM: Start----------

JERUSALEM:
   Early history.

   "The first site of Jerusalem was the hill now erroneously
   called Sion, and which we shall designate … as Pseudo-Sion,
   the plateau of rock at the southwest, surrounded on all sides
   by ravines, viz., by the Valley of Hinnom on the west and
   south, and by the Tyropœon, or Cheesemakers' Valley, on the
   north and east. Parallel to this lay the real Sion, the less
   elevated eastern hill, shut in on the west by the Tyropœon
   Valley, which divided it from Pseudo-Sion, and on the east by
   the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and ending southward in a
   wedge-like point opposite to the south-east corner of
   Pseudo-Sion. The town on the western-most of these two ridges
   was known first as Jebus, and afterwards as the High Town, or
   Upper Market; and the accretion to it on the eastern hill was
   anciently called Salem, and subsequently the Low Town and
   Acra. In the days of lawless violence, the first object was
   safety; and, as the eastern hill was by nature exposed on the
   north, it was there protected artificially by a citadel and
   fosse. The High Town and Low Town were originally two distinct
   cities, occupied by the Amorites and Hittites, whence the
   taunt of the prophet to Jerusalem: 'Thy birth and thy nativity
   is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy
   mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name
   Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the
   opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of
   the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ'
   into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the
   quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in
   the very heart of the city when the different parts were
   united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first
   notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of
   Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and
   carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham,
   collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and
   rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which
   is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of
   the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the
   Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the
   eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In
   Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;'
   where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether
   Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very
   mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left
   to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was
   written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for
   we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at
   Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites
   from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that
   very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah
   fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on
   fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to
   apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion,
   as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion.
   The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the
   Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that
   Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the
   Israelites."

      _T. Lewin,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 1._

{1881}

JERUSALEM:
   Conquest and occupation by David.

   "David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the
   tribe of Judah alone.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

   He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all
   Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in
   Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation
   oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an
   arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign
   their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with
   paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king
   could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military
   proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in
   detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil,
   probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an
   army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it
   is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it
   sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new
   power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been
   sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites
   in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no
   longer a suitable place for the centre of David's
   administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and
   Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a
   ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to
   the eastern districts; and although by no means a central
   position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this
   Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. …
   The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to
   David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be
   explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to
   defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of
   displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed
   Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely
   assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in
   arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first
   scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made
   chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His
   impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly
   mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of
   the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history;
   in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is
   it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of
   the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide
   for the security of his intended capital, by suitable
   fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and
   separated from it by a slighter depression which we have
   named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In
   ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now;
   for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to
   include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion
   separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of
   David."

      _F. W. Newman,
      A History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

   "The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which
   must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now
   stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there
   to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress
   of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring
   lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the
   Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation,
   lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and
   played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David
   rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all
   the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city
   of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 1, B._

JERUSALEM:
   Early sieges.

   Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which
   remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David
   reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the
   object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered
   at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with
   no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of
   Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign
   of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom
   of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was
   besieged without success by the tartan or general of
   Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In
   B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction
   by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief
   inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the
   return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians;
   but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of
   Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and
   abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its
   walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by
   Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city
   was likewise burned.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews._

      See, also, JEWS.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 171-169.
   Sack and massacre by Antiochus Epiphanes.

      See JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 63.
   Siege and capture by Pompeius.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 40.
   Surrendered to the Parthians.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 37.
   Siege by Herod and the Romans.

      See Jews: B. C. 40—A. D. 44.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 33-100.
   Rise of the Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 70.-Siege and destruction by Titus.

      See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
      THE GREAT REVOLT.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.
   Rebuilt by Hadrian.
   Change of name.
   The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
   Siege, sack and massacre by the Persians.

   In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while
   Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at
   Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the
   Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,
   Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took
   the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the
   ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,
   summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against
   the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or
   exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to
   his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and
   Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after
   a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave
   it over to plunder and rapine.
{1882}
   The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of
   Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the
   Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the
   greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries
   were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a
   massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief
   part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many
   as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were
   slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them
   was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive
   into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found
   by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the
   same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved
   with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of
   Chosroës."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 24._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 565-628.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.
   Surrender to the Moslems.

   In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater
   part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of
   vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of
   Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general,
   Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is
   holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his
   head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu
   Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies
   lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet
   Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that
   we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we
   raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands,
   as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further
   hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on
   condition that the Caliph would come in person to take
   possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal
   being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make
   the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time,
   he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot,
   with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple,
   much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn
   up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for
   the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to
   build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church
   doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress
   permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should
   only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on
   the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The
   Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor
   speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make
   proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam.
   They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps,
   slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but
   should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use
   the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor
   salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem
   surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and
   remain standing until he should be seated. They should
   entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They
   should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in
   riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in
   Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender
   on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an
   assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use
   of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and His Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 18._

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 908-1171.
   In the Moslem civil wars.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST and EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1064-1076.
   Great revival of pilgrimages from western Europe.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1076.
   Taken by the Seljuk Turks.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1094.
   Visit of Peter the Hermit.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
   The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.

   The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.
   1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem
   in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000
   fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,
   children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately
   before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans
   deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians
   in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.
   It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders
   were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons
   of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling
   their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their
   wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their
   ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,
   the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the
   Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was
   not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond
   any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their
   men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were
   repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a
   regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the
   extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much
   suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a
   month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the
   city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was
   taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians
   ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first
   they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all
   alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage
   was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,
   and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover
   their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to
   their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so
   burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how
   the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and
   how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the
   knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here
   upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole
   number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
   forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …
{1883}
   Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more
   enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by
   Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out
   the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one
   thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they
   proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these
   Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.
   They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of
   the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords
   reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy
   Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers
   and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those
   who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It
   was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom
   Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.
   Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who
   capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to
   kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every
   Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,
   and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old
   inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true
   Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the
   siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful
   procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave
   themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first
   Crusade was finished."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 4._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
   The Founding of the Latin kingdom.

   Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had
   been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of
   a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh
   the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had
   retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to
   regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin
   was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two
   Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders—
   preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful
   competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of
   Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and
   the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed
   Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions
   of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of
   danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been
   crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and
   ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of
   Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender
   and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single
   year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in
   the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach
   of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to
   prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of
   Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed
   the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the
   valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long
   farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the
   Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new
   king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing
   companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred,
   300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of
   Palestine."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58._

   Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was
   succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin,
   the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship
   to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the
   more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign,
   had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and
   subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a
   domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest
   in his own grasping qualities and soon established the
   kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen
   years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin,
   Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the
   principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in
   1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou,
   who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's
   daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their
   greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The
   entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the
   confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza,
   in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions
   extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains
   of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east
   as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert
   formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four
   states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of
   Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of
   Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the
   king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by
   his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1291.
   The constitution of the kingdom.

   "Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two
   immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal
   merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary
   succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the
   foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;
   and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal
   hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the
   kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance
   extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great
   officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the
   marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief
   baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had
   the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,
   in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the
   great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first
   great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and
   the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was
   the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships
   of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the
   county of Tripoli. …
{1884}
   But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the
   number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared
   with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three
   first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred
   knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred
   knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and
   eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was
   the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,
   Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial
   communities of every part of the kingdom provided five
   thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."

      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58.

      See, also, ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1147-1149.
   The note of alarm and the Second Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
   Decline and fall of the kingdom.
   The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.

   King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen,
   who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother
   associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign
   of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of
   Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the
   miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing
   towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the
   Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and
   in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly
   closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of
   wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst
   such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early
   manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition
   was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was
   elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his
   reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with
   those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the
   side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against
   another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere
   puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand
   vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the
   sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter
   embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand
   towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh,
   a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore
   Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the
   Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history
   as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled
   with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which
   proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin
   king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition
   to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of
   five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and
   but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin
   was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad,
   Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand
   vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite
   caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a
   young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He
   was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to
   make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was
   stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took
   the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad,
   summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally
   the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died,
   A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was
   able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to
   become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a
   large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins
   from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet
   once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had
   died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was
   an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the
   only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of
   serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised
   creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy
   Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful
   kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his
   Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July,
   A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally
   in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called
   by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians
   were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was
   taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true
   cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into
   Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa,
   Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at
   his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants
   permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no
   wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When
   his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with
   his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded
   to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a
   short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to
   him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which
   might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The
   sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were
   ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom
   was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were
   permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights
   of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and
   his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone
   Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the
   Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
   was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin
   and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of
   Lusignan.

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Crusades,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapters 12-16._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 7._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
      book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1188-1192.
   Attempted recovery.
   The Third Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

{1885}

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1192-1229.
   The succession of nominal kings.

   Guy de Lusignan, the poor creature whom Sybille, daughter of
   King Amaury, married and made king of Jerusalem, lost his
   kingdom fairly enough on the battle-field of Tiberias. To win
   his freedom from Saladin, moreover, he renounced his claims by
   a solemn oath and pledged himself to quit the soil of
   Palestine forever. But oaths were of small account with the
   Christian Crusaders, and with the priests who kept their
   consciences. Guy got easy absolution for the trifling perjury,
   and was a king once more,—waiting for the Crusaders to
   recover his kingdom. But when, in 1190, his queen Sybille and
   her two children died, King Guy's royal title wore a faded
   look to most people and was wholly denied by many. Presently,
   Conrad of Montferrat, who held possession of Tyre—the best
   part of what remained in the actual kingdom of
   Jerusalem—married Sybille's sister, Isabella, and claimed the
   kingship in her name. King Richard of England supported Guy,
   and King Philip Augustus of France, in sheer contrariness,
   took his side with Conrad. After long quarreling it was
   decided that Guy should wear the crown while he lived, and
   that it should pass when he died to Conrad and Conrad's
   children. It was Richard's wilfulness that forced this
   settlement; but, after all, on quitting Palestine, in 1192,
   the English king did not dare to leave affairs behind him in
   such worthless hands. He bought, therefore, the abdication of
   Guy de Lusignan, by making him king of Cyprus, and he gave the
   crown of Jerusalem to the strong and capable Conrad. But
   Conrad was murdered in a little time by emissaries of the Old
   Man of the Mountain (see ASSASSINS), who accused Richard of
   the instigation of the deed, and Count Henry of Champagne,
   Richard's nephew, accepted his widow and his crown. Henry
   enjoyed his titular royalty and his little hand-breadth of
   dominion on the Syrian coast for four years, only. Then he was
   killed, while defending Jaffa, and his oft-widowed widow,
   Isabella, brought the Lusignans back into Palestinian history
   again by marrying, for her fourth husband, Amaury de Lusignan,
   who had succeeded his brother Guy, now deceased, as king of
   Cyprus. Amaury possessed the two crowns, of Cyprus and
   Jerusalem, until his death, when the latter devolved on the
   daughter of Isabella, by her second husband, Conrad. The young
   queen accepted a husband recommended by the king of France,
   and approved by her barons, thus bringing a worthy king to the
   worthless throne. This was John de Brienne, a good French
   knight, who came to Palestine (A. D. 1210) with a little
   following of three hundred knights and strove valiantly to
   reconquer a kingdom for his royally entitled bride. But he
   strove in vain, and fragment after fragment of his crumbling
   remnant of dominion fell away until he held almost nothing
   except Acre. In 1217 the king of Hungary, the duke of Austria
   and a large army of crusaders came, professedly, to his help,
   but gave him none. The king of Hungary got possession of the
   head of St. Peter, the right hand of St. Thomas and one of the
   wine vessels of the marriage feast at Cana, and hastened home
   with his precious relics. The other crusaders went away to
   attack Egypt and brought their enterprise to a miserable end.
   Then King John de Brienne married his daughter Yolante, or
   Iolanta, to the German emperor, or King of the Romans,
   Frederick II., and surrendered to that prince his rights and
   claims to the kingship of Jerusalem. Frederick, at war with
   the Pope, and under the ban of the Church, went to Palestine,
   with 600 knights, and contrived by clever diplomacy and
   skilful pressure to secure a treaty with the sultan of Egypt
   (A. D. 1229), which placed Jerusalem, under some conditions,
   in his hands, and added other territory to the kingdom which
   he claimed by right of his wife. He entered Jerusalem and
   there set the crown on his own head; for the patriarch, the
   priests, and the monk-knights, of the Hospital and the Temple,
   shunned him and refused recognition to his work. But Frederick
   was the only "King of Jerusalem" after Guy de Lusignan, who
   wore a crown in the Holy City, and exercised in reality the
   sovereignty to which he pretended. Frederick returned to Italy
   in 1229 and his kingdom in the East was soon as shadowy and
   unreal as that of his predecessors had been.

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapters 15 and 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      books 8-12._

      See, also,
      CRUSADES: 1188-1192, and 1216-1229;
      and CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
   Sack and massacre by the Carismians.

   After the overthrow of the Khuarezmian (Korasmian or
   Carismian) empire by the Mongols, its last prince, Gelaleddin,
   or Jalalu-d-Din, implacably pursued by those savage
   conquerors, fought them valiantly until he perished, at last,
   in Kurdistan. His army, made up of many mercenary bands,
   Turkish and other, then scattered, and two, at least, among
   its wandering divisions played important parts in subsequent
   history. Out of one of those Khuarezmian squadrons rose the
   powerful nation of the Ottoman Turks. The other invaded Syria.
   "The Mussulman powers of Syria several times united in a
   league against the Carismians, and drove them back to the
   other side of the Euphrates. But the spirit of rivalry which
   at all times divided the princes of the family of Saladin,
   soon recalled an enemy always redoubtable notwithstanding
   defeats. At the period of which we are speaking, the princes
   of Damascus, Carac, and Emessa had just formed an alliance
   with the Christians of Palestine; they not only restored
   Jerusalem, Tiberias, and the principality of Galilee to them,
   but they promised to join them in the conquest of Egypt, a
   conquest for which the whole of Syria was making preparations.
   The sultan of Cairo, to avenge himself upon the Christians who
   had broken the treaties concluded with him, to punish their
   new allies, and protect himself from their invasion,
   determined to apply for succour to the hordes of Carismia; and
   sent deputies to the leaders of these barbarians, promising to
   abandon Palestine to them, if they subdued it. This
   proposition was accepted with joy, and 20,000 horsemen,
   animated by a thirst for booty and slaughter, hastened from
   the further parts of Mesopotamia, disposed to be subservient
   to the vengeance or anger of the Egyptian monarch. On their
   march they ravaged the territory of Tripoli and the
   principality of Galilee, and the flames which everywhere
   accompanied their steps announced their arrival to the
   inhabitants of Jerusalem. Fortifications scarcely commenced,
   and the small number of warriors in the holy city, left not
   the least hope of being able to repel the unexpected attacks
   of such a formidable enemy.
{1886}
   The whole population of Jerusalem resolved to fly, under the
   guidance of the knights of the Hospital and the Temple. There
   only remained in the city the sick and a few inhabitants who
   could not make their minds up to abandon their homes and their
   infirm kindred. The Carismians soon arrived, and having
   destroyed a few intrenchments that had been made in their
   route, they entered Jerusalem sword in hand, massacred all
   they met, and … had recourse to a most odious stratagem to
   lure back the inhabitants who had taken flight. They raised
   the standards of the cross upon every tower, and set all the
   bells ringing." The retreating Christians were deceived. They
   persuaded themselves that a miracle had been wrought; "that
   God had taken pity on his people, and would not permit the
   city of Christ to be defiled by the presence of a sacrilegious
   horde. Seven thousand fugitives, deceived by this hope,
   returned to Jerusalem and gave themselves up to the fury of
   the Carismians, who put them all to the sword. Torrents of
   blood flowed through the streets and along the roads. A troop
   of nuns, children, and aged people, who had sought refuge in
   the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were massacred at the foot
   of the altars. The Carismians finding nothing among the living
   to satisfy their fury, burst open the sepulchres, and gave the
   coffins and remains of the dead up to the flames; the tomb of
   Christ, that of Godfrey of Bouillon, the sacred relics of the
   martyrs and heroes of the faith,—nothing was respected, and
   Jerusalem then witnessed within its walls such cruelties and
   profanations as had never taken place in the most barbarous
   wars, or in days marked by the anger of God." Subsequently the
   Christians of Palestine rallied, united their forces with
   those of the Moslem princes of Damascus and Emessa, and gave
   battle to the Carismians on the plains of Gaza; but they
   suffered a terrible defeat, leaving 30,000 dead on the field.
   Nearly all Palestine was then at the mercy of the savages, and
   Damascus was speedily subjugated. But the sultan of Cairo,
   beginning to fear the allies he had employed, turned his arms
   sharply against them, defeated them in two successive battles,
   and history tells nothing more of the career of these last
   adventurers of the Carismian or Khuarezmian name.

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 13._


      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
   The end of the Christian kingdom.
   The surviving title of "King of Jerusalem."

   "Since the death of the Emperor Frederic II. [A. D. 1250], the
   baseless throne of Jerusalem had found a claimant in Hugh de
   Lusignan, King of Cyprus, who, as lineally descended from
   Alice, daughter of Queen Isabella, was, in fact, the next
   heir, after failure of issue by the marriage of Frederic and
   Iolanta de Brienne. His claims were opposed by the partisans
   of Charles of Anjou, King of the Sicilies,—that wholesale
   speculator in diadems. … He rested his claim upon the double
   pretensions of a papal title to all the forfeited dignities of
   the imperial house of Hohenstauffen, and of a bargain with
   Mary of Antioch; whose rights, although she was descended only
   from a younger sister of Alice, he had eagerly purchased. But
   the prior title of the house of Cyprus was more generally
   recognised in Palestine; the coronation of Hugh had been
   celebrated at Tyre; and the last idle pageant of regal state
   in Palestine was exhibited by the race of Lusignan. At length
   the final storm of Mussulman war broke upon the phantom king
   and his subjects. It was twice provoked by the aggressions of
   the Latins themselves, in plundering the peaceable Moslem
   traders, who resorted, on the faith of treaties, to the
   Christian marts on the Syrian coast. After a vain attempt to
   obtain redress for the first of these violations of
   international law, Keladun, the reigning sultan of Egypt and
   Syria, revenged the infraction of the existing ten years'
   truce by a renewal of hostilities with overwhelming force;
   yearly repeated his ravages of the Christian territory; and at
   length, tearing the city and county of Tripoli—the last
   surviving great fief of the Latin kingdom—from its
   dilapidated crown, dictated the terms of peace to its
   powerless sovereign (A. D. 1289)." Two years later, a
   repetition of lawless outrages on Moslem merchants at Acre
   provoked a last wrathful and implacable invasion. "At the head
   of an immense army of 200,000 men, the Mameluke prince entered
   Palestine, swept the weaker Christian garrisons before him,
   and encamped under the towers of Acre (A. D. 1291). That city,
   which, since the fall of Jerusalem, had been for a century the
   capital of the Latin kingdom, was now become the last refuge
   of the Christian population of Palestine. Its defences were
   strong, its inhabitants numerous; but any state of society
   more vicious, disorderly, and helpless than its condition, can
   scarcely be imagined. Within its walls were crowded a
   promiscuous multitude, of every European nation, all equally
   disclaiming obedience to a general government, and enjoying
   impunity for every crime under the nominal jurisdiction of
   independent tribunals. Of these there were no less than
   seventeen; in which the papal legate, the king of Jerusalem,
   the despoiled great feudatories of his realm, the three
   military orders, the colonies of the maritime Italian
   republics, and the representatives of the princes of the West,
   all arrogated sovereign rights, and all abused them by the
   venal protection of offenders. … All the wretched
   inhabitants who could find such opportunities of escape,
   thronged on board the numerous vessels in the harbour, which
   set sail for Europe; and the last defence of Acre was
   abandoned to about 12,000 men, for the most part the soldiery
   of the three military orders. From that gallant chivalry, the
   Moslems encountered a resistance worthy of its ancient renown
   and of the extremity of the cause for which its triple
   fraternity had sworn to die. But the whole force of the
   Mameluke empire, in its yet youthful vigour, had been
   collected for their destruction." After a fierce siege of
   thirty-three days, one of the principal defensive works,
   described in contemporary accounts as "the Cursed Tower," was
   shattered, and the besiegers entered the city. The cowardly
   Lusignan had escaped by a stolen flight the night before. The
   Teutonic Knights, the Templars and the Hospitallers stood
   their ground with hopeless valor. Of the latter only seven
   escaped. "Bursting through the city, the savage victors
   pursued to the strand the unarmed and fleeing population, who
   had wildly sought a means of escape, which was denied not less
   by the fury of the elements than by the want of sufficient
   shipping.
{1887}
   By the relentless cruelty of their pursuers, the sands and the
   waves were dyed with the blood of the fugitives; all who
   survived the first horrid massacre were doomed to a hopeless
   slavery; and the last catastrophe of the Crusades cost life or
   liberty to 60,000 Christians. … The Christian population of
   the few maritime towns which had yet been retained fled to
   Cyprus, or submitted their necks, without a struggle, to the
   Moslem yoke; and, after a bloody contest of two hundred years,
   the possession of the Holy Land was finally abandoned to the
   enemies of the Cross. The fall of Acre closes the annals of
   the Crusades."

      _Colonel G. Procter,
      History of the Crusades,
      chapter 5, section 5._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 15 (volume 3)._

   Actual royalty in the legitimate line of the Lusignan family
   ends with a queen Charlotte, who was driven from Cyprus in
   1464 by her bastard brother James. She made over to the house
   of Savoy (one of the members of which she had married) her
   rights and the three crowns she wore,—the crown of Armenia
   having been added to those of Jerusalem and Cyprus in the
   family. "The Dukes of Savoy called themselves Kings of Cyprus
   and Jerusalem from the date of Queen Charlotte's settlement;
   the Kings of Naples had called themselves Kings of Jerusalem
   since the transfer of the rights of Mary of Antioch [see
   above], in 1277, to Charles of Anjou; and the title has run on
   to the present day in the houses of Spain and Austria, the
   Dukes of Lorraine, and the successive dynasties of Naples. …
   The Kings of Sardinia continued to strike money as Kings of
   Cyprus and Jerusalem, until they became Kings of Italy. There
   is no recognized King of Cyprus now; but there are two or
   three Kings of Jerusalem; and the Cypriot title is claimed, I
   believe, by some obscure branch of the house of Lusignan,
   under the will of King James II."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the
      Study of Medieval and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1299.
   The Templars once more in the city.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1516.
   Embraced in the Ottoman conquests of Sultan Selim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1831.
   Taken by Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

   ----------JERUSALEM: End----------

JERUSALEM TALMUD, The.

      See TALMUD.

JESUATES, The.

   "The Jesuates, so called from their custom of incessantly
   crying through the streets, 'Praised be Jesus Christ,' were
   founded by John Colombino, … a native of Siena. … The
   congregation was suppressed … by Clement IX., because some
   of the houses of the wealthy 'Padri dell' acqua vite,' as they
   were called, engaged in the business of distilling liquors and
   practising pharmacy (1668)."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149._

   ----------JESUITS: Start--------

JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
   Founding of the Society of Jesus.
   System of its organization.
   Its principles and aims.

   "Experience had shown that the old monastic orders were no
   longer sufficient. … About 1540, therefore, an idea began to
   be entertained at Rome that a new order was needed; the plan
   was not to abolish the old ones, but to found new ones which
   should better answer the required ends. The most important of
   them was the Society of Jesus. But in this case the moving
   cause did not proceed from Rome. Among the wars of Charles V.
   we must recur to the first contest at Navarra, in 1521. It was
   on this occasion, in defending Pamplona against the French,
   that Loyola received the wound which was to cause the monkish
   tendency to prevail over the chivalrous element in his nature.
   A kind of Catholicism still prevailed in Spain which no longer
   existed anywhere else. Its vigour may be traced to the fact
   that during the whole of the Middle Ages it was always in
   hostile contact with Islam, with the Mohammedan infidels. The
   crusades here had never come to an end. … As yet untainted
   by heresy, and suffering from no decline, in Spain,
   Catholicism was as eager for conquest as it had been in all
   the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was from
   the nation possessing this temperament that the founder of the
   order of the Jesuits sprang. Ignatius Loyola (born 1491) was a
   Spanish knight, possessing the two-fold tendencies which
   distinguish the knighthood of the Middle Ages. He was a
   gallant swordsman, delighting in martial feats and romantic
   love adventures; but he was at the same time animated by a
   glowing enthusiasm for the Church and her supremacy, even
   during the early period of his life. These two tendencies were
   striving together in his character, until the event took place
   which threw him upon a bed of suffering. No sooner was he
   compelled to renounce his worldly knighthood, than he was sure
   that he was called upon to found a new order of spiritual
   knighthood, like that of which he had read in the chivalrous
   romance, 'Amadis.' Entirely unaffected by the Reformation,
   what he understood by this was a spiritual brotherhood in the
   true mediæval sense, which should convert the heathen in the
   newly-discovered countries of the world. With all the zeal of
   a Spaniard he decided to live to the Catholic Church alone; he
   chastised his body with penances and all kinds of privations,
   made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, in order to complete his
   defective education, he visited the university of Paris; it
   was among his comrades there that he formed the first
   associations out of which the order was afterwards formed.
   Among these was Jacob Lainez; he was Loyola's
   fellow-countryman, the organizing head who was to stamp his
   impress upon the order. … Then came the spread of the new
   doctrines, the mighty progress of Protestantism. No one who
   was heartily attached to the old Church could doubt that there
   was work for such an association, for the object now in hand
   was not to make Christians of the aboriginal inhabitants of
   Central America, but to reconquer the apostate members of the
   Romish Church. About 1539 Loyola came with his fraternity to
   Rome. He did not find favour in all circles; the old orders
   regarded the new one with jealousy and mistrust; but Pope Paul
   III. (1534-49) did not allow himself to be misled, and in 1540
   gave the fraternity his confirmation, thus constituting
   Loyola's followers an order, which, on its part, engaged 'to
   obey in all things the reigning Pope—to go into any country,
   to Turks, heathen, or heretics, or to whomsoever he might send
   them, at once, unconditionally, without question or reward.'
   It is from this time that the special history of the order
   begins.
{1888}
   During the next year Loyola was chosen the first general of
   the order, an office which he held until his death (1541-56).
   He was succeeded by Lainez. He was less enthusiastic than his
   predecessor, had a cooler head, and was more reasonable; he
   was the man for diplomatic projects and complete and
   systematic organization. The new order differed in several
   respects from any previously existing one, but it entirely
   corresponded to the new era which had begun for the Romish
   Church. … The construction of the new order was based and
   carried out on a monarchical-military system. The territories
   of the Church were divided into provinces; at the head of each
   of these was a provincial; over the provincials, and chosen by
   them, the general, who commanded the soldiers of Christ, and
   was entrusted with dictatorial power, limited only by the
   opinions of three judges, assistants or admonitors. The
   general has no superior but the Pope, with whom he
   communicates directly; he appoints and dismisses all
   officials, issues orders as to the administration of the
   order, and rules with undisputed sway. The absolute monarchy
   which was assigned to the Pope by the Council of Trent, was
   conferred by him on the general of the Jesuits. Among the four
   vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and subjection to the
   Pope, obedience was the soul of all. To learn and practise
   this physically and mentally, up to the point where, according
   to the Jesuit expression, a man becomes 'tanquam lignum et
   cadaver,' was the ruling principle of the institution. …
   Entire renunciation of the will and judgment in relation to
   everything commanded by the superior, blind obedience,
   unconditional subjection, constitute their ideal. There was
   but one exception, but even in this there was a reservation.
   It was expressly stated that there can be no obligation 'ad
   peccatum mortale vel veniale,' to sinful acts of greater or
   less importance, 'except when enjoined by the superior, in the
   name of Jesus Christ,' 'vel in virtute obedientiæ,'—an
   elastic doctrine which may well be summed up in the dictum
   that 'the end justifies the means.' Of course, all the members
   of this order had to renounce all ties of family, home, and
   country, and it was expressly enjoined. … Of the vow of
   poverty it is said, in the 'Summarium' of the constitution of
   the order, that it must be maintained as a 'murus religionis.
   No one shall have any property; everyone must be content with
   the meanest furniture and fare, and, if necessity or command
   require it, he must be ready to beg his bread from door to
   door ('ostiatim mendicare'). The external aspect of members of
   the order, their speech and silence, gestures, gait, garb, and
   bearing shall indicate the prescribed purity of soul. … On
   all these and many other points, the new order only laid
   greater stress on the precepts which were to be found among
   the rules of other orders, though in the universal
   demoralisation of the monastic life they had fallen into
   disuse. But it decidedly differed from all the others in the
   manner in which it aimed at obtaining sway in every sphere and
   every aspect of life. Himself without home or country, and not
   holding the doctrines of any political party, the disciple of
   Jesus renounced everything which might alienate him among
   varying nationalities, pursuing various political aims. Then
   he did not confine his labours to the pulpit and the
   confessional; he gained an influence over the rising
   generation by a systematic attention to education, which had
   been shamefully neglected by the other orders. He devoted
   himself to education from the national schools up to the
   academic chair, and by no means confined himself to the sphere
   of theology. This was a principle of immense importance. …
   It is a true saying, that 'he who gains the youth possesses
   the future'; and by devoting themselves to the education of
   youth, the Jesuits secured a future to the Church more surely
   than by any other scheme that could have been devised. What
   the schoolmasters were for the youth, the confessors were for
   those of riper years; what the clerical teachers were for the
   common people, the spiritual directors and confidants were for
   great lords and rulers—for the Jesuits aspired to a place at
   the side of the great, and at gaining the confidence of kings.
   It was not long before they could boast of astonishing
   success."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 20._

   "The Society, in 1556, only 16 years after its commencement,
   counted as many as twelve provinces, 100 houses, and upwards
   of 1,000 members, dispersed over the whole known world. Their
   two most conspicuous and important establishments were the
   Collegio Romano and the German College. They already were in
   possession of many chairs, and soon monopolised the right of
   teaching, which gave them a most overwhelming influence."

      _G. B. Nicolini,
      History of the Jesuits,
      page 90._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Loyola and Jesuitism in its Rudiments._

      S_. Rose,
      Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits._

      _T. Hughes,
      Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits._

      See, also, EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

JESUITS: A. D. 1542-1649.
   The early Jesuit Missionaries and their labors.

   "In 1542, Xavier landed at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese
   colony, on the western coast of Hindostan. He took lodgings at
   the hospital, and mingled with the poor. He associated also
   with the rich, and even played with them at cards, acting
   piously upon the motto of the order, 'Ad majorem Dei gloriam.'
   Having thus won good-will to himself, he went into the
   streets, with his hand-bell and crucifix, and, having rung the
   one, he held up the other, exhorting the multitudes to accept
   that religion of which it was the emblem. His great facility
   in acquiring foreign languages helped him much. He visited
   several times the pearl-fisheries on the Malabar coast,
   remaining at one time thirteen months, and planting forty-five
   churches. Cape Comorin, Travancore, Meliapore, the Moluccas,
   Malacca, and other ports of India, and finally the distant
   island of Japan—where Christianity was [accepted—see JAPAN:
   A. D. 1540-1686] … —received his successive visits. Leaving
   two Jesuits on the island, he returned to settle some matters
   at Goa, which done, he sailed for China, but died at the
   island of Sancian, a few leagues from the city of Canton, in
   1552—ten years only after his arrival in India. He had in
   this time established an inquisition and a college at Goa.
   Numbers of the society, whom he had wisely distributed, had
   been sent to his aid; and the Christians in India were
   numbered by hundreds of thousands before the death of this
   'Apostle of the Indies.' It has even been said, that he was
   the means of converting more persons in Asia than the church
   had lost by the Reformation in Europe.
{1889}
   The empire of China, which Xavier was not allowed to enter,
   was visited, half a century later, by the Jesuit Matthew
   Ricci, who introduced his religion by means of his great skill
   in science and art, especially mathematics and drawing [see
   CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882]. He assumed the garb of a mandarin
   —associated with the higher classes—dined with the
   Emperor—allowed those who received Christianity to retain any
   rites of their own religion to which they were attached—and
   died in 1610, bequeathing and recommending his policy to
   others. This plan of accommodation was far more elaborately
   carried out by Robert Nobili, who went to Madura, in southern
   Hindostan, as a missionary of the order in 1606. He had
   observed the obstacle which caste threw in the way of
   missionary labor, and resolved to remove it. He presented
   himself as a foreign Brahmin, and attached himself to that
   class. They had a tradition, that there once had been four
   roads to truth in India, one of which they had lost. This he
   professed to restore. He did no violence to their existing
   ideas or institutions, but simply gave them other
   interpretations, and in three years he had seventy converted
   Brahmins about him. From this time he went on gathering crowds
   of converts, soon numbering 150,000. This facile policy,
   however, attracted the notice of the other religious orders,
   was loudly complained of at Rome, and, after almost an entire
   century of agitation, was condemned in 1704 by a special
   legation, appointed by Clement XI. to inquire into the matter
   of complaint. … The attention of the society was early
   directed to our own continent, and its missions everywhere
   anticipated the settlements. The most remarkable missions were
   in South America. Missionaries had been scattered over the
   whole continent, everywhere making converts, but doing nothing
   for the progress of the order. Aquaviva was general. This
   shrewd man saw the disadvantage of the policy, and at once
   applied the remedy. He directed, that, leaving only so many
   missionaries scattered over the continent as should be
   absolutely necessary, the main force should be concentrated
   upon a point. Paraguay was chosen. The missionaries formed
   what were called reductions—that is, villages into which the
   Indians were collected from their roving life, taught the
   ruder arts of civilization, and some of the rites and duties
   of the Christian religion. These villages were regularly laid
   out with streets, running each way from a public square,
   having a Church, work-shops and dwellings. Each family had a
   small piece of land assigned for cultivation, and all were
   reduced to the most systematic habits of industry and good
   order. … The men were trained to arms, and all the elements
   of an independent empire were fast coming into being. In 1632,
   thirty years after the starting of this system, Paraguay had
   twenty reductions, averaging 1,000 families each, which at a
   moderate estimate, would give a population of 100,000, and
   they still went on prospering until three times this number
   are, by some, said to have been reached. The Jesuits started,
   in California, in 1642, the same system, which they fully
   entered upon in 1679. This, next to Paraguay, became their
   most successful mission."

      _A Historical Sketch of the Jesuits
      (Putnam's Magazine, September, 1856)._

   In 1632 the Jesuits entered on their mission work in Canada,
   or New France, where they supplanted the Récollet friars. "In
   1640 Montreal, the site of which had been already indicated by
   Champlain in 1611, was founded, that there might be a nearer
   rendezvous than Quebec for the converted Indians. At its
   occupation a solemn mass was celebrated under a tent, and in
   France itself the following February a general supplication
   was offered up that the Queen of Angels would take the Island
   of Montreal under her protection. In the August of this year a
   general meeting of French settlers and Indians took place at
   Montreal, and the festival of the Assumption was solemnised at
   the island. The new crusading spirit took full possession of
   the enthusiastic French people, and the niece of Cardinal
   Richelieu founded a hospital for the natives between the
   Kennebec and Lake Superior, to which young and nobly-born
   hospital nuns from Dieppe offered their services. Plans were
   made for establishing mission posts, not only on the north
   amongst the Algonkins, but to the south of Luke Huron, in
   Michigan and at Green Bay, and so on as far as the regions to
   the west. The maps of the Jesuits prove that before 1660 they
   had traced the waters of Lake Erie and Lake Superior and had
   seen Lake Michigan. The Huron mission embraced principally the
   country lying between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, building
   its stations on the rivers and shores. But the French
   missionaries, however much they might desire it, could not
   keep outside the intertribal strifes of the natives around
   them. Succeeding to Champlain's policy, they continued to aid
   the Algonkins and Hurons against their inveterate enemies the
   Iroquois. The Iroquois retaliated by the most horrible cruelty
   and revenge. There was no peace along the borders of this wild
   country, and missionaries and colonists carried their lives in
   their hands. In 1648 St. Joseph, a Huron mission town on the
   shores of Lake Simcoe, was burned down and destroyed by the
   Iroquois, and Père Daniel, the Jesuit leader, killed under
   circumstances of great atrocity. In 1649 St. Ignace, a station
   at the corner of Georgian Bay, was sacked, and there the pious
   Brebeuf met his end, after having suffered the most horrible
   tortures the Indians could invent. Brebeuf, after being hacked
   in the face and burnt all over the body with torches and
   red-hot iron, was scalped alive, and died after three hours'
   suffering. His companion, the gentle Gabriel Lallemand,
   endured terrible tortures for seventeen hours."

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada,
      chapter 6. _

   The Hurons were dispersed and their nation destroyed by these
   attacks of the Iroquois. "With the fall of the Hurons fell the
   best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and
   populous communities around them, had been the rude material
   from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire
   in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
   uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
   whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
   common ruin. The land of promise was turned to a solitude and
   a desolation. There was still work in hand, it is true,—vast
   regions to explore, and countless heathens to snatch from
   perdition; but these, for the most part, were remote and
   scattered hordes, from whose conversion it was vain to look
   for the same solid and decisive results. In a measure, the
   occupation of the Jesuits was gone.
{1890}
   Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father
   Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the
   trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number,
   several soon fell victims to famine, hardship, and the
   Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission;
   political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
   and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
   civil and military annals."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Jesuits in North America,
      chapter 34._

      See, also,
      CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.

JESUITS: A. D. 1558.
   Mission founded in Abyssinia.

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 15TH-19TH CENTURIES.

JESUITS: A. D. 1572-1603.
   Persecution in England under Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.

JESUITS: A. D. 1573-1592.
   Change in the statutes of the Order on demands from Spain.

   "At the first establishment of the Order, the elder and
   already educated men, who had just entered it, were for the
   most part Spaniards; the members joining it from other nations
   were chiefly young men, whose characters had yet to be formed.
   It followed naturally that the government of the society was,
   for the first ten years, almost entirely in Spanish hands. The
   first general congregation was composed of twenty-five
   members, eighteen of whom were Spaniards. The first three
   generals belonged to the same nation. After the death of the
   third, Borgia, in the year 1573, it was once more a Spaniard,
   Polanco, who had the best prospect of election. It was however
   manifest that his elevation would not have been regarded
   favourably, even in Spain itself. There were many new converts
   in the society who were Christianized Jews. Polanco also
   belonged to this class, and it was not thought desirable that
   the supreme authority in a body so powerful, and so
   monarchically constituted, should be confided to such hands.
   Pope Gregory XIV., who had received certain intimations on
   this subject, considered a change to be expedient on other
   grounds also. When a deputation presented itself before him
   from the congregation assembled to elect their general,
   Gregory inquired how many votes were possessed by each nation;
   the reply showed that Spain held more than all the others put
   together. He then asked from which nation the generals of the
   order had hitherto been taken. He was told that there had been
   three, all Spaniards. 'It will be just, then,' replied
   Gregory, 'that for once you should choose one from among the
   other nations.' He even proposed a candidate for their
   election. The Jesuits opposed themselves for a moment to this
   suggestion, as a violation of their privileges; but concluded
   by electing the very man proposed by the pontiff. This was
   Eberhard Mercurianus. A material change was at once perceived,
   as the consequence of this choice. Mercurianus, a weak and
   irresolute man, resigned the government of affairs, first
   indeed to a Spaniard again, but afterwards to a Frenchman, his
   official admonitor; factions were formed, one expelling the
   other from the offices of importance, and the ruling powers of
   the Order now began to meet occasional resistance from its
   subordinate members. But a circumstance of much higher moment
   was, that on the next vacancy—in the year 1581—this office
   was conferred on Claudius Acquaviva, a Neapolitan, belonging
   to a house previously attached to the French party, a man of
   great energy, and only thirty-eight years old. The Spaniards
   then thought they perceived that their nation, by which the
   society had been founded and guided on its early path, was now
   to be forever excluded from the generalship. Thereupon they
   became discontented and refractory, and conceived the design
   of making themselves less dependent on Rome. … They first
   had recourse to the national spiritual authority of their own
   country—the Inquisition. … One of the discontented Jesuits,
   impelled, as he affirmed, by a scruple of conscience, accused
   his order of concealing, and even remitting, transgressions of
   the kind so reserved, when the criminal was one of their
   society. The Inquisition immediately caused the Provincial
   implicated, together with his most active associates, to be
   arrested. Other accusations being made in consequence of these
   arrests, the Inquisition commanded that the statutes of the
   order should be placed before it, and proceeded to make
   further seizures of parties accused. … The Inquisition was,
   however, competent to inflict a punishment on the criminal
   only: it could not prescribe changes in the regulations of the
   society. When the affair, therefore, had proceeded thus far,
   the discontented members applied to the king also, assailing
   him with long memorials, wherein they complained of the
   defects in their constitution. The character of this
   constitution had never been agreeable to Philip II.; he used
   to say that he could see through all the other orders, but
   that the order of Jesuits he could not understand. … He at
   once commanded Manrique, bishop of Carthagena, to subject the
   Order to a visitation, with particular reference to these
   points. … The character of Sixtus V. made it particularly
   easy for Acquaviva to excite the antipathies of that pontiff
   against the proceedings of the Spaniards. Pope Sixtus had
   formed the hope, as we know, of rendering Rome, more decidedly
   than it ever yet was, the metropolis of Christendom. Acquaviva
   assured him, that the object really laboured for in Spain was
   no other than increased independence of Rome. Pope Sixtus
   hated nothing so much as illegitimate birth; and Acquaviva
   caused him to be informed that Manrique, the bishop selected
   as 'Visitator' of the Jesuits, was illegitimate. These were
   reasons sufficient to make Sixtus recall the assent he had
   already given to the visitation. He even summoned the case of
   the provincial before the tribunals of Rome. From his
   successor, Gregory XIV., the general succeeded in obtaining a
   formal confirmation of the rule of the order. But his
   antagonists also were unyielding and crafty. They perceived
   that the general must be attacked in the court of Rome itself.
   They availed themselves of his momentary absence. … In the
   summer of 1592, at the request of the Spanish Jesuits and
   Philip II., but without the knowledge of Acquaviva, the
   pontiff commanded that a general congregation should be held.
   Astonished and alarmed, Acquaviva hastened back. To the
   generals of the Jesuits these 'Congregations' were no less
   inconvenient than were the Convocations of the Church to the
   popes; and if his predecessors were anxious to avoid them, how
   much more cause had Acquaviva, against whom there prevailed so
   active an enmity! But he was soon convinced that the
   arrangement was irrevocable; he therefore resumed his
   composure and said, 'We are obedient sons; let the will of the
   holy father be done.' …
{1891}
   Philip of Spain had demanded some changes, and had
   recommended others for consideration. On two things he'
   insisted: the resignation of certain papal privileges; those
   of reading forbidden books, for example, and of granting
   absolution for the crime of heresy; and a law, by virtue of
   which every novice who entered the order should surrender
   whatever patrimonial rights he might possess, and should even
   resign all his benefices. These were matters in regard to
   which the order came into collision with the Inquisition and
   the civil government. After some hesitation, the demands of
   the king were complied with, and principally through the
   influence of Acquaviva himself. But the points recommended by
   Philip for consideration were of much higher moment. First of
   all came the questions, whether the authority of the superiors
   should not be limited to a certain period; and whether a
   general congregation should not be held at certain fixed
   intervals? The very essence and being of the institute, the
   rights of absolute sovereignty, were here brought into
   question. Acquaviva was not on this occasion disposed to
   comply. After an animated discussion, the congregation
   rejected these propositions of Philip; but the pope, also, was
   convinced of their necessity. What had been refused to the
   king was now commanded by the pope. By the plenitude of his
   apostolic power, he determined and ordained that the superiors
   and rectors should be changed every third year; and that, at
   the expiration of every sixth year, a general congregation
   should be assembled. It is, indeed, true that the execution of
   these ordinances did not effect so much as had been hoped from
   them. … It was, nevertheless, a very serious blow to the
   society, that it had been compelled, by internal revolt and
   interference from without, to a change in its statutes."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 6, section 9 (volume 2)._

JESUITS: A. D. 1581-1641.
   Hostility of the Paulistas of Brazil.
   Opposition to enslavement of the Indians.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

JESUITS: A. D. 1595.
   Expulsion from Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

JESUITS: A. D. 1606.
   Exclusion from Venice for half a century.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

JESUITS: A. D. 1653-1660.
   First controversy and conflict with the Jansenists.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

JESUITS: A. D. 1702-1715.
   The renewed conflict with Jansenism in France.
   The Bull Unigenitus.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
   Suppression of the Society in Portugal and the Portuguese
   dominions.

   In 1757, a series of measures intended to break the power, if
   not to end the existence, of the Society of Jesus, in Portugal
   and the Portuguese dominions, was undertaken by the great
   Portuguese minister, Carvalho, better known by his later title
   as the Marquis of Pombal. "It is not necessary to speculate on
   the various motives which induced Carvalho to attack the
   Jesuits, but the principal cause lay in the fact that they
   were wealthy and powerful, and therefore a dangerous force in
   an absolutist monarchy. It must be remembered that the Jesuits
   of the 18th century formed a very different class of men to
   their predecessors. They were no longer intrepid missionary
   pioneers, but a corporation of wealthy traders, who made use
   of their spiritual position to further the cause of their
   commerce. They had done a great work in America by opening up
   the interior of Brazil and converting the natives, and their
   administration of Paraguay, one of the most interesting
   achievements in the whole history of Christianity, was without
   doubt a blessing to the people. But by the middle of the 18th
   century they had gone too far. It was one thing to convert the
   natives of Brazil, and another to absorb much of the wealth of
   that country, in doing which they prejudiced not only the
   Crown but the Portuguese people, whom they kept from settling
   in the territory under their rule. Whether it was a sufficient
   reason for Carvalho to attack the order, because it was
   wealthy and powerful, and had departed from its primitive
   simplicity, is a question for everyone to decide for
   themselves, but that this was the reason, and that the various
   excuses alleged by the admirers of the great minister are
   without foundation, is an undoubted fact. On September 19,
   1757, the first important blow was struck, when the king's
   Jesuit confessor was dismissed, and all Jesuits were forbidden
   to come to Court. Carvalho, in the name of the King of
   Portugal, also formally denounced the order at Rome, and
   Benedict XIV., the then Pope, appointed the Cardinal de
   Saldanha, a friend of the minister, Visitor and Reformer of
   the Society of Jesus. The cardinal did not take long in making
   up his mind, and May 15, 1758, he forbade the Jesuits to
   engage in trade. An attempt upon the king's life, which
   shortly followed this measure, gave the minister the
   opportunity he wanted for urging the suppression of the famous
   society. The history of the Tavora plot, which culminated in
   this attempt, is one of the most mysterious affairs in the
   whole history of Portugal. … The three leaders of the plot
   were the Duke of Aveiro, a descendant of John II., and one of
   the greatest noblemen in Portugal, the Marquis of Tavora, who
   had filled with credit the post of Governor-general of India,
   and the Count of Atouguia, a descendant of the gallant Dom
   Luis de Athaide, the defender of Goa; but the heart and soul
   of the conspiracy was the Marchioness of Tavora, a beautiful
   and ambitious woman, who was bitterly offended because her
   husband had not been made a duke. The confessor of this lady
   was a Jesuit named Gabriel Malagrida. … The evidence on all
   sides is most contradictory, and all that is certain is that
   the king was fired at and wounded on the night of September 3,
   1758; and that in the following January, the three noblemen
   who have been mentioned, the Marchioness of Tavora, Malagrida
   with seven other Jesuits, and many other individuals of all
   ranks of life, were arrested as implicated in the attempt to
   murder. The laymen had but a short trial and, together with
   the marchioness, were publicly executed ten days after their
   arrest. King Joseph certainly believed that the real culprits
   had been seized, and in his gratitude he created Carvalho
   Count of Oeyras, and encouraged him to pursue his campaign
   against the Jesuits. On January 19, 1759, the estates
   belonging to the society were sequestrated; and on September
   3rd, all its members were expelled from Portugal, and
   directions were sent to the viceroys of India and Brazil to
   expel them likewise. The news of this bold stroke was received
   with admiration everywhere, except at Rome, and it became noised
   abroad that a great minister was ruling in Portugal. …
{1892}
   In 1764 the Jesuit priest Malagrida was burnt alive, not as a
   traitor but as a heretic and imposter, on account of some
   crazy tractates he had written. The man was regarded as a
   martyr, and all communication between Portugal and the Holy
   See was broken off for two years, while the Portuguese
   minister exerted all his influence with the Courts of France
   and Spain to procure the entire suppression of the society
   which he hated. The king supported him consistently, and after
   another attempt upon his life in 1769, which the minister as
   usual attributed to the Jesuits, King Joseph created his
   faithful servant Marquis of Pombal, by which title he is best
   known to fame. The prime ministers of France and Spain
   cordially acquiesced in the hatred of the Jesuits, for both
   the Duc de Choiseul and the Count d'Aranda had something of
   Pombal's spirit in them, and imitated his policy; in both
   countries the society, which on its foundation had done so
   much for Catholicism and Christianity, was proscribed, and the
   worthy members treated with as much rigour as the unworthy;
   and finally in 1773 Pope Clement XIV. solemnly abolished the
   Society of Jesus. King Joseph did not long survive this
   triumph of his minister, for he died on February 24, 1777, and
   the Marquis of Pombal, then an old man of 77, was at once
   dismissed from office."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Nicolini,
      History of the Jesuits,
      chapter 15._

      _T. Griesinger,
      The Jesuits,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
   Proceedings against the Order in the Parliament of Paris.
   Suppression in France, Spain, Bavaria, Parma, Modena, Venice.
   Demands on the Pope for the abolition of the Society.

   "Father Antoine Lavalette, 'procureur' of the Jesuit Missions
   in the Antilles, resided in that capacity at St. Pierre in the
   island of Martinique. He was a man of talent, energy, and
   enterprise; and, following an example by no means uncommon in
   the Society, he had been for many years engaged in mercantile
   transactions on an extensive scale, and with eminent success.
   It was an occupation expressly prohibited to missionaries; but
   the Jesuits were in the habit of evading the difficulty by
   means of an ingenious fiction. Lavalette was in correspondence
   with the principal commercial firms in France, and
   particularly with that of Lioncy Brothers and Gouffre, of
   Marseilles. He made frequent consignments of merchandise to
   their house, which were covered by bills of exchange, drawn in
   Martinique and accepted by them. For a time the traffic
   proceeded prosperously; but it so happened that upon the
   breaking out of the Seven Years' War, several ships belonging
   to Lavalette, richly freighted with West Indian produce, were
   captured by the English cruisers, and their cargoes
   confiscated. The immediate loss fell upon Lioncy and Gouffre,
   to whom these vessels were consigned," and they were driven to
   bankruptcy, the General of the Society of Jesus refusing to be
   responsible for the obligations of his subordinate, Father
   Lavalette. "Under these circumstances the creditors determined
   to attack the Jesuit community as a corporate body," and the
   latter were so singularly unwary, for once, as not only to
   contest the claim before the Parliament of Paris, but to
   appeal to the constitutions of their Society in support of
   their contention, that each college was independent in the
   matter of temporal property, and that no corporate
   responsibility could exist. "The Parliament at once demanded
   that the constitutions thus referred to should he examined.
   The Jesuits were ordered to furnish a copy of them; they
   obeyed. … The compulsory production of these mysterious
   records, which had never before been inspected by any but
   Jesuit eyes, was an event of crucial significance. It was the
   turning-point of the whole affair; and its consequences were
   disastrous." As a first consequence, "the court condemned the
   General of the Jesuits, and in his person the whole Society
   which he governed, to acquit the bills of exchange still
   outstanding, together with interest and damages, within the
   space of a year from the date of the 'arrêt.' In default of
   payment the debt was made recoverable upon the common property
   of the Order, excepting only the endowments specially
   restricted to particular colleges. The delight of the public,
   who were present on the occasion in great numbers, 'was
   excessive,' says Barbier, 'and even indecent.'" As a second
   consequence, the Parliament, on the 6th of August, 1761,
   "condemned a quantity of publications by the Jesuits, dating
   from the year 1590 downwards, to be torn and burnt by the
   executioner and the next day this was duly carried out in the
   court of the Palais de Justice. Further, the 'arrêt'
   prohibited the king's subjects from entering the said Society;
   forbade the fathers to give instruction, private or public, in
   theology, philosophy, or humanity; and ordered their schools
   and colleges to be closed. The accusation brought against
   their books was … that of teaching 'abominable and murderous
   doctrine,' of justifying sedition, rebellion, and regicide.
   … The Government replied to these bold measures by ordering
   the Parliament to suspend the execution of its 'arrêts' for
   the space of a year. The Parliament affected to obey, but
   stipulated, in registering the letters-patent, that the delay
   should not extend beyond the 1st of April, 1762, and made
   other provisions which left them virtually at liberty to
   proceed as they might think proper. The Jesuits … relied too
   confidently on the protection of the Crown. … But the
   prestige of the monarchy was now seriously impaired, and it
   was no longer wise or safe for a King of France to undertake
   openly the defence of any institution which had incurred a
   deliberate sentence of condemnation from the mass of his
   people." In November, 1761, a meeting of French prelates was
   summoned by the Royal Council to consider and report upon
   several questions relative to the utility of the Society of
   Jesus, the character of its teaching and conduct, and the
   modifications, if any, which should be proposed as to the
   extent of authority exercised by the General of the Society.
   The bishops, by a large majority, made a report favorable to
   the Jesuits, but recommended, "as reasonable concessions to
   public opinion, certain alterations in its statutes and
   practical administration. … This project of compromise was
   forwarded to Rome for the consideration of the Pope and the
   General; and Louis gave them to understand, through his
   ambassador, that upon no other conditions would it be possible
   to stem the tide of opposition, and to maintain the Jesuits as
   a body corporate in France.
{1893}
   It was now that the memorable reply was made, either by the
   General Ricci, or, according to other accounts, by Pope
   Clement XIII. himself—Sint ut sunt, aut non sint'; 'Let them
   remain as they are, or let them exist no longer.'" Even had
   the proposed reform been accepted, "its success was
   problematical; but its rejection sealed the fate of the Order.
   Louis, notwithstanding the ungracious response from Rome,
   proposed his scheme of conciliation to the Parliament in
   March, 1762, and annulled at the same time all measures
   adverse to the Jesuits taken since the 1st of August
   preceding. The Parliament, secretly encouraged by the Duc de
   Choiseul, refused to register this edict; the king, after some
   hesitation, withdrew it; and no available resource remained to
   shield the Order against its impending destiny. The
   Parliaments, both of Paris and the Provinces, laid the axe to
   the root without further delay. By an 'arrêt' of the 1st of
   April, 1762, the Jesuits were expelled from their 84 colleges
   in the ressort of the Parliament of Paris, and the example was
   followed by the provincial tribunals of Rouen, Rennes, Metz,
   Bordeaux, and Aix. The Society was now assailed by a general
   chorus of invective and execration. … The final blow was
   struck by the Parliament of Paris on the 6th of August, 1762.
   … The sentence then passed condemned the Society as
   'inadmissible, by its nature, in any civilized State, inasmuch
   as it was contrary to the law of nature, subversive of
   authority spiritual and temporal, and introduced, under the
   veil of religion, not an Order sincerely aspiring to
   evangelical perfection, but rather a political body, of which
   the essence consists in perpetual attempts to attain, first,
   absolute independence, and in the end, supreme authority.' …
   The decree concludes by declaring the vows of the Jesuits
   illegal and void, forbidding them to observe the rules of the
   Order, to wear its dress, or to correspond with its members.
   They were to quit their houses within one week, and were to
   renounce, upon oath, all connection with the Society, upon
   pain of being disqualified for any ecclesiastical charge or
   public employment. The provincial Parliaments followed the
   lead of the capital, though in some few instances the decree
   of suppression was opposed, and carried only by a small
   majority; while at Besançon and Douai the decision was in
   favour of the Society. In Lorraine, too, under the peaceful
   government of Stanislas Leczinski, and in Alsace, where they
   were powerfully protected by Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of
   Strasburg, the Jesuits were left unmolested. … The
   suppression of the Jesuits—the most important act of the
   administration of the Duc de Choiseul—was consummated by a
   royal ordonnance of November, 1764, to which Louis did not
   give his consent without mistrust and regret. It decreed that
   the Society should cease to exist throughout his Majesty's
   dominions; but it permitted the ex-Jesuits to reside in France
   as private citizens, and to exercise their ecclesiastical
   functions under the jurisdiction of the diocesans. … Almost
   immediately afterwards, on the 7th of January, 1765. appeared
   the bull 'Apostolicum,' by which Clement XIII. condemned, with
   all the weight of supreme and infallible authority, the
   measure which had deprived the Holy See of its most valiant
   defenders. … The only effect of the intervention of the
   Roman Curia was to excite further ebullitions of hostility
   against the prostrate Order. Charles III. of Spain, yielding,
   as it is alleged, to the exhortations of the Duc de Choiseul,
   abolished it throughout his dominions by a sudden mandate of
   April 2, 1767. … The Pope precipitated the final catastrophe
   by a further act of imprudence. The young Duke of Parma, a
   prince of the house of Bourbon, had excluded the Jesuits from
   his duchy, and had published certain ecclesiastical
   regulations detrimental to the ancient pretensions of the
   Roman See. Clement XIII., reviving an antiquated title in
   virtue of which Parma was claimed as a dependent fief of the
   Papacy, was rash enough to launch a bull of excommunication
   against the Duke, and deprived him of his dominions as a
   rebellious vassal. All the Bourbon sovereigns promptly
   combined to resent this insult to their family. The Papal Bull
   was suppressed at Paris, at Madrid, at Lisbon, at Parma, at
   Naples. The Jesuits were expelled from Venice, from Modena,
   from Bavaria. The Pontiff was summoned to revoke his
   'monitorium'; and on his refusal French troops took possession
   of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, while the King of Naples
   seized Benevento and Pontecorvo. On the 16th of January, 1769,
   the ambassadors of Spain, France, and Naples presented a joint
   note to the Holy Father, demanding that the Order of Jesus
   should be secularised and abolished for ever. Clement, who had
   suffered severely from the manifold humiliations and reverses
   of his Pontificate, was overwhelmed by this last blow, from
   the effects of which he never rallied. He expired almost
   suddenly on the 2nd of February, 1769."

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Griesinger,
      The Jesuits,
      book 6, chapter 6,
      and book 7, chapter 1._

JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871
   Papal suppression and restoration of the Order.

   "The attitude of the Roman Catholic Courts was so threatening,
   and their influence with the Conclave so powerful, that
   Lorenzo Ganganelli was selected [1769] for the triple crown,
   as the man best suited for their purposes. Belonging to the
   Franciscans, who had ever been antagonistic to the Jesuits, he
   had been a follower of the Augustinian theology, and was not
   altogether free from Jansenism. The Jesuits even went so far
   as to pray publicly in their churches for the conversion of
   the Pope. The pontificate of Clement XIV. has been rendered
   memorable in history by the Papal decree of July 21, 1773,
   which in its policy adopted the maxim of Lorenzo Ricci, the
   inflexible General of the Jesuits, 'Sint ut sunt, aut non
   sunt'—Let us be as we are, or let us not be! That decree
   declared that, from the very origin of the Order, sorrow,
   jealousies, and dissensions arose, not only among its own
   members but between them and the other religious orders and
   their colleges. After further declaring that, urged as its
   head by a sense of duty to restore the harmony of the Church,
   and feeling convinced that the Society could no longer
   subserve the uses for which it was created, and on other
   grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom, he by his decree
   abolished the Order of Jesuits, its offices, houses, and
   institutes. … The other religious orders at Rome were
   jealous that Jesuits should have been the confessors of
   Sovereigns at Westminster, Madrid, Vienna, Versailles, Lisbon,
   and Naples. The influences of the Dominicans, the
   Benedictines, and the Oratorians were accordingly exercised
   for their suppression. … The Papal Bull 'Dominus Redemptor
   noster' was at first resisted by the Jesuits, and their
   General, Lorenzo Ricci, was sent to the Castle of St. Angelo.
{1894}
   Bernardine Renzi, a female Pythoness, having predicted the
   death of the Pope, two Jesuits, Coltrano and Venissa, who were
   suspected of having instigated her prophecies, were consigned
   to the same prison. All that follows relating to the fate of
   Ganganelli is of mere historic interest; his end is shrouded
   in mystery, which has been as yet, and is likely to continue,
   impenetrable. According to the revelations of Cardinal de
   Bernis, Ganganelli was himself apprehensive of dying by
   poison, and a sinister rumour respecting a cup of chocolate
   with an infusion of 'Aqua de Tofana,' administered by a pious
   attendant, was generally prevalent throughout Europe; but the
   time has long since passed for an inquest over the deathbed of
   Clement XIV."

      _The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany
      (Fraser's' Magazine, May, 1873)._

   "All that follows the publication of the brief—the death of
   Ganganelli, the fierce and yet unexhausted disputes about the
   last year of his life, and the manner of his death—are to us
   indescribably melancholy and repulsive. … We have
   conflicting statements, both of which cannot be
   true—churchman against churchman—cardinal against
   cardinal—even, it should seem, pope against pope. On the one
   side there is a triumph, hardly disguised, in the terrors, in
   the sufferings, in the madness, which afflicted the later days
   of Clement; on the other, the profoundest honour, the deepest
   commiseration, for a wise and holy Pontiff, who, but for the
   crime of his enemies, might have enjoyed a long reign of peace
   and respect and inward satisfaction. There a protracted agony
   of remorse in life and anticipated damnation—that damnation,
   if not distinctly declared, made dubious or averted only by a
   special miracle:—here an apotheosis—a claim, at least, to
   canonization. There the judgment of God pronounced in language
   which hardly affects regret; here more than insinuations, dark
   charges of poison against persons not named, but therefore
   involving in the ignominy of possible guilt a large and
   powerful party. Throughout the history of the Jesuits it is
   this which strikes, perplexes, and appals the dispassionate
   student. The intensity with which they were hated surpasses
   even the intensity with which they hated. Nor is this depth of
   mutual animosity among those or towards those to whom the
   Jesuits were most widely opposed, the Protestants, and the
   adversaries of all religion; but among Roman Catholics—and
   those not always Jansenists or even Gallicans—among the most
   ardent assertors of the papal supremacy, monastics of other
   orders, parliaments, statesmen, kings, bishops, cardinals.
   Admiration and detestation of the Jesuits divide, as far as
   feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with a schism
   deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestant
   against Protestant, Episcopacy and Independency, Calvinism and
   Arminianism, Puseyism and Evangelicism. The two parties
   counterwork each other, write against each other in terms of
   equal acrimony, misunderstand each other, misrepresent each
   other, accuse and recriminate upon each other, with the same
   reckless zeal, in the same unmeasured language—each
   inflexibly, exclusively identifying his own cause with that of
   true religion, and involving its adversaries in one sweeping
   and remorseless condemnation. To us the question of the death
   of Clement XIV. is purely of historical interest. It is
   singular enough that Protestant writers are cited as alone
   doing impartial justice to the Jesuits and their enemies: the
   Compurgators of the 'Company of Jesus' are Frederick II. and
   the Encyclopedists. Outcast from Roman Catholic Europe, they
   found refuge in Prussia, and in the domains of Catherine II.,
   from whence they disputed the validity and disobeyed the
   decrees of the Pope."

      _Clement XIV. and the Jesuits
      (Quarterly Review, September, 1848.)_

   "The Jesuit Order remained in abeyance for a period of
   forty-two years, until Pius VII. on his return to Rome, after
   his liberation from the captivity he endured under Napoleon I.
   at Fontainebleau, issued his brief of August 7, 1814,
   'solicitudo omnium,' by which he authorised the surviving
   members of the Order again to live according to the rules of
   their founder, to admit novices, and to found colleges. With
   singular fatuity the Papal Edict for the restoration of the
   Jesuits, contradicting its own title, assigns on the face of
   the document as the principal reason for its being issued the
   recommendation contained in the gracious despatch of August
   11, 1800, received from Paul, the then reigning Emperor of the
   Russias. We have the histories of all nations concurring that
   Paul was notoriously mad, and within six months from the date
   of that gracious despatch he was strangled in his palace by
   the members of his own Court, as the only possible means, as
   they conceived, of rescuing the Empire from his insane and
   vicious despotism. In return probably for the successful
   intercession of Paul, Thadeus Brzozowski, a Pole by birth but
   a Russian subject, was elected the first General of the
   restored order. We find a striking comment on his
   recommendation in the Imperial Ukase of his successor, the
   Emperor Alexander, by which, in June 1817, he banished the
   Jesuits from all his dominions. Spain, the scene of their
   former ignominious treatment, was, under the degraded rule of
   the Ferdinandian dynasty, the first country to which they were
   recalled; but they were soon again expelled by the National
   Cortes. Our limits here confine us to a simple category of
   their subsequent expulsions from Roman Catholic States: from
   France in 1831, from Saxony in the same year, from Portugal
   again in 1834, from Spain again in 1835, from France again in
   1845, from the whole of Switzerland, including the Roman
   Catholic Cantons, in 1847, and in 1848 from Bavaria and other
   German States. In the Revolution of 1848, they were expelled
   from every Italian State, even from the territories of the
   Pope; but on the counter Revolution they returned, to be again
   expelled in 1859 from Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the
   Legations. They have had to endure even a more recent
   vicissitude, for, in December 1871, a measure relating to the
   vexed question, the Union of Church and State, received the
   sanction of the National Council (Bundesrath) of Switzerland,
   by which the Jesuits were prohibited from settling in the
   country, from interfering even in education, or from founding
   or re-establishing colleges throughout the Federal
   territories. They have thus within a recent period received
   sentence of banishment from almost every Roman Catholic
   Government, but they still remain in Rome."

      _The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany
      (Fraser's Magazine, May, 1873)._

{1895}

JESUITS: A. D. 1847.
   The question of Expulsion in Switzerland.
   The Sonderbund and the war of religions.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

JESUITS: A. D. 1880.
   The law against Jesuit schools in the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

   ----------JESUITS: End--------

JESUS, Uncertainty of, the date of the birth of.

      See JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

JEU-DE-PAUME, The Oath at the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

JEUNESSE DOREE, of the Anti-Jacobin reaction in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

   ----------JEWS: Start--------

JEWS.
   The National Names.

   There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of
   the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were
   originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor,
   Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying
   "over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was
   applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their
   country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this
   latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that
   the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest
   than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so
   as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of
   their names that appears to have been current in the earliest
   times. The history of this name shows that it must have been
   most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch
   of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant,
   but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared
   from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period
   immediately before Christ, like many other names of the
   primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of
   regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through
   the reverence then felt for Abraham."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 1, page 284._

   After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian
   captivity—the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of
   Judah and Benjamin—"the name of Judah took the predominant
   place in the national titles. As the primitive name of
   'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so
   that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judæan' or 'Jew,'
   so full of praise and pride, of reproach and scorn. 'It was
   born,' as their later historian [Josephus] truly observes, 'on
   the day when they came out from Babylon.'"

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      volume 3, page 101._

JEWS:
   The early Hebrew history.

   "Of course, in the abstract, it is possible that such persons
   as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should have existed. One can
   imagine that such and such incidents in the accounts regarding
   them really took place, and were handed down by tradition. …
   But our present investigation does not concern the question
   whether there existed men of those names, but whether the
   progenitors of Israel and of the neighbouring nations who are
   represented in Genesis are historical personages. It is this
   question which we answer in the negative. Must we then deny
   all historical value to the narratives of the patriarchs? By
   no means. What we have to do is to make proper use of them.
   They teach us what the Israelites thought as to their
   affinities with the tribes around them, and as to the manner
   of their own settlement in the land of their abode. If we
   strip them of their genealogical form, and at the same time
   take into consideration the influence which Israel's self-love
   must have exercised over the representation of relationships
   and facts, we have an historical kernel left. … The
   narratives in Genesis, viewed and used in this way, lead us to
   the following conception of Israel's early history. Canaan was
   originally inhabited by a number of tribes—of Semitic origin,
   as we shall perceive presently—who applied themselves to the
   rearing of cattle, to agriculture, or to commerce, according
   to the nature of the districts in which they were established.
   The countries which were subsequently named after Edom, Ammon,
   and Moab, also had their aboriginal inhabitants, the Horites,
   the Zamzummites, and the Emites. Whilst all these tribes
   retained possession of their dwelling-places, and the
   inhabitants of Canaan especially had reached a tolerably high
   stage of civilization and development, there occurred a
   Semitic migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Arphacsad,
   Ur Casdim), and moved on in a south-westerly direction. The
   countries to the east and the south of Canaan were gradually
   occupied by these intruders, the former inhabitants being
   either expelled or subjugated; Ammon, Moab, Ishmael, and Edom
   became the ruling nations in those districts. In Canaan the
   situation was different. The tribes which—at first closely
   connected with the Edomites, but afterwards separated from
   them—had turned their steps towards Canaan, did not find
   themselves strong enough either to drive out, or to exact
   tribute from, the original inhabitants; they continued their
   wandering life among them, and lived upon the whole at peace
   with them. But a real settlement was still their aim. When,
   therefore, they had become more numerous and powerful, through
   the arrival of a number of kindred settlers from
   Mesopotamia—represented in tradition by the army with which
   Jacob returns to Canaan—they resumed their march in the same
   south-westerly direction, until at length they took possession
   of fixed habitations in the land of Goshen, on the borders of
   Egypt."

      _A. Kuenen,
      The Religion of Israel,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "In the oldest extant record respecting Abraham, Genesis xiv.,
   … we see him acting as a powerful domestic prince, among
   many similar princes, who like him held Canaan in possession;
   not calling himself King, like Melchizedek, the priest-king of
   Salem, because he was the father and protector of his house,
   living with his family and bondmen in the open country, yet
   equal in power to the petty Canaanite kings. …
{1896}
   Detached as this account may be, it is at least evident from
   it that the Canaanites were at that time highly civilised,
   since they had a priest-king like Melchizedek, whom Abraham
   held in honour, but that they were even then so weakened by
   endless divisions and by the emasculating influence of that
   culture itself, as either to pay tribute to the warlike
   nations of the northeast (as the five kings of the cities of
   the Dead Sea had done for twelve years before they rebelled,
   ver. 4), or to seek for some valiant descendants of the
   northern lands living in their midst, who in return for
   certain concessions and services promised them protection and
   defence. … This idea furnishes the only tenable historical
   view of the migration of Abraham and his kindred. They did not
   conquer the land, nor at first hold it by mere force of arms,
   like the four north-eastern kings from whose hand Abraham
   delivered Lot, Genesis xiv. They advanced as leaders of small
   bands, with their fencible servants and the herds, at first
   rather sought or even invited by the old inhabitants of the
   land, as good warriors and serviceable allies, than forcing
   themselves upon them. Thus they took up their abode and
   obtained possessions among them, but were always wishing to
   migrate farther, even into Egypt. … Little as we are able to
   prove all the details of that migration from the north towards
   Egypt, which probably continued for centuries, it may with
   great certainty be conceived as on the whole similar to the
   gradual advance of many other northern nations; as of the
   Germans towards Rome, and of the Turks in these same regions
   in the Middle Ages. … We now understand that Abraham's name
   can designate only one of the most important and oldest of the
   Hebrew immigrations. But since Abraham had so early attained a
   name glorious among the Hebrews advancing towards the south,
   and since he was everything especially to the nation of Israel
   which arose out of this immigration, and to their nearest
   kindred, his name came to be the grand centre and
   rallying-point of all the memory of those times."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 1, section 1, C, part 3._

JEWS:
   The Children of Israel in Egypt.

   "It has been very generally supposed that Abraham's visit to
   Egypt took place under the reign of one of the kings of the
   twelfth dynasty [placed by Brugsch B. C. 2466-2266], but which
   king has not yet been satisfactorily made out. … Some
   Biblical critics have considered that Amenemha III. was king
   of Egypt when Abraham came there, and others that Usertsen I.
   was king, and that Amenemha was the Pharaoh of the time of
   Joseph. … It is generally accepted now that Joseph was sold
   into Egypt at the time when the Hyksos were in power [and
   about 1750 B. C.]; and it is also generally accepted that the
   Exodus took place after the death of Rameses II. and under the
   reign of Merenptah, or Meneptah. Now the children of Israel
   were in captivity in Egypt for 400 or 430 years; and as they
   went out of Egypt after the death of Rameses II., it was
   probably some time about the year 1350 B. C. There is little
   doubt that the Pharaoh who persecuted the Israelites so
   shamefully was Rameses II."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      The Dwellers on the Nile,
      chapter 4._

   "It is stated by George the Syncellus, a writer whose
   extensive learning and entire honesty are unquestionable, that
   the synchronism of Joseph with Apepi, the last king of the
   only known Hyksos dynasty, was 'acknowledged by all.' The best
   modern authorities accept this view, if not as clearly
   established, at any rate as in the highest degree probable,
   and believe that it was Apepi who made the gifted Hebrew his
   prime minister, who invited his father and his brethren to
   settle in Egypt with their households, and assigned to them
   the land of Goshen for their residence."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

   "The new Pharaoh, 'who knew not Joseph,' who adorned the city
   of Ramses, the capital of the Tanitic nome, and the city of
   Pithom, the capital of what was afterwards the Sethroitic
   nome, with temple-cities, is no other, can be no other, than
   Ramessu II. or Rameses—the Sesostris of the Greeks, B. C.
   1350, of whose buildings at Zoan the monuments and the
   papyrus-rolls speak in complete agreement. … Ramessu is the
   Pharaoh of the oppression, and the father of that unnamed
   princess, who found the child Moses exposed in the bulrushes
   on the bank of the river. … If Ramses-Sesostris … must be
   regarded beyond all doubt as the Pharaoh under whom the Jewish
   legislator Moses first saw the light, so the chronological
   relations—having regard to the great age of the two
   contemporaries, Ramses II. and Moses—demand that Mineptah
   [his son] should in all probability be acknowledged as the
   Pharaoh of the Exodus."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 14._

   The quotations given above represent the orthodox view of
   early Jewish history, in the light of modern monumental
   studies,—the view, that is, which accepts the Biblical
   account of Abraham and his seed as a literal family record,
   authentically widening into the annals of a nation. The more
   rationalizing views are indicated by the following: "There can
   be no doubt … as to the Semitic character of these Hyksos,
   or 'Pastors,' who, more than 2,000 years B. C., interrupted in
   a measure the current of Egyptian civilisation, and founded at
   Zoan (Tanis), near the Isthmus, the centre of a powerful
   Semitic state. These Hyksos were to all appearances
   Canaanites, near relations of the Hittites of Hebron. Hebron
   was in close community with Zoan, and there is a tradition,
   probably based upon historical data, that the two cities were
   built nearly at the same time. As invariably happens when
   barbarians enter into an ancient and powerful civilisation,
   the Hyksos soon became Egyptianised. … The Hyksos of Zoan
   could not fail to exercise a great influence upon the Hebrews
   who were encamped around Hebron, the Dead Sea, and in the
   southern districts of Palestine. The antipathy which
   afterwards existed between the Hebrews and the Canaanites was
   not as yet very perceptible. … There are the best of reasons
   for believing that the immigration of the Beni-Israel took
   place at two separate times. A first batch of Israelites seems
   to have been attracted by the Hittites of Egypt, while the
   bulk of the tribe was living upon the best of terms with the
   Hittites of Hebron. These first immigrants found favour with
   the Egyptianised Hittites of Memphis and Zoan; they secured
   very good positions, had children, and constituted a distinct
   family in Israel. This was what was afterwards called the
   'clan of the Josephel,' or the Beni-Joseph. Finding themselves
   well off in Lower Egypt, they sent for their brethren, who,
   impelled perhaps by famine, joined them there, and were
   received also favourably by the Hittite dynasties. These
   new-comers never went to Memphis. They remained in the
   vicinity of Zoan, where there is a land of Goshen, which was
   allotted to them. …
{1897}
   The whole of these ancient days, concerning which Israel
   possesses only legends and contradictory traditions, is
   enveloped in doubt; one thing, however, is certain, viz., that
   Israel entered Egypt under a dynasty favourable to the
   Semites, and left it under one which was hostile. The presence
   of a nomad tribe upon the extreme confines of Egypt must have
   been a matter of very small importance for this latter
   country. There is no certain trace of it in the Egyptian
   texts. The kingdom of Zoan, upon the contrary, left a deep
   impression upon the Israelites. Zoan became for them
   synonymous with Egypt. The relations between Zoan and Hebron
   were kept up, and … Hebron was proud of the synchronism,
   which made it out seven years older than Zoan. The
   first-comers, the Josephites, always assumed an air of
   superiority over their brethren, whose position they had been
   instrumental in establishing. … Their children, born in
   Egypt, possibly of Egyptian mothers, were scarcely Israelites.
   An agreement was come to, however; it was agreed that the
   Josephites should rank as Israelites with the rest. They
   formed two distinct tribes, those of Ephraim and Manasseh. …
   It is not impossible that the origin of the name of Joseph
   (addition, adjunction, annexation) may have arisen from the
   circumstance that the first emigrants and their families,
   having become strangers to their brethren, needed some sort of
   adjunction to become again part and parcel of the family of
   Israel."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS, and ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

JEWS:
   The Route of the Exodus.

   It is said of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt that "they
   built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."
   (Exodus i. 11.) One of those "treasure cities," or
   "store-cities," has been discovered, in a heap of ruins, at a
   place which the Arabs call "Tell el Maskhutah," and it was
   supposed at first to be the Raamses of the Biblical record.
   But explorations made in 1883 by M. Naville seem to have
   proved that it is the store-city of Pithom which lies buried
   in the mounds at Tell el Maskhutah and that Raamses is still
   to be found. As Raamses or Ramses was the starting point of
   the Exodus, something of a controversy concerning the route of
   the latter turns upon the question. It is the opinion of M.
   Naville that Succoth, where the Children of Israel made their
   first halt, was the district in which Pithom is situated, and
   that the Land of Goshen, their dwelling-place in Egypt, was a
   region embracing that district. The site of Pithom, as
   identified by Naville, is "on the south side of the sweet
   water canal which runs from Cairo to Suez through the Wadi
   Tumilât, about 12 miles from Ismailiah." The excavations made
   have brought to light a great number of chambers, with massive
   walls of brick, which are conjectured to have been granaries
   and storehouses, for the provisioning of caravans and armies
   to cross the desert to Syria, as well as for the collecting of
   tribute and for the warehousing of trade. Hence the name of
   store-city, or treasure-city. Under the Greeks Pithom changed
   its name to Heroopolis, and a new city called Arsinoë was
   built near it.

      _E. Naville,
      The Store-City of Pithom._

   "I submit that Goshen, properly speaking, was the land which
   afterwards became the Arabian nome, viz., the country round
   Saft el Henneh east of the canal Abu-I-Munagge, a district
   comprising Belbeis and Abbaseh, and probably extending further
   north than the Wadi Tumilat. The capital of the nome was Pa
   Sopt, called by the Greeks Phacusa, now Saft el Henneh. At the
   time when the Israelites occupied the land, the term 'Goshen'
   belonged to a region which as yet had no definite boundaries,
   and which extended with the increase of the people over the
   territory they inhabited. The term 'land of Ramses' applies to
   a larger area, and covers that part of the Delta which lies to
   the eastward of the Tanitic branch. … As for the city of
   Ramses, it was situate in the Arabian nome. Probably it was
   Phacusa."

      _E. Naville,
      Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen._

   The Israelites leaving Succoth, a region which we now know
   well, the neighbourhood of Tell-el-Maskhutah, push forward
   towards the desert, skirting the northern shore of the gulf,
   and thus reach the wilderness of Etham; but there, because of
   the pursuit of Pharaoh, they have to change their course, they
   are told to retrace their steps, so as to put the sea between
   them and the desert. … 'And the Lord spake unto Moses,
   saying: Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn and
   encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over
   against Baalzephon; before it shall ye encamp by the sea.' …
   The question is now, Where are we to look for Migdol and
   Pi-Hahiroth? As for Migdol, the ancient authors, and
   particularly the Itinerary, mention a Migdol, or Magdolon,
   which was twelve Roman miles distant from Pelusium. It is not
   possible to admit that this is the same Migdol which is spoken
   of in Exodus, for then it would not be the Red Sea, but the
   Mediterranean, which the Israelites would have before them,
   and we should thus have to fall in with MM. Schleiden and
   Brugsch's theory, that they followed the narrow track which
   lies between the Mediterranean and the Serbonian Bog. However
   ingenious are the arguments on which this system is based, I
   believe it must now be dismissed altogether, because we know
   the site of the station of Succoth. Is it possible to admit
   that, from the shore of the Arabian Gulf, the Israelites
   turned to the north, and marched forty miles through the
   desert in order to reach the Mediterranean? The journey would
   have lasted several days; they would have been obliged to pass
   in front of the fortresses of the north; they would have
   fallen into the way of the land of the Philistines, which they
   were told not to take; and, lastly, the Egyptians, issuing
   from Tanis and the northern cities, would have easily
   intercepted them. … All these reasons induce me to give up
   definitively the idea of the passage by the north, and to
   return to the old theory of a passage of the Red Sea, but of
   the Red Sea as it was at that time, extending a great deal
   farther northward, and not the Red Sea of to-day, which
   occupies a very different position. The word Migdol, in
   Egyptian, … is a common name. It means a fort, a tower. It
   is very likely that in a fortified region there have been
   several places so called, distinguished from each other,
   either by the name of the king who built them, or by some
   local circumstance; just as there are in Italy a considerable
   number of Torre. I should therefore, with M. Ebers, place
   Migdol at the present station of the Serapeum. There the sea
   was not wide, and the water probably very shallow; there also
   the phenomenon which took place on such a large scale when the
   Israelites went through must have been well known, as it is
   often seen now in other parts of Egypt.
{1898}
   As at this point the sea was liable to be driven back under
   the influence of the east wind, and to leave a dry way, the
   Pharaohs were obliged to have there a fort, a Migdol, so as to
   guard that part of the sea, and to prevent the Asiatics of the
   desert from using this temporary gate to enter Egypt, to steal
   cattle, and to plunder the fertile land which was round
   Pithom."

      _E. Naville,
      The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus
      (Egypt Expl. Fund, 1885)._

   "Modern critics prefer an intelligent interpretation,
   according to known natural laws, of the words of Exodus xiv.
   21, 22, which lay stress upon the 'east wind' as the direct
   natural agent by which the sea bottom was for the time made
   dry land. … The theory, which dates from an early period,
   that the passage was in some sense tidal, miraculously aided
   by the agency of wind, has thus come to be very generally
   adopted."

      _H. S. Palmer,
      Sinai
      (Ancient History from the Monuments),
      chapter 6._

JEWS:
   The conquest of Canaan.

   "The first essay [west of Jordan] was made by Judah in
   conjunction with Simeon and Levi, but was far from prosperous.
   Simeon and Levi were annihilated; Judah also, though
   successful in mastering the mountain land to the west of the
   Dead Sea, was so only at the cost of severe losses which were
   not again made up until the accession of the Kenite families
   of the south (Caleb). As a consequence of the secession of
   these tribes, a new division of the nation into Israel and
   Judah took the place of that which had previously subsisted
   between the families of Leah and Rachel; under Israel were
   included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah, which
   three are no longer mentioned in Judges v., where all the
   others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated. This
   half-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a
   second, which was stronger and attended with much better
   results. It was led by the tribe of Joseph, to which the
   others attached themselves, Reuben and Gad only remaining
   behind in the old settlements. The district to the north of
   Judah, inhabited afterwards by Benjamin, was the first to be
   attacked. It was not until after several towns of this
   district had one by one fallen into the hands of the
   conquerors that the Canaanites set about a united resistance.
   They were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua in the
   neighbourhood of Gibeon [or Beth-horon]; and by this victory
   the Israelites became masters of the whole central plateau of
   Palestine. The first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan,
   which had been maintained until then, was now removed, and the
   ark of Jehovah brought further inland (perhaps by way of
   Bethel) to Shiloh, where henceforwards the headquarters were
   fixed, in a position which seemed as if it had been expressly
   made to favour attacks upon the fertile tract lying beneath it
   on the north. The Bne Rachel now occupied the new territory
   which up to that time had been acquired—Benjamin, in
   immediate contiguity with the frontier of Judah, then Ephraim,
   stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly Manasseh, furthest to
   the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel. The centre of
   gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim, to which
   belonged Joshua and the ark, It is mentioned as the last
   achievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated
   Jabin, king of Hazor, and the allied princes of Galilee,
   thereby opening up the north for Israelitish settlers. …
   Even after the united resistance of the Canaanites had been
   broken, each individual community had still enough to do
   before it could take firm hold of the spot which it had
   searched out for itself or to which it had been assigned. The
   business of effecting permanent settlement was just a
   continuation of the former struggle, only on a diminished
   scale; every tribe and every family now fought for its own
   hand after the preliminary work had been accomplished by a
   united effort. Naturally, therefore, the conquest was at first
   but an incomplete one. The plain which fringed the coast was
   hardly touched; so also the valley of Jezreel with its girdle
   of fortified cities stretching from Acco to Bethshean. All
   that was subdued in the strict sense of that word was the
   mountainous land, particularly the southern hill-country of
   'Mount Ephraim'; yet even here the Canaanites retained
   possession of not a few cities, such as Jebus, Shechem,
   Thebez. It was only after the lapse of centuries that all the
   lacunæ were filled up, and the Canaanite enclaves made
   tributary. The Israelites had the extraordinarily
   disintegrated state of the enemy to thank for the ease with
   which they had achieved success."

      _J. Wellhausen,
      Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
      chapter 2._

   "Remnants of the Canaanites remained everywhere among and
   between the Israelites. Beside the Benjamites the Jebusites (a
   tribe of the Amorites) maintained themselves, and at Gibeon,
   Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth were the Hivites, who
   had made peace with the Israelites. In the land of Ephraim,
   the Canaanites held their ground at Geser and Bethel, until
   the latter—it was an important city—was stormed by the
   Ephraimites. Among the tribe of Manasseh the Canaanites were
   settled at Beth Shean, Dan, Taanach, Jibleam, Megiddo and
   their districts, and in the northern tribes the Canaanites
   were still more numerous. It was not till long after the
   immigration of the Hebrews that they were made in part
   tributary. The land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan, where
   the tribe of Manasseh possessed the north, Gad the centre, and
   Reuben the south as far as the Arnon, was exposed to the
   attacks of the Ammonites and Moabites, and the migratory
   tribes of the Syrian desert, and must have had the greater
   attraction for them, as better pastures were to be found in
   the heights of Gilead, and the valleys there were more
   fruitful. To the west only the tribe of Ephraim reached the
   sea, and became master of a harbourless strip of coast. The
   remaining part of the coast and all the harbours remained in
   the hands of the powerful cities of the Philistines and the
   Phenicians. No attempt was made to conquer these, although
   border-conflicts took place between the tribes of Judah, Dan,
   and Asher, and Philistines and Sidonians. Such an attempt
   could only have been made if the Israelites had remained
   united, and even then the powers of the Israelites would
   hardly have sufficed to overthrow the walls of Gaza, Ascalon,
   and Ashdod, of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus. Yet the invasion of
   the Israelites was not without results for the cities of the
   coast: it forced a large part of the population to assemble in
   them, and we shall see … how rapid and powerful is the
   growth of the strength and importance of Tyre in the time
   immediately following the incursion of the Israelites, i. e.,
   immediately after the middle of the thirteenth century.
{1899}
   As the population and in consequence the power of the cities
   on the coast increased, owing to the collection of the ancient
   population on the shore of the sea, those cities became all
   the more dangerous neighbours for the Israelites. It was a
   misfortune for the new territory which the Israelites had won
   by the sword that it was without the protection of natural
   boundaries on the north and east, that the cities of the
   Philistines and Phenicians barred it towards the sea, and in
   the interior remnants of the Canaanites still maintained their
   place. Yet it was a far more serious danger for the immigrants
   that they were without unity, connection, or guidance, for
   they had already given up these before the conflict was ended.
   Undoubtedly a vigorous leadership in the war of conquest
   against the Canaanites might have established a military
   monarchy which would have provided better for the maintenance
   of the borders and the security of the land than was done in
   its absence. But the isolated defence made by the Canaanites
   permitted the attacking party also to isolate themselves. The
   new masters of the land lived, like the Canaanites before and
   among them, in separate cantons; the mountain land which they
   possessed was much broken up, and without any natural centre,
   and though there were dangerous neighbours, there was no
   single concentrated aggressive power in the neighbourhood, now
   that Egypt remained in her borders. The cities of the
   Philistines formed a federation merely, though a federation
   far more strongly organised than the tribes of the Israelites.
   Under these circumstances political unity was not an
   immediately pressing question among the Israelites."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 2, C._

JEWS:
   Israel under the Judges.
   The wars of the Period.
   Conquest of Gilead and Bashan.
   Founding of the kingdom.

   "The office which gives its name to the period [between the
   death of Joshua and the rise of Samuel] well describes it. It
   was occasional, irregular, uncertain, yet gradually tending to
   fixedness and perpetuity. Its title is itself expressive. The
   Ruler was not regal, but he was more than the mere head of a
   tribe, or the mere judge of special cases. We have to seek for
   the origin of the name, not amongst the Sheykhs of the Arabian
   desert, but amongst the civilised settlements of Phœnicia.
   'Shophet,' 'Shophetim,' the Hebrew word which we translate
   'Judge,' is the same as we find in the 'Suffes,' 'Suffetes,'
   of the Carthaginian rulers at the time of the Punic wars. As
   afterwards the office of 'king' was taken from the nations
   round about, so now, if not the office, at least the name of
   'judge' or 'shophet' seems to have been drawn from the
   Canaanitish cities, with which for the first time Israel came
   into contact. … Finally the two offices which, in the
   earlier years of this period, had remained distinct—the High
   Priest and the Judge—were united in the person of Eli."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 13._

   "The first war mentioned in the days of the Judges is with the
   Syrians, at a time when the Israelites, or a northern portion
   of them, were held in servitude for eight years by a king
   whose name, Cushan-rish-athaim, which may be translated the
   'Most Wicked Negress,' seems to place him in the region of
   imaginary tradition rather than of history. … The next war
   mentioned was an invasion by the Moabites, who, being joined
   with a body of Ammonites, and Amalakites, harassed the
   Israelites of the neighbourhood of Gilgal and Jericho. …
   After a servitude of 18 years under the Moabites, Ehud, a
   Benjamite, found an opportunity of stabbing Eglon, the king of
   Moab; and shortly afterwards the Benjamites were relieved by a
   body of their neighbours from the hill country of Ephraim. The
   Israelites then defeated the Moabites, and seized the fords of
   the Jordan to stop their retreat, and slew them all to a man.
   While this war was going on on one side of the land, the
   Philistines from the south were harassing those of the
   Israelites who were nearest to their country. … The history
   then carries us back to the northern Israelites, and we hear
   of their struggle with the Canaanites of that part of the
   country which was afterwards called Galilee. These people were
   under a king named Jabin, who had 900 chariots of iron, and
   they cruelly oppressed the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, who
   were at that time the most northerly of the Israelites. After
   a suffering of 20 years, the two tribes of Zebulun and
   Naphtali, under the leadership of Barak, rallied against their
   oppressors, and called to their help their stronger
   neighbours, the men of Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim was the
   most settled portion of the Israelites, and they had adopted
   some form of government, while the other tribes were
   stragglers scattered over the land, every man doing what was
   right in his own eyes. The Ephraimites were at that time
   governed, or, in their own language, judged, by a brave woman
   of the name of Deborah, who led her followers, together with
   some of the Benjamites, to the assistance of Barak, the leader
   of Zebulun and Naphtali; and, at the foot of Mount Tabor, near
   the brook Kishon, their united forces defeated Sisern, the
   general of the Canaanites. Sisera fled, and was murdered by
   Jael, a woman in whose tent he had sought for refuge. … The
   next war that we are told of is an invasion by the Midianites
   and Amalakites and Children of the East. They crossed the
   Jordan to attack the men of Manasseh, who were at the same
   time struggling with the Amorites, the natives who dwelt
   amongst them. Gideon, the leader of Manasseh, called together
   the fighting men of his own tribe, together with those of
   Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The men of Gilead, who had come
   over to help him, seem to have deserted him. Gideon, however,
   routed his enemies, and then he summoned the Ephraimites to
   guard the fords of the Jordan, and to cut off the fugitives.
   … This victory of Gideon, or Jerubbaal, as he was also
   named, marked him out as a man fit to be the ruler of Israel,
   and to save them from the troubles that arose from the want of
   a single head to lead them against the enemies that surrounded
   them and dwelt among them. Accordingly, he obtained the rank
   of chief of all the northern Israelites. Gideon had dwelt at
   Ophrah, in the land of Manasseh; but his son Abimelech, who
   succeeded him in his high post, was born in Shechem, in the
   land of Ephraim, and had thus gained the friendship of some of
   that tribe. Abimelech put to death all but one of his
   brethren, the other sons of Gideon, and got himself made king
   at Shechem; and he was the first who bore that title among the
   Israelites.
{1900}
   But his thus violently seizing upon the power was the cause of
   a long civil war between Ephraim and Manasseh, which ended in
   the death of the usurper Abimelech, and the transfer of the
   chieftainship to another tribe. Tola, a man of Issachar, was
   then made Judge, or ruler of the northern tribes. … After
   Tola, says the historian, Jair of Gilead judged Israel. …
   Jair and his successors may have ruled in the east at the same
   time that Deborah and Gideon and their successors were ruling
   or struggling against their oppressors in the west. Jephtha of
   Gilead is the next great captain mentioned. … The Ammonites,
   who dwelt in the more desert country to the east of Gilead,
   had made a serious incursion on the Israelites on both sides
   of the Jordan; and the men of Gilead, in their distress, sent
   for Jephtha, who was then living at Tob, in Syria, whither he
   had fled from a quarrel with his brethren. … It seems that
   the Ammonites invaded Gilead on the plea that they had
   possessed that land before the Israelites arrived there, to
   which Jephtha answered that the Israelites had dispossessed
   the Amorites under Sihon, king of Heshbon, and that the
   Ammonites had not dwelt in that part of the country. In
   stating the argument, the historian gives a history of their
   arrival on the banks of the Jordan. On coming out of Lower
   Egypt, they crossed the desert to the Red Sea, and then came
   to Kadesh. From thence they asked leave of the Edomites and
   Moabites to pass through their territory; but, being refused,
   they went round Moab till they came to the northern bank of
   the river Arnon, an eastern tributary of the Jordan. There
   they were attacked by Sihon, king of the Amorites; and on
   defeating him they seized his territory, which lay between the
   Arnon and the Jabbok. There the Israelites had dwelt quietly
   for 300 years, without fighting against either the Moabites or
   the Ammonites, who were both too strong to be attacked. This
   is a most interesting narrative, both for what it tells and
   for what it omits, as compared with the longer narrative in
   the Pentateuch. … It omits all mention of the delivery of
   the Law, or of the Ark, or of any supernatural events as
   having happened on the march, and of the fighting with Og,
   king of Bashan. Og, or Gog, as it is spelled by other writers,
   was the name of the monarch whose imaginary castles, seen upon
   the mountains in the distance, the traveller thought it not
   wise to approach. They were at the limits of all geographical
   knowledge. At this early time this fabulous king held Mount
   Bashan; in Ezekiel's time he had retreated to the shores of
   the Caspian Sea; and ten centuries later the Arabic travellers
   were stopped by him at the foot of the Altai Mountains, in
   Central Asia. His withdrawing before the advance of
   geographical explorers proves his unreal character. He is not
   mentioned in this earlier account of the Israelites settling
   in the land of the Amorites; it is only in the more modern
   narrative in the Book of Numbers that he is attacked and
   defeated in battle, and only in the yet more modern Book of
   Deuteronomy that we learn about his iron bedstead of nine
   cubits in length."

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of the Hebrew Nation,
      pages 4-9._

   "At the close of the period of the Judges the greater part of
   the Israelites had quite lost their pastoral habits. They were
   an agricultural people living in cities and villages, and
   their oldest civil laws I are framed for this kind of life.
   All the new arts which this complete change of habit implies
   they must have derived from the Canaanites, and as they
   learned the ways of agricultural life they could hardly fail
   to acquire many of the characteristics of their teachers. To
   make the transformation complete only one thing was lacking
   —that Israel should also accept the religion of the
   aborigines. The history and the prophets alike testify that to
   a great extent they actually did this. Canaanite sanctuaries
   became Hebrew holy places, and the vileness of Canaanite
   nature-worship polluted the Hebrew festivals. For a time it
   seemed that Jehovah, the ancestral God of Israel, who brought
   their fathers up out of the house of bondage and gave them
   their goodly land, would be forgotten or transformed into a
   Canaanite Baal. If this change had been completed Israel would
   have left no name in the world's history; but Providence had
   other things in store for the people of Jehovah. Henceforth
   the real significance of Israel's fortunes lies in the
   preservation and development of the national faith, and the
   history of the tribes of Jacob is rightly set forth in the
   Bible as the history of that divine discipline by which
   Jehovah maintained a people for Himself amidst the seductions
   of Canaanite worship and the ever-new backslidings of Israel.
   … In the end Jehovah was still the God of Israel, and had
   become the God of Israel's land. Canaan was His heritage, not
   the heritage of the Baalim, and the Canaanite worship appears
   henceforth, not as a direct rival to the worship of Jehovah,
   but as a disturbing element corrupting the national faith,
   while unable to supplant it altogether. This, of course, in
   virtue of the close connection between religion and national
   feeling, means that Israel had now risen above the danger of
   absorption in the Canaanites, and felt itself to be a nation
   in the true sense of the word. We learn from the books of
   Samuel how this great advance was ultimately and permanently
   secured. The earlier wars recorded in the book of Judges had
   brought about no complete or lasting unity among the Hebrew
   tribes. But at length a new enemy arose, more formidable than
   any whom they had previously encountered. The Philistines from
   Caphtor, who, like the Israelites, had entered Canaan as
   emigrants, but coming most probably by sea had displaced the
   aboriginal Avvim in the rich coastlands beneath the mountains
   of Judah (Deuteronomy ii. 23; Amos ix. 7), pressed into the
   heart of the country, and broke the old strength of Ephraim in
   the battle of Ebenezer. This victory cut the Hebrew
   settlements in two, and threatened the independence of all the
   tribes. The common danger drew Israel together."

       _W. Robertson Smith,
       The Prophets of Israel,
       lecture 1._

JEWS:
   The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

   "No one appeared again in the character at once of judge and
   warrior, to protect the people by force of arms. It was the
   Levite Samuel, a prophet dedicated to God even before his
   birth, who recalled them to the consciousness of religious
   feeling. He succeeded in removing the emblems of Baal and
   Astarte from the heights, and in paving the way for renewed
   faith in Jehovah. … It was the feeling of the people that
   they could only carry on the war upon the system employed by
   all their neighbors.
{1901}
   They demanded a king—a request very intelligible under
   existing circumstances, but one which nevertheless involved a
   wide and significant departure from the impulses which had
   hitherto moved the Jewish community and the forms in which it
   had shaped itself. … The Israelites demanded a king, not
   only to go before them and fight their battles, but also to
   judge them. They no longer looked for their preservation to
   the occasional efforts of the prophetic order and the
   ephemeral existence of heroic leaders. … The argument by
   which Samuel, as the narrative records, seeks to deter the
   people from their purpose, is that the king will encroach upon
   the freedom of private life which they have hitherto enjoyed,
   employing their sons and daughters in his service, whether in
   the palace or in war, exacting tithes, taking the best part of
   the land for himself, and regarding all as his bondsmen. In
   this freedom of tribal and family life lay the essence of the
   Mosaic constitution. But the danger that all may be lost is so
   pressing that the people insist upon their own will in
   opposition to the prophet. Nevertheless, without the prophet
   nothing can be done, and it is he who selects from the youth
   of the country the man who is to enjoy the new dignity in
   Israel. … At first the proceeding had but a doubtful result.
   Many despised a young man sprung from the smallest family of
   the smallest tribe of Israel, as one who could give them no
   real assistance. In order to make effective the conception of
   the kingly office thus assigned to him, it was necessary in
   the first place that he should gain for himself a personal
   reputation. A king of the Ammonites, a tribe in affinity to
   Israel, laid siege to Jabesh in Gilead, and burdened the
   proffered surrender of the place with the condition that he
   should put out the right eyes of the inhabitants. … Saul,
   the son of Kish, a Benjamite, designated by the prophet as
   king, but not as yet recognized as such, was engaged, as
   Gideon before him, in his rustic labors, when he learned the
   situation through the lamentations of the people. … Seized
   with the idea of his mission, Saul cuts in pieces a yoke of
   oxen, and sends the portions to the twelve tribes with the
   threat, 'Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after
   Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.' … Thus urged,
   … Israel combines like one man; Jabesh is rescued and Saul
   acknowledged as king. … With the recognition of the king,
   however, and the progress of his good-fortune, a new and
   disturbing element appears. A contest breaks out between him
   and the prophet, in which we recognize not so much opposition
   as jealousy between the two powers. … On the one side was
   the independent power of monarchy, which looks to the
   requirements of the moment, on the other the prophet's
   tenacious and unreserved adherence to tradition. … The
   relations between the tribes have also some bearing on the
   question. Hitherto Ephraim had led the van, and jealously
   insisted on its prerogative. Saul was of Benjamin, a tribe
   nearly related to Ephraim by descent. He had made the men of
   his own tribe captains, and had given them vineyards. On the
   other hand, the prophet chose Saul's successor from the tribe
   of Judah. This successor was David, the son of Jesse. … In
   the opposition which now begins we have on the one side the
   prophet and his anointed, who aim at maintaining the religious
   authority in all its aspects, on the other the champion and
   deliverer of the nation, who, abandoned by the faithful, turns
   for aid to the powers of darkness and seeks knowledge of the
   future through witchcraft. Saul is the first tragic personage
   in the history of the world. David took refuge with the
   Philistines. Among them he lived as an independent military
   chieftain, and was joined not only by opponents of the king,
   but by others, ready for any service, or, in the language of
   the original, 'men armed with bows, who could use both the
   right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows
   out of a bow.' … In any serious war against the Israelites,
   such as actually broke out, the Sarim of the Philistines would
   not have tolerated him amongst them. David preferred to engage
   in a second attack upon the Amalekites, the common enemy of
   Philistines and Jews. At this juncture Israel was defeated by
   the Philistines. The king's sons were slain; Saul, in danger
   of falling into the enemy's hands, slew himself. Meanwhile
   David with his freebooters had defeated the Amalekites, and
   torn from their grasp the spoil they had accumulated, which
   was now distributed in Judah. Soon after, the death of Saul is
   announced. … David, conscious of being the rightful
   successor of Saul—for on him too, long ere this, the unction
   had been bestowed—betook himself to Hebron, the seat of the
   ancient Canaanitish kings, which had subsequently been given
   up to the priests and made one of the cities of refuge. It was
   in the province of Judah; and there, the tribe of Judah
   assisting at the ceremony, David was once more anointed. This
   tribe alone, however, acknowledged him; the others, especially
   Ephraim and Benjamin, attached themselves to Ishbosheth, the
   surviving son of Saul. … The first passage of arms between
   the two hosts took place between twelve of the tribe of
   Benjamin and twelve of David's men-at-arms. It led, however,
   to no result; it was a mutual slaughter, so complete as to
   leave no survivor. But in the more serious struggle which
   succeeded this the troops of David, trained as they were in
   warlike undertakings of great daring as well as variety, won
   the victory over Ishbosheth; and as the unanointed king could
   not rely upon the complete obedience of his
   commander-in-chief, who considered himself as important as his
   master, David, step by step, won the upper hand. … The
   Benjamites had been the heart and soul of the opposition which
   David experienced. Nevertheless, the first action which he
   undertook as acknowledged king of all the tribes redounded
   specially to their advantage, whilst it was at the same time a
   task of the utmost importance for the whole Israelitish
   commonwealth. Although Joshua had conquered the Amorites, one
   of their strongholds, Jebus, still remained unsubdued, and the
   Benjamites had exerted all their strength against it in vain.
   It was to this point that David next directed his victorious
   arms. Having conquered the place, he transferred the seat of
   his kingdom thither without delay [see JERUSALEM]. This seat
   is Jerusalem; the word Zion has the same meaning as Jebus."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Universal History:
      The Oldest Historical Groups of Nations,
      chapter 2._

{1902}

   "After Saul's death it was at first only in Judah, where David
   maintained his government, that a new Kingdom of Israel could be
   established at all, so disastrous were the consequences of the
   great Philistine victory. The Philistines, who must have already
   conquered the central territory, now occupied that to the
   north, also, while the inhabitants of the cities of the great
   plain of Jezreel and of the western bank of the Jordan, fled,
   we are very distinctly informed, across the river."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 3._

   But Abner, the strong warrior and the faithful kinsman of
   Saul's family, took Ishbosheth, the oldest surviving son of
   his dead king, and throned him in the city of Mahanaim, beyond
   the Jordan, proceeding gradually to gather a kingdom for him
   by reconquest from the Philistines. Thus the Israelite nation
   was first divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah,
   and there was bitter war between them. But that first division
   was not to endure long. Abner and Ishbosheth fell victims to
   treachery, and the tribes which had held by them offered
   allegiance to David, who then became king over "all Israel and
   Judah." By the conquest of the city of Jebus from its
   Canaanite founders and possessors, he acquired a new,
   impregnable capital, which, under the name of Jerusalem, grew
   to be the most reverently looked upon of all the cities of the
   world. "History has been completely distorted in representing
   David as the head of a powerful kingdom, which embraced nearly
   the whole of Syria. David was king of Judah and of Israel, and
   that was all; the neighboring peoples, Hebrews, Canaanites,
   Arameans and Philistines, as far as Mahul Hermon and the
   desert, were sternly subjected, and were more or less its
   tributaries. In reality, with the exception, perhaps, of the
   small town of Ziklag, David did not annex any non-Israelite
   country to the domain of Israel. The Philistines, the
   Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans of
   Zoba, of Damascus, of Rehob and of Maacah were, after his day,
   very much what they were before, only a little weaker.
   Conquest was not a characteristic of Israel; the taking
   possession of the Canaanite lands was an act of a different
   order, and it came to be more and more regarded as the
   execution of a decree of Iahveh. As this decree did not extend
   to the lands of Edom, of Moab, of Ammon and of Aram, the
   Israelites deemed themselves justified in treating the
   Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans with
   the utmost severity, in carrying off their precious stones and
   objects of price, but not in taking their land, or in changing
   their dynasty. None of the methods employed by great empires
   such as Assyria was known to these small peoples, which had
   scarcely got beyond the status of tribes. They were as cruel
   as Assur, but much less politic and less capable of a general
   plan. The impression produced by the appearance of this new
   royalty was none the less extraordinary. The halo of glory
   which enveloped David remained like a star upon the forehead
   of Israel."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   David died about 1000 B. C. and was succeeded by his son
   Solomon, whose mother, Bathsheba, secured the throne for him
   by intrigue. "Solomon was a younger son, to whom the throne
   had been allotted contrary to ordinary laws of succession,
   whilst Adonijah, whom a portion of the people had recognised
   as king, was considered the rightful heir. So long as the
   latter lived. Solomon's government could not be on a firm
   basis, and he could never feel himself secure. Adonijah had
   therefore to be removed; the leader of the body guard,
   Benaiah, forcibly entered his house and killed him. As an
   excuse for this act of violence, it was asserted that Adonijah
   had attempted to win the hand of Abishag, the young widow of
   David, and thus had revealed his traitorous intention of
   contesting the throne with his brother. No sooner had he
   fallen than Joab, the former adherent of Adonijah, feared that
   a similar fate would overtake him. This exemplary general, who
   had contributed so considerably to the aggrandisement of the
   people of Israel and to the power of the house of David, fled
   to the altar on Mount Zion, and clung to it, hoping to escape
   death. Benaiah, however, refused to respect his place of
   refuge, and shed his blood at the altar. In order to excuse
   this crime, it was circulated that David himself, on his
   death-bed, had impressed on his successor the duty of
   preventing Joab's grey head from sinking in peace to its last
   rest. … Adonijah's priestly partisan, Abiathar, whom Solomon
   did not dare to touch, was deprived of his office as high
   priest, and Zadok was made the sole head of the priesthood.
   His descendants were invested with the dignity of high priest
   for over a thousand years, whilst the offspring of Abiathar
   were neglected. The Benjamite Shimei, who had attacked David
   with execrations on his flight from Jerusalem, was also
   executed, and it was only through this three-fold deed of
   blood that Solomon's throne appeared to gain stability.
   Solomon then directed his attention to the formation of a
   court of the greatest magnificence."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "The main characteristic of Solomon's reign was peace. The
   Philistines, allies of the new dynasty, and given profitable
   employment by it as mercenaries, were no longer tempted to
   cross the frontier. … The decay of military strength was
   only felt in the zone of countries which were tributary to the
   kingdom. Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite, who had been defeated
   by Joab and had taken refuge in Egypt, having heard of David's
   death, and that of Joab as well, left Pharaoh, whose
   sister-in-law he had married. We have no details of this war.
   … We only know that Hadad braved Israel throughout the whole
   of Solomon's reign, that he did it all the injury he could,
   and that he was an independent ruler over a great part at all
   events of Edom. A still more formidable adversary was Rezon,
   son of Eliadah, an Aramean warrior who, after the defeat of
   his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had assembled about him
   those who had fled before the sword of David. … A lucky
   'coup-de-main' placed the city of Damascus at their mercy, and
   they succeeded in maintaining themselves there. During the
   whole of Solomon's reign Rezon continued to make war against
   Israel. The kingdom of Zobah does not appear, however, to have
   been re-established. Damascus became henceforth the centre and
   capital of that part of Aramea which adjoined Mount Hermon.
   David's horizon never extended beyond Syria. With Solomon,
   fresh perspectives opened up for the Israelites, especially
   for Jerusalem. Israel is no longer a group of tribes,
   continuing to lead in its mountains the patriarchal life of
   the past. It is a well-organised kingdom, small according to
   our ideas, but rather large judged by the standard of the day.
   The worldly life of the people of Iahveh is about to begin. If
   Israel had no other life but that it would not have found a
   place in history. … An alliance with Egypt was the first
   step in that career of profane politics which the prophets
   afterwards interlarded with so much that was impossible. …
{1903}
   The king of Egypt gave Gezer as a dowry to his daughter, and
   married her to Solomon. … It is not too much to suppose that
   the tastes of this princess for refined luxury had a great
   influence upon the mind of her husband. … The relations of
   Solomon with Tyre exercised a still more civilising influence.
   Tyre, recently separated from Sidon, was then at the zenith of
   its activity, and, so to speak, in the full fire of its first
   foundation. A dynasty of kings named Hiram, or rather Ahiram,
   was at the head of this movement. The island was covered with
   constructions imitated from Egypt. … Hiram is the close ally
   of the king of Israel; it is he who provides Solomon with the
   artists who were lacking at Jerusalem; the precious materials
   for the buildings in Zion; seamen for the fleet of Eziongeber.
   The region of the upper Jordan, conquered by David, appears to
   have remained tributary to Solomon. What has been related as
   to a much larger extension of the kingdom of Solomon is
   greatly exaggerated. … The fables as to the pretended
   foundation of Palmyra by Solomon come from a letter
   intentionally added to the text of the ancient historiographer
   by the compiler of the Chronicles. The construction of Baalbec
   by Solomon rests upon a still more inadmissible piece of
   identification. … In reality, the dominion of Solomon was
   confined to Palestine. … What was better than peoples kept
   under by force, the Arab brigands were held in check from
   pillage. The Amalekites, the Midianites, the Beni-Quedem and
   other nomads were confronted with an impassable barrier all
   around Israel. The Philistines preserved their independence.
   … When it is surmised that Solomon reigned over all Syria,
   the size of his kingdom is exaggerated at least fourfold.
   Solomon's kingdom was barely a fourth of what is now called
   Syria. … Solomon … built 'cities of store,' or warehouses,
   the commercial or military object of which cannot well be
   defined. There was, more especially, a place named Tamar, in
   the direction of Petra, of which Solomon made a city, and
   which became a calling-place for the caravans. … With very
   good reason, too, Solomon had his attention constantly fixed
   upon the Red Sea, a broad canal which placed the dawning
   civilisation of the Mediterranean in communication with India,
   and thus opened up a new world, that of Ophir. The Bay of Suez
   belonged to Egypt, but the Gulf of Akaba was, one may say, at
   the mercy of anyone who cared to take it. Elath and
   Asiongaber, according to all appearances, had been of very
   little importance in earlier times. Without regularly
   occupying the country, Solomon secured the route by the Valley
   of Araba. He built a fleet at Asiongaber, though the
   Israelites had never much liking for the sea. Hiram provided
   Solomon with sailors, or, what is more probable, the two
   fleets acted together. On leaving the Straits of Aden, they
   went to Ophir, that is to say, to Western India, to Guzarate,
   or to the coast of Malabar."

      E_. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 3, chapter 10 (volume 2)._

   The government of Solomon was extravagant and despotic; it
   imposed burdens upon the people which were borne impatiently
   until his death; and when his son Rehoboam refused to lessen
   them, the nation was instantly broken again on the lines of
   the earlier rupture. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin,
   only, remained faithful to the house of David and constituted
   the kingdom of Judah. The other ten tribes made Jeroboam their
   king and retained the name of Israel for their kingdom. The
   period of this division is fixed at 978 B. C. Jerusalem
   continued to be the capital of the kingdom of Judah. In the
   kingdom of Israel several changes of royal residence occurred
   during the first half century, until Samaria was founded by
   King Omri and thenceforth became the capital city. "Six miles
   from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening
   into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet
   accessible sides, and a long level top. This was the mountain
   of Samaria, or, as it is called in the original, Shômeron, so
   named after its owner Shemer, who there lived in state, and
   who sold it to the King for the great sum of two talents of
   silver."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lectures 29-30 (volume 2)._

   For two centuries, until the overthrow of the kingdom, Samaria
   continued to be the queen of the land, and the seat of
   government, often giving its name to the whole state, so that
   the kings were called "Kings of Samaria." "Under the dynasties
   of Omri and Jehu [10th-8th centuries, B. C.] the Northern
   Kingdom took the leading part in Israel; even to the Judæan
   Amos it was Israel 'par excellence.' Judah was not only
   inferior in political power, but in the share it took in the
   active movements of national life and thought. In tracing the
   history of religion and the work of the prophets, we have been
   almost exclusively occupied with the North; Amos himself, when
   charged with a message to the whole family that Jehovah
   brought up out of Egypt, leaves his home to preach in a
   Northern sanctuary. During this whole period we have a much
   fuller knowledge of the life of Ephraim than of Judah; the
   Judæan history consists of meagre extracts from official
   records, except where it comes into contact with the North,
   through the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab; through the
   reaction of Jehu's revolution in the fall of Athaliah, the
   last scion of the house of Ahab, and the accompanying
   abolition of Baal worship at Jerusalem, or, finally, through
   the presumptuous attempt of Amaziah to measure his strength
   with the powerful monarch of Samaria. While the house of
   Ephraim was engaged in the great war with Syria, Judah had
   seldom to deal with enemies more formidable than the
   Philistines or the Edomites; and the contest with these foes,
   renewed with varying success generation after generation,
   resolved itself into a succession of forays and blood-feuds
   such as have always been common in the lands of the Semites
   (Amos i.), and never assumed the character of a struggle for
   national existence. It was the Northern Kingdom that had the
   task of upholding the standard of Israel; its whole history
   presents greater interest and more heroic elements; its
   struggles, its calamities, and its glories were cast in a
   larger mould. It is a trite proverb that the nation which has
   no history is happy, and perhaps the course of Judah's
   existence ran more smoothly than that of its greater neighbor,
   in spite of the raids of the slave-dealers of the coast, and
   the lawless hordes of the desert. But no side of national
   existence is likely to find full development where there is
   little political activity; if the life of the North was more
   troubled, it was also larger and more intense.
{1904}
   Ephraim took the lead in literature and religion as well as in
   politics; it was in Ephraim far more than in Judah that the
   traditions of past history were cherished, and new problems of
   religion became practical and called for solution by the word
   of the prophets. So long as the Northern Kingdom endured Judah
   was content to learn from it for evil or for good. It would be
   easy to show in detail that every wave of life and thought in
   Ephraim was transmitted with diminished intensity to the
   Southern Kingdom. In many respects the influence of Ephraim
   upon Judah was similar to that of England upon Scotland before
   the union of the crowns, but with the important difference
   that after the accession of Omri the two Hebrew kingdoms were
   seldom involved in hostilities. … The internal condition of
   the [Judæan] state was stable, though little progressive; the
   kings were fairly successful in war, though not sufficiently
   strong to maintain unbroken authority over Edom, the only
   vassal state of the old Davidic realm over which they still
   claimed suzerainty, and their civil administration must have
   been generally satisfactory according to the not very high
   standard of the East; for they retained the affections of
   their people, the justice and mercy of the throne of David are
   favourably spoken of in the old prophecy against Moab quoted
   in Isaiah XV., xvi., and Isaiah contrasts the disorders of his
   own time with the ancient reputation of Jerusalem for fidelity
   and justice (i. 21). … The religious conduct of the house of
   David followed the same general lines. Old abuses remained
   untouched, but the cultus remained much as David and Solomon
   had left it. Local high places were numerous, and no attempt
   was made to interfere with them; but the great temple on Mount
   Zion, which formed part of the complex of royal buildings
   erected by Solomon, maintained its prestige, and appears to
   have been a special object of solicitude to the kings, who
   treated its service as part of their royal state. It is common
   to imagine that the religious condition of Judah was very much
   superior to that of the North, but there is absolutely no
   evidence to support this opinion."

      _W. Robertson Smith,
      The Prophets of Israel,
      lecture 5._

   In the year B. C. 745 the throne of Assyria was seized by a
   soldier of great ability, called Pul, or Pulu, who took the
   name of Tiglath-pileser III. and who promptly entered on an
   ambitious career of conquest, with imperial aims and plans.
   "In B. C. 738 we find him receiving tribute from Menahem of
   Samaria, Rezon of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre. … The throne
   of Israel was occupied at the time by Pekah, a successful
   general who had murdered his predecessor, but who was
   evidently a man of vigour and ability. He and Rezon
   endeavoured to form a confederacy of the Syrian and
   Palestinian states against their common Assyrian foe. In order
   to effect their object they considered it necessary to
   displace the reigning king of Judah, Ahaz, and substitute for
   him a creature of their own. … They were aided by a party of
   malcontents in Judah itself (Isaiah viii. 6), and the position
   of Ahaz seemed desperate. … In this moment of peril Isaiah
   was instructed to meet and comfort Ahaz. He bade him 'fear
   not, neither be fainthearted,' for the confederacy against the
   dynasty of David should be broken and overthrown. … But Ahaz
   … had no faith either in the prophet or in the message he
   was commissioned to deliver. He saw safety in one course
   only—that of invoking the assistance of the Assyrian king,
   and bribing him by the offer of homage and tribute to march
   against his enemies. In vain Isaiah denounced so suicidal and
   unpatriotic a policy. In vain he foretold that when Damascus
   and Samaria had been crushed, the next victim of the Assyrian
   king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not
   listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of
   Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and
   save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the
   hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The
   king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated
   Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east
   of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel,
   captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of
   Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later,
   Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having
   been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea
   attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before
   Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was
   defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into
   chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held
   out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the
   land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years
   Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile
   broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to
   death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown,
   taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient
   Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the
   throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself
   with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into
   captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were
   implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or
   governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the
   population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old
   homes."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Life and Times of Isaiah,
      chapter 3._

   "Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national
   religion then and upon its subsequent development by the
   single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the
   surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them,
   while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a
   hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the
   period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able
   to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the
   circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria
   did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely
   due to the prophets."

      _J. Wellhausen,
      Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
      chapter 6._

   "The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of
   their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover
   any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with
   their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense
   Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was
   in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have
   been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the
   traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a
   mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes']
   are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable
   with no foundation either in history or prophecy."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 34 (volume 2)._

      See, also, JERUSALEM.

{1905}

JEWS: B. C. 724-604.
   The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.

   Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah
   had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem.
   … Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its
   deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his
   designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive
   of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The
   neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon,
   and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west,
   Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's
   apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly
   quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of
   an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular.
   Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth,
   resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible
   rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705;
   Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an
   explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first
   years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a
   formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The
   court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for
   detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the
   movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders,
   and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701,
   Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."

      _M. Arnold,
      Isaiah of Jerusalem,
      introduction._

   Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having
   captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after
   the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at
   Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt
   with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were
   occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).
   The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic,
   offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on
   payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to
   retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply
   off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared,
   Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were
   collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the
   enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave
   in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands
   of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified
   treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city,
   believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to
   secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in
   Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had
   indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against
   Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless
   undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation
   and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly
   than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article
   of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly
   annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with
   the announcement that a remnant should return and form the
   kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's
   own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the
   multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the
   darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted
   their present depression with its bright reverse;
   faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than
   temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of
   good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender.
   The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to
   shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train
   against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,'
   is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage
   against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle
   in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which
   thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still
   unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was
   annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and
   Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had
   to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was
   triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of
   influential public life can hardly be imagined."

      _J. Wellhausen,
      Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
      chapter 7._

   "We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at
   Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the
   Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of
   the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia
   were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and
   receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries
   bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time
   implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started
   southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and
   Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which
   he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,
   doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian
   interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to
   Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured
   and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.
   The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for
   the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed
   their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him
   bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the
   Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they
   arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes
   place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory
   declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without
   effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon
   reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi
   from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows
   the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against
   Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not
   submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,
   fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without
   number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)
   attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and
   trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small
   and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,
   oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I
   brought out, and I counted them as spoil.
{1906}
   Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
   royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and
   the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His
   cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and
   to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to
   Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.
   To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of
   subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.
   Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my
   sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom
   he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal
   city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents
   of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)
   stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of
   ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every
   kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,
   the women of his palace, his male and female
   harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to
   be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the
   rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on
   the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the
   campaign of the subsequent year."

      _S. R. Driver,
      Isaiah: His Life and Times,
      chapter 7._

   "Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of
   the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little
   more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the
   prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid.
   … But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah
   still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria
   was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the
   face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power
   was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal
   condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of
   a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat
   high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the
   king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the
   fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged
   and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform.
   The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this
   reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in
   the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious
   innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was
   the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded
   the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider
   changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have
   effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th
   chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited
   to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that
   mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah,
   whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless
   recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would
   incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more
   than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to
   be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as
   well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of
   the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah
   in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm
   betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than
   doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen
   years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early
   part of this, its second division, the religious reformation
   must be assigned. A successful campaign against the
   Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell
   within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though
   we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years
   of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded
   by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five
   years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single
   external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been
   a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity.
   Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian
   inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings,
   Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal
   (669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in
   Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's
   reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important
   in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short
   reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there
   set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over
   nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by
   the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the
   eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate
   cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even
   Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of
   his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against
   Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had
   provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and
   dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of
   Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.'
   … What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been
   indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not
   only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old
   Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was
   introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after
   receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became
   very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens
   in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous
   reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts.
   … Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the
   idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation
   of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and
   relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of
   Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much,
   till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This
   innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed
   his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh
   to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years,
   this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the
   blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was
   succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old.
{1907}
   It is possible that his accession brought about some
   amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and
   that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and
   idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen
   years, though those years are passed over without any notice
   in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great
   importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the
   break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the
   Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the
   death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern
   and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands
   of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal
   kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."

      _C. G. Montefiore,
      Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,
      as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews,
      (Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4._

   "The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not
   think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.
   … In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this
   time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the
   same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded
   by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge
   his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man
   to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he
   proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces
   that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share
   of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.
   By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on
   the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was
   transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,
   whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this
   plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to
   meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to
   Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would
   fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what
   Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the
   reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of
   them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an
   encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler
   relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from
   the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle
   was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;
   Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of
   Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the
   kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the
   land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably
   because he was more attached than his elder brother to his
   father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him
   and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,
   henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal
   of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to
   escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events
   occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.
   Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians
   now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria
   and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,
   the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed
   possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on
   the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,
   who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,
   but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians
   sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate
   of Western Asia, including Judæa."

      _A. Kuenen,
      The Religion of Israel,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
   Fall of the kingdom of Judah.
   The Babylonian captivity.

   "In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
   monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
   was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
   command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
   of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
   Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
   ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
   having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
   and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
   Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
   to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
   was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
   many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
   whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
   Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
   commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
   learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
   Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
   Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
   C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
   scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
   appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
   discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
   treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
   nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
   to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
   (Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
   an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
   during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
   imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
   remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
   his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
   Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
   length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
   despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
   conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
   besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
   king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
   children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
   thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
   childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
   Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
   the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
   devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
   solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
   executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
   palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
   treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
   before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
   were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
{1908}
   The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
   command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
   the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
   (the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
   strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
   poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
   general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
   allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
   household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
   the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
   were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
   possessed of considerable property. … They had free
   enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
   faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
   and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
   chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
   Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
   numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
   wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
   the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
   others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
   comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
   calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1)._

   The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful
   remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown
   wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied
   themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from
   the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and
   from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's
   abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with
   certainty the number of the exiles carried off by
   Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are
   evidently incomplete. But that their number was very
   considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who
   afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more
   than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to
   be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of
   Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the
   nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to
   the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to
   the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an
   imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions
   of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river
   Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into
   the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others
   to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature
   of the case, that the second and third company of captives
   received another destination. Even had it been possible,
   prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate
   vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore
   that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their
   arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The
   historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,
   the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he
   does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the
   Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to
   which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's
   purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been
   attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them
   to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of
   the districts in which they settled, that their development
   should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome
   conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the
   maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain
   limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the
   families and tribes remained in possession of the authority
   which they had formerly exercised."

      _A. Kuenen,
      The Religion of Israel,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,
   King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him
   master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done
   full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but
   what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to
   power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent
   years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest
   figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary
   documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records
   his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from
   the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by
   no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was
   a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,
   himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,
   his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous
   region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name
   of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in
   Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year
   555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy
   and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The
   eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against
   the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing
   warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter
   danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for
   deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus
   led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The
   discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of
   battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered
   him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to
   the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital
   and place of arms, and more than doubled his military
   strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of
   Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire
   on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following
   his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the
   kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had
   sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on
   the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader
   before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This
   leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the
   destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass
   of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this
   period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on
   the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without
   interference their own customs, religious and social. …
   Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable
   life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break
   with their past and give up hope for the future.
{1909}
   But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could
   not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be
   what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in
   abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat
   as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold
   expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at
   every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood
   forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people
   constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and
   encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish
   exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh
   passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new
   Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month
   Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of
   Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,
   eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of
   Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered
   in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire
   to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether
   worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the
   difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed
   with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median
   Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth
   year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took
   the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from
   the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,
   probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him
   into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected
   subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on
   at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of
   a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last
   hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the
   month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a
   town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A
   revolution followed at once. … Some days later the
   victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared
   before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority
   made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;
   friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a
   struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus
   entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion
   that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,
   and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is
   seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which
   record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for
   the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what
   the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there
   still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not
   Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.
   The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater
   or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter
   alternative is the more probable."

      _P. H. Hunter,
      After the Exile,
      part 1, chapters 1-2._

JEWS: B. C. 537.
   The return from Babylon.

   "The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the
   Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of
   these was Syria, with the great trading places of the
   Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews
   were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the
   fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies
   of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not
   belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered
   him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to
   return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return
   of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews
   was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support
   his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude
   of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian
   kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian
   empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had
   not only to be established anew, but would never be very
   strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.
   Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten
   announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of
   Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first
   announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus
   commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of
   Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and
   therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant
   of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to
   establish them in their abode, and be the head of the
   community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him
   the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as
   trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there
   are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and
   silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews
   in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like
   the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some
   180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia
   and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found
   there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their
   fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),
   many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared
   for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah
   'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march
   over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high
   priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson
   of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed
   after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable
   multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters
   of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their
   ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of
   Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew
   men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by
   435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.
   C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a
   prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the
   wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly
   from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of
   joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath
   redeemed his servant Jacob."'
{1910}
   'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that
   bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto
   Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean
   person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that
   bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led
   in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
   you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.
   Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the
   rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,
   and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put
   away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was
   destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up
   the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make
   thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of
   the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy
   foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and
   thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,
   thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea
   shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be
   thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and
   the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy
   sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from
   thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and
   I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The
   islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children
   from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land
   will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for
   thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay
   not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou
   be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they
   bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be
   carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and
   queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth
   before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and
   thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently
   for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes
   were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the
   mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of
   the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem
   was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning
   exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,
   the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,
   Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned
   to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first
   care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law
   and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were
   collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;
   contributions even came in from those who had remained in
   Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of
   silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were
   hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell
   cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus
   had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was
   laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The
   fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple
   soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a
   mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers
   whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,
   … and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the
   exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from
   which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture
   the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were
   preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been
   the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the
   'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they
   had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to
   Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence
   the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and
   the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the
   Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;
   'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired
   counsellors to make the attempt vain during the
   whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6)._

   The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only
   forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from
   the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or,
   better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought
   to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set
   on the throne of Babylon."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, introduction._

   "The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended
   only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king
   of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build
   him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and
   Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But
   the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'
   Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the
   Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their
   enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the
   Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which
   came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and
   the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined
   the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was
   about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree
   was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution
   of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which
   is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of
   Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of
   the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they
   'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again
   stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this
   house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint
   to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of
   Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to
   proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the
   'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and
   thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the
   square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished
   it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the
   sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the
   rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls
   of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the
   nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,
   which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,
   the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment
   to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or
   Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto
   Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
   build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond
   the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to
   Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the
   necessary timber."

      _T. Lewin,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 2._

{1911}

   "The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their
   sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early
   hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,
   and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the
   more to religion, the only source and support of their
   nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout
   carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,
   indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new
   temple was empty, for it was without the lost and
   irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of
   the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far
   more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the
   high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation
   willingly submitted; it served as the representative and
   pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another
   of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered
   mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been
   exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with
   strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination
   went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their
   being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their
   multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

      _J. J. I. Dollinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew
      in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      book 10, section 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 9._

JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
   The Babylonian Jews.

   "There is something very remarkable in the history of this
   race, for the most part descendants of those families which
   had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and
   Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native
   country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,
   though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they
   remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be
   a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the
   population of the country in which they were domiciliated.
   While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of
   forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring
   tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of
   authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were
   still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has
   been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the
   Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the
   great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if
   they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple
   became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the
   object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious
   pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on
   their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level
   plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden
   cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This
   Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that
   Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their
   marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in
   Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,
   as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city
   Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river
   Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle
   of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of
   freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,
   gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian
   king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but
   with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then
   "began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish
   population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers
   to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a
   pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided
   into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the
   Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the
   Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came
   to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall
   upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The
   few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of
   the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took
   refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 12 (volume 2)._

JEWS: B. C. 433-332.
   The century of Silence.

   "The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The
   Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a
   whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which
   empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:
   it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred
   years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as
   any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of
   silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period
   from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the
   time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.
   That it was a period of growth and development with the
   Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical
   life—is evident from the changes which the close of the
   century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of
   heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,
   and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's
   office."

      _T. R Slicer,
      Between the Testaments
      (The New World, March, 1892)._

JEWS: B. C. 413-332.
   The rule of the High Priests.

   "After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib
   (413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of
   Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,
   Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige
   under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the
   Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the
   last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,
   had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.
   Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the
   theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.
   3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,
   although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim
   (Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the
   representative of the people before the king and his satrap,
   and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of
   the nation."

      _I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
      chapter 4._

{1912}

JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
   The Greek domination.
   Jewish dispersion.
   Hellenism.

   On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest
   of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the
   Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem
   submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of
   Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,
   which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several
   times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High
   Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither
   the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state
   suffered much interference. The final partition made among the
   new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of
   Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This
   period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The
   Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,
   respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them
   settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and
   emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the
   Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested
   Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his
   own dominions.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

   Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors
   proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 2 (volume 5)._

   "These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in
   Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities
   and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of
   Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with
   settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the
   other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek
   was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the
   newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by
   their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the
   commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,
   Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a
   later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they
   drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the
   Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek
   marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more
   developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this
   certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,
   prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it
   happened that two movements, identical in their operation,
   crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic
   but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of
   Jews and Samaritans into the cities speaking the Greek
   tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a
   national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people
   as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they
   bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They
   wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and
   intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to
   honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and
   carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and
   protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now
   there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews
   everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,
   that between them and all other nations there was an
   insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed
   in every town separate corporations, with officers of their
   own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion
   with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the
   temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and
   from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.
   There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were
   demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a
   centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this
   an event, which in its consequences was one of the most
   important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who
   were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who
   remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted
   intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the
   Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even
   upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The
   Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and
   soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation
   already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by
   natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a
   peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the
   second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated
   at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious
   wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire
   of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the
   use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and
   Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent.
   Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy,
   according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic
   philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples
   of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met
   with a much more considerable resistance from the old
   believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen
   dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer,
   Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and
   synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and
   sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship
   was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There
   presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of
   the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B.
   C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the
   restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge
   appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth
   dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge
   of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of
   partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and
   became the source of many advantages as well as of serious
   faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of
   the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the
   time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed
   to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the
   high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine.
{1913}
   One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was
   high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time
   (that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold
   dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of
   Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one
   person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more
   it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their
   caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of
   all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by
   the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170
   B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the
   Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus
   Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish
   religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a
   temple of Jupiter Olympius."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew
      in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      book 10, section 1 (volume 2)._

   Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with
   awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed
   to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold
   as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple
   was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these
   enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the
   Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the
   race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his
   dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to
   his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods,
   and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and
   penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to
   disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be
   treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old
   man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the
   Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his
   commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter
   Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the
   altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to
   Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves
   and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to
   the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was
   everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes.
   That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed
   against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a
   general edict was published, condemning to death or torture
   all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree
   was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer
   sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise
   circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to
   the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to
   destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons
   refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this
   terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and
   took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the
   mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs
   continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution'
   (Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded
   to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the
   majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers,
   Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His
   people, and sent them a deliverer."

      _E. H. Palmer,
      History of the Jewish Nation,
      chapter 7._

JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
   Revolt of the Maccabees.
   Reign of the Asmoneans.
   Rise of Herod.

   The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led
   the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and
   persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of
   the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of
   "its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the
   magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak
   of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had
   five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military
   leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas
   was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence
   came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general
   name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly
   designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had
   the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the
   "Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt
   assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to
   meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation
   which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the
   Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute
   imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an
   expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large
   number of troops. During the king's absence the government of
   the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias.
   Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and
   despatched a force under the command of three generals to
   suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the
   hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in
   person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been
   apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and
   was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of
   affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C.
   164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the
   indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause
   of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of
   Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of
   rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of
   the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was
   only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His
   father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his
   son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias,
   who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on
   the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by
   Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with
   Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting
   Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can
   be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the
   Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus
   Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to
   Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the
   Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of
   their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not
   endure.
{1914}
   In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded
   Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the
   strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City.
   Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and
   their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered
   condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept
   honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came
   to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of
   a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to
   the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on
   the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty.
   Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was
   established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon
   after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by
   his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed
   the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by
   his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the
   selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for
   Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of
   success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards
   developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who,
   while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of
   Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious
   freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which
   afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax
   their efforts till the country was completely independent. The
   Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the
   population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius
   had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless
   barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the
   arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High
   Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an
   army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces,
   and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish
   delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an
   alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an
   opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a
   favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged
   the independence of their country. … While these
   negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded
   Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a
   desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B.
   C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of
   freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct
   centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the
   treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left
   Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the
   Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it
   was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the
   kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take
   advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them.
   About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the
   Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the
   person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B.
   C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to
   take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the
   threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas,
   was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142),
   and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his
   side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately
   outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as
   the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest
   bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from
   Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance.
   The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius
   was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of
   the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military
   governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government
   of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest.
   Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian
   pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by
   another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an
   ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his
   place.

      _W. D. Morrison,
      The Jews under Roman Rule,
      chapter 1._

   The Asmonean family had now become so established in its
   princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took
   the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of
   King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and
   was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander.
   "These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in
   name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus,
   the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had
   left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of
   five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty
   wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin
   afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his
   people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a
   civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and
   finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute,
   ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his
   rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in
   the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age
   of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish
   power upon the soil of Palestine."

      _J. H. Allen,
      Hebrew Men and Times,
      chapter 10._

   "When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched
   towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far
   as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the
   Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested
   considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the
   Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up
   to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making
   arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to
   repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the
   Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the
   important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the
   territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could
   now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the
   Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa,
   was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted
   rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried
   their arms still further, had not the development of the power
   of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested
   by internal divisions.
{1915}
   The spirit of religious independence and the national
   patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the
   Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and
   even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism]
   gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, …
   proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of
   the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the
   secular government—a community which found its visible points
   of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory
   on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and
   spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the
   great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted
   in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as
   respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical
   college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and
   more ossified into theological formalism and a painful
   ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the
   so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these
   innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and
   conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of
   the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political,
   in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong
   arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of
   the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world,
   and above all from the internal and external strengthening of
   the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times
   of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their
   support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had
   kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two
   sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the
   Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to
   obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother,
   the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not
   merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also
   foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a
   commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first
   of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often
   been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering
   Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch
   than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or,
   according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock
   must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient
   settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of
   trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the
   Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez
   and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their
   ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those
   of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from
   Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
   passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
   still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
   evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
   extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after
   the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not
   too dearly bought at the price of the independence and
   integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the
   Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which
   they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested
   from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it
   was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the
   adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged
   in his capital."

       _T. Mommsen,
       History of Rome,
       book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

   "While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his
   victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had
   conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year
   received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he
   himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to
   Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he
   heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed
   forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this
   strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached
   Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both
   from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his
   favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four
   hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so
   promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather
   because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement,
   and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw
   if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans.
   Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised
   the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But
   Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted
   upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which
   Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the
   protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon
   proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He
   himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of
   Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present,
   a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents,
   which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of
   Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus,
   whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw
   his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B.
   C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria,
   subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and
   advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There
   he was met at one and the same time by representatives of
   three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus
   appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus
   complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had
   violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his
   conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the
   people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the
   abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old
   theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but
   cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would
   put all things in order when he had accomplished his
   contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all
   parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was
   by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his
   discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had
   accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans.
   Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the
   Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus.
{1916}
   He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the
   neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He
   betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further
   presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey
   would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and
   sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city,
   while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius
   returned without having obtained his object, for the people in
   the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged
   at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately
   advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to
   Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword
   took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together
   on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for
   resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the
   strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the
   south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated
   from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a
   gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost
   impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In
   this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of
   Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would
   or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three
   months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the
   dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his
   troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful
   massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering
   sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their
   office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000
   Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general
   butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C.
   63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the
   very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath,
   that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.
   Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into
   which only the feet of the high priest had ever before
   entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the
   temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God
   should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he
   passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were
   beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. …
   The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly
   curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken
   from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of
   the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others;
   also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them.
   All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the
   governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The
   contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II.,
   who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king.
   … With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish
   people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we
   reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely
   overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no
   essential change in the internal government of the country. He
   suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and
   gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was
   favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation
   was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the
   Romans."

      _E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
      division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324._

   Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was
   the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean,
   Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own
   hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he
   rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the
   eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an
   Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and
   Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who
   was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able
   to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the
   robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader,
   and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred
   borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites,
   as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished
   himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without
   appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared
   before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by
   Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his
   head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his
   patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed
   him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the
   governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched
   thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with
   difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return,
   he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither
   the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at
   Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table
   of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success:
   He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled
   haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting
   to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone,
   so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and
   promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory
   over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his
   father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the
   unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He
   succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person
   and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the
   Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole
   of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne,
   grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time,
   added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's
   previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of
   hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran
   Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by
   Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that
   place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed
   Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and
   Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All
   was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed
   himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high
   priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer.
{1917}
   He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus.
   Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old
   acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring
   hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom
   of Judea upon him."

      _T. Keim,
      History of Jesus of Nazara,
      volume I, page 231._

JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
   Herod and the Herodians.
   Roman rule.

   Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support
   of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not
   without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in
   June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of
   half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged,
   contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts.
   This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an
   interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell,
   by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the
   Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent
   its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in
   which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The
   frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September,
   B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to
   Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him
   the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for
   him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus
   "restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing
   enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of
   the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra,
   Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the
   tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more
   than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the
   same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by
   making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide
   extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in
   order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the
   desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and
   afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in
   fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under
   Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few
   intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his
   success to that officious attention which displayed the
   greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices
   of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism,
   his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of
   the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to
   be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the
   eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to
   take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend
   in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as
   well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which
   had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens
   enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The
   prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet
   times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted
   of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an
   unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous
   accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod
   was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have
   been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a
   brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious
   ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate
   nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his
   people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature,
   inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish
   historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his
   affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for
   his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in
   adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C.
   25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and
   sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver
   treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he
   bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he
   dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the
   poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent
   help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and
   indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second
   Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian,
   without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the
   unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national
   peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity
   which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in
   later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and
   repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and
   of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the
   successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and
   timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before
   the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and
   incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring
   contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with
   respect to the earlier royal family and to the national
   aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues
   of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous
   flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with
   demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. …
   Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year
   B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of
   Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one
   whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and
   whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people
   disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was
   forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing
   together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the
   city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds
   by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most
   revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's
   brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen
   years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at
   Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old
   family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he
   murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years,
   and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little
   later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become
   objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his
   brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were
   slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander
   and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in
   Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the
   first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and
   with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part
   in the crimes of the family."

      _T. Keim,
      History of Jesus of Nazara,
      volume 1, pages 233-246._

{1918}

   Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most
   generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten
   wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a
   large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing
   a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants
   at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish
   people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family,
   all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small
   consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus,
   eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty
   of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To
   Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee
   and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made
   tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so
   oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed
   by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to
   the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman
   governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus
   became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second
   rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom
   of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth
   remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native
   princes holding office for life and, under reservation of
   their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary,
   came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable
   to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by
   Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the
   seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from
   Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as
   throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military
   force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and
   infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala
   and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These
   troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at
   least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly,
   however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did
   not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories
   adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the
   four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman
   commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a
   weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover,
   when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the
   temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in
   a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native
   authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities
   were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the
   town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and
   the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of
   Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of
   the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with
   the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar
   way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there
   was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the
   Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in
   it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land,
   if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the
   time. To the college belonged the former high priests and
   esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the
   aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme
   spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so
   far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the
   secular representative in particular of the community of
   Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious
   fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a
   spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded
   essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution,
   but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as
   its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than
   belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To
   this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by
   the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the
   Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in
   the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban
   authorities and the common councils. With indifferent
   short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism
   of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means
   transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah
   should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of
   manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly
   affected thereby. This applied in particular to the
   administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman
   burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in
   criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman
   tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But
   civil justice over the Jews remained even after that
   annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice
   over them was exercised by the latter probably in general
   concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of
   death could not be executed by it otherwise than after
   confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those
   arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition
   of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this
   request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements
   along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as
   formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of
   the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of
   images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the
   coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple
   continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under
   penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of
   Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the
   pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration
   of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official
   crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew
   says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign
   maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set
   them aside or violated them. This is the more to be
   recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West
   interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other,
   and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea
   cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of
   all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman
   government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of
   the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,
      book 8, chapter 11._

{1919}

   In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again,
   in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of
   the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and
   won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and
   Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of
   Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added
   Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a
   kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died
   suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of
   a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was
   provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of
   Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in
   Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to
   Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      books 15-20._

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 2._

JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.
   Uncertainty of the date of the birth of Jesus.

   "The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign
   authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and
   which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts,
   goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the
   settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of
   Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth,
   Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A.
   D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity
   from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and
   best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign
   of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology:
   Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along
   with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own
   account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus
   is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and
   he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight
   into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall
   hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that
   Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King
   Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of
   two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death,
   about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter
   of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian
   era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U.
   C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which
   is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century;
   according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A.
   U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon
   Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his
   book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance,
   we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that
   is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars
   was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such
   certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself
   to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the
   part of the Christian community of the approximate point of
   time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in
   question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten
   every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is
   after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all
   legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without
   any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with
   the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the
   birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the
   same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than
   elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on
   the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We
   should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according
   to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and
   more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which
   after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the
   close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the
   most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as
   he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of
   Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical
   computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of
   Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of
   Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite
   rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the
   Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius'
   Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the
   death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been
   reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement
   of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the
   Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once
   begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would
   have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the
   Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late
   birth would not only clash with the first statement of the
   Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch
   as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old
   at his death, which in any case took place before the recall
   of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here
   therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the
   writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the
   time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the
   Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as
   about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus
   was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the
   reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds
   for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as
   fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if
   after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth
   year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August,
   767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that
   case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years
   backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before
   our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year
   of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim
   our attention in different ways. …
{1920}
   Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the
   forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of
   Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of
   birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch
   as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus
   after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his
   conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the
   first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of
   Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is
   752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree
   with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the
   occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were
   possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back
   beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as
   the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and
   the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of
   the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than
   the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i.
   e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one
   reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph
   of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the
   Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk
   Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of
   the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525
   A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that
   this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian
   calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern
   times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and
   chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748
   has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's
   star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm
   for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful
   regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh,
   to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning
   of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King
   Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still
   746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year
   748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749,
   Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following
   Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching
   great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to
   the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious
   method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod
   must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength
   of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard
   enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events,
   probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must
   entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day,
   however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our
   traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of
   December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

      _Dr. T. Keim,
      History of Jesus of Nazara,
      volume 2, pages 109-126._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Anderdon,
      Fasti Apostolici,
      introd._

JEWS: A. D. 26.
   Political situation of Judæa
   at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

   "Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of
   Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His
   countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to
   it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long
   vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not
   by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by
   proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He
   associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of
   which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In
   consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties
   presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the
   procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his
   administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of
   Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first.
   Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much
   success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible
   with the usages and institutions of the conquered province.
   The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side
   with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very
   limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion
   and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of
   decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had
   lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had
   reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a
   tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted
   himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext
   that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on
   the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his
   choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to
   keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to
   them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came
   to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases,
   to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of
   Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not
   exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property,
   and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such
   objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the
   temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers
   in the service of the Romans were regarded as the
   representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for
   the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal
   contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on
   the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at
   which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third
   procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in
   the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law
   of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the
   same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather
   than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher
   principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance
   of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact
   which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign
   rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those
   men without patriotism, who think only of using their
   authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the
   peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was
   to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with
   standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation,
   for the eagles were worshipped as gods.
{1921}
   Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd,
   which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled
   to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into
   desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone
   in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused
   shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the
   emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the
   citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which
   might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was
   received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was
   obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have
   led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object
   of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger:
   his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on
   the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that
   it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the
   national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This
   increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a
   purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa,
   and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of
   Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the
   country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his
   moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod
   Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from
   the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his
   brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which
   he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating
   defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the
   influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court,
   evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners
   was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and
   self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though
   of the family of the vile despots who had sold the
   independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a
   national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and
   which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of
   Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the
   political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was
   placed."

      _E. de Pressensé,
      Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work,
      book 3, chapter 1._

JEWS: A. D. 33-100.
   The rise and diffusion of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY.

JEWS: A. D.66-70.
   The Great Revolt.

   The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors
   who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod
   Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than
   it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the
   Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating
   and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be
   more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued,
   conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out
   into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead
   them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under
   extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish
   capital, who were generally controlled by the superior
   prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets.
   … But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so
   easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was
   always then, as it has since always been, in a state of
   partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem]
   the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the
   tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the
   title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was
   suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain
   certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the
   more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the
   Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the
   king could observe all that passed in that mart of business
   and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower,
   he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence,
   as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and
   honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out
   his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between
   the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now
   was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new
   feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more
   prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private
   assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are
   recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by
   which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on
   exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government.
   … Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had
   omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were
   now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and
   nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to
   seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This
   was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to
   lead him."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 59._

   A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the
   entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of
   the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of
   fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put
   to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day
   and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the
   hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their
   own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and
   Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them
   in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and
   hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly
   slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more
   was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with
   gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest
   enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when
   they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the
   very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of
   Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and
   besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,
   were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to
   the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp
   and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The
   retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army
   with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent
   hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of
   auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our
   limits will not allow us to write. …
{1922}
   The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before
   the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal
   evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The
   events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the
   principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually
   commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in
   April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,
   meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which
   hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and
   Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets
   run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the
   Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews
   and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,
   with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,
   more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the
   Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made
   upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town
   were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so
   that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the
   siege."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin,
      chapters 1-2._

   The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by
   Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to
   most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from
   April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans
   forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the
   streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses
   where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps
   of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they
   retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench.
   But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some
   places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with
   streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. …
   The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers,
   which were left as standing monuments of the victory. …
   During the whole siege the number killed [according to
   Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact,
   the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the
   adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city,
   more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had
   been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those
   who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman
   soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years
   old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed
   among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the
   public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve
   thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the
   metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately
   city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings,
   the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a
   ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne,
   and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as
   a defence for the Roman camp."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 7._

      _Josephus,
      The Jewish War._

      _A. J. Church,
      Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem._

      _I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period._

JEWS: A. D. 70-133.
   After the war with Rome.
   The state of the surviving people.

   "It might have been expected that, from the character of the
   great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the
   Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least,
   verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss
   of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the
   markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves.
   … Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to
   offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of
   detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed,
   immediately after the war, we have little accurate
   information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of
   life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the
   country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of
   Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the
   province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the
   possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the
   rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the
   country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in
   this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it
   must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all,
   by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and
   great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much
   depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance,
   the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan
   escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were,
   for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without
   resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. …
   The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as
   detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian
   and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A
   garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to
   prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and
   religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is
   impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and
   the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation
   could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance
   which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 18 (volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 116.
   The rising in Trajan's reign.

   "Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in
   the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose
   against the imperial government. The rising, although
   undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character
   in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the
   expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,
   to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified
   even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and
   Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they
   conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in
   Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene
   220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus
   put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which
   does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the
   Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in
   the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …
   To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation
   of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano
   since the destruction of the temple. …
{1923}
   The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the
   compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on
   this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That
   Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is
   hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression
   for what took place."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2)._

      See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.

JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
   The rising in Hadrian's reign.

   The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought
   him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed
   holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and
   to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred
   in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new
   city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is
   said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a
   fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest
   Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or
   Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed
   by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and
   was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been
   slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in
   the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of
   Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the
   name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who
   founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of
   the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of
   Zion and Moriah."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 65._

   "The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by
   the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents
   on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the
   governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on
   the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no
   pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost
   time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare
   the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far
   from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed
   down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985
   villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible,
   since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male
   population was probably everywhere put to death. In
   consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished
   people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not
   as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of
   the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained
   desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did
   not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death
   from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
   The Nation without a country.
   Its two governments.

   "In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before
   the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present
   the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized
   communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch
   of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who
   inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the
   Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid
   their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most
   difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the
   patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its
   recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who,
   with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble
   attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects
   and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with
   one mind and one heart to establish their community on a
   settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation
   dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or
   repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing
   themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which
   rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power
   whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the
   Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty,
   began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The
   death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the
   war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them
   courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but
   openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The
   Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the
   schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great
   Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and
   finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and
   maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it
   may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an
   ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more
   scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins
   soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his
   cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the
   burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of
   the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be
   clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea
   of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the
   Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during
   all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished.
   Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the
   Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin.
   … In every region of the West, in every province of the
   Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted,
   with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual
   Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with
   honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in
   Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in
   Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly
   rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain
   its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There
   seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R.
   Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if
   his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the
   willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the
   Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as …
   splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his
   officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed
   as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is
   probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of
   the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times,
   was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the
   authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond
   Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 19 (volume 2)._

{1924}

JEWS: A. D. 415.
   Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.
   Early Jewish settlements in Europe.
   Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

   "The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as
   we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived
   in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the
   world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a
   separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was
   also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by
   an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the
   synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of
   God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had
   already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are
   known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the
   Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political
   rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors.
   They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of
   Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the
   position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks
   of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during
   this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against
   the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this
   hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised
   in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus
   the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before
   the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by
   proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained
   against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were
   happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine
   empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith
   the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The
   heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage
   intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and
   holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism,
   gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be
   converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by
   violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal
   sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he
   steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the
   fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as
   a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain,
   where the Church was first obliged to make its way
   laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and
   much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before
   Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and
   the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until
   the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration
   of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took
   place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of
   Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is,
   however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews,
   whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed
   the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in
   Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in
   the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by
   the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King
   Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first
   raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit
   of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over
   the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings
   became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews
   consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly
   only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such
   of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the
   Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in
   France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy,
   and France, possesses but special interest, that of their
   brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of
   universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as
   greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia.
   … Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews
   as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea
   and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East,
   and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain.
   … The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is
   buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as
   free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order
   to take advantage of the productive resources of this country.
   The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under
   Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the
   extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000
   of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews
   … were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as
   the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and
   Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

JEWS: A. D. 615.
   Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.
   Sack and massacre.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

JEWS: A. D. 637.
   Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

JEWS: 7th Century.
   General persecution.
   First expulsion from Spain.

   In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman
   Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a
   more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced
   before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about
   this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the
   Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This
   report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite
   their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but
   the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent
   conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited
   the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the
   imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted
   to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an
   end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised
   every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within
   the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced
   conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in
   his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic
   king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in
   forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 4, section 5._

{1925}

   "Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius,
   Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that,
   within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace
   Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from
   the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a
   premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of
   self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal
   submission."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

JEWS: 7th Century.
   The Epoch of the Geonim.
   The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.

   After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the
   followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the
   partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the
   Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and
   rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish
   supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The
   unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded
   privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite
   probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora
   occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There
   were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which
   even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not
   venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar
   relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the
   Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels.
   With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish
   officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period
   in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space
   of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and
   Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are
   entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and
   concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the
   officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into
   a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia
   (Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar
   constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him
   stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the
   community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He
   represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs.
   He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid
   them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer
   appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove
   about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of
   body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity
   of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two
   chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the
   Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws
   and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by
   allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The
   Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of
   Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of
   the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled
   'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the
   title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference
   over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

JEWS: 8th Century.
   Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.

      See KHAZARS.

JEWS: 8th Century.
   Origin of the Karaites.

      See KARAISM.

JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.
   Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by
   merciless persecution and expulsion.
   Treatment in Portugal.

   "Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this
   persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any
   Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th
   and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as
   financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians;
   in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in
   Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the
   13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any
   other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster
   to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were
   detested by the people; first in one town and then in another
   they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were
   burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them
   in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of
   Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved
   themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a
   few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century
   later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the
   country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition
   at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the
   majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who
   withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from
   170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence,
   starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who
   survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under
   Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in
   Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their
   brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as
   the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the
   wealth of the new Christians."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Lea,
      Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,
      pages 437-468._

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 11th Century.
   First appearance of Jews in England.
   Their treatment as usurers.

   "Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to
   the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to
   London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under
   Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign
   we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can
   be no doubt that they were already established in most of the
   chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the
   townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the
   king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,
   save at the king's own bidding.
{1926}
   Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had
   the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed
   be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but
   which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against
   all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually
   appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the
   scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they
   should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no
   such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving
   trade."

      _K. Norgate,
      England Under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   "The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding
   it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain
   the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation
   unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the
   function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth
   century, which was just passing economically out of the stage
   of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of
   architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and
   especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The
   Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess
   dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of
   protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their
   influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that
   no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country
   were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who
   also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. …
   The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards
   usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his
   Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other
   pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the
   State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all
   usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer,
   his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be
   dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to
   say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews'
   wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good
   Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could
   very soon double and treble it, since the absence of
   competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high,
   rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. …
   The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both
   king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the
   larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it
   plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the
   benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main
   functions and main source of income was selling justice, and
   Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them,
   as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the
   events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid
   by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a
   journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew,
   in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all,
   the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased
   Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters
   and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more
   profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property
   escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of
   Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but
   kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and
   debts of the great financier. He appears to have first
   organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews
   his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these
   quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the
   king claimed from them—again as from his other
   subjects—various contributions from time to time under the
   names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on
   occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable
   discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year
   of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of
   England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews,
   which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were
   reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable
   wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the
   rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal
   Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the
   country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's
   treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner
   in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the
   Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to
   bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the
   Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the
   usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into
   his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for
   a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to
   above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which
   they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

      _Joseph Jacobs,
      The Jews of Angevin England,
      introduction._

JEWS: A. D. 1076.
   Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.

JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146.
   Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.

   The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the
   wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter
   the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset
   of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the
   notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be
   exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they]
   murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate
   men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children
   and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from
   which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred
   Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were
   overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took
   them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his
   castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their
   way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence.
   At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms
   they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop,
   Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the
   celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their
   property."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 145 (volume 1)._

   The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in
   Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St.
   Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and
   humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence.
{1927}
   A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in
   Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine
   against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding
   attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard
   went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority,
   drove the brutal monk into his convent.

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapters 9 and 11._

      _H. C. Adams,
      History of the Jews,
      chapter 15._

JEWS: A. D. 1099.
   Conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

JEWS: 11-17th Centuries.
   Alternating toleration and oppression in Poland.

   "It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the
   only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That
   branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride
   or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by
   stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though
   their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in
   after years, they were certainly at the same time a national
   necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the
   race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated,
   persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others
   took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth
   of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants
   were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to
   Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance
   than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first
   crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the
   Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the
   beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights
   and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to
   the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of
   Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding
   this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386.
   Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have
   any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they
   settled in towns they were forced to live in particular
   suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population,
   supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish
   inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid
   all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572]
   resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax
   of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by
   this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000,
   but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was
   increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that
   he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that
   the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the
   state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their
   hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade
   with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which
   were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased
   to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous
   for the peasant."

      _Count Von Moltke,
      Poland:
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 4, chapter 18._

JEWS: A. D. 1189.
   Massacres in England.

   At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of
   England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter
   hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were
   imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King
   Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a
   riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day
   elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then
   only three rioters were punished, for damage done to
   Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of
   persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country
   people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who
   began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to
   preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers
   were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had
   hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and
   rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York,
   the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle.
   Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the
   gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by
   the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of
   men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the
   strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but
   the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and
   addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is
   better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands
   of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every
   man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over
   the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their
   treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd
   indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and
   burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for
   safety in the cathedral."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 32._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Adams,
      History of the Jews,
      chapter 16._

JEWS: 12-15th Centuries.
   Treatment in France.

   In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from
   the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing
   the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length
   this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to
   Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous
   people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of
   insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian
   debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed,
   they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they
   must have had support both at court and in the halls of
   justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them
   as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might
   afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would
   incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his
   dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part
   to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from
   France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by
   stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission.
   St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series
   of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this
   extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a
   talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their
   plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn,
   they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never
   afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

{1928}

JEWS: 13-14th Centuries.
   Hostility of the Papacy and the Church.
   Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery.
   Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.

   "The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the
   entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to
   perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed
   to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the
   earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon
   it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims
   and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a
   synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair
   the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a
   Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of
   the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all
   the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was
   particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults
   and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at
   a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the
   excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably
   became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who
   naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed
   to interfere, the councils of the various countries made
   amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a
   Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine
   from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that
   all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon
   it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish
   literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews
   being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon
   by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching
   was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable,
   pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual
   bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews
   just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical
   writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes
   and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and
   have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the
   ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once
   baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes
   had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual
   slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor
   Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him
   as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time
   that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the
   successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so
   far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French
   Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century
   this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete
   slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions,
   belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed
   to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do
   with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact,
   constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another;
   the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their
   claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was
   paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."

      _J. I. Von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

JEWS: A. D. 1290.
   Banished from England.

   "At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished
   all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to
   have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell
   connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why
   the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the
   Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of
   income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing
   business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while
   they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he
   was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign
   he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and
   they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans,
   taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the
   ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, period 1,
      page 179._

   The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by
   Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime
   on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular
   parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years
   before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were
   flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled
   there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."

      _G. H. Leonard,
      Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I.
      (Royal History Society Transactions,
      new series, volume 5, 1891)._

JEWS: A. D. 1321.
   Persecution of Lepers and Jews.

   "In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe
   that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with
   which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had
   conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with
   their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the
   Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot
   directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said
   that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which
   opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become
   their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its
   manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other
   evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at
   hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among
   the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active
   avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution
   by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned
   alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex,
   and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination.
   In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were
   led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be
   extorted."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 8._

{1929}

   "The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great
   leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich
   Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These
   drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the
   blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after
   having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a
   weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers
   had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king,
   alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily
   returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for
   the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained
   by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the
   Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen
   with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of
   our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to
   be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who
   happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined
   to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt
   indiscriminately, especially in the South."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

JEWS: A. D. 1348-1349.
   Accused of causing the Black Plague.

   On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence
   known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the
   disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews
   were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the
   calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the
   wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands
   of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived
   from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could,
   the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped
   persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is
   said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland
   is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the
   entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that
   monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should
   be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the
   Jews at Avignon."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      History of Agriculture and Prices,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

JEWS: A. D. 1391.
   Massacre and expulsion from Spain.

      See above: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES;
      also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: A. D. 1492.
   Expulsion of Jews from Spain.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 17th Century.
   Toleration in Holland.
   Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.

      See NETHERLANDS A. D. 1621-1633.

JEWS: A. D. 1655.
   Toleration in England by Cromwell.

   "Wednesday, December 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at
   Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector,
   Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was
   held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern
   reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four
   Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with
   rumour in those old December days; but must now contract
   themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with
   Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have
   met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning,
   Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human
   mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain
   privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They
   were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be
   allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh
   Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being
   stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England,
   has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little
   Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his
   Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing.
   And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness
   spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so
   well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be.
   But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the
   human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went
   home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private
   sufferance of his Highness."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 9, letter 207._

   "Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of
   the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the
   prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference
   was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its
   deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public
   establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a
   certain number of them to take up their residence in London,
   where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a
   burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort
   of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance
   their safety entirely depended."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 6 (volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
   Condition in England.
   Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.

   "The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish
   themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first
   synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not
   appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign
   and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under
   James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the
   sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation.
   Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all
   foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture,
   and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven
   continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of
   James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien
   duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after
   the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the
   reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately
   negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town
   of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of
   trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of
   religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the
   application. The great development of industrial enterprise
   which followed the long and prosperous administration of
   Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now
   preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at
   this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the
   family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise
   the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident
   Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to
   naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not
   lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax
   manufacture. …
{1930}
   The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was
   an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of
   excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the
   impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of
   the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the
   intellectual and political condition of English public
   opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation
   Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a
   distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon
   England all the curses which Providence had attached to the
   Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill
   England with usurers. … The clergy all over England
   denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally
   passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher
   and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and
   carried its repeal."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
   Persecutions and restrictions in Russia.
   The Pale.

   "The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little
   Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were
   allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians
   and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage
   to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and
   expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were
   anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of
   their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability
   of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely
   opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the
   throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them,
   and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might
   have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was
   too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time
   to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter,
   but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict
   'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,'
   the persecution on economic and social grounds continued
   unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however,
   recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is
   that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the
   great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the
   Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic
   population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The
   rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two
   millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could
   not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose
   boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could
   find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an
   autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that
   of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing
   problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part
   of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to
   keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale.
   Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase,
   has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and
   boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply
   contracted. … To trace these changes would be to
   unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to
   keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's
   solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only
   one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that
   Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the
   eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more
   worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of
   milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed
   to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said,
   'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in
   the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this
   permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years
   were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining
   that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.'
   … The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made
   up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike
   Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale
   as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly
   to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit
   from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a
   year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The
   Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the
   death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new
   era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and
   comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made
   to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young
   Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the
   condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and
   then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of
   inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen
   returned voluminous reports, all, without exception,
   favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports
   were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which
   Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were
   allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to
   remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by
   contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward
   step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by
   utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only
   from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring
   profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following
   Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its
   appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is
   recalled."

      _H. Frederic,
      The New Exodus,
      chapters 4-5._

      See, also, JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

JEWS: A. D. 1740.
   Rise of the modern Chasidim.

      See CHASIDIM.

JEWS: A. D. 1791.
   The French Revolutionary emancipation.

   "It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their
   improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of
   good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the
   first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every
   other great political movement passed over as too
   insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account.
   Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to
   secularise the State, the other in his policy of
   Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts
   it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short
   space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete
   emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic.
   On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the
   abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force
   against them, and thus made them by law what they had
   previously been in heart, citizens of their country.
{1931}
   He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master,
   of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of
   religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated.
   Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more
   and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there
   that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."

      _S. Singer,
      Jews in their Relation to Other Races
      (National Life and Thought, chapter 20)._

JEWS: A. D. 1846-1858.
   Removal of disabilities in England.

   "In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which
   compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress.
   The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two
   centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the
   privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House
   of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to
   all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were
   prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could
   take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 9._

JEWS: 19th Century.
   The Anti-Semite movement.
   Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.

   "Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have
   characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century,
   few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a
   deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite
   movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over
   a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the
   most serious religious persecution of the century. It has
   raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the
   Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a
   considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among
   its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France,
   which from the days of the Revolution has been specially
   distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped
   the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the
   occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole
   Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who
   is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living
   political writers, has special qualifications for his task.
   With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating
   to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews
   in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in
   those countries where the persecution has most furiously
   raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different
   degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move
   mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of
   exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from
   trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M.
   Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the
   weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New
   Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader,
   the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place.
   Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and
   infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as
   the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him
   has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other
   lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches
   considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When
   the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with
   the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to
   avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands
   of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur
   Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed
   against the alien people who were undermining the moral
   foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable
   enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The
   cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical
   Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our
   author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive
   nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so
   many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or
   heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being
   into a single definite type. The movement has been still
   further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade
   competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant
   populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands
   conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of
   judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of
   resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry
   continually force him into the foremost rank and he is
   prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The
   tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender
   are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists
   largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when
   capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      Israel among the Nations
      (The Forum, December, 1893)._

   "Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected.
   Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year
   all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the
   South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against,
   and violence was offered to, those who had no means of
   retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The
   restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most
   ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial
   jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the
   outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the
   Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship,
   they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript,
   for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance,
   not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the
   Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns
   inhabited by Jews, to inquire
   (1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of
   Jews became injurious to the Christian population;
   (2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old
   restrictions;
   (3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct
   of Jews in business.
   The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws,
   which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them
   throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary
   application. They were known as laws for the time, and only
   came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the
   Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service,
   and pecuniary contributions.
{1932}
   In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of
   Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a
   substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession,
   until they have produced evidence of registration in the
   recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews
   cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer.
   … The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to
   the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on
   the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground
   between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890
   Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real
   estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto
   applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property
   they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish
   artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives,
   with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places
   outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by
   special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even
   then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon
   as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale
   of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the
   Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness.
   Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in
   a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus.
   Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet
   they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt
   mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews
   from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as
   Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from
   5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were
   expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not
   having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be
   transferred, with their families, to their proper places of
   abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from
   the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in
   Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to
   expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three
   years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands.
   Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka
   districts; because they had settled there after the passing of
   the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to
   limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with
   millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has
   declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish
   families, which were established when those provinces were
   incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may
   settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may
   be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance,
   without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their
   rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is
   practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not
   upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of
   oppression pine without hope in the world."

      _C. N. Barham,
      Persecution of the Jews in Russia
      (Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144._

      ALSO IN:
      _Persecution of the Jews in Russia:
      issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;_

      _D. F. Schloss,
      Persecution of the Jews in Roumania._

   ----------JEWS: End----------

JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.

      See RAJPOOTS.

JEZIREH, Al.

      See MESOPOTAMIA.

JEZREEL, Battle of.

      See MEGIDDO.

JINGIZ-KHAN, The conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

JINGOES.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878 EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND.

JIVARA, OR JIVARO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

JOACHIM I.,
   Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1499-1535.

   Joachim II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1535-1571.

   Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, 1598-1608.

JOAN OF ARC, The mission of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

JOANNA,
   Queen of Castile, A. D. 1504-1555.

   Joanna I., Queen of Naples, 1343-1381.

   Joanna II., Queen of Naples, 1414-1435.

JOGLARS.

      See TROUBADOURS.

JOHN
   (of Brienne), Latin Emperor at Constantinople
   (Romania), A. D. 1228-1237.

   John (of Luxemburg), King of Bohemia, A. D. 1310-1346.

   John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1481-1513.

   John, King of England, 1199-1216.

   John (Don) of Austria: His victories over the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571,
      and 1572-1573.

      In the Netherlands.
      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577, and 1577-1581.

   John, Elector of Brandenburg, 1486-1499.

   John (called The Fearless), Duke of Burgundy, 1404-1418.

   John I., King of Aragon, 1387-1395.

   John I., King of Castile and Leon, 1379-1390.

   John I., nominal King of France
   (an infant who lived seven days), 1316.

   John I., King of Navarre, 1441-1479;

   John II., of Aragon, 1458-1479;

   John I., of Sicily, 1458-1479.

   John I., King of Portugal, 1383-1433.

   John I., King of Sicily, 1458-1479.

   John II. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1118-1143.

   John II., King of Castile and Leon, 1407-1454.

   John II. (called The Good), King of France, 1350-1364.

   John II., King of Portugal, 1481-1495.

   John III. (Vataces), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1222-1255.

   John III., King of Portugal, 1521-1557.

   John III., King of Sweden, 1568-1592.

   John IV., Pope, 640-642.

   John IV. (Lascaris), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1259-1260.

   John IV., King of Portugal, 1640-1656.

   John V., Pope, 685-686.

   John V. (Cantacuzene),
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1342-1355.

   John V., King of Portugal, 1706-1750.

   John VI., Pope, 701-705.

   John VI. (Palæologus),
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1355-1391.

   John VI., King of Portugal, 1816-1826.

   John VII., Pope, 705-707.

   John VII.
   (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1425-1448.

   John VIII., Pope, 872-882.

   John IX., Pope, 898-900.

   John X., Pope, 914-928.

   John XI., Pope, 931-936.

   John XII., Pope, 956-964.

   John XIII., Pope, 965-972.

   John XIV., Pope, 983-984.

   John XV., Pope, 985-996.

   John XVI., Antipope, 997-998.

   John XVII., Pope, 1003, June to December.

   John XVIII., Pope, 1003-1009.

   John XIX., Pope, 1024-1033.

   John XXI. (so styled, though 20th of the name),
   Pope, 1276-1277.

   John XXII., Pope, 1316-1334.

   John XXIII., Pope, 1410-1410.

   John Albert, King of Poland, 1493-1501.

   John d'Albret and Catherine,
   King and Queen of Navarre, 1503-1512.

   John Balliol, King of Scotland, 1292-1296.

   John Casimir, King of Poland, 1648-1668.

   John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.

      See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

   John George, Elector of Brandenburg, 1571-1598.

   John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 1608-1619.

   John Sobieski, King of Poland, 1674-1697.

   John Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1216-1222.

   John Zimisces, Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 969-976.

{1933}

JOHN COMPANY, The.

   A name applied to the English East India Company.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

JOHNNIES.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

JOHNSON, Andrew:
   Military Governor of Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

   Election to the Vice Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

   Succession to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 15TH).

   Reconstruction Policy.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY),
      to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

   Impeachment of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY).

JOHNSON, Sir William, and the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney.
   Command of Confederate forces in the west.
   Battle of Shiloh.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE),
      and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

JOHNSTON, General Joseph E.
   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

   Command in northern Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

   Command on the Peninsula.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
      to (MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Command in the west.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Command in Georgia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
      (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   The Atlanta campaign.
   Relieved of command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

   Command in the Carolinas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

   Surrender.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 26TH).

JOHNSTOWN FLOOD, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871.

JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

JOMSBORG.

   Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in
   the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th
   centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes,
   who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the
   civilization it brought with it," which their country was then
   submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no
   man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman
   might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in
   common."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      pages 366-367._

   "The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or
   'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some
   generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far
   beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the
   opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic
   England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the
   pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves,
   danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country
   Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Early Kings of Norway,
      chapter 5._

   The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of
   the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.

JONES, John Paul, Naval exploits of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776;
      and 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

JONESBORO', Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

JONGLEURS.

      See TROUBADOURS.

JOPPA.

      See JAFFA.

JOSEPH,
   King of Portugal, A. D. 1750-1777.

   Joseph I.,
   King of Hungary, 1687-1711;
   King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.

   Joseph II., King of Hungary and Bohemia,
   and Germanic Emperor, 1765-1790.

   Joseph Bonaparte,
   King of Naples, 1806-1808;
   King of Spain, 1808-1812.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

JOSEPHINE, Empress, Napoleon's divorce from.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

JOTAPATA, Siege of.

   The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian
   Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A.
   D. 67, and taken.

      _Josephus,
      Jewish War,
      book 3, chapter 7-8._

JOUBERT, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1796-1797(OCTOBER-APRIL);
      1798-1799; 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

JOURDAN, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER);
      1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
      1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JOUST.

   See TOURNEY.

JOVIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 363-364.

JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.

      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

JOYOUS ENTRY OF BRABANT, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1559-1562.

JUAN.

      See JOHN.

JUAREZ, The Mexican government of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861, to 1867-1888.

JUBILEE, Papal institution of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

JUDAH, Kingdom of.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, and after.

JUDAS MACCABÆUS.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JUDGES OF ISRAEL.

      See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

JUDGMENT OF GOD.

      See ORDEAL; also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

{1934}

JUDICIAL COMBAT.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

JUGANTES, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

JUGERUM.

   "A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds
   of a statute acre."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 7, footnote (volume 1)._

JUGURTHINE WAR, The.

      See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

JULIAN (called The Apostate),
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363.
   Restorer of Paganism.

      See ROME: A. D. 361-363.

JULIAN CALENDAR.
JULIAN ERA.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

JULIAN FAMILY, The.

   "The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was
   transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always
   within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of
   the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to
   the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.;
   Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from
   54 to 68."

      _J. C. L. Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 2._

JULIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

JULIAN LAWS, The.

   "Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he
   went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body
   of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges
   Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a
   law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates
   during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder
   of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of
   Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the
   punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the
   popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in
   them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from
   violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who
   had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office
   in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be
   effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be
   bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue;
   laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws
   against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at
   elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De
   repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or
   pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the
   provinces."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 13._

JULIAN LINE, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

JULIANUS.

      See JULIAN.

   Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

JÜLICH-CLEVE CONTEST, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

JULIOMAGUS.
   Modern Angers.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

JULIUS II.,
   Pope, A. D. 1503-1513.

   Julius III., Pope, 1550-1555.

   Julius Nepos, Roman Emperor (Western), 474-475.

JULY FIRST.
   Dominion Day.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

JULY FOURTH, Independence Day.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

JULY MONARCHY, The.

   The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the
   revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and
   1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.

JUNIN, Battle of (1824).

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

JUNIUS LETTERS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.

JUNONIA.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.

JUNTA.

   A Spanish word signifying council, assembly, association.

JUNTA, The Apostolic.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

JURISFIRMA, The process of.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JUROIPACH, Fortress of.

   A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of
   the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the
   Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This
   fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the
   usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed
   to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and
   populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering
   raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened
   almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt
   that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 19._

JURY, Trial by.

   "The fabric of our judicial legislation commences with the
   Assize of Clarendon.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

   … In the provisions of this assize for the repression of
   crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed
   to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four
   from each township, were sworn to present those who were known
   or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by
   ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn
   to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge;
   and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors
   that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps
   brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I.
   witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were
   added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation
   of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became
   simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the
   first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern
   jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of English People,
      chapter 2, section 8._

      See LAW.

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13, section 164._

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of Trial by Jury._

JUSTICIAR.

   The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first
   the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during
   the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a
   permanent minister of justice and finance.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, page 346._

JUSTIN I.,
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 518-527.

   Justin II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 565-578.

JUSTINIAN I.,
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 527-565.

   Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus),
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.

JUSTINIAN, The Institutes, Pandects and Novels of.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

{1935}

JUSTIZA, OR JUSTICIARY, of Aragon.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JÜTERBOGK, OR DENNEWITZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

JUTES, The.

      See ANGLES AND JUTES;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

JUTHUNGI, The.

      See ALEMANNI, FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE.

JUVAVIUM.

      See SALZBURG.

JUVENAL IA, The.

   This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his
   attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and
   the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a
   golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This
   ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the
   emperor, himself, performed.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 53._

JUVERNA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

KAABA, OR CAABA, at Mecca, The.

      See CAABA.

KABALA, OR CABALA, The.

      See CABALA.

KABALA, Battle of.

      See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KABELJAUWS.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      also, 1482-1493.

KABYLES, The.

      See LIBYANS; also, AMORITES.

KADESH.

   A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The
   name signifies "the holy city."

KADESH-BARNEA.

   An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the
   objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai
   to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of
   their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It
   is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their
   wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their
   final move into the land of their longings."

      _H. C. Trumbull,
      Kadesh-Barnea,
      part 1._

   Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees,
   in the Wilderness of Zin.

KADIASKERS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

KADISIYEH, Battle of.

      See CADESIA.

KADMEIA, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.

      See BŒOTIA.

KADMONITES, The.

      See SARACENS.

KAFIRS.
KAFIR WARS.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and A. D. 1811-1868;
      also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

KAGHUL, Battle of (1770).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAH-KWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

KAINARDJI, OR
KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Treaty of (1774).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAIRWAN, The founding of.

   Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa
   who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient
   Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing
   in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city,
   thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues
   from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded
   valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have
   cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting
   his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your
   Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan.
   Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and
   opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new
   city a populous and important capital.

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

      _A. A. Boddy,
      Kairwan the Holy._

KAISAR-I-HIND.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

KAISER, Origin of the title.

      See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

KAISERSLAUTERN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

KALAPOOIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.

KALB, Baron De, and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

KALEVALA,
KALEWALA, The.

   "To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the
   world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which
   is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the
   Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient
   Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information
   connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the
   customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is
   to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic
   age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed
   themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain
   similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the
   Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are
   possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement
   of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date.
   No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction
   of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years
   since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated
   songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours.
   Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral
   traditions of the people, had already made their appearance,
   though even the first important collection of these, which was
   made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than
   1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the
   epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He
   published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or
   cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent
   poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division,
   though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt
   transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in
   the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the
   Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of
   Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."

      _J. Oxenford,
      Kalewala
      (Temple Bar, December, 1860)._

{1936}

   "Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a
   storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it
   is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no
   violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala
   has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the
   two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. …
   Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland
   possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim
   affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a
   back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained
   untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by
   Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to
   Christianity: events which took place gradually between the
   middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries.
   … The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened
   national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and
   customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the
   north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers
   sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These
   runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias,
   to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom
   was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory,
   clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he
   whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala
   contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that
   no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is
   at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology.
   These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the
   degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign
   influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the
   native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a
   thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in
   the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic
   knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest
   over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount
   them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the
   suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task
   of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to
   furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five
   Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later
   research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the
   symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging
   and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally
   ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey.
   He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the
   materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a
   certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this
   unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic,
   although the element of permanence which is most obvious in
   the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here
   conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of
   an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or
   priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes,
   fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards;
   exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale,
   not war, but the common daily business of primitive and
   peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala,
   like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race,
   the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest,
   of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation.
   Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an
   exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have
   seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the
   existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished
   from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are
   produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it
   takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of
   Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have
   been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and
   Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a
   popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its
   literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which
   it contains. … What is to be understood by the word
   'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela'
   is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as
   'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The
   Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.'
   The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of
   Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place
   of the world's end."

      _A. Lang,
      Kalevala
      (Fraser's May, June, 1872)._

   A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by
   John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.

      _Project Gutenberg
      Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland—
      Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186_

KALISCH, Battle of (1706).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

KALISCH, OR CALISCH, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

KALMUKS, The.

      See TARTARS.

KAMBALU,
CAMBALU.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KAMBULA, Battle of (1879).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KANAKAS.

      See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

KANAWHA, Battle of the Great.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KANAWHA, The proposed State of.

      See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

KANAWHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KANDHS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

   ----------KANSAS: Start--------

KANSAS:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KANSAS: A. D. 1803.
   Mostly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854.
   Territorial organization.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
   The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension.
   Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.

   "The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the
   struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal
   of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had
   been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave
   States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State
   settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western
   Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed
   the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants
   not to pass through Missouri.
{1937}
   The first election of a delegate to Congress took place
   November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of
   Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted,
   and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855,
   for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same
   fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met
   at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble
   it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a
   series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death
   for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the
   spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost
   continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri
   endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and
   arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of
   'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies
   were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect
   intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through
   Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and
   Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The
   Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But
   these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious
   for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents
   did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes.
   Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were
   successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers
   was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The
   Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery
   district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the
   former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief
   towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka
   repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as
   the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to
   order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to
   force that body to decide the question, and to form a State
   government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers
   [having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected
   State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The
   Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856,
   the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to
   Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced
   the attempt to form a Free State government, without the
   approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an
   act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all
   persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to
   their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of
   Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the
   Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very
   considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a
   desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the
   year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and
   Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State
   Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once
   dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from
   Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of
   Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to
   some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures.
   By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established
   order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State
   Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again
   dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and
   many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy
   marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature
   quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J.
   Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A
   resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the
   Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive,
   illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new
   Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority
   in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South
   Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this
   Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas
   struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free
   State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far
   as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The
   result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously
   elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on
   to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the
   people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or
   'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received.
   Not being allowed in either event to vote against the
   Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all,
   and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000
   majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an
   election at which the people could vote for or against the
   Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast
   against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of
   receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution
   with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen
   to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit
   it to the people at all. This view was supported by the
   Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans
   and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of
   Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a
   State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the
   bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be
   submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso.
   A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House
   should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large
   grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of
   Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In
   this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a
   law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a
   failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected
   by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a
   Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial
   Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention
   to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in
   July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting
   Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people
   and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress
   refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the
   Senate rejecting, though the House approved.

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapters 18-19._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. W. Wilder,
      Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several
      Constitutions, etc.)._

      _E. E. Hale,
      Kansas and Nebraska,
      chapters 8-9._

      _S. T. L. Robinson,
      Kansas_

      _J. H. Gihon,
      Governor Geary's Administration in Kansas._

      _F. B. Sanborn,
      Life and Letters of John Brown,
      chapters 7-11._

      _Reports of Select Committee,
      (34th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report 200)._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapters 7-9 (volume 2)._

      _C. Robinson,
      The Kansas Conflict._

      See, also, JAYHAWKERS.

{1938}

KANSAS: A. D. 1861.
   Admission to the Union under the Wyandot Constitution.

   "As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of
   Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the
   Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as
   a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State
   Constitution."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, page 185._

KANSAS: A. D. 1863.
   Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
   The sacking of Lawrence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

   ----------KANSAS: End----------

KANSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAPOHN, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

KAPOLNA, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KAPPEL, Battle of (1531).
   The Kappeler Milchsuppe.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

KARA GEORG, The career of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

KARAISM.
KARAITES.

   The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of
   one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine
   was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for
   the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion
   which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the
   Text, or Karaism,"

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 23._

KARAKORUM.

   The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his
   successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated
   near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace
   there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1. pages 155 and 182._

      See, also,
      MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KARANKAWAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KARANKAWAN FAMILY.

KARIGAUM, Defense of (1817).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KARKAR, Battle of.

   Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the
   confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian
   neighbors; the latter defeated.

KARL.

      See ETHEL.—ETHELING.

KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

KARLOWITZ, OR CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

KARLSBAD, OR CARLSBAD, Congress of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

KARMATHIANS, The.

      See CARMATHIANS.

KARNATTAH.

   The Moorish name of Granada, signifying "the cream of the
   West."

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

KAROKS, OR CAHROCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.

      See CAROLINGIA; and FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

   ----------KARS: Start--------

KARS: A. D. 1854-1856.
   Siege and capture by the Russians.
   Restoration to Turkey.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855 and 1854-1856.

KARS: A. D. 1877.
   Siege and capture by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

KARS: A. D. 1878.
   Cession to Russia.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878 THE TREATIES.

   ----------KARS: End--------

KASDIM, OR CASDIM.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

   ----------KASHMERE: Start--------

KASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
   Conquest by Runjet Singh.

      See SIKHS.

KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

   Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
   Gholab Singh.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

   ----------KASHMERE: Start--------

   ----------KASKASKIA: Start--------

KASKASKIA, French settlement of.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.

KASKASKIA: A. D. 1778.
   Taken by the Virginian General Clark.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

   ----------KASKASKIA: End----------

KASKASKIAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KASSOPIANS.

      See EPIRUS.

KATABA, OR CATAWBAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY,
      and, SIOUAN FAMILY.

KATANA, Naval Battle of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

KATZBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

KAUS, OR KWOKWOOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

KAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAZAN, The Khanate of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KEARNEYITES.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.

      See NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

KEDAR, Tribe of.

   "The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the
   Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia.
   They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to
   convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria.
   They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders
   of the desert."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2)._

KEECHIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KEEHEETSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KEEWATIN, District of.

   "In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada]
   erecting into a separate government under the name of the
   District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory
   lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about
   395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic
   colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio
   Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      page 35._

{1939}

KEFT.

      The ancient Egyptian name of Phœnicia.

   ----------KEHL: Start--------

KEHL: A. D. 1703.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KEHL: A. D. 1733.
   Taken by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   ----------KEHL: End--------

KEITH, George, The schism and the controversies of.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

KELLY'S FORD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

KELTS, The.

      See CELTS, THE.

KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KENAI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET,
      and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KENDALL, Amos, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

KENESAW MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

KENITES, The.

      See AMALEKITES, THE.

KENT, Kingdom of.

   Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The
   only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle
   of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

KENT, Weald of.

      See ANDERIDA.

KENT'S HOLE.

   One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully
   explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals.
   It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.

      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Cave Hunting._

   ----------KENTUCKY: Start----------

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1748.
   First English exploration from Virginia.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.
   Absence of Indian inhabitants.
   Early exploration and settlement by the whites.
   The colony of Transylvania.

   In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the
   South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a
   sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in
   their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their
   ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern
   Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi
   and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its
   deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them
   a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but
   elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their
   wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee
   River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged
   this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of
   the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to
   Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of
   Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian
   population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants
   of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from
   a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes.
   … As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was
   neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found
   themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the
   savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to
   their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did
   to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George
   Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a
   surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the
   Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a
   mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith,
   explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably
   extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to
   Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more
   parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In
   1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin
   settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One
   of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his
   companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that
   Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of
   Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had
   been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes
   in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground.
   In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a
   land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the
   northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to
   found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty
   companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where
   Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now
   Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on
   June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their
   leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made
   at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy
   abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger
   footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now
   Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln
   County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the
   decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the
   Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the
   Kanawha.

      See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1774.

   … That the process of possessing the land was going on with
   speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company,
   land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the
   new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres
   of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it
   served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made
   it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the
   tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation.
   These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of
   Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of
   Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years
   before it received its present appellation. At this time, the
   last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under
   the authority of his majesty King George III., there were
   probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in
   settlements that were intended to be permanent within the
   bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may
   have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which
   preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men
   at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a
   sort of hegemony among the settlements.
{1940}
   On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the
   land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these
   settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of
   nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. …
   The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September,
   but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its
   institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of
   Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The
   colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about
   17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of
   Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from
   the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that
   dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate
   adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. …
   Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of
   the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people
   began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained
   from the company, because, after a time, they learned from
   various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had
   been previously ceded to the English government by the Six
   Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the
   latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement
   signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of
   Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their
   petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The
   proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion
   by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia,
   who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to
   the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this
   protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick
   Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the
   efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina
   issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The
   colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia
   took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778,
   that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but,
   in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel
   Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company
   received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to
   actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia
   Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of
   Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."

      _N. S. Shaler,
      Kentucky,
      chapters 5-7._

      ALSO IN;
      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768.
   The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774.
   The western Territorial claims of Virginia.
   Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
   A county of Virginia.
   Indian warfare of the Revolution.
   Aspirations towards State independence.

   "In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of
   Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and
   Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They
   withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however,
   without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were
   considerably reinforced by a number of men from North
   Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In
   1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians
   under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of
   Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of
   Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of
   this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt
   at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200
   Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of
   capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and
   delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom
   they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape.
   … After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500
   Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before
   Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine
   days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and
   a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April,
   1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some
   adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands.
   This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by
   the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying
   Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia,
   by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at
   the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could
   locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. …
   The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration
   during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the
   emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of
   the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed
   almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers
   of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into
   three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and
   Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more
   active and shocking than it had ever been in the country
   before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the
   Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the
   Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded
   the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near
   the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with
   Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in
   both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were
   Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and
   hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a
   time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater
   violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with
   the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As
   early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed
   with the necessity of the organization of a regular
   government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate
   and independent State; but their efforts were continually
   perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before
   their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were
   often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if
   she would declare herself an independent State, and although
   the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a
   deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and
   repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional
   independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect
   for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the
   Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as
   an independent State, there were elected and held nine
   Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."

      _W. B. Allen,
      History of Kentucky,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Brown,
      Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

{1941}

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and
   its annexation to the Kentucky District.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784.
   Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and
   their cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi.
   Discontent of the settlers.
   Intrigues of Wilkinson.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a
   State.

   "In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after
   some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her
   organization on that condition as an independent state,
   Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the
   confederacy. That application had been referred to the new
   federal government about to be organized, a delay which had
   made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the
   Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being
   over-past, drove back the separatists to the original
   starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia
   Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being
   the third held on that subject: to take the question of
   separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some
   new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which
   the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion
   of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by
   recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which
   met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a
   memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms
   formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth
   Convention was authorized again to consider the question of
   separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to
   fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the
   last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in
   favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as
   the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention
   to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these
   results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791]
   admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above
   mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state
   Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been
   actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for
   the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as
   above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the
   Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the
   emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners,
   nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a
   full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from
   bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone
   of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and
   description should be continued in slavery by the laws of
   Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the
   introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws
   to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Brown,
      The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795.
   War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
   decisive victory.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1798.
   The Nullifying resolutions.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September).
   The struggle with Secession and its defeat.
   "Neutrality" ended.

   "In the days when personal leadership was more than it can
   ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the
   teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the
   experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay,
   who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The
   practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had
   been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin
   convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to
   organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a
   condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do.
   After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature
   together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement
   would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could
   be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower
   house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a
   position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to
   furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a
   proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all
   other States, separate or united, especially the United and
   Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon
   Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated
   this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts
   intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be
   formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition,
   but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the
   arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It
   amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to
   take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
   and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that
   'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National
   Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.'
   Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the
   National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said:
   'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet
   have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I
   know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a
   single substantial reason for it; our Government had never
   oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J.
   Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar
   stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a
   Union majority of three to one.
{1942}
   As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to
   President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be
   respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr.
   Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him
   that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told
   him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the
   messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To
   strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter
   fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and
   given the command in the State in September. Two months later,
   a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern
   part of the State, organized a provisional government, and
   sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at
   Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats
   in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new
   Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent
   Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others,
   including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled
   southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky
   as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation
   was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the
   ranks of both the great contending armies."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _N. S. Shaler,
      Kentucky,
      chapter 15._

      _E. P. Thompson,
      History of First Kentucky Brigade,
      chapter 2._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for
   troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February).
   Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October).
   Bragg's invasion.
   Buell's pursuit.
   Battle of Perryville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1863 (July).
   John Morgan's Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

   ----------KENTUCKY: End----------

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

KENYER-MESÖ, Battle of (1479).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

KERAÏT, The.

      See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

KERAMEIKOS, The.

      See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

KERBELA, The Moslem tragedy at.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

KERESAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KERESAN FAMILY.

KERESTES, OR CERESTES, Battle of (1596).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

KERMENT, Battle of (1664).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

KERNE.

      See RAPPAREES.

KERNSTOWN, Battles of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA);
      and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

KERTCH, Attack on (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

KERYKES, The.

      See PHYLÆ.

KESSELSDORF, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

KEYNTON, OR EDGEHILL, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KEYSERWERTH, Siege and storming of (1702).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KHAJAR DYNASTY, The.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

KHALIF.

      See CALIPH.

KHALSA, The.

      See SIKHS;
      also, INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845, and 1845-1849.

KHAN.
KHAGAN.

   "'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is
   found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the
   Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its
   original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in
   ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian
   ('Hyk-sos')."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 14, foot-note._

KHAR, OR KHARU, The.

   "The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the
   inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia,
   and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or
   'west.'"

      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone Lore,
      chapter 1._

KHAREJITES, The.

   A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took
   form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to
   the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is
   in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that,
   "believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph,
   nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the
   government should be in the hands of a Council of State
   elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the
   Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they
   continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding
   Caliphs.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note._

KHARTANI, Tragedy of the Cave of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

KHARTOUM, The Mahdi's siege of.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

KHAZARS, OR CHAZARS, OR KHOZARS, The.

   "This important people, now heard of for the first time in
   Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian
   era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the
   steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made
   raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile
   provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were
   Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been
   ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is
   doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at
   this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 18._

   "After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
   A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the
   Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean
   peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The
   Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and
   flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain
   their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians,
   and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the
   people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to
   furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from
   every fur hunt.
{1943}
   With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became,
   they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the
   Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse
   religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The
   Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity
   through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the
   land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had
   escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the
   Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants,
   physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by
   the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with
   a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances
   under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished
   by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all
   sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality.
   Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly
   4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made
   its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of
   the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor
   of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first
   to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He …
   founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long
   series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law
   of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the
   throne."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

KHEDIVE.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

KHEMI, OR KEM.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KHITA, The.

      See HITTITES, THE.

KHITAI.
KHITANS, The.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

KHIVA.

      See KHUAREZM.

KHODYA.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

KHOKAND,
   Russian conquest of the Khanate of (1876).

      See. RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KHONDS, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

  ----------KHORASSAN: Start--------

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
   Conquest and destruction by the Mongols.

   In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of
   Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into
   Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most
   prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very
   thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful
   province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and
   the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost
   incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the
   inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred
   in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by
   shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale
   massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses
   numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000
   according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor
   ("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To
   prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered
   every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of
   men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the
   city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and
   its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and
   they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond
   1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The
   destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then
   a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It
   surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at
   that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat
   suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon
   itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege
   of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole
   week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it
   is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was
   entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu
   Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as
   well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled
   up like a mountain."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, pages 86-91._

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1380.
   Conquest by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

  ----------KHORASSAN: End--------

KHOTZIM.

   See CHOCZIM.

KHOULIKOF, Battle of (1383).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

  ----------KHUAREZM: Start--------

KHUAREZM, OR CHORASMIA (modern Khiva).

   "The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy
   deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of
   Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs
   Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan
   race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped
   precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that
   Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian
   monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the
   White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the
   Toorks."

      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapter 10._

KHUAREZM: 12th Century.
   The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian,
   or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.

   "The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing
   young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes
   in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their
   service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and
   many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high
   influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The
   founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named
   Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He
   rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which
   carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm,
   that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes
   on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and
   on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became
   virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next
   succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the
   Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain
   in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian
   ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was
   formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of
   Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain
   not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son
   extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D.
   1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He
   controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the
   invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the
   Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and
   Azerbaidjan."

      _H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, pages 7-8._

{1944}

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

   In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon
   Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of
   Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is
   represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich
   cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very
   like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy
   deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were
   commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan:
   but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted
   through six months without much progress being made. Jingis
   then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations,
   and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at
   length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha,
   and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it.
   This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans
   and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women
   and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of
   the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then
   submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are
   probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that
   over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 85._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapter 4._

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1873.
   Conquest by the Russians.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

  ----------KHUAREZM: End--------

KHUAREZMIANS IN JERUSALEM, The.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

KICHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, QUICHES, and MAYAS.

KICKAPOO INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KIEFT, Governor William, Administration of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

KIEL, Peace of.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

   ----------KIEV: Start--------

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 882.
   Capital of the Russian state.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 1240.
   Destroyed by the Mongols.

   In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating
   march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city,
   known among the Russians as "the mother of cities,
   magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with
   its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty
   churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty
   Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden
   Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian
   princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had
   latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils
   of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt.
   It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was
   taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy:
   the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the
   horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient
   Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During
   the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in
   ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its
   former self."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 141-142. (1876)_

   ----------KIEV: End--------

KILIDSCH.

      See TIMAR.

KILIKIA.

      See CILICIA.

KILKENNY, The Statute of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.

KILKENNY ARTICLES, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1652.

KILLIECRANKIE, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (JULY).

KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

KILSYTH, Battle of (1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

KIMON, Peace of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

KINBURN, Battle of (1787).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

KINDERGARTEN, The.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1816-1892.

KING, Origin of the word.

   "Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the
   word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to
   decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or
   whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see
   Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough
   if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a
   whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,'
   'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's
   Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of
   'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but
   the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English
   feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion
   of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea
   which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic
   philology was thrown away."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1)._

KING GEORGE'S WAR.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: 1745: and 1745-1748.

KING MOVEMENT, The.

      See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.

KING OF THE ROMANS.

      See ROMANS, KING OF THE.

KING OF THE WOOD.

      See ARICIAN GROVE.

KING PHILIP'S WAR.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675: 1675: and 1676-1678.

KING WILLIAM'S WAR.

   The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV.
   of France, frequently called "the War of the League of
   Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and
   France, and received in the former the name of King William's
   War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690;
      CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
      also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

KING'S BENCH.

      See CURIA REGIS.

{1945}

KING'S COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

KING'S HEAD CLUB.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

KING'S MOUNTAIN, Battle of (1780).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

KING'S PEACE, The.

   "The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for
   mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of
   rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in
   its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in
   early England] under the protection of the king. … But this
   position is far from that of the fountain of justice and
   source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole
   safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as
   the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of
   the church was not that of the country at large, a special
   guarantee for those who were under special protection. …
   When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his
   whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of
   which he is the guardian into the closer personal or
   territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is
   now the king's peace. … The process by which the national
   peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it
   is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all
   peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise
   again at the proclamation of the new."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Howard,
      On the Development of the King's Peace
      (Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3)._

      _Sir F. Pollock,
      Oxford Lectures, 3._

      See, also, ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

  ----------KINGSTON, Canada: Start--------

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673.
   The building of Fort Frontenac.
   La Salle's seigniory.

   In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally
   superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of
   Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of
   Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the
   explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with
   surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and
   half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle,
   he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to
   maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.

      _F. Parkman,
      La Salle,
      chapter. 6._

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1758.
   Fort Frontenac taken by the English.

         See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

  ----------KINGSTON, Canada: End--------

KINSALE, Battle of (1601).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

KINSTON, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

KIOWAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KIOWAN FAMILY.

KIPCHAKS, The.

   "The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The
   name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the
   country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. …
   A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht
   Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south
   by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants.
   Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the
   Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were
   known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the
   Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great
   section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. …
   They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of
   the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal
   by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very
   persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is
   very probable that they became an important element in the
   various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of
   Kipchak."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 17._

      See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRCH-DENKERN, OR WELLINGHAUSEN, Battle of (1761).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

KIRGHIZ, Russian subjugation of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRIRI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

   See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

KIRKE'S LAMBS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

KIRKI, Battle of (1817).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KIRKSVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

KIRRHA.

      See DELPHI.

KISSIA.

      See ELAM.

KIT KAT CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS.

KITCHEN CABINET, President Jackson's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

   "Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought
   by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known
   'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are
   heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible
   molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle,
   mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones
   of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and
   likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together
   with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the
   coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the
   Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the
   borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary
   in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150
   to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. …
   The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae),
   who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the
   conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had
   accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe.
   … Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other
   countries."

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      chapter 15._

KIT'S COTY HOUSE.

   The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial
   monument in Kent, England, near Addington.

KITTIM.

   The Hebrew name of the island of Cyprus.

      See, also, JAVAN.

KITUNAHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KITUNAHAN FAMILY.

KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.

      See KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

{1946}

KLAMATHS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KLEINE RATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

KLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

KLEOMENIC WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

KLERUCHS.

   "Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory
   [of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in
   the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506].
   The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as
   Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the
   wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors
   probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and
   Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter
   extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their
   power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer
   citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population
   either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs
   (I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not
   lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not
   colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a
   totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to
   the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by
   Rome."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 3, chapter 18._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

KLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER); and 1758.

KNECHTE, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

KNIGHT-SERVICE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Orders of, and their modern imitations.
   Alcantara.

      See ALCANTARA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   American Knights.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Avis.

      See AVIS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Bath.

      See BATH.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Black Eagle:
   A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of
   Brandenburg, in 1701.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Blue Ribbon.

      See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Brethren of Dobrin.

      See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Calatrava.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319;
   also a Portuguese Order.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of
   Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464;
   also a Turkish Order

      See CRESCENT.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Ecu.

      See BOURBON: THE HOUSE OF.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King
   Christian V.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Garter.

      See GARTER.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Circle.

      See GOLDEN CIRCLE.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Fleece.

      See GOLDEN FLEECE.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Horseshoe.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Spur: instituted by Pope Paul III., in 1550.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Guelphs of Hanover.

      See GUELPHS OF HANOVER.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Holy Ghost.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Hospitallers.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Indian Empire: instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1878.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by
   Frederick William III.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Iron Crown.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Legion of Honor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Lion and the Sun: a Persian Order, instituted in 1808.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Lone Star.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Malta.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Maria Theresa.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   La Merced.

      See MERCED.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Mighty Host.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Our Lady of Montesa.

      See OUR LADY, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Polar Star: a Swedish Order, of uncertain origin.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Rhodes.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Round Table.

      See ARTHUR, KING.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Andrew: a Scotch Order

      See ST. ANDREW;
      also a Russian Order, instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. George: a Russian Order, founded by Catharine II.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Gregory: an Order instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Jago or Santiago.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. James of Compostella.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two
   Sicilies, in 1738.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. John of the Lateran: instituted in 1560, by Pope Pius IV.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Lazarus.

      See ST. LAZARUS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Louis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Michael.

      See ST. MICHAEL.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Michael and St. George.

      See ST. MICHAEL, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Patrick: instituted by George III. of England, in 1783.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Stephen.

      See ST. STEPHEN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Thomas of Acre.

      See ST. THOMAS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Santiago.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Seraphim.

      See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Sons of Liberty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Southern Cross.

      See SOUTHERN CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Star.

      See STAR.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Star of India.

      See STAR OF INDIA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Starry Cross.

      See STARRY CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Swan.

      See SWAN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Sword: a Swedish Order.

      See SWORD;

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Sword: a German Order.

      See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Templars.

      See TEMPLARS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Teutonic.

      See TEUTONIC KNIGHTS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Thistle: instituted by James V. of Scotland, in 1530.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Tower and Sword.

      See TOWER AND SWORD.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Victoria Cross.

      See VICTORIA CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The White Camellia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of
   Tuscany, in 1814.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus
   IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

KNIGHTS.

   See CHIVALRY;
   also, COMITATUS.

KNIGHTS BACHELORS.

   "The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does
   not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the
   number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner:
   that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed
   of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which
   contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen
   during a whole year."

      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      Essay on Chivalry_

      _R. T. Hampson,
      Origines Patriciœ,
      page 338._


{1947}

KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

   "The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner,
   and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a
   gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a
   penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the
   penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts,
   was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the
   side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear.
   These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated.
   Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field
   of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his
   standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says,
   are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's
   army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of
   creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of
   four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to
   whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle,
   became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there
   would be no such ceremony necessary."

      _R. T. Hampson.
      Origines Patriciœ,
      chapter 11._

KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

   During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the
   practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain
   number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser
   baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of
   attending the council in person, but which had become more
   neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In
   theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called,
   were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the
   necessity of holding their election in the County Court
   rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically
   impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of
   freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye'
   of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From
   the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the
   knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage,
   but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the
   whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share
   in the government of the realm."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 4._

   The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the
   origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The
   representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite
   distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the
   shire in the development and establishment of the English
   Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of
   England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence
   and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the
   victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the
   shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they
   were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they
   were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they
   were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm
   which were coeval with the historical existence of the people
   of England, and the interests of which were most directly
   attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY
      STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

KNOW NOTHING PARTY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

KNOX, General Henry, in the Cabinet of President Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

KNOX, John, and the Reformation in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557, to 1558-1560.

   ----------KNOXVILLE: Start--------

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September).
   Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union
   forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (November-December).
   Longstreet's siege.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER; TENNESSEE).

   ----------KNOXVILLE: End--------

KNUT, OR CANUTE, ERICSSON, King of Sweden, A. D. 1167-1199.

KNYDUS, OR CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOASSATI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

KOLARIANS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

KOLDING, Battle of (1849).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

KOLIN, Battle of.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

KOLOMAN, King of Hungary, A. D. 1095-1114.

KOLUSCHAN FAMILY, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.

KOMANS
COMANS
CUMANS, The.

      See PATCHINAKS; KIPCHAKS; COSSACKS;
      also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

KOMORN, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KONDUR, OR CONDORE, Battle of (1758).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

KONIEH, Battle of (1832).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KÖNIGGRÄTZ, OR SADOWA, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

KONSAARBRUCK, Battle of (1675).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

KOORDS
KURDS, The.

      See CARDUCHI.

KORAN, The.

   "The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after
   all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's
   meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is
   not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular
   scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which
   Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the
   Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the
   slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long
   fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the
   end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not
   even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph],
   we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing
   copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his
   own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then
   of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been
   lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why
   each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to
   conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively
   worshipped."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapter 4._

      _Sir W. Muir,
      The Coran._

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 2._

      _The Koran;
      translated by G. Sale._

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

KORASMIANS, The.

      See KHUAREZM.

{1948}

KOREISH, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

  ----------KORKYRA: Start--------

KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.

   The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast
   of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore
   in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that
   name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by
   the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse.
   … The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the
   residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact
   that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan
   marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa
   had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third
   statement represents the Liburnians as the prior
   inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the
   Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who
   long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the
   Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the
   time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it
   was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement
   at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for
   facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was
   further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period
   altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully
   justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which,
   however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city,
   was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and
   continued so from an early period throughout most part of the
   three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the
   long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it
   appears that four considerable settlements on this same line
   of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas
   and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic
   Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called
   Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some
   distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern
   Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium
   and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the
   Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra,
   Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura],
   Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from
   the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other,
   though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race
   and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 23._

      See, also, IONIAN ISLANDS.

KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432.
   Quarrel with Corinth.
   Help from Athens.
   Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

KORKYRA: B. C. 432.
   Great sea-fight with the Corinthians.
   Athenian aid.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432.

KORKYRA: Modern history.

      See IONIAN ISLANDS;
      and CORFU.

   ----------KORKYRA: End----------

KORONEA, OR CORONEA, Battle of (B. C. 394).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOS.

      See Cos.

KOSCIUSKO, and the Polish revolt.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

KOSSÆANS, OR COSSÆANS, The.

   A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the
   mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by
   Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 94._

KOSSOVA, Battle of (1389).

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

KOSSUTH, Louis, and the Hungarian struggle for independence.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844, 1847-1849;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KOSSUTH: In America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-'1851.

KOTZEBUE, Assassination of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

KOTZIM.

      See CHOZIM.

KOULEVSCHA, Battle of (1829).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

KOYUNJIK.

      See NINEVEH.

KRALE.

      See CRAL.

KRANNON, OR CRANNON, Battle of (B. C. 322).

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

KRASNOE, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KRETE.

      See CRETE.

KRIM, The Khanate of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KRIM TARTARY.

      See CRIMEA.

KRIMESUS, The Battle of the.

      See SYRACUSE, THE FALL OF THE DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT.

KRISSA.
KRISSÆAN WAR.

      See DELPHI.

KRONIUM, Battle of.

   See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KROTON.

      See SYBARIS.

KRYPTEIA, The.

   A secret police and system of espionage maintained at Sparta
   by the ephors.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 6._

KSHATRIYAS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KU KLUX KLAN, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KUBLAI KHAN, The Empire of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
      and CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KUFA, The founding of.

      See BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

KULANAPAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KULANAPAN FAMILY.

KULM, OR CULM, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

KULTURKAMPF, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

KUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

KUNBIS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KUNERSDORF, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

KURDISTAN: A. D. 1514.
   Annexed to the Ottoman Empire.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

KURDS, OR KOORDS.

      See CARDUCHI, THE.

KUREEM KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1759-1779.

KURFÜRST.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

KURUCS, Insurrection of the.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

KUSAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

{1949}

KUSH.
KUSHITES.

      See CUSH.—CUSHITES.

KUTAYAH, Peace of (1833).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KUTCHINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Battle and Treaty of (1774).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KYLON, Conspiracy of.

   See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

KYMRY, OR CYMRY, The.

   The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to
   themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons,
   meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of
   the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the
   occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the
   Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as
   Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of
   Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria
   was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in
   the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet
   established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as
   we do."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 4._

   The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to
   denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as
   distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it
   does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the
   name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the
   ancient Cimbri.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.

KYNOSSEMA, Battle of.

      See CYNOSSEMA.

KYNURIANS, OR CYNURIANS, The.

   One of the three races of people who inhabited the
   Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian
   conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the
   Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an
   independent population. They occupied the larger portion of
   the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or
   Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian
   border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines
   rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long
   subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of
   their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 4._

KYRENE.

      See CYRENAICA.

KYZICUS.

      See CYZICUS.

LABARUM, The.

   "The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the
   so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance
   with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was
   attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and
   his children were woven. To the point of the lance was
   fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and
   the sign of the cross."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 20._

      See CHRISTIANITY: A.D. 312-337.

LA BICOQUE, Battle of (1522).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

LABOR ORGANIZATION.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

LABRADOR, The Name.

   "Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the
   circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a
   cargo of Indians for slaves."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

LABYRINTHS.
MAZES.

   "The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of
   later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes,
   present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which
   hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it
   appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into
   several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of
   caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings,
   tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf,
   and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. …
   Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia
   in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by
   Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the
   observations of modern travellers is supposed to have
   consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the
   catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however,
   whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of
   architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was
   without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in
   Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who
   describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of
   twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which
   the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles
   were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which
   last only he was permitted to enter."

      _E. Trollope,
      Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths
      (Archaeological Journal, volume 15)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus,
      History,
      book 2, chapter 148._

LA CADIE,
ACADIA.

      See NOVA SCOTIA.

LACEDÆMON.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE, The.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

LACONIA.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACONIA, the American Province.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.

      See LAKE DWELLINGS.

LADE, Naval Battle of (B. C. 495).

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

LADIES' PEACE, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LADISLAS, King of Naples, A. D. 1386-1414.

LADISLAUS I. (called Saint),
   King of Hungary, A. D. 1077-1095.

   Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 1162.

   Ladislaus III., King of Hungary, 1204-1205.

   Ladislaus IV. (called The Cuman),
   King of Hungary, 1272-1290.

   Ladislaus V. (called The Posthumous),
   King, of Hungary and Bohemia, 1439-1457.

   Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon),
   King of Hungary, 1440-1444;
   King of Poland, 1434-1444.

{1950}

LADOCEA, OR LADOKEIA, Battle of.

   Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between
   Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226.
   The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in
   Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened
   by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades,
   of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was
   slain.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62._

LADY, Original use of the title.

   "Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word
   "lady" comes, was the highest female title among the
   West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      volume 1, note F._

LADY OF THE ENGLISH.

   By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called
   Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover
   England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.

LÆNLAND.

   "Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its
   holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,'
   held by free cultivators."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 11._

LÆTI.
LÆT.
LAZZI.

   "Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were
   forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in
   order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace
   the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that
   they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public
   needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute,
   and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a
   semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military;
   they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the
   cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times
   by the name of Læti or Liti."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 8._

   "There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl,
   ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of
   Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the
   lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of
   German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were
   'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of
   ancient British population who came between the free wealh and
   the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies
   condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish
   læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of
   the ceorl being 200."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1)._

LA FAVORITA, Battle of (1797).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY),
      and (MAY-OCTOBER).

LAFAYETTE:
   And the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY), to 1792 (AUGUST).

LA FÈRE, Siege and capture by Henry IV. of France (1596).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LA FÈRE-CHAMPENOISE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

LAGIDE PRINCES.

   The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian
   general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its
   princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed
   father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.

LAGOS, Naval Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

LAGTHING.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

LA HOGUE, Naval Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

LAKE DWELLINGS.

   "Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet
   been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland,
   described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has
   arranged them in three groups, according to the character of
   their substructure.

   [1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he
   tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland
   and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles
   of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire,
   sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by
   tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven
   into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the
   shore. …

   [2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction
   between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in
   the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into
   the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon
   arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed
   of the lake.' …

   [3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third
   group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of
   successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up
   from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the
   lake-level. …

   Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of
   Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria,
   Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and
   Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather
   artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      pages 369-372._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Keller,
      Lake Dwellings._

      _R. Munro,
      Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings._

      _E. P. S.,
      Crannoges (in Archaeological Journal, volume 3)._

LAKE GEORGE, Battle of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

LAMARTINE, and the French Government of 1848.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
      and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

LAMAS.
LAMAISM.

   "The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken
   place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last
   in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only
   in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to,
   the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its
   doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the
   only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and
   acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries,
   civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the
   first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately
   known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and
   the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy
   scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of
   the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the
   monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the
   martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant
   after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence.
   …
{1951}
   As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for
   supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as
   a means of binding the people to themselves, and then,
   startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their
   own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier
   proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419
   sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."

      _T. W. Rhys Davids,
      Buddhism,
      chapters 8-9._

   "Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound
   darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant
   and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes
   called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of
   Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and
   to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia,
   Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to
   understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or
   wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate
   them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The
   various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily
   described, and only a general idea of them can be given. …
   First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk,
   called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we
   have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we
   have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who
   has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief
   monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot.
   … Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living
   re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints
   and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara
   Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also
   a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest
   Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are
   supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa,
   and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles
   distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that
   is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as
   great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in
   the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the
   names of the Tashi Lama."

      _Sir M. Monier-Williams,
      Buddhism,
      lecture 11._

   "Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D.
   1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made
   considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he
   raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of
   the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the
   name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of
   Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of
   Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the
   supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal
   power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and
   Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the
   origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible
   that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications
   with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a
   religious organisation after the model of the Romish
   hierarchy."

      _Abbé Huc,
      Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet,
      volume 2, page 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Abbé Huc,
      Journey through Tartary, Thibet and China,
      volume 2._

      _W. W. Rockhill,
      The Land of the Lamas._

LAMBALLE, Madame de, The death of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

LAMBETH, Treaty of.

   A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain
   sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the
   Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently
   to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance
   and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of
   Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of
   Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young
   son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a
   decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the
   contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of
   Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the
   Charter itself.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2)._

LAMEGO, The Cortes of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LAMIAN WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

LAMONE, Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LAMPADARCHY, The.

      See LITURGIES.

LANCASTER, Chancellorship of the Duchy of.

   "The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office
   more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present
   usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when
   the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from
   the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated
   with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the
   county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties,
   these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who
   is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the
   Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly
   light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the
   maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is
   accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any
   special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually
   the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is
   desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for
   whom no other office of equal rank or importance is
   available."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 8._

LANCASTER, House of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.

LANCASTRIANS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

LANCES, Free.

   With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English
   mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of
   the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance'
   being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried
   a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on
   foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held
   as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      volume 2, page 144._

LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA:
      A. D. 1785-1800; 1862; and 1862-1886.

{1952}

LAND LEAGUE, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LAND QUESTION AND LAND LAWS, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.

LANDAMMANN.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

   ----------LANDAU: Start--------

LANDAU: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LANDAU: A. D. 1702-1703.
   Taken by the Imperialists and retaken by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1703.

LANDAU: A. D. 1704.
   Taken by the Allies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

LANDAU: A. D. 1713.
   Taken and retained by France.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------LANDAU: End--------

LANDEN, OR NEERWINDEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

LANDFRIEDE.
FEHDERECHT.
THE SWABIAN LEAGUE.
   "Landfriede—Peace of the Land.

   The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous
   and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is
   liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace'
   means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in
   mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special
   act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and
   established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis,
   or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this
   abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The
   first energetic measure of the general government to put down
   private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The
   Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or
   injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration,
   addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party
   would be his foe, and that of his helpers and
   helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate
   description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation
   or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so
   great as is commonly imagined."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81._

   "The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the
   immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as
   clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish,
   but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost
   everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state,
   could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble
   against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor
   himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts
   were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which
   should have powers that would operate to restrain these
   private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could
   not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To
   attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a
   league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which
   was destined to be better observed than most preceding
   confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten
   years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public
   tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been
   regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector,
   no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor
   himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector,
   was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the
   Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates,
   three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning,
   or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns
   was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of
   knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional
   strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the
   confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of
   two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It
   maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000
   cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of
   tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be
   formed from the fact that, in a very short period,
   one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful
   offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich,
   were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for
   their infraction of the public peace."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      volume 2, pages 281-283._

   The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in
   the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the
   Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to
   enforce its decrees.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

LANDO, Pope, A. D. 913-914.

   ----------LANDRECIES: Start--------

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1647.
   Spanish siege and capture.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1655.
   Siege and capture by Turenne.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794.
   Siege and capture by the Allies.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

   ----------LANDRECIES: End--------

LANDRIANO, Battle of (1529).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1760).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1809.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809, (JANUARY-JUNE).

LANDSQUENETS.

   "After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D.
   1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name
   of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were
   native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military
   estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and
   who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with
   long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns
   and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline,
   and retained them under their standards after the conclusion
   of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were
   substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles
   V."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 2, page 183._

LANDSTING.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
      (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

LANDWEHR, The.

      See FYRD.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1075).

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1866.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

LANGOBARDI, The.

      See LOMBARDS.

LANGPORT, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{1953}

LANG'S NEK, Battle of (1881).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

LANGSIDE, Battle of (1568).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LANGUE D'OC.

   "It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from
   the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin
   which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did
   not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the
   Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or
   'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,'
   he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,'
   or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said
   'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words
   gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and
   'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France
   were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead
   of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called
   the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a
   province of France."

      _C. F. Keary,
      Dawn of History,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Hueffer,
      The Troubadours,
      chapter 1._

      _Sir G. C. Lewis,
      The Romance Languages,
      page 52, and after._

LANGUEDOC.

   When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions
   of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the
   most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which
   had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania
   and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by
   which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc'
   was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave
   a definite geographical name only to the region between the
   Rhone and the Garonne.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229;
      also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

LANNES, Marshal, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER),
      1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

LANSDOWNE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

   ----------LAON: Start--------

LAON:
   The last capital of the Carolingian kings.

   The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the
   modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from
   Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole
   dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle
   with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The
   "King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants
   are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy
   which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been
   united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his
   rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a
   capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of
   those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, part 2, chapter 4,
      parts 1-2 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

LAON: A. D. 1594.
   Siege and capture by Henry IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LAON, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

   ----------LAON: End--------

LAPITHÆ, The.

   A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus,
   in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in
   Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the
   Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 1._

LA PLATA, Provinces of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

LA PUERTA, Battle of (1814).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1821.

LARGS, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.

LARISSA.

   There were several ancient cities in Greece and Asia Minor
   called Larissa.

      See ARGOS, and PERRHÆBIANS.

LAROCHEJACQUELIN, Henri de, and the insurrection in La Vendée.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
      and (JULY-DECEMBER).

LA ROCHELLE.

      See ROCHELLE.

LA ROTHIERÈ, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LAS CASAS, The humane labors of.

      See SLAVERY: MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

LAS CRUCES, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

LASSI,
LAZZI, The.

      See LÆTI.

LASWARI, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

LATERAN, The.

   "The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family,
   whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards
   became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was
   given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation
   which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first
   basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran
   was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The
   modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana
   by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a
   hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Walks in Rome,
      chapter 13._

LATHES OF KENT.

   "The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of
   nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in
   other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish
   'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

LATHOM HOUSE, Siege of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

LATIFUNDIA.

   The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed
   up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times,
   were called Latifundia.

LATIN CHURCH, The.

   The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as
   the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox
   Church of the East.

LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

      See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF.

LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

{1954}

"LATIN NAME," The.

   "We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of
   Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin
   name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits,
   and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities
   scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of
   Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not
   that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the
   cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by
   extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman
   people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman
   government had resolved that, in their political relations,
   they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and
   the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which
   they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically
   to a lower condition than that which they had received as
   their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities
   of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws
   and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were,
   like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of
   the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that
   they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor
   had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But
   they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left
   behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family
   there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise;
   the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or
   distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a
   Roman citizen."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 41._

LATINS, Subjugation of, by the Romans.

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

LATIUM.
THE OLD LATINS.

   "The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the
   scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly
   formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of
   mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil
   on which was to be decided the question to what people the
   sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on
   the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form
   part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range
   rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from
   the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of
   the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary
   of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction
   terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its
   boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but
   few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly
   merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus
   enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the
   'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the
   Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and
   there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep
   limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east,
   and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well
   as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome;
   others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become
   converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most
   important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every
   side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain
   and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to
   history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were
   subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin
   communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins'
   ('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the
   district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central
   plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the
   Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose
   inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was
   possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always
   to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the
   northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time
   when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the
   south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian
   stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no
   longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the
   central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of
   the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of
   about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present
   canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it
   appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte
   Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously
   flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and
   formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is
   everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though
   often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground.
   These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface
   lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations
   proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic
   substances which they contain engender that noxious
   fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the
   district as it taints it at the present day."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT.

LATT, OR LIDUS, The.

      See SLAVERY: MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LATTER DAY SAINTS, Church of.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

LAUD, Archbishop, Church tyranny of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

LAUDER BRIDGE.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

LAUDERDALE, Duke of.
   His oppression in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.

LAUFFENBURG, Captured by Duke Bernhard (1637).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

LAURAS.

   "The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the
   hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary
   use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate
   cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a
   superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and
   last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their
   common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The
   origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is
   another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an
   alley or narrow court."

      _I. G. Smith,
      Christian Monasticism,
      pages 38-39._

{1955}

LAUREATE, English Poets.

   "From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have
   elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held
   the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they
   were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of
   Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time
   without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not
   always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a
   few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly
   worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John
   Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred
   Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears
   to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the
   office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable
   antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was
   an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held
   aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what
   foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the
   Poets is doubtful."

      _W. Hamilton,
      Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8)._

   The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with
   the dates of their appointment:

   Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368;
   Sir John Gower, 1400;
   Henry Scogan;
   John Kay;
   Andrew Bernard, 1486;
   John Skelton, 1489;
   Robert Whittington, 1512;
   Richard Edwards, 1561;
   Edmund Spenser, 1590;
   Samuel Daniel, 1598;
   Ben Jonson, 1616;
   Sir William Davenant, 1638;
   John Dryden, 1670;
   Thomas Shadwell, 1688;
   Nahum Tate, 1692;
   Nicholas Rowe, 1715;
   Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718;
   Colley Cibber, 1730;
   William Whitehead, 1757;
   Thomas Warton, 1785;
   Henry James Pye, 1790;
   Robert Southey, 1813;
   William Wordsworth, 1843;
   Alfred Tennyson, 1850.

      _W. Hamilton,
      The Poets Laureate of England._

LAURIUM, Silver Mines of.

   These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time
   by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large
   revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens.
   It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division
   that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made
   Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the
   southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far
   from the promontory of Sunium.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 39._

LAUSITZ.

      See BRANDENBURG.

LAUTULÆ, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

   ----------LAW: Start----------

LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the
      New York University Law School.]

   The subject is here treated with reference to the history of
   the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure,
   rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are
   discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of
   law thus considered which enter into our present systems are
   given the preference in space,—purely historical matters,
   such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated
   in the references placed at the end of this article:

   ----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183.
   Law as to Shipwrecks.

   "The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt
   as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to
   renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the
   rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were
   too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance
   of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the
   unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when
   the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians,
   the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the
   continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the
   inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all
   navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their
   shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry
   or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who
   reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to
   repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the
   highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his
   death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of
   Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction
   of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked
   persons and property were placed under the special protection
   and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death
   without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."

      _James Kent,
      International Law,
      edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537.
   Jurisdiction.

   The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the
   Lord High Admiral of England.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575.
   Jurisdiction.

   "The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief
   Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the
   Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long
   controversy between these Courts as to their relative
   jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in

      _Benedict's American Admiralty,
      3d edition, page 41._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664.
   Tide-mark.

   The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as
   part of the sea, when the tide is in.

      _Erastus C. Benedict,
      American Admiralty, 3d edition,
      by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,
      citing Sir John Constable's Case,
      Anderson's Rep. 89._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789.
   United States Judiciary Act.

   The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to
   all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are
   navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons
   burthen."

      _Judiciary Act,
      United States Stat. at Large,
      volume 1, page 76._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798.
   Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.

   "Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,
   introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,
   the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of
   Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine
   ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These
   authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],
   and from that time a new direction was given to English
   studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,
   communicated to forensic investigations.
{1956}
   Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now
   Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have
   been read and admired in every region of the republic of
   letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most
   enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned
   out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the
   bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with
   the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a
   thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which
   concern the great social interests of mankind."

      _James Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 5, lecture 42._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842.
   Jurisdiction.

   The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty
   some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common
   Law Courts.

      _Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
      page 56._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845.
   Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.

   "It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than
   fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English
   courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt
   water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in
   1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the
   Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the
   navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of
   this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851
   that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the
   Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake
   Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and
   repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do
   with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution
   upon Federal courts."

      _Lyman Trumbull,
      Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review,
      volume 27, page 324._

      See, also
      _Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873.
   Division of Loss in case of Collision
   settled by Judicature Act.

   "The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision
   each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts
   the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty
   of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict
   between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an
   end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s.
   25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to
   have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. …
   There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive
   injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from
   recovering more than half his loss from one of the two
   wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in
   an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the
   enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done
   by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in
   operation with the approval of the shipping community for at
   least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period;
   and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the
   Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its
   very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect
   to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is
   widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of
   shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are
   all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."

      _R. G. Marsden,
      Two Points of Admiralty Law,
      Law Quarterly Review,
      volume 2, pages 357-362._

   For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their
   dates,

      See
      _Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
      pages 91-97,_
      and
      _Davis' Outlines of International Law,
      pages 5, 6, &c._

   ----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------

   ----------COMMON LAW: Start----------

Common Law. [Including legislation in modification of It.]

COMMON LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
   Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Saxons.

   "It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown
   to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in
   their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the
   radical distinction between the members or judges composing a
   court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned
   to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of
   the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded
   the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found
   of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      page 45._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 630.
   The first Written Body of English Law.

   "The first written body of English Law is said to have been
   promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630,
   and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."

      _Joseph Parke,
      History of Chancery,
      page 14._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 871-1066.
   The King's Peace.

   1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect,
   connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the
   peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the
   householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the
   offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity
   of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who
   were about his business, or specially under his protection;
   but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the
   king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the
   kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended
   to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the
   establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised
   on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from
   and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the
   party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for,
   as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true,
   formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence
   only in the present century; but in its legalized historical
   shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English
   institution.

      _Sir Frederick Pollock,
      Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
      page 205._

      See, also, KING'S PEACE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066.
   Inquisition, parent of Modern Jury.

   "When the Normans came into England they brought with them,
   not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than
   had been known there, but also a certain product of the
   exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman
   dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public
   administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by
   summoning together by public authority a number of people most
   likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and
   calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of
   the modern jury. …
{1957}
   With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial
   duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies
   in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and
   unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the
   wonderful growth of the other."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
   Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Normans.

   "The same remark which has already been made, with reference
   to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the
   Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years
   after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a
   feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not
   have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which
   were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. …
   Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the
   rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in
   the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose,
   of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn
   testified to the truth of the facts within their own
   knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what
   took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a
   limited number of probi homines to represent the community,
   and give testimony for them."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 82-90._

      See, also, JURY: TRIAL BY.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
   The Curia Regis.

   "As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both
   civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court
   it heard all causes in which the king's interests were
   concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief
   of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local
   tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court
   it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the
   local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice.
   By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king
   could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to
   be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his
   advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special
   writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and
   through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds
   its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy
   the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law
   which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The
   curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the
   king's absence."

      _Hannis Taylor,
      Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
      part 1, pages 245-246._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1215.
   Purchasing Writs.

   "The course of application to the curia regis was of this
   nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king
   a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon
   he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced
   his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and
   determine his claim."

      _Reeves' (Finlason's) History English Law,
      volume 1, page 267._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1077.
   Trial by Battle.

   "The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any
   account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of
   Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was
   settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses …
   who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and
   battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the
   Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or
   perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses
   were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other.
   … Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular
   courts and between contending private parties, the battle was
   often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and
   unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly
   in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the
   recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the
   jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon
   to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel.
   It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought
   about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before
   reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England,
   sometime after he became king, in 1154."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67)._

      See, also: WAGER OF BATTLE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1100 (circa).
   Origin of Statutes of Limitation.

   "Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as
   the period within which legal proceedings to recover real
   property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular
   expedient of making the period of limitation run from
   particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that
   of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a
   descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt.
   114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of
   Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II.
   Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the
   last return of King John into England; writs of novel
   disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea
   into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville
   (lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last
   voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time
   necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different
   epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West.
   1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within
   which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in
   which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King
   Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that
   king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than
   eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the
   reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a
   real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the
   period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom,
   legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to
   which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be
   required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries
   and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of
   actions to recover real property having long become
   inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to
   the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased
   practically to afford any protection against antiquated
   claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again
   interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period
   of limitation from some particular event or date, took the
   wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the
   limit within which a suit should be entertained. …
{1958}
   It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption
   of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to
   run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and
   hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however
   interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete
   claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as
   parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges
   set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to
   atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first
   laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a
   lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had
   existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but
   happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in
   that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a
   presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support
   possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested
   with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable
   theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user,
   during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might
   presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to
   make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation
   of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be
   told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound
   to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although
   neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a
   belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. …
   When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards
   its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in
   respect of real property and of certain specified easements,
   fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as
   establishing presumptive rights."

      _C. J. Cockburn,
      in Bryant v. Foot,
      L. R. 2 Q. B., 161;
      s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa).
   The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.

   "We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men
   meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of
   God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between
   them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the
   king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult,
   six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned
   than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is
   distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same
   feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every
   man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry
   may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process
   against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in
   a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had
   to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical
   stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the
   same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read,
   on the authority of several modern cases in various States of
   the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not
   obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last
   extremity.'"

      _F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace
      (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1135.
   Abeyance of the King's Peace.

   "The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his
   accession. But, though generalized in its application, it
   still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time.
   The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not
   formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined
   to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The
   fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not
   the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and
   perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of
   William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities
   derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other
   consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of
   the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words
   of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno
   1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every
   man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in
   this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the
   inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the
   time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It
   was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the
   King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and
   the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them
   to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name
   forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine
   of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards
   heard of."

      _F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace
      (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1154-1189.
   Origin of Unanimity of Jury.

   "The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be
   explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign
   of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree
   in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this
   unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to
   make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called,
   indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not
   imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions
   of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were
   to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to
   agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of
   the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least,
   and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in
   dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a
   written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove
   payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a
   jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid
   which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all
   countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept
   as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury
   system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of
   witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within
   their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that
   twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of
   evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in
   dispute."

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of Trial by Jury,
      chapter 11, section 1._

{1959}

A. D. 1154-1189.
   Reign of Law initiated.

   "The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The
   administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine
   under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution,
   enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of
   reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of
   business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign
   to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men
   and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization
   which should make a return to feudalism impossible."

       _W. Stubbs,
       Select Charters of English Constitutional History,
       page 21._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1164-1176.
   Trial by Assize.

   "The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing
   statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164
   [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if
   any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a
   particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged
   to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief
   justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful
   men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A.
   D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should
   refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased
   ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of
   twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the
   day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same
   manner in cases of novel disseisin."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      chapter 6, section 3._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1165 (circa).
   Justice bought and sold.

   "The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and
   he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was
   not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that
   corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily
   not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's
   court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice
   was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this
   was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes
   did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local
   courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own
   previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but
   it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only
   explanation of which appears to be that in every case the
   king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in
   a position to understand that famous clause of the Great
   Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay,
   right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a
   century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in
   that time, you see, the great advance had been made of
   regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of
   right. And besides this clause there is another which provides
   for the regular sending of the king's judges into the
   counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular
   administration of a uniform system of law throughout England.
   What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England
   a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat;
   it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at
   Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite
   obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject
   and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should
   be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in
   some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of
   justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm,
   became established at Westminster."

      _Sir F. Pollock,
      Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
      page 209._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1166.
   Assize of Clarendon.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1176.
   Justices in Eyre.

   "It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre
   (justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by
   Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a
   great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm
   into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go
   each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But
   although the formal division of the kingdom into separate
   circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is
   no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I.,
   a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different
   shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus
   represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and
   county courts."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 81-82._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1189.
   Legal Memory.
   Its effect.

   "No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be
   some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is
   to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly
   for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the
   right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for
   instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were
   till recently received by the officers as ancient fees
   attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700
   years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of
   Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and
   oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol
   did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and
   that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at
   that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the
   mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every
   ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the
   claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of
   which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in
   1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of
   such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been
   found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in
   favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it
   was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was
   immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the
   contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of
   fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained
   the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was
   stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1
   C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered
   the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that
   was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of
   Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132;
   33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine;
   it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his
   Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the
   time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it
   the only title of prescription, but that others have said
   'that there is also another title of prescription that was at
   the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c.,
   and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath
   been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the
   contrary.
{1960}
   And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a
   man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say
   that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory
   of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say,
   when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath
   heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the
   contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at
   the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it
   abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the
   said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.
   'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether
   we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title,
   though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that
   such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the
   contrary to establish that the usage began before that year;
   and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has
   added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of
   a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way,
   proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts
   an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes
   round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by
   itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."

      _J. Blackburn,
      in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c.
      (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1194.
   English Law Repositories.

   "The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194
   (Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384
   (6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not
   written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The
   knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century
   is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time,
   however, the growth and development of these laws can be
   traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises,
   and law reports."

      _John F. Dillon,
      The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      pages 28-29._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1199.
   Earliest instance of Action for Trespass.

   "A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the
   earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the
   royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next
   fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into
   great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five
   cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer
   that the writ, which had before been granted as a special
   favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f.
   49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by
   appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.'
   Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was
   doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the
   Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are
   collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102,
   127."

      _J. B. Ames,
      The Disseisin of Chattels
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1208.
   Evidence: Attesting Witnesses.

   "From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a
   dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are
   combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the
   Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a
   document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and
   is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the
   jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned
   together, and all went out and conferred privately as if
   composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in
   open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in
   1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier
   cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been
   conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a
   combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who
   tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their
   more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from
   another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time
   the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated.
   Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In
   1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged
   differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a
   lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to
   the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the
   inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans
   lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in
   1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i.
   e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12
   Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process
   should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking
   of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this
   shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B.
   12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the
   assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will
   not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B.
   5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with
   the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke,
   afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if
   this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are
   joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in
   his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death,
   to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law
   during all his time. It may, however, well have been long
   obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the
   seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is
   vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably
   surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew,
   in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to
   the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon
   disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the
   right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of
   1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against
   all sorts of witnesses."

      _James B. Thayer,
      in Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 302-5,
      also in Sel. Cas. Ev.
      pages 771-773._

   "After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old
   strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still
   continued under the new system. As the history of the matter
   was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was
   extended to all sorts of writings."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 773._

{1961}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215 (ante).
   Courts following the King.

   "Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to
   the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings
   of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and
   besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every
   important town in England, which could be exercised only on
   the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to
   place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to
   hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of
   their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks,
   and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the
   phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the
   machinery of justice went with them."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 87._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215.
   Magna Charta.

   "With regard to the administration of justice, besides
   prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of
   Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer
   be harassed with following the King's person in all his
   progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues
   borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing
   assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing
   annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident
   to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the
   regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the
   King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or
   trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might
   otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and
   regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals
   of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet.
   … And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that
   it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual
   of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty
   and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the
   judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."

      _Owen Flintoff,
      Laws of England,
      page 184._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216.
   Distinction between Common and Statute Law now begins.

   "The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did
   nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were
   not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of
   law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened
   churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to
   lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the
   rights of all classes of the people were defined and
   consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our
   constitutional history: National councils had met from the
   most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not
   being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non
   scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between
   common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace
   the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These
   changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the
   time being."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 115._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216-1272.
   Henry de Bracton.

   "It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this
   turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and
   the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to
   the world the best treatise upon law of which England could
   boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in
   the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very
   gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with
   certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been
   noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone
   by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets;
   and some have doubted whether all these names are not
   imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar
   knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he
   was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of
   jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from
   his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those
   whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he
   rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed
   practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself
   in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for
   lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was
   unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures,
   which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton;
   but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord
   Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 139._

   For opposite view

      _See 9 American Bar Association Report, p. 193._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1217.
   Dower.

   "The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the
   provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of
   widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it
   still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow
   is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which
   her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any
   time during the marriage. At the present day there are means
   provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or
   defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however,
   remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a
   short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It
   seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the
   contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not
   the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband
   on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the
   bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the
   family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the
   husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride
   herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases
   the husband or his father executed before marriage an
   instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and
   extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another
   and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower
   is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning
   following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might
   consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated
   by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore
   desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be
   specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of
   the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of
   betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was
   after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less
   would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes
   permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at
   the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third
   part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must
   have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal.
{1962}
   A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad
   ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out
   of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled
   to a third part. In process of time however, this species of
   dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied
   to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains
   in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my
   worldly goods I thee endow.'"

      _Kenelm E. Digby,
      History of the Law of Real Property,
      pages 126-128 (4th edition)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
   Provisions of Oxford; no Writs except de Cursu.

   "The writ had originally no connection whatever with the
   relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to
   the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the
   time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears
   that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to
   be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit
   each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford
   (1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs
   without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed
   that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular
   state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment,
   which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These
   writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to
   their number were made from time to time by direction of the
   King, of his Council or of Parliament."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 9._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
   Sale of Judicial Offices.

   "The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing
   profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial
   Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox,
   chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found
   innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship,
   and accurate details of the amount of the consideration
   monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and
   justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The
   Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce,
   in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"

      _J. Parke,
      History of English Chancery,
      page 23._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1265.
   Disappearance of the Office of Chief Justiciary.

   "Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of
   Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to
   the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of
   Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of
   common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the
   Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were
   assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself,
   wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of
   King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram
   Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis
   Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and
   had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the
   Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in
   rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the
   Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of
   the law."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 139-140._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275.
   Statute of Westminster the First;
   Improvement of the Law.

   "He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in
   May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,'
   deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament.
   From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the
   English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor
   merely caused a compilation to be made of existing
   laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply
   defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward
   deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the
   undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France,
   Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been
   personally useful in the consultations for the formation of
   the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been
   left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and
   the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord
   Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The
   statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. …
   It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of
   much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the
   peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county
   court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the
   elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when
   the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law,
   putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been
   lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence.
   It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and
   criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to
   render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As
   long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law
   rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year
   of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the
   seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in
   the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of
   Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the
   'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year
   of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the
   'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the
   establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle
   to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of
   Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of
   enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to
   the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought
   to be the object of every wise legislation."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 143-146._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295, and 1279.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1278.
   Foundation of Costs at Common Law.

   "The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation
   of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that
   statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff
   recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the
   Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct
   authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under
   the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was
   to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of
   each case, in the disposition of costs."

      _Sydney Hastings,
      Treatise on Torts,
      page 379._

{1963}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Statute of Westminster II.;
   Writs in Consimili Casu.

   "The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case
   was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the
   Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or
   two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides
   further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in
   Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case
   falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the
   Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the
   Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be
   written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the
   next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law
   a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's
   Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.'
   … The words of the statute give no power to make a
   completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases
   similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within
   existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself
   are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in
   title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in
   title of a person who had been disseised of his common.
   Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its
   sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and
   they were, as English judges have always been, devoted
   adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking
   certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive
   variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our
   common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit,
   and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this
   way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the
   15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager
   rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the
   Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and
   developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of
   fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman
   Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      pages 10-11._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Writ of Elegit.

   The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute
   Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a
   debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance
   taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only
   have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits
   of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari
   facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which
   was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which
   prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of
   the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute
   therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is
   in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will
   sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the
   defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only
   appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the
   plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable
   appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt.
   If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half
   of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the
   judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other
   in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff;
   to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be
   levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till
   the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in
   tail."

      _Wm. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, chapter 27._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1290.
   Progress of the Common Law Right of Alienation.

   "The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and
   permanently established the free right of alienation by the
   sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared,
   that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate
   feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor
   himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by
   rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was
   created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which
   granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of
   13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These
   provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of
   the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III.,
   taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants
   in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place;
   … and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the
   common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to
   freedom."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 6, lecture 67._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1292.
   Fleta.

   "Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by
   one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to
   have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an
   abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which
   was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same
   character, except that it is written in the vernacular
   language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written
   in Latin."

      _Thomas J. Semmes,
      9 American Bar Association Report,
      page 193._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1300 (circa).
   The King's Peace a Common Right.

   "By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much
   else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for
   larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an
   occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however,
   remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full
   benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as
   1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men
   in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the
   best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the
   old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who
   superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers
   and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by
   later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made
   it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the
   common law, the right of every lawful man."

      _F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace,
      (Law Quarterly Review,
      volume 1, page 49)._

A. D. 1307-1509.
   The Year Books.

   "The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year
   Books … , written in law French, and extend from the
   beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the
   reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. …
   The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions
   touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in
   real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 3, lecture 21._

{1964}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1316.
   Election of Sheriffs abolished.

   "Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the
   inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th
   year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with
   few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon
   nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain
   ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff
   is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on
   the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."

      _New American Cyclopædia,
      volume 14, page 585._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1326-1377.
   Jurors cease to be Witnesses.

   "The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal
   knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in
   dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court.
   But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came
   into controversy, and in which persons had been named as
   witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed.
   … This seems to have paved the way for the important change
   whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave
   their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the
   trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere
   witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them
   and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means
   improbable that the latter were at first associated with them
   in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of
   a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a
   separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed
   in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year
   Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were
   joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is,
   notwithstanding, drawn between them."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 124 and 128._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1362.
   Pleading in the English tongue.
   Enrollment in Latin.

   "The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that
   in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended,
   answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the
   lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be
   'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms
   and forms retained."

      _J. Parke,
      History of Chancery,
      page 43._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1368.
   Jury System in Civil Trials.

   "As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the
   earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the
   hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order
   to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a
   writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other
   officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and
   lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein
   specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And
   this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready
   at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting.
   But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia
   Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which
   took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of
   one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be
   very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all
   parts of the country. And as justices were already in the
   habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding
   the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to
   substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in
   other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore
   passed, which enacted that these justices should try other
   issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where
   both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the
   court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the
   venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to
   bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named,
   he was now required to bring them there on a certain day,
   'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of
   assize came into his county, in which case the statute
   directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before
   the justices of assize."

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of Trial by Jury,
      pages 139-140._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1382.
   Peaceable Entry.

   "This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5
   Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and
   not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps
   another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both
   a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an
   immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in
   statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of
   the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 179._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1383-1403.
   Venue to be laid in proper Counties.

   "The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having
   ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this,
   as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue,
   if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ:
   which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this
   power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not
   to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes
   remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a
   suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial
   cannot be had therein."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 294._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388.
   Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law
   in Common-law Tribunals.

   "In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of
   Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward,
   supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the
   tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards,
   but more particularly from the time of John, had been
   accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the
   Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of
   Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even
   … with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the
   reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would
   never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and
   the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the
   common law tribunals."

      _G. Spence,
      Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
      volume 1, page 346._

{1965}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1436.
   Act to prevent interference with Common Law Process.

   "In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the
   Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in
   disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting
   the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this
   time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the
   common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and
   recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of
   subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to
   satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and
   expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good
   which is contained in the bill.'"

       _Lord Campbell,
       Lives of the Chancellors,
       volume I, page 272._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1450 (circa).
   Evidence.
   Number of Witnesses.

   "It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of
   the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the
   jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain.
   Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury
   trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then
   but little considered and of small importance."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 1071._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Jury and its Development
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, page 360)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1456.
   Demurrers to Evidence.

   "Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of
   allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting
   contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the
   demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were
   demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the
   jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form,
   to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second
   was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict
   for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a
   matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the
   evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not
   observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is
   interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of
   witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 162)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 149._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1470.
   Evidence.
   Competency of Witnesses.

   "Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account
   (about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury,
   gives no information as to any ground for challenging them.
   But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain
   qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that
   'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as
   grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of
   non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or
   the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the
   justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either
   against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne
   una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in
   the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the
   outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of
   witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the
   excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences
   resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the
   present century, in England, nearly all objections to
   competency were abolished, or turned into matters of
   privilege."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      p. 1070._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1473.
   Barring Entails.
   Taltarum's Case.

   "The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having
   of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed
   in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual
   entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the
   entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the
   Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the
   estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent
   being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the
   tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases,
   in spite of the will of the donor."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 309-310._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1481-1505.
   Development of Actions of Assumpsit.

   "It is probable that the willingness of equity to give
   pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development
   of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised
   pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and
   thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J.,
   remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and
   sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to
   sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,'
   adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall
   have only damages by this [action on the case], but by
   subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate
   or imprison him ut dicitur.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      Specific Performance of Contracts
      (The Green Bag,
      volume 1, page 26)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1484.
   Statutes to be in English.

   "In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority
   'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are
   struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of
   Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty
   of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the
   laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the
   English tongue."

      _Charles Knight,
      History of England,
      volume 2, page 200._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499 (circa).
   Copyright.

   "From about the period of the introduction of printing into
   this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth
   century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion
   of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in
   their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a
   right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is
   no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the
   Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the
   Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in
   1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the
   spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic
   jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of
   books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II.
   At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory
   protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The
   existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law
   were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common
   Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and
   more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19,
   the first English Statute providing for the protection of
   Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the
   sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term
   of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the
   expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the
   forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of
   penalties in cases of piracy.
{1966}
   But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very
   much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the
   substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one
   hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the
   other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at
   the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already
   mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and
   the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But
   notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some
   time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and
   numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in
   books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute
   of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could
   only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right.
   In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of
   Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's
   'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by
   the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly
   raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law,
   and independent of that statute, remained in the author after
   publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of
   all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was
   founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away
   by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for
   a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this
   decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally
   celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the
   Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord
   Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who
   were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken
   away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of
   etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the
   Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in
   consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious
   oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the
   above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had
   taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence
   that in a published book there was no Copyright except that
   given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst
   those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of
   Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities
   obtained one protecting their literary property."

      _T. A. Romer,
      Copyright Law Reform
      (Law Magazine & Review,
      4th ser., volume 12, page 231)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499.
   Action of Ejectment.

   "The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern
   action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form,
   is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas
   had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment
   could be brought in all three of the great common law courts.
   … The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged
   ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative
   practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione
   firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any
   other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently
   following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of
   equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief
   not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to
   recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly
   the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It
   cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In
   1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione
   firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in
   trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done.
   … But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the
   term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest
   reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred
   to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered
   during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole
   system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to
   land, and the recovery of real property."

      _Sedgwick and Wait,
      Trial of Title to Land (2nd edition),
      sections 12-25._

   "Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in
   England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36,
   which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower.
   It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it
   the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his
   own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant,
   since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to
   all persons except such as can show a better one."

      _Washburn,
      Real Property (5th edition),
      volume 1, page 465._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1504-1542.
   Consideration in Contracts.

   "To the present writer it seems impossible to refer
   consideration to a single source. At the present day it is
   doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration
   into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of
   the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not
   have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then
   two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a
   precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient,
   having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On
   the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity
   of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two
   species of consideration, so different in their nature, are,
   as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of
   detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit,
   whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be
   studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 1-2)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1520.
   The Law of Parol Guaranty.

   "It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third
   person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price
   should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the
   promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol
   guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor
   were as much within the principle of the new action as those
   in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily
   recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the
   student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If
   he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the
   promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was
   promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly
   profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always
   been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at
   the promisor's request."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 14)._

{1967}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1535.
   Statute of Uses.

   "Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the
   twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to
   protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the
   king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by
   feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by
   joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or,
   in other words, by providing that all the estate which would
   by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should
   instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'),
   to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and
   beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every
   case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues
   and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By
   converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did
   away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by
   will, which had been one of the most important results of the
   introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results
   aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of
   circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had
   arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with,
   coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of
   the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious
   result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly
   the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret
   conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a
   strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction
   between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was
   revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property
   and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing
   which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry
   VIII."

      _Kenelm E. Digby,
      History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition),
      pages 343-345._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1540-1542.
   Testamentary Power.

   "The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of
   slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English
   land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power
   over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 &
   34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a
   testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in
   this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of
   the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts'
   of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there
   were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate;
   and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one
   half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could
   only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the
   superior claims of the widow and children existed all over
   England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but …
   by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I.,
   followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have
   been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now
   extends to all his real and personal property."

      _Stuart C. Macaskie,
      The Law of Executors and Administrators,
      page 1._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542.
   Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.

   "The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few
   words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is
   commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is
   a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express
   promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The
   evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the
   sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke,
   who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me,
   and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action
   of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the
   promise.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 16)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1557.
   Statute of Uses Rendered Nugatory.

   "Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich.
   Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically
   rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will
   not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second
   use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect
   of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable
   doctrine as to uses in lands."

      _A. H. Marsh,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      pages 122-123._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1580.
   Equal Distribution of Property.

   "In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons
   dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was
   equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an
   act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a
   further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since
   adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited
   parents from disinheriting their children except for certain
   specified offences. Under this legal system, it became
   customary for parents to divide their property by will equally
   among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the
   property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England.
   The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the
   equal distribution of property, in case there was no
   will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the
   colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament
   injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United
   States."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, page 452._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1589.
   Earliest notice of Contract of Insurance.

   "The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in
   the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6
   Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and
   the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of
   43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and
   which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by
   its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in
   immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of
   insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages
   afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty
   cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and
   even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes,
   containing very little information or claim to authority."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 5, lecture 48._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1592.
   A Highwayman as a Chief-Justice.

   "In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice
   of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have
   occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At
   first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false
   notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time.
   The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered
   particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth.
{1968}
   The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate,
   and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the
   century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when
   convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose,
   the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute
   cannot be disputed."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1. page 366._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650-1700.
   Evidence.
   "Best Evidence Rule."

   "This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the
   seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while
   rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers
   were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1)
   that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2)
   that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the
   beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system
   of evidence before juries. They were never literally
   enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a
   long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence
   and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field
   for the application of the general principle of the 'Best
   Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a
   definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading.
   This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in
   McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal
   rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the
   nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's
   treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and
   antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid.
   s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence'
   principle was the rule about proving the contents of a
   writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older
   than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may
   well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears
   to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine
   required the actual production of the instrument which was set
   up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with
   the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents
   of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence.
   And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from
   witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to
   speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the
   deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of
   exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 726._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1600.
   Mortgagee's Right to Possession.

   "When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of
   mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was
   established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon
   condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested
   the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee,
   unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was
   entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors
   brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the
   Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed
   on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was
   not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is
   probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a
   provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should
   retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and
   fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the
   English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as
   matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was
   the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession
   upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about
   this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was
   the law."

      _H. W. Chaplin,
      The Story of Mortgage Law
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 12)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1601-1602.
   Malicious Prosecution.

   "The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented
   formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our
   own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the
   practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely,
   that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution
   is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is
   confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases
   are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to
   permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record,
   so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury
   in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted
   questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should
   be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J.,
   in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea,
   because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other
   justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay
   gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old
   rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the
   old reasons of policy."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 147)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 150._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1603.
   Earliest reported case of Bills of Exchange.

   "The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other
   negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice
   Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex.,
   pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into
   use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the
   use of them spread to France, and eventually they were
   introduced into England. The first English reported case in
   which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3),
   decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems
   to have been confined to foreign bills between English and
   foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic
   bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons
   whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on
   the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of
   declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn
   'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"

      _M. D. Chalmers,
      Bills of Exchange,
      page xliv., introduction._

      See, also,
      MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

{1969}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1604.
   Death Inferred from Long Absence.

   "It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence;
   the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and
   putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a
   common-law rule, and one of general application in all
   questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded
   cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long
   before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had
   exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the
   situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had
   married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond
   the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been
   absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the
   one of them not knowing the other to be living within that
   time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the
   absent party were dead; it did not validate the second
   marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the
   statutory penalty."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 3, page 151)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1609.
   First Recognition of Right to Sue for Quantum Meruit.

   "There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue
   upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper
   was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity
   demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to
   receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the
   part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was
   in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover
   upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six
   Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 58)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623.
   Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit,
   established.

   "The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made
   when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before
   and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs
   could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment
   was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant;
   and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment,
   but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally
   decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded,
   of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be
   charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 6,
      citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1625 (circa).
   Experiment in Legislation.
   Limitation in time.

   "The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation
   is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens;
   but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of
   Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of
   an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often
   with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working
   of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final
   legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of
   compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of
   such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old
   Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of
   Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and
   pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports
   of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more
   liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to
   the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to
   that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done
   in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued
   from time to time, and finally (the experiment having
   apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance
   is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice
   of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of
   the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on
   account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places.
   It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an
   end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern
   instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for
   eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of
   Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway
   Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually
   continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal
   Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new
   departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st
   December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop
   Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in
   1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place.
   —It is in this respect that the Experimental method of
   Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only
   locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of
   the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte
   Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the
   earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it
   was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards
   seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all
   dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at
   Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman
   emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual,
   afterwards became precedents of general law."

      _James William
      (Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9),
      4th ser., volume 14, page 306._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1630-1641.
   Public Registry.

   "When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty
   in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the
   Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland,
   brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth,
   coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the
   prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and
   leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the
   Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced
   it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union
   established substantially the same system."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, page 463._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650 (circa).
   Law regarded as a Luxury.

   "Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was
   perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its
   administration the system had been little changed since the
   days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses
   had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a
   mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for
   judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty,
   thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their
   positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks,
   the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for
   every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to
   the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were
   written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated
   could understand.
{1970}
   The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in
   perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which
   seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the
   merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would
   secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had
   become a luxury for the rich alone."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, pages 383-384._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657.
   Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to
   Defendant by Mistake.

   "One who received money from another to be applied in a
   particular way was bound to give an account of his
   stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that
   effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason
   to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would
   find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who
   would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the
   money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously
   supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, …
   the intended application of the money being impossible, the
   plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also
   lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise
   implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with
   Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of
   Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to
   the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps,
   the first action of the kind."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 66)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1670.
   Personal Knowledge of Jurors.

   "The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
   where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
   and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which
   appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
   day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
   summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in
   Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from
   the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law
   supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters
   in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on
   either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon
   a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but
   offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed
   to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made
   of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the
   meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight
   somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding
   evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge,
   they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to
   the evidence, if they so thought fit."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 134-136._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1678.
   The Statute of Frauds.

   "During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in
   consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed.
   Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of
   verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of
   interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without
   writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made
   equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to
   the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried
   into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as
   the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of
   Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it
   must often have obviated the necessity for equitable
   interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been
   decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of
   contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the
   time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence
   of the parties to an action at law could not then be received,
   and the Defendant might have been charged upon the
   uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not
   allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years
   afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was
   introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable
   precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay
   down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing
   signed by him."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 170._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1680.
   Habeas Corpus and Personal Liberty.

   "The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall
   be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his
   equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old
   statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or
   imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his
   council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of
   the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is
   enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained
   without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person
   be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of
   his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body
   before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall
   determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And
   by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act,
   the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out
   and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long
   detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law
   requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared
   by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be
   required."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries, I., 135._

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 4, lecture 24._

   For the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY).

A. D. 1683-1771.
   Subsequent Birth of a Child revokes a Will.

   "The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent
   birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal
   property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal,
   in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law
   of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. …
   The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate,
   in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received
   with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The
   distinction between a will of real and personal estate could
   not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he
   saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally
   and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in
   Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage
   and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 6, lecture 68._

{1971}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1688.
   Dividing Line between Old and New Law.

   The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English
   reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed
   at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between
   the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked.
   The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures
   were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of
   modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt,
   and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and
   honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of
   the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of
   the common law."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 3, lecture 21._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689.
   First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach
   of Promise to Account.

   "It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to
   account is created by law, yet the privity without which such
   an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the
   parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from
   which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next
   question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what
   is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the
   only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least
   specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages
   for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would
   lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the
   necessity of investigating all the items of the account for
   the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and
   that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an
   action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to
   account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will
   lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is
   entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as
   therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an
   action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages
   only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the
   most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered
   by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in
   which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as
   the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while
   the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from
   early times."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 250-251)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689-1710.
   Lord Holt and the Law of Bailments.

   "The most celebrated case which he decided in this department
   was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose,
   'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of
   goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his
   negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable
   clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the
   liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for
   different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of
   his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English
   lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He
   then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing
   the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in
   each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will
   give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows
   that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied
   promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no
   reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is
   liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William
   Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of
   Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this
   judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law
   of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to
   arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a
   scientific order.'"

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chief Justices,
      volume 2, pages 113-114._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1703.
   Implied Promises recognized.

   "The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was
   exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award.
   If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the
   money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the
   analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was
   for the performance of a collateral act, … there was,
   originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award,
   unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision
   of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in
   point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden,
   J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this
   contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must
   be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This
   doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, …
   said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men
   submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby
   promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing
   to refer is a promise in itself.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 62)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1706.
   Dilatory Pleas.

   "Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in
   abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory
   pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only
   for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory
   plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth
   thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce
   them to believe it true."

       _W. Blackstone,
       Commentaries,
       book 3, page 302._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1710.
   Joint Stock Companies: Bubble Act.

   "The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of
   the law of artificial persons relates to those which are
   formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment
   of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks
   the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its
   partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them,
   and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract
   made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law
   of England, only in an action in which the whole list of
   partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to
   remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were
   formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital
   invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the
   shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand.
   This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing,
   nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from
   liability for debts in excess of their past or present,
   shares in the concern.
{1972}
   In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of
   the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to
   discourage the formation of such associations; and the
   formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were
   incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time,
   prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An
   incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary
   principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a
   definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the
   company can look for the satisfaction of their demands,
   divided into shares held by a number of individuals who,
   though they participate in the profits of the concern, in
   proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no
   personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial
   person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of
   law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the
   sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or
   'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or
   'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a
   corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an
   unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling
   a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some
   of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of
   others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven
   partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number
   exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become
   incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with
   either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at
   the time of incorporation."

      _Thomas Erskine Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 298._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1711.
   Voluntary Restraint of Trade.

   "The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in
   the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still
   the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint
   of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law
   was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker),
   distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of
   trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason
   why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from
   the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the
   encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest
   industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the
   subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta,
   which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says:
   Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel
   libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these
   words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"

      _Frederick N. Judson,
      14 American Bar Association Report,
      page 236._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
   Special Juries.

   "The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so
   late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems
   to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450
   (29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute
   of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known,
   and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster
   shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or
   defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the
   proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in
   such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck
   in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said
   courts.'"

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 143-144._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
   Written Pleadings to be in English.

   "There was one great improvement in law proceedings which,
   while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last
   accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings,
   both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to
   be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would
   have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it
   was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property,
   and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in
   the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so
   corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had
   prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the
   public was now attracted to it by a petition from the
   magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York,
   representing the evils of the old law language being retained
   in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the
   substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the
   Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of
   Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the
   Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord
   Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. …
   Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed,
   and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should
   have been so long deferred."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 4, page 504._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1739-1744.
   Oath according to one's Religion.

   "Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not
   Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn
   according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the
   evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of
   justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the
   Evangelists. This subject first came before him in
   Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account
   against the representatives of an East India Governor, the
   plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel,
   a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he
   could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that
   the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should
   be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to
   administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his
   conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in
   the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar
   commission to examine witnesses having issued, the
   Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses
   examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the
   Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the
   Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are
   administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.'
   Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be
   read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the
   question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the
   three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long,
   learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with
   pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions
   were admissible."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 5, pages 69-70._

{1973}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750.
   Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first
   reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained
   against a common carrier, on his implied contract.

   "Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in
   competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for
   custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might
   'turn an action against a common carrier into a special
   assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.'
   Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first
   reported case in which that suggestion was followed."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 63)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750-1800.
   Demurrer to Evidence.

   "Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were
   rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of
   Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case,
   that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come
   up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party
   demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he
   admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the
   case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not
   always followed in this country, but the fact that it was
   really a novelty was sometimes not understood."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 147)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 149._


COMMON LAW: A. D. 1756-1788.
   Lord Mansfield and Commercial Law.

   "In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest
   manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her
   jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in
   the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily
   arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting
   the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine
   insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory
   notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. …
   Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came
   into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by
   private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an
   action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a
   court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who
   determined it according to their own notions of what was fair,
   and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be
   referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. …
   When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of
   King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his
   labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them
   by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important
   case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the
   indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years
   the commercial law of this country has taken a very different
   turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was
   proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general
   principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put
   together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law,
   all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they
   were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general
   principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has
   been to find some certain general principle, which shall be
   known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case
   then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the
   future. Most of us have heard these principles stated,
   reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost
   in admiration at the strength and stretch of the
   understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under
   a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which
   has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to
   be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' …
   With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord
   Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us
   to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their
   orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the
   second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate
   indorser without having previously demanded payment from the
   drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2
   Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the
   same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that
   in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege
   and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had
   likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange
   is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a
   refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr.,
   2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the
   dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as
   matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of
   fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each
   particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It
   seems strange to us how the world could go on when such
   questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is
   another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people.
   … I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the
   hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the
   rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided
   upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being
   wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and
   delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord
   Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in
   proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord
   Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics,
   … availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on
   the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The
   question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller
   of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they
   shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a
   'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus
   expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The
   basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more
   especially in these transactions, where the public are brought
   together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale
   will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never
   be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a
   person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the
   argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates
   his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he
   bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take
   the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to
   him.'"

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chief Justices,
      volume 2, pages 308-314._

{1974}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
   Judicial Independence.

   "A glance into the pages of the _Judges of England, by
   Foss,_ will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts
   exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose
   decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the
   Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed
   to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously
   defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of
   Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law,
   and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal
   assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of
   the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the
   Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out
   of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement
   secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except
   in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the
   address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of
   the measure is seen by the promise under which that
   arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William
   III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively,
   in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It
   was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of
   the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."

      _J. G. S. MacNeill,
      Law Magazine and Review, 4th series,
      volume 16 (1890-91), page 202._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
   Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.

   "The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and
   liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord
   Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he
   held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of
   the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value
   without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later
   affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of
   the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it
   all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this
   principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in
   which it was held that if the holder for value took it under
   circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a
   prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case
   annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was
   sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine
   of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and
   settled law of England and this country."

      _Wm. A. McClean,
      Negotiable Paper
      (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768.
   Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before
   the Declaration of Independence.

   "Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the
   first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia
   Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It
   was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but
   not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation
   whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The
   next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,'
   chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having
   been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The
   Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of
   Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company'
   (Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron
   Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock
   business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After
   that time the number rapidly increased, especially in
   Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were
   created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half
   of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining
   States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no
   great variety in the purposes for which these early companies
   were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads,
   toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing
   were the enterprises which they carried on."

      _S. Williston,
      History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pp. 165-166)._

A. D. 1776.
   Ultimate property in land.

   "When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became
   separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican
   government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the
   ownership of all lands within the State which had not already
   been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source
   of all private titles."

      _Judge Comstock,
      People v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church,
      22 N. Y., 44-46._

   "It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with
   the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part
   of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the
   State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of
   England were brought by the colonists with them as suited
   their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such
   general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until
   altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The
   principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this
   country are held subject to modification and change, according
   to the circumstances and condition of the people and
   government here. … By the English common law, the King was
   the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land
   within his dominion, and it was considered to be held
   mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the
   United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the
   English Crown in this country passed to the People of the
   different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change
   of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance
   formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great
   Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments
   of the States."

      _James Gerard,
      Titles to Real Estate (3rd edition),
      pages 26 and 5._

   "Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any
   possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute
   ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested
   somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might
   result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public
   law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be
   regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the
   State where the land lies. This corporate power has been
   naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because
   it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations
   of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is
   represented by an individual, as in England, there the
   absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is
   vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty,
   succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for
   the nation.
{1975}
   In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in
   regard to real property, is represented by the State in its
   corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested
   in the State."

      _Anson Bingham,
      Law of Real Property,
      page 3._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1778.
   First Instance of Assumpsit upon a Vendor's Warranty.

   "A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of
   course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as
   a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18],
   decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an
   action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 8)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1783.
   Lord Mansfield laid foundation of Law of Trade-Marks.

   "The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called
   'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent
   work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians,
   the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used
   various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and
   handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to
   be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however,
   during the last seventy or eighty years that the present
   system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord
   Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the
   Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the
   foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed,
   and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was
   enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From
   that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of
   cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be
   considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the
   Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of
   trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a
   trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the
   Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The
   underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of
   preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by
   fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in
   other words, the application of the broad principles of
   equity."

      _Grafton D. Cushing,
      Cases Analogous to Trade-marks
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 321)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790.
   Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person
   under a Bill of Lading.

   "Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in
   the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court
   of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of
   King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to
   commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to
   stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has
   become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a
   third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading,
   for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From
   a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has
   ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor
   to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have
   here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will
   not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of
   this country on a point of very great importance, as it
   regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For
   these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench
   ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in
   the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right
   of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller,
   has ever since been established."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 6, pages 138-139._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1792.
   Best-Evidence rule.

   "In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough
   said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the
   general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the
   case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was
   becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and
   over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had
   said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III.
   368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general
   rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this,
   that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of
   shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not
   possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be
   allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence
   existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a
   presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at
   present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned
   Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the
   difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is
   more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than
   this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is
   very limited in its extent and application. It signifies
   nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot
   possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be
   admitted.'"

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 732._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1794.
   First Trial by Jury in United States Supreme Court.

   "In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of
   the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking
   to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court,
   went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon
   yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well
   as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that
   the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not
   indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those
   manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good
   sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of
   their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a
   strict application of rules."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 171)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 153._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843.
   Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to
   claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.

   "It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the
   jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge
   on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A
   distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime.
   This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched
   debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set
   free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were
   further extended, when debtors were not only released from
   confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on
   giving up all their goods."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England
      (Widdleton's edition)
      volume 2, page 271._

      See, also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING.

{1976}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1819.
   The Dartmouth College Case.

   "The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved
   chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation
   of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the
   rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which
   declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or
   law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch
   of this clause had always been understood to relate to
   criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting
   civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v.
   Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions
   respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to
   contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding
   this case, had assumed that the college was a public
   corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment;
   which was, that between the State and its public corporations
   there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter,
   or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this
   fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a
   private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the
   right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between
   the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the
   charity, and take the incorporation for its better management,
   he could bring the legislative interference within the
   prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important
   positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the
   founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be
   visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers
   to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not
   a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the
   administration of which the trustees had a property, which the
   law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is
   a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and
   those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the
   legislation which took away from the trustees the right to
   exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and
   government, and transferred them to another set of trustees,
   impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the
   conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a
   decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was
   made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which
   Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the
   principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a
   charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it
   under the protection of the Constitution of the United States,
   takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having
   produced its judicial establishment."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      volume 1, pages 165-169 (5th edition)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1823.
   Indian Right of Occupancy.

   "The first case of importance that came before the court of
   last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with
   their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh,
   8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered
   the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to
   the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was
   made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants;
   that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a
   title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of
   occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the
   lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of
   occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It
   has never been doubted that either the United States or the
   several States had a clear title to all the lands within the
   boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between
   England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right
   of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that
   right was vested in that government which might
   constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then,
   have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by
   which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They
   hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was
   acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that
   discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian
   title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and
   gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the
   circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The
   power now possessed by the government of the United States to
   grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or
   its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has
   never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised
   uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The
   existence of this power must negative the existence of any
   right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute
   title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different
   persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an
   exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others
   not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the
   absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right
   of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to
   extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute
   and complete title in the Indians.'"

      _William B. Hornblower,
      14 American Bar Association Report 264-265._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1826
   Jurors from the Body of the County.

   "In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the
   reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the
   requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from
   near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in
   all its essential functions similar to what now exists. …
   The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
   where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
   and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which
   appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
   day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
   summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need
   only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      chapter 7, section 3._

{1977}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1828.
   Lord Tenterden's Act.

   "Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon
   the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement
   or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence
   of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such
   Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in
   some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."

      _Statutes at Large,
      volume 68, 9 George IV., c. 14._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1833.
   Wager of Law abolished, and Effect upon Detinue.

   "This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as
   were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of
   'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which
   consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the
   claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into
   court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his
   denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general
   institution, which we find established not only among the
   Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations
   that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist
   among us even till the last reign, when it was at length
   abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager
   of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great
   disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost
   entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action
   of trover and conversion."

      _Stephens,
      Commentaries,
      volume 3, pages 442-443 (8th edition)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1834.
   Real Actions abolished.

   "The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so
   far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land)
   were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute
   abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few
   exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for
   the first time, limited directly the period within which an
   ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of
   'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an
   owner to the possession of land of which another person has
   the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested
   or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to
   maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that
   whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it
   provided that whenever the statute began to run against the
   one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and
   that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both
   rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute
   should begin to run against each right the moment that the
   right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual
   possession and the right of possession became separated. The
   statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment
   (notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem
   (the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that
   it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i.
   e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual
   possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 144-145._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1836.
   Exemption Laws.

   "Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws
   exempting from execution necessary household goods and
   personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the
   tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the
   beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr.
   Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the
   policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas
   passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift
   of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont
   followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but
   eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under
   various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and
   protection of the family is now exempt from execution or
   judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife
   shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly
   subjecting it to the claims of creditors."

      _J. F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      page 360._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1837.
   Employer's liability.

   "No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a
   century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of
   to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without
   fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the
   negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general
   employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of
   'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old
   one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the
   celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it
   is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically
   than any other reported case. … The American law, though in
   harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its
   own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1
   Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable
   to one servant injured through the negligence of another
   servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few
   years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by
   neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the
   American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent
   of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by
   those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang
   from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v.
   Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v.
   Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which,
   following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the
   United States. It has been followed in nearly every
   jurisdiction, both State and Federal."

      _Marland C. Hobbs,
      Statutory Changes in Employers Liability
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 212-213)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838.
   Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's
   Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.

   "The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent
   period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest
   claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process,
   before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were
   wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility
   and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly
   and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed
   payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was
   liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and
   fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the
   debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The
   wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months
   before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was
   discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his
   discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a
   poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by
   imprisonment.
{1978}
   No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds.
   … The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was
   frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at
   length accomplished. Provision was made for securing
   absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a
   debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of
   oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was
   denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed
   to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities
   were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by
   the establishment of county courts."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 267-268._

      See, also, DEBT: LAWS CONCERNING.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1839-1848.
   Emancipation of Women.

   "According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel,
   all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat
   her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not
   guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no
   redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in
   1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848,
   which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so
   generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes
   of business, ownership of property, and claim to her
   individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as
   independent as a man."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 71._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842.
   One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for
   Value.

   "Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral
   security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing
   indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who
   takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a
   holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends
   the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders
   something of value, gives some new consideration; while still
   others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a
   holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the
   note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does
   not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is
   known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court
   of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There,
   however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It
   was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had
   decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value,
   and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made
   in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court,
   through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone
   dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the
   doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such
   questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where
   the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for
   value."

      _Henry C. Tompkins,
      13 American Bar Association Report,
      page 255._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1845.
   Interest of Disseisee transferable.

   "It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the
   disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have
   been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the
   same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But
   in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky,
   Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and
   Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is
   still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain
   an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."

      _J. B. Ames,
      The Disseisin of Chattels
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 3, page 25)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1846.
   Ultra vires.

   "When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary
   powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it
   soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called
   into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as
   nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless
   expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must
   be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for
   which they had been incorporated. The question was first
   raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway
   company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in
   deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the
   following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most
   extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this
   country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law
   have yet been able to understand all the different lights in
   which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To
   look upon a railway company in the light of a common
   partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than
   common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake
   the functions which they perform and the powers which they
   exercise of interference not only with the public but with the
   private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am
   clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act
   of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further
   than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and
   properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and
   works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman
   v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though
   it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law.
   In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which
   the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was
   paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form
   yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all
   who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you
   have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will
   trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see
   that you have the power of carrying on business in such a
   manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which
   you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will
   know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote
   their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v.
   Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a
   corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third
   persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first
   in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch.
   84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all
   the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly,
   applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a
   corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation
   will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."

      _Thomas Erskine Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301.
      (Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law
      Review, May-June, 1894)._

{1979}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883.
   The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.

   "The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the
   extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other
   communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted
   substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The
   first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into
   effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in
   1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in
   1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in
   Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in
   Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho
   in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska
   in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North
   Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory
   in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in
   Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and
   Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has
   been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular
   Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore,
   between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though
   not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California
   in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil
   Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in
   1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864;
   in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory
   in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in
   1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in
   1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal
   Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted
   in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code,
   not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the
   Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California
   in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive
   laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but
   not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it
   will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the
   world to an extent and degree unknown since the
   Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"

      _The Albany Law Journal,
      volume 39, page 261._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
   Simplification of Procedure.

   "In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has
   been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the
   virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America
   took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a
   Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other
   states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been
   taken up by England."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 70._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
   Reform in the Law of Evidence.

   "The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by
   the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and
   sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person
   shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding
   at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event
   of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his
   conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be
   shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'

      _(Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849,
      page 86, section 141.
      In the margin of the page the time of the
      passage of the law is given as 1848.)_

   This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the
   Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the
   Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's
   family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at
   New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact,
   claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in
   this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken
   in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England,
   although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary
   enactments of the like kind in that country."

      _John F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      page 374, notes._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1851.
   Bentham's Reforms in the Law of Evidence.

   "In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is
   the most important of all his censorial writings on English
   Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness
   of many of the established technical rules of evidence. …
   Among the rules combatted were those relating to the
   competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on
   various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He
   insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of
   justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be
   swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that
   parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. …
   But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the
   seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not
   all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the
   sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer.
   Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still
   held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in
   actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in
   1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil
   actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to
   testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the
   profession when I say changes more beneficial in the
   administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law,
   and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back
   upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place
   therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until
   within the last fifty years."

      _J. F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      pages 339-341._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1852-1854.
   Reform in Procedure.

   "A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law
   Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their
   labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the
   actual merits of every case should be brought before the
   judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions
   arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to
   secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for
   finally determining every action brought within them, which
   the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the
   aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts
   to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to
   order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of
   goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions,
   and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to
   common law actions."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 288._

{1980}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854.
   "Another mode" (besides common law lien).

   "Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not
   merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also
   remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers
   and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by
   the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision,
   or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as
   'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first
   heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a
   landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well
   known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and
   which in England takes the form of a right of Distress.
   Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils,
   minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors,
   curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the
   praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of
   his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if
   they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon
   extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over
   property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for
   a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of
   the parties, without any transfer of possession, which
   although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly
   established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable
   property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of
   hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the
   fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only
   in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the
   maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code,
   following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that
   'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the
   'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of
   hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but
   is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and
   regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the
   mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at
   which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104].
   So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made
   security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its
   voyage."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      p. 203._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882.
   Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.

   "For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the
   titles and transfer of land has received great attention in
   England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to
   consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in
   1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles
   of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It
   recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This
   report, and the report of the special commission of the House
   of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the
   subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the
   more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of
   1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord
   Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for
   guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the
   Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which
   established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord
   Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."

      _Dwight H. Olmstead,
      13 American Bar Association Report,
      page 267._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1855.
   Suits against a State or Nation.

   "In England the old common law methods of getting redress from
   the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le
   droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer,
   and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the
   Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23
   & 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in
   anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of
   the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been
   a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it
   shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home
   Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall
   think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an
   answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the
   Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as
   practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also
   provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown,
   subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in
   proceedings between subject and subject."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 337._

   The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For
   State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436
   and authorities there referred to.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858.
   The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.

   "The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a
   marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court
   of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is
   indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has
   never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before
   the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts
   would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the
   marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the
   Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the
   marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw.
   & Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts
   have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country
   between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences
   were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the
   fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v.
   Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr.
   52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not
   appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of
   domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed
   by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to
   have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237,
   and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and
   McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have
   been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould.
   But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P.
   D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory
   had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did
   not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord
   Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord
   Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and
   was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England,
   and we submit this is correct."

      _E. H. Monnier,
      Law Magazine & Review,
      12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82._

{1981}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1873.
   The Judicature Acts.

   "The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the
   auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the
   consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one
   Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High
   Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it
   was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every
   division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief
   being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would
   have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no
   proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction
   analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any
   branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of
   course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the
   entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the
   25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where
   differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in
   favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted
   generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity
   should prevail."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 293._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1882.
   Experiments in Codification in England.

   "The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is, I believe, the first code
   or codifying enactment which has found its way into the
   English Statute Book. By a code, I mean a statement under the
   authority of the legislature, and on a systematic plan, of the
   whole of the general principles applicable to any given branch
   of the law. A code differs from a digest inasmuch as its
   language is the language of the legislature, and therefore
   authoritative; while the propositions of a digest merely
   express what is, in the opinion of an individual author, the
   law on any given subject. In other words the words
   propositions of a code are law, while the propositions of a
   digest may or may not be law."

      _M. D. Chalmers,
      An Experiment in Codification
      (Law Quarterly Review,
      volume 2, page 125)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1889.
   Passage of Block-Indexing Act.

   "The history of Land Transfer Reform in the United States is
   confined, almost exclusively, to matters which have occurred
   in the State of New York during the past ten years, and which
   culminated in the passage of the Block-Indexing Act for the
   city, of New York of 1889. In January, 1882, a report was made
   by a special committee of the Association of the Bar of the
   city of New York, which had been appointed to consider and
   report what changes, if any, should be made in the manner of
   transferring title to land in the city and State. The
   committee reported that by reason of the accumulated records
   in the offices of the county clerk and register of deeds of
   the city, 'searches practically could not be made in those
   offices,' and recommended the appointment of a State
   commission, which should consider and report a mode of
   transferring land free from the difficulties of the present
   system. The report was adopted by the association, and during
   the same year like recommendations were made by the Chamber of
   Commerce and by real estate and other associations of the
   city."

      _D. H. Olmstead,
      13 American Bar Association Report,
      pages 269-270._

   ----------COMMON LAW: End----------

   ----------CRIMINAL LAW: Start----------

Criminal Law.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1272.
   The Ordinary Criminal Courts.

   "In a very few words the history of the ordinary courts is as
   follows: Before the Conquest the ordinary criminal court was
   the County or Hundred Court, but it was subject to the general
   supervision and concurrent jurisdiction of the King's Court.
   The Conqueror and his sons did not alter this state of things,
   but the supervision of the King's Court and the exercise of
   his concurrent jurisdiction were much increased both in
   stringency and in frequency, and as time went on narrowed the
   jurisdiction and diminished the importance of the local court.
   In process of time the King's Court developed itself into the
   Court of King's Bench and the Courts of the Justices of
   Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, or to use the
   common expression, the Assize Courts; and the County Court, so
   far as its criminal jurisdiction was concerned, lost the
   greater part of its importance. These changes took place by
   degrees during the reigns which followed the Conquest, and
   were complete at the accession of Edward I. In the reign of
   Edward III. the Justices of the Peace were instituted, and
   they, in course of time, were authorized to hold Courts for
   the trial of offenders, which are the Courts of Quarter
   Sessions. The County Court, however, still retained a separate
   existence, till the beginning of the reign of Edward IV., when
   it was virtually, though not absolutely, abolished. A vestige
   of its existence is still to be traced in Courts Leet."

      _Sir James F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law,
      volume 1, pages 75-76._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166.
   Disappearance of Compurgation in Criminal Cases.

   "In criminal cases in the king's courts, compurgation is
   thought to have disappeared in consequence of what has been
   called 'the implied prohibition' of the Assize of Clarendon,
   in 1166. But it remained long in the local and ecclesiastical
   courts. Palgrave preserves as the latest instances of
   compurgation in criminal cases that can be traced, some cases
   as late as 1440-1, in the Hundred Court of Winchelsea in
   Sussex. They are cases of felony, and the compurgation is with
   thirty-six neighbors. They show a mingling of the old and the
   new procedure."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review., volume 5, page 59)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166-1215.
   Jury in Criminal Cases.

   "It seems to have been possible, even before the decree of the
   Fourth Lateran Council, in … 1215, to apply the jury to
   criminal cases when ever the accused asked for it. … The
   Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with its apparatus of an
   accusing jury and a trial by ordeal is thought to have done
   away in the king's courts with compurgation as a mode of trial
   for crime; and now the Lateran Council, in forbidding
   ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed to
   have forbidden that mode of trial."

      _Jas. B. Thayer,
      The Jury and its Development
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 265)._

{1982}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1176 (circa).
   "Eyres," and Criminal Jurisdiction.

   "It is enough for me to point out that, on the circuits
   instituted by Henry II, and commonly distinguished as 'eyres',
   by way of pre-eminence, the administration of criminal
   justice, was treated, not as a thing by itself, but as one
   part, perhaps the most prominent and important part, of the
   general administration of the country, which was put to a
   considerable extent under the superintendence of the justices
   in eyre. Nor is this surprising when we consider that fines,
   amercements, and forfeitures of all sorts were items of great
   importance in the royal revenue. The rigorous enforcement of
   all the proprietary and other profitable rights of the Crown
   which the articles of eyre confided to the justices was
   naturally associated with their duties as administrators of
   the criminal law, in which the king was deeply interested, not
   only because it protected the life and property of his
   subjects, but also because it contributed to his revenue."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 102._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1198-1199.
   Trial by Ordeal.

   "The earliest instance of the ordeal [see ORDEAL] in our
   printed judicial records occurs in 1198-9, on an appeal of
   death, by a maimed person, where two of the defendants are
   adjudged to purge themselves by the hot iron. But within
   twenty years or so this mode of trial came to a sudden end in
   England, through the powerful agency of the Church,—an event
   which was the more remarkable because Henry II., in the Assize
   of Clarendon (1166) and again in that of Northampton (1176),
   providing a public mode of accusation in the case of the
   larger crimes, had fixed the ordeal as the mode of trial. The
   old form of trial by oath was no longer recognized in such
   cases in the king's courts. It was the stranger, therefore,
   that such quick operation should have been allowed in England
   to the decree, in November, 1215, of the Fourth Lateran
   Council at Rome. That this was recognized and accepted within
   about three years (1218-19) by the English crown is shown by
   the well-known writs of Henry III., to the judges, dealing
   with the puzzling question of what to do for a mode of trial,
   'cum prohibitum sit per Ecclesiam Romanam judicium ignis et
   aquae.' I find no case of trial by ordeal in our printed
   records later than Trinity Term of the 15 John (1213)."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 64-65)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
   Two Juries in Criminal Cases.

   "The ordeal was strictly a mode of trial. What may clearly
   bring this home to one of the present day is the well-known
   fact that it gave place, not long after the Assize of
   Clarendon, to the petit jury, when Henry III. bowed to the
   decree of the fourth Lateran Council (1215) abolishing the
   ordeal. It was at this point that our cumbrous, inherited
   system of two juries in criminal cases had its origin."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 3, page 159, note)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
   Had Coroners Common Law Power as to Fires?

   "Although Magna Charta took away the power of the Coroner of
   holding Pleas of the Crown, that is of trying the more
   important crimes, there was nothing to forbid him from
   continuing to receive accusations against all offenders. This
   he did, and continues to do to the present day, without
   challenge, in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths. Nor is it
   denied that he has done so and may do so in other matters,
   such as in treasure trove, wreck of the sea and deodands. The
   difficulty, of course, is to know whether the Coroner was or
   was not in the habit of holding inquests on fires. There is no
   evidence that he had not the power to do so. On the contrary,
   we think the extracts from the ancient writers which we have
   before quoted, are on the whole in favour of his having that
   power. Before Magna Charta he had the power to try all serious
   crimes; arson would unquestionably be one of them. Magna
   Charta only took a way his power of trying them, not of making
   a preliminary investigation, otherwise an inquest."

      _Sherston Baker,
      Law Magazine & Review (London, 1886-7),
      4th ser., volume 12, page 268._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1272-1875.
   King's Bench.
   The Supreme Criminal Court.

   "From the reign of Edward I, to the year 1875 it [the Court of
   King's Bench] continued to be the Supreme Criminal Court of
   the Realm, with no alterations in its powers or constitution
   of sufficient importance to be mentioned except that during
   the Commonwealth it was called the Upper Bench."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 94._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1276.
   Coroner's Jury.

   "The earliest instance that occurs of any sort of preliminary
   inquiry into crimes with a view to subsequent proceedings is
   the case of the coroner's inquest. Coroners, according to Mr.
   Stubbs, originated in the year 1194, but the first authority
   of importance about their duties is to be found in Bracton. He
   gives an account of their duties so full as to imply that in
   his day their office was comparatively modern. The Statute de
   Officio Coronatoris (4 Edward I., st. 2, A. D. 1276) is almost
   a transcript of the passage in Bracton. It gives the coroner's
   duty very fully, and is, to this day, the foundation of the
   law on the subject."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 217._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      page 187._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Courts of Oyer and Terminer.

   "The first express mention of them with which I am acquainted
   is in the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 29 (A. D. 1285), which taken
   in connection with some subsequent authorities throws
   considerable light on their nature. They were either general
   or special. General when they were issued to commissioners
   whose duty it was to hear and determine all matters of a
   criminal nature within certain local limits, special when the
   commission was confined to particular cases. Such special
   commissions were frequently granted at the prayer of
   particular individuals. They differed from commissions of gaol
   delivery principally in the circumstance that the commission
   of Oyer and Terminer was 'ad inquirendum, audiendum, et
   terminandum,' whereas that of gaol delivery is 'ad gaolam
   nostram castri nostri de C. de prisonibus in ea existentibus
   hac vice deliberandum,' the interpretation put upon which was
   that justices of Oyer and Terminer could proceed only upon
   indictments taken before themselves, whereas justices of gaol
   delivery had to try everyone found in the prison which they
   were to deliver. On the other hand, a prisoner on bail could
   not be tried before a justice of gaol delivery, because he
   would not be in the gaol, whereas if he appeared before
   justices of Oyer and Terminer he might be both indicted and
   tried."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 106._

{1983}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1305.
   Challenging Jury for Cause.

   "The prisoner was allowed to challenge peremptorily, i. e.
   without showing cause, any number of jurors less than
   thirty-five, or three whole juries. When or why he acquired
   this right it is difficult to say. Neither Bracton nor Britton
   mention it, and it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that
   the jurors were witnesses. A man who might challenge
   peremptorily thirty-five witnesses could always secure
   impunity. It probably arose at a period when the separation
   between the duties of the jury and the witnesses was coming to
   be recognized. The earliest statute on the subject, 33 Edw. I,
   st. 4 (A. D. 1305), enacts 'that from henceforth,
   notwithstanding it be alleged by them that sue for the king
   that the jurors of those inquests, or some of them, be not
   indifferent for the king, yet such inquests shall not remain
   untaken for that cause, but if they that sue for the king will
   challenge any of those jurors, they shall assign of the
   challenge a cause certain.'"

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, pages 301-302._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1344.
   Justices of the Peace.

   "In 1344 (18 Edw. Ill, st. 2, c. 2) it was enacted that 'two
   or three of the best of reputation in the counties shall be
   assigned keepers of the peace by the King's Commission, … to
   hear and determine felonies and trespasses done against the
   peace in the same counties, and to inflict punishment
   reasonably.' This was the first act by which the Conservators
   of the Peace obtained judicial power."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 113._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1506.
   Insanity as a Defence.

   The earliest adjudication upon the legal responsibility of an
   insane person occurred in the Year Book of the 21 Henry VII.

      _American Law Review,
      volume 15, page 717._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1547.
   Two Lawful Witnesses required to Convict.

   "In all cases of treason and misprision of treason,—by
   statutes l Edw. VI. c. 12; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 & 8
   Will. III. c. 3,—two lawful witnesses are required to convict
   a prisoner; unless he shall willingly and without violence
   confess the same. And, by the last-mentioned statute, it is
   declared, that both of such witnesses must be to the same
   overt act of treason; or one to one overt act, and the other
   to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not
   of distinct heads or kinds: and that no evidence shall be
   admitted to prove any overt act, not expressly laid in the
   indictment."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      Commentaries,
      volume 4, page 425 (8th edition)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1592.
   Criminal Trials under Elizabeth.

   "In prosecutions by the State, every barrier which the law has
   ever attempted to erect for the protection of innocence was
   ruthlessly cast down. Men were arrested without the order of a
   magistrate, on the mere warrant of a secretary of state or
   privy councillor, and thrown into prison at the pleasure of
   the minister. In confinement they were subjected to torture,
   for the rack rarely stood idle while Elizabeth was on the
   throne. If brought to trial, they were denied the aid of a
   counsel and the evidence of witnesses in their behalf. Nor
   were they confronted with the witnesses against them, but
   written depositions, taken out of court and in the absence of
   the prisoner, were read to the jury, or rather such portions
   of them as the prosecution considered advantageous to its
   side. On the bench sat a judge holding office at the pleasure
   of the crown, and in the jury-box twelve men, picked out by
   the sheriff, who themselves were punished if they gave a
   verdict of acquittal."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 367._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1600 (circa).
   Capital Punishment.

   "Sir James Fitz James Stephen, in his _History of Criminal
   Law_, estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century
   there were about 800 executions per year in England (volume 1,
   468). Another sentence in vogue in England before that time
   was to be hanged, to have the bowels burned, and to be
   quartered. Beccaria describes the scene where 'amid clouds of
   writhing smoke the groans of human victims, the crackling of
   their bones, and the flying of their still panting bowels were
   a pleasing spectacle and agreeable harmony to the frantic
   multitude.' (chapter 39.) As late as the reign of Elizabeth,
   … the sentence of death in England was to be hung, drawn and
   quartered. Campian, the Jesuit, was tortured before trial
   until his limbs were dislocated on the rack, and was carried
   helpless into Westminster Hall for trial before the Chief
   Justice of England, unable to raise an arm in order to plead
   not guilty. He was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered,
   which meant legally, that upon being hung he was to be cut
   down while yet living, and dragged at the tail of a horse, and
   then before death should release him, to be hewn in pieces,
   which were to be sent dispersed to the places where the
   offense was committed or known, to be exhibited in attestation
   of the punishment, the head being displayed in the most
   important place, as the chief object of interest. In the
   process of hanging, drawing and quartering, Froude says that
   due precautions were taken to prolong the agony. Campian's
   case is specially interesting, as showing the intervention of
   a more humane spirit to mitigate the barbarity of the law. As
   they were about to cut him down alive from the gibbet, the
   voice of some one in authority cried out: Hold, till the man
   is dead.' This innovation was the precursor of the change in
   the law so as to require the sentence to be that he be hanged
   by the neck until he is dead. It is not generally known that
   the words 'until he is dead' are words of mercy inserted to
   protect the victim from the torture and mutilation which the
   public had gathered to enjoy."

      _Austin Abbott,
      Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal
      (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1641-1662.
   No Man shall be compelled to Criminate himself.

   "What … is the history of this rule? … Briefly, these
   things appear: 1st. That it is not a common law rule at all,
   but is wholly statutory in its authority. 2d. That the object
   of the rule, until a comparatively late period of its
   existence, was not to protect from answers in the king's court
   of justice, but to prevent a usurpation of jurisdiction on
   the part of the Court Christian (or ecclesiastical tribunals).
   3d. That even as thus enforced the rule was but partial and
   limited in its application. 4th. That by gradual perversion of
   function the rule assumed its present form, but not earlier
   than the latter half of the seventeenth century. … But
   nothing can be clearer than that it was a statutory rule. …
{1984}
   The first of these were 16 Car. I., c. 2 (1641) and provided
   that no one should impose any penalty in ecclesiastical
   matters, nor should 'tender … to any … person whatsoever
   any corporal oath whereby he shall be obliged to confess or
   accuse himself of any crime or any … thing whereby he shall
   be exposed to any censure or penalty whatever.' This probably
   applied to ecclesiastical courts alone. The second (13 Car.
   II., c. 12, 1662) is more general, providing that 'no one
   shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually
   called ex officio, or any other oath, whereby such persons may
   be charged or compelled to confess any criminal matter.' …
   The Statute of 13 Car. II. is cited in Scurr's Case, but
   otherwise neither of them seems to have been mentioned; nor do
   the text-books, as a rule, take any notice of them.
   Henceforward, however, no question arises in the courts as to
   the validity of the privilege against self-crimination, and
   the statutory exemption is recognized as applying in
   common-law courts us well as in others. … This maxim, or
   rather the abuse of it in the ecclesiastical courts, helps in
   part to explain the shape which the general privilege now has
   taken. … We notice that most of the church's religious
   investigations, … were conducted by means of commissions or
   inquisitions, not by ordinary trials upon proper presentment;
   and thus the very rule of the canon law itself was continually
   broken, and persons unsuspected and unbetrayed 'per famam'
   were compelled, 'seipsum prodere,' to become their own
   accusers. This, for a time, was the burden of the complaint.
   … Furthermore, in rebelling against this abuse of the
   canon-law rule, men were obliged to formulate their reasons
   for objecting to answer the articles of inquisitions. … They
   professed to be willing to answer ordinary questions, but not
   to betray themselves to disgrace and ruin, especially as where
   the crimes charged were, as a rule, religious offences and not
   those which men generally regard as offences against social
   order. In this way the rule began to be formulated and
   limited, as applying to the disclosure of forfeitures and
   penal offences. In the course of the struggle the aid of the
   civil courts was invoked, … and towards the end of the
   seventeenth century, … it found a lodgement in the practice
   of the Exchequer, of Chancery, and of the other courts. There
   had never been in the civil courts any complaint based on the
   same lines, or any demand for such a privilege. … But the
   momentum of this right, wrested from the ecclesiastical courts
   after a century of continual struggle, fairly carried it over
   and fixed it firmly in the common-law practice also."

      _John H. Wigmore,
      Nemo Tenetur seipsum Prodere
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 71-88)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1660-1820.
   187 Capital Offenses added to Criminal Code in England.

   "From the Restoration to the death of George III.,—a period
   of 160 years,—no less than 187 capital offenses were added to
   the criminal code. The legislature was able, every year, to
   discover more than one heinous crime deserving of death. In
   the reign of George II. thirty-three Acts were passed creating
   capital offenses; in the first fifty years of George III., no
   less than sixty-three. In such a multiplication of offenses
   all principle was ignored; offenses wholly different in
   character and degree were confounded in the indiscriminating
   penalty of death. Whenever an offense was found to be
   increasing, some busy senator called for new rigor, until
   murder became in the eye of the law no greater crime than
   picking a pocket, purloining a ribbon from a shop, or
   pilfering a pewter-pot. Such law-makers were as ignorant as
   they were cruel. … Dr. Johnson,—no squeamish
   moralist,—exposed them; Sir W. Blackstone, in whom admiration
   of our jurisprudence was almost a foible, denounced them.
   Beccaria, Montesquieu, and Bentham demonstrated that certainty
   of punishment was more effectual in the repression of crime,
   than severity; but law-givers were still inexorable."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England
      (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 553-554._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1695.
   Counsel allowed to Persons indicted for High Treason.

   "Holland, following the early example of Spain, always
   permitted a prisoner the services of a counsel; and if he was
   too poor to defray the cost, one was furnished at the public
   charge. In England, until after the fall of the Stuarts, this
   right, except for the purposes of arguing mere questions of
   law, was denied to every one placed on trial for his life. In
   1695, it was finally accorded to persons indicted for high
   treason. Even then it is doubtful, says Lord Campbell, whether
   a bill for this purpose would have passed if Lord Ashley,
   afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury and author of the
   'Characteristics,' had not broken down while delivering in the
   House of Commons a set speech upon it, and, being called upon
   to go on, had not electrified the House by observing: 'If I,
   sir, who rise only to give my opinion upon a bill now pending,
   in the fate of which I have no personal interest, am so
   confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I
   propose to say, what must the condition of that man be, who,
   without any assistance, is called to plead for his life, his
   honor, and for his posterity?'"

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, page 446._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1708.
   Torture.

   The fact that judicial torture, though not a common law power
   of the courts, was used in England by command of Mary,
   Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, is familiar to all. It was
   sanctioned by Lord Coke and Lord Bacon, and Coke himself
   conducted examinations by it. It was first made illegal in
   Scotland in 1708; in Bavaria and Wurtemburg in 1806; in Baden
   in 1831.

      _Austin Abbott,
      Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal,
      (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1725.
   Knowledge of Right and Wrong the test of Responsibility.

   The case of Edward Arnold, in 1725, who was indicted for
   shooting at Lord Onslow, seems to be the earliest case in
   which the knowledge of right and wrong becomes the test of
   responsibility.

      _American Law Review,
      volume 15, pages 720-722._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1770.
   Criminal Law of Libel.

   "In this case [Case of the North Briton Junius' Letter to the
   King, tried before Lord Mansfield and a special jury on the
   2nd June 1770] two doctrines were maintained which excepted
   libels from the general principles of the Criminal
   Law—firstly, that a publisher was criminally responsible for
   the acts of his servants, unless he was proved to be neither
   privy nor to have assented to the publication of a libel;
   secondly, that it was the province of the Court alone to judge
   of the criminality of the publication complained of. The first
   rule was rigidly observed in the Courts until the passing of
   Lord Campbell's Libel Act in 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 96). The
   second prevailed only until 1792, when Fox's Libel Act (32
   Geo. III, c. 60) declared it to be contrary to the Law of
   England. …
{1985}
   A century's experience has proved that the law, as declared by
   the Legislature in 1792, has worked well, falsifying the
   forebodings of the Judges of the period, who predicted 'the
   confusion and destruction of the Law of England' as the result
   of a change which they regarded as the subversion of a
   fundamental and important principle of English Jurisprudence.
   Fox's Libel Act did not complete the emancipation of the
   Press. Liberty of discussion continued to be restrained by
   merciless persecution. The case of Sir Francis Burdett, in
   1820, deserves notice. Sir Francis had written, on the subject
   of the 'Peterloo Massacre' in Manchester, a letter which was
   published in a London newspaper. He was fined £2,000 and
   sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The proceedings on
   a motion for a new trial are of importance because of the
   Judicial interpretation of the Libel Act of 1792. The view was
   then stated by Best, J. (afterwards Lord Wynford), and was
   adopted unanimously by the Court, that the statute of George
   III. had not made the question of libel one of fact. If it
   had, instead of removing an anomaly, it would have created
   one. Libel, said Best, J., is a question of law, and the judge
   is the judge of the law in libel as in all other cases, the
   jury having the power of acting agreeably to his statement of
   the law or not. All that the statute does is to prevent the
   question from being left to the jury in the narrow way in
   which it was left before that time. The jury were then only to
   find the fact of the publication and the truth of the
   innuendoes, for the judges used to tell them that the intent
   was an inference of law to be drawn from the paper, with which
   the jury had nothing to do. The legislature have said that
   this is not so, but that the whole case is for the jury (4 B.
   and A. 95). The law relating to Political Libel has not been
   developed or altered in any way since the case of R. v.
   Burdett. If it should ever be revived, which does not at
   present appear probable, it will be found, says Sir James
   Stephen, to have been insensibly modified by the law as to
   defamatory libels on private persons, which has been the
   subject of a great number of highly important judicial
   decisions. The effect of these is, amongst other things, to
   give a right to everyone to criticise fairly—that is,
   honestly, even if mistakenly—the public conduct of public
   men, and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upon the
   proceedings of Parliament and the Courts of Justice. (History
   of the Criminal Law, II., 376.) The unsuccessful prosecution
   of Cobbett for an article in the 'Political Register,' in
   1831, nearly brought to a close the long series of contests
   between the Executive and the Press. From the period of the
   Reform Act of 1832, the utmost latitude has been permitted to
   public writings, and Press prosecutions for political libels,
   like the Censorship, have lapsed."

      _J. W. Ross Brown,
      Law Magazine & Review,
      4th ser., volume 17, page 197._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1791.
   Criminals allowed Counsel.

   "When the American States adopted their first constitutions,
   five of them contained a provision that every person accused
   of crime was to be allowed counsel for his defence. The same
   right was, in 1791, granted for all America in the first
   amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This
   would seem to be an elementary principle of justice, but it
   was not adopted in England until nearly half a century later,
   and then only after a bitter struggle."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 70_.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1818.
   Last Trial by Battle.

   "The last appeal of murder brought in England was the case of
   Ashford v. Thornton in 1818. In that case, after Thornton had
   been tried and acquitted of the murder of Mary Ashford at the
   Warwick Assizes her brother charged him in the court of king's
   bench with her murder, according to the forms of the ancient
   procedure. The court admitted the legality of the proceedings,
   and recognized the appellee's right to wage his body; but as
   the appellant was not prepared to fight, the case ended upon a
   plea of autrefois acquit interposed by Thornton when arraigned
   on the appeal. This proceeding led to the statute of 59 Geo.
   III., c. 46, by which all appeals in criminal cases were
   finally abolished."

      _Hannis Taylor,
      Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
      part 1, page 311._

      See, also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D: 1819.
   Severity of the former Criminal Law of England.

   "Sir James Mackintosh in 1819, in moving in Parliament for a
   committee to inquire into the conditions of the criminal law,
   stated that there were then 'two hundred capital felonies on
   the statute book.' Undoubtedly this apparent severity, for the
   reasons stated by Sir James Stephen, is greater than the real
   severity, since many of the offenses made capital were of
   infrequent occurrence; and juries, moreover, often refused to
   convict, and persons capitally convicted for offenses of minor
   degrees of guilt were usually pardoned on condition of
   transportation to the American and afterwards to the
   Australian colonies. But this learned author admits that,
   'after making all deductions on these grounds there can be no
   doubt that the legislation of the eighteenth century in
   criminal matters was severe to the highest degree, and
   destitute of any sort of principle or system.'"

      _J. F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      page 366._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1825.
   "Ticket-of-leave" system established.

   "The 'ticket-of-leave' system [was] established under the
   English laws of penal servitude. It originated under the
   authority of the governors of the penal colonies, and was the
   first sanctioned by Parliament, so far as the committee are
   aware, by an Act 5 Geo. IV., chapter 34. Subsequently, when
   transportation for crime was abolished by the Acts 16, 17
   Vict., chapter 99 (A. D. 1853) and 20, 21 Vict., chapter 3,
   and system of home prisons established, the 'license' or
   ticket-of-leave system was adopted by Parliament, in those
   acts, as a method of rewarding convicts for good conduct
   during imprisonment. By further acts passed in 1864, 1871 and
   1879, the system has been brought gradually into its present
   efficacy."

      _Report of Committee on Judicial Administration,
      and Remedial Procedure
      (9 American Bar Association Report, 317)._

{1986}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1832-1860.
   Revision of Criminal Code in England.

   "With the reform period commenced a new era in criminal
   legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with
   philanthropists, in undoing the unhallowed work of many
   generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint,
   secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences
   connected with coinage; Mr. Attorney-general Denman exempted
   forgery from the same penalty in all but two cases, to which
   the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart obtained the like
   remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In
   1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the
   entire code. … The commissioners recommended numerous other
   remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord
   John Russell in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell
   short of public opinion, which found expression in an
   amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death
   to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by
   a majority of one; but has since, by successive measures, been
   accepted by the legislature;—murder alone, and the
   exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the
   last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this
   reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that, from
   1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for
   crimes, which had since ceased to be capital."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England
      (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 557-558._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1843.
   Lord Campbell's Libel Act, and Publisher's Liability.

   "In the 'Morning Advertiser' of the 19th of December, 1769,
   appeared Junius's celebrated letter to the king. Inflammatory
   and seditious, it could not be overlooked; and as the author
   was unknown, informations were immediately filed against the
   printers and publishers of the letter. But before they were
   brought to trial, Almon, the bookseller, was tried for selling
   the 'London Museum,' in which the libel was reprinted. His
   connection with the publication proved to be so slight that he
   escaped with a nominal punishment. Two doctrines, however,
   were maintained in this case, which excepted libels from the
   general principles of the criminal law. By the first, a
   publisher was held criminally answerable for the acts of his
   servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to
   the publication of a libel. So long as exculpatory evidence
   was admitted, this doctrine was defensible; but judges
   afterwards refused to admit such evidence, holding that the
   publication of a libel by a publisher's servant was proof of
   his criminality. And this monstrous rule of law prevailed
   until 1843, when it was condemned by Lord Campbell's Libel
   Act."

       _T. E. May,
       Constitutional History of England
       (Widdleton's edition),
       volume 2, pages 113-114._

   "And be it enacted, that whensoever, upon the trial of any
   indictment or information for the publication of a libel,
   under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given
   which shall establish a presumptive case of publication
   against the defendant by the act of any other person by his
   authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove
   that such publication was made without his authority, consent,
   or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from
   want of due care or caution on his part."

      _Statute 6 & 7 Vic., c. 96, s. 7._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1848.
   The English Court of Criminal Appeal.

   "England has not yet got her court of Criminal Appeal,
   although the Council of Judges, in their belated scheme of
   legal reform, recommend the legislature to create one.
   Questions whether an action should be dismissed as 'frivolous
   or vexatious,' disputes about' security for costs,' and the
   'sufficiency of interrogatories' or 'particulars,' and all
   manner of trivial causes affecting property or status, are
   deemed by the law of England sufficiently important to entitle
   the parties to them, if dissatisfied with the finding of a
   court of first instance, to submit it to the touchstone of an
   appeal. But the lives and liberties of British subjects
   charged with the commission of criminal offences are in
   general disposed of irrevocably by the verdict of a jury,
   guided by the directions of a trial judge. To this rule,
   however, there are two leading exceptions. In the first place,
   any convicted prisoner may petition the sovereign for a
   pardon, or for the commutation of his sentence; and the royal
   prerogative of mercy is exercised through, and on the advice
   of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the
   second place, the English machine juridical notwithstanding
   its lack of a properly constituted Court of Criminal Appeal,
   is furnished with a kind of 'mechanical equivalent' therefor,
   in the 'Court for Crown Cases Reserved,' which was established
   by act of Parliament in 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78)."

      _The English Court of Criminal Appeal
      (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 345)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1854.
   Conflict between United States Constitution and a Treaty.

   "About 1854, M. Dillon, French consul at San Francisco,
   refused to appear and testify in a criminal case. The
   Constitution of the United States (Amendment VI.), in criminal
   cases grants accused persons compulsory process for obtaining
   witnesses, while our treaties of 1853, with France (Art. II.)
   says that consuls 'shall never be compelled to appear as
   witnesses before the courts.' Thus there was a conflict
   between the Constitution and the treaty, and it was held that
   the treaty was void. After a long correspondence the French
   Consuls were directed to obey a subpoena in future."

      _Theodore D. Woolsey,
      Introduction to the Study of International Law
      [6th edition],
      page 157, note._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1877.
   "Indeterminate Sentences."

   "This practice, so far as the committee can ascertain, has
   been adopted in the states of New York and Ohio only. … The
   Ohio statute has been taken mainly from that which was adopted
   in New York, April 12, 1877."

      _Report of Committee on Judicial Administrations, and
      Remedial Procedure
      (9 American Bar Association Report, page 313)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1893.
   Criminal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.

   "The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v.
   Rodgers, … 150 U. S., … in declaring that the term 'high
   seas' in the criminal law of the United States is applicable
   as well to the open waters of the great lakes as to the open
   waters of the ocean, may be said, in a just sense, not to have
   changed the law, but to have asserted the law to be in force
   upon a vast domain over which its jurisdiction was heretofore
   in doubt. The opinion of Justice Field will take its place in
   our jurisprudence in company with the great cases of the
   Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.), 443, and its successors, and
   with them marks the self adapting capacity of the judicial
   power to meet the great exigencies of justice and good
   government."

      _University Law Review,
      volume 1, page 2._

   ----------CRIMINAL LAW: End----------

   ----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: Start--------

{1987}

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
   No distinction between Lay and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

   "In the time of our Saxon ancestors, there was no sort of
   distinction between the lay and the ecclesiastical
   jurisdiction: the county court was as much a spiritual as a
   temporal tribunal; the rights of the church were ascertained
   and asserted at the same time, and by the same judges, as the
   rights of the laity. For this purpose the bishop of the
   diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the sheriff of
   the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had
   there the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as
   civil: a superior deference being paid to the bishop's opinion
   in spiritual matters, and to that of the lay judges in temporal.

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 61._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1087.
   Separation of Ecclesiastical from Civil Courts.

   "William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the
   monasteries, which he liberally endowed, and by the foreign
   clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France and Italy,
   and planted in the best preferments of the English church),
   was at length prevailed upon to … separate the
   ecclesiastical court from the civil: whether actuated by
   principles of bigotry, or by those of a more refined policy,
   in order to discountenance the laws of King Edward, abounding
   with the spirit of Saxon liberty, is not altogether certain.
   But the latter, if not the cause, was undoubtedly the
   consequence, of this separation: for the Saxon laws were soon
   overborne by the Norman justiciaries, when the county court
   fell into disregard by the bishop's withdrawing his presence,
   in obedience to the charter of the conqueror; which prohibited
   any spiritual cause from being tried in the secular courts,
   and commanded the suitors to appear before the bishop only,
   whose decisions were directed to conform to the canon law."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, pages 62-63._

   "The most important ecclesiastical measure of the reign, the
   separation of the church jurisdiction from the secular
   business of the courts of law, is unfortunately, like all
   other charters of the time, undated. Its contents however show
   the influence of the ideas which under the genius of
   Hildebrand were forming the character of the continental
   churches. From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no
   longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but
   to have courts of their own; to try causes by canonical, not
   by customary law, and allow no spiritual questions to come
   before laymen as judges. In case of contumacy the offender may
   be excommunicated and the king and sheriff will enforce the
   punishment. In the same way laymen are forbidden to interfere
   in spiritual causes. The reform is one which might very
   naturally recommend itself to a man like Lanfranc."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, section 101._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1100.
   Reunion of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

   "King Henry the First, at his accession, among other
   restorations of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, revived
   this of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. …
   This, however, was ill-relished by the popish clergy,… and,
   therefore, in their synod at Westminster, 3 Hen. I., they
   ordained that no bishop should attend the discussion of
   temporal causes; which soon dissolved this newly effected
   union."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries, book 3, page 63._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1135.
   Final Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

   "And when, upon the death of King Henry the First, the usurper
   Stephen was brought in and supported by the clergy, we find
   one article of the oath which they imposed upon him was, that
   ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical causes should be
   subject only to the bishop's jurisdiction. And as it was about
   that time that the contest and emulation began between the
   laws of England and those of Rome, the temporal courts
   adhering to the former, and the spiritual adopting the latter
   as their rule of proceeding, this widened the breach between
   them, and made a coalition afterwards impracticable; which
   probably would else have been effected at the general
   reformation of the church."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 64._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Temporal Courts assume Jurisdiction of Defamation.

   "To the Spiritual Court appears also to have belonged the
   punishment of defamation until the rise of actions on the
   case, when the temporal courts assumed jurisdiction, though
   not, it seems, to the exclusion of punishment by the church.
   The punishment of usurers, cleric and lay, also belonged to
   the ecclesiastical judges, though their movables were
   confiscated to the king, unless the usurer 'vita comite digne
   poenituerit, et testamento condito quae legare decreverit a se
   prorsus alienaverit.' That is, it seems, the personal
   punishment was inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Court, but the
   confiscation of goods (when proper) was decreed by the King's
   Court."

      _Melville M. Bigelow,
      History of Procedure,
      page 51._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1857-1859.
   Ecclesiastical Courts deprived of Matrimonial and Testamentary
   Causes.

   "Matrimonial causes, or injuries respecting the rights of
   marriage, are another … branch of the ecclesiastical
   jurisdiction. Though, if we consider marriages in the light of
   mere civil contracts, they do not seem to be properly of
   spiritual cognizance. But the Romanists having very early
   converted this contract into a holy sacramental ordinance, the
   church of course took it under her protection,' upon the
   division of the two jurisdictions. … One might … wonder,
   that the same authority, which enjoined the strictest celibacy
   to the priesthood, should think them the proper judges in
   causes between man and wife. These causes, indeed, partly from
   the nature of the injuries complained of, and partly from the
   clerical method of treating them, soon became too gross for
   the modesty of a lay tribunal. … Spiritual jurisdiction of
   testamentary causes is a peculiar constitution of this island;
   for in almost all other (even in popish) countries all matters
   testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the civil
   magistrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by the clergy
   in England, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but by
   the special favor and indulgence of the municipal law, and as
   it should seem by some public act of the great council, is
   freely acknowledged by Lindewode, the ablest canonist of the
   fifteenth century. Testamentary causes, he observes, belong to
   the ecclesiastical courts 'de consuetudine Angliae, et super
   consensu regio et suorum procerum in talibus ab antiquo
   concesso.'"

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, pages 91-95._

{1988}

   Jurisdiction in testamentary causes was taken away from the
   ecclesiastical courts by Statutes 20 and 21 Vic., c. 77 and 21
   and 22 Vic., chapters 56 and 95, and was transferred to the
   court of Probate. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was
   transferred to the Divorce Court by Statute 20 and 21 Vic., 85.

   ----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: End--------

   ----------EQUITY: Start--------

Equity.

EQUITY: A. D. 449-1066.
   Early Masters in Chancery.

   "As we approach the era of the Conquest, we find distinct
   traces of the Masters in Chancery, who, though in sacred
   orders, were well trained in jurisprudence, and assisted the
   chancellor in preparing writs and grants, as well as in the
   service of the royal chapel. They formed a sort of college of
   justice, of which he was the head. They all sate in the
   Wittenagemote, and, as 'Law Lords', are supposed to have had
   great weight in the deliberations of that assembly."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 53._

EQUITY: A. D. 596.
   Chancellor, Keeper of the Great Seal.

   "From the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity by
   the preaching of St. Augustine, the King always had near his
   person a priest, to whom was entrusted the care of his chapel,
   and who was his confessor. This person, selected from the most
   learned and able of his order, and greatly superior in
   accomplishments to the unlettered laymen attending the Court,
   soon acted as private secretary to the King, and gained his
   confidence in affairs of state. The present demarcation
   between civil and ecclesiastical employments was then little
   regarded, and to this same person was assigned the business of
   superintending writs and grants, with the custody of the great
   seal."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 27._

EQUITY: A. D. 1066.
   Master of the Rolls.

   "The office of master, formerly called the Clerk or Keeper of
   the Rolls, is recognized at this early period, though at this
   time he appears to have been the Chancellor's deputy, not an
   independent officer."

      _Geo. Spence,
      Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
      volume 1, page 100._

EQUITY: A. D. 1066-1154.
   Chancellor as Secretary of State.

   Under the Norman Kings, the Chancellor was a kind of secretary
   of state. His functions were political rather than judicial.
   He attended to the royal correspondence, kept the royal
   accounts, and drew up writs for the administration of justice.
   He was also the keeper of the seal.

      _Montague's Elements of Constitutional History of England,
      page 27._

      See, also, CHANCELLOR.

A. D. 1067.
   First Lord Chancellor.

   "The first keeper of the seals who was endowed with the title
   of Lord Chancellor was Maurice, who received the great seal in
   1067. The incumbents of the office were for a long period
   ecclesiastics; and they usually enjoyed episcopal or
   archiepiscopal rank, and lived in the London palaces attached
   to their sees or provinces. The first Keeper of the seals of
   England was Fitzgilbert, appointed by Queen Matilda soon after
   her coronation, and there was no other layman appointed until
   the reign of Edward III."

      _L. J. Bigelow,
      Bench and Bar,
      page 23._

EQUITY: A. D. 1169.
   Uses and Trusts.

   "According to the law of England, trusts may be created 'inter
   vivos' as well as by testament, and their history is a curious
   one, beginning, like that of the Roman 'fidei commissa,' with
   an attempt to evade the law. The Statutes of Mortmain, passed
   to prevent the alienation of lands to religious houses, led to
   the introduction of 'uses,' by which the grantor alienated his
   land to a friend to hold 'to the use' of a monastery, the
   clerical chancellors giving legal validity to the wish thus
   expressed. Although this particular device was put a stop to
   by 15 Ric. II. c. 5, 'uses' continued to be employed for other
   purposes, having been found more malleable than what was
   called, by way of contrast, 'the legal estate.' They offered
   indeed so many modes of escaping the rigour of the law, that,
   after several other statutes had been passed with a view of
   curtailing their advantages, the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 enacted
   that, where anyone was seised to a use, the legal estate
   should be deemed to be in him to whose use he was seised. The
   statute did not apply to trusts of personal property, nor to
   trusts of land where any active duty was cast upon the
   trustee, nor where a use was limited 'upon a use,' i. e. where
   the person in whose favour a use was created was himself to
   hold the estate to the use of some one else. There continued
   therefore to be a number of cases in which, in spite of the
   'Statute of Uses,' the Court of Chancery was able to carry out
   its policy of enforcing what had otherwise been merely moral
   duties. The system thus arising has grown to enormous
   dimensions, and trusts, which, according to the definition of
   Lord Hardwicke, are 'such a confidence between parties that no
   action at law will lie, but there is merely a case for the
   consideration of courts of equity,' are inserted not only in
   wills, but also in marriage settlements, arrangements with
   creditors, and numberless other instruments necessary for the
   comfort of families and the development of commerce."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 217._

EQUITY: A. D. 1253.
   A Lady Keeper of the Seals.

   "Having occasion to cross the sea and visit Gascony, A. D.
   1253, Henry III. made her [Queen Eleanor] keeper of the seal
   during his absence, and in that character she in her own
   person presided in the 'Aula Regia,' hearing causes, and, it
   is to be feared, forming her decisions less in accordance with
   justice than her own private interests. Never did judge set
   law and equity more fearfully at naught."

      _L. J. Bigelow,
      Bench and Bar,
      page 28._

EQUITY: A. D. 1258.
   No Writs except De Cursu.

   "In the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were promulgated;
   two separate clauses of which bound the chancellor to issue no
   more writs except writs 'of course' without command of the
   King and his Council present with him. This, with the growing
   independence of the judiciary on the one hand, and the
   settlement of legal process on the other, terminated the right
   to issue special writs, and at last fixed the common writs in
   unchangeable form; most of which had by this time become
   developed into the final form in which for six centuries they
   were treated as precedents of declaration."

      _M. M. Bigelow,
      History of Procedure,
      page 197._

EQUITY: A. D. 1272-1307.
   The Chancellor's functions.

   "In the reign of Edward I. the Chancellor begins to appear in
   the three characters in which we now know him; as a great
   political officer, as the head of a department for the issue
   of writs and the custody of documents in which the King's
   interest is concerned, as the administrator of the King's
   grace."

      _Sir William H. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      part 2, page 146._

{1989}

EQUITY: A. D. 1330.
   Chancery stationary at Westminster.

   "There was likewise introduced about this time a great
   improvement in the administration of justice, by rendering the
   Court of Chancery stationary at Westminster. The ancient kings
   of England were constantly migrating,—one principal reason
   for which was, that the same part of the country, even with
   the aid of purveyance and pre-emption, could not long support
   the court and all the royal retainers, and render in kind due
   to the King could be best consumed on the spot. Therefore, if
   he kept Christmas at Westminster, he would keep Easter at
   Winchester, and Pentecost at Gloucester, visiting his many
   palaces and manors in rotation. The Aula Regis, and afterwards
   the courts into which it was partitioned, were ambulatory
   along with him—to the great vexation of the suitors. This
   grievance was partly corrected by Magna Charta, which enacted
   that the Court of Common Pleas should be held 'in a certain
   place,'—a corner of Westminster Hall being fixed upon for
   that purpose. In point of law, the Court of King's Bench and
   the Court of Chancery may still be held in any county of
   England,—'wheresoever in England the King or the Chancellor
   may be.' Down to the commencement of the reign of Edward III.,
   the King's Bench and the Chancery actually had continued to
   follow the King's person, the Chancellor and his officers
   being entitled to part of the purveyance made for the royal
   household. By 28 Edw. 1., c. 5, the Lord Chancellor and the
   Justices of the King's Bench were ordered to follow the King,
   so that he might have at all times near him sages of the law
   able to order all matters which should come to the Court. But
   the two Courts were now by the King's command fixed in the
   places where, unless on a few extraordinary occasions, they
   continued to be held down to our own times, at the upper end
   of Westminster Hall, the King's Bench on the left hand, and
   the Chancery on the right, both remaining open to the Hall,
   and a bar erected to keep off the multitude from pressing on
   the judges."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 181._

EQUITY: A. D. 1348.
   "Matters of Grace" committed to the Chancellor.

   "In the 22nd year of Edward III, matters which were of grace
   were definitely committed to the Chancellor for decision, and
   from this point there begins to develop that body of
   rules—supplementing the deficiencies or correcting the
   harshness of the Common Law—which we call Equity."

      _Sir W. R. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      part 2, page 147._

      ALSO IN:
      _Kerly's History of the Court of Chancery,
      page 31._

EQUITY: A. D. 1383.
   Early Instance of Subpoena.

   "It is said that John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, who was
   Keeper of the Rolls about the 5th of Richard II., considerably
   enlarged this new jurisdiction; that, to give efficacy to it,
   he invented, or more properly, was the first who adopted in
   that court, the writ of subpoena, a process which had before
   been used by the council, and is very plainly alluded to in
   the statutes of the last reign, though not under that name.
   This writ summoned the party to appear under a penalty, and
   answer such things as should be objected against him; upon
   this a petition was lodged, containing the articles of
   complaint to which he was then compelled to answer. These
   articles used to contain suggestions of injuries suffered, for
   which no remedy was to be had in the courts of common law, and
   therefore the complainant prayed advice and relief of the
   chancellor."

      _J. Reeves,
      History English Law (Finlason's edition),
      volume 3, page 384._

EQUITY: A. D. 1394.
   Chancery with its own Mode of Procedure.

   "From the time of passing the stat. 17 Richard II. we may
   consider that the Court of Chancery was established as a
   distinct and permanent court, having separate jurisdiction,
   with its own peculiar mode of procedure similar to that which
   had prevailed in the Council, though perhaps it was not wholly
   yet separated from the Council."

      _George Spence,
      Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
      volume 1, page 345._

EQUITY: A. D. 1422.
   Chancery Cases appear in Year Books.

   "It is beyond a doubt that this [chancery] court had begun to
   exercise its judicial authority in the reigns of Richard II.,
   Henry IV. and V. … But we do not find in our books any
   report of cases there determined till 37 Henry VI., except
   only on the subject of uses; which, as has been before
   remarked, might give rise to the opinion, that the first
   equitable judicature was concerned in the support of uses."

      _J. Reeves,
      History English Law (Finlason's edition),
      volume 3, page 553._

EQUITY: A. D. 1443.
   No distinction between Examination and Answer.

   The earliest record of written answers is in 21 Henry VI.
   Before that time little, if any, distinction was made
   between the examination and the answer.

      _Kerly,
      History of Courts of Chancery,
      page 51._

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
   Distinction between Proceeding by Bill and by Petition.

   "A written statement of the grievance being required to be
   filed before the issuing of the subpoena, with security to pay
   damages and costs,—bills now acquired form, and the
   distinction arose between the proceeding by bill and by
   petition. The same regularity was observed in the subsequent
   stages of the suit. Whereas formerly the defendant was
   generally examined viva voce when he appeared in obedience to
   the subpoena, the practice now was to put in a written answer,
   commencing with a protestation against the truth or
   sufficiency of the matters contained in the bill, stating the
   facts relied upon by the defendant, and concluding with a
   prayer that he may be dismissed, with his costs. There were
   likewise, for the purpose of introducing new facts, special
   replications and rejoinders, which continued till the reign of
   Elizabeth, but which have been rendered unnecessary by the
   modern practice of amending the bill and answer. Pleas and
   demurrers now appear. Although the pleadings were in English,
   the decrees on the bill continued to be in Latin down to the
   reign of Henry VIII. Bills to perpetuate testimony, to set out
   metes and bounds, and for injunctions against proceedings at
   law, and to stay waste, became frequent."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 309._

{1990}

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
   Jurisdiction of Chancery over Trusts.

   "The equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery may be
   considered as making its greatest advances in this reign
   [Edw. IV.]. The point was now settled, that there being a
   feoffment to uses, the 'cestui que' use, or person
   beneficially entitled, could maintain no action at law, the
   Judges saying that he had neither 'jus in re' nor 'jus ad
   rem,' and that their forms could not be moulded so as to
   afford him any effectual relief, either as to the land or the
   profits. The Chancellors, therefore, with general applause,
   declared that they would proceed by subpoena against the
   feoffee to compel him to perform a duty which in conscience
   was binding upon him, and gradually extended the remedy
   against his heir and against his alienee with notice of the
   trust, although they held, as their successors have done, that
   the purchaser of the legal estate for valuable consideration
   without notice might retain the land for his own benefit. They
   therefore now freely made decrees requiring the trustee to
   convey according to the directions of the 'cestui que trust,'
   or person beneficially interested; and the most important
   branch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court over trusts
   was firmly and irrevocably established."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 309._

EQUITY: A. D. 1538.
   Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.

   "Between the death, resignation, or removal of one chancellor,
   and the appointment of another, the Great Seal, instead of
   remaining in the personal custody of the Sovereign, was
   sometimes entrusted to a temporal keeper, either with limited
   authority (as only to seal writs), or with all the powers,
   though not with the rank of Chancellor. At last the practice
   grew up of occasionally appointing a person to hold the Great
   Seal with the title of 'Keeper,' where it was meant that he
   should permanently hold it in his own right and discharge all
   the duties belonging to it. Queen Elizabeth, ever sparing in
   the conferring of dignities, having given the Great Seal with
   the title of 'Keeper' to Sir Nicholas Bacon, objections were
   made to the legality of some of his acts,—and to obviate
   these, a statute was passed declaring that 'the Lord Keeper of
   the Great Seal for the time being shall have the same place,
   pre-eminence, and jurisdiction as the Lord Chancellor of
   England.' Since then there never have been a Chancellor and
   Keeper of the Great Seal concurrently, and the only difference
   between the two titles is, that the one is more sounding than
   the other, and is regarded as a higher mark of royal favor."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. R. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      volume 2, page 150._

EQUITY: A. D. 1558.
   Increase of Business in the Court of Chancery.

   "The business of the Court of Chancery had now so much
   increased that to dispose of it satisfactorily required a
   Judge regularly trained to the profession of the law, and
   willing to devote to it all his energy and industry. The
   Statute of Wills, the Statute of Uses, the new modes of
   conveyancing introduced for avoiding transmutation of
   possession, the questions which arose respecting the property
   of the dissolved monasteries, and the great increase of
   commerce and wealth in the nation, brought such a number of
   important suits into the Court of Chancery, that the holder of
   the Great Seal could no longer satisfy the public by
   occasionally stealing a few hours from his political
   occupations, to dispose of bills and petitions, and not only
   was his daily attendance demanded in Westminster Hall during
   term time, but it was necessary that he should sit, for a
   portion of each vacation, either at his own house, or in some
   convenient place appointed by him for clearing off his
   arrears."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 2, page 95._

EQUITY: A. D. 1567-1632.
   Actions of Assumpsit in Equity.

   "The late development of the implied contract to pay 'quantum
   meruit,' and to indemnify a surety, would be the more
   surprising, but for the fact that Equity gave relief to
   tailors and the like, and to sureties long before the common
   law held them. Spence, although at a loss to account for the
   jurisdiction, mentions a suit brought in Chancery, in 1567, by
   a tailor, to recover the amount due for clothes furnished. The
   suit was referred to the Queen's tailor, to ascertain the
   amount due, and upon his report a decree was made. The learned
   writer adds that 'there were suits for wages and many others
   of like nature.' A surety who had no counter-bond filed a bill
   against his principal in 1632, in a case which would seem to
   have been one of the earliest of the kind, for the reporter,
   after stating that there was a decree for the plaintiff, adds
   'quod nota.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 59-60)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1592.
   All Chancellors, save one, Lawyers.

   "No regular judicial system at that time prevailed in the
   court; but the suitor when he thought himself aggrieved, found
   a desultory and uncertain remedy, according to the private
   opinion of the chancellor, who was generally an ecclesiastic,
   or sometimes (though rarely) a statesman: no lawyer having sat
   in the court of chancery from the times of the chief justices
   Thorpe and Knyvet, successively chancellors to King Edward
   III. in 1372 and 1373, to the promotion of Sir Thomas More by
   King Henry VIII., in 1530. After which the great seal was
   indiscriminately committed to the custody of lawyers or
   courtiers, or churchmen, according as the convenience of the
   times and the disposition of the prince required, till
   Sargeant Puckering was made lord keeper in 1592; from which
   time to the present the court of chancery has always been
   filled by a lawyer, excepting the interval from 1621 to 1625,
   when the seal was entrusted to Dr. Williams, then dean of
   Westminster, but afterwards bishop of Lincoln; who had been
   chaplain to Lord Ellesmere when chancellor."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, chapter 4._

EQUITY: A. D. 1595.
   Injunctions against Suits at Law.
   Opposition of common law courts.

   "The strongest inclination was shown to maintain this
   opposition to the court of equity, not only by the courts, but
   by the legislature. The stat. 27 Elizabeth, c, l., which, in
   very general words, restrains all application to other
   jurisdictions to impeach or impede the execution of judgments
   given in the king's courts, under penalty of a praemunire, has
   been interpreted, as well as stat. Richard II., c. 5, not only
   as imposing a restraint upon popish claims of judicature, but
   also of the equitable jurisdiction in Chancery; and in the
   thirty-first and thirty-second years of this reign, a
   counsellor-at-law was indicted in the King's Bench on the
   statute of praemunire, for exhibiting a bill in Chancery after
   judgment had gone against his client in the King's Bench.
   Under this and the like control, the Court of Chancery still
   continued to extend its authority, supported, in some degree,
   by the momentum it acquired in the time of Cardinal Wolsey."

      _J. Reeves,
      History English Law (Finlason's edition.),
      volume 5, pages 386-387._

{1991}

EQUITY: A. D. 1596.
   Lord Ellesmere and his Decisions.

   Kerly says the earliest chancellors' decisions that have come
   down to us are those of Lord Ellesmere. He was the first
   chancellor to establish equity upon the basis of precedents.
   But compare Reeves (Finlason's), History English Law, volume
   3, page 553, who mentions decisions in the Year Books.

      _Kerly,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      page 98._

EQUITY: A. D. 1601.
   Cy Pres Doctrine.

   "There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in
   England before the Reformation, although in the earliest
   reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a
   well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the
   traditional favour with which charities had always been
   regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction
   of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the
   fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as
   they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety
   of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious
   houses, and the application of the subject matter of such
   gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different
   Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the
   religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed
   to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the
   latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence
   of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not
   until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually
   merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed,
   in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not
   necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that
   actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty
   conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery
   Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and
   independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c.
   4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a
   trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery
   Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have
   gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally;
   but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the
   Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this
   way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct
   jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts
   respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which,
   though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon
   in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69.
   If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all
   charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the
   Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was
   still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we
   shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still
   remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see
   hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when
   the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the
   charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles
   of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts
   were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And
   hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised,
   though the mode of its application has varied from time to
   time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal
   construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by
   a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth
   with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such
   uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise
   under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as
   operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in
   equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour
   of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be
   supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be
   no connection between the power of the King over the
   administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved
   to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have
   seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his
   capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly
   out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as
   the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times.
   By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the
   King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts
   was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable
   corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only
   voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his
   default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,'
   which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal
   license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity
   of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared
   illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that
   the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such
   suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary
   sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it
   was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in
   Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in
   Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right
   of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing
   power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right,
   became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The
   celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against
   superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory
   recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to
   the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King."
   The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent
   developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The
   doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.

      _H. L. Manby
      in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser.,
      volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203._

EQUITY: A. D. 1603-1625.
   Equity and the Construction of Wills.

   "After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord
   Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay
   by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally
   established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another
   attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the
   validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the
   validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts
   of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the
   Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction
   upon them when their validity has been established."

   _Lord Campbell,
   Lives of the Chancellors,
   volume 2, page 386._

EQUITY: A. D. 1612.
   Right of Redemption.

   The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of
   James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor
   could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral
   agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.

      _Kerly,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      page 143._

{1992}

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
   Contest between Equity and Common-Law Courts.

   "In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable
   dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by
   Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's
   bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or
   against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so
   warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the
   suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in
   chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning
   in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench,
   obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being
   brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned
   counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly
   in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave
   judgment in their behalf."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 54._

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
   Relief against judgments at law.

   "This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between
   Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to
   restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by
   fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific
   performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate
   remedy, has never since been questioned."

      _J. B. Ames,
      Specific Performance of Contracts
      (The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1671.
   The Doctrine of Tacking established.

   "It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if
   there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly
   registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a
   second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may
   purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage,
   and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and
   gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the
   first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but
   the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he
   stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his
   money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English
   law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last
   mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had
   notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The
   English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in
   Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir
   Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in
   shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was
   afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master
   of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms.
   491]."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 6, lecture 58._

EQUITY: A. D. 1702-1714.
   Equitable conversion.

   "He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine,
   that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid
   out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to
   collateral heirs."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 4, page 374._

EQUITY: A. D. 1736-1756.
   Lord Hardwicke developed System of Precedents.

   It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity
   was fully developed. During the twenty years of his
   chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction
   were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as
   authority until after Lord Eldon's time.

      _Kerly,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      pages 175-177._

EQUITY: A. D. 1742.
   Control of Corporations.

   "That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs
   honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation
   itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The
   only authority before the present century is the case of the
   Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2
   Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent
   decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing
   an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was
   charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for
   lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the
   directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were
   made without proper security. The bill was against the
   directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a
   breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke
   granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well
   worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly
   agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower
   them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation.
   In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or
   omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever
   determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every
   breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a
   private or public capacity.'"

      _S. Williston,
      History of the Law of Business
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 158-159)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1782.
   Demurrer to Bill of Discovery.

   "Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a
   demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it
   were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought
   or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase
   for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that
   plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not
   entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not
   likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it
   at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned,
   and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid
   of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the
   defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that
   it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and,
   therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later
   in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a
   defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for
   discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and,
   though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his
   decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled
   that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by
   demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if
   successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 204-205._

{1993}

EQUITY: A. D. 1786.
   Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.

   "As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor
   will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into
   court, an injunction ought to be granted against the
   enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at
   law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for
   more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was
   granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that
   granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v.
   Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington,
   … an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was
   resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance,
   however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted.
   This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded
   as settled."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Equity Jurisdiction
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 122-123)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1792.
   Negative Pleas.

   "In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens,
   657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord
   Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years
   later, the question came before the same judge again, and,
   after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman
   v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792,
   in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in
   Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he
   had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas,
   and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the
   right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      p. 114, note._

EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827.
   Lord Eldon settled Rules of Equity.

   "'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself,
   'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those
   of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking
   care that they are to be applied according to the
   circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines
   of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge.
   Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection
   that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the
   Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.'
   Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted
   upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of
   equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of
   cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be
   discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent
   Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord
   Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and
   to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History Court Chancery,
      page 182._

EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
   Judge Story.

   "We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of
   judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor
   almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the
   history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court
   comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme
   Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these
   decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them
   of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of
   law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder.
   When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite
   vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as
   Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up
   the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence.
   In questions of international and constitutional law, the
   breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine
   with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there
   is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly
   illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty,
   patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so
   called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The
   most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in
   which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;
   Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate
   jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth
   College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the
   charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the
   constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any
   State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his
   dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The
   Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as
   the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These
   are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores
   of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal
   profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of
   his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and
   compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of
   Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those
   of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only
   to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of
   illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand
   alone."

      _Irving Browne,
      Short Studies of Great Lawyers,
      pages 293-295._

EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823.
   Chancellor Kent.

   "In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers
   and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly
   defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions,
   to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any
   other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the
   English chancery as he deemed applicable under the
   Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction
   of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July,
   1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period
   limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he
   retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case
   that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members
   of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an
   address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred
   on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty
   years they say: 'During this long course of services, so
   useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant
   period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of
   decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical
   wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate
   discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our
   jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been
   sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the
   enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may
   hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid
   foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our
   government, in that common law which they claimed for the people
   as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent
   structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command
   the applause of the present generation, and exciting the
   admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"

      _Charles B. Waite,
      James Kent
      (Chicago Law Times,
      volume 3, pages 339-341)._

{1994}

EQUITY: A. D. 1821.
   Negative Pleas to be supported by an Answer.

   "The principle of negative pleas was first established by the
   introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at
   first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure
   negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a
   defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet
   the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some
   material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant
   could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would
   thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the
   bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such
   a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it
   prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully
   established. If they had been well understood, they might have
   proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign
   to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it
   was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief
   and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into
   disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a
   long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an
   answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until
   the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74,
   decided in 1821."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 113-114._

EQUITY: A. D. 1834.
   First Statute of Limitations in Equity.

   "None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4
   Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity.
   Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions
   at law, but named specifically all actions to which they
   applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity.
   If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an
   action at law, and the time for bringing the action was
   limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be
   pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say
   that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have
   been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore,
   was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause
   was not one of which a court of equity ought to take
   cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case
   would be to the jurisdiction of the court."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 149-150._

EQUITY: A. D. 1836.
   Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in
   England.

   "The most accurate definition of the nature of the property
   acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation
   is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the
   stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to
   have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning
   of the present century. The old idea was rather that the
   corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and
   that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que
   trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property.
   … It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C.
   268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in
   England."

      _S. Williston,
      History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 149-151)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1875.
   Patents, Copyrights and Trade-Marks.

   "In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from
   the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has
   conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to
   follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using
   the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right
   of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an
   indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar
   favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of
   books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the
   productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed
   question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of
   intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated
   in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems,
   are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the
   public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in
   this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the
   defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L.
   J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so
   described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875
   [sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857
   relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The
   extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of
   comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older
   than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and
   copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8
   Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the
   present century."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 183._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. S. Drone,
      Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions._

   ----------EQUITY: End--------

   Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the
   following references:

Agrarian Laws.

      See AGRARIAN.

Assize of Jerusalem.

      See ASSIZE.

Brehon Laws.

      See BREHON.

Canuleian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 445.

Code Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

Common Law.

      See COMMON LAW.

Constitutional Laws.

      See CONSTITUTION.

Debt and Debtors.

      See DEBT.

Dioklesian Laws.

      See DIOKLES.

Dooms of Ihne.

      See DOOMS.

Draconian Laws.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

Factory Laws.

      See FACTORY.

Hortensian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 286.

Institutes and Pandects of Justinian.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

Licinian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 376.

Lycurgan Laws.

      See SPARTA.

Laws of Manu.

      See MANU.

Navigation Laws.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS.

Ogulnian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 300.

Laws of Oleron.

      See OLERON.

Poor Laws.

      See POOR LAWS.

Publilian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471, and 340.

Salic Laws.

      See SALIC.

Slave Codes.

      See SLAVERY.

Solonian Laws.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

Tariff Legislation.

      See TARIFF.

Terentilian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

The Twelve Tables.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

Valerian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 509.

Valero-Horatian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 449.

{1995}

LAWFELD, Battle of (1747).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

LAWRENCE, Captain James:
   In the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

LAWRENCE, Lord, the Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1857 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1862-1876.

LAWRENCE, Kansas: A. D. 1863.
   Sacking of the town by Quantrell's guerrillas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

LAYBACH, Congress of.

      See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

LAZARISTS, The.

   "The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes
   called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not
   unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity."
   Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at
   the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name
   Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took
   complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical
   seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the
   Council of Trent, had been established in the various
   dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are
   under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests
   were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to
   Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."

      _J. Alzog
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, pages 463-465._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. L. S. Lear,
      Priestly Life in France,
      chapter 5._

LAZICA.
LAZIC WAR.

   "Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and
   Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541
   the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having
   accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the
   Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt
   by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong
   post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who
   claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and
   established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great
   severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians
   were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did
   so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a
   Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became
   obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were
   taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The
   Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of
   Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine
   years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great
   length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one
   which vitally concerned the interests of their country.
   According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon
   holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the
   Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his
   fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the
   shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew
   from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual
   tribute for their possession of the country.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Monarchy,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bury,
      Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 1)._

      See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

LAZZI, The.

      See LÆTI.

LEAGUE, The Achaian.

   See GREECE: B.C. 280-146.

LEAGUE, The Anti-Corn-Law.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
      A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

LEAGUE, The Borromean or Golden.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

LEAGUE, The Catholic, in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, and after.

LEAGUE, The first Catholic, in Germany.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

LEAGUE, The second Catholic, in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

LEAGUE, The Cobblers'.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE, The Delian.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

LEAGUE, The Hanseatic.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

LEAGUE, The Holy,
of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of German Catholic princes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI.,
the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Julius II.
against Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Spain, Venice and the Pope against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEAGUE, The Irish Land.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LEAGUE, The Swabian.

      See LANDFRIEDE, &c.

LEAGUE, The Union.

      See UNION LEAGUE.

LEAGUE AND COVENANT, The solemn.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

LEAGUE OF POOR CONRAD, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE OF RATISBON.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

LEAGUE OF SMALKALDE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.

LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468; also, 1453-1461.

LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.

      See RHINE LEAGUE.

LEAGUE OF TORGAU.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

LEAGUES, The Grey.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

LE BOURGET, Sortie of (1870).

      See FRANCE: A. D.1870-1871.

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).

      See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 935-955.

{1996}

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, The.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

LEE, General Charles, and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).

LEE, General Henry ("Light Horse Harry"),
and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1780-1781.

LEE, Richard Henry,
   And the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), (JULY).

LEE, Richard Henry,
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

LEE, General Robert E.
   Campaign in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.,
   Command on the Peninsula.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
   Campaign against Pope.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
   First invasion of Maryland.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

LEE, General Robert E.
   Defeat of Hooker.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
   The second movement of invasion.
   Gettysburg and after.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
      also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
   Last Campaigns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

LEEDS, Battle at (1643).

   Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile,
   was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the
   23d of January, 1643.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 9._

LEESBURG, OR BALL'S BLUFF, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

LEEWARD ISLANDS, The.

      See WEST INDIES.

LEFÈVRE, Jacques, and the Reformation in France.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

LEFT, The.
   Left Center, The.

      See RIGHT, &c.

LEGATE.

   This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or
   associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor
   to be his second-in-authority.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

LEGES JULIÆ,
LEGES SEMPRONIÆ, &c.

      See JULIAN LAWS; SEMPRONIAN LAWS, &c.

LEGION, The Roman.

   "The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar
   to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided
   into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The
   long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans
   to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their
   army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate
   bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion
   now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted
   of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average
   strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines
   of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard.
   The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest
   troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called
   'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the
   third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and
   were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines.
   The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move
   the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,'
   or to withdraw the 'hastati ' back into the intervals of the
   'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The
   light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the
   solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged
   their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the
   combat."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 16 (volume 1)._

   "The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time
   of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which
   achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of
   Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial
   legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed
   infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided
   into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders
   of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The
   first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the
   custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most
   approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts
   consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary
   infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually
   drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet
   was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry,
   without which the force of the legion would have remained
   imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the
   first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132
   men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."

      _E. Gibbon
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

LEGION OF HONOR, Institution of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.

   The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided
   into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed
   Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles
   X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct
   line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of
   Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of
   the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV.,
   Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis
   Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848,
   and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in
   both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was
   extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de
   Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still
   maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis
   Philippe.

LEGNANO, Battle of (1176).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

LEICESTER, The Earl of, in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586; and 1587-1588.

LEINSTER TRIBUTE, The.

      See BOARIAN TRIBUTE.

{1997}

   ----------LEIPSIC: Start----------

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1631.
   Battle of Breitenfeld, before the city.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.
   Second Battle of Breitenfeld.
   Surrender of the city to the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
   Regained by the French.
   The great "Battle of the Nations."

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
      1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

   ----------LEIPSIC: End----------

LEIPSIC, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.

LEITH, The Concordat of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

LEKHS, The.

      See LYGIANS.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

LELANTIAN FIELDS.
LELANTIAN FEUD.

      See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA; and EUBŒA.

LELEGES, The.

   "The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were
   however not merely designated in groups, according to the
   countries out of which they came, but certain collective names
   existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among
   all these names the most widely spread was that of the
   Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a
   mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these
   Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of
   coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the
   people of Ionic Greeks."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

LELIAERDS.

   In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of
   the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish
   for lily.

      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip van Arteveld,
      page 32, foot-note._

LE MANS: Defeat of the Vendéans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LE MANS, Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

LEMNOS.

   One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean
   Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently
   associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious
   worship of the Cabeiri.

LEMOVICES, The.

   The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's
   time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin
   —department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

   The city of Limoges derived its existence and its name from
   the Lemovices.

LEMOVII, The.

   A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic
   coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on
   that of the Gothones.

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

LENAPE, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

LENS, Siege and battle (1647-1648).

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LENTIENSES, The.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

LEO I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 457-474.

   Leo II., Pope, 682-683.

   Leo II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 474.

   Leo III., Pope, 795-816.

   Leo III. (called The Isaurian),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.

   Leo IV., Pope, 847-855.

   Leo IV., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 775-780.

   Leo V., Pope, 903, October to December.

   Leo V., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 813-820.

   Leo VI., Pope, 928-929.

   Leo VI., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 886-911.

   Leo VII., Pope, 936-939.

   Leo VIII., Anti-pope, 963-965.

   Leo IX., Pope, 1049-1054.

   Leo X., Pope, 1513-1521.

   Leo XI., Pope, 1605, April 2-27.

   Leo XII., Pope, 1823-1829.

   Leo XIII., Pope, 1878.

LEOBEN, Preliminary treaty of (1797).

      See FRANCE: A.D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LEODIS (WEREGILD).

      See GRAF.

LEON, Ponce de, and his quest.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

   ----------LEON: Start--------

LEON,
   Origin of the name of the city and kingdom.

   "This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by
   its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum
   Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

LEON:
   Origin of the kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

LEON:
   Union of the kingdom with Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230; and 1212-1238.

   ----------LEON: End--------

LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

LEONINE CITY, The

      See VATICAN.

LEONTINI.
   The Leontine War.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

LEONTIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 695-698.

LEOPOLD I.,
   Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;
   King of Hungary, 1655-1705:
   King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.

   Leopold I., King of Belgium, 1831-1865.

   Leopold II., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
   Bohemia, 1790-1792.

   Leopold II., King of Belgium, 1865.

LEPANTO, Naval Battle of (1571).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEPERS AND JEWS, Persecution of.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1321.

LIPIDUS, Revolutionary attempt of.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

LEPTA.

      See TALENT.

LEPTIS MAGNA.

   "The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was
   the capital of this part of the province [the tract of
   north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater
   Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of
   Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region
   of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the
   site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which
   are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three
   together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this
   region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca.
   Hence the modern appellation."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2)._

      See, also, CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

{1998}

LERIDA: B. C. 49.
   Cæsar's success against the Pompeians.

         See ROME: B. C. 49.

LERIDA: A. D. 1644-1646,
   Sieges and battle.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LERIDA: A. D. 1707.
   Stormed and sacked by the French and Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

   ----------LESBOS: Start--------

LESBOS.

   The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the
   Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was
   particularly distinguished in the early literary history of
   ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian
   school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion
   were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the
   important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration,
   but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the
   fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene
   (which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized
   the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene
   by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that
   struggle.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 14 and 50._

      See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      and GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

LESBOS: B. C. 412.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

   ----------LESBOS: End--------

LESCHE, The.

   The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of
   the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a
   place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly
   the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in
   winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their
   juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
      volume 2, page 396._

   "The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original
   source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was
   the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the
   public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and
   exchanged merry talk."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, page 220 (American edition)._

LESCO V.,
   Duke of Poland, A. D. 1194-1227.

   Lesco VI., Duke of Poland, 1279-1289.

LESE-MAJESTY.

   A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the
   Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the
   king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in
   the crime of "lese-majesty."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 21, section 786._

LE TELLIER, and the suppression of Port Royal.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

LETTER OF MAJESTY, The.

      See BOHEMIA. A. D. 1611-1618.

LETTERS OF MARQUE.

      See PRIVATEERS.

LETTRE DE CACHET.

   "In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private
   letter of state: a name given especially to a written order
   proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a
   secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means
   of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and
   18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without
   trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government,
   often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous
   pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."

      _Century Dictionary._

   "The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet
   to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the
   administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as
   50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more
   lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a
   profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to
   get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were
   inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of
   imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through
   good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a
   lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too
   good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The
   government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the
   friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or
   mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible
   orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was
   the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost
   all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their
   pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor
   fellow was shut up, to think of his position."

      _J. Michelet,
      Historical View of the French Revolution,
      introduction, part 2, section 9._

LETTS.

      See LITHUANIANS.

LEUCADIA,
LEUCAS.

   Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of
   Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who
   cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the
   same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian
   League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of
   the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which
   crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's
   suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.

LEUCÆ, Battle of.

   The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans
   by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to
   resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls
   of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success
   and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus
   surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in
   Pergamum was ended.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

LEUCATE, Siege and Battle (1637).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

LEUCI, The.

   A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the
   modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the
   Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

LEUCTRA, Battle of (B. C. 371).

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

LEUD, OR LIDUS, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEUDES.

   "The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were
   called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,'
   'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist.
   de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means
   a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army
   or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free
   fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time
   the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent
   and powerful warriors alone."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 12, foot-note._

{1999}

LEUGA, The.

   "The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked
   according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and
   up to the end of the second century this applied also to those
   [the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was
   taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile
   correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a
   Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and
   a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German
   'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of the Romans,
      book 8, chapter 3._

LEUKAS.

      See KORKYRA.

LEUKOPETRA, Battle of (B. C. 146).

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

LEUTHEN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LEVELLERS, The.

   "Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary
   Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement
   more particularly against the House of Lords, were the
   pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of
   his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets …
   which … were popular with the common soldiers of the
   Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the
   democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the
   House of Lords and see England governed by a single
   Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of
   democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation,
   distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough
   ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable
   under the name of The Levellers."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 3, book 4, chapter 1._

   "They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic
   Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying
   out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of
   the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate
   varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man.
   The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely
   denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise
   they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no
   man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own
   conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and
   found their interpretation of it carrying them further and
   further away from English traditions and habits, whether of
   Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which
   broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern
   vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being
   executed.

      _J. A. Picton,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 17._

LEWES, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1801.

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

   ----------LEXINGTON: Start--------

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI, Siege of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI: Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

   ----------LEXINGTON: End--------

LEXOVII, The.

   The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in
   the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name,
   in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between
   Caen and Evreux.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

   ----------LEYDEN: Start--------

LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.
   Siege by the Spaniards.
   Relief by the flooding of the land.
   The founding of the University.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574;
      and EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: NETHERLANDS.

LEYDEN: A. D. 1609-1620.
   The Sojourn of the Pilgrim Fathers.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

   ----------LEYDEN: End--------

LHASSA, the seat of the Grand Lama.

      See LAMAS.

LIA-FAIL, The.

   "The Tuatha-de-Danaan [the people who preceded the Milesians
   in colonizing Ireland, according to the fabulous Irish
   histories] brought with them from Scandinavia, among other
   extraordinary things, three marvellous treasures, the
   Lia-Fail, or Stone of Destiny, the Sorcerer's Spear, and the
   Magic Caldron, all celebrated in the old Irish romances. The
   Lia-Fail possessed the remarkable property of making a strange
   noise and becoming wonderfully disturbed, whenever a monarch
   of Ireland of pure blood was crowned, and a prophecy was
   attached to it, that whatever country possessed it should be
   ruled over by a king of Irish descent, and enjoy uninterrupted
   success and prosperity. It was preserved at Cashel, where the
   kings of Munster were crowned upon it. According to some
   writers it was afterwards kept at the Hill of Tara, where it
   remained until it was carried to Scotland by an Irish prince,
   who succeeded to the crown of that country. There it was
   preserved at Scone, until Edward I. carried it away into
   England, and placed it under the seat of the coronation chair
   of our kings, where it still remains. … It seems to be the
   opinion of some modern antiquarians that a pillar stone still
   remaining at the Hill of Tara is the true Lia-Fail, which in
   that case was not carried to Scotland."

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2, and foot-note._

      See, also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

LIBBY PRISON.

      See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

LIBERAL ARTS, The Seven.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

LIBERAL UNIONISTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

LIBERI HOMINES.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

LIBERIA, The founding of the Republic of.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

LIBERTINES OF GENEVA, The.

   The party which opposed Calvin's austere and arbitrary rule in
   Geneva were called Libertines.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      John Calvin,
      chapter 9-16._

LIBERTINI.

      See INGENUI.

LIBERTY BELL, The.

      See INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{2000}

LIBERTY BOYS.

   The name by which the Sons of Liberty of the American
   Revolution were familiarly known.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765; NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774;
      and LIBERTY TREE.

LIBERTY CAP.

   "This emblem, like many similar ones received by the
   revolutions from the hand of chance, was a mystery even to
   those who wore it. It had been adopted [at Paris] for the
   first time on the day of the triumph of the soldiers of
   Châteauvieux [April 15, 1792, when 41 Swiss soldiers of the
   regiment of Châteauvieux, condemned to the galleys for
   participation in a dangerous mutiny of the garrison at Nancy
   in 1790, but liberated in compliance with the demands of the
   mob, were fêted as heroes by the Jacobins of Paris]. Some said
   it was the coiffure of the galley-slaves, once infamous, but
   glorious since it had covered the brows of these martyrs of
   the insurrection; and they added that the people wished to
   purify this head-dress from every stain by wearing it
   themselves. Others only saw in it the Phrygian bonnet, a
   symbol of freedom for slaves. The 'bonnet rouge' had from its
   first appearance been the subject of dispute and dissension
   amongst the Jacobins; the 'exaltés' wore it, whilst the
   'modérés' yet abstained from adopting it." Robespierre and his
   immediate followers opposed the "frivolity" of the "bonnet
   rouge," and momentarily suppressed it in the Assembly. "But
   even the voice of Robespierre, and the resolutions of the
   Jacobins, could not arrest the outbreak of enthusiasm that had
   placed the sign of 'avenging equality' ('l'égalité
   vengeresse') on every head; and the evening of the day on
   which it was repudiated at the Jacobins' saw it inaugurated at
   all the theatres. The bust of Voltaire, the destroyer of
   prejudice, was adorned with the Phrygian cap of liberty,
   amidst the shouts of the spectators, whilst the cap and pike
   became the uniform and weapon of the citizen soldier."

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      book 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

LIBERTY GAP, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

LIBERTY PARTY AND LIBERTY LEAGUE.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1847.

LIBERTY TREE AND LIBERTY HALL.

   "Lafayette said, when in Boston, 'The world should never
   forget the spot where once stood Liberty Tree, so famous in
   your annals.' … The open space at the four corners of
   Washington, Essex, and Boylston streets was once known as
   Hanover Square, from the royal house of Hanover, and sometimes
   as the Elm Neighborhood, from the magnificent elms with which
   it was environed. It was one of the finest of these that
   obtained the name of Liberty Tree, from its being used on the
   first occasion of resistance to the obnoxious Stamp Act. …
   At daybreak on the 14th August, 1765, nearly ten years before
   active hostilities broke out, an effigy of Mr. Oliver, the
   Stamp officer, and a boot, with the Devil peeping out of
   it,—an allusion to Lord Bute,—was discovered hanging from
   Liberty Tree. The images remained hanging all day, and were
   visited by great numbers of people, both from the town and the
   neighboring country. Business was almost suspended.
   Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to take the
   figures down, but he was obliged to admit that he dared not do
   so. As the day closed in the effigies were taken down, placed
   upon a bier, and, followed by several thousand people of every
   class and condition," were borne through the city and then
   burned, after which much riotous conduct on the part of the
   crowd occurred. In 1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act took
   place, a large copper plate was fastened to the tree,
   inscribed in golden characters:—'This tree was planted in the
   year 1646, and pruned by order of the Sons of Liberty,
   February 14th, 1766.' … The ground immediately about Liberty
   Tree was popularly known as Liberty Hall. In August, 1767, a
   flagstaff had been erected, which went through and extended
   above its highest branches. A flag hoisted upon this staff was
   the signal for the assembling of the Sons of Liberty. … In
   August, 1775, the name of Liberty having become offensive to
   the Tories and their British allies, the tree was cut down by
   a party led by one Job Williams."

      _S. A. Drake,
      Old Landmarks of Boston,
      chapter 14._

LIBERUM VETO, The.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

LIBRA, The Roman.

    The ancient Roman unit of weight was the libra, or pondus,
    from which the modern names of the livre and pound are
    derived. Its weight was equal to 5,015 Troy gr. or 325 grams,
    and it was identical with the Greek-Asiatic mina."

      _H. W. Chisholm,
      Science of Weighing and Measuring,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, AS.

   ----------LIBRARIES: Start--------

LIBRARIES:
   Ancient, Babylonia and Assyria.

   "The Babylonians were … essentially a reading and writing
   people. … Books were numerous and students were many. The
   books were for the most part written upon clay [tablets] with
   a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and
   plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of
   which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus
   and possibly also parchment were employed as writing
   materials; at all events the papyrus is referred to in the
   texts."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians,
      page 30._

   "We must speak of the manner in which the tablet was formed.
   Fine clay was selected, kneaded, and moulded into the shape of
   the required tablet. One side was flat, and the other rounded.
   The writing was then inscribed on both sides, holes were
   pricked in the clay, and then it was baked. The holes allowed
   the steam which was generated during the process of baking to
   escape. It is thought that the clay used in some of the
   tablets was not only well kneaded, but ground in some kind of
   mill, for the texture of the clay is as fine as some of our
   best modern pottery. The wedges appear to have been impressed
   by a square headed instrument."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      p. 105._

{2001}

   Assurbanipal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the greatest
   and most celebrated of Assyrian monarchs. He was the principal
   patron of Assyrian literature, and the greater part of the
   grand library at Nineveh was written during his reign."

      _G. Smith,
      Assyrian Discoveries,
      chapter 18._

   "Assurbanipal is fond of old books, particularly of the old
   sacred works. He collects the scattered specimens from the
   chief cities of his empire, and even employs scribes in
   Chaldea, Ourouk, Barsippa, and Babylon to copy for him the
   tablets deposited in the temples. His principal library is at
   Nineveh, in the palace which he built for himself upon the
   banks of the Tigris, and which he has just finished
   decorating. It contains more than thirty thousand tablets,
   methodically classified and arranged in several rooms, with
   detailed catalogues for convenient reference. Many of the
   works are continued from tablet to tablet and form a series,
   each bearing the first words of the text as its title. The
   account of the creation, which begins with the phrase:
   'Formerly, that which is above was not yet called the heaven,'
   was entitled: 'Formerly, that which is above, No.1;'
   'Formerly, that which is above, No.2;' and so on to the end.
   Assurbanipal is not less proud of his love of letters than of
   his political activity, and he is anxious that posterity
   should know how much he has done for literature. His name is
   inscribed upon every work in his library, ancient and modern.
   'The palace of Assurbanipal, king of legions, king of
   multitudes, king of Assyria, to whom the god Nebo and the
   goddess Tasmetu have granted attentive ears and open eyes to
   discover the writings of the scribes of my kingdom, whom the
   kings my predecessors, have employed. In my respect for Nebo,
   the god of intelligence, I have collected these tablets; I
   have had them copied, I have marked them with my name, and I
   have deposited them in my palace.' The library at Dur-Sarginu,
   although not so rich as the one in Nineveh, is still fairly
   well supplied."

      _G. Maspéro,
      Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
      chapter 16._

   Collections of inscribed tablets had been made by
   Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, B. C. 745, who had
   copied some historical inscriptions of his predecessors.
   Sargon, the founder of the dynasty to which Assur-bani-pal
   belonged, B. C. 722, had increased this library by adding a
   collection of astrological and similar texts, and Sennacherib,
   B. C. 705, had composed copies of the Assyrian canon, short
   histories, and miscellaneous inscriptions, to add to the
   collection. Sennacherib also moved the library from Calah, its
   original seat, to Nineveh, the capital. Esarhaddon, B. C. 681,
   added numerous historical and mythological texts. All the
   inscriptions of the former kings were, however, nothing
   compared to those written during the reign of Assur-bani-pal.
   Thousands of inscribed tablets from all places, and on every
   variety of subject, were collected, and copied, and stored in
   the library of the palace at Nineveh during his reign; and by
   his statements they appear to have been intended for the
   inspection of the people, and to spread learning among the
   Assyrians. Among these tablets one class consisted of
   historical texts, some the histories of the former kings of
   Assyria, and others copies of royal inscriptions from various
   other places. Similar to these were the copies of treaties,
   despatches, and orders from the king to his generals and
   ministers, a large number of which formed part of the library.
   There was a large collection of letters of all sorts, from
   despatches to the king on the one hand, down to private notes
   on the other. Geography found a place among the sciences, and
   was represented by lists of countries, towns, rivers, and
   mountains, notices of the position, products, and character of
   districts, &c., &c. There were tables giving accounts of the
   law and legal decisions, and tablets with contracts, loans,
   deeds of sale and barter, &c. There were lists of tribute and
   taxes, accounts of property in the various cities, forming
   some approach to a census and general account of the empire.
   One large and important section of the library was devoted to
   legends of various sorts, many of which were borrowed from
   other countries. Among these were the legends of the hero
   Izdubar, perhaps the Nimrod of the Bible. One of these legends
   gives the Chaldean account of the flood, others of this
   description give various fables and stories of evil spirits.
   The mythological part of the library embraced lists of the
   gods, their titles, attributes, temples, &c., hymns in praise
   of various deities, prayers to be used by different classes of
   men to different gods, and under various circumstances, as
   during eclipses or calamities, on setting out for a campaign,
   &c., &e. Astronomy was represented by various tablets and
   works on the appearance and motions of the heavens, and the
   various celestial phenomena. Astrology was closely connected
   with Astronomy, and formed a numerous class of subjects and
   inscriptions. An interesting division was formed by the works
   on natural history; these consisted of lists of animals,
   birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, stones, &c., &c., arranged in
   classes, according to their character and affinities as then
   understood, lists of minerals and their uses, lists of foods,
   &c., &c. Mathematics and arithmetic were found, including
   square and cube root, the working out of problems, &c., &c.
   Much of the learning on these tablets was borrowed from the
   Chaldeans and the people of Babylon, and had originally been
   written in a different language and style of writing, hence it
   was necessary to have translations and explanations of many of
   these; and in order to make their meaning clear, grammars,
   dictionaries, and lexicons were prepared, embracing the
   principal features of the two languages involved, and enabling
   the Assyrians to study the older inscriptions. Such are some
   of the principal features of the grand Assyrian library, which
   Assur-bani-pal established at Nineveh, and which probably
   numbered over 10,000 clay documents."

      _George Smith,
      Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria,
      pages 188-191._

   "It is now [1882] more than thirty years since Sir Henry
   Layard, passing through one of the doorways of the partially
   explored palace in the mound of Konyunjik, guarded by
   sculptured fish gods, stood for the first time in the double
   chambers containing a large portion of the remains of the
   immense library collected by Assurbannipal, King of Nineveh.
   … Since that time, with but slight intermissions, this
   treasure-house of a forgotten past has been turned over again
   and again, notably in the expeditions of the late Mr. George
   Smith, and still the supply of its cuneiform literature is not
   exhausted. Until last year [1881] this discovery remained
   unique; but the perseverance of the British Museum authorities
   and the patient labour of Mr. Rassam were then rewarded by the
   exhumation of what is apparently the library chamber of the
   temple or palace at Sippara, with all its 10,000 tablets,
   resting undisturbed, arranged in their position on the
   shelves, just as placed in order by the librarian twenty-five
   centuries ago. …
{2002}
   From what Berosus tells us with regard to Sippara, or
   Pantibiblon (the town of books), the very city, one of whose
   libraries has just been brought to light, … it may be
   inferred that this was certainly one of the first towns that
   collected a library. … It is possible that the mound at
   Mugheir enshrines the oldest library of all, for here are the
   remains of the city of Ur (probably the Biblical Ur of the
   Chaldees). From this spot came the earliest known royal brick
   inscription, as follows:—'Urukh, King of Ur, who Bit Nanur
   built.' Although there are several texts from Mugheir, such as
   that of Dungi, son of Urukh, yet, unless by means of copies
   made for later libraries in Assyria, we cannot be said to know
   much of its library. Strange to say, however, the British
   Museum possesses the signet cylinder of one of the librarians
   of Ur, who is the earliest known person holding such an
   office. … Its inscription is given thus by
   Smith:—'Emuq-sin, the powerful hero, the King of Ur, King of
   the four regions; Amil Anu, the tablet-keeper, son of Gatu his
   servant.' … Erech, the modern Warka, is a city at which we
   know there must have been one or more libraries, for it was
   from thence Assurbannipal copied the famous Isdubar series of
   legends in twelve tablets, one of which contained the account
   of the Deluge. Hence also came the wonderful work on magic in
   more than one hundred tablets: for, as we have it, it is
   nothing more than a facsimile by Assurbannipal's scribes of a
   treatise which had formed part of the collection of the school
   of the priests at Erech. … Larsa, now named Senkereh, was
   the seat of a tablet collection that seems to have been
   largely a mathematical one; for in the remains we possess of
   it are tablets containing tables of squares and cube roots and
   others, giving the characters for fractions. There are from
   here also, however, fragments with lists of the gods, a
   portion of a geographical dictionary, lists of temples, &c.
   … To a library at Cutha we owe the remnants of a tablet work
   containing an account of the creation and the wars of the
   gods, and, among others, a very ancient terra-cotta tablet
   bearing a copy of an inscription engraved in the temple of the
   god Dup Lan at Cutha, by Dungi, King of Ur. The number of
   tablets and cylinders found by M. de Sarzec at Zirgulla show
   that there too the habit of committing so much to writing was
   as rife as in other cities of whose literary character we know
   more."

      _The Libraries of Babylonia and Assyria
      (Knowledge, November 24, 1882,
      and March 2, 1883)._

   "One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
   explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
   library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
   Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
   not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
   literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
   of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
   represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
   characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
   meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
   plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
   of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
   preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
   spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
   their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
   termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
   which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
   Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
   accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
   from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
   dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
   placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 1._

LIBRARIES:
   Greece.

   "Pisistratus the tyrant is said to have been the first who
   supplied books of the liberal sciences at Athens for public
   use. Afterwards the Athenians themselves, with great care and
   pains, increased their number; but all this multitude of
   books, Xerxes, when he obtained possession of Athens, and
   burned the whole of the city except the citadel, seized and
   carried away to Persia. But king Seleucus, who was called
   Nicanor, many years afterwards, was careful that all of them
   should be again carried back to Athens." "That Pisistratus was
   the first who collected books, seems generally allowed by
   ancient writers. … In Greece were several famous libraries.
   Clearchus, who was a follower of Plato, founded a magnificent
   one in Heraclea. There was one in the island of Cnidos. The
   books of Athens were by Sylla removed to Rome. The public
   libraries of the Romans were filled with books, not of
   miscellaneous literature, but were rather political and sacred
   collections, consisting of what regarded their laws and the
   ceremonies of their religion."

      _Aulus Gellius,
      The Attic Nights,
      book 6, chapter 17 (volume 2),
      with foot-note by W. Beloe._

   "If the libraries of the Greeks at all resembled in form and
   dimensions those found at Pompeii, they were by no means
   spacious; neither, in fact, was a great deal of room
   necessary, as the manuscripts of the ancients stowed away much
   closer than our modern books, and were sometimes kept in
   circular boxes, of elegant form, with covers of turned wood.
   The volumes consisted of rolls of parchment, sometimes purple
   at the back, or papyrus, about twelve or fourteen inches in
   breadth, and as many feet long as the subject required. The
   pages formed a number of transverse compartments, commencing
   at the left, and proceeding in order to the other extremity,
   and the reader, holding in either hand one end of the
   manuscript, unrolled and rolled it up as he read. Occasionally
   these books were placed on shelves, in piles, with the ends
   outwards, adorned with golden bosses, the titles of the
   various treatises being written on pendant labels."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      volume 2, page 84._

   "The learned reader need not be reminded how wide is the
   difference between the ancient 'volumen,' or roll, and the
   'volume' of the modern book-trade, and how much smaller the
   amount of literary matter which the former may represent. Any
   single 'book' or 'part' of a treatise would anciently have
   been called 'volumen,' and would reckon as such in the
   enumeration of a collection of books. The Iliad of Homer,
   which in a modern library may form but a single volume, would
   have counted as twenty-four 'volumina' at Alexandria.
{2003}
   We read of authors leaving behind them works reckoned, not by
   volumes or tens of volumes, but by hundreds. … It will at
   once be understood that … the very largest assemblage of
   'volumina' assigned as the total of the greatest of the
   ancient collections would fall far short, in its real literary
   contents, of the second-rate, or even third-rate collections
   of the present day."

      _Libraries, Ancient and Modern
      (Edinburgh Review,
      January, 1874)._

LIBRARIES:
   Alexandria.

   "The first of the Ptolemies, Lagus, not only endeavoured to
   render Alexandria one of the most beautiful and most
   commercial of cities, he likewise wished her to become the
   cradle of science and philosophy. By the advice of an Athenian
   emigrant, Demetrius of Phaleros, this prince established a
   society of learned and scientific men, the prototype of our
   academies and modern institutions. He caused that celebrated
   museum to be raised, that became an ornament to the Bruchion;
   and here was deposited the noble library, 'a collection,' says
   Titus Livius, 'at once a proof of the magnificence of those
   kings, and of their love of science.' Philadelphos, the
   successor of Lagus, finding that the library of the Bruchion
   already numbered 400,000 volumes, and either thinking that the
   edifice could not well make room for any more, or being
   desirous, from motives of jealousy, to render his name equally
   famous by the construction of a similar monument, founded a
   second library in the temple of Serapis, called the Serapeum,
   situated at some distance from the Bruchion, in another part
   of the town. These two libraries were denominated, for a
   length of time, the Mother and the Daughter. During the war
   with Egypt, Cæsar, having set fire to the king's fleet, which
   happened to be anchored in the great port, it communicated
   with the Bruchion; the parent library was consumed, and, if
   any remains were rescued from the flames, they were, in all
   probability, conveyed to the Serapeum. Consequently, ever
   after, there can be no question but of the latter. Euergetes
   and the other Ptolemies enlarged it successively; and
   Cleopatra added 200,000 manuscripts at once from the library
   of King Pergamos, given her by Mark Antony. … Aulus Gellius
   and Ammianus Marcellus seem to insinuate that the whole of the
   Alexandrian library had been destroyed by fire in the time of
   Cæsar. … But both are mistaken on this point. Ammianus, in
   the rest of his narrative, evidently confounds Serapeum and
   Bruchion. … Suetonius (in his life of Domitian) mentions
   that this emperor sent some amanuenses to Alexandria, for the
   purpose of copying a quantity of books that were wanting in
   his library; consequently a library existed in Alexandria a
   long while after Cæsar. Besides, we know that the Serapeum was
   only destroyed A. D. 301, by the order of Theodosius.
   Doubtless the library suffered considerably on this
   last-mentioned occasion; but that it still partly existed is
   beyond a doubt, according to the testimony of Oroses, who,
   twenty-four years later, made a voyage to Alexandria, and
   assures us that he 'saw, in several temples, presses full of
   books,' the remains of ancient libraries. … The trustworthy
   Oroses, in 415, is the last witness we have of the existence
   of a library at Alexandria. The numerous Christian writers of
   the fifth and sixth centuries, who have handed down to us so
   many trifling facts, have not said a word upon this important
   subject. We, therefore, have no certain documents upon the
   fate of our library from 415 to 636, or, according to others,
   640, when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria—a period of
   ignorance and barbarism, of war and revolutions, and vain
   disputes between a hundred different sects. Now, towards A. D.
   636, or 640, the troops of the caliph, Omar, headed by his
   lieutenant, Amrou, took possession of Alexandria. For more
   than six centuries, nobody in Europe took the trouble of
   ascertaining what had become of the library of Alexandria. At
   length, in the year 1660, a learned Oxford scholar, Edward
   Pococke, who had been twice to the East, and had brought back
   a number of Arabian manuscripts, first introduced the Oriental
   history of the physician Abulfarage to the learned world, in a
   Latin translation. In it we read the following passage:—'In
   those days flourished John of Alexandria, whom we have
   surnamed the Grammarian, and who adopted the tenets of the
   Christian Jacobites. … He lived to the time when Amrou
   Ebno'l-As took Alexandria. He went to visit the conqueror; and
   Amrou, who was aware of the height of learning and science
   that John had attained, treated him with every distinction,
   and listened eagerly, to his lectures on philosophy, which
   were quite new to the Arabians. Amrou was himself a man of
   intellect and discernment, and very clear-headed. He retained
   the learned man about his person. John one day said to him,
   "You have visited all the stores of Alexandria, and you have
   put your seal on all the different things you found there. I
   say nothing about those treasures which have any value for
   you; but, in good sooth, you might leave us those of which you
   make no use." "What then is it that you want?" interrupted
   Amrou. "The books of philosophy that are to be found in the
   royal treasury," answered John. "I can dispose of nothing,"
   Amrou then said, "without the permission of the lord of all
   true believers, Omar Ebno'l-Chattab." He therefore wrote to
   Omar, informing him of John's request. He received an answer
   from Omar in these words. "As to the books you mention,
   either, they agree with God's holy book, and then God's book
   is all-sufficient without them; or they disagree with God's
   book, in which case they ought not to be preserved." And, in
   consequence, Amrou Ebno'l-As caused them to be distributed
   amongst the different baths of the city, to serve as fuel. In
   this manner they were consumed in half-a-year.' When this
   account of Abulfarage's was made known in Europe, it was at
   once admitted as a fact, without the least question. … Since
   Pococke, another Arab historian, likewise a physician, was
   discovered, who gave pretty nearly the same account. This was
   Abdollatif, who wrote towards 1200, and consequently prior to
   Abulfarage. … Abdollatif does not relate any of the
   circumstances accessory to the destruction of the library. But
   what faith can we put in a writer who tells us that he has
   actually seen what could no longer have been in existence in
   his time? 'I have seen;' says he, 'the portico and the college
   that Alexander the Great caused to be built, and which
   contained the splendid library,' &c. Now, these buildings were
   situated within the Bruchion; and since the reign of Aurelian,
   who had destroyed it—that is to say, at least nine hundred
   years before Abdollatif—the Bruchion was a deserted spot,
   covered with ruins and rubbish.
{2004}
   Abulfarage, on the other hand, places the library in the Royal
   Treasury; and the anachronism is just as bad. The royal
   edifices were all contained within the walls of the Bruchion;
   and not one of them could then be left. … As a fact is not
   necessarily incontestable because advanced as such by one or
   even two historians, several persons of learning and research
   have doubted the truth of this assertion. Renaudot (Hist. des
   Patriarches d'Alexandrie) had already questioned its
   authenticity, by observing: 'This account is rather
   suspicious, as is frequently the case with the Arabians.' And,
   lastly, Querci, the two Assemani, Villoison, and Gibbon,
   completely declared themselves against it. Gibbon at once
   expresses his astonishment that two historians, both of Egypt,
   should not have said a word about so remarkable an event. The
   first of these is Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who
   lived in that city 500 years after it was taken by the
   Saracens, and who gives a long and detailed account, in his
   Annals, both of the siege and the succeeding events; the
   second is Elmacin, a most veracious writer, the author of a
   History of the Saracens, and who especially relates the life
   of Omar, and the taking of Alexandria, with its minutest
   circumstances. Is it conceivable or to be believed that these
   two historians should have been ignorant of so important a
   circumstance? That two learned men who would have been deeply
   interested in such a loss should have made no mention of it,
   though living and writing in Alexandria—Eutychius, too, at no
   distant period from the event? and that we should learn it for
   the first time from a stranger who wrote, six centuries after,
   on the frontiers of Media? Besides, as Gibbon observes, why
   should the Caliph Omar, who was no enemy to science, have
   acted, in this one instance, in direct opposition to his
   character. … To these reasons may be added the remark of a
   German writer, M. Reinhard, who observes that Eutychius
   (Annals of Eutychius, volume ii. page 316) transcribes the
   very words of the letter in which Amrou gives the Caliph Omar
   an account of the taking of Alexandria after a long and
   obstinate siege. 'I have carried the town by storm,' says he,
   'and without any preceding offer of capitulation. I cannot
   describe all the treasures it contains; suffice it to say,
   that it numbers 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40,000 taxable
   Jews, 400 theatres, 12,000 gardeners who sell vegetables. Your
   Mussulmans demand the privilege of pillaging the city, and
   sharing the booty.' Omar, in his reply, disapproves of the
   request, and expressly forbids all pillage or dilapidation. It
   is plain that, in his official report, Amrou seeks to
   exaggerate the value of his conquest, and to magnify its
   importance, like the diplomatists of our times. He does not
   overlook a single hovel, nor a Jew, nor a gardener. How then
   could he have forgotten the library, he who, according to
   Abulfarage, was a friend to the fine arts and philosophy? …
   Elmacin in turn gives us Amrou's letter nearly in the same
   terms, and not one word of the library. … We … run no
   great risk in drawing the conclusion, from all these premises,
   that the library of the Ptolemies no longer existed in 640 at
   the taking of Alexandria by the Saracens. … If it be true,
   as we have every reason to think, that in 640 … the
   celebrated library no longer existed, we may inquire in what
   manner it had been dispersed and destroyed since 415 when
   Oroses affirms that he saw it? In the first place we must
   observe that Oroses only mentions some presses which he saw in
   the temples. It was not, therefore, the library of the
   Ptolemies as it once existed in the Serapeum. Let us call to
   mind, moreover, that ever since the first Roman emperors,
   Egypt had been the theatre of incessant civil warfare, and we
   shall be surprised that any traces of the library could still
   exist in later times."

      _Historical Researches on the pretended burning
      of the Library of Alexandria by the Saracens
      (Fraser's Magazine. April, 1844)._

   "After summing up the evidence we have been able to collect in
   regard to these libraries, we conclude that almost all the
   700,000 volumes of the earlier Alexandrian libraries had been
   destroyed before the capture of the city by the Arabs; that
   another of considerable size, but chiefly of Christian
   literature, had been collected in the 250 years just preceding
   the Arab occupation; and that Abulpharaj, in a statement that
   is not literally true, gives, in the main, a correct account
   of the final destruction of the Alexandrian Library."

      _C. W. Super,
      Alexandria and its Libraries
      (National Quarterly Review, December, 1875)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Edwards,
      Memoirs of Libraries,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      _E. Edwards,
      Libraries and the Founders of Libraries,
      chapter 1._

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA;
      and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

LIBRARIES:
   Pergamum.

      See PERGAMUM.

LIBRARIES:
   Rome.

   Pliny states that C. Asinius Pollio was the first who
   established a Public Library in Rome. But "Lucullus was
   undoubtedly before him in this claim upon the gratitude of the
   lovers of books. Plutarch tells us expressly that not only was
   the Library of Lucullus remarkable for its extent and for the
   beauty of the volumes which composed it, but that the use he
   made of them was even more to his honour than the pains he had
   taken in their acquisition. The Library, he says, 'was open to
   all. The Greeks who were at Rome resorted thither, as it were
   to the retreat of the Muses.' It is important to notice that,
   according to Pliny, the benefaction of Asinius Pollio to the
   literate among the Romans was 'ex manubiis.' This expression,
   conjoined with the fact that the statue of M. Varro was placed
   in the Library of Pollio, has led a recent distinguished
   historian of Rome under the Empire, Mr. Merivale, to suggest,
   that very probably Pollio only made additions to that Library
   which, as we know from Suetonius, Julius Cæsar had directed to
   be formed for public use under the care of Varro. These
   exploits of Pollio, which are most likely to have yielded him
   the 'spoils of war,' were of a date many years subsequent to
   the commission given by Cæsar to Varro. It has been usually,
   and somewhat rashly perhaps, inferred that this project, like
   many other schemes that were surging in that busy brain,
   remained a project only. In the absence of proof either way,
   may it not be reasonably conjectured that Varro's bust was
   placed in the Library called Pollio's because Varro had in
   truth carried out Cæsar's plan, with the ultimate concurrence
   and aid of Pollio? This Library—by whomsoever formed—was
   probably in the 'atrium libertatis' on the Aventine Mount.
{2005}
   From Suetonius we further learn that Augustus added porticoes
   to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Mount, with (as
   appears from monumental inscriptions to those who had charge
   of them) two distinct Libraries of Greek and Latin authors;
   that Tiberius added to the Public Libraries the works of the
   Greek poets Euphorion, Rhianus, and Parthenius,—authors whom
   he especially admired and tried to imitate,—and also their
   statues; that Caligula (in addition to a scheme for
   suppressing Homer) had thoughts of banishing both the works
   and the busts of Virgil and of Livy—characterizing the one
   as a writer of no genius and of little learning, and the other
   (not quite so unfortunately) as a careless and verbose
   historian—from all the Libraries; and that Domitian early in
   his reign restored at vast expense the Libraries in the
   Capitol which had been burnt, and to this end both collected
   MSS. from various countries, and sent scribes to Alexandria
   expressly to copy or to correct works which were there
   preserved. In addition to the Libraries mentioned by
   Suetonius, we read in Plutarch of the Library dedicated by
   Octavia to the memory of Marcellus; in Aulus Gellius of a
   Library in the Palace of Tiberius and of another in the Temple
   of Peace; and in Dion Cassius of the more famous Ulpian
   Library founded by Trajan. This Library, we are told by
   Vopiscus, was in his day added, by way of adornment, to the
   Baths of Diocletian. Of private Libraries amongst the Romans
   one of the earliest recorded is that which Emilius Paulus
   found amongst the spoils of Perseus, and which he is said to
   have shared between his sons. The collection of Tyrunnion,
   some eighty years later (perhaps), amounted, according to a
   passage in Suidas, to 30,000 volumes. That of Lucullus—which,
   some will think, ought to be placed in this category—has been
   mentioned already. With that—the most famous of all—which
   was the delight and the pride of Cicero, every reader of his
   letters has an almost personal familiarity, extending even to
   the names and services of those who were employed in binding
   and in placing the books. … Of the Libraries of the
   long-buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum there is not a
   scintilla of information extant, other than that which has
   been gathered from their ruins. At one time great hopes were
   entertained of important additions to classical learning from
   remains, the discovery of which has so largely increased our
   knowledge both of the arts and of the manners of the Romans.
   But all effort in this direction has hitherto been either
   fruitless or else only tantalizing, from the fragmentary
   character of the results attained."

      _E. Edwards,
      Memoirs of Libraries,
      pages 26-29._

   "Most houses had a library, which, according to Vitruvius,
   ought to face the east in order to admit the light of the
   morning, and to prevent the books from becoming mouldy. At
   Herculaneum a library with bookcases containing 1,700 scrolls
   has been discovered. The grammarian Epaphroditus possessed a
   library of 30,000, and Sammanicus Serenus, the tutor of the
   younger Gordian, one of 62,000 books. Seneca ridicules the
   fashionable folly of illiterate men who adorned their walls
   with thousands of books, the titles of which were the delight
   of the yawning owner. According to Publius Victor, Rome
   possessed twenty-nine public libraries, the first of which was
   opened by Asinius Polio in the forecourt of the Temple of
   Peace; two others were founded during the reign of Augustus,
   viz., the Octavian and the Palatine libraries. Tiberius,
   Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan added to their number; the
   Ulpian library, founded by the last-mentioned emperor, being
   the most important of all."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      The Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      p. 531._

LIBRARIES:
   Herculaneum.

   "Herculaneum remained a subterranean city from the year 79 to
   the year 1706. In the latter year some labourers who were
   employed in digging a well came upon a statue, a circumstance
   which led—not very speedily but in course of time … —to
   systematic excavations. Almost half a century passed, however,
   before the first roll of papyrus was discovered, near to
   Portici at a depth from the surface of about 120 English feet.
   In the course of a year or two, some 250 rolls—most of them
   Greek—had been found. … In 1754, further and more careful
   researches were made by Camillo Paderni, who succeeded in
   getting together no less than 337 Greek volumes and 18 Latin
   volumes. The latter were of larger dimensions than the Greek,
   and in worse condition. Very naturally, great interest was
   excited by these discoveries amongst scholars in all parts of
   Europe. In the years 1754 and 1755 the subject was repeatedly
   brought before the Royal Society by Mr. Locke and other of its
   fellows, sometimes in the form of communications from Paderni
   himself; at other times from the notes and observations of
   travellers. In one of these papers the disinterred rolls are
   described as appearing at first 'like roots of wood, all
   black, and seeming to be only of one piece. One of them
   falling on the ground, it broke in the middle, and many
   letters were observed, by which it was first known that the
   rolls were of papyrus. … They were in wooden cases, so much
   burnt, … that they cannot be recovered.' … At the
   beginning of the present century the attention of the British
   government was, to some extent, attracted to this subject. …
   Leave was at length obtained from the Neapolitan government
   for a literary mission to Herculaneum, which was entrusted to
   Mr. Hayter, one of the chaplains to the Prince Regent. But the
   results were few and unsatisfactory. … The Commission
   subsequently entrusted to Dr. Sickler of Hildburghausen was
   still more unfortunate. … In 1818, a committee of the House
   of Commons was appointed to inquire into the matter. It
   reported that, after an expenditure of about £1,100, no useful
   results had been attained. This inquiry and the experiments of
   Sickler led Sir Humphrey Davy to investigate the subject, and
   to undertake two successive journeys into Italy for its
   thorough elucidation. His account of his researches is highly
   interesting. … 'My experiments,' says Sir Humphrey Davy, …
   'soon convinced me that the nature of these MSS. had been
   generally misunderstood; that they had not, as is usually
   supposed, been carbonized by the operation of fire, … but
   were in a state analogous to peat or Bovey coal, the leaves
   being generally cemented into one mass by a peculiar substance
   which had formed during the fermentation and chemical change
   of the vegetable matter comprising them, in a long course of
   ages. The nature of this substance being known, the
   destruction of it became a subject of obvious chemical
   investigation; and I was fortunate enough to find means of
   accomplishing this, without injuring the characters or
   destroying the texture of the MSS.' These means Sir Humphrey
   Davy has described very minutely in his subsequent
   communications to the Royal Society.
{2006}
   Briefly, they may be said to have consisted in a mixture of a
   solution of glue with alcohol, enough to gelatinize it,
   applied by a camel's hair brush, for the separation of the
   layers. The process was sometimes assisted by the agency of
   ether, and the layers were dried by the action of a stream of
   air warmed gradually up to the temperature of boiling water.
   'After the chemical operation, the leaves of most of the
   fragments separated perfectly from each other, and the Greek
   characters were in a high degree distinct. … The MSS. were
   probably on shelves of wood, which were broken down when the
   roofs of the houses yielded to the weight of the
   superincumbent mass. Hence, many of them were crushed and
   folded in a moist state, and the leaves of some pressed
   together in a perpendicular direction … in confused heaps;
   in these heaps the exterior MSS. … must have been acted on
   by the water; and as the ancient ink was composed of finely
   divided charcoal suspended in a solution of glue or gum,
   wherever the water percolated continuously, the characters
   were more or less erased.' … Sir Humphrey Davy proceeds to
   state that, according to the information given him, the number
   of MSS. and fragments of MSS. originally deposited in the
   Naples Museum was 1,696; that of these 88 had then been
   unrolled and found to be legible; that 319 others had been
   operated upon, and more or less unrolled, but were illegible;
   that 24 had been sent abroad as presents; and that of the
   remaining 1,265—which he had carefully examined—the majority
   were either small fragments, or MSS. so crushed and mutilated
   as to offer little hope of separation; whilst only from 80 to
   120 offered a probability of success (and he elsewhere
   adds:—'this estimate, as my researches proceeded, appeared
   much too high'). … 'Of the 88 unrolled MSS. … the great
   body consists of works of Greek philosophers or sophists; nine
   are of Epicurus; thirty-two bear the name of Philodemus, three
   of Demetrius, one of each of these authors:—Colotes,
   Polystratus, Carneades, Chrysippus; and the subjects of these
   works, … and of those the authors of which are unknown, are
   either Natural or Moral Philosophy, Medicine, Criticism, and
   general observations on Arts, Life, and Manners.'"

      _E. Edwards,
      Memoirs of Libraries,
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 5._

LIBRARIES:
   Constantinople.

   "When Constantine the Great, in the year 336, made Byzantium
   the seat of his empire, he in a great measure newly built the
   city, decorated it with numerous splendid edifices, and called
   it after his own name. Desirous of making reparation to the
   Christians, for the injuries they had sustained during the
   reign of his tyrannical predecessor, this prince commanded the
   most diligent search to be made after those books which had been
   doomed to destruction. He caused transcripts to be made of
   such books as had escaped the Diocletian persecution; to these
   he added others, and with the whole formed a valuable Library
   at Constantinople. On the death of Constantine, the number of
   books contained in the Imperial Library was only six thousand
   nine hundred; but it was successively enlarged by the
   emperors, Julian and Theodosius the younger, the latter of
   whom augmented it to one hundred thousand volumes. Of these,
   more than half were burnt in the seventh century, by command
   of the emperor Leo III., in order to destroy all the monuments
   that might be quoted in proof against his opposition to the
   worship of images. In this library was deposited the only
   authentic copy of the Council of Nice: it has also been
   asserted that the works of Homer, written in golden letters,
   were consumed at the same time, together with a magnificent
   copy of the Four Gospels, bound in plates of gold to the
   weight of fifteen pounds, and enriched with precious stones.
   The convulsions that weakened the lower empire, were by no
   means favourable to the interests of literature. During the
   reign of Constantine Porphyrogennetus (in the eleventh entry)
   literature flourished for a short time: and he is said to have
   employed many learned Greeks in collecting books for a library,
   the arrangement of which he superintended himself. The final
   subversion of the Eastern Empire, and the capture of
   Constantinople by Mohammed II., A. D. 1453, dispersed the
   literati of Greece over Western Europe: but the Imperial
   Library was preserved by the express command of the conqueror,
   and continued to be kept in some apartments of the Seraglio;
   until Mourad (or Amurath) IV., in a fit of devotion,
   sacrificed (as it is reported) all the books in this Library
   to his hatred against the Christians."

      _T. H. Horne,
      Introduction to the Study of Bibliography,
      pages 23-25._

LIBRARIES:
   Tripoli.
   Destruction of Library by Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

LIBRARIES:
   Mediæval.

   Monastic Libraries.

   "In every monastery there was established first a library,
   then great studios, where, to increase the number of books,
   skilful caligraphers transcribed manuscripts; and finally,
   schools, open to all those who had need of, or desire for,
   instruction. At Montierender, at Lorsch, at Corvey, at Fulda,
   at St. Gall, at Reichenau, at Nonantula, at Monte Cassino, at
   Wearmouth, at St. Albans, at Croyland, there were famous
   libraries. At St. Michael, at Luneburg, there were two—one
   for the abbot and one for the monks. In other abbeys, as at
   Hirschau, the abbot himself took his place in the Scriptorium,
   where many other monks were occupied in copying manuscripts.
   At St. Riquier, books bought for high prices, or transcribed
   with the utmost care, were regarded as the most valuable
   jewels of the monastery. 'Here,' says the chronicler of the
   abbey, counting up with innocent pride the volumes which it
   contained—'here are the riches of the cloister, the treasures
   of the celestial life, which fatten the soul by their
   sweetness. This is how we fulfil the excellent precept, Love
   the study of the Scriptures, and you will not love vice.' If
   we were called upon to enumerate the principal centres of
   learning in this century, we should be obliged to name nearly
   all the great abbeys whose founders we have mentioned, for
   most of them were great homes of knowledge. … The principal
   and most constant occupation of the learned Benedictine nuns
   was the transcription of manuscripts. It can never be known
   how many services to learning and history were rendered by
   their delicate hands throughout the middle ages. They brought
   to the work a dexterity, an elegance, and an assiduity which
   the monks themselves could not attain, and we owe to them some
   of the most beautiful specimens of the marvellous caligraphy of
   the period. … Nuns, therefore, were the rivals of monks in
   the task of enlarging and fertilising the field of Catholic
   learning.
{2007}
   Every one is aware that the copying of manuscripts was one of
   the habitual occupations of monks. By it they fed the
   claustral libraries already spoken of, and which are the
   principal source of modern knowledge. Thus we must again refer
   to the first beginning of the Monastic Orders to find the
   earliest traces of a custom which from that time was, as it
   were, identified with the practices of religious life. In the
   depths of the Thebaïde, in the primitive monasteries of
   Tabenna, every house … had its library. There is express
   mention made of this in the rule of St. Benedict. … In the
   seventh century, St. Benedict Biscop, founder and abbot of
   Wearmouth in England, undertook five sea-voyages to search for
   and purchase books for his abbey, to which each time he
   brought back a large cargo. In the ninth century, Loup of
   Ferrières transformed his monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer into
   a kind of depot for the trade in books which was carried on
   with England. About the same time, during the wars which
   ravaged Lombardy, most of the literary treasures which are now
   the pride of the Ambrosian library were being collected in the
   abbey of Bobbio. The monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, had,
   according to contemporaries, a finer library than those of
   Rome or of any other town in the world. In the eleventh
   century, the library of the abbey of Croyland numbered 3,000
   volumes. The library of Novalese had 6,700, which the monks
   saved at the risk of their lives when their abbey was
   destroyed by the Saracens in 905. Hirschau contained an
   immense number of manuscripts. But, for the number and value
   of its books, Fulda eclipsed all the monasteries of Germany,
   and perhaps of the whole Christian world. On the other hand,
   some writers assure us that Monte Cassino, under the Abbot
   Didier, the friend of Gregory VII., possessed the richest
   collection which it was possible to find. The libraries thus
   created by the labours of monks became, as it were, the
   intellectual arsenals of princes and potentates. … There
   were also collections of books in all the cathedrals, in all
   the collegiate churches, and in many of the castles. Much has
   been said of the excessive price of certain books during the
   middle ages: Robertson and his imitators, in support of this
   theory, are fond of quoting the famous collection of homilies
   that Grecia Countess of Anjou bought, in 1056, for two hundred
   sheep, a measure of wheat, one of millet, one of rye, several
   marten-skins, and four pounds of silver. An instance like this
   always produces its effect; but these writers forgot to say
   that the books bought for such high prices were admirable
   specimens of caligraphy, of painting, and of carving. It would
   be just as reasonable to quote the exorbitant sums paid at
   sales by bibliomaniacs of our days, in order to prove that
   since the invention of printing, books have been excessive in
   price. Moreover, the ardent fondness of the Countess Grecia
   for beautiful books had been shared by other amateurs of a
   much earlier date. Bede relates that Alfred, King of
   Northumbria in the seventh century, gave eight hides of land
   to St. Benedict Biscop in exchange for a Cosmography which
   that book-loving abbot had bought at Rome. The monks loved
   their books with a passion which has never been surpassed in
   modern times. … It is an error to … suppose that books of
   theology or piety alone filled the libraries of the monks.
   Some enemies of the religious orders have, indeed, argued that
   this was the case; but the proof of the contrary is evident in
   all documents relating to the subject. The catalogues of the
   principal monastic libraries during those centuries which
   historians regard as most barbarous, are still in existence;
   and these catalogues amply justify the sentence of the great
   Leibnitz, when he said, 'Books and learning were preserved by
   the monasteries.' It is acknowledged that if, on one hand, the
   Benedictines settled in Iceland collected the Eddas and the
   principal traditions of the Scandinavian mythology, on the
   other all the monuments of Greece and Rome which escaped the
   devastations of barbarians were saved by the monks of Italy,
   France, and Germany, and by them alone. And if in some
   monasteries the scarcity of parchment and the ignorance of the
   superiors permitted the destruction, by copyists, of a certain
   small number of precious works, how can we forget that without
   these same copyists we should possess nothing—absolutely
   nothing—of classic antiquity? … Alcuin enumerates among the
   books in the library at York the works of Aristotle, Cicero,
   Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and of Trogus Pompeïus. In his
   correspondence with Charlemagne he quotes Ovid, Horace,
   Terence, and Cicero, acknowledging that in his youth he had
   been more moved by the tears of Dido than by the Psalms of
   David."

      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 18, chapter 4 (volume 6)._

   "It is in the great houses of the Benedictine Order that we
   find the largest libraries, such as in England at Bury St.
   Edmund's, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Heading, St. Alban's,
   and, above all, that of Christ Church in Canterbury, probably
   the earliest library formed in England. Among the other
   English monasteries of the libraries of which we still possess
   catalogues or other details, are St. Peter's at York,
   described in the eighth century by Alcuin, St. Cuthbert's at
   Durham, and St. Augustine's at Canterbury. At the dissolution
   of the monasteries their libraries were dispersed, and the
   basis of the great modern libraries is the volumes thus
   scattered over England. In general, the volumes were disposed
   much as now, that is to say, upright, and in large cases
   affixed to a wall, often with doors. The larger volumes at
   least were in many cases chained, so that they could only be
   used within about six feet of their proper place; and since
   the chain was always riveted on the fore-edge of one of the
   sides of a book, the back of the volume had to be thrust first
   into the shelf, leaving the front edge of the leaves exposed
   to view. Many old volumes bear a mark in ink on this front
   edge; and when this is the case, we may be sure that it was
   once chained in a library; and usually a little further
   investigation will disclose the mark of a rivet on one of the
   sides. Regulations were carefully made to prevent the mixture
   of different kinds of books, and their overcrowding or
   inconvenient position; while an organized system of lending
   was in vogue, by which at least once a year, and less formally
   at shorter intervals, the monks could change or renew the
   volumes already on loan. … Let us take an example of the
   arrangement of a monastic library of no special distinction in
   A. D. 1400,—that at Titchfield Abbey,—describing it in the
   words of the register of the monastery itself, only
   translating the Latin into English.
{2008}
   'The arrangement of the library of the monastery of Tychefeld
   is this:—There are in the library of Tychefeld four cases
   (columnae) in which to place books, of which two, the first
   and second, are on the eastern face; on the southern face is
   the third, and on the northern face the fourth. And each of
   them has eight shelves (gradus), marked with a letter and
   number affixed on the front of each shelf, that is to say, on
   the lower board of each of the aforesaid shelves; certain
   letters, however, are excepted, namely A, H, K, L, M, O, P, Q,
   which have no numbers affixed, because all the volumes to
   which one of those letters belongs are contained in the shelf
   to which that letter is assigned. [That is, the shelves with
   the letters A, H, K, etc., have a complete class of books in
   each, and in no case does that class overflow into a second
   shelf, so there was no need of marking these shelves with
   numbers as well as letters, in the way in which the rest were
   marked. Thus we should find 'B 1,' 'B 2,' 'B 3,' … 'B 7,'
   because B filled seven shelves; but 'A' only, because A filled
   one shelf alone.] So all and singular the volumes of the said
   library are fully marked on the first leaf and elsewhere on
   the shelf belonging to the book, with certain numbered
   letters. And in order that what is in the library may be more
   quickly found, the marking of the shelves of the said library,
   the inscriptions in the books, and the references in the
   register, in all points agree with each other. Anno Domini
   MCCCC.' … Titchfield Abbey was a Præmonstratensian house,
   founded in the thirteenth century, and never specially rich or
   prominent; yet we find it with a good library of sixty-eight
   books in theology, thirty-nine in Canon and Civil Law,
   twenty-nine in Medicine, thirty-seven in Arts, and in all
   three hundred and twenty-six volumes, many containing several
   treatises, so that the total number of works was considerably
   over a thousand."

      _F. Madan,
      Books in Manuscript,
      pp. 76-79._

LIBRARIES:
   Renaissance.

   Italy.

   On the revival of learning in Italy, "scarcity of books was at
   first a chief impediment to the study of antiquity. Popes and
   princes and even great religious institutions possessed far
   fewer books than many farmers of the present age. The library
   belonging to the Cathedral Church of S. Martino at Lucca in
   the ninth century contained only nineteen volumes of
   abridgements from ecclesiastical commentaries. The Cathedral
   of Novara in 1212 could boast copies of Boethius, Priscian,
   the Code of Justinian, the Decretals, and the Etymology of
   Isidorus, besides a Bible and some devotional treatises. This
   slender stock passed for great riches. Each of the precious
   volumes in such a collection was an epitome of mediæval art.
   Its pages were composed of fine vellum adorned with pictures.
   The initial letters displayed elaborate flourishes and
   exquisitely illuminated groups of figures. The scribe took
   pains to render his caligraphy perfect, and to ornament the
   margins with crimson, gold, and blue. Then he handed the
   parchment sheets to the binder, who encased them in rich
   settings of velvet or carved ivory and wood, embossed with
   gold and precious stones. The edges were gilt and stamped with
   patterns. The clasps were of wrought silver chased with
   niello. The price of such masterpieces was enormous. … Of
   these MSS. the greater part were manufactured in the
   cloisters, and it was here too that the martyrdom of ancient
   authors took place. Lucretius and Livy gave place to
   chronicles, antiphonaries, and homilies. Parchment was
   extremely dear, and the scrolls which nobody could read might
   be scraped and washed. Accordingly, the copyist erased the
   learning of the ancients, and filled the fair blank space he
   gained with litanies. At the same time it is but just to the
   monks to add that palimpsests have occasionally been found in
   which ecclesiastical works have yielded place to copies of the
   Latin poets used in elementary education. Another obstacle to
   the diffusion of learning was the incompetence of the
   copyists. It is true that at the great universities
   'stationarii,' who supplied the text-books in use to students,
   were certified and subjected to the control of special censors
   called 'Preciani.' Yet their number was not large, and when
   they quitted the routine to which they were accustomed their
   incapacity betrayed itself by numerous errors. Petrarch's
   invective against the professional copyists shows the depth to
   which the art had sunk. 'Who,' he exclaims, 'will discover a
   cure for the ignorance and vile sloth of these copyists, who
   spoil everything and turn it to nonsense? If Cicero, Livy, and
   other illustrious ancients were to return to life, do you
   think they would understand their own works? There is no check
   upon these copyists, selected without examination or test of
   their capacity.' … At the same time the copyists formed a
   necessary and flourishing class of craftsmen. They were well
   paid. … Under these circumstances it was usual for even the
   most eminent scholars, like Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Poggio,
   to make their own copies of MSS. Niccolo de' Niccoli
   transcribed nearly the whole of the codices that formed the
   nucleus of the Library of the Mark. … It is clear that the
   first step toward the revival of learning implied three
   things: first, the collection of MSS. wherever they could be
   saved from the indolence of the monks; secondly, the formation
   of libraries for their preservation; and, thirdly, the
   invention of an art whereby they might be multiplied cheaply,
   conveniently, and accurately. The labour involved in the
   collection of classical manuscripts had to be performed by a
   few enthusiastic scholars, who received no help from the
   universities and their academical scribes, and who met with no
   sympathy in the monasteries they were bent on ransacking. …
   The monks performed at best the work of earthworms, who
   unwittingly preserve fragments of Greek architecture from
   corrosion by heaping mounds of mould and rubbish round them.
   Meanwhile the humanists went forth with the instinct of
   explorers to release the captives and awake the dead. From the
   convent libraries of Italy, from the museums of
   Constantinople, from the abbeys of Germany and Switzerland and
   France, the slumbering spirits of the ancients had to be
   evoked. … This work of discovery began with Petrarch. … It
   was carried on by Boccaccio. The account given by Benvenuto da
   Imola of Boccaccio's visit to Monte Cassino brings vividly
   before us both the ardour of these first explorers and the
   apathy of the Benedictines (who have sometimes been called the
   saviours of learning) with regard to the treasures of their
   own libraries. …
{2009}
   'Desirous of seeing the collection of books, which he
   understood to be a very choice one, he modestly asked a
   monk—for he was always most courteous in manners—to open the
   library, as a favour, for him. The monk answered stiffly,
   pointing to a steep staircase, "Go up; it is open." Boccaccio
   went up gladly; but he found that the place which held so
   great a treasure was without door or key. He entered, and saw
   grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches
   thick with dust. In his astonishment he began to open and turn
   the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many
   and divers volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them
   had lost several sheets; others were snipped and pared all
   round the text, and mutilated in various ways. At length,
   lamenting that the toil and study of so many illustrious men
   should have passed into the hands of most abandoned wretches,
   he departed with tears and sighs. Coming to the cloister, he
   asked a monk whom he met, why those valuable books had been so
   disgracefully mangled. He answered that the monks, seeking to
   gain a few soldi, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and
   making psalters, which they sold to boys. The margins too they
   manufactured into charms, and sold to women.' … What Italy
   contained of ancient codices soon saw the light. The visit of
   Poggio Bracciolini to Constance (1414) opened up for Italian
   scholars the stores that lay neglected in transalpine
   monasteries. … The treasures he unearthed at Reichenau,
   Weingarten, and above all S. Gallen, restored to Italy many
   lost masterpieces of Latin literature, and supplied students
   with full texts of authors who had hitherto been known in
   mutilated copies. The account he gave of his visit to S.
   Gallen in a Latin letter to a friend is justly celebrated. …
   'In the middle [he says] of a well-stocked library, too large
   to catalogue at present, we discovered Quintilian, safe as yet
   and sound, though covered with dust and filthy with neglect
   and age. The books, you must know, were not housed according
   to their worth, but were lying in a most foul and obscure
   dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, a place into which
   condemned criminals would hardly have been thrust; and I am
   firmly persuaded that if anyone would but explore those
   ergastula of the barbarians wherein they incarcerate such men,
   we should meet with like good fortune in the case of many
   whose funeral orations have long ago been pronounced. Besides
   Quintilian, we exhumed the three first books and a half of the
   fourth book of the Argonautica of Flaccus, and the
   Commentaries of Asconius Pedianus upon eight orations of
   Cicero.' … Never was there a time in the world's history
   when money was spent more freely upon the collection and
   preservation of MSS., and when a more complete machinery was
   put in motion for the sake of securing literary treasures."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Revival of Learning,
      chapter 3._

LIBRARIES: Modern.
   Europe: Rise and growth of the greater Libraries.

   In a work entitled "Essai Statistique sur les Bibliothèques de
   Vienne," published in 1835, M. Adrien Balbi entered into an
   examination of the literary and numerical value of the
   principal libraries of ancient and modern times. M. Balbi, in
   this work, shows that "the Imperial Library of Vienna,
   regularly increasing from the epoch of its formation, by means
   equally honorable to the sovereign and to the nation, held,
   until the French revolution, the first place among the
   libraries of Europe. Since that period, several other
   institutions have risen to a much higher numerical rank. …
   No one of the libraries of the first class, now in existence,
   dates beyond the fifteenth century. The Vatican, the origin of
   which has been frequently carried back to the days of St.
   Hilarius, in 465, cannot, with any propriety, be said to have
   deserved the name of library before the reign of Martin the
   Fifth, by whose order it was removed from Avignon to Rome in
   1417. And even then, a strict attention to the force of the
   term would require us to withhold from it this title, until
   the period of its final organization by Nicholas the Fifth, in
   1447. It is difficult to speak with certainty concerning the
   libraries, whether public or private, which are supposed to
   have existed previous to the fifteenth century, both on
   account of the doubtful authority and indefiniteness of the
   passages in which they are mentioned, and the custom which so
   readily obtained, in those dark ages, of dignifying every
   petty collection with the name of library. But many libraries
   of the fifteenth century being still in existence, and others
   having been preserved long enough to make them the subject of
   historical inquiry before their dissolution, it becomes easier
   to fix, with satisfactory accuracy, the date of their
   foundation. We find accordingly, that, including the Vatican,
   and the libraries of Vienna, Ratisbon, and the Laurentian of
   Florence, which are a few years anterior to it, no less than
   ten were formed between the years 1430 and 1500. The increase
   of European libraries has generally been slowly progressive,
   although there have been periods of sudden augmentation in
   nearly all. Most of them began with a small number of
   manuscripts, sometimes with a few printed volumes, and often
   without any. To these, gradual accessions were made, from the
   different sources, which have always been more or less at the
   command of the sovereigns and nobles of Europe. In 1455, the
   Vatican contained 5,000 manuscripts. … Far different was the
   progress of the Royal Library of Paris. The origin of this
   institution is placed in the year 1595, the date of its
   removal from Fontainebleau to Paris by order of Henry the
   Fourth. In 1660, it contained but 1,435 printed volumes. In
   the course of the following year, this number was raised to
   16,746, both printed volumes and manuscripts. During the
   ensuing eight years the library was nearly doubled; and before
   the close of the next century, it was supposed to have been
   augmented by upwards of 100,000 volumes more."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Historical Studies,
      pages 278-281._

   "The oldest of the great libraries of printed books is
   probably that of Vienna, which dates from 1440, and is said to
   have been opened to the public as early as 1575. The Town
   Library of Ratisbon dates from 1430; St. Mark's Library at
   Venice, from 1468; the Town Library of Frankfort, from 1484;
   that of Hamburg, from 1529; of Strasburg, from 1531; of
   Augsburg, from 1537; those of Berne and Geneva, from 1550;
   that of Basel, from 1564. The Royal Library of Copenhagen was
   founded about 1550. In 1671 it possessed 10,000 volumes; in
   1748, about 65,000; in 1778, 100,000; in 1820, 300,000; and it
   now contains 410,000 volumes. The National Library of Paris was
   founded in 1595, but was not made public until 1737. In 1640
   it contained about 17,000 volumes; in 1684, 50,000; in 1775,
   150,000; in 1790, 200,000."

      _E. Edwards,
      A Statistical View of the Principal Public Libraries in
      Europe and the United States Of America,
      (Journal of the Statistical Society, August., 1848)._

{2010}

LIBRARIES: Modern.
   Germany.

   According to "Minerva" (the "Year-book of the Learned World"),
   for 1893-94, the Royal Library at Berlin contains 850,000
   printed books and 24,622 manuscripts; the Münich University
   Library, 370,000 books and 50,000 pamphlets, including 2,101
   incunabula; the Leipsic University Library, 500,000 printed
   books, and 4,000 manuscripts; Heidelberg University Library,
   400,000 bound volumes (including 1,000 incunabula), and
   175,000 pamphlets and "dissertationen," with a large
   collection of manuscripts; Dresden Royal Public Library,
   300,000 printed books (including 2,000 incunabula), 6,000
   manuscripts, and 20,000 maps; Freiburg University Library,
   250,000 volumes and over 500 manuscripts; Königsberg
   University Library, 220,000 volumes and 1,100 manuscripts;
   Tübingen University Library, 300,000 volumes and 3,500
   manuscripts; Jena University Library, 200,000 volumes and
   100,000 "dissertationen"; Halle University Library, 182,000
   books and 800 manuscripts, besides 12,800 books, 35,000
   pamphlets and 1,040 manuscripts in the Ponickausche
   Bibliothek, which is united with the University Library;
   Hamburg City Library, about 500,000 printed books and 5,000
   manuscripts; Frankfort City Library (April, 1893), 326,139
   volumes; Cologne City Library, 105,000 volumes, including
   2,000 incunabula; Augsburg City and Provincial Library, about
   200,000 volumes (including 1,760 incunabula) and 2,000
   manuscripts; Göttingen University Library, 456,000 volumes of
   books and 5,300 manuscripts; Gotha Public Library, 200,000
   printed books, including 1,029 incunabula, and 7,037
   manuscripts, of which 3,500 are oriental; Greifswald
   University Library, 143 volumes of printed books and about 800
   manuscripts; Bamberg Royal Public Library, 300,000 volumes,
   3,132 manuscripts; Berlin University Library, 142,129 volumes;
   Bonn University Library, 219,000 volumes, including 1,235
   incunabula, and 1,273 manuscripts; Bremen City Library,
   120,000 volumes; Breslau University Library, 300,000 volumes,
   including about 2,500 incunabula, and about 3,000 manuscripts;
   Breslau City Library, 150,000 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
   Erlangen University Library, 180,000 volumes; Hanover Royal
   Public Library, 180,000 books and 3,500 manuscripts; Hanover
   City Library, 47,000 volumes; Carlsruhe Grand-ducal Library,
   159,842 books and 3,754 manuscripts; Kiel University Library,
   217,039 volumes, 2,375 manuscripts; Colmar City Library,
   80,000 volumes; Marburg University Library, 150,000 volumes;
   Strasburg University Library, 700,000 volumes; Strasburg City
   Library, 90,000 volumes; Weimar Grand-ducal Library, 223,000
   volumes and 2,000 manuscripts; Würzburg University Library,
   300,000 volumes.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

   "The Munich library, … in matter of administration,
   resembles the British Museum. Here one finds carefully
   catalogued that great wealth of material that appears only in
   doctorate theses, and for this reason is most valuable to the
   historic student. No tedious formalities are insisted upon,
   and orders for books are not subjected to long delays. The
   Vienna library moves slowly, as though its machinery were
   retarded by the weight of its royal imperial name. The
   catalogue is not accessible, the attendants are not anxious to
   please, and the worker feels no special affection for the
   institution. But at the royal library of Berlin there exists
   an opposite state of affairs—with the catalogue at hand one
   can readily give the information needful in filling up the
   call card. This being a lending library, one occasionally
   meets with disappointment, but, as the privilege of borrowing
   is easily had, this feature can have a compensatory side. The
   most marked peculiarity found here is the periodic delivery of
   books. All books ordered before nine o'clock are delivered at
   eleven; those before eleven, at one; those before one, at
   three; and those after three are delivered the same day if
   possible. This causes some delay, but as soon as the rule is
   known it has no drawback for the continuous user, and for the
   benefit of one who wants only a single order there is placed
   at the outer door of the building a box into which one can
   deposit the call card, and returning at the proper time find
   the book waiting in the reading room above. This saves the
   climbing of many steps, and enables one to perform other
   duties between ordering and receiving. As far as I know, here
   alone does one purchase the call cards, but as the price is
   only twenty cents per hundred the cost is not an important
   item."

      _J. H. Gore,
      Library Facilities for Study in Europe
      (Educational Review, June, 1893)._

   In Berlin, "the report of the city government for 1889-00
   reckons 25 public free libraries; 334,837 books were read by
   14,900 persons, i. e., 17,219 volumes less than last year. The
   expenses were 26,490 marks, the allowance from the city
   treasury 23,400 marks [less than $6,000]."

      _The Library Journal, May, 1892._

LIBRARIES: France:
   The Bibliothèque Nationale.

   "The history of the vast collection of books which is now,
   after many wanderings, definitely located in the Rue de
   Richelieu, divides itself naturally into three periods, which,
   for the sake of convenience, may well be called by three of
   the names under which the Library has, at different times,
   been known. The first period is that in which the Library was
   nothing more than the private collection of each successive
   sovereign of France, which sometimes accompanied him in his
   journeys, and but too often, as in the case of King John, or
   that of Charles VII., shared in his misfortunes; it was then
   fitly called the 'Bibliothèque du Roi.' This period may be
   considered as ending in the time of Henry IV., who transferred
   the royal collection from Fontainebleau to Paris, and gave it
   a temporary home in the College de Clermont. Although its
   abode has often been changed since, it has never again been
   attached to a royal palace, or been removed from the capital.
   The second period dates from this act of Henry the Fourth's,
   and extends down to the Revolution of 1780, during which time
   the Library, although open with but slight restrictions to all
   men of letters who were well recommended, and to the general
   public for two days a week, from the year 1692, was not
   regarded as national property, but as an appendage of the
   Crown, which was indeed graciously opened to the learned, but
   was only national property in the same sense that the Queen's
   private library at Windsor is national property.
{2011}
   Although still called the Bibliothèque du Roi during this
   period, it may well be here spoken of, for the sake of
   distinction, as the Bibliothèque Royale down to the
   Revolution. In 1791, the King's library was proclaimed
   national property, and it was decreed that it should
   henceforth be called 'Bibliothèque Nationale,' which name it
   bore till the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French,
   in 1805, when it was styled 'Bibliothèque Impériale.' Of
   course it was Bibliothèque Royale again in 1815, 'Nationale'
   in 1848, and once again, in 1852, was declared to be the
   'Bibliothèque Impériale.'"

      _Imperial Library of Paris
      (Westminster Review, April, 1870)._

   After the fall of the Second Empire, the great library again
   became "Nationale" in name. According to a report made in the
   spring of 1894, the Bibliothèque Nationale of France
   contained, at the end of the previous year, 1,934,154
   "'numbers,' forming at least 2,600,000 volumes." This report
   was made by a committee of twenty persons, appointed to
   consider the advisability and method of printing the catalogue
   of the library. The conclusions of the committee are favorable
   to the printing of the catalogue.

      _The Nation,
      May 17, 1894_.

   Books come to the National Library "in three ways: from (1)
   gifts, about 3,000 a year; … (2) purchase, 4,500 (the
   library has $20,000 a year to spend on books and binding); (3)
   copyright, 22,000 articles and 6,000 pieces of music. The
   printer, not the publisher, is bound to make the deposit, so
   that if the text and the illustrations are printed at
   different places there is a chance, unless everyone is
   careful, that the library will have an imperfect copy. But the
   greatest trouble comes from periodicals, of which the
   Bibliothèque Nationale receives 3,000. What would some of our
   librarians think of this who are inclined to boast or to
   lament that they receive 300? Every number of every newspaper
   in France must be received, sent for if it fails to come,
   registered, put on its pile, and at the end of the year tied
   up in a bundle and put away (for only the most important are
   bound). … The titles of new books are printed in a bulletin
   in two series, French and Foreign (causing a printer's bill of
   5,000 francs a year). This began in 1875 for the foreign, and
   in 1882 for the French. These bulletins are cut up and the
   titles mounted on slips, which are fastened in a Leyden
   binder, three making a small folio page. The result is a
   series of 900 volumes, less easy to consult than a good card
   catalog, very much less easy than the British Museum pasted
   catalog, the Rudolph books, or the Rudolph machine. … The
   books received at the Bibliothèque Nationale before 1875 and
   1882 are entered on some 2,000,000 slips, which are divided
   between two catalogs, that of the old library ('fonds
   ancien'), and of the intermediate library ('fonds
   intermédiarie'). In each of these catalogs they are arranged
   in series according to the subject divisions given above and
   under each subject alphabetically. There is no author catalog
   and the public are not allowed to consult these catalogs. If
   then a reader asks for a work received before 1875 the
   attendant guesses in which 'fonds' it is and what subject it
   treats of; if he does not find it where he looks first he
   tries some other division. No wonder it takes on an average
   half an hour for the reader to get his book. I must bear
   witness to the great skill which necessity has developed in
   the officials charged with this work. Some of their successes
   in bringing me out-of-the-way books were marvellous. On the
   other hand, when they reported certain works not in the
   library I did not feel at all sure that they were right, and I
   dare say they doubted themselves. All this will be changed
   when the library gets a printed alphabetical catalog of
   authors and has made from it a pasted alphabetical catalog of
   subjects. The author catalog, by the way, is expected to fill
   40,000 double-columned quarto pages. … The library now has
   50 kilometres (31 miles) of shelves and is full. A new
   store-house is needed and a public reading room ('salle de
   lecture'), which can be lighted by electricity, and be opened,
   like the British Museum, in the evening."

      _C. A. Cutter,
      Notes on the Bibliothèque Nationale
      (Library Journal, June, 1894)._

LIBRARIES: France:
   Paris Municipal Libraries.

   "The Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris have undergone a rapid
   development within the last few years. In 1878 there were only
   nine altogether, of which five were little used, and four
   practically unused. A special Bureau was then appointed by the
   Municipal Council to take charge of them, with the result that
   altogether 22 libraries have been opened, while the number of
   volumes lent rose from 29,339 in 1878 to 57,840 in 1879, to
   147,567 in 1880, to 242,738 in 1881, and to 363,322 in 1882.
   … A sum of 3,050 francs is placed at the disposal of each
   library by the Municipal Council, which is thus appropriated;
   Books and Binding, Fr. 1,750; Librarian, 1,000; Attendant,
   300. The amount of the sums thus voted by the Municipal
   Council in the year 1883 was 110,150 fr. For the year of 1884
   the sum of 171,700 fr. has been voted, the increase being
   intended to provide for the establishment of fifteen new
   libraries in Communal Schools, as well as for the growing
   requirements of some of the libraries already established. The
   individual libraries are not, of course, as yet very
   considerable in point of numbers. The stock possessed by the
   twenty-two Bibliothèques Municipales in 1882 was 87,831
   volumes, of which 20,411 had been added during that year.
   Information received since the publication of M. Dardenne's
   Report places the number in 1883 at 98,843 volumes. … The
   libraries are open to the public gratuitously every evening
   from 8 to 10 o'clock, and are closed on five days only during
   the whole year. Books may be read in the library or are lent
   out for home use. … Music is lent as well as books, the
   experiment having been first tried at the Mairie of the second
   arrondissement, in 1879, and having proved so successful that
   nine arrondissements have followed suit, and the total number
   of musical issues from the ten libraries in 1882 was 9,085.
   … Beside these libraries under the direction of the Mairies,
   there are a certain number of popular free libraries
   established and supported by voluntary efforts. Without
   dwelling upon the history of these libraries, all of which
   have been formed since 1860, it may be stated that there are
   now fourteen such libraries in as many arrondissements."

      _E. C. Thomas,
      The Popular Libraries of Paris
      (Library Chronicle, volume 1, 1884, pages 13-14)._

{2012}

   "The Journal Officiel' contains in the number for August 29,
   of this year (1891), the substance of the following account:
   … The city of Paris has now 64 public libraries, all of
   which send out books and accommodate readers in their halls;
   they are open at the times when the factories and shops are
   closed. … The libraries are kept in the mayoralty buildings
   or ward district school-houses; a central office provides for
   the administration and support, while in each precinct a
   committee of superintendence attends to the choice and
   ordering of new accessions. All expenses are paid by the city,
   which, in its last budget, in 1890, appropriated therefor the
   trifle of 225,000 francs. On every library in full use are
   bestowed yearly about 2,400 francs, while 14,000 francs are
   employed in founding new ones. The number of books circulated
   in 1890 was 1,386,642, against 29,339 in 1878, in the nine
   libraries then existing. In 1878 there was an average of only
   3,259 readers for each library, and in the last year the
   average was 23,500, which shows a seven-fold use of the
   libraries."

      _Public Libraries in Paris;
      translated from the Börsenblatt,
      October 7, 1891
      (Library Journal, May, 1892)._

LIBRARIES: France:
   Other Libraries.

   A library of importance in Paris second only to the great
   National is the Mazarin, which contains 300,000 volumes (1,000
   incunabula), and 5,800 manuscripts. The Library of the
   University has 141,678 volumes; the Library of the Museum of
   Natural History has 140,850 books and 2,050 manuscripts; the
   Sainte-Genevieve Library contains 120,000 volumes and 2,392
   manuscripts; the Library of the City of Paris, 90,000 volumes
   and 2,000 manuscripts. The principal libraries of the
   provincial cities are reported as follows: Caen Municipal
   Library, 100,000 volumes, 620 manuscripts; Dijon Municipal
   Library, 100,000 volumes, 1,558 manuscripts; Marseilles City
   Library, 102,000 volumes, 1,656 manuscripts; Montpelier City
   Library, 120,000 volumes; Nantes City Library, 102,172
   volumes, 2,231 manuscripts; Rheims Library, 100,000 books and
   1,700 manuscripts; Lyons City Library and Library of the
   Palace of Arts, 160,000 volumes and 1,900 manuscripts;
   Toulouse City Library, 100,000 volumes and 950 manuscripts;
   Rouen City Library, 132,000 printed books and 3,800
   manuscripts; Avignon, 117,000 volumes and 3,300 manuscripts;
   Bordeaux, 160,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Tours, 100,000
   volumes and 1,743 manuscripts; Amiens, 80,000 volumes, 1,500
   manuscripts; Besançon, 140,000 volumes and 1,850 manuscripts.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
    Italy.

   "There are in Italy between thirty and forty libraries which
   the present National Government, in recognition of former
   Governmental support, is committed to maintain, at least in
   some degree. It is a division of resources which even a rich
   country would find an impediment in developing a proper
   National Library, and Italy, with its over-burdened Treasury,
   is far from being in a position to offer the world a single
   library of the first class. … Italy, to build up a library
   which shall rank with the great national libraries of the
   future, will need to concentrate her resources; for though she
   has libraries now which are rich in manuscripts, she has not
   one which is able to meet the great demands of modern
   scholarship for printed books. … If with this want of
   fecundity there went a corresponding slothfulness in
   libraries, there would be little to be hoped of Italy in
   amassing great collections of books. In some respects I have
   found a more active bibliothecal spirit in Italy than
   elsewhere in Europe, and I suspect that if Italian unification
   has accomplished nothing else, it has unshackled the minds of
   librarians, and placed them more in sympathy with the modern
   gospel which makes a library more the servant than the master
   of its users. I suspect this is not, as a rule, the case in
   Germany. … I have certainly found in Italian librarians a
   great alertness of mind and a marked eagerness to observe the
   advances in library methods which have taken place elsewhere
   during the last five and twenty years. But at the same time,
   with all this activity, the miserable bureaucratic methods of
   which even the chance stranger sees so much in Italy, are
   allowed to embarrass the efforts of her best librarians. …
   In the present condition of Italian finances nothing adequate
   to the needs of the larger libraries can be allowed, and the
   wonder is that so much is done as is apparent; and it is
   doubtless owing to the great force of character which I find
   in some of the leading librarians that any progress is made at
   all. During the years when the new Italian kingdom had its
   capital in Florence a certain amount of concentration started
   the new Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale on its career; and when
   later the Government was transferred to Rome, the new capital
   was given another library, got together in a similar way,
   which is called the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele.
   Neither collection is housed in any way suited to its
   functions, and the one at Florence is much the most important;
   indeed it is marvellously rich in early printed books and in
   manuscripts."

      _J. Winsor,
      The condition of Italian Libraries
      (The Nation, July 9, 1891)._

LIBRARIES:
   The Vatican Library.

   "Even so inveterate a hater of literature as the Calif, who
   conquered Alexandria and gave its precious volumes to the
   flames, would have appreciated such a library as the Vatican.
   Not a book is to be seen—not a shelf is visible, and there is
   nothing to inform the visitor that he is in the most famous
   library in the world. … The eye is bewildered by innumerable
   busts, statues, and columns. The walls are gay with brilliant
   arabesques, and the visitor passes through lofty corridors and
   along splendid galleries, finding in every direction something
   to please and interest him. … The printed books number about
   125,000 volumes and there are about 25,000 manuscripts. The
   books and manuscripts are enclosed in low wooden cases around
   the walls of the various apartments, the cases are painted in
   white and gold colors, and thus harmonize with the gay
   appearance of the walls and ceilings. … The honor of
   founding the Vatican Library belongs to Pope Nicholas V., who,
   in 1447, transferred to the Palace of the Vatican the
   manuscripts which had been collected in the Lateran. At his
   death the library contained 9,000 manuscripts, but many of
   them were dispersed under his successor, Calixtus III. Sixtus
   IV. was very active in restoring and increasing the library.
   In 1588, the present library building was erected by Sixtus
   V., to receive the immense collection obtained by Leo X. In
   the year 1600 the value of the library was greatly augmented
   by the acquisition of the collection of Fulvius Ursinus and
   the valuable manuscripts from the Benedictine Monastery of
   Bobbio, composed chiefly of palimpsests. …
{2013}
   The next acquisition was the Library of the Elector Palatine,
   captured in 1621, at Heidelberg, by De Tilley, who presented
   it to Gregory XV. It numbered 2,388 manuscripts, 1,956 in
   Latin, and 432 in Greek. In 1658 the Library founded by Duke
   Federigo de Urbino—1,711 Greek and Latin manuscripts—was
   added to the valuable collection. One of the most valuable
   accessions was the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden,
   containing all the literary works which her father, Gustavus
   Adolphus, had captured at Prague, Bremen, etc., amounting to
   2,291 manuscripts, Greek and Latin. In 1746 the magnificent
   library of the Ottobuoni family, containing 3,862 Greek and
   Latin manuscripts, enriched the Vatican collection. After the
   downfall of Napoleon and the restoration of the peace of
   Europe in 1815, the King of Prussia, at the suggestion of
   Humboldt, applied to Pope Pius VII for the restoration of some
   of the manuscripts which De Tilley had plundered from the
   Heidelberg Library. The Pope, mindful of the prominent part
   taken by Prussia in the restoration of the Papal See,
   immediately complied with the royal request, and many
   manuscripts of great value to the German historians were sent
   back to Germany."

      _E. L. Didier,
      The Vatican Library
      (Literary World, June 28, 1884)._

   The following recent statistics of other Italian libraries are
   from "Minerva," 1893-94: Florence National Central Library,
   422,183 printed books, 398,845 pamphlets and 17,386
   manuscripts; Rome, National Central Library of Victor
   Emmanuel, 241,978 books, 130,728 pamphlets, 4,676 manuscripts;
   Naples University Library, 181,072 printed books, 43,453
   pamphlets, and 109 manuscripts; Bologna University Library,
   251,700 books, 43,633 pamphlets and 5,000 manuscripts; Pavia
   University Library, 136,000 books, 80,000 pamphlets and 1,100
   manuscripts; Turin National Library, 196,279 printed books and
   4,119 manuscripts; Venice, National Library of St. Mark,
   401,652 printed and bound books, 80,450 pamphlets, and 12,016
   manuscripts; Pisa University Library, 108,188 books, 22,960
   pamphlets and 274 manuscripts; Genoa University Library,
   106,693 books, 46,231 pamphlets, and 1,586 manuscripts;
   Modena, the Este Library, 123,300 volumes, and 5,000
   manuscripts; Padua University Library, 135,837 volumes, 2,326
   manuscripts, and 63,849 pamphlets, etc.; Palermo National
   Library, 177,892 volumes and pamphlets, and 1,527 manuscripts;
   Palermo Communal Library, 209,000 books, 16,000 pamphlets,
   etc., 3,000 manuscripts; Parma Palatine Library, 250,000
   books, 20,313 pamphlets, etc., 4,769 manuscripts; Siena
   Communal Library 67,966 volumes, 26,968 pamphlets, 4,890
   manuscripts.

LIBRARIES:
  Austria-Hungary.

   The principal libraries in the Empire are reported to contain
   as follows: Vienna University Library, 416,608 volumes, 373
   incunabula, 498 manuscripts; Vienna Imperial and Royal Court
   Library, 500,000 volumes, 6,461 incunabula, and 20,000
   manuscripts; Budapest University Library, 200,000 volumes,
   1,000 manuscripts; Hungarian National Museum, 400,000 volumes
   and 63,000 manuscripts, mostly Hungarian; Czernowitz
   University Library, 64,586 volumes and over 30,000 pamphlets,
   etc.; Graz University 131,397 volumes of books and 1,708
   manuscripts; Innspruck University Library, 135,000 printed
   books, including 1,653 incunabula, and 1,046 manuscripts;
   Cracow University Library, 283,858 volumes and 5,150
   manuscripts; Lemberg University Library, 120,900 volumes;
   Prague University Library, 211,131 volumes, 3,848 manuscripts.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

 LIBRARIES:
   Switzerland.

   The principal libraries of Switzerland are the following:
   Basle Public Library, 170,000 volumes of printed books and
   about 5,000 manuscripts; Berne City Library, 80,000 volumes
   and a valuable manuscript collection; Berne University
   Library, 35,000 volumes; St. Gall "Stiftsbibliothek," about
   40,000 volumes, including l,584 incunabula, and 1,730
   manuscripts; Lucerne Cantonal Library, 80,000 volumes; Zurich
   City Library, 130,000 volumes.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
   Holland.

   The following statistics of libraries in Holland are given in
   the German handbook, _"Minerva," 1893-94: Leyden University
   Library_, 190,000 volumes of printed books and 5,400
   manuscripts, of which latter 2,400 are oriental; Utrecht
   University Library, 200,000 volumes, besides pamphlets;
   Groningen University Library, 70,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   Belgium.

   Brussels Royal Library, 375,000 volumes, and 27,000
   manuscripts; Ghent, Library of the City and University of
   Gand, 300,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

   The principal libraries of the Scandinavian kingdoms contain
   as follows: Christiania University Library, 312,000 volumes;
   Gothenburg City Library, about 60,000 volumes; Copenhagen
   University Library 300,000 books and 5,000 manuscripts; Lund
   University Library, 150,000 volumes; Stockholm Royal Library,
   300,000 printed books and 11,000 manuscripts; Upsala
   University Library, 275,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
   Spain.

   The principal libraries in Spain are the following: Barcelona
   Provincial and University Library, 54,000 volumes; Madrid
   University Library, 200,761 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
   Madrid National Library, 450,000 volumes and 10,000
   manuscripts; Salamanca University Library, 72,000 volumes and
   870 manuscripts; Seville University Library, 62,000 volumes;
   Valencia University Library, 45,000 volumes; Valladolid
   University Library, 32,000 volumes.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
   Russia.

   "The most notable [Russian] libraries are those founded by the
   government. Of these, two deserve special attention: the
   library of the Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Public
   Library in St. Petersburg. Books taken by the Russian armies
   from the Baltic provinces at the beginning of the eighteenth
   century formed the foundation of the first. The Imperial
   Library was the result of the Russian capture of Warsaw. Count
   Joseph Zalussky, bishop of Kiev, spent forty-three years
   collecting a rich library of 300,000 volumes and 10,000
   manuscripts, devoting all his wealth to the purchase of books.
   His brother Andrew further enriched the library with volumes
   taken from the museum of the Polish king, John III. In 1747
   Joseph Zalussky opened the library to the public, and in 1761
   bequeathed it to a college of Jesuits in Warsaw. Six years
   later (1767) Zalussky was arrested and his library removed to
   St. Petersburg. The transfer took place in bad weather and
   over poor roads, so that many books were injured and many lost
   in transit. When the library reached St. Petersburg it
   numbered 262,640 volumes and 24,500 estampes. Many had been
   stolen during the journey, and years later there were to be
   found in Poland books bearing the signature of Zalussky.
{2014}
   To the Imperial Library Alexander I. added, in 1805, the
   Dubrovsky collection. … Dubrovsky gathered his collection
   during a twenty-five years' residence in Paris, Rome, Madrid,
   and other large cities of Europe. He acquired many during the
   French revolution. … The Imperial Library possesses many
   palimpsests, Greek manuscripts of the second century, …
   besides Slavonian, Latin, French, and Oriental manuscripts.
   … The library is constantly growing, about 25,000 volumes
   being added every year. In income, size, and number of readers
   it vastly surpasses all private libraries in Russia, the
   largest of which does not exceed 25,000 volumes. In later
   years the village schools began to open libraries for limited
   circles of readers. Small libraries were successfully
   maintained in cities and the demand for good reading steadily
   increased among the people."

      _A. V. Babine,
      Libraries in Russia,
      (Library Journal, March, 1893)._

   The principal libraries of Russia reported in the German
   yearbook "Minerva" 1893-94 are the following: Charkow
   University Library, 123,000 volumes; Dorpat University
   Library, 170,000 volumes, and 104,700 dissertationen;
   Helsingfors University Library 170,000 volumes; Kasan
   University Library, 100,000 volumes; Kiev University Library,
   118,000 volumes; Moscow University Library, 217,000 volumes;
   Odessa University Library, 102,000 volumes; St. Petersburg
   University Library, 215,700 volumes; St. Petersburg Imperial
   Public Library, 1,050,000 volumes, 28,000 manuscripts.

LIBRARIES:
   England: The King's Library and the British Museum.

   "No monarch of England is known to have been an extensive
   collector of books (in the modern acceptation of the term)
   except George III., or, if the name of Charles I. should be
   added, it must be in a secondary rank, and with some
   uncertainty, because we have not the same evidence of his
   collection of books as we have of his pictures, in the
   catalogue which exists of them. A royal library had, indeed,
   been established in the reign of Henry VII.; it was increased,
   as noticed by Walpole, by many presents from abroad, made to
   our monarchs after the restoration of learning and the
   invention of printing; and naturally received accessions in
   every subsequent reign, if it were only from the various
   presents by which authors desired to show their respect or to
   solicit patronage, as well as from the custom of making new
   year's gifts, which were often books. There were also added to
   it the entire libraries of Lord Lumley (including those of
   Henry, Earl of Arundel, and Archbishop Cranmer), of the
   celebrated Casaubon, of Sir John Morris, and the Oriental MSS.
   of Sir Thomas Roe. Whilst this collection remained at St.
   James's Palace, the number of books amassed in each reign
   could have been easily distinguished, as they were classed and
   arranged under the names of the respective sovereigns. In 1759
   King George II. transferred the whole, by letters patent, to
   the then newly-formed establishment of the British Museum; the
   arrangement under reigns was some time after departed from,
   and the several royal collections interspersed with the other
   books obtained from Sir Hans Sloane, Major Edwards, and
   various other sources. … George III., on his accession to
   the crown, thus found the apartments which had formerly
   contained the library of the Kings of England vacated by their
   ancient tenants. … Sir F. A. Barnard states that 'to create
   an establishment so necessary and important, and to attach it
   to the royal residence, was one of the earliest objects which
   engaged his majesty's attention at the commencement of his
   reign;' and he adds that the library of Joseph Smith, Esq.,
   the British Consul at Venice, which was purchased in 1762,
   'became the foundation of the present Royal Library.' Consul
   Smith's collection was already well known, from a catalogue
   which had been printed at Venice in 1755, to be eminently rich
   in the earliest editions of the classics, and in Italian
   literature.' Its purchase was effected for about £10,000, and
   it was brought direct to some apartments at the Queen's Palace
   commonly called Buckingham House. Here the subsequent
   collections were amassed; and here, after they had outgrown
   the rooms at first appropriated to them, the King erected two
   large additional libraries, one of which was a handsome
   octagon. Latterly the books occupied no less than seven
   apartments. … Early in the year 1823, it was made known to
   the public that King George IV. had presented the Royal
   Library to the British nation. … Shortly after, the
   Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons
   that it was his majesty's wish that the library should be
   placed in the British Museum, but in a separate apartment from
   the Museum Library."

      _Gentleman's Magazine, 1834,
      pages 16-22._

   "In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe … great
   national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the
   liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or
   other, or of some powerful minister whose mind was large
   enough to combine with the cares of State a care for Learning.
   In Britain, our chief public collection of literature and of
   science originated simply in the public spirit of private
   persons. The British Museum was founded precisely at that
   period of our history when the distinctively national, or
   governmental, care for the interests of literature and of
   science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest, point. As
   regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since
   the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern
   for the progress and diffusion of learning than did the first
   and second princes of the House of Hanover. As regards
   Parliament, the tardy and languid acceptance of the boon
   proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans Sloane, constitutes just
   the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to give
   saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary
   rule. Long before Sloane's time … there had been zealous and
   repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government as
   well to the political importance as to the educational value
   of public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that
   such collections were a positive increase of public wealth and
   of national greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of
   popular education. It had been shewn, over and over again,
   that for lack of public care precious monuments and treasures
   of learning had been lost; sometimes by their removal to
   far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction. Until
   the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans
   Sloane, in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those
   efforts had uniformly failed. But Sir Hans Sloane cannot claim
   to be regarded, individually or very specially, as the Founder
   of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed, gave an opportunity
   for the foundation.
{2015}
   Strictly speaking, he was not even the Founder of his own
   Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The Founder of the
   Sloane Museum was William Courten, the last of a line of
   wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted
   country, is a series of romantic adventures. Parliament had
   previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at the
   hands of Sir John Cotton, third in descent from its Founder,
   and its acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost
   unbroken neglect, although the gift was a noble one. Sir John,
   when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas Carte, told the
   historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money,
   together with a carte blanche for some honorary mark of royal
   favour, on the part of Lewis XIV., for the Library which he
   afterwards settled upon the British nation. It has been
   estimated that Sloane expended (from first to last) upon his
   various collections about £50,000; so that even from the
   mercantile point of view, the Cotton family may be said to
   have been larger voluntary contributors towards our eventual
   National Museum than was Sir Hans Sloane himself. That point
   of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow,
   one. Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer
   standard, the third, in order of time, of the
   Foundation-Collections,—that of the 'Harleian
   Manuscripts,'—was a much less important acquisition for the
   Nation than was the Museum of Sloane, or the Library of
   Cotton; but its literary value, as all students of our history
   and literature know, is, nevertheless, considerable. Its first
   Collector, Robert Harley, the Minister of Queen Anne and the
   first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is fairly entitled to
   rank, after Cotton, Courten, and Sloane, among the virtual or
   eventual co-founders of the British Museum. Chronologically,
   then, Sir Robert Cotton, William Courten, Hans Sloane, and
   Robert Harley, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate
   their relative position in accordance with the successive
   steps by which the British Museum was eventually organized.
   But there is another synchronism by which greater accuracy is
   attainable. Although four years had elapsed between the
   passing—in 1753—of 'An Act for the purchase of the Museum or
   Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection
   of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for
   the better reception and more convenient use of the said
   Collections, and of the Cottonian Library and of the additions
   thereto,' and the gift—in 1757—to the Trustees of those
   already united Collections by King George II. of the Old Royal
   Library of the Kings his predecessors, yet that royal
   collection itself had been (in a restricted sense of the
   words) a Public and National possession soon after the days of
   the first real and central Founder of the present Museum, Sir
   Robert Cotton. But, despite its title, that Royal Library,
   also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of
   Sovereigns or Governments. Its virtual founder Was Henry,
   prince of Wales [son of James I.]. It was acquired, out of his
   privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He, therefore, has
   a title to be placed among the individual Collectors whose
   united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the
   creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none,
   of its kind, in the world."

      _E. Edwards,
      Founders of the British Museum,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "Montague House was purchased by the Trustees in 1754 for a
   general repository, and the collections were removed to it.
   … On the 15th of January, 1750, the British Museum was
   opened for the inspection and use of the public. At first the
   Museum was divided into three departments, viz., Printed
   Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History; at the head of each
   of them was placed an officer designated as 'Under Librarian.'
   The increase of the collections soon rendered it necessary to
   provide additional accommodation for them, Montague House
   proving insufficient. The present by George III. of Egyptian
   Antiquities, and the purchase of the Hamilton and Townley
   Antiquities, made it moreover imperative to create an
   additional department—that of Antiquities and Art—to which
   were united the Prints and Drawings, as well as the Medals and
   Coins, previously attached to the library of Printed Books and
   Manuscripts. The acquisition of the Elgin Marbles in 1816 made
   the Department of Antiquities of the highest importance, and
   increased room being indispensable for the exhibition of those
   marbles, a temporary shelter was prepared for them. This was
   the last addition to Montague House. When, in 1823, the
   library collected by George III. was presented to the nation
   by George IV. it became necessary to erect a building fit to
   receive this valuable and extensive collection. It was then
   decided to have an entirely new edifice to contain the whole
   of the Museum collection, including the recently-acquired
   library. Sir R. Smirke was accordingly directed by the
   Trustees to prepare plans. The eastern side of the present
   structure was completed in 1828, and the Royal Library was
   then placed in it. The northern, southern, and western sides
   of the building were subsequently added, and in 1845 the whole
   of Montague House and its additions had disappeared; while the
   increasing collections had rendered it necessary to make
   various additions to the original design of Sir R. Smirke,
   some of them even before it had been carried out."

      _J. W. Jones,
      British Museum: a Guide,
      pages ii-iii._

   "The necessity of a general enlargement of the library led to
   the suggestion of many plans—some impracticable—some too
   expensive—and all involving a delay which would have been
   fatal to the efficiency of the Institution. … Fortunately
   … after much vigorous discussion, a plan which had been
   suggested by the … Principal Librarian [Mr. Panizzi] for
   building in the vacant quadrangle, was adopted and carried out
   under his own immediate and watchful superintendence. … The
   quadrangle within which the new library is built is 313 feet
   in length by 235 wide, comprising an area of 73,555 square
   feet. Of this space the building covers 47,472 feet, being 258
   feet long by 184 feet in width, thus leaving an interval of
   from 27 to 30 feet all round. By this arrangement, the light
   and ventilation of the surrounding buildings is not interfered
   with, and the risk of fire from the outer buildings is guarded
   against. The Reading Boom is circular. The dome is 140 feet in
   diameter, and its height 106 feet. The diameter of the lantern
   is 40 feet. Light is further obtained from twenty
   circular-headed windows, 27 feet high by 12 feet wide,
   inserted at equal intervals round the dome at a height of 35
   feet from the ground.
{2016}
   In its diameter the dome of the Reading Room exceeds all
   others, with the exception of the Pantheon of Rome, which is
   about 2 feet wider. That of St. Peter's at Rome, and of Santa
   Maria in Florence are each only 139 feet; that of the tomb of
   Mahomet at Bejapore, 135; of St. Paul's, 112; of St. Sophia,
   at Constantinople, 107; and of the church of Darmstadt, 105.
   The new Reading Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space,
   and the surrounding libraries 750,000. These libraries are 24
   feet in height, with the exception of that part which runs
   round the outside of the Reading Room, which is 32 feet high;
   the spring of the dome being 24 feet from the floor of the
   Reading Room, and the ground excavated 8 feet below this
   level. The whole building is constructed principally of iron.
   … The Reading Room contains ample and comfortable
   accommodation for 302 readers. There are thirty-five tables:
   eight are 34 feet long, and accommodate sixteen readers, eight
   on each side; nine are 30 feet long, and accommodate fourteen
   readers, seven on each side; two are 30 feet long, and
   accommodate eight readers each, viz., seven on one side and
   one on the other—these two tables are set apart for the
   exclusive use of ladies; sixteen other tables are 6 feet long,
   and accommodate two readers each—these are fitted up with
   rising desks of a large size for those readers who may have
   occasion to consult works beyond the usual dimensions. Each
   person has allotted to him, at the long tables, a space of 4
   feet 3 inches in length by 2 feet 1 inch in depth. He is
   screened from the opposite occupant by a longitudinal
   division, which is fitted with a hinged desk graduated on
   sloping racks, and a folding shelf for spare books. In the
   space between the two, which is recessed, an inkstand is
   fixed, having suitable penholders. … The framework of each
   table is of iron, forming air-distributing channels, which are
   contrived so that the air may be delivered at the top of the
   longitudinal screen division, above the level of the heads of
   the readers, or, if desired, only at each end pedestal of the
   tables, all the outlets being under the control of valves. A
   tubular foot-rail also passes from end to end of each table,
   which may have a current of warm water through it at pleasure,
   and be used as a foot-warmer if required. The pedestals of the
   tables form tubes communicating with the air-chamber below,
   which is 6 feet high, and occupies the whole area of the
   Reading Room: it is fitted with hot-water pipes arranged in
   radiating lines. The supply of fresh air is obtained from a
   shaft 60 feet high. … The shelves within the Reading Room
   contain about 60,000 volumes: the new building altogether will
   accommodate about 1,500,000 volumes."

      _List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the
      British Museum; preface._

   The number of volumes of printed books in the British Museum
   in 1893 is reported to have been 1,600,000, the number of
   manuscripts 50,000 and the maps and charts 200,000.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

   A purchase from the Duke of Bedford, of adjoining land, to the
   extent of five and a half acres, for the enlargement of the
   Museum, was announced by the London Times, March 18, 1894.
   With this addition, the area of ground occupied by the Museum
   will be fourteen acres.

LIBRARIES:
   England: The Bodleian Library.

   "Its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, was a worthy of Devon, who
   had been actively employed by Queen Elizabeth as a
   diplomatist, and had returned tired of court life to the
   University, where long before he had been Fellow of Merton
   College. He found the ancient library of the University
   (which, after growing slowly with many vicissitudes from small
   beginnings, had suddenly been enriched in 1439-46 by a gift of
   264 valuable MSS. from Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) utterly
   destroyed by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, and the room built
   for its reception (still called 'Duke Humphrey's library')
   swept clear even of the readers' desks. His determination to
   refound the library of the University was actively carried
   out, and on November 8, 1602, the new institution was formally
   opened with about 2,000 printed and manuscript volumes. Two
   striking advantages were possessed by the Bodleian almost from
   the first. Sir Thomas Bodley employed his great influence at
   court and with friends to induce them to give help to his
   scheme, and accordingly we find not only donations of money
   and books from personal friends, but 240 MSS. contributed by
   the Deans and Chapters of Exeter and Windsor. Moreover, in
   1610, he arranged with the Stationers' Company that they
   should present his foundation with a copy of every printed
   book published by a member of the Company; and from that time
   to this the right to every book published in the kingdom has
   been continuously enjoyed."

      _F. Madan,
      Books in Manuscript,
      page 84._

   In 1891 the Bodleian Library was said to contain 400,000
   printed books and 30,000 manuscripts. Under the copyright act
   of Great Britain, the British Museum, the Bodleian Library,
   Oxford, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates
   Library, Edinburgh, and the Trinity College Library, Dublin,
   are each entitled to a copy of every work published in the
   United Kingdom.

LIBRARIES:
   England: Rise and Growth of Free Town-Libraries.

   In the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th edition) we read, in the
   article "Libraries," that "the fine old library instituted by
   Humphrey Chetham in Manchester, in 1653, and which is still
   'housed in the old collegiate buildings where Raleigh was once
   entertained by Dr. Dee, might be said to be the first free
   library' in England. Two centuries, however, before worthy
   Chetham had erected his free fountain of knowledge for thirsty
   souls, a grave fraternity known as the Guild of Kalendars had
   established a free library, for all comers, in connection with
   a church yet standing in one of the thoroughfares of Old
   Bristol. … John Leland (temp. Henry VIII.) speaks of the
   Kalendars as an established body about the year 1170: and when
   in 1216 Henry III. held a Parliament in Bristol, the deeds of
   the guild were inspected, and ratified on account of the
   antiquity and high character of the fraternity ('propter
   antiquitates et bonitates in eâ Gilda repertas'), and Gualo,
   the Papal Legate, commended the Kalendars to the care of
   William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester, within whose diocese
   Bristol then lay. It was the office of the Kalendars to record
   local events and such general affairs as were thought worthy
   of commemoration, whence their name. They consisted of clergy
   and laity, even women being admitted to their Order. …
{2017}
   It was ordered by Wolstan, Bishop of Worcester, who in
   visitation of this part of his diocese, July 10, 1340,
   examined the ancient rules of the College, that a prior in
   priest's orders should be chosen by the majority of the
   chaplains and lay brethren, without the solemnity of
   confirmation, consecration or benediction of superiors, and
   eight chaplains who were not bound by monastic rules, were to
   be joined with him to celebrate for departed brethren and
   benefactors every day. By an ordinance of John Carpenter,
   Bishop of Worcester, A. D. 1464, the Prior was to reside in
   the college, and take charge of a certain library newly
   erected at the Bishop's expense, so that every festival day
   from seven to eleven in the forenoon admission should be
   freely allowed to all desirous of consulting the Prior, to
   read a public lecture every week in the library, and elucidate
   obscure places of Scripture as well as he could to those
   desirous of his teachings. … Lest, through negligence or
   accident, the books should be lost, it was ordered that three
   catalogues of them should be kept; one to remain with the Dean
   of Augustinian Canons, whose 14th-century church is now
   Bristol Cathedral, another with the Mayor for the time being,
   and the third with the Prior himself. Unfortunately, they are
   all three lost. … This interesting library was destroyed by
   fire in 1466 through the carelessness of a drunken
   'point-maker,' two adjoining houses against the steeple of the
   church being at the same time burnt down."

      _J. Taylor,
      The First English Free Library and its Founders
      (Murray's Magazine, November, 1891)._

   "Free town-libraries are essentially a modern institution, and
   yet can boast of a greater antiquity than is generally
   supposed, for we find a town-library at Auvergne in 1540, and
   one at a still earlier date at Aix. Either the munificence of
   individuals or the action of corporate authorities has given
   very many of the continental towns freely accessible
   libraries, some of them of considerable extent. In England the
   history of town-libraries is much briefer. There is reason to
   believe that London at an early date was possessed of a common
   library; and Bristol, Norwich, and Leicester, had each
   town-libraries, but the corporations proved but careless
   guardians of their trust, and in each case allowed it to be
   diverted from the free use of the citizens for the benefit of
   a subscription library. At Bristol, in 1613, Mr. Robert
   Redwood 'gave his lodge to be converted into a library or
   place to put books in for the furtherance of learning.' Some
   few years after, Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York, left some
   valuable books in various departments of literature for free
   access 'to the merchants and shopkeepers.' … The paucity of
   our public libraries, twenty years ago, excited the attention
   of Mr. Edward Edwards, to whose labours in this field the
   country owes so much. Having collected a large amount of
   statistics as to the comparative number of these institutions
   in different States, he communicated the result of his
   researches to the Statistical Society, in a paper which was
   read on the 20th of March, 1848, and was printed in this
   'Journal' in the August following. The paper revealed some
   unpleasant facts, and showed that, in respect of the provision
   of public libraries, Great Britain occupied a very unworthy
   position. In the United Kingdom (including Malta) Mr. Edwards
   could only discover 29 libraries having more than 10,000
   volumes, whilst France could boast 107, Austria 41,
   Switzerland 13. The number of volumes to every hundred of the
   population of cities containing libraries, was in Great
   Britain 43, France 125, Brunswick 2,353. Of the 29 British
   libraries enumerated by Mr. Edwards, some had only doubtful
   claims to be considered as public, and only one of them was
   absolutely free to all comers, without influence or formality.
   That one was the public library at Manchester, founded by
   Humphrey Chetham in 1665. The paper read before this Society
   twenty-two years ago was destined to be productive of great
   and speedy results. From the reading of it sprang the present
   system of free town-libraries. The seed was then sown, and it
   is now fructifying in the libraries which are springing up on
   every hand. The paper attracted the attention of the late
   William Ewart, Esq., M. P., and ultimately led to the
   appointment of a parliamentary committee on the subject of
   public libraries. The report of this committee paved the way
   for the Public Libraries Act of 1850."

      _W. E. A. Axon,
      Statistical Notes on the Free Town-Libraries of Great
      Britain and the Continent
      (Journal of the Statistical Society,
      September 1870, volume 33)._

   The progress of free public libraries in England under the Act
   of 1850 was not, for a long time, very rapid. "In the 36 years
   from 1850 onward—that is, down to 1886—133 places had
   availed themselves of the benefits of the act. That was not a
   very large number, not amounting quite, upon the average, to
   four in each of those 36 years. … Now, see the change which
   has taken place. We have only four years, from 1887 to 1890,
   and in those four years no less than 70 places have taken
   advantage of the act, so that instead of an average of less
   than four places in the year, we have an average of more than
   17 places."

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Address at the Opening of the Free Public Library of St.
      Martin's-in-the-Fields._

   "The Clerkenwell Library Commissioners draw attention to the
   enormous strides London has made within the last five years in
   the matter of public libraries. In 1886 four parishes had
   adopted the Acts; by December, 1891, 29 parishes had adopted
   them, and there are already 30 libraries and branches opened
   throughout the County of London, possessing over 250,000
   volumes, and issuing over 3,000,000 volumes per annum."

      _The Library Journal,
      February, 1892._

   Under a new law, which came into force in 1893, "any local
   authority (i. e., town council or district board), save in the
   County of London, may establish and maintain public libraries
   without reference to the wishes of the rate payers."

      _The Library Journal,
      October, 1893 (volume 18, page 442)._

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Franklin and the first Subscription Library.

   When Franklin's club, at Philadelphia, the Junto, was first
   formed, "its meetings were held (as the custom of clubs was in
   that clubbing age) in a tavern; and in a tavern of such humble
   pretensions as to be called by Franklin an ale-house. But the
   leathern-aproned philosophers soon removed to a room of their
   own, lent them by one of their members, Robert Grace. It often
   happened that a member would bring a book or two to the Junto,
   for the purpose of illustrating the subject of debate, and
   this led Franklin to propose that all the members should keep
   their books in the Junto room, as well for reference while
   debating as for the use of members during the week. The
   suggestion being approved, one end of their little apartment
   was soon filled with books; and there they remained for the
   common benefit a year.
{2018}
   But some books having been injured, their owners became
   dissatisfied, and the books were all taken home. Books were
   then scarce, high-priced, and of great bulk. Folios were still
   common, and a book of less magnitude than quarto was deemed
   insignificant. … Few books of much importance were published
   at less than two guineas. Such prices as four guineas, five
   guineas, and six guineas were not uncommon. Deprived of the
   advantage of the Junto collection, Franklin conceived the idea
   of a subscription library. Early in 1731 he drew up a plan,
   the substance of which was, that each subscriber should
   contribute two pounds sterling for the first purchase of
   books, and ten shillings a year for the increase of the
   library. As few of the inhabitants of Philadelphia had money
   to spare, and still fewer cared for reading, he found very
   great difficulty in procuring a sufficient number of
   subscribers. He says: 'I put myself as much as I could out of
   sight, and stated it as a scheme of a number of friends, who
   had requested me to go about and propose it to such as they
   thought lovers of reading. In this way my affairs went on more
   smoothly, and I ever after practiced it on such occasions, and
   from my frequent successes can heartily recommend it.' Yet it
   was not until November, 1731, at least five months after the
   project was started, that fifty names were obtained; and not
   till March, 1732, that the money was collected. After
   consulting James Logan, 'the best judge of books in these
   parts,' the first list of books was made out, a draft upon
   London of forty-five pounds was purchased, and both were
   placed in the hands of one of the directors who was going to
   England. Peter Collinson undertook the purchase, and added to
   it presents of Newton's 'Principia,' and 'Gardener's
   Dictionary.' All the business of the library Mr. Collinson
   continued to transact for thirty years, and always swelled the
   annual parcel of books by gifts of valuable works. In those
   days getting a parcel from London was a tedious affair indeed.
   All the summer of 1732 the subscribers were waiting for the
   coming of the books, as for an event of the greatest interest.
   … In October the books arrived, and were placed, at first,
   in the room of the Junto. A librarian was appointed, and the
   library was opened once a week for giving out the books. The
   second year Franklin himself served as librarian. For many
   years the secretary to the directors was Joseph Breintnal, by
   whose zeal and diligence the interests of the library were
   greatly promoted. Franklin printed a catalogue soon after the
   arrival of the books, for which, and for other printing, he
   was exempted from paying his annual ten shillings for two
   years. The success of this library, thus begun by a few
   mechanics and clerks, was great in every sense of the word.
   Valuable donations of books, money and curiosities were
   frequently made to it. The number of subscribers slowly, but
   steadily, increased. Libraries of similar character sprung up
   all over the country, and many were started even in
   Philadelphia. Kalm, who was in Philadelphia in 1748, says that
   then the parent library had given rise to 'many little
   libraries,' on the same plan as itself. He also says that
   non-subscribers were then allowed to take books out of the
   library, by leaving a pledge for the value of the book, and
   paying for a folio eight pence a week, for a quarto six pence,
   and for all others four pence. 'The subscribers,' he says,
   'were so kind to me as to order the librarian, during my stay
   here, to lend me every book I should want, without requiring
   any payment of me.' In 1764, the shares had risen in value to
   nearly twenty pounds, and the collection was considered to be
   worth seventeen hundred pounds. In 1785, the number of volumes
   was 5,487; in 1807, 14,457; in 1861, 70,000. The institution
   is one of the few in America that has held on its way,
   unchanged in any essential principle, for a century and a
   quarter, always on the increase, always faithfully
   administered, always doing well its appointed work. There is
   every reason to believe that it will do so for centuries to
   come. The prosperity of the Philadelphia Library was owing to
   the original excellence of the plan, the good sense embodied
   in the rules, the care with which its affairs were conducted,
   and the vigilance of Franklin and his friends in turning to
   account passing events. Thomas Penn, for example, visited
   Philadelphia a year or two after the library was founded; when
   the directors of the library waited upon him with a dutiful
   address, and received, in return, a gift of books and
   apparatus. It were difficult to over-estimate the value to the
   colonies of the libraries that grew out of Franklin's
   original' conception. They were among the chief means of
   educating the colonies up to Independence. 'Reading became
   fashionable,' says Franklin; 'and our people having no public
   amusements to divert their attention from study, became better
   acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed, by
   strangers, to be better instructed and more intelligent than
   people of the same rank generally are in other countries.' …
   What the Philadelphia Library did for Franklin himself, the
   libraries, doubtless, did for many others. It made him a daily
   student for twenty years. He set apart an hour or two every
   day for study, and thus acquired the substance of all the most
   valuable knowledge then possessed by mankind. Whether Franklin
   was the originator of subscription libraries, and of the idea
   of permitting books to be taken to the homes of subscribers, I
   cannot positively assert. But I can discover no trace of
   either of those two fruitful conceptions before his time."

      _J. Parton,
      Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin,
      pages 200-203._

   "The books were at first kept in the house of Robert Grace,
   whom Franklin characterizes as 'a young gentleman of some
   fortune, generous, lively, and witty, a lover of punning and
   of his friends.' Afterward they were allotted a room in the
   State-House; and, in 1742, a charter was obtained from the
   Proprietaries. In 1790, having in the interval absorbed
   several other associations and sustained a removal to
   Carpenter's Hall, where its apartment had been used as a
   hospital for wounded American soldiers, the Library was at
   last housed in a building especially erected for it at Fifth
   and Chestnut streets, where it remained until within the last
   few years. It brought only about eight thousand volumes into
   its new quarters, for it had languished somewhat during the
   Revolution and the war of words which attended our political
   birth. But it had received no injury. … Two years after
   removal to its quarters on Fifth street, the Library received
   the most valuable gift of books it has as yet had. James
   Logan, friend and adviser of Penn, … had gathered a most
   important collection of books.
{2019}
   Mr. Logan was translator of Cicero's 'Cato Major,' the first
   classic published in America, besides being versed in natural
   science. His library comprised, as he tells us, 'over one
   hundred volumes of authors, all in Greek, with mostly their
   versions; all the Roman classics without exception; all the
   Greek mathematicians. … Besides there are many of the most
   valuable Latin authors, and a great number of modern
   mathematicians.' These, at first bequeathed as a public
   library to the city, became a branch of the Philadelphia
   Library under certain conditions, one of which was that,
   barring contingencies, one of the donor's descendants should
   always hold the office of trustee. And to-day his direct
   descendant fills the position, and is perhaps the only example
   in this country of an hereditary office-holder. … In 1869
   died Dr. James Rush, son of Benjamin Rush, and himself well
   known as the author of a work on the human voice, and as
   husband of a lady who almost succeeded in naturalizing the
   salon in this country. By his will about one million dollars
   were devoted to the erection and maintenance of an isolated
   and fire-proof library-building, which was to be named the
   Ridgway Library, in memory of his wife. This building was
   offered to the Philadelphia Company, and the bequest was
   accepted. That institution had by this time accumulated about
   one hundred thousand volumes. … A building of the Doric
   order was erected, which with its grounds covers an entire
   square or block, and is calculated to contain four hundred
   thousand volumes, or three times as many as the Library at
   present has, and to this building the more valuable books of
   the Library were removed in 1878; the fiction and more modern
   works being placed in another designed in imitation of the old
   edifice, and nearer the center of the city."

      _B. Samuel,
      The Father of American Libraries
      (Century Magazine, May, 1883)._

   In 1893, the library of the Philadelphia Library Company
   contained 171,069 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   The First Library in New York.

   The New York Society Library is the oldest institution of the
   kind in the city of New York. "In 1729, the Reverend Dr.
   Millington, Rector of Newington, England, by his will,
   bequeathed his library to the Society for the Propagation of
   the Gospel in Foreign Parts. By this society the library of
   Dr. Millington was presented to the corporation of the city,
   for the use of the clergy and gentlemen of New-York and the
   neighbouring provinces. … 'In 1754 [as related in Smith's
   History of New York] a set of gentlemen undertook to carry
   about a subscription towards raising a public library, and in
   a few days collected near 600 pounds, which were laid out in
   purchasing about 700 volumes of new, well-chosen books. Every
   subscriber, upon payment of five pounds principal, and the
   annual sum of ten shillings, is entitled to the use of these
   books,—his right, by the articles, is assignable, and for
   non-compliance with them may be forfeited. The care of this
   library is committed to twelve trustees, annually elected by
   the subscribers, on the last Tuesday of April, who are
   restricted from making any rules repugnant to the fundamental
   subscription. This is the beginning of a library which, in
   process of time, will probably become vastly rich and
   voluminous, and it would be very proper for the company to
   have a Charter for its security and encouragement.' The
   library of the corporation above alluded to, appearing to have
   been mismanaged, and at length entirely disused, the trustees
   of the New-York Society Library offered to take charge of it,
   and to deposit their own collection with it, in the City-Hall.
   This proposal having been acceded to by the corporation, the
   Institution thenceforward received the appellation of 'The
   City Library,' a name by which it was commonly known for a
   long time. A good foundation having been thus obtained, the
   library prospered and increased. … In 1772, a charter was
   granted to it by the colonial government. The war of the
   revolution, however, which soon after occurred, interfered
   with these pleasing prospects; the city fell into the
   possession of the enemy; the effect on all our public
   institutions was more or less disastrous, and to the library
   nearly fatal. An interval of no less than fourteen years, (of
   which it possesses no record whatever,) here occurs in the
   history of the society. At length it appears from the minutes,
   that 'the accidents of the late war having nearly destroyed
   the former library, no meeting of the proprietors for the
   choice of trustees was held from the last Tuesday in April,
   1774, until Saturday, the 21st December, 1788, when a meeting
   was summoned.' In 1789, the original charter, with all its
   privileges, was revived by the legislature of this state; the
   surviving members resumed the payment of their annual dues, an
   accession of new subscribers was obtained, and the society,
   undeterred by the loss of its books, commenced almost a new
   collection."

      _Catalogue of the New York Society Library:
      Historical Notice._

LIBRARIES:
   Redwood Library.

   While Bishop Berkeley was residing, in 1729, on his farm near
   Newport, Rhode Island, "he took an active share in forming a
   philosophical society in Newport. … Among the members were
   Colonel Updike, Judge Scott (a granduncle of Sir Walter
   Scott), Nathaniel Kay, Henry Collins, Nathan Townsend, the
   Reverend James Honeyman, and the Reverend Jeremiah Condy. …
   The Society seems to have been very successful. One of its
   objects was to collect books. It originated, in 1747, the
   Redwood Library."

      _A. C. Fraser,
      Life and Letters of George Berkeley
      (volume 4 of Works), page 169._

   The library thus founded took its name from Abraham Redwood,
   who gave £500 to it in 1747. Other subscriptions were obtained
   in Newport to the amount of £5,000, colonial currency, and a
   building for the library erected in 1750.

   _United States of America: Free Public Libraries._

   "Mr. Ewart, in his Report of the Select Committee on Public
   Libraries, 1849, says: 'Our younger brethren, the people of
   the United States, have already anticipated us in the
   formation of libraries entirely open to the public.' No free
   public library, however, was then in operation, in the United
   States, yet one had been authorized by legislative action. The
   movements in the same direction in England and the United
   States seem to have gone on independently of each other; and
   in the public debates and private correspondence relating to
   the subject there seems to have been no borrowing of ideas, or
   scarcely an allusion, other than the one quoted, to what was
   being done elsewhere. In October, 1847, Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
   Mayor of Boston, suggested to the City Council that a petition
   be sent to the State legislature asking for authority to lay a
   tax by which the city of Boston could establish a library free
   to all its citizens. The Massachusetts legislature, in March,
   1848, passed such an act, and in 1851 made the act apply to
   all the cities and towns in the State.
{2020}
   In 1849 donations of books were made to the Boston Public
   Library. Late in the same year Mr. Edward Everett made to it
   the donation of his very complete collection of United States
   documents, and Mayor Bigelow a gift of $1,000. In May, 1852,
   the first Board of Trustees, with Mr. Everett as president,
   was organized, and Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, made his first
   donation of $50,000 for the use of the library. It was
   fortunate that the public-library system started where it did
   and under the supervision of the eminent men who constituted
   the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library. Mr.
   George Ticknor was the person who mapped out the sagacious
   policy of that library—a policy which has never been
   improved, and which has been adopted by all the public
   libraries in this country, and, in its main features, by the
   free libraries of England. For fifteen years or more Mr.
   Ticknor gave the subject his personal attention. He went to
   the library every day, as regularly as any of the employes,
   and devoted several hours to the minutest details of its
   administration. Before he had any official relations with it,
   he gave profound consideration to, and settled in his own
   mind, the leading principles on which the library should be
   conducted. … Started as the public-library system was on
   such principles, and under the guidance of these eminent men,
   libraries sprang up rapidly in Massachusetts, and similar
   legislation was adopted in other States. The first legislation
   in Massachusetts was timid. The initiative law of 1848 allowed
   the city of Boston to spend only $5,000 a year on its Public
   Library, which has since expended $125,000 a year. The State
   soon abolished all limitation to the amount which might be
   raised for library purposes. New Hampshire, in 1849,
   anticipated Massachusetts, by two years, in the adoption of a
   general library law. Maine followed in 1854; Vermont in 1865;
   Ohio in 1867; Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin in 1872;
   Indiana and Iowa in 1873; Texas in 1874; Connecticut and Rhode
   Island in 1875; Michigan and Nebraska in 1877; California in
   1878; Missouri and New Jersey in 1885; Kansas in 1886. … The
   public library law of Illinois, adopted in 1872, and since
   enacted by other Western States, is more elaborate and
   complete than the library laws of any of the New England
   States. … The law of Wisconsin is similar to that of
   Illinois. … New Jersey has a public-library law patterned
   after that of Illinois."

      _W. F. Poole,
      President's Address at the annual meeting of
      the American Library Association, 1887._

   The State of New York adopted a library law in 1892, under
   which the creation of free libraries has been promisingly
   begun. A law having like effect was adopted in New Hampshire
   in 1891.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Library Statistics of 1891.

   "As to the early statistics of libraries in this country but
   little can be found. Prof. Jewett, in his 'Notices of Public
   Libraries,' published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850,
   gave a summary of public libraries, amounting to 694 and
   containing at that time 2,201,632 volumes. In the census of
   1850 an attempt was made to give the number of libraries and
   the number of volumes they contained, exclusive of school and
   Sunday school libraries. This number was 1,560; the number of
   volumes, 2,447,086. In 1856 Mr. Edward Edwards in his summary
   of libraries gave a much smaller number of libraries, being
   only 341, but the number of volumes was nearly the same, being
   2,371,887, and was also based upon the census of 1850. Mr.
   William J. Rhees, in his 'Manual of Public Libraries,' which
   was printed in 1859, gave a list of 2,902 libraries, but of
   all this number only 1,312 had any report whatever of the
   number of volumes they contained. From these meager statistics
   it is seen that the reports do not vary very much, giving
   about the same number of libraries and number of volumes in
   them, taking account of the changes that would occur from the
   different classifications as to what was excepted or omitted
   as a library. The annual reports of the Bureau from 1870 to
   1874 contained limited statistics of only a few hundred
   libraries, and little more is shown than the fact that there
   were about 2,000 public libraries of all kinds in the United
   States. About five years of labor was expended in collecting
   material for the special report of the Bureau upon public
   libraries, which was printed in 1876, and this gave a list of
   3,649 libraries of over 300 volumes, and the total number of
   volumes was 12,276,964, this being about the first fairly
   complete collection of library statistics. In the report of
   the Bureau for 1884-85, after considerable correspondence and
   using the former work as a basis, another list of public
   libraries was published, amounting to 5,388 libraries of over
   300 volumes, an increase of 1,869 libraries in ten years, or
   almost 54 per cent. The number of volumes contained in these
   libraries at that time was 20,622,076, or an increase of about
   66 per cent, and showing that the percentage of increase in
   the number of volumes was even greater than that of the number
   of libraries. An estimate of the proportion of smaller
   libraries under 500 volumes in that list indicates that these
   smaller libraries included only about 20 per cent of the
   books, so that this list could be said to fairly show the
   extent of the libraries at that time. In the report for
   1886-87, detailed statistics of the various classes of
   libraries were given, except those of colleges and schools,
   which were included in the statistics of those institutions.
   From the uncertainty of the data and the imperfect records
   given of the very small libraries, it was deemed best to
   restrict the statistics to collections of books that might be
   fairly called representative, and as those having less than
   1,000 volumes made but a proportionally small percentage of
   the whole number of books the basis of 1,000 volumes or over
   was taken. This list includes the statistics only of libraries
   of this size and amounted to 1,777 libraries, containing
   14,012,370 volumes, and were arranged in separate lists by
   classes as far as it could be done. … The number of
   libraries and of volumes in each of the seven special classes
   in the report made in 1887 was as follows: Free public lending
   libraries, 434; volumes, 3,721,191; free public reference
   libraries, 153; volumes, 3,075,099; free public school
   libraries, 93; volumes, 177,560; free corporate lending
   libraries, 241; volumes 1,727,870; libraries of clubs,
   associations, etc., 341; volumes, 2,460,334; subscription
   corporate libraries, 452; volumes, 2,644,929; and circulating
   libraries proper, 751; volumes, 215,487. The statistics [now]
   given … are for the year 1891, and include only libraries of
   1,000 volumes and over, thus differing from the complete report
   of 1885. …
{2021}
   There were, in 1891, 3,804 libraries. Of these, 3 contain over
   500,000 volumes; 1 between 300,000 and 500,000; 26 between
   100,000 and 300,000; 68 between 50,000 and 100,000; 128
   between 25,000 and 50,000; 383 between 10,000 and 25,000; 565
   between 5,000 and 10,000; and 2,360 between 1,000 and 5,000.
   … The North Atlantic Division contains 1,913 libraries, or
   50.3 per cent of the whole number; the South Atlantic, 339, or
   8.88 per cent; the South Central, 256, or 6.73 per cent; the
   North Central, 1,098, or 28.87 per cent, and the Western, 198,
   or 5.22 per cent. Of the distribution of volumes in the
   libraries, the North Atlantic Division has 16,605,286 or 53.34
   per cent; the South Atlantic, 4,276,894, or 13.71 per cent;
   the South Central 1,345,708, or 4.03 per cent; the North
   Central, 7,320,045, or 23.32 per cent; and the Western,
   1,593,974, or 5.34 per cent. … From [1885 to 1891] the
   increase in the United States in the number of libraries was
   from 2,987 to 3,804, an increase of 817, or 27.35 per cent; in
   the North Atlantic, from 1,543 to 1,913, an increase of 370,
   or 24 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 289 to 338, an
   increase of 49, or 17 per cent; in the South Central, from 201
   to 256, an increase of 55, or 27.5 per cent; in the North
   Central, from 813 to 1,099, an increase of 286, or 35.18 per
   cent; and in the Western, from 141 to 198, an increase of 57,
   or 40.43 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the
   largest increase in the number of libraries was in the Western
   Division, and of the number of volumes the greatest increase
   was in the North Central Division. The percentage of increase
   in the whole country was 66.3 for six years, or an average of
   over 11 per cent each year, which at this rate would double
   the number of volumes and libraries every nine years. … In
   the United States in 1885 there was one library to each 18,822
   of the population, while in 1891 there was one to every
   16,462, or a decrease of population to a library of 2,360, or
   12.5 percent; in the North Atlantic Division the decrease was
   from 10,246 to 9,096, 1,150, or 11.2 per cent; in the South
   Atlantic, from 28,740 to 26,206, 2,534, or 8.08 per cent; in
   the South Central, from 48,974 to 42,863, 6,111, or 12.5 per
   cent; in the North Central, from 24,807 to 20,348, 4,459, or
   18 per cent; and in the Western, from 15,557 to 15,290, 277 or
   1.8 per cent. The distribution of libraries in the North
   Atlantic Division shows the smallest average population to a
   library and the least change in the number, except the Western
   Division, where the increase of population from immigration
   has been greater than the increase in the number of libraries.
   But, generally, the establishment and growth in the size of
   libraries have been very large in nearly every section. …
   This shows that in 1885 there were in the United States in the
   libraries of the size mentioned 34 books to every 100 of the
   population, while in 1891 this number was 50, or an increase
   of 16 books, or 47 per cent. In the North Atlantic Division
   the increase was from 66 to 95, an increase of 29 books, or 34
   per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 34 to 48, an increase of
   14, or 41 per cent; in the South Central, from 9 to 12, an
   increase of 3, or 33.33 per cent; in the North Central, from
   20 to 33, an increase of 13, or 65 per cent; and in the
   Western, from 43 to 53, an increase of 10, or 23 per cent.
   These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase
   of books to population has been in the great Northwest, over
   11 per cent each year. In the whole country there has been an
   average increase of 7.8 per cent per annum; that is, the
   increase of the number of books in the libraries of the
   country has been 7.8 per cent greater than the increase of the
   population during the past six years."

      _W. Flint,
      Statistics of Public Libraries
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circ. of Information Number 7, 1893)._

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Massachusetts Free Libraries.

   "In 1839 the Hon. Horace Mann, then Secretary of the Board of
   Education, stated as the result of a careful effort to obtain
   authentic information relative to the libraries in the State,
   that there were from ten to fifteen town libraries, containing
   in the aggregate from three to four thousand volumes, to which
   all the citizens of the town had the right of access; that the
   aggregate number of volumes in the public libraries, of all
   kinds, in the State was about 300,000; and that but little
   more than 100,000 persons, or one-seventh of the population of
   the State, had any right of access to them. A little over a
   half century has passed. There are now 175 towns and cities
   having free public libraries under municipal control, and 248
   of the 351 towns and cities contain libraries in which the
   people have rights or free privileges. There are about
   2,500,000 volumes in these libraries, available for the use of
   2,104,224 of the 2,238,943 inhabitants which the State
   contains according to the census of 1890. The gifts of
   individuals in money, not including gifts of books, for
   libraries and library buildings, exceed five and a half
   million dollars. There are still 103 towns in the State, with
   an aggregate population of 134,719, which do not have the
   benefit of the free use of a public library. These are almost
   without exception small towns, with a slender valuation, and
   67 of them show a decline in population in the past five
   years. The State has taken the initiative in aiding the
   formation of free public libraries in such towns."

      _First Report of the Free Public Library
      Commission of Massachusetts, 1891, pref._

   The second report of the Commissioners, 1892, showed an
   addition of 36 to the towns which have established free public
   libraries.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   The American Library Association.

   A distinctly new era in the history of American libraries—and
   in the history, it may be said, of libraries throughout the
   English-speaking world,—was opened, in 1876, by the meeting
   of a conference of librarians at Philadelphia, during the
   Centennial Exhibition of the summer of that year. The first
   fruit of the conference was the organization of a permanent
   American Library Association, which has held annual meetings
   since, bringing large numbers of the librarians of the country
   together every year, making common property of their
   experience, their knowledge, their ideas,—animating them with
   a common spirit, and enlisting them in important undertakings
   of cooperative work. Almost simultaneously with the
   Philadelphia meeting, but earlier, there was issued the first
   number of a "Library Journal," called into being by the
   sagacious energy of the same small band of pioneers who
   planned and brought about the conference. The Library Journal
   became the organ of the American Library Association, and each
   was stimulated and sustained by the other: Their combined
   influence has acted powerfully upon those engaged in the work
   of American libraries, to elevate their aims, to increase
   their efficiency, and to make their avocation a recognized
   profession, exacting well-defined qualifications.
{2022}
   The general result among the libraries of the country has been
   an increase of public usefulness beyond measure. To this
   renaissance in the library world many persons contributed; but
   its leading spirits were Melvil Dewey, latterly Director of
   the New York State Library; Justin Winsor, Librarian of
   Harvard University, formerly of the Boston Public Library; the
   late William F. Poole, LL.D., Librarian of the Newberry
   Library and formerly of the Chicago Public Library; Charles A.
   Cutter, lately Librarian of the Boston Athenæum; the late
   Frederick Leypoldt, first publisher of the "Library Journal,"
   and his successor, R. R. Bowker. The new library spirit was
   happily defined by James Russell Lowell, in his address
   delivered at the opening of a free public library in Chelsea,
   Massachusetts, and published in the volume of his works
   entitled "Democracy and other Addresses"; "Formerly," he said,
   "the duty of a librarian was considered too much that of a
   watch-dog, to keep people as much as possible away from the
   books, and to hand these over to his successor as little worn
   by use as he could. Librarians now, it is pleasant to see,
   have a different notion of their trust, and are in the habit
   of preparing, for the direction of the inexperienced, lists of
   such books as they think best worth reading. Cataloguing has
   also, thanks in great measure to American librarians, become a
   science, and catalogues, ceasing to be labyrinths without a
   clew, are furnished with finger-posts at every turn. Subject
   catalogues again save the beginner a vast deal of time and
   trouble by supplying him for nothing with one at least of the
   results of thorough scholarship, the knowing where to look for
   what he wants. I do not mean by this that there is or can be
   any short cut to learning, but that there may be, and is, such
   a short cut to information that will make learning more easily
   accessible."

   The organization of the American Library Association led to
   the formation, in 1877, of the Library Association of the
   United Kingdom, which was incident to the meeting of an
   international conference of Librarians held in London.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Principal Libraries.

   The following are the libraries in the United States which
   exceeded 100,000 volumes in 1891, as reported in the
   "Statistics of Public Libraries" published by the Bureau of
   Education. The name of each library is preceded by the date of
   its foundation:

   1638. Harvard University Library,
         292,000 volumes; 278,097 pamphlets.

   1701. Yale College Library, New Haven,
         185,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

   1731. Philadelphia Library Company,
         165,487 volumes; 30,000 pamphlets.

   1749. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
         100,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

   1754. Columbia College Library, New York,
         135,000 volumes.

   1789. Library of the House of Representatives, Washington,
         125,000 volumes.

   1800. Library of Congress, Washington,
         659,843 volumes; 210,000 pamphlets.

   1807. Boston Athenæum,
         173,831 volumes; 70,000 pamphlets.

   1818. New York State Library, Albany,
         157,114 volumes.

   1820. New York Mercantile Library, New York,
         239,793 volumes.

   1821. Philadelphia Mercantile Library,
         166,000 volumes; 10,000 pamphlets.

   1826. Maryland State Library, Annapolis,
         100,000 volumes.

   1849. Astor Library, New York,
         238,946 volumes; 12,000 pamphlets.

   1852. Boston Public Library,
         556,283 volumes.

   1857. Brooklyn Library,
         113,251 volumes; 21,500 pamphlets.

   1857. Peabody Institute, Baltimore,
         110,000 volumes; 13,500 pamphlets.

   1865. Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, Washington,
         104,300 volumes; 161,700 pamphlets.

   1865. Detroit Public Library,
         108,720 volumes.

   1867. Cincinnati Public Library,
         156,673 volumes; 18,326 pamphlets.

   1868. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York,
         111,007 volumes; 25,000 pamphlets.

   1872. Chicago Public Library,
         175,874 volumes; 25,293 pamphlets.

   1882. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore,
         106,663 volumes; 1,500 pamphlets.

   1890. University of Chicago Library,
         280,000 volumes.

   1891. Sutro Library, San Francisco,
         200,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Library Gifts.

   A remarkable number of the free public libraries of the United
   States are the creations of private wealth, munificently
   employed for the common good. The greater institutions which
   have this origin are the Astor Library in New York, founded by
   John Jacob Astor and enriched by his descendants; the Lenox
   Library in New York, founded by James Lenox; the Peabody
   Institute, in Baltimore, founded by George Peabody; the Enoch
   Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, founded by the gentleman
   whose name it bears; the Newberry Library, in Chicago, founded
   by the will of Walter L. Newberry, who died in 1868; the Sutro
   Library in San Francisco, founded by Adolph Sutro, and the
   Carnegie Libraries founded at Pittsburg, Alleghany City and
   Braddock by Andrew Carnegie. By the will of John Crerar, who
   died in 1889, trustees for Chicago are in possession of an
   estate estimated at $2,500,000 or $3,000,000, for the
   endowment of a library which will soon exist. The intention of
   the late Samuel J. Tilden, former Governor of the State of New
   York, to apply the greater part of his immense estate to the
   endowment of a free library in the City of New York, has been
   partially defeated by contesting heirs; but the just feeling
   of one among the heirs has restored $2,000,000 to the purpose
   for which $5,000,000 was appropriated in Mr. Tilden's intent.
   Steps preparatory to the creation of the library are in
   progress. The lesser libraries, and institutions including
   libraries of considerable importance, which owe their origin
   to the public spirit and generosity of individual men of
   wealth, are quite too numerous in the country to be catalogued
   in this place. In addition to such, the bequests and gifts
   which have enriched the endowment of libraries otherwise
   founded are beyond computation.

{2023}

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Government Departmental Libraries at Washington.

   A remarkable creation of special libraries connected with the
   departments and bureaus of the national Government, has
   occurred within a few years past. The more important among
   them are the following:

   Department of Agriculture,
   20,000 volumes and 15,000 pamphlets;

   Department of Justice, 21,500 volumes;

   Department of State, 50,000 volumes;

   Department of the Interior, 11,500;

   Navy Department, 24,518;

   Post Office Department, 10,000;

   Patent Office Scientific Library,
   50,000 volumes and 10,000 pamphlets;

   Signal Office, 10,540 volumes;

   Surgeon General's Office,
   104,300 volumes and 161,700 pamphlets (reputed to be the best
   collection of medical literature, as it is certainly the best
   catalogued medical library, in the world);

   Treasury Department, 21,000 volumes;

   Bureau of Education,
   45,000 volumes and 120,000 pamphlets;

   Coast and Geodetic Survey,
   12,000 volumes and 4,000 pamphlets;

   Geological Survey,
   30,414 volumes, and 42,917 pamphlets;

   Naval Observatory,
   13,000 volumes and 3,000 pamphlets;

   United States Senate, 72,592 volumes;

   United States House of Representatives,
   125,000 (both of these being distinct from the great Library
   of Congress, which contained, in 1891, 659,843 volumes);

   War Department, 30,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   Canada.

   "In 1779 a number of the officers stationed at Quebec, and of
   the leading merchants, undertook the formation of a
   subscription library. The Governor, General Haldimand, took an
   active part in the work, and ordered on behalf of the
   subscribers £500 worth of books from London. The selection was
   entrusted to Richard Cumberland, the dramatist: and an
   interesting letter from the Governor addressed to him,
   describing the literary wants of the town and the class of
   books to be sent, is now in the Public Archives. A room for
   their reception was granted in the Bishop's Palace; and as
   late as 1806, we learn from Lambert's Travels that it was the
   only library [?] in Canada. Removed several times, it slowly
   increased, until in 1882 it numbered 4,000 volumes. The list
   of subscribers having become very much reduced, it was leased
   to the Quebec Literary Association in 1843. In 1854 a portion
   of it was burnt with the Parliament Buildings, where it was
   then quartered; and finally in 1866 the entire library,
   consisting of 6,990 volumes, were sold, subject to conditions,
   to the Literary and Historical Society for a nominal sum of
   $500. … Naturally on the organization of each of the
   provinces, libraries were established in connection with the
   Parliaments. We have therefore the following:

   Nova Scotia, Halifax, 25,319;
   New Brunswick, Fredericton, 10,850;
   Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, 4,000;
   Quebec, Quebec, 17,400;
   Ontario, Toronto, 40,000;
   Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10,000;
   Northwest Territory, Regina, 1,480;
   British Columbia, Victoria, 1,200;
   Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, 120,000.
   Total volumes in Parliamentary libraries, 230,249.

   By far the most important of our Canadian libraries is the
   Dominion Library of Parliament at Ottawa. Almost corresponding
   with the Congressional Library at Washington in its sources of
   income and work, it has grown rapidly during the past ten
   years, and now numbers 120,000 volumes. Originally established
   on the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in
   1841, it was successively removed with the seat of government
   from Kingston to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, again to
   Quebec, and finally to Ottawa. … The 38 colleges in Canada
   are provided with libraries containing 429,470 volumes, or an
   average of 11,302. The senior of these, Laval College, Quebec,
   is famous as being, after Harvard, the oldest on the
   continent, being founded by Bishop Laval in 1663. … In 1848
   the late Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education from
   1844-1876, drafted a school bill which contained provisions
   for school and township libraries, and succeeded in awakening
   a deep interest in the subject. … In 1854 Parliament passed
   the requisite act and granted him the necessary funds to carry
   out his views in the matter. The regulations of the department
   authorized each county council to establish four classes of
   libraries—

   1. An ordinary common school library in each schoolhouse for
   the use of the children and rate-payers.

   2. A general public lending library available to all the
   ratepayers in the municipality.

   3. A professional library of books on teaching, school
   organization, language, and kindred subjects, available for
   teachers only.

   4. A library in any public institution under the control of
   the municipality, for the use of the inmates, or in any county
   jail, for the use of the prisoners. …

   The proposal to establish the second class was however
   premature; and accordingly, finding that mechanics institutes
   were being developed throughout the towns and villages, the
   Educational Department wisely aided the movement by giving a
   small grant proportionate to the amount contributed by the
   members and reaching a maximum of $200, afterwards increased
   to $400 annually. In 1869 these had grown to number 26; in
   1880, 74; and in 1886, 125. The number of volumes possessed by
   these 125 is 206,146, or an average of 1,650. … In the
   cities, however, the mechanics institute, with its limited
   number of subscribers, has been found unequal to the task
   assigned it, and accordingly, in 1882, the Free Libraries Act
   was passed, based upon similar enactments in Britain and the
   United States. … By the Free Libraries Act, the maximum of
   taxation is fixed at ½ a mill on the annual assessment. …
   None of the other provinces have followed Ontario in this
   matter."

      _J. Bain,
      Brief Review of the Libraries of Canada
      (Thousand Islands Conference of Librarians, 1887)._

   "The total number of public libraries in Canada of all kinds
   containing 1,000 or more volumes is 202, and of this number
   the Province of Ontario alone has 152, or over three-fourths
   of all, while Quebec has 27 or over one-half of the remaining
   fourth, the other provinces having from 2 to 6 libraries each.
   The total number of volumes and pamphlets in all the libraries
   reported is 1,478,910, of which the Province of Ontario has
   863,332 volumes, or almost 60 per cent, while the Province of
   Quebec has 490,354, or over 33 percent; Nova Scotia, 48,250
   volumes, or 3½ per cent; New Brunswick, 34,894 volumes, a
   little over 2.3 per cent; Manitoba, 31,025 volumes, or 2.1 per
   cent; British Columbia, 10,225 volumes, or not quite 0.7 per
   cent; and Prince Edward Island, 5,200 volumes, or over 0.3 per
   cent of the total number."

      _V. Flint,
      Statistics [1891] of Public Libraries
      in the United States and Canada
      (United States Bureau of Education, Circular
      of Information No.7, 1893)._

LIBRARIES:
   Mexico.

   The National Library of Mexico contains 155,000 books, besides
   manuscripts and pamphlets.

{2024}

LIBRARIES:
   China.
   The Imperial Library.

   "It would be surprising if a people like the Chinese, who have
   the literary instinct so strongly developed, had not at an
   early date found the necessity of those great collections of
   books which are the means for carrying on the great work of
   civilization. China had her first great bibliothecal
   catastrophe two centuries before the Christian era, when the
   famous edict for the burning of the books was promulgated.
   Literature and despotism have never been on very good terms,
   and the despot of Tsin, finding a power at work which was
   unfavorable to his pretensions, determined to have all books
   destroyed except those relating to agriculture, divination and
   the history of his own house. His hatred to books included the
   makers of them, and the literati have not failed to make his
   name execrated for his double murders of men and books. When
   the brief dynasty of Tsin passed, the Princes of Han showed
   more appreciation of culture, and in 190 B. C. the atrocious
   edict was repealed, and the greatest efforts made to recover
   such literary treasures as had escaped the destroyer. Some
   classics are said to have been rewritten from the dictation of
   scholars who had committed them to memory. Some robbers broke
   open the tomb of Seang, King of Wei, who died B. C. 295, and
   found in it bamboo tablets containing more than 100,000 peen
   [bamboo slips]. These included a copy of the Classic of
   Changes and the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which indeed take
   their title from this circumstance. This treasure trove was
   placed in the Imperial Library. So the Shoo-king is said to
   have been found in a wall where it had been hidden by a
   descendant of Confucius, on the proclamation of the edict
   against books. Towards the close of the first century a
   library had been formed by Lew Heang and his son Lew Hin. …
   Succeeding dynasties imitated more or less this policy, and
   under the later Han dynasty great efforts were made to restore
   the library. … In the troubles at the close of the second
   century the palace at Lo-Yang was burned, and the greater part
   of the books destroyed. … Another Imperial collection at
   Lo-Yang, amounting to 29,945 books, was destroyed A. D. 311.
   In A. D. 431, Seäy Ling-Yuen, the keeper of the archives, made
   a catalogue of 4,582 books in his custody. Another catalogue
   was compiled in 473, and recorded 5,704 books. Buddhism and
   Taouism now began to contribute largely to the national
   literature. Amongst the other consequences of the overthrow of
   the Tse dynasty at the end of the fifth century was the
   destruction of the royal library of 18,010 books. Early in the
   next century a collection of 33,106 books, not including the
   Buddhist literature, was made chiefly, it is said, by the
   exertions of Jin Fang, the official curator. The Emperor
   Yuen-te removed his library, then amounting to 70,000 books,
   to King Chow, and the building was burnt down when he was
   threatened by the troops of Chow. The library of the later Wei
   dynasty was dispersed in the insurrection of 531, and the
   efforts made to restore it were not altogether successful. The
   later Chow collected a library of 10,000 books, and, on the
   overthrow of the Tse dynasty, this was increased by a mass of
   5,000 mss. obtained from the fallen dynasty. When towards the
   close of the sixth century the Suy became masters of the
   empire they began to accumulate books. … The Tang dynasty
   are specially remarkable for their patronage of literature.
   Early in the eighth century the catalogue extended to 53,915
   books, and a collection of recent authors included 28,469
   books. Printing began to supersede manuscript in the tenth
   century, plentiful editions of the classics appeared and
   voluminous compilations. Whilst the Sung were great patrons of
   literature, the Leaou were at least lukewarm, and issued an
   edict prohibiting the printing of books by private persons.
   The Kin had books translated into their own tongue, for the
   benefit of the then Mongolian subjects. A similar policy was
   pursued by the Yuen dynasty, under whom dramatic literature
   and fiction began to flourish. In the year 1406, the printed
   books in the Imperial Library are said to have amounted to
   300,000 printed books and twice the number of mss. … The
   great Imperial Library was founded by K'in Lung in the last
   century. In response to an imperial edict, many of the
   literati and book-lovers placed rare editions at the service
   of the government, to be copied. The Imperial Library has many
   of its books, therefore, in mss. Chinese printing, however, is
   only an imperfect copy of the caligraphy of good scribes. Four
   copies were made of each work. One was destined for the Wan
   Yuen Repository at Peking; a second for the Wan-tsung
   Repository at Kang-ning, the capital of Kiang-su province; a
   third for the Wan-hwui Repository at Yang-chou-fu, and the
   fourth for the Wan-lan Repository at Hong-Chou, the capital of
   Cheh-Kiang. A catalogue was published from which it appears
   that the library contained from ten to twelve thousand
   distinct works, occupying 168,000 volumes. The catalogue is in
   effect an annotated list of Chinese literature, and includes
   the works which were still wanting to the library and deemed
   essential to its completion. Dr. D. J. McGowan, who visited
   the Hong-Chou collection, says that it was really intended for
   a public library, and that those who applied for permission to
   the local authorities, not only were allowed access, but were
   afforded facilities for obtaining food and lodging, 'but from
   some cause or other the library is rarely or never consulted.'
   Besides the Imperial, there are Provincial, Departmental and
   District Libraries. Thus, the examination hall of every town
   will contain the standard classical and historical books. At
   Canton and other cities there are extensive collections, but
   their use is restricted to the mandarins. There are
   collections of books and sometimes printing presses in
   connection with the Buddhist monasteries."

      _W. E. A. Axon,
      Notes on Chinese Libraries
      (Library Journal, January and February, 1880)._

   For an account of the ancient library of Chinese classics in
   stone,

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: CHINA.

{2025}

LIBRARIES:
   Japan.

   "The Tokyo Library is national in its character, as the
   Congressional Library of the United States, the British Museum
   of Great Britain, etc. It is maintained by the State, and by
   the copyright Act it is to receive a copy of every book,
   pamphlet, etc., published in the empire. The Tokyo Library was
   established in 1872 by the Department of Education with about
   70,000 volumes. In 1873 it was amalgamated with the library
   belonging to the Exhibition Bureau and two years later it was
   placed under the control of the Home Department, while a new
   library with the title of Tokyo Library was started by the
   Education Department at the same time with about 28,000
   volumes newly collected. Thus the Tokyo Library began its
   career on a quite slender basis; but in 1876, the books
   increased to 68,953, and in 1877 to 71,853. Since that time,
   both the numbers of books and visitors have steadily
   increased, so much so that in 1884 the former reached 102,350
   and latter 115,986, averaging 359 persons per one day. The
   library was then open free to all classes; but the presence of
   too many readers of the commonest text-books and light
   literature was found to have caused much hindrance to the
   serious students. … This disadvantage was somewhat remedied
   by introducing the fee system, which, of course, placed much
   restriction to the visitors of the library. … It is very
   clear from the character of the library that it is a reference
   library and not a circulating library. But as there are not
   any other large and well-equipped libraries in Tokyo, a system
   of 'lending out' is added, something like that of Königliche
   Bibliothek zu Berlin, with a subscription of 5 yen (about $5)
   per annum. … The Tokyo Library now contains 97,550 Japanese
   and Chinese books and 25,559 European books, besides about
   100,000 of duplicates, popular books, etc., which are not
   used. The average number of books used is 337,262 a year. …
   The Library of the Imperial University, which is also under my
   charge, comprises all the books belonging to the Imperial
   University of Japan. These books are solely for the use of the
   instructors, students, and pupils, no admittance being granted
   to the general public. The library contains 77,991 European
   books and 101,217 Japanese and Chinese books. As to other
   smaller libraries of Japan, there are eight public and ten
   private libraries in different parts of the empire. The books
   contained in them are 66,912 Japanese and Chinese books and
   4,731 European books with 43,911 visitors! Besides these, in
   most of towns of respectable size, there are generally two or
   three small private circulating libraries, which contain books
   chiefly consisting of light literature and historical works
   popularly treated."

      _I. Tanaka,
      Tokyo Library
      (San Francisco Conference of Librarians, 1891)._

LIBRARIES:
   India.

   The first free library in a native state of India was opened
   in 1892, with 10,000 volumes, 7,000 being in English. It was
   founded by the brother of the Maharajah.

      _Library Journal,
      volume 17, page 395._

   ----------LIBRARIES: End----------

LIBURNIANS, The.

      See KORKYRA.

LIBYAN SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

LIBYANS, The.

   "The name of Africa was applied by the ancients only to that
   small portion of country south of Cape Bon; the rest was
   called Libya. The bulk of the population of the northern
   coast, between Egypt and the Pillars of Hercules, was of the
   Hamitic race of Phut, who were connected with the Egyptians
   and Ethiopians, and to whom the name of Libyans was not
   applied until a later date, as this name was originally
   confined to some tribes of Arian or Japhetic race, who had
   settled among the natives. From these nations sprung from Phut
   descended the races now called Berbers, who have spread over
   the north of Africa, from the northernmost valleys of the
   Atlas to the southern limits of the Sahara, and from Egypt to
   the Atlantic; perhaps even to the Canaries, where the ancient
   Guanches seem to have spoken a dialect nearly approaching that
   of the Berbers of Morocco. These Berbers—now called Amazigh,
   or Shuluh, in Morocco; Kabyles, in the three provinces of
   Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; Tibboos, between Fezzan and
   Egypt; and Tuariks in the Sahara—are the descendants of the
   same great family of nations whose blood, more or less pure,
   still runs in the veins of the tribes inhabiting the different
   parts of the vast territory once possessed by their ancestors.
   The language they still speak, known through the labours of
   learned officers of the French army in Africa, is nearly
   related to that of Ancient Egypt. It is that in which the few
   inscriptions we possess, emanating from the natives of Libya,
   Numidia, and Mauritania in olden times, are written. The
   alphabet peculiar to these natives, whilst under the
   Carthaginian rule, is still used by the Tuariks. Sallust, who
   was able to consult the archives of Carthage, and who seems
   more accurate than any other classical writer on African
   history, was acquainted with the annals of the primitive
   period, anterior to the arrival of the Arian tribes and the
   settlement of the Phœnician colonies. Then only three races,
   unequally distributed in a triple zone, were to be met with
   throughout Northern Africa. Along the shore bordering the
   Mediterranean were the primitive Libyans, who were Hamites,
   descendants of Phut; behind them, towards the interior, but on
   the western half only, were the Getulians … ; further still
   in the interior, and beyond the Sahara, were the negroes,
   originally called by the Greek name 'Ethiopians, which was
   afterwards erroneously applied to the Cushites of the Upper
   Nile. Sallust also learnt, from the Carthaginian traditions,
   of the great Japhetic invasion of the coast of Africa. … The
   Egyptian monuments have acquainted us with the date of the
   arrival of these Indo-Europeans in Africa, among whom were the
   Libyans, properly so called, the Maxyans, and Macæ. It was
   contemporary with the reigns of Seti I. and Ramses II."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      See, also, NUMIDIANS; and AMORITES.

LICINIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 376-367.

LICINIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 307-323.

LICTORS.
FASCES.

   "The fasces were bundles of rods (virgæ) of elm or birchwood,
   tied together round the handle of an axe (securis) with (most
   likely red) straps. The iron of the axe, which was the
   executioner's tool, protruded from the sticks. The fasces were
   carried on their left shoulders by the lictors, who walked in
   front of certain magistrates, making room for them, and
   compelling all people to move out of the way (summovere),
   barring Vestals and Roman matrons. To about the end of the
   Republic, when a special executioner was appointed, the
   lictors inflicted capital punishment. The king was entitled to
   twelve fasces, the same number being granted to the consuls.
   … The dictator was entitled to twenty-four lictors. …
   Since 42 B. C. the Flamen Dialis and the Vestals also were
   entitled to one lictor each. In case a higher official met his
   inferior in the street, he was saluted by the lictors of the
   latter withdrawing the axe and lowering the fasces."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107, foot-note._

{2026}

LIDUS,
LEUD,
LATT, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

   ----------LIÈGE: Start--------

LIÈGE:
   The Episcopal Principality.

   "Liège lies on the borderland of the French and German
   speaking races. … It was the capital of an ecclesiastical
   principality, whose territory extended some distance up the
   river and over the wooded ridges and green valleys of the
   Ardennes. The town had originally sprung up round the tomb of
   St. Lambert—a shrine much frequented by pilgrims. … The
   Prince Bishop of Liège was the vassal of the emperor, but his
   subjects had long considered the kings of France their natural
   protectors. It was in France that they found a market for
   their manufactures, from France that pilgrims came to the tomb
   of St. Lambert or to the sylvan shrine of St. Hubert.
   Difference of language and rivalry in trade separated them
   from their Dutch-speaking neighbours. We hear, as early as the
   10th century, of successful attempts on the part of the people
   of Liège, supported and directed by their bishops, to subdue
   the lords of the castles in their neighbourhood. A population
   of traders, artizans, and miners, were unlikely to submit to
   the pretensions of a feudal aristocracy. Nor was there a
   burgher oligarchy, as in many of the Flemish and German towns.
   Every citizen was eligible to office if he could obtain a
   majority of the votes of the whole male population.
   Constitutional limits were imposed on the power of the bishop;
   but he was the sole fountain of law and justice. By suspending
   their administration he could paralyse the social life of the
   State, and by his interdicts annihilate its religious life.
   Yet the burghers were involved in perpetual disputes with
   their bishop. When the power of the Dukes of Burgundy was
   established in the Low Countries, it was to them that the
   latter naturally applied for assistance against their unruly
   flock. John the Fearless defeated the citizens with great
   slaughter in 1408. He himself reckoned the number of slain at
   25,000. In 1431 Liège was compelled to pay a fine of 200,000
   crowns to the Duke of Burgundy." The Duke—Philip the
   Good—afterwards forced the reigning bishop to resign in favor
   of a brother of the Duke of Bourbon, a dissolute boy of
   eighteen, whose government was reckless and intolerable.

      _P. F. Willert,
      Reign of Lewis XI.,
      pages 93-94._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 1, chapter 7._

LIÈGE: A. D. 1467-1468.
   War with Charles the Bold of Burgundy
   and destruction of the city.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468;
      also, DINANT.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1691.
   Bombardment by the French.

   The Prince-bishop of Liège having joined the League of
   Augsburg against Louis XIV., and having received troops of the
   Grand Alliance into his city, the town was bombarded in May,
   1691, by the French General Boufflers. There was no attempt at
   a siege; the attack was simply one of destructive malice, and
   the force which made it withdrew speedily.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

LIÈGE: A. D. 1702.
   Reduced by Marlborough.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1792-1793.
   Occupation and surrender by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

   ----------LIÈGE: Start--------

   ----------LIEGNITZ: Start----------

LIEGNITZ, The Battle of (1241).

   On the 9th of April, A. D. 1241, the Mongols, who had already
   overrun a great part of Russia, defeated the combined forces
   of Poland, Moravia and Silesia in a battle which filled all
   Europe with consternation. It was fought near Lignitz (or
   Liegnitz), on a plain watered by the river Keiss, the site
   being now occupied by a village called Wahlstadt, i. e.,
   "Field of Battle." "It was a Mongol habit to cut off an ear
   from each corpse after a battle, so as to have a record of the
   number slain; and we are told they filled nine sacks with
   these ghastly trophies," from the field of Lignitz.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 144._

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

LIEGNITZ:
   Battle of (1760).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

   ----------LIEGNITZ: End----------

LIGERIS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Loire.

LIGHT BRIGADE, The Charge of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

LIGII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

LIGNY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

LIGONIA.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

LIGURIAN REPUBLIC, The.

   The mediæval republic of Genoa is often referred to as the
   Ligurian Republic; but the name was distinctively given by
   Napoleon to one of his ephemeral creations in Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER), and 1804-1805.

LIGURIANS, The.

   "The whole of Piedmont in its present extent was inhabited by
   the Ligurians: Pavia, under the name of Ticinum, was founded
   by a Ligurian tribe, the Lævians. When they pushed forward
   their frontier among the Apennines into the Casentino on the
   decline of the Etruscans, they probably only recovered what
   had before been wrested from them. Among the inhabitants of
   Corsica there were Ligurians. … The Ligurians and Iberians
   were anciently contiguous; whereas in aftertimes they were
   parted by the Gauls. We are told by Scylax, that from the
   borders of Iberia, that is, from the Pyrenees, to the Rhone,
   the two nations were dwelling intermixed. … But it is far
   more probable that the Iberians came from the south of the
   Pyrenees into Lower Languedoc, as they did into Aquitaine, and
   that the Ligurians were driven back by them. When the Celts,
   long after, moving in an opposite direction, reached the shore
   of the Mediterranean, they too drove the Ligurians close down
   to the coast, and dwelt as the ruling people amongst them, in
   the country about Avignon, as is implied by the name
   Celto-Ligurians. … Of their place in the family of nations
   we are ignorant: we only know that they were neither Iberians
   nor Celts."

      _G. B. Niebuhr,
      History of Rome,
      volume 1._

   "On the coast of Liguria, the land on each side of the city of
   Genoa, a land which was not reckoned Italian in early times,
   we find people who seem not to have been Aryan. And these
   Ligurians seem to have been part of a race which was spread
   through Italy and Sicily before the Aryan settlements, and to
   have been akin to the non-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and
   southern Gaul, of whom the Basques … remain as a remnant."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 7._

      See, also, APPENDIX A, VOLUME 1.

{2027}

   ----------LILLE: Start--------

LILLE: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
      LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

LILLE: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

LILLE: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

LILLE: A. D. 1708.
   Siege and capture by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

LILLE: A. D. 1713.
   Restoration to France.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------LILLE: End--------

LILLEBONNE, Assembly of.

   A general assembly of Norman barons convened by Duke William,
   A. D. 1066, for the considering of his contemplated invasion
   of England.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 13, section 3 (volume 3)._

LILLIBULLERO.

   "Thomas Wharton, who, in the last Parliament, had represented
   Buckinghamshire, and who was already conspicuous both as a
   libertine and as a Whig, had written [A. D. 1688, just prior
   to the Revolution which drove James II. from the English
   throne] a satirical ballad on the administration of Tyrconnel
   [Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, James' Lord Deputy in
   Ireland.]

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

   In this little poem an Irishman congratulates a brother
   Irishman, in a barbarous jargon, on the approaching triumph of
   Popery and of the Milesian race. … These verses, which were
   in no respect above the ordinary standard of street poetry,
   had for burden some gibberish which was said to have been used
   as a watchword by the insurgents of Ulster in 1641. The verses
   and the tune caught the fancy of the nation. From one end of
   England to the other all classes were constantly singing this
   idle rhyme. It was especially the delight of the English army.
   More than seventy years after the Revolution, a great writer
   delineated, with exquisite skill, a veteran who had fought at
   the Boyne and at Namur. One of the characteristics of the good
   old soldier is his trick of whistling Lillibullero. Wharton
   afterwards boasted that he had sung a King out of three
   kingdoms. But in truth the success of Lillibullero was the
   effect, and not the cause, of that excited state of public
   feeling which produced the Revolution. … The song of
   Lillibullero is among the State Poems. In Percy's Relics the
   first part will be found, but not the second part, which was
   added after William's landing."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 9, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Wilkins,
      Political Ballads of the 17th and 18th Centuries,
      volume 1, page 275._

LILY OF FLORENCE, The.

      See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

   ----------LILYBÆUM: Start--------

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 368.
   Siege by Dionisius.

   "This town, close to the western cape of Sicily, appears to
   have arisen as a substitute for the neighbouring town of Motye
   (of which we hear little more since its capture by Dionysius
   in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal Carthaginian
   station." Lilybæum was first besieged and then blockaded by
   the Syracuse tyrant, Dionysius, B. C. 368; but he failed to
   reduce it. It was made a powerful stronghold by the
   Carthaginians.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 277.
   Siege by Pyrrhus.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 250-241.
   Siege by the Romans.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

   ----------LILYBÆUM: End--------

LIMA:
   Founded by Pizarro (1535).

      See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

LIMBURG:
   Capture by the Dutch (1632).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

   ----------LIMERICK: Start--------

LIMERICK: A. D. 1690-1691.
   Sieges and surrender.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

LIMERICK: A. D. 1691.
   The treaty of surrender and its violation.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1691.

   ----------LIMERICK: End--------

LIMES, The.

   This term was applied to certain Roman frontier-roads. "Limes
   is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked
   out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being
   patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier-defence,
   such as we find in Germany and in Africa. … The Limes is
   thus the imperial frontier-road, destined for the regulation
   of frontier-intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was
   allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of
   the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was
   doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the
   line, and, so long as this was done, the Limes remained a
   boundary road. It remained so, too, when it was fortified on
   both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the
   Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed Limes."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4, foot-note._

LIMIGANTES, The.

   The Limigantes were a tribe occupying, in the fourth century,
   a region of country between the Danube and the Theiss, who
   were said to have been formerly the slaves of a Sarmatian
   people in the same territory and to have overpowered and
   expelled their masters. The latter, in exile, became
   dependents of the warlike nation of the Quadi. At the end of a
   war with the latter, A. D. 357-359, in which they were greatly
   humbled, the Emperor Constantius commanded the Limigantes to
   surrender their stolen territory to its former owners. They
   resisted the mandate and were exterminated.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 18-19._

   The Limigantes were a branch of the Iazyges or Jazyges, a
   nomadic Sarmatian or Sclavonic people who were settled in
   earlier times on the Palus Mæotis.

LIMISSO.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.

   ----------LIMOGES: Start--------

LIMOGES,
   Origin of the town.

      See LEMOVICES.

LIMOGES, A. D. 1370.
   Massacre by the Black Prince.

   A foul crime which stains the name of "the Black Prince."
   Taking the city of Limoges, in France, after a short siege, A.
   D. 1370, he ordered a promiscuous massacre of the population,
   and more than 3,000 men, women and children were slain, while
   the town was pillaged and burned.

      _Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 288, 290._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

   ----------LIMOGES: End--------

LIMONUM.

      See POITIERS.

LIMOUSIN,
   Early inhabitants of the.

      See LEMOVICES.

{2028}

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Election to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Inauguration and Presidential administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1865 (APRIL).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Gettysburg address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Reëlection to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Visit to Richmond.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

LINCOLN, General Benjamin,
   in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
      1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
      1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

LINCOLN, Battle of.

      See LAMBETH, TREATY OF.

LINCOLN, Origin of.

      See LINDUM.

LINDISWARA,
LINDESFARAS.

   "Dwellers about Lindum," or Lincoln; a name given for a time
   to the Angles who seized and settled in that English district.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

LINDSEY, Kingdom of.

   One of the small and transient kingdoms of the Angles in early
   England.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 70 (volume 1)._

LINDUM.

   The Roman city from which sprang the English city of Lincoln.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

LINGONES, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory embraced parts in the
   modern French departments of the Haute-Marne, the Aube, the
   Yonne and the Côte-d'Or.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2)._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 390-347.

LINKÖPING, Battle of (1598).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

LION AND THE SUN, The Order of the.

   A Persian order, instituted in 1808.

LION OF ST. MARK, The Winged.

   The standard of the Venetian republic. "Historians have failed
   or omitted to fix the precise time when this ensign of the
   lion was first adopted by the Republic. But when the two
   granite columns ['trophies of a successful raid in the
   Archipelago'], still the conspicuous ornaments of the Piazetta
   of St. Mark, were erected, in or about 1172, a winged lion in
   bronze was placed on one of them, and a statue of St.
   Theodore, a patron of earlier standing, on the other."

      _The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, Oct., 1874),
      page 423._

      See, also, VENICE: A. D. 829.

LIPAN, Battle of (1434).

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

   ----------LISBON: Start--------

LISBON:
   Origin and early history.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

LISBON: A. D. 1147.
   Capture from the Moors.
   Made the capital of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LISBON: A. D. 1755.
   The great Earthquake.

   "On the morning of the 1st of November in this year, at the
   same period, though in less or greater degree a far-spreading
   earthquake ran through great part both of Europe and Barbary.
   In the north its effects, as usual with earthquakes in that
   region, were happily slight and few. Some gentle vibrations
   were felt as far as Dantzick. … In Madrid a violent shock
   was felt, but no buildings, and only two human beings,
   perished. In Fez and in Morocco, on the contrary, great
   numbers of houses fell down, and great multitudes of people
   were buried beneath the ruins. But the widest and most fearful
   destruction was reserved for Lisbon. Already, in the year
   1531, that city had been laid half in ruins by an earthquake.
   The 1st of November 1755 was All Saints' Day, a festival of
   great solemnity; and at nine in the morning all the churches
   of Lisbon were crowded with kneeling worshippers of each sex,
   all classes, and all ages, when a sudden and most violent
   shock made every church reel to its foundations. Within the
   intervals of a few minutes two other shocks no less violent
   ensued, and every church in Lisbon—tall column and towering
   spire—was hurled to the ground. Thousands and thousands of
   people were crushed to death, and thousands more grievously
   maimed, unable to crawl away, and left to expire in lingering
   agony. The more stately and magnificent had been the fabric,
   the wider and more grievous was the havoc made by its ruin.
   About one fourth, as was vaguely computed, of all the houses
   in the city toppled down. The encumbered streets could scarce
   afford an outlet to the fugitives; 'friends,' says an
   eye-witness, 'running from their friends, fathers from their
   children, husbands from their wives, because every one fled
   away from their habitations full of terror, confusion, and
   distraction.' The earth seemed to heave and quiver like an
   animated being. The sun was darkened with the clouds of lurid
   dust that arose. Frantic with fear a headlong multitude rushed
   for refuge to a large and newly built stone pier which jutted
   out into the Tagus, when a sudden convulsion of the stream
   turned this pier bottom uppermost, like a ship on its keel in
   the tempest, and then engulphed it. And of all the living
   creatures who had lately thronged it,—full 3,000, it is
   said,—not one, even as a corpse, ever rose again. From the
   banks of the river other crowds were looking on in speechless
   affright, when the river itself came rushing in upon them like
   a torrent, though against wind and tide. It rose at least
   fifteen feet above the highest spring tides, and then again
   subsided, drawing in or dashing to pieces every thing within
   its reach, while the very ships in the harbour were violently
   whirled around. Earth and water alike seemed let loose as
   scourges on this devoted city. 'Indeed every clement,' says a
   person present, 'seemed to conspire to our destruction … for
   in about two hours after the shock fires broke out in three
   different parts of the city, occasioned from the goods and the
   kitchen fires being all jumbled together.' At this time also
   the wind grew into a fresh gale, which made the fires spread
   in extent and rage with fury during three days, until there
   remained but little for them to devour. Many of the maimed and
   wounded are believed to have perished unseen and unheeded in
   the flames; some few were almost miraculously rescued after
   being for whole days buried where they fell, without light or
   food or hope. The total number of deaths was computed at the
   time as not less than 30,000."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 32 (volume 4)._

LISBON: A. D. 1807.
   Occupied by the French.
   Departure of the Royal Family for Brazil.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

   ----------LISBON: End--------
{2029}

LISLE.

      See LILLE.

LISSA, Battle of (1866).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

LIT DE JUSTICE.

      See BED OF JUSTICE.

   ----------LITHUANIA: Start--------

LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.
   Formation of the Grand Duchy.

   "From 1224 [when Russia was prostrated by the Mongol conquest]
   to 1487 … is a period of obscuration in Russian history,
   during which Russia is nothing in the Slavonian world. The
   hour of Russia's weakness was that in which the Lithuanians,
   formerly a mere chaos of Slavo-Finnish tribes, assumed
   organization and strength. Uniting the original Lithuanian
   tribes into one government, and extending his sway over those
   territories, formerly included in the Russian Empire, which
   the Mongolian destruction of the Russian power had left
   without a ruler, a native chief, named Ringold, founded (1235)
   a new state called the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania. The limits of
   this state extended from the Baltic coast, which it touched at
   a single point, across the entire continent, almost to the
   Black Sea, with Lithuania proper as its northern nucleus, and
   the populations along the whole course of the Dnieper as its
   subjects. The Lithuanians, thus made formidable by the extent
   of their dominion, were at this time still heathens."

      _Poland: Her History and Prospects
      (Westminster Review, January, 1855),
      page 119._

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

LITHUANIA: A. D. 1386. Union with Poland under the Jagellon
kings.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

   ----------LITHUANIA: End--------

LITHUANIANS.
LETTS.

   "They and the Slavonians are branches of the same Sarmatian
   family; so, of course, their languages, though different, are
   allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the
   Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt,
   though these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker
   than any of these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred
   language of India—the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the
   Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest
   to the Sanskrit? Not those of Tibet and Armenia, not even
   those of Southern India. Its nearest parallel is the obscure
   and almost unlettered languages of Grodno, Wilna, Vitepsk,
   Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a difficult
   problem here. … The present distribution of the Lithuanian
   populations is second only in importance to that of the
   Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient starting-point. Here
   it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to the
   province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have
   encroached on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It
   is the Lett branch of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the
   Letts of Livonia (Liefland), but not by the Liefs. The same is
   the case in Courland. East Prussia lies beyond the Russian
   empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that, as late as
   the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there.
   Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian
   provinces. There, the original proper Lithuanic tongue still
   survives; uncultivated, and day by day suffering from the
   encroachment of the Russian, but, withal, in the eyes of the
   ethnologist, the most important language in Europe."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 6._

LITTLE BIG HORN, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

LITTLE BRETHREN.

      See BEGUINES, &c.

LITTLE ROCK, Federal occupation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

LITTLE RUSSIA.

      See RUSSIA, GREAT.

LITTLE YAHNI, Battle of (1877).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

LITURGIES.

   "It was not only by taxation of its members that the
   [Athenian] State met its financial needs, but also by many
   other kinds of services which it demanded from them, and
   which, though not, like the former, producing an income, yet
   nevertheless saved an expense. Such services are called
   Liturgies [i. e.; properly, services for the
   people.'—Footnote]. They are partly ordinary or 'encyclic'—
   such, that is, as occurred annually, even in times of peace,
   according to a certain order, and which all bore some relation
   to worship and to the celebration of festivals—and partly
   extraordinary, for the needs of war. Among the former class
   the most important is the so-called Choregia, i. e., the
   furnishing of a chorus for musical contests and for festivals.
   … A similar though less burdensome Liturgy was the
   Gymnasiarchy for those feasts which were celebrated with
   gymnastic contests. The gymnasiarch, as it seems, was
   compelled to have all who wished to come forward as
   competitors trained in the gymnasia, to furnish them with
   board during the time of training, and at the games themselves
   to furnish the necessary fittings and ornaments of the place
   of contest. … More important and more costly than all these
   ordinary or encyclic Liturgies was the extraordinary Liturgy
   of trierarchy, i. e., the equipment of a ship of war."

      _G. F. Schumann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

   "The Liturgiæ, which are sometimes considered as peculiar to
   the Athenians, … were common to all democracies at least [in
   the Greek states], and even to certain aristocracies or
   oligarchies. … The Liturgiæ of the Greeks were distinguished
   by a much more generous and noble characteristic than the
   corresponding services and contributions of the present day.
   They were considered honorable services. … Niggardliness in
   the performance of them was considered disgraceful. The state
   needed no paid officer, or contractors to superintend or
   undertake their execution. … The ordinary Liturgiæ … are
   principally the choregia, the gymnasiarchia, and the feasting
   of the tribes [or hestiasis]. … The lampadarchy, if not the
   only kind, was certainly the most important and expensive kind
   of gymnasiarchy. The race on foot with a torch in the hand was
   a common game. The same kind of race was run with horses for
   the first time at Athens in the time of Socrates. The art
   consisted, besides other particulars, in running the fastest,
   and at the same time not extinguishing the torch. … Since
   the festivity was celebrated at night, the illumination of the
   place which was the scene of the contest was necessary. Games
   of this kind were celebrated specially in honor of the gods of
   light and fire. … The expenses of the feasting of the tribes
   were borne by a person selected for this purpose from the
   tribe. … The entertainments, the expenses of which were
   defrayed by means of this liturgia, were different from the
   great feastings of the people, the expenses of which were paid
   from the treasury of the theorica. They were merely
   entertainments at the festivals of the tribes."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of the Athenians
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 3, chapters 1 and 21-23._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,
      Athens,
      book 5, chapter 2._

{2030}

LITUS, The.

   In the Salic law, of the Franks, the litus appears as
   representing a class in that Germanic nation. He "was no doubt
   identical with the serf whom Tacitus represents as cultivating
   the soil, and paying a rent in kind to his lord. That the
   litus was not free is evident from the mention of his master
   and the fact that he could be sold; though we find a weregild
   set upon his life equal to that of a free Roman."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY, The.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

LIVERPOOL MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LIVERY, Origin of the term.

   "After an ancient custom, the kings of France, at great
   solemnities, gave such of their subjects as were at court
   certain capes or furred mantles, with which the latter
   immediately clothed themselves before leaving the court. In
   the ancient 'comptes' (a sort of audits) these capes were
   called 'livrées' (whence, no doubt, our word livery), because
   the monarch gave them ('les livrait') himself."

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 13._

LIVERY COMPANIES.

      See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

LIVERY OF SEIZIN.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

LIVINGSTON MANOR, The.

   Robert Livingston, "secretary of Albany," son of a Scotch
   clergyman, began to acquire a landed estate, by purchases from
   the Indians, soon after his arrival in America, which was
   about 1674. "The Mohegan tribes on the east side of the Hudson
   had become reduced to a few old Indians and squaws, who were
   ready to sell the lands of which they claimed the ownership.
   Livingston's position as clerk of Indian affairs gave him
   exceptional opportunities to select and to purchase the best
   lands in desirable localities. … In 1702, Lord Bellomont
   [then governor of New York] writes, 'I am told Livingston has
   on his great grant of 16 miles long and 24 broad, but four or
   five cottages, occupied by men too poor to be farmers, but are
   his vassals.' After the close of the war [Queen Anne's War],
   Livingston made more rapid progress in his improvements. He
   erected flour and timber mills, and a new manor-house." In
   1715 Livingston obtained from Governor Hunter a confirmatory
   patent, under an exact and careful survey of his estate.
   "Although it does not give the number of acres, the survey
   computes the area of the manor to contain 160,240 acres. It
   was now believed to be secure against any attack. … Philip,
   the second proprietor, was not disturbed as to title or
   limits. He was a merchant, and resided in New York, spending
   his summers at the Manor House. … His son, Robert, succeeded
   him as the third proprietor, but he had hardly come into
   possession before he began to be harassed by his eastern
   neighbors, the people of Massachusetts. … Massachusetts, by
   her charter, claimed the lands lying west of her eastern
   boundary to the Pacific Ocean. She had long sought to make
   settlements within the province of New York. Now as her
   population increased she pushed them westward, and gradually
   encroached on lands within the limits of a sister province. In
   April, 1752, Livingston wrote to Governor Clinton, and entered
   complaint against the trespassers from Massachusetts. A long
   correspondence between the governors of the two provinces
   followed, but settled nothing. The trouble continued," for a
   number of years, and frequent riots were incident to it, in
   which several men were killed. At length, "the boundary
   between New York and Massachusetts was finally settled, and
   the claimants ceased their annoyance. … The Revolution was
   approaching. The public mind was occupied with politics. …
   Land titles ceased to be topics of discussion. The proprietors
   of the old manor, and all bearing their name, with a few
   unimportant exceptions, took a decided stand in favor of
   independence. During the war that followed, and for some years
   after its close, their title and possession of their broad
   acres were undisputed. But in 1795 another effort was made to
   dispossess them. The old methods of riots and arrests were
   abandoned. The title was now attacked by the tenants, incited
   and encouraged by the envious and disaffected. A petition,
   numerously signed by the tenants of the manor, was sent to the
   Legislature. … The committee to which the petition was
   referred reported adversely, and this was approved by the
   House on March 23, 1795. … After the failure of 1795 to
   break the title, there was a season of comparative quiet
   continued for nearly forty years. Then a combination was
   formed by the tenants of the old manorial estates, including
   those of large landed proprietors in other parts of the State,
   termed 'anti-renters.' It was a civil association with a
   military organization. It was their purpose to resist the
   payment of rents. The tenants of the Van Rensselaer and the
   Livingston Manors, being the most numerous, were the
   projectors and leaders, giving laws and directions. …
   Landlords and officers were intimidated by bands disguised as
   Indians, and some property was destroyed. The anti-renters
   carried their grievances into politics, throwing their votes
   for the party which would give them the most favorable
   legislation. In 1844, they petitioned the Legislature to set
   aside as defective the Van Rensselaer title, and put the
   tenants in legal possession of the farms they occupied. The
   petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the
   Assembly, the late Judge William Allen being chairman.
   Anti-renters of known ability were on the committee, and a
   favorable report was anticipated. But after a long and
   thorough investigation of the title … the committee
   unanimously reported against the prayer of the petition. This
   put an end to the combination, and to the anti-rent war,
   although resistance to the collection of rents in isolated
   cases, with bloodshed and loss of life, is still [1885]
   continued. The landlords, however, particularly the
   Livingstons, were tired of the strife. They adopted measures
   of compromise, selling to their tenants the lands they
   occupied at reduced valuations. Only small portions of the old
   manor now remain in the hands of Robert Livingston's
   descendants."

      _G. W. Schuyler,
      Colonial New York,
      volume I, pages 243-285._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. P. Cheyney,
      Anti-Rent Agitations in New York
      (University of Pennsylvania Pubs.)._

{2031}

LIVONIA: 12th-13th Centuries.
   First introduction of Commerce and Christianity.

   "Till the year A. D. 1158 … Livonia was well-nigh utterly
   unknown to the rest of Europe. Some traders of Bremen then
   visited it, and formed several settlements along the coast.
   These commercial relations with their western neighbours first
   opened up the country to missionary enterprise, and in the
   year A. D. 1186 one of the merchant-ships of Bremen brought to
   the mouth of the Düna a venerable canon named Meinhard."
   Meinhard died in 1196, having accomplished little. He was
   succeeded by a Cistercian abbot named Berthold, who, being
   driven away by the obstinate pagans, returned wrathfully in
   1198, with a crusading army, which Pope Innocent III. had
   commissioned him to lead against them. This was the beginning
   of a long and merciless crusading warfare waged against the
   Livonians, or Lieflanders, and against their Prussian and
   other Sclavonic neighbors, until all were forced to submit to
   the religious rites of their conquerors and to call themselves
   Christians. For the furthering of this crusade, Berthold's
   successor, Albert von Apeldern, of Bremen (who founded the
   town of Riga), "instituted, in the year A. D. 1201, with the
   concurrence of the emperor Otho IV. and the approbation of the
   Pope, the knightly 'Order of the Sword,' and placed it under
   the special protection of the Virgin Mary. The members of this
   order bound themselves by solemn vows to hear mass frequently,
   to abstain from marriage, to lead a sober and chaste life, and
   to fight against the heathen. In return for these services
   they were to have and to enjoy whatever lands they might wrest
   with their swords from their pagan adversaries. … Albert von
   Apeldern made Riga the starting-point of his operations.
   Thence, aided by Waldemar II. king of Denmark, he directed the
   arms of his crusaders against Esthonia, and the neighbouring
   countries of Semgallen and Courland. On these war-wasted
   districts he succeeded in imposing a nominal form of
   Christianity." The Order of the Sword was subsequently united
   with the Teutonic Order, which turned its crusading energies
   from the Moslems of the Holy Land to the heathendom of the
   Baltic.

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      See, also
      PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

LLANOS.

      See PAMPAS.

LLORENS, Battle of (1645).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LOANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LOBBY, The.

   "'The Lobby' is the name given in America to persons, not
   being members of a legislature, who undertake to influence its
   members, and thereby to secure the passing of bills. The term
   includes both those who, since they hang about the chamber,
   and make a regular profession of working upon the members, are
   called 'lobbyists,' and those persons who on any particular
   occasion may come up to advocate, by argument or solicitation,
   any particular measure in which they happen to be interested.
   The name, therefore, does not necessarily impute any improper
   motive or conduct, though it is commonly used in what Bentham
   calls a dyslogistic sense."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      volume 1, appendix note (B) to chapter 16._

LOBOSITZ, OR LOWOSITZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOCH LEVEN, Mary Stuart's captivity at.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LOCHLANN.

   The Celtic name for Norway, meaning Lakeland.

LOCKE'S CONSTITUTION FOR THE CAROLINAS.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

LOCOFOCOS.

   "In 1835, in the city and county of New York, a portion of the
   democrats organized themselves into the 'equal rights' party.
   At a meeting in Tammany Hall they attempted to embarrass the
   proceedings of the democratic nominating committee, by
   presenting a chairman in opposition to the one supported by
   the regular democrats. Both parties came to a dead lock, and,
   in the midst of great confusion, the committee extinguished
   the lights. The equal rights men immediately relighted the
   room with candles and locofoco matches, with which they had
   provided themselves. From this they received the name of
   locofocos, a designation which, for a time, was applied to the
   whole democratic party by the opposition."

      _W. R. Houghton,
      History of American Politics,
      page 219._

LOCRI.

   The city of Locri, or Locri Epizephyrii, an ancient Greek
   settlement in Southern Italy, was founded by the Locrians as
   early as B. C. 683. The elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,
   married a Locrian woman and showed great favor to the city, of
   which he acquired control; but it suffered terribly from his
   son, the younger Dionysius, who transferred his residence to
   Locri when first driven from Syracuse.

LOCRIANS, The.

      See LOKRIANS.

LODGER FRANCHISE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

LODI, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

LODI, Treaty of (1454).

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

LOEN, OR STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

LŒTIC COLONIES.

   During and after the civil wars of the declining years of the
   Roman empire, large numbers of Germans were enlisted in the
   service of the rival factions, and were recompensed by gifts
   of land, on which they settled as colonists. "They were called
   Lœti, and the colonies lœtic colonies, probably from the
   German word 'leute,' people, because they were regarded as the
   people or men of the empire."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 9, foot-note._

LOG, The.

      See EPHAH.

LOG CABIN AND HARD CIDER CAMPAIGN.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.

LOGAN CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

LOGAN'S WRONGS.
LOGAN'S WAR.
LOGAN'S FAMOUS SPEECH.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LÖGBERG, The.

      See THING.

LOGI, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

LOGISTÆ AND EUTHYNI, The.

   "In Athens, all accounts, with the exception of those of the
   generals, were rendered to the logistæ and euthyni. Both
   authorities, before and after the archonship of Euclid,
   existed together at the same time. Their name itself shows
   that the logistæ were auditors of accounts. The euthyni were
   in immediate connection with them. … The logistæ were the
   principal persons in the auditing board."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 2, chapter 8._

{2032}

LOGOGRAPHI, The.

   The earlier Ionian Greek historians "confined their attention
   to the circle of myths and antiquities connected with single
   families, single cities and districts. These were the Ionic
   'logographi,' so called because they noted down in easy
   narrative the remarkable facts that they had collected and
   obtained by inquiry as to the foundation of the cities, the
   myths of the prehistoric age, and the natural, political, and
   social condition of different countries."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

LOGOTHETES.

   A class of officers created under Justinian for the
   administration of the imperial finances in Italy, after its
   conquest from the Goths. Their functions corresponded with
   those of a modern auditor, or comptroller.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 15 (volume 4)._

LOGSTOWN.

   About the middle of the 18th century, Logstown was "an
   important Indian village a little below the site of the
   present city of Pittsburg. Here usually resided Tanacharisson,
   a Seneca chief of great note, being head sachem of the mixed
   tribes which had migrated to the Ohio and its branches. He was
   generally surnamed the half-king, being subordinate to the
   Iroquois confederacy."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

LOIDIS.

      See ELMET.

LOJA: Sieges and capture by the Spaniards (1482-1483).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LOJERA, Battle of (1353).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

LOKRIANS, The.

   "The coast [of Greece, in ancient times] opposite to the
   western side of Eubœa, from the neighbourhood of Thermopylæ as
   far as the Bœotian frontier at Anthedon, was possessed by the
   Lokrians, whose northern frontier town, Alpeni, was
   conterminous with the Malians. There was, however, one narrow
   strip of Phokis—the town of Daphnus, where the Phokians also
   touched the Eubœan sea—which broke this continuity and
   divided the Lokrians into two sections,—Lokrians of Mount
   Knemis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or
   Opuntian Lokrians. … Besides these two sections of the
   Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely separate, and
   said to have been colonised from Opus,—the Lokrians surnamed
   Ozolæ,—who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis, along
   the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf. … Opus prided
   itself on being the mother-city of the Lokrian name. … The
   whole length of this Lokrian coast is celebrated for its
   beauty and fertility, both by ancient and modern observers."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

LOLLARDS. The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
      and BEGUINES.—BEGHARDS.

LOLLARDS' TOWER.

   When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif,
   began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon
   crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of
   building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the
   custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is
   still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the
   captives were chained.

LOMBARDS, OR LANGOBARDI.
   Early history.

   "The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their
   numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,
   they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their
   martial enterprise."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford translation,
      chapter 40._

   "In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side
   the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and
   driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of
   the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the
   Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in
   Italy."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford translation,
      Translator's note._

   The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or
   Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their
   beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall
   of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant
   "long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive
   the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the
   Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain
   by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is
   still called the lange Börde. According to this view,
   Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the
   river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur
   in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood
   of the Elbe."

      _Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 42._

   From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube.
   "Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken
   a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the
   great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains
   of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty
   years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which
   both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and
   both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to
   their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by
   a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The
   Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the
   pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the
   prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the
   name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of
   Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his
   beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his
   sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a
   foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now
   experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 6._

LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.
   Conquests and settlement in Italy.

   When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the
   Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the
   bargain between them that the former should surrender to the
   Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,
   Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their
   own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious
   Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of
   Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.
   Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the
   sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies
   of the Roman-Greeks.
{2033}
   The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving
   wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had
   been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible
   that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an
   entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year
   568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut
   himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other
   resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings
   of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of
   four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,
   opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The
   Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they
   advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the
   fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being
   relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge
   in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.
   … The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from
   Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took
   up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the
   fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from
   Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and
   Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,
   Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south
   of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of
   fugitives."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

   "From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the
   inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege,
   the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had
   been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a
   new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying
   detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above
   three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. …
   The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath
   that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a
   general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to
   execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his
   horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground.
   One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to
   interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the
   conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the
   situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the
   difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards
   disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some
   ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 45._

LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-754.
   Their kingdom.

   Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian
   kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of
   his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him
   had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a
   chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned
   but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a
   distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king,
   the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and
   was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new
   king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive
   invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was
   led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race
   who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years
   Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
   Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the
   royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended
   to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines
   of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and
   Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now
   represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic,
   Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua,
   Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large
   portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the
   Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum,
   survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the
   Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years
   over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 45._

LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
   The Fall of their monarchy.
   Charlemagne's conquest.

   Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous
   career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the
   last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from
   Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of
   the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which
   depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination
   to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its
   independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a
   republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual
   prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and
   the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,
   being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the
   court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin
   was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope
   had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he
   responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign
   beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a
   promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope
   and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon
   as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf
   was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On
   this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled
   the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional
   territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom
   and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages
   to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This
   chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the
   Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank
   monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin
   was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had
   quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He
   passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia
   after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the
   kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the
   remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the
   territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and
   added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the
   Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,
   was forever extinguished.
{2034}
   Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several
   smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,
   perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were
   advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the
   disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the
   forms of government which had been previously established. He
   introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The
   native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the
   national law was preserved, and the distributions of land
   maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as
   their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name
   of King of Lombardy."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      _J. I. Mombert,
      Charlemagne,
      book 1, chapter 2,
      and book 2, chapter 2._

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 4-5._

      See, also,
      PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

   ----------LOMBARDY: Start--------

LOMBARDY: A. D. 754.
   Charlemagne's reconstitution of the kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 961-1039.
   The subjection to Germany.

      See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1056-1152.
   The rise of the Republican cities.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.
   The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.
   The League of Lombardy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
      MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1183-1250.
   The conflict with Frederick II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1250-1520.
   The Age of the Despots.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447.
   Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the
   dissolution of their threatening tyranny.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.
   Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.
   His coronation with the Iron Crown.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1327-1330.
   Visit and coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391.
   The Free Companies and the wars with Florence
   and with the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.
   Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.
   Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.
   The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.
   War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and
   Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544.
   The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition
   by the Spanish crown.

      See references under MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496, to 1544.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1713.
   Cession of the duchy of Milan to Austria.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746.
   Occupied by the Spaniards and French
   and recovered by the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745; and 1746-1747.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Conquest by Bonaparte.
   Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1799.
   French evacuation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1800.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A: D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1805.
   The Iron Crown bestowed on Napoleon, as King of Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814.
   French evacuation.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restored to Austria.
   Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule
   and its failure.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.
   Emancipation from the Austrians.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------LOMBARDY: End----------

LOMBARDY, The iron crown of.

   The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,
   believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the
   Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 2._

LONATO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

LONDINIUM.
   The Roman name of the city of London.

      See LONDON.

   ----------LONDON: Start----------

LONDON:
   The origin of the city and its name.

   "When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the
   Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of
   Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his
   soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross,
   he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I
   believe the place was London. The name of London refers
   directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a
   philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman
   general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the
   conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with
   all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the
   year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp,
   I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The
   notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town
   preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is
   inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this
   part of Britain."

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticæ,
      volume 2, part 2, chapter 13._

   "Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of
   British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the
   loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any
   settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a
   vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the
   town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the
   Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading
   intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at
   large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the
   landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of
   43] London had risen into a flourishing port."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 3._

{2035}

   "The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn·din,' the lake fort,
   seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The
   Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a
   word which must have sounded to his ears very much like
   'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was
   turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is
   the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called
   his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that
   remains of him or it. … London was in those days
   emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a
   broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the
   great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls
   it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very
   like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising
   out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 1, and foot-note._

LONDON: A. D. 61.
   Destruction by the Iceni.

   Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by
   the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which
   they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61.
   It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at
   this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas:
   but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was
   of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly
   determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to
   the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the
   attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great
   cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman
   colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a
   moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman
   civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the
   workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the
   Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double
   Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken
   rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible
   Boadicea."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

LONDON: 4th Century.
   The Roman Augusta and its walls.

   "It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor]
   himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer
   wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which
   still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in
   the history of London not second in importance even to its
   foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête
   du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial
   Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be
   assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall:
   and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in
   an immense tract of what was until then open country,
   especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and
   Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the
   new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never
   without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the
   increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place.
   The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very
   clear. The population to be protected might very well have
   been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed
   a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles
   and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from
   Blackfriars to the Tower."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D.
   380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls
   it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we
   learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the
   inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head
   quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the
   reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by
   the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons.
   Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and
   cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way
   of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years
   previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan
   for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is
   on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as
   an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous
   chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it
   is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as
   applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must
   probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in
   relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from
   Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a
   mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London
   Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those
   of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of
   the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the
   island."

      _Charles Roach Smith,
      Illustrations of Roman London,
      pages 11-12._

LONDON: 4th Century.
   The growth of the Roman city.

   "That London gradually increased in importance beyond the
   dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it
   in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads
   beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times
   of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or
   'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities
   of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was
   considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times,
   appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The
   walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on
   the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length,
   and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended
   across the river on the Kentish side."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 15._

   "Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides
   of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook,
   which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. …
   Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the
   mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern
   parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge
   by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent
   mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had
   brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other
   side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon
   ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings
   of Roman streets."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Roach Smith,
      Antiquities of Roman London._

{2036}

LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries.
   During the Saxon conquest and settlement.

   For nearly half a century after its conquest by the
   East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the
   6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We
   know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate
   of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within
   its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least
   as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from
   the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls
   [see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the
   settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here
   as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had
   been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the
   East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal
   life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a
   century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of
   Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury,
   remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the
   first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the
   midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine
   how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman
   towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared.
   But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the
   stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier
   topographical history. The story of early London is not that
   of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman
   for those of English life, but of a number of little groups
   scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each
   growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes,
   religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing
   together into a municipal union which remained weak and
   imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed
   was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for
   whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here
   that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the
   Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged
   which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the
   means of communication to any part of Britain."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      pages 149 and 452-459._

   "London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century]
   to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be
   the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom
   was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of
   Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the
   conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex,
   and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there,
   at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the
   history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be
   compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of
   the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her.
   Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had
   spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.
   Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At
   last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their
   headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make
   truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their
   own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience
   and political sagacity, the possession of London was a
   necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His
   preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict
   is the story of his life. His first great success was the
   capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task
   of all his later years."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016.
   Resistance to the Danes.

   See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

LONDON: 12th Century.
   Magnitude and importance of the city.

   "We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of
   Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the
   Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on
   account of the greatness of their city; into the community of
   which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed,
   the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them,
   were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city
   in England. There have been different estimates of its
   population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it
   could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls
   within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3)._

LONDON: 14th Century.
   Guilds.
   Livery Companies.

      See GUILDS.

LONDON: A. D. 1381.
   In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

LONDON: 16th Century.
   In Shakespeare's time.

   "The London of those days did not present the gigantic
   uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become
   wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as
   yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of
   moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and
   gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with
   the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of
   originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and
   domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then
   the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows
   and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay
   attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live
   apart in other districts; the nobility still had their
   mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen
   Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to
   some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through
   the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of
   her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or
   Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her
   magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where
   the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of
   the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the
   brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was
   crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as
   crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined
   its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses.
   Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream,
   and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of
   'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the
   Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by
   catching salmon.
{2037}
   In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all,
   the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was
   to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops:
   'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best!
   Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of
   every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid
   all this life every now and again would be seen the
   perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding
   processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of
   train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and
   gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their
   existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money,
   and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists'
   shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of
   smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than
   7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for
   promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and
   its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew
   Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities,
   where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great
   sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris
   Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was
   here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a
   pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear
   loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less
   attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit
   and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these
   amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the
   theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the
   Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni
   Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of
   his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at
   an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports
   of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in
   1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls;
   however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino,
   estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of
   foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the
   colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there
   amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and
   the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames
   alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of
   Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen,
   sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical
   events had put new life into the English nation, and given it
   an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more
   especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon
   literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare
   had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the
   greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which
   lay principally in London."

      _K. Elze,
      William Shakespeare,
      chapter 3._

LONDON: A. D. 1647.
   Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LONDON: A. D. 1665
   The Great Plague.

   "The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the
   first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning
   of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to
   public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes
   from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar
   means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A
   third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the
   suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,
   people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and
   especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the
   17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not
   been started. Such being the conditions of existence in
   London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,
   now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long
   drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant
   reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its
   strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that
   the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their
   flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that
   ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which
   had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of
   St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two
   Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.
   The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous
   as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated
   that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of
   the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the
   deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his
   ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now
   became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the
   Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the
   only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the
   corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the
   earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather
   was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly
   broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a
   physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,
   scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come
   back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected
   from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who
   remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached
   repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms
   were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the
   first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so
   that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of
   the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular
   swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague
   spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The
   patients frequently expired the same day that they were
   seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were
   circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the
   streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,
   and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness
   of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number
   of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality
   recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that
   month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the
   beginning of October.
{2038}
   A change of weather at length occurred, and the average
   declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the
   number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas
   came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In
   all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during
   the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate
   estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the
   appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN;
      _S. Pepys,
      Diary, 1665._

LONDON: A. D. 1666.
   The Great Fire.

   "While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive
   success on either side, a calamity happened in London which
   threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out
   [September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread
   itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could
   extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of
   the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide
   effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of
   their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the
   flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and
   nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up
   of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400
   streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of
   the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the
   houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent
   east wind which blew; these were so many concurring
   circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of
   the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied
   with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some
   ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the
   Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great
   calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city
   and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,
   and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular
   than before. … London became much more healthy after the
   fire."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 64._

   "I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as
   far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate
   hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,
   Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,
   &c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of
   yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The
   ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of
   my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find
   that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in
   ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient
   pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100
   more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see
   one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were
   calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and
   Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all
   ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of
   what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and
   tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not
   asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger
   sight than any I had yet beheld."

      _J. Evelyn,
      Diary,
      September 7, 1666 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Pepys,
      Diary, September 2-15, 1666
      (volume 4)._

      _L. Phillimore,
      Sir Christopher Wren,
      chapters 6-7._

LONDON: A. D. 1685.
   The most populous capital in Europe.
   The first lighting of the streets.

   "There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,
   during about half a century, the most populous capital in
   Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least
   1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.
   London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long
   ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There
   is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then
   bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole
   trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest
   vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The
   shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to
   have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a
   third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be
   noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.
   [1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change
   which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body
   of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An
   ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters
   patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive
   right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate
   consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on
   moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to
   twelve of the clock."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

LONDON: A. D. 1688.
   The Irish Night.

   The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the
   morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak
   of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to
   promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic
   chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic
   States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of
   December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places
   presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met
   at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.
   … In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the
   provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more
   formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,
   and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible
   that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King
   James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which
   had been composed for the most part of troops brought over
   from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish
   soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and
   children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in
   the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere
   terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while
   their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for
   fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern
   preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if
   such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at
   all the windows. The public places were as bright as at
   noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than
   20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak
   of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.
   During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection
   of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not
   been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers
   were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant
   ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant
   from each other."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 10._

{2039}

LONDON: A. D. 1780.
   The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

LONDON: A. D. 1848.
   The last Chartist demonstration.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.

LONDON: A. D. 1851.
   The great Exhibition.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

   ----------LONDON: End----------

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
   Charter and undertakings in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
   The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
      and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.

   ----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------

LONDONDERRY:
   Origin and Name.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.
   The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.
   The Siege.

   James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the
   Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter
   Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from
   the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,
   to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,
   if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his
   forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the
   Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary
   had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within
   the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the
   summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire
   of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry
   crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate
   opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the
   strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite
   bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles
   Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a
   summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very
   great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon
   suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the
   presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,
   who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen
   to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,
   being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired
   them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and
   Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They
   mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under
   eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but
   they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000
   accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them
   to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's
   estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon
   possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of
   April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.
   … No impression was made during nine days upon the
   determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced
   his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege
   went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the
   commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and
   the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and
   insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in
   which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part
   of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy
   stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,
   and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the
   15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in
   the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay
   at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the
   heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his
   command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring
   that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he
   would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring
   districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to
   starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus
   beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for
   three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all
   the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and
   the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary
   villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed
   his displeasure at this proceeding."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 34._

   "The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
   frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
   by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
   fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
   was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
   so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
   Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
   down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
   remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
   hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
   appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
   the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
   few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
   five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
   but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
   likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
   slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
   the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
   dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
   the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
   far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
   England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
   expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
   might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
   success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
   and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
   frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
   broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
   and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
   of July.
{2040}
   The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
   undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
   enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
   on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
   and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
   marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
   … So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
   annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
   garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
   about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
   ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO in:
      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 21._

      See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

   ----------LONDONDERRY: End--------

LONE JACK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

LONE STAR, Order of the.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LONE STAR FLAG.
LONE STAR STATE.

   On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas
   adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the
   flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas
   is often called the Lone Star State.

   ----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.
   Explored by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.
   Settlement of Brooklyn.

      See BROOKLYN.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.
   Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English
   of Connecticut.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.
   Title acquired for the Duke of York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.
   Annexed to New York.

         See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
   The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

   ----------LONG ISLAND: End--------

LONG KNIVES, The.

      See YANKEE.

LONG PARLIAMENT.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.

   The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four
   miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and
   one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the
   communication of their city with its port, were called the
   Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the
   walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of
   Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth
   had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum.
   The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of
   the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C.
   404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

LONGSTREET, General James.
   Siege of Knoxville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LONGUEVILLE,
   The Duchess de, and the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LORD.

   "Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band
   of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own
   free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their
   chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death,
   and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return,
   they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could
   distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his
   character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his
   official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name
   which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and
   with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has
   settled down into the modern form of Lord."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Norman Conquests,
      chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1)._

   On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'

      See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.

LORD CHANCELLOR, The.

      See CHANCELLOR.

LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LORDS, British House of.

   "The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased
   to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,'
   and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the
   Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary
   character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed
   and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a
   consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs,
   practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the
   national council were issued."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 7._

   "The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in
   which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost
   always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have
   been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by
   something like the monopoly of the best Government
   appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They
   are able to command the field sports and open-air life that
   conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats
   disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five
   families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,
   and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers
   were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,
   only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were
   represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family
   has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging
   the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in
   this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but
   the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,
   with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords
   would by this time have been practically extinguished.
{2041}
   Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only
   three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost
   to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the
   Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to
   the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we
   have to seck for the springs of national life."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      National Life and Character,
      pages 70-73._

   "The British peerage is something unique in the world. In
   England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying
   may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the
   British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's
   mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an
   aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an
   aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of
   Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times
   in English history when there has been a strong tendency to
   aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the
   king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of
   Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or
   people, but which had driven out both king and people, an
   aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into
   whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged
   body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never
   seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense,
   the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a
   body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which
   no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its
   members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or
   distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial
   political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England
   there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble
   in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from
   generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in
   the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists
   in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and
   privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to
   himself only; his children are legally commoners; his
   grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other
   commoners. … A certain great position in the state is
   hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none.
   The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his
   own person the whole nobility of the family."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 305-307._

   "At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of
   Lords, made up thus:
   Peers, 469;
   Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;
   Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;
   Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;
   Lords Spiritual, 27.

   The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are
   appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior.
   Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly
   judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak
   and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of
   the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from
   that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary.
   As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who
   number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who
   number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in
   Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and
   hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords
   Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
   Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and
   Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine
   bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles
   have been given take their seats in the House immediately on
   appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of
   seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats
   in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop
   of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no
   vote."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 6._

   For an account of the transient abolition of the House of
   Lords in 1649,

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
      and ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORDS OF ARTICLES.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.

LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.

LORDS OF THE ISLES.

      See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504;
      and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.

      See ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent),
   The rule of.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

   ----------LORRAINE: Start--------

LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
   Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.

   In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
   grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder,
   Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom
   of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself,
   Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so
   formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian
   kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic
   dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or
   France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of
   the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier,
   by France on the other."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1, note._

   "Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or
   Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century
   instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides
   Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the
   dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land,
   having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of
   Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it
   has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the
   Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided
   between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept
   its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the
   two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on
   the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern
   Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the
   royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly
   to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East
   is considerably larger."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1._

{2042}

   "Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share
   of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by
   disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further
   partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched
   and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three
   sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of
   his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor
   Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third
   of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of
   Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received
   the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine,"
   and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as
   follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their
   allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh,
   the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories
   included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés,
   Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of
   Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and
   Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in
   intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of
   Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg,
   the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of
   Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved
   kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine
   family competitors successively came into the field for that
   much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles
   of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French
   dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of
   Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon
   forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot
   of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of
   those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon
   tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely
   Belgic territories, especially that very important district
   successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and
   Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us.
   Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves,
   Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories
   of the Belgic and German tongues."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 1, pages 361-370._

      See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
   The dukedom established.

   The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately
   constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or
   Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang
   the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian
   duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the
   rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this
   proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur.
   "Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. …
   Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the
   Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed
   themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by
   influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians,
   accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed
   themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the
   Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender
   throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win
   Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm:
   he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was
   resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was
   constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert,
   son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of
   the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little
   later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry
   the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived
   the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho
   gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under
   Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine.
   Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his
   cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French
   Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant
   has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for
   our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is
   accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the
   hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received
   investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this
   disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the
   French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions
   over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions,
   and granted the same to be held without let or interference
   from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German
   Empire."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, part 2, chapter 1
      and chapter 4, part 2._

   "Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained
   them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic
   Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to
   reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was
   thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was
   retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line
   still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom
   of Belgium."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1)._

LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.
   Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou
   and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.
   Union with Bar.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1476.
   Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.
   Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.
   Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
   Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.
   Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.
   Its possession by the French.

   Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,
   the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with
   France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,
   made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …
   Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,
   and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than
   in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and
   career of the members of the house of Guise had brought
   Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the
   closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an
   independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624
   by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of
   the last duke. …
{2043}
   He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French
   Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de
   Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long
   sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke
   of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the
   Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while
   Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often
   omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France
   had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.
   His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain
   by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to
   keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,
   and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to
   trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of
   Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In
   January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by
   which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or
   state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.
   Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these
   causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.
   They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition
   could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a
   second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of
   Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of
   the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little
   change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act
   in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,
   the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had
   married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every
   way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He
   seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have
   to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second
   time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the
   duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'
   forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false
   as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,
   and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a
   treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the
   most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered
   his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of
   Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should
   be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu
   said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles
   pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the
   duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke
   also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two
   branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier
   of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the
   imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed
   again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered
   them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled
   with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking
   possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was
   entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its
   inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and
   misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar
   and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every
   side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,
   and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than
   could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the
   inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,
   cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the
   country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in
   that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as
   a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was
   granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,
   and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should
   remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the
   duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies
   whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his
   dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as
   of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly
   took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French
   again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the
   whole province was in their hands. It so continued until
   1663."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered
   to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,
   formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and
   sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,
   which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally
   culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria
   Theresa."

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      volume 2, chapter 6, section 3._

LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
   Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
   Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.
   Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.
   Restoration refused by the duke.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.
   Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with
   boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
   Ceded to France.
   Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871.
   One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.
   Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German
   imperial province.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

   ----------LORRAINE: End----------

LOSANTIVILLE.

      See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.

   In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward
   IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir
   Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King
   Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a
   place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away
   their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a
   prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the
   rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the
   battle of Lose-coat Field."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 8._

   The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.

{2044}

LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

      See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;
      also, SAMARIA.

LOTHAIRE,
   King of France, A. D. 954-986.

   Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
   King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.

   Lothaire II.,
   Emperor, 1133-1137;
   King of Germany, 1125-1137.

LOTHARINGIA.

      See LORRAINE.

LOTHIAN.

      See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

LOUIS,
   King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.

   Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.

   Louis I. (called The Pious),
   Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
   King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
   King of the Franks, 814-840.

   Louis I. (called The Great),
   King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
   King of Poland, 1370-1382.

   Louis I.,
   King of Naples, 1382-1384;
   Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.

   Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.

   Louis II. (called The Stammerer),
   King of France, 877-879.

   Louis II. (called The German),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.

   Louis II.,
   King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.

   Louis II.,
   King of Naples, 1389-1399;
   Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

   Louis III.,
   King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
   East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.

   Louis III. (called The Child),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.

   Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.

   Louis III.,
   Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,
   and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.

   Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.

   Louis V. (of Bavaria),
   Emperor, 1327-1347;
   King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
   King of Italy, 1327-1347.

   Louis V., King of France, 986-987.

   Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.

   Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.

   Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.

   Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.

   Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
   King of France, 1314-1316;
   King of Navarre, 1305-1316.

   Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.

   Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.

   Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .

   Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),
   King of France, 1643-1715.

   Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.

   Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.

   Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,
   during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.

   Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.

   Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

      See NAPOLEON III.

   Louis Philippe,
   King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.

LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

   ----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.
   The fortification of the Harbor.

      See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.
   Surrender to the New Englanders.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.
   Restoration to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.
   English designs against, postponed.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
   Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.

      See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

   ----------LOUISBOURG: End--------

LOUISIANA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
   Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
   Charles I. of England.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
   Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
   Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
   Iberville's colonization.
   Separation in government from New France.
   Crozat's monopoly.
   The French territorial claim.

   "The court of France had been engaged in wars and political
   intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been
   effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve
   years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate
   fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition
   for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on
   foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.
   D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished
   naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful
   agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape
   Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30
   guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of
   marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,
   he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the
   Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served
   in the armies of France and had received an honorable
   discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and
   implements requisite for opening settlements in the
   wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that
   this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following
   March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from
   the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth
   of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of
   it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,
   which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.
   "Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect
   a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about
   fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,
   and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his
   colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New
   Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected
   them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and
   hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and
   security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two
   brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The
   following September an English corvette appeared in the river,
   intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and
   retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered
   terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,
   with many others, died.
{2045}
   "Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an
   additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with
   several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal
   settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;
   others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay
   of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold
   and occupy the country; for his principal object was to
   colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now
   built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54
   miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below
   the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been
   joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French
   Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river
   nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez
   tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the
   site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702
   war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and
   by order of the King of France the headquarters of the
   commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile
   River. This was the first European settlement within the
   present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola
   was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the
   French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between
   Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The
   whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30
   families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of
   the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now
   threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was
   broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to
   France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the
   colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380
   souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each
   other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,
   Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements
   of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,
   although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.
   Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible
   only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country
   under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was
   accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general.
   The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was
   established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the
   site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still
   believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise
   and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the
   resources of the province under the influence of individual
   enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges,
   in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years,
   was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of
   France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this
   time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very
   extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was
   'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of
   Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports,
   havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle
   of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis,
   heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far
   as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore
   called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called
   Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or
   immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or
   Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that
   early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United
   States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky
   Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of
   Canada."

      _J. W. Monette,
     History of the Discovery and Settlement of the
     Valley of the Mississippi,
     book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.
   Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.
   The founding of New Orleans.

   "Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.
   His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and
   a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to
   surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the
   gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all
   Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for
   a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's
   concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company
   proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to
   administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build
   forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint
   such military governors as it should think fitting. These
   extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,
   dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western
   Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or
   associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,
   sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own
   cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of
   plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One
   colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation
   on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were
   located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.
   All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the
   plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered
   with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually
   a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the
   parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon
   African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or
   other of the West India islands. By some their employment was
   viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would
   soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and
   overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered
   against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.
   Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when
   the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their
   maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already
   existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled
   conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville
   governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of
   every sort from France, with which to put new life into the
   expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that
   Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of
   Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment
   of the delta which the river had been for ages silently
   building of its own mud and driftwood.
{2046}
   It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet
   above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in
   its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited
   for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the
   choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the
   alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as
   many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and
   building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the
   capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,
   in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the
   minority of Louis XV.

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Making of the Great West,
      pages 126-128._

      ALSO IN:
      A. McF. Davis,
      Canada and Louisiana
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 1).

      _A. Thiers,
      The Mississippi Bubble,
      chapters 3-8._

      _C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.
   Surrendered to the Crown.
   Massacre of French by the Natchez,
   and destruction of that tribe.
   Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.

   "The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France
   during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce,
   found their way to his western possessions; and though the
   colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became
   in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence
   of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the
   returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of
   protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to
   surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was
   granted them. But though the Company of the West did little
   for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did
   something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk,
   was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though
   at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in
   Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of
   stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river
   Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort
   Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the
   French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during
   which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of
   contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period,
   had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through
   them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi.
   Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain
   disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length
   the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both
   white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked
   out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez],
   in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been
   commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and
   deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands
   and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the
   chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its
   site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the
   murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their
   ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the
   extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729,
   every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the
   natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and
   children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully
   did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed
   by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their
   scalps; in three months they were driven from their country
   and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two
   years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent
   to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient
   and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of
   the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When
   Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of
   France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror
   into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly
   interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose
   the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were
   ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon
   the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be
   final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at
   the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small
   body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province,
   proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked
   the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and
   was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his
   Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards,
   was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette
   and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years
   more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000
   white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the
   Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of
   1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and
   wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March
   of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was
   concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into
   inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little
   that is interesting."

      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      pages 61-63._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Dumont,
      Historical Memoirs
      (French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5)._

      _C. Gayarre,
      Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
      2d series, lectures 5-7._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 4, chapter 5._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
   The Casket Girls.
   Wives for the colonists.

   "In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company
   with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been
   taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The
   company had given to each of them a casket containing some
   articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in
   the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette',
   or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of
   importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the
   casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."

      _C. Gayarre,
      Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
      page 396._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1755.
   Settlement of exiled Acadians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.
   East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to
   Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,
   to Spain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

{2047}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.
   Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.
   The short-lived republic of New Orleans.

   "Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New
   Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark,
   and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses
   and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry;
   by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right
   to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their
   protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the
   response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the
   colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de
   Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession
   for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three
   capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and
   gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million
   livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of
   less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused
   to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their
   nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the
   government under the French flag by the old French officers,
   at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish
   restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an
   ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to
   accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an
   arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended,
   but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa
   retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and
   opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish
   jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things
   continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary
   and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the
   currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total
   loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the
   session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious
   ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with
   the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance,
   agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed
   to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice,
   with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The
   people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the
   city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous
   assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and
   the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of
   October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior
   council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their
   griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom
   of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the
   expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500
   or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ;
   when the French flag was displayed on the public square,
   children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised
   by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we
   will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and
   sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected
   their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and
   memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor
   between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative
   but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Thompson,
      Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 4._

      _C. Gayarré,
      History of Louisiana: French Domination,
      volume 2, lecture 3-6._

LOUISIANA: A. D., 1769.
   Spanish authority established by "Cruel O'Reilly."

   "It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic
   result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month
   followed the October uprising without one of those incidents
   that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.
   In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted
   his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French
   cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.
   Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the
   governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still
   remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is
   probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was
   struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any
   strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time
   which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to
   June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people
   of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news
   that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in
   overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone
   choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white
   cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a
   republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out
   upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and
   called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100
   men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with
   dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the
   next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,
   to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and
   Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of
   the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive
   but brave and manly address presented the homage of the
   people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word
   seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was
   answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate
   justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and
   to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more
   than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of
   the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled
   its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force
   of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under
   Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial
   militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired
   from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,
   accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces
   of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal
   possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the
   principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a
   planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of
   his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met
   his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate
   where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former
   attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young
   ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and
   Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged.
{2048}
   The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials
   saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the
   fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners
   were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.
   "'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …
   O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain
   and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted
   body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part
   of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana
   Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de
   Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the
   province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher
   commission of captain-general he continued for a time in
   control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the
   Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the
   public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at
   least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the
   name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of
   notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the
   vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in
   which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large
   portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,
   O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,
   leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.
   The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He
   had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it
   only with velvet strokes."

      _G. W. Cable,
      The Creoles of Louisiana,
      chapter 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
      History and Present Condition of New Orleans
      (United States Tenth Census, volume 19)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Spanish reconquest of West Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the
   Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between
   Spain and the United States.
   Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.
   Wilkinson's intrigues.

   "Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains
   into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was
   in progress. … At once it became a question of vital
   importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce
   with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must
   cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was
   the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left
   free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was
   not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the
   north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the
   present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the
   northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787],
   was the property of the United States, but the west bank,
   together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That
   power, while conceding to the people of the United States the
   free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American
   ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive
   jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs
   duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of
   the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would
   place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not
   merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the
   very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable
   that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful
   resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat
   it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to
   recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As
   citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper
   portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the
   sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a
   natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it
   needed support—with the opinions of publicists of
   acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty
   of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter,
   then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the
   free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and
   length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the
   payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right
   and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers
   seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said
   that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay,
   while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent
   to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was
   specially charged with the duty to see that the free
   navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors
   to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was
   compelled to return home with the American claim still
   disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this
   country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions,
   but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its
   claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain
   a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf
   to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should
   forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was
   given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a
   united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to
   threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the
   feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and
   uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed
   themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled
   to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice
   in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well
   as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and
   perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter
   a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. …
   One of the difficult questions which confronted the new
   government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to
   deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish
   levies on American commerce were in some cases almost
   prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad
   valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy
   backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time
   submit to pay them. If the national government failed to
   secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in
   such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most
   prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James
   Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was
   shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the
   setting up of an independent State Government.
{2049}
   In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to
   impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an
   amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley.
   His representations for a time had considerable effect, and
   the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but
   Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish
   limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable
   settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this
   invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine
   good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view
   was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers
   and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the
   course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by
   liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been
   allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with
   the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from
   New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay;
   a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which
   probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he
   came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal
   relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his
   appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound
   the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He
   came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the
   country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was
   particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver
   up the posts within American limits was known to have been
   influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British
   agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception.
   … Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European
   wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own
   American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and
   at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to
   Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby
   among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the
   people of the United States for the term of three years to
   make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for
   their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free
   from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental
   expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty
   contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the
   American authorities that a decisive step had been taken
   towards the complete recognition of American claims. The
   treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of
   Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to
   it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory
   from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the
   mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated.
   … The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow
   of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda
   was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United
   States while the war of Independence was pending and formed
   acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea
   of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from
   England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he
   enlisted in the French service and for a time held important
   military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his
   old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the
   necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were
   approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the
   relations between France and the United States seemed likely
   to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils
   likely to result from the extension of territory, listened
   with approval to the project of a combined attack by British
   and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have
   been willing, with the approval of the government, to
   personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned
   upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great
   reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest
   interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of
   her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to
   France."

      _T. M. Cooley,
      The Acquisition of Louisiana
      (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Safford,
      The Blennerhassett Papers,
      chapter 5._

      _H. Marshall,
      History of Kentucky,
      volume 1, chapters 12-15._

      _J. H. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _J. M. Brown,
      The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

      _T. M. Green,
      The Spanish Conspiracy._

LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.
   The last days of Spanish rule.
   The great domain transferred to France,
   and sold by Napoleon to the United States.
   The bounds of the purchase.

   "During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted
   every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line
   as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and
   another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory
   and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until
   the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the
   Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the
   province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly
   made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force,
   and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The
   man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy,
   insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the
   border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above
   the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de
   Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee
   fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy
   of restricting immigration and of discriminating against
   Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had
   been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should
   not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but
   that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans
   all their produce during the space of three years. This limit,
   it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government,
   or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island
   of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the
   expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant
   at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and
   refused to designate another place in accordance with the
   stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a
   storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the
   United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration
   in the direction of Louisiana.
{2050}
   Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to
   the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared
   imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new
   intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders
   to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the
   Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These
   orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between
   his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration
   increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the
   Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more
   years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and
   Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy
   religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. …
   On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more
   grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This
   effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and
   the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. …
   Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the
   irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from
   Spain and that this meant a division of the territories
   between France and the United States. To a large majority of
   Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors.
   The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France
   was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of
   Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the
   21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had
   hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of
   25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his
   implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his
   design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the
   colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He
   must take possession and hold it, or he must see England
   become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars
   and political complications and well understanding that it
   would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American
   enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United
   States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government.
   … Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not
   be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly
   surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was
   signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing
   to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the
   territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens …
   was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was
   ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the
   United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this
   strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to
   another republic a whole country without in the least
   consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and
   all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby,
   we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States
   could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that
   attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people,
   just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

      _M. Thompson,
      The Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 6, with foot-note._

   "No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the
   territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio
   del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might
   at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat
   vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with
   Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky
   Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it
   extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend
   has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public
   papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact.
   But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he
   purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our
   title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources.
   Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we
   can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

      _Judge T. M. Cooley,
      The Acquisition of Louisiana
      (Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3)._

   "By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the
   north included all that was contiguous to the waters that
   flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern
   boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern
   waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht,
   France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle
   the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary,
   marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude.
   This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond
   the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was
   based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of
   the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against
   Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763,
   between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power
   ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi
   River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of
   France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created
   by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and
   its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by
   the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all
   territory north of the 42d degree."

      _Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson,
      The Louisiana Purchase
      (Papers of American Historical Association,
      volume 1, page 259)._

   As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were
   eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D.
   1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles
   in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on
   the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the
   present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the
   whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
   Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the
   Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole
   of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and
   Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.
   If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific,
   then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with
   Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      page 105._

   On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana
   purchase,

      See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.

   Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and
   incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be
   found in the following works:—

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      First Administration of Jefferson;
      volume 2, chapters 1-3._

      _D. O. Gilman,
      James Monroe,
      chapter 4._

      _B. Marbois,
      History of Louisiana,
      part 2._

      _American State Papers: Foreign Relations,
      volume 2, pages 506-583._

{2051}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Lewis and Clark's exploration
   of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.
   The purchase divided into
   the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana.
   The first named becomes the State of Louisiana;
   the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.

   "On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing
   the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude,
   the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing
   for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under
   the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into
   effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the
   interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the
   legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of
   incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."

       _G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
       History and Present Condition of New Orleans
       (United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33._

   "All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed
   into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For
   judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper
   Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the
   territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an
   act "which erected the district into a territory of the first
   or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to
   the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812,
   the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having
   been received into the federal Union as the State of
   Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was
   advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second
   grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."

      _L. Carr,
      Missouri,
      chapter 5._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Burr's Filibustering conspiracy.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.
   The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as
   the State of Louisiana.

   "The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented
   annually by emigration from the United States. According to
   the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the
   Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of
   this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts
   contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the
   remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of
   the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than
   2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved
   February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a
   convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the
   admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent
   state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the
   original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday
   in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of
   January following, having adopted a Constitution for the
   proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was
   accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally
   admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an
   equal footing with the original states, from and after the
   30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the
   treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act'
   of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the
   addition of the Florida parishes.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

   This gave it the boundaries it has at present."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1815.
   Jackson's defense of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (April).
   Farragut's capture of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

LOUISIANA: A. D.1862 (May-December).
   New Orleans under General Butler.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (June).
   Appointment of a Military Governor.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
   Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
   The Red River Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.
   President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state
   government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
   The first Reconstruction experiment.
   The Riot at New Orleans.
   Establishment of military rule.

   "In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by
   the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of
   almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution
   framed and adopted in 1864].

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

   The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the
   State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the
   20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous
   instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have
   them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in
   Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed
   against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the
   enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to
   numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable
   condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had
   established the government of 1864, to remodel the
   constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by
   reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment
   having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in
   obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in
   the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in
   conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity
   existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was
   issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore.
{2052}
   Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans
   looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the
   time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of
   feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city
   police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed,
   resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I
   happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of
   the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city
   at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by
   affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the
   Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my
   staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of
   the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me
   that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior
   military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal
   government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and
   that night sent [a brief report, which was followed, on the
   6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the
   riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The
   convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members
   absenting themselves because the tone of the general public
   was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say
   from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and
   across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an
   American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten
   men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal
   Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the
   Institute [where the convention was held] there was some
   throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been
   held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of
   disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag,
   about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a
   policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again
   fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate
   fire on the building through the windows by the policemen.
   This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was
   displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the
   firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From
   the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the
   building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the
   audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they
   retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was
   broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the
   colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or
   were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out
   the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired
   upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that
   formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken
   prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were
   fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were
   stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with
   brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares
   from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission
   investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of
   testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the
   conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as
   an investigation by a select committee of the House of
   Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was
   embraced in the committee's report, and among other
   conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous
   attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of
   massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the
   determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to
   break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee
   held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and
   recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional
   government therein." In the following March the Military
   Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1867 (MARCH).

   General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth
   military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and
   Texas.

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,
      39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.
   Reconstruction complete.
   Restored representation in Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.

   ----------LOUISIANA: End----------

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY:
   Threatened by the Rebel Army under Bragg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
     A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   ----------LOUVAIN: Start--------

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1635.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1706.
   Taken by Marlborough and the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

   ----------LOUVAIN: End--------

LOUVAIN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

LOUVRE, The.

   "The early history of the Louvre is involved in great
   obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its
   erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet
   with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept
   here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called
   'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a
   sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of
   the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by
   the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no
   mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even
   under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip
   Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a
   kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with
   towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take
   in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more
   than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in
   1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles
   VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII.,
   inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing
   remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles
   V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that
   called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and
   finished by Henry II. in 1548."

      _History of Paris
     (London, 1827), chapter 2 (volume 2)._

{2053}

   The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word,
   'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis
   I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by
   introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the
   work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after
   reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had
   been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we
   know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious
   scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which,
   though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the
   works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at
   least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis
   XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions
   at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the
   Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest
   spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."

      _P. G. Hamerton.
      Paris in Old and Present Times,
      chapter 6. _

LOVERS, War of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

LOW CHURCH.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LOW COUNTRIES, The.

      See NETHERLANDS.

LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

      See SCOTCH HIGHLAND and LOWLAND.

LOWOSITZ, OR LOBOSITZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOYALISTS, American.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

LOYOLA, and the founding of the Order of Jesus.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

   ----------LUBECK: Start--------

LUBECK:
   Origin and rise.

   "Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a
   small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of
   the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much
   frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the
   country, however, afforded them little security, and it had
   been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When
   Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke
   of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the
   Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his
   dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant
   establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of
   Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent
   basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also
   established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a
   municipal government, he secured the personal, while he
   prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers.
   The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a
   proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and
   Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance
   that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. …
   This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large
   increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, pages 229-230._

      See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUBECK: A. D. 1806.
   Battle of French and Prussians.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

LUBECK: A. D. 1810.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

LUBECK: A. D. 1810-1815.
   Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

LUBECK: A. D. 1866.
   Surrender of free privileges.
   Entrance into the Zollverein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

   ----------LUBECK: End--------

LUBECK, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

LUCANIANS, The.

      See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

   ----------LUCCA: Start--------

LUCCA:
   The founding of the city.

      See MUTINA AND PARMA.

LUCCA: 8th Century.
   The seat of Tuscan government.

      See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

LUCCA: A. D. 1248-1278.
   In the wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

LUCCA: A. D. 1284-1293.
   War with Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.
   The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,
   and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.
   Erected into an imperial duchy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.
   Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.
   Sold to Florence.
   Taken by Pisa.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

LUCCA: A. D. 1805.
   Conferred on the sister of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.

   After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the
   Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some
   time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany,
   until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

   ----------LUCCA: End--------

LUCENA, Battle of (1483).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LUCERES, The.

      See ROME: BEGINNING AND NAME.

LUCHANA, Battle of (1836).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

LUCIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1144-1145.

   Lucius III., Pope, 1181-1185.

LUCKA, Battle of (1308).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

LUCKNOW, The siege of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
      and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

LUCOTECIA.

      See LUTETIA.

LUD.
      Ancient Lydia.

LUDDITES, Rioting of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LUDI.
LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.

   "Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the
   worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages
   were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words
   Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as
   synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were
   denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni,
   held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th
   April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. …
   Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place
   where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …

   1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in
   a circus.
   2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a
   theatre.
   3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually
   exhibited in an amphitheatre."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 10._

{2054}

LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.

      See ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

LUDI SÆCULARES, The.

      See SECULAR GAMES.

LUDOVICO (called Il Moro),
   Duke of Milan, A. D. 1494-1500.

LUDWIG.

      See LOUIS.

LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.

      See LYONS: UNDER THE ROMANS.

LUGUVALLIUM.

   The Roman military station at the western extremity of the
   Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of
   Carlisle.

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 8. _

LUITPERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 700-701.

LUKETIA.

      See LUTETIA.

LUNA: Destruction by the Northmen.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.

LUND, Battle of (1676).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

LUNDY, Benjamin, and the rise of the Abolitionists.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LUNEBURG, Duchy of.

      See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY;
      and A. D. 1178-1183.

LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of (A. D. 880).

      See EBBSDORF.

LUNEVILLE, The Treaty of (1801).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUPERCAL.
LUPERCALIA.

   The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman
   legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a
   she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the
   Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as
   having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and
   large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This
   grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral
   divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of
   their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year,
   on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of
   Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to
   the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia,
   whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still
   celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 35._

   "At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed
   in goats' skins, beating all those they met with
   strips of goats' leather."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 13._

LURIS.

      See GYPSIES.

LUSIGNAN, House of.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;
      also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.

LUSITANIA.
LUSITANIANS.

   The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the
   Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more
   resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians.
   In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men.
   The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the
   prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151,
   the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands.
   But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so
   effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange
   terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded
   three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms,
   which being done he surrounded them with his troops and
   massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a
   man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his
   surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for
   ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the
   end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some
   traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province
   which was afterwards formed out of the country of the
   Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly
   identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it
   coincided with only in part.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 1._

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

   On the settlement of the Alans,

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

LUSTRUM.

   After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties
   committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to
   offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great
   expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up
   once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is
   frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the
   day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to
   assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus)
   ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and
   foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull,
   whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being
   led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who
   were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while
   the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of
   prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman
   State."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

LUTETIA,
LUKETIA,
LUCOTECIA.

   The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a
   small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people
   called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine
   which Paris now covers and surrounds.

      See PARIS, BEGINNING OF.

LUTHER, Martin, and the Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521,
      1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LUTHER: On Education.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: GERMANY.

LUTTER, Battle of (1626).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

LÜTZEN, Battle of (1632).
   Death of Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LÜTZEN, OR GROSS GÖRSCHEN, Battle of (1813).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (APRIL-MAY).

LUXEMBURG, The House of:
   Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,
   and Brandenburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493;
      also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442;
      and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.

   ----------LUXEMBURG: Start--------

{2055}

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1795.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1867.
   Separated from Germany and formed into a neutral state.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

   ----------LUXEMBURG: End--------

LUZZARA, Battle of (1702).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

LYCEUM, The Athenian.

      See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN;
      and GYMNASIA, GREEK;
      also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum,
      see ATHENS: A. D. 529.

LYCIAN LEAGUE, The.

   "Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the
   ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole
   authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do
   better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the
   Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these
   words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share
   in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the
   common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting
   any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the
   greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones
   of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they
   pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. …
   And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and
   then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of
   Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to
   consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of
   course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with
   the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution
   Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a
   Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal
   government."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 4, section 4._

LYCIANS, The.

   The people who occupied in ancient times the extreme southern
   peninsula of Asia Minor. "The ancients knew of no unmixed
   population in this district. The Phœnicians explored the
   Lycian Taurus as well as the Cilician; and by land also
   Semitic tribes seem to have immigrated out of Syria and
   Cilicia; and these tribes formed the tribe of the Solymi.
   Another influx of population was conducted to this coast by
   means of the Rhodian chain of islands: men of Crete came
   across, who called themselves Termili or Trameli, and
   venerated Sarpedon as their Hero. After an arduous struggle,
   they gradually made themselves masters of the land encircled
   by sea and rock. … From the mouth of the Xanthus the Cretans
   entered the land. There Leto had first found a hospitable
   reception; in Patara, near by, arose the first great temple of
   Apollo, the god of light, or Lycius, with the worship of whom
   the inhabitants of the land became subsequently to such a
   degree identified as to receive themselves from the Greeks on
   whose coasts they landed the same name as the god, viz.,
   Lycians. … We know that the Lycians, in courage and
   knowledge of the sea fully the equals of the most seafaring
   nation of the Archipelago, from a desire of an orderly
   political life, renounced at an early period the public
   practice of piracy, which their neighbours in Pisidia and
   Cilicia never relinquished. Their patriotism they proved in
   heroic struggles, and in the quiet of home developed a greater
   refinement of manners, to which the special honour in which
   they held the female sex bears marked testimony."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

LYCURGUS, Constitution of.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION.

LYDIANS, The.

   "On the western coast of Asia Minor the nation of the Lydians,
   which possessed the vallies of the Hermus and Mæander, had
   early arrived at a monarchy and a point of civilization far in
   advance of the stages of primitive life. … When the Greeks
   forced the Phenicians from the islands of the Ægean sea, and
   then, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the tenth
   century, B. C., landed on the western coast of Asia Minor, the
   Lydians were not able any more than the Teucrians and Mysians
   in the North, or the Carians in the South, to prevent the
   establishment of the Greeks on their coasts, the loss of the
   ancient native sanctuaries at Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus, and
   the founding of Greek cities in their land on the mouths of
   the Lydian rivers, the Hermus and the Cayster, though the
   Greek emigrants came in isolated expeditions over the sea. It
   was on the Lydian coasts that the most important Greek cities
   rose: Cyme, Phocæa, Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus. Priene, Myus,
   and Miletus were on the land of the Carians."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17._

   "On the basis of a population related to the Phrygians and
   Armenians arose the nation of the Lydians, which through its
   original ancestor, Lud, would appear in Eastern tradition also
   to be reckoned as a member of the Semitic family. As long as
   we remain unacquainted with the spoken and written language of
   the Lydians, it will be impossible to define with any accuracy
   the mixture of peoples which here took place. But, speaking
   generally, there is no doubt of the double relationship of
   this people, and of its consequent important place in
   civilization among the groups of the nations of Asia Minor.
   The Lydians became on land, as the Phœnicians by sea, the
   mediators between Hellas and Anterior Asia. … The Lydians
   are the first among the nations of Asia Minor of whom we have
   any intimate knowledge as a political community."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   The first, perhaps legendary, dynasty of Lydia, called the
   Atyadæ, was followed by one called the Herakleidæ by the
   Greeks, which is said to have ruled over 500 years. The last
   king of that family, Kandaules, was murdered, about B. C. 715,
   by Gyges, who founded the dynasty of the Mermnadæ, under whom
   the Lydian dominion was extended over most of Asia Minor, and
   its kings contended on fairly equal terms with the power of
   the Medes. But their monarchy was overthrown by Cyrus, B. C.
   546, and the famous Crœsus, last of their line, ended his days
   as an attendant and counselor of the Persian king.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 17 and 32._

   Recent discoveries tend to the conclusion that the primitive
   inhabitants of Lydia were of a race to which the Hittites
   belonged.

      _A. H. Sayce,
      editor, Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 4._

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539;
      and PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

{2056}

LYGIANS, The.

   "Of all the invaders of Gaul [in the reign of Probus, A.
   D.277] the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people
   who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and
   Silesia. In the Lygian nation the Arii held the first rank by
   their numbers and fierceness. 'The Arii' (it is thus that they
   are described by the energy of Tacitus) 'study to improve by
   art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism.
   Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They
   choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night.' … Yet
   the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these
   horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general
   engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell
   alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor,
   unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an
   honourable capitulation and permitted them to return in safety
   to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in
   the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the
   nation; nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history
   either of Germany or of the empire."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 12._

   "Lygii appears to have been the generic name of the Slavonians
   on the Vistula. They are the same people as those called Lekhs
   by Nestor, the Russian chronicler of the twelfth century.
   These Lekhs are the ancestors of the Poles."

      See
      _Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus,
      page 158._

      _W. Smith,
      Note to above, from Gibbon_.

   "The Ligii were a widely-spread tribe, comprehending several
   clans. Tacitus names the Harii [or Arii], Helvecones, Manimi,
   Elisii, and Nahanarvali. Their territory was between the Oder
   and Vistula, and would include the greater part of Poland, and
   probably a portion of Silesia."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

   "The Elysii are supposed to have given name to Silesia."

      _Note to the Oxford Translation of Tacitus: Germany,
      chapter 43._

LYKIANS, The.

      See LYCIANS.

LYMNE, in Roman times.

      See PORTUS LEMANIS.

LYON, General Nathaniel:
   Campaign in Missouri, and death.

      See MISSOURI; A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER; MISSOURI).

   ----------LYONS: Start--------

LYONS:
   Under the Romans.

   Minutius Plancus, Roman governor of Gallia Comata, or the Gaul
   of Cæsar's conquest, founded, B. C. 43, a city called
   Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone. A few
   years later, under Augustus, it was made the capital of a
   province to which it gave its name—Lugdunensis—and which
   comprised the whole of central Gaul, between the Loire and the
   Seine with the Armorican peninsula. In time the name Lugdunum
   became softened and shorn to Lyons. "Lyons, which stood on the
   west side of the Rhone, not so near the confluence of the
   Sâone as now, appears to have been settled by fugitive Romans
   driven out of Vienne by another party. It grew with as
   marvelous a rapidity as some of our western cities, for in
   fifteen years it swelled from a simple colony into a
   metropolis of considerable splendor. … Lugdun appears to
   have been a Keltic designation, and, as the 'g' in that speech
   took the sound of 'y' and 'd' was silent, we can easily see
   how the name became Lyon."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 5, with foot-note._

   "Not having originated out of a Celtic canton, and hence
   always with a territory of narrow limits, but from the outset
   composed of Italians and in possession of the full Roman
   franchise, it [Lyons] stood forth unique in its kind among the
   communities of the three Gauls—as respects its legal
   relations, in some measure resembling Washington in the North
   American federation. … Only the governor of the middle or
   Lugudunensian province had his seat there; but when emperors
   or princes stayed in Gaul they as a rule resided in Lyons.
   Lyons was, alongside of Carthage, the only city of the Latin
   half of the empire which obtained a standing garrison, after
   the model of that of the capital. The only mint for imperial
   money which we can point to with certainty, for the earlier
   period of the empire, is that of Lyons. Here was the
   headquarters of the transit-dues which embraced all Gaul; and
   to this as a centre the Gallic network of roads converged. …
   Thus Lugudunum rapidly rose into prosperity. … In the later
   period of the empire, no doubt, it fell behind Treves."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 3._

LYONS: A. D. 500.
   Under the Burgundians.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

LYONS: 10th Century.
   In the kingdom of Aries.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843—933.

LYONS: 12th Century.
   The Poor Men of Lyons."

      See WALDENSES.

LYONS: A. D. 1685-1698.
   Loss in the silk weaving industry by the Huguenot exodus.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

LYONS: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary government at Paris.
   Siege and capture and fearful vengeance by the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1793—1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LYONS: A. D. 1795.
   Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
   The White Terror.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

   ----------LYONS: End----------

LYONS, Battle of (A. D. 197).

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

LYSIMACHUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280.

LYTTON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1876, 1877;
      and AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

MAARMORS.

      See MORMAERS.

MACÆ, The.

      See LIBYANS.

McALLISTER, Fort, The storming of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

MACALO, Battle of (1427).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

MACBETH, King of Scotland: A. D. 1039-1054.

MACCABEES, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

MACCIOWICE, Battle of (1794).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

McCLELLAN, General George B.
   Campaign in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Appointment to chief command.
   Organization of the Army of the Potomac.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

{2057}

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Protracted inaction through the winter of 1861-62.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Peninsular campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
      (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   During General Pope's campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),
      to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Antietam Campaign, and removal from command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Defeat in Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

MACDONALD, Marshal.
   Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL),
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER),
      (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MACDONOUGH, Commodore Thomas,
   and his victory on Lake Champlain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

McDOWELL, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

MACE, as a symbol of authority, The.

   "The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the
   latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would
   naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of
   primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of
   authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon
   with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures,
   frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church,
   forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable
   that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace
   as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient
   religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay
   corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace,
   instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France
   and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in
   Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the
   Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the
   emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,'
   who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned.
   'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he
   began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best
   guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of
   serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his
   person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were
   'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, …
   who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the
   conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens
   d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his
   duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called
   sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's
   body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon
   imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have
   given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power.
   Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete
   armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were
   occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the
   court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority.
   … Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the
   chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the
   representative of the sovereign, being attended by his
   mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated
   to him."

      _W. Kelly,
      The Great Mace
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 3)._

   ----------MACEDONIA: Start--------

MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS, The.

   "The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from
   the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great
   perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the
   loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely
   destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate
   cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the
   foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings
   of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good
   system of central or pacific administration. But the
   Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an
   aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct
   petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider
   ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus,
   who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as
   children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting
   the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early
   period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization.
   They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village
   residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original
   seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain
   of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of
   the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects
   Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western
   boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward
   as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was
   different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also
   from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently
   not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the
   acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and
   people. … The large and comparatively productive region
   covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to
   explain that increase of ascendency which they successively
   acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a
   late period that they became united under one government. At
   first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own
   prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the
   southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally
   distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats
   somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the
   Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and
   became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at
   Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of
   the modern Vodhena."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 508.
   Subjection to Persia.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 383-379.
   Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy by Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

{2058}

MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.
   Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.
   His acquisition of Amphipolis.

      See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.
   Philip's conquest of Thessaly.
   Intervention in the Sacred War.
   Victory at Chæronea.
   Mastery of Greece.
   Preparation to invade Persia.
   Assassination.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.
   War with the Olynthian Confederacy.
   Destruction of Olynthus.

      See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 340.
   Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.
   Alexander's campaigns at the north.
   Revolt and destruction of Thebes.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
      Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire
      by Alexander the Great.

   Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the
   midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the
   Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who
   applied himself first, with significant energy, to the
   chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern
   frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE:
   B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne
   "when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than
   his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and
   admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated
   attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He
   had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry,
   light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the
   ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both
   Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the
   shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this
   moderate force was surely as much as any commander could
   handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile
   country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium,
   and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine,
   with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the
   Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek
   mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river
   Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle,
   and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy
   infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left
   wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of
   the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main
   attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in
   echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening
   to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces
   towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No
   sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy
   cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle
   in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he
   completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike
   straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for
   Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the
   coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against
   him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So
   then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards;
   he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and
   stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear
   safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian
   fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and
   had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C.
   333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following
   year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions.
   Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the
   headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great
   king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus,
   the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied
   Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow
   his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous
   cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast
   army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in
   the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded
   him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his
   favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of
   cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander,
   who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and
   occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut
   off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence.
   The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground,
   between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room
   for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high
   ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was
   done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the
   Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the
   Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large
   reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with
   his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops
   opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the
   king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had
   Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of
   the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete,
   for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the
   Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior,
   and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the
   phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued
   about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of
   his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The
   greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt
   prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now
   strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he
   boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the
   battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of
   conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed
   many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332]
   cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and
   showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the
   siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose,
   to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all
   the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a
   short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated
   the country as a province under his sway, with kindness
   towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and
   founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in
   claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the
   Eastern provinces of Darius' empire.
{2059}
   The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C.
   331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of
   as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian
   cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to
   fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British
   have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant
   cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of
   regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had
   again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he
   blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was
   not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to
   the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects.
   For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to
   occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals
   of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great
   cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam,
   Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all
   full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great
   palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount
   of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than
   £30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more)
   had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of
   gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the
   army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for
   luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered
   and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of
   comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey
   such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far
   stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors.
   And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded
   himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the
   Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the
   unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake
   Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian
   passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The
   narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything
   in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian
   as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus,
   his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C.
   330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself
   married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus
   assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius'
   legitimate successor."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 49-50 (volume 6)._

      _E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Alexander,
      chapters 18-31._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
   Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.
   His invasion of India.
   His death at Babylon.
   His character and aims.

   "After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian,
   Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia
   and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of
   Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on
   the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a
   little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went
   on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern
   Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh
   mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul.
   Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh),
   but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death.
   Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda,
   now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed
   the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and
   defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their
   country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier
   of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave
   Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C.
   327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer
   India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager
   for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus
   he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their
   way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself
   marched westwards with the army through the deserts of
   Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings,
   through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B.
   C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some
   months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and
   punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela,
   Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his
   way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with
   his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up
   the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were
   displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at
   Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief
   officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to
   break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and
   to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between
   the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in
   the regiments which had hitherto contained none but
   Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike
   districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner.
   Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an
   expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for
   ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and
   carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus
   they were to be put together again, and so make their way to
   Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring
   of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his
   journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of
   the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh
   troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition
   was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with
   fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two
   years old."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Greece (Primer),
      chapter 7._

   "Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander
   master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the
   immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and
   Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the
   world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of
   Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries
   was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,
   Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the
   11th century.
{2060}
   The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the
   Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of
   the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very
   possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,
   from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and
   Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for
   nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in
   Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.
   But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they
   became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they
   fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their
   government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but
   their ruler might himself still have remained European and
   Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the
   possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary
   possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither
   Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved
   in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone
   too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his
   conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the
   character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him
   put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was
   himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman
   success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told
   of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,
   Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than
   Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously
   believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a
   stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in
   pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human
   parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the
   conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the
   heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and
   genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand
   which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,
   honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he
   demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held
   that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly
   ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little
   respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage
   which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of
   respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and
   Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal
   Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece
   to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth
   refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political
   exiles. This last was an interference with the internal
   government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by
   Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in
   other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst
   failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The
   unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;
   no man can tell what might have been done by one of such
   mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his
   career. That he looked forward to still further conquests
   seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,
   alike those which were won and those which were still to be
   won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he
   to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of
   Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much
   warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of
   Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and
   eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.
   Grote denies him all merit of the kind."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Alexander
      (Historical Essays, series 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.
   Revolt in Greece.
   The Lamian War.
   Subjugation of Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
   The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.
   First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi
   or Successors of Alexander.

   Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of
   three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the
   sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son,
   Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the
   haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both
   widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of
   Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king,
   Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards
   united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under
   the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last
   proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of
   Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was
   quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The
   provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now
   divided between the generals of his army, who are known in
   history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division
   was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see
   EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia,
   Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater
   and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The
   remaining provinces either did not come under the new division
   [see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of
   notice,"

      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      page 222._

   Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected,
   and it was not until two years after his death that his
   remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still
   shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble
   Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of
   Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union
   which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne.
   But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of
   the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his
   destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence
   it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the
   Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence
   after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their
   leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto
   fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders
   to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to
   join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were
   disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army
   against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined
   troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty.
{2061}
   On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to
   appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience.
   Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with
   Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of
   Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency.
   Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower
   Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army
   against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more
   than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the
   field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been
   left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false
   information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening
   through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and
   Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in
   the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes
   sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days
   before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no
   more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became
   dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly
   encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was
   murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief
   struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is
   commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322].
   … As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of
   Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of
   wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won
   upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered
   him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so
   dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and
   the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the
   news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This
   intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They
   hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents
   public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to
   these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the
   wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable
   talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble
   husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival
   of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to
   the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by
   Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of
   regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme
   power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella,
   and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the
   crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope
   with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the
   open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and
   maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting
   offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the
   support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater
   produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the
   meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal
   friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency
   to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on
   account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and
   ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had
   not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the
   powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close
   alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to
   strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the
   strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive
   Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the
   Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In
   the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government
   of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had
   murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his
   forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable
   to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was
   forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was
   immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the
   widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the
   youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought
   and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus
   consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this
   marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not
   venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus,
   where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the
   few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In
   Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus,
   though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the
   mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the
   Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to
   attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields
   from which they derived their name. After a long struggle,
   both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides
   broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage
   had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the
   enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and
   delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the
   hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes
   was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished
   the Argyraspides for their treachery."

      _W. C. Taylor,
      The Student's Manual of Ancient History,
      chapter 11, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 96 (volume 12)._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
   The first league and war against Antigonus.
   Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.

   "Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the
   successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled
   over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the
   Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and
   blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.
   … He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous
   Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,
   yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.
   Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family
   had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful
   Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the
   Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,
   and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,
   and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of
   whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the
   throne.
{2062}
   Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and
   master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the
   unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,
   but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in
   Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who
   possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear
   his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,
   which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.
   The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having
   escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter
   to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and
   Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable
   power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was
   carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were
   various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat
   inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at
   Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.
   C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and
   Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the
   supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until
   the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the
   same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the
   whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
   by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently
   this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing
   jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death
   of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where
   they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only
   link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and
   a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.
   Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the
   peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded
   that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern
   satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,
   notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under
   command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,
   accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by
   garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the
   triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon
   followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,
   bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister
   of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when
   Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.
   Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the
   Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his
   uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For
   more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and
   Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks
   independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased
   to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,
   indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had
   suffered so much as during the time when such great promises
   were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still
   possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and
   fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the
   Macedonian rule."

      _T. T. Timayenis,
      History of Greece,
      part 9, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapters 5-6._

[Image: Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great
and his successors.]

MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
   Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
   His siege of Rhodes.
   The last combination against Antigonus.
   His defeat and death at Ipsus.
   Partition of his dominions.

   After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three
   years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest
   Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all
   the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307
   B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,
   with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.
   Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of
   'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of
   ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the
   Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition
   to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the
   Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius
   the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than
   ten years. … During the first period of his administration
   he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have
   improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with
   useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to
   philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered
   his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for
   luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost
   the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians
   heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;
   his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city
   to him, and to close his political career by retiring to
   Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to
   the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient
   constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and
   ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with
   the basest and most abject flattery

      See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

   … Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early
   in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to
   Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to
   its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that
   ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient
   naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size
   of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and
   so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the
   strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also
   conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,
   Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at
   Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon
   Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of
   revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
   which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was
   from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his
   name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain
   attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and
   grant the Rhodians peace.

      See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

{2063}

   Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great
   progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was
   besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.
   Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently
   defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered
   Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant
   flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during
   which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no
   great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was
   recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his
   assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of
   the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals
   was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in
   which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.
   Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.
   Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,
   whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to
   Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at
   Ipsus, refused to receive him."

      _W. Smith,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 45._

   "After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to
   divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in
   the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had
   achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted
   either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that
   they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share
   all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not
   clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor
   is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor
   was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not
   only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the
   Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of
   Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother
   Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty
   remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by
   Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the
   garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right
   as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however
   began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his
   claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in
   its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to
   withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native
   princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of
   Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken
   advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to
   establish their authority over extensive territories in the
   west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus
   must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it
   transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor
   because it would have been more desirable that he should have
   triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory
   led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise
   have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained
   confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have
   subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the
   inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the
   traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and
   his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus
   founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his
   father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of
   Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,
   while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For
   the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of
   Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as
   the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute
   it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the
   greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an
   independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on
   the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear
   that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as
   to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that
   he should keep whatever he might acquire there."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 59 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 86-87 (volume 3)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
   Death of Casander.
   Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
   Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
   Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
   Murder of Seleucus.
   Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.

   "Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of
   dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to
   assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect
   his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to
   keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and
   his preparations to reconquer his father's position.
   Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,
   and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as
   well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected
   in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,
   apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.
   So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family
   relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions
   prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to
   extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would
   doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of
   Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious
   reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both
   him and his son prisoners, and released them very
   chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure
   kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,
   so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the
   poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom
   he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the
   battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world
   arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king
   Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and
   friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,
   another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy
   (Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,
   who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest
   son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who
   accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at
   foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,
   installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,
   and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,
   nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject
   before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the
   first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a
   half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,
   Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and
   popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired
   against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was
   a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.
{2064}
   This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the
   country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince
   called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with
   an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a
   great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It
   was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last
   but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,
   in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.
   C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of
   Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic
   possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son
   Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of
   his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he
   was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his
   train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army
   which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for
   Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet
   made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were
   full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus
   in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in
   buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:
   B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to
   make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their
   affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change
   of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were
   pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from
   recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos
   established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,
   induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against
   Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her
   children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the
   Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and
   thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered
   career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.
   (Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was
   the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first
   Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,
   Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant
   for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and
   doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the
   Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by
   his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,
   that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where
   sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.
   Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the
   suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.
   Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in
   possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the
   claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a
   new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a
   terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over
   the world."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60 (volume 8)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.
   Invasion by the Gauls.
   Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
   Strife for the throne.
   Failures of Pyrrhus.
   Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
   His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.

   "On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
   Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
   as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
   new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
   the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
   since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
   Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
   his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
   Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
   of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
   Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
   Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
   and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
   king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
   combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
   claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
   and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
   fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
   Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
   Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
   schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
   in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
   Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
   had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
   recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
   Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
   occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
   all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
   ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
   prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
   of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
   273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
   battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
   soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
   wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
   placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
   might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
   if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
   instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
   employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
   knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
   the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
   into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
   and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
   to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
   capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
   Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
   city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
   threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
{2065}
   In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
   adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
   slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
   Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
   Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
   his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
   the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
   the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
   and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
   rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
   succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
   the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
   prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
   acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
   son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
   re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
   invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
   of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
   from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
   able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
   subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
   rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
   … he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
   possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
   A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
   Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
   which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
   to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
   inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      pages 261-263._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 100-102._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.
   The Roman conquest.
   Extinction of the kingdom.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.
   Last relations with the Seleucid empire.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

   Slavonic occupation.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.

   ----------MACEDONIA: End----------

MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

      See PHALANX, MACEDONIAN.

MACEDONIAN WARS, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

MACERATA, Battle of (1815).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1815.

McHENRY, Fort, The bombardment of, by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

MACHICUIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

MACHINE, Political.

      See STALWARTS.

MACK, Capitulation of, at Ulm.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

MACKENZIE, William Lyon, and the Canadian Rebellion.

      See CANADA: A. D.1837; and 1837-1838.

   ----------MACKINAW: Start--------

MACKINAW (MICHILLIMACKINAC):
   Discovery and first Jesuit Mission.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MACKINAW:
   Rendezvous of the Coureurs de Bois.

      See COUREURS DE BOIS.

MACKINAW: A. D. 1763.
   Captured by the Indians.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

   ----------MACKINAW: End--------

McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1890.

McLEOD CASE, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

MacMAHON, Marshal,
   President of the French Republic, A. D. 1873-1879.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876; and 1875-1889.

MACON, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

McPHERSON, General: Death in the Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA);
      and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

MACRINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 217-218.

MACUSHI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1882-1883.
   French claims and demands enforced by war.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

MADEIRA ISLAND, Discovery of.

   In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz,
   "seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud,
   but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the
   difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for
   this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful
   island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on
   which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."

      _A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest,
      book 1, chapter 1._

MADISON, James,
   and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808 to 1817.

MADRAS: A. D. 1640.
   The founding of the city.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

MADRAS: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French.
   Restored to England.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

MADRAS: A. D. 1758-1759.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

   ----------MADRID: Start--------

MADRID: A. D. 1560.
   Made the capital of Spain by Philip II.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710.
   Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants
   of the crown.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1706; and 1707-1710.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.
   Occupied by the French.
   Popular insurrection.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.
   Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).
   Recovery by the French.
   Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

MADRID: A. D. 1812.
   Evacuation by the French.
   Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

MADRID: A. D. 1823.
   Again occupied by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

{2066}

MADRID, The Treaty of (1526).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

   ----------MADRID: End--------

MÆATÆ, The.

   A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in
   Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to
   "the wall."

MÆOTIS PALUS,
PALUS MÆOTIS.

   The ancient Greek name of the body of
   water now called the Sea of Azov.

   ----------MAESTRICHT: Start--------

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1579.
   Spanish siege, capture and massacre.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1632.
   Siege and capture by the Dutch.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1673.
   Siege and capture by Vauban and Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1676.
   Unsuccessfully besieged by William of Orange.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1678.
   Restored to Holland.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS AND TREATY.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1793.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1795.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

   ----------MAESTRICHT: End--------

MAFRIAN.

      See JACOBITE CHURCH.

MAGADHA, The kingdom of.

      See INDIA: B. C. 327-312; and 312—.

MAGDALA, Capture of (1868).

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631.
   Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre
   by the troops of Tilly.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

MAGELLAN, Voyage of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MAGENTA, Battle of (1859).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MAGESÆTAS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

MAGIANS.
MAGI.

   The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion
   of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed
   among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were
   called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called
   Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the
   inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of
   Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western
   writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 8 (volume 5)._

   "The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long
   subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or
   caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come
   to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted
   by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction
   of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage
   holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore
   the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan
   Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 28._

   "To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by
   the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was
   commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and
   Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet
   Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King
   Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the
   Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may
   distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at
   the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however,
   foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous
   priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament.
   In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi
   (Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men')
   came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child
   Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the
   Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."

      _M. Haug,
      Essays on the Religion of the Parsis, 1._

      See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

MAGNA CARTA.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

MAGNA GRÆCIA.

   "It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in
   the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern
   Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory
   the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well
   deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the
   greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole
   peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the
   Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels
   occupying the interior had become hellenised, or
   semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common
   subjects of these great cities."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

   On the Samnite conquest of Magna Græcia

      See SAMNITES.

MAGNANO, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MAGNATÆ, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

MAGNESIA.

   The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The
   Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became
   subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter
   came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

   Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be
   colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south
   side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river
   Harmus.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 13._

MAGNESIA, Battle of (B. C. 190).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

MAGNUS I., King of Denmark,
   A. D. 1042-1047.

   Magnus I. (called The Good), King of Norway, 1035-1047.

   Magnus I., King of Sweden, 1275-1290.

   Magnus II., King of Norway, 1066-1069.

   Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363;
   and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.

   Magnus III., King of Norway, 1093-1103.

   Magnus IV., King of Norway, 1130-1134.

   Magnus V., King of Norway, 1162-1186.

   Magnus VI., King of Norway, 1263-1280.

{2067}

MAGYARS, The.

   See HUNGARIANS.

MAHARAJA.

      See RAJA.

MAHDI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 775-785.

MAHDI, The.

   "The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but
   not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five
   prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah,
   Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his
   predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation
   than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old
   dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by
   Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and
   auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal
   meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally
   assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with
   European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his
   fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,'
   led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which
   may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person;
   but used as a proper name it indicates him who is
   'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,'
   who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall
   only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi,
   but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. …
   The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout
   the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course
   among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of
   the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in
   review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic
   stage; for their name is Legion."

      _J. Darmesteter,
      The Mahdi, Past and Present,
      chapters 1-2. _

      See, also,
      ISLAM; ALMOHADES;
      and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

MAHDIYA:
   Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,
   and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

MAHMOUD I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1730-1754.

   Mahmoud II., Turkish Sultan, 1808-1839.

   Mahmoud, the Afghan, Shah of Persia, 1722-1725.

   Mahmoud, the Gaznevide, The Empire of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

   ----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: Start--------

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
   The Mission of the Prophet.

   Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the
   name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of
   August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca
   and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem].
   To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the
   Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native
   city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of
   importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose
   mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his
   fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of
   God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith
   of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly
   and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good
   wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to
   recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the
   brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry,
   declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate
   and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the
   daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet
   keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries,
   hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and
   the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and
   better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims
   no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for
   simple toleration, for free permission to win men by
   persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his
   hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with
   lust."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 2._

   After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private
   circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters
   of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had
   gained but a small following, while the opposition to his
   doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.
   620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a
   company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.
   Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their
   neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough
   in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his
   persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,
   famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of
   Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a
   general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from
   Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.
   Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with
   their families until the last, escaped the rage of the
   Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment
   for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their
   departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most
   accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This
   is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet
   from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though
   referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …
   is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to
   Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence
   called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have
   seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of
   Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months
   before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became
   an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of
   Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet
   found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his
   flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had
   rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks
   were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered
   with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or
   Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of
   Islam achieved.
{2068}
   The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From
   this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and
   assumed a political as well as a religious character. His
   authority was established at Medina and his influence spread
   among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than
   temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,
   January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years
   later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the
   Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter
   of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and
   recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege
   failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely
   storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a
   treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended
   hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his
   followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.
   The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,
   629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city
   and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of
   Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of
   peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,
   and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu
   Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of
   Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were
   thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of
   the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long
   time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most
   obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the
   Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their
   kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important
   battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was
   afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.
   632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and
   his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already
   encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle
   fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Life of Mahomet._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50._

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapters 3-9._

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      chapters 6-39._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Arabs,
      part 1, chapters 1-3._

      See, also,
      ISLAM, and ERA, MAHOMETAN.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
   Abu Bekr.
   Omar.
   The founding of the Caliphate.
   Conquest of Syria.

   The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet
   had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he
   instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.
   His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the
   lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely
   born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs
   were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened
   preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the
   venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly
   but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern
   soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this
   time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced
   beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of
   conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some
   rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he
   made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and
   ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With
   bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two
   dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade
   the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of
   the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or
   Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to
   the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One
   of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the
   eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity
   with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens
   were justified by the semblance of a national right." The
   strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery
   of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and
   embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced
   on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they
   had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to
   its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the
   south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the
   Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but
   470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken
   after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the
   siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and
   stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which
   poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with
   its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half
   restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,
   and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at
   his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,
   becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)
   was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa
   surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive
   battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or
   Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The
   Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were
   overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of
   Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the
   Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of
   Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the
   caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and
   the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the
   latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited
   by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which
   had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and
   of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding
   its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than
   that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in
   the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of
   Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed
   to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in
   person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.
   Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the
   long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and
   entering Jerusalem on foot.
{2069}
   After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria
   complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and
   Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was
   abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom
   for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw
   Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years
   before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to
   new fields, east, northwards, and west.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
     chapter 51._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and His Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 3-23._

      _S. Ockley,
      History of the Saracens: Abubeker._

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 2, 11, 19-21._

      See, also,
      JERUSALEM: A. D. 637;
      and TYRE: A. D. 638.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
   Conquest of Persia.

   During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the
   Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under
   command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of
   its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the
   Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a
   small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under
   Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the
   northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the
   Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part
   being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the
   great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were
   speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled
   being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians
   regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed.
   In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635,
   the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year
   found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of
   Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more
   than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two
   years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad
   Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his
   forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below
   the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of
   Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into
   Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition.
   The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so
   precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his
   hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and
   Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to
   the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the
   close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved
   over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to
   Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king
   Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic
   effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained.
   He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which
   the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of
   Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian
   power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying
   continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious
   existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to
   A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to
   pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made
   no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after
   province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length,
   in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last
   scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge.
   … The order of conquest seems to have been the following:
   Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist,
   and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan,
   Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and
   Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26, and foot-notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 25-34._

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 10-18, 25-26._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
   Conquest of Egypt.

   "It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.
   D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating
   consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His
   army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by
   the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.
   Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of
   his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had
   already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy
   reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,
   after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing
   array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of
   renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the
   garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and
   so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the
   easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this
   branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper
   Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient
   city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest
   of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some
   goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the
   Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox
   Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms
   after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.
   "Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach
   it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the
   outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the
   way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder
   his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of
   the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land
   side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an
   obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to
   succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the
   siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was
   supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria
   capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,
   ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,
   it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at
   Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away
   from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So
   he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the
   Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement
   which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress
   was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their
   being surprised and cut off.
{2070}
   The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around
   them grew up a military station, called from its origin
   Fostat, or 'the Encampment.' It expanded rapidly into the
   capital of Egypt, the modern Cairo. … This name 'Cahira,'
   or City of the Victory, is of later date [see below: A. D.
   908-1171]. … Zobeir urged Amru to enforce the right of
   conquest, and divide the land among his followers. But Amru
   refused; and the Caliph, as might have been expected,
   confirmed the judgment. 'Leave the land of Egypt,' was his
   wise reply, 'in the people's hands to nurse and fructify.' As
   elsewhere, Omar would not allow the Arabs to become
   proprietors of a single acre. Even Amru was refused ground
   whereupon to build a mansion for himself. … So the land of
   Egypt, left in the hands of its ancestral occupants, became a
   rich granary for the Hejaz, even as in bygone times it had
   been the granary of Italy and the Byzantine empire. … Amru,
   with the restless spirit of his faith, soon pushed his
   conquests westward beyond the limits of Egypt, established
   himself in Barca, and reached even to Tripoli. … Early in
   the Caliphate of Othman [A. D. 646] a desperate attempt was
   made to regain possession of Alexandria. The Moslems, busy
   with their conquests elsewhere, had left the city
   insufficiently protected. The Greek inhabitants conspired with
   the Court; and a fleet of 300 ships was sent under command of
   Manuel, who drove out the garrison and took possession of the
   city. Amru hastened to its rescue. A great battle was fought
   outside the walls: the Greeks were defeated, and the unhappy
   town was subjected to the miseries of a second and a longer
   siege. It was at last taken by storm and given up to plunder.
   … The city, though still maintaining its commercial import,
   fell now from its high estate. The pomp and circumstance of
   the Moslem Court were transferred to Fostat, and Alexandria
   ceased to be the capital of Egypt."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 24, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 24 and 35._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 644.
   Assassination of Caliph Omar.

   The death of Omar, the second of the Caliphs, was a violent
   one. "It occurred in November, A. D. 644. One day a slave who
   worked for his master at the carpenter's bench came to see the
   Commander of the Faithful, and complained to him of being
   overworked, and badly treated by the citizen that owned him.
   Omar listened attentively, but arriving at the conclusion that
   the charges were false, sternly dismissed the carpenter to his
   bench. The man retired, vowing to be revenged. The following
   day was Friday, 'the day of the Assembly.' Omar, as usual,
   went to lead the prayers of the assembly in the great mosque.
   He opened his mouth to speak. He had just said 'Allah,' when
   the keen dagger of the offended slave was thrust into his
   back, and the Commander of the Faithful fell on the sacred
   floor, fatally wounded. The people, in a perfect frenzy of
   horror and rage, fell upon the assassin, but with superhuman
   strength he threw them off, and rushing about in the madness
   of despair he killed some and wounded others, and finally
   turning the point of his dagger to his own breast, fell dead.
   Omar lingered several days in great agony, but he was brave to
   the end. His dying words were, 'Give to my successor this
   parting bequest, that he be kind to the men of this city,
   Medina, which gave a home to us, and to the Faith. Tell him to
   make much of their virtues, and to pass lightly over their
   faults. Bid him also treat well the Arab tribes, for verily
   they are the backbone of Islam. Moreover, let him faithfully
   fulfil the covenants made with the Christians and the Jews! O
   Allah! I have finished my course! To him that cometh after me,
   I leave the kingdom firmly established and at peace!' Thus
   perished one of the greatest Princes the Mohammedans were ever
   to know. Omar was truly a great and good man, of whom
   any country and any creed might be proud."

      _J. J. Pool,
      Studies in Mohammedanism,
      pages 58-59._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
   Conquest of northern Africa.

   "While Egypt was won almost without a blow, Latin Africa
   [northern Africa beyond Egypt] took sixty years to conquer. It
   was first invaded under Othman in 647, but Carthage was not
   subdued till 698, nor was the province fully reduced for
   eleven years longer. And why? Doubtless because Africa
   contained two classes of inhabitants, not over-friendly to
   each other, but both of whom had something to lose by a
   Saracenic conquest. The citizens of Carthage were Roman in
   every sense, their language was Latin, their faith was
   orthodox; they had no wrongs beyond those which always afflict
   provincials under a despotism; wrongs not likely to be
   alleviated by exchanging a Christian despot at Constantinople
   for an infidel one at Medina or Damascus. Beyond them, in the
   inland provinces, were the native Moors, barbarians, and many
   of them pagans; they had fought for their rude liberty against
   the Cæsars, and they had no intention of surrendering it to
   the Caliphs. Romans and Moors alike long preferred the chances
   of the sword to either Koran or tribute; but their ultimate
   fate was different. Latin civilization and Latin Christianity
   gradually disappeared by the decay and extermination of their
   votaries. The Moors, a people not unlike the Arabs in their
   unconverted state, were at last content to embrace their
   religion, and to share their destinies and their triumphs.
   Arabs and Moors intermingled went on to further conquests; and
   the name of the barbarian converts was more familiarly used in
   Western Europe to denote the united nation than the terrible
   name of the original compatriots of the Prophet."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 3._

   "In their climate and government, their diet and habitation,
   the wandering Moors resembled the Bedoweens of the desert.
   With the religion they were proud to adopt the language, name,
   and origin of Arabs; the blood of the strangers and natives
   was insensibly mingled; and from the Euphrates to the Atlantic
   the same nation might seem to be diffused over the sandy
   plains of Asia and Africa. Yet I will not deny that 50,000
   tents of pure Arabians might be transported over the Nile and
   scattered through the Libyan desert; and I am not ignorant
   that five of the Moorish tribes still retain their barbarous
   idiom, with the appellation and character of 'white'
   Africans."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

   "By 647 the Barbary coast was overrun up to the gates of Roman
   Carthage; but the wild Berber population was more difficult to
   subdue than the luxurious subjects of the Sasanids of Persia
   or the Greeks of Syria and Egypt. Kayrawan was founded as the
   African capital in 670; Carthage fell in 693, and the Arabs
   pushed their arms as far as the Atlantic. From Tangier they
   crossed into Spain in 710."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      page 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 35, 44, 54-55._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Arabs,
      part 1, chapters 1-3._

      See, also,
      CARTHAGE: A. D. 698;
      and MOROCCO.

{2071}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
   Accession of the Omeyyads.

   Abu Bekr, the immediate successor of Mahomet, reigned but two
   years, dying August, A. D. 634. By his nomination, Omar was
   raised to the Caliphate and ruled Islam until 644, when he was
   murdered by a Persian slave. His successor was Othman, who had
   been the secretary of the Prophet. The Caliphate of Othman was
   troubled by many plots and increasing disaffection, which
   ended in his assassination, A. D. 656. It was not until then
   that Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, was permitted
   to take the Prophet's seat. But the dissensions in the Moslem
   world had grown more bitter as the fields of ambitious rivalry
   were widened, and the factions opposed to Ali were implacable,
   "Now begins the tragic tale of the wrongs and martyrdoms of
   the immediate family of the Prophet. The province of Syria was
   now ruled by the crafty Moawiyah, whose father was Abu-Sofian,
   so long the bitterest enemy of Mahomet, and at last a tardy
   and unwilling proselyte. … Such was the parentage of the man
   who was to deprive the descendants of the Apostle of their
   heritage. Moawiyah gave himself out as the avenger of Othman;
   Ali was represented as his murderer, although his sons, the
   grandsons of the Prophet, had fought, and one of them received
   a wound, in the defence of that Caliph. … Ayesha, too, the
   Mother of the Faithful, Telha and Zobeir, the Prophet's old
   companions, revolted on their own account, and the whole of
   the brief reign of Ali was one constant succession of civil
   war." Syria adhered to Moawiyah. Ayesha, Zobeir and Telha
   gained possession of Bussorah and made that city their
   headquarters of rebellion. They were defeated there by Ali in
   a great battle, A. D. 656, called the Battle of the Camel,
   because the litter which bore Ayesha on the back of a camel
   became the center of the fight. But he gained little from the
   success; nor more from a long, indecisive battle fought with
   Moawiyah at Siffin, in July, A. D. 657. Amru, the conqueror of
   Egypt, had now joined Moawiyah, and his influence enlisted
   that great province in the revolt. At last, in 661, the civil
   war was ended by the assassination of Ali. His eldest son,
   Hassan, who seems to have been a spiritless youth, bargained
   away his claims to Moawiyah, and the latter became undisputed
   Caliph, founding a dynasty called that of the Ommiades, or
   Omeyyads (from Ommiah, or Omeyya, the great grandfather of
   Moawiyah), which occupied the throne for almost a century—not
   at Medina, but at Damascus, to which city the Caliphate was
   now transferred. "In thus converting the Caliphate into an
   hereditary monarchy he utterly changed its character. It soon
   assumed the character of a common oriental empire. … The
   Ommiads were masters of slaves instead of leaders of freemen;
   the public will was no longer consulted, and the public good
   as little; the Commander of the Faithful sank into an earthly
   despot, ruling by force, like any Assyrian conqueror of old.
   The early Caliphs dwelt in the sacred city of Medina, and
   directed the counsels of the Empire from beside the tomb of
   the Prophet. Moawiyah transferred his throne to the conquered
   splendours of Damascus; and Mecca and Medina became tributary
   cities to the ruler of Syria. At one time a rival Caliph,
   Abdallah, established himself in Arabia; twice were the holy
   cities taken by storm, and the Kaaba itself was battered down
   by the engines of the invaders. … Such a revolution however
   did not effect itself without considerable opposition. The
   partizans of the house of Ali continued to form a formidable
   sect. In their ideas the Vicarship of the Prophet was not to
   be, like an earthly kingdom, the mere prize of craft or of
   valour. It was the inalienable heritage of the sacred
   descendants of the Prophet himself. … This was the origin of
   the Shiah sect, the assertors of the rights of Ali and his
   house."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 31-46._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam Under the Arabs,
      part 3._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      pages 9-11._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.
   The Tragedy at Kerbela.

   When Ali, or Aly, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, had
   been slain, A. D. 661, and the Caliphate had been seized by
   Moawiyah, the first of the Ommiades, "the followers of 'Aly
   proclaimed his elder son, Hasan, Khalif; but this
   poor-spirited youth was contented to sell his pretensions to
   the throne. … On his death, his brother Hoseyn became the
   lawful Khalif in the eyes of the partisans of the House of
   'Aly, who ignored the general admission of the authority of
   the 'Ommiades.' … For a time Hoseyn remained quietly at
   Medina, leading a life of devotion, and declining to push his
   claims. But at length an opportunity for striking a blow at
   the rival House presented itself, and Hoseyn did not hesitate
   to avail himself of it. He was invited to join an insurrection
   which had broken out at Kufa [A. D. 680], the most mutinous
   and fickle of all the cities of the empire; and he set out
   with his family and friends, to the number of 100 souls, and
   an escort of 500 horsemen, to join the insurgents. As he drew
   nigh to Kufa, he discovered that the rising had been
   suppressed by the 'Ommiade' governor of the city, and that
   the country round him was hostile instead of loyal to him. And
   now there came out from Kufa an army of 4,000 horse, who
   surrounded the little body of travellers [on the plain of
   Kerbela], and cut them off alike from the city and the river.
   … A series of single combats, in which Hoseyn and his
   followers displayed heroic courage, ended in the death of the
   Imam and the men who were with him, and the enslaving of the
   women and children."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapter 7._

   "The scene [of the massacre of Hosein and his band] … is
   still fresh as yesterday in the mind of every Believer, and is
   commemorated with wild grief and frenzy as often as the fatal
   day, the Tenth of the first month of the year [tenth of
   Moharram—October 10], comes round. … The tragedy of Kerbala
   decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan
   kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared.
   … The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a
   religious ceremony"—in the "Passion Play" of the Moharram
   Festival.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 49, with foot-note._

      See, also, ISLAM.

{2072}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 668-675.
   First repulse from Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
   Subjugation of the Turks.

   "After the fall of the Persian kingdom, the river Oxus divided
   the territories of the Saracens and of the Turks: This narrow
   boundary was soon overleaped by the spirit of the Arabs; the
   governors of Chorassan extended their successive inroads; and
   one of their triumphs was adorned with the buskin of a Turkish
   queen, which she dropped in her precipitate flight beyond the
   hills of Bochara. But the final conquest of Transoxana, as
   well as of Spain, was reserved for the glorious reign of the
   inactive Walid; and the name of Catibah, the camel-driver,
   declares the origin and merit of his successful lieutenant.
   While one of his colleagues displayed the first Mahometan
   banner on the banks of the Indus, the spacious regions between
   the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Caspian sea were reduced by
   the arms of Catibah to the obedience of the prophet and of the
   caliph. A tribute of two millions of pieces of gold was
   imposed on the infidels; their idols were burned or broken;
   the Mussulman chief pronounced a sermon in the new mosch
   [mosque] of Carizme; after several battles the Turkish hordes
   were driven back to the desert; and the emperors of China
   solicited the friendship of the victorious Arabs. To their
   industry the prosperity of the province, the Sogdiana of the
   ancients, may in a great measure be ascribed; but the
   advantages of the soil and climate had been understood and
   cultivated since the reign of the Macedonian kings. Before the
   invasion of the Saracens, Carizme, Bochara, and Samarcand were
   rich and populous under the yoke of the shepherds of the
   North."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 3._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 711-713.
   Conquest of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

------------------------------------
[Page 2073 and 2074 are placed here to avoid interrupting
the next article, "The repulse from Gaul.".]

SEVENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
602.
      Revolt in Constantinople;
      fall and death of Maurice;
      accession of Phocas.

604.
      Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
      Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date.]

608.
      Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.

610.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
      accession of Heraclius.
      Venetia ravaged by the Avars.

614.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;
      capture of Damascus.

615.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;
      removal of the supposed True Cross.

616.
      First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
      Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.
      The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
      Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

626.
      Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.

627.
      Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
      Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.
      Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
      from the Persians, by Heraclius.

630.
      Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.

632.
      Death of Mahomet;
      Abu Bekr chosen caliph.

634.
      Death of Abu Bekr;
      Omar chosen caliph.
      Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
      Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date.]
      Defeat of Heraclius.
      Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date.]

635.
      Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
      invasion of Persia;
      victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date.]
      Defeat of the Welsh by the English
      in the battle of the Heavenfield.

636.
      Mahometan subjugation of Syria;
      retreat of the Romans.

637.
      Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;
      their victories in Persia.

639.
      Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.

640.
      Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems;
      invasion of Egypt by Amru.

641.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
      three rival emperors;
      accession of Constans II.
      Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
      by the Mahometans;
      end of the Sassanian kingdom;
      capture of Alexandria, [Uncertain date.]
      founding of Cairo.

643.
      Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.

644.
      Assassination of Omar;
      Othman chosen caliph.

646.
      Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.

648.
      Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."

649.
      Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.

650.
      Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.
      [Uncertain date.]

652.
      Conversion of the East Saxons in England.

653.
      Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.
      by the Emperor Constans II.

656.
      Murder of Caliph Othman;
      Ali chosen caliph;
      rebellion of Moawiyah;
      civil war;
      Battle of the Camel.

657.
      Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.

658.
      Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;
      Egypt in revolt.

661.
      Assassination of Ali;
      Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
      Damascus his capital.

663.
      Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.

668.
      Assassination of Constans at Syracuse; [Uncertain date.]
      accession of Constantine IV. to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
      Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

670.
      The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date.]

673.
      First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
      Birth of the Venerable Bede [Uncertain date.] (died 735).

677.
      The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
      treaty of peace. [Uncertain date.]

680.
      Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
      condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
      Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
      and accession of Justinian II.
      The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
      defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

687.
      Battle of Testri;
      victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.

695.
      Fall and banishment of Justinian II.

696.
      Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.

697.
      Election of the first Doge of Venice.

698.
      Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.
      [Uncertain date]


EIGHTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
704.
      Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

705.
      Accession of the Caliph Welid.

709.
      Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.

711.
      Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
      Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
      Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

712.
      Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.

717.
      Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
      Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
      Great defeat of the Moslems at the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

718.
      Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
      his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

719.
      Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.

721.
      Siege of Toulouse;
      defeat of the Moslems.

725.
      Mahometan conquests in Septimania.

726.
      Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
      tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

731.
      Death of Pope Gregory II.;
      election of Gregory III.;
      last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

732.
      Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
      under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
      Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
      edict against the Iconoclasts.

733.
      Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.

735.
      Birth of Alcuin (died 804).

740.
      Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
      accession of Constantine V.

741.
      Death of Charles Martel.
      Death of Pope Gregory III.;
      election of Zacharias.

742.
      Birth of Charlemagne (died 814).

744.
      Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
      their forced baptism.
      Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

747.
      The Plague in Constantinople.
      Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

750.
      Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and rise of the Abbassides.

751.
      Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.

752.
      End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
      assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pope Zacharias;
      election of Stephen II.

754.
      First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
      Rome assailed by the Lombards.

755.
      Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
      his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

756.
      Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.

757.
      Death of Pope Stephen II.;
      election of Paul I.

758.
      Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.

759.
      Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
      Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

763.
      Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
      [Uncertain date.]

767.
      Death of Pope Paul I.;
      usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.

768.
      Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pippin;
      accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
      Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
      election of Pope Stephen III.

771.
      Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne sole king of the Franks.

772.
      Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
      Death of Pope Stephen III.;
      election of Hadrian I.

774.
      Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
      his enlargement of the donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date.]

775.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;
      accession of Leo IV.

778.
      Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;
      the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.

780.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
      accession of Constantine VI.;
      regency of Irene.

781.
      Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate kingdoms by Charlemagne.

785.
      Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;
      submission of Wittikind.

786.
      Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.

787.
      Seventh General Council of the Church (Second Council of Nicæa).
      First incursions of the Danes in England.

788.
      Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.
      Death of Abderrahman.

790.
      Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date.]

791.
      Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.

794.
      Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.

795.
      Death of Pope Hadrian I.;
      election of Leo III.

797.
      Deposition and blinding of the Eastern Emperor
      Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

800.
      Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
      revival of the Empire.
      Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
      the first king of all the English.

-------------------------------------


MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
   The repulse from Gaul.

   "The deeds of Musa [in Africa and Spain] had been performed
   'in the evening of his life,' but, to borrow the words of
   Gibbon, 'his breast was still fired with the ardor of youth,
   and the possession of Spain was considered as only the first
   step to the monarchy of Europe. With a powerful armament by
   sea and land, he was preparing to pass the Pyrenees, to
   extinguish in Gaul the declining kingdoms of the Franks and
   Lombards, and to preach the unity of God on the altar of the
   Vatican. Thence, subduing the barbarians of Germany, he
   proposed to follow the course of the Danube from its source to
   the Euxine Sea, to overthrow the Greek or Roman empire of
   Constantinople, and, returning from Europe to Asia, to unite
   his new acquisitions with Antioch and the provinces of Syria.'
   This vast enterprise … was freely revolved by the successors
   of Musa. In pursuance of it, El Haur, the new lieutenant of
   the califs, assailed the fugitive Goths in their retreats in
   Septimania (715-718). El Zamah, who succeeded him, crossed the
   mountains, and, seizing Narbonne, expelled the inhabitants and
   settled there a colony of Saracens (719). The following year
   they passed the Rhone, in order to extend their dominion over
   Provence, but, repelled by the dukes and the militia of the
   country, turned their forces toward Toulouse (721). Eudo, Duke
   of Aquitain, bravely defending his capital, brought on a
   decisive combat. … El Zamah fell. The carnage among his
   retreating men then became so great that the Arabs named the
   passage from Toulouse to Carcassone the Road of Martyrs (Balat
   al Chouda). Supporting their terrible reverses with the
   characteristic resignation of their race and faith, the Arabs
   were still able to retain a hold of Narbonne and of other
   fortresses of the south, and, after a respite of four years,
   spent in recruiting their troops from Spain and Africa, to
   resume their projects of invasion and pillage in Gaul (725).
   Under the Wali Anbessa, they ascended the Rhone as far as the
   city of Lyons, devastating the towns and the fields. … When,
   … at the close of his expeditions, Anbessa perished by the
   hands of the Infidels, all the fanaticism of the Mussulman
   heart was aroused into an eager desire for revenge. His
   successor, Abd-el-Rahman, a tried and experienced general,
   energetic and heroic as he was just and prudent, … entered
   into elaborate preparations for the final conquest of Gaul.
   For two years the ports of Syria, Egypt, and Africa swarmed
   with departing soldiery, and Spain resounded with the calls
   and cries to arms (727-729)." The storm broke first on
   Aquitaine, and its valiant Duke Eudes, or Eudo, rashly meeting
   the enemy in the open field, in front of Bordeaux, suffered an
   irretrievable defeat (May, 731). Bordeaux was stormed and
   sacked, and all Aquitaine was given up to the ravages of the
   unsparing Moslem host. Eudes fled, a helpless fugitive, to his
   enemies the Franks, and besought the aid of the great
   palace-mayor, Karl Martel, practical sovereign of the Frankish
   kingdoms, and father of the Pippin who would soon become king
   in name as well as in fact. But, not for Aquitaine, only, but
   for all Gaul, all Germany,—all Christendom in Europe,—Karl
   and his Franks were called on to rally and do battle against
   the sons of the desert, whose fateful march of conquest seemed
   never to end. "'During all the rest of the summer, the Roman
   clarions and the German horns sounded and groaned through all
   the cities of Neustria and Austrasia, through the rustic
   palaces of the Frankish leudes, and in the woody gaus of
   western Germany.' … Meanwhile, Abel-el-Rahman, laden with
   plunder and satiated with blood, had bent his steps toward the
   southwest, where he concentrated his troops on the banks of
   the Charente. Enriched and victorious as he was, there was
   still an object in Gaul which provoked alike the cupidity and
   the zeal of his followers. This was the Basilica of St. Martin
   of Tours, the shrine of the Gallic Christians, where the
   richest treasures of the Church were collected, and in which
   the profoundest veneration of its members centred. He yearned
   for the pillage and the overthrow of this illustrious
   sanctuary, and, taking the road from Poitiers, he encountered
   the giants of the North in the same valley of the Vienne and
   Clain where, nearly three hundred years before, the Franks and
   the Wisigoths had disputed the supremacy of Gaul. There, on
   those autumn fields, the Koran and the Bible—Islamism and
   Christianity—Asia and Europe—stood face to face, ready to
   grapple in a deadly and decisive conflict. …
{2075}
   Trivial skirmishes from time to time kept alive the ardor of
   both hosts, till at length, at dawn on Saturday, the 11th of
   October [A. D. 732], the signal for a general onset was given.
   With one loud shout of Allah-Akbar (God is great), the Arab
   horsemen charged like a tempest upon their foe, but the deep
   columns of the Franks did not bend before the blast. 'Like a
   wall of iron,' says the chronicler, 'like a rampart of ice,
   the men of the North stood unmoved by the frightful shock.'
   All day long the charges were renewed." Still the stout Franks
   held their ground, and still the indomitable warriors of Islam
   pressed upon them, until late in the afternoon, when the
   latter were thrown into confusion by an attack on their rear.
   Then Karl and his men charged on them and their lines were
   broken—their rout was bloody and complete. When night put an
   end to the slaughter, the Franks slept upon their arms,
   expecting that the dreaded Saracens would rally and resume the
   fight. But they vanished in the darkness. Their leader, the
   brave Abd-el-Rahman had fallen in the wild melée and no
   courage was left in their hearts. Abandoning everything but
   their horses and their arms, they fled to Narbonne. "Europe
   was rescued, Christianity triumphant, Karl the hero forever of
   Christian civilization."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 14._

   The booty found by the Franks in the Moslem camp "was
   enormous; hard-money, ingots of the precious metals, melted
   from jewels and shrines; precious vases, rich stuffs,
   subsistence stores, flocks and herds gathered and parked in
   the camp. Most of this booty had been taken by the Moslemah
   from the Aquitanians, who now had the sorrow of seeing it
   greedily divided among the Franks."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the! Arab-Moors,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 7._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
   Omeyyads and Abbassides.
   The dividing of the Caliphate.

   The tragic death of Hosein and his companions at Kerbela
   kindled a passion which time would not extinguish in the
   hearts of one great party among the Moslems. The first
   ambitious leader to take advantage of the excitement of it, as
   a means of overthrowing the Omeyyads, was Abdallah ibn Zobeir,
   who, posing first as the "Protector of the Holy House" of Ali,
   soon proclaimed himself Caliph and maintained for thirteen
   years a rival court at Mecca. In the war which raged during a
   great part of those years, Medina was taken by storm and given
   over to pillage, while the holy city of Mecca withstood a
   siege of forty days, during which the sacred Caaba was
   destroyed. Zobeir fell, at last, in a final battle fought
   under the walls of Mecca. Meantime, several changes in the
   caliphate at Damascus had taken place and the throne was soon
   afterwards [A. D. 705] occupied by the Caliph Welid, whose
   reign proved more glorious than that of any other prince of
   his house. "Elements of disorder still remained, but under the
   wise and firm sceptre of Welid they were held in check. The
   arts of peace prevailed; schools were founded, learning
   cultivated, and poets royally rewarded; public works of every
   useful kind were promoted, and even hospitals established for
   the aged, lame, and blind. Such, indeed, at this era, was the
   glory of the court of Damascus that Weild, of all the Caliphs
   both before and after, gives the precedence to Welid. It is
   the fashion for the Arabian historians to abuse the Omeyyads
   as a dissolute, intemperate, and godless race; but we must not
   forget that these all wrote more or less under Abbasside
   inspiration. … After Welid, the Omeyyad dynasty lasted
   six-and-thirty years. But it began to rest on a precarious
   basis. For now the agents of the house of Hashim, descendants
   of the Prophet and of his uncle Abbas, commenced to ply
   secretly, but with vigour and persistency, their task of
   canvass and intrigue in distant cities, and especially in the
   provinces of the East. For a long time, the endeavour of these
   agitators was directed to the advocacy of the Shiya right;
   that is to say, it was based upon the Divine claim of Aly, and
   his descendants in the Prophet's line, to the Imamate or
   leadership over the empire of Islam. … The discomfiture of
   the Shiyas paved the way for the designing advocates of the
   other Hashimite branch, namely, that of the house of Abbas,
   the uncle of the Prophet. These had all along been plotting in
   the background, and watching their opportunity. They now
   vaunted the claims of this line, and were barefaced enough to
   urge that, being descended from the uncle of Mahomet through
   male representatives, they took precedence over the direct
   descendants of the Prophet himself, because these came through
   Fatima in the female line. About the year 130 of the Hegira,
   Abul Abbas, of Abasside descent, was put forward in Persia, as
   the candidate of this party, and his claim was supported by
   the famous general Abu Muslim. Successful in the East, Abu
   Muslim turned his arms to the West. A great battle, one of
   those which decide the fate of empires, was fought on the
   banks of the Zab [A. D. 750]; and, through the defection of
   certain Kharejite and Yemen levies, was lost by the Omeyyad
   army. Merwan II., the last of his dynasty, was driven to
   Egypt, and there killed in the church of Bussir, whither he
   had fled for refuge. At the close of the year 132 [August 5,
   A. D. 750], the black flag, emblem of the Abbassides, floated
   over the battlements of Damascus. The Omeyyad dynasty, after
   ruling the vast Moslem empire for a century, now disappeared
   in cruelty and bloodshed. … So perished the royal house of
   the Omeyyads. But one escaped. He fled to Spain, which had
   never favoured the overweening pretensions of the Prophet's
   family, whether in the line of Aly or Abbas. Accepted by the
   Arab tribes, whose influence in the West was paramount, Abd al
   Rahman now laid the foundation of a new Dynasty and
   perpetuated the Omeyyad name at the magnificent court of
   Cordova. … Thus, with the rise of the Abbassides, the unity
   of the Caliphate came to an end. Never after, either in theory
   or in fact, was there a successor to the Prophet, acknowledged
   as such over all Islam. Other provinces followed in the wake
   of Spain. The Aghlabite dynasty in the east of Africa, and,
   west of it, the Edrisites in Fez, both of Alyite descent;
   Egypt and Sicily under independent rulers; the Tahirite kings
   in Persia, their native soil; these and others, breaking away
   from the central government, established kingdoms of their
   own. The name of Caliph, however it might survive in the
   Abbasside lineage, or be assumed by less legitimate
   pretenders, had now altogether lost its virtue and
   significance."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      pages 12-14._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam Under the Arabs,
      part 3._

{2076}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 717-718.
   Second repulse from Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
   Final expulsion from southern Gaul.

   During the year of his coronation (A. D. 752) Pippin, or Pepin
   the Short—the first of the Carolingians to assume the
   Frankish crown—having taken measures to reduce Aquitaine to
   obedience, was diverted, on his march towards that country,
   into Septimania. The discord prevailing among the Moslems, who
   had occupied this region of Gaul for more than thirty years,
   "opened the prospect of an easy conquest. With little
   fighting, and through the treachery of a Goth named Ansemond,
   who commanded at Beziers, Agde, Maguelonne, and Nismes, under
   an Arabian wali, he was enabled to seize those strong-holds,
   and to leave a part of his troops to besiege Narbonne, as the
   first step toward future success." Then Pippin was called away
   by war with the Saxons and in Brittany, and was occupied with
   other cares and conflicts, until A. D. 759, when he took up
   and finished the task of expelling the Saracens from Gaul.
   "His troops left in occupation of Septimania (752) had
   steadily prosecuted the siege of Narbonne. … Not till after
   a blockade of seven years was the city surrendered, and then
   through the treason of the Christians and Goths who were
   inside the walls, and made secret terms with the beleaguers.
   They rose upon the Arabs, cut them in pieces, and opened the
   gates to the Franks. A reduction of Elne, Caucoliberis, and
   Carcassone followed hard upon that of Narbonne. … In a
   little while the entire Arab population was driven out of
   Septimania, after an occupation of forty years; and a large
   and important province (equivalent nearly to the whole of
   Languedoc), held during the time of the Merovingians by the
   Wisigoths, was secured to the possession of the Franks. The
   Arabs, however, though expelled, left many traces of their
   long residence on the manners and customs of Southern Gaul."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 15._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 756-1031.
   The Omeyyad caliphs of Cordova.

   When the struggle of the house of Abbas with the house of
   Omeyya, for the throne of the caliphate at Damascus, was ended
   by the overthrow of the Omeyyads (A. D. 750), the wretched
   members of the fallen family were hunted down with unsparing
   ferocity. "A single youth of the doomed race escaped from
   destruction. After a long series of romantic adventures, he
   found his way into Spain [A. D. 756]; he there found
   partizans, by whose aid he was enabled to establish himself as
   sovereign of the country, and to resist all the attempts of
   the Abbassides to regain, or rather to obtain, possession of
   the distant province. From this Abderrahman [or Abdalrahman]
   the Ommiad proceeded the line of Emirs and Caliphs of Cordova,
   who reigned in splendour in the West for three centuries after
   their house had been exterminated in their original
   possessions. … When the Ommiad Abdalrahman escaped into
   Spain … the peninsula was in a very disordered state. The
   authority of the Caliphs of the East was nearly nominal, and
   governors rose and fell with very little reference to their
   distant sovereign. … The elevation of Abdalrahman may have
   been the result, not so much of any blind preference of
   Ommiads to Abbassides, as of a conviction that nature designed
   the Iberian peninsula to form an independent state. But at
   that early period of Mahometan history an independent
   Mahometan state could hardly be founded, except under the
   guise of a rival Caliphate. … And undoubtedly nothing is
   more certain than that the Ommiads of Cordova were in every
   sense a rival dynasty to the Abbassides of Bagdad. The race of
   Moawiyah seem to have decidedly improved by their migration
   westward. The Caliphs of Spain must be allowed one of the
   highest places among Mahometan dynasties. In the duration of
   their house and in the abundance of able princes which it
   produced, they yield only to the Ottoman Sultans, while they
   rise incomparably above them in every estimable quality. …
   The most splendid period of the Saracen empire in Spain was
   during the tenth century. The great Caliph Abdalrahman Annasir
   Ledinallah raised the magnificence of the Cordovan monarchy to
   its highest pitch. … The last thirty years of the Ommiad
   dynasty are a mere wearisome series of usurpations and civil
   wars. In 1031 the line became extinct, and the Ommiad empire
   was cut up into numerous petty states. From this moment the
   Christians advance, no more to retreat, and the cause of Islam
   is only sustained by repeated African immigrations."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lectures 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 6, chapter 5;
      book 7, chapters 1-4;
      book 8, chapter 1._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.
   The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.

   "The city of Damascus, full as it was of memorials of the
   pride and greatness of the Ommiade dynasty, was naturally
   distasteful to the Abbassides. The Caliph Mansur had commenced
   the building of a new capital in the neighbourhood of Kufa, to
   be called after the founder of his family, Hashimiyeh. The
   Kufans, however, were devoted partisans of the descendants of
   Ali. … The growing jealousy and distrust between the two
   houses made it inadvisable for the Beni Abbas to plant the
   seat of their empire in immediate propinquity to the
   head-quarters of the Ali faction, and Mansur therefore
   selected another site [about A. D. 763]. This was Bagdad, on
   the western bank of the Tigris [fifteen miles above Medain,
   which was the ancient Seleucia and Ctesiphon]. It was well
   suited by nature for a great capital. The Tigris brought
   commerce from Diyar Bekr on the north, and through the Persian
   Gulf from India and China on the east; while the Euphrates,
   which here approaches the Tigris at the nearest point, and is
   reached by a good road, communicated directly with Syria and
   the west. The name Bagdad is a very ancient one, signifying
   'given or founded by the deity,' and testifies to the
   importance of the site. The new city rapidly increased in
   extent and magnificence, the founder and his next two
   successors expending fabulous sums upon its embellishment, and
   the ancient palaces of the Sassanian kings, as well as the
   other principal cities of Asia, were robbed of their works of
   art for its adornment."

      _E. H. Palmer,
      Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
      chapter 2._

   "Baghdad, answering to its proud name of 'Dar al Salam,' 'The
   City of Peace,' became for a time the capital of the world,
   the centre of luxury, the emporium of commerce, and the scat
   of learning."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 50._

{2077}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
   Decline and temporal fall of the Caliphate at Bagdad.

   "It was not until nearly the close of the first century after
   the Hejira that the banners of Islam were carried into the
   regions beyond the Oxus, and only after a great deal of hard
   fighting that the oases of Bokhara and Samarkand were annexed
   to the dominions of the khalif. In these struggles, a large
   number of Turks—men, women, and children—fell into the power
   of the Moslems, and were scattered over Asia as slaves. …
   The khalif Mamoun [son of Haroun Alraschid—A. D. 815-834] was
   the first sovereign who conceived the idea of basing the royal
   power on a foundation of regularly drilled Turkish soldiers."

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
      part 3, chapter 1._

   "The Caliphs from this time leaned for support on great bands
   of foreign mercenaries, chiefly Turks, and their captains
   became the real lords of the empire as soon as they realised
   their own strength. How thoroughly the Abbásid caliphate had
   been undermined was shown all at once in a shocking manner,
   when the Caliph Mutawakkil was murdered by his own servants at
   the command of his son, and the parricide Muntasir set upon
   the throne in his stead (December 861). The power of the
   Caliphs was now at an end; they became the mere playthings of
   their own savage warriors. The remoter, sometimes even the
   nearer, provinces were practically independent. The princes
   formally recognised the Caliph as their sovereign, stamped his
   name upon their coins, and gave it precedence in public
   prayer, but these were honours without any solid value. Some
   Caliphs, indeed, recovered a measure of real power, but only
   as rulers of a much diminished State. Theoretically the
   fiction of an undivided empire of Islam was maintained, but it
   had long ceased to be a reality. The names of Caliph,
   Commander of the Faithful, Imám, continued still to inspire
   some reverence; the theological doctors of law insisted that
   the Caliph, in spiritual things at least, must everywhere bear
   rule, and control all judicial posts; but even theoretically
   his position was far behind that of a pope, and in practice
   was not for a moment to be compared to it. The Caliph never
   was the head of a true hierarchy; Islam in fact knows no
   priesthood on which such a system could have rested. In the
   tenth century the Buids, three brothers who had left the
   hardly converted Gilán (the mountainous district at the
   southwest angle of the Caspian Sea) as poor adventurers,
   succeeded in conquering for themselves the sovereign command
   over wide domains, and over Bagdad itself [establishing what
   is known as the dynasty of the Buids or Bouides, or Bowides,
   or Dilemites]. They even proposed to themselves to displace
   the Abbásids and set descendants of Ali upon the throne, and
   abandoned the idea only because they feared that a Caliph of
   the house of Ali might exercise too great an authority over
   their Shíite soldiers, and so become independent; while, on
   the other hand, they could make use of these troops for any
   violence they chose against the Abbásid puppet who sat in
   Mansúr's seat."

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 3._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 827-878.
   Conquest of Sicily.

      See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 840-890.
   The Saracens in southern Italy.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.
   The Fatimite caliphs.

   "Egypt, during the ninth and tenth centuries, was the theatre
   of several revolutions. Two dynasties of Turkish slaves, the
   Tolunides and the Ilkshidites, established themselves in that
   country, which was only reunited to the Caliphate of Bagdad
   for a brief period between their usurpations. But early in the
   ninth century a singular power had been growing up on its
   western border. … A schism arose among the followers of Ali
   [the shiahs, who recognized no succession to the Prophet, or
   Imamate—leadership in Islam—except in the line of descent
   from Ali, nephew of Mahomet and husband of Mahomet's daughter,
   Fatima], regarding the legitimate succession to the sixth Imam,
   Jaffer. His eldest son, Ismail or Ishmael, dying before him,
   Jaffer appointed another son, Moussa or Moses, his heir. But a
   large body of the sect denied that Jaffer had the right to
   make a new nomination; they affirmed the Imamate to be
   strictly hereditary, and formed a new party of Ishmaelians,
   who seem to have made something very like a deity of their
   hero. A chief of this sect, Mahomet, surnamed Al Mehdi, or the
   Leader, a title given by the Shiahs to their Imams, revolted
   in Africa in 908. He professed himself, though his claims were
   bitterly derided by his enemies, to be a descendant of
   Ishmael, and consequently to be the legitimate Imam. Armed
   with this claim, it was of course his business to acquire, if
   he could, the temporal power of a Caliph; and as he soon
   obtained the sovereignty of a considerable portion of Africa,
   a rival Caliphate was consequently established in that
   country. This dynasty assumed the name of Fatimites, in honour
   of their famous ancestress Fatima, the daughter of the
   Prophet. The fourth in succession, Muezzeddin by name,
   obtained possession of Egypt about 967. … The Ilkshidites
   and their nominal sovereigns, the Abbassides, lost Egypt with
   great rapidity. Al Muezzeddin transferred his residence
   thither, and founded [at Fostat—see above, A. D. 640-646] the
   city of Cairo, which he made his capital. Egypt thus, from a
   tributary province, became again, as in the days of its
   Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the scat of a powerful kingdom. The
   claims of the Egyptian Caliphs were diligently preached
   throughout all Islam, and their temporal power was rapidly
   extended into the adjoining provinces of Syria and Arabia.
   Palestine became again … the battle-field for the lords of
   Egypt and of the East. Jerusalem, the holy city of so many
   creeds, was conquered and reconquered. … The Egyptian
   Caliphate … played an important part in the history of the
   Crusades. At last, in 1171, it was abolished by the famous
   Saladin. He himself became the founder of a new dynasty; but
   the formal aspect of the change was that Egypt, so long
   schismatic, was again restored to the obedience of Bagdad.
   Saladin was lord of Egypt, but the titles of the Abbasside
   Caliph, the true Commander of the Faithful, appeared again on
   the coin and in the public prayers, instead of that of his
   Fatimite rival."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      pages 70-73._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
      chapters 8 and 10._

      See, also,
      JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

{2078}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 962-1187.
   The Ghaznavide empire.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290;
      and TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 964-976.
   Losses in Syria and Cilicia.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025;
      also, ANTIOCH, A. D. 969.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1004-1160.
   The Seljuk Conquests.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063 to 1092-1160.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1017.
   Expulsion from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

      See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1031-1086.
   Fragmentary kingdoms in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1060-1090.
   The loss of Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1086-1147.
   The empire of the Almoravides.

      See ALMORAVIDES.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1146-1232.
   The empire of the Almohades.

      See ALMOHADES;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1240-1453.
   Conquests of the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
      1360-1389; 1389-1403; 1402-1451; and 1451-1481.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1258.
   Extinction of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols.

      See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1273-1492.
   Decay and fall of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460; and 1476-1492.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1519-1605.
   The Mogul conquest of India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

   ----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: End----------

MAHOMETAN ERA.

      See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

   ----------MAHRATTAS: Start--------

MAHRATTAS: 17th Century.
   Origin and growth of power.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1759-1761.
   Disastrous conflict with the Afghans.
   Great defeat at Panniput.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1781-1819.
   Wars with the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

   ----------MAHRATTAS: End--------

MAID OF NORWAY.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

MAID OF ORLEANS, The Mission of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

MAIDA, Battle of (1806).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

MAILLOTINS, Insurrection of the.

      See PARIS: A. D. 1381.

   ----------MAINE: Start--------

MAINE:
   The Name.

   "Sullivan in 'History of Maine,' and others, say that the
   territory was called the Province of Maine, in compliment to
   Queen Henrietta, who had that province in France for dowry.
   But Folsom, 'Discourse on Maine' (Maine Historical Collection,
   volume ii., page 38), says that that province in France did
   not belong to Henrietta. Maine, like all the rest of the
   coast, was known as the 'Maine,' the mainland, and it is not
   unlikely that the word so much used by the early fishers on
   the coast, may thus have been permanently given to this part
   of it."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 337; foot-note._

MAINE:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MAINE:
   Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

      See NORUMBEGA;
      also, CANADA: THE NAMES.

MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The Popham colony on the Kennebec.
   Fruitless undertaking of the Plymouth Company.

   The company chartered in England by King James, in 1606, for
   the colonization of the indefinite region called Virginia, was
   divided into two branches. To one, commonly spoken of as the
   London Company, but sometimes as the Virginia Company, was
   assigned a domain in the south, from 34° to 41° North
   Latitude. To the other, less familiarly known as the Plymouth
   Company, or the North Virginia Company, was granted a range of
   territory from 38° to 45° North Latitude.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

   The first named company founded a state; the Plymouth branch
   was less fortunate. "Of the Plymouth Company, George Popham,
   brother of the Chief Justice, and Raleigh Gilbert, son of the
   earlier navigator and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh, were
   original associates. A vessel despatched from Bristol by Sir
   John Popham made a further survey of the coast of New England,
   and returned with accounts which infused vigorous life into the
   undertaking; and it was now prosecuted with eagerness and
   liberality. But in little more than a year 'all its former
   hopes were frozen to death.' Three ships sailed from Plymouth
   with 100 settlers, amply furnished, and taking two of Gorges's
   Indians [kidnapped on the voyage of Captain Weymouth in 1605] as
   interpreters and guides. After a prosperous voyage they
   reached the mouth of the river called Sagadahoc, or Kennebec,
   in Maine, and on a projecting point proceeded to organize
   their community. After prayers and a sermon, they listened to
   a reading of the patent and of the ordinances under which it
   had been decreed by the authorities at home that they should
   live. George Popham had been constituted their President,
   Raleigh Gilbert was Admiral. … The adventurers dug wells,
   and built huts. More than half of the number became
   discouraged, and returned with the ships to England.
   Forty-five remained through the winter, which proved to be
   very long and severe. … When the President sickened and
   died, and, presently after, a vessel despatched to them with
   supplies brought intelligence of the death of Sir John Popham,
   and of Sir John Gilbert,—the latter event calling for the
   presence of the Admiral, Gilbert's brother and heir, in
   England,—they were ready to avail themselves of the excuses
   thus afforded for retreating from the distasteful enterprise.
   All yielded to their homesickness, and embarked on board of
   the returning ship, taking with them a small vessel which they
   had built, and some furs and other products of the country.
   Statesmen, merchants, and soldiers had not learned the
   conditions of a settlement in New England. 'The country was
   branded by the return of the plantation as being over cold,
   and in respect of that not habitable by Englishmen.' Still the
   son of the Chief Justice, 'Sir Francis Popham, could not so give
   it over, but continued to send thither several years after, in
   hope of better fortunes, but found it fruitless, and was
   necessitated at last to sit down with the loss he had already
   undergone.' Sir Francis Popham's enterprises were merely
   commercial. Gorges alone [Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been
   among the most active of the original promotors of the
   Company], 'not doubting but God would effect that which man
   despaired of,' persevered in cherishing the project of a
   colony."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
     History of New England,
     volume 1, chapter 2._

     ALSO IN:
     _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
     Popular History of the United States,
     chapter 12, volume 1._

     _R. K. Sewall,
     Ancient Dominions of Maine,
     chapter 3._

{2079}

MAINE: A. D. 1623-1631.
   Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
   First colonies planted.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.
   The Ligonia, or Plow Patent, and other grants.

   "The coast from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec was covered by
   six … patents, issued in the course of three years by the
   Council for New England, with the consent, doubtless, of
   Gorges, who was anxious to interest as many persons as
   possible in the projects of colonization to which he was
   himself so much devoted. Several of these grants were for
   small tracts; the most important embraced an extent of 40
   miles square, bordering on Casco Bay, and named Ligonia. The
   establishments hitherto attempted on the eastern coast had
   been principally for fishing and fur-trading; this was to be
   an agricultural colony, and became familiarly known as the
   'Plow patent.' A company was formed, and some settlers sent
   out; but they did not like the situation, and removed to
   Massachusetts. Another of these grants was the Pemaquid
   patent, a narrow tract on both sides of Pemaquid Point, where
   already were some settlers. Pemaquid remained an independent
   community for the next forty years."

      _R. Hildreth,
     History of the United States,
     chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   The Plow Patent "first came into notoriety in a territorial
   dispute in 1643. The main facts of the case are told shortly
   but clearly by Winthrop. According to him, in July, 1631, ten
   husbandmen came from England, in a ship named the Plough, with
   a patent for land at Sagadahock. But as the place did not
   please them they settled in Massachusetts, and were seemingly
   dispersed in the religious troubles of 1636. … At a later
   day the rights of the patentees were bought up, and were made
   a ground for ousting Gorges from a part of his territory."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Thornton,
      Pemaquid Papers; and Ancient Pemaquid,
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 5)._

MAINE: A. D. 1639.
   A Palatine principality.
   The royal charter to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

   "In April 1639 a charter was granted by the King constituting
   Gorges Lord Proprietor of Maine. The territory was bounded by
   the Sagadahock or Kennebec on the north and the Piscataqua on
   the south, and was to extend 120 miles inland. The political
   privileges of the Proprietor were to be identical with those
   enjoyed by the Bishop of Durham as Count Palatine. He was to
   legislate in conjunction with the freeholders of the province,
   and with the usual reservation in favour of the laws of
   England. His political rights were to be subject to the
   control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his
   territorial rights were to be independent and complete in
   themselves. He was also to enjoy a monopoly of the trade of
   the colony. The only other points specially worth notice were
   a declaration that the religion of the colony was to be that
   of the Church of England, a reservation on behalf of all
   English subjects of the right of fishing with its necessary
   incidents, and the grant to the Proprietor of authority to
   create manors and manorial courts. There is something painful
   in the spectacle of the once vigorous and enterprising soldier
   amusing his old age by playing at kingship. In no little
   German court of the last century could the forms of government
   and the realities of life have been more at variance. To
   conduct the business of two fishing villages Gorges called
   into existence a staff of officials which might have sufficed
   for the affairs of the Byzantine Empire. He even outdid the
   absurdities which the Proprietors of Carolina perpetrated
   thirty years later. They at least saw that their elaborate
   machinery of caciques and landgraves was unfit for practical
   purposes, and they waived it in favour of a simple system
   which had sprung up in obedience to natural wants. But Gorges
   tells complacently and with a deliberate care, which contrasts
   with his usually hurried and slovenly style, how he parcelled
   out his territory and nominated his officials. … The task of
   putting this cumbrous machinery into motion was entrusted by
   the Proprietor to his son, Thomas Gorges, as Deputy-Governor."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

   "The Province was divided into two counties, of one of which
   Agamenticus, or York, was the principal settlement; of the
   other, Saco. … The greatness of York made it arrogant; and
   it sent a deputation of aldermen and burgesses to the General
   Court at Saco, to save its metropolitan rights by a solemn
   protest. The Proprietary was its friend, and before long
   exalted it still more by a city charter, authorizing it and
   its suburbs, constituting a territory of 21 square miles, to
   be governed, under the name of 'Gorgeana,' by a Mayor, twelve
   Aldermen, a Common Council of 24 members, and a Recorder, all
   to be annually chosen by the citizens. Probably as many as two
   thirds of the adult males were in places of authority. The
   forms of proceeding in the Recorder's Court were to be copied
   from those of the British chancery. This grave foolery was
   acted more than ten years."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Gorges,
      Brief Narration
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2)._

MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
   Territorial jurisdiction in dispute.
   The claims of Massachusetts made good.

   "In 1643, the troubles in England between the King and Commons
   grew violent, and in that year Alexander Rigby bought the old
   grant called Lygonia or 'Plow Patent,' and appointed George
   Cleaves his deputy-president. Governor Thomas Gorges about
   that time returned to England, and left Vines in his place.
   Between Cleaves and Vines there was of course a conflict of
   jurisdiction, and Cleaves appealed for aid to Massachusetts;
   and both parties agreed to leave their claims (1645) to the
   decision of the Massachusetts Magistrates, who decided—that
   they could not decide the matter. But the next year the
   Commissioners for American plantations in England decided in
   favor of Rigby; and Vines left the country. In 1647, at last,
   at the age of 74, Sir Ferdinando Gorges died, and with him
   died all his plans for kingdoms and power in Maine. In 1651,
   Massachusetts, finding that her patent, which included lands
   lying three miles north of the head waters of the Merrimack,
   took in all the lower part of Maine, began to extend her
   jurisdiction, and as most of the settlers favored her
   authority, it was pretty well established till the time of the
   Restoration (1660).
{2080}
   Upon the Restoration of Charles II., the heir of Gorges
   claimed his rights to Maine. His agent in the province was
   Edward Godfrey. Those claims were confirmed by the Committee
   of Parliament, and in 1664 he obtained an order from the King
   to the Governor of Massachusetts to restore him his province.
   In 1664 the King's Commissioners came over, and proceeded
   through the Colonies, and among the rest to Maine; where they
   appointed various officers without the concurrence of
   Massachusetts; so that for some years Maine was distracted
   with parties, and was in confusion. In 1668, Massachusetts
   sent four Commissioners to York, who resumed and
   re-established the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, with which
   the majority of the people were best pleased; and in 1669 the
   Deputies from Maine again took their seats in the
   Massachusetts Court. Her jurisdiction was, however, disputed
   by the heirs of Mason and Gorges, and it was not finally set
   at rest till the year 1677, by the purchase of their claims
   from them, by Massachusetts, for £1,250."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. K. Sewall,
      Ancient Dominions of Maine,
      chapters 3-4._

      _W. D. Williamson,
      History of Maine,
      volume 1, chapters 6-21._

MAINE: A. D. 1664.
   The Pemaquid patent purchased and granted
   to the Duke of York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MAINE: A. D. 1675.
   Outbreak of the Tarentines.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

MAINE: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War.
   Indian cruelties.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

MAINE: A. D. 1722-1725.
   Renewed Indian war.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

MAINE: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

MAINE: A. D. 1814.
   Occupied in large part and held by the English.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

MAINE: A. D. 1820.
   Separation from Massachusetts.
   Recognition as a distinct commonwealth and
   admission into the Union.

   "Petitions for the separation of the District of Maine were
   first preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816,
   and a convention was appointed to be holden at Brunswick. This
   convention voted in favor of the step, but the separation was
   not effected until 1820, at which time Maine was erected into
   a distinct and independent commonwealth, and was admitted into
   the American Union."

      _G. L. Austin,
      History of Massachusetts,
      page 408._

   "In the division of the property all the real estate in
   Massachusetts was to be forever hers; all that in Maine to be
   equally divided between the two, share and share alike. …
   The admission of Maine and Missouri into the Union were both
   under discussion in Congress at the same time. The advocates
   of the latter, wishing to carry it through the Legislature,
   without any restrictive clause against slavery, put both into
   a bill together,—determined each should share the same fate.
   … Several days the subject was debated, and sent from one
   branch to the other in Congress, till the 1st of March, when,
   to our joy, they were divorced; and on the 3d of the month
   [March, 1820] an act was passed by which Maine was declared to
   be, from and after the 15th of that month, one of the United
   States."

      _W. D. Williamson,
      History of Maine,
      volume 2, chapter 27._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MAINE: A. D. 1842.
   Settlement of the northern boundary disputes,
   by the Ashburton Treaty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

   ----------MAINE: End----------

MAIWAND, English disaster at (1880).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

MAJESTAS, The Law of.

   "The law of Majestas or Treason … under the [Roman] empire
   … was the legal protection thrown round the person of the
   chief of the state: any attempt against the dignity or safety
   of the community became an attack on its glorified
   representative. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the first
   legal enactment which received this title, half a century
   before the foundation of the empire, was actually devised for
   the protection, not of the state itself, but of a personage
   dear to the state, namely, the tribune of the people. Treason
   to the State indeed had long before been known, and defined as
   Perduellio, the levying of war against the commonwealth. …
   But the crime of majesty was first specified by the demagogue
   Apuleius, in an enactment of the year 654 [B. C. 100], for the
   purpose of guarding or exalting the dignity of the champion of
   the plebs. … The law of Apuleius was followed by that of
   another tribune, Varius, conceived in a similar spirit. …
   [After the constitution of Sulla] the distinction between
   Majestas and Perduellio henceforth vanishes: the crime of
   Treason is specifically extended from acts of violence to
   measures calculated to bring the State into contempt."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 44._

MAJORCA:
   Conquest by King James of Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

MAJORIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 457-461.

MAJUBA HILL, Battle of (1881).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

   ----------MALAGA: Start--------

MALAGA: A. D. 1036-1055.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

MALAGA: A. D. 1487.
   Siege and capture from the Moors by the Christians.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

   ----------MALAGA: End--------

MALAKHOFF, The storming of the (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

MALAMOCCO.
   The second capital of the Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810; and 452.

MALATESTA FAMILY, The.

   "No one with any tincture of literary knowledge is ignorant of
   the fame at least of the great Malatesta family—the house of
   the Wrongheads, as they were rightly called by some prevision
   of their future part in Lombard history. … The story of
   Francesca da Polenta, who was wedded to the hunchback Giovanni
   Malatesta and murdered by him with her lover Paolo, is known
   not merely to students of Dante, but to readers of Byron and
   Leigh Hunt, to admirers of Flaxman, Ary Scheffer, Doré—to
   all, in fact, who have of art and letters any love. The
   history of these Malatesti, from their first establishment
   under Otho III. [A. D. 996-1002] as lieutenants for the Empire
   in the Marches of Ancona, down to their final subjugation by the
   Papacy in the age of the Renaissance, is made up of all the
   vicissitudes which could befall a mediæval Italian despotism.
{2081}
   Acquiring an unlawful right over the towns of Rimini, Cesena,
   Sogliano, Ghiacciuolo, they ruled their petty principalities
   like tyrants by the help of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions,
   inclining to the one or the other as it suited their humour or
   their interest, wrangling among themselves, transmitting the
   succession of their dynasty through bastards and by deeds of
   force, quarrelling with their neighbours the Counts of Urbino,
   alternately defying and submitting to the Papal legates in
   Romagna, serving as condottieri in the wars of the Visconti
   and the state of Venice, and by their restlessness and genius
   for military intrigues contributing in no slight measure to
   the general disturbance of Italy. The Malatesti were a race
   of strongly marked character: more, perhaps, than any other
   house of Italian tyrants, they combined for generations those
   qualities of the fox and the lion, which Machiavelli thought
   indispensable to a successful despot. … So far as Rimini is
   concerned, the house of Malatesta culminated in Sigismondo
   Pandolfo, son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti's general, the
   perfidious Pandolfo. … Having begun by defying the Holy See,
   he was impeached at Rome for heresy, parricide, incest,
   adultery, rape, and sacrilege, burned in effigy by Pope Pius
   II., and finally restored to the bosom of the Church, after
   suffering the despoliation of almost all his territories, in
   1463. The occasion on which this fierce and turbulent despiser
   of laws human and divine was forced to kneel as a penitent
   before the Papal legate in the gorgeous temple dedicated to
   his own pride, in order that the ban of excommunication might
   be removed from Rimini, was one of those petty triumphs,
   interesting chiefly for their picturesqueness, by which the
   Popes confirmed their questionable rights over the cities of
   Romagna. Sigismondo, shorn of his sovereignty, took the
   command of the Venetian troops against the Turks in the Morea,
   and returned in 1465, crowned with laurels, to die at Rimini."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Sketches in Italy and Greece,
      pages 217-220._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages,
      pages 274-299._

MALAYAN RACE, The.

   Many ethnologists set up as a distinct stock "the '.Malayan'
   or 'Brown' race, and claim for it an importance not less than
   any of the darker varieties of the species. It bears, however,
   the marks of an origin too recent, and presents Asian
   analogies too clearly, for it to be regarded otherwise than as
   a branch of the Asian race, descended like it from some
   ancestral tribe in that great continent. Its dispersion has
   been extraordinary. Its members are found almost continuously
   on the land areas from Madagascar to Easter Island, a distance
   nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the globe;
   everywhere they speak dialects with such affinities that we
   must assume for all one parent stem, and their separation must
   have taken place not so very long ago to have permitted such a
   monoglottic trait as this. The stock is divided at present
   into two groups, the western or Malayan peoples, and the
   eastern or Polynesian peoples. There has been some discussion
   about the original identity of these, but we may consider it
   now proved by both physical, linguistic and traditional
   evidence. The original home of the parent stem has also
   excited some controversy, but this too may be taken as
   settled. There is no reasonable doubt but that the Malays came
   from the southeastern regions of Asia, from the peninsula of
   Farther India, and thence spread south, east and west over the
   whole of the island world. Their first occupation of Sumatra
   and Java has been estimated to have occurred not later than
   1000 B. C., and probably was a thousand years earlier, or
   about the time that the Aryans entered Northern India. The
   relationship of the Malayic with the other Asian stocks has
   not yet been made out. Physically they stand near to the
   Sinitic peoples of small stature and roundish heads of
   southeastern Asia. The oldest form of their language, however,
   was not monosyllabic and tonic, but was disyllabic. … The
   purest type of the true Malays is seen in Malacca, Sumatra and
   Java. … It has changed slightly by foreign intermixture
   among the Battaks of Sumatra, the Dayaks of Borneo, the
   Alfures and the Bugis. But the supposition that these are so
   remote that they cannot properly be classed with the Malays is
   an exaggeration of some recent ethnographers, and is not
   approved by the best authorities. … In character the Malays
   are energetic, quick of perception, genial in demeanor, but
   unscrupulous, cruel and revengeful. Veracity is unknown, and
   the love of gain is far stronger than any other passion or
   affection. This thirst for gold made the Malay the daring
   navigator he early became. As merchant, pirate or explorer,
   and generally as all three in one, he pushed his crafts far
   and wide over the tropical seas through 12,000 miles of
   extent. On the extreme west he reached and colonized
   Madagascar. The Hovas there, undoubtedly of Malay blood,
   number about 800,000 in a population of five and a half
   millions, the remainder being Negroids of various degrees of
   fusion. In spite of this disproportion, the Hovas are the
   recognized masters of the island. … The Malays probably
   established various colonies in southern India. The natives at
   Travancore and the Sinhalese of Ceylon bear a strongly Malayan
   aspect. … Some ethnographers would make the Polynesians and
   Micronesians a different race from the Malays; but the
   farthest that one can go in this direction is to admit that
   they reveal some strain of another blood. This is evident in
   their physical appearance. … All the Polynesian languages
   have some affinities to the Malayan, and the Polynesian
   traditions unanimously refer to the west for the home of their
   ancestors. We are able, indeed, by carefully analyzing these
   traditions, to trace with considerable accuracy both the route
   they followed to the Oceanic isles, and the respective dates
   when they settled them. Thus, the first station of their
   ancestors ou leaving the western group, was the small island
   of Buru or Boru, between Celebes and New Guinea. Here they
   encountered the Papuas, some of whom still dwell in the
   interior, while the coast people are fair. Leaving Boru, they
   passed to the north of New Guinea, colonizing the Caroline and
   Solomon islands, but the vanguard pressing forward to take
   possession of Savai in the Samoan group and Tonga to its
   south. These two islands formed a second center of
   distribution over the western Pacific. The Maoris of New
   Zealand moved from Tonga—'holy Tonga' as they call it in
   their songs—about 600 years ago. The Society islanders
   migrated from Savai, and they in turn sent forth the
   population of the Marquesas, the Sandwich islands and Easter
   island. The separation of the Polynesians from the western
   Malays must have taken place about the beginning of our era."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Races and Peoples,
      lecture 8, section. 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Wallace,
      The Malay Archipelago,
      chapter 40._

      _R. Brown,
      The Races of Mankind,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

{2082}

MALCOLM III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1057-1093.

   Malcolm IV., King of Scotland, 1153-1165.

MALDON, Battle of.

   Fought, A. D. 991, by the English against an invading army of
   Norwegians, who proved the victors. The battle, with the
   heroic death of the English leader, Brihtnoth, became the
   subject of a famous early-English poem, which is translated in
   Freeman's "Old English History for Children." The field of
   battle was on the Blackwater in Essex.

MALEK SHAH, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1073-1092.

MALIANS, The.

   One of the early peoples of Greece, who dwelt on the Malian
   Gulf, in the lower valley of the Sperchæus. They were a
   warlike people, neighbors and close allies of the Dorians,
   before the migration of the latter to the Peloponnesus.

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 2._

MALIGNANTS.

   "About this time [A. D. 1643] the word 'malignant' was first
   born (as to the common use) in England; the deduction thereof
   being disputable, whether from 'malus ignis,' bad fire, or
   'malum lignum,' bad fuel; but this is sure, betwixt both, the
   name made a combustion all over England. It was fixed as a
   note of disgrace on those of the king's party."

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 11, section 4 (volume 3)._

MALINES: Taken by Marlborough and the Allies (1706).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

MALLUM.
MALL.
MALLBERG.

   "The Franks … constituted one great army, the main body of
   which was encamped round the abode of their Kyning or
   commander, and the rest of which was broken up into various
   detachments. … Every such detachment became ere long a
   sedentary tribe, and the chief of each was accustomed, as
   occasion required, to convene the mallum (that is, an assembly
   of the free inhabitants) of his district, to deliberate with
   him on all the affairs of his immediate locality. The Kyning
   also occasionally convened an assembly of the whole of the
   Frankish chiefs, to deliberate with him at the Champs de Mars
   on the affairs of the whole confederacy. But neither the
   mallum nor the Champs de Mars was a legislative convention.
   Each of them was a council of war or an assembly of warriors."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 8._

   "The Court was mostly held in a field or on a hill, called
   'mallstatt,' or 'mallberg,' that is, the place or hill where
   the 'mall' or Court assembled, and the judge set up his shield
   of office, without which he might not hold Court."

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

      See, also.
      PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

MALMÖ, Armistice of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MALO-JOROSLAVETZ, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D.1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

MALPLAQUET, Battle of (1709).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

   ----------MALTA: Start--------

MALTA: A. D. 1530-1565.
   Ceded by the emperor, Charles V., to the Knights of St. John.
   Their defense of the island against the Turks in the great siege.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

MALTA: A. D. 1551.
   Unsuccessful attack by the Turks.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

MALTA: A. D. 1798.
   Seizure and occupation by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

MALTA: A. D. 1800-1802.
   Surrender to an English fleet.
   Agreement of restoration to the Knights of St. John.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

MALTA: A. D. 1814.
   Ceded to England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

   ----------MALTA: End--------

MALTA, Knights of.

   During their occupation of the island, the Knights
   Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
   Knights of Malta, as they had previously been called Knights
   of Rhodes:

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

MALVERN CHASE.

   An ancient royal forest in Worcestershire, England, between
   Malvern Hills and the River Severn. Few remains of it exist.

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England._

MALVERN HILL, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

MAMACONAS.

      See YANACONAS.

MAMELUKE, OR SLAVE, DYNASTY OF INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

MAMELUKES OF BRAZIL.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

MAMELUKES OF EGYPT;
   their rise;
   their sovereignty;
   their destruction.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517; and 1803-1811.

MAMELUKES OF GENEVA, The.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

MAMERTINE PRISON, The.

   "Near the Basilica Porcia, and at the foot of the Capitoline
   Hill [in ancient Rome], was the ancient carcer or prison. The
   original erection of it has been attributed to Ancus Martius,
   as we learn from Livy, who says 'he made a prison in the
   middle of the city, overlooking the Forum.' The name by which
   it is known—Mamertinus—may have been derived from its being
   built by Ancus Martius. Mamers was the Sabine name of the god
   Mars, and consequently from the name Mamertius, the Sabine way
   of spelling Martius, may have been derived Mamertinus. In this
   prison there are two chambers, one above the other, built of
   hewn stone. The upper is square, while the lower is
   semicircular. The style of masonry points to an early date,
   when the Etruscan style of masonry prevailed in Rome. … To
   these chambers there was no entrance except by a small
   aperture in the upper roof, and a similar hole in the upper
   floor led to the cell below. From a passage in Livy it would
   appear that Tullianum was the name given to the lower cell of
   the carcer. … Varro expressly tells us that the lower part
   of the prison which was underground was called Tullianum
   because it was added by Servius Tullius."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 93._

{2083}

   "The oldest portion of the horror-striking Mamertine Prisons
   … is the most ancient among all Roman buildings still extant
   as originally constructed."

      _C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      chapter 4._

   "Here, Jugurtha, king of Mauritania, was starved to death by
   Marius. Here Julius Cæsar, during his triumph for the conquest
   of Gaul, caused his gallant enemy Vercingetorix to be put to
   death. … The spot is more interesting to the Christian world
   as the prison of SS. Peter and Paul."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Walks in Rome,
      chapter 3. _

MAMERTINES OF MESSENE, The.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MAMUN, AL, Caliph, A. D. 813-833.

MAN, Kingdom of.

      See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

MANAOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

   ----------MANASSAS: Start--------

MANASSAS: A. D. 1861 (July).
   First battle (Bull Run).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (March).
   Confederate evacuation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (August).
   Stonewall Jackson's Raid.
   The Second Battle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

   ----------MANASSAS: End--------

   ----------MANCHESTER: Start--------

MANCHESTER:
   Origin.

      See MANCUNIUM.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1817-1819.
   The march of the Blanketeers,
   and the "Massacre of Peterloo."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1838-1839.
   Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The Cotton Famine.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1894.
   Opening of the Ship Canal.

   A ship canal, connecting Manchester with Liverpool, and making
   the former practically a seaport, was opened on the 1st day of
   January, 1894. The building of the canal was begun in 1887.

   ----------MANCHESTER: End--------

MANCHU TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

      See CHINA: A.D. 1294-1882.

MANCUNIUM.

   A Roman town in Britain which occupied the site of the modern
   city of Manchester.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

MANDANS,
MANDANES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MANDATA, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

MANDUBII, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul, which occupied part of the modern
   French department of the Côte-d'Or and whose chief town was
   Alesia, the scene of Cæsar's famous siege.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

MANETHO, List of.

   "Of all the Greek writers who have treated of the history of
   the Pharaohs, there is only one whose testimony has, since the
   deciphering of the hieroglyphics, preserved any great value—a
   value which increases the more it is compared with the
   original monuments; we speak of Manetho. Once he was treated
   with contempt; his veracity was disputed, the long series of
   dynasties he unfolds to our view was regarded as fabulous.
   Now, all that remains of his work is the first of an
   authorities for the reconstruction of the ancient history of
   Egypt. Manetho, a priest of the town of Sebennytus, in the
   Delta, wrote in Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a
   history of Egypt, founded on the official archives preserved
   in the temples. Like many other books of antiquity, this
   history has been lost; we possess now a few fragments only,
   with the list of all the kings placed by Manetho at the end of
   his work—a list happily preserved in the writings of some
   chronologers of the Christian epoch. This list divides into
   dynasties, or royal families, all the kings who reigned
   successively in Egypt down to the time of Alexander."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      EGYPT: ITS HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY.

   ----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: Start--------

MANHATTAN ISLAND:
   Its aboriginal People and name.

   "The earliest notice we have of the island which is now
   adorned by a beautiful and opulent city is to be found in
   Hudson's journal. 'Mana-hata' is therein mentioned, in
   reference to the hostile people whom he encountered on his
   return from his exploring of the river, and who resided on
   this island. De Laet … calls those wicked people Manatthans,
   and names the river Manhattes. … Hartger calls the Indians
   and the island Mahattan. … In some of the early transactions
   of the colony, it is spelled Monhattoes, Munhatos, and
   Manhattoes. Professor Ebeling says, that at the mouth of the
   river lived the Manhattans or Manathanes (or as the Englishmen
   commonly called it, Manhados), who kept up violent animosities
   with their neighbours, and were at first most hostile towards
   the Dutch, but suffered themselves to be persuaded afterwards
   to sell them the island, or at least that part of it where New
   York now stands. Manhattan is now the name, and it was, when
   correctly adopted, so given by the Dutch, and by them it not
   only distinguished the Indians, the island and the river, but
   it was a general name of their plantations. … Mr.
   Heckewelder observes that hitherto an his labours had been
   fruitless in inquiring about a nation or tribe of Indians
   called the 'Manhattos' or 'Manathones'; Indians both of the
   Mahicanni and Delaware nations assured him that they never had
   heard of any Indian tribe by that name. He says he is
   convinced that it was the Delawares or Munseys (which last was
   a branch of the Delawares) who inhabited that part of the
   country where New York now is. York Island is called by the
   Delawares to this day [1824] Manahattani or Manahachtanink.
   The Delaware word for 'Island' is 'Manátey'; the Monsey word
   for the same is 'Manáchtey' … Dr. Barton also has given as
   his belief that the Manhattæ were a branch of the Munsis."

      _J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, pages 223-224._

      ALSO IN:
      _Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MANHATTAN ISLAND: A. D. 1613.
   First settlements.
   Argall's visit.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

   ----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: End--------

{2084}

MANICHEANS, The.

   "A certain Mani (or Manes, as the ecclesiastical writers call
   him), born in Persia about A. D. 240, grew to manhood under
   Sapor, exposed to … various religious influences. … With a
   mind free from prejudice and open to conviction, he studied the
   various systems of belief which he found established in
   Western Asia—the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism
   of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, and
   even the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to
   Christianity, and is said to have been admitted to priest's
   orders and to have ministered to a congregation; but after a
   time he thought that he saw his way to the formation of a new
   creed, which should combine all that was best in the religious
   systems which he was acquainted with, and omit what was
   superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of the
   Zoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and
   demonism of the Talmud and Trinitarianism of the Gospel of
   Christ. Christ himself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him
   his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete
   promised by Christ, who should guide men into all truth, and
   claimed that his 'Ertang,' a sacred book illustrated by
   pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New
   Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by
   the Christian community; and Manes had not put them forward
   very long when he was expelled from the church and forced to
   carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is
   said to have addressed himself to Sapor [the Persian king],
   who was at first inclined to show him some favour; but when he
   found out what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were,
   his feelings underwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at
   any rate threatened with penalties, had to retire into a
   foreign country. … Though the morality of the Manichees was
   pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort
   of Christianity, there were but few points in which it was an
   improvement on Zoroastrianism."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

   First in Persia and, afterwards, throughout Christendom, the
   Manicheans were subjected to a merciless persecution; but they
   spread their doctrines, notwithstanding, in the west and in
   the east, and it was not until several centuries had passed
   that the heresy became extinct.

      _J. L. Mosheim,
      Christianity during the first 325 years, Third Century,
      lectures 39-55._

      See, also, PAULICIANS.

MANIFESTATION, The Aragonese process of.

      See CORTES. THE EARLY SPANISH.

MANILIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

MANIMI, The.

      See LYGIANS.

MANIN, Daniel, and the struggle for Venetian independence.

      See ITALY: A. D.1848-1849.

MANIOTO,
MAYNO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MANIPULI.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

MANITOBA.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

MANNAHOACS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

   ----------MANNHEIM: Start--------

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1622.
   Capture by Tilly.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1689.
   Destroyed by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1799.
   Capture by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

   ----------MANNHEIM: End--------

MANOA, The fabled city of.

      See EL DORADO.

MANORS.

   "The name manor is of Norman origin, but the estate to which
   it was given existed, in its essential character, long before
   the Conquest; it received a new name as the shire also did,
   but neither the one nor the other was created by this change.
   The local jurisdictions of the thegns who had grants of sac
   and soc, or who exercised judicial functions amongst their
   free neighbours, were identical with the manorial
   jurisdictions of the new owners. … The manor itself was, as
   Ordericus tells us, nothing more nor less than the ancient
   township, now held by a lord who possessed certain judicial
   rights varying according to the terms of the grant by which he
   was infeoffed. Every manor had a court baron, the ancient
   gemot of the township, in which by-laws were made and other
   local business transacted, and a court customary in which the
   business of the villenage was despatched. Those manors whose
   lords had under the Anglo-Saxon laws possessed sac and soc, or
   who since the Conquest had had grants in which those terms
   were used, had also a court-leet, or criminal jurisdiction,
   cut out as it were from the criminal jurisdiction of the
   hundred, and excusing the suitors who attended it from going
   to the court-leet of the hundred."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9, section 98,
      and chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1)._

   "From the Conquest to the 14th century we find the same
   agricultural conditions prevailing over the greater part of
   England. Small gatherings of houses and cots appear as oases
   in the moorland and forest, more or less frequent according to
   the early or late settlement of the district, and its freedom
   from, or exposure to, the ravages of war and the punishment of
   rebellion. These oases, townships or vills if of some extent,
   hamlets if of but a few houses, gather round one or more
   mansions of superior size and importance, the Manor houses, or
   abodes of the Lords of the respective Manors. Round each
   township stretch the great ploughed fields, usually three in
   number, open and uninclosed. Each field is divided into a
   series of parallel strips a furlong in length, a rod wide,
   four of which would make an acre, the strips being separated
   by ridges of turf called balks, while along the head of each
   series of strips runs a broad band of turf known as a
   headland, on which the plough is turned, when it does not by
   custom turn on some fellow-tenant's land, and which serves as
   a road to the various strips in the fields. These strips are
   allotted in rotation to a certain number of the dwellers in
   the township, a very common holding being that known as a
   virgate or yardland, consisting of about 30 acres. … Mr.
   Seebohm's exhaustive researches have conclusively connected
   this system of open fields and rotation of strips with the
   system of common ploughing, each holder of land providing so
   many oxen for the common plough, two being the contribution of
   the holder of a virgate, and eight the normal number drawing
   the plough, though this would vary with the character of the
   soil. … At the date of Domesday (1086), the holders of land
   in the common fields comprise the Lord; the free tenants,
   socmanni or liberi homines, when there are any; the villani or
   Saxon geburs, the holders of virgates or half virgates; and
   the bordarii or cotarii, holders of small plots of 5 acres or
   so, who have fewer rights and fewer duties. Besides ploughing
   the common-fields, the villani as part of their tenure have to
   supply the labour necessary to cultivate the arable land that
   the Lord of the Manor keeps in his own hands as his domain,
   dominicum, or demesne."

      _T. E. Scrutton,
      Commons and Common Fields,
      chapter 1._

{2085}

   Relative to the origin of the manor and the development of the
   community from which it rose there are divergent views much
   discussed at the present day. "The interpretation, current
   fifteen years ago, was the natural outcome of the Mark theory
   and was somewhat as follows: The community was a voluntary
   association, a simple unit within which there were households
   or families of various degrees of wealth, rank and authority,
   but in point of status each was the equal of the other. Each
   was subject only to the customs and usages of the community
   and to the court of the Mark. The Mark was therefore a
   judicial and political as well as an agricultural unit, though
   cultivation of the soil was the primary bond of union. All
   offices were filled by election, but the incumbent in due time
   sank back into the general body of 'markgenossen.' He who was
   afterwards to be the lord of the manor was originally only the
   first Marksman,' who attained to this preeminence in part by
   the prestige of election to a position of headship, in part by
   usurpation, and in part by the prerogatives which protection
   and assistance to weaker Marksmen brought. Thus the first
   Marksman became the lord and held the others in a kind of
   subjection to himself, and received from them, though free,
   dues and services which grew increasingly more severe. The
   main difficulty here seems to be in the premise, and it is the
   evident artificiality of the voluntary association of freemen
   which has led to such adverse criticism upon the whole theory.
   … While the free village community was under fire at home as
   well as abroad, Mr. Seebohm presented a new view of an exactly
   opposite character, with the formula of the community in
   villeinage under a lord. Although this view has for the moment
   divided thinkers on the subject, it has proved no more
   satisfactory than the other; for while it does explain the
   origin of the lord of the manor, it leaves wholly untouched
   the body of free Saxons whom Earle calls the rank and file of
   the invading army. Other theories have sought to supply the
   omissions in this vague non-documentary field, all erected
   with learning and skill, but unfortunately not in harmony with
   one another. Coote and Finlason have given to the manor an
   unqualified Roman origin. Lewis holds to a solid British
   foundation, the Teutonists would make it wholly Saxon, while
   Gomme is inclined to see an Aryo-British community under Saxon
   overlordship. Thus there is a wide range from which to select;
   all cannot be true; no one is an explanation of all
   conditions, yet most of them have considerable sound evidence
   to support them. It is this lack of harmony which drives the
   student to discover some theory which shall be in touch with
   known tribal conditions and a natural consequence of their
   development, and which at the same time shall be sufficiently
   elastic to conform to the facts which confront us in the early
   historical period. An attempt has been made [in the work here
   quoted from] to lay down two premises, the first of which is
   the composite character of the tribal and village community,
   and the second the diverse ethnological conditions of Britain
   after the Conquest, conditions which would allow for different
   results. … Kemble in his chapter on Personal Rank has a
   remark which is ill in keeping with his peaceful Mark theory.
   He says: 'There can be no doubt that some kind of military
   organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many
   respects determined its mode and character.' To this statement
   Earle has added another equally pregnant: 'Of all principles
   of military regiment there is none so necessary or so
   elementary as this, that all men must be under a captain, and
   such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing
   obedience. Upon this military principle I conceive the English
   settlements were originally founded, that each several
   settlement was under a military leader, and that this military
   leader was the ancestor of the lord of the manor.' Professor
   Earle then continues in the endeavor to apply the suggestion
   contained in the above quotation. He shows that the 'hundreds'
   represent the first permanent encampment of the invading host,
   and that the military occupation preceded the civil
   organization, the latter falling into the mould which the
   former had prepared. According to this the manorial
   organization was based upon a composite military foundation,
   the rank and file composing the one element, the village
   community; the captain or military leader composing the other,
   settled with suitable provision by the side of his company;
   the lord by the side of free owners. In this attempt to give
   the manor a composite origin, as the only rational means
   whereby the chief difficulty can be removed, and in the
   attempt to carry the seignorial element to the very beginning
   we believe him to be wholly right. But an objection must be
   raised to the way in which Professor Earle makes up his
   composite element. It is too artificial, too exclusively
   military; the occupiers of the village are the members of the
   'company,' the occupier of the adjacent seat is the
   'captain,' afterwards to become the lord. … We feel certain
   that the local community, the village, was simply the kindred,
   the sub-clan group, which had become a local habitation, yet
   when we attempt to test its presence in Anglo-Saxon Britain we
   meet with many difficulties."

      _C. McL. Andrews,
      The Old English Manor,
      pages 7-51._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Communities,
      chapter 2, section 12._

      _Sir H. Maine,
      Village Communities,
      lecture 5._

MANSFIELD, OR
SABINE CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

MANSOURAH, Battle of (1250).

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

MANSUR, Al, Caliph, A. D. 754-775.

   ----------MANTINEA: Start--------

MANTINEA.

   "Mantinea was the single city of Arcadia which had dared to
   pursue an independent line of policy [see SPARTA: B. C.
   743-510]. Not until the Persian Wars the community coalesced
   out of five villages into one fortified city; this being done
   at the instigation of Argos, which already at this early date
   entertained thoughts of forming for itself a confederation in
   its vicinity: Mantinea had endeavored to increase its city
   and territory by conquest, and after the Peace of Nicias had
   openly opposed Sparta."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

MANTINEA: B. C. 418.
   Battle.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

{2086}

MANTINEA: B. C. 385.
   Destruction by the Spartans.

      See GREECE: B. C. 385.

MANTINEA: B. C. 371-362.
   Restoration of the city.
   Arcadian union and disunion.
   The great battle.
   Victory and death of Epaminondas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371; and 371-362.

MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
   Change of name.

   In the war between Cleomenes of Sparta and the Achæan League,
   the city of Mantinea was, first, surprised by Aratus, the
   chief of the League, B. C. 226, and occupied by an Achæan
   garrison; then recaptured by Cleomenes, and his partisans, B.
   C. 224, and finally, B. C. 222, stormed by Antigonus, king of
   Macedonia, acting in the name of the League, and given up to
   pillage. Its citizens were sold into slavery. "The dispeopled
   city was placed by the conqueror at the disposal of Argos,
   which decreed that a colony should be sent to take possession
   of it under the auspices of Aratus. The occasion enabled him
   to pay another courtly compliment to the king of Macedonia. On
   his proposal, the name of the 'lovely Mantinea'—as it was
   described in the Homeric catalogue—was exchanged for that of
   Antigonea, a symbol of its ruin and of the humiliation of
   Greece."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62 (volume 8)._

MANTINEA: B. C. 207.
   Defeat of the Lacedæmonians.

   In the wars of the Achæan League, the Lacedæmonians were
   defeated under the walls of Mantinea with great slaughter, by
   the forces of the League, ably marshalled by Philopœmen, and
   the Lacedaemonian king Machanidas was slain. "It was the third
   great battle fought on the same, or nearly the same, ground.
   Here, in the interval between the two parts of the
   Peloponnesian War, had Agis restored the glory of Sparta after
   her humiliation at Sphakteria; here Epameinôndas had fallen in
   the moment of victory; here now [B. C. 207] was to be fought
   the last great battle of independent Greece."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 8, section 2._

   ----------MANTINEA: End----------

MANTUA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Rise and acquisition of republican independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MANTUA: A. D. 1077-1115.
   In the dominions of the Countess Matilda.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

MANTUA: A. D. 1328-1708.
   The house of Gonzaga.

      See GONZAGA.

MANTUA: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War of France, Spain and the Empire over the disputed
   succession to the duchy.
   Siege and capture of the city by the Imperialists.
   Rights of the Duke de Nevers established.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

MANTUA: A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

MANTUA: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Siege and reduction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MANTUA: A. D. 1797.
   Ceded by Austria to the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

MANTUA: A. D. 1799.
   Siege and capture by Suwarrow.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

MANTUA: A. D. 1814.
   Restoration to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

MANTUA: A. D. 1866.

   The Austrians retained Mantua until their final withdrawal
   from the peninsula, in 1866, when it was absorbed in the new
   kingdom of Italy.

MANU, Laws of.

   "The Indians [of Hindostan] possess a series of books of law,
   which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint
   or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama,
   another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth
   after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu.
   According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is
   the oldest and most honourable. … The conclusion is …
   inevitable that the decisive precepts which we find in the
   collection must have been put together and written down about
   the year 600 [B. C.]."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 5, chapter 6._

   "The name, 'Laws of Manu,' somewhat resembles a 'pious fraud';
   for the 'Laws' are merely the laws or customs of a school or
   association of Hindus, called the Manavas, who lived in the
   country rendered holy by the divine river Saraswati. In this
   district the Hindus first felt themselves a settled people,
   and in this neighbourhood they established colleges and
   hermitages, or 'asramas,' from some of which we may suppose
   Brahmanas, Upanishads, and other religious compositions may
   have issued; and under such influences we may imagine the Code
   of Manu to have been composed."

      _Mrs. Manning,
      Ancient and Mediæval India,
      volume 1, page 276._

MANUAL TRAINING.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &C.: A. D. 1865-1886.

MANUEL I. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1143-1181.

   Manuel II. (Palæologus),
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1391-1425.

MANX KINGDOM, The.

   The Isle of Man in the Irish Sea gets its English name, Man,
   by an abbreviation of the native name, Mannin, the origin of
   which is unknown. The language, called Manx (now little used),
   and the inhabitants, called Manxmen, are both of Gaelic, or
   Irish derivation. From the sixth to the tenth century the
   island was successively ruled by the Scots (Irish), the Welsh
   and the Norwegians, finally becoming a separate petty kingdom,
   with Norwegian claims upon it. In the thirteenth century the
   little kingdom was annexed to Scotland. Subsequently, after
   various vicissitudes, it passed under English control and was
   granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Stanley. The Stanleys, after
   some generations, found a dignity which they esteemed higher,
   in the earldom of Derby, and relinquished the title of King of
   Man. This was done by the second Earl of Derby, 1505. In 1765
   the sovereignty and revenues of the island were purchased by
   the British government; but its independent form of government
   has undergone little change. It enjoys "home rule" to
   perfection. It has its own legislature, called the Court of
   Tynwald, consisting of a council, or upper chamber, and a
   representative body called the House of Keys. Acts of the
   imperial parliament do not apply to the Isle of Man unless it
   is specifically named in them. It has its own courts, with
   judges called deemsters (who are the successors of the ancient
   Druidical priests), and its own governor, appointed by the
   crown. The divisions of the island, corresponding to English
   counties, are called sheadings.

      _S. Walpole,
      The Land of Home Rule._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. I. Jenkinson,
      Guide to Isle of Man._

      _Hall Caine,
      The Little Manx Nation.
      Our Own Country,
      volume 5._

      See
      MONAPIA:
      and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

{2087}

MANZIKERT, Battle of (1071).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

MAONITES, The.

   "We must … regard them as a remnant of the Amorites, which,
   in later times, … spread to the west of Petra."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      introduction, section 4._

MAORIS.
MAORI WAR.

      See NEW ZEALAND: THE ABORIGINES: A. D. 1853-1883;
      also, MALAYAN RACE.

MAPOCHINS, The.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

MAQUAHUITL, The.

   This was a weapon in use among the Mexicans when the Spaniards
   found them. It "was a stout stick, three feet and a half long,
   and about four inches broad, armed on each side with a sort of
   razors of the stone itztli (obsidian), extraordinarily sharp,
   fixed and firmly fastened to the stick with gum lack. … The
   first stroke only was to be feared, for the razors became soon
   blunt."

      _F. S. Clavigero,
      History of Mexico,
      book 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest of America,
      book 10 (volume 2)._

MARACANDA.

   The chief city of the ancient Sogdiani, in Central Asia—now
   Samarcand.

MARAGHA.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MARAIS, OR PLAIN, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

MARANHA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MARANGA, Battle of.

   One of the battles fought by the Romans with the Persians
   during the retreat from Julian's fatal expedition beyond the
   Tigris, A. D. 363. The Persians were repulsed.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10._

MARAPHIANS, The.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 3._

MARAT AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1793 (MARCH-JUNE).

   Assassination by Charlotte Corday.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

MARATA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARATHAS.

      See MAHRATTAS.

MARATHON, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

MARAVEDIS.

      See SPANISH COINS.

MARBURG CONFERENCE, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

MARCEL, Etienne, and the States General of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

MARCELLUS II., Pope, A. D. 1555, April to May.

MARCH.
MARK.

   The frontier or boundary of a territory; a border. Hence came
   the title of Marquis, which was originally that of an officer
   charged with the guarding of some March or border district of
   a kingdom. In Great Britain this title ranks second in the
   five orders of nobility, only the title of Duke being superior
   to it. The old English kingdom of Mercia was formed by the
   Angles who were first called the "Men of the March," having
   settled on the Welsh border, and that was the origin of its
   name. The kingdom of Prussia grew out of the "Mark of
   Brandenburg," which was originally a military border district
   formed on the skirts of the German empire to resist the Wends.
   Various other European states had the same origin.

      See, also, MARGRAVE.

MARCH CLUB.

      See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER AND THE MARCH.

MARCHFELD OR MARSCHFELD, Battle of the (1278).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

   (1809) (also called the battle of Aspern-Esslingen,
   or of Aspern).

     See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

MARCIAN, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 450-457.

MARCIANAPOLIS.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

   ----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: Start--------

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI, The.

   "The Marcomanni [an ancient German people who dwelt, first, on
   the Rhine, but afterwards occupied southern Bohemia] stand
   first in strength and renown, and their very territory, from
   which the Boii were driven in a former age, was won by valour.
   Nor are the Narisci [settled in the region of modern Ratisbon]
   and Quadi [who probably occupied Moravia] inferior to them.
   This I may call the frontier of Germany, so far as it is
   completed by the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi have, up to
   our time, been ruled by kings of their own nation, descended
   from the noble stock of Maroboduus and Tudrus. They now submit
   even to foreigners; but the strength and power of the monarch
   depend on Roman influence."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter 42._

   "The Marcomanni cannot be demonstrated as a distinct people
   before Marbod. It is very possible that the word up to that
   point indicates nothing but what it etymologically
   signifies—the land or frontier guard."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, foot-note._

      See, also, AGRI DECUMATES.

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
   War with Tiberius.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
   Wars with Marcus Aurelius.

      See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS
      OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

   ----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: End--------

MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

MARDIA, Battle of (A. D. 313).

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

MARDIANS, The.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians;
   also called Amardians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 3._

      See, also, TAPURIANS.

   ----------MARDYCK: Start--------

MARDYCK: A. D. 1645-1646.
   Thrice taken and retaken by French and Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

MARDYCK: A. D. 1657.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Delivery to the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

   ----------MARDYCK: End--------

MARENGO, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MARFEE, Battle of (1641).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

MARGARET,
   Queen of the North: Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1387-1412;
   Sweden, 1388-1412.

   Margaret (called The Maid of Norway),
   Queen of Scotland, 1286-1290.

   Margaret of Anjou, and the Wars of the Roses.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

   Margaret of Navarre, or Marguerite d'Angouléme,
   and the Reformation in France.

      See PAPACY: A.D. 1521-1535;
      and NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563.

   Margaret of Parma and her Regency in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, and after.

{2088}

MARGHUSH.

      See MARGIANA.

MARGIANA.

   The ancient name of the valley of the Murghab or Moorghab
   (called the Margos). It is represented at the present day by
   the oasis now called Merv; was the Bactrian Mourn and the
   Marghush of the old Persians. It was inhabited by the
   Margiani.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

MARGRAVE.
MARQUIS.

   "This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, 'marked' Places, or
   Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of
   circumstances [the circumstances of the Germany of the 10th
   century, under Henry the Fowler]. It did not quite originate
   with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first
   recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his
   'Graf' (Count, 'Reeve,' 'G'reeve,' whom some think to be only
   'Grau,' Gray, or 'Senior,' the hardiest, wisest steel-gray man
   he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing
   watch and ward there: the post of difficulty, of peril, and
   naturally of honour too, nothing of a sinecure by any means.
   Which post, like every other, always had a tendency to become
   hereditary, if the kindred did not fail in fit men. And hence
   have come the innumerable Margraves, Marquises, and such like,
   of modern times; titles now become chimerical, and more or
   less mendacious, as most of our titles are."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The title derived from the old imperial office of markgrave
   [margrave], 'comes marchensis,' or count of the marches, had
   belonged to several foreigners who were brought into relation
   with England in the twelfth century; the duke of Brabant was
   marquess of Antwerp, and the count of Maurienne marquess of
   Italy; but in France the title was not commonly used until the
   seventeenth century, and it is possible that it came to
   England direct from Germany. … The fact that, within a
   century of its introduction into England, it was used in so
   unmeaning a designation as the marquess of Montague, shows
   that it had lost all traces of its original application."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 20, section 751._

      See MARCH; also, GRAF.

MARGUS, Treaty of.

   A treaty which Attila the Hun extorted from the Eastern Roman
   Emperor, Theodosius, A. D. 434,—called by Sismondi "the most
   shameful treaty that ever monarch signed." It gave up to the
   savage king every fugitive from his vengeance or his jealousy
   whom he demanded, and even the Roman captives who had escaped
   from his bonds. It promised, moreover, an annual tribute to
   him of 700 pounds of gold.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

MARHATTAS.

      See MAHRATTAS.

MARIA,
   Queen of Hungary, A. D. 1399-1437.

   Maria, Queen of Sicily, 1377-1402.

   Maria I., Queen of Portugal, 1777-1807.

   Maria II., Queen of Portugal, 1826-1853.

   Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and
   Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.

MARIA THERESA, The military order of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

MARIANA.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MARIANDYNIANS, The.

      See BITHYNIANS.

MARIANS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARICOPAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARIE ANTOINETTE,
   Imprisonment, trial and execution of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST);
      and 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

   Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's marriage to.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

   Marie de Medicis, The regency and the intrigues of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1630-1632.

   Marie.

      See, also, MARY.

MARIETTA, OHIO:
   The Settlement and Naming of the town.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

MARIGNANO, OR MELIGNANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MARINUS, Pope.

      See MARTIN.

MARIOLATRY, Rise of.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

MARION, Francis, and the partisan warfare in the Carolinas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and 1780-1781.

MARIPOSAN F AMIL Y, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

MARITIME PROVINCES.

   The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
   Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred
   to as the Maritime Provinces.

MARIUS AND SULLA, The civil war of.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARIZZA, Battle of the (1363).

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

MARJ DABIK, Battle of (1516).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MARK.

   A border.

      See MARCH, MARK.

MARK, The.

   "The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in
   its later form, the free village community, has been an
   accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for
   more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the
   writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken
   up by later English writers and given wide currency through
   the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been
   accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this
   side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become
   a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and
   important as has been its work, it is almost universally
   conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be
   the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough
   and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before
   all questions can be answered which this study brings to
   light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this
   subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political
   thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis
   forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern
   thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that
   in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are
   unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which
   they live. The free village community, as it is commonly
   understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history
   is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that
   reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.
{2089}
   But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable
   hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind
   of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was
   wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to
   conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,
   historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought
   tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who
   felt in this interpretation the influence of the German
   writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined
   boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen
   and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of
   families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal
   ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were
   composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support
   and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land
   within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having
   nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,
   until by continual expansion they either federated or
   coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in
   size covered England, internally differing only in minor
   details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark
   had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer
   in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's
   work, there was published the first of the series of volumes
   which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of
   the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were
   built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,
   but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."

      _C. McL. Andrews,
      The Old English Manor,
      pages 1-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapter 3, section 2._

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1)._

      See, also, MANOR.

MARKLAND.

      See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

MARKS, Spanish.

      See SPANISH COINS.

MARLBOROUGH, John Churchill, Duke of;
   and the fall of the English Whigs.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

   Campaigns.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 17101712;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

   ----------MAROCCO: Start--------

MAROCCO:
   Ancient.

      See MAURETANIA.

MAROCCO:
   The Arab conquest, and since.

   The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa
   (see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in
   698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn
   resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered,
   submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a
   facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they
   still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over
   into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of
   Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of
   their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on
   which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the
   Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the
   glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a
   reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the
   libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the
   learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike,
   who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the
   score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their
   greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than
   the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and
   allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own
   places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of
   their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The
   intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened
   monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions
   flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the
   general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in
   Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife
   between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth
   century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never
   afterwards appear in the history of the country except under
   the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed
   [11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which
   the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and
   again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th
   century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In
   the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the
   centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the
   declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its
   final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged
   themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of
   Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable
   that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the
   entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King
   Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the
   banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A.
   D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history,
   and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at
   Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the
   rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of
   civilizing the country, which from that period gradually
   relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years
   the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian
   family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed
   masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the
   earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out
   from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish
   affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by
   the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D.
   1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the
   subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the
   Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan.
   These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states,
   and brought about a great improvement in the position of
   Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in
   effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official,
   while possessing complete authority over those beneath him,
   must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme
   power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all
   things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution
   of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. …
   European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same
   mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric
   of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco,
   whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of
   Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."

      _H. E. M. Stutfield,
      El Maghreb,
      chapter 16._

      See, also, BARBARY STATES.

   ----------MAROCCO: End--------

{2090}

MARONITES, The.

      See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

MAROONS.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MARQUIS.

   See MARGRAVE.

MARRANA, The.

   An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a
   channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.,
      volume 2, page 50._

MARRANOS.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

MARRIAGE, Republican.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARRUCINIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

MARS' HILL.

      See AREOPAGUS.

MARSAGLIA, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

MARSCHFELD.

      See MARCHFELD.

MARSEILLAISE, The.
   Origin of the Song.
   Its introduction into Paris.

   In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which
   overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun
   in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of
   their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as
   volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and
   immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had
   planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

   Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from
   Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July.
   "This battalion has been described by every historian as a
   collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a
   great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles,
   where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their
   character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown
   that these Marseillais were picked men from the national
   guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained
   the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the
   city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on
   July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing
   the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The
   'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April
   24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of
   Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican,
   but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it
   was very sad that all the national war songs of France could
   not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated
   of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of
   the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle,
   who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,'
   and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable.
   The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night
   he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the
   following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous
   song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic.
   Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de
   Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre
   pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in
   Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced
   republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons
   la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking
   one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of
   France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles.
   … There are many legends on the origin of the
   'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by
   Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité
   sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is
   confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the
   time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de
   Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, page 114-115._

   A quite different but less trustworthy
   version of the story may be found in

      _A. de Lamartine
      History of the Girondists,
      book 16, section 26-30 (volume 1)._

   ----------MARSEILLES: Start--------

MARSEILLES:
   The founding of.

      See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539,
      and PHOCÆANS.

MARSEILLES: B. C. 49.
   Conquest by Cæsar.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

MARSEILLES: 10th Century.
   In the kingdom of Aries.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

MARSEILLES: 11th Century.
   The Viscounts of.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

MARSEILLES: 12th Century.
   Prosperity and freedom.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1792.
   The Marseillais sent to Paris, and their war-song.

      See MARSEILLAISE.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
   Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1795.
   Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
   The White Terror.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

   ----------MARSEILLES: End--------

MARSHAL, The.

      See CONSTABLE.

MARSHALL, John,
   and the Federal Constitution of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789;
      and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARSI, The.

      See SAXONS; also, FRANKS.

MARSIAN WAR, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

MARSIANS, The.

      See SABINES;
      also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

MARSIGNI, The.

   The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what
   is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany;
      Oxford translation, foot-note. _

MARSTON MOOR, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

MARTHA'S VINEYARD:
   Named by Gosnold.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MARTIN,
   King of Aragon, A. D. 1395-1410;

   King of Sicily, A. D. 1409-1410.

   Martin I., Pope, 649-655.

   Martin I., King of Sicily, 1402-1409.

   Martin II. (or Marinus I.), Pope, 882-884.

   Martin II., King of Sicily, 1409-1410.

   Martin III. (or Marinus II.), Pope, 942-946.

   Martin IV., Pope, 1281-1285.

   Martin V., Pope, 1417-1431 (elected by the Council of Constance).

{2091}

MARTLING MEN.

   In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political
   followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and
   were forming an alliance to that end with the political
   friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards
   called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New
   York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a
   long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state
   by the name of Martling Men."

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, page 230._

MARY
   (called Mary Tudor), Queen of England, A. D. 1553-1558.

   Mary of Burgundy, The Austrian marriage of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

   Mary II., Queen of England
   (with King William III., her consort), 1689-1694.

   Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1567.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548, to 1561-1568;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

   Mary.

      See, also, MARIE.

   ----------MARYLAND: Start--------

MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
   The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.
   An American palatinate.

   "Among those who had become interested in the London or
   Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir
   George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon
   the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by
   the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government
   of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a
   Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his
   religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in
   which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic
   church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no
   longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on
   him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the
   instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had
   adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The
   king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as
   a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created
   him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of
   intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws
   against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and
   cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his
   religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this;
   and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude
   and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land
   and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and
   every man might worship God according to his own heart, in
   peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on
   New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been
   interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship,
   he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few
   years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the
   name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see
   NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and
   soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing
   community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the
   south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the
   intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more
   probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in
   order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival
   within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities
   tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which,
   as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore
   refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of
   allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to
   accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to
   leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the
   settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded
   country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of
   the great bay, and determined there to found his principality.
   … He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I,
   who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne.
   Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by
   the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who
   desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members
   of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be
   issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before
   it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,
   and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who
   succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and
   estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and
   the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named
   'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."

      _J. McSherry,
      History of Maryland,
      introduction._

   "The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
   colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
   north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
   and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
   farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
   western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
   a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
   and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
   It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
   large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
   another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
   of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
   ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
   into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
   only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
   made absolute lord of the land and water within his
   boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
   peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
   martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
   justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
   officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
   erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
   titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
   England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
   the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
   impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
   could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
   according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
   the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
   'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
   the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
   Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
   colonists and their descendants were to remain English
   subjects. …
{2092}
   The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
   no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
   the people of the province. … This charter, by which
   Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
   community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
   hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
   abeyance, the charter was never revoked."

      _W. H. Browne,
      Maryland,
      chapter 2._

   The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is
   distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,
   which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as
   ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
   royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any
   bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of
   Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,
   held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,
   held, use, or enjoy."

      _J. L. Bozman,
      History of Maryland,
      volume 2, page. 11. _

      ALSO IN:
      _H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 62._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.
   The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.

   "Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for
   Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's
   plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,
   and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the
   foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were
   induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom
   they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were
   not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have
   been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so
   absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George
   Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had
   taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill
   repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of
   reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to
   take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the
   Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took
   over any minister of religion, nor for several years after
   Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On
   behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to
   Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits
   in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,
   to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who
   were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy
   no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission
   field where they were to look for no support from the
   proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It
   was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen
   adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands
   like others, from which they were to draw their support. …
   The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the
   lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20
   other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey
   these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,
   the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,
   a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being
   captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley
   and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After
   many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed
   from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in
   safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor
   in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they
   named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and
   celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her
   altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March
   25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were
   made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White
   at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the
   river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met
   Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over
   that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the
   savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then
   the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,
   emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For
   the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who
   had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a
   mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian
   town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had
   already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict
   justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the
   werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The
   Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the
   colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had
   gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with
   Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither
   attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the
   other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home
   in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name
   of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon
   at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were
   planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel
   was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a
   fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by
   the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of
   the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore
   and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent
   Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of
   Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too
   limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be
   reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share
   their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next
   year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the
   Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is
   preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the
   missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his
   arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,
   sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the
   original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's
   scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,
   and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less
   than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little
   colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of
   January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to
   attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was
   disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion
   was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as
   impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."

      _J. G. Shea,
      The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Bozman,
      History of Maryland,
      chapter 1_

      _W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapters 3-4._

{2093}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The troubles with Clayborne.

   William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the
   Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to
   trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The
   King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of
   English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild
   land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right
   there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real
   injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians
   generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so
   strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was
   soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend
   his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was
   unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,
   captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a
   rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble
   should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who
   had been in difficulties himself on account of his
   lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,
   however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once
   to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On
   his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the
   King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not
   only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a
   large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good
   deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse
   decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon
   all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to
   wait for better times."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Bozman,
      History of Maryland,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
   Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
   Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.

   The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the
   monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in
   Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its
   substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of
   the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644
   the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert
   commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the
   Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had
   begun to be active, since only three months later we find the
   Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard
   Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of
   Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while
   Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent
   Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the
   Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,
   but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party
   was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the
   most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and
   Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an
   effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers
   landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the
   government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the
   value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert
   returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.
   The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its
   supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute
   between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at
   least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out
   somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was
   brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in
   less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,
   1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing
   position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a
   fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.
   As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic
   priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges
   beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed
   his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a
   successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was
   a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two
   Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord
   Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest
   any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they
   accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman
   Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this
   protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also
   intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only
   acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to
   make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by
   a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The
   internal condition of the colony had now been substantially
   changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan
   party there had received an important addition. … A number
   of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves
   on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which
   was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of
   Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of
   Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration
   cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their
   settlement was important enough to be made into a separate
   county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed
   two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon
   140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of
   fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even
   that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled
   and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed
   to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding
   political views openly at variance with those of the
   Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent
   were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.
   But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that
   in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable
   body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the
   Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the
   proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
       chapter 5._

{2094}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
   The Act of Toleration.

   Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law
   of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration
   existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in
   the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.
   But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from
   the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or
   indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person
   whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus
   Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers
   supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am
   inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented
   edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the
   charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the
   earliest practice of the government presents the first, the
   official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649
   the third, and to advocates of a republican government the
   most important phasis, in the history of the general
   Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to
   take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.
   Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act
   Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever
   since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative
   annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to
   guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';
   to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to
   establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing
   between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,
   freedom as well as protection to all believers in
   Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every
   sort of reproach or ignominy."

      _G. L. Davis,
      The Daystar of American Freedom,
      chapters 4-7._

   "In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a
   compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.
   … It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,
   and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the
   age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had
   been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the
   foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's
   rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power
   was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked
   so soon as he was reinstated."

      _W. H. Browne,
      Maryland,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapter 8._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.
   In Puritan times, and after.

   "To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
   populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
   composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
   Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
   fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
   Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
   predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
   faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
   Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
   requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
   passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
   their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
   of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
   laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
   have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
   proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
   was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
   Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
   conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
   protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
   rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
   refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
   of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
   their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
   prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
   was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
   the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
   Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
   commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
   of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
   … Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
   settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
   attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
   Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
   time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
   when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
   however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
   Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
   Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
   Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
   inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
   flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
   fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
   Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
   from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
   England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
   ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
   relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
   Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
   Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
   ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
   and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
   Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
   toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
   Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
   did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
   expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
   proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
   Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
   recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
   to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
   laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
   obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
   in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
   solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
   expense of the lord proprietary.
{2095}
   In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
   Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
   the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
   the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
   species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
   removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
   attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
   Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
   gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
   at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
   supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
   proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
   succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
   Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
   would have been difficult to find at that time better
   governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
   just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
   well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
   foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
   stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
   toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Grahame,
      History of the United States (Colonial),
      book 3 (volume 1)._

      _D. R. Randall,
       A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6)._

      _W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapters 8-9._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
   Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
   Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
   The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
   Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
   Change of faith and restoration of his son.
   Intolerance revived.

   Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his
   government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly
   attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his
   charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a
   suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and
   jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and
   peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the
   error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its
   friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct
   to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost
   equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal
   authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to
   every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the
   honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to
   desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he
   had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than
   king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his
   jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,
   which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his
   descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were
   restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the
   legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy
   them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that
   province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the
   liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old
   administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of
   all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;
   they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of
   England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating
   new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to
   the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and
   good sense of the government in England did not set some
   bounds to their bigotry."

      _E. Burke,
      Account of the European Settlements in America,
      part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2)._

   "We may now place side by side the three tolerations of
   Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty
   years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before
   the law, and all support to churches or ministers was
   voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and
   included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held
   objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty
   years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,
   connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."

      _W. H. Browne,
       Maryland,
      chapter 11._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.
   King William's War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
   The founding of Baltimore.

   "Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen
   Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were
   founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at
   once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.
   … St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other
   waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the
   first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was
   the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and
   more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew
   off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined
   away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein
   slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on
   the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At
   least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,
   and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly
   existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In
   1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a
   convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act
   was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,
   whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the
   river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were
   bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.
   The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,
   and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken
   up."

      _W. H. Browne,
       Maryland,
      chapter 12._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War.

      See
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

{2096}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
   Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
   Mason and Dixon's line.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
   The end of proprietary and royal government.
   Formation and adoption of a state constitution.

   "In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered
   peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony
   enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The
   Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last
   was treated with forbearance. … The political power was
   vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and
   provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much
   under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs
   that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former
   instructions against independence. … The popular leaders
   determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll
   of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from
   Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of
   independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the
   counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,
   except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the
   decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,
   pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new
   government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously
   resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the
   Congress equally delegated by the people of the United
   Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,
   support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read
   the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,
   'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'
   Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag
   of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;
   the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the
   series of royal governors on Maryland soil."

      _R. Frothingham,
       The Rise of the Republic,
      pp. 525-527._

   "Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of
   August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a
   constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August
   this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of
   rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the
   constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections
   ordered to carry it into effect."

      J. McSherry,
      History of Maryland,
      chapter 10.

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
   Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
   Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
   chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
   Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
   Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.
   The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Secession activity.
   Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
   Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
   General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
   Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
   The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.
   Lee's second invasion.
   Gettysburg.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.
   Early's invasion.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.
   The founding of Johns Hopkins University.

     See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

   ----------MARYLAND: End----------

MARZOCCO.

   "'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone
   figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name
   shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be
   derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or
   aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      volume 4, page 103, foot-note._

MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MASKOUTENS,
MASCONTENS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.

MASNADA.

      See CATTANI.

MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MASON AND SLIDELL, The seizure of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

MASORETES,
MASSORETES
MASORETIC.

   When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language
   "the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth
   century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols
   which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the
   Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the
   great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance
   with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now
   taught."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 3._

   "Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more
   especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the
   Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their
   object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an
   eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so
   likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a
   Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the
   more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the
   Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time.
   Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher,
   commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth
   century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."

      _Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge._

{2097}

MASPIANS, The.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

   ----------MASSACHUSETTS: Start--------

MASSACHUSETTS:
   The Name.

   "The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first
   mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New
   England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears
   to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the
   country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the
   inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets
   River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in
   another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of
   Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the
   English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes
   the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small
   hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem,
   was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to
   his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word
   means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also,
   Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts
   charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways,
   to make sure of a description of the territory."

      _C. Deane,
      New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, page 342, footnote)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1602.
   The Bay visited by Gosnold.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1605.
   The Bay visited by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
   The Pilgrim Fathers.
   Whence and why they came to New England.

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
   The voyage of the Mayflower.
   The landing of the Pilgrims.
   The founding of Plymouth colony.

   The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after
   long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a
   patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and
   having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London
   who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for
   their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR
   SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of
   1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community,
   across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The
   means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
   company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number,
   required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster
   accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous
   minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in
   every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,'
   next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to
   teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons
   burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in
   July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being
   'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation
   at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the
   parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were
   pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month
   the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival
   there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons
   burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with
   their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the
   merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who
   were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there,
   to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about
   the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the
   contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the
   Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of
   their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely
   necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put
   to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well
   settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced
   too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships
   put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were
   made, and before the end of another week they started again;
   but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds,
   the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger
   of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
   Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel,
   and thus to send back those of the company whom such a
   succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known
   till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was
   owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At
   length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left
   Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November
   9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time
   well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102
   passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one
   man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males
   and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the
   colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them
   accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys
   and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19
   men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only
   half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the
   34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are
   known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are
   certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And
   whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
   in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never
   went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not
   however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under
   this instrument was abandoned.
{2098}
   The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to
   have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
   February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his
   associates; and this was more probably the authority under
   which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had
   known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the
   northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for
   New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the
   patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England,
   which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia
   Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course,
   with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's
   River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of
   their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition
   from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's
   voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on
   the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination
   exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was
   known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose
   (upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
   license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in
   the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of
   civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the
   farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to
   restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the
   well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as
   the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. …
   Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called
   above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
   hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter
   sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them
   soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This
   needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November
   11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and
   found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the
   village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they
   'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John
   Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed
   delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no
   inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a
   permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a
   comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought."
   Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor
   since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of
   the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the
   famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate
   mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been
   commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the
   honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John
   Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must
   have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not
   till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower
   was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and
   the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed
   till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the
   first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.'
   Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and
   by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship
   for a home on land."

      _F. B. Dexter,
      The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes)._

   "Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument
   founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and
   the success of its authors may afford a lesson to
   revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the
   guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and
   begin history again with the year one. These men had been
   wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We
   whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
   Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great
   Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having
   undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the
   Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage
   to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,
   do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of
   God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves
   together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and
   preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid;
   and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just
   and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and
   offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for
   the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due
   submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of
   plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor
   record of nobility. There are points in history at which the
   spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through
   the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing
   from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due
   submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws,
   for our better ordering and preservation. In this political
   covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration
   of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence
   was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
   France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening
   confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century,
   shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same
   moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link
   that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society
   firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free
   States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest,
   the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are
   not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social
   man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes
   of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and
   Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and
   worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for
   just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this
   have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      On the Foundation of the American Colonies
      (Lectures on the Study of History)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Bradford,
      History of Plymouth Plantation
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      4th series, volume 3), book 1._

      _Mourt's Relation,
      or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;
      edited by H. M. Dexter._

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{2099}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.
   The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.
   The Pierce patent.
   The naming of Plymouth.

   "The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when
   sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food.
   Within four months it carried off nearly half their number.
   Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February,
   and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or
   seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the
   dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the
   daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the
   unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with
   snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of
   those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little
   variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and
   the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and
   affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were
   interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial
   being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how
   the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and
   fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through
   the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to
   wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took
   the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In
   March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few
   natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly
   Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern
   coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a
   treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of
   the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54
   years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her
   homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which
   had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims
   to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of
   the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they
   had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after
   the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died.
   "Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac
   Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the
   colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48
   adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants
   in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an
   equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise.
   … Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come,
   to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome
   addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune,
   a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage
   of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The
   men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors
   who were still living. … Some were old friends of the
   colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the
   moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement.
   But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety
   and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a
   patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly
   known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or
   North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been
   transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of
   this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down
   without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily
   expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the
   Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained
   from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It
   was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and
   cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the
   understanding that it should be held in trust for the
   Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of
   land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a
   yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It
   granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk,
   fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the
   savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for
   their better government, and the same, by such officer or
   officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put
   in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist
   by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed
   for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox,
   the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando
   Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which
   the settlement has borne since its first year is not known.
   Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been
   given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that
   the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much
   circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for
   adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town
   they left in their native country, and they received many
   kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth'
   and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as
   equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated
   to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 5, and foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      chapters 9-16._

      _F. Baylies,
      Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth,
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

      _A. Young,
      Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.
   Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount,
   and other settlements.

   "During the years immediately following the voyage of the
   Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the
   shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers,
   Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from
   his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own
   account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some
   twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly,
   thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon
   got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to
   get back to England as best they could, and in this the
   Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same
   year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill
   understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn,
   Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and
   delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford
   disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of
   Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares
   that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.'
{2100}
   He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some
   thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and
   Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was
   naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as
   by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will
   probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625
   there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented
   white servants, and established himself on the site of the
   present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill
   suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off
   to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the
   site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There,
   according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and
   his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if
   they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman
   Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd
   Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled
   about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to
   have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common
   Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry
   England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which
   they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they
   taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum.
   This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the
   settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish.
   Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and
   presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other
   settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few
   scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of
   the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on
   Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the
   Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen
   were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and
   representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Old Planters about Boston Harbor
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878)._

      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan
      (Prince Society, 1883)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623.
   Grant to Robert Gorges on the Bay.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
   Plymouth Colony.
   Land allotments.
   Buying freedom from the adventurers at London.
   The new patent.

   "In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and
   the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to
   the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own
   charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann
   and Little James completed the list of those who are usually
   called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in
   September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the
   merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained
   at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time
   the company had worked together on the company lands, and,
   each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of
   that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the
   largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things,
   the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them)
   gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne
   perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all
   other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so
   assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the
   proportion of their number for that end. … This had very
   good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' …
   Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which
   was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a
   certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the
   contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of
   the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was
   committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne
   as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare
   begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the
   quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any
   had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore
   encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to
   the Governor to have some portion of land given them for
   continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well
   considered, their request was granted. And to every person was
   given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the
   towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were
   expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the
   right track, and the growing necessity for some other
   circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests."
   Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a
   good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any
   catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180
   persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine
   and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter
   part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the
   Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was
   discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers
   was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their
   enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to
   England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a
   composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a
   release from the seven years contract under which the
   colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having
   concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the
   purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation,
   for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the
   colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,
   Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the
   trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for
   their security. "In accordance with this agreement these
   gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and
   by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so
   extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs
   and other articles for export to England as within the
   prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and
   leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands.
   No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder
   in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that
   of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore,
   relieved their community from debt, and established on a
   permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. …
{2101}
   After the negotiations with the adventurers had been
   completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent
   from the New England Company conferring larger powers and
   defining their territorial limits. After three visits to
   England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured
   a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the
   Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England,
   enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries
   of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to
   William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New
   England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie
   within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly
   caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the
   river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and
   the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two
   lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the
   Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the
   mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a
   country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias
   Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."

      _W. T. Davis,
      Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
      chapter 2._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
   The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor
   and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

   "While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish
   their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the
   growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New
   England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester
   Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was
   established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did
   not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company
   made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from
   Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come
   to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was
   dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few
   others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there.
   Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in
   England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as
   Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company,
   not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one
   backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large
   grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to
   three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the
   Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New
   England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628].
   One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the
   following summer with a small company, assumed the government
   at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out
   exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was
   merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for
   another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become
   wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and
   political liberty alike were not only in danger but were
   doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party
   resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was
   dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester
   Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained
   incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,"
   March 4, 1629.

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 18._

   "This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under
   which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its
   affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell
   and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White
   was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the
   Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor,
   Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of
   Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to
   the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government
   of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the
   Company were to be held in a year, and others might be
   convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor,
   Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month
   or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two
   Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer
   to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company
   might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.'
   They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the
   terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such
   officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing
   of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse,
   repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and
   persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise
   the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said
   plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious
   liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to
   restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity
   to protect it."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   "In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the
   insertion of any condition which should fix the government of
   the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the
   advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition,
   but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in
   freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to
   those who held that in transferring the government to America
   the patentees broke faith with the Crown."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay;
      edited by N. B. Shurtleff,
      volume 1 (containing the Charter)._

      _S. F. Haven,
      Origin of the Company
      (Archœologia Americana, volume 3)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
   The immigration of the Governor and Company of
   Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.

   "Several persons, of considerable importance in the English
   nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the
   unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to
   remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading
   the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them
   without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that
   the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation,
   than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles,
   and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the
   company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the
   governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to
   those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the
   colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the
   future in New England.
{2102}
   An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on
   the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas
   Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that,
   on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March,
   with their persons and families, to embark for New England,
   for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and
   company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a
   general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned
   from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the
   government and the patent of the plantation should be
   transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was
   drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was
   holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers,
   who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the
   court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr.
   John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as
   being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent
   chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations
   were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists,
   and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready.
   Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for
   their leader, immediately set about making preparations for
   his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per
   annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella,
   one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an
   address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was
   drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor
   Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the
   Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship
   with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen
   deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other
   gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about
   840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from
   the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London.
   The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off
   Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day
   entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival,
   the governor, and several of the principal persons of the
   colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the
   purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They
   finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river
   (Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built
   there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected
   cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about
   the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service
   was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of
   thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On
   the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and
   fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown,
   afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop,
   Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into
   church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at
   Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question
   proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the
   gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and
   most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut
   (Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the
   spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its
   situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the
   isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before
   the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles
   above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and
   afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the
   ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by
   the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon
   acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the
   6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for
   the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for
   provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and
   they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."

      _J. B. Moore,
      Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth
      and Massachusetts Bay;
      part 2: Winthrop._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. C. Winthrop,
      Life and Letters of John Winthrop,
      volume 1, chapters 15-19,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _A. Young,
      Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay,
      chapters 14-19._

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
   The founding of Boston.

   "The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first
   located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called
   Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named
   Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among
   the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of
   Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was
   William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling
   above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan
   clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home
   in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English
   bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name,
   had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort
   which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,'
   and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East
   Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south,
   the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was
   probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly
   know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But
   scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among
   them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They
   began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly
   to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good
   William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their
   distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at
   Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account
   induced quite a number to remove at once; while others,
   wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of
   the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and
   Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at
   Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown
   was so general that at last only a few of the original
   settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority
   were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most
   influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with
   others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for
   himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court,
   Washington and School Streets.
{2103}
   Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died
   before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the
   chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor
   the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now
   become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to
   make a second change of location practicable, or even
   desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before
   high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The
   governor then removed the frame of his new house from
   Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land
   between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One
   of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane
   is easily traced. The people first located themselves within
   the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and
   Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the
   southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became
   a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of
   the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new
   emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all
   the town south of this district was called. In time a third
   district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was
   called the West End. And in the old city these general
   divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first
   name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing
   always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks,
   had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut
   Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But
   when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a
   place of that name in England, and because they had determined
   beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the
   second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas
   Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground
   now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. …
   Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town
   market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal
   landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground
   and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of
   Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town.
   From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon,
   and Fort Hills."

      _S. A. Drake,
      Around the Hub,
      chapter 2._

   "The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop
   presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was
   passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count
   it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was
   specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its
   association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of
   Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and
   her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still
   preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of
   the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is
   nowhere given."

      _R. C. Winthrop,
      Boston Founded
      (Memorial History of Boston;
      edited by J. Winsor,
      volume 1), pages 116-117._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor
      (Mem. History, pages 63-86)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
   The Puritan Theocracy and its intolerance.

   "The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no
   condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what
   under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing,
   the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the
   will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first
   Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body
   of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it
   was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man
   shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but
   such as are members of some of the churches within the limits
   of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for
   the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been
   accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon
   well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown,
   the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and
   they had a right to choose according to their own rules the
   associates who should help them to occupy and govern it.
   Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and
   citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained
   to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They
   established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to
   Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which
   should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation,
   all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been
   to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all
   intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart
   king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures
   should be their guide both in weighty matters of general
   legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of
   daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious
   liberty as we understand it."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 4._

   "The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and
   administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New
   Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the
   Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it
   was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any
   part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as
   King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their
   Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be
   identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian
   believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of
   opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles,
   should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the
   commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty
   of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within
   Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the
   letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in
   any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the
   colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt
   the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that,
   till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should
   be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results
   of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts.
   This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit
   of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. …
{2104}
   That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the
   Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a
   due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,'
   furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and
   all the bright things in their early history. The young people
   educated among us ought to read our history by that simple,
   plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not
   free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid
   subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through
   and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences
   of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the
   Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was
   based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended
   their State should be also."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Lowell Institute Lectures
      on the Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 50-55._

   "Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could
   be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the
   town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly
   somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this
   insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which
   they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the
   head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes
   and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this
   hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were
   learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds
   burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs
   and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not
   only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to
   Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."

      _B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      _P. Oliver,
      The Puritan Commonwealth,
      chapter 2, part 1._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635.
   Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and
   the French on the Maine coast.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
   Threatening movements in England.
   The Charter demanded.

   "That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile
   eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all
   surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be
   that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a
   charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the
   Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king
   thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen
   of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their
   minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might
   divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes.
   Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the
   Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island;
   and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be
   sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home
   in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may
   have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts
   charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors.
   But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to
   present the case in a new light. The young colony was not
   languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought
   mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had
   begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical
   and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one.
   It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon
   Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles
   regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite
   justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so.
   Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics
   from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their
   tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously
   pressing their territorial claims."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 3._

   In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …
   removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special
   commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,
   and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of
   the highest officers of State, were invested with full power
   to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates
   and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …
   to revoke all charters and patents which had been
   surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties
   prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been
   governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of
   the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver
   it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it
   home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return
   any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of
   the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was
   brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that
   the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new
   governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the
   laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the
   magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to
   other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,
   poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,
   all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously
   declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:
   'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if
   not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this
   declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates
   should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be
   men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon
   emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might
   remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his
   associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by
   religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A
   change had come over the character of the great Plymouth
   council for the colonization of New England," which now
   schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its
   general charter, on the condition that the vast territory
   which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and
   others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in
   severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At
   the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto
   was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At
   the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in
   England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced
   against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood
   outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.
{2105}
   The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New
   Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of
   these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to
   redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many
   different humours,' took the government of New England into
   his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as
   governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and
   ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard
   of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had
   thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they
   no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their
   thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making
   ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the
   Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1)._

      _ALSO IN:
      T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.
   The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635; and 1636.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637.
   The migration to Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
   The banishment of Roger Williams.

   "The intolerance of England had established the New England
   colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in
   their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the
   unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at
   Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous,
   having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to
   have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in
   questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his
   sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of
   toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called,
   state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was
   impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to
   Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to
   the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the
   assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its
   choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where
   he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to
   Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his
   congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of
   land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives.
   His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his
   satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over.
   But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of
   the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete
   separation from the Church of England, and denounced
   compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.
   Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest
   extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of
   the people, and had no right to protect the people against
   itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as
   disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635,
   Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions
   were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice
   was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain
   the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be
   dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the
   court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed
   to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to
   depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks.
   The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their
   pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of
   New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to
   oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much
   taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a
   large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered
   round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the
   Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to
   ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to
   arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he
   had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory
   of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

      _A. Doyle,
      The American Colonies,
      chapter 2._

   "His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the
   holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air
   to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common
   earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was
   because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among
   whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and
   seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their
   community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of
   truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was
   not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his
   friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of
   his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be
   revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his
   sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of
   Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of
   gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities,
   and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of
   having procured his sentence, there was no private feud
   between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious
   persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.'
   Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of
   his life and conduct, to have been one of the most
   disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and
   heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says,
   'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their
   judgment led them to afflict me.'"

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Knowles,
      Memoir of Roger Williams,
      chapters 3-5._

      _E. B. Underhill,
      introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution'
      (Hansard Knollys Society)._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

{2106}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
   Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

   "The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian
   controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously
   near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts
   colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a
   time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable
   and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the
   interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously
   enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634,
   in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission.
   Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold
   spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak
   husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no
   ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her
   brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself
   again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here
   for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable
   woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and
   sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman
   question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than
   it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who
   was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years
   she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did
   likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a
   weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of
   Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over
   one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by
   nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and
   in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of
   it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she
   had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to
   inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian
   means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation
   to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external
   duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal,
   spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned
   construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by
   faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was
   understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by
   a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for
   outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or
   censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard,
   according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her
   admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that
   Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr.
   Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the
   ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the
   rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These
   reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing
   brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching
   inflammable material. … As the contention extended it
   involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and
   all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these
   five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be
   sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and
   leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly
   opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending
   influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come
   over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at
   the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy.
   "Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then
   the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him
   in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage
   counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two
   other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a
   majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt
   emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome
   by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of
   the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November,
   1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later
   at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long
   Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New
   Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were
   disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined;
   8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had
   asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a
   limitation of time within which they must do it. The more
   estimable and considerable of them apologized and were
   received back."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Lowell Institute Lectures on the
      Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 95-100._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 2._

      _Ecclesiastical History of New England
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      series 1, volume 9)._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of Anne Hutchinson
      (Library of American Biographies,
      new series, volume 6)._

      _J. Anderson,
      Memorable Women of Puritan Times,
      volume 1, pages 185-220._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
   The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

   The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,
   in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon
   what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].
   Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the
   first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting
   here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original
   meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn
   Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which
   it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the
   situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until
   it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such
   'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all
   unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged
   to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this
   feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters
   had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably
   in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The
   Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was
   bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question
   of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could
   decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning
   point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge
   Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on
   its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,
   eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and
   all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole
   mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the
   language of one of the leading divines who figured in that
   Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'
{2107}
   The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then
   somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual
   activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found
   ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John
   Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of
   Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental
   soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It
   was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of
   promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely
   acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the
   conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body
   of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the
   magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so
   held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some
   of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and
   patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some
   gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses
   of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some
   chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts
   and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical
   faction,—one of those most active in the work of
   repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,
   intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate
   that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.
   It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—
   the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an
   approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a
   theological glacier then slowly settled down upon
   Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly
   one hundred and fifty years."

      _C. F. Adams,
      Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,
      pages 10-59._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641.
   Introduction of Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639.
   The first printing press set up.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.
   The end of the Puritan exodus.
   Numerical growth and political development.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641.
   Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642.
   The first Public School law.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.
   The Confederation of the Colonies.
   The growth of Plymouth.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.
   Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
   The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

   "There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who
   disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to
   members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New
   England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented
   in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of
   this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick,
   and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first
   sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems
   conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was
   nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical
   moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents
   which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil
   war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the
   leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of
   Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they
   simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised
   citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering
   wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of
   Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and
   the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to
   start for England with his grievances, the magistrates
   overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the
   parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that
   Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that
   a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule
   there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a
   crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The
   signers of this petition were the same who had signed the
   petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more
   heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found
   their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists
   sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart
   their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of
   the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's
   Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his
   friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of
   churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization
   of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was
   embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the
   Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the
   powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of
   magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid
   this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was
   adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the
   theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in
   Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the
   deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John
   Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Mather,
      Magnalia Christi Americana,
      book 5, part 2._

      _B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
   Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.

   "Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with
   Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
   fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
   her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
   useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
   of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
   loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
   Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
   ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
   approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
   approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
   received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
   are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
   pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
   refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
   royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
   wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
{2108}
   The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
   terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
   be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
   by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
   that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
   Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
   under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
   this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
   wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
   was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
   force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
   that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
   them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
   not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
   was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
   Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
   colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
   disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
   of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
   'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
   Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
   people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
   were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
   to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
   world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
   the lord protector was respectfully declined."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.
   The absorption of Maine.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution of the Quakers.

   "In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from
   Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,
   arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once
   known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were
   'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at
   once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as
   they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into
   the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,
   and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.
   They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently
   without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor
   Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and
   women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and
   contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their
   'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which
   they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year
   closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,
   "laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the
   Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;
   Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon
   first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other
   ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,
   their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these
   things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,
   swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast
   getting more business than they could attend to. It was then
   determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a
   law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,
   urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been
   banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread
   penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson
   and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,
   1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott
   pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of
   October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a
   drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and
   Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind
   was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.
   She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and
   valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now
   was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott
   again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a
   felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most
   pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no
   end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were
   whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished
   in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to
   death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and
   promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my
   testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of
   this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the
   succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or
   Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The
   death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought
   confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will
   this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott
   found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence
   Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the
   sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the
   prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,
   much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in
   England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately
   restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England
   (September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent
   from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott
   [the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],
   commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned
   in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This
   ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the
   Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 36._

   "Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have
   assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the
   deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition
   in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …
   had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal
   demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The
   general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under
   the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was
   ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was
   dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of
   relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the
   stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of
   the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had
   opened the gates of mercy."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule,
      pp. 477-479._

{2109}

   While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,
   "the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,
   recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these
   dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so
   far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they
   had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger
   Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full
   accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.
   'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only
   declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning
   the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal
   condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are
   'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only
   opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all
   desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be
   punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be
   respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and
   Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,
   threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which
   forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus
   protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed
   his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated
   colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …
   Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 5.

      _R. P. Hallowell,
      The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.
   The Halfway Covenant.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
   Under the Restored Monarchy.
   The first collision with the crown.

   "In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his
   ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the
   accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General
   Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In
   the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,
   together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,
   the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received
   in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression
   of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions
   of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and
   something seemed to forebode an early collision with the
   crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a
   declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and
   published. In this document the people affirmed their right
   'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and
   representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
   their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior
   and inferior, and point out their power and places; to
   exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,
   all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;
   to defend themselves by force of arms against every
   aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,
   any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the
   country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
   legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of
   Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the
   drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was
   celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the
   colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;
   and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by
   those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion
   was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,
   with the charter, an independent government in undiminished
   force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In
   the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to
   moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to
   England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to
   convince the king of the loyalty of the people of
   Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their
   present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor
   the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'
   the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,
   1662. In England they were courteously received by king
   Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a
   confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past
   offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the
   irregularities which had been complained of in the government;
   directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;
   the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of
   justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to
   all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of
   the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the
   allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the
   booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the
   manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king
   proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.
   With them the question of obedience became a question of
   freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to
   divide the colony until the establishment of actual
   independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately
   with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to
   do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America
   "that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the
   affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.
   The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a
   committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe
   keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to
   give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.
   Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,
   except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about
   five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by
   three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They
   were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch
   settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile
   to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to
   determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and
   matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to
   'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the
   peace and security of the country, according to their good and
   sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George
   Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.
{2110}
   At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal
   warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the
   assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.
   Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On
   the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of
   affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was
   agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve
   against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should
   be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,
   being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by
   the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not
   vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not
   members of the church.' Before the session closed,
   Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of
   complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited
   address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the
   commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they
   were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could
   call in question "the privilege of government within
   themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to
   hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston
   merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor
   who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,
   any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully
   departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy
   of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor
   Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We
   have already furnished our views in writing [said the General
   Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare
   our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was
   followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with
   the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with
   his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and
   thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good
   government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,
   and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

      _G. L. Austin,
      History of Massachusetts,
      chapter 4._

      _Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 4, part 2._

      See, also,
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
   The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.

   "Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,
   there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could
   England have been so safely defied. … The discord between
   the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the
   wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of
   Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal
   followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in
   1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the
   debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In
   March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De
   Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the
   Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during
   these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not
   molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during
   which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …
   With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,
   and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon
   Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for
   injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the
   heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of
   Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,
   reserving one third of the product of the customs for
   themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under
   the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in
   the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of
   complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions
   relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these
   questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its
   share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to
   feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and
   manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the
   American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental
   ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to
   carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now
   appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to
   act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;
   and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was
   chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to
   Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing
   that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering
   them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report
   upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it
   was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian
   war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The
   repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles
   was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and
   they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as
   to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,
   their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett
   was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his
   contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but
   an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been
   difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from
   bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to
   make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever
   knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision
   had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy
   concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they
   be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their
   instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the
   General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and
   having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the
   territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …
   The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the
   two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;
   and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a
   doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And
   now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in
   all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to
   the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250
   pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of
   Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never
   paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it
   made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord
   Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight
   which was never forgiven.
{2111}
   Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other
   matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the
   attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his
   opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the
   spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors
   alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her
   patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments
   and injuries which she had continually practised on her
   neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised
   that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.
   Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now
   saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court
   ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but
   perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms
   were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the
   clergy were determined upon those matters touching their
   authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the
   emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population
   changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been
   the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of
   Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the
   opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had
   lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations
   were no longer united in support of the policy of their
   pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,
   while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of
   this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to
   which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the
   Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.
   The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course
   of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its
   destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He
   declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue
   laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he
   hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other
   colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.
   There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of
   annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was
   hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made
   a series of reports to the government which seem to have
   produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.
   In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and
   auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …
   Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by
   the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles
   might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution
   of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became
   impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen
   agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar
   tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were
   urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the
   stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to
   alterations in the qualifications required for the admission
   of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the
   king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt
   at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation
   would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and
   Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo
   warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration
   promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter
   should be restored with only such changes as the public
   welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political
   sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The
   magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:
   they saw that a breach with England must destroy all
   safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to
   the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove
   against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;
   they felt that the loss of their importance would be
   'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's
   kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to
   resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the
   church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and
   guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected
   the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain
   Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays
   as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon
   the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that
   no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical
   reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of
   'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,
   1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and
   plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time
   allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment
   was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan
   Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang
   from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
   and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a
   priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the
   government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.
   Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it
   must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
   without."

      _Brooks Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 6._

   "December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
   the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
   James for the government of New England."

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
      chapter 13._

      C. Deane,
      _The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
      (Memorial History of Boston,
      volume 1, pages 329-382)._

      _Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 5._

      See, also,
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.
   King Philip's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.
   The severance of New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

{2112}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
   The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.

   "With the charter were swept away representative government,
   and every right and every political institution reared during
   half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the
   model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh
   despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched
   misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this
   arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon
   a people of English race, who had been independent and
   self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own
   pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had
   promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the
   intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against
   taxation without representation, and he awakened a like
   resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed
   to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst
   of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the
   old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for
   renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who
   resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty
   and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by
   forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for
   the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in
   courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people
   and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from
   unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready
   to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.
   Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a
   proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without
   apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the
   signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people
   poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at
   the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,
   merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of
   Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,
   and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley
   were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the
   captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the
   guns of the fort, and a provisional government was
   established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary
   were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon
   went back a prisoner to England."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3)._

      _The Andros Tracts;
      edited by w. H. Whitmore
      (Prince Society, 1868)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
   The procuring of the new Charter.
   The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
   The absorption of Plymouth.

   A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship
   from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation
   of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body
   of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from
   their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified
   that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was
   published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the
   representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met
   at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be
   forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners
   but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions
   were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the
   unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they
   could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many
   opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was
   resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be
   continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious
   of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used
   prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase
   Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took
   place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with
   the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance
   that he would remove Andros from the government of New England
   and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious
   for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges,
   under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent
   applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the
   wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent
   judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first
   a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of
   Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional
   privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of
   Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the
   reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of
   New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies
   opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a
   grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But
   before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been
   acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was
   prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to
   be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the
   king, continuing the government of the colony under the old
   charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and
   his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the
   trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir
   Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed,
   and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of
   Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of
   chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of
   the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the
   agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to
   relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter,
   and "application was made for a new grant, which should
   confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in
   addition as the experience of the people had taught them would
   be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the
   affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the
   attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to
   be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to
   attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with
   Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that
   Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should
   be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former
   more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought
   about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence
   averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was
   objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the
   powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king.
   The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents
   were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as
   plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were
   unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty
   would settle the country without them, and they might take
   what would follow.'
{2113}
   Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would
   submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the
   king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather
   opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter
   was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories
   of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther
   east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were
   to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary,
   appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the
   people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last
   Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw
   fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to
   represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was
   conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of
   forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least
   forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the
   oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of
   the province and their children were entitled to the liberties
   of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was
   secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a
   negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without
   his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his
   sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and
   if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no
   effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy
   taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial
   law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an
   requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a
   far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It
   effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of
   government, the powers of the people, and the entire
   foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a
   new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown
   was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692,
   that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor
   of the new province."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Whitmore,
      The Inter-Charter Period
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 2)._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 13._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War.
   Temporary conquest of Acadia.
   Disastrous expedition against Quebec.
   Threatened attack by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its beginning.

   "The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all
   other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely
   rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a
   hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances
   witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of
   New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three
   or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished
   for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more
   than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been
   three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime.
   At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter
   was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in
   feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of
   proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and
   other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from
   President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious
   Providences,' in which that influential person related
   numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with
   the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton
   Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A
   poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious
   children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed
   to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted
   and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took
   the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she
   dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his
   credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his
   most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. …
   Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable
   Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a
   collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not
   only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it
   obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may
   be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the
   more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. …
   Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem
   which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a
   separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of
   talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but
   avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his
   parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards,
   there had been angry disputes about the election of a
   minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and
   relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth
   Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A
   niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His
   neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter
   named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few
   other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or
   thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about
   the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and
   used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and
   practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those
   which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They
   forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural
   outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable
   of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they
   interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed.
   The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and
   baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery
   was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children'
   assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring
   ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a
   prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children
   performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation
   by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the
   next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was
   exercised.
{2114}
   It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer.
   For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to
   an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless
   by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of
   Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half
   negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from
   Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good
   was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been
   prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her
   second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her
   reputation was not good, and for some time she had been
   bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba,
   whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was
   afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr.
   Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and
   Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then
   thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for
   trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out
   against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the
   latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same
   Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of
   Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with
   diabolical practices."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. W. Upham,
      Salem Witchcraft,
      part 3 (volume 2)._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Annals of Witchcraft in New England._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its culmination.

   "Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of
   Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible
   shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her,
   too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and
   strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one
   of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the
   Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would
   not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked
   thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once
   the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into
   prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May,
   Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George
   Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good
   people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the
   numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then
   brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor
   (Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been
   accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there
   was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on
   the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd
   of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one
   of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a
   new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor
   Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney,
   Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn
   in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka
   Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were
   brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to
   death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted
   by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits,
   and others made great outcries; and the popular
   dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to
   the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of
   Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated
   Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to
   die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch,
   and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused,
   and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that
   if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;'
   which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was
   choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their
   innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of
   August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend
   George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard,
   George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by
   some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's
   Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly
   obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of
   witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a
   witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing
   witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do
   it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was
   a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and
   brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own
   grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony
   of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and
   sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on
   the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister
   Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's
   Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there
   was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as
   he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed
   the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no
   Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding
   his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel
   of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the
   accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge
   against him. What could be done with him? It was found that
   for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to
   death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints
   were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the
   ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him,
   till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff
   with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such
   cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people
   to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in
   this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were
   carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great
   concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring
   villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and
   singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or
   pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no
   leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was
   consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them,
   said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell
   hanging there!' Sad indeed!
{2115}
   Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were
   condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred
   more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had
   acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed.
   … It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be
   spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a
   better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the
   bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and
   many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The
   juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than
   the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently
   seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the
   church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other
   words, the better class of church members were in danger! At
   the January session, only three were convicted, and they were
   reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and
   said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring,
   Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all
   who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The
   excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil
   work was done."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. P. Fowler, editor,
      Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's
      "More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.)._

      _C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,
      Historical Sketch of Salem,
      chapter 2._

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.

   "On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight
   after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives
   of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their
   minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance
   against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions
   that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue.
   The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers,
   that the people might be led in the right way as to the
   witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established
   a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of
   the following year. This interval gave the public mind
   security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the
   place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted
   independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem,
   six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated
   the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but
   as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from
   the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand
   jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against
   whom bills were found through the testimony on which others
   had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The
   people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes
   regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the
   remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the
   judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on
   a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in
   which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem.
   Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves
   that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of
   wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the
   abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

   "It was long before the public mind recovered from its
   paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the
   tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it
   were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all
   the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the
   bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical
   faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons;
   the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the
   universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and
   philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the
   utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of
   the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with
   the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr.
   Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief
   and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to
   condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the
   violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to
   the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had
   encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other
   men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became
   the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of
   being the place of the transactions.'"

      _C. W. Upham,
      Salem Witchcraft,
      volume 2, supplement._

   "The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless
   deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that
   dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where
   their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or
   others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the
   younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or
   imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own
   lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between
   neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them,
   cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by
   hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a
   frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate
   they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their
   hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. …
   In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance
   it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all
   others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into
   confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died
   protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy,
   though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives
   of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the
   character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great
   many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."

      _J. R. Lowell,
      Witchcraft
      (Among My Books, series 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. M. Beard,
      Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1703-1711.
   Queen Anne's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1704.
   The first Newspaper.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1722-1725.
   Renewed War with the northeastern Indians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2116}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.
   The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755.
   Expedition against Fort Beau Séjour in Nova Scotia.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
   Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
   The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.

   "It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French
   in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws
   more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once
   threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the
   custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant
   him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching
   for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general
   search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter,
   by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where
   contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A
   special search-warrant was one in which the name of the
   suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to
   search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was
   intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the
   use of such special warrants there was not much danger of
   gross injustice or oppression. … But the general
   search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called
   because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by
   giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It
   was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might
   fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and
   goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was
   therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had
   been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a
   statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in
   the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in
   England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed.
   There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such
   search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of
   Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied.
   James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general,
   with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from
   government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view
   of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office
   and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of
   Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A
   large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a
   cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in
   the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or
   what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston.
   Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one
   of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the
   writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took
   five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches
   of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question
   at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional
   relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the
   bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the
   Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were
   bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in
   making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly
   and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone
   pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it
   was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was
   present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child
   Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved
   his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers
   of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed
   by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to
   the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house
   officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into
   warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been
   smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property
   to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the
   owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their
   doors and windows, and thus the officers were often
   successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in
   coming to aid them."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Tudor,
      Life of James Otis,
      chapters 5-7._

      _F. Bowen,
      Life of James Otis
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768.
   The Circular Letter to other colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre."
   Removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.
   The Boston patriots threatened.
   Virginia roused to their support.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The coming of the Tea Ships.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770; and 1772-1773.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1773.
   Destruction of Tea at Boston.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
   Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

{2117}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
   Organization of an independent Provisional Government.
   The Committee of Safety.
   Minute-men.

   "Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
   General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
   by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected
   to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves
   into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October,
   adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and
   calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary.
   It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be
   held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were
   called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive
   authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with
   large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee
   of Supplies."

      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      page 41._

   Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of
   Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren
   and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj.
   White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson
   of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who
   declined) a complete and effective administration of
   government, entirely independent of royal authority, was
   brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton,
   William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were
   added to the committee.

      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      page 389._

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston under siege.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Washington in command at Cambridge.
   British evacuation of Boston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).
   Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.

   "Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of
   the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their
   session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style
   of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people
   and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in
   dating official papers, the particular year of the king was
   omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in
   May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the
   people of the several towns in the province were advised to
   give instructions to their respective representatives, to be
   chosen for the following political year, on the subject of
   independence. It is not contended that this was the first
   instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for
   North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates
   to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and
   Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination
   by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though
   a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed
   their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the
   towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly
   every instance the instructions to their representatives were
   favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 3, chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).
   The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.
   Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST),
      to 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   Alliance with France.
   Treason of Arnold.
   The war in the south.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1783.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1779.
   Framing and adoption of a State Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1781.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785.
   Western territorial claims
   and their cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.
   Settlement of land claims with New York.
   The cession of western New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
   The Shays Rebellion.

   "The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of
   the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the
   Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of
   lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable
   to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land
   taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak.
   Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the
   State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great
   public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and
   citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private
   creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all.
   Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and
   his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's
   hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the
   county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court
   officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the
   high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost
   attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature
   annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But
   the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of
   resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And
   herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of
   malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the
   sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no
   court could be held. … This first success of the
   Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order
   throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in
   stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the
   authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching
   troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted;
   for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the
   emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic
   citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough
   to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command,
   was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had
   more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his
   followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised
   and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil
   order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions
   not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated
   with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a
   re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest
   pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life
   for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran
   Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity
   and love of popular applause."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      _J. G. Holland,
      History of West Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18._

      _M. A. Green,
      Springfield, 1636-1886,
      chapter 14._

      _J. E. A. Smith,
      History of Pittsfield, 1734-1800,
      chapters 21-22._

{2118}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1788.
   Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The founding of Amherst College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1820.
   The district of Maine erected into a distinct State.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1820.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.
   Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.
   Butler and Baltimore.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1889.
   The founding of Clark University.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1889.

   ----------MASSACHUSETTS: End----------

MASSACRES.
   Of Glenco.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

MASSACRES:
   Of the Mamelukes (1811).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

MASSACRES:
   Of the Mountain Meadows (1857).

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MASSACRES:
   Of St. Bartholomew's Day.

MASSACRES:
      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572.

MASSACRES:
   Of St. Brice's Day (1002).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

MASSACRES:
   Of September, 1792, in the Paris prisons.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

MASSACRES:
   Of the Shiites.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MASSACRES:
   The Sicilian Vespers (1282).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

MASSAGETÆ, The.

      See SCYTHIANS.

MASSALIANS, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

MASSALIOTS.

   The people of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

MASSENA, Marshal, Campaigns of.

   See FRANCE:
   A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
   1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
   1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) and (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
   1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
   1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER);
   1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
   and SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

MASSILIA.

   The ancient name of Marseilles.

      See PHOCÆANS.

MASSIMILIANO, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1512-1515.

MASSORETES.

   See MASORETES.

MASULIPATAM, English capture of (1759).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

MATAGUAYAS, The.

   See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MATELOTAGE.

   See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

MATHER, Cotton, and the Witchcraft excitement.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

MATHER, Increase, and the new Massachusetts Charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

MATILDA, Donation of the Countess.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

MATRONA, The.

   The ancient name of the river Marne.

MATRONALIA, The.

   An ancient Roman festival, celebrated on the Calends of March,
   in memory of the intervention of the Sabine matrons, to make
   peace between their Sabine kinsmen and their Roman husbands.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See ROME: THE RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN.

MATTHIAS,
   Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1612-1619.

   Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 1457-1490.

MATTIACI, The.

   The Mattiaci were an ancient German tribe friendly to Rome.
   They inhabited a region in Nassau, about Wiesbaden.

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

      See, also, MOGONTIACUM.

MAUREGATO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 783-788.

   ----------MAURETANIA: Start--------

MAURETANIA.
MAURETANIANS.
MOORS.

      See NUMIDIANS.

MAURETANIA:
   Under the Romans.

      See AFRICA: THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

MAURETANIA: A. D. 374-398.
   Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

      See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

MAURETANIA:
   Conquest by the Vandals. See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

MAURETANIA:
   Mahometan Conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

MAURETANIA:
   Mediæval and Modern History.

      See MAROCCO;
      also, BARBARY STATES.

   ----------MAURETANIA: End--------

MAURICE,
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 582-602.

   Maurice, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau,
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces (Netherlands), 1587-1625.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585, to 1621-1633.

   Maurice of Saxony, The dishonorable exploits of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

MAURIENNE, Counts of.

   The earliest title of the princes of the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

MAURITANIANS.

   See MAURETANIA.

MAURITIUS, or the Isle of France, English acquisition of the (1810).

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
   also, INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MAURITIUS RIVER.

   The name given by the Dutch to the Hudson River.

MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.

   See CARIANS.

MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN.

      See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

MAVROVALLACHIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 12TH CENTURY.

MAXEN, Capitulation of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

MAXIMA CÆSARIENSIS.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

MAXIMIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 286-305.

{2119}

MAXIMILIAN, Emperor of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

   Maximilian I., Archduke of Austria, King of the Romans,
   A. D. 1486-1493;
   Germanic Emperor, 1493-1519.

   Maximilian II., Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary
   and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1564-1576.

MAXIMIN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 235-238.

MAXIMUS, Revolt of.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

MAXYANS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

MAY, Cape
MEY, Cape:
   The Name.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

MAY LAWS, The German.

       See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

MAY LAWS, The Russian, of 1882.

      See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

MAYAS, The, and their early civilization.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

MAYENCE.

      See MENTZ.

MAYFLOWER, The Voyage of the.

   See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

MAYNOOTH, Siege of.

   The castle of Maynooth, held by the Irish in the rebellion of
   1535, was besieged by the English, stormed and taken, March 23
   of that year, and twenty-six of its defenders hanged. The
   rebellion soon collapsed.

      _J. A. Fronde,
      History of England,
      chapter 8._

MAYNOOTH GRANT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1844.

MAYO, Lord, The Indian administration and the assassination of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

   "The Mayor of the Palace is met with in all the Frankish
   kingdoms. … The mayors were at first merely the first
   superintendents, the first administrators of the interior of
   the palace of the king; the chiefs whom he put at the head of
   his companions, of his leudes, still united around him. It was
   their duty to maintain order among the king's men, to
   administer justice, to look to all the affairs, to all the
   wants, of that great domestic society. They were the men of
   the king with the leudes; this was their first character,
   their first state. Now for the second. After having exercised
   the power of the king over his leudes, his mayors of the
   palace usurped it to their own profit. The leudes, by grants
   of public charges and fiefs, were not long before they became
   great proprietors. This new situation was superior to that of
   companions of the king; they detached themselves from him, and
   united in order to defend their common interests. According as
   their fortune dictated, the mayors of the palace sometimes
   resisted them, more often united with them, and, at first
   servants of the king, they at last became the chiefs of an
   aristocracy, against whom royalty could do nothing. These are
   the two principal phases of this institution: it gained more
   extension and fixedness in Austrasia, in the family of the
   Pepins, who possessed it almost a century and a half, than
   anywhere else."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

MAYORUNA,
BARBUDO, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MAYPO, Battle of (1818).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

MAZACA.

   "Mazaca [the capital city of ancient Cappadocia] was situated
   at the base of the great volcanic mountain Argaeus (Argish),
   about 13,000 feet high. … The Roman emperor Tiberius changed
   the name of Mazaca to Caesareia, and it is now Kaisariyeh on
   the Kara Su, a small stream which flows into the Halys (Kizil
   Ermak)."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 22._

MAZARIN, Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1659-1661.

MAZARINE BIBLE, The.

   See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

MAZARQUIVER, Siege of (1563).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

MAZES.

      See LABYRINTHS.

MAZOR.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MAZZINI, Joseph, and the revolutionary movements in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

MEADE, General George G.:
   Command of the Army of the Potomac.
   Battle of Gettysburg, and after.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
      and (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MEAL-TUB PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

MEANEE, Battle of (1843).

   See SCINDE.

MEAUX, Siege of.

   The city of Meaux, on the Marne, in France, was vigorously
   besieged for seven months by Henry V. of England, but
   surrendered on the 10th of May, 1422.

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapters 249-259._

   ----------MECCA: Start--------

MECCA:
   Rise of Mahometanism.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: 609-632.

MECCA: A. D. 692.
   Siege by the Omeyyads.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

MECCA: A. D. 929.
   Stormed and Pillaged by the Carmathians.

      See CARMATHIANS.

   ----------MECCA: End--------

MECHANICSVILLE, Engagements at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) THE PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN;
      and (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

   ----------MECHLIN: Start--------

MECHLIN: A. D. 1572.
   Pillage and massacre by Alva's troops.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MECHLIN: A. D. 1585.
   Surrender to the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

   ----------MECHLIN: End--------

MECKLENBURG: The Duchy bestowed on Wallenstein (1628).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

MECKLENBURG DECLARATION, The.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

MEDAIN.

   Medain, "the twin city," combined in one, under this Arabic
   name, the two contiguous Persian capitals, Seleucia and
   Ctesiphon. The name Medain signifies "cities," and "it is said
   to have comprised a cluster of seven towns, but it is
   ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities of Seleucia and
   Ctesiphon."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 10 and 17._

{2120}

   ----------MEDIA: Start--------

MEDIA AND THE MEDES.

   The country of the Medes, in its original extent, coincided
   very nearly with the northwestern part of modern Persia,
   between Farsistan and the Elburz mountains. "The boundaries of
   Media are given somewhat differently by different writers, and
   no doubt they actually varied at different periods; but the
   variations were not great, and the natural limits, on three
   sides at any rate, may be laid down with tolerable precision.
   Towards the north the boundary was at first the mountain chain
   closing in on that side the Urumiyeh basin, after which it seems
   to have been held that the true limit was the Araxes, to its
   entrance on the low country, and then the mountain chain west
   and south of the Caspian. Westward, the line of demarcation
   may be best regarded as, towards the south, running along the
   centre of the Zagros region; and, above this, as formed by
   that continuation of the Zagros chain which separates the
   Urumiyeh from the Van basin. Eastward, the boundary was marked
   by the spur from the Elburz, across which lay the pass known
   as the Pylæ Caspiæ, and below this by the great salt desert,
   whose western limit is nearly in the same longitude. Towards
   the south there was no marked line or natural boundary. … We
   may place the southern limit with much probability about the
   line of the thirty-second parallel, which is nearly the
   present boundary between Irak and Fars."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

   "The nation of the Medes belongs to the group of the Arian
   tribes, which occupied the table-land of Iran. This has been
   already proved by the statement of Herodotus that in ancient
   times the Medians were called Areans by all men, by the
   religion of the Medes, and by all the Median words and names
   that have come down to us. According to Herodotus the nation
   consisted of six tribes: the Arizanti, Busae, Struchates,
   Budii, Paraetaceni, and Magi. … The Magians we have already
   found to be a hereditary order of Priests."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 1._

   The Medes, who seem to have been long without any centralizing
   authority among them, became, at last, united under a monarchy
   which grew in power, until, in the later part of the seventh
   century B. C., it combined with Babylonia against the decaying
   Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh was destroyed by the confederates,
   and the dominions of Assyria were divided between them. The
   Median empire which then rose, by the side of the Babylonian,
   endured little more than half a century. It was the first of
   the conquests of Cyrus (see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521), or Kyros,
   the founder of the Persian empire (B. C. 549).

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 5, chapters 1-4._

MEDIA:
   The ancient religion.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

   ----------MEDIA: End----------

MEDIA ATROPATENE.

      See ATROPATENE.

MEDIÆVAL, Belonging to the.

      See MIDDLE AGES.

   ----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: Start--------

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Chronology of Development.

   Renouard, in his "History of Medicine," arranges the
   chronology of the development of medical knowledge in three
   grand divisions or Ages, subdivided into eight periods. "The
   First Age commences with the infancy of society, as far back
   as historic tradition carries us, and terminates toward the
   end of the second century of the Christian era, at the death
   of Galen, during the reign of Septimus Severus. This lapse of
   time constitutes, in Medicine, the Foundation Age. The germ of
   the Healing Art, concealed, at first, in the instincts of men,
   is gradually developed; the basis of the science is laid, and
   great principles are discussed. … The Second Age, which may
   be called the Age of Transition, offers very little material
   to the history of Medicine. We see no longer the conflicts and
   discussions between partisans of different doctrines; the
   medical sects are confounded. The art remains stationary, or
   imperceptibly retrogrades. I can not better depict this epoch
   than by comparing it to the life of an insect in the nympha
   state; though no exterior change appears, an admirable
   metamorphosis is going on, imperceptibly, within. The eye of
   man only perceives the wonder after it has been finished. Thus
   from the 15th century, which is the beginning of the third and
   last Age of Medicine, or the Age of Renovation, Europe offers
   us a spectacle of which the most glorious eras of the
   republics of Greece and Rome only can give us an idea. It
   would seem as if a new life was infused into the veins of the
   inhabitants of this part of the world; the sciences, fine
   arts, industry, religion, social institutions, all are
   changed. A multitude of schools are open for teaching
   Medicine. Establishments which had no models among the
   ancients, are created for the purpose of extending to the
   poorer classes the benefits of the Healing Art. The ingenious
   activity of modern Christians explores and is sufficient for
   everything. These three grand chronological divisions do not
   suffice to classify, in our minds, the principal phases of the
   history of Medicine; consequently, I have subdivided each age
   into a smaller number of sections, easy to be retained, and
   which I have named Periods. The first Age embraces four
   periods, the second and third ages, each, two. … The first
   period, which we name Primitive Period, or that of instinct,
   ends with the ruin of Troy, about twelve centuries before the
   Christian era. The second, called the Mystic or Sacred Period,
   extends from the dissolution of the 'Pythagorean Society' to
   about the year 500 A. C. The third period, which ends at the
   foundation of the Alexandrian Library, A. C., 320, we name the
   Philosophic Period. The fourth, which we designate the
   Anatomic, extends to the end of the first age, i. e., to the
   year 200 of the Christian era. The fifth is called the Greek
   Period; it ends at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library,
   A. D. 640. The sixth receives the surname of Arabic, and
   closes with the 14th century. The seventh period, which begins
   the third age, comprises the 15th and 16th centuries; it is
   distinguished as the Erudite. Finally, the eighth, or last
   period, embraces the 17th and 18th centuries [beyond which the
   writer did not carry his history]. I call it the Reform
   Period."

      _P. V. Renouard,
      History of Medicine,
      introduction._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Egyptian.

   "Medicine is practised among them [the Egyptians] on a plan of
   separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no
   more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some
   undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head,
   others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some
   those which are not local."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by Rawlinson,
      book 2, chapter 84._

{2121}

   "Not only was the study of medicine of very early date in
   Egypt, but medical men there were in such repute that they
   were sent for at various times from other countries. Their
   knowledge of medicine is celebrated by Homer (Od. iv. 229),
   who describes Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, as giving
   medicinal plants 'to Helen, in Egypt, a country producing an
   infinite number of drugs … where each physician possesses
   knowledge above all other men.' 'O virgin daughter of Egypt,'
   says Jeremiah (lxvi. 11), 'in vain shalt thou use many
   medicines.' Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical
   men (Her. iii. 1, 132): and Pliny (xix. 5) says post mortem
   examinations were made in order to discover the nature of
   maladies. Doctors received their salaries from the treasury;
   but they were obliged to conform in the treatment of a patient
   to the rules laid down in their books, his death being a
   capital crime, if he was found to have been treated in any
   other way. But deviations from, and approved additions to, the
   sacred prescriptions were occasionally made; and the
   prohibition was only to prevent the experiments of young
   practitioners, whom Pliny considers the only persons
   privileged to kill a man with impunity. Aristotle indeed says
   'the Egyptian physicians were allowed after the third day to
   alter the treatment prescribed by authority, and even before,
   taking upon themselves the responsibility' (Polit. iii. 11).
   Experience gradually taught them many new remedies; and that
   they had adopted a method (of no very old standing in modern
   practice) of stopping teeth with gold is proved by some
   mummies found at Thebes. Besides the protection of society
   from the pretensions of quacks, the Egyptians provided that
   doctors should not demand fees on a foreign journey or on
   military service, when patients were treated free of expense
   (Diod. i. 82); and we may conclude that they were obliged to
   treat the poor gratis, on consideration of the allowance paid
   them as a body by government. … Poor and superstitious
   people sometimes had recourse to dreams, to wizards, to
   donations to sacred animals, and to exvotos to the gods. …
   Charms were also written for the credulous, some of which have
   been found on small pieces of papyrus, which were rolled up
   and worn as by the modern Egyptians. Accoucheurs were women;
   which we learn from Exodus i. 15, and from the sculptures, as
   in modern Egypt. … The Egyptian doctors were of the
   sacerdotal order, like the embalmers, who are called (in
   Genesis l. 2) 'Physicians,' and were' commanded by Joseph to
   embalm his father.' They were of the class called Pastophori,
   who, according to Clemens (Strom. lib. 6), being physicians,
   were expected to know about all things relating to the body,
   and diseases, and remedies, contained in the six last sacred
   books of Hermes. Manetho tells us that Athothes, the second
   king of Egypt, who was a physician, wrote the anatomical
   books; and his name, translated Hermogenes, may have been the
   origin of the tradition that ascribed them to Hermes, the
   Egyptian Thoth. Or the fable may mean that they were the
   result of intellect personified by Thoth, or Hermes."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by Rawlinson,
      Note._

   "The ancient Egyptians, though medical science was zealously
   studied by them, also thought that the efficacy of the
   treatment was enhanced by magic formulæ. In the Ebers Papyrus,
   an important and very ancient manual of Egyptian medicine, the
   prescriptions for various medicaments are accompanied by the
   forms of exorcism to be used at the same time, and yet many
   portions of this work give evidence of the advanced knowledge
   of its authors."

      _G. Ebers,
      Egypt,
      volume 2, pages 61-62._

   "Works on medicine abounded in Egypt from the remotest times,
   and the great medical library of Memphis, which was of
   immemorial antiquity, was yet in existence in the second
   century before our era, when Galen visited the Valley of the
   Nile. … Ateta, third king of the First Dynasty, is the
   reputed author of a treatise on anatomy. He also covered
   himself with glory by the invention of an infallible
   hair-wash, which, like a dutiful son, he is said to have
   prepared especially for the benefit of his mother. No less
   than five medical papyri have come down to our time, the
   finest being the celebrated Ebers papyrus, bought at Thebes by
   Dr. Ebers in 1874. This papyrus contains one hundred and ten
   pages, each page consisting of about twenty-two lines of bold
   hieratic writing. It may be described as an Encyclopædia of
   Medicine as known and practised by the Egyptians of the
   Eighteenth Dynasty; and it contains prescriptions for all
   kinds of diseases—some borrowed from Syrian medical lore, and
   some of such great antiquity that they are ascribed to the
   mythologic ages, when the gods yet reigned personally upon
   earth. Among others, we are given the recipe for an
   application whereby Osiris cured Ra of the headache. The
   Egyptians attached great importance to these ancient medical
   works, which were regarded as final. The physician who
   faithfully followed their rules of treatment might kill or
   cure with impunity; but if he ventured to treat the patient
   according to his own notions, and if that patient died, he
   paid for the experiment with his life. Seeing, however, what
   the canonical remedies were, the marvel is that anybody ever
   recovered from anything. Raw meat; horrible mixtures of nitre,
   beer, milk, and blood, boiled up and swallowed hot; the bile
   of certain fishes; and the bones, fat, and skins of all kinds
   of unsavory creatures, such as vultures, bats, lizards and
   crocodiles, were among their choicest remedies."

      _A. B. Edwards,
      Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers,
      chapter 6._

   "In Egypt … man does not die, but some one or something
   assassinates him. The murderer often belongs to our world, and
   can be easily pointed out. … Often, though, it belongs to
   the invisible world, and only reveals itself by the malignity
   of its attacks: it is a god, a spirit, the soul of a dead man,
   that has cunningly entered a living person, or that throws
   itself upon him with irresistible violence. … Whoever treats
   a sick person has therefore two equally important duties to
   perform. He must first discover the nature of the spirit in
   possession, and, if necessary, its name, and then attack it,
   drive it out, or even destroy it. He can only succeed by
   powerful magic, so he must be an expert in reciting
   incantations, and skilful in making amulets. He must then use
   medicine to contend with the disorders which the presence of
   the strange being has produced in the body; this is done by a
   finely graduated régime and various remedies. The cure-workers
   are therefore divided into several categories.
{2122}
   Some incline towards sorcery, and have faith in formulas and
   talismen only; they think they have done enough if they have
   driven out the spirit. Others extol the use of drugs; they
   study the qualities of plants and minerals, describe the
   diseases to which each of the substances provided by nature is
   suitable, and settle the exact time when they must be procured
   and applied: certain herbs have no power unless they are
   gathered during the night at the full moon, others are
   efficacious in summer only, another acts equally well in
   winter or summer. The best doctors carefully avoid binding
   themselves exclusively to either method."

      _G. Maspéro,
      Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
      chapter 7._

   "The employment of numerous drugs in Egypt has been mentioned
   by sacred and profane writers; and the medicinal properties of
   many herbs which grow in the deserts, particularly between the
   Nile and Red Sea, are still known to the Arabs, though their
   application has been but imperfectly recorded and preserved.
   … Homer, in the Odyssey, describes the many valuable
   medicines given by Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, to Helen,
   while in Egypt, 'a country whose fertile soil produces an
   infinity of drugs, some salutary and some pernicious, where
   each physician possesses knowledge above all other men'; and
   Pliny makes frequent mention of the productions of that
   country, and their use in medicine. He also notices the
   physicians of Egypt; and as if their number was indicative of
   the many maladies to which the inhabitants were subject, he
   observes that it was a country productive of numerous
   diseases. In this, however, he does not agree with Herodotus,
   who affirms that, 'after the Libyans, there are no people so
   healthy as the Egyptians, which may be attributed to the
   invariable nature of the seasons in their country.' In Pliny's
   time the introduction of luxurious habits and excess had
   probably wrought a change in the people; and to the same cause
   may be attributed the numerous complaints among the Romans,
   'unknown to their fathers and ancestors.' The same author
   tells us that the Egyptians examined the bodies after death,
   to ascertain the nature of the diseases of which they had
   died; and we can readily believe that a people so far advanced
   in civilization and the principles of medicine as to assign
   each physician his peculiar branch, would have resorted to
   this effectual method of acquiring knowledge and experience
   for the benefit of the community. It is evident that the
   medical skill of the Egyptians was well known even in foreign
   and distant countries; and we learn from Herodotus, that Cyrus
   and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men. … The
   Egyptians, according to Pliny, claimed the honour of having
   invented the art of curing diseases."

      _Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
      Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

   "The Ptolemies, down to the very termination of their dominion
   over Egypt, appear to have encouraged the curative art, and
   for the purpose of restoring declining health, surrounded
   themselves with the most illustrious physicians of the age.
   … The science of medicine of the period was fully
   represented at the Museum by distinguished professors, who,
   according to Athenæus, restored the knowledge of this art to
   the towns and islands of the Grecian Archipelago. … About
   the period of the absorption of the Egyptian kingdom into the
   expanding dominion of the Romans, the schools of Alexandria
   still continued to be the centre of medical studies; and
   notwithstanding the apparent dissidence between the demands of
   a strict science and public affairs, its professors exhibited,
   equally with their brother philosophers, a taste for
   diplomacy. Dioscorides and Serapion, two physicians of
   Alexandria, were the envoys of the elder Ptolemy to Rome, and
   at a later date were bearers of dispatches from Cæsar to one
   of his officers in Egypt."

      _G. F. Fort,
      Medical Economy During the Middle Ages,
      chapter 3._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Babylonian.

   The Babylonians "have no physicians, but when a man is ill,
   they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up
   to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or
   have known anyone who has suffered from it, they give him
   advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in
   their own case, or in the case known to them. And no one is
   allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him
   what his ailment is."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by G. Rawlinson,
      book 1, chapter 197 (volume 1)._

   "The incantations against diseases describe a great variety of
   cases. … But the most numerous are those which aim at the
   cure of the plague, fever, and 'disease of the head;' this
   latter, judging from the indications which are given of its
   symptoms and its effects, appears to have been a sort of
   erysipelas, or cutaneous disease. … These are the principal
   passages of a long incantation against 'the disease of the
   head:' the tablet on which we find it bears six other long
   formulæ against the same evil. 'The disease of the head exists
   on man. The disease of the head, the ulceration of the
   forehead exists on man. The disease of the head marks like a
   tiara, the disease of the head from sunrise to sunset. In the
   sea and the vast earth a very small tiara is become the tiara,
   the very large tiara, his tiara. The diseases of the head
   pierce like a bull, the diseases of the head shoot like the
   palpitation of the heart. … The diseases of the head, like
   doves to their dove-cotes, like grasshoppers into the sky,
   like birds into space may they fly away. May the invalid be
   replaced in the protecting hands of his god!' This specimen
   will give the reader an idea of the uniform composition of
   these incantations against diseases, which filled the second
   book of the work under consideration. They all follow the same
   plan throughout, beginning with the definition of the disease
   and its symptoms, which occupies the greater part of the
   formula; and ending with a desire for deliverance from it, and
   the order for it to depart. Sometimes, however, the
   incantation of the magician assumes a dramatic form at the
   end. … We must add … the use of certain enchanted drinks,
   which, doubtless, really contained medicinal drugs, as a cure
   for diseases, and also of magic knots, the efficacy of which
   was so firmly believed in, even up to the middle ages. Here is
   a remedy which one of the formulæ supposes to have been
   prescribed by Hea against a disease of the head: 'Knot on the
   right and arrange flat in regular bands, on the left a woman's
   diadem; divide it twice in seven little bands; … gird the
   head of the invalid with it; gird the forehead of the invalid
   with it; gird the seat of life with it; gird his hands and his
   feet: seat him on his bed; pour on him enchanted waters. Let
   the disease of his head be carried away into the heavens like
   a violent wind; … may the earth swallow it up like passing
   waters!' Still more powerful than the incantations were
   conjurations wrought by the power of numbers."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Chaldean Magic,
      chapters 1 and 3._

{2123}

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Finnish.

   "The Finnish incantations for exorcising the demons of
   diseases were composed in exactly the same spirit, and founded
   upon the same data, as the Accadian incantations destined for
   the like purpose. They were formulæ belonging to the same
   family, and they often showed a remarkable similarity of
   language; the Egyptian incantations, on the contrary, having
   been composed by people with very different ideas about the
   supernatural world, assumed quite another form. This is an
   incantation from one of the songs of the Kalevala: 'O malady,
   disappear into the heavens; pain, rise up to the clouds;
   inflamed vapour, fly into the air, in order that the wind may
   take thee away, that the tempest may chase thee to distant
   regions, where neither sun nor moon give their light, where
   the warm wind does not inflame the flesh. O pain, mount upon
   the winged steed of stone, and fly to the mountains covered
   with iron. For he is too robust to be devoured by disease, to
   be consumed by pains. Go, O diseases, to where the virgin of
   pains has her hearth, where the daughter of Wäinämöinen cooks
   pains, go to the hill of pains. There are the white dogs, who
   formerly howled in torments, who groaned in their
   sufferings.'"

      _F. Lenormant,
      Chaldean Magic,
      chapter 17._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Hindu.

   "There is reason to … conclude, from the imperfect
   opportunities of investigation we possess, that in medicine,
   as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace
   with the most enlightened nations of the world; and that they
   attained as thorough a proficiency in medicine and surgery as
   any people whose acquisitions are recorded, and as indeed was
   practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by the
   discoveries of modern enquirers. It might easily be supposed
   that their patient attention and natural shrewdness would
   render the Hindus excellent observers; whilst the extent and
   fertility of their native country would furnish them with many
   valuable drugs and medicaments. Their Nidana or Diagnosis,
   accordingly, appears to define and distinguish symptoms with
   great accuracy, and their Dravyabhidhana, or Materia Medica,
   is sufficiently voluminous. They have also paid great
   attention to regimen and diet, and have a number of works on
   the food and general treatment, suited to the complaint, or
   favourable to the operation of the medicine administered. This
   branch they entitle Pathyapathya. To these subjects are to be
   added the Chikitsa, or medical treatment of diseases—on which
   subject they have a variety of compositions, containing much
   absurdity, with much that is of value; and the Rasavidya, or
   Pharmacy, in which they are most deficient. All these works,
   however, are of little avail to the present generation, as
   they are very rarely studied, and still more rarely
   understood, by any of the practising empirics. The divisions
   of the science thus noticed, as existing in books, exclude two
   important branches, without which the whole system must be
   defective—Anatomy and Surgery. We can easily imagine, that
   these were not likely to have been much cultivated in
   Hindustan. … The Ayur Veda, as the medical writings of
   highest antiquity and authority are collectively called, is
   considered to be a portion of the fourth or Atharva Veda, and
   is consequently the work of Brahma—by him it was communicated
   to Daksha, the Prajapati, and by him the two Aswins, or sons
   of Surya, the Sun, were instructed in it, and they then became
   the medical attendants of the gods—a genealogy that cannot
   fail recalling to us the two sons of Esculapius, and their
   descent from Apollo. Now what were the duties of the Aswins,
   according to Hindu authorities?—the gods, enjoying eternal
   youth and health, stood in no need of physicians, and
   consequently they held no such sinecure station. The wars
   between the gods and demons, however, and the conflicts
   amongst the gods themselves, in which wounds might be
   suffered, although death might not be inflicted, required
   chirurgical aid—and it was this, accordingly, which the two
   Aswins rendered. … The meaning of these legendary
   absurdities is clear enough, and is conformable to the tenor
   of all history. Man, in the semi-barbarous state, if not more
   subject to external injuries than internal disease, was at
   least more likely to seek remedies for the former, which were
   obvious to his senses, than to imagine the means of relieving
   the latter, whose nature he could so little comprehend.
   Surgical, therefore, preceded medicinal skill; as Celsus has
   asserted, when commenting on Homer's account of Podalirius and
   Machaon, who were not consulted, he says, during the plague in
   the Grecian camp, although regularly employed to extract darts
   and heal wounds. … We may be satisfied that Surgery was once
   extensively cultivated, and highly esteemed by the Hindus. Its
   rational principles and scientific practice are, however, now,
   it may be admitted, wholly unknown to them. … It would be an
   enquiry of some interest to trace the period and causes of the
   disappearance of Surgery from amongst the Hindus: it is
   evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and
   instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those
   writings, which are undeniably most ancient; and which, being
   regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of
   the highest authority."

      _H. H. Wilson,
      Essays on Sanskrit Literature,
      pages 269-276, and 391._

   "The number of medical works and authors is extraordinarily
   large. The former are either systems embracing the whole
   domain of the science, or highly special investigations of
   single topics, or, lastly, vast compilations prepared in modern
   times under the patronage of kings and princes. The sum of
   knowledge embodied in their contents appears really to be most
   respectable. Many of the statements on dietetics and on the
   origin and diagnosis of diseases bespeak a very keen
   observation. In surgery, too, the Indians seem to have
   attained a special proficiency, and in this department
   European surgeons might perhaps even at the present day still
   learn something from them, as indeed they have already
   borrowed from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The
   information, again, regarding the medicinal properties of
   minerals (especially precious stones and metals), of plants,
   and animal substances, and the chemical analysis and
   decomposition of these, covers certainly much that is
   valuable. Indeed, the branch of Materia Medica generally
   appears to be handled with great predilection, and this makes
   up to us in some measure at least for the absence of
   investigations in the field of natural science. On the
   diseases, &c., of horses and elephants also there exist very
   special monographs.
{2124}
   For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science
   has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence of
   the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are
   but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and from
   the consequent very general substitution of fastings, alms,
   and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. … The
   influence … of Hindu medicine upon the Arabs in the first
   centuries of the Hijra was one of the very highest
   significance; and the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable
   number of works upon the subject to be translated. Now, as
   Arabian medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding
   principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth
   century, it directly follows—just as in the case of
   astronomy—that the Indians must have been held in high esteem
   by these latter; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly mentioned in
   the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Rhazes (Al
   Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi)."

      _A. Weber,
      History of Indian Literature,
      pages 269-271._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Jewish.

   "If we are to judge from the frequent mention of physicians
   (Exodus xv. 26; Isaiah iii. 7; Jeremiah viii. 22; Sirach x.
   11, xxxviii. 1 ff.; Matthew ix. 12; Mark v. 26; Luke iv. 23,
   etc.), the Israelites must have given much attention to
   medicine from ancient times. The physicians must have
   understood how to heal wounds and external injuries with
   bandaging, mollifying with oil (Isaiah i. 6; Luke x. 34),
   balsam (Jeremiah xlvi. 11, li. 8), plasters (2 Kings xx. 7),
   and salves prepared from herbs (Sirach xxxviii. 8; Exodus xxi.
   19; 2 Kings viii. 29; Ezekiel xxx. 21). The ordinances
   respecting leprosy also show that the lawgiver was well
   acquainted with the various kinds of skin eruptions (comp.
   section 114). And not only Moses, but other Israelites also
   may have acquired much practical knowledge of medicine in
   Egypt, where the healing art was cultivated from high
   antiquity. But as to how far the Israelitish physicians
   advanced in this art, we have not more exact information. From
   the few scattered hints in the Old and New Testaments, so much
   only is clear, that internal diseases were also treated (2
   Chronicles xvi. 12; Luke viii. 43), and that the medicinal
   springs which Palestine possesses were much used by invalids.
   It by no means follows from the fact that the superintendence
   of lepers and the pronouncing of them clean are assigned by
   the law to the priests, that these occupied themselves chiefly
   with medicine. The task which the law laid on them has nothing
   to do with the healing of leprosy. Of the application of
   charms, there is not a single instance in Scripture."

      _C. F. Keil,
      Manual of Biblical Archæology,
      volume 2, pages 276-277._

   The surgery of the Talmud includes a knowledge of dislocations
   of the thigh, contusions of the head, perforation of the lungs
   and other organs, injuries of the spinal cord and trachea, and
   fractures of the ribs. Polypus of the nose was considered to
   be a punishment for past sins. In sciatica the patient is
   advised to rub the hip sixty times with meat-broth. Bleeding
   was performed by mechanics or barbers. The pathology of the
   Talmud ascribes diseases to a constitutional vice, to evil
   influences acting on the body from without, or to the effect
   of magic. Jaundice is recognized as arising from retention of
   the bile, dropsy from suppression of the urine. The Talmudists
   divided dropsy into anasarca, ascites, and tympanites. Rupture
   and atrophy of the kidneys were held to be always fatal.
   Hydatids of the liver were more favourably considered.
   Suppuration of the spinal cord, induration of the lungs, etc.,
   are incurable. Dr. Baas says that these are 'views which may
   have been based on the dissection of (dead) animals, and may
   be considered the germs of pathological anatomy.' Some
   critical symptoms are sweating, sneezing, defecation, and
   dreams, which promise a favourable termination of the disease.
   Natural remedies, both external and internal, were employed.
   Magic was also Talmudic. Dispensations were given by the
   Rabbis to permit sick persons to eat prohibited food. Onions
   were prescribed for worms; wine and pepper for stomach
   disorders; goat's milk for difficulty of breathing; emetics in
   nausea; a mixture of gum and alum for menorrhagia (not a bad
   prescription); a dog's liver was ordered for the bite of a mad
   dog. Many drugs, such a assafœtida, are evidently adopted from
   Greek medicine. The dissection of the bodies of animals
   provided the Talmudists with their anatomy. It is, however,
   recorded that Rabbi Ishmael, at the close of the first
   century, made a skeleton by boiling the body of a prostitute.
   We find that dissection in the interests of science was
   permitted by the Talmud. The Rabbis counted 252 bones in the
   human skeleton."

      _E. Berdoe,
      The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
      book 2, chapter 2._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Greek.

   "It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess
   relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various
   treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of
   Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in
   all ages, and it has always been a question which has
   naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art
   had attained to such perfection at so early a period. … It
   is clearly established that, long before the birth of
   philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully
   cultivated by the Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians
   that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the
   distinguished name of Æsculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius
   and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as
   priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the
   treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by
   the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if
   one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much
   of the legendary character) that Æsculapius was deified, and
   that Temples of Health, called 'Asclepia,' presided over by
   the Asclepiadæ, were erected in various parts of Greece, as
   receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those
   days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as
   they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What
   remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no
   means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the
   following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be
   pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the
   first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large
   proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of
   thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no
   doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick. At his
   entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to
   purifications, and made to go through a regular course of
   bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the
   oriental system now well known by the name of shampooing.
{2125}
   Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also
   not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first
   prescribed, but afterwards the patient would no doubt be
   permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were
   brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could
   be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the
   sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature,
   accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their
   senses, conciliate their confidence, and, in certain cases,
   contribute to their amusement. … It is also well known that
   the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the symptoms and
   issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they
   became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. … The
   office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so
   that information thus acquired would be transmitted from
   father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to
   another. Whether the Asclepiadæ availed themselves of the
   great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of
   cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much
   disputed in modern times. … It is worthy of remark, that
   Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful
   cultivator of anatomy. … Of the 'Asclepia' we have mentioned
   above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much
   higher repute than others, either from being possessed of
   peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the
   beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era the
   temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial
   favour, and on the extinction of the first of these, another
   rose up in Italy in its stead. But the temple of Cos was
   destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the
   background, by producing among the priests of Æsculapius the
   individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by
   the name of the Great Hippocrates. … That Hippocrates was
   lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally admitted by
   his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a
   list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has
   been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. … Of the
   circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is
   known for certain. … Aulus Gellius, … in an elaborate
   disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly
   that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger
   than he. Now it is well ascertained that the death of Socrates
   took place about the year 400 A. C., and as he was then nearly
   seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about
   the year 470 A. C. … It will readily occur to the reader,
   then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable
   epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. …
   From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in
   one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then
   in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all
   the treasures of observations collected during many
   generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of
   assisting his own father in the management of the sick. Thus
   from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles
   of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete. …
   Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as
   now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of
   his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done
   before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity,
   and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties
   of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him,
   cannot now be satisfactorily determined. … According to all
   the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent
   the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when
   far advanced in years. … As a medical author the name of
   Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. … Looking upon
   the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires
   and sympathises with all the other parts, he would appear to
   have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all
   its modifications to peculiarities of situation. Whatever may
   now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must
   admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine
   is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his
   descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient
   observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice
   are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of
   experience by itself he was well aware, however. … Above all
   others Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience
   and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a
   rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the
   Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as
   belonging to their sect. What he appears to have studied with
   particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that
   is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue. …
   One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the
   Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in
   it to prognosis, under which was comprehended a complete
   acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the
   patient and the tendency of the disease. … In the practice
   of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we
   would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the
   skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the
   head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His
   extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with
   the accidents occurring at the public games of his country,
   must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming
   acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and
   how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus
   enjoyed, every page of his treatises 'On Fractures,' and 'On
   the Articulations,' abundantly testifies."

      _F. Adams,
      Preliminary Discourse (Genuine Works of Hippocrates),
      section 1._

   "The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain
   theories which have been more or less prominent during the
   earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed
   throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and
   Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration
   of humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for
   their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded
   as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by
   the conservative principles of life to effect a coction, i.
   e., a combination, of the morbific matter in the economy, it
   being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until
   thus united and prepared so as to form excrementious material.
{2126}
   This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital
   principles which some called nature (Phusis), some spirit
   (Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon). The
   gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of
   Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis. All this was
   regarded as the announcement of the completion of this union
   by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed
   'critical,' as were also the signs which preceded or
   accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously
   watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it
   only remained to evacuate the morbific material, which nature
   sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat,
   urination, or stools; or sometimes the physician had to come
   to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives,
   et cetera. The term 'critical period' was given to the number
   of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was
   supposed to be four, the so-called quaternary, while the
   septenary was also held in high consideration. … This
   doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical
   mind not yet fully eliminated."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

   "Making no pretension … to describe the regular medical
   practice among the Greeks, I shall here, nevertheless,
   introduce some few particulars more or less connected with it,
   which may be regarded as characteristic of the age and people.
   Great were the virtues which they ascribed to the herb
   alysson, (biscutella didyma,) which, being pounded and eaten
   with meat cured hydrophobia. Nay, more, being suspended in the
   house, it promoted the health of its inhabitants; it protected
   likewise both man and cattle from enchantment; and, bound in a
   piece of scarlet flannel round the necks of the latter, it
   preserved them from all diseases. Coriander-seed, eaten in too
   great quantity, produced, they thought, a derangement of the
   intellect. Ointment of saffron had an opposite effect, for the
   nostrils and heads of lunatics being rubbed therewith they
   were supposed to receive considerable relief. Melampos the
   goatherd was reported to have cured the daughters of Prætos of
   their madness by large doses of black hellebore, which
   thereafter received from him the name of Melampodion.
   Sea-onions suspended over the doors preserved from
   enchantment, as did likewise a branch of rhamnus over doors or
   windows. A decoction of rosemary and of the leaves and stems
   of the anemone was administered to nurses to promote the
   secretion of milk, and a like potion prepared from the leaves
   of the Cretan dittany was given to women in labour. This herb,
   in order to preserve its virtues unimpaired, and that it might
   be the more easily transported to all parts of the country,
   was preserved in a joint of a ferula or reed. A plaster of
   incense, Cimolian earth, and oil of roses, was applied to
   reduce the swelling of the breasts. A medicine prepared from
   mule's fern, was believed to produce sterility, as were
   likewise the waters of a certain fountain near Pyrrha, while
   to those about Thespiæ a contrary effect was attributed, as
   well as to the wine of Heraclea in Arcadia. The inhabitants of
   this primitive region drank milk as an aperient in the Spring,
   because of the medicinal herbs on which the cattle were then
   supposed to feed. Medicines of laxative properties were
   prepared from the juice of the wild cucumber, which were said
   to retain their virtues for two hundred years, though simples
   in general were thought to lose their medicinal qualities in
   less than four. The oriental gum called kankamon was
   administered in water or honeyed vinegar to fat persons to
   diminish their obesity, and also as a remedy for the
   toothache. For this latter purpose the gum of the Ethiopian
   olive was put into the hollow tooth, though more efficacy
   perhaps was attributed to the root of dittander which they
   suspended as a charm about the neck. A plaster of the root of
   the white thorn or iris roots prepared with flour of copper,
   honey, and great centaury, drew out thorns and arrow heads
   without pain. An unguent procured from fern was sold to
   rustics for curing the necks of their cattle galled by the
   yoke. A decoction of marsh-mallow leaves and wine or honeyed
   vinegar was administered to persons who had been stung by bees
   or wasps or other insects; bites and burns were healed by an
   external application of the leaf smeared with oil, and the
   powdered roots cast into water caused it to freeze if placed
   out during the night in the open air; an unguent was prepared
   with oil from reeds, green or dry, which protected those who
   anointed themselves with it from the stings of venomous
   reptiles. Cinnamon unguent, or terebinth and myrtle-berries,
   boiled in wine, were supposed to be a preservative against the
   bite of the tarantula or scorpion, as was the pistachio nut
   against that of serpents. Some persons ate a roasted scorpion
   to cure its own bite; a powder, moreover, was prepared from
   sea-crabs supposed to be fatal to this reptile. Vipers were
   made to contribute their part to the materia medica; for,
   being caught alive, they were enclosed with salt and dried
   figs in a vase which was then put into a furnace till its
   contents were reduced to charcoal, which they esteemed a
   valuable medicine. A. considerable quantity of viper's flesh
   was in the last century imported from Egypt into Venice, to be
   used in the composition of medicinal treacle. From the flowers
   of the sneezewort, a sort of snuff appears to have been
   manufactured, though probably used only in medicines. The
   ashes of old leather cured burns, galls, and blistered feet.
   The common remedy when persons had eaten poisonous mushrooms
   was a dose of nitre exhibited in vinegar and water; with water
   it was esteemed a cure for the sting of a burncow, and with
   benzoin it operated as an antidote against the poison of
   bulls' blood."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

{2127}

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   The Hippocratic Oath.

   "Medical societies or schools seem to have been as ancient as
   Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath, as it is called, has been
   preserved, and is one of the greatest curiosities we have
   received from antiquity:

   'I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, by Hygeia, by
   Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, that I will fulfil
   religiously, according to the best of my power and judgment,
   the solemn vow which I now make.

   I will honour as my father the master who taught me the art of
   medicine; his children I will consider as my brothers, and
   teach them my profession without fee or reward.

   I will admit to my lectures and discourses my own sons, my
   master's sons, and those pupils who have taken the medical
   oath; but no one else.

   I will prescribe such medicines as may be best suited to the
   cases of my patients, according to the best of my judgment;
   and no temptation shall ever induce me to administer poison.

   I will religiously maintain the purity of my character and the
   honour of my art.

   I will not perform the operation of lithotomy, but leave it to
   those to whose calling it belongs.

   Into whatever house I enter, I will enter it with the sole
   view of relieving the sick, and conduct myself with propriety
   towards the women of the family.

   If during my attendance I happen to hear of anything that
   should not be revealed, I will keep it a profound secret.

   If I observe this oath, may I have success in this life, and
   may I obtain general esteem after it; if I break it, may the
   contrary be my lot.'"

      _Ancient Physic and Physicians
      (Dublin University Magazine, April, 1856)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1st Century.
   Greek physicians in Rome.
   Pliny's Picture.

   Pliny's account of the Greek physicians in Rome in his time
   (first century) is not flattering to the profession. He says:
   "For the cure of King Antiochus—to give our first
   illustration of the profits realized by the medical
   art—Erasistratus received from his son, King Ptolemæus, the
   sum of one hundred talents. … I pass over in silence many
   physicians of the very highest celebrity, the Cassii, for
   instance, the Calpetani, the Arruntii, and the Rubrii, men who
   received fees yearly from the great, amounting to no less than
   250,000 sesterces. As for Q. Stertinius, he thought that he
   conferred an obligation upon the emperors in being content
   with 500,000 sesterces per annum; and indeed he proved, by an
   enumeration of the several houses, that a city practice would
   bring him in a yearly income of not less than 600,000
   sesterces. Fully equal to this was the sum lavished upon his
   brother by Claudius Cæsar; and the two brothers, although they
   had drawn largely upon their fortunes in beautifying the
   public buildings at Neapolis, left to their heirs no less than
   30,000,000 of sesterces! such an estate as no physician but
   Arruntius had till then possessed. Next in succession arose
   Vettius Valens, rendered so notorious by his adulterous
   connection with Messalina, the wife of Claudius Cæsar, and
   equally celebrated as a professor of eloquence. When
   established in public favour, he became the founder of a new
   sect. It was in the same age, too, during the reign of the
   Emperor Nero, that the destinies of the medical art passed
   into the hands of Thessalus, a man who swept away all the
   precepts of his predecessors, and declaimed with a sort of
   frenzy against the physicians of every age; but with what
   discretion and in what spirit, we may abundantly conclude from
   a single trait presented by his character—upon his tomb,
   which is still to be seen on the Appian Way, he had his name
   inscribed as the 'Iatronices'—the 'Conqueror of the
   Physicians.' No stage-player, no driver of a three-horse
   chariot, had a greater throng attending him when he appeared
   in public: but he was at last eclipsed in credit by Crinas, a
   native of Massilia, who, to wear an appearance of greater
   discreetness and more devoutness, united in himself the
   pursuit of two sciences, and prescribed diets to his patients
   in accordance with the movements of the heavenly bodies, as
   indicated by the almanacks of the mathematicians, taking
   observations himself of the various times and seasons. It was
   but recently that he died, leaving 10,000,000 of sesterces,
   after having expended hardly a less sum upon building the
   walls of his native place and of other towns. It was while
   these men were ruling our destinies, that all at once,
   Charmis, a native also of Massilia, took the City by surprise.
   Not content with condemning the practice of preceding
   physicians, he proscribed the use of warm baths as well, and
   persuaded people, in the very depth of winter even, to immerse
   themselves in cold water. His patients he used to plunge into
   large vessels filled with cold water, and it was a common
   thing to see aged men of consular rank make it a matter of
   parade to freeze themselves; a method of treatment, in favour
   of which Annæus Seneca gives his personal testimony, in
   writings still extant. There can be no doubt whatever, that
   all these men, in the pursuit of celebrity by the introduction
   of some novelty or other, made purchase of it at the downright
   expense of human life. Hence those woeful discussions, those
   consultations at the bedside of the patient, where no one
   thinks fit to be of the same opinion as another, lest he may
   have the appearance of being subordinate to another; hence,
   too, that ominous inscription to be read upon a tomb, 'It was
   the multitude of physicians that killed me.' The medical art,
   so often modified and renewed as it has been, is still on the
   change from day to day, and still are we impelled onwards by
   the puffs which emanate from the ingenuity of the Greeks. …
   Cassius Hemina, one of our most ancient writers, says that the
   first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of
   Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in the year of the
   City 535, L. Æmilius and M. Livius being consuls. He states
   also, that the right of free citizenship was granted him, and
   that he had a shop provided for his practice at the public
   expense in the Acilian Cross-way; that from his practice he
   received the name of 'Vulnerarius'; that on his arrival he was
   greatly welcomed at first, but that soon afterwards, from the
   cruelty displayed by him in cutting and searing his patients,
   he acquired the new name of 'Carnifex,' and brought his art
   and physicians in general into considerable disrepute. That
   such was the fact, we may readily understand from the words of
   M. Cato, a man whose authority stands so high of itself, that
   but little weight is added to it by the triumph which he
   gained, and the Censorship which he held. I shall, therefore,
   give his own words in reference to this subject. 'Concerning
   those Greeks, son Marcus, I will speak to you more at length
   on the befitting occasion. I will show you the results of my
   own experience at Athens, and that, while it is a good plan to
   dip into their literature, it is not worth while to make a
   thorough acquaintance with it. They are a most iniquitous and
   intractable race, and you may take my word as the word of a
   prophet, when I tell you, that whenever that nation shall
   bestow its literature upon Rome it will mar everything; and
   that all the sooner, if it sends its physicians among us. They
   have conspired among themselves to murder all barbarians with
   their medicine; a profession which they exercise for lucre, in
   order that they may win our confidence, and dispatch us all
   the more easily. They are in the common habit, too, of calling
   us barbarians, and stigmatize us beyond all other nations, by
   giving us the abominable appellation of Opici.
{2128}
   I forbid you to have anything to do with physicians.' Cato,
   who wrote to this effect, died in his eighty-fifth year, in
   the year of the City 605; so that no one is to suppose that he
   had not sufficient time to form his experience, either with
   reference to the duration of the republic, or the length of
   his own life. Well then—are we to conclude that he has
   stamped with condemnation a thing that in itself is most
   useful? Far from it, by Hercules! … Medicine is the only one
   of the arts of Greece, that, lucrative as it is, the Roman
   gravity has hitherto refused to cultivate. It is but very few
   of our fellow-citizens that have even attempted it."

      _Pliny,
      Natural History
      (Bohn's translation),
      book 29, chapters 3-8 (volume 5)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d Century.
   Galen and the development of Anatomy and Pathology.

   "In the earliest conceptions which men entertained of their
   power of moving their own members, they probably had no
   thought of any mechanism or organization by which this was
   effected. The foot and the hand, no less than the head, were
   seen to be endowed with life; and this pervading life seemed
   sufficiently to explain the power of motion in each part of
   the frame, without its being held necessary to seek out a
   special seat of the will, or instruments by which its impulses
   were made effective. But the slightest inspection of dissected
   animals showed that their limbs were formed of a curious and
   complex collection of cordage, and communications of various
   kinds, running along and connecting the bones of the skeleton.
   These cords and communications we now distinguish as muscles,
   nerves, veins, arteries, &c.; and among these, we assign to
   the muscles the office of moving the parts to which they are
   attached, as cords move the parts of a machine. Though this
   action of the muscles on the bones may now appear very
   obvious, it was, probably, not at first discerned. It is
   observed that Homer, who describes the wounds which are
   inflicted in his battles with so much apparent anatomical
   precision, nowhere employs the word muscle. And even
   Hippocrates of Cos, the most celebrated physician of
   antiquity, is held to have had no distinct conception of such
   an organ. … Nor do we find much more distinctness on this
   subject even in Aristotle, a generation or two later. … He
   is held to have really had the merit of discovering the nerves
   of sensation, which he calls the 'canals of the brain' … ,
   but the analysis of the mechanism of motion is left by him
   almost untouched. … His immediate predecessors were far from
   remedying the deficiencies of his doctrines. Those who
   professed to study physiology and medicine were, for the most
   part, studious only to frame some general system of abstract
   principles, which might give an appearance of connexion and
   profundity to their tenets. In this manner the successors of
   Hippocrates became a medical school, of great note in its day,
   designated as the Dogmatic school; in opposition to which
   arose an Empiric sect, who professed to deduce their modes of
   cure, not from theoretical dogmas, but from experience. These
   rival parties prevailed principally in Asia Minor and Egypt,
   during the time of Alexander's successors,—a period rich in
   names, but poor in discoveries; and we find no clear evidence
   of any decided advance in anatomy. … The victories of
   Lucullus and Pompeius, in Greece and Asia, made the Romans
   acquainted with the Greek philosophy; and the consequence soon
   was, that shoals of philosophers, rhetoricians, poets, and
   physicians streamed from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, to
   Rome and Italy, to traffic their knowledge and their arts for
   Roman wealth. Among these was one person whose name makes a
   great figure in the history of medicine, Asclepiades of Prusa
   in Bithynia. This man appears to have been a quack, with the
   usual endowments of his class. … He would not, on such
   accounts, deserve a place in the history of science, but that
   he became the founder of a new school, the Methodic, which
   professed to hold itself separate both from the Dogmatics and
   the Empirics. I have noticed these schools of medicine,
   because, though I am not able to state distinctly their
   respective merits in the cultivation of anatomy, a great
   progress in that science was undoubtedly made during their
   domination, of which the praise must, I conceive, be in some
   way divided among them. The amount of this progress we are
   able to estimate, when we come to the works of Galen, who
   flourished under the Antonines, and died about A. D. 203. The
   following passage from his works will show that this progress
   in knowledge was not made without the usual condition of
   laborious and careful experiment, while it implies the curious
   fact of such experiment being conducted by means of family
   tradition and instruction, so as to give rise to a caste of
   dissectors. In the opening of his Second Book on Anatomical
   Manipulations, he speaks thus of his predecessors: 'I do not
   blame the ancients, who did not write books on anatomical
   manipulation; though I praise Marinus, who did. For it was
   superfluous for them to compose such records for themselves or
   others, while they were, from their childhood, exercised by
   their parents in dissecting, just as familiarly as in writing
   and reading; so that there was no more fear of their
   forgetting their anatomy, than of forgetting their alphabet.
   But when grown men, as well as children, were taught, this
   thorough discipline fell off; and, the art being carried out
   of the family of the Asclepiads, and declining by repeated
   transmission, books became necessary for the student.' That
   the general structure of the animal frame, as composed of
   bones and muscles, was known with great accuracy before the
   time of Galen, is manifest from the nature of the mistakes and
   deficiencies of his predecessors which he finds it necessary
   to notice. … Galen was from the first highly esteemed as an
   anatomist. He was originally of Pergamus; and after receiving
   the instructions of many medical and philosophical professors,
   and especially of those of Alexandria, which was then the
   metropolis of the learned and scientific world, he came to
   Rome, where his reputation was soon so great as to excite the
   envy and hatred of the Roman physicians. The emperors Marcus
   Aurelius and Lucius Verus would have retained him near them;
   but he preferred pursuing his travels, directed principally by
   curiosity. When he died, he left behind him numerous works, an
   of them of great value for the light they throw on the history
   of anatomy and medicine; and these were for a long period the
   storehouse of all the most important anatomical knowledge
   which the world possessed. In the time of intellectual
   barrenness and servility, among the Arabians and the Europeans
   of the dark ages, the writings of Galen had almost unquestioned
   authority; and it was only by an uncommon effort of
   independent thinking that Abdollatif ventured to assert, that
   even Galen's assertions must give way to the evidence of the
   senses. In more modern times, when Vesalius, in the sixteenth
   century, accused Galen of mistakes, he drew upon himself the
   hostility of the whole body of physicians."

      _W. Whewell,
      History of the Inductive Sciences,
      book 17, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 2)._

{2129}

   "Galen strongly denied being attached to any of the sects of
   his day, and regarded as slaves those who took the title of
   Hippocratists, Praxagoreaus, or Herophilists, and so on.
   Nevertheless his predilection in favor of the Hippocratic
   writings is well marked, for he explains, comments upon them,
   and amplifies them at length, refutes the objections of their
   adversaries and gives them the highest place. He says, 'No one
   before me has given the true method of treating disease;
   Hippocrates, I confess, has heretofore shown the path, but as
   he was the first to enter it he was not able to go as far as
   he wished. … He has not made all the necessary distinction,
   and is often obscure, as is usually the case with ancients
   when they attempt to be concise. He says very little of
   complicated diseases; in a word, he has only sketched what
   another was to complete; he has opened the path, but has left
   it for a successor to enlarge and make it plain.' This implies
   how he regarded himself as the successor of Hippocrates, and
   how little weight he attached to the labors of others. He held
   that there were three sorts of principles in man—spirits,
   humors, and solids. Throughout his metaphysical speculations
   Galen reproduces and amplifies the Hippocratic dogmatism.
   Between perfect health and disease there were, he thought,
   eight kinds of temperaments or imperfect mixtures compatible
   with the exercise of the functions of life. With Plato and
   Aristotle he thought the human soul to be composed of three
   faculties or parts, the vegetive, residing in the liver; the
   irascible, having its seat in the heart, and the rational,
   which resided in the brain. He divided diseases of the solids
   of the body into what he called distempers; he distinguished
   between the continued and intermittent fevers, regarding the
   quotidian as being caused by phlegm, the tertian as due to
   yellow bile, and the quartan due to atrabile. In the doctrine
   of coction, crises, and critical days, he agreed with
   Hippocrates; with him he also agreed in the positive statement
   that diseases are cured by their contraries."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11th Centuries.
   Medical Art of the Arabs.

   "It probably sounds paradoxical (though it is not) to affirm
   that, throughout the first half of the Middle Ages, science
   made its home chiefly with the Semites and Græco-Romans (its
   founders), while, in opposition to the original relations,
   faith and its outgrowths alone were fostered by the Germans.
   In the sterile wastes of the desert the Arabians constructed a
   verdant oasis of science, in lands to-day the home once more
   of absolute or partial barbarism. A genuine meteor of
   civilization were these Arabians. … The Arabians built their
   medicine upon the principles and theories of the Greeks (whose
   medical writings were studied and copied mostly in
   translations only), and especially upon those of Galen, in
   such a way, that, on the whole, they added to it very little
   matter of their own, save numerous subtle definitions and
   amplifications. But Indian medical views and works, as well as
   those of other earlier Asiatic peoples (e. g., the Chaldeans),
   exercised demonstrably, but in a subordinate degree, an
   influence upon Arabian medicine. The Arabians interwove too
   into their medical views various philosophical theorems,
   especially those of Aristotle, already corrupted by the
   Alexandrians and still further falsified by themselves with
   portions of the Neo-Platonic philosophy; and finally they
   added thereto a goodly share of the absurdities of astrology
   and alchemy. Indeed it is nowadays considered proven that they
   even made use of ancient Egyptian medical works, e. g., the
   papyrus Ebers. Thus the medicine of the Arabians, like Grecian
   medicine its parent, did not greatly surpass the grade of
   development of mere medical philosophy, and, so far as regards
   its intrinsic worth, it stands entirely upon Grecian
   foundations. … Yet they constantly advanced novelties in the
   sciences subsidiary to medicine, materia medica and pharmacy,
   from the latter of which chemistry, pharmacies and the
   profession of the apothecary were developed. … The mode of
   transfer of Greek medicine to the Arabians was probably as
   follows: The inhabitants of the neighboring parts of Asia,
   including both the Persians and Arabians, as the result of
   multifarious business connexions with Alexandria, came, even
   at an early date, in contact with Grecian science, and by
   degrees a permanent alliance was formed with it. In a more
   evident way the same result was accomplished by the Jewish
   schools in Asia, the great majority of which owed their
   foundation to Alexandria. Such schools were established at
   Nisibis, at Nahardea in Mesopotamia, at Mathæ-Mechasja on the
   Euphrates, at Sura, &c., and their period of prime falls in
   the 5th century. The influence of the Nestorian universities
   was especially favorable and permanent, particularly the
   school under Greek management founded at Edessa, in
   Mesopotamia, where Stephen of Edessa, the reputed father of
   Alexander of Tralles, taught (A. D. 530). …. Still more
   influential in the transfer of Grecian science to the Arabians
   was the banishment of the 'heathen' philosophers of the last
   so-called Platonic school of Athens, by the 'Christian' despot
   Justinian I. (529). These philosophers were well received at
   the court of the infidel Chosroës, and in return manifested
   their gratitude by the propagation of Grecian science. …
   From all these causes it resulted that, even as early as the
   time of Mohammed (571-632), physicians educated in the Grecian
   doctrines lived among the Arabians. … Arabian culture (and
   of course Arabian medicine) reached its zenith at the period
   of the greatest power and greatest wealth of the Caliphate in
   the 9th and 10th centuries. At that time intellectual life was
   rooted in the schools of the mosques, i. e., the Arabian
   universities, which the great caliphs were zealous in
   founding. Such Arabian universities arose and existed in the
   progress of time (even as late as the 14th century) at Bagdad,
   Bassora, Cufa, Samarcand, Ispahan, Damascus, Bokhara,
   Firuzabad and Khurdistan, and under the scholastic Fatimides
   (909-1171) in Alexandria. Under the Ommyiades (755-1031),
   after the settlement of the Arabians in Spain in the beginning
   of the 8th century, were founded the famous universities of
   Cordova (possessing in the 10th century a library of 250,000
   volumes), Seville, Toledo, Almeria and Murcia under the three
   caliphs named Abderrahman and Al Hakem.
{2130}
   Less important were the universities of Granada and Valencia,
   and least important of all, those founded by the Edrisi
   dynasty (800-986) in the provinces of Tunis, Fez and Morocco.
   In spite of all these institutions the Arabians possessed no
   talent for productive research; still less, like the ancient
   Semites, did they create any arts, save poesy and
   architecture. Their whole civilization bore the stamp of its
   foreign origin. … 'The Prince of Physicians' (el Sheik el
   Reis—he was also a poet) was the title given by the Arabians
   to Abu Ali el Hossein ebn Abdallah ebn Sina (Ebn Sina,
   Avicenna), 980-1037, in recognition of his great erudition, of
   which the chief evidences are stored in his 'Canon.' This
   work, though it contains substantially merely the conclusions
   of the Greeks, was the text-book and law of the healing art,
   even as late as the first century of modern times."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 216-229._

   "The Saracens commenced the application of chemistry, both to
   the theory and practice of medicine, in the explanation of the
   functions of the human body and in the cure of its diseases.
   Nor was their surgery behind their medicine. Albucasis, of
   Cordova, shrinks not from the performance of the most
   formidable operations in his own and in the obstetrical art;
   the actual cautery and the knife are used without hesitation.
   He has left us ample descriptions of the surgical instruments
   then employed; and from him we learn that, in operations on
   females in which considerations of delicacy intervened, the
   services of properly instructed women were secured. How
   different was all this from the state of things in Europe: the
   Christian peasant, fever-stricken or overtaken by accident,
   hied to the nearest saint-shrine and expected a miracle; the
   Spanish Moor relied on the prescription or lancet of his
   physician, or the bandage and knife of his surgeon."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "The accession of Gehwer to the throne of Mussulman Spain,
   early in the eleventh century, was marked by the promulgation
   of regulations so judiciously planned, touching medical
   science and its practice, that he deserves the highest
   commendation for the unwavering zeal with which he supervised
   this important branch of learning taught in the metropolis.
   Those evils which the provinces had suffered previous to his
   rule, through the practice of medicine by debased empirics,
   were quickly removed by this sagacious Caliph. Upon the
   publication of his rescripts, such medical charlatans or
   ambulatory physicians as boldly announced themselves to be
   medici, without a knowledge of the science, were ignominiously
   expelled from the provincial towns. He decreed that a college
   of skilled surgeons should be forthwith organized, for the
   single specified function of rigidly examining into the
   assumed qualifications of applicants for licenses to exercise
   the curative art in municipal or rural departments, or sought
   professional employment as physicians in the numerous
   hospitals upon the Mahometan domains."

      _G. F. Fort,
      Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 17._

   "Anatomy and physiology, far from making any conquests under
   Arabian rule, followed on the contrary a retrograde movement.
   As those physicians never devoted themselves to dissections,
   they were under the necessity of conforming entirely to the
   accounts of Galen. … Pathology was enriched in the Arabian
   writings by some new observations. … The physicians of this
   nation were the first … who began to distinguish eruptive
   fevers by the exterior characters of the eruption, while the
   Greeks paid but little attention to these signs. Therapeutics
   made also some interesting acquisitions under the Arab
   physicians. It owes to them, among other things, the
   introduction of mild purgatives, such as cassia, senna, and
   manna, which replaced advantageously, in many cases, the
   drastics employed by the ancients; it is indebted to them,
   also, for several chemical and pharmaceutical improvements, as
   the confection of syrups, tinctures, and distilled waters,
   which are very frequently and usefully employed. Finally,
   external therapeutics, or surgery, received some minor
   additions, such as pomades, plasters, and new ointments; but
   these additions were very far from compensating for the
   considerable losses which it suffered by their abandoning a
   multitude of operations in use among the Greeks."

      _P. V. Renouard,
      History of Medicine,
      page 267._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17th Centuries.
   Mediæval Medicine.

   "The difficulties under which medical science laboured may be
   estimated from the fact that dissection was forbidden by the
   clergy of the Middle Ages, on the ground that it was impious
   to mutilate a form made in the image of God. We do not find
   this pious objection interfering with such mutilation when
   effected by means of the rack and the wheel and such other
   clerical rather than medical instruments. But in the reign of
   Philip the Second of Spain a famous Spanish doctor was
   actually condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt for having
   performed a surgical operation, and it was only by royal
   favour that he was permitted instead to expiate his crime by a
   pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he died in poverty and
   exile. This being the attitude of the all-powerful Church
   towards medical progress, it is not surprising that medical
   science should have stagnated, and that Galen and Dioscorides
   were permitted to lay down the law in the sixteenth century as
   they had done since the beginning of the Christian era. Some
   light is thrown upon the state of things here from resulting
   by a work translated from the German in the year 1561, and
   entitled 'A most excellent and perfecte homish apothecarye or
   physicke booke, for all the grefes and diseases of the bodye.'
   The first chapter is 'Concerning the Head and his partes.'
   'Galen sayth, the head is divided into foure partes: in the
   fore part hath blood the dominion; Colera in the ryght syde,
   Melancholy in the left syde, and Flegma beareth rule in the
   hindermost part. If the head doth ake so sore by reason of a
   runninge that he cannot snoffe hys nose, bath hys fete in a
   depe tub untill the knees and give him this medicine … which
   riseth into hys head and dryeth hys moyst braynes. Galen sayth
   He that hath payne in the hindermost part of hys head, the
   same must be let blood under the chynne, specially on the
   right side; also were it good ofte to burn the heyre of a man
   before hys nose. The braynes are greved many wayes; many there
   are whom the head whyrleth so sore that he thinketh the earth
   turneth upsydedoune: Cummin refraineth the whyrling,
   comforteth the braynes and maketh them to growe agayne: or he
   may take the braynes of a hogge, rost the same upon a grede
   yron and cut slices thereof and lay to the greved parts.'
{2131}
   This doctrine of like helping like was of universal
   application, and in medical works of the Middle Ages we meet
   constantly with such prescriptions as these:—'Take the right
   eye of a Frogg, lap it in a peece of russet cloth and hang it
   about the neck: it cureth the light eye if it bee en flamed or
   bleared. And if the left eye be greved, do the like by the
   left eye of the said Frogg." Again—'The skin of a Raven's
   heel is good against the gout, but the right heel skin must be
   laid upon the right foot if that be gouty, and the left upon
   the left. … If you would have a man become bold or impudent
   let him carry about him the skin or eyes of a Lion or a Cock,
   and he will be fearless of his enemies, nay, he will be very
   terrible unto them. If you would have him talkative, give him
   tongues, and seek out those of water frogs and ducks and such
   creatures notorious for their continuall noise making.' On the
   same principle we find it prescribed as a cure for the
   quartane ague to lay the fourth book of Homer's Iliad under
   the patient's head; a remedy which had at least the negative
   merit of not being nauseous. … For weak eyes the patient is
   to 'take the tounge of a foxe, and hange the same about his
   necke, and so long it hangeth there his sight shall not wax
   feeble, as sayth Pliny.' The hanging of such amulets round the
   neck was very frequently prescribed, and the efficacy of them
   is a thing curiously well attested. Elias Ashmole in his diary
   for 1681 has entered the following—'I tooke this morning a
   good dose of elixir, and hung three spiders about my neck, and
   they drove my ague away. Deo gratias!' A baked toad hung in a
   silk bag about the neck was also held in high esteem, as was a
   toad, either alive or dried, laid upon the back of the neck as
   a means of stopping a bleeding at the nose: and again, 'either
   frogg or toade, the nails whereof have been clipped, hanged
   about one that is sick of quartane ague, riddeth away the
   disease forever, as sayth Pliny.' We have even a striking
   instance of the benefit derived from an amulet by a horse, who
   could not be suspected of having helped forward the cure by
   the strength of his faith in it. 'The root of cut Malowe
   hanged about the neck driveth away blemishes of the eyen,
   whether it be in a man or a horse, as I Jerome of Brunsweig,
   have seene myselfe. I have myselfe done it to a blind horse
   that I bought for X crounes, and was sold again of XL
   crounes'—a trick distinctly worth knowing."

      _E. A. King,
      Mediæval Medicine
      (Nineteenth Century, July 1893)._

   "If we survey the social and political state of Europe from
   the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the
   development of medical art, our attention is at once arrested
   by Italy, which at this period was far ahead of the rest of
   the world. Taking the number of universities as an index of
   civilization, we find that, before the year 1500, there were
   sixteen in Italy,—while in France there were but six: in
   Germany, including Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria, &c., there were
   eight: and in Britain, two; making sixteen in all,—the exact
   number which existed in Italy alone. The Italian Universities
   were, likewise, no less superior in number than in fame to
   those of the north. … In many of the Italian republics,
   during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, the
   power was chiefly in the hands of the middle classes; and it
   is probable that the physicians occupied a high and
   influential position among them. Galvanis Flamma describes
   Milan in 1288, as having a population of 200,000, among whom
   were 600 notaries, 200 physicians, 80 schoolmasters, and fifty
   transcribers of manuscripts or books. Milan was about this
   period at a pitch of glory which has not been equalled since
   the Greek republics."

      _J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      chapter 5._

   "Three schools, as early as 1158, had a reputation which
   extended throughout the whole of Europe: Paris for theological
   studies, Bologna for Roman or civil law, and Salerno as the
   chief medical school of the west."

      _G. F. Fort,
      Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 24._

   "In 1215 Pope Innocent III. fulminated an anathema specially
   directed against surgery, by ordaining, that as the church
   abhorred all cruel or sanguinary practices, no priest should
   be permitted to follow surgery, or to perform any operations
   in which either instruments of steel or fire were employed:
   and that they should refuse their benediction to all those who
   professed and pursued it. … The saints have proved sad
   enemies to the doctors. Miraculous cures are attested by
   monks, abbots, bishops, popes, and consecrated saints. …
   Pilgrimages and visits to holy shrines have usurped the place
   of medicine, and, as in many cases at our own watering places,
   by air and exercise, have unquestionably effected what the
   employment of regular professional aid had been unable to
   accomplish. St. Dominic, St. Bellinus, and St. Vitus have been
   greatly renowned in the cure of diseases in general; the
   latter particularly, who takes both poisons and madness of all
   kinds under his special protection. Melton says 'the saints of
   the Romanists have usurped the place of the zodiacal
   constellations in their governance of the parts of man's body,
   and that "for every limbe they have a saint." Thus St. Otilia
   keepes the head instead of Aries; St. Blasius is appointed to
   governe the necke instead of Taurus; St. Lawrence keepes the
   backe and shoulders instead of Gemini, Cancer, and Leo: St.
   Erasmus rules the belly with the entrayles, in the place of
   Libra and Scorpius; in the stead of Sagittarius, Capricornus,
   Aquarius, and Pisces, the holy church of Rome hath elected St.
   Burgarde, St. Rochus. St. Quirinus, St. John, and many others,
   which governe the thighes, feet, shinnes, and knees.' This
   supposed influence of the Romish saints is more minutely
   exhibited, according to Hone, in two very old prints, from
   engravings on wood, in the collection of the British Museum.
   Right hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to God,
   the second joint to the Virgin; the top joint of the
   fore-finger to St. Barnabas, the second joint to St. John, the
   third to St. Paul: the top joint of the second finger to Simon
   Cleophas, the second joint to Tathideo, the third to Joseph;
   the top joint of the third finger to Zaccheus, the second to
   Stephen, the third to the evangelist Luke; the top joint of
   the little finger to Leatus, the second to Mark, the third to
   Nicodemus. Left hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated
   to Christ, the second joint to the Virgin: the top joint of
   the fore-finger to St. James, the second to St. John the
   Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; the first joint of the
   second finger to St. Simon, the second joint to St. Matthew,
   the third to St. James the Great; the top joint of the third
   finger to St. Jude, the second joint to St. Bartholomew, the
   third to St. Andrew; the top joint of the little finger to St.
   Matthias, the second to St. Thomas, the third joint to St.
   Philip. …
{2132}
   "The credulity of mankind has never been more strongly
   displayed than in the general belief afforded to the
   authenticity of remarkable cures of diseases said to have been
   effected by the imposition of royal hands. The practice seems
   to have originated in an opinion that there is something
   sacred or divine attaching either to the sovereign or his
   functions. … The practice appears to be one of English
   growth, commencing with Edward the Confessor, and descending
   only to foreign potentates who could show an alliance with the
   royal family of England. The kings of France, however, claimed
   the right to dispense the Gift of Healing, and it was
   certainly exercised by Philip the First; but the French
   historians say that he was deprived of the power on account of
   the irregularity of his life. Laurentius, first physician to
   Henry IV, of France, who is indignant at the attempt made to
   derive its origin from Edward the Confessor, asserts the power
   to have commenced with Clovis I, A. D. 481, and says that
   Louis I, A. D. 814, added to the ceremonial of touching, the
   sign of the cross. Mezeray also says, that St. Louis, through
   humility, first added the sign of the cross in touching for
   the king's evil. … If credit is to be given to a statement
   … by William of Malmesbury, with respect to Edward the
   Confessor, we must admit that in England, for a period of
   nearly 700 years, the practice of the royal touch was
   exercised in a greater or lesser degree, as it extended to the
   reign of Queen Anne. It must not however be supposed that
   historical documents are extant to prove a regular continuance
   of the practice during this time. No accounts whatever of the
   first four Norman kings attempting to cure the complaint are
   to be found. In the reign of William III, it was not on any
   occasion exercised. He manifested more sense than his
   predecessors, for he withheld from employing the royal touch
   for the cure of scrofula; and Rapin says, that he was so
   persuaded he should do no injury to persons afflicted with
   this distemper by not touching them, that he refrained from it
   all his reign. Queen Elizabeth was also averse to the
   practice, yet she extensively performed it. It flourished most
   in the time of Charles II, particularly after his restoration,
   and a public register of cases was kept at Whitehall, the
   principal scene of its operation."

      _T. J. Pettigrew,
      Superstitions connected with the History and Practice
      of Medicine and Surgery,
      pages 34-37, and 117-121._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
   Paracelsus.

   Paracelsus, of whose many names this one stands alone in
   history to represent him, was an extraordinary person, born in
   Switzerland, in 1493. He died in 1541. "His character has been
   very variously estimated. The obstructives of his own age and
   many hasty judges since have pronounced him a quack. This is
   simply ridiculous. As a chemist, he is considered to have been
   the discoverer of zinc, and perhaps of bismuth. He was
   acquainted with hydrogen, muriatic, and sulphurous gases. He
   distinguished alum from the vitriols; remarking that the
   former contained an earth, and the latter metals. He perceived
   the part played by the atmosphere in combustion, and
   recognized the analogy between combustion and respiration. He
   saw that in the organic system chemical processes are
   constantly going on. Thus, to him is due the fundamental idea
   from which have sprung the chemico-physiological researches of
   Liebig, Mulder, Boussingault, and others. By using in
   medicine, not crude vegetables, but their active principles,
   he opened the way to the discovery of the proximate principles
   of vegetables, organic alkalis, and the like. But perhaps the
   greatest service he rendered to chemistry, was by declaring it
   an essential part of medical education, and by showing that
   its true practical application lay not in gold-making, but in
   pharmacy and the industrial arts. In medicine he scouted the
   fearfully complex electuaries and mixtures of the Galenists
   and the Arabian polypharmacists, recommending simpler and more
   active preparations. He showed that the idea of poison is
   merely relative, and knew that poisons in suitable doses may
   be employed in medicine. He prescribed tin as a remedy for
   intestinal worms, mercury as an anti-syphilitic, and lead in
   the diseases of the skin. He also used preparations of
   antimony, arsenic, and iron. He employed sulphuric acid in the
   treatment of saturnine affections. The astonishing cures which
   he undoubtedly performed were, however, due not so much to his
   peculiar medicines, as to his eminent sagacity and insight. He
   showed the importance of a chemical examination of urine for
   the diagnosis of disease."

      _J. W. Slater,
      Paracelsus
      (Imperial Dict. of Univ. Biog.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
   The first English College of Physicians.

   "The modern doctor dates only from the reign of Henry VIII.,
   when the College of Physicians in England was founded as a
   body corporate by letters patent in the tenth year of the
   reign. This grant was in response to a petition from a few of
   the most notable members of the profession resident in London,
   who were perhaps moved by both a laudable zeal in the
   interests of science, and a compassion for the sufferings of
   the subjects of astrological and toxicological experiments.
   The charter thus obtained, though probably drafted by the
   promoters themselves, was found to be so inadequately worded
   and expressed, that it became necessary to obtain powers to
   amend it by Act of Parliament. Among these early members were
   Linacre, Wotton, and others, famous scholars beyond doubt,
   though possibly but indifferent practitioners. In fact, we are
   constantly struck throughout the early history of the
   profession by the frequent occurrence of names associated with
   almost every other branch of study than that strictly
   appertaining to the art of medicine. We have naturalists,
   magneticians, astronomers, mathematicians, logicians, and
   classical scholars, but scarce one who accomplished anything
   worthy to be recorded in the annals of medical science. Indeed
   it is difficult to conceive any useful object that could have
   been attained by the existence of the College as a
   professional licensing body, other than the pecuniary
   interests of the orthodox. … It is most significant as to
   the social degradation of the science of medicine, that most
   of the notorious empirics of the latter half of the sixteenth
   century were both highly recommended and strenuously supported
   in their resistance to the proctors of orthodoxy by some of
   the greatest names of the age. These self-deluded victims of
   quackery were not indeed adverse in theory to the pretensions
   of more regular members of the profession.
{2133}
   They would patronize the Court physicians, or, if favorites of
   the Crown, they might even submit to the Sovereign's
   recommendation in that behalf; but none the less their family
   doctor was in far too many cases some outlandish professor of
   occult arts, retained in learned state on the premises, who
   undertook the speedy, not to say miraculous, cure of his
   patron's particular disease by all the charms of the Cabala."

      _H. Hall,
      The Early Medicus
      (Merry England; also in Eclectic Magazine, June, 1884)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
   The System of Van Helmont.

   John Baptist van Helmont "was born at Brussels in the year
   1577. … His parents were noble, and he was heir to great
   possessions. He pursued in Louvain the usual course of
   scholastic philosophy. … Becoming accidentally acquainted
   with the writings of Thomas à Kempis and John Tauler, he from
   that day adopted what goes by the vague term of mysticism.
   That is, thoroughly convinced that there was a spiritual world
   in intimate and eternal union with the spirit of man; that
   this spiritual world was revealed to that human soul which
   submitted to receive it in humility; and that the doctrines of
   Christianity were not to be looked upon as a system of
   philosophy; but as a rule of life, he resolved to follow them
   to the letter. The consequence of this resolution was, that he
   devoted himself to the art of medicine, in imitation of the
   Great Healer of the body as well as of the soul; and as the
   prejudices of his time and country made his rank and wealth an
   obstacle to his entrance into the medical profession, he made
   over all his property, with its honours, to his sister; that,
   'laying aside every weight, he might run the race that was set
   before him.' He entered on his new studies with all the zeal
   of his character, and very soon had so completely mastered the
   writings of Hippocrates and Galen, as to excite the surprise
   of his contemporaries. But although styled a dreamer, and
   having a mind easily moved to belief in spiritual
   manifestation, he was not of a credulous nature in regard to
   matters belonging to the senses. And as he believed that
   Christianity was to be practised, and to be found true by the
   test of experiment, so he believed that the doctrines of
   Hippocrates and of Galen were to be subjected to a similar
   trial. An opportunity soon occurred to himself. He caught the
   itch and turned to Galen for its cure. Galen attributes this
   disease to overheated bile and sour phlegm, and says that it
   is to be cured by purgatives. Van Helmont, with the implicit
   faith of his simple nature, procured the prescribed medicines,
   and took them as ordered by Galen. Alas, no cure of the itch
   followed, but great exhaustion of his whole body: so Galen was
   not to be trusted. This was a serious discovery; for if he
   could not trust Galen, by whom the whole medical world swore,
   to whom was he to turn? … Van Helmont resolved to work out
   for himself a solution of the great problem to which he had
   devoted his life. Van Helmont's system may be called spiritual
   vitalism. The primary cause of all organization was Archæus.
   By Archæus, a man is much more nearly allied, he says, to the
   world of spirits and the Father of spirits than to the
   external world. Archæus is the creative spirit which, working
   upon the raw material of water or fluidity, by means of 'a
   ferment' excites all the endless actions which result in the
   growth and nourishment of the body. Thus, digestion is neither
   a chemical nor a mechanical operation; nor is it, as was then
   supposed, the effects of heat, for it is arrested instead of
   aided by fever, and goes on in perfection in fishes and
   cold-blooded animals; but, on the command of Archæus, an acid
   is generated in the stomach, which dissolves the food. This is
   the first digestion. The second consists in the neutralization
   of this acid by the bile out of the gall bladder. The third
   takes place in the vessels of the mesentery. The fourth goes
   on in the heart, by the action of the vital spirits. The fifth
   consists in the conversion of the arterial blood into vital
   spirits, chiefly in the brain. The sixth consists of the
   preparation of nourishment in the laboratory of each organ,
   during which operation Archæus, present everywhere, is itself
   regenerated, and superintends the momentary regeneration of
   the whole frame. If for digestion we substitute the word
   nutrition, we cannot fail to be struck by the near approach to
   accuracy in this description of the succession of processes by
   which it is brought about. Van Helmont's pathology was quite
   consistent with his physiology. As life and all vital action
   depended upon Archæus, so the perturbation of Archæus gave
   rise to fevers, and derangements of the blood and secretions.
   Thus, gout was a disease not confined to the part in which it
   showed itself, but was the result of Archæus. It will be seen
   that by this theory the entire system of Galen was non-suited.
   There is no place for the elements and the humours."

      _J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      chapter 8._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Harvey and the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

   William Harvey, "physician and discoverer of the circulation
   of the blood, was born at Folkestone, Kent, 1 April 1578, in a
   house which was in later times the posthouse of the town and
   which still belongs to Caius College, Cambridge, to which
   Harvey bequeathed it. His father was Thomas Harvey, a Kentish
   yeoman. … In 1588 William was sent to the King's School,
   Canterbury. Thence he went to Cambridge, where he was admitted
   a pensioner in Gonville and Caius College, 31 May 1593. … He
   graduated B. A. 1597, and, determining to study medicine,
   travelled through France and Germany to Padua, the most famous
   school of physic of that time. … He returned to England,
   graduated M. D. at Cambridge 1602, and soon after took a house
   in the parish of St. Martin-extra-Ludgate in London. … On 4
   August 1615 he was elected Lumleian lecturer at the College of
   Physicians, … and in the following April, on the 16th, 17th,
   and 18th, he delivered at the college in Knightrider Street,
   near St. Paul's Cathedral, the lectures in which he made the
   first public statement of his thoughts on the circulation of
   the blood. The notes from which he delivered these lectures
   exist in their original manuscript and binding at the British
   Museum. … In 1628, twelve years after his first statement of
   it in his lectures, he published at Frankfurt, through William
   Fitzer, his discovery of the circulation of the blood. The
   book is a small quarto, entitled 'Exercitatio Anatomica de
   Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus,' and contains
   seventy-two pages and two plates of diagrams. The printers
   evidently had difficulty in reading the author's handwriting,
   and there are many misprints. …
{2134}
   He begins by modestly stating how the difficulties of the
   subject had gradually become clear to him, and by expressing
   with a quotation from the 'Andria' of Terence, the hope that
   his discovery might help others to still further knowledge. He
   then describes the motions of arteries, of the ventricles of
   the heart, and of its auricles, as seen in living animals, and
   the use of these movements. He shows that the blood coming
   into the right auricle from the vena cava, and passing then to
   the right ventricle, is pumped out to the lungs through the
   pulmonary artery, passes through the parenchyma of the lungs,
   and comes thence by the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle.
   This same blood, he shows, is then pumped out to the body. It
   is carried out by arteries and comes back by veins, performing
   a complete circulation. He shows that, in a live snake, when
   the great veins are tied some way from the heart, the piece of
   vein between the ligature and the heart is empty, and further,
   that blood coming from the heart is checked in an artery by a
   ligature, so that there is blood between the heart and the
   ligature and no blood beyond the ligature. He then shows how
   the blood comes back to the heart by the veins, and
   demonstrates their valves. These had before been described by
   Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, but before Harvey no
   exact explanation of their function had been given. He gives
   diagrams showing the results of obstructing the veins, and
   that these valves may thus be seen to prevent the flow of
   blood in the veins in any direction except towards the heart.
   After a summary of a few lines in the fourteenth chapter he
   further illustrates the perpetual circuit of the blood, and
   points out how morbid materials are carried from the heart all
   over the body. The last chapter gives a masterly account of
   the structure of the heart in men and animals, and points out
   that the right ventricle is thinner than the left because it
   has only to send the blood a short way into the lungs, while
   the left ventricle has to pump it all over the body. This
   great and original book at once attracted attention and
   excited discussion. In the College of Physicians of London,
   where Harvey had mentioned the discovery in his lectures every
   year since 1616, the Exercitatio received all the honour it
   deserved. On the continent of Europe it was received with less
   favour, but neither in England nor abroad did anyone suggest
   that the discovery was to be found in other writers. …
   Before his death the great discovery of Harvey was accepted
   throughout the medical world. The modern controversy … as to
   whether the discovery was taken from some previous author is
   sufficiently refuted by the opinion of the opponents of his
   views in his own time, who agreed in denouncing the doctrine
   as new; by the laborious method of gradual demonstration
   obvious in his book and lectures; and, lastly, by the complete
   absence of lucid demonstration of the action of the heart and
   course of the blood in Cæsalpinus, Servetus, and all others
   who have been suggested as possible originals of the
   discovery. It remains to this day the greatest of the
   discoveries of physiology, and its whole honour belongs to
   Harvey."

      _N. Moore,
      Harvey
      (Dict. of National Biog., volume 25)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Willis,
      William Harvey: A history of the Discovery of
      the Circulation of the Blood._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Discovery of the Lymphatic Circulation.

   "The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was
   scarcely less remarkable than that of the circulation of the
   blood. It has about it less of eclat, because it was not the
   work of one man, but was a matter of slow development.
   Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels connected
   with the lymph nodes in the mesentery of certain animals, and
   had supposed them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed
   this, and believed the intestinal chyle to be carried by the
   veins of the mesentery into the liver. In 1563 Eustachius had
   described the thoracic duct in the horse; in 1622 Aselli,
   professor of anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal vessels
   in a dog which had been killed immediately after eating.
   Having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid
   issue from it. Repeating the same experiment at other times he
   became certain that the white threads were vessels which drew
   the chyle from the intestines. He observed the valves with
   which they are supplied, and supposed these vessels to all
   meet in the pancreas and to be continued into the liver. In
   1647 Pecquet, who was still a student at Montpelier,
   discovered the lymph reservoir, or receptaculum chyli, and the
   canal which leads from it, i. e., the thoracic duct, which he
   followed to its termination in the left subclavian vein.
   Having ligated it he saw it swell below, and empty itself
   above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals,
   and convinced himself that they all entered into the common
   reservoir. His discovery gave the last blow to the ancient
   theory, which attributed to the liver the function of blood
   making, and it confirmed the doctrine of Harvey, while, like
   it, it had been very strongly opposed. Strangely enough,
   Harvey in this instance united with his great opponent,
   Riolan, in making common cause against the discovery of
   Pecquet and its significance. From that time the lymphatic
   vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were
   investigated by many anatomists, especially Bartholin, Ruysch,
   the Hunters, Hewson, and above all by Mascagni. He was the
   first to give a graphic description of the whole lymphatic
   apparatus."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Descartes and the dawn of modern Physiological science.

   "The essence of modern, as contrasted with ancient,
   physiological science appears to me to lie in its antagonism
   to animistic hypotheses and animistic phraseology. It offers
   physical explanations of vital phenomena, or frankly confesses
   that it has none to offer. And, so far as I know, the first
   person who gave expression to this modern view of physiology,
   who was bold enough to enunciate the proposition that vital
   phenomena, like all the other phenomena of the physical world,
   are, in ultimate analysis, resolvable into matter and motion
   was René Descartes. The fifty-four years of life of this most
   original and powerful thinker are widely overlapped, on both
   sides, by the eighty of Harvey, who survived his younger
   contemporary by seven years, and takes pleasure in
   acknowledging the French philosopher's appreciation of his
   great discovery.
{2135}
   In fact, Descartes accepted the doctrine of the circulation as
   propounded by 'Harvæus médecin d'Angleterre,' and gave a full
   account of it in his first work, the famous 'Discours de la
   Méthode,' which was published in 1637, only nine years after
   the exercitation 'De motu cordis;' and, though differing from
   Harvey on some important points (in which it may be noted, in
   passing, Descartes was wrong and Harvey right), he always
   speaks of him with great respect. And so important does the
   subject seem to Descartes that he returns to it in the 'Traité
   des Passions' and in the 'Traité de l'Homme.' It is easy to
   see that Harvey's work must have had a peculiar significance
   for the subtle thinker, to whom we owe both the spiritualistic
   and the materialistic philosophies of modern times. It was in
   the very year of its publication, 1628, that Descartes
   withdrew into that life of solitary investigation and
   meditation of which his philosophy was the fruit. …
   Descartes uses 'thought' as the equivalent of our modern term
   'consciousness.' Thought is the function of the soul, and its
   only function. Our natural heat and all the movements of the
   body, says he, do not depend on the soul. Death does not take
   place from any fault of the soul, but only because some of the
   principal parts of the body become corrupted. … Descartes'
   'Treatise on Man' is a sketch of human physiology, in which a
   bold attempt is made to explain all the phenomena of life,
   except those of consciousness, by physical reasonings. To a
   mind turned in this direction, Harvey's exposition of the
   heart and vessels as a hydraulic mechanism must have been
   supremely welcome. Descartes was not a mere philosophical
   theorist, but a hardworking dissector and experimenter, and he
   held the strongest opinion respecting the practical value of
   the new conception which he was introducing. … 'It is true,'
   says he, 'that as medicine is now practised, it contains
   little that is very useful; but without any desire to
   depreciate, I am sure that there is no one, even among
   professional men, who will not declare that all we know is
   very little as compared with that which remains to be known;
   and that we might escape an infinity of diseases of the mind,
   no less than of the body, and even perhaps from the weakness
   of old age, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and
   of all the remedies with which nature has provided us.' So
   strongly impressed was Descartes with this, that he resolved
   to spend the rest of his life in trying to acquire such a
   knowledge of nature as would lead to the construction of a
   better medical doctrine. The anti-Cartesians found material
   for cheap ridicule in these aspirations of the philosopher;
   and it is almost needless to say that, in the thirteen years
   which elapsed between the publication of the 'Discours' and
   the death of Descartes, he did not contribute much to their
   realisation. But, for the next century, all progress in
   physiology took place along the lines which Descartes laid
   down. The greatest physiological and pathological work of the
   seventeenth century, Borelli's treatise 'De Motu Animalium,'
   is, to all intents and purposes, a development of Descartes'
   fundamental conception; and the same may be said of the
   physiology and pathology of Boerhaave, whose authority
   dominated in the medical world of the first half of the
   eighteenth century. With the origin of modern chemistry, and
   of electrical science, in the latter half of the eighteenth
   century, aids in the analysis of the phenomena of life, of
   which Descartes could not have dreamed, were offered to the
   physiologist. And the greater part of the gigantic progress
   which has been made in the present century is a justification
   of the prevision of Descartes. For it consists, essentially,
   in a more and more complete resolution of the grosser organs
   of the living body into physico-chemical mechanisms. 'I shall
   try to explain our whole bodily machinery in such a way, that
   it will be no more necessary for us to suppose that the soul
   produces such movements as are not voluntary, than it is to
   think that there is in a clock a soul which causes it to show
   the hours.' These words of Descartes might be appropriately
   taken as a motto by the author of any modern treatise on
   physiology."

      _T. H. Huxley,
      Connection of the Biological Sciences with Medicine
      (Science and Culture, etc., lecture 13)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Introduction of Peruvian Bark.

   "The aborigines of South America appear, except perhaps in one
   locality, to have been ignorant of the virtues of Peruvian
   bark. This sovereign remedy is absent in the wallets of
   itinerant doctors, whose materia medica has been handed down
   from father to son, since the days of the Yncas. It is
   mentioned neither by the Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, nor by
   Acosta, in their lists of Indian medicines. It seems probable,
   nevertheless, that the Indians were aware of the virtues of
   Peruvian bark in the neighborhood of Loxa, 230 miles south of
   Quito, where its use was first made known to Europeans; and
   the local name for the tree quina-quina, 'bark of bark,'
   indicates that it was believed to possess some special
   medicinal properties. … In 1638 the wife of Don Luis
   Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera Bobadilla y Mendoza, fourth
   Count of Chinchon, and Viceroy of Peru, lay sick of an
   intermittent fever in the palace of Lima. … The news of her
   illness at Lima reached Don Francisco Lopez de Canizares, the
   Corregidor of Loxa, who had become acquainted with the
   febrifuge virtues of the bark. He sent a parcel of it to the
   Vice-Queen, and the new remedy, administered by her physician,
   Dr. Don Juan de Vega, effected a rapid and complete cure. …
   The Countess of Chinchon returned to Spain in the spring of
   1640, bringing with her a supply of that precious quina bark
   which had worked so wonderful a cure upon herself, and the
   healing virtues of which she intended to distribute amongst
   the sick on her husband's estates. It thus gradually became
   known in Europe, and was most appropriately called Countess's
   powder (Pulvis Comitissæ). By this name it was long known to
   druggists and in commerce. … In memory of the great service
   to humanity performed by the Countess of Chinchon, Linnæus
   named the genus which yields Peruvian bark, Chinchona.
   Unfortunately the great botanist was misinformed as to the
   name of her whom he desired to honour. This is to be accounted
   for by his having received his knowledge of the Countess
   through a foreign and not a Spanish source. Thus misled,
   Linnæus spelt the word Cinchona … and Cinhona, … omitting
   one or two letters. … After the cure of the Countess of
   Chinchon the Jesuits were the great promoters of the
   introduction of bark into Europe. In 1670 these fathers sent
   parcels of the powdered bark to Rome, whence it was
   distributed to members of the fraternity throughout Europe, by
   Cardinal de Lugo, and used for the cure of agues with great
   success. Hence the name of 'Jesuits' bark,' and 'Cardinal's
   bark;' and it was a ludicrous result of its patronage by the
   Jesuits that its use should have been for a long time opposed
   by Protestants, and favoured by Roman Catholics. In 1679 Louis
   XIV. bought the secret of preparing quinquina from Sir Robert
   Talbor, an English doctor, for 2,000 louis-d'or, a large
   pension, and a title. From that time Peruvian bark seems to
   have been recognised as the most efficacious remedy for
   intermittent fevers."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peruvian Bark,
      chapters 2-4._

{2136}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Sydenham, the Father of Rational Medicine.

   "Sydenham [Thomas Sydenham, 1624-1689], the prince of
   practical physicians, whose character is as beautiful and as
   genuinely English as his name, did for his art what Locke did
   for the philosophy of mind—he made it, in the main,
   observational; he made knowledge a means, not an end. It would
   not be easy to over-estimate our obligations as a nation to these
   two men, in regard to all that is involved in the promotion of
   health of body and soundness of mind. They were among the
   first in their respective regions to show their faith in the
   inductive method, by their works. They both professed to be
   more of guides than critics, and were the interpreters and
   servants of Nature, not her diviners and tormentors." Of
   Sydenham, "we must remember in the midst of what a mass of
   errors and prejudices, of theories actively mischievous, he
   was placed, at a time when the mania of hypothesis was at its
   height, and when the practical part of his art was overrun and
   stultified by vile and silly nostrums. We must have all this
   in our mind, or we shall fail in estimating the amount of
   independent thought, of courage and uprightness, and of all
   that deserves to be called magnanimity and virtue, which was
   involved in his thinking and writing and acting as he did.
   'The improvement of physic [he wrote] in my opinion, depends,
   1st, Upon collecting as genuine and natural a description or
   history of diseases as can be procured; and, 2d, Upon laying
   down a fixed and complete method of cure. With regard to the
   history of diseases, whoever considers the undertaking
   deliberately will perceive that a few such particulars must be
   attended to: 1st, All diseases should be described as objects
   of natural history, with the same exactness as is done by
   botanists, for there are many diseases that come under the
   same genus, and bear the same name, that, being specifically
   different, require a different treatment. The word carduus or
   thistle, is applied to several herbs, and yet a botanist would
   be inaccurate and imperfect who would content himself with a
   generic description. Furthermore, when this distribution of
   distempers into genera has been attempted, it has been to fit
   into some hypothesis, and hence this distribution is made to
   suit the bent of the author rather than the real nature of the
   disorder. How much this has obstructed the improvement of
   physic any man may know. In writing, therefore, such a natural
   history of diseases, every merely philosophical hypothesis
   should be set aside, and the manifest and natural phenomena,
   however minute, should be noted with the utmost exactness. The
   usefulness of this procedure cannot be easily overrated, as
   compared with the subtle inquiries and trifling notions of
   modern writers. … If only one person in every age had
   accurately described, and consistently cured, but a single
   disease, and made known his secret, physic would not be where
   it now is; but we have long since forsook the ancient method
   of cure, founded upon the knowledge of conjunct causes,
   insomuch that the art, as at this day practised, is rather the
   art of talking about diseases than of curing them.' … His
   friend Locke could not have stated the case more clearly or
   sensibly. It is this doctrine of 'conjunct causes,' this
   necessity for watching the action of compound and often
   opposing forces, and the having to do all this not in a
   machine, of which if you have seen one, you have seen all, but
   where each organism has often much that is different from, as
   well as common with, all others. … It is this which takes
   medicine out of the category of exact sciences, and puts it
   into that which includes politics, ethics, navigation and
   practical engineering, in all of which, though there are
   principles, and those principles quite within the scope of
   human reason, yet the application of these principles must, in
   the main, be left to each man's skill, presence of mind, and
   judgment, as to the case in hand. … It would not be easy to
   over-estimate the permanent impression for good, which the
   writings, the character, and the practice of Sydenham have
   made on the art of healing in England, and on the Continent
   generally. In the writings of Boerhaave, Stahl, Gaubius,
   Pinel, Bordeu, Haller, and many others, he is spoken of as the
   father of rational medicine; as the first man who applied to
   his profession the Baconian principles of interpreting and
   serving nature, and who never forgot the master's rule, 'Non
   fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum, quid natura aut
   faciat aut ferat.' … Like all men of a large practical
   nature, he could not have been what he was, or done what he
   did, without possessing and often exercising the true
   philosophizing faculty. He was a man of the same quality of
   mind in this respect with Watt, Franklin, and John Hunter, in
   whom speculation was not the less genuine that it was with
   them a means rather than an end."

      _Dr. John Brown,
      Locke and Sydenham and other Papers,
      pages 54-90._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Sydenham,
      Works;
      translated by R. G, Latham._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Closing period of the Humoral Pathology.
   The Doctrines of Hoffmann, Stahl and Boerhaave.

   "If we take a general survey of medical opinions, we shall
   find that they are all either subordinate to, or coincident
   with, two grand theories. The one of these considers the solid
   constituents of the animal economy as the elementary vehicle
   of life, and consequently places in them the primary seat of
   disease. The other, on the contrary, sees in the humors the
   original realization of vitality; and these, as they determine
   the existence and quality of the secondary parts, or solids,
   contain, therefore, within themselves, the ultimate principle
   of the morbid affection. By relation to these theories, the
   history of medicine is divided into three great periods.
   During the first, the two theories, still crude, are not yet
   disentangled from each other; this period extends from the
   origin of medicine to the time of Galen. The second
   comprehends the reign of Humoral Pathology—the interval
   between Galen and Frederic Hoffmann. In the last the doctrine
   of the Living Solid is predominant; from Hoffmann it reaches
   to the present day. … By Galen, Humorism was first formally
   expounded, and reduced to a regular code of doctrine.
{2137}
   Four elementary fluids, their relations and changes, sufficed
   to explain the varieties of natural temperament, and the
   causes of disease; while the genius, eloquence, and unbounded
   learning with which he illustrated this theory, mainly
   bestowed on it the ascendency, which, without essential
   alteration, it retained from the conclusion of the second to
   the beginning of the eighteenth century. Galenism and Humorism
   are, in fact, convertible expressions. Not that this
   hypothesis during that long interval encountered no
   opposition. It met, certainly, with some partial contradiction
   among the Greek and Arabian physicians. After the restoration
   of learning Fernelius and Brissot, Argenterius and Joubert,
   attacked it in different ways. … Until the epoch we have
   stated, the prevalence of the Humoral Pathology was, however,
   all but universal. Nor was this doctrine merely an erroneous
   speculation; it exerted the most decisive, the most pernicious
   influence on practice.—The various diseased affections were
   denominated in accommodation to the theory. In place of saying
   that a malady affected the liver, the peritonæum, or the
   organs of circulation, its seat was assumed in the blood, the
   bile, or the lymph. The morbific causes acted exclusively on
   the fluids; the food digested in the stomach, and converted
   into chyle, determined the qualities of the blood; and poisons
   operated through the corruption they thus effected in the
   vital humors. All symptoms were interpreted in blind
   subservience to the hypothesis; and those only attracted
   attention which the hypothesis seemed calculated to explain.
   The color and consistence of the blood, mucus, feces, urine,
   and pus, were carefully studied. On the other hand the
   phenomena of the solids, if not wholly overlooked, as mere
   accidents, were slumped together under some collective name,
   and attached to the theory through a subsidiary hypothesis. By
   supposed changes in the humors, they explained the association
   and consecution of symptoms. Under the terms, crudity,
   coction, and evacuation, were designated the three principal
   periods of diseases, as dependent on an alteration of the
   morbific matter. In the first, this matter, in all its
   deleterious energy, had not yet undergone any change on the
   part of the organs; it was still crude. In the second, nature
   gradually resumed the ascendant; coction took place. In the
   third, the peccant matter, now rendered mobile, was evacuated
   by urine, perspiration, dejection, &c., and æquilibrium
   restored. When no critical discharge was apparent, the
   morbific matter, it was supposed, had, after a suitable
   elaboration, been assimilated to the humors, and its
   deleterious character neutralized. Coction might be perfect or
   imperfect; and the transformation of one disease into another
   was lightly solved by the transport or emigration of the
   noxious humor. … Examinations of the dead body confirmed
   them in their notions. In the redness and tumefaction of
   inflamed parts, they beheld only a congestion of blood; and in
   dropsies, merely the dissolution of that fluid; tubercles were
   simply coagula of lymph; and other organic alterations, in
   general, naught but obstructions from an increased viscosity
   of the humors. The plan of cure was in unison with the rest of
   the hypothesis. Venesection was copiously employed to renew
   the blood, to attenuate its consistency, or to remove a part
   of the morbific matter with which it was impregnated; and
   cathartics, sudorifics, diuretics, were largely administered,
   with a similar intent. In a word, as plethora or cacochymia
   were the two great causes of disease, their whole therapeutic
   was directed to change the quantity or quality of the fluids.
   Nor was this murderous treatment limited to the actual period
   of disease. Seven or eight annual bloodings, and as many
   purgations—such was the common regimen the theory prescribed
   to insure continuance of health; and the twofold depletion,
   still customary, at spring and fall, among the peasantry of
   many European countries, is a remnant of the once universal
   practice. In Spain, every village has even now its Sangrador,
   whose only cast of surgery is blood-letting; and he is rarely
   idle. The medical treatment of Lewis XIII, may be quoted as a
   specimen of the humoral therapeutic, Within a single year this
   theory inflicted on that unfortunate monarch above a hundred
   cathartics, and more than forty bloodings.—During the fifteen
   centuries of Humorism, how many millions of lives did medicine
   cost mankind? The establishment of a system founded on the
   correcter doctrine of Solidism, and purified from the
   crudities of the Iatro-mathematical and Iatro-chemical
   hypotheses was reserved for three celebrated physicians toward
   the commencement of the eighteenth century—Frederic
   Hoffmann—George Ernest Stahl—and Hermann Boerhaave. The
   first and second of this triumvirate were born in the same
   year, were both pupils of Wedelius of Jena, and both
   professors, and rival professors, in the University of Halle;
   the third was eight years younger than his contemporaries, and
   long an ornament of the University of Leyden."

      _Sir W. Hamilton,
      Discussions on Philosophy and Literature,
      pages 246-249._

   "The great and permanent merits of Hoffmann [1660-1742] as a
   medical philosopher, undoubtedly consisted in his having
   perceived and pointed out more clearly than any of his
   predecessors, the extensive and powerful influence of the
   Nervous System, in modifying and regulating at least, if not
   in producing, all the phenomena of the organic as well as of
   the animal functions in the human economy, and more
   particularly in his application of this doctrine to the
   explanation of diseases. … It was reserved for Hoffmann …
   to take a comprehensive view of the Nervous System, not only
   as the organ of sense and motion, but also as the common
   centre by which all the different parts of the animal economy
   are connected together, and through which they mutually
   influence each other. He was, accordingly, led to regard all
   those alterations in the structure and functions of this
   economy, which constitute the state of disease, as having
   their primary origin in affections of the nervous system, and
   as depending, therefore, upon a deranged state of the
   imperceptible and contractile motions in the solids, rather
   than upon changes induced in the chemical composition of the
   fluid parts of the body."

      _J. Thomson,
      Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William Cullen,
      pages 195-196._

{2138}

   "George Ernest Stahl (1660-1734), chemist, was professor of
   medicine at Halle (1694) and physician to the King of Prussia
   (1716). He opposed materialism, and substituted 'animism,'
   explaining the symptoms of disease as efforts of the soul to
   get rid of morbid influences. Stahl's 'anima' corresponds to
   Sydenham's 'nature' in a measure, and has some relationship to
   the Archeus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. Stahl was the author
   of the 'phlogiston' theory in chemistry, which in its time has
   had important influence on medicine. Phlogiston was a
   substance which he supposed to exist in all combustible
   matters, and the escape of this principle from any compound
   was held to account for the phenomenon of fire. According to
   Stahl, diseases arise from the direct action of noxious powers
   upon the body; and from the reaction of the system itself
   endeavouring to oppose and counteract the effects of the
   noxious powers, and so preserve and repair itself. He did not
   consider diseases, therefore, pernicious in themselves, though
   he admitted that they might become so from mistakes made by
   the soul in the choice, or proportion of the motions excited
   to remove them, or the time when these efforts are made.
   Death, according to this theory, is due to the indolence of
   the soul, leading it to desist from its vital motions, and
   refusing to continue longer the struggle against the
   derangements of the body. Here we have the 'expectant
   treatment' so much in vogue with many medical men. 'Trusting
   to the constant attention and wisdom of nature,' they
   administered inert medicines as placebos, while they left to
   nature the cure of the disease. But they neglected the use of
   invaluable remedies such as opium and Peruvian bark, for which
   error it must be admitted they atoned by discountenancing
   bleeding, vomiting, etc. Stahl's remedies were chiefly of the
   class known as 'Antiphlogistic,' or anti-febrile."

      _E. Berdoe,
      The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
      book 5, chapter 7._

   "The influence of Boerhaave [1668-1738] was immense while it
   lasted—it was world-wide; but it was like a ripple on the
   ocean—it had no depth. He knew everything and did everything
   better than any of his contemporaries, except those who made
   one thing, not everything, their study. He was familiar with
   the researches of the great anatomists, of the chemists, of
   the botanists, of historians, of men of learning, but he was
   not a great anatomist, chemist, or historian. As to his
   practice, we cannot pronounce a very decided opinion, except
   that he was a man of judgment and independence. Here his
   reputation made his success: a prescription of his would no
   doubt effect many a cure, although the patient had taken the
   remedy he prescribed fifty times without any benefit. His
   greatness depended upon his inexhaustible activity. He had the
   energy of a dozen ordinary men, and so he was twelve times as
   powerful as one. He mentions quite incidentally how he was in
   the habit of frequently spending whole nights in botanical
   excursions on foot; and we know he had no time to sleep in the
   day. He took an interest in everything, was always on the
   alert, had a prodigious memory, and indefatigable industry. On
   these great homely qualities, added to a kind disposition and
   an unaffected piety, his popularity was founded. It was all
   fairly won and nobly worn. It is startling, however, to find
   that a man whose name one hundred years ago was familiar to
   the ear as household words, and of whom historians predicted
   that he would always be regarded as one of the greatest as
   well as best of men, an example to his race, should be already
   almost forgotten. An example is of no use unless it is known;
   Boerhaave is now unknown. The reason is plain;—he was not the
   founder of any system, nor did he make any discovery. He
   simply used with supreme success the thoughts and discoveries
   of others; as soon as he ceased to live, his influence began
   therefore to decline; and before his generation had passed
   away, his star had waned before the genius of Cullen, who
   succeeded in fixing the attention of Europe, and who, in his
   turn, was soon to be displaced by others."

      _J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      pages 297-298._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
   Introduction of the Microscope in Medicine.
   First glimmerings of the Germ Theory of Disease.

   "Since Athanasius Kircher [1601-1680] mistook blood and pus
   corpuscles for small worms, and built up on his mistake a new
   theory of disease and putrefaction, and since Christian Lange,
   the Professor of Pathological Anatomy in Leipzig, in the
   preface to Kircher's book (1671) expressed his opinion that
   the purpura of lying-in-women, measles, and other fevers were
   the result of putrefaction caused by worms or animalculæ, a
   'Pathologia Animata' has, from time to time, been put forward
   to explain the causation of disease. … Remarkable as were
   Kircher's observations, still more wonderful were those of
   Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, a native of Delft in Holland, who in
   his youth had learned the art of polishing lenses, and who was
   able, ultimately, to produce the first really good microscope
   that had yet been constructed. Not only did Leeuwenhoek make
   his microscope, but he used it to such good purpose that he
   was able to place before the Royal Society of London a series
   of most interesting and valuable letters giving the result of
   his researches on minute specks of living protoplasm. … The
   world that Leeuwenhoek … opened up so thoroughly was rapidly
   invaded by other observers and theorists. The thoughtful
   physicians of the time believed that at last they had found
   the 'fons et origo mali,' and Nicolas Andry, reviewing
   Kircher's' Contagium Animatum,' replaced his worms by these
   newly-described animalculæ or germs, and pushing the theory to
   its legitimate and logical conclusion, he also evolved a germ
   theory of putrefaction and fermentation. He maintained that
   air, water, vinegar, fermenting wine, old beer, and sour milk
   were all full of germs; that the blood and pustules of
   smallpox also contained them, and that other diseases, very
   rife about this period, were the result of the activity of
   these organisms. Such headway did he make, and such conviction
   did his arguments carry with them, that the mercurial
   treatment much in vogue at that time was actually based on the
   supposition that these organisms, the 'causæ causantes' of
   disease, were killed by the action of mercury and mercurial
   salts. With a kind of prophetic instinct, and certainly as the
   result of keen observation, Varro and Lancisi ascribed the
   dangerous character of marsh or swamp air to the action of
   invisible animalculæ; in fact the theory was so freely and
   forcibly propagated that even where no micro-organisms could
   be found their presence was inferred with the inevitable
   result, as Löffler points out, that these 'inconceivable'
   worms became the legitimate butts for the shafts of ridicule;
   and in 1726 there appeared in Paris a satirical work, in which
   these small organisms received the name of 'fainter,'
   'body-pincher,' 'ulcerator,' 'weeping fistula,' 'sensualist';
   the whole system was thus laughingly held up to satire, and
   the germ theory of disease completely discredited.
{2139}
   Linnæus [1707-1778], however, with his wonderful powers of
   observation and deduction, considered that it was possible
   that there might be rescued from this 'chaos' small living
   beings which were as yet insufficiently separated and
   examined, but in which he firmly believed might lie not only
   the actual contagium of certain eruptive diseases, and of
   acute fevers, but also the exciting causes of both
   fermentation and putrefaction. The man, however, who of all
   workers earliest recognized the importance of Linnæus'
   observations was a Viennese doctor, Marcus Antonius Plenciz.
   … He it was who, at this time, insisted upon the specific
   character of the infective agent in every case of disease; for
   scarlet fever there was a scarlet fever seed or germ—a seed
   which could never give rise to smallpox. He showed that it was
   possible for this organism to become disseminated through the
   air, and for it to multiply in the body; and he explained the
   incubation stage of a febrile disease as dependent on the
   growth of a germ within the body during the period after its
   introduction, when its presence had not yet been made
   manifest. … As regards putrefaction, having corroborated
   Linnæus' observations and found countless animalculæ in
   putrefying matter, he came to the conclusion that this process
   was the result of the development, multiplication, and
   carrying on of the functions of nutrition and excretion by
   these germs; the products of fermentation being the volatile
   salts set free by the organisms, which, multiplying rapidly by
   forming seeds or eggs, rendered the fluid in which they
   developed thick, turbid, and foul. This theory, admirable as
   it was, and accurate as it has since been proved to be, could
   not then be based on any very extensive or detailed
   observation, and we find that some of the most prominent and
   brilliant men of the period did not feel justified in
   accepting the explanation that Plenciz had offered as to the
   causes of disease and fermentation processes."

      _G. S. Woodhead,
      Bacteria and their Products,
      chapter 3._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
   Hahnemann and the origin of the System of Homœopathy.

   Samuel Hahnemann, originator of the system of medicine called
   "Homœopathy," was born in 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He
   studied medicine at Leipsic, and afterwards at Vienna. In 1784
   he settled in Dresden, but returned to Leipsic in 1789. "In
   the following year, while translating Cullen's Materia Medica
   out of English into German, his attention was arrested by the
   insufficient explanation's advanced in that work of the cure
   of ague by cinchona bark. By way of experiment, he took a
   large dose of that substance to ascertain its action on the
   healthy body. In the course of a few days he experienced the
   symptoms of ague; and it thus occurred to him that perhaps the
   reason why cinchona cures ague is because it has the power to
   produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those of ague.
   To ascertain the truth of this conjecture, he ransacked the
   records of medicine for well-attested cures effected by single
   remedies; and finding sufficient evidences of this fact, he
   advanced a step further, and proposed, in an article published
   in Hufeland's Journal, in the year 1797, to apply this new
   principle to the discovery of proper medicines for every form
   of disease. Soon afterwards he published a case to illustrate
   his method. It was one of a severe kind of colic cured by a
   strong dose of veratrum album. Before this substance gave
   relief to the patient it excited a severe aggravation of his
   symptoms. This induced Hahnemann, instead of drops or grains,
   to give the fraction of a drop or grain, and he thus
   introduced infinitesimal doses. Some years later he applied
   his new principle in the treatment of scarlet fever; and
   finding that belladonna cured the peculiar type of that
   disease, which then prevailed in Germany, he proposed to give
   this medicine as a prophylactic, or preventive against scarlet
   fever; from that time it has been extensively employed for
   this purpose. In the year 1810 he published his great work,
   entitled Organon of Medicine, which has been translated into
   all the European languages, as well as into Arabic. In this
   book he fully expounded his new system, which he called
   Homœopathy. His next publication was a Materia Medica,
   consisting of a description of the effects of medicines upon
   persons in health. These works were published between the
   years 1810 and 1821, at Leipsic, where he founded a school,
   and was surrounded by disciples. As his system involved the
   administration of medicines, each separately by itself, and in
   doses infinitely minute, there was no longer any need of the
   apothecaries' intervention between their physician and the
   patient. In consequence of this the Apothecaries Company
   brought to bear upon Hahnemann an act forbidding physicians to
   dispense their own medicines, and with such effect that he was
   obliged to leave Leipsic. The Grand Duke of Anhalt Köthen,
   appointed him his physician, and invited him to live at
   Köthen. Thither, accordingly, he removed in the year 1821, and
   there he prepared various new editions of his Organon, and new
   volumes of his Materia Medica for publication. In 1835 he
   married a second time; his wife was a French lady of
   considerable position; and in the same year he left Köthen,
   and settled in Paris, where he enjoyed a great reputation till
   his death, which took place in the year 1843."

      _W. Bayes,
      Origin and Present Status of Homœopathy
      (Translation of the Homœopathic Medical Society
      of the State of New York, 1869, article 21)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Aneke,
      History of Homœopathy._

      _J. C. Burnett,
      Ecce Medicus;
      or Hahnemann as a man and as a physician._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   The work of John Hunter in surgery and anatomy.

   "John Hunter [born 1728, died 1793] was not only one of the
   most profound anatomists of the age in which he lived, but he
   is by the common consent of his successors allowed to be one
   of the greatest men that ever practised surgery. One of the
   most striking discoveries in this part of his profession—
   indeed one of the most brilliant in surgery of his
   century—was the operation for the cure of popliteal aneurism
   by tying the femoral artery above the tumour in the ham, and
   without interfering with it. He improved the treatment of the
   rupture of the tendo achillis, in consequence of having
   experienced the accident himself when dancing. He invented the
   method of curing fistula lacrymalis by perforating the os
   unguis, and curing hydrocele radically by injection. His
   anatomical discoveries were numerous and important—amongst
   others the distribution of the blood-vessels of the uterus,
   which he traced till their disappearance in the placenta.
{2140}
   He was the first who demonstrated the existence of lymphatic
   vessels in birds; described the distribution of the branches
   of the olfactory nerve, as well as those of the fifth pair;
   and to him we owe the best and most faithful account of the
   descent of the testicle in the human subject, from the abdomen
   into the scrotum. Physiology is also indebted to him for many
   new views and ingenious suggestions. … 'Before his time
   surgery had been little more than a mechanical art, somewhat
   dignified by the material on which it was employed. Hunter
   first made it a science; and by pointing out its peculiar
   excellence as affording visible examples of the effects and
   progress of disease, induced men of far higher attainments
   than those who had before practised it to make it their
   study.' The best monument of his genius and talents, however,
   is the splendid museum which he formed by his sole efforts,
   and which he made, too, when labouring under every
   disadvantage of deficient education and limited means. It
   shows that as an anatomist and physiologist he had no
   superior."

      _W. Baird,
      Hunter (The Imperial dictionary of universal biography)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. D. Gross,
      John Hunter and his Pupils._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   Preventive Inoculation against Smallpox.

   "One of the most notable events of the 18th century, or for
   that matter, in the history of medicine, was the introduction
   of the systematic practice of preventive inoculation against
   small-pox. We are so generally taught that this is entirely
   due to the efforts of Jenner, or rather we are so often
   allowed to think it without being necessarily taught
   otherwise, that the measure deserves a historical sketch. The
   communication of the natural disease to the healthy in order
   to protect them from the same natural disease, in other words,
   the communication of small-pox to prevent the same, reaches
   back into antiquity. It is mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedas as
   then performed, always by Brahmins, who employed pus procured
   from small-pox vesicles a year before. They rubbed the place
   selected for operation until the skin was red, then scratched
   with a sharp instrument, and laid upon the place cotton soaked
   in the variolous pus, moistened with water from the sacred
   Ganges. Along with this measure they insisted upon most
   hygienic regulations, to which in a large measure their good
   results were due. Among the Chinese was practised what was
   known as 'Pock-sowing,' and as long ago as 1000 years before
   Christ they introduced into the nasal cavities of young
   children pledgets of cotton saturated with variolous pus. The
   Arabians inoculated the same disease with needles, and so did
   the Circassians, while in the states of north Africa incisions
   were made between the fingers, and among some of the negroes
   inoculation was performed in or upon the nose. In
   Constantinople, under the Greeks, the custom had long been
   naturalized and was practised by old women instructed in the
   art, who regarded it as a revelation of St. Mary. The first
   accounts of this practice were given to the Royal Society by
   Timoni, a physician of Constantinople, in 1714. The actual
   introduction of the practice into the West, however, was due
   to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who died in 1762, and who was
   wife of the English ambassador to the Porte in 1717. She had
   her son inoculated in Constantinople by her surgeon Maitland,
   and after her return to London, in 1721, it was also performed
   upon her daughter. During the same years experiments were
   undertaken by Maitland upon criminals; and as these turned out
   favorably, the Prince of Wales and his sisters were inoculated
   by Mead. The practice was then more or less speedily adopted
   on this side of the ocean as well as on that, but suffered
   occasional severe blows because of unfortunate cases here and
   there, such as never can be avoided. The clergy, especially,
   using the Bible, as designing men always can use it, to back
   up any view or practice, became warm opponents of vaccination,
   and stigmatized it as a very atrocious invasion of the Divine
   prerogative of punishment. But in 1746 the Bishop of Worcester
   recommended it from the pulpit, and established houses for
   inoculation, and thus made it again popular. In Germany the
   operation was generally favored, and in France and Italy a
   little later came into vogue."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   Jenner and the discovery of Vaccination.

   Many before the English physician, Dr. Jenner, "had witnessed
   the cow-pox, and had heard of the report current among the
   milkmaids in Gloucestershire, that whoever had taken that
   disease was secure against smallpox. It was a trifling, vulgar
   rumor, supposed to have no significance whatever; and no one
   had thought it worthy of investigation, until it was
   accidentally brought under the notice of Jenner. He was a
   youth, pursuing his studies at Sodbury, when his attention was
   arrested by the casual observation made by a country girl who
   came to his master's shop for advice. The smallpox was
   mentioned, when the girl said, 'I can't take that disease, for
   I have had cow-pox.' The observation immediately riveted
   Jenner's attention, and he forthwith set about inquiring and
   making observations on the subject. His professional friends,
   to whom he mentioned his views as to the prophylactic virtues
   of cow-pox, laughed at him, and even threatened to expel him
   from their society, if he persisted in harassing them with the
   subject. In London he was so fortunate as to study under John
   Hunter [1770-1773] to whom he communicated his views. The
   advice of the great anatomist was thoroughly characteristic:
   'Don't think, but try; be patient, be accurate.' Jenner's
   courage was greatly supported by the advice, which conveyed to
   him the true art of philosophical investigation. He went back
   to the country to practise his profession, and carefully to
   make observations and experiments, which he continued to
   pursue for a period of twenty years. His faith in his
   discovery was so implicit that he vaccinated his own son on
   three several occasions. At length he published his views in a
   quarto of about seventy pages, in which he gave the details of
   twenty-three cases of successful vaccination of individuals,
   to whom it was found afterwards impossible to communicate the
   smallpox either by contagion or inoculation. It was in 1798
   that this treatise was published; though he had been working
   out his ideas as long before as 1775, when they began to
   assume a definite form. How was the discovery received? First
   with indifference, then with active hostility. He proceeded to
   London to exhibit to the profession the process of vaccination
   and its successful results; but not a single doctor could be
   got to make a trial of it, and after fruitlessly waiting for
   nearly three months, Jenner returned to his native village.
{2141}
   He was even caricatured and abused for his attempt to
   'bestialize' his species by the introduction into their
   systems of diseased matter from the cow's udder. Cobbett was
   one of his most furious assailants. Vaccination was denounced
   from the pulpit as 'diabolical.' It was averred that
   vaccinated children became 'ox-faced,' that abscesses broke
   out to 'indicate sprouting horns,' and that the countenance
   was gradually 'transmuted into the visage of a cow, the voice
   into the bellowing of bulls.' Vaccination, however, was a
   truth, and notwithstanding the violence of the opposition
   belief in it spread slowly. In one village where a gentleman
   tried to introduce the practice, the first persons who
   permitted themselves to be vaccinated were absolutely pelted,
   and were driven into their houses if they appeared out of
   doors. Two ladies of title,—Lady Ducie and the Countess of
   Berkeley,—to their honor be it remembered,—had the courage
   to vaccinate their own children; and the prejudices of the day
   were at once broken through. The medical profession gradually
   came round, and there were several who even sought to rob Dr.
   Jenner of the merit of the discovery, when its vast importance
   came to be recognized. Jenner's cause at last triumphed, and
   he was publicly honored and rewarded. In his prosperity he was
   as modest as he had been in his obscurity. He was invited to
   settle in London, and told that he might command a practice of
   £10,000 a year. But his answer was, 'No! In the morning of my
   days I have sought the sequestered and lowly paths of
   life,—the valley, and not the mountain,—and now, in the
   evening of my days, it is not meet for me to hold myself up as
   an object for fortune and for fame.' In Jenner's own lifetime
   the practice of vaccination had been adopted all over the
   civilized world; and when he died, his title as Benefactor of
   his kind was recognized far and wide. Cuvier has said, 'If
   vaccine were the only discovery of the epoch, it would serve
   to render it illustrious forever."

      _S. Smiles,
      Self-help,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Barron,
      Life of Edward Jenner._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   The Brunonian System of Stimulation.

   "John Brown, born of obscure parents in a village of Berwick,
   in Scotland, was remarkable, from his early youth, for an
   extraordinary aptitude for acquiring languages, a decided
   inclination for scholastic dispute, a pedantic tone and
   manner, and somewhat irregular conduct. Having abandoned
   theology for medicine, he fixed his residence in Edinburgh.
   … He was particularly entertained and countenanced by
   Cullen, who even took him into his family in the character of
   preceptor of his children. This agreeable relation subsisted
   during twelve consecutive years between these two men, whose
   characters and minds were so different. … But some trifling
   matters of mutual discontent grew at length into coldness, and
   changed the old friendship which had united them into an
   irreconcilable hatred. Their rupture broke out about the year
   1778, and in a short time after, Brown published his Elements
   of Medicine. … Brown employed some of the ideas of his
   master to develop a doctrine much more simple in appearance,
   but founded entirely on abstract considerations; a doctrine in
   which every provision seems to be made for discussion, but
   none for practice. Cullen had said that the nervous system
   receives the first impression of excitants, and transmits it
   afterwards to the other organs endowed with motion and
   vitality. Brown explains thus, the same thought: 'Life is only
   sustained by incitation. It is only the result of the action
   of incitants on the incitability of organs.' Cullen regarded
   the atony of the small vessels as the proximate cause of
   fever. Brown, improving on this hypothesis, admits, with
   hardly any exceptions, only hyposthenic diseases. … The
   Scotch physiologist distinguished only two pathological
   states—one consisting in an excess of incitability, which he
   names the sthenic diathesis; the other, constituted by a want,
   more or less notable, of the same faculty, which he designates
   as the asthenic diathesis. Besides, Brown considers these two
   states as affecting the entire economy, rather than any organ
   in particular. … After having reduced all diseases to two
   genera, and withdrawn from pathology the study of local
   lesions, Brown arrives, by a subtile argumentation, to
   consider the affections of the sthenic order as prevailing in
   a very small number of instances, so that the diseases of the
   asthenic type comprehend nearly the totality of affections.
   According to this theory, a physician is rarely ever mistaken
   if he orders in all his cases, remedies of an exciting nature.
   … Never since the days of Thessalus (of charlatan memory)
   had anyone simplified to such a point the study and practice
   of medicine. We may even say that in this respect the Scotch
   pathologist left far in the rear the physician of Nero. To
   this attraction, well calculated to tempt students and
   practitioners, the doctrine of Brown joined the advantage of
   being presented in an energetic and captivating style, full of
   imagery, which suffices to explain its rapid progress. But
   this doctrine, so seductive in its exposition, so easy in its
   application, is one of the most disastrous that man has been
   able to imagine, for it tends to propagate the abuse of
   diffusible stimulants, of which spirituous liquors make a
   part, an abuse excessively injurious to health in general, and
   the intellectual faculties in particular—an abuse to which
   man is too much inclined, naturally, and which the sophisms of
   Brown may have contributed to spread in all classes of English
   society. … Notwithstanding its defects, the system of Brown
   made rapid progress, principally in Germany and Italy."

      _P. V. Renouard,
      History of Medicine,
      pages 555-560._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   The System of Haller.

   "About the time when we seniors commenced the study of
   medicine, it was still under the influence of the important
   discoveries which Albrecht von Haller [1708-1777] had made on
   the excitability of nerves; and which he had placed in
   connection with the vitalistic theory of the nature of life.
   Haller had observed the excitability in the nerves and muscles
   of amputated members. The most surprising thing to him was,
   that the most varied external actions, mechanical, chemical,
   thermal, to which electrical ones were subsequently added, had
   always the same result; namely, that they produced muscular
   contraction. They were only quantitatively distinguished as
   regards their action on the organism, that is, only by the
   strength of the excitation; he designated them by the common
   name of stimulus; he called the altered condition of the nerve
   the excitation, and its capacity of responding to a stimulus
   the excitability, which was lost at death.
{2142}
   This entire condition of things, which physically speaking
   asserts no more than the nerves, as concerns the changes which
   take place in them after excitation, are in an exceedingly
   unstable state of equilibrium; this was looked upon as the
   fundamental property of animal life, and was unhesitatingly
   transferred to the other organs and tissues of the body, for
   which there was no similar justification. It was believed that
   none of them were active of themselves, but must receive an
   impulse by a stimulus from without; air and nourishment were
   considered to be the normal stimuli. The kind of activity
   seemed, on the contrary, to be conditioned by the specific
   energy of the organ, under the influence of the vital force.
   Increase or diminution of the excitability was the category
   under which the whole of the acute diseases were referred, and
   from which indications were taken as to whether the treatment
   should be lowering or stimulating. The rigid one-sidedness and
   the unrelenting logic with which … [John] Brown had once
   worked out the system was broken, but it always furnished the
   leading points of view."

      _H. Helmholtz,
      On Thought in Medicine
      (Popular Lectures, series 2, lecture 5)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th. Century.
   Physiological Views of Bichat.

   Marie Francis Xavier Bichat, was born in 1771 and died in
   1802, accomplishing his extraordinary work as an anatomist and
   physician within a lifetime of thirty-one years. "The peculiar
   physiological views of Bichat are to be found stated more or
   less distinctly in all his works; and it is a merit of his
   that he has always kept in sight the necessary connexion of
   this part of the science of medicine with every other, and, so
   far as he has developed his ideas upon the subjects of
   pathology, materia medica, and therapeutics, they seem all to
   have been founded upon and connected with the principles of
   physiology, which he had adopted. … Everything around living
   bodies, according to Bichat, tends constantly to their
   destruction. And to this influence they would necessarily
   yield, were they not gifted with some permanent principle of
   reaction. This principle is their life, and a living system is
   therefore necessarily always engaged in the performance of
   functions, whose object is to resist death. Life, however,
   does not consist in a single principle, as has been taught by
   some celebrated writers, by Stahl, Van Helmont, and Barthez,
   &c. We are to study the phenomena of life, as we do those of
   other matter, and refer the operations performed in living
   systems to such ultimate principles as we can trace them to,
   in the same way that we do the operations taking place among
   inorganic substances. … His essential doctrine … is that
   there is no one single, individual, presiding principle of
   vitality, which animates the body, but that it is a collection
   of matter gifted for a time with certain powers of action,
   combined into organs which are thus enabled to act, and that
   the result is a series of functions, the connected performance
   of which constitutes it a living thing. This is his view of
   life, considered in the most general and simple way. But in
   carrying the examination farther, he points out two remarkable
   modifications of life, as considered in different relations,
   one common both to vegetables and animals, the other peculiar
   to animals. … Those which we have in common with the
   vegetable, which are necessary merely to our individual,
   bodily existence, are called the functions of organic life,
   because they are common to all organized matter. Those, on the
   other hand, which are peculiar to animals, which in them are
   superadded to the possession of the organic functions, are
   called the functions of animal life. Physiologically speaking,
   then, we have two lives, the concurrence of which enables us
   to live and move and have our being; both equally necessary to
   the relations we maintain as human beings, but not equally
   necessary to the simple existence of a living thing. … The
   two lives differ, in some important respects, as to the organs
   by which their functions are performed. Those of the animal
   life present a symmetry of external form, strongly contrasted
   with the irregularity, which is a prominent characteristic of
   those of organic life. In the animal life, every function IS
   either performed by a pair of organs, perfectly similar in
   structure and size, situated one upon each side of the median
   dividing line of the body, or else by a single organ divided
   into two similar and perfectly symmetrical halves by that
   line. … The organs of the organic life, on the contrary,
   present a picture totally different; they are irregularly
   formed, and irregularly arranged. … This symmetry of the
   form is accompanied by a corresponding harmony in the
   functions of the organs of the animal life. … The functions
   of the organic life are constantly going on; they admit of no
   interruption, no repose. … In those of the animal life, the
   case is widely different. They have intervals of entire
   repose. The organs of this life are incapable of constant
   activity, they become fatigued by exercise and require rest.
   This rest, with regard to any particular organ, is the sleep
   of that organ. … Upon this principle, Bichat founds his
   theory of sleep. General sleep is the combination of the sleep
   of particular organs. Sleep then is not any definite state,
   but is more or less complete rest of the whole system in
   proportion to the number of organs which require repose. …
   The two lives differ also in regard to habit; the animal being
   much under its control, the organic but slightly. … But the
   principal and most important feature in the physiological
   system of Bichat, is the complete, and entire, and exclusive
   explanation of all the phenomena of the living system upon the
   principles of vitality alone. Former physiologists have not
   always kept this distinctly in view. … The human body has
   been regarded, too often, as a mass of matter, organized to be
   sure, but yet under the direction of physical laws, and the
   performance of its functions has been ascribed to the powers
   of inorganic matter. Hence, physiology has generally been
   somewhat tinctured by the favorite science of the age, with
   some of its notions. … With Bichat the properties of life
   were all in all. The phenomena of the system, whether in
   health or disease, were all ascribed to their influence and
   operation."

      _J. Ware,
      Life and Writings of Bichat
      (North American Review, July, 1822)._

{2143}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19th Centuries.
   Pinel and the Reform in treatment of the Insane.

   Philippe Pinel, "who had attained some distinction as an
   alienist, was appointed, 1792, to fill the post of
   superintendent of the Bicêtre, which then contained upwards of
   200 male patients, believed not only to be incurable, but
   entirely uncontrollable. The previous experience of the
   physician, here stood him in good stead. He had been a
   diligent student of the authorities of his own and foreign
   countries on diseases of the mind, and in his earlier years
   had been appointed by the French government to report on the
   condition of the asylums at Paris and Charenton. On assuming
   the oversight of the Bicêtre, he found 53 men languishing in
   chains, some of whom had been bound for a great number of
   years. These were regarded by the authorities as dangerous and
   even desperate characters; but the sight of men grown gray and
   decrepit as the result of prolonged torture, made a very
   different impression on the mind of Pinel. He addressed appeal
   after appeal to the Commune, craving power to release, without
   delay, the unhappy beings under his charge. The authorities
   tardily and unwillingly yielded to the importunity of the
   physician. An official, who was deputed by the Commune to
   accompany the superintendent and watch his experiment, no
   sooner caught sight of the chained maniacs than he excitedly
   exclaimed: 'Ah, ça! citoyen, es-tu fou toi-même de vouloir
   déchaîner de pareils animaux?' The physician was not to be
   deterred, however, from carrying out his benevolent project,
   and did not rest satisfied until all of the 53 men had been
   gradually liberated from their chains. Singular as it may
   appear, the man who had been regarded as the most dangerous,
   and who had survived forty years of this severe treatment, was
   afterwards known as the faithful and devoted servant of Pinel.
   The reforms of Pinel were not confined to the Bicêtre, an
   establishment exclusively for men, but extended to the
   Salpêtrière, an institution for women. There is, perhaps, no
   more touching event in history than that of this kind-hearted
   and wise physician removing the bands and chains from the
   ill-fated inmates of this place of horrors. The monstrous
   fallacy of cruel treatment once fully exposed, the insane came
   to be looked upon as unfortunate human beings, stricken with a
   terrible disease, and, like other sick persons, requiring
   every aid which science and benevolent sympathy could provide
   with a view to cure. Governmental inquiries were instituted
   with a view to the attainment of better treatment, and in
   different countries, almost simultaneously, the provision of
   suitable and adequate accommodation for the insane was
   declared to be a State necessity."

      _W. P. Letchworth,
      The Insane in Foreign Countries,
      chapter 1._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The Discovery of Anæsthetics.

   "In 1798, Mr. Humphry Davy, an apprentice to Mr. Borlase a
   surgeon at Bodmin, had so distinguished himself by zeal and
   power in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, that
   he was invited by Dr. Beddoes of Bristol, to become the
   'superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution which had been
   established at Clifton for the purpose of trying the medicinal
   effects of different gases.' He obtained release from his
   apprenticeship, accepted the appointment, and devoted himself
   to the study of gases, not only in their medicinal effects,
   but much more in all their chemical and physical relations.
   After two years' work he published his 'Researches, Chemical
   and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide.' … He
   wrote, near the end of his essay: 'As nitrous oxide in its
   extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical
   pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical
   operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.'
   It seems strange that no one caught at a suggestion such as
   this. … The nitrous oxide might have been of as little
   general interest as the carbonic or any other, had it not been
   for the strange and various excitements produced by its
   inhalation. These made it a favourite subject with chemical
   lecturers, and year after year, in nearly every chemical
   theatre, it was fun to inhale it after the lecture on the
   gaseous compounds of nitrogen; and among those who inhaled it
   there must have been many who, in their intoxication, received
   sharp and heavy blows, but, at the time, felt no pain. And
   this went on for more than forty years, exciting nothing
   worthy to be called thought or observation, till, in December
   1844, Mr. Colton, a popular itinerant lecturer on chemistry,
   delivered a lecture on 'laughing gas' in Hartford,
   Connecticut. Among his auditors was Mr. Horace Wells, an
   enterprising dentist in that town, a man of some power in
   mechanical invention. After the lecture came the usual
   amusement of inhaling the gas, and Wells, in whom long wishing
   had bred a kind of belief that something might be found to
   make tooth-drawing painless, observed that one of the men
   excited by the gas was not conscious of hurting himself when
   he fell on the benches and bruised and cut his knees. Even
   when he became calm and clear-headed the man was sure that he
   did not feel pain at the time of his fall. Wells was at once
   convinced—more easily convinced than a man of more scientific
   mind would have been—that, during similar insensibility, in a
   state of intense nervous excitement, teeth might be drawn
   without pain, and he determined that himself and one of his
   own largest teeth should be the first for trial. Next morning
   Colton gave him the gas, and his friend Dr. Riggs extracted
   his tooth. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and then
   exclaimed, 'A new era in tooth-pulling! It did not hurt me
   more than the prick of a pin. It is the greatest discovery
   ever made.' In the next three weeks Wells extracted teeth from
   some twelve or fifteen persons under the influence of the
   nitrous oxide, and gave pain to only two or three. Dr. Riggs,
   also, used it with the same success, and the practice was well
   known and talked of in Hartford. Encouraged by his success
   Wells went to Boston, wishing to enlarge the reputation of his
   discovery and to have an opportunity of giving the gas to some
   one undergoing a surgical operation. Dr. J. C. Warren, the
   senior Surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to whom
   he applied for this purpose, asked him to show first its
   effects on some one from whom he would draw a tooth. He
   undertook to do this in the theatre of the medical college
   before a large class of students, to whom he had, on a
   previous day, explained his plan. Unluckily, the bag of gas
   from which the patient was inhaling was taken a way too soon;
   he cried out when his tooth was drawn; the students hissed and
   hooted; and the discovery was denounced as an imposture. Wells
   left Boston disappointed and disheartened; he fell ill, and
   was for many months unable to practise his profession. Soon
   afterwards he gave up dentistry, and neglected the use and
   study of the nitrous oxide, till he was recalled to it by a
   discovery even more important than his own. The thread of the
   history of nitrous oxide may be broken here.
{2144}
   The inhalation of sulphuric ether was often, even in the last
   century, used for the relief of spasmodic asthma, phthisis,
   and some other diseases of the chest. … As the sulphuric
   ether would 'produce effects very similar to those occasioned
   by nitrous oxide,' and was much the more easy to procure, it
   came to be often inhaled, for amusement, by chemist's lads and
   by pupils in the dispensaries of surgeons. It was often thus
   used by young people in many places in the United States. They
   had what they called 'ether frolics.' … Among those who had
   joined in these ether-frolics was Dr. Wilhite of Anderson,
   South Carolina. In one of them, in 1839," a negro boy was
   unconscious so long that he was supposed for some time to be
   dead. "The fright at having, it was supposed, so nearly killed
   the boy, put an end to the ether-frolics in that
   neighbourhood; but in 1842, Wilhite had become a pupil of Dr.
   Crauford Long, practising at that time at Jefferson (Jackson
   County, Georgia). Here he and Dr. Long and three fellow-pupils
   often amused themselves with the ether-inhalation, and Dr.
   Long observed that when he became furiously excited, as he
   often did, he was unconscious of the blows which he, by
   chance, received as he rushed or tumbled about. He observed
   the same in his pupils; and thinking over this, and emboldened
   by what Mr. Wilhite told him of the negro-boy recovering after
   an hour's insensibility, he determined to try whether the
   ether-inhalation would make any one insensible of the pain of
   an operation. So, in March, 1842, nearly three years before
   Wells's observations with the nitrous oxide, he induced a Mr.
   Venable, who had been very fond of inhaling ether, to inhale
   it till he was quite insensible. Then he dissected a tumour
   from his neck; no pain was felt, and no harm followed. Three
   months later, he similarly removed another tumour from him;
   and again, in 1842 and in 1845, he operated on other three
   patients, and none felt pain. His operations were known and
   talked of in his neighbourhood; but the neighbourhood was only
   that of an obscure little town; and he did not publish any of
   his observations. … He waited to test the ether more
   thoroughly in some greater operation than those in which he
   had yet tried it; and then he would have published his account
   of it. While he was waiting, others began to stir more
   actively in busier places, where his work was quite unknown,
   not even heard of. Among those with whom, in his unlucky visit
   to Boston, Wells talked of his use of the nitrous oxide, and
   of the great discovery which he believed that he had made,
   were Dr. Morton and Dr. Charles Jackson. … Morton was a
   restless energetic dentist, a rough man, resolute to get
   practice and make his fortune. Jackson was a quiet scientific
   gentleman, unpractical and unselfish, in good repute as a
   chemist, geologist, and mineralogist. At the time of Wells's
   visit, Morton, who had been his pupil in 1842, and for a short
   time, in 1843, his partner, was studying medicine and anatomy
   at the Massachusetts Medical College, and was living in
   Jackson's house. Neither Morton nor Jackson put much if any
   faith in Wells's story, and Morton witnessed his failure in
   the medical theatre. Still, Morton had it in his head that
   tooth-drawing might somehow be made painless. … Jackson had
   long known, as many others did, of sulphuric ether being
   inhaled for amusement and of its producing effects like those
   of nitrous oxide; he knew also of its employment as a remedy
   for the irritation caused by inhaling chlorine. He had himself
   used it for this purpose, and once, in 1842, while using it,
   he became completely insensible. He had thus been led to think
   that the pure ether might be used for the prevention of pain
   in surgical operations; he spoke of it with some scientific
   friends, and sometimes advised a trial of it; but he did not
   urge it or take any active steps to promote even the trial.
   One evening, Morton, who was now in practice as a dentist,
   called on him, full of some scheme which he did not divulge,
   and urgent for success in painless tooth-drawing. Jackson
   advised him to use the ether, and taught him how to use it. On
   that same evening, the 30th of September, 1846, Morton inhaled
   the ether, put himself to sleep, and, when he awoke, found
   that he had been asleep for eight minutes. Instantly, as he
   tells, he looked for an opportunity of giving it to a patient;
   and one just then coming in, a stout healthy man, he induced
   him to inhale, made him quite insensible, and drew his tooth
   without his having the least consciousness of what was done.
   But the great step had yet to be made. … Could it be right
   to incur the risk of insensibility long enough and deep enough
   for a large surgical operation? It was generally believed that
   in such insensibility there was serious danger to life. Was it
   really so? Jackson advised Morton to ask Dr. J. C. Warren to
   let him try, and Warren dared to let him. It is hard, now, to
   think how bold the enterprise must have seemed to those who
   were capable of thinking accurately on the facts then known.
   The first trial was made on the 16th of October, 1846. Morton
   gave the ether to a patient in the Massachusetts General
   Hospital, and Dr. Warren removed a tumour from his neck. The
   result was not complete success; the patient hardly felt the
   pain of the cutting, but he was aware that the operation was
   being performed. On the next day, in a severer operation by
   Dr. Hayward, the success was perfect; the patient felt
   nothing, and in long insensibility there was no appearance of
   danger to life. The discovery might already be deemed
   complete; for the trials of the next following days had the
   same success, and thence onwards the use of the ether extended
   over constantly widening fields. … It might almost be said
   that in every place, at least in Europe, where the discovery
   was promoted more quickly than in America, the month might be
   named before which all operative surgery was agonising, and
   after which it was painless."

      _Sir J. Paget,
      Escape from Pain
      (Nineteenth Century, December 1879)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The Study of Fermentation and its results.

   "It was some time ago the current belief that epidemic
   diseases generally were propagated by a kind of malaria, which
   consisted of organic matter in a state of motor-decay; that
   when such matter was taken into the body through the lungs,
   skin, or stomach, it had the power of spreading there the
   destroying process by which itself had been assailed. Such a
   power was visibly exerted in the case of yeast. A little
   leaven was seen to leaven the whole lump—a mere speck of
   matter, in this supposed state of decomposition, being
   apparently competent to propagate indefinitely its own decay.
   Why should not a bit of rotten malaria act in a similar manner
   within the human frame? In 1836 a very wonderful reply was
   given to this question. In that year Cagniard de la Tour
   discovered the yeast-plant—a living organism, which when
   placed in a proper medium feeds, grows, and reproduces itself,
   and in this way carries on the process which we name
   fermentation. By this striking discovery fermentation was
   connected with organic growth. Schwann, of Berlin, discovered
   the yeast-plant independently about the same time."

      _J. Tyndall,
      Fragments of Science,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

{2145}

   The question of fermentation "had come to present an entirely
   new aspect through the discovery of Cagniard de la Tour that
   yeast is really a plant belonging to one of the lowest types
   of fungi, which grows and reproduces itself in the fermentable
   fluid, and whose vegetative action is presumably the cause of
   that fermentation, just as the development of mould in a
   jam-pot occasions a like change in the upper stratum of the
   jam, on whose surface, and at whose expense, it lives and
   reproduces itself. Chemists generally—especially Liebig, who
   had a fermentation theory of his own—pooh-poohed this idea
   altogether; maintaining the presence of the yeast-plant to be
   a mere concomitant, and refusing to believe that it had any
   real share in the process. But in 1843, Professor Helmholtz,
   then a young undistinguished man, devised a method of stopping
   the passage of organic germs from a fermenting into a
   fermentable liquid, without checking the passage of fluids;
   and as no fermentation was then set up, he drew the inference
   that the 'particulate' organic germs, not the soluble material
   of the yeast, furnish the primum mobile of this change,—a
   doctrine which, though now universally accepted, had to fight
   its way for some time against the whole force of chemical
   authority. A little before Cagniard de la Tour's discovery, a
   set of investigations had been made by Schulze and Schwann, to
   determine whether the exclusion of air was absolutely
   necessary to prevent the appearance of living organisms in
   decomposing fluids, or whether these fluids might be kept free
   from animal or vegetable life, by such means as would
   presumably destroy any germs which the air admitted to them
   might bring in from without, such as passing it through a
   red-hot tube or strong sulphuric acid. These experiments, it
   should be said, had reference rather to the question of
   'spontaneous generation,' or 'abiogenesis,' than to the cause
   of fermentation and decomposition; its object being to
   determine whether the living things found by the microscope in
   a decomposing liquid exposed to the air, spring from germs
   brought by the atmosphere, or are generated 'de novo' in the
   act of decay—the latter doctrine having then many upholders.
   But the discovery of the real nature of yeast, and the
   recognition of the part it plays in alcoholic fermentation,
   gave an entirely new value to Schulze's and Schwann's results;
   suggesting that putrefactive and other kinds of decomposition
   may be really due, not (as formerly supposed) to the action of
   atmospheric oxygen upon unstable organic compounds, but to a
   new arrangement of elements brought about by the development
   of germinal particles deposited from the atmosphere. It was at
   this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry; and for its
   subsequent complete working-out, science is mainly indebted to
   him: for although other investigators—notably Professor
   Tyndall—have confirmed and extended his conclusions by
   ingenious variations on his mode of research, they would be
   the first to acknowledge that all those main positions which
   have now gained universal acceptance—save on the part of a
   few obstinate 'irreconcilables'—have been established by
   Pasteur's own labours. … The first application of these
   doctrines to the study of disease in the living animal was
   made in a very important investigation, committed to Pasteur
   by his old master in chemistry (the eminent and eloquent
   Dumas), into the nature of the 'pébrine,' which was
   threatening to extinguish the whole silk culture of France and
   Italy. … Though it concerned only a humble worm, it laid the
   foundation of an entirely new system and method of research
   into the nature and causes of a large class of diseases in man
   and the higher animals, of which we are now only beginning to
   see the important issues. Among the most immediately
   productive of its results, may be accounted the 'antiseptic
   surgery' of Professor Lister; of which the principle is the
   careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs, alike
   from the natural internal cavities of the body, and from such
   as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid open by
   accident, or may have to be opened surgically. This exclusion
   is effected by the judicious use of carbolic acid, which kills
   the germs without doing any mischief to the patient; and the
   saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe suffering, already
   brought about by this method, constitutes in itself a glorious
   triumph alike to the scientific elaborator of the
   germ-doctrine, and to the scientific surgeon by whom it has
   been thus applied. A far wider range of study, however, soon
   opened itself. The revival by Dr. Farr of the doctrine of
   'zymosis' (fermentation),—long ago suggested by the sagacity
   of Robert Boyle, and practically taken up in the middle of the
   last century by Sir John Pringle (the most scientific
   physician of his time),—as the expression of the effect
   produced in the blood by the introduction of a specific poison
   (such as that of small-pox, measles, scarlatina, cholera,
   typhus, &c.), had naturally directed the attention of
   thoughtful men to the question (often previously raised
   speculatively), whether these specific poisons are not really
   organic germs, each kind of which, a real 'contagium vivum,'
   when sown in the circulating fluid, produces a definite
   'zymosis' of its own, in the course of which the poison is
   reproduced with large increase, exactly after the manner of
   yeast in a fermenting wort. Pasteur's success brought this
   question to the front, as one not to talk about, but to work at."

      _W. B. Carpenter,
      Disease-Germs
      (Nineteenth Century, October, 1881)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Pasteur,
      Studies in Fermentation._

      _Dr. Duclaux,
      Fermentation._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   Virchow and Cellular Pathology.

   "That really gifted scholar and paragon of industry and
   attainment, Rudolph Virchow, announced in 1858 a theory known
   as Modern Vitalism which was borrowed from natural scientific
   medicine and is distinguished from the vitalism of the
   previous century in this, that it breaks up the old vital
   force, which was supposed to be either distributed throughout
   the entire body, or located in a few organs, into an
   indefinite number of associate vital forces working
   harmoniously, and assigns to them all the final elementary
   principles without microscopic seat. 'Every animal principle
   has a sum of vital unities, each of which bears all the
   characteristics of life.
{2146}
   The characteristics and unity of life cannot be found in any
   determinate point of a higher organism, e. g., in the brain,
   but only in the definite, ever recurring arrangements of each
   element present. Hence it results that the composition of a
   large body amounts to a kind of social arrangement, in which
   each one of the movements of individual existence is dependent
   upon the others, but in such a way that each element has a
   special activity of its own, and that each, although it
   receives the impulse to its own activity from other parts,
   still itself performs its own functions.' This it will be seen
   is nothing but another way of expressing the cell doctrine to
   which most medical men are now committed, which means that our
   bodies are built up with cells, and that each cell has a unity
   and a purpose of its own. Sir Robert Hooke in 1677 discovered
   plant cells. Schwann discovered animal cells, and Robert Brown
   discovered cell nuclei, but it remained for Virchow, using the
   microscope, to supply the gap which had risen between
   anatomical knowledge and medical theory, that is, to supply a
   'cellular pathology,' since which time the cell has assumed
   the role which the fibre occupied in the theories of the 17th
   and 18th centuries. Time alone can decide as to the ultimate
   validity of these views. This theory was from its announcement
   most enthusiastically received, and so far has responded to
   nearly all the requirements which have been made of it. Even
   its author was almost startled with its success. … As a
   result of Virchow's labors there has arisen in Germany what
   has been called the medical school of natural sciences of
   which Virchow is the intellectual father. This school seeks
   mainly by means of pathological anatomy and microscopy,
   experimental physiology and pathology, and the other applied
   sciences, or rather by their methods, to make medicine also an
   exact science."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The development of Bacteriology.

   "The traditional expression contagium vivum received a more
   precise meaning in 1840 from Henle, who in his 'Pathologischen
   Untersuchungen,' showed clearly and distinctly that the
   contagia till then invisible must be regarded as living
   organisms, and gave his reasons for this view. … If we are
   forced to recognise the characteristic qualities of living
   beings in these contagia, there is no good reason why we
   should not regard them as real living beings, parasites. For
   the only general distinction between their mode of appearance
   and operation and that of parasites is, that the parasites
   with which we are acquainted have been seen and the contagia
   have not. That this may be due to imperfect observation is
   shown by the experiments on the itch in 1840, in which the
   contagium, the itch-mite, though almost visible without
   magnifying power, was long at least misunderstood. It was only
   a short time before that the microscopic Fungus, Achorion,
   which causes favus, was unexpectedly discovered, as well as
   the Fungus which gives rise to the infectious disease in the
   caterpillar of the silkworm known as muscardine. Other and
   similar cases occurred at a later time, and among them that of
   the discovery of the Trichinae between 1850 and 1860, a very
   remarkable instance of a contagious parasite long overlooked.
   Henle repeated his statements in 1853 in his 'Rationelle
   Pathologie,' but for reasons which it is not our business to
   examine, his views on animal pathology met with little
   attention or approval. It was in connection with
   plant-pathology that Henle's views were first destined to
   further development, and obtained a firmer footing. It is true
   that the botanists who occupied themselves with the diseases
   of plants knew nothing of Henle's pathological writings, but
   made independent efforts to carry on some first attempts which
   had been made with distinguished success in the beginning of
   the century. But they did in fact strike upon the path
   indicated by Henle, and the constant advance made after, about
   the year 1850, resulted not only in the tracing back of all
   infectious diseases in plants to parasites as their exciting
   cause, but in proving that most of the diseases of plants are
   due to parasitic infection. It may now certainly be admitted
   that the task was comparatively easy in the vegetable kingdom,
   partly because the structure of plants makes them more
   accessible to research, partly because most of the parasites
   which infect them are true Fungi, and considerably larger than
   most of the contagia of animal bodies. From this time
   observers in the domain of animal pathology, partly
   influenced, more or less, by these discoveries in botany, and
   partly in consequence of the revival of the vitalistic theory
   of fermentation by Pasteur about the year 1860, returned to
   Henle's vitalistic theory of contagion. Henle himself, in the
   exposition of his views, had already indicated the points of
   comparison between his own theory and the theory of
   fermentation founded at that time by Cagniard-Latour and
   Schwann. Under the influence, as he expressly says, of
   Pasteur's writings, Davaine recalled to mind the little rods
   first seen by his teacher, Rayer, in the blood of an animal
   suffering from anthrax, and actually discovered in them the
   exciting cause of the disease, which may be taken as a type of
   an infectious disease both contagious and miasmatic also, in
   so far as it originates, as has been said, in
   anthrax-districts. This was, in 1863, a very important
   confirmation of Henle's theory, inasmuch as a very small
   parasite, not very easy of observation at that time, was
   recognised as a contagium. It was some time before much
   further advance was made. … The latest advance to be
   recorded begins with the participation of Robert Koch in the
   work of research since 1876."

      _A. De Bary,
      Lectures on Bacteria,
      pages 145-148._

   "M. Pasteur is no ordinary man; he is one of the rare
   individuals who must be described by the term 'genius.' Having
   commenced his scientific career and attained great distinction
   as a chemist, M. Pasteur was led by his study of the chemical
   process of fermentations to give his attention to the
   phenomena of disease in living bodies resembling
   fermentations. Owing to a singular and fortunate mental
   characteristic, he has been able, not simply to pursue a rigid
   path of investigation dictated by the logical or natural
   connection of the phenomena investigated, but deliberately to
   select for inquiry matters of the most profound importance to
   the community, and to bring his inquiries to a successful
   practical issue in a large number of instances.
{2147}
   Thus he has saved the silkworm industry of France and Italy
   from destruction, he has taught the French wine-makers to
   quickly mature their wine, he has effected an enormous
   improvement and economy in the manufacture of beer, he has
   rescued the sheep and cattle of Europe from the fatal disease
   'anthrax,' and it is probable—he would not himself assert
   that it is at present more than probable—that he has rendered
   hydrophobia a thing of the past. The discoveries made by this
   remarkable man would have rendered him, had he patented their
   application and disposed of them according to commercial
   principles, the richest man in the world. They represent a
   gain of some millions sterling annually to the community. …
   M. Pasteur's first experiment in relation to hydrophobia was
   made in December 1880, when he inoculated two rabbits with the
   mucus from the mouth of a child which had died of that
   disease. As his inquiries extended he found that it was
   necessary to establish by means of experiment even the most
   elementary facts with regard to the disease, for the existing
   knowledge on the subject was extremely small, and much of what
   passed for knowledge was only ill-founded tradition."

      _E. R. Lankester,
      The Advancement of Science,
      pages 121-123._

   "The development of our knowledge relating to the bacteria,
   stimulated by the controversy relating to spontaneous
   generation and by the demonstration that various processes of
   fermentation and putrefaction are due to microörganisms of
   this class, has depended largely upon improvements in methods
   of research. Among the most important points in the
   development of bacteriological technique we may mention first,
   the use of a cotton air filter (Schröder and Von Dusch, 1854);
   second, the sterilization of culture fluids by heat (methods
   perfected by Pasteur, Koch, and others); third, the use of the
   aniline dyes as staining agents (first recommended by Weigert
   in 1877); fourth, the introduction of solid culture media and
   the 'plate method' for obtaining pure cultures, by Koch in
   1881. The various improvements in methods of research, and
   especially the introduction of solid culture media and Koch's
   'plate method' for isolating bacteria from mixed 'cultures,
   have placed bacteriology upon a scientific basis. … It was a
   distinguished French physician, Davaine, who first
   demonstrated the etiological relation of a microörganism of
   this class to a specific infectious disease. The anthrax
   bacillus had been seen in the blood of animals dying from this
   disease by Pollender in 1849, and by Davaine in 1850, but it
   was several years later (1863) before the last-named observer
   claimed to have demonstrated by inoculation experiments the
   causal relation of the bacillus to the disease in question.
   The experiments of Davaine were not generally accepted as
   conclusive, because in inoculating an animal with blood
   containing the bacillus, from an infected animal which had
   succumbed to the disease, the living microörganism was
   associated with material from the body of the diseased animal.
   This objection was subsequently removed by the experiments of
   Pasteur, Koch, and many others, with pure cultures of the
   bacillus, which were shown to have the same pathogenic effects
   as had been obtained in inoculation experiments with the blood
   of an infected animal."

      _G. M. Sternberg,
      Manual of Bacteriology,
      page 6._

   "In 1876 the eminent microscopist, Professor Cohn, of Breslau,
   was in London, and he then handed me a number of his
   'Beiträge,' containing a memoir by Dr. Koch on Splenic Fever
   (Milzbrand, Charbon, Malignant Pustule), which seemed to me to
   mark an epoch in the history of this formidable disease. With
   admirable patience, skill, and penetration Koch followed up
   the life-history of bacillus anthracis, the contagium of this
   fever. At the time here referred to he was a young physician
   holding a small appointment in the neighbourhood of Breslau,
   and it was easy to predict, and indeed I predicted at the
   time, that he would soon find himself in a higher position.
   When I next heard of him he was head of the Imperial Sanitary
   Institute of Berlin. … Koch was not the discoverer of the
   parasite of splenic fever. Davaine and Rayer, in 1850, had
   observed the little microscopic rods in the blood of animals
   which had died of splenic fever. But they were quite
   unconscious of the significance of their observation, and for
   thirteen years, as M. Radot informs us, strangely let the
   matter drop. In 1863 Davaine's attention was again directed to
   the subject by the researches of Pasteur, and he then
   pronounced the parasite to be the cause of the fever. He was
   opposed by some of his fellow-countrymen; long discussions
   followed, and a second period of thirteen years, ending with
   the publication of Koch's paper, elapsed before M. Pasteur
   took up the question. I always, indeed, assumed that from the
   paper of the learned German came the impulse towards a line of
   inquiry in which M. Pasteur has achieved such splendid
   results."

      _J. Tyndall,
      New Fragments,
      pages 190-191._

   "On the 24th of March, 1882, an address of very serious public
   import was delivered by Dr. Koch before the Physiological
   Society of Berlin. … The address … is entitled 'The
   Etiology of Tubercular Disease.' Koch first made himself
   known, and famous, by the penetration, skill, and thoroughness
   of his researches on the contagium of anthrax, or splenic
   fever. … Koch's last inquiry deals with a disease which, in
   point of mortality, stands at the head of them all. 'If,' he
   says, 'the seriousness of a malady be measured by the number
   of its victims, then the most dreaded pests which have
   hitherto ravaged the world—plague and cholera included—must
   stand far behind the one now under consideration.' Then
   follows the startling statement that one-seventh of the deaths
   of the human race are due to tubercular disease. Prior to Koch
   it had been placed beyond doubt that the disease was
   communicable; and the aim of the Berlin physician has been to
   determine the precise character of the contagium which
   previous experiments on inoculation and inhalation had proved
   to be capable of indefinite transfer and reproduction. He
   subjected the diseased organs of a great number of men and
   animals to microscopic examination, and found, in all cases,
   the tubercles infested by a minute, rod-shaped parasite, which
   by means of a special dye, he differentiated from the
   surrounding tissue. 'It was,' he says, 'in the highest degree
   impressive to observe in the centre of the tubercle-cell the
   minute organism which had created it.' Transferring directly,
   by inoculation, the tuberculous matter from diseased animals
   to healthy ones, he in every instance reproduced the disease.
   To meet the objection that it was not the parasite itself, but
   some virus in which it was imbedded in the diseased organ,
   that was the real contagium, he cultivated his bacilli
   artificially for long periods of time and through many
   successive generations.
{2148}
   With a speck of matter, for example, from a tuberculous human
   lung, he infected a substance prepared, after much trial, by
   himself, with the view of affording nutriment to the parasite.
   In this medium he permitted it to grow and multiply: From the
   new generation he took a minute sample, and infected therewith
   fresh nutritive matter, thus producing another brood.
   Generation after generation of bacilli were developed in this
   way, without the intervention of disease. At the end of the
   process, which sometimes embraced successive cultivations
   extending over half a year, the purified bacilli were
   introduced into the circulation of healthy animals of various
   kinds. In every case inoculation was followed by the
   reproduction and spread of the parasite, and the generation of
   the original disease. … The moral of these experiments is
   obvious. In no other conceivable way than that pursued by Koch
   could the true character of the most destructive malady by
   which humanity is now assailed be determined. And however
   noisy the fanaticism of the moment may be, the common-sense of
   Englishmen will not, in the long run, permit it to enact
   cruelty in the name of tenderness, or to debar us from the
   light and leading of such investigations as that which is here
   so imperfectly described."

      _J. Tyndall,
      New Fragments,
      pages 423-428._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The Theory of Germ Diseases.

   "An account of the innumerable questions and investigations in
   this department of modern pathogenesis, of the various views
   on certain questions, etc., does not fall within the compass
   of our brief sketch. Nor are we able to furnish a consistent
   theory, simply because such an one does not [1889] exist. One
   fact alone is agreed upon, to wit, that certain of the lower
   fungi, as parasites within or upon the body, excite diseases
   (infectious diseases). As regards the modus operandi of these
   parasites two main theories are held. According to one theory,
   these parasites, by their development, deprive the body of its
   nutriment and endanger life particularly when, thronging in
   the blood, they deprive this of the oxygen necessary for
   existence. According to the other theory, they threaten life
   by occasioning decompositions which engender putrid poisons
   (ptomaines). These latter poisons were first isolated by P. L.
   Panum in 1856, and have been recently specially studied by
   Brieger (Ueber Ptomaine, Berlin, 1885-86). They act
   differently upon bodies according to the variety of the
   alkaloidal poison. Metschnikoff regards the white
   blood-corpuscles as antagonists of these parasites (thus
   explaining the cases of recovery from parasitic diseases), and
   in this point of view calls them 'phagocytes.' On the other
   hand E. Salmon and Theodore Smith ('Transactions of the
   Washington Biological Society, February 22d, 1886) were the
   first to demonstrate that sterilized nutritive solutions or
   germ-free products of change of matter of the virulent
   exciters of disease, when injected, afford protection. A.
   Chauveau as early as 1880 had brought forward evidence of the
   probability of this fact, and Hans Buchner in 1879 admitted
   the possibility of depriving bacteria of their virulence.
   Pasteur, however, believes he has demonstrated that by
   continued cultures (also a sort of bacillary Isopathy)
   'debilitated' germs act as prophylactics against the
   corresponding parasitic diseases, and he even thinks he has
   confirmed this by his inoculations against hydrophobia—a
   view, at all events, still open to doubt. … The chief
   diseases regarded as of parasitic origin at present are:
   anthrax (Davaine, 1850); relapsing fever (Obermeier, 1873);
   gonorrhœa and blenorrhœa neonatorum (Neisser, 1879); glanders
   (Struck, 1882, Loeffler and Schütz); syphilis (Sigm.
   Lustgarten, 1884); diphtheria (Oertel, Letzerich, Klebs);
   typhus (Eberle, Klebs); tuberculosis (Koch, 1882); cholera
   (Koch, 1884); lepra (Armauer-Hansen); actinomycosis (Bollinger
   in cattle, 1877; Israel in man, 1884); septicæmia (Klebs);
   erysipelas (Fehleisen); pneumonia (Friedländer); malarial
   fever (Klebs, Tommasi-Crudeli, Marchiafava); malignant œdema
   (Koch); tetanus (Carle and Rattone, Nicolaier, Roeschlaub
   assumed a tetania occasioned by bacilli); cancer (Scheuerlen;
   priority contested by Dr. G. Rappia and Prof. Domingo Freire
   of Rio Janeiro); yellow fever (microbe claimed to have been
   discovered by Freire); dysentery (bacillary diphtheritis of
   the large intestine); cholera nostras (Finkler and Prior);
   scarlet fever (Coze and Feltz, '72); variola and vaccina
   (Keber, Zülzer, Weigert, Klebs); acute yellow atrophy of the
   liver (Klebs, Waldeyer, Eppinger); endocarditis (Ziegler);
   hæmophilia neonatorum (Klebs, Eppinger); trachoma (Sattler);
   keratitis (Leber—aspergillus); ulcus rodens corneæ (Sattler);
   gonorrhœal rheumatism (Petrone, Kammerer). If the bacterial
   theory of infection, constantly threatening life by such
   numerous pathogenic varieties of infecting organisms, must be
   looked upon as a gloomy one, the anti-bacterial Phagocyte
   Theory of Metschnikoff, professor of zoology in Odessa, is
   adapted to make one feel more comfortable, inasmuch as it
   brings into view the possibility of an antagonism to these
   infecting organisms, and explains the method of nature's
   cures. Metschnikoff observed that the wandering cells—the
   white blood corpuscles—after the manner of amœbæ, surround,
   hold fast, digest ('devour,' hence 'phagocytes'), and thus
   render harmless the bacteria which have entered the body. …
   The prophylactic effects of inoculation are explained on the
   theory that by means of this operation the wandering cells are
   prepared, as it were, for subsequent accidental irruptions of
   similar pathogenic bacteria, are habituated or compelled
   thereby to at once devour such organisms when they enter the
   body spontaneously, and thus to render them harmless.
   Inoculation would thus be a sort of training or education of
   the phagocytes. The immunity of many persons from infectious
   diseases, so far as it is not effected by inoculations, would
   by analogy be explained on the theory that with such
   individuals the phagocytes are from the outset so constituted
   that they at once render harmless any stray bacteria which
   come within their domain by immediately devouring them. …
   When … in spite of the phagocytes, the patients die of
   infectious diseases, the fact is to be explained by the
   excessive number of the bacteria present, which is so great
   that the phagocytes are unequal to the task of 'devouring'
   them all."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 1007-1009._

{2149}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   Sanitary Science and Legislation.

   "Together with the growth of our knowledge of the causes of
   disease there has been … slowly growing up also a new kind
   of warfare against disease. It is this science of hygiene
   which is now promising to transform all the old traditional
   ways of dealing with disease, and which now makes possible the
   organisation of the conditions of health. And this science of
   hygiene, it must be repeated, rests on the exact knowledge of
   the causes of disease which we are now obtaining. … At the
   beginning of the eighteenth century Mead, a famous physician
   of that day, whose reputation still lives, had proposed the
   formation of a central board of health to organise common
   measures for the public safety. It was not, however, until
   more than a hundred years later, in 1831, under the influence
   of the terror of cholera, that this first step was taken; so
   that, as it has been well said and often since proved, 'panic
   is the parent of sanitation.' In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick
   issued his report on 'The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring
   Population of Great Britain.' This report produced marked
   effect, and may truly be said to have inaugurated the new era
   of collective action, embodying itself in legislation directed
   to the preservation of national health, an era which is thus
   just half a century old. Chadwick's report led to a Royal
   Commission, which was the first step in the elevation of
   public health to a State interest; and a few years later
   (1847) Liverpool, and immediately afterwards London, appointed
   the first medical officers of health in Great Britain. In 1848
   another epidemic of cholera appeared, and a General Board of
   Health was established. During this epidemic Dr. Snow began
   those inquiries which led to the discovery that the spread of
   the disease was due to the contamination of drinking-water by
   the intestinal discharges of patients. That discovery marked
   the first great stage in the new movement. Henceforth the
   objects to be striven for in the evolution of sanitation
   became ever more clear and precise, and a succession of
   notable discoveries in connection with various epidemics
   enlarged the sphere of sanitation, and revealed new
   possibilities in the prevention of human misery."

      _H. Ellis,
      The Nationalisation of Health,
      pages 21-24._

   "Of all countries of the civilized world, none has a sanitary
   code so complete and so precise as England. In addition,
   English legislation is distinguished from that of other
   countries, by the fact that the principal regulations emanate
   from Parliament instead of being simple administrative orders.
   Thus the legislation is the work of the nation, which has
   recognised its necessity in its own interest. Consequently the
   laws are respected, and, as a rule, religiously observed,
   without objection or murmur. In the whole country, the
   marvellous results which have been produced can be seen.
   Thanks to these laws, the rate of mortality has been lowered,
   the mean duration of life increased, the amount of sickness
   decreased. They have greatly alleviated the misery in the
   houses of the poor, who, thanks to sanitary measures, have a
   better prospect of recovering their health and the means of
   providing for their subsistence and that of their families.
   … The sanitary administration of England is, in accordance
   with the Public Health Act of 1875, in the hands of a central
   authority, the Local Government Board; and local authorities,
   the Local Boards of Health. The Local Government Board
   consists of a president, nominated by the Queen, and the
   following ex-officio members:—the Lord President of the Privy
   Council, all the principal Secretaries of State for the time
   being, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a
   Parliamentary Secretary, and a permanent Secretary. The
   President and Secretaries are, properly speaking, the
   directors of the Local Government Board, the other members
   being only consulted on matters of prime importance. Nine
   special departments are controlled by the Local Government
   Board:

      1. Poor-law administration.
      2. Legal questions.
      3. Sanitary regulations respecting buildings.
      4. Sanitary regulations respecting sewers, streets, etc.
      5. Medical and hygienic matters.
      6. Vaccination.
      7. The Hygiene of factories.
      8. The water supply of London.
      9. Statistics.

   Medical and sanitary matters are under the direction of a
   Medical Officer, and an Assistant Medical Officer."

      _A. Palmberg,
      Treatise on Public Health: England,
      chapter 1._

   "The United States have no uniform legislation for the
   organization of public hygiene to the present day. Each State
   organizes this service as it chooses. … That which
   characterizes the sanitary organization of the States is the
   fact that, in a large number of States, the right is granted
   to the sanitary administrations to carry before the justices
   the infractions of the regulations on this subject. It is a
   similar organization to that of Great Britain, with a little
   less independence, and it is the logical result of the general
   system of administration which exists in the American Union.
   … Without doubt the day will come when the National Board of
   Health will be by act of Congress, with the consent of all the
   States, the real superior council of public hygiene of the
   American Union."

      _E. Sève,
      On the General Organization of Public Hygiene
      (Proceedings, International Sanitary Conference, 1881)._

   "The General Government [of the United States] can do little
   in the way of compulsory legislation, which might interfere
   with the action of the several States to control their own
   sanitary affairs. It is possible that upon the ground of power
   to legislate with regard to commerce, it might establish some
   general system of quarantine and do something toward the
   prevention of the pollution of navigable streams; but it could
   probably only do this with such restrictions and exceptions as
   would make its action of little practical value, unless,
   indeed, it should resort to its right of eminent domain, and
   become liable for all damages, individual or municipal, which
   its action might cause. … No one would deny that the General
   Government can properly create an organization for the purpose
   of collecting and diffusing information on sanitary matters;
   but comparatively few understand how much real power and
   influence such an organization might acquire without having
   the slightest legal authority to enforce any of its
   recommendations. The passing of sanitary laws, and the
   granting to a certain department the power to enforce these
   laws, will not ensure good public health unless the public at
   large supports those laws intelligently, and it can only do
   this through State and municipal sanitary organizations. The
   General Government might do much to promote the formation of
   such organizations, and to assist them in various ways. … By
   the 'act to prevent the introduction of infectious or
   contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a
   national board of health,' approved March 3, 1879, the first
   step has been taken in the direction above indicated.
{2150}
   The act provides for a national board of health, to consist of
   seven members, appointed by the President, and of four
   officers detailed from the Medical Department of the Army,
   Medical Department of the Navy, and the Marine Hospital
   Service, and the Department of Justice respectively. No
   definite term of Office is prescribed, the Board being
   essentially provisional in character. The duties of the board
   are 'to obtain information upon all matters affecting the
   public health, to advise the several departments of the
   government, the executives of the several States, and the
   Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on all questions
   submitted by them, or whenever in the opinion of the board
   such advice may tend to the preservation and improvement of
   the public health.' The board is also directed to prepare a
   plan for a national public health organization in conjunction
   with the National Academy of Sciences."

      _J. S. Billings,
      Introduction to "A Treatise on Hygiene and Public Health,"
      edited by A. IL Buck._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Simon,
      English Sanitary Institutions_

      _Sir J. Simon,
      Public Health: Reports of the Medical Officer
      of the Privy Council and Local Government Board._

      _United States National Board of Health,
      Annual Reports._

      _Massachusetts Board of Health,
      Annual Reports._

   ----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: End----------

MEDICI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and after.

   ----------MEDINA: Start--------

MEDINA: the City of the Prophet.

   By Mahomet's Hegira or flight from Mecca to Yethrib, A. D.
   622, the latter city became the seat of Islam and was
   henceforward known as Medina—Medinet-en-Neby—"the City of
   the Prophet."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapter 2._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

MEDINA: A. D. 661.
   The Caliphate transferred.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

MEDINA: A. D. 683.
   Stormed and sacked.

   In the civil war which followed the accession of Yezid, the
   second of the Omeyyad caliphs, Medina was besieged and stormed
   by Yezid's army and given up for three days to every
   imaginable brutality on the part of the soldiery. The
   inhabitants who survived were made slaves.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 47._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

   ----------MEDINA: End----------

MEDINA DEL RIO SECO, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

MEDIOLANUM.

   Modern Milan. Taken by the Romans in 222 B. C. from the
   Insubrian Gauls.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MEDIOMATRICI.

   The original form of the name of the city of Metz, which had
   been called Divodurum by the Gauls at an earlier day.

MEDISM.
MEDIZED GREEKS.

   During the wars of the Persians against the Greeks, the former
   had many friends and allies, both secret and open, among the
   latter. These were commonly called Medized Greeks, and their
   treason went by the name of Medism.

MEDITERRANEAN FUND.

   A special fund provided by the United States Congress, in
   1803, for the War with Tripoli.

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

MEDITERRANEAN SEA:
   When named.

   "For this sea … the Greeks had no distinctive name, because
   it had so long been practically the only one known to them;
   and Strabo can only distinguish it as 'the Inner' or 'Our'
   Sea. … The now familiar appellation of Mediterranean is in
   like manner first used by Solinus [third century], only as a
   convenient designation, not as a strictly geographical term.
   … The first extant author who employs it distinctly as a
   proper name is Isidorus, who wrote in the seventh century."

      _E: H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 21, section 1,
      chapter 23, section 2, foot-note,
      chapter 31 (volume 2)._

MEERUT, The Sepoy mutiny at.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY).

MEGALESIA, The.

      See LUDI.

  ----------MEGALOPOLIS: Start--------

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 371.
   The founding of the city.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371.

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 317.
   Defense against Polysperchon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 222.
   Destruction and restoration.

   The last exploit of Cleomenes of Sparta, in his struggle with
   the Achæan League and its ally, the king of Macedonia, before
   the fatal field of Sellasia, was the capture of Megalopolis,
   B. C. 222. Most of the citizens escaped. He offered to restore
   their town to them, if they would forsake the League. They
   refused, and he destroyed it, so utterly that its restoration
   was believed to be impossible. But in the following year the
   inhabitants were brought back and Megalopolis existed again,
   though never with its former importance.

      _Polybius,
      Histories,
      book 2, chapter 55 and after (volume 1)._

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 194-183.
   In the Achaian League.

   "The city of Megalopolis held at this time [B. C. 194-183] the
   same sort of position in the Achaian League which the State of
   Virginia held in the first days of the American Union. Without
   any sort of legal preëminence, without at all assuming the
   character of a capital, Megalopolis was clearly the first city
   of the League, the city which gave the nation the largest
   proportion of its leading statesmen. Megalopolis, like
   Virginia, was 'the Mother of Presidents,' and that too of
   Presidents of different political parties. As Virginia
   produced both Washington and Jefferson, so Megalopolis, if she
   produced Philopoimen and Lykortas, produced also Aristainos
   and Diophanes."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 9, section 2._

  ----------MEGALOPOLIS: End--------

  ----------MEGARA: Start--------

MEGARA.

   Megara, the ancient Greek city and state whose territory lay
   between Attica and Corinth, forming part of the Corinthian
   isthmus, "is affirmed to have been originally settled by the
   Dorians of Corinth, and to have remained for some time a
   dependency of that city. It is farther said to have been at
   first merely one of five separate villages—Megara, Heræa,
   Peiræa, Kynosura, Tripodiskus—inhabited by a kindred
   population, and generally on friendly terms, yet sometimes
   distracted by quarrels. …

      See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

   Whatever may be the truth respecting this alleged early
   subjection of Megara, we know it in the historical age, and
   that too as early as the 14th Olympiad, only as an independent
   Dorian city, maintaining the integrity of its territory under its
   leader Orsippus, the famous Olympic runner, against some
   powerful enemies, probably the Corinthians. It was of no mean
   consideration, possessing a territory which extended across
   Mount Geraneia to the Corinthian Gulf, on which the fortified
   town and port of Pêgæ, belonging to the Megarians, was
   situated. It was mother of early and distant colonies,—and
   competent, during the time of Solon, to carry on a protracted
   contest with the Athenians, for the possession of Salamis;
   wherein, although the latter were at last victorious, it was
   not without an intermediate period of ill-success and
   despair."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 9._

      See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

{2151}

MEGARA: B. C. 610-600.
   Struggle with Athens for Salamis.
   Spartan arbitration favorable to the Athenians.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

MEGARA: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance with Athens in war with Corinth and Ægina.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

MEGARA: B. C. 446-445.
   Rising against Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

MEGARA: B. C. 431-424.
   Athenian invasions and ravages.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 431.

MEGARA: B. C. 339-338.
   Resistance to Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

  ----------MEGARA: End--------

MEGARA OF CARTHAGE, The.

      See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS.

MEGIDDO.

   The valley of Megiddo, forming the western part of the great
   Plain of Esdraelon, in northern Palestine—stretching from the
   valley of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, along the
   course of the river Kishon—was the field of many important
   battles in ancient times. Thothmes III. of the eighteenth
   Egyptian dynasty, whose reign is placed about 1600 B. C., met
   there, near the city of Megiddo, and defeated a confederacy of
   Syrian and Canaanite princes who attempted to throw off his
   yoke. A remarkable account of his victory and of the spoils he
   took is preserved in inscriptions on the walls of the temple
   at Karnak.

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

   It was at Megiddo, also, that Sisera, commanding the forces of
   the Canaanites, was beaten and driven to flight by the
   Israelites under Barak. Gideon's' assault on the Midianites
   was from the slope of Mount Gilboa, which rises out of the
   same valley. The latter battle has been called by historians
   the Battle of Jezreel, and Jezreel is one of the forms of the
   name of the valley of Esdraelon. It was there that the
   Philistines were arrayed when Saul fought his last battle with
   them, and on the slopes of Gilboa he fell on his sword and
   died. On the same historic plain, near the city of Megiddo,
   Josiah, king of Judah, fought against Necho, the Pharaoh of
   Egypt, B. C. 609, and was defeated and mortally wounded. The
   plain of Megiddo was so often, in fact, the meeting place of
   ancient armies that it seems to have come to be looked upon as
   the typical battle-ground, and apparently the name Armageddon
   in Revelations is an allusion to it in that sense. The ancient
   city of Megiddo has been identified in site with the present
   town of Ledjûn, which is the Legio of the Romans—the station
   of a Roman legion.

MEGISTANES, The.

   "The king [of the Parthian monarchy] was permanently advised
   by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own
   nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office,
   entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave,
   … or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House;
   the other was a senate comprising both the spiritual and the
   temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and
   the Magi, or 'Priests.' Together these two bodies constituted
   the Megistanes, the 'Nobles' or 'Great Men'—the privileged
   class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled
   the monarch. The monarchy was elective; but only in the house
   of the Arsacidæ."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 6._

MEHDI, AL.

      See MAHDI, AL.

MEHEMET ALI AND THE INDEPENDENT PASHALIK OF EGYPT.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
      and EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

MEHERRINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH

MEIGS, Fort, Sieges of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813
      HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MELBOURNE MINISTRIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837; and 1841-1842.

MELCHITES.

   A name applied in the religious controversies of the 6th
   century, by the heretical Jacobites, to the adherents of the
   orthodox church. It signified that they were imperialists, or
   royalists, taking their doctrines from the sovereign power.

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

MELDÆ, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul which was established in the north of
   the modern French department of the Seine-et-Marne and in a
   small part of the department of the Oise.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

MELIAN FAMINE.

      See GREECE: B. C. 416.

MELIGNANO,
MARIGNANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MELISCEET INDIANS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MELORIA, Battles of (1241 and 1284).

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

MELOS: Siege, conquest and massacre by the Athenians:

      See GREECE: B. C. 416.

MELUN, Siege of.

   One of the important sieges in the second campaign of the
   English king Henry V. in France, A. D. 1420.

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapters 226-230 (volume 1)._

MEMLUKS.

      See MAMELUKES.

  ----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: Start--------

MEMPHIS, Egypt.

   The foundation of Memphis is the first event in Egyptian
   history, the one large historical incident in the reign of the
   first king, who emerges a real man from the shadow land which
   the Egyptians called the reign of the gods. … Menes, the
   founder of Memphis and Egyptian history, came from the south.
   Civilisation descended the Nile. His native place was Thinis,
   or This, in Upper Egypt, a still older town, where his shadowy
   predecessors ruled. … A great engineering work was the first
   act of the builder. He chose his site … but the stream was
   on the wrong side, flowing below the Libyan chain, flowing
   over where the city should be, offering no water-bulwark
   against the invader from the eastern border. So he raised, a
   few miles to the south, a mighty dyke, and turned the river
   into the present course, founding the city on the west bank,
   with the desert behind and the Nile before. … The new city
   received a name which reflects the satisfaction of the ancient
   founder: he called it Mennufre, 'the Good' or 'Perfect
   Mansion.' This was the civil name. … The civil name is
   the parent of the Greek Memphis and the Hebrew Moph, also
   found in the form Noph."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

{2152}

MEMPHIS: A. D. 640-641.
   Surrender to the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.


  ----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: End--------

  ----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: Start--------

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1739-1740.
   A French fort on the site.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
   Naval fight in the river.
   Surrender of the city to the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

  ----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: End--------

MENAPII, The.

   See BELGÆ;
   also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

MENDICANT ORDERS.
   Franciscans.
   Dominicans.

   "This period [12-13th centuries], so prolific in institutions
   of every sort, also gave birth to the Mendicant orders, a
   species of spiritual chivalry still more generous and heroic
   than that which we have just treated [the military-religious
   orders], and unique in history. … Many causes combined to
   call them into existence. In proportion as the Church grew
   wealthy her discipline relaxed, and dangers menaced her on
   every side. … The problem thus presented to the Church was
   taken up at the opening of the 13th century, and thrown into
   practical shape by two men equally eminent in intellectual
   endowments and spiritual gifts. While each solved it in his
   own way, they were both attached to each other by the closest
   friendship. Dominic, a member of the powerful house of Guzman,
   was born in the year 1170, at Callaruega (Calahorra, in Old
   Castile), a village in the diocese of Osma. While pursuing his
   studies in the university of Valencia, he was distinguished by
   a spirit of charity and self·sacrifice. … Diego, Bishop of
   Osma, … a man of severe character, and ardently devoted to
   the good of the Church, found in Dominic one after his own
   heart. He took the young priest with him on a mission which he
   made to the south of France." Dominic was finally left in
   charge of the mission. "His peaceful disposition, his spirit
   of prayer, his charity, forbearance, and patient temper formed
   a consoling contrast to the bloody crusade which had recently
   been set on foot against the Albigenses. After spending ten
   years in this toilsome and thankless mission, labouring only
   for love of God and the profit of souls, he set out for Rome,
   in 1215, with his plans fully matured, and submitted to Pope
   Innocent III. the project of giving to the Church a new method
   of defence, in an order which should combine the contemplative
   life of the monk with the active career of a secular priest.
   … Innocent gave his sanction to Dominic's project, provided
   he would manage to bring it under some of the existing Rules.
   Dominic accordingly selected the Rule of St. Augustine,
   introducing a few changes, with a view to greater severity,
   taken from the Rule of the Premonstratensians. That the
   members of the new order might be free to devote themselves
   entirely to their spiritual labours, they were forbidden to
   accept any property requiring their active administration, but
   were permitted to receive the incomes of such as was
   administered by others. Property, therefore, might be held by
   the Order as a body, but not administered by its members. Pope
   Honorius III. confirmed the action of his illustrious
   predecessor, and approved the Order in the following year,
   giving it, from its object, the name of the 'Order of Friars
   Preachers' ('Ordo Prædicatorum, Fratres Prædicatores'). …
   Dominic founded, in the year 1206, an Order of Dominican nuns.
   … The dress of the Dominicans is a white garment and
   scapular, resembling in form that of the Augustinians, with a
   black cloak and a pointed cap. Francis of Assisi, the son of a
   wealthy merchant named Bernardini, was born in the year 1182,
   in Assisi, in Umbria. His baptismal name was John, but from
   his habit of reading the romances of the Troubadours in his
   youth, he gradually acquired the name of Il Francesco, or the
   Little Frenchman. … When about twenty-four years of age, he
   fell dangerously ill, and, while suffering from this attack,
   gave himself up to a train of religious thought which led him
   to consider the emptiness and uselessness of his past life.
   … He … conceived the idea of founding a society whose
   members should go about through the whole world, after the
   manner of the apostles, preaching and exhorting to penance.
   … His zeal gradually excited emulation, and prompted others
   to aspire after the same perfection. His first associates were
   his townsmen, Bernard Quintavalle and Peter Cattano, and
   others soon followed. Their habit consisted of a long brown
   tunic of coarse woolen cloth, surmounted by a hood of the same
   material, and confined about the waist with a hempen cord.
   This simple but ennobling dress was selected because it was
   that of the poor peasants of the surrounding country. … He
   sent his companions, two-and-two, in all directions, saying to
   them in taking leave: 'Go; always travel two-and-two. Pray
   until the third hour; then only may you speak. Let your speech
   be simple and humble.' … With St. Francis, absolute poverty
   was not only a practice, it was the essential principle on
   which he based his Order. Not only were the individual members
   forbidden to have any personal property whatever, but neither
   could they hold any as an Order, and were entirely dependent
   for their support upon alms. … Hence the chief difference
   between mendicant and other monastic orders consists in this,
   that, in the former, begging takes the place of the ordinary
   vow of personal poverty. … In 1223, Pope Honorius III.
   approved the Order of Franciscans (Fratres Minores), to which
   … Innocent III. had given a verbal sanction in 1210."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 247 (volume 2)._

   "They were" called 'Friars' because, out of humility, their
   founders would not have them called 'Father' and 'Dominus,'
   like the monks, but simply 'Brother' ('Frater,' 'Frère,'
   Friar). … Dominic gave to his order the name of Preaching
   Friars; more commonly they were styled Dominicans, or, from
   the colour of their habits, Black Friars. … The Franciscans
   were styled by their founder 'Fratri Minori'—lesser brothers,
   Friars Minors; they were more usually called Grey Friars, from
   the colour of their habits, or Cordeliers, from the knotted
   cord which formed their characteristic girdle."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

{2153}

   "People talk of 'Monks and Friars' as if these were
   convertible terms. The truth is that the difference between
   the Monks and the Friars was almost one of kind. The Monk was
   supposed never to leave his cloister. The Friar in St.
   Francis' first intention had no cloister to leave."

      _A. Jessopp,
      The Coming of the Friars, 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      Life of St. Francis of Assisi._

      _H. L. Lacordaire,
      Life of St. Dominic._

      _R. Pauli,
      Pictures of Old England,
      chapter 2._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, number 8._

      _P. Sabatier,
      Life of St. Francis of Assisi._

MENENDEZ'S MASSACRE OF FLORIDA HUGUENOTS.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

MENHIR.

   Meaning literally "long-stone." The name is usually given to
   single, upright stones, sometimes very large, which are found
   in the British islands, France and elsewhere, and which are
   supposed to be the rude sepulchral monuments of some of the
   earlier races, Celtic and pre-Celtic.

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      Prehistoric Times,
      chapter 5._

MENOMINEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MENTANA, Battle of (1867).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

  ----------MENTZ: Start--------

MENTZ: Origin.

      See MOGONTIACUM.

MENTZ: A. D. 406.
   Destruction by the Germans.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

MENTZ: 12th Century.
   Origin of the electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

MENTZ: A. D. 1455-1456.
   Appearance of the first printed book.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

MENTZ: A. D. 1631.
   Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

MENTZ: A. D. 1792.
   Occupation by the French Revolutionary army.
   Incorporation with the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

MENTZ: A. D. 1793.
   Recovery by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

MENTZ: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Extinction of the electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

  ----------MENTZ: End--------

MENTZ, Treaty of (1621).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MENZEL PAPERS, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and 1756.

MERCED, The order of La.

   "Jayme [king of Aragon, called El Conquistador], when a
   captive in the hands of Simon de Montfort [see SPAIN: A. D.
   1212-1238], had—mere baby as he was—made a vow that, when he
   should be a man and a king, he would endeavour to do something
   for the redemption of captives. So, before he was a man in
   age, he instituted another religious order of knighthood,
   called La Merced, which added to their other duties that of
   collecting alms and using them for the ransoming of captives
   to the Moors."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
      page 184._

MERCENARIES, Revolt of the.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

MERCHANT ADVENTURERS.

   "The original Company of the Merchant Adventurers carried on
   trade chiefly with the Netherlands. Their principal mart was
   at first Bruges, whence it was removed to Antwerp early in the
   fifteenth century. In distinction from the staplers, who dealt
   in certain raw materials, the Merchant Adventurers had the
   monopoly of exporting certain manufactured articles,
   especially cloths. Though of national importance, they
   constituted a strictly private company, and not, like the
   staplers, an administrative organ of the British government.
   The former were all subjects of the English crown; the
   staplers were made up of aliens as well as Englishmen. In the
   sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequent dissensions broke
   out between these two bodies regarding the exportation of
   cloth. To carry on foreign trade freely in wool as well as in
   cloth, a merchant had to join both companies. Much obscurity
   hangs over the early history of the Merchant Adventurers. They
   claimed' that John, Duke of Brabant, founded their society in
   1216 or 1248, and that it originally bore the name of the
   Brotherhood of St. Thomas à Becket. But it could scarcely have
   existed in its later form before the reign of Edward III.,
   when the cloth industry began to flourish in England. The
   earliest charter granted to it as an organized association
   dates from the year 1407. Their powers were greatly increased
   by Henry VII. The soul of this society, and perhaps its
   original nucleus, was the Mercers' Company of London. …
   Though the most influential Merchant Adventurers resided in
   London, there were many in other English towns. … The
   contrast between the old Gild Merchant and the Company of
   Merchant Adventurers is striking. The one had to do wholly
   with foreign trade, and its members were forbidden to exercise
   a manual occupation or even to be retail shopkeepers; the
   other consisted mainly of small shopkeepers and artisans. The
   line of demarkation between merchants and manual craftsmen was
   sharply drawn by the second half of the sixteenth century, the
   term 'merchant' having already acquired its modern
   signification as a dealer on an extensive scale. Besides the
   Company of Merchant Adventurers trading to the Low
   Countries—which during the eighteenth century was called the
   Hamburg Company—various new Companies of Merchant Adventurers
   trading to other lands arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth
   centuries, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and her
   immediate successors. Among them were the Russian or Muscovy
   Company, the Turkey or Levant Company, the Guinea Company, the
   Morocco Company, the Eastland Company, the Spanish Company,
   and the East India Company, the last-mentioned being the most
   powerful of them all."

      _C. Gross,
      The Gild Merchant,
      pages 148-156._

MERCHANT GUILD.

      See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES—ENGLAND.

MERCIA, The Kingdom of.

   A kingdom formed at the close of the 6th century by the West
   Angles, on the Welsh border, or March. The people who formed
   it had acquired the name of Men of the March, from which they
   came to be called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia. In the
   next century, under King Penda, its territory and its power
   were greatly extended, at the expense of Northumbria.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{2154}

MERCY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CHRISTIAN CAPTIVES, The Order of.

   "For the institution of this godlike order, the Christian
   world was indebted to Pope Innocent III., at the close of the
   12th century. … The exertions of the order were soon crowned
   with success. One third of its revenues was appropriated to
   the objects of its foundation, and thousands groaning in
   slavery were restored to their country. … The order … met
   with so much encouragement that, in the time of Alberic, the
   monk (who wrote about forty years after its institution), the
   number of monastic houses amounted to 600, most of which were
   situated in France, Lombardy and Spain."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 3, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

MERGENTHEIM, Battle of (1645).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

  ----------MERIDA: Start--------

MERIDA, Origin of.

      See EMERITA AUGUSTA.

MERIDA: A. D. 712.
   Siege and capture by the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

  ----------MERIDA: End--------

MERIDIAN, Mississippi,
   Sherman's Raid to.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MERMNADÆ, The.
   The third dynasty of the kings of Lydia, beginning
   with Gyges and ending with Crœsus.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17 (volume 3)._

MEROË, The Kingdom of.

      See ETHIOPIA.

MEROM, Battle of.

   The final great victory won by Joshua in the conquest of
   Canaan, over the Canaanite and Amorite kings, under Jabin,
   king of Hazor, who seems to have been a kind of over-king or
   chieftain among them.

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 12 (volume 1)._

MEROVINGIANS, The.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 448-456; and 511-752.

MERRIMAC AND MONITOR, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

MERRYMOUNT.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

MERTÆ, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

MERTON, Statutes of.

   A body of laws enacted at a Great Council held at Merton, in
   England, under Henry III., A. D. 1236, which marks an
   important advance made in the development of constitutional
   legislation.

      _G. W. Prothero,
      Simon de Montfort._

MERU.

      See MERV.

  ----------MERV: Start--------

MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1221.
   Destruction by Jingis Khan.

   In the merciless march through Central Asia of the awful
   Mongol horde set in motion by Jingis Khan, the great city of
   Meru (modern Merv) was reached in the autumn of A. D. 1220.
   This was "Meru Shahjan, i. e., Meru the king of the world, one
   of the four chief cities of Khorassan, and one of the oldest
   cities of the world. It had been the capital of the great
   Seljuk Sultans Melikshah and Sanjar, and was very rich and
   populous. It was situated on the banks of the Meri el rond,
   also called the Murjab. … The siege commenced on the 25th of
   February, 1221. The governor of the town … sent a venerable
   imam as an envoy to the Mongol camp. He returned with such
   fair promises that the governor himself repaired to the camp,
   and was loaded with presents; he was asked to send for his
   chief relations and friends; when these were fairly in his
   power, Tulni [one of the sons of Jingis Khan] ordered them
   all, including the governor, to be killed. The Mongols then
   entered the town, the inhabitants were ordered to evacuate it
   with their treasures; the mournful procession, we are told,
   took four days to defile out. … A general and frightful
   massacre ensued; only 400 artisans and a certain number of
   young people were reserved as slaves. The author of the
   'Jhankushai' says that the Seyid Yzz-ud-din, a man renowned
   for his virtues and piety, assisted by many people, were
   thirteen days in counting the corpses, which numbered
   1,300,000. Ibn al Ethir says that 700,000 corpses were
   counted. The town was sacked, the mausolemn of the Sultan
   Sanjar was rifled and then burnt, and the walls and citadel of
   Meru levelled with the ground."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, page 87._

      See, also, KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1884.
   Russian occupation.

      See RUSSIA. A. D. 1869-1881.

  ----------MERV: End--------

MERWAN I., Caliph, A. D. 683-684.

   Merwan II., Caliph, 744-750.

MERWING.

   One of the forms given to the name of the royal family of the
   Franks, established in power by Clovis, and more commonly
   known as the Merovingian Family.

MÉRY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MESCHIANZA,
MISCHIANZA, The.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MESOPOTAMIA.

   "Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the
   foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan
   intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and
   the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose
   history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in
   the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or
   'Syria of the two rivers'; to the Greeks and Romans as
   Mesopotamia, or 'the between-river country'; to the Arabs as
   Al-Jezireh, or, 'the island,' this district has always taken
   its name from the streams [the Tigris and Euphrates] which
   constitute its most striking feature."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Chaldœa,
      chapter 1._

MESSALINA, The infamies of.

      See ROME: A. D. 47-54.

MESSANA.

      See MESSENE.

MESSAPIANS, The.

      See ŒNOTRIANS.

  ----------MESSENE: Start--------

MESSENE, in Peloponnesus: B. C. 369.
   The founding of the city.
   Restoration of the enslaved Messenians.

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
      also, GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

MESSENE: B. C. 338.
   Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE; B. C. 357-336.

MESSENE: B. C. 184.
   Revolt from the Achæan League.

   A faction in Messene which was hostile to the Achæan League
   having gained the ascendancy, B. C. 184, declared its
   secession from the League. Philopœmen, the chief of the
   League, proceeded at once with a small force to reduce the
   Messenians to obedience, but was taken prisoner and was foully
   executed by his enemies. Bishop Thirlwall pronounced him "the
   last great man whom Greece produced." The death of Philopœmen
   was speedily avenged on those who caused it and Messene was
   recovered to the League.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 65._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Philopœmen._

{2155}

MESSENE (MODERN MESSINA), in Sicily.
   The founding of the city.

   "Zancle was originally colonised by pirates who came from Cyme
   the Chalcidian city in Opicia. … Zancle was the original
   name of the place, a name given by the Sicels because the site
   was in shape like a sickle, for which the Sicel word is
   Zanclon. These earlier settlers were afterwards driven out by
   the Samians and other Ionians, who when they fled from the
   Persians found their way to Sicily. Not long afterwards
   Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium, drove out these Samians. He
   then repeopled their city with a mixed multitude, and called
   the place Messene, after his native country."

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      translated by Jowett,
      book 6, section 4._

MESSENE: B. C. 396.
   Destruction by the Carthaginians.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

MESSENE: B. C. 264.
   The Mamertines.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MESSINA: A. D. 1849.
   Bombardment and capture by King Ferdinand.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

  ----------MESSENIAN WARS: Start--------

MESSENIAN WARS, The First and Second.

   The Spartans were engaged in two successive wars with their
   neighbors of Messenia, whose territory, adjoining their own in
   the southwestern extremity of Peloponnesus, was rich,
   prosperous and covetable. "It was unavoidable that the
   Spartans should look down with envy from their bare rocky
   ridges into the prosperous land of their neighbours and the
   terraces close by, descending to the river, with their
   well-cultivated plantations of oil and wine. Besides, the
   Dorians who had immigrated into Messenia had, under the
   influence of the native population and of a life of
   comfortable ease, lost their primitive character. Messenia
   seemed like a piece of Arcadia, with which it was most
   intimately connected. … Hence this was no war of Dorians
   against Dorians; it rather seemed to be Sparta's mission to
   make good the failure of the Dorization of Messenia which had
   sunk back into Pelasgic conditions of life, and to unite with
   herself the remains of the Dorian people still surviving
   there. In short, a variety of motives contributed to provoke a
   forcible extension of Spartan military power on this
   particular side."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   The First Messenian War was commenced B. C. 745 and lasted
   twenty years, ending in the complete subjugation of the
   Messenians, who were reduced to a state of servitude like that
   of the Helots of Sparta. After enduring the oppression for
   thirty-nine years, the Messenians rose in revolt against their
   Spartan masters, B. C. 685. The leader and great hero of this
   Second Messenian War was Aristomenes, whose renown became so
   great in the despairing struggle that the latter was called
   among the ancients the Aristomnean War. But all the valor and
   self-sacrifice of the unhappy Messenians availed nothing. They
   gave up the contest, B. C. 668; large numbers of them escaped
   to other lands and those who remained were reduced to a more
   wretched condition than before.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.

MESSENIAN WARS: The Third.

   "The whole of Laconia [E. C. 464] was shaken by an earthquake,
   which opened great chasms in the ground, and rolled down huge
   masses from the highest peaks of Taygetus: Sparta itself
   became a heap of ruins, in which not more than five houses are
   said to have been left standing. More than 20,000 persons were
   believed to have been destroyed by the shock, and the flower
   of the Spartan youth was overwhelmed by the fall of the
   buildings in which they were exercising themselves at the
   time."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 17._

   The Helots of Sparta, especially those who were descended from
   the enslaved Messenians, took advantage of the confusion
   produced by the earthquake, to rise in revolt. Having secured
   possession of Ithome, they fortified themselves in the town
   and withstood there a siege of ten years,—sometimes called
   the Third Messenian War. The Spartans invited the Athenians to
   aid them in the siege, but soon grew jealous of their allies
   and dismissed them with some rudeness. This was one of the
   prime causes of the animosity between Athens and Sparta which
   afterward flamed out in the Peloponnesian War. In the end, the
   Messenians at Ithome capitulated and were allowed to quit the
   country; whereupon the Athenians settled them at Naupactus, on
   the Corinthian gulf, and so gained an ardent ally, in an
   important situation.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 1, sections 101-103._

   Nearly one hundred years later (B. C. 369) when Thebes, under
   Epaminondas, rose to power in Greece and Sparta was
   humiliated, it was one of the measures of the Theban statesman
   to found at Ithome an important city which he named Messene,
   into which the long oppressed Messenians were gathered, from
   slavery and from exile, and were organized in a state once
   more, free and independent.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 39._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 78._

   ----------MESSENIAN WARS: End----------

MESSIDOR, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

MESTIZO.
MULATTO.

   A half-breed person in Peru, born of a white father and an
   Indian mother, is called a Mestizo. One born of a white father
   and a negro mother is called a mulatto.

      _J. J. Von Tschudi,
      Travels in Peru,
      chapter 5._

METAPONTIUM.

      See SIRIS.

METAURUS, Battle of the.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

METAURUS, Defeat of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

MÉTAYERS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789.

METEMNEH, Battle of(1885).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

METHODISTS:
   Origin of the Religious Denomination.

   "The term Methodist was a college nickname bestowed upon a
   small society of students at Oxford who met together between
   1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were
   accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly on
   Wednesdays and Fridays, and on most days during Lent; to read
   and discuss the Bible in common, to abstain from most forms of
   amusement and luxury, and to visit sick persons and prisoners
   in the gaol. John Wesley, the master-spirit of this society,
   and the future leader of the religious revival of the
   eighteenth century, was born in 1703, and was the second
   surviving son of Samuel Wesley, the Rector of Epworth, in
   Lincolnshire. … The society hardly numbered more than
   fifteen members, and was the object of much ridicule at the
   university; but it included some men who afterwards played
   considerable parts in the world.
{2156}
   Among them was Charles, the younger brother of John Wesley,
   whose hymns became the favourite poetry of the sect, and whose
   gentler, more submissive, and more amiable character, though
   less fitted than that of his brother for the great conflicts
   of public life, was very useful in moderating the movement,
   and in drawing converts to it by personal influence. Charles
   Wesley appears to have been the first to originate the society
   at Oxford; he brought Whitefield into its pale, and besides
   being the most popular poet he was one of the most persuasive
   preachers of the movement. There, too, was James Hervey, who
   became one of the earliest links connecting Methodism with
   general literature."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

METHUEN, Rout of.

   The first Scotch army assembled by Robert Bruce after he had
   been crowned king of Scotland, was surprised and routed by
   Aymer de Valence, June 26, 1306.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

METHUEN TREATY, The.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

METÖACS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

METŒCI.

   "Resident aliens, or Metœci, are non-citizens possessed of
   personal freedom, and settled in Attica. Their number, in the
   flourishing periods of the State, might amount to 45,000, and
   therefore was about half that of the citizens."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3, section 2._

METON, The year of.

   "Hitherto [before the age of Pericles] the Athenians had only
   had the Octaëteris, i. e., the period of eight years, of which
   three were composed of thirteen months, in order thus to make
   the lunar years correspond to the solar. But as eight such
   solar years still amount to something short of 99 lunar
   months, this cycle was insufficient for its purpose. … Meton
   and his associates calculated that a more correct adjustment
   might be obtained within a cycle of 6,940 days. These made up
   235 months, which formed a cycle of 19 years; and this was the
   so-called 'Great Year,' or 'Year of Meton.'"

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

METRETES, The.

      See EPHAH.

METROPOLITANS.

      See PRIMATES.

METROPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

METTERNICH, The governing system of.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

   ----------METZ: Start--------

METZ: Original names.

   The Gallic town of Divodurum acquired later the name of
   Mediomatrici, which modern tongues have changed to Metz.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 34, foot-note._

METZ: A. D. 451.
   Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

METZ: A. D. 511-752.
   The Austrasian capital.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

METZ: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Treacherous occupation by the French.
   Siege by Charles V.
   Cession to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

METZ: A. D. 1648.
   Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

METZ: A. D. 1679-1680.
   The Chamber of Reannexation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

METZ: A. D. 1870.
   The French army of Bazaine enclosed and besieged.
   The surrender.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

METZ: A. D. 1871.
   Cession to Germany.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

   ----------METZ: End--------

MEXICAN PICTURE-WRITING.

      See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

   ----------MEXICO: Start--------

MEXICO.
   Ancient: The Maya and Nahua peoples and their civilization.

   "Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the
   manifestations of the progressional spirit in aboriginal
   America, in art, thought, and religion, there is much reason
   for and convenience in referring all the native civilization
   to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more
   ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread. … It is
   only, however, in a very general sense that this
   classification can be accepted, and then only for practical
   convenience in elucidating the subject; since there are
   several nations that must be ranked among our civilized
   peoples, which, particularly in the matter of language, show
   no Maya nor Nahua affinities. Nor is too much importance to be
   attached to the names Maya and Nahua, by which I designate
   these parallel civilizations. The former is adopted for the
   reason that the Maya people and tongue are commonly regarded
   as among the most ancient in all the Central American region,
   a region where formerly flourished the civilization that left
   such wonderful remains at Palenque, Uxmal, and Copan; the
   latter as being an older designation than either Aztec or
   Toltec, both of which stocks the race Nahua includes. The
   civilization of what is now the Mexican Republic, north of
   Tehuantepec, belonged to the Nahua branch, both at the time of
   the conquest and throughout the historic period preceding.
   Very few traces of the Maya element occur north of Chiapas,
   and these are chiefly linguistic, appearing in two or three
   nations dwelling along the shores of the Mexican gulf. In
   published works upon the subject the Aztecs are the
   representatives of the Nahua element; indeed, what is known of
   the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that
   has been written on the American civilized nations in general.
   The truth of the matter is that the Aztecs were only the most
   powerful of a league or confederation of three nations, which
   in the 16th century, from their capitals in the valley, ruled
   central Mexico."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "The evidence … has pointed—with varying force, but with
   great uniformity of direction—towards the Central or
   Usumacinta region [Central America], not necessarily as the
   original cradle of American civilization, but as the most
   ancient home to which it can be traced by traditional,
   monumental, and linguistic records. …
{2157}
   Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and
   perhaps one or two centuries following, there flourished in
   Central America the great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas,
   or Serpents, known to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in
   Chiapas at or near Palenque, and with several allied capitals
   in the surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote
   period was attributed by the people to a being called Votan,
   who was afterwards worshipped as a god. … From its centre in
   the Usumacinta region the Votanic power was gradually extended
   north-westward towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely
   appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also penetrated
   northeastward into Yucatan, where Zamná was its reputed
   founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. …
   The Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its
   prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into prominence,
   perhaps two or three centuries before Christ. The origin of
   the new people and of the new institutions is as deeply
   shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors. … The
   Plumed Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,
   Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally
   founded the new order of things. The Nahua power grew up side
   by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having its capital
   Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not
   confined to its original home, but was borne … towards
   Anáhuac. … The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems
   to have been that of an old effete monarchy against a young
   and progressive people. Whatever its cause, the result of the
   conquest was the overthrow of the Votanic monarchs at a date
   which may be approximately fixed within a century before or
   after the beginning of our era. From that time the ancient
   empire disappears from traditional history. … Respecting the
   ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America nothing
   is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a
   general scattering of the tribes at some period probably
   preceding the 5th century. The national names that appear in
   connection with the closing struggles are the Toltecs,
   Chichimecs, Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of them
   apparently identical with the Xibalbans. … Of the tribes
   that were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes,
   those that spoke the Maya dialects, although considering
   themselves Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the south
   and east. Some of them afterwards rose to great prominence in
   Guatemala and Yucatan. … The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule
   established themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and
   north-western parts of Mexico. … The valley of Mexico and
   the country immediately adjoining soon became the centre of
   the Nahuas in Mexico."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 5, chapter 3._

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
      and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

MEXICO: Ancient:
   The Toltec empire and civilization.
   Are they mythical?

   "The old-time story, how the Toltecs in the 6th century
   appeared on the Mexican table-land, how they were driven out
   and scattered in the 11th century, how after a brief interval
   the Chichimecs followed their footsteps, and how these last
   were succeeded by the Aztecs who were found in
   possession,—the last two, and probably the first, migrating
   in immense hordes from the far north-west,—all this is
   sufficiently familiar to readers of Mexican history, and is
   furthermore fully set forth in the 5th volume of this work. It
   is probable, however, that this account, accurate to a certain
   degree, has been by many writers too literally construed;
   since the once popular theory of wholesale national migrations
   of American peoples within historic times, and particularly of
   such migrations from the northwest, may now be regarded as
   practically unfounded. The 6th century is the most remote
   period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by
   traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in any
   proper sense as historic records. … At the opening … of
   the historic times, we find the Toltecs in possession of
   Anáhuac and the surrounding country. Though the civilization
   was old, the name was new, derived probably, although not so
   regarded by all, from Tollan, a capital city of the empire,
   but afterward becoming synonymous with all that is excellent
   in art and high culture. Tradition imputes to the Toltecs a
   higher civilization than that found among the Aztecs, who had
   degenerated with the growth of the warlike spirit, and
   especially by the introduction of more cruel and sanguinary
   religious rites. But this superiority, in some respects not
   improbable, rests on no very strong evidence, since this
   people left no relics of that artistic skill which gave them
   so great traditional fame; there is, however, much reason to
   ascribe the construction of the pyramids at Teotihuacan and
   Cholula to the Toltec or a still earlier period. Among the
   civilized peoples of the 16th century, however, and among
   their descendants down to the present day, nearly every
   ancient relic of architecture or sculpture is accredited to
   the Toltecs, from whom all claim descent. … So confusing has
   been the effect of this universal reference of all traditional
   events to a Toltec source, that, while we can not doubt the
   actual existence of this great empire, the details of its
   history, into which the supernatural so largely enters, must
   be regarded as to a great extent mythical. There are no data
   for fixing accurately the bounds of the Toltec domain,
   particularly in the south. There is very little, however, to
   indicate that it was more extensive in this direction than
   that of the Aztecs in later times, although it seems to have
   extended somewhat farther northward. On the west there is some
   evidence that it included the territory of Michoacan, never
   subdued by the Aztecs; and it probably stretched eastward to
   the Atlantic. … During the most flourishing period of its
   traditional five centuries of duration, the Toltec empire was
   ruled by a confederacy, similar in some respects to the
   alliance of later date between Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan.
   The capitals were Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan, the two
   former corresponding somewhat in territory with Mexico and
   Tezcuco, while the latter was just beyond the limits of the
   valley toward the north-west. Each of these capital cities
   became in turn the leading power in the confederacy. Tollan
   reached the highest eminence in culture, splendor, and fame,
   and Culhuacan was the only one of the three to survive by name
   the bloody convulsions by which the empire was at last
   overthrown, and retain anything of her former greatness.
   Long-continued civil wars, arising chiefly from dissensions
   between rival religious factions, … gradually undermine the
   imperial thrones. … So the kings of Tollan, Culhuacan, and
   Otompan, lose, year by year, their prestige, and finally, in
   the middle of the 11th century, are completely overthrown,
   leaving the Mexican tableland to be ruled by new combinations
   of rising powers."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

{2158}

   "Long before the Aztecs, a Toltec tribe called the Acolhuas,
   or Culhuas, had settled in the valley of Mexico. The name is
   more ancient than that of Toltec, and the Mexican civilization
   might perhaps as appropriately be called Culhua as Nahua. The
   name is interpreted 'crooked' from coloa, bend; also
   'grandfather' from colli. Colhuacan might therefore signify
   Land of Our Ancestors."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 4, page 23, foot-note._

   "The most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for
   them a migration from 'Tollan in Zuyva.' … This Tollan is
   certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl. … The
   cities which selected him as their tutelary deity were named
   for that which he was supposed to have ruled over. Thus we
   have Tollan and Tollantzinco ('behind Tollan') in the Valley
   of Mexico, and the pyramid Cholula was called
   'Tollan-Cholollan,' as well as many other Tollans and Tulas
   among the Nahuatl colonies. The natives of the city of Tula
   were called, from its name, Tolteca, which simply means 'those
   who dwell in Tollan.' And who, let us ask, were these Toltecs?
   They have hovered about the dawn of American history long
   enough. To them have been attributed not only the primitive
   culture of Central America and Mexico, but of lands far to the
   north, and even the earthworks of the Ohio Valley. It is time
   they were assigned their proper place, and that is among the
   purely fabulous creations of the imagination, among the giants
   and fairies, the gnomes and sylphs, and other such fancied
   beings which in all ages and nations the popular mind has
   loved to create. Toltec, Toltecatl, which in later days came
   to mean a skilled craftsman or artificer, signifies, as I have
   said, an inhabitant of Tollan—of the City of the Sun—in
   other words, a Child of Light. … In some, and these I
   consider the original versions of the myth, they do not
   constitute a nation at all, but are merely the disciples or
   servants of Quetzalcoatl. They have all the traits of beings
   of supernatural powers."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      American Hero-Myths,
      chapter 3, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. G. Brinton,
      Essays of an Americanist,
      pages 83-100._

   A recent totally contrary view, in which the Toltecs are fully
   accepted and modernized, is presented by M. Charnay.

      _D. Charnay,
      Ancient Cities of the New World._

MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
   The Aztec period.
   The so called empire of Montezuma.

   "The new era succeeding the Toltec rule is that of the
   Chichimec empire, which endured with some variations down to
   the coming of Cortes. The ordinary version of the early annals
   has it, that the Chichimecs, a wild tribe living far in the
   north-west, learning that the fertile regions of Central
   Mexico had been abandoned by the Toltecs, came down in immense
   hordes to occupy the land. … The name Chichimec at the time
   of the Spanish conquest, and subsequently, was used with two
   significations, first, as applied to the line of kings that
   reigned at Tezcuco, and second, to all the wild hunting
   tribes, particularly in the broad and little-known regions of
   the north. Traditionally or historically, the name has been
   applied to nearly every people mentioned in the ancient
   history of America. This has caused the greatest confusion
   among writers on the subject, a confusion which I believe can
   only be cleared up by the supposition that the name Chichimec,
   like that of Toltec, never was applied as a tribal or national
   designation proper to any people, while such people were
   living. It seems probable that among the Nahua peoples that
   occupied the country from the 6th to the 11th centuries, a few
   of the leading powers appropriated to themselves the title
   Toltecs, which had been at first employed by the inhabitants
   of Tollan, whose artistic excellence soon rendered it a
   designation of honor. To the other Nahua peoples, by whom
   these leading powers were surrounded, whose institutions were
   identical, but whose polish and elegance of manner were deemed
   by these self-constituted aristocrats somewhat inferior, the
   term Chichimecs, barbarians, etymologically 'dogs,' was
   applied. After the convulsions that overthrew Tollan, and
   reversed the condition of the Nahua nations, the 'dogs' in
   their turn assumed an air of superiority and retained their
   designation, Chichimecs, as a title of honor and nobility."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "We may suppose the 'Toltec period' in Mexican tradition to
   have been simply the period when the pueblo-town of Tollan was
   flourishing, and domineered most likely over neighbouring
   pueblos. One might thus speak it as one would speak of the
   'Theban period' in Greek history. After the 'Toltec period,'
   with perhaps an intervening 'Chichimec period' of confusion,
   came the 'Aztec period;' or, in other words, some time after
   Tollan lost its importance, the city of Mexico came to the
   front. Such, I suspect, is the slender historical residuum
   underlying the legend of a 'Toltec empire.' The Codex Ramirez
   assigns the year 1168 as the date of the abandonment of the
   Serpent Hill by the people of Tollan. We begin to leave this
   twilight of legend when we meet the Aztecs already encamped in
   the Valley of Mexico. Finding the most obviously eligible
   sites preoccupied, they were sagacious enough to detect the
   advantages of a certain marshy spot through which the outlets
   of lakes Chalco and Xochimilco, besides sundry rivulets,
   flowed northward and eastward into Lake Tezcuco. Here in the
   year 1325 they began to build their pueblo, which they called
   Tenochtitlan,—a name whereby hangs a tale. When the Aztecs,
   hard pressed by foes, took refuge among these marshes, they
   came upon a sacrificial stone which they recognized as one
   upon which some years before one of their priests had
   immolated a captive chief. From a crevice in this stone, where
   a little earth was imbedded, there grew a cactus, upon which
   sat an eagle holding in its beak a serpent. A priest
   ingeniously interpreted this symbolism as a prophecy of signal
   and long-continued victory, and forthwith diving into the lake
   he had an interview with Tlaloc, the god of waters, who told
   him that upon that very spot the people were to build their
   town. The place was therefore called Tenochtitlan, or 'place
   of the cactus-rock,' but the name under which it afterward came
   to be best known was taken from Mexitl, one of the names of
   the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The device of the rock and
   cactus, with the eagle and serpent, formed a tribal totem for
   the Aztecs, and has been adopted as the coat-of-arms of the
   present Republic of Mexico.

{2159}

   The pueblo of Tenochtitlan was surrounded by salt marshes;
   which by dint of dikes and causeways the Aztecs gradually
   converted into a large artificial lake, and thus made their
   pueblo by far the most defensible stronghold in Anahuac,—
   impregnable, indeed, so far as Indian modes of attack were
   concerned. The advantages of this commanding position were
   slowly but surely realized. A dangerous neighbour upon the
   western shore of the lake was the tribe of Tecpanecas, whose
   principal pueblo was Azcaputzalco. The Aztecs succeeded in
   making an alliance with these Tecpanecas, but it was upon
   unfavourable terms and involved the payment of tribute to
   Azcaputzalco. It gave the Aztecs, however, some time to
   develop their strength. Their military organization was
   gradually perfected, and in 1375 they elected their first
   tlacatecuhtli, or 'chief-of-men,' whom European writers, in
   the loose phraseology formerly current, called 'founder of the
   Mexican empire.' The name of this official was Acamapichtli,
   or 'Handful-of-Reeds.' During the eight-and-twenty years of
   his chieftancy the pueblo houses in Tenochtitlan began to be
   built very solidly of stone, and the irregular water-courses
   flowing between them were improved into canals. Some months
   after his death in 1403 his son Huitzilihuitl, or
   'Humming-bird,' was chosen to succeed him. This Huitzilihuitl
   was succeeded in 1414 by his brother Chimalpopoca, or 'Smoking
   Shield,' under whom temporary calamity visited the Aztec town.
   The alliance with Azcaputzalco was broken, and that pueblo
   joined its forces to those of Tezcuco on the eastern shore of
   the lake. United they attacked the Aztecs, defeated them, and
   captured their chief-of-men, who died a prisoner in 1427. He
   was succeeded by Izcoatzin, or 'Obsidian Snake,' an aged
   chieftain who died in 1436. During these nine years a complete
   change came over the scene. Quarrels arose between
   Azcaputzalco and Tezcuco; the latter pueblo entered into
   alliance with Tenochtitlan, and together they overwhelmed and
   destroyed Azcaputzalco, and butchered most of its people. What
   was left of the conquered pueblo was made a slave mart for the
   Aztecs, and the remnant of the people were removed to the
   neighbouring pueblo of Tlacopan, which was made tributary to
   Mexico. By this great victory the Aztecs also acquired secure
   control of the springs upon Chepultepec, or 'Grasshopper
   Hill,' which furnished a steady supply of fresh water to their
   island pueblo. The next step was the formation of a
   partnership between the three pueblo towns, Tenochtitlan,
   Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, for the organized and systematic
   plunder of other pueblos. All the tribute or spoils extorted
   was to be divided into five parts, of which two parts each
   were for Tezcuco and Tenochtitlan, and one part for Tlacopan.
   The Aztec chief-of-men became military commander of the
   confederacy, which now' began to extend operations to a
   distance. The next four chiefs-of-men were Montezuma, or
   'Angry Chief,' the First, from 1436 to 1464; Axayacatl, or
   'Face-in-the-Water,' from 1464 to 1477; Tizoc, or 'Wounded
   Leg,' from 1477 to 1486; and Ahuizotl, or 'Water-Rat,' from
   1486 to 1502. Under these chiefs the great temple of Mexico
   was completed, and the aqueduct from Chepultepec was increased
   in capacity until it not only supplied water for ordinary
   uses, but could also be made to maintain the level of the
   canals and the lake. In the driest seasons, therefore,
   Tenochtitlan remained safe from attack. Forth from this
   well-protected lair the Aztec warriors went on their errands
   of blood. Thirty or more pueblo towns, mostly between
   Tenochtitlan and the Gulf coast, scattered over an area about
   the size of Massachusetts, were made tributary to the
   Confederacy; and as all these communities spoke the Nahua
   language, this process of conquest, if it had not been cut
   short by the Spaniards, might in course of time have ended in
   the formation of a primitive kind of state. This tributary
   area formed but a very small portion of the country which we
   call Mexico. If the reader will just look at a map of the
   Republic of Mexico in a modern atlas, and observe that the
   states of Queretaro, Guanaxuato, Michoacan, Guerrero, and a
   good part of La Puebla, lie outside the region sometimes
   absurdly styled 'Montezuma's Empire,' and surround three sides
   of it, he will begin to put himself into the proper state of
   mind for appreciating the history of Cortes and his
   companions. Into the outlying region just mentioned, occupied
   by tribes for the most part akin to the Nahuas in blood and
   speech, the warriors of the Confederacy sometimes ventured,
   with varying fortunes. They levied occasional tribute among
   the pueblos in these regions, but hardly made any of them
   regularly tributary. The longest range of their arms seems to
   have been to the eastward, where they sent their tax-gatherers
   along the coast into the isthmus of Tehuantepec, and came into
   conflict with the warlike Mayas and Quiches. … Such was, in
   general outline, what we may call the political situation in
   the time of the son of Axayacatl, the second Montezuma, who
   was elected chief-of-men in 1502, being then thirty-four years
   of age."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1517-1518.
   First found by the Spaniards.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (February-April).
   The coming of Cortes and the Spaniards.

   Some time in the latter part of the year 1517, the Spaniards
   in Cuba had acquired definite knowledge of a much civilized
   people who inhabited "terra firma" to the west of them, by the
   return of Hernandez de Cordova from his involuntary voyage to
   Yucatan (see AMERICA: A. D. 1157-1518). In the spring of 1518
   the Cuban governor, Velasquez, had enlarged that knowledge by
   sending an expedition under Grijalva to the Mexican coast,
   and, even before Grijalva returned, he had begun preparations
   for a more serious undertaking of conquest and occupation in
   the rich country newly found. For the command of this second
   armament he selected Hernando Cortes, one of the boldest and
   most ambitious of the adventurers who had helped to subdue and
   settle the island of Cuba. Before the fleet sailed, however, a
   jealous distrust of his lieutenant had become excited by some
   cause in the governor's mind, and he attempted to supersede
   him in the command, Cortes slipped out of port, half prepared
   as he was for the voyage, defied the orders of his superior,
   and made his way (February, 1519) to the scene of his future
   conquests, actually as a rebel against the authority which
   commissioned him. "The squadron of Cortés was composed of
   eleven small vessels.
{2160}
   There were 110 sailors, 553 soldiers, of which 13 were armed
   with muskets, and 32 with arquebuses, the others with swords
   and pikes only. There were 10 little field-pieces, and 16
   horses. Such were the forces with which the bold adventurer
   set forth to conquer a vast empire, defended by large armies,
   not without courage, according to the report of Grijalva. But
   the companions of Cortes were unfamiliar with fear. Cortés
   followed the same route as Grijalva. … At the Tabasco River,
   which the Spanish called Rio de Grijalva, because that
   explorer had discovered it, they had a fight with some natives
   who resisted their approach. These natives fought bravely, but
   the fire-arms, and above all the horses, which they conceived
   to be of one piece with their riders, caused them extreme
   terror, and the rout was complete. … The native prince,
   overcome, sent gifts to the conqueror, and, without much
   knowing the extent of his agreement, acknowledged himself as
   vassal of the king of Spain, the most powerful monarch of the
   world." Meantime, tidings of a fresh appearance of the same
   strange race which had briefly visited the shores of the
   empire the year before were conveyed to Montezuma, and the
   king, who had sent envoys to the strangers before, but not
   quickly enough to find them, resolved to do so again. "The
   presents prepared for Grijalva, which had reached the shore
   too late, were, alas! all ready. To these were now added the
   ornaments used in the decoration of the image of Quetzalcoatl,
   on days of solemnity, regarded as the most sacred among all
   the possessions of the royal house of Mexico. Cortés accepted
   the rôle of Quetzalcoatl and allowed himself to be decorated
   with the ornaments belonging to that god without hesitation.
   The populace were convinced that it was their deity really
   returned to them. A feast was served to the envoys, with the
   accompaniment of some European wine which they found
   delicious. … During the feast native painters were busy
   depicting every thing they saw to be shown to their royal
   master. … Cortes sent to Montezuma a gilt helmet with the
   message that he hoped to see it back again filled with gold.
   … The bearer of this gift and communication, returning
   swiftly to the court, reported to the monarch that the
   intention of the stranger was to come at once to the capital
   of the empire. Montezuma at once assembled a new council of
   all his great vassals, some of whom urged the reception of
   Cortés, others his immediate dismissal. The latter view
   prevailed, and the monarch sent, with more presents to the
   unknown invader, benevolent but peremptory commands that he
   should go away immediately. … Meanwhile the Spanish camp was
   feasting and reposing in huts of cane, with fresh provisions,
   in great joy after the weariness of their voyage. They
   accepted with enthusiasm the presents of the emperor, but the
   treasures which were sent had an entirely different effect
   from that hoped for by Montezuma; they only inflamed the
   desire of the Spaniard to have all within his grasp, of which
   this was but a specimen. It was now that the great mistake in
   policy was apparent, by which the Aztec chieftain had for
   years been making enemies all over the country, invading
   surrounding states, and carrying off prisoners for a horrible
   death by sacrifice. These welcomed the strangers and
   encouraged their presence."

      _S. Hale,
      The Story of Mexico,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 2-39 (volume 1). _

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (June-October).
   The advance of Cortés to Tlascala.

   "Meanwhile Cortés, by his craft, quieted a rising faction of
   the party of Velasquez which demanded to be led back to Cuba.
   He did this by seeming to acquiesce in the demand of his
   followers in laying the foundations of a town and constituting
   its people a municipality competent to choose a representative
   of the royal authority. This done, Cortés resigned his
   commission from Velasquez, and was at once invested with
   supreme power by the new municipality. The scheme which
   Velasquez had suspected was thus brought to fruition. Whoever
   resisted the new captain was conquered by force, persuasion,
   tact, or magnetism; and Cortés became as popular as he was
   irresistible. At this point messengers presented themselves
   from tribes not far off who were unwilling subjects of the
   Aztec power. The presence of possible allies was a propitious
   circumstance, and Cortés proceeded to cultivate the friendship
   of these tribes. He moved his camp day by day along the shore,
   inuring his men to marches, while the fleet sailed in company.
   They reached a large city [Cempoalla, or Zempoalla, the site
   of which has not been determined], and were regaled. Each
   chief told of the tyranny of Montezuma, and the eyes of Cortés
   glistened. The Spaniards went on to another town, slaves being
   provided to bear their burdens. Here they found tax-gatherers
   of Montezuma collecting tribute. Emboldened by Cortés' glance,
   his hosts seized the Aztec emissaries and delivered them to
   the Spaniards. Cortés now played a double game. He propitiated
   the servants of Montezuma by secretly releasing them, and
   added to his allies by enjoining every tribe he could reach to
   resist the Aztec collectors of tribute. The wandering
   municipality, as represented in this piratical army, at last
   stopped at a harbor where a town (La Villa Rica de Vera Cruz)
   sprang up, and became the base of future operations." At this
   point in his movements the adventurer despatched a vessel to
   Spain, with letters to the king, and with dazzling gifts of
   gold and Aztec fabrics. "Now came the famous resolve of
   Cortés. He would band his heterogeneous folk together—
   adherents of Cortés and of Velasquez—in one common cause and
   danger. So he adroitly led them to be partners in the deed
   which he stealthily planned. Hulk after hulk of the apparently
   worm-eaten vessels of the fleet sank in the harbor, until
   there was no flotilla left upon which any could desert him.
   The march to Mexico was now assured. The force with which to
   accomplish this consisted of about 450 Spaniards, six or seven
   light guns, fifteen horses, and a swarm of Indian slaves and
   attendants. A body of the Totonacs accompanied them. Two or
   three days brought them into the higher plain and its
   enlivening vegetation. When they reached the dependencies of
   Montezuma, they found orders had been given to extend to them
   every courtesy. They soon reached the Anahuac plateau, which
   reminded them not a little of Spain itself. They passed from
   cacique to cacique, some of whom groaned under the yoke of the
   Aztec; but not one dared do more than orders from Montezuma
   dictated.
{2161}
   Then the invaders approached the territory of an independent
   people, those of Tlascala, who had walled their country
   against neighboring enemies. A fight took place at the
   frontiers, in which the Spaniards lost two horses. They forced
   passes against great odds, but again lost a horse or two,—
   which was a perceptible diminution of their power to terrify.
   The accounts speak of immense hordes of the Tlascalans, which
   historians now take with allowances, great or small. Cortés
   spread what alarm he could by burning villages and capturing
   the country people. His greatest obstacle soon appeared in the
   compacted army of Tlascalans arrayed in his front. The
   conflict which ensued was for a while doubtful. Every horse
   was hurt, and 60 Spaniards were wounded; but the result was
   the retreat of the Tlascalans. Divining that the Spanish power
   was derived from the sun, the enemy planned a night attack;
   but Cortés suspected it, and assaulted them in their own
   ambush. Cortés now had an opportunity to display his
   double-facedness and his wiles. He received embassies both
   from Montezuma and from the senate of the Tlascalans. He
   cajoled each, and played off his friendship for the one in
   cementing an alliance with the other. But to Tlascala and
   Mexico he would go, so he told them. The Tlascalans were not
   averse, for they thought it boded no good to the Aztecs, if he
   could be bound to themselves. Montezuma dreaded the contact,
   and tried to intimidate the strangers by tales of the horrible
   difficulties of the journey. Presently the army took up its
   march for Tlascala, where they were royally received, and
   wives in abundance were bestowed upon the leaders. Next they
   passed to Cholula, which was subject to the Aztecs."

      _J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (October).
   The Massacre at Cholula.
   The march to Mexico.

   "The distance from Tlascala to Chololan [or Cholula] is but
   from 15 to 20 miles. It was a kind of holy place, venerated
   far and wide in Anahuac; pilgrimages were made thither, as the
   Mahometans go to Mecca, and Christians to Jerusalem or Rome.
   The city was consecrated to the worship of Quetzalcoatl, who
   had there the noblest temple in all Mexico, built, like all
   the temples in the country, on the summit of a truncated
   pyramid. The traveller of the present day beholds this pyramid
   on the horizon as he approaches Puebla, on his route from Vera
   Cruz to Mexico. But the worship of the beneficent Quetzalcoatl
   had been perverted by the sombre genius of the Aztecs. To this
   essentially good deity 6,000 human victims were annually
   immolated in his temple at Chololan. … The Spaniards found
   at Chololan an eager and, to all appearance at least, a
   perfectly cordial welcome." But this hospitality masked, it is
   said, a great plot for their destruction, which Montezuma had
   inspired and to aid which he had sent into the neighborhood of
   the city a powerful Mexican army. The plot was revealed to
   Cortez—so the Spanish historians relate—and "he took his
   resolution with his accustomed energy and foresight. He made
   his dispositions for the very next day. He acquainted the
   caciques of Chololan that he should evacuate the city at break
   of dawn, and required them to furnish 2,000 porters or
   'tamanes,' for the baggage. The caciques then organized their
   attack for the morrow morning, not without a promise of the
   men required, whom, in fact, they brought at dawn to the great
   court in which the foreigners were domiciled. The conflict
   soon began. The Spaniards, who were perfectly prepared,
   commenced by massacring the caciques. The mass of Chololans
   that attempted to invade their quarters were crushed under the
   fire of their artillery and musketry, and the charges of their
   cavalry. Hearing the reports, the Tlascalans, who had been
   left at the entrance of the city, rushed on to the rescue. …
   They could now glut their hatred and vengeance; they
   slaughtered as long as they could, and then set to work at
   plunder. The Spaniards, too, after having killed all that
   resisted, betook themselves to pillage. The unfortunate city
   of Chololan was thus inundated with blood and sacked. Cortez,
   however, enjoined that the women and children should be
   spared, and we are assured that in that he was obeyed, even by
   his cruel auxiliaries from Tlascala. … To the praise of
   Cortez it must be said that, after the victory, he once more
   showed himself tolerant: he left the inhabitants at liberty to
   follow their old religion on condition that they should no
   longer immolate human victims. After this signal blow, all the
   threats, all the intrigues, of Montezuma, had no possible
   effect, and the Aztec emperor could be under no illusion as to
   the inflexible intention of Cortez. The latter, as soon as he
   had installed new chiefs at Chololan, and effaced the more
   hideous traces of the massacre and pillage that had desolated
   the city, set out with his own troops and his Indian
   auxiliaries from Tlascala for the capital of the Aztec empire,
   the magnificent city of Tenochtitlan."

      _M. Chevalier,
      Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
      part 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

MEXICO:
   The Capital of Montezuma as described
   by Cortés and Bernal Diaz.

   "This Province is in the form of a circle, surrounded on all
   sides by lofty and rugged mountains; its level surface
   comprises an area of about 70 leagues in circumference,
   including two lakes, that overspread nearly the whole valley,
   being navigated by boats more than 50 leagues round. One of
   these lakes contains fresh, and the other, which is the larger
   of the two, salt water. On one side of the lakes, in the
   middle of the valley, a range of highlands divides them from
   one another, with the exception of a narrow strait which lies
   between the highlands and the lofty Sierras. This strait is a
   bow-shot wide, and connects the two lakes; and by this means a
   trade is carried on between the cities and other settlements
   on the lakes in canoes without the necessity of travelling by
   land. As the salt lake rises and falls with its tides like the
   sea, during the time of high water it pours into the other
   lake with the rapidity of a powerful stream; and on the other
   hand, when the tide has ebbed, the water runs from the fresh
   into the salt lake. This great city of Temixtitan
   [Tenochtitlan—Mexico] is situated in this salt lake, and from
   the main land to the denser parts of it, by whichever route
   one chooses to enter, the distance is two leagues. There are
   four avenues or entrances to the city, all of which are formed
   by artificial causeways, two spears' length in width. The city
   is as large as Seville or Cordova; its streets, I speak of the
   principal ones, are very wide and straight; some of these, and
   all the inferior ones, are half land and half water, and are
   navigated by canoes.
{2162}
   All the streets at intervals have openings, through which the
   water flows, crossing from one street to another; and at these
   openings, some of which are very wide, there are also very
   wide bridges, composed of large pieces of timber, of great
   strength and well put together; on many of these bridges ten
   horses can go abreast. … This city has many public squares,
   in which are situated the markets and other places for buying
   and selling. There is one square twice as large as that of the
   city of Salamanca, surrounded by porticoes, where are daily
   assembled more than 60,000 souls, engaged in buying and
   selling; and where are found all kinds of merchandise that the
   world affords, embracing the necessaries of life, as for
   instance articles of food, as well as jewels of gold and
   silver, lead, brass, copper, tin, precious stones, bones,
   shells, snails, and feathers. … Every kind of merchandise is
   sold in a particular street or quarter assigned to it
   exclusively, and thus the best order is preserved. They sell
   everything by number or measure; at least so far we have not
   observed them to sell any thing by weight. There is a building
   in the great square that is used as an audience house, where
   ten or twelve persons, who are magistrates, sit and decide all
   controversies that arise in the market, and order delinquents
   to be punished. … This great city contains a large number of
   temples, or houses for their idols, very handsome edifices,
   which are situated in the different districts and the suburbs.
   … Among these temples there is one which far surpasses all
   the rest, whose grandeur of architectural details no human
   tongue is able to describe; for within its precincts,
   surrounded by a lofty wall, there is room enough for a town of
   500 families. Around the interior of this enclosure there are
   handsome edifices, containing large halls and corridors, in
   which the religious persons attached to the temple reside.
   There are full 40 towers, which are lofty and well built, the
   largest of which has 50 steps leading to its main body, and is
   higher than the tower of the principal church at Seville. The
   stone and wood of which they are constructed are so well
   wrought in every part that nothing could be better done. …
   This noble city contains many fine and magnificent houses;
   which may be accounted for from the fact that all the nobility
   of the country, who are the vassals of Muteczuma, have houses
   in the city, in which they reside a certain part of the year;
   and, besides, there are numerous wealthy citizens who also
   possess fine houses."

      _H. Cortés,
      Despatches [Letters] (translated by G. Folsom),
      letter 2, chapter 5. _

   "We had already been four days in the city of Mexico, and
   neither our commander nor any of us had, during that time,
   left our quarters, excepting to visit the gardens and
   buildings adjoining the palace. Cortes now, therefore,
   determined to view the city, and visit the great market, and
   the chief temple of Huitzilopochtli. … The moment we arrived
   in this immense market, we were perfectly astonished at the
   vast numbers of people, the profusion of merchandise which was
   there exposed for sale, and at the good police and order that
   reigned throughout. … Every species of goods which New Spain
   produces were here to be found; and everything put me in mind
   of my native town Medina del Campo during fair time, where
   every merchandise has a separate street assigned for its sale.
   … On quitting the market, we entered the spacious yards
   which surround the chief temple. … Motecusuma, who was
   sacrificing on the top to his idols, sent six papas and two of
   his principal officers to conduct Cortes up the steps. There
   were 114 steps to the summit. …Indeed, this infernal temple,
   from its great height, commanded a view of the whole
   surrounding neighbourhood. From this place we could likewise
   see the three causeways which led into Mexico. … We also
   observed the aqueduct which ran from Chapultepec, and provided
   the whole town with sweet water. We could also distinctly see
   the bridges across the openings, by which these causeways were
   intersected, and through which the waters of the lake ebbed
   and flowed. The lake itself was crowded with canoes, which
   were bringing provisions, manufactures and other merchandise
   to the city. From here we also discovered that the only
   communication of the houses in this city, and of all the other
   towns built in the lake, was by means of drawbridges or
   canoes. In all these towns the beautiful white plastered
   temples rose above the smaller ones, like so many towers and
   castles in our Spanish towns, and this, it may be imagined,
   was a splendid sight."

      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs (translated by Lockhart),
      chapter 92 (volume 1)._

MEXICO:
   The same as viewed in the light of modern historical criticism.

   "In the West India Islands the Spanish discoverers found small
   Indian tribes under the government of chiefs; but on the
   continent, in the Valley of Mexico, they found a confederacy
   of three Indian tribes under a more advanced but similar
   government. In the midst of the valley was a large pueblo, the
   largest in America, surrounded with water, approached by
   causeways; in fine, a water-girt fortress impregnable to
   Indian assault. This pueblo presented to the Spanish
   adventurers the extraordinary spectacle of an Indian society
   lying two ethnical periods back of European society, but with
   a government and plan of life at once intelligent, orderly,
   and complete. … The Spanish adventurers who captured the
   pueblo of Mexico saw a king in Montezuma, lords in Aztec
   chiefs, and a palace in the large joint-tenement house
   occupied, Indian fashion, by Montezuma and his
   fellow-householders. It was, perhaps, an unavoidable
   self-deception at the time, because they knew nothing of the
   Aztec social system. Unfortunately it inaugurated American
   aboriginal history upon a misconception of Indian life which
   has remained substantially unquestioned until recently. The
   first eye-witnesses gave the keynote to this history by
   introducing Montezuma as a king, occupying a palace of great
   extent crowded with retainers, and situated in the midst of a
   grand and populous city, over which, and much besides, he was
   reputed master. But king and kingdom were in time found too
   common to express all the glory and splendor the imagination
   was beginning to conceive of Aztec society; and emperor and
   empire gradually superseded the more humble conception of the
   conquerors. … To every author, from Cortes and Bernal Diaz
   to Brasseur de Bourbourg and Hubert H. Bancroft, Indian
   society was an unfathomable mystery, and their works have left
   it a mystery still. Ignorant of its structure and principles,
   and unable to comprehend its peculiarities, they invoked the
   imagination to supply whatever was necessary to fill out the
   picture. …
{2163}
   Thus, in this case, we have a grand historical romance, strung
   upon the conquest of Mexico as upon a thread; the acts of the
   Spaniards, the pueblo of Mexico, and its capture, are
   historical, while the descriptions of Indian society and
   government are imaginary and delusive. … There is a strong
   probability, from what is known of Indian life and society,
   that the house in which Montezuma lived, was a joint-tenement
   house of the aboriginal American model, owned by a large
   number of related families, and occupied by them in common as
   joint proprietors; that the dinner [of Montezuma, in his
   palace, as described by Cortes and Bernal Diaz] … was the
   usual single daily meal of a communal household, prepared in a
   common cookhouse from common stores, and divided, Indian
   fashion, from the kettle; and that all the Spaniards found in
   Mexico was a simple confederacy of three Indian tribes, the
   counterpart of which was found in all parts of America. It may
   be premised further that the Spanish adventurers who thronged
   to the new world after its discovery found the same race of
   Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South
   America, in Florida, and in Mexico. In their mode of life and
   means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages, and
   customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
   physical characteristics, they were the same people in
   different stages of advancement. No distinction of race was
   observed, and none in fact existed. … Not a vestige of the
   ancient pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan) remains to assist us
   to a knowledge of its architecture. Its structures, which were
   useless to a people of European habits, were speedily
   destroyed to make room for a city adapted to the wants of a
   civilized race. We must seek for its characteristics in
   contemporary Indian houses which still remain in ruins, and in
   such of the early descriptions as have come down to us, and
   then leave the subject with but little accurate knowledge. Its
   situation, partly on dry land and partly in the waters of a
   shallow artificial pond formed by causeways and dikes, led to
   the formation of streets and squares, which were unusual in
   Indian pueblos, and gave to it a remarkable appearance. …
   Many of the houses were large, far beyond the supposable wants
   of a single Indian family. They were constructed of adobe
   brick, and of stone, and plastered over in both cases with
   gypsum, which made them a brilliant white; and some were
   constructed of a red porous stone. In cutting and dressing
   this stone flint implements were used. The fact that the
   houses were plastered externally leads us to infer that they
   had not learned to dress stone and lay them in courses. It is
   not certainly established that they had learned the use of a
   mortar of lime and sand. In the final attack and capture, it
   is said that Cortes, in the course of seventeen days,
   destroyed and levelled three-quarters of the pueblo, which
   demonstrates the flimsy character of the masonry. … It is
   doubtful whether there was a single pueblo in North America,
   with the exception of Tlascala, Cholula, Tezcuco, and Mexico,
   which contained 10,000 inhabitants. There is no occasion to
   apply the term 'city' to any of them. None of the Spanish
   descriptions enable us to realize the exact form and structure
   of these houses, or their relations to each other in forming a
   pueblo. … It is evident from the citations made that the
   largest of these joint·tenement houses would accommodate from
   500 to 1,000 or more people, living in the fashion of Indians;
   and that the courts were probably quadrangles, formed by
   constructing the building on three sides of an inclosed space,
   as in the New Mexican pueblos, or upon the four sides, as in
   the House of the Nuns, at Uxmal."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
      (United States Geographical and Geological Survey of
      Rocky Mountain Region:
      Contribution to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
      chapter 10._

MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1520.
   Captivity of Montezuma, Cortés ruling in his name.
   The discomfiture of Narvaez.
   The revolt of the capital.

   When Cortés had time to survey and to realize his position in
   the Mexican capital, he saw that it was full of extreme
   danger. To be isolated with so small a force in the midst of
   any hostile, populous city would be perilous; but in Mexico
   that peril was immeasurably increased by the peculiar
   situation and construction of the island-city—Venice-like in
   its insulation, and connected with the mainland by long and
   narrow, causeways and bridges, easily broken and difficult to
   secure for retreat. With characteristic audacity, the Spanish
   leader mastered the danger of the situation, so to speak, by
   taking Montezuma himself in pledge for the peace and good
   behavior of his subjects. Commanded by Cortés to quit his
   palace, and to take up his residence with the Spaniards in
   their quarters, the Mexican monarch remonstrated but obeyed,
   and became from that day the shadow of a king. "During, six
   months that Cortes remained in Mexico [from November, 1519,
   until May, 1520], the monarch continued in the Spanish
   quarters, with an appearance of as entire satisfaction and
   tranquillity as if he had resided there, not from constraint,
   but through choice. His ministers and officers attended him as
   usual. He took cognizance of all affairs; every order was
   issued in his name. … Such was the dread which both
   Montezuma and his subjects had of the Spaniards, or such the
   veneration in which they held them, that no attempt was made
   to deliver their sovereign from confinement, and though
   Cortes, relying on this ascendant which he had acquired over
   their minds, permitted him not only to visit his temples, but
   to make hunting excursions beyond the lake, a guard of a few
   Spaniards carried with it such a terrour as to intimidate the
   multitude, and secure the captive monarch. Thus, by the
   fortunate temerity of Cortes in seizing Montezuma, the
   Spaniards at once secured to themselves more extensive
   authority in the Mexican empire than it was possible to have
   acquired in a long course of time by open force; and they
   exercised more absolute sway in the name of another than they
   could have done in their own. … Cortes availed himself to
   the utmost of the powers which he possessed by being able to
   act in the name of Montezuma. He sent some Spaniards, whom he
   judged best qualified for such commissions, into different
   parts of the empire, accompanied by persons of distinction,
   whom Montezuma appointed to attend them both as guides and
   protectors. They visited most of the provinces, viewed their
   soil and productions, surveyed with particular care the
   districts which yielded gold or silver, pitched upon several
   places as proper stations for future colonies, and endeavoured
   to prepare the minds of the people for submitting to the
   Spanish yoke." At the same time, Cortes strengthened his
   footing in the capital by building and launching two brigantines
   on the lake, with an equipment and armament which his royal
   prisoner caused to be brought up for him from Vera Cruz.
{2164}
   He also persuaded Montezuma to acknowledge himself a vassal of
   the King of Castile, and to subject his kingdom to the payment
   of an annual tribute. But, while his cunning conquest of an
   empire was advancing thus prosperously, the astute Spanish
   captain allowed his prudence to be overridden by his religious
   zeal. Becoming impatient at the obstinacy with which Montezuma
   clung to his false gods, Cortes made a rash attempt, with his
   soldiers, to cast down the idols in the great temple of the
   city, and to set the image of the Virgin in their place. The
   sacrilegious outrage roused the Mexicans from their tame
   submission and fired them with an inextinguishable rage. At
   this most unfortunate juncture, news came from Vera Cruz which
   demanded the personal presence of Cortes on the coast.
   Velasquez, the hostile governor of Cuba, to whom the
   adventurer in Mexico was a rebel, had sent, at last, an
   expedition, to put a stop to his unauthorized proceedings and
   to arrest his person. Cortes faced the new menace as boldly as
   he had faced all others. Leaving 150 men in the angry Mexican
   capital, under Pedro de Alvarado, he set out with the small
   remainder of his force to attack the Spanish intruders. Even
   after picking up some detachments outside and joining the
   garrison at Vera Cruz, he could muster but 250 men; while
   Narvaez, who commanded the expedition from Cuba, had brought
   800 foot soldiers and 80 horse, with twelve pieces of cannon.
   The latter had taken possession of the city of Zempoalla and
   was strongly posted in one of its temples. There Cortes
   surprised him, in a night attack, took him prisoner, in a
   wounded state, and compelled his troops to lay down their
   arms. Nearly the whole of the latter were soon captivated by
   the commanding genius of the man they had been sent to arrest,
   and enlisted in his service. He found himself now at the head
   of a thousand well armed men; and he found in the same moment
   that he needed them all. For news came from Mexico that
   Alvarado, thinking to anticipate and crush a suspected
   intention of the Mexicans to rise against him, had provoked
   the revolt and made it desperate by a most perfidious, brutal
   massacre of several hundred of the chief persons of the
   empire, committed while they were celebrating one of the
   festivals of their religion, in the temple. The Spaniards at
   Mexico were now beleaguered, as the consequence, in their
   quarters, and their only hope was the hope that Cortes would
   make haste to their rescue,—which he did.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of America,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 4, chapters 17-23._

MEXICO: A. D. 1520 (JUNE-JULY).
   The return of Cortes to the Mexican Capital.
   The battle in the city.
   The death of Montezuma.
   The disastrous Retreat of the Spaniards.

   The alarming intelligence which came to him from the Mexican
   capital called out in Cortés the whole energy of his nature.
   Hastily summoning back the various expeditions he had already
   sent out, and gathering all his forces together, he "reviewed
   his men, and found that they amounted to 1,300 soldiers, among
   whom were 96 horsemen, 80 cross-bowmen, and about 80
   musketeers. Cortez marched with great strides to Mexico, and
   entered the city at the head of this formidable force on the
   24th of June, 1520, the day of John the Baptist. Very
   different was the reception of Cortez on this occasion from
   that on his first entry into Mexico, when Montezuma had gone
   forth with all pomp to meet him. Now, the Indians stood
   silently in the doorways of their houses, and the bridges
   between the houses were taken up. Even when he arrived at his
   own quarters he found the gates barred, so strict had been the
   siege, and he had to demand an entry." The Mexicans, strangely
   enough, made no attempt to oppose his entrance into the city
   and his junction with Alvarado; yet the day after his return
   their attack upon the Spanish quarters, now so strongly
   reinforced, was renewed. "Cortez, who was not at all given to
   exaggeration, says that neither the streets nor the terraced
   roofs ('azoteas') were visible, being entirely obscured by the
   people who were upon them; that the multitude of stones was so
   great that it seemed as if it rained stones; and that the
   arrows came so thickly that the walls and the courts were full
   of them, rendering it difficult to move about. Cortez made two
   or three desperate sallies, and was wounded. The Mexicans
   succeeded in setting fire to the fortress, which was with
   difficulty subdued, and they would have scaled the walls at
   the point where the fire had done most damage but for a large
   force of cross-bowmen, musketeers, and artillery, which Cortez
   threw forward to meet the danger. The Mexicans at last drew
   back, leaving no fewer than 80 Spaniards wounded in this first
   encounter. The ensuing morning, as soon as it was daylight,
   the attack was renewed. … Again, and with considerable
   success, Cortez made sallies from the fortress in the course
   of the day; but at the end of it there were about 60 more of
   his men to be added to the list of wounded, already large,
   from the injuries received on the preceding day. The third day
   was devoted by the ingenious Cortez to making three movable
   fortresses, called 'mantas,' which, he thought, would enable
   his men, with less danger, to contend against the Mexicans
   upon their terraced roofs. … It was on this day that the
   unfortunate Montezuma, either at the request of Cortez, or of
   his own accord, came out upon a battlement and addressed the
   people." He was interrupted by a shower of stones and arrows
   and received wounds from which he died soon after. The
   fighting on this day was more desperate than it had been
   before. The Spaniards undertook to dislodge a body of the
   Indians who had posted themselves on the summit of the great
   temple, which was dangerously near at hand. Again and again
   they were driven back, until Cortez bound his shield to his
   wounded arm and led the assault. Then, after three hours of
   fighting, from terrace to terrace, they gained the upper
   platform and put every Mexican to the sword. But 40 Spaniards
   perished in the struggle. "This fight in the temple gave a
   momentary brightness to the arms of the Spaniards and afforded
   Cortez an opportunity to resume negotiations. But the
   determination of the Mexicans was fixed and complete. … They
   would all perish, if that were needful, to gain their point of
   destroying the Spaniards. They bade Cortez look at the
   streets, the squares, and the terraces, covered with people;
   and then, in a business-like and calculating manner, they told
   him that if 25,000 of them were to die for each Spaniard, still
   the Spaniards would perish first. …
{2165}
   It generally requires at least as much courage to retreat as
   to advance. Indeed, few men have the courage and the ready
   wisdom to retreat in time. But Cortez, once convinced that his
   position in Mexico was no longer tenable, wasted no time or
   energy in parleying with danger. Terror had lost its influence
   with the Mexicans, and superior strategy was of little avail
   against such overpowering numbers. … Cortez resolved to quit
   the city that night [July 1, 1520]. … A little before
   midnight the stealthy march began. The Spaniards succeeded in
   laying down the pontoon over the first bridge-way, and the
   vanguard with Sandoval passed over; but, while the rest were
   passing, the Mexicans gave the alarm with loud shouts and
   blowing of horns. … Almost immediately upon this alarm the
   lake was covered with canoes. It rained, and the misfortunes
   of the night commenced by two horses slipping from the pontoon
   into the water. Then the Mexicans attacked the pontoon-bearers
   so furiously that it was impossible for them to raise it up
   again." After that, all seems to have been a confused struggle
   in the darkness, where even Cortez could do little for the
   unfortunate rear-guard of his troops. "This memorable night
   has ever been celebrated in American history as 'la noche
   triste.' In this flight from Mexico all the artillery was
   lost, and there perished 450 Spaniards, … 4,000 of the
   Indian allies, 46 horses, and most of the Mexican prisoners,
   including one son and two daughters of Montezuma, and his
   nephew the King of Tezcuco. A loss which posterity will ever
   regret was that of the books and accounts, memorials and
   writings, of which there were some, it is said, that contained
   a narrative of all that had happened since Cortez left Cuba.
   … In the annals of retreats there has seldom been one
   recorded which proved more entirely disastrous."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 10, chapters 7-8 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.
   The retreat to Tlascala.
   Reinforcements and recovery.
   Cortes in the field again.
   Preparations to attack Mexico.

   "After the disasters and fatigues of the 'noche triste,' the
   melancholy and broken band of Cortez rested for a day at
   Tacuba, whilst the Mexicans returned to their capital,
   probably to bury the dead and purify their city. It is
   singular, yet it is certain, that they did not follow up their
   successes by a death blow at the disarmed Spaniards. But this
   momentary paralysis of their efforts was not to be trusted,
   and accordingly Cortez began to retreat eastwardly, under the
   guidance of the Tlascalans, by a circuitous route around the
   northern limits of lake Zumpango. The flying forces and their
   auxiliaries were soon in a famishing condition, subsisting
   alone on corn or on wild cherries gathered in the forest, with
   occasional refreshment and support from the carcase of a horse
   that perished by the way. For six days these fragments of the
   Spanish army continued their weary pilgrimage, and, on the
   seventh, reached Otumba." At Otumba their progress was barred
   by a vast army of the Aztecs, which had marched by a shorter
   road to intercept them; but after a desperate battle the
   natives fled and the Spaniards were troubled no more until
   they reached the friendly shelter of Tlascala. The Tlascalans
   held faithfully to their alliance and received the flying
   strangers with helpful hands and encouraging words. But many
   of Cortez' men demanded permission to continue their retreat
   to Vera Cruz. "Just at this moment, too, Cuitlahua, who
   mounted the throne of Mexico on the death of Montezuma,
   despatched a mission to the Tlascalans, proposing to bury the
   hatchet, and to unite in sweeping the Spaniards from the
   realm." A hot discussion ensued in the council of the
   Tlascalan chiefs, which resulted in the rejection of the
   Mexican proposal, and the confidence of Cortez was restored.
   He succeeded in pacifying his men, and gave them employment by
   expeditions against tribes and towns within reach which
   adhered to the Mexican king. After some time he obtained
   reinforcements, by an arrival of vessels at Vera Cruz bringing
   men and supplies, and he began to make serious preparations
   for the reconquest of the Aztec capital. He "constructed new
   arms and caused old ones to be repaired; made powder with
   sulphur obtained from the volcano of Popocatopetl; and, under
   the direction of his builder, Lopez, prepared the timber for
   brigantines, which he designed to carry, in pieces, and launch
   on the lake at the town of Tezcoco. At that port, he resolved
   to prepare himself fully for the final attack, and, this time,
   he determined to assault the enemy's capital by water as well
   as by land." The last day of December found him once more on
   the shores of the Mexican lake, encamped at Tezcoco, with a
   Spanish force restored to 600 men in strength, having 40
   horses, 80 arquebuses and nine small cannon. Of Indian allies
   he is said to have had many thousands. Meantime, Cuitlahua had
   died of smallpox—which came to the country with the
   Spaniards—and had been succeeded by Guatemozin, his nephew, a
   vigorous young man of twenty-five. "At Tezcoco, Cortéz was
   firmly planted on the eastern edge of the valley of Mexico, in
   full sight of the capital which lay across the lake, near its
   western shore, at the distance of about twelve miles. Behind
   him, towards the sea-coast, he commanded the country, …
   while, by passes through lower spurs of the mountains, he
   might easily communicate with the valleys of which the
   Tlascalans and Cholulans were masters." One by one he reduced
   and destroyed or occupied the neighboring towns, and overran
   the surrounding country, in expeditions which made the
   complete circle of the valley and gave him a complete
   knowledge of it, while they re-established the prestige of the
   Spaniards and the terror of their arms. On the 28th of April
   the newly built brigantines, 12 in number, were launched upon
   the lake, and all was in readiness for an attack upon the
   city, with forces now increased by fresh arrivals to 87 horse
   and 818 Spanish infantry, with three iron field pieces and 15
   brass falconets.

      _B. Mayer,
      Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican,
      book 1, chapters 6-8 (volume 1)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (May-July).
   The siege of the Aztec capital begun.

   "The observations which
   Cortes had made in his late tour of reconnaissance
   had determined him to begin the siege by
   distributing his forces into three separate camps,
   which he proposed to establish at the extremities
   of the principal causeways," under three of his
   captains, Alvarado, Olid and Sandoval. The
   movement of forces from Tezcuco began on the
   10th of May, 1521.
{2166}
   Alvarado and Olid occupied Tacuba,
   cut the aqueduct which conveyed water
   from Chapoltepec to the capital, and made an
   unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the
   fatal causeway of "the noche triste." Holding
   Tacuba, however, Alvarado commanded that
   important passage, while Sandoval, seizing the
   city of Iztapalapan, at the southern extremity
   of the lake, and Olid, establishing himself near the
   latter, at Cojohuacan, were planted at the two
   outlets, it would seem, of another of the causeways,
   which branched to attain the shore at
   those two points. When so much had been accomplished,
   Cortés, in person, set sail with his
   fleet of brigantines and speedily cleared the lake
   of all the swarm of light canoes and little vessels
   with which the unfortunate Mexicans tried vainly
   though valorously to dispute it with him. "This
   victory, more complete than even the sanguine
   temper of Cortés had prognosticated, proved the
   superiority of the Spaniards, and left them,
   henceforth, undisputed masters of the Aztec sea.
   It was nearly dusk when the squadron, coasting
   along the great southern causeway, anchored off
   the point of junction, called Xoloc, where the
   branch from Cojohuacan meets the principal dike.
   The avenue widened at this point, so as to afford
   room for two towers, or turreted temples, built
   of stone, and surrounded by walls of the same
   material, which presented altogether a position
   of some strength, and, at the present moment,
   was garrisoned by a body of Aztecs. They were
   not numerous; and Cortés, landing with his soldiers,
   succeeded without much difficulty in dislodging
   the enemy, and in getting possession of
   the works." Here, in a most advantageous
   position on the great causeway, the Spanish
   commander fortified himself and established his
   headquarters, summoning Olid with half of his
   force to join him and transferring Sandoval to
   Olid's post at Cojohuacan. "The two principal
   avenues to Mexico, those on the south and the
   west, were now occupied by the Christians.
   There still remained a third, the great dike of
   Tepejacac, on the north, which, indeed, taking
   up the principal street, that passed in a direct
   line through the heart of the city, might be
   regarded as a continuation of the dike of Iztapalapan.
   By this northern route a means of escape
   was still left open to the besieged, and they
   availed themselves of it, at present, to maintain
   their communications with the country, and to
   supply themselves with provisions. Alvarado,
   who observed this from his station at Tacuba,
   advised his commander of it, and the latter
   instructed Sandoval to take up his position on the
   causeway. That officer, though suffering at the
   time from a severe wound, … hastened to
   obey; and thus, by shutting up its only
   communication with the surrounding country,
   completed the blockade of the capital. But Cortés
   was not content to wait patiently the effects of a
   dilatory blockade." He arranged with his
   subordinate captains the plan of a simultaneous
   advance along each of the causeways toward the
   city. From his own post he pushed forward with
   great success, assisted by the brigantines which
   sailed along side, and which, by the flanking fire
   of their artillery, drove the Aztecs from one
   barricade after another, which they had erected
   at every dismantled bridge. Fighting their way
   steadily, the Spaniards traversed the whole
   length of the dike and entered the city;
   penetrated to the great square; saw once more their
   old quarters; scaled again the sides of the
   pyramid-temple, to slay the bloody priests and to
   strip the idols of their jewels and gold. But the
   Aztecs were frenzied by this sacrilege, as they
   had been frenzied by the same deed before, and
   renewed the battle with so much fury that the
   Spaniards were driven back in thorough panic
   and disarray. "All seemed to be lost;—when
   suddenly sounds were heard in an adjoining
   street, like the distant tramp of horses galloping
   rapidly over the pavement. They drew nearer
   and nearer, and a body of cavalry soon emerged
   on the great square. Though but a handful in
   number, they plunged boldly into the thick of
   the enemy," who speedily broke and fled, enabling
   Cortés to withdraw his troops in safety. Neither
   Alvarado nor Sandoval, who had greater difficulties
   to overcome, and who had no help from
   the brigantines, reached the suburbs of the city;
   but their assault had been vigorously made, and
   had been of great help to that of Cortés. The
   success of the demonstration spread consternation
   among the Mexicans and their vassals, and
   brought a number of the latter over to the
   Spanish side. Among these latter was the prince
   of Tezcuco, who joined Cortés, with a large
   force, in the next assault which the latter made
   presently upon the city. Again penetrating to
   the great square, the Spaniards on this occasion
   destroyed the palaces there by fire. But the
   spirit of the Mexicans remained unbroken, and
   they were found in every encounter opposing as
   obstinate a resistance as ever. They contrived,
   too, for a remarkable length of time, to run the
   blockade of the brigantines on the lake and to
   bring supplies into the city by their canoes. But,
   at length, when most of the great towns of the
   neighborhood had deserted their cause, the
   supplies failed and starvation began to do its work
   in the fated city. At the same time, the Spaniards
   were amply provisioned, and their new
   allies built barracks and huts for their shelter.
   Cortés "would gladly have spared the town and
   its inhabitants. … He intimated more than
   once, by means of the prisoners whom he released,
   his willingness to grant them fair terms of
   capitulation. Day after day, he fully expected
   his proffers would be accepted. But day after
   day he was disappointed. He had yet to learn
   how tenacious was the memory of the Aztecs."

      _W. H. Prescott,
     History of the Conquest of Mexico,
     book 6, chapters 4-5._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (July).
   Disastrous repulse of the Spaniards.

   "The impatience of the soldiers grew to a great height, and
   was supported in an official quarter—by no less a person than
   Alderete, the king's treasurer. Cortez gave way, against his
   own judgment, to their importunities" and another general
   attack was ordered. "On the appointed day Cortez moved from
   his camp, supported by seven brigantines, and by more than
   3,000 canoes filled with his Indian allies. When his soldiers
   reached the entrance of the city, he divided them in the
   following manner. There were three streets which led to the
   market-place from the position which the Spaniards had already
   gained. Along, the principal street, the king's treasurer,
   with 70 Spaniards and 15,000 or 20,000 allies, was to make his
   way. His rear was to be protected by a small guard of
   horsemen. The other two streets were smaller, and led from the
   street of Tlacuba to the market-place.
{2167}
   Along the broader of these two streets Cortez sent two of his
   principal captains, with 80 Spaniards and 10,000 Indians; he
   himself, with eight horsemen, 75 foot-soldiers, 25 musketeers,
   and an 'infinite number' of allies, was to enter the narrower
   street. At the entrance to the street of Tlacuba he left two
   large cannon, with eight horsemen to guard them, and at the
   entrance of his own street he also left eight horsemen to
   protect the rear. … The Spaniards and their allies made
   their entrance into the city with even more success and less
   embarrassment than on previous occasions. Bridges and
   barricades were gained, and the three main bodies of the army
   moved forward into the heart of the city." But in the
   excitement of their advance they left unrepaired behind them a
   great breach in the causeway, ten or twelve paces wide,
   although Cortez had repeatedly enjoined upon his captains that
   no such dangerous death-trap should be left to catch them in
   the event of a retreat. The neglect in this case was most
   disastrous. Being presently repulsed and driven back, the
   division which had allowed this chasm to yawn behind it was
   engulfed. Cortez, whose distrust had been excited in some way,
   discovered the danger, but too late. He made his way to the
   spot, only to find "the whole aperture so full of Spaniards
   and Indians that, as he says, there was not room for a straw
   to float upon the surface of the water. The peril was so
   imminent that Cortez not only thought that the Conquest of
   Mexico was gone, but that the term of his life as well as of
   his victories had come, and he resolved to die there fighting.
   All that he could do at first was to help his men out of the
   water; and, meanwhile, the Mexicans charged upon them in such
   numbers that he and his little party were entirely surrounded.
   The enemy seized upon his person, and would have carried him
   off but for the resolute bravery of some of his guard, one of
   whom lost his life there in succouring his master. … At last
   he and a few of his men succeeded in fighting their way to the
   broad street of Tlacuba, where, like a brave captain, instead
   of continuing his flight, he and the few horsemen who were
   with him turned round and formed a rear guard to protect his
   retreating troops. He also sent immediate orders to the king's
   treasurer and the other commanders to make good their
   retreat."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 11, book 1 (volume 2)._

   "As we were thus retreating, we continually heard the large
   drum beating from the summit of the chief temple of the city.
   Its tone was mournful indeed, and sounded like the very
   instrument of Satan. This drum was so vast in its dimensions
   that it could be heard from eight to twelve miles distance.
   Every time we heard its mournful sound, the Mexicans, as we
   subsequently learnt, offered to their idols the bleeding
   hearts of our unfortunate countrymen. … After we had at
   last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had
   arrived at our encampment, … the large drum of
   Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple,
   accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns,
   and other instruments. … We could plainly see the platform,
   with the chapel in which those cursed idols stood; how the
   Mexicans had adorned the heads of the Spaniards with feathers,
   and compelled their victims to dance round the god
   Huitzilopochtli; we saw how they stretched them out at full
   length on a large stone, ripped open their breasts with flint
   knives, tore out the palpitating heart and offered it to their
   idols. Alas! we were forced to be spectators of all this, and
   how they then seized hold of the dead bodies by the legs and
   threw them headlong down the steps of the temple, at the
   bottom of which other executioners stood ready to receive
   them, who severed the arms, legs, and heads from the bodies,
   drew the skin off the faces, which were tanned with the beards
   still adhering to them, and produced as spectacles of mockery
   and derision at their feasts; the legs, arms, and other parts
   of the body being cut up and devoured. … On that terrible
   day the loss of the three divisions amounted to 60 men and 7
   horses."

      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 152 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (August).
   The last days of the Siege.
   The taking of the ruined city.
   The end of the Aztec dominion.

   "Guatemozin's victory diffused immense enthusiasm among the
   Aztecs and those who remained united to them. The priests
   proclaimed that the gods, satiated by the sacrifice of the
   Spanish prisoners, had promised to rid the country of the
   foreigners, and that the promise would be fulfilled within
   eight days. This intelligence spread alarm among the allies of
   the Spaniards. They deserted in great numbers—not to go over
   to the Aztecs, whose anger they dreaded, but to return to
   their homes. Cortez had good watch kept in the camp. The
   sorties of the besieged were repulsed; the eight days passed
   without the Spaniards having lost more than a few marauders.
   The allies, seeing that the oracle was wrong, came back to
   their former friends. The aggressive ardour of the besieged
   grew cooler, and they soon found themselves assailed by the
   plagues that ordinarily attack troops massed in a city—not
   only famine, but epidemic diseases, the result of want and
   overcrowding. … Famine pinched them more cruelly day after
   day. Lizards and such rats as they could find were their
   richest nourishment; reptiles and insects were eagerly looked
   for, trees stripped of their bark, and roots stealthily sought
   after by night. Meanwhile, Cortez, seeing that there was no
   other means of bringing them to submission, pursued the work
   of destruction he had resolved on with so much regret. …
   Heaps of bodies were found in every street that was won from
   them; this people, so punctilious in their customs of
   sepulture, had ceased to bury their dead. … Soon there was
   left to the besieged but one quarter, and that the most
   incommodious of all, forming barely an eighth of the city,
   where there were not houses enough to give them shelter. …
   The 13th August, 1521, had now arrived, and that was to be the
   last day of this once flourishing empire. Before making a
   final assault, Cortez once more invited the emperor to his
   presence. His envoys came back with the 'cihuacoatl,' a
   magistrate of the first rank, who declared, with an air of
   consternation, that Guatemozin knew how to die, but that he
   would not come to treat. Then, turning towards Cortez, he
   added: 'Do now whatever you please.' 'Be it so,' replied
   Cortez; 'go and tell your friends to prepare; they are going
   to die.' In fact, the troops advanced; there was a last mêlée,
   a last carnage, on land and on the lake. …
{2168}
   Guatemozin, driven to the shore of the lake, threw himself
   into a canoe with a few warriors, and endeavoured to escape by
   dint of rowing; but he was pursued by a brigantine of the
   Spanish fleet, taken and brought to Cortez, who received him
   with the respect due to a crowned head. … The Aztec empire
   had ceased to exist; Spanish sway was established in Mexico.
   The Cross was triumphant in that fine country, and there was
   no sharer in its reign. The number of persons that perished in
   the siege has been differently estimated. The most moderate
   calculation puts it at 120,000 on the side of the Aztecs. Very
   many Indians fell on the side of the besiegers. The historian
   Ixtlixochitl says there were 30,000 dead of the warriors of
   Tezcuco alone. All that were left alive of the Aztecs were, at
   the request of Guatemozin, allowed to leave the city in
   freedom, on the morning after it was taken. … They dispersed
   in all directions, everywhere spreading a terror of the
   Spaniards, and the feeling that to resist them was impossible.
   That conviction must have been established speedily and
   firmly, for there was no further attempt at resistance, unless
   it were at one point, in the territory of Panuco, near the
   Atlantic Ocean."

      _M. Chevalier,
      Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
      part 2, chapters 8-9 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Cortes,
      Despatches [Letters] MEXICO,
      translated by G. Folsom,
      letter 3, chapter 5._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.
   The rebuilding of the capital.
   The completion and settlement of the Conquest.

   "The first ebullition of triumph was succeeded in the army by
   very different feelings, as they beheld the scanty spoil
   gleaned from the conquered city;" and Cortés was driven, by
   the clamors and suspicions of his soldiers, to subject his
   heroic captive, Guatemozin, to torture, in the hope of
   wringing from him a disclosure of some concealment of his
   imagined treasures. Its only result was to add another infamy
   to the name and memory of the conquerors. "The
   commander-in-chief, with his little band of Spaniards, now
   daily recruited by reinforcements from the Islands, still
   occupied the quarters of Cojohuacan, which they had taken up
   at the termination of the siege. Cortés did not immediately
   decide in what quarter of the Valley to establish the new
   capital which was to take the place of the ancient
   Tenochtitlan. … At length he decided on retaining the site
   of the ancient city, … and he made preparations for the
   reconstruction of the capital on a scale of magnificence which
   should, in his own language, 'raise her to the rank of Queen
   of the surrounding provinces, in the same manner as she had
   been of yore.' The labor was to be performed by the Indian
   population, drawn from all quarters of the Valley, and
   including the Mexicans themselves, great numbers of whom still
   lingered in the neighborhood of their ancient residence. …
   In less than four years from the destruction of Mexico, a new
   city had risen on its ruins, which, if inferior to the ancient
   capital in extent, surpassed it in magnificence and strength.
   It occupied so exactly the same site as its predecessor that
   the 'plaza mayor,' or great square, was the same spot which
   had been covered by the huge 'teocalli' and the palace of
   Montezuma; while the principal streets took their departure as
   before from this central point, and, passing through the whole
   length of the city, terminated at the principal causeways.
   Great alterations, however, took place in the fashion of the
   architecture." Meantime, Cortés had been brought into much
   danger at the Spanish court, by the machinations of his
   enemies, encouraged by Bishop Fonseca, the same minister who
   pursued Columbus with hostility. His friends in Spain rallied,
   however, to his support, and the result of an investigation,
   undertaken by a board to which the Emperor Charles V. referred
   all the charges against him, was the confirmation of his acts
   in Mexico to their full extent. "He was constituted Governor,
   Captain-General, and Chief Justice of New Spain, with power to
   appoint to all offices, civil and military, and to order any
   person to leave the country whose residence there he might
   deem prejudicial to the interests of the Crown. This judgment
   of the council was ratified by Charles V., and the commission
   investing Cortés with these ample powers was signed by the
   emperor at Valladolid, October 15th, 1522. … The attention
   of Cortés was not confined to the capital. He was careful to
   establish settlements in every part of the country which
   afforded a favourable position for them. … While thus
   occupied with the internal economy of the country, Cortés was
   still bent on his great schemes of discovery and conquest." He
   fitted out a fleet to explore the shores of the Pacific, and
   another in the Gulf of Mexico—the prime object of both being
   the discovery of some strait that would open one ocean to the
   other. He also sent Olid in command of an expedition by sea to
   occupy and colonize Honduras, and Alvarado, by land, at the
   head of a large force, to subdue Guatemala. The former, having
   partly accomplished his mission, attempted to establish for
   himself an independent jurisdiction, and his conduct induced
   Cortés to proceed to Honduras in person. It was in the course
   of this expedition that Guatemozin, the dethroned Mexican
   chief, who had been forced to accompany his conqueror, was
   accused of a plot against the Spaniards and was hung to a
   tree. 'We have the testimony of Bernal Diaz, one of the
   Spaniards on the spot, that the execution "was most unjust,
   and was thought wrong by all of us." "Within three short years
   after the Conquest [Cortés] had reduced under the dominion of
   Castile an extent of country more than 400 leagues in length,
   as he affirms, on the Atlantic coast, and more than 500 on the
   Pacific; and, with the exception of a few interior provinces
   of no great importance, had brought them to a condition of
   entire tranquillity."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Mexico,
      book 7, chapters 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 5 (Mexico, volume 2), chapters 1-8._

MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1540.
   Introduction of Printing.

      See PRINTING, &C: A. D. 1535—1709.

MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.
   Under the Spanish viceroys.

   "Antonio de Mendoza, Conde de Tendilla, was the first viceroy
   sent by Charles V. to New Spain. He arrived in the autumn of
   1535. … He had a well-balanced and moderate character, and
   governed the country with justice and generosity combined. He
   … set himself to reform the abuses which had already
   appeared, protected the Indians from the humiliations which
   the newly arrived Spaniards were disposed to put upon them; he
   stimulated all branches of agriculture, and finding the
   natives were already well informed in the cultivation of land,
   he encouraged them in this pursuit by all possible efforts. …
{2169}
   To the religious orders in Mexico is due in great measure the
   firm base upon which the government of Spain was established
   there. The new viceroy fully recognized this, and encouraged
   the foundations of colleges and schools already undertaken by
   them. In every way he promoted the prosperity and growth of
   the country, and had the satisfaction in the course of his
   government, which lasted 15 years, to see everything bear the
   marks of his judgment and enterprise. It was he who founded
   two cities [Guadalajara and Valladolid] which have reached
   great importance. … Cortés was away when the Viceroy Mendoza
   arrived in Mexico. He still retained his title as governor,
   with the same powers always conferred upon him; but his long
   absences from the capital made it necessary, as he fully
   recognized, that some other strong authority should be
   established there. Nevertheless, he never got on very well
   with such other authorities, and on his return soon became at
   odds with Mendoza, who, in his opinion, interfered with his
   prerogatives. It was then that Cortés bade farewell to his
   family, and taking with him his eldest son and heir, Don
   Martin, then eight years old, he embarked for Spain, leaving
   Mendoza undisturbed in the execution of his office. … In
   1536 was issued the first book printed in Mexico, on a press
   imported by Mendoza, and put into the hands of one Juan
   Pablos. … In 1550 this good ruler [Mendoza] sailed away from
   Mexico. … He passed on to take charge of the government of
   Peru, by a practice which came to be quite common—a sort of
   diplomatic succession by which the viceroys of New Spain were
   promoted to the post at Peru. Don Luis de Velasco, second
   viceroy of New Spain, made his entrance into the capital with
   great pomp, at the end of the year 1550. He, like his
   predecessor, had been selected with care by the orders of
   Charles V. … His first decree was one liberating 150 Indians
   from slavery, who were working chiefly in the mines. … He
   established in Mexico, for the security of travellers upon the
   highway, the tribunal of the Holy Brotherhood, instituted in
   Spain for the same purpose in the time of Isabella. He founded
   the Royal University of Mexico, and the Royal Hospital for the
   exclusive use of the natives. … The good Viceroy Velasco
   died in 1564, having governed the country for 14 years. …
   During the government of this ruler and his predecessor all
   the administration of New Spain, political, civil, and
   religious was established upon so firm a foundation that it
   could go on in daily action like a well regulated machine." In
   the meantime, Charles V. had resigned the burden of his great
   sovereignty, transferring all his crowns to his narrow-souled
   son, Philip II., who cared nothing for the New World except as
   a source of gold and silver supply and a field for religious
   bigotry. Under Philip "the character of the viceroys was
   lowered from the high standard adhered to when Charles the
   Emperor selected them himself. To follow the long list of them
   would be most tedious and useless, as they passed in rotation,
   governing according to the best of their lights for several
   years in Mexico, and then passing on, either by death or by
   promotion to Peru. In 1571 the Inquisition was fully
   established … and the next year the Jesuits arrived. … The
   first 'auto-da-fé' was celebrated in the year 1574, when, as
   its chronicler mentions cheerfully, 'there perished 21
   pestilent Lutherans.' From this time such ceremonies were of
   frequent occurrence, but the Inquisition never reached the
   point it did in Old Spain. … The viceroys of New Spain under
   Philip III. [1578-1621] were, for the most part, men of
   judgment and moderation. While the government at home, in the
   hands of profligate favorites, was growing weaker and weaker,
   that of Mexico was becoming more firmly established." It was
   not shaken nor disturbed by the War of the Spanish Succession,
   during the early years of the eighteenth century; but the
   Revolution in France, which convulsed Europe before that
   century closed, wrought changes which were lasting in the New
   World as well as the Old. "There were in all 64 viceroys,
   beginning with Don Antonio de Mendoza, 1535, and ending with
   Juan O'Donoju in 1822."

      _S. Hale,
      The Story of Mexico,
      chapters 20-22._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volumes 5-6 (Mexico, volumes 2-3)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1539-1586.
   Expeditions of Niza, Coronado, and others to the North.
   Search for the Seven Cities of Cibola.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The first Revolutionary movement.
   Hidalgo.
   Allende.
   Morelos.

   "The causes of the coming revolution were not hidden. The law
   that excluded Spaniards born in America from equal rights with
   those who were immigrants was a natural, not to say necessary,
   source of discontent among people whose good-will was much
   needed by any viceroy. There was inevitably not a little
   mutual repugnance between the Mexican and Spanish stocks, and
   the home government did nothing to mollify such asperities.
   There were commercial monopolies militant against public
   interests. The clergy were alienated, and since they were not
   thus so serviceable as formerly in the part of mediators in
   enforcing governmental aims, it was found necessary to use
   force where the people were not accustomed to it. The Viceroy
   Jose de Iturrigaray practised a seeming condescension that
   deceived no one, and he pursued his exactions partly by reason
   of self-interest, and partly in order to supply Madrid with
   means to meet the financial troubles that the Napoleonic era
   was creating. After some years of these conditions in New
   Spain, a conspiracy, resulting from a reaction, sent the
   viceroy back to Spain a prisoner. This gave strength to
   revolutionary sentiments, and a few trials for treason
   increased the discontent. The men who were now put
   successively in the vice-regal place had few qualities for the
   times, and a certain timidity of policy was not conducive to
   strength of government. … The outbreak, when it came,
   brought to the front a curate of Dolores, a native priest,
   Miguel Hidalgo, who commanded the confidence of the
   disaffected, and was relied upon to guide the priesthood.
   Ignacio de Allende had some of the soldierly qualities needed
   for a generalissimo. The purpose of these men and their
   allies, before they should openly proclaim a revolt, was to
   seize some of the leading Spaniards; but their plot being
   discovered, they hastily assembled at Dolores and raised the
   standard of revolt (1810). Thus banded together, but badly
   organized and poorly armed, a body of 5,000 insurgents marched
   from Dolores, headed by Hidalgo and Allende, and approached
   Guanajuato, where the intendente Riaña had intrenched himself
   in a fortified alhondiga, or granary.
{2170}
   The attack of the rebels was headlong and bloody. The gates
   were fired with flaming rubbish, and through the glowing way
   the mad throng rushed, and after a hand-to-hand conflict
   (September 28, 1810) the fortress fell. The royalist leader
   had been killed, and scenes of pillage and riot followed.
   Meanwhile the viceroy in Mexico prepared to receive the
   insurgents, and his ally, the church, excommunicated their
   leaders. The military force of the royalists was
   inconsiderable, and what there was, it was feared, might prove
   not as loyal as was desirable. As Hidalgo marched towards the
   capital, he tried to seduce to his side a young lieutenant,
   Augustin Iturbide, who was in command of a small outlying
   force. The future emperor declined the offer, and, making his
   way to the city, was at once sent to join Trujillo, who
   commanded a corps of observation which confronted the
   insurgents, and who finally ran the chances of a battle at Las
   Cruces. … The insurgents soon surrounded him, and he was
   only able to reach the city by breaking with a part of his
   force through the enveloping line. Hidalgo had lost 2,000 men,
   but he had gained the day. He soon intercepted a despatch and
   learned from it that General Calleja had been put in motion
   from San Luis Potosi, and it seemed more prudent to Hidalgo
   that, instead of approaching Mexico, he should retreat to be
   nearer his recruiting ground. The retrograde movement brought
   the usual result to an undisciplined force, and he was already
   weakened by desertions when Calleja struck his line of march
   at Aculco. Hidalgo felt it important for the revolution to
   have time enough to spread into other parts of the province,
   and so he merely fought Calleja to cover his further retreat.
   The rebel leader soon gathered his forces at Celaya, while
   Allende, his colleague, posted himself at Guanajuato. Here the
   latter was attacked by Calleja and routed, and the royal
   forces made bloody work in the town. Hidalgo, moving to
   Valladolid, reorganized his army, and then, proceeding to
   Guadalajara, he set up a form of government, with Ignacio
   Lopez Rayon as Secretary-general. At this time the insurgents
   held completely the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Zacatecas, and
   San Luis Potosi, a belt of country stretching from sea to sea
   in the latitude of Tampico. … In January, 1811, the signs
   were not very propitious for the royalists. … At this
   juncture … Hidalgo moved out from Guadalajara with his
   entire force, which was large enough, consisting of 60,000
   foot, 20,000 horse, and 100 cannon; but it was poorly armed,
   and without effective discipline; while Calleja commanded a
   well-equipped and well-organized force, but in extent it only
   counted 3,000 foot, with as many horse, and ten guns. At the
   bridge of Calderon, 10 or 11 leagues from the city, Hidalgo
   prepared to stand. Here Calleja attacked him," and won the
   day, entering Guadalajara as a victor on the 21st of January,
   1811. "Hidalgo fled with his broken army, and soon resigned
   the command to Allende. This general had scarcely 4,000 or
   5,000 men left when he reached Saltillo, where he joined
   Jimenes. The disheartenment of defeat was spreading through
   the country. Town after town was heard from as yielding to the
   victors. The leaders, counselling together at Saltillo,
   resolved to escape to the United States; but, as they were
   marching,—about 2,000 in all, with 24 guns and a
   money-chest,—they fell into an ambush planned in the interest
   of a counter-revolution by one Elizondo, and, with nothing
   more than a show of resistance, the party was captured, one
   and all. The judgment of death upon Hidalgo, Allende, and
   Jimenes soon followed. The main force of the insurgents had
   thus disappeared, but a small body still remained in arms
   under the lead of Jose Maria Morelos." Morelos was uneducated,
   but capable and energetic, and he kept life in the rebellion
   for two years. He captured Orizaba in October, 1812, Oajaca in
   the following month, and Acapulco in the spring of 1813. In
   November of that year he appeared before Valladolid, the
   capital of Michoacan, but was attacked there by Iturbide and
   routed. "In January, 1814, Morelos made a final stand at
   Puruaran, but Iturbide still drove him on. Disaster followed
   upon disaster, till finally Morelos was deposed by his own
   congress. This body had adherents enough to make it necessary
   for Calleja to appeal to the home government for a
   reinforcement of 8,000 troops. … Morelos, meanwhile,
   commanding an escort which was protecting the migratory
   congress, was intercepted and captured by a force of
   royalists, and, after the forms of a trial, he was executed
   December 22, 1815. The campaign of 1816 was sustained by the
   insurgents against a force of 80,000 men which Calleja had
   collected. … Neither side had much success, and the war was
   simply tedious. At last, in August, a new viceroy, Juan Riaz
   de Apodaca, succeeded to Calleja, and uniting a more humane
   policy with vigor in disposing his forces, the leading rebel
   officers … surrendered in January, 1817. … A certain
   quixotic interest is lent to the closing months of the
   revolution by the adventurous exploits of Espoz y Mina. He had
   fitted out a small expedition in the United States, which,
   landing on the Gulf coast, for a while swept victoriously
   inland. … But Mina was finally surprised and executed. Other
   vagrant rebel leaders fell one by one into the hands of the
   royalists; but Guadalupe Victoria held out, and concealed
   himself in the wilds for two years."

      _J. Winsor,
      Spanish North America
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, chapter 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. D. Robinson,
      Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution._

MEXICO: A. D. 1819.
   Texas occupied as a province.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
   Independence of Spain.
   The brief empire of Iturbide and its fall.
   Constitution of the Republic of the United Mexican States.

   "The establishment of a constitutional government in Spain, in
   1820, produced upon Mexico an effect very different from what
   was anticipated. As the constitution provided for a more
   liberal administration of government in Mexico than had
   prevailed since 1812, the increased freedom of the elections
   again threw the minds of the people into a ferment, and the
   spirit of independence, which had been only smothered, broke
   forth anew. Moreover, divisions were created among the old
   Spaniards themselves; some being in favor of the old system,
   while others were sincerely attached to the constitution. Some
   formidable inroads on the property and prerogatives of the
   church alienated the clergy from the new government, and
   induced them to desire a return to the old system.
{2171}
   The Viceroy, Apodaca, encouraged by the hopes held out by the
   Royalists in Spain, although he had at first taken the oath to
   support the constitution, secretly favored the party opposed
   to it, and arranged his plans for its overthrow. Don Augustin
   Iturbide, the person selected by the Viceroy to make the first
   open demonstration against the existing government, was
   offered the command of a body of troops on the western coast,
   at the head of which he was to proclaim the re-establishment
   of the absolute authority of the king. Iturbide, accepting the
   commission, departed from the capital to take command of the
   troops, but with intentions very different from those which
   the Viceroy supposed him to entertain. Reflecting upon the
   state of the country, and convinced of the facility with which
   the authority of Spain might be shaken off,—by bringing the
   Creole troops to act in concert with the old insurgents,
   —Iturbide resolved to proclaim Mexico wholly independent of
   the Spanish nation. Having his head quarters at the little
   town of Iguala, on the road to Acapulco, Iturbide, on the 24th
   of February, 1821, there proclaimed his project, known as the
   'Plan of Iguala,' and induced his soldiers to take an oath to
   support it. This 'Plan' declared that Mexico should be an
   independent nation, its religion Catholic, and its government
   a constitutional monarchy. The crown was offered to Ferdinand
   VII, of Spain, provided he would consent to occupy the throne
   in person; and, in case of his refusal, to his infant
   brothers, Don Carlos and Don Francisco. A constitution was to
   be formed by a Mexican Congress; … all distinctions of caste
   were to be abolished. … The Viceroy, astonished by this
   unexpected movement of Iturbide, and remaining irresolute and
   inactive at the capital, was deposed, and Don Francisco
   Novello, a military officer, was placed at the head of the
   government; but his authority was not generally recognized,
   and Iturbide was left to pursue his plans in the interior
   without interruption. Being joined by Generals Guerrero and
   Victoria as soon as they knew that the independence of their
   country was the object of Iturbide, not only all the survivors
   of the first insurgents, but whole detachments of Creole
   troops flocked to his standard, and his success was soon
   rendered certain. The clergy and the people were equally
   decided in favor of independence; … and, before the month of
   July, the whole country recognized the authority of Iturbide,
   with the exception of the capital, in which Novello had shut
   himself up with the European troops. Iturbide had already
   reached Queretaro with his troops, on his road to Mexico, when
   he was informed of the arrival, at Vera Cruz, of a new
   Viceroy. … At Cordova, whither the Viceroy had been allowed
   to proceed, for the purpose of an interview with Iturbide, the
   latter induced him to accept by treaty the Plan of Iguala, as
   the only means of securing the lives and property of the
   Spaniards then in Mexico, and of establishing the right to the
   throne in the house of Bourbon. By this agreement, called the
   'Treaty of Cordova,' the Viceroy, in the name of the king, his
   master, recognized the independence of Mexico, and gave up the
   capital to the army of the insurgents, which took possession
   of it, without effusion of blood, on the 27th of September,
   1821. All opposition being ended, and the capital occupied, in
   accordance with a provision of the Plan of Iguala a
   provisional junta was established, the principal business of
   which was to call a congress for the formation of a
   constitution suitable to the country. At the same time a
   regency, consisting of five individuals, was elected, at the
   head of which was placed Iturbide. … When the congress
   assembled [February 24, 1822], three distinct parties were
   found amongst the members. The Bourbonists, adhering to the
   Plan of Iguala altogether, wished a constitutional monarchy,
   with a prince of the house of Bourbon at its head; the
   Republican, setting aside the Plan of Iguala, desired a
   federal republic; while a third party, the Iturbidists,
   adopting the Plan of Iguala with the exception of the article
   in favor of the Bourbons, wished to place Iturbide himself
   upon the throne. As it was soon learned that the Spanish
   government had declared the treaty of Cordova null and void,
   the Bourbonists ceased to exist as a party, and the struggle
   was confined to the Iturbidists and the Republicans." By the
   aid of a mob demonstration in the city of Mexico, on the night
   of May 18, 1822, the former triumphed, and Iturbide was
   declared emperor, under the title of Augustin the First. "The
   choice was ratified by the provinces without opposition, and
   Iturbide found himself in peaceable possession of a throne to
   which his own abilities and a concurrence of favorable
   circumstances had raised him. Had the monarch elect been
   guided by counsels of prudence, and allowed his authority to
   be confined within constitutional limits, he might perhaps
   have continued to maintain a modified authority; but
   forgetting the unstable foundation of his throne, he began his
   reign with all the airs of hereditary royalty. On his
   accession a struggle for power immediately commenced between
   him and the congress." After arbitrarily imprisoning the most
   distinguished members of that body, Iturbide, at last,
   proclaimed its dissolution and substituted a junta of his own
   nomination. "Before the end of November an insurrection broke
   out in the northern provinces, but this was speedily quelled
   by the imperial troops." It was followed in December by a more
   formidable revolt, led off by Santa Anna (or Santana), a young
   general who had supported Iturbide, but who had been haughtily
   dismissed from the government of Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was
   joined by Victoria and other old Republican leaders, and the
   power of Iturbide crumbled so rapidly that he resigned his
   crown on the 19th of March, 1823, promising to quit the
   country, on being assured a yearly allowance of $25,000 for
   his support. "With his family and suite he embarked for
   Leghorn on the 11th of May. … From Italy he proceeded to
   London, and made preparations for returning to Mexico; in
   consequence of which, congress, on the 28th of April, 1824,
   passed a decree of outlawry against him. He landed in disguise
   at Soto la Marina, July 14th, 1824; was arrested by General
   Garza, and shot at Padillo by order of the provincial congress
   of Tamaulipas, on the 19th of that month. … On the departure
   of Iturbide, a temporary executive was appointed, consisting
   of Generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete, by whom the
   government was administered until the meeting of a new
   congress, which assembled at the capital in August, 1823.
{2172}
   This body immediately entered on the duties of preparing a new
   constitution, which was submitted on the 31st of January,
   1824, and definitively sanctioned on the 4th of October
   following. By this instrument, modeled somewhat after the
   constitution of the United States, the absolute independence
   of the country was declared, and the several Mexican Provinces
   were united in a Federal Republic. The legislative power was
   vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of
   Representatives. … The supreme executive authority was
   vested in one individual, styled the 'President of the United
   Mexican States.' … The third article in the constitution
   declared that 'The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will
   be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will
   protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of
   any other whatever.' … On the 1st of January, 1825, the
   first congress under the federal constitution assembled in the
   city of Mexico; and, at the same time, General Guadalupe
   Victoria was installed as president of the republic, and
   General Nicholas Bravo as vice-president. The years 1825 and
   1826 passed with few disturbances; the administration of
   Victoria was generally popular; and the country enjoyed a
   higher degree of prosperity than at any former or subsequent
   period."

      _M. Willson,
      American History,
      book 3, part 2, chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33,
      and volume 8, chapters 1-2._

MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
   Free-Masonry in politics.
   The rival branches of the order.
   The Escocés and the Yorkinos.

   For some years a furious contest raged between two political
   societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we
   should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York
   Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for
   political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time
   of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain
   in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it
   was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was
   called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.'
   Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards
   still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and
   the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the
   elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial
   throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico
   [1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from
   the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United
   States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic
   party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up
   between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the
   country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in
   the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all
   secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons
   from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United
   States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular
   favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their
   prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last
   resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated
   organization, they pronounced against all secret societies.
   … 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of
   the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as
   a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that
   pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the
   contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up
   his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of
   the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of
   the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero,
   the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of
   government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were
   killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made
   prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés.
   This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to
   the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal
   dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and
   Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the
   election was determined by a resort to arms."

      _R. A. Wilson,
      Mexico: its Peasants and its Priests,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2._

MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.
   The rise of Santa Anna.
   Dissolution of the Federal System.
   The Unitary Republic established.
   Recognition by Spain.
   The Pastry War.
   Retrogradation and decline.

   "After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person
   in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the
   age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his
   chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary
   project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the
   new nations of South America.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

   This project … failed completely; and for several years he
   settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to
   the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In
   1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in
   which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found
   out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing
   them again in the next year, when the feeble force of
   Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce
   Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa
   Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the
   country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago
   all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare
   figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his
   forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo,
   cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting
   himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a
   dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own
   account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera
   Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de
   Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the
   non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence
   given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in
   the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg,
   having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn
   service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula
   in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in
   disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked
   Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred
   and contempt. …
{2173}
   The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently
   attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in
   1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments
   were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up
   for a time in their place. There was now to be a President,
   elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a
   House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and
   an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with
   the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that
   with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The
   dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened
   the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first
   time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time
   of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of
   progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked
   forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great
   nation of North America would absorb this people of
   half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events
   which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 20, sections 6-7._

MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.
   The Abolition of Slavery.

   "The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829
   were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch
   of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle,
   Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive
   measures, the most important of which was the abolition of
   slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow
   limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias
   Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his
   order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had
   liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a
   certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those
   given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general
   abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some
   time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states,
   among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves
   before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on
   the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves
   were in domestic service, and treated more like members of
   families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel,
   taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with
   extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for
   total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and
   proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met
   with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state
   were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily,
   as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the
   law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837,
   another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without
   exception and with compensation to the owners."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4._

MEXICO: A. D. 1845.
   The Annexation of Texas to the United States.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
   The American aggression which precipitated war.

   "Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though
   she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico
   or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.
   The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio
   Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some
   friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the
   boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to
   which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted
   jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton
   denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory]
   as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory
   by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte,
   which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering,
   therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces
   westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation
   was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and
   the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of
   December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops
   were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the
   rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on
   and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January,
   1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy
   positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That
   movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a
   distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican
   territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must
   ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall
      of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapter 149._

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
   The American conquest of California.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
   War with the United States.
   The first movements of American invasion.
   Palo Alto.
   Resaca de la Palma.
   Monterey.
   Buena Vista.
   Fremont in California.

   "The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D.
   1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States
   commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the
   Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition
   of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for
   the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army
   remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been
   avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat
   ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican
   commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the
   defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement
   took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These
   actions eventually assumed considerable political importance.
   They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent
   elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what
   had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting
   that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who
   has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress
   announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our
   territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our
   own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act
   providing money and men.
{2174}
   Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of
   Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the
   United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as
   1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign
   Relations, had formally notified the American government that
   the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General
   Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr.
   Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his
   nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn
   manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares,
   by express order of his government, that, on sanction being
   given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of
   Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission
   ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have
   learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as
   soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus
   provoked by the American government, General Scott received
   orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition
   intended for the invasion of Mexico."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 23 (volume 1)._

   After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general
   Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was
   superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched
   his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the
   invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the
   24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack
   upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a
   force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had
   attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also
   forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of
   this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General
   Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the
   heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of
   Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief
   magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera
   Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting
   that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and
   left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took
   the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the
   advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the
   bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans
   (known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was
   fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to
   San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head
   off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called
   derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time
   was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army,
   and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United
   States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It
   was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about
   5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with
   forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of
   war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the
   capital. While these events were in progress an expedition
   under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through
   New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D.
   1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the
   directions of the United States government the Mexicans of
   California had been incited to revolt."

       _A. H. Noll,
       Short History of Mexico,
       chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the U. S.,
      volume 3, chapters 4-9._

      _H. O. Ladd,
      History of the War with Mexico,
      chapters 4-8._

      _E. D. Mansfield,
      History of the Mexican War,
      chapters 2-4 and 8._

      _O. O. Howard,
      General Taylor,
      chapters 8-19._

MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September).
   General Scott's campaign.
   From Vera Cruz to the capital.
   Cerro Gordo.
   Contreras.
   Churubusco.
   Molino del Rey.
   Chapultepec.
   The conquest complete.

   "General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief
   command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This
   was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz,
   reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by
   the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet
   with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera
   Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly
   12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of
   7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the
   investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused,
   the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four
   days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican
   batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in
   the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect;
   but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want
   of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April
   the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant.
   The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles
   northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position
   on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery
   commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank
   the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April
   18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The
   divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro
   Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and
   where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by
   storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating
   Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was
   assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves
   surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder
   of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him
   and took the place."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 14._

   "Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the
   American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at
   Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and
   drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out
   for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000
   troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on
   the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,
   Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one
   general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with
   stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were
   completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached
   almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas
   P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with
   the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on
   the 23d of August.
{2175}
   The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,
   the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and
   20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to
   recover from the demoralization which had followed their
   defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the
   enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements
   and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which
   barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and
   Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of
   September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had
   failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining
   works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th
   Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up
   with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del
   Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the
   Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the
   field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the
   final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made
   of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the
   12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a
   simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops
   storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the
   works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army
   followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,
   fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle
   continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate
   defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city
   council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of
   capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth
   and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up
   for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured
   possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the
   occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The
   principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties
   collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took
   place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a
   guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General
   Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been
   already completed."

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20._

      _General W. Scott,
      Memoirs, by himself,
      chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)_

      _President's Message and Documents,
      December 7, 1847
      (Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
   The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   Territory ceded to the United States.

   "The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies
   of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was
   favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused
   this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General
   Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the
   Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the
   constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride
   … bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies
   assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of
   a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with
   Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to
   assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the
   United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The
   lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented
   immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the
   8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected
   Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under
   the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a
   spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy
   issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the
   boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not
   longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the
   right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous
   offer of money by the United States for the cession of New
   Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d
   of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and
   signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   … The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the
   United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United
   States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000
   for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed
   the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United
   States against Mexico for damages, which the United States
   agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line
   was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf
   of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del
   Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where
   it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward
   along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to
   its western termination; thence northward along the western
   line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the
   river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it
   empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line
   between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one
   marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of
   June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of
   Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's
   administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with
   Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of
   indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were
   equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico,
   embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The
   area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United
   States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of
   Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also
   yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520
   square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591
   square miles of territory was one of the direct results of
   this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to
   conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region
   of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order
   adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the
   United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has
   been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of
   New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees
   of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio
   Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of
   sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States.
   … The mineral resources of the conquered territory,
   including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado,
   Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that
   their value is beyond computation."

      _H. O. Ladd,
      History of the War with Mexico,
      chapters 30-31._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Countries (edition of 1889),
      pages 681-694._

{2176}

MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
   The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.
   The new Constitution.
   The government of Juarez and
   the Nationalization of Church property.

   "For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American
   army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed
   only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In
   June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the
   opening of the war with the United States) took possession of
   the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory
   of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without
   disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly
   reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for
   the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano
   Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession
   of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and
   economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could
   not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet
   merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some
   military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the
   government. They commenced again the old system of
   'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province
   distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining
   such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they
   were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into
   the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office
   and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years
   later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of
   Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in
   power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than
   General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the
   successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America,
   Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced
   at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench
   himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December,
   1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him
   perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the
   country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary
   centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful
   leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after
   repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the
   capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly
   left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera
   Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St.
   Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing
   for a return to power in Mexico."

      _F. A. Ober,
      Young Folks' History of Mexico,
      chapter 33._

   "Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the
   capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution
   assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega
   acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. …
   By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was
   elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of
   August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month,
   when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo
   Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort,
   known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and
   under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the
   country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and
   order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in
   Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad
   interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named
   Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he
   transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the
   12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon
   the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made
   actual president by a large majority in the popular election
   held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of
   December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable
   rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning
   of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun
   his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again
   broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was
   occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them
   joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of
   16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla
   and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in
   October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by
   Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in
   suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis
   Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas
   Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between
   the Church and the government, so long threatened, was
   precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the
   sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at
   its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds,
   but the land was to become thereby freed from all
   ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy
   centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the
   president sent troops to take possession of the place, and
   finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked
   an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the
   Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present
   Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as
   Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its
   provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days
   after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the
   oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing
   that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and
   claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution
   impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution
   aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the
   President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the
   supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution
   upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort
   fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were
   seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a
   half recognized government.
{2177}
   "Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in
   connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the
   presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the
   President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was
   held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became
   president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of
   the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which
   gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies
   and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the
   Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to
   say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching
   power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion
   of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform'
   had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is
   thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man
   Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of
   Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not
   a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the
   flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or
   means to establish his government. Being driven out of the
   capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of
   the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.
   There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional
   government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected
   at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the
   knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the
   Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,
   Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing
   his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or
   more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was
   enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival
   governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at
   Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of
   December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave
   the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of
   Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of
   his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the
   27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be
   executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were
   closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious
   orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that
   from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured
   $20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving
   any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate
   another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country
   was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from
   Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,
   was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years
   payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time
   amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,
   and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.
   England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was
   comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been
   founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French
   claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the
   decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three
   creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with
   Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a
   plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

      _A. H. Noll,
      Short History of Mexico,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
      and volume 9 (6), chapter 1._

      See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

MEXICO: A. D. 1853.
   Sale of Arizona to the United States.
   The Gadsden Treaty.

      See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
   The French intervention.
   Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

   The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint
   undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed
   object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
   October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican
   authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
   properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well
   as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their
   Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who
   had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this
   time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in
   exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the
   extent to which the intervention of England would go. England
   would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of
   seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the
   foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
   have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or
   imposing any European system on the Mexican people.
   Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the
   contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition
   of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in
   the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to
   prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to
   constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of
   the French, however, had already made up his mind that he
   would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had
   long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind
   concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of
   Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the
   very time when he signed the convention with the pledge
   contained in its second article, he had already been making
   arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have
   ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its
   head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been
   too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke
   Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
   crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The
   Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently
   wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some
   hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint
   expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle
   ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first
   instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced
   immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the
   command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to
   find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much
   suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims
   set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims
   were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule
   as our own Pacifico claims had been.
{2178}
   A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former
   Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that
   Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
   The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez
   came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for
   $15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He
   offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,
   but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the
   sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a
   subject of France, and the French Government took up his
   claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had
   resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the
   French Government became evident to the English and Spanish
   Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the
   Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild
   road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of
   Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and
   desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th
   of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the
   capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as
   Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.
   Against all this the United States Government protested from
   time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing
   just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied
   that the United States were going to pieces, and that the
   Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received
   the protests of the American Government with unveiled
   indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The
   Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee
   surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United
   States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American
   Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be
   inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw
   his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American
   troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,
   was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was
   nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …
   The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last
   of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian
   endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself
   against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all
   the courage which might have been expected from his race, and
   from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for
   himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a
   French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted
   his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this
   monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,
   taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the
   invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The
   Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done
   to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,
   was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned
   and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of
   this Mexican failure."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14._

      _H. M. Flint,
      Mexico under Maximilian._

      _F. Salm-Balm,
      My Diary in Mexico (1867)._

      _S. Schroeder,
      The Fall of Maximilian's Empire._

      _Count E. de Keratry,
      The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian._

      _J. M. Taylor,
      Maximilian and Carlotta._

      _U. R. Burke,
      Life of Benito Juarez._

MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.
   The restored Republic.

   "On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
   the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
   gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
   emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
   their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
   acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
   within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
   pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
   Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
   election established Juarez as President, and order and
   progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
   the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
   to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
   difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
   opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
   election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
   divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
   contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
   Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
   the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
   glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
   had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
   Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
   minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
   a man of great strength of character and capacity for
   government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
   country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
   triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
   re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
   ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
   combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
   itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
   popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
   a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
   undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
   the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
   Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
   Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
   late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
   reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
   the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
   Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
   fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
   wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
   Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
   apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
   Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
   … During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
   in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
   of President for another term of four years.
{2179}
   The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
   unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
   on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
   few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
   Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
   the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
   expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
   Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
   proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
   fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
   1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
   November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
   his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
   this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
   his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
   the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
   the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
   his office to his legally elected successor. … The
   administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
   without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
   General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
   1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
   without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
   government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
   much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

      _S. Hale,
      The Story of Mexico,
      chapter 41-42._

   "At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one
   railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running
   in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers
   (about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines
   in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000
   kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which
   aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …
   message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is
   gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the
   financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …
   Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect
   $9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The
   revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past
   twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are
   estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of
   President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one
   of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations
   are being made in favor of another term."

      _W. Butler,
      Mexico in Transition,
      pages 284-287._

   President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
   December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19._

   ----------MEXICO: End----------

MIAMIS, The.
   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

MICESLAUS I.,
   King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

   Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

   Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

MICHAEL
   The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

   Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

   Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

   Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

   Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

   Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

   Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

   Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

   Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

   Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

   ----------MICHIGAN: Start----------

MICHIGAN:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.
   Traversed by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.
   The founding of the French post at Detroit.

      See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.
   The surrender to the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
   Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
   and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.
   Detached from Indiana Territory and
   distinctly named and organized.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.
   Tecumseh and his League.
   Battle of Tippecanoe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.
   The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory
   to the British arms by General Hull.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.
   Recovery by the Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
      HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.
   The founding of the University of Michigan.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.
   Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,
   and then beyond.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
   Admission into the Union as a State.
   Settlement of Boundaries.

   A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
   the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
   Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
   Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
   two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
   but primarily upon the great
   Ordinance of 1787.
{2180}
   It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
   territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
   embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
   Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
   began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
   enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
   1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
   demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
   article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
   sought being those established by the article in question.
   That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
   territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
   President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
   message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
   quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
   Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
   to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
   supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
   protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
   outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
   the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
   insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
   while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
   out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
   making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
   precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
   September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
   purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
   the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
   condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
   convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
   following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
   final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
   January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
   possesses to-day."

      _R. G. Thwaites,
      The Boundaries of Wisconsin
      (Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 11, pages 456-460)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 17._

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.
   Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

   ----------MICHIGAN: End----------

   ----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------

MICHIGAN, Lake:
   The Discovery.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MICHIGAN, Lake:
   Navigated by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

   ----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------

MICHIGANIA,
    The proposed State of.

       See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

    See MACKINAW.

MICHMASH, War of.

   One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this
   name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash
   and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

      _I. Samuel XIV._

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 21 (volume 2)._

MICKLEGARTH.

   "Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of
   Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,
   to Byzantium, the New Rome.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

   The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]
   which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,
   when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian
   world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town
   of towns,' of the northern legends."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

MICMACS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

MIDDLE AGES.

   "The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed
   between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the
   great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion
   of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era
   [see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the
   Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages, author's preface._

   "It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;
   … though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in
   a general point of view, to constitute that period."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages, preface to first edition._

   "We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
   A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
   beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
   Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
   whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
   any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
   for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
   history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
   date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
   author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
   through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
   another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
   the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
   in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
   extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
   at different dates in the different lines of
   advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
   upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
   as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
   especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
   primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
   or modern history, the additions which were made during the
   middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
   unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
   most important of them fall within the last part of the
   period, and they are really indications that the age is
   drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
   Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
   distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
   this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
   barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
   ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
   a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
   to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
   unless there can be found running through all its confusion
   some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
   organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
   general meaning of the age.
{2181}
   The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
   impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
   can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
   the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
   so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
   meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
   which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
   had taken possession of the ancient world and become
   everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
   and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
   civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
   go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
   the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
   added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
   enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
   vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
   union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
   Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
   time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization During the Middle Ages,
      introduction._

   "We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of
   the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must
   deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity
   when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building
   age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.
   Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the
   happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of
   1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,
   reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all
   men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful
   buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In
   presence of this manifestation of free and productive
   intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and
   utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the
   expressive and constructive force of the spirit of
   Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we
   examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the
   conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a
   sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient
   Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of
   our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its
   flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom
   the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the
   Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the
   first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen
   masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor
   in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a
   third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their
   territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of
   intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a
   universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.
   Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain
   after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the
   term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects
   the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the
   Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is
   perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these
   questions, that the instinct of our physical science and
   naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and
   democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is
   essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,
   regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the
   Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine
   though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in
   Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

      _B. Bosanquet,
      The Civilization of Christendom,
      chapter 3._

   "'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really
   forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I
   have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he
   came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages
   of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody
   allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what
   do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally
   used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in
   a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I
   could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I
   was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the
   sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to
   remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …
   Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark
   to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind
   the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from
   shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that
   we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see
   what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree
   of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as
   to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in
   them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal
   exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what
   are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew
   nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we
   deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;
   but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they
   were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

      _S. R. Maitland,
      The Dark Ages,
      introduction._

   "In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that
   which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay
   dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was
   woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
   which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.
   Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,
   people, party, family, or corporation—only through some
   general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
   objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all
   the things of this world became possible. The subjective side
   at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;
   man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as
   such."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
      EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
      LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
      MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
      MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

MIDDLEBURG:
   Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

{2182}

MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

MIDIANITES, The.

   "The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the
   tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was
   extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the
   Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 15 (volume 1)._


MIGDOL.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

MIKADO.

   "Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows
   the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan
   itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese
   have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such
   alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or
   Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'
   His designation in the official translations of modern public
   documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the
   word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the
   current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a
   'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …
   The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's
   Court as well as the monarch himself."

      _B. H. Chamberlain,
      Things Japanese,
      page 229._

MIKASUKIS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MILAN, King, Abdication of.

   See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

   ----------MILAN: Start--------

MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
   The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
   Taken by the Romans.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MILAN: A. D. 268.
   Aureolus besieged.

   During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor
   Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,
   Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to
   place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle
   fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that
   city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege
   a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and
   he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier
   Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted
   it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was
   forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 11._

MILAN: A. D. 286.
   The Roman imperial court.

   "Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who
   fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the
   provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]
   was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,
   at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than
   that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the
   motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the
   splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as
   numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished
   and liberal."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

MILAN: A. D. 313.
   Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

      See ROME: A. D. 313.

MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
   The Ambrosian Church.

   The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly
   originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their
   Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner
   constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and
   splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and
   his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and
   pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by
   St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief
   aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from
   all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to
   397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as
   a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such
   was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior
   dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the
   Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose
   a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated
   by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those
   which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To
   the singing in divine service, which was then artless and
   rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies
   still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation
   of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the
   Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the
   grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of
   worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards
   becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through
   the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was
   brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.
   … St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and
   hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most
   sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar
   and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that
   his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion
   prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,
   ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.
      against the Communes of Lombardy,
      pages 23-24._

MILAN: A. D. 404.
   Removal of the Imperial Court.

      See ROME: A. D.404-408.

MILAN: A. D. 452.
   Capture by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452.

MILAN: A. D. 539.
   Destroyed by the Goths.

   When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of
   Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D.
   538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city,
   hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It
   was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to
   the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths
   appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians
   who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius
   despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals
   in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly
   resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of
   starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance
   was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if
   the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to
   300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the
   Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services.
   The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time
   that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of
   Lombardy."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 11._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.

{2183}

   "The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the
   destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and
   opulence."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 41._

MILAN: 11th Century.
   Acquisition of Republican independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MILAN: A. D. 1162.
   Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

MILAN: A. D. 1167.
   The rebuilding of the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
   The rise and the reign of the Visconti.
   Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.
   The downfall of their House.

   "The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of
   the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General
   of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop
   of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of
   his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his
   relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his
   nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and
   by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed
   the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent
   Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded
   in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A.
   D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son
   Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft,
   and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a
   general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more
   cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as
   became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce
   enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less
   fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The
   Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion
   of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330],
   and only released him at the intercession of his friend
   Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing
   tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office
   delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo]
   bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar,
   from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was
   thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to
   fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which
   he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he
   consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in
   1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in
   1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was
   poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a
   general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and
   made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left
   sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was
   succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande
   and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was
   one of the most notable characters of the 14th century.
   Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to
   the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong
   enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to
   the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having
   established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the
   north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona,
   Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop
   Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti.
   They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della
   Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made
   sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide
   extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on
   force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged;
   and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal
   houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons
   were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left
   three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of
   the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo.
   Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of
   Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be
   ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way
   by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at
   Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter
   married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward
   III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France.
   "Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion
   of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was
   able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of
   treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of
   his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with
   this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter
   in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the
   Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of
   Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino,
   the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona,
   the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi,
   the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled
   at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while
   the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian
   Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala
   dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial
   authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline
   general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of
   the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished
   the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before
   approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house
   began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest;
   of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in
   1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of
   these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards
   fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of
   Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara
   family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the
   Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall.
{2184}
   He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation
   of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his
   territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year
   possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was
   then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had
   committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the
   Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of
   Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian
   Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues
   of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of
   Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their
   ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole
   of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His
   next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa
   had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish
   policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would
   profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the
   Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their
   head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and
   then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the
   Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague
   came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of
   Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he
   was now able to take possession of those cities. There
   remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence
   and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to
   withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D.
   1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed
   to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole
   of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of
   independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with
   fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged
   55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The
   generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such
   portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily
   acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to
   pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see
   ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained
   (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the
   death of the last of them, in 1447.

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 2._

   "At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's]
   informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor
   Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged
   duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually
   gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all
   the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had
   formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia
   indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate
   being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy
   granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both
   sides of the lake of Garda."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 4._

      _G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym),
      History of Italy,
      chapters 4-5 (volume 1)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2)._

MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.
   Wars with Florence and with the Pope.
   Dealings with the Free Companies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

MILAN: A. D. 1422.
   The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
   Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.
   The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.
   War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,
   Savoy, and other states.

   John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a
   daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of
   the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke
   of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage
   contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that,
   upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the
   duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine
   and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year
   1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of
   Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession.
   Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on
   the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti.
   Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will
   made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that,
   upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti,
   the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be
   re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with
   the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the
   Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master,
   and established a republican form of government. But during
   the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which
   they contended was seized by one from whom none of them
   apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of
   Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated
   from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and
   powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his
   father in the command of the adventurers who followed his
   standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of
   Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a
   title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he
   supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on
   the ducal throne."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Charles the Fifth:
      View of the Progress of Society,
      section 3._

   "Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by
   treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century
   the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,
   was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered
   its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the
   formation of a political system which, however great its
   weakness, was the most reasonable under existing
   circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'
   Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had
   recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a
   close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose
   between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:
   either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the
   Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.
   In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally
   on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote
   in Sforza's favour. …
{2185}
   Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to
   maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,
   which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against
   the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.
   And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city
   which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself
   with Florentine money till he had established his position and
   re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and
   Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to
   one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and
   defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and
   Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,
   four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the
   Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,
   successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to
   prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than
   all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,
   Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,
   more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy
   possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent
   Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,
   1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with
   Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,
   Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The
   king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not
   ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The
   States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an
   alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

      _A. von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza._

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti._

      _The French Claim to Milan._

MILAN: A. D. 1464.
   Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.
   The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.
   His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.
   The French invasion of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Conquest by Louis XII. of France.
   His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

MILAN: A. D. 1501.
   Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke,
   by the Emperor Maximilian.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

MILAN: A. D. 1512.
   Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.

   Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their
   struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope
   Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold
   their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France,
   and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem
   possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile
   state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time
   grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the
   proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano
   Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project
   the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the
   cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining
   in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword.
   The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely
   galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest
   difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved
   none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of
   Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the
   year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan,
   with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part
   of the people."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 37 (volume 2)._

MILAN: A. D. 1515.
   French reconquest by Francis I.
   Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

MILAN: A. D. 1517.
   Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522.
   The French again expelled.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525.
   Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.
   Renewed attack of the French king.
   Its disastrous end.
   Renunciation of the French claim.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

MILAN: A. D. 1544.
   Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.
   The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638.
   Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

MILAN: A. D. 1713.
   Cession of the duchy to Austria.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MILAN: A. D. 1745.
   Occupied by the Spaniards and French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

MILAN: A. D. 1746.
   Recovered by the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

MILAN: A. D. 1796.
   Occupation by the French.
   Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1799.
   Evacuation by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1800.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1805.
   Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   Failure of the struggle.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MILAN: A. D. 1859.
   Liberation from the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------MILAN: End----------

MILAN DECREE, The.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
   also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

MILANESE,
MILANESS, The.

   The district or duchy of Milan.

MILESIANS, Irish.

   In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came
   from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races
   which colonized Ireland.

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

   ----------MILETUS: Start----------

{2186}

MILETUS.

   Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern
   extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest
   anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and
   Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic
   families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city
   anew.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

   True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her
   rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other
   rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished.
   Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of
   wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated
   tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large
   multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in
   an increasing measure to demand importation from without of
   all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

      See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

   In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary
   to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade
   even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the
   so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian
   enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the
   Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the
   Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at
   Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the
   Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they
   were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when
   that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt
   failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

   Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by
   Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was
   destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not
   been identified with certainty;

MILETUS: B. C. 412.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

   ----------MILETUS: End----------

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

   See HOSPITALLERS;
   TEMPLARS;
   TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;
   and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

MILL SPRING, Battle of.

    See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
    A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

MILLENIAL YEAR, The.

   "It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was
   a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in
   the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been
   subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi,
   and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be
   still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the
   tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world,
   however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle
   age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of
   Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of
   Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

      _R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 101-102._

MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

MILTIADES:
   Victory at Marathon.
   Condemnation and death.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490;
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.

MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MINA.

      See TALENT;
      also, SHEKEL.

MINCIO, Battle of the.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

MINDEN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MING DYNASTY, The.

      See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.;
      and 1294-1882.

MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MINGOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.

MINIMS.

   "Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most
   remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or
   Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by
   Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of
   Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France
   gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that
   their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him,
   Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new
   religious society, the members of which, not content with the
   name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of
   utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 8, pages 369 and 224._

MINISTRY.
MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

MINNE.

      See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

   ----------MINNESOTA: Start--------

MINNESOTA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803.
   Part of the state, west of the Mississippi,
   acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1849-1858.
   Territorial and State organizations.

   Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted
   to the Union as a State in 1858.

   ----------MINNESOTA: End--------

MINNETAREES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

   ----------MINORCA: Start----------

MINORCA: 13th Century.
   Conquest by King James of Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

{2187}

MINORCA: A. D. 1708.
   Acquisition by England.

   In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon,
   and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English
   expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who
   afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming
   Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the
   best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England
   was rated above that of Gibraltar.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 10._

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

   At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and
   remained under the British flag during the greater part of the
   18th century.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
   Taken by the French.

   At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was
   great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and
   "the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the
   King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread
   was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in
   the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being
   collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing
   Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and
   Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it.
   Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with
   16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled
   General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw
   into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On
   the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of
   Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was
   still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La
   Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who
   apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his
   second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called
   a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his
   position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of
   Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry,
   roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle,
   trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral,
   hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court
   martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict
   instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a
   verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on
   the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power
   Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular
   favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the
   King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to
   be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that
   fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to
   look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the
   House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was
   shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth
   (March 14, 1757)."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, pages 1021-1022._

MINORCA: A. D. 1763.
   Restored to England by the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MINORCA: A. D. 1782.
   Captured by the Spaniards.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

MINORCA: A. D. 1802.
   Ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

   ----------MINORCA: End----------

MINORITES, The.

   The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri
   Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

MINQUAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.

MINSIS,
MUNSEES,
MINISINKS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;
      and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MINUTE-MEN.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

MINYI, The.

   "The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with
   a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian
   people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes
   includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians
   and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in
   the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats
   of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
   movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other
   words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread
   both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the
   fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of
   the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low
   southern coast they founded a new city at the western
   extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge
   juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its
   farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At
   the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu.
   Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of
   wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky
   staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a
   castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called
   Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat
   which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a
   proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only
   a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths
   of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet
   high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The
   ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of
   which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the
   superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in
   these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of
   Orchomenus sung by Homer."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also, BŒOTIA;
      and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

MIR, The Russian.

   "The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and
   of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.
   In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly
   to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is
   divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its
   special economic administration, whilst the civil and police
   administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number
   of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may
   vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The
   'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or
   several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in
   it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for
   its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates
   even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the
   right to shift about the 'dvors.' …
{2188}
   Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:
   fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the
   improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended
   for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields
   or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various
   things must be distributed among the members of the commune,
   must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a
   fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years
   hence, because in some families the number of members will
   have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,
   therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a
   long time this equalization can be brought about by partial
   sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private
   persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general
   redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.
   It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles
   that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the
   circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition
   fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance
   with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any
   work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or
   the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself
   with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an
   administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï
   starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to
   do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the
   communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any
   measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,
   new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only
   adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the
   peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the
   women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,
   is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right
   to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The
   assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."

      _L. Tikhomirov,
      Russia, Political and Social,
      book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      _W. T. Stead,
      The Truth about Russia,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 8._

MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY). to 1790-1791.

MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.

      See THUNDERING LEGION.

MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800;
      and COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

MIRANHA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES.

MISCHIANZA, The.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MISCHNA, The.

   Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about
   A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He
   embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional
   Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the
   traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents
   of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the
   Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the
   Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had
   superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was
   grounded,
      1. On the Written Law of Moses.
      2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
      and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.
      3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.
      4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the
      schools were divided, and which still remained open.
      5. Ancient usages and customs.

   The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious
   exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious
   and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the
   authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life.
   The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving,
   ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or
   subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by
   the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs,
   grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; …
   whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or
   wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler
   words."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 19._

      See, also, TALMUD.

MISE OF AMIENS, The.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

MISE OF LEWES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MISENUM, Treaty of.

   The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually
   admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the
   triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MISR.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MISSI DOMINICI.

   "Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl
   [Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies,
   called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the
   palace to oversee and inspect the various local
   administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers
   each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the
   counties every three months, and held there the local assizes,
   or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not
   exempted from this scrutiny."

      P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 17.

      See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.

MISSIONARY RIDGE:
   Its position, and the battle fought on it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   ----------MISSISSIPPI: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1732.
   Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.
   Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

{2189}

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.
   Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Partly in dispute with Spain.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
      The Territory constituted and organized.

   "The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish
   authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude,
   with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was
   erected into a territory of the United States by act of
   Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the
   amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and
   authorizing the establishment of a government in the
   Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new
   organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced
   that portion of country between the Spanish line of
   demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the
   Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its
   western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The
   organization of a territorial government by the United States
   was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil,
   which was left open for future negotiation between the State
   of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of
   Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands
   south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive
   $1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in
   said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive
   territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi
   Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the
   Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within
   its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi
   Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south,
   and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the
   Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and
   comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of
   Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District
   between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this
   extensive territory were in the possession of the four great
   southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the
   Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about
   75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions
   of this territory to which the Indian title had been
   extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width,
   on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in
   length, and a small district on the Tombigby."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the
      Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2)._

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1803.
   Portion acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory
   and possession taken.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.
   Constitution as a State and admission into the Union.

   The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original
   Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last
   almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth
   Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal
   struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of
   1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State
   constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the
   slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817,
   which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December
   10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and
   satisfactory."

         _J. Schouler,
         History of the United States,
         volume 3, page 100._

   At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which
   forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected
   into the Territory of Alabama.

      See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
   The taking of Corinth by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (May-July).
   First Union attempts against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (September-October).
   The battles of Iuka and Corinth.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-May).
   Grierson's raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-July).
   Federal siege and capture of Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (July).
   Capture and destruction of Jackson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1864 (February).
   Sherman's raid to Meridian.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   Wilson's raid.
   The end of the Rebellion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).
   Provisional government set up under
   President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865-1870.
   State reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI: End--------

   ----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1519.
   Discovery of the mouth by Pineda, for Garay.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.
   Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.
   Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1673.
   Discovery by Joliet and Marquette.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.
   Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.
   See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1712.
   Called the River St. Louis by the French.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803.
   The question of the Right of Navigation
   disputed between Spain and the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800, and 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1861-1863.
   Battles and Sieges of the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;
      1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW

   Madrid and Island No. 10;
   1862 (APRIL), New Orleans;
   1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack;
   1862 (JUNE), Memphis;
   1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack;
   1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY);

   Siege and capture of Vicksburg;
   1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End--------

{2190}

MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.
   Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.
   Purchase of the western side by the United States.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End--------

MISSOLONGHI, Siege and capture of (1825-1826).

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

   ----------MISSOURI: Start--------

MISSOURI: A. D. 1719-1732.
   First development of lead mines by the French.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.
   French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.
   The founding of St. Louis.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.
   Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.
   The changing of its name to Missouri.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1819.
   Arkansas detached.

      See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.
   Admission to the Union.
   The Compromise concerning Slavery.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1854-1859.
   The Kansas Struggle.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).
   The baffling of the Secessionists.
   Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.
   The capture of Camp Jackson.
   Battle of Boonville.
   A loyal State Government organized.

   The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the
   Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of
   the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to
   the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how
   they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other
   munitions of war which it was known to contain. …
   Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible
   parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession
   of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state
   militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is
   said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the
   necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed
   no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority
   to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become
   necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting
   it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. …
   Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had
   his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair
   was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already
   busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with
   guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months
   later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it
   is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this
   to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That
   went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came
   for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point
   with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which
   his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time,
   whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can
   hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the
   service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his
   commander) were watching each other, the federal government
   awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in
   St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th
   of February, the day of the election of delegates to the
   convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession,
   there were between four and five hundred men behind the
   arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the
   department and presumably familiar with its condition, under
   date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington
   that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. …
   Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had
   arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was
   destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to
   write his name indelibly in the history of the State. …
   Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair
   and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the
   middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon,
   who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the
   department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order
   which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this
   force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the
   state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to
   furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under
   President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington
   that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent
   to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.'
   The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been
   sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the
   command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon
   was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another
   brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of
   volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a
   battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as
   General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected
   of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his
   position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. …
   Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was
   unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not
   accept the decision of the February election as final. …
   Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the
   General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in
   conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert
   measures for arming the militia of the State. …
{2191}
   To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a
   prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial
   showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of
   Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops
   hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal
   government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate
   authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him
   with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the
   arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at
   Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such
   measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in
   a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was
   authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several
   military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for
   the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline.
   … Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's
   brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized
   under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering
   less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in
   the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp
   Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being
   surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills;
   it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every
   direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of
   ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word,
   it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive
   in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was
   organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the
   entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a
   demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion
   early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp
   Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no
   defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he
   was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been
   disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were
   paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners
   were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd
   of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the
   home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It
   is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this
   lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of
   the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was
   given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley
   firing, which is said to have been executed with precision
   considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was
   checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or
   mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two
   women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons
   assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it
   must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the
   secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove
   not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into
   the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the
   Confederate army."

      _L. Carr,
      Missouri,
      chapter 14._

   When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson
   City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson
   at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be
   destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several
   bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which
   placed the whole military power of the State in the hands of
   the Governor. Armed with this authority, Jackson proceeded to
   organize the Militia of Missouri as a secession army. Meantime
   Captain Lyon had been superseded in command by the arrival at
   St. Louis of General Harney, and the latter introduced a total
   change of policy at once. He was trapped into an agreement
   with Governor Jackson and Sterling Price, now general-in-chief
   of the Missouri forces, which tied his hands, while the
   cunning rebel leaders were rapidly placing the State in active
   insurrection. But the eyes of the authorities at Washington
   were opened by Blair; Harney was soon displaced and Lyon
   restored to command. This occurred May 30th. On the 15th of
   June Lyon took possession of the capital of the State,
   Jefferson City, the Governor and other State officers taking
   flight to Boonville, where their forces were being gathered.
   Lyon promptly followed, routing and dispersing them at
   Boonville on the 17th. The State Convention which had taken a
   recess in March was now called together by a committee that
   had been empowered to do so before the convention separated,
   and a provisional State government was organized (July 31)
   with a loyal governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, at its head.

      _J. G. Nicolay,
      The Outbreak of the Rebellion,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. L. Snead,
      The Fight for Missouri._

      _J. Peckham,
      General Nathaniel Lyon and Missouri in 1861._

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (July-September).
   Sigel's retreat from Carthage.
   Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
   Siege of Lexington.
   Fremont in command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

A. D. 1861 (August-October).
   Fremont in command.
   His premature proclamation of freedom to the Slaves of rebels.
   His quarrel with Frank P. Blair.
   The change in command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
   Price and the Rebel forces driven into Arkansas.
   Battle of Pea Ridge.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
   Organization of the loyal Militia of the state.
   Warfare with Rebel guerrillas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (September-December).
   Social effects of the Civil War.
   The Battle of Prairie Grove.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (August).
   Quantrell's guerrilla raid to Lawrence, Kansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (October).
   Cabell's invasion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
   Price's raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

   ----------MISSOURI: End--------

MISSOURI COMPROMISE, The.
   Its Repeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court against it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1818-1821; 1854; and 1857.

{2192}

MISSOURI RIVER:
   Called the River St. Philip by the French (1712).

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSOURIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MITCHELL, General Ormsby M.:
   Expedition into Alabama.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862(APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA);
      and (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

MITHRIDATIC WARS, The.

   A somewhat vaguely defined part of eastern Asia Minor, between
   Armenia, Phrygia, Cilicia and the Euxine, was called
   Cappadocia in times anterior to 363 B. C. Like its neighbors,
   it had fallen under the rule of the Persians and formed a
   province of their empire, ruled by hereditary satraps. In the
   year above named, the then reigning satrap, Ariobarzanes,
   rebelled and made himself king of the northern coast district
   of Cappadocia, while the southern and inland part was retained
   under Persian rule. The kingdom founded by Ariobarzanes took
   the name of Pontus, from the sea on which it bordered. It was
   reduced to submission by Alexander the Great, but regained
   independence during the wars between Alexander's successors
   (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301; and SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224),
   and extended its limits towards the west and south. The
   kingdom of Pontus, however, only rose to importance in history
   under the powerful sovereignty of Mithridates V. who took the
   title of Eupator and is often called Mithridates the Great. He
   ascended the throne while a child, B. C. 120, but received,
   notwithstanding, a wonderful education and training. At the
   age of twenty (B. C. 112) he entered upon a career of
   conquest, which was intended to strengthen his power for the
   struggle with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. Within a
   period of about seven years he extended his dominions around
   the nearly complete circuit of the Euxine, through Armenia,
   Colchis, and along the northern coasts westward to the Crimea
   and the Dniester; while at the same time he formed alliances
   with the barbarous tribes on the Danube, with which he hoped
   to threaten Italy.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 4, period 3, part 4._

   "He [Mithridates] rivalled Hannibal in his unquenchable hatred
   to Rome. This hatred had its origin in the revocation of a
   district of Phrygia which the Senate had granted to his
   father. … To his banner clustered a quarter of a million of
   the fierce warriors of the Caucasus and the Scythian steppes
   and of his own Hellenized Pontic soldiers; Greek captains, in
   whom he had a confidence unshaken by disaster—Archelaus,
   Neoptolemus, Dorilaus—gave tactical strength to his forces.
   He was allied, too, with the Armenian king, Tigranes; and he
   now turned his thoughts to Numidia, Syria, and Egypt with the
   intention of forming a coalition against his foe on the Tiber.
   A coin has been found which commemorated an alliance proposed
   between the Pontic king and the Italian rebels. … The
   imperious folly of M'. Aquillius, the Roman envoy in the East,
   precipitated the intentions of the king; instead of contending
   for the princedom of Bithynia and Cappadocia, he suddenly
   appealed to the disaffected in the Roman province. The fierce
   white fire of Asiatic hate shot out simultaneously through the
   length and breadth of the country [B. C. 88]; and the awful
   news came to distracted Rome that 80,000 Italians had fallen
   victims to the vengeance of the provincials. Terror-stricken
   publicani were chased from Adramyttium and Ephesus into the
   sea, their only refuge, and there cut down by their pursuers;
   the Mæander was rolling along the corpses of the Italians of
   Tralles; in Caria the refined cruelty of the oppressed people
   was butchering the children before the eyes of father and
   mother, then the mother before the eyes of her husband, and
   giving to the man death as the crown and the relief of his
   torture. … Asia was lost to Rome; only Rhodes, which had
   retained her independence, remained faithful to her great
   ally. The Pontic fleet, under Archelaus, appeared at Delos,
   and carried thence 2,000 talents to Athens, offering to that
   imperial city the government of her ancient tributary. This
   politic measure awaked hopes of independence in Greece.
   Aristion, an Epicurean philosopher, seized the reins of power
   in Athens, and Archelaus repaired the crumbling battlements of
   the Piræus. The wave of eastern conquest was rolling on
   towards Italy itself. The proconsul Sulla marched to
   Brundisium, and, undeterred by the ominous news that his
   consular colleague, Q. Rufus, had been murdered in Picenum, or
   by the sinister attitude of the new consul Cinna, he crossed
   over to Greece with five legions to stem the advancing wave.
   History knows no more magnificent illustration of cool,
   self-restrained determination than the action of Sulla during
   these three years." He left Rome to his enemies, the fierce
   faction of Marius, who were prompt to seize the city and to
   fill it with "wailing for the dead, or with the more terrible
   silence which followed a complete massacre" [see ROME: B. C.
   88-78]. "The news of this carnival of democracy reached the
   camp of Sulla along with innumerable noble fugitives who had
   escaped the Marian terror. The proconsul was unmoved; with
   unexampled self-confidence he began to assume that he and his
   constituted Rome, while the Forum and Curia were filled with
   lawless anarchists, who would soon have to be dealt with. He
   carried Athens by assault, and slew the whole population, with
   their tyrant Aristion [see ATHENS: B. C. 87-86], but he
   counted it among the favours of the goddess of Fortune that
   he, man of culture as he was, was able to save the immemorial
   buildings of the city from the fate of Syracuse or Corinth.
   Archelaus, in Piræus, offered the most heroic resistance. …
   With the spring Sulla heard of the approach of the main army
   from Pontus, under the command of Taxiles. 120,000 men, and
   ninety scythed chariots, were pouring over Mount Œta to
   overwhelm him. With wonderful rapidity he marched northwards
   through friendly Thebes, and drew up his little army on a
   slope near Chæronea, digging trenches on his left and right to
   save his flank from being turned. He showed himself every inch
   a general, he compelled the enemy to meet him on this ground
   of his own choice, and the day did not close before 110,000 of
   the enemy were captured or slain, and the camp of Archelaus,
   who had hastened from Athens to take the command, was carried
   by assault. We have before us still, in the pages of Plutarch,
   Sulla's own memoirs. If we may believe him, he lost only
   fifteen men in the battle. By this brilliant engagement he had
   restored Greece to her allegiance, and, what was even better,
   the disaster aroused an the savagery of Mithradates, the Greek
   vanished in the oriental despot.
{2193}
   Suspicious and ruthless, he ordered his nearest friends to be
   assassinated; he transported all the population of Chios to
   the mainland, and by his violence and exaction stirred
   Ephesus, Sardes, Tralles, and many other cities, to renounce
   his control, and to return to the Roman government. Still, he
   did not suspect Archelaus, but appointed him, together with
   Dorilaus, to lead a new army into Greece. The new army
   appeared in Bœotia, and encamped by the Copaic Lake, near
   Orchomenos. Before the raw levies could become familiar with
   the sight of the legions, Sulla assaulted the camp [B. C. 85],
   and rallied his wavering men by leading them in person with
   the cry, 'Go, tell them in Rome that you left your general in
   the trenches of Orchomenos;' the self-consciousness was
   sublime, for nothing would have pleased the people in Rome
   better; his victory was complete, and Archelaus escaped alone
   in a boat to Calchis. As the conqueror returned from the
   battle-field to reorganize Greece, he learnt that the Senate
   had deposed him from command, declared him an outlaw, and
   appointed as his successor the consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The
   disorganization of the republic seemed to have reached a
   climax. Flaccus conducted his army straight to the Bosphorus
   without venturing to approach the rebel proconsul Sulla; while
   Mithradates, who began to wish for peace, preferred to
   negotiate with his conqueror rather than with the consul of
   the republic. To complete this complication of anarchy,
   Flaccus was murdered, and superseded in the command by his own
   legate, C. Flavius Fimbria; this choice of their general by
   the legions themselves might seem significant if anything
   could be significant or connected in such a chaos. But Sulla
   now crossed into Asia, and concluded peace with Mithradates on
   these conditions: The king was to relinquish all his
   conquests, surrender deserters, restore the people of Chios,
   pay 2,000 talents, and give up seventy of his ships. Fimbria
   … remained to be dealt with. It was not a difficult matter:
   the two Roman armies confronted one another at Thyatira, and
   the Fimbrians streamed over to Sulla. After all, the
   legionaries, who had long ceased to be citizens, were soldiers
   first and politicians after; they worshipped the felicity of
   the great general; and the democratic general had not yet
   appeared who could bind his men to him by a spell stronger
   than Sulla's. Fimbria persuaded a slave to thrust him through
   with his sword. His enemies were vanquished in Asia, but in
   Rome Cinna was again consul (85 B. C.), and his colleague, Cn.
   Papirius Carbo, out-Cinnaed Cinna. Yet Sulla was in no hurry.
   He spent more than a year in reorganizing the disordered
   province. … He even allowed Cinna and Carbo, who began to
   prepare for war with him (84 B. C.), to be re-elected to the
   consulship; but when the more cautious party in the Senate
   entered into negotiations with him, and offered him a safe
   conduct to Italy, he showed in a word what he took to be the
   nature of the situation by saying that he was not in need of
   their safe conduct, but he was coming to secure them."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 26._

      _Plutarch,
      Sulla._

   After a second and a third war with Rome (see ROME: B. C.
   78-68, and 69-63), Mithridates was finally (B. C. 65) driven
   from his old dominions into the Crimean kingdom of Bosporus,
   where he ended his life in despair two years later. The
   kingdom of Pontus was absorbed in the Roman empire. The
   southern part of Cappadocia held some rank as an independent
   kingdom until A. D. 17, when it was likewise reduced to the
   state of a Roman province.

MITLA, The Ruins of.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

   ----------MITYLENE: Start--------

MITYLENE.

   The chief city in ancient times of the island of Lesbos, to
   which it ultimately gave its name.

      See LESBOS.

MITYLENE: B. C. 428-427.
   Revolt from Athenian rule.
   Siege and surrender.
   The tender mercies of Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

MITYLENE: B. C. 406.
   Blockade of the Athenian fleet.
   Battle of Arginusæ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

   ----------MITYLENE: End--------

MIXES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIXTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIZRAIM.

   See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MOABITES, The.
   The Moabite Stone.

   As related in the Bible (Genesis xix. 37), Moab was the son of
   Lot's eldest daughter and the ancient people called Moabites
   were descended from him. They occupied at an early time the
   rich tableland or highlands on the east side of the Dead Sea;
   but the Amorites drove them out of the richer northern part of
   this territory into its southern half, where they occupied a
   very narrow domain, but one easily defended. This occurred
   shortly before the coming of the Israelites into Canaan.
   Between the Moabites and the Israelites, after the settlement
   of the latter, there was frequent war, but sometimes relations
   both peaceful and friendly. David finally subjugated their
   nation, in a war of peculiar atrocity. After the division of
   the kingdoms, Moab was subject to Israel, but revolted on the
   death of Ahab and was nearly destroyed in the horrible war
   which followed. The Biblical account of this war is given in 2
   Kings III. It is strangely supplemented and filled out by a
   Moabite record—the famous Moabite Stone—found and deciphered
   within quite recent times, under the following circumstance.
   Dr. Klein, a German missionary, travelling in 1869 in what was
   formerly the "Land of Moab," discovered a stone of black
   basalt bearing a long inscription in Phœnician characters. He
   copied a small part of it and made his discovery known. The
   Prussian government opened negotiations for the purchase of
   the stone, and M. Clermont-Ganneau, of the French consulate at
   Jerusalem, made efforts likewise to secure it for his own
   country. Meantime, very fortunately, the latter sent men to
   take impressions—squeezes, as they are called—of the
   inscription, which was imperfectly done. But these imperfect
   squeezes proved invaluable; for the Arabs, finding the stone
   to be a covetable thing, and fearing that it was to be taken
   from them, crumbled it into fragments with the aid of fire and
   water. Most of the pieces were subsequently recovered, and
   were put together by the help of M. Clermont-Ganneau's
   squeezes, so that an important part of the inscription was
   deciphered in the end. It was found to be a record by Mesha,
   king of Moab, of the war with Israel referred to above.

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the
      Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 4._

{2194}

   The Moabites appear to have recovered from the blow, but not
   much of their subsequent history is known.

      _G. Grove,
      Dictionary of the Bible._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. King,
      Moab's Patriarchal Stone._

      See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,
      and JEWS: UNDER THE JUDGES.

MOAWIYAH,
   Caliph (founder of the Omeyyad dynasty), A. D. 661-679.

   Moawiyah II., Caliph, A. D. 683.

   ----------MOBILE: Start--------

MOBILE: A. D. 1702-1711.
   The founding of the city by the French.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MOBILE: A. D. 1763.
   Surrendered to the English.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (JULY).

MOBILE: A. D. 1781.
   Retaken by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

MOBILE: A. D. 1813.
   Possession taken from the Spaniards by the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MOBILE: A. D. 1864.
   The Battle in the Bay.
   Farragut's naval victory.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: ALABAMA).

MOBILE: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   Siege and capture by the National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

   ----------MOBILE: End--------

MOBILIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOCOVIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

   ----------MODENA: Start--------

MODENA, Founding of.

   See MUTINA.

MODENA: A. D. 1288-1453.
   Acquired by the Marquess of Este.
   Created a Duchy.

      See ESTE, THE HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

MODENA: A. D. 1796.
   Dethronement of the Duke by Bonaparte.
   Formation of the Cispadane Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MODENA: A. D. 1801.
   Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

MODENA: A. D. 1803.
   The duchy acquired by the House of Austria.

      See ESTE, HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1815.
   Given to an Austrian Prince.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1831.
   Revolt and expulsion of the Duke.
   His restoration by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

MODENA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Abortive revolution.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MODENA: A. D. 1859-1861.
   End of the dukedom.
   Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------MODENA: End--------

MODIUS, The.

      See AMPHORA.

MODOCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

MOERIS, Lake.

   "On the west of Egypt there is an oasis of cultivable land,
   the Fayum, buried in the midst of the desert, and attached by
   a sort of isthmus to the country watered by the Nile. In the
   centre of this oasis is a large plateau about the same level
   as the valley of the Nile; to the west, however, a
   considerable depression of the land produces a valley occupied
   by a natural lake more than ten leagues in length, the 'Birket
   Kerun.' In the centre of this plateau Amenemhe [twelfth
   dynasty] undertook the formation of an artificial lake with an
   area of ten millions of square metres. If the rise of the Nile
   was insufficient, the water was led into the lake and stored
   up for use, not only in the Fayum, but over the whole of the
   left bank of the Nile as far as the sea. If too large an
   inundation threatened the dykes, the vast reservoir of the
   artificial lake remained open, and when the lake itself
   overflowed, the surplus waters were led by a canal into the
   Birket Kerun. The two names given in Egypt to this admirable
   work of Amenemhe III. deserve to be recorded. Of one, Meri,
   that is 'the Lake,' par excellence, the Greeks have made
   Moeris, a name erroneously applied by them to a king; whilst
   the other, P-iom, 'the Sea,' has become, in the mouth of the
   Arabs, the name of the entire province,
   Fayum."

      _M. Mariette,
      quoted in Lenormant's
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 2._

MŒSIA,
MÆSIA.

   "After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss
   [Theiss] and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks,
   the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mœsia and Dacia, the
   latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of
   Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. … On the
   right hand of the Danube, Mœsia, … during the middle ages,
   was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and
   Bulgaria."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

   Mœsia was occupied by the Goths in the 4th century.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381; and 376.

MOESKIRCH, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MŒSO-GOTHIC.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

MOGONTIACUM.

   "The two headquarters of the [Roman] army of the Rhine were
   always Vetera, near Wesel, and Mogontiacum, the modern Mentz.
   … Mogontiacum or Mentz, [was] from the time of Drusus down
   to the end of Rome the stronghold out of which the Romans
   sallied to attack Germany from Gaul, as it is at the present
   day the true barrier of Germany against France. Here the
   Romans, even after they had abandoned their rule in the region
   of the upper Rhine generally, retained not merely the
   tête-de-pont on the other bank, the 'castellum Mogontiacense'
   (Castel), but also that plain of the Main itself, in their
   possession; and in this region a Roman civilisation might
   establish itself. The land originally belonged to the Chatti,
   and a Chattan tribe, the Mattiaci, remained settled here even
   under Roman rule."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4 (The Provinces, volume 1)._

MOGUL EMPIRE.
THE GREAT MOGUL.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MOHACS, Battle of (1526).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

MOHACS, Second Battle of (1687).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

MOHAMMED, The Prophet of Islam.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

   Mohammed, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1104-1116.

   Mohammed I., Turkish Sultan, 1413-1421.

   Mohammed II., Turkish Sultan, 1451-1481.

   Mohammed III., Turkish Sultan, 1595-1603.

   Mohammed IV., Turkish Sultan, 1649-1687.

   Mohammed Mirza, Shah of Persia, 1577-1582.

   Mohammed Shah, sovereign of Persia, 1834-1848.

MOHARRAM FESTIVAL, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

MOHAVES,
MOJAVES, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

{2195}

MOHAWKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

MOHAWKS, The, of Boston and New York.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1773;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

MOHAWKS,
MOHOCKS, of London.

      See MOHOCKS. [Third item below.]

MOHEGANS,
MAHICANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      HORIKANS, and STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MOHILEF, Battle of.

       See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOHOCKS, The.

   "This nocturnal fraternity met in the days of Queen Anne:
   [1707] but it had been for many previous years the favourite
   amusement of dissolute young men to form themselves into Clubs
   and Associations for committing all sorts of excesses in the
   public streets, and alike attacking orderly pedestrians, and
   even defenceless women. These Clubs took various slang
   designations. At the Restoration they were 'Mums,' and
   'Tityre-tus.' They were succeeded by the 'Hectors' and
   'Scourers,' when, says Shadwell, 'a man could not go from the
   Rose Tavern to the Piazza once, but he must venture his life
   twice.' Then came the 'Nickers,' whose delight it was to smash
   windows with showers of halfpence; next were the 'Hawkabites';
   and lastly the 'Mohocks.' These last are described in the
   'Spectator,' No. 324, as a set of men who have borrowed their
   name from a sort of cannibals, in India, who subsist by
   plundering and devouring all the nations about them. … Their
   avowed design was mischief, and upon this foundation all their
   rules and orders were framed. They took care to drink
   themselves to a pitch beyond reason or humanity, and then made
   a general sally, and attacked all who were in the streets.
   Some were knocked down, others stabbed, and others cut and
   carbonadoed. … They had special barbarities which they
   executed upon their prisoners. 'Tipping the lion' was
   squeezing the nose flat to the face and boring out the eyes
   with their fingers. 'Dancing-masters' were those who taught
   their scholars to cut capers by running swords through their
   legs. The 'Tumblers' set women on their heads. The 'Sweaters'
   worked in parties of half-a-dozen, surrounding their victims
   with the points of their swords. … Another savage diversion
   of the Mohocks was their thrusting women into barrels, and
   rolling them down Snow or Ludgate Hill. … At length the
   villanies of the Mohocks were attempted to be put down by a
   Royal proclamation, issued on the 18th of March, 1712: this,
   however, had very little effect, for we soon find Swift
   exclaiming: 'They go on still and cut people's faces every
   night!' … The Mohocks held together until nearly the end of
   the reign of George I." [1727]

      _J. Timbs,
      Clubs and Club Life in London,
      pages 33-38._

MOIRA, Lord (Marquis of Hastings), The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MOJOS,
MOXOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS;
      also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MÖKERN, Battle of (1813).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

MOLAI, Jacques de, and the fall of the Templars.

      See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.

MOLASSES ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

MOLDAVIA.
MOLDO-WALLACHIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MOLEMES, The Abbey of.

      See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

MOLINISTS, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

MOLINO DEL REY, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MOLINOS DEL REY, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

MOLLWITZ, Battle of (1741).

   See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

MOLOSSIANS, The.

      See HELLAS;
      and EPIRUS.

MOLTKE'S CAMPAIGNS.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1866;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1870, and 1870-1871.

MOLUCCAS: Secured by Spain (1524).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MONA.

   The ancient name of the island of Anglesea. It was the final
   seat of the Druidical religion in Britain. Taken by the Romans
   under Suetonius, A. D. 61, the priests were slain, the sacred
   groves destroyed and Druidism practically exterminated.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

      See MONAPIA.

MONACANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
      and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

MONAPIA.

   "The name of Monapia first occurs in Pliny, and must be
   unquestionably identified with the Isle of Man; though the
   name of the latter would dispose us at first to consider it as
   representing Mona. But the Mona of the Romans, which was
   attacked by Suetonius Paulinus and Agricola, was certainly
   Anglesea."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography.,
      chapter 24, section 2, foot-note._

MONASTERY.
MONASTICISM.
CONVENT.
ABBEY.
PRIORY.

   "Monasticism was not the product of Christianity; it was the
   inheritance of the Church, not its invention; not the
   offspring, but the adopted child. The old antagonism between
   mind and matter, flesh and spirit, self and the world has
   asserted itself in all ages, especially among the nations of
   the East. The Essenes, the Therapeutæ, and other Oriental
   mystics, were as truly the precursors of Christian asceticism
   in the desert or in the cloister, as Elijah and St. John the
   Baptist. The Neoplatonism of Alexandria, extolling the
   passionless man above him who regulates his passions,
   sanctioned and systematized this craving after a life of utter
   abstraction from external things, this abhorrence of all
   contact with what is material as a defilement. Doubtless the
   cherished remembrance of the martyrs and confessors, who in
   the preceding centuries of the Christian era had triumphed
   over many a sanguinary persecution, gave a fresh impulse in
   the fourth century to this propensity to asceticism,
   stimulating the devout to vie with their forefathers in the
   faith by their voluntary endurance of self-inflicted
   austerities. … The terms monastery, originally the cell or
   eave of a solitary, laura, an irregular cluster of cells, and
   cœnobium, an association of monks, few or many, under one roof
   and under one control, mark the three earliest stages in the
   development of monasticism.
{2196}
   In Syria and Palestine each monk originally had a separate
   cell; in Lower Egypt two were together in one cell, whence the
   term 'syncellita,' or sharer of the cell, came to express this
   sort of comradeship; in the Thebaid, under Pachomius of
   Tabenna, each cell contained three monks. At a later period
   the monks arrogated to themselves by general consent the title
   of 'the religious,' and admission into a monastery was termed
   'conversion' to God. … The history of monasticism, like the
   history of states and institutions in general, divides itself
   broadly into three great periods, of growth, of glory, and of
   decay. … From the beginning of the fourth century to the
   close of the fifth, from Antony the hermit to Benedict of
   Monte Casino, is the age of undisciplined impulse of
   enthusiasm not as yet regulated by experience. … Everything
   is on a scale of illogical exaggeration, is wanting in
   balance, in proportion, in symmetry. Because purity,
   unworldliness, charity, are virtues, therefore a woman is to
   be regarded as a venomous reptile, gold as a worthless pebble;
   the deadliest foe and the dearest friend are to be esteemed
   just alike. Because it is right to be humble, therefore the
   monk cuts off hand, ear, or tongue, to avoid being made
   bishop, and feigns idiocy, in order not to be accounted wise.
   Because it is well to teach people to be patient, therefore a
   sick monk never speaks a kind word for years to the brother
   monk who nursed him. Because it is right to keep the lips from
   idle words, therefore a monk holds a large stone in his mouth
   for three years. Every precept is to be taken literally, and
   obeyed unreasoningly. Therefore monks who have been plundered
   by a robber run after him to give him a something which has
   escaped his notice. Self-denial is enjoined in the gospel.
   Therefore the austerities of asceticism are to be simply
   endless. One ascetic makes his dwelling in a hollow tree,
   another in a cave, another in a tomb, another on the top of a
   pillar, another has so lost the very appearance of a man, that
   he is shot at by shepherds, who mistake him for a wolf. The
   natural instincts, instead of being trained and cultivated,
   are to be killed outright, in this abhorrence of things
   material. … The period which follows, from the first
   Benedict to Charlemagne, exhibits monasticism in a more mature
   stage of activity. The social intercourse of the monastery,
   duly harmonized by a traditional routine, with its
   subordination of rank and offices, its division of duties, its
   mutual dependence of all on each other, and on their head,
   civilized the monastic life; and, as the monk himself became
   subject to the refining influences of civilization, he went
   forth into the world to civilize others. … Had it not been
   for monks and monasteries, the barbarian deluge might have
   swept away utterly the traces of Roman civilization. The
   Benedictine monk was the pioneer of civilization and
   Christianity in England, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Sweden,
   Denmark. The schools attached to the Lerinensian monasteries
   were the precursors of the Benedictine seminaries in France
   and of the professional chairs filled by learned Benedictines
   in the universities of mediæval Christendom. With the
   incessant din of arms around him, it was the monk in his
   cloister, even in regions beyond the immediate sphere of
   Benedict's legislation, even in the remote fastnesses, for
   instance of Mount Athos, who, by preserving and transcribing
   ancient manuscripts, both Christian and pagan, as well as by
   recording his observations of contemporaneous events, was
   handing down the torch of knowledge unquenched to future
   generations, and hoarding up stores of erudition for the
   researches of a more enlightened age. The first musicians,
   painters, farmers, statesmen, in Europe, after the downfall of
   Imperial Rome under the onslaught of the barbarians, were
   monks."

      _I. Gregory Smith,
      Christian Monasticism,
      introduction._

   "The monastic stream, which had been born in the deserts of
   Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in
   the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and
   lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread
   itself by a thousand channels over an entire world which had
   to be covered and fertilised." Athanasius, who was driven
   twice by persecution to take refuge among the hermits in the
   Thebaid, Egypt, and who was three times exiled by an imperial
   order to the West, "became thus the natural link between the
   Fathers of the desert and those vast regions which their
   successors were to conquer and transform. … It was in 340
   that he came for the first time to Rome, in order to escape
   the violence of the Arians, and invoke the protection of Pope
   Julius. … He spread in Rome the first report of the life led
   by the monks in the Thebaid, of the marvellous exploits of
   Anthony, who was still alive, of the immense foundations which
   Pacome was at that time forming upon the banks of the higher
   Nile. He had brought with him two of the most austere of these
   monks. … The narratives of Athanasius … roused the hearts
   and imaginations of the Romans, and especially of the Roman
   women. The name of monk, to which popular prejudice seems
   already to have attached a kind of ignominy, became
   immediately an honoured and envied title. The impression
   produced at first by the exhortations of the illustrious
   exile, was extended and strengthened during the two other
   visits which he made to the Eternal City. Some time
   afterwards, on the death of St. Anthony, Athanasius, at the
   request of his disciples, wrote the life of the patriarch of
   the Thebaid; and this biography, circulating through all the
   West, immediately acquired there the popularity of a legend,
   and the authority of a confession of faith. … Under this
   narrative form, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, he promulgated
   the laws of monastic life. The town and environs of Rome were
   soon full of monasteries, rapidly occupied by men
   distinguished alike by birth, fortune and knowledge, who lived
   there in charity, sanctity, and freedom. From Rome the new
   institution, already distinguished by the name of religion, or
   religious life, par excellence, extended itself over all
   Italy. It was planted at the foot of the Alps by the influence
   of a great bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli. … From the
   continent the new institution rapidly gained the isles of the
   Mediterranean, and even the rugged rocks of the Gargon and of
   Capraja, where the monks, voluntarily exiled from the world,
   went to take the place of the criminals and political victims
   whom the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither. …
   Most of the great leaders of the cenobitical institution had,
   since St. Pacome, made out, under the name of Rule,
   instructions and constitutions for the use of their immediate
   disciples; but none of these works had acquired an extensive
   or lasting sway. In the East, it is true, the rule of St.
   Basil had prevailed in a multitude of monasteries, yet
   notwithstanding Cassianus, in visiting Egypt, Palestine, and
   Mesopotamia, found there almost as many different rules as
   there were monasteries.
{2197}
   In the West the diversity was still more strange. Each man
   made for himself his own rule and discipline, taking his
   authority from the writings or example of the Eastern Fathers.
   The Gauls especially exclaimed against the extreme rigour of
   the fasts and abstinences, which might be suitable under a
   fervid sky like that of Egypt or Syria, but which could not be
   endured by what they already called Gallican weakness; and
   even in the initial fervour of the monasteries of the Jura,
   they had succeeded in imposing a necessary medium upon their
   chiefs. Here it was the changing will of an abbot; there a
   written rule; elsewhere, the traditions of the elders, which
   determined the order of conventual life. In some houses
   various rules were practised at the same time, according to
   the inclination of the inhabitants of each cell, and were
   changed according to the times and places. They passed thus
   from excessive austerity to laxness, and conversely, according
   to the liking of each. Uncertainty and instability were
   everywhere. … A general arrangement was precisely what was
   most wanting in monastic life. There were an immense number of
   monks; there had been among them saints and illustrious men;
   but to speak truly, the monastic order had still no existence.
   Even where the rule of St. Basil had acquired the necessary
   degree of establishment and authority—that is to say, in a
   considerable portion of the East—the gift of fertility was
   denied to it. … In the West also, towards the end of the
   fifth century, the cenobitical institution seemed to have
   fallen into the torpor and sterility of the East. After St.
   Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Augustine, who died in 430,
   after the Fathers of Lerins, whose splendour paled towards
   450, there was a kind of eclipse. … Except in Ireland and
   Gaul, where, in most of the provinces, some new foundations
   rose, a general interruption was observable in the extension
   of the institution. … If this eclipse had lasted, the
   history of the monks of the West would only have been, like
   that of the Eastern monks, a sublime but brief passage in the
   annals of the Church, instead of being their longest and
   best-filled page. This was not to be: but to keep the promises
   which the monastic order had made to the Church and to the
   new-born Christendom, it needed, at the beginning of the sixth
   century, a new and energetic impulse, such as would
   concentrate and discipline so many scattered, irregular, and
   intermittent forces; a uniform and universally accepted rule;
   a legislator inspired by the fertile and glorious past, to
   establish and govern the future. God provided for that
   necessity by sending St. Benedict into the world."

      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      volume 1, pages 381-387 and 512-515._

   "The very word monastery is a misnomer: the word is a Greek
   word, and means the dwelling-place of a solitary person,
   living in seclusion. … In the 13th century … a monastery
   meant what we now understand it to mean—viz., the abode of a
   society of men or women who lived together in common—who were
   supposed to partake of common meals; to sleep together in one
   common dormitory; to attend certain services together in their
   common church; to transact certain business or pursue certain
   employments in the sight and hearing of each other in the
   common cloister; and, when the end came, to be laid side by
   side in the common graveyard, where in theory none but members
   of the order could find a resting-place for their bones. When
   I say 'societies of men and women' I am again reminded that
   the other term, 'convent,' has somehow got to be used commonly
   in a mistaken sense. People use the word as if it signified a
   religious house tenanted exclusively by women. The truth is
   that a convent is nothing more than a Latin name for an
   association of persons who have come together with a view to
   live for a common object and to submit to certain rules in the
   ordering of their daily lives. The monastery was the common
   dwelling-place; the convent was the society of persons
   inhabiting it; and the ordinary formula used when a body of
   monks or nuns execute any corporate act—such as buying or
   selling land—by any legal instrument is, 'The Prior and
   Convent of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Norwich;' 'the
   Abbot and Convent of the Monastery of St. Peter's,
   Westminster;' 'the Abbess and Convent of the Monastery of St.
   Mary and St. Bernard at Lacock,' and so on. … A monastery in
   theory then was, as it was called, a Religious House. It was
   supposed to be the home of people whose lives were passed in
   the worship of God, and in taking care of their own souls, and
   making themselves fit for a better world than this hereafter.
   … The church of a monastery was the heart of the place. It
   was not that the church was built for the monastery, but the
   monastery existed for the church. … Almost as essential to
   the idea of a monastery as the church was the cloister or
   great quadrangle, inclosed on all sides by the high walls of
   the monastic buildings. … All round this quadrangle ran a
   covered arcade, whose roof, leaning against the high walls,
   was supported on the inner side by an open trellis work in
   stone—often exhibiting great beauty of design and
   workmanship—through which light and air was admitted into
   the arcade. … The cloister was really the living place of
   the monks. Here they pursued their daily avocations, here they
   taught their school. … 'But surely a monk always lived in a
   cell, didn't he?' The sooner we get rid of that delusion the
   better. Be it understood that until Henry II. founded the
   Carthusian Abbey of Witham, in 1178, there was no such thing
   known in England as a monk's cell, as we understand the term.
   It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was
   first introduced it was regarded as a startling novelty for
   any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated
   in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour
   in England. … At the time of the Norman Conquest it may be
   said that all English monks were professedly under one and the
   same Rule—the famous Benedictine Rule. The Rule of a
   monastery was the constitution or code of laws, which
   regulated the discipline of the house, and the Rule of St.
   Benedict dates back as far as the 6th century, though it was
   not introduced into England for more than 100 years after it
   had been adopted elsewhere. … About 150 years before the
   Conquest, a great reformation had been attempted of the French
   monasteries, … the reformers breaking away from the old
   Benedictines and subjecting themselves to a new and improved
   Rule.
{2198}
   These first reformers were called Cluniac monks, from the
   great Abbey of Clugni, in Burgundy, in which the new order of
   things had begun. The first English house of reformed or
   Cluniac monks was founded at Lewes, in Sussex, 11 years after
   the Conquest. … The constitution of every convent, great or
   small, was monarchical. The head of the house was almost an
   absolute sovereign, and was called the Abbot. His dominions
   often extended, even in England, over a very wide tract of
   country, and sometimes over several minor monasteries which
   were called Cells. … The heads of these cells or subject
   houses were called Priors. An Abbey was a monastery which was
   independent. A priory was a monastery which in theory or in
   fact was subject to an abbey. All the Cluniac monasteries in
   England were thus said to be alien priories, because they were
   mere cells of the great Abbey of Clugni in France, to which
   each priory paid heavy tribute."

      _A. Jessopp,
      The Coming of the Friars,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquity of the Christ. Ch.,
      book 7, chapter 3, sections 11-14._

      _I. G. Smith,
      Christian Monasticism, 4-9th Centuries._

      See, also,
      CŒNOBIUM;
      LAURAS;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      BENEDICTINE;
      CISTERCIAN;
      CARMELITE,
      and AUSTIN CANONS.

MONASTERIES, The English, Suppression of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

MONASTIC LIBRARIES.

   See LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL.

MONASTIC ORDERS.

   See AUSTIN CANONS;
   BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
   CAPUCHINS;
   CARMELITE FRIARS;
   CARTHUSIAN;
   CISTERCIAN;
   CLAIRVAUX;
   CLUGNY;
   MENDICANT ORDERS;
   RECOLLECTS;
   SERVITES;
   THEATINES;
   TRAPPISTS.

MONÇON,
MONZON, Treaty of (1626).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONCONTOUR, Battle of (1569).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

   ----------MONEY AND BANKING: Start--------

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Nature and Origin of Money.

   "When the division of labour has been once thoroughly
   established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants
   which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies
   the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part
   of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his
   own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's
   labour us he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by
   exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the
   society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial
   society. But when the division of labour first began to take
   place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very
   much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we
   shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself
   has occasion for, while another has less. The former
   consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to
   purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter
   should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need
   of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more
   meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer
   and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part
   of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the
   different productions of their respective trades, and the
   butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which
   he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case,
   be made between them. … In order to avoid the inconveniency
   of such situations, every prudent man in every period of
   society, after the first establishment of the division of
   labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs
   in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the
   peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of
   some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people
   would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their
   industry. Many different commodities, it is probable, were
   successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In
   the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the
   common instrument of commerce; and, though they must have been
   a most inconvenient one, yet in old times we find things were
   frequently valued according to the number of cattle which had
   been given in exchange for them. The armour of Diomede, says
   Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an
   hundred oxen. Salt is said to be the common instrument of
   commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in
   some parts of the coasts of India; dried cod at Newfoundland;
   tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies;
   hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is
   at this day [1775] a village in Scotland where it is not
   uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of
   money to the baker's shop or the alehouse. In all countries,
   however, men seem at last to have been determined by
   irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this
   employment, to metals above every other commodity."

      _Adam Smith,
      Wealth of Nations,
      chapter 4, book 1 (volume 1)._

   "There is … no machine which has saved as much labor as
   money. … The invention of money has been rightly compared to
   the invention of writing with letters. We may, however, call
   the introduction of money as the universal medium of exchange
   … one of the greatest and most beneficent of advances ever
   made by the race. … Very different kinds of commodities
   have, according to circumstances, been used as money; but
   uniformly only such as possess a universally recognized
   economic value. On the whole, people in a low stage of
   civilization are wont to employ, mainly, only ordinary
   commodities, such as are calculated to satisfy a vulgar and
   urgent want, as an instrument of exchange. As they advance in
   civilization, they, at each step, choose a more and more
   costly object, for this purpose, and one which ministers to
   the more elevated wants. Races of hunters, at least in
   non-tropical countries, usually use skins as money; that is
   the almost exclusive product of their labor, one which can be
   preserved for a long period of time, which constitutes their
   principal article of clothing and their principal export in
   the more highly developed regions. Nomadic races and the lower
   agricultural races, pass, by a natural gradation, to the use of
   cattle as money; which supposes rich pasturages at the
   disposal of all.
{2199}
   If it were otherwise, there would be a great many to whom
   payments of this kind had been made, who would not know what
   to do with the cattle given them, on account of the charges
   for their maintenance. … That metals were used for the
   purpose of money much later than the commodities above
   mentioned, and the precious metals in turn later than the
   non-precious metals, cannot by any means be shown to be
   universally true. Rather is gold in some countries to be
   obtained by the exercise of so little skill, and both gold and
   silver satisfy a want so live and general, and one so early
   felt, that they are to be met with as an instrument of
   exchange in very early times. In the case of isolated races,
   much depends on the nature of the metals with which the
   geologic constitution of the country has furnished them. In
   general, however, the above law is found to prevail here. The
   higher the development of a people becomes, the more frequent
   is the occurrence of large payments; and to effect these, the
   more costly a metal is, the better, of course, it is adapted
   to effect such payments. Besides, only rich nations are able
   to possess the costly metals in a quantity absolutely great.
   Among the Jews, gold as money dates only from the time of
   David. King Pheidon, of Argos, it is said, introduced silver
   money into Greece, about the middle of the eighth century
   before Christ. Gold came into use at a much later period. The
   Romans struck silver money, for the first time, in 209 before
   Christ, and, in 207, the first gold coins. Among modern
   nations, Venice (1285) and Florence seem to have been the
   first to have coined gold in any quantity."

      _W. Roscher,
      Principles of Political Economy,
      book 2, chapter 3, sections 117-119 (volume 1)._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.

   "Money seems to us now so obvious a convenience, and so much a
   necessity of commerce, that it appears almost inconceivable
   that a people who created the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the
   temples of Ipsamboul and Karnac, should have been entirely
   ignorant of coins. Yet it appears from the statements of
   Herodotus, and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that
   this was really the case. As regards the commercial and
   banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely
   without information. Their standard of value seems to have
   been the 'outen' or 'ten' of copper (94-96 grammes), which
   circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in
   the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was
   obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as
   early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have
   been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were
   sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings,
   resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said
   to have been employed in Ireland down to the 12th century, and
   still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This
   approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it
   wanted what the Roman lawyers called 'the law' and 'the form.'
   Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any
   public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very
   inconvenient, but after all It is not very different from that
   which prevails in China even at the present day. The first
   money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the
   Greek and Phœnician merchants than of the natives, was by the
   Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in
   Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated
   as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken
   by weight and verified by the balance like any other
   merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which
   have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded
   us some interesting information as to the commercial
   arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a
   considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records
   relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed
   rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of
   land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, &c. These were
   engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M.
   Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five
   principal types:

      1. Simple obligations.
      2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment.
      One he gives which had 79 days to run.
      3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party.
      4. Obligations payable to a third person.
      5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. …

   These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of
   things could not pass by endorsement, because, when the clay
   was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these
   circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It
   seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It
   is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially
   letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The
   earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to
   be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are
   indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price.
   Several documents and records belonging to this family are in
   the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were
   discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighbourhood of
   Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have
   acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of
   the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib,
   about 700 B. C. This family has been traced during a century
   and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of
   Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated
   scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers,
   in our sense of the word."

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      The History of Money
      (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879)._

   "We have an enormous number of the documents of this firm,
   beginning with Nebuchadnezzar the Great, and going on for some
   five generations or so to the time of Darius. The tablets are
   dated month after month and year after year, and thus they
   afford us a sure method of fixing the chronology of that very
   uncertain period of history. There is a small contract tablet
   in the Museum at Zürich, discovered by Dr. Oppert, dated in
   the 5th year of Pacorus, king of Persia, who reigned about the
   time of Domitian. There is a little doubt about the reading of
   one of the characters in the name, but if it is correct, it
   will prove that the use of cuneiform did not fall into disuse
   until after the Christian Era. … Some have tried to show
   that Egibi is the Babylonian form of Jacob, which would lead
   one to suspect the family to have been Jews; but this is not
   certain at present."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      page 115._

{2200}

   "It is in the development of trade, and especially of banking,
   rather than in manufactures, that Babylonia and Chaldæa were
   in advance of all the rest of the world. The most cautious
   Assyriologists are the least confident in their renderings of
   the numerous contract tablets from which, if they were
   accurately interpreted, we should certainly be able to
   reconstruct the laws and usages of the world's first great
   market place. … The following account of Babylonian usages
   is derived from the text of M. Revillout's work. … It is
   confirmed in essentials by the later work of Meissner, who has
   translated over one hundred deeds of the age of Hammurabi and
   his successors. In Chaldæa every kind of commodity, from land
   to money, circulated with a freedom that is unknown to modern
   commerce; every value was negotiable, and there was no limit
   to the number and variety of the agreements that might be
   entered into. … Brick tablets did not lend themselves
   readily to 'bookkeeping,' as no further entry could be made
   after baking, while the first entry was not secure unless
   baked at once. Each brick recorded one transaction, and was
   kept by the party interested till the contract was completed,
   and the destruction of the tablet was equivalent to a receipt.
   Babylonian law allowed debts to be paid by assigning another
   person's debt to the creditor; a debt was property, and could
   be assigned without reference to the debtor, so that any
   formal acknowledgment of indebtedness could be treated like a
   negotiable bill—a fact which speaks volumes for the
   commercial honesty of the people. A separate tablet was, of
   course, required to record the original debt, or rather to say
   that So-and-so's debt to Such-an-one has been by him sold to a
   third party. Such third party could again either assign his
   claim to a bank for a consideration, or if the last debtor had
   a credit at the bank, the creditor could be paid out of that,
   a sort of forecast of the modern clearing-house system. The
   debtor who pays before the term agreed on has to receive a
   formal surrender of the creditor's claim, or a transfer of it
   to himself. The Babylonian regarded money and credit as
   synonymous, and the phrase, 'Money of Such-an-one upon
   So-and-so,' is used as equivalent to A's credit with B. … In
   ancient Babylonia, as in modern China, the normal effect of a
   loan was supposed to be beneficial to the borrower. In Egypt,
   judging from the form of the deeds, the idea was that the
   creditor asserted a claim upon the debtor, or the debtor
   acknowledged a liability to the man from whom he had borrowed.
   In Babylonia the personal question is scarcely considered; one
   person owes money to another—that is the commonest thing in
   the world—such loans are in a chronic state of being incurred
   and paid off; one man's debt is another man's credit, and
   credit being the soul of commerce, the loan is considered
   rather as a part of the floating negotiable capital of the
   country than as a burden on the shoulders of one particular
   debtor."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, pages 320-322._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   China.

   "Not only did the Chinese possess coins at a very early
   period, but they were also the inventors of bank notes. Some
   writers regard bank notes as having originated about 119 B.
   C., in the reign of the Emperor Ou-ti. At this time the Court
   was in want of money, and to raise it Klaproth tells us that
   the prime minister hit upon the following device. When any
   princess or courtiers entered the imperial presence, it was
   customary to cover the face with a piece of skin. It was first
   decreed then, that for this purpose the skin of certain white
   deer kept in one of the royal parks should alone be permitted,
   and then these pieces of skin were sold for a high price. But
   although they appear to have passed from one noble to another,
   they do not seem ever to have entered into general
   circulation. It was therefore very different from the Russian
   skin money. In this case the notes were 'used instead of the
   skins from which they were cut, the skins themselves being too
   bulky and heavy to be constantly carried backward and forward.
   Only a little piece was cut off to figure as a token of
   possession of the whole skin. The ownership was proved when
   the piece fitted in the hole.' True bank notes are said to
   have been invented about 800 A. D., in the reign of
   Hiantsoung, of the dynasty of Thang, and were called
   'feytsien,' or flying money. It is curious, however, though
   not surprising, to find that the temptation to over-issue led
   to the same results in China as in the West. The value of the
   notes fell, until at length it took 11,000 min, or £3,000, to
   buy a cake of rice, and the use of notes appears to have been
   abandoned. Subsequently the issue was revived, and Tchang-yang
   (960-990 A. D.) seems to have been the first private person
   who issued notes. Somewhat later, under the Emperor
   'Tching-tsong (997-1022), this invention was largely extended.
   Sixteen of the richest firms united to form a bank of issue
   which emitted paper money in series, some payable every three
   years. The earliest mention, in European literature, of paper,
   or rather cotton, money appears to be by Rubruquis, a monk,
   who was sent by St. Louis, in the year 1252, to the Court of
   the Mongol Prince Mangu-Khan, but he merely mentions the fact
   of its existence. Marco Polo, who resided from 1275 to 1284 at
   the court of Kublai-Khan, … gives us a longer and
   interesting account of the note system, which he greatly
   admired, and he concludes by saying, 'Now you have heard the
   ways and means whereby the great Khan may have, and, in fact,
   has, more treasure than all the kings in the world. You know
   all about it, and the reason why.' But this apparent facility
   of creating money led, in the East, as it has elsewhere, to
   great abuses. Sir John Mandeville, who was in Tartary shortly
   afterwards, in 1322, tells us that the 'Emperour may dispenden
   als moehe as he wile with outen estymacioum. For he despendeth
   not, ne maketh no money, but of lether emprented, or of
   papyre. … For there and beyonde hem thei make no money,
   nouther of gold nor of sylver. And therefore he may despende
   ynow and outrageously.' The great Khan seems to have been
   himself of the same opinion. He appears to have 'despent
   outrageously,' and the value of the paper money again fell to
   a very small fraction of its nominal amount, causing great
   discontent and misery, until about the middle of the sixteenth
   century, under the Mandchu dynasty, it was abolished, and
   appears to have been so completely forgotten, that the Jesuit
   father, Gabriel de Magaillans, who resided at Pekin about
   1668, observes that there is no recollection of paper money
   having ever existed in the manner described by Marco Polo;
   though two centuries later it was again in use. It must be
   observed, however, that these Chinese bank notes differed from
   ours in one essential—namely, they were not payable at sight.
{2201}
   Western notes, even when not payable at all, have generally
   purported to be exchangeable at the will of the holder, but
   this principle the Chinese did not adopt, and their notes were
   only payable at certain specified periods."

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      The History of Money
      (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Vissering,
      On Chinese Currency._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Coinage in its Beginnings.

   "Many centuries before the invention of the art of coining,
   gold and silver in the East, and bronze in the West, in
   bullion form, had already supplanted barter, the most
   primitive of all methods of buying and selling, when among
   pastoral peoples the ox and the sheep were the ordinary
   mediums of exchange. The very word 'pecunia' is an evidence of
   this practice in Italy at a period which is probably recent in
   comparison with the time when values were estimated in cattle
   in Greece and the East. 'So far as we have any knowledge,'
   says Herodotus, 'the Lydians were the first nation to
   introduce the use of gold and silver coin.' This statement of
   the father of history must not, however, be accepted as
   finally settling the vexed question as to who were the
   inventors of coined money, for Strabo, Aelian, and the Parian
   Chronicle, all agree in adopting the more commonly received
   tradition, that Pheidon, King of Argos, first struck silver
   coins in the island of Aegina. These two apparently
   contradictory assertions modern research tends to reconcile
   with one another. The one embodies the Asiatic, the other the
   European tradition; and the truth of the matter is that gold
   was first coined by the Lydians in Asia Minor, in the seventh
   century before our era; and that silver was first struck in
   European Greece about the same time. The earliest coins are
   simply bullets of metal, oval or bean-shaped, bearing on one
   side the signet of the state or of the community responsible
   for the purity of the metal and the exactness of the weight.
   Coins were at first stamped on one side only, the reverse
   showing merely the impress of the square-headed spike or anvil
   on which, after being weighed, the bullet of hot metal was
   placed with a pair of tongs and there held while a second
   workman adjusted upon it the engraved die. This done, a third
   man with a heavy hammer would come down upon it with all his
   might, and the coin would be produced, bearing on its face or
   obverse the seal of the issuer, and on the reverse only the
   mark of the anvil spike, an incuse square. This simple process
   was after a time improved upon by adding a second engraved die
   beneath the metal bullet, so that a single blow of the
   sledge-hammer would provide the coin with a type, as it is
   called, in relief on both sides. The presence of the
   unengraved incuse square may therefore be accepted as an
   indication of high antiquity, and nearly all Greek coins which
   are later than the age of the Persian wars bear a type on both
   sides. … Greek coin-types may be divided into two distinct
   classes:

   (a) Mythological or religious representations, and
   (b) portraits of historical persons.

   From the earliest times down to the age of Alexander the Great
   the types of Greek coins are almost exclusively religious.
   However strange this may seem at first, it is not difficult to
   explain. It must be borne in mind that when the enterprising
   and commercial Lydians first lighted upon the happy idea of
   stamping metal for general circulation, a guarantee of just
   weight and purity of metal would be the one condition
   required. … What more binding guarantee could be found than
   the invocation of one or other of those divinities most
   honoured and most dreaded in the district in which the coin
   was intended to circulate. There is even good reason to think
   that the earliest coins were actually struck within the
   precincts of the temples, and under the direct auspices of the
   priests; for in times of general insecurity by sea and land,
   the temples alone remained sacred and inviolate."

      _B. V. Head,
      Greek Coins
      Coins and Medals, edited by S. Lane-Poole, chapter 2._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Early Banking.

   "The banker's calling is both new and old. As a distinct
   branch of commerce, and a separate agent in the advancement of
   civilisation, its history hardly extends over 300 years; but,
   in a rude and undeveloped sort of way, it has existed during
   some dozens of centuries. It began almost with the beginning
   of society. No sooner had men learnt to adopt a portable and
   artificial equivalent for their commodities, and thus to buy
   and sell and get gain more easily, than the more careful of
   them began to gather up their money in little heaps, or in
   great heaps, if they were fortunate enough. These heaps were,
   by the Romans, called montes—mounds, or banks,—and
   henceforth every money-maker was a primitive banker. The
   prudent farmers and shopkeepers in the out-of-the-way
   villages, who now lock up their savings in strong boxes, or
   conceal them in places where they are least likely to be found
   by thieves, show us how the richest and most enterprising men
   of far-off times, whether in Anglo-Saxon or mediæval Britain,
   ancient Greece and Rome, China or Judæa, made banks for
   themselves before the great advantages of joint-stock heaping
   up of money were discovered. When and in what precise way that
   discovery was made antiquarians have yet to decide. …
   Perhaps Jews and Greeks set the example to the modern world.
   Every rich Athenian had his treasurer or money-keeper, and
   whenever any particular treasurer proved himself a good
   accountant and safe banker, it is easy to understand how, from
   having one master, he came to have several, until he was able
   to change his condition of slavery for the humble rank of a
   freedman, and then to use his freedom to such good purpose
   that he became an influential member of the community. Having
   many people's money, entrusted to his care, he received good
   payment for his responsible duty, and he quickly learned to
   increase his wealth by lending out his own savings, if not his
   employers' capital, at the highest rate of interest that he
   could obtain. The Greek bankers were chiefly famous as
   money-lenders, and interest at thirty-six per cent. per annum
   was not considered unusually exorbitant among them. For their
   charges they were often blamed by spendthrifts, satirists, and
   others. 'It is said,' complains Plutarch, 'that hares bring
   forth and nourish their young at the same time that they
   conceive again; but the debts of these scoundrels and savages
   bring forth before they conceive, for they give and
   immediately demand again; they take away their money at the
   same time as they put it out; they place at interest what they
   receive as interest. The Messenians have a proverb: "There is
   a Pylos before Pylos, and yet another Pylos still."
{2202}
   So of the usurers it may be said, "There is a profit before
   profit, and yet another profit still;" and then, forsooth,
   they laugh at philosophers, who say that nothing can come out
   of nothing!' The Greek bankers and money-lenders, those of
   Delos and Delphi especially, are reported to have used the
   temples as treasure-houses, and to have taken the priests into
   partnership in their money-making. Some arrangement of that
   sort seems to have existed among the Jews, and to have aroused
   the anger of Jesus when he went into the Temple of Jerusalem,
   'and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and said unto
   them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of
   prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' Bankers' or
   money-changers' tables were famous institutions all over the
   civilised world of the ancients. Livy tells how, in 308 B. C.,
   if not before, they were to be found in the Roman Forum, and
   later Latin authors make frequent allusions to banking
   transactions of all sorts. They talk of deposits and
   securities, bills of exchange and drafts to order, cheques and
   bankers' books, as glibly as a modern merchant. But these
   things were nearly forgotten during the dark ages, until the
   Jews, true to the money-making propensities that characterised
   them while they still had a country of their own, set the
   fashion of money-making and of banking in all the countries of
   Europe through which they were dispersed."

      _H. R. Fox Bourne,
      Romance of Trade,
      chapter 4._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Ancient Greece.

   "Oriental contact first stirred the 'auri sacra fames' in the
   Greek mind. That this was so the Greek language itself tells
   plainly. For 'chrusos,' gold, is a Semitic loan-word, closely
   related to the Hebrew 'charuz,' but taken immediately, there
   can be no reasonable doubt, from the Phœnician. The restless
   treasure-seekers from Tyre were, indeed, as the Græco-Semitic
   term metal intimates, the original subterranean explorers of
   the Balkan peninsula. As early, probably, as the 15th century
   B. C. they 'digged out ribs of gold' on the islands of Thasos
   and Siphnos, and on the Thracian mainland at Mount Pangæum;
   and the fables of the Golden Fleece, and of Arimaspian wars
   with gold-guarding griffins, prove the hold won by the
   'precious bane' over the popular imagination. Asia Minor was,
   however, the chief source of prehistoric supply, the native
   mines lying long neglected after the Phœnicians had been
   driven from the scene. Midas was a typical king in a land
   where the mountains were gold-granulated, and the rivers ran
   over sands of gold. And it was in fact from Phrygia that
   Pelops was traditionally reported to have brought the
   treasures which made Mycenæ the golden city of the Achæan
   world. The Epic affluence in gold was not wholly fictitious.
   From the sepulchres of Mycenæ alone about one hundred pounds
   Troy weight of the metal have been disinterred; freely at
   command even in the lowest stratum of the successive
   habitations at Hissarlik, it was lavishly stored, and highly
   wrought in the picturesquely-named 'treasure of Priam'; and
   has been found, in plates and pearls, beneath twenty metres of
   volcanic debris, in the Cyclatic islands Thera and Therapia.
   This plentifulness contrasts strangely with the extreme
   scarcity of gold in historic Greece. It persisted, however,
   mainly owing to the vicinity of the auriferous Ural Mountains,
   in the Milesian colony of Panticapæum, near Kertch, where
   graves have been opened containing corpses shining 'like
   images' in a complete clothing of gold-leaf, and equipped with
   ample supplies of golden vessels and ornaments. Silver was, at
   the outset, a still rarer substance than gold. Not that there
   is really less of it. … But it occurs less obviously, and is
   less easy to obtain pure. Accordingly, in some very early
   Egyptian inscriptions, silver, by heading the list of metals,
   claims a supremacy over them which proved short-lived. It
   terminated for ever with the scarcity that had produced it,
   when the Phœnicians began to pour the flood of Spanish silver
   into the markets and treasure-chambers of the East. Armenia
   constituted another tolerably copious source of supply; and it
   was in this quarter that Homer located the 'birth-place of
   silver.'"

      _A. M. Clerke,
      Familiar Studies in Homer,
      chapter 10._

   "Taken as a whole the Greek money is excellent; pure in metal
   and exact in weight, its real corresponding to its nominal
   value. Nothing better has been done in this way among the most
   civilized and best governed nations of modern times. There is,
   indeed, always a certain recognized limit, which keeps the
   actual weight of the money slightly below its theoretical
   weight; and this fact recurs with such regularity that it may
   be regarded as a rule. We must conclude, therefore, that it
   was under this form that Greek civilization allowed to the
   coiner of money the right of seigniorage, or the benefit
   legitimately due to him to cover the expenses of the coinage,
   and in exchange for the service rendered by him to the public
   in providing them with money, by which they were saved the
   trouble of perpetual weighing. This allowance, however, is
   always kept within very narrow limits, and is never more than
   the excess of the natural value of the coined money over that
   of the metal in ingots. … Of course, the general and
   predominant fact of the excellence of the Greek money in the
   time of Hellenic independence is subject, like all human
   things, to some exceptions. There were a few cities which
   yielded to the delusive bait of an unlawful advantage,
   debasing the quality of their coins without foreseeing that
   the consequences of this unfair operation would react against
   themselves. But these exceptions are very rare."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
      (Contemporary Review, February; 1879)._

   "The quantity, particularly of gold, … was, in the earlier
   historical periods, according to unexceptionable testimony,
   extremely small. In the time of Crœsus, according to
   Theopompus, gold was not to be found for sale in any of the
   Greek States. The Spartans, needing some for a votive
   offering, wished to purchase a quantity from Crœsus;
   manifestly because he was the nearest person from whom it
   could be obtained. … Even during the period from the
   seventieth to the eightieth Olympiads, (B. C. 500-460,) pure
   gold was a rarity. When Hiero of Syracuse wished to send a
   tripod and a statue of the Goddess of Victory, made of pure
   gold, to the Delphian Apollo, he could not procure the
   requisite quantity of metal until his agents applied to the
   Corinthian Architiles, who, as was related by the
   above-mentioned Theopompus and Phanias of Eresus, had long
   been in the practice of purchasing gold in small quantities,
   and hoarding it. Greece proper itself did not possess many
   mines of precious metals. The most important of the few which
   it possessed were the Attic silver mines of Laurion.
{2203}
   These were at first very productive. … Asia and Africa
   furnished incomparably a larger quantity of the precious
   metals than was procured in Greece and the other European
   countries. … Colchis, Lydia, and Phrygia, were distinguished
   for their abundance of gold. Some derive the tradition of the
   golden fleece from the gold washings in Colchis. Who has not
   heard of the riches of Midas, and Gyges, and Crœsus, the gold
   mines of the mountains Tmolus and Sipylus, the gold-sand of
   the Pactolus? … From the very productive gold mines of
   India, together with its rivers flowing with gold, among which
   in particular the Ganges may be classed, arose the fable of
   the gold-digging ants. From these annual revenues the royal
   treasure was formed. By this a great quantity of precious
   metal was kept from circulation. It was manifestly their
   principle to coin only as much gold and silver as was
   necessary for the purposes of trade, and for the expenditures
   of the State. In Greece, also, great quantities were kept from
   circulation, and accumulated in treasuries. There were locked
   up in the citadel of Athens 9,700 talents of coined silver,
   besides the gold and silver vessels and utensils. The Delphian
   god possessed a great number of the most valuable articles.
   … The magnificent expenditures of Pericles upon public
   edifices and structures, for works of the plastic arts, for
   theatrical exhibitions, and in carrying on wars, distributed
   what Athens had collected, into many hands. The temple-robbing
   Phocians coined from the treasures at Delphi ten thousand
   talents in gold and silver; and this large sum was consumed by
   war. Philip of Macedonia, in fine, carried on his wars as much
   with gold as with arms. Thus a large amount of money came into
   circulation in the period between the commencement of the
   Persian wars and the age of Demosthenes. The precious metals,
   therefore, must of necessity have depreciated in value, as
   they did at a later period, when Constantine the Great caused
   money to be coined from the precious articles found in the
   heathen temples. But what a quantity of gold and silver flowed
   through Alexander's conquest of Asia into the western
   countries! Allowing that his historians exaggerate, the main
   point, however, remains certain. … Alexander's successors
   not only collected immense sums, but by their wars again put
   them into circulation. … The enormous taxes which were
   raised in the Macedonian kingdoms, the revelry and extravagant
   liberality of the kings, which passed all bounds, indicate the
   existence of an immense amount of ready money."

      _A. Boeckh,
      The Public Economy of the Athenians,
      book 1, chapter 3._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Phœnicia.

   "Nearly all the silver in common use for trade throughout the
   East was brought into the market by the Phœnicians. The silver
   mines were few and distant; the trade was thus a monopoly,
   worth keeping so by the most savage treatment of suspected
   rivals, and, as a monopoly, so lucrative that, but for the
   long and costly voyage between Spain and Syria, the merchant
   would have seemed to get his profit for nothing. … The use
   of silver money, though it did not originate with the
   Phœnicians, was no doubt promoted by their widespread
   dealings. The coins were always of known weight, and standing
   in a well-known relation to the bars used for large
   transactions."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, page 400._

   "It is a curious fact that coinage in Phoenicia, one of the
   most commercial of ancient countries, should have been late in
   origin, and apparently not very plentiful. There are, in fact,
   no coins of earlier period than the third century which we can
   with certainty attribute to the great cities of Tyre and
   Sidon. Some modern writers, however, consider that many of the
   coins generally classed under Persia—notably those bearing
   the types of a chariot, a galley, and an owl respectively—
   were issued by those cities in the 5th and 4th centuries B. C.
   But it is certain, in any case, that the Phoenicians were far
   behind the Greeks in the art of moneying. With the invasion of
   Persia by Alexander the Great came a great change; and all the
   ancient landmarks of Asiatic government and order were swept
   away. During the life of Alexander the Great the coins bearing
   his name and his types circulated throughout Asia; and after
   his death the same range of currency was attained by the money
   of the early Seleucid Kings of Syria—Seleucis I., Antiochus
   I., and Antiochus II., who virtually succeeded to the
   dominions of the Persian Kings, and tried in many respects to
   carry on their policy. Of these monarchs we possess a splendid
   series of coins."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Coins and Medals,
      chapter 6._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   The Jews.

   "It would seem that, until the middle of the second century B.
   C., the Jews either weighed out gold and silver for the 'Price
   of goods, or else used the money usually current in Syria,
   that of Persia, Phoenicia, Athens, and the Seleucidae. Simon
   the Maccabee was the first to issue the Jewish shekel as a
   coin, and we learn from the Book of Maccabees that the
   privilege of striking was expressly granted him by King
   Antiochus VII. of Syria. We possess shekels of years 1-5 of
   the deliverance of Zion; the types are a chalice and a triple
   flower. The kings who succeeded Simon, down to Antigonus,
   confined themselves to the issue of copper money, with Hebrew
   legends and with types calculated not to shock the susceptible
   feelings of their people, to whom the representation of a
   living thing was abominable—such types as a lily, a palm, a
   star, or an anchor. When the Herodian family came in, several
   violations of this rule appear."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Coins and Medals,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. C. Williamson,
      The Money of the Bible._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Rome.

   "In Rome the generic terms for money seem to have been
   successively, pecunia, As, nummns, and moneta. … Moneta …
   is derived from the name of the temple in which, or in a
   building to or next to which the money of Rome was coined
   after the defeat of Pyrrhus, B. a. 275, more probably after
   the capture of Tarentum by the Romans, B. C. 272. It probably
   did not come into use until after the era of Scipio, and then
   was only used occasionally until the period of the Empire,
   when it and its derivatives became more common. Nummus,
   nevertheless, continued to hold its ground until towards the
   decline of the Empire, when it went entirely out of use, and
   moneta and its derivatives usurped its place, which it has
   continued to hold ever since. Moneta is therefore
   substantially a term of the Dark Ages. … The idea associated
   with moneta is coins, whose value was derived mainly from that
   of the material of which they were composed; whilst the idea
   associated with nummus is a system of symbols whose value was
   derived from legal limitation.
{2204}
   From the fact that our language sprang from the Dark Ages, we
   have no generic word for money other than moneta, which only
   relates to one kind of money. For a similar reason, the
   comparative newness of the English tongue, we have no word for
   a piece of money except coin, which, properly speaking, only
   relates to one kind of piece, namely, that which is struck by
   the cuneus."

      _A. Del Mar,
      History of Money in Ancient Countries,
      chapter 28._

   The extent and energy of the Roman traffic, in the great age
   of the Republic, during the third and second centuries before
   Christ, "may be traced most distinctly by means of coins and
   monetary relations. The Roman denarius kept pace with the
   Roman legions. … The Sicilian mints—last of all that of
   Syracuse in 542—were closed or at any rate restricted to
   small money in consequence of the Roman conquest, and … in
   Sicily and Sardinia the denarius obtained legal circulation at
   least side by side with the older silver currency and probably
   very soon became the exclusive legal tender. With equal if not
   greater rapidity the Roman silver coinage penetrated into
   Spain, where the great silver-mines existed and there was
   virtually no earlier national coinage; at a very early period
   the Spanish towns even began to coin after the Roman standard.
   On the whole, as Carthage coined only to a very limited
   extent, there existed not a single important mint in addition
   to that of Rome in the region of the western Mediterranean,
   with the exception of the mint of Massilia and perhaps also of
   those of the Illyrian Greeks at Apollonia and Epidamnus.
   Accordingly, when the Romans began to establish themselves in
   the region of the Po, these mints were about 225 subjected to
   the Roman standard in such a way, that, while they retained
   the right of coining silver, they uniformly—and the
   Massiliots in particular—were led to adjust their drachma to
   the weight of the Roman three-quarter denarius, which the
   Roman government on its part began to coin, primarily for the
   use of upper Italy, under the name of the 'piece of Victory'
   (victoriatus). This new system, based on the Roman, prevailed
   throughout the Massiliot, Upper Italian, and Illyrian
   territories; and these coins even penetrated into the
   barbarian lands on the north, those of Massilia, for instance,
   into the Alpine districts along the whole basin of the Rhone,
   and those of Illyria as far as the modern Transylvania. The
   eastern half of the Mediterranean was not yet reached by the
   Roman money, as it had not yet fallen under the direct
   sovereignty of Rome; but its place was filled by gold, the
   true and natural medium for international and transmarine
   commerce. It is true that the Roman government, in conformity
   with its strictly conservative character, adhered—with the
   exception of a temporary coinage of gold occasioned by the
   financial embarrassment during the Hannibalic war—steadfastly
   to the rule of coining silver only in addition to the
   national-Italian copper; but commerce had already assumed such
   dimensions, that it was able in the absence of money to
   conduct its transactions with gold by weight. Of the sum in
   cash, which lay in the Roman treasury in 597, scarcely a sixth
   was coined or uncoined silver, five-sixths consisted of gold
   in bars, and beyond doubt the precious metals were found in
   all the chests of the larger Roman capitalists in
   substantially similar proportions. Already therefore gold held
   the first place in great transactions; and, as may be inferred
   from this fact, the preponderance of traffic was maintained
   with foreign lands, and particularly with the East, which
   since the times of Philip and Alexander the Great had adopted
   a gold currency. The whole gain from these immense
   transactions of the Roman capitalists flowed in the long run
   to Rome. … The moneyed superiority of Rome as compared with
   the rest of the civilized world was, accordingly, quite as
   decided as its political and military ascendancy. Rome in this
   respect stood towards other countries somewhat as the England
   of the present day stands towards the continent."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 12 (volume 2)._

   In the later years of the Roman Republic the coinage became
   debased and uncertain. "Cæsar restored the public credit by
   issuing good money, such as had not been seen in Rome for a
   length of time, money of pure metal and exact weight; with
   scarcely any admixture of plated pieces, money which could
   circulate for its real value, and this measure became one of
   the principal sources of his popularity. Augustus followed his
   example, but at the same time took away from the Senate the
   right of coining gold and silver, reserving this exclusively
   to the imperial authority, which was to exercise it absolutely
   without control. From this time we find the theory that the
   value of money is arbitrary, and depends solely on the will of
   the sovereign who issues it, more and more widely and
   tenaciously held. … The faith placed in the official impress
   fostered the temptation to abuse it. … In less than a
   century the change of the money of the State into imperial
   money, and the theory that its value arose from its bearing
   the effigy of the sovereign, produced a system of adulteration
   of specie, which went on growing to the very close of the
   Empire, and which the successors of Augustus utilized largely
   for the indulgence of their passions and their prodigality."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
      (Contemporary Review, February, 1879)._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Mediæval Money and Banking.

   As regards the monetary system of the Middle Ages, the
   precious metals, when uncoined, were weighed by the pound and
   half pound or mark, for which different standards were in use,
   the most generally recognised being those of Troyes and
   Cologne. Of coined money there existed a perplexing variety,
   which made it almost impossible to ascertain the relative
   value, not only of different coins, but of the same coin of
   different issues. This resulted from the emperor or king
   conferring the right of coinage upon various lords spiritual
   and temporal, from whom it was ultimately acquired by
   individual towns. The management was in most cases entrusted
   to a company, temporary or permanent, inspected by an
   official, the coin-tester, originally appointed by the
   sovereign, but afterwards by the company, and confirmed by the
   king or bishop. The house where the process of coining was
   performed was called the mint, and the company who held the
   rights of coinage in fee was known as the Mint House Company,
   or simply the House Company. Very generally the office was
   held by the Corporation of Goldsmiths. The want of perfect
   supervision led to great debasement of the currency,
   especially in Germany and France; but in England and Italy the
   standard was tolerably well maintained.
{2205}
   Payments in silver were much more common than in gold. Before
   the Crusades the only gold coins known in Europe were the
   Byzantine solides, the Italian tari, and Moorish maurabotini.
   The solidi, which were originally of 23 to 23½ carat gold, but
   subsequently very much deteriorated, were reckoned as equal to
   twelve silver denars. They passed current in Southern and
   Eastern Europe, Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Prussia. …
   Solde, sol, and sou are only repeated transformations of the
   name of the coin, which have been accompanied by still greater
   changes in its value. The tari or tarentini derived its name
   from the Italian town where it was originally struck. It was
   less generally known than the solides, and was equal to
   one-fourth the latter in value. The maurabotini or sarazens
   were only of 15 carats gold. The name survives in the Spanish
   maravedi, which, however, like the sou, is now made of copper
   instead of gold. In the thirteenth century augustals,
   florentines, and ducats, or zecchins (sequins), were coined in
   Italy. The first-mentioned, the weight of which was half an
   ounce, were named in honour of Frederick II., who was Roman
   Cæsar and Augustus in 1252. The florentines, also known as
   gigliati, or lilies, from the arms of Florence, which they
   bore on one side, with the effigy of John the Baptist on the
   reverse, were of fine gold and lighter than the solidi, about
   64 being reckoned equal to the mark. The ducats or zecchins
   were of Venetian origin, receiving their first name from the
   Duca or Doge, and the other from the Zecca or Mint House. They
   were somewhat less in value than the florentines, 66 or 67
   being counted to the fine mark. Nearly equivalent in value to
   these Italian coins were the gold guilders coined in the
   fourteenth century in Hungary and the Rhine regions. The
   Rhenish guilder was of 22½ or 23 carats fine, and in weight
   1/66; of a mark of Cologne. The silver guilder was of later
   production, and the name is now used as equivalent to florin.
   … In silver payments, the metal being usually nearly pure,
   it was common to compute by weight, coins and uncoined bullion
   being alike put into the scale, as is still the case in some
   Eastern countries. Hence the origin of the pound, livre, or
   mark. The most widely diffused silver coin was the denarius,
   which was, as in ancient Roman times, the 11/240 of a pound.
   The name pending or pennig, by which the denarius was known
   among the old Teutonic nations, seems to be connected with
   pendere, to weigh out or pay; as the other ancient Teutonic
   coin, the sceat, was with sceoton, to pay, a word which is
   preserved in the modern phrases 'scot free,' 'pay your scot.'
   … Half-pennies and farthings were not known in the earliest
   times, but the penny was deeply indented by two cross lines,
   which enabled it to be broken into quarters or farthings
   (feordings or fourthings). From the indented cross the
   denarius was known in Germany as the kreutzer. … With such a
   diversity of coinage, it was necessary to settle any
   mercantile transaction in the currency of the place. Not only
   would sellers have refused to accept money whose value was
   unknown to them, but in many places they were forbidden to do
   so by law. Merchants attending foreign markets therefore
   brought with them a quantity of fine silver and gold in bars,
   which they exchanged on the spot for the current coin of the
   place, to be used in settling their transactions; the balance
   remaining on hand they re-exchanged for bullion before
   leaving. The business of money-changing, which thus arose, was
   a very lucrative one, and was originally mostly in the hands
   of Italian merchants, chiefly Lombards and Florentines. In
   Italy the money-changers formed a guild, members of which
   settled in the Netherlands, England, Cologne, and the
   Mediterranean ports. In these different towns and countries
   they kept up a close connection with each other and with
   Italy, and at an early period (before the thirteenth century)
   commenced the practice of assignments, i. e., receiving money
   in one place, to be paid by an order upon their correspondents
   in another, thus saving the merchant who travelled from
   country to country the expense and risk of transporting
   specie. In the thirteenth century this branch of business was
   in extensive use at Barcelona, and in 1307 the tribute of
   'Peter's pence' was sent from England to the Pope through the
   Lombard exchangers. From 5 to 6 per cent., or more, was
   charged upon the transaction, and the profitable nature of the
   business soon led many wealthy and even noble Italian families
   to employ their money in this way. They established a member
   of their firm in each of the great centres of trade to receive
   and pay on their account. In Florence alone (about 1350) there
   are said to have been eighty such houses. Among these the
   Frescobaldi, Bardi, and Peruzzi are well-known names; but the
   chief place was taken by the famous Florentine house of the
   Medici, who had banking houses established in sixteen of the
   chief cities of Europe and the Levant. In the north of Europe,
   before long, similar arrangements were established by the
   merchants of the Hanseatic League. … Assignments of this
   kind were drawn out in the form of letters, requesting the
   person by whom the money was due to pay it over to another
   party, named in the bill, on account of the writer, specifying
   also the time within which and the form in which the payment
   was to be made. They were thus known as letters, billets, or
   bills of exchange, and appear in Italy as early as the
   thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Among the earliest
   examples in existence are a letter of exchange, dated at Milan
   in 1325, payable within five months at Lucca; one dated at
   Bruges, 1304, and payable at Barcelona; and another, dated at
   Bologna, 1381, payable in Venice. … 'The first writers who
   treat of bills are Italians: the Italian language furnishes
   the technical terms for drafts, remittances, currency, sight,
   usance, and discount, used in most of the languages of
   Europe.' … Of other branches of banking the germs also
   appeared in the Middle Ages. Venice seems to have been the
   first city to possess something answering to a deposit bank.
   The merchants here united in forming a common treasury, where
   they deposited sums of money, upon which they gave assignments
   or orders for payment to their creditors, and to which similar
   assignments due to themselves were paid and added on to the
   amount at their credit. The taula di cambi (exchange counter)
   of Barcelona was a similar institution, as also the bank of
   St. George, at Genoa."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      appendix F._

   The name "Lombards" was frequently given, during the Middle
   Ages, to all the Italian merchants and money-lenders—from
   Florence, Venice, Genoa, and elsewhere—who were engaged
   throughout Europe in banking and trade.

{2206}

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Florentine Banking.

   "The business of money-changing seemed thoroughly at home
   here, and it is not surprising that the invention of bills of
   exchange, which we first meet with in 1199 in the relations
   between England and Italy, should be ascribed to Florence. The
   money trade seems to have flourished as early as the twelfth
   century, towards the end of which a Marquis of Ferrara raised
   money on his lands from the Florentines. In 1204 we find the
   money-changers as one of the corporations. In 1228, and
   probably from the beginning of the century, several
   Florentines were settled in London as changers to King Henry
   III.; and here, as in France, they conducted the money
   transactions of the Papal chair in conjunction with the
   Sienese. Their oldest known statute, which established rules
   for the whole conduct of trade (Statuto dell' Università della
   Mercatanzia) drawn up by a commission consisting of five
   members of the great guilds, is dated 1280. Their guild-hall
   was in the Via Calimaruzza, opposite that of the Calimala, and
   was litter included in the buildings of the post-office, on
   the site of which, after the post-office had been removed to
   what was formerly the mint, a building was lately erected,
   similar in architecture to the Palazzo of the Signoria, which
   stands opposite. Their coat of arms displayed gold coins laid
   one beside another on a red field. At the end of the
   thirteenth century their activity, especially in France and
   England, was extraordinarily great. But if wealth surpassing
   all previous conception was attained, it not seldom involved
   loss of repute, and those who pursued the calling ran the risk
   of immense losses from fiscal measures to the carrying out of
   which they themselves contributed, as well as those which were
   caused by insolvency or dishonesty. … The names of Tuscans
   and Lombards, and that of Cahorsiens in France, no longer
   indicated the origin, but the trade of the money-changers, who
   drew down the ancient hatred upon themselves. … France
   possessed at this time the greatest attraction for the
   Florentine money-makers, although they were sometimes severely
   oppressed, which is sufficient proof that their winnings were
   still greater than their occasional losses. … The Florentine
   money market suffered the severest blow from England. At the
   end of the twelfth century there were already Florentine
   houses of exchange in London, and if Pisans, Genoese, and
   Venetians managed the trade by sea in the times of the
   Crusades, it was the Florentines mostly who looked after
   financial affairs in connection with the Papal chair, as we
   have seen. Numerous banks appeared about the middle of the
   thirteenth century, among which the Frescobaldi, a family of
   ancient nobility, and as such attainted by the prosecutions
   against it, took the lead, and were referred to the
   custom-house of the country for re-imbursement of the loans
   made to the kings Edward I. and II. Later, the two great
   trading companies of the Bardi and Peruzzi came into notice,
   and with their money Edward III. began the French war against
   Philip of Valois. But even in the first year of this war,
   which began with an unsuccessful attack upon Flanders, the
   king suspended the payments to the creditors of the State by a
   decree of May 6, 1339. The advances made by the Bardi amounted
   to 180,000 marks sterling, those of the Peruzzi to above
   135,000, according to Giovanni Villani, who knew only too well
   about these things, since he was ruined by them himself to the
   extent of 'a sum of more than 1,355,000 gold florins,
   equivalent to the value of a kingdom.' Bonifazio Peruzzi, the
   head of the house, hastened to London, where he died of grief
   in the following year. The blow fell on the whole city. …
   Both houses began at once to liquidate, and the prevailing
   disturbance contributed not a little to the early success of
   the ambitious plans of the Duke of Athens. The real bankruptcy
   ensued, however, in January 1346, when new losses had occurred
   in Sicily. … The banks of the Acciaiuoli, Bonuccorsi,
   Cocchi, Antellesi, Corsini, da Uzzano, Perendoli, and many
   smaller ones, as well as numerous private persons, were
   involved in the ruin. 'The immense loans to foreign
   sovereigns,' adds Villani, 'drew down ruin upon our city, the
   like of which it had never known.' There was a complete lack
   of cash. Estates in the city found no purchasers at a third of
   their former value. … The famine and pestilence of 1347 and
   1348, the oppressions of the mercenary bands and the heavy
   expenses caused by them, the cost of the war against Pope
   Gregory XI., and finally the tumult of the Ciompi, left
   Florence no peace for a long time. … At the beginning of the
   fifteenth century industry was again flourishing in all its
   branches in Florence, financial operations were extended, and
   foreign countries filled with Florentine banks and mercantile
   houses. … In London the most important firms had their
   representatives, Bruges was the chief place for Flanders, and
   we shall see how these connections lasted to the time of the
   greatest splendour of the Medici. France is frequently
   mentioned. The official representatives of the Florentine
   nation resided in the capital, while numerous houses
   established themselves in Lyons, in Avignon (since the removal
   of the Papal chair to this town), in Nismes, Narbonne,
   Carcassonne, Marseilles, &c. … The house of the Peruzzi
   alone had sixteen counting-houses in the fourteenth century,
   from London to Cyprus."

      _A. van Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "The three principal branches of industry which enriched the
   Florentines were—banking, the manufacture of cloth, and the
   dyeing of it, and the manufacture of silk. The three most
   important guilds of the seven 'arti maggiori' were those which
   represented these three industries. Perhaps the most important
   in the amount of its gains, as well as that which first rose
   to a high degree of importance, was the 'Arte del Cambio,' or
   banking. The earliest banking operations seem to have arisen
   from the need of the Roman court to find some means of causing
   the dues to which it laid claim in distant parts of Europe to
   be collected and transmitted to Rome. When the Papal Court was
   removed to Avignon, its residence there occasioned a greatly
   increased sending backwards and forwards of money between
   Italy and that city. And of all this banking business, the
   largest and most profitable portion was in the hands of
   Florentine citizens, whether resident in Florence or in the
   various commercial cities of Europe. We find Florentines
   engaged in lending money at interest to sovereign princes as
   early as the first quarter of the twelfth century."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

{2207}

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Genoa.
   The Bank of St. George.

   "The Bank of St. George, its constitution, its building, and
   its history, forms one of the most interesting relies of
   mediæval commercial activity. Those old grey walls, as seen
   still in Genoa, begrimed with dirt and fast falling into
   decay, are the cradle of modern commerce, modern banking
   schemes, and modern wealth. … This Bank of St. George is
   indeed a most singular political phenomenon. Elsewhere than in
   Genoa we search in vain for a parallel for the existence of a
   body of citizens distinct from the government—with their own
   laws, magistrates, and independent authority—a state within a
   state, a republic within a republic. All dealings with the
   government were voluntary on the part of the bank. … But,
   far from working without harmony, we always find the greatest
   unanimity of feeling between these two forms of republics
   within the same city walls. The government of Genoa always
   respected the liberties of the bank, and the bank always did
   its best to assist the government when in pecuniary distress.
   … To define an exact origin for the bank is difficult; it
   owed its existence to the natural development of commercial
   enterprise rather than to the genius of anyone man, or the
   shrewdness of any particular period in Genoese history. The
   Crusades, and the necessary preparation of galleys, brought
   into Genoa the idea of advancing capital for a term of years
   as a loan to the government on the security of the taxes and
   public revenues; but in those cases the profits were quickly
   realized, and the debts soon cancelled by the monarchs who
   incurred them. However, the expeditions against the Saracens
   and the Moors were otherwise, and were undertaken at some risk
   to Genoa herself. … Now large sums of money were advanced,
   the profits on which were not spontaneous; it was more an
   investment of capital for a longer term of years, which was
   secured by the public revenues, but the profits of which
   depended on the success of the expedition. In 1148 was the
   first formal debt incurred by the government, and to meet the
   occasion the same system was adopted which continued in vogue,
   subject only to regulations and improvements which were found
   necessary as time went on, until the days of the French
   Revolution. The creditors nominated from amongst themselves a
   council of administration to watch over the common interests,
   and to them the government conceded a certain number of the
   custom duties for a term of years until the debt should be
   extinguished. This council of administration elected their own
   consuls, after the fashion of the Republic governors. Every
   hundred francs was termed a share (luogo) and every creditor a
   shareholder (luogatorio). … Each separate loan was termed a
   'compera,' and these loans were collectively known as the
   'compere of St. George,' which in later years became the
   celebrated bank. Each loan generally took the name of the
   object for which it was raised, or the name of the saint on
   whose day the contract was signed; and when an advance of
   money was required, it was done by public auction in the
   streets, when the auctioneer sold the investment to the ever
   ready merchants, who collected outside the 'loggia,' or other
   prominent position chosen for the sale. In a loud voice was
   proclaimed the name and object of the loan, and the tax which
   was to be handed over to the purchasers to secure its
   repayment. So numerous did these loans become by 1252, that it
   was found necessary to unite them under one head, with a
   chancellor and other minor officials to watch over them. And
   as time went on, so great was the credit of Genoa, and so easy
   was this system found for raising money, that the people began
   to grow alarmed at the extent of the liabilities. So, in 1302,
   commissioners were appointed at a great assembly, two hundred
   and seventy-one articles and regulations were drown up to give
   additional security to investors, and henceforth no future
   loan could be effected without the sanction of the consuls and
   the confirmation of the greater council of the shareholders.
   … During the days of the first doge, Simone Boccanegra,
   great changes were to be effected in the working system of the
   'compere of St. George.' To this date many have assigned the
   origin of the Bank of St. George, but it will be seen only to
   be a further consolidation of the same system, which had
   already been at work two centuries. … In 1339, … at the
   popular revolution, all the old books were burnt, and a new
   commission appointed to regulate the 'compere.' … Instead
   … of being the origin of the bank, it was only another step
   in the growing wish for consolidation, which the expanding
   tendency of the 'compere' rendered necessary; which
   consolidation took final effect in 1407, when the Bank was
   thoroughly organized on the same footing which lasted till the
   end. Every year and every event tended towards this system of
   blending the loans together, to which fact is due the
   extensive power which the directors of the bank eventually
   wielded, when all interests and all petty disputes were merged
   together in one. … As time went on, and the French governor,
   Boucicault, weighed on the treasury the burden of fresh
   fortifications, and an expensive war; when Corsican troubles,
   and the Turks in the East, caused the advance of money to be
   frequent, an assembly of all the shareholders in all the loans
   decided that an entire reorganization of the public debts
   should take place. Nine men were elected to draw up a new
   scheme, in 1407, and by their instrumentality all the shares
   were united; the interest for all was to be seven per cent.,
   and fresh officials were appointed to superintend the now
   thoroughly constituted and re-named 'Bank of St. George.' And
   at length we behold this celebrated bank. Its credit never
   failed, and no anxiety was ever felt by any shareholder about
   his annual income, until the days of the French Revolution.
   … This Bank of St. George was essentially one of the times,
   and not one which could have existed on modern ideas of
   credit; for it was a bank which would only issue paper for the
   coin in its actual possession, and would hardly suit the
   dictates of modern commerce. It was not a bank for borrowers
   but for capitalists, who required enormous security for
   immense sums until they could employ them themselves. … One
   of the most interesting features in connection with the
   dealings of the bank with the Genoese government, and a
   conclusive proof of the perfect accord which existed between
   them, was the cession from time to time of various colonies
   and provinces to the directors of the bank when the government
   felt itself too weak and too poor to maintain them. In this
   manner were the colonies in the Black Sea made over to the
   bank when the Turkish difficulties arose.
{2208}
   Corsica and Cyprus, also towns on the Riviera, such as
   Sarzana, Ventimiglia, Levanto, found themselves at various
   times under the direct sovereignty of the bank. … It is
   melancholy to have to draw a veil over the career of this
   illustrious bank with the Revolution of 1798. The new order of
   things which Genoa had learnt from France deemed it
   inconsistent with liberty that the taxes, the property of the
   Republic, should remain in the hands of the directors of St.
   George; it was voted a tyranny on a small scale, and the
   directors were compelled to surrender them; and inasmuch as
   the taxes represented the sole source from which their income
   was derived, they soon discovered that their bank notes were
   useless, and the building was closed shortly afterwards. In
   1804 and 1814 attempts were made to resuscitate the fallen
   fortunes of St. George, but without avail; and so this bank,
   the origin of which was shrouded in the mysteries of bygone
   centuries, fell under the sweeping scythe of the French
   Revolution."

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 11._

      See, also, GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17th Centuries.
   Monetary effects of the Discovery of America.

   "From 1492, the year of the discovery of the New World, to
   1500, it is doubtful whether [the mines of Mexico and Peru]
   … yielded on an average a prey of more than 1,500,000 francs
   (£60,000) a year. From 1500 to 1545, if we add to the treasure
   produced from the mines the amount of plunder found in the
   capital of the Montezumas, Ténochtitlan (now the city of
   Mexico), as well as in the temples and palaces of the kingdom
   of the Incas, the gold and silver drawn from America did not
   exceed an average of sixteen million francs (£640,000) a year.
   From 1545, the scene changes. In one of the gloomiest deserts
   on the face of the globe, in the midst of the rugged and
   inhospitable mountain scenery of Upper Peru, chance revealed
   to a poor Indian, who was guarding a flock of llamas, a mine
   of silver of incomparable richness. A crowd of miners was
   instantly attracted by the report of the rich deposits of ore
   spread over the sides of this mountain of Potocchi—a name
   which for euphony the European nations have since changed to
   Potosi. The exportation of the precious metals from America to
   Europe now rose rapidly to an amount which equalled, weight
   for weight, sixty millions of francs (£2,400,000) of our day,
   and it afterwards rose even to upwards of eighty millions. At
   that time such a mass of gold and silver represented a far
   greater amount of riches than at present. Under the influence
   of so extraordinary a supply, the value of these precious
   metals declined in Europe, in comparison with every other
   production of human industry, just as would be the case with
   iron or lead, if mines were discovered which yielded those
   metals in superabundance, as compared with their present
   consumption, and at a much less cost of labour than
   previously, just in fact as occurs in the case of manufactures
   of every kind, whenever, by improved processes, or from
   natural causes of a novel kind, they can be produced in
   unusual quantities, and at a great reduction of cost. This
   fall in the value of gold and silver, in comparison with all
   other productions, revealed itself by the increased quantity
   of coined metal which it was necessary to give in exchange for
   the generality of other articles. And it was thus that the
   working of the mines of America had necessarily for effect a
   general rise of prices, in other words, it made all other
   commodities dearer. The fall in the value of the precious
   metals, or that which means the same thing, the general rise
   of prices, does not appear to have been very great, out of
   Spain, till after the middle of the 16th century. Shortly
   after the commencement of the 17th century, the effects of the
   productiveness of the new mines and of the diminished cost of
   working them were realised in all parts of Europe. For the
   silver, which had been extracted in greater proportion than
   the gold, and on more favourable terms, the fall in value had
   been in the proportion of 1 to 3. In transactions where
   previously one pound of silver, or a coin containing a given
   quantity of this metal, had sufficed, henceforth three were
   required. … After having been arrested for awhile in this
   downward course, and even after having witnessed for a time a
   tendency to an upward movement, the fall in the value of the
   precious metals, and the corresponding rise in prices, resumed
   their course, under the influence of the same causes, until
   towards the end of the 18th century, without however
   manifesting their influence so widely or intensely as had been
   witnessed after the first development of the great American
   mines. We find, as the result, that during the first half of
   the 19th century, the value of silver fell to about the sixth
   of what it was before the discovery of America, when compared
   with the price of corn."

      _M. Chevalier,
      On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold
      (translated by Cobden),
      section 1, chapter 1._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
   The Bank of Amsterdam.

   "In 1609, the great Bank of Amsterdam was founded, and its
   foundation not only testifies to the wealth of the republic,
   but marks an epoch in the commercial history of Northern
   Europe. Long before this period, banks had been established in
   the Italian cities, but, until late in the history of the Bank
   of England, which was not founded until nearly a century
   later, nothing was known on such a scale as this. It was
   established to meet the inconvenience arising from the
   circulation of currency from all quarters of the globe, and to
   accommodate merchants in their dealings. Anyone making a
   deposit of gold or silver received notes for the amount, less
   a small commission, and these notes commanded a premium in all
   countries. Before the end of the century its deposits of this
   character amounted to one hundred and eighty million dollars,
   an amount of treasure which bewildered financiers in every
   other part of Europe."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      volume 2, pages 323-324._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
   Indian Money used in the American Colonies.

   Sea shells, strung or embroidered on belts and garments,
   formed the "wampum" which was the money of the North American
   Indians (see WAMPUM). "Tradition gives to the Narragansetts
   the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both
   for use and exchange. This tribe was one of the most powerful,
   and it is asserted that their commercial use of wampum gave
   them their best opportunities of wealth. The Long Island
   Indians manufactured the beads in large quantities and then
   were forced to pay them away in tribute to the Mohawks and the
   fiercer tribes of the interior.
{2209}
   Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets, which carried
   a permanent value, through the constancy of the Indian desire
   for them. The holder of wampum always compelled trade to come
   to him. After the use of wampum was established in colonial
   life, contracts were made payable at will in wampum, beaver,
   or silver. … The use began in New England in 1627. It was a
   legal tender until 1661, and for more than three quarters of a
   century the wampum was current in small transactions. For more
   than a century, indeed; this currency entered into the
   intercourse of Indian and colonist. … Labor is a chief
   factor in civilized society and the labor of the Indian was
   made available through wampum. As Winthrop shows, 10,000
   beaver skins annually came to the Dutch from the Great Lake.
   The chase was the primitive form of Indian industry and furs
   were the most conspicuous feature of foreign trade, as gold is
   to-day, but wampum played a much larger part in the vital
   trade of the time. Wampum, or the things it represented,
   carried deer meat and Indian corn to the New England men. Corn
   and pork went for fish; fish went for West India rum,
   molasses, and the silver which Europe coveted. West India
   products, or the direct exchange of fish with the Catholic
   countries of Europe, brought back the goods needed to
   replenish and extend colonial industries and trade. … As
   long as the natives were active and furs were plenty, there
   appears to have been no difficulty in passing any quantity of
   wampum in common with other currencies. The Bay annulled its
   statutes, making the beads a legal tender in 1661. Rhode
   Island and Connecticut followed this example soon after. …
   New York continued the beads in circulation longer than the
   regular use prevailed in New England. In 1693 they were
   recognized in the definite rates of the Brooklyn ferry. They
   continued to be circulated in the more remote districts of New
   England through the century, and even into the beginning of
   the eighteenth."

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization,
      pages 5-30._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
   Colonial Coinage in America.

   "The earliest coinage for America is said to have been
   executed in 1612, when the Virginia Company was endeavoring to
   establish a Colony on the Summer Islands (the Bermudas). This
   coin was of the denomination of a shilling, and was struck in
   brass." The "pine-tree" money of Massachusetts" was instituted
   by the Colonial Assembly in 1652, after the fall of Charles I.
   … This coinage was not discontinued until 1686; yet they
   appear to have continued the use of the same date, the
   shillings, sixpences, and threepences all bearing the date
   1652, while the twopenny pieces are all dated 1662. … After
   the suppression of their mint, the Colony of Massachusetts
   issued no more coins until after the establishment of the
   Confederacy. … The silver coins of Lord Baltimore, Lord
   Proprietor of Maryland, were the shilling, sixpence, and
   fourpence, or groat."

      _J. R. Snowden,
      Description of Ancient and Modern Coins,
      pages 85-87._

      See PINE TREE MONEY.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
   Banking in Great Britain.
   Origin and influence of the Bank of England.

   "In the reign of William old men were still living who could
   remember the days when there was not a single banking house in
   the city of London. So late as the time of the Restoration
   every trader had his own strong box in his own house, and,
   when an acceptance was presented to him, told down the crowns
   and Caroluses on his own counter. But the increase of wealth
   had produced its natural effect, the subdivision of labour.
   Before the end of the reign of Charles II. a new mode of
   paying and receiving money had come into fashion among the
   merchants of the capital. A class of agents arose, whose
   office was to keep the cash of the commercial houses. This new
   branch of business naturally fell into the hands of the
   goldsmiths, who were accustomed to traffic largely in the
   precious metals, and who had vaults in which great masses of
   bullion could lie secure from fire and from robbers. It was at
   the shops of the goldsmiths of Lombard Street that all the
   payments in coin were made. Other traders gave and received
   nothing but paper. This great change did not take place
   without much opposition and clamour. … No sooner had banking
   become a separate and important trade, than men began to
   discuss with earnestness the question whether it would be
   expedient to erect a national bank. … Two public banks had
   long been renowned throughout Europe, the Bank of Saint George
   at Genoa, and the Bank of Amsterdam. … Why should not the
   Bank of London be as great and as durable as the Banks of
   Genoa and Amsterdam? Before the end of the reign of Charles
   II. several plans were proposed, examined, attacked and
   defended. Some pamphleteers maintained that a national bank
   ought to be under the direction of the King. Others thought
   that the management ought to be entrusted to the Lord Mayor,
   Alderman and Common Council of the capital. After the
   Revolution the subject was discussed with an animation before
   unknown. … A crowd of plans, some of which resemble the
   fancies of a child or the dreams of a man in a fever, were
   pressed on the government. Pre-eminently conspicuous among the
   political mountebanks, whose busy faces were seen every day in
   the lobby of the House of Commons, were John Briscoe and Hugh
   Chamberlayne, two projectors worthy to have been members of
   that Academy which Gulliver found at Lagado. These men
   affirmed that the one cure for every distemper of the State
   was a Land Bank. A Land Bank would work for England miracles
   such as had never been wrought for Israel. … These blessed
   effects the Land Bank was to produce simply by issuing
   enormous quantities of notes on landed security. The doctrine
   of the projectors was that every person who had real property
   ought to have, besides that property, paper money to the full
   value of that property. Thus, if his estate was worth two
   thousand pounds, he ought to have his estate and two thousand
   pounds in paper money. Both Briscoe and Chamberlayne
   treated with the greatest contempt the notion that there could
   be an over-issue of paper as long as there was, for every ten
   pound note, a piece of land in the country worth ten pounds.
   … All the projectors of this busy time, however, were not so
   absurd as Chamberlayne. One among them, William Paterson, was
   an ingenious, though not always a judicious speculator. Of his
   early life little is known except that he was a native of
   Scotland, and that he had been in the West Indies. … This
   man submitted to the government, in 1691, a plan of a national
   bank; and his plan was favourably received both by statesmen
   and by merchants.
{2210}
   But years passed away; and nothing was done, till, in the
   spring of 1694, it became absolutely necessary to find some
   new mode of defraying the charges of the war. Then at length
   the scheme devised by the poor and obscure Scottish adventurer
   was taken up in earnest by Montague [Charles Montague, then
   one of the lords of the treasury and subsequently Chancellor
   of the Exchequer]. With Montague was closely allied Michael
   Godfrey. … Michael was one of the ablest, most upright and
   most opulent of the merchant princes of London. … By these
   two distinguished men Paterson's scheme was fathered. Montague
   undertook to manage the House of Commons, Godfrey to manage
   the City. An approving vote was obtained from the Committee of
   Ways and Means; and a bill, the title of which gave occasion
   to many sarcasms, was laid on the table. It was indeed not
   easy to guess that a bill, which purported only to impose a
   new duty on tonnage for the benefit of such persons as should
   advance money towards carrying on the war, was really a bill
   creating the greatest commercial institution that the world
   had ever seen. The plan was that £1,200,000 should be borrowed
   by the government on what was then considered as the moderate
   interest of eight per cent. In order to induce capitalists to
   advance the money promptly on terms so favourable to the
   public, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of
   the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The
   corporation was to have no exclusive privilege, and was to be
   restricted from trading in any thing but bills of exchange,
   bullion and forfeited pledges. As soon as the plan became
   generally known, a paper war broke out. … All the goldsmiths
   and pawnbrokers set up a howl of rage. Some discontented
   Tories predicted ruin to the monarchy. … Some discontented
   Whigs, on the other hand, predicted ruin to our liberties. …
   The power of the purse, the one great security for all the
   rights of Englishmen, will be transferred from the House of
   Commons to the Governor and Directors of the new Company. This
   last consideration was really of some weight, and was allowed
   to be so by the authors of the bill. A clause was therefore
   most properly inserted which inhibited the Bank from advancing
   money to the Crown without authority from Parliament. Every
   infraction of this salutary rule was to be punished by
   forfeiture of three times the sum advanced; and it was
   provided that the King should not have power to remit any part
   of the penalty. The plan, thus amended, received the sanction
   of the Commons more easily than might have been expected from
   the violence of the adverse clamour. In truth, the Parliament
   was under duress. Money must be had, and could in no other way
   be had so easily. … The bill, however, was not safe when it
   had reached the Upper House," but it was passed, and received
   the royal assent. "In the City the success of Montague's plan
   was complete. It was then at least as difficult to raise a
   million at eight per cent. as it would now be to raise forty
   millions at four per cent. It had been supposed that
   contributions would drop in very slowly: and a considerable
   time had therefore been allowed by the Act. This indulgence
   was not needed. So popular was the new investment that on the
   day on which the books were opened £300,000 were subscribed;
   300,000 more were subscribed during the next 48 hours; and, in
   ten days, to the delight of all the friends of the government,
   it was announced that the list was full. The whole sum which
   the Corporation was bound to lend to the State was paid into
   the Exchequer before the first instalment was due. Somers
   gladly put the Great Seal to a charter framed in conformity
   with the terms prescribed by Parliament; and the Bank of
   England commenced its operations in the house of the Company
   of Grocers. … It soon appeared that Montague had, by
   skilfully availing himself of the financial difficulties of
   the country, rendered an inestimable service to his party.
   During several generations the Bank of England was
   emphatically a Whig body. It was Whig, not accidentally, but
   necessarily. It must have instantly stopped payment if it had
   ceased to receive the interest on the sum which it had
   advanced to the government; and of that, interest James would
   not have paid one farthing."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 20._

   "For a long time the Bank of England was the focus of London
   Liberalism, and in that capacity rendered to the State
   inestimable services. In return for these substantial benefits
   the Bank of England received from the Government, either at
   first or afterwards, three most important privileges. First.
   The Bank of England had the exclusive possession of the
   Government balances. In its first period … the Bank gave
   credit to the Government, but afterwards it derived credit
   from the Government. There is a natural tendency in men to
   follow the example of the Government under which they live.
   The Government is the largest, most important, and most
   conspicuous entity with which the mass of any people are
   acquainted; its range of knowledge must always lie infinitely
   greater than the average of their knowledge, and therefore,
   unless there is a conspicuous warning to the contrary, most
   men are inclined to think their Government right, and, when
   they can, to do what it does. Especially in money matters a
   man might fairly reason—'If the Government is right in
   trusting the Bank of England with the great balance of the
   nation, I cannot be wrong in trusting it with my little
   balance.' Second, The Bank of England had, till lately, the
   monopoly of limited liability in England. The common law of
   England knows nothing of any such principle. It is only
   possible by Royal Charter or Statute Law. And by neither of
   these was any real bank … permitted with limited liability
   in England till within these few years. … Thirdly. The Bank
   of England had the privilege of being the sole joint stock
   company permitted to issue bank notes in England. Private
   London bankers did indeed issue notes down to the middle of
   the last century, but no joint stock company could do so. The
   explanatory clause of the Act of 1742 sounds most curiously to
   our modern ears. … 'It is the true intent and meaning of the
   said Act that no other bank shall be created, established, or
   allowed by Parliament, and that it shall not be lawful for any
   body politic or corporate whatsoever created or to be created,
   or for any other persons whatsoever united or to be united in
   covenants or partnership exceeding the number of six persons
   in that part of Great Britain called England, to borrow, owe,
   or take up any sum or sums of money on their bills or notes
   payable on demand or at any less time than six months from the
   borrowing thereof during the continuance of such said
   privilege to the said governor and company, who are hereby
   declared to be and remain a corporation with the privilege of
   exclusive banking, as before recited.'
{2211}
   To our modern ears these words seem to mean more than they
   did. The term banking was then applied only to the issue of
   notes and the taking up of money on bills on demand. Our
   present system of deposit banking, in which no bills or
   promissory notes are issued, was not then known on a great
   scale, and was not called banking. But its effect was very
   important. It in time gave the Bank of England the monopoly of
   the note issue of the Metropolis. It had at that time no
   branches, and so it did not compete for the country
   circulation. But in the Metropolis, where it did compete, it
   was completely victorious. No company but the Bank of England
   could issue notes, and unincorporated individuals gradually
   gave way, and ceased to do so. Up to 1844 London private
   bankers might have issued notes if they pleased, but almost a
   hundred years ago they were forced out of the field. The Bank
   of England had so long had a practical monopoly of the
   circulation, that it is commonly believed always to have had a
   legal monopoly. And the practical effect of the clause went
   further: it was believed to make the Bank of England the only
   joint stock company that could receive deposits, as well as
   the only company that could issue notes. The gift of
   'exclusive banking' to the Bank of England was read in its
   most natural modern sense: it was thought to prohibit any
   other banking company from carrying on our present system of
   banking. After joint stock banking was permitted in the
   country, people began to inquire why it should not exist in
   the Metropolis too? And then it was seen that the words I have
   quoted only forbid the issue of negotiable instruments, and
   not the receiving of money when no such instrument is given.
   Upon this construction, the London and Westminster Bank and
   all our older joint stock banks were founded. But till they
   began, the Bank of England had among companies not only the
   exclusive privilege of note issue, but that of deposit banking
   too. It was in every sense the only banking company in London.
   With so many advantages over all competitors, it is quite
   natural that the Bank of England should have far outstripped
   them all. … All the other bankers grouped themselves round
   it, and lodged their reserve with it. Thus our one-reserve
   system of banking was not deliberately founded upon definite
   reasons; it was the gradual consequence of many singular
   events, and of an accumulation of legal privileges on a single
   bank which has now been altered, and which no one would now
   defend. … For more than a century after its creation
   (notwithstanding occasional errors) the Bank of England, in
   the main, acted with judgment and with caution. Its business
   was but small as we should now reckon, but for the most part
   it conducted that business with prudence and discretion. In
   1696, it had been involved in the most serious difficulties,
   and had been obliged to refuse to pay some of its notes. For a
   long period it was in wholesome dread of public opinion, and
   the necessity of retaining public confidence made it cautious.
   But the English Government removed that necessity. In 1797,
   Mr. Pitt feared that he might not be able to obtain sufficient
   specie for foreign payments, in consequence of the low state
   of the Bank reserve, and he therefore required the Bank not to
   pay in cash. He removed the preservative apprehension which is
   the best security of all Banks. For this reason the period
   under which the Bank of England did not pay gold for its
   notes—the period from 1797 to 1819—is always called the
   period of the Bank 'restriction.' As the Bank during that
   period did not perform, and was not compelled by law to
   perform, its contract of paying its notes in cash, it might
   apparently have been well called the period of Bank license.
   But the word 'restriction' was quite right, and was the only
   proper word as a description of the policy of 1797. Mr. Pitt
   did not say that the Bank of England need not pay its notes in
   specie; he 'restricted' them from doing so; he said that they
   must not. In consequence, from 1797 to 1844 (when a new era
   begins), there never was a proper caution on the part of the
   Bank directors. At heart they considered that the Bank of
   England had a kind of charmed life, and that it was above the
   ordinary banking anxiety to pay its way. And this feeling was
   very natural."

      _W. Bagehot,
      Lombard Street,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Gilbart,
      History and Principles of Banking._

      _H. May,
      The Bank of England
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1885)._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
   Early Paper issues and Banks in the American Colonies.

   "Previous to the Revolutionary War paper money was issued to a
   greater or less extent by each one of the thirteen colonies.
   The first issue was by Massachusetts in 1690, to aid in
   fitting out the expedition against Canada. Similar issues had
   been made by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
   York, and New Jersey, previous to the year 1711. South
   Carolina began to emit bills in 1712, Pennsylvania in 1723,
   Maryland in 1734, Delaware in 1739, Virginia in 1755, and
   Georgia in 1760. Originally the issues were authorized to meet
   the necessities of the colonial treasuries. In Massachusetts,
   in 1715, as a remedy for the prevailing embarrassment of
   trade, a land bank was proposed with the right to issue
   circulating notes secured by land. … The plan for the land
   bank was defeated, but the issue of paper money by the
   treasury was authorized to the extent of £50,000, to be loaned
   on good mortgages in sums of not more than £500, nor less than
   £50, to one person. The rate of interest was five per cent.,
   payable with one-fifth of the principal annually. … In 1733
   an issue of bills to the amount of £110,000 was made by the
   merchants of Boston, which were to be redeemed at the end of
   ten years, in silver, at the rate of 19 shillings per ounce.
   In 1739, the commercial and financial embarrassment still
   continuing, another land bank was started in Massachusetts.
   … A specie bank was also formed in 1739, by Edward
   Hutchinson and others, which issued bills to the amount of
   £120,000, redeemable in fifteen years in silver, at 20
   shillings per ounce, or gold pro rata. The payment of these
   notes was guaranteed by wealthy and responsible merchants.
   These notes, and those of a similar issue in 1733, were
   largely hoarded and did not pass generally into circulation.
   In 1740 Parliament passed a bill to extend the act of 1720,
   known as the bubble act, to the American colonies, with the
   intention of breaking up all companies formed for the purpose
   of issuing paper money.
{2212}
   Under this act both the land bank and the specie bank were
   forced to liquidate their affairs, though not without some
   resistance on the part of the former. … The paper money of
   the colonies, whether issued by them or by the loan banks,
   depreciated almost without exception as the amounts in
   circulation increased. … The emission of bills by the
   colonies and the banks was not regarded with favor by the
   mother country, and the provincial governors were as a general
   thing opposed to these issues. They were consequently
   frequently embroiled with their legislatures."

      _J. J. Knox,
      United States Notes,
      pages 1-5._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-19th Centuries.
   Creation of the principal European Banks.

   "The Bank of Vienna was founded as a bank of deposit in 1703,
   and as a bank of issue in 1793; the Banks of Berlin and
   Breslau in 1765 with state sanction; the Austrian National
   Bank in 1816. In St. Petersburg three banks were set up; the
   Loan Bank in 1772, advancing loans on deposits of bullion and
   jewels; the Assignation Bank in 1768 (and in Moscow, 1770),
   issuing government paper money; the Aid Bank in 1797, to
   relieve estates from mortgage and advance money for
   improvements. The Commercial Bank of Russia was founded in
   1818. The Bank of Stockholm was founded in 1688. The Bank of
   France was founded first in 1803 and reorganised in 1806, when
   its capital was raised to 90,000,000 francs, held in 90,000
   shares of 1,000 francs. It is the only authorised source of
   paper money in France, and is intimately associated with the
   government."

      _H. de B. Gibbins,
      History of Commerce in Europe,
      book 3, chapter 4._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1775-1780.
   The Continental Currency of the American Revolution.

   "The colonies … went into the Revolutionary War, many of
   them with paper already in circulation, all of them making
   issues for the expenses of military preparations. The
   Continental Congress, having no power to tax, and its members
   being accustomed to paper issues as the ordinary form of
   public finance, began to issue bills on the faith of the
   'Continent,' Franklin earnestly approving. The first issue was
   for 300,000 Spanish dollars, redeemable in gold or silver, in
   three years, ordered in May and issued in August, 1775. Paper
   for nine million dollars was issued before any depreciation
   began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected
   it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah
   Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a
   member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the
   people when they could go to the printing-office and get a
   cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began,
   Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills.
   Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who
   'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for
   speculators who bought up for a rise."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 43-44._

   "During the summer of 1780 this wretched 'Continental'
   currency fell into contempt. As Washington said, it took a
   wagon-load of money to buy a wagon-load of provisions. At the
   end of the year 1778, the paper dollar was worth sixteen cents
   in the northern states and twelve cents in the south. Early in
   1780 its value had fallen to two cents, and before the end of
   the year it took ten paper dollars to make a cent. In October,
   Indian corn sold wholesale in Boston for $150 a bushel, butter
   was $12 a pound, tea $90, sugar $10, beef $8, coffee $12, and
   a barrel of flour cost $1,575. Samuel Adams paid $2,000 for a
   hat and suit of clothes. The money soon ceased to circulate,
   debts could not be collected, and there was a general
   prostration of credit. To say that a thing was 'worth a
   Continental' became the strongest possible expression of
   contempt."

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   Before the close of the year 1780, the Continental Currency
   had ceased to circulate. Attempts were subsequently made to
   have it funded or redeemed, but without success.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Phillips, Jr.,
      Historical Sketches of American Paper Currency,
      2d Series._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.
   The Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

   "The Pennsylvania Bank, which was organized in Philadelphia
   during the Revolutionary War, was founded for the purpose of
   facilitating the operations of the Government in transporting
   supplies for the army. It began its useful work in 1780, and
   continued in existence until after the close of the war;
   finally closing its affairs toward the end of the year 1784.
   But the need was felt of a national bank which should not only
   aid the Government on a large scale by its money and credit,
   but should extend facilities to individuals, and thereby
   benefit the community as well as the state. Through the
   influence and exertion of Robert Morris, then Superintendent
   of Finance for the United States, the Bank of North America,
   at Philadelphia, was organized with a capital of $400,000. It
   was incorporated by Congress in December, 1781, and by the
   State of Pennsylvania a few months afterward. Its success was
   immediate and complete. It not only rendered valuable and
   timely aid to the United States Government and to the State of
   Pennsylvania, but it greatly assisted in restoring confidence
   and credit to the commercial community, and afforded
   facilities to private enterprise that were especially welcome.
   … The success of the Bank of North America, and the
   advantages which the citizens of Philadelphia enjoyed from the
   facilities it offered them, naturally suggested the founding
   of a similar enterprise in the city of New York." The Bank of
   New York was accordingly founded in 1784.

      _H. W. Domett,
      History of the Bank of New York,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of
      the American Revolution,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796.
   The Assignats of the French Revolution.

   "The financial embarrassments of the government in 1789 were
   extreme. Many taxes had ceased to be productive; the
   confiscated estates not only yielded no revenue but caused a
   large expense, and, as a measure of resource, the finance
   committee of the Assembly reported in favor of issues based
   upon the confiscated lands. But the bitter experience of
   France through the Mississippi schemes of John Law, 1719-21,
   made the Assembly and the nation hesitate. … Necker, the
   Minister, stood firm in his opposition to the issue of paper
   money, even as a measure of resource; but the steady pressure
   of fiscal exigencies, together with the influence of the
   fervid orators of the Assembly, gained a continually
   increasing support to the proposition of the committee. …
{2213}
   The leaders of the Assembly were secretly actuated by a
   political purpose, viz., by widely distributing the titles to
   the confiscated lands (for such the paper money in effect was)
   to commit the thrifty middle class of France to the principles
   and measures of the revolution. … Oratory, the force of
   fiscal necessities, the half-confessed political design,
   prevailed at last over the warnings of experience; and a
   decree passed the Assembly authorizing an issue of notes to
   the value of four hundred million francs, on the security of
   the public lands. To emphasize this security the title of
   'assignats' was applied to the paper. … The issue was made;
   the assignats went into circulation; and soon came the
   inevitable demand for more. … The decree for a further issue
   of eight hundred millions passed, September, 1790. Though the
   opponents of the issue had lost heart and voice, they still
   polled 423 votes against 508. To conciliate a minority still
   so large, contraction was provided for by requiring that the
   paper when paid into the Treasury should be burned, and the
   decree contained a solemn declaration that in no case should
   the amount exceed twelve hundred millions. June 19, 1791, the
   Assembly, against feeble resistance, violated this pledge and
   authorized a further issue of six hundred millions. Under the
   operation of Gresham's Law, specie now began to disappear from
   circulation. … And now came the collapse of French industry.
   … 'Everything that tariffs and custom-houses could do was
   done. Still the great manufactories of Normandy were closed;
   those of the rest of the kingdom speedily followed, and vast
   numbers of workmen, in all parts of the country, were thrown
   out of employment. … In the spring of 1791 no one knew
   whether a piece of paper money, representing 100 francs,
   would, a month later, have a purchasing power of 100 francs,
   or 90 francs, or 80, or 60. The result was that capitalists
   declined to embark their means in business. Enterprise
   received a mortal blow. Demand for labor was still further
   diminished. The business of France dwindled into a mere living
   from hand to mouth.' … Towards the end of 1794 there had
   been issued 7,000 millions in assignats; by May, 1795, 10,000
   millions; by the end of July, 16,000 millions; by the
   beginning of 1796, 45,000 millions, of which 36,000 millions
   were in actual circulation. M. Bresson gives the following
   table of depreciation: 24 livres in coin were worth in
   assignats
   April 1, 1795,  238;
   May 1,          299;
   June 1,         439;
   July 1,         808;
   Aug. 1,         807;
   Sept. 1,      1,101;
   Oct. 1,       1,205;
   Nov. 1,       2,588;
   Dec. 1,       3,575;
   Jan. 1, 1796, 4,658;
   Feb. 1,       5,337.

   At the last 'an assignat professing to be worth 100 francs was
   commonly exchanged for 5 sous 6 deniers: in other words, a
   paper note professing to be worth £4 sterling passed current
   for less than 3d. in money.' The downward course of the
   assignats had unquestionably been accelerated by the extensive
   counterfeiting of the paper in Belgium, Switzerland, and
   England. … Now appears that last resort of finance under a
   depreciating paper: an issue under new names and new devices.
   … Territorial Mandates were ordered to be issued for
   assignats at 30:1, the mandates to be directly exchangeable
   for land, at the will of the holder, on demand. … For a
   brief time after the first limited emission, the mandates rose
   as high as 80 per cent. of their nominal value; but soon
   additional issues sent them down even more rapidly than the
   assignats had fallen."

      _F. A. Walker,
      Money,
      part 2, chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _Andrew D. White,
      Paper-money Inflation in France._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.
   The First Bank of the United States.

   On the organization of the government of the United States,
   under its federal constitution, in 1789 and 1790, the lead in
   constructive statesmanship was taken, as is well known, by
   Alexander Hamilton. His plan "included a financial institution
   to develop the national resources, strengthen the public
   credit, aid the Treasury Department in its administration, and
   provide a secure and sound circulating medium for the people.
   On December 13, 1790, he sent into Congress a report on the
   subject of a national bank. The Republican party, then in the
   minority, opposed the plan as unconstitutional, on the ground
   that the power of creating banks or any corporate body had not
   been expressly delegated to Congress, and was therefore not
   possessed by it. Washington's cabinet was divided; Jefferson
   opposing the measure as not within the implied powers, because
   it was an expediency and not a paramount necessity. Later he
   used stronger language, and denounced the institution as 'one
   of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles
   and form of our Constitution,' nor did he ever abandon these
   views. There is the authority of Mr. Gallatin for saying that
   Jefferson 'died a decided enemy to our banking system
   generally, and specially to a bank of the United States.' But
   Hamilton's views prevailed. Washington, who in the weary years
   of war had seen the imperative necessity of some national
   organization of the finances, after mature deliberation
   approved the plan, and on February 25, 1791, the Bank of the
   United States was incorporated. The capital stock was limited
   to twenty-five thousand shares of four hundred dollars each,
   or ten millions of dollars, payable one fourth in gold and
   silver, and three fourths in public securities bearing an
   interest of six and three per cent. The stock was immediately
   subscribed for, the government taking five thousand shares,
   two millions of dollars, under the right reserved in the
   charter. The subscription of the United States was paid in ten
   equal annual instalments. A large proportion of the stock was
   held abroad, and the shares soon rose above par. … Authority
   was given the bank to establish offices of discount and
   deposit within the United States. The chief bank was placed in
   Philadelphia and branches were established in eight cities,
   with capitals in proportion to their commercial importance. In
   1809 the stockholders of the Bank of the United States
   memorialized the government for a renewal of their charter,
   which would expire on March 4, 1811; and on March 9, 1809, Mr.
   Gallatin sent in a report in which he reviewed the operations
   of the bank from its organization. Of the government shares,
   five million dollars at par, two thousand four hundred and
   ninety-three shares were sold in 1796 and 1797 at an advance
   of 25 per cent., two hundred and eighty-seven in 1797 at an
   advance of twenty per cent., and the remaining 2,220 shares in
   1802, at an advance of 45 per cent., making together,
   exclusive of the dividends, a profit of $671,680 to the United
   States. Eighteen thousand shares of the bank stock were held
   abroad, and seven thousand shares, or a little more than one
   fourth part of the capital, in the United States.
{2214}
   A table of all the dividends made by the bank showed that they
   had on the average been at the rate of 8 3/8 (precisely 8
   13/34) per cent. a year, which proved that the bank had not in
   any considerable degree used the public deposits for the
   purpose of extending its discounts. From a general view of the
   debits and credits, as presented, it appeared that the affairs
   of the Bank of the United States, considered as a moneyed
   institution, had been wisely and skilfully managed. The
   advantages derived by the government Mr. Gallatin stated to
   be,
   1, safe-keeping of the public moneys;
   2, transmission of the public moneys;
   3, collection of the revenue;
   4, loans.
   The strongest objection to the renewal of the charter lay in
   the great portion of the bank stock held by foreigners. Not on
   account of any influence over the institution, since they had
   no vote; but because of the high rate of interest payable by
   America to foreign countries. … Congress refused to prolong
   its existence and the institution was dissolved. Fortunately
   for the country, it wound up its affairs with such
   deliberation and prudence as to allow of the interposition of
   other bank credits in lieu of those withdrawn, and thus
   prevented a serious shock to the interests of the community.
   In the twenty years of its existence from 1791 to 1811 its
   management was irreproachable. The immediate effect of the
   refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank of the United States
   was to bring the Treasury to the verge of bankruptcy. The
   interference of Parish, Girard, and Astor alone saved the
   credit of the government. … Another immediate effect of the
   dissolution of the bank was the withdrawal from the country of
   the foreign capital invested in the bank, more than seven
   millions of dollars. This amount was remitted, in the twelve
   months preceding the war, in specie. Specie was at that time a
   product foreign to the United States, and by no means easy to
   obtain. … The notes of the Bank of the United States,
   payable on demand in gold and silver at the counters of the
   bank, or any of its branches, were, by its charter, receivable
   in all payments to the United States; but this quality was
   also stripped from them on March 19, 1812, by a repeal of the
   act according it. To these disturbances of the financial
   equilibrium of the country was added the necessary withdrawal
   of fifteen millions of bank credit and its transfer to other
   institutions. This gave an extraordinary impulse to the
   establishment of local banks, each eager for a share of the
   profits. The capital of the country, instead of being
   concentrated, was dissipated. Between January 1, 1811, and
   1815, one hundred and twenty new banks were chartered, and
   forty millions of dollars were added to the banking capital.
   To realize profits, the issues of paper were pushed to the
   extreme of possible circulation. Meanwhile New England kept
   aloof from the nation. The specie in the vaults of the banks
   of Massachusetts rose from $1,706,000 on June 1, 1811, to
   $7,326,000 on June 1, 1814. … The suspension of the banks
   was precipitated by the capture of Washington. It began in
   Baltimore, which was threatened by the British, and was at
   once followed in Philadelphia and New York. Before the end of
   September all the banks south and west of New England had
   suspended specie payment. … The depression of the local
   currencies ranged from seven to twenty-five per cent. … In
   November the Treasury Department found itself involved in the
   common disaster. The refusal of the banks, in which the public
   moneys were deposited, to pay their notes or the drafts upon
   them in specie deprived the government of its gold and silver;
   and their refusal, likewise, of credit and circulation to the
   issues of banks in other States deprived the government also
   of the only means it possessed for transferring its funds to
   pay the dividends on the debt and discharge the treasury
   notes. … On October 14, 1814, Alexander J. Dallas, Mr.
   Gallatin's old friend, who had been appointed Secretary of the
   Treasury on the 6th of the same month, in a report of a plan
   to support the public credit, proposed the incorporation of a
   national bank. A bill was passed by Congress, but returned to
   it by Madison with his veto on January 15, 1815. … Mr.
   Dallas again, as a last resort, insisted on a bank as the only
   means by which the currency of the country could be restored
   to a sound condition. In December, 1815, Dallas reported to
   the Committee of the House of Representatives on the national
   currency, of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, a plan for a
   national bank, and on March 3, 1816, the second Bank of the
   United States was chartered by Congress. The capital was
   thirty-five millions, of which the government held seven
   millions in seventy thousand shares of one hundred dollars
   each. Mr. Madison approved the bill. … The second national
   bank of the United States was located at Philadelphia, and
   chartered for twenty years."

      _J. A. Stevens,
      Albert Gallatin,
      chapter 6._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.
   The Second Bank of the United States
   and the war upon it.

   "On the 1st of January, 1817, the bank opened for business,
   with the country on the brink of a great monetary crisis, but
   'too late to prevent the crash which followed.' The management
   of the bank during the first two years of its existence was
   far from satisfactory. It aggravated the troubles of the
   financial situation instead of relieving them. Specie payments
   were nominally resumed in 1817, but the insidious canker of
   inflation had eaten its way into the arteries of business, and
   in the crisis of 1819 came another suspension that lasted for
   two years. … It was only by a desperate effort that the bank
   finally weathered the storm brought on by its own
   mismanagement and that of the State Banks. After the recovery,
   a period of several years of prosperity followed, and the
   management of the bank was thoroughly reorganized and sound.
   From this time on until the great 'Bank War' its affairs seem
   to have been conducted with a view to performing its duty to
   the government as well as to its individual stockholders, and
   it rendered such aid to the public, directly, and indirectly,
   as entitled it to respect and fair treatment on the part of
   the servants of the people. … But the bank controversy was
   not yet over. It was about to be revived, and to become a
   prominent issue in a period of our national politics more
   distinguished for the bitterness of its personal animosities
   than perhaps any other in our annals. … As already said, the
   ten years following the revulsion of 1819-25 were years of
   almost unbroken prosperity. … The question of the
   continuance of the bank was not under discussion. In fact,
   scarcely any mention of the subject was made until President
   Jackson referred to it in his message of December, 1829.
{2215}
   In this message he reopened the question of the
   constitutionality of the bank, but the committee to which this
   portion of the message was referred in the House of
   Representatives made a report favorable to the institution.
   There seems no reason to doubt the honesty of Jackson's
   opinion that the bank was unconstitutional, and at first he
   probably had no feeling in the matter except that which sprang
   from his convictions on this point. Certain events, however,
   increased his hostility to the bank, and strengthened his
   resolution to destroy it. … When President Jackson first
   attacked the bank, the weapon he chiefly relied on was the
   alleged unconstitutionality of the charter."

      _D. Kinley,
      The Independent Treasury of the United States,
      chapter 1._

   The question of the rechartering of the Bank was made an issue
   in the presidential campaign of 1832, by Henry Clay. "Its
   disinterested friends in both parties strongly dissuaded
   Biddle [president of the Bank] from allowing the question of
   recharter to be brought into the campaign. Clay's advisers
   tried to dissuade him. The bank, however, could not oppose the
   public man on whom it depended most, and the party leaders
   deferred at last to their chief. Jackson never was more
   dictatorial and obstinate than Clay was at this juncture."
   Pending the election, a bill to renew the charter of the Bank
   was passed through both houses of Congress. The President
   promptly vetoed it. "The national republican convention met at
   Baltimore, December 12, 1831. It … issued an address, in
   which the bank question was put forward. It was declared that
   the President 'is fully and three times over pledged to the
   people to negative any bill that may be passed for
   rechartering the bank, and there is little doubt that the
   additional influence which he would acquire by a reelection
   would be employed to carry through Congress the extraordinary
   substitute which he has repeatedly proposed.' The appeal,
   therefore, was to defeat Jackson in order to save the bank.
   … Such a challenge as that could have but one effect on
   Jackson. It called every faculty he possessed into activity to
   compass the destruction of the bank. Instead of retiring from
   the position he had taken, the moment there was a fight to be
   fought, he did what he did at New Orleans. He moved his lines
   up to the last point he could command on the side towards the
   enemy. … The proceedings seemed to prove just what the
   anti-bank men had asserted: that the bank was a great monster,
   which aimed to control elections, and to set up and put down
   Presidents. The campaign of 1832 was a struggle between the
   popularity of the bank and the popularity of Jackson."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson,
      chapter 11._

   Jackson was overwhelmingly elected, and feeling convinced that
   his war upon the Bank had received the approval of the people,
   he determined to remove the public deposits from its keeping
   on his own responsibility. "With this view he removed (in the
   spring of 1833) the Secretary of the Treasury, who would not
   consent to remove the deposits, and appointed William J.
   Duane, of Pennsylvania, in his place. He proved to be no more
   compliant than his predecessor. After many attempts to
   persuade him, the President announced to the Cabinet his final
   decision that the deposits must be removed. The Reasons given
   were that the law gave the Secretary, not Congress, control of
   the deposits, that it was improper to leave them longer in a
   bank whose charter would so soon expire, that the Bank's funds
   had been largely used for political purposes, that its
   inability to pay all its depositors had been shown by its
   efforts to procure an extension of time from its creditors in
   Europe, and that its four government directors had been
   systematically kept from knowledge of its management.
   Secretary Duane refused either to remove the deposits or to
   resign his office, and pronounced the proposed removal
   unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary, and unjust. He was
   at once removed from office, and Roger B. Taney, of Maryland,
   appointed in his place. The necessary Orders for Removal were
   given by Secretary Taney. It was not strictly a removal, for
   all previous deposits were left in the Bank, to be drawn upon
   until exhausted. It was rather a cessation. The deposits were
   afterwards made in various State banks, and the Bank of the
   United States was compelled to call in its loans. The
   commercial distress which followed in consequence probably
   strengthened the President in the end by giving a convincing
   proof of the Bank's power as an antagonist to the Government."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 13._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841.
   The Wild Cat Banks of Michigan.

   "Michigan became a State in January, 1837. Almost the first
   act of her State legislature was the passage of a general
   banking law under which any ten or more freeholders of any
   county might organize themselves into a corporation for the
   transaction of banking business. Of the nominal capital of a
   bank only ten per cent. in specie was required to be paid when
   subscriptions to the stock were made, and twenty per cent.
   additional in specie when the bank began business. For the
   further security of the notes which were to be issued as
   currency, the stockholders were to give first mortgages upon
   real estate, to be estimated at its cash value by at least
   three county officers, the mortgages to be filed with the
   auditor-general of the State. A bank commissioner was
   appointed to superintend the organization of the banks, and to
   attest the legality of their proceedings to the
   auditor-general, who, upon receiving such attestation, was to
   deliver to the banks circulating notes amounting to two and a
   half times the capital certified to as having been paid in.
   This law was passed in obedience to a popular cry that the
   banking business had become an 'odious monopoly' that ought to
   be broken up. Its design was to 'introduce free competition
   into what was considered a profitable branch of business
   heretofore monopolized by a few favored corporations.' Anybody
   was to be given fair opportunities for entering the business
   on equal terms with everybody else. The act was passed in
   March, 1837, and the legislature adjourned till November 9
   following. Before the latter date arrived, in fact before any
   banks had been organized under the law, a financial panic
   seized the whole country. An era of wild speculation reached a
   climax, the banks in all the principal cities of the country
   suspended specie payments, and State legislatures were called
   together to devise remedies to meet the situation. That of
   Michigan was convened in special session in June, and its
   remedy for the case of Michigan was to leave the general
   banking law in force, and to add to it full authority for
   banks organized under it to begin the business of issuing
   bills in a state of suspension—that is, to flood the State
   with an irredeemable currency, based upon thirty per cent. of
   specie and seventy per cent. of land mortgage bonds."

      _Cheap-Money Experiments
      (from the Century Magazine),
      pages 75-77._

{2216}

   "Wild lands that had been recently bought of the government at
   one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre were now valued at
   ten or twenty times that amount, and lots in villages that
   still existed only on paper had a worth for banking purposes
   only limited by the conscience of the officer who was to take
   the securities. Any ten freeholders of a county must be poor
   indeed if they could not give sufficient security to answer
   the purpose of the general banking law. The requirement of the
   payment of thirty per cent. of the capital stock in specie was
   more difficult to be complied with. But as the payment was to
   be made to the bank itself, the difficulty was gotten over in
   various ingenious ways, which the author of the general
   banking law could hardly have anticipated. In some cases,
   stock notes in terms payable in specie, or the certificates of
   individuals which stated—untruly—that the maker held a
   specified sum of specie for the bank, were counted as specie
   itself; in others, a small sum of specie was paid in and taken
   out, and the process repeated over and over until the
   aggregate of payments equaled the sum required; in still
   others, the specie with which one bank was organized was
   passed from town to town and made to answer the purposes of
   several. By the first day of January, 1838, articles of
   association for twenty-one banks had been filed, making, with
   the banks before in existence, an average of one to less than
   five thousand people. Some of them were absolutely without
   capital, and some were organized by scheming men in New York
   and elsewhere, who took the bills away with them to circulate
   abroad, putting out none at home. For some, locations as
   inaccessible as possible were selected, that the bills might
   not come back to plague the managers. The bank commissioners
   say in their report for 1838, of their journey for inspection:
   'The singular spectacle was presented of the officers of the
   State seeking for banks in situations the most inaccessible
   and remote from trade, and finding at every step an increase
   of labor by the discovery of new and unknown organizations.
   Before they could be arrested the mischief was done: large
   issues were in circulation and no adequate remedy for the
   evil.' One bank was found housed in a saw-mill, and it was
   said with pardonable exaggeration in one of the public papers.
   'Every village plat with a house, or even without a house, if
   it had a hollow stump to serve as a vault, was the site of a
   bank.' … The governor, when he delivered his annual message
   in January, 1838, still had confidence in the general banking
   law, which he said 'offered to all persons the privilege of
   banking under certain guards and restrictions,' and he
   declared that 'the principles upon which this law is based are
   certainly correct, destroying as they do the odious feature of
   a banking monopoly, and giving equal rights to all classes of
   the community.' … The aggregate amount of private
   indebtedness had by this time become enormous, and the
   pressure for payment was serious and disquieting. … The
   people must have relief; and what relief could be so certain
   or so speedy as more banks and more money? More banks
   therefore continued to be organized, and the paper current
   flowed out among the people in increasing volume. … At the
   beginning of 1839 the bank commissioners estimated that there
   were a million dollars of bills of insolvent banks in the
   hands of individuals and unavailable. Yet the governor, in his
   annual message delivered in January, found it a 'source of
   unfeigned gratification to be able to congratulate [the
   legislature] on the prosperous condition to which our rising
   commonwealth has attained.' … Then came stay laws, and laws
   to compel creditors to take lands at a valuation. They were
   doubtful in point of utility, and more than doubtful in point
   of morality and constitutionality. The federal bankrupt act of
   1841 first brought substantial relief: it brought almost no
   dividends to creditors, but it relieved debtors from their
   crushing burdens and permitted them, sobered and in their
   right minds, to enter once more the fields of industry and
   activity. The extraordinary history of the attempt to break up
   an 'odious monopoly' in banking by making everybody a banker,
   and to create prosperity by unlimited issues of paper
   currency, was brought at length to a fit conclusion."

      _T. M. Cooley,
      Michigan,
      chapter 13._

      See WILD CAT BANKS.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.
   Free Banking Law of New York.

   "On April 18th, 1838, the monopoly of banking under special
   charters, was brought to a close in the State of New York, by
   the passage of the act 'to authorize the business of Banking.'
   Under this law Associations for Banking purposes and
   Individual Bankers, were authorized to carry on the business
   of Banking, by establishing offices of deposit, discount and
   circulation. Subsequently a separate Department was organized
   at Albany, called 'The Bank Department,' with a
   Superintendent, who was charged with the supervision of all
   the banks in the State. Under this law institutions could be
   organized simply as banks of 'discount and deposit,' and might
   also add the issuing of a paper currency to circulate as
   money. At first the law provided that State and United States
   stocks for one-half, and bonds and mortgages for the other
   half, might be deposited as security for the circulating notes
   to be issued by Banks and individual Bankers. Upon a fair
   trial, however, it was found that when a bank failed, and the
   Bank Department was called upon to redeem the circulating
   notes of such bank, the mortgages could not be made available
   in time to meet the demand. … By an amendment of the law the
   receiving of mortgages as security for circulating notes was
   discontinued."

      _E. G. Spaulding,
      One Hundred Years of Progress
      in the Business of Banking,
      page 48._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.
   The English Bank Charter Act.

   "By an act of parliament passed in 1838, conferring certain
   privileges on the Bank of England, it was provided that the
   charter granted to that body should expire in 1855, but the
   power was reserved to the legislature, on giving six months'
   notice, to revise the charter ten years earlier. Availing
   themselves of this option, the government proposed a measure
   for regulating the entire monetary system of the country."

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

{2217}

   "The growth of commerce, and in particular the establishment
   of numerous joint-stock banks had given a dangerous impulse to
   issues of paper money, which were not then restricted by law.
   Even the Bank of England did not observe any fixed proportion
   between the amount of notes which it issued and the amount of
   bullion which it kept in reserve. When introducing this
   subject to the House of Commons, Peel remarked that within the
   last twenty years there had been four periods when a
   contraction of issues had been necessary in order to maintain
   the convertibility of paper, and that in none of these had the
   Bank of England acted with vigour equal to the emergency. In
   the latest of these periods, from June of 1838 to June of
   1839, the amount of bullion in the Bank had fallen to little
   more than £4,000,000, whilst the total of paper in circulation
   had risen to little less than £30,000,000. … Peel was not
   the first to devise the methods which he adopted. Mr. Jones
   Loyd, afterwards Lord Overstone, who impressed the learned
   with his tracts and the vulgar with his riches, had advised
   the principal changes in the law relating to the issue of
   paper money which Peel effected by the Bank Charter Act. These
   changes were three in number. The first was to separate
   totally the two departments of the Bank of England, the
   banking department and the issue department. The banking
   department was left to be managed as best the wisdom of the
   directors could devise for the profit of the shareholders. The
   issue department was placed under regulations which deprived
   the Bank of any discretion in its management, and may almost
   be said to have made it a department of the State. The second
   innovation was to limit the issue of paper by the Bank of
   England to an amount proportioned to the value of its assets.
   The Bank was allowed to issue notes to the amount of
   £14,000,000 against Government securities in its possession.
   The Government owed the Bank a debt of £11,000,000, besides
   which the Bank held Exchequer Bills. But the amount over
   £14,000,000 which the Bank could issue was not, henceforwards,
   to be more than the equivalent of the bullion in its
   possession. By this means it was made certain that the Bank
   would be able to give coin for any of its notes which might be
   presented to it. The third innovation was to limit the issues
   of the country banks. The power of issuing notes was denied to
   any private or joint-stock banks founded after the date of the
   Act. It was recognized in those banks which already possessed
   it, but limited to a total sum of £8,500,000, the average
   quantity of such notes which had been in circulation during
   the years immediately preceding. It was provided that if any
   of the banks which retained this privilege should cease to
   exist or to issue notes, the Bank of England should be
   entitled to increase its note circulation by a sum equal to
   two-thirds of the amount of the former issues of the bank
   which ceased to issue paper. The Bank of England was required
   in this contingency to augment the reserve fund. By Acts
   passed in the succeeding year, the principles of the English
   Bank Charter Act were applied to Scotland and Ireland, with
   such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of those
   kingdoms required. The Bank Charter Act has ever since been
   the subject of voluminous and contradictory criticism, both by
   political economists and by men of business."

      _F. C. Montague,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Bonamy Price,
      The Bank Charter Act of 1844
      (Fraser's Magazine, June, 1865)._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.
   Production of the Precious Metals
   in the last half-century.
   The Silver Question in the United States.

   "The total (estimated) stock of gold in the world in 1848, was
   £560,000,000. As for the annual production, it had varied
   considerably since the beginning of the century [from
   £3,000,000 to £8,000,000]. Such was the state of things
   immediately preceding 1848. In that year the Californian
   discoveries took place, and these were followed by the
   discoveries in Australia in 1851.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849;
      and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

   For these three years the annual average production is set
   down by the Economist at £9,000,000, but from this date the
   production suddenly rose to, for 1852, £27,000.000, and
   continued to rise till 1856, when it attained its maximum of
   £32,250,000. At this stage a decline in the returns occurred,
   the lowest point reached being in 1860, when they fell to
   £18,683,000, but from this they rose again, and for the last
   ten years [before 1873] have maintained an average of about
   £20,500,000; the returns for the year 1871 being £20,811,000.
   The total amount of gold added to the world's stock by this
   twenty years' production has been about £500,000,000, an
   amount nearly equal to that existing in the world at the date
   of the discoveries: in other words, the stock of gold in the
   world has been nearly doubled since that time."

      _J. E. Cairnes,
      Essays in Political Economy,
      pages 160-161._

      "The yearly average of gold production in the twenty-five
      years from 1851-75 was $127,000,000. The yearly average
      product of silver for the same period was $51,000,000. The
      average annual product of gold for the fifteen years from
      1876 to 1890 declined to $108,000,000; a minus of 15 per
      cent. The average annual product of silver for the same
      period increased to $116,000,000; a plus of 127 per cent.
      There is the whole silver question."

      _L. R. Ehrich,
      The Question of Silver,
      page 21._

   "From 1793—the date of the first issue of silver coin by the
   United States—to 1834 the silver and the gold dollar were
   alike authorized to be received as legal tender in payment of
   debt, but silver alone circulated. Subsequently, however,
   silver was not used, except in fractional payments, or, since
   1853, as a subsidiary coin. The silver coin, as a coin of
   circulation, had become obsolete. The reason why, prior to
   1834, payments were made exclusively in silver, and
   subsequently to that date in gold, is found in the fact that
   prior to the legislation of 1834 … the standard silver coins
   were relatively the cheaper, and consequently circulated to
   the exclusion of the gold; while during the later period the
   standard gold coins were the cheaper, circulating to the
   exclusion of the silver. The Coinage Act of 1873, by which the
   coinage of the silver dollar was discontinued, became a law on
   February 12th of that year. The act of February 28, 1878,
   which passed Congress by a two-thirds vote over the veto of
   President Hayes, again provided for the coinage of a silver
   dollar of 412.5 grains, the silver bullion to be purchased at
   the market price by the Government, and the amount so
   purchased and coined not to be less than two millions of
   dollars per month. During the debate on this bill the charge
   was repeatedly made, in and out of Congress, that the previous
   act of 1873, discontinuing the free coinage of the silver
   dollar, was passed surreptitiously.
{2218}
   This statement has no foundation in fact. The report of the
   writer, who was then Deputy Comptroller of the Currency,
   transmitted to Congress in 1870 by the Secretary, three times
   distinctly stated that the bill accompanying it proposed to
   discontinue the issue of the silver dollar-piece. Various
   experts, to whom it had been submitted, approved this feature
   of the bill, and their opinions were printed by order of
   Congress."

      _J. J. Knox,
      United States Notes,
      chapter 10._

   "The bill of 1878, generally spoken of as the 'Bland' bill,
   directed the secretary of the treasury to purchase not less
   than two million nor more than four million dollars' worth of
   silver bullion per month, to coin it into silver dollars, said
   silver dollars to be full legal tender at 'their nominal
   value.' Also, that the holder of ten or more of these silver
   dollars could exchange them for silver certificates, said
   certificates being 'receivable for customs, taxes, and all
   public dues.' The bill was pushed and passed by the efforts,
   principally, of the greenback inflationists and the
   representatives of the silver States. … Since 1878 [to
   1891], 405,000,000 silver dollars have been coined. Of these
   348,000,000 are still lying in the treasury vaults. No comment
   is needed. The Bland-Allison act did not hold up silver. In
   1870 it was worth $1.12 an ounce, in 1880 $1.14, '81 $1.13,
   '82 $1.13, '83 $1.11, '86 99 cents, until in '89 it reached
   93½ cents an ounce. That is, in 1880 the commercial ratio was
   22:1 and the coin value of the Bland-Allison silver dollar was
   72 cents. In March, 1800, a bill was reported to the House by
   the committee of 'coinage, weights and measures,' based on a
   plan proposed by Secretary Windom. … The bill passed the
   House. The Senate passed it with an amendment making provision
   for free and unlimited coinage. It finally went to a
   conference committee which reported the bill that became a
   law, July 14, 1890. This bill directs the secretary of the
   treasury to purchase four and one-half million ounces of
   silver a month at the market price, to give legal tender
   treasury notes therefor, said notes being redeemable in gold
   or silver coin at the option of the government, 'it being the
   established policy of the United States to maintain the two
   metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal
   ratio.' It was believed that this bill would raise the price
   of silver. … To-day [December 8, 1891] the silver in our
   dollar is actually worth 73 cents."

      _L. R. Ehrich,
      The Question of Silver,
      pages 21-25._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1873, 1878, and 1890-1893.

   In the summer of 1893, a financial crisis, produced in the
   judgment of the best informed by the operation of the
   silver-purchase law of 1890 (known commonly as the Sherman
   Act) became so serious that President Cleveland called a
   special session of Congress to deal with it. In his Message to
   Congress, at the opening of its session, the President said:
   "With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative
   production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe
   investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business
   enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung
   up on every side. Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended
   because abundant assets were not immediately available to meet
   the demands of the frightened depositors. Surviving
   corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the
   money they are usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in
   legitimate business are surprised to find that the securities
   they offer for loans, though heretofore satisfactory, are no
   longer accepted. Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming
   conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch
   of business. I believe these things are principally chargeable
   to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage
   of silver by the General Government. This legislation is
   embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890,
   which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject
   involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
   struggle between the advocates of free silver coinage and
   those intending to be more conservative." A bill to repeal the
   act of July 14, 1890 (the Sherman law, so called), was passed
   by both houses and received the President's signature, Nov. 1,
   1893.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874.
   The Latin Union and the Silver Question.

   "The gold discoveries of California and Australia were
   directly the cause of the Latin Union. … In 1853, when the
   subsidiary silver of the United States had disappeared before
   the cheapened gold, we reduced the quantity of silver in the
   small coins sufficiently to keep them dollar for dollar below
   the value of gold. Switzerland followed this example of the
   United States in her law of January 31, 1860; but, instead of
   distinctly reducing the weight of pure silver in her small
   coins, she accomplished the same end by lowering the fineness
   of standard for these coins to 800 thousandths fine. …
   Meanwhile France and Italy had a higher standard for their
   coins than Switzerland, and as the neighboring states, which
   had the franc system of coinage in common, found each other's
   coins in circulation within their own limits, it was clear
   that the cheaper Swiss coins, according to Gresham's law, must
   drive out the dearer French and Italian coins, which contained
   more pure silver, but which passed current at the same nominal
   value. The Swiss coins of 800 thousandths fine began to pass
   the French frontier and to displace the French coins of a
   similar denomination; and the French coins were exported,
   melted, and recoined in Switzerland at a profit. This, of
   course, brought forth a decree in France (April 14, 1864),
   which prohibited the receipt of these Swiss coins at the
   public offices of France, the customs-offices, etc., and they
   were consequently refused in common trade among individuals.
   Belgium also, as well as Switzerland, began to think it
   necessary to deal with the questions affecting her silver
   small coins, which were leaving that country for the same
   reason that they were leaving Switzerland. Belgium then
   undertook to make overtures to France, in order that some
   concerted action might be undertaken by the four countries
   using the franc system—Italy, Belgium, France, and
   Switzerland—to remedy the evil to which all were exposed by
   the disappearance of their silver coin needed in every-day
   transactions. The discoveries of gold had forced a
   reconsideration of their coinage systems. In consequence of
   these overtures, a conference of delegates representing the
   Latin states just mentioned assembled in Paris, November
   20, 1865. … The Conference, fully realizing the effects of
   the fall of gold in driving out their silver coins, agreed to
   establish a uniform coinage in the four countries, on the
   essential principles adopted by the United States in 1853.
{2219}
   They lowered the silver pieces of two francs, one franc, fifty
   centimes, and twenty centimes from a standard of 900
   thousandths fine to a uniform fineness of 835 thousandths,
   reducing these coins to the position of a subsidiary currency.
   They retained for the countries of the Latin Union, however,
   the system of bimetallism. Gold pieces of one hundred, fifty,
   twenty, ten, and five francs were to be coined, together with
   five-franc pieces of silver, and all at a standard of 900
   thousandths fine. Free coinage at a ratio of 15½:1, was
   thereby granted to any holder of either gold or silver bullion
   who wanted silver coins of five francs, or gold coins from
   five francs and upward. … The subsidiary silver coins (below
   five francs) were made a legal tender between individuals of
   the state which coined them to the amount of fifty francs. …
   The treaty was ratified, and went into effect August 1, 1866,
   to continue until January 1, 1880, or about fifteen years. …
   The downward tendency of silver in 1873 led the Latin Union to
   fear that the demonetized silver of Germany would flood their
   own mints if they continued the free coinage of five-franc
   silver pieces at a legal ratio of 15½:1. … This condition of
   things led to the meeting of delegates from the countries of
   the Latin Union at Paris, January 30, 1874, who there agreed
   to a treaty supplementary to that originally formed in 1865,
   and determined on withdrawing from individuals the full power
   of free coinage by limiting to a moderate sum the amount of
   silver five-franc pieces which should be coined by each state
   of the Union during the year 1874. The date of this suspension
   of coinage by the Latin Union is regarded by all authorities
   as of great import in regard to the value of silver."

      _J. L. Laughlin,
      The History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      pages 146-155._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.
   The Legal-tender notes, or Greenbacks, the
   National Bank System, of the American Civil War.

   "In January, 1861, the paper currency of the United States was
   furnished by 1,600 private corporations, organized under
   thirty-four different State laws. The circulation of the banks
   amounted to $202,000,000, of which only about $50,000,000 were
   issued in the States which in April, 1861, undertook to set up
   an independent government. About $150,000,000 were in
   circulation in the loyal States, including West Virginia. When
   Congress met in extraordinary session on the 4th of July, the
   three-months volunteers, who had hastened to the defence of
   the capital, were confronting the rebel army on the line of
   the Potomac, and the first great battle at Bull Run was
   impending. President Lincoln called upon Congress to provide
   for the enlistment of 400,000 men, and Secretary Chase
   submitted estimates for probable expenditures amounting to
   $318,000,000. The treasury was empty, and the expenses of the
   government were rapidly approaching a million dollars a day.
   The ordinary expenses of the government, during the year
   ending on the 30th of June, 1861, had been $62,000,000, and
   even this sum had not been supplied by the revenue, which
   amounted to only $41,000,000. The rest had been borrowed. It
   was now necessary to provide for an expenditure increased
   fivefold, and amounting to eight times the income of the
   country, Secretary Chase advised that $80,000,000 be provided
   by taxation, and $240,000,000 by loans; and that, in
   anticipation of revenue, provision be made for the issue of
   $50,000,000 of treasury notes, redeemable on demand in coin.
   'The greatest care will, however, be requisite,' he said, 'to
   prevent the degradation of such issues into an irredeemable
   paper currency, than which no more certainly fatal expedient
   for impoverishing the masses and discrediting the government
   of any country can well be devised.' The desired authority was
   granted by Congress. The Secretary was authorized to borrow,
   on the credit of the United States, not exceeding
   $250,000,000, and, 'as a part of the above loan,' to issue an
   exchange for coin, or pay for salaries or other dues from the
   United States, not over $50,000,000 of treasury notes, bearing
   no interest, but payable on demand at Philadelphia, New York,
   or Boston. The act does not say, 'payable in coin,' for nobody
   had then imagined that any other form of payment was possible.
   Congress adjourned on the 6th of August, after passing an act
   to provide an increased revenue from imports, and laying a
   direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the States, and a tax of 3 per
   cent. upon the excess of all private incomes above $800. The
   Secretary immediately invited the banks of Philadelphia, New
   York, and Boston to assist in the negotiation of the proposed
   loans, and they loyally responded. On the 19th of August they
   took $50,000,000 of three years 7-30 bonds at par; on the 1st
   of October, $50,000,000 more of the same securities at par;
   and on the 16th of November, $50,000,000 of twenty years 6 per
   cents., at a rate making the interest equivalent to 7 per
   cent. These advances relieved the temporary necessities of the
   treasury, and, when Congress reassembled in December,
   Secretary Chase was prepared to recommend a permanent
   financial policy. The solid basis of this policy was to be
   taxation. … It was estimated, a revenue of $90,000,000 would
   be needed; and to secure that sum, the Secretary advised that
   the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar be increased; that a
   direct tax of $20,000,000 be assessed on the States; that the
   income tax be modified so as to produce $10,000,000, and that
   duties be laid on liquors, tobacco, carriages, legacies,
   bank-notes, bills payable, and conveyances. For the
   extraordinary expenses of the war it was necessary to depend
   upon loans, and the authority to be granted for this purpose
   the Secretary left 'to the better judgment of Congress,' only
   suggesting that the rate of interest should be regulated by
   law, and that the time had come when the government might
   properly claim a part, at least, of the advantage of the paper
   circulation, then constituting a loan without interest from
   the people to the banks. There were two ways, Secretary Chase
   said, in which this advantage might be secured: 1. By
   increasing the issue of United States notes, and taxing the
   bank-notes out of existence. 2. By providing a national
   currency, to be issued by the banks but secured by the pledge
   of United States bonds. The former plan the Secretary did not
   recommend, regarding the hazard of a depreciating and finally
   worthless currency as far outweighing the probable benefits of
   the measure. … Congress had hardly begun to consider these
   recommendations, when the situation was completely changed by
   the suspension of specie payments, on the 28th of December, by
   the banks of New York, followed by the suspension of the other
   banks in the country, and compelling the treasury also to
   suspend.
{2220}
   This suspension was the result of a panic occasioned by the
   shadow of war with England. … To provide for the pressing
   wants of the treasury, Congress, on the 12th of February,
   1862, authorized the issue of $10,000,000 more of demand
   notes. Before the end of the session further issues were
   provided for, making the aggregate of United States notes
   $300,000,000, besides fractional currency. There was a long
   debate upon the propriety of making these notes a legal tender
   for private debts, and it seemed for a time that the measure
   would be defeated by this dispute. [The bill authorizing the
   issue of legal tender notes known afterwards as 'Greenbacks'
   was prepared by the Hon. E. G. Spaulding, who subsequently
   wrote the history of the measure.] Secretary Chase finally
   advised the concession of this point; nevertheless, 55 votes
   in the House of Representatives … were recorded against the
   provision making the notes a tender for private debts.
   Congress also empowered the Secretary to borrow $500,000,000
   on 5-20 year 6 per cent. bonds, besides a temporary loan of
   $100,000,000, and provided that the interest on the bonds
   should be paid in coin, and that the customs should be
   collected in coin for that purpose. Nothing was said about the
   principal, for it was taken for granted that specie payments
   would be resumed before the payment of the principal of the
   debt would be undertaken. … Congress had thus adopted the
   plan which the Secretary of the Treasury did not recommend,
   and neglected the proposition which he preferred. … When
   Congress met in December, 1862, the magnitude of the war had
   become fully apparent. … The enormous demands upon the
   treasury … had exhausted the resources provided by Congress.
   The disbursements in November amounted to $59,847,077—two
   millions a day. Unpaid requisitions had accumulated amounting
   to $46,000,000. The total receipts for the year then current,
   ending June 30, 1863, were estimated at $511,000,000; the
   expenditures at $788,000,000; leaving $277,000,000 to be
   provided for. There were only two ways to obtain this sum—by
   a fresh issue of United States notes, or by new
   interest-bearing loans. But the gold premium had advanced in
   October to 34; the notes were already at a discount of 25 per
   cent. The consequences of an addition of $277,000,000 to the
   volume of currency, the Secretary said, would be 'inflation of
   prices, increase of expenditures, augmentation of debt, and,
   ultimately, disastrous defeat of the very purposes sought to
   be obtained by it.' He therefore recommended an increase in
   the amount authorized to be borrowed on the 5-20 bonds. … In
   order to create a market for the bonds, he again recommended
   the creation of banking associations under a national law
   requiring them to secure their circulation by a deposit of
   government bonds. The suggestion thus renewed was not received
   with favor by Congress. … On the 7th of January Mr. Hooper
   offered again his bill to provide a national currency, secured
   by a pledge of United States bonds, but the next day Mr.
   Stevens, of Pennsylvania, submitted the bill with an adverse
   report from the committee on ways and means. On the 14th of
   January Mr. Stevens reported a resolution authorizing the
   Secretary of the Treasury to issue $100,000,000 more of United
   States notes for the immediate payment of the army and navy.
   The resolution passed the House at once, and the Senate the
   next day. … On the 19th of January President Lincoln sent a
   special message to the House, announcing that he had signed
   the joint resolution authorizing a new issue of United States
   notes, but adding that he considered it his duty to express
   his sincere regret that it had been found necessary to add
   such a sum to an already redundant currency, while the
   suspended banks were still left free to increase their
   circulation at will. He warned Congress that such a policy
   must soon produce disastrous consequences, and the warning was
   effective. On the 25th of January Senator Sherman offered a
   bill to provide a national currency, differing in some
   respects from Mr. Hooper's in the House. The bill passed the
   Senate on the 12th of February, 23 to 21, and the House on the
   20th, 78 to 64. … It was signed by the President on the 25th
   of February, 1863."

      _H. W. Richardson,
      The National Banks,
      chapter 2._

   "One immediate effect of the Legal Tender Act was to destroy
   our credit abroad. Stocks were sent home for sale, and, as
   Bagebot shows, Lombard Street was closed to a nation which had
   adopted legal tender paper money. … By August all specie had
   disappeared from circulation, and postage-stamps and private
   note-issues took its place. In July a bill was passed for
   issuing stamps as fractional currency, but in March 1863,
   another act was passed providing for an issue of 50,000,000 in
   notes for fractional parts of a dollar—not legal tender. For
   many years the actual issue was only 30,000,000, the amount of
   silver fractional coins in circulation in the North, east of
   the Rocky Mountains, when the war broke out. … Gold rose to
   200-220 or above, making the paper worth 45 or 50 cts., at
   which point the 5 per cent. ten-forties floated. The amount
   sold up to October 31st, 1865, was $172,770,100. Mr. Spaulding
   reckons up the paper issues which acted more or less as
   currency, on January 30th, 1864, at $1,125,877,034;
   812,000,000 bore no interest."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 204-208._

   The paper-money issues of the Civil War were not brought to
   parity of value with gold until near the close of the year
   1878. The 1st day of January, 1879, had been fixed for
   resumption by an act passed in 1875; but that date was
   generally anticipated in practical business by a few months.

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
      book 1, chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11,
      and book 2, chapter 2._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873.
   Adoption of the Gold Standard by Germany.

   "At the close of the Franco-Prussian war the new German Empire
   found the opportunity … for the establishment of a uniform
   coinage throughout its numerous small states, and was
   essentially aided in its plan at this time by the receipt of
   the enormous war-indemnity from France, of which $54,600,000
   was paid to Germany in French gold coin. Besides this, Germany
   received from France bills of exchange in payment of the
   indemnity which gave Germany the title to gold in places, such
   as London, on which the bills were drawn. Gold in this way
   left London for Berlin. With a large stock of gold on hand,
   Germany began a series of measures to change her circulation
   from silver to gold.
{2221}
   Her circulation in 1870, before the change was made, was
   composed substantially of silver and paper money, with no more
   than 4 per cent of the whole circulation in gold. … The
   substitution of gold instead of silver in a country like
   Germany which had a single silver medium was carried out by a
   path which led first to temporary bimetallism and later to
   gold monometallism. And for this purpose the preparatory
   measures were passed December 4, 1871. … This law of 1871
   created new gold coins, current equally with existing silver
   coins, at rates of exchange which were based on a ratio
   between the gold and silver coins of 1:15½. The silver coins
   were not demonetized by this law; their coinage was for the
   present only discontinued; but there was no doubt as to the
   intention of the Government in the future. … The next and
   decisive step toward a single gold standard was taken by the
   act of July 9, 1873. … By this measure gold was established
   as the monetary standard of the country, with the 'mark' as
   the unit, and silver was used, as in the United States in
   1853, in a subsidiary service. … Under the terms of this
   legislation Germany began to withdraw her old silver coinage,
   and to sell as bullion whatever silver was not recoined into
   the new subsidiary currency."

     _J. L. Laughlin,
      History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      pages 136-140._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1893.
   Stoppage of the free Coinage of Silver in India.

   The free coinage of silver in India was stopped by the
   Government in June, 1893, thus taking the first step toward
   the establishment of the gold standard in that country.

   ----------MONEY AND BANKING: End----------

   ----------MONGOLS: Start--------

MONGOLS:
   Origin and earliest history.

   "The name Mongol (according to Schmidt) is derived from the
   word Mong, meaning brave, daring, bold, an etymology which is
   acquiesced in by Dr. Schott. Ssanang Setzen says it was first
   given to the race in the time of Jingis Khan, but it is of
   much older date than his time, as we know from the Chinese
   accounts. … They point further, as the statements of Raschid
   do, to the Mongols having at first been merely one tribe of a
   great confederacy, whose name was probably extended to the
   whole when the prowess of the Imperial House which governed it
   gained the supremacy. We learn lastly from them that the
   generic name by which the race was known in early times to the
   Chinese was Shi wei, the Mongols having, in fact, been a tribe
   of the Shi wei. … The Shi wei were known to the Chinese from
   the 7th century; they then consisted of various detached
   hordes, subject to the Thu kiu, or Turks. … After the fall
   of the Yuan-Yuan, the Turks, by whom they were overthrown,
   acquired the supreme control of Eastern Asia. They had, under
   the name of Hiong nu, been masters of the Mongolian desert and
   its border land from a very early period, and under their new
   name of Turks they merely reconquered a position from which
   they had been driven some centuries before. Everywhere in
   Mongol history we find evidence of their presence, the titles
   Khakan, Khan, Bigui or Beg, Terkhan, &c., are common to both
   races, while the same names occur among Mongol and Turkish
   chiefs. … This fact of the former predominance of Turkish
   influence in further Asia supports the traditions collected by
   Raschid, Abulghazi, &c., … which trace the race of Mongol
   Khans up to the old royal race of the Turks."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 27-32._

   "Here [in the eastern portion of Asia known as the desert of
   Gobi], from time immemorial, the Mongols, a people nearly akin
   to the Turks in language and physiognomy, had made their home,
   leading a miserable nomadic life in the midst of a wild and
   barren country, unrecognised by their neighbours, and their
   very name unknown centuries after their kinsmen, the Turks,
   had been exercising an all-powerful influence over the
   destinies of Western Asia."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

      _A. Vámbéry,
      Travels in Central Asia
      www.gutenberg.org #41751_

      See also, TARTARS.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
   Conquests of Jingiz Khan.

   "Jingiz-Khan [or Genghis, or Zingis], whose original name was
   Tamujin, the son of a Tatar chief, was born in the year 1153
   A. D. In 1202, at the age of 49, he had defeated or
   propitiated all his enemies, and in 1205 was proclaimed, by a
   great assembly, Khakan or Emperor of Tartary. His capital, a
   vast assemblage of tents, was at Kara-Korum, in a distant part
   of Chinese Tartary; and from thence he sent forth mighty
   armies to conquer the world. This extraordinary man, who could
   neither read nor write, established laws for the regulation of
   social life and for the chase; and adopted a religion of pure
   Theism. His army was divided into Tumans of 10,000 men,
   Hazarehs of 1,000, Sedehs of 100, and Dehehs of 10, each under
   a Tatar officer, and they were armed with bows and arrows,
   swords, and iron maces. Having brought the whole of Tartary
   under his sway, he conquered China, while his sons, Oktai and
   Jagatai, were sent [A. D. 1218] with a vast army against
   Khuwarizm [whose prince had provoked the attack by murdering a
   large number of merchants who were under the protection of
   Jingiz]. The country was conquered, though bravely defended by
   the king's son, Jalalu-'d-Din; 100,000 people were put to the
   sword, the rest sold as slaves. … The sons of Jingiz-Khan
   then returned in triumph to their father; but the brave young
   prince, Jalalu-'d-Din, still held out against the conquerors
   of his country. This opposition roused Jingiz-Khan to fury;
   Balk was attacked for having harboured the fugitive prince in
   1221, and, having surrendered, the people were all put to
   death. Nishapur shared the same fate, and a horrible massacre
   of all the inhabitants took place." Jalalu-'d-Din, pursued to
   the banks of the Indus and defeated in a desperate battle
   fought there, swam the liver on horseback, in the face of the
   enemy, and escaped into India. "The Mongol hordes then overran
   Kandahar and Multan, Azerbaijan and 'Irak; Fars was only saved
   by the submission of its Ata-beg, and two Mongol generals
   marched round the Caspian Sea. Jingiz-Khan returned to Tartary
   in A. D. 1222, but in these terrible campaigns he lost no less
   than 200,000 men. As soon as the great conqueror had retired
   out of Persia, the indefatigable Jalalu-'d-Din recrossed the
   Indus with 4,000 followers, and passing through Shiraz and
   Isfaham drove the Mongols out of Tubriz. But he was defeated
   by them in 1226; and though he kept up the war in Azerbaijan
   for a short time longer, he was at length utterly routed, and
   flying into Kurdistan was killed in the house of a friend
   there, four years afterwards. … Jingiz-Khan died in the year
   1227."

      _C. R. Markham,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 7._

{2222}

   In 1224 Jingiz "divided his gigantic empire amongst his sons
   as follows: China and Mongolia were given to Oktai, whom he
   nominated as his successor; Tchaghatai received a part of the
   Uiguric passes as far as Khahrezm, including Turkestan and
   Transoxania; Djudi had died in the meantime, so Batu was made
   lord of Kharezm, Desht i-Kiptchak of the pass of Derbend and
   Tuli was placed over Khorasan, Persia, and India."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

   "Popularly he [Jingis-Khan] is mentioned with Attila and with
   Timur as one of the 'Scourges of God.' … But he was far more
   than a conqueror. … In every detail of social and political
   economy he was a creator; his laws and his administrative
   rules are equally admirable and astounding to the student. …
   He may fairly claim to have conquered the greatest area of the
   world's surface that was ever subdued by one hand. … Jingis
   organised a system of intelligence and espionage by which he
   generally knew well the internal condition of the country he
   was about to attack. He intrigued with the discontented and
   seduced them by fair promises. … The Mongols ravaged and
   laid waste the country all round the bigger towns, and they
   generally tried to entice a portion of the garrison into an
   ambuscade. They built regular siege-works armed with
   catapults; the captives and peasants were forced to take part
   in the assault; the attack never ceased night or day; relief
   of troops keeping the garrison in perpetual terror. They
   employed Chinese and Persians to make their war engines. …
   They rarely abandoned the siege of a place altogether, and
   would sometimes continue a blockade for years. They were bound
   by no oath, and however solemn their promise to the
   inhabitants who would surrender, it was broken, and a general
   massacre ensued. It was their policy to leave behind them no
   body of people, however submissive, who might inconvenience
   their communications. … His [Jingis'] creed was to sweep
   away all cities, as the haunts of slaves and of luxury; that
   his herds might freely feed upon grass whose green was free
   from dusty feet. It does make one hide one's face in terror to
   read that from 1211 to 1223, 18,470,000 human beings perished
   in China and Tangut alone, at the hands of Jingis and his
   followers."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 49, 108-113._

   "He [Jingiz-Khan] was … a military genius of the very first
   order, and it may be questioned whether either Cæsar or
   Napoleon can, as commanders, be placed on a par with him. The
   manner in which he moved large bodies of men over vast
   distances without an apparent effort, the judgment he showed
   in the conduct of several wars in countries far apart from
   each other, his strategy in unknown regions, always on the
   alert yet never allowing hesitation or over-caution to
   interfere with his enterprises, the sieges which he brought to
   a successful termination, his brilliant victories … —all
   combined, make up the picture of a career to which Europe can
   offer nothing that will surpass, if indeed she has anything to
   bear comparison with it."

      _D. C. Boulger,
      History of China,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

      See, also,
      CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234;
      KHORASSAN;
      BOKHARA: A. D. 1219;
      SAMARKAND;
      MERV;
      BALKH;
      KHUAREZM.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1202.
   Overthrow of the Keraït, or the kingdom of Prester John.

      See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
   Conquests of the successors of Jingiz Khan.

   "Okkodai [or Ogotai or Oktai], the son and successor of
   Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
   the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his empire all
   the provinces north of the Great Kiang. … After establishing
   his power over so much of China as we have said, Okkodai
   raised a vast army and set it in motion towards the west. One
   portion was directed against Armenia, Georgia, and Asia Minor,
   whilst another great host under Batu, the nephew of the Great
   Khan, conquered the countries north of Caucasus, overran
   Russia making it tributary, and still continued to carry fire
   and slaughter westward. One great detachment under a
   lieutenant of Batu's entered Poland, burned Cracow, found
   Breslaw in ashes and abandoned by its people, and defeated
   with great slaughter at Wahlstadt near Lignitz (April 12th,
   1241) the troops of Poland, Moravia and Silesia, who had
   gathered under Duke Henry of the latter province to make head
   against this astounding flood of heathen. Batu himself with
   the main body of his army was ravaging Hungary. …

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301].

   Pesth was now taken and burnt and all its people put to
   the sword. The rumours of the Tartars and their frightful
   devastations had scattered fear through Europe, which the
   defeat at Lignitz raised to a climax. Indeed weak and
   disunited Christendom seemed to lie at the foot of the
   barbarians. The Pope to be sure proclaimed crusade, and wrote
   circular letters, but the enmity between him and the Emperor
   Frederic II. was allowed to prevent any co-operation, and
   neither of them responded by anything better than words to the
   earnest calls for help which came from the King of Hungary. No
   human aid merited thanks when Europe was relieved by hearing
   that the Tartar host had suddenly retreated eastward. The
   Great Khan Okkodai was dead [A. D. 1241] in the depths of
   Asia, and a courier had come to recall the army from Europe.
   In 1255 a new wave of conquest rolled westward from Mongolia,
   this time directed against the Ismaelians or 'Assassins' on
   the south of the Caspian, and then successively against the
   Khalif of Baghdad and Syria. The conclusion of this expedition
   under Hulagu may be considered to mark the climax of the
   Mongol power. Mangu Khan, the emperor then reigning, and who
   died on a campaign in China in 1259, was the last who
   exercised a sovereignty so nearly universal. His successor
   Kublai extended indeed largely the frontiers of the Mongol
   power in China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], which he brought
   entirely under the yoke, besides gaining conquests rather
   nominal than real on its southern and southeastern borders,
   but he ruled effectively only in the eastern regions of the
   great empire, which had now broken up into four. (1) The
   immediate Empire of the Great Khan, seated eventually at
   Khanbalik or Peking, embraced China, Corea, Mongolia, and
   Manchuria, Tibet, and claims at least over Tunking and
   countries on the Ava frontier; (2), the Chagatai Khanate, or
   Middle Empire of the Tartars, with its capital at Almalik,
   included the modern Dsungaria, part of Chinese Turkestan,
   Transoxiana, and Afghanistan; (3), the Empire of Kipchak, or
   the Northern Tartars, founded on the conquests of Batu, and
   with its chief seat at Sarai, on the Wolga, covered a large
   part of Russia, the country north of Caucasus, Khwarizm, and a
   part of the modern Siberia; (4), Persia, with its capital
   eventually at Tabriz, embraced Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan
   and part of Asia Minor, all Persia, Arabian Irak, and
   Khorasan."

      _H. Yule,
      Cathay and the way Thither: Preliminary Essay,
      sections 92-94 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      chapters 4-5._

{2223}

[Image: Map of the Mongol Empire, A. D. 1300. ]

{2224}

MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
   The Kipchak empire.
   The Golden Horde.

   "It was under Toushi [or Juchi], son of Tschingis, that the
   great migration of the Moguls effected an abiding settlement
   in Russia. … Toushi, with half a million of Moguls, entered
   Europe close by the Sea of Azof. On the banks of the river
   Kalka he encountered the united forces of the Russian princes.
   The death of Toushi for awhile arrested the progress of the
   Tatar arms. But in 1236, Batu, the son of Toushi, took the
   command, and all the principalities and cities of Russia, with
   the exception of Novogorod, were desolated by fire and sword
   and occupied by the enemy. For two centuries Russia was held
   cabined, cribbed, confined by this encampment or horde. The
   Golden Horde of the Deshti Kipzak, or Steppe of the Hollow
   Tree. Between the Volga and the Don, and beyond the Volga,
   spreads this limitless region the Deshti Kipzak. It was
   occupied in the first instance, most probably, by Hun-Turks,
   who first attracted and then were absorbed by fresh
   immigrants. From this region an empire took its name. By the
   river Akhtuba, a branch of the lower Volga, at Great Serai,
   Batu erected his golden tent; and here it was he received the
   Russian princes whom he had reduced to vassalage. Here he
   entertained a king of Armenia; and here, too, he received the
   ambassadors of S. Louis. … With the exception of Novogorod,
   which had joined the Hanseatic League in 1276, and rose
   rapidly in commercial prosperity, all Russia continued to
   endure, till the extinction of the house of Batu, a degrading
   and hopeless bondage. When the direct race came to an end, the
   collateral branches became involved in very serious conflicts;
   and in 1380, Temnik-Mami was overthrown near the river Don by
   Demetrius IV., who, with the victory, won a title of honour,
   Donski, which outlasted the benefits of the victory; although
   it is from this conflict that Russian writers date the
   commencement of their freedom. … After an existence of more
   than 250 years the Golden Horde was finally dissolved in 1480.
   Already, in 1468, the khanate of Kusan [or Kazan] was
   conquered and absorbed by the Grand Duke Ivan; and, after the
   extinction of the horde, Europeans for the first time exacted
   tribute of the Tatar, and ambassadors found their way
   unobstructed to Moscow. But the breaking up of the Golden
   Horde did not carry with it the collapse of all Tatar power in
   Russia. Rather the effect was to create a concentration of all
   their residuary resources in the Crimea."

      _C. I. Black,
      The Proselytes of Ishmael,
      part 3, chapter 4._

   "The Mongol word yurt meant originally the domestic fireplace,
   and, according to Van Hammer, the word is identical with the
   German herde and the English hearth, and thence came in a
   secondary sense to mean house or home, the chief's house being
   known as Ulugh Yurt or the Great House. An assemblage of
   several yurts formed an ordu or orda, equivalent to the German
   hort and the English horde, which really means a camp. The
   chief camp where the ruler of the nation lived was called the
   Sir Orda, i. e., the Golden Horde. … It came about that
   eventually the whole nation was known as the Golden Horde."
   The power of the Golden Horde was broken by the conquests of
   Timour (A. D. 1389-1391). It was finally broken into several
   fragments, the chief of which, the Khanates of Kazan, of
   Astrakhan, and of Krim, or the Crimea, maintained a long
   struggle with Russia, and were successively overpowered and
   absorbed in the empire of the Muscovite.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 2, pages 1 and x._

      See, also, above: A. D. 1229-1294;

      KIPCHAKS; and RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1257-1258.
   Khulagu's overthrow of the Caliphate.

      See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1258-1393.
   The empire of the Ilkhans.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1371-1405.
   The conquests of Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1526-1605.
   Founding of the Mogul (Mongol) empire in India.

      See INDIA.: A. D. 1399-1605.

   ----------MONGOLS: End----------

MONITOR AND MERRIMAC, Battle of the.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

MONKS.

      See
      AUSTIN CANONS;
      BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
      CAPUCHINS;
      CARMELITE FRIARS;
      CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
      CISTERCIAN ORDER;
      CLAIRVAUX;
      CLUGNY;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      RECOLLECTS;
      SERVITES;
      THEATINES;
      TRAPPISTS.

MONMOUTH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

MONMOUTH'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

MONOCACY, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY;
      also, JACOBITE CHURCH.

MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY, The.

   "The Council of Chalcedon having decided that our Lord
   possessed two natures, united but not confused, the Eutychian
   error condemned by it is supposed to have been virtually
   reproduced by the Monothelites, who maintained that the two
   natures were so united as to have but one will. This heresy is
   ascribed to Heraclius the Greek emperor, who adopted it as a
   political project for reconciling and reclaiming the
   Monophysites to the Church, and thus to the empire. The
   Armenians as a body had held, for a long time, the Monophysite
   (a form of the Eutychian) heresy, and were then in danger of
   breaking their allegiance to the emperor, as they had done to
   the Church; and it was chiefly to prevent the threatened
   rupture that Heraclius made a secret compromise with some of
   their principal men. … Neither … the strenuous efforts of
   the Greek emperors Heraclius and Constans, nor the concession
   of Honorius the Roman pontiff to the soundness of the
   Monothelite doctrine, could introduce it into the Church.
   Heraclius published in A. D. 639 an Ecthesis, or a formula, in
   which Monotheism was covertly introduced. The sixth general
   council, held in Constantinople A. D. 680, condemned both the
   heresy and Honorius, the Roman pontiff who had countenanced it.
{2225}
   'The doctrine of the Monothelites, thus condemned and exploded
   by the Council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge
   among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mountains of
   Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the conclusion of
   this century, received the name of Maronites from John Maro,
   their first bishop-a name which they still retain.' … In the
   time of the Crusaders, the Maronites united with them in their
   wars against the Saracens, and subsequently (A. D. 1182) in
   their faith. After the evacuation of Syria by the Crusaders,
   the Maronites, as their former allies, had to bear the
   vengeance of the Saracenic kings; and for a long time they
   defended themselves as they could, sometimes inflicting
   serious injury on the Moslem army, and at others suffering the
   revengeful fury of their enemies. They ultimately submitted to
   the rule of their Mohammedan masters, and are now good
   subjects of the sultan. … The Maronites now … are entirely
   free from the Monothelite heresy, which they doubtless
   followed in their earlier history; nor, indeed, does there
   appear a single vestige of it in their histories, theological
   books, or liturgies. Their faith in the person of Christ and
   in all the articles of religion is now, as it has been for a
   long time past, in exact uniformity with the doctrines of the
   Roman Church."

      _J. Wortabet,
      Researches into the Religions of Syria,
      pages 103-111; with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 11, sections 109-111._

MONROE, James,
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816, to 1825.

MONROE DOCTRINE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.

MONROVIA.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

   ----------MONS: Start--------

MONS: A. D. 1572.
   Capture by Louis of Nassau, recovery by the Spaniards,
   and massacre.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MONS: A. D. 1691.
   Siege and surrender to Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

MONS: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

MONS: A. D. 1709.
   Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

MONS: A. D. 1713.
   Transferred to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MONS: A. D 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

   ----------MONS: End--------

MONS GRAMPIUS, Battle of.

      See GRAMPIANS.

MONS SACER, Secession of the Roman Plebeians to.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

MONS TARPEIUS.

      See CAPITOLINE HILL.

MONSIEUR.

   Under the old regime, in France, this was the special
   designation of the elder among the king's brothers.

MONT ST. JEAN, Battle of.

   The battle of Waterloo—
   is sometimes so called by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

MONTAGNAIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

MONTAGNARDS, OR THE MOUNTAIN.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MONTAGNE NOIRE, Battle of (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

   ----------MONTANA: Start--------

MONTANA: A. D. 1803,
   Partly or wholly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
   The question.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MONTANA: A. D. 1864-1889.
   Organization as a Territory and admission as a State.

   Montana received its Territorial organization in 1864, and was
   admitted to the Union as a State in 1889.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

   ----------MONTANA: End--------

MONTANISTS.

   A name given to the followers of Montanus, who appeared in the
   2d century, among the Christians of Phrygia, claiming that the
   Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "had, by divine appointment,
   descended upon him for the purpose of foretelling things of
   the greatest moment that were about to happen, and
   promulgating a better and more perfect discipline of life and
   morals. … This sect continued to flourish down to the 5th
   century."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Historical Commentaries, 2d Century,
      section. 66._

MONTAPERTI, Battle of (1260).

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

MONTAUBAN, Siege of (1621).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTAUKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MONTBÉLIARD, Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

MONTCALM, and the defense of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756, to 1759.

MONTE CASEROS, Battle of (1852).

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

MONTE CASINO, The Monastery of.

      See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

MONTE ROTUNDO, Battle of (1867).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

MONTE SAN GIOVANNI, Battle and massacre (1495).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

MONTEBELLO,
   Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

   Battle of (1859.)

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MONTECATINI, Battle of (1315).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

MONTENEGRO.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MONTENOTTE, Battles at (1796).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MONTEREAU, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTEREAU, The Bridge of (1419).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

MONTEREY, California:
   Possession taken by the American fleet (1846).

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Mexico:
   Siege by the Americans (1846).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Pennsylvania, The Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MONTEVIDEO: Founding of the city.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2226}

MONTEZUMA, The so-called Empire of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the elder), The Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D.1201-1203.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the younger),
   The English Parliament and the Barons' war.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MONTGOMERY, General Richard, and his expedition against Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTGOMERY CONSTITUTION and Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

MONTI OF SIENA, The.

      See SIENA.

MONTLEHERY, Battle of (1465).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

   ----------MONTMÉDY: Start--------

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1657.
   Siege and capture by the French and English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1659.
   Cession to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

   ----------MONTMÉDY: End--------

MONTMIRAIL, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTPELIER, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTPELIER, Second Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONTPENSIER, Mademoiselle, and the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

   ----------MONTREAL: Start--------

MONTREAL: A. D. 1535.
   The Naming of the Island.

         See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1611.
   The founding of the City by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1641-1657.
   Settlement under the seigniory of the Sulpicians.

      See CANADA: A.D. 1637-1657.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1689.
   Destructive attack by the Iroquois.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1690.
   Threatened by the English Colonists.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1760.
   The surrender of the city and of all Canada to the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Taken by the Americans and recovered by the British.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1813.
   Abortive expedition of American forces against the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

   ----------MONTREAL: End--------

MONTROSE, and the Covenanters.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640; and 1644-1645.

MONZA, Battle of (1412).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

MONZON,
MONÇON, Treaty of (1626).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MOODKEE, Battle of (1845).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MOOKERHYDE, Battle of (1574).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MOOLTAN,
MULTAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Siege and capture by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MOORE, Sir John:
   Campaign in Spain and death.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

MOORE'S CREEK, Battle of (1776).

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MOORISH SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

   ----------MOORS: Start--------

MOORS, OR MAURI,
   Origin.

      See NUMIDIANS.

MOORS: A. D. 698-709.
   Arab conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709;
      and MAROCCO.

MOORS: A. D. 711-713.
   Conquest of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after.

MOORS: 11-13th Centuries.
   The Almoravides and Almohades in Morocco.

      See ALMORAVIDES; and ALMOHADES.

MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
   Persecution and final expulsion from Spain.
   The deadly effect upon that country.

   "After the reduction … of the last Mohammedan kingdom in
   Spain, the great object of the Spaniards became to convert
   those whom they had conquered [in violation of the treaty made
   on the surrender of Granada]. … By torturing some, by burning
   others, and by threatening all, they at length succeeded; and
   we are assured that, after the year 1526, there was no
   Mohammedan in Spain, who had not been converted to
   Christianity. Immense numbers of them were baptized by force;
   but being baptized, it was held that they belonged to the
   Church, and were amenable to her discipline. That discipline
   was administered by the Inquisition, which, during the rest of
   the 16th century, subjected these new Christians, or Moriscoes,
   as they were now called, to the most barbarous treatment. The
   genuineness of their forced conversions was doubted; it
   therefore became the business of the Church to inquire into
   their sincerity. The civil government lent its aid; and among
   other enactments, an edict was issued by Philip II., in 1566,
   ordering the Moriscoes to abandon everything which by the
   slightest possibility could remind them of their former
   religion. They were commanded, under severe penalties, to
   learn Spanish, and to give up all their Arabic books. They
   were forbidden to read their native language, or to write it,
   or even to speak it in their own houses. Their ceremonies and
   their very games were strictly prohibited. They were to
   indulge in no amusements which had been practised by their
   fathers; neither were they to wear such clothes as they had
   been accustomed to. Their women were to go unveiled; and, as
   bathing was a heathenish custom, an public baths were to be
   destroyed, and even an baths in private houses. By these and
   similar measures, these unhappy people were at length goaded
   into rebellion; and in 1568 they took the desperate step of
   measuring their force against that of the whole Spanish
   monarchy. The result could hardly be doubted; but the
   Moriscoes maddened by their sufferings, and fighting for their
   all, protracted the contest till 1571, when the insurrection was
   finally put down. By this unsuccessful effort they were
   greatly reduced in numbers and in strength; and during the
   remaining 27 years of the reign of Philip II. we hear
   comparatively little of them. Notwithstanding an occasional
   outbreak, the old animosities were subsiding, and in the
   course of time would probably have disappeared. At all events,
   there was no pretence for violence on the part of the Spaniards,
   since it was absurd to suppose that the Moriscoes, weakened in
   every way, humbled, broken, and scattered through the kingdom,
   could, even if they desired it, effect anything against the
   resources of the executive government.
{2227}
   But, after the death of Philip II., that movement began …
   which, contrary to the course of affairs in other nations,
   secured to the Spanish clergy in the 17th century, more power
   than they had possessed in the 16th. The consequences of this
   were immediately apparent. The clergy did not think that the
   steps taken by Philip II. against the Moriscoes were
   sufficiently decisive. … Under his successor, the clergy …
   gained fresh strength, and they soon felt themselves
   sufficiently powerful to begin another and final crusade
   against the miserable remains of the Moorish nation. The
   Archbishop of Valencia was the first to take the field. In
   1602, this eminent prelate presented a memorial to Philip III.
   against the Moriscoes; and finding that his views were
   cordially supported by the clergy, and not discouraged by the
   crown, he followed up the blow by another memorial having the
   same object. … He declared that the Armada, which Philip II.
   sent against England in 1588, had been destroyed, because God
   would not allow even that pious enterprise to succeed, while
   those who undertook it, left heretics undisturbed at home. For
   the same reason, the late expedition to Algiers had failed; it
   being evidently the will of Heaven that nothing should prosper
   while Spain was inhabited by apostates. He, therefore,
   exhorted the king to exile all the Moriscoes, except some whom
   he might condemn to work in the galleys, and others who could
   become slaves, and labour in the mines of America. This, he
   added, would make the reign of Philip glorious to all
   posterity, and would raise his fame far above that of his
   predecessors, who in this matter had neglected their obvious
   duty. … That they should all be slain, instead of being
   banished, was the desire of a powerful party in the Church,
   who thought that such signal punishment would work good by
   striking terror into the heretics of every nation. Bleda, the
   celebrated Dominican, one of the most influential men of his
   time, wished this to be done, and to be done thoroughly. He
   said, that, for the sake of example, every Morisco in Spain
   should have his throat cut; because it was impossible to tell
   which of them were Christians at heart, and it was enough to
   leave the matter to God, who knew his own, and who would
   reward in the next world those who were really Catholics. …
   The religious scruples of Philip III. forbade him to struggle
   with the Church; and his minister Lerma would not risk his own
   authority by even the show of opposition. In 1609 he announced
   to the king, that the expulsion of the Moriscoes had become
   necessary. 'The resolution,' replied Philip, 'is a great one;
   let it be executed.' And executed it was, with unflinching
   barbarity. About 1,000,000 of the most industrious inhabitants
   of Spain were hunted out like wild beasts, because the
   sincerity of their religious opinions was doubtful. Many were
   slain, as they approached the coast; others were beaten and
   plundered; and the majority, in the most wretched plight,
   sailed for Africa. During the passage, the crew, in many of
   the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the
   women, and threw the children into the sea. Those who escaped
   this fate, landed on the coast of Barbary, where they were
   attacked by the Bedouins, and many of them put to the sword.
   Others made their way into the desert, and perished from
   famine. Of the number of lives actually sacrificed, we have no
   authentic account; but it is said, on very good authority,
   that in one expedition, in which 140,000 were carried to
   Africa, upwards of 100,000 suffered death in its most
   frightful forms within a few months after their expulsion from
   Spain. Now, for the first time, the Church was really
   triumphant. For the first time there was not a heretic to be
   seen between the Pyrenees and the Straits of Gibraltar. All
   were orthodox, and all were loyal. Every inhabitant of that
   great country obeyed the Church, and feared the king. And from
   this happy combination, it was believed that the prosperity
   and grandeur of Spain were sure to follow. … The effects
   upon the material prosperity of Spain may be stated in a few
   words. From nearly every part of the country, large bodies of
   industrious agriculturists and expert artificers were suddenly
   withdrawn. The best systems of husbandry then known, were
   practised by the Moriscoes, who tilled and irrigated with
   indefatigable labour. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and
   sugar, and the manufacture of silk and paper were almost
   confined to them. By their expulsion all this was destroyed at
   a blow, and most of it was destroyed for ever. For the Spanish
   Christians considered such pursuits beneath their dignity. In
   their judgment, war and religion were the only two avocations
   worthy of being followed. To fight for the king, or to enter
   the Church was honourable; but everything else was mean and
   sordid. When, therefore, the Moriscoes were thrust out of
   Spain, there was no one to fill their place; arts and
   manufactures either degenerated, or were entirely lost, and
   immense regions of arable land were left uncultivated. …
   Whole districts were suddenly deserted, and down to the
   present day have never been repeopled. These solitudes gave
   refuge to smugglers and brigands, who succeeded the
   industrious inhabitants formerly occupying them; and it is
   said that from the expulsion of the Moriscoes is to be dated
   the existence of those organized bands of robbers, which,
   after this period, became the scourge of Spain, and which no
   subsequent government has been able entirely to extirpate. To
   these disastrous consequences, others were added, of a
   different, and, if possible, of a still more serious kind. The
   victory gained by the Church increased both her power and her
   reputation. … The greatest men, with hardly an exception,
   became ecclesiastics, and all temporal considerations, all
   views of earthly policy, were despised and set at nought. No
   one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all
   this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate.
   While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was
   receding. Every other country was making some addition to
   knowledge, creating some art, or enlarging some science, Spain
   numbed into a death-like torpor, spellbound and entranced by
   the accursed superstition which preyed on her strength,
   presented to Europe a solitary instance of constant decay."

      _H. T. Buckle,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 5, chapters 1-8 (volume 3)._

      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip III.,
      book 4._

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

MOORS: 15-19th Centuries.
   The kingdom of Marocco.

      See MAROCCO.

   ----------MOORS: End--------

MOPH.

      See MEMPHIS.

{2228}

MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.

MOQUIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MORA, The.

   The name of the ship which bore William the Conqueror to
   England, and which was the gift of his wife, the Duchess
   Matilda.

MORAT, Battle of (1476).

      See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

   ----------MORAVIA: Start--------

MORAVIA:
   Its people and their early history.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE, &c.

MORAVIA: 9th Century.
   Conversion to Christianity.
   The kingdom of Svatopluk and its obscure destruction.

   "Moravia has not even a legendary history. Her name appears
   for the first time at the beginning of the 9th century, under
   its Slav form, Morava (German 'March,' 'Moehren'). It is used
   to denote at the same time a tributary of the Danube and the
   country it waters; it is met with again in the lower valley of
   that stream, in Servia, and appears to have a Slav origin.
   During the 7th and 8th centuries there is no doubt Moravia was
   divided among several princes, and had a hard struggle against
   the Avars. The first prince whose name is known was Moïmir,
   who ruled at the beginning of the 9th century. … During his
   reign Christianity made some progress in Moravia. … Moïmir
   tried to withstand the Germans, but was not successful; and in
   846 Louis the German invaded his country, deposed him, and
   made his nephew Rostislav, whom the chroniclers call Rastiz,
   ruler in his stead. … The new prince, Rostislav, determined
   to secure both the political and moral freedom of his country.
   He fortified his frontiers and then declared war against the
   emperor. He was victorious, and when once peace was secured he
   undertook a systematic conversion of his people. Thus came
   about one of the great episodes in the history of the Slavs,
   and their Church, the mission of the apostles Cyril and
   Methodius. … After having struggled successfully for some
   time against the Germans" Rostislav was "betrayed by his
   nephew and vassal, Svatopluk, into the hands of Karloman, duke
   of Carinthia and son of Louis the German, who put out his eyes
   and shut him up in a monastery. Svatopluk believed himself
   sure of the succession to his uncle as the price of his
   treachery, but a very different reward fell to his lot, as
   Karloman, trusting but little in his fidelity to the Germans,
   threw him also into captivity. The German yoke was, however,
   hateful to the Moravians; they soon rebelled, and Karloman
   hoped to avert the danger by releasing Svatopluk and placing
   him at the head of an army. Svatopluk marched against the
   Moravians, then suddenly joined his forces to theirs and
   attacked the Germans. This time the independence of Moravia
   was secured, and was recognized by the treaty of Forcheim
   (874). … Thenceforward peace reigned between Svatopluk and
   Louis the German. … At one time he [Svatopluk] was the most
   powerful monarch of the Slavs; Rome was in treaty with him,
   Bohemia gravitated towards the orbit of Moravia, while Moravia
   held the empire in check. … At this time [891] the kingdom
   of Svatopluk … included, besides Moravia and the present
   Austrian Silesia, the subject country of Bohemia, the Slav
   tribes on the Elbe and the Vistula as far as the neighbourhood
   of Magdeburg, part of Western Galicia, the country of the
   Slovaks, and Lower Pannonia." But Svatopluk was ruined by war
   with his neighbor, Arnulf, duke of Pannonia. The latter
   "entered into an alliance with Braclav, a Slovene prince,
   sought the aid of the king of the Bulgarians, and, what was of
   far graver importance, summoned to his help the Magyars, who
   had just settled themselves on the Lower Danube. Swabians,
   Bavarians, Franks, Magyars, and Slovenes rushed simultaneously
   upon Moravia. Overwhelmed by numbers, Svatopluk made no
   attempt at resistance; he shut up his troops in fortresses,
   and abandoned the open country to the enemy, who ravaged it
   for four whole weeks. Then hostilities ceased; but no durable
   peace could exist between the two adversaries. War began again
   in the following year, when death freed Arnulf from Svatopluk.
   … At his death he left three sons; he chose the eldest,
   Moïmir II., as his heir, and assigned appanages to each of the
   others. On his death-bed he begged them to live at peace with
   one another, but his advice was not followed. … Bohemia soon
   threw off those bonds which had attached her as a vassal to
   Svatopluk; the Magyars invaded Moravian Pannonia, and forced
   Moïmir into an alliance with them. … In the year 900 the
   Bavarians, together with the Chekhs, invaded Moravia. In 903
   the name of Moïmir disappears. As to the cause of his death,
   as to how it was that suddenly and for ever the kingdom of
   Moravia was destroyed, the chronicles tell us nothing. Cosmas
   of Prague shows us Moravia at the mercy of Germans, Chekhs,
   and Hungarians; then history is silent, towns and castles
   crumble to pieces, churches are overthrown, the people are
   scattered."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
      chapter 4._

MORAVIA: A. D. 1355.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

   ----------MORAVIA: End----------

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
   Origin and early history.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457; and 1621-1648.

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
   In Saxony and in America.
   The Indian Missions.

   "In 1722, and in the seven following years, a considerable
   number of these 'Brethren,' led by Christian David, who were
   persecuted in their homes, were received by Count Zinzendorf
   on his estate at Berthelsdorf in Saxony. They founded a
   village called Herrnhut, or 'the Watch of the Lord.' There
   they were joined by Christians from other places in Germany,
   and, after some time, Zinzendorf took up his abode among them,
   and became their principal guide and pastor. … In 1737, he
   consecrated himself wholly to the service of God in connection
   with the Moravian settlement, and was ordained a bishop. …
   Zinzendorf had before been received into the Lutheran
   ministry. The peculiar fervor which characterized his
   religious work, and certain particulars in his teaching,
   caused the Saxon Government, which was wedded to the
   traditional ways of Lutheranism, to exclude him from Saxony
   for about ten years (1736-1747). He prosecuted his religious
   labors in Frankfort, journeyed through Holland and England,
   made a voyage to the West Indies, and, in 1741, another voyage
   to America.
{2229}
   New branches of the Moravian body he planted in the countries
   which he visited. … It was a church within a church that
   Zinzendorf aimed to establish. It was far from his purpose to
   found a sect antagonistic to the national churches in the
   midst of which the Moravian societies arose. … With a
   religious life remarkable as combining warm emotion with a
   quiet and serene type of feeling, the community of Zinzendorf
   connected a missionary zeal not equalled at that time in any
   other Protestant communion. Although few in number, they sent
   their gospel messengers to all quarters of the globe."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 506-507._

   The first settlement of the Moravians in America was planted
   in Georgia, in 1735. "But Oglethorpe's border war with the
   Spaniards compelled him to call every man in his colony to
   arms, and the Moravians, rather than forsake their principles
   [of non-resistance, and dependence upon prayer], abandoned
   their lands and escaped to Pennsylvania [1740]. Here some of
   their brethren were already fixed. Among the refugees was the
   young David Zeisberger, the future head of the Ohio missions.
   Bethlehem on the Lehigh became, and is yet, the centre in
   America of their double system of missions and education. They
   bought lands, laid out villages and farms, built houses,
   shops, and mills, but everywhere, and first of all, houses of
   prayer, in thankfulness for the peace and prosperity at length
   found. The first mission established by Zinzendorf in the
   colonies was in 1741, among the Mohican Indians, near the
   borders of New York and Connecticut. The bigoted people and
   authorities of the neighborhood by outrages and persecution
   drove them off, so that they were forced to take refuge on the
   Lehigh. The brethren established them in a new colony twenty
   miles above Bethlehem, to which they gave the name of
   Gnadenhütten (Tents of Grace). The prosperity of the Mohicans
   attracted the attention and visits of the Indians beyond. The
   nearest were the Delawares, between whom and the Mohicans
   there were strong ties of affinity, as branches of the old
   Lenni Lenape stock. Relations were thus formed between the
   Moravians and the Delawares. And by the fraternization between
   the Delawares and Shawanees … and their gradual emigration
   to the West to escape the encroachments of Penn's people, it
   occurred that the Moravian missionaries, Zeisberger foremost,
   accompanied their Delaware and Mohican converts to the
   Susquehanna in 1765, and again, when driven from there by the
   cession at Fort Stanwix, journeyed with them across the
   Alleghanies to Goshgoshink, a town established by the
   unconverted Delawares far up the Alleghany River." In 1770,
   having gained some important converts among the Delawares of
   the Wolf clan, at Kuskuskee, on Big Beaver Creek, they
   transferred themselves to that place, naming it Friedenstadt.
   But there they were opposed with such hostility by warriors
   and white traders that they determined "to plunge a step
   further into the wilderness, and go to the head chief of the
   Delawares at Gepelmukpechenk (Stillwater, or Tuscarawi) on the
   Muskingum. It was near this village that Christian Frederick
   Post, the brave, enterprising pioneer of the Moravians, had
   established himself in 1761, with the approbation of the
   chiefs. … By marriage with an Indian wife he had forfeited
   his regular standing with the congregation. His intimate
   acquaintance with the Indians, and their languages and
   customs, so far gained upon them that in 1762 he was permitted
   to take Heckewelder to share his cabin and establish a school
   for the Indian children. But in the autumn the threatened
   outburst of Pontiac's war had compelled them to flee." Early
   in 1772 the Moravian colony "was invited by the council at
   Tuscarawi, the Wyandots west of them approving it, to come
   with all their Indian brethren from the Alleghany and
   Susquehanna, and settle on the Muskingum (as the Tuscarawas
   was then called), and upon any lands that they might choose."
   The invitation was accepted. "The pioneer party, in the
   removal from the Beaver to Ohio, consisted of Zeisberger and
   five Indian families, 28 persons, who arrived at this
   beautiful ground May 3, 1772. … The site was at the large
   spring, and appropriately it was named for it Shoenbrun. In
   August arrived the Missionaries Ettwein and Heckewelder, with
   the main body of Christian Indians who had been invited from
   the Alleghany and the Susquehanna, about 250 in number. …
   This, and further accessions from the east in September, made
   it advisable to divide the colony into two villages. The
   second [named Gnadenhütten] was established ten miles below
   Shoenbrun. … In April, 1773, the remnants of the mission on
   the Beaver joined their brethren in Ohio. The whole body of
   the Moravian Indians … was now united and at rest under the
   shelter of the unconverted but … tolerant Delaware warriors.
   … The population of the Moravian villages at the close of
   1775 was 414 persons. … The calamity of the Moravians was
   the war of the American Revolution. It developed the dangerous
   fact that their villages … were close upon the direct line
   between Pittsburgh and Detroit, the outposts of the two
   contending forces." The peaceful settlement became an object
   of hostility to the meaner spirits on both sides. In
   September, 1781, by order of the British commander at Detroit,
   they were expelled from their settlement, robbed of all their
   possessions, and sent to Sandusky. In the following February,
   a half-starved party of them, numbering 96, who had ventured
   back to their ravaged homes, for the purpose of gleaning the
   corn left standing in the fields, were massacred by a brutal
   American force, from the Ohio. "So perished the Moravian
   missions on the Muskingum. Not that the pious founders ceased
   their labors, or that these consecrated scenes knew them no
   more. But their Indian communities, the germ of their work,
   the sign of what was to be accomplished by them in the great
   Indian problem, were scattered and gone, Zeisberger, at their
   head, labored with the remnants of their congregation for
   years in Canada. They then transferred themselves temporarily
   to settlements on the Sandusky, the Huron, and the Cuyahoga
   rivers. At last he and Heckewelder, with the survivors of
   these wanderings, went back to their lands on the Tuscarawas,
   now surrounded by the whites, but fully secured to them by the
   generosity of Congress."

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Cranz,
      History of the United Brethren._

      _F. Bovet,
      The Banished Count (Life of Zinzendorf)._

      _E. de Schweinitz,
      Life and Times of David Zeisberger._

      _D. Zeisberger,
      Diary._

      _D. Berger,
      United Brethren
      (American Church History),
      volume 12._

{2230}

   ----------MOREA: Start--------

MOREA:
   Origin of the name.

   "The Morea must … have come into general use, as the name of
   the peninsula [of the Peloponnesus] among the Greeks, after
   the Latin conquest [of 1204-1205], even allowing that the term
   was used among foreigners before the arrival of the Franks.
   … The name Morea was, however, at first applied only to the
   western coast of the Peloponnesus, or perhaps more
   particularly to Elis, which the epitome of Strabo points out
   as a district exclusively Sclavonian, and which, to this day,
   preserves a number of Sclavonian names. … Originally the
   word appears to be the same geographical denomination which
   the Sclavonians of the north had given to a mountain district
   of Thrace in the chain of Mount Rhodope. In the 14th century
   the name of this province is written by the Emperor
   Cantacuzenos, who must have been well acquainted with it
   personally, Morrha. Even as late as the 14th century, the
   Morea is mentioned in official documents relating to the Frank
   principality as a province of the Peloponnesus, though the
   name was then commonly applied to the whole peninsula."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 1, section 4._

MOREA:
   The Principality of the.

      See ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.

   ----------MOREA: End--------

MOREAU, General,
   The Campaigns and the military and political fortunes of.

      See FRANCE:
      A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), (NOVEMBER);
      1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); and 1804-1805;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

MORETON BAY DISTRICT.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

MORGAN, General Daniel, and the War or the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

MORGAN, General John H., and his raid into Ohio and Indiana.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

MORGAN, William, The abduction of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

MORGANATIC MARRIAGES.

   "Besides the dowry which was given before the marriage
   ceremony had been performed, it was customary [among some of
   the ancient German peoples] for the husband to make his wife a
   present on the morning after the first night. This was called
   the 'morgengabe,' or morning gift, the presenting of which,
   where no previous ceremony had been observed, constituted a
   particular kind of connexion called matrimonium morganaticam,
   or 'morganatic marriage. As the liberality of the husband was
   apt to be excessive, we find the amount limited by the
   Langobardian laws to one fourth of the bridegroom's
   substance."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

MORGARTEN, Battle or (1315).

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

MORINI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

MORISCOES.

   This name was given to the Moors in Spain after their nominal
   and compulsory conversion to Christianity.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

MORMAERS,
MAARMORS.

   A title, signifying great Maer or Steward, borne by certain
   princes or sub-kings of provinces in Scotland in the 10th and
   11th centuries. The Macbeth of history was Mormaer of Moray.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, pages 49-51._

      See, also, SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.

MORMANS, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

   ----------MORMONISM: Start--------

MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
   Joseph Smith and the Book or Mormon.

   "Joseph Smith, Jr., who … appears in the character of the
   first Mormon prophet, and the putative founder of Mormonism
   and the Church of Latter Day Saints, was born in Sharon,
   Windsor County, Vermont, December 13, 1805. He was the son of
   Joseph Smith, Sr., who, with his wife Lucy and their family,
   removed from Royalton, Vermont, to Palmyra, New York, in the
   summer of 1816. The family embraced nine children, Joseph,
   Jr., being the fourth in the order of their ages. … At
   Palmyra, Mr. Smith, Sr., opened 'a cake and beer shop,' as
   described by his signboard, doing business on a small scale,
   by the profits of which, added to the earnings of an
   occasional day's work on hire by himself and his elder sons,
   for the village and farming people, he was understood to
   secure a scanty but honest living for himself and family. …
   In 1818 they settled upon a nearly wild or unimproved piece of
   land, mostly covered with standing timber, situate about two
   miles south of Palmyra. … Little improvement was made upon
   this land by the Smith family in the way of clearing, fencing,
   or tillage. … The larger proportion of the time of the
   Smiths … was spent in hunting and fishing … and idly
   lounging around the stores and shops in the village. … At
   this period in the life and career of Joseph Smith, Jr., or
   'Joe Smith,' as he was universally named, and the Smith
   family, they were popularly regarded as an illiterate,
   whiskey-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people—the
   first named, the chief subject of this biography, being
   unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the
   generation. … Taciturnity was among his characteristic
   idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke to anyone outside of his
   intimate associates, except when first addressed by another;
   and then, by reason of his extravagancies of statement, his
   word was received with the least confidence by those who knew
   him best. He could utter the most palpable exaggeration or
   marvellous absurdity with the utmost apparent gravity. … He
   was, however, proverbially good-natured, very rarely if ever
   indulging in any combative spirit toward anyone, whatever
   might be the provocation, and yet was never known to laugh.
   Albeit, he seemed to be the pride of his indulgent father, who
   has been heard to boast of him as the 'genus of the family,'
   quoting his own expression. Joseph, moreover, as he grew in
   years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which
   qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and
   even of his father. … As he … advanced in reading and
   knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind,
   and frequently perused the Bible, becoming quite familiar with
   portions thereof. … The final conclusion announced by him
   was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on
   a false foundation, and the Bible a fable. … In September,
   1819, a curious stone was found in the digging of a well upon
   the premises of Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra. This stone
   attracted particular notice on account of its peculiar shape,
   resembling that of a child's foot. It was of a whitish, glassy
   appearance, though opaque, resembling quartz.
{2231}
   Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder sons Alvin and Hyrum, did the
   chief labor of this well-digging, and Joseph, Jr., who had
   been a frequenter in the progress of the work, as an idle
   looker-on and lounger, manifested a special fancy for this
   geological curiosity, and he carried it home with him. …
   Very soon the pretension transpired that he could see
   wonderful things by its aid. … The most glittering sights
   revealed to the mortal vision of the young impostor, in the
   manner stated, were hidden treasures of great value, including
   enormous deposits of gold and silver sealed in earthen pots or
   iron chests, and buried in the earth in the immediate vicinity
   of the place where he stood. These discoveries finally became
   too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his
   vision by looking at the stone in his hat! … The imposture
   was renewed and repeated at frequent intervals from 1820 to
   1827, various localities being the scenes of … delusive
   searches for money [for carrying on which Smith collected
   contributions from his dupes], as pointed out by the
   revelations of the magic stone. … Numerous traces of the
   excavations left by Smith are yet remaining as evidences of
   his impostures and the folly of his dupes, though most of them
   have become obliterated by the clearing off and tilling of the
   lands where they were made." In the summer of 1827 "Smith had
   a remarkable vision. He pretended that, while engaged in
   secret prayer, alone in the wilderness, an 'angel of the Lord'
   appeared to him, with the glad tidings that 'all his sins had
   been forgiven'; … also that he had received a 'promise that
   the true doctrine and the fulness of the doctrine and the
   fulness of the gospel should at some future time be revealed
   to him.' … In the fall of the same year Smith had yet a more
   miraculous and astonishing vision than any preceding one. He
   now arrogated to himself, by authority of 'the spirit of
   revelation,' and in accordance with the previous 'promises'
   made to him, a far higher sphere in the scale of human
   existence, assuming to possess the gift and power of 'prophet,
   seer, and revelator.' On this assumption he announced to his
   family friends and the bigoted persons who had adhered to his
   supernaturalism, that he was 'commanded,' upon a secretly
   fixed day and hour, to go alone to a certain spot revealed to
   him by the angel, and there take out of the earth a metallic
   book of great antiquity in its origin, and of immortal
   importance in its consequences to the world, which was a
   record, in mystic letters or characters, of the long-lost
   tribes of Israel, … who had primarily inhabited this
   continent, and which no human being besides himself could see
   and live; and the power to translate which to the nations of
   the earth was also given to him only, as the chosen servant of
   God. … Accordingly, when the appointed hour came, the
   prophet, assuming his practised air of mystery, took in hand
   his money-digging spade and a large napkin, and went off in
   silence and alone in the solitude of the forest, and after an
   absence of some three hours returned, apparently with his
   sacred charge concealed within the folds of the napkin. …
   With the book was also found, or so pretended, a huge pair of
   spectacles in a perfect state of preservation, or the Urim and
   Thummim, as afterward interpreted, whereby the mystic record
   was to be translated and the wonderful dealings of God
   revealed to man, by the superhuman power of Joseph Smith. …
   The sacred treasure was not seen by mortal eyes, save those of
   the one anointed, until after the lapse of a year or longer
   time, when it was found expedient to have a new revelation, as
   Smith's bare word had utterly failed to gain a convert beyond
   his original circle of believers. By this amended revelation,
   the veritable existence of the book was certified to by eleven
   witnesses of Smith's selection. It was then heralded as the
   Golden Bible, or Book of Mormon, and as the beginning of a new
   gospel dispensation. … The spot from which the book is
   alleged to have been taken is the yet partially visible pit
   where the money speculators had previously dug for another
   kind of treasure, which is upon the summit of what has ever
   since been known as 'Mormon Hill,' now owned by Mr. Anson
   Robinson, in the town of Manchester, New York. This book …
   was finally described by Smith and his echoes as consisting of
   metallic leaves or plates resembling gold, bound together in a
   volume by three rings running through one edge of them, the
   leaves opening like an ordinary paper book. … Translations
   and interpretations were now entered upon by the prophet," and
   in 1830 the "Book of Mormon" was printed and published at
   Palmyra, New York, a well-to-do farmer, Martin Harris, paying
   the expense. "In claiming for the statements herein set forth
   the character of fairness and authenticity, it is perhaps
   appropriate to add … that the locality of the malversations
   resulting in the Mormon scheme is the author's birthplace;
   that he was well acquainted with 'Joe Smith,' the first Mormon
   prophet, and with his father and all the Smith family, since
   their removal to Palmyra from Vermont … ; that he was
   equally acquainted with Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, and
   with most of the earlier followers of Smith, either as
   money-diggers or Mormons; that he established at Palmyra, in
   1823, and was for many years editor and proprietor of the
   'Wayne Sentinel,' and was editorially connected with that
   paper at the printing by its press of the original edition of
   the 'Book of Mormon' in 1830; that in the progress of the work
   he performed much of the reading of the proof-sheets,
   comparing the same with the manuscript copies, and in the
   meantime had frequent and familiar interviews with the pioneer
   Mormons."

      _P. Tucker,
      Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism,
      chapters 1-5, and preface._

   It is believed by many that the groundwork of the Book of
   Mormon was supplied by an ingenious romance, written about
   1814 by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, a Presbyterian minister of
   some learning and literary ability, then living at New Salem
   (now Conneaut), Ohio. This romance, which was entitled "The
   Manuscript Found," purported to narrate the history of a
   migration of the lost ten tribes of Israel to America. It was
   never published; but members of Mr. Spalding's family, and
   other persons, who read it or heard it read, in manuscript,
   claimed confidently, after the appearance of the Book of
   Mormon that the main body of the narrative and the notable
   names introduced in it were identical with those of the
   latter. Some circumstances, moreover, seemed to indicate a
   probability that Mr. Spalding's manuscript, being left during
   several weeks with a publisher named Patterson, at Pittsburgh,
   came there into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, a young printer,
   who appeared subsequently as one of the leading missionaries
   of Mormonism, and who is believed to have visited Joseph
   Smith, at Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon came to light.
{2232}
   On the other hand, Mormon believers have, latterly, made much
   of the fact that a manuscript romance without title, by
   Solomon Spalding, was found, not many years since, in the
   Sandwich Islands, by President Fairchild of Oberlin College,
   Ohio, and proved to bear no resemblance to the Book of Mormon.
   Spalding is said, however, to have written several romances,
   and, if so, nothing is proved by this discovery.

      _T. Gregg,
      The Prophet of Palmyra,
      chapters 1-11 and 41-45._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Dickinson,
      New Light on Mormonism._

      _J. M. Kennedy,
      Early Days of Mormonism,
      chapters 1-2._

MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
   The First Hegira to Kirtland, Ohio, the Second to Missouri,
   the Third to Nauvoo, Illinois.
   The Danites.
   The building of the city and its Temple.
   Hostility of the Gentiles.
   The slaying of the Prophet.

   "Immediately after the publication of the Book the Church was
   duly organized at Manchester. On April 6, 1830, six members
   were ordained elders—Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph Smith, Jr.,
   Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Knight.
   The first conference was held at Fayette, Seneca county, in
   June. A special 'revelation' at this time made Smith's wife
   'the Elect Lady and Daughter of God,' with the high-sounding
   title of 'Electa Cyria.' In later years this lady became
   disgusted with her husband's religion. … Another revelation
   was to the effect that Palmyra was not the gathering-place of
   the Saints, after all, but that they should proceed to
   Kirtland, in Ohio. Consequently, the early part of 1831 saw
   them colonized in that place, the move being known as 'The
   First Hegira.' Still another revelation (on the 6th of June)
   stated that some point in Missouri was the reliable spot.
   Smith immediately selected a tract in Jackson county, near
   Independence. By 1833 the few Mormons who had moved thither
   were so persecuted that they went into Clay county, and
   thence, in 1838, into Caldwell county, naming their settlement
   'Far West.' The main body of the Mormons, however, remained
   in Kirtland from 1831 till they were forced to join their
   Western brethren in 1838. Brigham Young, another native of
   Vermont, joined at Kirtland in 1832, and was ordained an
   elder. The conference of elders on May 3, 1833, repudiated the
   name of Mormons and adopted that of 'Latter-Day Saints.' The
   first presidency consisted of Smith, Rigdon, and Frederick G.
   Williams. In May, 1835, the Twelve Apostles—among them
   Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde—left on a
   mission for proselytes. … The Mormons were driven from
   Missouri by Governor Boggs's 'Extraordinary Order,' which
   caused them to gain sympathy as having been persecuted in a
   slave State. They moved to Hancock county, Illinois, in 1840,
   and built up Nauvoo [on the Mississippi River, 14 miles above
   Keokuk] by a charter with most unusual privileges."

      _F. G. Mather,
      The Early Days of Mormonism
      (Lippincott's Magazine, August 1880)._

   In the midst of the troubles of Smith and his followers in
   Missouri, and before their removal to Nauvoo, there arose
   among them "the mysterious and much dreaded band that finally
   took the name of Danites, or sons of Dan, concerning which so
   much has been said while so little is known, some of the
   Mormons even denying its existence. But of this there is no
   question. Says Burton: 'The Danite band, a name of fear in the
   Mississippi Valley, is said by anti-Mormons to consist of men
   between the ages of 17 and 49. They were originally termed
   Daughters of Gideon, Destroying Angels—the gentiles say
   devils—and, finally, Sons of Dan, or Danites, from one of
   whom was prophesied he should be a serpent in the path. They
   were organized about 1837 under D. W. Patten, popularly called
   Captain Fearnot, for the purpose of dealing as avengers of
   blood with gentiles; in fact they formed a kind of death
   society, desperadoes, thugs, hashshashiyun—in plain English,
   assassins in the name of the Lord. The Mormons declare
   categorically the whole and every particular to be the
   calumnious invention of the impostor and arch apostate, Mr.
   John C. Bennett. John Hyde, a seceder, states that the Danite
   band, or the United Brothers of Gideon, was organized on the
   4th of July, 1838, and was placed under the command of the
   apostle David Patten, who for the purpose assumed the name of
   Captain Fearnot. It is the opinion of some that the Danite
   band, or Destroying Angels as again they are called, was
   organized at the recommendation of the governor of Missouri as
   a means of self-defence against persecutions in that State."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21, pages 124-126._

   "The Mormons first attracted national notice about the time
   they quitted Missouri to escape persecution and took refuge in
   Illinois. In that free State a tract of land was granted them
   and a charter too carelessly liberal in terms. The whole body,
   already numbering about 15,000, gathered into a new city of
   their own, which their prophet, in obedience to a revelation,
   named Nauvoo; here a body of militia was formed under the name
   of the Nauvoo legion; and Joe Smith, as mayor, military
   commander, and supreme head of the Church, exerted an
   authority almost despotic. The wilderness blossomed and
   rejoiced, and on a lofty height of this holy city was begun a
   grotesque temple, built of limestone, with huge monolithic
   pillars which displayed carvings of moons and suns. … Nauvoo
   was well laid out, with wide streets which sloped towards
   well-cultivated farms; all was thrift and sobriety, no
   spirituous liquors were drunk, and the colonists here, as in
   their former settlements, furnished the pattern of insect
   industry. The wonderful proselyting work of this new sect
   abroad had already begun, and recruits came over from the
   overplus toilers in the British factory towns. … But there
   was something in the methods of this sect, not to speak of the
   jealousy they excited by their prosperity, which bred them
   trouble here as everywhere else where they came in contact
   with American commonplace life. It was whispered that the
   hierarchy of impostors grew rich upon the toils of their
   simple followers. Polygamy had not yet received the sanction
   of a divine revelation; and yet the first step towards it was
   practised in the theory of 'sealing wives' spiritually, which
   Smith had begun in some mysterious way that it baffled the
   gentile to discover. Sheriffs, too, were forbidden to serve
   civil process in Nauvoo without the written permission of its
   mayor.
{2233}
   All these strange scandals of heathenish pranks, and more,
   besides, stirred up the neighboring gentiles, plain Illinois
   backwoodsmen; and the more so that, besides his 3,000 militia,
   the Mormon prophet controlled 6,000 votes, which, in the close
   Presidential canvass of 1844, might have been enough to decide
   the election. Joe Smith, indeed, whose Church nominated him
   for President, showed a fatal but thoroughly American
   disposition at this time to carry his power into politics.
   This king of plain speech, who dressed as a journeyman
   carpenter, suppressed a newspaper which was set up by seceding
   Mormons. When complaint was made he resisted Illinois process
   and proclaimed martial law; the citizens of the surrounding
   towns armed for a fight. Joe Smith was arrested and thrown
   into jail at Carthage with his brother Hiram. The rumor
   spreading that the governor was disposed to release these
   prisoners, a disorderly band gathered at the jail and shot
   them [June 27, 1844]. Thus perished Smith, the Mormon founder.
   His death at first created terror and confusion among his
   followers, but Brigham Young, his successor, proved a man of
   great force and sagacity. The exasperated gentiles clamored
   loudly to expel these religious fanatics from Illinois as they
   had been expelled from Missouri; and finally, to prevent a
   civil war, the governor of the State took forcible possession
   of the holy city, with its unfinished temple, while the Mormon
   charter of Nauvoo was repealed by the legislature. The Mormons
   now determined [1846] upon the course which was most suited to
   their growth, and left American pioneer society to found their
   New Jerusalem on more enduring foundations west of the Rocky
   Mountains."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, pages 547-549._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 8 and 10-11._

      _A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapter 41._

      _J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
      Journey to Great Salt Lake City,
      book 2, chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._

      _R. F. Burton,
      The City of the Saints,
      page 359._

MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
   The gentile attack on Nauvoo.
   Exodus of "the Saints" into the wilderness of the West.
   Their settlement on the Great Salt Lake.

   "During the winter of 1845-46 the Mormons made the most
   prodigious preparations for removal. All the houses in Nauvoo,
   and even the temple, were converted into work-shops; and
   before spring more than 12,000 wagons were in readiness. The
   people from all parts of the country flocked to Nauvoo to
   purchase houses and farms, which were sold extremely low,
   lower than the prices at a sheriff's sale, for money, wagons,
   horses, oxen, cattle, and other articles of personal property
   which might be needed by the Mormons in their exodus into the
   wilderness. By the middle of May it was estimated that 16,000
   Mormons had crossed the Mississippi and taken up their line of
   march with their personal property, their wives and little
   ones, westward across the continent to Oregon or California;
   leaving behind them in Nauvoo a small remnant of 1,000 souls,
   being those who were unable to sell their property, or who
   having no property to sell were unable to get away. The twelve
   apostles went first with about 2,000 of their followers.
   Indictments had been found against nine of them in the circuit
   court of the United States for the district of Illinois at its
   December term, 1845, for counterfeiting the current coin of
   the United States. The United States Marshal had applied to me
   [the writer being at that time Governor of Illinois] for a
   militia force to arrest them; but in pursuance of the amnesty
   agreed on for old offences, believing that the arrest of the
   accused would prevent the removal of the Mormons, and that if
   arrested there was not the least chance that any of them would
   ever be convicted, I declined the application unless regularly
   called upon by the President of the United States according to
   law. … It was notorious that none of them could be
   convicted; for they always commanded evidence and witnesses
   enough to make a conviction impossible."

      _T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapter 13._

   "The Saints who had as yet been unable to leave Nauvoo
   continued to labour assiduously at the completion of the
   temple, so as to accomplish one of the most solemn prophecies
   of their well-beloved martyr. The sacred edifice was
   ultimately entirely finished, at the end of April, 1846, after
   having cost the Saints more than a million dollars. It was
   consecrated with great pomp on the 1st and 2nd of May, 1846.
   … The day after the consecration of the temple had been
   celebrated, the Mormons withdrew from the building all the
   sacred articles which adorned it, and satisfied with having
   done their duty in accomplishing, though to no purpose
   otherwise, a Divine command, they crossed the Mississippi to
   rejoin those who had gone before them. Nauvoo was abandoned.
   There remained within its deserted walls but some hundred
   families, whom the want of means and the inability to sell
   their effects had not allowed as yet to start upon the road to
   emigration. The presence of those who were thus detained,
   together with the bruit caused by the ceremony of dedication,
   raised the murmurs of the gentiles, and seemed to keep alive
   their animosity and alarm. Their eager desire to be entirely
   rid of the Mormons made them extremely sensitive to every idle
   story respecting the projects of the latter to return. They
   imagined that the Saints had only left in detachments to seek
   recruits among the red-skins, meaning to come back with
   sufficient force once more to take possession of their
   property in Illinois. These apprehensions rose to such a pitch
   that the anti-Mormons plunged into fresh acts of illegality
   and barbarism. … On the 10th of September, 1846, an army of
   1,000 men, possessing six pieces of artillery, started to
   begin the attack under the direction of a person named Carlin,
   and of the Reverend Mr. Brockman. Nauvoo had only 300 men to
   oppose to this force, and but five small cannon, made from the
   iron of an old steamboat. The fire opened on the afternoon of
   the 10th, and continued on the 11th, 12th and 13th of
   September." Every attack of the besiegers was repulsed, until
   they consented to terms under which the remnant of the Mormons
   was to evacuate the town at the end of five days. "The Mormons
   had only three men killed and a few wounded during the whole
   affair; the loss of their enemies is unknown, but it would
   seem that it was heavy. It was agreed that a committee of five
   persons should remain at Nauvoo to attend to the interests of
   the exiles, and on the 17th of September, while the enemy, to
   the number of 1,625, entered the city to plunder, the remnant
   of the Mormons crossed the Mississippi to follow 'the track of
   Israel towards the west.' …
{2234}
   About the end of June, 1846, the first column of the emigrants
   arrived on the banks of the Missouri, a little above the point
   of confluence of this immense river with the Platte, in the
   country of the Pottawatamies, where it stopped to await the
   detachments in its rear. This spot, now known by the name of
   Council Bluffs, was christened Kanesville by the Mormons. …
   At this place, in the course of July, the federal government
   made an appeal to the patriotism of the Mormons, and asked
   them to furnish a contingent of 500 men for the Mexican war.
   Did the government wish to favour the Saints by affording them
   an opportunity of making money by taking service, or did it
   merely wish to test their fidelity? This we cannot decide. …
   The Saints generally regarded this levy as a species of
   persecution; however … they furnished a battalion of 520
   men, and received $20,000 for equipment from the war
   department." The head quarters of the emigration remained at
   Kanesville through the winter of 1846-47, waiting for the
   brethren who had been left behind. There were several
   encampments, however, some of them about 200 miles in advance.
   The shelters contrived were of every kind—huts, tents, and
   caves dug in the earth. The suffering was considerable and
   many deaths occurred. The Indians of the region were
   Pottawatamies and Omahas, both hostile to the United States
   and therefore friendly to the Mormons, whom they looked upon
   as persecuted foes of the American nation. "On the 14th of
   April [1847], Brigham Young and eight apostles, at the head of
   143 picked men and 70 carts laden with grain and agricultural
   implements, started in search of Eden in the far-west. … The
   23rd of July, 1847, Orson Pratt, escorted by a small advanced
   guard, was the first to reach the Great Salt Lake. He was
   joined the following day by Brigham Young and the main body of
   the pioneers. That day, the 24th of July, was destined to be
   afterwards celebrated by the Mormons as the anniversary of
   their deliverance. … Brigham Young declared, by divine
   inspiration, that they were to establish themselves upon the
   borders of the Salt Lake, in this region, which was nobody's
   property, and wherein consequently his people could follow
   their religion without drawing upon themselves the hatred of
   any neighbours. He spent several weeks in ascertaining the
   nature of the country, and then fixed upon a site for the holy
   city. … When he had thus laid the foundations of his future
   empire, he set off on his return to Council Bluffs, leaving on
   the borders of the Salt Lake the greater portion of the
   companions who had followed him in his distant search. During
   the summer, a convoy of 566 waggons, laden with large
   quantities of grain, left Kanesville and followed upon the
   tracks of the pioneers. … On their arrival at the spot
   indicated by the president of the Church, they set to work
   without a moment's repose. Land was tilled, trees and hedges
   planted, and grain sown before the coming frost." The main
   body of the emigrants, led by Brigham Young, moved from the
   banks of the Missouri about the 1st of May, 1848, and arrived
   at the Salt Lake the following autumn.

      _J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
      Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "On the afternoon of the 22d [August, 1847] a conference was
   held, at which it was resolved that the place should be called
   the City of the Great Salt Lake. The term 'Great' was retained
   for several years, until changed by legislative enactment. It
   was so named in contradistinction to Little Salt Lake, a term
   applied to a body of water some 200 miles to the south."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21, chapter 10._

MORMONISM: A. D. 1850.
   Organization of the Territory of Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1857-1859.
   The rebellion in Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1894.
   Admission of Utah to the Union as a State.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1894.

   ----------MORMONISM: End----------

MOROCCO.

      See MAROCCO.

MORONA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MORRILL TARIFF, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

MORRIS, Gouverneur,
   The framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

   The origin of the Erie Canal.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

MORRIS, Robert, and the finances of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

MORRIS-DANCE, The.

   "Both English and foreign glossaries, observes Mr. Douce,
   uniformly ascribe the origin of this dance to the Moors,
   although the genuine Moorish or Morisco dance was, no doubt,
   very different from the European morris. … It has been
   supposed that the morris-dance was first brought into England
   in the reign of Edward III., and when John of Gaunt returned
   from Spain: but it is much more probable that we had it from
   our Gallic neighbours, or the Flemings."

      _H. Smith,
      Festivals, Games, etc.,
      chapter 18._

MORRIS ISLAND, Military operations on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

MORRIS'S PURCHASE.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

MORRISTOWN, N. J.:
   Washington in winter quarters (1777-1778).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777; and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

MORTARA, Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY; A. D. 1848-1849.

MORTEMER, Battle of.

   The French army invading Normandy, A. D. 1054, was surprised
   by the Normans, in the town of Mortemer and utterly routed.
   The town was destroyed and never rebuilt.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._

MORTIMER'S CROSS, Battle of (1461).

   One of the battles in the "Wars of the Roses," fought February 2,
   1461, on a small plain called Kingsland Field, near Mortimer's
   Cross, in Herefordshire, England. The Yorkists, commanded by
   young Edward, Earl of March (soon afterwards King Edward IV.)
   were greatly superior in numbers to the Lancastrians, under
   the Earl of Pembroke, and won a complete victory.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

MORTMAIN, The Statute of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

MORTON, Thomas, at Merrymount.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

MORTUATH, The.

      See TUATH, THE.

MOSA, The.

   The ancient name of the river Meuse.

{2235}

   ----------MOSCOW: Start--------

MOSCOW: A. D. 1147.
   Origin of the city.

   "The name of Moscow appears for the first time in the
   chronicles at the date of 1147. It is there said that the
   Grand Prince George Dolgorouki, having arrived on the domain
   of a boyard named Stephen Koutchko, caused him to be put to
   death on some pretext, and that, struck by the position of one
   of the villages situated on a height washed by the Moskowa,
   the very spot whereon the Kremlin now stands, he built the
   city of Moscow. … During the century following its
   foundation, Moscow remained an obscure and insignificant
   village of Souzdal. The chroniclers do not allude to it except
   to mention that it was burned by the Tartars (1237), or that a
   brother of Alexander Nevski, Michael of Moscow, was killed
   there in a battle with the Lithuanians. The real founder of
   the principality of the name was Daniel, a son of Alexander
   Nevski, who had received this small town and a few villages as
   his appanage. … He was followed, in due course, by his
   brothers George and Ivan."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

MOSCOW: A. D. 1362-1480.
   Rise of the duchy which grew to be the Russian Empire.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1571.
   Stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1812.
   Napoleon in possession.
   The burning of the city.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

   ----------MOSCOW: End--------

MOSKOWA,
BORODINO, Battle of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOSLEM.

      See ISLAM;
      also MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

MOSQUITO INDIANS AND MOSQUITO COAST.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSQUITO,
      or MOSQUITO INDIANS;
      also NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850;
      and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

MOTASSEM, Al, Caliph, A. D. 833-841.

MOTAWAKKEL, Al, Caliph, A. D. 847-861.

MOTYE, Siege of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

MOUGOULACHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOULEY-ISMAEL, Battle of (1835).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

MOULTRIE, Colonel, and the defense of Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

MOUND-BUILDERS OF AMERICA, The.

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

MOUNT BADON, Battle of.

   This battle was fought A. D. 520 and resulted in a crushing
   defeat of the West Saxons by the Britons, arresting the
   advance of the latter in their conquest of southwestern
   England for a generation. It figures in some legends among the
   victories of King Arthur.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 3._

MOUNT CALAMATIUS, Battle of.

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

MOUNT ETNA, Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MOUNT GAURUS, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

MOUNT TABOR, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

MOUNT VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

MOUNTAIN, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE, The (1857).

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MOURU.

      See MARGIANA.

MOXO, The Great.

      See EL DORADO.

MOXOS,
MOJOS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MOYTURA, Battle of.

   Celebrated in the legendary history of Ireland and represented
   as a fatal defeat of the ancient people in that country called
   the Firbolgs by the new-coming Tuatha-de-Danaan. "Under the
   name of the 'Battle of the Field of the Tower' [it], was long
   a favourite theme of Irish song."

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

MOZARABES,
MOSTARABES.

   The Christian people who remained in Africa and southern Spain
   after the Moslem conquest, tolerated in the practice of their
   religion, "were called Mostarabes or Mozarabes; they adopted
   the Arabic language and customs. … The word is from the
   Arabic 'musta'rab,' which means one 'who tries to imitate or
   become an Arab in his manners and language.'"

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1), with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

MOZART HALL.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

MUFTI.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

MUGELLO, Battle of (A. D. 542).

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

MUGGLETONIANS.

      See RANTERS.

MUGHAL OR MOGUL EMPIRE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MUGWUMPS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

MUHAJIRIN, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

MUHLBERG, Battle of (1547).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

MÜHLDORF, OR MAHLDORF, Battle of (1322).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

MULATTO.

      See MESTIZO.

MULE, Crompton's, The invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

MÜLHAUSEN, Battle of (1674).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

MULLAGHMAST, The Massacre of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

MULLIGAN, Colonel James A.:
   Defense of Lexington, Missouri.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

MULTAN, OR MOOLTAN:
   Siege and capture by the English (1848-1849).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MUNDA, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 45.

MUNDRUCU, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

MUNERA GLADIATORIA.

      See LUDI.

   ----------MUNICH: Start--------

MUNICH: 13th Century.
   First rise to importance.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

MUNICH: A. D. 1632.
   Surrender to Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

MUNICH: A. D. 1743.
   Bombardment and capture by the Austrians.

   See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

   ----------MUNICH: End--------

MUNICIPAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FORMS.

   See COMMUNE; BOROUGH; and GUILD.

{2236}

MUNICIPAL CURIA OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

      See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.

MUNICIPIUM.

   "The term Municipium appears to have been applied originally
   to those conquered Italian towns which Rome included in her
   dominion without conferring on the people the Roman suffrage
   and the capacity of attaining the honours of the Roman state.
   … If the inhabitants of such Municipia had everything Roman
   except the right to vote and to be eligible to the Roman
   magistracies, they had Commercium and Connubium. By virtue of
   the first, such persons could acquire property within the
   limits of the Roman state, and could dispose of it by sale,
   gift, and testament. By virtue of the second, they could
   contract a legal marriage with the daughter of a Roman
   citizen."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

MUNSEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

   ----------MÜNSTER: Start--------

MÜNSTER: A. D. 1532-1536.
   The reign of the Anabaptists.

      See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

MÜNSTER: A. D. 1644-1648.
   Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

   ----------MÜNSTER: End--------

MUNYCHIA.

      See PIRÆUS.

MUNYCHIA, Battle of (B. C. 403).

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

MURA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MURAD V., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1876 (MAY-AUGUST).

MURAT, King of Naples, The career of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY),
      1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER), to 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER);
      ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, 1813 (AUGUST), to (OCTOBER);
      ITALY: A. D. 1814, and 1815.

MURCI.

   A name given to degenerate Romans, in the later days of the
   Empire, who escaped military service by cutting off the
   fingers of their right hands.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17._

MURET, Battle of (A. D. 1213).

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

MURFREESBOROUGH,
STONE RIVER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

MURRAY, The Regent, Assassination of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

MURRHINE VASES.

   "The highest prices were paid for the so-called Murrhine vases
   (vasa Murrhina) brought to Rome from the East. Pompey, after
   his victory over Mithridates, was the first to bring one of
   them to Rome, which he placed in the temple of the Capitoline
   Jupiter. Augustus, as is well known, kept a Murrhine goblet
   from Cleopatra's treasure for himself, while all her gold
   plate was melted. The Consularis T. Petronius, who owned one
   of the largest collections of rare vases, bought a basin from
   Murrha for 300,000 sestertii; before his death he destroyed
   this matchless piece of his collection, so as to prevent Nero
   from laying hold of it. Nero himself paid for a handled
   drinking-goblet from Murrha a million sestertii. Crystal vases
   also fetched enormous prices. There is some doubt about the
   material of these Murrhine vases, which is the more difficult
   to solve, as the only vase in existence which perhaps may lay
   claim to that name is too thin and fragile to allow of closer
   investigation. It was found in the Tyrol in 1837.

      See
      _Neue Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums,
      volume v. 1839._

   Pliny describes the colour of the Murrhine vases as a mixture
   of white and purple; according to some ancient writers, they
   even improved the taste of the wine drunk out of them."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 91._

   "I believe it is now understood that the murrha of the Romans
   was not porcelain, as had been supposed from the line,
   'Murrheaque in Parthis pocula cocta focis' (Propert. iv. 5.
   26.), but an imitation in coloured glass of a transparent
   stone."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 39, foot-note._

MURSA, Battle of (A. D. 351).

      See ROME: A. D. 337-361.

MUSCADINS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MUSCULUS, The.

   A huge movable covered way which the Romans employed in siege
   operations. Its construction, of heavy timbers, with a
   roof-covering of bricks, clay and hides, is described in
   Cæsar's account of the siege of Massilia.

      _Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 2, chapter 10._

MUSEUM, British.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: ENGLAND.

MUSEUM OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

MUSKHOGEES, OR MASKOKALGIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MUSSULMANS.

      See ISLAM.

MUSTAPHA I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1617-1618; and 1622-1623.

   Mustapha II., Turkish Sultan, 1695-1703.

   Mustapha III., Turkish Sultan, 1757-1774.

   Mustapha IV., Turkish Sultan, 1807-1808.

MUTA, Battle of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

MUTHUL, Battle of the.

      See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 72).

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 43).

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MUTINA AND PARMA.

   On the final conquest of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans, about
   220 B. C. the Senate planted the colonies of Mutina (Modena)
   and Parma on the line of the Æmilian Road and assigned the
   territory of the Apuans to the new colony of Luca (Lucca).

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 41 (volume 2)._

MUTINY ACTS, The English.

   In 1689 the Parliament (called a Convention at first) which
   settled the English crown upon William of Orange and Mary,
   "passed the first Act for governing the army as a separate and
   distinct body under its own peculiar laws, called 'The Mutiny
   Act.' … The origin of the first Mutiny Act was this. France
   had declared war against Holland, who applied under the treaty
   of Nimeguen to England for troops. Some English regiments
   refused to go, and it was felt that the common law could not
   be employed to meet the exigency. The mutineers were for the
   time by military force compelled to submit, happily without
   bloodshed; but the necessity for soldiers to be governed by
   their own code and regulations became manifest. Thereupon the
   aid of Parliament was invoked, but cautiously.
{2237}
   The first Mutiny Act was very short in enactments and to
   continue only six months. It recited that standing armies and
   courts martial were unknown to English law, and enacted that
   no soldier should on pain of death desert his colours, or
   mutiny. At the expiration of the six months another similar
   Act was passed, also only for six months: and so on until the
   present practice was established of regulating and governing
   the army, now a national institution, by an annual Mutiny Act,
   which is requisite for the legal existence of a recognised
   force, whereby frequent meeting of Parliament is indirectly
   secured, if only to preserve the army in existence."

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 7._

   "These are the two effectual securities against military
   power: that no pay can be issued to the troops without a
   previous authorisation by the commons in a committee of
   supply, and by both houses in an act of appropriation; and
   that no officer or soldier can be punished for disobedience,
   nor any court-martial held, without the annual re-enactment of
   the mutiny bill."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 11 (volume 3)._

MUTINY OF THE ENGLISH FLEET.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

MUTINY OF THE PHILADELPHIA LINE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

MUTINY OF THE SEPOYS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

MUYSCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

MYCALE, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479.

MYCENÆ.

      See GREECE: MYCENÆ: AND ITS KINGS;
      also ARGOS; HERACLEIDÆ; and HOMER.

MYCIANS, The.

   A race, so-called by the Greeks, who lived anciently on the
   coast of the Indian Ocean, east of modern Kerman. They were
   known to the Persians as Maka.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

MYLÆ, Naval battle at (B. C. 260).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MYONNESUS, Battle of (B. C. 190).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

MYRMIDONS, The.

   "Æakus was the son of Zeus, born of Ægina, daughter of Asopus,
   whom the god had carried off and brought into the island to
   which he gave her name. … Æakus was alone in Ægina: to
   relieve him from this solitude, Zeus changed all the ants in
   the island into men, and thus provided him with a numerous
   population, who, from their origin, were called Myrmidons."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 10._

   According to the legends, Peleus, Telamon and Phocus were the
   sons of Æakus; Peleus migrated, with the Myrmidons, or some
   part of them, to Thessaly, and from there the latter
   accompanied his son Achilles to Troy.

MYSIANS, The.

      See PHRYGIANS.—MYSIANS.

MYSORE, The founding of the kingdom of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

MYSORE WARS, with Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saib.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783; 1785-1793;
      and 1798-1805.

MYSTERIES, Ancient Religious.

      See ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES.

MYSTICISM.
QUIETISM.

   "The peculiar form of devotional religion known under these
   names was not, as most readers are aware, the offspring of the
   17th century. It rests, in fact, on a substratum of truth
   which is coeval with man's being, and expresses one of the
   elementary principles of our moral constitution. … The
   system of the Mystics arose from the instinctive yearning of
   man's soul for communion with the Infinite and the Eternal.
   Holy Scripture abounds with such aspirations—the Old
   Testament as well as the New; but that which under the Law was
   'a shadow of good things to come,' has been transformed by
   Christianity into a living and abiding reality. The Gospel
   responds to these longings for intercommunion between earth
   and heaven by that fundamental article of our faith, the
   perpetual presence and operation of God the Holy Ghost in the
   Church, the collective 'body of Christ,' and in the individual
   souls of the regenerate. But a sublime mystery like this is
   not incapable of misinterpretation. … The Church has ever
   found it a difficult matter to distinguish and adjudicate
   between what may be called legitimate or orthodox Mysticism
   and those corrupt, degrading, or grotesque versions of it
   which have exposed religion to reproach and contempt. Some
   Mystics have been canonized as saints; others, no less
   deservedly, have been consigned to obloquy as pestilential
   heretics. It was in the East—proverbially the fatherland of
   idealism and romance—that the earliest phase of error in this
   department of theology was more or less strongly developed. We
   find that in the 4th century the Church was troubled by a sect
   called Massalians or Euchites, who placed the whole of
   religion in the habit of mental prayer; alleging as their
   authority the Scripture precept 'That men ought always to
   pray, and not to faint.' They were for the most part monks of
   Mesopotamia and Syria; there were many of them at Antioch when
   St. Epiphanius wrote his Treatise against heresies, A. D. 376.
   They held that every man is from his birth possessed by an
   evil spirit or familiar demon, who can only be cast out by the
   practice of continual prayer. They disparaged the Sacraments,
   regarding them as things indifferent: they rejected manual
   labor; and, although professing to be perpetually engaged in
   prayer, they slept, we are told, the greater part of the day,
   and pretended that in that state they received revelations
   from above. … The Massalians did not openly separate from
   the Church; they were condemned, however, by two Councils—one
   at Antioch in 391, the other at Constantinople in 426.
   Delusions of the same kind were reproduced from time to time
   in the Oriental Church; and, as is commonly the case, the
   originators of error were followed by a race of disciples who
   advanced considerably beyond them. The Hesychasts, or
   Quietists of Mount Athos in the 14th century, seem to have
   been fanatics of an extreme type. They imagined that, by a
   process of profound contemplation, they could discern
   internally the light of the Divine Presence—the 'glory of
   God'—the very same which was disclosed to the Apostles on the
   Mount of Transfiguration. Hence they were also called
   Thaborites.
{2238}
   The soul to which this privilege was vouchsafed had no need to
   practise any of the external acts or rites of religion. …
   The theory of abstract contemplation, with the extraordinary
   fruits supposed to be derived from it, travelled in due course
   into the West, and there gave birth to the far-famed school of
   the Mystics, of which there were various ramifications. The
   earliest exponent of the system in France was John Scotus
   Erigena, the contemporary and friend of Charles the Bald. …
   Erigena incurred the censures of the Holy See; but the results
   of his teaching were permanent. … The Mystics, or
   Theosophists as some style them, attained a position of high
   renown and influence at Paris towards the close of the 12th
   century. Here two of the ablest expositors of the learning of
   the middle age, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, initiated
   crowds of ardent disciples into the mysteries of the 'via
   interna,' and of 'pure love'—that marvellous quality by which
   the soul, sublimated and etherialized, ascends into the very
   presence-chamber of the King of kings. … The path thus
   traced was trodden by many who were to take rank eventually as
   the most perfect masters of spiritual science; among them are
   the venerated names of Thomas à Kempis, St. Bonaventure, John
   Tauler of Strasburg, Gerson, and St. Vincent Ferrier. … But,
   on the other hand, it is not less true that emotional religion
   has been found to degenerate, in modern as well as in ancient
   times, into manifold forms of moral aberration. … To exalt
   above measure the dignity and privileges of the spiritual
   element in man carries with it the danger of disparaging the
   material part of our nature; and this results in the
   preposterous notion that, provided the soul be absorbed in the
   contemplation of things Divine, the actions of the body are
   unimportant and indifferent. How often the Church has combated
   and denounced this most insidious heresy is well known to all
   who have a moderate acquaintance with its history. Under the
   various appellations of Beghards, Fratricelli, Cathari,
   Spirituals, Albigenses, Illuminati, Guerinets, and Quietists,
   the self-same delusion has been sedulously propagated in
   different parts of Christendom, and with the same ultimate
   consequences. A revival of the last-named sect, the Quietists,
   took place in Spain about the year 1675, when Michel de
   Molinos, a priest of the diocese of Saragossa, published his
   treatise called 'The Spiritual Guide,' or, in the Latin
   translation, 'Manuductio spiritualis.' His leading principle,
   like that of his multifarious predecessors, was that of
   habitual abstraction of the mind from sensible objects, with a
   view to gain, by passive contemplation, not only a profound
   realisation of God's presence, but so perfect a communion with
   Him as to end in absorption into His essence. … Persons of
   the highest distinction—Cardinals, Inquisitors, nay, even
   Pope Innocent himself—were suspected of sharing these
   dangerous opinions. Molinos was arrested and imprisoned, and
   in due time the Inquisition condemned sixty-eight propositions
   from his works; a sentence which was confirmed by a Papal bull
   in August, 1687. Having undergone public penance, he was
   admitted to absolution; after which, in 'merciful'
   consideration of his submission and repentance, he was
   consigned for the rest of his days to the dungeons of the Holy
   Office. Here he died in November, 1692. … 'The principles of
   Quietism had struck root so deeply, that they were not to be
   soon dislodged either by the terrors of the Inquisition, or by
   the well-merited denunciations of the Vatican. The system was
   irresistibly fascinating to minds of a certain order. Among
   those who were dazzled by it was the celebrated Jeanne Marie
   De la Mothe Guyon," whose ardent propagation of her mystic
   theology in the court circles of France—where Fenelon,
   Madame de Maintenon, and other important personages were
   greatly influenced—gave rise to bitter controversies and
   agitations. In the end, Madame Guyon was silenced and
   imprisoned and Fenelon was subjected to humiliating papal
   censures.

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. A. Vaughan,
      Hours with the Mystics._

      _J. Bigelow,
      Miguel Molinos, the Quietist._

      _T. C. Upham,
      Life of M'me Guyon._

      _H. L. S. Lear,
      Fenelon,
      chapters 3-5._

      _S. E. Herrick,
      Some Heretics of Yesterday,
      chapter 1._

      _H. C. Lea,
      Chapters from the Religious History of Spain: Mystics._

MYTILENE, Siege of.

   See LESBOS.


N

N. S.
   New Style.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NAARDEN: A. D. 1572.
   Massacre by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

NABATHEANS, The.

   "Towards the seventh century B. C., the name Edomite suddenly
   disappears, and is used only by some of the Israelitish
   prophets, who, in doing so, follow ancient traditions. Instead
   of it is found the hitherto unknown word, Nabathean.
   Nevertheless the two names, Nabathean and Edomite, undoubtedly
   refer to the same people, dwelling in the same locality,
   possessing the same empire, with the same boundaries, and the
   same capital, Selah [Petra]. Whence arose this change of name?
   According to an appearances from an internal revolution, of
   which we have no record, a change in the royal race and in the
   dominant tribe."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 7, chapter 4._

   "This remarkable nation [the Nabatheans, or Nabatæans] has
   often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the
   wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan
   branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan
   or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian
   stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most
   ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the
   sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these
   were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf
   of Suez and Aila, in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In
   their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for
   those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran
   from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
   passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
   still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
   evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
   extinct tradition."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 5, page 351._

{2239}

NABOB.
NAWAB.

   Under the Moghul empire, certain viceroys or governors of
   provinces bore the title of Nawab, as the Nawab Wuzeer or
   Vizier of Oude, which became in English speech Nabob, and
   acquired familiar use in England as a term applied to rich
   Anglo-Indians.

NADIR SHAH, sovereign of Persia, A. D. 1736-1747.

NAEFELS, OR NÖFELS, Battle of (1388).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

   Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

NAGPUR:
   The British acquisition and annexation.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819, and 1848-1856.

NAHANARVALI, The.

      See LYGIANS.

NAHUA PEOPLES.
NAHUATL.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

NAIRS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NAISSUS, The Battle of.

   See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

NAJARA, Battle of.

      See NAVARETTE.

NAMANGAN, Battle of (1876).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

NAMAQUA, The.

   See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NAMNETES,
NANNETES, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

   ----------NAMUR: Start--------

NAMUR: A. D. 1692.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

NAMUR: A. D. 1695.
   Siege and recovery by William of Orange.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

NAMUR: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

NAMUR: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and ceded to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: CONGRESS.

   ----------NAMUR: End--------

NANA SAHIB, and the Sepoy Revolt.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856; 1857 (MAY-AUGUST);
      and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

NANCY: Defeat and death of Charles the Bold (1477).

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

   ----------NANKING: Start--------

NANKING: A. D. 1842.
   Treaty ending the Opium War and opening Chinese ports.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

NANKING: A. D. 1853-1864.
   The capital of the Taiping Rebels.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

   ----------NANKING: End--------

   ----------NANTES: Start--------

NANTES:
   Origin of the name.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

NANTES: A. D. 1598.
   The Edict of Henry IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

NANTES: A. D. 1685.
   The Revocation of the Edict.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

NANTES: A. D. 1793.
   Unsuccessful attack by the Vendeans.
   The crushing of the revolt and the frightful
   vengeance of the Terrorists.
   The demoniac Carrier and his Noyades.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      THE CIVIL WAR; and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

   ----------NANTES: End--------

NANTICOKES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NANTWICH, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

NAO.

      See CARAVELS.

NAPATA.

      See ETHIOPIA.

   ----------NAPLES: Start--------

NAPLES:
   Origin of the city.

      See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

NAPLES: A. D. 536-543.
   Siege and capture by Belisarius.
   Recovery by the Goths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

NAPLES: A. D. 554-800.
   The dukedom.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

NAPLES: 8-9th Centuries.
   The duchy of Beneventum.

      See BENEVENTUM; also, AMALFI.

NAPLES: A. D. 1000-1080.
   The Norman Conquest.
   Grant by the Pope as a fief of the Church.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

NAPLES: A. D. 1127.
   Union of Apulia with Sicily and formation of the
   kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1081-1194.

NAPLES: A. D. 1282-1300.
   Separation from Sicily.
   Continuance as a separate kingdom under the House of Anjou.
   Adhesion to the name "Sicily."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300;
      also, TWO SICILIES.

NAPLES: A. D. 1312-1313.
   Hostilities between King Robert and the Emperor, Henry VII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

NAPLES: A. D. 1313-1328.
   King Robert's leadership of the Guelf interest in Italy.
   His part in the wars of Tuscany.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

NAPLES: A. D. 1343-1389.
   The troubled reign of Joanna I.
   Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
   Political effects of the Great Schism in the Church.
   War of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
   Interfering violence of Pope Urban VI.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

NAPLES: A. D. 1386-1414.
   Civil war between the Durazzo and the Angevin parties.
   Success of Ladislas.
   His capture, loss, and recapture of Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

NAPLES: A. D. 1414-1447.
   Renewal of civil war.
   Defeat of the Angevins and acquisition of the
   crown by Alfonso, king of Aragon and Sicily.
   League with Florence and Venice against Milan.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

NAPLES: A. D.1447-1454.
   Claim of King Alfonso to the duchy of Milan.
   War with Milan and Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

NAPLES: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown from those of Aragon and Sicily.
   Left to an illegitimate son of Alfonso.
   Revived French claims.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

NAPLES: A. D. 1494-1496.
   Invasion and temporary conquest by Charles VIII. of France.
   Retreat of the French.
   Venetian acquisitions in Apulia.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, 1494-1496;
      and VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

NAPLES: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Perfidious treaty of partition between
   Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

NAPLES: A. D. 1504-1505.
   Relinquishment of French claims.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

NAPLES: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528.
   Siege by the French and successful defense.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528-1570.
   Under the Spanish viceroys.
   Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
   The blockade and peril of the city.
   Revolt against the Inquisition.
   Alva's repulse of the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

{2240}

NAPLES: A. D. 1544.
   Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

NAPLES: A. D. 1647-1654.
   Revolt of Masaniello.
   Undertakings of the Duke of Guise and the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

NAPLES: A. D. 1713.
   The kingdom ceded to the House of Austria.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NAPLES: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Occupation by the Spaniards.
   Cession to Spain, with Sicily, forming a kingdom for
   Don Carlos, the first of the Neapolitan Bourbons.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

NAPLES: A. D. 1742.
   The neutrality of the kingdom in the War of the Austrian
   Succession enforced by England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

NAPLES: A. D. 1744.
   The War of the Austrian Succession.
   Neutrality broken.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

NAPLES: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

NAPLES: A. D. 1769.
   Seizure of Papal territory.
   Demand for the suppression of the Order of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

NAPLES: A. D. 1793.
   Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1796.
   Armistice with Bonaparte.
   Treaty of Peace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The king's attack upon the French at Rome.
   His defeat and flight.
   French occupation of the capital.
   Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

NAPLES: A. D. 1799.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Restoration of the king.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1800-1801.
   The king's assistance to the Allies.
   Saved from Napoleon's vengeance by the intercession
   of the Russian Czar.
   Treaty of Foligno.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

NAPLES: A. D. 1805 (April).
   Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NAPLES: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Napoleon's edict of dethronement against the king and queen.
   Its enforcement by French arms.
   Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER)

NAPLES: A. D. 1808.
   The crown resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of Spain),
   and conferred on Joachim Murat.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Murat on the throne.
   Expulsion of the English from Capri.
   Popular discontent.
   Rise of the Carbonari.
   Civil war in Calabria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

NAPLES: A. D. 1814.
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   His treaty with the Allies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
   Murat's attempt to head an Italian national movement.
   His downfall and fate.
   Restoration of the Bourbon Ferdinand.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1815.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Insurrection.
   Concession of a Constitution.
   Perjury and duplicity of the king.
   Intervention of Austria to overthrow the Constitution.
   Merciless re-establishment of despotism.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
   Austrian intervention sanctioned.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NAPLES: A. D. 1830.
   Death of Francis I.
   Accession of Ferdinand II.

      See ITALY: A. D.1830-1832.

NAPLES: A. D. 1848.
   Abortive revolt.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NAPLES: A. D. 1859-1861.
   Death of Ferdinand II.
   Accession of Francis II.
   The overthrow of his kingdom by Garibaldi.
   Its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------NAPLES: End--------

NAPO,
QUIJO, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

NAPOLEON I.:
   His career.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

NAPOLEON III.:
   His career as conspirator, President of the
   French Republic, and Emperor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840;
      and 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER), to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

   ----------NARBONNE: Start--------

NARBONNE:
   Founding of the city.

   "In the year B. C. 118 it was proposed to settle a Roman
   colony in the south of France at Narbo (Narbonne). … The
   Romans must have seized some part of this country, or they
   could not have made a colony, which implies the giving of land
   to settlers. Narbo was an old native town which existed at
   least as early as the latter part of the sixth century before
   the Christian era. … The possession of Narbo gave the Romans
   easy access to the fertile valley of the Garonne, and it was
   not long before they took and plundered Tolosa (Toulouse),
   which is on that river. … Narbo also commanded the road into
   Spain."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

NARBONNE: A. D. 437.
   Besieged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

NARBONNE: A. D. 525-531.
   The capital of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

NARBONNE: A. D. 719.
   Capture and occupation by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

NARBONNE: A. D. 752-759.
   Siege and recovery from the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

   ----------NARBONNE: End--------

NARISCI, The.

      See MARCOMANNI.

NARRAGANSETTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, 1674-1675,
      1675, and 1676-1678.

NARSES, Campaigns of.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

NARVA, Siege and Battle of (1700).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

NARVAEZ, Expedition of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

NASEBY, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).

   ----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: Start--------

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1779-1784.
   Origin and name of the city.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

{2241}

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
   Occupied by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1864.
   Under siege.
   Defeat of Hood's army.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A D. 1864 (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   ----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: End--------

NASI, The.

   This was the title of the President of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

NASR-ED-DEEN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1848-.

NASSAU, The House of.

   "We find an Otho, Count of Nassau, so long ago as the
   beginning of the 10th century, employed as general under the
   Emperor Henry I … in subduing a swarm of savage Hungarians,
   who for many years had infested Germany. … The same
   fortunate warrior had a principal hand afterwards in reducing
   the Vandals, Danes, Sclavonians, Dalmatians, and Bohemians.
   Among the descendants of Otho of Nassau, Walram I and III more
   particularly distinguished themselves in the cause of the
   German Emperors; the former under the victorious Otho I, the
   latter under Conrad II. It was to these faithful services of
   his progenitors that, in a great measure, were owing the large
   possessions of Henry, surnamed the Rich, third in descent from
   the last mentioned Walram, and grandfather to the brave but
   unhappy Emperor Adolphus [deposed and slain at the battle of
   Gelheim, in 1298.]

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

   The accession, by marriage, of Breda, Vianden, and other
   lordships in the Netherlands, gave the Nassaus such a weight
   in those provinces that John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, and his
   son Engelbert II, were both successively appointed Governors
   of Brabant by the Sovereigns of that State [Charles the Bold,
   Duke of Burgundy, and his son-in-law, the Emperor Maximilian].
   … The last, who was likewise honoured with the commission of
   Maximilian I's Lieutenant-General in the Low-Countries,
   immortalized his fame, at the same time that he secured his
   master's footing there, by the glorious victory of
   Guinegaste,"—or Guinegate, or the "Battle of the Spurs."

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513—1515.

      _J. Breval,
      History of the House of Nassau,
      pages 2-3._

   Engelbert II. dying childless, "was succeeded by his brother
   John, whose two sons, Henry and William, of Nassau, divided
   the great inheritance after their father's death. William
   succeeded to the German estates, became a convert to
   Protestantism, and introduced the Reformation into his
   dominions. Henry, the eldest son, received the family
   possessions and titles in Luxembourg, Brabant, Flanders and
   Holland, and distinguished himself as much as his uncle
   Engelbert, in the service of the Burgundo-Austrian house. The
   confidential friend of Charles V., whose governor he had been
   in that Emperor's boyhood, he was ever his most efficient and
   reliable adherent. It was he whose influence placed the
   imperial crown upon the head of Charles. In 1515 he espoused
   Claudia de Chalons, sister of Prince Philibert of Orange, 'in
   order,' as he wrote to his father, 'to be obedient to his
   imperial Majesty, to please the King of France, and more
   particularly for the sake of his own honor and profit.' His
   son Rene de Nassau-Chalons succeeded Philibert. The little
   principality of Orange, so pleasantly situated between
   Provence and Dauphiny, but in such, dangerous proximity to the
   seat of the 'Babylonian captivity' of the popes at Avignon,
   thus passed to the family of Nassau. The title was of high
   antiquity. Already in the reign of Charlemagne, Guillaume au
   Court-Nez, or 'William with the Short Nose,' had defended the
   little town of Orange against the assaults of the Saracens.
   The interest and authority acquired in the demesnes thus
   preserved by his valor became extensive, and in process of
   time hereditary in his race. The principality became an
   absolute and free sovereignty, and had already descended, in
   defiance of the Salic law, through the three distinct families
   of Orange, Baux, and Chalons. In 1544, Prince Rene died at the
   Emperor's feet in the trenches of Saint Dizier. Having no
   legitimate children, he left all his titles and estates to his
   cousin-german, William of Nassau [the great statesman and
   soldier, afterwards known as William the Silent], son of his
   father's brother William, who thus at the age of eleven years
   became William the Ninth of Orange."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   The Dutch branch of the House of Nassau is now represented by
   the royal family of Holland. The possessions of the German
   branch, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, after
   frequent partitioning, was finally gathered into a duchy,
   which Prussia extinguished and absorbed in 1866.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Orange
      (Macmillan's Magazine, February, 1875)._

      _Baron Maurier,
      Lives of all the Princes of Orange._

      See, also, ORANGE;
      and GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NAT TURNER'S INSURRECTION.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

   ----------NATAL: Start--------

NATAL: The Name.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NATAL: A. D. 1834-1843.
   Founding of the colony as a Dutch republic.
   Its absorption in the British dominions.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

   ----------NATAL: End--------

NATALIA, Queen of Servia.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

NATCHEZ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      NATCHESAN FAMILY, and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

NATCHEZ: A. D. 1862.
   Taken by the National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NATCHITOCHES, The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, German Revolution.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.

NATIONAL CONVENTION, French, End of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: FRANCE.

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

NATIONALISTS, OR HOME RULERS, Irish.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

{2242}

NATIONALITY, The Principle of.

   "Among the French a nationality is regarded as the work of
   history, ratified by the will of man. The elements composing
   it may be very different in their origin. The point of
   departure is of little importance; the only essential thing is
   the point reached. The Swiss nationality is the most complete.
   It embraces three families of people, each of which speaks its
   own language. Moreover, since the Swiss territory belongs to
   three geographical regions, separated by high mountains,
   Switzerland, which has vanquished the fatality of nature, from
   both the ethnographical and geographical point of view, is a
   unique and wonderful phenomenon. But she is a confederation,
   and for a long time has been a neutral country. Thus her
   constitution has not been subjected to the great ordeal of
   fire and sword. France, despite her diverse races—Celtic,
   German, Roman, and Basque—has formed a political entity that
   most resembles a moral person. The Bretons and Alsacians, who
   do not all understand the language of her government, have not
   been the least devoted of her children in the hour of
   tribulation. Among the great nations France is the nation par
   excellence. Elsewhere the nationality blends, or tends to
   blend, with the race, a natural development and, hence, one
   devoid of merit. All the countries that have not been able to
   unite their races into a nation, have a more or less troubled
   existence. Prussia has not been able to nationalize (that is
   the proper word to use) her Polish subjects; hence she has a
   Polish question, not to mention at present any other. England
   has an Irish question. Both Turkey and Austria have a number
   of such questions. Groups of people in various parts of the
   Austrian Empire demand from the Emperor that they may be
   allowed to live as Germans, Hungarians, Tsechs, Croatians, in
   fact, even as Italians. They do not revolt against him; on the
   contrary, each of them offers him a crown. The time is,
   however, past when a single head can wear several crowns;
   to-day every crown is heavy. These race claims are not merely
   a cause of internal troubles; the agitations that they arouse
   may lead to great wars. Evidently no state will ever interpose
   between Ireland and England, but, while quarrels take place
   between Germans and Slavs, there will intervene the two
   conflicting forces of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism,
   formidable results and final consequences of ethnographical
   patriotism. Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism are, indeed, not
   forces officially acknowledged and organized. The Emperor of
   Germany can honestly deny that he is a Pan-Germanist, and the
   Tsar that he is a Pan-Slavist. Germans and Slavs of Austria,
   and Slavs of the Balkans, may, for their part, desire to
   remain Austrian or independent, as they are to-day. It is none
   the less true, however, that there is in Europe an old quarrel
   between two great races, that each of them is represented by a
   powerful empire, and that these empires cannot forever remain
   unconcerned about the quarrels of the two races. … The chief
   application of the principle of nationality has been the
   formation of the Italian and German nations. In former times
   the existence, in the centre of the Continent, of two objects
   of greed was a permanent cause of war. Will the substitution
   of two important states for German anarchy and Italian
   polyarchy prove a guaranty of future peace?"

      _E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 5, sections 6-7._

NATIONALRATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

NATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

NATIVE STATES OF INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

NATIVI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL, &c.: ENGLAND.

NAUARCHI.

   The title given in ancient Sparta to the commanders of the
   fleet. At Athens "the term Nauarchi seems to have been
   officially applied only to the commanders of the so-called
   sacred triremes."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapters 1, and 3._

NAUCRATIS.

      See NAUKRATIS.

NAUKRARIES.

      See PHYLÆ.

NAUKRATIS.

   "Naukratis was for a long time the privileged port [in Egypt]
   for Grecian commerce with Egypt. No Greek merchant was
   permitted to deliver goods in any other part (port), or to
   enter any other of the mouths of the Nile except the Kanôpic.
   If forced into any of them by stress of weather, he was
   compelled to make oath that his arrival was a matter of
   necessity, and to convey his goods round by sea into the
   Kanôpic branch to Naukratis; and if the weather still forbade
   such a proceeding, the merchandise was put into barges and
   conveyed round to Naukratis by the internal canals of the
   delta. Such a monopoly, which made Naukratis in Egypt
   something like Canton in China or Nangasaki in Japan, no
   longer subsisted in the time of Herodotus. … At what precise
   time Naukratis first became licensed for Grecian trade, we
   cannot directly make out. But there seems reason to believe
   that it was the port to which the Greek merchants first went,
   so soon as the general liberty of trading with the country was
   conceded to them; and this would put the date of such grant at
   least as far back as the foundation of Kyrene, … about 630
   B. C., during the reign of Psammetichus. … [About a century
   later, Amasis] sanctioned the constitution of a formal and
   organised emporium or factory, invested with commercial
   privileges, and armed with authority exercised by presiding
   officers regularly chosen. This factory was connected with,
   and probably grew out of, a large religious edifice and
   precinct, built at the joint cost of nine Grecian cities: four
   of them Ionic,—Chios, Teos, Phokæa and Klazomenæ; four
   Doric,—Rhodes, Knidus, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis; and one
   Æolic,—Mitylene. By these nine cities the joint temple and
   factory was kept up and its presiding magistrates chosen; but
   its destination, for the convenience of Grecian commerce
   generally, seems revealed by the imposing title of The
   Hellênion."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 20._

   The site of Naukratis has been determined lately by the
   excavations of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, begun in 1885, the
   results of which are appearing in the publications of the
   "Egypt Exploration Fund." The ruins of the ancient city are
   found buried under a mound called Nebireh. Its situation was
   west of the Canobic branch of the Nile, on a canal which
   connected it with that stream.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.

NAULOCHUS, Battle of.

   A naval battle fought near Naulochus, on the coast of Sicily,
   in which Agrippa, commanding for the triumvir Octavius,
   defeated and destroyed the fleet of Sextus Pompeius, B. C. 36.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 27._

{2243}

NAUMACHIÆ.

   The naumachiæ of the Romans were structures resembling
   excavated amphitheatres, but having the large central space
   filled with water, for the representation of naval combats.
   "The great Naumachia of Augustus was 1,800 feet long and 1,200
   feet broad."

      _R. Burn.
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction_.

NAUPACTUS.

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
      and GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

NAUPACTUS, Battle of (B. C. 429).

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

NAUPACTUS, Treaty of.

   A treaty, concluded B. C. 217, which terminated what was
   called the Social War, between the Achæan League, joined with
   Philip of Macedonia, and the Ætolian League, in alliance with
   Sparta.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 63._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 8, section 1._

NAUPLIA.

      See ARGOS.

NAURAGHI.

      See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

NAUSETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NAUVOO, The Mormon city of.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, and 1846-1848.

NAVAJOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ATHAPASCAN FAMILY and APACHE GROUP.

NAVARETTE
NAJARA, Battle of.

   Won, April 3, 1367, by the English Black Prince over a Spanish
   and French army, in a campaign undertaken to restore Peter the
   Cruel to the throne of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

   ----------NAVARINO: Start--------

NAVARINO: B. C. 425.
   An ancient episode in the harbor.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

NAVARINO: A. D. 1686.
   Taken by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

NAVARINO: A. D. 1827.
   Battle and destruction of the Turkish fleet.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

   ----------NAVARINO: End--------

   ----------NAVARRE: Start--------
NAVARRE:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See BASQUES.

NAVARRE:
   Origin of the kingdom.

   "No historical subject is wrapt in greater obscurity than the
   origin and early history of the kingdom of Navarre. Whether,
   during a great portion of the eighth and ninth centuries, the
   country was independent or tributary; and, if dependent,
   whether it obeyed the Franks, the Asturians, or the Arabs, or
   successively all three, are speculations which have long
   exercised the pens of the peninsular writers. … It seems
   undoubted that, in just dread of the Mohammedan domination,
   the inhabitants of these regions, as well as those of
   Catalonia, applied for aid to the renowned emperor of the
   Franks [Charlemagne]; and that he, in consequence, in 778,
   poured his legions into Navarre, and seized Pamplona. It seems
   no less certain that, from this period, he considered the
   country as a fief of his crown; and that his pretensions,
   whether founded in violence or in the voluntary submission of
   the natives, gave the highest umbrage to the Asturian kings:
   the feudal supremacy thenceforth became an apple of discord
   between the two courts, each striving to gain the homage of
   the local governors. … Thus things remained until the time
   of Alfonso III., who … endeavoured to secure peace both with
   Navarre and France by marrying a princess related to both
   Sancho Iñigo, count of Bigorre, and to the Frank sovereign,
   and by consenting that the province should be held as an
   immovable fief by that count. This Sancho Iñigo, besides his
   lordship of Bigorre, for which he was the vassal of the French
   king, had domains in Navarre, and is believed, on apparently
   good foundation, to have been of Spanish descent. He is said,
   however, not to have been the first count of Navarre; that his
   brother Aznar held the fief before him, nominally dependent on
   king Pepin, but successfully laying the foundation of
   Navarrese independence. If the chronology which makes Sancho
   succeed Aznar in 836, and the event itself, be correct,
   Alfonso only confirmed the count in the lordship. In this
   case, the only remaining difficulty is to determine whether
   the fief was held from Charles or Alfonso. … But whichever
   of the princes was acknowledged for the time the lord
   paramount of the province, there can be little doubt that both
   governor and people were averse to the sway of either; both
   had long aspired to independence, and that independence was at
   hand. The son of this Sancho Iñigo was Garcia, father of
   Sancho Garces, and the first king of Navarre [assuming the
   crown about 885-891]; the first, at least, whom … historic
   criticism can admit."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 2._

      See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1026.
   Acquisition of the crown of Castile by King Sancho el Mayor.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1234.
   Succession of Thibalt, Count of Champagne, to the throne.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1284-1328.
   Union with France, and separation.

   In 1284, the marriage of Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of
   Navarre and of the counties of Champagne and Brie, to Philip
   IV. of France, united the crown of Navarre to that of France.
   They were separated in 1328, on the death of her last
   surviving son, Charles IV., without male issue. Philip of
   Valois secured the French crown, under the so called Salic
   law, but that of Navarre passed to Jeanne's grand-daughter, of
   her own name.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
   Usurpation of John II. of Aragon.
   The House of Foix and the D'Albrets.
   Conquest by Ferdinand.
   Incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

   Blanche, daughter of Charles III. of Navarre and heiress of
   the kingdom, married John II. of Aragon, to whom she gave
   three children, namely, Don Carlos, or Charles, "who, as heir
   apparent, bore the title of Prince of Viana, and two
   daughters, Blanche and Eleanor. Don Carlos is known by his
   virtues and misfortunes. At the death of his mother Blanche
   [1442], he should have succeeded to the throne of Navarre; but
   John II. was by no means disposed to relinquish the title
   which he had acquired by marriage, and Carlos consented to be
   his father's viceroy. But even this dignity he was not
   permitted to enjoy unmolested." Persecuted through life,
   sometimes imprisoned, sometimes in exile, he died at the age
   of forty, in 1461.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

{2244}

   "By the death of Don Carlos, the succession to the crown of
   Navarre devolved to his sister Blanche, the divorced wife of
   Henry IV. of Castile; and that amiable princess now became an
   object of jealousy not only to her father but also to her
   younger sister, Eleanor, married to the Count of Foix, to whom
   John II. had promised the reversion of Navarre after his own
   death. Gaston de Foix, the offspring of this union, had
   married a sister of Louis XI.; and it had been provided in a
   treaty between that monarch and John II., that in order to
   secure the succession of the House of Foix to Navarre, Blanche
   should be delivered into the custody of her sister. John
   executed this stipulation without remorse. Blanche was
   conducted to the Castle of Orthès in Bearn (April 1462),
   where, after a confinement of nearly two years, she was
   poisoned by order of her sister Eleanor." After committing
   this crime, the latter waited nearly fifteen years for the
   crown which it was expected to win, and then enjoyed it but
   three weeks. Her father reigned until the 20th of January,
   1479, when he died; the guilty daughter soon followed him.
   "After Eleanor's brief reign … the blood-stained sceptre of
   Navarre passed to her grandson Phœbus, 1479, who, however,
   lived only four years, and was succeeded by his sister
   Catherine. Ferdinand and Isabella [now occupying the thrones
   of Aragon and Castile] endeavoured to effect a marriage
   between Catherine and their own heir; but this scheme was
   frustrated by Magdalen, the queen-mother, a sister of Louis
   XI. of France, who brought about a match between her daughter
   and John d'Albret, a French nobleman who had large possessions
   on the borders of Navarre (1485). Nevertheless the Kings of
   Spain supported Catherine and her husband against her uncle,
   John de Foix, viscount of Narbonne, who pretended to the
   Navarese crown on the ground that it was limited to male
   heirs; and after the death of John, the alliance with Spain
   was drawn still closer by the avowed purpose of Louis XII. to
   support his nephew, Gaston de Foix, in the claims of his
   father. After the fall of that young hero at Ravenna [see
   ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513], his pretensions to the throne of
   Navarre devolved to his sister, Germaine de Foix, the second
   wife of King Ferdinand [see SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517], an event
   which entirely altered the relations between the courts of
   Spain and Navarre. Ferdinand had now an interest in supporting
   the claims of the house of Foix-Narbonne; and Catherine, who
   distrusted him, despatched in May 1512, plenipotentiaries to
   the French court to negotiate a treaty of alliance." But it
   was too late. Ferdinand had already succeeded in diverting to
   Navarre an expedition which his son-in-law, Henry VIII. of
   England, acting in the Holy League against Louis XII., which
   Ferdinand now joined (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), had sent
   against Guienne. With this aid he took possession of Upper
   Navarre. "In the following year, he effected at Orthès a
   year's truce with Louis XII. (April 1st 1513), by which Louis
   sacrificed his ally, the King of Navarre, and afterwards, by
   renewing the truce, allowed Ferdinand permanently to settle
   himself in his new conquest. The States of Navarre had
   previously taken the oath of allegiance to Ferdinand as their
   King, and on the 15th of June 1515, Navarre was incorporated
   into the kingdom of Castile by the solemn act of the Cortès.
   The dominions of John d'Albret and Catherine were now reduced
   to the little territory of Bearn, but they still retained the
   title of sovereigns of Navarre." Six years later, in 1521, the
   French invaded Navarre and overran the whole kingdom.
   "Pampeluna alone, animated by the courage of Ignatius Loyola,
   made a short resistance. To this siege, the world owes the
   Order of the Jesuits. Loyola, whose leg had been shattered by
   a cannon ball, found consolation and amusement during his
   convalescence in reading the lives of the saints, and was thus
   thrown into that state of fanatical exaltation which led him
   to devote his future life to the service of the Papacy."
   Attempting to extend their invasion beyond Navarre, the French
   were defeated at Esquiros and driven back, losing the whole of
   their conquests.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapters 4 and 7,
      and book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      chapters 2 and 23 (volumes 1 and 3)._

NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
   The kingdom remaining on the French side of the Pyrenees.
   Jeanne d'Albret's Bourbon marriage and the issue of it.
   Establishment of Protestantism in Béarn.

   Besides the Spanish province which Ferdinand the Catholic
   appropriated and joined to Castile, and which gave its name to
   the Kingdom of Navarre, "that kingdom embraced a large tract
   of country lying on the French side of the Pyrenees, including
   the principality of Béarn and the counties of Foix, Armagnac,
   Albret, Bigorre, and Comminges. Catherine de Foix, the heiress
   of this kingdom, had in 1491 carried it by marriage into the
   house of D'Albret. Henry, the second king of Navarre belonging
   to this house, was in 1528 united to Marguerite d'Angoulême,
   the favourite and devoted sister of Francis I. of France.
   Pampeluna, the ancient capital of their kingdom, being in the
   hands of the King of Spain, Henry and Marguerite held their
   Court at Nérac, the chief town of the duchy belonging to the
   family of D'Albret. It was at Nérac that Marguerite, herself
   more than half a Huguenot, opened an asylum to her persecuted
   fellow-countrymen [see PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535]. Farel,
   Calvin, Beza sought temporary refuge and found glad welcome
   there, while to Lefevre, Clement Marot, and Gerard Roussel it
   became a second home. Marguerite died in 1549, leaving only
   one child, a daughter, who, in the event of her father having
   no issue by any second marriage, became heiress to the crown
   of Navarre. Born in 1528, Jeanne d'Albret had early and bitter
   experience of what heirship to such a crown involved. The
   Emperor Charles V. was believed to have early fixed his eye on
   her as a fit consort for Philip, his son and successor." To
   prevent this marriage, she was shut up for years, by her
   uncle, the French king, Francis I., in the gloomy castle of
   Plessis-les-Tours. When she was twelve years old he affianced
   her to the Duke of Cleves, notwithstanding her vigorous
   protests; but the alliance was subsequently broken off. "The
   next hand offered to Jeanne, and which she accepted, was that
   of Antoine, elder brother of the Prince of Condé, and head of
   the Bourbon family. They were married in 1548, a year after
   the death of Francis I., and a year before that of his sister
   Marguerite, Jeanne's mother. The marriage was an unfortunate
   one. Ambitious, yet weak and vain; frivolous and vacillating,
   yet headstrong and impetuous, faithless to his wife, faithless
   to his principles, faithless to his party, Antoine became the
   butt and victim of the policy of the Court. But though
   unfortunate in so many respects, this marriage gave to France,
   if not the greatest, the most fortunate, the most popular, the
   most beloved of all her monarchs"—namely, Henry IV.—Henry of
   Navarre—the first of the Bourbon dynasty of French kings.
{2245}
   "Antoine of Navarre died at the siege of Rouen in 1562. The
   first use that the Queen made of the increased measure of
   freedom she thus acquired was to publish an edict establishing
   the Protestant and interdicting the exercise of the Roman
   Catholic worship in Béarn. So bold an act by so weak a
   sovereign—by one whose political position was so perilous and
   insecure—drew down upon her the instant and severe
   displeasure of the Pope," who issued against her a Bull of
   excommunication, in October, 1563, and assumed the right to
   dispose of her kingdom. This assumption was more than the
   French Court could permit. "The Pope had to give way, and the
   Bull was expunged from the ecclesiastical ordinances of the
   Pontificate."

      _W. Hanna,
      The Wars of the Huguenots,
      chapter 4._

NAVARRE: A. D. 1568-1569.
   The queen joins the Huguenots in France, with Prince Henry.
   Invasion by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Protestant intolerance.
   Enforcement of Catholic rights.
   The kingdom incorporated and absorbed in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1876.
   Disappearance of the last municipal and provincial
   privileges of the old kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.

   ----------NAVARRE: End--------

NAVE.
NAVIO.

      See CARAVELS.

   ----------NAVIGATION LAWS: Start--------

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.
   The first English Act.

   "After the triumph of the parliamentary cause [in the English
   Civil War], great numbers of the royalists had sought refuge
   in Virginia, Barbadoes, and the other West India settlements;
   so that the white population of these dependencies was in
   general fiercely opposed to the new government, and they might
   be said to be in a state of rebellion after all the rest of
   the empire had been reduced to submission and quiet.
   Barbadoes, indeed, had actually received Lord Willoughby as
   governor under a commission from Charles II., then in Holland,
   and had proclaimed Charles as king. It was in these
   circumstances that the English parliament in 1651, with the
   view of punishing at once the people of the colonies and the
   Dutch, who had hitherto enjoyed the greater part of the
   carrying-trade between the West Indies and Europe, passed
   their famous Navigation Act, declaring that no merchandise
   either of Asia, Africa, or America, except only such as should
   be imported directly from the place of its growth or
   manufacture in Europe, should be imported into England,
   Ireland, or any of the plantations, in any but English-built
   ships, belonging either to English or English-plantation
   subjects, navigated by English commanders, and having at least
   three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen. It was also further
   enacted that no goods of the growth, production, or
   manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into
   Great Britain except in British ships, or in such ships as
   were the real property of the people of the country or place
   in which the goods were produced, or from which they could
   only be, or most usually were, exported. Upon this law, which
   was re-enacted after the Restoration, and which down to our
   own day has been generally regarded and upheld as the
   palladium of our commerce, and the maritime Magna Charta of
   England, we shall only at present observe that one of its
   first consequences was undoubtedly the war with Holland which
   broke out the year after it was passed."

      _G. L. Craik,
      History of British Commerce,
      chapter 7 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _Adam Smith,
      Wealth of Nations,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      _J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy,
      chapter 29._

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1660-1672.
   Effect upon the American colonies,
   and their relation to Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.
   Complete repeal of the British restrictive Acts.

   "The question of the navigation laws was … brought forward
   [in the British Parliament, at the commencement of the session
   of 1849] … with a fair prospect of being settled!" The
   stringency of the original act of 1651 had been "slightly
   mitigated by another act passed in the reign of Charles II.;
   but the modifications thus introduced were of slight
   importance. A farther relaxation, made at the conclusion of
   the war of independence, allowed the produce of the United
   States to be imported in ships belonging to citizens of those
   states. The last amendment of the original law was obtained in
   the year 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who made some important
   changes in it. The law, then, which the legislature had to
   reconsider in the year 1849 stood thus: the produce of Asia,
   Africa, and America might be imported from places out of
   Europe into the United Kingdom, if to be used therein, in
   foreign as well us in British ships, provided that such ships
   were the ships of the country of which the goods were the
   produce, and from which they were imported. Goods which were
   the produce of Europe, and which were not enumerated in the
   act, might be brought thence in the ships of any country.
   Goods sent to or from the United Kingdom to any of its
   possessions, or from one colony to another, must be carried in
   British ships, or in ships of the country in which they were
   produced and from which they were imported. Then followed some
   stringent definitions of the conditions which constituted a
   vessel a British ship in the sense of the act. These
   restrictions were not without their defenders. Even the great
   founder of economic science, Adam Smith, while admitting that
   the navigation laws were inconsistent with that perfect
   freedom of trade which he contended for, sanctioned their
   continuance on the ground that defence is much more important
   than opulence. But as it was more and more strongly felt that
   these laws were part and parcel of that baneful system of
   monopoly which, under the name of protection, had so long been
   maintained and was now so completely exploded, it began also
   to be seriously doubted whether they were necessary to the
   defence of the nation. … Therefore, on the 14th of February
   in this year, Mr. Labouchere, as president of the board of
   trade, proposed a resolution on the subject couched in the
   following terms: 'That it is expedient to remove the
   restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea
   to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions
   abroad, and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of
   the United Kingdom, subject nevertheless to such control by
   her Majesty in council as may be necessary; and also to amend
   the laws for the registration of ships and seamen.'
{2246}
   A long debate took place on the question of the second reading
   of the government measure. … 214 members followed Mr.
   Disraeli into the lobby, while 275 voted with the government,
   which therefore had a majority of 61. In the upper house Lord
   Brougham astonished friend and foe by coming forward as the
   strenuous and uncompromising opponent of the ministerial
   measure. … The second reading was carried by a majority of
   10. The smallness of this majority caused some anxiety to the
   supporters of the measure with regard to its ultimate fate;
   but this anxiety was relieved by the withdrawal of the most
   conspicuous opponents of the bill, which consequently passed
   without farther opposition."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. J. Kelley,
      The Question of Ships,
      chapter 4._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

   ----------NAVIGATION LAWS: End----------

NAWAB-VIZIER,
NEWAB-WU-ZEER, of Oude.

      See OUDE; also NABOB.

   ----------NAXOS: Start--------

NAXOS: B. C. 490.
   Destruction by the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

NAXOS: B. C. 466.
   Revolt from the Delian Confederacy.
   Subjugation by Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

NAXOS: B. C. 376.
   Battle between the Spartans and Athenians.

   A battle was fought in September, B. C. 376, off Naxos,
   between a Lacedæmonian fleet of 60 triremes and an Athenian
   fleet of 80. Forty-nine of the former were disabled or
   captured. "This was the first great victory … which the
   Athenians had gained at sea since the Peloponnesian war."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 77._

NAXOS: A. D. 1204-1567.
   The mediæval dukedom.

   "In the partition of the [Byzantine] empire [after the
   conquest of Constantinople, in 1204, by the Crusaders and the
   Venetians], the twelve islands of the Archipelago, which had
   formed the theme of the Egean sea in the provincial division
   of the Byzantine empire, fell to the share of the crusading
   barons; but Mark Sanudo, one of the most influential of the
   Venetian nobles in the expedition, obtained possession of the
   principal part of the ancient theme—though whether by
   purchase from the Frank barons to whom it had been allotted,
   or by grant to himself from the emperor, is not known. Sanudo,
   however, made his appearance at the parliament of Ravenika as
   one of the great feudatories of the empire of Romania, and was
   invested by the emperor Henry with the title of Duke of the
   Archipelago, or Naxos. It is difficult to say on what precise
   footing Sanudo placed his relations with the republic. His
   conduct in the war of Crete shows that he ventured to act as a
   baron of Romania, or an independent prince, when he thought
   his personal interests at variance with his born allegiance to
   Venice. … The new duke and his successors were compelled by
   their position to acknowledge themselves, in some degree,
   vassals both of the empire of Romania and of the republic of
   Venice; yet they acted as sovereign princes." Nearly at the
   close of the fourteenth century the dukedom passed from the
   Sanudo family to the Crispo family, who reigned under the
   protection of Venice until 1537, when the Duke of Naxos was
   reduced to vassalage by the Turkish sultan Suleiman. Thirty
   years later, his title and authority were extinguished by the
   sultan, on the petition of the Greek inhabitants, who could
   not endure his oppressive and disgraceful government.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 10, sections 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. E. Tennent,
      History of Modern Greece,
      chapter 3._

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Islands of the Aegean,
      chapter 4._

   ----------NAXOS: End----------

NAZARETH, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

NEANDERTHAL MAN.

   The race represented by a remarkable human skull and imperfect
   skeleton found in 1857, in a limestone cave in the
   Neanderthal, Rhenish Prussia, and thought to be the most
   primitive race of which any knowledge has yet been obtained.

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      page 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Cave Hunting,
      page 240._

NEAPOLIS, Schools of.

   In the first century of the Roman empire, "Neapolis [modern
   Naples] had its schools and colleges, as well as Athens; its
   society abounded in artists and men of letters, and it enjoyed
   among the Romans the title of the learned, which comprehended
   in their view the praise of elegance as well as knowledge."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

   "Palaepolis is mentioned only by Livy: it was an ancient
   Cumaean colony, the Cumaeans having taken refuge there across
   the sea. Neapolis derives its name from being a much later
   settlement of different Greek tribes, and was perhaps not
   founded till Olymp. 91, about the time of the Athenian
   expedition to Sicily, and as a fortress of the Greeks against
   the Sabellians. It is not impossible that the Athenians also
   may have had a share in it. Both towns, however, were of
   Chalcidian origin and formed one united state, which at that
   time may have been in possession of Ischia. Many absurdities
   have been written about the site of Palaepolis, and most of
   all by Italian antiquaries. We have no data to go upon except
   the two statements in Livy, that Palaepolis was situated by
   the side of Neapolis, and that the Romans [in the second
   Samnite war] had pitched their camp between the two towns. The
   ancient Neapolis was undoubtedly situated in the centre of the
   modern city of Naples above the church of Sta. Rosa; the coast
   is now considerably advanced. People have sought for
   Palaepolis likewise within the compass of the modern city. …
   I alone should never have discovered its true site, but my
   friend, the Count de Serre, a French statesman, who in his
   early life had been in the army and had thus acquired a quick
   and certain miliary eye, discovered it in a walk which I took
   with him. The town was situated on the outer side of Mount
   Posilipo, where the quarantine now is."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 40 (volume 1)._

   "Parthenopé was an ancient Greek colony founded by the
   Chalcidians of Cuma on the northern part of the Bay of Naples.
   In after years another city sprung up a little to the south,
   whence the original Parthenopé was called Palæpolis or
   Old-town, while the new town took the name of Neapolis. The
   latter preserves its name in the modern Naples." Palæpolis was
   taken by the Romans, B. C. 327, at the beginning of the second
   Samnite War, and is heard of no more. Neapolis made peace with
   them and lived.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 21 (volume 1)._

{2247}

NEAPOLIS (Syracuse).

      See TEMENITES.

NEARDA.

   See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.

   ----------NEBRASKA: Start--------

NEBRASKA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1854.
   Territorial organization.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1867.
   Admission to the Union.

   Nebraska was organized as a State and admitted
   to the Union in 1867.

   ----------NEBRASKA: End--------

NECKER, Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788, to 1789 (JUNE).

NECTANSMERE, Battle of (A. D. 685).

      See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

NEERWINDEN,
LANDEN,
   Battle of (1693).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY)

   Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

NEGRITO.

   "The term Negrito, i. e. 'Little Negro,' [was] long applied by
   the Spaniards to the dark dwarfish tribes in the interior of
   Luzon, and some others of the Philippine Islands. Here it will
   be extended to the dwarfish negroid tribes in the Andaman
   Islands and interior of Malacca, but to no others."

      _A. H. Keane,
      Philology and Ethnology of the Interoceanic Races
      (appendix to Wallace's Hellwald's Australasia),
      section 4._

NEGRO, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NEGRO PLOT, Imagined in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

NEGRO SLAVERY.

      See SLAVERY: NEGRO.

NEGRO SUFFRAGE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1867 (JANUARY), and (MARCH); and 1868-1870.

NEGRO TROOPS, in the American Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

   ----------NEGROPONT: Start--------

NEGROPONT:
   The Name.

   The ancient island of Eubœa received from the Venetians the
   name Negropont. "In the middle ages, Eubœa was called Egripo,
   a corruption of Euripus, the name of the town built upon the
   ruins of Chalcis. The Venetians, who obtained possession of
   the island upon the dismemberment of the Byzantine empire by
   the Latins, called it Negropont, probably a corruption of
   Egripo, and 'ponte,' a bridge."

      _W. Smith,
      Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography._

NEGROPONT: A. D. 1470.
   Capture and Massacre by the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

   ----------NEGROPONT: End--------

NEGUS, OR NEGOOS, The.

   See ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES.

NEHAVEND, Battle of.

   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

NELSON'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEMEDIANS, The.

   It is among the legends of the Irish that their island was
   settled, about the time of the patriarch Jacob, by a colony of
   descendants from Japhet, led by one Nemedius, from whom they
   and their posterity took the name of Nemedians. The Nemedians
   were afterwards subjugated by a host of African sea-rovers,
   known as Fomorians, but were delivered from these in time by a
   fresh colony of their kindred from the East called the Fir
   Bolgs.

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2._

NEMEAN AND ISTHMIAN GAMES.

   "The Nemean and Isthmian [games in ancient. Greece] were
   celebrated each twice in every Olympiad, at different seasons
   of the year: the former in the plain of Nemea, in Argolis,
   under the presidency of Argos; the latter in the Corinthian
   isthmus, under the presidency of Corinth. These, like the
   Pythian and Olympic games, claimed a very high antiquity,
   though the form in which they were finally established was of
   late institution; and it is highly probable that they were
   really suggested by the tradition of ancient festivals, which
   had served to cement an Amphictyonic confederacy."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 10._

NEMETACUM.

   Modern Arras.

      See BELGÆ.

NEMETES, The.

      See VANGIONES.

NEMI, Priest of.

      See ARICIAN GROVE.

NEMOURS, Treaty and Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

NEODAMODES.

   Enfranchised helots, in ancient Sparta.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 73._

NEOLITHIC PERIOD.

      See STONE AGE.

NEOPLATONICS, The.

   "There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another
   school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a
   reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as
   an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school
   of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and
   which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and
   Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in
   many respects the best production of paganism, now in its
   final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged
   its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself.
   Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated
   and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual
   support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics
   endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of
   philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and
   Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental
   learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute
   truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of
   eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole,
   which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at
   the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They
   taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men
   offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or
   Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of
   all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the
   different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people,
   countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection,
   it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and
   customs of the ancients.'
{2248}
   It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were
   essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive
   character of which, and tendency to destroy all other
   religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and
   as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which
   Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck
   Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves
   especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to
   maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They
   in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its
   worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their
   ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism,
   to establish which was the object which they had proposed to
   themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved
   the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive
   tradition, and purified them from recent errors and
   deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines
   of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by
   the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the
   sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of
   Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two
   of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians.
   It is well known that they received instructions from
   Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists
   not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The
   Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not
   have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
   had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor
   Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being,
   approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is
   the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and
   grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which
   teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the
   senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it
   is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled
   pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform
   polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning
   the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables,
   and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of
   religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and
   rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations
   with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to
   abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the
   slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But
   at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of
   the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of
   sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of
   invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united
   to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires
   of men."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 1, pages 70-73._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Ueberweg,
      History of Philosophy,
      sections 66-70 (volume 1)._

      _C. Kingsley,
      Alexandria and Her Schools._

NEPAUL, OR NIPAL, English war with the Ghorkas of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NEPHTHALITES, The.

      See HUNS, THE WHITE.

NÉRAC, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

NERESHEIM, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

NERI AND BIANCHI (Blacks and Whites), The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

NERIUM, Headland of.

      The ancient name of Cape Finisterre.

NERO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 54-68.

NERONIA.

   Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion
   and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.

NERVA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 96-98.

NERVII, The.

   A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which
   occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt
   (French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of
   Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior
   to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2)._

   The tribe was destroyed by Cæsar.

      See BELGÆ, CÆSAR'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE.

NESSA: Destruction by the Mongols (1220).

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

   The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the
   fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having
   been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over
   the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century
   by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet
   profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of
   one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature
   and the human nature which they believed to be united in
   Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to
   confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable
   leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of
   Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the
   other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius
   gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing
   tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the
   Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who
   believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear
   like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother
   can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in
   that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with
   Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril
   led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia
   and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout
   the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and
   recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned
   Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a
   minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council,
   which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril
   and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved
   both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the
   Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died.
   Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another
   stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the
   Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature
   of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the
   doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired
   somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter
   tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its
   chief promulgator.
{2249}
   It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second
   Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on
   account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its
   proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later,
   in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great,
   at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which
   laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the
   existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless
   condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success
   only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as
   the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the
   religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council
   of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's
   mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious
   self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered
   in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty
   years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce
   revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the
   imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all
   turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in
   the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain
   attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical
   dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which
   experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the
   strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union.
   … It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting
   opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to
   either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian
   amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number
   and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno,
   Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of
   his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more
   fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in
   insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such
   is the language of the times—gave place to these more
   maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the
   Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death
   of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D.
   518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope
   Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted,
   followed generally the emperor's example in taking the
   orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity.
   Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were
   driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both
   survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 2, chapters 3-4,
      book 3, chapter 1, and 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

      _J. Alzog,
      Universal Church History, 2d epoch,
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;
      and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

NESTORIANS, The.

   "Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was
   rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND
   MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of
   Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at
   first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as
   the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay
   open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in
   this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan
   church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a
   flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from
   Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the
   patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and
   discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It
   is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members
   lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was
   especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous
   seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number,
   Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to
   489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to
   the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He
   persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his
   own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the
   Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that
   time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity
   tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw
   off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of
   Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was
   again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to
   Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to
   be an important centre of theological learning, and especially
   of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians
   had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian
   Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians,
   the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar
   and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from
   Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad
   Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the
   inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the
   genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion,
   describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country
   from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that
   monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during
   the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to
   that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were
   subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the
   prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the
   terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed.
   Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who
   almost exterminated them. Within the present century their
   diminished numbers have been still further thinned by
   frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters
   now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of
   Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the
   boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward
   of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores
   of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and
   others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. …
   Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now
   remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast
   of India."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

NETAD, Battle of.

      See HUNS: A. D. 453.

{2250}

   ----------NETHERLANDS: Start--------

NETHERLANDS.
   The Land.

   "The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from
   the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the
   countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small
   triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is
   divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two
   nearly equal portions. … Geographically and
   ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to
   Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian
   island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned
   by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the
   land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part
   of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the
   Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes
   and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A
   delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by
   nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests
   were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying
   partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides,
   subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent
   and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a
   half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt
   upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers,
   above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same
   race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into
   subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious,
   to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and
   to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the
   world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A
   region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both
   domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for
   generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was
   unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the
   still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the
   Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of
   woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of
   the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes
   cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of
   thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a
   breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves
   of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest.
   The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended
   along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast
   Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the
   country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the
   Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague
   immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no
   German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even
   heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of
   Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country,
   and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty
   rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about
   by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land,
   or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the
   all-accomplished Roman."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 1._

NETHERLANDS:
   The early inhabitants.

      See BELGÆ; NERVII; BATAVIANS; and FRISIANS.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 69.
   Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

      See BATAVIANS.

NETHERLANDS: 4-9th Centuries.
   Settlement and domination of the Franks.

      See FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.
   Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.
   The partitioning.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

NETHERLANDS: (Flanders): A. D. 863-1383.
   The Flemish towns and counts.

      See FLANDERS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 922-1345.
   The early Counts of Holland.

   "It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France]
   presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters
   patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to
   be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through
   both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's
   descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of
   Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of
   the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of
   unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences.
   This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as
   sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious
   exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile
   or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and
   bloodier encounters than might have established an empire
   under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The
   countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.
   Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus
   joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half
   century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died
   childless in 1355 [1345?]."

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, sections 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 13-15th Centuries.
   Relations with the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.
   The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.

   "On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue
   in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became
   Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her
   husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she
   had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,
   instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the
   sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered
   to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the
   necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them
   opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of
   their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these
   live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And
   how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though
   insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too
   strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from
   these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in
   after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din
   and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles
   adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,
   among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,
   supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].
{2251}
   The community was divided into parties rather than into
   classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary
   cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of
   the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws
   were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and
   populous town was able to afford. The majority of the
   cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of
   them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the
   landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to
   antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of
   them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In
   Friezland the two factions were designated by the
   recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and
   'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict
   which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the
   Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were
   banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings
   razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in
   England, where she remained until a short time previous to her
   death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.
   as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly
   characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered
   factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter
   half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a
   national view the government was helpless and inefficient,
   entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,
   and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and
   pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of
   the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their
   full maturity."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.
   Commercial and industrial superiority.
   Advance in learning and art.

   "What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe,
   and especially with England … must have been presented by
   the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are
   3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One
   of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and
   Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a
   fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to
   display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers.
   In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone
   furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges
   are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of
   the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders
   to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests
   being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their
   sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and
   placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at
   the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention
   to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The
   burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the
   habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' …
   Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century,
   says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the
   frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when
   they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the
   Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed
   every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all
   such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or
   17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a
   hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come
   comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop
   under very different conditions. In the course of time even
   Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of
   Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to
   the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and
   destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished
   on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy
   to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain
   among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event
   fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere
   material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good.
   The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants
   than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained
   substantial advantages from the close connection. The new
   commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while
   Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and
   more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all
   quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce.
   Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its
   cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, &c.,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.
   The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.

   In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,
   died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or
   Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several
   states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's
   sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the
   countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's
   weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the
   second son of the king of France, who became presently
   thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.
   John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and
   the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,
   was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of
   an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop
   of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.
   [of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a
   reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage
   between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was
   then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she
   was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first
   cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of
   Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only
   sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp
   quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was
   violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing
   himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke
   of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of
   quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one
   morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had
   long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty
   horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to
   England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a
   distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate
   companion of the Queen. …
{2252}
   She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation
   from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a
   dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and
   'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect
   due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the
   shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest
   brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less
   patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."
   Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the
   marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but
   Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to
   his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the
   Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be
   legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to
   a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but
   uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding
   these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive
   Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the
   Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and
   on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they
   preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon
   afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed
   the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,
   but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime
   invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy
   assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed
   between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between
   Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest
   persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester
   and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the
   possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.
   Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving
   Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false
   and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy
   lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself
   powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent
   to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.
   Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and
   revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.
   "The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that
   Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to
   battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to
   terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her
   fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry
   without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married
   a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he
   was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she
   yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension
   until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife
   and dissension as any woman of her time."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      series 2, chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234,
      book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49._

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 1, chapters 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
   The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.

   "Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and
   Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip
   the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of
   the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had
   succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother
   Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of
   Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of
   the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native
   prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his
   lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the
   next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A.
   D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of
   Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager
   of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in
   succession, since the right extended to females, Philip
   prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the
   true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of
   Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The
   accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government
   of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the
   Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1451-1453.
   Revolt of Ghent.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1456.
   The Burgundian hand laid on Utrecht.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1473.
   Guelderland taken into the Burgundian dominion.

      See GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
   The severance from Burgundy.
   Accession of the Duchess Mary.
   The grant of the "Great Privilege."

   On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy
   came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt
   and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained
   thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further
   intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland
   domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end.
   But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the
   sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole
   heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper
   terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to
   whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before
   his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of
   the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the
   enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war
   with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in
   the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the
   states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his
   father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of
   government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until
   then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable
   opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and
   the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a
   preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They
   insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they
   were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances
   were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to
   all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand
   [was] commonly called the Great Charter."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note._

{2253}

   "The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the
   states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the
   'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of
   Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and
   indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It
   was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an
   acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a
   revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those
   interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess
   shall not marry without consent of the estates of her
   provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on
   natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall
   be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is
   re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal
   from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original
   jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the
   provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are
   guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond
   the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all
   the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and
   at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed
   but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess
   nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or
   defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be
   illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute
   to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the
   Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the
   duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges
   of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from
   Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value
   raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are
   not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have
   not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the
   estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for
   the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably
   liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was
   there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. S. Costello,
      Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
      chapters 28-30._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
   The Austrian marriage of Mary of Burgundy.

   "Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy,
   and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her
   marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to
   her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had
   lost.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.

   Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest
   for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord
   of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were
   betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the
   match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin
   being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of
   England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of
   Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who
   is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice
   presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards
   King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect
   "came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants
   went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have
   been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father
   was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his
   time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about
   700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was
   consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no
   great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for,
   instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him
   with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a
   condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the
   house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house
   of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that
   had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose
   palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose
   dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and
   splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper;
   boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. S. Costello,
      Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
      chapter 31._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
   Maximilian and the Flemings.
   The end of the Hook party in Holland.

   "According to the terms of the marriage treaty between
   Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to
   the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death
   of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only
   four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of
   himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector
   of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and
   Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip
   at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to
   obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their
   country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent
   and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector
   of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered
   by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him
   entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of
   Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later
   (1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King
   of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to
   speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings
   rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor
   accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.
   The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him
   personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance
   for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing
   to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young
   Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of
   the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian
   side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his
   endeavors to preserve peace with France.
{2254}
   On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,
   his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the
   frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very
   honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of
   these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he
   had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought
   into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the
   undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving
   his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions
   in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the
   "Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In
   neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents
   successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when
   the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace
   on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In
   Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with
   fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily
   altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the
   name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This
   insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German
   troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was
   the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders
   against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.
   … The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted
   so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the
   county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a
   small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,
   Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian
   having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter
   surrendered and the former was installed in the government of
   the Netherlands.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
   Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.
   Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.
   The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and
   their States-General.

   "In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the
   Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the
   privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather,
   Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great
   Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time,
   Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from
   it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the
   Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the
   House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them
   at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in
   1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In
   1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V.,
   Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of
   Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander
   VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new
   world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast
   inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and
   his.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

   Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's
   sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526].

   … The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now
   running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the
   hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish
   kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed
   into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his
   father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip
   the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked
   by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years
   afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19
   years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

   The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each
   other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning
   between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were
   detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were
   equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during
   his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This
   did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish
   subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to
   his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The
   Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection
   of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the
   industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were
   increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent.
   They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order
   to carry out the operations which his necessities or his
   policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily
   believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as
   Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred
   which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western
   Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the
   Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two
   centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so
   much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. …
   Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience,
   was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy,
   the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had
   two industries which saved them from the losses which affected
   the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the
   world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The
   other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the
   Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Story of Holland,
      chapters 5-6._

   The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the
   Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of
   Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven
   counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,
   Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of
   Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the
   margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which
   adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was
   spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other
   provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,
   prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the
   northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and
   customs than in language. Each province was an independent
   state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty
   to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in
   most other parts of Europe. …
{2255}
   The only institutions which supplied any links of union among
   the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly
   of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal
   established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over
   them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative
   authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely
   convened. … The members of the States-General were not
   representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or
   ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces
   had also their own States."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, pages 221-222._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.
   Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
   The Reformation in the Provinces.
   The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.
   The Edict of 1550.
   The Planting of the Inquisition.

   "The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their
   ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements,
   and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for
   their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common
   laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of
   Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the
   interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among
   the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages,
   various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the
   doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They
   were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose
   commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this
   plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and
   Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the
   country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by
   numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The
   contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided
   abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor
   did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to
   quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into
   the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by
   the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic
   provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the
   whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious
   for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of
   Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished
   professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from
   Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments
   or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the
   Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two
   Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. …
   The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The
   Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of
   persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister,
   the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently
   disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number.
   Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where
   young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among
   them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries,
   such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation,
   were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext
   for violent measures of repression against all who departed
   from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard,
   in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in
   which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as
   well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited
   great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme
   aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave
   Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended;
   and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria
   interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree.
   Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not
   quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a
   protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which
   were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened.
   'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of
   the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more
   and more, all men began to be convinced that they were
   destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much
   persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of
   Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so
   great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less
   100,000, the number given by Grotius."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 9._

   "His hand [that of Charles V.] planted the inquisition in the
   Netherlands. Before his day it is idle to say that the
   diabolical institution ever had a place there. The isolated
   cases in which inquisitors had exercised functions proved the
   absence and not the presence of the system. … Charles
   introduced and organized a papal inquisition, side by side
   with those terrible 'placards' of his invention, which
   constituted a masked inquisition even more cruel than that of
   Spain. … The number of Netherlanders who were burned,
   strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his
   edicts … has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished
   authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than
   50,000. The Venetian envoy Navigero placed the number of
   victims in the provinces of Holland and Friesland alone at
   30,000, and this in 1546, ten years before the abdication, and
   five before the promulgation of the hideous edict of 1550. …
   'No one,' said the edict [of 1550], 'shall print, write, copy,
   keep, conceal, sell, buy, or give in churches, streets, or
   other places, any book or writing made by Martin Luther, John
   Ecolampadius, Ulrich Zwinglius, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, or
   other heretics reprobated by the Holy Church; … nor break,
   or otherwise injure the images of the holy virgin or canonized
   saints; … nor in his house hold conventicles, or illegal
   gatherings, or be present at any such in which the adherents
   of the above-mentioned heretics teach, baptize, and form
   conspiracies against the Holy Church and the general welfare.
   … Moreover, we forbid … all lay persons to converse or
   dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly,
   especially on any doubtful or difficult matters, or to read,
   teach, or expound the Scriptures, unless they have duly
   studied theology and been approved by some renowned
   university; … or to preach secretly, or openly, or to
   entertain any of the opinions of the above-mentioned heretics.
   … Such perturbators of the general quiet are to be executed,
   to wit: the men with the sword and the women to be buried alive,
   if they do not persist in their errors; if they do persist in
   them they are to be executed with fire; all their property in
   both cases being confiscated to the crown.'"

   The horrible edict further bribed informers, by promising to
   them half the goods of a convicted heretic, while, at the same
   time, it forbade, under sharp penalties, any petitioning for
   pardon in favor of such heretics.

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 1, chapter 1,
      and part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,
      book 13, chapters 9-11 (volume 7)._

{2265}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1539-1540.
   The revolt and enslavement of Ghent.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.
   Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V. changing the Relations of
   his Burgundian inheritance to the Empire.

   In the Germanic diet assembled at Augsburg in 1547, after the
   Emperor's defeat of the Protestant princes at Muhlberg (see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552), he was able to exercise his will
   almost without opposition and decree arbitrarily whatever he
   chose. He there "proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction for the
   Netherlands, whereby his old Burgundian inheritance was
   declared by his own law to be indivisible, the succession
   settled on the house of Hapsburg, it was attached to the
   German empire as a tenth district, had to pay certain
   contributions, but was not to be subject to the Imperial
   Chamber or the Imperial Court of Judicature. He thus secured
   the personal union of these territories with his house, and
   made it the duty of the empire to defend them, while at the
   same time he withdrew them from the jurisdiction of the
   empire; it was a union by which the private interests of the
   house of Hapsburg had everything to gain, but which was of no
   advantage to the empire."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 16._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
   The Abdication of Charles V.
   Accession of Philip II.
   His sworn promises.

   "In the autumn of this year [1555] the world was astonished by
   the declaration of the emperor's intention to resign all his
   vast dominions, and spend the remainder of his days in a
   cloister. … On the 25th of October, the day appointed for
   the ceremony [of the surrender of the sovereignty of the
   Netherlands], the knights of the Golden Fleece, and the
   deputies of all the states of the Netherlands assembled at
   Brussels. … On the day after the emperor's resignation the
   mutual oaths were taken by Philip and the states of Holland;
   the former swore to maintain all the privileges which they now
   enjoyed, including those granted or confirmed at his
   installation as heir in 1549. He afterwards renewed the
   promise made by Charles in the month of May preceding, that no
   office in Holland, except that of stadtholder, should be given
   to foreigners or to Netherlanders of those provinces in which
   Hollanders were excluded from offices. In the January of the
   next year [1556] the emperor resigned the crown of Spain to
   his son, reserving only an annuity of 100,000 crowns, and on
   the 7th of September following, having proceeded to Zealand to
   join the fleet destined to carry him to Spain, he surrendered
   the imperial dignity to his brother Ferdinand." He then
   proceeded to the cloister of St. Just, near Piacenza, where he
   lived in retirement until his death, which occurred August 21,
   1558.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stirling,
      Cloister Life of Charles V._

      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties,
      chapter 10._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559.
   Opening of the dark and bloody reign of Philip II. of Spain.
   His malignity.
   His perfidy.
   His evil and plotting industry.

   "Philip, bred in this [Spanish] school of slavish
   superstition, taught that he was the despot for whom it was
   formed, familiar with the degrading tactics of eastern
   tyranny, was at once the most contemptible and unfortunate of
   men. … He was perpetually filled with one idea—that of his
   greatness; he had but one ambition—that of command; but one
   enjoyment—that of exciting fear. … Deceit and blood were
   his greatest, if not his only, delights. The religious zeal
   which he affected, or felt, showed itself but in acts of
   cruelty; and the fanatic bigotry which inspired him formed the
   strongest contrast to the divine spirit of Christianity. …
   Although ignorant, he had a prodigious instinct of cunning. He
   wanted courage, but its place was supplied by the harsh
   obstinacy of wounded pride. All the corruptions of intrigue
   were familiar to him; yet he often failed in his most
   deep-laid designs, at the very moment of their apparent
   success, by the recoil of the bad faith and treachery with
   which his plans were overcharged. Such was the man who now
   began that terrible reign which menaced utter ruin to the
   national prosperity of the Netherlands. … Philip had only
   once visited the Netherlands before his accession to sovereign
   power. … Every thing that he observed on this visit was
   calculated to revolt both [his opinions and his prejudices].
   The frank cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The
   expression of popular rights sounded like the voice of
   rebellion. Even the magnificence displayed in his honour
   offended his jealous vanity. From that moment he seems to have
   conceived an implacable aversion to the country, in which
   alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not display the
   power or inspire the terror of despotism. The sovereign's
   dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his subjects. …
   Yet Philip did not at first act in a way to make himself more
   particularly hated. He rather, by an apparent consideration
   for a few points of political interest and individual
   privilege, and particularly by the revocation of some of the
   edicts against heretics, removed the suspicions his earlier
   conduct had excited; and his intended victims did not perceive
   that the despot sought to lull them to sleep, in the hopes of
   making them an easier prey. Philip knew well that force alone
   was insufficient to reduce such a people to slavery. He
   succeeded in persuading the states to grant him considerable
   subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments during
   a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards
   his designs. … At the same time he sent secret agents to
   Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his insidious
   but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in
   dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of
   Spaniards and Germans which his father had formed on the
   frontiers of France; and although he did not remove from their
   employments the functionaries already in place, he took care
   to make no new appointments to office among the natives of the
   Netherlands. … To lead his already, deceived subjects the
   more surely into the snare, he announced his intended
   departure on a short visit to Spain; and created for the
   period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly
   composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility.
{2257}
   He flattered himself that the states, dazzled by the
   illustrious illusion thus prepared, would cheerfully grant to
   this provisional government the right of levying taxes during
   the temporary absence of the sovereign. He also reckoned on
   the influence of the clergy in the national assembly, to
   procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had
   gained the merit of suspending. … As soon as the states had
   consented to place the whole powers of government in the hands
   of the new administration for the period of the king's
   absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and
   flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable
   despotism. … The edicts against heresy, soon adopted
   [including a re-enactment of the terrible edict of 1550—see
   above], gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the
   lives and fortunes of the people. But almost all the
   dignitaries of the church being men of great respectability
   and moderation, chosen by the body of the inferior clergy,
   these extraordinary powers excited little alarm. Philip's
   project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics
   by others of his own choice [through a creation of new
   bishoprics], as soon as the states broke up from their annual
   meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret
   consent and authority of the court of Rome. In support of
   these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely broken
   up and scattered in small bodies over the country. … To
   complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip
   convened an assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month
   of July, 1559. … Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of
   Arras [afterwards cardinal], who was considered as Philip's
   favorite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his
   docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the
   name of his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was
   one of cautious deception." It announced the appointment of
   Margaret, duchess of Parma, a natural daughter of Charles V.,
   and therefore half-sister of Philip, to preside as regent over
   the government of the Netherlands during the absence of the
   sovereign. It also urged with skilful plausibility certain
   requests for money on the part of the latter. "But
   notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery
   of Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man
   [William of Nassau, prince of Orange and stadtholder, or
   governor, of Holland, Zealand, and Utrecht] who saw through
   all. Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he
   privately warned some members of the states of the coming
   danger. Those in whom he confided did not betray the trust.
   They spread among the other deputies the alarm, and pointed
   out the danger to which they had been so judiciously awakened.
   The consequence was, a reply to Philip's demand, in vague and
   general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and
   an unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes,
   withdraw the foreign troops, and entrust no official
   employments to any but natives of the country. The object of
   this last request was the removal of Granvelle, who was born
   in Franche-Comte. Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In
   the first moment of his vexation he imprudently cried out,
   'Would ye, then, also bereave me of my place; I, who am a
   Spaniard?' But he soon recovered his self-command, and resumed
   his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner
   learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the
   foreign troops within three months; and set off for Zealand,
   with assumed composure, but filled with the fury of a
   discovered traitor and a humiliated despot." In August, 1559,
   he sailed for Spain.

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 7._

   "Crafty, saturnine, atrabilious, always dissembling and
   suspecting, sombre, and silent like night when brooding over
   the hatching storm, he lived shrunk within himself, with only
   the fellowship of his gloomy thoughts and cruel resolves. …
   There is something terrific in the secrecy, dissimulation and
   dogged perseverance with which Philip would, during a series
   of years, meditate and prepare the destruction of one man, or
   of a whole population, and something still more awful in the
   icy indifference, the superhuman insensibility, the
   accumulated cold-blooded energy of hoarded-up vengeance with
   which, at the opportune moment, he would issue a dry sentence
   of extermination. … He seemed to take pleasure in
   distilling, slowly and chemically, the poison which,
   Python-like, he darted at every object which he detested or
   feared, or which he considered an obstacle in his path."

      _C. Gayarre,
      Philip II. of Spain,
      chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.
   The Spanish troops, the new bishoprics,
   and the shadow of the Inquisition.
   The appeal of Brabant to its ancient "Joyeuse Entrée."

   "The first cause of trouble, after Philip's departure from the
   Netherlands, arose from the detention of the Spanish troops
   there. The king had pledged his word … that they should
   leave the country by the end of four months, at farthest. Yet
   that period had long since passed, and no preparations were
   made for their departure. The indignation of the people rose
   higher and higher at the insult thus offered by the presence
   of these detested foreigners. It was a season of peace. No
   invasion was threatened from abroad; no insurrection existed
   at home. … Granvelle himself, who would willingly have
   pleased his master by retaining a force in the country on
   which he could rely, admitted that the project was
   impracticable. 'The troops must be withdrawn,' he wrote, 'and
   that speedily, or the consequence will be an insurrection.'
   … The Prince of Orange and Count Egmont threw up the
   commands intrusted to them by the king. They dared no longer
   hold them, as the minister added, it was so unpopular. … Yet
   Philip was slow in returning an answer to the importunate
   letters of the regent and the minister; and when he did reply,
   it was to evade their request. … The regent, however, saw
   that, with or without instructions, it was necessary to act.
   … The troops were ordered to Zealand, in order to embark for
   Spain. But the winds proved unfavorable. Two months longer
   they were detained, on shore or on board the transports. They
   soon got into brawls with the workmen employed on the dikes;
   and the inhabitants, still apprehensive of orders from the
   king countermanding the departure of the Spaniards, resolved,
   in such an event, to abandon the dikes, and lay the country
   under water! Fortunately, they were not driven to this
   extremity.
{2258}
   In January, 1561, more than a year after the date assigned by
   Philip, the nation was relieved of the presence of the
   intruders. … This difficulty was no sooner settled than it
   was followed by another scarcely less serious." Arrangements
   had been made for "adding 13 new bishoprics to the four
   already existing in the Netherlands. … The whole affair had
   been kept profoundly secret by the government. It was not till
   1561 that Philip disclosed his views, in a letter to some of
   the principal nobles in the council of state. But, long before
   that time, the project had taken wind, and created a general
   sensation through the country. The people looked on it as an
   attempt to subject them to the same ecclesiastical system
   which existed in Spain. The bishops, by virtue of their
   office, were possessed of certain inquisitorial powers, and
   these were still further enlarged by the provisions of the
   royal edicts. … The present changes were regarded as part of
   a great scheme for introducing the Spanish Inquisition into
   the Netherlands. … The nobles had other reasons for opposing
   the measure. The bishops would occupy in the legislature the
   place formerly held by the abbots, who were indebted for their
   election to the religious houses over which they presided. The
   new prelates, on the contrary, would receive their nomination
   from the crown; and the nobles saw with alarm their own
   independence menaced by the accession of an order of men who
   would naturally be subservient to the interests of the
   monarch. … But the greatest opposition arose from the manner
   in which the new dignitaries were to be maintained. This was
   to be done by suppressing the offices of the abbots, and by
   appropriating the revenues of their houses to the maintenance
   of the bishops. … Just before Philip's departure from the
   Netherlands, a bull arrived from Rome authorizing the erection
   of the new bishoprics. This was but the initiatory step. Many
   other proceedings were necessary before the consummation of
   the affair. Owing to impediments thrown in the way by the
   provinces, and the habitual tardiness of the court of Rome,
   nearly three years elapsed before the final briefs were
   expedited by Pius IV."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "Against the arbitrary policy embodied in the edicts, the new
   bishoprics and the foreign soldiery, the Netherlanders
   appealed to their ancient constitutions. These charters were
   called 'handvests', in the vernacular Dutch and Flemish,
   because the sovereign made them fast with his hand. As already
   stated, Philip had made them faster than any of the princes of
   his house had ever done, so far as oath and signature could
   accomplish that purpose, both as hereditary prince in 1549,
   and as monarch in 1555. … Of these constitutions, that of
   Brabant, known by the title of the 'joyeuse entrée' 'blyde
   inkomst,' or blythe entrance, furnished the most decisive
   barrier against the present wholesale tyranny. First and
   foremost, the 'joyous entry' provided, 'that the prince of the
   land should not elevate the clerical state higher than of old
   has been customary and by former princes settled; unless by
   consent of the other two estates, the nobility and the
   cities.' Again, 'the prince can prosecute no one of his
   subjects, nor any foreign resident, civilly or criminally,
   except in the ordinary and open courts of justice in the
   province, where the accused may answer and defend himself with
   the help of advocates.' Further, 'the prince shall appoint no
   foreigners to office in Brabant.' Lastly 'should the prince,
   by force or otherwise, violate any of these privileges, the
   inhabitants of Brabant, after regular protest entered, are
   discharged of their oaths of allegiance, and, as free,
   independent, and unbound people, may conduct themselves
   exactly as seems to them best.' Such were the leading
   features, so far as they regarded the points now at issue, of
   that famous constitution which was so highly esteemed in the
   Netherlands, that mothers came to the province in order to
   give birth to their children, who might thus enjoy, as a
   birthright, the privileges of Brabant. Yet the charters of the
   other provinces ought to have been as effective against the
   arbitrary course of the government. 'No foreigner,' said the
   constitution of Holland, 'is eligible as councillor,
   financier, magistrate, or member of a court. Justice can be
   administered only by the ordinary tribunals and magistrates.
   The ancient laws and customs shall remain inviolable. Should
   the prince infringe any of these provisions, no one is bound
   to obey him.' These provisions from the Brabant and Holland
   charters are only cited as illustrative of the general spirit
   of the provincial constitutions. Nearly all the provinces
   possessed privileges equally ample, duly signed and sealed."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Crowe,
      Cardinal Granvelle
      (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
   Beginning of organized resistance to the tyranny
   and persecution of Philip.
   The signing of the Compromise.
   The League of the Gueux.

   William of Orange now "claimed, in the name of the whole
   country, the convocation of the states-general. This assembly
   alone was competent to decide what was just, legal, and
   obligatory for each province and every town. … The ministers
   endeavored to evade a demand which they were at first
   unwilling openly to refuse. But the firm demeanor and
   persuasive eloquence of the prince of Orange carried before
   them all who were not actually bought by the crown; and
   Granvelle found himself at length forced to avow that an
   express order from the king forbade the convocation of the
   states, on any pretext, during his absence. The veil was thus
   rent asunder, which had in some measure concealed the
   deformity of Philip's despotism. The result was a powerful
   confederacy among all who held it odious, for the overthrow of
   Granvelle, to whom they chose to attribute the king's conduct.
   … Those who composed this confederacy against the minister
   were actuated by a great variety of motives. … It is
   doubtful if any of the confederates except the prince of
   Orange clearly saw that they were putting themselves in direct
   and personal opposition to the king himself. William alone,
   clear-sighted in politics and profound in his views, knew, in
   thus devoting himself to the public cause, the adversary with
   whom he entered the lists. This great man, for whom the
   national traditions still preserve the sacred title of
   'father' (Vader-Willem), and who was in truth not merely the
   parent but the political creator of the country, was at this
   period in his 30th year. … Philip, … driven before the
   popular voice, found himself forced to the choice of throwing
   off the mask at once, or of sacrificing Granvelle.
{2259}
   An invincible inclination for manœuvring and deceit decided
   him on the latter measure; and the cardinal, recalled but not
   disgraced, quitted the Netherlands on the 10th of March, 1564.
   The secret instructions to the government remained unrevoked;
   the president Viglius succeeded to the post which Granvelle
   had occupied; and it was clear that the projects of the king
   had suffered no change. Nevertheless some good resulted from
   the departure of the unpopular minister. The public
   fermentation subsided; the patriot lords reappeared at court;
   and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in
   the council and over the government. … It was resolved to
   dispatch a special envoy to Spain, to explain to Philip the
   views of the council. … The count of Egmont, chosen by the
   council for this important mission, set out for Madrid in the
   month of February, 1565. Philip received him with profound
   hypocrisy; loaded him with the most flattering promises; sent
   him back in the utmost elation: and when the credulous count
   returned to Brussels, he found that the written orders, of
   which he was the bearer, were in direct variance with every
   word which the king had uttered. These orders were chiefly
   concerning the reiterated subject of the persecution to be
   inflexibly pursued against the religious reformers. Not
   satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment,
   Philip now expressly commanded that the more revolting means
   decreed by his father in the rigor of his early zeal, such as
   burning, living burial, and the like, should be adopted. …
   Even Viglius was terrified by the nature of Philip's commands;
   and the patriot lords once more withdrew from all share in the
   government, leaving to the duchess of Parma and her ministers
   the whole responsibility of the new measures. They were at
   length put into actual and vigorous execution in the beginning
   of the year 1566. The inquisitors of the faith, with their
   familiars, stalked abroad boldly in the devoted provinces,
   carrying persecution and death in their train. Numerous but
   partial insurrections opposed these odious intruders. Every
   district and town became the scene of frightful executions or
   tumultuous resistance."

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 7._

   In November, 1565, a meeting of Flemish nobles was held at
   Culenborg House, Brussels, where they formed a league, in
   which Philip de Marnix, Lord of Ste. Aldegonde, Count Louis of
   Nassau, a younger brother of the Prince of Orange, and
   Viscount Brederode, were the foremost leaders. "In a meeting
   held at Breda, in January 1566, the league promulgated their
   views in a paper called the Compromise, attributed to the hand
   of Ste. Aldegonde. The document contained a severe
   denunciation of the inquisition as an illegal, pernicious and
   iniquitous tribunal; the subscribers swore to defend one
   another against any attack that might be made upon them; and
   declared, at the same time, that they did not mean to throw
   off their allegiance to the King. … In the course of two
   months the Compromise was signed by about 2,000 persons,
   including many Catholics; but only a few of the great nobles
   could be prevailed on to subscribe it. … The Prince of
   Orange at first kept aloof from the league, and at this period
   Egmont, who was of a more impulsive temper, seemed to act the
   leading part; but the nation relied solely upon William. The
   latter gave at least a tacit sanction to the league in the
   spring of 1566, by joining the members of it in a petition to
   the Regent which he had himself revised."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "The league had its origin in banquets, and a banquet gave it
   form and perfection. … Brederode entertained the
   confederates in Kuilemberg House; about 300 guests assembled;
   intoxication gave them courage, and their audacity rose with
   their numbers. During the conversation, one of their number
   happened to remark that he had overheard the Count of
   Barlaimont whisper in French to the regent, who was seen to
   turn pale on the delivery of the petitions, that 'she need not
   be afraid of a band of beggars (gueux).' … Now, as the very
   name for their fraternity was the very thing which had most
   perplexed them, an expression was eagerly caught up, which,
   while it cloaked the presumption of their enterprise in
   humility, was at the same time appropriate to them as
   petitioners. Immediately they drank to one another under this
   name, and the cry 'Long live the gueux!' was accompanied with
   a general shout of applause. … What they had resolved on in
   the moment of intoxication they attempted, when sober, to
   carry into execution. … In a few days, the town of Brussels,
   swarmed with ash-gray garments, such as were usually worn by
   mendicant friars and penitents. Every confederate put his
   whole family and domestics in this dress. Some carried wooden
   bowls thinly overlaid with plates of silver, cups of the same
   kind, and wooden knives; in short, the whole paraphernalia of
   the beggar tribe, which they either fixed round their hats or
   suspended from their girdles. … Hence the origin of the name
   'Gueux,' which was subsequently borne in the Netherlands by
   all who seceded from popery, and took up arms against the
   king."

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
      book 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapters 3-6 (volume 1)._

      _F. von Raumer,
      History of the 16th and 17th Centuries
      illustrated by original documents,
      letter 16 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
   Field preaching under arms.
   The riots of the Image-breakers.
   Philip's schemes of revenge.
   Discouragement and retirement of Orange.
   Blindness of Egmont and Horn, and their fate.

   "While the Privy Council was endeavouring to obtain a
   'Moderation' of the Edicts, and … effected that the heretics
   should be no longer burnt but hung, and that the Inquisition
   should proceed 'prudently, and with circumspection,' a
   movement broke out among the people which mocked at all
   Edicts. The open country was suddenly covered with thousands
   of armed noblemen, citizens, and peasants, who assembled in
   large crowds in the open air to listen to some heretical
   preacher, Lutheran, Calvinist, or even an Anabaptist, and to
   hold forbidden services, with prayers and hymns, in the mother
   tongue. They sallied forth with pistols, arquebuses, flails,
   and pitchforks; the place of meeting was marked out like a
   camp, and surrounded by guards; from 10,000 to 20,000
   assembled, the armed men outside, the women and children
   within.
{2260}
   After the immense choir had sung a psalm, one of the
   excommunicated preachers appeared between two pikes (according
   to the 'Moderation' a price was set upon the head of everyone of
   them), and expounded the new doctrine from the Scriptures; the
   assembly listened in devout silence, and when the service was
   ended separated quietly, but defiantly. This was repeated day
   after day throughout the country, and nobody dared to attack
   the armed field preachers. The Regent was in a painful
   situation; she was always having it proclaimed that the Edicts
   were in force, but nobody cared. … It was all in vain unless
   foreign troops came to enforce obedience, and these she had
   neither power nor funds to procure. The King hesitated in his
   usual fashion, and left the Regent to the torments of
   powerlessness and uncertainty. Meanwhile the universal
   excitement bore fatal fruit. Instead of the dignified
   preachings and peaceful assemblies of May, in June and July
   there were wild excesses and furious mobs. Orange had just
   persuaded the Regent to permit the field preaching in the open
   country, if they avoided the towns, when the first great
   outbreak occurred in Antwerp. Two days after a great
   procession, on the 18th of August, 1566, at which the Catholic
   clergy of Antwerp had made a pompous display to the annoyance
   of the numerous Protestants, the beautiful cathedral was
   invaded by a furious mob, who destroyed without mercy all the
   images, pictures, and objects of art that it contained. This
   demolition of images, the stripping of churches, desecration
   of chapels, and destruction of all symbols of the ancient
   faith, spread from Antwerp to other places, Tournay,
   Valenciennes, &c. It was done with a certain moderation, for
   neither personal violence nor theft took place anywhere,
   though innumerable costly articles were lying about. Still,
   these fanatical scenes not only excited the ire of Catholics,
   but of every religious man; in Antwerp, especially, the
   seafaring mob had rushed upon everything that had been held
   sacred for centuries. In her distress the Regent wished to
   flee from Brussels, but Orange, Egmont, and Horn compelled her
   to remain, and induced her to proclaim the Act of the 25th of
   August, by which an armistice was decided on between Spain and
   the Beggars. In this the Government conceded the abolition of
   the Inquisition and the toleration of the new doctrines, and
   the Beggars declared that for so long as this promise was kept
   their league was dissolved. In consideration of this, the
   first men in the country agreed to quell the disturbances in
   Flanders, Antwerp, Tournay; and Malines, and to restore peace.
   Orange effected this in Antwerp like a true statesman, who
   knew how to keep himself above party spirit; but in Flanders,
   Egmont, on the contrary, went to work like a brutal soldier;
   he stormed against the heretics like Philip's Spanish
   executioners, and the scales fell from the eyes of the
   bitterly disappointed people. Meanwhile a decision had been
   come to at Madrid. … When at length the irresolute King had
   determined to proclaim an amnesty, though it was really rather
   a proscription, and to promise indulgence, while he was
   assuring the Pope by protocol before notaries that he never
   would grant any, the news came of the image riots of August,
   and a report from the Duchess in which she humbly begged the
   King's pardon for having allowed a kind of religious peace to
   be extorted from her, but she was entirely innocent; they had
   forced it from her as a prisoner in her palace, and there was
   one comfort, that the King was not bound by a promise made
   only in her name. Philip's rage was boundless. … He was
   resolved upon fearful revenge, even when he was writing that
   he should know how to restore order in his provinces by means
   of grace and mercy. … Well-informed as Orange was, he
   understood the whole situation perfectly; he knew that while
   the Regent was heaping flattery upon him, she and Philip were
   compassing his destruction; that her only object could be to
   keep the peace until the Spanish preparations were complete,
   and meanwhile, if possible, to compromise him with the people.
   He wrote to Egmont, and laid the dangers of their situation
   before him, and communicated his resolve either to escape
   Philip's revenge by flight, or to join with his friends in
   armed resistance to the expected attack of the Spanish army.
   But Egmont in his unhappy blindness had resolved to side with
   the Government which was more than ever determined on his
   destruction, and the meeting at Dendermonde, October, 1566,
   when Orange consulted him, Louis of Nassau, and Hogstraaten,
   as to u plan of united action, was entirely fruitless. …
   Admiral Horn, who had staked large property in the service of
   the Emperor and King, and had never received the least return
   in answer to his just demands, gave up his office, and, like a
   weary philosopher, retired into solitude. Left entirely alone,
   Orange thought of emigrating; in short, the upper circle of
   the previous party of opposition no longer existed. But it was
   not so with the mad leaders of the Beggars. While the zealous
   inhabitants of Valenciennes, incited by two of the most
   dauntless Calvinistic preachers, undertook to defend
   themselves against the royal troops with desperate bravery,
   Count Brederode went about the country with a clang of sabres,
   exciting disturbances in order to give the heretics at
   Valenciennes breathing-time by a happy diversion. … All that
   Philip wanted to enable him to gain the day was an
   unsuccessful attempt at revolt. The attack upon images and the
   Beggars' volunteer march did more for the Government than all
   Granvella's system; … drove every one who favoured the
   Catholics and loved peace into the arms of the Government.,
   The reaction set in with the sanguinary defeat of the rebels
   at Valenciennes, who never again even made an attempt at
   resistance. Orange gave up the liberties of his country for
   lost. … Stating that he could never take the new oath of
   fealty which was required, because it would oblige him to
   become the executioner of his Protestant countrymen, he
   renounced his offices and dignities, … made a last attempt
   to save his friend Egmont, … and retired to Dillenburg, the
   ancient property of the family. He wished to be spared for
   better times; he saw the storm coming, and was too cool-headed
   to offer himself as the first sacrifice. In fact, just when he
   was travelling towards Germany, Duke Alba [more commonly
   called Alva], the hangman of the Netherlands, was on his way
   to his destination." Alva arrived in August, 1567, with an
   army of 10,000 carefully picked veterans, fully empowered to
   make the Netherlands a conquered territory and deal with it as
   such. His first important act was the treacherous seizure and
   imprisonment of Egmont and Horn. Then the organization of
   terror began. The imprisonment and the mockery of a trial of
   the two most distinguished victims was protracted until the
   5th of June, 1568, when they were beheaded in the great square
   at Brussels.

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 22-23._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapters 6-10,
      and part 3, chapters 1-2._

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
      books 3-4._

{2261}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
   The Council of Blood.

   "In the same despatch of the 9th September [1567], in which
   the Duke communicated to Philip the capture of Egmont and
   Horn, he announced to him his determination to establish a new
   court for the trial of crimes committed during the recent
   period of troubles. This wonderful tribunal was accordingly
   created with the least possible delay. It was called the
   Council of Troubles, but it soon acquired the terrible name,
   by which it will be forever known in history, of the
   Blood-Council. It superseded all other institutions. Every
   court, from those of the municipal magistracies up to the
   supreme councils of the provinces, were forbidden to take
   cognisance in future of any cause growing out of the late
   troubles. The Council of State, although it was not formally
   disbanded, fell into complete desuetude, its members being
   occasionally summoned into Alva's private chambers in an
   irregular manner, while its principal functions were usurped
   by the Blood-Council. Not only citizens of every province, but
   the municipal bodies, and even the sovereign provincial
   Estates themselves, were compelled to plead, like humble
   individuals, before this new and extraordinary tribunal. It is
   unnecessary to allude to the absolute violation which was thus
   committed of all charters, laws, and privileges, because the
   very creation of the Council was a bold and brutal
   proclamation that those laws and privileges were at an end.
   … So well … did this new and terrible engine perform its
   work, that in less than three months from the time of its
   erection, 1,800 human beings had suffered death by its summary
   proceedings; some of the highest, the noblest, and the most
   virtuous in the land among the number; nor had it then
   manifested the slightest indication of faltering in its dread
   career. Yet, strange to say, this tremendous court, thus
   established upon the ruins of all the ancient institutions of
   the country, had not been provided with even a nominal
   authority from any source whatever. The King had granted it no
   letters patent or charter, nor had even the Duke of Alva
   thought it worth while to grant any commissions, either in his
   own name or as Captain-General, to any of the members
   composing the board. The Blood-Council was merely an informal
   club, of which the Duke was perpetual president, while the
   other members were all appointed by himself. Of these
   subordinate councillors, two had the right of voting, subject,
   however, in all cases, to his final decision, while the rest
   of the number did not vote at all. It had not, therefore, in
   any sense, the character of a judicial, legislative, or
   executive tribunal, but was purely a board of advice by which
   the bloody labours of the Duke were occasionally lightened as
   to detail, while not a feather's weight of power or of
   responsibility was removed from his shoulders. He reserved for
   himself the final decision upon all causes which should come
   before the Council, and stated his motives for so doing with
   grim simplicity. 'Two reasons,' he wrote to the King, 'have
   determined me thus to limit the power of the tribunal; the
   first that, not knowing its members, I might be easily
   deceived by them; the second, that the men of law only condemn
   for crimes which are proved; whereas your Majesty knows that
   affairs of state are governed by very different rules from the
   laws which they have here.' It being, therefore, the object of
   the Duke to compose a body of men who would be of assistance
   to him in condemning for crimes which could not be proved, and
   in slipping over statutes which were not to be recognised, it
   must be confessed that he was not unfortunate in the
   appointments which he made to the office of councillors. …
   No one who was offered the office refused it. Noircarmes and
   Berlaymont accepted with very great eagerness. Several
   presidents and councillors of the different provincial
   tribunals were appointed, but all the Netherlanders were men
   of straw. Two Spaniards, Del Rio and Vargas, were the only
   members who could vote, while their decisions, as already
   stated, were subject to reversal by Alva. Del Rio was a man
   without character or talent, a mere tool in the hands of his
   superiors, but Juan de Vargas was a terrible reality. No
   better man could have been found in Europe, for the post to
   which he was thus elevated. To shed human blood was, in his
   opinion, the only important business and the only exhilarating
   pastime of life. … It was the duty of the different
   subalterns, who, as already stated, had no right of voting, to
   prepare reports upon the cases. Nothing could be more summary.
   Information was lodged against a man, or against a hundred
   men, in one document. The Duke sent the papers to the Council,
   and the inferior councillors reported at once to Vargas. If
   the report concluded with a recommendation of death to the man
   or the hundred men in question, Vargas instantly approved it,
   and execution was done upon the man, or the hundred men,
   within 48 hours. If the report had any other conclusion, it
   was immediately sent back for revision, and the reporters were
   overwhelmed with reproaches by the President. Such being the
   method of operation, it may be supposed that the councillors
   were not allowed to slacken in their terrible industry. The
   register of every city, village, and hamlet throughout the
   Netherlands showed the daily lists of men, women, and children
   thus sacrificed at the shrine of the demon who had obtained
   the mastery over this unhappy land. It was not often that an
   individual was of sufficient importance to be tried—if trial
   it could be called—by himself. It was found more expeditious
   to send them in batches to the furnace. Thus, for example, on
   the 4th of January, 84 inhabitants of Valenciennes were
   condemned; on another day, 95 miscellaneous individuals from
   different places in Flanders; on another, 46 inhabitants of
   Malines; on another, 35 persons from different localities, and
   so on. … Thus the whole country became a charnel-house; the
   death-bell tolled hourly in every village; not a family but
   was called to mourn for its dearest relatives, while the
   survivors stalked listlessly about, the ghosts of their former
   selves, among the wrecks of their former homes. The spirit of
   the nation, within a few months after the arrival of Alva,
   seemed hopelessly broken. The blood of its best and bravest
   had already stained the scaffold; men to whom it had been
   accustomed to look for guidance and protection, were dead, in
   prison, or in exile. Submission had ceased to be of any avail,
   flight was impossible, and the spirit of vengeance had
   alighted at every fireside.
{2262}
   The mourners went daily about the streets, for there was
   hardly a house which had not been made desolate. The
   scaffolds, the gallows, the funeral piles which had been
   sufficient in ordinary times, furnished now an entirely
   inadequate machinery for the incessant executions. Columns and
   stakes in every street, the door-posts of private houses, the
   fences in the fields, were laden with human carcases,
   strangled, burned, beheaded. The orchards in the country bore
   on many a tree the hideous fruit of human bodies. Thus the
   Netherlands were crushed, and, but for the stringency of the
   tyranny which had now closed their gates, would have been
   depopulated."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568.
   Stupendous death-sentence of the Inquisition.
   The whole population condemned.

   "Early in the year, the most sublime sentence of death was
   promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation
   of the world. The Roman tyrant wished that his enemies' heads
   were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at
   a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of
   all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck, for the same
   fell purpose. Upon the 16th February, 1568, a sentence of the
   Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands
   to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few
   persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of
   the King, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the
   Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant
   execution without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is
   probably the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed.
   Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were
   sentenced to the scaffold in three lines; and as it was well
   known that these were not harmless thunders, like some bulls
   of the Vatican, but serious and practical measures which it
   was intended should be enforced, the horror which they
   produced may be easily imagined. It was hardly the purpose of
   Government to compel the absolute completion of the wholesale
   plan in all its length and breadth, yet in the horrible times
   upon which they had fallen, the Netherlanders might be excused
   for believing that no measure was too monstrous to be
   fulfilled. At any rate, it was certain that when all were
   condemned, any might at a moment's warning be carried to the
   scaffold, and this was precisely the course adopted by the
   authorities. … Under this new decree, the executions
   certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest
   positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in
   a single letter to Philip, coolly estimated the number of
   executions which were to take place immediately after the
   expiration of Holy Week, 'at 800 heads.' Many a citizen,
   convicted of a hundred thousand florins, and of no other
   crime, saw himself suddenly tied to a horse's tail, with his
   hands fastened behind him, and so dragged to the gallows. But
   although wealth was an unpardonable sin, poverty proved rarely
   a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be found for
   dooming the starveling laborer as well as the opulent burgher.
   To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the
   frequent harangues or exhortations addressed to the bystanders
   by the victims on their way to the scaffold, a new gag was
   invented. The tongue of each prisoner was screwed into an iron
   ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling and
   inflammation, which were the immediate result, prevented the
   tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course
   effectually precluded all possibility of speech."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
   The arming of Revolt and beginning of War
   by the Prince of Orange.
   Alva's successes, brutalities, and senseless taxation.
   Quarrels with England and destruction of Flemish trade.

   "So unprecedented already was the slaughter that even in the
   beginning of March 1568, when Alva had been scarcely six
   months in the country, the Emperor Maximilian, himself a Roman
   Catholic, addressed a formal remonstrance to the king on the
   subject, as his dignity entitled him to do, since the
   Netherlands were a part of the Germanic body. It received an
   answer which was an insult to the remonstrant from its
   defiance of truth and common sense, and which cut off all hope
   from the miserable Flemings. Philip declared that what he had
   done had been done 'for the repose of the Provinces,' … and
   almost on the same day he published a new edict, confirming a
   decree of the Inquisition which condemned all the inhabitants
   of the Netherlands to death as heretics, with the exception of
   a few persons who were named [see above]. … In their utter
   despair, the Flemings implored the aid of the Prince of
   Orange, who … had quitted the country. … He was now
   residing at Dillenbourg, in Nassau, in safety from Philip's
   threats, and from the formal sentence which, in addition to
   the general condemnation of the whole people, the Council of
   Blood had just pronounced against him by name. But he resolved
   that in such an emergency it did not become him to weigh his
   own safety against the claims his countrymen had on his
   exertions. After a few weeks energetically spent in levying
   troops and raising money to maintain them, he published a
   document which he entitled his 'Justification,' and which
   stated his own case and that of the Provinces with a most
   convincing clearness; and at the end of April he took the
   field at the head of a small force, composed of French
   Huguenots, Flemish exiles, … and German mercenaries. …
   Thus in the spring of 1568 began that terrible war which for
   40 years desolated what, in spite of great natural
   disadvantages, had hitherto been one of the most prosperous
   countries of Europe. … To dwell on many of its details …
   would require volumes. … And, indeed, the pitched battles
   were few. At the outset [May 23, 1568] Count Louis of Nassau,
   the prince's brother, defeated and slew Count Aremberg, the
   Spanish governor of the province of Groningen, very nearly on
   the spot [near the convent of Heiliger-Lee, or the Holy Lion]
   on which, in the palmy days of Rome, the fierce valor of
   Arminius had annihilated the legions whose loss was so deeply
   imprinted on the heart of Augustus; and Alva had avenged the
   disaster by so complete a rout of Louis at Jemmingen, that
   more than half of the rebel army was slaughtered on the field,
   and Louis himself only escaped a capture, which would have
   delivered him to the scaffold, by swimming the Ems, and
   escaping with a mere handful of troops, all that were left of
   his army, into Germany. But after dealing this blow … Alva
   rarely fought a battle in the open field.
{2263}
   He preferred showing the superiority of his generalship by
   defying the endeavours of the prince and his brothers to bring
   him to action, miscalculating, indeed, the eventual
   consequences of such tactics, and believing that the
   protraction of the war must bring the rebels to his
   sovereign's feet by the utter exhaustion of their resources;
   while the event proved that it was Spain which was exhausted
   by the contest, that kingdom being in fact so utterly
   prostrated by continued draining of men and treasure which it
   involved, that her decay may be dated from the moment when
   Alva reached the Flemish borders. His career in the
   Netherlands seemed to show that, warrior though he was,
   persecution was more to his taste than even victory.
   Victorious, indeed, he was, so far as never failing to reduce
   every town which he besieged, and to baffle every design of
   the prince which he anticipated. … Every triumph which he
   gained was sullied by a ferocious and deliberate cruelty, of
   which the history of no other general in the world affords a
   similar example. … Whenever Alva captured a town, he himself
   enjoined his troops to show no mercy either to the garrison or
   to the peaceful inhabitants. Every atrocity which greed of
   rapine, wantonness of lust, and blood-thirsty love of
   slaughter could devise was perpetrated by his express
   direction. … He had difficulties to encounter besides those
   of his military operations, and such as he was less skilful in
   meeting. He soon began to be in want of money. A fleet laden
   with gold and silver was driven by some French privateers into
   an English harbour, where Elizabeth at once laid her hands on
   it. If it belonged to her enemies, she had a right, she said,
   to seize it: if to her friends, to borrow it (she had not
   quite decided in which light to regard the Spaniards, but the
   logic was irresistible, and her grasp irremovable), and, to
   supply the deficiency, Alva had recourse to expedients which
   injured none so much as himself. To avenge himself on the
   Queen, he issued a proclamation [March, 1569] forbidding all
   commercial intercourse between the Netherlands and England;
   … but his prohibition damaged the Flemings more than the
   English merchants, and in so doing inflicted loss upon
   himself. … For he at the same time endeavoured to compel the
   States to impose, for his use, a heavy tax on every
   description of property, on every transfer of property, and
   even on every article of merchandise [the tenth penny, or ten
   per cent.] as often as it should be sold: the last impost, in
   the Provinces which were terrified into consenting to it, so
   entirely annihilating trade that it even roused the
   disapproval of his own council; and that, finding themselves
   supported by that body, even those Provinces which had
   complied, retracted their assent. … After a time [1572] he
   was forced first to compromise his demands for a far lower sum
   than that at which he had estimated the produce of his taxes,
   and at last to renounce even that. He was bitterly
   disappointed and indignant, and began to be weary of his
   post."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      Three Centuries of Modern History,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapters 2-7 (volume 2)._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
   The Beggars of the Sea and their capture of Brill.
   Rapid Revolution in Holland and Zealand, but wholly in the
   name of the King and his Stadtholder, William of Orange.
   The Provisional Government organized.

   In the spring of 1572, Alva having re-established friendly
   relations with Queen Elizabeth, all the cruisers of the
   rebellious Netherlanders—"Beggars of the Sea" as they had
   styled themselves—were suddenly expelled from English ports,
   where they had previously found shelter and procured supplies.
   The consequence was unexpected to those who brought it about,
   and proved most favorable to the patriotic cause. Desperately
   driven by their need of some harbor of refuge, the fleet of
   these adventurers made an attack upon the important seaport of
   Brill, took it with little fighting and held it stubbornly.
   Excited by this success, the patriotic burghers of Flushing,
   on the isle of Walcheren, soon afterwards rose and expelled
   the Spanish garrison from their town. "The example thus set by
   Brill and Flushing was rapidly followed. The first half of the
   year 1572 was distinguished by a series of triumphs rendered
   still more remarkable by the reverses which followed at its
   close. … Enkhuizen, the key to the Zuyder Zee, the principal
   arsenal, and one of the first commercial cities in the
   Netherlands, rose against the Spanish Admiral, and hung out
   the banner of Orange on its ramparts. The revolution effected
   here was purely the work of the people—of the mariners and
   burghers of the city. Moreover, the magistracy was set aside
   and the government of Alva repudiated without shedding one
   drop of blood, without a single wrong to person or property.
   By the same spontaneous movement, nearly all the important
   cities of Holland and Zealand raised the standard of him in
   whom they recognized their deliverer. The revolution was
   accomplished under nearly similar circumstances everywhere.
   With one fierce bound of enthusiasm the nation shook, off its
   chain. Oudewater, Dort, Harlem, Leyden, Gorcum, Loewenstein,
   Gouda, Medenblik, Horn, Alkmaar, Edam, Monnikendam,
   Purmerende, as well as Flushing, Veer, and Enkhuizen, all
   ranged themselves under the government of Orange as lawful
   stadholder for the King. Nor was it in Holland and Zealand
   alone that the beacon fires of freedom were lighted. City
   after city in Gelderland, Overyssel, and the See of Utrecht,
   all the important towns of Friesland, some sooner, some later,
   some without a struggle, some after a short siege, some with
   resistance by the functionaries of government, some by
   amicable compromise, accepted the garrisons of the Prince and
   formally recognized his authority. Out of the chaos which a
   long and preternatural tyranny had produced, the first
   struggling elements of a new and a better world began to
   appear. … Not all the conquests thus rapidly achieved in the
   cause of liberty were destined to endure, nor were any to be
   retained without a struggle. The little northern cluster of
   republics, which had now restored its honor to the ancient
   Batavian name, was destined, however, for a long and vigorous
   life. From that bleak isthmus the light of freedom was to
   stream through many years upon struggling humanity in Europe,
   a guiding pharos across a stormy sea; and Harlem, Leyden,
   Alkmaar—names hallowed by deeds of heroism such as have not
   often illustrated human annals, still breathe as
   trumpet-tongued and perpetual a defiance to despotism as
   Marathon, Thermopylae, or Salamis.
{2264}
   A new board of magistrates had been chosen in all the redeemed
   cities by popular election. They were required to take an oath
   of fidelity to the King of Spain, and to the Prince of Orange
   as his stadholder; to promise resistance to the Duke of Alva,
   the tenth penny, and the Inquisition; 'to support every man's
   freedom and the welfare of the country; to protect widows,
   orphans, and miserable persons, and to maintain justice and
   truth.' Diedrich Sonoy arrived on the 2nd June at Enkhuizen.
   He was provided by the Prince with a commission, appointing
   him Lieutenant-Governor of North Holland or Waterland. Thus,
   to combat the authority of Alva, was set up the authority of
   the King. The stadholderate over Holland and Zealand, to which
   the Prince had been appointed in 1559, he now reassumed. Upon
   this fiction reposed the whole provisional polity of the
   revolted Netherlands. … The people at first claimed not an
   iota more of freedom than was secured by Philip's coronation
   oath. There was no pretence that Philip was not sovereign, but
   there was a pretence and a determination to worship God
   according to conscience, and to reclaim the ancient political
   'liberties' of the land. So long as Alva reigned, the Blood
   Council, the Inquisition, and martial law, were the only codes
   or courts, and every charter slept. To recover this practical
   liberty and these historical rights, and to shake from their
   shoulders a most sanguinary government, was the purpose of
   William and of the people. No revolutionary standard was
   displayed. The written instructions given by the Prince to his
   lieutenant Sonoy were to 'see that the Word of God was
   preached, without, however, suffering any hindrance to the
   Roman Church in the exercise of its religion.' … The Prince
   was still in Germany, engaged in raising troops and providing
   funds."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Capture of Mons by Louis of Nassau and
   its recovery by the Spaniards.
   Spanish massacres at Mechlin, Zutphen and Naarden.
   The siege and capture of Haarlem.

   "While William of Orange was in Germany, raising money and
   troops, he still directed the affairs of the Netherlands. His
   prospects were again brightened by the capture, by his gallant
   brother Louis of Nassau, of the important city of Mons. …
   This last startling blow forced Alva to immediate action. He
   at once sent his son, Don Frederic, to lay siege to Mons. Soon
   after, the Duke of Medina Cœli, Alva's successor as governor
   of the Netherlands [to whom, however, Alva did not surrender
   his authority], arrived safely with his fleet, but another
   Spanish squadron fell with its rich treasures into the hands
   of the rebels. Alva was now so pressed for money that he
   agreed to abolish the useless tenth-penny tax, if the
   states-general of the Netherlands would grant him a million
   dollars a year. He had summoned the states of Holland to meet
   at the Hague on the 15th of July, but they met at Dort to
   renounce his authority, at the summons of William of Orange,
   who had raised an army in Germany, but was without means to
   secure the necessary three months' payment in advance. While
   still owning allegiance to the king, the states recognized
   Orange as stadtholder, empowered him to drive out the Spanish
   troops, and to maintain religious freedom. … Treating the
   Emperor Maximilian's peace orders as useless, the prince
   marched his army of 24,000 men to the relief of Mons. Most of
   the Netherland cities on the way accepted his authority, and
   everything looked favorable for his success, when an
   unforeseen and terrible calamity occurred. The French king,
   Charles IX., whose troops had been routed before Mons [by the
   Spaniards], had promised to furnish further aid to the
   provinces. Admiral Coligny was to join the forces of Orange
   with 15,000 men. The frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew in
   Paris, on the 24th of August, … was a terrible blow to the
   prince. It broke up all his plans. He had reached the
   neighborhood of Mons, which he was trying to reinforce, when a
   night attack was made by the Spaniards on his lines, September
   11. … Obliged to leave his gallant brother Louis to his fate
   in Mons, Orange narrowly escaped being killed on his retreat.
   … Deserted by the cities that had been so earnest in his
   cause, sorrowful, but not despairing for his country, William
   had only his trust in God and his own destiny to sustain him.
   As Holland was the only province that clung to the hero
   patriot, he went there expecting and prepared to die for
   liberty. Louis of Nassau was forced, on the 21st of September,
   to abandon Mons to the Spaniards, who allowed Noircarmes …
   to massacre and pillage the inhabitants contrary to the terms
   of surrender. This wretch killed Catholics and Protestants
   alike, in order to secure their riches for himself. … The
   city of Mechlin, which had refused to admit a garrison of his
   troops, was even more brutally ravaged by Alva in order to
   obtain gold. … Alva's son, Don Frederic, now proved an apt
   pupil of his father, by almost literally executing his command
   to kill every man and burn every house in the city of Zutphen,
   which had opposed the entrance of the king's troops. The
   massacre was terrible and complete. The cause of Orange
   suffered still more by the cowardly flight of his
   brother-in-law, Count Van den Berg, from his post of duty in
   the provinces of Gelderland and Overyssel. By this desertion
   rugged Friesland was also lost to the patriot side. Holland
   alone held out against the victorious Spaniards. The little
   city of Naarden at first stoutly refused to surrender, but
   being weak was obliged to yield without striking a blow. Don
   Frederic's agent, Julian Romero, having promised that life and
   property should be spared, the people welcomed him and his
   soldiers at a grand feast on the 2d of December. Hardly was
   this over when 500 citizens, who had assembled in the town
   hall, were warned by a priest to prepare for death. This was
   the signal for the entrance of the Spanish troops, who
   butchered everyone in the building. They then rushed furiously
   through the streets, pillaging and then setting fire to the
   houses. As the inmates came forth, they were tortured and
   killed by their cruel foes. … Alva wrote boastfully to the
   king that 'they had cut the throats of the burghers and all
   the garrison, and had not left a mother's son alive.' He
   ascribed this success to the favor of God in permitting the
   defence of so feeble a city to be even attempted. … As the
   city of Haarlem was the key to Holland, Don Frederic resolved
   to capture it at any cost. But the people were so bent upon
   resistance that they executed two of their magistrates for
   secretly negotiating with Alva. …
{2265}
   Ripperda, the commandant of the Haarlem garrison, cheered
   soldiers and people by his heroic counsels, and through the
   efforts of Orange the city was placed under patriot rule.
   Amsterdam, which was in the enemy's hands, was ten miles
   distant, across a lake traversed by a narrow causeway, and the
   prince had erected a number of forts to command the frozen
   surface. As a thick fog covered the lake in these December
   days, supplies of men, provisions, and ammunition were brought
   into the city in spite of the vigilance of the besiegers. The
   sledges and skates of the Hollanders were very useful in this
   work. But against Don Frederic's army of 30,000 men, nearly
   equalling the entire population of Haarlem, the city with its
   extensive but weak fortifications had only a garrison of about
   4,000. The fact that about 300 of these were respectable
   women, armed with sword, musket, and dagger, shows the heroic
   spirit of the people. The men were nerved to fresh exertions
   by these Amazons, who, led by their noble chief, the Widow
   Kenau Hasselaer, fought desperately by their side, both within
   and without the works. The banner of this famous heroine, who
   has been called the Joan of Arc of Haarlem, is now in the City
   Hall. A vigorous cannonade was kept up against the city for
   three days, beginning December 18, and men, women, and
   children worked incessantly in repairing the shattered walls.
   They even dragged the statues of saints from the churches to
   fill up the gaps, to the horror of the superstitious
   Spaniards. The brave burghers repelled their assaults with all
   sorts of weapons. Burning coals and boiling oil were hurled at
   their heads, and blazing pitch-hoops were skilfully caught
   about their necks. Astonished by this terrible resistance,
   which cost him hundreds of lives, Don Frederic resolved to
   take the city by siege." On the last day of January. 1573, Don
   Frederic having considerably shattered an outwork called the
   ravelin, ordered a midnight assault, and the Spaniards carried
   the fort. "They mounted the walls expecting to have the city
   at their mercy. Judge of their amazement to find a new and
   stronger fort, shaped like a half-moon, which had been
   secretly constructed during the siege, blazing away at them
   with its cannon. Before they could recover from their shock,
   the ravelin, which had been carefully undermined, blew up, and
   sent them crushed and bleeding into the air. The Spaniards
   outside, terrified at these outbursts, retreated hastily to
   their camp, leaving hundreds of dead beneath the walls. Two
   assaults of veteran soldiers, led by able generals, having
   been repelled by the dauntless burghers of Haarlem, famine
   seemed the only means of forcing its surrender. Starvation in
   fact soon threatened both besiegers and besieged. Don Frederic
   wished to abandon the contest, but Alva threatened to disown
   him as a son if he did so. … There was soon a struggle for
   the possession of the lake, which was the only means of
   conveying supplies to the besieged. In the terrible
   hand-to-hand fight which followed the grappling of the rival
   vessels, on the 28th of May, the prince's fleet, under Admiral
   Brand, was totally defeated. … During the month of June the
   wretched people of Haarlem had no food but linseed and
   rapeseed, and they were soon compelled to eat dogs, cats,
   rats, and mice. When these gave out they devoured shoe-leather
   and the boiled hides of horses and oxen, and tried to allay
   the pangs of hunger with grass and weeds. The streets were
   full of the dead and the dying." Attempts at relief by Orange
   were defeated. "As a last resort the besieged resolved to form
   a solid column, with the women and children, the aged and
   infirm, in the centre, to fight their way out; but Don
   Frederic, fearing the city would be left in ruins, induced
   them to surrender on the 12th of July, under promise of mercy.
   This promise was cruelly broken by a frightful massacre of
   2,000 people, which gave great joy to Alva and Philip."

      _A. Young,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Watson,
      History of Philip II.,
      books 11-12._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
   Siege and deliverance of Alkmaar.
   Displacement of Alva.
   Battle of Mookerhyde and death of Louis of Nassau.
   Siege and relief of Leyden.
   The flooding of the land.
   Founding of Leyden University.

   After the surrender of Haarlem, a mutiny broke out among the
   Spanish troops that had been engaged in the siege, to whom 28
   months' arrears of pay were due. "It was appeased with great
   difficulty at the end of seven weeks, when Alva determined to
   make a decisive attack on Holland both by land and water, and
   with this view commanded his son, Don Frederic di Toledo, to
   march to the siege of Alkmaar, and repaired in person to
   Amsterdam. … Don Frederic laid siege to Alkmaar at the head
   of 16,000 able and efficient troops; within the town were
   1,300 armed burghers and 800 soldiers, as many perhaps as it
   was at that time capable of containing. With this handful of
   men the citizens of Alkmaar defended themselves no less
   resolutely than the Haarlemmers had done. The fierce
   onslaughts of the Spaniards were beaten back with uniform
   success on the part of the besieged; the women and girls were
   never seen to shrink from the fight, even where it was
   hottest, but unceasingly supplied the defenders with stones
   and burning missiles, to throw amongst their enemies. … But
   as there were no means of conveying reinforcements to the
   besieged from without, and their supplies began to fail, they
   resolved, after a month's siege, on the desperate measure of
   cutting through the dykes. Some troops sent by Sonnoy having
   effected this, and opened the sluices, the whole country was
   soon deluged with water. Don Frederic, astounded at this novel
   mode of warfare, and fearing that himself and his whole army
   would be drowned, broke up his camp in haste, and fled, rather
   than retreated, to Amsterdam. It seemed almost as though the
   blessing which the Prince of Orange had promised his people
   had come upon them. The capture of Geertruydenberg, about this
   time, by one of his lieutenants, was followed by a naval
   victory, as signal as it was important. The Admiral Bossu, to
   whom was given the command of the [Spanish] fleet at
   Amsterdam, having sailed through the Pampus with the design of
   occupying the Zuyderzee, and thus making himself master of the
   towns of North Holland, encountered the fleet of those towns,
   consisting of 24 vessels, commanded by Admiral Dirkson,
   stationed in the Zuyderzee to await his arrival." After
   several days of skirmishing, the Dutch fleet forced a close
   fight, "which lasted with little intermission from the
   afternoon of the 11th of October to midday of the 12th, during
   which time two of the royalist ships were sunk and a
   third captured.
{2266}
   "The remainder fled or surrendered, Bossu, himself, being
   taken prisoner. "On intelligence of the issue of the battle,
   Alva quitted Amsterdam in haste and secrecy. This success
   delivered the towns of North Holland from the most imminent
   danger, and rendered the possession of Amsterdam nearly
   useless to the royalists." Alva was now forced to call a
   meeting of the states-general, in the hope of obtaining a vote
   of money. "Upon their assembling at Brussels, the states of
   Holland despatched an earnest and eloquent address, exhorting
   them to emancipate themselves from Spanish slavery and the
   cruel tyranny of Alva, which the want of unanimity in the
   provinces had alone enabled him to exercise. … Their
   remonstrance appears to have been attended with a powerful
   effect, since the states-general could neither by threats or
   remonstrances be induced to grant the smallest subsidy. …
   Alva, having become heartily weary of the government he had
   involved in such irretrievable confusion, now obtained his
   recall; his place was filled by Don Louis de Requesens, grand
   commander of Castile. In the November of this year, Alva
   quitted the Netherlands, leaving behind him a name which has
   become a bye-word of hatred, scorn, and execration. … During
   the six years that he had governed the Netherlands, 18,000
   persons had perished by the hand of the executioner, besides
   the numbers massacred at Naarden, Zutphen, and other conquered
   cities." The first undertaking of the new governor was an
   attempt to raise the siege of Middleburg, the Spanish garrison
   in which had been blockaded by the Gueux for nearly two years;
   but the fleet of 40 ships which he fitted out for the purpose
   was defeated, at Romers-waale, with a loss of ten vessels.
   "The surrender of Middleburg immediately followed, and with it
   that of Arnemuyden, which put the Gueux in possession of the
   principal islands of Zealand, and rendered them masters of the
   sea." But these successes were counterbalanced by a disaster
   which attended an expedition led from Germany by Louis of
   Nassau, the gallant but unfortunate brother of the Prince of
   Orange. His army was attacked and utterly destroyed by the
   Spaniards (April 14, 1574) at the village of Mookerheyde, or
   Mook, near Nimeguen, and both Louis and his brother Henry of
   Nassau were slain. "After raising the siege of Alkmaar, the
   Spanish forces, placed under the command of Francesco di
   Valdez on the departure of Don Frederic di Toledo, had for
   some weeks blockaded Leyden; but were recalled in the spring
   of this year to join the rest of the army on its march against
   Louis of Nassau. From that time the burghers of Leyden … had
   not only neglected to lay up any fresh stores of corn or other
   provision, but to occupy or destroy the forts with which the
   enemy had encompassed the town. This fact coming to the
   knowledge of Don Louis, he once more dispatched Valdez to
   renew the siege at the head of 8,000 troops. … Mindful of
   Haarlem and Alkmaar, the Spanish commander … brought no
   artillery, nor made any preparations for assault, but, well
   aware that there were not provisions in the town sufficient
   for three months, contented himself with closely investing it
   on all sides, and determined to await the slow but sure
   effects of famine." In this emergency, the States of Holland
   "decreed that all the dykes between Leyden and the Meuse and
   Yssel should be cut through, and the sluices opened at
   Rotterdam and Schiedam, by which the waters of those rivers,
   overflowing the valuable lands of Schieland and Rhynland,
   would admit of the vessels bringing succours up to the very
   gates of Leyden. The damage was estimated at 600,000 guilders.
   … The cutting through the dykes was a work of time and
   difficulty, as well from the labour required as from the
   continual skirmishes with the enemy. … Even when completed,
   it appeared as if the vast sacrifice were utterly unavailing.
   A steady wind blowing from the north-east kept back the
   waters. … Meanwhile the besieged, who for some weeks heard
   no tidings of their deliverers, had scarcely hope left to
   enable them to sustain the appalling sufferings they endured.
   … 'Then,' says the historian, who heard it from the mouths
   of the sufferers, 'there was no food so odious but it was
   esteemed a dainty.' … The siege had now lasted five months.
   … Not a morsel of food, even the most filthy and loathsome,
   remained … when, on a sudden, the wind veered to the
   north-west, and thence to the south-west; the waters of the
   Meuse rushed in full tide over the land, and the ships rode
   triumphantly on the waves. The Gueux, attacking with vigour
   the forts on the dykes, succeeded in driving out the garrisons
   with considerable slaughter. … On the … 3rd of October …
   Valdez evacuated all the forts in the vicinity. … In memory
   of this eventful siege, the Prince and States offered the
   inhabitants either to found an university or to establish a
   fair. They chose the former; but the States … granted both:
   the fair of Leyden was appointed to be held on the 1st of
   October in every year, the 3rd being ever after held as a
   solemn festival; and on the 8th of February in the next year,
   the university received its charter from the Prince of Orange
   in the name of King Philip. Both proved lasting monuments."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapters 8-9 (volumes 1-2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 4, chapters 1-2 (volume 2)._

      _W. T. Hewett,
      The University of Leiden
      (Harper's Magazine, March, 1881)._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 5, chapter 16._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
   Congress at Breda.
   Offer of sovereignty to the English Queen.
   Death of Requesens.
   Mutiny of the Soldiery.
   The Spanish Fury.
   Alliance of Northern and Southern provinces under
   the Pacification of Ghent and the Union of Brussels.
   Arrival of Don John of Austria.

   "The bankrupt state of Philip II.'s exchequer, and the
   reverses which his arms had sustained, induced him to accept
   … the proffered mediation of the Emperor Maximilian, which
   he had before so arrogantly rejected, and a Congress was held
   at Breda from March till June 1575. But the insurgents were
   suspicious, and Philip was inflexible; he could not be induced
   to dismiss his Spanish troops, to allow the meeting of the
   States-General, or to admit the slightest toleration in
   matters of religion; and the contest was therefore renewed
   with more fury than ever. The situation of the patriots became
   very critical when the enemy, by occupying the islands of
   Duyveland and Schouwen, cut off the communication between
   Holland and Zealand; especially as all hope of succour from
   England had expired.
{2267}
   Towards the close of the year envoys were despatched to
   solicit the aid of Elizabeth, and to offer her, under certain
   conditions, the sovereignty of Holland and Zealand. Requesens
   sent Champagny to counteract these negociations, which ended
   in nothing. The English Queen was afraid of provoking the
   power of Spain, and could not even be induced to grant the
   Hollanders a loan. The attitude assumed at that time by the
   Duke of Alençon, in France, also prevented them from entering
   into any negociations with that Prince. In these trying
   circumstances, William the Silent displayed the greatest
   firmness and courage. It was now that he is said to have
   contemplated abandoning Holland and seeking with its
   inhabitants a home in the New World, having first restored the
   country to its ancient state of a waste of waters; a thought,
   however, which he probably never seriously entertained, though
   he may have given utterance to it in a moment of irritation or
   despondency. … The unexpected death of Requesens, who
   expired of a fever, March 5th 1576, after a few days' illness,
   threw the government into confusion. Philip II. had given
   Requesens a carte blanche to name his successor, but the
   nature of his illness had prevented him from filling it up.
   The government therefore devolved to the Council of State, the
   members of which were at variance with one another; but Philip
   found himself obliged to intrust it 'ad interim' with the
   administration, till a successor to Requesens could be
   appointed. Count Mansfeld was made commander-in-chief, but was
   totally unable to restrain the licentious soldiery. The
   Spaniards, whose pay was in arrear, had now lost all
   discipline. After the raising of the siege of Leyden they had
   beset Utrecht and pillaged and maltreated the inhabitants,
   till Valdez contrived to furnish their pay. No sooner had
   Requesens expired than they broke into open mutiny, and acted
   as if they were entire masters of the country. After wandering
   about some time and threatening Brussels, they seized and
   plundered Alost, where they established themselves; and they
   were soon afterwards joined by the Walloon and German troops.
   To repress their violence, the Council of State restored to
   the Netherlanders the arms of which they had been deprived,
   and called upon them by a proclamation to repress force by
   force; but these citizen-soldiers were dispersed with great
   slaughter by the disciplined troops in various rencounters.
   Ghent, Utrecht, Valenciennes, Maestricht were taken and
   plundered by the mutineers; and at last the storm fell upon
   Antwerp, which the Spaniards entered early in November, and
   sacked during three days. More than 1,000 houses were burnt,
   8,000 citizens are said to have been slain, and enormous sums
   in ready money were plundered. The whole damage was estimated
   at 24,000,000 florins. The horrible excesses committed in this
   sack procured for it the name of the 'Spanish Fury.' The
   government was at this period conducted in the name of the
   States of Brabant. On the 5th of September, De Hèze, a young
   Brabant gentleman who was in secret intelligence with the
   Prince of Orange, had, at the head of 500 soldiers, entered
   the palace where the Council of State was assembled, and
   seized and imprisoned the members. William, taking advantage
   of the alarm created at Brussels by the sack of Antwerp,
   persuaded the provisional government to summon the
   States-General, although such a course was at direct variance
   with the commands of the King. To this assembly all the
   provinces except Luxemburg sent deputies. The nobles of the
   southern provinces, although they viewed the Prince of Orange
   with suspicion, feeling that there was no security for them so
   long as the Spanish troops remained in possession of Ghent,
   sought his assistance in expelling them; which William
   consented to grant only on condition that an alliance should
   be effected between the northern and the southern, or Catholic
   provinces of the Netherlands. This proposal was agreed to, and
   towards the end of September Orange sent several thousand men
   from Zealand to Ghent, at whose approach the Spaniards, who
   had valorously defended themselves for two months under the
   conduct of the wife of their absent general Mondragon,
   surrendered, and evacuated the citadel. The proposed alliance
   was now converted into a formal union by the treaty called the
   Pacification of Ghent, signed November 8th 1576; by which it
   was agreed, without waiting for the sanction of Philip, whose
   authority however was nominally recognised, to renew the edict
   of banishment against the Spanish troops, to procure the
   suspension of the decrees against the Protestant religion, to
   summon the States-General of the northern and southern
   provinces, according to the model of the assembly which had
   received the abdication of Charles V., to provide for the
   toleration and practise of the Protestant religion in Holland
   and Zealand, together with other provisions of a similar
   character. About the same time with the Pacification of Ghent,
   all Zealand, with the exception of the island of Tholen, was
   recovered from the Spaniards. … It was a mistake on the part
   of Philip II. to leave the country eight months with only an
   'ad interim' government. Had he immediately filled up the
   vacancy … the States could not have seized upon the
   government, and the alliance established at Ghent would not
   have been effected, by which an almost independent
   commonwealth had been erected. But Philip seems to have been
   puzzled as to the choice of a successor; and his selection, at
   length, of his brother Don John of Austria [a natural son of
   Charles V.], caused a further considerable delay. … The
   state of the Netherlands compelled Don John to enter them, not
   with the pomp and dignity becoming the lawful representative
   of a great monarch, but stealthily, like a traitor or
   conspirator. In Luxemburg alone, the only province which had
   not joined the union, could he expect to be received; and he
   entered its capital a few days before the publication of the
   treaty of Ghent, in the disguise of a Moorish slave, and in
   the train of Don Ottavio Gonzaga, brother of the Prince of
   Melfi. Having neither money nor arms, he was obliged to
   negociate with the provincial government in order to procure
   the recognition of his authority. At the instance of the
   Prince of Orange, the States insisted on the withdrawal of the
   Spanish troops, the maintenance of the treaty of Ghent, an act
   of amnesty for past offences, the convocation of the
   States-General, and an oath from Don John that he would
   respect all the charters and customs of the country. The new
   governor was violent, but the States were firm, and in January
   1577 was formed the Union of Brussels, the professed objects
   of which were, the immediate expulsion of the Spaniards, and
   the execution of the Pacification of Ghent; while at the same
   time the Catholic religion and the royal authority were to be
   upheld.
{2268}
   This union, which was only a more popular repetition of the
   treaty of Ghent, soon obtained numberless signatures. …
   Meanwhile Rodolph II., the new Emperor of Germany, had offered
   his mediation, and appointed the Bishop of Liege to use his
   good offices between the parties; who, with the assistance of
   Duke William of Juliers, brought, or seemed to bring, the new
   governor to a more reasonable frame of mind. … Don John
   yielded all the points in dispute, and embodied them in what
   was called the Perpetual Edict, published March 12th, 1577.
   The Prince of Orange suspected from the first that these
   concessions were a mere deception."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapters 7-9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 2, chapters 4-5._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
   The administration of Don John.
   Orange's well-founded distrust.
   Emancipation of Antwerp.
   Battle of Gemblours.
   Death of Don John and appointment of Parma.
   Corruption of Flemish nobles.
   Submission of the Walloon provinces.
   Pretensions of the Duke of Anjou.
   Constitution and declared independence of the Dutch Republic.

   "It now seemed that the Netherlands had gained all they asked
   for, and that everything for which they had contended had been
   conceded. The Blood Council of Alva had almost extirpated the
   Reformers, and an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of
   the Low Countries, with the exception of the Hollanders and
   Zelanders, belonged to the old Church, provided the
   Inquisition was done away with, and a religious peace was
   accorded. But Don John had to reckon with the Prince of
   Orange. In him William had no confidence. He could not forget
   the past. He believed that the signatures and concessions of
   the governor and Philip were only expedients to gain time, and
   that they would be revoked or set aside as soon as it was
   convenient or possible to do so. … He had intercepted
   letters from the leading Spaniards in Don John's employment,
   in which, when the treaty was in course of signature, designs
   were disclosed of keeping possession of all the strong places
   in the country, with the object of reducing the patriots in
   detail. … Above all, William distrusted the Flemish nobles.
   He knew them to be greedy, fickle, treacherous, ready to
   betray their country for personal advantage, and to ally
   themselves blindly with their natural enemies. … As events
   proved, Orange was in the right. Hence he refused to recognize
   the treaty in his own states of Holland and Zeland. As soon as
   it was published and sent to him, William, after conference
   with these states, published a severe criticism on its
   provisions. … In all seeming however Don John was prepared
   to carry out his engagements. He got together with difficulty
   the funds for paying the arrears due to the troops, and sent
   them off by the end of April. He caressed the people and he
   bribed the nobles. He handed over the citadels to Flemish
   governors, and entered Brussels on May 1st. Everything pointed
   to success and mutual good will. But we have Don John's
   letters, in which he speaks most unreservedly and most
   unflatteringly of his new friends, and of his designs on the
   liberties of the Netherlands. And all the while that Philip
   was soothing and flattering his brother, he had determined on
   ruining him, and on murdering the man [Escovedo] whom that
   brother loved and trusted. About this time, too, we find that
   Philip and his deputy were casting about for the means by
   which they might assassinate the Prince of Orange, 'who had
   bewitched the whole people!' An attempt of Don John to get
   possession of the citadel of Antwerp for himself failed, and
   the patriots gained it. The merchants of Antwerp 'agreed to
   find the pay still owing to the soldiers, on condition of
   their quitting the city. But while they were discussing the
   terms, a fleet of Zeland vessels came sailing up the Scheldt.
   Immediately a cry was raised, 'The Beggars are coming,' and
   the soldiers fled in dismay [August 1, 1577]. Then the
   Antwerpers demolished the citadel, and turned the statue of
   Alva again into cannon. After these events, William of Orange
   put an end to negotiations with Don John. Prince William was
   in the ascendant. But the Catholic nobles conspired against
   him, and induced the Archduke Matthias, brother of the German
   Emperor Rodolph, to accept the place of governor of the
   Netherlands in lieu of Don John. He came, but Orange was made
   the Ruwaard of Brabant, with full military power. It was the
   highest office which could be bestowed on him. The 'Union of
   Brussels' followed and was a confederation of all the
   Netherlands. But the battle of Gemblours was fought in
   February, 1578, and the patriots were defeated. Many small
   towns were captured, and it seemed that in course of time the
   governor would recover at least a part of his lost authority.
   But in the month of September, Don John was seized with a
   burning fever, and died on October 1st. … The new governor
   of the Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese, Prince of Parma,
   and of Margaret of Parma, sister of Philip of Spain, was a
   very different person from any of the regents who had hitherto
   controlled the Netherlands. He was, or soon proved himself to
   be, the greatest general of the age, and he was equally,
   according to the statesmanship of the age, the most
   accomplished and versatile statesman. He had no designs beyond
   those of Philip, and during his long career in the
   Netherlands, from October, 1578, to December, 1592, he served
   the King of Spain as faithfully and with as few scruples as
   Philip could have desired. … Parma was religious, but he had
   no morality whatever. … He had no scruple in deceiving,
   lying, assassinating, and even less scruple in saying or
   swearing that he had done none of these things. … He had an
   excellent judgment of men, and indeed he had experience of the
   two extremes, of the exceeding baseness of the Flemish nobles,
   and of the lofty and pure patriotism of the Dutch patriots.
   Nothing indeed was more unfortunate for the Dutch than the
   belief which they entertained, that the Flemings who had been
   dragooned into uniformity, could be possibly stirred to
   patriotism. Alva had done his work thoroughly. It is possible
   to extirpate a reformation. But the success of the process is
   the moral ruin of those who are the subjects of the
   experiment. Fortunately for Parma, there was a suitor for the
   Netherland sovereignty, in the person of the very worst prince
   of the very worst royal family that ever existed in Europe,
   i. e., the Duke of Anjou, of the house of Valois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

{2269}

   This person was favoured by Orange, probably because he had
   detected Philip's designs on France, and thought that national
   jealousy would induce the French government, which was
   Catherine of Medici, to favour the low countries. Besides,
   Parma had a faction in every Flemish town, who were known as
   the Malcontents, who were the party of the greedy and
   unscrupulous nobles. And, besides Anjou, there was the party
   of another pretender, John Casimir, of Poland. He, however,
   soon left them. Parma quickly found in such dissensions plenty
   of men whom he could usefully bribe. He made his first
   purchases in the Walloon district, and secured them. The
   provinces here were Artois, Hainault, Lille, Douay, and
   Orchies. They were soon permanently reunited to Spain. On
   January 20, 1570, the Union of Utrecht, which was virtually
   the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, was agreed to. It was
   greater in extent on the Flemish side than the Dutch Republic
   finally remained, less on that of Friesland [comprising
   Holland, Zeland, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, and the Frisian
   provinces]. Orange still had hopes of including most of the
   Netherland seaboard, and he still kept up the form of
   allegiance to Philip. The principal event of the year was the
   siege and capture of Maestricht [with the slaughter of almost
   its entire population of 34,000]. … Mechlin also was
   betrayed by its commander, De Bours, who reconciled himself to
   Romanism, and received the pay for his treason from Parma at
   the same time. In March, 1580, a similar act of treason was
   committed by Count Renneberg, the governor of Friesland, who
   betrayed its chief city, Groningen. … In the same year,
   1580, was published the ban of Philip. This instrument, drawn
   up by Cardinal Granvelle, declared Orange to be a traitor and
   miscreant, made him an outlaw, put a heavy price on his head
   (25,000 gold crowns), offered the assassin the pardon of any
   crime, however heinous, and nobility, whatever be his rank.
   … William answered the ban by a vigorous appeal to the
   civilized world. … Renneberg, the traitor, laid siege to
   Steenwyk, the principal fortress of Drenthe, at the beginning
   of 1581. … In February, John Norris, the English general,
   … relieved the town. Renneberg raised the siege, was
   defeated in July by the same Norris, and died, full of
   remorse, a few days afterwards. But the most important event
   in 1581 was the declaration of Dutch Independence formally
   issued at the Hague on the 26th of July. By this instrument,
   Orange, though most unwillingly, felt himself obliged to
   accept the sovereignty over Holland and Zeland, and whatever
   else of the seven provinces was in the hands of the patriots.
   The Netherlands were now divided into three portions. The
   Walloon provinces in the south were reconciled to Philip and
   Parma. The middle provinces were under the almost nominal
   sovereignty of Anjou, the northern were under William. …
   Philip's name was now discarded from public documents … ;
   his seal was broken, and William was thereafter to conduct the
   government in his own name. The instrument was styled an 'Act
   of Abjuration.'"

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Story of Holland,
      chapters 11-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 5, chapters 4-5,
      and part 6, chapters 1-4._

      _Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 2, chapters 8-10._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
   Refusal of the sovereignty of the United Provinces by Orange.
   Its bestowal upon the Duke of Anjou.
   Base treachery of Anjou.
   The "French Fury" at Antwerp.
   Assassination of the Prince of Orange.

   "What, then, was the condition of the nation, after this great
   step [the Act of Abjuration] had been taken? It stood, as it
   were, with its sovereignty in its hand, dividing it into two
   portions, and offering it, thus separated, to two distinct
   individuals. The sovereignty of Holland and Zealand had been
   reluctantly accepted by Orange. The sovereignty of the United
   Provinces had been offered to Anjou, but the terms of
   agreement with that Duke had not yet been ratified. The
   movement was therefore triple, consisting of an abjuration and
   of two separate elections of hereditary chiefs; these two
   elections being accomplished in the same manner by the
   representative bodies respectively of the united provinces and
   of Holland and Zealand. … Without a direct intention on the
   part of the people or its leaders to establish a republic, the
   Republic established itself. Providence did not permit the
   whole country, so full of wealth, intelligence, healthy
   political action—so stocked with powerful cities and an
   energetic population, to be combined into one free and
   prosperous commonwealth. The factious ambition of a few
   grandees, the cynical venality of many nobles, the frenzy of
   the Ghent democracy, the spirit of religious intolerance, the
   consummate military and political genius of Alexander Farnese,
   the exaggerated self-abnegation and the tragic fate of Orange,
   all united to dissever this group of flourishing and kindred
   provinces. The want of personal ambition on the part of
   William the Silent inflicted, perhaps, a serious damage upon
   his country. He believed a single chief requisite for the
   united states; he might have been, but always refused to
   become that chief; and yet he has been held up for centuries
   by many writers as a conspirator and a self-seeking intriguer.
   … 'These provinces,' said John of Nassau, 'are coming very
   unwillingly into the arrangement with the Duke of Alençon
   [soon afterwards made Duke of Anjou]. The majority feel much
   more inclined to elect the Prince, who is daily, and without
   intermission, implored to give his consent. … He refuses
   only on this account—that it may not be thought that,
   instead of religious freedom for the country, he has been
   seeking a kingdom for himself and his own private advancement.
   Moreover, he believes that the connexion with France will be
   of more benefit to the country and to Christianity.' … The
   unfortunate negotiations with Anjou, to which no man was more
   opposed than Count John, proceeded therefore. In the meantime,
   the sovereignty over the united provinces was provisionally
   held by the national council, and, at the urgent solicitation
   of the states-general, by the Prince. The Archduke Matthias,
   whose functions were most unceremoniously brought to an end by
   the transactions which we have been recording, took his leave
   of the states, and departed in the month of October. … Thus
   it was arranged that, for the present, at least, the Prince
   should exercise sovereignty over Holland and Zealand; although
   he had himself used his utmost exertions to induce those
   provinces to join the rest of the United Netherlands in the
   proposed election of Anjou.
{2270}
   This, however, they sternly refused to do. There was also a
   great disinclination felt by many in the other states to this
   hazardous offer of their allegiance, and it was the personal
   influence of Orange that eventually carried the measure
   through. … By midsummer [1581] the Duke of Anjou made his
   appearance in the western part of the Netherlands. The Prince
   of Parma had recently come before Cambray with the intention
   of reducing that important city. On the arrival of Anjou,
   however, … Alexander raised the siege precipitately and
   retired towards Tournay," to which he presently laid siege,
   and which was surrendered to him in November.

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 6, chapters 4-5 (volume 3)._

   Meantime, the Duke of Anjou had visited England, paying court
   to Queen Elizabeth, whom he hoped to marry, but who declined
   the alliance after making the acquaintance of her suitor.
   "Elizabeth made all the reparation in her power, by the
   honours paid him on his dismissal. She accompanied him as far
   as Canterbury, and sent him away under the convoy of the earl
   of Leicester, her chief favourite; and with a brilliant suite
   and a fleet of fifteen sail. Anjou was received at Antwerp
   with equal distinction; and was inaugurated there on the 19th
   of February [1582] as Duke of Brabant, Lothier, Limbourg, and
   Guelders, with many other titles, of which he soon proved
   himself unworthy. … During the rejoicings which followed
   this inauspicious ceremony, Philip's proscription against the
   Prince of Orange put forth its first fruits. The latter gave a
   grand dinner in the chateau of Antwerp, which he occupied, on
   the 18th of March, the birth-day of the duke of Anjou." As he
   quitted the dining hall, he was shot in the cheek by a young
   man who approached him with the pretence of offering a
   petition, and who proved to be the tool of a Spanish merchant
   at Antwerp, with whom Philip of Spain had contracted for the
   procurement of the assassination. The wound inflicted was
   severe but not fatal. "Within three months, William was able
   to accompany the duke of Anjou in his visits to Ghent, Bruges,
   and the other chief towns of Flanders; in each of which the
   ceremony of inauguration was repeated. Several military
   exploits now took place [the most important of them being the
   capture of Oudenarde, after a protracted siege, by the Prince
   of Parma]. … The duke of Anjou, intemperate, inconstant, and
   unprincipled, saw that his authority was but the shadow of
   power. … The French officers, who formed his suite and
   possessed all his confidence, had no difficulty in raising his
   discontent into treason against the people with whom he had
   made a solemn compact. The result of their councils was a
   deep-laid plot against Flemish liberty; and its execution was
   ere-long attempted. He sent secret orders to the governors of
   Dunkirk, Bruges, Termonde, and other towns, to seize on and
   hold them in his name; reserving for himself the infamy of the
   enterprise against Antwerp. To prepare for its execution, he
   caused his numerous army of French and Swiss to approach the
   city." Then, on the 17th of January, 1583, with his body guard
   of 200 horse, he suddenly attacked and slew the Flemish guards
   at one of the gates and admitted the troops waiting outside.
   "The astonished but intrepid citizens, recovering from their
   confusion, instantly flew to arms. All differences in religion
   or politics were forgotten in the common danger to their
   freedom. … The ancient spirit of Flanders seemed to animate
   all. Workmen, armed with the instruments of their various
   trades, started from their shops and flung themselves upon the
   enemy. … The French were driven successively from the
   streets and ramparts. … The duke of Anjou saved himself by
   flight, and reached Termonde. His loss in this base enterprise
   [known as the French Fury] amounted to 1,500; while that of
   the citizens did not exceed 80 men. The attempts
   simultaneously made on the other towns succeeded at Dunkirk
   and Termonde; but all the others failed. The character of the
   Prince of Orange never appeared so thoroughly great as at this
   crisis. With wisdom and magnanimity rarely equalled and never
   surpassed, he threw himself and his authority between the
   indignation of the country and the guilt of Anjou; saving the
   former from excess and the latter from execration. The
   disgraced and discomfited duke proffered to the states excuses
   as mean as they were hypocritical. … A new treaty was
   negotiated, confirming Anjou in his former station, with
   renewed security against any future treachery on his part. He
   in the mean time retired to France," where he died, June 10,
   1584. Exactly one month afterwards (July 10), Prince William
   was murdered, in his house, at Delft, by Balthazar Gerard, one
   of the many assassins whom Philip II. and Parma had so
   persistently sent against him. He was shot as he placed his
   foot upon the first step of the great stair in his house,
   after dining in a lower apartment, and he died in a few
   moments.

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
      chapters 26, 29, 31-32 (volume 5-6)._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
   Limits of the United Provinces and the Spanish Provinces.
   The Republican constitution of the United Provinces,
   and the organization of their government.
   Disgraceful surrender of Ghent.
   Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spanish king.

   At the time of the assassination of the Prince of Orange, "the
   limit of the Spanish or 'obedient' Provinces, on the one hand,
   and of the United Provinces on the other, cannot … be
   briefly and distinctly stated. The memorable treason—or, as
   it was called, the 'reconciliation' of the Walloon Provinces
   in the year 1583-4—had placed the Provinces of Hainault,
   Arthois, Douay, with the flourishing cities, Arras,
   Valenciennes, Lille, Tournay, and others—all Celtic
   Flanders, in short—in the grasp of Spain. Cambray was still
   held by the French governor, Seigneur de Balagny, who had
   taken advantage of the Duke of Anjou's treachery to the
   States, to establish himself in an unrecognized but practical
   petty sovereignty, in defiance both of France and Spain; while
   East Flanders and South Brabant still remained a disputed
   territory, and the immediate field of contest. With these
   limitations, it may be assumed, for general purposes, that the
   territory of the United States was that of the modern Kingdom
   of the Netherlands, while the obedient Provinces occupied what
   is now the territory of Belgium. …
{2271}
   What now was the political position of the United Provinces at
   this juncture? The sovereignty which had been held by the
   Estates, ready to be conferred respectively upon Anjou and
   Orange, remained in the hands of the Estates. There was no
   opposition to this theory. … The people, as such, claimed no
   sovereignty. … What were the Estates? … The great
   characteristic of the Netherland government was the
   municipality. Each Province contained a large number of
   cities, which were governed by a board of magistrates, varying
   in number from 20 to 40. This college, called the Vroedschap
   (Assembly of Sages), consisted of the most notable citizens,
   and was a self-electing body—a close corporation—the members
   being appointed for life, from the citizens at large. Whenever
   vacancies occurred from death or loss of citizenship, the
   college chose new members—sometimes immediately, sometimes by
   means of a double or triple selection of names, the choice of
   one from among which was offered to the stadtholder [governor,
   or sovereign's deputy] of the province. This functionary was
   appointed by the Count, as he was called, whether Duke of
   Bavaria or of Burgundy, Emperor, or King. After the abjuration
   of Philip [1581], the governors were appointed by the Estates
   of each Province. The Sage-Men chose annually a board of
   senators, or schepens, whose functions were mainly judicial;
   and there were generally two, and sometimes three,
   burgomasters, appointed in the same way. This was the popular
   branch of the Estates. But, besides this body of
   representatives, were the nobles, men of ancient lineage and
   large possessions, who had exercised, according to the general
   feudal law of Europe, high, low, and intermediate jurisdiction
   upon their estates, and had long been recognized as an
   integral part of the body politic, having the right to appear,
   through delegates of their order, in the provincial and in the
   general assemblies. Regarded as a machine for bringing the
   most decided political capacities into the administration of
   public affairs, and for organizing the most practical
   opposition to the system of religious tyranny, the Netherland
   constitution was a healthy, and, for the age, an enlightened
   one. … Thus constituted was the commonwealth upon the death
   of William the Silent. The gloom produced by that event was
   tragical. Never in human history was a more poignant and
   universal sorrow for the death of any individual. The despair
   was, for a brief season, absolute; but it was soon succeeded
   by more lofty sentiments. … Even on the very day of the
   murder, the Estates of Holland, then sitting at Delft, passed
   a resolution 'to maintain the good cause, with God's help, to
   the uttermost, without sparing gold or blood.' … The next
   movement, after the last solemn obsequies had been rendered to
   the Prince, was to provide for the immediate wants of his
   family. For the man who had gone into the revolt with almost
   royal revenues, left his estate so embarrassed that his
   carpets, tapestries, household linen—nay, even his silver
   spoons, and the very clothes of his wardrobe—were disposed of
   at auction for the benefit of his creditors. He left eleven
   children—a son and daughter by the first wife, a son and
   daughter by Anna of Saxony, six daughters by Charlotte of
   Bourbon, and an infant, Frederic Henry, born six months before
   his death. The eldest son, Philip William, had been a captive
   in Spain for seventeen years, having been kidnapped from
   school, in Leyden, in the year 1567. He had already become …
   thoroughly Hispaniolized under the masterly treatment of the
   King and the Jesuits. … The next son was Maurice, then 17
   years of age. … Grandson of Maurice of Saxony, whom he
   resembled in visage and character, he was summoned by every
   drop of blood in his veins to do life-long battle with the
   spirit of Spanish absolutism, and he was already girding
   himself for his life's work. … Very soon afterwards the
   States General established a State Council, as a provisional
   executive board, for the term of three months, for the
   Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, and such
   parts of Flanders and Brabant as still remained in the Union.
   At the head of this body was placed young Maurice, who
   accepted the responsible position, after three days'
   deliberation. … The Council consisted of three members from
   Brabant, two from Flanders, four from Holland, three from
   Zeeland, two from Utrecht, one from Mechlin, and three from
   Friesland—eighteen in all. They were empowered and enjoined
   to levy troops by land and sea, and to appoint naval and
   military officers; to establish courts of admiralty, to expend
   the moneys voted by the States, to maintain the ancient
   privileges of the country, and to see that all troops in
   service of the Provinces made oath of fidelity to the Union.
   Diplomatic relations, questions of peace and war, the
   treaty-making power, were not entrusted to the Council,
   without the knowledge and consent of the States General, which
   body was to be convoked twice a year by the State Council. …
   Alexander of Parma … was swift to take advantage of the
   calamity which had now befallen the rebellious Provinces. …
   In Holland and Zeeland the Prince's blandishments were of no
   avail. … In Flanders and Brabant the spirit was less noble.
   Those provinces were nearly lost already. Bruges [which had
   made terms with the King early in 1584] seconded Parma's
   efforts to induce its sister-city Ghent to imitate its own
   baseness in surrendering without a struggle; and that
   powerful, turbulent, but most anarchical little commonwealth
   was but too ready to listen to the voice of the tempter. …
   Upon the 17th August [1584] Dendermonde surrendered. … Upon
   the 7th September Vilvoorde capitulated, by which event the
   water-communication between Brussels and Antwerp was cut off,
   Ghent, now thoroughly disheartened, treated with Parma
   likewise; and upon the 17th September made its reconciliation
   with the King. The surrender of so strong and important a
   place was as disastrous to the cause of the patriots as it was
   disgraceful to the citizens themselves. It was, however, the
   result of an intrigue which had been long spinning. … The
   noble city of Ghent—then as large as Paris, thoroughly
   surrounded with moats, and fortified with bulwarks, ravelins,
   and counterscarps, constructed of earth, during the previous
   two years, at great expense, and provided with bread and meat,
   powder and shot, enough to last a year—was ignominiously
   surrendered. The population, already a very reduced and
   slender one for the great extent of the place and its former
   importance, had been estimated at 70,000.
{2272}
   The number of houses was 35,000, so that, as the inhabitants
   were soon farther reduced to one-half, there remained but one
   individual to each house. On the other hand, the 25
   monasteries and convents in the town were repeopled. … The
   fall of Brussels was deferred till March, and that of Mechlin
   (19th July, 1585), and of Antwerp [see below] (19th August,
   1585), till Midsummer of the following year; but the surrender
   of Ghent foreshadowed the fate of Flanders and Brabant. Ostend
   and Sluys, however, were still in the hands of the patriots,
   and with them the control of the whole Flemish coast. The
   command of the sea was destined to remain for centuries with
   the new republic."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
   The Siege and surrender of Antwerp.
   Decay of the city.

   "After the fall of Ghent, Farnese applied himself earnestly to
   the siege of Antwerp, one of the most memorable recorded in
   history. The citizens were animated in their defence by the
   valour and talent of Ste Aldegonde. It would be impossible to
   detail with minuteness in this general history the various
   contrivances resorted to on either side for the attack and the
   defence; and we must therefore content ourselves with briefly
   adverting to that stupendous monument of Farnese's military
   genius, the bridge which he carried across the Scheldt, below
   Antwerp, in order to cut off the communication of the city
   with the sea and the maritime provinces. From the depth and
   wideness of the river, the difficulty of finding the requisite
   materials, and of transporting them to the place selected in
   the face of an enemy that was superior on the water, the
   project was loudly denounced by Farnese's officers as
   visionary and impracticable; yet in spite of all these
   discouragements and difficulties, as the place seemed
   unapproachable in the usual way, he steadily persevered, and
   at last succeeded in an undertaking which, had he failed,
   would have covered him with perpetual ridicule. The spot fixed
   upon for the bridge was between Ordam and Kalloo, where the
   river is both shallower and narrower than at other parts. The
   bridge consisted of piles driven into the water to such
   distance as its depth would allow; which was 200 feet on the
   Flanders side and 900 feet on that of Brabant. The interval
   between the piles, which was 12 feet broad, was covered with
   planking; but at the extremities towards the centre of the
   river the breadth was extended to 40 feet, thus forming two
   forts, or platforms, mounted with cannon. There was still,
   however, an interstice in the middle of between 1,000 and
   1,100 feet, through which the ships of the enemy, favoured by
   the wind and tide, or by the night, could manage to pass
   without any considerable loss, and which it therefore became
   necessary to fill up. This was accomplished by mooring across
   it the hulls of 32 vessels, at intervals of about 20 feet
   apart, and connecting them together with planks. Each vessel
   was planted with artillery and garrisoned by about 30 men;
   while the bridge was protected by a flota of vessels moored on
   each side, above and below, at a distance of about 200 feet.
   During the construction of the bridge, which lasted half a
   year, the citizens of Antwerp viewed with dismay the progress
   of a work that was not only to deprive them of their maritime
   commerce, but also of the supplies necessary for their
   subsistence and defence. At length they adopted a plan
   suggested by Gianbelli, an Italian engineer, and resolved to
   destroy the bridge by means of fire-ships, which seem to have
   been first used on this occasion. Several such vessels were
   sent down the river with a favourable tide and wind, of which
   two were charged with 6,000 or 7,000 lbs. of gunpowder each,
   packed in solid masonry, with various destructive missiles.
   One of these vessels went ashore before reaching its
   destination; the other arrived at the bridge and exploded with
   terrible effect. Curiosity to behold so novel a spectacle had
   attracted vast numbers of the Spaniards, who lined the shores
   as well as the bridge. Of these 800 were killed by the
   explosion, and by the implements of destruction discharged
   with the powder; a still greater number were maimed and
   wounded, and the bridge itself was considerably damaged.
   Farnese himself was thrown to the earth and lay for a time
   insensible. The besieged, however, did not follow up their
   plan with vigour. They allowed Farnese time to repair the
   damage, and the Spaniards, being now on the alert, either
   diverted the course of the fire-ships that were subsequently
   sent against them, or suffered them to pass the bridge through
   openings made for the purpose. In spite of the bridge,
   however, the beleaguered citizens might still have secured a
   transit down the river by breaking through the dykes between
   Antwerp and Lillo, and sailing over the plains thus laid under
   water, for which purpose it was necessary to obtain possession
   of the counter-dyke of Kowenstyn; but after a partial success,
   too quickly abandoned by Hohenlohe and Ste Aldegonde, they
   were defeated in a bloody battle which they fought upon the
   dyke. Antwerp was now obliged to capitulate; and as Farnese
   was anxious to put an end to so long a siege, it obtained more
   favourable terms than could have been anticipated (August 17th
   1585). The prosperity of this great commercial city received,
   however, a severe blow from its capture by the Spaniards. A
   great number of the citizens, as well as of the inhabitants of
   Brabant and Flanders, removed to Amsterdam and Middelburg."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

   The downfall of the prosperity of the great capital "was
   instantaneous. The merchants and industrious citizens all
   wandered away from the place which had been the seat of a
   world-wide traffic. Civilization and commerce departed, and in
   their stead were the citadel and the Jesuits."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Schiller,
      Siege of Antwerp._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
   Proffered sovereignty of the United Provinces
   declined by France and England.
   Delusive English succors.
   The queen's treachery and Leicester's incompetency.
   Useless battle at Zutphen.

   "It was natural that so small a State, wasted by its
   protracted struggles, should desire, more earnestly than ever,
   an alliance with some stronger power; and it was from among
   States supposed to have sympathies with Protestants, that such
   an alliance was sought. From the Protestant countries of
   Germany there was no promise of help; and the eyes of the
   Dutch diplomatists were therefore turned towards France and
   England. In France, the Huguenots, having recovered from St.
   Bartholomew, now enjoyed toleration; and were a rising and
   hopeful party, under the patronage of Henry of Navarre.
{2273}
   If the king of France would protect Holland from Philip, and
   extend to its people the same toleration which he allowed his
   own subjects, Holland offered him the sovereignty of the
   united provinces. This tempting offer was declined: for a new
   policy was now to be declared, which united France and Spain
   in a bigoted crusade against the Protestant faith. The League,
   under the Duke de Guise, gained a fatal ascendency over the
   weak and frivolous king, Henry III., and held dominion in
   France. … Nor was the baneful influence of the League
   confined to France: it formed a close alliance with Philip and
   the Pope, with whom it was plotting the overthrow of
   Protestant England, the subjection of the revolted provinces
   of Spain, and the general extirpation of heresy throughout
   Europe. … The only hope of the Netherlands was now in
   England, which was threatened by a common danger; and envoys
   were sent to Elizabeth with offers of the sovereignty, which
   had been declined by France. So little did the Dutch statesmen
   as yet contemplate a republic, that they offered their country
   to any sovereign, in return for protection. Had bolder
   counsels prevailed, Elizabeth might, at once, have saved the
   Netherlands, and placed herself at the head of the Protestants
   of Europe. She saw her own danger, if Philip should recover
   the provinces: but she held her purse-strings with the grasp
   of a miser: she dreaded an open rupture with Spain; and she
   was unwilling to provoke her own Catholic subjects. Sympathy
   with the Protestant cause, she had none. … She desired to
   afford as much assistance as would protect her own realm
   against Philip, at the least possible cost, without
   precipitating a war with Spain. She agreed to send men and
   money: but required Flushing, Brill, and Rammekens to be held
   as a security for her loans. She refused the sovereignty of
   the States: but she despatched troops to the Netherlands, and
   sent her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, to command them. As
   she had taken the rebellious subjects of Spain under her
   protection, Philip retaliated by the seizure of British ships.
   Spanish vengeance was not averted, while the Netherlands
   profited little by her aid."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

   Leicester sailed for the Hague in the middle of December,
   1585, having been preceded by 8,000 English troops, eager to
   prevent or revenge the fall of Antwerp. "Had there been good
   faith and resolution, and had Lord Grey, or Sir Richard
   Bingham, or Sir John Norris been in command, 20,000 Dutch and
   English troops might have taken the field in perfect
   condition. The States would have spent their last dollar to
   find them in everything which soldiers could need. They would
   have had at their backs the enthusiastic sympathy of the
   population, while the enemy was as universally abhorred; and
   Parma, exhausted by his efforts in the great siege, with his
   chest empty, and his ranks thinned almost to extinction, could
   not have encountered them with a third of their numbers. A
   lost battle would have been followed by a renewed revolt of
   the reconciled Provinces, and Elizabeth, if she found peace so
   necessary to her, might have dictated her own conditions." But
   months passed and nothing was done, while Queen Elizabeth was
   treacherously negotiating with agents of Spain. In the summer
   of 1586, "half and more than half of the brave men who had
   come over in the past September were dead. Their places were
   taken by new levies gathered in haste upon the highways, or by
   mutinous regiments of Irish kernes, confessed Catholics, and
   led by a man [Sir William Stanley] who was only watching an
   opportunity to betray his sovereign. … Gone was now the
   enthusiasm which had welcomed the landing of Leicester. In the
   place of it was suspicion and misgiving, distracted councils,
   and divided purposes. Elizabeth while she was diplomatising
   held her army idle. Parma, short-handed as he was, treated
   with his hand upon his sword, and was for ever carving slice
   on slice from the receding frontiers of the States. At the
   time of Leicester's installation he was acting on the Meuse.
   He held the river as far as Venloo. Venloo and Grave were in
   the hands of the patriots, both of them strong fortresses, the
   latter especially. … After the fall of Antwerp these two
   towns were Parma's next object. The siege of Grave was formed
   in January. In April Colonel Norris and Count Hohenlohe forced
   the Spanish lines and threw in supplies; but Elizabeth's
   orders prevented further effort. Parma came before the town in
   person in June, and after a bombardment which produced little
   or no effect, Grave, to the surprise of everyone, surrendered.
   Count Hemart, the governor, was said to have been corrupted,
   by his mistress. Leicester hanged him; but Hemart's gallows
   did not recover Grave or save Venloo, which surrendered also
   three weeks later. The Earl, conscious of the disgrace, yet
   seeing no way to mend it, … was willing at last to play into
   his mistress's hands. He understood her [Queen Elizabeth] at
   last, and saw what she was aiming at. 'As the cause is now
   followed,' he wrote to her on the 27th of June, 'it is not
   worth the cost or the danger. … They [the Netherlanders]
   would rather have lived with bread and drink under your
   Majesty's protection than with all their possessions under the
   King of Spain. It has almost broken their hearts to think your
   Majesty should not care any more for them. But if you mean
   soon to leave them they will be gone almost before you hear of
   it. I will do my best, therefore, to get into my hands three
   or four most principal places in North Holland, so as you
   shall rule these men, and make war and peace as you list. Part
   not with Brill for anything. With these places you can have
   what peace you will in an hour, and have your debts and
   charges readily answered. But your Majesty must deal
   graciously with them at present, and if you mean to leave them
   keep it to yourself.' … No palliation can be suggested, of
   the intentions to which Leicester saw that she was still
   clinging, and which he was willing to further in spite of his
   oath to be loyal to the States. … The incapacity of
   Leicester … was growing evident. He had been used as a lay
   figure to dazzle the eyes of the Provinces, while both he and
   they were mocked by the secret treaty. The treaty was hanging
   fire. … The Queen had … so far opened her eyes as to see
   that she was not improving her position by keeping her army
   idle; and Leicester, that he might not part with his
   government in entire disgrace, having done absolutely nothing,
   took the field for a short campaign in the middle of August
   [1586].
{2274}
   Parma had established himself in Gelderland, at Zutphen, and
   Duesberg. The States held Deventer, further down the Issel;
   but Deventer would probably fall as Grave and Venloo had
   fallen if the Spaniards kept their hold upon the river;
   Leicester therefore proposed to attempt to recover Zutphen.
   Everyone was delighted to be moving. … The Earl of Essex,
   Sir William Russell, Lord Willoughby, and others who held no
   special commands, attached themselves to Leicester's staff;
   Sir Philip Sidney obtained leave of absence from Flushing; Sir
   John Norris and his brother brought the English contingent of
   the States army; Sir William Stanley had arrived with his
   Irishmen; and with these cavaliers glittering about him, and
   9,000 men, Leicester entered Gelderland. Duesberg surrendered
   to him without a blow; Norris surprised a fort outside
   Zutphen, which commanded the river and straitened the
   communications of the town." Parma made an attempt, on the
   morning of September 22, to throw supplies into the town, and
   Leicester's knights and gentlemen, forewarned of this project
   by a spy, "Volunteered for an ambuscade to cut off the convoy.
   … Parma brought with him every man that he could spare, and
   the ambuscade party were preparing unconsciously to encounter
   4,000 of the best troops in the world. They were in all about
   500. … The morning was misty. The waggons were heard coming,
   but nothing could be seen till a party of horse appeared at
   the head of the train where the ambuscade was lying. Down
   charged the 500, much as in these late years 600 English
   lancers charged elsewhere, as magnificently and as uselessly.
   … Never had been a more brilliant action seen or heard of,
   never one more absurd and profitless. For the ranks of the
   Spanish infantry were unbroken, the English could not touch
   them, could not even approach them, and behind the line of
   their muskets the waggons passed steadily to the town. … A
   few, not many, had been killed; but among those whose lives
   had been flung away so wildly was Philip Sidney. He was struck
   by a musket ball on his exposed thigh, as he was returning
   from his last charge," and died a few weeks later. "Parma
   immediately afterwards entered Zutphen unmolested. …
   Leicester's presence was found necessary in England. With the
   natural sympathy of one worthless person for another, he had
   taken a fancy to Stanley, and chose to give him an independent
   command; and leaving the government to the Council of the
   States, and the army again without a chief, he sailed in
   November for London."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England: The Reign of Elizabeth,
      chapter 33 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Correspondence of Leicester during his
      Government of the Low Countries
      (Camden Society 27)._

      _W. Gray,
      Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney,
      chapter 10._

      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      chapters 7-8._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
   The ruin of the Spanish Provinces.
   Great prosperity of the United Provinces.
   Siege and capture of Sluys.
   The last of Leicester.

   "Though the United Provinces were distracted by domestic
   dissensions and enfeebled by mutual distrust, their condition,
   compared with that portion of the Netherlands reduced under
   the yoke of Spain, was such as to afford matter of deep
   gratulation and thankfulness. The miseries of war had visited
   the latter unhappy country in the fullest measure; multitudes
   of its inhabitants had fled in despair; and the sword, famine,
   and pestilence, vied with each other in destroying the
   remainder. … The rich and smiling pastures, once the
   admiration and envy of the less favoured countries of Europe,
   were now no more; woods, roads, and fields, were confounded in
   one tangled mass of copse and brier. In the formerly busy and
   wealthy towns of Flanders and Brabant, Ghent, Antwerp, and
   Bruges, members of noble families were seen to creep from
   their wretched abodes in the darkness of night to beg their
   bread, or to search the streets for bones and offal. A
   striking and cheering contrast is the picture presented by the
   United Provinces. The crops had, indeed, failed there also,
   but the entire command of the sea which they preserved, and
   the free importation of corn, secured plentiful supplies. …
   They continued to carry on, under Spanish colours, a lucrative
   half-smuggling traffic, which the government of that nation
   found it its interest to connive at and encourage. The war,
   therefore, instead of being, as usual, an hindrance to
   commerce, rather gave it a new stimulus; the ports were
   crowded with vessels. … Holland and Zealand had now for more
   than ten years been delivered from the enemy. … The security
   they thus offered, combined with the freedom of religion, and
   the activity of trade and commerce, drew vast multitudes to
   their shores; the merchants and artisans expelled, on account
   of their religion, from the Spanish Netherlands, transferred
   thither the advantages of their enterprise and skill. … The
   population of the towns became so overflowing that it was
   found impossible to build houses fast enough to contain it.
   … The miserable condition of the Spanish Netherlands, and
   the difficulty of finding supplies for his troops, caused the
   Duke of Parma to delay taking the field until late in the
   summer [1587]; when, making a feint attack upon Ostend, he
   afterwards … commenced a vigorous siege of Sluys. In order
   to draw him off from this undertaking, Maurice, with the Count
   of Hohenlohe, marched towards Bois-le-Duc. … The danger of
   Sluys hastened the return of the Earl of Leicester to the
   Netherlands, who arrived in Ostend with 7,000 foot and 500
   horse. … Sluys had been besieged seven weeks, and the
   garrison was reduced from 1,600 men to scarcely half that
   number, when Leicester made an attempt to master the fort of
   Blankenburg, in the neighbourhood of the enemy's camp; but on
   intelligence that Parma was approaching to give him battle, he
   hastily retreated to Ostend," and Sluys was surrendered. "The
   loss of Sluys exasperated the dissensions between Leicester
   and the States into undisguised and irreconcilable hostility."
   He was soon afterwards recalled to England, and early in the
   following year the queen required him to resign his command
   and governorship in the Netherlands. In the meantime, the
   English queen had reopened negotiations with Parma, who
   occupied her attention while his master, Philip II. of Spain,
   was preparing the formidable Armada which he launched against
   England the next year

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapters 2-3 (volume 2)._

{2275}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
   Successes of Prince Maurice.
   Departure of Parma to France.
   His death.
   Appointment of Archduke Albert to the Government.

   "The destruction of the great Spanish Armada by the English in
   1588 infused new hopes into all the enemies of Spain, and
   animated the Dutch with such courage, that Maurice led his
   army against that of the Duke of Parma, and forced him to
   raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, at that time garrisoned by
   a portion of Leicester's army under the command of Sir Francis
   Vere. … The young Stadtholder was induced by this success to
   surprise the Castle of Blyenbeck, which was yielded to his
   arms in 1589; and the following year [March 1] he got
   possession of Breda by a 'ruse de guerre,'"—having introduced
   70 men into the town by concealing them in a boat laden with
   turf. "The Duke of Parma was now recalled from the Low
   Countries into France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1590], and the old
   Peter Ernest, Count de Mansfeld, succeeded to the government
   of the Low Countries. … Maurice defeated the Spanish army in
   the open field at Caervorden, and took Nimeguen [October 21,
   1591] and Zutphen [May 30, 1591; also, Deventer, June 10, of
   the same year]. … These successes added greatly to the
   reputation of Count Maurice, who now made considerable
   progress, so that in the year 1591 the Dutch saw their
   frontiers extended, and had well-grounded hopes of driving the
   Spaniards out of Friesland in another campaign. … The death
   of the Prince of Parma [which occurred December 3, 1592]
   delivered the Confederates from a formidable adversary; but
   old Count Mansfeld, at the head of an army of 30,000 men, took
   the field against them. Maurice, however, in 1593,
   notwithstanding this covering force, sat down before
   Gertruydenberg, advantageously situated on the frontier of
   Brabant." The siege was regarded as a masterpiece of the
   military art of the day, and the city was brought to surrender
   at the end of three months. "With the useful aid of Sir
   Francis Vere and the English, Maurice afterwards took
   Gronenburg and Grave, which formed part of his own patrimony.
   The Duke of Parma was succeeded in the government of the
   Netherlands by the Archduke Albert, a younger son of the
   Emperor Maximilian, who was married to Isabella, daughter of
   King Philip."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
      Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
      pages 25-28._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      part 1, chapters 10-15._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1597.
   Spanish operations in Northern France.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
   Steady decline of Spanish power.
   Sovereignty of the provinces made over to the Infanta
   Isabella and the Archduke, her husband.
   Death of Philip II.
   Negotiations for peace.
   A twelve years' truce agreed upon.
   Acknowledgment of the independence of the republic.

   "Philip's French enterprise had failed. The dashing and
   unscrupulous Henry of Navarre had won his crown, by conforming
   to the Catholic faith. …

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

   Great was the shock given by his politic apostacy to the
   religious sentiments of Europe: but it was fatal to the
   ambition of Philip; and again the Netherlands could count upon
   the friendship of a king of France. Their own needs were
   great: but the gallant little republic still found means to
   assist the Protestant champion against their common enemy, the
   king of Spain. In the Netherlands the Spanish power was
   declining. The feeble successors of Parma were no match for
   Maurice of Nassau and the republican leaders: the Spanish
   troops were starving and mutinous: the provinces under Spanish
   rule were reduced to wretchedness and beggary. Cities and
   fortresses fell, one after another, into the hands of the
   stadtholder. The Dutch fleet joined that of England in a raid
   upon Spain itself, captured and sacked Cadiz [see SPAIN: A. D.
   1596], raised the flag of the republic on the battlements of
   that famous city; and left the Spanish fleet burning in the
   harbour. Other events followed, deeply affecting the fortunes
   of the republic. Philip at length made peace with Henry of
   Navarre, and was again free to coerce his revolted provinces.
   But his accursed rule was drawing to a close. In 1598 he made
   over the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Infanta
   Isabella and her affianced husband, the Archduke Albert, who
   had cast aside his cardinal's hat, his archbishopric, and his
   priestly vows of celibacy, for a consort so endowed. Philip
   had ceased to reign in the Netherlands; and a few months
   afterwards [September 13, 1598] he closed his evil life, in
   the odour of sanctity. … The tyrant was dead: the little
   republic, which he had scourged so cruelly, was living and
   prosperous. … Far different was the lot of the ill-fated
   provinces still in the grasp of the tyrant. The land lay waste
   and desolate: its inhabitants had tied to England or Holland,
   or were reduced to want and beggary. … That the republic
   should have outlived its chief oppressor was an event of happy
   augury: but years of trial and danger were still to be passed
   through. The victory of Nieuport [gained July 2, 1600, by an
   army of Dutch and English over the superior forces of the
   Archduke Albert] raised Prince Maurice's fame, as a soldier,
   to its highest point; and the gallant defence of Ostend, for
   upwards of three years [against a siege, conducted by the
   Spanish general Spinola, to which its garrison finally
   succumbed in 1604, when the town was a heap of ruins, and
   after 100,000 men are said to have been sacrificed on both
   sides] … proved that the courage and endurance of his
   soldiers had not declined during the protracted war [while
   Sluys was taken by the Prince the same year]. At sea the Dutch
   fleets won new victories over the Spaniards and Portuguese;
   and privateers made constant ravages upon the enemy's
   commerce. But there were also failures and reverses, on the
   side of the republic, dissensions among its leaders, and
   anxieties concerning the attitude of foreign States. And thus,
   with varied fortunes, this momentous war had now continued for
   upwards of forty years. … On both sides there was a desire
   for peace. The Dutch would accept nothing short of
   unconditional independence: the Spaniards almost despaired of
   reducing them to subjection, while they dreaded more
   republican victories at sea, and the extension of Dutch
   maritime enterprise in the East. Overtures for peace were
   first made cautiously and secretly by the archdukes ['this was
   the title of the archduke and archduchess'], and received by
   the States with grave distrust. Jealous and haughty was the
   bearing of the republic, in the negotiations which ensued. The
   states-general, in full session, represented Holland, and
   received the Spanish envoys. The independence of the States
   was accepted, on both sides, as the basis of any treaty: but,
   as a preliminary to the negotiations, the republic insisted
   upon its formal recognition, as a free and equal State, in
   words dictated by itself. …
{2276}
   At length an armistice was signed, in order to arrange the
   terms of a treaty of peace. It was a welcome breathing time:
   but peace was still beset with difficulties and obstacles. The
   Spaniards were insincere: they could not bring themselves to
   treat seriously, and in good faith, with heretics and rebels:
   they desired the re-establishment of the Church of Rome; and
   they claimed the exclusive right of trading with the East and
   West Indies. The councils of the republic were also divided.
   Barneveldt, the civilian, was bent upon peace: Prince Maurice,
   the soldier, was burning for the renewal of the war. But
   Barneveldt and the peace party prevailed, and negotiations
   were continued. Again and again, the armistice was renewed:
   but a treaty of peace seemed as remote as ever. At length
   [April 9, 1609], after infinite disputes, a truce for twelve
   years was agreed upon. In form it was a truce, and not a
   treaty of peace: but otherwise the republic gained every point
   upon which it had insisted. Its freedom and independence were
   unconditionally recognised: it accepted no conditions
   concerning religion: it made no concessions in regard to its
   trade with the Indies. The great battle for freedom was won:
   the republic was free: its troubles and perils were at an end.
   Its oppressors had been the first to sue for peace: their
   commissioners had treated with the states-general at the
   Hague; and they had yielded every point for which they had
   been waging war for nearly half a century."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapters 3-4 (volume 2)._

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapters 30-52 (volumes 3-4)._

      _Douglas Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland England, and America,
      chapter 18 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
   Rise and growth of Eastern trade.
   Formation of the Dutch East India Company.

   "Previous to their assertion of national independence, the
   commerce of the Dutch did not extend beyond the confines of
   Europe. But new regions of traffic were now to open to their
   dauntless enterprise. It was in 1594 that Cornelius Houtman,
   the son of It brewer at Gouda, returned from Lisbon, where,
   having passed the preceding year, he had seen the gorgeous
   produce of the East piled on the quays of the Tagus. His
   descriptions fired the emulation of his friends at Amsterdam,
   nine of whom agreed to join stock and equip a little flotilla
   for a voyage round the Cape of Good Hope; Houtman undertook
   the command, and thus the marvellous commerce of the Dutch in
   India began. The influence which their trade with India and
   their settlements there exerted in maturing and extending the
   greatness of the Dutch, has often been overrated. It was a
   source, indeed, of infinite pride, and for a time of rapid and
   glittering profit; but it was attended with serious drawbacks,
   both of national expenditure and national danger. … From the
   outset they were forced to go armed. The four ships that
   sailed on the first voyage of speculation from Amsterdam, in
   1595, were fitted out for either war or merchandise. They were
   about to sail into hitherto interdicted waters; they knew that
   the Portuguese were already established in the Spice Islands,
   whither they were bound; and Portugal was then a dependency of
   Spain. On their arrival at Java, they had, consequently, to
   encounter open hostility both from Europeans and the natives
   whom the former influenced against them. At Bali, however,
   they were better received; and, in 1597, they reached home
   with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. It was a proud
   and joyous day in Amsterdam when their return was known. …
   From various ports of Zealand and Holland 80 vessels sailed
   the following year to America, Africa, and India. Vainly the
   Portuguese colonists laboured to convince the native princes
   of the East that the Dutch were a mere horde of pirates with
   whom no dealings were safe. Their businesslike and punctilious
   demeanour, and probably, likewise, the judiciously selected
   cargoes with which they freighted their ships outwards,
   whereby they were enabled to offer better terms for the silk,
   indigo, and spice they wished to buy, rapidly disarmed the
   suspicion of several of the chiefs. … In 1602 the celebrated
   East India Company was formed under charter granted by the
   States-General,—the original capital being 6,000,000
   guilders, subscribed by the merchants of Delft, Rotterdam,
   Hoorn, Enkhuysen, Middleberg, but above all Amsterdam. They
   established factories at many places, both on the continent of
   India and in the islands; but their chief depot was fixed at
   Bantam," until, dissatisfied with certain taxes imposed on
   them by the lord of Bantam, they looked elsewhere for a
   station. "The sovereign of Java gladly offered them a
   settlement not above 100 miles distant, with full permission
   to erect such buildings as they chose, and an engagement that
   pepper (the chief spice thence exported) should be sent out of
   his dominions toll-free. These terms were accepted. Jocatra, a
   situation very propitious for traffic, was chosen as the site
   of their future factory. Warehouses of stone and mortar
   quickly rose; and dwellings, to the number of 1,000, were in a
   short time added. All nations had leave to settle and trade
   within its walls; and this was the origin of Batavia. In six
   years the Company sent out 46 vessels, of which 43 returned in
   due course laden with rich cargoes. … By the books of the
   Company it appeared that, during the next eleven years, they
   maintained 30 ships in the Eastern trade, manned by 5,000
   seamen. … Two hundred per cent. was divided by the
   proprietors of the Company's stock on their paid-up capital in
   sixteen years. … But of all the proud results of their
   Indian commerce, that which naturally afforded to the Dutch
   the keenest sense of exultation, was the opportunity it
   afforded them of thoroughly undermining the once exclusive
   trade of Spain, not with foreign nations merely, but with her
   own colonies, and even at home. The infatuated policy of her
   government had prepared the way for her decline. … In the
   space of a few years the Dutch had taken and rifled 11 Spanish
   galleons, 'carkets and other huge ships, and made about 40 of
   them unserviceable.' So crippled was their colonial trade
   that, even for their own use, the Spaniards were obliged to
   buy nutmegs, cloves, and mace, from their hated rivals."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. McPherson,
      Annals of Commerce,
      volume 2, pages 206-296._

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      part 3, chapters 3-4._

{2277}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
   Calvinistic persecution of Arminianism.
   The hunting down of John of Barneveldt by Prince Maurice.
   Synod of Dort.

   Calvin's doctrine of predestination was strongly expressed in
   what was called the Heidelberg Catechism. "A synod of the
   pastors of Holland had decreed that this must be signed by all
   their preachers, and be to them what the Thirty-nine Articles
   are to the English Church and the Confession of Augsburg to
   the Lutherans. Many preachers hesitated to pledge themselves
   to doctrines that they did not think Scriptural nor according
   to primitive faith, and still more, not accordant with the
   eternal mercy of God. Of these Jacob Hermann, a minister of
   Amsterdam, or as he Latinised his name, Arminius, was the
   foremost, and under his influence a number of clergy refused
   their signature. The University of Leyden in 1603 chose
   Arminius as their Professor of Theology. The opposite party,
   in great wrath, insisted on holding a synod, and the
   States-General gave permission, but at first only on condition
   that there should be a revision of the confession of faith and
   catechism. The ministers refused, but the States-General
   insisted, led by John Barneveldt, then Advocate and Keeper of
   the Seals, who declared in their name that as 'foster fathers
   and protectors of the churches to them every right belonged.'
   It was an Erastian sentiment, but this opinion was held by all
   reformed governments, including the English, and Barneveldt
   spoke in the hope of mitigating Calvinistic violence. The
   Advocate of the States-General was in fact their mouthpiece.
   They might vote, but no one expressed their decisions at home
   or abroad save the Advocate; and Barneveldt, both from
   position and character, was thus the chief manager of civil
   affairs, and an equal if not a superior power to Maurice of
   Nassau, the Stadtholder and commander-in-chief, and recently,
   by the death of his elder brother, Prince of Orange. The
   question had even been mooted of giving him the sovereignty,
   but to this Barneveldt was strongly averse. Maurice knew very
   little about the argument, and his real feelings were
   Arminian, though jealousy of Barneveldt made him favour the
   opposite party, whose chief champion was Jacob Gomer, or
   Gomerus as he called himself. King James, though really
   holding with the Arminians, disliked Barneveldt, and therefore
   threw all the weight of England into the scale against them.
   Arguments were held before Maurice and before the university,
   in which three champions on the one side were pitted against
   three on the other, but nothing came of them but a good deal
   of audacious profanity, till Arminius, in ministering to the
   sick during a visitation of the plague at Amsterdam, caught
   the disease and died. He was so much respected that the
   University of Leyden pensioned his widow. They chose a young
   Genevese, named Conrad Voorst or Vorstius, as his successor.
   Voorst had written two books, one on the nature of God,
   Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, and the other, Exegesis
   Apologetica, in which (by Fuller's account) there was a
   considerable amount of materialism, and likewise what amounted
   to a denial of the Divine Omniscience, being no doubt a
   reaction from extreme Calvinism. King James met with the book,
   and was horrified at its statements. He conceived himself
   bound to interfere both as protector to the States—which he
   said had been cemented with English blood—and because the
   University of Leyden was much frequented by the youth of
   England and Scotland, who often completed their legal studies
   there. He ordered Sir Ralf Winwood, his ambassador at the
   Hague, to deliver a sharp remonstrance to the States, and to
   read them a catalogue of the dangerous and blasphemous errors
   that he had detected, recommending the States to protest
   against the appointment, and burn the books. Barneveldt was
   much distressed, and uncertain whether James really was
   speaking out of zeal for orthodoxy, or to have an excuse for a
   quarrel. Letters and arguments passed without number. …
   Leyden supported the professor it had invited, and, together
   with Barneveldt, felt that to expel a man whom they had
   chosen, at the bidding of a foreign sovereign, was almost
   accepting a yoke like that of the Inquisition. … Maurice, on
   the other hand, was glad to set the English King against
   Barneveldt, and to represent that support of the foes of
   strict Calvinism meant treachery to the Republic and a
   betrayal to Spain. Winwood, on the King's part, insisted on
   Vorstius's dismissal and banishment. … Maurice's own
   preacher, Uytenbogen, wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the
   Arminians, who were therefore sometimes termed Remonstrants,
   while the Gomerists, from their answer, were called
   Counter-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, political jealousy of
   Barneveldt on the part of Maurice caused the influence of
   Uytenbogen to decline. Most of the preachers and of the
   populace held to the Counter-Remonstrants and their
   old-fashioned Calvinism, most of the nobles and magistrates
   were Remonstrants. The question began to branch into a second,
   namely, whether the state had power to control the faith of
   all its subjects, and whether when it convoked a synod it
   could control its decisions, or was bound to enforce them
   absolutely and without question. … Whichever party was
   predominant in a place turned the other out of church. Appeals
   were made to the Stadtholder, and he became angry. The
   States-General at large, with Barneveldt to speak for them,
   were Remonstrant; the states of Holland were
   Counter-Remonstrant; and one of the questions thus at issue
   was how far the power of the general government outweighed
   that of a particular state. … By steps here impossible to
   follow, Maurice destroyed the ascendency of Barneveldt, and
   the reports that the old statesman was playing into the hands
   of Spain grew more and more current. The magistrates of the
   Arminian persuasion found themselves depending for protection
   on the Waartgelders, a sort of burgher militia, who
   endeavoured to keep the peace between the furious mobs who
   struggled on either side. Accusations flew about freely that
   now Maurice, now Barneveldt wanted the sovereignty. England
   favoured the former; and after Henri IV. was dead, French
   support little availed the latter, but rather did him harm.
   Maurice did not scruple to raise the popular cry that there
   were two factions in Holland, for Orange or for Spain, though
   he must have known that there never had been a more steady foe
   of Spain than the old statesman. The public, however,
   preferred the general to the statesman, and bit by bit Maurice
   succeeded in exchanging Remonstrant magistrates for
   Counter-Remonstrant, or, as Barneveldt explained the matter to
   Sir Dudley Carleton, who had become ambassador from England,
   Puritan for double Puritan. … Sunday, the 17th of July,
   1617, Uytenbogen preached against the assembly of a national
   synod, knowing well that it would only confirm and narrow the
   cruel doctrine. Maurice, who was bent on the synod came out in
   a rage. …
{2278}
   Barneveldt on this moved the States-General to refuse their
   consent to the synod as inconsistent with their laws. This was
   carried by a majority, and was called the Sharp Resolve. …
   The High Council by a majority of one set aside the Sharp
   Resolve, and decided for the synod. Barneveldt had a severe
   illness, during which Maurice's influence made progress,
   assisted by detestable accusations that the Advocate was in
   league with the Spaniards. At last Maurice mastered Utrecht,
   hitherto the chief hold of Arminianism. He disbanded the
   Waartgelders, and when the States-General came together in the
   summer of 1618, he had all prepared for sweeping his
   adversaries from his path. On the 29th of August, as
   Barneveldt was going to take his place at the States-General,
   he was told by a chamberlain that the Prince wished to speak
   with him, and in Maurice's ante-room was arrested by a
   lieutenant of the guard and locked up. In exactly the same
   manner was arrested his friend and supporter Pensionary
   Rambolt Hoogenboets, who had protested against the decree by
   which the High Council reversed that of the States-General,
   and Hugo Van Groot, or, as he called himself, Hugo Grotius,
   one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, especially in
   jurisprudence, and a strong adherent of the Advocate. … The
   synod met at Dordrecht [or Dort] in January, 1619, and lasted
   till April. The Calvinists carried the day completely, and
   Arminians were declared heretics, schismatics, incapable of
   preaching, or of acting as professors or schoolmasters, unless
   they signed the Heidelberg Catechism and Netherland
   Confession, which laid down the hard-and-fast doctrine that
   predestination excluded all free will on man's part, but
   divided the human race into vessels of wrath and vessels of
   mercy, without power on their own part to reverse the doom.
   … The trial of Barneveldt was going on at the same time with
   the Synod of Dordrecht after he had been many months in
   prison. Twenty-four commissioners were appointed, twelve from
   Holland, and two from each of the other states, and most of
   them were personal enemies of the prisoner. Before them he was
   examined day by day for three months, without any indictment;
   no witnesses, no counsel on either side; nor was he permitted
   pen and ink to prepare his defence, nor the use of his books
   and papers." Barneveldt and his family protested against the
   flagrant injustice and illegality of the so-called trial, but
   refused to sue for pardon, which Maurice was determined they
   should do. "It was submission that he wanted, not life"; but
   as the submission was not yielded he coldly exacted the life.
   Barneveldt was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded by the
   sword. The sentence was executed on the same day it was
   pronounced, May 12, 1619. Grotius was condemned to perpetual
   imprisonment, but made his escape, by the contrivance of his
   wife, in 1621.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 6, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      Life and Death of John of Barneveld,
      chapters 14-22 (volume 2)._

      _J. Arminius,
      Works, etc.; edited by Nichols,
      volume 1._

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D.1608-1620.
   Residence of the exiled Independents who afterwards founded
   Plymouth Colony in New England.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
   The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
   Henry Hudson's voyage of exploration.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1610-1614.
   Possession taken of New Netherland (New York).

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1621.
   Incorporation of the Dutch West India Company.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
   End of the Twelve Years Truce.
   Renewal of war.
   Death of Prince Maurice.
   Reversion of the sovereignty of the Spanish Provinces to
   the king of Spain.

   "In 1621, the twelve years' truce being expired, the King of
   Spain and the Archdukes offered to renew it, on the condition
   that the States would acknowledge their ancient sovereigns,
   one of whom, the Archduke Albert, died this year. Even if the
   States had been inclined to negotiate, the will of Maurice was
   in the ascendant, and the war was renewed. The Dutch, it is
   true, were now entirely insulated. James of England was making
   overtures to Spain and being cajoled. France, who had wished
   to save Barneveldt, was unfriendly in consequence of the
   manner in which her intercession had been treated. The Dutch
   party which was opposed to Maurice was exasperated, and the
   great counsellor was no more there to advise his country in
   its emergencies. The safety of Holland lay in the fact that
   the wars of religion were being waged on a wider and more
   distant field, for a larger stake, and with larger armies. Not
   content with murdering Barneveldt, Maurice took care to ruin
   his family. But at last, and just before his death in 1625,
   Maurice, in the bitterness of disappointment, said, 'As long
   as the old rascal was alive, we had counsels and money; now we
   can find neither one nor the other.' … The memory of
   Barneveldt was avenged, even though his reputation has not
   been rehabilitated. Frederic Henry, half-brother of Maurice,
   was at once made Captain and Admiral-General of the States,
   and soon after Stadtholder. … Very speedily the controversy
   which had threatened to tear Holland asunder was silenced by
   mutual consent, except in synods and presbyteries. In a few
   years, Holland became, as far as the government was concerned,
   the most tolerant country in the world, the asylum of those
   whom bigotry hunted from their native land. Hence it became
   the favourite abode of those wealthy and enterprising Jews,
   who greatly increased its wealth by aiding its external and
   internal commerce."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      Story of Holland,
      chapter 26._

   "Marquis Spinola commenced the campaign by the siege of.
   Bergen-op-Zoom, with a considerable Spanish army, in 1622, but
   Maurice was enabled to meet him with the united forces of
   Mansfeld, Brunswick [see GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623], and his
   own, and obliged the Marquis to raise the siege. He afterwards
   encountered Don Gonsalvo de Cordova, who endeavoured to stay
   their passage into Germany with a Spanish force near Fleurus;
   but he also was defeated. After this, however, Prince Maurice
   could effect nothing considerable, but maintained his ground
   solely by acting on the defensive during the entire year 1623.
   … He could not prevent the capture [by Spinola] of Breda,
   one of the strongest fortifications of the Low Countries. …
   The mortification at being unable to relieve this place during
   a long blockade of six months preyed upon the mind of Prince
   Maurice, whose health had already begun to give way. … An
   access of fever obliged him to quit the field and withdraw to
   the Hague, where he died in 1625, at the age of 58 years."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
      Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
      page 47._

{2279}

   The new Stadtholder, Prince Frederic Henry, made every effort
   to raise the siege of Breda, but without success, and the
   place was surrendered (June 2, 1625) to the Spaniards. In the
   next year little was accomplished on either side; but in 1627
   the Prince took Grol, after a siege of less than one month. In
   1628 the Dutch Admiral Piet Heyn captured one of the Spanish
   silver-fleets, with a cargo, largely pure silver, valued at
   12,000,000 florins. In 1629 the king of Spain and the
   Archduchess made overtures of peace, with offers of a renewed
   truce for 24 years. "But no sooner did the negotiations become
   public than they encountered general and violent opposition,"
   especially from the West India Company, which found the war
   profitable, and from the ministers of the church. At the same
   time the operations of the war assumed more activity. The
   Prince laid siege to Bois-le-Duc, a Brabant town deemed
   impregnable, and the Spaniards, to draw him away, invaded
   Guelderland, and captured Amersfoort, near Utrecht. They laid
   waste the country, and were compelled to retire, without
   interrupting the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which presently was
   surrendered. In 1631 the Prince undertook the siege of
   Dunkirk, which had long been a rendezvous of pirates,
   troublesome to the commerce of all the surrounding nations;
   but on the approach of a Spanish relieving force, the deputies
   of the States, who had authority over the commander, required
   him to relinquish the undertaking. In 1632, the Prince
   achieved a great success, in the siege and reduction of
   Maestricht, which he accomplished, notwithstanding his lines
   were attacked by a Spanish army of 24,000 men, and by an army
   from Germany, under the Imperial general Pappenheim, who
   brought 16,000 men to assist in raising the siege. In the face
   of these two armies, Maestricht was forced to capitulate, and
   the fall of Limburg followed. Peace negotiations were reopened
   the same year, but came to nothing, and they were followed
   shortly by the death of the Archduchess Isabella. "At her
   death, the Netherlands, in pursuance of the terms of the
   surrender made by Philip II., reverted to the King of Spain,
   who placed the government, after it had been administered a
   short time by a commission, in the hands of the Marquis of
   Aitona, commander-in-chief of the army, until the arrival of
   his brother Ferdinand, cardinal and archbishop of Toledo
   [known as 'the Cardinal Infant'], whom he had, during the
   lifetime of the Archduchess, appointed her successor."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      part 2, chapter 4._

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1623.
   The massacre of Amboyna.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1624-1661.
   Conquests in Brazil and their loss.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1625.
   The Protestant alliance in the Thirty Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain and Austria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Cardinal Infant in the government
   of the Spanish Provinces.
   His campaigns against the Dutch and French.
   Invasion of France.
   Dutch capture of Breda.

   In 1635, the Archduchess Isabella having recently died, it was
   thought expedient in Spain "that a member of the royal family
   should be intrusted with the administration of the Netherlands
   [Spanish Provinces]. This appointment was accordingly
   conferred on the Cardinal Infant [Ferdinand, son of Philip
   III.], who was at that time in Italy, where he had collected a
   considerable army. With this force, amounting to about 12,000
   men, he had passed in the preceding year through Germany, on
   his route to the Netherlands, and, having formed a junction
   with the Imperialists, under the King of Hungary, he greatly
   contributed to the victory gained over the Swedes and German
   Protestants, at Nordlingen. …

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   The Cardinal Infant entered on the civil and military
   government of the Spanish Netherlands nearly at the time when
   the seizure of the Elector of Treves had called forth from
   France an open declaration of war. By uniting the newly raised
   troops which he had brought with him from Italy to the veteran
   legions of the provinces, he found himself at the head of a
   considerable military force. At the same time, an army of
   20,000 French was assembled under the inspection of their king
   at Amiens, and was intrusted to Chatillon, and Mareschal Brezé
   the brother-in-law of Richelieu. … It was intended, however,
   that this army should form a junction with the Dutch at
   Maestricht, after which the troops of both nations should be
   placed under the orders of Frederic Henry, Prince of Orange,
   who had inherited all the military talents of his ancestors.
   In order to counteract this movement, the Cardinal Infant
   separated his army into two divisions. One was ordered to
   confront the Dutch, and the other, under Prince Thomas of
   Savoy, marched to oppose the progress of the French. This
   latter division of the Spaniards encountered the enemy at
   Avein, in the territory of Liege; but though it had taken up a
   favourable position, it was totally defeated, and forced to
   retreat to Namur. The French army then continued its march
   with little farther interruption, and effected its intended
   union with the Dutch in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. After
   this junction, the Prince of Orange assumed the command of the
   allied army, which now stormed and sacked Tillemont, where
   great cruelties were committed. … The union of the two
   armies spread terror throughout the Spanish Netherlands, and
   the outrages practised at Tillemont gave the Catholics a
   horror at the French name and alliance. … The Flemings,
   forgetting their late discontents with the Spanish government,
   now made the utmost efforts against their invaders. … The
   Spanish prince … contrived to elude a general engagement.
   … His opponents … were obliged to employ their arms in
   besieging towns. It was believed for some time that they
   intended to invest Brussels, but the storm fell on Louvain."
   The Emperor now sent from Germany a force of 18,000 men, under
   Piccolomini, "to the succour of the Cardinal Infant.
{2280}
   The slowness of all the operations of the Prince of Orange
   afforded sufficient time for these auxiliaries to cut off the
   French supplies of provisions, and advance to the relief of
   Louvain. On the intelligence of their approach, the
   half-famished French abandoned the siege, and, after suffering
   severely in their retreat, retired to recruit at Ruremonde.
   The Dutch afforded them no assistance, and showed them but
   little sympathy in their disasters. Though the Dutch hated
   Spain, they were jealous of France, and dreaded an increase of
   its power in the Netherlands. … Mareschals Chatillon and
   Brezé, who were thus in a great measure the victims of the
   policy of their allies, were under the necessity of leading
   back beyond the Meuse, to Nimeguen, the wretched remains of
   their army, now reduced to 9,000 men. … After the departure
   of the French, the exertions of the Prince of Orange were
   limited, during this season, to an attempt for the recovery of
   the strong fortress of Skink, which had recently been reduced
   by the Spaniards. The Cardinal Infant, availing himself of the
   opportunity thus presented to him, quickly regained, by aid of
   the Austrian reinforcements, his superiority in the field. He
   took several fortresses from the Dutch, and sent to the
   frontiers of France detachments which levied contributions
   over great part of Picardy and Champagne. … Encouraged by
   these successes, Olivarez [the Spanish minister] redoubled his
   exertions, and now boldly planned invasions of France from
   three different quarters"—to enter Picardy on the north,
   Burgundy on the east, and Guienne at the south. "Of all these
   expeditions, the most successful, at least for a time, was the
   invasion of Picardy, which, indeed, had nearly proved fatal to
   the French monarchy. By orders of the Cardinal Infant, his
   generals, Prince Thomas of Savoy, Piccolomini, and John de
   Vert, or Wert, … began their march at the head of an army
   which exceeded 30,000 men, and was particularly strong in
   cavalry. … No interruption being … offered by the Dutch,
   the Spanish generals entered Picardy [1636], and seized almost
   without resistance on La Capelle and Catelet, which the French
   ministry expected would have occupied their arms for some
   months. The Count de Soissons, who was already thinking more
   of his plots against Richelieu than the defence of his
   country, did nothing to arrest the progress of the Spaniards,
   till they arrived at the Somme," and there but little. They
   forced the passage of the river with slight difficulty, and
   "occupied Roye, to the south of the Somme, on the river Oise;
   and having thus obtained an entrance into France, spread
   themselves over the whole country lying between these rivers.
   The smoke of the villages to which they set fire was seen from
   the heights in the vicinity of Paris; and such in that capital
   was the consternation consequent on these events that it seems
   probable, had the Spanish generals marched straight on Paris,
   the city would have fallen into their hands." But Prince
   Thomas was not bold enough for the exploit, and prudently
   "receded with his army to form the siege of Corbie. This town
   presented no great resistance to his arms, but the time
   occupied by its capture allowed the Parisians to recover from
   their consternation, and to prepare the means of defence."
   They raised an army of 60,000 men, chiefly apprentices and
   artisans of the capital, before which Prince Thomas was
   obliged to retreat. "The French quickly recovered all those
   fortified places in Picardy which had been previously lost by
   the incapacity, or, as Richelieu alleged, by the treachery of
   their governors. But they could not prevent the Spaniards from
   plundering and desolating the country as they retired. … The
   Cardinal Infant was obliged to remain on the defensive for
   some time after his retreat from Picardy to the Netherlands,
   which were anew invaded by a French force, under the Cardinal
   La Valette, a younger son of the Duke d'Epernon. But even
   while restricting his operations to defence, the Infant could
   not prevent the capture by the French of Ivry and Landreci in
   Hainault. While opposing the enemy in that quarter, he
   received intelligence of an unexpected attempt on Breda by the
   Dutch [1637]. He immediately hastened to its relief; but the
   Prince of Orange having rapidly collected 6,000 or 7,000
   peasants, whom he had employed in forming intrenchments and
   drawing lines of circumvallation, was so well fortified on the
   arrival of the Cardinal Infant, who had crossed the Scheldt at
   Antwerp, and approached with not fewer than 25,000 men, that
   that Prince, in despair of forcing the enemy's camp, or in any
   way succouring Breda, marched towards Guelderland. In that
   province he took Venlo and Ruremonde; but Breda, as he had
   anticipated, surrendered to the Dutch after a siege of nine
   weeks. … Its capture greatly relieved the Dutch in Brabant,
   who now, for many years, had been checked by an enemy in the
   heart of their territories. … Early in the year 1638, the
   Infant resumed offensive operations, and again rendered
   himself formidable to his enemies. He frustrated the attempts
   which the Dutch had concerted against Antwerp. … In person
   he beat off the army of the Prince of Orange, who had invested
   Gueldres; and, about the same time, his active generals;
   Prince Thomas of Savoy and Piccolomini, compelled the French
   to raise the siege of St. Omer."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain from 1621 to 1700,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1643.
   Invasion of France by the Spaniards and their defeat at Rocroi.
   Loss of Thionville and the line of the Moselle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; and 1643.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
   French campaign in Flanders, under Orleans and Enghien (Conde).
   Siege and capture of Dunkirk.

   "In 1645, Orleans led the [French] army into Flanders, and
   began the campaign with the capture of Mardyck. A few weeks of
   leisurely siege resulted in the conquest of some towns, and by
   the first of September Gaston sought rest at the Court. As it
   was now well towards the end of the season, the Hollanders
   were at last ready to cooperate, and they joined the French
   under Gassion and Rantzau. But the allied armies did little
   except march and countermarch, and at the end of the year the
   Spaniards surprised the French garrison at Mardyck and retook
   the only place of importance they had lost. … Gaston was,
   however, well content even with the moderate glory of such
   warfare. In 1646 he commanded an army of 35,000 men, one
   portion of which was led by Enghien himself. The Hollanders
   were under arms unusually early, but they atoned for this by
   accomplishing nothing. The French laid siege to Courtrai,
   which in due time surrendered, and they then spent three weeks
   in a vigorous siege of Mardyck.
{2281}
   This place was finally captured for the second time in
   fourteen months. It was now late in August, and Orleans was
   ready to rest from a campaign which had lasted three months.
   … By the departure of Gaston the Duke of Enghien was left
   free to attempt some important movement, and his thoughts
   turned upon the capture of the city of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was
   situated on the shore of the North Sea, in a position that
   made it alike important and formidable to commerce. … Its
   harbor leading to a canal in the city where a fleet might
   safely enter, and its position near the shores of France and
   the British Channel, had rendered it a frequent retreat for
   pirates. The cruisers that captured the ships of the merchants
   of Havre and Dieppe, or made plundering expeditions along the
   shores of Picardy and Normandy, found safe refuge in the
   harbor of Dunkirk. Its name was odious through northern
   France, alike to the shipper and the resident of the towns
   along the coast. The ravages of the pirates of Dunkirk are
   said to have cost France as much as a million a year. … The
   position of Dunkirk was such that it seemed to defy attack,
   and the strangeness and wildness of its approaches added
   terror to its name. It was surrounded by vast plains of sand,
   far over which often spread the waters of the North Sea, and
   its name was said to signify the church of the dunes. Upon
   them the fury of the storms often worked strange changes. What
   had seemed solid land would be swallowed up in some tempest.
   What had been part of the ocean would be left so that men and
   wagons could pass over what the day before had been as
   inaccessible as the Straits of Dover. An army attempting a
   siege would find itself on these wild dunes far removed from
   any places for supplies, and exposed to the utmost severity of
   storm and weather. Tents could hardly be pitched, and the
   changing sands would threaten the troops with destruction. The
   city was, moreover, garrisoned by 3,000 soldiers, and by 3,000
   of the citizens and 2,000 sailors. … The ardor of Enghien
   was increased by these difficulties, and he believed that with
   skill and vigor the perils of a siege could be overcome. This
   plan met the warm approval of Mazarin. … Enghien advanced
   with his army of about 15,000 men, and on the 10th of
   September the siege began. It was necessary to prevent
   supplies being received by sea. Tromp, excited to hearty
   admiration of the genius of the young general, sailed with ten
   ships into the harbor, and cut off communications. Enghien, in
   the meantime, was pressing the circumvallation of the city
   with the utmost vigor. … Half fed, wet, sleepless, the men
   worked on, inspired by the zeal of their leader. Piccolomini
   attempted to relieve the city, but he could not force
   Enghien's entrenchments, except by risking a pitched battle,
   and that he did not dare to venture. Mines were now carried
   under the city by the besiegers, and a great explosion made a
   breach in the wall. The French and Spanish met, but the smoke
   and confusion were so terrible that both sides at last fell
   back in disorder. The French finally discovered that the
   advantage was really theirs, and held the position. Nothing
   now remained but a final and bloody assault, but Leyde did not
   think that honor required him to await this. He agreed that if
   he did not receive succor by the 10th of October, the city
   should be surrendered. Piccolomini dared not risk the last
   army in Flanders in an assault on Enghien's entrenchments,
   and, on October 11th, the Spanish troops evacuated the town. A
   siege of three weeks had conquered obstacles of man and
   nature, and destroyed the scourge of French commerce."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Condé,
      chapter 2._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
   Final Negotiation of Peace between Spain and the
   United Provinces.

   "The late campaign had been so unfortunate [to the Spaniards]
   that they felt their only possibility of obtaining reasonable
   terms, or of continuing the war with the hope of a change in
   fortune, was to break the alliance between Holland and
   France. A long debt of gratitude, assistance rendered in the
   struggle with Spain when assistance was valuable, the treaty
   of 1635 renewed in 1644, forbade Holland making a peace,
   except jointly with France. On the other hand, the
   States-General were weary of war, and jealous of the power and
   ambition of the French. … This disposition was skilfully
   fostered by the Spanish envoys. Pau and Knuyt,
   plenipotentiaries from Holland to the Congress at Münster
   [where, in part, the negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia
   were in progress—see GERMANY: A. D. 1648], were gained to the
   Spanish interest, as Mazarin claimed, by the promise to each
   of 100,000 crowns. But, apart from bribes, the Spanish used
   Mazarin's own plans to alarm the Hollanders. … It was
   intimated to the Hollanders that France was about to make a
   separate peace, that the Spanish Netherlands were to be given
   her, and that perhaps with the hand of the infanta might be
   transferred what claims Spain still made on the allegiance of
   the United Provinces. The French protested in vain they had
   never thought of making any treaty unless Holland joined, and
   that the proposed marriage of Louis with the infanta had been
   idle talk, suggested by the Spanish for the purpose of
   alarming the States-General. The Hollanders were suspicious,
   and they became still more eager for peace. … In the spring
   of 1646, seventy-one proposed articles had been submitted to
   the Spanish for their consideration. The French made repeated
   protests against these steps, but the States-General insisted
   that they were only acting with such celerity as should enable
   them to have the terms of their treaty adjusted as soon as
   those of the French. The successes of 1646 and the capture of
   Dunkirk quickened the desires of the United Provinces for a
   treaty with their ancient enemy. … In December, 1646,
   articles were signed between Spain and Holland, to be inserted
   in the treaty of Münster, when that should be settled upon,
   though the States-General still declared that no peace should
   be made unless the terms were approved by France. Active
   hostilities were again commenced in 1647, but little progress
   was made in Flanders during this campaign. Though the
   Hollanders had not actually made peace with Spain, they gave
   the French no aid. … On January 30, 1648, the treaty was at
   last signed. 'One would think,' wrote Mazarin, 'that for
   eighty years France had been warring with the provinces, and
   Spain had been protecting them. They have stained their
   reputation with a shameful blemish.'
{2282}
   It was eighty years since William of Orange had issued his
   proclamation inviting all the Netherlands to take up arms 'to
   oppose the violent tyranny of the Spaniards.' Unlike the truce
   of 1609, a formal and final peace was now made. The United
   Provinces were acknowledged as free and sovereign states. At
   the time of the truce the Spaniards had only treated with them
   'in quality of, and as holding them for independent
   provinces.' By a provision which had increased the eagerness
   for peace of the burghers and merchants of the United
   Provinces, it was agreed that the Escaut [Scheldt] should be
   closed. The wealth and commerce of Antwerp were thus
   sacrificed for the benefit of Amsterdam. The trade with the
   Indies was divided between the two countries. Numerous
   commercial advantages were secured and certain additional
   territory was ceded to the States-General."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "It had … become a settled conviction of Holland that a
   barrier of Spanish territory between the United Provinces and
   France was necessary as a safeguard against the latter. But
   the idea of fighting to maintain that barrier had not yet
   arisen, though fighting was the outcome of the doctrine. All
   that the United Provinces now did, or could do, was simply to
   back out of the war with Spain, sit still, and look passively
   upon the conflict between her and France for possession of the
   barrier, until it should please the two belligerents to make
   peace."

      _J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John De Witt,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1647-1648.
   The Spanish war with France.
   Siege and Battle of Lens.

   "While Condé was at the head of the army of the Netherlands,
   it at least suffered no disaster; but, while he was affording
   the enemy a triumph in Spain [by his failure at Lerida,—the
   army which he left behind him was equally unfortunate].

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

   As he had taken some regiments with him to Spain, it did not
   exceed 16,000 men; and in 1647 was commanded by the two
   marshals, Gassion and Rantzau," who exercised the command on
   alternate days. Both were brave and skilful officers, but they
   were hostile to one another, and Rantzau was, unfortunately, a
   drunkard. "The Spanish army had been raised to 22,000 men, and
   besides being superior in numbers to them, was now under the
   command of a singularly active leader, the Archduke Leopold.
   He took town after town before their face; and towards the end
   of June laid siege to Landrecies. The danger of so important a
   place stimulated Mazarin to send some strong battalions,
   including the royal guards, to reinforce the army: and the two
   marshals made skilful dispositions to surprise the Spanish
   camp. By a night march of great rapidity, they reached the
   neighbourhood of the enemy without their presence being
   suspected; but the next morning, when the attack was to be
   made, it was Rantzau's turn to command; and he was too
   helplessly drunk to give the necessary orders. Before he had
   recovered his consciousness daylight had revealed his danger
   to the archduke, and he had taken up a position in which he
   could give battle with advantage. Greatly mortified, the
   French were forced to draw off, and leave Landrecies to its
   fate. As some apparent set-off to their losses, they succeeded
   in taking Dixmude, and one or two other unimportant towns, and
   were besieging Lens, when Gassion was killed; and though, a
   few days afterwards, that town was taken, its capture made but
   small amends. … Though the war was almost at an end in
   Germany, Turenne was still in that country; and, therefore,
   the next year there was no one who could be sent to replace
   Gassion but Condé and Grammont, who fortunately for the
   prince, was his almost inseparable comrade and adviser. …
   Though 16,000 men had been thought enough for Gassion and
   Rantzau, 30,000 were now collected to enable Condé to make a
   more successful campaign. The archduke had received no
   reinforcements, and had now only 18,000 men to make head
   against him; yet with this greatly inferior force he, for a
   while, balanced Condé's successes; losing Ypres, it is true,
   but taking Courtrai and Furnes, and defeating and almost
   annihilating a division with which the prince had detached
   Rantzau to make an attempt upon Ostend. At last, in the middle
   of August, he laid siege to Lens, the capture of which had, as
   we have already mentioned, been the last exploit of the French
   army in the preceding campaign, and which was now retaken
   without the garrison making the slightest effort at
   resistance. But, just as the first intelligence of his having
   sat down before it reached Condé, he was joined by the Count
   d'Erlach with a reinforcement of 5,000 men from the German
   army; and he resolved to march against the archduke in the
   hope of saving" the place. "He arrived in sight of the town on
   the 20th of August, a few hours after it had surrendered; and
   he found the archduke's victorious army in a position which,
   eager as he was for battle, he could not venture to attack.
   For Leopold had 18,000 men under arms, and the force that
   Condé had been able to bring with him did not exceed 14,000,
   with 18 guns. For the first time in his life he decided on
   retreating;" but early in the retreat his army was thrown into
   disorder by an attack from the archduke's cavalry, commanded
   by General Beck. "All was nearly lost, when Grammont turned
   the fortune of the day. He was in the van, but the moment that
   he learnt what was taking place behind him, he halted the
   advanced guard, and leading it back towards the now triumphant
   enemy, gave time for those regiments which had been driven in
   to rally behind the firm line which he presented. … It soon
   came to be a contest of hard fighting, unvaried by manœuvres
   on either side; and in hard fighting no troops could stand
   before those who might be lead by Condé. … At last victory
   declared for him in every part of his line. He had sustained a
   heavy loss himself, but less than that of the enemy, who left
   3,000 of their number slain upon the field; while 5,000
   prisoners, among whom was Beck himself, struck down by a
   mortal wound, and nearly all their artillery and baggage,
   attested the reality and greatness of his triumph."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
      part 1, pages 149-152._

{2283}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650.
   Suspension of the Stadtholdership.
   Supremacy of the States of Holland.

   The fourth stadtholder, William II., who succeeded his father,
   Frederick Henry, in 1647, "was young and enterprising, and not at
   all disposed to follow the pacific example of his father. …
   His attempt at a coup d'état only prepared the way for an
   interregnum. … He was brother-in-law to the Elector of
   Brandenburg … and son-in-law to Charles I. of England and
   Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII. … The proud
   descendant of the Stuarts, the Princess Mary, who had been
   married to him when hardly more than a child, thought it
   beneath her not to be the wife of a sovereign, and encouraged
   her husband not to be satisfied to remain merely 'the official
   of a republic.' Thus encouraged, the son of Frederick Henry
   cherished the secret purpose of transforming the elective
   stadtholdership into an hereditary monarchy. … He needed
   supreme authority to enable him to render assistance to
   Charles I. … Finding in the opposition of the States an
   insurmountable obstacle to his wish of intervention, he sought
   the support of France, … and was now ready to come to an
   understanding with Mazarin to break the treaty of Munster and
   wrest the Netherlands from Spain. Mazarin promised in return
   to help him to assert his authority over the States. … But
   if William desired war, the United Provinces, and in
   particular the province of Holland, could not dispense with
   peace. … The States of Holland … fixed the period for the
   disbanding of the twenty-nine companies whose dismissal had
   been promised to them. After twelve days of useless
   deliberations they issued definite orders to that effect. The
   step had been provoked, but it was precipitate and might give
   rise to a legal contest as to their competency. The Prince of
   Orange, therefore, eager to hasten a struggle from which he
   expected an easy victory, chose to consider the resolution of
   the States of Holland as a signal for the rupture of the
   Union, and the very next day solemnly demanded reparation from
   the States-General, who in their turn issued a counter order.
   The Prince made skilful use of the rivalry of power between
   the two assemblies to obtain for himself extraordinary powers
   which were contrary to the laws of the Confederation. By the
   terms of the resolution, which was passed by only four
   provinces, of which two were represented by but one deputy
   each, he was authorised to take all measures necessary for the
   maintenance of order and peace, and particularly for the
   preservation of the Union. 'The States-General consequently
   commissioned him to visit the town councils of Holland,
   accompanied by six members of the States-General and of the
   Council of State, with all the pomp of a military escort,
   including a large number of officers. He was charged to
   address them with remonstrances and threats intended to
   intimidate the provincial States.' This was the first act of
   the coup d'état that he had prepared, and his mistake was
   quickly shown him." The Prince gained nothing by his
   visitation of the towns. At Amsterdam he was not permitted to
   enter the place with his following, and he returned to the
   Hague especially enraged against that bold and independent
   city. He planned an expedition to take it by surprise; but the
   citizens got timely warning and his scheme was baffled. He had
   succeeded, however, in arresting and imprisoning six of the
   most influential deputies of the Assembly of Holland, and his
   attitude was formidable enough to extort some concessions from
   the popular party, by way of compromise. A state of suspicious
   quiet was restored for the time, which William improved by
   renewing negotiations for a secret treaty with France.
   "Arrogating to himself already the right to dispose as he
   pleased of the republic, he signed a convention with Count
   d'Estrades, whom he had summoned to the Hague. By this the
   King of France and the Prince of Orange engaged themselves 'to
   attack conjointly the Netherlands on May 1, 1651, with an army
   of 20,000 foot and 10,000 horse, to break at the same time
   with Cromwell, to re-establish Charles II. as King of England,
   and to make no treaty with Spain excepting in concert with
   each other.' The Prince of Orange guaranteed a fleet of 50
   vessels besides the land contingent, and in return for his
   co-operation was promised the absolute possession of the city
   of Antwerp and the Duchy of Brabant or Marquisate of the Holy
   Roman Empire. William thus interested France in the success of
   his cause by making ready to resume the war with Spain, and
   calculated, as he told his confidants, on profiting by her
   assistance to disperse the cabal opposed to him. … The
   internal pacification amounted then to no more than a truce,
   when three months later the Prince of Orange, having
   over-fatigued and heated himself in the chase, was seized with
   small-pox, of which in a few days he died. He was thus carried
   off at the age of 24, in the full force and flower of his age,
   leaving only one son, born a week after his father's death.
   … His attempt at a coup d'état was destined to press heavily
   and long upon the fate of the posthumous son, who had to wait
   22 years before succeeding to his ancestral functions. It
   closed the succession to him for many years, by making the
   stadtholdership a standing menace to the public freedom. …
   The son of William II., an orphan before his birth, and named
   William like his father, seemed destined to succeed to little
   more than the paternal name. … Three days after the death of
   William II., the former deputies, whom he had treated as state
   prisoners and deprived of all their offices, were recalled to
   take their seats in the Assembly. At the same time the
   provincial Town Councils assumed the power of nominating their
   own magistrates, which had almost always been left to the
   pleasure of the Stadtholder, and thus obtained the full
   enjoyment of municipal freedom. The States of Holland, on
   their side, grasped the authority hitherto exercised in their
   province by the Prince of Orange, and claimed successively all
   the rights of sovereignty. The States of Zealand … exhibited
   the same eagerness to free themselves from all subjection. …
   Thus, before declaring the stadtholdership vacant, the office
   was deprived of its prerogatives. To complete this
   transformation of the government, the States of Holland took
   the initiative in summoning to the Hague a great assembly of
   the Confederation, which met at the beginning of the year
   1651. … The congress was called upon to decide between two
   forms of constitution. The question was whether the United
   Provinces should be a republic governed by the States-General,
   or whether the government should belong to the States of each
   province, with only a reservation in favour of the obligations
   imposed by the Act of Union. Was each province to be sovereign
   in itself, or subject to the federal power?" The result was a
   suspension and practical abolition of the stadtholdership.
   "Freed from the counterbalancing power of the Stadtholder,
   Holland to a great extent absorbed the federal power, and was
   the gainer by all that that power lost. …
{2284}
   The States of Holland, … destined henceforward to be the
   principal instrument of government of the republic, was
   composed partly of nobles and partly of deputies from the
   towns. … The Grand Pensionary was the minister of the States
   of Holland. He was appointed for five years, and represented
   them in the States-General. … Called upon by the vacancy in
   the stadtholdership to the government of the United Provinces,
   without any legal power of enforcing obedience, Holland
   required a statesman who could secure this political supremacy
   and use it for her benefit. The nomination of John de Witt as
   Grand Pensionary placed at her service one of the youngest
   members of the assembly."

      _A. L. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1648.
   Still held to form a part of the Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1648-1665.
   Prosperity and pre-eminence of the Dutch Republic.
   The causes.

   "That this little patch of earth, a bog rescued from the
   waters, warred on ever by man and by the elements, without
   natural advantages except those of contact with the sea,
   should in the middle of the seventeenth century have become
   the commercial centre of Europe, is one of the phenomena of
   history. But in the explanation of this phenomenon history has
   one of its most instructive lessons. Philip II. said of
   Holland, 'that it was the country nearest to hell.' Well might
   he express such an opinion. He had buried around the walls of
   its cities more than three hundred thousand Spanish soldiers,
   and had spent in the attempt at its subjugation more than two
   hundred million ducats. This fact alone would account for his
   abhorrence, but, in addition, the republic was in its every
   feature opposed to the ideal country of a bigot and a despot.
   The first element which contributed to its wealth, as well as
   to the vast increase of its population, was its religious
   toleration. … This, of course, was as incomprehensible to a
   Spanish Catholic as it was to a High-Churchman or to a
   Presbyterian in England. That Lutherans, Calvinists,
   Anabaptists, Jews, and Catholics should all be permitted to
   live under the same government seemed to the rest of Europe
   like flying in the face of Providence. Critics at this time
   occasionally said that the Hollanders cared nothing for
   religion; that with them theology was of less account than
   commerce. To taunts like these no reply was needed by men who
   could point to their record of eighty years of war. This war
   had been fought for liberty of conscience, but more than all,
   as the greater includes the less, for civil liberty. During
   its continuance, and at every crisis, Catholics had stood side
   by side with Protestants to defend their country, as they had
   done in England when the Spanish Armada appeared upon her
   coast. It would have been a strange reward for their fidelity
   to subject them, as Elizabeth did, to a relentless
   persecution, upon the pretext that they were dangerous to the
   State. In addition to the toleration, there were other causes
   leading to the marvellous prosperity of the republic, which
   are of particular interest to Americans. In 1659, Samuel Lamb,
   a prominent and far-seeing London merchant, published a
   pamphlet, in the form of a letter to Cromwell, urging the
   establishment of a bank in England similar to the one at
   Amsterdam. In this pamphlet, which Lord Somers thought worthy
   of preservation, the author gives the reasons, as they
   occurred to him, which accounted for the vast superiority of
   Holland over the rest of Europe as a commercial nation. … As
   the foundation of a bank for England was the subject of the
   letter, the author naturally lays particular stress upon that
   factor, but the other causes which he enumerates as explaining
   the great trade of the republic are the following: First. The
   statesmen sitting at the helm in Holland are many of them
   merchants, bred to trade from their youth, improved by foreign
   travel, and acquainted with all the necessities of commerce.
   Hence, their laws and treaties are framed with wisdom. Second.
   In Holland when a merchant dies, his property is equally
   divided among his children, and the business is continued and
   expanded, with all its traditions and inherited experience. In
   England, on the contrary, the property goes to the eldest son,
   who often sets up for a country gentleman, squanders his
   patrimony, and neglects the business by which his father had
   become enriched. Third. The honesty of the Hollanders in their
   manufacturing and commercial dealings. When goods are made up
   in Holland, they sell everywhere without question, for the
   purchaser knows that they are exactly as represented in
   quality, weight, and measure. Not so with England's goods. Our
   manufacturers are so given to fraud and adulteration as to
   bring their commodities into disgrace abroad. 'And so the
   Dutch have the pre-eminence in the sale of their manufactures
   before us, by their true making, to their very files and
   needles.' Fourth. The care and vigilance of the government in
   the laying of impositions so as to encourage their own
   manufactures; the skill and rapidity with which they are
   changed to meet the shifting wants of trade; the encouragement
   given by ample rewards from the public treasury for useful
   inventions and improvements; and the promotion of men to
   office for services and not for favor or sinister ends. Such
   were the causes of the commercial supremacy of the Dutch as
   they appeared to an English merchant of the time, and all
   modern investigations support his view. … Sir Joshua
   [Josiah] Child, writing a few years later ['A New Discourse of
   Trade, page 2, and after—1665], gives a fuller explanation of
   the great prosperity of the Netherland Republic. He evidently
   had Lamb's pamphlet before him, for he enumerates all the
   causes set forth by his predecessor. In addition, he gives
   several others, as to some of which we shall see more
   hereafter. Among these are the general education of the
   people, including the women, religious toleration, care of the
   poor, low custom duties and high excise, registration of
   titles to real estate, low interest, the laws permitting the
   assignment of debts, and the judicial system under which
   controversies between merchants can be decided at one fortieth
   part of the expense in England. … Probably, no body of men
   governing a state were ever more enlightened and better
   acquainted with the necessities of legislation than were these
   burghers, merchants, and manufacturers who for two centuries
   gave laws to Holland. It was largely due to the intelligence
   displayed by these men that the republic, during the
   continuance of its war, was enabled to support a burden of
   taxation such as the world has rarely seen before or since.
{2285}
   The internal taxes seem appalling. Rents were taxed
   twenty-five per cent.; on all sales of real estate two and a
   half per cent. were levied, and on all collateral inheritances
   five per cent. On beer, wine, meat, salt, spirits, and all
   articles of luxury, the tax was one hundred per cent., and on
   some articles this was doubled. But this was only the internal
   taxation, in the way of excise duties, which were levied on
   everyone, natives and foreigners alike. In regard to foreign
   commodities, which the republic needed for its support, the
   system was very different. Upon them there was imposed only a
   nominal duty of one per cent., while wool, the great staple
   for the manufacturers, was admitted free. Here the statesmen
   of the republic showed the wisdom which placed them, as
   masters of political economy, at least two centuries in
   advance of their contemporaries."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      volume 2, pages 324-331._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      volume 2: The Dutch, chapter 12._

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1651-1660.
   The rule of Holland, and her Grand Pensionary, John de Witt.

   "The Republic had shaken off the domination of a person; it
   now fell under the domination of a single province. Holland
   was overwhelmingly preponderant in the federation. She
   possessed the richest, most populous, and most powerful towns.
   She contributed more than one-half of the whole federal
   taxation. She had the right of naming the ambassadors at
   Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna. The fact that the States General
   met on her territory—at the Hague—necessarily gave her
   additional influence and prestige. … With the Stadtholder's
   power that of the States General also, as representing the
   idea of centralisation, had largely disappeared. The
   Provincial Estates of Holland, therefore, under the title of
   'Their High Mightinesses,' became the principal power—to
   such an extent, indeed, that the term 'Holland' had by the
   time of the Restoration [the English Restoration, A. D. 1660]
   become synonymous among foreign powers with the whole
   Republic. Their chief minister was called 'The Grand
   Pensionary,' and the office had been since 1653 filled by one
   of the most remarkable men of the time, John de Witt. John de
   Witt therefore represented, roughly speaking, the power of the
   merchant aristocracy of Holland, as opposed to the claims of
   the House of Orange, which were supported by the 'noblesse,'
   the army, the Calvinistic clergy, and the people below the
   governing class. Abroad the Orange family had the sympathy of
   monarchical Governments. Louis XIV. despised the Government of
   'Messieurs les Marchands,' while Charles II., at once the
   uncle and the guardian of the young Prince of the house of
   Orange, the future William III. of England, and mindful of
   the scant courtesy which, to satisfy Cromwell, the Dutch had
   shown him in exile, was ever their bitter and unscrupulous
   foe. The empire of the Dutch Republic was purely commercial
   and colonial, and she held in this respect the same position
   relatively to the rest of Europe that England holds at the
   present day."

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John de Witt,
      volume 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1652.
   Recovery of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
   Invasion of France. See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652.
   First Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.
   See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652-1654.
   War with the English Commonwealth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1653-1656.
   Campaigns of Condé in the service of Spain against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D 1653-1656.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1657-1658.
   England in alliance with France in the Franco-Spanish War.
   Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1659.
   Cessions of territory to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1664.
   The seizure of New Netherland by the English.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1665-1666.
   War with England renewed.

   "A formal declaration of war between Holland and England took
   place in March, 1665. The English nation, jealous of the
   commercial prosperity of Holland, eagerly seconded the views
   of the king against that country, and in regard to the war a
   remarkable degree of union prevailed throughout Great Britain.
   Such, however, was not the case with the Dutch, who were very
   much divided in opinion, and had many reasons to be doubtful
   of the support of France. One of the grand objects of Charles
   II. was undoubtedly … to restore his nephew the Prince of
   Orange to all the power which had been held by his ancestors
   in the United Provinces. But between Holland and England there
   existed, besides numerous other most fertile causes of
   discord, unsettled claims, upon distant territories, rival
   colonies in remote parts of the world, maritime jealousy and
   constant commercial opposition. These were national motives
   for hostility, and affected a large body of the Dutch people.
   But, on the other hand, considerations of general interest
   were set aside by the political factions which divided the
   United Provinces, and which may be classed under the names of
   the Republican and the Monarchical parties. The Monarchical
   party was, of course, that which was attached to the interests
   of the House of Orange. … In the end of 1664, 130 Dutch
   merchantmen had been captured by England; acts of hostility
   had occurred in Guinea, at the Cape de Verd, [in New
   Netherland], and in the West Indies: but Louis [XIV. of
   France] had continued to avoid taking any active part against
   Great Britain, notwithstanding all the representations of De
   Witt, who on this occasion saw in France the natural ally of
   Holland. On the 13th of June [1665], however, a great naval
   engagement took place between the Dutch fleet, commanded by
   Opdam and Van Tromp, and the English fleet, commanded by the
   Duke of York and Prince Rupert. Opdam was defeated and killed;
   Van Tromp saved the remains of his fleet; and on the very same
   day a treaty was concluded between Arlington [the English
   minister] and an envoy of the Bishop of Munster, by which it
   was agreed that the warlike and restless prelate should invade
   the United Provinces with an army of 20,000 men, in
   consideration of sums of money to be paid by England.
{2286}
   This treaty at once called Louis into action, and he notified
   to the Bishop of Munster that if he made any hostile movement
   against the States of Holland he would find the troops of
   France prepared to oppose him. This fact was announced to the
   States by D'Estrades on the 22nd of July, together with the
   information that the French monarch was about to send to their
   assistance a body of troops by the way of Flanders. … Still,
   however, Louis hung back in the execution of his purposes,
   till the aspect of affairs in the beginning of 1666 forced him
   to declare war against England, on the 26th of January in that
   year, according to the terms of his treaty with Holland. …
   The part that France took in the war was altogether
   insignificant, and served but little to free the Dutch from
   the danger in which they were placed. That nation itself made
   vast efforts to obtain a superiority at sea; and in the
   beginning of June, 1666, the Dutch fleet, commanded by De
   Ruyter and Van Tromp, encountered the English fleet, under
   Monk and Prince Rupert, and a battle which lasted for four
   days, with scarcely any intermission, took place. It would
   seem that some advantage was gained by the Dutch; but both
   fleets were tremendously shattered, and retired to the ports
   of their own country to refit. Shortly after, however, they
   again encountered, and one of the most tremendous naval
   engagements in history took place, in which the Dutch suffered
   a complete defeat; 20 of their first-rate men-of-war were
   captured or sunk; and three admirals, with 4,000 men, were
   killed on the part of the States. The French fleet could not
   come up in time to take part in the battle, and all that Louis
   did was to furnish De Witt with the means of repairing the
   losses of the States as rapidly as possible. The energy of the
   grand pensionary himself, however, effected much more than the
   slow and unwilling succour of the French king. With almost
   superhuman exertion new fleets were made ready and manned,
   while the grand pensionary amused the English ministers with
   the prospect of a speedy peace on their own terms; and at a
   moment when England was least prepared, De Ruyter and
   Cornelius de Witt appeared upon the coast, sailed up the
   Thames, attacked and took Sheerness, and destroyed a great
   number of ships of the line. A multitude of smaller vessels
   were burnt; and the consternation was so great throughout
   England, that a large quantity of stores and many ships were
   sunk and destroyed by order of the British authorities
   themselves, while De Ruyter ravaged the whole sea-coast from
   the mouth of the Thames to the Land's End. The negotiations
   for peace, which had commenced at Breda, were now carried on
   upon terms much more advantageous to Holland, and were
   speedily concluded; England, notwithstanding the naval glory
   she had gained, being fully as much tired of the war as the
   States themselves. A general treaty was signed on the 25th of
   July."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

   "The thunder of the Dutch guns in the Medway and the Thames
   woke England to a bitter sense of its degradation. The dream
   of loyalty was roughly broken. 'Everybody now-a-days,' Pepys
   tells us, 'reflect upon Oliver and commend him: what brave
   things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him.'
   But Oliver's successor was coolly watching this shame and
   discontent of his people with the one aim of turning it to his
   own advantage."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of the British Navy,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1667.
   The claims and conquests of Louis XIV.
   The War of the Queen's Rights.

   In 1660 Louis XIV., king of France, was married to the Infanta
   of Spain, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., who solemnly
   renounced at the time, for herself and her posterity, all
   rights to the Spanish crown. The insincerity and hollowness of
   the renunciation was proved terribly at a later time by the
   long "war of the Spanish succession." Meantime Louis
   discovered other pretended rights in his Spanish wife on which
   he might found claims for the satisfaction of his territorial
   greed. These rested on the fact that she was born of her
   father's first marriage, and that a customary right in certain
   provinces of the Spanish Netherlands gave daughters of a first
   marriage priority of inheritance over sons of a second
   marriage. At the same time, in the laws of Luxembourg and
   Franche-Comté, which admitted all children to the partition of
   an inheritance, he found pretext for claiming, on behalf of
   his wife, one fourth of the former and one third of the
   principality last named. Philip IV. of Spain died in
   September, 1665, leaving a sickly infant son under the regency
   of an incapable and priest-ruled mother, and Louis began
   quickly to press his claims. Having made his preparations on a
   formidable scale, he sent forth in May, 1667, to all the
   courts of Europe, an elaborate "Treatise on the Rights of the
   Most Christian Queen over divers States of the monarchy of
   Spain," announcing at the same time his intention to make a
   "journey" in the Catholic Netherlands—the intended journey
   being a ruthless invasion, in fact, with 50,000 men, under the
   command of the great marshal-general, Turenne. The army began
   its march simultaneously with the announcement of its purpose,
   crossing the frontier on the 24th of May. Town after town was
   taken, some without resistance and others after a short, sharp
   siege, directed by Vauban, the most famous among military
   engineers. Charleroi was occupied on the 2d of June; Tournay
   surrendered on the 24th; two weeks later Douai fell; Courtrai
   endured only four days of siege and Oudenarde but two; Lille
   was a more difficult prize and held Turenne and the king
   before it for twenty days. "All Walloon Flanders had again
   become French at the price of less effort and bloodshed than
   it had cost, in the Middle Ages, to force one of its places.
   … September 1, the whole French army was found assembled
   before the walls of Ghent." But Ghent was not assailed, the
   French army being greatly fatigued and much reduced by the
   garrisoning of the conquered places. Louis, accordingly,
   returned to Saint-Germain, and Turenne, after taking Alost,
   went into winter quarters. Before the winter passed great
   changes of circumstance had occurred. The Triple Alliance of
   England, Holland and Sweden had been formed, Louis had made
   his secret treaty at Vienna with the Emperor, for the
   partitioning of the Spanish dominions, and his further
   "journey" in the Netherlands was postponed.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

{2287}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1668.
   The Triple Alliance with England and Sweden
   against the French king.

   "The rapid conquests of the French king in Flanders during the
   last summer had drawn the eyes of Europe towards the seat of
   war in that country. The pope, Clement IX., through pity for
   the young king of Spain, and the States, alarmed at the
   approach of the French arms to their frontier, offered their
   mediation. To both Louis returned the same answer, that he
   sought nothing more than to vindicate the rights of his wife;
   that he should be content to retain possession of the
   conquests which he had already made, or to exchange them
   either for Luxembourg, or Franche-comté, with the addition of
   Aire, St. Omer, Donai, Cambrai, and Charleroi, to strengthen
   his northern frontier. … But Spain was not sufficiently
   humbled to submit to so flagrant an injustice. … If it was
   the interest of England, it was still more the interest of the
   States, to exclude France from the possession of Flanders.
   Under this persuasion, sir William Temple, the resident at
   Brussels, received instructions to proceed to the Hague and
   sound the disposition of de Witt; and, on his return to
   London, was despatched back again to Holland with the proposal
   of a defensive alliance, the object of which should be to
   compel the French monarch to make peace with Spain on the
   terms which he had previously offered. … Temple acted with
   promptitude and address: … he represented the danger of
   delay; and, contrary to all precedent at the Hague, in the
   short space of five days—had the constitutional forms been
   observed it would have demanded five weeks—he negotiated
   [January, 1668] three treaties which promised to put an end to
   the war, or, if they failed in that point, to oppose at least
   an effectual barrier to the further progress of the invader.
   The first was a defensive alliance by which the two nations
   bound themselves to aid each other against any aggressor with
   a fleet of forty men of war, and an army of 6,400 men, or with
   assistance in money in proportion to the deficiency in men; by
   the second, the contracting powers agreed by every means in
   their power to dispose France to conclude a peace with Spain
   on the alternative already offered, to persuade Spain to
   accept one part of that alternative before the end of May,
   and, in case of a refusal, to compel her by war, on condition
   that France should not interfere by force of arms. These
   treaties were meant for the public eye: the third was secret,
   and bound both England and the States, in case of the refusal
   of Louis, to unite with Spain in the war, and not to lay down
   their arms till the peace of the Pyrenees were confirmed. On
   the same day the Swedish ambassadors gave a provisional, and
   afterwards a positive assent to the league, which from that
   circumstance obtained the name of the Triple Alliance. Louis
   received the news of this transaction with an air of haughty
   indifference. … In consequence of the infirm state of
   Charles II. of Spain, he had secretly concluded with the
   emperor Leopold an 'eventual' treaty of partition of the
   Spanish monarchy on the expected death of that prince, and
   thus had already bound himself by treaty to do the very thing
   which it was the object of the allied powers to effect. …
   The intervention of the emperor, in consequence of the
   eventual treaty, put an end to the hesitation of the Spanish
   cabinet; the ambassadors of the several powers met at
   Aix-la-Chapelle [April-May, 1668]; Spain made her choice; the
   conquered towns in Flanders were ceded to Louis, and peace was
   re-established between the two crowns. … The States could
   ill dissemble their disappointment. They never doubted that
   Spain, with the choice in her hands, would preserve Flanders,
   and part with Franche-comté. … The result was owing, it is
   said, to the resentment of Castel-Rodrigo [the governor of the
   Spanish Netherlands], who, finding that the States would not
   join with England to confine France within its ancient limits,
   resolved to punish them by making a cession, which brought the
   French frontier to the very neighbourhood of the Dutch
   territory."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 6._

   "Dr. Lingard, who is undoubtedly a very able and well-informed
   writer, but whose great fundamental rule of judging seems to
   be that the popular opinion on a historical question cannot
   possibly be correct, speaks very slightingly of this
   celebrated treaty [of the Triple Alliance]. … But grant that
   Louis was not really stopped in his progress by this famous
   league; still it is certain that the world then, and long
   after, believed that he was so stopped; and that this was the
   prevailing impression in France as well as in other countries.
   Temple, therefore, at the very least, succeeded in raising the
   credit of his country, and lowering the credit of a rival
   power."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Sir William Temple (Essays)_.

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 14._

      _Sir W. Temple,
      Letters, January 1668
      (Works, volume 1)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 15, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      _A. F. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1670.
   Betrayed to France by the English king.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1672-1674.
   The war with France and England.
   Murder of the DeWitts.
   Restoration of the Stadtholdership.

   "The storm that had been prepared in secret for Holland began
   to break in 1672. France and England had declared war at once
   by land and sea, without any cause of quarrel, except that
   Louis declared that the Dutch insulted him, and Charles
   complained that they would not lower their flag to his, and
   that they refused the Stadtholdership to his nephew, William
   of Orange. Accordingly, his fleet made a piratical attack on
   the Dutch ships returning from Smyrna, and Louis, with an
   immense army, entered Holland. … They [the French] would
   have attempted the passage of the Yssel, but the Dutch forces,
   under the Prince of Orange, were on the watch, and turned
   towards the Rhine, which was so low, in consequence of a
   drouth, that 2,000 adventurous cavalry were able to cross,
   half wading, half swimming, and gained a footing on the other
   side." This "passage of the Rhine" was absurdly celebrated as
   a great military exploit by the servile flatterers of the
   French king. "The passage thus secured, the King crossed the
   river the next day on a bridge of boats, and rapidly overran
   the adjoining country, taking the lesser towns, and offering
   to the Republic the most severe terms, destructive of their
   independence, but securing the nominal Stadtholdership to the
   Prince of Orange.
{2288}
   The magistrates of Amsterdam had almost decided on carrying
   the keys to Louis, and the Grand Pensionary himself was ready
   to yield; but William, who preferred ruling a free people by
   their own choice to being imposed on them by the conqueror,
   still maintained that perseverance would save Holland, that
   her dykes, when opened, would admit floods that the enemy
   could not resist, and that they had only to be firm. The
   spirit of the people was with him, and in Amsterdam,
   Dordrecht, and the other cities, there were risings with loud
   outcries of 'Orange boven,' Up with Orange, insisting that he
   should be appointed Stadtholder. The magistracy confirmed the
   choice, but Cornelius de Witt, too firm to yield to a popular
   cry, refused to sign the appointment, and thus drew on himself
   the rage of the people. He was arrested under an absurd
   accusation of having bribed a man to assassinate the Prince,
   and … [after torture] was sentenced to exile, whereupon his
   brother [the Grand Pensionary] announced that he should
   accompany him; but while he was with him in his prison at [the
   Hague], the atrocious mob again arose [August 20, 1672], broke
   open the doors, and, dragging out the two brothers, absolutely
   tore them limb from limb."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Landmarks of History,
      part 3, chapter 4, part 6._

   The Prince of Orange, profiting by the murder of the De Witts,
   rewarded the murderers, and is smirched by the deed, whether
   primarily responsible for it or not; but the power which it
   secured to him was used ably for Holland. The dykes had
   already been cut, on the 18th of June, and "the sea poured in,
   placing a waste of water between Louis and Amsterdam, and the
   province of Holland at least was saved. The citizens worked
   with the intensest energy to provide for their defence. …
   Every fourth man among the peasantry was enlisted; mariners
   and gunners were drawn from the fleet." Meantime, on the 7th
   of June, the fleet itself, under De Ruyter, had been
   victorious, in Southwold Bay, or Solebay, over the united
   fleets of England and France. The victory was indecisive, but
   it paralyzed the allied navy for a season, and prevented a
   contemplated descent on Zealand. "All active military
   operations against Holland were now necessarily at an end.
   There was not a Dutch town south of the inundation which was
   not in the hands of the French; and nothing remained for the
   latter but to lie idle until the ice of winter should enable
   them to cross the floods which cut them off from Amsterdam.
   Leaving Turenne in command, Louis therefore returned to St.
   Germain on August 1." Before winter came, however, the alarm
   of Europe at Louis' aggressions had brought about a coalition
   of the Emperor Leopold and the Elector of Brandenburg, to
   succor the Dutch States. Louis was forced to call Turenne with
   16,000 men to Westphalia and Condé with 17,000 to Alsace. "On
   September 12 the Austrian general Montecuculi, the Duke of
   Lorraine, and the Grand Elector effected their junction,
   intending to cross the Rhine and join William;" but Turenne,
   by a series of masterly movements, forced them to retreat,
   utterly baffled, into Franconia and Halberstadt. The Elector
   of Brandenburg, discouraged, withdrew from the alliance, and
   made peace with Louis, June 6, 1673. The spring of 1673 found
   the French king advantageously situated, and his advantages
   were improved. Turning on the Spaniards in their Belgian
   Netherlands, he laid siege to the important stronghold of
   Maestricht and it was taken for him by the skill of Vauban, on
   the 30th of June. But while this success was being scored, the
   Dutch, at sea, had frustrated another attempt of the
   Anglo-French fleet to land troops on the Zealand coast. On the
   7th of June, and again on the 14th, De Ruyter and Van Tromp
   fought off the invaders, under Prince Rupert and D'Estrees,
   driving them back to the Thames. Once more, and for the last
   time, they made their attempt, on the 21st of August, and were
   beaten in a battle near the Zealand shore which lasted from
   daylight until dark. The end of August found a new coalition
   against Louis formed by treaties between Holland, Spain, the
   Emperor and the Duke of Lorraine. A little later, the Prince
   of Orange, after capturing Naarden, effected a junction near
   Bonn with Montecuculi; who had evaded Turenne. The Electors of
   Treves and Mayence thereupon joined the coalition and Cologne
   and Munster made peace. By this time, public opinion in
   England had become so angrily opposed to the war that Charles
   was forced to arrange terms of peace with Holland,
   notwithstanding his engagements with Louis. The tide was now
   turning fast against France. Denmark had joined the coalition.
   In March it received the Elector Palatine; in April the Dukes
   of Brunswick and Lüneburg came into the league; in May the
   Emperor procured from the Diet a declaration of war in the
   name of the Empire, and on the 1st of July the Elector of
   Brandenburg cast in his lot once more with the enemies of
   France. To effectually meet this new league of his foes, Louis
   resolved with heroic promptitude to abandon his conquests in
   the Netherlands. Maestricht and Grave, alone, of the places he
   had taken, were retained. But Holland still refused to make
   peace on the terms which the French king proposed, and held
   her ground in the league.

      _O. Airy,
      The English Reformation and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of France,
      chapter 44 (volume 5)._

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _A. F. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapters 12-14 (volume 2)._

      _Sir W. Temple,
      Memoirs,
      part 2 (works, volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1673.
   Reconquest of New Netherland from the English.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1673-1678.
   Fresh conquests by Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674.
   The Treaty of Westminster.
   Peace with England.
   Relinquishment of New Netherland.

   An offer from the Dutch to restore New Netherland to England
   "was extorted from the necessities of the republic, and its
   engagement with Spain. With the consent of the States General,
   the Spanish ambassador offered advantageous articles to the
   British government. Charles, finding that Louis refused him
   further supplies, and that he could not expect any from
   Parliament, replied that he was willing to accept reasonable
   conditions. … Sir William Temple was summoned from his
   retirement, and instructed to confer with the Spanish
   ambassador at London, the Marquis del Fresno, to whom the
   States General had sent full powers.
{2289}
   In three days all the points were arranged; and a treaty was
   signed at Westminster [February 19, 1674] by Arlington and
   four other commissioners on the part of Great Britain, and by
   Fresno on the part of the United Netherlands. The honor of the
   flag, which had been refused by De Witt, was yielded to
   England; the Treaty of Breda was revived; the rights of
   neutrals guaranteed; and the commercial principles of the
   Triple Alliance renewed. By the sixth article it was
   covenanted that 'all lands, islands, cities, havens, castles
   and fortresses, which have been or shall be taken by one party
   from the other, during the time of this last unhappy war,
   whether in Europe or elsewhere, and before the expiration of
   the times above limited for the duration of hostilities, shall
   be restored to the former Lord and Proprietor in the same
   condition they shall be in at the time that this peace shall
   be proclaimed.' This article restored New Netherland to the
   King of Great Britain. The Treaty of Breda had ceded it to him
   on the principle of 'uti possidetis.' The Treaty of
   Westminster gave it back to him on the principle of reciprocal
   restitution. Peace was soon proclaimed at London and at the
   Hague. The treaty of Westminster delivered the Dutch from fear
   of Charles, and cut off the right arm of Louis, their more
   dreaded foe. England, on her part, slipped out of a disastrous
   war. … By the treaty of Westminster the United Provinces
   relinquished their conquest of New Netherland to the King of
   England. The sovereign Dutch States General had treated
   directly with Charles as sovereign. A question at once arose
   at Whitehall about the subordinate interest of the Duke of
   York. It was claimed by some that James's former American
   proprietorship was revived. … The opinion of counsel having
   been taken, they advised that the duke's proprietorship had
   been extinguished by the Dutch conquest, and that the king was
   now alone seized of New Netherland, by virtue of the Treaty of
   Westminster. … A new patent to the Duke of York was
   therefore sealed. By it the king again conveyed to his brother
   the territories he had held before, and granted him anew the
   absolute powers of government he had formerly enjoyed over
   British subjects, with the like additional authority over 'any
   other person or persons' inhabiting his province. Under the
   same description of boundaries, New Jersey, and all the
   territory west of the Connecticut River, together with Long
   Island and the adjacent islands, and the region of Pemaquid,
   were again included in the grant. The new patent did not, as
   has been commonly, but erroneously stated, 'recite and confirm
   the former.' It did not in any way allude to that instrument.
   It read as if no previous English patent had ever existed. …
   As his colonial lieutenant and deputy, the duke, almost
   necessarily, appointed Major Edmund Andros, whom the king had
   directed in the previous March to receive New Netherland from
   the Dutch."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674-1678.
   Continued war of the Coalition against France.

   "The enemies of France everywhere took courage. … Louis XIV.
   embraced with a firm glance the whole position, and, well
   advised by Turenne, clearly took his resolution. He understood
   the extreme difficulty of preserving his conquests, and the
   facility moreover of making others more profitable, while
   defending his own frontier. To evacuate Holland, to indemnify
   himself at the expense of Spain, and to endeavor to treat
   separately with Holland while continuing the war against the
   House of Austria,—such was the new plan adopted; an
   excellent plan, the very wisdom of which condemned so much the
   more severely the war with Holland. … The places of the
   Zuyder-Zee were evacuated in the course of December by the
   French and the troops of Munster. … The evacuation of the
   United Provinces was wholly finished by spring. … Louis
   resolved to conquer Franche-Comté in person; while Turenne
   covered Alsace and Lorraine, Schomberg went to defend
   Roussillon, and Condé labored to strengthen the French
   positions on the Meuse, by sweeping the enemy from the
   environs of Liege and Maestricht. On the ocean, the defensive
   was preserved." Louis entered Franche-Comté at the beginning
   of May with a small army of 8,000 infantry and 5,000 or 6,000
   cavalry, but with Vauban, the great master of sieges, to do
   his serious work for him. A small corps had been sent into the
   country in February, and had already taken Gray, Vesoul and
   Lons-le-Saulnier. Besançon was now reduced by a short siege;
   Dole surrendered soon afterward, and early in July the
   subjugation of the province was complete. "The second conquest
   of Franche-Comté had cost a little more trouble than the
   first; but it was definitive. The two Burgundies were no more
   to be separated, and France was never again to lose her
   frontier of the Jura. … The allies, from the beginning of
   the year, had projected a general attack against France. They
   had debated among themselves the design of introducing two
   great armies, one from Belgium into Champagne, the other from
   Germany into Alsace and Lorraine; the Spaniards were to invade
   Roussillon; lastly, the Dutch fleet was to threaten the coasts
   of France and attempt some enterprise there. The tardiness of
   the Germanic diet to declare itself" frustrated the first of
   these plans. Condé, occupying a strong position near
   Charleroi, from which the allies could not draw him, took
   quick advantage of an imprudent movement which they made, and
   routed them by a fierce attack, at the village of Seneffe
   (August 11, 1674). But William of Orange rallied the flying
   forces—Dutch, German and Spanish now fighting side by
   side—so successfully that Condé was repulsed with terrible
   loss in the end, when he attempted to make his victory
   complete. The battle was maintained, by the light of the moon,
   until midnight, and both armies withdrew next morning, badly
   crippled. Turenne meantime, in June, had crossed the Rhine at
   Philippsburg and encountered the Imperialists, on the 16th,
   near Sinsheim, defeated them there and driven them beyond the
   Neckar. The following month, he again crossed the river and
   inflicted upon the Palatinate the terrible destruction which
   made it for the time being a desert, and which is the black
   blot on the fame of the great soldier. "Turenne ordered his
   troops to consume and waste cattle, forage, and harvests, so
   that the enemy's army, when it returned in force, as he
   foresaw it would do, could find nothing whereon to subsist."
   In September the city of Strasburg opened its gates to the
   Imperialists and gave them the control of its fortified
   bridge, crossing the Rhine.
{2290}
   Turenne, hastening to prevent the disaster, but arriving too
   late, attacked his enemies, October 4, at the village of
   Ensisheim and gained an inconclusive victory. Then followed,
   before the close of the year, the most famous of the military
   movements of Turenne. The allies having been heavily
   reinforced, he retired before them into Lorraine, meeting and
   gathering up reinforcements of his own as he moved. Then, when
   he had completely deceived them as to his intentions, he
   traversed the whole length of the Vosges with his army, in
   December, and appeared suddenly at Belfort, finding their
   forces scattered and entirely unprepared. Defeating them at
   Mülhausen December 29, and again at Colmar, January 5, he
   expelled them from Alsace, and offered to Strasburg the
   renewal of its neutrality, which the anxious city was glad to
   accept. "Thus ended this celebrated campaign, the most
   glorious, perhaps, presented in the military history of
   ancient France. None offers higher instruction in the study of
   the great art of war." In the campaign of 1675, which opened
   in May, Turenne was confronted by Montecuculi, and the two
   masterly tacticians became the players of a game which has
   been the wonder of military students ever since. "Like two
   valiant athletes struggling foot to foot without either being
   able to overthrow the other, Turenne and Montecuculi manœuvred
   for six weeks in the space of a few square leagues [in the
   canton of Ortnau, Swabia] without succeeding in forcing each
   other to quit the place." At length, on the 27th of July,
   Turenne found an opportunity to attack his opponent with
   advantage, in the defile of Salsbach, and was just completing
   his preparations to do so, when a cannon-ball from one of the
   enemy's batteries struck him instantly dead. His two
   lieutenants, who succeeded to the command, could not carry out
   his plans, but fought a useless bloody battle at Altenheim and
   nearly lost their army before retreating across the Rhine.
   Condé was sent to replace Turenne. Before he arrived,
   Strasburg had again given its bridge to the Imperialists and
   they were in possession of Lower Alsace; but no important
   operations were undertaken during the remainder of the year.
   In other parts of the wide war field the French suffered
   disaster. Marshal de Crequi, commanding on the Moselle, was
   badly defeated at Konsaarbrück, August 11, and Treves, which
   he defended, was lost a few weeks later. The Swedes, also,
   making a diversion in the north, as allies of France, were
   beaten back, at Fehrbellin.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

   But next year (1676) Louis recovered all his prestige. His
   navy, under the command of Duquesne and Tourville, fought the
   Dutch and Spaniards on equal terms, and defeated them twice in
   the Mediterranean, on the Sicilian coast. On land the main
   effort of the French was directed against the Netherlands.
   Condé, Bouchain and Aire were taken by siege; and Maestricht
   was successfully defended against Orange, who besieged it for
   nearly eight weeks. But Philippsburg, the most important
   French post on the Rhine, was lost, surrendering to the Duke
   of Lorraine. Early in 1677, Louis renewed his attacks on the
   Spanish Netherlands and took Valenciennes March 17, Cambrai
   April 4, and Saint-Omer April 20, defeating the Prince of
   Orange at Cassel (April 11) when he attempted to relieve the
   latter place. At the same time Crequi, unable to defend Lower
   Alsace, destroyed it—burning the villages, leaving the
   inhabitants to perish—and prevented the allies, who
   outnumbered him, from making any advance. In November, when
   they had gone into winter-quarters, he suddenly crossed the
   Rhine and captured Freiburg. The next spring (1678) operations
   began early on the side of the French with the siege of Ghent.
   The city capitulated, March 9, after a short bombardment. The
   Spanish governor withdrew to the citadel, but "surrendered, on
   the 11th, that renowned castle built by Charles V. to hold the
   city in check. The city and citadel of Ghent had not cost the
   French army forty men." Ypres was taken the same month.
   Serious negotiations were now opened and the Peace of
   Nimeguen, between France and Holland, was signed August 11,
   followed early the next year by a general peace. The Prince of
   Orange, who opposed the peace, fought one bootless but bloody
   battle at Saint-Denis, near Mons, on the 14th of August, three
   days after it had been signed.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

   "It may be doubted whether Europe has fully realised the
   greatness of the peril she so narrowly escaped on this
   occasion. The extinction of political and mental freedom,
   which would have followed the extinction of the Dutch
   Republic, would have been one of the most disastrous defeats
   of the cause of liberty and enlightenment possible in the then
   condition of the world. … The free presses of Holland gave
   voice to the stilled thought and agony of mankind. And they
   were the only free presses in the world. But Holland was not
   only the greatest book mart of Europe, it was emphatically the
   home of thinkers and the birthplace of ideas. … The two men
   then living to whose genius and courage the modern spirit of
   mental emancipation and toleration owes its first and most
   arduous victories were Pierre Bayle and John Locke. And it is
   beyond dispute that if the French King had worked his will on
   Holland, neither of them would have been able to accomplish
   the task they did achieve under the protection of Dutch
   freedom. They both were forced to seek refuge in Holland from
   the bigotry which hunted them down in their respective
   countries. All the works of Bayle were published in Holland,
   and some of the earliest of Locke's writings appeared there
   also; and if the remainder saw the light afterwards in
   England, it is only because the Dutch, by saving their own
   freedom, were the means of saving that of England as well. …
   At least, no one can maintain that if Holland had been
   annihilated in 1672, the English revolution could have
   occurred in the form and at the time it did."

      _J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1874)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapters 12-13._

      _T. O. Cockayne,
      Life of Turenne._

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Condé,
      chapter 12._

      See, also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689.
   Invasion of England by the Prince of Orange.
   His accession to the English throne.

      See ENGLAND A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER),
      to 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689-1696.
   The War of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
   against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

{2291}

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D; 1690-1691.
   The Battle of Fleurus and the loss of Mons.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1692.
   The Naval Battle of La Hogue.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1692.
   The loss of Namur and the Battle of Steenkerke.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1693.
   The Battle of Neerwinden.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1694-1696.
   Campaigns without battles.
   The recovery of Namur.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1694; and 1695-1696.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   French conquests restored.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

A. D. 1698-1700.
   The question of the Spanish Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1701.
   Occupied by French troops.

         See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1702.
   The Second Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: The Expedition to Cadiz.
   The sinking of the treasure ships in Vigo Bay.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Marlborough's first campaigns.

   "The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries,
   owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of
   Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part
   with France. About the middle of April, the prince of
   Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to
   the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with
   the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice
   of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the
   French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a
   vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful
   carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to
   relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself
   between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that
   place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more
   rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and
   moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton
   barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to
   take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by
   Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the
   peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives
   of the states, who attended the army under the name of field
   deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the
   Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without
   the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough,
   with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the
   ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The
   Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates
   were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit
   of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines;
   and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him,
   said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of
   these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly
   retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing
   Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a
   demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson
   of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had
   commanded the French army in name. He now returned to
   Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst
   Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and
   Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with
   Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure;
   and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The
   duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries
   about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and
   menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough,
   fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late
   campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of
   Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost
   3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this
   year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black
   Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector;
   whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army
   under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum
   was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men.
   Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent
   this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of
   Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture
   of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the
   emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was
   once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi,
   liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and,
   in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for
   recovering the ground and the strong places from which
   Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The
   campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with
   the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before
   the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation
   was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with
   the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal
   abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on
   the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented
   from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch
   generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field
   deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the
   easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage
   of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near
   Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field
   deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed
   with a facility which only proves the extent of his
   superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of
   Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the
   emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very
   capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the
   19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter
   upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim.
   … On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states
   general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the
   Moselle.
{2292}
   Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own
   security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in
   Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked
   were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle,
   thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and
   Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or
   allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and
   the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince
   of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the
   Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march
   upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the
   states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour
   of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted
   they would permit their troops to share the glory of his
   enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his
   confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed
   to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He
   met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim.
   Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career
   of war and victory."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      The History of England,
      volume 9, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Creighton,
      Life of Marlborough,
      chapters 6-7._

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough,
      chapter 5._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 11-22 (volume 1)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._

      Sec, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and 1703.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: A campaign spoiled.

   After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the
   field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough
   passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of
   1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead,
   again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in
   Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden,
   commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must
   depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and
   promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also
   were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated
   an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as
   were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince
   Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the
   time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and
   set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise
   whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few
   ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed
   himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough
   nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give
   battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded
   Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He
   intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk,
   where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him.
   And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there
   came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had
   suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of
   Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege."
   Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid
   by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his
   colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege,
   leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security
   of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the
   citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so
   that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with
   ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the
   fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of
   July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him,
   Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch
   troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first
   object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across
   the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous
   fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and
   morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men,
   under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough
   laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as
   also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to
   commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that
   for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for
   a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a
   nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them;
   but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division
   of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle,
   General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and
   compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius
   devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river
   [Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On
   the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk
   in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe
   near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of
   battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main
   chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day
   being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of
   Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy,
   observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding
   movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They
   encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and
   rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before
   they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed
   to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main
   posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now
   ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly
   the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and
   ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take
   place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg
   interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that
   Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a
   victory which he confidently declared would have been greater
   than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the
   year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the
   stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch
   deputies and the general who counselled them.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 6._

   In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by
   Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

{2293}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The Battle of Ramillies and its results.

   "The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough,
   his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English
   political business detaining him in London till the end of
   April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were
   still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and
   intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies.
   … He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy,
   which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen
   what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a
   successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the
   kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom
   Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant
   as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the
   Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever
   reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was
   condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time
   fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made
   which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all
   posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached
   most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds,
   Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he
   had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight
   at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had
   for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at
   once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two
   generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men,
   Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows
   at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines
   had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely
   more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as
   before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of
   the general. … The battle itself was one completely of
   generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly.
   It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that
   Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French
   and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of
   the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was
   not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of
   the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting
   on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the
   French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his
   hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a
   completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell
   before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered
   and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28.
   Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison
   precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2.
   Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the
   French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7.
   And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend,
   reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks
   from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in
   a district which the day before that battle had been occupied
   by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of
   80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender,
   tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a
   small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss
   of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as
   Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of
   Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the
   campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any
   importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as
   that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all
   generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and
   certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The
   Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone
   of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping,
   between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected
   to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The
   barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which
   Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of
   the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home.
   … It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and
   hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of
   the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion
   of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an
   almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is
   almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to
   anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough,
      chapter 6._

   In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years
   terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in
   April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1706 and 1707;
      see, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 7 and 9._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

   To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of
   Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the
   spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss
   plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up
   the various contingents that would compose his army. He
   encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to
   bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough,
   meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst
   the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite
   and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its
   side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of
   the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of
   Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm
   Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry
   out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the
   Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and
   learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an
   escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his
   arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had
   attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then
   besieging the castle."
{2294}
   The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their
   movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the
   fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and,
   convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome
   would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward
   their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies
   united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and
   crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th
   Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to
   the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde
   and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7
   o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by
   the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's
   grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after
   another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were
   carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to
   make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had
   been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have
   the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at
   Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were
   fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The
   Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or
   Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The
   French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied
   finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take
   advantage of their victory. They were within a circle
   commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and
   Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the
   proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The
   siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by
   the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison
   of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable
   undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and
   defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would
   have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth
   who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on
   the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The
   siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on
   the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of
   1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was
   humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies
   would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose
   too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the
   campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same
   skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful
   an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army,
   consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and
   Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000
   strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side,
   had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had
   been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong
   [under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position
   between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in
   the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his
   troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong
   position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying
   siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of
   July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned
   their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary
   to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to
   drive the allied army from the position it had gained between
   themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody
   battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern
   history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the
   vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to
   20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German
   writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000.
   … The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost.
   The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all
   its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former.
   There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it
   watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed,
   the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October].
   … But this was the solitary result of the victory."

      _Colonel G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 66-83 (volumes 4-5)._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

      _J. W. Gerard,
      Peace of Utrecht,
      chapters 17-19._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1709.
   The Barrier Treaty with England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The last campaigns of Marlborough.

   "As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at
   Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough
   at once began the active business of the campaign. …
   Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession
   of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In
   spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the
   capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of
   disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war
   into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so
   placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content
   himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire.
   Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops
   prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was
   somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in
   England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party
   had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of
   Marlborough and the war had come into power.

      _L. Creighton,
      Life of Marlborough,
      chapters 15-16._

   "In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,
   Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to
   Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his
   lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the
   campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some
   16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French
   system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number
   not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire
   7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask
   themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,
   Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded
   the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had
   himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.
{2295}
   He had given them four great victories in a little more than
   five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not
   unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them
   none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the
   war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,
   independently of the more strictly political considerations,
   … it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing
   Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He
   was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon
   his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;
   and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had
   inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military
   situation was changed from one very much in favour of the
   allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond
   all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapter 12._

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3)._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.
   The Treaties of Utrecht.
   Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.
   Barrier towns secured.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.
   Second Barrier Treaty with England.
   Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.

   Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the
   treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a
   new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and
   providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the
   Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now
   become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole
   nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The
   States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the
   succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of
   England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the
   States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay,
   Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk,
   Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to
   the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they
   should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the
   subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715,
   "he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed
   in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought
   security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of
   Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse;
   Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and
   Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of
   Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and
   Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted
   upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence
   to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and
   cost of its maintenance."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      chapter 11 (volume 3)._

(NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.
    Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.
    The Triple Alliance.
    The Quadruple Alliance.
    The Alliance of Hanover.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.
   The Treaty of Seville.
   The second Treaty of Vienna.
   The Ostend Company abolished.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743; and 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1744.
   Invasion by the French.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.
   French conquests.

   In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War
   were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A.
   D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to
   his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the
   Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded
   there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies,
   England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but
   Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there
   were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely
   exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young
   Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the
   control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged
   to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against
   these inferior numbers and divided councils the French
   advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various
   movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly,
   on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this
   important city, immediately became the principal object with
   the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous
   in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle.
   … On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful
   dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover
   the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a
   few miles further, in an excellent position, which he
   strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were
   inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had
   hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three
   allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them
   encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin
   and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow
   valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their
   left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat,
   were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête
   de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis
   were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin
   and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully
   fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy
   and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by
   the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French
   officers thought, the strength of the position might bid
   defiance to the boldest assailant.
{2296}
   Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a
   general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts
   on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their
   intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning
   of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and
   his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault,
   while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and
   Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His
   Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent
   General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood
   of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's
   division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the
   latter made no further effort. But the British and
   Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with
   them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between
   Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which
   the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which
   the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of
   the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of
   the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column,
   diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward,
   repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and
   gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be
   decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his
   congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had
   Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated
   messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw,
   while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued
   inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander
   to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while
   he brought another battery to bear on the head of the
   advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own
   exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed
   by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column
   wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for
   such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few
   pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any
   prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed,
   was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only
   1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise
   acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of
   Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily
   surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar
   attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while
   the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels
   and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against
   Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile
   the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND:
   A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to
   withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the
   approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into
   quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining
   fortresses of Flanders."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 52 (volume 6)._

      _J. G. Wilson,
      Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers: Saxe._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   French conquest of the Austrian provinces.
   Humiliation of Holland.
   The Stadtholdership restored.

   "In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up
   the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.
   Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places
   successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of
   Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,
   reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of
   Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and
   completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides
   went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse
   and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining
   only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some
   negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch
   for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had
   proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of
   Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,
   conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great
   Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had
   gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were
   protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had
   endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and
   active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of
   Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the
   States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April
   17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find
   on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against
   the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories
   'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit
   the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the
   States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count
   Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less
   than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and
   other places. Holland had now very much declined from the
   position she had held a century before. There were indeed many
   large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had
   been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial
   prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and
   steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and
   money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her
   brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt
   of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the
   Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.
   Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been
   engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally
   with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the
   arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the
   satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear
   of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against
   that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the
   republican or aristocratic party had again seized the
   ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William
   Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the
   Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a
   Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,
   however, become highly unpopular.
{2297}
   It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the
   Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach
   of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The
   Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment
   of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the
   example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who
   was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and
   Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,
   Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William
   IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of
   George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French
   threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of
   Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here
   they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a
   bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of
   Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the
   French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl
   [a Swedish general in the French service] carried
   Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring
   (1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,
   notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was
   surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been
   going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been
   appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference
   took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was
   intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it
   undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the
   war were signed the following October.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 12,
      part 4, chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.
   The restored Stadtholdership.
   Forty years of peace.
   War with England and trouble with Austria.
   The razing of the Barriers.
   Premature revolutions.

   In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic
   were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the
   House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of
   Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to
   the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of
   Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a
   line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland
   since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. …
   William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had
   done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of
   Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the
   consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for
   his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been
   elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male
   and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The
   constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the
   appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many
   … to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The
   election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his
   people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious
   days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without
   abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he
   was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the
   forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle
   restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the
   stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt
   that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies,
   and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well
   for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her
   greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested
   her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of
   peace, … When war again arrived it was again external
   circumstances [connected with the war between England and her
   revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to
   take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered,
   an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her
   designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which
   was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies
   both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle
   was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781
   off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a
   success that made them claim a victory, and that at least
   secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed
   caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been
   supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of
   her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were
   restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use
   of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon
   the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be
   apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against
   the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the
   opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and
   treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor
   will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our
   connection with France has made them needless': and the
   fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough
   had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable
   at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence;
   and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for
   more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the
   opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from
   the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear
   too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left
   them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to
   navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The
   support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied,
   was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he
   had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be
   restored; but the claims which had been put forward were
   abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the
   States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and
   party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and
   had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with
   America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against
   the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country,
   and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his
   restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian
   provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result
   in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had
   enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under
   Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000
   men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of
   Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the
   coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century, period 4,
      chapter 1, section 2,
      and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5)._

{2298}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
   French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.
   Recognition of the United States of America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.
   The Austrian provinces occupied
   by the French revolutionary army.
   Determination to annex them to the French Republic.
   Preparations to attack Holland.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      and 1702-1703 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
   French invasion of Holland.
   Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
   Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).
   The Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.
   French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.
   Holland open to invasion.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.
   Subjugation and occupation by the French.
   Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.
   Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1797.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.
   English and Russian invasion.
   Capture of the Dutch fleet.
   Ignominious ending of the expedition.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.
   Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.
   Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
   A new Constitution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.
   The Peace of Amiens.
   Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.
   Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
   Napoleon's Decrees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.
   The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.
   Louis Bonaparte made King.
   His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.
   His abdication.
   Annexation of Holland to the French empire.

   "While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had
   no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the
   north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine
   republic in the south. But after the coronation all the
   republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand
   republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire,
   if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was
   no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The
   latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it
   was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former
   into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an
   extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a
   deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian
   republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to
   solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis
   [Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis
   became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he
   opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an
   objection the state of his health, to which certainly the
   climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly
   replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than
   live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He
   went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not
   stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved
   by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial
   people, the best way to win their affections was … not to
   adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse
   with England. Hence the first coolness between the two
   brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not
   whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for
   at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of
   the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission
   in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph
   was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of
   Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally
   seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating
   from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces,
   the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully
   resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too
   intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion
   in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden
   already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist
   upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed
   augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he
   got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself
   struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change
   his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to
   him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved
   expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over
   all his family in order to make them the instruments of his
   despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of
   policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman,
   and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he
   said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade
   with Holland. In this state of things we may consider
   ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body
   I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you,
   that my intention is to unite Holland with France.
{2299}
   This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England,
   and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the
   plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me.
   The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to
   belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the
   interdiction of all trade and communication with England.
   Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line,
   seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned.
   Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the
   rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges
   of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your
   Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore,
   through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on
   the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will
   restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who
   may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at
   the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you
   prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments
   which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it
   extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature
   has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and
   France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland
   and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to
   England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.'
   … Here the correspondence between the two brothers was
   suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new
   vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the
   Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called
   his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not
   shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a
   council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the
   interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He
   did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the
   throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general
   silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings
   and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I
   have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be
   kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The
   Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly
   incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to
   the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united
   to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had
   exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom
   Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the
   accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the
   victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however,
   permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the
   stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch
   of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland.
   Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no
   remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert
   the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd
   of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. …
   Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than
   verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends,
   whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to
   address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His
   brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months
   after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he
   addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few
   days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more
   phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether
   you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose
   that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you
   should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have
   recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a
   Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains
   there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions.
   My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults.
   Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been
   repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which
   is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write
   to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel
   alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving
   that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down
   his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a
   message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland,
   explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French
   troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de
   Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King
   himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended
   from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the
   people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of
   which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was
   living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother
   had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then
   published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all
   intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite
   in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged
   that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in
   energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the
   empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was
   summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince.
   Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and
   Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him
   again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M.
   Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The
   Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the
   latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being
   considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and
   the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. A. Bingham,
      Marriages of the Bonapartes,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 22._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1809.
   The English Walcheren expedition against Antwerp.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1811.
   Java taken by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

{2300}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Independence regained.
   Restoration of the Prince of Orange.

   "The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the
   deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch
   Provinces.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

   The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous
   pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the
   wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led,
   had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland,
   from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the
   total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the
   naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had
   occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the
   last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of
   being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system
   which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with
   the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These
   feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to
   have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident
   hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no
   longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown
   down the colossus of French external power, and the approach
   of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the
   people the means of salvation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER) and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

   From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the
   nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small
   number of French troops in the country at once encouraged
   revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the
   whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed
   6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose
   fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed.
   Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who
   advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon
   followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew
   from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the
   whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at
   Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to
   circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At
   Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than
   the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial
   authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a
   provisional government with a view to the restoration of the
   ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty,
   but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise
   of social rights by a people long habituated to their
   enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in
   the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft,
   Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people,
   everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal
   rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the
   ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences
   of the highest importance immediately followed this
   uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation
   from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the
   Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked
   on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on
   the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the
   Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had
   concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence
   was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that
   the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were
   not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their
   consternation, and made it general forward movement against
   Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300
   Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received
   with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after
   followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after
   travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the
   latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached
   Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately
   advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he
   made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600
   prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with
   Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the
   23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000
   strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with
   great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up
   with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were
   still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely
   successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to
   Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,
   finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew
   altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the
   orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with
   a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,
   threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the
   Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received
   the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the
   close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on
   Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;
   and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been
   transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to
   those of the Scheldt."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 82 (volume 17)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
   Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed
   to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.
   The Waterloo campaign.
   Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.
   Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
   Siege of Antwerp citadel.

   "In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the
   kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,
   "was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any
   other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in
   the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,
   the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch
   Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted
   Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with
   the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the
   rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that
   Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.
 {2301}
   These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable
   of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for
   themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian
   dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a
   population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000
   persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the
   States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,
   and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch
   pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The
   public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five
   in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was
   almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors
   were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian
   schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of
   Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of
   the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all
   judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.
   … On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the
   elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers
   failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the
   political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union
   was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July
   [at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides
   crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of
   revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine
   years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax
   upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;
   and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch
   members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in
   Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed
   against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the
   interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the
   Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops
   were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded
   to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August
   the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.
   Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the
   people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,
   and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square
   of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,
   the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable
   citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,
   organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was
   preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted
   Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control
   of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had
   unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could
   hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given
   to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;
   victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the
   Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king
   urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation
   of the States-General. The king had received the news of the
   events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at
   once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,
   an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The
   citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops
   would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the
   officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively
   outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make
   terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to
   admit the prince into the city unless he came without his
   soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of
   this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people
   alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium
   had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,
   compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned
   the States-General for the 13th of September. But this
   concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.
   They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded
   independence, the dissolution of the union, and the
   independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had
   originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to
   other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,
   Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the
   example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the
   union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a
   mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;
   and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously
   impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.
   The question of separation was referred to them by the king;
   and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its
   consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which
   their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had
   completed the preliminary discussions which they thought
   necessary the march of events had taken the question out of
   their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke
   out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the
   riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their
   success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,
   who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of
   Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up
   his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his
   command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of
   September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the
   columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining
   possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were
   unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the
   contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,
   unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which
   they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the
   States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the
   union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the
   gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to
   preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the
   Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a
   separate Administration for the southern provinces of the
   kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …
   Arrangements of this character had, however, already become
   impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached
   Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an
   ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the
   immediate convocation of a National Congress. …
{2302}
   On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following
   up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating
   the composition of the National Congress and the
   qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were
   fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the
   Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence
   of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its
   authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the
   five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the
   invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice
   should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops
   should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this
   protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,
   virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which
   the Congress immediately proclaimed."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

   It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for
   Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian
   Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.
   The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice
   of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The
   second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides
   to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by
   dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.
   The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland
   rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who
   expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A
   French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet
   blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,
   December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until
   April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and
   Holland was signed.

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 24-25 and 29._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
   Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.
   Constitutional and material progress.
   The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.

   "After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been
   free to work out its own career of prosperous development.
   King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model
   of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The
   first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between
   Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most
   complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by
   more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,
   numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as
   Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France
   all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing
   Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection
   of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]
   with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted
   the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been
   the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850
   there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and
   nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for
   many years to abolish these and control education; but neither
   party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst
   of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after
   seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial
   crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a
   constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question
   seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.
   had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take
   Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as
   the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

   … Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain
   on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this
   danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical
   parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,
   and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals
   succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over
   State education. The constitution is that of a limited
   monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of
   Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens
   paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was
   extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection
   with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see
   below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize
   Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.
   The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,
   and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of
   1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a
   thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the
   States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by
   the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower
   house by electors having a property qualification. The king's
   ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of
   the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief
   questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy
   debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of
   agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and
   difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage
   28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She
   there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the
   Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in
   South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was
   not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves
   in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of
   Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];
   but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main
   purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour
   system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the
   people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."

      _J. H. Rose,
      A Century of Continental History,
      chapter 43._

   "The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals
   exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,
   and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic
   provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely
   absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the
   lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order
   thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious
   strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in
   the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution
   of 1830.
{2303}
   This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and
   liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of
   the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free
   press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form
   associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,
   representative administration—all exactly as in England. How
   was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose
   members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour
   of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also
   the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is
   explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,
   La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest
   influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur
   l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human
   reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance
   of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,
   seminarists, and priests, established the author as an
   unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he
   pretended that the Church would regain her former power by
   separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,
   most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …
   Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.
   They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in
   their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to
   reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals
   united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence
   after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot
   tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in
   its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,
   the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a
   plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would
   inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the
   Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the
   vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,
   and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.
   The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'
   of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William
   and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,
   however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly
   announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed
   of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear
   a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …
   When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as
   regards their political, not their religious opinions. The
   Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events
   by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the
   bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the
   clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from
   a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by
   the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine
   Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,
   of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and
   progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass
   of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country
   populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,
   and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no
   material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend
   liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the
   Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as
   threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to
   fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but
   which they foresee. … The educational question, which has
   been the centre of the political life of the country during
   the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important
   in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is
   everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was
   organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the
   two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders
   of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,
   where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of
   forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess
   schools sufficient for the number of children needing
   instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private
   schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control
   of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,
   was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour
   for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they
   perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests
   over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became
   the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately
   effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must
   provide the schools necessary for the children of its
   inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.
   Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction
   may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in
   the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This
   system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of
   the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the
   communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the
   school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose
   to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,
   now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving
   rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it
   is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …
   In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private
   school in every commune and village not formerly possessing
   one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a
   devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the
   Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have
   been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools
   without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents
   were forbidden to place their children, under pain of
   committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed
   their children still to frequent the communal schools, were
   deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused
   absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.
   All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban
   of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce
   a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary
   instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step
   is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the
   House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in
   progress, and the results of which in this last six months,
   fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by
   what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As
   a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the
   two parties end by justifying the accusations of their
   adversaries.
{2304}
   The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion
   is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the
   Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against
   their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the
   necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in
   Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,
   offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good
   working of Parliamentary government."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Political Condition of Belgium
      (Contemporary Review, April, 1882),
      pages 715-724, with foot-note._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.
   The founding of the Congo Free State.

      See CONGO FREE STATE.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):
A. D. 1887.
   Revision of the Constitution.

   The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the
   Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative
   spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect
   a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage
   qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and
   certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the
   franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,
   which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private
   soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are
   excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States
   General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its
   membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting
   of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In
   the new constitution, the succession to the throne is
   definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct
   heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be
   accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of
   Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess
   Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess
   Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,
   died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to
   succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under
   the regency of her mother.

      _The Statesman's Year-book, 1894._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Annual Register, 1887._

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
   The revised Belgian Constitution.
   Introduction of plural Suffrage.

   A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a
   formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise
   from the government of a revision of the constitution and the
   introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,
   elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the
   11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated
   on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on
   every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in
   the same commune for not less than one year, and not under
   legal disqualification. The new constitution is made
   especially interesting by its introduction of a system of
   cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is
   conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five
   years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at
   least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen
   not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to
   the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not
   less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public
   debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are
   given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has
   received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions
   which imply the possession of a superior education. The same
   citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these
   qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.
   On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels
   correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;
   "This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in
   France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and
   the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple
   suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as
   to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a
   profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of
   the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just
   principle that votes must be considered in reference to their
   weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of
   putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which
   disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much
   enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The
   moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract
   theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An
   attempt to introduce proportional representation along with
   the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the
   Senate raised questions hardly less important than those
   connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent
   quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had
   proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political
   representation of the territorial interests of the country, by
   a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social
   forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to
   agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their
   representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have
   made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,
   may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators
   hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of
   its application. This combination rejected, there remained for
   the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,
   to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or
   else by its composition. The Senate and the Government
   preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct
   elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the
   Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by
   specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these
   proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a
   general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate
   consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26
   elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight
   years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a
   property qualification; those popularly elected are required
   to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000
   francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in
   direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the
   voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.
{2305}
   The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned
   according to population and elected for four years, one half
   retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually
   in November, and are required to be in session for at least
   forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,
   and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.
   In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an
   election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the
   Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of
   Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to
   the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven
   ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and
   Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of
   Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.
   The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

   ----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NEUSTRIA.

      See AUSTRASIA.

NEUTRAL GROUND, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEUTRAL NATION, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

   ----------NEVADA: Start--------

NEVADA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
   Acquisition from Mexico.
   Silver discoveries.
   Territorial and State organization.

   "Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as
   one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of
   the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra
   Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,
   and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with
   Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake
   valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries
   of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican
   territory outside of California, and something more." But
   Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created
   instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the
   Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada
   likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the
   Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of
   western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the
   extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the
   Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had
   rapidly attracted to the region a large population of
   adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate
   territorial organization. Three years later the young
   territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was
   admitted into the Union in October, 1864.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 20: Nevada, page 66._

   ----------NEVADA: End--------

NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.

   A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
   England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
   prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 25 (volume 3)._

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.

   By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of
   Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to
   Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of
   Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty
   leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the
   said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while
   the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this
   document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to
   include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and
   Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,
   forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
   Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other
   'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores
   of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a
   county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden
   as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and
   imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the
   year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became
   vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in
   1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to
   make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the
   Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl
   Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have
   reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time
   near the close of the 18th century.

      _G. B. Keen,
      Note on New Albion.
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 36-38 and 108-112._

NEW AMSTERDAM.

   The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New
   York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.

   Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the
   city of Buffalo, N. Y.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

   ----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------

NEW BRUNSWICK:
   Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

      See NORUMBEGA;
      also, CANADA: NAMES.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.
   Included in Nova Scotia.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.
   Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.
   The Family Compact.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
      A. D. 1854-1866.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
   Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

   ----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------

NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.

   See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW CARTHAGE.
   The founding of.

      See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.

NEW CASTILE.

   See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

{2306}

   ----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------

NEW ENGLAND.
   [Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
   elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
   and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]

NEW ENGLAND:
   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW ENGLAND:
   The Norumbega of early geographers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
   First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
   Coasted by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
   The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
   Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
   Coast explored by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
   Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
   of Plymouth.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
   The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
   Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
   The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
   Incorporation of the Council for New England,
   successor to the Plymouth Company.
   Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.

   "While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
   company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
   in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
   Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
   letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
   remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
   English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
   the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
   the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
   subjects—some of them members of his household and his
   government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
   nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
   county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
   governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
   conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
   of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
   48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
   Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
   considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
   employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
   under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
   through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
   crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
   independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
   French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
   lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
   years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
   incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
   prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
   grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
   was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
   and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
   England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
   King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
   approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
   of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
   Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
   exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
   refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
   authority was soon resigned."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Deane,
      New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 9)._

      _Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
      Brief Narration
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
   The grants made by the Council for New England.
   Settlements planted.
   Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.

   Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
   became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
   a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
   sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
   and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
   year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
   into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
   little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
   Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
   Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
   Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
   invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
   scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
   settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
   to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
   Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
   referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
   their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
   Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
   1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
   which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
   countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
   urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
   before. The Council for New England, established in November,
   1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
   to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
   second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
   John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
   lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
   back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
   with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
   called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
   within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
   period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
   England.
{2307}
   On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
   This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
   sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
   extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
   within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
   called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
   seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
   carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
   were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
   Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
   New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
   the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
   was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
   Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
   prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
   ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
   many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
   intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
   David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
   The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
   fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
   Council for New England, in view of the many intended
   settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
   set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
   Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
   appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
   Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
   Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
   1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
   was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
   Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
   between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
   Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
   was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
   Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
   now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
   services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
   In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
   ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
   Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
   wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
   His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
   France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
   were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
   duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
   enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
   They came to some understanding about a division of their
   Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
   memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
   to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
   lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
   called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
   he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
   … This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
   to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
   been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
   immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
   in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
   fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
   The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
   lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
   grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
   November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
   Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
   interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
   Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
   received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
   tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
   the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
   Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
   covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
   Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
   side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
   Lebanon."

      _C. W. Tuttle,
      Captain John Mason
      (Prince Society Publications, 1887),
      pages 12-24._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. F. Haven,
      Grants under the Great Council for New England
      (Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 127-162)._

      _J. P. Baxter, editor,
      Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
      (Prince Society Publications 1890)._

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, page 397, foot-note._

      See, also,
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
   The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
   the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
   The new patent to Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS:
      A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
   The immigration of the Governor and Company of
   Massachusetts Bay with their charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
   The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
   Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
   of its territorial claims by lot.

   "The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
   fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
   to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
   had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
   overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
   and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
   profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
   common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
   keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
   organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
   resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
   administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
   appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
   portion of which by its corporate action had already been
   alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
   should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
   the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
   distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
   nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
   transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
   previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
   colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
   Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
   Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

{2308}

   It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
   all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
   everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
   Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
   country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
   England."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

   In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
   the Council, the divisions were:
   (1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
   (2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
   in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
   (3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
   (4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
   (5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
   (6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
   by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
   (7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
   the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
   to Lord Edward Gorges.
   (8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
   Earl of Carlisle.
   (9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
   to the Duke of Lennox.
   (11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
   Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 337, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, pages 48-50._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
   Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
   The first American constitution.
   The genesis of a state.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
   Public Registry laws.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

   "The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
   banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held
   in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,
   who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.
   They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.
   The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were
   restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike
   conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000
   fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate
   the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one
   or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to
   Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who
   invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who
   offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His
   object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites
   against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.
   Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,
   the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or
   later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use
   discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for
   their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated
   and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain
   Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston
   magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to
   account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort
   on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at
   its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in
   Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and
   other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been
   murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging
   on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent
   Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to
   kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the
   women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work
   only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and
   wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this
   expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a
   desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a
   league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as
   if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would
   doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme
   was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly
   intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made
   effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in
   him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly
   league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of
   1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their
   territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered
   at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and
   cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250
   Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot
   'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a
   military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable
   John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from
   Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their
   quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they
   had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not
   very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only
   about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a
   sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason
   in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of
   their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the
   infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and
   fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.
   Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and
   dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their
   own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing
   wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English
   showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the
   wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the
   victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon
   abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,
   in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the
   English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many
   wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,
   allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.
{2309}
   The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of
   them which sought protection among the so-called river
   Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,
   were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,
   being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold
   in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same
   humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants
   to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites
   had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the
   occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of
   later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all
   candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white
   men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of
   Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate
   vengefulness."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254)._

   "More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and
   less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These
   were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the
   pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit
   their native country again. To make the annihilation of the
   race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in
   Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the
   Thames, Pequot town was named New London."

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Hollister,
      History of Connecticut,
      chapters 2-3._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of John Mason
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
   The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
   The founding of New Haven Colony.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
   The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
   The growth of population and the rise of towns.
   The end of the Puritan exodus.

   "Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New
   England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long
   Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore
   them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their
   transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is
   computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.
   The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …
   Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were
   incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were
   passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,
   Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and
   Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the
   present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act
   was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a
   measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within
   itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to
   that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the
   central power, or the constitution of the United States; and
   the idea of the formation of such communities was probably
   derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a
   parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to
   contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of
   its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at
   this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all
   which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three
   contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   "Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the
   Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to
   America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to
   flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and
   strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and
   Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the
   Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New
   Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence
   had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of
   Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.
   There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again
   made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken
   by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the
   privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence
   vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of
   a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and
   magistrates took different sides, grew a very important
   controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which
   resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two
   branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and
   solidity of the political system."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 18._

      See, also,
      TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
   Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
   The confederation of the colonies.

   In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
   Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
   delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
   hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
   Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
   Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
   withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
   commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
   oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
   Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
   have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
   commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
   choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
   to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
   declared by either colony without the consent of the
   commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
   relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
   'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
   great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
   common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
   male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
   criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
   introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
   commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
   practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
   provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
   courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
   full faith and credit in all the others.
{2310}
   The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
   the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
   precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
   though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
   had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
   towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
   old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
   to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
   for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
   Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
   was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
   town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
   commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
   agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
   of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
   Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
   Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
   towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
   added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
   the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
   Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
   Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
   still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
   it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
   next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
   that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
   Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
   the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
   and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
   still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 8._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
   The chartering of Providence Plantation,
   and the Rhode Island Union.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.
   Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.
   Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
   The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
   The claims of Massachusetts made good.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution of Quakers.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.
   The Halfway Covenant.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.
   The protection of the Regicides.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
   Under the Restored Monarchy.
   The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
   The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
   The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts
   with Connecticut.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.
   King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.

   "The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
   Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
   treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
   should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
   the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
   welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
   opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
   slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
   as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
   narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
   them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
   convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
   principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
   now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
   nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
   under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
   their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
   their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
   they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
   their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
   Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
   There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
   part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
   accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
   what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
   of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
   recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
   but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
   fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
   them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
   be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
   anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
   an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
   unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
   haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
   surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
   in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
   escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
   informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
   identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
   Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
   young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
   eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
   and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
   Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
   have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
   … What chances had he of success? The English were united;
   the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
   English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
   had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
   could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
   shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
   were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
   Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
   without hope, and they fought without mercy.
{2311}
   For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
   alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
   Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
   beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
   Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
   among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
   little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
   Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
   of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
   Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
   commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
   Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
   his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
   frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
   a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
   Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
   their race to a warfare of extermination."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have
   been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England;
   10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter
   capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts,
   numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's
   resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember
   the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a
   war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English,
   in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death,
   was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice
   taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without
   his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have
   been made by either party; for the whites felt their
   superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and
   Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between
   united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled
   savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never
   faltered or plead from that day forth."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Church,
      History of King Philip's War,
      (Prince Society Publication 1867)._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 3._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).
   King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.
   Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.

   The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had
   already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They
   waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous
   Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston
   to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield
   itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The
   inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information
   of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster,
   thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of
   troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed
   for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by
   driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of
   unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an
   intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield
   and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut
   River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and
   several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers,
   sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions,
   was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men.
   Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven
   to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the
   river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at
   Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the
   eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with
   80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the
   wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of
   unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield
   meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small
   stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the
   abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the
   Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a
   brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain
   Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance,
   but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was
   abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the
   same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the
   arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield,
   now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked,
   but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants.
   Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the
   Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the
   whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in
   the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still
   remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The
   frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the
   inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread
   and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying
   Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became
   objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with
   realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual,
   added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky,
   and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object
   of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were
   heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of
   wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded
   as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. …
   About the time of the first collision with Philip, the
   Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements
   in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses,
   and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their
   hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of
   attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe
   that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured
   an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had
   deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites.
   This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very
   questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any
   deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had
   they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The
   Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained
   untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful
   confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former
   provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were
   strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused,
   notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and
   shelter to the hostile tribes."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Markham,
      History of King Philip's War,
      chapters 7-8._

      _G. H. Hollister,
      History of Connecticut,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _M. A. Green,
      Springfield, 1636-1886,
      chapter 9._

{2312}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).
   King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.

   "The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded
   with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their
   compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should
   fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's
   dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal
   Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet,
   sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs,
   and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged
   to be then under their protection should be surrendered within
   ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut
   River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their
   engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no
   Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful
   in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible
   desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The
   fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them
   reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined
   to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the
   Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of
   Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of
   Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place
   himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn
   day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the
   colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the
   Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of
   their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making
   reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect
   hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.'
   … It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts
   at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from
   stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at
   pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham
   to Attleborough on the day before that which had been
   appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth
   levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country.
   The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the
   few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned
   by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of
   Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as
   the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired,
   and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge
   in it, were put to death. … The place where the
   Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of
   South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly
   direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that
   Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the
   force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to
   information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian
   warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on
   their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their
   skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres,
   wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this
   natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a
   barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to
   the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled
   tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being
   protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a
   considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all
   assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18],
   breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it
   was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after
   noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they
   had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely
   halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition
   they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts
   troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the
   two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut.
   The foremost of the assailants were received with a
   well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed
   or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their
   leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed,
   which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three
   hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but
   they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was
   nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed
   together as they were. At length victory declared for the
   English, who finished their work by setting fire to the
   wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150
   wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men
   40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy
   that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and
   material is that on that day the military strength of the
   formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1676-1678.
   King Philip's War: The end of the conflict.

   "While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of
   things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed
   that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal
   crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.
   Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially
   disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell
   back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February
   the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to
   assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to
   renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months
   the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the
   scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the
   Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,
   1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies
   the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the
   10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into
   the lovely village.
{2313}
   Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph
   Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to
   Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was
   slowly making its way over the difficult roads from
   Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses
   were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and
   children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's
   house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people
   found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were
   driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more
   were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken
   captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the
   minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad
   experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these
   Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster
   was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked
   and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and
   Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a
   dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon
   Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,
   Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and
   Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70
   men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500
   Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate
   captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's
   party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that
   afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing
   two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate
   their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain
   Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near
   the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his
   name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the
   Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had
   burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the
   wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still
   some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of
   March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a
   company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew
   them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.
   Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,
   defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of
   Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over
   to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet
   marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the
   last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to
   400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the
   Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church
   patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the
   Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,
   comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of
   Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol
   Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was
   surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he
   attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,
   where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the
   village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the
   townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By
   midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,
   and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and
   Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been
   simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,
   while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and
   slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men
   … had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women
   and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless
   tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …
   henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New
   England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon
   the frontier."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Hubbard,
      History of the Indian Wars in New England,
      edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1._

      _Mrs. Rowlandson,
      Narrative of Captivity._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1684-1686.
   The overthrow of the Massachusetts charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1687.
   The overthrow of the Connecticut charter.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
   The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of
   New England" under a royal governor-general.

   "It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut,
   New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with
   Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
   country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to
   defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for
   England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was
   opposed to the republican system of confederation. …
   Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his
   colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in
   November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For
   more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice
   hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use
   his master hand on New England. … By the advice of
   Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be
   captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and
   Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts
   Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
   country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn
   in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for
   those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New
   Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic.
   Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed
   by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the
   territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's
   Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or
   afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his
   government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish
   Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      See, also,
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
   New York and New Jersey brought under the
   governor-generalship of Andros.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

{2314}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689.
   The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros,
   and proclamation of William and Mary.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War (the First Intercolonial War).

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
   Plymouth absorbed.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.
   Oppressive commercial policy of England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
   Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):
   Border incursions by the French and Indians.
   The final conquest of Acadia.

   "But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick.
   First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession,"
   and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV.
   "This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and
   preparations were made for war. William III. died in March,
   1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and
   daughter of James II. War was declared by England against
   France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in
   European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in
   American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or
   the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain,
   and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria,
   Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the
   Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New
   England, war between France and England meant the hideous
   midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning
   hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a
   conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in
   June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many
   of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to
   have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their
   accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the
   tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless
   provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the
   Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August,
   500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions
   into the New England settlements. They divided into several
   bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time.
   Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages,
   but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of
   an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons
   were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the
   town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the
   inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the
   30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few
   people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property
   destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along
   the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was
   … resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as
   usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins
   of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put
   in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats,
   convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May,
   1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the
   Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705,
   450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants,
   adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for
   twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the
   English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes.
   They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the
   little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English
   trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was
   made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New
   England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments,
   but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley
   forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and
   ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel
   Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the
   fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the
   expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council
   at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and
   Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march
   through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New
   Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40
   were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was
   formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and
   five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But
   a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for
   America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel
   Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said
   to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by
   Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next
   year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty
   transports, and one British and four New England regiments for
   the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an
   insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a
   short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving
   and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the
   last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and
   Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was
   re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the French War,
      chapter 8._

   "With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was
   again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James
   I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"

      _R. Brown,
      History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      pages 108-111._

      See, also,
      CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725.
   Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2315}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
   King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):
   Hostilities in Nova Scotia.

   "The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain
   and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the
   greater number of the British provinces of America no farther
   share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the
   expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which
   his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South
   Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and
   danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile
   relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended
   to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing
   peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain;
   while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused
   the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch;
   and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of
   hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France,
   war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally
   declared by these states against each other.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.

   The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this
   event before it was known in New England, were tempted to
   improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an
   instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which
   accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter
   of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the
   coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement,
   which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and
   defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment
   of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape
   Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war
   between the two parent states, conceived the hope of
   destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the
   suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow,
   which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744).
   Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at
   Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men,
   took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and
   houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants.
   This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the
   conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in
   Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were
   repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined
   by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of
   Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the
   assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a
   reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the
   garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the
   succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was
   ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a
   pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that
   very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends
   nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which
   excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was
   declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted
   in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were
   reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of
   defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from
   the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to
   prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first
   operations announced, their privateers actively waged a
   harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of
   New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia
   were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of
   returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and
   so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into
   Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected
   that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would
   be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the
   protection of convoy."

      _J. Grahame,
      History [Colonial] of the United States,
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      pages 123-128._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
   King George's War.
   The taking of Louisburg.

   "Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE
   BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort
   north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,
   carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported
   the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long
   as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source
   of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to
   capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in
   Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.
   Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General
   Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial
   expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six
   days' deliberation and two additional messages from the
   governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.
   A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to
   all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to
   this application, urged by a special messenger from
   Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of
   their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly
   … furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but
   declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long
   debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to
   Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of
   provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten
   eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted
   500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and
   appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second
   in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire
   each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops
   did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief
   burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on
   Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was
   enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were
   profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were
   provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New
   England colonies. The command in chief was given to William
   Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had
   inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father
   in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,
   noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with
   military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The
   enterprise … assumed something of the character of an
   anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of
   Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down
   the images in the French churches.
{2316}
   Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the
   Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the
   arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the
   melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New
   Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut
   came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and
   the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren
   presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before
   Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with
   supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England
   cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.
   As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced
   the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.
   … Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,
   upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that
   cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided
   with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a
   third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble
   and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies
   had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the
   besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June
   17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective
   inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to
   France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the
   same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but
   among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered
   fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In
   the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a
   large number of the remaining Indians of New England,
   persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.
   Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and
   naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by
   additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a
   baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels
   in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear
   admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the
   face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over
   one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever
   engaged."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

   "As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg]
   was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession.
   England had no other success in that war to compare with it.
   As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this
   exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5)._

   "Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved
   during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the French War,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _R. Brown,
      History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14._

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Taking of Louisburg._

      _U. Parsons,
      Life of Sir William Pepperell,
      chapters 3-5._

      _F. Parkman,
      The Capture of Louisbourg
      (Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
   King George's War: The mortifying end.
   Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
   and restoration of Louisburg to France.

   "Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now
   offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of
   Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted,
   disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly
   their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the
   chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from
   England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when
   joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a
   powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should
   attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late
   as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to
   levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the
   frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the
   plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to
   the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the
   instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America,
   and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500
   men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were
   doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense,
   they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen
   garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses
   assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other
   colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a
   commissariat, and under no control. After the season for
   active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded
   themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of
   their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition
   to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the
   mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off
   in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the
   centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled
   thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from
   France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a
   subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts.
   Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the
   garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas
   Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year
   1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former
   place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of
   the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for
   Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of
   December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great
   distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the
   French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march
   from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and
   surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in
   killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to
   capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the
   French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of
   May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the
   terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7,
   1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape
   Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had
   created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their
   commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be
   rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The
   French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon,
   on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their
   fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of
   £183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg,
   and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the
   orders that were revoked.

      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hannay,
      History of Acadia,
      chapter 19._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,
      chapters 6-9._

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5)._

      See, also,
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

{2317}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753.
   Dissensions among the colonies at the
   opening of the great French War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany.
   Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,
   and English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.
   Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
   The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.
   The Stamp Act.
   Its effects and its repeal.
   The Stamp Act Congress.
   The Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767;
      and 1767-1768.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785.
   The ending of Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston under siege.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783.
   The War of the Revolution.
   Independence achieved.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
   The Embargo and its effects.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Federalist opposition to the war with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828.
   Change of front on the tariff question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824;
      and 1828.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
   The rise of the Abolitionists.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The war for the Union.

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.

   ----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------

NEW FOREST.

   To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion,
   William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors,
   chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of
   country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on
   the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this
   wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William
   Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a
   judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less
   than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by
   fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England,
      part 1, chapter 2, D._

NEW FRANCE.

      See CANADA.

NEW GRANADA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES.

   ----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------

NEW HAMPSHIRE:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.
   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.
   Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
   First colonies planted.
   The naming of the province.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
   The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.

   According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a
   territory extending northward three miles beyond the
   head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the
   greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that
   of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been
   ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an
   order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and
   Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth,
   the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and
   reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason
   had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were
   mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between
   Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of
   jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this
   period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the
   Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the
   Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good
   title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in
   1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers
   favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they
   left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679
   it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts
   Colony, although their grant technically included all lands
   extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack
   river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and
   thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was
   treated as a Royal province, the Governors and
   Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws
   made by the people being subject to his revision."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Barstow,
      History of New Hampshire,
      chapters 2-5._

      _J. Belknap,
      History of New Hampshire,
      volume 1, chapters 2-9._

      _N. Adams,
      Annals of Portsmouth,
      pages 28-64._

      See, also,
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

{2318}

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675.
   Outbreak of the Taranteens.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.
   Boundary dispute with New York.
   The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the
   "Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany,
   and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The end of royal government.
   Adoption of a constitution.
   Declaration of Independence.

   The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came
   together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements
   produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a
   convention of the people had been called and was sitting at
   Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly
   proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the
   governor had called by the king's writ from three new
   townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the
   expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was
   assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the
   governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused,
   they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the
   offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor
   retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards
   went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had
   adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met
   no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles
   of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing
   act of his administration. It was the last receding step of
   royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The
   government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government
   of the people. … The convention which had assembled at
   Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their
   dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the
   recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention,
   which should be a more full representation of the people. They
   sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and
   dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new
   convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of
   government. Having assumed the name of 'House of
   Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776],
   and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a
   distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the
   name of a Council." The constitution provided for no
   executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive
   duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of
   safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to
   sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the
   council was president of the executive committee. … On the
   11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly,
   and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a
   draught of a declaration of the independence of the united
   colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported
   a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted
   unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in
   congress."

      _G. Barstow,
      History of New Hampshire,
      chapter 9._

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776.
   The ending of Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence.
   Peace with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783.
   Revision of the State constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788.
   Ratification of the Federal constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

   ----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------

   ----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638.
   The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639.
   The Fundamental Agreement.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655.
   The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.
   Progress and state of the colony.
   The New England Confederation.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

{2319}

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664.
   The protection of the Regicides.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664.
   Annexation to Connecticut.

   See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666.
   The migration to Newark, N.J.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779.
   Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
      WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

   ----------NEW HAVEN: End--------

NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

   ----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------

NEW JERSEY:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.
   The Dutch in possession.
   The Patroon colony at Pavonia.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1620.
   Embraced in the patent of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635.
   Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution
   of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
   The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.

   The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New
   Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers
   of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as
   well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their
   little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to
   establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as
   along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch
   for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong
   trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of
   1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking
   Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made
   active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE:
   A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising
   townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put
   themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country
   where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a
   "Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and
   all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year
   1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by
   Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner
   "was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase
   lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that
   rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New
   Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of
   the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey,
   and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of
   Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the
   30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven,
   which voted to itself authority over the region of the
   Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved,
   and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed'
   were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.'
   The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the
   Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they
   went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing
   protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger
   portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill
   (Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey.
   A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk.
   This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of
   New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious
   'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between
   this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged
   colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their
   mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England
   intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements.,
   The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain
   that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that,
   "slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part
   of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The
   poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore
   households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The
   ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in
   the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength.
   "Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not
   abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for
   redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still
   looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was
   resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new
   expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was
   stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back,
   vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England
   shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England
   was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would
   pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than
   half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her
   own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in
   the greater war which broke out between Holland and England.
   When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New
   Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and
   extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one
   to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United
   Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey,
   adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole
   proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a
   matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the
   conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God,
   and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes
   of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated
   the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven.
   Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march
   upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New
   Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope."
   Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and
   1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series
   of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the
   conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But
   the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."

      _C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      chapter 3, section 5._

      ALSO IN:
      S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 57-178.

{2320}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
   The English occupation and proprietary grant to
   Berkeley and Carteret.
   The naming of the province.
   The Newark immigration from New Haven.

   "Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his
   easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New
   York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June,
   1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John
   Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of
   Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns,
   all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward
   of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east
   part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath
   upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward
   to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware
   bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch
   of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of
   latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to
   Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land
   is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea,
   or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the
   tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of
   Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor,
   against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the
   English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently
   soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown
   conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights
   appertaining thereto, that most important one of government;
   the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to
   the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of
   his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to
   procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of
   Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost
   unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they
   exercised every act of government in their own names, because
   they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the
   prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the
   name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret,
   they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the
   powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir
   George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the
   10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made
   public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of
   the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every
   of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant
   there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed,
   Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a
   commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip,
   having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and
   laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the
   summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as
   Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same
   year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of
   this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it
   was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined
   and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo
   town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. …
   Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at
   Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere,
   to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite
   settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable
   terms offered, the province soon received large additions to
   its population."

      _W. A. Whitehead,
      East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments
      (New Jersey Historical. Society Collections.,
      volume 1), period 2._

   "In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New
   England offering to settlers every civil and religious
   privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately
   visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven
   property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a
   settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of
   Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to
   locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666,
   the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under
   the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into
   the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little
   colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the
   name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English
   home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New
   Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost
   bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged,
   the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The
   planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be
   annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to
   such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four
   men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23
   were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven,
   Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of
   families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to
   make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New
   Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the
   banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the
   methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what
   it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but
   came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark
   was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."

      _C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      chapter 4, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,
      volume 1._

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
   The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and
   division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.
   The free constitution of West Jersey.

   In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold
   his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.
   John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were
   the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors
   about the division of their property, and William Penn, who
   afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen
   arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the
   satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from
   London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a
   small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that
   came to New Jersey with immigrants.
{2321}
   The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,
   landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.
   This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named
   Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently
   established in West Jersey."

      _J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 1._

   In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret
   taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West
   Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation
   of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by
   him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time.
   Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few
   of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York,
   disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means
   to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night
   [1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New
   York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he
   was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts,
   and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with
   directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The
   authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and
   Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret
   could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts
   at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William
   Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it
   for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their
   management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were
   constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed
   of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and
   then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument
   established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers,
   and displace all officers necessary to manage their property,
   to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends,
   settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends,
   grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary
   for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The
   new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all
   the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond,
   Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and
   a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each
   Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property,
   inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm
   instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come
   down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey …
   our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or
   unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to
   those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights,
   or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition
   of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control
   is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."

      _C. Parker,
      Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the
      Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey._

   The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as
   established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at
   Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the
   Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this
   line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West
   Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee,
   and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In
   order to establish a government for the Province of West
   Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore
   and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse,
   who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the
   proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of
   August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction
   with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to
   conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with
   instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a
   settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his
   portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared
   himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore
   became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this
   difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The
   original plan of the government was devised by William Penn
   and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all
   the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first
   published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and
   Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of
   the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution
   declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or
   authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters;
   and that no person or persons within the Province should be in
   any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or
   privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship
   toward God in matters of religion. … That all the
   inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend
   court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that
   Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert
   manner.' … The executive authority of the government was
   lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first
   by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the
   further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by
   the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March
   of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in
   1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this
   instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the
   proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the
   language of the fundamental law."

      _J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. A. Whitehead,
      East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,
      pages 66-99._

      _Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey,
      volume 1._

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674.
   Final recovery by the English.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.
   Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
   Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.
   Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.

   "In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the
   people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it
   was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had
   gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,
   1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered
   their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had
   been accepted.
{2322}
   In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries
   of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the
   dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating
   to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York
   and New England, under the government of Andros. At the
   revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the
   sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the
   legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the
   domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not
   their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery
   of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.
   A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with
   little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a
   settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New
   Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,
   in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of
   magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were
   protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there
   is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to
   exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …
   The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference
   of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular
   government had ever been established,' resolved to resign
   their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they
   wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:
   but King William, though he had against his inclination
   approved triennial parliaments for England, would never
   consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of
   Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.
   The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,
   was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its
   possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The
   surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being
   completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and
   the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
   who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.
   Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the
   next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never
   again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,
   and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the
   form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the
   crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the
   royal council and the representatives of the people. … The
   freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of
   their liberties."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. O. Raum,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711.
   Queen Anne's War.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.
   End of royal government.
   Adoption of a State Constitution.

   In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin
   Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the
   Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately
   royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony
   refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774,
   when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental
   Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick;
   and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general
   Congress, but appointed a "general committee of
   correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the
   following year, called together, at Trenton, a second
   Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the
   "Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full
   authority of all the branches of the government, providing for
   the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out
   the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin
   convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No
   important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December
   the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d
   of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the
   end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal
   authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey
   had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in
   the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On
   the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a
   constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to
   abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and
   therefore provided in the last article of this constitution
   that the instrument should become void whenever the king
   should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to
   administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the
   constitution of England and the rights of British subjects.
   But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress
   assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New
   Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal
   authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of
   Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name
   and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred,
   however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by
   order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was
   released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When
   the State government was organized under the new constitution,
   the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of
   all persons who opposed its authority."

      _J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. F. Gordon,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 12._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Siege of Boston.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

{2323}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The battle ground of Washington campaigns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.
   Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779.
   British raids from New York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.
   The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787.
   Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

   ----------NEW JERSEY: End----------

NEW MADRID, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

   ----------NEW MEXICO: Start----------

NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
   The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.

   "While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on
   in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government
   [of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico
   and California, by means of expeditions organized on the
   remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to
   the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have
   the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New
   Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the
   oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all,
   and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we
   consult a map of the United States it is seen that the
   thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of
   the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the
   Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen
   that the great tide of emigration must set along this line,
   because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and
   would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of
   the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of
   the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that
   Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it.
   Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to
   California, an exceptional importance. These considerations
   weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the
   notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines
   undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With
   this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in
   June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a
   battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico,
   Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval
   forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that
   country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper
   Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old
   trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos,
   without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time
   seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of
   August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were
   unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was
   declared annexed to the United States. Either the home
   government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or,
   having decided to reserve all its strength for the main
   conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing
   a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's
   Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe,
   September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under
   Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in
   Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe,
   while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his
   troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit
   quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their
   allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an
   outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was
   met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us
   without striking a blow. This information decided General
   Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a
   few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now
   Arizona for the Pacific."

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Making of the Great West,
      pages 251-255._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. O. Ladd,
      History of the War with Mexico,
      chapters 9-12._

      _P. St. G. Cooke,
      The Conquest of New Mexico and California._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 12, chapter 17._

      _H. O. Ladd,
      The Story of New Mexico,
      chapter 16._

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
   Cession to the United States.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1850.
   Territorial organization.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1875-1894.
   Prospective admission to the Union.

   A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed
   by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence
   of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it
   in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the
   scantily populated territory into a state were then checked
   for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for
   organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again
   passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a
   favorable vote in the Senate.

   ----------NEW MEXICO: End----------

NEW MODEL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NEW NETHERLAND.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NEW ORANGE.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

   ----------NEW ORLEANS: Start--------

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1718.
   The founding of the city.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1763.
   Reserved from the cession to England in the Treaty of Paris,
   and transferred with western Louisiana to Spain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1768-1769.
   Revolt against the Spanish rule.
   A short-lived Republic and its tragic ending.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

{2324}

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1785-1803.
   Fickle treatment of American traders.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800; and 1798-1803.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1798-1804.
   Transferred to France and sold to the United States.
   Incorporation as a city.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1789-1803; and 1804-1812.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1815.
   Jackson's defense of the city and great victory.
   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (April).
   Farragut's capture of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (May-December).
   The rule of General Butler.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1866.
   Riot and massacre.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

   ----------NEW ORLEANS: End--------

NEW PLYMOUTH.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

NEW SCOTLAND.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

   ----------NEW SOUTH WALES: Start--------

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1770-1788.
   The discovery.
   The naming.
   The first settlement.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1850.
   Separation of the Colony of Victoria.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1859.
   Separation of the Moreton Bay District and its erection into
   the Colony of Queensland.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1890.
   Characteristics.
   Comparative view.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

   ----------NEW SOUTH WALES: End--------

NEW SPAIN:
   The name given at first to Yucatan, and afterwards to
   the province won by Cortes.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
      and MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

NEW STYLE.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NEW SWEDEN.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW WORLD, The:
   First use of the phrase.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

   ----------NEW YORK: Start--------

NEW YORK:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HURONS, &c.,
      HORIKANS; and MANHATTAN ISLAND.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1498.
   Probable discovery of the Bay by Sebastian Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1524.
   The Bay visited by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1606.
   Embraced in the territory granted by King James I.
   of England to the Plymouth or North Virginia Company.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609.
   Discovery and exploration of Hudson River by Hendrik Hudson,
   in the service of Holland.

   "Early in September, 1609, the ship 'Half-Moon,' restlessly
   skirting the American coast, in the vain quest for a strait or
   other water route leading to India, came to the mouth of a
   great lonely river, flowing silently out from the heart of the
   unknown continent. The 'Half-Moon' was a small, clumsy,
   high-pooped yacht, manned by a score of Dutch and English
   sea-dogs, and commanded by an English adventurer then in Dutch
   pay, and known to his employers as Hendrik Hudson. … Hudson,
   on coming to the river to which his name was afterward given,
   did not at first know that it was a river at all; he believed
   and hoped that it was some great arm of the sea, that in fact
   it was the Northwest Passage to India, which he and so many
   other brave men died in vainly trying to discover. … Hudson
   soon found that he was off the mouth of a river, not a strait;
   and he spent three weeks in exploring it, sailing up till the
   shoaling water warned him that he was at the head of
   navigation, near the present site of Albany. … Having
   reached the head of navigation the 'Half-Moon' turned her
   bluff bows southward, and drifted down stream with the rapid
   current until she once more reached the bay. … Early in
   October, Hudson set out on his homeward voyage to Holland,
   where the news of his discovery excited much interest among
   the daring merchants, especially among those whose minds were
   bent on the fur-trade. Several of the latter sent small ships
   across to the newly found bay and river, both to barter with
   the savages and to explore and report further upon the
   country. The most noted of these sea-captains who followed
   Hudson, was Adrian Block."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      New York,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Juet,
      Journal of Hudson's Voyage
      (New York Historical Society Collection,
      series 2, volume 1)._

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609-1615.
   Champlain and the French in the North.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; and 1611-1616.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
   Possession taken by the Dutch.
   Named New Netherland.

   "The gallant and enterprising people under whose auspices
   Hudson had achieved his brilliant discovery [of the Hudson
   River] had just emerged from a long, bloody, but glorious
   contest for freedom, which they had waged with dogged
   determination against Spain since 1566. …

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and after.

   It was at this crisis, when peace had at length returned,
   after an absence of more than forty years, and when numbers of
   people must, by the transition, have found themselves deprived
   of their accustomed active employment and habitual excitement,
   that the intelligence of Hudson's discovery broke on the
   public, affording to private adventure a new field. … The
   commodities which abounded among the natives of the newly
   discovered countries were objects of great demand in Europe.
   The furs that the rigors of the northern climate rendered
   indispensable to the inhabitants of Holland, and which they
   had hitherto obtained through Russian and other traders, were
   to be had now from the Indians in exchange for the veriest
   baubles and coarsest goods. Stimulated by these
   considerations, … a vessel was despatched by some Amsterdam
   merchants, freighted with a variety of goods, to the
   Manhattans, in the course of the following year [1610]. The
   success of this venture seems to have given increased stimulus
   to the spirit of enterprise.
{2325}
   New discoveries were projected; licenses were granted by the
   States-General, on the recommendation of the Admiralty, to two
   ships, the Little Fox and Little Crane, ostensibly to look
   again for a northerly passage to China; and the cities of
   Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hoorn, and Enckhuyzen, as well as
   several private merchants and citizens, applied for
   information to the States of Holland and West Friesland,
   relative to a certain newly discovered navigable river, and
   the proper course to be steered in proceeding thither. These
   ships proceeded, on procuring the requisite information, to
   that quarter early in the ensuing spring; and of so much
   importance was the country now considered, that the traders
   erected and garrisoned one or two small forts on the river,
   for the protection of the fur-trade. … The favorable
   position of the island of Manhattan for commerce was easily
   perceived by the Europeans from the first, and it soon became
   the head-quarters of the traders. Their establishment in that
   locality consisted now [1613] of four houses, under the
   superintendence of Hendrick Corstiaensen, who, by means of his
   trading-boats, visited every creek, inlet, and bay in the
   neighborhood, where an Indian settlement was to be found, and
   thus secured for his employers the furs and other valuable
   produce of the country. But the growing prosperity of the
   infant post was now fated to experience an unexpected check.
   Captain Argal, of Virginia, returning in the month of November
   of this year from a seemingly predatory visit to a settlement
   which the French had made at Port Royal, in Acadia, touched at
   the island of Manhattans, with a view, it is said, of looking
   after a grant of land which he had obtained there from the
   Virginia Company, and forced Corstiaensen to submit himself
   and his plantation to the king of England, and to the governor
   of Virginia under him, and to agree to pay tribute in token of
   his dependence on the English crown. … Active steps were
   taken, early in the next year, to obtain an exclusive right to
   the trade of those distant countries," and in March, 1614, the
   States General passed an ordinance conferring on those who
   should discover new lands the exclusive privilege of making
   four voyages thither before others could have admission to the
   traffic. This ordinance "excited considerable animation and
   activity among adventurers. A number of merchants belonging to
   Amsterdam and Hoorn fitted out and dispatched five ships:
   namely, the Little Fox, the Nightingale, the Tiger, and the
   Fortune, the two last under the command of Adriaen Block and
   Hendrick Corstiaensen, of Amsterdam. The fifth vessel was
   called the Fortune also; she belonged to Hoorn, and was
   commanded by Captain Cornelis Jacobsen Mey. The three
   last-named and now well-known navigators proceeded immediately
   on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Great River of
   the Manhattans, but Block had the misfortune, soon after his
   arrival there, of losing his vessel, which was accidentally
   burnt. … He forthwith set about constructing a yacht, 38
   feet keel, 44½ feet long, and 11½ feet wide, which, when
   completed, he called the 'Restless,' significant of his own
   untiring industry. … In this craft, the first specimen of
   European naval architecture in these waters, Skipper Block
   proceeded to explore the coast east of Manhattan Island. He
   sailed along the East River, to which he gave the name of 'The
   Hellegat,' after a branch of the river Scheld, in East
   Flanders; and leaving Long Island, then called Metoac, or
   'Sewan-hacky, 'the land of shells,' on the south, he
   discovered the Housatonick, or river of the Red Mountain."
   Proceeding eastwardly, Block found the Connecticut River,
   which he named Fresh River, and ascended it to an Indian
   village at 41° 48'. Passing out of the Sound, and ascertaining
   the insular character of Long Island, he gave his own name to
   one of the two islands off its eastern extremity. After
   exploring Narragansett Bay, he went on to Cape Cod, and there
   fell in with Hendrick Corstiaensen's ship. "While these
   navigators were thus engaged at the east, Captain Cornelis Mey
   was actively employed in exploring the Atlantic coast farther
   south. … He reached the great Delaware Bay, … two capes of
   which still commemorate his visit; one, the most northward,
   being called after him, Cape Mey; another, Cape Cornelis;
   while the great south cape was called Hindlopen, after one of
   the towns in the province of Friesland. … Intelligence of
   the discoveries made by Block and his associates having been
   transmitted to Holland, was received there early in the autumn
   of this year [1614]. The united company by whom they had been
   employed lost no time in taking the steps necessary to secure
   to themselves the exclusive trade of the countries thus
   explored, which was guarantied to them by the ordinance of the
   27th of March. They sent deputies immediately to the Hague,
   who laid before the States General a report of their
   discoveries, as required by law, with a figurative map of the
   newly explored countries, which now, for the first time,
   obtained the name of New Netherland. A special grant in favor
   of the interested parties was forthwith accorded … to visit
   and trade with the countries in America lying between 40° and
   45° north latitude, of which they strangely claimed to be the
   first discoverers."

      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 4-12._

      _B. Fernow,
      New Netherland
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 8)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1614-1621.
   The first trading monopoly succeeded
   by the Dutch West India Company.

   "It was perceived that, to secure the largest return from the
   peltry trade, a factor should reside permanently on the
   Mauritius River [North, or Hudson, as it has been successively
   called], among the Maquaas or Mohawks, and the Mahicans, at
   the head of tide-water. Hendrick Christiaensen, who, after his
   first experiment in company with Adriaen Block, is stated to
   have made 'ten voyages' to Manhattan, accordingly constructed
   [1614] a trading house on 'Castle Island,' at the west side of
   the river, a little below the present city of Albany. … To
   compliment the family of the stadtholder, the little post was
   immediately named Fort Nassau. … It has been confidently
   affirmed that the year after the erection of Fort Nassau, at
   Castle Island, a redoubt was also thrown up and fortified 'on
   an elevated spot' near the southern point of Manhattan Island.
   But the assertion does not appear to be confirmed by
   sufficient authority. … The Holland merchants, who had
   obtained from the States General the exclusive right of
   trading for three years to New Netherland, though united
   together in one company to secure the grant of their charter,
   were not strictly a corporation, but rather 'participants' in
   a specific, limited, and temporary monopoly, which they were
   to enjoy in common. …
{2326}
   On the 1st of January, 1618, the exclusive charter of the
   Directors of New Netherland expired by its own limitation.
   Year by year the value of the returns from the North River had
   been increasing; and the hope of larger gains incited the
   factors of the company to push their explorations further into
   the interior. … No systematic agricultural colonization of
   the country had yet been undertaken. The scattered agents of
   the Amsterdam Company still looked merely to peaceful traffic,
   and the cultivation of those friendly relations which had been
   covenanted with their savage allies on the banks of the
   Tawasentha [where they had negotiated a treaty of friendship
   and alliance with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, in 1617].
   Upon the expiration of their special charter, the merchants
   who had formed the United New Netherland Company applied to
   the government at the Hague for a renewal of their privileges,
   the value of which they found was daily increasing. But the
   States General, who were now contemplating the grant of a
   comprehensive charter for a West India Company avoided a
   compliance with the petition." In June, 1621, "the
   long-pending question of a grand commercial organization was
   finally settled; and an ample charter gave the West India
   Company almost unlimited powers to colonize, govern, and
   defend New Netherland."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1615-1664.
   Dutch relations with the Iroquois.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, THEIR CONQUESTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1620.
   Embraced in the English patent of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
   Early operations of the Dutch West India Company.
   The purchase of Manhattan Island.
   The Patroons and their colonies.

   "When it became evident that the war [of the United Provinces]
   with Spain would be renewed, the way was opened for the
   charter of a company, so often asked and denied. Just before
   the expiration of the twelve years' truce, April, 1621, the
   great West India Company was formed, and incorporated by the
   States General. It was clothed with extraordinary powers and
   privileges. It could make alliances and treaties, declare war
   and make peace. Although its field of operations was limited
   to Africa, the West India Islands, and the continent of
   America, it could in case of war fight the Spaniards wherever
   found on land or sea. And finally, it was permitted to
   colonize unoccupied or subjugated countries. To it especially
   were committed the care and the colonization of New
   Netherland. The West India Company, after completing its
   organization in 1623, began its work in New Netherland by
   erecting a fort on Manhattan Island [called Fort Amsterdam],
   and another on the Delaware, and by reconstructing the one at
   Albany. It sent over to be distributed in these places 30
   families, not strictly as colonists, to settle and cultivate
   the land, but rather as servants of the Company, in charge of
   their factories, engaged in the purchase and preparation of
   furs and peltries for shipment. Some of them returned home at
   the expiration of their term of service, and no other
   colonists were brought out for several years. The Company
   found more profitable employment for its capital in fitting
   out fleets of ships of war, which captured the Spanish
   treasure-ships, and thus enabled the Company to pay large
   dividends to its stockholders. In 1626 its agents bought all
   Manhattan Island of the Indian owners for sixty guilders in
   goods on which an enormous profit was made; and about the same
   time they purchased other tracts of land in the vicinity,
   including Governor's and Staten Islands, on similar terms. The
   Company was now possessed of lands enough for the
   accommodation of a large population. They were fertile, and
   only needed farmers to develop their richness. But these did
   not come. … Accordingly, in 1629, the managers took up a new
   line of action. They enacted a statute, termed 'Freedoms and
   Exemptions,' which authorized the establishment of colonies
   within their territory by individuals, who were to be known as
   Patroons, or Patrons. An individual might purchase of the
   Indian owners a tract of land, on which to plant a colony of
   fifty souls within four years from the date of purchase. He
   who established such a colony might associate with himself
   other persons to assist him in his work, and share the
   profits, but he should be considered the Patroon, or chief, in
   whom were centred all the rights pertaining to the position,
   such as the administration of justice, the appointment of
   civil and military officers, the settlement of clergymen, and
   the like. He was a kind of feudal lord, owing allegiance to
   the West India Company, and to the States General, but
   independent of control within the limits of his own territory.
   The system was a modified relic of feudalism. The colonists
   were not serfs, but tenants for a specified term of years,
   rendering service to the Patroon for a consideration. When
   their term of service expired, they were free to renew the
   contract, make a new one, or leave the colony altogether. The
   privileges of a Patroon at first were restricted to the
   members of the company, but in about ten years were extended
   to others. The directors of the company were the first to
   improve the opportunity now offered of becoming 'princes and
   potentates' in the western hemisphere. … In 1630, the agents
   of Director Killian Van Rensselaer bought a large tract of
   land on the west side of the Hudson River below Albany, and in
   July following other tracts on both sides of the river,
   including the present site of Albany. In July, 1630, Director
   Michael Paauw bought lands on the west side of the Hudson
   opposite Manhattan Island, and named his territory Pavonia. A
   few months later Staten Island was transferred to him, and
   became a part of his domain. … Killian Van Rensselaer also
   formed a partnership with several of his brother directors,
   among whom was the historian De Laet, for the purpose of
   planting a colony on his lands on the upper Hudson, to be
   known as the colony of Rensselaerwyck. He seems to have had a
   clearer perception of what was required for such a work than
   the other Patroons. The colony was organized in accordance
   with the charter, and on business principles. Before the
   colonists left Holland they were assigned to specific places
   and duties. Civil and military officers were appointed,
   superintendents and overseers of the various departments were
   selected, and all were instructed in their duties.
   The number of the first colonists was respectable.
{2327}
   They were chiefly farmers and mechanics, with their families.
   On their arrival, May, 1630, farms situated on either side the
   river were allotted to them, utensils and stock distributed,
   houses built, and arrangements made for their safety in case
   the natives should become hostile. Order was maintained, and
   individual rights respected. They were not long in settling
   down, each to his allotted work. Year by year new colonists
   arrived, and more lands were bought for the proprietors. In
   1646, when Killian Van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, died,
   over two hundred colonists had been sent from Holland, and a
   territory forty-eight by twenty-four miles, besides another
   tract of 62,000 acres, had been acquired. The West India
   Company had changed its policy under the direction of new men,
   and no longer favored the Patroons. The Van Rensselaers were
   much annoyed, and even persecuted, but they held firmly to
   their rights under the charter. Their colony was prosperous,
   and their estate in time became enormous. … Of all the
   Patroon colonies Rensselaerwyck alone survived. It owed its
   existence mainly to its management, but largely to its
   situation, remote from the seat of government, and convenient
   for the Indian trade."

      _G. W. Schuyler,
      Colonial New York,
      introduction, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Elting,
      Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson,
      pages 12-16._

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      See, also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1629-1631.
   Dutch occupancy of the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.
   Introduction of public registry.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634.
   The city named New Amsterdam.

   Soon after the appointment of Wouter Van Twiller, who became
   governor of New Netherland in 1633, "the little town on
   Manhattan Island received the name of New Amsterdam … and
   was invested with the prerogative of 'staple right,' by virtue
   of which all the merchandise passing up and down the river was
   subject to certain duties. This right gave the post the
   commercial monopoly of the whole province."

      _Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, page 73._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634-1635.
   Dutch advance posts on the Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1635.
   Territory granted to Lord Lennox and Lord Mulgrave,
   on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638.
   Protest against the Swedish settlement on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.
   The colony thrown open to free immigration and free trade.
   Kieft's administration, and the ruinous Indian wars.

   "The colony did not thrive. The patroon system kept settlers
   away, and the paternal government of a trading corporation
   checked all vigorous and independent growth, while Van Twiller
   [Wouter Van Twiller, appointed governor in 1633] went steadily
   from bad to worse. He engaged in childish quarrels with
   everyone, from the minister down. … This utter misgovernment
   led at last to Van Twiller's removal. He retired in possession
   of large tracts of land, which he had succeeded in acquiring,
   and was replaced [1638] by William Kieft, a bankrupt merchant
   of bad reputation. Kieft practically abolished the Council,
   and got all power into his own hands; but he had some sense of
   order. … Despite his improvements, the place remained a mere
   trading-post, and would not develope into a colony. The
   patroons were the curse of the scheme, and too powerful to be
   overthrown; so they proposed, as a remedy for the existing
   evils, that their powers and privileges should be greatly
   enlarged. The Company had bought back some of the lands; but
   they were still helpless, and the State would do nothing for
   them. In this crisis they had a return of good sense, and
   solved the problem by destroying their stifling monopoly. They
   threw the trade to New Netherlands open to all comers, and
   promised the absolute ownership of land on the payment of a
   small quit-rent. The gates were open at last, and the tide of
   emigration swept in. De Vries who had bought land on Staten
   Island, came out with a company; while ship followed ship
   filled with colonists, and English came from Virginia, and
   still more from New England. Men of property and standing
   began to turn their attention to the New Netherlands; fine
   well-stocked farms rapidly covered Manhattan, and healthy
   progress had at last begun. Thus strengthened, the Company
   [1640] restricted the patroons to a water-front of one mile
   and a depth of two, but left them their feudal privileges,
   benefits which practically accrued to Van Rensselaer, whose
   colony at Beverwyck had alone, among the manors, thriven and
   grown at the expense of the Company. The opening of trade
   proved in one respect a disaster. The cautious policy of the
   Company was abandoned, and greedy traders who had already
   begun the business, and were now wholly unrestrained, hastened
   to make their fortunes by selling arms to the Indians in
   return for almost unlimited quantities of furs. Thus the
   Mohawks obtained guns enough to threaten both the Dutch and
   all the surrounding tribes, and this perilous condition was
   made infinitely worse by the mad policy of Kieft. He first
   tried to exact tribute from the Indians near Manhattan, then
   offered a price for the head of any of the Raritans who had
   destroyed the settlement of De Vries; and, when a young man
   was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek, the Governor planned
   immediate war." Public opinion among the colonists condemned
   the measures of Kieft, and forced him to accept a council of
   twelve select-men, chosen at a public meeting; but "the
   twelve," as they were called, failed to control their
   governor. Acting on the advice of two or three among them,
   whose support he had secured, he ordered a cowardly attack
   upon some fugitive Indians from the River tribes, who had been
   driven into the settlements by the onslaught of the Mohawks,
   and whom De Vries and others were trying to protect. "The
   wretched fugitives, surprised by their supposed protectors,
   were butchered in the dead of a winter's night [1643], without
   mercy, and the bloody soldiers returned in the morning to
   Manhattan, where they were warmly welcomed by Kieft. This
   massacre lighted up at once the flames of war among all the
   neighboring tribes of Algonquins. All the outlying farms were
   laid waste, and their owners murdered, while the smaller
   settlements were destroyed. Vriesendael alone was spared.
{2328}
   A peace, patched up by De Vries, gave a respite until summer,
   and the war raged more fiercely than before, the Indians
   burning and destroying in every direction, while trade was
   broken up and the crews of the vessels slaughtered." Kieft's
   life was now in danger from the rage of his own people, and
   eight men, appointed by public meeting, took control of public
   affairs, as far as it was possible to do so. Under the command
   of John Underhill, the Connecticut Indian fighter, who had
   lately migrated to Manhattan, the war was prosecuted with
   great vigor and success on Long Island and against the
   Connecticut Indians who had joined in it; but little headway
   was made against the tribes on the Hudson, who harassed and
   ruined the colony. Thus matters went badly for a long period,
   until, in 1647, the Company in Holland sent out Peter
   Stuyvesant to take the place of Kieft. "In the interval, the
   Indian tribes, weary at last of war, came in and made peace.
   Kieft continued his quarrels; but his power was gone, and he
   was hated as the principal cause of all the misfortunes of the
   colony. The results of his miserable administration were
   certainly disastrous enough. Sixteen hundred Indians had
   perished in the war; but all the outlying Dutch settlements
   and farms had been destroyed, and the prosperity of the colony
   had received a check from which it recovered very slowly. In
   Connecticut, the English had left the Dutch merely a nominal
   hold, and had really destroyed their power in the East. On the
   South river [the Delaware] the Swedes had settled, and,
   disregarding Kieft's blustering proclamations, had founded
   strong and growing colonies. … The interests of Holland were
   at a low ebb."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 16._

   A more favorable view of Kieft and his administration is taken
   by Mr. Gerard, who says: "Few proconsuls had a more arduous
   task in the administration of the government of a province
   than had Director Kieft. The Roman official had legions at
   command to sustain his power and to repel attack; and in case
   of disaster the whole empire was at hand for his support.
   Kieft, in a far distant province, with a handful of soldiers
   crowded in a dilapidated fort and a few citizens turbulent and
   unreliable, surrounded on all sides by savages ever on the
   alert for rapine and murder, receiving little support from the
   home government, and having a large territory to defend and
   two civilized races to contend with, passed the eight years of
   his administration amid turmoil and dissension within, and
   such hostile attack from without as to keep the province in
   continuous peril. The New England colonies were always in a
   state of antagonism and threatening war. … The Swedes and
   independent settlers on the South and Schuylkill rivers were
   constantly making encroachments and threatening the Company's
   occupancy there, while pretenders under patents and
   independent settlers, knowing the weakness of the government,
   kept it disturbed and agitated. What wonder that mistakes were
   made, that policy failed, that misfortunes came, and that
   Kieft's rule brought no prosperity to the land? The radical
   trouble with his administration was that he was under a
   divided rule—a political governor with allegiance to the
   States-General, and a commercial Director, as the
   representative of a great company of traders. The
   States-General was too busily occupied in establishing its
   independence and watching the balance of European power to
   give supervision to the affairs of a province of small
   political importance—while the Company, looking upon its
   colony merely as a medium of commercial gain, drew all the
   profit it could gather from it, disregarded its true
   interests, and gave it only occasional and grudging support.
   … Towards the Indians Kieft's dealings were characterized by
   a rigid regard for their possessory rights; no title was
   deemed vested and no right was absolutely claimed until
   satisfaction was made to the native owner. Historians of the
   period have been almost universal in their condemnation of him
   for the various contests and wars engaged in with the Indians,
   and have put on him all responsibility for the revolts. But
   this is an ex post facto criticism, which, with a false
   judgment, condemns a man for the results of his actions rather
   than for the actions themselves. Indeed, without the energy
   displayed by the Director towards the aborigines, the colony
   would probably have been annihilated. … Imprudence,
   rashness, arbitrary action, want of political sagacity may be
   imputed to Director Kieft, but not excessive inhumanity, nor
   want of effort, nor unfaithfulness to his employers or to his
   province. He has been generally condemned, but without
   sufficient consideration of the trials which he experienced,
   the anxiety to which he was subject, and the perplexities
   incident to a government over discontented, ignorant and
   mutinous subjects, and to the continued apprehension of
   outside attack. Left mostly to his own resources, and
   receiving no sympathy and little aid, his motives the subject
   of attack from both tavern and pulpit, and twice the object of
   attempted assassination, his rule as a whole, though
   disastrous, was not dishonorable."

      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Administration of William Kieft
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8._

      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 2, chapter 7
      and book 3, chapters 1-9 (volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1640-1643.
   Expulsion of New Haven colonists from the Delaware.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664.
   Peter Stuyvesant and his administration.

   Peter Stuyvesant, the director or governor who succeeded
   Kieft, "took possession of the government on the 11th of May,
   1647. On his arrival he was greeted with a hearty and cordial
   reception by the citizens, to which he responded by reciprocal
   professions of interest and regard. He had for several years
   been in the Company's service as Director of their colony at
   Curaçoa, and was distinguished for his energy and bravery.
   Having lost a leg in an attack on the Portuguese settlement at
   St. Martin's, he had been obliged to return to Europe for
   surgical aid, whence, still retaining his former commission,
   he was sent to the charge of the Province of New Netherlands.
   Immediately on his accession he organized a representative
   Council of nine members from a list of eighteen presented to
   him by the inhabitants of the province, and gave his assent to
   various important provisions for the regulation of trade and
   commerce. By a conciliatory and just treatment of the Indians
   so recently in revolt he speedily gained their affection and
   goodwill, and by his judicious measures for their mutual
   protection restored peace and harmony among all classes."

      _S. S. Randall,
      History of the State of New York,
      period 2, chapter 5._

{2329}

   "The powers of government—executive, legislative, and
   judicial—which he [Stuyvesant] assumed, were quite extensive,
   and often arbitrary. Directly or indirectly, he appointed and
   commissioned all public officers, framed all laws, and decided
   all important controversies. … He directed churches to be
   built, installed ministers, and even ordered them when and
   where to preach. Assuming the sole control of the public
   lands, he extinguished the Indian title thereto, and allowed
   no purchase to be made from the natives without his sanction;
   and granted at pleasure, to individuals and companies, parcels
   of land, subject to such conditions as he saw fit to impose.
   In the management of these complicated affairs the Director
   developed a certain imperiousness of manner and impatience of
   restraint, due, perhaps, as much to his previous military life
   as to his personal character. … During the whole of his
   predecessor's unquiet rule a constant struggle had been going
   on between the personal prerogative of the Executive and the
   inherent sentiment of popular freedom which prevailed among
   the commonalty, leading the latter constantly to seek for
   themselves the franchises and freedoms of the Fatherland, to
   which, as loyal subjects, they deemed themselves entitled in
   New Netherland. The contest was reopened soon after
   Stuyvesant's installation, and the firmness of both Director
   and people, in the maintenance of what each jealously
   considered their rights, gave indication of serious
   disturbance to the public weal." The governor, at length, in
   1647, conceded "a popular representation in the affairs of
   government. An election was therefore held, at which the
   inhabitants of Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Pavonia
   chose eighteen of 'the most notable, reasonable, honest, and
   respectable' among them, from whom, according to the custom of
   the Fatherland, the Director and Council selected 'Nine Men'
   as an advisory Council; and although their powers and duties
   were jealously limited and guarded by the Director's
   Proclamation, yet the appointment of the Nine Men was a
   considerable gain to the cause of popular rights. … The
   subsequent history of Stuyvesant's government is a record of
   quarrels with colonial patroons, with the English in New
   England, the Swedes on the South River, and last—not
   least—with his own people. In fact, the government was by no
   means well adapted to the people or adequate to protect them.
   The laws were very, imperfect, and the Director and Council
   either incompetent or indisposed to remedy the serious defects
   which existed in the administration of civil and criminal
   justice."

      _H. R. Stiles,
      History of the City of Brooklyn,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "Director Stuyvesant was recalled to Europe soon after the
   surrender [to the English—see below], to vindicate his
   conduct … and … found himself the object of serious
   charges and most virulent attacks. He returned to this country
   in 1668, and died on his bouwerie in 1672. … Throughout his
   chequered life he exhibited a character of high morality, and
   in his dealings with the Indians an energetic and dignified
   deportment, which contributed, no doubt, considerably to the
   success of his arms and policy. Alike creditable to his
   talents are his negotiations with the neighboring English
   colonies. His vindications of the rights of his country, on
   these occasions, betoken a firmness of manner, a sharpness of
   perception, a clearness of argument and a soundness of
   judgment, combined with an extent of reading, which few of his
   contemporaries could equal, and none surpass. … It would
   afford pleasure were we justified in pronouncing a like
   panegyric on other parts of his administration; but none can
   review [his arbitrary resistance to just popular demands] …
   and his persecution of the Lutherans and other Nonconformists,
   without reprobating his tyranny, and regretting that a
   character, so faultless in other respects, should be stained
   by traits so repulsive as these, and that the powers of a mind
   so strong should be exerted in opposing rather than promoting
   civil and religious freedom. The hostility this part of his
   public conduct evoked redounds most creditably to the
   character of the settlers, whose struggles for freer
   institutions cannot fail to win for them our sympathy and
   regard."

      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 6, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Remonstrance of New Netherlands
      (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 275-317);
      also volume 13._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 9._

      _B. Fernow,
      Peter Stuyvesant
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 7)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
   The adjustment of boundaries with Connecticut.

   To settle the long pending controversy between Dutch and
   English respecting the territory claimed by each on Long
   Island and at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Governor
   Stuyvesant went in person to Hartford, September, 1650, and
   opened negotiations. His hands were tied from the beginning by
   instructions from his company to press no claim to the
   extremity of a quarrel, because the English were too strong in
   America to be fought with. He assented, therefore, to the
   appointment of two arbitrators on each side, and he named
   Englishmen as his arbitrators. "The four agreed upon a
   settlement of the boundary matter, ignoring all other points
   in dispute as having occurred under the administration of
   Kieft. It was agreed that the Dutch were to retain their
   lands, in Hartford [the post of 'Good Hope,' established in
   1633, and which they had continued to hold, in the midst of
   the spreading English settlement]; that the boundary line
   between the two peoples on the mainland was not to come within
   ten miles of the Hudson River, but was to be left undecided
   for the present, except the first 20 miles from the Sound,
   which was to begin on the west side of Greenwich Bay, between
   Stamford and Manhattan, running thence 20 miles north; and
   that Long Island should be divided by a corresponding line
   across it, 'from the westernmost part of Oyster Bay,' to the
   sea. The English thus got the greater part of Long Island, a
   recognition of the rightfulness of their presence in the
   Connecticut territory, and at least the initial 20 miles of a
   boundary line which must, in the nature of things, be
   prolonged in much the same direction, and which in fact has
   pretty closely governed subsequent boundary lines on that side
   of Connecticut. If these seem hard terms for the Dutch, and
   indicative of treachery on the part of their two English
   agents, it must be borne in mind that, by the terms of his
   instructions from his principals, Stuyvesant had to take the
   best terms he could get. The treaty of Hartford was dated
   September 19, 1650."

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut
      (American Commonwealths),
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 4, chapters 1-9 (volume 2)._

      _C. W. Bowen,
      The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      _Division of the Boundary in America
      (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 541-577)._

{2930}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1653.
   The grant of municipal government to New Amsterdam.

   "An interesting moment arrived. A new city appeared in the
   annals of the world. Its birth was announced on the evening of
   February 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of
   the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and named
   its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. There was
   nothing in the significant scene which inspired enthusiasm. It
   came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its privileges were few,
   and even those were subsequently hampered by the most
   illiberal interpretations which could be devised. Stuyvesant
   made a speech on the occasion, in which he took care to reveal
   his intention of making all future municipal appointments,
   instead of submitting the matter to the votes of the citizens,
   as was the custom in the Fatherland; and he gave the officers
   distinctly to understand, from the first, that their existence
   did not in any way diminish his authority, but that he should
   often preside at their meetings, and at all times counsel them
   in matters of importance. … A pew was set apart in the
   church for the City Fathers; and on Sunday mornings these
   worthies left their homes and families early to meet in the
   City Hall, from which, preceded by the bell-ringer, carrying
   their cushions of state, they marched in solemn procession to
   the sanctuary in the fort. On all occasions of ceremony,
   secular or religious, they were treated with distinguished
   attention. Their position was eminently respectable, but it
   had as yet no emoluments. … There were two burgomasters,
   Arent van Hattam and Martin Cregier. … There were five
   schepens,—Paulus Van der Grist, Maximilian Van Gheel, Allard
   Anthony, Peter Van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. T. Valentine,
      History of the City of New York,
      chapter 5._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1654.
   Threatened attack from New England.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1655.
   Subjugation of the Swedes on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   The English conquest.
   New Amsterdam becomes New York.

   The Navigation Act of Cromwell, maintained by the English
   after the Stuart Restoration, was continually evaded, almost
   openly, in the British American colonies; and it was with the
   Dutch at New Amsterdam that the illicit trade of the New
   Englanders, the Virginians and the Marylanders was principally
   carried on. "In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so
   extensive that the framers of the customs … complained of
   the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of
   £10,000 a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and
   the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon. … The
   next concern of the Chancellor [Clarendon] was to secure to
   the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as
   little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England
   colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American
   soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means
   to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the
   King. James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the
   Crown. … A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown,
   from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a
   central authority strongly established over the territory
   covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be
   extended over the colonies on either side which were governed
   under limitations and with privileges directly secured by
   charter from the King. … The first step taken by Clarendon
   was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling
   in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This
   covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and
   the Kennebec, in Maine, and the island of Matowack, or Long
   Island. … A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of
   Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by
   Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine
   territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and
   the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west
   side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay,
   together with the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
   The inland boundary was 'a line from the head of Connecticut
   River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the
   Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of
   Delaware Bay.' The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs,
   deputies, and assigns, 'absolute power to govern within this
   domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent
   with the statutes of England.' In this patent the charter
   granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for
   Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners
   should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each
   colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners
   for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King
   established a royal commission, consisting of four persons
   recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions
   were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the
   prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which
   Clarendon considered to be 'already well nigh ripened, to a
   commonwealth.' Three of these commissioners were officers in
   the royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,
   Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick. …
   To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of
   taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered
   by the King's patent. To one more capable and worthy the
   delicate trust could not have been confided. … His title
   under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the
   tenure of his office, the Duke's pleasure. … When the news
   of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and
   explanation was demanded of Downing [the English ambassador]
   as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the
   reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the
   English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim
   so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a
   declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little
   interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a
   trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post
   at best.
{2331}
   The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but
   its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources
   and credit were unequal to the task of defence. Meanwhile the
   English fleet, composed of one ship of 36, one of 30, a third
   of 16, and a transport of 10 guns, with three full companies
   of the King's veterans,—in an 450 men, commanded by Colonels
   Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for
   Gardiner's Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls
   and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military
   aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon
   Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a
   rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail
   with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside
   of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place
   of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by
   militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New
   Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard
   of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany),
   whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians.
   Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The
   folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by
   which the Director-General sought to save something of his
   dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between
   the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation
   confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property,
   the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens.
   The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the
   29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the
   city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on
   taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the
   civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam
   be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James,
   in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the
   time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its
   magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not
   exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the
   point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new
   government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson
   under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort
   Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a
   title of the Duke of York."

      _J. A. Stevens,
      The English in New York
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 10)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      _Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volumes 2-3._

      See, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   The separation of New Jersey,
   by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   The annexation of the Delaware settlements.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.
   The province as the English received it.
   Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.

   "In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English,
   New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have
   consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population
   was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians,
   who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The
   inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection.
   High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of
   flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property,
   while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The
   treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens
   who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in
   advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here
   by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high
   civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to
   the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English
   in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice
   conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were
   protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for
   an instant presume that the institutions which half a century
   had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the
   English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to
   suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as
   gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro
   slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only
   under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of
   religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed
   Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several
   occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into
   consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus,
   to some extent, a principle of representative government was
   at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with
   the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too
   much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It
   must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a
   self-governing people and accustomed to that most important
   principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In
   common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy
   independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that
   these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation
   to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was
   not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience
   demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly
   is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the
   whole, it must be conceded that the company's government
   introduced here much that was good and accomplished little
   that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the
   English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of
   America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people,
   well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious
   freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced
   with all that was good in the system introduced by the
   English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It
   is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political
   authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into
   New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet
   it requires a very much more extended examination of original
   sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just
   how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at
   a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed
   the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."

      _R. L. Fowler,
      Constitutional and Legal History, of New York
      in the 17th Century
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 14)._

{2332}

   "Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony
   under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its
   population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of
   the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily
   with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains,
   attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of
   flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are
   descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English
   occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar
   in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of
   honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In
   1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh,
   Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der
   Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van
   Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and
   Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck
   is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in
   1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor
   from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were
   aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett
   Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van
   Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan
   Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham
   Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In
   1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de
   Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is
   mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt,
   Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John
   Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor.
   During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names
   are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the
   beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur
   only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their
   leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large
   proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English
   colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch
   foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing
   only after the English occupation. This is true, with the
   qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after
   that event had greater opportunities for successful activity.
   … Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the
   end of the seventeenth century, after which time English
   contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying
   towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson
   River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In
   New York city the large English immigration, the requirements
   of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and
   English families had given to English the predominance by the
   year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the
   peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until
   1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom
   of registering transfers of real estate has been received from
   the same source."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Peter Stuyvesant,
      chapter 4._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
   The Duke's Laws.

   "At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March
   1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor
   Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's
   authority, a body of laws for the government of the new
   province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested,
   'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's
   American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many
   traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The
   code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined
   'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious
   Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have
   come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of
   New England,"

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Duke of York's Book of Laws,
      compiled and edited by S. George, et al._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.
   French invasions of the Iroquois country,
   under Courcelles and Tracy.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
   The reconquest of the city and province by the Dutch.

   The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one
   of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual
   declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became
   formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666,
   ingloriously for England although she retained her American
   conquests.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666

   Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of
   Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to
   betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a
   perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

   During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
   Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
   unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
   sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
   in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
   he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
   the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
   commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
   they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
   spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
   them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
   the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
   information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
   that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
   days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
   of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
   by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
   Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
   the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
   all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
   countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
   New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
   enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
   capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
   granted by the victors. …
{2333}
   Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
   New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
   government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
   Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
   Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
   American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
   war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
   with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
   course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
   to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
   the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
   Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
   province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
   … It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
   provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
   or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
   accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
   upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
   until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
   Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
   "Colve's commission described his government as extending from
   15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
   and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
   Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
   1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
   territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
   … The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
   Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
   metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
   several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
   was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 14-15._

      _Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 2._

      _Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.
   Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
   Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
   Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
   Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
   Iroquois country.

   "Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in
   procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in
   1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,
   at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or
   council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel
   Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the
   Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even
   asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon
   their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most
   readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become
   necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe
   it into an act of at least partial submission to English
   authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians
   themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,
   that might protect them against the French."

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
      volume 1, page 15._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
   French invasions of the Iroquois country
   under De La Barre and De Nonville.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.
   The Dongan Charter.

   "The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the
   'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by
   Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one
   of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,
   sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.
   Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save
   in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which
   the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The
   instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great
   city."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, page 317._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Benjamin,
      Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 11)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
   Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.

   In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made
   Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new
   commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of
   all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except
   Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory
   and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country
   between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,
   thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of
   government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to
   reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the
   administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor
   was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of
   whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in
   Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the
   government, and might pass laws, which however were, within
   three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy
   Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was
   to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the
   whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,
   agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      _J. R. Brodhead, editor
      Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 3, pages 537-554._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
   The Revolution.
   Jacob Leisler and his fate.

   News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from
   the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,
   William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in
   February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the
   public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the
   authority of the latter occurred until after the people of
   Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,
   Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and
   casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a
   little later by like action in New York. Two parties had
   quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,
   the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former
   embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,
   the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,
   and the municipal authorities.
{2334}
   The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the
   citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the
   imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been
   overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was
   invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the
   legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might
   delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the
   principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German
   by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five
   train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one
   of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous
   opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and
   determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by
   the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced
   great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of
   citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to
   become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel
   Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly
   for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the
   'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert
   Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of
   the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and
   champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was
   formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.
   They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested
   him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief
   magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.
   This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained
   to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the
   public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he
   proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary
   sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a
   letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had
   done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to
   assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but
   departed presently for England, "after formally giving
   authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his
   absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made
   known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and
   the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several
   counties of the province to elect their civil and military
   officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The
   counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually
   and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became
   greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who
   was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'
   as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the
   indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was
   compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other
   councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they
   acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an
   independent government, and claimed to be the true and only
   rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained
   by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,
   Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of
   their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his
   mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York
   by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,
   directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to
   such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the
   peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of
   New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to
   Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and
   attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.
   "From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed
   an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler
   justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the
   people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at
   once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed
   councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,
   and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war
   with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed
   Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of
   1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in
   the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take
   possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the
   governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme
   power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the
   province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of
   the fort, without deigning to show the governor his
   credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the
   troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to
   take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city
   was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and
   'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in
   March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort
   and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of
   Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious
   action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also
   Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a
   charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and
   sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne
   received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the
   governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As
   Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they
   intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature
   to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before
   the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and
   Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became
   sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly
   stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he
   died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,
   enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high
   position in history of a patriot and martyr."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      The Empire State,
      chapter 8._

   "Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,
   but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are
   imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the
   utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an
   opposition led by persons who held office under King James.
   They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the
   office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity
   as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a
   patriot."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 3._

{2335}

   "The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.
   … And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a
   martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,
   aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as
   one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors
   of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a
   traitor."

      _W. Dunlap,
      History of the New Netherlands,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Hoffman,
      The Administration of Jacob Leisler
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 3)._

      _Papers relating to
      Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
      (O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2)._

      _Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
      (New York Historical Society Collection, 1868)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
   Abortive expedition against Montreal.
   French plans of conquest.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:

NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.
   Bradford's press set up.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.
   Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
   Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
   Capture of Port Royal.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
   Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
   Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

      See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
   Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
   Zenger's trial.
   Vindication of the freedom of the press.

   "In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet
   and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New
   York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the
   assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he
   did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had
   lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and
   free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,
   and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at
   Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was
   transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the
   chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the
   time when the ministry was warned that 'the American
   assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of
   Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as
   governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John
   Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate
   had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped
   contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all
   things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,
   was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,
   and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,
   broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no
   sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch
   at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …
   To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of
   Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and
   insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of
   the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:
   'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in
   England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby
   displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent
   of the council or waiting for the approbation of the
   sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A
   newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in
   November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its
   printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an
   apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and
   afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the
   council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious
   libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the
   attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger
   took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they
   ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without
   the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by
   disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at
   the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,
   penetration, and application to business. All the central
   colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial
   the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable
   Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for
   Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You
   cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give
   the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to
   the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The
   jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and
   they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is
   not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is
   the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not
   guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York
   the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous
   defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the
   press.'"

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
      part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Grahame,
      History of the United States (Colonial),
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _W. L. Stone,
      History of New York City,
      2d period, chapter 2._

      _E. Lawrence,
      William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 7)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.
   The first Newspaper.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.
   How the Iroquois placed themselves
   under the protection of England.

   "Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at
   Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had
   received from England, and all the injuries that had been
   inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow
   to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The
   Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion
   of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.
   They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the
   King of England for help to regain their country from the
   French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a
   surrender of their country to England, to be protected for
   their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for
   their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and
   represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian
   chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois
   confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of
   Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their
   territory to be subject to Great Britain."

      _W. Dunlap,
      History of New York,
      volume 1, page 289._

{2336}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
   The pretended Negro Plot.
   Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

   In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and
   bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than
   the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or
   8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine
   fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the
   burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An
   indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a
   reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot
   formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,
   to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was
   confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a
   robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly
   turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among
   the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight
   lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by
   turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no
   counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient
   evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all
   sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in
   passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to
   save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy
   convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and
   seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement
   then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices
   against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being
   a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes
   to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and
   executed."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.
   Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.
   The founding of King's College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
   The struggle for Vermont.
   The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
   and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
   The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
   Abortive expedition against Niagara.
   Braddock's defeat.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
   The French and Indian War:
   English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
   The French and Indian War:
   Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
   Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
   The French and Indian War:
   Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
   The French and Indian War:
   Completed English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.
   Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
   The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
   The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
   The conflict of parties.
   The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
   and the Committee of Sixty.

   "In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the
   Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were
   ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea
   ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that
   gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.
   … An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,
   engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any
   connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or
   'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by
   Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers
   was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of
   Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.
   Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of
   the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January
   20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch
   with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the
   year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve
   others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a
   proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April
   15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,
   followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance
   assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'
   landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat
   and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood
   out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried
   Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening
   before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by
   the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was
   enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by
   the ship Samson on the 12th.
{2337}
   Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston
   Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most
   effectual, and assuring them that their course would be
   heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had
   been the march of events that not till now did the merchants
   and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their
   concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly
   compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible
   committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted
   more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had
   been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations
   condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men
   who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote
   Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and
   acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the
   lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the
   Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens
   seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal
   inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might
   run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a
   considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the
   Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by
   advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel
   Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'
   … A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of
   twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the
   approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister
   colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these
   nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the
   Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,
   Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which
   had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House
   again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and
   organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the
   Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response
   to another communication just received from Boston, by the
   famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged
   that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is
   of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …
   not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,
   but for the security of our common rights;' and that the
   advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to
   the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be
   exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative
   suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common
   rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York
   was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before
   a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of
   Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates
   to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose
   for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,
   and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to
   the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at
   the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the
   committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to
   substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."
   This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate
   expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently
   opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a
   unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,
   at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest
   clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of
   the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the
   'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      chapter 2._

   "The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its
   object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of
   the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to
   enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late
   Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and
   organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was
   dissolved."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, page 768._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Q. Leake,
      Life and Times of General John Lamb,
      chapter 6._

      _J. A. Stevens,
      The Second Non-importation Agreement
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 11)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
   Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
   The first provincial Convention held.

   "The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
   the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
   disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
   council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
   chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
   King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
   representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
   moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
   rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
   there was an elective council and an annually elected
   assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
   power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
   heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
   their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
   integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
   obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
   of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
   intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
   Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
   ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
   to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
   by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
   of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
   store several days without them. While they were on their way
   to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
   seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
   retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
   in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
   the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
   to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
   Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
   appeal to the people.
{2338}
   The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
   loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
   popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
   freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
   consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
   representatives from such of the counties of the province as
   should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
   being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
   the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
   loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
   subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
   to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
   provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
   [April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
   Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
   Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
   the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
   in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
   to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
   assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
   consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
   of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
   delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
   convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
   convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
   provincial convention in New York—the first positive
   expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
   province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
   delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
   Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
   Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
   Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
   full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
   other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
   measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
   preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
   privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
   Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
   session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
   way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
   adjournment."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapters 17-18._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Dunlap,
      History of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 29_.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action upon the news.
   Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
   Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
   The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
   The end of royal government.
   Flight of Governor Tryon.

   "On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of
   Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open
   hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of
   Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of
   the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,
   together with a quantity which had been deposited in the
   arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom
   formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of
   Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the
   city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the
   custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the
   vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now
   became necessary to organize some provisional government for
   the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting
   of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a
   Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the
   charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to
   obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by
   the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part
   of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the
   popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by
   the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their
   more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the
   command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as
   their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any
   persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …
   The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on
   their colleagues to present a placable address to
   Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment,
   and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve
   the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put
   the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey
   the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting
   fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered
   New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take
   command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress
   received him with a cautious address. Despite their
   patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing
   to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they
   desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights
   of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington
   quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial
   militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England
   since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands
   of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume
   it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought
   almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work
   such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America.
   The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with
   expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of
   the change which relieved them from the government of Colden.
   … Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the
   Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to
   the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly
   raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the
   seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and
   denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not
   long before the two powers came into collision." This was
   brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress,
   directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were
   exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat
   from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded
   the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens.
   "Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but
   finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the
   pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he
   determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the
   'Asia.'"

      _Mary L. Booth,
      History of the City of New York,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Q. Leake,
      Life and Times of General John Lamb,
      chapter 7._

{2339}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).
   Flight of Governor Tryon.
   New York City occupied by Washington.
   Battle of Long Island.
   Defeat of the American army.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
   The struggle for the city.
   Washington's retreat.
   The British in possession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.
   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;
      and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
   Adoption of a Constitution and
   organization of a State government.
   Religious freedom established.

   "After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies
   proceeded to form State governments, by adopting
   constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the
   1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the
   Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government
   was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County,
   were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The
   committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John
   Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer,
   Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John
   Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel
   Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the
   chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the
   Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the
   stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and
   winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then
   at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County,
   and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they
   continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the
   committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the
   12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It
   was under consideration in the Convention for more than a
   month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of
   April. Under it a State government was established by an
   ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first
   session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston
   in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay
   and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for
   Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor.
   But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the
   situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be
   neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in
   all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and
   Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General
   George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by
   successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for
   three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the
   Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was
   appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and
   John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert
   Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New
   York was organized and put into operation at a time when it
   was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern,
   southern, and western frontiers."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

   The framers of this first constitution of the State of New
   York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established
   church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all
   such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to
   establish or maintain any particular denomination of
   Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section …
   which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being
   the first organized government of the world to assert by
   constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious
   freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by
   the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to
   expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual
   oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition
   of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,
   this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority
   of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
   declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
   profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
   shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all
   mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly
   indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her
   Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well
   as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But
   the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York,
   which has since spread over most of the United States, and
   lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not
   freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought.
   Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they
   expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted
   to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the
   sea a century and a half before."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, pages 251-252._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Jay,
      Life of John Jay,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. Roosevelt,
      Gouverneur Morris,
      chapter 3._

      _B. F. Butler,
      Outline of Constitutional History of New York
      (New York Historical Society Collections,
      series 2, volume 2)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
   Opposition to the recognition of
   the State independence of Vermont.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.
   Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
   Fortifying West Point.

      See WEST POINT.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
   The war on the Indian Border.
   Activity of Tories and Savages.
   The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

{2340}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1779.
   Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780.
   Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   The surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1781.
   Western territorial claims and
   their cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
   Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
   Evacuation of New York City by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1784.
   Founding of the Bank of New York.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786.
   Rejection of proposed amendments
   to the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
   Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.
   The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
   The Holland Purchase.
   The founding of Buffalo.

   The conflicting territorial claims of New York and
   Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English
   crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims
   to the United States which New York made in 1781 and
   Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
   1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by
   these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000
   square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was
   finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by
   the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of
   December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by
   the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York
   all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction
   of all the territory lying west of the present east line of
   the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the
   pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of
   the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying
   west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of
   Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said
   state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake
   to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New
   York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of
   Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length.
   The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded,
   amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788,
   Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of
   Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville,
   Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to
   all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about
   6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in
   three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip
   Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was
   to be received, which was then in market much below par. In
   July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians
   by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title
   to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase
   from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded
   west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the
   state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of
   land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon
   (Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence
   north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the
   confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of
   said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras
   (Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence
   running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the
   westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario.
   On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts
   conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps,
   their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of
   said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs.
   Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This
   tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps
   and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the
   proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they
   had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square],
   which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of
   townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and
   others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November,
   1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two
   townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a
   quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who
   soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English
   gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold
   at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other
   property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity,
   is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps
   and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money
   of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence
   of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock
   (in which the payments for the land were to be received) from
   20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their
   engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to
   relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western
   section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the
   Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by
   Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris.
   Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his
   purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school
   fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the
   Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The
   remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western
   New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and
   came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

      _O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 325 and 396-424._

{2341}

   "Much has been written and more has been said about the
   'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially
   precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet
   there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the
   Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city
   of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were
   citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the
   United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not
   hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts,
   comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase,
   was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the
   legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land
   within the State, and in the latter part of that year the
   American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real
   owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase
   surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of
   land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors
   reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their
   title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797.
   One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by
   the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland
   proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and
   made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he
   secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and
   the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of
   land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the
   founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which
   subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek,
   on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement,
   became its harbor.

      _C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie Company, New York,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Turner,
      History of the Pioneer Settlement
      of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase,
      part 2._

      _O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 401-424._

      _H. L. Osgood,
      The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
      (Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.
   The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
   The chief battle ground of the contest.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
   Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
   The beginnings of Tammany.

      See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1790.
   Renunciation of claims to Vermont.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
   Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.

   During the session of the legislature in April, 1799,
   "emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all
   children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July
   should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of
   males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age
   of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this
   process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that
   question of compensation which had been the secret of the
   failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves
   was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population
   of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and
   without excitement."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      page 328._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1805.
   The Free School Society in New York City.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1807.
   Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815.
   The war on the Canadian frontier.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
      1813 (DECEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1814 (SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
   The Clintonians and Bucktails.

   During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the
   State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between
   his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he
   audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison,
   assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican
   adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn
   on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been
   Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the
   'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later
   called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards,
   the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren],
   when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head
   of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between
   Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each
   accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the
   accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      page 56._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 3, page 227._

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, page 450._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
   Construction of the Erie Canal.

   "History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first
   suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake
   Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the
   shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The
   praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the
   fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a
   uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the
   Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in
   1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It
   afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr.
   Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to
   have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley,
   under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,'
   continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first
   brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject.
   These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by
   a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment
   for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and
   displayed deep research, with singular vigor and
   comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic
   accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In
   1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in
   pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson,
   president of the United States, reported a plan for
   appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general
   government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads;
   and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly
   without exception, all the works which have since been
   executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. …
{2342}
   In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from
   Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution,"
   referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to
   the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee
   be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of
   exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the
   most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a
   communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and
   Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to
   appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the
   accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee
   was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was
   directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the
   state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one
   of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native
   genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed,
   under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes
   to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed
   that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and
   could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion
   of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished
   throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts
   to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt
   Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William
   North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed
   commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland
   navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake
   Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian,
   himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the
   canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested
   this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of
   engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a
   member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811,
   submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which
   they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous
   canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate
   of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this
   report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law
   on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to
   provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this
   state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert
   Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to
   consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with
   powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress,
   or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the
   undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr.
   Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the
   subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison)
   and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that,
   although it was uncertain whether the national government
   would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would
   afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners
   then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national
   government, and that offer having virtually been declined,
   the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims
   of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the
   canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as
   soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of
   June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners
   and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the
   treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any
   measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the
   country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of
   internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic
   efforts required to maintain the national security and honor."
   But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise
   prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and
   "ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on
   the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking
   the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton,
   having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the
   state, and being president of the board of canal
   commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending,
   with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the
   26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable
   condition throughout its entire length, affording an
   uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the
   Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a
   telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at
   Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of
   the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on
   the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor
   Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the
   commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

      _W. H. Seward,
      Notes on New York
      (Works, volume 2), pages 88-117._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Hosack,
      Memoir of De Witt Clinton,
      pages 82-119 and 245-504._

      _J. Renwick,
      Life of De Witt Clinton,
      chapters 10-19._

      _C. D. Colden,
      Memoir: Celebration of the
      Completion of the New York Canals._

      _M. S. Hawley,
      Origin of the Erie Canal._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1821.
   Revision of the Constitution.

   "The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its
   framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to
   insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the
   Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically
   beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to
   because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit
   of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions
   of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive
   power; and because the officers who thus interposed their
   objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for
   good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of
   the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one,
   in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could
   be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly
   responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment,
   although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact
   disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its
   appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations
   against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later
   day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office
   thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and
   judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this
   Council.
{2343}
   In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their
   commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power
   was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed
   'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this
   State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision,
   on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton,
   Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and
   Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of
   the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it
   did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the
   question; and second, because it submitted the new
   Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections.
   These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael
   Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9,
   1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was
   adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass,
   not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a
   committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee
   subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to
   the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of
   the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was
   subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of
   the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding
   the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For
   Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The
   Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned
   November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and
   its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of
   Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The
   principal department officers were directed to be appointed on
   an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent
   joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the
   power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and
   with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two
   hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective
   franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an
   election held in February, 1822, by the following vote:
   Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People
   took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt
   it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to
   intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective
   Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and
   interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they
   intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the
   People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the
   members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the
   Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of
   all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme
   Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of
   the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular
   government took the place of parliamentary administration."

      _E. A. Werner,
      Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887,
      pages 126-128._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1823.
   The rise of the Albany Regency.

   "The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the
   political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren,
   the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party.
   Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service
   approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William
   L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott,
   Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin
   Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These
   gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the
   nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas
   Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W.
   Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not
   believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at
   any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly
   twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state
   politics."

      _T. Weed,
      Autobiography,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

   "Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and
   generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix,
   Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long
   directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils
   the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen
   in 1885."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      page 96._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
   Anti-Masonic excitement.
   The abduction of Morgan.

   "The society of free-masons included a large number of the
   foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed
   that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions.
   … This belief was used to create prejudice among those who
   were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction.
   At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of
   Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to
   print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested
   on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge,
   but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and
   imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from
   that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept
   until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged
   with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was
   produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the
   way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive
   in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as
   late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession
   made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact
   perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named,
   after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was
   active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with
   mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation
   was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn
   laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became
   the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was
   one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was
   alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be
   'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but
   the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with
   volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the
   literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of
   sensational novels."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 2, chapter 33._

{2344}

   "A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose
   the election of any Free Mason to public office. The
   Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and
   began to claim rank as a national political party. On most
   points its principles were those of the National Republicans.
   But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and
   consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even
   nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no
   national principle of controlling importance, it soon after
   declined."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Weed,
      Autobiography,
      chapters 20-30, 36, and 40._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.
   The last of Slavery in the state.

   "On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to
   the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery
   in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of
   July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons
   born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be
   free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years
   of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of
   the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights,
   which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of
   slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was
   produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden,
   Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other
   distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of
   New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the
   principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights
   call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great
   enterprise."

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 2, page 565._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.
   The Loco-focos.

   "The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in
   derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial
   doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was
   originally a division of the Democrats, strongly
   anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to
   banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which
   enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and
   exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic
   candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the
   anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly
   confirm the nominations made in committee was called at
   Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture
   the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars,
   however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by
   reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage
   the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the
   devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready
   with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly
   illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had
   defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful,
   however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the
   anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van
   Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the
   banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837,
   Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular
   Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      pages 293-295._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1838.
   Passage of the Free Banking Act.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1839-1846.
   The Anti-rent disturbances.

      See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1840-1841.
   The McLeod Case.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846.
   Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension.
   Hunkers and Barnburners.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1846.
   Constitutional revision.

   During the twenty-five years of the existence of the
   constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments
   were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing
   presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending
   the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and
   in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The
   commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the
   elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the
   census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants.
   Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for
   privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially
   under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for
   which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for
   internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted
   demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The
   judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and
   required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the
   electors were called upon to decide whether a convention
   should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted
   in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The
   convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October
   9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango
   presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany,
   George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and
   Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York,
   Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in
   State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the
   principles of government. The new constitution gave to the
   people the election of many officers before appointed at
   Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses
   of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the
   cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an
   independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of
   chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the
   supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts.
   All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures
   were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a
   longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent
   or service were reserved. The financial articles established
   sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt,
   forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited
   rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except
   to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the
   school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for
   general laws for the formation of corporations. The
   constitution required the submission to the people once every
   twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be
   called or not."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 2, pages 567-569._

{2345}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
   The Free Soil movement.
   The Buffalo Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
   Legal Emancipation of Women.

      See LAW, COMMON; A. D. 1839-1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
   Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April).
   The speeding of the Seventh Regiment
   to the defense of Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1862-1886.
   The founding and growth of Cornell University.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1886.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.
   The Draft Riots in New York City.

   "A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with
   the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by
   volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not
   filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of
   July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was
   attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to
   call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals
   had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the
   draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic
   journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for
   the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any
   draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in
   this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and
   denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is
   doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including
   any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited
   state of the public mind, especially among the laboring
   population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the
   grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best
   opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence
   of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion
   of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate
   that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers
   published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance
   of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic
   enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the
   serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the
   corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded
   by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten
   o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd,
   who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National
   Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress
   but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!'
   and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the
   conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created.
   Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down
   everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office,
   driving out at the back windows the officials and the
   policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down
   a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as
   they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and
   then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but
   were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this
   moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police,
   approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set
   upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with
   clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a
   mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued,
   he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon
   and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the
   force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and
   Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three
   fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another
   marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at
   Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the
   whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and
   Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police
   force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for
   four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the
   persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through
   the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous
   procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets,
   pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!'
   Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen,
   marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners,
   but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of
   Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a
   compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with
   a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob
   scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded
   and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every
   encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant
   rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and
   down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that
   appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in
   murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found
   its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored
   Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The
   two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken
   away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the
   front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the
   murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York
   Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly
   volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot
   alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and
   tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by
   some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by
   the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end.
   About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died;
   and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was
   eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but
   it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings,
   destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth
   of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to
   the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and
   promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications
   to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and
   asked to have it suspended till the question of its
   constitutionality could be tested in the courts."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 1._

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

      _D. M. Barnes,
      The Draft Riots in New York._

{2346}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
   The Tweed Ring.

   Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a
   considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the
   control and into the power of a combination of corrupt
   politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was
   one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first
   appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850.
   Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he
   adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand
   Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the
   general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the
   Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not
   completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most
   important political organization in the city, was not absolute
   even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart
   Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former
   mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in
   this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic
   nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was
   appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now
   fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its
   members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of
   the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided
   their adherents with places in the city government, and when
   the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city
   pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political
   influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State,
   they packed the State legislature with their followers, and
   placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In
   1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its
   candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character
   than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest,
   but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political
   friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor
   and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and
   most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g.
   illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration,
   repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left
   vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election
   of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of
   January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the
   Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled
   the common council of the city and the legislature of the
   State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall
   was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the
   Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and
   county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street
   department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and
   thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was
   in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and
   the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both
   through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by
   amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed
   and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In
   1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more
   than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of
   fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises
   of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the
   colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new
   court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun,
   it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed
   $250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of
   $8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed.
   … Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors,
   he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge.
   … A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as
   raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his
   original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference
   between the original and the raised bills was divided between
   the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of
   the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent
   addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign
   of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the
   fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office,
   came into the possession of the New York Times and were
   published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of
   citizens early in September. … It was followed by the
   formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under
   the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This
   committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading
   Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the
   presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and
   with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds
   described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless
   endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful,
   and that prosecutions were brought against several members of
   the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat
   of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and
   virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of
   the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller,
   with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for
   the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office
   gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence
   afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the
   autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the
   better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the
   political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading
   actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure
   the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience
   in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed
   the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country
   and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a
   favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America.
   Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the
   Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the
   bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid
   impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate
   idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In
   1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was
   reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate
   was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the
   property in the city liable to taxation.
{2347}
   In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and
   the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical
   purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax
   rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years
   and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at
   the rate of $28,652,000 a year."

      _F. J. Goodnow,
      The Tweed Ring in New York City
      (chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. J. Tilden,
      The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall._

      _C. F. Wingate,
      An episode in Municipal Government
      (N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875,
      October. 1876)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867.
   The Public Schools made entirely free.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867-1882.
   Amendments of the Constitution.

   The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision
   at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the
   calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular
   vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates
   assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment
   was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution
   proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in
   1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary
   article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided
   for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases
   pending in the Court, where business in arrears had
   accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the
   constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by
   the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision
   of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872,
   and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by
   the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and
   1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these
   amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise
   without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment
   for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at
   elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some
   changes were made in the provisions for districting the state,
   after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature
   was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the
   legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the
   governor was extended from two years to three; the governor
   was empowered to veto specific items in bills which
   appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was
   allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his
   hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills
   become law only upon his approval within that time; a
   superintendent of public works was created to take the place
   of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a
   superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three
   inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the
   bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate
   Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or
   granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any
   county, city, town, or village to any association,
   corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt
   conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment
   of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people
   in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of
   tolls.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.
   Black Friday.

   "During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the
   promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth
   thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our
   purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases,
   and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable
   in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in
   the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the
   financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of
   a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was
   legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the
   rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on
   successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign
   nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against.
   The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So
   large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering
   up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that
   it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of
   gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their
   chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of
   Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one
   partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this
   business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made
   them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm,
   though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of
   the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of
   two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of
   railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon
   gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith
   to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of
   gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency
   in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half
   that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two
   millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious
   metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the
   payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower
   rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none
   of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment
   of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him
   that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on
   demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould
   had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some
   hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and
   the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
   Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this
   point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of
   President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his
   private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were
   brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the
   Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable
   for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up
   the price of gold. One important channel for such influences
   was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New
   York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the
   speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases.
{2348}
   By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the
   price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they
   ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter
   part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then
   frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me
   like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out
   then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He
   therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the
   financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for
   some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency
   of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more
   palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed
   the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve
   millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among
   thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All
   Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except
   those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did
   his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President
   himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when
   General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see
   him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap
   set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould
   such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither
   Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their
   personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots
   urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the
   country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country
   of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the
   Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr.
   Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion
   of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that
   it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from
   the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr.
   Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at
   Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the
   sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this
   letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at
   once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the
   13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide,
   stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest
   purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold
   sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and
   only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday,
   September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the
   purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five
   cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the
   profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake
   worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was
   opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments
   against them; and more than all else, there stood the
   Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions
   of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its
   plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin,
   while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any
   Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation,
   addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to
   interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and
   the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do
   so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but
   unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in
   which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private
   messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter,
   asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told
   there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to
   his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most
   unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that
   his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and
   so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the
   greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of
   the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's
   letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and
   on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market
   and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter,
   which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to
   their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half,
   its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold,
   coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr.
   Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's
   suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by
   patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the
   President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her
   sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them
   that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York,
   and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage
   himself from them; that the President was much distressed at
   such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was
   greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got
   himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say
   to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk
   was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of
   Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner
   within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next
   morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The
   next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black
   Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters
   of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it
   brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours
   before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over
   the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers
   were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and
   the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited,
   palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an
   hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144;
   Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his
   work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the
   last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at
   146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then
   150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James
   Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants
   who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own
   ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of
   the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value
   of their artificial metal.
{2349}
   Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to
   159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers
   called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million
   taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further
   offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from
   160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by
   the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making
   seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed
   to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost
   stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till
   before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the
   price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them
   as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when
   the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed,
   and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of
   gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room,
   tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before.
   Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all
   their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the
   precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the
   news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed
   to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold
   fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no
   purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought
   sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay
   therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But
   Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges,
   placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a
   settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these
   judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business
   except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They
   continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they
   were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if
   their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and
   they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements
   between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims
   were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the
   total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin,
   Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and
   therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone
   else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the
   operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less
   than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those
   transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less
   than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two
   afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million
   dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away,
   Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two
   or three days the whole business of New York stood still
   awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all
   the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both
   sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business.
   Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send
   to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw
   millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they
   beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives
   of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by
   the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected
   by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business
   were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small
   clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession
   of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm
   had gone through business transactions to the amount of over
   one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United
   States would compel the completion of those bargains which
   resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were
   forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe
   was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until
   the present generation of business men has passed away will
   the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."

      _W. R. Hooper,
      Black Friday
      (The Galaxy, December, 1871)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1875-1881.
   Stalwarts and Half-breeds.

      See STALWARTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1881.
   Adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1892.
   Restored Tammany government in the City.

   The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled
   for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his
   "ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the
   chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive
   "grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city
   government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was
   justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in
   New York no official body that corresponds with the London
   Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus
   the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of
   the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and
   Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff,
   the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of
   New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of
   the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the
   twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other
   officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of
   men of about the same numerical strength as the London
   Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official
   life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred
   thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every
   municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual
   merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British
   empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing
   openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of
   twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief,
   its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who
   are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in
   one way or another connected with that interest. So far as
   there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss
   the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in
   the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an
   organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of
   public questions, either local or general, excepting the
   'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military
   rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends
   through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New
   York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance
   of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the
   offices.
{2350}
   Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast
   amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members
   of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of
   the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the
   Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and
   Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools
   and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel
   that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany
   bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany
   themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the
   remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to
   the Tammany domination. The following characterization of
   Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening
   Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any
   legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and
   contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at
   the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or
   in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only
   thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is
   how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the
   places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could
   make his way into the inner conferences at which these
   questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion
   of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to
   repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to
   supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous
   adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths,
   ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally,
   abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers,
   liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public
   treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to
   observe, the society is simply an organization of clever
   adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the
   control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an
   attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a
   particle of politics in the concern any more than in any
   combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train
   and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in
   any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the
   police.'"

      _A. Shaw,
      Municipal Problems of New York and London
      (Review of Reviews, April 1892)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1894.
   Constitutional Convention.

   A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention
   to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the
   election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at
   large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to
   represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the
   advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act
   was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total
   number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all
   elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district.
   The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors
   are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press.
   Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the
   greatest attention.

   ----------NEW YORK: End----------

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

   ----------NEW ZEALAND: Start--------

NEW ZEALAND:
   The aborigines.

   "The traditions of these people [the Maoris] lead to the
   conclusion that they first came to New Zealand about 600 years
   ago, from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti; but
   some ethnologists put the migration as far back as 3,000
   years. Their language is a dialect of the Polynesian, most
   resembling that of Rarotonga, but their physical characters
   vary greatly. Some are fair, with straight hair, and with the
   best type of Polynesian features; others are dusky brown, with
   curly or almost frizzly hair, and with the' long and broad
   arched nose of the Papuan; while others have the coarse thick
   features of the lower Melanesian races. Now these variations
   of type cannot be explained unless we suppose the Maoris to
   have found in the islands an indigenous Melanesian people, of
   whom they exterminated the men, but took the better-looking of
   the women for wives; and as their traditions decidedly state
   that they did find such a race when they first arrived at New
   Zealand, there seems no reason whatever for rejecting these
   traditions, which accord with actual physical facts, just as
   the tradition of a migration from 'Hawaiki,' a Polynesian
   island, accords with linguistic facts."

      _Hellwald-Wallace,
      Australasia
      (Stanford's Compendium, new issue, 1893),
      chapter 14, section 9 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Shortland,
      Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders._

      _J. S. Polack,
      Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders._

      _Lady Martin,
      Our Maoris._

      _W. D. Hay,
      Brighter Britain,
      volume 2, chapters 3-5._

      See, also, MALAYAN RACE.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.
   Discovery.
   Colonization.
   Early dealings with Natives.
   Constitutional organization.

   "The honour of the actual discovery of New Zealand must be
   accorded to the Dutch Navigator, Tasman, who visited it in
   1642, discovering Van Dieman's Land during the same voyage.
   As, however, he does not appear to have landed, the knowledge
   of the country derived by Europeans from his account of it
   must have been of very limited extent. … It was our own
   countryman, Captain Cook, to whom we are so largely indebted
   for what we now know of the geography of the Pacific, who made
   us acquainted with the nature of the country and the character
   of its inhabitants. The aborigines were evidently of a much
   higher type than those of the Australian continent. They are a
   branch of the Polynesian race, and according to their own
   traditions came about 600 years ago from 'Hawaiki,' which
   ethnologists interpret to mean either Hawaii (the Sandwich
   Islands), or Savaii in the Samoa group. They are divided into
   some twenty clans, analogous to those of the Scottish
   Highlands. Cook's first visit was paid in 1769, but he touched
   at the islands on several occasions during his subsequent
   voyages, and succeeded in making, before his final departure,
   a more or less complete exploration of its coasts. The
   aborigines were divided into numerous tribes, which were
   engaged in almost constant wars one with another. … As has
   been the case in so many distant lands, the first true
   pioneers of civilization were the missionaries.
{2351}
   In 1814, thirty-seven years after Captain Cook's last visit to
   New Zealand, a few representatives of the English Church
   Missionary Society landed in the North Island, less with the
   intention of colonising than with the hope of converting the
   natives to Christianity. The first practical steps in the
   direction of settlement were taken by the New Zealand Land
   Company, composed of a very strong and influential body of
   gentlemen headed by Lord Durham, and having much the same
   ideas as those which actuated the South Australian
   Colonisation Society. The proposal to found a new Colony was
   at first bitterly opposed by the Government of the day, but in
   consequence of the energetic action of the Company, who sent
   out agents with large funds to purchase land of the natives,
   the Government ultimately gave way, and despatched as Consul
   Captain Hobson, who arrived in January 1840. One of his first
   steps on assuming office was to call a meeting of the natives
   and explain to them the object of his mission, with the view
   of entering into a treaty for placing the sovereignty of their
   island in Her Majesty the Queen. He was not at first
   successful, the natives fearing that if they acceded to the
   proposal, their land would be taken from them; but being
   reassured on this point, the majority of the chiefs ultimately
   signed the treaty in February of the same year. By the terms
   of this treaty, called the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs, in
   return for their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen
   of England, were guaranteed for themselves and their people
   the exclusive possession of their lands so long as they wished
   to retain them, and they, on their side, accorded to the Crown
   the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as might,
   from time to time, come into the market. It will thus be seen
   that the acquisition of land in New Zealand by European
   settlers was effected in a manner entirely different from that
   which obtained in other colonies; for, although the right of
   pre-emption by the Crown was subsequently waived, no land
   could be obtained from natives unless they were perfectly
   willing to part with it. It is true that lands have in some
   instances been confiscated as a punishment for native
   insurrections, but, with this exception, all lands have passed
   from natives to Europeans by the ordinary processes of bargain
   and sale. Captain Hobson's next action was to place himself in
   communication with the New Zealand Company's agents, and
   ascertain what they were doing in the way of colonisation. He
   found that besides acquiring various blocks of land in the
   North and South Islands, they had formed a permanent
   settlement at Wellington, at which they were organising a
   system of government incompatible with the Queen's authority,
   which he therefore promptly suppressed. … In June of 1840
   the settlement was made a colony by Charter under the Great
   Seal, Captain Hobson naturally becoming the first Governor.
   This eminent public servant died at his post in September
   1842, being succeeded by Captain R. Fitzroy, who, however, did
   not reach the Colony till a year afterwards. In the interval
   occurred that lamentable incident, the massacre of white
   settlers by the natives at Wairu, in the South Island. Shortly
   after this the Company made strenuous efforts to obtain a
   share in the Executive Government, but this was twice
   disallowed by the Home authorities. Captain Fitzroy's term of
   office was in all respects a stormy one, the native chiefs
   rising in rebellion, open and covert, against the terms of the
   Waitangi treaty. With only 150 soldiers, and destitute of any
   military facilities, this governor deemed it prudent to come
   to a compromise with the rebels, fearing the effect upon the
   minds of the natives generally of the certain defeat which he
   must sustain in active warfare. Receiving, however,
   reinforcements from Sidney, Captain Fitzroy took the field,
   sustaining in his first expedition a decided defeat. Two other
   expeditions followed this, and at length the success of the
   British arms was assured, Captain Fitzroy suffering from the
   irony of fate, since, having been neglected in his peril, he
   was recalled in the moment of victory. Captain (afterwards Sir
   George) Grey succeeded to the Governorship in November 1845;
   having the good fortune to be surrounded by ministers of
   exceptional ability, and arriving in the Colony at a fortunate
   turn in its affairs, he takes his place among the successful
   Governors of New Zealand. Colonel Gore Browne—after an
   interregnum of nearly two years—succeeded to power, and
   during his viceroyalty in 1853, responsible government, which,
   however, did not provide for ministerial responsibility, was
   inaugurated. … The Home Government shortly afterwards (May
   1856) … established responsible government in its fullest
   form, but unfortunately without any special provisions for the
   representation of the native races. … Up to 1847 New Zealand
   remained a Crown Colony, the Government being administered by
   a Governor appointed by the Crown, an Executive Council, and a
   Legislative Council. Under this system, the Governor had very
   large powers, since the only control over him was that
   exercised by the Home Government. The Executive Council
   consisted of the Governor and three official members, while
   the Legislative Council was made up of the Executive Council
   and three non-official members nominated by the Governor. At
   that time Auckland was the seat of Government, which has since
   been moved to Wellington. In 1852, before the expiration of
   the period over which the provisional charter granted in 1847
   was to extend, the Imperial Parliament granted a new
   constitution to New Zealand (15 & 16 Vic. cap. 72), and in the
   following year it came into force and is still [1886]
   operative. The Legislature, under this Constitution, consists
   of a Governor, a Legislative Council, composed of life members
   nominated by the Crown, and a House of Representatives elected
   by the people, under a franchise which practically amounts to
   household suffrage."

      _Her Majesty's Colonies
      (Colonial and Ind. Exhibition, 1886),
      pages 245-248._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden,
      History of New Zealand,
      volume 1._

      _G. Tregarthen,
      Story of Australasia._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.
   Land questions with the Natives.
   The King movement.
   The Maori War.

   "In the course of years, as it was evident to the natives that
   the Europeans were the coming power in the land, suspicion and
   distrust were excited, and at last the tocsin sounded. … It
   was considered that a head was needed to initiate a form of
   Government among the tribes to resist the encroachments daily
   made by the Europeans, and which seemed to threaten the
   national extinction of the native race. The first to endeavour
   to bring about a new order of things was a native chief named
   Matene Te Whiwi, of Otaki.
{2352}
   In 1853 he marched to Taupo and Rotorua, accompanied by a
   number of followers, to obtain the consent of the different
   tribes to the election of a king over the central parts of the
   island, which were still exclusively Maori territory, and to
   organize a form of government to protect the interests of the
   native race. Matene … met with little success. … The
   agitation, however, did not stop, the fire once kindled
   rapidly spread, ardent followers of the new idea sprang up,
   and their numbers soon increased, until finally, in 1854, a
   tribal gathering was convened at Manawapou. … After many
   points had been discussed, a resolution was come to among the
   assembled tribes that no more land should be sold to
   Europeans. A solemn league was entered into by an present for
   the preservation of the native territory, and a tomahawk was
   passed round as a pledge that all would agree to put the
   individual to death who should break it. In 1854 another bold
   stand was made, and Te Heuheu, who exercised a powerful sway
   over the tribes of the interior, summoned a native council at
   Taupo, when the King movement began in earnest. It was there
   decided that the sacred mountain of Tongariro should be the
   centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the
   government, and that the districts of Hauraki, Waikato,
   Kawhia, Mokau, Taranaki, Whanganui, Rangitikei, and Titiokura,
   should form the outlying portions of the boundary; that no
   roads should be made by the Europeans within the area, and
   that a king should be elected to reign over the Maoris. In
   1857 Kingite meetings were held, … at which it was agreed
   that Potatau Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief of
   Waikato, should be elected king, under the title of Potatau
   the First, and finally, in June, 1858, his flag was formally
   hoisted at Ngaruawahia. Potatau, who was far advanced in life
   when raised to this high office, soon departed from the scene,
   and was succeeded by his son Matutaera Te Wherowhero, under
   the title of Potatau the Second. The events of the New Zealand
   war need not here be recited, but it may be easily imagined
   that during the continuance of the fighting the extensive area
   of country ruled over by the Maori monarch was kept clear of
   Europeans. But in 1863 and 1864 General Cameron, at the head
   of about 20,000 troops, composed of Imperial and Colonial
   forces, invaded the Waikato district, and drove the natives
   southward and westward, till his advanced corps were at
   Alexandra and Cambridge. Then followed the Waikato
   confiscation of Maori lands and the military settlements. The
   King territory was further broken into by the confiscations at
   Taranaki and the East Coast. … Since the termination of the
   lamentable war between the two races, the King natives have,
   on all occasions, jealously preserved their hostile spirit to
   Europeans. … The New Zealand war concluded, or rather died
   out, in 1865, when the confiscated line was drawn, the
   military settlements formed, and the King natives isolated
   themselves from the Europeans. For ten years it may be said
   that no attempt was mane to negotiate with them. They were not
   in a humour to be dealt with. About 1874 and 1875, however, it
   became evident that something would have to be done. The
   colony had greatly advanced in population, and a system of
   public works had been inaugurated, which made it intolerable
   that large centres of population should be cut off from each
   other by vast spaces of country which Europeans were not
   allowed even to traverse." Then began a series of
   negotiations, which, up to 1883, had borne no fruit.

      _J. H. Kerry-Nicholls,
      The King Country, introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden,
      History of New Zealand._

      _Colonel Sir J. E. Alexander,
      Incidents of the Maori War._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1887-1893.
   Maori representation.
   Women Suffrage.

   An act passed in 1887 created four districts in each of which
   the Maoris elect a member of the House of Representatives.
   Every adult Maori has a vote in this election. By an act
   passed in 1893 the elective franchise was extended to women.

   ----------NEW ZEALAND: End----------

NEWAB-WUZEER,
OR NAWAB-VIZIER, of Oude.

      See OUDE; also NABOB.

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY:
   The founding of the city by migration
   from New Haven (1666-1667).

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEWBERN, North Carolina: Capture by the national forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NEWBURGH, Washington's headquarters at.

   "At the close of 1780, the army was cantoned at three points:
   at Morristown and at Pompton, in New Jersey, and at
   Phillipstown, in the Hudson Highlands. Washington established
   his head-quarters at New Windsor in December, 1780, where he
   remained until June, 1781, when the French, who had quartered
   during the winter at Newport and Lebanon, formed a junction
   with the Americans on the Hudson. In April, 1782, he
   established his head-quarters at Newburgh, two miles above the
   village of New Windsor, where he continued most of the time
   until November, 1783, when the Continental army was
   disbanded."

      _B. J. Lossing,
     Field-book of the Revolution,
     volume 1, page 671._

NEWBURGH ADDRESSES, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

NEWBURN, Battles of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

NEWBURY, First Battles of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWBURY, Second Battle.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Origin of.

      See PONS ÆLII.

NEWCOMEN, and the invention of the steam engine.

      See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

   ----------NEWFOUNDLAND: Start--------

NEWFOUNDLAND:
      Aboriginal inhabitants.

        See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1000.
   Supposed identity with the Helluland of Norse Sagas.

      See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1498.
   Discovery by Sebastian Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1500.
   Visited by Cortereal, the Portuguese explorer.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
   The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fisheries.

   "It is a very curious circumstance, that the country in which
   the Cabots started their idea for a navigation to the
   north-west, and in which they at first proclaimed their
   discovery of the rich fishing-banks near their
   New-found-Isles, did not at once profit by it so much as their
   neighbors, the French and the Portuguese. …
{2353}
   During the first half of the 16th century we hear little of
   English fishing and commercial expeditions to the great banks;
   although they had a branch of commerce and fishery with
   Iceland. … 'It was not until the year 1548 that the English
   government passed the first act for the encouragement of the
   fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, after which they
   became active competitors in this profitable occupation.'" In
   Portugal, Cortereal's discovery had revealed "the wealth to be
   derived from the fish, particularly cod-fish, which abounded
   on that coast. The fishermen of Portugal and of the Western
   Islands, when this news was spread among them, made
   preparations for profiting by it, and soon extended their
   fishing excursions to the other side of the ocean. According
   to the statement of a Portuguese author, very soon after the
   discoveries by the Cortereals, a Portuguese Fishing Company
   was formed in the harbors of Vianna, Aveiro and Terceira, for
   the purpose of colonizing Newfoundland and making
   establishments upon it. Nay, already, in 1506, three years
   after the return of the last searching expedition for the
   Cortereals, Emanuel gave order, 'that the fishermen of
   Portugal, at their return from Newfoundland, should pay a
   tenth part of their profits at his custom-houses.' It is
   certain, therefore, that the Portuguese fishermen must,
   previous to that time, have been engaged in a profitable
   business. And this is confirmed by the circumstance that they
   originated the name of 'tierra de Bacalhas' [or Bacalhao] (the
   Stockfish-country) and gave currency to it; though the word,
   like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of Germanic origin.
   …. The nations who followed them in the fishing business
   imitated their example, and adopted the name 'country of the
   Bacalhas' (or, in the Spanish form, Baccallaos), though
   sometimes interchanging it with names of their own invention,
   as the 'Newfoundland: 'Terre neuve,' etc. … They [the
   Portuguese] continued their expeditions to Newfoundland and
   its neighborhood for a long time. They were often seen there
   by later English and other visitors during the course of the
   16th century; for instance, according to Herrera, in 1519;
   again by the English in 1527; and again by Sir Humphrey
   Gilbert in 1583. … The Portuguese engaged in this fishery as
   early as 1501, according to good authorities, and perhaps
   under the charter of Henry VII. In 1578, they had 50 ships
   employed in that trade, and England as many more, and France
   150. … The inhabitants of the little harbors of Normandy and
   Brittany, the great peninsulas of France, … were also among
   the first who profited by the discoveries of the Cabots and
   Cortereals, and who followed in the wake of the Portuguese
   fishermen toward the north-west cod-fish country. … The
   first voyages of the Bretons of St. Malo and the Normans of
   Dieppe to Newfoundland, are said to have occurred as early as
   1504. … They probably visited places of which the Portuguese
   had not taken possession; and we therefore find them at the
   south of Newfoundland, and especially at the island of Cape
   Breton, to which they gave the name, still retained,—the
   oldest French name on the American north-east coast. … The
   Spaniards, and more particularly the mariners and fishermen of
   Biscay, have pretended, like those of Brittany and Normandy,
   that they and their ancestors, from time immemorial, had
   sailed to Newfoundland; and, even before Columbus, had
   established their fisheries there. But the Spanish historian
   Navarette, in more modern times, does not sustain this
   pretension of his countrymen. … We may come to the
   conclusion that, if the fisheries of the Spanish Basques on
   the Banks of Newfoundland and in the vicinity, did not begin
   with the voyage of Gomez [in 1525], they received from it a
   new impulse. … From this time, for more than a century, they
   [the Basques] appeared in these waters every year with a large
   fleet, and took their place upon the banks as equals by the
   side of the Bretons, Normans, and Basques of France, until the
   middle of the 17th century, when rival nations dispossessed
   them of their privileges."

      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 1),
      chapters 6 and 8, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown,
      History of Cape Breton,
      chapters 1-2._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1534.
   Visited by Jacques Cartier.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1583.
   Formal possession taken for England by Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
   Early English attempts at colonization.
   The grants to Lord Baltimore and Sir David Kirke.

   "For 27 years after the failure of the Gilbert expedition no
   fresh attempt was made to establish a colony in the island.
   During this interval fishermen of various nationalities
   continued to frequent its shores. … The French were actively
   engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries in the neighboring
   seas. Their success in this direction strengthened their
   desire to gain possession of Newfoundland. Hence it is that in
   the history of the country France has always been an important
   factor. Having from time to time held possession of various
   points of the land, England's persistent rival in these
   latitudes has given names to many towns, villages, creeks, and
   harbors. To this day Newfoundland has not completely shaken
   off French influence. … In 1610 another attempt was made to
   plant a colony of Englishmen in Newfoundland. John Guy, a
   merchant, and afterwards mayor of Bristol, published in 1609 a
   pamphlet on the advantages which would result to England from
   the establishment of a colony in the island. This publication
   made such a deep impression on the public mind that a company
   was formed to carry out the enterprise it suggested. The most
   illustrious name on the roll was that of Lord Bacon. … The
   importance of Newfoundland as a site for an English colony did
   not escape the wide-ranging eye of Bacon. He pronounced its
   fisheries 'more valuable than all the mines of Peru,' a
   judgment which time has amply verified. … To this company
   James I., by letters patent dated April, 1610, made a grant of
   all the part of Newfoundland which lies between Cape Bonavista
   in the north and Cape St. Mary. Mr. Guy was appointed
   governor, and with a number of colonists he landed at Mosquito
   Harbor, on the north side of Conception Bay, where he
   proceeded to erect huts. … We have no authentic account of
   the progress of this settlement, begun under such favourable
   auspices, but it proved unsuccessful from some unexplained
   cause. Guy and a number of the settlers returned to England,
   the rest remaining to settle elsewhere in the New World.
{2354}
   Five years afterwards, in 1615, Captain Richard Whitbourne,
   mariner, of Exmouth, Devonshire, received a commission from
   the Admiralty of England to proceed to Newfoundland for the
   purpose of establishing order among the fishing population and
   remedying certain abuses which had grown up. … It was shown
   that there were upwards of 250 English vessels, having a
   tonnage of 1,500 tons, engaged in the fisheries along the
   coast. Fixed habitations extended at intervals along the shore
   from St. John's to Cape Race. … Having done what he could
   during the active part of his life to promote its interests,
   on his return to England, in his advanced years, he
   [Whitbourne] wrote an account of the country, entitled 'A
   Discourse and Discovery of Newfoundland.' … His book made a
   great impression at the time. … So highly did King James
   think of the volume that he ordered a copy to be sent to every
   parish in the kingdom. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York
   issued a letter recommending it, with the view of encouraging
   emigration to Newfoundland. … A year after the departure of
   Whitbourne, in 1623, by far the most skilfully-organized
   effort to carry out the settlement of Newfoundland was made,
   under the guidance of Sir George Calvert, afterwards Lord
   Baltimore. … When Secretary of State he obtained a patent
   conveying to him the lordship of the whole southern peninsula
   of Newfoundland, together with all the islands lying within
   ten leagues of the eastern shores, as well as the right of
   fishing in the surrounding waters, all English subjects
   having, as before, free liberty of fishing. Being a Roman
   Catholic, Lord Baltimore had in view to provide an asylum for
   his co-religionists who were sufferers from the intolerant
   spirit of the times. The immense tract thus granted to him
   extended from Trinity Bay to Placentia, and was named by him
   Avalon, from the ancient name of Glastonbury, where, it is
   believed, Christianity was first preached in Britain. … Lord
   Baltimore called his Newfoundland province Avalon and his
   first settlement Verulam. The latter name, in course of time,
   became corrupted into Ferulam, and then into the modern
   Ferryland. At this spot, on the eastern coast of Newfoundland,
   about 40 miles north of Cape Race, Lord Baltimore planted his
   colony, and built a noble mansion, in which he resided with
   his family during many years." But after expending some
   £30,000 upon the establishment of his colony, Lord Baltimore
   abandoned it, on account of the poor quality of the soil and
   its exposure to the attacks of the French. Not long afterwards
   he obtained his Maryland grant [see MARYLAND: A. D. 1632] and
   resumed the enterprise under more favorable conditions. "Soon
   after the departure of Lord Baltimore, Viscount Falkland,
   Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, hoping to permanently increase the
   scanty population of Newfoundland, sent out a number of
   emigrants from that country. At a later date, these were so
   largely reinforced by settlers from Ireland that the Celtic
   part of the population at this day is not far short of
   equality in numbers with the Saxon portion. In 1638, Sir David
   Kirke, one of Britain's bravest sea-captains, arrived in
   Newfoundland and took up his abode at Ferryland, where Lord
   Baltimore had lived. Sir David was armed with the powers of a
   Count Palatine over the island, having obtained from Charles
   I. a grant of the whole." This was by way of reward for his
   exploit in taking Quebec

      See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

   Kirke "governed wisely and used every effort to promote the
   colonization of the country. His settlement prospered greatly.
   The Civil War, however, broke out in England, and, Kirke being
   a staunch loyalist, all his possessions in Newfoundland were
   confiscated by the victorious Commonwealth. By the aid of
   Claypole, Cromwell's son-in-law, Kirke eventually got the
   sequestration removed, and, returning to Ferryland, died there
   in 1655, at the age of 56. At this time Newfoundland contained
   a population of 350 families, or nearly 2,000 inhabitants,
   distributed in 15 small settlements along the eastern coast."

      _J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
      Newfoundland,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Kirke,
      The First English Conquest of Canada,
      chapters 3-4._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
   The French gain their footing.

   "With the possession of Cape Breton, Acadia, and the vast
   regions stretching from the gulf of the River St. Lawrence,
   and the mighty lakes, Newfoundland obtained a new value in the
   estimation of the government of France, as it formed one side
   of the narrow entrance to its transatlantic dependencies:
   consequently the pursuit of the fishery by its seamen was
   encouraged, and every opportunity was improved to gain a
   footing in the country itself. This encroaching tendency could
   not, however, be manifested without a protest on the part of
   the somewhat sluggish English, both by private individuals and
   by the government. Charles I. … imposed a tribute of five
   per cent. on the produce taken by foreigners in this fishery,
   to which exaction the French, as well as others, were forced
   to submit. During the distracted time of the Commonwealth, it
   does not appear that the struggling government at home found
   leisure to attend to these distant affairs, though the tribute
   continued to be levied. The Restoration brought to England a
   sovereign who owed much to the monarch of France, to whom he
   was therefore attached by the ties of gratitude, and by the
   desire to find a counterpoise to the refractory disposition of
   which he was in continual apprehension among his own subjects.
   It was not until 1675 that Louis XIV. prevailed on Charles to
   give up the duty of five per cent., and by that time the
   French had obtained a solid footing on the southern coast of
   Newfoundland, so that, with Cape Breton in their possession,
   they commanded both sides of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over a
   territory of some 200 miles in extent, belonging to the
   British sovereignty, they had built up imperceptibly an almost
   undisputed dominion. At Placentia, situated in the bay of that
   name, a strong fort was erected, sustained by other forts
   standing at intervals along the shore, and at the same place a
   royal government was established. How real was the authority
   assumed, and how completely was the English sovereignty
   ignored, needs no better proof than is furnished in an
   ordinance issued by Louis in the year 1681, concerning the
   marine of France. In this state paper, Newfoundland is
   reckoned as situate in those seas which are free and common to
   all French subjects, provided that they take a license from
   the admiral for every voyage. …
{2355}
   Thus that period which is regarded as among the most
   humiliating in the annals of our nation,—when the king was a
   pensioner of France, and his ministers received bribes from
   the same quarter, witnessed the partial sliding under this
   alien power of the most ancient of the colonial possessions of
   the Crown. Not less than half of the inhabited coast of
   Newfoundland was thus taken under that despotic rule, which,
   while swaying the councils of England to the furtherance of
   its ambitious designs, was labouring for the subjugation of
   the European continent. The revolution of 1688 broke the spell
   of this encroaching autocracy."

      _C. Pedley,
      History of Newfoundland,
      chapter 2._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
   French success in the war with England.
   The Treaty of Ryswick and its unsatisfactory terms.

   "On the accession of William III. to the throne of England
   hostilities broke out between the rival nations. In William's
   declaration of war against the French, Newfoundland holds a
   prominent place among the alleged causes which led to the
   rupture of pacific relations. The grievance was tersely set
   forth in the royal manifesto: 'It was not long since the
   French took license from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish
   upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licenses as an
   acknowledgement of the sole right of the Crown of England to
   that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and
   His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been
   more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who
   enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission.'
   Newfoundland now became the scene of military skirmishes,
   naval battles, and sieges by land and water." In 1692 the
   English made an unsuccessful attack on Placentia. In 1694, a
   French fleet, under the Chevalier Nesmond, intended for an
   attack upon Boston and New York, stopped at Newfoundland on
   the way and made a descent on the harbor and town of St.
   John's. Nesmond "was repulsed, and instead of going on to
   Boston he returned to France. A more determined effort at
   conquest was made later in the same year. The new expedition
   was under the command of Iberville and Brouillan, the former
   being at the head of a Canadian force. The garrison of St.
   John's was weak in numbers, and, in want of military stores,
   could only make a feeble resistance; capitulating on easy
   terms, the troops were shipped to England. The fort and town
   were burned to the ground, and the victors next proceeded to
   destroy all the other adjacent English settlements; Carbonear
   and Bonavista alone proved too strong for them. The English
   Government at once commenced dispositions for dislodging the
   invaders; but before anything was attempted the treaty of
   Ryswick was signed, in 1697. This treaty proved most
   unfortunate for Newfoundland. It revived in the island the
   same state of division between France and England which had
   existed at the beginning of the war. The enemy retired from
   St. John's and the other settlements which they had forcibly
   occupied. Their claims upon Placentia and all the other
   positions on the south-west coast were, however, confirmed.
   The British inhabitants of Newfoundland were, therefore, once
   more left open to French attacks, should hostilities be again
   renewed between the rival powers."

      _J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
      Newfoundland,
      part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapter 18._

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1705.
   English settlements destroyed by the French.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
   Relinquished to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht.
   French fishing rights reserved.

   In the 12th and 13th articles of the Treaty signed at Utrecht,
   April 11, 1713, which terminated the War of the Spanish
   Succession (commonly known in American history as Queen Anne's
   War) it was stipulated that "All Nova Scotia or Acadié, with
   its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now
   called Annapolis Royal, … the island of Newfoundland, with
   the adjacent islands, … the town and fortress of Placentia,
   and whatever other places in the island are in possession of
   the French, shall from this time forward belong of right
   wholly to Great Britain. … That the subjects of France
   should be allowed to catch fish and dry them on that part of
   the island of Newfoundland which stretches from Cape Bonavista
   to the northern point of the island, and from thence down the
   western side as far as Point Riché; but that no fortifications
   or any buildings should be erected there, besides Stages made
   of Boards, and Huts necessary and usual for drying fish. …
   But the island of Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the
   mouth of the river of St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same
   name, shall hereafter belong of Right to the King of France,
   who shall have liberty to fortify any place or places there."

      _R. Brown,
      History of the Island of Cape Breton,
      letter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
      Newfoundland,
      part 1, chapters 3-4;
      and part 3, chapter 7._

      See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1744.
   Attack on Placentia by the French.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1748.
   The islands of St. Pierre and Michelon ceded to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D: 1745-1748.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1763.
   Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris,
   with rights of fishing reserved to France.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      also FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1778.
   French fishery rights on the banks recognized
   in the Franco-American Treaty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1783.
   American fishing rights conceded in the
   Treaty of Peace with the United States.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1818.
   Fisheries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1854-1866.
   Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION
      (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1877.
   The Halifax Fishery award.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed fishery disputes.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

   ----------NEWFOUNDLAND: End----------

NEWNHAM HALL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

NEWPORT, England, The Treaty at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),
      and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

{2356}

   ----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: Start--------

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1524.
   Visited by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1639.
   The first settlement.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1778.
   Held by the British.
   Failure of French-American attack.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

   ----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: End--------

NEWSPAPERS.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650, and after.

NEWTON BUTLER, Battle of (1689).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

NEWTONIA, Battles of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS);
      and 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

NEY, Marshal, Campaigns and execution of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER),
      1806-1807, 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1809;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1815, and 1815-1830.

NEZ PERCÉS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

   ----------NIAGARA: Start--------

NIAGARA:
   The name and its original applications.

   "Colden wrote it [the name] 'O-ni-ag-a-ra,' in 1741, and he
   must have received it from the Mohawks or Oneidas. It was the
   name of a Seneca village at the mouth of the Niagara river;
   located as early as 1650, near the site of Youngstown. It was
   also the place where the Marquis de Nonville constructed a
   fort in 1687, the building of which brought this locality
   under the particular notice of the English. The name of this
   Indian village in the dialect of the Senecas was 'Ne·ah'-gä,'
   in Tuscarora 'O-ne·ä'-kars,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-ah'-gä,' in
   Oneida 'O-ne·ah'-gäle,' and in Mohawk 'O-ne-a'-gä-rä.' These
   names are but the same word under dialectical changes. It is
   clear that Niagara was derived from some one of them, and thus
   came direct from the Iroquois language. The signification of
   the word is lost, unless it is derived, as some of the present
   Iroquois suppose, from the word which signifies 'neck,' in
   Seneca 'O-ne-ah'-ä,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-yä'-ä' and in Oneida
   'O-ne-·arle.' The name of this Indian village was bestowed by
   the Iroquois upon Youngstown; upon the river Niagara, from the
   falls to the Lake; and upon Lake Ontario."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      League of the Iroquois,
      book 3, chapter 3._

   "It [the name Niagara] is the oldest of all the local
   geographical terms which have come down to us from the
   aborigines. It was not at first thus written by the English,
   for with them it passed through almost every possible
   alphabetical variation before its present orthography was
   established. We find its germ in the 'On-gui-aah-ra' of the
   Neutral Nation, as given by Father L'Allemant in a letter
   dated in 1641, at the mission station of Sainte Marie, on Lake
   Huron. … The name of the river next occurs on Sanson's map
   of Canada, published in Paris in 1656, where it is spelled
   'Ongiara.' Its first appearance as Niagara is on Coronelli's
   map, published in Paris in 1688. From that time to the
   present, the French have been consistent in their orthography,
   the numerous variations alluded to occurring only among
   English writers. The word was probably derived from the
   Mohawks, through whom the French had their first intercourse
   with the Iroquois. The Mohawks pronounced it Nyah,-ga-rah',
   with the primary accent on the first syllable; and the
   secondary on the last. … The corresponding Seneca name,
   Nyah'-gaah, was always confined by the Iroquois to the section
   of the river below the Falls, and to Lake Ontario. That
   portion of the river above the Falls being sometimes called
   Gni-gwaah-geh, one of their names for Lake Erie."

      _O. H. Marshall,
      The Niagara Frontier
      (Historical Writings, page 283)._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1687-1688.
   Fort constructed by De Nonville and destroyed a year later.

   "We arrived there [at Niagara] on the morning of the 30th [of
   July, 1687]. We immediately set about choosing a place, and
   collecting stakes for the construction of the Fort which I had
   resolved to build at the extremity of a tongue of land,
   between the river Niagara and Lake Ontario, on the Iroquois
   side. On the 31st of July and 1st of August we continued this
   work, which was the more difficult from there being no wood on
   the place suitable for making palisades, and from its being
   necessary to draw them up the height. We performed this labor
   so diligently that the fort was in a state of defence on the
   last mentioned day. … The 2d day of August, the militia
   having performed their allotted task, and the fort being in a
   condition of defence in case of assault, they set out at noon,
   in order to reach the end of the lake on their return to their
   own country. On the morning of the 3d, being the next day, I
   embarked for the purpose of joining the militia, leaving the
   regular troops under the direction of M. de Vaudreuil to
   finish what was the most essential, and to render the fort not
   only capable of defence, but also of being occupied by a
   detachment of 100 soldiers, which are to winter there under
   the command of M. Troyes."

      _Marquis de Nonville,
      Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
      (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173)._

   "De Nonville's journal removes the doubt which has been
   entertained as to the location of this fortress, some having
   supposed it to have been first built at Lewiston. … It
   occupied the site of the present fort on the angle formed by
   the junction of the Niagara with Lake Ontario. … De Nonville
   left De Troyes with provisions and munitions for eight months.
   A sickness soon after broke out in the garrison, by which they
   nearly all perished, including their commander. … They were
   so closely besieged by the Iroquois that they were unable to
   supply themselves with fresh provisions. The fortress was soon
   after abandoned and destroyed [1688], much to the regret of De
   Nonville."

      _Marquis de Nonville,
      Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
      (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).
      Foot-notes_

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      pages 155 and 166._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1725-1726.
   The stone fort built.
   How the French gained their footing.
   Joncaire's wigwam.

   Captain Joncaire "had been taken prisoner when quite young by
   the Iroquois, and adopted into one of their tribes. This was
   the making of his fortune. He had grown up among them,
   acquired their language, adapted himself to their habits, and
   was considered by them as one of themselves. On returning to
   civilized life he became a prime instrument in the hands of
   the Canadian government, for managing and cajoling the
   Indians. … When the French wanted to get a commanding site
   for a post on the Iroquois lands, near Niagara, Joncaire was
   the man to manage it.
{2357}
   He craved a situation where he might put up a wigwam, and
   dwell among his Iroquois brethren. It was granted, of course,
   'for was he not a son of the tribe—was he not one of
   themselves?' By degrees his wigwam grew into an important
   trading post; ultimately it became Fort Niagara."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   "In 1725 the Fort of Niagara was commenced by Chaussegross de
   Léry, on the spot where the wooden structure of de Denonville
   formerly stood; it was built of stone and completed in 1726."

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      volume 2, page 516._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1755.
   Abortive expedition against the fort, by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1756.
   The fort rebuilt by Pouchot.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1759.
   The fort taken by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1763.
   The ambuscade and massacre at Devil's Hole.

      See DEVIL'S HOLE.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1764.
   Sir William Johnson's treaty with the Indians.
   Cession of the Four Mile Strip' along both banks of the river.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1783.
   Retention of the Fort by Great Britain
   after peace with the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1796.
   Surrender of the fort by Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1813.
   Surprise and capture of the fort by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
     A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

   ----------NIAGARA: End--------

NIAGARA, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA FRONTIER: A. D. 1812-1814.
   The War.
   Queenstown.
   Buffalo.
   Chippewa.
   Lundy's Lane.
   Fort Erie.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1813 (DECEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA PEACE MISSION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

NIAGARA RIVER, Navigated by La Salle (1679).

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

NIBELUNGEN LIED, The.

   "Of the bequests made to us of the [German] Popular Poetry of
   the time of the Hohenstauffen, by far the most important, in
   fact the most important literary memorial of any kind, is the
   epic of between nine and ten thousand lines known as the
   Nibelungen Lied. The manuscripts which have preserved for us
   the poem come from about the year 1200. For full a thousand
   years before that, however, many of the lays from which it was
   composed had been in existence; some indeed proceed from a
   still remoter antiquity, sung by primitive minstrels when the
   Germans were at their wildest, untouched by Christianity or
   civilization. These lays had been handed down orally, until at
   length a poet of genius elaborated them and intrusted them to
   parchment."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Short History of German Literature,
      part 1, chapter 1._

   "In the year 1757, the Swiss Professor Bodmer printed an
   ancient poetical manuscript, under the title of Chriemhilden
   Rache und die Kluge (Chriemhilde's Revenge, and the Lament);
   which may be considered as the first of a series, or stream of
   publications and speculations still rolling on, with increased
   current, to the present day. … Some fifteen years after
   Bodmer's publication, which, for the rest, is not celebrated
   as an editorial feat, one C. H. Müller undertook a Collection
   of German Poems from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth
   Centuries; wherein, among other articles, he reprinted
   Bodmer's Chriemhilde and Klage, with a highly remarkable
   addition prefixed to the former, essential indeed to the right
   understanding of it; and the whole now stood before the world
   as one Poem, under the name of the Nibelungen Lied, or Lay of
   the Nibelungen. It has since been ascertained that the Klage
   is a foreign inferior appendage; at best related only as
   epilogue to the main work: meanwhile out of this Nibelungen,
   such as it was, there soon proceeded new inquiries and kindred
   enterprises. For much as the Poem, in the shape it here bore,
   was defaced and marred, it failed not to attract observation:
   to all open-minded lovers of poetry, especially where a strong
   patriotic feeling existed, the singular antique Nibelungen was
   an interesting appearance. Johannes Müller, in his famous
   Swiss History, spoke of it in warm terms: subsequently, August
   Wilhelm Schlegel, through the medium of the Deutsche Museum,
   succeeded in awakening something like a universal popular
   feeling on the subject; and, as a natural consequence, a whole
   host of Editors and Critics, of deep and of shallow endeavour,
   whose labours we yet see in progress. The Nibelungen has now
   been investigated, translated, collated, commented upon, with
   more or less result, to almost boundless lengths. … Apart
   from its antiquarian value, and not only as by far the finest
   monument of old German art; but intrinsically, and as a mere
   detached composition, this Nibelungen has an excellence that
   cannot but surprise us. With little preparation, any reader of
   poetry, even in these days, might find it interesting. It is
   not without a certain Unity of interest and purport, an
   internal coherence and completeness; it is a Whole, and some
   spirit of Music informs it: these are the highest
   characteristics of a true Poem. Considering farther what
   intellectual environment we now find it in, it is doubly to be
   prized and wondered at; for it differs from those Hero-books,
   as molten or carved metal does from rude agglomerated ore;
   almost as some Shakspeare from his fellow Dramatist, whose
   Tamburlaines and Island Princesses, themselves not destitute
   of merit, first show us clearly in what pure loftiness and
   loneliness the Hamlets and Tempests reign. The unknown Singer
   of the Nibelungen, though no Shakspeare, must have had a deep
   poetic soul; wherein things discontinuous and inanimate shaped
   themselves together into life, and the Universe with its
   wondrous purport stood significantly imaged; overarching, as
   with heavenly firmaments and eternal harmonies, the little
   scene where men strut and fret their hour, His Poem, unlike so
   many old and new pretenders to that name, has a basis and
   organic structure, a beginning, middle and end; there is one
   great principle and idea set forth in it, round which all its
   multifarious parts combine in living union. … With an
   instinctive art, far different from acquired artifice, this
   Poet of the Nibelungen, working in the same province with his
   contemporaries of the Heldenbuch [Hero-book] on the same
   material of tradition, has, in a wonderful degree, possessed
   himself of what these could only strive after; and with his
   'clear feeling of fictitious truth,' avoid as false the errors
   and monstrous perplexities in which they vainly struggled.
{2358}
   He is of another species than they; in language, in purity and
   depth of feeling, in fineness of invention, stands quite apart
   from them.' The language of the Heldenbuch … was a feeble
   half-articulate child's-speech, the metre nothing better than
   a miserable doggerel; whereas here in the old Frankish
   (Oberdeutsch) dialect of the Nibelungen, we have a clear
   decisive utterance, and in a real system of verse not without
   essential regularity, great liveliness, and now and then even
   harmony of rhythm. … No less striking than the verse and
   language is the quality of the invention manifested here. Of
   the Fable, or narrative material of the Nibelungen we should
   say that it had high, almost the highest merit; so daintily
   yet firmly is it put together; with such felicitous selection
   of the beautiful, the essential, and no less felicitous
   rejection of whatever was unbeautiful or even extraneous. The
   reader is no longer afflicted with that chaotic brood of
   Fire-drakes, Giants, and malicious turbaned Turks, so fatally
   rife in the Heldenbuch: all this is swept away, or only hovers
   in faint shadows afar off; and free field is open for
   legitimate perennial interests. Yet neither is the Nibelungen
   without its wonders; for it is poetry and not prose; here too,
   a supernatural world encompasses the natural, and, though at
   rare intervals and in calm manner, reveals itself there. …
   The whole story of the Nibelungen is fateful, mysterious,
   guided on by unseen influences; yet the actual marvels are
   few, and done in the far distance; those Dwarfs, and Cloaks of
   Darkness, and charmed Treasure-caves, are heard of rather than
   beheld, the tidings of them seem to issue from unknown space.
   Vain were it to inquire where that Nibelungen-land specially
   is: its very name is Nebel-land or Nift-land, the land of
   Darkness, of Invisibility. The 'Nibelungen Heroes' that muster
   in thousands and tens of thousands, though they march to the
   Rhine or Danube, and we see their strong limbs and shining
   armour, we could almost fancy to be children of the air."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The Nibelungen Lied
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 3)._

   "The traditions of German heroic poetry extend over more than
   300 years, and are drawn from various German tribes. King
   Ostrogotha reigned over the Goths about the year 250, and was
   the contemporary of the emperors Philip and Decius. Ermanaric
   governed the Ostrogoths about 100 years later, and was a very
   warlike king, ruling over a large extent of territory. The
   invasion of the Huns drove him to despair, and he fell by his
   own hand before the year 374. Soon after the year 400 the
   Burgundians founded a mighty empire in the most fertile part
   of the Upper Rhine, where Cæsar had already fought with the
   Germans, near Spiers, Worms, and Mayence. The Roman Aëtius,
   who ruled Gaul with the aid of his Hun allies, defeated the
   Burgundians by means of these barbarians in a terrible battle
   about the year 437; 20,000 men fell, amongst them their king
   Gundicarius (Gunther). The Burgundians seemed to be
   annihilated, and soon after retreated to Savoy. About the same
   time Attila was king of the Huns and Ostrogoths to the terror
   of the world. His name is Gothic, the arrangements of his
   court were Gothic, and he reckoned among his knights
   Theodomer; the king of the Ostrogoths. The West had just
   learnt all the terror of this 'Scourge of God,' when news came
   of his sudden death (453), and in the following year his
   followers succumbed to the attacks of the Germans (454).
   Twenty-two years later, Odoacer deposed the last shadow of a
   Roman emperor; and again, twelve years later, Theodoric led
   the Ostrogoths into Italy and Odoacer fell by his hand. About
   the same period the Merovingian Clovis founded the kingdom of
   the Franks; about the year 530 his sons destroyed the
   Thuringian empire; and his grandson Theodebert extended his
   kingdom so far, that, starting from Hungary, he planned an
   attack on the Byzantine emperor. The Merovingians also offered
   a successful resistance to the Vikings, who were the terror of
   the North Sea, and who appeared even at the mouths of the
   Rhine. From another quarter the Longobards in little more than
   a century reached Italy, having started from Lüneburg, in the
   neighbourhood of Brunswick, and their King Alboin took
   possession of the crown of Italy in 568. These wonderful
   transferences of power, and this rapid founding of new
   empires, furnished the historical background of the German
   hero-legends. The fact that the movement was originally
   against Rome was forgotten; the migration was treated as a
   mere incident in the internal history of the German nation.
   There is no trace of chronology. … Legend adheres to the
   fact of the enmity between Odoacer and Theodoric, but it
   really confuses Theodoric with his father Theodomer,
   transplants him accordingly to Attila's court, and supposes
   that he was an exile there in hiding from the wrath of
   Odoacer. Attila becomes the representative of everything
   connected with the Huns. He is regarded as Ermanaric's and
   Gunther's enemy, and as having destroyed the Burgundians.
   These again are confused with a mythical race, the Nibelungen,
   Siegfried's enemies, and thus arose the great and complicated
   scheme of the Nibelungen legend. … This Middle High-German
   Epic is like an old church, in the building of which many
   architects have successively taken part. … Karl Lachmann
   attempted the work of restoring the Nibelungen lied and
   analysing its various elements, and accomplished the task, not
   indeed faultlessly, yet on the whole correctly. He has pointed
   out later interpolations, which hide the original sequence of
   the story, and has divided the narrative which remains after
   the removal of these accretions into twenty songs, some of
   which are connected, while others embody isolated incidents of
   the legend. Some of them, but certainly only a few, may be by
   the same author. … We recognise in most of these songs such
   differences in conception, treatment, and style, as point to
   separate authorship. The whole may have been finished in about
   twenty years, from 1190-1210. Lachmann's theory has indeed
   been contested. Many students still believe that the poem, as
   we have it, was the work of one hand; but on this hypothesis
   no one has succeeded in explaining the strange contradictions
   which pervade the work, parts of which show the highest art,
   while the rest is valueless."

      _W. Scherer,
      History of German Literature,
      chapters 2 and 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Taylor,
      Studies in German Literature,
      chapter 4._

   ----------Volume 3: End--------

   ----------Volume 4: Start--------

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Two maps of Central Europe, at the abdication of Charles V.
(1556), and showing the distribution of Religions about 1618,
   To follow page 2458

Map of Eastern Europe in 1768, and of Central Europe at
the Peace of Campo Formio (1797),
   To follow page 2554

Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent,
under Trajan (A. D. 116),
   To follow page 2712

Map of Europe at the death of Justinian (A. D. 565),
   To follow page 2742

Two maps, of Eastern Europe and Central Europe, in 1715,
   To follow page 2762

Four development maps of Spain,
9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries,
   To follow page 2976


LOGICAL OUTLINE, IN COLORS.
Roman history,
   To follow page 2656

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
Ninth and Tenth Centuries,
   To follow page 2746


{2359}

NICÆA OR NICE:
   The founding of the city.

   Nicæa, or Nice, in Bithynia, was founded by Antigonus, one of
   the successors of Alexander the Great, and received originally
   the name Antigonea. Lysimachus changed the name to Nicæa, in
   honor of his wife.

NICÆA OR NICE:
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 325.
   The First Council.

   "Constantine … determined to lay the question of Arianism [see
   ARIANISM] before an Œcumenical council. … The council met [A.
   D. 325] at Nicæa—the 'City of Victory'—in Bithynia, close to
   the Ascanian Lake, and about twenty miles from Nicomedia. … It
   was an Eastern council, and, like the Eastern councils, was
   held within a measurable distance from the seat of government.
   … Of the 318 bishops … who subscribed its decrees, only eight
   came from the West, and the language in which the Creed was
   composed was Greek, which scarcely admitted of a Latin
   rendering. The words of the Creed are even now recited by the
   Russian Emperor at his coronation. Its character, then, is
   strictly Oriental. … Of the 318 members of the Council, we are
   told by Philostorgius, the Arian historian, that 22 espoused
   the cause of Arius, though other writers regard the minority
   as still less, some fixing it at 17, others at 15, others as
   low as 13. But of those 318 the first place in rank, though
   not the first in mental power and energy of character, was
   accorded to the aged bishop of Alexandria. He was the
   representative of the most intellectual diocese in the Eastern
   Church. He alone, of all the bishops, was named 'Papa,' or
   'Pope.' The 'Pope of Rome' was a phrase which had not yet
   emerged in history; but 'Pope of Alexandria' was a well-known
   title of dignity."

      _R. W. Bush,
      St. Athanasius,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
      lectures 3-5._

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1080.
   Acquired by the Turks.
   The capital of the Sultan of Roum.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1096-1097.
   Defeat and slaughter of the First Crusaders.
   Recovery from the Turks.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1204-1261.
   Capital of the Greek Empire.

      See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1330.
   Capture by the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1402.
   Sacked by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

   ----------NICARAGUA: Start--------


NICARAGUA:
   The Name.

   Nicaragua was originally the name of a native chief who ruled
   in the region on the Lake when it was first penetrated by the
   Spaniards, under Gil Gonzalez, in 1522. "Upon the return of
   Gil Gonzalez, the name Nicaragua became famous, and besides
   being applied to the cacique and his town, was gradually given
   to the surrounding country, and to the lake."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page. 489, foot-note._

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1502.
   Coasted by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
   Joint protectorate of the United States and
   Great Britain over the proposed inter-oceanic canal.

   "The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of
   Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population, which
   followed almost immediately on the development of the gold
   mines, to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening
   of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance
   to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a
   treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of
   Colombia) by which a right of transit over the isthmus of
   Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit
   over the isthmus 'from the one to the other sea' guaranteed by
   both of the contracting powers. Under the shelter of this
   treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of
   the United States, and supplied by capital from the United
   States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In
   1849, before, therefore, this company had taken shape, the
   United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the
   opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan), on the
   Atlantic coast, to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of
   Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by
   British settlers, mostly from Jamaica, and the whole eastern
   coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of
   such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by
   Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great
   Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito
   Indians had no such settled territorial site; that, if they
   had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty
   over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their
   soil, even if they had any, are positions which … the United
   States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the
   pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that, though it
   were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the
   Mosquito country, might precipitate a war, induced Mr.
   Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General
   Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bulwer, British minister at
   Washington, the administration of Lord John Russell (Lord
   Palmerston being then foreign secretary) to withdraw the
   British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the
   construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the
   United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government
   declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint
   protectorate over the proposed canal." This treaty, which was
   signed at Washington April 19, 1850, and of which the
   ratifications were exchanged on the 4th of July following, is
   commonly referred to as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Its
   language in the first article is that "the Governments of the
   United States and of Great Britain hereby declare that neither
   the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself
   any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that
   neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications
   commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or
   fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over
   Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
   Central America; nor will either make use of any protection
   which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which
   either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the
   purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
   of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
   the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of
   assuming or exercising dominion over the same;
{2360}
   nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of
   any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence
   that either may possess, with any State or Government through
   whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of
   acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens
   or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to
   commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not
   be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of
   the other." Since the execution of this treaty there have been
   repeated controversies between the two governments respecting
   the interpretation of its principal clauses. Great Britain
   having maintained her dominion over the Belize, or British
   Honduras, it has been claimed by the United States that the
   treaty is void, or, has become voidable at the option of the
   United States, on the grounds (in the language of a dispatch
   from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, dated July 19,
   1884) "first, that the consideration of the treaty having
   failed, its object never having been accomplished, the United
   States did not receive that for which they covenanted; and,
   second, that Great Britain has persistently violated her
   agreement not to colonize the Central American coast."

      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapter 6, section 150 f. (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      page 440._

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.
   The invasion of Walker and his Filibusters.

   "Its geographical situation gave … importance to Nicaragua. It
   contains a great lake, which is approached from the Atlantic
   by the river San Juan; and from the west end of the lake there
   are only 20 miles to the coast of the Pacific. Ever since the
   time of Cortes there have been projects for connecting the two
   oceans through the lake of Nicaragua. … Hence Nicaragua has
   always been thought of great importance to the United States.
   The political struggles of the state, ever since the failure
   of the confederation, had sunk into a petty rivalry between
   the two towns of Leon and Granada. Leon enjoys the distinction
   of being the first important town in Central America to raise
   the cry of independence in 1815, and it had always maintained
   the liberal character which this disclosed. Castellon, the
   leader of the Radical party, of which Leon was the seat,
   called in to help him an American named William Walker.
   Walker, who was born in 1824, was a young roving American who
   had gone during the gold rush of 1850 to California, and
   become editor of a newspaper in San Francisco. In those days
   it was supposed in the United States that the time for
   engulfing the whole of Spanish America had come. Lopez had
   already made his descent on Cuba; and Walker, in July, 1853,
   had organized a band of filibusters for the conquest of
   Sonora, and the peninsula of California, which had been left
   to Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This wild
   expedition … was a total failure; but when Walker came back to
   his newspapers after an absence of seven months, he found
   himself a hero. His fame, as we see, had reached Central
   America; and he at once accepted Castellon's offer. In 1855,
   having collected a band of 70 adventurers in California, he
   landed in the country, captured the town of Granada, and,
   aided by the intrigues of the American consul, procured his
   own appointment as General-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan army.
   Walker was now master of the place: and his own provisional
   President, Rivas, having turned against him, he displaced him,
   and in 1856 became President himself. He remained master of
   Nicaragua for nearly two years, levying arbitrary customs on
   the traffic of the lake, and forming plans for a great
   military state to be erected on the ruins of Spanish America.
   One of Walker's first objects was to seize the famous
   gold-mines of Chontales, and the sudden discovery that the
   entire sierra of America is a gold-bearing region had a good
   deal to do with his extraordinary enterprise. Having assured
   himself of the wealth of the country, he now resolved to keep
   it for himself, and this proved in the end to be his ruin. The
   statesmen of the United States, who had at first supposed that
   he would cede them the territory, now withdrew their support
   from him: the people of the neighbouring states rose in arms
   against him, and Walker was obliged to capitulate, with the
   remains of his filibustering party, at Rivas in 1857. Walker,
   still claiming to be President of Nicaragua, went to New
   Orleans, where he collected a second band of filibusters, at
   the head of whom he again landed near the San Juan river
   towards the end of the year: this time he was arrested and
   sent back home by the American commodore. His third and last
   expedition, in 1860, was directed against Honduras, where he
   hoped to meet with a good reception at the hands of the
   Liberal party. Instead of this he fell into the hands of the
   soldiers of Guardiola, by whom he was tried as a pirate and
   shot, September 12, 1860."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 21, section 8._

   "Though he never evinced much military or other capacity,
   Walker, so long as he acted under color of authority from the
   chiefs of the faction he patronized, was generally successful
   against the pitiful rabble styled soldiers by whom his
   progress was resisted. … But his very successes proved the
   ruin of the faction to which he had attached himself, by
   exciting the natural jealousy and alarm of the natives who
   mainly composed it; and his assumption … of the title of
   President of Nicaragua, speedily followed by a decree
   reestablishing Slavery in that country, exposed his purpose
   and insured his downfall. As if madly bent on ruin, he
   proceeded to confiscate the steamboats and other property of
   the Nicaragua Transit Company, thereby arresting all American
   travel to and from California through that country, and
   cutting himself off from all hope of further recruiting his
   forces from the throngs of sanguine or of baffled
   gold-seekers, who might otherwise have been attracted to his
   standard. Yet he maintained the unequal contest for about two
   years."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 3, chapters 16-17._

      _J. J. Roche,
      The Story of the Filibusters,
      chapters 5-18._

   ----------NICARAGUA: End--------

NICE (NIZZA), Asia Minor.

      See NICÆA.

   ----------NICE, France: Start--------

NICE (NIZZA), France: A. D. 1388.
   Acquisition by the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

{2361}

NICE: A. D. 1542.
   Siege by French and Turks.
   Capture of the town.
   Successful resistance of the citadel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

NICE: A. D. 1792.
   Annexation to the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

NICE: A. D. 1860.
   Cession to France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------NICE, France: End--------

NICEPHORUS I.,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D. 802-811.

   Nicephorus II.,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 963-969.

   Nicephorus III.,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1078-1081.

NICHOLAS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1825-1855.

   Nicholas I., Pope, 858-867.

   Nicholas II., Pope, 1058-1061.

   Nicholas III., Pope, 1277-1280.

   Nicholas IV., Pope, 1288-1292.

   Nicholas V., Pope, 1447-1455.

   Nicholas Swendson, King of Denmark, 1103-1134.

NICIAS (NIKIAS), and the Siege of Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

NICIAS (NIKIAS), The Peace of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

NICOLET, Jean, Explorations of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

   ----------NICOMEDIA: Start--------

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 258.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 292-305.
   The court of Diocletian.

   "To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition … of
   Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the
   east, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the
   verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between
   the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and
   at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space
   of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to
   have required the labour of ages, and became inferior only to
   Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent or populousness. …
   Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign,
   celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether
   he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 1326.
   Capture by the Turks.

      See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

   ----------NICOMEDIA: End--------

NICOPOLIS.

   Augustus gave this name to a city which he founded, B. C. 31,
   in commemoration of the victory at Actium, on the site of the
   camp which his army occupied.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 28.

   ----------NICOPOLIS: Start--------

NICOPOLIS, Armenia, Battle of (B. C. 66).

   The decisive battle in which Pompeius defeated Mithridates and
   ended the long Mithridatic wars was fought, B. C. 66, in
   Lesser Armenia, at a place near which Pompeius founded a city
   called Nicopolis, the site of which is uncertain.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 8._

NICOPOLIS: Battle of (B. C. 48).

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

   ----------NICOPOLIS, Armenia: End--------

NICOPOLIS, Bulgaria, Battle of (A. D. 1396).

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMAN): A. D. 1389-1403.

NICOSIA:
   Taken and sacked by the Turks (1570).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

NIEUPORT, Battle of (1600).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

NIGER COMPANY, The Royal.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

NIHILISM.
NIHILISTS.

   "In Tikomirov's work on Russia seven or eight pages are
   devoted to the severe condemnation of the use of the
   expressions 'nihilism' and 'nihilist.' Nevertheless … they are
   employed universally, and all the world understands what is
   meant by them in an approximate and relative way. … It was a
   novelist who first baptized the party who called themselves at
   that time, 'new men.' It was Ivan Turguenief, who by the mouth
   of one of the characters in his celebrated novel, 'Fathers and
   Sons,' gave the young generation the name of nihilists. But it
   was not of his coinage; Royer-Collard first stamped it; Victor
   Hugo had already said that the negation of the infinite led
   directly to nihilism, and Joseph Lemaistre had spoken of the
   nihilism, more or less sincere, of the contemporary
   generations; but it was reserved for the author of 'Virgin
   Soil' to bring to light and make famous this word; which after
   making a great stir in his own country attracted the attention
   of the whole world. The reign of Nicholas I. was an epoch of
   hard oppression. When he ascended the throne, the conspiracy
   of the Decembrists broke out, and this sudden revelation of
   the revolutionary spirit steeled the already inflexible soul
   of the Czar. Nicholas, although fond of letters and an
   assiduous reader of Homer, was disposed to throttle his
   enemies, and would not have hesitated to pluck out the brains
   of Russia; he was very near suppressing all the universities
   and schools, and inaugurating a voluntary retrocession to
   Asiatic barbarism. He did mutilate and reduce the instruction,
   he suppressed the chair of European political laws, and after
   the events of 1848 in France he seriously considered the idea
   of closing his frontiers with a cordon of troops to beat back
   foreign liberalism like the cholera or the plague. … However,
   it was under his sceptre, under his systematic oppression,
   that, by confession of the great revolutionary statesman
   Herzen, Russian thought developed as never before; that the
   emancipation of the intelligence, which this very statesman
   calls a tragic event, was accomplished, and a national
   literature was brought to light and began to flourish. When
   Alexander II. succeeded to the throne, when the bonds of
   despotism were loosened and the blockade with which Nicholas
   vainly tried to isolate his empire was raised, the field was
   ready for the intellectual and political strife. … Before
   explaining how nihilism is the outcome of intelligence, we
   must understand what is meant by intelligence in Russia. It
   means a class composed of all those, of whatever profession or
   estate, who have at heart the advancement of intellectual
   life, and contribute in every way toward it. It may be said,
   indeed, that such a class is to be found in every country; but
   there is this difference,—in other countries the class is not
   a unit; there are factions, or a large number of its members
   shun political and social discussion in order to enjoy the
   serene atmosphere of the world of art, while in Russia the
   intelligence means a common cause, a homogeneous spirit,
   subversive and revolutionary withal. … Whence came the
   revolutionary element in Russia?
{2362}
   From the Occident, from France, from the negative,
   materialist, sensualist philosophy of the Encyclopædia,
   imported into Russia by Catherine II.; and later from Germany,
   from Kantism and Hegelianism, imbibed by Russian youth at the
   German universities, and which they diffused throughout their
   own country with characteristic Sclav impetuosity. By 'Pure
   Reason' and transcendental idealism, Herzen and Bakunine, the
   first apostles of nihilism, were inspired. But the ideas
   brought from Europe to Russia soon allied themselves with an
   indigenous or possibly an Oriental element; namely, a sort of
   quietist fatalism, which leads to the darkest and most
   despairing pessimism. On the whole, nihilism is rather a
   philosophical conception of the sum of life than a purely
   democratic and revolutionary movement. … Nihilism had no
   political color about it at the beginning. During the decade
   between 1860 and 1870 the youth of Russia was seized with a
   sort of fever for negation, a fierce antipathy toward
   everything that was,—authorities, institutions, customary
   ideas, and old-fashioned dogmas. In Turguenief's novel,
   'Fathers and Sons,' we meet with Bazarof, a froward,
   ill-mannered, intolerable fellow, who represents this type.
   After 1871 the echo of the Paris Commune and emissaries of the
   Internationals crossed the frontier, and the nihilists began
   to bestir themselves, to meet together clandestinely, and to
   send out propaganda. Seven years later they organized an era
   of terror, assassination, and explosions. Thus three phases
   have followed upon one another,—thought, word, and deed,—along
   that road which is never so long as it looks, the road that
   leads from the word to the act, from Utopia to crime. And yet
   nihilism never became a political party as we understand the
   term. It has no defined creed or official programme. The
   fulness of its despair embraces all negatives and all acute
   revolutionary forms. Anarchists, federalists, cantonalists,
   covenanters, terrorists, all who are unanimous in a desire to
   sweep away the present order, are grouped under the ensign of
   nihil."

      _E. P. Bazan,
      Russia, its People and its Literature,
      book 2, chapters 1-2._

   "Out of Russia, an already extended list of revolutionary
   spirits in this land has attracted the attention and kept
   curiosity on the alert. We call them Nihilists,—of which the
   Russian pronunciation is neegilist, which, however, is now
   obsolete. Confined to the terrorist group in Europe, the
   number of these persons is certainly very small. Perhaps, as
   is thought in Russia, there are 500 in all, who busy
   themselves, even if reluctantly, with thoughts of resorting to
   bombs and murderous weapons to inspire terror. But it is not
   exactly this group that is meant when we speak of that
   nihilistic force in society which extends everywhere, into all
   circles, and finds support and strongholds at widely spread
   points. It is indeed not very different from what elsewhere in
   Europe is regarded as culture, advanced culture: the profound
   scepticism in regard to our existing institutions in their
   present form, what we call royal prerogative, church,
   marriage, property."

      _Georg Brandes,
      Impressions of Russia,
      chapter 4._

   "The genuine Nihilism was a philosophical and literary
   movement, which flourished in the first decade after the
   Emancipation of the Serfs, that is to say, between 1860 and
   1870. It is now (1883] absolutely extinct, and only a few
   traces are left of it, which are rapidly disappearing. …
   Nihilism was a struggle for the emancipation of intelligence
   from every kind of dependence, and it advanced side by side
   with that for the emancipation of the labouring classes from
   serfdom. The fundamental principle of Nihilism, properly
   so-called, was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in
   the name of individual liberty of all the obligations imposed
   upon the individual by society, by family life, and by
   religion. Nihilism was a passionate and powerful reaction, not
   against political despotism, but against the moral despotism
   that weighs upon the private and inner life of the individual.
   But it must be confessed that our predecessors, at least in
   the earlier days, introduced into this highly pacific struggle
   the same spirit of rebellion and almost the same fanaticism
   that characterises the present movement."

      _Stepniak,
      Underground Russia,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _Stepniak,
      The Russian Storm-Cloud._

      _L. Tikhomirov,
      Russia, Political and Social,
      books 6-7 (volume 2)._

      _E. Noble,
      The Russian Revolt._

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 3, chapter 4._

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881;
      and ANARCHISTS.

NIKA SEDITION, The.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

NIKIAS.

      See NICIAS.

NILE, Naval Battle of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

NIMEGUEN:
   Origin.

      See BATAVIANS.

NIMEGUEN: A. D. 1591.
   Siege and capture by Prince Maurice.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

NIMEGUEN, The Peace of (1678-1679).

   The war which Louis XIV. began in 1672 by attacking Holland,
   with the co-operation of his English pensioner, Charles II.,
   and which roused against him a defensive coalition of Spain,
   Germany and Denmark with the Dutch (see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
   1672-1674, and 1674-1678), was ended by a series of treaties
   negotiated at Nimeguen in 1678 and 1679. The first of these
   treaties, signed August 10, 1678, was between France and
   Holland. "France and Holland kept what was in their
   possession, except Maestricht and its dependencies which were
   restored to Holland. France therefore kept her conquests in
   Senegal and Guiana. This was all the territory lost by Holland
   in the terrible war which had almost annihilated her. The
   United Provinces pledged themselves to neutrality in the war
   which might continue between France and the other powers, and
   guaranteed the neutrality of Spain, after the latter should
   have signed the peace. France included Sweden in the treaty;
   Holland included in it Spain and the other allies who should
   make peace within six weeks after the exchange of
   ratifications. To the treaty of peace was annexed a treaty of
   commerce, concluded for twenty-five years."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 1, chapter 6._

   The peace between France and Spain was signed September 17.
   France gave back, in the Spanish Netherlands and elsewhere,
   "Charleroi, Binch, Ath, Oudenarde, and Courtrai, which she had
   gained by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the town and duchy of
   Limburg, all the country beyond the Meuse, Ghent, Rodenhus,
   and the district of the Waes, Leuze, and St. Ghislain, with
   Puycerda in Catalonia, these having been taken since that
   peace.
{2363}
   But she retained Franche Comté, with the towns of
   Valenciènnes, Bouchain, Condé, Cambrai and the Cambresis,
   Aire, St. Omer, Ypres, Werwick, Warneton, Poperinge, Bailleul,
   Cassel, Bavai, and Maubeuge. … On February 2, 1679, peace was
   declared between Louis, the Emperor, and the Empire. Louis
   gave back Philippsburg, retaining Freiburg with the desired
   liberty of passage across the Rhine to Breisach; in all other
   respects the Treaty of Munster, of October 24, 1648, was
   reestablished. … The treaty then dealt with the Duke of
   Lorraine. To his restitution Louis annexed conditions which
   rendered Lorraine little more than a French province. Not only
   was Nancy to become French, but, in conformity with the treaty
   of 1661, Louis was to have possession of four large roads
   traversing the country, with half a league's breadth of
   territory throughout their length, and the places contained
   therein. … To these conditions the Duke refused to subscribe,
   preferring continual exile until the Peace of Ryswick in 1697,
   when at length his son regained the ancestral estates."
   Treaties between the Emperor and Sweden, between Brandenburg
   and France and Sweden, between Denmark and the same, and
   between Sweden, Spain and Holland, were successively concluded
   during the year 1679. "The effect of the Peace of Nimwegen
   was, … speaking generally, to reaffirm the Peace of
   Westphalia. But … it did not, like the Peace of Westphalia,
   close for any length of time the sources of strife."

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Temple,
      Memoirs,
      part 2 (Works, volume 2)._

NINE WAYS, The.

      See AMPHIPOLIS;
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

NINETY-FIVE THESES OF LUTHER, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

NINETY-TWO, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

NINEVEH.

   "In or about the year before Christ 606, Nineveh, the great
   city, was destroyed. For many hundred years had she stood in
   arrogant splendor, her palaces towering above the Tigris and
   mirrored in its swift waters; army after army had gone forth
   from her gates and returned laden with the spoils of conquered
   countries; her monarchs had ridden to the high place of
   sacrifice in chariots drawn by captive kings. But her time
   came at last. The nations assembled and encompassed her around
   [the Medes and the Babylonians, with their lesser allies].
   Popular tradition tells how over two years lasted the siege;
   how the very river rose and battered her walls; till one day a
   vast flame rose up to heaven; how the last of a mighty line of
   kings, too proud to surrender, thus saved himself, his
   treasures and his, capital from the shame of bondage. Never
   was city to rise again where Nineveh had been." The very
   knowledge of the existence of Nineveh was lost so soon that,
   two centuries later, when Xenophon passed the ruins, with his
   Ten Thousand retreating Greeks, he reported them to be the
   ruins of a deserted city of the Medes and called it Larissa.
   Twenty-four centuries went by, and the winds and the rains, in
   their slow fashion, covered the bricks and stones of the
   desolated Assyrian capital with a shapeless mound of earth.
   Then came the searching modern scholar and explorer, and began
   to excavate the mound, to see what lay beneath it. First the
   French Consul, Botta, in 1842; then the Englishman Layard, in
   1845; then the later English scholar, George Smith, and
   others; until buried Nineveh has been in great part brought to
   light. Not only the imperishable monuments of its splendid art
   have been exposed, but a veritable library of its literature,
   written on tablets and cylinders of clay, has been found and
   read. The discoveries of the past half-century, on the site of
   Nineveh, under the mound called Koyunjik, and elsewhere in
   other similarly-buried cities of ancient Babylonia and
   Assyria, may reasonably be called the most extraordinary
   additions to human knowledge which our age has acquired.

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      Story of Chaldea,
      introduction, chapters 1-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. Layard,
      Nineveh and its Remains;
      and Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon._

      _G. Smith,
      Assyrian Discoveries_

      See, also, ASSYRIA;
      and LIBRARIES, ANCIENT.

NINEVEH, Battle of (A.D. 627).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

NINFEO, Treaty of.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

NINIQUIQUILAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

NIPAL
NEPAUL:
   English war with the Ghorkas.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NIPMUCKS,
NIPNETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675,
      and 1676-1678 KING PHILIP'S WAR.

NISÆAN PLAINS, The.

   The famous horse-pastures of the ancient Medes. "Most probably
   they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and
   Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now
   considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia. …
   The proper Nisæa is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan,
   whence it is probable that the famous breed of horses was
   originally brought."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1, with foot-note._

NISCHANDYIS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

NISHAPOOR:
   Destruction by the Mongols (1221).

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NISIB, Battle of (1839).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

NISIBIS, Sieges of (A. D. 338-350).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

NISIBIS, Theological School of.

      See NESTORIANS.

   ----------NISMES: Start--------

NISMES:
   Origin.

      See VOLCÆ.

NISMES: A. D. 752-759.
   Recovery from the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

   ----------NISMES: End--------

NISSA, Siege and battle (1689-1690).

      See HUNGARY; A. D. 1683-1699.

NITIOBRIGES, The.

   These were a tribe in ancient Gaul whose capital city was
   Aginnum, the modern town of Agen on the Garonne.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 17._

NIVELLE, Battle of the (1813).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

NIVÔSE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

NIZAM.
   Nizam's dominions.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

NIZZA.

      See NICE.

NO.
NO AMON.

      See THEBES, EGYPT.

NO MAN'S LAND, Africa.

      See GRIQUAS.

{2364}

NO MAN'S LAND, England.

   In the open or common field system which prevailed in early
   England, the fields were divided into long, narrow strips,
   wherever practicable. In some cases, "little odds and ends of
   unused land remained, which from time immemorial were called
   'no man's land,' or 'anyone's land,' or 'Jack's land,' as the
   case might be."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 1._

NO POPERY RIOTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

NOBLES, Roman:
   Origin of the term.

   "When Livy in his first six books writes of the disputes
   between the Patres or Patricians and the Plebs about the
   Public Land, he sometimes designates the Patricians by the
   name Nobiles, which we have in the form Nobles. A Nobilis is a
   man who is known. A man who is not known is Ignobilis, a
   nobody. In the later Republic a Plebeian who attained to a
   curule office elevated his family to a rank of honour, to a
   nobility, not acknowledged by any law, but by usage. … The
   Patricians were a nobility of ancient date. … The Patrician
   nobility was therefore independent of all office, but the new
   Nobility and their Jus Imaginum originated in some Plebeian
   who first of his family attained a curule office. … The true
   conclusion is that Livy in his first six books uses the word
   Nobiles improperly, for there is no evidence that this name
   was given to the Patres before the consulship of L. Sextius."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

         See, also, ROME: B. C. 146.

NOËTIANS AND SABELLIANS.

   "At the head of those in this century [the 3d] who explained
   the scriptural doctrine of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit,
   by the precepts of reason, stands Noëtus of Smyrna; a man
   little known, but who is reported by the ancients to have been
   cast out of the church by presbyters (of whom no account is
   given), to have opened a school, and to have formed a sect. It
   is stated that, being wholly unable to comprehend how that
   God, who is so often in Scripture declared to be one and
   undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold, Noëtus
   concluded that the undivided Father of all things united
   himself, with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him
   suffered and died. On account of this doctrine his followers
   were called Patripassians. … After the middle of this century,
   Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the
   capital of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica,
   attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from
   that of Noëtus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and
   holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine
   nature." Sabellius assumed "that only an energy or virtue,
   emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle
   of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the
   man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he
   also supposed, constituted the holy Spirit."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Historical Commentaries, 3d Century,
      sections 32-33._

NÖFELS,
NAEFELS, Battle of (1388).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

   Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

NOLA, Battle of (B. C. 88).

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

NOMBRE DE DIOS:
   Surprised and plundered by Drake (1572).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

NOMEN,
COGNOMEN,
PRÆNOMEN.

      See GENS.

NOMES.

   A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt
   was divided from very ancient times.

NOMOPHYLAKES.

   In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by
   Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or
   "Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents,
   both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were
   charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was
   taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws.
   They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act
   according to law."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 46._

NOMOTHETÆ, The.

   A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general
   assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing
   laws or enact new ones.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

NONCONFORMISTS,
DISSENTERS, English:
   First bodies organized.
   Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.-
   Removal of Disabilities.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
      1711-1714; 1827-1828.

NONES.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

NONINTERCOURSE LAW OF 1809, The American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

NONJURORS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

NOOTKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

NOPH.

      See MEMPHIS.

NÖRDLINGEN,
   Siege and Battle (1634).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   Second Battle, or Battle of Allerheim (1645).

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

NORE, Mutiny at the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NOREMBEGA.

      See NORUMBEGA.

   ----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: Start--------

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
   Bombardment and destruction.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
   Pillaged by British marauders.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Abandoned by the United States commandant.
   Destruction of ships and property.
   Possession taken by the Rebels.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February).
   Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   Evacuated by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) EVACUATION OF NORFOLK.

   ----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: End--------

NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NORICUM.

      See PANNONIA;
      also, RHÆTIANS.

   ----------NORMANDY: Start--------

NORMANDY: A. D. 876-911.
   Rollo's conquest and occupation.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-911.

{2365}

NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
   The solidifying of Rollo's duchy.
   The Normans become French.

   The first century which passed after the settlement of the
   Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy
   in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of
   its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced
   order and justice on the new community, as well as to the
   political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword
   [son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943]
   clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of
   Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which
   both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which
   had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their
   settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled
   down the temper and traditions which their people had brought
   from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language
   and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours'
   religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed
   enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were
   threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of
   alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied
   Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will;
   once the German lances were seen from the walls of their
   capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those
   without. The subject population which had been trodden under
   foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent.
   The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the
   Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of
   Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be
   settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds
   of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from
   without the dukes held firm to their course, and their
   stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William
   Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled
   districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The
   work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword.
   As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had
   given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold
   it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the
   Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound
   the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful
   struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the
   northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to
   maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line
   on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread
   of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence
   spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely
   to the French crown."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 8._

NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.
   Duke William establishes his authority.

   Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by
   his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name
   of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under
   the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his
   bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a
   boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on
   the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to
   lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the
   duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord.
   "It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the
   lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes
   after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it
   will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately,
   and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and
   Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian
   and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before
   William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite
   possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the
   western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in
   spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish
   districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans
   came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy
   in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while
   more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other.
   So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and
   Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin
   and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of
   Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of
   Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. …
   When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at
   Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him
   in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own
   Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted
   whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of
   rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and
   asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King
   Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom
   we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in
   battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's
   first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was
   now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of
   Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its
   character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux.
   William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before
   he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own
   Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long
   King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now
   always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the
   other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the
   King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and
   Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to
   hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great
   addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French
   King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every
   occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine,
   and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled
   over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were
   often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power
   and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time
   before his conquest of England."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Short History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapter 8._

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 2, chapter 4._

{2366}

NORMANDY: A. D. 1066.
   Duke William becomes King of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANDY: . D. 1087-1135.
   Under Duke Robert and Henry Beauclerc.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1096.
   The Crusade of Duke Robert.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1203-1205.
   Wrested from England and restored to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1419.
   Conquest by Henry V. of England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1449.
   Recovery from the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

NORMANDY: 16th Century.
   Spread of the Reformation.
   Strength of Protestantism.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

   ----------NORMANS: Start--------

NORMANS.
NORTH MEN:
   Name and Origin.

   "The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans,
   according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or
   the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race
   with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots
   identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token
   of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile
   incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the
   territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by
   Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the
   Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them
   and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of
   the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and
   treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become
   children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic
   fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the
   fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable
   thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests,
   were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and
   stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three
   days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway,
   two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers
   of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was
   distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All
   equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary
   submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they
   promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of
   gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as
   their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they
   coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the
   straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them
   the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes
   they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."

      _A. Thierry,
      Conquest of England by the Normans,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      The Early Kings of Norway._

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
   The Vikings and what sent them to sea.

   "No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the
   sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause
   which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was
   that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all
   over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and
   which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by
   land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the
   north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other
   nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds,
   threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered
   force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the
   west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the
   west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came,
   had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which
   happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land
   ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to
   look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to
   support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow
   Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of
   the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after
   another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he
   invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls
   laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have
   thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration
   added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to
   struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the
   brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great
   impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a
   freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader
   by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought
   the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him.
   Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm
   was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and
   thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was
   Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived
   from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay
   moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships;
   the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case,
   occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,'
   and at one time or another in his life almost every man of
   note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking
   life."

      _G. W. Dasent,
      Story of Burnt Njal,
      volume 2, appendix._

   "Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to
   Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations
   reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these
   achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that,
   among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the
   Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians,
   like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and
   Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad.
   … The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and
   their more immediate contact with Germany account for the
   frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."

      _W. Roos,
      The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions
      (English History Review, April, 1892)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Laing,
      Preliminary Dissertation to Heimskringla._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings of Western Christendom,
      chapter 5._

      _P. B. Du Chaillu,
      The Viking Age._

      See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

{2367}

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
   The island empire of the Vikings.

   We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes
   under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many
   ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide
   the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would
   appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed
   indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in
   tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as
   a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the
   Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as
   Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell
   to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and
   Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the
   Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the
   Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of
   the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their
   settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally
   with their geographical position.
   1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland.
   2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland.
   3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.

   The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as
   early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful
   settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from
   the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In
   the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new
   importance, and their character is changed. Many of those
   driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking
   themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast
   in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages
   seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom,
   Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to
   conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates.
   The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser,
   Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy,
   who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as
   a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. …
   Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D.
   875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of
   Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of
   Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the
   commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of
   Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort
   of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors
   had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from
   the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black
   strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their
   chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire
   had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western
   coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man,
   Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was
   under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar
   (grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin.
   Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on
   England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the
   Danish Northumbria."

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapter 2._

   "Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar]
   the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were
   crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and
   manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was
   then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of
   society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the
   influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were
   established all over the island before the arrival of the
   Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those
   ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople
   and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the
   provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their
   country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the
   remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced
   among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians
   themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion
   of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation,
   fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such
   barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of
   the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The
   principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an
   honourable profession, in the exercise of which these
   islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of
   Europe under heavy contributions."

      _D. Macpherson,
      Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History
      (Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland,
      chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note)._

      See, also,
      IRELAND: 9-10TH CENTURIES.

NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
   The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.

   "In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the
   common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain,
   though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the
   attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser
   however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.'
   Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the
   pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark.
   The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as,
   owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the
   ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the
   general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to
   narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      page 68, foot-note._

   Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into
   three periods:
   1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which
      began A. D. 787.
   2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to
      the Peace of Wedmore, 880.
   3. The later period of conquest, within which England was
      governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapters 6 and 12._

NORMANS: A. D. 841.
   First expedition up the Seine.

   In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by
   a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had
   been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was
   commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have
   been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city
   of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to
   touch the tempting country through which they passed, until
   the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered.
   Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued.
   … Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly
   successful.
{2368}
   Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and
   simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns,
   dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete
   their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the
   Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging
   enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates
   from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 9._

NORMANS: A. D. 845-861.
   Repeated ravages in the Seine.
   Paris thrice sacked.

      See PARIS; A. D. 845; and 857-861.

NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.
   The career of Hasting.

   "About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to
   Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the
   citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It
   is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His
   birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been
   the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and
   to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early
   youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others
   he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his
   origin, by the middle of the century he had established his
   title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which
   helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When
   the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again
   put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus
   and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and
   Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time.
   The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the
   Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour
   of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most
   efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled
   from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The
   leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and
   Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the
   destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce
   religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder.
   This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid
   in great measure to the account of the thirty years of
   proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony,
   and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting
   seems to have been filled with a double portion of this
   spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the
   most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was
   probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace
   murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their
   charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his
   exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the
   sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an
   attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his
   followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their
   way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the
   Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of
   Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the
   great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever
   since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is
   said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia
   mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was
   actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he
   had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was
   soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The
   priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city
   taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity
   after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen
   into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the
   sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he
   re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of
   the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or
   rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France
   on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil
   had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in
   sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses
   by the plunder of Provence."

      _T. Hughes,
      Alfred the Great,
      chapter 20._

NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100.
   The discovery and settlement of Iceland.
   Development of the Saga literature.

   The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse
   Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of
   the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so
   many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to
   have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold
   island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears.
   "Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen
   the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64),
   'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by
   his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in
   Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one
   should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine
   silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual
   emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth
   century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had
   fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000
   souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins
   who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters
   and proletarians."

      _R. F. Burton,
      Ultima Thule, introduction,
      section 3 (volume 1)._

   "About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a
   step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth,
   and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though
   we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we
   know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure,
   that it could only have been with the common consent of the
   great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local
   Things.

      See THING.

   The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The
   man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family
   long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was
   sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin.
   "Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the
   chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need
   of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost
   no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual
   meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June,
   but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and
   the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed.
{2369}
   It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the
   Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both
   Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the
   establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a
   Commonwealth in Iceland."

      _G. W. Dasent,
      The Story of Burnt Njal,
      introduction (volume 1)._

   "The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at
   the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th
   century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a
   position in the world's history and literature, must be sought
   in the events which took place in Norway at the time when
   Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate
   resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The
   people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the
   flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast
   of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most
   perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set
   out with their families and followers to find a home where
   they might be as free and independent as their fathers had
   been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the
   cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the
   end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of
   the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety
   might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity
   having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000],
   and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be
   found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the
   island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law
   and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common
   property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature
   to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste
   for history gave the literature the direction which it
   afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a
   whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in
   writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the
   Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were
   men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from
   kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods
   themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they
   assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their
   forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste
   for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full
   share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and
   remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports
   from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the
   Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst
   for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as
   courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and
   other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in
   Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of
   visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions
   and circumstances which produced that remarkable development
   of the historical taste with which the people were endowed,
   and made Iceland the home of the saga."

      _F. W. Horn,
      History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
      part 1, chapter 1._

   "The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of
   writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship,
   says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history
   there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes,
   and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not
   only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but
   were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have
   left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally
   'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude
   nations."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Early Kings of Norway,
      Preface._

      See, also,
      THINGS.
      THINGVALLA.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
   Rollo's acquisition of Normandy.

   "One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was
   destined to play a real part in history. This was the
   settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is
   Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou,
   sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This
   settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need
   hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own,
   which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul.
   But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony
   among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was
   probably not expected to be more lasting or more important
   than the others. But, while the others soon lost any
   distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew,
   it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a
   determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once
   proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man,
   but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the
   main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of
   Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space.
   We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions,
   unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the
   Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I
   therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in
   detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time
   before his final settlement. He is described as having been
   engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain
   for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. …
   The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years,
   that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other
   chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two
   leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless
   expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf
   charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a
   share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an
   occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we
   have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not
   till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that
   Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic
   reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever
   vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from
   that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls
   of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of
   the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was
   attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic,
   the under-garment of the Virgin.
{2370}
   But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had
   no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was
   his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously
   checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England,
   his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an
   attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a
   peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911]
   was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles
   and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore
   before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for
   which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism
   and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And,
   just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part
   of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was
   made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the
   French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of
   the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to
   Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother
   Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now
   ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of
   Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in
   lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was
   its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the
   western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one
   hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well
   defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original
   grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did
   not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the
   noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The
   Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years
   later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not
   won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf
   … had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no
   recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the
   Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen.
   The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply
   the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapters 3-5._

      _A. Thierry,
      Norman Conquest of England,
      book 2._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-984.
   Discovery and settlement of Greenland.

   "The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the
   settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America
   afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of
   Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern
   part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical
   miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the
   time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case
   of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those
   regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland
   sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to
   land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that
   Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the
   west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to
   the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to
   time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man,
   by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land
   in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in
   the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and
   remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end
   of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the
   newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as
   he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed
   with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders
   and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony
   was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in
   the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The
   Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother
   countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it
   finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a
   list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."

      _R. B. Anderson,
      America not Discovered by Columbus,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Crantz,
      History of Greenland,
      book 4, chapter 1._

NORMANS: A. D. 885-886.
   The Great Siege of Paris.

      See PARIS: A. D. 885-886.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
   The Danish conquests and settlements in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: 9-10th CENTURIES and A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
   The ravages of the Vikings on the Continent.

   "Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces,
   districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring
   will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively
   before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian
   dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two
   crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or
   against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant,
   or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys
   and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme
   and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and
   all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and
   the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling
   as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities,
   the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more
   flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of
   government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all
   equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the
   Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They
   constitute three principal schemes of naval and military
   operations, respectively governed and guided by the great
   rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of
   operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt,
   and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by
   the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine
   and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far
   as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second
   scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and
   Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and
   Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine
   Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the
   countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour,
   frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far
   as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to
   Bourges."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{2371}

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapters 9-15._

NORMANS: A. D. 979-1016.
   The Danish conquest of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

NORMANS: A. D. 986-1011.
   Supposed voyages to America.

      See AMERICA: 10-11th CENTURIES.

NORMANS: 10-13th Centuries.
   The breaking up of the Norse island empire.

   "At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century
   the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these
   Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and
   restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About
   this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the
   island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES]
   became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their
   princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of
   England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford
   Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after
   subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys,
   attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast.
   But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans
   [from England] who had just made a settlement there, he
   crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The
   sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original
   owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and
   Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of
   Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these
   dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find
   them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in
   the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the
   Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry.
   After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the
   islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons.
   Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the
   13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King
   of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom
   over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his
   defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander
   III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his
   son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by
   the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of
   Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the
   11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested
   a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland.
   Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other
   quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the
   Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's
   subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the
   independence of the north of Scotland against the southern
   king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the
   female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now
   transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King
   of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed
   over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of
   Norway."

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1063.
   The Northmen in France become French.

      See NORMANDY; A. D. 911-1000; and 1035-1063.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194.
   Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090;
      and 1081-1194.

NORMANS: A. D. 1016-1042.
   The reign of the Danish kings in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

NORMANS: A. D. 1066-1071.
   Conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANS: A. D. 1081-1085.
   Attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

NORMANS: A. D. 1084.
   The sack and burning of Rome.

      See ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

NORMANS: A. D. 1146.
   Ravages in Greece.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

NORMANS: A. D. 1504.
   Early enterprise on the Newfoundland fishing banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

   ----------NORMANS: End--------

NORTH, Lord, Administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1770, to 1782-1783.

NORTH ANNA, The passage of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

NORTH BRITON, Number 45, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

   ----------NORTH CAROLINA: Start--------

NORTH CAROLINA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES,
      IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
      SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1524.
   Discovery of the coast by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1585-1587.
   Raleigh's attempted settlements at Roanoke.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
   The grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1639-1663.
   Pioneer and unorganized colonization.

   "An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a
   titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number
   of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir
   Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the
   proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the
   grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and
   the official information received, did not, however, suffice
   to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by
   which possession might be obtained of the neighboring
   territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom
   by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a
   trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and
   traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the
   next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of
   Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and
   established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses
   granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who
   would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration
   from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies,
   crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings
   within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were
   mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial
   stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and
   elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the
   Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South.
{2372}
   New England enterprise explored the American coast from one
   end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new
   resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North
   Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the
   mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some
   unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and
   dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had
   already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the
   reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists
   abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written
   opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very
   plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some
   wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from
   the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they
   accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a
   settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North
   Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the
   extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the
   north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about,
   with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of
   farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their
   way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights
   the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the
   Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the
   Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the
   English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may
   be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists
   in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in
   the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much
   besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 5._


      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
   The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others.
   The organized colonies.

   "On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward,
   Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William,
   Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley
   [Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton,
   and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific
   and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of
   latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant
   embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and
   Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir
   William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited
   the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the
   Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was
   succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that
   made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A
   form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in
   detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,'
   were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the
   Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor
   Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the
   assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return
   to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and,
   was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."

      _J. H. Wheeler,
      Historical Sketches of North Carolina,
      chapter 4._

   "The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not
   include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its
   northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia
   by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an
   unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the
   proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. …
   Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the
   charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the
   administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that
   'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at
   that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31
   miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and
   the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the
   Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough
   with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated
   June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were
   granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one
   prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the
   sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from
   Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old
   county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its
   abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary
   history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others
   similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the
   supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but
   having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the
   gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with
   him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new
   settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it
   contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the
   colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The
   action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its
   abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to
   have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward,
   sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony
   at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South
   Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William
   Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been
   appointed governor of that part of the coast lying
   southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle
   carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat
   comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and
   insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the
   proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had
   such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed
   before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir
   John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had
   acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto
   ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which
   precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his
   command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory
   which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August,
   1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams
   making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all
   the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them
   to be surveyed with accuracy.
{2373}
   On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and
   land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore,
   turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal
   travelled northward; and so the colonists from both
   settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle
   ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the
   first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In
   1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the
   confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient
   for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people,
   with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to
   remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the
   foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses
   were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the
   southern part of the province, and also the port for all
   commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon.
   … We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on
   Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon
   his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions
   were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed
   of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates
   chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose
   advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take
   and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the
   other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the
   power to make laws, but a large share of the executive
   authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this
   constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at
   this period, when the province may be said to have had, for
   the first time, a system of regular government, there was in
   it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of
   the political creed of our whole country, without distinction
   of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a
   voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that
   they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own
   representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were
   contented and happy during the early part of Stephens'
   administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not
   to last. We have now reached a period in our history which
   illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in
   the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the
   proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result
   of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had
   now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent
   project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the
   nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical
   obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely
   reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their
   theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to
   accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare
   'the fundamental constitutions.'"

      _F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 2, pages 441-462._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of thee United States,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
   The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke,
   and their failure.

   The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury,
   Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the
   rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties
   within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy
   the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in
   that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers,
   the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the
   colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known
   philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest
   expectations were entertained in consequence of his
   co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the
   proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of
   the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing
   the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the
   notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of
   laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was
   devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the
   colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed
   by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one
   of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code
   provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land
   graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by
   the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the
   eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with
   the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The
   tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred
   with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the
   lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was
   rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly
   judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather
   with books than men—with the abstract rather than the
   practical in government and society. And this judgment is
   certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they
   were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of
   the country, or the class of people which subsequently made
   their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic
   slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a
   large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost
   without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme
   was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures
   were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in
   Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the
   first settlers left them generally without the means of
   procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are
   subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a
   foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a
   miserable mockery, or something worse."

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but
   subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against
   the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This
   revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670.
   To a colony of which the majority were likely to be
   dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in
   England, where the model became the theme of extravagant
   applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the
   government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of
   Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the
   northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple
   form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve,
   and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and
   twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient
   settlements.
{2374}
   The assembly had already met and had framed some important
   laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than
   half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when
   the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its
   promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the
   existing system, which it could not replace. The
   proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists,
   superseded the existing government, and the colonists
   resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of
   things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet
   separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary
   changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many
   years.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the
   dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand
   Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have
   declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted
   by the charter, without regard to the fundamental
   constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection
   of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation
   of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as
   the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect,
   the government went on much as before. Each of the
   proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the
   colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the
   other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the
   council in either province, over which the governor presided
   as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment
   belonged."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

   The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in
   volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in
   volume 10 of several prior editions.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
   Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony.
   End of the Proprietary Government.

   In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with
   a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety
   of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him,
   tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office
   and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the
   form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it,
   and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for
   government which was one of the leading characteristics of the
   colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the
   Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern
   province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern
   territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part
   the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as
   'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony
   south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the
   expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet
   with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are
   used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same
   document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at
   establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by
   placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these
   cases provision was made for the appointment of separate
   Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project
   for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first
   event occurred which throws any clear light from without on
   the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary
   disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and
   it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side
   to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter
   lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia
   Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all …
   deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver
   writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and
   thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other
   southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some
   fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we
   find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with
   England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North
   Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a
   surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother
   country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and
   swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any
   care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its
   counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those
   habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia
   and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the
   same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of
   slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and
   meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end.
   The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors,
   then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of
   other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a
   conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North
   Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful
   assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina
   cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the
   ordinary state of a crown colony."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America:
      Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas,
      chapter 12._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1710.
   Palatine colonization at New Berne.

      See PALATINES.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714.
   Indian rising and massacre of colonists.
   Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
   War with the Spaniards in Florida.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
   The Cherokee War.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act.
   The First Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend Duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2375}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
   The insurrection of the Regulators.
   Battle of Alamance.

   Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several
   of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious
   results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the
   middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a
   population generally poor and ignorant. These people
   complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant
   are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive
   fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of
   which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held
   the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the
   collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under
   the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they
   formed associations which not only refused the payment of
   taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers,
   judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even
   proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts.
   The common name of Regulators designated, in the two
   Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and
   having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province
   took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of
   their leaders, who had been elected a member. After
   negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the
   peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers,
   marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators
   assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on
   the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which
   some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number
   taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though
   the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly
   hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had
   taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from
   North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin,
   anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents
   of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and
   sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and
   with such success that they became, in the end, staunch
   supporters of the royal authority."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 29 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _F. X. Martin,
      History of North Carolina,
      chapters 7-8._

      _J. H. Wheeler,
      History of North Carolina,
      chapter 8._

      _F. L. Hawks,
      Battle of the Alamance
      (Revised History of North Carolina)._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1768-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The first settlement of Tennessee.
   The Watauga Association.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (May).
   The Mecklenburg Declaration.

   "It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting
   of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May
   20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence
   of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On
   the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass
   resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that
   time, but not venturing on the field of independency further
   than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force
   till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions
   were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the
   leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can
   be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii,
   619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing
   them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord
   Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper
   Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a
   copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North
   Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these
   resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the
   Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in
   the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these
   resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored
   to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some
   of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in
   Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced
   independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they
   affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first
   printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are
   found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of
   May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few
   phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his
   'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy
   came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819
   copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of
   persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions
   were passed on the 20th."

      _J. Winsor,
      Note in Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, page 256._

   "We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular
   meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where
   discussion was had on the subject of independence, and
   probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at,
   which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st.
   If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary
   of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the
   proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in
   regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It
   was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting,
   destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man,
   fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as
   Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg
   Declaration of Independence.

      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 3, appendix 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. A. Graham,
      Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875._

      _F. L. Hawks,
      The Mecklenburg Declaration
      (Revised History of Georgia)._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The arming of the loyalist Highlanders
   and their defeat at Moore's Creek.
   The first colony vote for independence.

   "North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor
   of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United
   Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia,
   and vested the public authority in a provincial council for
   the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and
   county and town committees. A large portion of the people were
   adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland
   emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor
   Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these
   loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might
   be gained to the royal side.
{2376}
   The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South
   Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an
   expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore
   the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir
   Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am
   clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made
   on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be
   well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence
   among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the
   chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic
   devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was
   appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction
   of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled
   about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed
   of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the
   field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry
   Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected
   the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved
   forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the
   militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which
   McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was
   at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was
   under his command: and this place on the 27th of February
   [1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were
   victorious. They captured a great quantity of military
   supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the
   Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers
   circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of
   the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and
   anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people
   elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the
   4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to
   ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The
   subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius
   Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble
   … and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General
   Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies
   in declaring independency and forming foreign
   alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive
   right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of
   appointing delegates in a general representation of the
   colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was
   unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular
   party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of
   independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia,
   were in solid array against it. The example was warmly
   welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      _D. L. Swain,
      British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776
      (Revised History of North Carolina)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A: D. 1776 (JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
   Annexation of the Watauga settlements (Tennessee).

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780.
   Independence declared.
   Adoption of State Constitution.
   The war in the North.
   British conquest of Georgia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1780.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   Greene's campaign.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw Springs.
   Yorktown.
   Peace.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784.
   Revolt of the Tennessee settlements
   against their cession to Congress.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788.
   The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers.
   Its brief and troubled history.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785; and 1785-1796.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1786.
   Importation of Negroes discouraged.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1789.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790.
   Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee)
   to the United States.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796;
      also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May).
   The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.

   "A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed
   to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional
   right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the
   Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the
   Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the
   secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line
   with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of
   Secession December 20, 1860.]

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

   The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in
   his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a
   conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them
   for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also
   recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of
   a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of
   carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January,
   a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided
   that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with
   the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be
   ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state.
   The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th
   of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A
   large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time,
   the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a
   convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The
   majority against it was 662. This majority against a
   convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in
   regard to secession. The true test was the votes received,
   respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former
   received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable
   governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for
   secession. The legislature was called together in extra
   session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another
   election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of
   the month. The election took place accordingly, and the
   delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the
   secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate
   Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further
   obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for
   granted."

      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      pages 119-120._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

{2377}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (August).
   Hatteras Inlet taken by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April).
   Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort
   by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   Appointment of a Military Governor.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May).
   Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
   Confederate capture of Plymouth.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864-1865 (December-January).
   The capture of Fort Fisher.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY:

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
   Sherman's March.
   The Battle of Bentonsville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
   Federal occupation of Wilmington.
   Battle of Kinston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May).
   Provisional government under
   President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

   ----------NORTH CAROLINA: End--------

NORTH DAKOTA:
   Admission to the Union (1889).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

NORTH RIVER, The.

      See SOUTH RIVER.

NORTHAMPTON, Battle of.

   One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th
   century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460.
   The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King
   Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight
   to the north.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

NORTHAMPTON, Peace of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

NORTHBROOK, LORD, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

NORTHERN MARITIME LEAGUE, The.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NORTHMEN.

      See NORMANS.

   ----------NORTHUMBRIA: Start--------

NORTHUMBRIA, Kingdom of.

   The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in
   Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of
   Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes,
   sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending
   from the Humber to the Forth.

      See ENGLAND: IA. D. 547-633.

NORTHUMBRIA: 10-11th Centuries.
   Lothian joined to Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: 10-11th CENTURIES.

   ----------NORTHUMBRIA: End--------

NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

   "The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the
   Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or
   of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is
   about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the
   area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded
   to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

   The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and
   British Columbia has been formed into four provisional
   districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
   Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and
   legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and
   a Council of five members subject to instructions given by
   Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

   ----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
   The Old.

   "This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio,
   and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large
   States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania,
   Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when
   independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign
   territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen
   colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that,
   whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer
   Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest.
   The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally
   stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence.
   It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first
   important conquest during the Revolution itself."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, pages 32-33._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751.
   Early French exploration and occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735;
      also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763.
   Struggle of the French and English for possession.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1758.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.
   Possession taken.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      and ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

{2378}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving
   the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.

   "On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a
   proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies,
   namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the
   latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the
   Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and
   'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec
   did not vary materially from those of the present province of
   that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the
   present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of
   Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that
   no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the
   new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the
   omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The
   purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory,
   the region north of the great lakes, and the country between
   the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from
   settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the
   time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes.
   The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases
   of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward
   of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the
   West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or
   inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this
   limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such
   settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in
   the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the
   future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,'
   etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the
   Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the
   petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on
   the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the
   president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to
   remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by
   this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,
   immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the
   western extent of settlements to such a distance from the
   sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach
   of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the
   exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was
   conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies
   in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother
   country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital
   objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October,
   1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of
   North America has been to improve and extend the commerce,
   navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear
   to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely
   upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their
   hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature,
   and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that
   branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in
   quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade
   would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the
   cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its
   ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies;
   and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought
   on the American Revolution."

      _W. F. Poole,
      The West, from 1763 to 1783
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 9)._

   "The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the
   construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the
   ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The
   proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's
   domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources
   of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapter 5._

   The text of the Proclamation of 1763 is in

      _Force's
      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 1, page 172._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768.
   The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
   The territorial claims of Virginia.
   Lord Dunmore's War.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark,
   and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786.
   Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States
   to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA:A. D. 1784.
   Jefferson's plan for new States.

   "The condition of the northwestern territory had long been
   under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the
   Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and
   several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it
   was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution
   was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and
   purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to
   lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south
   line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be
   marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it,
   and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great
   Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But
   few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee,
   over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before
   Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted
   him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands
   were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then
   marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to
   them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population
   which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy
   cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to
   a garden, have never in their lives heard the words
   pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from
   the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the
   Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far
   as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in
   three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls
   of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through
   the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the
   Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between
   this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That
   vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to
   the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of
   hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania.
{2379}
   It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long
   tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the
   waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A
   narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width,
   and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was
   called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps,
   Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is
   now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude
   was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian
   title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the
   shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It
   took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its
   boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the
   two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky,
   and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the
   39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which
   waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond
   this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the
   Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of
   Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching
   along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the
   waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois,
   and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi
   and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting
   name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It
   lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a
   term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the
   same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined,
   a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a
   constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants
   acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise
   a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles
   two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the
   abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced
   that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a
   citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House.
   Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the
   first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other
   because it was a public expression of the dread with which our
   ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

  The report of Jefferson's committee "was recommitted to the
  same committee on the 17th of March, and a new one was
  submitted on the 22d of the same month. The second report
  agreed in substance with the first. The principal difference
  was the omission of the paragraph giving names to the States to
  be formed out of the Western Territory." After striking out the
  clauses prohibiting slavery after the year 1800 and denying
  citizenship to all persons holding hereditary titles, the
  Congress adopted the report, April 23, 1784. "Thus the
  substance of the report of Mr. Jefferson of a plan for the
  government of the Western Territory (without restrictions as to
  slavery) became a law, and remained so during 1784 to 1787,
  when these resolutions were repealed in terms by the passage of
  the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the
  United States northwest of the river Ohio.'"

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain: its History,
      pages 148-149._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1786-1788.
   The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and
   their land purchase.
   The settlement at Marietta.

   "The Revolutionary War had hardly closed before thousands of
   the disbanded officers and soldiers were looking anxiously to
   the Western lands for new homes, or for means of repairing
   their shattered fortunes. In June, 1783, a strong memorial was
   sent to Congress asking a grant of the lands between the Ohio
   and Lake Erie. Those who lived in the South were fortunate in
   having immediate access to the lands of Kentucky, Tennessee,
   and the back parts of Georgia. The strife in Congress over the
   lands of the Northwest delayed the surveys and the bounties so
   long that the soldiers of the North almost lost hope."
   Finally, there "was a meeting of officers and soldiers,
   chiefly of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut
   lines, at Boston, March 1, 1786, when they formed a new Ohio
   Company for the purchase and settlement of Western lands, in
   shares of $1,000. General Putnam [Rufus], General Samuel H.
   Parsons, and the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, were made the
   directors, and selected for their purchase the lands on the
   Ohio River situated on both sides of the Muskingum, and
   immediately west of the Seven Ranges. The treasury board in
   those days were the commissioners of public lands, but with no
   powers to enter into absolute sales unless such were approved
   by Congress. Weeks and months were lost in waiting for a
   quorum of that body to assemble. This was effected on the 11th
   of July, and Dr. Cutler, deputed by his colleagues, was in
   attendance, but was constantly baffled in pursuing his
   objects. … The members were disposed to insert conditions
   which were not satisfactory to the Ohio Company. But the
   doctor carried his point by formally intimating that he should
   retire, and seek better terms with some of the States, which
   were offering their lands at half the price Congress was to
   receive. The grant to the Ohio Company, upon the terms
   proposed, was voted by Congress, and the contract formally
   signed October 27, 1787, by the treasury board, and by Dr.
   Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, as agents of the Ohio Company.
   Two companies, including surveyors, boat-builders, carpenters,
   smiths, farmers and laborers, 48 persons in all, with their
   outfit, were sent forward in the following months of December
   and January, under General Putnam as leader and
   superintendent. They united in February on the Youghiogheny
   River and constructed boats. … Embarking with their stores
   they descended the Ohio, and on the 7th of April, 1788, landed
   at the Muskingum. On the upper point, opposite Fort Harmar,
   they founded their town, which at Boston had first been named
   Adelphia. At the first meeting of the directors, held on the
   ground July 2d, the name of Marietta was adopted, in honor of
   the French Queen Marie Antoinette, and compounded of the first
   and last syllables."

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
      Life, Journals and Correspondence
      of Reverend Manasseh Cutler,
      volume 1, chapters 4-7 and 9._

      _C. M. Walker,
      History of Athens County, Ohio,
      chapter 2._

{2380}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1787.
   The great Ordinance for its government.
   Perpetual Exclusion of Slavery.

   "Congress at intervals discussed the future of this great
   domain, but for a while little progress was made except to
   establish that Congress could divide the territory as might
   seem best. Nathan Dane came forward with a motion for a
   committee to plan some temporary scheme of government. A
   committee on this point reported (May 10, 1786) that the
   number of States should be from two to five, to be admitted as
   States according to Jefferson's proposition, but the question
   of slavery in them was left open. Nothing definite was done
   till a committee—Johnson of Connecticut, Pinckney of South
   Carolina, Smith of New York, Dane of Massachusetts, and Henry
   of Maryland—reported on April 26, 1787, 'An ordinance for the
   government of the Western territory,' and after various
   amendments it was fairly transcribed for a third reading, May
   10th. Further consideration was now delayed until July. It was
   at this point that Manasseh Cutler appeared in New York,
   commissioned to buy land for the Ohio Company in the region
   whose future was to be determined by this ordinance, and it
   was very likely, in part, by his influence that those features
   of the perfected ordinance as passed five days later, and
   which has given it its general fame, were introduced. On July
   9th the bill was referred to a new committee, of which a
   majority were Southern men, Carrington of Virginia taking the
   chairmanship from Johnson; Dane and Smith were retained, but
   Richard Henry Lee and Kean of South Carolina supplanted
   Pinckney and Henry. This change was made to secure the
   Southern support; on the other hand, acquiescence in the
   wishes of Northern purchasers of lands was essential in any
   business outcome of the movement. 'Up to this time,' says
   Poole, 'there were no articles of compact in the bill, no
   anti-slavery clause, nothing about liberty of conscience or of
   the press, the right of habeas corpus, or of trial by jury, or
   the equal distribution of estates. The clause that, "religion,
   morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and
   the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
   shall be forever encouraged," was not there.' These omissions
   were the New England ideas, which had long before this been
   engrafted on the Constitution of Massachusetts. This new
   committee reported the bill, embodying all these provisions
   except the anti-slavery clause, on the 11th, and the next day
   this and other amendments were made. On the 13th, but one
   voice was raised against the bill on its final passage, and
   that came from Yates of New York. Poole intimates that it was
   the promise of the governorship of the territory under the
   ordinance which induced St. Clair, then President of Congress,
   to lend it his countenance. The promise, if such it was, was
   fulfilled, and St. Clair became the first governor."

      _J. Winsor and E. Channing,
      Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, appendix)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 15._

      _W. F. Poole,
      Doctor Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787
      (North American Review, April, 1876._

      _W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
      Life of Manasseh Cutler,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      _J. P. Dunn, Jr.,
      Indiana,
      chapter 5._

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      pages 149-159._

      _J. A. Barrett,
      Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787
      (University of Nebraska, Seminary Papers, 1891)._

      _J. P. Dunn, editor,
      Slavery Petitions
      (Indiana Historical Society,
      volume 2, number 12)._

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA.: A. D. 1785-1880.

   The following is the text of the "Ordinance for the Government
   of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River
   Ohio," commonly known as the "Ordinance of 1787":

   "Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled,
   That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary
   government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided
   into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the
   opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the
   authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and
   non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying
   intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among, their
   children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal
   parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to
   take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among
   them: And where there shall be no children or descendants,
   then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and,
   among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or
   sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them,
   their deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be
   a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood;
   saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third
   part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the
   personal estate; and this law, relative to descents and dower,
   shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of
   the district. And, until the governor and judges shall adopt
   laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory
   may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and
   sealed by him or her, in whom the estate may be (being of full
   age,) and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be
   conveyed by lease and release, or, bargain and sale, signed,
   sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in
   whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses,
   provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be
   acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be
   recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and
   registers shall be appointed for that purpose: and personal
   property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to
   the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the
   Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages who
   have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia,
   their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to
   the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the
   authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed, from time
   to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall
   continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner
   revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have
   a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the
   exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to
   time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall
   continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he
   shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate
   therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his
   office; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and
   laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the
   district, and the proceedings of the governor in his Executive
   department; and transmit authentic copies of such acts and
   proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress:
{2381}
   There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three
   judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a
   common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have
   each therein a freehold estate in, 500 acres of land while in
   the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall
   continue in force during good behavior. The governor and
   judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the
   district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil,
   as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of
   the district, and report them to Congress from time to time:
   which laws shall be in force in the district until the
   organization of the General Assembly therein, unless
   disapproved of by Congress; but, afterwards, the legislature
   shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
   The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief
   of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the
   same below the rank of general officers; all general Officers
   shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. Previous to
   the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall
   appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each
   county or township, as he shall find necessary for the
   preservation of the peace and good order in the same: After
   the General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties
   of the magistrates and other civil officers, shall be
   regulated and defined by the said assembly; but all
   magistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise
   directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary
   government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention
   of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall
   have force in all parts of the district, and for the execution
   of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper
   divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, as
   circumstances may require, to layout the parts of the district
   in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into
   counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations
   as may thereafter be made by the legislature. So soon as there
   shall be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the
   district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they
   shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect
   representatives from their counties or townships to represent
   them in the General Assembly: Provided, That, for every 500
   free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and
   so on progressively with the number of free male inhabitants,
   shall the right of representation increase, until the number
   of representatives shall amount to 25; after which, the number
   and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the
   legislature: Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified
   to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen
   of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in
   the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district
   three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his
   own right, in fee simple, 200 acres of land within the same:
   Provided, also, That a freehold in 50 acres of land in the
   district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and
   being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two
   years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify
   a man as an elector of a representative. The representatives
   thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and, in
   case of the death of a representative, or removal from office,
   the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for
   which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve
   for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or
   Legislature, shall consist of the governor, legislative
   council, and a house of representatives. The legislative
   council shall consist of five members, to continue in office
   five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of
   whom to be a quorum: and the members of the council shall be
   nominated and appointed in the following manner, to wit: As
   soon as representatives shall be elected, the governor shall
   appoint a time and place for them to meet together; and, when
   met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the
   district, and each possessed of a freehold in 500 acres of
   land, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
   Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid;
   and, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death
   or removal from office, the house of representatives shall
   nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for such
   vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of whom
   Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the
   term. And every five years, four months at least before the
   expiration of the time of service of the members of council,
   the said house shall nominate ten persons, qualified as
   aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
   Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of
   the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the
   governor, legislative council, and house of representatives,
   shall have authority to make laws in all cases, for the good
   government of the district, not repugnant to the principles
   and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And
   all bills, having passed by a majority in the house, and by a
   majority in the council, shall be referred to the governor for
   his assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be
   of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power
   to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when,
   in his opinion, it shall be expedient. The governor, judges,
   legislative council, secretary, and such other officers as
   Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or
   affirmation of fidelity and of office; the governor before the
   President of Congress, and all other officers before the
   governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the
   district, the council and house assembled in one room, shall
   have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to
   Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of
   debating but not of voting during this temporary government.
   And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and
   religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these
   republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix
   and establish those principles as the basis of all laws,
   constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall
   be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the
   establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and
   for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an
   equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as
   may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby
   ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the
   following articles shall be considered as articles of compact
   between the original States and the people and States in the
   said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by
   common consent, to wit:

{2382}

   Article 1st.
   No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly
   manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of
   worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

   Article 2d.
   The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled
   to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial
   by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in
   the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the
   course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable,
   unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident
   or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no
   cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall
   be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of
   his peers or the law of the land: and, should the public
   exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to
   take any person's property, or to demand his particular
   services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And,
   in the just preservation of rights and property, it is
   understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or
   have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner
   whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or
   engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

   Article 3d.
   Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
   government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
   of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good
   faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their
   lands and property shall never be taken from them without
   their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,
   they shall never be invaded or, disturbed, unless in just and
   lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in
   justice and humanity, shall, from time to time, be made for
   preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace
   and friendship with them.

   Article 4th.
   The said territory, and the States which may be formed
   therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
   the United States of America, subject to the Articles of
   Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be
   constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of
   the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
   The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be
   subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be
   contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of
   government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to
   the same common rule and measure by which apportionments
   thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for
   paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the
   authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or
   districts, or new States, as in the original States, within
   the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
   assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,
   shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
   the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
   regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title
   in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be
   imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no
   case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
   residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi
   and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
   shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the
   inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the
   United States, and those of any other States that may be
   admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or
   duty, therefor.

   Article 5th.
   There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than
   three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the
   States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,
   and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as
   follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,
   shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
   rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.
   Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the
   United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,
   to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State
   shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post
   Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn
   due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said
   territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The
   Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct
   line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:
   Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,
   that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
   far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it
   expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
   in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East
   and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of
   Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have
   60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,
   by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
   an equal footing with the original States in all respects
   whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
   constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution
   and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in
   conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,
   so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of
   the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier
   period, and when there may be a less number of free
   inhabitants in the State than 60,000.

   Article 6th.
   There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
   the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
   crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
   Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from
   whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the
   original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and
   conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as
   aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
   resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject
   of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and
   declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress
   assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,
   and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."

{2383}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
   Extinguished by divisions.
   Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.

   "Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of
   the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent
   secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal
   constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of
   officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory
   act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of
   officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789,
   President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur
   St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and
   Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton,
   for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in
   this message designated the country as 'The Western
   Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (…
   named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati,
   he having been president of the branch society in
   Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22,
   1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to
   Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry
   Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress
   in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of
   Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided
   this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments.
   Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St.
   Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory
   west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky
   River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The
   eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the
   river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion,
   November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The
   territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a
   political division after the admission of the State of Ohio
   into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of
   Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed
   by legislation to other political divisions."

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      pages 159-160._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Burnet,
      Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,
      chapters 14-20._

      _C. Atwater,
      History of Ohio, period 2._

      _J. B. Dillon,
      History of Indiana,
      chapters 19-31._

      _W. H. Smith,
      The St. Clair Papers,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian war.
   The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair
   and Wayne's decisive victory.
   The Greenville Treaty.

   "The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation,
   numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to
   40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been
   the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed,
   was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest
   of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark
   and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient
   barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own
   inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to
   the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now
   so maddened against the United States that the first
   imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western
   settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into
   submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the
   small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was …
   a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations
   extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major
   Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British
   commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly
   with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester,
   by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period
   were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A
   formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon
   by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest
   Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar
   set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a
   force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths
   of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and
   Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a
   disastrous defeat on the Maumee.

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 2, section 1 (volume 1)._

   "The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati
   [Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually
   at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the
   expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made
   manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became
   bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost
   in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an
   army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The
   command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time
   a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under
   General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash
   country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and
   returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious
   expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so
   fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St.
   Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies.
   The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a
   shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder
   that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large
   number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his
   2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's
   Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the
   necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The
   militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of
   capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of
   the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While
   waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of
   this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November,
   1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the
   first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia
   dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days
   had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his
   strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses
   were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the
   bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the
   artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in
   their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and
   dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles,
   over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder
   horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St.
   Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every
   settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into
   excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned
   for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A
   committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been
   defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from
   the tragedy of the dark November morning.
{2384}
   Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making
   another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers
   into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one
   of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at
   all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the
   removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The
   British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain
   also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red
   men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of
   this last resort came one of the most popular of the
   Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his
   army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully
   in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of
   St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the
   summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong
   reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish
   between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with
   his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was
   evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of
   Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came
   upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank
   of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the
   Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy
   they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had
   carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here
   directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging
   and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men
   bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead
   and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he
   declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred
   by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus
   ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian
   crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne
   fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty
   by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent
   peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus
   Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty,
   ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State,
   guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the
   Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of
   immigration."

      _A. Black,
      The Story of Ohio,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. St. Clair,
      Narrative of Campaign._

      _C. W. Butterfield,
      History of the Girtys,
      chapters 23-30._

      _W. H. Smith,
      The St. Clair Papers,
      volume 2._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life of Brant,
      volume 2, chapters 10-12._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.
   Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
   Battle of Tippecanoe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

   ----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY: End--------


NORTHWESTERN OR OREGON BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846,
      and ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

      See SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

NORTHWESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA, English Acquisition of the.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

NORUMBEGA.

   "Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec
   (Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country
   embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a
   part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the
   mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say
   that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several
   old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers
   and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian
   origin."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

   On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La
   Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating
   probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The
   name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and
   appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia.
   Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map
   is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater
   extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there
   is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which
   trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of
   Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast
   was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da
   Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la
   Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and
   even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward
   Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the
   inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great
   gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered
   by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time
   of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States,
   as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega.
   Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a
   later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to
   the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or
   'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and
   sometimes to the whole of New England."

      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection,
      series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283._

   "The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable
   and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da
   Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a
   definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in
   1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain
   as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to
   the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce
   described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the
   Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an
   important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the
   period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a
   distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in
   1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is
   substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying
   between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until
   the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
   embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,
   though occasionally the country was known by other names.
{2385}
   Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot
   formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on
   his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of
   Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south
   as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated
   Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
   searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as
   late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of
   Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as
   of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was
   also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived
   upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to
   find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the
   place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were
   supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars
   of crystal and silver."

      _B. F. De Costa,
      Norumbega and its English Explorers
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Winsor,
      Cartography of North East Coast of America,
      (N. and C. History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 2)._

NORWAY.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

NOSE MONEY.

   A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to
   have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might
   suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are
   thought to have imposed the same there.

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 2, chapter 17._

NOTABLES, The Assembly of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

NOTIUM, Battle of (B. C. 407).

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

NOTTOWAYS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

   ----------NOVA SCOTIA: Start--------

NOVA SCOTIA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1000.
   Supposed identity with the Markland of Norse sagas.

      See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: 16th century.
   Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

      See NORUMBEGA;
      also CANADA: NAMES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.
   The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; and 1606-1608.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1604.
   Origin of the name Acadia.

   In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out
   Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast,
   Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned
   the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region
   defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north
   latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts
   gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. …
   This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was
   afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the
   dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause
   of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the
   Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish
   called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock
   Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name
   from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84.
   This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,'
   'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is
   properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for
   example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in
   'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 2, and foot-note._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.
   The Port Royal colony revived,
   but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
   English grant to Sir William Alexander.
   Cession to France.
   Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.
   English reconquest and recession to France.

   "In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary
   pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council
   for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.
   1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the
   lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory
   now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
   Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at
   colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life
   into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into
   baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of
   St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all
   the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two
   years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of
   the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la
   Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was
   appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He
   designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the
   portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur
   d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The
   former established himself on the River St. John, where the
   city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the
   eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,
   La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men
   who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay
   treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar
   way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and
   despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with
   their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to
   dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish
   anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,
   and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not
   altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their
   quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in
   the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not
   able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but
   he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him
   in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far
   successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn
   belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a
   second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only
   to procure the writing of threatening letters from the
   Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La
   Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived
   here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed
   pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by
   the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following
   year; but it was not until two years later that it was
   ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.
{2386}
   In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort
   at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks
   afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less
   warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended
   the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced
   to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,
   and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died
   two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret
   instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated
   by an English force from Boston under the command of Major
   Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of
   Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country
   was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were
   made to the British government; but by the treaty of
   Westminster, in the following year, England was left in
   possession, and the question of title was referred to
   commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who
   appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole
   territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la
   Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were
   purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in
   possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,
   when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little
   was done by the French to settle and improve the country."

      _C. C. Smith,
      Acadia
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 4)._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.
   Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.
   Recovery by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1710.
   Final conquest by the English and change of name.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713.
   Relinquished to Great Britain.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
   Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.
   Their refusal to swear allegiance.
   Hostilities with the Indians.

   "It was evident from the first that the French intended to
   interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as
   possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of
   England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest
   limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the
   treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at
   Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these
   settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht
   to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an
   exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and
   resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful
   French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant
   communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of
   those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making
   the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to
   believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of
   scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and
   hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition
   that they should not take up arms either for the French or
   English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it
   was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may
   have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other
   place, with all their movable effects. But those who are
   willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great
   Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion
   according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the
   laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never
   contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in
   the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all
   times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make
   the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen
   Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs.
   Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to
   proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto,
   River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King
   George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance
   to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the
   oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that
   they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the
   people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that
   they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it
   would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who
   actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then
   summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the
   oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his
   deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips,
   who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in
   the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his
   predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths.
   Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold
   in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in
   readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war
   was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to
   France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration
   between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there
   was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect.
   Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the
   Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians
   were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in
   Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in
   1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen
   there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French
   of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being
   seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. …
   The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the
   progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec
   filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had
   not been always so just in their dealings with them that they
   could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed
   their territorial rights in the lands over which the English
   settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this
   claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory
   to the English. While these questions were in controversy the
   Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not
   tend to allay the distrust of the Indians.
{2387}
   This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of
   Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He,
   whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to
   acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to
   the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at
   Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which
   failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a
   war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso
   to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly
   take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as
   they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied."
   This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of
   the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious
   event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous
   murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in
   the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was
   concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King
   George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the
   inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of
   allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At
   Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and
   when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George
   II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew
   their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips
   returned to the province and had great success during the next
   year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only
   throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of
   allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not
   bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when
   they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the
   understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them
   from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for
   that was the position they always assumed, but the matter
   seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the
   question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of
   discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."

      _J. Hannay,
      History of Acadia,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      pages 114-121._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   The Third Intercolonial War (King George's War).

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745;
      and 1745-1748.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Futile discussion of boundary questions.
   The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.
   The founding of Halifax.
   Hostilities renewed.

   "During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of
   Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments
   were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual
   occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left
   open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as
   they had been before the war; and before the war the entire
   basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St.
   Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec,
   was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no
   convention between them had ever defined the rights of each.
   Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were
   but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at
   another time in another, and when these names were mentioned
   in treaties they were understood by each party according to
   its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left
   abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the
   continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal
   peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to
   settle the question of the disputed territory, but the
   differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but
   conquest. While the most important question was that of the
   great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were
   devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or
   Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The
   French were determined to restrict the English province to the
   peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent
   a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to
   hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by
   the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the
   mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established
   themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep
   possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to
   French claims, formed the northern boundary of English
   territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule
   in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed,
   and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in
   gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had
   grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to
   France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king
   of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula,
   outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes
   suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by
   Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of
   English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the
   Government might have friends and influence throughout the
   country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted
   £40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five
   hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from
   the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted
   to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the
   Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia.
   Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town
   was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of
   Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In
   July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis
   gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government
   would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required
   of them." They were called upon to take the oath of
   allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the
   privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been
   formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them
   from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and,
   indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing
   less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month
   later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand
   signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the
   oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis
   took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for
   instructions."
{2388}
   Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a
   French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting
   the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent
   to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the
   little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their
   southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous
   village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander]
   had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance
   to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the
   inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded
   by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind
   the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their
   fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under
   the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other
   parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in
   exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a
   speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a
   large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side
   of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie
   Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of
   fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of
   the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the
   question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any
   results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia
   and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent
   against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000
   troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the
   command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were
   added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the
   command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto
   on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for
   long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th.
   "After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced.
   Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the
   French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was
   changed to Cumberland."

      _R. Johnson.
      History of the French War,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5)._

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 11, chapters 3 and 6 (volume 3)._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
   Frustrated naval expedition of the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
   The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.

   "The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova
   Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious
   termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the
   fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the
   army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort
   du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara
   and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident
   that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at
   least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the
   savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the
   English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon
   the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and
   his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled
   to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted
   towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so
   peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who
   had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally
   determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this
   whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not
   unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be
   naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of
   this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the
   New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow],
   from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well
   qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as
   he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and
   temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier
   were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty;
   which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. …
   They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the
   moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to
   labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was
   secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."

      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Account of Nova Scotia,
      volume 1, pages 170-175._

   "Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners
   and their families were divided into groups answering to their
   several villages, in order that those of the same village
   might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also
   provided that the members of each family should remain
   together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in
   readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade
   the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.
   The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].
   … When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various
   points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained
   standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,
   that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and
   surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the
   province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.
   Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to
   Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest
   lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence
   they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the
   English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no
   longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,
   one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried
   them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and
   escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from
   Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having
   been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the
   Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring
   him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were
   vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians
   were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.
   Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to
   Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,
   where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct
   population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way
   back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained
   unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation
   were disappointed in its results.
{2389}
   They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a
   disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find
   settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,
   melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust
   to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel
   measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution
   till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried
   in vain."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   "The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one
   of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will
   attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius
   of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a
   somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the
   victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people
   they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as
   we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the
   picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described
   by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among
   themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were
   wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
   bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at
   peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger
   to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified
   allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction.
   But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in
   which it was executed."

      _C. C. Smith,
      The Wars on the Seaboard
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 7)._

   "We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which
   an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an
   extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of
   the New England troops."

      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      page 216._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Reed,
      The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
      volume 6, pages 283-316)._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
   Cape Breton added to the government.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.
   Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1820-1837.
   The Family Compact.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
      A. D. 1854-1866.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.
   Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.
   The Halifax Fishery Award.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed Fishery disputes.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

   ----------NOVA SCOTIA: End--------

NOVANTÆ, The.

   A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of
   Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

NOVARA,
   Battle of (1513).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

NOVARA,
   Battle of (1821).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NOVARA,
   Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

NOVEMBER FIFTH.

      See Guy FAWKES' DAY.

   ----------NOVGOROD: Start--------

NOVGOROD: Origin.

      See RUSSIA.
      RUSSIANS: A. D. 862.

NOVGOROD: 11th Century.
   Rise of the Commonwealth.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.

NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.
   Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

NOVGOROD: 14-15th Centuries.
   In the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

   ----------NOVGOROD: End--------

NOVI, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

NOVIOMAGUS.
   Modern Nimeguen.

      See BATAVIANS.

NOYADES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

NOYON, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

NUBIANS, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NUITHONES, The.

   See AVIONES.

   ----------NULLIFICATION: Start--------

NULLIFICATION:
   First assertion of the doctrine
   in the United States of America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

NULLIFICATION:
   Doctrine and Ordinance in South Carolina.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   ----------NULLIFICATION: End--------

NUMANTIAN WAR, The.

   "In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field
   [resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of
   Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the
   Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the
   dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the
   Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a
   precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied
   only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power
   of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the
   consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a
   sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted
   conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate
   would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius
   Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for
   faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his
   hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the
   Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept
   him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted;
   Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew
   circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn
   rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the
   fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly
   facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned
   into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to
   leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men
   marched out."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      chapters 6-7._

      See, also, LUSITANIA;
      and SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

{2390}

NUMERIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 283-284.

   ----------NUMIDIA: Start--------

NUMIDIA: The Country and People.

      See NUMIDIANS.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 204.
   Alliance with Carthage.
   Subjection to Rome.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
   The Jugurthine War.

   The Numidian kingdom, over which the Romans, at the end of the
   second Punic War, had settled their friend Masinissa, passed
   at his death to his son Micipsa. In 118 B. C. Micipsa died,
   leaving two young sons, and also a bastard nephew, Jugurtha,
   whom he feared. He divided the kingdom between these three,
   hoping to secure the fidelity of Jugurtha to his sons. It was
   a policy that failed. Jugurtha made sure of what was given to
   him, and then grasped at the rest. One of his young cousins
   was soon cleared from his path by assassination; on the other
   he opened war. This latter, Adherbal by name, appealed to
   Rome, but Jugurtha despatched agents with money to bribe the
   senate, and a commission sent over to divide Numidia gave him
   the western and better half. The commissioners were no sooner
   out of Africa than he began war upon Adherbal afresh, shut him
   up in his strong capital, Cirta [B. C. 112], and placed the
   city under siege. The Romans again interfered, but, he
   captured Cirta, notwithstanding, and tortured Adherbal to
   death. The corrupt party at Rome which Jugurtha kept in his
   pay made every effort to stifle discussion of his nefarious
   doings; but one bold tribune, C. Memmius, roused the people on
   the subject and forced the senate to declare war against him.
   Jugurtha's gold, however, was still effectual, and it
   paralyzed the armies sent to Africa, by corrupting the venial
   officers who commanded them. Once, Jugurtha went to Rome,
   under a safe conduct, invited to testify as a witness against
   the men whom he had bribed, but really expecting to be able to
   further his own cause in the city. He found the people furious
   against him and he only saved himself from being forced to
   criminate his Roman senatorial mercenaries by buying a
   tribune, who brazenly vetoed the examination of the Numidian
   king. Jugurtha being, then, ordered out of Rome, the war
   proceeded again, and in 109 B. C. the command passed to an
   honest general, Q. Metellus, who took with him Caius Marius,
   the most capable soldier of Rome, whose capability was at that
   time not half understood. Under Metellus the Romans penetrated
   Numidia to Zama, but failed to take the town, and narrowly
   escaped a great disaster on the Muthul, where a serious battle
   was fought. In 107 B. C. Metellus was superseded by Marius,
   chosen consul for that year and now really beginning his
   remarkable career. Meantime Jugurtha had gained an ally in
   Bocchus, king of Mauretania, and Marius, after two campaigns
   of doubtful result, found more to hope from diplomacy than
   from war. With the help of Sulla,—his future great rival—who
   had lately been sent over to his army, in command of a troop
   of horse, he persuaded the Mauretanian king to betray Jugurtha
   into his hands. The dreaded Numidian was taken to Rome [B. C.
   104], exhibited in the triumph of Marius, and then brutally
   thrust into the black dungeon called the Tullianum to die of
   slow starvation. Bocchus was rewarded for his treachery by the
   cession to him of part of Numidia; Marius, intoxicated with
   the plaudits of Rome, first saved it from the Cimbri and then
   stabbed it with his own sword; Sulla, inexplicable harbinger
   of the coming Cæsars, bided his time.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 26-29._

      _Sallust,
      Jugurthine War._

NUMIDIA: B. C. 46.
   The kingdom extinguished by Cæsar and annexed to Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

NUMIDIA: A. D. 374-398.
   Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

      See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

   ----------NUMIDIA: End--------

NUMIDIANS AND MAURI, The.

   "The union of the Aryan invaders [of North Africa] with the
   ancient populations of the coast sprung from Phut gave birth
   to the Mauri, or Maurusii, whose primitive name it has been
   asserted was Medes, probably an alteration of the word
   Amazigh. The alliance of the same invaders with the Getulians
   beyond the Atlas produced the Numidians. The Mauri were
   agriculturists, and of settled habits; the Numidians, as their
   Greek appellation indicates, led a nomadic life."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   In northern Africa, "on the south and west of the immediate
   territory of the Carthaginian republic, lived various races of
   native Libyans who are commonly known by the name of
   Numidians. But these were in no way, as their Greek name
   ('Nomads') would seem to imply, exclusively pastoral races.
   Several districts in their possession, especially in the
   modern Algeria, were admirably suited for agriculture. Hence
   they had not only fixed and permanent abodes, but a number of
   not unimportant cities, of which Hippo and Cirta, the
   residences of the chief Numidian princes, were the most
   considerable."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   The various peoples of North Africa known anciently and
   modernly as Libyans, Numidians, or Nomades, Mauri,
   Mauritanians or Moors, Gaetulians and Berbers, belong
   ethnographically to one family of men, distinguished alike
   from the negroes and the Egyptians.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 13._

      See, also, LIBYANS; CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
      PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND; and NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

NUNCOMAR AND WARREN HASTINGS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

NUR MAHAL, OR NUR JAHAN, Empress of India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

   ----------NUREMBERG: Start--------

NUREMBERG.

   "Nuremberg (Nürnberg) (Norimberga) is situated on the Regnitz,
   in the centre of Middle Franconia, about 90 miles northwest of
   Munich, to which it is second in size and importance, with a
   population of about 90,000. The name is said to be derived
   from the ancient inhabitants of Noricum, who migrated hither
   about the year 451, on being driven from their early
   settlements on the Danube by the Huns. Here they distinguished
   themselves by their skill in the working of metals, which
   abound in the neighbouring mountains. Before the eleventh
   century the history of Nuremberg is enveloped in a mist of
   impenetrable obscurity, from which it does not emerge until
   the time of the Emperor Henry III., who issued an edict, dated
   July 16, 1050, 'ad castrum Noremberc,' a proof that it was a
   place of considerable importance even at this early period.
   Nuremberg afterwards became the favourite residence of the
   Emperor Henry IV."

      _W. J. Wyatt,
      History of Prussia,
      volume 2, page 456._

{2391}

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1417.
   Office of Burgrave bought by the city.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1522-1524.
   The two diets, and their recesses in favor of the Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1525.
   Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1529.
   Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1532.
   Pacification of Charles V. with the Protestants.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1632.
   Welcome to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
   Siege by Wallenstein.
   Battle on the Fürth.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1806.
   Loss of municipal freedom.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

   ----------NUREMBERG: End--------

NUYS, The Siege of

   In 1474 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, ambitious to
   extend his dominions along the left bank of the Rhine, down to
   the Netherlands, took advantage of a quarrel between the
   citizens of Cologne and their prince-archbishop, to ally
   himself with the latter. The citizens of Cologne had appointed
   Herman of Hesse to be protector of the see, and he had
   fortified himself at Nuys. Charles, with 60,000 men, laid
   siege to the place, expecting to reduce it speedily. On the
   contrary, he wasted months in the fruitless endeavor, and
   became involved in the quarrel with the Swiss which brought
   about his downfall. The abortive siege of Nuys was the
   beginning of his disasters.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 2._

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

NYANTICS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NYSTAD, Peace of.
   See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

O.

O. S.
   Old Style.

      See GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

OAK BOYS.

      See. IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

OATES, Titus, and the "Popish Plot."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

OBELISKS, Egyptian.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

OBERPFALZ.

      See FRANCONIA: THE DUCHY AND THE CIRCLE.

OBES, The.

      See GERUSIA;
      and SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

OBLATES, The.

   "The Oblates, or Volunteers, established by St. Charles
   Borromeo in 1578, are a congregation of secular priests. …
   Their special aim was to give edification to the diocese, and
   to maintain the integrity of religion by the purity of their
   lives, by teaching, and by zealously discharging the duties
   committed to them by their bishop. These devoted ecclesiastics
   were much loved by St. Charles. … Strange to say, they do not
   seem to have been much appreciated elsewhere."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 456._

OBNUNTIATIO.

      See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.

OBOLLA.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

OBOLUS.

      See TALENT.

OBOTRITES, The.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

OBRENOVITCH DYNASTY, The.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

OC, Langue d'.

      See LANGUE D'OC.

OCANA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY BILL.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

OCEAN STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings of.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

OCHLOCRACY.

   This term was applied by the Greeks to an unlimited democracy,
   where rights were made conditional on no gradations of
   property, and where "provisions were made, not so much that
   only a proved and worthy citizen should be elected, as that
   everyone, without distinction, should be eligible for
   everything."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 1, chapter 3._

O'CONNELL, Daniel, The political agitations of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, to 1841-1848.

OCTAETËRIS, The.

      See METON, THE YEAR OF.

OCTAVIUS, Caius (afterwards called Augustus),
and the founding of the Roman Empire.

      See ROME: B. C. 44, after Cæsar's death,
      to B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

OCTOBER CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER.

ODAL.

      See ADEL.

ODELSRET.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY, TITLE V., ARTICLE 16.

ODELSTHING.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

ODENATHUS, The rule at Palmyra of.

      See PALMYRA: THE RISE AND THE FALL.

ODEUM AT ATHENS, The.

   "Pericles built, at the south-eastern base of the citadel, the
   Odeum, which differed from the neighbouring theatre in this,
   that the former was a covered space, in which musical
   performances took place before a less numerous public. The
   roof, shaped like a tent, was accounted an imitation of the
   gorgeous tent pitched of old by Xerxes upon the soil of
   Attica."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 3._

ODOACER, and the end of the line of Roman Emperors in the West.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476; and 488-526.

ODYSSEY, The.

      See HOMER.

ŒA.

      See LEPTIS MAGNA.

ŒCUMENICAL, OR ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL.

   A general or universal council of the entire Christian Church.
   Twenty such councils are recognized by the Roman Catholic
   Church.

      See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

{2392}

ŒKIST.

   The chief-founder of a Greek colonial city,—the leader of a
   colonizing settlement, —was so entitled.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 47._

OELAND, Naval battle of (1713).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

ŒNOË, Battle of.

   A battle of some importance in the Corinthian War, fought
   about B. C. 388, in the valley of the Charander, on the road
   from Argos to Mantinea. The Lacedæmonians were defeated by the
   Argives and Athenians.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 4._

ŒNOPHYTA, Battle of (B. C. 456).

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ŒNOTRIANS, The.

   "The territory [in Italy] known to Greek writers of the fifth
   century B. C. by the names of Œnotria on the coast of the
   Mediterranean, and Italia on that of the Gulfs of Tarentum and
   Squillace, included all that lies south of a line drawn across
   the breadth of the country, from the Gulf of Poseidonia
   (Pæstum) and the river Silarus on the Mediterranean Sea, to
   the north-west corner of the Gulf of Tarentum. It was bounded
   northwards by the Iapygians and Messapians, who occupied the
   Salentine peninsula and the country immediately adjoining to
   Tarentum, and by the Peuketians on the Ionic Gulf. … This
   Œnotrian or Pelasgian race were the population whom the Greek
   colonists found there on their arrival. They were known
   apparently under other names, such as the Sikels [Sicels],
   (mentioned even in the Odyssey, though their exact locality in
   that poem cannot be ascertained) the Italians, or Itali,
   properly so called—the Morgetes,—and the Chaones,—all of them
   names of tribes either cognate or subdivisional. The Chaones
   or Chaonians are also found, not only in Italy, but in Epirus,
   as one of the most considerable of the Epirotic tribes. … From
   hence, and from some other similarities of name, it has been
   imagined that Epirots, Œnotrians, Sikels, &c., were all names
   of cognate people, and all entitled to be comprehended under
   the generic appellation of Pelasgi. That they belonged to the
   same ethnical kindred there seems fair reason to presume, and
   also that in point of language, manners, and character, they
   were not very widely separated from the ruder branches of the
   Hellenic race. It would appear, too (as far as any judgment
   can be formed on a point essentially obscure) that the
   Œnotrians were ethnically akin to the primitive population of
   Rome and Latium on one side, as they were to the Epirots on
   the other; and that tribes of this race, comprising Sikels and
   Itali properly so called, as sections, had at one time
   occupied most of the territory from the left bank of the river
   Tiber southward between the Appenines and the Mediterranean."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

OESTERREICH.

      See AUSTRIA.

ŒTA.

      See THESSALY.

OFEN, Sieges and capture of (1684-1686).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

OFFA, King of Mercia, A. D. 758-794.

OFFA'S DYKE.

   An earthen rampart which King Offa, of Mercia, in the eighth
   century, built from the mouth of the Wye to the mouth of the
   Tee, to divide his kingdom from Wales and protect it from
   Welsh incursions. A few remains of it are still to be seen.

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain._

OGALALAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

OGAM.

      See OGHAM.

OGDEN TRACT, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

OGHAM INSCRIPTIONS.

   "In the south and south-western counties of Ireland are to be
   found, in considerable numbers, a class of inscribed
   monuments, to which the attention of Irish archæologists has
   been from time to time directed, but with comparatively little
   result. … They [the inscriptions] are found engraved on pillar
   stones in that archaic character known to Irish philologists
   as the Ogham, properly pronounced Oum, and in an ancient
   dialect of the Gaedhelic (Gaelic). These monuments are almost
   exclusively found in the counties of Kerry, Cork, and
   Waterford, numbering, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
   147; the rest of Ireland supplies 13. … Again it is worthy of
   remark, that while 29 Irish counties cannot boast of an Ogham
   monument, they have been found in England, Wales, and
   Scotland. In Devonshire, at Fardel, a stone has been
   discovered bearing not only a fine and well-preserved Ogham
   inscription, but also one in Romano-British letters. It is now
   deposited in the British Museum. … The Ogham letters, as found
   on Megalithic monuments, are formed by certain combinations of
   a simple short line, placed in reference to one continuous
   line, called the fleasg, or stem line; these combinations
   range from one to five, and their values depend upon their
   being placed above, across, or below the stem line; there are
   five consonants above, five consonants below, and five
   consonants across the line, two of which, NG and ST are
   double, and scarcely ever used. The vowels are represented by
   oval dots, or very short lines across the stem line. … The
   characters in general use on the monuments are 18 in number. …
   It may be expected from me that I should offer some conjecture
   as to the probable age of this mode of writing. This, I
   honestly acknowledge, I am unable to do, even approximately. …
   I am however decided in one view, and it is this, that the
   Ogham was introduced into Ireland long anterior to
   Christianity, by a powerful colony who landed on the
   south-west coast, who spread themselves along the southern and
   round the eastern shores, who ultimately conquered or settled
   the whole island, imposing their language upon the aborigines,
   if such preceded them."

      _R. R. Brash,
      Trans. Int. Cong. of Prehistoric Archæology, 1868._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Brash,
      Ogam Inscribed Monuments._

OGLETHORPE'S GEORGIA COLONY.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

OGULNIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 300.

OGYGIA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

   ----------OHIO: Start--------

OHIO:
   The Name.

   "The words Ohio, Ontario, and Onontio (or Yonnondio)—which
   should properly be pronounced as if written 'Oheeyo,'
   'Ontareeyo,' and 'Ononteeyo'—are commonly rendered 'Beautiful
   River,' 'Beautiful Lake,' 'Beautiful Mountain.' This,
   doubtless, is the meaning which each of the words conveys to
   an Iroquois of the present day, unless he belongs to the
   Tuscarora tribe. But there can be no doubt that the
   termination 'īo' (otherwise written 'iyo,' 'iio,' 'eeyo,'
   etc.) had originally the sense, not of 'beautiful,' but of
   'great.' … Ontario is derived from the Huron 'yontare,' or
   'ontare,' lake (Iroquois, 'oniatare'), with this termination.
   … Ohio, in like manner, is derived, as M. Cuoq in the valuable
   notes to his Lexicon (p. 159) informs us, from the obsolete
   'ohia,' river, now only used in the compound form 'ohionha.'"

      _H. Hale,
      The Iroquois Book of Rites,
      appendix, note B._

{2393}

OHIO: (Valley):
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      ALLEGHANS, DELAWARES, SHAWANESE.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1700-1735.
   The beginnings of French Occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754.
   The first movements of the struggle
   of French and English for possession.

   "The close of King George's War was marked by an extraordinary
   development of interest in the Western country. The
   Pennsylvanians and Virginians had worked their way well up to
   the eastern foot-hills of the last range of mountains
   separating them from the interior. Even the Connecticut men
   were ready to overleap the province of New York and take
   possession of the Susquehanna. The time for the English
   colonists to attempt the Great Mountains in force had been
   long in coming, but it had plainly arrived. In 1748 the
   Ingles-Draper settlement, the first regular settlement of
   English-speaking men on the Western waters, was made at
   'Draper's Meadow,' on the New River, a branch of the Kanawha.
   The same year Dr. Thomas Walker, accompanied by a number of
   Virginia gentlemen and a party of hunters, made their way by
   Southwestern Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee. … The same
   year the Ohio company, consisting of thirteen prominent
   Virginians and Marylanders, and one London merchant, was
   formed. Its avowed objects were to speculate in Western lands,
   and to carry on trade on an extensive scale with the Indians.
   It does not appear to have contemplated the settlement of a
   new colony. The company obtained from the crown a conditional
   grant of 500,000 acres of land in the Ohio Valley, to be
   located mainly between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers, and
   it ordered large shipments of goods for the Indian trade from
   London. … In 1750 the company sent Christopher Gist, a veteran
   woodsman and trader living on the Yadkin, down the northern
   side of the Ohio, with instructions, as Mr. Bancroft
   summarizes them, 'to examine the Western country as far as the
   Falls of the Ohio; to look for a large tract of good level
   land; to mark the passes in the mountains; to trace the
   courses of the rivers; to count the falls; to observe the
   strength of the Indian nations.' Under these instructions,
   Gist made the first English exploration of Southern Ohio of
   which we have any report. The next year he made a similar
   exploration of the country south of the Ohio, as far as the
   Great Kanawha. … Gist's reports of his explorations added to
   the growing interest in the over-mountain country. At that
   time the Ohio Valley was waste and unoccupied, save by the
   savages, but adventurous traders, mostly Scotch-Irish, and
   commonly men of reckless character and loose morals, made
   trading excursions as far as the River Miami. The Indian town
   of Pickawillany, on the upper waters of that stream, became a
   great centre of English trade and influence. Another evidence
   of the growing interest in the West is the fact that the
   colonial authorities, in every direction, were seeking to
   obtain Indian titles to the Western lands, and to bind the
   Indians to the English by treaties. The Iroquois had long
   claimed, by right of conquest, the country from the Cumberland
   Mountains to the Lower Lakes and the Mississippi, and for many
   years the authorities of New York had been steadily seeking to
   gain a firm treaty-hold of that country. In 1684, the
   Iroquois, at Albany, placed themselves under the protection of
   King Charles and the Duke of York [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1684];
   in 1726, they conveyed all their lands in trust to England
   [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1726], to be protected and defended by
   his Majesty to and for the use of the grantors and their
   heirs, which was an acknowledgment by the Indians of what the
   French had acknowledged thirteen years before at Utrecht. In
   1744, the very year that King George's War began, the deputies
   of the Iroquois at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirmed to
   Maryland the lands within that province, and made to Virginia
   a deed that covered the whole West as effectually as the
   Virginian interpretation of the charter of 1609 [see VIRGINIA:
   A. D. 1744]. … This treaty is of the greatest importance in
   subsequent history; it is the starting-point of later
   negotiations with the Indians concerning Western lands. It
   gave the English their first real treaty-hold upon the West;
   and it stands in all the statements of the English claim to
   the Western country, side by side with the Cabot voyages. …
   There was, indeed, no small amount of dissension among the
   colonies, and it must not be supposed that they were all
   working together to effect a common purpose, The royal
   governors could not agree. There were bitter dissensions
   between governors and assemblies. Colony was jealous of
   colony. … Fortunately, the cause of England and the colonies
   was not abandoned to politicians. The time had come for the
   Anglo-Saxon column, that had been so long in reaching them, to
   pass the Endless Mountains; and the logic of events swept
   everything into the Westward current. In the years following
   the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle the French were not idle.
   Galissonière, the governor of Canada, thoroughly comprehended
   what was at stake. In 1749 he sent Cèloron de Bienville into
   the Ohio Valley, with a suitable escort of whites and savages,
   to take formal possession of the valley in the name of the
   King of France, to propitiate the Indians, and in all ways
   short of actual warfare to thwart the English plans. Bienville
   crossed the portage from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, the
   easternmost of the portages from the Lakes to the southern
   streams ever used by the French, and made his way by the
   Alleghany River and the Ohio as far as the Miami, and returned
   by the Maumee and Lake Erie to Montreal. His report to the
   governor was anything but reassuring. He found the English
   traders swarming in the valley, and the Indians generally well
   disposed to the English. Nor did French interests improve the
   two or three succeeding years. The Marquis Duquesne, who
   succeeded Galissonière, soon discovered the drift of events.
   He saw the necessity of action; he was clothed with power to
   act, and he was a man of action, And so, early in the year
   1753, while the English governors and assemblies were still
   hesitating and disputing, he sent a strong force by Lake
   Ontario and Niagara to seize and hold the northeastern
   branches of the Ohio. This was a master stroke: unless
   recalled, it would lead to war; and Duquesne was not the man
   to recall it.
{2394}
   This force, passing over the portage between Presque Isle and
   French Creek, constructed Forts Le Bœuf and Venango, the
   second at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany
   River."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      chapter 2._

      _B. Fernow
      The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.

      _O. H. Marshall,
      De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749
      (Historical Writings, pages 237-274)._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 1-10._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1754.
   The opening battle.
   Washington's first campaign.

   The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put
   them during high water in easy communication by boat with the
   Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and
   where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition
   would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened
   the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all
   he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of
   his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn
   Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor
   of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of
   December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of
   Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort.
   The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was
   George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia
   militia. Their business was to inform the French commander
   that he was building forts on English territory, and that he
   would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington
   tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his
   reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while
   Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec.
   It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached
   Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.
   The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the
   Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to
   build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly,
   forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted
   £10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a
   committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting
   the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in
   Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate
   helper which it might, from its position, have become.
   Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains
   and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger
   French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the
   English retired. The French immediately began the erection of
   Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of
   Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with
   tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to
   support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel,
   with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a
   portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's
   Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men
   to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had
   been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort,
   marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who,
   from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called
   Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip
   to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked
   two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party
   were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join
   Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and
   found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader,
   Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were
   taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for
   English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne,
   and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to
   retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's
   attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the
   crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence
   on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville
   had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was
   intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise,
   this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The
   English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for
   reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some
   entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from
   Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and
   Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found
   himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an
   independent company from South Carolina. Washington again
   advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he
   sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of
   regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of
   the French, the English leader again fell back to Great
   Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of
   July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was
   now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy
   day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the
   combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's
   accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched
   out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his
   weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their
   backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now
   waved."

      _J. Winsor,
      The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapters 7-12._

      _H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 10-62._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755.
   Braddock's defeat.
   The French possess the West and
   devastate the English frontiers.

   "Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous
   measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A
   campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio,
   and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory.
   The execution of this great design was intrusted to General
   Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all
   resistance.
{2395}
   Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. …
   He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it
   was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a
   sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but
   he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the
   pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than
   strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had
   found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe.
   The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not
   deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such
   accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his
   staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat,
   gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at
   Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such
   reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march.
   Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great
   centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had
   been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by
   the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and
   Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form
   the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the
   circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt
   that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself
   before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his
   shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly
   take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long
   slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be
   cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians.
   Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no
   further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and
   carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was
   required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly
   forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a
   day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill,
   to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the
   20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was
   near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was
   intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to
   assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused
   to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy
   might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet
   wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both
   sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A
   murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not
   unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves
   behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock,
   clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of
   battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and
   lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot
   down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted;
   then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock,
   vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off
   the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never
   got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the
   established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he
   murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke
   again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed
   and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about
   one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England
   and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."

      _R. Mackenzie,
      America: a history,
      book 2, chapter 3._

   "The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling.
   The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. …
   From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into
   the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay
   exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red
   man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon
   fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in
   the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put
   the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless
   settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he
   writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in
   the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far,
   we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the
   Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex.
   The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day
   of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went
   on."

      _T. J. Chapman,
      The French in the Allegheny Valley,
      pages 71-73._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapters 7 and 10._

      _W. Sargent,
      History of Braddock's Expedition
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5)._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 64-133._

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758.
   Retirement of the French.
   Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
   Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D; 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768.
   Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.
   The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782.
   The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.

      See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
   The territorial claims of Virginia.
   The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.

   "On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had
   planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west
   of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the
   war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both
   reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until
   they did so there could be within its borders no chance of
   race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike,
   the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the
   tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision
   was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had
   wronged one another for a generation, and their interests
   were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the
   greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by
   Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore.
{2396}
   … The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke
   out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known
   by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her
   charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South
   Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously
   granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay
   within these lines, provided she could win it from the
   Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been
   made with the like large liberality, and it was found that
   they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence
   was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast,
   where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of
   Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and
   indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the
   south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect
   was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing
   about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia.
   The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania,
   especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and,
   in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein.
   Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian
   claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians
   not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land,
   but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the
   Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it
   was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in
   Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and
   lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from
   Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so
   far from being identical that they were usually diametrically
   opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace
   with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's
   campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty
   of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the
   tendency of the whites to encroach on the great
   hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the
   Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort
   Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while
   it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the
   northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly
   have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what
   they chose with any land that could be reached by their war
   parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own
   against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually
   more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so
   frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. …
   The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the
   outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad,
   and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the
   various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring
   of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The
   borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not
   inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell
   on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the
   country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which
   was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and
   authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland
   borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by
   ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were
   engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the
   camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers
   were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan
   was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the
   bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the
   outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of
   broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was
   greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and
   frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having;
   they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved
   him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to
   his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward
   Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling
   a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were
   preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians,
   and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned
   their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people
   did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of
   April a small party of men, women, and children, including
   almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river
   to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type],
   as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum
   to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The
   whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly
   drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated
   criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At
   once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded
   themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres,
   attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior.
   … Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable
   horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only
   till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the
   summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led
   personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio,
   accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division,
   composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew
   Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there,
   at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the
   Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a
   great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war.
   This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and
   sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most
   closely contested of any battle ever fought with the
   northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over
   a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in
   numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the
   northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the
   Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the
   settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West.
   Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely
   that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have
   found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany
   Mountains."
{2397}
   For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs
   Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent,
   Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a
   messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this
   messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he
   suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its
   place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of
   which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down
   in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of
   this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but
   apparently with no good ground.

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapters 8-9.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11941_

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      chapter 5._

      _J. G. M. Ramsey,
      Annals of Tennessee,
      page 112._

      _V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 9._

      _J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke),
      The Rear-guard of the Revolution,
      chapter 4._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia
   General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky
   District of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786.
   Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and
   Connecticut.
   Their cession to the United States,
   except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington,
   Saratoga and Pelisipia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788.
   The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers
   and their settlement at Marietta.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796.
   Western Reserve of Connecticut.
   Founding of Cleveland.

   In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western
   territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED
   STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D.
   1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract
   "bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the
   international line, east by the western boundary of
   Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line
   parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120
   miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the
   Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This
   territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came
   to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western
   Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly
   quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns
   who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into
   the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or
   their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their
   heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the
   western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. …
   The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the
   aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the
   soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as
   'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.'
   In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in
   1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the
   Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In
   May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part
   of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract
   was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and
   the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more
   than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds
   of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of
   the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some
   to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying
   their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the
   greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head.
   September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and
   association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land
   Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is
   called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the
   company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent,
   General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the
   Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always
   been white men on the site of the city that takes its name
   from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city
   was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its
   first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a
   heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 19, with foot-notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Whittlesey,
      Early History of Cleveland,
      page 145, and after._

      _H. Rice,
      Pioneers of the Western Reserve,
      chapters 6-7._

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapters 7-8._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1788.
   The founding of Cincinnati.

      See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian war.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
   and Wayne's decisive victory.
   The Greenville Treaty.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802.
   Organized as a separate Territory
   and admitted to the Union as a State.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit.
   Winchester's defeat.
   Perry's naval victory.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

OHIO: A. D. 1835.
   Settlement of Boundary dispute with Michigan.

      See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1836.

OHIO: A. D. 1863.
   John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

   ----------OHIO: End--------

OHOD, Battle of.

   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST; A. D. 609-632.

OJIBWAS, OR CHIPPEWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAS;
      also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

OKLAHOMA, The opening of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

OL., OR OLYMP.

      See OLYMPIADS.

OLAF II.,
   King of Denmark, A. D. 1086-1095.

   Olaf III., King of Denmark, 1376-

{2398}

   1387; and VII. of Norway, 1380-1387.

   Olaf III. (Tryggveson), King of Norway, 995-1000.

   Olaf IV. (called The Saint), King of Norway, 1000-1030.

   Olaf V., King of Norway, 1069-1093.

   Olaf VI., King of Norway, 1103-1116.

OLBIA.

      See BORYSTHENES.

OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

OLD COLONY, The.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

OLD DOMINION, The.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.

OLD IRONSIDES.

   This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most
   famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with
   Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; and 1814.

OLD LEAGUE OF HIGH GERMANY, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN, The.

      See ASSASSINS.

OLD POINT COMFORT: Origin of its Name.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

   ----------OLD SARUM: Start--------

OLD SARUM:
   Origin.

      See SORBIODUNUM.

OLD SARUM:
   A Rotten Borough.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

   ----------OLD SARUM: End--------

OLD SOUTH CHURCH, The founding of the.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

OLD STYLE.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

OLDENBURG: The duchy annexed to France by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

OLERON, The Laws of.

   "The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island
   adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to
   Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had
   occasion to mention them, have been able to find any
   contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory
   warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of
   forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c.
   copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more
   immediately from those of Barcelona."

      _D. Macpherson,
      Annals of Commerce,
      volume 1, page 358._

OLIGARCHY.

      See ARISTOCRACY.

OLISIPO.

   The ancient name of Lisbon.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OLIVA, Treaty of (1660).

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

OLIVETANS, The.

   "The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount
   Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a
   distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in
   gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In
   company with a few companions, he established himself in a
   solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation
   of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the
   latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149._

OLLAMHS.

   The Bards (see FILI) of the ancient Irish.

OLMUTZ, Abortive siege of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

OLNEY, Treaty of.

   A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut,
   dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The
   conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.

OLPÆ, Battle of.

   A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the
   Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the
   shore of the Ambracian gulf.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2._

OLUSTEE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

OLYBRIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 472.

OLYMPIA, Battle of (B. C. 365).

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

OLYMPIADS, The Era of the.

   "The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having
   originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth
   year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and
   celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted
   in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and
   consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of
   Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the
   first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the
   olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer
   solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be
   understood that it corresponds only with the six last months
   of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was
   luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which
   varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted
   of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently
   contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The
   computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in
   the year of Christ 440."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      pages 1-2._

OLYMPIC GAMES.

   "The character of a national institution, which the
   Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more
   truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though
   celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any
   tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their
   Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that
   which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the
   Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and,
   from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name
   of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which
   intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The
   origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity,
   partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the
   Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though,
   however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to
   magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little
   attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times,
   Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly
   probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which
   afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated
   in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as
   a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public
   buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for
   two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never
   completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her
   rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of
   the games.
{2399}
   … It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first
   either consulted or expected to take any share in the
   festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain
   tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it
   gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till
   it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was
   proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop
   to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period
   sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety.
   During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course
   regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it
   without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the
   festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only
   from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies
   in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not
   brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private
   interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations
   which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity,
   and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The
   immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various
   trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were
   multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying
   bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses
   and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and
   boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were
   combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The
   equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed
   chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and
   princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations
   of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the
   poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in
   public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable
   prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal;
   but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves
   of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only
   meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly
   the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a
   multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of
   the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world.
   … The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called
   at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the
   victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by
   themselves or their families, or at the expense of their
   fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful
   event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a
   triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were
   commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his
   country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on
   such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it
   happened that sports, not essentially different from those of
   our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture,
   and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. …
   Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement,
   and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games
   might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar
   exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of
   a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and
   humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they
   could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a
   Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous
   ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better
   than barbarous shows."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 10._

OLYMPIUM AT ATHENS, The.

   The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun
   at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican
   Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated
   with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched
   until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman
   architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still
   unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and
   completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations
   were laid.

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      volume 1, appendix 10._

OLYMPUS.

   The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of
   mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which
   impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which
   seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that
   terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and
   forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its
   elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and
   all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar
   grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in
   Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and
   in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the
   island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a
   range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.

      See THESSALY, and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

   ----------OLYNTHUS: Start--------

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 383-379.
   The Confederacy overthrown by Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 351-348.
   War with Philip of Macedon.
   Destruction of the city.

      See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

   ----------OLYNTHUS: End--------

OMAGUAS, The.

      See EL DORADO.

OMAHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY,
      and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OMAR I.,
   Caliph, A. D. 634-643.

   Omar II., Caliph, 717-720.

OMER, OR GOMER, The.

      See EPHAH.

OMMIADES,
OMEYYADES, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
      A. D. 661; 680; 715-750, and 756-1031.

OMNIBUS BILL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

ON.

   "A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000
   years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of
   the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing
   else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned
   university which were the former glories of the place. … The
   university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished
   when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city
   of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of
   the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule,
   that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician
   studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An,
   the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 9._

{2400}

   The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was
   another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but
   Hermonthis by the Greeks.

ONEIDAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

O'NEILS, The wars and the flight of the.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603;
      and 1607-1611.

ONONDAGAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

ONTARIO:
   The Name.

      See OHIO: THE NAME.

ONTARIO, Lake, The Discovery of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

ONTARIO, The province.

   The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada,
   received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the
   Dominion of Canada was formed.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1876.

OODEYPOOR.

      See RAJPOOTS.

OPEQUAN CREEK, OR WINCHESTER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

OPHIR, Land of.

   The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the
   Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent
   historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion
   reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the
   true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the
   mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of
   Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original
   Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern
   Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.

OPIUM WAR, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

   ----------OPORTO: Start--------

OPORTO: Early history.
   Its name given to Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OPORTO: A. D. 1832.
   Siege by Dom Miguel.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.

   ----------OPORTO: End--------

OPPIAN LAW, The.

   A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century,
   B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or
   more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the
   use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or
   town. It was repealed B. C. 194.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 16._

OPPIDUM.

   Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place,
   was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking
   of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a
   "stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where
   they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an
   invasion."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 19, note E (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar,
      Gallic War,
      book 5, chapter 21._

OPTIMATES.

   "New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to
   say when they were first used. We may probably refer the
   origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One
   party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of
   the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by
   the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it
   to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were
   the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue,
   and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their
   interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

   "Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there
   were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable
   without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from
   his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of
   leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for
   individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the
   Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the
   most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos,
   the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most
   important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near
   Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic
   office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the
   Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water:
   here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of
   Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of
   soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes
   were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the
   Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the
   oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated
   seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a
   series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which
   this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the
   lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles,
   but of the whole nation. … With all the more important
   sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial
   administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd
   management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by
   advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual
   revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they
   were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons
   as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as
   wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the
   sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of
   the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The
   oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of
   public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the
   authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of
   mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of
   personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as
   through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was
   possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an
   influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of
   colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and
   with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The
   oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not
   only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they
   were also its memory."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 4._

{2401}

   "The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by
   some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of
   such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic
   region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might
   be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly
   real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the
   Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an
   exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed
   the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of
   the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary
   was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous
   temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having
   happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be
   eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod,
   placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      chapter 2, lecture 9._

   ----------ORAN: Start--------

ORAN: A. D. 1505.
   Conquest by Cardinal Ximenes.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

ORAN: A. D. 1563.
   Siege, and repulse of the Moors.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565:

   ----------ORAN: End--------

ORANGE, The Prince of:
   Assassination.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584, and 1584-1585.

ORANGE, The Principality.

   "The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of
   which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length
   and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering
   upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone;
   and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous
   Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end
   of the 9th century. …"

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032; and 1032.

   "In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of
   one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction,
   sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great
   Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of
   the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald
   IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to
   Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in
   marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux.
   These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary,
   with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386;
   and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the
   brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services
   rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more
   particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind
   him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had
   the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one
   only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French
   court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby
   the principality passed to that house which was made most
   illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent,
   Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of
   Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the
   principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of
   Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

   On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited
   to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti;
   but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under
   the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession
   of the domain.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

      _J. Breval,
      History of the House of Nassau._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Orange
      (Historical Essays, volume 4)._

      See, also, NASSAU.

ORANGE, The town: Roman origin.

      See ARAUSIO.

ORANGE FREE STATE.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

ORANGE SOCIETY, The formation of the.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

ORARIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

ORATIONES, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

ORATORY, Congregation of the.

      See CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.

ORBITELLO, Siege of (1646).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

ORCHA, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ORCHAN, Ottoman Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1325-1359.

ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

   "In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was
   designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to
   limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and
   as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the
   consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much
   might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. …
   The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink.
   By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation
   was extended over the whole of Italy."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4)._

ORCHOMENOS.

      See MINYI, THE.

ORCHOMENOS, Battle of (B. C. 85).

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

ORCYNIAN FOREST, The.

      See HERCYNIAN.

ORDAINERS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDEAL, The.

   "During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine
   interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost
   any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances,
   could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early
   as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple
   purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St.
   Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the
   accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger,
   and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had
   sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial
   refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the
   evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut
   material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the
   principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained
   were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or
   through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of
   cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the
   cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in
   cases of murder.
{2402}
   Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous
   interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some
   depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance;
   while others, again, derived their power from the influence
   exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied
   with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling
   water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,'
   'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the
   application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a
   mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling
   point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find
   a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter
   portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in
   trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the
   elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the
   triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ
   frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a
   miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of
   things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the
   superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive
   into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."

      _H. C. Lea,
      Superstition and Force,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1198-1199.

ORDERS, Monastic.

      See
      AUSTIN CANONS;
      BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
      CAPUCHINS;
      CARMELITE FRIARS;
      CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
      CISTERCIAN ORDER;
      CLAIRVAUX;
      CLUGNY;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      RECOLLECTS;
      SERVITES;
      THEATINES;
      TRAPPISTS.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL, Blockade by British.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; and
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.

      See KNIGHTHOOD.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ORDINANCES OF 1311.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDOÑO I.,
   King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 850-866.

   Ordoño II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 914-923.

   Ordoño III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 950-955.

ORDOVICES, The.
   One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

   ----------OREGON: Start--------

OREGON:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY,
      and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

OREGON: A. D: 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

OREGON: A. D. 1805.
   Lewis and Clark's exploring expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
   The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.

   "The territory along the Pacific coast lying between
   California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it
   was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for
   some time between the United States and Great Britain. After
   some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the
   line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's
   possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California
   gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d
   parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading
   posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically
   asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an
   absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of
   hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted
   that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian
   possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the
   British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the
   joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as
   neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at
   the time at all understood the value of the possession, then
   entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had
   remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built
   great trading stations, and used the whole country in the
   interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of
   some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this
   line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even
   prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of
   the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. …
   The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge
   caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the
   frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their
   children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles
   on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great
   canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of
   the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound
   their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored
   by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every
   kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of
   hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great
   water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia.
   When American settlers were once in actual possession of the
   disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great
   Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration
   did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any
   aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land,
   as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given
   England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the
   other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if
   by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were
   too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions.
   Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the
   settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and
   additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by
   a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful
   attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the
   Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the
   termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be
   given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was
   not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men
   went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with
   the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the
   British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the
   British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the
   Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four
   forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to
   insist upon this campaign boundary.
{2403}
   To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent;
   it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things
   should be kept as they were until a fairly large American
   population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus
   put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else.
   Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however
   well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the
   timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally
   fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a
   quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like
   England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try
   for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's
   cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference,
   had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in
   the United States, that they in turn were delighted …;
   accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the
   Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered
   compromise."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      Life of Thomas H. Benton,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159._

      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other countries (edition of 1889),
      page 438._

      _W. Barrows,
      Oregon._

OREGON: A. D. 1859.
   Admission into the Union, with a constitution
   excluding free people of color.

   "The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to
   the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that
   afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a
   constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though
   the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly
   imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of
   the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were
   seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of
   color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable
   that the reason why they excluded slavery from the
   constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for
   admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens
   reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the
   admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by
   Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting
   against its admission with a constitution so discriminating
   against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but
   the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103
   in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapter 49._

   ----------OREGON: End--------

OREJONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ORELLANA, and his discovery of the Amazons River (1541).

      See AMAZONS RIVER.

ORESTÆ, The.

      See MACEDONIA.

ORIENTAL CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
      ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORIFLAMME, The.

   "The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St.
   Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as
   'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any
   military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown
   effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was
   supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis
   the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities,
   on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square
   Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower
   edge cut into three swallow-tails."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 3, foot-note._

   "The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed
   on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a
   gilt spear."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 5, foot-note._

ORIK, OR OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

ORISKANY, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

ORKNEYS: 8-14th Centuries.
   The Norse Jarls.

      See NORMANS: 8-9TH CENTURIES; and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

ORLEANISTS.

      See LEGITIMISTS.

ORLEANS, The Duke of: Regency.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.

   ----------ORLEANS, The House of: Start--------

ORLEANS, The House of:
   Origin.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ORLEANS, The House of: A. D. 1447.
   Origin of claims to the duchy of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

   ----------ORLEANS, The House of: End--------

   ----------ORLEANS, The City: Start--------

ORLEANS, The City:
   Origin and name.

   "The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards,
   protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul,
   and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point
   by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had
   taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror
   of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      See, also, GENABUM.

ORLEANS, The City:
   Early history.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 451.
   Siege by Attila.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 511-752.
   A Merovingian capital.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1429.
   Deliverance by Joan of Arc.

   In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford,
   having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were
   masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The
   city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was
   still held by the French, and its reduction was determined
   upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of
   vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the
   hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc,
   known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the
   confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They
   raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in
   France from that day.

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles,
      book 2, chapters 52-60._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.
   Recovered by the French.
   Again lost.
   Repeated battles.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1870-1871.

   ----------ORLEANS, The City: End--------

ORLEANS, The Territory of.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812; and 1812.

ORMÉE OF BORDEAUX, The.

      See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

{2404}

OROPUS, Naval Battle at.

   The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans
   in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which
   they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous
   in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 8, section 95._

ORPHANS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

ORSINI, OR URSINI, The.

      See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

ORTHAGORIDÆ, The.

      See SICYON.

ORTHES, Battle of (1814).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ORTHODOX, OR GREEK CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
      also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
      and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORTOSPANA.

   The ancient name of the city of Cabul.

ORTYGIA.

      See SYRACUSE.

OSAGES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OSCANS, The.

   "The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread
   over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium
   belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave
   name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the
   Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a
   late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain
   which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section 2_.

      See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

OSCAR I.,
   King of Sweden, A. D. 1844-1859.

   Oscar II., King of Sweden, 1872-.

OSI, The.

      See ARAVISCI; also, GOTHINI.

OSISMI, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

OSMAN.
OSMANLI.

      See OTHMAN.

OSMANLIS.

      See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

OSNABRÜCK: A. D. 1644-1648.
   Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

OSRHOËNE,
OSROËNE.

   A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of
   Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears
   to have acquired its name and some little importance during
   the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne
   who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at
   Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman
   province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is
   believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the
   first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was
   a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under
   dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted
   for its schools of theology.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 8 and 47._

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World,
      volume 3 (American edition),
      page 151._

OSSA AND PELION.

      See THESSALY.

   ----------OSTEND: Start--------

OSTEND: A. D. 1602-1604.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

OSTEND: A. D. 1706.
   Besieged and reduced by the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OSTEND: A. D. 1722-1731.
   The obnoxious Company.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and 1726-1731.

OSTEND: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Taken by the French, and restored.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

   ----------OSTEND: End--------

OSTEND MANIFESTO, The.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

OSTIA.

   Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber,
   was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent
   existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the
   maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be
   impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and
   artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius,
   Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They
   were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In
   the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially
   restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The
   ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two
   miles from the sea shore.

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14._

OSTMEN.

      See NORMANS: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

OSTRACH, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799.(AUGUST-APRIL).

OSTRACISM.

   "The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons
   who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an
   end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and
   thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For
   this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under
   his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by
   potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were
   themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote
   remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For
   such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary
   discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was
   required. The honour and property of the exile remained
   untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a
   term of ten years."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in
   the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the
   people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not.
   Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose
   the proposal. The former they could only do by designating
   particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom,
   or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition
   to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and
   anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the
   danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the
   people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a
   day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day
   the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was
   erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is
   probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ.
   Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person
   he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. …
   At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the
   hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the
   nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted
   one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least
   six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within
   ten days at latest."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece,
      part 3, chapter 3._

{2405}

OSTROGOTHS.

      See GOTHS.

OSTROLENKA, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

OSTROVNO, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

OSWALD, King of Northumbria, A. D. 635-642.

   ----------OSWEGO: Start--------

OSWEGO: A. D. 1722.
   Fort built by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1755.
   English position strengthened.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

OSWEGO: A. D. 1756.
   The three forts taken by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1759.
   Reoccupied by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796.
   Retained by the English after peace with the United States.
   Final surrender.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1783-1796; and 1794-1795.

   ----------OSWEGO: End--------

OSWI, King of Northumbria, A. D. 655-670.

OTADENI,
OTTEDENI, The.

   One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the
   Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were
   the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the
   "Attacotti."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume l._

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

OTCHAKOF, Siege of (1737).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

OTFORD, Battle of.

   Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the
   Danish claimant of the English crown.

OTHMAN, Caliph, A. D. 643-655.

   Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or
   Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.

   Othman II., Turkish Sultan, 1618-1622.

   Othman III., Turkish Sultan, 1754-1757.

OTHO,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

   Otho (of Bavaria), King of Hungary, 1305-1307.

   Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973;
   King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.

   Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany),
   King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.

   Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002;
   King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.

   Otho IV., King of Germany, 1208-1212; Emperor, 1209-1212.

OTHRYS.

      See THESSALY.

OTIS, James, The speech of, against Writs of Assistance.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

OTOES,
OTTOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OTOMIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OTOMIS.

OTRANTO: Taken by the Turks (1480).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

OTTAWA, Canada:
   The founding of the City.

   "In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the
   Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful
   city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers,
   came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to
   connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great
   lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route
   up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship
   canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made
   his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by
   eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River.
   'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the
   centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a
   large town."

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada,
      page 168._

OTTAWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS;
      also PONTIAC'S WAR.

OTTERBURN, Battle of.

   This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a
   small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas
   and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry
   Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack
   on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly
   beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell
   mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of
   knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of
   the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3,
   chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the
   famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the
   Cheviot."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

OTTIMATI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

OTTO.

      See OTHO.

OTTOCAR,
OTOKAR,
   King of Bohemia, A. D. 1253-1278.

OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

      See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

OTUMBA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.

OTZAKOF:
   Storming, capture, and massacre of inhabitants
   by the Russians (1788).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

OUAR KHOUNI, The.

      See AVARS.

   ----------OUDE: Start--------

OUDE, OR OUDH.

   "Before the British settler had established himself on the
   peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire.
   When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion
   of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of
   the servant was turned against the master, and little by
   little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding
   only an official, though an hereditary title, he still
   acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had
   shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of
   Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of
   British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not
   necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable
   in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in
   the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the
   Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money.
{2406}
   But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of
   soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient
   for all the external and internal requirements of the State;
   and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military
   skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British
   battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system,
   one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we
   established a Double Government of the worst kind. The
   Political and Military government was in the hands of the
   Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories
   still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in
   and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern
   Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. …
   Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse
   disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part
   of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it
   was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain.
   Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John
   Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of
   a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord
   Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was
   a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate
   vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The
   condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because
   its government was bad and its people were wretched, but
   because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to
   our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and
   destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for
   good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it
   was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and
   irregularly paid native troops in the service of the
   Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him
   and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that
   British troops should occupy their place. … The additional
   burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a
   million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources
   had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy,
   declared his inability to meet any further demands on his
   treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it
   was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he
   could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be
   ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of
   the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding
   the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British
   troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen
   submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty
   was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half
   of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue,
   passed under the administration of the British Government.
   Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two
   Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his
   reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be
   carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the
   prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the
   lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at
   the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity
   to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.'
   But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of
   these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our
   British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of
   our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for
   themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from
   worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one
   Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but
   still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness,
   and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were,
   doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that
   they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of
   war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better
   still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the
   Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of
   Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed
   by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war,
   Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his
   great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time;
   and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to
   bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times
   were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed
   at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of
   country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by
   the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer,
   to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded
   and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British
   favour and affection."

      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War in India,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of
   Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then
   remaining territories, such a system of administration as
   should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to
   the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and
   always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel
   of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had
   been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate
   with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt
   that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct.
   The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar
   beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the
   'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true
   picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges
   against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. …
   Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop
   Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and
   with their ears full of the current English talk about its
   miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a
   manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule,
   however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy,
   complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder
   and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and
   in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the
   middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow"
   between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part
   with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel
   Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow
   were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were
   openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new
   disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems.
{2407}
   The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high
   repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were
   ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and
   riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore.
   For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue
   Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield
   under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor,
   Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to
   have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this
   step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment
   of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been
   warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had
   declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his
   country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to
   be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the
   Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February,
   1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of
   Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his
   palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles
   of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants,
   yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by
   officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of
   surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"

      _J. M. Ludlow,
      British India,
      part 2, lecture 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      The Marquess of Dalhousie,
      chapter 8._

      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapter 26._

OUDE: A. D. 1763-1765.
   English war with the Nawab.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

   ----------OUDE: End--------

OUDE, The Begums of, and Warren Hastings.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

   ----------OUDENARDE: Start--------

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1582.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1659.
   Taken by the French and restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1679.
   Restored to Spain.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1706.
   Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1708.
   Marlborough's victory.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Taken by the French, and restored.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.

   ----------OUDENARDE: End--------

OUDH.

      See OUDE.

OUIARS,
OUIGOURS, The.

      See AVARS.

OUMAS,
HUMAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKOGEAN FAMILY.

OUR LADY OF MONTESA, The Order of.

   This was an order of knighthood founded by King Jayme II., of
   Aragon, in 1317.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      volume 4, page 238 (American edition)._

OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

OVATION, The Roman.

      See TRIUMPH.

OVIEDO, Origin of the kingdom of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

OVILIA.

      See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

OXENSTIERN, Axel: His leadership in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

OXFORD, The Headquarters of King Charles.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

OXFORD, Provisions of.

   A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the
   English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The
   king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it,
   and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special
   grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances
   called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced
   after some trouble in October 1259."

      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      page 190._

   The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six
   years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by
   the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both
   sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the
   Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
   France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled
   them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the
   award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England in the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Select Charters,
      part 6._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

OXFORD, OR TRACT ARIAN MOVEMENT, The.

   "Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in
   the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when
   thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious;
   and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual,
   sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or
   Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But
   the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than
   that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place
   on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors
   had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church
   of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to
   establish her essential identity with the Church of the
   Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place
   her for the first time since the Reformation in her true
   position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. …
   Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of
   doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr.
   Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed
   to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness
   and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine
   Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of
   the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism.
   The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The
   sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the
   power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood.
{2408}
   Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings.
   … They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular
   Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party.
   They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the
   Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and
   Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and
   Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness
   of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under
   the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive
   creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more
   opposite."

      _H. O. Wakeman,
      History of Religion in England,
      chapter 11._

   "The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to
   establish first that the authority of the primitive Church
   resided in the Church of England, and second, that the
   doctrines of the English Church were really identical with
   those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians'
   second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the
   Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion
   [1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the
   articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the
   doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be
   subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and
   doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have
   made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot,
   Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author
   to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular
   dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to
   accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove
   that authority resided in the English Church, and authority,
   in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his
   interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman
   resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but
   he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the
   Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The
   bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the
   author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured
   to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against
   him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance
   in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the
   attack was made, he had regarded his own position with
   dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841,
   a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised
   authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with
   Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an
   abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church
   further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see
   was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a
   few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been
   reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew
   from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into
   communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for
   want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the
   control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 21 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Newman,
      History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua)._

      _J. H. Newman,
      Letters and Correspondence to 1845._

      _R. W. Church,
      The Oxford Movement._

      _W. Palmer,
      Narrative of Events Connected with
      the Tracts for the Times._

      _T. Mozley,
      Reminiscences._

      _Sir J. T. Coleridge,
      Life of John Keble._

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND, and after.

OXGANG.

      See BOVATE.

OXUS, The.

   Now called the Amoo, or Jihon River, in Russian Central Asia.

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285.

P.

PACAGUARA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACAMORA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACHA.

      See BEY.

PACIFIC OCEAN:
   Its Discovery and its Name.

   The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean
   was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien"
   on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517).
   "It was not for some years after this discovery that the name
   Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long
   time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it
   retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it
   lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early
   maps is here significant. All along from this time to the
   middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was
   labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the
   Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.'
   Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in
   contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or
   the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was
   then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by
   that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as
   does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in
   1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography
   of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar
   Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes'
   Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy,
   1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455,
   off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean,
   both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of
   the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595,
   'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort';
   De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del
   Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,'
   and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or
   Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv.,
   is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the
   Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos
   Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of
   Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are
   represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus.
{2409}
   The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway
   between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the
   words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the
   equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied.
   Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of
   water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of
   Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero
   call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find
   that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy,
   in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare
   pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central
   America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of
   Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569
   plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and
   in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map
   of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the
   general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean,
   the words being in large letters extending across the ocean
   opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is
   'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a
   narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas,
   His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare
   Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note._

PACTA CONVENTA, The Polish.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

PACTOLUS, Battle of the (B. C. 395).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PADISCHAH.

      See BEY; also CRAL.

   ----------PADUA: Start--------

PADUA: Origin.

      See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PADUA: A. D. 452.
   Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      also VENICE: A. D. 452.

PADUA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Rise and acquisition of Republican independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256:
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano.
   The Crusade against him.
   Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338.
   Submission to Can' Grande della Scala.
   Recovery from his successor.
   The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

PADUA: A. D. 1388.
   Yielded to the Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PADUA: A. D. 1402.
   Struggle of Francesco Carrara with Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
      and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1406.

PADUA: A. D. 1405.
   Added to the dominion of Venice.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PADUA: A. D. 1509-1513.
   In the War of the League of Cambrai.
   Siege by the Emperor Maximilian.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   ----------PADUA: End--------

PADUCAH: Repulse of Forrest.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

PADUS, The.

   The name by which the river Po was known to the Romans.
   Dividing Cisalpine Gaul, as the river did, into two parts,
   they called the northern part Transpadane and the southern
   part Cispadane Gaul.

PÆANS.

   "The pæans [among the ancient Greeks] were songs of which the
   tune and words expressed courage and confidence. 'All sounds
   of lamentation,' … says Callimachus, 'cease when the Ie Pæan,
   Ie Pæan, is heard.' … Pæans were sung, not only when there was
   a hope of being able, by the help of the gods, to overcome a
   great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily
   past; they were songs of hope and confidence as well as of
   thanksgiving for, victory and safety."

      _K. O. Müller,
      History of the Literature of Ancient Greece,
      volume 1, page 27._

PÆONIANS, The.

   "The Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided race, seemingly
   neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but professing
   to be descended from the Teukri of Troy, … occupied both banks
   of the Strymon, from the neighbourhood of Mount Skomius, in
   which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. … The
   Pæonians, in their north-western tribes, thus bordered upon
   the Macedonian Pelagonia, —in their northern tribes upon the
   Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in the eastern, southern and
   south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians and Pierians."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25._

   Darius, king of Persia, is said to have caused a great part of
   the Pæonians to be transported to a district in Phrygia, but
   they escaped and returned home.

PAGANISM: Suppressed in the Roman Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 391-395.

PAGE.

      See CHIVALRY.

PAGUS.

      See GENS, ROMAN;
      also, HUNDRED.

PAIDONOMUS, The.

   The title of an officer who was charged with the general
   direction of the education and discipline of the young in
   ancient Sparta.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

PAINE, Thomas, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE)
      KING GEORGE'S WAR MEASURES.

PAINTED CHAMBER.

      See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PAINTSVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PAIONIANS, The.

      See ALBANIANS.

PAIRS, Legislative.

      See WHIPS, PARTY.

PAITA: A. D. 1740.
   Destroyed by Commodore Anson.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

PAITA, The.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PALACE, Origin of the name.

   The house of the first of the Roman Emperors, Augustus, was on
   the Palatine Hill, which had been appropriated by the nobility
   for their residence from the earliest age of the republic. The
   residence of Augustus was a quite ordinary mansion until A. U.
   C. 748 (B. C. 6) when it was destroyed by fire. It was then
   rebuilt on a grander scale, the people contributing, in small
   individual sums—a kind of popular testimonial—to the cost.
   Augustus affected to consider it public property, and gave up
   a large part of it to the recreation of the citizens. His
   successors added to it, and built more and more edifices
   connected with it; so that, naturally, it appropriated to
   itself the name of the hill and came to be known as the
   Palatium, or Palace.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD.

      See STONE AGE.

{2410}

PALÆOLOGI, The.

   The family which occupied the Greek imperial throne, at Nicæa
   and at Constantinople, from 1260, when Michael Palæologus
   seized the crown, until the Empire was extinguished by the
   Turks in 1453.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 62 (Genealogical table)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. E. Tennant,
      History of Modern Greece._

PALÆOPOLIS,
PALÆPOLIS.

      See NEAPOLIS.

PALÆSTRA, The.

      See GYMNASIA, GREEK.

PALAIS ROYAL, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

   ----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.
PALATINE ELECTORATE.

   The Palatine Electorate or Palatinate (Pfalz in German), arose
   in the breaking up of the old Duchy of Franconia.

      See FRANCONIA;
      also PALATINE COUNTS,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1214.
   Acquisition by the Wittelsbach or Bavarian House.

   The House of Wittelsbach (or Wisselbach), which acquired the
   Duchy of Bavaria in 1180, came also into possession of the
   Palatinate of the Rhine in 1214 (see BAVARIA: A. D.
   1180-1356). In the next century the two possessions were
   divided. "Rudolph, the elder brother of Louis III. [the
   emperor, known as Louis the Bavarian] inherited the County
   Palatine, and formed a distinct line from that of Bavaria for
   many generations. The electoral dignity was attached to the
   Palatine branch."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume I, page 424._

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
   The Protestant Reformation.
   Ascendancy of Calvinism.

   "The Electors Palatine of the Rhine might be justly regarded,
   during the whole course of the 16th century, as more powerful
   princes than those of Brandenburg. The lower Palatine, of
   which Heidelberg was then the capital, formed a considerable
   tract of country, situate on the banks of the Rhine and the
   Neckar, in a fertile, beautiful, and commercial part of
   Germany. … The upper Palatinate, a detached and distant
   province situated between Bohemia, Franconia, and Bavaria,
   which constituted a part of the Electoral dominions, added
   greatly to their political weight, as members of the Germanic
   body. … Under Louis V., Luther began to disseminate his
   doctrines at Heidelberg, which were eagerly and generally
   imbibed; the moderate character of the Elector, by a felicity
   rare in that age, permitting the utmost freedom of religious
   opinion, though he continued, himself, to profess the Catholic
   faith. His successors, who withdrew from the Romish see,
   openly declared their adherence to Lutheranism; but, on the
   accession of Frederic III., a new ecclesiastical revolution
   took place. He was the first among the Protestant German
   princes who introduced and professed the reformed religion
   denominated Calvinism. As the toleration accorded by the
   'Peace of religion' to those who embraced the 'Confession of
   Augsburg,' did not in a strict and legal sense extend to or
   include the followers of Calvin, Frederic might have been
   proscribed and put to the Ban of the Empire: nor did he owe
   his escape so much to the lenity or friendship of the
   Lutherans, as to the mild generosity of Maximilian II., who
   then filled the Imperial throne, and who was an enemy to every
   species of persecution. Frederic III., animated with zeal for
   the support of the Protestant cause, took an active part in
   the wars which desolated the kingdom of France under Charles
   IX.; protected all the French exiles who fled to his court or
   dominions; and twice sent succours, under the command of his
   son John Casimir, to Louis, Prince of Condé, then in arms, at
   the head of the Hugonots."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 2, pages 163-165._

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1608.
   The Elector at the head of the Evangelical Union.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1619-1620.
   Acceptance of the crown of Bohemia by the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1621-1623.
   The Elector placed under the ban of the empire.
   Devastation and conquest of his dominions.
   The electoral dignity transferred to the Duke of Bavaria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1631-1632.
   Temporary recovery by Gustavus Adolphus.
   Obstinate bigotry of the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1632.
   Death of Frederick V.
   Treaty with the Swedes.
   Nominal restoration of the young Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1648.
   Division in the Peace of Westphalia.
   Restoration of the Lower Palatinate to the old Electoral Family.
   Annexation of the Upper to Bavaria.
   The recreated electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1674.
   In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
   Ravaged by Turenne.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674; and 1674-1678.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1679-1680.
   Encroachments by France upon the territory of the Elector.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1680.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1686.
   The claims of Louis XIV. in the name of the Duchess of Orleans.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1690.
   The second devastation and the War of the League of Augsburg.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   Restitutions by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1705.
   The Upper Palatinate restored to the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A: D. 1709-1710.
   Emigration of inhabitants to England,
   thence to Ireland and America.

      See PALATINES.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1714.
   The Upper Palatinate ceded to the Elector of Bavaria
   in exchange for Sardinia.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Transferred in great part to Baden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1849.
   Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

   ----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

PALATINATES, American.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632;
      NEW ALBION;
      MAINE: A. D. 1639;
      NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
      NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

PALATINE, Counts.

   In Germany, under the early emperors, after the dissolution of
   the dominion of Charlemagne, an office came into existence
   called that of the 'comes palatii'—Count Palatine. This office
   was created in the interest of the sovereign, as a means of
   diminishing the power of the local rulers.
{2411}
   The Counts Palatine were appointed as their coadjutors, often
   with a concurrent and sometimes with a sole jurisdiction.
   Their "functions were more extensive than those of the ancient
   'missi dominici.' Yet the office was different. Under the
   Carlovingian emperors there had been one dignitary with that
   title, who received appeals from all the secular tribunals of
   the empire. The missi dominici were more than his mere
   colleagues, since they could convoke any cause pending before
   the ordinary judges and take cognisance of more serious cases
   even in the first instance. As the missi were disused, and as
   the empire became split among the immediate descendants of
   Louis le Debonnaire, the count palatine (comes palatii) was
   found inadequate to his numerous duties; and coadjutors were
   provided him for Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. After the
   elevation of Arnulf, however, most of these dignities ceased;
   and we read of one count palatine only—the count or duke of
   Franconia or Rhenish France. Though we have reason to believe
   that this high functionary continued to receive appeals from
   the tribunals of each duchy, he certainly could not exercise
   over them a sufficient control; nor, if his authority were
   undisputed, could he be equal to his judicial duties. Yet to
   restrain the absolute jurisdiction of his princely vassals was
   no less the interest of the people than the sovereign; and in
   this view Otho I. restored, with even increased powers, the
   provincial counts palatine. He gave them not only the
   appellant jurisdiction of the ancient comes palatii, but the
   primary one of the missi dominici. … They had each a castle,
   the wardenship of which was intrusted to officers named
   burgraves, dependent on the count palatine of the province. In
   the sequel, some of these burgraves became princes of the
   empire."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      volume 1, pages 120-121._

PALATINE, The Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152;
      and PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.

PALATINE, The English Counties.

   "The policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their
   official character. They ceased to have local jurisdiction or
   authority. Their dignity was of a personal nature, and they
   must be regarded rather as the foremost of the barons, and as
   their peers, than as a distinct order in the state. … An
   exception to the general policy of William [the Conqueror] as
   to earldoms was made in those governments which, in the next
   century, were called palatine. These were founded in Cheshire,
   and perhaps in Shropshire, against the Welsh, and in the
   bishopric of Durham both to oppose the Scots, and to restrain
   the turbulence of the northern people, who slew Walcher, the
   first earl bishop, for his ill government. An earl palatine
   had royal jurisdiction within his earldom. So it was said of
   Hugh, earl of Chester, that he held his earldom in right of
   his sword, as the king held all England in right of his crown.
   All tenants-in–chief held of him; he had his own courts, took
   the whole proceeds of jurisdiction, and appointed his own
   sheriff. The statement that Bishop Odo had palatine
   jurisdiction in Kent may be explained by the functions which
   he exercised as justiciary."

      _W. Hunt,
      Norman Britain,
      pages 118-119._

   "The earldom of Chester has belonged to the eldest son of the
   sovereign since 1396; the palatinate jurisdiction of Durham
   was transferred to the crown in 1836 by act of Parliament, 6
   Will. IV, c. 19."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9,
      section 98, footnote (volume 1)._

      See, also, PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES.

PALATINE, The Hungarian.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

PALATINE, The Irish Counties.

   "The franchise of a county palatine gave a right of exclusive
   civil and criminal jurisdiction; so that the king's writ
   should not run, nor his judges come within it, though judgment
   in its courts might be reversed by writ of error in the king's
   bench. The lord might enfeoff tenants to hold by knights'
   service of himself; he had almost all regalian rights; the
   lands of those attainted for treason escheated to him; he
   acted in every thing rather as one of the great feudatories of
   France or Germany than a subject of the English crown. Such
   had been the earl of Chester, and only Chester, in England;
   but in Ireland this dangerous independence was permitted to
   Strongbow in Leinster, to Lacy in Meath, and at a later time
   to the Butlers and Geraldines in parts of Munster. Strongbow's
   vast inheritance soon fell to five sisters, who took to their
   shares, with the same palatine rights, the counties of Carlow,
   Wexford, Kilkenny, Kildare, and the district of Leix, since
   called the Queen's County. In all these palatinates, forming
   by far the greater portion of the English territories, the
   king's process had its course only within the lands belonging
   to the church."

      _E. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

PALATINE HILL, The.
   The Palatine City.
   The Seven Mounts.

   "The town which in the course of centuries grew up as Rome, in
   its original form embraced according to trustworthy testimony
   only the Palatine, or 'square Rome' (Roma quadrata), as it was
   called in later times from the irregularly quadrangular form
   of the Palatine hill. The gates and walls that enclosed this
   original city remained visible down to the period of the
   empire. … Many traces indicate that this was the centre and
   original seat of the urban settlement. … The 'festival of the
   Seven Mounts' ('septimontium'), again, preserved the memory of
   the more extended settlement which gradually formed round the
   Palatine. Suburbs grew up one after another, each protected by
   its own separate though weaker circumvallation and joined to
   the original ring-wall of the Palatine. … The 'Seven Rings'
   were, the Palatine itself; the cermalus, the slope of the
   Palatine in the direction of the morass that in the earliest
   times extended between it and the Capitoline (velabrum); the
   Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the
   Esquiline, but in subsequent times was almost wholly
   obliterated by the buildings of the empire; the Fagutal, the
   Oppius, and the Cispius, the three summits of the Esquiline;
   lastly, the Sucusa, or Subura, a fortress constructed outside
   of the earthern rampart which protected the new town on the
   Carinae, in the low ground between the Esquiline and the
   Quirinal, beneath S. Pietro in Vincoli. These additions,
   manifestly the results of a gradual growth, clearly reveal to
   a certain extent the earliest history of the Palatine Rome. …
   The Palatine city of the Seven Mounts may have had a history
   of its own; no other tradition of it has survived than simply
   that of its having once existed. But as the leaves of the
   forest make room for the new growth of spring, although they
   fall unseen by human eyes, so has this unknown city of the
   Seven Mounts made room for the Rome of history."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      See, also, QUIRINAL;
      and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

{2412}

PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.
   Migration to Ireland and America.

   "The citizens of London [England] were astonished to learn, in
   May and June, 1709, that 5,000 men, women and children,
   Germans from the Rhine, were under tents in the suburbs. By
   October the number had increased to 13,000, and comprised
   husbandmen, tradesmen, school teachers and ministers. These
   emigrants had deserted the Palatinate, owing to French
   oppression and the persecution by their prince, the elector
   John William, of the House of Newburgh, who had become a
   devoted Romanist, though his subjects were mainly Lutherans
   and Calvinists. Professor Henry A. Homes, in a paper treating
   of this emigration, read before the Albany Institute in 1871,
   holds that the movement was due not altogether to unbearable
   persecutions, but largely to suggestions made to the Palatines
   in their own country by agents of companies who were anxious
   to obtain settlers for the British colonies in America, and
   thus give value to the company's lands. The emigrants were
   certainly seized with the idea that by going to England its
   government would transport them to the provinces of New York,
   the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania. Of the latter province they
   knew much, as many Germans were already there. … Great efforts
   were made to prevent suffering among these poor people;
   thousands of pounds were collected for their maintenance from
   churches and individuals all over England; they were lodged in
   warehouses, empty dwellings and in barns, and the Queen had a
   thousand tents pitched for them back of Greenwich, on
   Blackheath. … Notwithstanding the great efforts made by the
   English people, very much distress followed this unhappy
   hegira. … Numbers of the younger men enlisted in the British
   army serving in Portugal, and some made their own way to
   Pennsylvania. … The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland petitioned the
   Queen that some of the people might be sent to him, and by
   February, 1710, 3,800 had been located across the Irish Sea,
   in the province of Munster, near Limerick. … Professor Homes
   recites in his monograph that they 'now number about 12,000
   souls, and, under the name of Palatinates, continue to impress
   a peculiar character upon the whole district they inhabit.' …
   According to 'Luttrell's Diary,' about one-tenth of the whole
   number that reached England were returned by the Crown to
   Germany." A Swiss land company, which had bought 10,000 acres
   of land from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, "covenanted
   with the English authorities for the transfer of about 700 of
   these poor Heidelberg refugees to the colony. Before the end
   of the year they had arrived with them at a point in North
   Carolina where the rivers Neuse and Trent join. Here they
   established a town, calling it New-Berne, in honor of Berne,
   Switzerland. … It has not been found possible to properly
   account for all the 13,000 Palatines who reached England.
   Queen Anne sent some of them to Virginia, settling them above
   the falls of the Rappahanock, in Spottsylvania County, from
   whence they spread into several adjoining counties, and into
   North Carolina. … After the Irish transportation, the largest
   number that was moved in one body, and probably the final one
   under government auspices, was the fleet-load that in the
   spring of 1710 was despatched to New York. … A fleet of ten
   ships set sail with Governor Hunter in March, having on board,
   as is variously estimated, between 3,000 and 4,000 Germans. …
   The immigrants were encamped on Nut, now Governor's Island,
   for about three months, when a tract of 6,000 acres of the
   Livingston patent was purchased for them, 100 miles up the
   Hudson, the locality now being embraced in Germantown,
   Columbia County. Eight hundred acres were also acquired on the
   opposite side of the river at the present location of
   Saugerties, in Ulster County. To these two points most of the
   immigrants were removed." But dissatisfaction with their
   treatment and difficulties concerning land titles impelled
   many of these Germans to move off, first into Schoharie
   County, and afterwards to Palatine Bridge, Montgomery County
   and German Flats, Herkimer County, New York, to both of which
   places they have affixed the names. Others went into
   Pennsylvania, which was for many years the favorite colony
   among German immigrants.

      _A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
      The Story of an Old Farm,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. B. Todd,
      Robert Hunter and the Settlement of the Palatines
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 4)._

PALE, The English.

   "That territory within which the English retreated and
   fortified themselves when a reaction began to set in after
   their first success [under Henry II.] in Ireland," acquired
   the name of the Pale or the English Pale. But "that term did
   not really come into use until about the beginning of the 16th
   century. In earlier times this territory was called the
   English Land. It is generally called Galldacht, or the
   'foreigner's territory,' in the Irish annals, where the term
   Galls comes to be applied to the descendants of the early
   adventurers, and that of Saxons to Englishmen newly arrived.
   The formation of the Pale is generally considered to date from
   the reign of Edward I. About the period of which we are now
   treating [reign of Henry IV.—beginning of 15th century] it
   began to be limited to the four counties of Louth, Meath,
   Kildare, and Dublin, which formed its utmost extent in the
   reign of Henry VIII. Beyond this the authority of the king of
   England was a nullity."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      pages 313-314, foot-note._

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175; and 1515.

PALE, The Jewish, in Russia.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880, and 19TH CENTURY.

PALE FACES, The (Ku-Klux Klan).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PALENQUE, Ruins of.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT;
      and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

   ----------PALERMO: Start--------

PALERMO: Origin.

      See PANORMUS;
      also SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.

PALERMO: A. D. 1146.
   Introduction of silk culture.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

PALERMO: A. D. 1282.
   The Sicilian Vespers.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

PALERMO: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Expulsion of the Neapolitan garrison.
   Surrender to King "Bomba."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PALERMO: A. D. 1860.
   Capture by Garibaldi and his volunteers.
   Bombardment by the Neapolitans.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

{2413}

   ----------PALESTINE: Start--------

PALESTINE:
   Early inhabitants.

      See
      AMALEKITES;
      AMMONITES;
      AMORITES;
      HITTITES;
      JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
      MOABITES; PHILISTINES; PHŒNICIANS.

PALESTINE:
   Name.

   After the suppression of the revolt of the Jews in A. D. 130,
   by Hadrian, the name of their province was changed from Judæa
   to Syria Palæstina, or Syria of the Philistines, as it had
   been called by Herodotus six centuries before. Hence the
   modern name, Palestine.

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

PALESTINE:
   History.

      See
      EGYPT: about B. C. 1500-1400;
      JEWS;
      JERUSALEM;
      SYRIA;
      CHRISTIANITY;
      MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE;
      CRUSADES.

   ----------PALESTINE: End--------

PALESTRO, Battle of (1859).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

PALFREYS,
PALAFRENI.

      See DESTRIERS.

PALI.

   "The earlier form of the ancient spoken language [of the Aryan
   race in India], called Pali or Magadhi, … was introduced into
   Ceylon by Buddhist missionaries from Magadha when Buddhism
   began to spread, and is now the sacred language of Ceylon and
   Burmah, in which all their Buddhist literature is written."
   The Pali language is thought to represent one of the stages in
   the development of the Prakrit, or common speech of the
   Hindus, as separated from the Sanskrit, or language of the
   learned.

      See SANSKRIT.

      _M. Williams,
      Indian Wisdom,
      introduction, pages xxix-xxx, foot-note._

PALILIA, Festival of the.

   "The festival named Palilia [at Rome] was celebrated on the
   Palatine every year on the 21st April, in honour of Pales, the
   tutelary divinity of the shepherds, who dwelt on the Palatine.
   This day was held sacred as an anniversary of the day on which
   Romulus commenced the building of the city."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 40._

PALLA, The.

      See STOLA.

PALLADIUM, The.

   "The Palladium, kept in the temple of Vesta at Rome, was a
   small figure of Pallas, roughly carved out of wood, about
   three feet high. Ilos, King of Troy, grandfather of Priam,
   after building the city asked Zeus to give him a visible sign
   that he would take it under his special protection. During the
   night the Palladium fell down from heaven, and was found the
   next morning outside his tent. The king built a temple for it,
   and from that time the Trojans firmly believed that as long as
   they could keep this figure their town would be safe; but if
   at any time it should be lost or stolen, some dreadful
   calamity would overtake them. The story further relates that,
   at the siege of Troy, its whereabouts was betrayed to Diomed,
   and he and the wily Ulysses climbed the wall at night and
   carried it off. The Palladium, enraged at finding itself in
   the Grecian camp, sprang three times in the air, its eyes
   flashing wildly, while drops of sweat stood on its brow. The
   Greeks, however, would not give it up, and Troy, robbed of her
   guardian, was soon after conquered by the Greeks. But an
   oracle having warned Diomed not to keep it, he, on landing in
   Italy, gave it to one of Æneas' companions, by whom it was
   brought into the neighbourhood of the future site of Rome.
   Another legend relates that Æneas saved it after the
   destruction of Troy, and fled with it to Italy, where it was
   afterwards placed by his descendants in the Temple of Vesta,
   in Rome. Here the inner and most sacred place in the Temple
   was reserved for it, and no man, not even the chief priest,
   was allowed to see it except when it was shown on the occasion
   of any high festival. The Vestals had strict orders to guard
   it carefully, and to save it in case of fire, as the welfare
   of Rome depended on its preservation."

      _F. Nösselt,
      Mythology, Greek and Roman,
      page 3._

PALLESCHI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PALLIUM, The.

   "The pallium, or mantle of the Greeks, from its being less
   cumbersome and trailing than the toga of the Romans, by
   degrees superseded the latter in the country and in the camp.
   When worn over armour, and fastened on the right shoulder with
   a clasp or button, this cloak assumed the name of
   paludamentum."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1, p 37._

PALM, The Execution of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

PALMERSTON MINISTRIES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1855; 1858-1859.

PALMI.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

   ----------PALMYRA: Start--------

PALMYRA,
   Earliest knowledge of.

   "The outlying city of Palmyra—the name of which is first
   mentioned during the wars of M. Antony in Syria [B. C. 41]—was
   certainly at this period [of Augustus, B. C. 31-A. D. 14]
   independent and preserved a position of neutrality between the
   Romans and Parthians, while it carried on trade with both. It
   does not appear however to have as yet risen to a place of
   great importance, as its name is not mentioned by Strabo. The
   period of its prosperity dates only from the time of Hadrian."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, section 1 (volume 2)._

PALMYRA:
   Rise and fall.

   "Amidst the barren deserts of Arabia a few cultivated spots
   rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of
   Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well
   as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees
   which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The
   air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable
   springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A
   place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a
   convenient distance between the gulf of Persia and the
   Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which
   conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the
   rich commodities of India. [It has been the opinion of some
   writers that Tadmor was founded by Solomon as a commercial
   station, but the opinion is little credited at present.]
   Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent
   city, and, connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by
   the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an
   humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of
   Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and
   flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the
   subordinate though honourable rank of a colony." On the
   occasion of the invasion of Syria by the Persian king, Sapor,
   when the Emperor Valerian was defeated and taken prisoner (A.
   D. 260-261), the only effectual resistance opposed to him was
   organized and led by a wealthy senator of Palmyra, Odenathus
   (some ancient writers call him a Saracen prince), who founded,
   by his exploits at that time, a substantial military power.
{2414}
   Aided and seconded by his famous wife, Zenobia, who is one of
   the great heroines of history, he extended his authority over
   the Roman East and defeated the Persian king in several
   campaigns. On his death, by assassination, in 267, Zenobia
   ascended the Palmyrenian throne and ruled with masculine
   firmness of character. Her dominions were extended from the
   Euphrates and the frontiers of Bithynia to Egypt, and are
   said, with some doubtfulness, to have included even that rich
   province, for a time. But the Romans, who had acquiesced in
   the rule of Odenathus, and recognized it, in the day of their
   weakness, now resented the presumption and the power of his
   widowed queen. Perhaps they had reason to fear her ambition
   and her success. Refusing to submit to the demands that were
   made upon her, she boldly challenged the attack of the warlike
   emperor, Aurelian, and suffered defeat in two great, battles,
   fought A. D. 272 or 273, near Antioch and near Emesa. A vain
   attempt to hold Palmyra against the besieging force of the
   Roman, an unsuccessful flight and a capture by pursuing
   horsemen, ended the political career of the brilliant 'Queen
   of the East.' She saved her life somewhat ignobly by giving up
   her counsellors to Aurelian's vengeance. The philosopher
   Longinus was one who perished. Zenobia was sent to Rome and
   figured among the captives in Aurelian's triumph. She was then
   given for her residence a splendid villa at Tibur (Tivoli)
   twenty miles from Rome, and lived quietly through the
   remainder of her days, connecting herself, by the marriage of
   her daughters, with the noble families of Rome. Palmyra, which
   had been spared on its surrender, rashly rose in revolt
   quickly after Aurelian had left its gates. The enraged emperor
   returned and inflicted on the fated city a chastisement from
   which it never rose."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 10-11._

   ----------PALMYRA: End--------

PALMYRÊNÉ, The.

   "Palmyrêné, or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between
   Cœle-Syria on the one hand, and the valley of the middle
   Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the
   great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as
   belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy, or gravelly
   plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or
   productive only of some sapless shrubs and of a low thin
   grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the
   fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about
   Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in
   the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract is even
   now under cultivation. … Though large armies can never have
   traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is
   comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it
   expedient to avoid the long 'détour' by the Orontes valley,
   Aleppo, and Bambuk and to proceed directly from Damascus by
   way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
      chapter 1._

PALO ALTO, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

PALSGRAVE.

   An Anglicized form of Pfalzgraf.

      See PALATINE COUNT.

PALUDAMENTUM, The.

   "As soon as the [Roman] consul entered upon his military
   career, he assumed certain symbols of command. The cloak of
   scarlet or purple which the imperator threw over his corslet
   was named the paludamentum, and this, which became in later
   times the imperial robe, he never wore except on actual
   service."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

      See, also, PALLIUM.

PALUS MÆOTIS,
MÆOTIS PALUS.

   The ancient Greek name of the Sea of Azov.

PAMLICOS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAMPAS.
LLANOS.

   "In the southern continent [of America], the regions which
   correspond with the prairies of the United States are the
   'pampas' of the La Plata and the 'llanos' of Columbia [both
   'pampa' and 'llano' having in Spanish the signification of 'a
   plain']. … The llanos of Venezuela and New Granada have an
   area estimated at 154,000 square miles, nearly equal to that
   of France. The Argentine pampas, which are situated at the
   other extremity of the continent, have a much more
   considerable extent, probably exceeding 500,000 square miles.
   This great central plain … stretches its immense and nearly
   horizontal surface over a length of at least 1,900 miles, from
   the burning regions of tropical Brazil to the cold countries
   of Patagonia."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth,
      chapter 15._

   For an account of the Indian tribes of the Pampas.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAMPELUNA: Siege by the French (1521).

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

PAMPTICOKES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAN-AMERICAN CONGRESS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

PAN-HANDLE, The.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.

PAN-IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

      See IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

   ----------PANAMA: Start--------

PANAMA: A. D. 1501-1502.
   Discovery by Bastidas.
   Coasted by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505, and 1500.

PANAMA: A. D. 1509.
   Creation of the Province of Castilla del Oro.
   Settlement on the Gulf of Uraba.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

PANAMA: A. D. 1513-1517.
   Vasco Nuñez de Balboa and the discovery of the Pacific.
   The malignant rule of Pedrarias Davila.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

PANAMA: A. D. 1519.
   Name and Origin of the city.

   Originally, Panama was the native name of an Indian fishing
   village, on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus, the word
   signifying "a place where many fish are taken." In 1519 the
   Spaniards founded there a city which they made their capital
   and chief mart on the Pacific coast.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapters 10-11 and 15._

PANAMA: A. D. 1671-1680.
   Capture, destruction and recapture of the city of Panama
   by the Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

PANAMA: A. D. 1688-1699.
   The Scottish colony of Darien.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

PANAMA: A. D. 1826.
   The Congress of American States.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

PANAMA: A. D. 1846-1855.
   American right of transit secured by Treaty.
   Building of the Panama Railroad.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

PANAMA: A. D. 1855.
   An independent state in the Colombian Confederation.
   Opening of the Panama Railway.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

{2415}

PANAMA CANAL.
PANAMA SCANDAL.

   "The commencement of an undertaking [projected by Count
   Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal] for
   connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through the
   Isthmus of Panama, was a natural result of the success
   achieved by the Suez Canal. Various sites have been proposed
   from time to time for the construction of a canal across the
   Isthmus, the most northern being the Tehuantepec route, at a
   comparatively broad part of the Isthmus, and the most southern
   the Atrato route, following for some distance the course of
   the Atrato River. The site eventually selected, in 1879, for
   the construction of a canal was at the narrowest part of the
   Isthmus, and where the central ridge is the lowest, known as
   the Panama route, nearly following the course of the Panama
   Rail way. It was the only scheme that did not necessarily
   involve a tunnel or locks. The length of the route between
   Colon on the Atlantic, and Panama on the Pacific, is 46 miles,
   not quite half the length of the Suez Canal; but a tide-level
   canal involved a cutting across the Cordilleras, at the
   Culebra Pass, nearly 300 feet deep, mainly through rock. The
   section of the canal was designed on the lines of the Suez
   Canal, with a bottom width of 72 feet, and a depth of water of
   27 feet, except in the central rock cutting, where the width
   was to be increased to 78¾ feet on account of the nearly
   vertical sides, and the depth to 29½ feet. … The work was
   commenced in 1882. … The difficulties and expenses, however,
   of the undertaking had been greatly under–estimated. The
   climate proved exceptionally unhealthy, especially when the
   soil began to be turned up by the excavations. The actual cost
   of the excavation was much greater than originally estimated;
   and the total amount of excavation required to form a level
   canal, which had originally been estimated at 100 million
   cubic yards, was subsequently computed, on more exact data, at
   176½ million cubic yards. The preliminary works were also very
   extensive and costly; and difficulties were experienced, after
   a time, in raising the funds for carrying on the works, even
   when shares were offered at a very great discount. Eventually,
   in 1887, the capital at the disposal of the company had nearly
   come to an end; whilst only a little more than one-fifth of
   the excavation had been completed. … At that period it was
   determined to expedite the work, and reduce the cost of
   completing the canal, by introducing locks, and thus diminish
   the remaining amount of excavation by 85 million cubic yards;
   though the estimated cost, even with this modification, had
   increased from £33,500,000 to £65,500,000. … The financial
   embarrassments, however, of the company have prevented the
   carrying out of this scheme for completing the canal; and the
   works are at present [1891] at a standstill, in a very
   unfinished state."

      _L. F. Vernon-Harcourt,
      Achievements in Engineering,
      chapter 14._

   "It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company
   stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government,
   a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding
   some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light,
   which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The
   indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps,
   his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to
   ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt
   expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The
   gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the
   interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought
   forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of
   corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that
   3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150
   Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he
   persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted
   details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately
   agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33
   Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses
   against the accused Directors were issued the same day,
   charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating
   belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of
   sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose,
   and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.'
   The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25,
   when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles,
   his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were
   absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November
   28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the
   Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of
   the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron
   Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body
   be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his
   sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the
   prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for
   purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on
   the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of
   suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full
   light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice
   said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the
   Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would
   make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a
   resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been
   sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the
   day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to
   do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet
   immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed
   during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively
   tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign
   Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December
   5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the
   Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course
   of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling
   evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that
   the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for
   puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that
   Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in
   Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. …
   On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned,
   because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the
   meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the
   Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps,
   M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company,
   on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the
   company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries.
   This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five
   Senators and five Deputies.

      _Quarterly Register of Current History,
      March, 1893._

{2416}

   "The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane,
   Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of
   appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the
   bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with
   1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced
   against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned
   to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000
   francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs
   each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March
   8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut,
   Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on
   charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De
   Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty
   March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M.
   Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was
   condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of
   civil rights. The others were acquitted."

      _Cyclopedic Review of Current History,
      volume 3, number 1 (1803)._

   "On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the
   first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed
   more than three years before the institution of proceedings,
   reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary
   investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years'
   prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but
   Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for
   corruption."

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1893,
      page 321._

   The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the
   venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only
   in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation
   of which the public had not known before the strength and
   frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold,
   they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was
   very different."

      _P. De Coubertin,
      L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique,
      page 266._

PANATHENÆA, The Festival of the.

      See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

PANDES.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PANDOURS.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894;
      and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

PANIPAT,
PANNIPUT, Battles of (1526, 1556, and 1761).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605; and 1747-1761.

PANIUM, Battle of (B. C. 198).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

PANJAB, The.

      See PUNJAB.

PANNONIA AND NORICUM.

   "The wide extent of territory which is included between the
   Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia,
   Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the
   ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their
   original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were
   intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were
   frequently united."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

   Pannonia embraced much the larger part of the territory
   described above, covering the center and heart of the modern
   Austro-Hungarian empire. It was separated from Noricum, lying
   west and northwest of it, by Mons Cetius. For the settlement
   of the Vandals in Pannonia, and its conquest by the Huns and
   Goths:

      See VANDALS: ORIGIN, &c.;
      HUNS: A. D. 433-453, and 453;
      and GOTHS: A. D. 473-474.

PANO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PANORMUS.

   The modern city of Palermo was of very ancient origin, founded
   by the Phœnicians and passing from them to the Carthaginians,
   who made it one of their principal naval stations in Sicily.
   Its Greek name, Panorma, signified a port always to be
   depended upon.

PANORMUS, Battles at (B. C. 254-251).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

PANTANO DE BARGAS, Battle of (1819).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

PANTHEON AT ROME, The.

   "At the same time with his Thermæ, Agrippa [son-in-law and
   friend of Augustus] built the famous dome, called by Pliny and
   Dion Cassius, and in the inscription of Severus on the
   architrave of the building itself, the Pantheon, and still
   retaining that name, though now consecrated as a Christian
   church under the name of S. Maria ad Martyres or dell a
   Rotonda. This consecration, together with the colossal
   thickness of the walls, has secured the building against the
   attacks Of time, and the still more destructive attacks of the
   barons of the Middle Ages. … The Pantheon was always be
   reckoned among the masterpieces of architecture for solid
   durability combined with beauty of interior effect. The Romans
   prided themselves greatly upon it as one of the wonders of
   their great capital, and no other dome of antiquity could
   rival its colossal dimensions. … The inscription assigns its
   completion to the year A. D. 27, the third consulship of
   Agrippa. … The original name Pantheon, taken in connection
   with the numerous niches for statues of the gods in the
   interior, seems to contradict the idea that it was dedicated
   to any peculiar deity or class of deities. The seven principal
   niches may have been intended for the seven superior deities,
   and the eight ædiculæ for the next in dignity, while the
   twelve niches in the upper ring were occupied by the inferior
   inhabitants of Olympus. Dion hints at this explanation when he
   suggests that the name was taken from the resemblance of the
   dome to the vault of heaven."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 13, part 2._

   "The world has nothing else like the Pantheon. … The rust and
   dinginess that have dimmed the precious marble on the walls;
   the pavement, with its great squares and rounds of porphyry
   and granite, cracked crosswise and in a hundred directions,
   showing how roughly the troublesome ages have trampled here;
   the gray dome above, with its opening to the sky, as if heaven
   were looking down into the interior of this place of worship,
   left unimpeded for prayers to ascend the more freely: all
   these things make an impression of solemnity, which Saint
   Peter's itself fails to produce. 'I think,' said the sculptor,
   'it is to the aperture in the dome—that great Eye, gazing
   heavenward—that the Pantheon owes the peculiarity of its
   effect.'"

      _N. Hawthorne,
      The Marble Faun,
      chapter 50._

{2417}

PANTIBIBLON, The exhumed Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

PANTIKAPÆUM.

      See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.

PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

   ----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY:
   St. Peter and the Church at Rome.

   "The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one
   which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter
   came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D.
   42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of
   episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded
   it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may
   conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not
   at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the
   canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly
   that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an
   Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his
   friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything
   said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the
   contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;
   for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in
   which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in
   order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that
   they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome
   in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last
   of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that
   only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The
   Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch,
   possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if
   Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second
   Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have
   asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs
   that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to
   be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic
   probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period
   of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I
   am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to
   accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at
   Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter
   suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim
   to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it,
   where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim
   such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but
   Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever
   visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question,
   whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we
   read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their
   sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example
   had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop.
   If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he
   appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close
   upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his
   Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it
   worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the
   force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was
   not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws
   light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to
   leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his
   subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as
   the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. …
   These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not
   remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties
   which he must have known he could not fulfil?"

      _G. Salmon,
      The Infallibility of the Church,
      pages 347-350._

   The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and
   the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.
   Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in
   Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that
   city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst
   the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to
   reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient
   writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles
   resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.
   According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first
   arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of
   Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the
   emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to
   Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia
   Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of
   Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches
   he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second
   journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this
   journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.
   There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the
   death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of
   twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the
   episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their
   imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which
   the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his
   death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he
   remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has
   pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the
   supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and
   obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he
   declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he
   would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that
   he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In
   the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the
   Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he
   is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in
   general.
{2418}
   After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and
   governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the
   apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of
   the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces
   to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in
   the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes
   the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the
   Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …
   The more the Church was extended, and the more its
   constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with
   which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the
   need of a head which united the members in one body, of a
   point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the
   means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in
   his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles
   descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter
   died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his
   doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received
   would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It
   was not without a particular interposition of Providence that
   this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it
   became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,
   which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its
   position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as
   capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to
   communication even with the most distant nations, was
   evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of
   the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first
   three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly
   attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman
   Church and of its bishops."

      _J. J. I. Dollinger,
      History of the Church,
      period 1, chapter 1, section 4,
      and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1)._

PAPACY:
   Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.

   The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the
   Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated
   by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show,
   from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have
   always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise
   supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the
   Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the
   great schism of the ninth century.

   1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from
   a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to
   another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from
   Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now
   if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of
   Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from
   the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final
   and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome
   over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a
   few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the
   third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by
   St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal
   having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is
   brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises
   his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and
   admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence
   entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth,
   that for a century later it was customary to have them
   publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians
   appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so
   near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived?
   Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while
   that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question
   regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated
   in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern
   church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the
   Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed
   then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of
   the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches,
   for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the
   West, and his instructions are universally followed.
   Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third
   century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred
   on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the
   suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly
   vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great
   Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to
   Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him
   by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of
   the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the
   same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the
   protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of
   Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century,
   to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on
   him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of
   Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against
   Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who
   takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian
   and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of
   Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of
   Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of
   that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of
   the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope
   Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the
   Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's
   conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of
   the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek
   schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church
   History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and
   learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern
   church, and consequently far removed from the local influences
   of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from
   the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the
   supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not
   constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what
   superior authority means.

   2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the
   Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has
   ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil,
   Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. …
   Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to
   the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …

{2419}

   3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of
   Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an
   assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church.
   … Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have
   been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The
   first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second,
   in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the
   fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in
   553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in
   Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The
   Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least
   consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates
   over all of them, except the first and second councils of
   Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their
   authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils
   required the Pope's signature.

   4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of
   the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most
   remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from
   Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has
   received the light of faith from missionaries who were either
   especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops
   in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits
   of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is
   St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the
   fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who
   sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons
   received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as
   all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who
   empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of
   the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in
   France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active
   communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel
   in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the
   supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate
   as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his
   native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was
   commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the
   eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same
   Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and
   Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and
   other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme
   authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian
   II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was
   converted by missionaries introduced from England by the
   Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was
   consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints
   Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after
   their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual
   tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in
   communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of
   Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received
   likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries,
   because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."

      _James, Cardinal Gibbons,
      The Faith of our Fathers,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,
      The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated._

PAPACY:
   Supremacy of the Roman See:
   Grounds of the Denial.

   "The first document by which the partisans of the Papal
   sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St.
   Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at
   Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a
   superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome.
   Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not
   Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in
   this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the
   name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The
   letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately
   after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the
   years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen
   from the letter itself that it was written after a
   persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that
   of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years
   of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and
   96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is
   easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before
   that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still
   existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed
   with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the
   letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the
   letter was written after some persecution, in which had
   suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was
   nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The
   persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68.
   Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could
   only have been written in the year 69, that is to say,
   twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In
   presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress
   laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the
   importance of this document as emanating from Pope St.
   Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St.
   Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove
   nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue
   of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but
   from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let
   us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is
   one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote
   in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the
   time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could
   not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter
   act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he
   individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a
   suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of
   God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at
   Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement
   draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first
   centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as
   Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he
   wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning
   Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches
   wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several
   Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon
   the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches,
   in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally
   Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday
   following the fourteenth day of the March moon.
{2420}
   The question in itself considered was of no great importance;
   and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should
   celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian
   festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the
   resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating
   the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did
   the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the
   discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a
   supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The
   question having been agitated, 'there were synods and
   convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius,
   'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which
   they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There
   is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at
   the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church
   in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is
   another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same
   question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the
   Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient,
   presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus
   presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities
   there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the
   Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one
   and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is
   evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod
   in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it
   to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and
   lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of
   the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably
   established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of
   Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as
   the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed
   the letter in the name of the synod which represented that
   Church."

      _Abbé Guettée,
      The Papacy,
      pages 53-58._

   "At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the
   metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a
   superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of
   ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several
   metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that
   the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already
   regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The
   empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil
   government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the
   Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also
   had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part
   with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the
   same circumstances which marked out a city for political
   preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical
   rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that
   the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the
   head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province
   was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a
   parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental
   counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of
   government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of
   time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the
   most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only
   over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in
   Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits
   of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely
   knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the
   conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into
   insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian
   patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was
   better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so
   shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist
   the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell
   under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already
   befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the
   patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual
   authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon
   of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to
   him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including
   Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia
   and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority
   of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The
   patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority
   on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was
   agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His
   brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters
   spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping
   aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma,
   was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the
   Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave
   great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect
   was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder,
   and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally
   took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see
   of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. …
   Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were
   addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as
   Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more
   constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil
   matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the
   East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might
   respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the
   Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious
   to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops
   were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power
   depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that
   they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were
   the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of
   the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that
   Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the
   whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been
   founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the
   Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their
   commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time,
   they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly
   derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by
   past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see.
{2421}
   But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the
   claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church
   on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most
   critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability.
   Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of
   the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the
   letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously
   interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when
   it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the
   general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled
   to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the
   strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who
   shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater
   prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and
   Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the
   see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views
   of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were
   universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown
   up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the
   greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the
   reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed
   itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations.
   … In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the
   jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."

      _S. Cheetham,
      History of the Christian Church
      during the First Six Centuries,
      pages 181-195._

   "A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle
   reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of
   the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the
   Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he
   drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power,
   and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the
   early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became
   Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the
   principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and
   accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on
   this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire,
   Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle,
   namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The
   principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy
   growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of
   Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out
   even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."

      _Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour,
      The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity
      ("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, part 1._

PAPACY:
   Origin of the Papal title.

   "'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar
   endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense
   to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special
   address which, long before the names of patriarch or
   archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. …
   He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not
   yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D.
   325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a
   well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of
   a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus
   explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of
   Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba'
   (father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops
   were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and
   consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater
   patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman
   account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first
   given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the
   Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to
   the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquities of the Christian Church,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 7._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Christian History,
      section 130._

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

PAPACY: A. D. 42-461.
   The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.

   The following is the succession of the popes, according to
   Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and
   twenty years:
   "Peter, to the year of Christ 67;
   Linus,
   Anencletus,
   Clement; (to 77?)
   Evaristus,
   Alexander,
   Xystus,
   Telesphorus,
   Hyginus, to 142;
   Pius, to 157;
   Anicetus, to 168;
   Soter, to 177;
   Eleutherius, to 193;
   Victor, to 202;
   Zephyrinus, to 219;
   Callistus, to 223;
   Urban, to 230;
   Pontianus, to 235;
   Anterus, to 236;
   Fabian, to 250;
   Cornelius, from 251 to 252;
   Lucius, to 253;
   Stephan, to 257;
   Xystus II, to 258;
   Dionysius, from 259 to 269;
   Felix, to 274;
   Eutychianus, to 283;
   Caius, to 296;
   Marcellinus, to 304;
   Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;
   Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;
   Melchiades, from 311 to 314;
   Silvester, from 314 to 335. …
   Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,
   and died on the 7th of October of the same year.
   Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.
   Athanasius. …

   The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in
   358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to
   the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the
   honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his
   condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was
   again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman
   clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place,
   or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When
   Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died
   in the country, in 365.

   Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the
   very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights
   against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration
   from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus.
   The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …

   Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again
   endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the
   clergy and people. …

   Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his
   successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he
   was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer
   worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of
   the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402
   to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:
   A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the
   emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with
   the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek
   Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.
{2422}
   The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by
   the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a
   small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine
   I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of
   Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the
   metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,
   appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the
   peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,
   from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a
   collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on
   festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited
   authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the
   Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to
   desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].
   Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered
   Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the
   eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the
   preservation, at least, of their lives."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 2, pages 213-215._

   "For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively
   obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man
   who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances
   which tended without exception to put power in his hand. …
   Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St.
   Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the
   distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in
   pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in
   no position to assert independence in any matter, and were
   only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of
   organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes
   had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the
   greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was
   investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than
   anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much
   of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still
   indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West
   —what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of
   jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a
   doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were
   not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered
   was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of
   old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline,
   order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality,
   eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind.
   He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has
   got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of
   dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the
   troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as
   pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity
   which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority
   of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural
   doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision,
   'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To
   him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance
   of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order,
   the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so
   dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word,
   his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his
   single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."

      _C. Gore,
      Leo the Great,
      chapters 6 and 7._

PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.
   The succession of Popes from Leo the Great
   to Gregory the Great.

   The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from
   461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of
   Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was
   called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the
   east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or
   III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius
   concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I,
   from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in
   endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at
   Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at
   the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised
   the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the
   Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established
   against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the
   majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as
   antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody
   strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king,
   Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his
   rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the
   pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to
   523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519,
   in the eastern Church.

   John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was
   cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from
   Constantinople.

   Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,
   at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed
   Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.

   Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,
   to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he
   died in 536.

   Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island
   of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who
   became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the
   east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople,
   and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to
   Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in
   obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his
   condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the
   west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because
   there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death
   of Vigilius.

   John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the
   Lombard dominion in Italy.

   Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590,
   ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard
   devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the
   series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great,
   from 590 to 604."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 2, pages 213-217._

{2423}

   "Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of
   Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay
   prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the
   invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants
   trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a
   climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time
   aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in
   one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and
   shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a
   daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this
   state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory.
   The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the
   greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their
   pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities
   in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character
   and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent
   saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and
   accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and
   people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was
   one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a
   pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's
   confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople
   to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter
   to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582),
   imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was
   intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the
   clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating
   approval of their choice. … At length the imperial
   confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled
   from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the
   gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and
   discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he
   was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St.
   Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. …
   Having been once placed in the high position he so little
   coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious
   duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive
   policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable
   than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as
   religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal
   care. And this is the more striking in combination with the
   fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all
   the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the
   ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary
   monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure
   monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is
   noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under
   strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting
   clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly
   waited on the pope in his chamber."

      _J. Barmby,
      Gregory the Great,
      chapter 2._

   "Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of
   his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both
   in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his
   Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to
   his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in
   the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to
   us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over
   every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If
   he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an
   emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the
   vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a
   distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range
   of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they
   illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture,
   and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years,
   incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the
   preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and
   strengthening the polity of the western nations, and
   counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The
   divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach.
   Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St.
   Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the
   mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even
   including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and
   whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he
   became to all succeeding times an image of the great
   sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his
   words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of
   Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at
   sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily
   pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect
   episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the
   overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of
   the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his
   doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the
   line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing
   to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates
   new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their
   foundation-stones."

      _T. W. Allies,
      The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
      from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I.,
      pages 309-335._

      See, also,
      ROME: A. D. 590-640.

PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.

   The succession of Popes.
   Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;
   Boniface III., 607;
   Boniface IV., 608-615;
   Deusdedit, 615-618;
   Boniface V., 619-625;
   Honorius I., 625-638;
   Severinus, 640;
   John IV., 640-642;
   Theodore I., 642-649;
   Martin I., 649-655;
   Eugenius I., 655-657;
   Vitalian, 657-672;
   Adeodatus II., 672-676;
   Donus I., 676-678;
   Agatho, 678-682;
   Leo II., 682-683;
   Benedict II., 684-685;
   John V., 685-686;
   Canon, 686-687;
   Sergius I.,687-701;
   John VI., 701-705;
   John VII., 705-707;
   Sisinnius, 708;
   Constantine, 708-715;
   Gregory II., 715-731.

PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
   Rise of the Papal Sovereignty at Rome.

   The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at
   Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the
   attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish
   image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC
   CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,
   but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.
   "The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for
   the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,
   elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in
   some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the
   project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But
   another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed
   Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the
   Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of
   the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the
   exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope
   Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such
   effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna
   recovered.
{2424}
   In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.
   "The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed
   by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope
   consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached
   Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were
   solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to
   press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope
   boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which
   excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and
   all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to
   suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,
   and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,
   already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this
   time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political
   independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;
   but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to
   reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by
   Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was
   still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.
   thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations
   with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince
   to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was
   now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,
   for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control
   of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their
   external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus
   held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the
   Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son
   of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the
   eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole
   of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled
   the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when
   Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch
   retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors
   in central Italy ended."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 2._

   The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the
   throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending
   their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally
   beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own.
   Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to
   their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne
   finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the
   bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a
   spiritual principality.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 15._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

PAPACY: A. D. 731-816.
   The succession of Popes.

   Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;
   Zacharias, 741-752;
   Stephen I. (or II.), 752;
   Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;
   Paul I., 757-767;
   Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;
   Hadrian I., 772-795;
   Leo III., 795-816.

PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
   Origin of the Papal States.
   The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.

   As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D.
   755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil
   the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to
   give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all
   over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in
   the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as
   should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna,
   Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli,
   Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari,
   supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni,
   Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni
   were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22
   cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the
   Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was
   established."

      _J; E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 3, chapter 10._

   "An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the
   negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a
   restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands
   failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or
   Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St.
   Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of
   victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the
   keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit
   them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus
   the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district …
   which, with some few changes, has been held by his
   successors."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 15._

   "When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up
   arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son
   Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the
   Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius
   in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made
   northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish
   empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of
   reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow,
   he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the
   pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed,
   although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the
   Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman
   Church twenty years before."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

   "It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of
   endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne]
   amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island
   of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and
   Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This
   rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could
   not give away what he did not possess, and we know that
   Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks
   till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these
   gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right
   of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of
   acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and
   the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that
   the properties were granted only under some form of feudal
   vassalage."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 16._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

{2425}

   "Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by
   the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that
   belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of
   other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium
   utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts
   been ever actually reduced into possession."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
   Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."

   "Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe,
   perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the
   donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the
   spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

   This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an
   epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the
   liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine.
   According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors
   was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of
   baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was
   physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte
   withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared
   his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and
   resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of
   Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was
   productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes
   were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of
   Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes
   were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal
   gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and
   irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the
   ecclesiastical State."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

   "But this is not all, although this is what historians, in
   admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon.
   The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his
   clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them
   enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the
   same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial
   office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the
   diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre,
   and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice
   of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old
   imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German
   Emperors."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 7, and foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 817._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 8, number 8._

PAPACY: A. D. 800.
   The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.

PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.

   The succession of Popes.
   Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;
   Paschal I., 817-:824;
   Eugene II., 824-827;
   Valentine, 827;
   Gregory IV., 827-844;
   Sergius II., 844-847;
   Leo IV., 847-855;
   Benedict III.; 855-858:
   Nicholas I., 858-867;
   Hadrian II., 867-872;
   John VIII., 872-882;
   Marinus: 882-884;
   Hadrian III., 884-885;
   Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;
   Formosus, 891-896;
   Boniface VI., 896;
   Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;
   Romanus, 897-898;
   Theodore II., 898;
   John IX., 898-900;
   Benedict IV., 900-908;
   Leo V., 908;
   Sergius III., 904-911;
   Anastasius III., 911-918;
   Lando, 913-914;
   John X., 914-928;
   Leo VI., 928-929;
   Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;
   John XI., 981-986;
   Leo VII., 936-989;
   Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:
   Marinus II.,942-946;
   Agapetus II., 946-956;
   John XII., 956-964;
   Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;
   Benedict V., 964-965;
   John XIII., 965-972;
   Benedict VI., 972-974;
   Donus II., 974-975;
   Benedict VII., 975-984;
   John XIV., 984-985;
   John XV., 985-996;
   Gregory V., 996-999;
   John XVI., antipope, 997-998;
   Sylvester II., 999-1003;
   John XVII., 1003;
   John XVIII., 1003-1009;
   Sergius IV., 1009-1012:
   Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;
   John XIX., 1024-1033;
   Benedict IX., 1033-1044;
   Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;
   Gregory VI., 1044-1046;
   Clement II., 1046-1047;
   Benedict IX., 1047-1048;
   Damasus II., 1048;
   Leo IX., 1049-1054;
   Victor II., 1055-1057;
   Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:
   Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;
   Nicholas II., 1058-1061;
   Alexander II., 1061-1073.

PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
   The False Decretals.

   "There existed in each of the national churches, a collection
   of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as
   circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in
   Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently
   attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle
   of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared
   in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but
   into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private
   collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence
   of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This
   recension contained also a number of forged documents. There
   were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes,
   from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of
   other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also
   contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine
   [see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as
   they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic
   arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in
   matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of
   those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on
   the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect
   their essential character."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 2, page 195._

   "Various opinions exist as to the time at which this
   collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.
   Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.
   D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the
   collection did not appear until after the death of
   Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an
   earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered
   in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that
   year. All that can be determined is that most probably the
   Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,
   about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to
   discover their real author. The spuriousness of these
   Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,
   with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age
   in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in
   vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …
   Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other
   grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth
   century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and
   historical inaccuracies.
{2426}
   Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the
   Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the
   several Epistles profess to have been written by different
   pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very
   barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers
   of the first century. … The success of this forgery would
   appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and
   confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose
   time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and
   resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made
   use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority
   and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The
   name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many
   persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a
   completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was
   highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently
   called Pseudo-Isidorus."

      _J. E. Riddle,
      History of the Papacy,
      volume 1, pages 405-407._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 4._

      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope,
      volume 1, page 317._

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 9._

      _H. C. Lea,
      Studies in Christian History,
      pp. 43-76._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 4, section 60._

PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
   Demoralization of the Church.
   Degradation of the Holy See.
   Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.

   "No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into
   which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome,
   had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the
   Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known
   among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum,
   and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid
   remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the
   Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,'
   says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani
   and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When
   Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome,
   he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the
   house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found
   their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks,
   contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by
   women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution
   to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of
   Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the
   case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At
   the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body
   of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after
   subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three
   fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was
   subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years
   that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into
   the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her
   equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.

      See ROME: A. D. 903-964].

   These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and
   beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic
   tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover,
   and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter,
   Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil
   government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the
   then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen,
   under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in
   keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says
   Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for
   courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages
   to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were
   spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their
   representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off
   by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received
   in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D.
   974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation,
   plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he
   could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John
   XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of
   money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the
   Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal
   bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was
   only prevented by the general indignation excited by the
   report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was
   consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of
   ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and
   murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin;
   and, when her father would not assent except on the condition
   of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and
   consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of
   the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of
   these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the
   world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had
   perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it
   over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to
   luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times
   as have been above described … we should have felt for
   certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it
   must be by some external power; she was helpless and
   resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was
   no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III.
   (A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect
   character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate
   Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to
   work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin
   that reformation which ended in the purification and
   monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his
   Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever
   should make any office or station in the Church a subject of
   purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited
   with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his
   own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as
   follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me
   the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without
   price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his
   first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be
   thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of
   the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those
   imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had
   introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the
   instrument of his general reformation.
{2427}
   The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he
   introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote
   some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who
   had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for
   a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far
   from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the
   world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was
   arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in
   those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived
   free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too
   generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have
   come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his
   predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his
   intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three
   months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of
   his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to
   create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a
   high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester
   III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in
   the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the
   Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria
   Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to
   preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of
   troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who
   molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits
   of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had
   cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. …
   This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made
   his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came
   into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri,
   a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was
   allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the
   abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had
   been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a
   monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was
   persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself
   and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the
   Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement
   II., a man of excellent character, died within the year.
   Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three
   or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical
   duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now
   we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck
   his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but
   'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that
   Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the
   Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been
   called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope
   from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a
   young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his
   superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as
   Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo,
   and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful
   man."

      _J. H. Newman,
      Essays Critical and Historical,
      volume 2, pages 255-265._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

PAPACY: A. D. 1053.
   Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church
   to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

PAPACY: A. D. 1054.
   The Filioque Controversy.
   Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

      See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY;
      also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
   Hildebrand and Henry IV.
   The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.
   Empire and Papacy in conflict.
   The War of Investitures.

   "Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German
   origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the
   monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his
   uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned
   Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and
   formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or
   Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope
   Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him
   confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together
   with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri.
   He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his
   death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where
   he had previously resided, and where, according to several
   writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his
   youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where
   he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on
   the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his
   preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the
   new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a
   monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own
   authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048,
   and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing
   him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him
   for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised
   him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically
   elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance;
   laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he
   caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election
   was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was
   the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor.
   From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the
   Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh.
   Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of
   San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end
   he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having
   renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees
   of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and
   against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were
   fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at
   Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm
   in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply
   wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or
   authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as
   well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of
   the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but
   they were soon undeceived.
{2428}
   Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope
   Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most
   important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of
   this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground:
   he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on
   the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to
   their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the
   two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates
   were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by
   this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the
   freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no
   promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice
   of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the
   struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first
   token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that
   time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a
   new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and
   made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory
   VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo
   IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and
   holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity
   to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of
   their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned
   five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the
   papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the
   East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated
   itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by
   Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius
   had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation
   took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin
   observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled
   meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being
   dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only
   renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He
   then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to
   Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman
   clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor
   Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that
   prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand
   selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the
   emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his
   entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried
   him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the
   clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II.
   The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels
   of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor
   on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis
   [October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of
   his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a
   child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the
   regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had
   scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when
   the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope
   without any imperial intervention. In the absence of
   Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the
   former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on
   Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the
   throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the
   ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.

      _Count de Montalambert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6)._

   Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again
   the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand
   from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was
   obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the
   head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the
   support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of
   Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his
   rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was
   succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's
   influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand
   himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal
   tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who
   should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and
   conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he
   protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the
   papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory
   thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the
   burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an
   article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the
   approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed
   only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV.,
   King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place,
   and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice
   of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my
   prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not
   allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go
   unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration
   beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on
   the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the
   right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been
   crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to
   himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when
   it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the
   combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of
   Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the
   authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the
   objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of
   Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as
   his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding.
   The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a
   disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the
   people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow
   myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election
   should have been ratified by the king and the princes of
   Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so
   pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to
   allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was
   accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the
   following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a
   papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect
   to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master,
   Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the
   ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 2, page 347-348._

{2429}

   "From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of
   clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their
   celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This
   prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the
   observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and
   menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed
   over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for
   Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a
   married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that
   marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large
   proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who
   handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It
   was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not
   less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular
   cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic
   ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them
   that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with
   unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical
   celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of
   the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating
   image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for
   the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of
   conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with
   adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched
   which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such
   anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession,
   convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as
   formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but
   commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring
   all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded
   priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative
   foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of
   Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the
   presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once,
   effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the
   complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the
   most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless
   bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or
   were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among
   men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more
   unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by
   austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal
   menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the
   continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed
   over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce.
   Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy
   baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a
   struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died
   away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and
   murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight
   hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of
   laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's
   still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices
   are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards
   his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address
   and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as
   the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of
   their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal
   dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency
   an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that
   choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy.
   Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest
   bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no
   less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a
   reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could
   not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the
   coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the
   crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of
   battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was
   placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as
   they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage
   and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal
   Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the
   powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the
   Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this
   'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military
   service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have
   exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged
   to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence.
   Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he
   proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits
   of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine,
   and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men
   to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to
   universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman
   Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of
   Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted
   in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene
   conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every
   house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and
   pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his
   legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to
   the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his
   territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon
   being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his
   competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent
   successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the
   Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European
   continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to
   Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved
   and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in
   Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and
   the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for
   their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied
   severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer
   assurance both of the right and the power to control every
   other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the
   civilized world."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Hildebrand
      (Edinburgh Review, April, 1845)._

{2430}

   "At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons
   against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who
   enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of
   the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened
   from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against
   Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by
   harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope
   of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the
   dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by
   his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope,
   sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out
   (still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He
   wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant
   confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother
   and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated
   councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church
   properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion
   of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies,
   soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy
   resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod
   (February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical
   penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and
   five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban
   on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the
   same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture,
   which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric
   or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the
   rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of
   excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory
   caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in
   order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking
   measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were
   involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was
   threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom
   he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the
   ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated
   directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely
   overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At
   Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the
   German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as
   was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops.
   The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at
   Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm
   against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and
   Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of
   Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious
   voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course;
   but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves
   before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German
   princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur
   in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to
   the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany
   itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban
   for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then
   resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take
   their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before
   the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his
   wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a
   friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on
   the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to
   the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of
   affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the
   Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in
   Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This
   brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa
   (January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till
   evening during three days before he released him from the ban
   at the intercession of Matilda."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
      pages 256-258._

   "It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took
   place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the
   popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the
   brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse
   of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any
   sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his
   engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned
   at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character
   in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a
   penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the
   Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the
   Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity,
   disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of
   policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to
   his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three
   successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy
   court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a
   penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was
   difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his
   fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of
   Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the
   bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of
   the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the
   fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The
   conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly
   four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a
   place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of
   the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes
   and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the
   Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released
   from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights
   of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach
   of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to
   proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms
   to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of
   that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion,
   proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends
   the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as
   to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification.
   'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half
   contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his
   lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more
   guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been
   softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart.
   … Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither
   the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a
   Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the
   proposed treachery.
{2431}
   Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of
   open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to
   throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not
   heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed
   at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their
   choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on
   the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by
   the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in
   Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual
   violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and
   greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges
   and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of
   excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their
   obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon
   calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates
   at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing
   an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna,
   an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory
   for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At
   the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is
   defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of
   the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in
   the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry
   crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before
   Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city,
   expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates
   to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the
   monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults
   it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful
   attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of
   March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the
   treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the
   anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets.
   The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John
   Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the
   Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle
   of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by
   Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy
   See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon
   the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into
   mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of
   his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at
   Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to
   end."

      _W. S. Lilly,
      The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages
      (Contemporary Review, August, 1882)._

   Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving
   Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy
   with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of
   another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures
   was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms.
   "Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one
   much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State
   substance. The more important elections should be henceforth
   made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to
   interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other
   electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in
   fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope;
   who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in
   Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey
   were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not,
   however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and
   crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage
   for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in
   Germany to find place before consecration, being the same
   arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict
   between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Medieval Church History,
      lecture 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      book 2._

      _W. R. W. Stephens.
      Hildebrand and His Times._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      books 6-8._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
      CANOSSA;
      ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
   Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.

   "According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal
   vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people
   belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in
   almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the
   selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was
   absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,
   by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the
   Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear
   that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom
   of choice any further than to make their own confirmation
   necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and
   Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent
   competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The
   bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly
   elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But
   their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had
   received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly
   despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of
   Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be
   confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was
   subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial
   prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho
   the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the
   prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of
   Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of
   naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument
   is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon
   emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one
   instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not
   uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to
   ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,
   conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means
   of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity
   into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very
   good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed
   to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been
   transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry
   IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the
   possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a
   decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but
   with a remarkable variation from the original form.
{2432}
   The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the
   neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope
   as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme
   pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests
   and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and
   afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be
   presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter
   to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should
   personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the
   foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave
   of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of
   the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other
   vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether
   for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of
   discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4, number 1._

PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
   Donation of the Countess Matilda.

   "The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface,
   Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry
   III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she
   succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca,
   Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho,
   son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their
   union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative
   ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally
   appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted
   daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory
   VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the
   difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this
   Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her
   dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077,
   confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102,
   entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S.
   Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner
   'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original
   deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of
   confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories
   conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits.
   However, it is generally thought that they comprised the
   district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying
   on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from
   Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged
   75."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      page 235, foot-note._

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.

PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154.
   The succession of Popes.

   Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;
   Urban II., 1088-1099;
   Pascal 11., 1099-1118;
   Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;
   Callistus II., 1119-1124;
   Honorius II., 1124-1130;
   Innocent II., 1130-1143;
   Celestine II., 1143-1144;
   Lucius II., 1144-1145;
   Eugene III., 1145-1153;
   Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

PAPACY: A. D. 1094.
   Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.
   The Council of Clermont.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
   Continued conflict with the Empire.
   The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

   "The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected,
   in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the
   glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had
   been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they
   aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising
   tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the
   contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest
   supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of
   Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell
   of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her
   possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the
   Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands
   which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the
   Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source
   of contention to two powers already jealous of one another.
   The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full
   scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old
   Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an
   equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more
   deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and
   Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard
   Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the
   Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of
   the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by
   Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to
   1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was
   a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great
   Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long
   refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with
   dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to
   fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D.
   1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the
   unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had
   maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the
   Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in
   adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he
   asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used
   his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII.
   at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was
   reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the
   ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent
   was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative
   genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his
   clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his
   calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides
   Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East,
   the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the
   conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203],
   and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection
   of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the
   crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by
   diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy
   and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church
   [see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning,
   though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement
   which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.
   The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical
   sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. …
{2433}
   By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers
   and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there
   grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour.
   Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new
   enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical
   system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of
   followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the
   Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor
   and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed
   at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the
   truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once
   into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great
   reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The
   reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the
   skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the
   Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the
   thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the
   protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in
   sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken
   and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected
   with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control.
   Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased
   in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the
   popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede
   the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common
   people, but in the universities as well, did their influence
   become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service
   of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached
   Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf
   of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The
   Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's
   guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won
   sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic
   was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North
   Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre;
   if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his
   independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of
   Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and
   consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic.
   Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into
   the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal
   policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

   Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their
   hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep
   the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their
   purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the
   stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in
   the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].

   By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were
   crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were
   destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy
   only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin
   influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French
   popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the
   Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the
   power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a
   connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of
   France."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1, pages 18-23._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans._

PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198.
   The succession of Popes.

   Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;
   Alexander III., 1159-1181;
   Lucius III., 1181-1185;
   Urban III., 1185-1187;
   Gregory VIII., 1187;
   Clement III., 1187-1191;
   Celestine III., 1191-1198.

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.
   Conflict of Church and State in England.
   Becket and Henry II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
   in the States of the Church.

   "Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the
   Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested
   the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish
   sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the
   Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves
   Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were
   ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not
   gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first
   Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian
   prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath
   of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from
   the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and
   compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise
   the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained
   from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands
   which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first
   time an undisputed title to the Papal States."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1. page 21._

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.
   The succession of Pores.
   Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;
   Honorius II., 1216-1227;
   Gregory IX., 1227-1241;
   Celestine IV., 1241;
   Innocent IV., 1243-1204;
   Alexander IV., 1254-1261;
   Urban IV., 1261-1264;
   Clement IV., 1265-1268;
   Gregory X., 1271-1276;
   Innocent V., 1276;
   Hadrian V., 1276;
   John XXI., 1276-1277;
   Nicholas III., 1277-1280;
   Martin IV., 1281-1285;
   Honorius IV., 1285-1287;
   Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;
   Celestine V., 1294.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.
   The acme of Papal power.
   The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.

   "The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most
   strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In
   each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,
   independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,
   control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of
   this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so
   many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central
   parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was
   taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a
   diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the
   Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch
   and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either
   before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way
   of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia
   acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his
   interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.
{2434}
   The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a
   hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of
   kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an
   inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are
   placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),
   'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the
   night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,
   which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the
   royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only
   are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may
   apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no
   quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.
   'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent
   to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to
   judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all
   public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before
   Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general
   arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout
   Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the
   public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The
   noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of
   Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in
   other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during
   this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more
   the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      volume 3, book 1, chapter 3._

      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
      part 2, chapter 3._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1203.
   The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213.
   Subjugation of the English King John.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.

PAPACY: A. D. 1215.
   The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars
   of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

PAPACY: A. D. 1266.
   Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
   to Charles of Anjou.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1268.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis,
   affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1275.
   Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne
   and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

PAPACY: A. D. 1279.
   The English Statute of Mortmain.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
   The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.
   His conflict with Philip IV. of France.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."
   Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.

   Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a
   man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder
   of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in
   his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first
   persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his
   election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and
   then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the
   good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept
   him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of
   the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election
   was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he
   decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in
   Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical
   dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered
   the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage,
   for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of
   the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was
   established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated
   22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of
   sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every
   subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St.
   Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome,
   and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the
   Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his
   tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only
   persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who
   flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at
   the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that
   Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100
   years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25.
   Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and
   temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which
   proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope
   had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from
   the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the
   arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in
   preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they
   tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the
   most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman
   See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the
   archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his
   troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal.
   … Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the
   laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights
   of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the
   king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair,
   like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to
   contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The
   pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D.
   1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the
   clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any
   payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent.
   The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or
   treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown.
   This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so
   modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free
   benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years
   after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of
   sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator
   mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all
   privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and
   people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now
   familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the
   superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and
   prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons.
{2435}
   The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating
   the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope,
   incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called
   'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without
   which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head
   in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords,
   the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the
   church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is …
   subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The
   conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the
   salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the
   Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation,
   appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey
   any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope
   resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the
   excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of
   Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England
   to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having
   sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring
   envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering
   Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40
   miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately
   raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some
   of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and
   burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a
   dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these
   had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was
   one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so
   inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on
   the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but
   for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably
   delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place
   rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome,
   but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud
   between the Church and her eldest son."

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      chapter 9._

   "Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets
   and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most
   revolting features of the human character. Many of the
   charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that
   he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and
   that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most
   criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly
   to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his
   severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go
   everywhere blackening his character. They have been
   exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to
   his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination,
   formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance
   claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in
   arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his
   predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in
   fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part
   of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy
   had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its
   decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is
   to be set against the drama of Canossa."

      _A. R. Pennington.
      The Church in Italy,
      chapter 6._

   "The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach
   by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king,
   and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in
   ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally
   suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the
   death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the
   breach with France by electing a French pope; the others
   insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of
   the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election
   of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing
   his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his
   quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly
   come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V.,
   was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he
   resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College
   crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and
   two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned
   to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian
   writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.'
   Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his
   engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his
   subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the
   condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the
   manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further
   disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg
   to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To
   escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the
   pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of
   Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging
   to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th
   century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or
   Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by
   its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of
   Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin,
   was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his
   residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after
   succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left
   his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful
   wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent
   exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase
   her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this
   inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the
   account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan
   crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount
   suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and
   territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 12 (volume 5)._

      _J. E. Darras.
      History of the Catholic Church,
      period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3)_.

PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377.
   The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.

   The following is the succession of the Popes during the
   Avignon period:
   Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;
   Benedict XI., 1303-1304;
   Clement V., 1305-1314;
   John XXII., 1316-1334;
   Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
   Clement VI., 1342-1352;
   Innocent VI., 1352-1362;
   Urban V., 1362-1370;
   Gregory XI., 1371-1378.

{2436}

   "The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less
   dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by
   a College of Cardinals in which the French element
   predominated, they gave a French character to the government
   of the Church. This character was at variance with the
   principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. …
   The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of
   French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French
   Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of
   the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that
   the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France.
   This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the
   general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in
   the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the
   ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds
   which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See
   were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon
   period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion
   that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by
   the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this
   general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so
   weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by
   which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the
   Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the
   least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years
   offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a
   writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period,
   emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the
   Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with
   the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The
   extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn
   is an unfair exaggeration."

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, pages 58-60._

PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393.
   Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.
   Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.
   The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354.
   Rienzi's revolution at Rome.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation of the States of the Church
   and the return from Avignon to Rome.
   Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.

   "Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped
   by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have
   come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer
   offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of
   affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. …
   The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had
   fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic
   measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely
   lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a
   Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his
   military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy
   of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles
   were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban
   V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into
   obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined
   "to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries
   of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury
   of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief
   stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the
   fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of
   three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which
   happened three months after his return, was regarded by many
   as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had
   returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced
   to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return
   through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The
   French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy
   among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not
   associated with any of the elements of state life existing in
   Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church
   immediately under their power involved the destruction of the
   small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the
   democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise
   enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to
   content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal
   obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French
   governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt
   against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to
   her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the
   word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in
   the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of
   Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy
   might have been swept away if Florence could have brought
   about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back
   from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised
   to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal
   excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves
   of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and
   France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their
   cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could
   save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse
   refused to let him mount when he set out on his
   journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties
   of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of
   its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to
   be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some
   small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed
   only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A
   congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was
   anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to
   Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were
   embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now
   inevitable."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.

PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.
   Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.
   Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

{2437}

PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
   Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.
   The Great Western Schism.
   Battle in Rome and siege and partial
   destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
   The Council of Pisa.
   Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.

   "For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal
   Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the
   States of the Church were harried to death by contending
   factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377.
   The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto;
   the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived
   only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the
   election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St.
   Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round
   the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman
   for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal
   Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was
   finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an
   intended compromise between the Italian party and the French
   party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini
   presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope
   had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his
   name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the
   Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed
   him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was
   arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news
   was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to
   rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to
   still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the
   conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was
   elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and
   finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such,
   however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with
   difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the
   ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope.
   This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in
   the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned
   by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within
   its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew
   to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they
   afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert
   of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who
   took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender
   the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his
   compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the
   papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with
   citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed
   force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and
   Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy,
   the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the
   undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St.
   Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the
   Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the
   Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a
   year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379,
   the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of
   Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and
   imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great
   battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the
   anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to
   surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage
   done to it during this siege must have been very great. In
   some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its
   marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the
   Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it
   for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they
   passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and
   razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an
   attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything
   by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off;
   but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts,
   and the attempt was given up."

      _W. W. Story,
      Castle St. Angelo,
      chapter 5._

   "Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal
   for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and
   the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to
   have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his
   election he began to act with harshness to the members of the
   Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular
   princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11
   Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,
   owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a
   written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested
   against the election, as not having been free, and they called
   on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,
   in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of
   the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on
   the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French
   Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of
   Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at
   Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were
   two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at
   Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The
   latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,
   Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the
   remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was
   succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on
   his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned
   at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of
   affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at
   Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other
   nations acting with them, were:
   Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;
   Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;
   Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;
   Alexander V., a native of Candia,
   who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;
   and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.
   …
   Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at
   Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as
   such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement
   and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the
   time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,
   Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of
   his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,
   Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate
   the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,
   Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.
{2438}
   The same view was taken by most of the universities of
   Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept
   it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a
   conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both
   parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held
   a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory
   XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to
   obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own
   authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of
   March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,
   and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of
   Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were
   present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12
   archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102
   absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the
   generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13
   Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and
   collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and
   civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,
   France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both
   claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over
   the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the
   conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one
   Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander
   V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then
   elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly
   man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,
   Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still
   adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,
   Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.
   "The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it
   laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three
   claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General
   Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the
   Church."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 20._

   "The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest
   known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated,
   when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough
   reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This
   was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils
   which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely
   increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired,
   and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal
   power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope
   he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple
   fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the
   Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that
   these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great
   Apostacy of the 16th century."

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 141._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 9, section 1._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6)._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      sections 269-270 (volume 3)._

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7)._

      _St. C. Baddeley,
      Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

PAPACY: A. D. 1378-1415.
   Rival Popes during the Great Schism.

   Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);
   Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);
   Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);
   Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);
   Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);
   Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);
   Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);
   John XXIII., 1410-1415.

PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.
   Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
   The Council of Constance.
   Election of Martin V.
   Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.

   "In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve
   appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed
   upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and
   members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance,
   who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical
   propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned.
   John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to
   correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be
   expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those
   of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops
   coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret
   understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the
   latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon
   turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek
   refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413).
   From this city John opened communications with the princes of
   Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the
   council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of
   Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November
   1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally
   throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased
   by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various
   theories on Church government called forth by the controversy,
   greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to
   the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled
   state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of
   ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000
   ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was
   largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops,
   close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300
   doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in
   person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city,
   and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many
   of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as
   might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing
   to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a
   limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in
   the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all
   questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by
   that of the representatives of the various nations, including
   doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a
   threefold character, viz.,
   1. To terminate the papal schism;
   2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly
   those of Huss; and
   3. To enact reformatory decrees.

   … It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to
   attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was
   only because he was forced to take the step by the
   representations of others. …
{2439}
   Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he
   naturally thought that he would be recognized as the
   legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All
   questions were first discussed by the various nations, each
   member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next
   brought before a general conference of nations, and this
   result again before the next session of the Council. This plan
   of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied
   for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and
   doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a
   memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in
   circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that
   pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was
   this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the
   energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,
   or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent
   a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to
   the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the
   Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.
   Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.
   The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to
   induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave
   rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good
   faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the
   Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He
   now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city
   before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these
   protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a
   groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and
   made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence
   to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of
   Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to
   Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the
   departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and
   confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,
   the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the
   indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,
   d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A
   Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council
   without the consent of the latter, and hence the present
   Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of
   the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the
   Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these
   relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present
   schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her
   Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are
   under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after
   getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the
   action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the
   cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and
   sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …
   justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its
   work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and
   of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned
   and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415].

   In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting
   under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the
   fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to
   Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges
   —some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from
   the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by
   a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on
   May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed
   and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July,
   Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to
   accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict
   XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions,
   though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on
   the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy
   having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a
   legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to
   an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this
   particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each
   nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the
   choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished
   for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of
   disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned
   under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on
   the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the
   work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended
   mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the
   English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of
   the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a
   schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of
   before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they
   were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully
   carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a
   committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each
   nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils
   were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite
   agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt
   the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      sections 270-271 (volume 3)._

   The election of Martin V. might have been a source of
   unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken
   the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but
   the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his
   accession showed that little was to be expected from him in
   this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the
   Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither
   the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal
   reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with
   Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to
   meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a
   certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most
   difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite
   demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by
   interests now long established to any attempt to bring things
   back to their former state. The situation was complicated to
   such a degree that any change might have brought about a
   revolution.
{2440}
   It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms
   involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular
   income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very
   great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been
   made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the
   regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which
   was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though
   not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was
   an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still
   retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the
   much needed amendment was again deferred."

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, pages 209-210._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6)._

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1431.
   Election of Eugenius IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
   The Council of Basle.
   Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.

   "The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils
   with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a
   Council was no longer that word of terror which a little
   before it had been. There was more than one motive for
   summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them.
   Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching
   her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she
   herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not
   yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its
   favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the
   restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church
   in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus,
   in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of
   Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to
   set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third
   Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who
   sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after
   the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so
   completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight
   regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council
   seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done
   before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops
   and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A
   democratic element made itself felt throughout all its
   deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a
   revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say
   that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success.
   At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for
   work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites
   for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope,
   alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not
   conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to
   dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and
   in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had
   been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the
   superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that,
   as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be
   dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its
   own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals
   to take their share in its labours, began the work of
   reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time;
   recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of
   anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle.
   Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife;
   Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in
   these reforms one source after another of the income which had
   hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while
   no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due
   dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses.
   As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the
   Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that
   negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more
   conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to
   Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending
   (January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and
   electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a
   retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing
   the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.

      See SAVOY: 11-15th CENTURIES.

   The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public
   opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his
   competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him
   a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus,
   a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the
   Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of
   another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another
   half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its
   members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and,
   though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of
   inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of
   the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the
   last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely
   and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Medieval Church History,
      lecture 20._

   "In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch
   made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the
   following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,
   after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members
   of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
   of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman
   church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the
   addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the
   condition of the soul after its separation from the body until
   the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the
   sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The
   union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the
   magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,
   when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster
   edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own
   much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived
   none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated
   union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
   liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the
   Greek court and clergy during their absence from
   Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two
   galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well
   equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his
   Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend
   Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any
   disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
   took up the cross against the Turks.
{2441}
   On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner
   in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been
   sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The
   bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at
   Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and
   making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their
   wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of
   the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this
   abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the
   bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just
   grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith
   of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the
   Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
   hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the
   empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the
   sultan."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2)._

   Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors
   were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the
   Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was
   won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom;
   for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a
   political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than
   ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his
   policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in
   those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to
   a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the
   energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous
   diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the
   age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness
   abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to
   divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a
   problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new
   atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we
   may adopt the language of their apologists) they took
   advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in
   Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of
   civilisation which might render organic reform needless."

      _R. L. Poole,
      Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,
      chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

PAPACY: A. D. 1439.
   Election of Felix V. (by the Council of Basle).

PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.
   The pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Recovery of character and influence.
   Beginning of the Renaissance.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

PAPACY: A. D. 1455.
   Election of Callistus III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1458.
   Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned
   Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.

PAPACY: A. D. 1464.
   Election of Paul II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
   The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.
   Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.
   The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.

   "The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held
   in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to
   inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and
   from that period down to the Reformation, it would be
   difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious,
   wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs.
   Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II.
   with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious.
   Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his
   nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest
   dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their
   aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom
   against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard
   della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was
   raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's
   pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in
   the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo
   de' Medici and his brother.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

   "This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the
   mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes
   gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian
   Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent
   VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle.
   He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he
   did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had
   advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July
   25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo
   Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time
   exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he
   assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered
   the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all
   but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a
   rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a
   load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for
   flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope
   Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman
   citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in
   Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, pages 105, 108, 175, 177-178._

   Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open
   debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most
   shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in
   the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having
   forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope
   revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,
   because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that
   hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at
   least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of
   Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept
   for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold
   at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all
   ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines
   in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it
   not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the
   monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,
   almost all the monasteries of the town have become
   bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect
   to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader
   may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies
   in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the
   enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.
{2442}
   Let the reader also read for himself the story of the
   bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the
   young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and
   how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'
   gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all
   the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,
   in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil
   security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to
   death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his
   presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant
   with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman
   was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town
   that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied
   that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water
   during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had
   ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,
   'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly
   a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day
   killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and
   under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's
   face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then
   strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if
   you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by
   their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have
   presented to Europe the two most successful images of the
   devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense
   ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the
   smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such
   is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."

      _H. A. Taine,
      History of English Literature,
      volume 1, pages 354-355._

   "It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name
   of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the
   Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred
   with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the
   crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly
   from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from
   the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the
   corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of
   hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his
   death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern
   nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when
   the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a
   Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it
   inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts
   which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently
   fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to
   demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the
   inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two
   conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme
   corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than
   his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini,
   'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with
   extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave
   affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.'
   His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions
   of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which
   had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent,
   were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli
   observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the
   Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the
   Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France,
   and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large
   European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the
   sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander
   also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram
   gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars,
   Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.'
   But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having
   sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his
   prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him
   sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and
   recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades
   against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the
   coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited
   Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who
   opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The
   fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the
   Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince
   Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of
   Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian
   powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000
   ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the
   only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in
   succession, after having been formally betrothed to two
   Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the
   memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful,
   and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made
   her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at
   the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It
   seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her
   brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in
   Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests
   which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair
   port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503],
   the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them
   in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of
   Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned
   wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their
   victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to
   contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 6._

   The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as
   related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The
   principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been
   generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility
   of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope
   Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date
   of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning
   unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and
   overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in
   a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of
   August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date
   of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet
   must have been on the 17th at the earliest.
{2443}
   But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of
   ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's
   illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his
   condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a
   Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary
   authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state
   that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a
   week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute
   demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on
   the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent
   that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence
   that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning
   was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with
   the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable
   authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals
   were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without
   ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal
   whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,
   Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet
   either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian
   ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever
   contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,
   says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and
   first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in
   the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was
   attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until
   the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,
   and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal
   could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the
   12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a
   doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope
   was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and
   any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …
   There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence
   of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,
   who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It
   is possible that poison may have been then administered which
   did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the
   picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness
   and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,
   which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating
   them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on
   their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander
   accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for
   another—though not in itself impossible or even very
   improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by
   direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It
   does not follow that he may not have been poisoned
   designedly."

      _R. Garnett,
      The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.
      (English Historical Review, April, 1894)._

   "Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no
   account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in
   1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the
   high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that
   Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance,
   and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right
   be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He
   stamped the century with the impress of a powerful
   personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael
   Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St.
   Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize
   the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the
   modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought.
   No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of
   ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose
   was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes;
   and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians,
   who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and
   Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and
   by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare
   Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the
   largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless,
   turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the
   peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from
   time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from
   Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while
   still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved
   Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League
   of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and
   who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A.
   D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal
   authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. …
   Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the
   Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old
   'Pontefice terribile.'"

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8)._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy,
      book 5, chapters 3-17._

      _W. Gilbert,
      Lucrezia Borgia._

      _P. Villari,
      Life and Times of Machiavelli,
      introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1);
      book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1493.
   The Pope's assumption of authority
   to give the New World to Spain.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

PAPACY: A. D. 1496-1498.
   The condemnation of Savonarola.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (September).
   Election of Pius III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (October).
   Election of Julius II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.
   Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The Holy League against France.
   The pseudo-council at Pisa.
   Conquests of Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PAPACY: A. D. 1513.
   Election of Leo X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.
   Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.
   Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   The Concordat of Bologna.
   Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

{2444}

PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,
   and his financial expedients.
   The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.

   "The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of
   Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances
   he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views
   which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it
   absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of
   a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with
   money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary
   revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced,
   immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to
   grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout
   Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of
   indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the
   same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to
   under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be
   expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the
   produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's
   Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the
   inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe
   in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of
   any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial
   speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion
   then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of
   indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's
   sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable,
   that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the
   pope's family."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a
   relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the
   Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The
   doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction
   should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came
   the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties.
   When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the
   canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to
   their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money
   in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with
   the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first
   the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor.
   Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine
   forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a
   judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of
   conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the
   grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or
   pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary
   indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal
   penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the
   penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These
   penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence
   obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales
   and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory
   merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church
   through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the
   Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more
   needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys,
   the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood
   alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or
   commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
   Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the
   temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head
   of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith
   from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had
   officially declared that souls already in purgatory are
   emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in
   behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way
   analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power
   that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished
   by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had
   grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus,
   'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold
   only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by
   Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for
   the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a
   simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a
   stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from
   the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from
   the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered
   in the market for money."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 4._

   The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic
   Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its
   most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?
   It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the
   keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a
   portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.
   The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this
   remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by
   the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the
   just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to
   other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,
   the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such
   as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the
   austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the
   Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and
   chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the
   tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been
   pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy
   anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of
   the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
   these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
   merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a
   store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction
   of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal
   punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be
   remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner
   assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority
   imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must
   have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as
   acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of
   exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it
   must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily
   possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the
   same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And
   such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics
   understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to
   say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took
   place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.
{2445}
   Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through
   the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when
   indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable
   or religious foundations, in the erection of which private
   motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt
   and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by
   an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had
   subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a
   ground for Luther's separation from the Church."

      _N. Wiseman,
      Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
      Practices of the Catholic Church,
      lecture 12._

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   Tetzel and the hawking of Indulgences through Germany.

   "In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had
   opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the
   cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a
   fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and
   offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of
   souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a
   handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show,
   and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was
   approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate:
   'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said
   the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The
   clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters,
   the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men
   and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing
   lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of
   music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they
   could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The
   salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church,
   the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet
   cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant
   followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this
   order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers,
   and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the
   hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the
   temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar;
   the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person
   especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who
   carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He
   wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing
   and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he
   had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a
   goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or
   Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He
   was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic
   commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had
   filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had
   acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. …
   The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon
   it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began
   to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd
   whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people
   listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his
   harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and
   sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross)
   has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself.
   Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by
   which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit
   hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my
   privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved
   more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his
   discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence
   cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than
   that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead
   also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young
   man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and
   who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring
   horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give
   it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words,
   pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The
   very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at
   the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from
   purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses
   heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising
   up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as
   'having solemnly established its throne' in that place.
   Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and
   the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were
   told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their
   sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it
   was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to
   make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring
   money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those
   who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to
   satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and
   it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale,
   which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near
   the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached
   him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress,
   and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each.
   Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay,
   according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts,
   and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of
   the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in
   Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of
   prices."

      _J. N. Merle D'Aubigne,
      The Story of the! Reformation,
      part 1, chapter 6
      (or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. J. Spalding,
      History of the Protestant Reformation,
      part 2, chapter 3._

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.
   His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.
   The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.
   The satisfaction of awakened Germany.

   "Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.
   Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within
   its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the
   University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of
   which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was
   the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.
   The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre
   of the town, a little back from the main street.
{2446}
   This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for
   years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,
   now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false
   pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay
   for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of
   the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.
   As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of
   their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the
   gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that
   what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole
   thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught
   him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought
   to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the
   festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were
   displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the
   town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of
   ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against
   indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the
   palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on
   All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish
   church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope
   that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the
   palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the
   Elector of Saxony."

      _F. Seebohm,
      The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
      part 2, chapter 3 (c)._

   "As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious
   and political, or financial, so also political events came in
   aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas.
   Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence
   proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in
   his own dominions in his possession, with the determination
   not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels,
   which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken;
   the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had
   demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really
   was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects
   of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at
   length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now
   inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The
   sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his
   subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial
   grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were
   in any degree excited by the former; this it would be
   impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the
   facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more
   original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though
   these were important, as having their proper source in the
   general condition of Germany. The point whence the great
   events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the
   coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the
   interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable
   persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who
   dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and
   resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and
   the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated;
   they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together
   by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk
   attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he
   did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. …
   Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany
   from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage
   to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal
   satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public
   conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in
   it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most
   purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of
   literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was
   one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of
   the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the
   temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it
   sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of
   Rome."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Köstlin,
      Life of Luther,
      part 3, chapter 1._

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   The Ninety-five Theses of Luther.

   The following is a translation of the ninety-five theses:

   "In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth,
   a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at
   Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin
   Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and
   of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that
   place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and
   discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in
   their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

   1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,'
   etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be
   penitence.

   2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that
   is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed
   under the ministry of priests.

   3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay
   such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces
   various mortifications of the flesh.

   4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of
   self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till
   our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

   5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any
   penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own
   authority, or by that of the canons.

   6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by
   declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or
   at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which
   eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly
   remain.

   7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time
   subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his
   representative the priest.

   8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and
   no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

   9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us,
   in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the
   article of death and of necessity.

   10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the
   case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for
   purgatory.

   11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into
   the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while
   the bishops were asleep.

   12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after,
   but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

{2447}

   13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead
   to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.

   14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person
   necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the
   greater the fear it brings.

   15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say
   nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory,
   since it is very near to the horror of despair.

   16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair,
   almost despair, and peace of mind differ.

   17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be
   that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.

   18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any
   scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of
   the increase of charity.

   19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and
   confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,
   though we may be very sure of it.

   20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary
   remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but
   only of those imposed by himself.

   21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say
   that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and
   saved from all punishment.

   22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
   which they would have had to pay in this life according to the
   canons.

   23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to
   anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most
   perfect, that is, to very few.

   24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be
   deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of
   release from penalties.

   25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such
   has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his
   own parish, in particular.

   26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls,
   not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this
   case) but by the way of suffrage.

   27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of
   purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

   28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest,
   avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the
   Church depends on the will of God alone.

   29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be
   redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints
   Severinus and Paschal.

   30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much
   less of the attainment of plenary remission.

   31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
   indulgences—that is to say, most rare.

   32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they
   are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned
   along with their teachers.

   33. We must especially beware of those who say that these
   pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by
   which man is reconciled to God.

   34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only
   to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of
   human appointment.

   35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that
   contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of
   purgatory or buy confessional licences.

   36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right
   plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of
   pardon.

   37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share
   in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by
   God, even without letters of pardon.

   38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no
   means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a
   declaration of the Divine remission.

   39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned
   theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the
   people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true
   contrition.

   40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the
   ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or
   at least gives occasion for them to do so.

   41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,
   lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed
   before other good works of charity.

   42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the
   Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared
   to works of mercy.

   43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor
   man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought
   pardons.

   44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the
   man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not
   become better, but only freer from punishment.

   45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in
   need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not
   purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the
   anger of God.

   46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have
   superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary
   for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish
   it on pardons.

   47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to
   buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.

   48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting
   pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer
   should be made for him, than that money should be readily
   paid.

   49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are
   useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most
   hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.

   50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were
   acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he
   would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to
   ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh,
   and bones of his sheep.

   51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty,
   so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if
   necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own
   money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons
   extract money.

   52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon,
   even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his
   own soul for them.

   53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order
   that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter
   silence in other churches.

   54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon,
   an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.

   55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons,
   which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single
   bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel,
   which is a very great matter, should be preached with a
   hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred
   ceremonies.

   56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants
   indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among
   the people of Christ.

{2448}

   57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures,
   for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated,
   by many of the preachers.

   58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for
   these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to
   the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer
   man.

   59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the
   poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the
   word in his time.

   60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of
   the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that
   treasure.

   61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone
   sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved
   cases.

   62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the
   glory and grace of God.

   63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,
   because it makes the first to be last.

   64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most
   acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.

   65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of
   old they fished for the men of riches.

   66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now
   fish for the riches of men.

   67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to
   be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards
   the promotion of gain.

   68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the
   grace of God and the piety of the cross.

   69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries
   of apostolic pardons with all reverence.

   70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their
   eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not
   preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.

   71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
   him be anathema and accursed.

   72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the
   wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons,
   let him be blessed.

   73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind
   of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.

   74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those
   who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the
   injury of holy charity and of truth.

   75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they
   could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had
   violated the Mother of God, is madness.

   76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take
   away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.

   77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could
   grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and
   the Pope.

   78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope
   has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts
   of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).

   79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the
   Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is
   blasphemy.

   80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such
   discourses to have currency among the people, will have to
   render an account.

   81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy
   thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to
   the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen
   questionings of the laity.

   82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for
   the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of
   souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems
   an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal
   thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a
   very slight reason?

   83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for
   the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or
   permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this
   purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already
   redeemed?

   84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in
   that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy
   of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not
   redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity,
   on account of its own need?

   85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since
   abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by
   usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting
   of indulgences, as if they were full of life?

   86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day
   more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build
   the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than
   with that of poor believers?

   87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who,
   through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission
   and participation?

   88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the
   Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these
   remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one
   of the faithful?

   89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money,
   that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the
   letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally
   efficacious.

   90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by
   force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to
   expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their
   enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.

   91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and
   mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with
   ease; nay, would not exist.

   92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of
   Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.

   93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of
   Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.

   94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ
   their head through pains, deaths, and hells.

   95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,
   rather than in the security of peace."

      _H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,
      First Principles of the Reformation,
      page 6-13._

PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
   Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany
   gained ground.
   The Bull "Exurge Domine."
   Excommunication of Luther.
   The imperial summons from Worms.

   "It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a
   prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a
   devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and
   had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for
   which he had given large sums of money. His attention,
   however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and
   he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an
   ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment
   at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully
   increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic
   quite into the shade. …
{2449}
   As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in
   his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as
   much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his
   limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking
   any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to
   prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt
   entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also
   favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have
   been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The
   Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance
   of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded
   either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at
   Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di
   Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet
   dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the
   preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself,
   stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone,
   and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector
   Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg,
   which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished
   professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed
   his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by
   impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg
   to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal
   Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived
   from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg
   on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from
   the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. …
   Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time,
   October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent
   that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at
   first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm,
   demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to
   appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and
   threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of
   Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His
   patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of
   October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a
   postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well
   dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick
   complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg,
   and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at
   least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's
   prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At
   length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an
   intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg.
   Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of
   strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin,
   who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the
   university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at
   Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with
   the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull
   dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or
   his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of
   indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired
   effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von
   Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and
   Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the
   present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end,
   as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through
   Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the
   people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the
   Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. …
   Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an
   interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to
   promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint
   were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to
   address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd
   1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that
   his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly
   declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and
   authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he
   considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. …
   The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was
   broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged
   Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of
   Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed
   by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in
   motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had
   to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature
   sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten,
   Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans
   Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour
   the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester
   von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their
   castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg
   declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to
   protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more
   convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. …
   Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since
   the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many
   of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any
   longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or
   even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no
   rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his
   boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to
   moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther
   sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his
   language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable
   letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication
   to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just
   alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous
   Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther,
   June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms,
   condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's
   works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome,
   if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him
   to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published
   treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he
   was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all
   princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his
   adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave
   them shelter were threatened with an interdict.
{2450}
   The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in
   North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. …
   On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking
   that final step which rendered it impossible for him to
   recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of
   Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of
   professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands
   to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned,
   together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of
   Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther
   and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with
   bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his
   writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms
   which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who
   succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's
   books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt,
   the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of
   such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had
   already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they
   recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and
   interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation.
   … In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor
   issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to
   appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied
   with a safe conduct."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
      book 5, chapter 3;
      book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2)._

      _J. E. Darras,
      History of the Church,
      7th period, chapter 1 (volume 4)._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 6, chapter 4._

PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.
   Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.

   Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or
   Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and
   his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church
   at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so
   extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a
   providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second
   instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the
   same means which had been employed to produce the first. One
   Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a
   Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of
   indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He
   preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same
   trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same
   clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political
   freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general
   disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at
   Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade
   of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson
   and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the
   necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present
   his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely
   on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of
   Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and
   immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude
   the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion
   to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of
   Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From
   Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the
   excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich.
   Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in
   rousing the indignation of the people against the same object;
   and so successfully did he support the instruction of the
   Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the
   personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined
   not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A
   deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical
   legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the
   Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart
   from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps
   towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at
   the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed
   a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the
   misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April,
   with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as
   might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those
   indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so
   far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment,
   should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. …
   But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an
   episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to
   invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations,
   with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his
   adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free
   preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the
   beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object
   to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character
   of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them
   to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding
   was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book
   of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively
   treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by
   next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles
   of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification
   by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to
   draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a
   pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the
   covenant of their redemption. … His success was so
   considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as
   2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the
   chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following
   year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and
   ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices
   and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines
   only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels,
   and apostolical epistles."

      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

{2451}

   "With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal
   in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek
   free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks
   to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and
   the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This
   step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of
   the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military
   contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began
   to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting,
   celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January,
   1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening
   of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of
   the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of
   Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had
   invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and
   clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of
   reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion
   initiated the practical consequences of the reformed
   doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship.
   Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was
   conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a
   far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest
   approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne
   Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau),
   and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst
   priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping
   changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of
   mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far
   beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar
   pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called
   forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of
   the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. …
   Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under
   government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish
   gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an
   enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves
   ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church
   was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and
   placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a
   clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools,
   hospitals, and poorhouses."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Switzerland,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Stebbing,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapter 7 (volume l)._

      _C. Beard,
      The Reformation
      (Hibbert Lectures, 1883).
      lecture 7._

      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigné.
      History of the Reformation,
      books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3)._

      _M. J. Spalding.
      History of the Protestant Reformation,
      part 2, chapter 5._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 7, chapters 1-3._

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
   Luther before the Diet at Worms.
   His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.
   His translation of the Bible.

   "On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther
   set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with
   three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat
   of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to
   order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way
   the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if
   he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are
   as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the
   house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the
   truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the
   Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the
   university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and
   honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he
   preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had
   protested against the appearance in the Diet of an
   excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the
   safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said
   that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on
   the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a
   fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which
   it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that
   if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal
   Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such
   matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart
   entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed
   and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were
   all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing.
   As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls
   blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by
   him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few
   assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that
   he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to
   favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate
   in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared.
   The presence in which he found himself would have tried the
   nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile,
   with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the
   archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the
   only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and
   barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their
   sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only,
   George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he
   passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he
   said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man
   whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is
   right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not
   forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was
   brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles,
   asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to
   retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He
   answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other
   question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His
   first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was
   allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he
   had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and
   collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman
   against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said
   firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple
   Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could
   not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had
   tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as
   excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he
   retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third
   sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been
   too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but
   would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his
   answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in
   German.
{2452}
   There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken
   disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at
   the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special
   points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He
   required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The
   taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his
   reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has
   neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have
   erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I
   submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can
   do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged.
   Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before
   the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was
   supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a
   dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had
   been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not
   permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his
   lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he
   cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be
   struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same
   evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he
   had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far,
   he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now
   dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the
   day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther
   home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church
   required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that
   further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was
   allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the
   infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the
   infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon
   Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The
   Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide
   upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear,
   would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the
   Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer
   able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should
   disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him
   should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian
   Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed
   men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and
   carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing
   by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some
   captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the
   Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was
   as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the
   8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under
   the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air
   invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he
   came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at
   Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He
   dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he
   let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution,
   deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the
   scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut
   illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in
   hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like
   schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries
   dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there
   was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were
   adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in
   Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was
   all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need
   of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise;
   but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to
   retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he
   bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was
   able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear
   vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the
   beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the
   New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the
   Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him
   word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he
   returned finally to his home and his friends. The New
   Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at
   once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was
   taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly
   finished."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Luther: a Short Biography,
      pages 28-35._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapters 13-14 (volume 1)._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation,
      chapter 9._

      _J. Köstlin,
      Life of Luther,
      part 3, chapter 9._

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
   Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.
   Hesitation of Francis I.
   His final persecution of the Reformers.

   "The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige
   of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic
   Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the
   feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.
   The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at
   Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained
   Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all
   doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the
   Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the
   Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.
   But the first movements towards reform emanated from the
   Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was
   awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy
   which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis
   especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large
   numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise
   visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which
   they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek
   was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the
   'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was
   concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy
   to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or
   hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new
   impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars
   found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new
   studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the
   might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,
   Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and
   every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of
   orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to
   persecution.
{2453}
   Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new
   learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to
   the traditional theology. The Father of the French
   Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than
   any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the
   Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the
   University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he
   put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary
   on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to
   his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be
   a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the
   signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is
   near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous
   justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme
   and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a
   polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him
   from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness
   of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.
   One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the
   same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the
   evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the
   Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form
   when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University
   and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a
   dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in
   which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with
   Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum
   with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the
   Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly
   pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the
   individual might interpret for himself, and declared
   justification to be through faith alone, without human works
   or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another
   Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed
   to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,
   either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight
   of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the
   condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even
   acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism
   within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards
   recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in
   the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of
   Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to
   the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The
   mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor
   Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the
   contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a
   mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her
   acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the
   death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she
   was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in
   behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the
   Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of
   Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and
   principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its
   professors. …

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563].

   The drift of her influence appears in the character of her
   daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV.,
   and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret
   immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis
   I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters
   gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the
   Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained
   the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the
   head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his
   mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the
   leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to
   conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by
   the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave
   a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court,
   composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament.
   Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de
   Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of
   Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown
   into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him
   from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin
   was hanged and burned.

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 8._

   "Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the
   preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious
   tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide.
   In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was
   posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own
   chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the
   heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. …
   Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his
   disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris,
   unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a
   diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious
   document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534,
   and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were
   put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist
   outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme
   cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It
   was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of
   January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and
   to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that
   Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A
   timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France
   [1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might
   lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva
   [1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night,
   he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous
   Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and
   carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively,
   but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had
   no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses
   himself."

      _R. Heath,
      The Reformation in France,
      book 1, chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
      chapters 2-4 (volume 1)._

      _R. T. Smith,
      The Church in France,
      chapter 12._

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1555.
   Beginnings of the Reformation in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

{2454}

PAPACY: A. D. 1522.
   Election of Adrian VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
   The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation
   and its systematic organization.
   The two diets of Nuremberg.
   The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
   The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.

   "Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented
   from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany,
   by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war
   with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries,
   and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a
   continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance
   from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint
   president of the council of regency, the administration of
   affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in
   the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the
   crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the
   empire was left to the council of regency, of which several
   members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of
   these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome
   the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are
   exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the
   court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who,
   by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical
   chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the
   corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic
   confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and
   members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the
   arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more
   the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid
   increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of
   Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to
   the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of
   Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand,
   principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the
   edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and
   addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely
   censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into
   execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and
   moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of
   the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same
   time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the
   corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils
   which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a
   reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The
   members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal,
   advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the
   reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred
   grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate,
   and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would
   procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted
   them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was
   framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of
   persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with
   patience the determination of a free council, forbade the
   diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and
   subjected all publications to the approbation of men of
   learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it
   declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had
   quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they
   were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
   liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of
   their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans
   derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as
   the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by
   the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period
   they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff,
   and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were
   enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body.
   They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict
   of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. …
   Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the
   doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without
   exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was
   persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a
   regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the
   service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass,
   and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few
   innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles.
   To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the
   ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their
   administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his
   writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this
   judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision
   for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools;
   for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and
   widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings;
   and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn
   against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances,
   though not established with the public approbation of the
   elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be
   considered as the first institution of a reformed system of
   worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the
   example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the
   Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes
   were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the
   second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber,
   canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress
   through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the
   Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although
   under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of
   regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make
   his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his
   dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. …
   Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding
   diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The
   recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of
   Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the
   former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to
   obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524,
   entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of
   Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of
   Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for
   enforcing the edict of Worms.
{2455}
   At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate
   published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but
   these being confined to points of minor importance, and
   regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction,
   and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this
   formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of
   the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive
   innovations, which followed each other with wonderful
   rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525,
   was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly
   espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system
   recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations,
   was introduced by his authority, and declared the established
   religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up
   an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes
   who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding
   year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession
   of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his
   emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by
   espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble
   lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and
   taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the
   elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse
   Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil
   and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania,
   and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh,
   Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and
   others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh,
   grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his
   vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran
   tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland,
   secularised Eastern Prussia."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 28 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2)._

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
      books 10-13 (volume 2)._

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 5-6._

PAPACY: A. D. 1523.
   Election of Clement VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.
   The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor
   and the king of France.
   Imperial revenge.
   The sack of Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.

PAPACY: A. D. 1524.
   Institution of the Order of the Theatines.

      See THEATINES.

PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
   The League of Torgau.
   Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.
   The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave
   rise to the name "Protestants."

   "At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an
   assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of
   ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand
   from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points
   in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth,
   and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to
   deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform.
   The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the
   majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in
   an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to
   prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out
   between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to
   offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by
   letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to
   drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In
   consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of
   Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive
   league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several
   Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of
   Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that
   appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In
   the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed
   the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous
   preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm
   throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by
   the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which
   Clement was the leading promoter.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

   This changed the imperial policy in reference to the
   Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved
   that, until the meeting of a general council, every state
   should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer
   to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to
   stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of
   the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act
   according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest
   importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great
   landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of
   the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating
   the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of
   Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For
   several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of
   years the position of Charles with respect to France and the
   Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to
   embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now
   that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the
   Catholic party revived its policy of repression."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 4._

   "While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a
   new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted
   themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet
   of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal
   position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders
   would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but
   in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of
   defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been
   enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all
   further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious
   innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the
   assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and
   paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,
   but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of
   Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.
   Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that
   were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour
   … the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his
   notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to
   renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a
   murmur. …
{2456}
   The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was
   about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free
   Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder
   and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor
   and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser
   Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the
   protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,
   in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived
   little active support from him. These were inflexibly
   determined that the decree of the majority should not be
   assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George
   the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and
   Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of
   Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,
   Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,
   Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],
   entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They
   were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names
   that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in
   Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the
   world."

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther, his Life and Work,
      book 14, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      books 4-5 (volumes 2-3)._

      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation,
      book 10, chapter 14,
      and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4)._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 311 (volume 3)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1527-1533.
   The rupture with England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
   The Diet at Augsburg.
   Presentation and condemnation of the
   Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The breach with the Reformation complete.

   "In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy
   quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries,
   determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question
   of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned,
   and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the
   general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished
   from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom
   would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished
   from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the
   princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be
   confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the
   enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom
   there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him
   at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear
   at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific
   Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he
   continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however,
   conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of
   convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered
   advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of
   Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with
   ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant
   ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of
   effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at
   a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly
   irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had
   frequently had recourse to conferences and to public
   disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every
   effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the
   bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so
   doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the
   period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and
   disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would
   never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes:
   'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile
   the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed,
   the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that
   we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and
   that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the
   truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin:
   'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of
   reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be
   reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice
   both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however,
   unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were
   required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn
   up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,
   was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical
   princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons,
   and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as
   the Augsburg Confession.

      _J. Michelet,
      Life of Luther,
      (translated by W. Hazlitt),
      book 3, chapter 1._

   "A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the
   Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had
   severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes,
   that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the
   emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German,
   and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and
   the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of
   the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the
   afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the
   imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The
   reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it
   produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous
   voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the
   musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the
   Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to
   Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the
   Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a
   "Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a
   public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which
   the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves
   fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to
   disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the
   ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we
   shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our
   coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church
   require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of
   the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general
   alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately
   entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly
   quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted
   points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven
   Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward
   and defend the views of their respective parties."
{2457}
   Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology
   for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an
   answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The
   Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the
   emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many
   more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the
   emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that
   fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an
   edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the
   Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable
   arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he
   went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails
   for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous;
   for, as we very well know from past experience, were such
   doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the
   earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to
   consider their future course of action, we grant them from
   this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On
   the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking
   in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and
   deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is
   extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your
   doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion
   true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors,
   including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors
   of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant
   princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th
   of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to
   the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a
   Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the
   more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in
   repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been
   secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were
   daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations
   to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23,
   of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith.
   The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11,
   and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of
   Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The
   decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had
   anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it
   to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and
   that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full
   extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's
   brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep
   offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their
   determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor
   until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked.
   Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance
   offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on
   March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to
   remain faithful for a period of six years."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 312 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Worsley,
      Life of Luther,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      _F. A. Cox,
      Life of Melancthon,
      chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession")._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.
   Protestant League of Smalkalde and
   alliance with the king of France.
   The Pacification of Nuremberg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533.
   Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France,
   for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.
   Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.
   The Catholic Holy League.
   Preparations for war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

PAPACY: A. D. 1534.
   Election of Paul III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540.
   Beginnings of the Counter-Reformation.

   "A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History
   of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular
   epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part
   of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained
   nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of
   the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that
   this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two
   objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely
   blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the
   recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early
   successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous
   endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing
   her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549],
   within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious
   war of the century.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

   Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the
   Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate
   contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal
   establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency
   devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation,
   and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under
   conditions excluding from its programme the task of
   conciliation."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter Reformation,
      pages vii-viii._

   "I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the
   reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the
   German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had
   fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled
   the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it
   regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously
   lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of
   the world-wide movement which is termed the
   Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the
   Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more
   powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain
   and the extinction of national independence, than at any
   previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its
   prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At
   the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw
   themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this
   Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits
   and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus
   able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only
   partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of
   Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner,
   it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the
   Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius
   III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V.,
   and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly
   notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we
   are aware of a completely altered Italy."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1)._

{2458}

PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
   Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.
   Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.
   Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.
   The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.

   "The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in
   Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no
   cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the
   hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the
   lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was
   looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did
   not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic
   school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not
   spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had
   everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual
   revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first
   eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even
   in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less
   followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo
   and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann
   Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely
   families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were
   inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without
   followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was
   surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of
   Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time;
   between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and
   conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely
   entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be
   better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable
   part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which
   was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then
   still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in
   favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further
   than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be
   adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the
   revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one
   result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a
   council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the
   Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors
   had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place,
   this concession was the least that could be demanded. At
   length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May,
   1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was
   the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in
   Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the
   supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but
   the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany,
   was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The
   intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the
   council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was
   determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the
   Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the
   Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred
   in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish
   and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was
   decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course
   of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those
   questions on which agreement between the parties was possible
   should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on
   which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity.
   Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and
   Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If
   these questions were considered first, the attendance of the
   Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open
   the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in
   considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at
   least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might
   influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they
   were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to
   pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those
   questions on which there was the most essential disagreement,
   and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible
   heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the
   authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate,
   ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the
   doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which
   the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all
   other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these
   questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not
   precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the
   stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main
   the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected
   which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. …
   Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time
   of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of
   1547, the following were the main points decided on:

   1. The bishops were to provide better teachers and better
   schools.

   2. The bishops should themselves expound the word of God.

   3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their
   duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary
   qualifications for the office of a bishop.

   Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The
   Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which
   abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her
   teaching. The course the council was taking excited the
   Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of
   opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good
   understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he
   meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made
   Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of
   German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A
   fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,
   was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in
   the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that
   the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null
   and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.
   died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded
   by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the
   council, as Pope Julius III.
{2459}
   The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and
   in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The
   assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which
   were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of
   affairs in 1552.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552; and 1552-1561.

   After that there was no further thought of an understanding
   with the heretics. The results for reform were very small
   indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh
   adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in
   March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected
   as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was
   succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was
   the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed
   in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was
   not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a
   complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough
   exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest
   men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no
   further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition,
   of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was
   he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He
   established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the
   first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the
   interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the
   answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no
   longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set
   her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the
   council stood still." But in answer to demands from several
   Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next
   Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the
   Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January,
   1562. Then began the important period of the council, during
   which the legislation to which it has given a name was
   enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the
   remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the
   council should be considered a continuation of the previous
   ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the
   Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of
   coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to
   interdict books and arrange an Index. …

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

   The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was
   the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great
   achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic
   Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one
   consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been
   variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight
   of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were
   replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines;
   a uniformity was established in matters of faith and
   discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable
   bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the
   tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established
   upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was
   torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4,
   1563, 18 years after its opening.

      _L. Häusser,
      Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 19 and 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapters 2-3 (volume l)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      books 2-3 (volume l)._

      _L. F. Bungener,
      History of the Council of Trent._

      _T. R. Evans,
      The Council of Trent._

      _A. de Reumont,
      The Carafas of Maddaloni,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   [IMAGE: Map of CENTRAL EUROPE
   AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).
   AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.
   SPANISH HAPSBURGS.
   VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
   GENOESE POSSESSIONS.
   ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
   STATES OF THE CHURCH.]

   [IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE
   SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618.
   LUTHERAN.
   ZWINGLIAN.
   CALVINIST.
   UNITED BRETHREN.
   CATHOLIC.
   LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
   DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS.
   GREEK.
   MOHAMMEDAN.]

PAPACY: A. D. 1540.
   The founding of the Order of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.
   Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States
   of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.
   The Farnese.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PAPACY: A. D. 1550.
   Election of Julius III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (April).
   Election of Marcellus II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (May).
   Election of Paul IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.
   The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.
   Attachment and subserviency to Spain.

   Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines,
   was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of
   Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions
   of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and
   impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France,
   unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish
   greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the
   galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy
   of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable
   as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now
   become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction
   to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the
   arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the
   protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III.
   [1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his
   persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the
   establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself
   filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in
   the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that
   vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to
   the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long
   series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his
   death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the
   following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and
   died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban
   VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the
   papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose
   pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of
   the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and
   religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire,
   of re-establishing the independence of their see, they
   maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal
   bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the
   protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low
   Countries, of France, and of Germany."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

   "The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves
   against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant
   Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but
   passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure
   them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be
   affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again
   manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the
   spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance
   with the demands of the times.
{2460}
   The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe
   were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted
   them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she
   renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system.
   … The influence of the restored Catholic system was first
   established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not
   accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish
   Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome;
   every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But
   at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which
   renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were
   peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also
   attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of
   the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of
   all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a
   Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a
   sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected
   every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however
   not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote
   times, and more especially since the regulations established
   by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an
   ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal
   authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power;
   deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to
   govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king
   appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the
   Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all
   his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could
   not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The
   extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused
   the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself
   bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip
   in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate
   influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was
   far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings
   of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered
   to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual
   princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were
   also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made
   their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the
   peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still
   remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a
   powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet
   been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of
   the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland
   the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old
   faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese
   or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the
   peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and
   Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained
   faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this
   pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among
   nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more
   minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the
   Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy
   resumed a position in which it could once more gain the
   mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly
   to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still
   possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the
   externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side.
   In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even
   gained an accession of that authority which it had been the
   purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had
   strengthened their influence over the national churches; they
   had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had
   formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They
   attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and
   without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced
   by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality,
   the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently
   to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the
   interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time
   essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus
   strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents,
   and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the
   popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had
   hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of
   assailants."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 5, section 2 (volume 1)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1559.
   Election of Pius IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
   The institution of the Index.

   "The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal
   authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously
   issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities,
   valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of
   Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius
   IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of
   Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial
   revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which
   various authorities were responsible, the most important among
   them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of
   Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great
   printing trade of Venice."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter-Reformation,
      chapter 2._

PAPACY: A. D. 1566.
   Election of Pius V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.
   Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.
   Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572 (May).
   Election of Gregory XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572.
   Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
   Election of Sixtus V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
   The Bull against Henry of Navarre, called "Brutum Fulmen."

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (September).
   Election of Urban VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (December).
   Election of Gregory XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
   Election of Innocent IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
   Election of Clement VIII.

{2461}

PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

   "The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation
   of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the
   16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in
   extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death,
   in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated
   the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious
   line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate
   representative of his house, whom he designed for his
   successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a
   natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and
   Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards,
   without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the
   former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now
   encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare
   that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este
   reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the
   legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso
   II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself
   to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and
   formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the
   indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to
   retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his
   ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as
   imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently
   assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy
   of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este,
   had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon
   became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its
   industrious population and commercial riches; its
   architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern
   aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which
   literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its
   sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (April).
   Election of Leo XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (May).
   Election of Paul V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
   The conflict with Venice.
   Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.
   Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.
   Half a century of unimportant history.

   "Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the
   papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These
   speedily brought him into collision with the secular power,
   especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude
   of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes
   [growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of
   secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by
   the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the
   papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent
   differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The
   defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church
   affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra
   Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent.
   Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians
   [1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard
   the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were
   the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to
   leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the
   pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity
   to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain
   were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the
   papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation
   of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607.
   The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian
   territory for another half-century. This was the first serious
   reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …

      See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

   The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the
   Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in
   Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul
   and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was
   a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was
   first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.
   (1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded
   himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the
   Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.
   The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban
   was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial
   power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment
   when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany
   he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus
   Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence
   Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the
   papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's
   attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important
   addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in
   1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the
   Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he
   met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the
   Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and
   Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was
   induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim
   aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was
   completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating
   treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent
   X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX.,
   1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689;
   Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of
   very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only
   important questions in which the papacy was involved in the
   latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists
   and the relations with Louis XIV."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7;
      period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._

      _A. Robertson,
      Fra Paolo Sarpi._

PAPACY: A. D. 1621.
   Election of Gregory XV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
   Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
   [Transcriber's note:
   2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]

   Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
   February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
   shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
   heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
   College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
   is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
   virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
   with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
   were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
   the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
   with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
   contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
   it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
   acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
{2462}
   Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
   philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
   grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
   mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
   splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
   Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
   'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
   study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
   to every nation on the globe."

      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1623.
   Election of Urban VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.
   The Valtelline War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
   Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
   Growth of Nepotism.

   Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so
   actively followed up by his successors, that even a short
   reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.
   That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a
   share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a
   hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with
   large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of
   Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and
   was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The
   Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the
   Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the
   Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with
   the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted
   that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom
   in which they were not expressly included. On the death of
   Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes
   of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever
   seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were
   able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in
   the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of
   Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was
   abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the
   streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a
   military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation
   in protecting the property of their employers. This was then
   the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,
   though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of
   energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent
   brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under
   his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their
   ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system
   out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited
   itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.
   The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,
   from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where
   she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their
   arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for
   her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her
   daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,
   having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after
   renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.
   The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided
   Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the
   ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to
   the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a
   deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,
   and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three
   days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long
   dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its
   interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.
   [VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,
   and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His
   first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was
   allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the
   loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best
   established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,
   the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on
   his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at
   Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding
   with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in
   consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively
   unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all
   who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After
   discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of
   further attention to business, and spent his days in literary
   leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,
   from the growth of the constitutional principle. The
   cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official
   secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible
   advisers."

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      pages 416-418._

PAPACY: A. D. 1646.
   The Hostility of Mazarin and France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

PAPACY: A. D. 1653.
   The first condemnation of Jansenism.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

PAPACY: A. D. 1667.
   Election of Clement IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1670.
   Election of Clement X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1676.
   Election of Innocent XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
   Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.

   "It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the
   papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,
   and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due
   limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince
   hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The
   prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it
   pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the
   clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the
   clergy of France did support their king without scruple
   against the pope. The declarations they published were from
   year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal
   authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.
   'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian
   ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and
   was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up
   by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the
   manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat
   assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for
   example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded
   the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the
   pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.
{2463}
   But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it
   imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the
   pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope
   is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the
   assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the
   kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which
   was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is
   declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal
   authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the
   unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion
   of contemporaries, that although France might remain within
   the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the
   threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king
   exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles
   of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated
   in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to
   a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,
   who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was
   still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this
   declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and
   preferred by the king before all other candidates for
   episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them
   spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those
   sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they
   venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These
   complications were still further perplexed by the fact that
   Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless
   extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which
   he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own
   perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great
   service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that
   Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but
   this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of
   conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such
   methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the
   temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually
   arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome
   with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry
   forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the
   ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,
   but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been
   easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly
   abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved
   the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and
   chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the
   Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the
   ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter
   had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The
   king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a
   general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the
   nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he
   had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of
   Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had
   approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far
   had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome
   excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;
   thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;
   a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in
   fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent
   refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted
   for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to
   the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to
   the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above
   all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in
   Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were
   menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general
   opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope
   had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the
   Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of
   Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to
   compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of
   the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent
   XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French
   ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of
   August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of
   the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into
   negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the
   French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a
   pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a
   purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio
   Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent
   XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued
   for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas
   proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in
   fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures
   discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be
   considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:
   'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess
   our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not
   until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent
   accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions
   only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he
   retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we
   perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its
   prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of
   monarchs."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 8, section 16 (volume 2)._

PAPACY:A. D. 1689.
   Election of Alexander VIII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1691.
   Election of Innocent XII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700.
   Election of Clement XI.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
   Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   Declining Powers.

   The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
   show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
   Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
   laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
   of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
   and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
   which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
   about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
   issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
   splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
   Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
   France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
   Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
   through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
{2464}
   He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
   concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
   which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
   and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
   Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
   exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
   terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
   of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
   mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
   the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

   The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
   Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
   of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
   Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
   Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
   of Naples

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

   The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating
   position. Political events had occurred … which served to show
   very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as
   in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His
   undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of
   his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and
   to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to
   the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713
   [see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the
   dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful
   occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from
   that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and
   palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit
   to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for
   it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his
   fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest
   that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty
   over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,
   it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,
   which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the
   sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a
   further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in
   the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and
   anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of
   Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,
   and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the
   seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the
   other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the
   eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …
   The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers
   which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the
   death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,
   led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of
   the great events which during the eighteenth century were
   agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political
   victories."

      _A. R. Pennington,
      Epochs of the Papacy,
      chapter 10._

PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
   The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

PAPACY: A. D. 1721.
   Election of Innocent XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1724.
   Election of Benedict XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1730.
   Election of Clement XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1740.
   Election of Benedict XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1758.
   Election of Clement XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
   Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
   Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PAPACY: A. D. 1769.
   Election of Clement XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1773.
   Suppression of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1775.
   Election of Pius VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
   Founding of the Roman Episcopate
   in the United States of America.

   In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church
   in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of
   Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its
   bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of
   Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with
   their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and
   Bardstown, in Kentucky."

      _J. A. Russell,
      The Catholic Church in the United States
      (History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,
      pages 16-18)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Revolution at Avignon.
   Reunion of the Province with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

PAPACY: A. D. 1796.
   First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
   Treaty of Tolentino.
   Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
   Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
   French occupation of Rome.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

PAPACY: A. D. 1800.
   Election of Pius VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1802.
   The Concordat with Napoleon.
   Its Ultramontane influence.

      See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.

PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
   Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
   Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
   French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
   Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
   The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.

   Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a
   tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope
   resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not
   obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's
   plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the
   Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close
   his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees
   of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act
   as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he
   was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his
   predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not
   agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession
   of Rome and the Roman State."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France, since 1789,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

{2465}

   In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken
   possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the
   resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
   Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
   capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
   St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
   dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an
   imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,
   Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the
   ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for
   nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of
   Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the
   actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare
   war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of
   Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The
   interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of
   Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not
   be interrupted by a hostile power.'"

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 51 (volume 11)._

   "The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon
   paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the
   cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He
   disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles
   of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French
   commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,
   carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a
   decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming
   the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the
   States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the
   city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope
   should continue to have his seat there, and that he should
   enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this
   decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope
   protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,
   and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to
   complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of
   excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors
   of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but
   without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the
   first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in
   which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who
   wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable
   temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that
   of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius
   VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would
   renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of
   the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,
   where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all
   been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the
   spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of
   February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the
   eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even
   ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time
   at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while
   oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope
   refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and
   then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper
   measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were
   commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation
   to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the
   wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little
   more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and
   rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,
   appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the
   Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the
   imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the
   temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum
   assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the
   pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four
   articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …
   even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they
   offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is
   that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that
   he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the
   charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the
   Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the
   winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this
   time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an
   English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the
   emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This
   unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel
   day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;
   but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.
   They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray
   who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care
   also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret
   was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,
   June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his
   arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to
   receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long
   time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful
   journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which
   they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by
   Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of
   Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the
   Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The
   Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to
   a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,
   1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating
   without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them
   out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,
   either because he repented not having finished with them at
   Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do
   more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been
   done by the council, its commissions, and its most able
   negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which
   were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father
   had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and
   prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to
   the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state
   of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated
   incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled
   with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the
   evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign
   pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and
   cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well
   prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which
   was to assure him what he believed to be a success.
{2466}
   On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress
   Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father
   unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.
   Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be
   induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to
   the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to
   him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet
   a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.
   On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their
   signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the
   usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had
   treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that
   the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in
   Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,
   should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his
   domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,
   and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an
   income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,
   whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should
   be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be
   re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and
   that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that
   the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman
   bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,
   and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former
   revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant
   sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune
   time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the
   bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well
   as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the
   Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,
   and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn
   of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty
   bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,
   and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection
   with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty
   occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that
   that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had
   been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced
   bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the
   exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,
   on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to
   repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy
   Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it
   must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what
   was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had
   made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as
   preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided
   nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the
   arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This
   premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly
   regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation
   which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,
   1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by
   the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make
   any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of
   it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the
   other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of
   January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared
   it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and
   ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the
   archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case
   of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the
   tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given
   momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro
   returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,
   for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that
   which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab
   irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the
   campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several
   times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.
   Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue
   when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the
   pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to
   Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and
   who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the
   States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his
   indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to
   re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his
   brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor
   was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,
   announced that the pope was taking possession again of the
   part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and
   Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go
   all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on
   April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn
   entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."

      _Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Silvagni,
      Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,
      chapters 35-39 (volume 2)._

      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 5-8._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12._

      _Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
      Captain Bingham,
      volumes 2-3._

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l)._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 13 and 16._

PAPACY: A. D. 1814.
   Restoration of the Jesuits.

         See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1815.
   Restoration of the Papal States.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

PAPACY: A. D. 1823.
   Election of Leo XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1829.
   Election of Pius VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831.
   Election of Gregory XVI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
   Election of Pius IX.
   His liberal reforms.
   Revolution at Rome.
   The Pope's flight.
   His restoration by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

{2467}

PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
   Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.

   "The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an
   official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained
   faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of
   priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of
   their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining
   some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance
   her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688
   it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,
   nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling
   him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This
   policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar
   Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till
   1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on
   appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve
   of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four
   Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year
   Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight
   Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but
   persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was
   awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked
   the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by
   restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.
   … The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight
   vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring
   immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think
   about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For
   two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of
   vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been
   abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to
   the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for
   re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'
   England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,
   Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an
   Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the
   London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to
   it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon
   him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The
   publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The
   effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from
   the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and
   continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and
   by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of
   England, who for so many years have been separated from the
   see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to
   the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low
   Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to
   punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's
   prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to
   moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by
   denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late
   aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …
   inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of
   our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of
   the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus
   occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded
   to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of
   ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It
   declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to
   maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is
   so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words
   as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the
   Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the
   'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in
   the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the
   assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates
   of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to
   them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and
   void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to
   them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a
   Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of
   Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;
   but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought
   forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill
   merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume
   territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the
   Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by
   some chemical process the Government had extracted all the
   milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,
   but it was never put into execution.

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 23 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN.:
      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

      _J. Stoughton,
      Religion in England, 1800-1850,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
   Promulgation of the Dogma of the
   Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

   "The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
   and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
   Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
   pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
   Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
   primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
   seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
   council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
   freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
   Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
   even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
   in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
   is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
   correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
   the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
   the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
   the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
   the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
   universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
   faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
   the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
   determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
   long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
   were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
   greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
   bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
   robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
   where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
   after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
   proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
   Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
   Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
   our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
   which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
   of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
   Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
   Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
   original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
   firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
{2468}
   Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
   otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
   understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
   they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
   from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
   they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
   if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
   writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
   sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
   in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
   the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
   bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
   8th."

      _A. de Montor,
      The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
      volume 2, pages 924-926._

PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
   First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
   Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
   The Encyclical and the Syllabus.

   "On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical
   [a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the
   Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church
   throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the
   Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,
   condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.
   The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are
   set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.
   1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;
   2. Moderated Rationalism;
   3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;
   4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,
      Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;
   5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;
   6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself
   as in its relations with the Church;
   7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;
   8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;
   9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;
   10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.

   Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,
   and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,
   Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.
   Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and
   Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the
   pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance
   excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of
   the enemies of the Church."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 33._

   The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,
   followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:

   To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,
   Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,
   we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic
   blessing:

   You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral
   vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the
   charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in
   the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have
   unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the
   sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of
   the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with
   salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned
   pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated
   it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in
   vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,
   were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls
   by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and
   condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the
   heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of
   the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,
   and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited
   serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society
   into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our
   predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to
   the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading
   their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and
   promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor
   by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of
   the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to
   destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and
   hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of
   inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to
   corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and
   finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But
   as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been
   raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the
   mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the
   most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by
   evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury
   caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in
   accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and
   following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we
   raised our voice, and by the publication of several
   encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other
   apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of
   our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,
   warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear
   children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid
   the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our
   first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,
   and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the
   9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the
   monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the
   present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the
   detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the
   Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable
   rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God
   upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we
   have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the
   principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic
   Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to
   us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely
   demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude
   to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors
   as from so many sources.
{2469}
   These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as
   they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary
   force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine
   author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end
   of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with
   regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy
   that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the
   government which have always existed for the happiness and
   security of religious and civil society, For as you are well
   aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in
   the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and
   absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach
   that the perfect right of public society and civil progress
   absolutely require a condition of human society constituted
   and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,
   as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any
   distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to
   the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the
   fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best
   condition of society is that in which the power of the laity
   is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon
   violators of the Catholic religion unless required by
   considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social
   government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further
   to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety
   of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by
   our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:
   "Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every
   man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by
   law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are
   entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which
   neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,
   their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,
   or through the press, or by other means." But in making these
   rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,
   that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,
   Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human
   conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to
   struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of
   human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus
   Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this
   culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,
   Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil
   government, since the doctrine and authority of divine
   revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected
   therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness
   and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate
   right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,
   entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,
   to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested
   by what is called public opinion or by other means,
   constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human
   right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by
   the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the
   force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand
   that human society, released from the ties of religion and
   true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,
   and can follow no other law in its actions than the
   indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and
   interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with
   so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved
   so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly
   declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so
   doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.
   For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius
   VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of
   public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the
   Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and
   in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the
   celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who
   constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."
   (Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In
   their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the
   church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly
   "receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law
   forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon
   certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious
   pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the
   principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating
   religion from public society, they desire further to banish it
   from families and private life. Teaching and professing these
   most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare
   that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its
   right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be
   concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of
   parents over their children, and, above all, the right of
   instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and
   machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the
   salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from
   the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and
   miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices
   the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble
   sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of
   society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have
   always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and
   efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave
   and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is
   upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.
   Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have
   descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain
   records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has
   been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society
   and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so
   far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies
   of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they
   ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and
   educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times
   condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the
   authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred
   upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,
   and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see
   with regard to exterior order.
{2470}
   They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not
   bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil
   power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs
   concerning religion and the church require the sanction and
   approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and
   that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,
   whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and
   branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have
   no force in those regions of the world where these
   associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is
   likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the
   Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who
   invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,
   seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to
   attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide
   nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a
   temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not
   demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by
   temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred
   theology and the principles of public law to claim for the
   civil government the property possessed by the churches, the
   religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they
   have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the
   principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and
   perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is
   not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil
   power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind
   can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the
   essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over
   in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound
   doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy
   See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare
   of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim
   the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of
   the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
   faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the
   Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the
   sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
   supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to
   see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a
   diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic
   duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy
   religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls
   confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,
   have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our
   apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe
   generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines
   specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may
   be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the
   children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,
   venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth
   and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have
   spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent
   books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the
   surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You
   are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
   and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that
   excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master
   Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous
   persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited
   eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with
   which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an
   impiety.

      _Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed
      Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
      Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX._

I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.

   1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and
   providence distinct from the universality of things, and God
   is none other than the nature of things, and therefore
   immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all
   things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,
   therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence
   mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of
   action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.

      (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

   2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.

      (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

   3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole
   arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in
   itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the
   welfare of men and nations.

      (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

   4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native
   strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule
   by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all
   truths of every kind.

      (See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,
      and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,
      and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
   the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the
   progress of human reason.

      (See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
      and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and
   divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to
   the perfection of man.

      (See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
      and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred
   books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the
   Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The
   books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and
   Jesus Christ is himself a myth.

      (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.

   8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,
   theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.

      (Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")

   9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly
   the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,
   instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength
   and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most
   abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed
   as objective.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
      December 4, 1862.
      Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

{2471}

   10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,
   it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to
   the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but
   philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.

      (Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
      December 11, 1862;
      and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

   11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself
   with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the
   errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their
   correction.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

   12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman
   congregation fetter the free progress of science.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

   13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
   doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
   demands of the age and the progress of science.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

   14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
   supernatural revelation.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

   N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the
   errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the
   Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,
   and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"
   April 30, 1860.


III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.

   15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
   shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
      Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain
   eternal salvation.

      (Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
      Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)

   17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
   have never been in the true church of Christ.

      (Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
      Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)

   18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the
   same true religion in which it is possible to be equally
   pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.

      (Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)


IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES,
BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.

   Pests of this description have been frequently
   rebuked in the severest terms in the
   Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
   Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
   Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
   Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
   Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.


V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.

   19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free
   association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual
   rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it
   appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights
   and limits within which the church may exercise authority.

      (Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
      "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
      "Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)

   20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
   without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

      (Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)

   21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically
   that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true
   religion.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers
   does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as
   articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

   23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
   or any direct or indirect temporal power.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded
   the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,
   and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to
   dogma and morals.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,
   further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,
   either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also
   revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
   acquisition and possession.

      ("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;
      Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)

   27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to
   be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over
   temporal affairs.

      (Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their
   apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be
   considered null unless they have been requested by the civil
   government.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons
   derives its origin from civil law.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether
   civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even
   without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
      Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military
   law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right
   or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,
   especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal
   government.

      (Letter to Bishop Montisregal,
      "Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)

   33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
   any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
   matters of theology.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

   34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to
   a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine
   which prevailed in the middle ages.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

{2472}

   35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,
   or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical
   sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other
   bishopric in another city.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   36. The definition of a national council does not admit of
   subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that
   matters shall remain as they are.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   37. National churches can be established without, and
   separated from, the Roman pontiff.

      (Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
      "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

   38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
   of the church in Eastern and Western churches.

   (Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)


VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES
AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.

   39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of
   all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not
   circumscribed by any limit.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
   and interests of society.

   (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
   Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

   41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic
   sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over
   religious affairs.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law
   ought to prevail.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and
   render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the
   use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without
   the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.

      (Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
      "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

   44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding
   religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has
   control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences
   issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the
   church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of
   administering the divine sacraments and the necessary
   arrangements for their reception.

      ("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
      Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth
   of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the
   case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the
   civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority
   shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the
   discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the
   taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.

      (Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
      "Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)

   46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
   must be submitted to the civil authority.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require
   that popular schools open without distinction to all children
   of the people, and public establishments destined to teach
   young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to
   them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
   authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to
   the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and
   opinions common to the times.

      (Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
      "Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

   48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in
   separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of
   the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of
   natural things and the objects of social life, may be
   perfectly approved by Catholics.

      (Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
      "Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

   49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of
   religion and the faithful from communicating freely and
   mutually with the Roman Pontiff.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of
   presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take
   possession of their diocese before having received canonical
   institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing
   bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to
   obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of
   sees and the institution of bishops.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
      Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")

   52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the
   church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both
   sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to
   admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of
   religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil
   government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a
   religious life, and break their vows. The government may also
   deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to
   collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their
   goods to civil competence and administration.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
      "Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
      and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)

   54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction
   of the church, but are superior to the church even in
   litigious questions of jurisdiction

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   55. The church must be separated from the State and the State
   from the church.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)


VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

   56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,
   and there is no necessity that human laws should be
   conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction
   from God.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws
   may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in
   matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency
   of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of
   riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of
   every pleasure.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
      Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)

{2473}

   59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain
   words, and all human facts have the force of right.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material
   force.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the
   sanctity of right.

      (Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

   62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and
   observed.

      (Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)

   63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate
   princes and to rise in insurrection against them.

      (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
      Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
      Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)

   64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and
   shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only
   undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the
   highest praise when done for the love of country.

   (Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)


VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.

   65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised
   marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

   66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the
   contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself
   only consists in the nuptial benediction.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

   67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
   and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be
   pronounced by the civil authority.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
      Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

   68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the
   impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which
   can remove the existing hindrances.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to
   pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not
   of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil
   power.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema
   against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing
   upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be
   considered as emanating from borrowed power.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of
   nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has
   appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to
   be used in marriage.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of
   chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the
   place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the
   marriage contract between Christians must always be a
   sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does
   not exist.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
      Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
      Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
      "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

   74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to
   civil jurisdiction.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
      Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

   N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of
   the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of
   marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the
   first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the
   second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,
   1851.


IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

   75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not
   agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the
   spiritual power.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

   76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the
   Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and
   liberty of the church.

      (Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

   N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
   and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
   all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
   government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
   abundantly explained in Allocutions,
      "Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
      and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
      Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
      Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
      "Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
      and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.

   77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the
   Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the
   State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

      (Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)

   78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some
   countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free
   exercise of their own worship.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

   79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of
   worship and the full power given to all of overtly and
   publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce
   more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and
   to the propagation of the evil of indifference.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to
   and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

      (Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

   ----------Syllabus: End--------

PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
   The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
   Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

   "More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
   Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
   … He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
   Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
   centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
   was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
   Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
   the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
   once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
   forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
   Council convened. …
{2474}
   It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
   feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
   Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
   non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
   (September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
   auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
   the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
   Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
   it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
   to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
   prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
   before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
   doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
   attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
   liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
   proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
   binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
   come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
   rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
   justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
   preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
   was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
   the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
   pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
   the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
   Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
   July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
   proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
   October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
   1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
   extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
   on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
   the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
   with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
   stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
   Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
   the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
   the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
   ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
   twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
   in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
   all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
   of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
   Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
   attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
   predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
   Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
   Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
   of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
   Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
   of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
   viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
   Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
   diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
   Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
   continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
   Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
   the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
   was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
   180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a
   vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
   States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
   had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
   35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
   8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
   disproportion between the representatives of the different
   nations and the number of their constituents was
   overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Vatican Council
      (appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'
      American edition)._

   The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma
   "showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta
   modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the
   congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their
   dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed
   that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not
   to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the
   dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on
   the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have
   the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.
   This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant
   bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans
   mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia
   Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates
   alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of
   Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,
   in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.
   Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted
   till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst
   its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their
   negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …
   Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the
   opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for
   the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once
   declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled
   again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …
   Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them
   was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon
   made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to
   the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological
   faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously
   support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,
   held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against
   the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The
   German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And
   the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and
   Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the
   members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.
   They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the
   month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to
   the internal affairs of the Church."

      _Annual Register, 1870,
      part 1, foreign History, chapter 5._

{2475}
   But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken
   possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings
   of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had
   opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the
   end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his
   ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all
   those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were
   disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this
   position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon
   itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the
   19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated
   by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to
   retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A
   paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.
   Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,
   together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number
   of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,
   testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,
   moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.
   Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held
   at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was
   formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in
   the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the
   University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against
   six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress
   assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.
   … Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic
   body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the
   Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in
   1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he
   never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at
   any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct
   Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop
   of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical
   function. He always continued a strict observer of the
   disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic
   Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make
   that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters
   had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany
   by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical
   property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in
   each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old
   Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.
   van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44
   in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in
   Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body
   of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;
   Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number
   of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently
   some advance was recorded over these numbers."

      _Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,
      volume 4, pages 213-216._

      ALSO IN:
      _Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
      Letters from Rome on the Council._

      _Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
      The Pope and the Council._

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees._

      _H. E. Manning,
      The Vatican Council._

      _Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),
      The Vatican Council._

      _E. de Pressense,
      Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council._

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      The Vatican Decrees._

   The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
   "Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
   subsequently promulgated by the Pope:

   "_Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the
   approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting
   remembrance._ The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,
   in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His
   Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,
   as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be
   united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,
   before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
   not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through
   their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might
   be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the
   Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were
   sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by
   the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors
   and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in
   order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
   that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the
   faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and
   communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,
   and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,
   and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the
   everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the
   firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to
   Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase
   of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
   upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that
   might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the
   preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic
   flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to
   be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all
   the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant
   faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
   institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic
   Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the
   entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the
   contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

   CHAPTER 1. _Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in
   Blessed Peter._

   We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the
   testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was
   immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the
   Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had
   been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and
   afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art
   the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone
   that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon
   Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
   thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that
   thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
   the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
   give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever
   thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,
   and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed
   also in heaven.
{2476}
   And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection
   bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all
   His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open
   variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has
   been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse
   opinions of those who, while they distort the form of
   government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny
   that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other
   Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
   Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of
   those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed
   immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon
   the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
   If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
   was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the
   visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same
   directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus
   Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper
   jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

   CHAPTER II. _On the perpetuation of the primacy of Peter in
   the Roman Pontiffs._

   That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the
   sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the
   Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and
   lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution,
   necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being
   founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the
   world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that
   the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the
   Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the
   Catholic Church, who received the keys of the kingdom from Our
   Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the race of
   man, continues up to the present time, and ever continues, in
   his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was
   founded by Him, and consecrated by His blood, to live and
   preside and judge. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this
   See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the
   Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made
   by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter,
   abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he
   received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.
   Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every
   particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the
   world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the
   greater authority of the princedom which this has received;
   that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the
   rights of communion spread to all, as members in the unity of
   the Head, might combine to form one "connected body. If, then,
   any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the
   Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a
   perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal
   Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed
   Peter in this Primacy; let him be anathema.

   CHAPTER III. _On the force and character of the Primacy of
   the Roman Pontiff._

   Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred
   Writings, and in agreement with both the plain and express
   decrees of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the
   General Councils, We renew the definition of the Œcumenical
   Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of
   Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
   Pontiff possesses the Primacy over the whole world, and that
   the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of
   the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the
   whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and
   that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule,
   feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our
   Lord: as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils
   and in the Sacred Canons. Further we teach and declare that by
   the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses the
   chief ordinary jurisdiction over all other Churches, and that
   this power of jurisdiction possessed by the Roman Pontiff
   being truly episcopal is immediate; which all, both pastors
   and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound,
   by their duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience,
   to obey, not merely in matters which belong to faith and
   morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and
   government of the Church throughout the world, so that the
   Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor
   through the preservation of unity both of communion and of
   profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is
   the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate
   without loss of faith and of salvation. But so far is this
   power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the
   ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops
   who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the
   place of the Apostles feed and govern, each his own flock, as
   true Pastors, that this episcopal authority is really
   asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and
   universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of S. Gregory
   the Great: My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My
   honour is the firm strength of my Brethren, I am then truly
   honoured, when due honour is not denied to each of their
   number. Further, from this supreme power possessed by the
   Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows
   that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors
   of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be
   taught and directed by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore
   we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the
   communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and
   their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who represent this
   communication as subject to the will of the secular power, so
   as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or
   by its authority, cannot have force or value, unless it be
   confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the
   divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed
   over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that
   he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all
   causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse
   may be had to his tribunal: and that none may meddle with the
   judgment of the Apostolic See, the authority of which is
   greater than all other, nor can any lawfully depart from its
   judgment. Wherefore they depart from the right course who
   assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the
   Roman Pontiffs and an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority
   higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
{2477}
   If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office
   merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme
   power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not alone in
   things which belong to faith and morals, but in those which
   relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread
   throughout the world; or who assert that he possesses merely
   the principal part, and not all the fulness of this supreme
   power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and
   immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each
   and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

   CHAPTER IV. _Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman
   Pontiff:_

   Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included
   in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as
   successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the
   whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual
   practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils
   themselves have declared, especially those in which the East
   with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the
   Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in
   the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn
   profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the
   rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord
   Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter,
   and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which
   have been said are approved by events, because in the
   Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn
   doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore,
   not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and
   doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the
   one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is
   the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And,
   with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks
   professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full
   Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which
   it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the
   plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of
   blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor
   the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before
   all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any
   questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by
   its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That
   the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of
   the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all
   Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by
   our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and
   governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our
   predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary
   doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations
   of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be
   preserved sincere and pure where it had been received.
   Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now
   assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of
   Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this
   Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of
   faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be
   repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman
   Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and
   circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or
   asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the
   world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other
   helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held
   those things which with the help of God they had recognised as
   conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic
   Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
   successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make
   known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might
   scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or
   deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed,
   all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox
   Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
   knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever
   free from all blemish of error, according to the divine
   promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His
   disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and
   thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift,
   then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven
   upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might
   perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the
   whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous
   food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly
   doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole
   Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation,
   might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this
   very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic
   office is even most of all required, not a few are found who
   take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary
   solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son
   of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.
   Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received
   from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of
   God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic
   Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the
   approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is
   a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he
   speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office
   of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his
   supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding
   faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the
   divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys
   that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that
   His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith
   or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman
   Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the
   consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert
   —presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be
   anathema."

PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
   End of the Temporal Sovereignty.
   Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy.
   The Law of the Papal Guarantees.

   The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the
   Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be
   found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the
   Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was
   acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and
   Roman Catholic.
{2478}
   The French Government of National Defence,
   which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second
   Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of
   Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what
   they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The
   Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to
   protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial
   and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among
   other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon
   which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since
   reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to
   the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the
   Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted
   much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor
   Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and
   prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the
   Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of
   Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical
   party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at
   Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not,
   in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the
   fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course
   Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial
   difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with
   which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the
   principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an
   opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian
   Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th
   December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence
   for the last time. Among its members now sat those who
   represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated.
   The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary
   arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by
   the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in
   relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament
   resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long
   and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on
   the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:

   Article I.—The person of the Sovereign Pontiff is sacred and
   inviolable.

   Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person
   of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such
   attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those
   established in the case of an attack directed against the
   person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an
   attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against
   the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means
   indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are
   punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of
   the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and
   are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The
   discussion of religious subjects is completely free.

   Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the
   territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign
   Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised
   as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff
   has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to
   his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without
   prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such
   guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.

   Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane)
   of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With
   this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman
   balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces,
   Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of
   State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to
   provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for
   the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary
   and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the
   apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay,
   gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is
   made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the
   Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the
   ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and
   library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those
   employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall
   be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of
   perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy
   See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall
   continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the
   Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall
   remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or
   provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in
   the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself
   to assume the expenses of the museums and library.

   Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment
   established in the preceding article, will continue to have
   the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran
   with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and
   dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo
   with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces,
   villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art
   and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable,
   are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all
   expropriation on the ground of public utility.

   Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant,
   no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any
   reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the
   personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides
   that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical
   Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.

   Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of
   the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office
   enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or
   temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which
   are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless
   authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by
   the Council.

   Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits,
   perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or
   registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested
   with purely spiritual functions.

   Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil
   all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have
   affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all
   the acts of the said ministry.

{2479}

   Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office,
   participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the
   spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account
   of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of
   magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every
   stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys
   the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in
   virtue of the laws of the kingdom.

   Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See
   enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which
   belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right.
   To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted
   for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited
   to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to
   foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of
   the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities,
   according to the same (international) right, in going to and
   from the place of their mission.

   Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the
   Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any
   interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government.
   To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican,
   or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices
   worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical
   post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of
   sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign
   administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the
   Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of
   despatches or correspondence furnished with the official
   Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as
   regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name
   of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the
   kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign
   government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed
   in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the
   kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by
   the said office with the authorised designation of
   'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the
   privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the
   exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages
   will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or
   those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp
   of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office
   in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff
   shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.

   Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees
   the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic
   institutions founded for the education and culture of
   ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See,
   without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the
   kingdom.

   Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the
   right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic
   clergy is abolished.

   Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic
   legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right,
   throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the
   collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be
   required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater
   and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of
   the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the
   suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation
   to benefices under royal patronage.

   Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every
   other form of Government assent for the publication and
   execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished.
   However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the
   special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these
   (ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of
   ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and
   minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the
   suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and
   'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the
   creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical
   institutions and of their property remain unaltered.

   Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual
   discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the
   ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the
   civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it
   accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in
   these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical)
   authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such
   acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State,
   or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are
   subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.

   Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the
   reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of
   the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.

   Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the
   present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be
   contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.

   The object of this law was to carry out still further than had
   yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free
   State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual
   matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the
   State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against
   all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and
   declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical
   transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."

      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy, 1815 to 1878,
      chapter 11._

   The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the
   Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the
   following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it:
   "Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize
   the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the
   Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for
   the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He
   refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely
   upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than
   to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his
   civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the
   boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured
   to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the
   insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling
   forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made
   the pretext for stern military repression.
{2480}
   Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the
   protection of the agents of that very power against whose
   presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it
   was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own
   palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of
   the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The
   extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders,
   the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the
   expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were
   so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome
   interpreted their pledges, that the change of government
   should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in
   its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and
   difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united
   the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre
   of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in
   all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX.
   has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at
   length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the
   intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX.
   found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of
   loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he
   celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the
   first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years
   of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by
   the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee
   of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to
   outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. …
   Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th
   [1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however
   stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the
   new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of
   more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred
   somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of
   1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there
   was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at
   least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when
   the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes
   that followed the accession of a new king, and when the
   diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement
   of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in
   schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of
   the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action,
   the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as
   Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He
   assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only
   within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized
   world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered
   the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the
   Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he
   showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on
   the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its
   effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme
   Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a
   surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had
   contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most
   optimist of the Italian party."

      _Chevalier O'Clery,
      The Making of Italy,
      chapter 26._

PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887.
   The Culturkampf in Germany.
   The "May Laws" and their repeal.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

PAPACY: A. D. 1878.
   Election of Leo XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1891.
   Disestablishment of the Church in Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

PAPACY: A. D. 1892.
   Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to
   the United States of America.

   In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the
   United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic
   Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We
   command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church,
   'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power
   of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid,
   concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive
   with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"

      _Forum,
      May, 1893 (volume 15, page 278)._

   ----------PAPACY:End--------

PAPAGOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

PAPAL GUARANTEES, Law of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

PAPAL STATES.

      See
      STATES OF THE CHURCH;
      also PAPACY.

PAPER BLOCKADE.

      See BLOCKADE, PAPER.

PAPER MONEY.

      See MONEY AND BANKING.

PAPHLAGONIANS, The.

   A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
   Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

   Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of
   Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often
   governed by local princes.

PAPIN, Inventions of.

      See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

PAPINEAU REBELLION, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PAPUANS, The.

   "In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and
   shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic
   Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island
   of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring
   islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New
   Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New
   Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the
   northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of
   the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper,
   Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true
   Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
   and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in
   the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and
   following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern
   blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and
   Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the
   islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the
   islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be
   found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render
   them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those
   races.
{2481}
   The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah,
   crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their
   black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the
   name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common
   name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in
   genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close
   resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong
   contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."

      _J. S. Kingsley, editor,
      The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History,
      volume 6, page 42._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Wallace,
      The Malay Archipelago,
      chapter 40._

PARABOLANI OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

   "The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation,
   instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick
   and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and
   sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct
   under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked
   the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and
   to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these
   restraints were transient and ineffectual."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquities of the Christian Church,
      book 3, chapter 9._

PARACELSUS.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY.

   ----------PARAGUAY: Start--------

PARAGUAY:
   The name.

   "De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name
   from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest
   navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of
   its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara
   says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom
   of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique
   ever having borne that name."

      _T. J. Hutchinson,
      The Parana,
      page 44._

PARAGUAY:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES, and TUPI.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
   Discovery and exploration of La Plata.
   Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.

   The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in
   1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed
   incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this
   "Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by
   Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the
   great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to
   ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt
   the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian
   Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of
   Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the
   Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in
   turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following
   two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose
   silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence
   of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by
   Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and
   sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted
   followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and
   to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their
   acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so
   tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator
   quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five
   years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken
   up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who
   received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of
   2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests.
   Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a
   town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the
   fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as
   they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared
   well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were
   reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with
   disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his
   lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way.
   Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the
   Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana,
   where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in
   1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make
   his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were
   left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a
   most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned
   and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600
   souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400
   adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a
   hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado
   of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces
   on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and
   boldly marched across country, making an important exploration
   and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he
   was not successful in his government, and the discontented
   colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain,
   with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command
   of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked
   at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered
   with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had
   reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were
   such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise
   have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the
   constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which
   separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage
   intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of
   time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular
   combination of outward civilization and of primitive
   simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race
   until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in
   fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration
   became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the
   colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village
   of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70
   years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The
   Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain
   proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in
   sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that
   the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was
   formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time,
   therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong
   sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or
   those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed
   the basis of the plan of government founded by the great
   Irala.
{2482}
   The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the
   natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was
   far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The
   Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes
   with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly
   fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass
   consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of
   their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them.
   Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most
   part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as
   herdsmen."

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 5 and 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3, 5-7, and 11._

      _R. Biddle,
      Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
      chapters 16-23._

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of Paraguay,
      books 1-3._

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
   The rule of the Jesuits.
   The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II.
   Disastrous War with Brazil.

   "Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century
   as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos
   Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the
   Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D. 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on
   which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic
   government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608,
   baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and
   communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they
   had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed
   savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits,
   married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes
   stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a
   choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and
   marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the
   sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their
   leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any
   amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed
   each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other
   fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole
   bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding
   those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving
   with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and
   instructors. With the whole labouring population under
   control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into
   subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the
   conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the
   country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion,
   they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical
   authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and
   worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh
   outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four
   years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they
   made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom
   they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things
   which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the
   time of the general crusade of the European powers against
   their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as
   from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of
   the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain
   determined a general collapse of her power in the American
   colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and
   constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But,
   although the party of emancipation was the strongest and
   seized the reins of government, there were still many among
   the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother
   country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were
   many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of
   Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by
   the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to
   the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or
   harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the
   projected confederation.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

   All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless
   energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name
   of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian
   half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern,
   gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism
   and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes
   according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to
   call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from
   the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at
   Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the
   Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a
   Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion …
   (1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death,
   at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of
   stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding
   off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his
   colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions,
   imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a
   kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory,
   depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man
   to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission
   from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though
   there was something like method in his madness. There were
   faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for
   about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new
   Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a
   lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly
   despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten
   years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus
   to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his
   demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco
   Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of
   all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself
   appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was
   only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later
   years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign,
   though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been
   altogether unfavourable to the development of public
   prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and
   400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857.
   Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper
   money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to
   muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in
   the field and in his fortresses.
{2483}
   Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose
   perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by
   several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the
   influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by
   the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers
   as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon
   himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till
   he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in
   a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which
   lasted five years (1865-1870).

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

   At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had
   been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself
   died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but
   killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before
   he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to
   starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of
   the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is
   calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873
   only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than
   doubled the males."

      _A. Gallenga,
      South America,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of Paraguay._

      _J. R. Rengger and Longchamps,
      The Reign of Dr. Francia._

      _T. Carlyle,
      Dr. Francia
      (Essays, volume 6)._

      _C. A. Washburn,
      History of Paraguay._

      _R. F. Burton,
      Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay._

      _T. J. Page,
      La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
      chapters 27-30._

      _T. Griesinger,
      The Jesuits,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4)._

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The Republic under a new Constitution.

   Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed
   a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in
   recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of
   occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution,
   the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected
   for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two
   houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in
   1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.

   ----------PARAGUAY: End--------

PARALI, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PARALUS, The.

   The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for
   the conveyance of despatches and other official service.

PARASANG, The.

   The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about
   which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus
   represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo
   regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems
   to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that
   the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance,
   averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and
   others, something less than three geographical miles. The
   modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated
   distance, which generally, however, overruns three
   geographical miles.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 10, note B (volume 1)._

PARAWIANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

PARICANIANS, The.

   The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied
   the territory of modern Baluchistan.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
      chapter 1._

PARILIA,
PULILIA, The.

   The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a
   shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 21, with foot-note._

   ----------PARIS: Start--------

PARIS:
   The beginning.

   A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost
   insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site
   of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when
   Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It
   was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the
   minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the
   protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a
   small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the
   Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards.
   "Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia;
   Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and
   afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not
   known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is
   supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian.
   Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and
   Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then
   this name has been preserved in all the histories and public
   records."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 7, note._

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

PARIS:
   Julian's residence.

   Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar
   (355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not
   in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which
   he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii
   (whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have
   taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the
   fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the
   earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted
   the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius
   had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the
   Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity
   as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the
   surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the
   Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors
   selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position.
   They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the
   soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts
   and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of
   Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still
   regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known
   as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite
   residence."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 7._

PARIS:
   The capital of Clovis.

   Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the
   united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at
   Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He
   afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church
   dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the
   epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 5._

{2484}

PARIS: A. D. 511-752.
   Under the Merovingians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 511-752.

PARIS: A. D. 845.
   Sacked by the Normans.

   "France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was
   followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North
   wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the
   pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished
   by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in
   Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright
   activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their
   fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak
   Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed
   cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. …
   Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly
   occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of
   the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it
   being scarcely possible to account for the condition of
   Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that
   the country had long previously received a considerable Danish
   population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were
   advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly
   so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river:
   Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps
   expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by
   any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the
   increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the
   Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. …
   With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave
   themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris
   bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the
   Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles.
   Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with
   Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army
   at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been
   entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body;
   neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and
   abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845]
   the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted
   their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their
   shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their
   fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left
   open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude.
   The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all
   valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the
   Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the
   church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars
   and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen
   beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city,
   generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged
   themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the
   moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or
   dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the
   Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them,
   dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned
   by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under
   these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on
   receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be
   equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld
   paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the
   pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this
   disgraceful compromise."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 9._

PARIS: A. D. 857.-861.
   Twice ravaged by the Northmen.

   "The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid
   open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered
   from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell
   intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great
   monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three
   churches were found standing—Saint-Denis,
   Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these
   having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but
   Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to
   their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider
   it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most
   heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis,
   Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida.
   Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the
   pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more
   conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three
   centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins
   continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities
   of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries
   seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After
   this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three
   years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying
   the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across
   the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to
   Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken,
   on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the
   ruthless savages of the North entered Paris.
   Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire,
   and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles
   the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with
   bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and
   presently got him settled in the country as a baptized
   Christian and a vassal.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

PARIS: A. D. 885-886.
   The great siege by the Northmen.

   "In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after
   having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France,
   they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at
   length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had
   so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart
   of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been
   and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in
   motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already
   famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went
   right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of
   Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took
   Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. …
{2485}
   On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen
   formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two
   leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000
   men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new
   fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation,
   the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the
   ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly
   rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the
   Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes,
   lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen
   months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several
   assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop,
   Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a
   time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon
   saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three
   battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on
   his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe
   through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle
   was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November,
   886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a
   large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of
   the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing
   them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants
   obeyed not the emperor.'"

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 15._

PARIS: A. D. 987.
   First becomes the capital of France.

   "Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the
   capital of France until after the accession of the third
   dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 1, page 280._

PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199.
   Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.

   "During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in
   the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he
   had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people;
   and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his
   activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow,
   and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin
   name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of
   the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the
   court, in works of public utility, in the construction of
   paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and
   hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection
   of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 4._

PARIS: A. D. 1328.
   The splendor and gaiety of the Court.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.

PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383.
   The building of the Bastille.

      See BASTILLE.

PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358.
   The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.

      See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.

PARIS: A. D. 1381.
   The Insurrection of the Maillotins.

   At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke
   out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on
   merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal,
   where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of
   the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of
   the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used
   the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons,
   Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital.
   The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at
   Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The
   Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during
   the minority of the young king], powerless to make them
   submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the
   offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a
   time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious
   towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after
   the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at
   Rosebecque.

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5._

PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.
   The reign of the Cabochiens.
   The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARIS: A. D. 1418.
   The massacre of Armagnacs.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422.
   King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

PARIS: A. D. 1429.
   The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PARIS: A. D. 1436.
   Recovery from the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

PARIS: A. D. 1465.
   Siege by the League of the Public Weal.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

PARIS: A. D. 1496.
   Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1567.
   The Battle of St. Denis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

PARIS: A. D. 1572.
   The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.
   Insurrection of the Catholic League.
   The Day of Barricades.
   Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PARIS: A. D. 1590.
   The siege by Henry IV.
   Horrors of famine and disease.
   Relief by the Duke of Parma.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

PARIS: A. D. 1594.
   Henry IV.'s entry.
   Expulsion of Jesuits.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1636.
   Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.
   The capital in peril.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652.
   In the wars of the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651;
      and 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1652.
   The Battle of Porte St. Antoine
   and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

      See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799.
   Scenes of the Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.

PARIS: A. D. 1814.
   Surrender to the Allied armies.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and MARCH-APRIL).

PARIS: A. D. 1815.
   The English and Prussian armies in the city.
   Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).
   Revolution.
   Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).
   Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.
   Insurrection consequent on closing them.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1851.
   The Coup d'Etat.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

{2486}

PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Siege by the Germans.
   Capitulation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
      to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
   The insurgent Commune.
   Its Reign of Terror.
   Second Siege of the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

   ----------PARIS: End--------

PARIS, Congress of (1856).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856;
      and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, Declaration of.

      See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, The Parliament of.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PARIS, Treaty of (1763).

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

PARIS, Treaty of (1783).

    See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

PARIS, Treaty of (1814).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

PARIS, Treaty of (1815).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS, University of.

      See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.

PARISII, The.

      See PARIS: THE BEGINNING;
      and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

   ----------Subject: Start--------

PARLIAMENT, The English:
   Early stages of its evolution.

   "There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies
   every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great
   assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of
   the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us
   any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body.
   It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the
   wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like
   these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which
   implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a
   body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary
   practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any
   time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this
   body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest,
   had become not a little anomalous, and not a little
   fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of
   that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew
   out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the
   same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs
   out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no
   break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every
   freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of
   circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden
   change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and
   official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man,
   but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot
   refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has
   once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink
   up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the
   Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established
   through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special
   function of the body into which the old national Assembly has
   changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a
   House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not
   show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution
   had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English
   polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither
   of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our
   Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we
   may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom
   and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the
   course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man,
   the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and
   more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the
   greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of
   Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the
   founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him
   the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th
   century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as
   having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we
   may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; …
   but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of
   the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into
   a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter
   secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly
   as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the
   part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution
   of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill
   of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by
   a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III.,
   a popular element was fast making its way into the national
   Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary
   freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of
   the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more
   practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this
   time become the more practical right of choosing
   representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in
   England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result
   of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both
   in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of
   Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county
   being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county
   members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of
   the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as
   distinct from the gathering of the people in their own
   persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned
   them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The
   earliest object for which they were called together was
   probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of
   getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men
   to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the
   practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and
   commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for
   certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or
   hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our
   parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we
   come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary
   Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do
   but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the
   patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular
   Chamber. …
{2487}
   When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the
   kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous
   Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights
   from every county, but also two citizens from every city and
   two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly
   developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow
   into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of
   Parliament."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Growth of the English Constitution,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapters 6, 13-14._

      _R. Gneist,
      The English Parliament._

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 7._

      _A. Bissett,
      Short History of English Parliament,
      chapters 2-3._

      See, also,
      WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
      and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244.
   Earliest use of the name.

   In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in
   France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in
   England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and
   curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to
   the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the
   assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum
   Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et
   barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name
   'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant
   the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

      _H. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1)._

   "The name given to these sessions of Council [the national
   councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin
   'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of
   Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme,
   may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct
   instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further,
   although when the term comes into use it is applied
   retrospectively."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13, section 159._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258.
   The Mad Parliament.

   An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford
   A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from
   whom it extorted an important reorganization of the
   government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2)._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.
   Simon de Montfort's Parliament.
   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
   and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295.
   Development under Edward I.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376.
   The Good Parliament.

   The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;
   although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone
   by its successor.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388.
   The Wonderful Parliament.

   In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed
   demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his
   obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament
   for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The
   doings of this Parliament [which came together in February,
   1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so
   that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be
   applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the
   Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the
   impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the
   courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the
   block.

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 2, section 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the 14th Century,
      chapter 11._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404.
   The Unlearned Parliament.

   "This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its
   ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the
   king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372,
   directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had
   complained more than once that the members of the House of
   Commons spent more time on private suits than on public
   business."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3)._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422.
   First acquisition of Privilege.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425.
   The Parliament of Bats.

   The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of
   the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of
   Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485.
   Depression under the Yorkist kings.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603.
   Under Queen Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614.
   The Addled Parliament.

   In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious
   members promised to manage for him and make docile to his
   royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the
   Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the
   attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve
   the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old
   grievances, especially discussing the legality of the
   impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and
   of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme,
   James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had
   completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time
   christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, page 599._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
   The Short Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
   The Long Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648.
   The Rump.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649.
   Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653.
   The Barebones or Little Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659.
   The Rump restored.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740.
   Rise and development of the Cabinet
   as an organ of Parliamentary government.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693.
   The Triennial Bill.

   In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the
   opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then
   sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that
   no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The
   king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar
   bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15 (volume 3)._

{2488}

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703.
   The Aylesbury election case.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.
   Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.
   Representation of Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716.
   The Septennial Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.
   Last struggle against the Press.
   Freedom of reporting secured.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727.
   Defeat of the first Reform measure.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830.
   State of the unreformed representation.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832.
   The first Reform of the Representation.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867.
   The second Reform Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.
   Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885.
   The third Reform Bill (text and comment).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

   ----------PARLIAMENT: End--------

PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.

      See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

   "When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to
   Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de
   Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ
   also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence
   the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held
   within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There
   was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute,
   moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions
   immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it.
   There especially were adopted all general regulations which
   the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and
   especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other
   imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief,
   was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal
   provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or
   Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal
   domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a
   Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a
   convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king
   as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his
   feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established,
   either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries
   apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might
   dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by
   simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to
   his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections
   which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this
   slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament
   of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the
   constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX.
   [A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that
   monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of
   the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not
   with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but
   in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now
   they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English
   prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and
   even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the
   statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom
   could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist
   of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in
   a change which had taken place in the character of the
   Parliament, through which its function and authority became
   distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or
   a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he
   provided for the decision of complaints against officers of
   the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of
   Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of
   the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the
   time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it,
   that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such
   assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the
   attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively,
   but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament.
   Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons,
   three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to
   be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not
   appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications
   requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he
   directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated
   to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in
   holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the
   study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was
   that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other
   written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus
   constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament
   of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training,
   the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into
   their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a
   bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the
   Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which
   Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons.
   The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due
   time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La
   Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of
   the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its
   jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the
   Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become
   the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of
   France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the
   reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the
   royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former
   became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its
   members were required to be constantly resident in Paris.
{2489}
   By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called,
   had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles
   VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became
   hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was
   acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the
   meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with
   the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king …
   had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the
   Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the
   right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals,
   had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was
   disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected
   law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at
   length formally declined to register it among their records.
   Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful.
   In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory
   order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such
   orders the Parliament generally submitted."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 8._

   "It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to
   the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a
   different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies
   held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy
   [the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the
   earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer
   two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of
   Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were
   called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum
   [also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were
   called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it
   is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the
   time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at
   the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual
   appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that
   of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial,
   that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other
   tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called
   upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable
   influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of
   remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only
   could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris,
   besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though
   compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a
   more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's
   Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be
   doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified
   in consequence of this power of refusal."

      _Lord Brougham,
      History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,
      note 66._

   For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris
   and the crown which immediately preceded the French
   Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.

      _ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie,
      Marie Antoinette,
      chapters 6-11._

PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

   ----------PARMA: Start--------

PARMA:
   Founding of.

      See MUTINA.

PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115.
   In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349.
   Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PARMA: A. D. 1513.
   Conquest by Pope Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PARMA: A. D. 1515.
   Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PARMA: A. D. 1521.
   Retaken by the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
   Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,
   into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

   "Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered
   the interests of the holy see subordinate to the
   aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself
   the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were
   ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated
   during his life, they led to the establishment of his
   descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly
   200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to
   alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might
   erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi
   Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years
   before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,
   bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of
   Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and
   grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.
   was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to
   the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,
   which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon
   evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,
   Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved
   himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his
   debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient
   tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and
   insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and
   he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a
   reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in
   the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter
   the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul
   III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to
   retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city
   for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor
   would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul
   III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the
   conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],
   obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the
   gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house
   of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still
   retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services
   of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to
   deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to
   him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the
   protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive
   war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved
   his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of
   the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the
   invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from
   the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding
   Placentia again to him.
{2490}
   But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that
   place; and it was only the brilliant military career of
   Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of
   duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his
   family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro
   gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;
   and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the
   Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.
   The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but
   Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the
   head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and
   his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of
   Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy
   see and the monarchy of Spain."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

PARMA: A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.
   Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.
   The French alliance renounced.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

PARMA: A. D. 1725.
   Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PARMA: A. D. 1731.
   Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1735.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Changes of masters.

   In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by
   Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see
   ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to
   the infant of Spain in 1748.

PARMA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.
   Papal excommunication of the Duke.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PARMA: A. D. 1801.
   The Duke's son made King of Etruria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PARMA: A. D. 1802.
   The duchy declared a dependency of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

PARMA: A. D. 1814.
   Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

PARMA: A. D. 1831.
   Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.
   Her restoration by Austria.

   See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Abortive revolution.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.
   End of the duchy.
   Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------PARMA: End--------

PARMA, Battle of (1734).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PARNASSUS.

      See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.

PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

PARSEES, The.

   "On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to
   Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty
   thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran.
   The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs,
   after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there,
   persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta],
   faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of
   Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a
   few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient
   faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island
   close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian
   Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of
   Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the
   neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions
   have been found which prove that these settlers reached the
   coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time
   their descendants form a considerable part of the population
   of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after
   their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle
   Persian."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5)._

      See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

PARSONS' CAUSE, The.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

PARTHENII, The.

   This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young
   men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the
   exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even
   when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit
   these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the
   military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally
   driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      See TARENTUM.

   ----------PARTHENON: Start--------

PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.

   "Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the
   Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive
   edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately
   together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was
   to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the
   wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories
   which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

      See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

   The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and
   Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who
   was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the
   double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice
   which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its
   proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the
   earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not
   exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the
   edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east
   to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of
   the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or
   Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of
   Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the
   festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had
   gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. …
   The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum,
   where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and
   flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being
   produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic
   games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium,
   foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the
   torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the
   Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed
   one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 3._

      See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

{2491}

PARTHENON: A. D. 1687.
   Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens
   by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

   ----------PARTHENON: End--------

PARTHENOPÉ.

      See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

   "The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian,
   skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north,
   broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the
   sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or
   five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having
   between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to
   their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded;
   the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water
   abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a
   considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is
   further increased by the extension of cultivation to a
   considerable distance from the base of the most southern of
   the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It
   was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly
   described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. …
   Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the
   region described. A portion of that region formed the district
   called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine
   what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on
   the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west
   and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and
   east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the
   main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south
   of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E.
   longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia
   Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to
   the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian
   character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved,
   appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be
   accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the
   vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the
   steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon
   the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively
   unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view
   them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of
   the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts,
   &c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained
   their independence from the time of their settlement in the
   district called after their name until the sudden arrival in
   their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about
   554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius
   Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the
   same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria.
   Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous,
   it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to
   form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the
   comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of
   Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the
   new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death,
   that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the
   Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria
   as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt
   occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an
   independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

   Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the
   line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic
   dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by
   conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole
   territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia
   Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians
   successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in
   several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were
   advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia._

   Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an
   expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of
   Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The
   degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before
   his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the
   mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the
   honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman
   generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets
   ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished
   senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations
   that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon
   clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the
   eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his
   [successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the
   Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew
   the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia
   and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus,
   once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the
   empire."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

   In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the
   Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the
   Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war
   which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and
   Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and
   Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.
   165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding
   Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of
   a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of
   Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],
   which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,
   was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought
   between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three
   days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to
   flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his
   troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and
   retired within the lines of their camp.
{2492}
   Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the
   heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of
   the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two
   contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,
   therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome
   at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was
   rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,
   and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the
   Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries
   and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the
   races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian
   monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the
   Parthian throne.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapters 3-21._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      Story of Parthia._

PARTHIAN HORSE.
PARTHIAN ARROWS.

   "Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a
   headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only
   in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong
   bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early
   boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could
   use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse
   was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing
   towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his
   ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the
   presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or
   round and round his square or column, never charging it, but
   at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed
   shafts."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 11._

   ----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------

PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS.
   Abolitionists.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Adullamites.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Aggraviados.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ammoniti.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anarchists.

      See ANARCHISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anilleros.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Corn-Law League.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Federalists.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Masonic.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832;
      and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Renters.

      See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808;
      1828-1832; 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Armagnacs.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Arrabiati.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Assideans.

      See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Barnburners.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Beggars.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bianchi.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bigi, or Greys.

      See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Blacks, or Black Guelfs.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Blue-Light Federalists.

      See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Blues.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN;
      and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Border Ruffians.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Boys in Blue.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bucktails.

      See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bundschuh.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Burgundians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415;
      and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Burschenschaft.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Butternuts.

      See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cabochiens.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Calixtines, or Utraquists.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Camisards.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Caps and Hats.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Carbonari.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Carlists.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Carpet-baggers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cavaliers and Roundheads.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
      also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Center.

      See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Charcoals.

      See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Chartists.

      See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Chasidim.

      See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Chouans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Christinos.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Claybanks and Charcoals.

      See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Clear Grits.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Clichyans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Clintonians.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cods.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Communeros.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Communists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Conservative (English).

      See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Constitutional Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Copperheads.

      See COPPERHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cordeliers.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Country Party.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Covenanters.

      See COVENANTERS;
      also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,
      and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Crêtois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Decamisados.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
      1825-1828; 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Doughfaces.

      See DOUGHFACES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Douglas Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Equal Rights Party.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Escocés.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Essex Junto.

      See ESSEX JUNTO.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Farmers' Alliance.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Federalists.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;
      and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Feds.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Fenians.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

      Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Free Soilers.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Free Traders.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Gachupines.

      See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Girondists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Gomerists.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Grangers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Graybacks.

      See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Greenbackers.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Greens.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Greys.

      See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Guadalupes.

      See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See GUELFS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Gueux, or Beggars.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Half-breeds.

         See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hard-Shell Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hats and Caps.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Home Rulers or Nationalists.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879;
      also ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886, and 1892-1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hooks and Cods, or Kabeljauws.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      and 1482-1493.

{2493}

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Huguenots.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599;
      1620-1622, to 1627-1628;
      1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hunkers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Iconoclasts of the 8th century.

      See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Iconoclasts of the 16th century.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Importants.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Independent Republicans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Independents, or Separatists.

      See INDEPENDENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Intransigentists.

      See INTRANSIGENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Irredentists.

      See IRREDENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jacobins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jacobites.

      See JACOBITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jacquerie.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jingoes.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Kabeljauws.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Kharejites.

      See KHAREJITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Know Nothing.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ku Klux Klan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Land Leaguers.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Left.
   Left Center.

      See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Legitimists.

      See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Leliaerds.

      See LELIAERDS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Levellers.

      See LEVELLERS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberal Republicans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberal Unionists.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Libertines.

      See LIBERTINES OF GENEVA.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberty Boys.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: SONS OF LIBERTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberty Party.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Locofocos.

      See LOCOFOCOS;
      and NEW YORK: A.D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Lollards.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Malignants.

      See MALIGNANTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Marais, or Plain.

      See FRANCE A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Marians.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Martling Men.

      See MARTLING MEN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Melchites.

      See MELCHITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Mountain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Mugwumps.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Muscadins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Nationalists, Irish.

      See ENGLAND: A.D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Neri.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Nihilists.

      See NIHILISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Oak Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1708.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Opportunists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Orangemen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1705-1706.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Orleanists.

      See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Ormée.

      See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Orphans.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ottimati.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Palleschi.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Patrons of Husbandry.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1801.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Peep-o'-Day Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798, and 1784.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Pelucones.

      See PELUCONES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Petits Maîtres.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Piagnoni.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1408.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Plain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Plebs.

      See PLEBEIANS;
      also, ROME: THE BEGINNING, and after.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Politiques.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Popolani.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Populist or People's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Prohibitionists.

      See PROHIBITIONISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Protectionists.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Puritan.

      See PURITANS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Republican (Earlier).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ribbonmen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Right.—Right Center.

      See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Roundheads.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
      also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Sansculottes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Secesh.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Serviles.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Shias.

      See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Silver-greys.
   Snuff-takers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Socialists.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Soft-Shell Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Sons of Liberty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
      THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY,
      and 1864 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Stalwarts.

      See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Steel Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Sunni.

   See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Taborites.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434;
      and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Tammany Ring.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871;
      and TAMMANY SOCIETY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Tories.

      See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
      CONSERVATIVE PARTY;
      and TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Tugenbund.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
    Ultramontanists.

       See ULTRAMONTANE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   United Irishmen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1703-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Utraquists.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whigs (American).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whigs (English).

      See WHIGS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whiteboys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   White Hoods.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379,
      and 'WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whites.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Wide Awakes.

      See WIDE AWAKES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Woolly-heads.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Yellows;

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Yorkinos.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Young Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Young Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Zealots.

      See ZEALOTS;
      and JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

PARTITION OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE, The Treaties of.

   See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

PARTITIONS OF POLAND.

   See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773; and 1793-1706.

PARU, The Great.

   See EL DORADO.

PASARGADÆ.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians, from which came the
   royal race of the Achæmenids.

      See PERSIA: ANCIENT PEOPLE AND COUNTRY.

PASCAGOULAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

PASCAL I.,
   Pope, A. D. 817-824.

   Pascal II., Pope, 1099-1118.

PASCUA.

      See VECTIGAL.

PASSAROWITZ, Peace of (1718).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

PASSAU: Taken by the Bavarians and French.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

PASSAU, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY; A. D. 1546-1552.

PASSÉ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

PASTEUR, Louis, and his work in Bacteriology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

PASTORS, The Crusade of the.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

PASTRENGO, Battle of (1799).

      SEE FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

{2494}

PASTRY WAR, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

PATAGONIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

PATARA, Oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

PATARENES.
PATERINI.

   About the middle of the 11th century, there appeared at Milan
   a young priest named Ariald who caused a great commotion by
   attacking the corruptions of clergy and people and preaching
   repentance and reform. The whole of Milan became "separated
   into two hotly contending parties. This controversy divided
   families; it was the one object which commanded universal
   participation. The popular party, devoted to Ariald and
   Landulph [a deacon who supported Ariald], was nicknamed
   'Pataria', which in the dialect of Milan signified a popular
   faction; and as a heretical tendency might easily grow out of,
   or attach itself to, this spirit of separatism so zealously
   opposed to the corruption of the clergy, it came about that,
   in the following centuries, the name Patarenes was applied in
   Italy as a general appellation to denote sects contending
   against the dominant church and clergy—sects which, for the
   most part, met with great favour from the people."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church
      (Bohn's edition),
      volume 6, page 67._

   "The name Patarini is derived from the quarter of the
   rag-gatherers, Pataria."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
      page 253, foot-note._

   During the fierce controversy of the 11th century over the
   question of celibacy for the clergy (see PAPACY: A. D.
   1056-1122), the party in Milan which supported Pope Gregory
   VII. (Hildebrand) in his inflexible warfare against the
   marriage of priests were called by their opponents Patarines.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 6, chapter 3._

      See, also,
      CATHARISTS: ALBIGENSES;
      and PAULICIANS;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

PATAVIUM, Early knowledge of.

      See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PATAY, Battle of (1429).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PATCHINAKS.
UZES.
COMANS.

   The Patchinaks, or Patzinaks, Uzes and Comans were successive
   swarms of Turkish nomads which came into southeastern Europe
   during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, following and
   driving each other into the long and often devastated Danubian
   provinces of the Byzantine empire, and across the Balkans. The
   wars of the empire with the Patchinaks were many and seriously
   exhausting. The Comans are said to have been Turcomans, with
   the first part of their true name dropped off.

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900.

PATER PATRATUS.

      See FETIALES.

PATER PATRIÆ.

   "The first individual, belonging to an epoch strictly
   historical, who received this title was Cicero, to whom it was
   voted by the Senate after the suppression of the Catilinarian
   conspiracy."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

PATERINI, The.

      See PATARENES.

PATNA, Massacre at (1763).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST, The.

   "It was not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state
   [consequent on the revolt suppressed by Titus] that it revived
   again in appearance, under the form of two separate
   communities mostly dependent upon each other: one under a
   sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly temporal and
   partly spiritual,—but each comprehending all the Jewish
   families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head
   of the Jews on this side of the Euphrates appeared the
   Patriarch of the West: the chief of the Mesopotamian community
   assumed the striking but more temporal title of
   'Resch-Glutha,' or' Prince of the Captivity. The origin of
   both these dignities, especially of the Western patriarchate,
   is involved in much obscurity."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 18._

      See, also, JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PATRIARCHS.

      See PRIMATES.

PATRICIAN, The class.

   See COMITIA CURIATA;
   also, PLEBEIANS.

PATRICIAN, The Later Roman Title.

   "Introduced by Constantine at a time when its original meaning
   had been long forgotten, it was designed to be, and for a
   while remained, the name not of an office but of a rank, the
   highest after those of emperor and consul. As such, it was
   usually conferred upon provincial governors of the first
   class, and in time also upon barbarian potentates whose vanity
   the Roman court might wish to flatter. Thus Odoacer,
   Theodoric, the Burgundian king Sigismund, Clovis himself, had
   all received it from the Eastern emperor: so too in still
   later times it was given to Saracenic and Bulgarian princes.
   In the sixth and seventh centuries an invariable practice
   seems to have attached it to the Byzantine viceroys of Italy,
   and thus, as we may conjecture, a natural confusion of ideas
   had made men take it to be, in some sense, an official title,
   conveying an extensive though undefined authority, and
   implying in particular the duty of overseeing the Church and
   promoting her temporal interests. It was doubtless with such a
   meaning that the Romans and their bishop bestowed it upon the
   Frankish kings, acting quite without legal right, for it could
   emanate from the emperor alone, but choosing it as the title
   which bound its possessor to render to the church support and
   defence against her Lombard foes."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

PATRICK, St., in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: 5-8TH CENTURIES;
      and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND.

PATRIMONY OF ST. PETER, The.

   The territory over which the Pope formerly exercised and still
   claims temporal sovereignty.

      See STATES OF THE CHURCH
      also, PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and after.

PATRIOT WAR, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PATRIPASSIANS.

      See NOËTIANS.

PATRONAGE, Political.

      See STALWARTS.

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

PATROONS OF NEW NETHERLAND, and their colonies.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

PATZINAKS, The.

      See PATCHINAKS.

PAUL, St., the Apostle,
   the missionary labors of.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 54 (?).

   Paul, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1796-1801.

   Paul I., Pope, 757-767.

   Paul II., Pope, 1464-1471.

   Paul III., Pope, 1534-1549.

   Paul IV., Pope, 1555-1559.

   Paul V., Pope, 1605-1621.

{2495}

PAULETTE, The.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

PAULICIANS, The.

   "After a pretty long obscurity the Manichean theory revived
   with some modification in the western parts of Armenia, and
   was propagated in the 8th and 9th centuries by a sect
   denominated Paulicians. Their tenets are not to be collected
   with absolute certainty from the mouths of their adversaries,
   and no apology of their own survives. There seems however to
   be sufficient evidence that the Paulicians, though professing
   to acknowledge and even to study the apostolical writings,
   ascribed the creation of the world to an evil deity, whom they
   supposed also to be the author of the Jewish law, and
   consequently rejected all the Old Testament. … Petrus Siculus
   enumerates six Paulician heresies.

   1. They maintained the existence of two deities, the one evil,
      and the creator of this world; the other good, … the author
      of that which is to come.
   2. They refused to worship the Virgin, and asserted that
      Christ brought his body from heaven.
   3. They rejected the Lord's Supper.
   4. And the adoration of the cross.
   5. They denied the authority of the Old Testament, but
      admitted the New, except the epistles of St. Peter, and,
      perhaps, the Apocalypse.
   6. They did not acknowledge the order of priests.

   There seems every reason to suppose that the Paulicians,
   notwithstanding their mistakes, were endowed with sincere and
   zealous piety, and studious of the Scriptures. … These errors
   exposed them to a long and cruel persecution, during which a
   colony of exiles was planted by one of the Greek emperors in
   Bulgaria. From this settlement they silently promulgated their
   Manichean creed over the western regions of Christendom. A
   large part of the commerce of those countries with
   Constantinople was carried on for several centuries by the
   channel of the Danube. This opened an immediate intercourse
   with the Paulicians, who may be traced up that river through
   Hungary and Bavaria, or sometimes taking the route of
   Lombardy, into Switzerland and France. In the last country,
   and especially in its southern and eastern provinces, they
   became conspicuous under a variety of names; such as
   Catharists, Picards, Paterins, but, above all, Albigenses. It
   is beyond a doubt that many of these sectaries owed their
   origin to the Paulicians; the appellation of Bulgarians was
   distinctively bestowed upon them; and, according to some
   writers, they acknowledged a primate or patriarch resident in
   that country. … It is generally agreed that the Manicheans
   from Bulgaria did not penetrate into the west of Europe before
   the year 1000; and they seem to have been in small numbers
   till about 1140. … I will only add, in order to obviate
   cavilling, that I use the word Albigenses for the Manichean
   sects, without pretending to assert that their doctrines
   prevailed more in the neighbourhood of Albi than elsewhere.
   The main position is that a large part of the Languedocian
   heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the
   Paulician opinions. If anyone chooses rather to call them
   Catharists, it will not be material."

      _H. Hallam,
      Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 2, and foot-notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 54._

      See, also,
      CATHARISTS, and ALBIGENSES.

PAULINES, The.

      See BARNABITES.

PAULISTAS (of Brazil).

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

PAULUS HOOK, The storming of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

PAUSANIUS, The mad conduct of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

   ----------PAVIA: Start--------

PAVIA:
   Origin of the city.

   See LIGURIANS.

PAVIA: A. D. 270.
   Defeat of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PAVIA: A. D. 493-523.
   Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

      See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

PAVIA: A. D. 568-571.
   Siege by the Lombards.
   Made capital of the Lombard kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

PAVIA: A. D. 753-754.
   Siege by Charlemagne.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

PAVIA: A. D. 924.
   Destruction by the Hungarians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

PAVIA: A. D. 1004.
   Burned by the German troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

PAVIA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Acquisition of Republican Independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PAVIA: A. D. 1395.
   Relation to the duchy of the Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PAVIA: A. D. 1524-1525.
   Siege and Battle.
   Defeat and capture of Francis I., of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

PAVIA: A. D. 1527.
   Taken and plundered by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

PAVIA: A. D. 1745.
   Taken by the French and Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

PAVIA: A. D. 1796.
   Capture and pillage by the French.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

   ----------PAVIA: End--------

PAVON, Battle of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

PAVONIA, The Patroon colony of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

PAWNEES, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PAWTUCKET INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAXTON BOYS, Massacre of Indians by the.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

PAYAGUAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAYENS, Hugh de, and the founding of the Order of the Templars.

      See TEMPLARS.

PAYTITI, The Great.

      See EL DORADO.

PAZZI, Conspiracy of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

PEA INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PEABODY EDUCATION FUND.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867-1891.

PEACE, The King's.

      See KING'S PEACE;
      also LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1110, 1135, and 1300.

PEACE CONVENTION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

PEACE OF AUGUSTUS, AND PEACE OF VESPASIAN.

      See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

PEACE OF THE DAMES,
THE LADIES' PEACE.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

{2496}

PEACH TREE CREEK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

PEACOCK THRONE, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

PEAGE,
PEAKE.

      See WAMPUM.

   ----------PEASANT REVOLTS: Start--------

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 287.
   The Bagauds of Gaul.

      See BAGAUDS.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1358.
   The Jacquerie of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1381.
   Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1450.
   Jack Cade's rebellion in England.

      See ENGLAND; A. D. 1450.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1492-1514.
   The Bundschuh in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1513.
   The Kurucs of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1521-1525.
   The Peasants' War in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1652-1653.
   Peasant War in Switzerland.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

   ----------PEASANT REVOLTS: End--------

PEC-SÆTAN.

   Band of Angles who settled on the moorlands of the Peak of
   Derbyshire.

PEDDAR-WAY, The.

   The popular name of an old Roman road in England, which runs
   from Brancaster, on the Wash, via Colchester, to London.

PEDIÆI.
THE PEDION.

   See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PEDRO
   (called The Cruel), King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1350-1369.

   Pedro, King of Portugal, 1357-1367.

   Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, 1822-1831;

   Pedro IV., King of Portugal, 1826

   Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, 1831-1889

   Pedro II., King of Portugal, 1667-1706.

   Pedro III., King-Consort of Portugal, 1777-1786.

   Pedro V., King of Portugal, 1853-1861.

   Pedro.

      See, also, PETER.

PEEL, Sir Robert: Administrations of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837, 1837-1839, 1841-1842, to 1846;
      TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1842, and 1845-1846;
      MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

PEEP-O'-DAY BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798; and 1784.

PEERS.
PEERAGE, The British.

   "The estate of the peerage is identical with the house of
   lords."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 2, page 184._

      See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF;
      and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

PEERS OF FRANCE, The Twelve.

      See TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

PEGU, British acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

PEHLEVI LANGUAGE.

   "Under the Arsacids, the Old Persian passed into Middle
   Persian, which at a later time was known by the name of the
   Parthians, the tribe at that time supreme in Persia. Pahlav
   and Pehlevi mean Parthian, and, as applied to language, the
   language of the Parthians, i. e. of the Parthian era. … In the
   latest period of the dominion of the Sassanids, the recent
   Middle Persian or Parsec took the place of Pehlevi."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

PEHUELCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

   ----------PEKIN: Start--------

PEKIN: The origin of the city.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

PEKIN: A. D. 1860.
   English and French forces in the city.
   The burning of the Summer Palace.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

   ----------PEKIN: End--------

PELAGIANISM.

   "Pelagianism was … the great intellectual controversy of the
   church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the
   fourth. … Everyone is aware that this controversy turned upon
   the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the
   relations between the liberty of man and the Divine power, of
   the influence of God upon the moral activity of men. … About
   the year 405, a British monk, Pelagius (this is the name given
   him by the Greek and Latin writers; his real name, it appears,
   was Morgan), was residing at Rome. There has been infinite
   discussion as to his origin, his moral character, his
   capacity, his learning; and, under these various heads, much
   abuse has been lavished upon him; but this abuse would appear
   to be unfounded, for judging from the most authoritative
   testimony, from that of St. Augustin himself, Pelagius was a
   man of good birth, of excellent education, of pure life. A
   resident, as I have said, at Rome, and now a man of mature
   age, without laying down any distinct doctrines, without
   having written any book on the subject, Pelagius began, about
   the year I have mentioned, 405, to talk much about free-will,
   to insist urgently upon this moral fact, to expound it. There
   is no indication that he attacked any person about the matter,
   or that he sought controversy; he appears to have acted simply
   upon the belief that human liberty was not held in sufficient
   account, had not its due share in the religious doctrines of
   the period. These ideas excited no trouble in Rome, scarcely
   any debate. Pelagius spoke freely; they listened to him
   quietly. His principal disciple was Celestius, like him a
   monk, or so it is thought at least, but younger. … In 411
   Pelagius and Celestius are no longer at Rome; we find them in
   Africa, at Hippo and at Carthage. … Their doctrines spread. …
   The bishop of Hippo began to be alarmed; he saw in these new
   ideas error and peril. … Saint Augustin was the chief of the
   doctors of the church, called upon more than any other to
   maintain the general system of her doctrines. … You see, from
   that time, what a serious aspect the quarrel took: everything
   was engaged in it, philosophy, politics, and religion, the
   opinions of Saint Augustin and his business, his self-love and
   his duty. He entirely abandoned himself to it." In the end,
   Saint Augustin and his opinions prevailed. The doctrines of
   Pelagius were condemned by three successive councils of the
   church, by three successive emperors and by two popes—one of
   whom was forced to reverse his first decision. His partisans
   were persecuted and banished. "After the year 418, we discover
   in history no trace of Pelagius. The name of Celestius is
   sometimes met with until the year 427; it then disappears.
   These two men once off the scene, their school rapidly
   declined."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization
      (translated by Hazlitt),
      volume 2, lecture. 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church, period 3,
      chapter 9._

      See, also,
      PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

{2497}

PELASGIANS, The.

   Under this name we have vague knowledge of a people whom the
   Greeks of historic times refer to as having preceded them in
   the occupancy of the Hellenic peninsula and Asia Minor, and
   whom they looked upon as being kindred to themselves in race.
   "Such information as the Hellenes … possessed about the
   Pelasgi, was in truth very scanty. They did not look upon them
   as a mythical people of huge giants—as, for example, in the
   popular tales of the modern Greeks the ancestors of the latter
   are represented as mighty warriors, towering to the height of
   poplar trees. There exist no Pelasgian myths, no Pelasgian
   gods, to be contrasted with the Greeks. … Thucydides, in whom
   the historic consciousness of the Hellenes finds its clearest
   expression, also regards the inhabitants of Hellas from the
   most ancient times, Pelasgi as well as Hellenes, as one
   nation. … And furthermore, according to his opinion genuine
   sons of these ancient Pelasgi continued through all times to
   dwell in different regions, and especially in Attica.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "It is inevitable that modern historians should take widely
   divergent views of a nation concerning which tradition is so
   uncertain. Some writers, among whom is Kiepert, think that the
   Pelasgi were a Semitic tribe, who immigrated into Greece. This
   theory, though it explains their presence on the coast, fails
   to account for their position at Dodona and in Thessaly. … In
   another view, which has received the assent of Thirlwall and
   Duncker, Pelasgian is nothing more than the name of the
   ancient inhabitants of the country, which subsequently gave
   way to the title Achaean, as this in its turn was supplanted
   by the term Hellenes. … We have no evidence to support the
   idea of a Pelasgic Age as a period of simple habits and
   agricultural occupations, which slowly gave way before the
   more martial age of the Achaeans. The civilization of the
   'Achaean Age' exists only in the epic poems, and the 'Pelasgic
   Age' is but another name for the prehistoric Greeks, of whose
   agriculture we know nothing."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      DORIANS AND IONIANS;
      ŒNOTRIANS;
      ARYANS;
      ITALY: ANCIENT.

PELAYO, King of the Asturias (or Oviedo) and Leon, A. D. 718-737.

PELHAMS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745; and 1757-1760.

PELIGNIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

PELISIPIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

   ----------PELLA: Start--------

PELLA.

   A new Macedonian capital founded by Archelaus, the ninth of
   the kings of Macedonia.

PELLA:
   Surrendered to the Ostrogoths.

      See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

   ----------PELLA: End--------

PELOPIDS.
PELOPONNESUS.

   "Among the ancient legendary genealogies, there was none which
   figured with greater splendour, or which attracted to itself a
   higher degree of poetical interest and pathos, than that of
   the Pelopids:—Tantalus, Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, Agamemnon
   and Menelaus and Ægisthus, Helen and Klytaemnestra, Orestes
   and Elektra and Hermione. Each of these characters is a star
   of the first magnitude in the Grecian hemisphere. … Pelops is
   the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnesus: to find an
   eponym for every conspicuous local name was the invariable
   turn of Grecian retrospective fancy. The name Peloponnesus is
   not to be found either in the Iliad or the Odyssey, nor any
   other denomination which can be attached distinctly and
   specially to the entire peninsula. But we meet with the name
   in one of the most ancient post-Homeric poems of which any
   fragments have been preserved—the Cyprian Verses. … The
   attributes by which the Pelopid Agamemnon and his house are
   marked out and distinguished from the other heroes of the
   Iliad, are precisely those which Grecian imagination would
   naturally seek in an eponymus—superior wealth, power,
   splendour and regality."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 7._

   "Of the … family of myths … that of Pelops [is] especially
   remarkable as attaching itself more manifestly and decisively
   than any other Heroic myth to Ionia and Lydia. We remember the
   royal house of Tantalus enthroned on the banks of the Sipylus,
   and intimately associated with the worship of the Phrygian
   Mother of the Gods. Members of this royal house emigrate and
   cross to Hellas from the Ionian ports; they bring with them
   bands of adventurous companions, a treasure of rich culture
   and knowledge of the world, arms and ornaments, and splendid
   implements of furniture, and gain a following among the
   natives, hitherto combined in no political union. … This was
   the notion formed by men like Thucydides as to the epoch
   occasioned by the appearance of the Pelopidæ in the earliest
   ages of the nation; and what element in this notion is either
   improbable or untenable. Do not all the traditions connected
   with Achæan princes of the house of Pelops point with one
   consent over the sea to Lydia?"

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3._

PELOPONNESIAN WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432, to B. C. 405;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 431, and after.

PELOPONNESUS, The Doric migration to.

      See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PELTIER TRIAL, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

PELUCONES, The.

   The name of one of the parties in Chilean politics, supposed
   to have some resemblance to the English Whigs.

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      page 279._

   ----------PELUSIUM: Start--------

PELUSIUM.

   "Behind, as we enter Egypt [from the east] is the treacherous
   Lake Serbonis; in front the great marsh broadening towards the
   west; on the right the level melancholy shore of the almost
   tideless Mediterranean. At the very point of the angle stood
   of old the great stronghold Pelusium, Sin, in Ezekiel's days,
   'the strength of Egypt' (xxx. 15). The most eastward
   Nile-stream flowed behind the city, and on the north was a
   port commodious enough to hold an ancient fleet. … As the
   Egyptian monarchy waned, Pelusium grew in importance, for it
   was the strongest city of the border. Here the last king of
   the Saïte line, Psammeticus III, son of Amasis, awaited
   Cambyses. The battle of Pelusium, which crushed the native
   power, may almost take rank among the decisive battles of the
   world. Had the Persians failed, they might never have won the
   command of the Mediterranean, without which they could
   scarcely have invaded Greece. Of the details of the action we
   know nothing."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 11._

   It was at Pelusium that Pompey, defeated and flying from
   Cæsar, was assassinated.

{2498}

PELUSIUM: B. C. 47.
   Taken by the king of Pergamus.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 616.
   Surprised by Chosroes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 640.
   Capture by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

   ----------PELUSIUM: End--------

PEMAQUID PATENT.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.

PEMAQUID PATENT: A. D. 1664.
   Purchased for the Duke of York.

      See NEW YORK A. D. 1664.

PEN SELWOOD, Battle of.

   The first battle fought, A. D. 1016, between the English king
   Edmund, or Eadmund, Ironsides, and his Danish rival Cnut, or
   Canute, for the crown of England. The Dane was beaten.

PENACOOK INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

PENDLE, Forest of.

   A former forest in Lancashire, England, which was popularly
   believed to be the resort of "Lancashire Witches."

PENDLETON BILL, The.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

PENDRAGON.

      See DRAGON.

PENESTÆ, The.

   In ancient Thessaly there was "a class of serfs, or dependent
   cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who,
   tilling the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a
   proportion of its produce, furnished the retainers by which
   these great families were surrounded, served as their
   followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of
   villanage,—yet with the important reserve that they could not
   be sold out of the country, that they had a permanent tenure
   in the soil, and that they maintained among one another the
   relations of family and village. This … order of men, in
   Thessaly called the Penestæ, is assimulated by all ancient
   authors to the Helots of Luconia."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN OF McCLELLAN.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862
      MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA;
      MAY: VIRGINIA,
      JUNE: VIRGINIA,
      JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA,
      JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA.

PENINSULAR WAR, The Spanish.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808 to 1812-1814.

PENN, William, and the colony of Pennsylvania.

      See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1681. and after.

PENNAMITE AND YANKEE WAR.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1790.

   ----------PENNSYLVANIA: Start--------

PENNSYLVANIA.
   The aboriginal inhabitants and their relations to the white
   colonists.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      DELAWARES, SUSQUEHANNAS, and SHAWANESE.

PENNSYLVANIA:A. D. 1629-1664.
   The Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE; A. D. 1620-1631, and after.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1632.
   Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1634.
   Partly embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1641.
   The settlement from New Haven, on the site of Philadelphia.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1673.
   Repossession of the Delaware by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.
   The Proprietary grant to William Penn.

   "William Penn was descended from a long line of sailor
   ancestors. His father, an admiral in the British navy, had
   held various important naval commands, and in recognition of
   his services had been honored by knighthood. A member of
   Parliament, and possessed of a considerable fortune, the path
   of worldly advancement seemed open and easy for the feet of
   his son, who had received a liberal education at Oxford,
   continued in the schools of the Continent. Beautiful in
   person, engaging in manner, accomplished in manly exercises
   and the use of the sword, fortune and preferment seemed to
   wait the acceptance of William Penn. But at the very outset of
   his career the Divine voice fell upon his ears as upon those
   of St. Paul." He became a follower of George Fox, and one of
   the people known as Quakers or Friends. "Many trials awaited
   the youthful convert. His father cast him off. He underwent a
   considerable imprisonment in the Tower for 'urging the cause
   of freedom with importunity.' … In time these afflictions
   abated. The influence of his family saved him from the heavier
   penalties which fell upon many of his co-religionists. His
   father on his death-bed reinstated him as his heir. 'Son
   William,' said the dying man, 'if you and your friends keep to
   your plain way of preaching and living, you will make an end
   of the priests.' Some years later we find him exerting an
   influence at Court which almost amounted to popularity. It is
   evident that, with all his boldness of opinion and speech,
   Penn possessed a tact and address which gave him the advantage
   over most of his sect in dealings with worldly people. … In
   1680 his influence at Court and with moneyed men enabled him
   to purchase a large tract of land in east New Jersey, on which
   to settle a colony of Quakers, a previous colony having been
   sent out three years before to west New Jersey. Meanwhile a
   larger project filled his mind. His father had bequeathed to
   him a claim on the Crown for £16,000. Colonial property was
   then held in light esteem, and, with the help of some powerful
   friends, Penn was enabled so to press his claim as to secure
   the charter for that valuable grant which afterward became the
   State of Pennsylvania, and which included three degrees of
   latitude by five of longitude, west from the Delaware. 'This
   day,' writes Penn, January 5, 1681, 'my country was confirmed
   to me by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the king [Charles
   II.] would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales,
   being as this a pretty hilly country. I proposed (when the
   Secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales)
   Sylvania, and they added Penn to it, and though I much opposed
   it, and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he
   said 'twas past, and he would take it upon him. … I feared
   lest it should be looked upon as a vanity in me, and not as a
   respect of the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he
   often mentions with praise.'
{2499}
   'In return for this grant of 26,000,000 of acres of the best
   land in the universe, William Penn, it was agreed, was to
   deliver annually at Windsor Castle two beaver-skins, pay into
   the King's treasury one fifth of the gold and silver which the
   province might yield, and govern the province in conformity
   with the laws of England and as became a liege of England's
   King. He was to appoint judges and magistrates, could pardon
   all crimes except murder and treason, and whatsoever things he
   could lawfully do himself, he could appoint a deputy to do, he
   and his heirs forever.' The original grant was fantastically
   limited by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from Newcastle,
   northward and westward, to the beginning of the 40th degree of
   latitude. This was done to accommodate the Duke of York, who
   wished to retain the three lower counties as an appanage to
   the State of New York. A few months later he was persuaded to
   renounce this claim, and the charter of Penn was extended to
   include the western and southern shores of the Delaware Bay
   and River from the 43rd degree of latitude to the Atlantic. …
   The charter confirmed, a brief account of the country was
   published, and lands offered for sale on the easy terms of 40
   shillings a hundred acres, and one shilling's rent a year in
   perpetuity. Numerous adventurers, many of them men of wealth
   and respectability, offered. The articles of agreement
   included a provision as to 'just and friendly conduct toward
   the natives.' … In April, 1681, he sent forward 'young Mr.
   Markham,' his relative, with a small party of colonists to
   take possession of the grant, and prepare for his own coming
   during the following year. … In August, 1682, Penn himself
   embarked."

      _Susan Coolidge
      (S. C. Woolsey),
      Short History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 2._

   "The charter [to Penn], which is given complete in Hazard's
   Annals, consists of 23 articles, with a preamble. … The grant
   comprises all that part of America, islands included, which is
   bounded on the east by the Delaware River from a point on a
   circle twelve miles northward of New Castle town to the 43°
   north latitude if the Delaware extends so far; if not, as far
   as it does extend, and thence to the 43° by a meridian line.
   From this point westward five degrees of longitude on the 43°
   parallel; the western boundary to the 40th parallel, and
   thence by a straight line to the place of beginning. … Grants
   Penn rights to and use of rivers, harbors, fisheries, etc. …
   Creates and constitutes him Lord Proprietary of the Province,
   saving only his allegiance to the King, Penn to hold directly
   of the kings of England, 'as of our castle of Windsor in the
   county of Berks, in free and common socage, by fealty only,
   for all services, and not in capite, or by Knight's service,
   yielding and paying therefore to us, our heirs and successors,
   two beaver-skins.' … Grants Penn and his successors, his
   deputies and lieutenants, 'free, full, and absolute power' to
   make laws for raising money for the public uses of the
   Province, and for other public purposes at their discretion,
   by and with the advice and consent of the people or their
   representatives in assembly. … Grants power to appoint
   officers, judges, magistrates, etc., to pardon offenders."

      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Clarkson,
      Memoirs of William Penn,
      volume 1, chapters 16-17._

      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 485-504._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681-1682.
   Penn's Frame of Government.

   Before the departure from England of the first company of
   colonists, Penn drew up a Frame of Government which he
   submitted to them, and to which they gave their assent and
   approval by their signatures, he signing the instrument
   likewise. The next year this Frame of Government was published
   by Penn, with a preface, "containing his own thoughts upon the
   origin, nature, object, and modes of Government. … The Frame,
   which followed this preface, consisted of twenty-four
   articles; and the Laws, which were annexed to the latter, were
   forty. By the Frame the government was placed in the Governor
   and Freemen of the province, out of whom were to be formed two
   bodies; namely, a Provincial Council and a General Assembly.
   These were to be chosen by the Freemen; and though the
   Governor or his Deputy was to be perpetual President, he was
   to have but a treble vote. The Provincial Council was to
   consist of seventy-two members. One third part, that is,
   twenty-four of them, were to serve for three years, one third
   for two, and the other third for one; so that there might be
   an annual succession of twenty-four new members, each third
   part thus continuing for three years and no longer. It was the
   office of this Council to prepare and propose bills, to see
   that the laws were executed, to take care of the peace and
   safety of the province, to settle the situation of ports,
   cities, market towns, roads, and other public places, to
   inspect the public treasury, to erect courts of justice,
   institute schools, and reward the authors of useful discovery.
   Not less than two thirds of these were necessary to make a
   quorum; and the consent of not less than two thirds of such
   quorum in all matters of moment. The General Assembly was to
   consist the first year of all the freemen, and the next of two
   hundred. These were to be increased afterwards according to
   the increase of the population of the province. They were to
   have no deliberative power; but, when bills were brought to
   them from the Governor and Provincial Council, to pass or
   reject them by a plain Yes or No. They were to present
   sheriffs and justices of the peace to the Governor, a double
   number for his choice of half. They were to be elected
   annually. All elections of members, whether to the Provincial
   Council or General Assembly, were to be by ballot. And this
   Charter or Frame of Government was not to be altered, changed,
   or diminished in any part or clause of it, without the consent
   of the Governor, or his heirs or assigns, and six parts out of
   seven of the Freemen both in the Provincial Council and
   General Assembly. With respect to the Laws, which I said
   before were forty in number, I shall only at present observe
   of them that they related to whatever may be included under
   the term 'Good Government of the Province'; some of them to
   liberty of conscience; others to civil officers and their
   qualifications; others to offences; others to legal
   proceedings, such as pleadings, processes, fines,
   imprisonments, and arrests; others to the natural servants and
   poor of the province. With respect to all of them it may be
   observed, that, like the Frame itself, they could not be
   altered but by the consent of the Governor, or his heirs, and
   the consent of six parts out of seven of the two bodies before
   mentioned."

      _T. Clarkson,
      Memoirs of William Penn,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 558-574._

{2500}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.
   Acquisition by Penn of the claims of the Duke of York to
   Delaware.

   "During the negotiations between New Netherland and Maryland
   in 1659, the Dutch insisted that, as Lord Baltimore's patent
   covered only savage or uninhabited territory, it could not
   affect their own possession of the Delaware region.
   Accordingly, they held it against Maryland until it was taken
   from them by the Duke of York in 1664. But James's title by
   conquest had never been confirmed to him by a grant from the
   king; and Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore,
   insisted that Delaware belonged to Maryland. To quiet
   controversy, the duke had offered to buy off Baltimore's
   claim, to which he would not agree. Penn afterward refused a
   large offer by Fenwick 'to get of the duke his interest in
   Newcastle and those parts' for West Jersey. Thus stood the
   matter when the Pennsylvania charter was sealed. Its
   proprietor soon found that his province, wholly inland, wanted
   a front on the sea. As Delaware was 'necessary' to
   Pennsylvania, Penn 'endeavored to get it' from the duke by
   maintaining that Baltimore's pretension 'was against law,
   civil and common.' Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore,
   was 'very free' in talking against the Duke of York's rights;
   but he could not circumvent Penn. The astute Quaker readily
   got from James a quit-claim of all his interest in the
   territory included within the proper bounds of Pennsylvania.
   After a struggle, Penn also gained the more important
   conveyances [August, 1682] to himself of the duke's interest
   in all the region within a circle of twelve miles diameter
   around Newcastle, and extending southward as far as Cape
   Henlopen. The triumphant Penn set sail the next week. At
   Newcastle he received from James's agents formal possession of
   the surrounding territory, and of the region farther south."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.
   Penn's arrival in his province.
   His treaty with the Indians.
   The founding of Philadelphia.

   Penn sailed, in person, for his province on the 1st of
   September, 1682, on the ship "Welcome," with 100 fellow
   passengers, mostly Friends, and landed at Newcastle after a
   dreary voyage, during which thirty of his companions had died
   of smallpox. "Next day he called the people together in the
   Dutch court-house, when he went through the legal forms of
   taking possession. … Penn's great powers being legally
   established, he addressed the people in profoundest silence.
   He spoke of the reasons for his coming—the great idea which he
   had nursed from his youth upwards—his desire to found a free
   and virtuous state, in which the people should rule
   themselves. … He spoke of the constitution he had published
   for Pennsylvania as containing his theory of government; and
   promised the settlers on the lower reaches of the Delaware,
   that the same principles should be adopted in their territory.
   Every man in his provinces, he said, should enjoy liberty of
   conscience and his share of political power. … The people
   listened to this speech with wonder and delight. … They had
   but one request to make in answer; that he would stay amongst
   them and reign over them in person. They besought him to annex
   their territory to Pennsylvania, in order that the white
   settlers might have one country, one parliament, and one
   ruler. He promised, at their desire, to take the question of a
   union of the two provinces into consideration, and submit it
   to an assembly then about to meet at Upland. So he took his
   leave. Ascending the Delaware … the adventurers soon arrived
   at the Swedish town of Upland, then the place of chief
   importance in the province. … Penn changed the name from
   Upland to Chester, and as Chester it is known. Markham and the
   three commissioners had done their work so well that in a
   short time after Penn's arrival, the first General Assembly,
   elected by universal suffrage, was ready to meet. … As soon as
   Penn had given them assurances similar to those which he had
   made in Newcastle, they proceeded to discuss, amend, and
   accept the Frame of Government and the Provisional Laws. The
   settlers on the Delaware sent representatives to this
   Assembly, and one of their first acts was to declare the two
   Provinces united. The constitution was adopted without
   important alteration; and to the forty laws were added
   twenty-one others, and the infant code was passed in form. …
   Penn paid some visits to the neighbouring seats of government
   in New York, Maryland, and the Jerseys. At West River, Lord
   Baltimore came forth to meet him with a retinue of the chief
   persons in the province. … It was impossible to adjust the
   boundary, and the two proprietors separated with the
   resolution to maintain their several rights. … The lands
   already bought from the Redmen were now put up for sale at
   four-pence an acre, with a reserve of one shilling for every
   hundred acres as quit-rent; the latter sum intended to form a
   state revenue for the Governor's support. Amidst these sales
   and settlements he recollected George Fox, for whose use and
   profit he set aside a thousand acres of the best land in the
   province. … Penn was no less careful for the Redskins. Laying
   on one side all ceremonial manners, he won their hearts by his
   easy confidence and familiar speech. He walked with them alone
   into the forests. He sat with them on the ground to watch the
   young men dance. He joined in their feasts, and ate their
   roasted hominy and acorns. … Having now become intimate with
   Taminent and other of the native kings, who had approved these
   treaties, seeing great advantages in them for their people, he
   proposed to hold a conference with the chiefs and warriors, to
   confirm the former treaties and form a lasting league of
   peace. On the banks of the Delaware, in the suburbs of the
   rising city of Philadelphia, lay a natural amphitheatre, used
   from time immemorial as a place of meeting for the native
   tribes. The name of Sakimaxing—now corrupted by the white men
   into Shackamaxon—means the place of kings. At this spot stood
   an aged elm-tree, one of those glorious elms which mark the
   forests of the New World. It was a hundred and fifty-five
   years old; under its spreading branches friendly nations had
   been wont to meet; and here the Redskins smoked the calumet of
   peace long before the pale-faces landed on those shores.
   Markham had appointed this locality for his first conference,
   and the land commissioners wisely followed his example.
{2501}
   Old traditions had made the place sacred to one of the
   contracting parties,—and when Penn proposed his solemn
   conference, he named Sakimaxing [or Shackamaxon] as a place of
   meeting with the Indian kings. Artists have painted, poets
   sung, philosophers praised this meeting of the white men and
   the red [October 14, 1682]. … All being seated, the old king
   announced to the Governor that the natives were prepared to
   hear and consider his words. Penn then rose to address them. …
   He and his children, he went on to say, never fired the rifle,
   never trusted to the sword; they met the red men on the broad
   path of good faith and good will. They meant no harm, and had
   no fear. He read the treaty of friendship, and explained its
   clauses. It recited that from that day the children of Onas
   and the nations of the Lenni Lenapé should be brothers to each
   other,—that all paths should be free and open—that the doors
   of the white men should be open to the red men, and the lodges
   of the red men should be open to the white men,—that the
   children of Onas should not believe any false reports of the
   Lenni Lenape, nor the Lenni Lenape of the children of Onas,
   but should come and see for themselves, … that if any son of
   Onas were to do any harm to any Redskin, or any Redskin were
   to do harm to a son of Onas, the sufferer should not offer to
   right himself, but should complain to the chiefs and to Onas,
   that justice might be declared by twelve honest men, and the
   wrong buried in a pit with no bottom,—that the Lenni Lenape
   should assist the white men, and the white men should assist
   the Lenni Lenape, against all such as would disturb them or do
   them hurt; and, lastly, that both Christians and Indians
   should tell their children of this league and chain of
   friendship, that it might grow stronger and stronger, and be
   kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, while the waters
   ran down the creeks and rivers, and while the sun and moon and
   stars endured. He laid the scroll on the ground. The sachems
   received his proposal for themselves and for their children.
   No oaths, no seals, no mummeries, were used; the treaty was
   ratified on both sides with yea,—and, unlike treaties which
   are sworn and sealed, was kept. When Penn had sailed, he held
   a note in his mind of six things to be done on landing:

   (1) to organize his government;
   (2) to visit Friends in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey;
   (3) to conciliate the Indians;
   (4) to see the Governor of New York, who had previously
       governed his province;
   (5) to fix the site for his capital city;
   (6) to arrange his differences with Lord Baltimore.

   The subject of his chief city occupied his anxious thought,
   and Markham had collected information for his use. Some people
   wished to see Chester made his capital; but the surveyor,
   Thomas Holme, agreed with Penn that the best locality in
   almost every respect was the neck of land lying at the
   junction of the Delaware and the Skuylkill rivers. … The point
   was known as Wicocoa. … The land was owned by three Swedes,
   from whom Penn purchased it on their own terms; and then, with
   the assistance of Holme, he drew his plan. … Not content to
   begin humbly, and allow house to be added to house, and street
   to street, as people wanted them, he formed the whole scheme
   of his city—its name, its form, its streets, its docks, and
   open spaces—fair and perfect in his mind, before a single
   stone was laid. According to his original design, Philadelphia
   was to cover with its houses, squares, and gardens, twelve
   square miles. … One year from the date of Penn's landing in
   the New World, a hundred houses had been built; two years
   later there were six hundred houses."

      _W. H. Dixon,
      History of William Penn,
      chapters 24-25._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      _Memoirs of the Penn Historical Society,
      volume 6 (The Belt of Wampum, &c.)._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.
   The Maryland Boundary question.
   Points in dispute with Lord Baltimore.

   "The grant to Penn confused the old controversy between
   Virginia and Lord Baltimore as to their boundary, and led to
   fresh controversies. The question soon arose: What do the
   descriptions, 'the beginning of the fortieth,' and 'the
   beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern
   latitude,' mean? If they meant the 40th and 43rd parallels of
   north latitude, as most historians have held, Penn's province
   was the zone, three degrees of latitude in width, that leaves
   Philadelphia a little to the south and Syracuse a little to
   the north; but if those descriptions meant the belts lying
   between 39° and 40°, and 42° and 43°, as some authors have
   held, then Penn's southern and northern boundaries were 39°
   and 42° north. A glance at the map of Pennsylvania will show
   the reader how different the territorial dispositions would
   have been if either one of these constructions had been
   carried out. The first construction would avoid disputes on
   the south, unless with Virginia west of the mountains; on the
   north it would not conflict with New York, but would most
   seriously conflict with Connecticut and Massachusetts west of
   the Delaware. The second construction involved disputes with
   the two southern colonies concerning the degree 39-40 to the
   farthest limit of Pennsylvania, and it also overlapped
   Connecticut's claim to the degree 41-42. Perhaps we cannot
   certainly say what was the intention of the king, or Penn's
   first understanding; but the Quaker proprietary and his
   successors adopted substantially the second construction, and
   thus involved their province in the most bitter disputes. The
   first quarrel was with Lord Baltimore. It has been well said
   that this 'notable quarrel' 'continued more than eighty years;
   was the cause of endless trouble between individuals; occupied
   the attention not only of the proprietors of the respective
   provinces, but of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, of the
   High Court of Chancery, and of the Privy Councils of at least
   three monarchs; it greatly retarded the settlement and
   development of a beautiful and fertile country, and brought
   about numerous tumults, which sometimes ended in bloodshed.'"

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 7._

   "As the Duke of York claimed, by right of conquest, the
   settlements on the western shores of the Bay of Delaware, and
   had, by his deed of 1682, transferred to William Penn his
   title to that country, embracing the town of Newcastle and
   twelve miles around it (as a reasonable portion of land
   attached to it), and as far down as what was then called Cape
   Henlopen; an important subject of controversy was the true
   situation of that cape, and the ascertainment of the southern
   and western boundaries of the country along the bay, as
   transferred by the Duke's deed. …
{2502}
   After two personal interviews in America, the Proprietaries
   separated without coming to any arrangement and with mutual
   recriminations and dissatisfaction. And they each wrote to the
   Lords of Plantations excusing themselves and blaming the
   other. … At length, in 1685, one important step was taken
   toward the decision of the conflicting claims of Maryland and
   Pennsylvania, by a decree of King James' Council, which
   ordered, 'that for a voiding further differences, the tract of
   land lying between the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, on
   the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided
   into equal parts, by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen
   to the 40th degree of north latitude, the southern boundary of
   Pennsylvania by Charter; and that the one half thereof, lying
   towards the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged
   to belong to his majesty, and the other half to Lord
   Baltimore, as comprised in his charter.' … This decree of King
   James, which evidently exhibits a partiality towards the
   claims of Penn, in decreeing the eastern half of the peninsula
   to his majesty, with whom Lord Baltimore could not presume,
   and indeed had declined to dispute, instead of to the
   Proprietary himself, by no means removed the difficulties
   which hung over this tedious, expensive, and vexatious
   litigation. For … there existed as much uncertainty with
   respect to the true situation of Cape Henlopen and the
   ascertainment of the middle of the Peninsula, as any points in
   contest."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoir on the Controversy between William Penn
      and Lord Baltimore,
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 1)._

      See, PENNSYLVANIA: 1760-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1691-1702.
   Practical separation of Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
   Keith's schism.
   Penn deprived of his government, but restored.
   Early resistance to the proprietary yoke.

   "While New England and New York were suffering from war,
   superstition, and the bitterness of faction, Pennsylvania was
   not without internal troubles. These troubles originated with
   George Keith, a Scotch Quaker, formerly surveyor-general of
   East Jersey, and at this time master of the Quaker school at
   Philadelphia, and champion of the Quakers against Cotton
   Mather and the Boston ministers. Pressing the doctrines of
   non-resistance to their logical conclusion, Keith advanced the
   opinion that Quaker principles were not consistent with the
   exercise of political authority. He also attacked negro
   slavery as inconsistent with those principles. There is no
   surer way of giving mortal offense to a sect or party than to
   call upon it to be consistent with its own professed
   doctrines. Keith was disowned by the yearly meeting, but he
   forthwith instituted a meeting of his own, to which he gave
   the name of Christian Quakers. In reply to a 'Testimony of
   Denial' put forth against him, he published an 'Address,' in
   which he handled his adversaries with very little ceremony. He
   was fined by the Quaker magistrates for insolence, and
   Bradford, the only printer in the colony, was called to
   account for having published Keith's address. Though he
   obtained a discharge, Bradford, however, judged it expedient
   to remove with his types to New York, which now [1692] first
   obtained a printing press. The Episcopalians and other
   non-Quakers professed great sympathy for Keith, and raised a
   loud outcry against Quaker intolerance. Keith himself
   presently embraced Episcopacy, went to England, and took
   orders there. The Quaker magistrates were accused of hostility
   to the Church of England, and in the alleged maladministration
   of his agents, joined with his own suspected loyalty, a
   pretense was found for depriving Penn of the government—a step
   taken by the Privy Council without any of the forms, or,
   indeed, any authority of law, though justified by the opinions
   of some of the leading Whig lawyers of that day." Governor
   Fletcher of New York was now authorized for a time to
   administer the government of Pennsylvania and Delaware. "He
   accordingly visited Philadelphia, and called an Assembly in
   which deputies from both provinces were present. Penn's frame
   of government was disregarded, the Assembly being modeled
   after that of New York. Fletcher hoped to obtain a salary for
   himself and some contributions toward the defense of the
   northern frontier. The Quakers, very reluctant to vote money
   at all, had special scruples about the lawfulness of war. They
   were also very suspicious of designs against their liberties,
   and refused to enter on any business until the existing laws
   and liberties of the province had been first expressly
   confirmed. This concession reluctantly made, Fletcher obtained
   the grant of a small sum of money, not, however, without
   stipulating that it 'should not be dipped in blood.' … The
   suspicions against Penn soon dying away, the administration of
   his province was restored to him [1694]. But the pressure of
   his private affairs—for he was very much in debt—detained him
   in England, and he sent a commission to Markham [his relative
   and representative in Pennsylvania] to act as his deputy. An
   Assembly called by Markham refused to recognize the binding
   force of Penn's frame of government, which, indeed, had been
   totally disregarded by Fletcher. To the restrictions on their
   authority imposed by that frame they would not submit. A
   second Assembly [1696] proved equally obstinate, and, as the
   only means of obtaining a vote of the money required of the
   province toward the defense of New York, Markham was obliged
   to agree to a new act of settlement, securing to the Assembly
   the right of originating laws. A power of disapproval was
   reserved, however, to the proprietary, and this act never
   received Penn's sanction."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of Penn,
      chapter 10
      (Library of American Bibliographies, series 2, volume 12)._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 16._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.
   The new Charter of Privileges and
   the city charter of Philadelphia.
   The divorcing of Delaware.
   Differences with the Proprietary.
   The death of Penn.

   It was not until 1699 that Penn returned to his domain after
   an absence of fifteen years, and his brief stay of two years
   was not made wholly agreeable to him. Between him and his
   colonists there were many points of friction, as was
   inevitable under the relationship in which they stood to one
   another. The assembly of the province would not be persuaded
   to contribute to the fortification of the northern frontier of
   the king's dominions (in New York) against the French and
   Indians. Penn's influence, however, prevailed upon that body
   to adopt measures for suppressing both piracy and illicit
   trade.
{2503}
   With much difficulty, moreover, he settled with his subjects
   the terms of a new constitution of government, or Charter of
   Privileges, as it was called. The old Frame of Government was
   formally abandoned and the government of Pennsylvania was now
   organized upon an entirely new footing. "The new charter for
   the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25,
   1701, was more republican in character than those of the
   neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of
   the people with great powers, including those of creating
   courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of
   the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The
   section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate
   against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section
   fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the
   representatives of the two territorial districts [Pennsylvania
   proper, held under Penn's original grant, and the Lower
   Counties, afterwards constituting Delaware, which he acquired
   from the Duke of York] could not agree within three years to
   join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be
   separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established
   by letters-patent a council of state for the province, 'to
   consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with
   the best of their advice and council in public affairs and
   matters relating to the government and the peace and
   well-being of the people; and in the absence of the
   proprietary, or upon the deputy's absence out of the province,
   his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular
   the powers of government.' The original town and borough of
   Philadelphia, having by this time 'become near equal to the
   city of New York in trade and riches,' was raised, by patent
   of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like
   the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter
   than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be
   elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and
   not appointed by the governor, as in New York. The government
   of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton,
   also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James
   Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided
   the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in
   reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his
   party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death
   he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the
   two sections of his government together again. The Delaware
   members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen,
   a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was
   acting as president, it was settled that they should have
   separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other. The
   first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at
   Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution
   showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were
   beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color
   their religion with the hue of political power." In December,
   1703, John Evans, a young Welshman, appointed deputy-governor
   by Penn, arrived at Philadelphia, and was soon involved in
   quarrels with the assemblies. "At one time they had for ground
   the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging
   against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another
   they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These
   disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself
   suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a
   London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for
   £6,000. The recall of Evans in 1709, and the appointment of
   Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan,
   Penn's intimate friend and representative, was finally
   compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710),
   he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania
   assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the
   crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The
   transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from
   which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the
   refractory assembly to terms." In 1717 Gookin involved himself
   in fresh troubles and was recalled. Sir William Keith was then
   appointed—"the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for
   the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718. … After Penn's
   death his heirs went to law among themselves about the
   government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania."

      _B. Fernow,
      Middle Colonies
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of Penn
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 12),
      chapters 11-12._

      _R. Proud,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapters 14-22 (volumes 1-2)._

      _Penn and Logan Correspondence
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volumes 9-10)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1709-1710.
   Immigration of Palatines and other Germans.

      See PALATINES.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
   First settlements and missions of the Moravian Brethren.

      See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1743.
   Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1683-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1748-1754.
   First movements beyond the mountains
   to dispute possession with the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.
   Connecticut claims and settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
   The Pennamite and Yankee War.

   "The charter bounds [of Connecticut] extended west to the
   Pacific Ocean [see CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664]: this would
   have carried Connecticut over a strip covering the northern
   two fifths of the present State of Pennsylvania. Stuart
   faithlessness interfered with this doubly. Almost immediately
   after the grant of the charter, Charles granted to his brother
   James the Dutch colony of New Netherland, thus interrupting
   the continuity of Connecticut. Rather than resist the king's
   brother, Connecticut agreed and ratified the interruption. In
   1681 a more serious interference took place. Charles granted
   to Penn the province of Pennsylvania, extending westward five
   degrees between the 40th and 43rd parallels of north
   latitude." Under the final compromise of Penn's boundary
   dispute with Lord Baltimore the northern line of Pennsylvania
   was moved southward to latitude 42° instead of 43°; but it
   still absorbed five degrees in length of the Connecticut
   western belt.
{2504}
   "The territory taken from Connecticut by the Penn grant would
   be bounded southerly on the present map by a straight line
   entering Pennsylvania about Stroudsburg, just north of the
   Delaware Water Gap, and running west through Hazelton,
   Catawissa, Clearfield, and New Castle, taking in all the
   northern coal, iron, and oil fields. It was a royal heritage,
   but the Penns made no attempt to settle it, and Connecticut
   until the middle of the 18th century had no energy to spare
   from the task of winning her home territory 'out of the fire,
   as it were, by hard blows and for small recompense.' This task
   had been fairly well done by 1750, and in 1753 a movement to
   colonize in the Wyoming country was set on foot in Windham
   county. It spread by degrees until the Susquehanna Company was
   formed the next year, with nearly 700 members, of whom 638
   were of Connecticut. Their agents made a treaty with the Five
   Nations July 11, 1754, by which they bought for £2,000 a tract
   of land beginning at the 41st degree of latitude, the
   southerly boundary of Connecticut; thence running north,
   following the line of the Susquehanna at a distance of ten
   miles from it, to the present northern boundary of
   Pennsylvania; thence 120 miles west; thence south to the 41st
   degree and back to the point of beginning. In May, 1755, the
   Connecticut general assembly expressed its acquiescence in the
   scheme, if the king should approve it; and it approved also a
   plan of Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, for another colony, to
   be placed west of Pennsylvania, and within the chartered
   limits of Connecticut. The court might have taken stronger
   ground than this; for, at the meeting of commissioners from
   the various colonies at Albany, in 1754, the representatives
   of Pennsylvania being present, no opposition was made to a
   resolution that Connecticut and Massachusetts, by charter
   right, extended west to the South Sea. The formation of the
   Susquehanna Company brought out objections from Pennsylvania,
   but the company sent out surveyors and plotted its tract.
   Settlement was begun on the Delaware River in 1757, and in the
   Susquehanna purchase in 1762. This was a temporary settlement,
   the settlers going home for the winter. A permanent venture
   was made the next year on the flats below Wilkes Barre, but it
   was destroyed by the Indians the same year. In 1768 the
   company marked out five townships, and sent out forty settlers
   for the first, Kingston. Most of them, including the famous
   Captain Zebulon Butler, had served in the French and Indian
   War; and their first step was to build the 'Forty Fort.' The
   Penns, after their usual policy, had refused to sell lands,
   but had leased plots to a number of men on condition of their
   'defending the lands from the Connecticut claimants.' The
   forty Connecticut men found these in possession when they
   arrived in February, 1769, and a war of writs and arrests
   followed for the remainder of the year. The Pennsylvania men
   had one too powerful argument, in the shape of a four-pounder
   gun, and they retained possession at the end of the year.
   Early in 1770 the forty reappeared, captured the four-pounder,
   and secured possession. For a time in 1771 the Pennsylvania
   men returned, put up a fort of their own, and engaged in a
   partisan warfare; but the numbers of the Connecticut men were
   rapidly increasing, and they remained masters until the
   opening of the Revolution, when they numbered some 3,000. …
   But for the Revolution, the check occasioned by the massacre
   [of 1778—see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY)], and
   the appearance of a popular government in place of the Penns,
   nothing could have prevented the establishment of
   Connecticut's authority over all the regions embraced in her
   western claims. … The articles of confederation went into
   force early in 1781. One of their provisions empowered
   congress to appoint courts of arbitration to decide disputes
   between States as to boundaries. Pennsylvania at once availed
   herself of this, and applied for a court to decide the Wyoming
   dispute. Connecticut asked for time, in order to get papers
   from England; but congress overruled the motion, and ordered
   the court to meet at Trenton in November, 1782. After
   forty-one days of argument, the court came to the unanimous
   conclusion that Wyoming, or the Susquehanna district, belonged
   to Pennsylvania and not to Connecticut." Connecticut yielded
   to the decision at once; but, in 1786, when, following New
   York and Virginia, she was called upon to make a cession of
   her western territorial claims to congress (see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786) she compensated herself for the
   loss of the Susquehanna district by reserving from the cession
   "a tract of about the same length and width as the Wyoming
   grant, west of Pennsylvania, in northeastern Ohio …; and this
   was the tract known as the Western Reserve of Connecticut. It
   contained about 3,500,000 acres. … The unfortunate Wyoming
   settlers, deserted by their own State, and left to the mercy
   of rival claimants, had a hard time of it for years. The
   militia of the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania was
   mustered to enforce the writs of Pennsylvania courts; the
   property of the Connecticut men was destroyed, their fences
   were cast down, and their rights ignored; and the 'Pennamite
   and Yankee War' began. … The old Susquehanna Company was
   reorganized in 1785-86, and made ready to support its settlers
   by force. New Yankee faces came crowding into the disputed
   territory. Among them was Ethan Allen, and with him came some
   Green Mountain Boys." It was not until 1799 that the
   controversy came to an end, by the passage of an act which
   confirmed the title of the actual settlers.

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Miner,
      History of Wyoming,
      letters 5-12._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Poetry and History of Wyoming,
      chapters 4-5._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
   Building of Fort Duquesne by the French.
   The first armed collision in the western valley.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755.
   The opening of the French and Indian War.
   Braddock's defeat.
   The frontier ravaged.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
   French and Indian War.
   Conquest of Canada and the west.

      See CANADA: A. D.1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758, 1759, 1760;
      and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

{2505}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1757-1762.
   The question of taxation in dispute with the proprietaries.
   Franklin's mission to England.

   "For a long while past the relationship between the Penns,
   unworthy sons of the great William, and now the proprietaries,
   on the one side, and their quasi subjects, the people of the
   Province, upon the other, had been steadily becoming more and
   more strained, until something very like a crisis had [in
   1757] been reached. As usual in English and Anglo-American
   communities, it was a quarrel over dollars, or rather over
   pounds sterling, a question of taxation, which was producing
   the alienation. At bottom, there was the trouble which always
   pertains to absenteeism; the proprietaries lived in England,
   and regarded their vast American estate, with about 200,000
   white inhabitants, only as a source of revenue. … The chief
   point in dispute was, whether or not the waste lands, still
   directly owned by the proprietaries, and other lands let by
   them at quitrents, should be taxed in the same manner as like
   property of other owners. They refused to submit to such
   taxation; the Assembly of Burgesses insisted. In ordinary
   times the proprietaries prevailed; for the governor was their
   nominee and removable at their pleasure; they gave him general
   instructions to assent to no law taxing their holdings, and he
   naturally obeyed his masters. But since governors got their
   salaries only by virtue of a vote of the Assembly, it seems
   that they sometimes disregarded instructions, in the sacred
   cause of their own interests. After a while, therefore, the
   proprietaries, made shrewd by experience, devised the scheme
   of placing their unfortunate sub-rulers under bonds. This went
   far towards settling the matter. Yet in such a crisis and
   stress as were now present in the colony … it certainly seemed
   that the rich and idle proprietaries might stand on the same
   footing with their poor and laboring subjects. They lived
   comfortably in England upon revenues estimated to amount to
   the then enormous sum of £20,000 sterling; while the colonists
   were struggling under unusual losses, as well as enormous
   expenses, growing out of the war and Indian ravages. At such a
   time their parsimony, their 'incredible meanness,' as Franklin
   called it, was cruel as well as stupid. At last the Assembly
   flatly refused to raise any money unless the proprietaries
   should be burdened like the rest. All should pay together, or
   all should go to destruction together. The Penns too stood
   obstinate, facing the not less resolute Assembly. It was
   indeed a deadlock! Yet the times were such that neither party
   could afford to maintain its ground indefinitely. So a
   temporary arrangement was made, whereby of £60,000 sterling to
   be raised the proprietaries agreed to contribute £5,000, and
   the Assembly agreed to accept the same in lieu or commutation
   for their tax. But neither side abandoned its principle.
   Before long more money was needed, and the dispute was as
   fierce as ever. The burgesses now thought that it would be
   well to carry a statement of their case before the king in
   council and the lords of trade. In February, 1757, they named
   their speaker, Isaac Norris, and Franklin to be their
   emissaries 'to represent in England the unhappy situation of
   the Province,' and to seek redress by an act of Parliament.
   Norris, an aged man, begged to be excused; Franklin accepted.
   … A portion of his business also was to endeavor to induce the
   king to resume the Province of Pennsylvania as his own. A
   clause in the charter had reserved this right, which could be
   exercised on payment of a certain sum of money. The colonists
   now preferred to be an appanage of the crown rather than a
   fief of the Penns." In this latter object of his mission
   Franklin did not succeed; but he accomplished its main
   purpose, procuring, after long delays, from the board of
   trade, a decision which subjected the proprietary estate to
   its fair share of taxation. He returned home after an absence
   of five years.

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Benjamin Franklin,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Parton,
      Life of Franklin,
      part 3 (volume 1)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
   Settlement of the Maryland boundary dispute.
   Mason and Dixon's line.

   The decision of 1685 (see above), in the boundary dispute
   between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland,
   "formed the basis of a settlement between the respective heirs
   of the two proprietaries in 1732. Three years afterward, the
   subject became a question in chancery; in 1750 the present
   boundaries were decreed by Lord Hardwicke; ten years later,
   they were, by agreement, more accurately defined; and, in
   1761, commissioners began to designate the limit of Maryland
   on the side of Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 1763, Charles
   Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two mathematicians and surveyors
   [sent over from England by the proprietaries], were engaged to
   mark the lines. In 1764, they entered upon their task, with
   good instruments and a corps of axe men; by the middle of
   June, 1765, they had traced the parallel of latitude to the
   Susquehannah; a year later, they climbed the Little Alleghany;
   in 1767, they carried forward their work, under an escort from
   the Six Nations, to an Indian war-path, 244 miles from the
   Delaware River. Others continued Mason and Dixon's line to the
   bound of Pennsylvania on the south-west."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 16._

   "The east and west line which they [Mason and Dixon] ran and
   marked … is the Mason and Dixon's line of history, so long the
   boundary between the free and the slave States. Its precise
   latitude is 39° 43' 26.3" north. The Penns did not, therefore,
   gain the degree 39-40, but they did gain a zone one-fourth of
   a degree in width, south of the 40th degree, to their western
   limit, because the decision of 1760 controlled that of 1779,
   made with Virginia. … Pennsylvania is narrower by nearly
   three-fourths of a degree than the charter of 1681
   contemplated. No doubt, however, the Penns considered the
   narrow strip gained at the south more valuable than the broad
   one lost at the north."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      page 50._

      _Pennsylvania Archives,
      volume 4, pages 1-37._

      _W. H. Browne,
      Maryland,
      pages 238-239._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.
   Bouquet's expedition.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775;
      1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1765.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2506}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768.
   The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1774.
   The western territorial claims of Virginia pursued.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1775.
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken upon the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.
   The end of royal and proprietary government.
   Adoption of a State Constitution.

   "Congress, on the 15th of May, 1776, recommended … 'the
   respective Assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies,
   where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their
   affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such
   government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of
   the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their
   constituents in particular, and America in general.' A
   diversity of opinion existed in the Province upon this
   resolution. … The Assembly referred the resolve of Congress to
   a committee, but took no further action, nor did the committee
   ever make a report. 'The old Assembly,' says Westcott, 'which
   had adjourned on the 14th of June, to meet on the 14th of
   August, could not obtain a quorum, and adjourned again to the
   23d of September. It then interposed a feeble remonstrance
   against the invasion of its prerogatives by the Convention,
   but it was a dying protest. The Declaration of Independence
   had given the old State Government a mortal blow, and it soon
   expired without a sigh—thus ending forever the Proprietary and
   royal authority in Pennsylvania.' In the meantime, the
   Committee of Correspondence for Philadelphia issued a circular
   to all the county committees for a conference in that city on
   Tuesday, the 18th day of June. … The Conference at once
   unanimously resolved, 'That the present government of this
   Province is not competent to the exigencies of our affairs,
   and that it is necessary that a Provincial Convention be
   called by this Conference for the express purpose of forming a
   new government in this Province on the authority of the people
   only.' Acting upon these resolves, preparations were
   immediately taken to secure a proper representation in the
   Convention. … Every voter was obliged to take an oath of
   renunciation of the authority of George III., and one of
   allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, and a religious test
   was prescribed for all members of the Convention. … The
   delegates to the Convention to frame a constitution for the
   new government consisted of the representative men of the
   State—men selected for their ability, patriotism, and personal
   popularity. They met at Philadelphia, on the 15th of July, …
   and organized by the selection of Benjamin Franklin,
   president, George Ross, vice-president, and John Morris and
   Jacob Garrigues, secretaries. … On the 28th of September, the
   Convention completed its labors by adopting the first State
   Constitution, which went into immediate effect, without a vote
   of the people. … The legislative power of the frame of
   government was vested in a General Assembly of one House,
   elected annually. The supreme executive power was vested in a
   President, chosen annually by the Assembly and Council, by
   joint ballot—the Council consisting of twelve persons, elected
   in classes, for a term of three years. A Council of Censors,
   consisting of two persons from each city and county, was to be
   elected in 1783, and in every seventh year thereafter, whose
   duty it was to make inquiry as to whether the Constitution had
   been preserved inviolate during the last septennary, and
   whether the executive or legislative branches of the
   government had performed their duties."

      _W. H. Egle,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The Declaration of Independence.
   The struggle for the Hudson and the Delaware.
   Battles of the Brandywine and Germantown.
   The British in Philadelphia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 and 1777;
      and PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.
   British evacuation of Philadelphia.
   The war on the northern border.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1778 (July).
   The Wyoming Massacre.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
   Final settlement of boundaries with Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779–1786.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The treason of Arnold.
   The war in the south.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1781.
   Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1787.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.
   The Whiskey Insurrection.

   "In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and
   in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the
   officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the
   excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of
   Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but
   resistance having been made in a few of the western counties,
   and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of
   the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered
   against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District,
   Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the
   Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled
   to desist from the execution of their official duties. The
   next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men,
   assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General
   Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the
   Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side
   of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they
   set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this
   occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several
   of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required
   to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight.
{2507}
   A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek
   meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the
   four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring
   counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at
   Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August,
   'to take into consideration the situation of the western
   country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the
   malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven
   miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to
   Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then
   addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in
   the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted
   letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field
   on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days'
   provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but
   the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the
   prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of
   this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at
   from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on
   the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military
   command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed
   the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose
   hostility had been discovered by the letters they had
   intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two
   persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then
   decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to
   prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and
   the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg,
   it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The
   President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason,
   commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others
   against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try
   lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to
   the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents,
   and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory
   assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor
   Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing
   Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to
   grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after
   which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of
   November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the
   insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry
   was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and
   consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of
   Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They
   appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary,
   though he at first declined the appointment. … The
   Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission
   to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like
   submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm
   these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended
   until the following July, when, if there had been no violation
   of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty.
   These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but
   before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men
   entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and
   so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to
   be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an
   exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of
   sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the
   Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass
   a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to
   accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of
   submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the
   well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws
   could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the
   interposition of the militia was indispensable. The
   Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report
   the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of
   September, in which he announced, the march of the militia,
   and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring
   the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States
   except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the
   militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature
   met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of
   volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march
   increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who
   was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to
   seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A
   second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on
   the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed,
   and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the
   President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the
   Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and
   resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the
   civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the
   excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents
   to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief,
   issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had
   submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to
   take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were
   issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not
   signed the declaration of submission, and send them to
   Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the
   execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire
   order restored in less than four months from the time of the
   burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of
   resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force
   of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to
   prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so
   long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

      _George Tucker,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Morse,
      Life of Hamilton,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _T. Ward,
      The Insurrection of 1794
      (Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6)._

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1861.
   First troops sent to Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1863.
   Lee's invasion.
   Battle of Gettysburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1864.
   Early's invasion.
   Burning of Chambersburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

   ----------PENNSYLVANIA: End--------

{2508}

PENNY POSTAGE.

      See POST.

PENSACOLA: Unauthorized capture by General Jackson (1818).

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

      See CYRENE.

PENTATHLON, The.

   The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing
   the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks
   called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals
   all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and
   the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in
   all of them."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 52._

PEORIAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEPIN.

      See PIPPIN.

PEPLUM, The.

   "The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body.
   Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was
   chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public
   appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape,
   seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as
   to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the
   arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the
   name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the
   head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was
   expressive of humility or of grief."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1._

PEPPERELL, Sir William, and the expedition against Louisburg.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

PEQUOTS.
PEQUOT WAR.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and SHAWANESE:
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

PERA, The Genoese established at.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

PERCEVAL MINISTRY, The.

      See: ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PERDICCAS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

PERDUELLIO, The Crime of.

   "'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly
   speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was
   employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the
   crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually
   represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term
   High Treason."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 9._

      See MAJESTAS.

PERED, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

PEREGRINI.

   "The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis'
   (i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest
   acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was
   not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not
   applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those
   persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with
   Rome."

      _w. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, CIVES ROMANI.

   ----------PERGAMUM: Start--------

PERGAMUM,
PERGAMUS.

   This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the
   province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became,
   during the troubled century that followed the death of
   Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and
   then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which
   it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a
   great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which
   Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander,
   left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an
   eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after
   a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating
   the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum.
   He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his
   cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the
   possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the
   Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity
   that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his
   influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of
   Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger
   part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented
   almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of
   Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated
   by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various
   shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression
   upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen
   remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of
   that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,'
   who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of
   the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of
   Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more
   fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home
   of Stoic philosophy."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 20._

      _en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul_

   From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of
   Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it
   to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its
   splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a
   century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria.
   The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment,
   which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place
   called Bergamah.

      See, also,
      SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187;
      ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
      and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

PERGAMUM: A. D. 1336.
   Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

   ----------PERGAMUM: End--------

PERGAMUS, Citadel of.

      See TROJA.

PERICLES, Age of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454; and 445-429.

PERINTHUS: B. C. 340.
   Siege by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

PERIOECI, The.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

PERIPLUS.

   The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers,
   signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The
   Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

PERIZZITES, The.

   "The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not
   meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in
   contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1._

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

PERONNE, The Treaty of.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

{2509}

PERPETUAL EDICT, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

PERPIGNAN: A. D. 1642.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

PERRHÆBIANS, The.

   "There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from
   the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks
   to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at
   the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of
   this nation. But at a very early time the primitive
   inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by
   more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains
   became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain
   degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the
   Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus,
   under Olympus."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   Dr. Curtius is of the opinion that the Dorians were a
   subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

      _E. Curtius
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

PERRY, Commodore Matthew C.: Expedition to Japan.

      See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

PERRY, Commodore Oliver H.: Victory on Lake Erie.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

PERRYVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

PERSARGADÆ.

      See PERSIA., ANCIENT PEOPLE, &c.

PERSARMENIA.

   While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the
   Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that
   river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

PERSECUTIONS, Religious.
   Of Albigenses.

      See ALBIGENSES.

   Of Christians under the Roman Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 64-68; 96-138; 192-284; 303-305;
      and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

   Of Hussites in Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434, and after.

   Of Jews.

      See JEWS.

   Of Lollards.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

   Of Protestants in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

   Of Protestants in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547; 1559-1561 to 1598-1599;
      1661-1680; 1681-1698.

   Of Protestants in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1521-1555 to 1594-1609.

   Of Roman Catholics in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587;
      1587-1588; 1678-1679.

   Of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D.1691-1782.

   Of Christians in Japan.

      See JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

   Of the Waldenses.

      See WALDENSES.

      See, also, INQUISITION.

PERSEIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS.—ARGOLIS.

   ----------PERSEPOLIS: Start--------

PERSEPOLIS: Origin.

      See PERSIA, ANCIENT PEOPLE.

PERSEPOLIS: B. C. 330.
   Destruction by Alexander.

   Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to
   it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the
   city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated
   their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the
   inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary
   sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of
   their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire,
   Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and
   convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as
   the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine,
   though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from
   the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased,
   and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After
   appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of
   120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling)
   —Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property
   of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the
   soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold
   and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and
   ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants
   were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as
   obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their
   property in their own houses."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 93._

   ----------PERSIA: Start--------

PERSIA:
    Ancient people and country.

   "Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that
   province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name
   slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia
   Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending
   from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the
   gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by
   Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia,
   and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been
   about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The
   earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or
   Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the
   ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude
   53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance
   of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the
   ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The
   Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself,
   toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the
   surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the
   Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The
   earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the
   inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them
   about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time
   Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in
   south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with
   the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly
   independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that
   we once more find them brought into contact with the power
   which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their
   re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have
   descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which
   lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that
   they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the
   fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates
   from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and
   therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to
   Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapters 1 and 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 5._

      See, also,
      ARIANS; IRAN; and ACHÆMENIDS.

PERSIA:
   The ancient religion.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

{2510}

PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
   The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam.
   His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia.
   The restoration of the Jews.
   Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

   "It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA].
   On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn
   probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and
   gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana
   and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the
   conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy
   of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time,
   however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older
   Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of
   the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises
   of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched
   from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics
   of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening
   of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C.
   625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara,
   formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome;
   and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos
   by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against
   Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its
   monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see
   LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror
   was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were
   already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously
   expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on
   the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538
   the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from
   the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June;
   on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two
   days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon
   itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros
   himself entered his new capital in triumph."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      The Ancient Empires of the East:
      Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5._

   "The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire,
   and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a
   restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by
   the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account
   given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the
   Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the
   captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is
   contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian
   and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from
   Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is
   a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign
   of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the
   history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The
   other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his
   son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of
   Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The
   tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated,
   especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be
   made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos,
   except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the
   sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The
   inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of
   the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects
   very different from that handed down to us by classical
   writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one
   who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have
   ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could
   not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a
   long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus.
   Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the
   reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself
   and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used
   is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet
   explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians
   and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early
   inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the
   neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam,
   who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until
   they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king
   Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province.
   In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of
   Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first
   became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C.
   549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has
   become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he
   must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in
   some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did
   not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have
   been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to
   Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great
   inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own
   forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original
   capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of
   the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is
   that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and
   not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was
   an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation
   which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We
   learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped
   Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities
   of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his
   son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us
   that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by
   Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet
   accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he
   was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of
   Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god.
   The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief
   that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of
   the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to
   warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His
   chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel.
   … The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the
   conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety
   towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept
   in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities
   back to their homes.
{2511}
   Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted
   the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had
   taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to
   live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed
   the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which
   consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered
   population to another country, and sought instead to win their
   gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their
   native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored
   from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of
   his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his
   intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who
   took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied
   Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable,
   however, that this means only the heads of families; if so,
   the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and
   children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of
   Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was
   already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow
   of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from
   the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of
   the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older
   empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its
   doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed
   been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or
   Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his
   neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over
   the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median
   Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in
   Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from
   Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture,
   Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of
   Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to
   have been under the government of a collateral branch of the
   family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also
   the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over
   the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus
   about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were
   spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild
   tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all
   was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was
   carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been
   made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death,
   Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the
   world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon
   necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the
   third centre of the great empire, and in later days the
   Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official
   residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so
   fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it.
   The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so
   thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the
   only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his
   death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands
   with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by
   Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his
   empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said.
   … A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes
   in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince,
   and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into
   rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of
   this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of
   Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to
   oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before
   he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of
   the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of
   Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had
   known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not
   Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes
   paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years
   from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven
   months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son
   of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in
   the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th
   day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to
   the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,
      chapters 1 and 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 7._

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
      chapter 10-12._

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
   The reign of Darius I.
   His Indian and Scythian expeditions.
   The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
   Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

   "Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the
   second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from
   the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it
   lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the
   Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the
   hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and
   all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he
   does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian
   worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the
   matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at
   Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal
   evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The
   empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the
   following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,
   Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),
   Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,
   Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,
   Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three
   provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the
   original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of
   the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian
   table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the
   empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests
   in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was
   added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such
   motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen
   Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,
   Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was
   minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,
   and so to carry war into Scythia.
{2512}
   It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,
   and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the
   Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.
   So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies
   to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the
   reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears
   to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward
   from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—
   over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added
   to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,
   yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The
   Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the
   Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the
   expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped
   destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe
   by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …
   It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a
   fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of
   700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,
   crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to
   the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and
   the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a
   bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the
   apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus
   makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the
   direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries
   beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.
   The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched
   battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in
   the country till they should perish from famine." Darius
   retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,
   with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the
   enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated
   in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,
   and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the
   Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the
   same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched
   back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous
   destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and
   Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The
   Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the
   strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,
   Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a
   rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe
   with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."
   Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the
   kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his
   master, in B. C. 506.

      _P. Smith,
      Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 27._

   "Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in
   profound peace under the government of his brother
   Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of
   rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have
   seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an
   island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the
   oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant
   of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition
   against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the
   interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned
   the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and
   ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to
   him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens,
   Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet
   that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power;
   popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and
   islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501).
   Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king,
   Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire;
   but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the
   sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the
   Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by
   Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and
   the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians.
   Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at
   Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which
   was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were
   utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not
   effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The
   Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians
   dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which
   should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained
   for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as
   Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was
   recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians
   protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was
   early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of
   Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at
   last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the
   Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was
   no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline
   on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians
   an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the
   worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands
   were treated with scarcely less severity. This third
   subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the
   prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his
   narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of
   the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships
   they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the
   Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of
   Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot
   an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help
   to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his
   servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the
   words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression
   of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to
   succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent
   Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4)._

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

PERSIA: B. C. 509.
   Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

{2513}

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.
   First expedition against Greece and its failure.
   Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

      See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

PERSIA: B. C. 490-479.
   Wars with the Greeks.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490, to B. C. 479.

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
   From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.
   The disastrous invasion of Greece.
   Loss of Egypt.
   Recovery of Asia Minor.
   Decay of the empire.

   "Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his
   reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted
   to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a
   rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the
   plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention
   to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous
   defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480, to B. C. 479.

   … It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their
   prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under
   that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the
   Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and
   even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at
   their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to
   dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at
   last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect
   Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at
   the Eurymedon.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

   Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak
   prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his
   military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased
   to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody
   and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later
   Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural
   penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning
   twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard,
   Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed
   on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C.
   465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his
   father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes,
   who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting
   to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About
   the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he
   was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly
   forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good
   qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid
   declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt
   [B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through
   the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and
   the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the
   complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost
   all their men.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   … Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449,
   despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to
   Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the
   fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and
   completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis,
   besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still
   held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and
   Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed
   'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   … Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of
   Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a
   rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that
   he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent
   to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of
   successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not
   but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court
   continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who
   allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was
   married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and
   licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C.
   425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II.
   Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with
   great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days,
   was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or
   Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the
   throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six
   months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on
   ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in
   history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his
   aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.
   C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole
   disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of
   the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what
   remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was
   used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The
   revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which,
   though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful.
   In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in
   Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake
   off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection.
   Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under
   Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence.
   The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince
   seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some
   compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the
   north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the
   authority of the Great King was once more established over the
   Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the
   Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between
   the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens
   and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been
   expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the
   quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet
   she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until
   the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an
   effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the
   treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she
   gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities
   of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and
   was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession
   took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the
   Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had
   from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 2, sections 24-39._

{2514}

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies,
      volume 3: Persia, chapter 7._

PERSIA: B. C. 413.
   Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
   Hostility to Athens.
   Subsidies to her enemies.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
   The expedition of Cyrus the Younger,
   and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

   Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great
   founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius
   Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on
   the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis.
   During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia,
   Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all
   Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found
   himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid
   plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes,
   who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an
   extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do
   with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the
   Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind
   a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had
   shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which
   he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no
   Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of
   gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening
   his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from
   Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding
   himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before
   him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their
   confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it
   happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront
   them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in
   Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the
   pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who
   numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and
   who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken,
   and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital,
   if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But
   the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted
   by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of
   the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own
   commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority
   over them. But they possessed what no other people of their
   time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose
   from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed
   him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces
   homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the
   Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece.
   "Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no
   immediate significance for political history, yet it is of
   high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but
   also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate
   description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the
   most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical
   chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on
   a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and
   faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of
   weakness, a wandering political community which, according to
   home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions,
   and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of
   free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this
   mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his
   qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real
   preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only
   accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been
   introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his
   sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he
   admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of
   culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control
   to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and
   for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of
   situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to
   him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable
   trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000
   Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end
   reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the
   beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But
   their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where
   they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then
   supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing
   any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate
   expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut
   against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a
   Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another
   year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the
   surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then
   summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy
   they hated most.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 69-71._

      _Xenophon,
      Anabasis._

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.
    War with Sparta.
    Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.
    The Peace of Antalcidas.
    Recovery of Ionian cities.

       See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PERSIA: B. C. 366.
   Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.
   The Great King's rescript.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

PERSIA: B. C. 337-336.
   Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PERSIA: B. C. 334-330.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA &c.: B. C. 334-330.

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.
   Under the Successors of Alexander.
   In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316;
      and SELEUCIDÆ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
   Embraced in the Parthian empire.
   Recovery of national independence.
   Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

   "About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates
   I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which
   terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the
   Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,
   Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the
   Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new
   conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian
   lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.
   … It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to
   allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern
   themselves.
{2515}
   These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled
   by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary
   right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very
   much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the
   tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him
   a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a
   military expedition."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 1._

   "The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn
   subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new
   dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN
   DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This
   great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced
   by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander
   Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great
   reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the
   Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and
   rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for
   superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity
   equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the
   flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the
   former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a
   tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him
   as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. …
   As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to
   the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the
   Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above
   five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were
   defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their
   king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for
   ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly
   acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
   Wars with the Romans.

   The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and
   brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of
   the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new
   throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he
   sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then
   Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be
   yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should
   be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the
   Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars,
   extending through four centuries and ending only with the
   Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power,
   alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the
   Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the
   reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with
   unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms.
   Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner,
   after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D.
   260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his
   insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

   Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid
   capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked,
   while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery.
   Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner.
   Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an
   obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The
   victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was
   cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen
   years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching
   to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies
   and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of
   Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus
   ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and
   passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death
   and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before
   the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305).

   That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into
   the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the
   war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated,
   on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A.
   D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the
   Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced
   Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the
   Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and
   gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then,
   for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had
   mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and
   his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring
   power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A.
   D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the
   calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia
   encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which
   Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day
   was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle
   of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at
   first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while
   plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great
   slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark
   of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents
   of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed
   the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the
   city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by
   Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the
   inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the
   Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an
   opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after
   rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363,
   he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the
   sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of
   Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of
   Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too
   strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed
   the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the
   hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray
   by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and
   scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced
   to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might
   possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued
   them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in
   repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry.
{2516}
   An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor,
   and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the
   Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius,
   together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in
   Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted
   to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own.
   The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than
   half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D.
   422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are
   little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the
   division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as
   a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a
   Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued
   was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while
   Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of
   Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however,
   in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of
   Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three
   months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the
   Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius
   now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the
   powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of
   the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities
   again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was
   in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and
   finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great
   battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next
   year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers
   arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The
   Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid
   11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so
   quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king
   Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria
   ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just
   restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had
   nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged,
   half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of
   war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis,
   or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in
   history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted
   until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged
   the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the
   Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to
   Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till
   591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian
   throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled
   to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his
   unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the
   most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in
   the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria
   and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia
   Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of
   Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp
   and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and
   held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial
   capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who
   became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved
   himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve
   years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could
   gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such
   resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the
   Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627,
   he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle,
   fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient
   Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled,
   and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was
   a fugitive.

      See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

   A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and
   his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans
   and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in
   their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46._

PERSIA: A. D. 632-651.
   Mahometan Conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

PERSIA: A. D. 901-998.
   The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

      See SAMANIDES;
      and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038.
   Under the Gaznevides.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193.
   Under the Seljuk Turks.

      See TURKS (SELJUK): 1004-1063, and after.

PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250.
   The period of the Atabegs.

      See ATABEGS.

PERSIA: A. D. 1193.
   Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

      See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226.
   Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
   The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

   Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who
   extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and
   completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see
   BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his
   conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an
   empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of
   the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time
   acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in
   the East."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 211._

   Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a
   beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small
   but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of
   Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself
   in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot
   Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years
   in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and
   astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions,
   who laboured in works of science under the direction of his
   favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to
   Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or
   chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by
   the conquests of Timour.

      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

{2517}

   "It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303,
   that Mahometanism again became the established religion of
   Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly
   declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After
   Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia
   rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. …
   The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the
   descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At
   last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion,
   utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the
   greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless
   Timour."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquest of the Saracens,
      lecture 6._

PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393.
   Conquest by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
   The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.
   Triumph of the Sheahs.
   Subjugation by the Afghans.
   Deliverance by Nadir Shah.
   The Khajar dynasty.

   "At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of
   Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to
   the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of
   Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay
   with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as
   firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the
   sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan
   and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict
   on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants
   of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D.
   680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to
   Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced
   belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh,
   called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this
   uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a
   people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical
   speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent
   reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in
   the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. …
   Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution
   from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th
   century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the
   burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in
   bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of
   her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a
   priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest
   repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa,
   the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed
   a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as
   to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid,
   the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the
   youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When
   only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the
   province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the
   sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he
   captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard,
   and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of
   Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on
   Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder
   of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since
   that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of
   Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at
   times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the
   Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah
   government, and gave great strength to that sect of the
   Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always
   great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried
   his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism
   and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle
   with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see
   TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were
   outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event
   he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the
   record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors,
   Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to
   sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new
   empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at
   home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not
   succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the
   verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in
   the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after
   a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This
   monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the
   throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the
   Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah
   Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean
   dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722
   with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the
   empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan,
   although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every
   male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak
   sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the
   artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain.
   That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow.
   Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf.
   But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir
   Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a
   brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had
   escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia.
   Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several
   battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But
   Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast
   ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia;
   and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with
   some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself
   king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a
   man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the
   Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition
   that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi
   fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

   He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of
   great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring
   dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each
   other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which
   succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who
   reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder
   of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last
   pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once
   more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …
{2518}
   Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by
   his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and
   some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars
   with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,
   notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian
   armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed
   Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual
   interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which
   was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in
   1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the
   present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

      _S. G. W. Benjamin,
      The Story of Persia,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      General Sketch of the History of Persia,
      chapters 10-20._

      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2)._

      _R. G. Watson,
      History of Persia, 1800-1858._

PERSIA: A. D. 1894.
   The reigning Shah.

   Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is
   blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

   ----------PERSIA: End--------

PERSIAN SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
      PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

   ----------PERTH: Start--------

PERTH: A. D. 1559.
   The Reformation Riot.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

PERTH: A. D. 1715.
   Headquarters of the Jacobite Rebellion.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

   ----------PERTH: End--------

PERTH, The Five Articles of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

PERTINAX, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

   ----------PERU: Start--------

PERU:
   Origin of the name.

   "There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf
   of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this
   country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro
   in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern
   land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the
   unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire
   abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It
   was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from
   the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

      _C. H. Markham,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 6, chapter 2._

PERU:
   The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization.
   The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

   "The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the
   aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time
   immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of
   these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in
   the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco
   section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an
   imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into
   six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which
   formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had
   their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and
   Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting
   it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the
   Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The
   Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the
   Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the
   neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The
   Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of
   the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous
   region between the central and western cordilleras. These six
   tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their
   language was introduced into every conquered province, and was
   carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards
   correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This
   language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the
   upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac.
   Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long
   grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of
   straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is
   the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together,
   'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua.
   The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his
   grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words
   among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was
   adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name
   would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in
   the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke
   a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The
   Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and
   their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many
   Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to
   express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are
   indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One
   branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe
   inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called
   Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined
   to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca
   sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the
   happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and
   had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had
   domesticated all the animals in their country capable of
   domestication, understood mining and the working of metals,
   excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good
   farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high
   pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas
   of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a
   people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra.
   There are some slight indications of the aborigines having
   been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the
   more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered
   the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of
   America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the
   Yunca people."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peru,
      chapter 3._

{2519}

   "In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico
   and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the
   construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts,
   canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians
   were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so
   far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher
   intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more
   especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible
   symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East
   for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas
   over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its
   operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of
   the law might be as great among the latter, the law was
   expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative
   of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law.
   He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the
   Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The
   violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a
   scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or
   which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it
   reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private
   conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under
   this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the
   social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and
   agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing
   that deserved to be called property. They could follow no
   craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was
   specially provided by law. They could not change their
   residence or their dress without a license from the
   government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is
   conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of
   selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism
   would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but
   that established by law. The power of free agency—the
   inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was
   annihilated in Peru."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, edition.),
      volume 6, pages 215-226._

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of the New World called America,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES, ANDESIANS.

PERU:
   The empire of the Incas.

   "The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power
   precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under
   the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or
   Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father,
   the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the
   south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule
   in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had
   reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of
   Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating
   central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on
   the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian
   valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all
   its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the
   beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire
   extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th
   southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from
   3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying
   width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and
   Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles,
   covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square
   miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the
   United States, or to the whole of the United States to the
   eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake
   Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs
   of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of
   the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters
   flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and
   skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200
   miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of
   Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and
   productive, but the barriers which separate it from the
   neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may
   be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the
   same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca
   seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes
   leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction
   whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the
   empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of
   conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of
   Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The
   survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the
   ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts
   of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have
   said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country
   is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number
   of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are
   hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is
   every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed
   to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The
   ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks,
   on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and
   clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to
   utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They
   excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached
   moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano
   from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They
   terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the
   soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow
   platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a
   single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left
   unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India,
   may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil
   which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No
   doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the
   scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not
   then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor
   yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the
   support of dense populations. … The present population of the
   three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca
   Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five
   millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population
   under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps
   somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las
   Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells
   us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed
   above forty millions of people.'"

      _E. G. Squier,
      Peru,
      chapter 1._

PERU:A. D. 1527-1528.
   Discovery by the Spaniards.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

{2520}

PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.
   The commission and the preparations of Pizarro.

   "In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades,
   taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of
   that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the
   court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at
   Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the
   wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed
   in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he
   now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs
   in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not
   until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the
   country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers
   of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of
   discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the
   titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or
   lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable
   salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses
   under his government, and, in short, to exercise the
   prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed
   commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo;
   whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. …
   Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a
   force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to
   furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and
   stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January,
   1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by
   four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in
   Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill
   pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership
   came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was
   brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in
   preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions
   boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land.
   It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward
   from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 6-7._

PERU:A. D. 1531-1533.
   Pizarro's conquest.
   Treacherous murder of Atahualpa.

   "Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531,
   with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three
   men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at
   the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers
   to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more
   men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with
   twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro
   continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well
   peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed
   over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating
   war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the
   conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of
   Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a
   long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and
   Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and
   was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been
   defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and
   Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of
   the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was
   reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the
   mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from
   Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's
   march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region.
   After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the
   fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San
   Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley
   of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal
   treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and
   Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on
   the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier,
   Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to
   reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main
   body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of
   Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with
   presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired
   friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of
   Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and
   marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of
   the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange
   the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and
   sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with
   the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca
   Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about
   three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed
   forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of
   November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force.
   Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry
   buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position.
   Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where
   Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa
   announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander,
   and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery.
   He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing,
   came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession.
   He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people
   were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described
   as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and
   seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a
   half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders
   for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts
   of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while
   Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his
   captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess
   and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his
   brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on
   the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco,
   the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They
   set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence
   and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the
   success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two
   officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco,
   to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing.
   On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived
   at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84
   horses.
{2521}
   On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived
   should be melted down for distribution; but another large
   instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity
   consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been
   torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were
   vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal
   fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the
   conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal
   to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of
   the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as
   a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of
   Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar
   Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be
   followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of
   the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square
   of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was
   absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest
   indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested
   against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of
   being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed
   the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1)._

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
   The fighting of the Spanish conquerors over the spoils.

   "The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms
   the next great series of events in American history, is one of
   the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest
   in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came
   within its influence, desolated the country where it
   originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed
   for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish
   colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century
   afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and
   fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the
   period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa.
   That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave
   the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning
   Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a
   brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame
   and rage at his helpless position], and set out from
   Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his
   conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in
   Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the
   great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on
   the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish
   descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great
   regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of
   water running through the middle of each, with grand squares
   and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its
   environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from
   the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred
   thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses,
   and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of
   the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a
   building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated
   with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun
   were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon
   their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round
   the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a
   coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years
   the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing
   it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the
   great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning
   many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime,
   Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror,
   returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent
   with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth
   of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for
   Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed
   under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate
   and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it
   was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to
   take possession and govern a province, which should be called
   New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's
   government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the
   beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused
   of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as
   lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged
   in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began
   to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards
   received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up
   Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set
   out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which
   had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the
   subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of
   Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months
   after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning
   Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into
   the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising,
   which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into
   great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been
   overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed,
   from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to
   assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he
   endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca
   Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the
   Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving
   before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while
   negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the
   town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis
   Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500
   men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but
   Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In
   November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro
   and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted
   from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger
   Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando
   had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army
   against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a
   desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph.
{2522}
   Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial,
   condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely
   masters of the country and maintained their domination for a
   few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under
   Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions.
   But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head
   in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the
   governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A
   young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the
   governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a
   new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived
   from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His
   rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de
   Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela,
   sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New
   Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las
   Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the
   "repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in
   which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish
   government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro,
   however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after
   a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death.
   This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in
   Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after
   some years.

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      books 17-18 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru._

PERU: A. D. 1539-1541.
   Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon
   and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

      See AMAZONS RIVER.

PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
   Under the Spanish Viceroys.

   "When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and
   returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung
   from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was
   Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a
   very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during
   the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House,
   the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the
   greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the
   mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of
   South America, including the present republics of Venezuela,
   New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the
   court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and
   magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the
   viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the
   capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the
   inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of
   Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted
   from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice,
   this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be
   considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the
   present century, and shortly before the commencement of the
   war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was
   abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the
   seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the
   Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of
   Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in
   Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000
   received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain
   in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless
   descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and
   heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high
   road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon
   kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to
   show itself in the various measures of government; and the
   trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the
   strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the
   commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called
   the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen
   merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of
   manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this
   fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested
   in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines
   and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed
   to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at
   Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of
   silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and
   sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the
   galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The
   galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair,
   which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was
   commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle
   of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come
   over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened
   government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime
   minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at
   administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the
   colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long
   found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and
   viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while
   another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty
   grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in
   their places practical men, who had done good service as
   captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as
   Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780.
   At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish
   adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at
   Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of
   Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of
   the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the
   viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose
   Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government.
   … But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor
   of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who
   peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the
   minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening
   of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own
   enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their
   increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally,
   the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies,
   brought popular excitement in South America to such a height
   that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable
   materials."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Cuzco and Lima,
      chapter 9._

{2523}

   The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of
   revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief
   named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was
   to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and
   their just administration. But when his moderate demands were
   only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that
   independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a
   descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed
   Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the
   Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The
   insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was
   maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July,
   1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were
   due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac
   Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the
   Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of
   Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised
   the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who
   fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard.
   The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined
   by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young
   poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in
   March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less
   cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peru,
      page 150._

PERU: A. D. 1579.
   The piracies of Drake.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

PERU: A. D. 1776.
   Separation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
   The Struggle for Independence.
   Help from Chile and Colombia.
   San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators.
   The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

   "The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces
   of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part,
   crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for
   important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of
   their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for
   assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there
   would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the
   viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820,
   independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A.
   D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was
   assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the
   royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province
   from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General
   Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose
   exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels
   of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under
   command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole
   force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian
   coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which
   retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at
   negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in
   motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off
   Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane
   [afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded
   in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda,
   which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in
   company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit
   is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the
   kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was
   transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. …
   As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced
   upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The
   Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place.
   … The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of
   July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little
   difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his
   good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on
   prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence
   of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition
   of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the
   ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of
   Peru. No important military movements took place during a
   considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao
   remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of
   September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained
   at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of
   months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to
   be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a
   severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by
   Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the
   revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the
   month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and
   the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then
   in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The
   result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at
   Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence
   the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy
   protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the
   execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which
   was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending
   party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress
   was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned
   his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili.
   Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the
   duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs
   of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823,
   the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew
   his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all
   hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now
   seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and
   this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of
   Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of
   freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of
   the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN
   STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security,
   that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed
   condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to
   the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September,
   1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once
   invested with supreme power, both civil and military. …
{2524}
   In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao
   resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the
   Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same
   fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its
   own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as
   supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to
   call forth the full energies of the great general. He had
   under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom
   were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available
   forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far
   superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not
   become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no
   decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824,
   "when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most
   remarkable in its details and important in its results ever
   fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in
   Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command
   of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those
   of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of
   the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard
   fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the
   heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they
   had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700
   wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less
   than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy,
   entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a
   capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the
   battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His
   whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms
   of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also
   bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out,
   however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825,
   and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with
   desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until
   January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and
   disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a
   dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption
   by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian
   constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he
   remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed
   him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in
   language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction
   took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to
   accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

      _H. Brownell,
      North and South America: Peru,
      chapters 12-13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl of Dundonald,
      Autobiography of a Seaman, Sequel,
      chapter 3._

      _J. Miller,
      Memoirs of General Miller,
      chapters 12-27 (volumes 1-2)._

      _T. Sutcliffe,
      Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru,
      chapters 2-3._

PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.
   The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru.
   The Bolivian Constitution.

   "Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower
   Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body
   resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her
   being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from
   war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my
   resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this
   tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the
   same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic
   is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of
   Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the
   same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he
   consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of
   reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing
   could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to
   Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for
   another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars,
   which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him
   the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire
   freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent
   traits in his character. After continuing in session about a
   month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had
   granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard
   to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was
   unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they
   should continue to exercise their functions; and they
   accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or
   control in the government, after issuing a decree for
   installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed
   from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior
   provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to
   believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was
   greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those
   views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the
   sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant
   gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to
   assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his
   political principles more directly before the world. When the
   victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to
   act, the great question presented to their consideration was,
   whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or
   reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state.
   Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's
   chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco
   in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be,
   that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed
   that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator.
   Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the
   fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless,
   however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded
   to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They
   conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as
   he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre
   was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand
   Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the
   capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and
   profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the
   latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of
   his preeminent services to the country. With the same
   characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like
   occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his
   own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to
   purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held
   in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to
   prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should
   perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and
   constitution of the state.
{2525}
   Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very
   foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if,
   indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he
   did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator
   left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to
   assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet
   there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution
   for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing
   date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel
   at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again
   and again declared, that it contains his confession of
   political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its
   preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of
   his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a
   consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government;
   and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to
   name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The
   Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called
   tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected
   for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So
   complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of
   laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and
   unnatural the distribution of powers among the several
   branches, that it would be impracticable for any people,
   having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct
   public business in the projected mode; and much more
   impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all
   familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the
   most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature
   and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in
   the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the
   legislative body, holding his office for life, without
   responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having
   the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the
   state, every appointment of any importance, from the
   vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers
   of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute
   control of all the military force of the nation, it being at
   the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force
   shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the
   irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the
   executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the
   people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The
   constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May
   25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to
   the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign
   prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government
   submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration.
   It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia,
   and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected
   president for life under it, although one of its provisions
   expressly required, that the president should be a native of
   Bolivia."

      _C. Cushing,
      Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
      (N. A. Rev., January 1830)._

PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
   Retirement of Bolivar.
   Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile.
   The succession of military presidents.
   Abolition of Slavery.
   War with Spain.

   "As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians
   to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was
   at the same time President of the United States of Colombia,
   he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of
   America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power
   on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. …
   But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a
   tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater
   Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of
   the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and
   got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the
   arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a
   badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic
   disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them
   [September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both
   in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated
   Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians
   followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian
   troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian
   element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no
   doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the
   country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the
   apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume
   another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the
   Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two
   Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the
   generals of their own nation."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      pages 290-291._

   "A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had
   returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader
   of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the
   Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from
   Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian
   of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers
   secured the presidential chair, the administration in the
   early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others
   of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular
   term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition
   he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then
   followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a
   confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa
   Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President
   of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme,
   which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was
   carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The
   Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three
   States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the
   ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and
   prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and
   that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by
   General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and
   Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay,
   which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of
   the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled
   at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which
   acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and
   proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the
   new state of things was of short duration.
{2526}
   On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was
   declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the
   Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake
   Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A
   very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which
   Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which
   was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th,
   1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional
   President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his
   administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous
   grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At
   the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique
   succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head
   of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new
   Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the
   Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of
   $1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves.
   The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was
   entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties,
   licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in
   1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca
   Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The
   Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it
   had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had
   enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had
   been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General
   San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was
   replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio
   Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse
   of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was
   unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some
   Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast
   valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged
   by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the
   enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic
   feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru
   on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been
   proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of
   Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and
   the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral
   colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every
   20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to
   the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to
   Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives.
   Executive power is in the hands of a President and
   Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five
   Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a
   career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution
   of railways and other public works with feverish haste,
   bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched
   military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July
   26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On
   August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional
   President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been
   elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial
   difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. …
   He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his
   term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on
   August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peru,
      chapter 8._

PERU: A. D. 1879-1884.
   The disastrous war with Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

PERU: A. D. 1886-1894.
   Slow recovery.

   Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly
   recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres
   became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General
   Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

   ----------PERU: End--------

PERUGIA, Early history of.

   See PERUSIA.

PERUGIA, Under the domination of the Baglioni.

      See BAGLIONI.

PERUS, The Two.

   Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are
   represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic
   of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

PERUSIA, The war of.

   In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and
   Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his
   brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which
   forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness,
   with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame
   the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in
   Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several
   months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called
   the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar
   horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved
   to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the
   besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 27._

PERUVIAN BARK, Introduction of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

PERUVIAN QUIPU.

      See QUIPU.

PES, The.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

PESHWA OF THE MAHRATTAS, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

PESO DE ORO.

      See SPANISH COINS.

PESTALOZZI, and educational reform.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1798-1827.

PESTH: A. D. 1241.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

PESTH: A. D. 1872.
   Union with Buda.

      See BUDAPESTH.

PESTILENCE.

      See PLAGUE.

PETALISM.

   A vote of banishment which the ancient Syracusans brought into
   practice for a time, in imitation of the Ostracism of the
   Athenians,—(see OSTRACISM). The name of the citizen to be
   banished was written, at Syracuse, on olive-leaves, instead of
   on shells, as at Athens. Hence the name, petalism.

      _Diodorus,
      Historical Library,
      book 11, chapter 26._

PETER,
   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1217-1219.
   Peter I. (called The Great), Czar of Russia, 1689-1725.

   Peter I., King of Aragon and Navarre, 1094-1104.

   Peter I., King of Hungary, 1088-1046.

   Peter II., Czar of Russia, 1727-1780.

   Peter II., King of Aragon, 1196-1213.

{2527}

   Peter II., King of Sicily, 1337-1342.

   Peter III., Czar of Russia, 1762.

   Peter III., King of Aragon, 1276-1285;
   King of Sicily, 1283-1285.

   Peter IV., King of Aragon, 1336-1387.

   Peter the Hermit's Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095; and 1096-1099.

   Peter.

      See, also, PEDRO.

PETERBOROUGH, Earl of, and the siege of Barcelona.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

PETERLOO, Massacre of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PETER'S PENCE.

   King Offa, of the old English kingdom of Mercia, procured, by
   a liberal tribute to Rome, a new archbishopric for Lichfield,
   thus dividing the province of Canterbury. "This payment … is
   probably the origin of the Rom-feoh, or Peter's pence, a tax
   of a penny on every hearth, which was collected [in England]
   and sent to Rome from the beginning of the tenth century, and
   was a subject of frequent legislation. But the archiepiscopate
   of Lichfield scarcely survived its founder."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1)._

PETERSBURG, Siege and evacuation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA),
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

PETERSHAM, Rout of Shays' rebels at.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

PETERVARDEIN, Battle of (1716).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1600-1718.

PETILIA, Battle at.

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

PETIT SERJEANTY.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

PETITION OF RIGHT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1625–1628; and 1628.

PETITS MAÍTRES, Les.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PETRA, Arabia.
   The rock-city of the Nabatheans.

      See NABATHEANS.

PETRA, Illyricum: Cæsar's blockade of Pompeius.

      See ROME B. C. 48.

PETRA, Lazica.

      See LAZICA.

PETROBRUSIANS.
HENRICIANS.

   "The heretic who, for above twenty years, attempted a
   restoration of a simple religion in Southern France, the
   well-known Pierre de Bruys, a native of Gap or Embrun, …
   warred against images and all other visible emblems of
   worship; he questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the
   soundness of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and opposed
   prayers for the dead; but he professed poverty for himself,
   and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers of
   the altar. He protested against the payment of tithes; and it
   was, most probably, owing to this last, the most heinous of
   all offences, that he was, towards 1130, burnt with slow fire
   by a populace maddened by the priests, at St. Gilles, on the
   Rhone. … His followers rallied … and changed their name of
   Petrobrusians into that of Henricians, when the mantle of
   their first master rested on the shoulders of Henry, supposed
   by Mosheim [Eccles. History, volume 2] to have been an Italian
   Eremite monk."

      _L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
      Frà Dolcina and his Times,
      chapter 1._

PETROCORII, The.

   A Gallic tribe established in the ancient Périgord, the modern
   French department of the Dordogne.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote._

PETRONILLA, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1137-1163.

PETRONIUS MAXIMUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455.

PEUCINI, The.

   "The Peucini derived their name from the little island Peuce
   (Piczino) at the mouth of the Danube. Pliny (iv. 14) speaks of
   them as a German people bordering on the Daci. They would thus
   stretch through Moldavia from the Carpathian Mountains to the
   Black Sea. Under the name Bastarnæ they are mentioned by Livy
   (xl. 57, 58) as a powerful people, who helped Philip, king of
   Macedonia, in his wars with the Romans. Plutarch ('Life of
   Paullus Æmilius,' ch. ix.) says they were the same as the
   Galatæ, who dwelt round the Ister (Danube). If so, they were
   Gauls, which Livy also implies."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

PEUKETIANS, The.

      See ŒNOTRIANS.

PEUTINGERIAN TABLE, The.

   This is the name given to the only copy which has survived of
   a Roman official road-chart. "Tables of this kind were not
   maps in the proper sense of the term, but were rather diagrams
   drawn purposely out of proportion, on which the public roads
   were projected in a panoramic view. The latitude and longitude
   and the positions of rivers and mountains were disregarded so
   far as they might interfere with the display of the provinces,
   the outlines being flattened out to suit the shape of a roll
   of parchment; but the distances between the stations were
   inserted in numerals, so that an extract from the record might
   be used as a supplement to the table of mileage in the
   road-book. The copy now remaining derives its name from Conrad
   Peutinger of Augsburg, in whose library it was found on his
   death in 1547. It is supposed to have been brought to Europe
   from a monastery in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, and to
   have been a copy taken by some thirteenth century scribe from
   an original assigned to the beginning of the fourth century or
   the end of the third.'

      _C. Elton,
      Origins of English History,
      chapter 11 and plate 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Ramsay,
      Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
      part 1, chapter 6._

PEVENSEY.

   The landing-place of William the Conqueror, September 28,
   A. D. 1066, when he came to win the crown of England.

      See, also, ANDERIDA.

PFALZ.
PFALZGRAF.

   In German, the term signifying Palatine and Palatine Count.

      See PALATINE COUNT.

PHACUSEH.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PHÆACIANS, The.

   "We are wholly at a loss to explain the reasons that led the
   Greeks in early times … to treat the Phæacians [of Homer's
   Odyssey] as a historical people, and to identify the Homeric
   Scheria with the island of Corcyra [modern Corfu]. … We must …
   be content to banish the kindly and hospitable Phæacians, as
   well as the barbarous Cyclopes and Læstrygones, to that outer
   zone of the Homeric world, in which everything was still
   shrouded in a veil of marvel and mystery."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 3, section 3 volume 1)._

PHALANGITES, The.

   The soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.

{2528}

PHALANX, The Macedonian.

   "The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was
   sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four
   divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of
   18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into
   six brigades of 3,000 each, formidable in its aspect, and, on
   ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks.
   The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the
   Greek heavy infantry, helmet, breast-plate, and greaves; and
   almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long
   shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword, long enough
   to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had
   come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him,
   and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name
   sarissa, four and twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched,
   projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier, and the space
   between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were
   fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine,
   those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in
   advance of the first line; so that the man at the head of the
   file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The
   ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men
   who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who
   therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a
   vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the
   efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this
   again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care
   was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and
   hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk
   and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was
   composed in part of foreign troops."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 48._

PHALARIS,
   Brazen bull of.
   Epistles of.

   Phalaris is said to have been a rich man who made himself
   tyrant of the Greek city of Agrigentum in Sicily, about 570 B.
   C., and who distinguished himself above all others of his kind
   by his cruelties. He seems to have been especially infamous in
   early times on account of his brazen bull. "This piece of
   mechanism was hollow, and sufficiently capacious to contain
   one or more victims enclosed within it, to perish in tortures
   when the metal was heated: the cries of these suffering
   prisoners passed for the roarings of the animal. The artist
   was named Perillus, and is said to have been himself the first
   person burnt in it by order of the despot."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 43._

   At a later time Phalaris was represented as having been a man
   of culture and letters, and certain Epistles were ascribed to
   him which most scholars now regard as forgeries. The famous
   treatise of Bentley is thought to have settled the question.

PHALERUM.

   See PIRÆUS.

PHANARIOTS, The.

   "The reduction of Constantinople, in 1453, was mainly achieved
   by the extraordinary exploit of Mahomet II. in transporting
   his galleys from the Bosphorus to the interior of the harbour,
   by dragging them over land from Dolma Bactche, and again
   launching them opposite to the quarter denominated the Phanar,
   from a lantern suspended over the gate which there
   communicates with the city. The inhabitants of this district,
   either from terror or treachery, are said to have subsequently
   thrown open a passage to the conqueror; and Mahomet, as a
   remuneration, assigned them for their residence this portion
   of Constantinople, which has since continued to be occupied by
   the Patriarch and the most distinguished families of the
   Greeks. It is only, however, within the last century and a
   half that the Phanariots have attained any distinction beyond
   that of merchants and bankers, or that their name, from merely
   designating their residence, has been used to indicate their
   diplomatic employments."

      _Sir J. E. Tennent,
      History of Modern Greece,
      chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      chapter 4._

      _J. Samuelson,
      Roumania, Past and Present,
      chapter 13, sections 3-7._

PHARAOH, The title.

   The title Pharaoh which was given to the kings of ancient
   Egypt, "appears on the monuments as piraa, 'great house,' the
   palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king
   himself, just as in our own time the 'porte' or gate of the
   palace has become synonymous with the Turkish Sultan."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 2._

PHARAOHITES.

      See GYPSIES.

PHARISEES, The.

      See CHASIDIM; and SADDUCEES.

PHARSALIA, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 48.

PHELPS' AND GORHAM'S PURCHASE.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PHERÆ.

   A town in ancient Thessaly which acquired an evil fame in
   Greek history, during the fourth century, B. C., by the power
   and the cruelty of the tyrants who ruled it and who extended
   their sway for a time over the greater part of Thessaly. Jason
   and Alexander were the most notorious of the brood.

PHILADELPHIA, Asia Minor.

   The city of Philadelphia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus of
   Pergamum, in eastern Lydia, not far from Sardes, was one in
   which Christianity flourished at an early day, and which
   prospered for several centuries, notwithstanding repeated
   calamities of earthquake. It was the last community of Greeks
   in Asia Minor which retained its independence of the Turks. It
   stood out for two generations in the midst of the Seljouk
   Turks, after all around it had succumbed. The brave city was
   finally taken by the Ottoman sultan, Bayezid, or Bajazet,
   about 1390. The Turks then gave it the name Alashehr.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 4 (volume 2)._

   ----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: Start--------

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1641.-
   The first settlement, by New Haven colonists.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1682-1685.
   Penn's founding of the city.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1686-1692.
   Bradford's Press.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1701.
   Chartered as a city.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1719-1729.
   The first newspapers.
   Franklin's advent.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1765.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1774.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER)
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
   Reception of the news of Lexington and Concord.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-JUNE).

{2529}

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.
   The British army in the city.
   Removal of Congress to York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The gay winter with the British in the city.
   The Battle of the Kegs.
   The Mischianza.

   "The year 1778 found the British at Philadelphia in snug
   quarters, unembarrassed by the cares of the field, and, except
   for occasional detachments, free from other military duties
   than the necessary details of garrison life. The trifling
   affairs that occurred during the remainder of the season
   served rather as a zest to the pleasures which engaged them
   than as a serious occupation. … No sooner were they settled in
   their winter-quarters than the English set on foot scenes of
   gayety that were long remembered, and often with regret, by
   the younger part of the local gentry. … Of all the band, no
   one seems to have created such a pleasing impression or to
   have been so long admiringly remembered as André. His name in
   our own days lingered on the lips of every aged woman whose
   youth had seen her a belle in the royal lines. … The military
   feats about Philadelphia, in the earlier part of 1778, were
   neither numerous or important. Howe aimed at little more than
   keeping a passage clear for the country-people, within certain
   bounds, to come in with marketing. The incident known as the
   Battle of the Kegs was celebrated by Hopkinson in a very
   amusing song that, wedded to the air of Maggy Lander, was long
   the favorite of the American military vocalists; but it hardly
   seems to have been noticed at Philadelphia until the Whig
   version came in. The local newspapers say that, in January,
   1778, a barrel floating down the Delaware being taken up by
   some boys exploded in their hands, and killed or maimed one of
   them. A few days after, some of the transports fired a few
   guns at several other kegs that appeared on the tide; but no
   particular notice of the occurrence was taken. These torpedoes
   were sent down in the hope that they would damage the
   shipping." When Howe was displaced from the command and
   recalled, his officers, among whom he was very popular,
   resolved "to commemorate their esteem for him by an
   entertainment not less novel than splendid. This was the
   famous Mischianza [or Meschianza] of the 18th of May, 1778;
   the various nature of which is expressed by its name, while
   its conception is evidently taken from Lord Derby's fête
   champêtre at The Oaks, June 9th, 1774, on occasion of Lord
   Stanley's marriage to the Duke of Hamilton's daughter. … The
   regatta, or aquatic procession, in the Mischianza was
   suggested by a like pageant on the Thames, June 23rd, 1775. …
   A mock tournament—perhaps the first in America—was a part of
   the play."

      _W. Sargent,
      Life of Major John André,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 17 (volume 1)._

      _A. H. Wharton,
      Through Colonial Doorways,
      chapter 2._

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1778.
   Evacuation by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1780-1784.
   Founding of the Pennsylvania Bank
   and the Bank of North America.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1787.
   The sitting of the Federal Constitutional Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1876.
   The Centennial Exhibition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

   ----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: End--------

PHILADELPHIA, Tenn., Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY COMPANY.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PHILIP,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 244-249.

   Philip, King of Macedon,
   The ascendancy in Greece of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 359-358, and 357-336.

   Philip, King of the Pokanokets,
   and his war with the English.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D.1674-1675, to 1676-1678.

   Philip, King of Sweden, 1112-1118.

   Philip (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1363-1404.

   Philip (called The Good), Duke of Burgundy, 1418-1467.

   Philip I. King of France, 1060-1108.

   Philip II. (called Augustus), King of France, 1180-1223.

   Philip II., King of the Two Sicilies, 1554-1598;
   Duke of Burgundy, 1555-1598;
   King of Spain, 1556-1598;
   King of Portugal, 1580-1598.

   Philip III. (called The Bold), King of France, 1270-1285.

   Philip III., King of Spain, Portugal and the Two Sicilies,
   and Duke of Burgundy, 1598-1621.

   Philip IV. (called The Fair), King of France, 1285-1314.

   Philip IV., King of Spain, 1621-1665;
   King of Portugal, 1621-1640.

   Philip V., King of France and Navarre, 1316-1322.

   Philip V., King of Spain (first of the Spanish-Bourbon line),
   1700-1746.

   Philip VI., King of France
   (the first king of the House of Valois), 1328-1350.

PHILIPHAUGH, Battle of (1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

PHILIPPI, The founding of.

   Philip of Macedonia in 356 B. C. took from the Thasians the
   rich gold-mining district of Pangæus, on the left bank of the
   Strymon on the border of Thrace, and settled a colony there in
   what afterwards became the important city of Philippi.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 42._

PHILIPPI, Battles of (B. C. 42).

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

PHILIPPI, West Virginia, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

PHILIPPICS OF DEMOSTHENES, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, and 351-348.

PHILIPPICUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 711-713.

PHILIPPOPOLIS, Capture of, by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

   ----------PHILIPSBURG: Start--------

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1644.
   Taken by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1648.
   Right of garrisoning secured to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1676.
   Taken from France by the Imperialists.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1679.
   Given up by France.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1734.
   Siege and reduction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   ----------PHILIPSBURG: End--------

{2530}

PHILISTINES, The.

   "One small nation alone, of all which dwelt on the land
   claimed by Israel, permanently refused to amalgamate itself
   with the circumcised peoples,—namely the uncircumcised
   Philistines. They occupied the lots which ought to have been
   conquered by Dan and Simeon, and had five principal cities,
   Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, of which the three
   first are on the sea-coast. Ashdod and Gaza were places of
   great strength, capable of long resisting the efforts of
   Egyptian and Greek warfare. The Philistines cannot have been a
   populous nation, but they were far more advanced in the arts
   of peace and war than the Hebrews. Their position commanded
   the land traffic between Egypt and Canaan, and gave them
   access to the sea; hence perhaps their wealth and
   comparatively advanced civilization. Some learned men give
   credit to an account in Sanchoniathon, that they came from
   Crete." They gave their name to Palestine.

      _F. W. Newman,
      History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
      chapter 2._

   "Where the Philistines came from, and what they originally
   were, is not clear. That they moved up the coast from Egypt is
   certain; that they came from Kaphtor is also certain. But it
   by no means follows, as some argue, that Kaphtor and Egypt are
   the same region. … It appears more safe to identify Kaphtor
   with" Crete. "But to have traced the Philistines to Crete is
   not to have cleared up their origin, for early Crete was full
   of tribes from both east and west. … Take them as a whole, and
   the Philistines appear a Semitic people."

      _George Adam Smith,
      Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 16._

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 3._

      See, also,
      JEWS: THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN, and after.

PHILOCRATES, The Peace of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PHLIUS, Siege of.

   Phlius, the chief city of the small mountain state of
   Phliasia, in the northeastern corner of Peloponnesus,
   adjoining Argos and Arcadia, made an heroic effort, B. C. 380,
   to maintain its liberties against Sparta. Under a valiant
   leader, Delphion, it endured a siege which lasted more than an
   entire year. When forced to surrender, in the end, it was
   treated with terrible severity by the Spartan king, Agesilaus.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 5._

PHOCÆANS, OR PHOKÆANS, The.

   "The citizens of Phocæa had been the last on the coast-line of
   Ionia [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] to settle down to a
   condition of tranquillity. They had no building-ground but a
   rocky peninsula, where they found so little space over which
   to spread at their ease that this very circumstance made them
   a thorough people of sailors. In accordance with their local
   situation they had turned to the waters of the Pontus,
   established settlements on the Dardanelles and the Black Sea,
   and taken part in the trade with Egypt. Here however they were
   unable to hold their own by the side of the Milesians, … and
   the Phocæans accordingly saw themselves obliged to look
   westward and to follow the direction of Chalcidian navigation.
   … It was thus that the Ionian Phocæans came into the western
   sea. Being forced from the first to accustom themselves to
   long and distant voyages, instead of the easy summer trips of
   the other maritime cities, they became notably bold and heroic
   sailors. They began where the rest left off; they made voyages
   of discovery into regions avoided by others; they remained at
   sea even when the skies already showed signs of approaching
   winter and the observation of the stars became difficult. They
   built their ships long and slim, in order to increase their
   agility; their merchant vessels were at the same time
   men-of-war. … They entered those parts of the Adriatic which
   most abound in rocks, and circumnavigated the islands of the
   Tyrrhenian sea in spite of the Carthaginian guard–ships; they
   sought out the bays of Campania and the mouths of the Tiber
   and Arnus; they proceeded farther, past the Alpine ranges,
   along the coast as far as the mouth of the Rhodanus, and
   finally reached Iberia, with whose rich treasures of precious
   metals they had first become acquainted on the coast of Italy.
   … During the period when Ionia began to be hard pressed by the
   Lydians, the Phocæans, who had hitherto contented themselves
   with small commercial settlements, in their turn proceeded to
   the foundation of cities in Gaul and Iberia. The month of the
   Rhodanus [the Rhone] was of especial importance to them for
   the purposes of land and sea trade. … Massalia [modern
   Marseilles], from the forty-fifth Olympiad [B. C. 600] became
   a fixed seat of Hellenic culture in the land of the Celts,
   despite the hostility of the piratical tribes of Liguria and
   the Punic fleet. Large fisheries were established on the
   shore; and the stony soil in the immediate vicinity of the
   city itself was converted into vine and olive plantations. The
   roads leading inland were made level, which brought the
   products of the country to the mouth of the Rhone; and in the
   Celtic towns were set up mercantile establishments, which
   collected at Massalia the loads of British tin, of inestimable
   value for the manufacture of copper, while wine and oil, as
   well as works of art, particularly copper utensils, were
   supplied to the interior. A totally new horizon opened for
   Hellenic inquiry."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

PHOCAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 602-610.

PHOCIANS, The.

      See PHOKIANS.

PHOCION, Execution of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

PHOCIS: B. C. 357-346.
   Seizure of Delphi.
   The Ten Years Sacred War with Thebes.
   Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
   Heavy punishment by his hand.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

   ----------PHŒNICIANS: Start--------

PHŒNICIANS:
   Origin and early history.
   Commerce.
   Colonies.

   "The traditions of the Phœnicians collected at Tyre itself by
   Herodotus …; those of the inhabitants of Southern Arabia
   preserved by Strabo; and, finally, those still current in
   Babylonia during the first centuries of the Christian era,
   when the Syro-Chaldee original of the book of 'Nabathæan
   Agriculture' was revised—all agree in stating that the
   Canaanites at first lived near the Cushites, their brethren in
   race, on the banks of the Erythræan Sea, or Persian Gulf, on
   that portion of the coast of Bahrein designated El Katif on
   our modern maps of Arabia. Pliny speaks of a land of Canaan in
   this neighbourhood, in his time. … According to Tragus
   Pompeius, the Canaanites were driven from their first
   settlements by earthquakes, and then journeyed towards
   Southern Syria.
{2531}
   The traditions preserved in 'Nabathæan Agriculture' state, on
   the contrary, that they were violently expelled, in
   consequence of a quarrel with the Cushite monarchs of Babylon
   of the dynasty of Nimrod; and this is also the account given
   by the Arabian historians. … The entry of the Canaanites into
   Palestine, and their settlement in the entire country situated
   between the sea and the valley of Jordan, must … be placed
   between the period when the twelfth dynasty governed Egypt and
   that when the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, reigned as suzerain
   over all the Tigro-Euphrates basin. This brings us
   approximately between 2400 and 2300 B. C. … The Sidonians
   formed the first settlement, and always remained at the head
   of the Phœnician nation, which, at all periods of its history,
   even when joined by other peoples of the same race, called
   itself both 'Canaanite' and 'Sidonian.' … The Greek name,
   Phœnicians, of unknown origin, must not be applied to the
   whole of the nations of the race of Canaan who settled in
   Southern Syria; it belongs to the Canaanites of the sea coast
   only, who were always widely separated from the others.
   Phœnicia, in both classical history and geography, is merely
   that very narrow tract of land, hemmed in by mountains and
   sea, extending from Aradus on the north to the town of Acco on
   the south."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 1._

   "Renan sums up the evidence when he says: 'The greater number
   of modern critics admit it as demonstrated, that the primitive
   abode of the Phœnicians must be placed on the Lower Euphrates,
   in the centre of the great commercial and maritime
   establishments of the Persian Gulf, conformably to the
   unanimous witness of antiquity.' The date, the causes, and the
   circumstances of the migration are involved in equal
   obscurity. The motive for it assigned by Justin is absurd,
   since no nation ever undertook a long and difficult migration
   on account of an earthquake. If we may resort to conjecture we
   should b inclined to suggest that the spirit of adventure gave
   the first impulse, and that afterwards the unexampled
   facilities for trade, which the Mediterranean coast was found
   to possess, attracted a continuous flow of immigrants from the
   sea of the Rising to that of the Setting Sun."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Story of Phœnicia,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapter 3._

   "The campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and
   the land of the Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds
   could not leave these cities [Sidon and others] unmoved. If
   the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is Zemar
   (Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the
   territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in
   his sixth campaign (about the year 1580 B. C.); if Arkatu is
   Arka, south of Aradus, this place must have been destroyed in
   his fifteenth campaign (about the year 1570 B. C.). Sethos I.
   (1440-1400 B. C.) subdued the land of Limanon (i. e. the
   region of Lebanon). and caused cedars to be felled there. One
   of his inscriptions mentions Zor, i. e. Tyre, among the cities
   conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses
   II., also forced his way in the first decades of the
   fourteenth century as far as the coasts of the Phenicians. At
   the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between Sidon and Berytus, the
   rocks on the coast display the memorial which he caused to be
   set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour of
   the successes obtained in this region. In the fifth year of
   his reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta, defeats the king
   of Arathu in the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and
   Ramses III., about the year 1310 B. C., mentions beside the
   Cheta who attack Egypt the people of Arathu, by which name in
   the one case as in the other, may be meant the warriors of
   Aradus. If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows, from
   the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of
   Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the
   Hittites had risen about the middle of the fifteenth century
   B. C., and which it maintained to the end of the fourteenth,
   the Phenician cities had assumed an independent position. The
   successes of the Pharaohs in Syria come to an end in the first
   decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt makes peace and
   enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house of the
   Cheta. … The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which
   succumbed to the attack of the Amorites soon after the year
   1300 B. C., must have had a reaction on the cities of the
   Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must have been driven to the
   coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the middle of the
   thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who
   broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of
   the Hebrews on the mountains of the Amorites [see JEWS:
   CONQUEST OF CANAAN], must again have thrown the vanquished, i.
   e. the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast. With this
   retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to
   the coast is connected the movement which from this period
   emanates from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed
   towards the islands of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is
   true that on this subject only the most scanty statements and
   traces, only the most legendary traditions have come down to
   us, so that we can ascertain these advances only in the most
   wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off the coast
   of Phenicia lies the island of Cyprus. … The western writers
   state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had
   conquered and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium
   belonged to Belus. The victorious Belus is the Baal of the
   Phenicians. The date of the Trojan war is of no importance for
   the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement
   is found in Virgil only. More important is the fact that the
   settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform writing to Cyprus. …
   The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must therefore have
   taken place before the time in which the alphabetic writing,
   i. e. the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in
   Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B. C. … In the
   beginning of the tenth century B. C. the cities of Cyprus
   stood under the supremacy of the king of Tyre. The island was
   of extraordinary fertility. The forests furnished wood for
   ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of the metal
   which has obtained the name of copper from this island. Hence
   it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening
   of the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later
   period. …
{2532}
   As early as the fifteenth century B. C., we may regard the
   Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching
   east and west, which must have been augmented by the fact that
   they conveyed not only products of the Syrian land to the
   Euphrates and the Nile, but could also carry the goods which
   they obtained in exchange in Egypt to Babylonia, and what they
   obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the same time the
   fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and
   called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see
   producing woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments
   and weapons, and becoming preeminent in the colouring of
   stuffs with the liquor of the purple-fish which are found on
   the Phenician coasts. This industry required above all things
   metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no less in need, and
   when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no longer
   sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to
   be obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a
   proportionately small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found
   in Cyprus, gold in the island of Thasos, and purple-fish on
   the coasts of Hellas. When the fall of the kingdom of the
   Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes in the south
   of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the
   coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those
   possessions of the islands by merely landing and making
   exchanges with the inhabitants. Intercourse with
   semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by the sword. Good
   harbours were needed. … Thus arose protecting forts on the
   distant islands and coasts, which received the ships of the
   native land. … In order to obtain the raw material necessary
   for their industry no less than to carry off the surplus of
   population, the Phenicians were brought to colonise Cyprus,
   Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace, Imbros,
   Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the
   straits of Eubœa, purple–fish were found in extraordinary
   quantities. … We may conclude that the Phenicians must have
   set foot on Cyprus about the year 1250 B. C., and on the
   islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200 B. C.
   Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had
   occupied the promontories of Sicily and the small islands
   lying around Sicily, in order to carry on trade with the
   Sicels. Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the Phenicians
   extended their trade to the western ocean they settled in the
   island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the middle
   of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge
   for their ships. … On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the
   Phenicians planted many colonies. The mountains of Sardinia
   contained iron, silver, and lead. … The legend of the Greeks
   makes Heracles, i. e. Baal Melkarth, lord of the whole West.
   As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond Sardinia
   in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of
   Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out
   nearest Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest
   colony. In the legends of the coins mentioned above Hippo is
   named beside Tyre and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. … Ityke
   (atak, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas
   (Medsherda), takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed
   it was not founded before it. Aristotle tells us that the
   Phenicians stated that Ityke was built 287 years before
   Carthage, and Pliny maintains that Ityke was founded 1,178
   years before his time. As Carthage was founded in the year 846
   B. C. [see CARTHAGE] Ityke, according to Aristotle's
   statement, was built in the year 1133 B. C. With this the
   statement of Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A. D.,
   and therefore he places the foundation of Ityke in the year
   1126 or 1100 B. C. About the same time, i. e. about the year
   1100 B. C., the Phenicians had already reached much further to
   the west. … When their undertakings succeeded according to
   their desire and they had collected great treasures, they
   resolved to traverse the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles,
   which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their passage
   through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe
   a city which they called Gadeira. … This foundation of Gades,
   which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir, i. e. wall,
   fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most
   ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said
   to have taken place in the year 1100 B. C. If Ityke was
   founded before 1100 B. C. or about that time, we have no
   reason to doubt the founding of Gades soon after that date.
   Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have reached the ocean
   about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris with
   his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the
   Mediterranean."

      _M. Duncker,
      The History of Antiquity,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

   "The typical Phœnician colony was only a trading station,
   inhabited by dealers, who had not ceased to be counted as
   citizens of the parent State. … In Phœnicia itself the chief
   object of public interest was the maintenance and extension of
   foreign trade. The wealth of the country depended on the
   profits of the merchants, and it was therefore the interest of
   the Government to encourage and protect the adventures of the
   citizens. Unlike the treasures or curiosities imported by the
   fleets of royal adventurers, Phœnician imports were not
   intended to be consumed within the country, but to be
   exchanged for the most part for other commodities. The
   products of all lands were brought to market there, and the
   market people, after supplying all their own wants in kind,
   still had commodities to sell at a profit to the rest of the
   world. The Government did not seek to retain a monopoly of
   this profit; on the contrary, private enterprise seems to have
   been more untrammelled than at any time before the present
   century. But individuals and the State were agreed in desiring
   to retain a monopoly of foreign traffic as against the rest of
   the world, hence the invention of 'Phœnician lies' about the
   dangers of the sea, and the real dangers which 'Tyrian seas'
   came to possess for navigators of any other nation. …
   Phœnician traders were everywhere first in the field, and it
   was easy for them to persuade their barbarous customers that
   foreigners of any other stock were dangerous and should be
   treated as enemies. They themselves relied more on stratagem
   than on open warfare to keep the seas, which they considered
   their own, free from other navigators. … Silver and gold, wool
   and purple, couches inlaid with ivory, Babylonish garments and
   carpets, unguents of all sorts, female slaves and musicians,
   are indicated by the comic poets as forming part of the
   typical cargo of a Phœnician merchantman, the value of which
   in many cases would reach a far higher figure than a small
   ship-owner or captain could command.
{2533}
   As a consequence, a good deal of banking or money-lending
   business was done by the wealthy members of the great
   Corporation of Merchants and Ship-owners. The Phœnicians had
   an evil reputation with the other nations of the Mediterranean
   for sharp practices, and the custom of lending money at
   interest was considered, of course wrongly, a Phœnician
   invention, though it is possible that they led the way in the
   general substitution of loans at interest for the more
   primitive use of antichretic pledges. … To the Greeks the name
   Phœnician seems to have called up the same sort of association
   as those which still cling to the name of Jew in circles which
   make no boast of tolerance; and it is probable enough that the
   first, like the second, great race of wandering traders was
   less scrupulous in its dealings with aliens than compatriots.
   … So far as the Punic race may be supposed to have merited its
   evil reputation, one is tempted to account for the fact by the
   character of its principal staples. All the products of all
   the countries of the world circulated in Phœnician
   merchantmen, but the two most considerable, and most
   profitable articles of trade in which they dealt were human
   beings and the precious metals. The Phœnicians were the
   slave-dealers and the money-changers of the Old World. And it
   is evident that a branch of trade, which necessarily follows
   the methods of piracy, is less favourable to the growth of the
   social virtues than the cultivation of the ground, the
   domestication of animals, or the arts and manufactures by
   which the products of nature are applied to new and varied
   uses. Compared with the trade in slaves, that in metals—gold,
   silver, copper and tin—must seem innocent and meritorious; yet
   the experience of ages seems to show that, somehow or other,
   mining is not a moralizing industry. … Sidon was famous in
   Homer's time for copper or bronze, and Tyre in Solomon's for
   bronze (the 'brass' of the Authorized Version); and the
   Phœnicians retailed the work of all other metallurgists as
   well as their own, as they retailed the manufactures of Egypt
   and Babylonia, and the gums and spices of Arabia. … Two things
   are certain with regard to the continental commerce of Europe
   before the written history of its northern countries begins.
   Tin and umber were conveyed by more than one route from
   Cornwall and the North Sea to Mediterranean ports. In the
   latter case the traders proceeded up the Rhine and the Aar,
   along the Jura to the Rhone, and thence down to Marseilles;
   and also across the Alps, by a track forking off, perhaps at
   Grenoble, into the valley of the Po, and so to the Adriatic. …
   Apart from the Phœnician sea trade, Cornish tin was conveyed
   partly by water to Armorica and to Marseilles through the west
   of France; but also to the east of England' (partly overland
   by the route known later as the Pilgrims' Way), and from the
   east of Kent, possibly to the seat of the amber trade, as well
   as to a route through the east of France, starting from the
   short Dover crossing."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, pages 397-402._

   "The epigraphic texts left us by the Phœnicians are too short
   and dry to give us any of those vivid glimpses into the past
   that the historian loves. When we wish to make the men of Tyre
   and Sidon live again, when we try to see them as they moved in
   those seven or eight centuries during which they were supreme
   in the Mediterranean, we have to turn to the Greeks, to
   Herodotus and Homer, for the details of our picture; it is in
   their pages that we are told how these eastern traders made
   themselves indispensable to the half-savage races of Europe. …
   The Phœnicians carried on their trade in a leisurely way. It
   consisted for the most part in exchanging their manufactured
   wares for the natural produce of the countries they visited;
   it was in conformity with the spirit of the time, and,
   although it inspired distrust, it was regular enough in its
   methods. Stories told by both Homer and Herodotus show them to
   us as abductors of women and children, but in the then state
   of the world even deeds like those described would soon be
   forgotten, and after a time the faithless traders would be
   readmitted for the sake of the wares they brought. … Seeing
   how great their services were to the civilization of Greece
   and Rome, and how admirable were those virtues of industry,
   activity, and splendid courage that they brought to their
   work, how is it that the classic writers speak of the
   Phœnicians with so little sympathy? and why does the modern
   historian, in spite of his breadth and freedom from bias, find
   it difficult to treat them even with justice? It is because,
   in spite of their long relations with them, the peoples of
   Greece and Italy never learnt to really know the Phœnicians or
   to understand their language, and, to answer the second
   question, because our modern historians are hardly better
   informed. Between Greece and Rome on the one hand and Phœnicia
   and Carthage on the other, there was a barrier which was never
   beaten down. They traded and fought, but they never concluded
   a lasting and cordial peace; they made no effort to comprehend
   each other's nature, but retained their mutual, ignorant
   antipathy to the very end. … That full justice has never been
   done to the Phœnicians is partly their own fault. They were
   moved neither by the passion for truth nor by that for beauty;
   they cared only for gain, and thanks to the condition of the
   world at the time they entered upon the scene, they could
   satisfy that lust to the full. In the barter trade they
   carried on for so many centuries the advantage must always
   have been for the more civilized, and the Phœnicians used and
   abused that advantage. Tyre and Sidon acquired prodigious
   wealth; the minds of their people were exclusively occupied
   with the useful; they were thinking always of the immediate
   profit to themselves in every transaction; and to such a
   people the world readily denies justice, to say nothing of
   indulgence. … No doubt it may be said that it was quite
   without their goodwill that the Phœnicians helped other
   nations to shake off barbarism and to supply themselves with
   the material of civilized life. That, of course, is true, but
   it does not diminish the importance of the results obtained
   through their means. Phœnicia appropriated for herself all the
   inventions and recipes of the old eastern civilizations and by
   more than one happy discovery, and especially by the invention
   of the alphabet, she added to the value of the treasure thus
   accumulated. Whether she meant it or not, she did, as a fact,
   devote her energies to the dissemination of all this precious
   knowledge from the very day on which she entered into
   relations with those tribes on the Grecian islands and on the
   continent of Europe which were as yet strangers to political
   life. …
{2534}
   At the time of their greatest expansion, the true Phœnicians
   numbered, at the very most, a few hundreds of thousands. It
   was with such scanty numbers that they contrived to be present
   everywhere, to construct ports of refuge for their ships,
   factories for their merchants and warehouses for their goods.
   These 'English of antiquity,' as they have been so well
   called, upheld their power by means very similar to those
   employed by England, who has succeeded for two centuries in
   holding together her vast colonial empire by a handful of
   soldiers and a huge fleet of ships. The great difference lies
   in the fact that Tyre made no attempt to subjugate and govern
   the nations she traded with."

      _G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
      History of Art in Phœnicia,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

   The ascendancy among Phœnician cities passed at some early day
   from Sidon to Tyre, and the decline of the former has been
   ascribed to an attack from the Philistines of Ascalon, which
   occurred about 1250 or 1200 B. C. But the explanation seems
   questionable.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapter 14._

      See TYRE.

PHŒNICIANS:
   Coinage and Money.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: PHŒNICIA.

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.
   Subjection to Assyria and Babylonia.

   About 850 B. C. "the military expeditions of the Assyrians
   began to reach Southern Syria, and Phœnician independence
   seems to have been lost. We cannot be sure that the submission
   was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the
   middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary
   monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phœnician
   subjection, while there is no evidence of resistance or
   revolt. … About B. C. 743 the passive submission of Phœnicia
   to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience
   of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till
   Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phœnician independence. These
   efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable
   that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian
   empire succumbed, success crowned the nation's patriotic
   exertions, and autonomy was recovered. … Scarcely, however,
   had Assyria fallen when a new enemy appeared upon the scene.
   Nechoh of Egypt, about B. C. 608, conquered the whole tract
   between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phœnicia submitted
   or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian
   dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 605, after his defeat of
   Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phœnicia to Babylon; and, though
   Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B. C. 598, and
   resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her,
   yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian
   yoke was firmly fixed on the entire Phœnician people. It is
   not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the
   death of the great Babylonian king; but, on the whole,
   probability is in favour of their having remained subject till
   the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B. C. 538."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 1, part 1, section 6._

   "It appears to have been only a few years after
   Nebuchadnezzar's triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed
   troubles broke out in Syria. Phœnicia revolted under the
   leadership of Tyre; and about the same time Jehoiakim, the
   Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid from the
   Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh
   year (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into
   Palestine at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his
   allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first
   invested Tyre; but finding that city too strong to be taken by
   assault, he left a portion of his army to continue the siege,
   while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. … The
   siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the
   second investment of Jerusalem. … Tyre, if it fell at the end
   of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very
   year which followed the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 585. … It
   has been questioned whether the real Tyre, the island city,
   actually fell on this occasion (Heeren, As. Nat. volume ii.
   page 11, E. T.; Kenrick, Phœnicia, page 390), chiefly because
   Ezekiel says, about B. C. 570, that Nebuchadnezzar had
   'received no wages for the service that he served against it.'
   (Ezekiel xxix. 18.) But this passage may be understood to mean
   that he had had no sufficient wages. Berosus expressly stated
   that Nebuchadnezzar reduced all Phœnicia."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
      chapter 8, and footnote._

PHŒNICIANS:
   Later commerce.

   "The commerce of Phœnicia appears to have reached its greatest
   height about the time of the rise of the Chaldæan power at
   Babylon. Its monopoly may have been more complete in earlier
   times, but the range of its traffic was more confined.
   Nebuchadnezzar was impelled to attempt its conquest by a
   double motive—to possess himself of its riches and to become
   master of its harbours and its navy. The prophet Ezekiel
   (chapter 27), foretelling his siege of Tyre, has drawn a
   picture of its commerce, which is the most valuable document
   for its commercial history that has come down to us. …
   Directly or indirectly, the commerce of Tyre, in the beginning
   of the sixth century before Christ, thus embraced the whole
   known world. By means of the Arabian and the Persian gulfs it
   communicated with India and the coast of Africa towards the
   equator. On the north its vessels found their way along the
   Euxine to the frozen borders of Scythia. Beyond the Straits of
   Gibraltar, its ships, or those of its colony of Gades, visited
   the British isles for tin, if they did not penetrate into the
   Baltic to bring back amber. Ezekiel says nothing of the
   voyages of the Tyrians in the Atlantic ocean, which lay beyond
   the limits of Jewish geography; but it is probable that they
   had several centuries before passed the limits of the Desert
   on the western coast of Africa, and by the discovery of one of
   the Canaries had given rise to the Greek fable of the Islands
   of the Blessed."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      Historical Researches,
      volume 1._

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      chapter 3._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapters 9, and 14, section 2._

      _R. Bosworth Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 1._

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 332, and after.
   Final history.

      See TYRE.

   ----------PHŒNICIANS: End--------

PHOENIX CLUBS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

PHOENIX PARK MURDERS, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

{2535}

PHOKIANS, The.

   "The Phokians [in ancient Greece] were bounded on the north by
   the little territories called Doris and Dryopis, which separated
   them from the Malians,—on the northeast, east and south-west
   by the different branches of Lokrians,—and on the south-east
   by the Bœotians. They touched the Eubœan sea … at Daphnus, the
   point where it approaches nearest to their chief town,
   Elateia; their territory also comprised most part of the lofty
   and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly
   termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis,
   projects into the Corinthian Gulf, between the two bays of
   Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain,
   was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo.
   Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian
   race. But the sanctity of the temple, together with
   Lacedæmonian aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for
   themselves, disavowing their connexion with the Phokian
   brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable part of
   Phokis consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus. … It was
   on the projecting mountain ledges and rocks on each side of
   this river that the numerous little Phokian towns were
   situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into
   villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred
   War."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

      See SACRED WARS.

PHORMIO, and the sea victories of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PHRATRIÆ.

      See PHYLÆ:
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

PHRYGIAN CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

PHRYGIAN SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

PHRYGIANS.
MYSIANS.

   "When the Assyrians in the thirteenth century [B. C.] advanced
   past the springs of the Euphrates into the western peninsula
   [of Asia Minor], they found, on the central table-land, a
   mighty body of native population—the Phrygians. The remains of
   their language tend to show them to have been the central link
   between the Greeks and the elder Aryans. They called their
   Zeus Bagalus ('baga' in ancient Persian signifying God;
   'bhaga,' in Sanscrit, fortune), or Sabazius, from a verb
   common to Indian and Greek, and signifying 'to adore.' They
   possessed the vowels of the Greeks, and in the terminations of
   words changed the 'm' into 'n.' Kept off from the sea, they,
   it is true, lagged behind the coast tribes in civilization,
   and were regarded by these as men slow of understanding and
   only suited for inferior duties in human society. Yet they too
   had a great and independent post of their own, which is
   mirrored in the native myths of their kings. The home of these
   myths is especially in the northern regions of Phrygia, on the
   banks of the springs which feed the Sangarius, flowing in
   mighty curves through Bithynia into Pontus. Here traditions
   survived of the ancient kings of the land, of Gordius and
   Midas."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 3._

   "As far us any positive opinion can be formed respecting
   nations of whom we know so little, it would appear that the
   Mysians and Phrygians are a sort of connecting link between
   Lydians and Karians on one side, and Thracians (European as
   well as Asiatic) on the other—a remote ethnical affinity
   pervading the whole. Ancient migrations are spoken of in both
   directions across the Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus.
   It was the opinion of some that Phrygians, Mysians and
   Thracians had immigrated into Asia from Europe. … On the other
   hand, Herodotus speaks of a vast body of Teukrians and Mysians
   who, before the Trojan war, had crossed the strait from Asia
   into Europe. … The Phrygians also are supposed by some to have
   originally occupied an European soil on the borders of
   Macedonia, … while the Mysians are said to have come from the
   northeastern portions of European Thrace south of the Danube,
   known under the Roman empire by the name of Mœsia. But with
   respect to the Mysians there was also another story, according
   to which they were described as colonists emanating from the
   Lydians. … And this last opinion was supported by the
   character of the Mysian language, half Lydian and half
   Phrygian."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 16._

   The Mysians occupied the north-western corner of Asia Minor,
   including the region of the Troad. "In the works of the great
   Greek writers which have come down to us, notably, in the
   histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the Phrygians figure
   but little. To the Greeks generally they were known but as the
   race whence most of their slaves were drawn, as a people
   branded with the qualities of slaves, idleness, cowardice,
   effeminacy. … From the Phrygians came those orgiastic forms of
   religious cult which were connected with the worship of
   Dionysus and of the Mother of the Gods, orgies which led alike
   to sensual excess and to hideous self–mutilations, to
   semi-religious frenzy and bestial immoralities, against which
   the strong good sense of the better Greeks set itself at all
   periods, though it could not deprive them of their attractions
   for the lowest of the people. And yet it was to this race sunk
   in corruption, except when roused by frenzy, that the warlike
   Trojan stock belonged. Hector and Aeneas were Phrygians; and
   the most manly race of the ancient world, the Romans, were
   proud of their supposed descent from shepherds of Phrygia."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 2._

PHUT.

      See LIBYANS.

PHYLÆ.
PHRATRIÆ.
GENTES.

   "In all Greek states, without exception, the people was
   divided into tribes or Phylæ, and those again into the smaller
   subdivisions of Phratriæ and gentes, and the distribution so
   made was employed to a greater or less extent for the common
   organisation of the State."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 4._

   The four Attic tribes were called, during the later period of
   that division, the Geleontes, Hopletes, Ægikoreis, and
   Argadeis. "It is affirmed, and with some etymological
   plausibility, that the denominations of these four tribes must
   originally have had reference to the occupations of those who
   bore them,—the Hopletes being the warriour-class, the
   Ægikoreis goatherds, the Argadeis artisans, and the Geleontes
   (Teleontes or Gedeontes) cultivators. Hence some authors have
   ascribed to the ancient inhabitants of Attica an actual
   primitive distribution into hereditary professions or castes,
   similar to that which prevailed in India and Egypt. If we
   should even grant that such a division into castes might
   originally have prevailed, it must have grown obsolete long
   before the time of Solon; but there seem no sufficient grounds
   for believing that it ever did prevail. … The four tribes, and
   the four names (allowing for some variations of reading), are
   therefore historically verified. But neither the time of their
   introduction, nor their primitive import, are ascertainable
   matters. …
{2536}
   These four tribes may be looked at either as religious and
   social aggregates, in which capacity each of them comprised
   three Phratries and ninety Gentes; or as political aggregates,
   in which point of view each included three Trittyes and twelve
   Naukraries. Each Phratry contained thirty Gentes; each Trittys
   comprised four Naukraries: the total numbers were thus 360
   Gentes and 48 Naukraries. Moreover, each gens is said to have
   contained thirty heads of families, of whom therefore there
   would be a total of 10,800. … That every Phratry contained an
   equal number of Gentes, and every Gens an equal number of
   families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better
   evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable
   precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes
   themselves were real, ancient and durable associations among
   the Athenian people, highly important to be understood. The
   basis of the whole was the house, hearth or family,—a number
   of which, greater or less, composed the Gens, or Genos. This
   Gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly
   factitious, brotherhood. … All these phratric and gentile
   associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded
   upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind—a
   coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry, or
   of communion in certain special religious rites with communion
   of blood, real or supposed. The god, or hero, to whom the
   assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as
   the primitive ancestor, to whom they owed their origin. … The
   revolution of Kleisthenes in 509 B. C. abolished the old
   tribes for civil purposes, and created ten new tribes,—leaving
   the Phratries and Gentes unaltered, but introducing the local
   distribution according to demes or cantons, as the foundation
   of his new political tribes. A certain number of demes
   belonged to each of the ten Kleisthenean tribes (the demes in
   the same tribes were not usually contiguous, so that the tribe
   was not coincident with a definite circumscription), and the
   deme, in which every individual was then registered, continued
   to be that in which his descendants were also registered. …
   The different Gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising
   chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed
   the hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being
   in some cases considered as of preeminent sanctity in
   reference to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus
   the Eumolpidæ and Kerykes, who supplied the Hierophant and
   superintended the mysteries of the Eleusinian Demeter—and the
   Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of Athene Polias as well
   as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus in the acropolis—seem to
   have been reverenced above all the other Gentes. When the name
   Butadæ was selected in the Kleisthenean arrangement as the
   name of a deme, the holy Gens so called adopted the
   distinctive denomination of Eteobutadæ, or 'The true Butadæ.'"

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 3, chapter 1._

PHYLARCH.

      See TAXIARCH.

PHYLE.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

PHYSICIANS, First English College of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, 16TH CENTURY.

PIACENZA.

      See PLACENTIA.

PIAGNONI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PIANKISHAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

PIASTS,
PIASSES, The.

      See POLAND: BEGINNINGS, &c.

PIAVE, Battle on the.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

PI-BESETH.

      See BUBASTIS.

PICARDS, The Religions Sect of the.

   "The reforming movement of Bohemia [15th century] had drawn
   thither persons from other countries whose opinions were
   obnoxious to the authorities of the church. Among these, the
   most remarkable were known by the name of Picards,—apparently
   a form of the word 'beghards' [see BEGUINES], which … was then
   widely applied to sectaries. These Picards appear to have come
   from the Low Countries."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 8, page 24._

      See, also, PAULICIANS.

PICARDY.
PICARDS.

   "Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and
   from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than
   A. D. 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first
   applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students in the
   university of Paris who came from the frontier of France and
   Flanders."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58, foot-note 1._

PICENIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

PICHEGRU, Campaign and political intrigues of.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
      1797 (SEPTEMBER);
      1804-1805.

PICHINCHA, Battle of (1822).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PICKAWILLANY.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1764.

PICTAVI.

      See POITIERS: ORIGINAL NAMES.

PICTONES, The.

   "The Pictones [of ancient Gaul], whose name is represented by
   Poitou, and the Santones (Saintonge) occupied the coast
   between the lower Loire and the great aestuary of the
   Garonne."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

PICTS AND SCOTS.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PICTURE-WRITING.

      See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING;
      also HIEROGLYPHICS.

PIE-POWDER COURT, The.

   "There was one special court [in London, during the Middle
   Ages], which met to decide disputes arising on market-days, or
   among travellers and men of business, and which reminds us of
   the old English tendency to decide quickly and definitely,
   without entering into any long written or verbal consideration
   of the question at issue; and this was known as the Pie-powder
   Court, a corruption of the old French words. 'pieds poudres,'
   the Latin 'pedes pulverizati,' in which the complainant and
   the accused were supposed not to have shaken the dust from off
   their feet."

      _R. Pauli,
      Pictures of Old England,
      chapter 12._

PIECES OF EIGHT.

      See SPANISH COINS.

PIEDMONT: Primitive inhabitants.

      See LIGURIANS.

PIEDMONT: History.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT.

PIEDMONT, VIRGINIA., Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

{2537}

PIEGANS.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

PIERCE, Franklin:
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852, to 1857.

   ----------PIGNEROL: Start--------

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1630-1631
   Siege, capture and purchase by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1648.
   Secured to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1697.
   Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1580-1713.

   ----------PIGNEROL: End--------

PIGNEROL, Treaty of.

      See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

PIKE'S PEAK MINING REGION.

      See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

PILATE, Pontius.

      See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44;
      and A. D. 26.

PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

PILGRIMS.
PILGRIM FATHERS.

   In American history, the familiar designation of the little
   company of English colonists who sailed for the New World in
   the Mayflower, A. D. 1620, seeking religious freedom, and who
   landed at Plymouth Rock.

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS,
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

   ----------PILLOW, Fort: Start--------

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1862.
   Evacuated by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1864.
   Capture and Massacre.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

   ----------PILLOW, Fort: End--------

PILNITZ, The Declaration of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

PILOT KNOB, Attack on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PILSEN, Capture by Count Ernest of Mansfeld (1618).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PILUM, The.

   The Roman spear was called the pilum. "It was, according to
   [Polybius], a spear having a very large iron head or blade,
   and this was carried by a socket to receive the shaft. … By
   the soldiers of the legions, to whom the use of the pilum was
   restricted, this weapon was both hurled from the hand as a
   javelin, and grasped firmly, as well for the charge as to
   resist and beat down hostile attacks."

      _P. Lacombe,
      Arms and Armour,
      chapter 4._

PIMAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY.

PIMENTEIRAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

PINDARIS,
PINDHARIES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

PINE TREE MONEY.

   Between 1652 and 1684 the colony of Massachusetts coined
   silver shillings and smaller coins, which bore on their faces
   the rude figure of a pine tree, and are called "pine tree
   money."

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

PINEROLO.

      See PIGNEROL.

PINKIE, Battle of (1547).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

PIPE ROLLS.

      See EXCHEQUER.

PIPPIN, OR PEPIN, of Heristal,
   Austrasian Mayor of the Palace, and Duke of the Franks,
   A. D. 687-714.

   Pippin, or Pepin, the Short,
   Duke and Prince of the Franks, 741-752;
   King, 752-768.

PIQUETS AND ZINGLINS.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

PIRÆUS, The.

   This was the important harbor of Athens, constructed and
   fortified during and after the Persian wars; a work which the
   Athenians owed to the genius and energy of Themistocles. The
   name was sometimes applied to the whole peninsula in which the
   Piræus is situated, and which contained two other
   harbors—Munychia and Zea. Phalerum, which had previously been
   the harbor of Athens, lay to the east. The walls built by
   Themistocles "were carried round the whole of the peninsula in
   a circumference of seven miles, following the bend of its
   rocky rim, and including the three harbour-bays. At the mouths
   of each of the harbours a pair of towers rose opposite to one
   another at so short a distance that it was possible to connect
   them by means of chains: these were the locks of the Piræus.
   The walls, about 16 feet thick, were built without mortar, of
   rectangular blocks throughout, and were raised to a height of
   30 feet by Themistocles, who is said to have originally
   intended to give them double that height."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 10._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

PIRATES OF CILICIA, The.

      See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

PIRMASENS, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF TUE WAR.

PIRNA, Saxon Surrender at.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

PIRU,
CHONTAQUIROS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: ANDESIANS.

PISA, Greece.

      See ELIS; and OLYMPIC GAMES.

   ----------PISA, Italy: Start--------

PISA, Italy:
   Origin of the city.
   Early growth of its commerce and naval power.
   Conquest of Sardinia.

   Strabo and others have given Pisa a Grecian origin. "Situated
   near the sea upon the triangle formed in past ages, by the
   confluence of the two rivers, the Arno and the Serchio; she
   was highly adapted to commerce and navigation; particularly in
   times when these were carried on with small vessels. We
   consequently find that she was rich and mercantile in early
   times, and frequented by all the barbarous nations. … Down to
   the end of the fifteenth century, almost all the navigation of
   the nations of Europe, as well as those of Asia and Africa,
   which kept a correspondence and commerce with the former, was
   limited to the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Archipelago, and
   Euxine seas; and the first three Italian republics, Pisa,
   Genoa, and Venice, were for a long time mistresses of it.
   Pisa, as far back as the year 925, was the principal city of
   Tuscany, according to Luitprand. In the beginning of the
   eleventh century, that is, in the year 1004, we find in the
   Pisan annals, that the latter waged war with the Lucchese and
   beat them; this is the first enterprise of one Italian city
   against another, which proves that she already acted for
   herself, and was in great part, if not wholly, liberated from
   the dominion of the Duke of Tuscany.
{2538}
   In the Pisan annals, and in other authors, we meet with a
   series of enterprises, many of which are obscurely related, or
   perhaps exaggerated. Thus we find that in the year 1005, in an
   expedition of the Pisans against the maritime city of Reggio,
   Pisa being left unprovided with defenders, Musetto, king, or
   head, of the Saracens, who occupied Sardinia, seized the
   opportunity of making an invasion; and having sacked the city,
   departed, or was driven out of it. … It was very natural for
   the Pisans and Genoese, who must have been in continual fear
   of the piracies and invasions of the barbarians as long as
   they occupied Sardinia, to think seriously of exterminating
   them from that country: the pope himself sent the Bishop of
   Ostia in haste to the Pisans as legate, to encourage them to
   the enterprise: who, joining with the Genoese, conquered
   Sardinia [1017] by driving out the Saracens; and the pope, by
   the right he thought he possessed over all the kingdoms of the
   earth, invested the Pisans with the dominion; not however
   without exciting the jealousy of the Genoese, who, as they
   were less powerful in those times, were obliged to yield to
   force. The mutual necessity of defence from the common enemy
   kept them united; the barbarians having disembarked in the
   year 1020 in Sardinia under the same leader, they were again
   repulsed, and all their treasure which remained a booty of the
   conquerors, was conceded to the Genoese as an indemnity for
   the expense."

      _L. Pignotti,
      History of Tuscany,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
   Architectural development.
   Disastrous war with Genoa.
   The great defeat at Meloria.
   Count Ugolino and his fate.
   War with Florence and Lucca.

   "The republic of Pisa was one of the first to make known to
   the world the riches and power which a small state might
   acquire by the aid of commerce and liberty. Pisa had
   astonished the shores of the Mediterranean by the number of
   vessels and galleys that sailed under her flag, by the succor
   she had given the crusaders, by the fear she had inspired at
   Constantinople, and by the conquest of Sardinia and the
   Balearic Isles. Pisa was the first to introduce into Tuscany
   the arts that ennoble wealth: her dome, her baptistery, her
   leaning tower, and her Campo Santo, which the traveller's eye
   embraces at one glance, but does not weary of beholding, had
   been successively built from the year 1063 to the end of the
   12th century. These chefs-d'œuvre had animated the genius of
   the Pisans; the great architects of the 13th century were, for
   the most part, pupils of Nicolas di Pisa. But the moment was
   come in which the ruin of this glorious republic was at hand;
   a deep-rooted jealousy, to be dated from the conquest of
   Sardinia, had frequently, during the last two centuries, armed
   against each other the republics of Genoa and Pisa: a new war
   between them broke out in 1282. It is difficult to comprehend
   how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets
   as those of Pisa and Genoa. In 1282, Ginicel Sismondi
   commanded 30 Pisan galleys, of which he lost the half in a
   tempest, on the 9th of September; the following year, Rosso
   Sismondi commanded 64; in 1284, Guido Jacia commanded 24, and
   was vanquished. The Pisans had recourse the same year to a
   Venetian admiral, Alberto Morosini, to whom they intrusted 103
   galleys: but whatever efforts they made, the Genoese
   constantly opposed a superior fleet. This year [1284],
   however, all the male population of the two republics seemed
   assembled on their vessels; they met on the 6th of August,
   1284, once more before the Isle of Meloria, rendered famous 43
   years before by the victory of the Pisans over the same
   enemies [when the Ghibelline friendship of Pisa for the
   Emperor Frederick II. induced her to intercept and attack, on
   the 3d of May, 1241, a Genoese fleet which conveyed many
   prelates to a great council called by Pope Gregory IX. with
   hostile intentions towards the Emperor, and which the latter
   desired to prevent]. Valor was still the same, but fortune had
   changed sides; and a terrible disaster effaced the memory of
   an ancient victory. While the two fleets, almost equal in
   number, were engaged, a reinforcement of 30 Genoese galleys,
   driven impetuously by the wind, struck the Pisan fleet in
   flank: 7 of their vessels were instantly sunk, 28 taken. 5,000
   citizens perished in the battle, and 11,000 who were taken
   prisoners to Genoa preferred death in captivity rather than
   their republic should ransom them, by giving up Sardinia to
   the Genoese. This prodigious loss ruined the maritime power of
   Pisa; the same nautical knowledge, the same spirit of
   enterprise, were not transmitted to the next generation. All
   the fishermen of the coast quitted the Pisan galleys for those
   of Genoa. The vessels diminished in number, with the means of
   manning them; and Pisa could no longer pretend to be more than
   the third maritime power in Italy. While the republic was thus
   exhausted by this great reverse of fortune, it was attacked by
   the league of the Tuscan Guelphs; and a powerful citizen, to
   whom it had intrusted itself, betrayed his country to enslave
   it. Ugolino was count of the Gherardesca, a mountainous
   country situated along the coast, between Leghorn and
   Piombino: he was of Ghibeline origin, but had married his
   sister to Giovan di Gallura, chief of the Guelphs of Pisa and
   of Sardinia. From that time he artfully opposed the Guelphs to
   the Ghibelines." The Pisans, thinking him to be the person
   best able to reconcile Pisa with the Guelph league "named
   Ugolino captain-general for ten years: and the new commander
   did, indeed, obtain peace with the Guelph league; but not till
   he had caused all the fortresses of the Pisan territory to be
   opened by his creatures to the Lucchese and Florentines. …
   From that time he sought only to strengthen his own
   despotism." In July, 1288, there was a rising of the Pisans
   against him; his palace was stormed and burned; and he, his
   two sons and two grandsons, were dragged out of the flames, to
   be locked in a tower and starved to death—as told in the verse
   of Dante. "The victory over count Ugolino, achieved by the
   most ardent of the Ghibelines,. redoubled the enthusiasm and
   audacity of that party; and soon determined them to renew the
   war with the Guelphs of Tuscany. … Guido de Montefeltro was
   named captain. He had acquired a high reputation in defending
   Forli against the French forces of Charles of Anjou; and the
   republic had not to repent of its choice. He recovered by
   force of arms all the fortresses which Ugolino had given up to
   the Lucchese and Florentines. The Pisan militia, whom
   Montefeltro armed with cross-bows, which he had trained them
   to use with precision, became the terror of Tuscany. The
   Guelphs of Florence and Lucca were glad to make peace in
   1293."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 5._

{2539}

   In 1290, when Pisa was in her greatest distress, Genoa
   suddenly joined again in the attack on her ancient rival. She
   sent an expedition under Conrad d'Oria which entered the
   harbor of Pisa, pulled down its towers, its bridge and its
   forts, and carried away the chain which locked the harbor
   entrance. The latter trophy was only restored to Pisa in
   recent years.

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

PISA: A. D. 1100-1111.
   Participation in the first Crusades.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

PISA: A. D. 1135-1137.
   Destruction of Amalfi.

      See AMALFI.

PISA: 13th Century.
   Commercial rivalry with Venice and Genoa at Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

PISA: A. D. 1311-1313.
   Welcome to the Emperor Henry VII.
   Aid to his war against Florence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

PISA: A. D. 1313-1328.
   Military successes under Uguccione della Faggiuola.
   His tyranny and its overthrow.
   Subjection to Castruccio Castracani and the deliverance.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

PISA: A. D. 1341.
   Defeat of the Florentines before Lucca.
   Acquisition of that city.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

PISA: A. D. 1353-1364.
   Dealings with the Free Companies.
   War with Florence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

PISA: A. D. 1399-1406.
   Betrayal to Visconti of Milan.
   Sale to the Florentines.
   Conquest by them and subsequent decline.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PISA: A. D. 1409.
   The General Council of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.
   Delivered by the French.
   The faithlessness of Charles VIII.
   Thirteen years of struggle against Florence.
   Final surrender.

   "The Florentine conquest was the beginning of 90 years of
   slavery for Pisa —a terrible slavery, heavy with exaggerated
   imports, bitter with the tolerated plunder of private
   Florentines, humiliating with continual espionage. … Pisa was
   the Ireland of Florence, captive and yet unvanquished. … At
   last a favourable chance was offered to the Pisans. … In the
   autumn of 1494, the armies of Charles VIII. poured into Italy
   [see ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496]. It had been the custom of the
   Florentines, in times of war and danger, to call the heads of
   every Pisan household into Florence, as hostages for the good
   behaviour of their families and fellow citizens. But in the
   autumn of 1494, Piero de' Medici who forgot everything, who
   had forgotten to garrison his frontier, forgot to call the
   Pisan hostages to Florence, although the French were steadily
   advancing on Tuscany, and the Pisans eager to rebel. … The
   French army and the hope of liberty entered the unhappy city
   hand in hand [November 8, 1494]. … That night the Florentines
   in Pisa—men in office, judges, merchants, and soldiers of the
   garrison—were driven at the sword's point out of the
   rebellious city. … Twenty-four hours after the entry of the
   French, Pisa was a free republic, governed by a Gonfalonier,
   six Priors, and a Balia of Ten, with a new militia of its own,
   and, for the first time in eight and eighty years, a Pisan
   garrison in the ancient citadel." All this was done with the
   assent of the King of France and the promise of his
   protection. But when he passed on to Florence, and was faced
   there by the resolute Capponi, he signed a treaty in which he
   promised to give back Pisa to Florence when he returned from
   Naples. He returned from Naples the next summer (1495), hard
   pressed and retreating from his recent triumphs, and halted
   with his army at Pisa. There the tears and distress of the
   friendly Pisans moved even his soldiers to cry out in
   protestation against the surrender of the city to its former
   bondage. Charles compromised by a new treaty with the
   Florentines, again agreeing to deliver Pisa to them, but
   stipulating that they should place their old rivals on equal
   terms with themselves, in commerce and in civil rights. But
   Entragues, the French governor whom Charles had left in
   command at Pisa, with a small garrison, refused to carry out
   the treaty. He assisted the Pisans in expelling a force with
   which the Duke of Milan attempted to secure the city, and
   then, on the 1st of January, 1496, he delivered the citadel
   which he held into the hands of the Pisan signory. "During
   thirteen years from this date the shifting fortunes, the
   greeds and jealousies of the great Italian cities, fostered an
   artificial liberty in Pisa. Thrown like a ball from Milan to
   Venice, Venice to Maximilian, Max again to Venice, and thence
   to Cæsar Borgia, the unhappy Republic described the whole
   circle of desperate hope, agonized courage, misery, poverty,
   cunning, and betrayal."

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages: The French at Pisa._

   In 1509 the Pisans, reduced to the last extremity by the
   obstinate siege which the Florentines had maintained, and sold
   by the French and Spaniards, who took pay from Florence (see
   VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509) for abandoning their cause, opened
   their gates to the Florentine army.

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 8, chapter 6 and book 9, chapters 1-10._

PISA: A. D. 1512.
   The attempted convocation of a Council by Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   ----------PISA: End--------

PISISTRATIDÆ, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

PISTICS.

      See GNOSTICS.

PIT RIVER INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

PITHECUSA.

   The ancient name of the island of Ischia.

PITHOM, the store city.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham).
   The administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763;
      and 1765-1768.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham).
   The American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

PITT, William (the Younger).
   The Administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787, to 1801-1806.

PITTI PALACE, The building of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.

PITTSBURG LANDING, OR SHILOH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

{2540}

   ----------PITTSBURGH: Start--------

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1754.
   Fort Duquesne built by the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1758.
   Fort Duquesne abandoned by the French, occupied by the
   English, and named in honor of Pitt.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1763.
   Siege of Fort Pitt by the Indians.
   Bouquet's relieving expedition.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1794.
   The Whiskey Insurrection.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

   ----------PITTSBURGH: End--------

PIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1458-1464.

   Pius III., Pope, 1503, September to October.

   Pius IV., Pope, 1559-1565.

   Pius V., Pope, 1566-1572.

   Pius VI., Pope, 1775-1799.

   Pius VII., Pope, 1800-1823.

   Pius VIII., Pope, 1829-1830.

   Pius IX., Pope, 1846-1878.

PIUTES, PAH UTES, &c.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

PIZARRO, Francisco: Discovery and conquest of Peru.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
      and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

PLACARDS OF CHARLES V., The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

   ----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACENTIA (modern Piacenza):
   The Roman colony.
   Its capture by the Gauls.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

PLACENTIA: B. C. 49.
   Mutiny of Cæsar's Legions.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 270.
   Defeat of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PLACENTIA: 14th Century.
   Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1513.
   Conquest by Pope Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1515.
   Restored to the duchy of Milan,
   and with it to the king of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1521.
   Retaken by the Pope.
      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1545-1592.
   Union with Parma in the duchy created for the House of Farnese.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1725.
   Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1735.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1746.
   Given up by the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1805.
   The duchy declared a dependency of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1814.
   The duchy conferred on Marie Louise,
   the ex-empress of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

   ----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACILLA, Battle of (1891).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

PLACITUM.
PLAID.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

   ----------PLAGUE: Start--------

PLAGUE.
PESTILENCE.
EPIDEMICS:

PLAGUE: B. C. 466-463. At Rome.

         See ROME: B. C. 466-463.

PLAGUE: B. C. 431-429. At Athens.

         See ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

PLAGUE: B. C. 405-375.
   Among the Carthaginians.

   "Within the space of less than thirty years [from B. C. 405]
   we read of four distinct epidemic distempers, each of
   frightful severity, as having afflicted Carthage and her
   armies in Sicily, without touching either Syracuse or the
   Sicilian Greeks. Such epidemics were the most irresistible of
   all enemies to the Carthaginians. … Upon what physical
   conditions the frequent repetition of such a calamity
   depended, together with the remarkable fact that it was
   confined to Carthage and her armies—we know partially in
   respect to the third of the four cases [when it was
   attributable in some degree to the situation of the
   Carthaginian camp on low, marshy ground, at a season when hot
   days alternated with chill nights] but not at all in regard to
   the others."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266.
   Plague after the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii.
   Plagues of Orosius, Antoninus, and Cyprian.

   "On the cessation of the eruption of Vesuvius, which began on
   the 23d of August, A. D. 78, and which buried Herculaneum,
   Stabiæ and Pompeii in ashes, there arose … a destructive
   plague, which for many days in succession slew 10,000 men
   daily." The plague of Orosius (so called because Orosius, who
   wrote in the 5th century, described it most fully) began in
   the year A. D. 125. It was attributed to immense masses of
   grasshoppers which were swept by the winds, that year, from
   Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, and which were cast back by
   the waves to putrefy in heaps on the shore. "'In Numidia,
   where at that time Micipsa was king, 800,000 men perished,
   while in the region which lies most contiguous to the
   sea-shore of Carthage and Utica, more than 200,000 are said to
   have been cut down. In the city of Utica itself, 80,000
   soldiers, who had been ordered here for the defence of all
   Africa, were destroyed.' … The plague of Antoninus (A. D.
   164-180) visited the whole Roman Empire, from its most eastern
   to its extreme western boundaries, beginning at the former,
   and spreading thence by means of the troops who returned from
   putting down a rebellion in Syria. In the year 166 it broke
   out for the first time in Rome, and returned again in the year
   168. … The plague depopulated entire cities and districts, so
   that forests sprung up in places before inhabited. … In its
   last year it appears to have raged again with especial fury,
   so that in Rome … 2,000 men often died in a single day. With
   regard to the character of this plague, it has been considered
   sometimes smallpox, sometimes petechial typhus, and again the
   bubo-plague. The third so-called plague, that of Cyprian,
   raged about A. D. 251-266. … For a long time 500 died a day in
   Rome. … After its disappearance Italy was almost deserted. …
   It has been assumed that this plague should be considered
   either a true bubo-plague, or smallpox."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 189-190._

   "Niebuhr has expressed the opinion that 'the ancient world
   never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the plague
   which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.'"

      _O. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 68, footnote._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
      chapter 4._

{2541}

PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.
   During the reign of Justinian.

   "The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of
   Justinian and his successors first appeared in the
   neighbourhood of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the
   eastern channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a
   double path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and
   the Indies, and penetrated to the west, along the coast of
   Africa, and over the continent of Europe. In the spring of the
   second year, Constantinople, during three or four months, was
   visited by the pestilence; and Procopius, who observed its
   progress and symptoms with the eyes of a physician, has
   emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides in the
   description of the plague of Athens. … The fever was often
   accompanied with lethargy or delirium; the bodies of the sick
   were covered with black pustules or carbuncles, the symptoms
   of immediate death; and in the constitutions too feeble to
   produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood was followed by a
   mortification of the bowels. … Youth was the most perilous
   season; and the female sex was less susceptible than the male.
   … It was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two
   years [A. D. 542-594] that mankind recovered their health, or
   the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. … During
   three months, five and at length ten thousand persons died
   each day at Constantinople; … many cities of the east were
   left vacant; … in several districts of Italy the harvest and
   the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of war,
   pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian;
   and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human
   species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest
   countries of the globe."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 43._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 17._

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

PLAGUE: 6-13th Centuries.
   Spread of Small-pox.

   "Nothing is known of the origin of small-pox; but it appears
   to have come originally from the East, and to have been known
   in China and Hindostan from time immemorial. … 'It seems to
   have reached Constantinople by way of Egypt about the year
   569.' From Constantinople it spread gradually over the whole
   of Europe, reaching England about the middle of the 13th
   century."

      _R. Rollo,
      Epidemics, Plagues, and Fevers,
      page 271._

PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.
   The world-wide pestilence.

   "One great calamity in the age of Constantine [the Byzantine
   emperor Constantine V., called Copronymus], appears to have
   travelled over the whole habitable world; this was the great
   pestilence, which made its appearance in the Byzantine empire
   as early as 745. It had previously carried off a considerable
   portion of the population of Syria, and the Caliph Yezid III.
   perished of the disease in 744. From Syria it visited Egypt
   and Africa, from whence it passed into Sicily. After making
   great ravages in Sicily and Calabria, it spread to Greece; and
   at last, in the year 747, it broke out with terrible violence
   in Constantinople, then probably the most populous city in the
   universe. It was supposed to have been introduced, and
   dispersed through Christian countries, by the Venetian and
   Greek ships employed in carrying on a contraband trade in
   slaves with the Mohammedan nations, and it spread wherever
   commerce extended. … This plague threatened to exterminate the
   Hellenic race." After it had disappeared, at the end of a
   year, "the capital required an immense influx of new
   inhabitants. To fill up the void caused by the scourge,
   Constantine induced many Greek families from the continent and
   the islands to emigrate to Constantinople."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 3._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1348-1351.
   The Black Death.

      See BLACK DEATH;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1360-1363.
   The Children's Plague.

   "The peace of Bretigni [England and France, A. D. 1360], like
   the capture of Calais, was followed by a pestilence that
   turned the national rejoicings into mourning. But the
   'Children's Plague,' as it was called, from the fact that it
   was most deadly to the young, was fortunately not a return of
   the Black Death, and did not approach it in its effects. It
   numbered, however, three prelates and the Duke of Lancaster
   among its victims, and caused such anxiety in London that the
   courts of law were adjourned from May to October. France felt
   the scourge more severely. It ravaged the country for three
   years, and was especially fatal at Paris and at Avignon. In
   Ireland, where the pestilence lingered on into the next year,
   and proved very deadly, it was mistaken for scrofula, a
   circumstance which probably shows that it attacked the glands
   and the throat."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the 14th Century,
      chapter 7._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1374.
   The Dancing Mania.

   "The effects of the Black Death had not yet subsided, and the
   graves of millions of its victims were scarcely closed, when a
   strange delusion arose in Germany. … It was a convulsion which
   in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame,
   and excited the astonishment of contemporaries for more than
   two centuries, since which time it has never reappeared. It
   was called the dance of St. John or of St. Vitus, on account
   of the Bacchantic leaps by which it was characterized, and
   which gave to those affected, whilst performing their wild
   dance, and screaming and foaming with fury, all the appearance
   of persons possessed. It did not remain confined to particular
   localities, but was propagated by the sight of the sufferers,
   like a demoniacal epidemic, over the whole of Germany and the
   neighbouring countries to the north-west, which were already
   prepared for its reception by the prevailing opinions of the
   times. So early as the year 1374, assemblages of men and women
   were seen at Aix-la–Chapelle who had come out of Germany, and
   who, united by one common delusion, exhibited to the public
   both in the streets and in the churches the following strange
   spectacle. They formed circles hand in hand, and appearing to
   have lost all control over their senses, continued dancing,
   regardless of the by-standers, for hours together in wild
   delirium, until at length they fell to the ground in a state
   of exhaustion. They then complained of extreme oppression, and
   groaned as if in the agonies of death, until they were swathed
   in cloths, bound tightly round their waists, upon which they
   again recovered, and remained free from complaint until the
   next attack. This practice of swathing was resorted to on
   account of the tympany which followed these spasmodic ravings,
   but the by-standers frequently relieved patients in a less
   artificial manner, by thumping and trampling upon the parts
   affected.
{2542}
   While dancing they neither saw nor heard, being insensible to
   external impressions through the senses, but were haunted by
   visions, their fancies conjuring up spirits whose names they
   shrieked out; and some of them afterwards asserted that they
   felt as if they had been immersed in a stream of blood, which
   obliged them to leap so high. … Where the disease was
   completely developed, the attack commenced with epileptic
   convulsions. Those affected fell to the ground senseless,
   panting and labouring for breath. They foamed at the mouth,
   and suddenly springing up began their dance amidst strange
   contortions. Yet the malady doubtless made its appearance very
   variously, and was modified by temporary or local
   circumstances. … It was but a few months ere this demoniacal
   disease had spread from Aix-Ia-Chapelle, where it appeared in
   July, over the neighbouring Netherlands. In Liege, Utrecht,
   Tongres, and many other towns of Belgium, the dancers appeared
   with garlands in their hair, and their waists girt with
   cloths, that they might, as soon as the paroxysm was over,
   receive immediate relief on the attack of the tympany. This
   bandage was, by the insertion of a stick, easily twisted
   tight: many, however, obtained more relief from kicks and
   blows, which they found numbers of persons ready to
   administer. … A few months after this dancing malady had made
   its appearance at Aix-la-Chapelle, it broke out at Cologne,
   where the number of those possessed amounted to more than five
   hundred, and about the same time at Metz, the streets of which
   place are said to have been filled with eleven hundred
   dancers. Peasants left their ploughs, mechanics their
   workshops, housewives their domestic duties, to join the wild
   revels, and this rich commercial city became the scene of the
   most ruinous disorder. … The dancing mania of the year 1374
   was, in fact, no new disease, but a phenomenon well known in
   the middle ages, of which many wondrous stories were
   traditionally current among the people."

      _J. F. C. Hecker,
      Epidemics of the Middle Ages: The Dancing Mania,
      chapter 1._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1485-1593.
   The Sweating Sickness in England.
   Plague, Small-pox and Grippe in Europe.

   "For centuries no infection had visited England, which in
   fearful rapidity and malignancy could be compared with the
   'sudor Anglicus,' as it was at first called, from the notion
   that its attacks were confined to Englishmen. People sitting
   at dinner, in the full enjoyment of health and spirits, were
   seized with it and died before the next morning. An open
   window, accidental contact in the streets, children playing
   before the door, a beggar knocking at the rich man's gate,
   might disseminate the infection, and a whole family would be
   decimated in a few hours without hope or remedy. Houses and
   villages were deserted. … Dr. Caius, a physician who had
   studied the disease under its various aspects, gives the
   following account of its appearance: 'In the year of our Lord
   God 1485, shortly after the 7th day of August, at which time
   King Henry VII. arrived at Milford in Wales out of France, and
   in the first year of his reign, there chanced a disease among
   the people lasting the rest of that month and all September,
   which for the sudden sharpness and unwont cruelness passed the
   pestilence. For this commonly giveth in four, often seven,
   sometime nine, sometime eleven and sometime fourteen days,
   respite to whom it vexeth. But that immediately killed some in
   opening their windows, some in playing with children in their
   street doors, some in one hour, many in two, it destroyed. …
   This disease, because it most did stand in sweating from the
   beginning until the ending, was called here The Sweating
   Sickness; and because it first began in England, it was named
   in other countries The English Sweat.' From the same authority
   we learn that it appeared in 1506, again in 1517 from July to
   the middle of December, then in 1528. It commenced with a
   fever, followed by strong internal struggles of nature,
   causing sweat. … It was attended with sharp pains in the back,
   shoulders and extremities, and then attacked the liver. … It
   never entered Scotland. In Calais, Antwerp and Brabant it
   generally singled out English residents and visitors. … In
   consequence of the peculiarity of the disease in thus singling
   out Englishmen, and those of a richer diet and more sanguine
   temperament, various speculations were set afloat as to its
   origin and its best mode of cure. Erasmus attributed it to bad
   houses and bad ventilation, to the clay floors, the unchanged
   and festering rushes with which the rooms were strewn, and the
   putrid offal, bones and filth which reeked and rotted together
   in the unswept and unwashed dining halls and chambers."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      See, also, SWEATING SICKNESS.

   "In the middle of the 16th century the English sweating
   sickness disappeared from the list of epidemic diseases. On
   the other hand, the plague, during the whole 16th century,
   prevailed more generally, and in places more fatally, than
   ever before. … In 1500-1507 it raged in Germany, Italy, and
   Holland, in 1528 in Upper Italy, 1534 in Southern France,
   1562-1568 pretty generally throughout Europe. … The disease
   prevailed again in 1591. It is characteristic of the
   improvement in the art of observation of this century that the
   plague was declared contagious and portable, and accordingly
   measures of isolation and disinfection were put in force
   against it, though without proving in any degree effectual.
   With a view to disinfection, horn, gunpowder, arsenic with
   sulphur or straw moistened with wine, etc., were burned in the
   streets. … Small-pox (first observed or described in Germany
   in 1493) and measles, whose specific nature was still unknown
   to the physicians of the West, likewise appeared in the 16th
   century. … The Grippe (influenza), for the first time
   recognizable with certainty as such, showed itself in the year
   1510, and spread over all Europe. A second epidemic, beginning
   in 1557, was less widely extended. On the other hand, in 1580
   and 1593 it became again pandemic, while in 1591 Germany alone
   was visited."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 438-439._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Hecker,
      Epidemics of the Middle Ages._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1665.
   In London.

      See LONDON: A. D. 1665.

{2543}

PLAGUE: 18th Century.
   The more serious epidemics.

   "The bubo–plague, 'the disease of barbarism' and especially of
   declining nations, in the 18th century still often reached the
   north of Europe, though it maintained its chief focus and
   head-quarters in the south-west [south-east?]. Thus from 1703
   forward, as the result of the Russo-Swedish war, it spread
   from Turkey to Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Prussia, so that in
   1709, the coldest year of the 18th century, more than 300,000
   human beings died in East Prussia in spite of the intense
   cold, and in Dantzic alone more than 30,000. Obliquing to the
   west, the plague reached Styria and Bohemia, and was carried
   by a ship to Regensburg in 1714, but by means of strict
   quarantine regulations was prevented from spreading to the
   rest of Germany. A hurricane swept the disease, as it were,
   out of all Europe. Yet six years later it appeared anew with
   devastating force in southern France" and was recurrent at
   intervals, in different parts of the continent, throughout the
   century. "Epidemics of typhus fever … showed themselves at the
   beginning of the century in small numbers, but disappeared
   before the plague. … The first description of typhoid
   fever—under the designation of 'Schleimfieber' (morbus
   mucosus)—appeared in the 18th century. … Malaria in the last
   century still gave rise to great epidemics. Of course all the
   conditions of life favored its prevalence. … La Grippe
   (influenza) appeared as a pandemic throughout almost all
   Europe in the years 1709, 1729, 1732, 1742, and 1788; in
   almost all America in 1732, 1737, 1751, 1772, 1781, and 1798;
   throughout the eastern hemisphere in 1781, and in the entire
   western hemisphere in 1761 and 1789; throughout Europe and
   America in 1767. It prevailed as an epidemic in France in the
   years 1737, 1775, and 1779; in England in 1758 and 1775, and
   in Germany in 1800. … Diphtheria, which in the 17th century
   had showed itself almost exclusively in Spain and Italy, was
   observed during the 18th in all parts of the world. …
   Small-pox had attained general diffusion. … Scarlet fever,
   first observed in the 17th century, had already gained wide
   diffusion. … Yellow fever, first recognized in the 16th
   century, and mentioned occasionally in the 17th, appeared with
   great frequency in the 18th century, but was mostly confined,
   as at a later period, to America."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 727-730._

PLAGUE: 19th Century.
   The visitations of Asiatic Cholera.

   Cholera "has its origin in Asia, where its ravages are as
   great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or
   permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads
   every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the
   beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six
   successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak
   of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay
   Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to
   Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow
   (1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and
   England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first
   appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera
   pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through
   Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until
   October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was
   less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from
   November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics,
   1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."

      _E. L. Trouessart,
      Microbes, Ferments and Moulds,
      chapter 5, section 8._

   A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892.
   Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through
   Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the
   Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the
   epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and
   was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it
   was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits.
   Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the
   harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures
   of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Macnamara,
      History of Asiatic Cholera._

      _A. Stillé,
      Cholera,
      pages 15-31._

   ----------PLAGUE: End--------

PLAID.
PLACITUM.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PLAIN OR MARAIS, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

      See ABRAHAM, PLAINS OF.

PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

PLANTAGENETS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189;
      and ANJOU; CREATION OF THE COUNTY.

PLASSEY, Battle of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757.

   ----------PLATÆA: Start--------

PLATÆA.

   Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient
   Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the
   latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This
   provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and
   Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the
   Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 31._

PLATÆA: B. C. 490.
   Help to Athens at Marathon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

PLATÆA: B. C. 479.
   Decisive overthrow of the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479.

PLATÆA: B. C. 431.
   Surprise of.

   The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the
   surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in
   Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly
   enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night
   and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the
   Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon
   the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

PLATÆA: B. C. 429-427.
   Siege, capture, and destruction by the Peloponnesians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PLATÆA: B. C. 335.
   Restoration by Alexander.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

   ----------PLATÆA: End--------

PLATE RIVER, Discovery of the.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

PLATE RIVER, Provinces of the.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

PLATO, and the Schools of Athens.

      See ACADEMY;
      also EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREEK.

PLATTSBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

PLAUTIO-PAPIRIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

PLEASANT HILL, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

   ----------PLEBEIANS: Start--------

{2544}

PLEBEIANS, OR PLEBS, Roman.

   "We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct
   body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of
   the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and
   after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,'
   cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both
   within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong
   to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor
   did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor,
   for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary
   limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an
   ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the
   orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three
   sources of this multitude:

    I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its
    boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest
    it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a
    canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its
    inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages
    as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either
    case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and
    refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the
    condition of slaves, were attached to the state as
    non-citizens.

   II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient
   times, could be entered into between individuals with their
   families and descendants, and also between individuals and a
   state, or between two states. Provision for such
   guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which
   bound together Rome on the one side and the various
   independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The
   commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in
   the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in
   the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without
   acquiring Roman citizenship.

   III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by
   the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In
   the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and
   plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with
   the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened
   their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a
   body, identified with the plebeians."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 3._

   Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians
   were forced to content themselves with the privilege they
   enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of
   their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the
   patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they
   struggled with success for a share in the government and for
   other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power
   passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution
   became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy
   and revolution, giving way to imperialism.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 7, 8, 10, 35._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 2._

PLEBEIANS:
   Secessions of the Plebs.

      See SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

   ----------PLEBEIANS: End--------

PLEBISCITA.

   Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia
   Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

   In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a
   general vote of the people, taken upon some single question,
   like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852;
      also, REFERENDUM.

PLESWITZ, Armistice of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

PLEVNA, Siege and capture of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

PLOW PATENT, The.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.

      See NEW ALBION.

PLUVIÔSE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605.
   Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620.
   Landing of the Pilgrims.
   Founding of the Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

PLYMOUTH, North Carolina: A. D. 1864.
   Capture and recapture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA),
      and (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

   ----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Start--------

PLYMOUTH COMPANY:
   Formation.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607;
      and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615.
   Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1620.
   Merged in the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

   ----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: End--------

PLYMOUTH ROCK.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

PNYX, The.

   "The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people
   in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in
   the market; in the historical period the people met there only
   to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling
   in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter,
   a point which quite recently has become a matter of
   considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient
   authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with
   certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and
   that of the streets running out of the market one led only
   into the Pnyx."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

   "The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side
   of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the
   west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient
   enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only
   from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the
   radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while
   the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was
   about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the
   platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about
   sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is
   composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most
   part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was
   bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the
   parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high.
{2545}
   The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the
   sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform
   sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously
   the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or
   sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose
   the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It
   was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad,
   rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its
   present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of
   the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a
   flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an
   inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock,
   which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the
   Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of
   containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing
   a square yard to each."

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      appendix 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      The Assemblies of the Athenians,
      pages 48-51._

      See, also, AGORA.

POCKET BOROUGHS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PODESTAS.

   "About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species
   of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During
   the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had
   appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the
   elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of
   despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and
   disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they
   almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an
   office which had been abrogated when they first rose in
   rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must
   presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions
   carried into the administration of justice, it became a
   general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen
   of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal
   judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes
   chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of
   citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar
   emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in
   those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share
   in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was
   compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his
   office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be
   adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native
   of the city, nor have any relation resident within the
   district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink
   in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign
   magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some
   he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the
   armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority
   was merely judicial."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 69._

PODIEBRAD, George, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1458-1471.

POINT PLEASANT, Battle of.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

POISSY, The Colloquy at.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

POITIERS:
   Original names.

   Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of
   Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.

POITIERS:A. D. 1569.
   Siege by the Huguenots.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

POITIERS, Battle of.

   A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of
   Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince,"
   the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded
   personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers
   was on the side of the French, but the position of the English
   was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to
   the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The
   English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of
   that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was
   taken prisoner.

      _Froissart,
      Chronicles,
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 157-166._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

POITIERS, Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

POITOU:
   Origin of the name.

      See PICTONES.

POITOU:
   The rise of the Counts.

      See TOULOUSE: 10-11th CENTURIES.

POITOU:
   The Counts become Dukes of Aquitaine or Guienne.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

POKANOKETS,
WAMPANOAGS, The.

     See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
     AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
     NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

POLA, Naval battle of (1379).

      See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

   ----------POLAND: Start--------

POLAND.
   The Name.

   "The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems
   to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as
   to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue
   signifying a level field or plain."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      introduction._

POLAND:
   The ancestors of the race.

      See LYGIANS.

POLAND:
   Beginnings of national existence.

   "The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history
   before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to
   Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this
   people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or
   prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts,
   embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse,
   Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly
   after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was
   founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame
   the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long
   time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their
   government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the
   great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude.
{2546}
   The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled
   most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they
   acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German
   emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion,
   asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful
   war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I.,
   took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the
   death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of
   Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II.
   afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite
   of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the
   royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having
   cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the
   Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and
   also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested
   from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I.
   reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370).
   This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or
   Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its
   founder."

      _W. Koch,
      History of Revolutions in Europe,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      chapters 1-2._

POLAND: A. D. 1096.
   The refuge of the Jews.

      See JEWS: 11-17th CENTURIES.

POLAND: A. D. 1240-1241.
   Mongol invasion.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

POLAND: 13-14th Centuries.
   Growing power and increasing dominion.
   Encroachments on Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
   The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty.
   Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.

   Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of
   the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish
   historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the
   internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal
   code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning,
   and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and
   hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that
   of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of
   Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic
   provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country,
   had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than
   with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition
   connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of
   the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule
   at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously
   shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the
   advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy
   between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at
   length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no
   issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland
   passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

   Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those
   of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the
   Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles;
   and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of
   Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess
   and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be
   baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto
   heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a
   new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of
   the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven
   successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch
   of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look
   fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of
   their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and
   Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who
   on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one
   fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of
   the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign
   (1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to
   account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then
   moving westward before the impulse of the conquering
   Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic
   Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights,
   which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg
   in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken
   for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the
   Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the
   Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and
   that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with
   the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then
   beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having
   been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic
   Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to
   try to recover their power. By this time, however, their
   Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing,
   Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and
   the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them;
   and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the
   Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia
   revolted from the knights and placed itself under his
   protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a
   close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty,
   the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the
   countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the
   whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and
   other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with
   guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of
   administration; and the knights being allowed to retain
   certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of
   Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that
   necessity of its existence as a great European state—a
   seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which
   they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced
   with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them
   their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in
   Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of
   his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander
   (1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in
   the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn
   were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the
   Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic
   Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to
   Poland.
{2547}
   The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a
   singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at
   this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the
   Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in
   1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg.
   Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding
   grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of
   his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to
   win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn.
   Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and
   proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of
   the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best
   policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The
   Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over
   the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a
   practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight
   support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new
   doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master
   himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of
   Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of
   the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular
   principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or
   were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and
   they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together,
   with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred
   their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained,
   a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization
   was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a
   square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with
   the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one,
   and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund
   received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by
   and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced
   the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and
   the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular
   vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's
   reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland
   more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh
   of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the
   wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy
   in the matter of the great religious controversy then
   agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost
   nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its
   last transactions was the consummation of the union between
   the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal
   incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1,
   1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ
   was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered
   on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences
   of which her name is now associated."

      _Poland: her History and Prospects
      (Westminster Review, January, 1855)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, to Frederick the Great,
      chapter 4._

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      book 1, chapter 3._

POLAND: A. D. 1439.
   Election of Ladislaus III. to the throne of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

POLAND: A. D. 1471-1479.
   War with Matthias of Hungary.

   See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

POLAND: A. D. 1505-1588.
   Enslavement of the peasantry.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: POLAND.

POLAND: A. D. 1573.
   Election of Henry of Valois to the throne.
   The Pacta Conventa.

   On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the
   Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required
   to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta
   Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which
   were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between
   the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of
   the Pacta Conventa were the following:

   "1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to
   influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should
   leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing
   one at his decease.

   2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir'
   of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.

   3. That he should observe the treaty of peace made with the
   dissidents.

   4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on
   any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.

   5. That he should not impose taxes or contributions of any
   description.

   6. That he should not have any authority to appoint
   ambassadors to foreign courts.

   7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the
   senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance
   with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.

   8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the
   members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines,
   and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and
   should be selected by the ordinary diets.

   9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or
   oftener, if required.

   10. That the duration of each diet should not exceed six
   weeks.

   11. That no dignities or benefices should be conferred on
   other than natives.

   12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife
   without the permission of the diet.

   The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit,
   was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their
   oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another
   ruler."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      book 2, chapter 1._

POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
   Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois.
   Election of Stephen Batory.
   His successful wars with Russia, and his death.
   Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.

   The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles
   had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow,
   on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of
   the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was
   constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his
   imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their
   factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut
   himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen
   whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he
   abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death
   of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the
   30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the
   Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which
   announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have
   any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however,
   transpired through another channel.
{2548}
   His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity
   with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while
   he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission
   would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still
   had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the
   ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly
   aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it.
   He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and
   achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it
   out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night
   of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his
   apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure
   by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet
   he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet
   assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not
   return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared
   vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. …
   After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was
   proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a
   new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry
   III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native
   princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter,
   however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic,
   wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the
   honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the
   bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an
   Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet
   (assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the
   princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they
   resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania.
   Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost
   of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of
   Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the
   emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the
   crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with
   the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers
   to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with
   still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about
   certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on
   Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess,
   subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly
   crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of
   Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland
   and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which
   had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less
   tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to
   submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only
   refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the
   diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers
   sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had
   they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might
   have beheld the power of their king shattered against the
   bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them
   pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear;
   the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter
   of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate
   success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of
   extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed
   his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other
   enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious
   subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish
   their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they
   had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was
   now his object. … Success every where accompanied him.
   Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to
   his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the
   Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he
   conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of
   winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the
   ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the
   different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the
   reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes
   procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they
   caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish
   nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to
   the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they
   apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a
   ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other
   leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most
   jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course
   towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable
   marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been
   untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could
   stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with
   amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between
   Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops
   were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were
   peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of
   health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding
   campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by
   adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with
   the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for
   peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready
   to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous
   to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which
   she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an
   acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and
   Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to
   Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised
   the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of
   the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity
   for a fierce private war between the factions of the
   Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed
   election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke
   Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of
   Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides
   resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner,
   and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to
   the Polish crown.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      book 2, chapter 1._

{2549}

POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
   Anarchy organized by the Nobles.
   The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country.
   The Liberum Veto and its effects.

   "On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when
   Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing
   their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its
   monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most
   comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually
   deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the
   administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the
   last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the
   kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility,
   which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the
   legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As
   soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and
   before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the
   provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the
   late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of
   could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became
   law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity
   was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual
   or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king
   had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent
   circumstances did not justify his acting without the
   co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops
   and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were
   governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who
   were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses,
   but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of
   the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making
   peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a
   matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account,
   by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the
   assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit
   were the only means of influence that could be employed by a
   king, who was excluded from the administration, who was
   without domains, without private property or settled revenue,
   who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by
   judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without
   real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its
   power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the
   highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and
   the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of
   the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from
   taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the
   republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which,
   dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This
   gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies
   of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who
   represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire
   unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no
   discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the
   demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they
   were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of
   votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely
   organized. This step was taken when individual palatines
   enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the
   diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to.
   Before long, several deputies received the same instructions,
   and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened.
   Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those
   of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of
   one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the
   dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal
   authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet
   could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a
   fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could
   be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received
   no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to
   their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in
   short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a
   state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was
   looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was
   invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his
   family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these
   deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing,
   and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by
   the nation."

      _Count Moltke,
      Poland: an Historical Sketch,
      chapter 3._

   "It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or
   the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged
   class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its
   last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir
   having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was
   bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him,
   and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a
   war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the
   Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum
   veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history,
   and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of
   a political institution, with which the records of any nation
   present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a
   conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of
   Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole
   legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a
   dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the
   exercise of the power was a different thing from its
   possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve
   enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various
   remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most
   obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and
   throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his
   back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into
   unanimity. There was also the device of what were called
   confederations; that is, associations of the nobles
   independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of
   the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These
   confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the
   intervals between the Diets."

      _Poland: her History and Prospects
      (Westminster Review, January, 1855)._

POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629.
   Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne.
   His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition.
   His claims and the consequent war.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604;
      and 1611-1629.

{2550}

POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
   Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV.
   Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes.
   Domestic discord in the kingdom.

   "The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory
   of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of
   Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at
   that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of
   government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the
   Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby
   lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown
   of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the
   rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle
   Charles, the brother of the late king.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

   This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between
   Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill
   by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz,
   terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a
   part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During
   the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the
   death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and
   sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and
   remained in occupation of it for some time.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

   "As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the
   Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on
   condition that he would change his religion and become a
   member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a
   zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits,
   wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic
   Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused
   the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded
   at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable
   part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. …
   Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept
   up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor
   invited him to take part with him … in what is historically
   termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this
   request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack
   regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in
   'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with
   Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had
   afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable
   force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against
   the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that
   of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora
   [1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his
   soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign …
   the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident
   in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the
   frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the
   entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in
   all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a
   'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible
   Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be
   organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded
   Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester
   with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the
   walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or
   Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his
   appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and,
   notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks
   were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield,
   besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this
   brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I
   think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the
   whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. …
   The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive
   his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place
   in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had
   succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern
   province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to
   resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took
   possession of this Polish province.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

   Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland
   on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to
   the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the
   rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones,
   the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same
   disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not
   accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his
   refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the
   exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in
   1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately
   elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom
   all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after
   the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the
   important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other
   territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was
   concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of
   England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and
   Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part
   of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of
   Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external
   matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were
   incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil
   the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in
   1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had
   entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had
   been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved
   from his vows and permitted to marry.

      _K. Wolski,
      Poland,
      lectures 11-12._

POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612.
   Intervention in Russia.
   Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
   The great revolt of the Cossacks.
   Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

   Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged
   allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and
   afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming
   united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long
   been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in
   the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally
   suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were
   ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of
   Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large
   extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and
   Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their
   violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews.
{2551}
   It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of
   the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in
   this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been
   provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded
   in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate,
   with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish
   authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king
   of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful
   Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully.
   Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was
   offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration
   of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested
   Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin
   Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the
   Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions.
   They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince
   Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the
   Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and
   defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed
   hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan
   again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of
   short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle
   of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated
   with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he
   had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources,
   and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to
   transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the
   Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were
   concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen,
   Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's
   commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to
   the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to
   have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the
   Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Russia,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count H. Krasinski,
      The Cossacks of the Ukraine,
      chapter 1._

POLAND: A. D. 1652.
   First exercise of the Liberum Veto.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657.
   Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden.
   Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697;
      and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
   Abdication of John Casimir.
   War with the Turks.
   Election and reign of John Sobieski.

   "In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that
   of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and
   retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in
   1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its
   ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had
   been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this
   reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg
   [Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present
   Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John
   Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion,
   caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by
   intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful
   faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael
   Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election
   gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees;
   and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had
   not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies
   against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the
   south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these
   formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even
   when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable
   to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty
   was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of
   her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual
   tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious
   treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it;
   and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey
   once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment
   Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish
   diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name
   illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble
   family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the
   proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended
   from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that
   Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the
   commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who
   were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great
   victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite
   general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and
   from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern
   Europe. His fame increased during the six years which
   followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was
   created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the
   Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom;
   the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest
   military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before
   been held in conjunction by the same individual. These
   dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not
   be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though
   he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to
   resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne,
   Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his
   successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of
   the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671
   and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were
   almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in
   the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the
   terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have
   already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was
   concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When …
   Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of
   the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was
   unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not
   without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He
   laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong
   Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress
   was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the
   Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked
   God for the most signal success which, for three centuries,
   Christendom had gained over the Infidel.'
{2552}
   While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory,
   intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He
   had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army
   returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for
   the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met
   when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been
   with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting
   the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of
   Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg,
   who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish
   nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign
   influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate
   seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was
   engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his
   place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy
   discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a
   Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who
   further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The
   proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and
   Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of
   Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and
   immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding
   an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and
   increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment
   with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort;
   but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus
   appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier,
   and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force
   he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than
   10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking
   up his position in two small villages on the banks of the
   Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food
   and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out.
   Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within
   their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons
   and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the
   Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a
   musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their
   fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October
   1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their
   entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of
   victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange
   sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a
   thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight
   against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the
   fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching
   from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was
   accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years
   of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing
   his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the
   constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no
   means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in
   1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called
   him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of
   the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed
   with political and domestic annoyances.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

   … Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to
   which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented
   from employing itself with effect upon great national objects.
   He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and
   'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended
   to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland
   was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were
   James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the
   Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony.
   The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one
   half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by
   the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the
   electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the
   strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus
   entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the
   particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was
   Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally
   belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles,
   and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly
   a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

      _History of Poland
      (Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. T. Palmer,
      Life of John Sobieski._

POLAND: A. D. 1683.
   Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.

      See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.

POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
   Disputed Election of a King.
   The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

   On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward
   the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish
   throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united
   in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had
   just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope
   found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of
   the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The
   Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the
   Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he
   wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against
   the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit
   should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his
   candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of
   Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the
   necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play
   an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony,
   on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans
   and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the
   majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697;
   but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who
   hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland
   at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet
   that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till
   September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The
   prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had
   had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his
   resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti,
   abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the
   undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November.
   … In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as
   King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

{2553}

POLAND: A. D. 1699.
   The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

      See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.

POLAND: A. D. 1700.
   Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark
   against Charles XII. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707.
   Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Deposition of Augustus from the throne.
   Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

POLAND: A. D. 1709.
   Restoration of Augustus to the throne.
   Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

POLAND: A. D. 1720.
   Peace with Sweden.
   Recognition of Augustus.
   Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
   The election to the throne a European question.
   France against Russia, Austria and Prussia.
   Triumph of the three powers.
   The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

   "It became clear that before long a struggle would take place
   for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must
   interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for
   that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern
   powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which
   was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict
   it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France
   alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to
   place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her,
   should cherish French influences, and form a centre of
   resistance against the dominance of the northern powers.
   England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or
   exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia,
   Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by
   which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in
   Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and
   interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man
   of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the
   Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died:
   the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as
   ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps
   to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a
   native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned
   Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege
   of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704;
   with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell
   (1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at
   Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the
   throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the
   national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast
   majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian
   faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong
   armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of
   Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede
   Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by
   acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became
   inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to
   maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and
   Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective
   support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless
   King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in
   Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship
   and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried
   in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving
   vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee,
   found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland
   submitted to Augustus III."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
   The First Partition and the events which led to it.
   The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

   "In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia.
   Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman;
   how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her
   rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent
   on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe.
   Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound,
   therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of
   Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince
   to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish
   nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and
   cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus
   Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she
   desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to
   ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in
   Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in
   Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort,
   deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne
   without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her
   reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She
   desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing
   more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than
   the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as
   it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had
   begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and
   partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights
   of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was
   addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of
   Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly
   Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to
   recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their
   ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to
   herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful
   enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was
   attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected
   at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would
   make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring
   of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in
   order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support
   for her diplomatic action.
{2554}
   The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts
   was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of
   Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had
   renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling
   towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came
   to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive
   reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia.
   That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but
   indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with
   Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the
   other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth
   of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might
   seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a
   moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left,
   and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was
   proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with
   certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election
   of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the
   Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the
   support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to
   prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who
   was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just
   as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of
   Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus
   III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above
   treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two
   Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at
   Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia
   would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety,
   however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg
   wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence
   over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did
   not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland
   for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his
   country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland
   proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was
   opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of
   the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that
   a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country,
   occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under
   the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was
   unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the
   Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having
   become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the
   constitution, to establish a regular administration, to
   strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of
   the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the
   Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their
   political opponents, together with that of all the religious
   Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the
   Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by
   a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily
   broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the
   Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried
   the measure through by force and the act embodying it was
   signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration
   arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country
   itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable
   dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and
   Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil
   rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a
   holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman
   Catholic population of every district joined the
   Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern
   provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage
   cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor
   property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When …
   the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of
   Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little
   town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the
   Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared
   war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in
   his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to
   Poland.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

   Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had
   become a European question of the first importance; and no one
   felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew
   Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the
   war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to
   herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave
   to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey.
   … The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two
   hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central
   position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war.
   Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this
   danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the
   outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to
   prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted
   to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to
   make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire
   whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if
   Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish
   province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an
   annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this
   scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a
   Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with
   no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in
   the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his
   mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that
   end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing
   proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a
   speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed
   allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories
   east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of
   Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition
   was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The
   Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side,
   simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the
   Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the
   alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As
   soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was
   convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the
   provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to
   regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled
   since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar.
{2555}
   It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold
   speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that
   the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount
   of donations and pensions which the individual senators and
   deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes.
   Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The
   Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of
   the Sovereign, were continued."

      _H. von Sybel,
      The First Partition of Poland
      (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22)._

   "One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as
   everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the
   notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with
   eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second,
   what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand,
   it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due
   the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment.
   Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465
   English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500,
   between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which
   latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as
   filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen
   and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the
   most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is
   Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772,
   it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering
   confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of
   Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth
   little record."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick the Great,
      book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter. 119 (volume 3)._

[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D.
SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA).
HABSBURG(AUSTRIA).
RUSSIAN.
POLISH.
TURKISH.
VENETIAN.
THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE
CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA.
AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER
LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE
AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797).
AUSTRIAN
PRUSSIAN
RUSSIAN
FRENCH
SWEDISH
DANISH
PAPAL STATES
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
   The reformed Constitution of 1791
   and its Russian strangulation.

   "After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776,
   that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy
   an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known
   for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The
   dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable.
   Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable
   portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the
   defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence
   of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new
   enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to
   counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes
   of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance
   with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs
   in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of
   Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from
   the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. …
   Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was
   favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia,
   became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden;
   and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the
   head of all the independent members of the Germanic
   Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the
   Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and
   revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had
   excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable
   combination against the power of Russia was in process of time
   formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte,
   concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting
   parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria
   the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had
   given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these
   auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the
   hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their
   institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and
   to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume
   their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to
   1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults
   disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress,
   and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility
   patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a
   productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to
   renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made
   perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been
   so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the
   Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to
   employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent
   symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at
   Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the
   republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been
   accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not
   been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery
   recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself
   with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State.
   They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no
   reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On
   the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been
   outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions,
   during most of the previous two years, was reported to the
   Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the
   election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united
   with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for
   the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was
   adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve
   dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free:
   these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither
   attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution
   "confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with
   religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion
   inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy
   in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the
   right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the
   extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in
   the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise.
   The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and
   the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient
   constitutional language and forms were preserved. The
   necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and,
   with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and
   Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary.
{2556}
   Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration
   of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the
   right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of
   the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open
   to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to
   the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial
   subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these
   deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of
   captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of
   magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land
   paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly
   unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown
   open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having
   thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded
   freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full
   protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the
   Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary
   manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice
   came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed
   in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January,
   1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and,
   being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more
   to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of
   Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with
   that very slender pretext with which she was always content.
   Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These
   unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at
   the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. …
   They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her
   to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792,
   they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the
   Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called
   on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against
   the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her
   guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties
   of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia,
   which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in
   March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of
   the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense
   army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the
   Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the
   Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions
   [especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of
   1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and
   Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal
   proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the
   4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would
   not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month …
   [he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz;
   and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the
   hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over
   whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute
   authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to
   lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland
   during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of
   Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the
   terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      Account of the Partition of Poland
      (Edinburgh Review, November, 1822;
      reprinted in Miscellaneous Works)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 2, chapters 1 and 6,
      book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2)._

      _A. Gielgud,
      The Centenary of the Polish Constitution
      (Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547)._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
   The Second and Third Partitions.
   Extinction of Polish nationality.

   "The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of
   partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The
   King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier
   [January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles
   of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that
   Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that
   Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues
   were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war
   with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins
   whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of
   the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the
   eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a
   line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which,
   passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof,
   Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia
   had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as
   Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If
   Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory,
   Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and
   another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of
   the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced
   to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it
   was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that
   she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at
   Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by
   bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the
   desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who
   were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received
   orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to
   the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime,
   Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American
   Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of
   1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt,
   directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired.
   "The order to disband the army hastened the explosion.
   Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to
   be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian
   Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this
   city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings,
   rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to
   the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,'
   in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was
   branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand
   scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of
   patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm
   people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794,
   the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian
   troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and
   wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon.
{2557}
   "A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent
   a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian
   armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered
   patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered
   Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to
   give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was
   beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner
   in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army,
   under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of
   Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only
   one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an
   independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of
   partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of
   Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in
   execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as
   far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim),
   and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and
   Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also
   annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally
   acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern
   Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and
   Chelm."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. N. Bain,
      The Second Partition of Poland
      (English Historical Review, April, 1801)._

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 7, chapter 5,
      book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3);
      and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4)._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1806.
   False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.

POLAND: A. D. 1807.
   Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw,
   and given to the king of Saxony.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

POLAND: A. D. 1809.
   Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia,
   by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1812.
   Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom,
   not encouraged by Napoleon.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna.
   The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia.
   Constitution granted by the Czar.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Rising against the Russian oppressor.
   Courageous struggle for independence.
   Early victories and final defeat.
   Barbarity of the conqueror.

   "Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the
   invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France].
   The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period
   of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded
   in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake
   to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the
   West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave
   people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause
   of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and
   freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The
   statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the
   victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating
   the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh,
   indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not
   lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with
   obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the
   Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass
   by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be
   governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet.
   Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his
   brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at
   Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached
   Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a
   revolution which had expelled autocracy from France.
   Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The
   cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news,
   drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who
   dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The
   cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it.
   Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps,
   under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every
   circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The
   Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet:
   the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The
   Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the
   Poles without the consent of their representatives: for
   fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The
   Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole:
   the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his
   pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative
   government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the
   part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which
   Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely
   lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young
   men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and
   forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just
   time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life.
   … The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon
   spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the
   insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or
   ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the
   30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession
   of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served
   with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at
   their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his
   warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men
   whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred
   negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course,
   failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having
   failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested
   Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam
   Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile
   Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was
   before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to
   a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the
   Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the
   east upon Warsaw.
{2558}
   The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses
   the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs
   down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central
   road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west
   upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland
   from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and
   proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided
   on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on
   the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he
   renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the
   village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of
   Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to
   claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the
   Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could
   declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and
   that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the
   attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation
   into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at
   Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved
   unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the
   command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of
   March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked
   the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of
   Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the
   night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a
   loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners.
   Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the
   Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed
   forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is
   approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near
   the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia
   and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March
   the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The
   Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a
   succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the
   cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the
   gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals.
   Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not
   destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by
   three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right
   on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct
   road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the
   attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the
   defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of
   doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross
   the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at
   Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might
   obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any
   possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch
   succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the
   destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the
   26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole
   Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish
   levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came
   they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of
   the contest. A negative victory of this character, however,
   was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian
   right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses,
   resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were
   over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles
   had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying
   upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose
   two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened,
   too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in
   the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly
   advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian
   army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie
   communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both
   armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of
   it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the
   cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka,
   Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk,
   succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the
   Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch
   was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an
   officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th
   of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and
   threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he
   advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he
   attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made
   their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in
   its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their
   mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall
   reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo
   had not created so much consternation in the French capital.
   Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of
   Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue.
   … On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new
   organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the
   insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of
   1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the
   spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of
   the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying
   to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her
   national libraries and public collections removed; the
   children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers
   Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of
   participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior
   of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen
   on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and
   little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long
   journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those
   who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the
   Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that
   the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout
   Europe."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapter 16 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hordynski,
      History of the late Polish Revolution._

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-52,
      chapter 26._

POLAND: A. D. 1846.
   Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.
   Extinction of the republic of Cracow.
   Its annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

{2559}

POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864.
   The last insurrection.

   "In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all
   respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November
   of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the
   revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a
   religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the
   25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of
   Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over
   by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of
   presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution.
   Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by
   an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the
   kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal
   councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish
   language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom.
   … On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front
   of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to
   disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons
   were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded.
   The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in
   conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who
   was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June,
   1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski
   Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being
   taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by
   the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two
   attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter
   of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was
   also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863,
   a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to
   be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and
   forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number
   thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the
   insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a
   secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as
   mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte.
   The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the
   bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military
   tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops.
   Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with
   pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were
   chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower
   officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants
   who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a
   languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating
   to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which
   the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla
   fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns
   were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret
   emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called
   stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They
   succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves
   obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the
   chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or
   hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the
   viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By
   May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost
   Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away;
   henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools,
   must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and
   paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers,
   England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently
   and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of
   Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a
   convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the
   insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she
   has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element,
   carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a
   European scandal."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Poland,
      chapter 12._

POLAND: A. D. 1868.
   Complete incorporation with Russia.

   By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of
   Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

   ----------POLAND: End--------

POLAR STAR, The Order of the.

   A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of
   which is uncertain.

POLEMARCH.

      See GREECE: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

POLETÆ.
POLETERIUM.

   "Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased;
   revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which
   is to be included also the property of public debtors, who
   were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies
   of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not
   paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who
   had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of
   the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with
   the making of contracts for the public works, at least in
   certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten
   poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other
   boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the
   members of this branch of the government, and their sessions
   were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),
      book 2, chapter 3._

POLITIQUES, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

POLK, James K.:
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.

POLKOS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

POLLENTIA, Battle of.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.

POLLICES.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

POLO, Marco, The travels of.

   "This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the
   word, a traveller. He was one of those professional
   politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student
   of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,
   who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been
   regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan
   himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's
   court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's
   service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that
   subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his
   nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in
   transmuting himself into a Tartar.
{2560}
   He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and
   mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's
   dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a
   secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:
   and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in
   this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the
   Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he
   travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,
   recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,
   and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.
   These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe
   under the following circumstances. After a residence of
   seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,
   accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his
   return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and
   committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,
   he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a
   fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.
   This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its
   publication may be dated that intense and active interest in
   the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The
   rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the
   romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent
   of his observations, the long series of years they had
   occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,
   and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,
   combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.
   Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early
   time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process
   of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame
   of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,
   as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief
   directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of
   Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his
   fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and
   matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief
   account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the
   route over which he carries his reader is substantially that
   chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader
   successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,
   Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,
   throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally
   homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of
   those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is
   no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for
   the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled
   as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid
   down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more
   judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more
   attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here
   to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,
   and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,
   Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,
   Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.
   The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the
   Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all
   washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went
   by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European
   potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching
   in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any
   fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of
   Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand
   Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the
   Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the
   favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and
   despised."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of the New World,
      book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Book of Ser Marco Polo;
      edited by Colonel H. Yule._

      _T. W. Knox,
      Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls._

      _G. M. Towle,
      Marco Polo._

      See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

POLONNA, Battle of (1792).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLYNESIANS, The.

      See MALAYAN RACE.

POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

POMERANIANS, The.

   "Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the
   Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being
   their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous
   with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and
   'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions
   are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor
   shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older
   Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the
   present moment. On the promontories which project into the
   Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or
   Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena,
      section 7._

POMERIUM, The Roman.

   "The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of
   the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken,
   over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be
   moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The
   pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the
   space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 40._

POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

POMPÆ.

   The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they
   expended great sums of money, were so called.

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 2, chapter 12._

POMPEII.

   "Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus,
   the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin
   was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded
   by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which
   bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the
   warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek
   plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the
   Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of
   Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and
   though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla,
   Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman
   colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the
   language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 60._

{2561}

   Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were
   overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the
   23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not
   perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by
   excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been
   extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the
   very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age
   of Titus.

      _Pliny the Younger,
      Letters,
      book 6, epistles 16 and 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Dyer,
      Pompeii._

POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.

POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48;
      and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PONCAS,
PONKAS,
PUNCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

   ----------PONDICHERRY: Start--------

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.
   Founded by the French.
   Taken by the Dutch.
   Restored to France.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746.
   Siege by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761.
   Capture by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

   ----------PONDICHERRY: End--------

PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

PONKAS.

   See PONCAS.

PONS ÆLII.

   A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where
   Newcastle is now situated.

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 8._

PONS SUBLICIUS, The.

      See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

PONT ACHIN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

   "With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a
   military power from the continent, the English colonists were
   abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in
   the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity
   from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible
   that, with the loose system of organization and government
   common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general
   campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders.
   This feeling of security among the English settlements was of
   short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian
   tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and
   from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this
   disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made
   to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real
   causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and
   sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained
   his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They
   came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him
   fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic,
   self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt
   with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the
   average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting
   objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with
   justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little
   disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English,
   when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large
   tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French
   hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the
   native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by
   misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and
   making the prediction that the French would soon recapture
   Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.
   Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760],
   was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity
   for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all
   these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish
   purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a
   time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under
   the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be
   recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule
   over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.
   Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was
   indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous
   mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the
   Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English
   settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the
   English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the
   whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the
   Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The
   Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who
   joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the
   influence of Sir William Johnson.'

      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      volume 1, page 187._

   … His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the
   Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was
   assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a
   small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near
   Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.
   On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit,
   had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt
   would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac,
   on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs,
   with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at
   the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled
   at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme
   of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages
   assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly
   defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a
   schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and
   ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg,
   Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another
   trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy
   by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer,
   having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen,
   immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a
   party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of
   wishing to trade, and were treated as spies.
{2562}
   Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the
   smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May
   16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May
   25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort
   Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort
   Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf
   (Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango
   County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle
   and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except
   that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of
   capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians
   came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were
   admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon
   the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At
   Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days,
   when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison
   survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a
   large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on
   all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed
   next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid
   siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to
   themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in
   order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which
   was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for
   the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that
   there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully
   understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were
   coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a
   gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his
   youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional
   charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven
   years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than
   they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst,
   the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the
   importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did
   good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an
   expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and
   energy with which this duty was performed, under the most
   embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most
   brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops
   available for the service were about 500 regulars recently
   arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy
   Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate
   battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of
   a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort
   Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit
   was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June
   had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a
   supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his
   arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a
   night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin
   discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment,
   consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it
   to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place
   called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were
   killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell
   himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the
   fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere
   there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun
   to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of
   Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the
   winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties
   were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was
   recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his
   march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel
   Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great
   lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with
   some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of
   August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance
   from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced
   great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not
   until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But
   before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and
   Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white
   captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in
   conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great
   council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing
   Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had
   concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the
   Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of
   Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British
   government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns
   were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and
   as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country,
   where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and
   there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769
   he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

      _W. F. Poole,
      The West, 1763-1783
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac._

      _S. Farmer,
      History of Detroit and Michigan,
      chapter 38._

      _Historical Account of Bouquet's Expedition._

      _A. Henry,
      Travels and Adventures in Canada,
      part 1, chapters 9-23._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
      volume 2, chapters 9-12._

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      Documents Relative to Colonial History New York,
      volume 7._

PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.
PONTIFICES, Roman.

      See AUGURS.

PONTIFF, The Roman.

   The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term
   implying an analogy between his office and that of the
   Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

      See INDICTIONS.

PONTUS.

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

PONTUS EUXINUS,
EUXINUS PONTUS.

   The Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

PONZA, Naval Battle of (1435).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

POOR LAWS, The English.

   "It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries
   supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after
   the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the
   monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The
   duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the
   creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on
   which they subsisted. …
{2563}
   It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy
   which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they
   assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which
   existed in the towns were also found in the country villages.
   … They were convenient instruments for charity before the
   establishment of a poor law, and they employed no
   inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from
   subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the
   indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the
   dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly
   in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal
   provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that
   the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms
   on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all
   occasions, public and private, stir up the people to
   contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles
   by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that
   the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected.
   The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the
   obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and
   brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a
   considerable party in England which was willing enough to see
   the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the
   most obvious means by which this result could be attained
   would be to allege that all which could be needed for the
   relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary
   offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the
   maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was
   reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the
   monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private
   use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military
   force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on
   the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild
   lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of
   Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these
   foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for
   erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the
   universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy.
   They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the
   Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded
   the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be
   doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any
   considerations of previous practice in these several
   institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already
   existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage
   statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain
   pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and
   destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them
   work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years.
   In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be
   appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of
   substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the
   relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book,
   and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such
   work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those
   who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers
   and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be
   denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such
   uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5,
   cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the
   bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in
   quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to
   exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly
   sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a
   step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to
   the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on
   refusal, to the assessment of all property under the
   celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had
   provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy
   of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving
   relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It
   now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines
   the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied,
   prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be
   appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its
   provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It
   was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the
   next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and
   finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical
   history of labour in England is henceforward intimately
   associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be
   tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted
   till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of
   labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even
   under the most urgent circumstances."

      _J. E. Thorold Rogers,
      Six Centuries of Work and Wages,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

   "In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable
   and startling document to be found in the whole range of
   English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the
   Report upon the administration and practical operation of the
   Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to
   investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not
   only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to
   their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by
   which they might be cured."

      _T. W. Fowle,
      The Poor Law,
      chapter 4._

   "The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed
   it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain
   their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the
   profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the
   idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant
   boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and
   prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices
   lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience.
   This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it
   came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the
   shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of
   the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of
   labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the
   farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages
   were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being
   employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked
   or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and
   disabled him from employing the better men who would have
   toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among
   the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle,
   went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might
   starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week
   for every illegitimate child.
{2564}
   Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the
   whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and
   social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which
   precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the
   commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they
   took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame
   suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the
   moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in
   England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave
   aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a
   certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law
   abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. …
   Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is
   no social difference in England so wide as that between the
   independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally
   ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This
   truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed
   it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms
   the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a
   prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered
   their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the
   poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of
   parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform
   was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove
   the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by
   hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely
   enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another
   parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of
   the great principle that the independent labourer was not to
   be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to
   the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as
   soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to
   entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the
   workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied
   should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal.
   They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours;
   but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and
   children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. …
   In order to a complete and economical classification in the
   workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act
   provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary
   control over such a system … a central board was
   indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose
   assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to
   whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes
   proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals
   than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of
   illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of
   illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only
   what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal
   of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the
   awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of
   reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August
   1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment
   Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid,
   and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the
   absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were
   out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole
   series of country parishes; farmers were employing more
   labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were
   transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of
   illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout
   England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and,
   finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their
   annual amount during the five years before the poor-law
   commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five
   years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very
   little above four."

      _H. Martineau,
      A History of the Thirty Years Peace,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   In 1838 the Act was extended to Ireland, and in 1845 to
   Scotland.

      _T. W. Fowle,
      The Poor Law,
      chapter 4._

   "The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the
   oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a
   special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor
   Law Board. This board, which was not represented in
   Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was
   reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister
   with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting
   it on a political level with the Home Office and the other
   important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department
   was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to
   be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction.
   This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office
   various duties in respect of municipal government and public
   health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the
   administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and
   its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board.
   Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which
   its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until
   at the present time the Local Government Board is more
   directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than
   any other Government Department. There is not a village in the
   land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the
   official communications of the Board are not addressed."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir G. Nicholls,
      History of the English Poor-Law._

      _F. Peek,
      Social Wreckage._

POOR MEN OF LYONS.
POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

      See WALDENSES.

POOR PRIESTS OF LOLLARDY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

POPE, General John.
   Capture of New Madrid and Island Number Ten.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE .MISSISSIPPI).

   Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   Virginia campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

POPE, The.

      See PAPACY.

POPHAM COLONY, The.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

POPISH PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

POPOL VUH, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

{2565}

POPOLOCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

POPULARES.

      See OPTIMATES.

PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

      See ROME: A. D. 903-964.

PORT GIBSON, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT HUDSON, Siege and capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788.
   The discovery.
   The naming.
   The first settlement.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

PORT MAHON.

      See MINORCA.

PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1839-1855.

PORT REPUBLIC, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   ----------PORT ROYAL: Start--------

PORT ROYAL,
   The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660.
   The monastery under Mère Angelique
   and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley.
   Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius.
   Their conflict with the Jesuits.

   "The monastery of Port Royal … was founded in the beginning of
   the 13th century, in the reign of Philip Augustus; and a later
   tradition claimed this magnificent monarch as the author of
   its foundation and of its name. … But this is the story of a
   time when, as it has been said, 'royal founders were in
   fashion.' More truly, the name is considered to be derived
   from the general designation of the fief or district in which
   the valley lies, Porrois—which, again, is supposed to be a
   corruption of Porra or Borra, meaning a marshy and woody
   hollow. The valley of Port Royal presents to this day the same
   natural features which attracted the eye of the devout
   solitary in the seventeenth century. … It lies about eighteen
   miles west of Paris, and seven or eight from Versailles, on
   the road to Chevreuse. … The monastery was founded, not by
   Philip Augustus, but by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, a
   younger son of the noble house of Montmorency. Having formed
   the design of accompanying the crusade proclaimed by Innocent
   III. to the Holy Land, he left at the disposal of his wife,
   Mathilde de Garlande, and his kinsman, the Bishop of Paris, a
   sum of money to devote to some pious work in his absence. They
   agreed to apply it to the erection of a monastery for nuns in
   this secluded valley, that had already acquired a reputation
   for sanctity in connection with the old chapel dedicated to
   St. Lawrence, which attracted large numbers of worshippers.
   The foundations of the church and monastery were laid in 1204.
   They were designed by the same architect who built the
   Cathedral of Amiens, and ere long the graceful and beautiful
   structures were seen rising in the wilderness. The nuns
   belonged to the Cistercian order. Their dress was white
   woollen, with a black veil; but afterwards they adopted as
   their distinctive badge a large scarlet cross on their white
   scapulary, as the symbol of the 'Institute of the Holy
   Sacrament.' The abbey underwent the usual history of such
   institutions. Distinguished at first by the strictness of its
   discipline and the piety of its inmates, it became gradually
   corrupted with increasing wealth, till, in the end of the
   sixteenth century, it had grown notorious for gross and
   scandalous abuses. … But at length its revival arose out of
   one of the most obvious abuses connected with it. The
   patronage of the institution, like that of others, had been
   distributed without any regard to the fitness of the
   occupants, even to girls of immature age. In this manner the
   abbey of Port Royal accidentally fell to the lot of one who
   was destined by her ardent piety to breathe a new life into
   it, and by her indomitable and lofty genius to give it an
   undying reputation. Jacqueline Marie Arnauld—better known by
   her official name, La Mère Angélique—was appointed abbess of
   Port Royal when she was only eight years of age. She was
   descended from a distinguished family belonging originally to
   the old noblesse of Provence, but which had migrated to
   Auvergne and settled there. Of vigorous healthiness, both
   mental and physical, the Arnaulds had already acquired a
   merited position and name in the annals of France. In the
   beginning of the sixteenth century it found its way to Paris
   in the person of Antoine Arnauld, Seigneur de la Mothe, the
   grandfather of the heroine of Port Royal. … Antoine Arnauld
   married the youthful daughter of M. Marion, the
   Avocat-general. … The couple had twenty children, and felt, as
   may be imagined, the pressure of providing for so many. Out of
   this pressure came the remarkable lot of two of the daughters.
   The benefices of the Church were a fruitful field of
   provision, and the avocat-general, the maternal grandfather of
   the children, had large ecclesiastical influence. The result
   was the appointment not only of one daughter to the abbey of
   Port Royal, but also of a younger sister, Agnes, only six
   years of age, to the abbey of St Cyr, about six miles distant
   from Port Royal. … At the age of eleven, in the year 1602,
   Angélique was installed Abbess of Port Royal. Her sister took
   the veil at the age of seven. … The remarkable story of
   Angélique's conversion by the preaching of a Capucin friar in
   1608, her strange contest with her parents which followed, the
   strengthening impulses in different directions which her
   religious life received, first from the famous St Francis de
   Sales, and finally, and especially, from the no less
   remarkable Abbé de St Cyran, all belong to the history of Port
   Royal."

      _J. Tulloch,
      Pascal,
      chapter 4._

   "The numbers at the Port Royal had increased to eighty, and
   the situation was so unhealthy that there were many deaths. In
   1626 they moved to Paris, and the abbey in the fields remained
   for many years deserted. M. Zamet, a pious but not a great
   man, for a while had the spiritual charge of the Port Royal,
   but in 1634 the abbé of St. Cyran became its director. To his
   influence is due the position it took in the coming conflict
   of Jansenism, and the effects of his teachings can be seen in
   the sisters, and in most of the illustrious recluses who
   attached themselves to the monastery. St. Cyran had been an
   early associate of Jansenius, whose writings became such a
   fire-brand in the Church. As young men they devoted the most
   of five years to an intense study of St. Augustine. It is said
   Jansenius read all of his works ten times, and thirty times
   his treatises against the Pelagians. The two students resolved
   to attempt a reformation in the belief of the Church, which
   they thought was falling away from many of the tenets of the
   father.
{2566}
   Jansenius was presently made bishop of Ypres by the Spanish as
   a reward for a political tract, but he pursued his studies in
   his new bishopric. … In 1640, the Augustinus appeared, in
   which the bishop of Ypres sought, by a full reproduction of
   the doctrines of St. Augustine, to bring the Church back from
   the errors of the Pelagians to the pure and severe tenets of
   the great father. The doctrine of grace, the very corner–stone
   of the Christian faith, was that which Jansenius labored to
   revive. Saint Augustine had taught that, before the fall of
   our first parents, man, being in astute of innocence, could of
   his own free will do works acceptable to God; but after that
   his nature was so corrupted, that no good thing could proceed
   from it, save only as divine grace worked upon him. This grace
   God gave as He saw fit, working under his eternal decrees, and
   man, except as predestined and elected to its sovereign help,
   could accomplish no righteous act, and must incur God's just
   wrath. But the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians had departed from
   this doctrine, and attributed a capacity to please God, to
   man's free will and the deeds proceeding from it—a belief
   which could but foster his carnal pride and hasten his
   damnation. The Jesuits were always desirous to teach religion
   so that it could most easily be accepted, and they had
   inclined to semi-Pelagian doctrines, rather than to the
   difficult truths of St. Augustine. Yet no one questioned his
   authority. The dispute was as to the exact interpretation of
   his writings. Jansenius claimed to have nothing in his great
   book save the very word of Augustine, or its legitimate
   result. The Jesuits replied that his writings contained
   neither the doctrine of Augustine nor the truth of God. They
   appealed to the Pope for the condemnation of these heresies.
   Jansenius had died before the publication of his book, but his
   followers, who were soon named after him, endeavored to defend
   his works from censure. … It was not until 1653 that the
   influence of the Jesuits succeeded in obtaining the
   condemnation of the offending book. In that year, Innocent X.
   issued a bull, by which he condemned as heretical five
   propositions contained in the Augustinus. … The members of the
   Port Royal adopted the Jansenist cause. Saint Cyran had been a
   fellow worker with Jansenius, and he welcomed the Augustinus
   as a book to revive and purify the faith of the Church. … The
   rigid predestinarianism of Jansen had a natural attraction for
   the stern zeal of the Port Royal. The religion of the convent
   and of those connected with it bordered on asceticism. They
   lived in the constant awe of God, seeking little communion
   with the world, and offering to it little compromise. … An
   intense and rigorous religious life adopts an intense and
   rigorous belief. The Jansenists resembled the English and
   American Puritans. They shared their Calvinistic tenets and
   their strict morality. A Jansenist, said the Jesuits, is a
   Calvinist saying mass. No accusation was more resented by
   those of the Jansenist party. They sought no alliance with the
   Protestants. Saint Cyran and Arnauld wrote prolifically
   against the Calvinists. They were certainly separated from the
   latter by their strong devotion to two usages of the Catholic
   Church which were especially objectionable to Protestants—the
   mass and the confessional. … In 1647, Mother Angelique with
   some of the sisters returned to Port Royal in the Fields. The
   convent at Paris continued in close relations with it, but the
   abbey in the fields was to exhibit the most important phases
   of devotional life. Before the return of the sisters, this
   desolate spot had begun to be the refuge for many eminent men,
   whose careers became identified with the fate of the abbey.
   'We saw arrive,' writes one of them, 'from diverse provinces,
   men of different professions, who, like mariners that had
   suffered shipwreck, came to seck the Port.' M. le Maitre, a
   nephew of Mother Angelique, a lawyer of much prominence, a
   counsellor of state, a favorite of the chancellor and renowned
   for his eloquent harangues, abandoned present prosperity and
   future eminence, and in 1638 built a little house, near the
   monastery, and became the first of those who might be called
   the hermits of the Port Royal. Not taking orders, nor becoming
   a member of any religious body, he sought a life of lonely
   devotion in this barren place. … Others gradually followed,
   until there grew up a community, small in numbers, but strong
   in influence, united in study, in penance, in constant praise
   and worship. Though held together by no formal vows, few of
   those who put hand to the plough turned back from the work.
   They left their beloved retreat only when expelled by force,
   and with infinite regret. The monastery itself had become
   dilapidated. It was surrounded by stagnant waters, and the
   woods near by were full of snakes. But the recluses found
   religious joy amid this desolation. … As their numbers
   increased they did much, however, to improve the desolate
   retreat they had chosen. … Some of the recluses cultivated the
   ground. Others even made shoes, and the Jesuits dubbed them
   the cobblers. They found occupation not only in such labors
   and in solitary meditation, but in the more useful work of
   giving the young an education that was sound in learning and
   grounded in piety. The schools of the Port Royal had a
   troubled existence of about fifteen years. Though they rarely
   had over fifty pupils, yet in this brief period they left
   their mark. Racine, Tillemont, and many others of fruitful
   scholarship and piety were among the pupils who were watched
   and trained by the grave anchorites with a tender and
   fostering care. … The judicious teachers of the Port Royal
   taught reading in French, and in many ways did much to improve
   the methods of French instruction and scholarship. The
   children were thoroughly trained also in Greek and Latin, in
   logic and mathematics. Their teachers published admirable
   manuals for practical study in many branches. 'They sought,'
   says one, 'to render study more agreeable than play or games.'
   The jealousy of the Jesuits, who were well aware of the
   advantages of controlling the education of the young, at last
   obtained the order for the final dispersion of these little
   schools, and in 1660 they were closed for ever. Besides these
   manuals for teaching, the literature of the Port Royal
   comprised many controversial works, chief among them the
   forty-two volumes of Arnauld. It furnished also a translation
   of the Bible by Saci, which, though far from possessing the
   merits of the English version of King James, is one of the
   best of the many French translations. But the works of Blaise
   Pascal were the great productions of the Port Royal, as he
   himself was its chief glory. The famous Provincial Letters
   originated from the controversy over Jansenism, though they
   soon turned from doctrinal questions to an attack on the
   morality of the Jesuits that permanently injured the influence
   of that body."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. A. Schimmelpenninck,
      Select Memoirs of Port Royal._

{2567}

PORT ROYAL: A. D. 1702-1715.
   Renewed persecution.
   Suppression and destruction of the Monastery.
   The odious Bull Unigenitus, and its tyrannical enforcement.

   "The Jesuits had been for some time at a low ebb, in the
   beginning of the 18th century, the Cardinal de Noailles,
   Archbishop of Paris, then ruling the King through Madame de
   Maintenon, and himself submitting to the direction of Bossuet.
   The imprudence of the Jansenists, their indefatigable spirit
   of dispute, restored to their enemies the opportunity to
   retrieve their position. In 1702, forty Sorbonne doctors
   resuscitated the celebrated question of fact concerning the
   five propositions of Jansenius, and maintained that, in the
   presence of the decisions of the Church on points of fact and
   not of dogma, a respectful silence sufficed without internal
   acquiescence. Some other propositions of a Jansenistic
   tendency accompanied this leading question. Bossuet hastened
   to interfere to stifle the matter, and to induce the doctors
   to retract. … Thirty-nine doctors retracted out of forty. The
   King forbade the publication thenceforth of anything
   concerning these matters, but, in his own name, and that of
   Philip V. [of Spain, his grandson], entreated Pope Clement XI.
   to renew the constitutions of his predecessors against
   Jansenism. … Clement XI. responded to the King's wishes by a
   Bull which fell in the midst of the assembly of the clergy in
   1705. Cardinal de Noailles, who presided, made reservations
   against the infallibility of the Church in affairs of fact.
   The assembly, animated with a Gallican spirit, accepted the
   Bull, but established that the constitutions of the Popes bind
   the whole Church only when they have been accepted by the
   bodies of the pastors,' and that this acceptance on the part
   of the bishops is made 'by way of judgment.' The court of Rome
   was greatly offended that the bishops should claim to 'judge'
   after it, and this gave rise to long negotiations: the King
   induced the bishops to offer to the Pope extenuating
   explanations. The Jesuits, however, regained the ascendency at
   Versailles, and prepared against Cardinal de Noailles a
   formidable engine of war." The Cardinal had given his
   approval, some years before, to a work—"Moral Reflections on
   the New Testament"—published by Father Quesnel, who
   afterwards became a prominent Jansenist. The Jesuits now
   procured the condemnation of this work, by the congregation of
   the Index, and a decree from the Pope prohibiting it. "This
   was a rude assault on Cardinal de Noailles. The decree,
   however, was not received in France, through a question of
   form, or rather, perhaps, because the King was then
   dissatisfied with the Pope, on account of the concessions of
   Clement XI. to the House of Austria. The Jansenists gained
   nothing thereby. At this very moment, a terrible blow was
   about to fall on the dearest and most legitimate object of
   their veneration." The nuns of Port-Royal of the Fields having
   refused to subscribe to the papal constitution of 1705, the
   Pope had subjected them to the Abbess of Port-Royal of Paris,
   "who did not share their Augustinian faith (1708). They
   resisted. Meanwhile, Father La Chaise [the King's confessor]
   died, and Le Tellier succeeded him. The affair was carried to
   the most extreme violence. Cardinal de Noailles, a man of pure
   soul and feeble character, was persuaded, in order to prove
   that he was not a Jansenist, to cruelty, despite himself,
   towards the rebellious nuns. They were torn from their
   monastery and dispersed through different convents (November,
   1709). The illustrious abbey of Port-Royal, hallowed, even in
   the eyes of unbelievers, by the name of so many great men, by
   the memory of so much virtue, was utterly demolished, by the
   order of the lieutenant of police, D'Argenson. Two years
   after, as if it were designed to exile even the shades that
   haunted the valley, the dead of Port-Royal were exhumed, and
   their remains transferred to a village cemetery (at Magny).
   Noailles, while he entered into this persecution, took the
   same course, nevertheless, as the nuns of Port-Royal, by
   refusing to retract the approbation which he had given to the
   'Moral Reflections.' Le Tellier caused him to be denounced to
   the King. … The King prohibited Quesnel's book by a decree in
   council (November 11, 1711), and demanded of the Pope a new
   condemnation of this book, in a form that could be received in
   France. The reply of Clement XI. was delayed until September
   8, 1713; this was the celebrated Unigenitus Bull, the work of
   Le Tellier far more than of the Pope, and which, instead of
   the general terms of the Bull of 1708, expressly condemned 101
   propositions extracted from the 'Moral Reflections.' … The
   Bull dared condemn the very words of St. Augustine and of St.
   Paul himself; there were propositions, on other matters than
   grace, the condemnation of which was and should have been
   scandalous, and seemed veritably the triumph of Jesuitism over
   Christianity; for example, those concerning the necessity of
   the love of God. It had dared to condemn this: 'There is no
   God, there is no religion, where there is not charity.' This
   was giving the pontifical sanction to the Jesuitical theories
   most contrary to the general spirit of Christian theology. It
   was the same with the maxims relative to the Holy Scriptures.
   The Pope had anathematized the following propositions: 'The
   reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. Christians should
   keep the Sabbath-day holy by reading the Scriptures; it is
   dangerous to deprive them of these.' And also this: 'The fear
   of unjust excommunication should not prevent us from doing our
   duty.' This was overturning all political Gallicanism." The
   acceptance of the Bull was strongly but vainly resisted. The
   King and the King's malignant confessor spared no exercise of
   their unbridled power to compel submission to it. "It was
   endeavored to stifle by terror public opinion contrary to the
   Bull: exiles, imprisonments, were multiplied from day to day."
   And still, when Louis XIV. died, on the 1st day of September,
   1715, the struggle was not at an end.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

{2568}

   "It is now time that I should say something of the infamous
   bull Unigenitus, which by the unsurpassed audacity and
   scheming of Father Le Tellier and his friends was forced upon
   the Pope and the world. I need not enter into a very lengthy
   account of the celebrated Papal decree which has made so many
   martyrs, depopulated our schools, introduced ignorance,
   fanaticism, and misrule, rewarded vice, thrown the whole
   community into the greatest confusion, caused disorder
   everywhere, and established the most arbitrary and the most
   barbarous inquisition; evils which have doubled within the
   last thirty years. I will content myself with a word or two,
   and will not blacken further the pages of my Memoirs. … It is
   enough to say that the new bull condemned in set terms the
   doctrines of St. Paul, … and also those of St. Augustin, and
   of other fathers; doctrines which have always been adopted by
   the Popes, by the Councils, and by the Church itself. The
   bull, as soon as published, met with a violent opposition in
   Rome from the cardinals there, who went by sixes, by eights,
   and by tens, to complain of it to the Pope. … He protested …
   that the publication had been made without his knowledge, and
   put off the cardinals with compliments, excuses, and tears,
   which last he could always command. The constitution had the
   same fate in France as in Rome. The cry against it was
   universal."

      _Duke of Saint Simon,
      Memoirs (abridged translation by St. John),
      volume 3, chapter 6._

   "Jansenism … laid hold upon all ecclesiastical bodies with
   very few exceptions, it predominated altogether in theological
   literature; all public schools that were not immediately under
   the Jesuits, or, as in Spain, under the Inquisition, held
   Jansenist opinions, at least so far as the majority of their
   theologians were concerned. In Rome itself this teaching was
   strongly represented amongst the cardinals." Fenelon declared
   "that nobody knew—now that the controversy and the
   condemnations had gone on for sixty years—in what the
   erroneous doctrine exactly consisted; for the Roman court
   stuck fast to the principle of giving no definition of what
   ought to be believed, so that the same doctrine which it
   apparently rejected in one form, was unhesitatingly accepted
   at Rome itself when expressed in other though synonymous
   terms. … The same thing which under one name was condemned,
   was under another, as the teaching of the Thomists or
   Augustinians, declared to be perfectly orthodox. … Just
   because nobody could tell in what sense such propositions as
   those taken from the works of Jansenius or Quesnel were to be
   rejected, did they become valuable; for the whole question was
   turned into one of blind obedience and submission, without
   previous investigation. The Jesuit D'Aubenton, who as
   Tellier's agent in Rome had undertaken to procure that the
   passages selected from Quesnel's book should be condemned,
   repeatedly informed his employer that at Rome everything
   turned upon the papal infallibility; to get this passed whilst
   the king was ready to impose, by force of arms, upon the
   bishops and clergy the unquestioning acceptance of the papal
   constitution, was the only object."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Jarvis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapters 5-7._

      _F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapter 1._

   ----------PORT ROYAL: End--------

   ----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: Start--------

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1603-1613.
   Settled by the French, and destroyed by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; 1606-1608; and 1610-1613.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1690.
   Taken by an expedition from Massachusetts.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1691.
   Recovered by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1710.
   Final conquest by the English and
   change of name to Annapolis Royal.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

   ----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: End--------

PORT ROYAL EXPEDITION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

PORTCHESTER, Origin of.

      See PORTUS MAGNUS.

PORTE, The Sublime.

      See SUBLIME PORTE;
      also PHARAOH.

PORTEOUS RIOT, The.

      See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

PORTER, Admiral David D.:
   Capture of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Second attempt against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORTICO, The Athenian, Suppression of.

      See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

PORTLAND MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PORTO NOVO, Battle of (1781).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

PORTO RICO: Discovery by Columbus (1493).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

PORTO VENERE, Naval Battle of (1494).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1668.

   Capture by the Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1740.
   Capture by Admiral Vernon.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

PORTOLONGO, or Sapienza, Battle of (1354).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

   ----------PORTUGAL: Start--------

PORTUGAL:
   Early history.
   Mistaken identification with ancient Lusitania.
   Roman, Gothic, Moorish and Spanish conquests.
   The county of Henry of Burgundy.

   "The early history of the country, which took the name of
   Portugal from the county which formed the nucleus of the
   future kingdom, is identical with that of the rest of the
   Iberian peninsula, but deserves some slight notice because of
   an old misconception, immortalized in the title of the famous
   epic of Camoens, and not yet entirely eradicated even from
   modern ideas. Portugal, like the rest of the peninsula, was
   originally inhabited by men of the prehistoric ages. … There
   seems to be no doubt that the Celts, the first Aryan
   immigrants, were preceded by a non-Aryan race, which is called
   by different writers the Iberian or Euskaldunac nation, but
   this earlier race speedily amalgamated with the Celts, and out
   of the two together were formed the five tribes inhabiting the
   Iberian peninsula, which Strabo names as the Cantabrians, the
   Vasconians, the Asturians, the Gallicians and the Lusitanians.
   It is Strabo, also, who mentions the existence of Greek
   colonies at the mouth of the Tagus, Douro, and Minho, and it
   is curious to note that the old name of Lisbon, Olisipo, was
   from the earliest times identified with that of the hero of
   the Odyssey, and was interpreted to mean the city of Ulysses.
   …
{2569}
   The Carthaginians, though they had colonies all over the
   peninsula, established their rule mainly over the south and
   east of it, having their capital at Carthagena or Nova
   Carthago, and seem to have neglected the more barbarous
   northern and western provinces. It was for this reason that
   the Romans found far more difficulty in subduing these latter
   provinces. … In 189 B. C. Lucius Æmilius Paullus defeated the
   Lusitanians, and in 185 B. C. Gaius Calpurnius forced his way
   across the Tagus. There is no need here to discuss the gradual
   conquest by the Romans of that part of the peninsula which
   includes the modern kingdom of Portugal, but it is necessary
   to speak of the gallant shepherd Viriathus, who sustained a
   stubborn war against the Romans from 149 B. C. until he was
   assassinated in 139 B. C., because he has been generally
   claimed as the first national hero of Portugal. This claim has
   been based upon the assumed identification of the modern
   Portugal with the ancient Lusitania [see LUSITANIA, an
   identification which has spread its roots deep in Portuguese
   literature, and has until recently been generally accepted. …
   The Celtic tribe of Lusitanians dwelt, according to Strabo, in
   the districts north of the Tagus, while the Lusitania of the
   Latin historians of the Republic undoubtedly lay to the south
   of that river, though it was not used as the name of a
   province until the time of Augustus, when the old division of
   the peninsula into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior was
   superseded by the division into Betica, Tarraconensis, and
   Lusitania. Neither in this division, nor in the division of
   the peninsula into the five provinces of Tarraconensis,
   Carthaginensis, Betica, Lusitania, and Gallicia, under
   Hadrian, was the province called Lusitania coterminous with
   the modern kingdom of Portugal. Under each division the name
   was given to a district south of the Tagus. … It is important
   to grasp the result of this misconception, for it emphasizes
   the fact that the history of Portugal for many centuries is
   merged in that of the rest of the Iberian peninsula, and
   explains why it is unnecessary to study the wars of the
   Lusitanians with the Roman Republic, as is often done in
   histories of Portugal. Like the rest of the peninsula Portugal
   was thoroughly Latinized in the days of the Roman Empire;
   Roman 'coloniæ', and 'municipia' were established in places
   suited for trade, such as Lisbon and Oporto. … Peaceful
   existence under the sway of Rome continued until the beginning
   of the 5th century, when the Goths first forced their way
   across the Pyrenees. …

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

   The Visigothic Empire left but slight traces in Portugal." The
   Mohammedan conquest by the Arab-Moors, which began early in
   the 8th century, extended to Portugal, and for a general
   account of the struggle in the peninsula between Christians
   and Moslems during several succeeding centuries the reader is
   referred to SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after. "In 997 Bermudo
   II., king of Gallicia, won back the first portion of modern
   Portugal from the Moors by seizing Oporto and occupying the
   province now known as the Entre Minho e Douro. … In 1055
   Ferdinand 'the Great,' king of Leon, Castile, and Gallicia,
   invaded the Beira; in 1057 he took Lamego and Viseu; and in
   1064 Coimbra, where he died in the following year. He arranged
   for the government of his conquests in the only way possible
   under the feudal system, by forming them into a county,
   extending to the Mondego, with Coimbra as its capital. The
   first count of Coimbra was Sesnando, a recreant Arab vizir,
   who had advised Ferdinand to invade his district and had
   assisted in its easy conquest. … But though Sesnando's county
   of Coimbra was the great frontier county of Gallicia, and the
   most important conquest of Ferdinand 'the Great,' it was not
   thence that the kingdom which was to develop out of his
   dominions was to take its name. Among the counties of Gallicia
   was one called the 'comitatus Portucalensis,' because it
   contained within its boundaries the famous city at the mouth
   of the Douro, known in Roman and Greek times as the Portus
   Cale, and in modern days as Oporto, or 'The Port.' This county
   of Oporto or Portugal was the one destined to give its name to
   the future kingdom, and was held at the time of Ferdinand's
   death by Nuno Mendes, the founder of one of the most famous
   families in Portuguese history. Ferdinand 'the Great' was
   succeeded in his three kingdoms of Castile, Leon, and
   Gallicia, by his three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and Garcia, the
   last of whom received the two counties of Coimbra and Oporto
   as fiefs of Gallicia, and maintained Nuno Mendes and Sesnando
   as his feudatories." Wars between the three sons ensued, as
   the result of which "the second of them, Alfonso of Leon,
   eventually united all his father's kingdoms in 1073, as
   Alfonso VI." This Alfonso was now called upon to encounter a
   new impulse of Mohammedan aggression, under a new dynasty,
   that of the Almoravides

      See ALMORAVIDES.

   "The new dynasty collected great Moslem armies, and in 1086
   Yusuf Ibn Teshfin routed Alfonso utterly at the battle of
   Zalaca, and reconquered the peninsula up to the Ebro. …
   Alfonso tried to compensate for this defeat and his loss of
   territory in the east of his dominions by conquests in the
   west, and in 1093 he advanced to the Tagus and took Santarem
   and Lisbon, and made Sueiro Mendes, count of the new district.
   But these conquests he did not hold for long. … In 1093 Seyr,
   the general of the Almoravide caliph Yusuf, took Evora from
   the Emir of Badajoz; in 1094 he took Badajoz itself, and
   killed the emir; and retaking Lisbon and Santarem forced his
   way up to the Mondego. To resist this revival of the
   Mohammedan power, Alfonso summoned the chivalry of Christendom
   to his aid. Among the knights who joined his army eager to win
   their spurs, and win dominions for themselves, were Count
   Raymond of Toulouse and Count Henry of Burgundy. To the
   former, Alfonso gave his legitimate daughter, Urraca, and
   Gallicia; to the latter, his illegitimate daughter Theresa,
   and the counties of Oporto and Coimbra, with the title of
   Count of Portugal. The history of Portugal now becomes
   distinct from that of the rest of the peninsula, and it is
   from the year 1095 that the history of Portugal commences. The
   son of Henry of Burgundy was the great monarch Affonso
   Henriques, the hero of his country and the founder of a great
   dynasty."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 1._

{2570}

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
   The county made independent and raised to the rank of a kingdom.
   Completion of conquests from the Moors.
   Limits of the kingdom established.

   Count Henry of Burgundy waged war for seven years with his
   Moorish neighbors; then went crusading to Palestine for two
   years. On his return in 1105 he made common cause with his
   brother-in-law and brother-adventurer, Count Raymond of
   Gallicia, against the suspected intention of King Alfonso to
   declare his bastard, half-Moorish son, Sancho, the heir to his
   dominions. "This peaceful arrangement had no result, owing to
   the death of Count Raymond in 1107, followed by that of young
   Sancho at the battle of Uclés with the Moors, in 1108, and
   finally by the death of Alfonso VI. himself in 1109. The
   king's death brought about the catastrophe. He left all his
   dominions to his legitimate daughter, Urraca, with the result
   that there was five years of fierce fighting between Henry of
   Burgundy, Alfonso Raimundes, the son of Count Raymond, Alfonso
   I. of Aragon, and Queen Urraca. … While they fought with each
   other the Mohammedans advanced. … On May 1, 1114, Count Henry
   died, … leaving his wife Theresa as regent during the minority
   of his son Affonso Henriques, who was but three years old.
   Theresa, who made the ancient city of Guimaraens her capital,
   devoted all her energies to building up her son's dominions
   into an independent state; and under her rule, while the
   Christian states of Spain were torn by internecine war, the
   Portuguese began to recognize Portugal as their country, and
   to cease from calling themselves Gallicians. This distinction
   between Portugal and Gallicia was the first step towards the
   formation of a national spirit, which grew into a desire for
   national independence." The regency of Theresa, during which
   she was engaged in many contests, with her half-sister Urraca
   and others, ended in 1128. In the later years of it she
   provoked great discontent by her infatuation with a lover to
   whom she was passionately devoted. In the end, her son headed
   a revolt which expelled her from Portugal. The son, Affonso
   Henriques, assumed the reins of government at the age of
   seventeen years. In 1130 he began a series of wars with
   Alfonso VII. of Castile, the aim of which was to establish the
   independence of Portugal. These wars were ended in 1140 by an
   agreement, "in consonance with the ideas of the times, to
   refer the great question of Portuguese Independence to a
   chivalrous contest. In a great tournament, known as the
   Tourney of Valdevez, the Portuguese knights were entirely
   successful over those of Castile, and in consequence of their
   victory Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of
   Portugal. This is the turning-point of Portuguese history, and
   it is a curious fact that the independence of Portugal from
   Gallicia was achieved by victory in a tournament and not in
   war. Up to 1136, Affonso Henriques had styled himself Infante,
   in imitation of the title borne by his mother; from 1136 to
   1140 he styled himself Principe, and in 1140 he first took the
   title of King." A little before this time, on the 25th of
   July, 1139, Affonso had defeated the Moors in a famous and
   much magnified battle—namely that of Orik or Ourique—"which,
   until modern investigators examined the facts, has been
   considered to have laid the foundations of the independence of
   Portugal. Chroniclers, two centuries after the battle,
   solemnly asserted that five kings were defeated on this
   occasion, that 200,000 Mohammedans were slain, and that after
   the victory the Portuguese soldiers raised Affonso on their
   shields and hailed him as king. This story is absolutely
   without authority from contemporary chronicles, and is quite
   as much a fiction as the Cortes of Lamego, which has been
   invented as sitting in 1143 and passing the constitutional
   laws on which Vertot and other writers have expended so much
   eloquence. … It was not until the modern school of historians
   arose in Portugal, which examined documents and did not take
   the statements of their predecessors on trust, that it was
   clearly pointed out that Affonso Henriques won his crown by
   his long struggle with his Christian cousin, and not by his
   exploits against the Moors."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapters 2-3._

   "The long reign of Affonso I., an almost uninterrupted period
   of war, is the most brilliant epoch in the history of the
   Portuguese conquests. Lisbon, which had already under its
   Moorish masters become the chief city of the west, was taken
   in 1147, and became at once the capital of the new kingdom.
   The Tagus itself was soon passed. Large portions of the modern
   Estremadura and Alemtejo were permanently annexed. The distant
   provinces of Algarve and Andalucia were overrun; and even
   Seville trembled at the successes of the Portuguese. It was in
   vain that Moorish vessels sailed from Africa to chastise the
   presumption of their Christian foes; their ships were routed
   off Lisbon by the vessels of Affonso; their armies were
   crushed by a victory at Santarem [1184], the last, and perhaps
   the most glorious of the many triumphs of the King. … Every
   conquest saw the apportionment of lands to be held by military
   tenure among the conquerors; and the Church, which was here
   essentially a militant one, received not only an endowment for
   its religion but a reward for its sword. The Orders of St.
   Michael and of Avis [St. Benedict of Avis] which were founded
   had a religious as well as a military aspect. Their members
   were to be distinguished by their piety not less than by their
   courage, and were to emulate the older brotherhoods of
   Jerusalem and of Castile. … Sancho I. [who succeeded his
   father Affonso in 1185], though not adverse to military fame,
   endeavoured to repair his country's wounds; and his reign, the
   complement of that of Affonso, was one of development rather
   than of conquest. … The surname of El Povoador, the Founder,
   is the indication of his greatest work. New towns and villages
   arose, new wealth and strength were given to the rising
   country. Affonso II. [1211] continued what Sancho had begun;
   and the enactment of laws, humane and wise, are a testimony of
   progress, and an honourable distinction to his reign." But
   Affonso II. provoked the hostility of an arrogant and too
   powerful clergy, and drew upon himself a sentence of
   excommunication from Rome. "The divisions and the weakness
   which were caused by the contest between the royal and
   ecclesiastical authority brought misery upon the kingdom. The
   reign of Sancho II. [who succeeded to the throne in 1223] was
   more fatally influenced by them even than that of his father.
   … The now familiar terrors of excommunication and interdict
   were followed [1245] by a sentence of deposition from Innocent
   IV.; and Sancho, weak in character, and powerless before a
   hostile priesthood and a disaffected people, retired to end
   his days in a cloister of Castile. The successor to Sancho was
   Affonso III.
{2571}
   He had intrigued for his brother's crown; he had received the
   support of the priesthood, and he had promised them their
   reward in the extension of their privileges"; but his
   administration of the government was wise and popular. He died
   in 1279. "The first period of the history of Portugal is now
   closed. Up to this time, each reign, disturbed and enfeebled
   though it may have been, had added something to the extent of
   the country. But now the last conquest from the Moors had been
   won. On the south, the impassable barrier of the ocean; on the
   east, the dominions of Castile, confined the kingdom. … The
   crusading days were over. … The reign of Denis, who ruled from
   1279 to 1325, is at once the parallel to that of Affonso I. in
   its duration and importance, the contrast to it in being a
   period of internal progress instead of foreign conquest. …
   That Denis should have been able to accomplish as much as he
   did, was the wonder even of his own age. … Successive reigns
   still found the country progressing."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. McMurdo,
      History of Portugal,
      volume 1, books 1-4,
      and volume 2, book 1._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.
   The founding of the new dynasty, of the House of Avis.

   "The legitimate descent of the kings of Portugal from Count
   Henry, of the house of Burgundy, terminated with Ferdinand
   (the son of Peter I.) … in 1383. After wasting the resources
   of his people in the vain support of his claims to the crown
   of Castile, exposing Lisbon to a siege, and the whole country
   to devastation, this monarch gave his youthful daughter in
   marriage to the natural enemy of Portugal, John I., at that
   time the reigning king of Castile. … It was agreed between the
   contracting parties that the male issue of this connection
   should succeed to the Portuguese sceptre, and, that failing,
   that it should devolve into the hands of the Castilian
   monarch. Fortunately, however, the career of this Spanish
   tyrant was short, and no issue was left of Beatrix, for whom
   the crown of Portugal could be claimed; and therefore all the
   just pretensions of the Spaniard ceased. The marriage had
   scarcely been concluded, when Ferdinand died. It had been
   provided by the laws of the constitution, that in a case of
   emergency, such as now occurred, the election of a new
   sovereign should immediately take place. The legal heir to the
   crown, Don Juan [the late king's brother], the son of Pedro
   and Ignes de Castro, whose marriage had been solemnly
   recognised by an assembly of the states, was a prisoner at
   this time in the hands of his rival, the king of Castile. The
   necessity of having a head to the government appointed without
   delay, opened the road to the throne for John, surnamed the
   Bastard, the natural son of Don Pedro, by Donna Theresa
   Lorenzo, a Galician lady. Availing himself of the natural
   aversion by which the Portuguese were influenced against the
   Castilians, he seized the regency from the hands of the
   queen-dowager, … successfully defended Lisbon, and forced the
   Spaniards to retire into Spain after their memorable defeat on
   the plain of Aljubarota. … This battle … completely
   established the independence of the Portuguese monarchy. John
   was, in consequence, unanimously elected King by the Cortes,
   assembled at Coimbra in 1385. … In aid of his natural talents
   John I. had received an excellent education from his father,
   and during his reign exhibited proofs of being a profound
   politician, as well as a skilful general. … He became the
   founder of a new dynasty of kings, called the house of 'Avis,'
   from his having been grand master of that noble order. The
   enterprises, however, of the great Prince Henry, a son of
   John I., form a distinguishing feature of this reign."

      _W. M. Kinsey,
      Portugal Illustrated,
      pages 34-35._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
   The taking of Ceuta.
   The exploring expeditions of Prince Henry the Navigator
   down the African coast.

   "King John [the First] had married an English wife, Philippa
   Plantagenet—a grand-daughter of our King Edward III.,
   thoroughly English, too, on her mother's side, and not without
   a dash of Scottish blood, for her great-great-grandmother was
   a Comyn of Broghan. King John of Portugal was married to his
   English wife for twenty-eight years, they had five noble sons
   and a daughter (who was Duchess of Burgundy and mother of
   Charles the Bold); and English habits and usages were adopted
   at the Portuguese Court. We first meet with Prince Henry and
   his brothers, Edward and Peter, at the bed-side of their
   English mother. The king had determined to attack Ceuta, the
   most important seaport on the Moorish coast; and the three
   young princes were to receive knighthood if they bore
   themselves manfully, and if the place was taken. Edward, the
   eldest, was twenty-four, Peter twenty-three, and Henry just
   twenty-one. He was born on March 4th, 1394. There were two
   other brothers, John and Ferdinand, but they were still too
   young to bear arms. Their mother had caused three swords to be
   made with which they were to be girt as knights; and the great
   fleet was being assembled at Lisbon. But the Queen was taken
   ill, and soon there was no hope. Husband and sons gathered
   round her death-bed. When very near her end she asked: 'How is
   the wind?' she was told that it was northerly. 'Then,' she
   said, 'You will all sail for Ceuta on the feast of St. James.'
   A few minutes afterwards she died, and husband and sons sailed
   for Ceuta on St. James's day, the 25th of July, 1415,
   according to her word. … Ceuta was taken after a desperate
   fight. It was a memorable event, for the town never again
   passed into the hands of the Moors unto this day. … From the
   time of this Ceuta expedition Prince Henry set his mind
   steadfastly on the discovery of Guinea and on the promotion of
   commercial enterprise. During his stay at Ceuta he collected
   much information respecting the African coast. … His first
   objects were to know what was beyond the farthest cape
   hitherto reached on the coast of Africa, to open commercial
   relations with the people, and to extend the Christian faith.
   Prince Henry had the capacity for taking trouble. He undertook
   the task, and he never turned aside from it until he died. To
   be close to his work he came to live on the promontory of
   Sagres, near Cape St. Vincent, and not far from the seaport of
   Lagos. He was twenty-four years old when he came to live at
   this secluded spot, in December, 1418; and he died there in
   his sixty-seventh year. … He established a school at Sagres
   for the cultivation of map-drawing and the science of
   navigation. At great expense he procured the services of
   Mestre Jacome from Majorca, a man very learned in the art of
   navigation, as it was then understood, and he erected an
   observatory. …
{2572}
   My readers will remember that during the time of the Crusades
   a great order of knighthood was established, called the
   Templars, which became very rich and powerful, and held vast
   estates in most of the countries of Europe. At last the kings
   became jealous of their prosperity and, in the days of our
   Edward II. and of the French Philip IV., their wealth was
   confiscated, and the order of Knights Templars was abolished
   in all countries except Portugal. But King Dionysius of
   Portugal refused either to rob the knights or to abolish the
   order. In the year 1319 he reformed the order, and changed the
   name, calling it the Order of Christ, and he encircled the
   white cross of the Templars with a red cross as the future
   badge of the knights. They retained their great estates.
   Prince Henry was appointed, by his father, Grand Master of the
   Order of Christ in the year 1419. He could imagine no nobler
   nor more worthy employment for the large revenues of the Order
   than the extension of geographical discovery. Thus were the
   funds for his costly expeditions supplied by the Order of
   Chivalry of which he was Grand Master. When Prince Henry first
   began to send forth expeditions along the coast of Africa, the
   farthest point to the southward that had been sighted was Cape
   Bojador. The discovery of the extreme southern point of
   Africa, and of a way thence to India, was looked upon then
   exactly as the discovery of the North Pole is now. Fools asked
   what was the use of it. Half-hearted men said it was
   impossible. Officials said it was impractical. Nevertheless,
   Prince Henry said that it could be done, and that, moreover it
   should be done. … In 1434 he considered that the time had come
   to round Cape Bojador. He selected for the command of the
   expedition an esquire of his household named Gil Eannes, who
   was accompanied by John Diaz, an experienced seaman of a
   seafaring family at Lagos, many of whose members became
   explorers. Prince Henry told them that the current which they
   feared so much was strongest at a distance of about three to
   five miles from the land. He ordered them, therefore, to stand
   out boldly to sea. 'It was a place before terrible to all
   men,' but the Prince told them that they must win fame and
   honour by following his instructions. They did so, rounded the
   Cape, and landed on the other side. There they set up a wooden
   cross as a sign of their discovery. … The Prince now equipped
   a larger vessel than had yet been sent out, called a varinel,
   propelled by oars as well as sails. Many were the eager
   volunteers among the courtiers at Sagres. Prince Henry's
   cup-bearer, named Alfonso Gonsalves Baldaya, was selected to
   command the expedition, and Gil Eannes—he who first doubled
   Cape Bojador—went with it in a smaller vessel. … They sailed
   in the year 1436, and, having rounded Cape Bojador without any
   hesitation, they proceeded southward along the coast for 120
   miles, until they reached an estuary called by them Rio
   d'Ouro. … During the five following years Prince Henry was
   much engaged in State affairs. The disastrous expedition to
   Tangiers took place, and the imprisonment of his young brother
   Ferdinand by the Moors, whose noble resignation under cruel
   insults and sufferings until he died at Fez, won for him the
   title of the 'Constant Prince.' But in 1441 Prince Henry was
   able to resume the despatch of vessels of discovery. In that
   year he gave the command of a small ship to his master of the
   wardrobe, Antam Gonsalves. … He [Gonsalves] was followed in
   the same year by Nuno Tristram. … Tristram discovered a
   headland which, from its whiteness, he named Cape Blanco. …
   The next discovery was that of the island of Arguin, south of
   Cape Blanco, which was first visited in 1443 by Nuño Tristram
   in command of a caravel. … The next voyage of discovery was
   one of great importance, because it passed the country of the
   Moors, and, for the first time, entered the land of the
   Negroes. Dinis Diaz, who was selected for this enterprise by
   the Prince, sailed in 1446 with the resolution of beating all
   his predecessors. He passed the mouth of the river Senegal,
   and was surprised at finding that the people on the north bank
   were Moors, while to the south they were all blacks; of a
   tribe called Jaloffs. Diaz went as far as a point which he
   called Cabo Verde. In the following years several expeditions,
   under Lanzarote and others, went to Arguin and the Senegal;
   until, in 1455, an important voyage under Prince Henry's
   patronage was undertaken by a young Venetian named Alvise
   (Luigi) Cadamosto. … They sailed on March 22, 1455, and went
   first to Porto Santo and Madeira. From the Canary Islands they
   made sail for Cape Blanco, boldly stretching across the
   intervening sea and being for some time quite out of sight of
   land. Cadamosto had a good deal of intercourse with the
   Negroes to the south of the Senegal, and eventually reached
   the mouth of the Gambia whence he set out on his homeward
   voyage. The actual extent of the discoveries made during the
   life of Prince Henry was from Cape Bojador to beyond the mouth
   of the Gambia. But this was only a small part of the great
   service he performed, not only for his own country, but for
   the whole civilised world. He organised discovery, trained up
   a generation of able explorers, so that from his time progress
   was continuous and unceasing. … Prince Henry, who was to be
   known to all future generations as 'the Navigator,' died at
   the age of sixty-six at Sagres, on Thursday, the 13th of
   November, 1460."

      _C. R. Markham,
      The Sea Fathers,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. H. Major,
      Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, the Navigator._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
   The Pope's gift of title to African discoveries.
   Slow southward progress of exploration.
   The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope.
   Vasco da Gama's voyage.

   "In order to secure his triumphs, Prince Henry procured a bull
   from Pope Eugenius IV., which guaranteed to the Portuguese all
   their discoveries between Cape Nun, in Morocco, and India.
   None of his commanders approached within six or eight degrees
   of the equator. … By the year 1472, St. Thomas, Annobon, and
   Prince's Islands were added to the Portuguese discoveries, and
   occupied by colonists; and at length the equator was crossed.
   Fernando Po having given his name to an island in the Bight of
   Biafra, acquired possession of 500 leagues of equatorial
   coast, whence the King of Portugal took the title of Lord of
   Guinea. The subsequent divisions of this territory into the
   Grain Coast, named from the cochineal thence obtained, and
   long thought to be the seed of a plant, Gold Coast, Ivory
   Coast, and Slave Coast, indicate by their names the nature of
   the products of those lands, and the kind of traffic.
{2573}
   Under King John II., after an inactive period of eight or ten
   years, Diego Cam (1484) pushed forward fearlessly to latitude
   22° south, erecting at intervals on the shore, pillars of
   stone, which asserted the rights of his sovereign to the
   newly-found land. For the first time, perhaps, in history, men
   had now sailed under a new firmament. They lost sight of a
   part of the old celestial constellations, and were awe-struck
   with the splendours of the Southern Cross, and hosts of new
   stars. Each successive commander aimed at outdoing the deeds
   of his predecessor. Imaginary perils, which had frightened
   former sailors, spurred the Portuguese to greater daring.
   Bartholomew Diaz, in 1486, was sent in command of an
   expedition of three ships, with directions to sail till he
   reached the southernmost headland of Africa. Creeping on from
   cape to cape, he passed the furthest point touched by Diego
   Cam, and reached about 29° south latitude. Here driven out of
   his course by rough weather, he was dismayed on again making
   land to find the coast trending northward. He had doubled the
   Cape without knowing it, and only found it out on returning,
   disheartened by the results of his voyage. Raising the banner
   of St. Philip on the shore of Table Bay, Diaz named the
   headland the Cape of Tempests, which the king, with the
   passage to India in mind, changed to that of the Cape of Good
   Hope. By a curious coincidence, in the same year Covillan [see
   ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES] … learnt the fact that the Cape
   of Good Hope, the Lion of the Sea, or the Head of Africa,
   could be reached across the Indian Ocean."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      part 2, chapter 4._

   "Pedro de Covilho had sent word to King John II., from Cairo,
   by two Jews, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Joseph, that there was a
   south cape of Africa which could be doubled. They brought with
   them an Arabic map of the African coast. … Covilho had learned
   from the Arabian mariners, who were perfectly familiar with
   the east coast, that they had frequently been at the south of
   Africa, and that there was no difficulty in passing round the
   continent that way. … Vasco de Gama set sail July 9, 1497,
   with three ships and 160 men, having with him the Arab map.
   King John had employed his Jewish physicians, Roderigo and
   Joseph, to devise what help they could from the stars. They
   applied the astrolabe to marine use, and constructed tables.
   These were the same doctors who had told him that Columbus
   would certainly succeed in reaching India, and advised him to
   send out a secret expedition in anticipation, which was
   actually done, though it failed through want of resolution in
   its captain. Encountering the usual difficulties, tempestuous
   weather and a mutinous crew, who conspired to put him to
   death, De Gama succeeded, November 20, in doubling the Cape.
   On March 1 he met seven small Arab vessels, and was surprised
   to find that they used the compass, quadrants, sea-charts, and
   'had divers maritime mysteries not short of the Portugals.'
   With joy he soon after recovered sight of the northern stars,
   for so long unseen. He now bore away to the north-east, and on
   May 19, 1498, reached Calicut, on the Malabar coast. The
   consequences of this voyage were to the last degree important.
   The commercial arrangements of Europe were completely
   dislocated; Venice was deprived of her mercantile supremacy
   [see VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES]; the hatred of Genoa was
   gratified; prosperity left the Italian towns; Egypt, hitherto
   supposed to possess a pre-eminent advantage as offering the
   best avenue to India, suddenly lost her position; the
   commercial monopolies so long in the hands of the European
   Jews were broken down. The discovery of America and passage of
   the Cape were the first steps of that prodigious maritime
   development soon exhibited by Western Europe. And since
   commercial prosperity is forthwith followed by the production
   of men and concentration of wealth, and, moreover, implies an
   energetic intellectual condition, it appeared before long that
   the three centres of population, of wealth, of intellect, were
   shifting westwardly. The front of Europe was suddenly changed;
   the British Islands, hitherto in a sequestered and eccentric
   position, were all at once put in the van of the new
   movement."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Correa,
      The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama
      (Hakluyt Society, 1869)._

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 4 (volume l)._

      _G. M. Towle,
      Voyages and Adventures of Vasco da Gama._

      See, also, SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1474-1476.
   Interference in Castile.
   Defeat at Toro.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1490.
   Alliance with Castile and Aragon in the conquest of Granada.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1493.
   The Pope's division of discoveries in the New World.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended partition of the New World with Spain.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1495.
   Persecution and expulsion of Jews.

      See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1498-1580.
   Trade and settlements in the East Indies.

      See INDIA; A. D. 1498-1580.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1500-1504.
   Discovery, exploration and first settlement of Brazil.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514; and 1503-1504.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1501.
   Early enterprise in the Newfoundland fisheries.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1510-1549.
   Colonization of Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1524.
   Disputes with Spain in the division of the New World.
   The Congress at Badajos.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
   Disastrous invasion of Morocco by Sebastian.
   His death in battle.
   Disputed succession to the throne.
   The claim of Philip II. of Spain established by force of arms.

   "Under a long succession of Kings who placed their glory in
   promoting the commerce of their subjects and extending their
   discoveries through the remotest regions of the globe,
   Portugal had attained a degree of importance among the
   surrounding nations, from which the narrow limits of the
   kingdom, and the neighbourhood of the Spanish monarchy, seemed
   for ever to exclude her. … John III., the last of those great
   monarchs under whose auspices the boundaries of the known
   world had been enlarged, was succeeded in the throne of
   Portugal [1557] by his grandson Sebastian, a child of only
   three years old.
{2574}
   As the royal infant advanced to manhood, his subjects might,
   without flattery, admire his sprightly wit, his manly form,
   his daring spirit, and his superior address, in all the
   accomplishments of a martial age. But the hopes which these
   splendid qualities inspired were clouded by an intemperate
   thirst of fame. … He had early cherished the frantic project
   of transporting a royal army to India, and of rivalling the
   exploits of Alexander; but from this design he was diverted,
   not by the difficulties that opposed it, nor by the
   remonstrances of his counsellors, but by the distractions of
   Africa, which promised to his ambition a nearer and fairer
   harvest of glory. On the death of Abdalla, King of Morocco,
   his son, Muley Mahomet, had seized upon the crown, in contempt
   to an established law of succession, that the kingdom should
   devolve to the brother of the deceased monarch. A civil war
   ensued, and Mahomet, defeated in several battles, was
   compelled to leave his uncle Muley Moluc, a prince of great
   abilities and virtues, in possession of the throne." Mahomet
   escaped to Lisbon, and Sebastian espoused his cause. He
   invaded Morocco [see MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE]
   with a force partly supplied by his uncle, Philip II.; of
   Spain, and partly by the Prince of Orange, engaged the Moors
   rashly in battle (the battle of Alcazar, or the Three Kings,
   1579), and perished on the field, his army being mostly
   destroyed or made captive. "An aged and feeble priest was the
   immediate heir to the unfortunate Sebastian; and the Cardinal
   Henry, the great uncle to the late monarch, ascended the
   vacant throne." He enjoyed his royal dignity little more than
   a twelvemonth, dying in 1580, leaving the crown in dispute
   among a crowd of claimants.

      _History of Spain,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

   "The candidates were seven in number: the duchess of Braganza,
   the king of Spain, the duke of Savoy, Don Antonio, prior of
   Crato, the duke of Parma, Catherine of Medicis, and the
   sovereign pontiff. The four first were grand-children of
   Emanuel the Great, father of Henry. The duchess of Braganza
   was daughter of Prince Edward, Emanuel's second son; Philip
   was the son of the Empress Isabella, his eldest daughter; the
   duke of Savoy, of Beatrix, his younger daughter; and Don
   Antonio was a natural son of Lewis, who was a younger son of
   Emanuel, and brother to the present king [cardinal Henry]. The
   duke of Parma was great–grandson of Emanuel, by a daughter of
   the above-mentioned Prince Edward. The Queen-mother of France
   founded her claim on her supposed descent from Alphonso III.,
   who died about 300 years before the present period; and the
   Pope pretended that Portugal was feudatory to the see of Rome,
   and belonged to him, since the male heirs in the direct line
   were extinct." The other candidates held small chances against
   the power and convenient neighborhood of Philip of Spain.
   "Philip's agents at the court of Lisbon allowed that if the
   duchess of Braganza's father had been alive, his title would
   have been indisputable; but they maintained that, since he had
   died without attaining possession of the throne, nothing but
   the degree of consanguinity to Emanuel ought to be regarded;
   and that, as the duchess and he were equal in that respect,
   the preference was due to a male before a female. And they
   farther insisted, that the law which excludes strangers from
   inheriting the crown was not applicable to him, since Portugal
   had formerly belonged to the kings of Castile." Promptly on
   the death of the cardinal-king Henry, the Spanish king sent an
   army of 35,000 men, under the famous duke of Alva, and a large
   fleet under the Marquis of Santa Croce, to take possession of
   what he claimed as his inheritance. Two battles sufficed for
   the subjugation of Portugal:—one fought on the Alcantara,
   August 25, 1580, and the other a little later on the Douro.
   The kingdom submitted, but with bitter feelings, which the
   conduct of Alva and his troops had intensified at every step
   of their advance. "The colonies in America, Africa, and the
   Indies, which belonged to the crown of Portugal, quickly
   followed the example of the mother country; nor did Philip
   find employment for his arms in any part of the Portuguese
   dominions but the Azores," which, supported by the French,
   were not subdued until the following year.

      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 16._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1594-1602.
   Beginning of the rivalry of the Dutch in East India trade.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1624-1661.
   War with the Dutch.
   Loss and recovery of parts of Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
   Crisis of discontent with the Spanish rule.
   A successful revolution.
   National independence recovered.
   The House of Braganza placed on the throne.

   "A spirit of dissatisfaction had long been growing amongst the
   Portugueze. Their colonies were neglected; a great part of
   Brazil, and a yet larger portion of their Indian empire, had
   fallen into the hands of the Dutch; Ormus, and their other
   possessions in the Persian Gulph, had been conquered by the
   Persians; their intercourse with their remaining colonies was
   harassed and intercepted; their commerce with the independent
   Indian states, with China and with Japan, was here injured and
   there partially destroyed, by the enterprising merchants and
   mariners of Holland; whilst at home the privileges secured to
   them as the price of their submission, were hourly, if not
   flagrantly, violated by their Spanish masters. The illegal
   imposition of a new tax by the king's sole authority, in 1637,
   had provoked a partial revolt in the southern provinces, where
   the duke of Braganza, grandson of Catherine [whose right to
   the throne was forcibly put aside by Philip II. of Spain in
   1580,—see, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580], was proclaimed king. He
   refused the proffered dignity, and assisted in quelling the
   rebellion. He was thanked by Philip and at once recompensed,
   and, as it was hoped, ensnared, by an appointment to be
   general–in-chief of Portugal. But the flame was smothered, not
   extinguished. … The vice-queen, Margaret, duchess-dowager of
   Mantua, a daughter of Philip II.'s youngest daughter,
   Catherine, saw the gathering tempest, and forewarned the court
   of Madrid of the impending danger. Her information was
   treated, like herself, with contempt by Olivarez. One measure,
   however, he took, probably in consequence; and that one
   finally decided the hesitating conspirators to delay no
   longer. He ordered a large body of troops to be raised in
   Portugal, the nobles to arm their vassals, and all, under the
   conduct of the duke of Braganza, to hasten into Spain, in
   order to attend the king, who was about to march in person
   against the rebellious Catalans.
{2575}
   Olivarez hoped thus at once to overwhelm Catalonia and
   Roussillon, and to take from Portugal the power of revolting,
   by securing the intended leader, and draining the country of
   the warlike portion of its population. The nobles perceived
   the object of this command, and resolved to avoid compliance
   by precipitating their measures. Upon the 12th of October,
   1640, they assembled to the number of 40 at the house of Don
   Antonio d' Almeida. At this meeting they determined to recover
   their independence, and dispatched Don Pedro de Mendoza as
   their deputy, to offer the crown and their allegiance to the
   duke of Braganza, who had remained quietly upon his principal
   estate at Villa Viçosa. The duke hesitated, alarmed, perhaps,
   at the importance of the irrevocable step he was called upon
   to take. But his high-spirited duchess, a daughter of the
   Spanish duke of Medina-Sidonia, observing to him, that a
   wretched and dishonourable death certainly awaited him at
   Madrid; at Lisbon, as certainly glory, whether in life or
   death, decided his acceptance. Partisans were gained on all
   sides, especially in the municipality of Lisbon; and the
   secret was faithfully kept, for several weeks, by at least 500
   persons of both sexes, and all ranks. During this interval,
   the duke of Braganza remained at Villa Viçosa, lest his
   appearance at Lisbon should excite suspicion; and it seems
   that, however clearly the vice-queen had perceived the
   threatening aspect of affairs, neither she nor her ministers
   entertained any apprehension of the plot actually organized.
   The 1st of December was the day appointed for the
   insurrection. Early in the morning the conspirators approached
   the palace in four well-armed bands," and easily mastered the
   guard. From the windows of the palace they "proclaimed liberty
   and John IV." to a great concourse of people who had speedily
   assembled. Finding Vasconcellos, the obnoxious secretary to
   'the vice–queen, hidden in a closet, they slew him and flung
   his body into the street. The vice-queen, seeing herself
   helpless, submitted to the popular will and signed mandates
   addressed to the Spanish governors and other officers
   commanding castles and fortifications in Portugal, requiring
   their surrender. "The archbishop of Lisbon was next appointed
   royal-lieutenant. He immediately dispatched intelligence of
   the event to the new king, and sent messengers to every part
   of Portugal with orders for the proclamation of John IV., and
   the seizure of all Spaniards. … Obedience was prompt and
   general. … John was crowned on the 15th of December, and
   immediately abolished the heavy taxes imposed by the king of
   Spain, declaring that, for his own private expenses, he
   required nothing beyond his patrimonial estates. He summoned
   the Cortes to assemble in January, when the three estates of
   the kingdom solemnly confirmed his proclamation as king, or
   'acclamation,' as the Portugueze term it. … In the islands, in
   the African settlements, with the single exception of Ceuta,
   which adhered to Spain, and in what remained of Brazil and
   India, King John was proclaimed, the moment intelligence of
   the revolution arrived, the Spaniards scarcely any where
   attempting to resist. … In Europe, the new king was readily
   acknowledged by all the states at war with the house of
   Austria." The first attempts made by the Spanish court to
   regain its lost authority in Portugal took chiefly the form of
   base conspiracies for the assassination of the new king. War
   ensued, but the "languid and desultory hostilities produced
   little effect beyond harassing the frontiers. Portugal was
   weak, and thought only of self-defence; Spain was chiefly
   intent upon chastizing the Catalans." The war was prolonged,
   in fact, until 1668, when it was terminated by a treaty which
   recognized the independence of Portugal, but ceded Ceuta to
   Spain. The only considerable battles of the long war were
   those of Estremos, or Ameixal, in 1663, and Villa Viçosa,
   1665, in which the Portuguese were victors, and which were
   practically decisive of the war.

      _M. M. Busk,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 2, chapters 10-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Dunlap,
      Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1702.
   Joins the Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.
   The Methuen Treaty with England.

   Portugal joined the Grand Alliance against France and Spain,
   in the War of the Spanish Succession, in 1703, and entered at
   that time into an important treaty with England. This is known
   as the Methuen Treaty—"called after the name of the ambassador
   who negotiated it—and that treaty, and its effect upon the
   commerce of England and the habits of her people lasted
   through five generations, even to the present time. The wines
   of Portugal were to be admitted upon the payment of a duty 33½
   per cent. less than the duty paid upon French wines; and the
   woolen cloths of England, which had been prohibited in
   Portugal for twenty years, were to be admitted upon terms of
   proportionate advantage. Up to that time the Claret of France
   had been the beverage of the wine-drinkers of England. From
   1703 Port established itself as what Defoe calls 'our general
   draught.' In all commercial negotiations with France the
   Methuen Treaty stood in the way; for the preferential duty was
   continued till 1831. France invariably pursued a system of
   retaliation. It was a point of patriotism for the Englishman
   to hold firm to his Port."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 5, chapter 17._

      See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1713.
   Possessions in South America confirmed.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1757-1759.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits and suppression of the order.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1793.
   Joined in the coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
   Napoleon's designs against the kingdom.
   His delusive treaty for its partition with Spain.
   French invasion and flight of the royal family to Brazil.

   "One of the first steps taken by Napoleon, after his return to
   Paris, … [after the Peace of Tilsit-see GERMANY: A. D. 1807
   (JUNE-JULY)] was, in the month of August, to order the French
   and Spanish ambassadors conjointly, to declare to the
   prince–regent of Portugal, that he must concur in the
   continental system, viz. shut his ports against English
   commerce, confiscate all English property, and imprison all
   English subjects to be found within his dominions, or they
   were instructed immediately to leave Lisbon.
{2576}
   The prince and his ministers dared not openly resist the
   French emperor's will, even whilst the wiser part of the
   cabinet were convinced that the very existence of the country
   depended upon British commerce. In this extremity, and relying
   upon the friendly forbearance of England, they strove to
   pursue a middle course. Don John professed his readiness to
   exclude British ships of all descriptions from his ports, but
   declared that his religious principles would not allow him to
   seize the subjects and property of a friendly state in the
   midst of peace, and that prudence forbade his offending
   England until a Portugueze squadron, then at sea, should have
   returned safely home. … Napoleon punished this imperfect
   obedience, by seizing all Portugueze vessels in ports under
   his control, and ordering the French and Spanish legations to
   leave Lisbon. The Portugueze ambassadors were, at the same
   time, dismissed from Paris and Madrid. A French army was, by
   this time, assembled near the foot of the Pyrenees, bearing
   the singular title of army of observation of the Gironde; and
   General Junot … was appointed to its command. … Spain was
   endeavouring to share in the spoil, not to protect the victim.
   A treaty, the shameless iniquity of which can be paralleled
   only by the treaties between Austria, Russia, and Prussia for
   the partition of Poland, had been signed at Fontainebleau, on
   the 27th of October. … By this treaty Charles surrendered to
   Napoleon his infant grandson's kingdom of Etruria (King Louis
   I. had been dead some years), over which he had no right
   whatever, and bargained to receive for him in its stead the
   small northern provinces of Portugal, Entre Minho e Douro and
   Tras os Montes, under the name of the kingdom of Northern
   Lusitania, which kingdom the young monarch was to hold in
   vassalage of the crown of Spain. The much larger southern
   provinces, Alemtejo and Algarve, were to constitute the
   principality of the Algarves, for Godoy, under a similar
   tenure. And the middle provinces were to be occupied by
   Napoleon until a general peace, when, in exchange for
   Gibraltar, Trinidad, and any other Spanish possession
   conquered by England, they might be restored to the family of
   Braganza, upon like terms of dependence. The Portugueze
   colonies were to be equally divided between France and Spain.
   In execution of this nefarious treaty, 10,000 Spanish troops
   were to seize upon the northern, and 6,000 upon the southern
   state. … On the 18th of October, Junot, in obedience to his
   master's orders, crossed the Pyrenees, and, being kindly
   received by the Spaniards, began his march towards the
   Portugueze frontiers, whilst the Spanish troops were equally
   put in motion towards their respective destinations. … The
   object of so much haste was, to secure the persons of the
   royal family, whose removal to Brazil had not only been talked
   of from the beginning of these hostile discussions, but was
   now in preparation, and matter of public notoriety. … The
   reckless haste enjoined by the emperor, and which cost almost
   as many lives as a pitched battle, was very near attaining its
   end. … The resolution to abandon the contest being adopted,
   the prince and his ministers took every measure requisite to
   prevent a useless effusion of blood. A regency, consisting of
   five persons, the marquess of Abrantes being president, was
   appointed to conduct the government, and negotiate with Junot.
   On the 26th a proclamation was put forth, explaining to the
   people that, as Napoleon's enmity was rather to the sovereign
   than the nation, the prince-regent, in order to avert the
   calamities of war from his faithful subjects, would transfer
   the seat of government to Brazil, till the existing troubles
   should subside, and strictly charging the Portugueze, more
   especially the Lisbonians, to receive the French as friends.
   On the 27th the whole royal family proceeded to Belem, to
   embark for flight, on the spot whence, about three centuries
   back, Vasco de Gama had sailed upon his glorious enterprise. …
   The ships set sail and crossed the bar, almost as the French
   advance guard was entering Lisbon. Sir Sidney Smith escorted
   the royal family, with four men-of-war, safely to Rio Janeiro,
   the capital of Brazil, leaving the remainder of his squadron
   to blockade the mouth of the Tagus."

      _M. M. Busk,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 4, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1800-1815,
      chapter 52._

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 2 (volume l)._

      See, also, BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
   Rising against the French.
   Arrival of British forces.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
   Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
   The Convention of Cintra.
   French evacuation of Portugal.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809 (February-December).
   Wellington's retreat and fresh advance.
   The French checked.
   Passage of the Douro.
   Battle of Talavera.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809-1812.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French invasion and retreat.
   English advance into Spain.

      See SPAIN: A.D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1810-1812.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1814.
   End of the Peninsular War.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
   Revolution and Absolutist reaction.
   Separation and independence of Brazil.

   "Ever since 1807 Portugal had not known a court. On the first
   threat of French invasion the Regent had emigrated to the
   Brazils, and he had since lived and ruled entirely in the
   great Transatlantic colony. The ordinary conditions of other
   countries had been reversed. Portugal had virtually become a
   dependency of her own colony. The absence of the court was a
   sore trial to the pride of the Portuguese. An absent court had
   few supporters. It happened, too, that its ablest defender had
   lately left the country. … In April 1820 [Marshal] Beresford
   sailed for the Brazils. He did not return till the following
   October; and the revolution had been completed before his
   return. On the 24th of August the troops at Oporto determined
   on establishing a constitutional government, and appointed a
   provisional Junta with this object. The Regency which
   conducted the affairs of the country at Lisbon denounced the
   movement as a nefarious conspiracy. But, however nefarious the
   conspiracy might be, the defection of the army was so general
   that resistance became impossible. On the 1st of September the
   Regency issued a proclamation promising to convene the Cortes.
{2577}
   The promise, however, did not stop the progress of the
   insurrection. The Junta which had been constituted at Oporto
   marched at the head of the troops upon Lisbon. The troops at
   Lisbon and in the south of Portugal threw off their
   allegiance, and established a Junta of their own. The Junta at
   Lisbon were, for the moment, in favour of milder measures than
   the Junta of Oporto. But the advocates of the more extreme
   course won their ends. The Oporto troops, surrounding the two
   Juntas, which had been blended together, compelled them to
   adopt the Spanish constitution; in other words, to sanction
   the election of one deputy to the Cortes for every 30,000
   persons inhabiting the country. … When the revolution of 1820
   had occurred John VI., King of Portugal, was quietly ruling in
   his transatlantic dominions of Brazil. Portugal had been
   governed for thirteen years from Rio de Janeiro; and the
   absence of the Court from Lisbon had offended the Portuguese
   and prepared them for change. After the mischief had been done
   John VI. was persuaded to return to his native country,
   leaving his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of Brazil in his
   absence. Before setting out on his journey he gave the prince
   public instructions for his guidance, which practically made
   Brazil independent of Portugal; and he added private
   directions to the prince, in case any emergency should arise
   which should make it impracticable to preserve Brazil for
   Portugal, to place the crown on his own head, and thus save
   the great Transatlantic territory for the House of Braganza.
   Leaving these parting injunctions with his son, John VI.
   returned to the old kingdom which he had deserted nearly
   fourteen years before. He reached Lisbon, and found the
   Constitutionalists in undisputed possession of power. He found
   also that the action of the Constitutionalists in Portugal was
   calculated to induce Brazil to throw off the authority of the
   mother country. The Cortes in Portugal insisted on the
   suppression of the supreme tribunals in Brazil, on the
   establishment of Provincial Juntas, and on the return of the
   Regent to Portugal. The Brazilians declined to adopt measures
   which they considered ruinous to their dignity, and persuaded
   the Regent to disobey the orders of the Cortes. A small body
   of Portuguese troops quartered in Brazil endeavoured to
   overawe the prince, but proved powerless to do so. In May 1822
   the prince was persuaded to declare himself Perpetual Defender
   of the Brazils. In the following September the Brazilians
   induced him to raise their country to the dignity of an
   empire, and to declare himself its constitutional emperor. The
   news that the Brazilians had declared themselves an
   independent empire reached Europe at a critical period.
   Monarchs and diplomatists were busily deliberating at Verona
   on the affairs of Spain and of the Spanish colonies. No one,
   however, could avoid comparing the position of Portugal and
   Brazil with that of Spain and her dependencies. … The evident
   determination of France to interfere in Spain created anxiety
   in Portugal. The Portuguese Cortes apprehended that the
   logical consequence of French interference in the one country
   was French interference in the other. … The position of a
   French army on the Spanish frontier roused the dormant spirits
   of the Portuguese Absolutists. In February 1823 a vast
   insurrection against the Constitution broke out in Northern
   Portugal. The insurgents, who in the first instance obtained
   considerable success, were with difficulty defeated. But the
   revolt had been hardly quelled before the Absolutists
   recovered their flagging spirits. Every step taken by the Duc
   d' Angoulême in his progress from the Bidassoa to Madrid [see
   SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827] raised their hopes of ultimate
   success. The king's second son, the notorious Dom Miguel, fled
   from his father's palace and threw in his lot with the
   insurgents. For a moment the king stood firm and denounced his
   son's proceedings. But the reaction which had set in was too
   strong to be resisted. The Cortes was closed, a new Ministry
   appointed, and autocracy re-established in Portugal. The
   re-establishment of autocracy in Portugal marked the
   commencement of a series of intrigues in which this country
   [England] was deeply interested. One party in the new
   Government, with M. de Palmella at its head, was disposed to
   incline to moderate measures and to listen to the advice which
   it received from the British Ministry and from the British
   Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton. Another party, of which M. de
   Subsérra was the representative, was in favour of an intimate
   union with France, and ready to listen to the contrary
   counsels of M. de Neuville, the French Minister at Lisbon. M.
   de Palmella, despairing of founding a settled form of
   government amidst the disorders which surrounded him on every
   side, applied to the British Ministry for troops to give
   stability to the Administration. The demand arrived in London
   in July 1823. … The demand for troops was refused, but a
   British squadron was sent to the Tagus, with a view of
   affording the King of Portugal the moral support of the
   British nation and a secure asylum in the event of any danger
   to his person. Many months elapsed before the King of Portugal
   had occasion to avail himself of the possible asylum which was
   thus afforded to him. … The evident leanings of M. de Palmella
   towards moderate measures, however, alarmed the Portuguese
   Absolutists. Ever since the revolution of 1823 Dom Miguel had
   held the command of the army; and, on the night of the 29th of
   April, 1824, the prince suddenly ordered the arrest of the
   leading personages of the Government, and, under the pretext
   of suppressing an alleged conspiracy of Freemasons, called on
   the army to liberate their king, and to complete the triumph
   of the previous year. For nine days the king was a mere puppet
   in the hands of his son, and Dom Miguel was virtually master
   of Lisbon. On the 9th of May the king was persuaded by the
   foreign ministers in his capital to resume his authority; to
   retire on board the 'Windsor Castle,' a British man-of-war; to
   dismiss Dom Miguel from his command, and to order his
   attendance upon him. The prince, 'stricken with a sudden
   futuity,' obeyed his father's commands, and was prevailed upon
   to go into voluntary exile. The revolution of 1824 terminated
   with his departure, and Portugal again enjoyed comparative
   tranquillity."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 18._

      See, also, BRAZIL: A.D. 1808-1822.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1822.
   The independence of Brazil proclaimed and established.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

{2578}

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.
   Return of John VI. to Brazil.
   Abdication of the Portuguese throne by Dom Pedro,
   after granting a constitution.
   Usurpation of Dom Miguel.
   Civil war and factious conflicts.
   Establishment of Parliamentary government, and Peace.

   "At the close of 1824 the king returned to Brazil to spend his
   last days in peace. On reaching Rio de Janeiro, he recognized
   Dom Pedro as Emperor of Brazil, and on the 6th of March, 1826,
   John VI. died in the country of his choice. By his will, John
   VI. left the regency of Portugal to his daughter Isabel Maria,
   to the disgust of Dom Miguel, who had fully expected in spite
   of his conduct that Portugal would be in some manner
   bequeathed to him, and that Dom Pedro would be satisfied with
   the government of Brazil. The next twenty-five years are the
   saddest in the whole history of Portugal. The establishment of
   the system of parliamentary government, which now exists, was
   a long and difficult task. … The keynote of the whole series
   of disturbances is to be found in the pernicious influence of
   the army. … The army was disproportionately large for the size
   and revenue of the country; there was no foreign or colonial
   war to occupy its energies, and the soldiers would not return
   to the plough nor the officers retire into private life. The
   English Cabinet at this juncture determined to maintain peace
   and order, and in 1826, a division of 5,000 men was sent under
   the command of Lieutenant-General Sir William Clinton to
   garrison the chief towns. The accession of Pedro IV. to the
   throne was hailed with joy in Portugal, though looked on with
   suspicion in Brazil. He justified his reputation by drawing up
   a charter, containing the bases for a moderate parliamentary
   government of the English type, which he sent over to
   Portugal, by the English diplomatist, Lord Stuart de Rothesay.
   Then to please his Brazilian subjects, he abdicated the throne
   of Portugal in favour of his daughter, Donna Maria da Gloria,
   a child of seven years old, on condition that on attaining a
   suitable age she should marry her uncle, Dom Miguel, who was
   to swear to observe the new constitution. The Charter of 1826
   was thankfully received by the moderate parliamentary party;
   Clinton's division was withdrawn; Palmella remained prime
   minister; and in the following year, 1827, Dom Pedro destroyed
   the effect of his wise measures by appointing Dom Miguel to be
   regent of Portugal in the name of the little queen. Dom Miguel
   was an ambitious prince, who believed that he ought to be king
   of Portugal; he was extremely popular with the old nobility,
   the clergy, and the army, with all who disliked liberal ideas,
   and with the beggars and the poor who were under the influence
   of the mendicant orders. He was declared Regent in July, 1827,
   and in May, 1828, he summoned a Cortes of the ancient type,
   such as had not met since 1697, which under the presidency of
   the Bishop of Viseu offered him the throne of Portugal. He
   accepted, and immediately exiled all the leaders of the
   parliamentary, or, as it is usually called, the Chartist,
   party, headed by Palmella, Saldanha, Villa Flor, and Sampaio.
   They naturally fled to England, where the young queen was
   stopping on her way to be educated at the court of Vienna, and
   found popular opinion strongly in their favour. But the Duke
   of Wellington and his Tory Cabinet refused to countenance or
   assist them. … Meanwhile the reign of Dom Miguel had become a
   Reign of Terror; arrests and executions were frequent;
   thousands were deported to Africa, and in 1830 it was
   estimated that 40,000 persons were in prison for political
   offences. He ruled in absolute contempt of all law, and at
   different times English, French, and American fleets entered
   the Tagus to demand reparation for damage done to commerce, or
   for the illegal arrest of foreigners. The result of this
   conduct was that the country was hopelessly ruined, and the
   chartist and radical parties, who respectively advocated the
   Charter of 1826 and the Constitution of 1822, agreed to sink
   their differences, and to oppose the bigoted tyrant. … Dom
   Pedro, who had devoted his life to the cause of parliamentary
   government, resigned his crown in 1831 [see BRAZIL: A. D.
   1825-1865] to his infant son, and left Brazil to head the
   movement for his daughter's cause. … In July, 1832, the
   ex-emperor with an army of 7,500 men arrived at Oporto, where
   he was enthusiastically welcomed, and Dom Miguel then laid
   siege to the city. European opinion was divided between the
   two parties; partisans of freedom and of constitutional
   government called the Miguelites 'slaves of a tyrant,' while
   lovers of absolutism, alluding to the loans raised by the
   ex-emperor, used to speak of the 'stock-jobbing Pedroites.'
   The siege was long and protracted." The Miguelites finally
   sustained several heavy defeats, both on land and at sea, and
   Lisbon was triumphantly entered by the Chartists in July,
   1833. "The year 1834 was one of unbroken success for the
   Chartists. England and France recognized Maria da Gloria as
   Queen of Portugal, and the ministry of Queen Isabella of
   Spain, knowing Dom Miguel to be a Carlist, sent two Spanish
   armies under Generals Rodil and Serrano to the help of Dom
   Pedro. … Finally the combined Spanish and Portuguese armies
   surrounded the remnant of the Miguelites at Evora Monte, and
   on the 26th of May, 1834, Dom Miguel surrendered. By the
   Convention of Evora Monte, Dom Miguel abandoned his claim to
   the throne of Portugal, and in consideration of a pension of
   £15,000 a year promised never again to set foot in the
   kingdom. … Dom Pedro, who had throughout the struggle been the
   heart and soul of his daughter's party, had thus the pleasure
   of seeing the country at peace, and a regular parliamentary
   system in operation, but he did not long survive, for on the
   24th of September, 1834, he died at Queluz near Lisbon, of an
   illness brought on by his great labours and fatigues, leaving
   a name, which deserves all honour from Portuguese and
   Brazilians alike. Queen Maria da Gloria was only fifteen, when
   she thus lost the advantage of her father's wise counsel and
   steady help, yet it might have been expected that her reign
   would be calm and prosperous. But neither the queen, the
   nobility, nor the people, understood the principles of
   parliamentary government. … The whole reign was one of violent
   party struggles, for they hardly deserve to be called civil
   wars, so little did they involve, which present a striking
   contrast to the peaceable constitutional government that at
   present prevails. … In 1852 the Charter was revised to suit
   all parties; direct voting, one of the chief claims of the
   radicals, was allowed, and the era of civil war came to an
   end.
{2579}
   Maria da Gloria did not long survive this peaceful settlement,
   for she died on the 15th of November, 1853, and her husband
   the King-Consort, Ferdinand II, assumed the regency until his
   eldest son Pedro V. should come of age. The era of peaceful
   parliamentary government, which succeeded the stormy reign of
   Maria II., has been one of material prosperity for Portugal. …
   The whole country, and especially the city of Lisbon, was
   during this reign, on account of the neglect of all sanitary
   precautions, ravaged by cholera and yellow fever, and it was
   in the midst of one of these outbreaks, on the 11th of
   November, 1861, that Pedro V., who had refused to leave his
   pestilence-stricken capital, died of cholera, and was followed
   to the grave by two of his younger brothers, Dom Ferdinand and
   Dom John. At the time of Pedro's death, his next brother and
   heir, Dom Luis, was travelling on the continent, and his
   father, Ferdinand II., who long survived Queen Maria da Gloria
   … assumed the regency until his return; soon after which King
   Luis married Maria Pia, younger daughter of Victor Emmanuel,
   king of Italy. … The reign of King Luis was prosperous and
   peaceful, and the news of his death on October 9, 1889, was
   received with general regret. … Luis I. was succeeded on the
   throne by his elder son, Dom Carlos, or Charles I., a young
   man of twenty-six, who married in 1886, the Princess Marie
   Amélie de Bourbon, the eldest daughter of the Comte de Paris.
   His accession was immediately followed by the revolution of
   the 15th of November, 1889, in Brazil, by which his great
   uncle, Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, was dethroned and a
   republican government established in that country."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 18._

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Bollaert,
      Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain,
      volume 1._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1884-1889.
   Territorial claims in Africa.
   The Berlin Conference.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

   ----------PORTUGAL: End--------

PORTUS AUGUSTI AND PORTUS TRAJANI.

      See OSTIA.

PORTUS CALE.

   The ancient name of
Oporto, whence came, also, the name of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

PORTUS ITIUS.

   The port on the French coast from which Cæsar sailed on both
   his expeditions to Britain. Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Witsand and
   Calais have all contended for the honor of representing it in
   modern geography; but the serious question seems to be between
   Boulogne and Witsand, or Wissant.

      _T. Lewin,
      Invasion of Britain._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, appendix 1._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 7._

PORTUS LEMANIS.

   An important Roman port in Britain, at the place which still
   preserves its name—Lymne.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

PORTUS MAGNUS.

   An important Roman port in Britain, the massive walls of which
   are still seen at Porchester (or Portchester).

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

POST.
POSTAGE.
POST–OFFICE.

   "The little that is known of the post-system of the [Roman]
   empire is summed up in a few words in Becker's 'Handbuch,'
   iii. i. 304: 'The institution of Augustus, which became the
   basis of the later System known to us from the writings of the
   Jurists, consisted of a military service which forwarded
   official despatches from station to station by couriers,
   called in the earlier imperial period speculatories. (Liv.
   xxxi. 24.; Suet. Calig. 44.; Tac. Hist. ii. 73.) Personal
   conveyance was confined (as in the time of the republic) to
   officials: for this purpose the mutationes (posts) and
   mansiones (night quarters) were assigned, and even palatia
   erected at the latter for the use of governors and the emperor
   himself. Private individuals could take advantage of these
   state posts within the provinces by a special license
   (diploma) of the governor, and at a later period of the
   emperor only.' Under the republic senators and high personages
   could obtain the posts for their private use, as a matter of
   privilege."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapter 34 (volume 4), foot-note._

   "According to Professor Friedländer in his interesting work,
   'Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschiehte Roms,' great progress
   was made by the Romans, in the fourth and fifth centuries, in
   their method of postal communication. Their excellent roads
   enabled them to establish rapid mule and horse posts as well
   as carts, and it is even stated that special 'postal ships'
   (Post schiffe) were kept in readiness at the principal
   sea-ports. These advanced postal arrangements, like many other
   traces of Roman civilization, survived longest in Gaul; but
   even there the barbarism of the people, and the constant wars
   in which they were engaged, gradually extinguished, first the
   necessity, and then, as a natural consequence, the means of
   postal communication, until we find, at a much later period,
   all European countries alike, for lack of any organized
   system, making use of pilgrims, friars, pedlars, and others,
   to convey their correspondence from one place to another. The
   first attempt of any importance, to rescue postal
   communication from the well-nigh hopeless condition into which
   it had for centuries fallen, was made in Germany in 1380, by
   the order of Teutonic Knights, who established properly
   equipped post-messengers for home and international service.
   An improvement and extension of this plan was carried out by
   Francis von Thaxis in the year 1516, when a postal line from
   Brussels to Vienna, via Kreuznach, was established. It is true
   that, shortly before this, there is some record of Louis XI.
   of France having started, for State postal purposes, what were
   termed cavaliers du roy; but these were only allowed to be
   used for private purposes by privileged individuals, part of
   whose privilege, by the way, consisted in paying to Louis an
   enormous fee. It is to Francis von Thaxis that must be
   accorded the title of the first postal reformer. So eager was
   his interest in the work he had undertaken, that, in order to
   gain the right of territorial transit through several of the
   small states of Germany where his plans were strongly opposed,
   he actually agreed for a time to carry the people's letters
   free of charge, an instance of generosity, for a parallel of
   which we look in vain in the history of the Post Office. The
   mantle of this reformer seems, strangely enough, to have
   fallen in turn upon many of his descendants, who not only in
   Germany, but also in Spain, Austria, Holland, and other
   countries, obtained concessions for carrying on the useful
   work started by Francis von Thaxis.
{2580}
   One of the Thaxis family, at a later date, was created a
   prince of Germany, and took the name of Thurm und Taxis; and
   from him is descended the princely line bearing that name
   which flourishes at the present day. Another member of the
   family was created a grandee of Spain, and has the honor of
   being immortalized by Schiller in his 'Don Carlos.' The first
   establishment of an organized system of postal communication
   in England is wrapt in some obscurity. During the reign of
   John post-messengers were, for the first time, employed by the
   king; these messengers were called nuncii; and in the time of
   Henry I. these nuncii were also found in the service of some
   of the barons. In Henry III.'s reign they had so far become a
   recognized institution of the State that they were clothed in
   the royal livery. Mr. Lewins, in his interesting work, 'Her
   Majesty's Mails,' states that several private letters are
   still in existence, dating back as far as the reign of Edward
   II., which bear the appearance of having been carried by the
   nuncii of that period, with 'Haste, post haste!' written
   across them. … Edward IV., towards the end of the fifteenth
   century, during the time that he was engaged in war with
   Scotland, had the stations for postal relays placed within a
   few miles of each other all the way from London to the royal
   camp, and by this means managed to get his despatches carried
   nearly a hundred miles a day. … No improvement is recorded in
   the postal service in this country from the period last
   referred to until the reign of Henry VIII. This king, we are
   told, appointed a 'master of the posts,' in the person of Sir
   Brian Tuke, who really seems to have made great efforts to
   exercise a proper control over the horse-posts, and to bring
   some sort of organization to bear on his department. Poor
   Tuke, however, was not rewarded with much success. … James I.
   established a regular post for inland letters, and Charles I.,
   recognizing, no doubt, the financial importance of the Post
   Office, declared it in 1637, by royal proclamation, to be
   State property. It was, however, during the Protectorate,
   twenty years later, that the first act of Parliament relating
   to the formation of a State Post Office was passed. This
   statute was entitled, 'An Act for the settling of the postage
   of England, Scotland, and Ireland.' … The first trace which
   can be found of a regular tariff of postal charges is in the
   reign of Charles I., and even regarded by the light of to-day
   these charges cannot be held to be exorbitant; for example, a
   single letter from London, for any distance under eighty
   miles, was charged twopence; fourpence up to one hundred and
   forty miles; sixpence for any greater distance in England, and
   eightpence to all parts of Scotland."

      _Postal Communication, Past and Present
      (National Review; copied in Littell's Living Age,
      July 30, 1887)._

   "A penny post was established in London, in 1683, two years
   before the death of Charles II., for the conveyance of letters
   and parcels within the City, by Robert Murray, an upholsterer
   by trade, who, like a great many others, was dissatisfied with
   the Government, which, in its anxiety to provide for the
   postal requirements of the country, had entirely neglected the
   City and suburbs. The post, established by Murray at a vast
   expense, was ultimately handed over to a William Docwray,
   whose name is now well known in the annals of Post Office
   history. The arrangements of the new penny post were simple,
   and certainly liberal enough. All letters or parcels not
   exceeding a pound weight, or any sum of money not exceeding
   £10 in value, or parcel not worth more than £10, could be
   conveyed at a cost of one penny; or within a radius of ten
   miles from a given centre, for the charge of twopence. Several
   district offices were opened in various parts of London, and
   receiving houses were freely established in all the leading
   thoroughfares. … The deliveries in the City were from six to
   eight daily, while from three to four were found sufficient to
   supply the wants of the suburbs. The public appreciated and
   supported the new venture, and it soon became a great
   commercial success, useful to the citizens, and profitable to
   the proprietor. No sooner, however, did a knowledge of this
   fact reach the ears of those in authority over the General
   Post Office, than the Duke of York, acting under instructions,
   and by virtue of the settlement made to him, objected to its
   being continued, on the ground that it was an invasion of his
   legal rights. … The authorities … applied to the court of
   King's Bench, wherein it was decided that the new or so-called
   penny post was an infraction of the privileges of the
   authorities of the General Post Office, and the royal
   interest, and that consequently it, with all its organization,
   profits, and advantages, should be handed over to, and remain
   the property of, the royal establishment. … Post-paid
   envelopes were in use in France in the time of Louis XIV.
   Pelisson states that they originated in 1653 with M. de
   Velayer, who established, under royal authority, a private
   penny-post in Paris. He placed boxes at the corners of the
   principal streets to receive the letters, which were obliged
   to be enclosed in these envelopes. They were suggested to the
   Government by Mr. Charles Whiting in 1830, and the eminent
   publisher, the late Mr. Charles Knight, also proposed stamped
   covers for papers. Dr. T. E. Gray, of the British Museum,
   claimed the credit of suggesting that letters should be
   prepaid by the use of stamps as early as 1834."

      _W. Tegg,
      Posts and Telegraphs,
      pages 21-23 and 100-101._

   "On the morning of the 10th of January, 1840, the people of
   the United Kingdom rose in the possession of a new power—the
   power of sending by the post a letter not weighing more than
   half an ounce upon the prepayment of one penny, and this
   without any regard to the distance which the letter had to
   travel. … To the sagacity and the perseverance of one man, the
   author of this system, the high praise is due, not so much
   that he triumphed over the petty jealousies and selfish fears
   of the post-office authorities, but that he established his
   own convictions against the doubts of some of the ablest and
   most conscientious leaders of public opinion. … Mr. Rowland
   Hill in 1837 published his plan of a cheap and uniform
   postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in
   1837, which, continued its inquiries throughout the session of
   1838, and arrived at the conviction that 'the mode recommended
   of charging and collecting postage, in a pamphlet published by
   Mr. Rowland Hill,' was feasible, and deserving of a trial
   under legislative sanction. … Lord Ashburton, although an
   advocate of Post-office Reform, held that the reduction to a
   penny would wholly destroy the revenue. Lord Lowther, the
   Postmaster-General, thought twopence the smallest rate that
   would cover the expenses.
{2581}
   Colonel Maberly, the secretary to the post office, considered
   Mr. Hill's plan a most preposterous one, and maintained that
   if the rates were to be reduced to a penny, the revenue would
   not recover itself for forty or fifty years. … Public opinion,
   however, had been brought so strongly to bear in favour of a
   penny rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring
   Rice, on the 5th of July, 1839, proposed a resolution, 'that
   it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one
   uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount
   of weight to be determined—that the parliamentary privilege
   of franking should be abolished, and that official franking be
   strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any
   deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction
   of the postage.' A Bill was accordingly passed to this effect
   in the House of Commons, its operation being limited in its
   duration to one year, and the Treasury retaining the power of
   fixing the rates at first, although the ultimate reduction was
   to be to one penny. This experimental measure reduced all
   rates above fourpence to that sum, leaving those below
   fourpence unaltered. With this complication of charge the
   experiment could not have a fair trial, and accordingly on the
   10th of January, 1840, the uniform half-ounce rate became by
   order of the Treasury one penny. … In 1840 the number of
   letters sent through the post had more than doubled, and the
   legislature had little hesitation in making the Act of 1839
   permanent, instead of its duration being limited to the year
   which would expire in October. A stamped envelope, printed
   upon a peculiar paper, and bearing an elaborate design, was
   originally chosen as the mode of rendering prepayment
   convenient to the sender of a letter. A simpler plan soon
   superseded this attempt to enlist the Fine Arts in a plain
   business operation. The plan of prepaying letters by affixing
   a stamp bearing the head of the ruler of the country, came
   into use here in May, 1840 [see, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1840].
   The habit of prepayment by postage stamps has now become so
   universal throughout the world, that in 1861 the system was
   established in eighty different countries or colonies."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 24._

   The first postal system in the American colonies was privately
   established in New England in 1676, by John Heyward, under
   authority from the General Court of the colony of
   Massachusetts. "In 1683 the government of Penn established a
   postal system for the Colony of Pennsylvania. In 1700 Colonel
   J. Hamilton organized 'his postal establishment for British
   America' including all the English colonies, but soon after
   disposed of his right to the English crown. In 1710 the
   English Parliament established by law the first governmental
   postal system with the general office at New York, which
   continued until in 1776 the Continental Congress adopted and
   set in action the postal system proposed by Franklin, who was
   appointed the first Postmaster General. The first law of the
   Federal Congress continued this system in operation as
   sufficient for the public wants, but the postal service was
   not finally settled until the act of 1792. This law (1792)
   fixed a tariff which with unimportant changes remained in
   force until the adoption of the system of Uniform Postage in
   the United States. Single, double and triple letters were
   charged 8, 16 and 24 cents respectively when sent to other
   countries, and four cents plus the internal postage when
   arriving from foreign countries. The internal postage between
   offices in the United States was 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22 and
   25 cents for distances of 30, 60, 100, 150, 200, 250, 350, or
   400 miles respectively for single letters, and double, triple,
   etc., this for double, triple, etc. letters. A single letter
   was defined by the law to be a single sheet or piece of paper,
   a double letter, two sheets or pieces of paper, etc. … The
   earliest letters which we have seen, consist of single sheets
   of paper folded and addressed upon the sheet. An envelope
   would have subjected them to double postage."

      _J. K. Tiffany,
      History of the Postage Stamps,
      introduction._

   By an act of March 3, 1845, the postage rates in the United
   States were reduced to two—namely, 5 cents for 300 miles or
   under, and 10 cents for longer distances. Six years later
   (March 3, 1851) the minimum rate for half an ounce became 3
   cents (if prepaid) with the distance covered by it extended to
   3,000 miles; if not prepaid, 5 cents. For distances beyond
   3,000 miles, these rates were doubled. In 1856 prepayment was
   made compulsory; and by an act signed March 3, 1863, the 3
   cent rate for half–ounce letters was extended to all distances
   in the United States.

      _J. Rees,
      Footprints of a Letter-Carrier,
      page 264._

   In 1883 the rate in the United States was reduced to 2 cents
   for all distances, on letters not exceeding half an ounce. In
   1885 the weight of a letter transmissible for 2 cents was
   increased to one ounce. The use of postage stamps was first
   introduced in the United States under an act of Congress
   passed in March, 1847. Stamped envelopes were first provided
   in 1853. The first issue of postal cards was on the 1st of
   May, 1873, under an act approved June 8, 1872. The registry
   system was adopted July 1, 1855. Free delivery of letters in
   the larger cities was first undertaken on the 1st of July
   1863.

      _D. M. Dickinson,
      Progress and the Post
      (North American Review, October, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Annual Report of the Postmaster-General
      of the United States, 1893,
      pages 543-558
      (Description of all Postage Stamps and
      Postal Cards issued)._

POSTAL MONEY-ORDER SYSTEM, The.

   The postal money-order system, though said to be older in
   practical existence, was regularly instituted and organized in
   England, in its present form, in 1859. It was adopted in the
   United States five years later, going into operation in
   November, 1864.

      _D. M. Dickinson,
      Progress and the Post
      (North American Review, October, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887,
      page 687._

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS.

   Postal savings banks were first brought into operation in
   England in 1861. "One shilling is the smallest sum that can be
   deposited. The Government has, however, … issued blank forms
   with spaces for twelve penny postage-stamps, and will receive
   one of these forms with twelve stamps affixed as a deposit.
   This plan was suggested by the desire to encourage habits of
   saving among children, and by the success of penny banks in
   connection with schools and mechanics' institutes. No one can
   deposit more than £30 in one year, or have to his credit more
   than £150 exclusive of interest. When the principal and
   interest together amount to £200, interest ceases until the
   amount has been reduced below £200.
{2582}
   Interest at two and a half per cent is paid, beginning the
   first of the month following the deposit and stopping the last
   of the month preceding the withdrawal, but no interest is paid
   on any sum less than a pound or not a multiple of a pound. The
   interest is added to the principal on the 31st of December of
   each year. … The English colonies … have established postal
   savings-banks of a similar character. … The Canadian system …
   went into operation in 1868. … Influenced by the success of
   the English system of postal savings-banks, the governments on
   the Continent of Europe have now nearly all made similar
   provisions for the investment of the surplus earnings of the
   people. The Italian system … went into operation February 20,
   1876. … In France the proposal to establish postal
   savings-banks was frequently discussed, but not adopted until
   March 1881, although the ordinary savings-banks had for
   several years been allowed to use the post-offices as places
   for the receipt and repayment of deposits. … The Austrian
   postal savings-banks were first opened January 12, 1883. … The
   Belgian system has been [1885] in successful operation for
   more than fifteen years; that of the Netherlands was
   established some three years ago; while Sweden has just
   followed her neighbors, Denmark and Norway, in establishing
   similar institutions. In 1871 Postmaster-General Creswel
   recommended the establishment of postal savings depositories
   in connection with the United States post-offices, and two
   years later he discussed the subject very fully in his annual
   report. Several of his successors have renewed his
   recommendation;" but no action has been taken by Congress.

      _D. B. King,
      Postal Savings-Banks
      (Popular Science Monthly, December, 1885)._

POSTAL TELEGRAPH, The.

   "The States of the continent of Europe were the first to
   appreciate the advantages of governmental control of the
   telegraph. … From the beginning they assumed the erection and
   management of the telegraph lines. It may be said that in
   taking control of the telegraphs the monarchical governments
   of the Old World were actuated as much by the desire to use
   them for the maintenance of authority as by the advantages
   which they offered for the service of the people. To a certain
   extent this is doubtless true, but it is none the less true
   that the people have reaped the most solid benefits, and that
   the tendency has been rather to liberalize government than to
   maintain arbitrary power. … The greatest progress and the best
   management have alike been shown in those countries where the
   forms of government are most liberal, as in Switzerland and
   Belgium. … In Great Britain the telegraph was at first
   controlled by private parties. … In July, 1868, an act was
   passed 'to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire,
   work, and maintain electric telegraphs.' … The rate for
   messages was fixed throughout the kingdom at one shilling for
   twenty words, excluding the address and signature. This rate
   covered delivery within one mile of the office of address, or
   within its postal delivery." The lines of the existing
   telegraph companies were purchased on terms which were
   commonly held to be exorbitant, and Parliament, changing its
   original intention, conferred on the post-office department a
   monopoly of the telegraphs. Thus "the British postal telegraph
   was from the first handicapped by an enormous interest charge,
   and to some extent by the odium which always attaches to a
   legal monopoly. But notwithstanding the exorbitant price paid
   for the telegraph, the investment has not proved an
   unprofitable one."

      _N. P. Hill,
      Speech in the Senate of the United States,
      January 14, 1884, on a Bill to Establish Postal Telegraphs,
      ("Speeches and Papers," pages 200-215)._

POSTAL UNION, The.

   The Postal Union, which now embraces most of the civilized and
   semi-civilized countries of the world, was formed originally
   by a congress of delegates, representing the principal
   governments of Europe, and the United States of America, which
   assembled at Berne, Switzerland, in September, 1874. A treaty
   was concluded at that time, which established uniform rates of
   postage (25 centimes, or 5 cents, on half-ounce letters),
   between the countries becoming parties to it, and opening the
   opportunity for other states to join in the same arrangement.
   From year to year since, the Postal Union has been widened by
   the accession of new signatories to the treaty, until very few
   regions of the globe where any postal system exists lie now
   outside of it. The late accessions to the Postal Union have
   been North Borneo, the German East African Protectorate, and
   the British Australasian Colonies, in 1801; Natal and
   Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1802; the South African Republic
   (Transvaal) in 1803. By the action of an international postal
   congress, held at Vienna, in 1801, a kind of international
   clearing-house for the Postal Union was established at Berne,
   Switzerland, and the settlement of accounts between its
   members has been greatly facilitated thereby.

POSTUMIAN ROAD.

   One of the great roads of the ancient Romans. It led from
   Genoa to Aquileia, by way of Placentia, Cremona and Verona.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 11._

POTESTAS.

   The civil power with which a Roman magistrate was invested was
   technically termed potestas.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity.,
      chapter 5._

POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA, The.

   The powers and prerogatives of the ancient tribunitian office,
   without the office itself, being conferred upon Augustus and
   his successors, became the most important element, perhaps, of
   the finally compacted sovereignty of the Roman emperors.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 30._

POTIDÆA, Siege of.

   The city of Potidæa, a Corinthian colony founded on the long
   peninsula of Pallene which projects from the Macedonian coast,
   but which had become subject to Athens, revolted from the
   latter B. C. 432, and was assisted by the Corinthians. This
   was among the quarrels which led up to the Peloponnesian War.
   The Athenians reduced the city and expelled the inhabitants
   after a siege of three years.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      books 1-2._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 432;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

POTOMAC, Army of the:
   Its creation and its campaigns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1862 (MARCH-JULY), and after.

POTOSI, The Spanish province of.
   Modern Bolivia.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2583}

POTTAWATOMIES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, AND OJIBWAS.

POUNDAGE.

      See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

POWHATANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

POYNING'S ACTS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1494.

PRÆFECTS.
PREFECTS.
PRÉFÊTS.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;
      and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

PRÆMUNIRE, Statute of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PRÆNESTE, Sulla's capture of.

   Præneste, the ancient city of the Latins, held against Sulla,
   in the first civil war, by young Marius, was surrendered after
   the battle at the Colline Gate of Rome. Sulla ordered the male
   inhabitants to be put to the sword and gave up the town to his
   soldiers for pillage.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 19._

PRÆNOMEN.
NOMEN.
COGNOMEN.

      See GENS.

PRÆTOR.

   See ROME: B. C. 366.

   ----------PRÆTORIANS: Start--------

PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.
PRÆTORIANS.

   "The commander–in-chief of a Roman army was attended by a
   select detachment, which, under the name of 'Cohors
   Praetoria,' remained closely attached to his person in the
   field, ready to execute his orders, and to guard him from any
   sudden attack. … Augustus, following his usual line of policy,
   retained the ancient name of 'Praetoriae Cohortes,' while he
   entirely changed their character. He levied in Etruria,
   Umbria, ancient Latium, and the old Colonies, nine or ten
   Cohorts, consisting of a thousand men each, on whom he
   bestowed double pay and superior privileges. These formed a
   permanent corps, who acted as the Imperial Life Guards, ready
   to overawe the Senate, and to suppress any sudden popular
   commotion."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

   The Prætorian Guard had been quartered, during the reign of
   Augustus, and during the early years of the reign of Tiberius,
   in small barracks at various points throughout the city, or in
   the neighboring towns. Sejanus, the intriguing favorite of
   Tiberius, being commander of the formidable corps, established
   it in one great permanent camp, "beyond the north-eastern
   angle of the city, and between the roads which sprang from the
   Viminal and Colline gates." This was done A. D. 23.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 45._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 41.
   Their elevation of Claudius to the throne.

      See ROME: A. D. 41.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.
   Murder of Pertinax and sale of the empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.
   Reconstitution by Severus.

   Severus, whose first act on reaching Rome had been to disarm
   and disband the insolent Guard which murdered Pertinax and
   sold the empire to Julianus, had no thought of dispensing with
   the institution. There was soon in existence a new
   organization of Prætorians, increased to four times the
   ancient number and picked from all the legions of the
   frontiers.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 5._

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 238.
   Murder of Balbinus and Pupienus.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 312.
   Abolition by Constantine.

   "By the prudent measures of Diocletian, the numbers of the
   Prætorians were insensibly reduced, their privileges
   abolished, and their place supplied by two faithful legions of
   Illyricum, who, under the new titles of Jovians and
   Herculians, were appointed to perform the service of the
   imperial guards. … They were old corps stationed at Illyricum;
   and, according to the ancient establishment, they each
   consisted of 6,000 men. They had acquired much reputation by
   the use of the plumbatæ, or darts loaded with lead."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13, with foot-note._

   Restored and augmented by Maxentius, during his brief reign,
   the Prætorians were finally abolished and their fortified camp
   destroyed, by Constantine, after his victory in the civil war
   of A. D. 312.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

   ----------PRÆTORIANS: End--------

PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

   "As the government degenerated into military despotism, the
   Prætorian præfect, who in his origin had been a simple captain
   of the guards, was placed not only at the head of the army,
   but of the finances, and even of the law. In every department
   of administration he represented the person, and exercised the
   authority, of the emperor. The first præfect who enjoyed and
   abused this immense power was Plautianus, the favourite
   minister of Severus. … They [the Prætorian præfects) were
   deprived by Constantine of all military command as soon as
   they had ceased to lead into the field, under their immediate
   orders, the flower of the Roman troops; and at length, by a
   singular revolution, the captains of the guards were
   transformed into the civil magistrates of the provinces.
   According to the plan of government instituted by Diocletian,
   the four princes had each their Prætorian præfect; and, after
   the monarchy was once more united in the person of
   Constantine, he still continued to create the same number of
   four præfects, and intrusted to their care the same provinces
   which they already administered.

   1. The Præfect of the East stretched his ample jurisdiction"
   from the Nile to the Phasis and from Thrace to Persia.

   "2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, and
   Greece, acknowledged the authority of the Præfect of
   Illyricum.

   3. The power of the Præfect of Italy" extended to the Danube,
   and over the islands of the Mediterranean and part of Africa.

   "4. The Præfect of the Gauls comprehended under that plural
   denomination the kindred provinces of Britain and Spain, and …
   to the foot of Mount Atlas.

   … Rome and Constantinople were alone excepted from the
   jurisdiction of the Prætorian præfects. … A perfect equality
   was established between the dignity of the two municipal, and
   that of the four Prætorian præfects."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 5 and 17._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

PRÆTORIUM, The.

   "In the very early days of Rome, before even Consuls had a
   being, the two chief magistrates of the republic bore the
   title of Praetors. Some remembrance of this fact lingering in
   the speech of the people gave always to the term Prætorium
   (the Praetor's house) a peculiar majesty, and caused it to be
   used as the equivalent of palace. So in the well-known
   passages of the New Testament, the palace of Pilate the
   Governor at Jerusalem, of Herod the King at Caesarea, of Nero
   the Emperor at Rome, are all called the Praetorium. From the
   palace the troops who surrounded the person of the Emperor
   took their well-known name, 'the Praetorian Guard.'"

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{2584}

PRAGA, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

   ----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: Start--------

PRAGMATIC SANCTION.

   "No two words convey less distinct meaning to English ears
   than those which form this title: nor are we at all prepared
   to furnish an equivalent. Perhaps 'a well considered
   Ordinance' may in some degree represent them: i. e. an
   Ordinance which has been fully discussed by men practised in
   State Affairs. But we are very far from either recommending or
   being satisfied with such a substitute. The title was used in
   the Lower [the Byzantine] Empire, and Ducange ad v. describes
   'Pragmaticum Rescriptum seu Pragmatica Sanctio' to be that
   which 'ad hibitâ diligente causæ cognitione, ex omnium
   Procerum consensu in modum sententiæ lecto, a Principe
   conceditur.'"

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 15, footnote._

   "Pragmatic Sanction being, in the Imperial Chancery and some
   others, the received title for Ordinances of a very
   irrevocable nature, which a sovereign makes, in affairs that
   belong wholly to himself, or what he reckons his own rights."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick II.,
      book 5, chapter 2._

   "This word [pragmatic] is derived from the Greek 'pragma,'
   which means 'a rule.'"

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 5, foot-note._

   The following are the more noted ordinances which have borne
   this name.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1220 and 1232.
   Of the Emperor Frederick II.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1268 (?).
   Of St. Louis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1438.
   Of Charles VII. of France, and its abrogation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1547.
   Of the Emperor Charles V. for the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1718.
   Of the Emperor Charles VI.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740 (OCTOBER).

   ----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: End--------

   ----------PRAGUE: Start--------

PRAGUE: A. D. 1348-1409.
   The University and the German secession.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY;
      and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1620.
   Battle of the White Mountain.
   Abandonment of crown and capital by Frederick.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1631.
   Occupied and plundered by the Saxons.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1648.
   Surprise and capture of the Kleinsite by the Swedes.
   Siege of the older part of the city.
   The end of the Thirty Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1741.
   Taken by the French, Saxons and Bavarians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1742.
   The French blockaded in the city.
   Retreat of Belleisle.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1744.
   Won and lost by Frederick the Great.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1757.
   Battle.
   Prussian victory
   Siege.
   Relief by Count Daun.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1848.
   Bombardment by the Austrians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

   ----------PRAGUE: End--------

PRAGUE, Congress of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

PRAGUE,
   Treaty of (1634).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   Treaty of (1866).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

PRAGUERIE.

   The commotions produced by John Huss, at Prague, in the
   beginning of the 15th century, gave the name Praguerie, at
   that period, to all sorts of popular disturbances.

PRAIRIAL, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PRAIRIAL FIRST, The insurrection of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PRAIRIAL TWENTY-SECOND, Law of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

PRAIRIE GROVE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PRAKRITA.

      See SANSKRIT

PRATO, The horrible sack of (1512).

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

PRECIANI, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

PRECIEUSES.

      See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

PRECIOUS METALS, Production of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17TH CENTURIES, and 1848-1893.

PREFECTS.
PRÉFÊTS.
PRÆFECTS.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;
      and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

PREMIER.
PRIME MINISTER.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PREMISLAUS, King of Poland, A. D. 1289-1296.

PREMONSTRATENSIAN ORDER.

   This was the most important branch of the Regular Canons of
   St. Augustine, founded by St. Norbert, a German nobleman, who
   died in 1134. It took its name from Pre-montre, in Picardy,
   where the first house was established.

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 243 (volume 2)._

      See AUSTIN CANONS.

PRESBURG, OR PRESSBURG, Peace of (1805).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

   ----------PRESBYTERIANS: Start--------

PRESBYTERIANS, English,
   in the Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY),
      and (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1646 (MARCH);
      1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); (AUGUST-DECEMBER); 1648.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   At the Restoration.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660; 1661; and 1662-1665.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   In Colonial Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   Scotch-Irish.

      See SCOTCH-IRISH.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   Scottish.

      See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

   ----------PRESBYTERIANS: End--------

PRESCOTT, Colonel William, and the battle of Bunker Hill.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).

{2585}

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

   "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the
   United States of America. He shall hold his office during the
   term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President,
   chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: Each State
   shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
   direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of
   Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
   entitled in the Congress [and these electors, meeting in their
   respective States, shall vote for President and
   Vice-President, transmitting certified lists of their votes to
   the President of the Senate of the United States, who shall
   count them in the presence of the two Houses of Congress; and
   if no person is elected President by a majority of all the
   votes cast, then the House of Representatives shall elect a
   President from the three persons who received the highest
   numbers of the votes cast by the electors, the representation
   from each State having one vote in such election]. … No person
   except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
   States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall
   be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any
   person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
   to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a
   resident within the United States. … The President shall be
   Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
   and of the militia of the several States, when called into the
   actual service of the United States; he may require the
   opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the
   executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties
   of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant
   reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States,
   except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and
   with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,
   provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
   shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
   Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
   consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers
   of the United States whose appointments are not herein
   otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law;
   but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
   inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone,
   in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The
   President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may
   happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
   commissions which shall expire at the end of their next
   session. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
   information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their
   consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and
   expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both
   houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between
   them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn
   them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
   ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care
   that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all
   the officers of the United States. The President,
   Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States,
   shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
   conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
   misdemeanors."

      _Constitution of the United States,
      article 2, and article 12 of amendments._

   The provisions of the Constitution regarding the Presidential
   succession, in case of the death or resignation of both
   President and Vice-President, are: 'In case of the removal of
   the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or
   inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
   office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the
   Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death,
   resignation, or inability both of the President and
   Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as
   President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the
   disability be removed or a President shall be elected.'

      _(Article II, Section 6.)_

   In pursuance of the power thus granted to it in the last half
   of this section, Congress in 1792 passed an act declaring that
   in case of the death, resignation, etc., of both the President
   and Vice-President, the succession should be first to the
   President of the Senate and then to the Speaker of the House.
   This order was changed by the act of 1886, which provided that
   the succession to the presidency should be as follows:

   1. President.
   2. Vice-President.
   3. Secretary of State.
   4. Secretary of the Treasury.
   5. Secretary of War.
   6. Attorney General.
   7. Postmaster General.
   8. Secretary of the Navy.
   9. Secretary of the Interior.

   In all cases the remainder of the four-years' term shall be
   served out. This act also regulated the counting of the votes
   of the electors by Congress, and the determination of who were
   legally chosen electors.

      _Statutes of the United States passed at 1st Session
      of 49th Congress, page 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 27._

      _J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 3, chapters 36-37 (volume 3)._

      _The Federalist,
      numbers 66-76._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 5-8 (volume 1)._

PRESIDIO.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835

PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING.

PRESSBURG, or
PRESBURG, Treaty of (1805).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1800.

PRESS-GANG.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

PRESTER JOHN, The Kingdom of.

   "About the middle of the eleventh century stories began to be
   circulated in Europe as to a Christian nation of north-eastern
   Asia, whose sovereign was at the same time king and priest,
   and was known by the name of Prester John. Amid the mass of
   fables with which the subject is encumbered, it would seem to
   be certain that, in the very beginning of the century, the
   Khan of the Keraït, a tribe whose chief seat was at Karakorum,
   between Lake Baikal and the northern frontier of China, was
   converted to Nestorian Christianity—it is said, through the
   appearance of a saint to him when he had lost his way in
   hunting. By means of conversation with Christian merchants, he
   acquired some elementary knowledge of the faith, and, on the
   application of Ebed-Jesu, metropolitan of Maru, to the
   Nestorian patriarch Gregory, clergy were sent, who baptized
   the king and his subjects, to the number of 200,000. Ebed-Jesu
   consulted the patriarch how the fasts were to be kept, since
   the country did not afford any corn, or anything but flesh and
   milk; and the answer was, that, if no other Lenten provisions
   were to be had, milk should be the only diet for seasons of
   abstinence. The earliest western notice of this nation is
   given by Otho of Freising, from the relation of an Armenian
   bishop who visited the court of pope Eugenius III. This report
   is largely tinctured with fable, and deduces the Tartar
   chief's descent from the Magi who visited the Saviour in His
   cradle.
{2586}
   It would seem that the Nestorians of Syria, for the sake of
   vying with the boasts of the Latins, delighted in inventing
   tales as to the wealth, the splendour, and the happiness of
   their convert's kingdom; and to them is probably to be
   ascribed an extravagantly absurd letter, in which Prester John
   is made to dilate on the greatness and the riches of his
   dominions, the magnificence of his state and the beauty of his
   wives, and to offer the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, if he be of
   the true faith, the office of lord chamberlain in the court of
   Karakorum. In 1177 Alexander III. was induced by reports which
   a physician named Philip had brought back from Tartary, as to
   Prester John's desire to be received into communion with the
   pope, to address a letter to the king, recommending Philip as
   a religions instructor. But nothing is known as to the result
   of this; and in 1202 the Keraït kingdom was overthrown by the
   Tartar conqueror Genghis Khan. In explanation of the story as
   to the union of priesthood with royalty in Prester John, many
   theories have been proposed, of which two may be mentioned
   here: that it arose out of the fact of a Nestorian priest's
   having got possession of the kingdom on the death of a khan;
   or that, the Tartar prince's title being compounded of the
   Chinese 'wang' (king) and the Mongol 'khan,' the first of
   these words was confounded by the Nestorians of Syria with the
   name John, and the second with 'cohen' (a priest). … The
   identification of Prester John's kingdom with Abyssinia was a
   mistake of Portuguese explorers some centuries later."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 6, chapter 11, with foot-note (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel H. Yule,
      Note to 'The Book of Marco Polo,'
      volume 1, pages 204-209._

PRESTON,
   Battle of (1648).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

   Battle of (1715).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

PRESTON PANS, Battle of (1745).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

PRESTONBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PRETAXATION.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PRETENDERS, The Stuart.

      See JACOBITES.

PRICE'S RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PRIDE'S PURGE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PRIEST'S LANE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PRIM, General, Assassination of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

PRIMATES.
METROPOLITANS.
PATRIARCHS.

   In the early organization of the Christian Church, the bishops
   of every province found it necessary "to make one of
   themselves superior to all the rest, and invest him with
   certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom
   they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is,
   the principal bishop of the province. … Next in order to the
   metropolitans or primates were the patriarchs; or, as they
   were at first called, archbishops and exarchs of the diocese.
   For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be generally
   taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province;
   yet anciently the name archbishop was a more extensive title,
   and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended
   over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishop of Rome,
   Alexandria, Antioch, &c."

      _T. Bingham,
      Antiquities of the Christian Church,
      book 2, chapters 16-17 (volume 1)._

      See, also, CHRISTIANITY; A. D. 312-337.

PRIME MINISTER, The English.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PRINCE, Origin of the title.

      See PRINCEPS SENATUS.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

   "Prince Edward's Island, the smallest province of the Dominion
   [of Canada], originally called St. John's Island, until 1770
   formed part of Nova Scotia. The first Governor was Walter
   Patterson. … The first assembly met in 1773." In 1873 Prince
   Edward Island consented to be received into the Confederation
   of the Dominion of Canada—the latest of the provinces to
   accede to the Union, except Newfoundland, which still (1894)
   remains outside.

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      CANADA: A. D. 1867; and 1869-1873.

PRINCE OF THE CAPTIVITY.

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PRINCE OF WALES.

      See WALES, PRINCE OF.

PRINCEPS SENATUS.

   "As the title of imperator conferred the highest military rank
   upon Augustus and his successors, so did that of princeps
   senatus, or princeps (as it came to be expressed by an easy
   but material abridgment), convey the idea of the highest civil
   preeminence consistent with the forms of the old constitution.
   In ancient times this title had been appropriated to the first
   in succession of living censorii, men who had served the
   office of censor; and such were necessarily patricians and
   senators. The sole privilege it conferred was that of speaking
   first in the debates of the senate; a privilege however to
   which considerable importance might attach from the exceeding
   deference habitually paid to authority and example by the
   Roman assemblies. … The title of princeps was modest and
   constitutional; it was associated with the recollection of the
   best ages of the free state and the purest models of public
   virtue; it could not be considered beyond the deserts of one
   who was undoubtedly the foremost man of the nation. … The
   popularity which the assumption of this republican title
   conferred upon the early emperors may be inferred from the
   care with which it is noted, and its constitutional functions
   referred to by the writers of the Augustan age and that which
   succeeded it. But it was an easy and natural step in the
   progress of political ideas to drop the application of the
   title, and contract it from prince of the senate, to prince
   merely. The original character of the appellation was soon
   forgotten, and the proper limits of its privileges confounded
   in the more vague and general prerogative which the bare
   designation of first or premier seemed to imply."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 3, note by Dr. W. Smith._

PRINCETON, Battle of (1777).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

PRINCIPES.

      See LEGION, THE ROMAN.

{2587}

   ----------PRINTING AND THE PRESS: Start--------

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1430-1456.
   The invention of movable type.
   Rival claims for Coster and Gutenberg.
   The first Printed Book.

   "Before arriving at the movable type placed side by side, and
   forming phrases, which appears to us to-day so simple and so
   ordinary, many years passed. It is certain that long before
   Gutenberg a means was found of cutting wood and metal in
   relief and reproducing by application the image traced. …
   Remembering that the numerous guilds of 'tailleurs d' images,'
   or sculptors in relief, had in the Middle Ages the specialty
   of carving ivories and of placing effigies on tombs, it can be
   admitted without much difficulty that these people one day
   found a means of multiplying the sketches of a figure often
   asked for, by modelling its contour in relief on ivory or
   wood, and afterwards taking a reproduction on paper or
   parchment by means of pressure. When and where was this
   discovery produced? We cannot possibly say; but it is certain
   that playing cards were produced by this means, and that from
   the year 1423 popular figures were cut in wood, as we know
   from the St. Christopher of that date belonging to Lord
   Spencer. … It is a recognised fact that the single sheet with
   a printed figure preceded the xylographic book, in which text
   and illustration were cut in the same block. This process did
   not appear much before the second quarter of the 15th century,
   and it was employed principally for popular works which were
   then the universal taste. The engraving also was nothing more
   than a kind of imposition palmed off as a manuscript; the
   vignettes were often covered with brilliant colours and gold,
   and the whole sold as of the best quality. … An attempt had
   been made to put some text at the foot of the St. Christopher
   of 1423, and the idea of giving more importance to the text
   was to the advantage of the booksellers. … At the epoch of the
   St. Christopher, in 1423, several works were in vogue in the
   universities, the schools, and with the public. … To find a
   means of multiplying these treatises at little cost was a
   fortune to the inventor. It is to be supposed that many
   artisans of the time attempted it; and without doubt it was
   the booksellers themselves, mostly mere dealers, who were
   tempted to the adventure by the sculptors and wood-cutters.
   But none had yet been so bold as to cut in relief a series of
   blocks with engravings and text to compose a complete work.
   That point was reached very quickly when some legend was
   engraved at the foot of a vignette, and it may be thought that
   the 'Donatus' [i. e. the Latin Syntax of Ælius Donatus] was
   the most ancient of books so obtained among the 'Incunabuli,'
   as we now call them, a word that signifies origin or cradle.
   The first books then were formed of sheets of paper or
   parchment, laboriously printed from xylographic blocks, that
   is to say wooden blocks on which a 'tailleur d' images' had
   left in relief the designs and the letters of the text. He had
   thus to trace his characters in reverse, so that they could be
   reproduced as written; he had to avoid faults, because a
   phrase once done, well or ill, lasted. It was doubtless this
   difficulty of correction that gave the idea of movable types.
   … This at least explains the legend of Laurent Coster, of
   Haarlem, who, according to Hadrian Junius, his compatriot,
   discovered by accident the secret of separate types while
   playing with his children. And if the legend of which we speak
   contains the least truth, it must be found in the sense above
   indicated, that is in the correction of faults, rather than in
   the innocent game of a merchant of Haarlem. … Movable type,
   the capital point of printing, the pivot of the art of the
   Book, developed itself little by little, according to needs,
   when there was occasion to correct an erroneous inscription;
   but, in any case, its origin is unknown. Doubtless to vary the
   text, means were found to replace entire phrases by other
   phrases, preserving the original figures; and thus the light
   dawned upon these craftsmen, occupied in the manufacture and
   sale of their books. According to Hadrian Junius, Laurent
   Janszoon Coster (the latter name signifying 'the discoverer')
   published one of the celebrated series of works under the
   general title of 'Speculum' which was then so popular, … the
   'Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.' … Junius, as we see, attributes
   to Laurent Coster the first impression of the 'Speculum,' no
   longer the purely xylographic impression of the 'Donatus' from
   an engraved block, but that of the more advanced manner in
   movable types [probably between 1430 and 1440]. In point of
   fact, this book had at least four editions, similar in
   engravings and body of letters, but of different text. It must
   then be admitted that the fount was dispersed, and typography
   discovered. … All the xylographic works of the 15th century
   may be classed in two categories: the xylographs, rightly so
   called, or the block books, such as the 'Donatus,' and the
   books with movable types, like the 'Speculum,' of which we
   speak. … The movable types used, cut separately in wood, were
   not constituted to give an ideal impression. We can understand
   the cost that the execution of these characters must have
   occasioned, made as they were one by one, without the
   possibility of ever making them perfectly uniform. Progress
   was to substitute for this irregular process types that were
   similar, identical, easily produced, and used for a long time
   without breaking. Following on the essays of Laurent Coster,
   continuous researches bore on this point. … Here history is
   somewhat confused. Hadrian Junius positively accuses one of
   Laurent Coster's workmen of having stolen the secrets of his
   master and taken flight to Mayence, where he afterwards
   founded a printing office. According to Junius, the metal type
   was the discovery of the Dutchman, and the name of the thief
   was John. Who was this John? Was it John Gænsefleisch, called
   Gutenberg, or possibly John Fust? But it is not at all
   apparent that Gutenberg, a gentleman of Mayence, exiled from
   his country, was ever in the service of the Dutch inventor. As
   to Fust, we believe his only intervention in the association
   of printers of Mayence was as a money-lender, from which may
   be comprehended the unlikelihood of his having been with
   Coster, the more so as we find Gutenberg retired to
   Strasbourg, where he pursued his researches. There he was, as
   it were, out of his sphere, a ruined noble whose great
   knowledge was bent entirely on invention. Doubtless, like many
   others, he may have had in his hands one of the printed works
   of Laurent Coster, and conceived the idea of appropriating the
   infant process.
{2588}
   In 1439 he was associated with two artisans of the city of
   Strasbourg, ostensibly in the fabrication of mirrors, which
   may be otherwise understood as printing of 'Speculums,' the
   Latin word signifying the same thing. … Three problems
   presented themselves to him. He wanted types less fragile than
   wooden types and less costly than engraving. He wanted a press
   by the aid of which he could obtain a clear impression on
   parchment or paper. He desired also that the leaves of his
   books should not be anopistograph, or printed only on one
   side. … Until then, and even long after, the xylographs were
   printed 'au frotton,' or with a brush, rubbing the paper upon
   the forme coated with ink, thicker than ordinary ink. He
   dreamed of something better. In the course of his work John
   Gutenberg returned to Mayence. The idea of publishing a Bible,
   the Book of books, had taken possession of his heart. … The
   cutting of his types had ruined him. … In this unhappy
   situation, Gutenberg made the acquaintance of a financier of
   Mayence, named Fust, … who put a sum of 1,100 florins at his
   disposal to continue his experiments. Unfortunately this money
   disappeared, it melted away, and the results obtained were
   absolutely ludicrous. … About this time a third actor enters
   on the scene. Peter Schoeffer, of Gernsheim, a writer,
   introduced into the workshop of Gutenberg to design letters,
   benefited by the abortive experiments, and taking up the
   invention at its dead-lock, conducted it to success. John of
   Tritenheim, called Trithemius, the learned abbot of Spanheim,
   is the person who relates these facts; but as he got his
   information from Schoeffer himself, too much credence must not
   be given to his statements. Besides, Schoeffer was not at all
   an ordinary artisan. If we credit a Strasbourg manuscript
   written by his hand in 1449, he was a student of the 'most
   glorious university of Paris.'" How much Schoeffer contributed
   to the working out of the invention is a matter of conjecture;
   but in 1454 it was advanced to a state in which the first
   known application of it in practical use was made. This was in
   the printing of copies of the famous letters of indulgence
   which Pope Nicholas V. was then selling throughout Europe.
   Having the so far perfected invention in hand, Fust and
   Schoeffer (the latter now having married the former's
   granddaughter) wished to rid themselves of Gutenberg. "Fust
   had a most easy pretext, which was to demand purely and simply
   from his associate the sums advanced by him, and which had
   produced so little. Gutenberg had probably commenced his
   Bible, but, in face of the claims of Fust, he had to abandon
   it altogether, types, formes, and press. In November, 1455, he
   had retired to a little house outside the city, where he tried
   his best, by the aid of foreign help, to establish a workshop,
   and to preserve the most perfect secrecy. Relieved of his
   company, Fust and Schoeffer were able to take up the
   impression of the Bible and to complete it without him. … One
   thing is certain: that the Bible of Schoeffer, commenced by
   Gutenberg or not, put on sale by Fust and Schoeffer alone
   about the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, proves to be the
   first completed book. … It is now called the Mazarine Bible,
   from the fact that the copy in the Mazarin Library was the
   first to give evidence concerning it. The book was put on sale
   at the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, for a manuscript note
   of a vicar of St. Stephen at Mayence records that he finished
   the binding and illuminating of the first volume on St.
   Bartholomew's Day [June 13], 1456, and the second on the 15th
   of August. … All these remarks show that the printers did not
   proclaim themselves, and were making pseudo-manuscripts. …
   Many of the copies are illuminated with as much care and
   beauty as if they were the finest manuscripts. … Copies are by
   no means uncommon, most of the great libraries having one, and
   many are in private collections."

      _H. Bouchot,
      The Printed Book,
      chapter 1._

   "The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of
   the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a
   very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not
   the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man
   who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude
   state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere
   as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing,
   Gutenberg's name was known in Paris so early as 1472. … Mr.
   Hessels … believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives
   as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and
   that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is
   substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for
   more evidence. There is no doubt that the back-bone of the
   Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books
   discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and
   which give support to, at the same time that they receive
   support from, the Cologne Chronicler. … These now amount to
   forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to
   continually now that the attention of librarians has been
   strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving
   them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr.
   Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal
   evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may
   well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books
   were not printed long after Gutenberg's press was at work? …
   The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a
   single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any
   printer's name or place or date. To this the reply is, that
   these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like
   works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast
   of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all
   times 'sine ulla nota,' and certain to be destroyed when done
   with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and
   the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove
   them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all
   discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly' in various
   towns of Holland. … Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different
   books as 'Costeriana,' which include four editions of the
   Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The
   Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five
   different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated
   books of 1473 and onwards, printed in Holland, they have
   nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS.
   and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.
   Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain
   aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in
   the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography.
   That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible
   and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the
   Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I
   cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their
   workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much
   ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious."

      _W. Blades,
      Books in Chains, and other Bibliographical Papers,
      pages 149-158._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Hessels,
      Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literature and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 101-120._

      _H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      chapters 3-4._

{2589}

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1457-1489.
   Progress and diffusion of the art.

   After the Mazarine Bible, "then follows the Kalendar for the
   year 1457, most probably printed at the end of 1456. Then
   again the printed dates, August 14, 1457 and 1459, with place
   (Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by Fust and
   Schoeffer; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the
   Catholicon [a Latin Grammar and Dictionary]. &c. &c. So that,
   with the exception of 1458, there is no interruption in Mentz
   printing from the moment that we see it begin there. As
   regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned
   distinctly in the book itself; but the other books just
   mentioned are assumed to have been issued by the same two
   Mentz printing-offices which are supposed to be already at
   work there in 1454, though the 1460 Catholicon and some of the
   other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the
   side of these dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460
   by Mentelin at Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy
   preserved at Freiburg. … Assuming then, for a moment, that
   Mentz is the starting-point, we see printing spread to
   Strassburg in 1460; to Bamberg in 1461; to Subiaco in 1465; in
   1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is established at Cologne;
   in 1467 at Eltville, Rome; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle,
   Marienthal; in 1469 at Venice; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona,
   Foligno, Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna,
   Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at
   Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano,
   Verona; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm (perhaps here earlier),
   Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, Messina; 1474 at
   Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza; 1475 at Lubeck,
   Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Reggio, Cagli, Caselle
   or Casale, Saragossa; 1476 at Rostock, Bruges (here earlier?),
   Brussels; 1477 at Reichenstein, Deventer, Gouda, Delft,
   Westminster; 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle,
   Schussenried, Eichstadt; 1479 at Erfurt, Würzburg, Nymegen,
   Zwolle, Poitiers; 1480 at London [?], Oudenaarde, Hasselt,
   Reggio; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Treves, Urach;
   1482 at Reutlingen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp; 1483 at Leiden,
   Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem; 1484 at Bois-le–Duc, Siena; 1485
   at Heidelberg, Regensburg; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart; 1487 at
   Ingolstadt; 1488 at Stendal; 1489 at Hagenau, &c."

      _J. H. Hessels,
      Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz,
      chapter 4._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
   The early Venetian printers.
   The Aldine Press.

   "One of the famous first race of German printers, John of
   Spires, arrived at Venice in the year 1469, and immediately
   brought his art into full play; producing within the first
   three months his fine edition of the 'Letters of Cicero.' a
   masterpiece of early printing. … The success of John of Spires
   as a printer was at once recognized by the Venetian Republic;
   and Pasquale Malipiero, the reigning Doge, granted a patent
   conferring upon him the sole right of printing books within
   the territory of Venice. … But the enterprising printer did
   not live to enjoy the privilege," and it was not continued to
   any of his family, "On the withdrawal of the monopoly several
   new printers set up their Presses in the city, among whom was
   the celebrated Jenson, the ingenious Frenchman who was sent by
   Charles VII. to acquire the art at Mayence. … John Emeric, of
   Udenheim, was another of the German printers who immediately
   succeeded John and Vindelin of Spires; and still more
   successful, though somewhat later, in the field, was Erard
   Ratdolt. … He [Ratdolt] is said to have been the first to
   adopt a regular form of Title at all approaching our modern
   conception of a Book-Title; and he also took the lead in the
   production of those beautifully-engraved initials for which
   the books printed in Italy towards the close of the 15th
   century are famous. His most splendid work is undoubtedly the
   'Elements of Euclid, with the Commentaries of Campanus.' …
   Nicholas Jenson was the most renowned of those who followed
   the earliest German printers in Venice, until his works were
   partially eclipsed by those of the Aldi. … In 1470 he [Jenson]
   had … completed his preparations, and the first four works
   which issued from his Venetian press appeared in that year. …
   These works were printed with Roman characters of his own
   engraving, more perfect in form than those of any previous
   printer. His types are in fact the direct parents of the
   letters now in general use, which only differ from them in
   certain small details dependent solely on fashion. … This
   celebrated printer died in September of the year 1481. …
   Andrea Torresani and others continued Jenson's Association,
   making use of the same types. Torresani was eventually
   succeeded in the same establishment by the celebrated Aldo
   Manuccio, who, having married his daughter, adopted the
   important vocation of printer, and became the first of those
   famous 'Aldi,' as they are commonly termed, whose fame has not
   only absorbed that of all the earlier Venetian printers, but
   that of the early printers of every other Italian seat of the
   art. … It was Manuccio who, among many other advances in this
   art, first invented the semi-cursive style of character now
   known as 'Italic'; and it is said that it was founded upon a
   close imitation of the careful handwriting of Petrarch, which,
   in fact, it closely resembles. This new type was used for a
   small octavo edition of 'Virgil,' issued in 1501, on the
   appearance of which he obtained from Pope Leo X. a letter of
   privilege, entitling him to the sole use of the new type which
   he had invented." The list of the productions of the elder
   Aldus and his son Paul "comprises nearly all the great works
   of antiquity, and of the best Italian authors of their own
   time. From their learning and general accomplishments, the
   Aldi might have occupied a brilliant position as scholars and
   authors, but preferred the useful labour of giving correctly
   to the world the valuable works of others. The Greek editions
   of the elder Aldus form the basis of his true glory,
   especially the 'Aristotle,' printed in 1405, a work of almost
   inconceivable labour and perseverance."

      _H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      chapter 8._

{2590}

   "Aldus and his studio and all his precious manuscripts
   disappeared during the troubled years of the great Continental
   war in which all the world was against Venice [see VENICE: A.
   D. 1508-1500]. In 1510, 1511, and 1512, scarcely any book
   proceeded from his press. … After the war Aldus returned to
   his work with renewed fervour. 'It is difficult,' says
   Renouard, 'to form an idea of the passion with which he
   devoted himself to the reproduction of the great works of
   ancient literature. If he heard of the existence anywhere of a
   manuscript unpublished, or which could throw a light upon an
   existing text, he never rested till he had it in his
   possession. He did not shrink from long journeys, great
   expenditure, applications of all kinds.' … It is not in this
   way however that the publisher, that much questioned and
   severely criticised middleman, makes a fortune. And Aldus died
   poor. His privileges did not stand him in much stead,
   copyright, especially when not in books but in new forms of
   type, being non-existent in his day. In France and Germany,
   and still nearer home, his beautiful Italic was robbed from
   him, copied on all sides, notwithstanding the protection
   granted by the Pope and other princes as well as by the
   Venetian Signoria. His fine editions were printed from, and
   made the foundation of foreign issues which replaced his own.
   How far his princely patrons stood by him to repair his losses
   there seems no information. His father-in-law, Andrea of
   Asola, a printer who was not so fine a scholar, but perhaps
   more able to cope with the world, did come to his aid, and his
   son Paolo Manutio, and his grandson Aldo il Giovane, as he is
   called, succeeded him in turn."

      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Venice,
      part 4, chapter 3._

   Aldus died in 1515. His son Paul left Venice for Rome in 1562.


PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
   Introduction in England.
   The Caxton Press.

   "It was probably at the press of Colard Mansion, in a little
   room over the porch of St. Donat's at Bruges, that William
   Caxton learned the art which he was the first to introduce
   into England. A Kentish boy by birth, but apprenticed to a
   London mercer, Caxton had already spent thirty years of his
   manhood in Flanders as Governor of the English gild of
   Merchant Adventurers there, when we find him engaged as
   copyist in the service of Edward's sister, Duchess Margaret of
   Burgundy. But the tedious process of copying was soon thrown
   aside for the new art which Colard Mansion had introduced into
   Bruges. … The printing-press was the precious freight he
   brought back to England in 1476 after an absence of
   five-and-thirty years. Through the next fifteen, at an age
   when other men look for ease and retirement, we see him
   plunging with characteristic energy into his new occupation.
   His 'red pale' or heraldic shield marked with a red bar down
   the middle invited buyers to the press he established in the
   Almonry at Westminster, a little enclosure containing a chapel
   and almshouses near the west front of the church, where the
   alms of the abbey were distributed to the poor. … Caxton was a
   practical man of business, … no rival of the Venetian Aldi or
   of the classical printers of Rome, but resolved to get a
   living from his trade, supplying priests with service books
   and preachers with sermons, furnishing the clerk with his
   'Golden Legend' and knight and baron with 'joyous and pleasant
   histories of chivalry.' But while careful to win his daily
   bread, he found time to do much for what of higher literature
   lay fairly to hand. He printed all the English poetry of any
   moment which was then in existence. His reverence for that
   'worshipful man, Geoffrey Chaucer,' who 'ought to be eternally
   remembered,' is shown not merely by his edition of the
   'Canterbury Tales,' but by his reprint of them when a purer
   text of the poem offered itself. The poems of Lydgate and
   Gower were added to those of Chaucer. The Chronicle of Brut
   and Higden's 'Polychronicon' were the only available works of
   an historical character then existing in the English tongue,
   and Caxton not only printed them but himself continued the
   latter up to his own time. A translation of Boethius, a
   version of the Eneid from the French, and a tract or two of
   Cicero, were the stray first-fruits of the classical press in
   England. Busy as was Caxton's printing-press, he was even
   busier as a translator than as a printer. More than four
   thousand of his printed pages are from works of his own
   rendering. The need of these translations shows the popular
   drift of literature at the time; but keen as the demand seems
   to have been, there is nothing mechanical in the temper with
   which Caxton prepared to meet it. A natural, simple-hearted
   taste and enthusiasm, especially for the style and forms of
   language, breaks out in his curious prefaces. … But the work
   of translation involved a choice of English which made
   Caxton's work important in the history of our language. He
   stood between two schools of translation, that of French
   affectation and English pedantry. It was a moment when the
   character of our literary tongue was being settled, and it is
   curious to see in his own words the struggle over it which was
   going on in Caxton's time. 'Some honest and great clerks have
   been with me and desired me to write the most curious terms
   that I could find;' on the other hand, 'some gentlemen of late
   blamed me, saying that in my translations I had over many
   curious terms which could not be understood of common people,
   and desired me to use old and homely terms in my
   translations.' 'Fain would I please every man,' comments the
   good-humoured printer, but his sturdy sense saved him alike
   from the temptations of the court and the schools. His own
   taste pointed to English, but 'to the common terms that be
   daily used' rather than to the English of his antiquarian
   advisers. 'I took an old book and read therein, and certainly
   the English was so rude and broad I could not well understand
   it,' while the Old-English charters which the Abbot of
   Westminster lent as models from the archives of his house
   seemed 'more like to Dutch than to English.' To adopt current
   phraseology however was by no means easy at a time when even
   the speech of common talk was in a state of rapid flux. …
   Coupling this with his long absence in Flanders we can hardly
   wonder at the confession he makes over his first translation,
   that 'when all these things came to fore me, after that I had
   made and written a five or six quires, I fell in despair of
   this work, and purposed never to have continued therein, and
   the quires laid apart, and in two years after laboured no more
   in this work.' He was still however busy translating when he
   died [in 1491].
{2591}
   All difficulties in fact were lightened by the general
   interest which his labours aroused. When the length of the
   'Golden Legend' makes him 'half desperate to have accomplished
   it' and ready to 'lay it apart,' the Earl of Arundel solicits
   him in no wise to leave it and promises a yearly fee of a buck
   in summer and a doc in winter, once it were done. 'Many noble
   and divers gentle men of this realm came and demanded many and
   often times wherefore I have not made and imprinted the noble
   history of the San Graal.' … Caxton profited in fact by the
   wide literary interest which was a mark of the time."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   "Contemporary with Caxton were the printers Lettou and
   Machlinia, … who carried on business in the city of London,
   where they established a press in 1480. Machlinia had
   previously worked under Caxton. … Wynkyn de Worde … in all
   probability … was one of Caxton's assistants or workmen, when
   the latter was living at Bruges, but without doubt he was
   employed in his office at Westminster until 1491, when he
   commenced business on his own account, having in his
   possession a considerable quantity of Caxton's type. Wynkyn de
   Worde, who was one of the founders of the Stationers' Company,
   died in 1534, after having printed no less than 410 books
   known to bibliographers, the earliest of which bearing a date
   is the 'Liber Festivalis,' 4to, 1493."

      _J. H. Slater,
      Book Collecting,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Knight,
      William Caxton._

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 138-194._

      _T. C. Hansard,
      History and Process of Printing
      ("The Five Black Arts," chapter 1)._

      _Gentleman's Magazine Library:
      Bibliographical Notes, and Literary Curiosities._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1496-1598.
   The Estienne or Stephanus Press in Paris.

   "With the names of Aldus and Elzevir we are all acquainted;
   the name of Estienne, or Stephanus, has a less familiar sound
   to English ears, though the family of Parisian printers was as
   famous in its day as the great houses of Venice and Leyden.
   The most brilliant member of it was the second Henry, whose
   story forms a melancholy episode in French literary history of
   the 16th century. … The Estiennes are said to have come of a
   noble Provençal family, but nothing is exactly known of their
   descent. The art of printing was not much more than fifty
   years old when Henry Estienne, having learnt his trade in
   Germany, came to Paris, and set up his press [about 1496] in
   the Rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, opposite the school of Canon
   Law. There for some twenty years he laboured diligently,
   bringing out in that time no less than 120 volumes, chiefly
   folios. The greater number of these are theological and
   scholastic works; among the few modern authors on the list is
   the name of Erasmus. Henry Estienne died in 1520 leaving three
   sons. Robert, the second of them, was born probably in 1503.
   The boys all being minors, the business passed into the hands
   of their mother, who in the following year married Simon de
   Colines, her late husband's foreman, and perhaps partner. …
   Robert worked with De Colines for five or six years before he
   went into business on his own account in the same street." It
   was he who first gave celebrity to the name and the press.
   "The spell of the Renaissance had early fallen upon the young
   printer, and it held him captive almost till the end of his
   life." He married "the daughter of the learned Flemish printer
   Jodocus Badius, notable for her culture and her beauty. Latin
   was the ordinary language of the household. The children
   learned it in infancy from hearing it constantly spoken. … At
   one time ten foreign scholars lived in Estienne's house to
   assist him in selecting and revising his manuscripts and in
   correcting his proofs. … Both Francis [King Francis I.] and
   his sister Marguerite of Navarre had a great regard for
   Robert, and often visited the workshop; to that royal
   patronage the printer was more than once indebted for his
   liberty and his life." His danger came from the bigoted
   Sorbonne, with whom he brought himself into collision by
   printing the Bible with as careful a correction of the text as
   he had performed in the case of the Latin classics. After the
   death of Francis I., the peril of the printer's situation
   became more serious, and in 1550 he fled to Geneva, renouncing
   the Roman Catholic faith. He died there in 1559.

      _H. C. Macdowall,
      An old French Printer
      (Macmillan's Magazine, November 1892)._

   The second Henry Estienne, son of Robert, either did not
   accompany his father to Geneva, or soon returned to Paris, and
   founded anew the Press of his family, bringing to it even more
   learning than his father, with equal laboriousness and zeal.
   He died at Lyons in 1598.

      _E. Greswell,
      A View of the Early Parisian Greek Press._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.
   Introduction in America.
   The first Spanish printing in Mexico.
   The early Massachusetts Press.
   Restrictions upon its freedom.

   "The art of printing was first introduced into Spanish
   America, as early as the middle of the 16th century. The
   historians whose works I have consulted are all silent as to
   the time when it was first practiced on the American
   continent; … but it is certain that printing was executed,
   both in Mexico and Peru, long before it made its appearance in
   the British North American colonies. [The precise date of the
   introduction of printing into Mexico was for a long time in
   doubt. … When Mr. Thomas wrote his 'History of Printing in
   America,' early works on America were rare, and it is probable
   that there was not one in the country printed in either
   America or Europe in the 16th century, except the copy of
   Molina's dictionary; now many of the period may be found in
   our great private libraries. The dictionary of Molina, in
   Mexican and Spanish, printed in Mexico, in 1571, in folio,
   was, by many, asserted and believed to be the earliest book
   printed in America. … No one here had seen an earlier book
   until the 'Doctrina Christiana,' printed in the house of Juan
   Cromberger, in the city of Mexico, in the year 1544, was
   discovered. Copies of this rare work were found in two well
   known private libraries in New York and Providence. For a long
   time the honor was awarded to this as the earliest book
   printed in America. But there is now strong evidence that
   printing was really introduced in Mexico nine years before
   that time, and positive evidence, by existing books, that a
   press was established in 1540. Readers familiar with early
   books relating to Mexico have seen mention of a book printed
   there as early as 1535, … the 'Spiritual Ladder' of St John
   Climacus. … It seems that no copy of the 'Spiritual Ladder'
   has ever been seen in recent times, and the quoted
   testimonials are the only ones yet found which refer to it.

      _Note by Hon. John R. Bartlett,
      appendix A., giving a 'List of Books printed in Mexico
      between the years 1540 and 1560 inclusive.'_

{2592}

   … In January, 1639, printing was first performed in that part
   of North America which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the
   Frozen ocean. For this press our country is chiefly indebted
   to the Rev. Mr. Glover, a nonconformist minister, who
   possessed a considerable estate. … Another press, with types,
   and another printer, were, in 1660, sent over from England by
   the corporation for propagating the gospel among the Indians
   in New England. This press, &c., was designed solely for the
   purpose of printing the Bible, and other books, in the Indian
   language. On their arrival they were carried to Cambridge, and
   employed in the printing house already established in that
   place. … The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on
   the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view
   were they disposed to give it much liberty. … In 1662, the
   government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press;
   and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should
   be allowed in any town within the jurisdiction, except in
   Cambridge'; nor should any thing be printed there but what the
   government permitted through the agency of those persons who
   were empowered for the purpose. … In a short time, this law
   was so far repealed as to permit the use of a press at Boston.
   … It does not appear that the press, in Massachusetts, was
   free from legal restraints till about the year 1755 [see
   PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729]. … Except in
   Massachusetts, no presses were set up in the colonies till
   near the close of the 17th century. Printing then [1686] was
   performed in Pennsylvania [by William Bradford], 'near
   Philadelphia' [at Shackamaxon, now Kensington], and afterward
   in that city, by the same press which, in a few years
   subsequent, was removed to New York.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693;
      also PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

   The use of types commenced in Virginia about 1681; in 1682 the
   press was prohibited. In 1709 a press was established at New
   London, in Connecticut."

      _I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      2nd edition. (Translated and Collection
      of the American Antiquity Society, volume 5),
      volume 1, pages 1-17._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Bishop,
      History of American Manufactures,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650.
   Origin of printed newspapers.
   The newspaper defined.
   Its earliest appearances in Germany and Italy.

   "Lally-Tollendal, in his 'Life of Queen Elizabeth,' in the
   'Biographie Universelle' (vol. xiii, published in 1815, p. 56)
   … remarks that 'as far as the publication of an official
   journal is concerned, France can claim the priority by more
   than half a century; for in the Royal Library at Paris there
   is a bulletin of the campaign of Louis XII. in Italy in 1509.'
   He then gives the title of this 'bulletin,' from which it
   clearly appears that it is not a political journal, but an
   isolated piece of news—a kind of publication of which there
   are hundreds in existence of a date anterior to 1588 [formerly
   supposed to be the date of the first English newspaper—see
   PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702], and of which there
   is no doubt that thousands were issued. There is, for
   instance, in the British Museum a French pamphlet of six
   printed leaves, containing an account of the surrender of
   Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella on the 'first of January
   last past' (le premier jour de janvier dernierement passe), in
   the year 1492; and there are also the three editions of the
   celebrated letter of Columbus, giving the first account of the
   discovery of America, all printed at Rome in 1493. Nay, one of
   the very earliest productions of the German press was an
   official manifesto of Diether, Archbishop of Cologne, against
   Count Adolph of Nassau, very satisfactorily proved to have
   been printed at Mentz in 1462. There is among the German
   bibliographers a technical name for this class of printed
   documents, which are called 'Relations.' In fact, in order to
   arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the origin
   of newspapers, it is requisite, in the first place, to settle
   with some approach to precision what a newspaper is. Four
   classes of publications succeeded to each other from the 15th
   to the 19th century, to which the term has by different
   writers been applied:

   1st. Accounts of individual public transactions of recent
   occurrence.

   2nd. Accounts in one publication of several public
   transactions of recent occurrence, only connected together by
   having taken place about the same period, so as at one time to
   form the 'news of the day.'

   3rd. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
   in a numbered series.

   4th. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
   not only in a numbered series, but at stated intervals.

   The notices of the surrender of Granada and the discovery of
   America belong to the first class, and so also do the last
   dying speeches, which are in our own time cried about the
   streets. These surely are not newspapers. The Times and Daily
   News [London] belong to the fourth class, and these, of
   course, are newspapers. … Are not, in fact, all the essentials
   of a newspaper comprised in the definition of the second
   class, which it may be as well to repeat: 'Accounts in one
   publication of several public transactions of recent
   occurrence, only connected together by having taken place
   about the same period, so as at one time to form the news of
   the day'? Let us take an instance. There is preserved in the
   British Museum a collection of several volumes of interesting
   publications issued in Italy between 1640 and 1650, and
   containing the news of the times. They are of a small folio
   size, and consist in general of four pages, but sometimes of
   six, sometimes only of two. There is a series for the month of
   December, 1644, consisting entirely of the news from Rome. The
   first line of the first page runs thus:—'Di Roma,' with the
   date, first of the 3rd, then of the 10th, then the 17th, then
   the 24th, and lastly the 31st of December, showing that a
   number was published every week, most probably on the arrival
   of the post from Rome. The place of publication was Florence,
   and the same publishers who issued this collection of the news
   from Rome, sent forth in the same month of December, 1644, two
   other similar gazettes, at similar intervals, one of the news
   from Genoa, the other of the news from Germany and abroad.
   That this interesting series of publications, which is well
   worthy of a minute examination and a detailed description, is
   in reality a series of newspapers, will, I believe, be
   questioned by very few; but each individual number presents no
   mark by which, if separately met with, it could be known to
   form part of a set. …
{2593}
   The most minute researches on the history of newspapers in
   Germany are, as already mentioned, those of Prutz, who has
   collected notices of a large number of the 'relations,' though
   much remains to be gleaned. There are, for instance, in Van
   Heusde's Catalogue of the Library at Utrecht (Utrecht, 1835,
   folio), the titles of nearly a hundred of them, all as early
   as the sixteenth century; and the British Museum possesses a
   considerable quantity, all of recent acquisition. Prutz has no
   notice of the two that have been mentioned, and, like all
   preceding writers, he draws no distinction between the
   publications of the first class and the second. The view that
   he takes is, that no publication which does not answer to the
   definition of what I have termed the fourth class is entitled
   to the name of a newspaper. There was in the possession of
   Professor Grellman a publication called an 'Aviso,' numbered
   as '14,' and published in 1612, which has been considered by
   many German writers as their earliest newspaper, but Prutz
   denies that honour to it, on the ground of there being no
   proof that it was published at stated intervals. In the year
   1615 Egenolph Emmel, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, issued a weekly
   intelligencer, numbered in a series, and this, according to
   Prutz, is the proper claimant. Its history has been traced
   with some minuteness in a separate dissertation by
   Schwarzkopf, who has also the credit of having published in
   1795 the first general essay on newspapers of any value, and
   to have followed up the subject in a series of articles in the
   Allgemeine Litterarische Anzeiger. … The claims of Italy have
   yet to be considered. Prutz dismisses them very summarily,
   because, as he says, the Venetian gazettes of the sixteenth
   century, said to be preserved at Florence, are in manuscript,
   and it is essential to the definition of a newspaper that it
   should be printed. These Venetian gazettes have never, so far
   as I am aware, been described at all; they may be mere
   'news-letters,' or they may be something closely approaching
   to the modern newspaper. But I am strongly inclined to believe
   that something of the second class of Italian origin will turn
   up in the great libraries of Europe when further research is
   devoted to the subject. … The existence of these 'gazettes' in
   so many languages furnishes strong ground for supposing that
   the popularity of newspapers originated in Italy."

      _T. Watts,
      The fabricated "Earliest English Newspaper"
      (Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted in the Gentleman's
      Magazine Library; Bibliographical Notes, pages 146-150)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1617-1680.
   The Elzevirs.

   "Just as the house of Aldus waned and expired, that of the
   great Dutch printers, the Elzevirs, began obscurely enough at
   Leyden in 1583. The Elzevir's were not, like Aldus, ripe
   scholars and men of devotion to learning. Aldus laboured for
   the love of noble studies; the Elzevirs were acute, and too
   often 'smart' men of business. The founder of the family was
   Louis (born at Louvain, 1540, died 1617). But it was in the
   second and third generations that Bonaventura and Abraham
   Elzevir began to publish at Leyden their editions in small
   duodecimo. Like Aldus, these Elzevirs aimed at producing books
   at once handy, cheap, correct, and beautiful in execution.
   Their adventure was a complete success. The Elzevirs did not,
   like Aldus, surround themselves with the most learned scholars
   of their time. Their famous literary adviser, Heinsius, was
   full of literary jealousies, and kept students of his own
   calibre at a distance. The classical editions of the Elzevirs,
   beautiful, but too small in type for modern eyes, are anything
   but exquisitely correct. … The ordinary marks of the Elzevirs
   were the sphere, the old hermit, the Athena, the eagle, and
   the burning faggot. But all little old books marked with
   spheres are not Elzevirs, as many booksellers suppose. Other
   printers also stole the designs for the tops of chapters, the
   Aegipan, the Siren, the head of Medusa, the crossed sceptres,
   and the rest. In some cases the Elzevirs published their
   books, especially when they were piracies, anonymously. When
   they published for the Jansenists, they allowed their clients
   to put fantastic pseudonyms on the title pages. But, except in
   four cases, they had only two pseudonyms used on the titles of
   books published by and for themselves. These disguises are
   'Jean Sambix' for Jean and Daniel Elzevir, at Leyden, and 'for
   the Elzevirs of Amsterdam, 'Jacques le Jeune.' The last of the
   great representatives of the house, Daniel, died at Amsterdam,
   1680. Abraham, an unworthy scion, struggled on at Leyden till
   1712. The family still prospers, but no longer prints, in
   Holland."

      _A. Lang,
      The Library,
      chapter 3._

   "Though Elzevirs have been more fashionable than at present,
   they are still regarded by novelists as the great prize of the
   book collector. You read in novels about 'priceless little
   Elzevirs,' about books 'as rare as an old Elzevir.' I have
   met, in the works of a lady novelist (but not elsewhere) with
   an Elzevir 'Theocritus.' The late Mr. Hepworth Dixon
   introduced into one of his romances a romantic Elzevir Greek
   Testament, 'worth its weight in gold.' Casual remarks of this
   kind encourage a popular delusion that all Elzevirs are pearls
   of considerable price."

      _A. Lang,
      Books and Bookmen,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Slater,
      Book Collecting,
      chapter 8._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702.
   The first printed Newspaper and
   the first daily Newspaper in England.

   "Up to 1839 (when Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, exposed
   the forgery) the world was led to believe that the first
   English newspaper appeared in 1588." Mr. Watts "ascertained
   that 'The English Mercurie,' which Mr. George Chalmers first
   discovered on the shelves of the British Museum, and which was
   said to have been 'imprinted in London by her highness's
   printer, 1588,' was a forgery, for which the second Earl of
   Hardwicke appears to be answerable." As to the actual date of
   the appearance of the first printed newspaper in England, "Mr.
   Knight Hunt, in his 'Fourth Estate,' speaks confidently. …
   'There is now no reason to doubt,' he says, 'that the puny
   ancestor of the myriads of broad sheets of our time was
   published in the metropolis in 1622; and that the most
   prominent of the ingenious speculators who offered the novelty
   to the world, was one Nathaniel Butter.' As the printing press
   had then been at work in England for a century and a half,
   Caxton having established himself in Westminster Abbey in
   1471, and as manuscript news-letters had been current for many
   years previous to 1622, one cannot help wondering that the
   inventive wits of that age should have been so slow in finding
   out this excellent mode of turning Faust's invention to
   profitable account.
{2594}
   Butter's journal was called—'The Weekly Newes,' a name which
   still survives, although the original possessor of that title
   has long since gone the way of all newspapers. The first
   number in the British Museum collection bears date the 23rd of
   May, 1622, and contains 'news from Italy, Germanie,' &c. The
   last number made its appearance on the 9th of January, 1640; a
   memorable year, in which the Short Parliament, dismissed by
   King Charles 'in a huff,' after a session of three weeks, was
   succeeded by the Long Parliament, which unlucky Charles could
   not manage quite so easily. … It was nearly a century after
   'The Weekly Newes' made its first appearance, before a daily
   newspaper was attempted. When weekly papers had become firmly
   established, some of the more enterprising printers began to
   publish their sheets twice, and ultimately three times a week.
   Thus at the beginning of last century we find several papers
   informing the public that they are 'published every Tuesday,
   Thursday, and Saturday morning.' One of the most respectable
   looking was entitled 'The New State of Europe,' or a 'True
   Account of Public Transactions and Learning.' It consisted of
   two pages of thin, coarse paper … and contained altogether
   about as much matter as there is in a single column of the
   'Times' of 1855. The custom at that period was to publish the
   newspaper on a folio or quarto sheet, two pages of which were
   left blank to be used for correspondence. This is expressly
   stated in a standing advertisement in the 'New State of
   Europe,' in which the names of certain booksellers are given
   'where any person may have this paper with a blank half sheet
   to write their own private affairs.' … The first number of the
   'Daily Courant' [the first daily newspaper in England] was
   published on the 11th of March, 1702, just three days after
   the accession of Queen Anne. … As regards the form and size of
   the new journal, the 'author' condescends to give the
   following information, with a growling remark at the
   impertinence of the 'Postboys,' 'Postmen,' 'Mercuries,' and
   'Intelligencers' of that day:—'This "Courant" (as the title
   shows) will be published Daily, being designed to give all the
   Material News as soon as every Post arrives, and is confined
   to half the compass to save the Publick at least half the
   Impertinences of ordinary Newspapers.' In addition to the
   Prospectus we have quoted, the first number of the 'Daily
   Courant' contains only nine paragraphs, five of which were
   translated from the 'Harlem Courant,' three from the 'Paris
   Gazette,' and one from the 'Amsterdam Courant.' They all
   relate to the war of the Spanish Succession then waging, or to
   the attempts making by diplomats to settle the affairs of the
   Continent at some kind of Vienna or Utrecht Conference. After
   adhering for several weeks to the strict rule of giving only
   one page of news, and those entirely foreign, the 'Courant'
   begins to show certain symptoms of improvement. The number for
   April 22, contains two pages of news and advertisements. … The
   alteration in the getting-up of the 'Courant' was owing to a
   change of proprietorship. The paper had now come into the
   hands of 'Sam Buckley, at the Dolphin, Little Britain.' … Mr.
   Samuel Buckley, who continued to publish and conduct the
   'Daily Courant' for many years, was a notable man among London
   publishers, as we find from various references to him in the
   fugitive literature of that age."

      _The London Daily Press
      (Westminster Review, October, 1855)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1631.
   The first printed Newspaper in France.
   Dr. Renandot and his "Gazette."

   "The first Frenchman to found a printed newspaper was Dr.
   Théophraste Renaudot, who obtained the King's privilege for
   the 'Gazette de France' in 1631. … He was a shrewd man, born
   at London in 1567, brought up in Paris, but graduate of the
   Faculty of Montpellier. In 1612, being then twenty-six, he
   returned to the capital, and somehow got appointed at once
   doctor to the King. But there was no salary attached to this
   post, which was in his case purely honorary, and so Renaudot
   opened a school, though the fact that he, a mere provincial
   doctor, had obtained a medical appointment at court, was very
   sore to the Paris Faculty of Medicine, who began to annoy him
   from that moment. Renaudot, however, was a man far ahead of
   his contemporaries in sagacity, patience, learning and
   humanity. Petty spite did not disturb him, or at least it did
   not deter him from executing any of the numerous plans he had
   in mind for the welfare of his contemporaries. … This
   extraordinary man not only inaugurated in France an Estate,
   Professional and Servants' Agency, as well as an office for
   private sales and exchanges, but further laid the basis of the
   Poste Restante, Parcels Delivery, Post-Office Directory,
   Tourist's Guide and Money Order Office; besides affording an
   outlet to troubled spirits like those who correspond through
   the agony column of 'The Times.' It is not surprising that his
   office in the Rue de la Calandre should soon have been all too
   small for its multifarious duties and that his original staff
   of six clerks should, in less than three months, have swelled
   to fifty. Richelieu, in sheer admiration at the man, sent for
   him and thanked him for the services he was rendering the
   King's subjects. He also offered him money to extend his
   offices, and this Renaudot accepted, but only as a loan. It
   was his custom to levy a commission of six deniers per livre
   (franc) on the sales he effected, and by means of these and
   other receipts he soon repaid the Cardinal every penny that
   had been advanced to him. But he did more than this. Finding
   that his registers were not always convenient modes of
   reference, by reason of the excessive crowds which pressed
   round them, he brought out a printed advertiser, which is
   almost the exact prototype of a journal at present well known
   in London. It was called 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' and
   appeared every Saturday, at the price of 1 sou. Opinions
   differ as to whether this paper preceded the 'Gazette de
   France,' or was issued simultaneously with it. Probably it was
   first published in manuscript form, but came out in print at
   least six months before the 'Gazette,' for a number bearing
   the date of June 14th, 1631, shows a periodical in full
   organisation and containing indirect references to
   advertisements which must have appeared several weeks before.
   At all events this 'Feuille' was purely an advertisement
   sheet—a forerunner of the 'Petites Affiches' which were
   reinvented in 1746—it was in no sense a newspaper. … It is
   clear that from the moment he started his 'Feuille du Bureau
   d'Adresses,' Renaudot must have conceived the possibility of
   founding a news-sheet. … The manuscript News Letters had
   attained, by the year 1630, to such a pitch of perfection, and
   found such a ready sale, that the notion of further
   popularising them by printing must have suggested itself to
   more than one man before it was actually put into practice.
{2595}
   But the great bar was this, that nothing could be printed
   without the King's privilege, and this privilege was not
   lightly granted. … Renaudot, who had no wish to publish
   tattle, had no reason to fear censorship. He addressed himself
   to Richelieu, and craved leave to start a printed newspaper
   under royal patronage. The politic Cardinal was quite shrewd
   enough to see how useful might be to him an organ which would
   set information before the public in the manner he desired,
   and in that manner alone; so he granted all Renaudot wished,
   in the form of 'letters patent,' securing him an entire
   monopoly of printing newspapers, and moreover he conferred on
   his protégé the pompous title of Historiographer of France.
   The first number of the 'Gazette de France' appeared on
   Friday, May 30, 1631. Its size was four quarto pages, and its
   price one sol parisis, i. e. ½d., worth about l½d. modern
   money. … The first number contained no preface or address,
   nothing in the way of a leading article, but plunged at once
   in medias res, and gave news from nineteen foreign towns or
   countries, but oddly enough, not a line of French
   intelligence. … The bulk of the matter inserted was furnished
   direct by Richelieu from the Foreign Office, and several of
   the paragraphs were written in his own hand. … The publication
   of the 'Gazette' was continued uninterruptedly from week to
   week but the press of matter was so great that Renaudot took
   to issuing a Supplement with the last number of every month.
   In this he condensed the reports of the preceding numbers,
   corrected errors, added fresh news, and answered his
   detractors. … At the end of the year 1631 he suppressed his
   monthly Supplement, increased the 'Gazette' to eight pages,
   and announced that for the future he would issue supplements
   as they were needed. It seems they were needed pretty often,
   for towards the beginning of the year 1633 Renaudot published
   Supplements, under the title of 'Ordinaries and
   Extraordinaries,' as often as twice, and even three times in
   one week. In fact whenever a budget of news arrived which
   would nowadays justify a special edition, the indefatigable
   editor set his criers afoot with a fresh printed sheet,
   shouting, 'Buy the "Extraordinary," containing the account of
   the superb burial of the King of Denmark!' or, 'Buy and read
   of the capture of the beautiful island of Curaçoa in the
   Indies by the Dutch from the Spaniards!' Renaudot understood
   the noble art of puffing. He dressed his criers in red, and
   gave them a trumpet apiece to go and bray the praises of the
   'Gazette' on the off days, when the paper did not appear. … On
   the death of Renaudot, he was succeeded by his sons Eusèbe and
   Isaac, who in their turn bequeathed the Gazette' to Eusèbe
   junior, son of the elder brother, who took orders and
   consequently left no progeny. After this the 'Gazette' became
   Government property. … In 1762 the 'Gazette' was annexed to
   the Foreign Office Department. … The 'Gazette de France'
   continued to appear under royal patronage until May 1st, 1792,
   when its official ties were snapped and it came out as a
   private and republican journal with the date 'Fourth Year of
   Freedom.' The 'Gazette' has flourished with more or less
   brilliancy ever since, and has been for the last fifty years a
   legitimist organ, read chiefly in the provinces."

      _The French Press
      (Cornhill Magazine, June, 1873)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1637.
   Archbishop Laud's Star-Chamber restriction of printing.

   On the 11th of July, 1637, "Archbishop Laud procured a decree
   to be passed in the star chamber, by which it was ordered,
   that the master printers should be reduced to twenty in
   number; and that if any other should secretly, or openly,
   pursue the trade of printing, he should be set in the pillory,
   or whipped through the streets, and suffer such other
   punishment as the court should inflict upon him; that none of
   the master printers should print any book or books of
   divinity, law, physic, philosophy, or poetry, till the said
   books, together with the titles, epistles, prefaces, tables,
   or commendatory verses, should be lawfully licensed, on pain
   of losing the exercise of his art, and being proceeded against
   in the star chamber, &c.; that no person should reprint any
   book without a new license; that every merchant, bookseller,
   &c., who should import any book or books, should present a
   catalogue of them to the archbishop or bishop, &c., before
   they were delivered, or exposed to sale, who should view them,
   with power to seize those that were schismatical; and, that no
   merchant, &c., should print or cause to be printed abroad, any
   book, or books, which either entirely or for the most part,
   were written in the English tongue, nor knowingly import any
   such books, upon pain of being proceeded against in the star
   chamber, or high commission court. … That there should be four
   founders of letters for printing, and no more. That the
   archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, with six
   other high commissioners, shall supply the places of those
   four as they shall become void. That no master founder shall
   keep above two apprentices at one time. That all journeymen
   founders be employed by the masters of the trade; and that all
   the idle journeymen be compelled to work upon pain of
   imprisonment, and such other punishment as the court shall
   think fit. That no master founder of letters shall employ any
   other person in any work belonging to casting and founding of
   letters than freemen and apprentices to the trade, save only
   in putting off the knots of metal hanging at the end of the
   letters when they are first cast; in which work, every master
   founder may employ one boy only, not bound to the trade."

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      page 490._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1647.
   Renewed ordinance, in England, against the printers.

   "An ordinance of parliament passed the house of lords on this
   day [September 30, 1647], that no person shall make, write,
   print, sell, publish or utter, or cause to be made, &c., any
   book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, sheet, or sheets of
   news whatsoever (except the same be licensed by both or either
   house of parliament,) under the penalty of 40s. and an
   imprisonment not exceeding forty days, if he can not pay it:
   if a printer, he is to pay a fine of only 20s., or suffer
   twenty days' imprisonment, and likewise to have his press and
   implements of printing broken in pieces. The book-seller, or
   stationer, to pay 10s., or suffer ten days' imprisonment,—and,
   lastly, the hawker, pedlar, or ballad-singer, to forfeit all
   his printed papers exposed to sale, and to be whipped as a
   common rogue in the parish where he shall be apprehended.
{2596}
   Early in the following year, the committee of estates in
   Scotland passed an act prohibiting the printing under the pain
   of death, any book, declaration, or writing, until these were
   first submitted to their revisal. … One of the consequences of
   these persecutions was the raising up of a new class of
   publishers, those who became noted for what was called
   'unlawful and unlicensed books.' Sparkes, the publisher of
   Prynne's Histriomastix, was of this class. The presbyterian
   party in parliament, who thus found the press closed on them,
   vehemently cried out for its freedom; and it was imagined,
   that when they ascended into power, the odious office of a
   licenser of the press would have been abolished; but these
   pretended friends of freedom, on the contrary, discovered
   themselves as tenderly alive to the office as the old
   government, and maintained it with the extremest vigour. Both
   in England and Scotland, during the civil wars, the party in
   power endeavoured to crush by every means the freedom of the
   press."

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      page 506._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694.
   Freedom of the press under Cromwell.
   Censorship under the restored Stuarts.
   Roger L'Estrange and the first news reporters.

   "During the Protectorate of Cromwell the newspaper press knew
   … what it was to enjoy the luxury of freedom. The natural
   result was that a very great increase took place in the number
   of new political journals. Most of them, however, had only a
   very brief existence. Many of their number could not boast of
   a longer life than six or seven months—nay, many of them not
   so much as even that term of life. But, as might have been
   expected, from what was known of the antecedents of Charles
   II., the freedom of the press, which previously existed, came
   to an immediate end on his ascending the throne. Hardly had he
   done so, than an edict was issued, prohibiting the publication
   of any journal except the London Gazette, which was originally
   printed at Oxford, and called the Oxford Gazette,—the Court
   being then resident there on account of the plague raging in
   London at the time, 1665, when it was commenced, and for some
   time afterwards. This was an act of pure despotism. But
   Government at this time reserved to itself the right —a right
   which there was none to dispute—to publish a broad sheet in
   connexion with the London Gazette, whenever they might deem it
   expedient, which should contain either foreign or domestic
   matters of interest,—of the knowledge of which some of the
   King's subjects might wish to be put in early possession. …
   The newspapers of the seventeenth century were permitted,
   until the time of Charles II., to be published without being
   licensed by the Government of the day; but in the reign of
   that despotic sovereign, a law was passed [1662] prohibiting
   the publication of any newspaper without being duly licensed.
   … Sir John Birkenhead, … one of the three men whom Disraeli
   the elder called the fathers of the English press, was
   appointed to the office of Licenser of the Press. But he was
   soon succeeded by Sir Roger l'Estrange."

      _J. Grant,
      The Newspaper Press,
      volume 1, chapter. 2._

   Roger L'Estrange "is remarkable for having been the writer of
   the best newspapers which appeared before the age of Queen
   Anne, and, at the same time, a most bitter enemy to the
   freedom of the press. He was appointed licenser or censor in
   1663, and in the same year was given authority to publish all
   newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets, not exceeding two
   sheets in size. He appears to have looked upon his newspaper
   as a noxious thing, suffered to exist only that an income
   might be created for him in return for the labour of purging
   the press. Yet he spared no pains to make his Public
   Intelligencer readable, and if we may trust his letters now
   preserved at the State Paper Office, expended in the first
   year more than £500 on 'spyes for collecting intelligence.'
   Three years afterwards he estimated the profits at £400 a
   year. … He sent paid correspondents, or 'spyes' as they were
   called, to all parts of the country, and even induced some
   respectable persons, under promise of concealing their names,
   to contribute occasional paragraphs; these persons were for
   the most part repaid by sending to them their newspapers and
   letters free of postage. Another set of 'spyes' was employed
   in picking up the news of the town on Paul's Walk or in the
   taverns and coffee–houses. L'Estrange printed about sixteen
   reams of his Intelligencer weekly, which were for the most
   part sold by the mercury-women who cried them about the
   streets. One Mrs. Andrews is said to have taken more than
   one-third of the whole quantity printed. … Advantage was taken
   of a slip in the weekly intelligence to deprive L'Estrange of
   his monopoly in favour of the new Oxford Gazette, published in
   the winter of 1665 and transferred to London in the ensuing
   spring. The Gazette was placed under the control of
   Williamson, then a rising under-Secretary of State, under
   whose austere influence nothing was suffered to appear which
   could excite or even amuse the public. … L'Estrange has not
   been a favourite with historians, and we confess that his
   harsh measures towards the press are apt to raise a feeling of
   repugnance. … But he was certainly an enthusiastic and
   industrious writer, who raised the tone of the press, even
   while taking pains to fetter its liberty. When he lost his
   monopoly, that era of desolation began which Macaulay has so
   forcibly described. The newspapers became completely sterile,
   omitting events even of such importance as the trial of the
   seven bishops, and were supplanted in popular favour by the
   manuscript news-letters, which were, in fact, the only
   journals of importance. On the day after the abdication of
   James II. three fresh newspapers appeared, and many more burst
   out after the appearance of the official journal under the
   style of the Orange Gazette. But it was not until 1694 that
   the king was induced to abolish the censorship and to permit
   free trade in news; 'he doubted much,' says Hume, 'of the
   salutary effects of such unlimited freedom.' The newspapers
   increased and multiplied exceedingly for the eighteen years
   between the abolition of the office of licenser and the
   passing of the Stamp Act, in 1712, by which a halfpenny tax
   was laid on every half-sheet of intelligence."

      _Early English Newspapers
      (Cornhill Magazine, July, 1868)._

{2597}

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693.
   William Bradford and his Press in Philadelphia and New York.

   William Bradford, a young printer, of the Society of Friends,
   came to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1685, and established
   himself in business. "His first publication was 'Kalendarium
   Pennsilvaniense, or America's Messenger; Being an Almanack for
   the Year of Grace 1686.' This brought him a summons before the
   Governor and Council, for referring to the Proprietary, in the
   table of chronology, ns 'Lord Penn;' and, on his appearance,
   he was ordered to blot out the objectionable title, and
   forbidden to print anything without license from the
   Provincial Council. In 1687 he was cautioned by the
   Philadelphia meeting not to print anything touching the
   Quakers without its approval. Two years later he was again
   called before the Governor, and Council—this time for printing
   the charter of the province. The spirited report, in his own
   handwriting, of his examination on this occasion, is now
   preserved in the collection of the New York Historical
   Society. Disappointed at the non-fulfilment of Penn's promise
   of the government printing and the failure of his scheme for
   printing an English Bible, which, although indorsed by the
   meeting, found few subscribers, and harassed by both the civil
   and religious authorities, Bradford determined to leave the
   province," which he did, with his family, sailing to England
   in 1689. He was induced, however, by promises of increased
   business and a yearly salary of £40, to return. In 1692,
   having become one of the supporters of George Keith, and
   having printed Keith's "Appeal", he was arrested and
   imprisoned.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

   This occurred in August, and his trial followed in December.
   The jury disagreed, and he was held for appearance at the next
   court. "In the meantime the dissensions in the province
   aroused by the Keithian schism had led to the abrogation of
   Penn's charter by the crown, and the appointment of Benjamin
   Fletcher to be Royal Governor of Pennsylvania as well as New
   York." This change led to the dropping of proceedings against
   Bradford, and to his removal from Philadelphia to New York,
   whither he seems to have been invited. His removal was
   undoubtedly prompted by a resolution which the Provincial
   Council of New York adopted on the 23d of March, 1693: "That
   if a Printer will come and settle in the city of New York for
   the printing of our Acts of Assembly and Publick Papers, he
   shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money of New York per
   annum for his salary and have the benefit of his printing
   besides what serves the publick." "Bradford's first warrant
   for his salary as 'Printer to King William and Queen Mary, at
   the City of New York,' was dated October 12, 1693, and was for
   six months, due on the 10th preceding," showing that he had
   established himself in the colony more hospitable to his art
   as early as the 10th of April, 1693. "What was the first
   product of his press is a matter of doubt. It may have been,
   as Dr. Moore suggests, the 'Journal of the Late Actions of the
   French at Canada,' or 'New England's Spirit of Persecution
   Transmitted to Pennsilvania'"—which was a report of his own
   trial at Philadelphia—or it may have been an Act of the New
   York Assembly—one of three which his press produced early that
   year, but the priority among which is uncertain.

      _C. R Hildeburn,
      Printing in New York in the 17th Century
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 15.)_

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      2d edition, volume 1._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
   Expiration of the Censorship law in England.
   Quick multiplication of Newspapers.

   "While the Licensing Act was in force there was no newspaper
   in England except the 'London Gazette,' which was edited by a
   clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, and which
   contained nothing but what the Secretary of State wished the
   nation to know. There were indeed many periodical papers: but
   none of those papers could be called a newspaper. Welwood, a
   zealous Whig, published a journal called the Observator: but
   his Observator, like the Observator which Lestrange had
   formerly edited, contained, not the news, but merely
   dissertations on politics. A crazy bookseller, named John
   Dunton, published the Athenian Mercury: but the Athenian
   Mercury merely discussed questions of natural philosophy, of
   casuistry and of gallantry. A fellow of the Royal Society,
   named John Houghton, published what he called a Collection for
   the Improvement of Industry and Trade: but his Collection
   contained little more than the prices of stocks, explanations
   of the modes of doing business in the City, puffs of new
   projects, and advertisements of books, quack medicines,
   chocolate, Spa water, civet cats, surgeons wanting ships,
   valets wanting masters, and ladies wanting husbands. If ever
   he printed any political news, he transcribed it from the
   Gazette. The Gazette was so partial and so meagre a chronicle
   of events that, though it had no competitors, it had but a
   small circulation. … But the deficiencies of the Gazette were
   to a certain extent supplied in London by the coffeehouses,
   and in the country by the news-letters. On the third of May
   1695 the law which had subjected the press to a censorship
   expired. Within a fortnight, a stanch old Whig, named Harris,
   who had, in the days of the Exclusion Bill, attempted to set
   up a newspaper entitled Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, and
   who had been speedily forced to relinquish that design,
   announced that the Intelligence Domestic and Foreign,
   suppressed fourteen years before by tyranny, would again
   appear. Ten days later was printed the first number of the
   English Courant. Then came the Packet Boat from Holland and
   Flanders, the Pegasus, the London Newsletter, the London Post,
   the Flying Post, the Old Postmaster, the Postboy, and the
   Postman. The history of the newspapers of England from that
   time to the present day is a most interesting and instructive
   part of the history of the country. At first they were small
   and mean-looking. … Only two numbers came out in a week; and a
   number contained little more matter than may be found in a
   single column of a daily paper of our time."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 21._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
   The first Newspapers in America.

   "There was not a newspaper published in the English colonies,
   throughout the extensive continent of North America, until the
   24th of April, 1704. John Campbell, a Scotchman, who was a
   bookseller and postmaster in Boston, was the first who began
   and established a publication of this kind. It was entitled
   'The Boston News-Letter.' … It is printed on half a sheet of
   pot paper, with a small pica type, folio.
{2598}
   The first page is filled with an extract from 'The London
   Flying Post,' respecting the pretender. … The queen's speech
   to both houses of parliament on that occasion, a few articles
   under the Boston head, four short paragraphs of marine
   intelligence from New York, Philadelphia, and New London, and
   one advertisement, form its whole contents. The advertisement
   is from Campbell, the proprietor of the paper." In 1719, a
   rival paper was started in Boston, called the "Gazette," and
   in 1721, a third, founded by James Franklin, took the name of
   "The New England Courant." Meantime there had appeared at
   Philadelphia, on the 22nd of December, 1719,—only one day
   later than the second of the Boston newspapers—"The American
   Weekly Mercury," printed by Andrew Bradford, son of William
   Bradford. The same printer, Andrew Bradford, removing to New
   York, brought out "The New York Gazette," the first newspaper
   printed in that city, in October, 1725.

      _I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      volume 2, page 12, and after._

   "In 1740, the number of newspapers in the English colonies on
   the continent had increased to eleven, of which one appeared
   in South Carolina, one in Virginia, three in Pennsylvania—one
   of them being in German—one in New York, and the remaining
   five in Boston. … The New England 'Courant,' the fourth
   American periodical, was, in August 1721, established by James
   Franklin as an organ of independent opinion. Its temporary
   success was advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice,
   a boy of fifteen, who wrote for its columns, worked in
   composing the types as well as printing off the sheets, and,
   as carrier, distributed the papers to the customers. The sheet
   satirized hypocrisy, and spoke of religious knaves as of all
   knaves the worst. This was described as tending 'to abuse the
   ministers of religion in a manner which was intolerable.' … In
   July 1722, a resolve passed the council, appointing a censor
   for the press of James Franklin; but the house refused its
   concurrence. The ministers persevered; and, in January 1723, a
   committee of inquiry was raised by the legislature. Benjamin,
   being examined, escaped with an admonition; James, the
   publisher, refusing to discover the author of the offence, was
   kept in jail for a month; his paper was censured as reflecting
   injuriously on the reverend ministers of the gospel; and, by
   vote of the house and council, he was forbidden to print it,
   'except it be first supervised.' Vexed at the arbitrary
   proceedings, Benjamin Franklin, then but seventeen years old,
   in October 1723, sailed clandestinely for New York. Finding
   there no employment, he crossed to Amboy; went on foot to the
   Delaware; for want of a wind, rowed in a boat from Burlington
   to Philadelphia; and bearing marks of his labor at the oar,
   weary, hungry, having for his whole stock of cash a single
   dollar, the runaway apprentice—the pupil of the free schools
   of Boston, rich in the boundless hope of youth and the
   unconscious power of modest genius—stepped on shore to seek
   food and occupation. On the deep foundations of sobriety,
   frugality and industry, the young journeyman built his
   fortunes and fame; and he soon came to have a printing-office
   of his own. … The assembly of Pennsylvania chose him its
   printer. He planned a newspaper [the 'Pennsylvania Gazette'];
   and, when (1729] he became its proprietor and editor, he
   defended freedom of thought and speech, and the inalienable
   power of the people."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States of America,
      part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Parton,
      Life of Franklin,
      parts 1-2 (volume l)._

      _B. Franklin,
      Life by Himself,
      edited by J. Bigelow,
      part 1._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1709-1752.
   The Periodicals of the Essayists.
   The "Tatler," "Spectator," and their successors.

   "In the spring of 1709, Steele [Sir Richard] formed a literary
   project, of which he was far indeed from foreseeing the
   consequences. Periodical papers had during many years been
   published in London. Most of these were political; but in some
   of them questions of morality, taste, and love-casuistry had
   been discussed. The literary merit of these works was small
   indeed; and even their names are now known only to the
   curious. Steele had been appointed gazetteer by Sunderland, at
   the request, it is said, of Addison; and thus had access to
   foreign intelligence earlier and more authentic than was in
   those times within the reach of an ordinary news-writer. This
   circumstance seems to have suggested to him the scheme of
   publishing a periodical paper on a new plan. It was to appear
   on the days on which the post left London for the country,
   which were, in that generation, the Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
   Saturdays. It was to contain the foreign news, accounts of
   theatrical representations, and the literary gossip of Will's
   and of the Grecian. It was also to contain remarks on the
   fashionable topics of the day, compliments to beauties,
   pasquinades on noted sharpers, and criticisms on popular
   preachers. The aim of Steele does not appear to have been at
   first higher than this. … Issac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
   Astrologer, was an imaginary person, almost as well known in
   that age as Mr. Paul Pry or Mr. Pickwick in ours. Swift had
   assumed the name of Bickerstaff in a satirical pamphlet
   against Partridge, the almanac-maker. Partridge had been fool
   enough to publish a furious reply. Bickerstaff had rejoined in
   a second pamphlet still more diverting than the first. All the
   wits had combined to keep up the joke, and the town was long
   in convulsions of laughter. Steele determined to employ the
   name which this controversy had made popular; and, in April,
   1709, it was announced that Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
   Astrologer, was about to publish a paper called the 'Tatler.'
   Addison had not been consulted about this scheme; but as soon
   as he heard of it, he determined to give it his assistance.
   The effect of that assistance cannot be better described than
   in Steele's own words. 'I fared,' he said, 'like a distressed
   prince who calls in a powerful neighbour to his aid. I was
   undone by my auxiliary. When I had once called him in, I could
   not subsist without dependence on him.' 'The paper,' he says
   elsewhere, 'was advanced indeed. It was raised to a greater
   thing than I intended it.'"

      _Lord Macaulay.
      Life and Writings of Addison (Essays)._

   "Steele, on the 12th of April 1709, issued the first number of
   the 'Tatler.' … This famous newspaper, printed in one folio
   sheet of 'tobacco paper' with 'scurvy letter,' ran to 271
   numbers, and abruptly ceased to appear in January 1711. It
   enjoyed an unprecedented success, for, indeed, nothing that
   approached it had ever before been issued from the periodical
   press in England. The division of its contents was thus
   arranged by the editor: 'All accounts of gallantry, pleasure,
   and entertainment shall be under the article of White's
   Chocolate House; poetry under that of Will's Coffee-House;
   learning under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic news
   you will have from St. James's Coffee-House; and what else I
   shall on any other subject offer shall be dated from my own
   apartment.'
{2599}
   The political news gradually ceased to appear. … Of the 271
   'Tatlers,' 188 were written by Steele, 42 by Addison, and 36
   by both conjointly. Three were from the pen of John Hughes. …
   These, at least, are the numbers usually given, but the
   evidence on which they are based is slight. It rests mainly
   upon the indications given by Steele to Tickell when the
   latter was preparing his edition of Addison's Works. The
   conjecture may be hazarded that there were not a few Tatlers
   written by Addison which he was not anxious to claim as his
   particular property. … Addison, … remained Steele's firm
   friend, and less than two months after the cessation of the
   'Tatler' there appeared the first number of a still more
   famous common enterprise, the 'Spectator,' on the 1st of March
   1711. It was announced to appear daily, and was to be composed
   of the reflections and actions of the members of an imaginary
   club, formed around 'Mr. Spectator.' In this club the most
   familiar figure is the Worcestershire Knight, Sir Roger de
   Coverley, the peculiar property of Addison. … The 'Spectator'
   continued to appear daily until December 1712. It consisted of
   555 numbers, of which Addison wrote 274, Steele 236, Hughes
   19, and Pope 1 (The Messiah, 'Spectator' 378). Another
   contributor was Eustace Budgell (1685-1736), Addison's cousin.
   … The 'Spectator' enjoyed so very unequivocal a success that
   it has puzzled historians to account for its discontinuance.
   In No. 517 Addison killed Sir Roger de Coverley 'that nobody
   else might murder him.' This shows a voluntary intention to
   stop the publication, which the Stamp Act itself had not been
   able to do by force."

      _E. Gosse,
      A History of Eighteenth Century Literature,
      chapter 6._

   "After this, in 1713, came the 'Guardian'; and in 1714 an
   eighth volume of the 'Spectator' was issued by Addison alone.
   He was also the sole author of the 'Freeholder,' 1715, which
   contains the admirable sketch of the 'Tory Foxhunter.' Steele,
   on his side, followed up the 'Guardian' by the 'Lover,' the
   'Reader,' and half-a–dozen abortive efforts; but his real
   successes, as well as those of Addison, were in the three
   great collections for which they worked together. … Between
   the 'Guardian' of 1713 and the 'Rambler' of 1750-2 there were
   a number of periodical essayists of varying merit. It is
   scarcely necessary to recall the names of these now forgotten
   'Intelligencers,' 'Moderators,' 'Remembrancers,' and the like,
   the bulk of which were political. Fielding places one of them,
   the 'Freethinker' of Philips, nearly on a level with 'those
   great originals the "Tatlers" and the "Spectators;"' but the
   initial chapters to the different books of 'Tom Jones' attract
   us more forcibly to the author's own 'Champion,' written in
   conjunction with the Ralph who 'makes night hideous' in the
   'Dunciad.' … Another of Fielding's enterprises in the
   'Spectator' vein was the 'Covent Garden Journal,' 1752. …
   Concurrently with the 'Covent Garden Journal' appeared the
   final volume of Johnson's 'Rambler,' a work upon the cardinal
   defect of which its author laid his finger, when in later
   life, he declared it to be 'too wordy.' Lady Mary said in her
   smart way that the 'Rambler' followed the 'Spectator' as a
   pack horse would do a hunter. … In the twenty-nine papers
   which Johnson wrote for Hawkesworth's 'Adventurer,' the
   'Rambler' style is maintained. In the 'Idler,' however, which
   belongs to a later date, when its author's mind was unclouded,
   and he was comparatively free from the daily pressure" of
   necessity, he adopts a simpler and less polysyllabic style."

      _A. Dobson,
      Eighteenth Century Essays,
      introduction._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1712.
   The first Stamp Tax on Newspapers in England.

   The first stamp tax on newspapers in England went into effect
   on the 12th day of August, 1712. "An act had passed the
   legislature, that 'for every pamphlet or paper contained in
   half a sheet, or lesser piece of paper so printed, the sum of
   one halfpenny sterling: and for every such pamphlet or paper
   being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole
   sheet, so printed, a duty after the rate of one penny sterling
   for every sheet printed thereof.' This act, which was to curb
   the licentiousness of the press, was to be in force for the
   space of thirty-two years, to be reckoned from the 10th day of
   June, 1712. Addison, in the 'Spectator' of this day, says,
   'this is the day on which many eminent authors will probably
   publish their last works. I am afraid that few of our weekly
   historians, who are men that above all others delight in war,
   will be able to subsist under the weight of a stamp duty in an
   approaching peace. In short, the necessity of carrying a
   stamp, and the impracticability of notifying a bloody battle,
   will, I am afraid, both concur to the sinking of these thin
   folios which have every other day related to us the history of
   Europe for several years last past. A facetious friend of
   mine, who loves a pun, calls this present mortality among
   authors, "the fall of the leaf.'" On this tax Dean Swift thus
   humorously alludes in his Journal to Stella, as follows
   (August 7):—'Do you know that all Grub-street is dead and gone
   last week? No more Ghosts or murders now for love or money. I
   plied it close the last fortnight, and published at least
   seven papers of my own, besides some of other people's; but
   now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the queen. The
   'Observator' is fallen; the 'Medleys' are jumbled together
   with the 'Flying Post'; the 'Examiner' is deadly sick; the
   'Spectator' keeps up and doubles its price; I know not how
   long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are
   marked with? Methinks the stamping is worth a half-penny.' The
   stamp mark upon the newspapers was a rose and thistle joined
   by the stalks, and enclosing between the Irish shamrock, the
   whole three were surmounted by a crown. … It is curious to
   observe what an effect this trifling impost had upon the
   circulation of the most favourite papers. Many were entirely
   discontinued, and several of those which survived were
   generally united into one publication. The bill operated in a
   directly contrary manner to what the ministers had
   anticipated; for the opposition, who had more leisure, and
   perhaps more acrimony of feeling, were unanimous in the
   support of their cause. The adherents of ministers, who were
   by no means behind the opposition in their proficiency in the
   topic of defamation, were, it seems, not so strenuously
   supported; and the measure thus chiefly destroyed those whom
   it was Bolinbroke's interest to protect.
{2600}
   For some reason, which we have not been able to trace, the
   stamp-duties were removed shortly after their imposition, and
   were not again enforced until 1725. In order to understand how
   so small a duty as one halfpenny should operate so strongly
   upon these periodical publications, we must look at the price
   at which they were vended at that period. The majority of them
   were published at a penny, many at a halfpenny, and some were
   even published so low as a farthing."

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopædia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 601-602._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1723.
   End of Newspaper monopoly in France.

   "Until Louis XVI. was dethroned, Paris was officially supposed
   to possess but three periodicals: the 'Gazette de France' for
   politics, 'Le Journal des Savants' for literature and science,
   and the 'Mercure de France' for politics, literature, and
   social matters mingled. For a time these monopolies were
   respected, but only for a very short time. … During the
   Regency of the Duke of Orleans (1715-23), the 'Gazette de
   France,' 'Mercure,' and 'Journal des Savants' combined to
   bring an action for infringement against all the papers then
   existing, but they were non-suited on a technical objection;
   and this was their last attempt at asserting their
   prerogative."

      _The French Press
      (Cornhill Magazine, October, 1873)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
   Zenger's trial in New York.
   Determination of the freedom of the Press.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
   Freedom of Parliamentary reporting won in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1777.
   The first Daily Newspaper in France.

   "In 1777 there appeared the 'Journal de Paris,' which only
   deserves notice from its being the first daily paper issued in
   France."

      _Westminster Review,
      July 1860, page 219._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1784-1813.
   The earliest daily Newspapers in the United States.

   "The first daily newspaper published in the United States was
   the 'American Daily Advertiser.' It was issued in Philadelphia
   in 1784, by Benjamin Franklin Bache, afterwards of the Aurora.
   When the seat of national government was in Philadelphia, it
   shared the confidence and support of Jefferson with the
   'National Gazette.' It was strong in its opposition to the
   Federal section of the administration of Washington, and to
   all the measures originating with Hamilton. Zachariah Poulson
   became its proprietor and publisher in 1802, and it was known
   as 'Poulson's Advertiser,' and we believe he continued its
   publisher till October 28, 1839, when the establishment was
   sold to Brace and Newbold, the publishers of a new paper
   called the 'North American.' The name after that was the
   'North American and Daily Advertiser.' … The 'New York Daily
   Advertiser,' the second real journal in the United States, was
   published in 1785. It was commenced on the 1st of March by
   Francis Childs & Co. … On the 29th of July, 1786, the
   'Pittsburg (Pennsylvania) Gazette,' the first newspaper
   printed west of the Alleghany Mountains, appeared, and in 1796
   the 'Post' was issued. … 'The United States Gazette' was
   started in New York in 1789 by John Fenno, of Boston. Its
   original name was 'Gazette of the United States.' It was first
   issued in New York, because the seat of the national
   government was then in that city. When Congress removed to
   Philadelphia in 1790, the 'Gazette' went with that body. In
   1792 it was the special organ of Alexander Hamilton. … Noah
   Webster, the lexicographer of America, was a lawyer in 1793,
   and had an office in Hartford, Connecticut. 'Washington's
   administration was then violently assailed by the 'Aurora,'
   'National Gazette,' and other organs of the Republican Party,
   and by the partisans of France. Jefferson was organizing the
   opposition elements, and Hamilton was endeavoring to
   strengthen the Federal party. Newspapers were established on
   each side as the chief means of accomplishing the objects each
   party had in view. Noah Webster was considered, in this state
   of affairs, the man to aid the Federalists journalistically in
   New York. He was, therefore, induced to remove to that city
   and take charge of a Federal organ. On the 9th of December,
   1793, he issued the first number of a daily paper, which was
   named the 'Minerva.' According to its imprint, it appeared
   'every day, Sundays excepted, at four o'clock, or earlier if
   the arrival of the mail will permit.' … With the 'Minerva' was
   connected a semi-weekly paper called the 'Herald.' … The names
   of 'Minerva' and 'Herald' were shortly changed to those of
   'Commercial Advertiser' and 'New York Spectator,' and these
   names have continued. … The 'Commercial Advertiser' is the
   oldest daily newspaper in the metropolis. Of the hundreds of
   daily papers started in New York, from the time of Bradford's
   Gazette in 1725 to the 'Journal of Commerce' in 1827, there
   are now [1872] only two survivors—the 'Evening Post' and the
   'Commercial Advertiser.' … The first prominent daily paper
   issued in New England was the Boston Daily Advertiser, the
   publication of which was commenced on the 3d of March, 1813.
   There was a daily paper begun in that city on the 6th of
   October, 1796, by Alexander Martin, and edited by John O'Ley
   Burk, one of the 'United Irishmen.' It lived about six months.
   It was called the Polar Star and Boston Daily Advertiser.
   Another was attempted on the 1st of January, 1798, by Caleb P.
   Wayne, who was afterwards editor of the United States Gazette
   of Philadelphia. This second daily paper of Boston was named
   the Federal Gazette and Daily Advertiser. It lived three
   months. The third attempt at a daily paper in the capital of
   Massachusetts was a success. It was published by William W.
   Clapp, afterwards of the Saturday Evening Gazette, and edited
   by Horatio Biglow."

      _F. Hudson,
      Journalism in the United States,
      pages 175-194, and 378._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1785-1812.
   The founding of "The Times," in London.
   The beginning of "leading articles."

   The newspaper afterwards famous as "The Times" was started, in
   1785, under the name of the "Daily Universal Register," and
   did not adopt the title of "The Times" until the 1st of
   January, 1788.

      _J. Grant,
      The Newspaper Press,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

   "All the newspapers that can be said to have been
   distinguished in any way till the appearance of the 'Times'
   were distinguished by some freak of cleverness. … The 'Times'
   took up a line of its own from the first day of its existence.
   The proprietors staked their fortunes upon the general
   character of their paper, upon the promptitude and accuracy of
   its intelligence, upon its policy, upon the frank and
   independent spirit of its comments on public men. … The chief
   proprietor of the 'Times' was John Walter—a man who knew
   nothing or next to nothing of newspaper work, but who knew
   precisely what the public wanted in a newspaper, and
   possessed, with this instinct and intelligence, the
   determination and enterprise which constitute the character of
   a successful man of business.
{2601}
   He saw how a newspaper ought to be conducted, and he thought
   he saw how, by the development of a new idea in printing, he
   could produce the 'Times' a good deal cheaper than any of its
   contemporaries. The whole English language, according to Mr.
   Walter, consisted of about 90,000 words; but by separating the
   particles and omitting the obsolete words, technical terms,
   and common terminations, Mr. Walter believed it to be possible
   to reduce the stock in common use to about 50,000, and a large
   proportion of these words, with all the common terminations,
   he proposed to have cast separately, so that the compositor,
   with a slip of MS. before him to set in type, might pick up
   words or even phrases instead of picking up one by one every
   letter of every word in his copy, and thus, of course, save a
   good deal of time. The idea was impracticable, utterly
   impracticable, because the number of words required to carry
   out the system must in itself be so great that no case of type
   that a printer could stand before would hold them all, even if
   the printer 'learn his boxes' with a case of some 4,000 or
   5,000 compartments before him; but it took a good many years,
   a good many experiments, and the expenditure of some thousands
   of pounds to convince Mr. Walter that the failure was not due
   to the perversity of his printers but to the practical
   difficulties which surrounded his conception. John Walter was
   far more successful in the general conduct of the 'Times' as a
   newspaper than he was in the management of the 'Times'
   printing office. He set all the printers in London by the ears
   with his whim about logographic printing. But he had a very
   clear conception of what a national newspaper ought to be, and
   with the assistance of a miscellaneous group of men, who, as
   they are sketched for us by Henry Crabb Robinson, were
   apparently far more picturesque than practical, John Walter
   made the 'Times' what the 'Times' has been for nearly a
   century, pre-eminently and distinctly a national newspaper.
   The 'Times,' in its original shape, consisted merely of the
   day's news, a few advertisements, some market quotations,
   perhaps a notice of a new book, a few scraps of gossip, and in
   the session, a Parliamentary report. The 'Morning Chronicle'
   had the credit … of inventing the leading article, as it had
   the credit of inventing Parliamentary reporting. The 'Morning
   Chronicle,' on the 12th of May, 1791, published a paragraph,
   announcing that 'the great and firm body of the Whigs of
   England, true to their principles, had decided on the dispute
   between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in favor of Mr. Fox, as the
   representative of the pure doctrines of Whiggery,' and that in
   consequence of this resolution Mr. Burke would retire from
   Parliament. It was very short, but this paragraph is the
   nearest approximation that is to be found in the newspapers of
   that time to a leading article, and appearing as it did in the
   part of the 'Morning Chronicle' where a year or two afterwards
   the leading articles were printed, Mr. Wingrove Cooke cites it
   as the germ of the leaders which, when they became general,
   gave a distinctive colour and authority to newspapers as
   independent organs of opinion and criticism. The idea soon
   became popular; and in the 'Morning Post' and the 'Courier'
   the leading article, developed as it was by Coleridge and
   Macintosh into a work of art, often rivalling in argument,
   wit, and eloquence the best speeches in Parliament, became the
   object of quite as much interest as the Parliamentary reports
   themselves. The 'Times,' knowing how to appropriate one by one
   all the specialties of its contemporaries, and to improve upon
   what it appropriated, was one of the first newspapers to adopt
   the idea of leading articles, and in adopting that idea, to
   improve upon it by stamping its articles with a spirit of
   frankness and independence which was all its own. … The reign
   of John Walter, practically the founder of the 'Times,' ended
   in the year 1812, and upon his death his son, the second John
   Walter, took possession of Printing House Square, and, acting
   in the spirit of his father, with ampler means, soon made the
   'Times' the power in the State that it has been from that day
   to this."

      _C. Pebody,
      English Journalism,
      pages 92-99._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
   The trials of William Hone.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1830-1833.
   The first Penny Papers in the United States.

   "The Penny Press of America dates from 1833. There were small
   and cheap papers published in Boston and Philadelphia before
   and about that time. The Bostonian was one. The Cent, in
   Philadelphia, was another. The latter was issued by
   Christopher C. Cornwall in 1830. These and all similar
   adventures were not permanent. Most of them were issued by
   printers when they had nothing else to do. Still they belonged
   to the class of cheap papers. The idea came from the
   illustrated Penny Magazine, issued in London in 1830. … The
   Morning Post was the first penny paper of any pretensions in
   the United States. It was started on New-Year's Day, 1833, as
   a two-cent paper, by Dr. Horatio David Shepard, with Horace
   Greeley and Francis V. Story as partners, printers, and
   publishers. … After one week's trial, with the exhaustion of
   the capital, the original idea of Dr. Shepard, his dream of
   the previous year 1832 was attempted, and the price reduced to
   one cent; but it was too late. … This experiment, however, was
   the seed of the Cheap Press. It had taken root. On Tuesday,
   the 3d of September, in the same year 1833, the first number
   of the Sun was issued by Benjamin H. Day."

      _F. Hudson,
      Journalism in the United States,
      pages 416-417._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1853-1870.
   Extinction of taxes on Newspapers in England.
   The beginning of Penny Papers.
   Rise of the provincial daily press.

   "In 1853 the advertisement duty was repealed; in 1855 the
   obligatory newspaper stamp was abolished, and in 1861, with
   the repeal of the paper duty, the last check upon the
   unrestrained journalism was taken away. As a matter of course,
   the resulting increase in the number of newspapers has been
   very great as well as the resulting diminution in their price.
   … When it was seen that the trammels of journalism were about
   to be loosed the penny paper came into existence. The 'Daily
   Telegraph,' the first newspaper published at that price, was
   established in June, 1855, and is now one of the most
   successful of English journals."

      _T. G. Bowles,
      Newspapers (Fortnightly Review,
      July 1, 1884)._

{2602}

   "With the entire freedom from taxation began the modern era of
   the daily press. At this time [1861] London had nine or ten
   daily newspapers, with the 'Times' in the lead. Of these, six
   or seven still survive, and are holding their own with
   competitors of more recent origin. Up to the time of the
   abolition of the stamp duties, London was the only city which
   had a daily press; but between 1855 and 1870 a large number of
   newspapers published in the provincial cities, which had
   hitherto been issued in weekly or bi-weekly form, made their
   appearance as daily journals. With only one or two exceptions,
   all the prosperous provincial morning papers of to-day were
   originally weeklies, and as such had long occupied the ground
   they now hold as dailies."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 13._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1874-1894.
   Surviving Press Censorship in Germany.

   "It would be wrong to speak of the Newspaper Press of Germany
   as the fourth estate. In the land which gave Gutenberg and the
   art of printing to the world, the Press has not yet
   established a claim to a title so imposing. To the growth and
   power of a Free Press are needed liberal laws and
   institutions, with freedom of political opinion and civil
   action for the subject. Hitherto these fundamental conditions
   have been absent. During the last fifty years little has been
   done to liberate the newspaper, to give it free play, to
   unmuzzle it. It is the misfortune of the German Press that the
   special laws for the regulation of newspapers and serial
   publications have been evolved from a system of legislation
   which was devised in times of great political unrest and
   agitation. … Liberty of the Press has been one of the leading
   political watchwords of the reform party during the last
   three-quarters of a century. Yet though the Press does not
   stand where it stood at the beginning of the century, when
   even visiting cards could not be printed without the solemn
   assent of the public censor, and when objectionable prints
   were summarily suppressed at the mere beck of a Minister or
   his subordinate, little ground has been won since the severer
   features of the measures passed in 1854 for the repression of
   democratic excesses were abandoned. The constitution of
   Prussia says that 'Every Prussian has the right to express his
   opinion freely by word, writing, print, or pictorial
   representation' (Article 27). But this right is superseded by
   the provision of the imperial constitution (Article 41,
   Section 16) which reserves to the Empire the regulation of the
   Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this
   provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany
   to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least,
   the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the
   formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still
   exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is
   greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the
   statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still
   is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number
   before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of
   a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police
   authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal
   censor revises, and in the event of any article being
   obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole
   issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very
   speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial
   authorities have wide discretion in the determination of
   editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to
   be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of
   the police were far more extensive than now, and that they
   were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of
   newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between
   the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however,
   Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though
   the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past
   does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the
   authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of
   newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the
   street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published
   without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent
   are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled
   to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or
   'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in
   prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that
   may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical
   faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of
   newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew
   hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a
   Jewish institution."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      Germany and the Germans,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS:
   American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.

   The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of
   important newspapers and other periodicals, still published
   (1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for
   a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before
   1870. The * before a title indicates that the information
   given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some
   of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have
   been taken from their own files. In other cases, where
   publishers have neglected to answer a request for information,
   the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper
   Directory:

   1764.
   * Connecticut Courant (Hartford), w.;
   added Courant, d., 1836.

   * Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years
   as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;
   now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec
   Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).

   1766 or 1767.
   * Connecticut Herald and Post Boy
   (New Haven); various names;
   now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.

   1768.
   * Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;
   revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;
   became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.

   1770.
   Worcester Spy, weekly; added daily, 1845.

   1771.
   * Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser
   (Philadelphia), weekly;
   became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,
   daily, 1784;
   consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;
   consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,
   see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),
   as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;
   became North American, 1876.

{2603}

   1773.
   * Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;
   merged in Baltimore American, 1799.

   1778.
   * Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;
   since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.

   1785.
   *Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;
   Cumberland Gazette, 1786;
   Gazette of Maine, 1790;
   Eastern Herald, 1792;
   Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;
   Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;
   Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;
   Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.
   * Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the
   place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;
   consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,
   Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;
   became Eagle after a few years.

   1786.
   Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).
   Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.

   1789.
   * Gazette of the United States (New York);
   removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;
   became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;
   merged in North American, 1847.
   Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.

   1793.
   Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,
   Commercial Gazette, 1841.
   Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;
   became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.
   Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.
   Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),
   as Morning Herald and Gazette.

   1794.
   Rutland (Vermont) Herald.

   1796.
   * Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;
   added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.

   1800.
   * Salem Register, weekly; then semi-weekly; now weekly.

   1801.
   New York Evening Post.
   Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;
   added Evening Gazette, 1843.

   1803.
   Charleston News and Courier.
   Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus.

   1804.
   Pittsburgh Post.

   1805.
   Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.
   * Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.

   1806.
   * Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;
   became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.

   1807.
   * New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;
   added daily, 1831.

   1808.
   * Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;
   became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.
   Le Canadien (Montreal).
   St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.

   1809.
   * New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);
   consolidated with People (founded 1868)
   as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.
   Montreal Herald.

   1810.
   Kingston (Ontario) News, weekly.; added daily, 1851.

   1811.
   * Buffalo Gazette, weekly;
   became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;
   became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;
   added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.
   * Western Intelligencer;
   Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;
   became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.

   1812.
   * Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);
   added Evening Register, daily, 1848.

   1813.
   Albany Argus.
   Boston Advertiser.
   Acadian Recorder (Halifax).

   1815.
   North American Review (New York), monthly.

   1816.
   * Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.
   Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.
   Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.

   1817.
   * Hartford Times, weekly; added daily., 1841.

   1819.
   * Cleveland Herald;
   consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.
   See 1848. Cleveland Leader.
   Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).
   * Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.

   1820.
   Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;
   added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;
   added Morning Chronicle, 1865.
   * Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal
   (Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.

   1821.
   * Christian Register (Boston), weekly.
   Indianapolis Sentinel.
   Mobile Register.

   1822.
   Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;
   added Republican, daily, 1849.
   * Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;
   has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.

   1823.
   Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;
   added Bulletin, daily, 1870.
   Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.
   * New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;
   consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),
   as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,
   Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.
   * Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);
   became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,
   and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;
   became weekly and daily, 1850.
   * Observer (New York), weekly.
   * Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.
   Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;
   added News-Press, daily, 1852.

   1824.
   * Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;
   added daily, 1844.

   1825.
   Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
   * Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;
   became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;
   added daily, 1881.

   1826.
   Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.
   * Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;
   weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.
   * La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.
   Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.
   Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.
   * St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;
   removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,
   and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);
   purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;
   both papers continue.
   Rochester Democrat; consolidated with
   Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.

{2604}

   1827.
   * Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.
   * Independent News Letter (Cleveland);
   became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.
   Columbus (Ohio) Press.
   New York Journal of Commerce.

   1828.
   * Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.
   Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.
   Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.
   * Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);
   consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,
   weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal
   (see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;
   added daily, 1860.

   1829.
   * Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;
   added Daily Advertiser, 1844.
   * Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;
   semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;
   became Daily Advertiser, 1836;
   consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as
   Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;
   consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),
   as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.
   * Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.
   Philadelphia Inquirer.
   * Providence Daily Journal.
   * Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.

   1830.
   * Albany Evening Journal.
   * Boston Transcript.
   Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier
   (founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),
   under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.
   * Evangelist (New York), weekly.
   * Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;
   merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.

   1831.
   Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.
   * Boston Daily Post.
   Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.
   Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;
   added daily, 1848.

   1832.
   * Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);
   consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),
   as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
   * Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;
   became Journal and Courier, 1849.
   Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).

   1833.
   * Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;
   successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.
   * Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.
   * The Sun (New York).

   1834.
   Bangor Whig and Courier.
   * Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.
   * New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845
   Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).

   1835.
   * New York Herald.
   Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.
   Troy Morning Telegram.

   1836.
   * Miner's Express, weekly;
   merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.
   * Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).
   * Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;
   absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;
   removed to Springfield, 1839;
   absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.
   * Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.

   1837.
   * Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.
   Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.
   Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.
   * Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;
   daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),
   daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.
   Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.
   Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.
   * Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;
   absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;
   dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.
   * New Orleans Picayune.

   1838.
   Bangor Commercial.
   * Philadelphia Demokrat.
   * St. Louis Evening Gazette;
   became Evening Mirror, 1847;
   became New Era, 1848;
   became Intelligencer, 1849;
   became Evening News, 1857;
   consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;
   consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.

   1839.
   * Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;
   became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;
   has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;
   now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.
   * Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * Madison Express, weekly;
   became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;
   consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,
   daily and weekly, 1852;
   became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.
   Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.
   * North American (Philadelphia);
   absorbed Pennsylvania Packet
   (see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.
   Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;
   became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;
   absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.

   1840.
   Chicago Tribune.
   * Appeal Memphis);
   consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),
   as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);
   consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),
   as Commercial Appeal, 1894.
   * Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);
   became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;
   succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,
   about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;
   then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;
   and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;
   here consolidated with Banner of Peace
   (founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;
   removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).
   * Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.

   1841.
   * Brooklyn Eagle.
   * Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.
   * New York Tribune.
   * Pittsburgh Chronicle;
   consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as
   Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.
   Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.

{2605}

   1842.
   * Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);
   became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;
   became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.
   * Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.
   * Galveston News.
   Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.
   * Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;
   became United Presbyterian, 1854.

   1843.
   * Albany Daily Knickerbocker;
   consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as
   Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.
   * Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).

   1844.
   Chicago Evening Journal.
   * Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);
   became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.
   * American Baptist (New York);
   became Baptist Weekly;
   has absorbed Gospel Age;
   became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.
   * Churchman (New York), weekly.
   *New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;
   consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.
   Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.
   Ledger (New York), weekly.
   Oswego Times.
   * Globe (Toronto).

   1845.
   * Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.
   * Buffalo Morning Express.
   * Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).
   See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.
   Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.
   Scientific American (New York), weekly.
   * St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.

   1846.
   * Boston Herald, daily and weekly.
   * Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;
   successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;
   became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;
   became Evening Times, 1858.
   * Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.
   Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.
   * Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.
   * Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.
   Pittsburgh Dispatch.

   1847.
   * Albany Morning Express.
   New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),
   quarterly.
   Boston Traveller.
   Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).
   * Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;
   added Evening Journal, 1861.
   London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.
   * Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).
   Iron Age (New York), weekly.
   Toledo Commercial.
   Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),
   as Morning Herald and Gazette.

   1848.
   * Massachusetts Teacher;
   afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),
   Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),
   and Connecticut School Journal,
   formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).
   * Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.
   * Cleveland Leader, daily;
   added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;
   purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it
   with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.
   Des Moines Leader.
   * Independent (New York), weekly.

   1849.
   * Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;
   absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.
   * Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.
   See 1829, Northwestern Journal.
   * Irish American (New York), weekly.
   * Water Cure Journal (New York);
   became Herald of Health, 1863;
   became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.
   * St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;
   consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,
   as Pioneer Press, 1875.
   Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.

   1850.
   * Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.
   Kansas City (Missouri) Times.
   Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).
   Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).
   * Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.
   Richmond Dispatch.
   * Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;
   added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.
   * Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;
   absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),
   and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.
   * Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;
   added Daily Times, 1860.

   1851.
   La Crosse Morning Chronicle.
   * Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;
   added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.
   * Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,
   at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
   * New York Times, daily and weekly.
   * Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;
   daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),
   as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.
   St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.
   * Troy (New York) Times, daily.

   1852.
   Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).
   St. Louis Globe–Democrat.
   Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).

   1853.
   Elmira Advertiser.
   Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).
   Richmond Anzeiger.
   San Francisco Evening Post.
   Toledo Express.
   Washington Evening Star.
   * Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;
   added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.

   1854.
   * Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),
   semi-weekly and weekly;
   suspended during four years of Civil War.
   Chicago Times, daily and weekly.
   * American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.
   La Crosse Republican and Leader.
   Herold (Milwaukee).
   * Nebraska City News.
   * Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);
   became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.

{2606}

   1855.
   * Ogdensburg Journal, daily;
   purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.

   1856.
   * Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;
   consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),
   as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.
   * Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;
   succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,
   then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.
   * Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.
   Dubuque Times.
   * Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;
   became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.
   San Francisco Call.
   * Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.

   1857.
   Baltimore News.
   Atlantic Monthly (Boston).
   * Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.
   Leavenworth Times.
   New Haven Union.
   Harper's Weekly (New York).
   * Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.
   * Scottish American (New York), weekly.
   Philadelphia Press.
   Courrier du Canada (Quebec).
   Westliche Post (St. Louis).
   Syracuse Courier.

   1858.
   Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.
   Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.
   Rochester Post-Express.

   1859.
   * Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.
   * Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.
   Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).
   * Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;
   succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);
   absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;
   absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.
   St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.

   1860.
   World (New York).

   1861.
   Commonwealth (Boston), weekly.

   1862.
   * New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.
   * Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;
   Portland Press, daily.
   Raleigh News and Observer.
   St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.

   1863.
   * Brooklyn Daily Union;
   consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),
   as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.
   London (Ontario) Advertiser.
   * New Orleans Times;
   consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),
   as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.
   Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.
   Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.
   Providence Evening Bulletin.
   * Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
   * Wheeling Register.

   1864.
   * Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;
   issued in connection with Independent Statesman
   (see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).
   Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.
   * Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.

   1865.
   Albany Evening Post.
   * Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.
   Halifax Morning Chronicle.
   Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).
   Memphis Public Ledger.

   * Catholic World (New York City), monthly.
   [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39367 (first of many)]

   * Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;
   absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.
   Nation (New York), weekly
   Norfolk Virginian.
   * Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with
   Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.
   * Index (Petersburg, Virginia);
   consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,
   founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.
   Philadelphia Abend Post.
   San Antonio Express.
   * San Francisco Chronicle.
   * Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.

   1866.
   * Denver Tribune;
   consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),
   under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;
   became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.
   * Christian at Work (New York), weekly;
   became Christian Work, 1894;
   has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,
   Every Thursday, and others.
   Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.
   Sanitarian (New York), monthly.

   1867.
   * Advance (Chicago), weekly.
   * Evening Journal (Jersey City).
   * Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became
   Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.
   * Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.
   Minneapolis Tribune.
   * Le Monde (Montreal).
   Engineering News (New York), weekly.
   Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.
   American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.
   * L'Evenement (Quebec).
   * Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;
   consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,
   under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.
   Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.
   Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.
   * Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).

   1868.
   Atlanta Constitution.
   * Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.
   * People (Concord, New Hampshire).
   See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.
   Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.
   St. Paul Dispatch.
   * San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.
   Troy Press.

   1869.
   * Evening Star (Montreal);
   became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;
   added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.
   * Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.
   Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.
   * Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.
   Scranton Times, daily and weekly.

{2607}

PRIOR.
PRIORY.

   See MONASTERY.

PRIORIES, Alien.

   "These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates
   which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 4._

PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1203.

PRISAGE.

      See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

PRISON-SHIPS, British, at New York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777
      PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,
   Confederate.
   Libby.
   Belle Isle.
   Andersonville.

   "The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place
   of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood
   to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings,
   three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond,
   Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a
   tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet
   broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of
   all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant,
   were confined for many months, and this was all
   the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash,
   sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that
   could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his
   length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room
   necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At
   one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or
   stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but
   those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches,
   as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the
   middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was
   removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for
   themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had
   received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in
   spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their
   blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had
   not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in
   different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the
   Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from
   the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did
   not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations,
   but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner,
   the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the
   prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within
   three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in
   all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident,
   or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be
   instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's
   musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner
   fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large
   prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was
   crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers'
   quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the
   size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was
   made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a
   little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef
   weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of
   suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however
   disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but
   for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard
   whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this
   most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now
   proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river,
   opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the
   Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are
   confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a
   shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun.
   Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to
   six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three
   feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has
   something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley
   tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents,
   rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any
   rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who
   were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied
   at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been
   imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the
   enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they
   could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind.
   Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was
   plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was
   built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were
   conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in
   everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A
   chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked,
   full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste,
   containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces
   of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and
   a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten
   beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the
   surface. None of these were given together, and the whole
   ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the
   support of a healthy man."

      _V. Mott, and others,
      Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of
      Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in
      the hands of the Rebel Authorities,
      chapters 2-3._

   The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John
   W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post
   Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest
   portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on
   the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9
   miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,
   1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was
   selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a
   'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was
   definitely established, it was found to be covered with a
   thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.
   Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary
   proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove
   grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was
   characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.
   'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen
   here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they
   can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the
   space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts
   of any kind were built.
{2608}
   The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,
   John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,
   became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,
   as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in
   infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The
   stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn
   from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being
   about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the
   month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,
   its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …
   From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a
   Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the
   following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and
   about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond
   which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes
   from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from
   its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing
   accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about
   three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are
   so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing
   the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives
   somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he
   remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the
   additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of
   Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to
   Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of
   the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,
   Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a
   table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in
   the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean
   result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,
   22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the
   circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were
   compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,
   washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …
   'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human
   excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared
   to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening
   stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and
   filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill
   Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military
   Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I
   visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long
   sheds which they had built at the northern portion for
   themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in
   attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman
   jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a
   military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace
   presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,
   November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the
   earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had
   been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.

      _A. Spencer,
      Narrative of Andersonville,
      chapters 1, 4, 5, 13, 15._

   "There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel
   prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th
   Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured
   by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half
   confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity.
   The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000
   Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and
   30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern
   prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 16._

      _Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners
      (H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session)._

      _Trial of Henry Wirz._

      _Southern Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McElroy,
      Andersonville.
      [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4257 (volume 1)]_

      _F. F. Cavada,
      Libby Life_.

      _A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,
      Prisoners of War and Military Prisons._

PRIVATE WARFARE, The Right of.

      See LANDFRIEDE.

PRIVATEERING, American, in the War of 1812.

   "The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result
   was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great
   Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description,
   including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail
   are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed.
   To this number may be added 200 more, which were either
   destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported;
   making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured
   by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and
   letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving
   this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these
   2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government
   ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part
   of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail,
   to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed
   vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact
   number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English;
   but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge
   they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be
   recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the
   first six months of the war. After that period, we had very
   few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."

      _G. Coggeshall,
      History of American Privateers, 1812-14,
      pages 394-395._

PRIVATEERS.
LETTERS OF MARQUE.

   "Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of
   using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private
   owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such
   commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal]
   empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all
   forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages
   of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed,
   the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the
   world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the
   Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that
   'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised
   states have since become signataries of the Declaration,
   except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future
   privateers can only be employed by signataries of the
   Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned
   states."

      _W. E. Hall,
      Treatise on International Law,
      part 3, chapter 7, section 180._

{2609}

   "There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of
   marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the
   sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman,
   uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In
   popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned
   for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called
   letters of marque."

      _F. H. Upton,
      The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War,
      page 186._

      See, also, DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.

   "It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council
   first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also
   during the minority of this King that a select Council was
   gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy
   Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our
   modern Cabinet.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

   From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I.
   the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will,
   and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary
   proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to
   deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving,
   however, its constitution and political functions unchanged.
   Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled
   into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its
   original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are
   now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of
   its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of
   taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It
   still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction
   in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it
   has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the
   colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly
   appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the
   Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a
   constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal
   and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can
   only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice,
   all the higher and more formal acts of administration must
   proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and
   their performance be directed by orders issued by the
   Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened
   for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those
   political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the
   advice of particular ministers, or those which must be
   exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on
   usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The
   ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by
   committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from
   the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these
   committees are designated as those of the Lords of the
   Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by
   the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter)
   constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all
   offences against the Government, and of such other
   extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the
   matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is
   referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This
   committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord
   Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time
   to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction
   in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme
   court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the
   Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical
   cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities
   throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation
   of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also
   appointed to provide 'for the general management and
   superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee
   is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. …
   Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but
   they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four
   weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal
   residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy
   Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to
   constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this
   number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy
   Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy
   Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole
   Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are
   appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the
   discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. …
   Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings
   of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased
   to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the
   members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
   York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the
   Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household,
   the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the
   Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the
   Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate,
   the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of
   Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers
   Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the
   Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of
   Council for Education, certain other officials I need not
   particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the
   Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of
   State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have
   this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is
   sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service,
   who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an
   honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right
   Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights,
   and younger sons of viscounts and barons."

      _A. C. Ewald,
      The Crown and its Advisers,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Privy Council._

{2610}

PROBULI, The.

   A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens
   during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the
   great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a
   conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of
   the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who
   should examine all proposals and motions, after which only
   such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and
   approved should come before the citizens. This new board was,
   at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the
   necessary measures."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      See ATHENS; B. C. 413-411.

PROBUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282.

PROBUS, Wall of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Controversy on.

   See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.

   "If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully,
   he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his
   successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with
   him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem,
   had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of
   difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically
   suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed
   the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be
   continued in his command for several successive years, with
   the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these
   officers being, within their own district, equal to the power
   of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was
   allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course
   continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all
   the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in
   Proconsular commands."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 35._

PROCURATOR.
PROCTOR.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

PROHIBITIONISTS.

   A party in American politics which contends for the enactment
   of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
   liquors.

PROMANTY, The Right of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

PROPAGANDA, The College of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1622.

PROPHESYINGS.

   In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those
   English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans,
   "the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement
   from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called
   prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and
   discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the
   presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who
   finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his
   own determination upon it. These discussions were in public,
   and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their
   faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify
   the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion,
   and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among
   the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were
   suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Marsden,
      History of the Early Puritans,
      chapter 4. sections 7-25._

PROPHETS, The Hebrew.

   "The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The
   root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or
   bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a
   fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God
   has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited
   utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense
   of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of
   prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense,
   in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed,
   is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or
   impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just
   observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy
   translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical
   authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed
   into all modern European languages; namely, the word …
   Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,'
   'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical
   use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,'
   in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and
   the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,'
   i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the
   seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible,
   for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.'
   In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the
   word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to
   appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter
   of the Divine will.'"

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 19 (volume 1)._

PROPHETS, Schools of the.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT; JUDÆA.

PROPONTIS, The.

   The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus
   (Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called
   the Sea of Marmora.

PROPRÆTOR, Roman.

      See PROCONSUL.

PROPYLÆA OF THE ACROPOLIS, The.

      See ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PROTECTORATE, Cromwell's.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER); 1654-1658.

PROTESTANT, Origin of the name.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

PROTESTANT FLAIL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

   ----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: Start--------

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   France.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and
      FRANCE; A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Germany.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
      1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532,
      to 1552-1561;

      also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Ireland: its failure.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Piedmont.

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
      and 1561-1568.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Sweden and Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES; A. D. 1397-1527.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Switzerland.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

   ----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: End--------

PROTOSEVASTOS.

      See SEVASTOS.

{2611}

PROVENCE:
   Roman origin.

   "The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be
   considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the
   province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia
   Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of
   Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes
   Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country
   between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in
   the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges.
   Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west
   side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the
   Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the
   Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently
   extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it
   will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it
   even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part
   of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the
   rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is
   Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have
   left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great
   works."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

   The Provincia of the Romans became the Provence of mediæval
   times.

PROVENCE:
   Cession to the Visigoths.

   "The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the
   earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome,
   that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that
   the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when
   Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of
   the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the
   Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to
   Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still
   loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause
   of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he
   had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the
   Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the
   Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in
   Gaul."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      See, also,
      ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

PROVENCE: A. D. 493-526.
   Embraced in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

PROVENCE: A. D. 536.
   Cession to the Franks.

   Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it
   was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king
   of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven
   years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the
   subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his
   successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the
   Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic
   possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3),
      and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4)._

PROVENCE: A. D. 877-933.
   The Kingdom.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092.
   The Kings become Counts.
   The Spanish connection.

   "Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of
   several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870
   to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was
   crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who
   reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the
   Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of
   this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that
   of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was
   preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of
   which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became
   extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two
   daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of
   these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the
   other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of
   Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of
   Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence,
   gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of
   the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his
   successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty
   and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all
   the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble
   sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out,
   at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an
   electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness,
   illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 3 (volume l)._

      See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
   Before the Albigensian Crusade.

   "At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king
   of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part
   of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of
   Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

   To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of
   Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His
   supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of
   Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon,
   and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse,
   surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with
   difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive
   territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the
   larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of
   Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque,
   and flexible language which was then vernacular there.

      See LANGUE D'OC.

   They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,
   to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a
   different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their
   descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic
   invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a
   mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of
   the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress
   than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and
   refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,
   Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of
   the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed
   alliances, were themselves living under a government which was
   virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,
   however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom
   the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a
   princely and luxurious court.
{2612}
   A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,
   rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,
   and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the
   gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if
   life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of
   feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and
   enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the
   imagination. They played with the stern features of war in
   knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of
   justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's
   sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose
   amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let
   die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and
   Fauriel to revive them."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 7._

   "In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and
   a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme
   laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole
   object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in
   society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which
   their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted
   with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour;
   nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise,
   in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They
   even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for
   thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed
   their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They
   instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were
   gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in
   short, to the whole south of France the character of a
   carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of
   reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to
   those good old times."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Fauriel,
      History of Provençal Poetry._

      See, also, TROUBADOURS.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1209-1242.
   The Albigensian Crusades.

      See ALBIGENSES.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1246.
   The count becomes founder of the Third House of Anjou.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1348.
   Sale and transfer of Avignon to the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.
   Invasion by Charles V.
   Defensive wasting of the country.
   Massacre of Waldenses.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

PROVENCE: 16th Century.
   Strength of Protestantism.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

   ----------PROVENCE: End--------

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:
   The Plantation and the City.

      See RHODE ISLAND.

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

PROVISORS, Statute of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PROXENI.

   In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was
   fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their
   diplomatic communication with foreign States."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1, section 9._

PRUSA: A. D. 1326.
   The first capital of the Ottomans.

      See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

   ----------PRUSSIA: Start--------

PRUSSIA:
   The original country and its name.

   "Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg,
   lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen
   (Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours
   at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. …
   Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping
   insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian
   Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the
   seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east,
   on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of
   the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel.
   'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia,
   B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain
   inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it
   'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it,
   which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who
   knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards,
   Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a
   Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or
   Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of
   Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts.
   Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned,
   iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be
   interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous
   otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had
   been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their
   knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to
   knowing anything of it was great."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 2._

PRUSSIA: 13th Century.
   Conquered and Christianized by the Teutonic Knights.

   The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage
   heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who
   fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that
   tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but
   early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian
   succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.
   The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the
   progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,
   putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were
   now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights
   Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have
   already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the
   people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to
   achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the
   famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren
   of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this
   European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of
   succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of
   Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become
   unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to
   expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.
   After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at
   Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,
   they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly
   fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the
   wretched inhabitants.
{2613}
   Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of
   the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,
   under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,
   Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German
   colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any
   bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they
   exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German
   immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.
   D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into
   three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which
   was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the
   bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
      chapter 16._

   "None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour
   with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and
   wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve
   favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had
   vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some
   fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism
   brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well
   down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet
   lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly
   Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker
   terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and
   conversion and composure could ensue."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume l)._

      See, also, LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.
   Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.
   Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.
   Erection into a duchy.
   Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572;
      and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.
   Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
   in his war with Poland.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.
   Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by
   the Great Elector of Brandenburg.
   His curbing of the nobles.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
   The Dukedom erected into a Kingdom.

   In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge
   of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was
   making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain
   had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of
   Louis XIV. of France.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

   "He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,
   Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several
   German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of
   Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the
   Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of
   November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection
   of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new
   King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector
   Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news
   at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of
   Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be
   proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 5._

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.
   Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.
   Orange relinquished.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1717-1809.
   Abolition of serfdom.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720.
   Acquisition of territory from Sweden, including Stettin.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720-1794.
   Reign of Frederick William I., and after.

   The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,
   Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found
   included in that of GERMANY.

   ----------PRUSSIA: End--------

PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, The Old.

   "The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of
   languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century,
   remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant.
   This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the
   East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error
   arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would
   call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and
   'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and
   'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is
   fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the
   amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 8._

PRUTH, The Treaty of the (1711).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

PRYDYN.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PRYTANES.
PRYTANEUM.

   The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at
   Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the
   venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout
   the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each
   section during its term assembled daily in their session
   house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to
   receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and
   instantly to take such measures as the public interest
   rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to
   the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people
   was little more than the organ of the council, as it could
   only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11._

   "Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now
   elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each
   of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the
   senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under
   the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or
   36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a
   Prytany."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Dissertation on the Assemblies of the Athenians,
      page 14._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PRYTANIS.

   A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of
   Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even
   Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar
   as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy,
   a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was
   annually appointed as supreme magistrate

      See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

   … The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the
   Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time
   of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 5._

{2614}

PSALTER OF CASHEL.
PSALTER OF TARA.

      See TARA, HILL AND FEIS OF.

PSEPHISM.

   A decree, or enactment, in ancient Athens.

PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

PTOLEMAIS, Syria.

      See ACRE.

PTOLEMIES, The.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

PTOLEMY KERAUNOS, The intrigues and death of.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280;
      and GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

PTOLEMY SOTER, and the Wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280;
      and EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

PTOLEMY'S CANON.

   An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,
   Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by
   Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and
   astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.

      _W. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume I, book 1._

PUANS, OR WINNEBAGOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

PUBLIC MEALS.

      See SYSSITIA.

PUBLIC PEACE, The.

      See LANDFRIEDE.

PUBLIC WEAL, League of the.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1461-1468; and 1453-1461.

PUBLICANI.

   The farmers of the taxes, among the Romans.

      See VECTIGAL.

PUBLICIANI, The.

      See ALBIGENSES;
      and PAULICIANS.

PUEBLA: Capture by the French (1862).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

PUBLILIAN LAW OF VOLERO, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

PUBLILIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 340.

PUEBLOS.

   The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the
   inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as
   applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New
   Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of
   communal houses which they inhabit.

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 113._

   "The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos
   to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term
   pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of
   every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its
   special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapter 8._

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

PUELTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PUERTO CAVELLO, Spanish capitulation at (1823).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PUJUNAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUJUNAN FAMILY.

PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1861.
   Threatened by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).

PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
   Siege and capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

PULLANI, The.

   The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the
   East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been
   a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the
   Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from
   "fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states
   that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice
   against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from
   Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied
   indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

PULTNEY ESTATE, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PULTOWA, Battle of (1709).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

PULTUSK,
   Battle of (1703).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

   Battle of (1806).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

PUMBADITHA, The. School of.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

PUNCAS, OR PONCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PUNIC.

   The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the
   Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly
   signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician
   origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase
   "Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and
   treachery.

   ----------PUNIC WARS: Start--------

PUNIC WARS,
   The First.

   When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How
   fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and
   Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the
   deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged
   in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the
   beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her
   supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to
   covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact,
   there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to
   cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest
   excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it
   was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned
   over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility
   of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or
   Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not
   come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of
   freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were
   mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the
   Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of
   Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had
   treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male
   inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down
   to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of
   Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily,
   both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the
   outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines
   invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one
   party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of
   terms with the Carthaginians.
{2615}
   The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to
   the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to
   decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the
   question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army
   into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse
   on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was
   relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two
   aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians
   alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost,
   and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his
   life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced.
   Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid
   city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C.
   405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the
   Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold.
   In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C.
   262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his
   army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth
   little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea.
   Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have
   built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty
   triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained
   by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this
   improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder
   was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But
   where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans
   were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore
   a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by
   which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able
   to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at
   close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of
   victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the
   Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260,
   and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to
   attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but
   without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of
   doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year,
   in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the
   Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then
   followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus,
   his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard
   terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis
   a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The
   miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at
   Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C.
   255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage
   homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast
   of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war
   in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans
   took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having
   built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again
   by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and
   strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius
   Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and
   inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent
   Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to
   solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen
   against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel
   death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but
   modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans
   undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring
   port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the
   Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most
   protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended,
   nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans
   only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms
   of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a
   bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman
   fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet
   destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247
   B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the
   great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet
   greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very
   near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few
   mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost
   unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established
   himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte,
   near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the
   Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence
   of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the
   Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241.
   The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased
   it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus
   Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the
   great island had been ruined beyond recovery.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapters 4-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 3._

      _Polybius,
      Histories,
      book l._

      _A. J. Church,
      The Story of Carthage,
      part 4, chapters 1-3._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 264-241.

PUNIC WARS:
   The Second.

   Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an
   interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been
   brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the
   Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of
   Hamilcar Barca.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

   Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained
   power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do
   no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his
   own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians
   had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with
   Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the
   country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by
   pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule,
   rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly
   all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold
   and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed
   at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of
   his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at
   organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar
   was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law,
   Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more.
   Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year,
   was chosen to the command in Spain.
{2616}
   He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for
   making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a
   challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his
   father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The
   provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a
   Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed
   an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of
   eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed
   themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was
   with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be
   the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack.
   He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer
   of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The
   story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader.
   The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the
   losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy
   with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the
   one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He
   received some reinforcement and co-operation from the
   Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent
   wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the
   first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the
   Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on
   the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand,
   they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign
   of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed
   the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a
   march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius,
   which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and
   was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and
   15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of
   the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome
   then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without
   doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging
   of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the
   isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a
   great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and
   animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops
   northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across
   the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during
   the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along
   the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a
   Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of
   campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy,
   without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him
   the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people
   were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they
   elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been
   one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to
   his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle
   with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his
   countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew.
   Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field,
   including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the
   state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have
   sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from
   the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and
   yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in
   Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with
   proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic."
   Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the
   headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy
   declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and
   passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He
   received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother
   in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same
   year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a
   fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the
   Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects
   continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an
   important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of
   Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of
   the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a
   time more important than that in Italy, and the consul
   Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent
   to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and
   the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges
   which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for
   two years, and chiefly by the science and the military
   inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the
   Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage
   and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the
   thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy,
   Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still
   held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength
   in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and
   Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion
   by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was
   left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211)
   and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new
   population. For three or four years after this the war in
   Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides,
   but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain,
   Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and
   slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and
   greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the
   field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula.
   Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his
   victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in
   some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the
   Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a
   movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and
   brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his
   dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and
   revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C.
   Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of
   Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished
   together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the
   Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with
   them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and
   no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio
   returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete
   conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding
   that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate
   stood half opposed.
{2617}
   He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing
   from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying
   siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during
   the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and
   burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian
   allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success
   was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie
   70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian
   king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom
   delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became,
   thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the
   Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned
   Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and
   returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy
   he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save
   Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended
   in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called
   the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance
   westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed
   utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to
   accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their
   trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and
   their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from
   them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms,
   Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 43-47._

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 31-34._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Hannibal,
      chapters 11-39._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 218-211, to 211-202.

PUNIC WARS:
   The Third.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
      and ROME: B. C. 151-146.

   ----------PUNIC WARS: End--------

PUNJAB,
PUNJAUB,
PANJAB, The.

   "Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only
   another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic
   Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring
   down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length,
   and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into
   one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian
   Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of
   the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by
   which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon
   the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the
   Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how
   many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of
   Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass
   into India, and overspread the country, until the people could
   rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a
   European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent,
   his dream has always been India. That country has ever been,
   and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in
   winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its
   boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which
   know no change, have made it the dream of every great
   conqueror."

      _J. F. Hurst,
      Indika,
      chapter 75._

   "In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on
   the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due
   south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting
   them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the
   Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej
   constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. …
   The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are
   called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus
   delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the
   Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier
   and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the
   Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the
   frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj
   states."

      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the
   18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous
   Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The
   English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to
   British India took place in 1849.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849,
      and SIKHS

PUNT, Land of.

   "Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient
   Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full
   of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods,
   in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich
   also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers,
   dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir
   of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the
   Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the
   sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt
   was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had
   travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus,
   Hathor."

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 8._

PURCHASE IN THE ARMY, Abolition of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

   ----------PURITANS: Start--------

PURITANS:
   The movement taking form.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.

PURITANS:
   First application of the Name.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).

PURITANS:
   In distinction from the Independents or Separatists.

   "When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his
   Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,
   or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;
   and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently
   called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both
   adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its
   control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of
   the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the
   cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy
   vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the
   communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if
   still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary
   attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority
   of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have
   favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took
   form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.
{2618}
   During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in
   and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his
   Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the
   name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The
   Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the
   National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that
   Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …
   The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer
   colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were
   called by that name, either by themselves or their
   contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called
   Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or
   Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and
   maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or
   office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed
   to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,
   who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready
   to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith
   was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."

      _J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      chapters 2 and 1._

   "The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan'
   and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in
   point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties,
   pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the
   inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists
   all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to
   all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a
   greater conformity of church government and worship to
   primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term
   became restricted in its application to those who retained
   their respect for the church of England, and their connection
   with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in
   distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both
   their respect for that church and their connection with it,
   under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could
   never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all
   Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind.
   They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the
   Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed
   with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic
   in their faith."

      _G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 3, appendix, note F._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      chapter 3._

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)._

PURITANS: A. D. 1604.
   Hampton Court Conference with James I.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

PURITANS: A. D. 1629.
   Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

PURITANS: A. D. 1629-1630.
   The exodus to Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629; 1629-1630; and 1630.

PURITANS: A. D. 1631-1636.
   The Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636; and 1636.

PURITANS: A. D. 1638-1640.
   At the beginning of the English Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

   ----------PURITANS: End--------

PURUARAN, Battle of (1814).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

PURUMANCIANS, The.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

PUT-IN-BAY, Naval Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

PUTEOLI.

   The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the
   modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became
   under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in
   Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one
   of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa
   residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his
   journey to Rome.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 11._

PUTNAM, Israel, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PYDNA, Battle of (B. C. 168).

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

PYLÆ CASPIÆ.

      See CASPIAN GATES.

PYLÆ CILICIÆ. See

      CILICIAN GATES.

PYLUS, Athenian seizure of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

PYRAMID.

   "The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote
   the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to
   this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted
   the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure
   in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other
   hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the
   pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of
   the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."

      _H. Brugsch
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 7._

PYRAMIDS, Battle of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

PYRENEES, Battles of the (1813).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

PYRENEES, Treaty of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PYRRHIC DANCE.

   A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much
   delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to
   children only five years old. It was thought to have been
   invented by the Cretans.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapters 1-2._

PYRRHUS, and his campaigns in Italy and Sicily.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

PYTHIAN GAMES.

      See DELPHI.

PYTHO, The Sanctuary of.

   According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon,
   Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of
   Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until
   slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the
   principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most
   famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The
   temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern,
   from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called
   the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and
   uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was
   the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius.
   Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known
   by the name of Delphi.

      See DELPHI.

{2619}

   ----------QUADI, The: Start--------

QUADI, The:
   Early place and history.

      See MARCOMANNI.

QUADI, The:
   Campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against.

      See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

QUADI, The: A. D. 357-359.
   War of Constantius.

      See LIMIGANTES.

QUADI, The: A. D. 374-375.
   War of Valentinian.

   A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a
   worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the
   Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with
   little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the
   neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the
   Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the
   country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with
   unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned
   across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his
   purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending
   Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray
   for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their
   presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was
   ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 25._

QUADI, The:
   Probable Modern Representatives of.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.

   ----------QUADI, The: End--------

QUADRILATERAL, The.

   A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the
   strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano,
   bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the
   requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover
   rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending
   army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive:
   first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige;
   secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by
   passages offered at fortified points which insure the command
   of the rivers."

      _Major C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe from 1790 to 1870,
      page 232._

QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.

      See CALPURNIAN LAW.

QUÆSTOR, The Imperial.

   In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of
   preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the
   language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the
   Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

QUÆSTORS, Roman.

   "Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first
   year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in
   241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to
   plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The
   quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was
   attached."

      _H. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      appendix A._

   "We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been
   intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of
   the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the
   decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs,
   which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put
   under the control of new patrician officers, the military
   quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
      pages 70-84._

QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

   ----------QUAKERS: Start--------

QUAKERS:
   Origin of the Society of Friends.
   George Fox and his early Disciples.

   "The religious movement which began with the wandering
   preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as
   they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was
   born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne:
   and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time
   of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at
   last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he
   knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little
   out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where
   his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a
   child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave,
   sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by,
   he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so
   utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word,
   that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily"
   there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at
   what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's
   lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness
   and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of
   something better and nobler than the common religion, which
   seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to
   place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire
   —seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as
   very religious, and likely to help him through his
   difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he
   began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all
   these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that
   people were setting up and making so much ado about as
   'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly
   education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man
   any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls
   of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own
   thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose
   within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and
   priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he
   did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued,
   and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and
   walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time
   like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three
   years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great
   life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and
   peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which
   said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy
   condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap
   for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be
   clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of
   spirit and life.
{2620}
   … It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he
   began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In
   those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking
   with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had
   made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many
   years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen
   under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness
   either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes,
   that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no
   danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A
   tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere
   he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It
   seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He
   went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the
   magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and
   lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and
   also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified
   against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep
   to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as
   everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should
   give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee'
   and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God
   should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely
   the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central
   thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God.
   That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all;
   he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to
   face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to
   Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all
   priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little
   groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began
   to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a
   sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of
   Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him
   would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply
   called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but
   met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another;
   believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if
   anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to
   say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands
   of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to
   swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he
   suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two
   years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which
   time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he
   refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time
   into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they
   kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he
   was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was
   again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months.
   After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken
   before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with
   him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but
   with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings
   began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no
   persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of
   where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they
   assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the
   place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their
   quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The
   magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a
   band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in
   the street in front, held their meetings there; went on
   exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken
   off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful
   that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to
   truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox
   had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends
   numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more
   widely still, and its founder had visited America, and
   travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine
   of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox
   himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people
   past all the days of persecution."

      _B. Herford,
      The Story of Religion in England,
      chapter 27._

   "At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it
   was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine
   himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system
   which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by
   man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some
   of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their
   neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for
   that purpose, which excited general hostility against them,
   and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. …
   Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in
   the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by
   a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most
   distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose
   father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend
   of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval
   affairs."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
      chapter 6._

   "At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one
   of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former
   bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon
   Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited
   the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became
   the common appellation bestowed on Friends."

      _C. Evans,
      Friends in the 17th Century,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Gough,
      History of the People called Quakers._

      _W. R. Wagstaff,
      History of the Society of Friends._

      _T. Clarkson,
      Portraiture of Quakerism._

      _American Church History,
      volume 12._

QUAKERS: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1681.
   Penn's acquisition of Pennsylvania.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1682.
   Proprietary purchase of New Jersey.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.
   Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

   ----------QUAKERS: End--------

QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
   In England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
   In Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.

{2621}

QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

QUAPAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

QUATRE BRAS, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

   ----------QUEBEC, CITY: Start--------

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1535.
   Its Indian occupants.
   Its name.

   "When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he
   found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of
   the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had
   perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the
   migration of the principal tribe and the succession of
   others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French
   settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise
   of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the
   river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the
   word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on
   the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with
   Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from
   which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a
   derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that
   the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal
   belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the
   7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is
   'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de
   Hamburg et de Quebec.'"

      _E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 2, and foot-note._

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1608.
   The founding of the city by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632.
   Capture by the English, brief occupation
   and restoration to France.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1639.
   The founding of the Ursuline Convent.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1637–1657.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690.
   Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips
   and the Massachusetts colonists.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.
   Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1759.
   Wolfe's conquest.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1760.
   Attempted recovery by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.
   Death of Montgomery.

      See 'CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

   ----------QUEBEC, CITY: End--------------

   ----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: Start--------

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1763.
   Creation of the English province.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1774.
   Vast extension of the province by the Quebec Act.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1867.

   On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in
   1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada
   received the name of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

   ----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: End--------

QUEBEC ACT, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC RESOLUTIONS, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

QUEBRADA-SECA, Battle of (1862).

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

QUEEN, Origin of the word.

      See King.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

   "Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of
   February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its
   celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day,
   then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir
   Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House
   of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her
   Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising
   out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the
   poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed
   by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy
   Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had
   ceased.

      See ANNATES.

   The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal
   to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In
   the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent
   fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His
   Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's
   message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded
   to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of
   the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply
   it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and
   with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its
   application has been extended to the building of
   parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 4._

QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.

   The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history
   as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American
   history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

QUEENSBERRY PLOT, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

QUEENSLAND.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

QUEENSTOWN HEIGHTS, The battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

QUELCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

QUERANDIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

QUESNOY: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

QUESNOY: A. D. 1794.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

QUIBÉRON BAY,
   Naval battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

   Defeat of French Royalists (1795).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

QUICHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

QUICHUAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

{2622}

QUIDS, The.

   John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican
   leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second
   administration of Washington and the administration of John
   Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable
   spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party.
   He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at
   the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to
   England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists
   [1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not
   sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph
   faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the
   Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful
   opposition party."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 6, section 3._

QUIETISM.

      See MYSTICISM.

QUIJO, OR NAPO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

QUINARIUS, The.

      See AS.

QUINCY RAILWAY, The.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

QUINDECEMVIRS, The.

   The quindecemvirs, at Rome, had the custody of the Sibylline
   books.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

QUINNIPIACK.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

QUIPU.
WAMPUM.

   "The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by
   means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the
   finger, of any required length, to which were attached
   numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and
   textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each
   of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a
   quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most
   fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with
   the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was
   sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve
   as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus
   relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed
   in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a
   third for history, and so forth. On what principle of
   mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and
   colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted
   whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration.
   Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a
   certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed
   essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery,
   or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and
   Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The
   wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in
   many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was
   composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different
   colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts
   and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the
   strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter
   shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant
   tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The
   substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the
   custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably,
   introduced by European influence."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Myths of the New World,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, WAMPUM.

QUIRINAL, The.

   "The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times
   existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian
   walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a
   second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost
   by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from
   their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name
   of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the
   'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied
   to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all
   associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although
   not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the
   former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict
   use of the language received any other name than 'hill'
   ('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was
   still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the
   Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate
   communities confronting each other and doubtless in many
   respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts
   early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal
   may with certainty be inferred."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, PALATINE HILL,
      and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

QUIRITES.

   In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were
   so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them
   'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name
   Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses
   on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name·
   Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently,
   simply the full burgess."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapters 4 and 5._

   The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as
   a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as
   derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 5._

QUITO: The ancient kingdom and the modern city.

      See ECUADOR.

QUIVIRA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

QUORATEAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUORATEAN FAMILY.

R

RAAB, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

RABBLING.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

RABELAIS, on Education.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

RAB-SHAKEH.

   The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The
   Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.

RACHISIUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 744-750.

RADAGAISUS,
RADAGAIS,
RODOGAST;
   Invasion of Italy by.

   "In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast
   multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and
   Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what
   nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely
   that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who
   had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the
   Huns.
{2623}
   The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000
   warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.
   These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so
   fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror
   than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and
   general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]
   found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this
   savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before
   any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging
   that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by
   surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to
   surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the
   captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

RÆTIA.

      See RHÆTIA.

RAGA,
RAGHA,
RHAGES.

   "The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was
   Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme
   eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The
   great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in
   the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.
   Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by
   the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and
   Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district
   may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of
   fertile territory intervening between the Elburz
   mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or
   from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of
   Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All
   accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there
   are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it
   has been usual to assume that they positively fix the
   locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much
   nearer to the Caspian Gates."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, CASPIAN GATES.

RAGÆ.

      See RATÆ.

RAGMAN'S ROLL.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

RAID OF RUTHVEN, The.

      See SCOTLAND. A. D. 1582.

RAILROADS, The beginning of.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

RAISIN RIVER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

RAJA,
RAJAH.
MAHARAJA.

   Hindu titles, equivalent to king and great king.

RAJPOOTS,
RAJPUTS.
RAJPOOTANA.

   "The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest
   race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the
   Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who
   conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this
   day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of
   the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military
   aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links
   between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove
   with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from
   the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained
   imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya.
   In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted
   further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain
   as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of
   Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have
   reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots
   still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power
   and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to
   this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the
   populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the
   Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity
   is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of
   Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore
   or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three.
   It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the
   Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of
   Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the
   intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In
   former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas
   of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They
   belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

   "Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or
   petty chiefships may still be found existing in various
   degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput
   Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political
   importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the
   independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest
   clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract
   that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be
   drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward
   to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border
   of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and
   South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States
   under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across
   India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into
   nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput
   clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler.
   To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India,
   belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and
   Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and
   Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."

      _Sir A. C. Lyall,
      Asiatic Studies,
      chapter 8._

RALEIGH, Sir Walter:
   Colonizing undertakings in Virginia.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586, and 1587-1590.

   Guiana and El Dorado expeditions.

      See EL DORADO.

RAMBOUILLET, The Hôtel de.

   The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at
   Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her
   hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean
   de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de
   Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the
   Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,
   and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife
   of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de
   Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in
   duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she
   survived her husband thirteen years.
{2624}
   During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of
   his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis
   and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de
   Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in
   great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it
   "to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which
   continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every
   evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a
   profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.
   The marquise ceased attending court some years before the
   death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding
   there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a
   woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of
   literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank
   and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed
   by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until
   the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the
   education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of
   man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and
   the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful
   influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose
   lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had
   previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The
   two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,
   and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and
   imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.
   The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been
   said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few
   years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'
   page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;
   from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise
   in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de
   Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of
   Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,
   Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the
   grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,
   the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the
   daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,
   Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de
   Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest
   brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be
   added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,
   Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,
   Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,
   Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,
   Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,
   Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet
   unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began
   to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:
   Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in
   1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,
   after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually
   ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à
   l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally
   supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel
   de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends
   whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show
   that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the
   circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove
   that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the
   imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the
   'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)
   believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de
   Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had
   no intention of attacking any particular person among the
   'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the
   eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view
   that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for
   reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an
   edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above
   ['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From
   Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the
   provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an
   unskilful imitation."

      _T. F. Crane,
      Introduction to "La Société Française au
      Dix-Septième Siècle."_

      ALSO IN:
      _A. G. Mason,
      The Women of the French Salons,
      chapters 2-7._

RAMBOUILLET DECREE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

RAMESES,
RAAMSES,
RAMSES,
   Treasure-city of.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

RAMESSIDS, The.

   The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses
   I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

RAMILLIES, Battle of (1706).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

RAMIRO I.'
   King of Aragon, A. D. 1035-1063.

   Ramiro I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 842-850.

   Ramiro II., King of Aragon, 1134-1137.

   Ramiro II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 930-950.

   Ramiro III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 967-982.

RAMNES.
RAMNIANS, The.

      See ROME: BEGINNINGS AND NAME.

RAMOTH-GILEAD.

   The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of
   Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent
   warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.
   It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with
   Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of
   Damascus.

      _1 Kings, xxii._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 33._

RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.

      See RAJPOOTS.

RANDOLPH, Edmund,
   and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.

   In the Cabinet of President Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

RANJIT SINGH,
RUNJIT SINGH,
   The conquests of.

      See SIKHS.

{2625}

RANTERS.
MUGGLETONIANS.

   "'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter,
   'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in
   Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture,
   and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and
   called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they
   conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them
   to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the
   Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward
   man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are
   pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and
   newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of
   them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters,
   but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes
   had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became
   contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650,
   when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as
   Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two
   associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who
   professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation
   xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God
   alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real
   man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon
   earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent
   him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90,
   leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not
   extinct yet."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 5, pages 17-20._

RAPALLO,
   Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

   Massacre at (1494).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

RAPES OF SUSSEX.

   "The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes'
   [each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been
   made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a
   nearly similar territorial division."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

   "The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied
   the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian
   legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an
   opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from
   the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to
   Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5._

RAPHIA, Battle of (B. C. 217).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RAPID INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: RAPID INDIANS.

RAPIDAN, Campaign of Meade and Lee on the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

RAPPAHANNOCK STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

RAPPAREES.
TORIES.

   "Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries]
   whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters,
   or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be
   found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had
   lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from
   an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage
   from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was
   intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated
   from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these
   fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at
   the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after
   the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and
   their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees,
   waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their
   successors. After the first years of the 18th century,
   however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and
   although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every
   page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer
   attached to them, and they had become the designations of
   ordinary felons, at large in the country."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish
   Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now
   disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and
   William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was
   turned loose to live by marauding."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 17 (volume 4)._

   "The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee
   knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no
   mercy, they gave none."

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 2, book 5 (volume 3)._

   "Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the
   one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited
   families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the
   Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third;
   on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic
   clergy."

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 9, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

RARITANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

RAS.
RASENNA.

      See ETRUSCANS.

RASCIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

RASCOL.
RASKOL.
RASKOLNIKS.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

RASTA, The.

      See LEUGA.

RASTADT, Congress of.
   Murder of French envoys.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

RASTADT, The Treaty of (1714).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

RATÆ,
RAGÆ.

   A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important
   of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples,
   and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the
   town of Leicester."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

RATHMINES, Battle of (1649).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

RATHS.

   "Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the
   dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a
   period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be
   found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of
   earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or
   tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and
   always surrounded by a rampart,"

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 9._

RATHSMANN,
RATHSMEISTER, etc.

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

{2626}

RATISBON:
   Taken by the Swedish-German forces (1633).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

RATISBON, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

RATISBON, Catholic League of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

RAUCOUX, Battle of (1746).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

RAUDINE PLAIN, Battle of the.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

RAURACI, The.

   An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established
   on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river
   forms at Bâle."

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot–note._

RAVENIKA, The Parliament of.

   Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or
   empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or
   high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the
   determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the
   empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles
   from Thessalonica.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4, section 4._

   ----------RAVENNA: Start--------

RAVENNA: B. C. 50.
   Cæsar's advance on Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 52-50.

RAVENNA: A. D. 404.
   Made the capital of the Western Empire.

   "The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to
   that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles.
   The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a
   deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which
   connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded,
   or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These
   morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and
   though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town
   enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water.
   The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost
   pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was
   distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as
   uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage
   was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This
   advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and,
   in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West
   [Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal
   safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and
   morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by
   his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the
   exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors;
   and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was
   considered as the seat of government and the capital of
   Italy."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.
   Siege and capture by Theodoric.
   Murder of Odoacer.
   Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

RAVENNA: A. D. 493-525.
   The capital of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

   "The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city
   his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or
   Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the
   architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of
   stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be
   transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most
   skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute
   some of those very works which we still wonder at in the
   basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief
   memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are
   a church, a palace, and a tomb."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

RAVENNA: A. D. 540.
   Surrender to Belisarius.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

RAVENNA: A. D. 554-800.
   The Exarchate.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

RAVENNA: A. D. 728-751.
   Decline and fall of the Exarchate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

RAVENNA: A. D. 1275.
   The Papal sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.
   Taken by the French.
   Battle before the city.
   Defeat of the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   ----------RAVENNA: End--------

RAVENSPUR.

   The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he
   came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from
   Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.

RAYMOND, of Toulouse, The Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
      also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099; and 1099-1144.

RAYMOND, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

REAL, Spanish.

      See SPANISH COINS.

REAMS'S STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

REASON, The Worship of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

REBECCAITES.
DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.

   Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales
   against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected
   on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of
   no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates,
   and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from
   county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise
   given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should
   possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the
   Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their
   proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless
   character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same
   time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended
   law.

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, page 131._

RECESS.

   Certain decrees of the Germanic diet were so called.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

RECHABITES, The.

   An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the
   Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or
   after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly
   withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so
   strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards
   or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly
   confined for means of subsistence to the products of the
   wilderness."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 4, section 1 (volume 4)._

{2627}

RECIPROCITY TREATY, Canadian.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &C.
      (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

RECOLLECTS,
RÉCOLLETS.

   This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of
   friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the
   recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.

RECONSTRUCTION:
   President Lincoln's Louisiana plan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

   President Johnson's plan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

   The question in Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),
      1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).

      See, also:
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;
      TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;
      LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

RECULVER, Roman origin of.

      See REGULBIUM.

RED CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

RED CROSS, The.

   "A confederation of relief societies in different countries,
   acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under
   the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to
   ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in
   campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the
   conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official
   sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the
   charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself
   munificently, should be organized for the best possible
   utilization. An international public conference was called at
   Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an
   official character, brought together representatives from a
   number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn
   up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five
   Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the
   neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons,
   nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe
   conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the
   Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the
   organization was necessarily international, the relief
   societies themselves are entirely national and independent;
   each one governing itself and making its own laws according to
   the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for
   recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general
   provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be
   agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the
   Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in
   which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss
   colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen
   was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red
   Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There
   is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each
   according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best
   suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of
   sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts
   of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods
   of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information,
   correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy
   could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction.
   In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This
   society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri
   Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views
   by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."

      _History of the Red Cross
      (Washington, 1883)._

RED FORTRESS, The.
   The Alhambra.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

RED LAND, The.

      See VEHMGERICHTS.

RED LEGS.

      See JAYHAWKERS.

RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT.
RIEL'S REBELLION.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RED RIVER EXPEDITION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

RED ROBE, Counsellors of the.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

RED TERROR, The.

   The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the
   guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL,).

REDAN, Assaults on the (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

REDEMPTIONERS.

   "Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called,
   constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar
   feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among
   all manner of people in the old world, and through this
   channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous
   poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants,
   felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two
   kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound
   themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to
   their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being
   without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the
   captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be
   sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay
   costs of passage and other expenses."

      _A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
      The Story of an Old Farm,
      chapter 11._

REDEMPTORISTS, The.

   The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,
   founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are
   commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is
   especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes
   of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.

REDONES, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

REDSTICKS, The.

   This name was given to the hostile Creek Indians of Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

REDUCTIONS IN PARAGUAY, The Jesuit.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

REEVE.

      See GEREFA; and MARGRAVE.

REFERENDARIUS.

      See CHANCELLOR.

REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

   "A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the
   valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century.
   Here existed small federations of communities who regulated
   certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of
   delegates from each village. These conventions were not
   allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must
   refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority
   of these approved, the act might be passed at the next
   assembly.
{2628}
   This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798,
   and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word
   Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which
   there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If
   not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum'
   and carry all questions to the home government. The
   institution as now known is a product of this century. It
   originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the
   time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise
   between the party which strove for pure democracy and that
   desiring representative government, it was provided that all
   laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable
   number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto,
   this system slowly found its way into several of the
   German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of
   the federal constitution five were employing the optional
   Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined
   to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight
   states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be
   submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which
   the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are
   directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body
   is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same,
   to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required
   varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St.
   Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some
   states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as
   a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom
   varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some
   fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the
   election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether
   voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the
   matter is referred by the Executive Council to the
   legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness
   of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to
   be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition,
   the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the
   impulse to make law is received from below instead of above.
   The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are
   interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full
   draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points
   desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and
   then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of
   obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by
   actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The
   latter form of consent is indicated either in the town
   meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official
   in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be
   given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton
   taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given
   for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of
   voters had been signed. … The number of names required is
   about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as
   for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of
   signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to
   the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter
   into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two
   months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the
   request. It may also at the same time present an alternate
   proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so
   that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature
   gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or
   propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select
   committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the
   voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having
   been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of
   the land."

      _J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
      chapter 13._

   "Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113
   laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to
   the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular
   vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The
   strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding
   the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of
   the features of the government which is open to future
   discussion."

      _B. Moses,
      The Federal Government of Switzerland,
      page 119._

      See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

   "A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a
   Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or
   its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France.
   Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most
   convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris,
   to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a
   given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are
   expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of
   the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an
   observer may confidently predict always will meet, with
   fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least
   abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form
   and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is
   chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a
   plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either
   free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods
   by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general
   odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a
   sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism.
   The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even
   Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned
   the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon
   President for life, which first re-established Imperialism,
   and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at
   bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate,
   carefully considered votes of the French nation given after
   the people had heard all that could be said for and against
   the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics,
   however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all
   moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss
   Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed
   before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the
   land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and
   demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been
   'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the
   scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately
   given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the
   people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in
   England has passed through both Houses."

      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Referendum,
      (Contemporary Review, April, 1890)._

{2629}

   "A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of
   the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters,
   and on the popular discrimination between good and bad
   measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum
   is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although
   the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to
   set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three
   to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a
   measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary
   committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is
   unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the
   necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only
   thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the
   signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every
   signature is examined by the national executive to see whether
   it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an
   interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have
   signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public
   discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter
   addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise
   voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes
   against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council
   distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed
   measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of
   the votes is made by the Executive Council as a
   returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with
   election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in
   the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there
   are always irregularities, especially where more than one
   question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is
   the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The
   following table, based on official documents, shows the
   results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;

                                         Passed  Rejected  Total

   (a.) Constitutional amendments
        proposed by the Assembly
        (referendum obligatory)             1       6         7

   (b.) Constitutional amendments
        proposed by popular initiative      2       1        *4
        (50,000 signatures)

   (c.) Laws passed by the Assembly        14       6        20
        (referendum demanded by 30,000).

   Total                                   17      13        31

   * One measure still pending.

   Making allowances for cases where more than one question has
   been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four
   popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the
   cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for
   example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other
   questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These
   numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion
   to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by
   the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to
   the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and
   about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments
   usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds
   of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on
   such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible;
   thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as
   now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may
   be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience
   shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their
   representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply
   before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by
   the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda
   between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the
   voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach
   67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell
   to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent.
   in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of
   recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only
   about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a
   compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on
   both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank
   ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws,
   duly considered by the national legislature and passed by
   considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of
   the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that
   there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as
   fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less
   interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing
   bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent
   member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the
   initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four
   things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the
   referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as
   bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest
   bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to
   the initiative. The referendum in the United States would
   therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities
   by permanent town meeting."

      _Prof. A. B. Hart,
      Vox Populi in Switzerland
      (Nation, September 13, 1894)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. L. Lowell,
      The Referendum in Switzerland and America
      (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894)._

      _E. P. Oberholtzer,
      The Referendum in America._

REFORM, Parliamentary.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; 1830-1832; 1865-1868,
      and 1884-1885.

   ----------REFORMATION: Start--------

REFORMATION:
   Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415; and 1419-1434, and after.

REFORMATION:
   England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

REFORMATION:
   France.

      See PAPACY; A. D. 1521-1535;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

REFORMATION:
   Germany.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
      1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
      also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546,
      1546-1552, 1552-1561;
      also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.

REFORMATION:
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567

REFORMATION:
   Ireland; its failure.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

REFORMATION:
   Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

REFORMATION:
   Piedmont.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

{2630}

REFORMATION:
   Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
      and 1561-1568.

REFORMATION:
   Sweden and Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

REFORMATION:
   Switzerland.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.

   ----------REFORMATION: End--------

REFORMATION, The Counter.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

REGED.

      See CUMBRIA.

REGENSBURG.

      See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly
      known to English readers.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, New York.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

REGICIDES AT NEW HAVEN, The.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

REGILLUS, Lake, Battle at.

   In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that
   the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne,
   with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the
   Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great
   battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in
   which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.

      _Livy,
      History,
      II. 19._

REGNI, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

REGULBIUM.

   One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish
   coast,—modern Reculver.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

REGULUS, and the Carthaginians.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

REICHSTAG.

      See DIET, THE GERMANIC.

REIGN OF TERROR, The.

      See TERROR.

REIS EFFENDI.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

REMI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

REMO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

RENAISSANCE, The.

   "The word Renaissance has of late years received a more
   extended significance than that which is implied in our
   English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to
   denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern
   World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to
   the period during which this transition took place, we cannot
   fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and
   that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like
   trying to name the days on which spring in any particular
   season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different
   from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new
   birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by
   this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort
   of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the
   onward progress of which we still participate. The history of
   the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or
   of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the
   attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit
   manifested in the European races. It is no mere political
   mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical
   standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge
   and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the
   Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead
   Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery
   which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual
   energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which
   enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force
   then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the
   spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the
   lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language,
   a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial
   prosperity, at a time when other nations were still
   semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th
   century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we
   admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead
   ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from
   long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great
   achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the
   world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be
   classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this
   period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two
   branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic
   exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call
   Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese
   rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar
   system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this
   plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to
   trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations,
   illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual
   relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the
   two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to
   be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius
   of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of
   these regions we find two agencies at work, art and
   scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all
   the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the
   Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection
   of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the
   wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the
   value of human speculation, the importance of human life
   regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. …
   The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the
   treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same
   time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines
   of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the
   Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and
   the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to
   something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct
   the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter
   of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human
   literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term
   Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and
   encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the
   Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of
   theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer
   subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side
   Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the
   Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on
   the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald
   of new-found religious freedom."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
      chapter 1._

{2631}

   "The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said
   to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These
   dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is
   there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by
   strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so
   complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of
   Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to
   strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more
   subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius
   in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by
   Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the
   last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any
   estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo
   among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance.
   To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be
   called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain
   duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the
   eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise
   and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment.
   Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth
   century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art,
   while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within
   the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia,
   the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may
   reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian,
   and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging
   chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the
   masters of the latter; and to this also may be given
   Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last
   years of the century."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
      chapters 4-6._

   "It would be difficult to find any period in the history of
   modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in
   history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway
   between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern
   institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the
   days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the
   synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of
   a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch
   and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther
   and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal
   changes in the history of those nations which remained
   Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of
   gravity of European culture."

      _P. Villari,
      Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy._

   On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to
   France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the
   invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
      See, also,
      ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;
      VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;
      EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;
      ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.

   [Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the
   Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:

      _The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries,_
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38680

      _Medieval Medicine_
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43300

      _The Century of Columbus_
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35095

      _The Popes and Science_
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34019

      _Catholic Churchmen in Science_
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34067

      _Education: How Old The New_
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34938
   ]

RÉNE
   (called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and
   Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.

   King of Naples, A. D. 1435-1442.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

RENSSELAER, Van.

      See VAN RENSSELAER.

RENSSELAERWICK, The Patroon colony and manor of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
      also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

REPARTIMIENTOS.
ENCOMIENDAS.

   Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an
   arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead
   of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects,
   free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of
   their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of
   the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the
   colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully
   abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of
   intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives,
   and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the
   island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the
   light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the
   rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom
   he fought."

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 12, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   "The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used
   indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately,
   'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of
   Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's
   share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1)._

   "'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide;
   'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in
   charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an
   encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four
   military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain
   members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality
   of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the
   Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among
   Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were
   crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given
   these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda
   was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of
   the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the
   doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and
   property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus,
   Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias,
   Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 262, foot-note._

      See, also, SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

REPEAL OF THE UNION OF IRELAND WITH GREAT BRITAIN,
   The Agitation for.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, 1840-1841; and 1841-1848.

REPETUNDÆ.

      See CALPURNIAN LAW.

REPHAIM, The.

      See HORITES, THE.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

{2632}

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

   "This [representative government] is the great distinction
   between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or
   republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is
   the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form
   of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor
   Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece
   it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system
   would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she
   had to make between anarchy and despotism."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 2._

   "Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found
   in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a
   distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed,
   a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the
   principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate
   oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council
   entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise
   this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no
   better definition of representation than this: but it appears
   to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather
   than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a
   system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of
   the city republics: but in their international councils and
   leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There
   was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council,
   and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the
   Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly,
   proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being
   a still nearer approximation to the principles of
   representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise
   the great scheme of representative government, under which
   large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of
   Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political
   rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and
   perils of pure democracy."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful,
   experiments in popular government, are those which have
   frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At
   the head of these we must place the virtually English
   discovery of government by Representation, which caused
   Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands
   from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and
   to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."

      _Sir H. S. Maine,
      Popular Government,
      page 92._

   "To find the real origin of the modern representative system
   we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the
   early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller
   locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public
   meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over
   matters purely local, but whose most important function seems
   to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief
   who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however,
   derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in
   later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for
   the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been
   suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character
   of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long
   life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the
   middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the
   introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their
   simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished
   the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more
   important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of
   these local courts there were on the continent below the
   national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was
   clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township
   assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight
   importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting
   and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's
   court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the
   assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of
   four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the
   tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the
   small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived
   when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to
   have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies,
   the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may
   have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision
   of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish
   state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties
   distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that
   courts of this grade came into existence in England and were
   of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the
   representative principle was distinctly expressed, each
   township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's
   court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also,
   pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and
   absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and
   preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived
   elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how
   the representative principle originating in them is
   transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern
   national representative system—the most important single
   contribution to the machinery of government made in historic
   times, with the possible exception of federal government."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

   For an account of the rise and development of the
   representative system in the English Parliament.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

REPRESENTATIVES, House of.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES,
   The earlier.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1789-1792; 1798; and 1825-1828.

   The later.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

   Liberal and Radical wings.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

REPUBLICANS, Independent.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

RESACA,
   Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA).

   Hood's attack on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

RESACA DE LA PALMA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

{2633}

RESAINA, Battle of.

   A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian
   king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in
   Mesopotamia.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

RESCH-GLUTHA, The.
   The "Prince of the Captivity."

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

RESCISSORY, Act.

      See SCOTLAND: A.D. 1660-1666.

RESCRIPTS, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

RESEN.

      See ROTENNU, THE.

RESIDENCIA.

   "Residencia was the examination or account taken of the
   official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish]
   during the term of his residence within the province of his
   jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of
   his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia
   it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could
   neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases
   specified, leave the place."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 250, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      page 69._

RESIDENT AT EASTERN COURTS, The English.

      See INDIA. A. D. 1877.

RESTITUTION, The Edict of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

RETENNU, The.

      See ROTENNU, THE.

RETHEL, Battle of (1650).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND, The.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

RETZ, Cardinal De, and the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1051-1653.

REUDIGNI, The.

      See AVIONES.

REUIL, Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649.

REVERE, Paul, The ride of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

REVIVAL OF LEARNING.

      See RENAISSANCE.

REVOLUTION, The American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, and after.

REVOLUTION, The English, of 1688.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1789.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789, and after.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1830.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1848.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

REVOLUTION, The Year of.

      See
      EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):
      ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:
      GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;
      HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

REYDANIYA, Battle of (1517).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

REYNOSA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

   ----------RHÆTIA: Start--------

RHÆTIA.
   Rhætians, Vindelicians, etc.

   "The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave
   were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of
   Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube
   was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of
   Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy,
   belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between
   that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman
   conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16
   and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus,
   Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned
   above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni
   were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then
   for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a
   thousand years."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 35._

      See, also, TYROL.

RHÆTIA:
   Settlement of the Alemanni in.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

   ----------RHÆTIA: End--------

RHAGES.

      See RAGA.

RHEGIUM, Siege of (B. C. 387).

   Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of
   Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from
   Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the
   elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he
   solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts
   without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege
   to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted
   desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C.
   387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering
   Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000
   citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives
   were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina
   (about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the
   rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering,
   the number of those who retained the means of ransom was
   probably very small."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

RHEIMS:
   Origin of the name.

      See BELGÆ.

RHEIMS: A. D. 1429.
   The crowning of Charles VII.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

RHEIMS: A. D. 1814.
   Capture by the Allies and recovery by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

RHEINFELDEN, Siege and Battle of (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

RHETRÆ.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

RHINE, The Circle of the.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

RHINE, The Confederation of the.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
      1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

RHINE, Roman passage of the.

   See USIPETES AND TENCTHERI.

RHINE LEAGUE, The.

   The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations
   formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for
   the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the
   towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces.
   Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster.
   Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief
   market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member,
   likewise, of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      page 158._

      See, also, CITIES, IMPERIAL, AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

{2634}

   ----------RHODE ISLAND: Start--------

RHODE ISLAND:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.
   Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
   His offenses against Boston Puritanism.
   His banishment.

   On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at
   Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of
   provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the
   [Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies
   of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were
   rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A
   public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on
   which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general
   thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the
   arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the
   affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She
   brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new
   State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that
   was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the
   asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind
   enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations
   which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so
   comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its
   application has produced the most beneficial result upon
   religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams,
   then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well
   versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an
   earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular
   liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly
   minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and
   soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the
   lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel
   Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his
   ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston
   remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of
   Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to
   Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had
   refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they
   would not make a public declaration of their repentance for
   having communion with the churches of England, while they
   lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the
   magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any
   other offence, as it was a breach of the first table;
   therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without
   advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they
   would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.'
   This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the
   election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it
   so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the
   hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day
   the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their
   minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set
   forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great
   extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical
   polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their
   church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to
   require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying
   all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part
   of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the
   prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As
   a political measure this interference failed of its object.
   The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the
   church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet
   be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was
   effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in
   denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the
   doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a
   system of persecution which, before the close of the summer,
   obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of
   Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At
   Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry
   to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The
   principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention.
   … The opportunities there presented for cultivating an
   intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the
   neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an
   important influence, not only in creating the State of which
   he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New
   England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or
   Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the
   Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the
   Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now
   the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and
   steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a
   friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of
   his exile."

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of the State of Rhode Island and
      Providence Plantations,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but
   supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His
   ministry was popular in the main and his person universally
   liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did
   not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore,
   departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he
   acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the
   church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later,
   became his successor. At Salem he was again under the
   surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they
   were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in
   Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on
   the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his
   doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to
   take away from the natives their land without paying them for
   it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was
   doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day
   its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been
   good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent
   because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian
   prince who discovered New England, and because he called
   Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not
   scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon
   as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his
   life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the
   treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The
   patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates.
{2635}
   It had been granted in England to an English trading company,
   and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable
   legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the
   rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which
   they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They
   were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore
   were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When
   they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got
   it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an
   unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds
   in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it,
   since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates,
   propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the
   offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is
   impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal
   rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give,
   such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards
   that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed,
   though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their
   own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their
   anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by
   him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an
   unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man,
   because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by
   such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath
   being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from
   anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to
   desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The
   magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first
   subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then
   formally summoning him to answer for himself before the
   General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned
   for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under
   question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but
   allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened
   that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court
   for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as
   belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came
   up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give
   satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that
   the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they
   adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally
   indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says
   Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches,
   appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of
   their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His
   Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.'
   Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters,
   but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his
   rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to
   the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously,
   laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its
   pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy
   against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people
   against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town
   suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but
   yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams
   stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of
   Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The
   court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to
   advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be
   sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions.
   Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to
   dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation
   begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun
   sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday,
   October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious
   'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one
   advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but
   felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton,
   'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six
   weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the
   magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his
   opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about
   Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily
   spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England
   [see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how
   Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into
   the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one
   fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what
   bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on
   the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."

      _T. Durfee,
      Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth
      Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886._

   "The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not
   exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated
   instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the
   colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory
   upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method
   by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence
   no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by
   patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they
   had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and
   private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to
   fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in
   their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the
   contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire
   agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams
   of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front
   of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in
   the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and
   dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it
   did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of
   the entire separation of church and state. We have his own
   testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject
   in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a
   matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed
   him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of
   the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He
   repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment
   were his extreme views regarding separation, and his
   denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of
   having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for
   asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards
   identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …
{2636}
   It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become
   covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,
   did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it
   was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid
   the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger
   Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is
   equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the
   controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate
   zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him
   never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in
   the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a
   private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal
   policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony
   any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger
   Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some
   whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts
   were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already
   cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles
   which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to
   be ripened under another sky."

      _J. L. Diman,
      Orations and Essays,
      pages 114-117._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
   The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.
   His followers.
   The settlement at Providence.

   The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams
   after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at
   Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than
   thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the
   hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was
   unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house
   and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England
   winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever
   honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer
   my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and
   heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of
   the place from any English claims or patents. I took his
   prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all
   other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem
   (though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts,
   wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of
   God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at
   Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient
   friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his
   own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising
   me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they
   were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other
   side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free
   before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should
   be loving neighbors together. These were the joint
   understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian
   Governors and others, in their day, together with their
   counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this
   place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of
   the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time
   after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion
   affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore
   Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and
   godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council,
   answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found
   true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a
   harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as
   good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and
   I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their
   motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested
   and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their
   bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and
   Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a
   bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,
   beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with
   English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief
   mart and port of New England."

      _Letters of Roger Williams;
      edited by J. R. Bartlett,
      pages 335-336._

   "According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing
   extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there
   by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the
   'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding
   intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had
   acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at
   Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and
   other references differently, and conclude that the journey
   must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club
   Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is
   that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that
   is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by
   land, and the rest by sea."

      _O. S. Straus,
      Roger Williams,
      chapter 5, and foot-note._

   Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island
   history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's
   work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk
   was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic
   Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean
   again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500
   miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had
   to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if
   in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did
   Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not
   answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett
   Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into
   the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most
   High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly
   could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a
   boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely
   tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again)
   winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did
   they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression
   in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which
   was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When
   Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey,
   'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast
   inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with
   the imagination. No such conference ever took place."

      _S. S. Rider,
      Roger Williams
      (Book Notes, volume 11, page 148)._

{2637}

   It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams
   fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the
   lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from
   Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit,
   the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he
   lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens
   of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his
   friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at
   Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he
   required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk
   River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and
   where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the
   beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a
   short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of
   Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time,
   he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But
   scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was
   again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from
   Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as
   related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon
   abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he
   had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk
   River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might
   rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five
   others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company."
   Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known
   as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of
   the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful
   slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the
   spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of
   Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well
   as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions
   began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A
   little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring
   is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble
   voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the
   weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a
   city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude
   to the superintending Providence which had protected him and
   guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed …
   was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts.
   Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his
   nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts
   Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard
   him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems
   of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate
   their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is
   reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival
   in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with
   his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing
   from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he
   might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the
   Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the
   rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the
   sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and
   at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus
   and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and
   jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It
   was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could
   have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"

      _W. Gammell,
      Life of Roger Williams
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapters 1 and 4._

      _W. R Staples,
      Annals of Providence,
      chapter 1._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,
   Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.
   His conveyance of the same to his associates.

   "The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to
   obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He
   probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the
   territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed
   to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here.
   'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called
   March, the second year of the plantation or planting at
   Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we,
   Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of
   Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams
   the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called
   Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents,
   establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the
   river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of
   Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on
   the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and
   services he hath continually done for us, both with our
   friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum,
   or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from
   those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and
   meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we
   have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus.
   The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The
   mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus
   ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who
   accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an
   equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of
   December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance
   to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had
   unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself
   personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the
   following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents,
   that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the
   Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one
   thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand
   six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus
   and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and
   in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the
   two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two
   sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after
   the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of
   these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great
   hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of
   Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent
   promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be
   land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided
   that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made
   covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and
   natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's
   merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place
   Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons
   distressed for conscience.
{2638}
   I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed
   countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving
   friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris,
   Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior,
   Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter
   here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we
   should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and
   disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that
   were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we
   received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior,
   William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and
   others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's
   merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not
   by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous
   that monies could not do it, but by that language,
   acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,
   which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and
   venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great
   sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay
   engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to
   my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by
   some loving friends, that I should receive some loving
   consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that
   every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of
   enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty
   shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty
   pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a
   person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in
   love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of
   succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the
   said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the
   year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I
   delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief
   sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned
   lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of
   the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,
   reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of
   the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way,
   under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that
   deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my
   executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any
   of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be
   received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but
   that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,
   shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises
   and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents
   bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and
   assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be
   laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or
   parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue
   or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage
   whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the
   said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by,
   through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
   my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the
   present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger
   Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve
   persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and
   Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not
   pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but
   that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person
   who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this
   stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the
   reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."

      _J. D. Knowles,
      Memoir of Roger Williams,
      chapter 8._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

   "Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The
   Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots
   were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of
   the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the
   lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war
   were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies,
   assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on
   one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other.
   The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the
   Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677,
   page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr.
   Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful
   influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of
   the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and
   Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to
   prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page
   269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with
   Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend,
   the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter
   by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion,
   (Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The
   Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and
   the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought
   actively for the English in the war."

      _S. S. Rider,
      Political results of the Banishment of Williams
      (Book Notes, volume 8, number 17)._

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
   The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.
   The founding of Newport.

   Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was
   undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.
   1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John
   Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of
   the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless
   they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken
   to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place
   of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the
   magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an
   independent organization, they presently purchased of the
   Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful
   and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The
   price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional
   gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants
   agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of
   Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island.
   Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate
   themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord
   Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,'
   began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as
   their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist
   him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those
   who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,'
   removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

{2639}

   "This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the
   following spring some of their number moved to the south-west
   part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The
   northern part of the island which was first occupied was
   called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as
   they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this
   settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and
   family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There
   is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned
   any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable
   life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed
   to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members
   of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the
   Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken
   into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which
   existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the
   Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and
   Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the
   title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three
   elders to assist him. This form of government continued until
   1640."

      _O. S. Straus,
      Roger Williams,
      chapter 6._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
   The Constitution of Providence Plantation.
   The charter and the Union.
   Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.

   "The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in
   the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed
   theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are
   hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of
   Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or
   passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be
   made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the
   major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families,
   incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others
   as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never
   before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the
   separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by
   this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil
   things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history,
   was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed.
   Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and
   distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the
   right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right
   of independent action in civil matters, those who had
   condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed
   that no well ordered government could exist in connection with
   liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose.
   Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister
   with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in
   Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he
   bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between
   them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was
   founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population
   the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen
   charged with the principal functions of administration,
   subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town
   meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions
   take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet
   untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as
   original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of
   it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the
   natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his
   Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought
   their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the
   whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went
   so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of
   the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted
   on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of
   Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of
   Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in
   1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to
   England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured
   up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a
   conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him
   to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned
   with full success. … He found the King at open war with the
   Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted
   to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two
   Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but
   on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and
   absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of
   Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' …
   Civil government and civil laws were the only government and
   laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to
   religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams
   avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize
   the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet
   more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into
   full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in
   May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court
   of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize
   a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although
   not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges
   with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new
   government was in reality a government of the people, to whose
   final decision in their General Assembly all questions were
   submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is
   agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this
   present act declared, that the form of government established
   in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      chapters 3 and 5._

   "The form of government being settled, they now prepared such
   laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of
   it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive,
   before they were valid, made this a work of time; however,
   they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May,
   1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly
   from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own
   forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their
   present condition required.
{2640}
   These laws, for securing of right, for determining
   controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and
   punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any
   of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of
   all other Christian countries at that time in this
   particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not
   punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were
   persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr.
   Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended
   to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such
   objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own
   words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5].
   'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to
   continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which,
   we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties
   to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of
   the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought
   it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony,
   and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my
   brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of
   the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against
   the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write
   a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience,
   is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred.
   To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this
   case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls
   in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true
   picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or
   society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and
   Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship.
   Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of
   conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two
   hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks,
   be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor,
   secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or
   worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never
   denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of
   the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to
   command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and
   practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If
   any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to
   pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse,
   towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey
   the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their
   common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up
   against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or
   write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers,
   because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor
   officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor
   punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever
   is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist,
   compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their
   deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,
   may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light,
   to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious
   of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This
   religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but
   uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656,
   soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New
   England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly
   alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four
   united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth,
   Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with
   them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent
   their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the
   country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the
   following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the
   foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;.
   to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil
   authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates
   of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the
   people of the neighbouring governments only, was this
   principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to
   the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659,
   in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord
   protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this
   paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this
   poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a
   birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We
   being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in
   the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English
   over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present
   frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing
   with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in
   all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies
   do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against
   us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant
   misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty,
   hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and
   parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians
   and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their
   writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this
   colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and
   quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally,
   because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which
   was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though
   religion could not subsist without the support of human laws,
   and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of
   different sentiments to live in the same country with them.
   Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first
   came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit,
   should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got
   clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too
   much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about
   religion itself. With people of both these characters, the
   fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed
   to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and
   supported without some particular mode of religion was
   established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests:
   And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to
   have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second,
   for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this
   colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these
   words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a
   most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
   maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full
   liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety,
   rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and
   greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts
   of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"

      _Stephen Hopkins,
      Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
      2d Series, volume 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island
      and Providence Plantations,
      volume 1._

{2641}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639.
   The first Baptist Church.

   "There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious
   tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of
   their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and
   Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects
   government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine,
   moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies,
   Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be
   members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact
   of their being members, constitute them a church, after it.
   They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and
   order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until
   dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant
   or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect
   it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but
   such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make
   them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained
   ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached
   to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of
   any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they
   did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for
   Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by
   immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr.
   Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner.
   By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been
   members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those
   churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and
   called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first
   church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present
   day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr.
   Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then
   resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter
   of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand
   Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams
   left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was
   baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for
   some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the
   Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker,
   there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any
   person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor
   could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great
   Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was
   not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the
   ministry and ordinances of the christian church were
   irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been
   supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while
   in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the
   church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his
   connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of
   Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker,
   after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months,
   the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his
   administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and
   joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he
   could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."

      _W. R. Staples,
      Annals of the town of Providence,
      chapter 7._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.
   Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.

   "Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at
   Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and
   crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory
   language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent
   seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'
   It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so
   conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt
   obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have
   also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his
   character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking
   God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human
   learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and
   styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He
   seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration
   which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament
   was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.
   Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but
   Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any
   community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the
   peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the
   pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In
   1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a
   schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some
   staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away
   to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,
   flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to
   make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a
   few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of
   Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger
   Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor
   Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to
   his principles of toleration and would not take part in any
   attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading
   citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a
   memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in
   regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts
   to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with
   the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over
   Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might
   be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was
   politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over
   Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.
{2642}
   Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton
   and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they
   occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant
   usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they
   withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of
   Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the
   principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      pages 163-168._

   "Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a
   subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory …
   purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that
   Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as
   Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston,
   Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in
   their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced
   the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous
   language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally
   liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the
   forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
   of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently,
   when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was
   organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured
   in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers
   had now returned, though not named in the charter, was
   admitted to its privileges."

      _C. Deane,
      New England
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 9)._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
   Coddington's usurpation.
   Second mission of Roger Williams to England.
   Restoration of the Charter.
   First enactment against Slavery.

   In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President
   some time before, but who had gone to England without legally
   entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from
   the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor
   of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of
   six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled
   the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger
   Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed
   the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston.
   … In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island
   towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission.
   On the success of their application hung the fate of the
   Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to
   Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to
   govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate
   as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in
   the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of
   May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered …
   that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond
   or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,'
   and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall
   sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved
   to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the
   Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation
   concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should
   seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a
   slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act
   was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a
   thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a
   great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. …
   Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in
   October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission
   for the colony to act under the charter until the final
   decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the
   revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully
   restored."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      chapter 6._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656.
   Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
   The Charter from Charles II,
   and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

   "At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to
   enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him
   to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony
   in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he
   accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit
   about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but
   Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of
   Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his
   business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.
   His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary
   forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested
   in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode
   Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words
   'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly
   called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the
   sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and
   Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently
   explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of
   the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton
   Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one
   of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of
   land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they
   heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they
   naturally desired that their property should be placed under
   the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable
   government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of
   the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had
   made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,
   maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to
   her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured
   for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett
   Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a
   charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck
   River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles
   wide, and extending in length from the southern border of
   Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters
   with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a
   negotiation which issued, after several months, in a
   composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two
   articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River
   should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which
   said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,
   Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the
   Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they
   would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were
   thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant
   Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames
   the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between
   the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed
   of her domain."
{2643}
   On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King
   probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed
   the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact
   and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the
   English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
   New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut
   in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added
   to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the
   said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise
   molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
   difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not
   actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …
   Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction
   between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of
   choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton
   Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement
   known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the
   latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming
   to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and
   imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the
   beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between
   the inharmonious neighbors."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. S. Rider,
      Book Notes,
      volume 10, pages 109-110. _

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678.
   King Philip's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683.
   Death of Roger Williams.
   Estimates of his character.

   Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have
   died without property, dependent upon his children. His son,
   Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me
   but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he
   deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his
   disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. …
   If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this
   town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and
   exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is
   certain, however, that he died at some time between January
   16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his
   age."

      _J. D. Knowles,
      Memoir of Roger Williams,
      pages 111 and 354._

   "We call those great who have devoted their lives to some
   noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the
   course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams
   deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the
   greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He
   was not the first to discover the principles of religious
   liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their
   plenitude, and to found and build up a political community
   with those principles as the basis of its organization. The
   influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious
   liberty and democratic government upon the political system of
   our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably
   stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the
   History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams
   founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the
   principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the
   uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The
   theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools
   of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in
   the government of a small community. It was prophesied that
   the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a
   general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire
   religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be
   of short duration. But these institutions have not only
   maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole
   union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of
   Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia,
   the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout
   America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe,
   and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the
   background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

      _O. S. Straus,
      Roger Williams,
      page 233._

   "Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete
   religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was
   'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the
   last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards
   bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are
   'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not
   accomplish the work they are here to do."

      _C. F. Adams,
      Massachusetts: its Historians and its History,
      page 25._

   "The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems
   ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in
   opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one
   of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages.
   Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now
   looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in
   New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather
   fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and
   saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in
   their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and
   freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait,
   the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the
   pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his
   indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a
   few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed
   the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them
   words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him;
   for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes
   of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a
   man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From
   his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger
   Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form,
   always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender
   charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some
   sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one
   of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by
   halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his
   minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment
   which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further
   whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism
   was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his
   organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his
   contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous,
   turbulent, even seditious."

      _M. C. Tyler,
      History of American Literature,
      chapter 9, section 4._

{2644}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686.
   The consolidation of New England
   under Governor-general Andros.

   See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701.
   The charter government reinstated and confirmed.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690.
   King William's War.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747.
   The founding of the Redwood Library.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany,
   and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764.
   The founding of Brown University.

   Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the
   interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that
   denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed
   first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was
   named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend Duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.
   The destruction of the Gaspe.
   The first overt act of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.-
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.
   Early naval enterprises in the war.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776
      BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
   Allegiance to the king renounced.
   State independence declared.
   The British occupation.

   "The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of
   May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional
   Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its
   allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session
   with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as
   expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United
   Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was
   received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a
   national salute and military display. At Providence the King's
   arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title,
   'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From
   the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode
   Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of
   August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly
   subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving
   her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In
   November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a
   British army of her principal island. The seat of government
   was removed to Providence."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      chapters 24-25._

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence to the end.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.
   Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.
   After the War of Independence.
   Paper-money.
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
   Tardy entrance into the Union.
   Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

   "The first question was how to replenish the exhausted
   treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by
   the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others
   was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So
   the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had
   been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed
   the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the
   insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and
   traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its
   reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for
   failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared
   many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against
   the commercial class; and the former party had a large
   majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers
   arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might
   not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was
   prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law
   compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,
   they were brought before that august General Assembly, and
   tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional
   authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,
   however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.
   Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new
   national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of
   a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the
   'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the
   respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in
   the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual
   liberty as a matter of her own interest.
{2645}
   Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental
   machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she
   did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So
   when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to
   elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island
   paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states
   sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of
   that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared
   by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper
   money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the
   majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected
   with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which
   was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all
   in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a
   convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it
   suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but
   that method was a failure. As state after state came into the
   Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud
   demonstration, celebrated the event."

      _G. L. Harney,
      How Rhode Island received the Constitution
      (New England Magazine, May, 1890)._

   "The country party was in power, and we have seen that
   elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural
   population that hated change. The action of the other states
   had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing
   strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the
   adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to
   vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates
   to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution,
   even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of
   three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly
   on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more
   democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the
   Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal
   constitution should be ratified in the different states by
   conventions of delegates elected by the people for that
   purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did
   not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788,
   the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the
   constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the
   voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth
   Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be
   out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood
   two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two
   thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about
   four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor
   Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a
   few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then
   existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state
   has been singular from her sister states in the mode of
   collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution,
   it was not done with the least design to give any offence to
   the respectable body who composed the convention, or a
   disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure
   republican principles, founded upon that basis of all
   governments originally derived from the body of the people at
   large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great
   against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general,
   conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which
   could well be added and adapted to the present confederation.
   They are sensible that the present powers invested with
   Congress are incompetent for the great national government of
   the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient
   authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws
   throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce
   and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish
   funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the
   voters of the country was undoubtedly against the
   constitution, but convention after convention was carried by
   the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode
   Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead
   her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the
   constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789.
   Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year,
   sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in
   Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of
   it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran
   the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a
   democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new
   constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward
   that form of government from which we have lately dissolved
   our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and
   treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration
   thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to
   men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the
   United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this
   circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended
   danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then,
   that with these impressions, they should wait to see the
   proposed system organized and in operation, to see what
   further checks and securities would be agreed to and
   established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it
   as a constitution of government for themselves and their
   posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand
   alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just
   referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful,
   comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I
   have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire,
   Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped
   to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she
   believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so
   strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first
   session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and
   passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island,
   though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state
   to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in
   force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at
   practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the
   pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the
   amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress
   shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
   prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of
   speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
   to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
   grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor
   excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
   inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for
   other highly important provisions."

      _H. Rogers,
      Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution
      (Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890)._

{2646}

   The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and
   ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in
   March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and
   there completed its work.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
   The Dorr Rebellion.
   The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

   The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged
   until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of
   suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the
   legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its
   cities increased in population, became causes of great popular
   discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands
   for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious
   attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry
   through a revision of the constitution independently of
   legislative action. A convention was held in October of that
   year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote
   of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast,
   and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held
   the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor,
   and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally
   inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were
   in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by
   the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of
   the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted
   as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the
   result might have been different. This was the course desired
   and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid
   men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves,
   disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order
   government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of
   success. While the People's government was being organized in
   Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the
   same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and
   passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in
   the state and calling on the President for aid, which was …
   declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which
   was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's
   legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this
   arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a
   plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the
   request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington
   and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of
   President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties
   were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at
   this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined
   to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled
   the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain
   possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather
   ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more
   abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than
   himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an
   armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power
   confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed
   without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In
   June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the
   General Assembly had called still another convention, which
   met in September and … framed the present constitution, making
   an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that
   demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November
   this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into
   effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the
   Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the
   state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained
   beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and
   in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped,
   issued an address explaining and justifying his course and
   announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island.
   Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without
   concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel.
   Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail,
   without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in
   which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness
   or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party.
   Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's
   acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in
   Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every
   point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury,
   while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of
   the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty,
   and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from
   his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to
   imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if
   he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr.
   Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until
   June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was
   released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the
   prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his
   father's house, which he had not entered since he began his
   contest for the establishment of the People's constitution.
   The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause,
   congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy
   justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular
   rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the
   prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The
   close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his
   constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never
   recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and
   much suffering."

      _C. H. Payne,
      The Great Dorr War
      (New England Magazine, June, 1890)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. King,
      Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr._

{2647}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
   Constitutional Amendment.
   The qualification of the Suffrage.

   "The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode
   Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective
   franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began
   in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80
   years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political
   changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the
   consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly
   some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The
   qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter.
   That power was given to the General Assembly. A property
   qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and
   has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at
   first specified to be land, but men of competent estates,
   without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to
   be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge
   Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that
   by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be
   of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition
   was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the
   charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him
   by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and
   enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made
   to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of
   February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure
   (Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until
   the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this
   qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then
   (in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never
   changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet
   the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old
   tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in
   paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In
   1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money'
   was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system
   came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars.
   Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the
   dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to
   $133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it
   has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment
   it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a
   question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was
   practically no change in the qualifications required of a man
   to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In
   1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A
   convention was called and a constitution was framed and
   submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for
   adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of
   three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the
   origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present
   constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition
   to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of
   any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The
   political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to
   wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and
   those other native American citizens of other states who had
   moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To
   these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal
   property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes,
   and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to
   vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no
   land. It was taxation without representation, the very
   principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828
   more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by
   men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North
   Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over
   twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832
   five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode
   Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land,
   had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another
   respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation
   of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a
   representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence, one to
   every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in
   taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation
   that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters
   actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the
   political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were
   about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans
   with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The
   agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so
   violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a
   committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which
   committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's
   Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the
   agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention
   was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The
   question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr.
   Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not
   only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but
   he intended American citizens of other American States. He
   would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts,
   who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he
   would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live
   here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land.
   These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far
   as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most
   disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form
   one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This
   discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men
   born in countries outside of the United States, became more
   pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November
   1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land
   qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of
   property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote
   otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the
   People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr
   Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it
   admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal
   footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This
   Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present
   Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the
   disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception
   of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes
   were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as
   all the various propositions had provided with the single
   exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the
   amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have
   reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the
   People's Constitution:

{2648}

   Qualification of Electors under Amendment
   (Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

   Section 1.
   Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21
   years, who has had his residence and home in this State for
   two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to
   vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and
   whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he
   resides on or before the last day of December, in the year
   next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right
   to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all
   questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings:
   Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote
   in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any
   proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money
   in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next
   preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein,
   valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.


   Qualification of Electors under the People's
   (Dorr) Constitution, 1842.

   Section 1.
   Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of
   twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year,
   and in any town, city or district of the same for six months
   next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall
   be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may
   hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

   Section 4.
   No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable
   property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and
   fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay
   any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for
   one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to
   vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation,
   or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

   Section 7.
   There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *
   * * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has
   not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are
   opened.


   It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last
   adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its
   qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,
   in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those
   of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and
   even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of
   vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

      _S. S. Rider,
      The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
      (Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57)._

   ----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------

   ----------RHODES: Start--------

RHODES.

   The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city
   identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the
   southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable
   in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a
   place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been
   famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among
   the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
   COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,
   their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their
   wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the
   middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the
   city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.
   John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,
   held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful
   siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of
   Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military
   history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this
   merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with
   great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's
   abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a
   bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,
   was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and
   lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.
   … It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this
   statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was
   doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that
   system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by
   all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to
   the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of
   their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by
   means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or
   confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also
   that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their
   commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they
   appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in
   the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn
   business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The
   wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately
   plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists
   in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of
   a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the
   pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous
   works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still
   attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the
   Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 20, with foot-note._

RHODES: B. C. 412.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
   In the new Athenian Confederacy.
   Revolt and secession.
   The Social War.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
   Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

   One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the
   brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.
   305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of
   Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of
   Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:
   B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his
   age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the
   wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the
   Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,
   sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the
   united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of
   Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by
   1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was
   forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant
   Rhodians.

      _C. Torr,
      Rhodes in Ancient Times,
      pages 13-14, 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 59._

{2649}

RHODES: B. C. 191.
   Alliance with Rome.
   War with Antiochus the Great.
   Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RHODES: B. C. 88.
   Besieged by Mithridates.

   At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,
   Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of
   Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians
   repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was
   forced to abandon the siege.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

RHODES: A. D. 1310.
   Conquest and occupation by the
   Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

RHODES: A. D. 1480.
   Repulse of the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

RHODES: A. D. 1522.
   Siege and conquest by the Turks.
   Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

   ----------RHODES: End--------

RHODES, The Colossus of.

   "In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,
   we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue
   is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on
   the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal
   port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed
   easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny
   the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was
   reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others
   being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,
   devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of
   Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of
   Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos
   of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.
   Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that
   the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of
   the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail
   between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real
   truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the
   siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the
   Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by
   fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,
   commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their
   deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the
   expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of
   the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the
   island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of
   ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the
   pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years
   after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties,
      chapter 1._

RHODES, Knights of.

   During their occupation of the island, the Knights
   Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
   Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
   Malta.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

RI, The.

   "The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the
   'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not
   merely by election, but as the representative in the senior
   line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to
   their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the
   tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …
   As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, page 140._

      See, also, TUATH, THE.

RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

RIBBON SOCIETIES.
RIBBONISM.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

      See COCCIUM.

RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

RICHARD
   (of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

   Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

   Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

   Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

      See RUTUPIÆ.

RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

   ----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.
   Lafayette's defense of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.
   Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
   McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
      (MAY: VIRGINIA);
      (JUNE: VIRGINIA);
      (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).
   Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).
   Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
   Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
   Destructive conflagration.
   President Lincoln in the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

   ----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------

RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

      See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

   The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
   'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
   Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
   Angles.

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 1, note._

RIEL'S REBELLION.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

{2650}

RIGA: A. D. 1621.
   Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

   In France, and several other continental European countries,
   political parties in the legislative bodies are named
   according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in
   their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at
   the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are
   known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals
   similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are
   called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each
   of these parties which partially detaches itself and is
   designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,
   "The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,
   there is a party of independents who take the name of "The
   Center."

RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),
      and (OCTOBER).

RIGSDAG, The.

   The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

      See
      SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

RIGVEDA, The.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND
      CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

RIMINI,
   Origin of the city.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

RIMINI,
   The Malatesta family.

      See MALATESTA FAMILY.

RIMINI, A. D. 1275.
   Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RIMMON.

   "The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs
   frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably
   derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 2._

RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

RINGGOLD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

      See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

RIOTS, Draft.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

RIPON, Treaty of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

      See FRANKS.

RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

   "On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the
   eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he
   resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the
   compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,
   the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years
   511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension
   of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to
   ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only
   under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took
   the definite form under which it has reached us."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10._

RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

      See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
   The first attempts at English settlement in America.
   The lost colony.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.
   Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

ROBERT,
   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

   Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

   Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

   Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

   Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

   Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

   Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
      to 1794 (JULY).

ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

ROBOGDII, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROCHAMBEAU,
   Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
      1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

   ----------ROCHELLE: Start--------

ROCHELLE:
   Early Importance.
   Expulsion of the English.
   Grant of Municipal independence.

   "Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places
   of France; it was well known to the English under the name of
   the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when
   the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was
   also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …
   enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the
   period of the English wars.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

   It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English
   dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary
   manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable
   privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in
   the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a
   citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately
   to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the
   Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an
   early period."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,
      in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
      chapter 14._

{2651}

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
      volume 2, page 270-273._

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
   Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
   Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.
   Siege and successful defense.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
   The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.
   Renewed revolt.
   Second treaty of Montpelier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Siege and surrender.
   Richelieu's dyke.
   The decay of the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

   ----------ROCHELLE: End--------

ROCHESTER, England:
   Origin.

   One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is
   identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It
   derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to
   Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,
   who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained
   greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapters 5 and 16._

ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

ROCROI: A. D. 1643.
   Siege and Battle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

ROCROI: A. D. 1653.
   Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

ROCROI: A. D. 1659.
   Recovered by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

RODOLPH.

      See RUDOLPH.

ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

ROGATION.

   With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word
   Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the
   people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in
   practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just
   as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 4._

ROGER I.,
   Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

ROGER II.,
   Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;
   King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

ROHILLA WAR, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

ROIS FAINÉANS.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ROLAND, The great Bell.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ROLLO, Duke,
   The conquest of Normandy by.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;
      and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE.
ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

      See EXCHEQUER.

ROMA QUADRATA.

      See PALATINE HILL.

ROMAGNA.

   The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
   of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
   Romandiola, or Romagna."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      pages 234 and 238._

ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

ROMAN AUGURS.

      See AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR.
ROMAN YEAR.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

      See CAMPAGNA.

ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

      See CATACOMBS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

      See PAPACY,
      and CATHOLICS.

   ----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
   Under the Republic.

      See CIVES ROMANI;
      also, QUIRITES.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
   Under the Empire.

   "While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin
   rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to
   give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of
   Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty
   title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute
   or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large
   numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full
   rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by
   Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;
   but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory
   beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or
   Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …
   The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve
   in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius
   downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the
   facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed
   them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was
   undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as
   hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as
   has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of
   the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally
   communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the
   progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous
   consummation was not effected till fifty years after our
   present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.
   211-217]."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 67, with foot-note._

   ----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

   The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi
   maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival
   celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods
   dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made
   by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed
   on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal
   procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the
   Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was
   but one competition, and that between not more that two
   competitors."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 15. _

{2652}

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

ROMAN COMITIA.

      See COMITIA CENTURIATA,
      AND COMITIA CURIATA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

      See CONSUL.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

      See CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

      See DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.
   Its beginning, and after.

      See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.
   Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.
   Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.
   Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

      See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
   Founded by Otto the Great.
   Later Origin of the Name.

   "The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it
   commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty
   of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the
   creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well
   as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles
   [Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)
   upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about
   the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which
   professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in
   many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we
   reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;
   or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,
   Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its
   character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the
   spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in
   spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the
   Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held
   a less important place in his mind and his administration. …
   It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not
   only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle
   among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of
   Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with
   Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and
   culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of
   Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to
   the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,
   under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there
   is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the
   contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous
   Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year
   of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by
   Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
   successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's
   time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries
   indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title
   many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be
   in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever
   since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive
   sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not
   ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with
   that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It
   may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less
   injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to
   use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby
   wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties
   of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe
   that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with
   the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and
   substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn
   already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more
   technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
   of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was
   never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its
   beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose
   practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of
   Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably
   two centuries later."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note._

   Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of
   Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of
   the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of
   John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king
   of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial
   coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty
   years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,
   and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did
   not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,
   by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and
   to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of
   Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor
   suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city
   all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government
   to the pope as his viceroy.

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1._

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
      GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
      and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.
   Rise of the College of Electors.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
   Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
   The Great Interregnum.
   Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.
   Its character.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.
   Its end.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

      See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

      See GENS.

ROMAN FETIALES.

      See FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

      See INDICTIONS.

{2653}

ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

   "Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a
   science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as
   to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law
   is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and
   concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to
   students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students
   of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all
   other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific
   construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious
   example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific
   achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here
   understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,
   criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with
   jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private
   Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and
   criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the
   writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions
   of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they
   are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible
   fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of
   Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or
   German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially
   Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole
   libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.
   They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully
   informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and
   then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on
   the given data according to the general principles of their
   science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This
   one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more
   than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this
   volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private
   Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no
   tincture of non–legal elements."

      _E. Reich,
      Graeco-Roman Institutions,
      pages 3-13._

   "'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the
   law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written
   documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,
   but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.
   A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from
   the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in
   fact to be found there. They could be announced by any
   jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,
   have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the
   legislature. The responses were not published by their author,
   but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact
   the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called
   Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most
   remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction
   between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should
   be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and
   the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such
   a system would have popularized the law. This was not the
   fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous
   men who were masters of the principles as well as details of
   jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at
   Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the
   English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an
   actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;
   under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to
   which a response might be given, except the skill and
   ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal
   principle could thus be examined, and the result would show
   the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method
   of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.
   The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.
   The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few
   jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,
   and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,
   Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of
   treatises rather than of responses."

      _T. W. Dwight,
      Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."_

   "Apart from the more general political conditions on which
   jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially
   depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law
   lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and
   defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due
   and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the
   objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans
   appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of
   their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the
   former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of
   advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,
   so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of
   both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the
   two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be
   fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the
   spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest
   demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating
   the individual to the interest of the whole further than any
   state before or since has done, only did and only could do so
   by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling
   liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In
   permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A
   contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but
   where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so
   all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor
   debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown
   towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in
   presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the
   most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the
   bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of
   right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so
   pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were
   foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no
   symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was
   not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious
   ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could
   not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain
   which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of
   years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,
   which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by
   humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;
   more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was
   that series of living entombments which the poor man saw
   yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the
   greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the
   fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a
   system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and
   of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned
   and still at the present day reign unadulterated and
   unmodified."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1)._

{2654}

   "Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it
   is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient
   inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and
   property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational
   methods by which person and property may be secured with least
   inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come
   after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for
   themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the
   requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar
   cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those
   direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have
   simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
      page 209._

   "In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in
   the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman
   Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the
   sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority
   was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's
   esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still
   clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was
   not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states
   it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and
   method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community
   somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius
   gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its
   intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent
   virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised
   mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a
   good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as
   ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the
   Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the
   dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the
   Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not
   hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of
   the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English
   practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In
   the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and
   judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton
   copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the
   Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing
   local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet
   the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the
   existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was
   said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was
   always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.
   'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'
   Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually
   enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their
   exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under
   such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority
   should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for
   practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be
   exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually
   administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in
   accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight
   of."

      _Sir F. Pollock,
      Oxford Lectures,
      pages 30-32._

   "In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for
   example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of
   Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for
   example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,
   though not descended from the Roman, has been closely
   assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.
   Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental
   Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much
   of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived
   from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman
   Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the
   order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates
   the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by
   the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large
   portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a
   smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately
   from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor
   has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the
   positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical
   language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the
   language of the international law or morality which those
   nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the
   philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity
   with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their
   writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that
   source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account
   of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal
   instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of
   mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman
   law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The
   great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or
   technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely
   technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of
   that system; in their command of its principles; in the
   readiness with which they recall, and the facility and
   certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own
   opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of
   two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The
   permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,
   'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the
   remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in
   the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical
   writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in
   explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to
   deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,
   and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those
   qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'
   And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our
   science, all results depend on the possession of leading
   principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the
   greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims
   of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of
   their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence
   and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate
   intercourse.
{2655}
   Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which
   is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be
   said without exaggeration that they calculate with their
   ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring
   the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see
   before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and
   all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case
   were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.
   Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact
   distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be
   fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly
   ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see
   a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by
   which it is determined; and in the facility with which they
   pass from the general to the particular and the particular to
   the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of
   this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency
   ('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they
   are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is
   so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends
   to the same end."

      _J. Austin,
      Lectures on Jurisprudence,
      volume 3, pages 358-361._

   "A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did
   not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political
   origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France
   still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the
   theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more
   strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of
   her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first
   quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with
   the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also
   the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.
   Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,
   in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The
   unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based
   on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,
   requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who
   administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In
   German territories the privileged class of civilians were in
   the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since
   1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a
   foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.
   Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been
   tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the
   administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a
   vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign
   employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians
   prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous
   Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the
   scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully
   acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the
   present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who
   maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government
   quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly
   in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.
   England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the
   interests of English liberty to confide the making and
   interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of
   jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless
   you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the
   bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of
   civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on
   the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are
   not decided according to former judgments given in similar
   cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical
   speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law
   and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman
   Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken
   completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the
   English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to
   confiding their law to their judges. English common law is
   judge-made law."

      _E. Reich,
      Graeco-Roman Institutions,
      pages 62-63._

      See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;
      and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

ROMAN LEGION.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

ROMAN PEACE.

   The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal
   dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of
   these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced
   throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare
   had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been
   sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared
   with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down
   to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the
   encomiums it has received."

      _J. Fiske,
      American Political Ideas viewed from the
      Standpoint of Universal History,
      lecture 2._

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

      See AUGURS.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

      See CONSUL.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

      See PROCONSUL.

ROMAN QUESTION, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

   "Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as
   'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,
   and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England
   protected by the king's peace. These were called
   Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.
   Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from
   the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The
   Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in
   Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and
   Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district
   of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented
   a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in
   later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of
   traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to
   other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,
   which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of
   Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond
   Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also
   called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which
   the road from London to Dover passes is known as
   Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …
   Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,
   or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that
   the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never
   became a true Roman road."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 13._

{2656}

   "In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made
   throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of
   England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that
   time in England four great roads protected by the King's
   Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two
   crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,
   Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.
   These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known
   as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high
   privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,
   not in the local court, where local influence might interfere
   with the administration of justice, but before the king's own
   officers."

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      volume 2: The Four Roman Ways._

      See, also, WATLING STREET.

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

      See
      ÆMILIAN WAY;
      APPIAN WAY;
      AURELIAN ROAD:
      CASSIAN ROAD;
      POSTUMIAN ROAD;
      and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

      See SENATE, ROMAN.

ROMAN VESTALS.

      See VESTAL VIRGINS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

   There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans
   in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first
   one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,
   from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19
   feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with
   ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second
   fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth
   to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of
   earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was
   strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes
   called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."
   Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the
   wild tribes of Caledonia.

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      volume 2, page 88-94._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 66-67._

ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

      See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

ROMANIA, The Empire of.

   The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the
   Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having
   the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the
   Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of
   Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin
   of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than
   a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at
   Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,
   taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage
   captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a
   capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and
   all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to
   an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined
   to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his
   sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,
   was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on
   attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through
   the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and
   perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,
   wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,
   accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then
   the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was
   elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his
   death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.
   "John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his
   empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of
   Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the
   empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of
   France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining
   his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling
   the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for
   example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the
   cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was
   fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At
   length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the
   empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,
   and put an end to the Latin power, without the change
   appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the
   walls of the city."

      See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4._

   In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained
   his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public
   buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined
   into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in
   whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 61._

   For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

ROMANS, King of the.

   Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German
   emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained
   from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had
   gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of
   the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King
   of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The
   King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy
   Roman Empire in embryo.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
   coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
   Emperor taken immediately after the election."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1._

ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

   Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

   Romanus II., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.

   Romanus III., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.

   Romanus IV., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.

{2656a}
{2656b}

A Logical Outline of Roman History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Physical or material. (orange)
Social and political. (green)
Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

Geographical position. (Orange)

   Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established
   their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the
   Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the
   Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were,
   at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and
   energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)

   The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus
   of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred
   blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with
   them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and
   superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was
   jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received
   into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than
   privileges with it.

   By what impulse of character, or through what favor of
   circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew
   masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But
   as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its
   battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices
   and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a
   struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic
   politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic.
B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.

   Before that contest came to the surface of history, the
   oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its
   early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their
   place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely
   aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for
   equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the
   long, significant process of the democratizing of the state
   began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their
   own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected
   by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used
   in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great
   tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly
   wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the
   high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative
   equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with
   the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.
B. C. 264-202. Punic wars
B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

   But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at
   home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars,
   which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians,
   Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south
   Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian
   peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed
   intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island,
   and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic
   to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no
   rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of
   Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily,
   Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern
   Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

Corruption. (brown)

   But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness
   waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the
   streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents
   into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the
   infection of slavery.

Social and Political Degeneration. (green)

   A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been
   driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the
   small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave
   worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of
   law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the
   common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The
   democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to
   them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise
   it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were
   generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian
   ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the
   exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of
   government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts
   and bribes.

B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.
B. C. 90-88. The Social War,
B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

   Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the
   passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty
   of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as
   demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its
   muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps
   something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what
   they did only shook the decaying political fabric and
   unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the
   Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which
   might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of
   nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late,
   and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social
   War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old
   constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius,
   Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and
   Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.

   By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial
   autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic.
   By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring
   organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire
   which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to
   dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its
   greatness altogether to the effective organization of
   government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions
   and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the
   Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power,
   established authority there, and perfected a radiating
   mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been
   known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be
   madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome
   might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was,
   and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it
   seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative
   system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty
   and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind
   like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to
   think of any different political state.

Christianity. (brown)

   Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century
   of the Empire, spread through and around it like an
   interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits,
   strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But
   when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had
   been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil
   seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the
   Roman world.

A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)

   So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of
   Roman government could no longer bear the increasing
   dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing
   pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in
   the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its
   fall in the West.

A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.

   It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more
   impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued
   centralization of a waning power; and because habit and
   routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western
   world.

A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.

   Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four
   centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it
   restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in
   name.

{2657}

   ----------ROME: Start--------

ROME:
   The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.
   The three tribes of original Romans who formed
   the Patrician order.-
   The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

   "About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber,
   hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream,
   higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter
   group there has been closely associated for at least two
   thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are
   unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this
   much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to
   us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but
   (by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier
   period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in
   Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an
   expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name.
   Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes
   may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only
   dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the
   earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been
   preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the
   amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the
   Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in
   other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which
   Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold
   division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact
   that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law,
   regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and
   tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a
   part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,'
   early lost its original signification of number. … That the
   Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave
   their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must
   have substantially determined the nationality of the united
   community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be
   affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our
   assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The
   second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one
   consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more
   credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take
   precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding
   Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the
   'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban
   settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and
   Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their
   stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from
   the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia),
   which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine
   hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a
   festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any
   other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity,
   and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the
   other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these
   settlements the later Rome arose."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a
   confederation of several cities, each one of which was
   attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the
   centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks
   met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the
   fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an
   Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse
   elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were
   numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any
   other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one
   knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome
   was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There
   are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the
   ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman
   families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect
   of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the
   beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It
   could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the
   Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the
   Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several
   quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one
   of these nations."

      _Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 5, chapter 2._

   "The whole history of the world has been determined by the
   geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of
   the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one
   another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site
   marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of
   Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the
   junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had
   the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
   Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
   Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
   Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
   hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
   so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
   those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
   terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
   or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
   more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
   Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
   history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
   was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
   men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
   communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same
   kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a
   few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise
   out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other
   union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into
   being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in
   its effects on all later time with the union of those two
   small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was
   Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol.
   the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The
   hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the
   dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of
   Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the
   earth.
{2658}
   Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean
   Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather
   till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three
   hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth
   was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within
   the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any
   precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we
   have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more
   prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a
   thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain;
   these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original
   Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but
   themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in
   its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman,
   housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only
   could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his
   children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which,
   just like slaves, they could be released only by his own
   special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres,
   patricians, a name round which such proud associations
   gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole
   Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst
   of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which
   they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The
   incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first
   period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian,
   admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level
   with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the
   Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the
   Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now
   formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of
   Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which
   have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it
   must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or
   whole houses to be received into any of the three original
   tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small,
   and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of
   non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by
   which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in
   the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which
   takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does
   not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no
   limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus
   the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller,
   the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger,
   till those who once formed the whole people put on step by
   step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of
   the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this
   time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility,
   smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their
   possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly
   by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute
   which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of
   nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original
   people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient
   tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome,
   arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is
   a history of incorporation. The first union between the
   Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the
   process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the
   Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that
   union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for
   ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of
   Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt
   that the territory of several neighbouring towns was
   incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people,
   whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own
   lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans.
   They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any
   other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and
   served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the
   sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had
   no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in
   its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices
   of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had
   their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred
   rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman
   People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman
   history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage,
   perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were
   admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed
   among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin
   town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome.
   Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families
   which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as
   noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of
   the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more
   part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which
   looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we
   first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second
   nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation,
   shut out from all political power, subject in many things to
   practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a
   subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the
   better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation
   to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      page 278-278, and 285-292._

      See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.

ROME:
   Early character and civilization of the Romans.
   Opposing theories.

   "That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow
   peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian
   dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to
   her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,
   has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what
   launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what
   rendered that career so different from those of ordinary
   conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these
   questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a
   peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says
   Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state
   of opinion on this subject. …
{2659}
   But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to
   be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves
   originally formed by the influence of external circumstances
   on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained
   they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not
   indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans
   to the special qualities of their race, we should not be
   solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms.
   … What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and
   her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should
   have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their
   having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than
   their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that
   in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and
   not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect
   over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of
   the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when
   Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head
   and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in
   his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army
   will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of
   intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due
   to the primitive inventors of military organization and
   military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of
   comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and
   undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization
   from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of
   collective as they have of individual strength in war; they
   only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the
   prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of
   combining their force by organization, so as to make their
   numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form
   regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the
   word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the
   species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first
   canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so
   far as they relate to war? Their special character is that
   they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline.
   Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus,
   Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not
   prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and
   disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of
   discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution
   by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory
   against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to
   say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the
   great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came
   military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the
   Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race,
   we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the
   plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident
   that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome
   commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and
   country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works
   of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the
   Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca
   Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very
   disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca
   Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population,
   of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization.
   Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision
   entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive
   the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is
   commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which
   may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history
   in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea
   of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their
   conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the
   Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy
   is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of
   industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents
   her industry and commerce as having been developed
   subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact.
   Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population
   and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in
   cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her
   what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a
   meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river,
   yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of
   commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians
   were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the
   proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The
   institutions which we find existing in historic times must
   have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of
   patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us.
   And these politics, with their parties and sections of
   parties, their shades of political character, the sustained
   interest which they imply in political objects, their various
   devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community
   of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and
   thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the
   quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and
   commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn
   into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military
   spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of
   territories acquired in war, would then become the great
   occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce
   would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the
   members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had
   become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained
   certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and
   aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their
   accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as
   well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial
   exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his
   contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early
   times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to
   study national character, will believe that the Roman
   character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by
   war combined with business."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The Greatness of the Romans
      (Contemporary Review, May, 1878)._

   A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and
   early social state of the Romans is presented in the
   following: "The Italians were much more backward than the
   Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to
   Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece
   is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the
   civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so
   many channels.
{2660}
   Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its
   inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental
   country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than
   by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which
   characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose
   earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother
   country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a
   hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk
   of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a
   time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born
   men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and
   settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a
   fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders
   in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less
   intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic
   character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a
   fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to
   form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for
   its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of
   the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris
   and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the
   air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may
   be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous
   literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was
   to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of
   repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more
   like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain
   rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers
   for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of
   a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against
   him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there
   was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction
   whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The
   deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and
   power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals,
   ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his
   ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple
   lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient
   worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what
   free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised
   without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has
   strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical
   heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong
   poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or
   legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and
   prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of
   Mother Shipton."

      _G. A. Simcox,
      A History of Latin Literature,
      volume 1, introduction._

ROME:
   Struggle with the Etruscans.

      See ETRUSCANS.

ROME: B. C. 753.
   Era of the foundation of the city.

   "Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient
   historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era.
   Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been
   followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius,
   to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher,
   to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro,
   however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted
   by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus
   Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge,
   Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists:
   Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally
   adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr.
   Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy,
   that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      page 2._

ROME: B. C. 753-510.
   The legendary period of the kings.
   Credibility of the Roman annals.
   Probable Etruscan domination.

   "It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the
   narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to
   the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary
   materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into
   writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the
   arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the
   account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to
   ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the
   burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in
   the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly
   perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was
   probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120
   years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years
   after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that
   these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many
   generations—began to be entered in the registers of the
   pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as
   respects both its external attestation and its internal
   probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr,
   indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus
   and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on
   the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and
   poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the
   mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting
   on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are
   real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in
   the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to
   support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of
   his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of
   Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than
   Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa
   Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings,
   except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the
   reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on
   the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus
   are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much
   of the history seems to be in the form of legendary
   explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the
   Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of
   their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin
   of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The
   circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named
   Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the
   epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that
   the names were real.
{2661}
   Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely
   representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of
   Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The
   leading feature of the government during this period is that
   its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election
   of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same
   manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were
   appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once
   fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of
   succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings,
   whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to
   whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as
   succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The
   predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal
   government was, that the power of the kings was limited by
   constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the
   Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed
   in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by
   the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally,
   however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

      _Sir G. C. Lewis,
      Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History,
      chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1)._

   "Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence;
   we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they
   left behind them in the Republican constitution which
   followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied
   by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not
   only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but
   even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we
   have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social
   position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain
   vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined
   magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and
   duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the
   spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but
   we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which
   is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in
   time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has
   ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of
   appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature,
   is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in
   technical terms."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
      pages 74-75._

   "The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent
   constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its
   first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings
   once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the
   people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an
   ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content
   with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories
   with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of
   Tarquinius Superbus."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 2._

   The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are
   as follows:
   Romulus, B. C. 753-717;
   Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673;
   Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642;
   Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617;
   Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579;
   Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535;
   Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

   According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted
   inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within
   its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws
   and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for
   these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained
   by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he
   arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in
   honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the
   Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their
   wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show,
   the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off
   such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate
   war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women
   concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands
   and satisfied to remain with them.

      _Livy,
      History,
      chapter 9._

   "We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover
   some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he
   supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of
   intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on
   the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the
   Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal
   hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage
   was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies
   at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a
   method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful
   utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the
   customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the
   pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 2._

   "With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a
   marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the
   last three kings not only wear a more historical air than
   those of the first four, but they describe something like a
   transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of
   these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first
   time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The
   low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately
   laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the
   massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to
   Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves
   with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a
   powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and
   Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to
   kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in
   the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with
   the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a
   sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic
   Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile
   and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult
   to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this
   phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during
   this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords.
   Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the
   Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of
   discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability
   will the answer be found until the lost key to their language
   has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic
   tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is
   certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north
   or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves
   masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who
   dwelt there.
{2662}
   Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as
   far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to
   subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they
   made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by
   sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power
   encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition
   of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come
   from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else
   than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is
   therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a
   proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan
   lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in
   wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of
   remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant
   that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward
   splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive
   simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are
   represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a
   commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city
   itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the
   authors of important internal changes. They are represented as
   favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician
   families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing,
   a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Newman,
      Regal Rome._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of the Kings of Rome._

ROME: B. C. 510.
   Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud.
   The story from Livy.

   Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of
   Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought
   about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne.
   "Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had
   not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to
   his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him
   Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by
   him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had
   about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he
   knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this
   end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were
   so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him
   to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he
   banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the
   number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means
   (for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being
   rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any
   into their place, thinking that the people would lightly
   esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call
   them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his
   own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or
   unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while
   he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with
   Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter
   in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in
   all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a
   city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the
   spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of
   gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter
   on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only
   of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that
   should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud.
   … By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there
   was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name
   Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing
   that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how
   the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State
   (and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged
   it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him
   which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he
   feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a
   prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the
   Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion
   should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a
   little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what
   manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous
   a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the
   woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own
   hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and
   her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil
   house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat
   silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she
   slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping
   with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling
   the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword
   and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud,
   with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will
   suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And
   when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form
   of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought
   only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been
   done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered
   with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things
   happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a
   thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age
   for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them
   stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one
   should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest
   Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome.
   There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the
   people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the
   young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours
   with which the King wore them out in the building of temples
   and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time
   past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now
   come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also
   he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been
   slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the
   dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the
   people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there
   should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with
   his wife and his children should be banished.
{2663}
   After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the
   army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled
   from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As
   for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates
   shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that
   is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but
   Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own,
   was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being
   thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus
   for his colleague."

      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy;
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 8-9 (volume 1)._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of the Kings of Rome,
      chapter 10._

ROME: B. C. 509.
   The establishment of the Republic.
   The Valerian Laws.

   "However much the history of the expulsion of the last
   Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with
   anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its
   leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power
   was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when
   a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was
   nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by
   two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or
   judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules
   are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The
   collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently
   most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in
   their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was
   not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each
   consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and
   wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king;
   and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place
   from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the
   command of the army, and the other the administration of
   justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of
   the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time
   in the province of the other.

      See CONSUL, ROMAN.

   … This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution
   of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of
   the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally
   undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in
   reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They
   ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term,
   but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their
   office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the
   term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their
   official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier
   times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral
   responsibility."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if
   the mass of the people is not led on by some superior
   intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority
   the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which
   in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less
   military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged
   the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting
   to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found,
   at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may,
   during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the
   head of the state, probably from less pure motives than
   Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement
   which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius
   Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of
   events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation
   made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms
   founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls.
   The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of
   transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we
   may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the
   constitution was effected in a similar way. In important
   historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the
   absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar
   objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial
   constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must
   renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to
   me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the
   kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is
   represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much
   more."-

      _W. Ihne,
      Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
      page 61._

   "The republic seems to have been first regularly established
   by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover
   little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest
   traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius
   was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius
   Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of
   his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the
   election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a
   suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take
   sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power.
   But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office
   with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended
   to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the
   danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The
   first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the
   gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should
   dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of
   Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life
   of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should
   be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people.
   This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      CONSUL, ROMAN;
      COMITIA CURIATA;
      COMITIA CENTURIATA;
      CENSORS;
      QUÆSTORS, ROMAN;
      SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 494-492.
   The first secession of the Plebs.
   Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles.
   Original and acquired power of the Tribunes.
   The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

   "The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome]
   opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how
   the internal history is affected by the wars without. The
   debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the
   field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen
   army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician
   families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the
   Valerii.
{2664}
   Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the
   distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his
   campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation
   of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius
   Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a
   proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of
   the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh
   of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the
   gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a
   station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to
   go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At
   last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales:
   they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own.
   This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. …
   The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had
   done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history
   of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which
   would one day spring up into the imperial government of the
   Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were
   clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important
   element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of
   the consuls."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 3._

   "The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from
   all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could
   hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally
   nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who
   possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any
   sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the
   people had no military force at his disposal with which to
   inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the
   high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people,
   than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise
   functions specially directed against the governing class. … To
   strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in
   physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the
   terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed
   under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared
   to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever
   attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their
   functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be
   killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8._

   "The tribune had no political authority. Not being a
   magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries
   [see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no
   proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the
   beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in
   common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician
   city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was
   not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the
   plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in
   Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized,
   having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude,
   which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its
   inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years
   we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected
   powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the
   people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the
   senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later
   they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians;
   they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of
   the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other
   power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the
   day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever
   touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing
   shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune
   convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could
   dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune
   placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the
   tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire.
   If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his
   hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against
   a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As
   soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait
   long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in
   any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in
   their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not
   religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The
   assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not
   appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of
   an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It
   was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of
   the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True,
   these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the
   general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and
   passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of
   their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried
   plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double
   series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians,
   plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the
   senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were
   two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of
   each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost
   nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city,
   nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not
   enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly
   of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even
   understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. …
   The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body
   politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own.
   The duality of the Roman population became from day to day
   more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie
   between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were
   careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left
   to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate
   them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the
   inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of
   Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should
   never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs
   were under control; there was no longer a double power; in
   presence of the enemy Rome became one."

      _N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 4, chapter 7._

{2665}

   It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in
   number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law
   which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under
   the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for
   the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These
   aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their
   jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were
   settled by fines."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of the Roman Republic
      (abridged by Bryant and Hendy),
      chapter 7._

   "Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two
   plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the
   patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple
   (Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between
   the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the
   plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already
   a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is
   to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of
   ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings
   in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of
   police-officers."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 3._

   The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were
   elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C.
   These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office
   was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91
   B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had
   certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian
   ædiles a board of police and market administration, having
   oversight also of the religious games.

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      Appendix A._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir G. C. Lewis,
      Credibility of Early Roman History,
      chapter 12, part 1._

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 16._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

ROME: B. C. 493.
   League with the Latins.

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

ROME: B. C. 489-450.
   Volscian Wars.

   The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians
   stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450)
   and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The
   legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name
   was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian
   town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern
   critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it
   only a beautiful romance.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy,
      chapter 7. _

ROME: B. C. 472-471.-
   The Publilian Law of Volero.
   Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

   "Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C.
   472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was
   provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be
   elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the
   Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in
   the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of
   Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting
   off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people
   was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia
   tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as
   factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and
   functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The
   circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the
   Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the
   attempt was made by the patricians to change the original
   character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to
   the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the
   assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of
   making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a
   contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the
   comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the
   Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia
   tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now
   admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of
   meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian
   comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their
   representatives, the right of discussing and settling their
   own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions
   [plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These
   resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they
   had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still
   they were the formal expression of the will of a great
   majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not
   easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on History of Rome,
      lecture 20._

ROME: B. C. 466-463.
   The Plague.

   In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were
   so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and
   cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the
   Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and
   beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable
   that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out
   in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time.
   The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence,
   and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the
   disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth
   part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all
   classes."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 11._

ROME: B. C. 458.
   Conquest of the Æqui.

   "Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci
   are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour
   down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening
   Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of
   these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with
   Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the
   Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the
   mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very
   characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the
   danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed
   upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber,
   when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is
   made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough,
   conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

      _R. F. Horton.
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy,
      chapter 9._

{2666}

ROME: B. C. 456.
   The Icilian Law.
   The early process of legislation illustrated.
   Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

   "The process of legislation in early times has been preserved
   to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the
   account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is
   that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an
   interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

   This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a
   brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems
   unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should
   have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a
   record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once
   restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief
   prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the
   proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says
   Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and
   the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree
   for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the
   people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled
   them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate
   on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys.
   X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was
   passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the
   consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under
   which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation,
   and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state
   acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The
   formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus.
   The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early
   times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a
   strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign
   assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly
   can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul.
   If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse
   to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp.
   Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not
   think of doing so save on the recommendation of their
   authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely
   dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in
   their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate
   treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their
   veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as
   a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is
   the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these
   means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the
   whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have
   the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new
   tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of
   the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs
   itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again
   introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may
   bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public
   business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who
   have the power of secession in their hands. In practice,
   however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield
   before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their
   yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the
   plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its
   acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the
   part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is
   still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the
   question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance
   in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is
   disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam
   senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting
   on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and
   expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the
   vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the
   consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to
   the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia
   centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly
   threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation
   in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is
   recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to
   assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the
   recommendation of the senate."

      _J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
      Plebeian Privilege at Rome
      (English Historical Review, April, 1886)._

   On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted
   Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 451-449.
   The Terentilian Law.
   The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.

   Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the
   plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the
   exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed,
   and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This
   could only be done by writing them down and making them
   public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the
   tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to
   appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing
   the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the
   patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which
   would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The
   contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted,
   according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means
   of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were
   made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After
   a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was
   passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men,
   being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be
   appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into
   a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be
   suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government
   and administration of the commonwealth during the time that
   they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian
   magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and
   the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with
   unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in
   good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. …
   Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of
   their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it
   insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with
   wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their
   legislation, met with universal approval. They published on
   ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these
   laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were
   declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the
   first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the
   traditional story is simple and intelligible."
{2667}
   The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by
   modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs
   were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius
   Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom
   he could control, and then established a reign of terror which
   surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate
   when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects
   itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of
   its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered
   themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of
   laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 9 and 10._

   "The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all
   law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost
   reverence. But only fragments remain."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 11._

    "The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the
    world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement
    to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law
    consistently employed language which implied that the body of
    their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and
    therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one
    particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables
    were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman
    jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of
    English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief
    reasons why the development of their system differed from the
    development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with
    the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost
    importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of
    which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a
    sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds
    were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not
    widely distant from one another. They appeared under
    exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our
    knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on
    the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all
    made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere,
    not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but
    similar in point of the relative progress of each community.
    Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on
    tablets and published to the people take the place of usages
    deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. …
    The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the
    discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true
    that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of
    legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession
    of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of
    those popular movements which began to be universal in the
    western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have
    added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the
    main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed
    tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a
    better security for its accurate preservation, than the
    memory of a number of persons however strengthened by
    habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the
    Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies
    which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded
    against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also
    against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the
    national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an
    enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman
    people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in
    civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was
    published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged
    from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation
    and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

      _H. S. Maine,
      Ancient Law,
      chapter 1._

ROME: B. C. 449.
   The Valerio-Horatian Laws.

   On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B.
   C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being
   elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws,
   known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law
   (the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal
   from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made
   the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes,
   authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 10._

   See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of
   these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and
   Hortensian laws.

      See, ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 445-400.
   The Canuleian Law.
   Creation of the Consular Tribunes.
   Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

   "The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their
   privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people,
   and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are
   meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to
   commence another to gain political equality. … Two things
   maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders:
   the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians,
   and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who
   formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the
   'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the
   abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his
   colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for
   political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages
   between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a
   third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The
   plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for
   the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the
   consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and
   the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively
   patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality
   proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the
   legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two
   orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed
   number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all
   patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In
   spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up
   the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the
   patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The
   constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of
   plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none
   obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this
   office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated
   consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year
   in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government.
{2668}
   These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of
   a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the
   Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet
   liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the
   poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was
   not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and
   raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office,
   prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a
   cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the
   tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought
   protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled
   the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed
   to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of
   the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act
   of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be
   demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus,
   sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius.
   Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at
   that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have
   been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged.
   Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the
   military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian
   candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him
   the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of
   Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can
   be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of
   concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular
   hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following
   the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There
   was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus
   Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months.
   These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that
   the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of
   discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though
   conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator.
   To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the
   tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to
   prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the
   majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this
   day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and
   few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new
   advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing
   the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white
   robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the
   patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue
   canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of
   penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing
   the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia
   centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they
   revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should
   be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of
   domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They
   miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise
   the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented
   to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible
   to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands
   of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian
   families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414
   to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians.
   A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it,
   was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard
   of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular
   cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years
   the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician
   reaction produced another against it which ended in the
   thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An
   Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the
   agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three
   of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace
   to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410
   three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was
   established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the
   larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes
   out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus
   obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and
   the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families
   while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all
   desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to
   Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external
   foes."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      volume 1, pages 231-239._

ROME: B. C. 406-396.
   The Veientine wars.
   Proposed removal to Veii.

   "Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams
   which meet a little below the city and run down into the
   Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the
   ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little
   streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are
   edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of
   affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land
   above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of
   Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the
   walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In
   the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is
   said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and
   we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render
   this not impossible."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

   "Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in
   periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had
   come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted
   for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a
   captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not
   the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus,
   the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and
   fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took
   up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and
   how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this
   and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic,
   and a beautiful epic."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 4._

{2669}

   At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that
   half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city,
   and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A
   little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens,
   having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge,
   were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their
   former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to
   history.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapters 13 and 15._

ROME: B. C. 390-347.
   Invasions by the Gauls.
   Destruction of the city.

   "Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a
   great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri].
   Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the
   Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of
   time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael
   who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by
   Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new
   homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that
   large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after
   this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the
   fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair
   land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one
   swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties
   of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne;
   Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian
   Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who
   have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena
   Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich
   plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which
   lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except
   Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia
   Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way
   before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no
   more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines
   into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that
   country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The
   common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took
   this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and
   therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been
   thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their
   king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king."
   The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little
   stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and
   were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and
   found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators,
   sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew,
   because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard
   by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had
   withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære.
   After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to
   the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to
   overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they
   retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or
   weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans
   cherished many legends connected with the siege of the
   Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the
   sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B.
   C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into
   Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of
   Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For
   four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of
   them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B.
   C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the
   Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept
   Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured
   southwards, and disappear from history."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 14 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 4._

      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy,
      chapters 13-14._

ROME: B. C. 376-367.
   The Licinian Laws.

   "C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the
   Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three
   bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian
   Rogations. These were:

   I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum
   of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal,
   and the remainder paid off in three successive years.

   II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly
   320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public
   pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of
   smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.

   III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should
   always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a
   Plebeian."

   The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of
   these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which
   long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed
   by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their
   formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular
   demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations
   became Laws.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1)._

   "Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of
   the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but
   seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order
   from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius
   was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the
   time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The
   plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having
   the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that
   they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a
   demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper
   the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the
   creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would
   have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the
   discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they
   carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls
   without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians
   continued severed from one another, the patricians drew
   together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth
   demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors
   their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals,
   from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his
   measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred
   but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly
   opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other
   hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the
   plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration,
   Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with
   a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians
   the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books.
{2670}
   "It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the
   consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and
   Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have
   been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and
   upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the
   consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally
   violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of
   relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments,
   were violated from the first. No general recovery of the
   public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera
   ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of
   land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and
   jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to
   embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of
   land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager
   privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards
   convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts
   met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment
   and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon
   reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or
   installment of principal could effectually remove. … These
   laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question
   or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the
   evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians
   into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do
   was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate.
   Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor
   on]y."

      _A. Stephenson,
      Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _S. Eliot,
      The Liberty of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ROME: B. C. 366.
   Institution of the Prætorship.

   "By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office
   of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the
   consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the
   colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as
   the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the
   same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors
   and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling
   the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees.
   … Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was
   annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the
   jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction
   was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was
   always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign
   prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the
   two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two
   new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular
   government of those provinces, and still later on two more
   were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of
   annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until
   the legislation of Sulla."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 5._

      See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 343-290.
   The Samnite Wars.

   When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy,
   and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the
   question which of the two peoples should be masters of the
   peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the
   middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two
   rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans
   were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought
   three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of
   which the Samnite name had been practically erased from
   history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between
   the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen
   of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans,
   and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them
   in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First
   Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no
   definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end
   rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble
   between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman
   annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one
   on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other
   historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed
   down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an
   interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had
   conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from
   confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were
   quite ready to measure swords again with their more important
   rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war
   which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304).
   In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and
   the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too
   hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them
   and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy
   one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history
   ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two
   consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C.
   321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to
   surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and
   other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with
   Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their
   armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the
   Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those
   who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to
   receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment
   of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and,
   although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the
   final result of the war which they were forced to resume was
   disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate
   fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them
   of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to
   acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased
   lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C.
   298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on
   their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations.
   Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295),
   won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied
   Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his
   colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same
   name.]

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

{2671}

   The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer
   and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader,
   Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison
   under the Capitoline.

      _J. Michelet,
      History of the Roman Republic,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapters 19, and 21-24._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 6._

ROME: B. C. 340.
   The Publilian Laws.

   "In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian
   Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his
   Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and
   carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining
   privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law
   enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must
   be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the
   principle already established, that the Resolutions of the
   Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third
   provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries
   or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the
   Curies."

      _G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 20 (volume 1)._

   See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the
   preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian
   laws.

      ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 339-338.
   Subjugation of the Latins.
   Grant of pseudo-citizenship.
   The real concession of the next century and its effects.

   A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors,
   the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and
   other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a
   century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493,
   according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the
   league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting
   successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the
   Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the
   greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their
   arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost
   all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to
   win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak
   after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be
   admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government
   of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly
   refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples
   ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was
   fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have
   owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian
   consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted
   himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and
   then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain.
   The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some
   with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus,
   isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome,
   the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became
   gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old
   Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by
   means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in
   the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say,
   they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their
   laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said
   in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded
   by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled
   with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain
   what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the
   right of Roman citizenship without including in the political
   privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of
   marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not
   counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived
   the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This
   title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it
   had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is
   this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this
   pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed,
   and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily
   discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of
   the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and
   without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from
   them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with
   this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different
   cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their
   magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door
   which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman
   city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in
   his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the
   expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this
   right was complete and without reserve; suffrage,
   magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were
   included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor,
   wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to
   obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it.
   One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found
   that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily,
   Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population
   increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But
   the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became
   Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from
   which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more
   and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had
   to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill
   up."

      _N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 5, chapter 2._

ROME: B. C. 326-304?
   Abolition of personal slavery for debt.

      See DEBT, ROMAN LAW CONCERNING.

ROME: B. C. 312.
   The censorship of Appius Claudius.
   His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes.
   The building of the Appian Way.

   "Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, …
   was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered,
   with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of
   filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate
   since the last nominations to that body by the preceding
   Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from
   certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices
   or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the
   beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or
   for that of his faction, through any support he could command,
   now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators,
   amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as
   such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free,
   much less to be worthy of any political advancement.
{2672}
   The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than
   in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius
   Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague,
   was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the
   Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and
   those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still
   keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the
   Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of
   the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At
   this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the
   Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as
   promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was
   not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large
   portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way
   [Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our
   day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as
   to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an
   author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius
   Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the
   partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to
   lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was
   employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private
   secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and
   an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual
   concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of
   instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these
   subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of
   the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal
   proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what
   day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form,
   they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial
   tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to
   copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much
   less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published.
   … But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether
   he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the
   manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a
   desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which
   ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his
   discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to
   various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the
   Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his
   disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. …
   The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in
   the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius
   Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius
   Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the
   Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."

      _S. Eliot,
      The Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

ROME: B. C. 300.
   The Ogulnian Law.

   In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in
   the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party
   against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes.
   Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their
   adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in
   the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician
   leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians
   upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the
   Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new
   incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added,
   thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by
   the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to
   its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the
   priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened
   to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has
   done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate
   from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did
   not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance
   between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was
   rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to
   the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."

      _S. Eliot,
      Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2). _

ROME: B. C. 295-191.
   Conquest of the Cisalpine Gauls.

   Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side
   of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again
   entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the
   Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with
   Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria,
   under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the
   vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at
   Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at
   one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but
   in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and
   inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They
   also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to
   negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of
   Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race
   was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were
   established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the
   Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic
   territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake
   and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty
   years, during which time the Romans were strengthening
   themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at
   Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick
   settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the
   Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards
   across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic
   coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being
   prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort
   to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were
   beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of
   Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost
   totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely
   subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were
   likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied,
   and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule,
   except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued
   and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal
   independence as allies of Rome.
{2673}
   But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after,
   interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic
   country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the
   Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony
   of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the
   inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged,
   but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of
   Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The
   war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears
   to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the
   Cisalpine Gauls.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapters 12-13;
      book 4. chapter 5;
      book 5, chapter 7._

ROME: B. C. 286.
   The last Secession of the Plebs.
   The Hortensian Laws.

   "About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of
   Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had
   lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped
   in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last
   Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded
   in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several
   laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably
   an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven
   but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer
   citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that
   which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting
   that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole
   Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law
   passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the
   Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator,
   after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his
   Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered
   ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the
   People."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._

   "It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs
   advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private
   corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign
   populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to
   legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and
   qualifications, long before they were invested with this
   absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to
   the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the
   plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is
   the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449],
   the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the
   dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340].
   Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words
   which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some
   modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty
   by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and
   Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and
   Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to
   the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view
   appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally
   refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere
   re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their
   authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and
   Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the
   consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the
   patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia
   curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is
   to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius
   Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He
   believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the
   'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere
   blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.'
   … But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a
   foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I
   believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative
   power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the
   known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of
   the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with
   sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German
   historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the
   law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the
   power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de
   facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any
   petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and
   empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate;
   perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right
   of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the
   senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in
   such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its
   vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed
   the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported
   by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to
   be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of
   sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the
   senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture
   that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening
   senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the
   petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi
   Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would
   be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring
   legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which
   formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would
   thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power,
   if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was
   placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of
   Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the
   law of Publilius Philo."

      _J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
      The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome
      (English Historical Review, April, 1886)._

   "With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle
   between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician
   gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the
   patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices
   of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law
   equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of
   people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In
   private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians
   were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the
   children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige
   attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part
   played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and
   by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers
   and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people.
{2674}
   Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second
   struggle between patricians and plebeians was an
   impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been
   expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory
   of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for
   its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened,
   the history of the republic might have been different. As it
   was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes,
   assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to
   play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians
   and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly
   plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at
   the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise
   of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the
   magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one
   hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in
   the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the
   first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the
   people a reality, it was already too late."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 2, chapter 1._

ROME: B. C. 282-275.
   War with Tarentum and Pyrrhus.

   The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was
   completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to
   the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of
   which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in
   Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman
   aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the
   supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic
   party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid,
   and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the
   adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from
   the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the
   autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and
   Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a
   powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed
   foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants.
   The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It
   was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian
   phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the
   huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory,
   but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at
   once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms
   with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat
   upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come
   of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as
   ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army
   over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with
   the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of
   the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege,
   to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his
   success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in
   Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years,
   had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of
   Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and
   Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his
   army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was
   ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a
   tile which a woman flung down upon his head.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

   In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of
   Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over
   under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the
   Adriatic side of the same promontory.

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 36-37 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapters 14-17._

ROME: B. C. 275.
   Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic.
   Differing relations of the subject communities to the
   sovereign state.
   Roman citizenship as variously qualified.

   "For the first time Italy was united into one state under the
   sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges
   the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various
   other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping,
   or in other words, what conception of political power is to be
   associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere
   expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably
   belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding
   treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could
   declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with
   it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every
   war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people
   were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and
   the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all
   Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the
   leading community extended no further. But to these rights
   there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty
   that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which
   the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in
   detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition
   to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different
   classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise
   itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was
   possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban
   commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was
   the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far
   into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other,
   but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum,
   a great number of communities more or less remote were
   gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it
   completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably
   extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere,
   eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond,
   Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term
   'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within
   this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had
   not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as
   Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman
   farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either
   altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the
   subject communities the most privileged and most important
   class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few
   of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these,
   with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether
   insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained
   accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous
   communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the
   Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing
   in consequence of new settlements of the same nature.
{2675}
   These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin
   rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman
   rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom
   the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought.
   … The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the
   contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which
   from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and
   parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language
   and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of
   language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants
   of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean
   on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning
   upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as
   compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization
   with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded
   private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of
   inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only
   on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public
   magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently
   from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. …
   The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman
   burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far
   inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise
   without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas
   sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman
   burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally
   autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to
   all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and
   taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as
   their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its
   honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice
   administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by
   the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing
   revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a
   'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor
   was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other
   respects these communities retained their own administration,
   and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. …
   Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were
   subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as
   each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of
   these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the
   Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and
   Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while
   others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably
   approximated to despotism. … The central administration at
   Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its
   supervision and control over the mass of the Italian
   communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of
   the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the
   Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities.
   The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate
   duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired
   domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they
   were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and
   district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the
   necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and
   the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military
   administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the
   south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and
   the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name
   common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati),
   which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that
   of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use
   among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As
   the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in
   law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named
   in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it
   is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played
   an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for
   centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of
   the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in
   the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for
   instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was
   transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga.
   The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by
   Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far
   as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as
   far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus
   become a political unity; it was also in the course of
   becoming a national unity."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ROME: B. C. 264-241.
   The first Punic War.
   Conquest of Sicily.

   "The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a
   time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the
   Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws
   had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer
   citizens had received besides what may be called a large
   dividend in money out of the lands which the state had
   conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state
   domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money
   with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No
   wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our
   'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and
   the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the
   senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily
   upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity
   which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to
   that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion
   of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of
   the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      pages 538-540._

   "The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to
   Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily,
   destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the
   Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and
   blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then,
   driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that
   'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an
   Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,'
   264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made
   to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the
   military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium,
   taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the
   defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.).
{2676}
   The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana
   deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already
   jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the
   Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers
   and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus
   dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their
   purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well
   succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which
   no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the
   fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans
   in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival
   power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the
   recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian
   influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with
   traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and
   plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus
   began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without
   intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole
   period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this
   war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro).
   Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with
   great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama,
   256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea
   until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the
   Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon
   Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they
   should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten
   years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon
   overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage
   rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not
   maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the
   Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine
   Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the
   Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its
   mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take
   possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200
   talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand,
   measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian
   power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under
   Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and
   consolidations of the territories in Spain."

      _W. B. Boyce,
      Introduction to the Study of History,
      period 4, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Polybius,
      Histories,
      book 1._

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage,
      chapters 4-7._

      _A. J. Church,
      The Story of Carthage,
      part 4, chapters 1-3._

      See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ROME: B. C. 218-211.
   The Second Punic War; Hannibal in Italy.
   Cannæ.

   "Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic
   War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the
   Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of
   Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On
   the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain
   under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage
   ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal,
   the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general
   that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between
   Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of
   Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in
   218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land.
   This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history.
   Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with
   Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four
   battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C.
   216."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Outlines of History
      (or General Sketch of European History),
      chapter 3._

   "The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which
   runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven
   back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman
   army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius
   Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river
   of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold
   morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the
   water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and
   driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under
   Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next
   year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south
   towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul,
   Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was
   fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty
   day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were
   surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely
   beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans
   were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius
   Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with
   Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did
   little things against him when he could; so he was called
   'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of
   waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for
   Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was
   always danger that the other Italians would join him against
   Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to
   get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice
   as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ.
   They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all
   their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they
   had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the
   loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ,
   that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome.
   Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman
   colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was
   not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly,
   but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities
   that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger
   army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent
   an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was
   busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops
   to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they
   were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know
   anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for
   more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he
   ought not to want any more troops.
{2677}
   At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he
   could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be
   careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year
   they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town
   that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211
   the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough
   to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of
   falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned
   themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined
   Hannibal began to leave him again."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Dodge,
      Hannibal,
      chapters 11-39._

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 43-47._

      See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 214-146.
   The Macedonian Wars.
   Conquest of Greece.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146; also 280-146.

ROME: B. C. 211.
   The Second Punic War: Hannibal at the gates.

   In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when
   fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua,
   his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans
   and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and
   citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon
   Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not
   with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the
   Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had
   felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the
   walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome,
   guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit
   one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer
   of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his
   purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible
   presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of
   romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen
   touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear
   into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via
   Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought
   refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio,
   within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of
   feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at
   the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the
   Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm
   composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the
   battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a
   cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on
   him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such
   was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price
   even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn
   never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine
   country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked,
   Capua unrelieved."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 44._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Hannibal,
      chapter 34._

ROME: B. C. 211-202.
   The Second Punic War:
   Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus.
   The war in Africa.
   The end at Zama.
   Acquisition of Spain.

   "The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war.
   Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to
   retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining
   everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose
   confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to
   the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in
   Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain
   possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium,
   attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In
   the following year the Romans recovered several places in
   Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long
   military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209).
   The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered
   and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year
   Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was
   surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten
   years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were
   increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the
   news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared
   expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in
   Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to
   meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased
   from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were
   incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the
   Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven
   years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius
   Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of
   spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced
   northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence,
   after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march
   to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The
   expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold
   resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with
   their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was
   waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a
   rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their
   united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome.
   Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and
   1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew
   nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague
   Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival
   might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he
   heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the
   increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls
   were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been
   defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait
   for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and
   down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the
   Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an
   unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops
   exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung
   in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great
   general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into
   the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned
   to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He
   announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by
   casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending
   two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the
   disastrous battle.
{2678}
   'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he
   recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided
   the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the
   towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium,
   where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous
   country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the
   dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre
   of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that
   expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the
   beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from
   Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously
   elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in
   this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate
   finally consented that he should cross from his province of
   Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an
   expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the
   year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his
   preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort
   to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent
   to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to
   renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under
   Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which
   followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of
   importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio
   had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from
   Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory
   near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was
   compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory.
   Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his
   advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of
   Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This
   enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards
   Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to
   Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and
   compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the
   Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion
   could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations
   for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to
   recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to
   bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon
   preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman
   senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at
   Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the
   armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors
   from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and
   Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of
   Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of
   the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but
   imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river
   Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202.
   Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans
   fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but
   his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered
   unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the
   three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio
   arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a
   ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass
   without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long
   struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."

      _R. F. Leighton,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 23-24._

   "Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his
   heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered
   were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised
   what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed
   to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their
   own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to
   give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their
   elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were
   not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without
   the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise
   Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the
   prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and
   annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their
   hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were
   to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean
   and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of
   which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus
   shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within
   a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution!
   Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only,
   and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the
   peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most
   cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the
   destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet.
   Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician
   race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the
   colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of
   Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were
   deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Rome and Carthage: the Punic Wars,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 31-34._

      See, also.
      PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 2d Century.
   Greek influences.

      See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ROME: B. C. 191.
   War with Antiochus the Great of Syria.
   First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the
   king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. U. 224-187.

ROME: B. C. 189-139.
   Wars with the Lusitanians.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and LUSITANIA.

ROME: B. C. 184-149.
   The Spoils of Conquest and the Corruption they wrought.

   "The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease
   and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue
   from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed
   tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal
   domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became
   public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was
   found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property
   tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year
   after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of
   wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of
   expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means
   for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding
   their way into the city from the East.
{2679}
   Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music
   for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles;
   and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and
   extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was
   financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in
   malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in
   regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of
   misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less
   reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in
   the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to
   plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary
   to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of
   malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to
   restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil.
   In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of
   slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal
   ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,'
   limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in
   spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex
   Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in
   161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in
   143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though
   such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil,
   they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment;
   for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as
   indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be
   unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing
   influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years
   the education of the young, once regarded as the special
   business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of
   Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek
   culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their
   party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This
   tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary
   taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the
   most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a
   return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."

      _E. S. Shuckburgh,
      History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
      chapter 32._

ROME: B. C. 159-133.
   Decline of the Republic.
   Social and economic causes.
   The growing system of Slavery and its effects.
   Monopoly of land by capitalists.
   Extinction of small cultivators.
   Rapid decrease of citizens.

   "In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate
   oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already
   cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with
   fatal results. According to their party names, which were
   first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to
   give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that
   of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that
   day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining
   community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both
   were equally affected by political corruption, and both were
   in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically
   and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards
   its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman
   revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political
   conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which
   the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to
   take their course"; and which had brought about "the
   depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the
   petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in
   Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing
   tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of
   cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the
   replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy
   by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this
   second great conflict between labour and capital, it is
   necessary to give here some indication of the nature and
   extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with
   the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which
   the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or,
   if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the
   slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the
   system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state,
   as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of
   capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary
   transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of
   slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was,
   just like that of America, based on the methodically
   prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of
   game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in
   Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor
   free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the
   Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan
   and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and
   slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek
   islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman
   revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states
   and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves.
   … At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers
   of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators,
   on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been
   disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before
   evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself,
   its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the
   law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by
   slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The
   levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was
   regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that
   leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining,
   making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early
   the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The
   tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But
   far worse in every respect was the plantation system
   proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not
   unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their
   legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during
   the day, and were locked up together by night in the common,
   frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation
   system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to
   have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. …
{2680}
   The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in
   this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be
   fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is
   very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman
   slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we
   are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves
   themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman
   state. …

      See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

   The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or
   indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields
   without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to
   employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former
   could not like the latter be called away to military service;
   and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of
   misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian
   grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value
   over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a
   mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census
   yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there
   appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154]
   stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in
   623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an
   alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and
   abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the
   burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves;
   and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the
   Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was
   the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state
   entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye
   turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could
   not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man,
   whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or
   amendment."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of the Roman Commonwealth,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 10-12._

      _W. R. Brownlow,
      Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
      lectures 1-2._

ROME: B. C. 151-146.
   The Third Punic War: Destruction of Carthage.

   "Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was
   placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia,
   who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But
   it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every
   symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at
   Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of
   Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to
   check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure
   while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim
   satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the
   increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing
   raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour,
   Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by
   some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome
   with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the
   news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was
   actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in
   the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the
   opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and
   others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction
   of their city itself was demanded from the despairing
   Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw,
   was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began.
   During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147
   P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus,
   conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the
   conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only
   a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the
   command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was
   taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman
   province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons
   of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman
   suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the
   raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century
   from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the
   former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct
   rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as
   Roman provinces."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

ROME: B. C. 146.
   Supremacy of the Senate.

   "At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then
   of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme
   power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how
   this period of conflict and conquest had affected the
   victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but
   little change. It continued to be in form a moderate
   democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established
   by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by
   the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were
   elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the
   people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman
   citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the
   senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But
   between the theory and the practice of the constitution there
   was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually
   sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind
   the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and
   enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom
   had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the
   senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome,
   was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation.
   It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the
   time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and
   successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the
   constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the
   commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with
   the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival
   disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost
   unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and
   by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic
   policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the
   ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that
   without it the government of the state could scarcely have
   been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the
   close and intimate connection which existed between the senate
   and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin
   widely different from the old patriciate.
{2681}
   Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of
   the families which in this period styled themselves noble were
   not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time
   of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli,
   Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was
   apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one
   or more of whose members had, after the opening of the
   magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in
   consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to
   display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these
   distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a
   curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be
   the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. …
   Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and
   prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to
   secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The
   ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form
   a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. …
   The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only
   result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same
   time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and
   with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 3, chapter 3._

   "The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all
   but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere
   consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate
   had become the supreme executive body. That the government
   solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience
   be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome
   was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new
   organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the
   Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it
   possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism
   thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing
   de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government
   after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being,
   strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any
   demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration
   before an Assembly which was without continuity, without
   special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if
   the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at
   all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the
   constant struggle between the two sources of authority."

      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 2. _

      See, also, SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 133-121.
   The attempted reforms of the Gracchi.

   "The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is
   connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and
   its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a
   danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which
   of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome
   had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while
   her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes
   abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of
   Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of
   accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste
   their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace
   returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of
   prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed
   ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to
   compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea,
   and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of
   the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the
   eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their
   holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards,
   oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the
   rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was
   not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt
   in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly
   settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and
   in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to
   demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its
   existence the government had received plenty of warning in the
   declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census,
   in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions,
   in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 4, chapter 1._

   The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung
   from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see
   ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to
   prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the
   public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which
   the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession
   of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks,
   to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this
   condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder
   of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in
   133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the
   people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended
   to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by
   taking away from the holders of public land what they held in
   excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three
   commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to
   superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the
   land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal
   of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class
   whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the
   fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition
   and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote
   upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had
   recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune
   was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the
   law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and
   for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election
   to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against
   positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the
   day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his
   party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years
   later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election
   to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic
   political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in
   attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers
   and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were
   schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the
   Roman people and state.
{2682}
   He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it
   was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and
   stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After
   three years of power, through the favor of the people, he,
   too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the
   patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great
   number of his supporters.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 10-13, 18-19._

   "Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who
   appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer
   citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of
   grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate
   below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have
   acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped
   to secure the city from seditious movements in time of
   scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it
   would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated
   citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would
   create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power
   it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues.
   Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of
   luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he
   decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who
   had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their
   pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of
   the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised
   distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public
   granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful
   labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself,
   it is said, directed the course and superintended the making
   of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing
   Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up
   depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the
   country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry.
   Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement
   at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his
   proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were
   filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended
   from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers,
   ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to
   all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to
   the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared,
   the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and
   tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of
   popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon
   the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure
   intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner
   of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the
   wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law,
   for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the
   magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the
   powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont
   to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were
   crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no
   recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious
   appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a
   complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even
   more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to
   the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of
   the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the
   judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves
   senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If
   the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected
   that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would
   be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of
   their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater
   purity from the second order of citizens than from the first.
   If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the
   knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a
   grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this
   was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the
   two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one
   another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the
   profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of
   an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class
   of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners
   and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a
   strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles
   and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this
   attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should
   touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by
   their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this
   was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct
   advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides
   the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this
   elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful
   co-operation towards the important object he next had in view:
   this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and
   Italians to the right of suffrage."

      _C. Merivale,
      The Fall of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Tiberius Gracchus;
      Caius Gracchus._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapters 2-3 (volume 3)._

      _S. Eliot,
      Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, AGER PUBLICUS.

ROME: B. C. 125-121.
   Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul.
   Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.

      See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

ROME: B. C. 118-99.
   Increasing corruption of government.
   The Jugurthine War.
   Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones.
   The power of Marius.

   "After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they
   pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian
   Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles
   cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own
   pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign
   kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could
   pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place
   in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest
   state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend
   of the Roman people, and had fought with them against
   Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the
   Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of
   Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an
   adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the
   kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and
   made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.

      See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

{2683}

   The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to
   please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in
   Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to
   death (112). After this the Romans thought they must
   interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let
   Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself
   before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian
   prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But
   his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared
   war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for
   three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108,
   a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus,
   went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have
   finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by
   Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low
   birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery,
   and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the
   army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common
   soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked
   with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and
   went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault
   with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry
   on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and
   more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa
   instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and
   brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was
   over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the
   leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army.
   The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The
   Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their
   country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as
   wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant
   countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was
   full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius
   was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade
   himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state.
   Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign
   that the government for the future was to be carried on by the
   army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon
   wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians
   from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and
   threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy.
   They came with their wives and children, like a wandering
   people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated
   the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had
   conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province,
   which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans,
   after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their
   city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for
   the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the
   year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy,
   but Marius defeated them in two great battles.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

   Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so
   powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state.
   The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very
   fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But
   Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought
   much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a
   still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the
   people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus,
   brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and
   Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and
   the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the
   riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he
   armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now
   neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did
   only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for
   the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the
   troubles of the Roman state."

      _M. Creighton.
      History of Rome (Primer).
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 54-56 (volume 2)._

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 39-41 (volume 2)._

      _Plutarch,
      Marius._

ROME: B. C. 90-88.
   Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship.
   The Marsian or Social War.
   Rise of Sulla.

   "It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that
   the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms,
   and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will.
   Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it
   is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they
   were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the
   Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the
   honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which
   they had become allies was not always the same. It differed
   widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an
   equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which
   implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance
   of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome
   neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin
   colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been
   satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the
   right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian
   communities proved an illusion in all cases where the
   interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law
   passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a
   magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole
   of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws,
   though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the
   Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman
   senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as
   roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the
   benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of
   war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the
   hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the
   increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure
   and independent of the allies, they showed them less
   consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had
   gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no
   more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the
   Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things,
   especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to
   extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was
   strongly pressed.
{2684}
   In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus,
   there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus,
   who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by
   giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to
   their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he
   provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their
   claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians,
   Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a
   league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to
   Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The
   prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war
   which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was
   also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social
   War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman
   citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt
   of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was
   taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle
   fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many
   defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the
   first year of the war they had made no headway against the
   revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians
   that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her
   downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as
   in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of
   selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the
   Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar,
   was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the
   Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so
   far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes
   carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which
   offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two
   months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to
   claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and
   the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the
   field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola
   (where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of
   Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important
   battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain
   of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that,
   for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the
   revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than
   the death throes of a lost cause.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note,
      and book 7, chapters 13-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 15-16._

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 83-84 (volume 2)._

ROME: B. C. 88-78.
   Rivalry of Marius and Sulla.
   War with Mithridates.
   Civil war.
   Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror.
   Sulla's dictatorship.

   The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying
   made quick progress in the generation that passed between the
   murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble
   which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled
   actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the
   populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the
   increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and
   subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob
   violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was
   dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any
   longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a
   natural consequence of that state of things that the two
   foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius
   Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the
   recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day.
   Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed
   six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime
   of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing
   capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a
   plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came
   from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the
   dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and
   philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely
   ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition
   and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war
   with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command
   in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the
   year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct
   of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with
   the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a
   turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could
   claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against
   Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid
   his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most
   part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had
   no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob.
   Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to
   the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the
   last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own
   armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla
   paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn
   the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans
   fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of
   whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to
   Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which
   there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his
   colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his
   consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the
   war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that
   he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted
   his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome,
   of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of
   Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one
   of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the
   head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as
   they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had
   been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came
   back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other
   leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four
   armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful
   resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the
   Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to
   authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was
   implacable in his sullen rage.
{2685}
   Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private
   enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves
   Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at
   last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was
   forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins
   and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree
   of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a
   city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition
   for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first
   month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the
   war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from
   afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no
   sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years
   after his departure from Italy and three years after the death
   of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts
   with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was
   joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important
   chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and
   young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There
   was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young
   Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was
   another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of
   Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants
   fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his
   suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last
   orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he
   pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be
   posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom
   anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number
   doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the
   death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror
   ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to
   take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect
   him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They
   obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman
   constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his
   command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made
   them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great
   part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate
   to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune
   to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate,
   adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to
   it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to
   the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in
   legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his
   liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly
   laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private
   life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There
   he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself
   up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than
   the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he
   died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 17-29._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapters 15-23._

      _Plutarch,
      Marius and Sulla._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapters 9-10._

      _C. Merivale,
      The Fall of the Roman Republic,
      chapters 4-5._

ROME: B. C. 80.
   The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic
   by Ptolemy Alexander.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.

ROME: B. C. 78-68.
   Danger from the legionaries.
   Rising power of Pompeius.
   Attempt of Lepidus.
   Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain.
   Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators.
   The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.

   "The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace,
   and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and
   Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced
   by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him.
   He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities
   and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he
   was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if
   need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna
   and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. …
   The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of
   patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of
   their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed
   an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the
   legions only that they could trust, and the legions were
   notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla
   had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius
   Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy.
   These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger
   Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices
   they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian
   faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured
   the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla
   had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in
   years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but
   when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the
   people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the
   dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a
   triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he
   was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the
   greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be
   known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now
   fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the
   heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The
   election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of
   the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the
   ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's
   oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But
   there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to
   seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed
   with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the
   career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated
   his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of
   his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the
   senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls
   by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the
   remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action;
   but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in
   Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the
   Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region,
   and invoked the aid of
   the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands
   of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.
{2686}
   With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the
   Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the
   remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to
   rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now
   thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the
   veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and
   farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies
   met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the
   city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again
   repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there
   perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus
   into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was
   carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the
   forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius."
   Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and
   aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a
   prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and
   assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

   "Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic
   at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost
   through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs.
   Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him
   another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A
   body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at
   Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had
   seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a
   retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …

      See SPARTACUS, THE RISING OF.

   The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them,
   but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of
   Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was
   the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power.
   This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired
   more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of
   Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the
   forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents,
   who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under
   his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of
   Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by
   lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the
   extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a
   remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his
   assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it
   was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate
   attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both
   Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now
   become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with
   which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus
   was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some
   alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty
   it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another
   leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of
   another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western
   provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius
   Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the
   struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates.
   … The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the
   choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all
   the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge
   with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under
   Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the
   brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was
   despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand
   the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was
   well defended by its position among the mountains and the
   length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to
   strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but
   well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes
   surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of
   undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of
   17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made
   but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and
   broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon
   the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless
   confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly
   precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following
   year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. …
   But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own
   soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of
   Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of
   the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful
   assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving
   the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile
   the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at
   Rome."

      _C. Merivale,
      The Roman Triumvirates,
      chapter 1._

   Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and
   afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this
   perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had
   been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both
   of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first
   refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the
   second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day
   regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him
   who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in
   short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns
   which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They
   obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change
   the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even
   before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered
   Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely
   with the pirates."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of the Roman Republic,
      page 308._

   "It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as
   conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was
   awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been
   despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their
   arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius
   Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own
   troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the
   command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."

      _E. S. Shuckburgh,
      History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
      page 677._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Pompeius Magnus._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 30-33,
      and volume 3, chapters 1-5._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10._

{2687}

ROME: B. C. 69-63.
   The drift towards revolution.
   Pompeius in the East.
   His extraordinary commission.
   His enlargement of the Roman dominions.
   His power.
   Ambitions and projects of Cæsar.
   Consulship of Cicero.

   "To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C.,
   it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given
   a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years
   this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and
   68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our
   authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a
   single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or
   even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of
   some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the
   government might have been carried on fairly well even under
   republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a
   character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and
   there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate
   or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair
   damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the
   next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of
   revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one,
   or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of
   world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be
   perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during
   these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of
   government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was
   elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the
   following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with
   government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began
   his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his
   return to Rome, which must have taken place about the
   beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer
   connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was
   to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by
   this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his
   friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was
   real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest
   soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater
   than ever.

      See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

   Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and
   was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with
   the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In
   this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune,
   Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition
   in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power
   against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was
   really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and
   completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years
   over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the
   provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in
   every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole
   Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the
   existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited
   means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate
   his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals),
   who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for
   it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan
   which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia
   Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In
   fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and
   his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither
   of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the
   requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only
   be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. …
   Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared
   the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded
   Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with
   the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and
   extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not
   return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might
   seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and
   left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power
   and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success
   with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to
   the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He
   put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the
   submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman
   dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these
   kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time
   reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into
   contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor
   became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the
   interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain.
   Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and
   added Judæa to Syria. …

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40].

   The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading
   figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of
   conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he
   chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central
   government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state
   like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of
   an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid
   work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of
   plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted
   government on the other. … He was elected to the
   curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series
   of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B.
   C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is
   by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and
   watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not
   have been much in common between them, and they were in fact
   rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender,
   however, must have been in the main responsible for the
   enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and
   the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on
   the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an
   agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune
   Servilius Rullus.
{2688}
   The two most startling features of this were: first, the
   creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each
   member of which was to be invested with military and judicial
   powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly,
   the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial
   resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the
   territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C.,
   together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of
   Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge
   scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan
   agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak
   fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its
   garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the
   democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new
   Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also
   have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the
   hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come
   into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in
   doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's
   great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so
   far for the most part used them, had made him already a
   considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to
   which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very
   first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and
   exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy
   was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and
   to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. …
   Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference,
   that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of
   conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and
   the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and
   only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the
   spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became
   vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once
   took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour
   were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would
   place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. …
   He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one
   of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election
   stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance
   against candidates like the venerable conservative leader
   Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius
   Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which
   placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law
   framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be
   repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The
   useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was
   passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large
   majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was
   occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic
   party to possess themselves of the state power while there was
   yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy
   of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the
   senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy
   took no open or active part in it."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      Julius Cæsar,
      chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN
      _J. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 10._

      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Julius,
      sections 7-13._

      _C. Middleton,
      Life of Cicero,
      section 2._

ROME: B. C. 63.
   The conspiracy of Catiline.

   The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of
   Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its
   prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great
   speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied
   the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was
   consul that year, and the official responsibility of the
   government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were
   a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to
   gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all
   the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and
   disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to
   be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and
   Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the
   dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the
   plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and
   won the support of the people to his proceedings against the
   conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed
   himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had
   raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the
   single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were
   hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the
   Tullianum.

      _W. Forsyth,
      Life of Cicero,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Trollope,
      Life of c,
      chapter 9._

      _A. J. Church,
      Roman Life in the Days of Cicero,
      chapter 7._

     _Cicero,
     Orations
     (translated by (J. D. Yonge),
     volume 2._

ROME: B. C. 63-58.
   Increasing disorders in the capital.
   The wasted opportunities of Pompeius.
   His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus.
   The First Triumvirate.
   Cæsar's consulship.
   His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul.
   Exile of Cicero.

   "Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both
   the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough
   to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third
   party—no class remaining out of which a government might be
   erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a
   single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain;
   though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only
   man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered
   itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds
   was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by
   fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the
   autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the
   capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected
   tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the
   command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the
   consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their
   hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself
   elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him.
   But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident
   that they had come to a cordial understanding with the
   general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the
   democratic view of the illegal executions [of the
   Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to
   call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been
   embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to
   transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On
   the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their
   veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it.
{2689}
   There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which
   terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up
   the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their
   offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of
   Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension
   against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it.
   Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of
   Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions
   of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against
   Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two
   palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the
   inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the
   party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage
   was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the
   winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush
   the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid
   pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62
   B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army,
   proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the
   city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete
   isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the
   aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once
   demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of
   all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he
   had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each
   of these demands was met with the most determined opposition.
   … His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified,
   but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the
   necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position,
   Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who
   saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the
   democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had
   grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in
   62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he
   utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to
   lay the foundation of the military position he desired for
   himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his
   claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to
   stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the
   aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature
   of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the
   consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured
   to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of
   his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped
   for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years
   before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian
   class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; …
   but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was
   glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was
   struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in
   Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised
   the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the
   ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his
   soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the
   capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money
   they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes.
   … Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the
   exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an
   aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once
   proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing
   an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which
   meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up
   to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased
   out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers
   were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the
   principle of giving rewards of land for military service was
   not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to
   a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were
   passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and
   the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their
   head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the
   first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the
   rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was
   determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested
   by decree of the people with a special command resembling that
   lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius
   submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted.
   By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and
   the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for
   five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His
   jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and
   included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo
   was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar
   had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in
   the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …

      See JULIAN LAWS.

   The regents determined to make examples of some of the most
   determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent
   into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was
   appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out
   of the way, to Cyprus.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of the Roman Republic,
      (abridged by Bryan and Hendy),
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapters 17-20._

      _C. Middleton,
      Life of Cicero,
      section 4_.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Julius Cæsar,
      chapters 3-4._

ROME: B. C. 58-51.
   Cæsar's conquest of Gaul.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ROME: B. C. 57-52.
   Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories.
   Return of Cicero from exile.
   New arrangements of the Triumvirs.
   Cæsar's Proconsulship extended.
   The Trebonian Law.
   Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.
   Increasing anarchy in the city.

   "In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his
   victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the
   unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the
   gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters
   of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the
   magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at
   Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the
   efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until
   the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P.
   Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite
   of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all
   the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and
   ratify the senatus consultum.
{2690}
   The return of the great orator to the country which he had
   saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph
   than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come
   back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. …
   Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the
   beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar,
   and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the
   triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend
   Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the
   action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an
   independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a
   humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third
   campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the
   Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the
   rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very
   independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was
   agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint
   consulship again next year, and before the expiration of
   Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for
   another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other
   speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men
   by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and
   pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus."
   In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave
   to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and
   Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this
   repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the
   coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican
   institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of
   seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes
   and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion
   by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins
   of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon
   and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus,
   acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the
   fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat,
   shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the
   blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river
   Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site
   of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a
   defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few
   days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a
   conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces
   invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman
   world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus,
   retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians
   in the following year, that agile people remained to the last
   unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance
   further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius,
   though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year,
   was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar,
   since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had
   broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the
   condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at
   which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have
   to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls
   could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected
   until July, and the year closed without any elections having
   taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate
   for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the
   prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial
   arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting
   in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a
   despairing government should invest him with dictatorial
   power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to
   seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word
   dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the
   4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his
   colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 29._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Forsyth,
      Life of Cicero,
      chapters 13-16 (volumes 1-2)._

      _C. Merivale,
      The Roman Triumvirates,
      chapter 5._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 11._

ROME: B. C. 55-54.
   Cæsar's invasions of Britain.

      See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

ROME: B. C. 52-50.
   Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar.
   Approach of the crisis.
   Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.

   "Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as
   had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear
   of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been
   killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself
   the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other;
   and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing
   for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey
   had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till
   lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to
   put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had
   entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals,
   and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself
   apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his
   exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his
   soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great
   actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge
   comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those
   advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself
   and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who
   were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without
   any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay,
   did not contend for their benefactors with their bare
   suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after
   having many times stained the place of election with the blood
   of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last
   without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship
   without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom
   could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy
   disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy.
   Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was
   incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that
   remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning
   Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet
   in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator.
{2691}
   Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make
   him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more
   legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the
   dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of
   his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he
   governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him,
   at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public
   treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the
   consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at
   first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed
   it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything,
   whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him.
   For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the
   people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately
   planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered
   one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped
   [B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify
   he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back
   again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship,
   Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the
   riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the
   tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500
   talents, with which he built the noble court of justice
   adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the
   Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly
   took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a
   successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back
   the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in
   Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of
   250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey,
   spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of
   Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions
   that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs
   here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and
   the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his
   command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently
   declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless
   expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy.
   Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike
   preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which
   Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he
   proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the
   same, and both together should become private men, and each
   expect a reward of his services from the public. For that
   those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to
   confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply
   establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the
   other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the
   people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some
   threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do
   successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being
   tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion,
   and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose
   it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the
   Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a
   time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it
   to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers,
   and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented
   to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony
   proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions,
   all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very
   violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had
   need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that
   the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in
   mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension.
   Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed
   yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else,
   and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two
   legions, till he should stand a second time for consul.
   Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia,
   endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who
   was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him
   the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's
   friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only,
   and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give
   way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to
   it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with
   insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the
   most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could
   readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two
   persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to
   escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they
   were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome.
   There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50]
   above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army,
   which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by
   officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he
   thought the first motion towards the design which he had on
   foot did not require large forces at present, and that what
   was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to
   astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he
   commanded his captains and other officers to go only with
   their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make
   themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as
   little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the
   care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day
   in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who
   exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his
   person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some
   time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to
   grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to
   the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having
   already given private directions to a few immediate friends,
   that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some
   one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired
   carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently
   turned towards Ariminum."

      _Plutarch,
      Cæsar
      (Clough's Dryden's translation)_

      ALSO IN
      _Cæsar,
      Commentaries on the Civil War,
      book 1, chapters 1-8._

      _T. Arnold,
      History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

{2692}

ROME: B. C. 50-49.
   Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.
   Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy.
   Cæsar at the capital.

   "About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from
   Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the
   stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the
   drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and
   evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the
   union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the
   summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of
   the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might
   present a barrier more worthy of the important position which
   it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long
   been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a
   bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused
   themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the
   founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the
   brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of
   November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C.
   49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before
   he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies
   of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes
   no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment
   of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in
   the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or
   for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 14._

   After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more,
   messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting
   the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon
   his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing.
   Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of
   his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc
   Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies
   three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he
   was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably
   conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of
   Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar
   regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret
   their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey
   and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to
   Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this
   retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at
   Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand
   in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement,
   and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers
   whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to
   carry with them money which he believes to have been taken
   from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the
   soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return
   to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar
   follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to
   beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil
   and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He
   knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in
   Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily,
   Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there
   are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better
   for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of
   Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his
   attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part
   of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar
   is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and
   his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and
   Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair
   land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy
   and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is
   provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the
   force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be
   starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the
   corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are
   left free for the use of the city."

      _A. Trollope,
      The Commentaries of Cæsar,
      chapter 9._

   Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take
   possession of the seat of government which his enemies had
   abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being
   a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city
   in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such
   of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded
   to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to
   various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the
   appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults
   of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be
   used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion
   which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of
   Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that
   fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this
   occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make
   haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to
   secure the submission of all the west before he followed
   Pompeius into the Eastern world.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 1-4._

      ALSO IN
      J_. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 21._

ROME: B. C. 49.
   Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
   His conquest of Massilia.

   In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded
   by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had
   already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three
   legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and
   the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he
   found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was
   confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at
   Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris
   (modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five
   legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries
   to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the
   reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same.
   The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the
   passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and
   drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand,
   had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and
   was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed
   his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure
   strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the
   hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its
   retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish
   campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was
   decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest
   of Cæsar's military achievements.
{2693}
   The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still
   nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although
   surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to
   range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to
   close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his
   campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions
   of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet
   to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege.
   Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the
   general of the land force. The siege was made notable by
   remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the
   courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar
   returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to
   surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act
   of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he
   spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and
   antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were
   offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon
   afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.

      _Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 1, chapters 36-81,
      and book 2, chapters 1-22._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 5 and 8._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 15-16._

ROME: B. C. 48.
   The war in Epirus and Thessaly.
   Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.

   Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and
   having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the
   Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the
   year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius
   and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar
   then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to
   take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the
   calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The
   vessels at his command were so few that he could transport
   only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was
   with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of
   Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies,
   and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was
   caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed.
   Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the
   second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium,
   under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him
   until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small
   force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront
   Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he
   marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering
   troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of
   some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who
   pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him.
   As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with
   all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his
   untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly
   fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at
   a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge
   him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of
   his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in
   length. It was an undertaking too great for his force.
   Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all
   his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was
   placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief
   shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the
   cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and
   his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar
   framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his
   lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior
   of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which
   he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then
   coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow
   him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at
   last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to
   confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his
   antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable
   battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia,
   through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which,
   from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of
   Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48
   before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The
   foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least
   as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the
   latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the
   young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which
   to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his
   sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks.
   The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying.
   Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to
   Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the
   other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like
   Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master,
   from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still
   to be fought.

      _Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 3._

      ALSO IN
      _W. W. Fowler,
      Julius Cæsar,
      chapter 16._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 10-17._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Cæsar,
      chapters 31-35._

ROME: B. C. 48-47.
   Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt.
   His assassination.
   Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra.
   The rising against him.
   His peril.
   His deliverance.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

ROME: B. C. 47-46.
   Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela.
   His return to Rome.
   The last stand or his opponents in Africa.
   Their defeat at Thapsus.

   At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at
   Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain
   as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending
   civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king,
   Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his
   father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had
   been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the
   small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the
   moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser
   Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus,
   marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated
   at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor.
{2694}
   As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria,
   could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely
   needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia
   Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army
   was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy
   throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at
   Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory
   over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to
   have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says
   that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the
   name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three
   words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's
   triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 18._

   After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar
   passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia
   proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the
   faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47]
   with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for
   the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and
   arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach.
   If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was
   making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium
   he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a
   year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with
   him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by
   Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired
   to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged
   doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of
   Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition
   ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and
   bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in
   an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working
   hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he
   was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or
   power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute
   monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself.
   Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited,
   magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was
   no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must
   wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious
   mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned,
   with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature;
   sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at
   Lilybæum in the middle of December."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      Julius Cæsar,
      chapter 17._

   The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial
   party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was
   made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the
   city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the
   Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his
   ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was
   joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other
   leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert
   from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite
   from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them,
   they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the
   end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at
   Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for
   Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military
   adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by
   storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they
   arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a
   position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon
   as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and
   found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them
   at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he
   attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of
   Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers,
   cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their
   ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy,
   while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive
   battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46,
   uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later.
   Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the
   voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato
   committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom
   to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself
   in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a
   Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still
   disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.

      _A. Hirtius,
      The African War._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 24-27._

ROME: B. C. 45:
   Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
   His victory at Munda.

   After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle
   to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus
   Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of
   the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in
   Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in
   command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt,
   crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary
   celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought,
   the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the
   Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the
   17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great
   conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he
   won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived
   among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were
   30,000.

      _Julius Cæsar,
      Commentary on the Spanish War._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 19._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 30._

ROME: B. C. 45-44.
   The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles.
   His permanent Imperatorship.
   His unfulfilled projects.

   "At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings
   of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days
   of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the
   pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. …
   After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was
   a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of
   Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a
   college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On
   the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome,
   but he did not triumph till the beginning of October.
{2695}
   This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the
   victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no
   longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now
   the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be
   enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having
   suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and
   Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that
   tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear.
   But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach
   to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he
   replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius,
   who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who
   had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had
   betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he
   forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the
   magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. …
   Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he
   centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own
   hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar
   used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the
   Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid
   aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included
   absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and
   the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate,
   retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely
   from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of
   præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was
   offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the
   Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by
   offering him the right of appointment in all curule and
   plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege
   of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the
   members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they
   would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these
   having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the
   legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure
   it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the
   whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the
   reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate,
   at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat,
   dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy
   was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not
   yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went
   as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His
   title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were
   transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar
   was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such
   servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his
   enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man
   who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character
   of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of
   consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The
   Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave
   soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a
   considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia
   Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services
   to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. …
   One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus
   Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his
   honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch.
   This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not
   deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from
   honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor
   Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of
   having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience
   is for an able government more convenient than outward
   servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil
   possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it
   is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These
   pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and
   Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which
   should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins.
   Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he
   desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe
   that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power
   as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was
   carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of
   his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who
   were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In
   order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still
   higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It
   was meet that he should wipe out the second military
   humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should
   avenge Crassus."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 58, sections 2-3 (volume 3)._

   "Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after
   honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with
   himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his
   past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he
   resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had
   subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along
   by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus,
   till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries
   bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return
   through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of
   his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the
   ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he
   proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands;
   and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a
   design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep
   channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea
   near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage
   for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he
   intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and
   gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of
   men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on
   the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in
   upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden
   rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form
   ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels
   that would frequent them. These things were designed without
   being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar
   [See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity
   of time, was not only projected with great scientific
   ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of
   very great use."

      _Plutarch,
      Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation)._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 11, with note._

{2696}

ROME: B. C. 44.
   The Assassination of Cæsar.

   "The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had
   been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates.
   Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain
   all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech,
   individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar,
   whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at
   their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a
   guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's
   master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul,
   was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a
   person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to
   deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the
   immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of
   the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his
   acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They
   were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the
   fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and
   submission that they might take an easier road to rid
   themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of
   their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded
   themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in
   their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so
   they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man
   only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a
   reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without
   absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus
   Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and
   a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son
   was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms.
   Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of
   such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and
   although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken
   the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not
   pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he
   had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. …
   Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in
   whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and
   Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the
   conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once
   wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause
   which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them
   were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others
   worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been
   partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's
   side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that
   to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to
   reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to
   set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going,
   as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus
   Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony,
   Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy.
   Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as
   soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign
   appointments were all made for five years, and in another week
   the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if
   action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate
   had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The
   Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the
   question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The
   occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a
   convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper
   the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret,
   was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly
   arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the
   secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act
   were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be
   easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple;
   but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or
   whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with
   him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. …
   Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the
   assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in
   good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony
   in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about
   Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so
   could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in
   the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen
   difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in
   after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. …
   Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw
   him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In
   the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again
   unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder
   affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his
   body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression.
   He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend
   the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were
   in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in
   to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not
   coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already
   suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be
   discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the
   coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus
   Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to
   entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and
   rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and
   shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard
   whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a
   stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read
   it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with
   a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition
   and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of
   the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken.
   … Cæsar entered and took his seat.
{2697}
   His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the
   conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should
   lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of
   access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell
   him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had
   just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with
   some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught
   his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his
   shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in
   the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm.
   Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He
   looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a
   ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his
   head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall
   decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The
   Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the
   Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead,
   and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who
   had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into
   concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds
   which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed,
   crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and
   the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where
   a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to
   his country that every senator would die before harm should
   reach him."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 26._

ROME: B. C. 44.
   The genius and character of Cæsar.
   His rank among great men.

   "Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie
   once observed, that if that question were left to be collected
   from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered
   throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be
   found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against
   any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that
   even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries,
   the same verdict would have been returned, had it been
   collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he
   should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival
   voices had pronounced the second."

      _T. De Quincey,
      The Cæsars,
      chapter 1._

   "The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With
   such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he
   should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at
   least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself
   enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had
   the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier,
   whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His
   ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which
   required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his
   Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern
   offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon
   crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the
   root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable
   him to trample down the respect for legality which still
   hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to
   me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of
   what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the
   empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the
   gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table,
   the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and
   noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we
   desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's
   time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential
   difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate
   and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply
   into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the
   republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his
   dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted,
   not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even
   cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his
   clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern
   clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of
   it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged
   them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici
   morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his
   life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the
   incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman
   conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of
   Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold
   into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the
   verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who
   had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would
   have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a
   captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day
   of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then
   undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the
   incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at
   the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world
   of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had
   lived and acted for another century, what could he have done
   with those moral and political materials but found, what he
   did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of
   projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must
   remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with
   feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are
   really great, such as the codification of the law, and
   measures for the encouragement of intellect and science;
   others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial
   cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works
   to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money,
   are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar
   was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all
   men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when
   society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new
   system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making
   the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring
   the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions,
   descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time
   were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of
   the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were
   Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture
   to think will in time subside."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The Last Republicans of Rome
      (Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _A. Trollope,
      Life of Cicero,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

{2698}

ROME: B. C. 44.
   After Cæsar's death.
   Flight of "the Liberators."
   Mark Antony in power.-
   Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

   The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome
   gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a
   simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum
   and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an
   harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he
   made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights
   of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few
   senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the
   number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their
   place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the
   following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by
   speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure,
   and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned
   with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving
   consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M.
   Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with
   vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken
   possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had
   acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding,
   moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who
   controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really
   commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had
   been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city,
   and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage
   in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold
   attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony
   listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul,
   to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act.
   At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a
   decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of
   Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and
   unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the
   recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among
   the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces.
   Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and
   their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his
   possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover
   of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's
   papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and
   was accused of forging without limit where the genuine
   documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of
   the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral
   decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which
   infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators"
   in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened
   the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for
   him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of
   his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm
   indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he
   harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended
   and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of
   Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator
   had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three
   hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen
   of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was
   Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister,
   Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will,
   his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius
   Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen
   years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of
   a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With
   wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined
   proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his
   rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling
   the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from
   Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and
   reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By
   great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own
   account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and
   thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor,
   against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important
   rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the
   possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second
   Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty
   which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 23-24._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 34._

ROME: B. C. 44-42.
   Destruction of the Liberators.
   Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus.
   The Second Triumvirate.

   Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of
   Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all
   Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of
   Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to
   Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to
   those several commands before they slew him. But Antony
   succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate,
   transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella.
   A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving
   Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of
   Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration
   and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed.
   An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his
   plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his
   position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the
   people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to
   advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or
   commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by
   virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of
   several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus
   refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported
   by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it
   from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and,
   although two legions brought from Epirus went over to
   Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched
   into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina
   (modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had
   taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had
   declared its hostility to Antony.
{2699}
   Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his
   army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a
   public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two
   battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum
   Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of
   Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome
   the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps
   and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul.
   Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a
   military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and
   quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been
   refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was
   elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next
   business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as
   against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was
   arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B.
   C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna),
   constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate
   —to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a
   formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of
   government between themselves; named officials for the
   subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of
   all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of
   enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of
   300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000
   knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been
   done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the
   self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these
   turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and
   Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power.
   Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army
   and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42
   B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the
   triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed
   soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met
   at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an
   interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was
   finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the
   estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable
   conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on
   either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand
   legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps
   120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at
   Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands.
   There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from
   Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great
   Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little
   half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize
   him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he,
   too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B.
   C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus
   reigned in Africa.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 24-28._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      The Fall of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 15._

ROME: B. C. 31.
   The victory of Octavius at Actium.
   The rise of the Empire.

   The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world
   to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought
   in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made
   Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now
   fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C.
   31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome,
   Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily
   consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence,
   the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony,
   oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in
   dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of
   hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion
   to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been
   summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a
   question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make
   room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after
   Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of
   war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a
   revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at
   Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement
   in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at
   last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on
   that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished
   by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the
   marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace
   was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and
   animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter.
   It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the
   superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held
   at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for
   the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was
   by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a
   naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the
   sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and
   attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the
   Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great
   battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or
   "acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of
   Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the
   Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of
   Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and
   the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army,
   on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its
   arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius
   pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had
   other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he
   was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The
   date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by
   historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and
   the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 28._

{2700}

ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
   The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar,
   Octavius, called Augustus.
   His organization of government.

   "Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the
   Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of
   many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional
   forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was
   no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and
   hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by
   the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our
   fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels
   of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is
   little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time
   discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is
   even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid
   before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the
   helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if
   ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more
   probable that he was content with some faint show of
   resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head,
   as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years'
   interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But
   we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to
   avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the
   same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its
   character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the
   populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine,
   clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would
   induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he
   had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and
   this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the
   imperial office.

      See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

   Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name
   which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet
   vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long
   association with the objects of religion. …

      See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.

   With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic
   power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which,
   though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly
   corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority.
   The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him
   with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected
   the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The
   Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested
   with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual
   holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The
   'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator
   of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position
   safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with
   the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and
   the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was
   content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the
   feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure
   of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always
   added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these
   titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled
   occasionally and for short periods most of the republican
   offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country
   towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its
   august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of
   censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be
   set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy
   members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and
   its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular
   power was vested in him without local limitations. … The
   offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the
   Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little
   seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors,
   Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and
   moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they
   had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control.
   … They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms
   of popular election were still for a time observed. … The
   consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed
   rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger
   number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months
   only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as
   little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. …
   But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of
   more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus,
   the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the
   deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute
   some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants,
   named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties
   which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect
   of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to
   represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need,
   when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he
   could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle
   mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the
   post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere
   of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date.
   The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the
   Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his
   reign. …

      See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

   Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the
   watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a
   protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn
   supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care
   on the part of the imperial government. … The title
   'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of
   'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was
   used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called
   were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's
   property or managers of his private business. … The agents of
   the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called
   by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more
   repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the
   imperial government. We have next to see what was the position
   of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to
   restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger
   he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy
   members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The
   functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But
   the substance of power and independence had passed away from
   it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in
   the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the
   trusted advisers of the Emperor. …
{2701}
   If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces
   we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more
   sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to
   the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces,
   which needed little military force. … The remaining countries,
   called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called
   'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held
   office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are
   signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that
   the transference of a country to this class from the other was
   looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such
   in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was
   his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative
   work his claims to greatness must be based."

      _W. W. Capes,
      Roman History: The Early Empire,
      chapter 1._

   "The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the
   moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the
   republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised
   the authority of the man, who was already by common consent
   'master of all things'; and this it effected without any
   formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation
   of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional
   machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement
   avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers
   voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B.
   C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the
   tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision
   was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his
   death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the
   powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each
   of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and
   provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its
   birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time
   being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open
   question whether any other citizen should be invested with the
   powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be
   chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to
   answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were,
   strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the
   senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity
   required that some one must always be selected to fill the
   position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as
   kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military
   ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate,
   determined the selection; and that usage decided that the
   powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the
   main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman
   emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and
   people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for
   special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not
   inherit a great office by an established law of succession;
   and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king
   never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman
   'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts
   made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character,
   none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and
   dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history
   of the empire."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 3._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4)._

ROME: B. C. 16-15
   Conquest of Rhætia.

      See RHÆTIA.

ROME: B. C. 12-9.
   Campaigns of Drusus in Germany.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

ROME: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
   Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

ROME: A. D. 14-16.
   Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

ROME: A. D. 14-37.
   Reign of Tiberius.
   Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule.
   Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.
   His death.
   The Delatores and their victims.
   Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus.
   The Prætorians quartered at Rome.

   Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was
   brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last
   marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero
   (divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons,
   Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage,
   first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister
   Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus
   soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of
   the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore
   three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom
   died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two
   daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his
   own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted
   son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first
   husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that
   Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths
   which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died,
   Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of
   the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in
   dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to
   appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to
   lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with
   this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so
   admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined
   accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat
   him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end
   Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to
   oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene
   forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his
   reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia
   and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the
   insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's
   nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B.
   C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in
   reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign
   of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37,
   is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is
   celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of
   Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser
   [see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that
   the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies
   against tribes which had no fortified towns. …
{2702}
   The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more
   and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an
   only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus,
   the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must
   have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was
   the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he
   was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German
   wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his
   legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he
   remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly
   could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue,
   because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore
   mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious
   legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers
   and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the
   same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards,
   whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon
   which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign
   of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator
   had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted,
   been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been
   committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its
   undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of
   offences might be made to come within the reach of the law
   concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the
   senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in
   motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under
   Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these
   prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a
   numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their
   business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."

      See DELATION.—DELATORS).

   This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom
   he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After
   her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got
   the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily
   more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of
   his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a
   man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest
   resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the
   office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number
   of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to
   concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum
   praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the
   wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city.
   The consequences of this measure render it one of the most
   important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now
   became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to
   that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they
   determined the fate of the empire until the reign of
   Diocletian. …

      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.

   The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day,
   and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with
   sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While
   Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at
   Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now
   instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the
   time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the
   fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of
   Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he
   himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out
   of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was
   Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but
   only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. …
   Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the
   name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest
   kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio'
   if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch.
   Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape
   Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody
   believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on
   which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated
   in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus
   Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the
   age of 78."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 111-112 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Tacitus,
      Annals,
      books 1-6._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 42-46 (volume 5)._

ROME: A. D. 37-41.
   Reign of Caligula, the first of the imperial madmen.

   Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula,
   to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a
   great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from
   "Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers,
   and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured
   the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of
   the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he
   had long been the object of expectation and desire to the
   greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known
   him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their
   affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and
   compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. …
   Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint
   acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the
   senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left
   his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole
   government and administration of affairs was placed in his
   hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that,
   in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are
   said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this
   extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was
   added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula
   himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of
   popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the
   government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus,
   but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a
   full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He
   made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but
   conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse
   every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and
   dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the
   people their ancient right of voting in the choice of
   magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of
   300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the
   senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and
   children. …
{2703}
   He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of
   various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes
   by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He
   likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from
   morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild
   beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a
   prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a
   monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the
   diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to
   regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of
   kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine
   majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were
   famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them,
   among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from
   Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own.
   Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and
   the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of
   vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the
   twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by
   all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter
   Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with
   choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most
   opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates
   for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it
   successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked
   in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to
   him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to
   be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the
   obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the
   fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with
   his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an
   his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in
   repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater
   infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne
   the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by
   his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to
   attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch,
   sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he
   had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to
   send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days
   pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. …
   When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his
   wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that
   criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon
   inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the
   portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he
   ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate'
   [a proverbial expression, meaning, without
   distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many
   persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with
   hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in
   repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or
   tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts
   carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them
   asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution
   of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his
   victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and
   frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and
   constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' …
   Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the
   Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish
   the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain
   aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered
   remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some
   terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence,
   conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his
   diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity,
   both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons
   were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was
   dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of
   beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of
   prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never
   had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person,
   or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters …
   there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not
   make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part
   in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into
   Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few
   Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in
   concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be
   brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with
   great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately
   threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian
   knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from
   the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by
   torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with
   timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make
   war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the
   ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no
   one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden
   commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their
   helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them
   'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.'
   As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was
   crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the
   falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want
   of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours'
   rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."

      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Caligula
      (translated by A. Thomson)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 47-48 (volume 5)._

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
      volume 2._

ROME: A. D. 41.
   The murder of Caligula.
   Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians.
   Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.

   "If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was
   due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his
   assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a
   private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to
   indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the
   caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his
   personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure,
   neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the
   guards who watched over his safety.
{2704}
   Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian
   cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of
   his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even
   when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would
   insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe
   out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and
   organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles
   a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the
   Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into
   effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded
   by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but
   still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of
   January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's
   debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants,
   however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows;
   and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led
   from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble
   youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage.
   … Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when
   Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him:
   the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword,
   while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A
   second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his
   limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I
   live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying,
   'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of
   his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while
   his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and
   amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said,
   more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. …
   When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the
   mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been
   silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in
   which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was
   to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and
   senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny
   of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted
   the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places
   under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins
   Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been
   substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened
   the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an
   edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a
   remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed,
   together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The
   fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which
   the government should be henceforth administered. On this
   point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote
   that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their
   temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and
   Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of
   monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility
   more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The
   debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other
   specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the
   leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate
   deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the
   confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several
   of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace,
   and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to
   offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or
   concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a
   curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal
   violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they
   recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected
   uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost
   senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood
   still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of
   slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of
   Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than
   earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to
   their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the
   senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding
   about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to
   appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the
   object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the
   prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time
   promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The
   senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but
   now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and
   even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of
   their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain
   the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of
   the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city,
   and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all
   parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed
   over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side.
   All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero
   to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend
   upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree,
   which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the
   name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief
   of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor
   by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn
   swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's
   murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by
   a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus,
   with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate
   execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour,
   and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to
   publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late
   interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture
   to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed,
   of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable
   disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects'
   good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. …
   His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of
   numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were
   suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The
   popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his
   own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as
   attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not
   less deeply felt. …
{2705}
   The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter
   disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so
   lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler
   with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too
   long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by
   constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was
   perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen
   and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a
   wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would
   have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and
   Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first
   an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out
   of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of
   hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of
   one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had
   been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the
   infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his
   presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be
   imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private
   station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed
   muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member
   of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's
   character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the
   study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing,
   which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole
   imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and
   when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in
   repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to
   remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly
   arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and
   well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task
   imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of
   mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books,
   varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the
   fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of
   fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the
   reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the
   deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of
   dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate,
   for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute
   it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated
   Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women,
   and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement
   of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the
   armies on the frontiers."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 48-49 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Capes,
      The Early Empire,
      chapters 3-4._

ROME: A. D. 42-67.
   St. Peter and the Roman Church: The question.

      See PAPACY: ST. PETER AND THE CHURCH AT ROM[E.

ROME: A. D. 43-53.
   Conquests of Claudius in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

ROME: A. D. 47-54.
   The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina.
   Their infamous and terrible ascendancy.
   Murder of the emperor.
   Advent of Nero.

   The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of
   his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become
   proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were
   the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and
   who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and
   Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under
   Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were
   the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius,
   Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league
   with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they
   longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they
   would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by
   tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were
   admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though
   Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should
   be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and
   strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds
   to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous
   herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to
   compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and
   before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with
   honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who
   would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A.
   D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly
   through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This
   nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put
   to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina,
   the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained
   the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very
   different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter
   had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of
   lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but
   Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid
   of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was
   the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness,
   that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal
   brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his
   vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now
   form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of
   Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by
   Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero
   Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore
   caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him,
   and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica,
   whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and
   committed to him the education of her son, that he might be
   fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius,
   yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although
   Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with
   neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of
   affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful
   of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old
   emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was
   concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero
   should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the
   astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the
   palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard,
   he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the
   soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor.
   The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the
   will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was
   poisoned."

      _T. Keightley,
      History of the Roman Empire,
      part 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapter 50 (volume 5)._

      _Tacitus,
      Annals,
      books 11-12._

{2706}

ROME: A. D. 54-64.
   The atrocities of Nero.
   The murder of his mother.
   The burning of the city.

   "Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula].
   He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of
   murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is
   limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would
   be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his
   peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to
   illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any
   murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by
   enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. …
   For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade
   himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same
   attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to
   murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next
   thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough,
   according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first
   attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for
   Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her
   constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took
   potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more
   probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his
   sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of
   inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of
   Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose
   administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second
   more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in
   the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so
   that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned,
   and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of
   these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false
   ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and
   in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a
   vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to
   all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the
   indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears
   of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial
   ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to
   pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed
   at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which
   was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated
   stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied
   her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of
   her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel
   should get into deep water before the experiment could be
   made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited
   news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless
   into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information
   that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but,
   by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was
   now on her road to mingle congratulations with her
   affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the
   mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for
   everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a
   duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a
   little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could
   any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? …
   Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any
   longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated
   affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend,
   swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have
   suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant
   execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered
   quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such
   forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have
   themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which
   they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking
   at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero
   did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders
   of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public
   mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in
   their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he
   should have made other experiments upon the public patience,
   which seem expressly designed to try how much it would
   support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating
   fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D.
   64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and
   sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one
   great presumption against it, founded on its desperate
   imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts,
   is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the
   Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer
   congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter
   on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed
   incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a
   case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on
   this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral
   honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for
   ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus
   ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of
   the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the
   Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then
   perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and,
   in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation,
   'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.'
   And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's
   hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible
   so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old
   republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for
   health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for
   architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the
   Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For,
   like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour
   proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population;
   and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however,
   this event must have been felt by the people as an
   overwhelming calamity.
{2707}
   And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity
   of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked
   with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and
   effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the
   ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself,
   with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from
   sifting the rubbish."

      _T. De Quincey,
      The Cæsars
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Nero._

      _Tacitus,
      Annals,
      books 13-16._

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
      volume 2._

ROME: A. D. 61.
   Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

ROME: A. D. 64-68.
   The first persecution of Christians.
   The fitting end of Nero.

   "Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found
   it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to
   exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was
   usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly
   holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after
   the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and
   that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not
   succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was
   perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed
   those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he
   did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish,
   as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of
   the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero
   becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It
   was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red
   light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as
   the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac
   aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's
   Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative,
   indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath
   of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
   For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having
   destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and
   faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered
   heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he
   should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always
   been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the
   Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain,
   because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the
   horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman
   Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither
   Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve
   this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large
   space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we
   do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had
   joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and
   Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never
   in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. …
   That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime
   charged against them was well known both at the time and
   afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and
   partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts
   against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies
   he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid
   indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has
   conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews,
   and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell
   with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even
   more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously
   circulated against them, and from what appeared to the
   ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar
   tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and
   tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men
   detested for their enormities, whom the common people called
   Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed
   during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate,
   and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to
   burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the
   evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every
   quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find
   their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus
   from making any inquiry into the real views and character of
   the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the
   most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says,
   called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for
   staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely
   mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of
   being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to
   death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries,
   to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But
   the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty,
   namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being
   thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's
   persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of
   the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at
   this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One
   was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the
   harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in
   their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the
   whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us
   to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the
   Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus
   tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then
   on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much
   on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.'
   Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly
   means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the
   confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently
   generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity
   in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the
   scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge
   multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the
   number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number
   of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says
   that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against
   mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the
   Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of
   'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the
   historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence
   which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the
   Roman mob.
{2708}
   He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance
   their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts,
   they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being
   nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after
   twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own
   gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with
   the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving
   about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and
   deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion
   towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being
   immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to
   glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene,
   once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St.
   Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the
   vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty
   city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible
   storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread
   from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by
   lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of
   Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of
   heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings
   of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in
   the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were
   the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all
   these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as
   well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially
   terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility
   with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him
   back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the
   air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He
   withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D.
   68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that
   the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C.
   Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from
   being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at
   the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For
   eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he
   heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and
   Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his
   position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and
   remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his
   grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes
   chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile
   he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and
   that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden
   box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though
   to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged
   for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts.
   The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles
   from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over
   his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode
   away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on
   the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and
   most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor
   wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans
   and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not
   summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for
   Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read
   that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the
   ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral
   fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked
   and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a
   fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after
   theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the
   excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade
   Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to
   show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke
   on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held
   the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus,
   one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars!
   And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero
   was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the
   exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who
   had inspired his youth with a genuine love."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      The Early Days of Christianity,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Allies,
      The Formation of Christendom,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

ROME: A. D. 68-96.
   End of the Julian line.
   The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors.
   A logical classification.

   "In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The
   three next princes in the succession were personally
   uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, …
   were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous;
   besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all
   three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no
   more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from
   all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the
   line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession,
   Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up
   the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we
   find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of
   curious research. But these emperors would be more properly
   classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian,
   and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian,
   Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and
   infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the
   empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed,
   had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and
   period of observation determined the series and cycle of his
   subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is
   evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars,
   the six latter have no connection whatever by descent,
   collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a
   more logical distribution to combine them according to the
   fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its
   prosperity through the several stages of splendour,
   declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement,
   the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus
   would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian
   would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up
   the melancholy rear."

      _T. De Quincey,
      The Cæsars,
      chapter 3._

ROME: A. D. 69.
   Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

      See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

{2709}

ROME: A. D. 69.
   Galba, Otho, Vitellius.
   Vespasian.
   The Vitellian conflict.

   On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the
   veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in
   Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial
   throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the
   following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard,
   instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of
   Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed
   in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to
   reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt
   against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east
   and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in
   the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single
   talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the
   favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in
   succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent
   forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met
   them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum,
   between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which
   he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made
   his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his
   soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the
   armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by
   the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put
   forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better
   guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius
   Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of
   the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or
   "Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the
   autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on
   the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a
   few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a
   flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors,
   was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally
   destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair,
   showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his
   resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But
   the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in
   the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication.
   Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his
   supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the
   Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the
   Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was
   burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the
   victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius
   Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this
   outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was
   driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished
   poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered
   in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody
   hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen
   the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and
   Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and
   ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign
   ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still
   in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the
   following year.

      _Tacitus,
      History,
      book 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 56-57._

ROME: A. D. 70.
   Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

      See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

ROME: A. D. 70-96.
   The Flavian family.
   Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

   "Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time
   completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the
   middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the
   mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to
   the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic
   stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming
   banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the
   emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for
   he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy
   of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no
   longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of
   gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal
   diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His
   life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to
   establish order in the state and in the finances; but he
   accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others,
   made no preparations for the future, it did much for the
   present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were
   felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as
   the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the
   second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in
   the senate the support of his government. This assembly,
   debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did
   a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. …
   Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of
   censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from
   the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy,
   replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire,
   and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised
   several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or
   provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic
   families which had survived, and constituted with these the
   higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil,
   military, and religious functions were taken. … This
   aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities,
   where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had
   acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought
   into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of
   the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second
   them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long
   intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true
   representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all
   important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony,
   that it would be difficult to cite a single individual
   unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his
   absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice
   himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade
   five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the
   ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals
   of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform
   them—he set good examples. …
{2710}
   Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a
   temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils
   of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth
   time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum
   surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already
   existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast
   amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths
   remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for
   Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its
   name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of
   Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed
   the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following
   year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial
   proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the
   incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube,
   extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the
   Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the
   prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive
   to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus
   the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous
   effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon
   foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the
   secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal
   and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69
   years old, and was at his little house in the territory of
   Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am
   becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in
   advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to
   die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this
   effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor
   has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer
   suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,'
   'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian
   being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father
   had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the
   Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the
   censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the
   prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age
   of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by
   his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of
   the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon
   companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed
   to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen
   Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking
   possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he
   would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no
   one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the
   short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were
   overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79),
   while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried
   off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D.
   78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days,
   consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and
   Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank
   with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the
   survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through
   the death of those who had perished in the disaster without
   leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of
   repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he
   sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted
   only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th
   of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his
   paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a
   violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There
   is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter
   and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches.
   'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I
   have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one
   knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then
   thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of
   the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother
   by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of
   taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military
   exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the
   elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours,
   but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the
   titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize
   at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying
   brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On
   the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost
   all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end
   badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. …
   Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his
   reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government,
   then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till
   late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped
   every title upon his own head and decreed deification to
   himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … '
   The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17
   times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator'
   for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled
   Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There
   were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the
   expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a
   great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from
   the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be
   believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged:
   Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased
   slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not
   so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and
   perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of
   high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a
   descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions
   in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the
   Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on
   the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus,
   governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore.
   … This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny
   says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. …
   Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound
   terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every
   occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of
   gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were
   realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September
   18, A. D. 96.

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 77-78 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7)._

{2711}

ROME: A. D. 78-84.
   Campaigns of Agricola in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

ROME: A. D. 96-138.
   Brief reign of Nerva.-
   Adoption and succession of Trajan.
   His persecution of Christians.
   His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east.
   Hadrian's relinquishment of them.

   "On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M.
   Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and
   confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to
   Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius,
   chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and
   a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first
   Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent,
   upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame
   and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years,
   rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the
   arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and
   reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became
   popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under
   which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured
   'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The
   treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to
   death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again
   enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to
   administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people,
   he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance,
   and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the
   extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous
   sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and
   reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household
   expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and
   yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a
   prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious
   and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a
   conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It
   was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed
   his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being
   only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the
   Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their
   Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with
   cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor,
   murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid
   Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and
   to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on
   the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by
   circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the
   insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and
   successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the
   Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and
   added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act
   calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent
   of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of
   Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the
   gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the
   sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which
   Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva
   Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. …
   He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father
   had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was
   a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of
   Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants
   generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished
   himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his
   adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in
   Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in
   the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a
   commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a
   perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with
   all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict
   disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by
   their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. …
   The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by
   his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial
   power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the
   army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the
   troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The
   ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together
   with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and
   estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her
   husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister,
   Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman
   society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who
   by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which
   had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The
   tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the
   peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in
   which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the
   country beyond the Danube. …

      See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

   A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient
   reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the
   interval show his genius for civil as well as for military
   administration. … But his presence was soon required in the
   East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him
   for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition
   was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of
   Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia,
   instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the
   hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction.
   Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message
   with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent,
   he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens,
   and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to
   entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris,
   or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told
   them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as
   he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched
   by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch.
{2712}
   The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his
   stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the
   persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance
   and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the
   Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The
   religious distinction was beneath their notice; they
   contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The
   Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were
   meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions
   of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions
   were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial
   influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when
   Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to
   Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his
   province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous
   superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if
   discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having
   received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of
   Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia.
   Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his
   diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to
   him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a
   province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost
   his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the
   commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary
   submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus,
   Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the
   barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still
   he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king
   of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took
   possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of
   Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris,
   and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of
   Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured
   Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon,
   the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on
   Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman
   province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the
   same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped
   through a window, not without personal injury. … The river
   Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his
   conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix,
   and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making
   preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his
   ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand.
   Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were
   either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to
   crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and
   slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable
   advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun
   to be in a state of insurrection.

      See JEWS: A. D. 116.

   He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens),
   whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid
   siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great
   loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving
   his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made
   governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest
   solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia
   (afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa,
   and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D.
   117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to
   nominate a successor, following in this the example of
   Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio
   positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for
   some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his
   last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian
   received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of
   August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days
   afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch,
   he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their
   assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him
   without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should
   remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for
   was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at
   this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new
   Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's
   illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved
   some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania,
   Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of
   insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to
   fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its
   own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It
   was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and
   populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by
   the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean
   envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that
   it was worth any price to purchase peace and security.
   Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria
   and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an
   independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the
   Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his
   throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace
   in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and
   returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the
   following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the
   principal features in his character, would not permit him to
   remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal
   survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and
   for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as
   the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence
   he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and
   discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to
   Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue
   of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years
   of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in
   Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium.
   Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the
   university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through
   Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three
   years. …

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

{2713}

   Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his
   architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter
   Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of
   advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of
   pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for
   his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his
   [Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious,
   self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live
   two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on
   condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus,
   afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus."
   Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper
   savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others
   were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so
   excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put
   him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at
   defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank
   what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his
   sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the
   twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was
   present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli
   (Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles
   Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the
   Castle of St. Angelo."

      _R. W. Browne,
      History of Rome from A. D. 96,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 63-66 (volume 7)._

      _T. Arnold and others,
      History of the Roman Empire
      (Encyclopædia Metropolitana).
      chapters 4-6._

[IMAGE:
THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116)
SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS.
ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS.
TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.

THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.

THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED
BY THE LETTERING.]


ROME: A. D. 138-180.
   The Antonines.
   Antoninus Pius.
   Marcus Aurelius.

   "On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius
   succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late
   Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
   Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the
   sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the
   engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter
   Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven
   years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius
   is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost
   unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were
   lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged;
   confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost
   unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the
   people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one
   aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like
   Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good
   for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military
   title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph.
   With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his
   private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his
   public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his
   life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each
   was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from
   regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave
   him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the
   honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the
   whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual
   confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years
   old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a
   fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned
   his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and
   there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who
   is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly
   recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving
   to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as
   though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred
   to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune,
   which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an
   omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new
   Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission
   of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest
   participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius
   Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty
   of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for
   manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his
   adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general
   than himself, and that he could best serve the State by
   retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his
   brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he
   got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of
   Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be
   a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said
   in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly
   free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense
   to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a
   large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign
   his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the
   wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of
   such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of
   calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State.
   An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in
   wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes,
   by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects.
   To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to
   alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars.
   The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all
   but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the
   Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst
   over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain
   was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of
   trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus
   Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As
   the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus
   was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his
   generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have
   ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These
   generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name
   [A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph,
   bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible
   pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A.
   D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus
   himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the
   undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial
   elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his
   meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in
   fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that
   nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse
   than the waste of time.
{2714}
   It is to such views and such habits that we owe the
   composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid
   the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars
   with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see
   SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he
   was the author of other works which unhappily have perished.
   Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few
   which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost
   autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan
   men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself
   that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it
   was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to
   him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of
   the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which
   he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the
   Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering
   Legion.' …

      See THUNDERING LEGION.

   To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied
   with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful
   and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed.
   … It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the
   embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with
   another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt
   of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type,
   whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and
   trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus
   the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous
   consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had
   inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the
   rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been
   a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was
   assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled
   through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius
   Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and
   indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification,
   he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the
   valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a
   character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a
   charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her
   offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but
   surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to
   be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius
   cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider
   this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the
   Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing
   complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him,
   as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble
   principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he
   shared the profound dislike with which Christians were
   regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and
   virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. …
   The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep
   calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the
   Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused
   into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men
   whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled
   the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let
   the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place
   in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the
   churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly
   after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the
   North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of
   his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and
   bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia,
   either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the
   59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      Seekers after God: Marcus Aurelius._

   "One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best
   and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed;
   but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the
   banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that
   incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that
   Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which
   has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal
   Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old,
   because it asserts no dogma."

      _E. Renan,
      English Conferences: Marcus Aurelius._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Capes,
      The Age of the Antonines._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 67-68 (volume 7)._

      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus._

      _G. Long,
      Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,
      introduction._

ROME: A. D. 180-192.
   The reign of Commodus.

   "If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
   world during which the condition of the human race was most
   happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that
   which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
   Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by
   absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The
   armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four
   successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded
   involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he
   sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for
   a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own
   family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was
   neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and
   learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the
   narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices,
   and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was
   designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father,
   amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he
   ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither
   competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm
   elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer
   the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of
   his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and
   Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a
   tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and
   capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature
   had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition.
   His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his
   attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty,
   which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into
   habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. …
{2715}
   During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even
   the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those
   faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son,
   and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained
   a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate
   favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but
   his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even
   displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have
   ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his
   fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was
   returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in
   the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed
   upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate
   sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin
   was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors
   of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but
   within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the
   assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an
   indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body
   of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate
   ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a
   race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the
   former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they
   discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding
   disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was
   equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a
   considerable senator was attended with the death of all who
   might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once
   tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. …
   Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of
   the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to
   himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome:
   he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics.
   Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and
   Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their
   companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the
   destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either
   from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation
   of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a
   draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself
   with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but
   whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and
   drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered
   his chamber, and strangled him without resistance"
   (December 31, A. D. 192).

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. L. Crevier,
      History of the Roman Emperors,
      book 21 (volume 7)._

ROME: A. D. 192-284.
   From Commodus to Diocletian.
   Twenty-three Emperors in the Century.
   Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants.
   Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.

   On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of
   the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the
   conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of
   the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But
   the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar
   occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the
   new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of
   throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height.
   Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set
   it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named
   Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to
   receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain
   proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia,
   Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus.
   This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and
   stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating
   Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and
   finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by
   reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He
   maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the
   Parthians and Caledonians.

      See Britain; A. D. 208-211].

   His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he
   wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the
   license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the
   empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a
   prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share
   empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the
   more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to
   disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the
   character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks
   of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial
   impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty
   terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave
   offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who
   murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had
   not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after
   defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by
   the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second
   cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named
   Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa,
   in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious
   effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual
   indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend,
   and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they
   were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus,
   cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character,
   succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable
   qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander.
   … The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother
   military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of
   Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the
   Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion
   over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over
   Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his
   subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular
   discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the
   amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A.
   D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd,
   distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a
   stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude,
   brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of
   the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the
   chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity
   on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his
   son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth.
{2716}
   But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an
   engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin
   was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury.
   Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus
   and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal,
   the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as
   Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his
   horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he
   and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The
   army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of
   the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point
   of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by
   the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the
   person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of
   age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his
   father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war
   against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage
   worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now
   become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by
   Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an
   Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized
   on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and
   contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A
   third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the
   Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During
   the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."

      _T. Keightley,
      Outlines of History
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia),
      part 1, chapter 9._

   "Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to
   extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of
   its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the
   time exhibit a departure from the system which had been
   usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of
   Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal
   order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk;
   and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal
   information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably
   on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of
   trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly
   displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's
   edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians
   in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St.
   Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity
   for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially
   directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims
   were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of
   Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as
   Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of
   Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings.
   The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the
   Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view
   they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of
   food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way.
   Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul,
   a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert
   of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian
   hermit."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion
   of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in
   considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

   Decius marched against them, and gained some important
   advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of
   the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered
   and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus
   deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the
   survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the
   legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood,
   proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a
   dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the
   persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked
   general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the
   most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who
   was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy,
   and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as
   an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by
   his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed
   emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate,
   the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the
   sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age,
   possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes
   of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths,
   who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the
   northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories
   to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged
   Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the
   coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

   The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the
   lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni
   on the upper part of that river.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 253.

   The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the
   Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus,
   the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague,
   and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained
   several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian
   marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had
   invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia,
   but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by
   Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at
   discretion (A. D. 259).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

   During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity,
   the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while
   no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son.
   Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his
   accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of
   Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was
   invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were
   forced to retire by the emperor.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.

{2717}

   Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity:
   his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in
   the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,'
   though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the
   most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple
   at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians,
   and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was
   murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his
   wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of
   the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered
   while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum
   (Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to
   Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of
   the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by
   assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his
   only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths,
   whom he routed with great slaughter

      See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

   He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered
   Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor
   himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was
   elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so
   displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient
   discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a
   native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army;
   and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully
   confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led
   his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

   Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his
   loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His
   next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that
   had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility
   of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from
   Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.

      See PALMYRA.

   This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the
   suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the
   recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for
   thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single
   campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian,
   returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent
   triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the
   province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman
   garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube.
   Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity
   that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His
   officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A.
   D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations
   and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor
   Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven
   months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the
   senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the
   person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian
   was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed
   master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which
   was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only
   defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own
   country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his
   predecessors.

      See GAUL: A. D. 277
      and GERMANY: A. D. 277.

   Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and,
   returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent
   Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and
   commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But
   even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not
   protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny
   (A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian
   guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate
   assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the
   Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283,
   while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his
   successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated
   by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The
   crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death
   by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave,
   was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed
   at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch
   that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a
   new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of
   Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still
   used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African
   nations."

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Student's Manual of Ancient History,
      chapter 17, sections 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 5-12 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 213.
   First collision with the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ROME: A. D. 238.
   Siege of Aquileia by Maximin.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

ROME: A. D. 238-267.
   Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths
   in Greece and Asia Minor.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ROME: A. D. 284-305.
   Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian.
   Its division and subdivision between
   two Augusti and two Cæsars.
   Abdication of Diocletian.

   "The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the
   history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of
   the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate
   itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political
   significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical
   autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are
   simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of
   Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had
   already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The
   nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor
   of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long
   lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of
   citizens. The provinces are still administered under the
   imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an
   earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other
   are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and
   finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically
   weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to
   authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time
   past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of
   the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never
   presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might
   split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there
   were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves
   controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than
   the rest. …
{2718}
   The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe
   which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more
   imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic
   connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart
   of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had
   forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit
   the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious
   order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a
   candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent
   acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of
   Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no
   longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased
   to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in
   constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly
   overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the
   possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check
   upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating
   with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict
   alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up
   his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine
   with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His
   first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a
   brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name
   Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the
   year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the
   fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names,
   which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the
   commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of
   the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to
   control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic
   sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a
   pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian
   encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in
   various quarters in the East.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

   His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the
   state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian
   created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to
   himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide
   the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The
   Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving
   their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each
   a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a
   certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed
   kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a
   court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian
   retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the
   realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia
   Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar
   Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces
   on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands,
   and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at
   Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish
   frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and
   Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for
   maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western
   Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest,
   and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all
   the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces.
   Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of
   Egypt.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

   Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew
   a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter.
   Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in
   check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and
   again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered
   and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria
   to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once
   defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to
   submission.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627].

   Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the
   commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at
   the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial
   city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The
   illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or
   fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on
   May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he
   performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia,
   the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding
   of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the
   object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene
   was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the
   abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous
   sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority
   of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established
   the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to
   descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements,
   and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his
   great political experiments, he crowned his career of
   moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself
   during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of
   a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared
   for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in
   the cultivation of his garden."

      _C. Merivale,
      General History of Rome,
      chapter 70._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, DIOCLETIAN.

ROME: A. D. 287.
   Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

      See BAGAUDS;
      also, DEDITITIUS.

ROME: A. D. 303-305.
   The persecution of Christians under Diocletian.

   "Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been
   cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. …
   There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the
   proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were
   more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured
   for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at
   the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still
   larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other
   hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of
   deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they
   would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their
   province or the glories of their race. By men of position and
   of education, they would be despised as opposing every
   interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still
   were the sentiments of the sovereigns.
{2719}
   By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects,
   building temples without authority, appointing priests without
   license, while they lived and died for principles the most
   adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. …
   Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with
   reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar,
   afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of
   Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his
   temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still
   more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He
   turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to
   hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian
   fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was
   because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle
   from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another
   time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the
   presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the
   omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was
   superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a
   man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered
   that all employed in the imperial service should take part in
   the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. …
   At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he
   was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged
   instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law,
   'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.'
   But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder
   Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his
   son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to
   have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting
   the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and
   Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their
   realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a
   note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled,
   one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not
   until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration
   of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and
   terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches
   were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They
   themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. …
   Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as
   suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at
   Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the
   Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern
   provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The
   Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers,
   were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults
   ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of
   the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners
   should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual
   under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the
   racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth
   edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was
   published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest
   every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one
   of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand
   the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar
   Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were
   no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of
   the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in
   Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree
   diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were
   thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst
   the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those
   who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or
   beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In
   many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up
   with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to
   men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what
   rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer
   of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness.
   … The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be
   called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one
   side slain."

      _S. Eliot,
      History of the Early Christians,
      book 3, chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Carr,
      The Church and the Roman Empire,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      book 3, chapter 1._

ROME: A. D. 305-323.
   The wars of Constantine and his rivals.
   His triumph.
   His reunion of the Empire.

   On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and
   Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of
   Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew
   of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his
   favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of
   Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of
   Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation.
   Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in
   Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor,
   in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not
   courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to
   withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which
   he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced,
   for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar,
   while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far
   greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful
   rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the
   throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and
   his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his
   retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but
   afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at
   Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death.
   Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but
   retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend
   Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased
   Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming
   the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin
   in the East (including Africa), making common cause against
   Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in
   these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son,
   Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The
   old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared
   against him.
{2720}
   He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but
   soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married
   his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and
   restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was
   put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at
   Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and
   Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine
   and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and
   Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius,
   who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine
   to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy,
   with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army
   of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan;
   took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought
   outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third
   encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine
   miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this
   decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the
   next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was
   defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon
   afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D.
   313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was
   ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year.
   Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and
   the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near
   Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in
   Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued
   for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession
   of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years,
   Constantine was contented with the great empire he then
   possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman
   world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the
   war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically
   decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d
   of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium,
   which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia,
   Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to
   his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again
   united and Constantine was its single lord.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapters 7-22._

ROME: A. D. 306.
   Constantine's defeat of the Franks.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

ROME: A. D. 313.
   Constantine's Edict of Milan.
   Declared toleration of Christianity.

   After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the
   Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in
   January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with
   Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the
   results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan,
   which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of
   equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as
   follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I,
   Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan,
   and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the
   public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest
   appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all.
   We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those
   matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be
   exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the
   Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of
   worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and
   celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all
   that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the
   following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most
   correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to
   Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship.
   But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to
   that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the
   Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour
   and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to
   the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly
   accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly
   wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any
   persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or
   from any other one, these shall restore them to the
   Christians, without money and without demanding any price. …
   They who as we have said restore them without valuation and
   price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and
   liberality."

      _Eusebius,
      Ecclesiastical History,
      book 10, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      Progress of Religious Freedom,
      chapter 2._

ROME: A. D. 318-325.
   The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

      See ARIANISM;
      and NICÆA: A. D. 325.

ROME: A. D. 323.
   The conversion of Constantine.
   His Christianity.
   His character.

   "The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has
   afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the
   present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the
   Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he
   represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter,
   best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form
   of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of
   manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to
   Christianity took place at the period of the war with
   Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject
   are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth,
   was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at
   Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him
   the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the
   death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within
   two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says,
   'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial
   sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He
   did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the
   shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top
   circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc.
   Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early
   Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after
   Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in
   the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers
   in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine',
   published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives
   us an interesting account of the moral process of the
   Emperor's conversion.
{2721}
   Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and
   hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was
   endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced
   that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces
   could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical
   enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant,
   he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was
   thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign
   appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might
   have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been
   related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor
   himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this
   history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and
   society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could
   hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the
   testimony of after time has established its truth? He said
   that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he
   saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the
   heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer
   by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,
   and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on
   some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover,
   that he doubted within himself what the import of this
   apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and
   reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his
   sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign
   which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure
   a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as
   a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The
   standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous
   Labarum.

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapter 11._

   "He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain
   religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence
   of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from
   dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and
   finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his
   vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined
   instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the
   heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were
   certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this
   persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that
   he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the
   gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that
   such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as
   occurred in his political course, did not well befit an
   instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be
   considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops
   at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved
   for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to
   be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of
   God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a
   rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the
   heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in
   immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to
   what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the
   third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them
   congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in
   the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God
   in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were
   shocked at such a parallel."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      period 2, section. 1, A._

   "As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental
   manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of
   Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different
   colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He
   substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers,
   for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the
   first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and
   lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the
   instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their
   jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and
   the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the
   wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He
   poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more
   especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most
   illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his
   first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and
   the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a
   desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his
   brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his
   nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical
   priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to
   rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent
   him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest
   veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine
   atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by
   heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed
   on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property
   connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to
   ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been
   candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves
   depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How
   was it possible that their characters should not undergo a
   total change?"

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

ROME: A. D. 330.
   Transference of the capital of the Empire to
   Byzantium (Constantinople).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 330.

ROME: A. D. 337-361.
   Redivision of the Empire.
   Civil wars between the sons of Constantine
   and their successors.
   Elevation of Julian to the throne.

   Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine,
   Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively
   raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and
   thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also
   two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the
   half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of
   the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other
   Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the
   imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine,
   was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to
   take the western Gallic provinces under his especial
   administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia,
   Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of
   the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapter 33._

{2722}

   The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D.
   337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the
   possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for
   peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and
   Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and
   otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and
   another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms.
   The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on
   much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now
   reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name.
   There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by
   Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of
   the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was
   killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took
   possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to
   Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was
   destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to
   his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction.
   Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops
   in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the
   purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose
   these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged
   man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to
   surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to
   meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great
   battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in
   modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from
   Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but
   slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single
   ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his
   burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young
   nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the
   house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He
   raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him
   the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus
   conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed
   in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian,
   escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and
   by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn,
   was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself
   there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A.
   D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of
   the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of
   troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the
   Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian
   emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He
   promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition
   and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were
   rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an
   extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black
   Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the
   Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the
   civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this
   stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian
   became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced
   Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 18-22._

ROME: A. D. 338-359.
   Wars of Constantius with the Persians.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 350-361.
   Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans.
   Its recovery by Julian.

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ROME: A. D. 361-363.
   Julian and the Pagan revival.

   "Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those
   supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be
   easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed
   from that in the East. In the West it was principally the
   Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to
   their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the
   people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made
   much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy
   could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an
   aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more
   dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman
   nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and
   illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch,
   and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were
   almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen
   spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian
   Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was
   held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For,
   according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine
   stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it
   was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the
   Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed
   and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it
   was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was
   the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The
   educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all
   this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they
   beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works
   of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness
   destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute
   of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they
   themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the
   Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the
   superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the
   re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in
   Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial
   throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal
   progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to
   the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit
   of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was
   chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious
   aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism,
   because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul
   of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all
   the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of
   course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he
   naturally received the most devoted homage among the
   Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their
   flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a
   declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he
   had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the
   church in Vienne.
{2723}
   But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly
   offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once
   more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as
   universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a
   deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They
   too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years
   hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to
   feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that
   even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as
   a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever
   seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic
   controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the
   suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious
   liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian
   should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly
   thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the
   Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides,
   he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity
   and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an
   enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who
   surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine
   voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was
   from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less
   firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out
   without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to
   Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity.
   … The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen
   from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest
   and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had
   corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of
   useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be
   simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an
   Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose
   table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other
   employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A
   temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a
   daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the
   sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife
   into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every
   festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe
   the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was
   equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as
   Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship
   which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was
   re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods
   were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be
   celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became
   plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves
   proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius
   of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a
   secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's
   guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and
   from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The
   dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began
   to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen
   only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really
   isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic,
   and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by
   poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be
   found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers,
   who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far
   too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They
   preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement
   best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the
   monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably
   tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them
   better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as
   Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the
   knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was
   to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration
   must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt
   compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for
   such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian,
   were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living.
   The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. …
   While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism,
   other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An
   imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to
   act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient
   classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for
   Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when
   they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not
   compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not
   permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took
   them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a
   persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution,
   yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any
   which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of
   that which should be common to all men,—education. …
   Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration
   of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He
   spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only
   for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and
   yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen
   friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a
   distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to
   Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the
   great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There
   new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his
   gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was
   restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to
   offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude
   of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or
   incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man
   approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the
   newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the
   Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the
   Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught
   fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a
   dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many
   Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its
   martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and
   the whole world besides, advanced to new measures.
{2724}
   The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property
   confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had
   forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any
   office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian
   himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple
   to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for
   hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses.
   Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and
   gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then
   he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and
   expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred
   especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. …
   Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the
   Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting
   over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark
   that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they
   deserved to be governed by such a one."

      _G. Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      book 3, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Rendall.
      Julian the Emperor._

      _B. L. Gildersleeve,
      The Emperor Julian
      (Essays and Studies, pages 355-400)._

      _Gregory Nazianzen,
      Invectives against Julian, and Libanius,
      Funeral Oration upon Julian,
      translated by C. W. King._

ROME: A. D. 363.
   The Persian expedition of Julian.
   His death.
   Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 363-379.
   Christianity reascendant.
   Secret hostility of Paganism.
   Reign of Valentinian and Valens.
   Approach of the Huns.
   The struggle with the Goths.
   Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.

   When Julian's successor, Jovian, "who did not reign long
   enough to lead back to Constantinople the army which he had
   marched from the banks of the Tigris, made public profession
   of Christianity, he, at the same time, displaced a great
   number of brave officers and able functionaries, whom Julian
   had promoted in proportion to their zeal for paganism. From
   that period, up to the fall of the empire, a hostile sect,
   which regarded itself as unjustly stripped of its ancient
   honours, invoked the vengeance of the gods on the heads of the
   government, exulted in the public calamities, and probably
   hastened them by its intrigues, though inextricably involved
   in the common ruin. The pagan faith, which was not attached to
   a body of doctrine, nor supported by a corporation of priests,
   nor heightened by the fervour of novelty, scarcely ever
   displayed itself in open revolt, or dared the perils of
   martyrdom; but pagans still occupied the foremost rank in
   letters:—the orators, the philosophers (or, as they were
   otherwise called, sophists), the historians, belonged, almost
   without an exception, to the ancient religion. It still kept
   possession of the most illustrious schools, especially those
   of Athens and Alexandria; the majority of the Roman senate
   were still attached to it; and in the breasts of the common
   people, particularly the rural population, it maintained its
   power for several centuries, branded, however, with the name
   of magic. … Less than eight months after his elevation to the
   throne, on the 17th of February, 364, Jovian died in a small
   town of Galatia. After the expiration of ten days, the army
   which he was leading home from Persia, at a solemn assembly
   held at Nice, in Bithynia, chose as his successor the son of a
   captain from a little village of Pannonia, the count
   Valentinian, whom his valour and bodily prowess had raised to
   one of the highest posts of the army. … Spite of his savage
   rudeness, and the furious violence of his temper, the Roman
   empire found in him an able chief at the moment of its
   greatest need. Unhappily, the extent of the empire required,
   at least, two rulers. The army felt this, and demanded a
   second. … Valentinian … chose his brother. Valens, with whom
   he shared his power, had the weak, timid, and cruel character
   which ordinarily distinguishes cowards. Valentinian, born in
   the West, … reserved the government of it to himself. He ceded
   to his brother a part of Illyricum on the Danube, and the
   whole of the East. He established universal toleration by law,
   and took no part in the sectarian controversies which divided
   Christendom. Valens adopted the Arian faith, and persecuted
   the orthodox party. The finances of the empire demanded a
   reform, which neither of the emperors was in a condition to
   undertake. They wanted money, and they were ignorant where to
   seek the long exhausted sources of public wealth. … Vast
   provinces in the interior were deserted; enlistments daily
   became more scanty and difficult; the magistrates of the
   'curiæ' or municipalities, who were responsible both for the
   contributions and the levies of their respective towns, sought
   by a thousand subterfuges to escape the perilous honour of the
   magistrature. …

      See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

   During the twelve years that Valentinian reigned over the West
   (A. D. 364-376), he redeemed his cruelties by several
   brilliant victories. …

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

   Valentinian had undertaken the defence of Gaul in person, and
   generally resided at Treves, then the capital of that vast
   prefecture; but at the time he was thus occupied, invasions
   not less formidable had devastated the other provinces of the
   West. …

      See BRITAIN. A. D. 367-370.

   At this period Valens reigned over the Greeks, whose language
   he did not understand (A. D. 364-378). His eastern frontier
   was menaced by the Persians, his northern by the Goths. …
   Armenia and Iberia became subject to Persia; but as the people
   of both these countries were Christian, they remained faithful
   to the interests of Rome, though conquered by her enemy. … The
   dominion of the Goths extended along the shores of the Danube
   and the Black Sea, and thirty years had elapsed since they had
   made any incursion into the Roman territory. But during that
   period they had gone on increasing in greatness and in power.
   … Spite of the formidable neighbourhood of the Goths and the
   Persians—spite of the cowardice and the incapacity of
   Valens—the East had remained at peace, protected by the mere
   name of Valentinian, whose military talents, promptitude, and
   severity were known to all the barbarian tribes. But the
   career of this remarkable man, so dreaded by his enemies and
   by his subjects, had now reached its term." He died in a fit
   of rage, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his chest,
   November 17, A. D. 375. "His two sons,—Gratian, who was
   scarcely come to manhood, and Valentinian, still a
   child,—shared the West between them. …
{2725}
   Never, however, was the empire in greater need of an able and
   vigorous head. The entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to
   the Sienpi its ancient pastures bordering on China, had
   traversed the whole north of Asia by a march of 1,300
   leagues." The Goths, overwhelmed and flying before them,
   begged permission to cross the Danube and take refuge in Mœsia
   and Thrace. They were permitted to do so; but such extortions
   and outrages were practiced on them, at the same time, that
   they were exasperated to a passionate hatred. This bore fruit
   in a general rising in 377. Two years of war ensued, marked by
   two great battles, that of Ad Salices, or The Willows, which
   neither side could fully claim, and that of Adrianople, August
   9, 378, in which Valens perished, and more than 60,000 of his
   soldiers fell.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 376, and 378.

   "The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
   terrible battle of Adrianople. … The Goths … advanced,
   ravaging all around them, to the foot of the walls of
   Constantinople; and, after some unimportant skirmishes,
   returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus, and Dalmatia.
   From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was marked by
   conflagration and blood. … No general in the East attempted to
   take advantage of the anarchy in favour of his own ambition;
   no army offered the purple to its chief; all dreaded the
   responsibility of command at so tremendous a crisis. All eyes
   were turned on the court of Treves, the only point whence help
   was hoped for. But Gratian, eldest son of Valentinian, and
   emperor of the West, was only 19. He … marched upon Illyricum
   with his army, when he learned the event of the battle of
   Adrianople, and the death of Valens, who had been so eager to
   secure the undivided honours of victory, that he would not
   wait for his arrival. Incapable of confronting such a tempest,
   he retreated to Sirmium. The news of an invasion of the
   Allemans into Gaul recalled him to the defence of his own
   territory. Danger started up on every hand at once. The empire
   stood in need of a new chief, and one of approved valour.
   Gratian had the singular generosity to choose from among his
   enemies, and from a sense of merit alone. Theodosius, the
   Spaniard, his father's general, who had successively
   vanquished the Scots and afterwards the Moors, and who had
   been unjustly condemned to the scaffold at the beginning of
   Gratian's reign, had left a son 33 years of age, who bore his
   name. The younger Theodosius had distinguished himself in the
   command he held in Mœsia, but was living in retirement and
   disgrace on his estates in Spain, when, with, the confidence
   of a noble mind, Gratian chose him out, presented him to the
   army on the 19th of January, 379, and declared him his
   colleague, and emperor of the East."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      introduction, and book 1, chapter 1._

ROME: A. D. 378.
   Gratian's overthrow of the Alemanni in Gaul.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

ROME: A. D. 379-395.
   Theodosius and the Goths.
   His Trinitarian Edict.
   Revolt of Maximus.
   Death of Gratian.
   Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
   Usurpation of Eugenius, and his fall.
   Death of Theodosius.

   "The first duty that Theodosius had to undertake was to
   restore the self-confidence and trust in victory of the Roman
   army, terribly shaken as these qualities had been by the
   disastrous rout of Hadrianople. This he accomplished by waging
   a successful guerilla war with the Gothic marauders. Valens
   had played into the hands of the barbarians by risking
   everything on one great pitched battle. Theodosius adopted the
   very opposite policy. He outmanoeuvred the isolated and
   straggling bands of the Goths, defeated them in one skirmish
   after another that did not deserve the name of a battle, and
   thus restored the courage and confidence of the Imperial
   troops. By the end of 379 he seems to have succeeded in
   clearing the territory south of the Balkan range of the
   harassing swarms of the barbarians. In February, 380, he fell
   sick at Thessalonica (which was his chief basis of operations
   throughout this period), and this sickness, from which he did
   not fully recover for some months, was productive of two
   important results, (1) his baptism as a Trinitarian Christian,
   (2) a renewal of the war against fresh swarms of barbarians.
   (1) Theodosius appears up to this point of his career not to
   have definitively ranged himself on either side of the great
   Arian controversy, though he had a hereditary inclination
   towards the Creed of Nicaea. Like his father, however, he had
   postponed baptism in accordance with the prevalent usage of
   his day: but now upon a bed of sickness which seemed likely to
   be one of death, he delayed no longer, but received the rite
   at the hands of Ascholius, the Catholic Bishop of
   Thessalonica. Before he was able to resume his post at the
   head of the legions, he published his celebrated Edict: 'To
   the people of Constantinople.—We desire that all the nations
   who are governed by the rule of our Clemency shall practise
   that religion which the Apostle Peter himself delivered to the
   Romans, and which it is manifest that the pontiff Damasus, and
   Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity, do
   now follow: that according to the discipline of the Apostles
   and the teaching of the Evangelists they believe in the one
   Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty, and
   in the holy Trinity. We order all who follow this law to
   assume the name of Catholic Christians, decreeing that all
   others, being mad and foolish persons, shall bear the infamy
   of their heretical dogmas, and that their Conventicles shall
   not receive the name of Churches: to be punished first by
   Divine vengeance, and afterwards by that exertion of our power
   to chastise which we have received from the decree of heaven.'
   Thus then at length the Caesar of the East was ranged on the
   side of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Constantine in the latter part
   of his reign, Constantius, Valens, had all been Arians or
   semi-Arians, some of them bitter in their heterodoxy. Julian
   had been a worshipper of the gods of Olympus. Thus for nearly
   two generations the influence of the Court of Constantinople
   had been thrown into the scale against the teaching of
   Athanasius, which was generally accepted throughout the
   Western realm. Now by the accession of Theodosius to the
   Trinitarian side, religious unity was restored to the Empire:
   but at the same time a chasm, an impassable chasm, was opened
   between the Empire itself and its new Teutonic guests, nearly
   all of whom held fast to the Arian teaching of their great
   Apostle Ulfilas. (2) The other consequence of the sickness of
   Theodosius was, as I have said, a fresh incursion of barbarian
   hordes, swarming across the Danube and climbing all the high
   passes of the Balkans.
{2726}
   The work of clearing the country of these marauders had to be
   all done over again. … At length, in the closing months of
   380, the provinces south of the Balkans (Macedonia and Thrace)
   were once more cleared of their barbarian intruders. Peace, in
   which Gratian concurred, was concluded with the Goths who
   still doubtless abounded in Moesia. …

      See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

   The insurrection at Antioch [A. D. 387] displayed the
   character of Theodosius in a favourable light, as a strong but
   merciful and magnanimous ruler of men. Very different was the
   effect on his fame of the insurrection which broke out three
   years later (390) in the Macedonian city of Thessalonica. …

      See THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.

   In the year 383 a military revolt broke out in Britain against
   the young Emperor Gratian. … The army revolted and proclaimed
   Magnus Clemens Maximus, Emperor. He was, like Theodosius, a
   native of Spain, and though harsh and perhaps rapacious, a man
   of ability and experience, not unworthy of the purple if he
   had come to it by lawful means. Gratian on his side had
   evidently given some real cause for dissatisfaction to his
   subjects. … Hence it was that when Maximus with the army of
   Britain landed in Gaul, he shook down the fabric of his power
   without difficulty. Gratian, finding himself deserted by his
   troops, escaped from the battle-field, but was overtaken and
   killed at Lyons. For more than four years, Maximus, satisfied
   with ruling over the three great Western provinces which had
   fallen to the share of Gratian, maintained at any rate the
   appearance of harmony with his two colleagues. … At length, in
   the autumn of 387, Maximus deemed that the time had come for
   grasping the whole Empire of the West. Lulling to sleep the
   suspicions of Valentinian and his mother by embassies and
   protestations of friendship, he crossed the Alps with an army
   and marched towards Aquileia, where the young Emperor was then
   dwelling in order to be as near as possible to the dominions
   of his friendly colleague and protector. Valentinian did not
   await the approach of his rival, but going down to the port of
   Grado, took ship and sailed for Thessalonica, his mother and
   sisters accompanying him. The Emperor and the Senate of
   Constantinople met the Imperial fugitives at Thessalonica, and
   discussed the present position of affairs. … What the
   entreaties of the mother might have failed to effect, the
   tears of the daughter [Galla] accomplished. Theodosius, whose
   wife Flaccilla had died two years before (385), took Galla for
   his second wife, and vowed to avenge her wrongs and replace
   her brother on the throne. He was some time in preparing for
   the campaign, but, when it was opened, he conducted it with
   vigour and decision. His troops pressed up the Save valley,
   defeated those of Maximus in two engagements, entered Aemona
   (Laybach) in triumph, and soon stood before the walls of
   Aquileia [July, 388], behind which Maximus was sheltering
   himself. … A mutiny among the troops of Maximus did away with
   the necessity for a siege," and the usurper, betrayed and
   delivered to Theodosius, was speedily put to death. Theodosius
   "handed over to Valentinian II. the whole of the Western
   Empire, both his own especial share and that which had
   formerly been held by his brother Gratian. The young Emperor
   was now 17 years of age; his mother, Justina, had died
   apparently on the eve of Theodosius's victory, and he
   governed, or tried to govern alone." But one of his Frankish
   generals, named Arbogast, gathered all the power of the
   government into his hands, reduced Valentinian to helpless
   insignificance, and finally, in May, 392, caused him to be
   strangled. "The Frankish general, who durst not shock the
   prejudices of the Roman world by himself assuming the purple,
   hung that dishonoured robe upon the shoulders of a
   rhetorician, a confidant, and almost a dependent of his own,
   named Eugenius. This man, like most of the scholars and
   rhetoricians of the day, had not abjured the old faith of
   Hellas. As Arbogast also was a heathen, though worshipping
   Teutonic rather than Olympian gods, this last revolution
   looked like a recurrence to the days of Julian, and threatened
   the hardly-won supremacy of Christianity." Again Theodosius
   was summoned to the rescue of the West, and, after two years
   of careful preparation, marched against Eugenius by the same
   route that he had taken before. The two armies met at a place
   "half-way between Aemona and Aquileia, where the Julian Alps
   are crossed, and where a little stream called the Frigidus
   (now the Wipbach) burst suddenly from a limestone hill." The
   battle was won by Theodosius after a terrible struggle,
   lasting two days (September 5-6, A. D. 394). Eugenius was
   taken prisoner and put to death; Arbogast fell by his own
   hand. "Theodosius, who was still in the prime of life, had now
   indeed 'the rule of the world,' without a rival or a colleague
   except his own boyish sons. … Had his life been prolonged, as
   it well might have been for twenty or thirty years longer,
   many things might have gone differently in the history of the
   world. But, little more than four months after the victory of
   the Frigidus, Theodosius died [January 17, A. D. 395] of
   dropsy, at Milan."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      The Dynasty of Theodosius,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Farrar,
      Lives of the Fathers,
      chapter 15: Ambrose and Theodosius (volume 2)._

      _R. Thornton,
      St. Ambrose,
      chapters 6-14._

ROME: A. D. 388.
   Formal establishment of Christianity.

   Until the year 384, "paganism was still the constitutional
   religion of the [Roman] senate. The hall or temple in which
   they assembled was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory.
   … The senators were sworn on the altar of the goddess to
   observe the laws of the emperor and of the empire; and a
   solemn offering of wine and incense was the ordinary prelude
   of their public deliberations. The removal of this ancient
   monument was the only injury which Constantius had offered to
   the superstition of the Romans. The altar of Victory was again
   restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more
   banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the
   emperor yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed
   to the public veneration: four hundred and twenty-four temples
   or chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the
   people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
   Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice.
   But the Christians formed the least numerous party in the
   senate of Rome." The senate addressed several petitions to
   Gratian, to the young Valentinian, and to Theodosius for the
   restoration of the altar of Victory.
{2727}
   They were supported by the eloquence of the orator Symmachus,
   and opposed by the energy of Ambrose, the powerful Archbishop
   of Milan. The question is said to have been, in the end,
   submitted to the senate, itself, by the Emperor Theodosius (A.
   D. 388)—he being present in person—"Whether the worship of
   Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the
   Romans? The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow,
   was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence
   inspired. … On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was
   condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 28._

ROME: A. D. 391-395.
   Suppression of Paganism.

   "The religious liberty of the Pagans, though considerably
   abridged by Gratian, was yet greater than had been allowed by
   the laws of Constantine and his immediate successors. The
   priests and vestals were deprived of their immunities; the
   revenues of the temples were confiscated for the service of
   the State; but the heathen rites of their forefathers were
   still allowed to those who were conscientiously attached to
   them, provided they abstained from nocturnal sacrifices and
   magical incantations. But when Theodosius, in the early part
   of his reign, prohibited the immolation of victims, their
   superstition was attacked in its most vital part, and, in the
   course of a few years, the success of his measures against
   heresy, and his triumph over Maximus, emboldened him to
   proceed to steps of a still more decisive kind, and to attempt
   the entire subversion of the already tottering fabric of
   paganism. A commission was issued to the præfect of the East,
   directing him to close all heathen temples within his
   jurisdiction; and while the imperial officers were engaged in
   this task, assisted by the clergy, and especially by the
   monks, with a vigour not always strictly legal, Theodosius
   gradually increased the rigour of his legislative
   prohibitions. A law was passed in the year 391, declaring that
   to enter a heathen temple, with a religious purpose, was an
   offence liable to a fine of fifteen pounds of gold; and in the
   following year, not only all public, but even all private and
   domestic, exercise of heathen rites was interdicted under the
   severest penalties. In some few instances, the intemperate and
   tumultous proceedings of the monks in destroying the temples,
   excited the opposition of the fanatical heathen peasantry, and
   at Alexandria a serious commotion, fatal to many Christians,
   was occasioned by the injudicious measures of the patriarch
   Theophilus. But, generally speaking, the pagans showed little
   disposition to incur the rigorous penalties of the laws, still
   less to become martyrs for a religion so little calculated to
   inspire real faith or fortitude. Some show of zeal in the
   cause of paganism was made at Rome, where the votaries of the
   ancient superstition still had a strong party, both among the
   senate and populace. But the eloquent exertions of Symmachus,
   the champion of heathenism, were easily baffled by Ambrose,
   who encountered him with equal ability, better argument, and a
   confident reliance on the support of his sovereign; and not
   long after, a more important victory was gained, in an
   enactment by the senate, carried, through the influence of
   Theodosius, by an overwhelming majority, that Christianity
   should for the future be the sole religion of the Roman State.
   This decisive measure sealed the ruin of paganism in Rome and
   its dependencies. The senators and nobles hastened to conform,
   nominally at least, to the dominant religion; the inferior
   citizens followed their example, and St. Jerome was in a
   little while able to boast that every heathen altar in Rome
   was forsaken, and every temple had become a place of
   desolation."

      _J. B. S. Carwithen and A. Lyall,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 63-65._

      ALSO IN:
      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      period 3, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 28._

ROME: A. D. 394-395.
   Final division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
   Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West.
   Ministries of Rufinus and Stilicho.
   Advent of Alaric the Visigoth.

   "The division of the Empire between East and West on the
   accession of the sons of Theodosius [A. D. 395], though it was
   possibly meant to be less complete than some preceding
   partitions, proved to be the final one. It is worth while to
   indicate the line of division, which is sufficiently
   accurately traced for us in the Notitia. In Africa it was the
   well-known frontier marked by 'the Altars of the Philaeni,'.
   which separated Libya (or Cyrenaica) on the East from Africa
   Tripolitana on the West. Modern geographers draw exactly the
   same line (about 19° E. of Greenwich) as the boundary of Barca
   and Tripoli. On the Northern shore of the Mediterranean the
   matter is a little more complicated. Noricum, Pannonia, Savia,
   and Dalmatia belonged to the West, and Dacia—not the original
   but the later province of Dacia—to the East. This gives us for
   the frontier of the Western Empire the Danube as far as
   Belgrade, and on the Adriatic the modern town of Lissa. The
   inland frontier is traced by geographers some 60 miles up the
   Save from Belgrade, then southwards by the Drina to its
   source, and so across the mountains to Lissa. Thus Sclavonia,
   Croatia, and Dalmatia in the Austrian Empire, and Croatia,
   most of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro in the state which
   was lately called Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Western
   Empire. The later province of Dacia, which fell to the Eastern
   share, included Servia (Old and New), the south-east corner of
   Bosnia, the north of Albania, and the west of Bulgaria. By
   this partition the Prefecture of Illyricum, as constituted by
   Diocletian, was divided into two nearly equal parts. … What
   makes the subject somewhat perplexing to the student is the
   tendency to confuse Illyricum the 'province' and Illyricum the
   'prefecture,'" the latter of which embraced, in modern
   geographical terms, Servia, Western Bulgaria, Macedon, Epirus
   and Greece.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 4, note C,
      and chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "This decree for a partition, published by Theodosius shortly
   before his death, appears to have been generally expected and
   approved. The incapacity of Arcadius and Honorius, of whom the
   former had only attained his 18th and the latter his 11th
   year, had not then been discovered. These princes showed more
   and more clearly, as time went on, that they inherited no
   share of their father's abilities, their weakness being such
   as to render their sovereignty little more than nominal. … It
   was never intended that the two jurisdictions should be
   independent of each other, but rather that the Emperors should
   be colleagues and coadjutors, the defenders of one
   commonwealth. …
{2728}
   At the time of the decree, belief in the unity and immortality
   of the 'Sancta Respublica Romana' was universal. … Enactments
   were invariably made in the names of both Emperors; and, so
   often as a vacancy of either throne occurred, the title of the
   Caesar elect remained incomplete until his elevation had been
   approved and confirmed by the occupant of the other. …
   Theodosius left the Roman world in peace, and provided with a
   disciplined army sufficient, if rightly directed, for its
   defence; but his choice of the men to whom he confided the
   guidance of his sons was unfortunate. Rufinus, to whom the
   guardianship of Arcadius was entrusted, by birth a Gascon,
   owed his advancement to his eloquence as an advocate, and his
   plausible duplicity had so far imposed on the confiding nature
   of Theodosius as to obtain for him the prefecture of the East.
   Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius, was by descent a Vandal,
   and is styled by St. Jerome a semi-barbarian. … His military
   abilities, combined with a prepossessing exterior, induced
   Theodosius to confer upon him the chief command of the
   imperial forces, and the hand of his niece, Serena."

      _R. H. Wrightson,
      The Sancta Respublica Romana,
      chapter 1._

   "Stilicho … was popular with the army, and for the present the
   great bulk of the forces of the Empire was at his disposal;
   for the regiments united to suppress Eugenius had not yet been
   sent back to their various stations. Thus a struggle was
   imminent between the ambitious minister who had the ear of
   Arcadius, and the strong general who held the command and
   enjoyed the favour of the army. … It was the cherished project
   of Rufinus to unite Arcadius with his only daughter. … But he
   imprudently made a journey to Antioch, in order to execute
   vengeance personally on the count of the East, who had
   offended him; and during his absence from Byzantium an
   adversary stole a march on him. This adversary was the eunuch
   Eutropius, the lord chamberlain. … Determining that the future
   Empress should be bound to himself and not to Rufinus, he
   chose Eudoxia, a girl of singular beauty, the daughter of a
   distinguished Frank, but herself of Roman education. …
   Eutropius showed a picture of the Frank maiden to the Emperor,
   and engaged his affections for her; the nuptials were arranged
   by the time Rufinus returned to Constantinople, and were
   speedily celebrated (27th April 395). This was a blow to
   Rufinus, but he was still the most powerful man in the East.
   The event which at length brought him into contact with
   Stilicho was the rising of the Visigoths, who had been settled
   by Theodosius in Moesia and Thrace. … Under the leadership of
   Alaric they raised the ensign of revolt, and spread desolation
   in the fields and homesteads of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thrace,
   even advancing close to the walls of Constantinople. …

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

   It was impossible to take the field against the Goths, because
   there were no forces available, as the eastern armies were
   still with Stilicho in the West. Arcadius therefore was
   obliged to summon Stilicho to send or bring them back
   immediately, to protect his throne. This summons gave that
   general the desired opportunity to interfere in the politics
   of Constantinople; and having, with energetic celerity,
   arranged matters on the Gallic frontier, he marched overland
   through Illyricum, and confronted Alaric in Thessaly, whither
   the Goth had traced his devastating path from the Propontis. …
   It seems that before Stilicho arrived, Alaric had experienced
   a defeat at the hands of garrison soldiers in Thessaly; at all
   events he shut himself up in a fortified camp and declined to
   engage with the Roman general. In the meantime Rufinus induced
   Arcadius to send a peremptory order to Stilicho to despatch
   the eastern troops to Constantinople and depart himself whence
   he had come; the Emperor resented, or pretended to resent, the
   presence of his cousin as an officious interference. Stilicho
   yielded so readily that his willingness seems almost
   suspicious. … He consigned the eastern soldiers to the command
   of a Gothic captain, Gainas, and himself departed to Salona,
   allowing Alaric to proceed on his wasting way into the lands
   of Hellas." When Gainas and his army arrived at the gates of
   Constantinople, the Emperor came out to meet them, with
   Rufinus by his side. The troops suddenly closed round the
   latter and murdered him. "We can hardly suppose that the
   lynching of Rufinus was the fatal inspiration of a moment, but
   whether it was proposed or approved of by Stilicho, or was a
   plan hatched among the soldiers on their way to
   Constantinople, is uncertain."

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 396-398.
   Commission of Alaric under the Eastern Empire.
   Suppression of the revolt of Gildo in Africa.
   Commanding position of Stilicho.

   "For the next five or six years the chief power over the
   feeble soul of Arcadius was divided between three persons, his
   fair Frankish Empress Eudoxia, Eutropius, the haggard old
   eunuch who had placed her on the throne, and Gainas the Goth,
   commander of the Eastern army. Again, in the year 306, did
   Stilicho, now commanding only the Western forces, volunteer to
   deliver Greece from the Visigoths. The outset of the campaign
   was successful. The greater part of Peloponnesus was cleared
   of the invader, who was shut up in the rugged mountain country
   on the confines of Elis and Arcadia. The Roman army was
   expecting soon to behold him forced by famine to an
   ignominious surrender, when they discovered that he had
   pierced the lines of circumvallation at an unguarded point,
   and marched with all his plunder northwards to Epirus. What
   was the cause of this unlooked-for issue of the struggle? …
   The most probable explanation … is that Fabian caution
   co-operated with the instinct of the Condottiere against
   pushing his foe too hard. There was always danger for Rome in
   driving Alaric to desperation: there was danger privately for
   Stilicho if the dead Alaric should render him no longer
   indispensable. Whatever might be the cause, by the end of 396
   Alaric was back again in his Illyrian eyrie, and thenceforward
   whatever threats might be directed towards the East the actual
   weight of his arms was felt only by the West. Partly, at
   least, this is to be accounted for by the almost sublime
   cowardice of the ministers of Arcadius, who rewarded his
   Grecian raids by clothing him with the sacred character of an
   officer of the Empire in their portion of Illyricum.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

{2729}

   The precise title under which he exercised jurisdiction is not
   stated. … During an interval of quiescence, which lasted
   apparently about four years, the Visigothic King was using the
   forms of Roman law, the machinery of Roman taxation, the almost
   unbounded authority of a Roman provincial governor, to prepare
   the weapon which was one day to pierce the heart of Rome
   herself. The Imperial City, during the first portion of this
   interval, was suffering the pang's of famine. … Since the
   foundation of Constantinople … Egypt had ceased to nourish the
   elder Rome. … Rome was thus reduced to an almost exclusive
   dependence on the harvests of Africa proper (that province of
   which Carthage was the capital), of Numidia, and of
   Mauretania. … But this supply … in the year 397 was entirely
   stopped by the orders of Gildo, who had made himself virtual
   master of these three provinces." The elder Theodosius had
   suppressed in 374 a revolt in Mauretania headed by one Firmus.
   "The son of a great sheep-farmer, Nabal, he [Firmus] had left
   behind him several brothers, one of whom, Gildo, had in the
   year 386 gathered up again some portion of his brother's
   broken power. We find him, seven years later (in 393), holding
   the rank of Count of Africa in the Roman official hierarchy. …
   He turned to his own account the perennial jealousy existing
   between the ministers of the Eastern and Western Courts,
   renounced his allegiance to Rome, and preferred to transfer it
   to Constantinople. What brought matters to a crisis was his
   refusal to allow the grain crops of 397 to be conveyed to
   Rome. … The Roman Senate declared war in the early winter
   months of 398 against Gildo. Stilicho, who, of course,
   undertook the fitting out of the expedition, found a suitable
   instrument for Rome's chastisement in one who had had cruel
   wrongs of his own to avenge upon Gildo. This was yet another
   son of Nabal, Mascezel." Mascezel, at the head of nearly
   40,000 men, accomplished the overthrow of his brother, who
   slew himself, or was slain, when he fell into Roman hands.
   "Thus the provinces of Africa were for the time won back again
   for the Empire of the West, and Rome had her corn again. … The
   glory and power of Stilicho were now nearly at their highest
   point. Shortly before the expedition against Gildo he had
   given his daughter Maria in marriage to Honorius, and the
   father-in-law of the Emperor might rightly be deemed to hold
   power with a securer grasp than his mere chief minister."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 400-403.
   First Gothic invasion of Italy under Alaric.
   Stilicho's repulse of the invaders.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

ROME: A. D. 400-518.
   The Eastern Empire.
   Expulsion of Gothic soldiery from Constantinople.
   Conflict of John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.
   Reigns of Theodosius II., Pulcheria, Marcianus,
   Leo I., Zeno, and Anastasius.
   Persistent vitality of the Byzantine government.

   "While Alaric's eyes were turned on Italy, but before he had
   actually come into conflict with Stilicho, the Court of
   Constantinople had been the seat of grave troubles. Gainas,
   the Gothic 'Magister militum' of the East, and his creature,
   the eunuch Eutropius, had fallen out, and the man of war had
   no difficulty in disposing of the wretched harem-bred Grand
   Chamberlain. … The Magister militum now brought his army over
   to Constantinople, and quartered it there to overawe the
   emperor. It appeared quite likely that ere long the Germans
   would sack the city; but the fate that befell Rome ten years
   later was not destined for Constantinople. A mere chance brawl
   put the domination of Gainas to a sudden end [July, A. D.
   400]. … The whole population turned out with extemporized arms
   and attacked the German soldiery. … Isolated bodies of the
   Germans were cut off one by one, and at last their barracks
   were surrounded and set on fire. The rioters had the upper
   hand; 7,000 soldiers fell, and the remnant thought themselves
   lucky to escape. Gainas at once declared open war on the
   empire, but … he was beaten in the field and forced to fly
   across the Danube, where he was caught and beheaded by Uldes,
   king of the Huns. … The departure of Alaric and the death of
   Gainas freed the Eastern Romans from the double danger that
   [had] impended over them. … The weak Arcadius was enabled to
   spend the remaining seven years of his life in comparative
   peace and quiet. His court was only troubled by an open war
   between his spouse, the Empress Ælia Eudoxia, and John
   Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople. John was a man of
   saintly life and apostolic fervour, but rash and inconsiderate
   alike in speech and action. … The patriarch's enemies were
   secretly supported by the empress, who had taken offence at
   the outspoken way in which John habitually denounced the
   luxury and insolence of her court. She favoured the intrigues
   of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, against his brother
   prelate, backed the Asiatic clergy in their complaints about
   John's oppression of them, and at last induced the Emperor to
   allow the saintly patriarch to be deposed by a
   hastily-summoned council, the 'Synod of the Oak,' held outside
   the city. The populace rose at once to defend their pastor;
   riots broke out, Theodosius was chased back to Egypt, and the
   Emperor, terrified by an earthquake which seemed to manifest
   the wrath of heaven, restored John to his place. Next year,
   however, the war between the empress and the patriarch broke
   out again. … The Emperor, at his wife's demand, summoned
   another council, which condemned Chrysostom, and on Easter
   Day, A. D. 404, seized the patriarch in his cathedral by armed
   force, and banished him to Asia. That night a fire, probably
   kindled by the angry adherents of Chrysostom, broke out in St.
   Sophia, which was burnt to the ground. From thence it spread
   to the neighbouring buildings, and finally to the
   Senate-house, which was consumed with all the treasures of
   ancient Greek art of which Constantine had made it the
   repository. Meanwhile the exiled John was banished to a dreary
   mountain fastness in Cappadocia, and afterwards condemned to a
   still more remote prison at Pityus on the Euxine. He died on
   his way thither. … The feeble and inert Arcadius died in A. D.
   408, at the early age of thirty-one; his imperious consort had
   preceded him to the grave, and the empire of the East was left
   to Theodosius II., a child of seven years, their only son. …
   The little emperor was duly crowned, and the administration of
   the East undertaken in his name by the able Anthemius, who
   held the office of Praetorian Praefect. History relates
   nothing but good of this minister; he made a wise commercial
   treaty with the king of Persia; he repelled with ease a
   Hunnish invasion of Moesia; he built a flotilla on the Danube,
   where Roman war-ships had not been seen since the death of
   Valens, forty years before; he reorganized the corn supply of
   Constantinople; and did much to get back into order and
   cultivation the desolated north-western lands of the Balkan
   Peninsula. …
{2730}
   The empire was still more indebted to him for bringing up the
   young Theodosius as an honest and god-fearing man. The palace
   under Anthemius' rule was the school of the virtues; the lives
   of the emperor and his three sisters, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and
   Marina, were the model and the marvel of their subjects.
   Theodosius inherited the piety and honesty of his grandfather
   and namesake, but was a youth of slender capacity, though he
   took some interest in literature, and was renowned for his
   beautiful penmanship. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, was the
   ruling spirit of the family, and possessed unlimited influence
   over him, though she was but two years his senior. When
   Anthemius died in A. D. 414, she took the title of Augusta,
   and assumed the regency of the East. Pulcheria was an
   extraordinary woman: on gathering up the reins of power she
   took a vow of chastity, and lived as a crowned nun for
   thirty-six years; her fear had been that, if she married, her
   husband might cherish ambitious schemes against her brother's
   crown; she therefore kept single herself and persuaded her
   sisters to make a similar vow. Austere, indefatigable, and
   unselfish, she proved equal to ruling the realms of the East
   with success, though no woman had ever made the attempt
   before. When Theodosius came of age he refused to remove his
   sister from power, and treated her as his colleague and equal.
   By her advice he married in A. D. 421, the year that he came
   of age, the beautiful and accomplished Athenaïs, daughter of
   the philosopher Leontius. … Theodosius' long reign passed by
   in comparative quiet. Its only serious troubles were a short
   war with the Persians, and a longer one with Attila, the great
   king of the Huns, whose empire now stretched over all the
   lands north of the Black Sea and Danube, where the Goths had
   once dwelt. In this struggle the Roman armies were almost
   invariably unfortunate. The Huns ravaged the country as far as
   Adrianople and Philippopolis, and had to be bought off by the
   annual payment of 700 lbs. of gold [£31,000]. … The
   reconstruction of the Roman military forces was reserved for
   the successors of Theodosius II. He himself was killed by a
   fall from his horse in 450 A. D., leaving an only daughter,
   who was married to her cousin Valentinian III., Emperor of the
   West. Theodosius, with great wisdom, had designated as his
   successor, not his young son-in-law, a cruel and profligate
   prince, but his sister Pulcheria, who at the same time ended
   her vow of celibacy and married Marcianus, a veteran soldier
   and a prominent member of the Senate. The marriage was but
   formal, for both were now well advanced in years: as a
   political expedient it was all that could be desired. The
   empire had peace and prosperity under their rule, and freed
   itself from the ignominious tribute to the Huns. Before Attila
   died in 452, he had met and been checked by the succours which
   Marcianus sent to the distressed Romans of the West. When
   Marcianus and Pulcheria passed away, the empire came into the
   hands of a series of three men of ability. They were all bred
   as high civil officials, not as generals; all ascended the
   throne at a ripe age; not one of them won his crown by arms,
   all were peaceably designated either by their predecessors, or
   by the Senate and army. These princes were Leo I. (457-474),
   Zeno (474-491), Anastasius (491-(18). Their chief merit was
   that they guided the Roman Empire in the East safely through
   the stormy times which saw its extinction in the West. While,
   beyond the Adriatic, province after province was being lopped
   off and formed into a new Germanic kingdom, the emperors who
   reigned at Constantinople kept a tight grip on the Balkan
   Peninsula and on Asia, and succeeded in maintaining their
   realm absolutely intact. Both East and West were equally
   exposed to the barbarian in the fifth century, and the
   difference of their fate came from the character of their
   rulers, not from the diversity of their political conditions."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      Story of the Byzantine Empire,
      chapters 4-5._

   "In spite of the dissimilarity of their personal conduct, the
   general policy of their government [i. e. of the six emperors
   between Arcadius and Justinian] is characterised by strong
   features of resemblance. … The Western Empire crumbled into
   ruins, while the Eastern was saved, in consequence of these
   emperors having organised the system of administration which
   has been most unjustly calumniated, under the name of
   Byzantine. The highest officers, and the proudest military
   commanders, were rendered completely dependent on ministerial
   departments and were no longer able to conspire or rebel with
   impunity. The sovereign was no longer exposed to personal
   danger, nor the treasury to open peculation. But,
   unfortunately, the central executive power could not protect
   the people from fraud with the same ease as it guarded the
   treasury; and the emperors never perceived the necessity of
   intrusting the people with the power of defending themselves
   from the financial oppression of the subaltern
   administration."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2, section 11._

ROME: A. D. 404-408.
   The Western Empire: The last gladiatorial show.
   Retreat of Honorius and the imperial court to Ravenna.
   Invasion of Radagaisus.
   Alliance with Alaric the Goth.
   Fall and death of Stilicho.

   "After the retreat of the barbarians, Honorius was directed to
   accept the dutiful invitation of the senate, and to celebrate
   in the imperial city the auspicious era of the Gothic victory
   and of his sixth consulship. The suburbs and the streets, from
   the Milvian bridge to the Palatine mount, were filled by the
   Roman people, who, in the space of a hundred years, had only
   thrice been honoured with the presence of their sovereigns
   [whose residence had been at Constantinople, at Treves, or at
   Milan]. … The emperor resided several months in the capital. …
   The people were repeatedly gratified by the attention and
   courtesy of Honorius in the public games. … In these games of
   Honorius, the inhuman combats of gladiators polluted for the
   last time the amphitheatre of Rome. … The recent danger to
   which the person of the emperor had been exposed in the
   defenceless palace of Milan urged him to seek a retreat in
   some inaccessible fortress of Italy, where he might securely
   remain, while the open country was covered by a deluge of
   barbarians; … and in the 20th year of his age the Emperor of
   the West, anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the
   perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna.
{2731}
   The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors,
   the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the
   throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the
   8th century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government
   and the capital of Italy. The fears of Honorius were not
   without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect.
   While Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a
   furious tempest was excited among the nations of Germany, who
   yielded to the irresistible impulse that appears to have been
   gradually communicated from the eastern extremity of the
   continent of Asia [by the invasion of the Huns, which Gibbon
   considers to have been the impelling cause of the great
   avalanche of barbarians from the north that swept down upon
   Italy under Radagaisus in 406. …

      See RADAGAISUS.

   Many cities of Italy were pillaged or destroyed; and the siege
   of Florence by Radagaisus is one of the earliest events in the
   history of that celebrated republic, whose firmness checked
   and delayed the unskilful fury of the barbarians." Stilicho
   came to the relief of the distressed city, "and the famished
   host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged." The barbarians,
   surrounded by well guarded entrenchments, were forced to
   surrender, after many had perished from want of food. The
   chief was beheaded; his surviving followers were sold as
   slaves. Meantime, Alaric, the Gothic king, had been taken into
   the pay of the Empire. "Renouncing the service of the Emperor
   of the East, Alaric concluded with the Court of Ravenna a
   treaty of peace and alliance, by which he was declared
   master-general of the Roman armies throughout the præfecture
   of Illyricum; as it was claimed, according to the true and
   ancient limits, by the minister of Honorius." This arrangement
   with Alaric caused great dissatisfaction in the army and among
   the people, and was a potent cause of the fall and death of
   Stilicho, which occurred A. D. 408. He was arrested and
   summarily executed, at Ravenna, on the mandate of his
   ungrateful and worthless young master, whose trembling throne
   he had upheld for thirteen years.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30 (volume 3)._

ROME: A. D. 406-500.
   The breaking of the Rhine barrier.
   The great Teutonic invasion and occupation
   of the Western Empire.

   "Up to the year 406 the Rhine was maintained as the frontier
   of the Roman Empire against the numerous barbarian races and
   tribes that swarmed uneasily in central Europe. From the
   Flavian Emperors until the time of Probus (282), the great
   military line from Coblenz to Kehlheim on the Danube had been
   really defended, though often overstepped and always a strain
   on the Romans, and thus a tract of territory (including Baden
   and Würtemberg) on the east shore of the Upper Rhine, the
   titheland as it was called, belonged to the Empire. But in the
   fourth century it was as much as could be done to keep off the
   Alemanni and Franks who were threatening the provinces of
   Gaul. The victories of Julian and Valentinian produced only
   temporary effects. On the last day of December 406 a vast
   company of Vandals, Suevians, and Alans crossed the Rhine. The
   frontier was not really defended; a handful of Franks who
   professed to guard it for the Romans were easily swept aside,
   and the invaders desolated Gaul at pleasure for the three
   following years. Such is the bare fact which the chroniclers
   tell us, but this migration seems to have been preceded by
   considerable movements on a large scale along the whole Rhine
   frontier, and these movements may have agitated the
   inhabitants of Britain and excited apprehensions there of
   approaching danger. Three tyrants had been recently elected by
   the legions in rapid succession; the first two, Marcus and
   Gratian, were slain, but the third Augustus, who bore the
   auspicious name of Constantine, was destined to play a
   considerable part for a year or two on the stage of the
   western world.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

   It seems almost certain that these two movements, the passage
   of the Germans across the Rhine and the rise of the tyrants in
   Britain, were not without causal connection; and it also seems
   certain that both events were connected with the general
   Stilicho. The tyrants were elevated in the course of the year
   406, and it was at the end of the same year that the Vandals
   crossed the Rhine. Now the revolt of the legions in Britain
   was evidently aimed against Stilicho. … There is direct
   contemporary evidence … that it was by Stilicho's invitation
   that the barbarians invaded Gaul; he thought that when they
   had done the work for which he designed them he would find no
   difficulty in crushing them or otherwise disposing of them. We
   can hardly avoid supposing that the work which he wished them
   to perform was to oppose the tyrant of Britain—Constantine, or
   Gratian, or Marcus, whoever was tyrant then; for it is quite
   certain that, like Maximus, he would pass into Gaul, where
   numerous Gallo-Roman adherents would flock to his standards.
   Stilicho died before Constantine was crushed, and the
   barbarians whom he had so lightly summoned were still in the
   land, harrying Gaul, destined soon to harry and occupy Spain
   and seize Africa. From a Roman point of view Stilicho had much
   to answer for in the dismemberment of the Empire; from a
   Teutonic point of view, he contributed largely to preparing
   the way for the foundation of the German kingdoms."

      _J. B. Bury,
      A History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "If modern history must have a definite beginning, the most
   convenient beginning for it is the great Teutonic invasion of
   Gaul in the year 407. Yet the nations of modern Europe do not
   spring from the nations which then crossed the Rhine, or from
   any intermixture between them and the Romans into whose land
   they made their way. The nations which then crossed the Rhine
   were the Vandals, Suevians, and Alans. … None of these nations
   made any real settlements in Gaul; Gaul was to them simply the
   high road to Spain. There they did settle, though the Vandals
   soon forsook their settlement, and the Alans were soon rooted
   out of theirs. The Suevian kept his ground for a far longer
   time; we may, if we please, look on him as the Teutonic
   forefather of Leon, while we look on the Goth as the Teutonic
   forefather of Castile. Here we have touched one of the great
   national names of history; the Goth, like the Frank, plays
   quite another part in Western Europe from the Alan, the
   Suevian, and the Vandal. … Now both Franks and Goths had
   passed into the Empire long before the invasion of 407. One
   branch of the Franks … was actually settled on Roman lands,
   and, as Roman subjects, did their best to withstand the great
   invasion.
{2732}
   What then makes that invasion so marked an epoch? … The answer
   is that the invasion of 407 not only brought in new elements,
   but put the existing elements into new relations to one
   another. Franks and Goths put on a new character and begin a
   new life. The Burgundians pass into Gaul, not as a road to
   Spain, but as a land in which to find many homes. They press
   down to the south-eastern corner of the land, while the Frank
   no longer keeps himself in his north-eastern corner, while in
   the south-west the Goth is settled as for a while the liegeman
   of Cæsar, and in the north-west a continental Britain springs
   into being. Here in truth are some of the chiefest elements of
   the modern world, and though none of them are among the
   nations that crossed the Rhine in 407, yet the new position
   taken by all of them is the direct consequence of that
   crossing. In this way, in Gaul and Spain at least, the joint
   Vandal, Alan, and Suevian invasion is the beginning of the
   formation of the modern nations, though the invading nations
   themselves form no element in the later life of Gaul and only
   a secondary element in the later life of Spain. The later life
   of these lands, and that of Italy also, has sprung of the
   settlement of Teutonic nations in a Roman land, and of the
   mutual influences which Roman and Teuton have had on one
   another. Roman and Teuton lived side by side, and out of their
   living side by side has gradually sprung up a third thing
   different from either, a thing which we cannot call either
   Roman or Teutonic, or more truly a thing which we may call
   Roman and Teutonic and some other things as well, according to
   the side of it which we look at. This third thing is the
   Romance element in modern Europe, the Romance nations and
   their Romance tongues."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Chief Periods of European History,
      pages 87-90._

   "The true Germanic people who occupied Gaul were the
   Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks. Many other people,
   many other single bands of Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Saxons, &c.,
   wandered over its territory; but of these, some only passed
   over it, and the others were rapidly absorbed by it; these are
   partial incursions which are without any historical
   importance. The Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks,
   alone deserve to be counted among our ancestors. The
   Burgundians definitively established themselves in Gaul
   between the years 406 and 413; they occupied the country
   between the Jura, the Saone, and the Duranee; Lyons was the
   centre of their dominion. The Visigoths, between the years 412
   and 450, spread themselves over the provinces bounded by the
   Rhone, and even over the left bank of the Rhone to the south
   of the Durance, the Loire, and the Pyrenees: their king
   resided at Toulouse. The Franks, between the years 481 and
   500, advanced in the north of Gaul, and established themselves
   between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Loire, without
   including Brittany and the western portions of Normandy;
   Clovis had Soissons and Paris for his capitals. Thus, at the
   end of the fifth century, was accomplished the definitive
   occupation of the territory of Gaul by the three great German
   tribes. The condition of Gaul was not exactly the same in its
   various parts, and under the dominion of these three nations.
   There were remarkable differences between them. The Franks
   were far more foreign, German, and barbarous, than the
   Burgundians and the Goths. Before their entrance into Gaul,
   these last had had ancient relations with the Romans; they had
   lived in the eastern empire, in Italy; they were familiar with
   the Roman manners and population. We may say almost as much
   for the Burgundians. Moreover, the two nations had long been
   Christians. The Franks, on the contrary, arrived from Germany
   in the condition of pagans and enemies. Those portions of Gaul
   which they occupied became deeply sensible of this difference,
   which is described with truth and vivacity in the seventh of
   the 'Lectures upon the History of France,' of M. Augustin
   Thierry. I am inclined, however, to believe that it was less
   important than has been commonly supposed. If I do not err,
   the Roman provinces differed more among themselves than did
   the nations which had conquered them. You have already seen
   how much more civilized was southern than northern Gaul, how
   much more thickly covered with population, towns, monuments,
   and roads. Had the Visigoths arrived in as barbarous a
   condition as that of the Franks, their barbarism would yet
   have been far less visible and less powerful in Gallia
   Narbonensis and in Aquitania; Roman civilization would much
   sooner have absorbed and altered them. This, I believe, is
   what happened; and the different effects which accompanied the
   three conquests resulted rather from the differences of the
   conquered than from that of the conquerors."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2, lecture 8._

   "The invasion of the barbarians was not like the torrent which
   overwhelms, but rather like a slow, persistent force which
   undermines, disintegrates, and crumbles. The Germans were not
   strangers to the Roman Empire when they began their conquests.
   … It is well known that many of the Roman Emperors were
   barbarians who had been successful soldiers in the Imperial
   army; that military colonies were established on the frontiers
   composed of men of various races under the control of Roman
   discipline; that the Goths, before they revolted against the
   authority of the Emperor, were his chosen troops; that the
   great Alaric was a Roman general; that the shores of the
   Danube and the Rhine, which marked the limits of the Empire,
   were lined with cities which were at the same time Roman
   colonies and peopled with men of the Teutonic races. When the
   barbarians did actually occupy the territory their movement
   seems at first to have been characterized by a strange mixture
   of force with a sentiment of awe and reverence for the Roman
   name. In Italy and in Gaul they appropriated to themselves
   two-thirds of the lands, but they sought to govern their
   conquests by means of the Roman law and administration, a
   machine which proved in their hands, by the way, a rather
   clumsy means of government. They robbed the provincials of all
   the movable property they possessed, but the suffering they
   inflicted is said not to have been as great as that caused by
   the exactions of the Roman taxgatherer. The number of armed
   invaders has doubtless been exaggerated. The whole force of
   the Burgundian tribe, whose territory, in the southeast of
   modern France, extended to the Rhone at Avignon, did not, it
   is said, exceed sixty thousand in all, while the armed bands
   of Clovis, who changed the destinies not only of Gaul but of
   Europe, were not greater than one-tenth of that number.
{2733}
   The great change in their life was, as I have said, that they
   ceased to be wanderers; they became, in a measure at least,
   fixed to the soil; and in contrast with the Romans, they
   preferred to live in the country and not in the towns. In this
   they followed their Teutonic habits, little knowing what a
   mighty change this new distribution of population was to cause
   in the social condition of Europe. They retained, too, their
   old military organization, and, after attempts more or less
   successful to use the Roman administration for the ordinary
   purposes of government, they abandoned it, and ruled the
   countries they conquered by simple military force, under their
   Dukes and Counts, the Romans generally being allowed in their
   private relations to govern themselves by the forms of the
   Roman law."

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Studies in Mediæval History,
      chapter 2._

   "The coming in of the Germans brought face to face the four
   chief elements of our civilization: the Greek with its art and
   science, much of it for the time forgotten; the Roman with its
   political institutions and legal ideas, and furnishing the
   empire as the common ground upon which all stood; the
   Christian with its religious and moral ideas; and the German
   with other political and legal ideas, and with a reinforcement
   of fresh blood and life. By the end of the sixth century these
   all existed side by side in the nominal Roman empire. It was
   the work of the remaining centuries of the middle ages to
   unite them into a single organic whole—the groundwork of
   modern civilization. But the introduction of the last element,
   the Germans, was a conquest—a conquest rendered possible by
   the inability of the old civilization any longer to defend
   itself against their attack. It is one of the miracles of
   history that such a conquest should have occurred, the violent
   occupation of the empire by the invasion of an inferior race,
   with so little destruction of civilization, with so complete
   an absorption, in the end, of the conqueror by the conquered.
   It must be possible to point out some reasons why the conquest
   of the ancient world by the Germans was so little what was to
   be expected. In a single word, the reason is to be found in
   the impression which the world they had conquered made upon
   the Germans. They conquered it, and they treated it as a
   conquered world. They destroyed and plundered what they
   pleased, and it was not a little. They took possession of the
   land and they set up their own tribal governments in place of
   the Roman. And yet they recognized, in a way, even the worst
   of them, their inferiority to the people they had overcome.
   They found upon every side of them evidences of a command over
   nature such as they had never acquired: cities, buildings,
   roads, bridges, and ships; wealth and art, skill in mechanics
   and skill in government, the like of which they had never
   known; ideas firmly held that the Roman system of things was
   divinely ordained and eternal; a church strongly organized and
   with an imposing ceremonial, officered by venerable and
   saintly men, and speaking with an overpowering positiveness
   and an awful authority that did not yield before the strongest
   barbarian king. The impression which these things made upon
   the mind of the German must have been profound. In no other
   way can the result be accounted for. Their conquest was a
   physical conquest, and as a physical conquest it was complete,
   but it scarcely went farther. In government and law there was
   little change for the Roman; in religion and language, none at
   all. Other things, schools and commercial arrangements for
   instance, the Germans would have been glad to maintain at the
   Roman level if they had known how. Half unconsciously they
   adopted the belief in the divinely founded and eternal empire,
   and in a vague way recognized its continuance after they had
   overthrown it."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization During the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      GAUL: A. D. 406-409, 5-8TH CENTURIES,
      and 5-10TH CENTURIES.

ROME: A. D. 408-410.
   The three sieges and
   the sacking of the Imperial city by Alaric.
   Death of the Gothic chieftain.

   Having rid himself of the great minister and general whose
   brain and arm were the only hope of his dissolving empire,
   Honorius proceeded to purge his army and the state of
   barbarians and heretics. He "removed all who professed
   religious opinions different from his own, from every public
   office; … and, to complete the purification of his army,
   ordered a general massacre of all the women and children of
   the barbarians, whom the soldiers in his service had delivered
   up as hostages. In one day and hour these innocent victims
   were given up to slaughter and their property to pillage.
   These hostages had been left in all the Italian cities by the
   barbarian confederates, as a guarantee for their fidelity to
   Rome; when they learned that the whole had perished, in the
   midst of peace, in contempt of all oaths, one furious and
   terrific cry of vengeance arose, and 30,000 soldiers, who had
   been the faithful servants of the empire, at once passed over
   to the camp of Alaric [then in Illyria], and urged him to lead
   them on to Rome. Alaric, in language the moderation of which
   Honorius and his ministers ascribed to fear, demanded
   reparation for the insults offered him, and strict observance
   of the treaties concluded with him. The only answer he
   obtained was couched in terms of fresh insult, and contained
   an order to evacuate all the provinces of the empire." On this
   provocation, Alaric crossed the Alps, in October, A. D. 408,
   meeting no resistance till he reached Ravenna. He threatened
   that city, at first, but the contemptible Emperor of the West
   was safe in his fen-fastness, and the Goth marched on to Rome.
   He "arrived before Rome [in the autumn of A. D. 408] 619 years
   after that city had been threatened by Hannibal. During that
   long interval her citizens had never looked down from her
   walls upon the banner of an enemy [a foreign invader] waving
   in their plains. … Alaric did not attempt to take Rome by
   assault: he blockaded the gates, stopped the navigation of the
   Tiber, and soon famine took possession of a city which was
   eighteen miles in circumference and contained above a million
   of inhabitants. … At length, the Romans had recourse to the
   clemency of Alaric; and, by means of a ransom of five thousand
   pounds of gold and a great quantity of precious effects, the
   army was induced to retire into Tuscany." The standard of
   Alaric was now joined by 40,000 barbarian slaves, who escaped
   from their Italian masters, and by a large reinforcement of
   Goths from the Danube, led by the brother-in-law of Alaric,
   Ataulphus, or Athaulphus (Adolphus, in its modern form) by
   name. The Visigothic king offered peace to the empire if it
   would relinquish to him a kingdom in Noricum, Dalmatia and
   Venetia, with a yearly payment of gold; in the end his demands
   fell until they extended to Noricum, only.
{2734}
   But the fatuous court at Ravenna refused all terms, and Alaric
   marched back to Rome. Once more, however, he spared the
   venerable capital, and sought to attain his ends by requiring
   the senate to renounce allegiance to Honorius and to choose a
   new emperor. He was obeyed and Priscus Attalus, the præfect of
   the city, was formally invested with the purple. This new
   Augustus made Alaric and Ataulphus his chief military
   officers, and there was peace for a little time. But Attalus,
   unhappily, took his elevation with seriousness and did not
   recognize the commands that were hidden in the advice which he
   got from his Gothic patron. Alaric found him to be a fool and
   stripped his purple robe from his shoulders within less than a
   year. Then, failing once more to negotiate terms of peace with
   the worthless emperor shut up in Ravenna, he laid siege to
   Rome for the third time—and the last. "On the 24th of April,
   410, the year 1163 from the foundation of the august city, the
   Salarian gate was opened to him in the night, and the capital
   of the world, the queen of nations, was abandoned to the fury
   of the Goths. Yet this fury was not without some tinge of
   pity; Alaric granted a peculiar protection to the churches,
   which were preserved from all insult, together with their
   sacred treasures, and all those who had sought refuge within
   their walls. While he abandoned the property of the Romans to
   pillage, he took their lives under his protection; and it is
   affirmed that only a single senator perished by the sword of
   the barbarians. The number of plebeians who were sacrificed
   appears not to have been thought a matter of sufficient
   importance even to be mentioned. At the entrance of the Goths,
   a small part of the city was given up to the flames; but
   Alaric soon took precautions for the preservation of the rest
   of the edifices. Above all, he had the generosity to withdraw
   his army from Rome on the sixth day, and to march it into
   Campania, loaded, however, with an immense booty. Eleven
   centuries later, the army of the Constable de Bourbon showed
   less veneration." Alaric survived the sack of Rome but a few
   months, dying suddenly in the midst of preparations that he
   made for invading Sicily. He was buried in the bed of the
   little river Bisentium, which flows past the town of Cozenza,
   the stream being diverted for the purpose and then turned back
   to its course.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31._

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 7._

ROME: A. D. 409-414.
   Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves and Alans.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ROME: A. D. 410.
   Abandonment of Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 410.

ROME: A. D. 410-419.
   Treaty with the Visigoths.
   Their settlement in Aquitaine.
   Founding of their kingdom of Toulouse.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

ROME: A. D. 410-420.
   The barbarian attack on Gaul joined by the Franks.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.

ROME: A. D. 412-453.
   Mixed Roman and barbarian administration in Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 412-453.

ROME: A. D. 423-450.
   Death of Honorius.
   Reign of Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia.
   Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

   The disastrous reign of Honorius, emperor of the West, was
   ended by his death in 423. The nearest heir to the throne was
   his infant nephew, Valentinian, son of his sister Placidia.
   The latter, after being a captive in the hands of the Goths
   and after sharing the Visigothic throne for some months, as
   wife of king Ataulphus, had been restored to her brother on
   her Gothic husband's death. Honorius forced her, then, to
   marry his favorite, the successful general, Constantius, whom
   he raised to the rank of Augustus and associated with himself
   on the throne of the West. But Constantius soon died, leaving
   his widow with two children—a daughter and a son. Presently,
   on some quarrel with Honorius, Placidia withdrew from Ravenna
   and took refuge at Constantinople, where her nephew Theodosius
   occupied the Eastern throne. She and her children were there
   when Honorius died, and in their absence the Western throne
   was usurped by a rebel named John, or Joannes, the Notary, who
   reigned nearly two years. With the aid of forces from the
   Eastern Empire he was unseated and beheaded and the child
   Valentinian was invested with the imperial purple, A. D. 425.
   For the succeeding twenty-five years his mother, Placidia,
   reigned in his name. As compensation to the court at
   Constantinople for the material aid received from it, the rich
   province of Dalmatia and the troubled provinces of Pannonia
   and Noricum, were now severed from the West and ceded to the
   Empire of the East. At the same time, the unity of the Roman
   government was formally and finally dissolved. "By a positive
   declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to
   the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think
   proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for
   the approbation of his independent colleague."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      chapters 6-8._

ROME: A. D. 428-439.
   Conquests of the Vandals in Spain and Africa.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 428; and 429-439.

ROME: A. D. 441-446.
   Destructive invasion of the Eastern Empire by the Huns.
   Cession of territory and payment of tribute to Attila.

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

ROME: A. D. 446.
   The last appeal from Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 446.

ROME: A. D. 451.
   Great invasion of Gaul by the Huns.
   Their defeat at Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ROME: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion of Italy.
   The frightful devastation of his hordes.
   Origin of Venice.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ROME: A. D. 455.
   Pillage of the city by the Vandals.

   "The sufferings and the ignominy of the Roman empire were
   increased by a new calamity which happened in the year of
   Valentinian's death [murdered by an usurper, Petronius Maximus
   A. D. 455]. Eudoxia, the widow of that emperor, who had
   afterwards become [through compulsion] the wife of Maximus,
   avenged the murder of her first husband by plotting against
   her second; reckless how far she involved her country in the
   ruin. She invited to Rome Genseric, king of the Vandals, who,
   not content with having conquered and devastated Africa, made
   every effort to give a new direction to the rapacity of his
   subjects, by accustoming them to maritime warfare, or, more
   properly speaking, piracy.
{2735}
   His armed bands, who, issuing from the shores of the Baltic,
   had marched over the half of Europe, conquering wherever they
   went, embarked in vessels which they procured at Carthage, and
   spread desolation over the coasts of Sicily and Italy. On the
   12th of June, 455, they landed at Ostia. Maximus was killed in
   a seditious tumult excited by his wife. Defence was
   impossible; and, from the 15th to the 29th of June, the
   ancient capital of the world was pillaged by the Vandals with
   a degree of rapacity and cruelty to which Alaric and the Goths
   had made no approach. The ships of the pirates were moored
   along the quays of the Tiber, and were loaded with a booty
   which it would have been impossible for the soldiers to carry
   off by land."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "On the whole, it is clear from the accounts of all the
   chroniclers that Gaiseric's [or Genseric's] pillage of Rome,
   though insulting and impoverishing to the last degree, was in
   no sense destructive to the Queen of cities. Whatever he may
   have done in Africa, in Rome he waged no war on architecture,
   being far too well employed in storing away gold and silver
   and precious stones, and all manner of costly merchandise in
   those insatiable hulks which were riding at anchor by Ostia.
   Therefore, when you stand in the Forum of Rome or look upon
   the grass-grown hill which was once the glorious Palatine,
   blame if you like the Ostrogoth, the Byzantine, the Lombard,
   above all, the Norman, and the Roman baron of the Middle Ages,
   for the heart-breaking ruin that you see there, but leave the
   Vandal uncensured, for, notwithstanding the stigma conveyed in
   the word 'vandalism,' he is not guilty here."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

ROME: A. D. 455-476.
   Barbarian masters and imperial puppets.
   From Count Ricimer to Odoacer.
   The ending of the line of Roman Emperors in the West,
   called commonly the Fall of the Western Empire.

   "After the death of Valentinian III., the unworthy grandson of
   the great Theodosius [March 16, A. D. 455], the first thought
   of the barbarian chiefs was, not to destroy or usurp the
   Imperial name, but to secure to themselves the nomination of
   the emperor. Avitus, chosen in Gaul under the influence of the
   West Gothic King of Toulouse, Theoderic II., was accepted for
   a time as the western emperor, by the Roman Senate and by the
   Court of Constantinople. But another barbarian, Ricimer the
   Sueve, ambitious, successful, and popular, had succeeded to
   the command of the 'federated' foreign bands which formed the
   strength of the imperial army in Italy. Ricimer would not be a
   king, but he adopted as a settled policy the expedient, or the
   insulting jest, of Alaric. … He deposed Avitus, and probably
   murdered him. Under his direction, the Senate chose Majorian.
   Majorian was too able, too public-spirited, perhaps too
   independent, for the barbarian Patrician; Majorian, at a
   moment of ill-fortune was deposed and got rid of." After
   Majorian, one Severus (A. D. 461-467), and after Severus a
   Greek, Anthemius (A. D. 467-472), nominated at Constantinople,
   wore the purple at the command of Count Ricimer. When, after
   five years of sovereignty, Anthemius quarreled with his
   barbarian master, the latter chose a new emperor—the senator
   Olybrius—and conducted him with an army to the gates of Rome,
   in which the imperial court had once more settled itself.
   Anthemius, supported by the majority of the senate and people,
   resisted, and Rome sustained a siege of three months. It was
   taken by storm, on the 11th of July, A. D. 472, and suffered
   every outrage at the hands of the merciless victors. Anthemius
   was slain and his enemy, Ricimer, died a few weeks later.
   Olybrius followed the latter to the grave in October.
   Ricimer's place was filled by his nephew, a refugee Burgundian
   king, Gundobad, who chose for emperor an unfortunate officer
   of the imperial guard, named Glycerius. Glycerius allowed
   himself to be deposed the next year by Julius Nepos and
   accepted a bishopric in place of the throne; but later
   circumstances gave the emperor-bishop an opportunity to
   assassinate his supplanter and he did not hesitate to do so.
   By this time, the real power had passed to another barbarian
   "patrician" and general, Orestes, former secretary of Attila,
   and Orestes proclaimed his own son emperor. To this son "by a
   strange chance, as if in mockery of his fortune, had been
   given the names of the first king and the first emperor of
   Rome, Romulus Augustus, soon turned in derision into the
   diminutive 'Augustulus.' But Orestes failed to play the part
   of Ricimer. A younger and more daring barbarian adventurer,
   Odoacer the Herule, or Rugian, bid higher for the allegiance
   of the army. Orestes was slain, and the young emperor was left
   to the mercy of Odoacer. In singular and significant contrast
   to the common usage when a pretender fell, Romulus Augustulus
   was spared. He was made to abdicate in legal form; and the
   Roman Senate, at the dictation of Odoacer, officially
   signified to the Eastern emperor, Zeno, their resolution that
   the separate Western Empire should cease, and their
   recognition of the one emperor at Constantinople, who should
   be supreme over West and East. Amid the ruin of the empire and
   the state, the dethroned emperor passed his days, in such
   luxurious ease as the times allowed, at the Villa of Lucullus
   at Misenum; and Odoacer, taking the Teutonic title of king,
   sent to the emperor at Constantinople the imperial crown and
   robe which were to be worn no more at Rome or Ravenna for more
   than three hundred years. Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman
   empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West."

      _R. W. Church,
      Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1._

   "When, at Odoacer's bidding, Romulus Augustulus, the boy whom
   a whim of fate had chosen to be the last native Cæsar of Rome,
   had formally announced his resignation to the senate, a
   deputation from that body proceeded to the Eastern court to
   lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the Eastern Emperor
   Zeno. The West, they declared, no longer required an Emperor
   of its own; one monarch sufficed for the world; Odoacer was
   qualified by his wisdom and courage to be the protector of
   their state, and upon him Zeno was entreated to confer the
   title of patrician and the administration of the Italian
   provinces. The Emperor granted what he could not refuse, and
   Odoacer, taking the title of King ['not king of Italy, as is
   often said'—foot-note], continued the consular office,
   respected the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of his
   subjects, and ruled for fourteen years as the nominal vicar of
   the Eastern Emperor.
{2736}
   There was thus legally no extinction of the Western Empire at
   all, but only a reunion of East and West. In form, and to some
   extent also in the belief of men, things now reverted to their
   state during the first two centuries of the Empire, save that
   Byzantium instead of Rome was the centre of the civil
   government. The joint tenancy which had been conceived by
   Diocletian, carried further by Constantine, renewed under
   Valentinian I. and again at the death of Theodosius, had come
   to an end; once more did a single Emperor sway the sceptre of
   the world, and head an undivided Catholic Church."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapters 4-8._

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      preface and book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 476.
   Causes of the decay of the Empire
   and the significance of its fall in the West.

   "Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the
   line of Roman emperors, in the West. Thus it had become clear
   that the foundations of human life and society, which had
   seemed under the first emperors eternal, had given way. The
   Roman empire was not the 'last word' in the history of the
   world; but either the world was in danger of falling into
   chaos, or else new forms of life were yet to appear, new ideas
   of government and national existence were to struggle with the
   old for the mastery. The world was not falling into chaos.
   Europe, which seemed to have lost its guidance and its hope of
   civilization in losing the empire, was on the threshold of a
   history far grander than that of Rome, and was about to start
   in a career of civilization to which that of Rome was rude and
   unprogressive. In the great break-up of the empire in the
   West, some parts of its system lasted, others disappeared.
   What lasted was the idea of municipal government, the
   Christian Church, the obstinate evil of slavery. What
   disappeared was the central power, the imperial and universal
   Roman citizenship, the exclusive rule of the Roman law, the
   old Roman paganism, the Roman administration, the Roman
   schools of literature. Part of these revived; the idea of
   central power under Charles the Great, and Otto his great
   successor; the appreciation of law, though not exclusively
   Roman law; the schools of learning. And under these conditions
   the new nations—some of mixed races, as in France, Spain, and
   Italy; others simple and homogeneous, as in Germany, England,
   and the Scandinavian peninsula —begin their apprenticeship of
   civilization."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1._

   "The simple facts of the fall of the Empire are these. The
   Imperial system had been established … to protect the
   frontier. This it did for two centuries with eminent success.
   But in the reign of Marcus Aurelius … there occurred an
   invasion of the Marcomanni, which was not repulsed without
   great difficulty, and which excited a deep alarm and
   foreboding throughout the Empire. In the third century the
   hostile powers on every frontier began to appear more
   formidable. The German tribes, in whose discord Tacitus saw
   the safety of the Empire, present themselves now no longer in
   separate feebleness, but in powerful confederations. We hear
   no more the insignificant names of Chatti and Chauci; the
   history of the third century is full of Alemanni, Franks, and
   Goths. On the eastern frontier, the long decayed power of the
   Parthians now gives place to a revived and vigorous Persian
   Empire. The forces of the Empire are more and more taxed to
   defend it from these powerful enemies. … It is evident that
   the Roman world would not have steadily receded through
   centuries before the barbaric, had it not been decidedly
   inferior in force. To explain, then, the fall of the Empire,
   it is necessary to explain the inferiority in force of the
   Romans to the barbarians. This inferiority of the Romans, it
   is to be remembered, was a new thing. At an earlier time they
   had been manifestly superior. When the region of barbarism was
   much larger; when it included warlike and aggressive nations
   now lost to it, such as the Gauls; and when, on the other
   hand, the Romans drew their armies from a much smaller area,
   and organized them much less elaborately, the balance had
   inclined decidedly the other way. In those times the Roman
   world, in spite of occasional reverses, had on the whole
   steadily encroached on the barbaric. … Either, therefore, a
   vast increase of power must have taken place in the barbaric
   world, or a vast internal decay in the Roman. Now the barbaric
   world had actually received two considerable accessions of
   force. It had gained considerably, through what influences we
   can only conjecture, in the power and habit of co-operation.
   As I have said before, in the third century we meet with large
   confederations of Germans, whereas before we read only of
   isolated tribes. Together with this capacity of confederation
   we can easily believe that the Germans had acquired new
   intelligence, civilization, and military skill. Moreover, it
   is practically to be considered as a great increase of
   aggressive force, that in the middle of the fourth century
   they were threatened in their original settlements by the
   Huns. The impulse of desperation which drove them against the
   Roman frontier was felt by the Romans as a new force acquired
   by the enemy. But we shall soon see that other and more
   considerable momenta must have been required to turn the
   scale. … We are forced, … to the conclusion that the Roman
   Empire, in the midst of its greatness and civilization, must
   have been in a stationary and unprogressive, if not a decaying
   condition. Now what can have been the cause of this
   unproductiveness or decay? It has been common to suppose a
   moral degeneration in the Romans, caused by luxury and
   excessive good fortune. To support this it is easy to quote
   the satirists and cynics of the imperial time, and to refer to
   such accounts as Ammianus gives of the mingled effeminacy and
   brutality of the aristocracy of the capital in the fourth
   century. But the history of the wars between Rome and the
   barbaric world does not show us the proofs we might expect of
   this decay of spirit. We do not find the Romans ceasing to be
   victorious in the field, and beginning to show themselves
   inferior in valor to their enemies. The luxury of the capital
   could not affect the army. … Nor can it be said that luxury
   corrupted the generals, and through them the army. On the
   contrary, the Empire produced a remarkable series of capable
   generals. … Whatever the remote and ultimate cause may have
   been, the immediate cause to which the fall of the Empire can
   be traced is a physical, not a moral, decay.
{2737}
   In valor, discipline, and science, the Roman armies remained
   what they had always been, and the peasant emperors of
   Illyricum were worthy successors of Cincinnatus and Caius
   Marius. But the problem was how to replenish those armies. Men
   were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men. The proof
   of this is in the fact that the contest with barbarism was
   carried on by the help of barbarian soldiers. … It must have
   been because the Empire could not furnish soldiers for its own
   defence, that it was driven to the strange expedient of
   turning its enemies and plunderers into its defenders. … Nor
   was it only in the army that the Empire was compelled to
   borrow men from barbarism. To cultivate the fields whole
   tribes were borrowed. From the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was
   a practice to grant lands within the Empire, sometimes to
   prisoners of war, sometimes to tribes applying for admission.
   … The want of any principle of increase in the Roman
   population is attested at a much earlier time. In the second
   century before Christ, Polybius bears witness to it; and the
   returns of the census from the Second Punic War to the time of
   Augustus show no steady increase in the number of citizens
   that cannot be accounted for by the extension of citizenship
   to new classes. … Precisely as we think of marriage, the Roman
   of Imperial times thought of celibacy,—that is, as the most
   comfortable but the most expensive condition of life. Marriage
   with us is a pleasure for which a man must be content to pay;
   with the Romans it was an excellent pecuniary investment, but
   an intolerably disagreeable one. Here lay, at least in the
   judgment of Augustus, the root of the evil. To inquire into
   the causes of this aversion to marriage in this place would
   lead me too far. We must be content to assume that, owing
   partly to this cause and partly to the prudential check of
   infanticide, the Roman population seems to have been in
   ordinary times almost stationary. The same phenomenon had
   shown itself in Greece before its conquest by the Romans.
   There the population had even greatly declined; and the shrewd
   Polybius explains that it was not owing to war or plague, but
   mainly to a general repugnance to marriage, and reluctance to
   rear large families, caused by an extravagantly high standard
   of comfort. … Perhaps enough has now been said to explain that
   great enigma, which so much bewilders the reader of Gibbon;
   namely, the sharp contrast between the age of the Autonines
   and the age which followed it. A century of unparalleled
   tranquillity and virtuous government is followed immediately
   by a period of hopeless ruin and dissolution. A century of
   rest is followed, not by renewed vigor, but by incurable
   exhaustion. Some principle of decay must clearly have been at
   work, but what principle? We answer: it was a period of
   sterility or barrenness in human beings; the human harvest was
   bad. And among the causes of this barrenness we find, in the
   more barbarous nations, the enfeeblement produced by the
   too-abrupt introduction of civilization, and universally the
   absence of industrial habits, and the disposition to
   listlessness which belongs to the military character."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Roman Imperialism,
      pages 47-61._

   "At no period within the sphere of historic records was the
   commonwealth of Rome anything but an oligarchy of warriors and
   slave-owners, who indemnified themselves for the restraint
   imposed on them by their equals in the forum by aggression
   abroad and tyranny in their households. The causes of its
   decline seem to have little connexion with the form of
   government established in the first and second centuries. They
   were in full operation before the fall of the Republic, though
   their baneful effects were disguised and perhaps retarded by
   outward successes, by extended conquests, and increasing
   supplies of tribute or plunder. The general decline of
   population throughout the ancient world may be dated even from
   the second century before our era. The last age of the
   Republic was perhaps the period of the most rapid exhaustion
   of the human race; but its dissolution was arrested under
   Augustus, when the population recovered for a time in some
   quarters of the empire, and remained at least stationary in
   others. The curse of slavery could not but make itself felt
   again, and demanded the destined catastrophe. Whatever evil we
   ascribe to the despotism of the Cæsars, we must remark that it
   was Slavery that rendered political freedom and constitutional
   government impossible. Slavery fostered in Rome, as previously
   at Athens, the spirit of selfishness and sensuality, of
   lawlessness and insolence, which cannot consist with political
   equality, with political justice, with political moderation.
   The tyranny of the emperors was … only the tyranny of every
   noble extended and intensified. The empire became no more than
   an ergastulum or barracoon [slave prison] on a vast scale,
   commensurate with the dominions of the greatest of Roman
   slaveholders. … We have noticed already the pestilence which
   befell Italy and many of the provinces in the reign of
   Aurelius. There is reason to believe that this scourge was no
   common disorder, that it was of a type new at least in the
   West, and that, as a new morbific agent, its ravages were more
   lasting, as well as more severe, than those of an ordinary
   sickness. … At another time, when the stamina of ancient life
   were healthier and stronger, such a visitation might possibly
   have come and gone, and, however fatal at the moment, have
   left no lasting traces; but periods seem to occur in national
   existence when there is no constitutional power of rallying
   under casual disorders. The sickness which in the youth of the
   commonwealth would have dispelled its morbid humours and
   fortified its system, may have proved fatal to its advancing
   years, and precipitated a hale old age into palsied
   decrepitude. The vital powers of the empire possessed no
   elasticity; every blow now told upon it with increasing force;
   the blows it slowly or impatiently returned were given by the
   hands of hired barbarians, not by the strength of its own
   right arm. Not sickness alone, but famines, earthquakes, and
   conflagrations, fell in rapid succession upon the capital and
   the provinces. Such casualties may have occurred at other
   periods not less frequently or disastrously; but these were
   observed, while the others passed unnoticed, because the
   courage of the nation was now broken no less than its physical
   vigour, and, distressed and terrified, it beheld in every
   natural disorder the stroke of fate, the token of its destined
   dissolution. Nor indeed was the alarm unfounded. These
   transient faintings and sicknesses were too truly the symptoms
   of approaching collapse. The long line of northern frontier,
   from Odessus to the island of the Batavi, was skirted by a
   fringe of fire, and through the lurid glare loomed the
   wrathful faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians,
   all armed for the onslaught in sympathy or concert."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapter 18 (volume 7)._

{2738}

   "Under the humane pretext of gratifying the world with a
   flattering title, an Antoninus, in one of his edicts, called
   by the name of Roman citizens the tributaries of the Roman
   empire, those men whom a proconsul might legally torture, flog
   with rods, or crush with labour and taxes. Thus the power of
   that formerly inviolable title, before which the most
   shameless tyranny stopped short, was contradicted; thus
   perished that ancient safety-cry which made the executioners
   fall back; I am a Roman citizen. From that period Rome no
   longer existed; there was a court and provinces: we do not
   understand by that word what it now signifies in the vulgar
   languages, but what it signified primitively in the Roman
   language, a country conquered by arms; we mean to say, that
   the primitive distinction between conquering Rome and those it
   had conquered, then became established between the men in the
   palace and those out of the palace; that Rome itself lived
   only for one family, and a handful of courtiers, as formerly
   the nations it had conquered had only lived by it. It was then
   that the name of subjugated, subjecti, which our language has
   corrupted into that of subjects, was transported from the
   conquered inhabitants of the East or Gaul, to the victorious
   inhabitants of Italy, attached in future to the yoke of a
   small number of men, as these had been attached to their yoke;
   the property of those men, as well as the others, had been
   their property, worthy, in a word, of the degrading title of
   subjects, subjecti, which must be taken literally. Such was
   the order of things which had been gradually forming since the
   time of Augustus; each emperor gloried in hastening the moment
   of its perfection; Constantine gave it the finishing stroke.
   He effaced the name of Rome from the Roman standards, and put
   in its place the symbol of the religion which the empire had
   just embraced. He degraded the revered name of the civil
   magistrature below the domestic offices of his house. An
   inspector of the wardrobe took precedence of the consuls. The
   aspect of Rome importuned him; he thought he saw the image of
   liberty still engraved on its old walls; fear drove him
   thence; he fled to the coasts of Byzantia, and there built
   Constantinople, placing the sea as a barrier between the new
   city of the Cæsars and the ancient city of the Brutus. If Rome
   had been the home of independence, Constantinople was the home
   of slavery; from thence issued the dogmas of passive obedience
   to the Church and throne; there was but one right—that of the
   empire; but one duty—that of obedience. The general name of
   citizen, which was equivalent, in language, to men living
   under the same law, was replaced by epithets graduated
   according to the credit of the powerful or the cowardice of
   the weak. The qualifications of Eminence, Royal Highness, and
   Reverence, were bestowed on what was lowest and most
   despicable in the world. The empire, like a private domain,
   was transmitted to children, wives, and sons-in-law; it was
   given, bequeathed, substituted; the universe was exhausting
   itself for the establishment of the family; taxes increased
   immoderately; Constantinople alone was exempted; that
   privilege of Roman liberty was the price of its infamy. The
   rest of the cities and nations were treated like beasts of
   burden, which are used without scruple, flogged when they are
   restive, and killed when there is cause to fear them. Witness
   the population of Antioch, condemned to death by the pious
   Theodosius; and that of Thessalonica, entirely massacred by
   him for a tax refused, and an unfortunate creature secured
   from the justice of his provosts. Meanwhile savage and free
   nations armed against the enslaved world, as if to chastise it
   for its baseness. Italy, oppressed by the empire, soon found
   pitiless revengers in its heart. Rome was menaced by the
   Goths. The people, weary of the imperial yoke, did not defend
   themselves. The men of the country, still imbued with the old
   Roman manners and religion, those men, the only ones whose
   arms were still robust and souls capable of pride, rejoiced to
   see among them free men and gods resembling the ancient gods
   of Italy. Stilico, the general to whom the empire entrusted
   its defence, appeared at the foot of the Alps; he called to
   arms, and no one arose; he promised liberty to the slaves, he
   lavished the treasures of the fisc; and out of the immense
   extent of the empire, he only assembled 40,000 men, the fifth
   part of the warriors that Hannibal had encountered at the
   gates of free Rome."

      _A. Thierry,
      Narratives of the Merovingian Era
      and Historical Essays, essay 13._

   "It was not the division into two empires, nor merely the
   power of external enemies, that destroyed the domination of
   Rome. Republican Rome had ended in monarchy by the decadence
   of her institutions and customs, by the very effect of her
   victories and conquests, by the necessity of giving to this
   immense dominion a dominus. But after she had begun to submit
   to the reality of a monarchy, she retained the worship of
   republican forms. The Empire was for a long time a piece of
   hypocrisy; for it did not dare to give to its rulers the first
   condition of stability, a law of succession. The death of
   every emperor was followed by troubles, and the choice of a
   master of the world was often left to chance. At length the
   monarchy had to be organized, but thenceforth it was absolute,
   without restraint or opposition. Its proposed aim was to
   exploit the world, an aim which in practice was carried to an
   extreme. Hence it exhausted the orbis romanus."

      _E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 1._

ROME: A. D. 486.
   The last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

ROME: A. D. 488.
   Theodoric the king of the Ostrogoths authorized and
   commissioned by the Emperor Zeno to conquer a kingdom in Italy.

      See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

ROME: A. D. 488-526.
   The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

   It was in the autumn of the year 488 that Theodoric,
   commissioned by the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, to wrest Italy from
   Odoacer (or Odovacar), broke up his camp or settlement on the
   Danube, in the neighborhood of Sistova, and moved towards the
   west. The movement was a national migration—of wives and
   children as well as of warriors—and the total number is
   estimated at not less than 200,000. Following the course of
   the Danube, the Gothic host met with no opposition until it
   came to Singidunum, near the junction of the Save. There, on
   the banks of a stream called the Ulca, they fought a great
   battle with the Gepidæ, who held possession of Pannonia, and
   who disputed their advance.
{2739}
   Victorious in this encounter, Theodoric pushed on, along the
   course of the Save; but the movement of his cumbrous train was
   so slow and the hardships of the march so great, that nearly a
   year passed before he had surmounted the passes of the Julian
   Alps and entered Italy. He found Odoacer waiting to give him
   battle on the Isonzo; but the forces of the latter were not
   courageous enough or not faithful enough for their duty, and
   the invading Goths forced the passage of the stream on the
   28th of August, 489. Odoacer retreated to Verona, followed by
   Theodoric, and there, on the 30th of September, a great and
   terrible battle was fought, from which not many of the Rugian
   and Herulian troops of Odoacer escaped. Odoacer, himself, with
   some followers, got clear of the rout and made their way to
   the safe stronghold of Ravenna. For a time, Odoacer's cause
   seemed abandoned by all who had supported him; but it was a
   treacherous show of submission to the victor. Theodoric, ere
   long, found reactions at work which recruited the forces of
   his opponent and diminished his own. He was driven to retreat
   to Ticinum (Pavia) for the winter. But having solicited and
   received aid from the Visigoths of southern Gaul, he regained,
   in the summer of 490 (August 11) in a battle on the Adda, not
   far from Milan, all the ground that he had lost, and more.
   Odoacer was now driven again into Ravenna, and shut up within
   its walls by a blockade which was endured until February in
   the third year afterwards (493), when famine compelled a
   surrender. Theodoric promised life to his rival and respect to
   his royal dignity; but he no sooner had the old self-crowned
   king Odoacer in his power than he slew him with his own hand.
   Notwithstanding this savagery in the inauguration of it, the
   reign of the Ostrogothic king in Italy appears to have been,
   on the whole, wise and just, with more approximation to the
   chivalric half-civilization of later mediæval times than
   appears in the government of any of his Gothic or German
   neighbors. "Although Theoderic did not care to run the risk of
   offending both his Goths and the Court of Constantinople by
   calling himself Cæsar or Emperor, yet those titles would have
   exactly expressed the character of his rule—so far at least as
   his Roman subjects were concerned. When the Emperor Anastasius
   in 497 acknowledged him as ruler of Italy, he sent him the
   purple cloak and the diadem of the Western emperors; and the
   act showed that Anastasius quite understood the difference
   between Theodoric's government and that of Odovacar. In fact,
   though not in name, the Western empire had been restored with
   much the same institutions it had under the best of the
   Cæsars." The reign of Theodoric, dating it, as he did, from
   his first victory on Italian soil, was thirty-seven years in
   duration. When he died, August 30, A. D. 526, he left to his
   grandson, Athalaric, a kingdom which extended, beyond Italy,
   over Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyricum (the modern
   Austrian empire south and west of the Danube), together with
   Provence in southern Gaul and a district north of it embracing
   much of modern Dauphiné. His government extended, likewise,
   over the Visigothic kingdom, as guardian of its young king,
   his grandson. But this great kingdom of the heroic Ostrogoth
   was not destined to endure. One who lived the common measure
   of life might have seen the beginning of it and the end. It
   vanished in one quarter of a century after he who founded it
   was laid away in his great tomb at Ravenna, leaving nothing to
   later history which can be counted as a survival of it,—not
   even a known remnant of the Ostrogothic race.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapters 16-20._

   "Theodoric professed a great reverence for the Roman
   civilization. He had asked for and obtained from the Emperor
   Anastasius the imperial insignia that Odovakar had
   disdainfully sent back to Constantinople, and he gave up the
   dress of the barbarians for the Roman purple. Although he
   lived at Ravenna he was accustomed to consult the Roman
   senate, to whom he wrote: 'We desire, conscript fathers, that
   the genius of liberty may look with favor upon your assembly.'
   He established a consul of the West, three prætorian prefects,
   and three dioceses,—that of northern Italy, that of Rome, and
   that of Gaul. He retained the municipal government, but
   appointed the decurions himself. He reduced the severity of
   the taxes, and his palace was always open to those who wished
   to complain of the iniquities of the judges. … Thus a
   barbarian gave back to Italy the prosperity which she had lost
   under the emperors. The public buildings, aqueducts, theatres,
   and baths were repaired, and palaces and churches were built.
   The uncultivated lands were cleared and companies were formed
   to drain the Pontine marshes and the marshes of Spoleto. The
   iron mines of Dalmatia and a gold mine in Bruttii were worked.
   The coasts were protected from pirates by numerous flotillas.
   The population increased greatly. Theodoric, though he did not
   know how to write, gathered around him the best literary merit
   of the time,—Boethius, the bishop Ennodius, and Cassiodorus.
   The latter, whom he made his minister, has left us twelve
   books of letters. Theodoric seems in many ways like a first
   sketch of Charlemagne. Though himself an Arian, he respected
   the rights of the Catholics from the first. … When, however,
   the Emperor Justin I. persecuted the Arians in the East, he
   threatened to retaliate, and as a great commotion was observed
   among his Italian subjects, he believed that a conspiracy was
   being formed against himself. … The prefect Symmachus and his
   son-in-law, Boethius, were implicated. Theodoric confined them
   in the tower of Pavia, and it was there that Boethius wrote
   his great work, The Consolations of Philosophy. They were both
   executed in 525. Theodoric, however, finally recognized their
   innocence, and felt such great regret that his reason is said
   to have been unbalanced and that remorse hastened his end."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   "The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and
   Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,
   by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as
   representative of the Roman power, as head by natural
   selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the
   western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he
   could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true
   majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there
   was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman
   life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very
   greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being
   lasting.
{2740}
   Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on
   foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but
   himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and
   Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,
   distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its
   own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric
   could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the
   Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,
   leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take
   for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could
   nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his
   position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and
   prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of
   it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no
   foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a
   crash."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Chief Periods of European History,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Goths at Ravenna
      (Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4)._

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3)._

      _Cassiodorus,
      Letters,
      translated and edited by T. Hodgkin._

      _H. F. Stewart,
      Boethius,
      chapter 2._

ROME: A. D. 527-565.
   The reign of Justinian.

   "In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most
   famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine,
   began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was
   born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is
   now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized
   into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial
   guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the
   Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men
   not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian
   origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted,
   naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman
   character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was
   marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization
   of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last
   and grandest codification of Roman law.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

   But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary
   factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and
   ungrateful despotism.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

   Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and
   fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of
   imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of
   war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the
   Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to
   full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its
   immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its
   supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of
   the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534;

   Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of
   Spain from the West Goths."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

   "In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign
   of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is
   presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts.
   Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials
   of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most
   instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its
   legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring
   instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of
   the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been
   men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the
   agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The
   frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long
   looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which
   remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their
   own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any
   external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with
   which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The
   life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic
   form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was
   populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He
   conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings
   captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of
   civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave
   suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful
   master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to
   those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine
   and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of
   extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was
   profound."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 3, section 1._

      See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Belisarius._

ROME: A. D. 528-556.
   The Persian Wars and the Lazic War of Justinian.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627;
      also, LAZICA.

ROME: A. D. 535-553.
   Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.
   Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.
   The long Gothic siege of Rome.
   The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.
   The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.

   On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown
   passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son,
   Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at
   the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power
   and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or
   Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had
   powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful
   Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and
   her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a
   short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena,
   was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave
   encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian,
   to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general,
   Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored
   Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

   With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,
   Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,
   in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to
   him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having
   crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),
   he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army
   in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first
   opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained
   for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.
{2741}
   It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept
   through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered
   fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before
   Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing
   for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern
   Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical
   surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he
   entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The
   Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised
   to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They
   employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available
   forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,
   150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had
   busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected
   fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and
   improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering
   at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which
   endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the
   discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat
   was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing
   Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered
   useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant
   how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the
   sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his
   army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic
   nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as
   by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the
   Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly
   completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not
   hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved
   to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command
   with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic
   capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring
   of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The
   unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important
   cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing
   it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.

      See MILAN: A. D. 539.

   But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned
   promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore
   the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true
   royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila,
   by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived.
   Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the
   quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave
   every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman
   armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello,
   near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome,
   besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern
   provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much
   friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of
   Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544,
   Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the
   desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover
   what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone.
   Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna,
   and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising
   antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well,
   in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to
   the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn
   around the city and a blockade established which soon produced
   famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the
   leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the
   17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his
   followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license
   to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of
   its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly;
   but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a
   letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself,
   then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he
   withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an
   adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving
   inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that
   Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and
   February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the
   end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the
   broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila
   was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders.
   Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of
   their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was
   lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at
   Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered
   ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to
   them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made
   the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and
   exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a
   time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and
   stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were
   occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the
   tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of
   Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch
   Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a
   point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the
   army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The
   remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he,
   too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the
   foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an
   end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it
   had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong
   places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The
   restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 16;
      book 5, chapters 1-24._

   "Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the
   doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in
   the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march
   to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests
   more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to
   conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We
   may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used
   so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces
   does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to
   prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is
   loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the
   Roman power to win them back again.
{2742}
   I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?
   It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in
   the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is
   still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to
   say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It
   is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern
   Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the
   employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the
   unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of
   the sixth century the power which won back the African
   province in their own day was the same power which had first
   won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul
   Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Chief Periods of European History,
      lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 41 and 43._

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1)._

      _R. H. Wrightson,
      The Sancta Respublica Romana,
      chapters 5-7._

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Belisarius._

ROME: A. D. 541.
   Extinction of the office of Consul.

      See CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: A. D. 554-800.
   The Exarchate of Ravenna.

   On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy
   in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its
   throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers,
   named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor,
   being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name.
   "Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow
   province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of
   the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire
   kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and
   military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye
   of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the
   Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country
   or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after
   the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic
   sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the
   pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the
   schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of
   Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the
   senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their
   estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the
   throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and
   measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the
   salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and
   grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light
   of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200
   years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
   Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive
   exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the
   full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical
   power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards
   consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the
   modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and
   Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a
   second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the
   hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of
   Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from
   the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war,
   the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have
   included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first
   400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced
   along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with
   the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of
   Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the
   infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on
   the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with
   impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power
   of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the
   adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the
   Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia,
   Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was
   oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek,
   perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the
   Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing
   her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of
   commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally
   ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 43 and 45.

{2742a}
{2742b}

[IMAGE: EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D.
EAST ROMAN EMPIRE
RACE DIVISIONS
CELTIC PEOPLES.
SLAVIC PEOPLES.
LITHUANIAN PEOPLES.
URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES.
SCANDINAVIANS.
ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC.
THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR
IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.]

ROME: A. D. 565-628.
   Decline of the Eastern Empire.
   Thickening calamities.
   Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,
   and Phocas.
   Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.
   His campaigns against the Persians.

   "The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are
   covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),
   Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These
   three emperors were men of much the same character as the
   predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced
   official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning
   emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the
   empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of
   the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and
   more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos
   and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his
   successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war
   [see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.
   … Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for
   the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the
   river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused
   to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then
   electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,
   they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city
   factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend
   himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he
   fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck
   refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular
   than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom
   the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.
   The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five
   sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For
   the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of
   empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the
   murder of the legitimate ruler. …
{2743}
   Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,
   and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to
   fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign
   with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's
   friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never
   ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,
   Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical
   pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he
   professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far
   different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of
   Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians
   burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but
   in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto
   untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army
   penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates
   of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the
   blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot
   after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he
   succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators
   with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …
   Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the
   reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor
   foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch
   Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the
   emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate
   entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow
   against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a
   monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who
   bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.
   Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to
   Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and
   the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he
   was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save
   Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the
   capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the
   Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had
   almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in
   Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.
   … For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at
   Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to
   defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The
   more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,
   and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the
   catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian
   army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after
   a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the
   populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when
   Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him
   back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians
   to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,
   Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with
   him went what all Christians then regarded as the most
   precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

   The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and
   the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real
   outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of
   the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six
   campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful
   attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and
   well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the
   foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for
   the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age.
   His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts,
   not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next
   campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the
   Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës
   at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria
   and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the
   Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw
   himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles
   to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but
   the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and
   Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he
   recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year
   of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final
   effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of
   operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main
   Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body
   under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and
   marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the
   Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic
   dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on
   the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each
   other across the water, and even contrived to exchange
   messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down
   the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of
   July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege
   implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land
   front of the city, but they were beaten back with great
   slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the
   Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege
   in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius
   was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the
   war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which
   he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops
   such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the
   Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended
   the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to
   Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils,
   his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' …
   The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the
   end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the
   commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it
   was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent
   out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth,
   inviting them to embrace Islam."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2)._

      See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 568-573.
   Invasion of the Lombards.
   Their conquest of northern Italy.
   Their kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573; and 573-754.

{2744}

ROME: A. D. 590-640.
   Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.
   Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.

   "The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of
   the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of
   Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and
   importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could
   exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom
   in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great
   founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show
   how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The
   invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an
   endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land
   from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial
   system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed
   a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal
   aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their
   bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the
   barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities
   of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the
   Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive
   eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The
   piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman
   Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and
   even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become
   the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands
   against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested
   to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came
   to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the
   suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural
   prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant
   Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the
   Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives
   added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical
   wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory
   I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look
   upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in
   spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the
   Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor
   showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into
   antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the
   difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at
   home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the
   heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious
   colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman
   missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and
   in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence
   to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he
   could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The
   English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of
   her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in
   her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred
   heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia.
   Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II.,
   Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church,
   subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in
   the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of
   Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of
   Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an
   apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a
   rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism
   it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay
   claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in
   its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate
   struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer
   was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its
   ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for
   no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with
   the Empire would give greater independence to his own
   position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Allies,
      The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.

ROME: A. D. 632-709.
   The Eastern Empire.
   Its first conflicts with Islam.
   Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639, to 647-709.

ROME: A. D. 641-717.
   The Eastern Empire.

   The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of
   Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by
   the following reigns:

   Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);
   Constans II. (641-668);
   Constantine IV. (668-685);
   Justinian II. (685-711);
   Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign
   of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);
   Philippicus (711-713);
   Anastasius II. (713-716);
   Theodosius III. (716-717).

ROME: A. D. 717-800.
   The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take
   the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?

   "The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to
   exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius
   [A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by
   the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek
   Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if
   manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the
   commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have
   shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier
   period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form
   of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman
   empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the
   existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns
   of Constantinople continued to retain as long as
   Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period …
   at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by
   the events which confined the authority of the imperial
   government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the
   majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption
   of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence
   of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the
   nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with
   the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed
   from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native
   population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature,
   and religion, the central government of Constantinople was
   gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions
   of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. …
{2745}
   Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and
   feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought
   correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is,
   consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the
   final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the
   transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of
   the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal
   government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have
   terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of
   Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of
   Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who
   identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical
   forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the
   Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy,
   nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their
   position, which makes the establishment of this new era
   historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family
   [A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed
   nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during
   many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the
   empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the
   Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the
   territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests
   exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek
   race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at
   Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It
   ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the
   mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis,
   called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of
   which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly
   the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black
   Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe,
   Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the
   Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia
   to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium,
   were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. …
   Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still
   acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of
   Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection,
   but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities
   of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of
   Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient
   Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern
   Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily,
   though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the
   Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 5, sections 1 and 7._

   Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman
   says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested
   by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the
   Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the
   land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the
   fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of
   Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the
   Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however
   shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to
   1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the
   title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and,
   from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest
   forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy,
   and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is
   well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire
   keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles
   the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old
   Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince
   who reigns in the New."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Essays, series 3,
      page 244._

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

ROME: A. D. 728-733.
   Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.
   The Iconoclastic controversy.
   Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.
   Practical independence assumed by the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774;
      and ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

ROME: A. D. 751.
   Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ROME: A. D. 754-774.
   Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.
   Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.
   Fall of the Lombard kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
      also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774, and 755-774.

ROME: A. D. 800.
   Coronation of Charlemagne.
   The Empire revived.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROME: A. D. 843-951.
   The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire
   and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

      See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
      FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.

ROME: A. D. 846-849.
   Attack by the Saracens.

   "A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter
   the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet,
   in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the
   Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a
   trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and
   St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and
   of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them
   against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the
   Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their
   rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of
   the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly
   offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they
   pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by
   the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the
   interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo
   IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy
   as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its
   walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron
   chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples,
   and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought
   their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the
   Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a
   terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians
   in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small
   number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the
   Romans and their allies.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52._

{2746}

ROME: A. D. 903-964.
   The reign of the courtesans and their brood.
   Interference of Otho the Great.
   His revival of the Empire.

   "During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of
   Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy,
   governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the
   barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome.
   Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for
   her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which
   she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of
   Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother,
   Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman
   barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo,
   at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over
   the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a
   fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her
   daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate
   by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally
   bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a
   contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the
   see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a
   son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no
   less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a
   young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first
   obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric
   of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a
   distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the
   papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope
   in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of
   fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which
   he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of
   Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he
   was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed
   the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was
   obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a
   natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her
   former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and
   Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy,
   was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother
   by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of
   Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and
   cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in
   which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead.
   "Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed
   consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the
   republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a
   guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the
   popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome
   against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy.
   Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and
   senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights
   of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two
   sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates
   and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes,
   who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo
   VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of
   this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered
   beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and
   had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years
   afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself,
   young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already
   acknowledged him as patrice."

      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      introduction, period 6._

   "He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D.
   956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to
   the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of
   a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated
   the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth
   in the account to have brought down the scandal of the
   pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy,
   which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the
   name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on
   ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom
   with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."

      _Abbé J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 4, chapter 7._

   Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of
   Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of
   soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho
   came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of
   Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by
   the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial
   young pope who crowned him to be deposed.

      See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY;
      and GERMANY; A. D. 936-973.

   John was subsequently reinstated by the Romans, but died soon
   after, A. D. 964.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 12._

   The state of things at Rome described in the above has been
   fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."

ROME: A. D. 962-1057.
   Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.
   Chronic disorganization of the city.

   "It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to
   establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous
   scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of
   things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto
   III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but
   transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an
   emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself
   the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and
   afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was
   occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II.
   to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy
   no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one
   exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy
   atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's
   guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid
   the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in
   papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the
   character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician
   families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople;
   and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or
   Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But
   the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast
   possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or
   industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely
   upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits
   derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the
   unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the
   5th to the 15th century."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapter. 3._

      See PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.

{2746a}

NINTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
801.  Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

805.  Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
      Creation of the Austrian march.

806.  Division of the Empire by Charlemagne
      between his sons formally planned.

809.  Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

812.  Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
      siege of Bagdad.

814.  Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
      his only surviving son.

816.  Death of Pope Leo III.;
      election of Stephen IV.

817.  Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

826.  Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle
      to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.

821.  Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

830.  First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

833.  Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
      the "Field of Lies";
      deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
      Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

834.  Restoration of Louis the Pious.

835.  Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking of Utrecht
      by the Northmen.

836.  Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
      Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.

837.  First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

838.  Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
      the Amorian War.

840.  Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor
      Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.

841.  Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
      their capture of Rouen.

842.  The Oath of Strasburg.

843.  Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
      Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
      Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of
      Louis the German and Charles the Bald,
      which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.

845.  First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
      their destruction of Hamburg.

846.  Rome attacked by the Moslems.

847.  Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

849.  Birth of Alfred the Great (d. 901).

852.  Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

854.  Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

855.  Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war
      between his sons.
      First footing of the Danes established in England.

851.  Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
      and elevation of Photius.

860.  Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date.]

861.  Formation of the Duchy of France;
      origin of the House of Capet.
      Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863.  Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
      Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

864.  Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

865.  First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

866.  Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

871.  Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
      surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
      Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

815.  Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
      imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

876.  The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

817.  Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
      and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
      Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

878.  Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

880.  Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
      battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
      Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
      Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]

881.  Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

884.  Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
      under Charles the Fat.

885.  Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

881.  Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

888.  Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the
      Empire of the Franks;
      founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
      The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of
      Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

889.  Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

890.  Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

891.  Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

894.  Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

890.  Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

898.  Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple sole
      king of France.

899.  Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
      accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

900.  Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.

{2746b}

TENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
901.  Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession
      of his son, Edward the Elder.
      Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

904.  Sergius III. made Pope;
      beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

909.  Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

910.  Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.

911.  Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing
      the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of
      Conrad the Franconian.
      Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;
      cession of Normandy to Rollo.

912.  Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.

914.  Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by the courtesan,
      Theodora. [Uncertain date.]

916.  Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.

919.  Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,
      to the kingship of Germany.
      Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

923.  The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple
      by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

924.  Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;
      truce agreed upon for nine years.
      Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.
      Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon King.

925.  Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
      and accession of his son Ethelstan.

928.  Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X.
      by the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date.]

929.  Death of Charles the Simple in France.

931.  John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia,
      made Pope. [Uncertain date.]

932.  Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.

936.  Election of Otho, called the Great,
      to the throne of Germany.
      Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of
      the Carolingians to the French throne.

937.  Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots
      at the battle of Brunnaburgh.
      Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

940.  Death of the English king, Ethelstan,
      and accession of his brother Edmund.

946.  Death of the English king, Edmund,
      and accession of his brother Edred.

951.  First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
      founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

954.  Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,
      succeeding him.
      Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,
      called "d'Outremer";
      accession of Lothaire.

955.  Germany invaded by the Hungarians;
      their decisive defeat on the Lech.
      Death of the English king, Edred,
      and accession of his nephew, Edwig.

956.  Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.

957.  Revolt against the English king Edwig;
      division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.
      [Uncertain date.]

959.  Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;
      Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

961.  The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.

962.  Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
      revival of the Western Empire.

963.  Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;
      election of Leo VIII.

964.  Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;
      return and death of John XII.;
      siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

965.  Death of Pope Leo VIII.;
      election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

967.  Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date.]

969.  Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
      by John Zimisces, his successor.

972.  Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,
      to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.
      Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

973.  Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;
      accession of Otho II.

974.  Murder of Pope Benedict VI.

975.  Election of Pope Benedict VII.
      Death of the English king Edgar;
      accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

979.  Death of Edward the Martyr;
      accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date.]

983.  Death of the Emperor Otho II.;
      accession of Otho III. to the German throne, under the
      regency of his mother, Theophano.
      First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

984.  Election of Pope John XIV.

985.  Murder of Pope John XIV.;
      election of Pope John XV.

986.  Death of Lothaire, king of France;
      accession of his son Louis V.

987.  Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
      election of Hugh Capet.

988.  Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
      Cherson acquired by the Romans.

991.  Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;
      battle of Maldon.

996.  Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;
      accession of his son, Robert II.
      Death of Pope John XV.;
      election of Gregory V.
      Imperial coronation of Otho III.

997.  Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.
      Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;
      expulsion of the Pope.

998.  Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
      Excommunication of King Robert of France.

999.  Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,
      as Sylvester II.

1000. Expectations of the end of the world.
      Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
      Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
      by the Pope.
      Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.

{2747}

ROME: A. D. 1077-1102.
   Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
   Surrender to Henry IV.
   Terrible Norman visitation.

   Four years after his humiliation of himself before the pope at
   Canossa (see CANOSSA), Henry IV. ("King of the Romans" and
   claiming the imperial coronation, which the pope refused him),
   entered Italy with an army to enforce his demands. He had
   recovered his authority in Germany; the rival set up against
   him was slain; northern Italy was strong in his support. For
   three successive years Henry marched his army to the walls of
   Rome and made attempts to enter, by force, or intrigue, or by
   stress of blockade, and every year, when the heats of summer
   came, he found himself compelled to withdraw. At last, the
   Romans, who had stood firm by Gregory VII., tired of the
   siege, or the gold which purchased their fidelity (some say)
   gave out, and they opened their gates. Pope Gregory took
   refuge in his impregnable Castle of St. Angelo, and Henry,
   bringing with him the anti-pope whom his partisans had set up,
   was crowned by the latter in the Church of St. Peter. But the
   coveted imperial crown was little more than settled upon his
   head when news came of the rapid approach of Robert Guiscard,
   the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, with a large army, to
   defend the legitimate pope. Henry withdrew from Rome in haste
   and three days afterwards Robert Guiscard's army was under its
   walls. The Romans feared to admit these terrible champions of
   their pope; but the vigilance and valor of the Normans
   surprised a gate, and the great city was in their power. They
   made haste to conduct Gregory to his Lateran Palace and to
   receive his blessing; then they "spread through the city,
   treating it with an the cruelty of a captured town, pillaging,
   violating, murdering, wherever they met with opposition. The
   Romans had been surprised, not subdued. For two days and
   nights they brooded over their vengeance; on the third day
   they broke out in general insurrection. … The Romans fought at
   advantage, from their possession of the houses and their
   knowledge of the ground. They were gaining the superiority;
   the Normans saw their peril. The remorseless Guiscard gave the
   word to fire the houses. … The distracted inhabitants dashed
   wildly into the streets, no longer endeavouring to defend
   themselves, but to save their families. They were hewn down by
   hundreds. … Nuns were defiled, matrons forced, the rings cut
   from their living fingers. Gregory exerted himself, not
   without success, in saving the principal churches. It is
   probable, however, that neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek
   nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this
   capture by the Normans. From this period dates the desertion
   of the older part of the city, and its gradual extension over
   the site of the modern city, the Campus Martius. … Many
   thousand Romans were sold publicly as slaves; many carried
   into the remotest parts of Calabria." When Guiscard withdrew
   his destroying army from the ruins of Rome, Gregory went with
   him and never returned. He died not long after at Salerno.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 7, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      book 9._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122,
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

ROME: A. D. 1122-1250.
   Conflict of the Popes with the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
   The Republic of Arnold of Brescia.

   Arnold of Brescia—so-called from his native city in
   Lombardy—was a disciple of Abelard, and not so much a
   religious as a political reformer. "On all the high mysterious
   doctrines of the Church, the orthodoxy of Arnold was
   unimpeachable; his personal life was that of the sternest
   monk; he had the most earnest sympathy with the popular
   religion. … He would reduce the clergy to their primitive and
   apostolic poverty; confiscate all their wealth, escheat all
   their temporal power. … His Utopia was a great Christian
   republic, exactly the reverse of that of Gregory VII." In
   1145, Arnold was at Rome, where his doctrines had gone before
   him, and where the citizens had already risen in rebellion
   against the rule of the pope. "His eloquence brought over the
   larger part of the nobles to the popular side; even some of
   the clergy were infected by his doctrines. The re~public,
   under his influence, affected to resume the constitution of
   elder Rome. … The Capitol was rebuilt and fortified; even the
   church of St. Peter was sacrilegiously turned into a castle.
   The Patrician took possession of the Vatican, imposed taxes,
   and exacted tribute by violence from the pilgrims. Rome began
   again to speak of her sovereignty of the world." The republic
   maintained itself until 1155, when a bolder pope —the
   Englishman, Adrian or Hadrian IV.—had mounted the chair of St.
   Peter, and confronted Arnold with unflinching hostility. The
   death of one of his Cardinals, killed in a street tumult, gave
   the pope an opportunity to place the whole city under an
   interdict. "Religion triumphed over liberty. The clergy and
   the people compelled the senate to yield. Hadrian would admit
   of no lower terms than the abrogation of the republican
   institutions; the banishment of Arnold and his adherents. The
   republic was at an end, Arnold an exile; the Pope again master
   in Rome." A few months later, Arnold of Brescia, a prisoner in
   the hands of Frederick Barbarossa, then coming to Rome for the
   imperial crown, was given up to the Pope and was executed in
   some summary way, the particulars of which are in considerable
   dispute.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8. chapters 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 6._

ROME: A. D. 1155.
   Tumult at the coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

ROME: A. D. 1167.
   The taking of the city by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

ROME: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
   in the States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

ROME: A. D. 1215.
   The beginning in Italy of the strife of
   the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

{2748}

ROME: 13-14th Centuries.
   The turbulence of the Roman nobles.
   The strife of the Colonna and the Ursini.

   "In the beginning of the 11th century Italy was exposed to the
   feudal tyranny, alike oppressive to the sovereign and the
   people. The rights of human nature were vindicated by her
   numerous republics, who soon extended their liberty and
   dominion from the city to the adjacent country. The sword of
   the nobles was broken; their slaves were enfranchised; their
   castles were demolished; they assumed the habits of society
   and obedience. … But the feeble and disorderly government of
   Rome was unequal to the task of curbing her rebellious sons,
   who scorned the authority of the magistrate within and without
   the walls. It was no longer a civil contention between the
   nobles and plebeians for the government of the state. The
   barons asserted in arms their personal independence; their
   palaces and castles were fortified against a siege; and their
   private quarrels were maintained by the numbers of their
   vassals and retainers. In origin and affection they were
   aliens to their country; and a genuine Roman, could such have
   been produced, might have renounced these haughty strangers,
   who disdained the appellation of citizens, and proudly styled
   themselves the princes of Rome. After a dark series of
   revolutions, all records of pedigree were lost; the
   distinction of surnames was abolished; the blood of the
   nations was mingled in a thousand channels; and the Goths and
   Lombards, the Greeks and Franks, the Germans and Normans, had
   obtained the fairest possessions by royal bounty or the
   prerogative of valour. … It is not my design to enumerate the
   Roman families which have failed at different periods, or
   those which are continued in different degrees of splendour to
   the present time. The old consular line of the Frangipani
   discover their name in the generous act of breaking or
   dividing bread in a time of famine; and such benevolence is
   more truly glorious than to have enclosed, with their allies
   the Corsi, a spacious quarter of the city in the chains of
   their fortifications. The Savelli, as it should seem a Sabine
   race, have maintained their original dignity; the obsolete
   surname of the Capizucchi is inscribed on the coins of the
   first senators; the Conti preserve the honour, without the
   estate, of the counts of Signia; and the Annibaldi must have
   been very ignorant, or very modest, if they had not descended
   from the Carthaginian hero. But among, perhaps above, the
   peers and princes of the city, I distinguish the rival houses
   of Colonna and Ursini [or Orsini]. … About the end of the
   thirteenth century the most powerful branch [of the Colonna]
   was composed of an uncle and six brothers, all conspicuous in
   arms or in the honours of the Church. Of these Peter was
   elected senator of Rome, introduced to the Capitol in a
   triumphant car, and hailed in some vain acclamations with the
   title of Cæsar; while John and Stephen were declared Marquis
   of Ancona and Count of Romagna by Nicholas IV., a patron so
   partial to their family that he has been delineated in
   satirical portraits, imprisoned, as it were, in a hollow
   pillar. After his decease their haughty behaviour provoked the
   displeasure of the most implacable of mankind. The two
   cardinals, the uncle and the nephew, denied the election of
   Boniface VIII.; and the Colonna were oppressed for a moment by
   his temporal and spiritual arms. He proclaimed a crusade
   against his personal enemies; their estates were confiscated;
   their fortresses on either side of the Tiber were besieged by
   the troops of St. Peter and those of the rival nobles; and
   after the ruin of Palestrina, or Præneste, their principal
   seat, the ground was marked with a ploughshare, the emblem of
   perpetual desolation. …

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348].

   Some estimate may be formed of their wealth by their losses,
   of their losses by the damages of 100,000 gold florins which
   were granted them against the accomplices and heirs of the
   deceased pope. All the spiritual censures and
   disqualifications were abolished by his prudent successors;
   and the fortune of the house was more firmly established by
   this transient hurricane. … But the first of the family in
   fame and merit was the elder Stephen, whom Petrarch loved and
   esteemed as a hero superior to his own times and not unworthy
   of ancient Rome. … Till the ruin of his declining age, the
   ancestors, the character, and the children of Stephen Colonna
   exalted his dignity in the Roman republic and at the Court of
   Avignon. The Ursini migrated from Spoleto; the sons of Ursus,
   as they are styled in the twelfth century, from some eminent
   person who is only known as the father of their race. But they
   were soon distinguished among the nobles of Rome by the number
   and bravery of their kinsmen, the strength of their towers,
   the honours of the senate and sacred college, and the
   elevation of two popes, Celestin III. and Nicholas III., of
   their name and lineage. … The Colonna embraced the name of
   Ghibellines and the party of the empire; the Ursini espoused
   the title of Guelphs and the cause of the Church. The eagle
   and the keys were displayed in their adverse banners; and the
   two factions of Italy most furiously raged when the origin and
   nature of the dispute were long since forgotten. After the
   retreat of the popes to Avignon they disputed in arms the
   vacant republic; and the mischiefs of discord were perpetuated
   by the wretched compromise of electing each year two rival
   senators. By their private hostilities the city and country
   were desolated."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 69._

    "Had things been left to take their natural course, one of
    these families, the Colonna, for instance, or the Orsini,
    would probably have ended by overcoming its rivals, and have
    established, as was the case in the republics of Romagna and
    Tuscany, a 'signoria,' or local tyranny, like those which had
    once prevailed in the cities of Greece. But the presence of
    the sacerdotal power, as it had hindered the growth of
    feudalism, so also it stood in the way of such a development
    as this, and in so far aggravated the confusion of the city."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 16._

ROME: A. D. 1300.
   The Jubilee.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

ROME: A. D. 1305-1377.
   Withdrawal of the Papal court from Rome
   and settlement at Avignon.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348, to 1352-1378.

ROME: A. D. 1312.
   Resistance to the entry and coronation of Henry VII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

ROME: A. D. 1328.
   Imperial coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

{2749}

ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
   The revolution of Rienzi, the last Tribune.

   "The Holy City had no government. She was no longer the
   Imperial Rome, nor the Pontifical Rome. The Teutonic Cæsars
   had abandoned her. The Popes had also fled from the sacred
   hill of the Vatican to the slimy Gallic city, Avignon. … The
   real masters of the city were the princes or barons, who dwelt
   in their fortified castles in the environs, or their strong
   palaces within. The principal among them were masters of
   different parts of the city. The celebrated old family of the
   Colonnas reigned, it may be said, over the north of the city,
   towards the Quirinal. … The new family of the Orsini extended
   their sway along the Tiber from the Campo-di-Fiore, to the
   Church of St. Peter, comprising the castle of St. Angelo. The
   Savelli, less powerful, possessed a part of the Aventine, with
   the theatre of Marcellus, and the Conti, the huge tower which
   bears their name, on Cæsar's Forum. Other members of the
   nobility, in the country, were possessors of small fortified
   cities, or castles. … Rome, subjected to such a domination,
   had become almost deserted. The population of the seven-hilled
   city had come down to about 30,000 souls. When the barons were
   at peace with each other, which, however, was a rare
   occurrence, they combined to exercise their tyranny over the
   citizens and the serfs, to rob and plunder the farmers,
   travellers, and pilgrims. Petrarch wrote to the Pope at this
   period, that Rome had become the abode of demons, the
   receptacle of all crimes, a hell for the living. … Rienzi was
   then 28 years old. … His function of notary (assessore) to the
   Roman tribunals, would seem to infer that he was considered a
   peaceful, rational citizen. It appears, however, that he
   brought in the exercise of his official duties, the excited
   imagination and generosity of heart which characterized his
   nature. He gloried in being surnamed the Consul of orphans, of
   widows, and of the poor. His love for the humble soon became
   blended with an intense hatred for the great: one of his
   brothers was killed accidentally by a Roman baron, without his
   being able to obtain any satisfaction. … Rienzi had always
   been noted for his literary and poetical taste; he was
   considered as deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity, and
   as the most skilful in deciphering and explaining the numerous
   inscriptions with which Rome abounded. … The least remains of
   antiquity became for him a theme of declamatory addresses to
   the people, on the present state of Rome, on the iniquities
   that surrounded him. Followed by groups that augmented daily,
   and which listened to him with breathless interest, he led
   them from ruin to ruin, to the Forum, to the tombs of the
   Christian martyrs, thus associating every glory, and made the
   hearts of the people throb by his mystical eloquence. … No
   remedy being brought to the popular grievances, an
   insurrection broke out. The senator was expelled; thirteen
   good men (buoni uomini) were installed in the Capitol and
   invested with dictatorial powers. It was a Guelfic movement;
   Rienzi was mixed with it; but without any preeminent
   participation. This new government resolved to send an embassy
   to the Pope, at Avignon, and Rienzi formed part of it. Such
   was the first real public act in the life of Cola di Rienzi.
   The embassy was joined by Petrarch. … The Pope would not hear
   of leaving his new splendid palace, and the gentle population
   of Avignon, for the heap of ruins and the human turbulence of
   Rome." But "Cardinal Aymeric was named to represent the Pope
   at Rome, as Legate, and a Colonna and an Orsini invested with
   the senatorial dignity, in order to restore order in the
   Eternal City, in the name of the Pontiff. Rienzi indulged in
   the most extravagant exultation. He wrote a highly
   enthusiastic address to the Roman people. But his illusion was
   not of long duration. The new Legate only attended to the
   filling of the Papal Treasury. The nobility, protected by the
   new senators, continued their course of tyranny. Rienzi
   protested warmly against such a course of iniquities, in the
   council. One day he spoke with a still greater vehemence of
   indignation, when one of the members of the council struck him
   in the face, others hissed out at him sneeringly, calling him
   the Consul of orphans and widows. From that day he never
   appeared at any of its meetings; his hatred had swollen, and
   must explode. … He went straight to the people (popolo
   minuto), and prepared a revolution. To render his exhortations
   to the people more impressive, he made use of large
   allegorical pictures, hastily drawn, and which form a curious
   testimony of his mystical imagination, as well as of his
   forensic eloquence. … Finally, he convoked the people at the
   Capitol for the 20th of May, 1347, the day of Pentecost,
   namely, under the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Rienzi had
   heard, with fervour, thirty masses during the preceding night.
   On that day he came out at 12 o'clock armed, with his head
   uncovered, followed by 25 partisans; three unfurled standards
   were carried before him, bearing allegorical pictures. This
   time his address was very brief—merely stating, that from his
   love for the Pope and the salvation of the people, he was
   ready to encounter any danger. He then read the laws which
   were to insure the happiness of Rome. They were, properly
   speaking, a summary of reforms, destined to relieve the people
   from their sufferings, and intended to realize, what he
   proclaimed, must become the good state [or Good Estate], il
   buono stato. … By this outline of a new constitution, the
   people were invested, with the property and government of the
   city as well as of its environs; the Pontifical See, bereft of
   the power it had exercised during several centuries; and the
   nobility deprived of what they considered as their property,
   to assist the public poverty. The revolution could not be more
   complete; and it is needless to add, that Rienzi was
   clamorously applauded, and immediately invested with full
   powers to realize and organize the buono stato, of which he
   had given the programme. He declined the title of Rector, and
   preferred the more popular name of Tribune. Nothing was fixed
   as to the duration of this extraordinary popular magistracy.
   The new government was installed at the Capitol, the Senators
   expelled, and the whole revolution executed with such
   rapidity, that the new Tribune might well be strengthened in
   his belief that he was acting under the protection of the Holy
   Ghost. He was careful, nevertheless, not to estrange the
   Pontifical authority, and requested that the apostolical vicar
   should be offered to be adjoined to him, which the prelate
   accepted, however uncertain and perilous the honour appeared
   to be.
{2750}
   During the popular enthusiasm, old Stephen Colonna, with the
   more formidable of the barons, who had been away, returned to
   Rome in haste; he expressed publicly his scorn, and when the
   order came from Rienzi for him to quit the city, he replied
   that he would soon come and throw that madman out of one of
   the windows of the Capitol. Rienzi ordered the bells to be
   rung, the people instantly assembled in arms, and that
   proudest of the barons was obliged to fly to Palestrina. The
   next day it was proclaimed that all the nobles were to come,
   to swear fealty to the Roman people, and afterwards withdraw
   to their castles, and protect the public roads. John, the son
   of old Colonna, was the first who presented himself at the
   Capitol, but it was with the intention of braving and
   insulting the Tribune. When he beheld the popular masses in
   close array, he felt awed, and took the oath to protect the
   people—protect the roads—succour the widows and orphans, and
   obey the summons of the Tribune. The Orsini, Savelli, Gaetani,
   and many others, came after him and followed his example.
   Rienzi, now sole master, without opponents, gave a free course
   to the allurements of authority. … The tolls, taxes, and
   imposts which pressed upon the people were abolished by
   Rienzi, in the first instance, and afterwards, the taxes on
   the bridges, wine, and bread; but he endeavoured to compensate
   such an enormous deficit by augmenting the tax on salt, which
   was not yet unpopular, besides an impost on funded property.
   He was thus making hasty, serious, even dangerous engagements
   with the people, which it might not be in his power to keep. …
   For the present, calmness and security were reigning in the
   city. … The Tribune received the congratulations of all the
   ambassadors; the changes he had effected appeared miraculous.
   … He believed implicitly that he was the founder of a new era.
   The homage profusely lavished upon him by all the Italian
   Republics, and even by despotic sovereigns confirmed him in
   his conviction. … One nobleman alone, the Prefect of Vico,
   secretly supported by the agent of the Pontifical patrimony,
   refused to submit and to surrender the three or four little
   cities in his jurisdiction. Rienzi led rapidly against him an
   army of 8,000 men, and attacked the rebellious Prefect so
   suddenly and skilfully, that the latter surrendered
   unconditionally. This success inflamed the head and
   imagination of Rienzi, and with it commenced the mystical
   extravagances and follies which could not fail to cause his
   ruin."

      _Prof. De Vericour,
      Rienzi, the last of the Tribunes
      Dublin University Magazine, 1860._

      _Eclectic Magazine,
      September, 1860._

   "Rienzi's head was turned by his success. He assumed the pomp
   of a sovereign. He distributed titles, surrounded himself with
   ceremonies, and multiplied feasts and processions. … He
   desired to be ennobled, and to have the title of Knight, as
   well as Tribune. To celebrate his installation as Knight, a
   splendid series of ceremonies was arranged," at the end of
   which he "made an address, in which he cited the Pope, and
   Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles of Bohemia, to give reasons for
   any claims they had on Rome; and pointing his sword to three
   points of the compass, he exclaimed, 'This is mine, and this
   is mine, and this is mine.' … Folly had quite got the better
   of him now, and his vanity was leading him swiftly to ruin. …
   Shortly afterwards he issued a proclamation that he had
   discovered a conspiracy against the people and himself, and
   declared that he would cut off the heads of all those
   concerned in it. The conspirators were seized and brought
   forward, and among them were seen the chief of the princely
   families of Rome. Solemn preparations were made for their
   execution, when Rienzi, suddenly and without reason, not only
   pardoned them all, but conferred upon them some of the most
   important charges and offices of the state. No sooner were
   these nobles and princes free out of Rome than they began
   seriously to conspire to overthrow Rienzi and his government.
   They assembled their soldiers, and, after devastating the
   country, threatened to march upon Rome itself. The Tribune,
   who was no soldier, attempted to intimidate his enemies by
   threats; but finding that the people grew clamorous for
   action, he at last took up arms, and made a show of advancing
   against them. But after a few days, during which he did
   nothing except to destroy still more of the Campagna, he
   returned to Rome, clothed himself in the Imperial robes,. and
   received a legate from the Pope. … His power soon began to
   crumble away under him; and when, shortly afterwards, he
   endeavoured to prevail upon the people to rise and drive out
   the Count of Minorbino, who had set his authority at defiance,
   he found that his day was past. … He then ordered the trumpets
   of silver to sound, and, clothed in all his pomp, he marched
   through Rome, accompanied by his small band of soldiers, and
   on the 15th October, 1347, intrenched himself in the Castle
   St. Angelo. Still the influence of his name and his power was
   so great, that it was not till three days after that the
   nobles ventured to return to Rome, and then they found that
   Cola's power had vanished. It faded away like a carnival
   pageant, as that gay procession entered the Castle St. Angelo.
   There he remained until the beginning of March, and then fled,
   and found his way to Civita Vecchia, where he stayed with a
   nephew of his for a short time. But his nephew having been
   arrested, he again returned to Rome secretly, and was
   concealed in Castle St. Angelo by one of the Orsini who was
   friendly to him and his party. … Cola soon after fled to
   Naples, fearing lest he should be betrayed into the hands of
   the Cardinals. Rome now fell into a state of anarchy and
   confusion even worse than when he assumed the reins of power.
   Revolutions occurred. Brigandage was renewed. … In 1353 Rienzi
   returned with Cardinal Albornos, the legate of the Pope. He
   was received with enthusiasm, and again installed in power.
   But he was embarrassed in all his actions by the Cardinal, who
   sought only to make use of him, while he himself exercised all
   the power. The title of Senator of Rome was conferred on him,
   and the people forgave him. … But Rienzi had lost the secret
   of his power in losing his enthusiasm. … At last, in October
   1353, a sedition broke out, and the mob rushed to the Capitol
   with cries of 'Death to the traitor Rienzi!' … He appeared on
   the balcony clothed in his armour as Knight, and, with the
   standard of the people in his hand, demanded to be heard. But
   the populace refused to listen to him. … At last he decided to
   fly. Tearing off his robes, he put on the miserable dress of
   the porter, rushed down the flaming stairs and through the
   burning chambers, … and at last reached the third floor. … At
   this very moment his arm was seized, and a voice said, 'Where
   are you going?' He saw that all was lost.
{2751}
   But, at bay, he did nothing mean. Again there was a flash of
   heroic courage, not unworthy of him. He threw off his
   disguise, and disdaining all subterfuges, said, 'I am the
   Tribune!' He was then led out through the door … to the base
   of the basalt lions, where he had made his first great call
   upon the people. Standing there, undaunted by its tumultuous
   cries, he stood for an hour with folded arms, and looked
   around upon the raging crowd. At last, profiting by a lull of
   silence, he lifted his voice to address them, when suddenly an
   artisan at his side, fearing perhaps the result of his
   eloquence, and perhaps prompted by revenge, plunged his pike
   in his breast, and he fell. The wild mob rushed upon his
   corpse."

      _W. W. Story,
      Castle St. Angelo,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 12, chapters 10-11 (volume 5)._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 70._

ROME: A. D. 1367-1369.
   Temporary return of Urban V. from Avignon.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

ROME: A. D. 1377-1379.
   Return of the Papal court.
   Election of Urban VI. and the Great Schism.
   Battles in the city.
   Siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

ROME: A. D. 1405-1414.
   Rising in the city and flight of Pope Innocent VII.
   Sacking of the Vatican.
   Surrender of the city to Ladislas, king of Naples.
   Expulsion of the Neapolitans and their return.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROME: A. D. 1447-1455.
   The pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Building of the Vatican Palace and
   founding of the Vatican Library.
   The Porcaro revolt.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

ROME: A. D. 1492-1503.
   Under the Borgias.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

ROME: A. D. 1494.
   Charles VIII. and the French army in the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

ROME: A. D. 1526.
   The city taken and the Vatican plundered
   by the Colonnas and the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

ROME: A. D. 1527.
   The capture and the sacking of the city
   by the army of Constable Bourbon.
   Captivity of the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; 1527; and 1527-1529.

ROME: A. D. 1537-1563.
   Inclinations towards the Reformation.
   Catholic reaction.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

ROME: A. D. 1600-1656.
   The great families and the Roman population.

   "A numerous, powerful, and wealthy aristocracy surrounded the
   papal throne; the families already established imposed
   restraints ou those that were but newly rising; from the
   self-reliance and authoritative boldness of monarchy, the
   ecclesiastical sovereignty was passing to the deliberation,
   sobriety, and measured calmness of aristocratic government. …
   There still flourished those old and long-renowned Roman
   races, the Savelli, Conti, Orsini, Colonna, and Gaetani. … The
   Colonna and Orsini made it their boast, that for centuries no
   peace had been concluded between the princes of Christendom,
   in which they had not been included by name. But however
   powerful these houses may have been in earlier times, they
   certainly owed their importance in those now before us to
   their connection with the Curia and the popes. … Under
   Innocent X., there existed for a considerable time, as it
   were, two great factions, or associations of families. The
   Orsini, Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, and
   Giustiniani were with the Pamfili; while opposed to them, was
   the house of Colonna and the Barberini. … In the middle of the
   seventeenth century there were computed to be fifty noble
   families in Rome of three hundred years standing, thirty-five
   of two hundred, and sixteen of one hundred years. None were
   permitted to claim a more ancient descent, or were generally
   traced to an obscure, or even a low origin. … But by the side
   of the old families there rose up various new ones. All the
   cardinals and prelates of the Curia proceeded according to the
   pope's example, and each in proportion to his means employed
   the surplus of his ecclesiastical revenue for the
   aggrandizement of his kindred, the foundation of a new family.
   There were others which had attained to eminence by judicial
   appointments, and many were indebted for their elevation to
   being employed as bankers in the affairs of the Dataria.
   Fifteen families of Florence, eleven from Genoa, nine
   Portuguese, and four French, are enumerated as having risen to
   more or less consideration by these means, according to their
   good fortune or talents; some of them, whose reputation no
   longer depended on the affairs of the day, became monarchs of
   gold; as for example, the Guicciardini and Doni, who connected
   themselves, under Urban VIII., with the Giustiniani, Primi,
   and Pallavicini. But even, without affairs of this kind,
   families of consideration were constantly repairing to Rome,
   not only from Urbino, Rieti, and Bologna, but also from Parma
   and Florence. … Returns of the Roman population are still
   extant, and by a comparison of the different years, we find a
   most remarkable result exhibited, as regards the manner in
   which that population was formed. Not that its increase was
   upon the whole particularly rapid, this we are not authorized
   to assert. In the year 1600 the inhabitants were about
   110,000; fifty-six years afterwards they were somewhat above
   120,000, an advance by no means extraordinary; but another
   circumstance here presents itself which deserves attention. At
   an earlier period, the population of Rome had been constantly
   fluctuating. Under Paul IV. it had decreased from 80,000 to
   50,000; in a score or two of years it had again advanced to
   more than 100,000. And this resulted from the fact that the
   court was then formed principally of unmarried men, who had no
   permanent abode there. But, at the time we are considering,
   the population became fixed into settled families. This began
   to be the case towards the end of the sixteenth century, but
   took place more particularly during the first half of the
   seventeenth. … After the return of the popes from Avignon, and
   on the close of the schism, the city, which had seemed on the
   point of sinking into a mere village, extended itself around
   the Curia. But it was not until the papal families had risen
   to power and riches—until neither internal discords nor
   external enemies were any longer to be feared, and the incomes
   drawn from the revenues of the church or state secured a life
   of enjoyment without the necessity for labour, that a numerous
   permanent population arose in the city."

      _L. Ranke.
      History of the Popes,
      book 8, section 7 (volume 2)._

ROME: A. D. 1797-1798.
   French intrigues and occupation of the city.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Expulsion of the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

{2752}

ROME: A. D. 1798 (November).
   Brief expulsion of the French by the Neapolitans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ROME: A. D. 1799.
   Overthrow of the Roman Republic.
   Expulsion of the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ROME: A. D. 1800.
   The Papal government re-established by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

ROME: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope.
   Captivity of Pius VII.
   French occupation.
   Declared to be a free and imperial city.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1810.
   The title of King of Rome given to Napoleon's son.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1813.
   Papal Concordat with Napoleon.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1814.
   Occupation by Murat for the Allies.
   Return of the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814:
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1815.
   Restoration of the works of art taken by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

ROME: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

ROME: A. D. 1846-1849.
   Liberal reforms of Pope Pius IX.
   His breach with the extremists.
   Revolution, and flight of the Pope.
   Intervention of France.
   Garibaldi's defense of the city.
   Its capture and occupation by the French.
   Overthrow of the Roman Republic.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

ROME: A. D. 1859-1861.
   First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
   Absorption of the Papal States in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

ROME: A. D. 1867-1870.
   Garibaldi's attempt.
   His defeat at Mentana.
   Italian troops in the city.
   The king of Italy takes possession of his capital.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

ROME: A. D. 1869-1870.
   The (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

ROME: A. D. 1870-1871.
   End of Papal Sovereignty.
   Occupation of the city as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

   ----------ROME: End--------

ROMERS-WAALE, Naval battle of (1574).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ROMMANY.

      See GYPSIES.

ROMULUS, Legendary founder of Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS,
   The last Roman Emperor of the old line,
   in the West, A. D. 475-476.

RONCAGLIA, The Diets of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

RONCESVALLES, The ambuscade of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

ROOD, Holy (or Black Rood) of Scotland.

      See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

ROOF OF THE WORLD.

   The Pamir high plateau, which is a continuation of the Bolor
   range, is called by the natives "Bamiduniya," or the Roof of
   the World.

      _T. E. Gordon,
      The Roof of the World,
      chapter 9._

ROOSEBECK OR ROSEBECQUE, Battle of (1382).

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

ROOT AND BRANCH BILL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).

RORKE'S DRIFT, Defense of (1879).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1645-1652.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Recovery by the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646; and 1648-1652.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1808.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

ROSBACH, OR ROSSBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

ROSECRANS, General W. S.:
   Command in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      and 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

   Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   Battle of Stone River.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

   The Tullahoma campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

   Chickamauga.
   Chattanooga campaign.
   Displacement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS'S ADVANCE;
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE)

   Command in Missouri.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

ROSES, Wars of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

ROSETTA STONE.

   "The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a stela discovered in the
   year 1799 by M. Boussard, a French artillery officer, while
   digging entrenchments round the town of that name. It contains
   a copy of a decree made by the priests of Egypt, assembled at
   Memphis, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. This decree is
   engraved on the stone in three languages, or rather in three
   different writings. The first is the hieroglyphic, the grand
   old writing of the monuments; the second is the demotic
   character as used by the people; and the third is the Greek.
   But the text in Greek character is the translation of the two
   former. Up to this time, hieroglyphs had remained an
   impenetrable mystery even for science. But a corner of the
   veil was about to be lifted: in proceeding from the known to
   the unknown, the sense at all events was at length to be
   arrived at of that mysterious writing which had so long defied
   all the efforts of science. Many erudite scholars tried to
   solve the mystery, and Young, among others, very nearly
   brought his researches to a satisfactory issue. But it was
   Champollion's happy lot to succeed in entirely tearing a way
   the veil. Such is the Rosetta Stone, which thus became the
   instrument of one of the greatest discoveries which do honour
   to the nineteenth century."

      _A. Mariette-Bey,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt (Itinéraire)
      page 29._

      See, also, HIEROGLYPHICS.

ROSICRUCIANS.
ILLUMINATI.

   "About the year 1610, there appeared anonymously a little
   book, which excited great sensation throughout Germany. It was
   entitled, The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honourable
   Order of the Rosy Cross, and dedicated to all the scholars and
   magnates of Europe. It commenced with an imaginary dialogue
   between the Seven Sages of Greece, and other worthies of
   antiquity, on the best method of accomplishing a general
   reform in those evil times.
{2753}
   The suggestion of Seneca is adopted, as most feasible, namely
   a secret confederacy of wise philanthropists, who shall labour
   everywhere in unison for this desirable end. The book then
   announces the actual existence of such an association. One
   Christian Rosen Kreuz, whose travels in the East had enriched
   him with the highest treasures of occult lore, is said to have
   communicated his wisdom, under a vow of secrecy, to eight
   disciples, for whom he erected a mysterious dwelling-place
   called The Temple of the Holy Ghost. It is stated further,
   that this long-hidden edifice had been at last discovered, and
   within it the body of Rosen Kreuz, untouched by corruption,
   though, since his death, 120 years had passed away. The
   surviving disciples of the institute call on the learned and
   devout, who desire to co-operate in their projects of reform,
   to advertise their names. They themselves indicate neither
   name nor place of rendezvous. They describe themselves as true
   Protestants. They expressly assert that they contemplate no
   political movement in hostility to the reigning powers. Their
   sole aim is the diminution of the fearful sum of human
   suffering, the spread of education, the advancement of
   learning, science, universal enlightenment, and love.
   Traditions and manuscripts in their possession have given them
   the power of gold-making, with other potent secrets; but by
   their wealth they set little store. They have arcana, in
   comparison with which the secret of the alchemist is a trifle.
   But all is subordinate, with them, to their one high purpose
   of benefiting their fellows both in body and soul. … I could
   give you conclusive reasons, if it would not tire you to hear
   them, for the belief that this far-famed book was written by a
   young Lutheran divine named Valentine Andreä. He was one of
   the very few who understood the age, and had the heart to try
   and mend it. … This Andreä writes the Discovery of the
   Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d'esprit with a serious
   purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot
   be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and
   abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all
   good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered
   throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united
   systematic action! … Many a laugh, you may be sure, he enjoyed
   in his parsonage with his few friends who were in the secret,
   when they found their fable everywhere swallowed greedily as
   unquestionable fact. On all sides they heard of search
   instituted to discover the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Printed
   letters appeared continually, addressed to the imaginary
   brotherhood, giving generally the initials of the candidate,
   where the invisibles might hear of him, stating his motives
   and qualifications for entrance into their number, and
   sometimes furnishing samples of his cabbalistic acquirements.
   Still, no answer. Not a trace of the Temple. Profound darkness
   and silence, after the brilliant flash which had awakened so
   many hopes. Soon the mirth grew serious. Andreä saw with
   concern that shrewd heads of the wrong sort began to scent his
   artifice, while quacks reaped a rogue's harvest from it. … A
   swarm of impostors pretended to belong to the Fraternity, and
   found a readier sale than ever for their nostrums. Andreä
   dared not reveal himself. All he could do was to write book
   after book to expose the folly of those whom his handiwork had
   so befooled, and still to labour on, by pen and speech, in
   earnest aid of that reform which his unhappy stratagem had
   less helped than hindered. … Confederacies of pretenders
   appear to have been organized in various places; but Descartes
   says he sought in vain for a Rosicrucian lodge in Germany. The
   name Rosicrucian became by degrees a generic term, embracing
   every species of occult pretension,—arcana, elixirs, the
   philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations. In
   general usage the term is associated more especially with that
   branch of the secret art which has to do with the creatures of
   the elements. … And from this deposit of current mystical
   tradition sprang, in great measure, the Freemasonry and
   Rosicrucianism of the 18th century,—that golden age of secret
   societies. Then flourished associations of every imaginable
   kind, suited to every taste. … Some lodges belonged to
   Protestant societies, others were the implements of the
   Jesuits. Some were aristocratic, like the Strict Observance;
   others democratic, seeking in vain to escape an Argus-eyed
   police. Some—like the Illuminati under Weishaupt Knigge, and
   Von Zwackh, numbering (among many knaves) not a few names of
   rank, probity, and learning—were the professed enemies of
   mysticism and superstition. Others existed only for the
   profitable juggle of incantations and fortune-telling. … The
   best perished at the hands of the Jesuits, the worst at the
   hands of the police."

      _R. A. Vaughan,
      Hours with the Mystics,
      book 8, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 4, pages 483-504._

      _T. Frost,
      The Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 8._

ROSLIN, Battle of.

   One of the minor battles fought in the Scottish "war of
   independence," with success to the Scots, A. D. 1302.

ROSSBACH,
ROSBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

ROSSBRUNN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

ROSTOCK:
   The founding of the city.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

ROSY CROSS, The Honourable Order of the.

      See ROSICRUCIANS.

ROTENNU,
RUTENNU,
RETENNU, The.

   "The Syrian populations, who, to the north of the Canaanites
   [17th century B. C.], occupied the provinces called in the
   Bible by the general name of Aram, as far as the river
   Euphrates, belonged to the confederation of the Rotennu, or
   Retennu, extending beyond the river and embracing all
   Mesopotamia ( Naharaina). … The Rotennu had no well-defined
   territory, nor even a decided unity of race. They already
   possessed powerful cities, such as Nineveh and Babylon, but
   there were still many nomadic tribes within the ill-defined
   limits of the confederacy. Their name was taken from the city
   of Resen, apparently the most ancient, and originally the most
   important, city of Assyria. The germ of the Rotennu
   confederation was formed by the Semitic Assyro-Chaldæan
   people, who were not yet welded into a compact monarchy."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 3._

ROTHIERE, Battle of La.

      See FRANCE A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

{2754}

ROTOMAGUS.
   Modern Rouen.

      See BELGÆ.

RÖTTELN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ROTTEN BOROUGHS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; and 1830-1832.

ROTTWEIL: Siege and capture by the French (1643).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

   ----------ROUEN: Start--------

ROUEN:
   Origin of the city and name.

      See BELGÆ.

ROUEN: A. D. 841.
   First destructive visit of the Northmen.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 841.

ROUEN: A. D. 845.
   Second capture by the Northmen.

      See PARIS: A. D.845.

ROUEN: A. D. 876-91 I.
   Rollo's settlement.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

ROUEN: A. D. 1418-1419.
   Siege and capture by Henry V. of England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

ROUEN: A. D. 1431.
   The burning of the Maid of Orleans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ROUEN: A. D. 1449.
   Recovery from the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

ROUEN: A. D. 1562.
   Occupied by the Huguenots and retaken by the Catholics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

ROUEN: A. D. 1591-1592.
   Siege by Henry IV., raised by the Duke of Parma.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

ROUEN: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

   ----------ROUEN: End--------

ROUM,
ICONIUM,
NICÆA, The Sultans of.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.

ROUMANI,
ROMÚNI, The.

      See DACCA: A. D. 102-106.

ROUMANIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.

ROUMELIA, Eastern.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878,
      TREATIES OF SAN STEFANO AND MADRID;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, to 1878-1886.

ROUND TABLE, Knights of the.

      See ARTHUR, KING.

ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND.

   "At various periods between the sixth and twelfth centuries
   (some of them still later, but the greater number, perhaps, in
   the ninth and tenth centuries), were erected those singular
   buildings, the round towers, which have been so enveloped in
   mystery by the arguments and conjectures of modern
   antiquaries. … The real uses of the Irish round towers, both
   as belfries and as ecclesiastical keeps or castles, have been
   satisfactorily established by Dr. Petrie, in his important and
   erudite work on the ecclesiastical architecture of Ireland. …
   These buildings were well contrived to supply the clergy with
   a place of safety for themselves, the sacred vessels, and
   other objects of value, during the incursions of the Danes,
   and other foes; and the upper stories, in which there were
   four windows, were perfectly well adapted for the ringing of
   the largest bells then used in Ireland."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 115._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Bryant,
      Celtic Ireland,
      chapter 7._

ROUNDHEADS.

   The Parliamentary or popular party in the great English civil
   war were called Roundheads because they generally wore their
   hair cut short, while the Cavaliers of the king's party held
   to the fashion of flowing locks. According to the
   Parliamentary clerk Rushworth, the first person who applied
   the name was one David Hyde, who threatened a mob of citizens
   which surrounded the Houses of Parliament on the 27th of
   December, 1641, crying "No Bishops," that he would "cut the
   throats of these round-headed dogs."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Hutchinson,
      Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (1642)._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER).

ROUSSEAU, and educational reform.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1762.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1639.
   Situation of the county.
   Invasion by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1037-1640.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1642.
   French conquest.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ROUTIERS The.

      See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

ROXOLANI, The.

   A people, counted among the Sarmatians, who occupied anciently
   the region between the Don and the Dnieper, —afterwards
   encroaching on Dacian territory. They were among the
   barbarians who troubled the Roman frontier earliest, and were
   prominent in the wars which disturbed the reign of Marcus
   Aurelius. Later, they disappeared in the flood of Gothic and
   Hunnish invasion, partly by absorption, it is supposed, and
   partly by extermination.

ROYAL ROAD OF ANCIENT PERSIA, The.

   "Herodotus describes the great road of the Persian period from
   Ephesos by the Cilician Gates to Susa. It was called the
   'Royal Road,' because the service of the Great King passed
   along it; and it was, therefore, the direct path of
   communication for all government business. … It is an accepted
   fact that in several other cases roads of the Persian Empire
   were used by the Assyrian kings long before the Persian time,
   and, in particular, that the eastern part of the 'Royal Road,'
   from Cilicia to Susa, is much older than the beginning of the
   Persian power. … Herodotus represents it as known to
   Aristagoras, and therefore, existing during the 6th century,
   B. C., and the Persians had had no time to organise a great
   road like this before 500; they only used the previously
   existing road. Moreover, the Lydian kings seem to have paid
   some attention to their roads, and perhaps even to have
   measured them, as we may gather from Herodotus's account of
   the roads in the Lycus valley, and of the boundary pillar
   erected by Crœsus at Kydrara."

      _W. M. Ramsay,
      Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
      part 1, chapter 2._

ROYAL TOUCH, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

RUBICON, Cæsar's passage of the.

      See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

RUCANAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

RUDOLPH,
   King of France, A. D. 923-936.

   Rudolph I., King of Germany-called Emperor
   (the first of the House of Hapsburg), 1273-1291.

   Rudolph II., Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary, 1576-1606;
   King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1576-1612.

{2755}

RUGBY SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

RUGII, The.

   A coast tribe in ancient Germany who seem to have occupied the
   extreme north of Pomerania and who probably gave their name to
   the Isle of Rugen.

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

   In the fifth century, after the breaking up of the empire of
   Attila, the Hun, a people called the Rugii, and supposed to be
   the same, were occupying a region embraced in modern Austria.
   There were many Rugians among the barbarian auxiliaries in the
   Roman army, and some of the annalists place among the number
   Odoacer, who gave the extinguishing blow to the empire.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8._

RULE OF ST. BENEDICT.

      See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

RUMP, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

RUNJIT SINGH,
RANJIT SINGH,
   The conquests of.

      See SIKHS.

RUNNYMEDE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

RUPERT, OR ROBERT (of the Palatine).

   King of Germany, A. D. 1400-1410.

RUPERT'S LAND.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RUSCINO.

   The ancient name of modern Roussillon.

RUSSELL, Lord John, Ministries of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846; 1851-1852; 1865-1868.

RUSSELL, Lord William, Execution of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

   ----------RUSSIA: Start--------

RUSSIA: A. D. 862.
   Scandinavian Origin of the name and the National Organization.

   "'In the year 859,' says Nestor [the oldest Russian
   chronicler, a monk of Kiev, who wrote early in the 12th
   century] 'came the Varangians from beyond the sea and demanded
   tribute from the Chud and from the Slavonians, the Meria, the
   Ves, and the Krivichi; but the Khazars took tribute of the
   Polians, the Severians and of the Viatichi.' Then he
   continues: 'In the year 862 they drove the Varangians over the
   sea, and paid them no tribute, and they began to govern
   themselves, and there was no justice among them, and clan rose
   against clan, and there was internal strife between them, and
   they begun to make war upon each other. And they said to each
   other: Let us seek for a prince who can reign over us and
   judge what is right. And they went over the sea to the
   Varangians, to Rus, for so were these Varangians called: they
   were called Rus as others are called Svie (Swedes), others
   Nurmane (Northmen, Norwegians), others Angliane (English, or
   Angles of Sleswick?), others Gote (probably the inhabitants
   of the island of Gothland). The Chud, the Slavonians, the
   Krivichi, and the Ves said to Rus: Our land is large and rich,
   but there is no order in it; come ye and rule and reign over
   us. And three brothers were chosen with their whole clan, and
   they took with them all the Rus, and they came. And the
   eldest, Rurik, settled in Novgorod, and the second, Sineus,
   near Bielo-ozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And the
   Russian land, Novgorod, was called after these Varangians;
   they are the Novgorodians of Varangian descent; previously the
   Novgorodians were Slavonians. But after the lapse of two years
   Sineus and his brother Truvor died and Rurik assumed the
   government and divided the towns among his men, to one
   Polotsk, to another Rostov, to another Bielo-ozero.' Such is
   Nestor's naive description of the foundation of the Russian
   state. If it be read without prejudice or sophistical comment,
   it cannot be doubted that the word Varangians is used here as
   a common term for the inhabitants of Scandinavia, and that Rus
   was meant to be the name of a particular Scandinavian tribe;
   this tribe, headed by Rurik and his brothers, is said to have
   crossed the sea and founded a state whose capital, for a time,
   was Novgorod, and this state was the nucleus of the present
   Russian empire. Next, Nestor tells us that in the same year
   two of Rurik's men, 'who were not of his family,' Askold and
   Dir, separated themselves from him with the intention to go to
   Constantinople. They went down the Dnieper; but when they
   arrived at Kiev, the capital of the Polians, who at that time
   were tributary to the Khazars, they preferred to stay there,
   and founded in that town an independent principality. Twenty
   years after, in 882, this principality was incorporated by
   Rurik's successor, Oleg: by a stratagem he made himself master
   of the town and killed Askold and Dir, and from this time
   Kiev, 'the mother of all Russian towns,' as it was called,
   remained the capital of the Russian state and the centre of
   the Russian name. … From the time historical critics first
   became acquainted with Nestor's account, that is to say from
   the beginning of the last century, until about fifteen or
   twenty years ago [written in 1877], scarcely anyone ventured
   to doubt the accuracy of his statement. Plenty of evidence was
   even gradually produced from other sources to corroborate in
   the most striking manner the tradition of the Russian
   chronicles."

      _V. Thomsen,
      Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55._

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 18._

RUSSIA: A. D. 865.
   First attack of the Russians on Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.

RUSSIA: A. D. 865-900.
   Early relations with the Byzantine Empire.

   "The first Russian naval expedition against Constantinople in
   865 would probably have been followed by a series of
   plundering excursions, like those carried on by the Danes and
   Normans on the coasts of England and France, had not the
   Turkish tribe called the Patzinaks rendered themselves masters
   of the lower course of the Dnieper, and become instruments in
   the hands of the emperors to arrest the activity of the bold
   Varangians. The northern rulers of Kief were the same rude
   warriors that infested England and France, but the Russian
   people was then in a more advanced state of society than the
   mass of the population in Britain and Gaul. The majority of
   the Russians were freemen; the majority of the inhabitants of
   Britain and Gaul were serfs.
{2756}
   The commerce of the Russians was already so extensive as to
   influence the conduct of their government, and to modify the
   military ardour of their Varangian masters. … After the defeat
   in 865, the Russians induced their rulers to send envoys to
   Constantinople to renew commercial intercourse, and invite
   Christian missionaries to visit their country; and no
   inconsiderable portion of the people embraced Christianity,
   though the Christian religion continued long after better
   known to the Russian merchants than to the Varangian warriors.
   The commercial relations of the Russians with Cherson and
   Constantinople were now carried on directly, and numbers of
   Russian traders took up their residence in these cities. The
   first commercial treaty between the Russians of Kief and the
   Byzantine empire was concluded in the reign of Basil I. The
   intercourse increased from that time."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 1._

RUSSIA: A. D. 907-1043.
   Wars, commerce and church connection with the Byzantines.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.

RUSSIA: 10TH Century.
   The introduction of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: 10TH CENTURY.

RUSSIA: A. D. 980-1054.
   Family divisions and their consequence.

   "Under Wladimir I. (980-1015), and under Jaroslaf I.
   (1019-1054), the power of the grand-duchy of Kiew was
   respectable. But Jaroslaf having divided it between his sons
   conduced to enfeeble it. In the 12th century, the supremacy
   passed from the grand-duchy of Kiew to the grand-duchy of
   Wladimir, without extricating Russia from division and
   impotence. The law of primogeniture not existing in Russia,
   where it was not introduced into the Czarean family until the
   14th century, the principalities were incessantly divided."

      _S. Menzies,
      History of Europe,
      chapter. 36._

RUSSIA: A. D. 988.
   Acquisition of Cherson.

      See CHERSON: A. D. 988.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.
   The early Russian territory and its divisions.

   "It must not be forgotten that the oldest Russia was formed
   mainly of lands which afterwards passed under the rule of
   Poland and Lithuania. … The Dnieper, from which Russia was
   afterwards cut off, was the great central river of the elder
   Russia; of the Don and the Volga she held only the upper
   course. The northern frontier barely passed the great lakes of
   Ladoga and Onega, and the Gulf of Finland itself. It seems not
   to have reached what was to be the Gulf of Riga, but some of
   the Russian princes held a certain supremacy over the Finnish
   and Lettish tribes of that region. In the course of the 11th
   century, the Russian state, like that of Poland, was divided
   among princes of the reigning family, acknowledging the
   superiority of the great prince of Kief. In the next century
   the chief power passed from Kief to the northern Vladimir on
   the Kiasma. Thus the former Finnish land of Susdal on the
   upper tributaries of the Volga became the cradle of the second
   Russian power. Novgorod the Great, meanwhile, under elective
   princes, claimed, like its neighbour Pskof, to rank among
   commonwealths. Its dominion was spread far over the Finnish
   tribes to the north and east; the White Sea, and, far more
   precious, the Finnish Gulf, had now a Russian seaboard. It was
   out of Vladimir and Novgorod that the Russia of the future was
   to grow. Meanwhile a crowd of principalities, Polotsk,
   Smolensk, the Severian Novgorod, Tchernigof, and others, arose
   on the Duna and Dnieper. Far to the east arose the
   commonwealth of Viatka, and on the frontiers of Poland and
   Hungary arose the principality of Halicz or Galicia, which
   afterwards grew for a while into a powerful kingdom. Meanwhile
   in the lands on the Euxine the old enemies, Patzinaks and
   Chazars, gave way to the Cumans, known in Russian history as
   Polovtzi and Parthi. They spread themselves from the Ural
   river to the borders of Servia and Danubian Bulgaria, cutting
   off Russia from the Caspian. In the next century Russians and
   Cumans—momentary allies—fell before the advance of the
   Mongols, commonly known in European history as Tartars. Known
   only as ravagers in the lands more to the west, over Russia
   they become overlords for 250 years. All that escaped
   absorption by the Lithuanian became tributary to the Mongol.
   Still the relation was only a tributary one; Russia was never
   incorporated in the Mongol dominion, as Servia and Bulgaria
   were incorporated in the Ottoman dominion. But Kief was
   overthrown; Vladimir became dependent; Novgorod remained the
   true representative of free Russia in the Baltic lands."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 11, section 2._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1235.
   Formation of the grand-duchy of Lithuania,
   embracing a large area of Russian territory.

      See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1239.
   Mongol conquest.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
   Prosperity and greatness of Novgorod as a commercial republic.
   Two centuries of Tartar domination.
   Growing power of Lithuania and Poland.
   Rise of the Duchy of Moscow,
   the nucleus of the future Russian Empire.

   "Alone among the cities the ancient Novgorod has boasted its
   exemption from plunder [at the hands of the Tartars]. The
   great city, though fallen since the days of Rurik from being
   the capital of an Empire, had risen to the dignity of a
   Republic. It had found wealth in trade; and at successive
   epochs had introduced the riches of Constantinople to the
   North, the merchandise of the great Hanse Towns to the South.
   It had profited by the example, and had emulated the
   prosperity, of the rich cities of Germany. It had striven also
   to attain their freedom; and, though still continuing to
   acknowledge a vague allegiance to the Russian Princes, it had
   been able, by its wealth and its remoteness from control, to
   win or to assume privileges, until it had resembled Bremen or
   Lubeck in the sovereignty of its assemblies, and had surpassed
   those cities by the assumption of a style declaratory of its
   independence. It boasted further of a prince, St. Alexander
   Nevsky, to whom a glorious victory over the Swedes had already
   given a name, and whose virtues were hereafter to enrol him
   among the Saints; and it had a defence in the marshes and
   forests which surrounded it and which had already once
   deterred the invaders. But even the great city could not
   continue to defy the Tartar horde, and its submission is at
   once the last and most conclusive proof of the supremacy of
   their power. Thenceforth the nation felt the bitterness of
   servitude. The Tartars did not occupy the country they had
   conquered; they retired to establish their settlements upon
   the Volga, where they became known as the Golden Horde: but
   they exacted the tribute and the homage of the Russian
   Princes. …
{2757}
   Five centuries have been unable to obliterate the traces which
   this period has imprinted upon the national character. The
   Tartars oppressed and extorted tribute from the Russian
   princes; the princes in their turn became the oppressors and
   extortioners of their people. Deceit and lying, the refuge of
   the weak, became habitual. Increasing crime and increasing
   punishments combined to brutalise the people. The vice of
   drunkenness was universal. Trade indeed was not extinguished;
   and religion prospered so abundantly that of all the many
   monasteries of Russia there are but few that do not owe their
   origin to this time. … Meanwhile the provinces of the West
   were falling into the hands of other enemies. The Tartar wave
   had swept as far as Poland, but it had then recoiled, and had
   left the countries westward of the Dnieper to their fate. All
   links of the connection that had bound these regions to the
   Princes of Vladimir, were now broken. Vitepsk, Polotsk,
   Smolensk, and even provinces still nearer Moscow, were
   gradually absorbed by the growing power of Lithuania, which,
   starting from narrow limits between the Dwina and the Niemen,
   was destined to overshadow Russia.

      See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

   The provinces of the South for a time maintained a certain
   unity and independence under the name of the Duchy of Halicz
   or Kief; but these also, through claims of inheritance or
   feudal right, became eventually merged in the dominions of
   their neighbours. Poland obtained Black Russia, which has
   never since returned to its earlier masters. Lithuania
   acquired Volhynia and Red Russia, and thus extended her wide
   empire from the Baltic as far as the Red Sea. Then came the
   union of these powers by the acceptance in 1383 of the Grand
   Duke Jagellon as King of Poland; and all hopes for the Russian
   princes of recovering their possessions seemed lost. The
   ancient empire of Yaroslaf was thus ended; and its history is
   parted from that of mediæval Russia by the dark curtain of two
   centuries in which the Russian people were a race but not a
   nation. The obscure descendants of Rurik still occupied his
   throne, and ruled with some appearance of hereditary
   succession. They even chose this period of their weakness to
   solace their vanity by the adoption of the style of Sovereigns
   of All the Russias. But they were the mere vassals of the
   Golden Horde. … It was not until the reign of Dimitry IV.,
   that any sign was shown of reviving independence. Time, by
   weakening the Tartars, had then brought freedom nearer to the
   Russians. The Horde, which had been united under Bati, when it
   had first precipitated itself upon Europe, had become divided
   by the ambition of rebellious Khans, who had aspired to
   establish their independent power; and the Russians had at
   length a prince who was able to profit by the weakness of his
   enemies. Dimitry, who reigned from 1362 to 1389, is celebrated
   as having checked the divisions which civil strife and
   appanages had inflicted upon his country, and as having also
   gloriously repulsed the Lithuanians from the walls of Moscow,
   now rising to be his capital. But his greatest deed, and that
   by which he lives in the remembrance of every Russian, is his
   victory upon the Don, which gave to him thenceforth the name
   of Donskoi. The Tartars, indignant at his prominence, had
   united with the Lithuanians. For the first time the Russians
   turned against their tyrants, and found upon the field of
   Khoulikof [1383] that their freedom was still possible. They
   did not achieve indeed for many years what they now began to
   hope. Their strength was crippled by renewed attacks of
   Tartars from the south and of Lithuanians from the west; and
   they could not dare to brave the revengeful enmity of the
   Horde. For a hundred years they still paid tribute, and the
   successors of Dimitry still renewed their homage at the camp
   upon the Volga. But progress gradually was made. The Grand
   Prince Vassili Dimitrievitch [1389-1425] was able to extend
   his rule over a territory that occupied the space of six or
   seven of the modern governments round Moscow; and though the
   country, under Vassili Vassilievitch [1425-1462], became
   enfeebled by a renewal of civil strife, the increasing
   weakness of the Tartar power continued to prepare the way for
   the final independence that was accomplished by the close of
   the 15th century. The reign of Ivan III. became the opening of
   a new epoch in Russian history. He restored his people, long
   sunk out of the gaze of Europe, to a place among its nations,
   and recalled them in some degree from the barbarism of the
   East to the intercourse and civilization of the West. The
   Russia of old time was now no more; but the Grand Prince, or
   Duke of Moscow, as he was called, was still the heir of Rurik
   and of Yaroslaf, and in the growth of his Duchy their Empire
   reappeared. … Without the fame of a warrior, but with the
   wisdom of a statesman, with a strong hand and by the help of a
   long reign, he built up out of the fragments that surrounded
   Him an Empire that exceeded vastly that of his immediate
   predecessor. … The fall of the republic of Novgorod [1478] and
   the final extinction of the Golden Horde, are the events which
   are most prominent. Riches had been the bane of the great
   city. They had fostered insolence, but they had given a
   distaste for war. The citizens had often rebelled; they had
   accepted the protection of Lithuania, and had later meditated,
   and even for a time accomplished, a union with Poland. But
   they had had no strength to defend the liberty to which they
   had aspired. … When Ivan advanced, determined, as he said, to
   reign at Novgorod as he reigned at Moscow, they were unable to
   repel or to endure a siege, and they surrendered themselves
   into his hand. Once he had pardoned them; now their
   independence was taken from them. Their assembly was
   dissolved; their great bell, the emblem of their freedom, was
   carried to Moscow. The extinction of the Golden Horde was due
   to time and policy, rather than to any deeds which have
   brought glory to the Russian people.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

   Released in this manner from the most dangerous both of
   domestic and of foreign foes the power of Ivan rapidly
   advanced. The broad province of Penn, that had begun to boast
   a half accomplished independence, had been early forced to
   acknowledge her subjection. The Khan of Kazan was now made
   tributary; and the rule of Ivan was extended from the Oural to
   the Neva. Provinces, as important, though less extensive, were
   acquired in the south. The Russian princes and cities that had
   preserved their independence were all, with the one exception of
   Riazan, compelled to acknowledge the sovereignty of Moscow. …
{2758}
   At the same time the Lithuanians were thrust back. Their
   greatness had gone by; and the territories of Tula, Kalouga,
   and Orel now ceasing to own allegiance to a declining power,
   were incorporated with the rising Empire. That Empire had
   already reached the Dnieper, and was already scheming to
   recover the ancient capital of its princes."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      chapters 8-14 (volume 1)._

RUSSIA: 15th Century.
   Effects of the Tartar domination.
   Sources of autocracy.

   "The invasion of the Mongols, in the beginning of the 13th
   century, snapped the thread of Russia's destinies. … Nature,
   after preparing the invasion, herself marked its bounds. The
   Tatars, now masters of the steppes in the southeast, which
   felt to them very much like home, grew ill at ease as soon as
   they began to lose themselves in the forests of the north.
   They did not settle there. These regions were too European to
   suit their half-nomadic habits, and they cared more for
   tribute-payers than for subjects. So the 'kniazes' received
   their principalities back from the hands of the Mongols—as
   fiefs. They had to submit to the presence near their person of
   a sort of Tatar 'residents,'—the 'baskàks,' whose duty it was
   to take the census and to collect the taxes. They were
   compelled to take the long, long journey to the 'Horde,' often
   encamped in the heart of Asia, in order to receive their
   investiture from the successors of Djinghiz, and ended by
   becoming the vassals of a vassal of the 'Great-Khan.' At this
   price Russia retained her religion, her dynasties, and—thanks
   to her clergy and her princes—her nationality. Never yet was
   nation put through such a school of patience and abject
   submission. … Under this humiliating and impoverishing
   domination the germs of culture laid in the old principalities
   withered up. … The Tatar domination developed in the Russians
   faults and faculties of which their intercourse with Byzance
   had already brought them the germs, and which, tempered by
   time, have since contributed to develop their diplomatic
   gifts. … The oppression by man, added to the oppression by the
   climate, deepened certain traits already sketched in by nature
   in the Great-Russian's soul. Nature inclined him to
   submission, to endurance, to resignation; history confirmed
   these inclinations. Hardened by nature, he was steeled by
   history. One of the chief effects of the Tatar domination and
   all that makes up Russian history, is the importance given to
   the national worship. … The domination of an enemy who was a
   stranger to Christianity fortified the sufferers' attachment
   to their worship. Religion and native land were merged into
   one faith, took the place of nationality and kept it alive. It
   was then that the conception sprang up which still links the
   quality of Russian to the profession of Greek orthodoxy, and
   makes of the latter the chief pledge of patriotism. … Upon
   Russia's political sovereignty the Tatar domination had two
   parallel effects: it hastened national unity and it
   strengthened autocracy. The country which, under the appanage
   system, was falling to pieces, was bound together by foreign
   oppression as by a chain of iron. Having constituted himself
   suzerain of the 'Grand-Kniazes,' whom he appointed and
   dethroned at will, the Khan conferred on them his authority.
   The Asiatic tyranny of which they were the delegates empowered
   them to govern tyrannically. Their despotism over the Russians
   was derived from their servitude under the Tatars. … Every
   germ of free government, whether aristocratic or democratic,
   was stifled. Nothing remained but one power, the
   'Velíki-Kniaz,' the autocrat,—and such now, after more than
   500 years, still is the basis of the state."

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians,
      part 1, book 4, chapter 3._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
   From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.
   The Poles at Moscow.
   Origin of the dynasty of the Romanoffs.

   "Apart from the striking and appalling character of Ivan
   himself, whom Mickiewicz, the Polish poet, calls, in his
   lectures on the Slavonians, 'the most finished tyrant known in
   history—frivolous and debauched like Nero, stupid and
   ferocious like Caligula, full of dissimulation like Tiberius
   or Louis XI.,' the reign of Ivan the Terrible is interesting
   as marking the beginning of the intercourse between Russia and
   Western Europe, and especially between Russia and England. The
   natural approach to Russia from the west was, of course,
   through Poland; but the Poles impeded systematically, and for
   political reasons, the introduction of arts and artificers
   into Russia, and Sigismund wrote a letter to Elizabeth,
   warning her against the Muscovite power as a danger to
   civilization, only not formidable for the moment because it
   was still semi-barbarous. Ivan the Terrible was the third of
   the independent Tsars; and already under Ivan, sometimes
   called the 'Great'—to whom indeed belongs the honour of having
   finally liberated Russia from the Tartar yoke—endeavours had
   been made to enter into relations with various European
   nations. Foreigners, too, were encouraged to visit Russia and
   settle there. The movement of foreigners towards Russia
   increased with each succeeding reign; and beginning with the
   first Tsar of Muscovy it became much more marked under the
   third, that Ivan the Terrible, under whose reign the mariners
   in the service of the English company of 'merchant
   adventurers' entered the White Sea, and, in their own
   language, 'discovered' Russia. Russia was, indeed, until that
   time, so far as Western Europe was concerned, an unknown land,
   cut off from Western civilization for political and warlike
   reasons by the Poles, and for religious reasons by the
   Catholic Church. On the 18th of March, 1584, Ivan was sitting
   half dressed, after his bath, 'solacing himself and making
   merie with pleasant songs, as he used to doe.' He called for
   his chess-board, had placed the men, and was just setting up
   the king, when he fell back in a swoon and died. … The death
   of Ivan was followed by strong dislike against the English at
   Moscow; and the English diplomatist and match-maker, Sir
   Jerome Bowes, after being ironically informed that 'the
   English king was dead,' found himself seized and thrown into
   prison. He was liberated through the representations of
   another envoy, who pointed out that it would be imprudent to
   excite Elizabeth's wrath; and though for a time intercourse
   between Russia and Western Europe was threatened, through the
   national hatred of foreigners as manifested by the councillors
   of the Tsar, yet when the weak-minded Feodor fell beneath the
   influence of his brother-in-law Boris Godounoff, the previous
   policy, soon to become traditional, of cultivating relations
   with Western Europe, was resumed. …
{2759}
   Nineteen years have yet to pass before the election of the
   first of the Romanoffs to the throne; for strange as it may
   seem, the first member of the dynasty of the Romanoffs was
   chosen and appointed to the imperial rule by an assembly
   representing the various estates. Meanwhile the order of
   succession had been broken. Several pretenders to the throne
   had appeared, one of whom, Demetrius, distinctively known as
   the 'Imposter,' attained for a time supreme power. Demetrius,
   married to a Polish lady, Marina Mniszek, was aided by her
   powerful family to maintain his position in Moscow; for the
   Mniszeks assembled and sent to the Russian capital a body of
   4,000 men. Then Ladislas [son of the king] of Poland
   interfered, and after a time [1610] Moscow fell beneath the
   power of the Poles.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

   Soon, however, the national feeling of Russia was aroused. A
   butcher, or cattle dealer of Nijni Novgorod, named Minin,
   whose patriotism has made him one of the most popular figures
   in Russian history, got together the nucleus of a national
   army, and called upon the patriotic nobleman, Prince Pojarski,
   to place himself at its head. Pojarski and Minin marched
   together to Moscow, and their success in clearing the capital
   of the foreign invaders [1612] is commemorated by a group of
   statuary which stands in the principal square of Moscow. …
   Among the tombs of the metropolitans buried in … [the
   cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow] are those of Philaret
   and Hermogenes, who were thrown into prison by the Poles for
   refusing to consent to the accession of Ladislas, the Polish
   prince, to the Russian throne. Hermogenes died soon after his
   arrest. Philaret, at the expulsion of the Poles, was carried
   away captive by them in their retreat from Moscow (1612), and
   was kept nine years a prisoner in Poland. On his return to
   Russia, he found his son, Michael Feodorovitch, elected to the
   throne. The belief, then, of the Russian people in Michael's
   patriotism, seems to have been founded on a knowledge of the
   patriotism of his father. The surname of the metropolitan who
   had defied the Polish power and had suffered nine years'
   imprisonment in Poland was Romanoff; Philaret was the name he
   had adopted on becoming a monk. His baptismal name was Feodor,
   and hence the patronymic Feodorovitch attached to the name of
   Michael, the first of the Romanoffs. There is little to say
   about the reign of Michael Feodorovitch, the circumstances
   having once been set forth under which he was elected to the
   vacant throne; and his son and successor, Alexis
   Michailovitch, is chiefly remembered as father of Peter the
   Great."

      _H. S. Edwards,
      The Romanoffs,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of Russia,
      chapters 13-19 (volume 1)._

      _P. Mérimée,
      Demetrius the Imposter._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
   Assumption of the title, Czar, or Tzar,
   by the Grand Prince of Moscow.

   "In January 1547, Ivan [IV., known as Ivan the Terrible]
   ordered the Metropolitan Macarius to proceed with his
   coronation. He assumed at the ceremony not only the title of
   Grand Prince, but that of Tzar. The first title no longer
   answered to the new power of the sovereign of Moscow, who
   counted among his domestics, princes and even Grand Princes.
   The name of Tzar is that which the books in the Slavonic
   language, ordinarily read by Ivan, give to the kings of Judæa,
   Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and to the emperors of Rome and
   Constantinople. Now, was not Ivan in some sort the heir of the
   Tzar Nebuchadnezzar, the Tzar Pharaoh, the Tzar Ahasuerus, and
   the Tzar David, since Russia was the sixth empire spoken of in
   the Apocalypse? Through his grandmother Sophia Palæologus, he
   was connected with the family of the Tzars of Byzantium;
   through his ancestor Vladimir Monomachus, he belonged to the
   Porphyrogeniti; and through Constantine the Great, to Cæsar. …
   We may imagine what prestige was added to the dignity of the
   Russian sovereign by this dazzling title, borrowed from
   Biblical antiquity, from Roman majesty, from the orthodox
   sovereigns of Byzantium."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

   "This title [Czar] … is not a corruption of the word 'Cæsar,'
   as many have supposed [see CÆSAR, THE TITLE], but is an old
   Oriental word which the Russians acquired through the Slavonic
   translation of the Bible, and which they bestowed at first on
   the Greek emperors, and afterwards on the Tartar Khans. In
   Persia it signifies throne, supreme authority; and we find it
   in the termination of the names of the kings of Assyria and
   Babylon, such as Phalassar, Nabonasser, &c.—Karamsin."

      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, page 125, foot-note._

   "Von Hammer, in his last note to his 31st book, says, 'The
   title Czar or Tzar is an ancient title of Asiatic sovereigns.
   We find an instance of it in the title 'The Schar,' of the
   sovereign of Gurdistan; and in that of Tzarina … of the
   Scythians.'"

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      page 213, foot-note._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
   First collision with the Turks.
   Their repulse from Astrakhan.-
   Moscow stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.
   Peace with the Porte.

   At the time (1566) of the accession of Selim II. to the
   Ottoman throne, the Russians "had been involved in fierce and
   frequent wars with the Sultan's vassals, the Crim Tartars; but
   the Porte had taken no part in these contests. But the bold
   genius of the Vizier Sokolli now attempted the realisation of
   a project, which, if successful, would have barred the
   southern progress of Russia, by firmly planting the Ottoman
   power on the banks of the Don and the Volga, and along the
   shores of the Caspian Sea. … Sokclli proposed to unite the
   rivers Don and Volga by a canal, and then send a Turkish
   armament up the sea of Azoph and the Don, thence across by the
   intended channel to the Volga, and then down the latter river
   into the Caspian; from the southern shores of which sea the
   Ottomans might strike at Tabriz and the heart of the Persian
   power. … Azoph already belonged to the Turks, but in order to
   realise the great project entertained it was necessary to
   occupy Astrakhan also. Accordingly, 3,000 Janissaries and
   20,000 horse were sent [1569] to besiege Astrakhan, and a
   cooperative force of 30,000 Tartars was ordered to join them,
   and to aid in making the canal. 5,000 Janissaries and 3,000
   pioneers were at the same time sent to Azoph to commence and
   secure the great work at its western extremity. But the
   generals of Ivan the Terrible did their duty to their stern
   master ably in this emergency. The Russian garrison of
   Astrakhan sallied on its besiegers, and repulsed them with
   considerable loss.
{2760}
   And a Russian army, 15,000 strong, under Prince Serebinoff,
   came suddenly on the workmen and Janissaries near Azoph, and
   put them to head-long flight. It was upon this occasion that
   the first trophies won from the Turks came into Russian hands.
   An army of Tartars, which marched to succour the Turks, was
   also entirely defeated by Ivan's forces; and the Ottomans,
   dispirited by their losses and reverses, withdrew altogether
   from the enterprise. … Russia was yet far too weak to enter on
   a war of retaliation with the Turks. She had subdued the
   Tartar Khanates of Kasan and Astrakhan; but their kinsmen of
   the Crimea were still formidable enemies to the Russians, even
   without Turkish aid. It was only two years after the Ottoman
   expedition to the Don and Volga that the Khan of the Crimea
   made a victorious inroad into Russia, took Moscow by storm,
   and sacked the city (1571). The Czar Ivan had, in 1570, sent
   an ambassador, named Nossolitof, to Constantinople, to
   complain of the Turkish attack on Astrakhan, and to propose
   that there should be peace, friendship, and alliance between
   the two empires. … The Russian ambassador was favourably
   received at the Sublime Porte, and no further hostilities
   between the Turks and Russians took place for nearly a
   century."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 11._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1577-1580.
   Conquests by the Poles.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1578-1579.
   Yermac's conquest of Siberia.

      See SIBERIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1613-1617.
   War with Sweden.
   Cession of territory, including the site of St. Petersburg.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1652.
   Allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred from the
   King of Poland to the Czar.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
   The great schism, known as the Rascol.

   "In the reign of Alexis took place the great revision of the
   Bible, carried out by the energy of Nicon, the Patriarch, who,
   finding that the church-books were full of ridiculous blunders
   caused by ignorant copyists, procured a quantity of the best
   Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos, and other places. In 1655,
   and the following year, he summoned two councils of the
   church, at which the newly translated service-books were
   promulgated and the old ones called in. In consequence of this
   change, a great schism took place in the Russian Church, a
   number of people attaching a superstitious veneration to the
   old books, errors and all. Thus was formed the large sect of
   the Staro-obriadtsi or Raskolniks, still existing in Russia,
   who have suffered great persecutions at many periods of her
   history."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Russia,
      chapter 6._

   "The most important innovation, which afterwards became the
   symbol and the war-cry of the religious rebellion, referred to
   the position of the fingers in making the sign of the cross.
   The Russians of Nicon's time when they crossed themselves held
   two fingers together, while the Oriental churches and the
   Greeks enjoined their adherents to cross themselves with three
   fingers united into one point. The two-fingered cross of the
   Muscovites was used in the Orient only for giving the priestly
   benediction. … Patriarch Nicon was anxious to return to
   ancient traditions. Reserving the two-fingered cross for
   priestly benedictions only, he re-established the
   three-fingered Greek cross, or, as his opponents called it,
   'the pinch-of-snuff cross,' for the private act of devotion.
   Then, too, in certain cases, for instance in stamping the
   round wafers, he introduced the use of the equilateral,
   four-sided cross. … The Russians celebrated the mass on seven
   wafers, while the Greeks and Orientals used only five. In the
   processions of the Church the Russians were in the habit of
   first turning their steps westward—going with the sun; the
   Greeks marched eastward—against the sun. In all these points
   Patriarch Nicon conformed to the traditions of the Greek
   mother-church. In conformity with this rule, moreover, he
   directed that the hallelujahs should be 'trebled,' or sung
   thrice, as with the Greeks, the Russians having up till then
   only 'doubled' it—singing, instead of the third hallelujah,
   its Russian equivalent, 'God be praised.' Finally, or we
   should rather say above all, Nicon introduced a fresh spelling
   of the name of Jesus. The fact is that, probably in
   consequence of the Russian habit of abbreviating some of the
   commonest scriptural names, the second letter in the name
   Jesus had been dropped altogether; it was simply spelt Jsus,
   without any sign of abbreviation. Patriarch Nicon corrected
   this orthographical error, replacing the missing letter. Was
   this all? Yes, this was all. As far as doctrinal matters were
   concerned, nothing more serious was at stake in the great
   religious schism of the 17th century, known by the name of the
   Rascol. And yet it was for these trifles—a letter less in a
   name, a finger more in a cross, the doubling instead of the
   trebling of a word—that thousands of people, both men and
   women, encountered death on the scaffold or at the stake. It
   was for these things that other scores of thousands underwent
   the horrible tortures of the knout, the strappado, the rack,
   or had their bodies mutilated, their tongues cut, their hands
   chopped off."

      _Stepniak,
      The Russian Peasantry
      (American edition),
      pages 237-239._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1686-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.
   Capture of Azov.
   First foothold on the Black Sea acquired.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1689.
   Accession of Peter the Great.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1697-1704.
   Peter the Great: his travels in pursuit of knowledge;
   his apprenticeship to the useful arts;
   his civilizing work in Muscovy.

   "Many princes before [Peter the Great] had renounced crowns,
   wearied out with the intolerable load of public affairs; but
   no man had ever divested himself of the royal character, in
   order to learn the art of governing better: this was a stretch
   of heroism which was reserved for Peter the Great alone. He
   left Russia in [1697], having reigned as yet but [a few]
   years, and went to Holland disguised under a common name, as
   if he had been a menial servant of that same Lefort, whom he
   sent in quality of ambassador-extraordinary to the
   States-General. As soon as he arrived at Amsterdam, he
   enrolled his name among the shipwrights of the admiralty of
   the Indies, and wrought in the yard like the other mechanics.
   At his leisure hours he learned such parts of the mathematics
   as are useful to a prince,—fortification, navigation, and the
   art of drawing plans. He went into the workmen's shops, and
   examined all their manufactures: nothing could escape his
   observation.
{2761}
   From thence he passed over into England, where having
   perfected himself in the art of ship-building, he returned to
   Holland, carefully observing every thing that might turn to
   the advantage of his country. At last, after two years of
   travel and labor, to which no man but himself would have
   willingly submitted, he again made his appearance in Russia,
   with all the arts of Europe in his train. Artists of every
   kind followed him in abundance. Then were seen, for the first
   time, large Russian ships in the Baltic, and on the Black Sea
   and the ocean. Stately buildings, of a regular architecture,
   were raised among the Russian huts. He founded colleges;
   academies, printing-houses, and libraries. The cities were
   brought under a regular police. The dress and customs of the
   people were gradually changed, though not without some
   difficulty; and the Muscovites learned by degrees the true
   nature of a social state. Even their superstitious rites were
   abolished; the dignity of the patriarch was suppressed; and
   the czar declared himself the head of the Church. This last
   enterprise, which would have cost a prince less absolute than
   Peter both his throne and his life, succeeded almost without
   opposition, and insured to him the success of all his other
   innovations. After having humbled an ignorant and a barbarous
   clergy, he ventured to make a trial of instructing them,
   though, by that means, he ran the risk of rendering them
   formidable. … The czar not only subjected the Church to the
   State, after the example of the Turkish emperors, but, what
   was a more masterly stroke of policy, he dissolved a militia
   of much the same nature with that of the janizaries: and what
   the sultans had attempted in vain, he accomplished in a short
   time: he disbanded the Russian janizaries, who were called
   Strelitz, and who kept the czars in subjection. These troops,
   more formidable to their masters than to their neighbors,
   consisted of about 30,000 foot, one half of which remained at
   Moscow, while the other was stationed upon the frontiers. The
   pay of a Strelitz was no more than four roubles a year; but
   this deficiency was amply compensated by privileges and
   extortions. Peter at first formed a company of foreigners,
   among whom he enrolled his own name, and did not think it
   below him to begin the service in the character of a drummer,
   and to perform the duties of that mean office; so much did the
   nation stand in need of examples! By degrees he became an
   officer. He gradually raised new regiments; and, at last,
   finding himself master of a well-disciplined army, he broke
   the Strelitz, who durst not disobey. The cavalry were nearly
   the same with that of Poland, or France, when this last
   kingdom was no more than an assemblage of fiefs. The Russian
   gentlemen were mounted at their own expense, and fought
   without discipline, and sometimes without any other arms than
   a sabre or a bow, incapable of obeying, and consequently of
   conquering. Peter the Great taught them to obey, both by the
   example he set them and by the punishments he inflicted; for
   he served in the quality of a soldier and subaltern officer,
   and as czar he severely punished the Boyards, that is, the
   gentlemen, who pretended that it was the privilege of their
   order not to serve but by their own consent. He established a
   regular body to serve the artillery, and took 500 bells from
   the churches to found cannon. … He was himself a good
   engineer; but his chief excellence lay in his knowledge of
   naval affairs: he was an able sea-captain, a skilful pilot, a
   good sailor, an expert shipwright, and his knowledge of these
   arts was the more meritorious, as he was born with a great
   dread of the water. In his youth he could not pass over a
   bridge without trembling. … He caused a beautiful harbor to be
   built at the mouth of the Don, near Azof, in which he proposed
   to keep a number of galleys; and some time after, thinking
   that these vessels, so long, light, and flat, would probably
   succeed in the Baltic, he had upwards of 300 of them built at
   his favorite city of Petersburg. He showed his subjects the
   method of building ships with fir only, and taught them the
   art of navigation. He had even learned surgery, and, in a case
   of necessity, has been known to tap a dropsical person. He was
   well versed in mechanics, and instructed the artists. … He was
   always travelling up and down his dominions, as much as his
   wars would allow him; but he travelled like a legislator and
   natural philosopher, examining nature everywhere, endeavoring
   to correct or perfect her; sounding with his own hands the
   depths of seas and rivers, repairing sluices, visiting docks,
   causing mines to be searched for, assaying metals, ordering
   accurate plans to be drawn, in the execution of which he
   himself assisted. He built, upon a wild and uncultivated spot,
   the imperial city of Petersburg. … He built the harbor of
   Cronstadt, on the Neva, and Sainte-Croix, on the frontiers of
   Persia; erected forts in the Ukraine and Siberia; established
   offices of admiralty at Archangel, Petersburg, Astrakhan, and
   Azof; founded arsenals, and built and endowed hospitals. All
   his own houses were mean, and executed in a bad taste; but he
   spared no expenses in rendering the public buildings grand and
   magnificent. The sciences, which in other countries have been
   the slow product of so many ages, were, by his care and
   industry, imported into Russia in full perfection. He
   established an academy on the plan of the famous societies of
   Paris and London. … Thus it was that a single man changed the
   face of the greatest empire in the universe. It is however a
   shocking reflection, that this reformer of mankind should have
   been deficient in that first of all virtues, the virtue of
   humanity. Brutality in his pleasures, ferocity in his manners,
   and cruelty in his punishments, sullied the lustre of so many
   virtues. He civilized his subjects, and yet remained himself a
   barbarian. He would sometimes with his own hands execute
   sentences of death upon the unhappy criminals; and, in the
   midst of a revel, would show his dexterity in cutting off
   heads."

      _Voltaire,
      History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
      book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      Peter the Great._

      _E. Schuyler,
      Peter the Great,
      volume 1._

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 4, chapter 4._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1699.
   The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
   Possession of Azov confirmed.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
   Aggressive league with Poland and Denmark
   against Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Defeat at Narva.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1701-1706.
   War with Charles XII. of Sweden in Poland and Livonia.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

{2762}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.
   The founding of St. Petersburg.

   "Immediately after the capture of Nyenskanz [1703], a council
   of war was convened to consider the question of defending and
   utilising the mouth of the Neva, and whether it would be
   better to strengthen the little fort which had just been
   taken, or to seek a fit site for a commercial town nearer the
   sea. The latter course was decided upon. Near its mouth the
   Neva takes a sharp turn and divides into three or four
   branches, which by subsequent redivision form a number of
   islands, large and small. These marshy islands, overgrown with
   forests and thickets, and liable to be covered with water
   during the westerly winds, were inhabited by a few Finnish
   fishermen, who were accustomed to abandon their mud huts at
   the approach of high water, and seek a refuge on the higher
   ground beyond. It was on the first of these islands, called by
   the Finns Yanni-Saari, or Hare Island, where the river was
   still broad and deep, that Peter laid the foundation of a
   fortress and a city, named St. Petersburg, after his patron
   saint. … For this work many carpenters and masons were sent
   from the district of Novgorod, who were aided by the soldiers.
   Wheelbarrows were unknown (they are still little used in
   Russia), and in default of better implements the men scraped
   up the earth with their hands, and carried it to the ramparts
   on pieces of matting or in their shirts. Peter wrote to
   Ramodanofsky, asking him to send the next summer at least
   2,000 thieves and criminals destined for Siberia, to do the
   heavy work under the direction of the Novgorod carpenters. At
   the same time with the construction of the bastions, a church
   was built in the fortress and dedicated to St. Peter and St.
   Paul. … Just outside of the fortress Peter built for himself a
   small hut, which he called his palace. It was about fifty-five
   feet long by twenty wide, built of logs roofed with shingles,
   and contained only three rooms, lighted by little windows set
   in leaden frames. In respect for this, his earliest residence
   in St. Petersburg, Peter subsequently had another building
   erected outside of it to preserve it from the weather, and in
   this state it still remains, an object of pilgrimage to the
   curious and devout. … In spite of disease and mortality among
   the men, in spite of the floods, which even in the first year
   covered nearly the whole place and drowned some who were too
   ill to move, the work went on. But in its infancy St.
   Petersburg was constantly in danger from the Swedes, both by
   sea and land. … St. Petersburg was the apple of Peter's eye.
   It was his 'paradise,' as he often calls it in his letters. It
   was always an obstacle, and sometimes the sole obstacle, to
   the conclusion of peace. Peter was willing to give up all he
   had conquered in Livonia and Esthonia, and even Narva, but he
   would not yield the mouth of the Neva. Nevertheless, until the
   war with Sweden had been practically decided by the battle of
   Poltava, and the position of St. Petersburg had been thus
   secured, although it had a certain importance as a commercial
   port, and as the fortress which commanded the mouth of the
   Neva, it remained but a village. The walls of the fortress
   were finally laid with stone, but the houses were built of
   logs at the best, and for many years, in spite of the marshy
   soil, the streets remained unpaved. If fate had compelled the
   surrender of the city, there would not have been much to
   regret. Gradually the idea came to Peter to make it his
   capital. In 1714 the Senate was transported thither from
   Moscow, but wars and foreign enterprises occupied the Tsar's
   attention, and it was not until 1718 that the colleges or
   ministries were fully installed there, and St. Petersburg
   became in fact the capital of the Empire."

      _E. Schuyler,
      Peter the Great,
      chapter 46 (volume 2)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1707-1718.
   Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
   His intrigues with the Turks.
   Unlucky expedition of the Czar into Moldavia.
   Russian conquests in the north.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1721.
   The Peace of Nystad with Sweden.
   Livonia and other conquests of Peter the Great secured.
   Finland given up.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

[IMAGE:
CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1715
AFTER THE TREATIES OF UTRECHT AND RASTADT.

FRANCE.[IN 1643]
ACQUIRED BY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH POSSESSIONS.
HOUSE OF HOLSTEEN-GOTTORP.
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
STATES OF THE CHURCH.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

[IMAGE:
EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715.
SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS.
SWEDISH POSSESSIONS.
RUSSIA.
POLAND.
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN
BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
   The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.
   Fruitless war with Turkey.
   Depredations in the Crimea.

   "The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two
   powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians
   of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter
   with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the
   Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son
   of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put
   to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by
   Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should
   succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine
   was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief
   authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The
   brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events
   which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was
   founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring
   expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly
   written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on
   the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her
   accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of
   Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She
   accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate
   Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and
   Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her
   mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,
   … and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov
   was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had
   reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in
   disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned
   him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed
   to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had
   been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of
   Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the
   Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne
   Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter
   of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made
   to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta
   Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw
   herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,
   especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said
   to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of
   vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …
{2763}
   Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as
   regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of
   primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law
   of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was
   altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A
   four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Russia,
      chapter 8._

   "The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence
   for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish
   allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black
   Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly
   restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and
   making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of
   Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea,
   ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of
   Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock
   of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so
   great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no
   proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of
   this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by
   no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of
   conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the
   Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the
   Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe
   behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind
   were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops.
   They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of
   the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of
   June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian
   troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars
   in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. …
   Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with
   extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length
   found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of
   withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the
   Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to
   chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had
   proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved
   successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had
   already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a
   manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able
   afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were
   soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the
   treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000
   auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in
   the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be
   more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a
   new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense
   cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before
   this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the
   war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to
   gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as
   if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first
   year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were
   obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations,
   and to think of the protection and defence of their own
   frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and
   made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and
   the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich
   first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much
   difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew
   … who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks
   and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only
   maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking,
   untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of
   10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and
   cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least
   the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the
   Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia,
   violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which
   was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at
   Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards
   the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress
   of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was
   taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at
   the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich
   even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of
   Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough
   that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the
   peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and
   disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained
   by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her
   most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty,
   Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of
   Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the
   last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to
   evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the
   latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop;
   Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined,
   which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities
   for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the
   Tatars and Turks."

      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of Russia,
      chapter 33 (volume 1)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
   Interference in the election of king of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
   Two regencies and two revolutions.
   The reign of Empress Elizabeth.

   The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,
   had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince
   of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By
   the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her
   successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the
   regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace
   conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of
   the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.
   Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,
   with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess
   Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian
   throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,
   and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had
   Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment
   of her sensual propensities.
{2764}
   Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours
   with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks
   lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong
   drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour
   and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to
   business, and she would never have thought of encumbering
   herself with the cares of government had she not been
   restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,
   what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage
   with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick
   Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,
   and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a
   revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which
   she published on the day of her accession, declared that the
   throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the
   celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered
   the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On
   communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which
   had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],
   she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore
   matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the
   Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having
   assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,
   demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of
   all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but
   Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of
   the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further
   than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the
   renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every
   rencounter, as they had been before."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

   "This war had no result except to show the weakness of the
   Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The
   Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their
   former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith,
   subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes
   laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian
   force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress
   acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused
   Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and
   one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in
   place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy
   … Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She
   developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the
   legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave
   an energetic impulse to science and the national literature;
   she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia,
   emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she
   put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth
   died in January, 1762.

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1743.
   Acquisition of part of Finland from Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.
   Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.
   Causes of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1758.
   Invasion of Prussia.
   Defeat at Zorndorf.
   Retreat.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1759.
   Renewed invasion of Prussia.
   Victory at Kunersdorf.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
   Brief reign of Peter III.
   His peace with Frederick the Great.
   His deposition and death.
   His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.

   "Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth
   had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek
   religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of
   Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately
   after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The
   education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military
   exercises were the only occupation for which he had any
   relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which
   were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;
   and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In
   1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter
   of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
   Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had
   received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was
   entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it
   powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the
   whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was
   seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his
   countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected
   Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in
   her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more
   influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her
   repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the
   husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he
   bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners
   were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon
   learned to despise his understanding; and it required little
   penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after
   Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence
   the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their
   attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not
   much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new
   domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;
   his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely
   neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute
   dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the
   fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself
   was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred
   towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth
   died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded
   to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on
   behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were
   ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a
   half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped
   quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and
   adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret
   chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as
   the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the
   servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on
   them.
{2765}
   He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement
   to trade. But the good will which these measures might have
   won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised
   contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their
   religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the
   Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war
   [but with whom he entered into alliance.]

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

   The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were
   easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine
   and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was
   carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when
   Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum,
   some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of
   the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her.
   "Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that
   number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of
   Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here
   every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of
   Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the
   altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the
   empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was
   proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her
   successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events
   reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the
   opportunity to take to flight. On the day following
   Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within
   a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited,
   he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did
   its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this
   deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little
   doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have
   ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by
   her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her
   crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been
   dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown
   to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.

      _History of Russia
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,
      volume 1._

      _A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, pages 203-221._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
   Character and reign of Catherine II.
   Partition of Poland.
   Wars with the Turks.
   Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.
   Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.

   "Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman
   whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great
   for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the
   gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their
   concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed
   ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the
   shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly
   as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with
   high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising
   the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve
   her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and
   improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is
   found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The
   foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of
   Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to
   have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that
   followed.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

   If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is
   at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way
   for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D.
   1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory
   to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and
   conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and
   occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no
   longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had
   sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An
   insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a
   time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The
   great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness
   of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to
   further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The
   possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free
   navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the
   immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better
   treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of
   remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek
   church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future
   advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the
   Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern
   shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these
   tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength
   except their own; and the way was prepared for their
   annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this
   settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years
   dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and
   Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine
   passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they
   remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters
   of his country.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

   At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by
   Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine
   was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress
   she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of
   Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the
   scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon
   the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she
   held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the
   partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The
   Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters.
   Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded
   Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard
   the Swedish guns.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

   She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in
   the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious
   retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to
   the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which
   supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her
   own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the
   town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.
{2766}
   Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the
   horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph
   of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution
   had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of
   the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress
   herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her
   successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her
   frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so
   soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of
   Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west
   had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once
   partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792, and 1793-1796.

   The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to
   rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of
   them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of
   the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs
   was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian
   history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to
   discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to
   nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and
   Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived.
   And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there
   was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little
   finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her
   greatness may be said to have passed away."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 6._

   "The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic
   instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by
   the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up
   despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made
   her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle
   in every department of the national life. She tried to force
   civilisation into premature growths; established modern
   institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric
   empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in
   the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress
   and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and
   ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same
   time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish
   all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase
   paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of
   money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black
   Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent
   another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over
   Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came,
   however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's
   internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and
   prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words
   and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be
   attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that
   reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half
   Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old
   tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under
   Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed
   to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a
   harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine
   bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and
   showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given
   and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of
   Catherine was more successful than her government and
   administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently
   plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in
   the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance
   she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung
   to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness
   of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the
   French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and
   Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The
   Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of
   conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily
   increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in
   its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a
   complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean
   the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice,
   and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this
   German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially
   after her death, in the history, and the national life, and
   development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said
   that it is since her death, above all, that she has become
   what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and
   splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with
   an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man
   of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends
   already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave
   proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of
   extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the
   growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to
   her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In
   Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized
   it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and
   D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to
   extol, her government. This great force had prodigious
   influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her
   reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct:
   —'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the
   wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court,
   and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and
   so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the
   modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to
   believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force,
   and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the
   part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe
   was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won,
   managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when
   necessary.'"

      _The Empress Catherine II.
      (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893)._

   "In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following
   resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new
   secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of
   an inventory:

   Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;
   Towns built, 144;
   Treaties made, 30;
   Victories won, 78;
   Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;
   Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;
   Total, 492.

{2767}

   Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing
   piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there
   was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in
   the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort
   Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the
   reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a
   sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct
   inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply
   marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained
   diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who
   knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or
   apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is
   true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and
   statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her
   generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do
   nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to
   command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and
   wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death,
   bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate
   attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. …
   Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked
   and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions,
   gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans
   of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the
   misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not,
   however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to
   the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she
   was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven
   had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do
   anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman
   has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for
   her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which
   bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign:
   this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of
   them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her
   vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by
   the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The
   general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to
   see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These
   mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more
   than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised
   her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came
   little by little to translate this capital defect into a
   'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth
   another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to
   obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another
   causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her,
   for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even
   without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of
   having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a
   letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered,
   one or another of her most devoted servants."

      _R. Waliszewski,
      Romance of an Empress,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Tooke,
      Life of Catherine II._

      _Memoirs of Catherine II., by herself._

      _Princess Daschkaw,
      Memoirs._

      _S. Menzies,
      Royal Favourites._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volumes 4-7._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1786.
   Establishment of the Jewish Pale.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1791-1793.
   Joined in the Coalitions against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1796.
   Accession of Paul.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.
   Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy
   and failure in Switzerland.
   Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
   Its disastrous ending.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
      (AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.
   Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.
   His alliance with Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.
   War with England.
   The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow
   at Copenhagen by the British fleet.
   Peace with England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
   Paul's despotism and assassination.
   Accession of Alexander I.

   The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always
   directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with
   servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment
   of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …
   He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of
   the means which he employed to save his life and his power;
   they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom
   he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while
   he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure
   their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them
   ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his
   severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But
   there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered
   intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of
   a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had
   protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be
   driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant
   province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who
   belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in
   a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it
   inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts
   Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have
   for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy
   was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the
   Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it
   as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented
   ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable
   disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and
   deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody
   sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until
   Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."
   Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,
   including a large number of military and civil officials,
   supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,
   most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to
   the palace, made their way to the Emperor's
   bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in
   his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They
   dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror
   he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …
{2768}
   He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,
   and angular form of General Bennigsen [a Hanoverian officer,
   just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead
   when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his
   head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a
   terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my
   prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write
   and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke
   Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put
   in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to
   obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left
   the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these
   cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the
   palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out
   when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained
   alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …
   One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied
   it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the
   conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to
   prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the
   scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and
   yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,
   striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned
   that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had
   vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and
   despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father
   filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had
   received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the
   first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to
   his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful
   one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their
   mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of
   natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice
   the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all
   perished miserably."

      _Prince Adam Czartoryski,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 9 and 11._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
   The Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
   The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.
   Battle of Eylau.
   Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.
   Decisive defeat at Friedland.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.
   Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.
   Treaty of Tilsit.
   Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.

      See TURKS: A. D.1806-1807;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.
   Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.
   English seizure of the Danish fleet.
   War with England and Sweden.
   Conquest of Finland.
   Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1808.
   Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809.
   Cession of Eastern Galicia by the Emperor of Austria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.
   War with Turkey.
   Treaty of Bucharest.
   Acquisition of Bessarabia.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.
   Grievances against France.
   Desertion of the Continental System.
   Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.
   Rupture with Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).
   Napoleon's invasion.
   Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.
   The French advance to Moscow.

   "With the military resources of France, which then counted 130
   departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of
   the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,
   and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon
   could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of
   June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom
   were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only
   Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and
   Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also
   the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments,
   natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at
   its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples;
   Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of
   nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war,
   which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under
   their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces,
   Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the
   great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,'
   as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon
   transported all these races from the West to the East by a
   movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept
   them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand
   Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To
   the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and
   20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before
   Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the
   Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry
   under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony,
   Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno,
   Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons,
   &c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of
   Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly
   against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians
   in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000
   men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the
   divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau,
   it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that
   Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre
   of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men,
   commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula,
   60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what
   were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On
   the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose
   Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left,
   to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as
   possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000.
{2769}
   Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the
   Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral
   Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French.
   In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000
   men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men
   Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia
   could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de
   Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of
   Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much.
   To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he
   wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in
   1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought
   by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched
   camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres
   Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl
   desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his
   intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and
   was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the
   Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies
   fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient
   capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second
   proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of
   Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of
   Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion
   of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. …
   Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the
   possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to
   make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave
   Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A
   last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had
   proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of
   Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain.
   If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented
   himself with organising and defending the ancient principality
   of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the
   reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its
   former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have
   been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the
   interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success
   not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two
   Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the
   misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army,
   caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after
   having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on
   Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order
   to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian
   generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this
   continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear
   and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous,
   like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a
   retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and
   stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they
   advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the
   offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of
   Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was
   suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the
   initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a
   bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and
   18th of August, another desperate fight took place at
   Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay
   still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat
   Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau:
   15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle.
   Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of
   Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind
   them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the
   Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had
   lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from
   Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the
   discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to
   murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was
   then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme
   command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had
   then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks,
   10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by
   14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon
   had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000
   cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or
   artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the
   redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great
   battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the
   Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon,
   though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of
   carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200
   guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with
   an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the
   redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of
   Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten
   o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry
   out his first success by employing the reserve, and the
   Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They
   recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an
   incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight
   took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve
   troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine;
   Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from
   behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while
   Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had
   lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to
   retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians
   40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to
   Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were
   retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he
   decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating
   Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the
   French entered it at their heels.

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

{2770}

   "The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee
   the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I.
   and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him
   into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any
   plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues,
   quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part
   in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would
   be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues,
   we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their
   whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and
   approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give
   battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The
   battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are
   killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our
   generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk,
   betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with
   this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in
   Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the
   seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we
   retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures
   necessary to conquer the French."

      _Count L. Tolstoi,
      The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

      _Count P. de Segur,
      History of the Expedition to Russia,
      books 1-8 (volumes 1-2)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (September).
   The French in Moscow.
   The burning of the city.

   "With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights
   whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of
   Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost
   sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with
   feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions.
   Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of
   the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot
   all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of
   Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at
   the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the
   other capitals of Europe with the exception of London,
   protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the
   left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the
   bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in
   the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great
   Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who,
   as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the
   days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his
   glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch
   was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy
   Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired
   during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army
   should continue to defile across the city without a moment's
   halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the
   ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed
   by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the
   streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest
   quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most
   profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the
   dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole
   population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the
   commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves
   that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the
   inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th
   September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his
   invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and
   his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a
   capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings
   on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached
   the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the
   great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent
   city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the
   tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which
   during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of
   the most animated in the world. The army was distributed
   through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene
   occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest,
   and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had
   traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in
   the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads;
   and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its
   environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind,
   and the first necessities of the troops were readily
   satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of
   palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a
   brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces,
   perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken
   great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred
   against the French, to procure protectors for their rich
   dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their
   splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered
   with equal delight through the midst of the city, which
   resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They
   contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the
   capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric
   circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow
   had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely
   a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number
   were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of
   the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the
   footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the
   city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no
   suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian
   army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had
   departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French
   army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain,
   probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good
   winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But,
   on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from
   a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just
   as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in
   this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a
   collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the
   northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest
   magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of
   India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce,
   and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately
   hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their
   energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the
   immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire,
   with the exception of some portions which our men were able to
   snatch from the devouring element.
{2771}
   This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes,
   and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an
   evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September,
   however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as
   though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same
   moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales
   suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season
   and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance
   to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried
   the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the
   Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and
   the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire,
   spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long
   arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And
   soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were
   seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated
   under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful
   secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning
   of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village
   on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army
   with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions
   should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose
   of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the
   act, and that all the available troops should be employed in
   extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the
   pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter
   circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the
   matter had remained, the terrible determination with which
   Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the
   wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the
   efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing,
   with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the
   east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into
   quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been
   able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the
   northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew
   from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in
   spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather,
   over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the
   Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition
   wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal
   contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent
   danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the
   palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. …
   Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants,
   descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where
   he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in
   threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which
   direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified
   army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and
   Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg
   roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk
   route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left
   around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames,
   our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which,
   after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though
   it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained
   in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings,
   now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they
   valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress,
   and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom
   Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of
   the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of
   chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of
   Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St.
   Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the
   troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of
   the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it
   was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As
   a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from
   southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were
   carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets
   Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the
   conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes
   were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately
   façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports
   became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible
   through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and
   the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three
   successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of
   September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated
   intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the
   city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which,
   as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the
   equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre,
   as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was
   visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of
   the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly
   due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants
   of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property
   still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible
   to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of
   this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be
   told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and,
   incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of
   Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the] Consulate and the Empire,
      book 44 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Count M. Dumas,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _J. Philippart,
      Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,
      volume 1, pages 81-115._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (October-December).
   The retreat from Moscow.
   Its horrors.

   "Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his
   own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were
   reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of
   October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to
   think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French
   flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000
   men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of
   October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It
   still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was
   encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At
   Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.
   The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was
   finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the
   route changed.
{2772}
   The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,
   the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the
   quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached
   Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November
   9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies
   and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the
   heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being
   obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his
   foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find
   provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.
   Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with
   the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.
   Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the
   army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof
   was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite
   and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.
   The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly
   intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food
   for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was
   forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon
   a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy
   surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who
   captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature
   moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which
   prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,
   the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of
   the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the
   Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his
   guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to
   40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The
   Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on
   the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was
   found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;
   General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to
   their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost
   all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,
   while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the
   army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of
   Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,
   after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's
   Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,
   the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of
   fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a
   confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.
   The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the
   helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been
   famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk
   had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon
   conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had
   large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in
   all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
   of the last events, and to form another army. The army which
   he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more
   intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the
   enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the
   last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat
   ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the
   French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."

      _Victor Duruy,
      History of France,
      chapter 66._

   "Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with
   great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy
   parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of
   naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to
   have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till
   frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power
   of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have
   saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the
   Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a
   quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All
   prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped
   stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned
   adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who
   would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and
   hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts
   to terminate their suffering in the most certain and
   expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this
   mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the
   avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further
   protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of
   retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma.
   Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with
   various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile
   from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with
   sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on
   each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate,
   but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were
   striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they
   were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants
   were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies.
   When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing
   shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la
   mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay
   naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around
   her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from
   which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole
   person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of
   agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon
   enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to
   explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from
   weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her;
   that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed
   to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their
   pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every
   imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still
   continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the
   Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages
   and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier
   instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under
   the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at
   the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any
   prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil
   authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well
   as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher
   price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to
   surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable
   validity of the order.
{2773}
   Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups
   were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt
   embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded
   or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off
   with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of
   their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a
   grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this
   food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but
   he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain
   to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier
   a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it
   with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly
   checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion:
   looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his
   cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he
   would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he
   fell back and had expired before he could be reached.
   Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former
   masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and
   their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh
   from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could
   not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as
   in many cases their consciousness and senses remained
   unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses
   was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of
   the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty
   of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury
   them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted
   party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the
   victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went
   to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in
   his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was
   a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid
   of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot
   and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had
   performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at
   stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods;
   and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of
   desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded
   in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are
   indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."

      _General Sir R. Wilson,
      Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia,
      pages 255-261._

      _General Sir R. Wilson,
      Private Journal,
      volume 1, page 202-257._

   When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of
   December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They
   marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was
   only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were
   informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected.
   'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he
   abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then
   is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us
   to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood,
   is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of
   Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became
   indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free
   from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which
   they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was
   indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy
   of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to
   their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater
   part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned
   the remains of the regiments with which they had been
   intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every
   step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches
   of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These
   warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our
   enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their
   fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely
   obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly
   commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because
   all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every
   one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards
   inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the
   image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses
   to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the
   half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having
   advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too
   weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some
   miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the
   blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like
   ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies
   of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves,
   fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with
   soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the
   enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable
   men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some
   had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by
   excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic
   stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their
   comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms.
   Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or
   roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they
   sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a
   haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals.
   No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living
   spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom
   they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm
   their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of
   the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into
   the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and
   uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally
   insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same
   fate."

      _E. Labaume,
      Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
      part 2, book 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count P. de Segur,
      History of the Expedition to Russia,
      books 9-12 (volume 2)._

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      _Earl Stanhope,
      The French Retreat from Moscow
      (Historical Essays;
      and, also,
      Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123)._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs, volume 2, chapters 28-32._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.
   The War of Liberation in Germany.
   Alliance of Austria.
   The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1814.

{2774}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).
   The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
   Fall of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (May).
   The Treaty of Paris.
   Evacuation of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Congress of Vienna.
   Acquisitions in Poland.
   Surrender of Eastern Galicia.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   Napoleon's return from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo campaign and its results.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   The Allies again in France.
   Second Treaty of Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   The Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1817.
   Expulsion of Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1825.
   Accession of Nicholas.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1827-1829.
   Intervention on behalf of Greece.
   Battle of Navarino.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Polish revolt and its suppression.
   Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.
   Joint occupation of Cracow.
   Extinction of the republic.
   Its annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1833-1840.
   The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1839-1859.
   Subjugation of the Caucasus.

      See CAUCASUS.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1849.
   Aid rendered to Austria against the Hungarian patriots.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.
   Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.

   "The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a
   dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the
   custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was
   the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the
   Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation,
   actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg
   that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion
   of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January
   1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It
   undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the
   effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his
   intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this
   country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia.
   There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed
   a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed
   reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was
   regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he
   affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon
   frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a
   British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry
   with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the
   affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right
   of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a
   Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined
   to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in
   Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church
   was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had
   constantly supported, one against the other, these rival
   claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the
   controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by
   force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was
   stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of
   Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one
   which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly
   eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had
   undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian
   subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople,
   which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated
   at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.'
   The exact meaning of this famous article had always been
   disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it
   applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and
   the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had
   always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British
   statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general
   undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a
   constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so
   they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was
   not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic
   misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for
   complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected.
   The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a
   general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the
   Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the
   demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish
   ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a
   Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the
   Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the
   custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were
   clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte
   abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities
   as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an
   interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a
   note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a
   settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the
   note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the
   Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always
   characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might
   even then have been prevented if the British Government had
   boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if
   she modified the conditions she need not count on England's
   assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's
   Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of
   his life that this course should have been taken.
{2775}
   But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or,
   according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna
   Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the
   Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and
   on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited
   a very widespread indignation in this country. The people,
   indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which
   had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the
   complication had been originally introduced by the act of
   France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of
   the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of
   which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause
   of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that
   the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise
   discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation
   instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations,
   had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853,
   therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of
   supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned
   this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar
   Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over
   the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly
   attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an
   act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a
   rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward
   inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared
   war."

      _S. Walpole,
      Foreign Relations,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. W. Kinglake,
      The Invasion of the Crimea,
      volume l._

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).
   The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.
   Battle of the Alma.
   Sufferings of the invading army.

   "England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord
   Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the
   Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right
   arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to
   command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold,
   brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of
   the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The
   allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on
   the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their
   descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for
   the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The
   Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable
   ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances
   received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and
   successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian
   provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake
   and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the
   Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English
   people the war might well have ended then and there. The
   Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could
   not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was
   confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing
   for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with
   what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the
   enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment,
   and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The
   allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There
   is much discussion as to the original author of the project
   for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had
   it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of
   Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times'
   newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the
   idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it
   was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took
   possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of
   the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden
   fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised
   and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet
   had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called
   the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of
   Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened;
   from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition
   of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of
   aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet
   of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the
   vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian
   fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and
   was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore,
   Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if
   the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor
   for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered
   at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a
   soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the
   French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of
   deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by
   Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the
   French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to
   decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were,
   therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea,
   and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north
   of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea.
   Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then,
   more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting
   promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The
   disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854.
   It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some
   27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the
   shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was
   effected without any opposition from the Russians. On
   September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments
   and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a
   skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry
   and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until
   they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in
   great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the
   heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied
   forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They
   found that they had to cross the river in the face of the
   Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point
   of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense
   masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were
   under the command of Prince Mentschikoff.
{2776}
   It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position
   unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were
   delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and
   attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was
   made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but
   without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of
   discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which
   the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the
   English and French troops carried all before them at last. A
   study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary
   reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence
   of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an
   almost total absence of generalship on the part of the
   Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and
   stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand
   up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English
   and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were
   mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the
   Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their
   ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians
   ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a
   pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. …
   But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up
   the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and
   Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise
   that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist;
   and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who
   fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this
   distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the
   heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of
   the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be
   sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions
   differing from those of most campaigns that went before it.
   Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war.
   Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to
   the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on.
   She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the
   expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special
   correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London.
   The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost
   immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the
   'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr.
   Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell
   soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of
   judgment to know that the confusion was that of a
   breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight
   in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the
   minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was
   ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of
   popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the
   readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring
   badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks
   were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued
   by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said.
   … The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition.
   Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in
   places where no one wanted them or could well get at them,
   while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea
   for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of
   feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample
   provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they
   came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The
   special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents
   continued to din these things into the ears of the public at
   home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The
   patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of
   deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war
   administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the
   whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was
   to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief,
   brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we
   do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their
   minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at
   the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the
   field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than
   to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely
   that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and
   sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of
   the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and
   they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of
   the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea
   fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was
   done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first,
   misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy,
   thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their
   shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the
   real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the
   eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and
   sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts
   were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as
   by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There
   was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Sir E. Hamley,
      The War in the Crimea,
      chapters 2-3._

      _W. H. Russell,
      The British Expedition to the Crimea,
      books 1-2._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September-October).
   Opening of the siege of Sebastopol.

   Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the
   Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of
   necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have
   been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of
   their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that
   such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But
   again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined
   "to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and
   to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a
   difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough,
   and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any
   assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out
   unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little
   landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep
   hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly
   warned of the operation, had already arrived. …
{2777}
   Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A
   similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now
   again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not?
   Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and
   others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French,
   more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported
   by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English
   Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was
   determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet
   were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in
   preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent
   knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable
   if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances
   mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the
   true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange
   measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his
   fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be
   sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed;
   and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the
   ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and
   had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now
   number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being
   sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not
   those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched
   position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working
   together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities.
   Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer
   nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von
   Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an
   assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the
   allies to await the landing of their siege train was more
   far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although
   some few men appear to have understood its necessary result.
   It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de
   main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect
   and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not
   strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been
   made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon
   the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible
   suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the
   inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including
   the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French
   undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing
   their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly
   the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the
   batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the
   16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The
   energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time
   roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the
   defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October
   means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow
   considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the
   17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained
   the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the
   French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought
   to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their
   lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be
   unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the
   fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of
   October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover
   of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of
   Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking
   the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that
   day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of
   the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the
   position of the allies became evident."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, 1837-1880,
      pages 251-256._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. W. Kinglake,
      The Invasion of the Crimea,
      volumes 3-4._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).
   The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.

   "The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to
   allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town
   undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some
   time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing
   that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on
   the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced
   against the English position, hoping to get possession of the
   harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at
   any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed.
   The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came
   was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish
   recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a
   very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the
   Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue
   the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very
   different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin
   Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great
   firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished
   themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of
   Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that
   the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607
   men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped
   forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having
   been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long,
   unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after,
   having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing
   away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant
   men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed,
   and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received,
   misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position
   ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to
   retire, without having effected their object: but as they
   retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by
   the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed
   the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour
   of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander
   did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of
   Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just
   been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with
   a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann
   they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior
   force, that they were obliged to retreat.
{2778}
   The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate
   with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the
   allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from
   entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the
   plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had
   probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the
   scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly
   and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday,
   November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard,
   while it was still concealed from view by the mists which
   overhung the British position. That army had been greatly
   increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every
   effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers:
   they had been stimulated by religious services and
   exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent
   spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they
   would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force
   from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of
   a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity
   prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was
   going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of
   attacks on different parts of their position, which were real,
   and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion
   in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the
   Russians, who had received their instructions before they set
   out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in
   fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment
   against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from
   the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the
   superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The
   principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of
   Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments,
   who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main
   body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand
   contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and
   superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that
   the small British force would have been eventually swept off
   the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a
   soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity,
   turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real
   point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force
   to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and
   never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such
   fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate
   of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney
   Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss
   Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and
   self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the
   military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were
   received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in
   a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other
   stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of
   vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions
   had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be
   found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion.
   The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised
   to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved
   to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste,
   extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which
   England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority
   which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her
   own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled
   her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the
   multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts
   as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at
   Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of
   Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual
   rigour and severity."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Nolan,
      Illustrated History of the War against Russia,
      chapters 40-48 (volume 1)._

      _Chambers' Pictorial History of the Russian War,
      chapters 7-8._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Siege and capture of Kars.

   "Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more
   fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army
   at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its
   unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced,
   resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the
   Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint
   Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes
   of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of
   them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and
   Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September,
   1854, where he was received with the honour due to his
   position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia
   Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque
   squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once
   considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army
   there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay
   fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses
   half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely
   said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices
   and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an
   unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de
   Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel
   Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in
   securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In
   the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel
   Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army,
   together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of
   the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but
   notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted
   spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active
   hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at
   Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake,
   in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually
   assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early
   in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five
   leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the
   Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been
   familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the
   scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were
   insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any
   considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very
   low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th
   of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum
   was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the
   Turks fell into their hands.
{2779}
   In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of
   troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this
   movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at
   the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the
   prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar
   Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had
   landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon
   arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance,
   occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of
   Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army
   to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This
   surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days,
   large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving
   the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived
   by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to
   an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th
   of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery
   wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison
   made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim
   moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an
   advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks
   by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were
   they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed
   them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced
   almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a
   shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and
   redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and
   rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the
   great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense
   masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the
   Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the
   hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the
   Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance
   which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have
   been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal
   victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their
   loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople,
   and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of
   them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they
   carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had
   suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the
   position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to
   resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as
   before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants
   of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to
   this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those
   who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the
   first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded,
   but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The
   flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations
   of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse
   bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. …
   Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning
   skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp.
   The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was
   almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or
   Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an
   end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. …
   Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. …
   The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might
   have contributed to prevent it."

      _T. Gaspey,
      History of England, George III.-Victoria,
      chapter 56 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Ward,
      Humphrey Sandwith,
      chapter 9._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Life of Stratford Canning,
      chapter 31 (volume 2)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
   Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.
   Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.
   Battle of the Tchernaya.
   Repulse of the English from the Redan.
   Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.
   The congress at Paris.
   Peace.

   In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized
   Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the
   Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis
   of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the
   previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:

   "(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over
   the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective
   guarantee;

   (2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed
   from all impediments;

   (3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of
   the European equilibrium; and

   (4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the
   Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …

   The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not
   prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the
   Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and
   England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached
   to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was
   doomed to find that every successive explanation of these
   points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The
   freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be
   secured unless she surrendered the territory between that
   river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of
   Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was
   assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black
   Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from
   his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to
   prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a
   conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in
   the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these
   circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The
   conference which it was decided to hold in December did not
   assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had
   been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston;
   and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of
   an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a
   statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston
   entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way
   to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore
   troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing
   strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither
   heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His
   sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound
   impression on the mind of Europe. …
{2780}
   Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with
   disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his
   adherence to the policy of his father. His accession,
   therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the
   Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who
   assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome
   agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers
   admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On
   the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western
   Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be
   placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and
   they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not
   add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had
   still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such
   condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and
   refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on
   absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of
   doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the
   Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all
   nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining
   whether he would open them to the vessels either of the
   Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were
   firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia
   from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the
   alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically
   terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the
   Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian
   offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian
   alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the
   struggle was resumed under conditions very different from
   those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria,
   indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released
   her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers,
   and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments.
   But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of
   Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year
   Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops
   rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English
   armies, and finer weather as well as better management
   banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the
   bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack
   on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea,
   proved the means of intercepting communication between
   Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast
   stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June
   the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more
   robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful
   attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized
   another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of
   these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the
   beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately.
   A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French
   on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its
   failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old
   soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the
   English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from
   any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson.
   That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding
   winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and
   he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the
   credit which attaches to any military man who holds a
   responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis
   of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts
   were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the
   Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the
   French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of
   September the assault of June was repeated; and though the
   British were again driven back from the Redan, the French
   succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising
   the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their
   remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of
   the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a
   year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city.
   It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the
   narrative of operations which had little influence on history.
   The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of
   Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect
   on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued.
   Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it
   became evident that the war was approaching its close. The
   cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the
   French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental
   circumstances, which gave them in August and September the
   chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The
   reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did
   not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were
   mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been
   raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and
   at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share
   in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the
   English story. The English troops had taken no part in the
   battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been
   driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the
   final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own
   countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that
   fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of
   their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like
   the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has
   gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should
   retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired
   her defective administration and reinforced her shattered
   army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever
   wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain,
   responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not
   conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some
   honourable means for terminating the war. In October the
   British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor
   had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About
   the same time the members of the Government learned with equal
   alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French
   public were demanding that France should secure some advantage
   in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In
   November the French ministry took a much more extreme course,
   and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the
   knowledge of England. …
{2781}
   It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of
   France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without
   her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and
   to which France had assented, was, with some modifications,
   adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia
   by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was
   accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign
   Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at
   Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February,
   at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally
   disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in
   accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in
   the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was
   signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right
   of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public
   law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the
   case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to
   mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue
   and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the
   condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the
   communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either
   collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan
   and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its
   waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the
   exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the
   service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it
   forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the
   shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of
   the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the
   Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the
   Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly
   guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan
   the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that
   Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had
   made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war.
   Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before
   the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski,
   the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to
   discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of
   the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press
   was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the
   mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."

      See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 24. _

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 2, documents 263-272._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1855.
   Accession of Alexander II.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859.
   Improved treatment of the Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
   Conquests in Central Asia.
   Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.

   "The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or
   Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the
   Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of
   Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734
   the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not
   until the present century had far advanced that the Russian
   Government could so much as flatter itself that it had
   effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated
   Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the
   Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced
   post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus
   simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's
   immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The
   conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and
   capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859;
   its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified
   towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to
   a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The
   conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the
   century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and
   this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name
   of General Tchernaieff."

      _D. C. Boulger,
      Central Asian Questions,
      chapter 1._

   "Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in
   Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored
   Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that
   time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in
   Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the
   Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name
   only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and
   devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating
   numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss
   upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to
   retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in
   St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon
   him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of
   Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played
   the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this
   duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General
   Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting
   the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing
   accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a
   comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,
   together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell
   into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have
   proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if
   Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and
   begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was
   granted the free possession of the country which was left to
   him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the
   south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true
   and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war
   indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of
   the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and
   ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern
   frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five
   years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus
   upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon
   unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready
   for a long time, provisions were previously secured on
   different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of
   theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous
   route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes
   to the Oxus [1873]. …
{2782}
   Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the
   Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself
   magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal
   throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on
   the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the
   burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as
   he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to
   come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again
   began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes
   Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous
   Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the
   Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion
   broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian
   embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,
   that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An
   army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,
   and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated
   into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially
   one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so
   easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle
   between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and
   protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in
   which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,
   surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.
   Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until
   the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over
   Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous
   tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed
   throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle
   to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central
   Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk
   Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the
   south."

      _A. Vambéry,
      The Coming Struggle for India,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. von Hellwald,
      The Russians in Central Asia,
      chapters 7-11. _

      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapters 12 and 18._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1860-1880.
   The rise, spread and character of Nihilism.

      See NIHILISM.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1861.
   Emancipation of serfs.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:
      RUSSIAN SERFDOM.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1864.
   Organization of Public Instruction.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—RUSSIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1867.
   Sale of Alaska to the United States.

      See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.
   Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.
   Capture of Geok Tepe.
   Subjugation of the Turkomans.
   Occupation of Merv.

   "Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was
   conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of
   Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the
   southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia
   required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai
   Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea
   became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse
   population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman
   country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a
   stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more
   especially to increase the extent of territory under their
   control, and open the land route to India, the Russians
   occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military
   expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort,
   and took permanent possession of the country in the name of
   the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been
   occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during
   the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was
   only temporary. The force which established itself at
   Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two
   sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery.
   Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in
   the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a
   world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this
   expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the
   Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff'
   and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region
   made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke
   Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the
   defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were
   numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the
   steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat.
   General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was
   succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to
   the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed
   Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be
   no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the
   country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the
   years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat
   were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a
   decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced
   with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but
   no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon
   him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to
   Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff
   was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the
   difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by
   General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff.
   Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than
   seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans.
   Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation,
   matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which
   he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work
   [1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular
   line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks,
   secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to
   Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and
   better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's
   first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be
   taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek
   Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in
   the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the
   Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies
   south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it
   touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on
   the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who
   held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that
   region.
{2783}
   They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents;
   reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a
   strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers
   and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their
   position and settle on the most fertile oases along the
   northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been
   renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the
   abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and
   were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress
   of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of
   walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west,
   and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6
   feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls
   was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the
   first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide,
   and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their
   families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The
   Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881.
   "The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was
   successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a
   regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the
   Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of
   these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging
   army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from
   30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made
   frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting.
   Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts,
   and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is
   highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than
   did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns
   were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7
   o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to
   attack the first fortification on the south front, supported
   by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an
   explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a
   dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the
   action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid
   with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely
   buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff
   carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged
   in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in
   possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the
   fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be
   panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and
   all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled
   with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of
   the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the
   pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than
   8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the
   siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. …
   Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital
   of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from
   Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column
   half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to
   capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the
   attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained
   the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until
   circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend,
   and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture
   [February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the
   most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in
   Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the
   frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire
   southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it
   was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of
   man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans
   had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no
   longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave
   markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."

      _T. W. Knox,
      Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
      chapter 22._

   "There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers
   great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and
   Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles,
   have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000,
   or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic
   provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would
   support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this
   may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are
   carried across China, and when water—the great want of
   Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and
   artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that
   whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in
   these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses
   the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the
   surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only
   contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000;
   and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there
   are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so
   many growing towns that need workmen, so many
   counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia,
   that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the
   empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported
   that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the
   parts about Merv."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      National Life and Character,
      pages 43-44._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Skobeleff,
      Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé
      (Geok-Tépé): Official Report._

      _C. Marvin,
      The Russians at the Gates of Herat,
      chapter 1-2._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.
   Successful war with Turkey.
   Siege and reduction of Plevna.
   Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-
   Treaty of San Stefano.
   Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877; 1877-1878; and 1878.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1878-1880.
   Movements in Afghanistan.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

{2784}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
   Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.
   His assassination.

   In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the
   memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated,
   and he left the Crimea on November 30.    The following
   evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another
   carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the
   baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which
   destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He
   was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as
   he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be
   another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by
   an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who
   was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar
   mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart
   before the train arrived, had been laid further south at
   Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in
   time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the
   Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He
   telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he
   had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape,
   which she learned from the newspapers, and from her
   attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising
   that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was
   discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the
   Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in
   September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a
   scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have
   perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular
   acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the
   people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of
   death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary
   Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently
   selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the
   death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in
   the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and
   her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was
   decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. …
   The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she
   arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the
   closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to
   the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880],
   a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial
   family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were
   well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept
   alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her
   apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only
   surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had
   arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his
   wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We
   were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's
   rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The
   flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were
   extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same
   time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite
   filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the
   chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was
   laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither
   with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count
   Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back
   the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in
   ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was
   delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to
   this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the
   dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas
   explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure,
   said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently
   stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed
   black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always
   containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd
   of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His
   first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then
   asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being
   alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the
   catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of
   dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a
   foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those
   concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent
   information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd
   of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one
   acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in
   the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two
   servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard,
   who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above
   the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and
   foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant
   a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it
   is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations
   he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son,
   if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and
   for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in
   power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and
   decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a
   man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey,
   and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary
   dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over
   the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established
   throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The
   explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in
   St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for
   the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not
   likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who
   lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the
   incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found
   among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real
   attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of
   assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of
   sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to
   which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions
   which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to
   ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have
   rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is
   not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his
   chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open
   droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the
   Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres
   of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired
   to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of
   June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. …
{2785}
   It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned
   to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must
   pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign
   princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and
   attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the
   previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level
   with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony,
   prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success
   of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the
   Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his
   own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life,
   he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was
   preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his
   sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day,
   Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the
   Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace.
   This man refused to answer any questions, except that his
   capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination,
   and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both
   Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to
   attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday,
   March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to
   the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed
   Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he
   set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter
   Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the
   part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the
   Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and
   exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses
   of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and
   breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one
   of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a
   basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on
   the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but
   the last only drove on faster, having received private orders
   from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to
   prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or
   among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the
   coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the
   man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out
   to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt
   removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. …
   The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had
   thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still
   struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his
   name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself
   Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or
   two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage.
   It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly;
   and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was
   afterwards supposed that he had already received slight
   wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the
   road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion,
   two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a
   bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces
   towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg,
   and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides
   mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek
   to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other
   accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb,
   and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not
   utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was
   supporting himself with his back against a buttress by
   grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his
   clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the
   snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were
   broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and
   snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides
   his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the
   abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his
   right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor
   expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four.
   … More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two
   bombs."

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life of Alexander II.,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Annual Register, 1879-1881._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881.
   Accession of Alexander III.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.
   Character and reign of Alexander III.
   Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.
   Hostility to western civilization.

   "According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow
   paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor
   Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which
   he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a
   committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris
   Melikow's project of a general representative assembly
   composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March
   20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal
   dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal.
   A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a
   detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said
   that the majority had declared for the convening of an
   assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of
   the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and
   wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the
   patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform
   is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew
   and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes
   of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement
   and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a
   manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to
   keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and,
   in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to
   fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.'
   A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil
   party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by
   the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared.
   By far the most important personage under the present
   government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod,
   an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the
   State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man
   is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too
   much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary
   position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has
   become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears
   the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the
   Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with
   Ministers of German origin.
{2786}
   He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal
   Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom
   belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e.,
   non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the
   Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions
   against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS:
   19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are
   well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no
   wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited
   creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to
   Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of
   livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are
   principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i.
   e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly
   deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an
   orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children,
   peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have
   been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who
   remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all
   sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. …
   It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the
   atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to
   sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of
   manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar
   insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty
   is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not
   penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does
   not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply
   the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has
   suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press
   is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some
   people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in
   their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does
   not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not
   hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations
   arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all
   this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them
   to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States.
   … He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation,
   very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as
   he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg;
   and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the
   bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct
   provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless,
   tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have
   been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de
   Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and
   personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the
   Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to
   exercise any."

      _Professor Geffcken,
      Russia under Alexander III.
      (New Review, September, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,
      Russia under Alexander III._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1894.
   Death of Alexander III.
   Accession of Nicholas II.

   The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at
   Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the
   throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St.
   Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in
   1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.

   ----------RUSSIA: End--------

RUSSIA, Great, Little, White, and Black.

   "Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia,
   Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect
   Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the
   keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of
   Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the
   name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in
   contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great
   Russia. …

      See COSSACKS.

    The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly
    known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful,
    industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of
    the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land
    of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the
    11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of
    Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to
    Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."

      _H. M. Chester,
      Russia, Past and Present,
      pages 225. 228, 270-271._

   "The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite
   Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were
   rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation
   of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the
   14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the
   Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was
   afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave
   the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk
   and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression
   altogether, since when it has lost all its political
   significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term
   'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their
   dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between
   the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from
   the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia
   (Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never
   had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the
   vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative
   divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the
   first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in
   association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was
   extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way
   Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to
   distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern
   provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and
   Dnieper."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
      volume 5. pages 282-290._

RUSSIAN AMERICA.

      See ALASKA.

RUSTCHUK, Battle of (1594).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

RUTENI, The.

   The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman
   Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci
   occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the
   Revolution.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 17._

RUTENNU, The.

      See ROTENNU.

{2787}

RÜTLI,
GRÜTLI, The Meadow of.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

RUTULIANS, The.

      See LATIUM.

RUTUPIÆ.

   The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now
   Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Roach Smith,
      Antiquities of Richborough._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

RUWARD OF BRABANT.

   "This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat
   anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly
   dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not
   exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions
   … were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the
   sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary
   stadholders."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic;
      part 5, chapter 4._

RYE-HOUSE PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

RYOTS OF BENGAL, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

RYSWICK, The Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696; and 1697.

S

SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN: United to France (1680).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SABÆANS, The.

      See ARABIA: ANCIENT SUCCESSION
      AND FUSION OF RACES.

SABANA DE LA CRUZ, Battle of (1859).

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SABBATHAISTS.

   A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one
   Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion
   in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and
   who finally embraced Mahometanism.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 28._

SABELLIANS, The.

      See SABINES;
      also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

SABELLIANS, The sect of the.

      See NOËTIANS.

SABINE CROSS ROADS, OR MANSFIELD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

SABINE WARS, The.

   The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others—
   gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or
   series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of
   the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But
   modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part
   of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from
   the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and,
   as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius
   never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne
   conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the
   term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the
   Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost
   throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious
   narrative of Sabine wars.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 12._

SABINE WOMEN, The Rape of the.

      See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

SABINES, OR SABELLIANS, The.

   "The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under
   this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to
   have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the
   Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and
   Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a
   pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in
   the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along
   this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf
   of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find
   support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued
   forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled
   with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed
   new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and
   Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the
   Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation
   we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional
   history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe.
   Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens
   was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions
   in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be
   concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from
   that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this
   difference died out again as the Latin communities were
   gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section 2._

      See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

SABINIAN, Pope, A. D. 604-606.

SABRINA.

   The ancient name of the Severn river.

SAC AND SOC.

   A term used in early English and Norman times to signify
   grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The
   manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 73._

      See, also, MANORS.

SAC, OR SAUK, INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, FOXES, ETC.

SACÆ, The.

   "The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians,
   and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells
   us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and
   that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all
   the Scythians Sacæ."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 2 (volume 5)._

      See, also, SCYTHIANS.

SACERDOTES.

   These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who
   performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the
   people, at public expense.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner.
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103. _

SACHEM.
SAGAMORE.

   "Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North
   America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a
   word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations
   (Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and
   derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by
   a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …
{2789}
   It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of
   later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,
   but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on
   the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that
   the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those
   of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief
   selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole
   Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They
   could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the
   war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated
   that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was
   declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war
   captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had
   distinguished themselves by personal prowess."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Lenape and their Legends,
      chapter 3._

   "At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty
   permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names;
   and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the
   supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves
   were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding
   separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint,
   and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against
   contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested
   with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable
   forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed
   unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving
   to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them
   were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida,
   fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the
   Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League,
   the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative
   and judicial authority."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      The League of the Iroquois,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   "The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class
   known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note
   or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the
   distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410).
   But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to
   the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings
   with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in
   Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection.,
   1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._

SACHEVERELL, Henry: Impeachment of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SACKETT'S HARBOR:
   Naval headquarters in the war of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SÄCKINGEN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SACRAMENTARIANS.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

SACRED BAND OF THEBES.

      See THEBES, GREECE: B. C. 378.

SACRED MONTH OF THE CHARTISTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842.

SACRED MOUNT AT ROME, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

SACRED PROMONTORY, The.

   The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was
   anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early
   geographers to be the extreme western point of the known
   world.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 28, part 1 (volume 2)._

SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.

   "After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred
   festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage
   roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like
   Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods
   themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came
   through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of
   road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild
   mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from
   the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo.
   While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the
   carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had
   formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out
   which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the
   wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made
   it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to
   establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well
   as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting
   the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far
   as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in
   central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably
   prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the
   equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin
   from Delphi."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 4._

SACRED TRUCE, The.

      See OLYMPIC GAMES.

   ----------SACRED WAR: Start--------

SACRED WAR, The First.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586,
      and DELPHI.

SACRED WAR: The Second.

   The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens,
   whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the
   sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army
   to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon
   the Athenians sent another and restored them.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 45._

SACRED WAR: The Ten Years.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

   ----------SACRED WAR: End--------

SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.

   The road which led from the great gate of Athens called
   Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive
   processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 2._

SACRED WAY AT ROME, The.

      See VIA SACRA.

SACRIPORTUS, Battle of (B. C. 83).

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

{2789}

SADDUCEES, The.

   "There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived
   from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the
   statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the
   Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have
   originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously
   conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly
   class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of
   Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or
   tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived
   their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the
   Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the
   Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of
   Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law,
   with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law,
   they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the
   derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 49._

   "At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in
   history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C.
   159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a
   modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see
   JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the
   Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of
   Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place.
   The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited
   for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen,
   adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part
   in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised
   circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be
   real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly
   understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense.
   They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers
   of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition
   with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they
   of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. …
   The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from
   the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found
   special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the
   creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of
   God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real
   followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after
   death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The
   mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they
   regarded with mistrust and aversion."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew in the
      Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      volume 2, page 302-303._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
      section 26 (division 2, volume 2). _

SADOWA, OR KÖNIGGRÄTZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAFFARY DYNASTY, The.

      See SAMANIDES.

SAGAMORE.

      See SACHEM.

SAGAMOSO, Battle of (1819).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SAGARTIANS, The.

   A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the
   western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region
   of modern Persia.

SAGAS.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

SAGGENASH, The.

      See YANKEE.

SAGUENAY.

      See CANADA: NAMES.

SAGUNTUM, Capture of, by Hannibal.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SAHAPTINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

SAHAY, Battle of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SAILOR'S CREEK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

SAIM.

      See TIMAR.

SAINT ALBANS (England).
   Origin of.

      See VERULAMIUM.

SAINT ALBANS (England): A. D. 1455-1461.
   Battles of York and Lancaster.

   The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two
   battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first
   collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York
   occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King
   Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to
   8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the
   17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the
   streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists
   were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER) THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

SAINT ANDREW, The Russian order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

SAINT ANDREW, The Scottish order of.

   "To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming
   orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside,
   like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his
   paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established
   the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle,
   which since that time has been the national emblem of
   Scotland."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 21._

SAINT ANDREWS, Siege of the Castle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

SAINT ANGELO, Castle.

      See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Canons of.

      See AUSTIN CANONS.

   ----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: Start--------

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1565.
   Founded by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1701.
   Attack from South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.
   Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1862.
   Temporary occupation by Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

   ----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: End--------

SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, The Massacre of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

SAINT BRICE'S DAY, The Massacre of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

SAINT CHRISTOPHER, The Island:
   Ceded to England (1713).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

{2790}

SAINT CLAIR, General Arthur.
   Campaign against the Indians, and defeat.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

SAINT CLOUD DECREE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

SAINT DENIS (France), Battle of (1567).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

SAINT DENIS (Belgium), Battle of (1678).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

SAINT DIDIER, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

SAINT DOMINGO, OR HAYTI, The Island.

      See HAYTI.

SAINT DOMINGO, The Republic.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

SAINT GEORGE, Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: GENOA;
      also GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

SAINT GEORGE, The order of.

   Founded by Catherine II. of Russia in 1769.

SAINT GERMAIN-EN-LAYE, Peace of (1570).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

SAINT GERMAINS, The French court.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

SAINT GERMAINS, The Jacobite court.

   When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688,
   took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality
   by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of
   Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance
   which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing
   splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more
   enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had
   assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the
   air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and
   cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers
   of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the
   distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with
   tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded
   frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was
   annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a
   guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in
   Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a
   constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of
   deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which
   had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was
   affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace
   wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty
   ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their
   apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who
   had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought
   it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they
   should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring
   town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for
   each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

SAINT GOTHARD, Battle of (1664).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

SAINT GREGORY, Order of.

      Instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

SAINT HELENA, Napoleon's captivity at.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SAINT ILDEFONSO, Treaty of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

SAINT ILDEFONSO, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

SAINT JAGO, Knights of the order of.

      See CALATRAVA.

SAINT JAMES, The Palace and Court of.

   "Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is
   St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its
   meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly
   symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of
   the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the
   Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the
   prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and
   colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to
   obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held
   in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty,
   Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and
   devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      A Trip to England,
      page 54._

SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELLA, Knights of.

      See CALATRAVA.

SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.

      See ACRE.

SAINT JOHN, Knights of; or Hospitallers.

      See HOSPITALLERS.

SAINT JOHN OF THE LATERAN, Order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1560 by Pope Pius IV.

SAINT JUST,
   and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

SAINT LAWRENCE:
   Discovery and naming of the River by Jacques Cartier.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

SAINT LAZARUS, Knights of.

   "Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its
   origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first
   century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan
   enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain,
   however, that in very early times Christian charity founded
   establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary
   saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those
   hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the
   first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a
   charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin.
   For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the
   members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they
   formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended
   the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of
   lepers was their first object, and they not only received
   lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their
   grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the
   disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their
   institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a
   condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings
   of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it
   only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always
   green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John,
   which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But
   neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St.
   Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."

      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      chapter 8, with foot-notes._

{2791}

SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1764.
   The founding of the city.

   "St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of
   the Mississippi to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

   Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French
   settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to
   a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in
   February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St.
   Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French
   Canadians."

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Making of the Great West,
      page 179._

      See, also, ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.
   Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.
   The capture of Camp Jackson.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1864.
   General Price's attempt against.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

SAINT LOUIS, The Order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by Louis XIV. of
   France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

SAINT MAHÉ, Battle of.

   A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the
   coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of
   which were put afloat without open authority from their
   respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of
   8,000 men and 180 ships.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

SAINT MALO: Abortive English expeditions against.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SAINT MARK, The winged lion of.

      See LION OF ST. MARK,
      and VENICE: A. D. 829.

SAINT MARKS, Jackson's capture of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in France.

   "Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of
   chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership,
   limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he
   fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into
   insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The
   first brethren were named from the highest families in France;
   the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics
   of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this
   mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read
   the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St.
   Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the
   feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for
   the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The
   brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment
   of its founder, into a confederation of spies."

      _J. White,
      History of France,
      chapter 7._

SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SAINT MICHAEL AND SAINT GEORGE, The Order of.

   A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the
   purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most
   meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great
   Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may
   have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the
   Mediterranean Sea."

      _Sir B. Burke,
      Book of the Orders of Knighthood,
      page 107._

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1638.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1677.
   Taken by Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1679.
   Ceded to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

SAINT PATRICK, The order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1783 by George III. of
   England.

SAINT PAUL, Republic of.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: ENGLAND.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.

   "The first church which existed on or near the site of the
   present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by
   Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained
   by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many
   Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and
   where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306
   Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope
   Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot,
   labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old
   basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction
   was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried
   out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St.
   Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X.,
   obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross
   from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account
   of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only
   lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed
   Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the
   design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out
   any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died
   also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari,
   sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who
   continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of
   a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and
   beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise
   the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo
   della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in
   1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban
   VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander
   VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of
   the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years,
   and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were
   obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to
   the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has
   been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs
   is £6,300."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Walks in Rome,
      chapter 15._

      _ALSO IN:
      H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapters 15-16._

{2792}

SAINT PETERSBURG: The founding of the city.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.

SAINT PRIVAT, OR GRAVELOTTE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SAINT QUENTIN: Origin of the town.

      See BELGÆ.

SAINT QUENTIN,
   Battle and siege of (1557).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

SAINT SEBASTIAN, Siege and capture of (1813).

   See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

SAINT STEPHEN, The Apostolic order.

   This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded
   by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke,
   afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.

SAINT STEPHEN, The Crown of.
   The crown of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

SAINT STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.
   The Chamber of the House of Commons.

      See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

SAINT THOMAS OF ACRE, The Knights of.

   "This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into
   a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In
   the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to
   Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the
   work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had
   given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He
   had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for
   a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had
   called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other,
   as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem
   to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of
   Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S.
   Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London
   itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. …
   They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according
   to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross
   charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of
   the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross
   of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in
   relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas
   at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had
   sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a
   century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We
   know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire,
   Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

SAINT VALERY.

   The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of
   William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D.
   1066.

SAINT VINCENT, Naval battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

SAINTONGE, Origin of the name of.

      See PICTONES.

SAIONES.

   "The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the
   Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured
   than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the
   magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a
   sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by
   which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be
   summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the
   stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his
   power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio
   was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian
   Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The
   Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King.
   They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave
   Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to
   them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more
   important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was
   frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some
   wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a
   person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of
   sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection.
   … The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the
   most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout
   Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy
   Roman's house."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3)._

SAJO, Battle of the (1241).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

SAKKARAH, Necropolis of.

   The most ancient and important cemetery of Memphis, Egypt.

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 86._

SAKKARAH, Tablet of.

   An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and
   now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

SALADIN: The Empire of.

   Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the
   empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise
   to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable
   soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin
   acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,
   shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and
   they were the first formidable enemies with whom the
   Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.
   The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those
   called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the
   prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to
   interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs
   were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of
   his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and
   Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted
   to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.
   Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still
   leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and
   he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the
   sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,
   the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and
   the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was
   proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to
   the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin
   to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was
   effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,
   that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"
{2793}
   Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great
   ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was
   prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a
   short period of civil war, in making himself master of the
   whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of
   Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all
   Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his
   defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third
   Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he
   evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur
   de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in
   the western world and became a great figure in history. He
   died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.
   The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or
   Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub
   (Job), a native Koord of Davin.

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 16._

   "Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of
   succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of
   his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt,
   caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took
   possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the
   principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the
   Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form
   Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother
   of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the
   countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal
   emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made
   themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they
   held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of
   Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria,
   and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem
   and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the
   power of his father; but all fell into disorder and
   confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between
   the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle
   of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his
   hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire.
   On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder
   reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at
   Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until
   1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes.
   The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon
   after by the Mongol invasion.

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      books 9, 12-14._

      See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

SALADIN, The Tithe of.

   "In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the
   Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting
   of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person
   who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of
   Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a
   Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a
   bishop's clerk."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 15._

SALADO, OR GUADACELITO, Battle of (1340).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

SALAMANCA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SALAMANCA, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

SALAMIS, Cyprus,
   Battle of (B. C. 449).

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   Battle of (B. C. 306).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.
   War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 480.
   Great battle between Greeks and Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480.

SALANKAMENT, Battle of (1691).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Recovery by the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1628.
   The first settlement.

      See MASSACHUSETTS:
      A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
   Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
   The Witchcraft madness.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

SALERNO, Principality of.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

SALERNO, School of Medicine.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

SALIAN FRANKS, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

   ----------SALIC LAW: Start--------

SALIC LAW, The.

   "A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the
   Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;
   you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during
   the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the
   crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent
   the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been
   celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our
   public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law
   of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this
   illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,
   to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic
   law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel
   towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it
   really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which
   I have already told you touching the double origin and the
   incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,
   anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and
   Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of
   society. This character has influenced all the controversies
   of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise
   to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in
   Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the
   conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to
   the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,
   compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,
   in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in
   Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,
   through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the
   prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,
   from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular
   tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were
   anciently collected. …
{2794}
   We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we
   have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as
   recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German
   language; but that it was connected with customs collected and
   transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks
   lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,
   explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch
   down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the
   reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At
   the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the
   apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of
   political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil
   procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all
   mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …
   When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is
   essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the
   fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,
   which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous
   article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;
   and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the
   males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,
   in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in
   order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had
   certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except
   in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, number 1._

SALIC LAW:
   Applied to the regal succession in France.

   Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316,
   leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late
   king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the
   queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to
   Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and
   compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.].
   Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in
   the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of
   the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown
   of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France,
   through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The
   lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might
   the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the
   law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or
   heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from
   this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 11, sections 1-2._

   "In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned
   above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that
   which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the
   throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be
   fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not
   so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But
   however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip
   the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly
   confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his
   brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death
   the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only
   daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of
   Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the
   queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a
   daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor
   or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than
   any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion
   to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of
   valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great
   kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit
   before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of
   England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three
   French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the
   French crown.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Age,
      chapter 1, part 1._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.

SALICE, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

SALICES, Ad, Battle of.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.

SALINÆ.

   A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and
   salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

SALINAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SALINAN FAMILY.

SALISBURY, Gemot of.

   William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in
   England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the
   exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring
   in accordance with the old English practice, that all
   landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should
   take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed
   at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of
   August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of
   substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended,
   to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon
   as passed, was carried into immediate effect."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 55._

SALISBURY MINISTRIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885; 1885-1886; and 1892-1893.

SALISHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

SALLUVIANS.

      See SALYES.

SALON, Origin of the French.

   See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

SALONA, Ancient.

   "Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia
   suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only
   reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is
   true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator
   of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a
   Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the
   decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of
   the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the
   huge palace from which the modern capital of the province
   takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part
   found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as
   cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make
   Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was
   such, chose it for his private residence; commerce,
   navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have
   been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the
   city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns
   of the west."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN;
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Subject and Neighbor Lands of Venice._

      _T. G. Jackson,
      Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
      chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2). _

{2795}

SALONICA.

   The modern name of ancient Thessalonica.

      See THESSALONICA.

SALONIKI, The kingdom of.

   The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in
   the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by
   the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of
   Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called
   the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the
   neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and
   conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of
   emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of
   Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was
   cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations;
   but those who claimed it never made good their title by
   possession of the kingdom.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

SALOPIAN WARE.

   Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of
   the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable
   abundance—one white, the other a light red color.

      _L. Jewitt,
      Grave-Mounds,
      page 164. _

SALSBACH, Death of Turenne at (1675).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

SALT, French tax on.

      See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

SALT LAKE CITY: The founding of (1847).

      See MORMONS: A. D. 1846-1848.

SALYES,
SALLUVIANS.

      The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in
      Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts
      and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east
      of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that
      town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as
      the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain
      which you may see from the highest point of the great
      amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from
      Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The
      Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the
      latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter
      responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to
      deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three
      years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius
      Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again
      defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain
      whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place
      afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general
      found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied
      with water from the surrounding hills, and here he
      established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of
      the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and
      that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 17 and 21._

SALZBURG, Origin of.

   "The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or
   Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests
   the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the
   Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected
   for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in
   central Europe."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 66._

SALZBURGERS, The.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.

SALZWEDEL.

      See BRANDENBURG.

SAM ADAMS REGIMENTS, The.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1770.

SAMANA, The proposed cession of.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

SAMANIDES OR SAMANIANS, The.

   "As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and
   effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of
   Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to
   independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais,
   the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued
   Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In
   former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel
   against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate
   Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the
   death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars,
   as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever
   fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length
   instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an
   army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against
   him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and
   laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot
   that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That
   morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen
   retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A.
   D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who
   had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or
   Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of
   Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or
   Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of
   Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes
   the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed
   and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The
   Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the
   Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.

      _C. R. Markham,
      General Sketch of the History of Persia,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN;
      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      volume 1, chapter 6_

      See, also, TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

SAMARAH, Battle of.

   This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was
   killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his
   ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the
   Persians.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10._

   ----------SAMARCAND: Start--------

SAMARCAND.

   Ancient Maracanda, the capital city of Sogdiana.

      See SOGDIANA;
      and BOKHARA.

SAMARCAND: 6th Century.
   Taken from the White Huns by the Turks.

      See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1209-1220.
   Capital of the Khuarezmian empire.

      See KHUAREZM.

{2796}

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1221.
   Conquest and destruction by Jingis Khan.

   When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of
   Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was
   its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive
   Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000
   men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty
   elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and
   the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The
   flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even
   with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they
   possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those
   who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises;
   all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the
   Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent
   off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the
   future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after
   the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated
   artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either
   distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and
   relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A
   few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who
   were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year
   618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have
   described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on
   the face of the earth."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

   "Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also
   one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three
   miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having
   castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 79._

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1371-1405.
   The capital of Timour.

      See TIMOUR, THE CONQUESTS OF.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1868.
   Seizure by the Russians.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

   ----------SAMARCAND: End--------

SAMARIA.
SAMARITANS:
   Early history.
   The Kingdom of Israel.
   Overthrow by the Assyrians.

      See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

SAMARITANS:
   Repopulation of the city and district by the Assyrian conqueror.

   After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the
   deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian
   conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many
   years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun
   with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we
   suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several
   refractory towns about twenty years after the death of
   Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the
   favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large
   bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted
   regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the
   former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city
   of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often
   applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other
   settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities
   on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 4, pages 215-216._

SAMARIA:
   After the Exile.

   In the second and third generations after the return of the
   Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by
   marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples,
   "particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were
   longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service
   at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion
   of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The
   principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners
   into the community, and the high priest of that time, either
   Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes
   into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the
   Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and
   his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access
   of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law,
   these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted
   them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the
   children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed
   the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their
   leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against
   the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It
   was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of
   King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the
   city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was
   followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of
   separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it
   was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose
   son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his
   Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of
   undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own
   members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God
   of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in
   Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was
   raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their
   temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the
   house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah;
   they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had
   designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they
   proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his
   followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to
   their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and
   land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had
   been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received
   with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new
   semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in
   the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which
   was either the city that gave its name to the province or the
   town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an
   active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the
   founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually
   tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a
   community. They declared that they alone were the descendants
   of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its
   Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan
   people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon
   the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours
   was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria
   that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew;
   it no longer bore a political character, but one of a
   religious tendency."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      chapters 19-20 (volume 1)._

{2797}

   "While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans
   as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by
   Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own
   traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and
   Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this
   people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder
   and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return
   from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean
   form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although
   by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still
   predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for
   the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of
   tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below
   their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The
   later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show
   that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means
   complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable
   supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the
   remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly
   and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell
   by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted
   country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the
   ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period
   [of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility
   of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and
   implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other
   with more unmitigated bitterness."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 9. _

SAMARIA:
   Change of population by Alexander the Great.

   After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B.
   C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian
   governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and
   planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen
   element in the motley population of Samaria."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      volume 3, chapter 34._

SAMARIA:
   Rebuilding of the city by Herod.

   One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself
   outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he
   did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength,
   and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the
   descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their
   temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria,
   however, to Sebaste—the August.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 11._

SAMARIA:
   Justinian's War.

   The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565]
   induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all
   unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of
   Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or
   rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a
   desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their
   wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a
   defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the
   regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were
   sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the
   remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason
   by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000
   Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which
   converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and
   smoking wilderness."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

   ----------SAMARIA: End--------

SAMARKAND.

      See SAMARCAND.

SAMBUCA, The.

   A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of
   huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together
   and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The
   Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use
   when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

SAMIAN WARE.

   An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was
   in great repute among the ancients.

SAMMARINESI, The.

   The citizens of San Marino.

      See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

SAMNITE WARS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

SAMNITES, The.

   "The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time
   of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless
   already been for a considerable period in possession of the
   hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian
   plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further
   advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the
   other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the
   Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline
   of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century
   [B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and
   now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even
   moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their
   appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name
   of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of
   the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and
   the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was
   wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B.
   C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the
   Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the
   fourth century mention first occurs of the separate
   confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from
   the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a
   colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with
   many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to
   resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of
   Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse,
   Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians
   against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the
   circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate.
   Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with
   difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of
   arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality.
   Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. …
   About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into
   the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in
   possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few
   unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 5._

SAMO, The Kingdom of.

      See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

{2798}

SAMOA.

   Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic
   islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator
   Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of
   13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude.
   The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The
   population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred
   foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said
   to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein,
   in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them
   in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years
   the trade of the islands became important, and German traders
   acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring
   about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United
   States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by
   joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of
   disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa
   were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held
   in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly
   guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of
   residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of
   the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of
   the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to
   elect their chief or king and choose the form of their
   government. The treaty created a supreme court, with
   jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped
   the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in
   Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal
   government for Apia, with an elected council under the
   presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers.
   Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations,
   and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894._

      _R. L. Stevenson,
      A Foot-note to History._

      _G. H. Bates,
      Some Aspects of the Samoan Question,
      and Our Relations to Samoa
      (The Century, April and May, 1889)._

   ----------SAMOS: Start--------

SAMOS.
SAMIANS.

   The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia
   Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known
   as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about
   eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which
   separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of
   a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important
   members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
   COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek
   communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and
   advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in
   the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became
   subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper,
   Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the
   age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great
   splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant
   centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by
   the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently
   fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians
   attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on
   this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions
   was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly
   and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers
   of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a
   perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly
   pursue its voyages without having first purchased a
   safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be
   something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all
   attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval
   power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating
   a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the
   coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute;
   under his protection they united into a body, the interests
   and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre
   in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal
   capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and
   islands."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct,
   for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater,
   were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of
   Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates,
   treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject
   to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of
   Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes.
   It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.

SAMOS: B. C. 440.
   Revolt from Athens.
   Siege and subjugation.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SAMOS: B. C. 413.
   Overthrow of the oligarchy.
   Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SAMOS: B. C. 33-32.
   Antony and Cleopatra.

   The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was
   passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the
   Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with
   musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded
   with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 28._

SAMOS: A. D. 1824.
   Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

   ----------SAMOS: End--------

SAMOSATA.

      See COMMAGENE.

SAMOTHRACE.

   A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so
   elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the
   sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance
   from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the
   Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.

      _G. S. Faber,
      Mysteries of the Cabiri_

   "The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of
   union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of
   the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the
   Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy
   Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the
   Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the
   Hellenic world."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 1._

SAN.

      See ZOAN.

SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SAN CARLOS, Battle of.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.

      See HAYTI.

{2799}

   ----------SAN FRANCISCO: Start--------

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579.
   Supposed visit by Drake.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781;
      and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.
   First exploration and naming of the Bay.
   Founding of the Mission.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
   Possession taken by the Americans.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
   The naming of the Golden Gate.
   The great Bay.

      See GOLDEN GATE.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848.
   On the eve of the Gold discoveries.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856.
   The Vigilance Committee.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880.
   Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

   ----------SAN FRANCISCO: End--------

SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN
WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

   The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question
   left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory
   of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for
   submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary
   question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made
   in the Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

   "The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides
   to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt,
   personages among the most eminent of his subjects in
   jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on
   the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that
   the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through
   the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true
   interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June,
   1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This
   Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872,
   'confirms the United States in their claim to the important
   archipelago of islands lying between the continent and
   Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great
   Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in
   the history of the United States as a nation, without a
   question of disputed boundary between our territory and the
   possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"

      _C. Cushing,
      The Treaty of Washington,
      page 222._

   The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is
   a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of
   considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The
   combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The
   archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and
   the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the
   west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of
   Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is
   commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore,
   been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is
   such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it
   almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the
   possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great
   Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the
   decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago
   became part of the recognized territory of the United States.

      _Viscount Milton,
      History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869]._

SAN MARINO, The Republic of.

   "The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the
   political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San
   Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were
   crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is
   ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early
   persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount
   Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no
   earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing
   free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the
   sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile
   undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed
   before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were
   the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,
   Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and
   his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared
   the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess
   Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation
   the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land
   was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of
   Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give
   sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The
   sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the
   Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much
   claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was
   included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the
   Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed
   the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because
   he needed money to restore his church, partly because the
   Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising
   superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a
   superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th
   century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the
   sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.
   considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of
   Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is
   therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the
   mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally
   lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would
   willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their
   State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the
   Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …
   Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so
   invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution
   is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,
   sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of
   old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus
   has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the
   Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser
   than the Florentines. When the increase of population and
   territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an
   incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed
   to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority
   at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives
   which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …
   It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in
   1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally
   altered. …
{2800}
   The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which
   was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was
   established, to which was given one-third of the
   representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'
   20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'
   agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by
   general elections, for the Council is recruited by
   co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two
   Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign
   authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small
   salary, and during their six months of office are free from
   all State burdens."

      _E. Armstrong,
      A Political Survival
      (Macmillan's Magazine, January, 1891)._

   "Between this miniature country and its institutions there is
   a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has
   for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is
   a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and
   fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in
   Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities.
   Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded
   by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its
   gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of
   liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no
   means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On
   examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an
   oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from
   an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be
   compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have
   always really represented the mass of the people. It has been
   a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited,
   and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a
   poor community, in which there were no powerful families to
   fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an
   enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their
   hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat
   of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in
   1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling
   establishments which had been made illegal in other countries.
   The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public
   spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That
   the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost
   unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little
   states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have
   long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them
   all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first
   place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its
   borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by
   their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte
   invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any
   part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to
   you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which
   might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand,
   the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was
   so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal
   Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough
   bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth
   broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive
   communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries,
   without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the
   freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of
   potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of
   the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom
   of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the
   map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which
   Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a
   situation comparable with that of the native states in India.
   A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town;
   the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may
   be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and
   precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee
   criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents
   are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national
   plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized
   by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the
   state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own
   local affairs, without any annoying interference from an
   Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and
   their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes
   to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San
   Marinese."

      _A. B. Hart,
      The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino
      (The Nation, February 1, 1894)._

SAN MARTIN, General Jose de,
   The liberation of Chile and Peru.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
      and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.

   The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama
   group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is
   in dispute.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted Federations and their failure.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;

SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.

SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.

SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.

SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.

SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.

SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035;
and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.

SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.

SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.

Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.

SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.

SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.

SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.

SAND LOT PARTY, The.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

{2801}

SANDEMANIANS.

   Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious
   views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure
   salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief
   was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so
   strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764
   he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at
   some other places, where his followers were called
   'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. …
   The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at
   the time of the American Revolution], and many of them
   emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History.,
      volume 2. page 370._

SANDJAKS,
SANJAKS.

      See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.

SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.

      See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

SANGALA.

   An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the
   easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He
   took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the
   inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 94._

SANHEDRIM, The.

   "Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the
   time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of
   scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct
   function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a
   judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To
   this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or
   Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word
   Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 50._

   "The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of
   all capital offences against the law; it had the power of
   inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great
   Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins
   of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The
   Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was
   a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of
   the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the
   Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman
   province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for
   the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate
   or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they
   seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman
   rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under
   the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
   people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in
   the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by
   them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 12._

SANHIKANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SANITARY COMMISSION,
   and Christian Commission, The United States.

   "Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15,
   1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for
   75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they
   termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did
   not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that
   they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the
   armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested
   themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much
   good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough
   organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the
   government to give them recognition and moral support, and,
   after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized
   themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary
   Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its
   president. Their intention was to aid by their professional
   advice the medical department of the government service; but
   soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were
   greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became
   more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now
   entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged
   itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It
   gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the
   commission had an independent transportation of its own. It
   had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad
   ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of
   better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It
   secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier
   from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon
   had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a
   surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its
   energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It
   divided its services into several departments of duty.

   (1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection
   department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined
   thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition
   and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had
   also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the
   general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their
   reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of
   the army.

   (2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of
   twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in
   the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200
   auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to
   the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched.
   One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,'
   collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars;
   another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a
   quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the
   distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally
   supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick
   and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.

   (3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its
   charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the
   government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or
   left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About
   7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly
   accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier
   might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general,
   or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time.
   Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children
   of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to
   minister to his necessities might find protection, defense,
   food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired
   and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On
   the great military lines these stations were permanently
   established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the
   Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for
   transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded.
   It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to
   any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained
   pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that
   any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and
   especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It
   instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a
   soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place
   and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any
   hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names.
   Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United
   States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville,
   Salisbury, Richmond. …

{2802}

   (4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to
   minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish
   bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the
   surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in
   the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies
   of the East; another for the Military Department of the
   Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.

   (5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in
   personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the
   wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first
   organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more
   than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote
   letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps,
   newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by
   reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary
   Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the
   people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than
   three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came
   from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of
   supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were
   derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of
   dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns
   comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs
   more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission
   emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary
   Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance
   of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and
   spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office
   was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large
   towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed
   the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along
   the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying
   man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It
   gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves
   of the dead. It had its religious services, its little
   extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible
   Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its
   publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies
   free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its
   purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its
   objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five
   millions of dollars in money and supplies."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 87 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. P. Brockett,
      Woman's Work in the Civil War._

      _Mrs. M, A. Livermore,
      My Story of the War._

      _K. P. Wormeley,
      The Other Side of the War._

      _The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes._

      _J. S. Newberry,
      The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley._

      _L. Moss,
      Annals of the United States Christian Commission._

SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

SANJAKS,
SANDJAKS.

      See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.

   The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross
   of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles
   II.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

SANS ARCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANSCULOTTES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

SANSKRIT.

   "The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the
   Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated
   form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch
   of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon
   became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal
   races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into
   the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who
   settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab
   and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta
   Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus
   moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i),
   its principal later development being called Hindi, just as
   the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England
   was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India
   which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken
   language, when once its general form and character had been
   settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the
   learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by
   the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became
   more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified.
   Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded
   only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian
   Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an
   intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of
   technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu'
   with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or
   'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial
   designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed
   speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar
   purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and
   literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the
   original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the
   common dialect."

      _M. Williams,
      Indian Wisdom.,
      introduction, page xxviii._

SANTA ANNA, The career of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861,
      and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SANTA HERMANDAD.

      See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

{2803}

SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SANTALS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SANTEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.

      See CALATRAVA.

SANTONES, The.

      See PICTONES.

SAPAUDIA.
   The early name of Savoy.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAPEIRES, The.

      See IBERIANS, EASTERN.

SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

SARACENIC EMPIRE.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SARACENIC SCHOOLS.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

SARACENS, The name.

   "From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were
   confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general
   appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and
   Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a
   larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the
   wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more
   plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish
   character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most
   popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p.
   2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western
   and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe
   on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore,
   allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by
   strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a
   foreign language."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50, and note._

   "Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing
   contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word
   from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the
   children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from
   Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St.
   Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page
   55."

      _H. Milman,
      note to Gibbon, as above._

   The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses,
   Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the
   East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to
   Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling
   between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was
   in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the
   time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1)._

   In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its
   application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races
   pretty generally.

      See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

   ----------SARAGOSSA: Start--------

SARAGOSSA:
   Origin.

      See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543.
   Siege by the Franks.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 713.
   Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778.
   Siege by Charlemagne.

         See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.-
   Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808.
   Fruitless siege by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Extraordinary defense of the city.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
   Siege by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
   Battle and Spanish defeat.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

   ----------SARAGOSSA: End--------

SARANGIANS.

   The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt
   anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the
   Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they
   were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5). _

SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SARATOGA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SARCEES (TINNEH).

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

   ----------SARDINIA: Start--------

SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.

   "The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability
   from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human
   footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to
   which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched
   themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive
   population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there
   when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain,
   whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can
   only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been
   derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from
   Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus;
   from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and
   south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax
   has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient
   architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the
   form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the
   thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are
   scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western
   parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in
   any other part of the world; but they resemble most the
   Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was
   partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the
   time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth
   and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the
   former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where
   their manners receded towards barbarism."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 4, section 3._

SARDINIA: A. D. 1017.
   Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.

      See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

{2804}

SARDINIA: A. D. 1708.
   Taken by the Allies.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.

      See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1714.
   Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.

   See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1717.
   Retaken by Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.

   Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in
   exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

   ----------SARDINIA: End--------

   ----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start--------

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.
   The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
   Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
   The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Overwhelming reverses.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   The French and Spaniards driven out.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.
   Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.
   Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794.
   Passes of the Alps secured by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795.
   French victory at Loano.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.
   Submission to the French under Bonaparte.
   Treaty of peace.
   Cession of Savoy to the Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.
   Piedmont taken by the French.
   Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799.
   French evacuation of Piedmont.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800.
   Recovery of Piedmont by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802.
   Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.
   The king recovers his kingdom.
   Annexation of Genoa.
   Cession of part of Savoy to France.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF:
      also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.
   Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.
   The defeat at Novara.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.
   Death of Charles Felix.
   Accession of Charles Albert.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.
   Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.
   War with Austria.
   Defeat.
   Abdication of Charles Albert.
   Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.
   In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.
   The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.
   Liberation of the whole Peninsula and
   creation of the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.

   ----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End--------

SARDIS.

   When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the
   overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first
   enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was
   directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous
   king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in
   wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired
   to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid
   city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured
   and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen
   days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom,
   which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 7._

   Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of
   the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor
   attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again
   plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and
   Athenians.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 14._

      See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SARGASSO SEA, The.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SARISSA, The.

      See PHALANX.

SARK, Battle of (1448).

   This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an
   English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.
   The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland.
      chapter 19._

SARMATIA.
SARMATIANS.

   "The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by
   the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who
   occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of
   the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the
   Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these
   nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits,
   military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and
   Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were
   nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian
   dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other
   side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women
   among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than
   the men."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 17._

   The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region
   of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them
   to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the
   modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have
   understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps
   part of the south of Russia."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

{2805}

SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

   It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the
   inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the
   Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is
   represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of
   all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged
   under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and
   Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual
   league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The
   Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the
   Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders,
   and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D.
   167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the
   Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of
   all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which
   he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of
   frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the
   impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the
   semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as
   repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at
   Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the
   peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes
   she had no more strength to overcome.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 68._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
      chapters 4-6._

      See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.

SARN HELEN, The.

   A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the
   Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress
   Helena caused it to be made.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680.
   The founding of the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SARUS, Battle of the.

   One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,
   A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 24._

SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

SASSANIAN DYNASTY.

   Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a
   new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow
   of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions,
   founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the
   family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to
   some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter
   progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is,
   itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the
   earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

      See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SASTEAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

SATRAP.
SATRAPIES.

   Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of
   the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and
   heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely
   together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he
   left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a
   single well-ordered system, permanently established
   everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best,
   instance of that form of government which, taking its name
   from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally
   as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main
   principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the
   whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one
   mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of
   fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable
   and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a
   variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to
   whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its
   powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his
   satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate
   governments—a number which must have varied at different
   times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty.
   Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil
   governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the
   revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of
   order, and the general supervision of the territory. These
   satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any
   class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term,
   but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or
   death at any moment, without other formality than the
   presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they
   remained in office they were despotic—they represented the
   Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. …
   They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the
   tribute on the several towns and villages within their
   jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called
   sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts
   within their province, whose office was regarded as one of
   great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such
   sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear
   of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the
   monarch."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 7._

SATTAGYDÆ, The.

      See GEDROSIANS.

SATURNALIA, The Roman.

   "The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication
   [of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the
   Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally
   over seven days, during which all social distinctions were
   ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters;
   and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to
   hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were
   taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed
   by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro
   mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during
   this festival; and when we remember the other usage of
   suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel
   beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies
   between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become
   more apparent."

      _C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      chapter 6. _

SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

{2806}

SAUCY CASTLE.

      See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.

SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.

SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).

   A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes
   in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the
   Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which
   is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SAULTEUR, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.

SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).

SAUROMATÆ, The.

      See SCYTHIANS.

SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732.
   The founding of the city.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Activity of the Liberty Party.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778.
   Taken and occupied by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779.
   Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.
   Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands
   at the mouth of the river.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH
      CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.
   Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,
   and sealing up of the port.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864.
   Confederate evacuation.
   Sherman in possession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

SAVANNAHS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SAVENAY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.

SAVERNE:
    Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.

      See STEAM ENGINE.

SAVONA, The Pope at.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

SAVONAROLA, in Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT:
   The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century.
   The founders of the House of Savoy.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.
   Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,
   in Italy and the Burgundian territory.
   Creation of the duchy.
   Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

   "The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands
   immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides
   of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding
   several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed
   their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to
   the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the
   growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not
   seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy
   with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the
   11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their
   earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian
   districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,
   and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the
   Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth
   of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region
   was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates
   of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a
   most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of
   Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in
   a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,
   predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries
   those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in
   Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered
   on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in
   Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the
   sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th
   centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their
   own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at
   Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it
   must be remembered that their position as princes at once
   Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian
   dominions of the family remained for a long while quite
   secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of
   Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition
   of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final
   incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were
   still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions
   through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of
   the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a
   royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was
   next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of
   the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy
   [1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who
   plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,
   these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along
   a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and
   reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion
   north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short
   time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of
   Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came
   into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.
   The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether
   surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to
   the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of
   the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical
   transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that
   annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other
   districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small
   Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.
{2807}
   The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was
   ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century
   [1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by
   Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether
   changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the
   city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese
   counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often
   been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now
   that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they
   began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The
   acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the
   famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who
   received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who
   was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

   In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both
   sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the
   Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and
   Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion
   of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône,
   surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of
   the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian
   dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed
   [1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea.
   … After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house
   consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which
   this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house
   of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great
   extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century,
   among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and
   Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of
   Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. …
   Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451],
   the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking
   in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as
   Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian
   dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the
   sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the
   Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy
   now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took
   the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince.
   His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state,
   Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9,
      volume 2, chapters 1-6._

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.
   Alliance with Venice and Naples.
   War with Milan and Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.
   Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.
   Loss of the Vidommate.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544.
   Conquest by the French and restoration to
   the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
   End of the French occupation.
   Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.
   His reconstruction of the state.
   Treaties with the Swiss.
   War with the Waldenses.
   Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.
   Settlement of government at Turin.

   "The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy
   terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,
   Piedmont was born again.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the
   very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a
   third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by
   five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the
   trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work
   of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was
   providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford
   to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France
   at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed,
   the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or
   within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with
   the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless,
   to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of
   Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored
   to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and
   Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be
   occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the
   differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the
   dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original
   cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the
   five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to
   retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up
   VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti
   and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of
   settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert
   found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No
   words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the
   French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their
   neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself
   at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at
   this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had
   had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own
   State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same
   moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to
   avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it
   unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with
   his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the
   country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House
   of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany,
   etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and
   most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of
   the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and
   felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the
   Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full
   well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these
   foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and
   that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be
   indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.'
   Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to
   secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive
   dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which
   made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally
   urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences
   with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de
   Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power
   of the confederates.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

{2808}

   It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part
   with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it
   was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery.
   A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst
   whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had
   introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. …
   Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation.
   … Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of
   the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel
   Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid
   aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause
   to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's
   camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into
   opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke
   of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with
   Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even
   Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their
   Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat
   stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty
   of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne
   retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered
   Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais
   also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of
   Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the
   recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on
   all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the
   Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the
   Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by
   which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same
   treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and
   worship to those of her subjects who had embraced
   Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in
   fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in
   Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire
   how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in
   general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the
   Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian
   ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at
   800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new
   tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered
   into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own
   creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas,
   identifying themselves especially with the disciples of
   Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted
   sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who
   stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and
   revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the
   enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys
   continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged
   district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a
   safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes."
   In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so
   much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses
   "assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the
   Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent
   4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de
   la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its
   horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of
   La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders;
   and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant
   volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it
   was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his
   subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated
   checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour
   on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full
   amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their
   own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented
   to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to
   a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour
   satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud
   reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the
   bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand
   the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in
   opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In
   his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel
   Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings
   of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the
   regeneration of the country could only find their development
   in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of
   the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the
   people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a
   beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism
   in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the
   prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means
   than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which
   Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this
   great prince was the nationalization of the State. He
   established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that
   city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano,
   and the university which had been provisionally opened at
   Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan
   honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the
   French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It
   dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel
   Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls.
   … It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine
   provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the
   dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them."
   Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son,
   Charles Emanuel.

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

{2809}

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
   Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.
   Profitable infidelities in war.
   The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

   Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was
   enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son
   Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active
   in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound
   him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the
   League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he
   seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved
   himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of
   Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in
   exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to
   Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved
   unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel
   brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat.
   This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose
   male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see
   the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor
   Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of
   Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and
   Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the
   policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a
   daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till
   nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his
   predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who
   succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at
   first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came
   of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His
   great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy
   had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime
   republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and
   to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in
   1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But
   Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a
   dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke
   off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of
   Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and
   successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the
   great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long
   dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he
   first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His
   faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with
   the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few
   years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for
   Sardinia."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 12, section 9._

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592.
   French invasion of the Vaudois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598.
   Invasion by the French.
   Peace with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.
   French invasion.
   Cession of territory to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.
   Abortive attempt upon Geneva.
   Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline War.
   Alliance with France.
   Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.
   French invasion.
   Extension of territory.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.
   Alliance with France against Spain.
   Civil war and foreign war.-
   Sieges of Turin.
   Territory restored.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655.
   Second persecution of the Waldenses.

      See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690.
   Joins the Grand Alliance against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691.
   Overrun by the armies of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691.
   Toleration granted to the Vaudois.

      See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693.
   French victory at Marsaglia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.
   Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.
   Treaty with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713.
   Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719.
   Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia,
   with the title of King.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792.
   Savoy annexed to the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796.
   Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.
   Piedmont taken by the French.
   Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815.
   Cession of a part of Savoy to France.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860.
   Final cession of Savoy to France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------

SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

SAWÂD, THE.

   "The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole
   fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit
   to the Persian Gulf."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26, foot-note._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

SAXE-COBURG,
SAXE-GOTHA,
SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553;
      and WEIMAR.

SAXON HEPTARCHY.

      See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).

   The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the
   coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight,
   which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

   ----------SAXONS: Start--------

SAXONS, The.

   "In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of
   the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century
   later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,
   who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.
   130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found
   employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of
   Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be
   inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there
   is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be
   supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to
   strength and power in a moment.
{2810}
   It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and
   Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better
   known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …
   The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have
   been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the
   nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those
   between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name
   implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an
   occasional combination for attack or defence."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name
   Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of
   Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more
   specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast,
   and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe,
   and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons
   on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the
   Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The
   reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was
   a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us
   Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name
   for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The
   Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one
   in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman
   and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only
   question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic
   (Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole,
   that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in
   the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial,
   and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term,
   or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of
   the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import.
   Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of
   the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon
   islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of
   the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was
   whose name eventually comprised populations as different as
   the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus
   in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians,
   Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was
   German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena,
      section 48._

      See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES;
      and ANGLES AND JUTES.

SAXONS:
   The sea-rovers of the 5th century.

   "At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris,
   Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend
   Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then
   chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon
   pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we
   suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a
   contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if
   not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford
   under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the
   kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point
   of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered
   on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge
   with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and
   your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just
   sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the
   duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming
   along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the
   curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that
   nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them
   is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at
   once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business
   of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more
   than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the
   most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when
   expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his
   path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always
   succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he
   never fails when he desires to effect his own escape.
   Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather
   than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them,
   not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a
   tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the
   invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the
   crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best
   chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then
   again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the
   hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own
   country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their
   prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast
   lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of
   death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth
   man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more
   lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that
   they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying
   themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting
   themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think
   the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their
   gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of
   ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 3._

SAXONS: A. D. 451.
   At the Battle of Chalons.

   In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius
   brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great
   and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is
   mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they,
   whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has
   been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles
   and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in
   part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own
   subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the
   Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at
   once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to
   defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in
   Normandy or Picardy."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3._

SAXONS: A. D. 477-527.
   Conquests in Britain.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

{2811}

SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
   Conquest by Charlemagne.

   "In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great
   league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one
   point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on
   the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse
   and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body,
   active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation,
   operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered
   them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to
   all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. …
   They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands
   scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon
   beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at
   different times, all those on the coast of France and in the
   British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and
   more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on
   land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean,
   constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental
   countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a
   manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost
   their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all
   nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of
   the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering
   in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation
   ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north.
   Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude
   of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent
   tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present
   know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and
   continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age,
   accomplishing great things by desultory and individual
   efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and
   comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst
   them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch,
   and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was
   for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief
   might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at
   the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under
   Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed
   to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was
   completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his
   frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very
   existence of the nations around."

      _G. P. R. James,
      History of Charlemagne,
      book 3._

   For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact,
   of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank
   kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them
   among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy.
   Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit
   themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they
   repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the
   conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to
   have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done
   in it before him. His first expedition into their country was
   undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from
   the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It
   was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters
   of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons
   called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected
   with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who
   destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in
   the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to
   guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next
   summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser
   with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and
   gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made
   Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and
   there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified
   the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large
   numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in
   May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who
   could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor
   bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a
   Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and
   friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in
   Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising
   which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and
   Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there
   were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and
   destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of
   the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and
   at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons
   suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the
   Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and
   slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this
   reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at
   Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the
   Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten
   desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted
   Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint—
   and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend,
   the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very
   color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave
   way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the
   Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies
   against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt
   to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve
   years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the
   Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them
   were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere;
   others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great
   rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors
   on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The
   Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of' Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 16-17._

   ----------SAXONS: End--------

{2812}

SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

   "The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the
   latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a
   Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or
   Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character
   which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking
   portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their
   name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion;
   we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some
   parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that
   nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same
   influence which the same causes exercised over the
   Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced
   into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic
   language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech
   at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic
   speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely
   retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently
   find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the
   Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech
   and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin
   must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in
   nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants
   of the Danish districts of England."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 4._

   ----------SAXONY: Start--------

SAXONY:
   The old Duchy.

   "The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the
   Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from
   France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern
   or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the
   Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some
   sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable
   of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands
   gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on
   as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon
   duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D.
   1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title
   of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of
   those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the
   ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to
   the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name
   may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of
   Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian
   remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic
   conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these
   lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it
   was within their limits that the various states arose which
   have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the
   descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial
   lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so
   far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held
   their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of
   Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one
   Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the
   usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took
   their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel,
   the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The
   Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was
   raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it
   was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of
   Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and
   afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title
   remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 1._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024.
   The Imperial House.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
   Revolt against Henry IV.

   The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the
   imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of
   Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry
   IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority
   encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his
   rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked
   their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people,
   and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their
   necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles,
   distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent,
   the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke
   out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man,
   from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg,
   a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a
   residence upon a commanding height. After useless
   negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he
   then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here
   and there it began to be said that he must be entirely
   abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the
   cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some
   time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms."
   Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed,
   enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a
   strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early
   summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have
   restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his
   headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of
   extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and
   their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt,
   at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order
   resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech
   [against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce
   hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the
   Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre.
   … It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the
   mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though
   of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it
   was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening
   of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by
   kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own
   camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was
   crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to
   have established the imperial throne again." But little more
   than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope
   Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted
   by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained
   a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next
   year he died.

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 142._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152.
   The origin of the electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

{2813}

SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
   The dissolution of the old duchy.

   In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and
   Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND
   GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud,
   in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of
   Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud
   died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the
   name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to
   the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the
   son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to
   renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was
   succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick
   Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young
   Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of
   his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his
   own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions
   still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the
   tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg
   region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the
   princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful
   in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and
   raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose
   a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter
   embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy,
   with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter
   was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the
   Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations
   were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly
   summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused
   to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally
   declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban"
   was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed
   Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his
   states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of
   injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy,
   had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command
   Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho,
   Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of
   Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others,
   levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia,
   which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of
   their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle,
   in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were
   too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually
   fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he
   took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose
   daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years
   he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates
   in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were
   divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part
   of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the
   remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When
   Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he
   had recovered were divided between his three sons.

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      book 4 (volume 1)._

   Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial
   fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,
   —Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and
   Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of
   Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
   The later Duchy and Electorate.
   The House of Wettin.
   Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.

   "When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in
   1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was
   given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear,
   Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants
   in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor
   Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of
   Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of
   Thuringen."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, page 426._

   This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that
   name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of
   Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.
   "The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures
   [1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high
   individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to
   combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly
   by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three
   separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the
   Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the
   ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very
   great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the
   earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might
   fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,
   till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of
   primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing
   but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and
   never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in
   consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the
   race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was
   succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes
   governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but
   then made a partition from which began the separation of the
   Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards
   in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …
   boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,
   besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round
   Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon
   country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.
   Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take
   the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we
   may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do
   you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what
   is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior
   territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a
   Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each
   city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,
   at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or
   Albertine Line. …
{2814}
   As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at
   Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was
   their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had
   Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had
   the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any
   Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …
   Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur
   (Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not
   marry and there was only one other brother, were not further
   divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,
   was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the
   Diet of Worms in 1521.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

   He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the
   Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man.
   He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his
   term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther),
   having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was
   Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der
   Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies;
   lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him
   into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever
   since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor
   in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of
   Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and
   little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom,
   to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was
   Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had
   such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old
   religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the
   new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two
   years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern
   parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son,
   and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in
   English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and
   War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant
   cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said
   cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him
   to the second rank ever since.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

   This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we
   left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the
   Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with
   Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz
   kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his
   Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed
   into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which
   dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day
   [1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as
   Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or
   honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary,
   diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken
   small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha,
   Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere
   genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name:
   Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg,
   etc.]."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The Prinzenraub
      (Essays, volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Shoberl,
      Historical Account of the House of Saxony._

SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512.
   Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546.
   The Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,
      1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.

SAXONY: A. D. 1525.
   The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established
   in the electorate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

SAXONY: A. D. 1539.
   Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.

      See: A. D. 1533-1546.

SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.
   Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
   Transfer of the electorate to him.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

SAXONY: A. D. 1619.
   Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand,
   against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631.
   Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.
   His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.
   The battle of Breitenfeld.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632.
   The Elector and his army in Bohemia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

SAXONY: A. D. 1633.
   Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SAXONY: A. D. 1634.
   Desertion of the Protestant cause.
   The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAXONY: A. D. 1645.
   Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SAXONY: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SAXONY: A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698.
   The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.

SAXONY: A. D. 1706.
   Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SAXONY: A. D. 1733.
   Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne,
   enforced by Russia and Austria.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

SAXONY: A. D. 1740.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Alliance against Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.
   Subjugation by Prussia.
   The Peace of Dresden.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

SAXONY: A. D. 1755.
   Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.
   Causes of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1756.
   Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.
   Occupied by the Austrians.
   Mostly recovered by Frederick.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.

SAXONY: A. D. 1763.
   The end and results of the Seven Years War.
   The electorate restored.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

{2815}

SAXONY: A. D. 1806.

   The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of
   Napoleon, and is made a king.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1807.
   Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

SAXONY: A. D. 1809.
   Risings against the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SAXONY: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Allies.
   Regained by the French.
   Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.
   French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.
   Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.
   The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.
   French surrender of Dresden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
      to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.
   The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAXONY: A. D. 1817.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March).
   Revolutionary outbreak.
   Concessions to the people.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).

SAXONY: A. D. 1849.
   Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

SAXONY: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity to Prussia.
   Union with the North German Confederation.
   See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Embraced in the new German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).

   ----------SAXONY: End--------

SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.

      See WALES, PRINCE OF.

SCALDIS, The.
   The ancient name of the river Scheldt.

SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.

   "Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it
   is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to
   commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents,
   and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to
   whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit
   confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in
   society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among
   the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the
   Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in
   every case of law or property in which the past had to be
   applied to the present. Before the introduction of
   Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written
   documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of
   writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the
   pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record
   were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The
   scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of
   wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. …
   The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian
   priests were established through the country. They were
   superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the
   art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to
   maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of
   the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."

      _S. Laing,
      The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,
      chapter 1._

   "At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising
   their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian
   skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in
   mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair
   (872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as
   thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry
   was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the
   professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion
   presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age
   of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald
   he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he
   would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds
   became a very significant factor in the literary development
   of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."

      _F. W. Horn,
      History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
      part 1, chapter 1._

SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338;
      also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

SCAMANDER, The.

      See TROJA.

SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.

      See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

   ----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
   Early history.

   "Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the
   Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of
   the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must
   treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as
   compilations made up from isolated and detached
   traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was
   described, and in which the links and the connections between
   the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of
   the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to
   a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great
   temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the
   same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern
   historian to do? In the first place he must take the
   contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his
   supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted
   by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the
   two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while
   in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent
   evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the
   glimmers of light that have reached us."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      Early History of Sweden
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9)._

{2816}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
   Their relationships in language and blood.

   "Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden
   it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical
   boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood.
   But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in
   actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected
   with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick
   partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a
   Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are
   two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or
   German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to
   the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the
   Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark,
   though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the
   real differences being exaggerated by differences of
   orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the
   ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old
   German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather
   than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue,
   is the common property of all, and so is the old literature
   with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief
   heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is
   preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it
   may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians
   denominate it Old Norse. …

      See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.

   The histories of the three countries are alike in their
   general character though different in detail. Denmark when we
   have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true
   historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the
   parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan
   and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the
   Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it
   ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German
   alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and
   in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the
   kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the
   civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and,
   for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts.
   Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern
   neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and
   indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern
   provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when
   kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In
   the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term
   being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the
   blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is
   it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists
   agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least),
   or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no
   means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of
   either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the
   German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North
   Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in
   Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported
   themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves
   towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and
   Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations
   intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added
   that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each
   side of the question."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Nationalities of Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 37._

      See, also,
      GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      page 236._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.
   Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries.
   Formation of the Three Kingdoms.

   "At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian
   peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming.
   A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the
   kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes
   separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these
   three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the
   Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general
   European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the
   half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the
   Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held
   in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical
   extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them.
   Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are
   from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland.
   The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save
   during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish
   frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the
   two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under
   Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen,
   which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian
   nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These
   were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late
   in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched
   far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an
   indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as
   the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the
   northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the
   Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian
   settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were
   those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or
   Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that
   of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths'
   to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each
   side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay
   on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is
   guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and
   Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries
   towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland,
   immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther
   to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of
   the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and
   Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the
   southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land
   between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land
   thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to
   the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the
   course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to
   spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had
   thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for
   extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and
   Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic
   conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 11, section 1._

{2817}

   "Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in
   Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each
   presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little
   territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of
   human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of
   'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and
   small combinations of these, which had gradually formed
   themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with
   them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this
   state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his
   country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of
   it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father,
   Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary
   process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who
   conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's
   birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known
   only by inference and computation; but, by the latest
   reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83.
   The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A.
   D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the
   out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more
   years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had
   conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and
   success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over
   70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud
   Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland,
   to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant
   (tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir,
   or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles,
   the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and
   settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say,
   settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of
   all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The Early Kings of Norway,
      chapter 1._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century.
   Introduction of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
   The empire of Canute and its dissolution.
   Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.
   The Folkungas in Sweden.
   Rise of Denmark.
   The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.

   "A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute
   the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of
   Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole
   of Norway to his dominions.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042

   The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the
   Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes,
   appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men
   with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might
   have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and
   West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell
   asunder on his death and his successors sink again into
   insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page
   illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the
   Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the
   Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the
   attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise
   itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from
   their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern
   shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia,
   were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness
   was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised
   and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to
   its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his
   power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a
   death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes
   who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark
   relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to
   the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar
   it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased
   within the country, new enemies arose around it. The
   Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it.
   The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania,
   Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now
   appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose
   rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich
   cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to
   assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by
   strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came
   to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A
   count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for
   fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the
   country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious
   house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in
   anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the
   assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared
   of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real
   beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from
   1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became
   the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite
   establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of
   his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards
   the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a
   new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A
   powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the
   old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of
   mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without
   children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The
   infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne,
   and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as
   the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as
   natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As
   regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness
   of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th
   century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the
   conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of
   Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and
   Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their
   unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed
   by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed
   some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of
   succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted
   the country."
{2818}
   In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the
   crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of
   these descendants among themselves, and the contests which
   were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with
   imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon
   unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A
   prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the
   10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined
   later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to
   call himself its King. These were times indeed in which
   conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting,
   and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark.
   Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than
   they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the
   three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no
   interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived
   it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been
   marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by
   the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after
   the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list
   of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord
   the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise
   herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar
   not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence
   which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The
   new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to
   the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert
   was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up,
   on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking
   (which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as
   the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back
   Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland,
   and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade
   within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving
   the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish
   monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter
   enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of
   Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the
   combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was
   only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former
   privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen
   years possession of the better part of Scania and its
   revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all
   sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for
   their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the
   reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy
   prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his
   death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children,
   became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had
   married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of
   Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the
   attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms,
   supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures,
   secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child,
   who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as
   well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won
   the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf
   himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by
   the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already
   shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in
   Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the
   banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had
   reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she
   easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and
   making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her
   nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as
   her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn
   meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three
   Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of
   Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was
   achieved."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Geijer,
      History of the Swedes,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.
   Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
   Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.
   The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.
   Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.
   The introduction of the Reformation.

   The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which
   Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397,
   under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the
   right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by
   the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there
   were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be
   governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the
   common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated
   to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved
   the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several
   bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by
   Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was
   turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the
   Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the
   island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death.
   The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son
   of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in
   1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their
   king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose
   Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was
   compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost
   Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of
   Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and
   crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all
   the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn,
   recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I.
   became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein
   from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period
   with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after
   Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in
   Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the
   Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October
   1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now
   enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King
   was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern
   provinces of Sweden.
{2819}
   Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The
   Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by
   renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly
   establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died
   in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son
   and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive
   connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his
   accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern
   towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck;
   and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France,
   England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in
   his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle
   [Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the
   administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him
   with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle.
   … In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near
   Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French
   sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a
   battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having
   proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected
   in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the
   administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an
   interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way
   for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation;
   though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a
   sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture
   was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake
   Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in
   spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but
   expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd
   1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala,
   after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that
   Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of
   Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty.
   Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was
   admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the
   command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly
   manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he
   took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. …
   The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a
   place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to
   proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through
   the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection
   of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in
   all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson,
   … a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections,
   talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown,
   afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither
   by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a
   hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity,
   in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly
   entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later
   his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant,
   and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its
   love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in
   peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his
   pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of
   Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers;
   he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the
   people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men,"
   out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were
   wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but
   the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill,
   was protracted two years. During this period his command was
   legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles,
   at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to
   him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The
   Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from
   Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve
   Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish
   crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution
   that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of
   Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The
   Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the
   Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to
   recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied
   that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for
   their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of
   Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm
   surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped
   to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an
   expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him
   a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the
   castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur
   until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating
   his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by
   examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of
   the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. …
   Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in
   1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had
   studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The
   Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them
   his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with
   Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced
   to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils
   of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the
   Reformation was introduced.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Watson,
      The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa._

      _A. Alberg,
      Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times._

{2820}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
   (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.
   Accession of Frederick I.

   (Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.
   The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.
   Wars with Russia and Denmark.
   The Baltic question.
   Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and
   his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,
   Resulting hostilities.

   "Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very
   religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran
   country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the
   lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and
   also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as
   he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is,
   they all wished to maintain the union of the three
   Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were,
   therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other
   great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:

   (1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character
   of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great
   victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and
   Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later
   time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the
   peasants and crippled the activity of the State.

   (2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes,
   and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France,
   and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish
   commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of
   the Hanseatic League.

   (3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of
   territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which,
   however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was
   certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and
   which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the
   great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.

   His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State,
   already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and
   the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks
   to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea
   on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for
   Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest
   which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the
   death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the
   province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously
   fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This
   was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden;
   herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium
   Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face
   with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the
   possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great
   Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to
   anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help
   to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight,
   recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric
   concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North
   began to assume their natural relation to each other. The
   Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English
   sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor
   as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of
   Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the
   hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in
   an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North
   Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself
   produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms
   of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish
   nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for
   Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution,
   the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the
   great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he
   made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence
   of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than
   abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped
   back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious
   man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a
   certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the
   yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to
   drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was
   one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to
   Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared
   to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia;
   thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and
   foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of
   his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his
   marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion
   with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all
   years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period
   of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572,
   and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the
   Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the
   other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son
   Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of
   Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden
   with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund
   succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost
   certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country,
   in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the
   consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and
   Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject,
   the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would
   have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to
   consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without
   forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of
   extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been
   observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the
   people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania,
   the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the
   best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied
   upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's
   death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an
   usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs
   increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund
   came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000
   crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the
   restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had
   already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems
   little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We
   are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know
   that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In
   1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been
   chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When
   Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he
   could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the
   kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently
   confirmed the power of the Regent.
{2821}
   The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre,
   which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in
   1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be
   only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the
   crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a
   revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was
   massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon
   his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have
   begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000
   Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on
   September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by
   which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send
   away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was
   obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following
   year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the
   remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July,
   1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led
   to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which
   played such an important part in the history of Northern
   Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly
   crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa
   monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus
   Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the
   descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince
   who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso
   facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any
   change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor.
   Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one
   crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"

      _C. R. L. Fletcher,
      Gustavus Adolphus,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Geijer,
      History of the Swedes,
      volume 1, chapters 9-14._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.
   Accession of Christian III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.
   Accession of Frederick II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.
   Accession of Christian IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611.
   Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.
   The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.

   On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus,
   did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained
   without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will
   of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John),
   with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of
   the people could be made known in the customary manner. After
   an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. …
   Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been
   brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some
   just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid
   down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young
   king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of
   Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the
   first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom
   when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of
   Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50
   years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that
   long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and
   violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her
   boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her
   neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were
   united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and
   both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and
   were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as
   well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas.
   Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive
   and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in
   dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and
   Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year
   of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with
   Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were
   unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was
   once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he
   secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden
   renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes
   gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the
   end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of
   Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the
   Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of
   Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne,
   Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to
   continue for several years; though hostilities were not all
   the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time
   practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large
   area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important
   towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which
   makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been
   united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to
   be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory,
   also a long distance within the lines of the Russian
   population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The
   troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and
   extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to
   seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had
   sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of
   Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the
   crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for
   the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of
   Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring
   this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with
   Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from
   the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and
   security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the
   Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years
   of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with
   as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war
   between these two countries continued; … the advantages being
   generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not
   always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the
   mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon.
   "The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to
   Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from
   the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming
   Swedish territory. …
{2822}
   The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At
   the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which
   was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended,
   the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been
   reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively
   in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion
   and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise
   than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only
   supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of
   legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong
   influences on his side in European high political and
   religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by
   the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III.
   of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of
   Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to
   the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He
   was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had
   engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of
   Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to
   stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he
   promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were
   prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life.
   Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and
   sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being
   generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the
   winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia,
   carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring."
   Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish
   not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather
   protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with
   peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In
   August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet
   and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place
   was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again
   the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is
   declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one
   in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors
   and cares to the interior administration of his country. In
   the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of
   the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the
   completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of
   Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care."
   The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof,
   January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to
   transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to
   those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and
   approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of
   Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He
   [Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and
   the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested,
   with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did
   not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26
   the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that
   city without much resistance, the garrison being small. …
   Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg
   surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by
   Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many
   towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus
   rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the
   frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of
   1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the
   groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the
   neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right
   shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement
   at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being
   inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an
   armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent
   kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms
   were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the
   elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice.
   Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other
   towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be
   accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was
   declared free between the two nations."

      _J. L. Stevens,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapters 3 and 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Chapman,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapters 2-4._

      See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.
   The Protestant Alliance.
   Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.
   The Treaty of Lübeck.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627.
   The country overrun by Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.
   Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.
   The relief of Stralsund.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.
   The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   His death.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631.
   Treaty of Barwalde with France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.
   Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.
   The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.
   Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.
   War between Sweden and Denmark.
   Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.
   The Peace of Bromsebro.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.
   Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.
   Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland
   and Denmark and in Germany.
   Establishment of absolutism.

   "Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus,
   had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess
   Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the
   year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency
   was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had
   inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the
   most learned and accomplished woman of her time.
{2823}
   She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste
   for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while
   she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent
   money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds.
   … As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she
   had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind,
   fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother,
   Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished
   crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In
   the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into
   parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and
   the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The
   clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the
   oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated
   to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had
   granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken
   from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war
   seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to
   marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate,
   entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in
   earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she
   proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl
   Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of
   the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of
   Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted
   by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and
   by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her
   profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the
   property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had
   conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her
   old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her
   wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally
   accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling
   through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and
   entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her
   cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the
   Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to
   Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then,
   nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the
   council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to
   gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all
   schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she
   died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of
   Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder
   and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in
   active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan
   Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne,
   drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a
   soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with
   which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a
   three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a
   worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus
   Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to
   keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the
   increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to
   attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced
   into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the
   excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against
   them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving
   only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he
   turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace
   signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of
   Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania,
   Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained
   natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first
   Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the
   power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his
   attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five
   times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to
   Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly
   destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it
   seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the
   English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish
   king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with
   the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing
   to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the
   winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By
   the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under
   the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI.,
   was only four years old when he became king. … Every
   department of the government was left to suffer from
   mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences
   of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were
   unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of
   money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money
   from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired
   out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of
   things the young king grew up without receiving any very
   careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th
   year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere
   exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in
   conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded
   with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in
   the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.

   Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without
   opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these
   forces could form a junction with the French troops then
   encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them
   unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The
   losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the
   result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old
   rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark
   declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he
   had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or
   money, resolved for the future to take the management of
   public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began
   the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he
   found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the
   land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.
   The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and
   supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of
   whose ships were burnt or sunk.
{2824}
   This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by
   Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered
   hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without
   heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from
   daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the
   field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The
   Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,
   leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they
   several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering
   the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their
   ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the
   Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,
   Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege
   in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to
   enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace
   which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,
   and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,
   by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden
   recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied
   during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and
   Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of
   this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom
   in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been
   wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other
   restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so
   humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a
   diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had
   the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He
   attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically
   unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest
   of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.

      _E. C. Otté,
      Scandinavian History,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia to 1740,
      chapter 5._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Battle-Fields of Germany,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.
   Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.
   Accession of Frederick III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.
   Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.
   Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.
   Accession of Christian V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.
   In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):
      A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697.
   Accession of Charles XII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.
   The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.
   and how he met it
   First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.

   "Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself
   the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and
   Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg,
   the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of
   Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all
   of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the
   king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It
   was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the
   supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had
   no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but
   the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to
   be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his
   court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and
   represented him as such to their respective masters. The
   Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his
   real character: he did not even know it himself, until the
   storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity
   of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain
   concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his
   youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first
   was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second,
   Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the
   Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. …
   The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a
   conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the
   Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He
   wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of
   Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he
   resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims
   upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a
   favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had
   lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the
   sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King
   of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories
   that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea,
   Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the
   Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the
   effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering.
   He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and
   took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that
   moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he
   never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the
   idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two
   conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he
   indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he
   reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly
   been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never
   clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to
   have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether
   there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear;
   certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women,
   not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to
   set an example of continence to his soldiers. …
{2825}
   He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of
   his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his
   brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men
   were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering
   upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head
   against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His
   dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp
   taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate
   siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This
   spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side,
   the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg
   Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On
   the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of
   Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the
   assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein
   was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from
   England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. …
   They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in
   danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first
   campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700,
   and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet
   consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the
   squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen.
   The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than
   six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty
   of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke
   of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him
   from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly
   at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the
   capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at
   the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great
   skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to
   abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had
   much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had
   now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to
   march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter
   had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head
   of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed
   with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none
   of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one
   good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without
   fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000
   regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it
   in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar
   learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200
   transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The
   Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not
   confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he
   left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles'
   motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th
   of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only
   8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of
   his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments.
   "The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious
   shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of
   the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost
   above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in
   their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the
   river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall,
   surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing
   the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at
   Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the
   work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he
   said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."

      _Voltaire,
      History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
      books 1-2._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.
   Accession of Frederick IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.
   Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.
   Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.
   Charles at the summit of his career.

   "Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded,
   retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in
   training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the
   field against his only remaining adversary, the King of
   Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered
   Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very
   place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged.
   Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered
   into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview
   which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was
   agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of
   50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army,
   having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent
   the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was
   effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the
   burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high
   wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from
   the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their
   intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500
   prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital
   of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns
   and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next
   passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and
   driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost
   precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little
   satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the
   very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the
   czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed
   the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means
   of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not
   tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of
   Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the
   treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be
   immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative
   remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The
   deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of
   arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where
   after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes.
   Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but
   marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist.
{2826}
   That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a
   contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince
   obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable
   rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental
   fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile
   preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the
   schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk
   (May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate
   Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the
   diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of
   Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon
   after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of
   Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to
   assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a
   diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed
   that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon
   others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded
   in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to
   complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had
   fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous
   prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their
   career from province to province, he had himself opened a
   passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial
   dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed
   in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars.
   Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented
   from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept
   in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so
   that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the
   conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the
   Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter
   in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and
   captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a
   conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns
   concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders
   in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men,
   under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate
   of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone,
   Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power
   of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed
   over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were
   overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after
   another was routed before they learned the defeat of their
   companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and
   reputation, was not more successful, having been completely
   beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander,
   in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town
   of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the
   cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles
   next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms.
   The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should
   renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus
   as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with
   Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to
   mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was
   increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld,
   near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which
   the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle.
   … The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner
   in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe
   with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of
   his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship.
   France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the
   Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned
   to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the
   declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and
   resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his
   envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an
   occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to
   succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his
   Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their
   religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia.
   … The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he
   had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to
   his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views
   increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice
   for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel
   his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession
   of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No
   enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."

      _A. Crichton,
      Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      pages 219-221._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.
   Charles XII. in Russia.
   His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
   His refuge among the Turks.
   His fruitless intrigues.
   His return to Sweden.
   His death.

   "From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September,
   1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to
   revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival,
   who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of
   20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708],
   strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the
   czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at
   Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations,
   he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that
   ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on
   the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the
   country; Charles, after having endured great privations,
   turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by
   Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the
   conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance.
   In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could
   throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but
   he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as
   a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered
   his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of
   his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was
   the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they
   had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care
   it was entrusted, had been forced into three general
   engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently
   distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was
   forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into
   the hands of the enemy.
{2827}
   Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign
   even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at
   once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid
   siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the
   Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal
   magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance
   obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel
   whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to
   his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous
   army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works,
   Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy,
   while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The
   desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but
   the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of
   rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery
   made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had
   been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in
   vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a
   dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish
   army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were
   left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about
   12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on
   the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the
   river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards,
   escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning
   all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of
   Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important
   consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one
   fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories;
   the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was
   completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were
   taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than
   death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the
   wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and
   drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and
   Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the
   victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a
   great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the
   German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy
   would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed
   a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he
   instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and
   flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head
   of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed
   on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these
   intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski,
   informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured
   the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most
   vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced
   (A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled
   all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of
   Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia,
   believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for
   delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the
   czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached
   the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian
   capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince
   Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by
   the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for
   them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman
   whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all
   the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to
   the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A
   treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on
   terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up
   Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the
   circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians
   retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only
   to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of
   intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the
   appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little
   inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary,
   warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove
   him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to
   linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from
   the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a
   resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined,
   with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the
   Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and
   conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the
   divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain
   in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have
   restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General
   Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had
   been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the
   Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the
   duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by
   burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an
   outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon
   after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his
   whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his
   conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign
   appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over
   the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his
   rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish
   senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace
   with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of
   returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the
   journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen
   days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached
   Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the
   opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with
   enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the
   united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the
   Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic,
   threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence,
   in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed
   bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having
   previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All
   Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he
   could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the
   inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that
   he had invaded Norway.
{2828}
   His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by
   the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who,
   taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the
   other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles
   should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. …
   While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded
   Norway a second time, and invested the castle of
   Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged
   in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was
   dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance
   [December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief
   for the loss

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Student's Manual of Modern History,
      chapter 7, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Schuyler,
      Peter the Great,
      chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2)._

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 18._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719.
   Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.
   Constitutional changes.
   Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.
   Swedish cessions of Territory.

   "An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719],
   and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared
   an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a
   council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were
   invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was
   reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was
   restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families.
   … In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden
   and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden
   were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in
   consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By
   another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support
   Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy
   of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice
   was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be
   arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to
   be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain
   the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus
   a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the
   preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great
   discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in
   Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia
   under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal
   articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia,
   Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract
   between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm
   and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side,
   engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million
   rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace
   between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement.
   … By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of
   Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all
   that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars
   and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only
   territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the
   greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of
   which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and
   Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At
   length, through the mediation of France, conferences were
   opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed,
   September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that
   [Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a
   part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at
   the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia
   to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden
   $2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that
   he had purchased that province."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.
   Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,
   husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.
   Wars with Russia and Prussia.
   Humiliating powerlessness of the king.
   The parties of the Hats and the Caps.
   A constitutional Revolution.
   Assassination of Gustavus III.

   Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the
   crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who
   became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign
   witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a
   part of that province to Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

   On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,
   and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.
   "Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign
   was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition
   of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of
   Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,
   on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of
   Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts
   which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles
   XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on
   the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the
   Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the
   Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,
   he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the
   invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The
   accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to
   Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon
   concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the
   example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in
   the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at
   harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by
   internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to
   the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to
   the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish
   monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the
   shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to
   render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four
   orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the
   peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it
   was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative
   authority.
{2829}
   It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy
   tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.
   All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he
   had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …
   The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he
   judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was
   passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the
   sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable
   than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on
   regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.
   This interference was resented by some of the members,
   belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be
   termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'
   who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of
   whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As
   Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured
   to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh
   and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm
   therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for
   the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father
   Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French
   money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher
   cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and
   to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new
   constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;
   enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent
   of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any
   already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to
   ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in
   matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not
   much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.
   On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this
   revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was
   odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated
   by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which
   followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the
   same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular
   in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious
   designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party
   restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as
   they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus
   III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one
   Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.
   Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but
   nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was
   succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the
   age of three years.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.
   Accession of Christian VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.
   Accession of Frederick V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751.
   Accession of Adolphus Frederick.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.
   Accession of Christian VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771.
   Accession of Gustavus Ill.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792.
   Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795.
   Peace with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.
   The Northern Maritime League.
   English bombardment of Copenhagen
   and summary extortion of peace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.
   Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.
   In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
   Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit.
   Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
   the Danish Fleet by the English.
   War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden,
   and conquest of Finland.
   Deposition of the Swedish king.

   On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia,
   meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the
   terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

   "There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which
   England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to
   be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's
   diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable
   us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part
   with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole
   to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his
   efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its
   provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not
   made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if
   England did not before the 1st of November make terms
   satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the
   two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
   to close their ports against the English, and were to unite
   their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of
   May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of
   Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news
   from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime
   Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent
   secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores
   with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been
   refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost
   no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were
   consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling
   Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information
   of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings
   were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the
   occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on
   account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify
   himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.
   Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of
   Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then
   at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,
   that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to
   be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of
   the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which
   was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he
   went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40
   frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of
   transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.
{2830}
   Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the
   military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a
   month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and
   before the final orders were given, ministers had such
   information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as
   left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish
   fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.
   Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time
   was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]
   the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon
   Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once
   more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown
   Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration
   of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no
   doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,
   however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the
   British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that
   it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of
   September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were
   surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by
   that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed
   by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the
   Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …
   Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,
   the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.
   One of the most painful features of the case is the
   confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made
   quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish
   merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.
   These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which
   we had carried off."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early
   in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her
   mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general
   peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the
   sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret
   articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its
   failure was made certain by the action of England in taking
   possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of
   November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was
   accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar.
   "Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and
   defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia
   to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his
   engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on
   which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an
   overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which
   by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 455-456
      (chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work)._

   In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to
   Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary,
   and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her
   vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and
   blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000
   men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all
   advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found
   the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind,
   proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for
   defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found
   to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution;
   Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off
   in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which
   had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland,
   the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides
   Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want;
   they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the
   King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. …
   As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects
   gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into
   the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor
   King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was
   setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment
   for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon
   made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809,
   and with France in the following January. Pomerania was
   restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great
   sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the
   Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against
   all communications with England."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the
   complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands
   east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland
   was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed
   after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other
   conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether
   'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia
   and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the
   Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same
   sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in
   everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are
   countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the
   crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a
   nation which were called into being by the will of the
   conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of
   the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that
   part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in
   exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the
   common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of
   Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and
   there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing
   constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The
   position of that State is best described in his own words.
   Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers
   who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French
   tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it
   was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'
   [Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it
   was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a
   nation of his own founding.
{2831}
   The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of
   the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the
   Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.
   All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession
   of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till
   the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.
   The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights
   of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was
   held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of
   the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the
   Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,
   and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had
   been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The
   boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very
   near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Finland
      (Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Monteith, editor,
      Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,
      by a Russian Officer (with appended documents)._

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.
   Accession of Frederick VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
   Accession of Charles XIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
   Granting of the Constitution.

      See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
   Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince
   and successor to the throne.

   The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the
   eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown
   Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the
   government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the
   nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th
   of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell
   from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again
   without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated
   the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the
   succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of
   Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte,
   had some right to expect his support. The son of the late
   unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named
   like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke
   of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had
   partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical
   objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession,
   and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be
   forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was
   concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of
   the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous
   crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent.
   Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of
   reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of
   Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to
   subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to
   choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to
   submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards
   her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this
   embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who
   proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown
   of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high
   noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte,
   Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married
   to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a
   wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom
   he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family
   of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the
   north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and
   administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion,
   Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular
   manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it
   was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange
   the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The
   Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy
   which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they
   thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world
   seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt,
   whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the
   Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name
   of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the
   wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been
   heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though
   certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was
   so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the
   Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to
   him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared,
   had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of
   any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for
   the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte
   submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of
   Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the
   empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of
   officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but
   without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he
   was compelled to do, although their character was in most
   instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed
   a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the
   most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by
   necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid,
   this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France,
   not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country
   rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being
   personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of
   his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by
   Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of
   positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while
   such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general,
   the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case,
   imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their
   throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable
   tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at
   variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view,
   he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of
   the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting,
   that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that
   the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that,
   however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a
   condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his
   hand.
{2832}
   It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could
   not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time
   exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his
   service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been
   favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove
   distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect
   of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand
   intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The
   Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice,
   notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French
   envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall,
   for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King
   of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold
   assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent,
   being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to
   his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of
   his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden
   by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 7._

      _Lady Bloomfield,
      Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield,
      volume 1, pages 17-34._

      _W. G. Meredith,
      Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
   Alliance with Russia against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.
   Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.
   Participation in the War of Liberation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Peace of Kiel.
   Cession of Norway to Sweden and
   of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

   "The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte
   [see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an
   armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel,
   January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to
   Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and
   Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway.
   Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had
   remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V.
   in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish
   Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the
   present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her
   connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian
   Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an
   attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of
   Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of
   Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed
   King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain
   and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather
   than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to
   decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet,
   assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI.
   also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th
   1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had
   been taken by the English, were restored."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.
   The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
   Fall of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
      and (MARCH-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

   "When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from
   Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused
   them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes
   appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of
   Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been
   guaranteed complete national independence that she consented
   to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement
   was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th
   of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway
   begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv),
   which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and
   hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th
   of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the
   6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of
   the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain,
   a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act
   of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must
   reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a
   matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence,
   the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad),
   which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of
   two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other
   Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do
   no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his
   ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above
   spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two
   ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in
   attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or
   Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government
   resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by
   the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The
   officials, who form what we should call the Government (as
   distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service),
   together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of
   the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If
   removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary
   until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing,
   Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the
   number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not
   more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the
   franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign
   affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation.
   There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and
   he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal
   administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts,
   called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of
   these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with
   its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about
   50,000) form each a separate Amt."

      _C. F. Keary,
      Norway and the Norwegians,
      chapter 13._

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815.
   Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.

      See VIENNA, CONGRESS.

{2833}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.
   Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839.
   Accession of Christian VIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844.
   Accession of Oscar I.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848.
   Accession of Frederick VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.
   First war with Prussia.

   "The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of
   modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is
   exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more
   northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In
   the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by
   Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the
   Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should
   be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to
   Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex
   history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard
   of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of
   the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the
   nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of
   Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a
   confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be
   united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was
   succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew
   Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the
   Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed
   in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward
   united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even
   this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the
   Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of
   the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if
   stress were laid on the various changes in the relations
   between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the
   unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding
   centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in
   1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before
   were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the
   King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the
   time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he
   governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of
   succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected
   amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the
   commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII.
   took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally
   to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a
   position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however,
   the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and
   Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the
   nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh
   connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the
   Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to
   influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined
   to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was
   maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son
   Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin
   Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son,
   afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no
   children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the
   crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the
   present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old
   undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which
   descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With
   this prospect before them it became very desirable for the
   Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the
   Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the
   King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and
   Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a
   declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of
   succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was
   more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his
   endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of
   Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the
   Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and
   the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of
   enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian
   VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last
   of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical
   moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the
   heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by
   these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary
   movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany
   across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of
   untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from
   Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing
   the former under its own constitution to form part of the
   German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the
   German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he
   offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by
   formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing
   to Prussia the office of mediation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

   War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the
   revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under
   these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were
   ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had
   pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol
   which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,
   France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document
   settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,
   in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,
   Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of
   succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as
   practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of
   1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell
   Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which
   was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all
   the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of
   the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies
   was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present
   reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish
   Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German
   Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were
   reserved.
{2834}
   The declaration was made in accordance with the views of
   Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in
   the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which
   was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark
   laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of
   the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne
   and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol
   of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the
   Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had
   given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges
   were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years
   made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.
   … The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a
   constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of
   1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of
   1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating
   the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by
   incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly
   German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig
   resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression
   of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,
   and they argued that, under the engagements which had been
   contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in
   constitutional changes of this character. This argument added
   heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,
   while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in
   Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the
   affairs of the entire Kingdom."

      _S. Walpole,
      Life of Lord John Russell,
      chapter 30 (volume 2)._

   In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important
   battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were
   superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use
   of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position.
   "After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in
   the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of
   the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an
   armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April
   following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded
   Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the
   Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade,
   retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and
   commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the
   invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody
   combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to
   evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced
   the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge,
   in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a
   Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of
   340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the
   6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia.
   "The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96
   officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole
   siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was
   immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly
   the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at
   Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and
   which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described
   above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the
   insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and
   were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from
   Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and
   Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the
   25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody
   conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000
   men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious
   slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of
   Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were
   killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that
   of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly
   severe."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapter 53._

   From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But
   in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of
   London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian
   of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the
   Schleswig-Holstein question.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Gosch,
      Denmark and Germany since 1815,
      chapters 3-9._

      _A Forgotten War
      (Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von
      Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 "). _

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.
   The Danish constitution.
   Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

   Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The
   principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king
   of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the
   monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the
   constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power,
   but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly
   (Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and
   renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the
   Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or
   encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is
   sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility.
   The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is
   the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a
   seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly)
   meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has
   lasted for two months at least. It consists of two
   Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower
   Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66
   members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven
   chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of
   Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral
   districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or
   rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of
   them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional
   or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one
   moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the
   franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected
   from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every
   rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised
   members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for
   three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there
   are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House
   is elected by manhood suffrage.
{2835}
   Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no
   stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright
   of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a
   year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does
   not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private
   persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers
   of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal
   footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. …
   At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not
   working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have
   gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal,
   or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the
   Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against
   an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The
   dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn
   so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public
   interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has
   not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents
   chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the
   mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I
   said in the beginning that I would tell you how the
   constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have
   only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old
   Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed
   from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was
   re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a
   consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct
   its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position
   should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its
   anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country
   had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of
   laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in
   administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every
   successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a
   proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the
   country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found
   entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions
   of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September
   23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures
   for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the
   monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the
   country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately,
   the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration
   and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for
   1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in
   the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant
   dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their
   laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs,
   but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to
   incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of
   Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could
   understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was
   brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that
   it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own
   home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing
   (but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the
   royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal,
   quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their
   case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon
   Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give
   Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly
   meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only
   partially complied with, and from the first the charter met
   with but scanty popularity."

      _E. Magnusson,
      Denmark and Iceland
      (National Life and Thought, chapter 12)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855.
   In the alliance against Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859.
   Accession of Charles XV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863.
   Accession of Christian IX.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.
   Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872.
   Accession of Oscar II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890.
   Population.

   By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of
   Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway
   2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census
   taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

      _Statesman's Year-Book, 1894._

   ----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------

SCANZIA, Island of.

   The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some
   ancient writers.

      See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

SCHAH,
SHAH.

      See BEY.

SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

      See CAUCASUS.

SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

SCHELLENBERG, or
HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690.
   Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

SCHEPENS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHILL'S RISING.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SCHISM, The Great.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

SCHISM ACT.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.

      See ILLYRIANS.

SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.

SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SCHŒNE, The.

   An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in
   the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no
   standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

      See PARASANG.

{2836}

SCHOFIELD, General J. M.
   Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),
      and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

   The Atlanta Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
      to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

   Campaign against Hood.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SCHOLARII.

   The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern
   Roman Empire.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 20._

SCHOLASTICISM.
SCHOOLMEN.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.

   "Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished
   foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to
   second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came
   from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men
   into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever
   he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his
   liberality; and learned men who, after following him into
   Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became
   strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He
   was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual
   state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the
   continent; letters and schools prospered there more than
   anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that
   of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York
   possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan
   antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which
   it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge
   of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for
   from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in
   which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which
   they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In
   780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of
   his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission
   to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope
   and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he
   came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at
   once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some
   hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the
   permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The
   permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in
   the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys,
   those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of
   St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth,
   Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual
   prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to
   796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne,
   Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of
   the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went,
   and at which were regularly present all those who were with
   the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the
   course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to
   believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself
   generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in
   the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather
   than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that
   movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and
   satisfied, was its chief merit."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 22 (volume 3)._

      See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. West,
      Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools._

SCHOOLS.

      See EDUCATION.

SCHÖNBRUNN,
   Treaty of (1806).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

   Treaty of (1809).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

   The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of
   Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 6._

   "In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes
   the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating
   parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt,
   and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers
   or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

      _Van Leeuwen,
      Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law,
      quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland,
      volume 1, page 101, foot-note,
      and volume 2, page 212._

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.
   Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCHWEIDNITZ:
   Captured and recaptured.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

SCINDE,
SINDH.

   "Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean.
   It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of
   water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is
   part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and
   west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan;
   the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. …
   Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder
   Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud
   of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).

   "In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of
   the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of
   Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …
   The connection of the British government with Sindh had its
   origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a
   'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India
   Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the
   province. … In their relations with the British government the
   Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign
   interference. Several treaties were made with them from time
   to time.
{2837}
   In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,
   however, were not carried out because of the interposition of
   the British government, more intimate connection with the
   Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate
   for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short
   treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a
   British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the
   friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the
   contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government
   was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the
   Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation
   of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary
   dependence on the British government. New treaties became
   necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to
   negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,
   and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the
   Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked
   the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with
   2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in
   gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the
   result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

      _D. Ross,
      The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh,
      pages 1-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mohan Lal,
      Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

      See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

SCIO.

   See CHIOS.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR,
   Destruction of Carthage by.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

SCIR-GEREFA.

   See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SCIRONIAN WAY, The.

   "The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the
   eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara
   it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of
   precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a
   spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the
   road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some
   difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath
   until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road
   throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by
   which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes
   over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the
   traveller equal or greater difficulties."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 8, section 71, foot-note._

SCLAVENES.
SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SCLAVONIC.

      See SLAVONIC.

SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

      See ILLYRIANS.

SCONE, Kingdom of.

      See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCORDISCANS, The.

   The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian
   people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the
   south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114
   they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two
   years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the
   Danube.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2)._

SCOT AND LOT.

   "Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable
   proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or
   national purposes."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3)._

SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

   "If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch
   Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main
   the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil,
   the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at
   Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the
   hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the
   Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower
   Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this
   forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the
   Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line,
   with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to
   the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the
   vernacular of the inhabitants."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 2, page 453._

SCOTCH-IRISH, The.

   In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster,
   formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were
   confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had
   submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during
   the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of
   treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.

   These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the
   Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and
   English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number
   of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and
   became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was
   given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.
   The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than
   either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most
   prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But
   the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of
   Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,
   the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public
   employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was
   intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal
   bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome
   restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from
   their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim
   evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the
   north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of
   the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had
   organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the
   adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches
   in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century
   the great movement began which transported so large a portion
   of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through
   their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of
   America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which
   followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants
   left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and
   where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'
   Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the
   Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of
   relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.
{2838}
   In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was
   estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from
   Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before
   1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,
   expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the
   province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American
   continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and
   was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,
   Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and
   crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by
   counter streams of the same race, which had entered the
   continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.
   Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains
   and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the
   Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from
   fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its
   history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the
   names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have
   distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet
   some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any
   mention of their people —names which the world will not
   willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the
   world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the
   orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the
   poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,
   Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the
   Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,
   Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,
   McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,
   Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,
   Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,
   seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,
   Johnson."

      _W. W. Henry,
      The Scotch Irish of the South,
      (Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889)._

   "Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier
   for their leadership in our history; nor have we been
   altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the
   Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the
   importance of the part played by that stern and virile people,
   the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin.
   These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the
   west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more
   than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the
   descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the
   kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who
   were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the
   vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and
   rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and
   the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the
   mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this
   land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and
   flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a
   shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the
   seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through
   this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with
   the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who
   have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same
   men who, before any others, declared for American
   independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in
   dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western
   portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an
   entirely different stock from that which had long existed in
   the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that,
   except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston,
   the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from
   their great breeding ground and nursery in western
   Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and
   hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled
   regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of
   the white advance. They were the first and last set of
   immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the
   wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to
   be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the
   Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret
   their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of
   their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic
   and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Phelan,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapter 23. _

SCOTCH MILE ACT.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

SCOTIA, The name.

      See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

   ----------SCOTLAND: Start--------

SCOTLAND:
   The name.

   "The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its
   Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory
   forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of
   the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in
   the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the
   whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of
   Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which
   is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
   seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
   first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it
   also appears to have borne from an early period another
   appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or
   Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,
   however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of
   Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or
   mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that
   people had established themselves as early as the beginning of
   the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was
   not till the tenth century that any part of the present
   country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …
{2839}
   From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name
   of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or
   Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with
   that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the
   north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

   1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and
   Ireland alone;

   2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name
   superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;
   and;

   3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was
   limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
   Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 1, introduction._

SCOTLAND:
   The Picts and Scots.

   "Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day
   painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the
   time, however, of British independence under Carausius and
   Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion
   had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,'
   Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the
   Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain,
   and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first
   time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the
   year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They
   came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of
   painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the
   painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before,
   and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained,
   untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same)
   meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti
   probably owned these names, the former of which is to be
   traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given
   the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they
   crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a
   national name, which described them as painted or tattooed
   men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally
   to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all
   the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred
   Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used
   to be known to the Kymry."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 7_.

   A different view of the origin and signification of these
   names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      volume 2, part 1, chapter 1._

   Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says:
   "The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from
   Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians.
   Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic
   occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation,
   or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under
   the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case
   favours the former belief, but the weight of philological
   evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 2, section 1, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 5._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84.
   Roman conquests under Agricola.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211.
   Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370.
   The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTLAND: 6th Century.
   The Mission of St. Columba.

      See COLUMBAN CHURCH.

SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.
   Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

SCOTLAND: 7th Century.
   The Four Kingdoms.

   "Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons
   of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern
   part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the
   subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite
   limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we
   find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the
   conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of
   the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power
   in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these
   kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth
   and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on
   the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated
   from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
   Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of
   Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded
   by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers
   Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th
   century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic
   kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The
   remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
   formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the
   Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth
   on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the
   two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the
   west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former
   extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to
   the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons
   from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were
   now in firm possession of the districts extending along the
   east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied
   by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the
   Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and
   that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala
   forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of
   Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,
   the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these
   four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending
   from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed
   population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between
   these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu
   or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included
   Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway
   not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and
   thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
   Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which
   was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the
   little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete
   disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
   whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to
   have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,
   while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and
   along with the Britons they were under subjection to the
   Angles."
{2840}
   In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the
   Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,
   led an army into the country of the Picts and was there
   defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously
   the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.
   The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From
   that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began
   to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
   territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the
   Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons
   regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about
   forty-six years.'"

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries.
   The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.

   "The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the
   victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed
   Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada
   from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation
   of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea,
   while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in
   the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their
   bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of
   Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish
   name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their
   royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of
   Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in
   right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth
   and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment
   we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the
   title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its
   chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and
   'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for
   Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 4._

   It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was
   known, there was a period during which the realm established
   by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying
   the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from
   the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that
   the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration
   of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that
   'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had
   first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at
   Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the
   coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is
   an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16
   inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin
   identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at
   Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time
   near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be
   called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or
   Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the
   kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer
   called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: 9th Century.
   The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries.
   The forming of' the modern kingdom
   and its relations to England.

   "The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward
   the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an
   external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a
   fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the
   evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their
   supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder,
   because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on
   the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission
   of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it
   evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement
   [A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed
   the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the
   feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better
   than any other to express the real state of the case. The
   transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply
   an application, on an international scale, of the general
   principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he
   sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he
   entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas
   strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the
   Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a
   feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process
   of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing
   their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or
   Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign
   princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading
   in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended
   themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in
   the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every
   continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual
   fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original
   Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by
   a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the
   intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of
   his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century.
   The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions
   had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation
   of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the
   ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the
   Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal
   change which had come over all such relations everywhere. …
   But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events
   which have often been confounded with the Commendation of
   Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case
   has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people
   understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England
   and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the
   boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the
   tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names
   of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known.
   At the time of the Commendation the country which is now
   called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct
   sovereignties.
{2841}
   North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an
   independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the
   Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes
   is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose.
   South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the
   Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern
   Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh,
   which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an
   independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of
   modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was
   purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this
   day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had
   its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year
   924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland,
   subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of
   Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In
   the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde
   and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the
   relation was something new on the part of Scotland and
   Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part
   of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which
   had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The
   transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian
   into their relations to one another and to the English Crown
   were quite distinct from each other. They were as
   follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the
   Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by
   Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of
   Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord
   Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was
   then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman
   Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory
   was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was
   retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very
   gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The
   distinction between the two states seems to have been quite
   forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the
   grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or
   under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not
   perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there
   can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral
   part of England, could be granted only as any other part of
   England could be granted, namely to be held as part of
   England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. …
   But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part
   of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on
   whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the
   position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That
   the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary
   circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for
   from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from
   all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian,
   when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be
   merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and
   singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked
   for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely
   English or Danish province would become the historical
   Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got
   confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh
   century, became English in manners and language; they were not
   without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not
   without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach
   more and more value to the English part of their dominions,
   and they laboured to spread its language and manners over
   their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient
   title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of
   English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus
   formed, politically distinct from England, and which political
   circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a
   state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic
   background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in
   laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many
   respects, than England itself remained after the Norman
   Conquest."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 3, section. 4._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034.
   The kingdom acquires its final name.

   "The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a
   great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the
   dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name.
   Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their
   influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king
   who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath
   the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings.
   This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his
   predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With
   Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of
   the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 8._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.
   The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.

   Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is
   little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.
   He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward
   through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the
   holders of the northern independent states at his death in the
   year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be
   Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether
   with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or
   of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district
   stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The
   place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near
   Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at
   all events it was near if not actually within the territory
   ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive
   designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of
   Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by
   Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this
   inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots
   authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the
   grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.
   … The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were
   not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for
   similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he
   exercised it with good repute, according to the reports
   nearest to his time.
{2842}
   It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes
   separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything
   positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred
   to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the
   ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a
   benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king
   of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his
   services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of
   St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands
   to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on
   record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with
   Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That
   he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not
   only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be
   noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign
   of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our
   history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,
   having command over all the country now known as Scotland,
   except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …
   With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal
   succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the
   law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …
   From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession
   holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is
   one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of
   turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish
   crown."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.
   Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.
   Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.
   Reign of Malcolm III.

   "The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon
   their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of
   the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror,
   retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in
   civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the
   Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning,
   they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who
   were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed
   and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family,
   and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who
   was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of
   his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This
   prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named
   Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness
   by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head),
   who remembered the assistance which he had received from
   Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess
   Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When
   Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon
   royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the
   Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English
   throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient
   strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the
   northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives,
   that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every
   Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the
   number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to
   improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the
   Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves,
   came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King
   Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his
   service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of
   land, to be held for military services; and most of the
   Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal
   System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and
   went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general
   law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large.
   Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining
   re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began
   greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided
   almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of
   Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower
   which served him for a palace. But as he found his power
   increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took
   possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which
   had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great
   strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty
   rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his
   residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief
   city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise
   prince, though without education. He often made war upon King
   William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and
   successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called
   William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes
   beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful;
   and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but
   threatened also to possess himself of the great English
   province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded."
   Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093),
   during one of his invasions of English territory.

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
      abridged by E. Ginn,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.
   Successors of Malcolm III.
   The reign of David I.
   His civilizing work and influence.

   "Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage
   between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished
   with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and
   Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very
   short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and
   mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to
   wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
   daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …
   Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the
   period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired
   with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the
   kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,
   a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was
   soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been
   an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was
   dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,
   dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,
   by David I.
{2843}
   The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled
   time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in
   the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,
   suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the
   Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the
   north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …
   under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the
   Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of
   the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing
   in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of
   the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance
   of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated
   by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he
   encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of
   Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which
   they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he
   familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the
   royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting
   three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his
   contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to
   improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and
   to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of
   living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he
   seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over
   his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was
   fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his
   people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the
   mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
   sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,
   perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of
   that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a
   migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders
   into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
   enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their
   own estates, and not to waste the property of their
   neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles
   began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and
   wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew
   up around the royal castles and about the principal localities
   of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last
   fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted
   strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous
   rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her
   neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of
   Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign
   origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto
   driven to take refuge in England."

      _E. W. Robertson,
      Scotland under her Early Kings,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153.
   Accession of Malcolm IV.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165.
   Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
   Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the
   English king, and his release from it.

   In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion
   against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and
   sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his
   dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion,
   king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the
   promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France
   until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own
   presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was
   pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an
   army in the midland counties, and the young prince was
   preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry
   crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman
   bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On
   the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion,
   was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended
   the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into
   Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out.
   The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In
   less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself."
   The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in
   Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice
   of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last
   consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to
   do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals
   guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English
   garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick,
   and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly
   ratified at York."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 31._

   This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is
   often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years
   afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had
   succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it.
   "Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on
   his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade],
   William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck
   to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from
   William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English
   estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in
   return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and
   Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the
   homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Burns,
      Scottish War of Independence,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214.
   Accession of Alexander II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249.
   Accession of Alexander III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.
   The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.

   "The western Highlands and Islands formed the original
   territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians
   and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over
   the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby
   putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication
   between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands
   long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the
   active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected
   with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were
   called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more
   generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,
   when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the
   mainland. …
{2844}
   Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of
   interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition
   for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,
   near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have
   revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.
   Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,
   of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland
   magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who
   was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to
   vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco
   accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100
   vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded
   with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,
   'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway
   sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,
   Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,
   and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as
   it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their
   peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading
   fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160
   ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews
   drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched
   on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,
   over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the
   surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to
   gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether
   voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the
   Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,
   opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,
   reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory
   struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till
   night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the
   Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the
   fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the
   islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,
   where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result
   of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of
   success."

      _W. Burns,
      The Scottish War of Independence,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

   "In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small
   figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and
   feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books.
   But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did
   land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather
   beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in
   either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was
   dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and
   altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was
   so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say
   merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of
   his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including
   Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to
   him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the
   village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone
   cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago,
   one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to
   a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King
   Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these
   neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an
   aggressive, high kind of humour."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Early Kings of Norway,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,
      and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266.
   Acquisition of the Western Islands.

   Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV.,
   the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King
   of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving
   Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand,
   the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a
   thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.
   Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)
   who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
   Death of the Maid of Norway.
   Reign of John Balliol.
   English conquest by Edward I.
   Exploits of Wallace.

   Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant
   granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his
   daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead
   after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish
   history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year
   to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked
   promising for an early union of the Scottish and English
   crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the
   child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of
   claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn
   into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the
   thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three
   could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of
   the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed
   to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John
   Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the
   eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on
   his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of
   Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights
   of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;
   he entered into the possession of the country as into that of
   a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute
   was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection
   which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners
   whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were
   mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among
   the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the
   claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was
   finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at
   once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to
   Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him
   from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,
   presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for
   service in his foreign wars which were resented and
   disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of
   hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily
   denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that
   forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope
   absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a
   secret alliance with the king of France.
{2845}
   In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick
   by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the
   Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,
   Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of
   Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.
   "No further punishment, however, was exacted from the
   prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and
   declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of
   Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its
   earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick
   to Edward as their king. … The government of the new
   dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the
   head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful
   submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to
   the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,
   saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his
   country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the
   English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of
   Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or
   nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and
   enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct
   of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace
   for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."
   At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English
   army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it
   in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the
   following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of
   Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader
   narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still
   maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer
   a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace
   refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,
   sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed
   on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the
   time.

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 4, section 3._

      ALSO:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 15 and 18-22._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapters 12-13._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307.
   The rising under Robert Bruce.

   After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of
   England "set to work to complete the union of the two
   kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a
   Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was
   to be represented in the English parliament by ten
   deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the
   commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the
   south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster,
   and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. …
   But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that
   they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when
   Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they
   rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce,
   Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and
   the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined
   Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the
   Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours
   from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William
   Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of
   Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand
   by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not
   to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became
   known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from
   London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he
   had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red
   Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to
   the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly
   known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder
   and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the
   law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to
   the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on
   the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession
   was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On
   March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an
   imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such
   short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella,
   Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and,
   as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the
   right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on
   the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to
   put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part
   in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and
   death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce
   was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The
   Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage,
   in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's
   sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel,
   his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles
   were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. …
   Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All
   classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were
   invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward
   Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their
   spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It
   was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his
   vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th.
   His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland,
   for, though the English still remained in possession of the
   strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the
   rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far
   as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

      _M. MacArthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapters 8-9._

      _W. Burns,
      Scottish War of Independence,
      volume 2, chapters 21-22._

{2846}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.
   The Battle of Bannockburn.

   "It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and
   chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to
   1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness.
   We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts
   for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet
   embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore
   doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. …
   The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was
   the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of
   comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady
   and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour
   never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep
   up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and
   pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong
   places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We
   hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth,
   Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the
   year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting
   into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised
   his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce
   with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on,
   countenance still more important was given to the new order of
   things at home. The clergy in council set forth their
   adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was
   an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that
   the Church would do its best to protect him from all
   ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A
   crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to
   a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one,
   Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward
   Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313.
   Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if
   not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the
   following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this
   fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was
   prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of
   Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king
   should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically
   the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the
   English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the
   chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling
   Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the
   relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and
   resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts
   were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to
   strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two
   armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was
   said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for
   the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of
   the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to
   the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of
   Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that
   the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be,
   100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the
   mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in
   number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a
   position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the
   Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by
   honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it
   impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak
   on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful
   defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted
   field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in
   their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the
   retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the
   history of her great wars before and since, never did England
   suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison
   with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army,
   Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter
   helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no
   rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty
   host could keep together, and the very chaos among the
   multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of
   the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply
   to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them
   is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face
   the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the
   hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards
   England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the
   stipulation."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 23._

   "The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000
   men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

      _W. Burns,
      Scottish War of Independence,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
   After Bannockburn.
   The consequences of the battle in different views.

   "A very general impression exists, especially among
   Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the
   attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No
   doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render
   the final result all but certain. But it required many others,
   though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction
   described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to
   the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen
   long years till the treaty of Northampton."

      _W. Burns,
      The Scottish War of Independence,
      chapter 24 (volume 2)._

   "No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to
   any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.
   This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be
   called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements
   of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The
   artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.
   These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the
   commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The
   estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and
   the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had
   found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and
   fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.
   The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these
   retired when the severance of Scotland from England was
   effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost
   extinguished, and the budding literature of the north
   disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon
   Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant
   facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland
   from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a
   natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the
   roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven
   came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in
   England for nineteen years. The country during these long
   minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was
   exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…
{2847}
   The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three
   centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by
   heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the
   beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally
   destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which
   partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries
   the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at
   its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of
   moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women
   outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and
   houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the
   grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless
   they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a
   night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in
   their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of
   might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon
   others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either
   country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and
   plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by
   violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of
   independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of
   England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so
   far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of
   power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared
   the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable
   failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves
   and the progress of the nation."

      _W. Denton,
      England in the Fifteenth Century,
      pages 68-78._

   On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end
   for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of
   accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have
   the consequences of this victory been partial or confined.
   Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish
   history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this
   is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out
   into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we
   have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must
   have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of
   England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the
   present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of
   all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the
   memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570
   years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to
   visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the
   political and social questions which depended on it. For good
   or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the
   loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong
   national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of
   intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil,
   the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and
   from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding
   its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then,
   can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the
   few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a
   noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence,
   and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying
   down the Carse of Stirling?"

      _The Duke of Argyll,
      Scotland as it was and as it is,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.
   The formation of the Scottish Parliament.

   "As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to
   perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the
   feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were
   supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the
   other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses
   and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that
   nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were
   first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce
   [A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III.
   they are ranked among the constituent members of that
   assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D.
   1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance,
   and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption
   was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little
   valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected
   during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first
   obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament.
   A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great
   barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of
   boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two
   houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord
   chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of
   parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning
   of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The
   ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted
   implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in
   any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us
   to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a
   committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It
   was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which
   were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any
   business introduced into parliament but what had passed
   through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed
   the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius
   of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery
   of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only
   directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a
   negative before debate. That committee was chosen and
   constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege
   entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that
   our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of
   articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the
   parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each
   estate."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
   The Peace of Northampton.

   In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army
   of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After
   several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in
   vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to
   stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,
   the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.
{2848}
   He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there
   appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main
   points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by
   acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate
   sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,
   "which it was now determined should be the introduction to a
   lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English
   statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all
   claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over
   the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or
   public instruments asserting or tending to support such a
   claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by
   the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards
   concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified
   at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It
   was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess
   Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,
   though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were
   settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect
   of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was
   stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from
   Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of
   England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome
   towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king
   Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in
   consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to
   be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal
   coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was
   another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to
   most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh
   article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain
   English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages
   in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by
   the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The
   execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,
   who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to
   introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The
   English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal
   stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The
   deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and
   men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in
   1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapter 18._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329.
   Accession of David II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
   The Disinherited Barons.
   Balliol's invasion.
   Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

   Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the
   enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton
   which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English
   nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to
   a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of
   Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated
   the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in
   1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,
   determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they
   made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of
   Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,
   Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their
   undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the
   English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their
   recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,
   which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the
   coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching
   westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in
   the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.
   Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,
   Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James
   Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at
   the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in
   conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved
   upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in
   military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to
   Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that
   Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into
   the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on
   the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl
   of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,
   threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.
   Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,
   and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of
   whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the
   river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon
   the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the
   enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge
   Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised
   crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain
   four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,
   which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now
   took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith
   surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into
   submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on
   the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off
   and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having
   been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one
   came to make their submission. Young King David and his
   affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and
   Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,
   1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As
   Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward
   could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the
   treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of
   espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty
   represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,
   and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be
   seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the
   party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,
   admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of
   the expedition was owing to that King's friendly
   non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold
   Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English
   fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union
   with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself
   instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues
   than the present, consulted his Parliament. …
{2849}
   Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of
   his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at
   Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night
   by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise
   Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The
   entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and
   retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise
   any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his
   life across the English border." In the following year,
   however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading
   Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and
   destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its
   relief.

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III.,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Longman,
      Life and Times of Edward III.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapter 25._

      See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
   The long-continued wars with Edward III.

   "Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles
   and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce,
   after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how,
   by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the
   better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of
   things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were
   fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country,
   and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally
   successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting
   off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and
   destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long
   and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually
   regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well
   imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were
   waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made,
   many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the
   state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was
   no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of
   humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People
   were found starved to death in the woods with their families,
   while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation
   that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and
   approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. …
   Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots,
   their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the
   continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King
   as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole
   power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the
   complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain.
   But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward
   became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid
   claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an
   embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and
   they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover
   their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was
   taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other
   important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward
   Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good
   his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding
   the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the
   resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided
   for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort,
   Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a
   youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom
   and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles
   of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates;
   they made war on each other as they had done upon the English,
   and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them.
   Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of
   besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and
   urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and
   profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of
   Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering
   England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards
   Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity;
   the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were
   absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save
   priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived.
   The lords of the northern counties of England, together with
   the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They
   defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body
   by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The
   King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was
   twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The
   left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after
   the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It
   was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of
   March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very
   many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph
   through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a
   close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross,
   near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great
   victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed
   by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time
   possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as
   the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner
   compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider
   the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more
   fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when
   he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into
   East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that
   the period was long marked by the name of the Burned
   Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But
   the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could
   be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while
   they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward
   was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining
   much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to
   have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into
   terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus
   David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English,
   after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter
   years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He
   died in 1370."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
      abridged by E. Ginn,
      chapters 14-15._

{2850}

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1._

      _W. Longman,
      Life and Times of Edward III.,
      volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346.
   Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.

      See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370.
   The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart
   or Stuart Dynasty.

   On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A.
   D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert
   the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory,
   daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by
   act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's"
   life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal
   dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but
   it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal
   office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the
   first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the
   Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through
   the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of
   Scotland—the office of Steward."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

   The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as
   follows:

   Robert II.,
   Robert III.,
   James I.,
   James II.,
   James III.,
   James IV.,
   James V.,
   Mary,
   James VI.

   The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI.,
   was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of
   Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the
   English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King
   James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James
   I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His
   successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before
   the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II.,
   Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The
   Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart,
   through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

      _M. Noble,
      Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388.
   The Battle of Otterburn.

      See OTTERBURN.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390.
   Accession of Robert III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
   Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.
   The captivity of James I.

   From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and
   Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the
   termination of it, that they might be let loose on the
   northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It
   was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not
   wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had
   prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old
   way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the
   Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for
   Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a
   necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no
   longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began
   his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a
   large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened
   Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish
   king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results.
   Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one
   of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received
   an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent
   of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in
   consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated
   Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under
   Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were
   returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by
   Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler,
   and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and
   lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among
   the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by
   Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they
   joined him with a considerable force when he raised his
   standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious
   Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D.
   1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important
   captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish
   throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while
   on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular
   king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained
   at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly
   courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He
   married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to
   return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English
   training to introduce in Scotland a better system of
   government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which
   he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless
   lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who
   troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him,
   on the 20th of February, 1436.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapters 26-27._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.
   Battle of Harlaw.
   Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

      See HARLAW.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.
   Reign of James II.
   Feuds in the kingdom.
   The Douglases.

   James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir
   Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir
   William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,
   fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became
   Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history
   of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each
   other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very
   potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now
   spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including
   Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of
   Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of
   Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly
   related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house
   of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was
   a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of
   the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had
   been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as
   Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge
   upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her
   duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she
   contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him
   off to Stirling Castle.
{2851}
   He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in
   power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the
   destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of
   sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.
   The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it
   would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a
   shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the
   regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she
   was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated
   from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong
   protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black
   Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of
   notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect
   and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane
   Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at
   Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first
   years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife
   with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When
   there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good
   laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little
   time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no
   great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great
   Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army
   threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of
   Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding
   of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two
   Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were
   directed, not against England, but against the successes of
   the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier
   fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in
   1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl
   of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had
   been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the
   'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,
   curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more
   curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured
   too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken
   wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie
   thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King
   James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the
   Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

      _M. G. J. Kinloch,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460.
   Accession of James Ill.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
   Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.

   James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's
   death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the
   rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He
   had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of
   chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was
   attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture
   and music; and in studying these used the instructions of
   Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect,
   and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic
   minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the
   conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the
   royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved.
   Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit
   might be in their own several professions, could not be
   fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste
   for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on
   him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore,
   with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society
   of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to
   lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom
   the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public
   eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of
   Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of
   the king were presently excited by the popularity of his
   brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar,
   accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed
   in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite,
   Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his
   influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and
   thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant
   of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by
   offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the
   kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester
   (afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to
   enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and
   advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the
   invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply
   exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect
   assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the
   sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on
   Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished
   except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to
   the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his
   English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than
   a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The
   doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people
   and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the
   discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily
   defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between
   Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell
   from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of
   a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The
   consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the
   chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The
   persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's
   body ever found."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 20 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 3, chapters 18 and 22._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488.
   Accession of James IV.

{2852}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.
   The marriage which brought the crown of England
   to the Stuarts.

   "On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between
   King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England
   [daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was
   celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and
   governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a
   marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and
   England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest
   of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed,
   indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that
   it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later,
   it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of
   England."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 30 (volume 3)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.
   The Highlands brought to order.
   Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

   "The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret,
   daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of
   tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of
   justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored
   confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial
   activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III.
   Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their
   territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in
   the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the
   Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the
   Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles,
   which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of
   Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504,
   after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an
   independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the
   chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and
   were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

      _J. M. Ross,
      Scottish History and Literature,
      chapter 5, page 177._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
   The Battle of Flodden.

   In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy
   League against France, was engaged in the latter country,
   besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV.,
   king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and
   the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced
   James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes
   of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from
   Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches,
   had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found
   refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters
   of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of
   his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had
   been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard,
   and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his
   captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an
   answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn,
   and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had
   been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed
   the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed
   forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the
   Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted
   on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river
   Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front
   rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed,
   after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved
   suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon
   marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its
   junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The
   Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the
   English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their
   own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the
   Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined
   against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders
   were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the
   command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful
   Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The
   slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of
   the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      volume 2, pages 370-372._

   "There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish
   earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty
   chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common
   men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been
   numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the
   nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior
   rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long
   defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert
   their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by
   shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 21 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
   Accession of James V.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
   The disaster at Solway-frith.

   James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of
   England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense
   to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing
   himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place
   between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the
   trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the
   English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession
   of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation
   of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further
   urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been
   frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with
   young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the
   Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence
   came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to
   avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,
   having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,
   alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration
   of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the
   vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to
   him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of
   Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command
   in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the
   Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or
   more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala
   and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be
   informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed
   the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river
   as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near
   30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and
   retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed
   with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his
   invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the
   war into England.
{2853}
   He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in
   general disaffected on account of the preference which he had
   given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to
   attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this
   mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened
   vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered
   to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men
   to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith
   [or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small
   distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,
   he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,
   and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.
   "The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and
   was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,
   not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and
   Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to
   flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this
   rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken
   prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of
   this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so
   overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.
   While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a
   daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in
   subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of
   Scots."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 33._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
   Accession of Queen Mary.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
   The English Wooing of Queen Mary.

   Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England
   began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the
   infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however,
   was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which
   the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure,
   Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a
   military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost
   destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent
   conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed
   at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal
   Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the
   Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The
   Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the
   greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the
   unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being
   informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer
   every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious
   terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon
   Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate
   without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and
   beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of
   the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the
   Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they
   immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city.
   They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the
   work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it
   by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from
   the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the
   following day; and for three successive days they returned
   with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had
   completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then
   proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and
   sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the
   history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle,
   the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no
   building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The
   death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal
   of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring
   kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen.
   Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with
   Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI.
   lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose.
   … In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now
   Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the
   minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at
   the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail
   co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At
   his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great
   force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with
   various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the
   English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made
   memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant,
   Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive
   engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after
   known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie,
   the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant
   from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and
   succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the
   royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of
   cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful
   slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders,
   both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe
   defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their
   young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the
   English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the
   coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland,
   then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and
   sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme
   of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the
   Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops,
   and expelled the English from most of the places they held in
   the country.

      _D. Wilson,
      Memorials of Edinburgh,
      part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapters 1-2._

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5)._

{2854}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
   The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.

   Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the
   government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent]
   had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence
   by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities,
   he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry
   leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper.
   His resentment against one party of the nobility, his
   insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers,
   and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the
   famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of
   primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and
   nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish
   by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified
   by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want.
   Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been
   treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was
   not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly
   to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in
   the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great
   expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it
   impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his
   devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents.
   In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his
   castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was
   equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to
   the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland.
   The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the
   nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so
   skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen
   conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St.
   Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John
   Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the
   walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered
   to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised
   their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the
   castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapters 1-2._

      _T. M'Crie,
      Life of John Knox,
      period 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
   The birth of the Protestant Reformation.

   In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a
   decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities
   in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the
   Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came
   into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the
   dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading
   houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in
   commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the
   Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt
   state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in
   Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as
   in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the
   spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at
   reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the
   Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread
   through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the
   century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal
   writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy
   was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It
   persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the
   stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme
   penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the
   order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting
   persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great
   peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and
   relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well
   deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was
   repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of
   exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a
   political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular,
   Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel
   the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility,
   which was already favourably disposed towards England, would
   have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French
   pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and
   French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the
   energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the
   war with England in which he fell, and after this it
   occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions
   by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion
   with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the
   ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the
   religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended
   the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under
   the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing
   fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the
   upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable
   circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.
   Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content
   to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve
   their own culture. But there was one among them who did not
   reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was
   the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged
   fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in
   1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the
   galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in
   the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but
   was not altogether content with the result; after the King's
   death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where
   he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in
   his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his
   knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A
   transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland
   made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end
   of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union,
   according to his ideas of religious independence, which was
   not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in
   one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he
   found, he administered the Communion to little congregations
   according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater
   solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun,
   one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary
   studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power.
   A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire)
   were present. But they were not content with partaking the
   Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged
   themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to
   uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In
   this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church,
   properly so called. …
{2855}
   At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards
   Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently
   Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray,
   Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a
   solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his
   congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto
   death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place
   which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express
   declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished
   for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances.
   What the influence of England had not been able to effect was
   now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed
   that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his
   territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When
   she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the
   Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries)
   to invade England according to an understanding with the
   French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in
   consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this
   purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great
   men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who
   were combined for the support of religion to advance with
   increasing resolution."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of England principally in the 17th Century,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. M'Crie,
      Life of John Knox,
      period 1-6._

      _G. Stuart,
      History of the Establishment of the
      Reformation of Religion in Scotland,
      books 1-2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
   The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.

   In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to
   Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for
   other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he
   was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by
   those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his
   Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons.
   "In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while
   he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he
   received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by
   counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had
   suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at
   Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had
   failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he
   despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of
   Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of
   Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the
   decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up
   just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned
   more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of
   December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body,
   pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave
   consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from
   the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an
   opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history
   as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it
   entire:

   'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of
   our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy
   the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to
   our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto
   the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our
   duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty
   of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall,
   with all diligence, continually apply our whole power,
   substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and
   establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation;
   and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful
   ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and
   sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish
   them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and
   every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our
   lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend
   tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the
   which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do
   forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the
   superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover,
   shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this
   our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation
   by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd
   day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of
   Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John
   Erskine of Dun,' &c.

   From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from
   being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting
   among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and
   deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant
   communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the
   example, and the names of her first five elders are still
   preserved. The existence of these small Protestant
   'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the
   lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this
   again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation.
   It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names.
   It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the
   existing Church and State."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _John Knox,
      History of the Reformation in Scotland
      (Works, volume 1), book 1._

      _D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557
      (volume 1)._

      _T. M'Crie,
      Life of John Knox,
      periods 5-6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.
   Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.
   Contemplated union of Crowns.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
   Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
   The Geneva Confession adopted.

   "In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.
   Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the
   signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented
   their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of
   Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the
   hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's
   accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit
   of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.
   … Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In
   May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of
   Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,
   but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was
   afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would
   proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone
   before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in
   their absence.
{2856}
   Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,
   preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed
   the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural
   ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was
   followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon
   robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the
   decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose
   ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The
   Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against
   the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,
   however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate
   men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son
   of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of
   Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit
   their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while
   the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or
   garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter
   only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French
   money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This
   perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up
   arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the
   regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help
   from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was
   strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with
   England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by
   no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their
   lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's
   position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was
   made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of
   Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had
   resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,
   and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],
   the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook
   to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would
   only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And
   now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were
   fighting side by side with the English against their old
   allies the French. Already their religious feelings had
   overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion
   itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.
   … But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable
   to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and
   could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the
   French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of
   Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no
   foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent
   of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded
   by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge
   her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no
   longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the
   queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France
   and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The
   Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation
   was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of
   the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the
   Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the
   administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third
   offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no
   longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed
   interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their
   niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,
   1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who
   had been trained under their influence."

      _M. Creighton,
      The Age of Elizabeth,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 7, chapters 2-3._

      _J. Knox,
      History of the Reformation in Scotland,
      book 2 (Works, volume 1)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 37-38 (volume 4)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
   The reign of Mary.
   Differing views of her conduct and character.

   In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence
   in France, to undertake the government of a country of which
   she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew
   almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed
   from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into
   a province of France. The people, who had an almost
   superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very
   inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority,
   welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that
   she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with
   wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of
   searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion
   as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as
   a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of
   things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken
   the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the
   Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united
   against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between
   these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between
   them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers
   fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right
   of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the
   lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would
   the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the
   tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They
   withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her
   attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they
   refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code
   of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new
   Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the
   hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title
   of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy
   Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of
   the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the
   hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out,
   it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of
   St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the
   hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were
   still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly,
   chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the
   north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join
   the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of
   Huntly and his son to their death.
{2857}
   And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was
   determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for
   all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign
   princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own
   favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter
   herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart,
   Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness,
   and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to
   England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the
   handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of
   history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of
   him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by
   making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio.
   Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566,
   by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his
   protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had
   power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar,
   meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital,
   it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James
   Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were
   outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of
   smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a
   house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed
   him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the
   murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the
   Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by
   her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and
   to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she
   gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith."
   In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the
   Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by
   hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the
   barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to
   oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen
   surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell
   escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died
   about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage
   the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the
   railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a
   murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle
   built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few
   days later a casket containing eight letters was produced.
   These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in
   his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to
   him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote
   them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder
   with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the
   box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons
   acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert
   Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed
   the demission of the government to her son, and desired that
   Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James
   VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from
   France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her
   prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported
   by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at
   Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received
   from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined
   in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after
   many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February
   8, 1587.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

      _M. Macarthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 6._

   "In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have
   fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel,
   there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman
   of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the
   contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France.
   … The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy
   of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges.
   Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who
   does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her
   reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof
   that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen
   years' residence in England, which began when she was only
   twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was
   mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the
   fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined.
   It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples
   of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made
   against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not
   disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to
   the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once
   competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not
   without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that
   the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for
   his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend
   that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing
   everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife,
   whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been
   married only six months. … What brought sudden and
   irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but
   the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of
   Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

      _E. S. Beesly,
      Queen Elizabeth,
      chapter 4._

   "Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under
   the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature
   was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its
   magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of
   carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She
   was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not
   an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most
   men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.
   Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about
   her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir
   John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.
   Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state
   secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very
   notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and
   unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of
   friendly statesmen.
{2858}
   Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the
   abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she
   would have been more cautious and discreet; however important
   the public business which they were transacting might have
   been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her
   boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not
   exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her
   judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters
   abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,
   strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of
   fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated
   into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had
   to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love
   was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's
   character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,
   when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to
   hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate
   and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been
   incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,
   even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives
   which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from
   putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is
   not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action
   of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a
   loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was
   nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her
   forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to
   submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and
   Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was
   essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that
   turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance
   by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and
   Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these
   considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly
   the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine
   common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best
   of a bad business, she was very wretched."

      _J. Skelton,
      Essays in History and Biography,
      pages 40-41._

   "To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is
   necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with
   Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in
   the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or
   with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order
   to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from
   other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if
   their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her
   guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not
   consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed
   that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an
   absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr.
   Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters,
   and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and
   ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no
   pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of
   the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the
   plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child,
   immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly
   attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is
   compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that
   she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that,
   ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only
   vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in
   firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of
   murder a middle position—a position of even partial
   indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances,
   well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the
   murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still
   more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such
   exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of
   will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be
   regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was
   not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her
   husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not
   conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of
   marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which
   were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of
   all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's
   absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do
   not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She
   was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of
   will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match
   for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.
   She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to
   which she had any strong aversion."

      _T. F. Henderson,
      The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots,
      chapter 1._

   "The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined
   to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her
   address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely
   figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and
   active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and
   society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her
   purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour;
   she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to
   render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces
   which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form
   a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of
   her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a
   profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we
   admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an
   inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human
   mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of
   passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes
   momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not
   thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by
   the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the
   treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence,
   transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay
   sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was
   betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be
   accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of
   alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the
   appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in
   some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her
   numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious
   captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed
   on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of
   bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent
   spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder
   if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced
   her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated
   only by the first of these motives, had formed against the
   life of Elizabeth."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 42 (volume 4)._

{2859}

   "More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as
   to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those
   biographies vary in their representations of her character,
   that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could
   be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party
   has unhappily been more considered than the development of
   facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to
   animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary
   gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some
   three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of
   Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and
   sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the
   opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the
   question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been
   pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers,
   irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard
   erected by women for one another, lower than that which is
   required of them by men? Are they less acute in their
   perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate
   frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the
   exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady
   Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous
   memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It
   is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase
   witnesses from the female portion of the household of the
   Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether
   Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their
   mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen
   Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied
   honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest
   hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they
   shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

      _S. H. Burke,
      Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty
      and the Reformation Period,
      volume 4, chapter 7._

   "Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of
   her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most
   noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank,
   opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct
   on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in
   the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to
   admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause,
   that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service
   of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer
   spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful
   friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be
   impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake
   the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active
   brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience,
   she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred
   and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as
   the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would
   seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained
   from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was
   supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most
   exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of
   her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety.
   Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of
   beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a
   fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure
   in small and harmless things no less than in such as were
   neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion
   and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared
   something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She
   would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of
   Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of
   personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities
   which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower
   to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more
   eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

      _A. C. Swinburne,
      Mary Queen of Scots
      (Miscellanies, pages 357-359)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 41-47 (volume 4)._

      _M. Laing,
      History of Scotland,
      volumes 1-2._

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of Mary, Queen of Scots._

      _A. Strickland,
      Life of Mary, Queen of Scots._

      _J. Skelton,
      Maitland of Lethington._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      Appendix._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      series 4, chapter 32,
      and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567.
   Accession of James VI.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.
   Distracted state of the kingdom.
   The Reformed Church and John Knox.

   During the whole minority of the young king, James VI.,
   Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in
   1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who
   was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed
   him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions
   that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse
   to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming
   influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the
   other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was
   a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the
   kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties
   rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the
   various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were
   being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which
   the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference
   between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly.
   The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the
   reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the
   bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent
   conditions of qualification. …

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

   Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been
   constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews
   when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain
   notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been
   strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent.
   … There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence
   available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine
   right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing
   strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August."
   On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

      _M. C. Taylor,
      John Knox
      (St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series)._

{2860}

   "It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John
   Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead
   like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having
   been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest
   of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could
   have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland
   had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is
   the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the
   world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive
   him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable'
   Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the
   battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile,
   in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his
   windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were
   his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it.
   I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent,
   these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of
   him."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Heroes and Hero-worship,
      lecture 4._

   "Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone
   entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances,
   Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue,
   or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and
   dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser
   elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living,
   and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to
   Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is
   greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel
   that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness,
   and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery
   social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon
   gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his
   cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his
   friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to
   differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the
   whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than
   to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was
   in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly
   sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have
   fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe
   in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point
   of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the
   reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of
   violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass,
   towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was
   no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his
   language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his
   judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we
   have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the
   weather and witches were common to him with all men of his
   time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects,
   he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and
   enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly
   instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental
   principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical
   direction, he was not in the least characteristically
   reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere
   the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work
   and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then,
   when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A
   man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is
   something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and
   severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is
   little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily
   respect, and even admiringly cherish."

      _J. Tulloch,
      Leaders of the Reformation: Knox._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
   Civil War.

   "All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom.
   Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and
   ranged themselves under the standards of the contending
   factions. In every county, and almost in every town and
   village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of
   distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and
   extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which
   hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled
   itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a
   little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which
   divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both
   these there were persons with views and principles so
   different from each other that they ought to be distinguished.
   With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and
   they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her
   means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's
   authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among
   these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As
   Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the
   regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the
   town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen],
   scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged
   the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality,
   without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in
   this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties
   at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had
   smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous
   practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with
   one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help
   of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from
   England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh
   and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a
   siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection
   from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 53-56 (volume 5)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
   Episcopacy restored.
   The Concordat of Leith.
   The Tulchan Bishops.

   "On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church
   assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was
   not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the
   strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was
   attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to
   plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and
   ministers.' …
{2861}
   By the 1st of February the joint committees
   framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the
   chief;

   1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds
   of dioceses, should remain as they were before the
   Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or
   till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament;
   and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a
   chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no
   more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and
   should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

   2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the
   Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

   Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and
   State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain …
   struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain
   argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved,
   and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the
   ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of
   the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if
   they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to
   laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly
   paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these
   even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the
   door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the
   episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office.
   … The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and
   chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of
   papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger
   expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded
   to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It
   was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a
   cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true
   Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not
   pretend to the apostolical descent."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

   "The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the
   Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown
   origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought
   into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an
   agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that
   the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother
   easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the
   bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be
   bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay
   lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 54 (volume 5)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
   The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

   "The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of
   popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to
   support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a
   dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never
   entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of
   popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the
   house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young
   king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so
   dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious
   sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and
   solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of
   Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his
   chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the
   most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the
   popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the
   reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of
   Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under
   the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority
   with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's
   evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice,
   and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the
   realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's
   confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his
   household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581;
   and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an
   act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by
   all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers
   zealously promoting the subscription in their respective
   parishes."

      _T. M'Crie,
      Sketches of Scottish Church History,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland,
      volume 3, 1581._

      _J. Row,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582.
   The Raid of Ruthven.

   "The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant
   over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom,
   and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation
   which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of
   nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from
   their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by
   its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James
   found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was
   detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to
   Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under
   restraint. This continued until the following June, when the
   king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox
   had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was
   known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high
   treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to
   the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He
   never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 5, chapter 20._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
   The Black Acts.

   "James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government
   which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly
   prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a
   basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they
   assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers
   were too much given to discuss political subjects in the
   pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that
   were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the
   Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost
   entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the
   Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates
   was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was
   declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By
   another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and
   over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced
   to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville
   to be chastised.
{2862}
   By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed
   by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts
   of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the
   chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of
   the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the
   Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still
   another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,
   privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar
   conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous
   speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle
   with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains
   contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers
   and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the
   resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were
   turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom
   thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with
   the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and
   the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted
   with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland,
      volume 4, 1584._

      _Scottish Divines
      (St. Giles' Lectures, series 3),
      lecture 2._

      _J. Melville,
      Autobiography and Diary, 1584._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
   The execution of Mary Stuart in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
   Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.

   The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the
   crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably
   bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still
   considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who
   possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights
   merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who
   were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a
   few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends
   were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was
   little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church
   lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally
   ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with
   some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor
   afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 37 (volume 2)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.
   The Gowrie Plot.

   "On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was
   setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by
   Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie
   [both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who
   told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a
   man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the
   affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and
   begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him.
   James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty
   other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside,
   and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he
   had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him
   there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They
   recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head
   thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to
   make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small
   room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour
   was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed
   in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for
   the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the
   towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their
   escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the
   dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice
   could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or
   object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious,
   the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the
   man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions
   that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as
   they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight
   years later, however, some letters were discovered which
   seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the
   King's person.

      _M. Macarthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 40 (volume 2)._

      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 4, chapter 11._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603.
   Accession of James VI. to the English throne.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
   The Five Articles of Perth.

   After his accession to the English throne, James became more
   deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and
   ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to
   force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with
   arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of
   dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose
   completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair
   endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained
   in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this
   had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the
   Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five
   articles in which the latter were embodied became for two
   years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between
   the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the
   general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an
   Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit
   to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles.
   These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined
   kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and
   episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private
   dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The
   powers of the court of high commission were actively brought
   into play to enforce them.

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
   Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.

   "Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings
   of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued
   and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]
   ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my
   hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold
   country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;
   but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the
   employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of
   Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a
   'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both
   nations, slain on that occasion.
{2863}
   It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who
   desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers
   through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king
   Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book
   or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into
   Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest
   this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that
   church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies
   should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should
   upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude
   therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with
   some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as
   were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great
   distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the
   English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in
   black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were
   kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch
   saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,
   that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto
   them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the
   book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the
   presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers
   bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a
   tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,
   and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of
   Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a
   stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular
   tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had
   killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book
   had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his
   burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord
   provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was
   caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'
   considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days
   after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best
   quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God
   defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound
   the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 11, section 2 (volume 3)._

   "One of the most distinct and familiar of historical
   traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool,
   and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or
   Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the
   identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the
   same inconclusive result that often attends the search after
   some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted
   by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a
   son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones
   Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed
   tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant
   in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was
   read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the
   lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise,
   for they threw stools to a great length.'"

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
   The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.

   "Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every
   district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national
   resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an
   appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital,
   not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book
   of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of
   granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series
   of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds
   of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own
   homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of
   Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the
   injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued
   to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In
   answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in
   such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants
   offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes
   into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons,
   burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This
   was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A
   committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these
   classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and
   were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their
   common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole
   of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency
   arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were
   thus organised with official approval into one large and
   powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which
   speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As
   soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of
   supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own
   homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress
   of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs
   to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables
   "resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at
   once to the capital in order to concert measures for their
   common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The
   summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it
   was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston,
   that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of
   the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant,
   which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A.
   D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril,
   through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of
   Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland.
   The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors
   and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made
   to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing
   circumstances."

      _J. Taylor,
      The Scottish Covenanters,
      chapter 1._

   "It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the
   National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.
   The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.
   Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the
   flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and
   women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others
   wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their
   names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner
   of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their
   initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual
   flow.
{2864}
   From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of
   Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in
   their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting
   subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all
   day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to
   receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their
   names."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _R. Chambers,
      Domestic Annals of Scotland,
      volume 2, pages 116-127._

   The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:

   "The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed
   at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year
   of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year
   1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and
   acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of
   persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at
   the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for
   the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person,
   and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons,
   gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under
   subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the
   causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion,
   and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid,
   and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We
   all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after
   long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of
   true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the
   truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe
   with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our
   hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world,
   that this only is the true Christian faith and religion,
   pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by
   the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the
   blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many
   and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk
   of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this
   realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our
   salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession
   of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry
   Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly
   professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm,
   both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of
   religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points,
   as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon
   His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all
   contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of
   papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now
   damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
   But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of
   that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the
   Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his
   tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our
   Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the
   sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law,
   the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted
   doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and
   rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our
   imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature,
   number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard
   sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false
   doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments,
   without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants
   departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of
   baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real
   presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of
   the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations,
   with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage,
   forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent
   divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his
   profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his
   canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed,
   worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of
   kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers
   for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with
   his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of
   advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular
   confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his
   general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their
   sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of
   supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations;
   his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,
   crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's
   good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined
   therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his
   three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
   his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the
   subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band
   conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all
   his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in
   the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of
   this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly,
   in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy
   sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head,
   promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God,
   that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and
   discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according
   to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the
   pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul
   in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are
   stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise,
   swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in
   the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding
   thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to
   corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the
   Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open
   enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the
   Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his
   great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of
   the Lord Jesus.
{2865}
   We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy,
   and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and
   call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds
   and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise,
   oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any
   worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences,
   through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed
   in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in
   the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And
   because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our
   religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good
   behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable
   instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the
   maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us,
   we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath,
   handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and
   authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of
   Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of
   justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies
   within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a
   strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death,
   and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father
   and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like
   as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate,
   annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,
   canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and
   practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true
   religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk
   discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours
   of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as
   Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114.
   Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition
   may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the
   Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James
   VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to
   be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as
   adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law
   established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James
   VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18.
   Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of
   our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James
   VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but
   also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do
   abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out
   of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be
   punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106.
   Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do
   condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous
   doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and
   Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established
   in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or
   libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished
   (Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24.
   Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to
   the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all
   sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the
   maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits,
   trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or
   restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act
   164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament
   19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all
   erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine
   against the religion presently professed, or containing
   superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the
   people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of
   them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do
   condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going
   to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such
   other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of
   God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors
   among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished
   for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K.
   James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for
   maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the
   purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church
   of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national
   synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
   discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of
   religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed,
   exercised, preached, and confessed according to the
   reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act
   99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament
   12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K.
   Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament
   6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the
   ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had
   raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that
   then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments,
   and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered
   in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments
   (as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently
   administered) according to the confession of faith to be the
   true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and
   discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the
   word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the
   confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of
   God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James
   VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly
   do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy
   sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of
   the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently
   professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the
   society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69.
   Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other
   face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at
   that time by the favour of God established within this realm,
   which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's
   true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
   religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this
   realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof,
   the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors
   repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament
   1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act
   106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament
   12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all
   magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to
   search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance,
   Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament
   11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's
   Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and
   declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways
   to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of
   Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true
   religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI).
{2866}
   On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is
   declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion
   and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the
   one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal
   and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority,
   but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same,
   who shall not give their confession and make profession of the
   said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall
   give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise
   to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign
   Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to
   fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and
   professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies
   and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of
   whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have
   joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set
   forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to
   the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is
   repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at
   Perth, the 23d February, 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
   April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123.
   Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they
   are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities
   raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the
   true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the
   King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of
   Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful
   judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament
   8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only
   to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of
   this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act
   79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament
   8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the
   commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and
   England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI,
   declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no
   more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient
   privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only
   the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath
   been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of
   their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities
   preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true
   religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by
   Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7.
   ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI
   and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their
   coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall
   make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the
   presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of
   their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the
   utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His
   most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and
   according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of
   Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and
   right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
   within this realm (according to the confession of faith
   immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all
   false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people
   committed to their charge according to the will and
   commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and
   according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in
   this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal
   God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the
   Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
   peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to
   root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true
   worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God
   of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His
   Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen
   in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands
   of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times,
   and according to the laudable example of our worthy and
   religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
   which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a
   general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's
   subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending
   the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed
   in the confession of faith above written, and a former large
   confession established by sundry acts of lawful general
   assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set
   down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years
   with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this
   Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon
   His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the
   King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God
   and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that
   they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand
   and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds;
   and confessing with our mouths, that the present and
   succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the
   aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We
   noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons
   under subscribing, considering divers times before, and
   especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed
   religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the
   kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally
   contained and particularly mentioned in our late
   supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby
   profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly
   declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all
   the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend
   the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of
   all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship
   of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public
   government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen
   till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in
   Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the
   purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and
   professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after
   due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe
   that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications,
   complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of
   God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid
   confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed
   reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts
   of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of
   the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and
   ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws
   and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions
   are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the
   aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of
   them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that
   we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other
   particular heads of papistry abjured therein.
{2867}
   And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to
   God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or
   inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a
   further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we
   promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to
   continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid
   religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
   contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and
   to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands,
   all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same
   heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention
   or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour
   of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and
   authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we
   shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives,
   stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's
   Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and
   preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and
   laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and
   assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of
   maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority,
   with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power,
   against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever
   shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken
   as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in
   particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly
   suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever
   suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this
   blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or
   impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by
   common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but
   on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further
   and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive
   motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us
   shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently
   make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither
   do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or
   what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would
   put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and
   ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship
   of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom
   for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And
   because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our
   proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we
   join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who
   have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully
   promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us,
   both in public, in our particular families and personal
   carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of
   Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
   godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we
   owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction
   may be observed without violation we call the living God, the
   searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our
   sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to
   Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's
   everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour
   and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to
   strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
   our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that
   religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the
   glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of
   us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands
   all the premises, &c."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
   The First Bishops' War.

   In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,
   with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of
   Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in
   hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered
   the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but
   deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The
   Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the
   Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where
   Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been
   received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the
   sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come
   back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the
   Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected
   among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner
   bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'
   and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of
   the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While
   Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the
   King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish
   subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the
   Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took
   possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which
   had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army
   of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head
   Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their
   army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the
   King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced
   each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were
   skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern
   road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to
   fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing
   this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of
   Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between
   the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,
   that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds
   should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly
   which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been
   done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in
   the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still
   further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the
   Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under
   pain of civil penalties.
{2868}
   Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the
   King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty
   and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the
   King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they
   sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in
   former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to
   France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found
   out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to
   the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote
   supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

      _M. Macarthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1641,
      chapters 88-89 (volume 9)._

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640.
   The Second Bishops' War.-
   Invasion of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.
   The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
   The exploits of Montrose.

   At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the
   Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl
   of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted
   their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of
   the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of
   Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert
   at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise
   forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably
   successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his
   Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts,
   received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose
   attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at
   Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and
   baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered
   to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened
   by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated
   northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into
   Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the
   Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates,
   Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be
   attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy,
   2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than
   1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while
   Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these
   victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this
   terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and
   looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of
   the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose
   was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards
   through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying
   everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate
   Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were
   at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a
   dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the
   city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the
   4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed
   Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite
   with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his
   wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on
   Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now
   nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a
   force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at
   Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly.
   "The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few
   killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected,
   15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His
   triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in
   possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the
   country was broken up; every organ of the recent
   administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished.
   The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.'
   Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs
   compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated
   his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But,
   if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it
   came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months
   before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost.
   It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of
   the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland.
   Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in
   September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the
   help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200
   mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and
   surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with
   4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy
   until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a
   few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were
   massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the
   courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been
   due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

      _W. Chambers,
      Stories of Old Families,
      pages 206-217._

      ALSO in:
      _M. Napier,
      Montrose and the Covenanters._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 73 (volume 7)._

      _Lady V. Greville,
      Montrose._

      _P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 7._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
   Flight of King Charles to the Scots army
   and his surrender to the English Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648.
   Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
   Scottish loyalty revived.
   Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

   "The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at
   once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of
   Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable
   consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,
   and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of
   England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a
   Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous
   Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.
   With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world
   might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the
   truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this
   northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots
   acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they
   recognized Charles II.
{2869}
   They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of
   the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should
   seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double
   loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their
   earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,
   but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the
   prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take
   possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was
   conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout
   Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a
   throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing
   engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined
   to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had
   nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a
   commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops
   and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant
   parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from
   Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed
   treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and
   by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand
   that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus
   convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,
   attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious
   thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else
   from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has
   been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their
   detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political
   leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it
   was not so with the religious part of the government. When he
   declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,
   even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,
   begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given
   satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no
   effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his
   native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have
   remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three
   kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver
   immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened
   the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not
   hesitate."

      _J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
      The Protector,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 75 (volume 7)._

      _P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September).
   Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

   War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English
   Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command,
   Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He
   passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of
   July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the
   old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a
   purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called
   the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as
   those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection),
   had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed
   and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified
   by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken
   flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was
   supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate
   neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed
   himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be
   brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to
   withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which
   lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth.
   The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled
   by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These
   heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass
   through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore
   apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no
   choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie
   continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event.
   A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn,
   separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay
   a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking
   the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient
   places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the
   right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea,
   was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure
   the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his
   power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong
   for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills
   towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow
   ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his
   right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert
   saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding
   advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and
   fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was
   entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack
   was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the
   3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch
   horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon
   their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole
   army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable
   confusion."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, pages 694-696._

   "The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the
   total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000
   prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken;
   the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of
   the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were
   allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into
   England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were,
   as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as
   slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the
   day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to
   Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot;
   Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the
   capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example
   thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still
   held out [until the following December] against the English.
   The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of
   the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling,
   while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

      _N. L. Walford,
      Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
      chapter 6._

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 6._

{2870}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).
   Charles' rash advance into England.
   Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

   "Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at
   Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired
   to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the
   royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the
   national policy. Charles, without further question of his real
   intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651.
   After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment,
   Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of
   December. He had little to do to make himself master of
   Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the
   army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any
   result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible
   storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously
   ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out
   again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting
   the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling.
   The king had been invited to take its command in person.
   Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing
   himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that
   the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July;
   and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of
   11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll
   was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to
   Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when
   on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to
   those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his
   promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also
   proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and
   similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other
   market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although
   the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they
   were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles,
   however, had few important accessions of strength. There was
   no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were
   shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was
   opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with
   their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached
   Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the
   city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth
   for all male subjects of due age to gather round their
   Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the
   26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came,
   with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched
   rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him
   6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him
   with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war
   would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the
   General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with
   30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the
   victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the
   royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from
   hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into
   Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other
   side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very
   considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the
   end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort,
   which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The
   prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the
   subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the
   most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and
   Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and
   three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed."
   Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks
   cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering
   and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got
   ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment
   in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man,
   with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told
   often enough.

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 6, letters 96-124._

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 13 (volume 5)._

      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of English History,
      chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September).
   The conquest completed by Monk.

   When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into
   England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in
   Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general
   soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most
   resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified,
   supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all
   the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which
   had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared
   before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault.
   He carried the town; and, following the example and
   instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the
   sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom.
   Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and
   other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the
   enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages,
   by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its
   independence, was reduced to total subjection."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 60 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
   Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.

   In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long
   Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and
   left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had
   arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the
   Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up
   arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the
   Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and
   towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been
   sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the
   king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it
   had until then been deficient.
{2871}
   No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took
   decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he
   despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,
   circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,
   whom that country had already once recognized as her
   conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his
   usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the
   very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,
   pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,
   defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the
   Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to
   Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,
   without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had
   twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his
   success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period
   when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,
   be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with
   England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in
   the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place
   which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should
   occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
   The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.
   The oppression of the Covenanters.

   "In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed
   with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of
   national independence. And true it was that the yoke which
   Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the
   Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and
   that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered
   the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the
   independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal
   than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side,
   he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other
   dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew
   the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without
   any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to
   set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was
   disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to
   respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it
   had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings
   much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was
   established by law. As to the form of worship, a large
   discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the
   English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected
   from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were
   likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the
   doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the
   Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By
   the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was
   detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with
   the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of
   England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The
   country was not what it had been twenty-two years before.
   Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of
   the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore,
   sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience,
   attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of
   Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the
   government a half toleration known by the name of the
   Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western
   lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the
   obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the
   obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance
   of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their
   own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial
   reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church,
   but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised
   under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said,
   could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly
   to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths
   and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without
   scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they
   mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open
   rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished:
   but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit.
   Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were
   beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed
   at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned
   at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the
   Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that
   the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the
   audacity of their despair."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at
   the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every
   man of them, with one exception, is said to have been
   intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its
   effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings.
   The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a
   Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding
   any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own
   parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, page 729._

   "The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in
   the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by
   which every law that had been passed in the Scottish
   parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The
   legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 29._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Aikman,
      Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
      volume 1, books 2-5._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.
   Lauderdale's despotism.
   The Highland host.

   "A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at
   Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It
   were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary
   authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All
   the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's
   order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the
   whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till
   these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that
   all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured
   from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates
   of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public
   office, though their only crime had been their want of
   compliance with Lauderdale. …
{2872}
   The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and
   provoking as his public administration was violent and
   tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by
   faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that
   duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours
   were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the
   throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be
   hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The
   law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of
   rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish
   of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to
   understand in a literal sense; and because the western
   counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in
   profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a
   state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an
   agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their
   clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the
   guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to
   live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused
   the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their
   tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of
   them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most
   industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the
   most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine
   the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'
   free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,
   loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest
   the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the
   council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or
   gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is
   reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates
   concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale
   has been guilty of many bad things against the people of
   Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything
   contrary to my interest.'"

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 66 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      books 2-3._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 78 (volume 7)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June).
   The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

   "The public indignation which these measures [under
   Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop
   of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded
   as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the
   Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the
   Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three
   miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve
   Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of
   Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the
   Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was
   weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul
   murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly
   increase the severity of the persecution against their party.
   … It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a
   conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the
   troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings
   at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May
   preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor
   in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire.
   The day selected for the service was the first of June. No
   secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to
   John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he
   was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at
   Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in
   that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting,
   he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of
   horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had
   assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and
   moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence
   of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his
   first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded
   only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an
   adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was
   approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed
   with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for
   the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear.
   The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took
   up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were
   descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder
   Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and
   fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great
   effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made
   several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking
   parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with
   considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old
   soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch
   and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed.
   Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a
   portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the
   dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion
   and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their
   number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse
   killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The
   victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers
   poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks
   had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

      _J. Taylor,
      The Scottish Covenanters,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Morris,
      Claverhouse,
      chapter 4._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Old Morality._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
   Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.

   "The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by
   forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of
   Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a
   friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with
   him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he
   arrived in three days, with an expedition considered
   incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000
   or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from
   Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and
   disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were
   irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were
   told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.
   One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming
   their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke
   to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'
{2873}
   While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in
   an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of
   Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell
   Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made
   prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The
   Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as
   Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,
   that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to
   Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in
   England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that
   Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we
   would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke
   answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only
   for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably
   were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported
   to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of
   Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time
   in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the
   Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops
   under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had
   preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an
   indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to
   hold their meetings under the King's license; but these
   softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter
   again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of
   Scotland."

      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 79 (volume 7)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
   The pitiless rule of James II.
   The hunting of the Cameronians.
   Claverhouse's brutalities.

   In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's
   brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy.
   "Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved,
   he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which
   he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and
   as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs
   of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very
   early period an occasion presented itself for displaying
   severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians,
   under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill,
   having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge
   neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against
   them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and
   Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed.
   The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to
   death. The duke was present at the executions, which he
   witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were
   curious experiments."

      _A. Carrel,
      History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
      chapter 2._

   "Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the
   Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. …
   Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man
   mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only
   condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly
   threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his
   violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant
   which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his
   'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was
   publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market
   cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and
   Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting
   ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty
   persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as
   they were called after their leader, afforded the government a
   plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had
   yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several
   weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

      _J. Taylor,
      The Scottish Covenanters,
      chapter 4._

   "He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice
   of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests,
   established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the
   most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the
   empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the
   priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused
   himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe
   while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood
   he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from
   the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of
   their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our
   islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With
   this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect
   harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled
   Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on
   which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the
   Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of
   the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and
   wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by
   John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked
   men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and
   to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls.
   The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage
   and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent
   temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the
   Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is
   mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate
   all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the
   peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an
   endless task."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Cunningham,
      History of the Church of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

      _M. Morris,
      Claverhouse._

      _J. Aikman,
      Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
      volume 2, books 5-12._

      _A Cloud of Witnesses._

      _J. Howie,
      The Scots Worthies._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685.
   Argyll's invasion.
   Monmouth's rebellion.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687.
   Declarations of Indulgence by James II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

{2874}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
   The Revolution.
   Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.
   Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

   "At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of
Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to
   march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by
   outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,
   and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots
   broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and
   the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.
   On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading
   Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had
   an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.
   This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was
   resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the
   Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to
   administer the government. To this William consented. The
   Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,
   and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After
   a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.
   But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of
   Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the
   minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he
   proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold
   a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were
   discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,
   amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the
   end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same
   terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.
   The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost
   identical with the English declaration, but containing the
   additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable
   grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly
   proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some
   form of government should be settled, for, throughout the
   Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The
   Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.
   The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with
   bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,
   continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was
   reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in
   June 1690."

      _E. Hale,
      The Fall of the Stuarts,
      chapter 13._

   "Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be
   built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King
   William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was
   most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous
   that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely
   laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the
   ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its
   discipline. But he began to see that some concession was
   necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th
   of April the Parliament met which was to give us the
   Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to
   abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over
   all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore
   all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their
   livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the
   parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical
   legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for
   so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch
   Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to
   the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before
   exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of
   our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster
   Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all
   the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections
   of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the
   Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for
   nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now
   restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by
   them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers
   it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient,
   negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course
   of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians
   gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was
   established, and the government of the Church was placed
   entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster
   Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at
   length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms
   and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A
   pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read
   amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was
   finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It
   is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not
   once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very
   anxious that they should. From this it would appear that,
   while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed
   the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored,
   though there were many in the Church who would have wished
   them revived."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July).
   War in the Highlands.
   The Battle of Killiecrankie.

   "The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for
   James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the
   soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a
   small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with
   subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who
   had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish
   convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and
   general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular
   troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of
   James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,
   apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his
   enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol
   before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's
   vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,
   formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,
   rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence
   he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean
   to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should
   approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before
   Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that
   Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He
   commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his
   faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."
   Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,
   and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and
   ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but
   undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not
   exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.
{2875}
   They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,
   on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain
   where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to
   change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner
   given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep
   columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they
   had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with
   which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing
   was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great
   slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's
   army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally
   successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot
   repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to
   retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their
   respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in
   flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army
   were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,
   provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into
   the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon
   the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short
   duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he
   was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,
   and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The
   castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;
   and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom
   they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,
   and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their
   songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as
   the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is
   seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, letter 17 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapters 6-7._

      _M. Morris,
      Claverhouse,
      chapter 11._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August).
   Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.

   After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the
   command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish
   officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to
   coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid
   to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his
   cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a
   secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the
   regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so
   inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to
   their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of
   Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with
   such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by
   the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed
   and returned to their homes."

      _M. Laing,
      History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
      book 10 (volume 4)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The Massacre of Glenco.

   A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying
   of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted
   upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to
   all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to
   William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it
   contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The
   last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco.
   Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort
   William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to
   administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an
   earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the
   snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road,
   the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he
   reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the
   indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved,
   however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of
   allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay.
   But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice
   particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was
   erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it
   appears that an extensive combination was formed for his
   destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had
   plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William
   that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the
   highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had
   applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had
   received them since. But they procured instructions, signed,
   and for their greater security, countersigned by the king
   himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels
   as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on
   assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found
   insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and
   also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan
   could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper
   vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of
   thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded
   even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an
   indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when
   a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of
   Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The
   soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship;
   and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered
   vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily
   hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening
   at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his
   father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack
   their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to
   suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their
   swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were
   impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered
   their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the
   massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of
   day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from
   his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore
   the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired
   next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and
   deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was
   shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees
   for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the
   vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their
   fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old
   man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a
   house for concealment, was burnt alive.
{2876}
   Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their
   inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of
   musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from
   destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the
   night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation.
   The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil
   Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the
   women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their
   way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in
   the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not
   confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites,
   it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether
   the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders
   were considered, each part of the bloody transaction
   discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic
   cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether
   exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire,
   the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered
   the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the
   government justly odious to his subjects."

      _M. Laing,
      History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
      book 10 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 4)._

      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 5 (volume 4), 1692._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
   The Darien scheme.
   King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

   "The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well
   nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the
   writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness
   of composition in the same person, and the actors in public
   life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person,
   than those of England; so the proceedings of the national
   assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth,
   except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange
   mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance
   appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with
   regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson.
   … Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that
   on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running
   across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards
   had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at
   war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge
   of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate;
   … that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which
   mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the
   other in the space of a day, and that consequently this
   passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a
   common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse
   of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was
   formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful
   colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been
   settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence
   they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the
   ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer
   his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed
   since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention
   was to offer his project to England, as the country which had
   the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however,
   in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he
   repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened
   the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr.
   Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and
   others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from
   parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms
   of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new
   world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with
   consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other
   European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under
   him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a
   subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to
   sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the
   rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien
   company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people,
   the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the
   other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their
   little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to
   get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an
   instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be
   now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of
   cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and
   the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time,
   the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the
   trade of England than all other causes put together, created
   an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons,
   without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December
   of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King
   against the establishment of the Darien company, as
   detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon
   after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for
   being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's
   answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon
   after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his
   resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in
   which he disowned the company, and warned them against all
   connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather
   animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a
   proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness
   of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from
   the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in
   Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for
   the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble
   and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who
   had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from
   Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two
   months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St.
   Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first
   public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of
   freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous
   idea originated with Paterson.
{2877}
   But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in
   concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the
   settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the
   governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue
   proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold
   correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less
   harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different
   governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and
   to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had
   not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into
   diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They
   lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance
   from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or
   quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that
   entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at
   Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the
   Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before,
   now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered
   formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots,
   ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at
   this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after
   of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no
   more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great
   suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition,
   and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or
   disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second
   colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their
   country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who
   spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were
   a second time addressing the King at home against the
   settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on
   the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His
   Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise,
   with respect to the different interests of trade between his
   two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more
   nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this
   opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he
   recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the
   throne, that they would consider of an union between the two
   kingdoms.'"

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memorials of Great Britain,
      part 3, book 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 4 (volume l)._

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter. 24 (volume 5)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
   Hostility to England.
   The Act of Security.
   The Scottish Plot.

   "This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation
   towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of
   strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily
   produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the
   battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a
   decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing
   restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for
   the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not
   only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition
   to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first
   opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a
   century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England
   was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and
   her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of
   queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name
   a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart
   line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure
   'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or
   any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was
   vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of
   Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused
   his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was
   called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair
   of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at
   the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the
   Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for
   the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The
   House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which
   provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation
   should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates
   reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the
   House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the
   queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The
   royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from
   policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear.
   The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong
   measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting
   her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state
   of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was
   passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of
   Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament
   should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as
   that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland,
   except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army,
   should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman;
   and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or
   linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union
   or War."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 5, chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
   The Union with England.

   To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete
   political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the
   greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on
   both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect
   that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the
   part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of
   Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th
   of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the
   Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature
   of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On
   the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were
   ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The
   English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and
   on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal
   assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords
   and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain
   should be the designation of the united island; the name of
   Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was
   agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be
   conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.
{2878}
   It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three
   lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within
   a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be
   quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the
   united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the
   House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland
   should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers
   have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of
   representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that
   time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the
   Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would
   follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament
   returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more
   than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims
   on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The
   Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the
   English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of
   England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland
   154. It was intended that the latter should send
   representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled
   according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45
   members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would
   make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when
   added to the 185 from England would also make about
   one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number
   adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers
   was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,
   before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of
   May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable
   jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of
   law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to
   continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by
   the express terms of the Commission."

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
      series 2, chapters 12._

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 17 (volume 3)._

   The text of the Act of Union may be found in the
      _Parliamentary History,
      volume 6, appendix 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
   Hostility to the Union.
   Spread of Jacobitism.

   "In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost
   universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite
   party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for
   settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them
   entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found
   themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an
   institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished
   a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of
   Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient
   sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England.
   All the different professions and classes of men saw each
   something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own
   interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and
   lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every
   class vented their complaints against the Union the more
   loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be
   concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations
   concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the
   dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and
   some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement,
   that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have
   heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh
   Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard
   an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon
   whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he
   called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The
   detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling
   passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and
   even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a
   singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians,
   Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution,
   drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to
   the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland
   were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it
   was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his
   fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in
   his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among
   themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of
   distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have
   repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland,
   and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was
   made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf
   of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from
   France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly
   frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the
   Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk,
   until the English government had warning enough to be too well
   prepared.

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
      series 3, chapters 1-2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
   The Jacobite rising.

   In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in
   England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some
   years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the
   Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a
   short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.
   But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six
   weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior
   and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this
   danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was
   wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.
   While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred
   Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and
   Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by
   Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their
   aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the
   two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the
   English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give
   themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General
   Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of
   Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,
   met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly
   beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army
   soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things
   seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.
{2879}
   But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to
   the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even
   delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716
   Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the
   small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.
   Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed
   to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several
   homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty
   were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the
   seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other
   leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

      _J. Rowley,
      The Settlement of the Constitution,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _J. H. Jesse,
      Memoirs of the Pretenders,
      volume 1, chapters 3-4._

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 5-6 (volume l)._

      _Mrs. K. Thomson,
      Memoirs of the Jacobites,
      volumes 1-2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736.
   The Porteous Riot.

      See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
   The Young Pretender's invasion.
   The last rising of the Jacobites.

   "As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young
   Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the
   French government at the head of a formidable armament. But
   his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm
   which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops
   which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745,
   however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven
   friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the
   Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the
   29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in
   Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched
   through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph,
   and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two
   thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John
   Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by
   a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at
   once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now
   at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. …
   After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he
   marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December
   as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end.
   Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the
   districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. …
   Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single
   squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact
   secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the
   prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government,
   had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose
   in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir,
   though roused by a small French force which landed at
   Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles
   fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he
   found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd
   January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under
   General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had
   encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his
   Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as
   fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their
   booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the
   north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the
   armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles
   eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000
   men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments
   all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted
   fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped
   [in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous
   Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers
   were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and
   Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank
   attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of
   repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures
   were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs
   were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or
   garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures,
   followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for
   their purpose."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 10, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 26-29 (volume 3)._

      _R. Chambers,
      History of the Rebellion of 1745._

      _Mrs. K. Thomson,
      Memoirs of the Jacobites,
      volumes 2-3._

      _Chevalier de Johnstone,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745._

      _J. H. Jesse,
      Memoirs of the Pretenders._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779.
   No-Popery Riots.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.
   Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
   The Disruption of the Church.
   Formation of the Free Church.

   "Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the
   fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she
   opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was
   abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again
   restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the
   letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all
   conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An
   internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to
   these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate
   party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views
   of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.
   The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of
   ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.
   Cases of this character were constantly coming before the
   presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on
   matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …
   In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting
   congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As
   an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the
   popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a
   majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented
   by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the
   settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed
   into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]
   that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,
   although there were other principles involved in the
   conflict."
{2880}
   In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,
   in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session
   against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on
   appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years
   the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion
   and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.
   Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the
   kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject
   attracted the attention of every household, and many a family
   became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,
   finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the
   Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the
   popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This
   occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,
   in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the
   body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in
   the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the
   Government of the country, which had infringed on the
   liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the
   chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,
   Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the
   Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred
   ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three
   hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his
   Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the
   people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of
   triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
   since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover
   Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the
   reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.
   Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of
   'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four
   ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also
   joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred
   theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three
   fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in
   Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

      _J. Mackintosh,
      Scotland,
      chapter 19._

   "It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can
   produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes,
   abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is
   literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of
   poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the
   Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord
   Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the
   heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable.
   But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that
   he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It
   was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her
   trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering
   to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on
   the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help
   themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch
   Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise,
   organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone
   which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church.
   … In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free
   Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her
   ministrations were extended to every district and almost every
   parish in the land."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 21 (volume 4)._

   "In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was
   too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism
   remains split up into different camps. Some of the older
   secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United
   Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church
   by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

      _T. F. Tout,
      History of England from 1689,
      page 238._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Brown,
      Annals of the Disruption._

      _R. Buchanan,
      The Ten Years' Conflict._

      _W. Hanna,
      Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers,
      volume 3, chapter 18
      and volume 4, chapters 6-25._

      _P. Bayne,
      Life and Letters of Hugh Miller,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868.
   Parliamentary Reform.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.
   Enlargement of the Suffrage.
   Representation of the People Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

   ----------SCOTLAND: End--------

SCOTS,
   Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTT, Dred, The case of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SCOTT, General Winfield.
   In the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield.
   The Mexican campaign of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield.
   Defeat in Presidential Election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

SCOTT, General Winfield
   Retirement from military service.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SCOTTI.
SCOTS.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

SCOTTISH PLOT, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SCOURGE OF GOD, The.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

SCRIBES, The.

   "The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the
   Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than
   in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the
   nearest original of the clergy of later times."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 44._

   "The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular
   'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the
   first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the
   authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the
   Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read,
   expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points,
   without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was
   nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was
   traditional, and had to be communicated from master to
   disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and
   extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught
   orally."

      _I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth,
      period 1, chapter 4._

SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

SCRUPULA.

      See As.

{2881}

SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

   A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a
   general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead
   of singly, in separate districts.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

SCUTAGE.

   The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived
   from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the
   distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a
   certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the
   services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year.
   The portion of land charged with this service constituted a
   'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five
   hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

      _K. Norgate,
      England Under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      page 54._

SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479.
   Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

SCUTUM.

   A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of
   a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have
   adopted from the Samnites.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107._

SCYRI, The.

   The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the
   second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black
   Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the
   breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared
   among the people occupying the region embraced in modern
   Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken
   the Gothic language.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.

      See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.

   The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob
   violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an
   oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic
   constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew
   twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the
   democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the
   rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism
   (cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek
   history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon
   as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians
   instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that
   the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 78._

SCYTHIANS, The.

   "Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in
   the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns
   his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the
   Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be
   made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and
   mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with
   that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in
   Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus,
   who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the
   inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian
   settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to
   have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both
   Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has
   left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian
   people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His
   conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates,
   is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the
   later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to
   denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a
   square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat
   less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the
   Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction
   from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis
   with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the
   fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,
   Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either
   occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name
   comprised tribes differing materially in habits and
   civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it,
   strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting,
   but living only on food derived from animals, especially
   mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying
   their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather,
   themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds,
   between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis
   [sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he
   [Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian
   race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes
   of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 17._

   "The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended
   from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the
   Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least
   half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the
   Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian
   in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the
   east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the
   Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the
   Bactrians."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
      chapter 9, footnote._

   For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.

   "The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such
   slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a
   corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were
   also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first
   (at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps.
   They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their
   guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the
   Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of
   Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in
   the same connection with them, likewise without doubt
   consisted of slaves."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens: The State,
      book 2, chapter 11._

SEARCH, The Right of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

SEBASTE.

      See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.

{2882}

SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.

SEBASTOPOL:
   The Name.

   "The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,
   in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the
   shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

      _H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      page 68._

SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.

SECESH.

      See Boys IN BLUE.

SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

   During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to
   extort civil and political rights from the originally
   governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on
   several occasions by marching out in a body from the city,
   refusing military service and threatening to found a new city.
   The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they
   wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the
   Tribunate.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

   The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs
   was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand
   for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in
   the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.

SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.

SECULAR CLERGY.

   The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because
   it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all
   the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious
   community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or
   inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note._

      See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.

   The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed
   to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages
   of the city. According to tradition, the first age was
   determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were
   born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the
   period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years
   is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the
   empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by
   Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with
   irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last
   celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 35, with footnote._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7._

SECURITY, The Act of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SEGNI, The.

   The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region
   on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the
   modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the
   territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 8._

SEGONTIACI, The.

   A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

SEGONTIUM.

   "One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of
   which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on
   the coast of the Irish Sea."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

SEGUSIAVI, The.

   One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez
   (departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the
   left bank of the Saone.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

      See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

      See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

SELAH.

   The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or
   Nabatheans.

      See NABATHEANS.

SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

      See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

SELECTMEN.

   In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony
   enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be
   three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the
   freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better
   managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that
   the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are
   heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and
   differences arising between pson and pson within theire
   respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The
   origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.
   It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old
   Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the
   legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi
   homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem
   to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the
   Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.
   'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to
   any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,
   selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

      _W. T. Davis,
      Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
      pages 84-85._

      See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

SELEUCIA.

   Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
   was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
   ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
   Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
   colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
{2883}
   The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
   hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
   walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
   several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
   power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
   sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
   enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
   Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
   three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
   Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
   They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
   attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
   cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
   conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
   inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

   ----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------

SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

   The struggle for power which broke out after his death among
   the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
   323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to
   a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation
   was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of
   things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's
   dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and
   Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct
   political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the
   most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),
   or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus
   Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's
   officers, but served without much distinction through the
   various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was
   effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)
   among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no
   share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of
   Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that
   his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of
   Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to
   the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the
   victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost
   potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made
   after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the
   Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower
   Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended
   from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the
   Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and
   from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the
   Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised
   Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,
   Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,
   Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,
   Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some
   part of India."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

   The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was
   Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the
   city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the
   Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle
   of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city
   of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his
   royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center
   of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been
   among the causes which led to the disintegration of the
   kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the
   latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire._

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      volume 3._

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
   Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
   Decay of the empire.

   "Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to
   his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]
   at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from
   his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls
   at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].
   … He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the
   beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with
   Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],
   which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with
   Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it
   was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important
   was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste
   of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise
   enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs
   of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his
   father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains
   of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,
   which his father had left him in a state of submission,
   asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus
   under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other
   countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be
   satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.
   There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became
   independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no
   longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated
   from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.
   With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,
   and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of
   his reign he was again involved in war with him, although
   Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was
   protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The
   Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia
   Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and
   principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though
   otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry
   it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered
   Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably
   Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands
   about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.
   129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of
   his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most
   detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought
   about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter
   of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was
   obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.
{2884}
   After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice
   returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with
   her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of
   Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who
   had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of
   intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen
   image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the
   courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful
   distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the
   government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.
   But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for
   a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was
   betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms
   and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at
   Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two
   brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then
   assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,
   and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the
   third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that
   deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of
   his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out
   with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the
   nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,
   and other towns, which were already in arms to support
   Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the
   Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.
   Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and
   Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,
   submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the
   acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone
   maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of
   Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus
   Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in
   the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His
   brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with
   Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere
   exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian
   manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an
   insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."
   He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself
   Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia
   Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.
   The remaining territories he divided into two states: the
   country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.
   Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is
   otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus
   Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those
   countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to
   him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a
   fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a
   general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated
   against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus
   Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper
   Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus
   Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce
   of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both
   parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed
   at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of
   the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,
   remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital
   was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the
   whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,
   and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to
   Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the
   brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two
   brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …
   'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the
   Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued
   Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,
   Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,
   and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a
   general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to
   keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had
   been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the
   Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."
   Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,
   but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.
   "Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been
   shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its
   strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal
   decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of
   Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too
   the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces
   more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the
   Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus
   was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the
   opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western
   Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was
   succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.
   227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered
   by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same
   Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three
   years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his
   younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under
   Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great
   extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great
   man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname
   of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at
   the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.
   Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the
   satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire
   was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this
   confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In
   Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in
   Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty
   had already established itself."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 103-104 (volume 3)._

{2885}

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
   The reign of Antiochus the Great.
   His early successes.
   His disastrous war with the Romans.
   His diminished kingdom.
   His death.

   Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the
   war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the
   satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the
   old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and
   Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy
   Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,
   near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the
   Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought
   (B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,
   had raised the standard of independence; but after an
   obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and
   put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the
   West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the
   reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least
   of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only
   resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the
   Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not
   only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of
   Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter
   event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation
   in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip
   [Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a
   peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see
   GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan
   for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended
   to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,
   while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of
   Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of
   the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon
   Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated
   to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their
   youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,
   whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the
   Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians
   at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a
   peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:
   B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to
   Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It
   must not be forgotten that, the transference of these
   provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant
   policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious
   persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their
   successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.
   166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to
   the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;
   but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer
   object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …
   He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced
   along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was
   brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the
   allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting
   the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from
   some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he
   became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos
   on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in
   the first instance favourable to his progress; for the
   hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the
   places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until
   191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him
   into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an
   alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into
   his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty
   jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great
   unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in
   192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched
   himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to
   him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in
   the following year he was attacked in this strong position by
   the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense
   advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and
   his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to
   Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the
   long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the
   first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered
   the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,
   Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in
   co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia
   Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was
   fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which
   the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land
   Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he
   gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.
   Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and
   easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the
   field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his
   former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken
   from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful
   ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and
   some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized
   in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As
   the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of
   those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like
   unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it
   sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for
   the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong
   enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the
   malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance
   ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as
   the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to
   Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he
   thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too
   large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so
   rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
   the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was
   soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs
   at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering
   of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought
   to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty
   princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions
   of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic
   tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount
   Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors
   driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with
   Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was
   respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without
   putting a bound to their influence."
{2886}
   Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his
   sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater
   part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the
   aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most
   powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of
   Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and
   Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the
   greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity
   of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,
   in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of
   Lysimachia."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapters 24 and 28._

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2._

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 65._

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
   Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
   Babylonia and Assyria.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
   Pompeius in the East.
   Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

   In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the
   Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus
   marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered
   region.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

   He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the
   Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers
   in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose
   of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid
   kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,
   and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned
   his attention to Judæa.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapters 9-10._

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

   ----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------

SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

SELGOVÆ, The.

   A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
   Dumfries, Scotland.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

SELIM I.,
   Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.

   Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.

   Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.

SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

SELJUKS.

   See TURKS (SELJUKS).

SELLA CURULIS.

      See CURULE CHAIR.

SELLASIA, Battle of.

   The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic
   War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance
   of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,
   Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived
   and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat
   Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,
   king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an
   instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all
   Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of
   Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first
   time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a
   foreign conqueror."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 7, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Kleomenes._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SELLI, The.

      See HELLAS.

SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SEMINOLES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,
      and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

   ----------SEMITES: Start--------

SEMITES, The

   "The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
   with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of
   languages closely related to one another and presupposing a
   common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the
   German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such
   a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and
   Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of
   Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,
   Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian
   tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better
   title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in
   order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and
   Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have
   been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was
   none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound
   language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which
   failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,
   when scholars began to realise the distinction between
   language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic
   race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological
   science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do
   is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from
   the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There
   are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic
   languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong
   to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the
   Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and
   yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language
   which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of
   the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still
   meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern
   Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the
   Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the
   purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are
   not free from admixture."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Races of the Old Testament,
      chapter 4._

   "The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic
   race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by
   linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and
   historical distribution:

   A. Northern Semites.
      I. Babylonian:
         a. Old Babylonian
         b. Assyrian
         c. Chaldæan

      II. Aramæan:
         a. Mesopotamian
         b. Syrian.

      III. Canaanitic
         a. Canaanites
         b. Phœnicians

      IV. Hebraic
         a. Hebrews
         b. Moabites
         c. Ammonites
         d. Edomites

   B. Southern Semites.
      I. Sabæans

      II. Ethiopians

      III. Arabs.

{2887}

   It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,
   that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a
   matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an
   exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were
   attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be
   exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of
   races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is
   not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The
   Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from
   Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the
   Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the
   mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech
   and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans
   of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of
   Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the
   communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the
   Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing
   individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be
   remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a
   geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and
   that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for
   instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly
   ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.
   It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the
   Semitic race, before its separation into the historical
   divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution
   of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While
   among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained
   for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years
   as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil
   of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there
   developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly
   related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built
   up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those
   branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,
   after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved
   northward and westward to engage in more important
   enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the
   Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and
   which historical research indicates to have been the seat of
   the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the
   Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through
   canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms
   finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was
   effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along
   the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still
   the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians
   then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western
   Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to
   the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the
   shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the
   riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early
   date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the
   valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the
   western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region
   they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the
   former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.
   As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great
   navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent
   forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

      See PHŒNICIA.

   Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the
   Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern
   mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who
   advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While
   the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life
   among the good grazing districts in the confines of the
   desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate
   position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted
   themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the
   West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to
   political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian
   home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the
   decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates
   [see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,
   they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with
   the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,
   formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and
   Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine
   a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a
   rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of
   Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent
   political part to the west than they did to the east of the
   Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most
   closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time
   they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.
   … As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to
   form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their
   permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

      See JEWS.

   Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
   Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
   Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
   stock."

      _J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
   [Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

   1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
   Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
   Tigris;

   2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
   and important city was Damascus; and

   3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was
   formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in
   geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian
   Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in
   history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The
   Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not
   second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in
   commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between
   East and West, they have stood between the great ancient
   civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;
   while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in
   place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary
   between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the
   world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its
   only universal religions."

      _George Adam Smith,
      Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
      page 5._

{2888}

   "If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this
   organic and living whole which is called civilization, we
   shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them
   nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar
   and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These
   nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have
   reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.
   … In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.
   These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes
   entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being
   their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of
   union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our
   sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us
   beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order
   of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of
   Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige
   everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,
   however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all
   the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the
   destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search
   after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no
   necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal
   school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we
   are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge
   for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no
   trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from
   her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that
   pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of
   natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political
   life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we
   owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we
   except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has
   adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises
   only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race
   in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble
   relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic
   faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?
   How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the
   world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the
   people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the
   Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the
   imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of
   nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one
   sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a
   child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined
   to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first
   effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of
   Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.
   Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied
   with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the
   Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly
   insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke
   feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of
   nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently
   amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.
   It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds
   itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the
   clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding
   naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In
   the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'
   possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral
   precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an
   incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen
   then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to
   say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

      _E. Renan,
      Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
      pages 154-160._

SEMITES:
   Primitive Babylonia.

   "The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the
   arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the
   civilization to which they attained in and through their
   settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The
   unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result
   not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded
   benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization
   which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized
   inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the
   Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …
   formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of
   the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia
   that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most
   fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible
   exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned
   by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.
   … The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other
   origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic
   records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal
   this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of
   civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a
   language already long past its formative period, and a stage
   of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a
   wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic
   ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.
   The same records also show this Semitic people to have
   extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the
   Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or
   Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or
   corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection
   with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian
   Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or
   did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of
   direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume
   that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high
   mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual
   attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion
   is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the
   well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their
   civilization from another people who preceded them in the
   occupation and cultivation of the country.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

{2889}

   This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,
   generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of
   Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled
   the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly
   connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise
   to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern
   authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same
   people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …
   The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and
   ethnological research during the last twenty years. The
   general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its
   being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and
   the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable
   doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall
   have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest
   type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it
   would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole
   occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or
   that they received no important contributions to their
   development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to
   assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous
   people bore a small share with the Semites in the early
   development of the country, and that, as a result of their
   contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of
   the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular
   superstition."

      _J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to
   be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and
   decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown
   to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant
   pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks
   well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I
   shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by
   calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also
   constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce
   claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.
   Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.
   C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This
   temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son
   of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual
   foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen
   by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of
   this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is
   assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,
   however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been
   preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who
   spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic
   population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,
   from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the
   Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,
   which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third
   dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited
   about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we
   are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for
   Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person
   to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the
   real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.
   All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before
   our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history
   and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own
   authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is
   purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully
   distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,
   as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during
   their own lives or before their own eyes."

      _F. Max Müller,
      On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East
      (Nineteenth Century, 1891)._

   "Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted
   by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit
   Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the
   alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called
   Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing
   Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of
   learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.
   He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage
   of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which
   lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the
   peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by
   the assumption that it was originally intended for another
   language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He
   calls this language, which may or may not have been
   non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called
   Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'
   The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is
   not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before
   the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the
   Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the
   interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia
   and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much
   favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical
   way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,
   to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes
   that this identification, though not impossible, is not
   proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader
   either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs
   Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the
   latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of
   as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the
   supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also
   rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times
   included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as
   Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

   1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to
   the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent
   to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

   2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
   Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

   3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of
   Nineveh.

   4. The New Babylonian Empire.

   In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to
   deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical
   knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely
   mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its
   earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of
   the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to
   fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.
   Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he
   regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a
   representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about
   the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the
   thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the
   quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of
   reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid
   fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his
   mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the
   Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'
   So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon
   had been established for centuries."

      _Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
      (Academy, January 1, 1887)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Earliest History of Babylonia
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
      "Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec)._

{2890}

SEMITES:
   The First Babylonian Empire.

   "It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of
   Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …
   Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian
   list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions
   recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].
   The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of
   fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,
   "the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty
   king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions
   obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the
   shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel
   granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the
   sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the
   blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of
   the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both
   its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A
   lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.
   I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer
   and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and
   abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to
   dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the
   favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by
   Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose
   summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,
   the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit
   tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of
   Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four
   quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of
   Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and
   presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, pages 282-283._

   "The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,
   the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal
   canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good
   condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we
   know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When
   civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,
   nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life
   and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great
   works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

      _G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
      History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
      volume 1, page 40._

   "After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi]
   bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of
   Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This
   ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still
   further the national system of canalization. … Five kings
   after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the
   eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304
   years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of
   Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the
   occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the
   names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings
   reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic
   race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this
   time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of
   Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name
   Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between
   Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the
   same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them
   out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political
   sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of
   the government and the national type of culture and forms of
   activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after
   century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius
   of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its
   conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force
   of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the
   prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able
   to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity,
   not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because
   "they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their
   energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in
   science and art. … The time which the native historiographers
   allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This
   Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation
   of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from
   Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was
   almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the
   parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes
   the leading power in the West."

      _J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 2, chapter 3,
      and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576
   years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the
   country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely
   consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring
   populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors
   and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,
   the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the
   'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine
   in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian
   province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book
   of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the
   designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna
   tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to
   that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the
   Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in
   the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in
   that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with
   Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have
   come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still
   reigned over Babylonia. …
{2891}
   Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out
   of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,
   and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'
   … The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod
   led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its
   'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road
   to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the
   Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future
   kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious
   career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may
   conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his
   power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the
   proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that
   Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have
   given us such abundant evidence."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,
      chapter 3._

   It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes,
   founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the
   Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors,
   returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received,
   subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites
   of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the
   Tigris.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

   Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic
   world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt
   was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings
   which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or
   Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on
   the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or
   vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic
   types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV.
   was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of
   Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the
   fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of
   Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III.
   and IV.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

   All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in
   Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers
   were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages.
   For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered.
   Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the
   Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers,
   had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated
   Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to
   be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas
   occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris,
   desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his
   ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced
   to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of
   Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic
   peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."

      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      pages 205-206._

SEMITES:
   The Assyrian Empire.

   "According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest
   about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of
   Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by
   Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The
   tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their
   chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At
   first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these
   petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the
   capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the
   frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually
   southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one
   sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by
   the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt,
   enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her
   influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her
   own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary
   satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over
   again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her
   neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were
   always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established
   after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a
   century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have
   recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an
   end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one
   or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne,
   and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish
   the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian
   Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help
   of military institutions whose details now escape us, although
   their results may be traced throughout the later history of
   Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these
   institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies
   of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the
   Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the
   plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the
   Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes
   whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere
   inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The
   oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach
   (Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated
   are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in
   the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs
   the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum.
   … Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on
   his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged
   against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the
   king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser
   the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint
   of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards
   the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a
   period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of
   its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the
   Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of
   confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh
   is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the
   same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under
   the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after
   the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to
   have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and
   west as the frontiers of Egypt.
{2892}
   And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or,
   to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new
   dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought
   into complete submission after a great victory over the
   Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both
   as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels
   of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he
   almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial
   seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and
   restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees
   from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose
   a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which
   Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This
   building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the
   village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of
   Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the
   towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the
   capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most
   populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the
   king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast
   approaching date of its final destruction. The son of
   Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long
   identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof.
   Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel
   king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose
   name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and
   conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the
   whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. …
   There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by
   the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of
   Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage
   to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all
   civilization."

      _G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
      A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
      chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1)._

   "The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding
   under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts
   of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to
   quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in
   Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal
   says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was
   opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by
   force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great
   number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. …
   The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their
   head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set
   up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was
   necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected
   for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious
   brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before
   Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into
   a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents …
   are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are
   subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs,
   who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of
   his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources
   of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. …
   Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in
   the history of the world. The most effective means which she
   brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in
   the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the
   subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of
   Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most
   important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was
   perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties
   and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event
   which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current
   of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the
   10th century every event of importance had originated in
   Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of
   the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we
   have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their
   miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most
   of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown
   by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything
   else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and
   even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus,
   who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows
   nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,
      chapter 3._

SEMITES:
   The last Babylonian Empire and its overthrow.

   The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian
   monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About
   626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and
   the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or
   Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his
   undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made
   governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he
   mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his
   allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise
   enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by
   one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho,
   of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his
   daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a
   league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against
   Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the
   Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the
   king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged
   Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried
   away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king
   gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and
   setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies
   went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay
   their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power
   practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar
   succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become
   established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews,
   Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon
   the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains
   almost unsurpassed."

      _E. A. Wallis Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      chapter 5._

{2893}

   "The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each
   side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by
   the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This
   square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river.
   The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks
   and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These
   walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and
   protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along
   their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over
   the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to
   flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled
   the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at
   equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed
   with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze
   posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each
   other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city,
   and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The
   river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer
   walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an
   arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed,
   and ferries plied continually across the water where the other
   streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all
   occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and
   even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by
   irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year,
   supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege.
   Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. …
   There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen
   noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the
   explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the
   emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by
   the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to
   history which could have served as a model for John's
   description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four
   square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed
   through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and
   on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve
   manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city
   garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of
   the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed
   and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space
   left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they
   are all unique, have been combined in no other city."

      _W. B. Wright,
      Ancient Cities,
      pages 41-44._

   "Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained
   from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the
   establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the
   authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical
   character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always
   been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native
   authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to
   have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from
   the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these
   authors, the following is the history of the last King of
   Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first
   appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined
   to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then
   occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the
   corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was
   the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the
   grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his
   tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his
   father two months before, had already given proof of a bad
   disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been
   carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the
   youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the
   seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already
   conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.

      See PERSIA B. C. 549-521.

   The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to
   flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind
   the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we
   are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that
   the last king of Babylon was the son of the great
   Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so
   doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value,
   the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls
   Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife
   of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated
   prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being
   the only testimony of secular writers, there was no
   alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet
   the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of
   Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was,
   undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform
   inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and
   other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the
   problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that
   is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native
   king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay.
   This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as
   bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and
   hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear
   of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn
   son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order
   that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my
   firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …'
   These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the
   name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel,
   and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as
   to the reason which could have induced the author to represent
   Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform
   inscription was for the first time interpreted and published
   by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of
   Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain
   the annals of the king whose fate we have just been
   discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it
   allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before
   and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the
   most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that
   of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son
   during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army.
   Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found:
   Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians,
   acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the
   Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When
   Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met
   with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably
   slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."

      _B. T. A. Evetts,
      New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land,
      chapter 11, part 2._

{2894}

   Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom
   was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in
   Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would
   appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The
   conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in
   B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession
   of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia,
   invited by a party in the country hostile to its king,
   Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus
   claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient
   Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted
   worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had
   overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his
   son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual
   amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of
   the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed
   the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to
   return to their homes along with the statues of their gods.
   Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old
   Testament, were the Jews."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Primer of Assyriology,
      pages 74-78._

SEMITES:
   Hebraic branch.

      See JEWS, AMMONITES; MOABITES; and EDOMITES.

SEMITES:
   Canaanitic branch.

      See JEWS: EARLY HISTORY; and PHŒNICIANS.

SEMITES:
   Southern branches.

      See ARABIA; ETHIOPIA; and ABYSSINIA.

   ----------SEMITES: End--------

SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

   "There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group
   of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The
   dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from
   each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic
   dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary
   unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has
   remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great
   branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch
   comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish
   group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so
   called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to
   two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac.
   … The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was
   divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which
   resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of
   which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to
   Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect
   of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown
   to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of
   this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician,
   Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan,
   notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last
   of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being
   the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman
   nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned
   to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of
   Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of
   inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of
   Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we
   must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several
   centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had
   received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or
   Ethiopian."

      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      pages 213-223._

SEMNONES, The.

   "The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements
   seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as
   nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly
   into Prussian Poland."-

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

SEMPACH, Battle of (1386).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

SEMPRONIAN LAWS.

   The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were
   of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.

      See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

SENA, The Druidic oracle of.

   A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme
   western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as
   the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish
   navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2)._

SENATE, Canadian.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

SENATE, French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SENATE, Roman.

   "In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to
   form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of
   its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the
   canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators,
   or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the
   number of senators was three hundred, because in the
   beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans.
   In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at
   first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some
   man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made
   his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the
   rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators
   were selected from the whole body of the people, without any
   attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the
   senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without
   having nominated his successor, the senators served
   successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for
   periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This
   general duty was the first of the senate's original functions.
   Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of
   the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto
   it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's
   institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of
   experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times
   of personal doubt or national danger."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 3._

{2895}

   Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the
   Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the
   following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic
   ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate
   were half the state, though its number seems still to have
   been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was
   perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever
   seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators
   always Senators, unless they were degraded for some
   dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not
   hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son.
   Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in
   the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many
   persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this
   august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes
   of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed
   the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of
   choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But
   official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in
   practice; and the Censors followed rules established by
   ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists
   of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech
   that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an
   Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised
   Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power
   of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to
   legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the
   Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its
   votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to
   foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except
   in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters
   which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned
   to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of
   administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to
   be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of
   the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They
   prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at
   pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the
   regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the
   financial arrangements of the State were left to their
   discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court
   of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 35 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 146; and CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

SENATE, United States.

   "The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and
   these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The
   representation is then equal, each State having two Senators
   and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made
   among the States on account of size, population, or wealth.
   The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the
   higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer
   period of service, make it the more important body of the two.
   The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and
   acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing
   legislation that is more characteristic of the House of
   Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people,
   and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and
   reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is
   more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower
   body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval
   the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must
   ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of
   ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
   Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States
   whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The
   Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot
   originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy
   occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the
   governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next
   meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the
   usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the
   Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same
   manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate
   itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has
   no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his
   powers are very limited."

      _W. C. Ford,
      The American Citizen's Manual,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Federalist,
      Numbers 62-66._

      _J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 10-12 (volume 1)._

      See, also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SENATUS-CONSULTUM.
SENATUS-DECRETUM.

   "A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate,
   and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might
   interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called
   Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction
   between the terms being that the former was more
   comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several
   orders or Decreta."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 6._

SENCHUS MOR, The.

   One of the books of the ancient Irish laws, known as the
   Brehon Laws.

SENECAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SENECAS.

SENEFFE, Battle of (1674).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

SENLAC OR HASTINGS, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).

SENNACHIES.

   One of the names given to the Bards, or Ollamhs, of the
   ancient Irish.

SENONES, The.

   A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the
   Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern
   Sens.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

   The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed
   the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy
   with the Romans.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347, and 295-191.

SENS, Origin of.

      See SENONES.

SENTINUM, Battle of (B. C. 295).

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290, and B. C. 295-191.

SEPARATISTS.

      See INDEPENDENTS.

SEPHARDIM, The.

   Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492
   are called the Sephardim.

      See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

SEPHARVAIM.

      See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

SEPHER YETZIRA, The.

      See CABALA.

SEPOY: The name.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

{2896}

SEPOY MUTINY,
   of 1763, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

   Of 1806.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

   Of 1857-1858.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

SEPT, OR CLAN.

      See CLANS.

SEPTA.

      See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

SEPTEMBER LAWS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEPTENNATE IN FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

SEPTENNIAL ACT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

SEPTIMANIA:
   Under the Goths.

      See GOTHIA, IN GAUL;
      also GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419; and 419-451.

SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 715-718.
   Occupation by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 752-759.
   Recovery from the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

SEPTIMANIA: 10th Century.
   The dukes and their successors.

      See TOULOUSE: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

SEPTUAGINT, The.

   "We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old
   Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a
   solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and
   understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.].
   There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of
   the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the
   versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his
   request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that
   the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many
   Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually
   forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an
   impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library,
   which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson Smith,
      The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
      lecture 4._

      _F. W. Farrar,
      History of Interpretation (
      Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3._

SEQUANA, The.
   The ancient name of the river Seine.

SEQUANI, The.

      See GAULS.

SERAI.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

SERAPEUM, at Alexandria.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389;
      also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

SERAPEUM, at Memphis.

   "The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt]
   rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and
   by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had
   long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover
   it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the
   earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at
   Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at
   Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime
   was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his
   tomb."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 88._

SERAPHIM, OR "BLUE RIBBON," The order of the.

   "There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order,
   yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the
   foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof,
   ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I.
   [of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the
   persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes
   the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King
   Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and
   North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."

      _Sir B. Burke,
      The Book of Orders of Knighthood,
      page 329._

SERBONIAN BOG.

   "There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow,
   but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in
   length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it
   they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very
   narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast
   heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake,
   by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of
   the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that
   it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many,
   unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their
   way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies.
   For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by
   degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them
   that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief
   they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help
   one another, but without any possibility either of returning
   back or escaping certain ruin."

      _Diodorus
      (Booth's translation)
      book 1, chapter 3._

   According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so
   graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern
   celebrity to Milton's allusion (_Paradise Lost, ii.
   502-4_), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He
   describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the
   northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean
   by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the
   only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory
   that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that
   the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt,
      volume 2, appendix._

SERBS, The.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

SERES.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SERFDOM.
SERFS.

   See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN.

SERGIUS I.,
   Pope, A. D. 687-701.

   Sergius II., Pope, 844-847.

   Sergius III., Pope, 904-911.

   Sergius IV., Pope, 1009-1012.

SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1792.
   Siege by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1799.
   Final capture by the English.
   Death of Sultan Tippoo.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.

   See TEMPLARS: THE ORDER IN ENGLAND.

SERPUL, Treaty of (1868).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1850-1876.

SERRANO, Ministry and Regency of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

SERTORIUS, in Spain.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

{2897}

SERVI.

   See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND; also, CATTANI.

SERVIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.

   The first important modification of the primitive Roman
   constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.

      See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

SERVIAN WALL OF ROME, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

SERVILES, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

SERVITES, The.

   The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin,"
   better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven
   Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years,
   and has a considerable number of houses still existing.

SESQUIPES.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

SESTERTIUS, The.

      See AS.

SESTOS, OR SESTUS, Siege and capture of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SESTUNTII, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

SETTE POZZI, OR MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

SETTLEMENT, Act of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, and IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

SEVASTOS.

   The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of
   "Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
   protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."

      _G. Finlay,
      History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

SEVEN BISHOPS, The: Sent to the Tower.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

SEVEN BOROUGHS, The.

      See FIVE BOROUGHS. THE.

SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.
   St. George, for England,
   St. Denis, for France,
   St. James, for Spain,
   St. Anthony, for Italy,
   St. Andrew, for Scotland,
   St. Patrick, for Ireland, and
   St. David, for Wales,
   were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of
   Christendom.

SEVEN CITIES, The Isle of the.

      See ANTILLES.

SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

SEVEN DAYS RETREAT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SEVEN GATES OF THEBES, The.

      See THEBES, GREECE: THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY.

SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, The.

   "The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after
   the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx'
   of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of
   the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by
   Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is
   said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by
   Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the
   two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture
   ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population
   of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon
   it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city
   by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed
   necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy
   tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal,
   afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he
   says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city
   having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned
   by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the
   Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which
   the city had extended."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      pages 56-57._

SEVEN ISLANDS, The Republic of the.

      See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS, The.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SEVEN MOUNTS, The.

      See PALATINE HILL; and QUIRINAL.

SEVEN PINES, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

SEVEN PROVINCES, The Union of the.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

SEVEN REDUCTIONS, The War of the.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SEVEN RIVERS, The Land of the.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

SEVEN WEEKS WAR, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.

   "The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or
   sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven
   Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and
   most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To
   most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,
   together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,
   serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this
   constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian
   history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and
   argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the
   statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither
   the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.
   Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of
   Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the
   Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the
   lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were
   Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
   Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,
   or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred
   the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:
   'Know thyself,'
   'Nothing too much,'
   'Know thy opportunity,'
   'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'

   … Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten
   persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which
   those words bore in his day, but persons of practical
   discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn
   of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not
   employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance
   forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the
   first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation
   grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or
   effect—a proof that political and social prudence was
   beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 29._

{2898}

SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.

      See RHODES, THE COLOSSUS OF.

   ----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: Start--------

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   Its causes and provocations.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   Campaigns in America.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   English Naval Operations.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),
      and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   Campaigns in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756, to 1761-1762.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   The conflict in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   The Treaties which ended the war.
   The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.

   Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain
   were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at
   Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next
   month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between
   Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a
   hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and
   Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France,
   Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763.
   Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither
   Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was
   stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of
   Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe
   Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England
   Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi
   as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi,
   from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the
   boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except
   that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be
   included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape
   Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence,
   retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at
   Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the
   West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of
   the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent,
   and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa,
   the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the
   French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749,
   retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain
   Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops
   in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in
   Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in
   the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her
   side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique,
   Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to
   Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the
   Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British
   conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of
   cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the
   Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same
   state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss
   of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain
   New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace
   of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was
   signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all
   pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King
   of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him
   by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to
   restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the
   fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in
   the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace
   with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to
   evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but
   he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The
   Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

   "Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places,
   it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The
   substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue,
   as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points,
   simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points,
   strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the
   civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War.
   Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal;
   and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from
   east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general
   'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but
   Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere
   expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of
   opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and
   restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the
   one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little
   dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey
   from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them
   one other time:

   1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping
   him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have
   palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We
   have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and
   what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,—
   Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be
   conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone
   through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men;
   and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated
   Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World
   henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding
   itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries,
   Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of
   Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's
   Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the
   infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland
   henceforth. …

   2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at
   last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were
   not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all
   others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object.
   America is to be English, not French; what a result is that,
   were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History
   of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe,
   according to my best conjecture, and comparison of
   probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not
   everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my
   Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have
   done us benefit! …

{2899}

   3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland,
   with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such
   opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old
   confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the
   piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To
   Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it
   or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the
   balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')!
   France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant,
   governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous
   pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail
   it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless
   fermentation, generally into dry-rot."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.,
      book 20, chapter 13 (volume 9)._

   The text of the Treaty of Paris may be found here.

      _Parliamentary History,
      volume 15, page 1291,_

      _Entick's History of the Late War,
      volume 5, page 438._

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the
   Great.

   "Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of
   by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The
   enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps;
   that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of
   Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two
   garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of
   Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further
   estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia
   by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in
   the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The
   Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was
   computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including
   part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the
   frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany.
   The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at
   Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they
   estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their
   losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to
   160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles
   to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched,
   the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and
   even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost
   destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been
   sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the
   prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns.
   Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money,
   but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the
   rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony
   was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had
   suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the
   goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants,
   which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia
   excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no
   doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former
   abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like
   manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new
   wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the
   human mind; no man benefits by example."

      _Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17._

   ----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: End--------

SEVERINUS, Pope, A. D. 640, May to August.

SEVERUS, Alexander, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.

SEVERUS, Libius, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 461-465.

SEVERUS, Septimius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193-211.
   Campaigns in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SEVERUS, Wall of.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

SEVIER, John, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

   ----------SEVILLE: Start--------

SEVILLE:
   Early history of the city.

   "Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was
   singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar
   entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified
   it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians
   of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with
   its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called
   Hispalis."

      _E. E. and S. Hale,
      The Story of Spain,
      chapter 18._

SEVILLE: A. D. 712.
   Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

SEVILLE: A. D. 1031-1091.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SEVILLE: A. D. 1248.
   Conquest from the Moors by St. Ferdinand of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

   ----------SEVILLE: End--------

SEVILLE, Treaty of (1730).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SEVIN, Battle of (1877).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SEWAN.

      See WAMPUM.

SEWARD, William H.
   Defeat in the Chicago Convention of 1860.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

   In President Lincoln's Cabinet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MARCH), and after.

   The Trent Affair.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D.1861 (NOVEMBER).

   The Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

   Attempted assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

   In President Johnson's Cabinet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

SFORZA, Francesco, The rise to ducal sovereignty of.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SHABATZ, Battle of (1806).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

SHACAYA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

SHAH, OR SCHAH.

      See BEY; also CHESS.

SHAH JAHAN,
   Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1628-1658.

SHAH ROKH, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1747-1751.

SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

SHAHPUR.

   One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of
   which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was
   built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and
   received his name.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

{2900}

SHAKERS, The.

   "From the time of the first settlements until the age of the
   Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded,
   [in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The
   first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or
   Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of
   their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or
   society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since.
   It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New
   York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the
   following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic
   societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their
   property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with
   other real estate. The value of their houses and personal
   property is not given. The population of all the communities
   consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young
   persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339
   females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of
   population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which
   we are not able to account save on the supposition that there
   are permanent causes of decay now at work within the
   communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of
   enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers
   about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of
   the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed
   to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in
   1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her
   to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with
   eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near
   Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed
   remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of
   celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the
   church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with
   the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all
   the societies in New York and New England were founded; and
   under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership
   lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. …
   After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff
   gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of
   them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person,
   male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual
   also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and
   that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first
   in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There
   are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first
   heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The
   second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious
   Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into
   which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived
   until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up,
   and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day
   of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began
   with the establishment of their church, and will go on until
   it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and
   property they do not take the position that these are crimes;
   but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will
   have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as
   here. They believed in spiritual communication and
   possession."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 51-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 117-232._

SHAKESPEARE, and the English Renaissance.

      See ENGLAND: 15-16TH CENTURIES.

SHAMANISM.

      See LAMAS.—LAMAISM.

SHARON, Plain of.

   That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which
   stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt.
   Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.

SHARPSBURG, OR ANTIETAM, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

SHASTAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SHASU, The.

   An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and
   with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest
   antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and
   the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as
   far as the river Euphrates."

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 11._

      See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

SHAWMUT.

   The Indian name of the peninsula on which Boston,
   Massachusetts, was built.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

SHAYS REBELLION.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

SHEADINGS.

      See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

SHEBA.

   "The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of
   Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also,
      ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

SHEEPEATERS (Tukuarika).

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SHEKEL, The.

   "Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of
   Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the
   precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in
   the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus
   equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers
   this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the
   Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each
   equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina
   into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5
   English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence
   from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the
   normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5
   troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."

      _H. W. Chisholm,
      On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
      chapter 2._

SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation
of peace between England and the United States.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;
      AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SHENANDOAH, The Confederate Cruiser.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1865.

   ----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Start--------

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1716.
   Possession taken by the Virginians.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1710.

{2901}

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1744.
   Purchase from the Six Nations.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1861-1864.
   Campaigns in the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);
      1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).

   ----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: End--------

SHENIR, Battle of.

   A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by
   Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.

SHEPHELAH, The.

   The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast
   which the Philistines occupied.

SHEPHERD KINGS.

      See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

SHERIDAN, General Philip H.:
   In the Battle of Stone River.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

   At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   Raid to Richmond.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Raid to Trevillian Station.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   Campaign in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

   Battle of Five Forks.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

SHERIFF.
SCIRGEREFA.

   "The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands
   at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called
   Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of
   the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first
   was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the
   people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the
   people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority
   gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we
   find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in
   and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop
   on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the
   militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served
   under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents
   served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods,
   the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the
   last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a
   sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment
   in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the
   scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the
   acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability
   was never refused."

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapter 4._

      See, also,
      SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SHERIFFMUIR, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

SHERMAN, General W. T.:
   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

   Removal from command in Kentucky.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

   Battle of Shiloh.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

   The second attempt against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The final Vicksburg campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The capture of Jackson.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

   The Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

   Meridian expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

   March to the Sea.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA),
      and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

   The last campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
      and (APRIL 26TH).

SHERMAN SILVER ACT, and its repeal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.

SHERSTONE, Battle of.

   The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund
   Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D.
   1016.

SHERWOOD FOREST.

   "The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no
   reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from
   the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of
   the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest
   once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into
   both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by
   eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite
   hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best
   known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin
   Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.

      _J. C. Brown,
      The Forests of England._

SHESHATAPOOSH INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SHETLAND, OR ZETLAND, ISLES:
   8-13th Centuries.
   The Northmen in possession.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SHEYENNES, OR CHEYENNES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SHI WEI, The.

      See MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.

SHIAHS, OR SHIAS, The.

      See ISLAM;
      also PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SHIITES, Sultan Selim's massacre of the.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

SHILOH, OR PITTSBURG LANDING, Battle of.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

SHINAR.

   See BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

SHIP OF THE LINE.

   In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than
   74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed
   in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a
   "line-of-battle ship."

SHIP-MONEY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.

SHIPKA PASS, Struggle for the.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SHIPWRECK, Law of.

      See LAW: ADMIRALTY.

{2902}

SHIRE.
SHIREMOOT.

   "The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately
   superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share
   of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an
   official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to
   the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese
   was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties
   owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or
   scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's
   steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff
   held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the
   year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare
   the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the
   constituting officer."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1)._

      See, also, KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE;
      EALDORMAN; and GAU.

SHOE-STRING DISTRICT, The.

      See GERRYMANDERING.

SHOGUN.

      See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

SHOSHONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SHREWSBURY, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.

SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

SHULUH, The.

      See LIBYANS.

SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.

      See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

SHUPANES.
GRAND SHUPANES.

   The princes, ultimately kings, of the early Servian people.

      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 1._

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH CENTURY (SERVIA).

SHUSHAN.

      See SUSA.

SIAM.

   "The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call
   themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the
   greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of
   the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also
   generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural
   limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on
   one side by the British possessions, on the other by the
   French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the
   Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and
   draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen
   basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again
   as that of France, has a population probably less than
   6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or
   Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which
   is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and
   China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper
   Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and
   in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British
   territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or
   Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of
   Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King
   of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred
   chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard.
   Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the
   Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean
   'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three
   races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya,
   'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese
   are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil
   and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold
   character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their
   laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the
   Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had
   from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the
   middle of the present century. But since the abolition of
   slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by
   Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master
   of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys
   absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. …
   A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the
   title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no
   power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most
   of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house
   officers are Englishmen."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 3, chapter 21._

   The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D.
   1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of
   Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional
   legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of
   substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are
   accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of
   embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended
   with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other
   divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was
   founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of
   Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course
   of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."

      _Sir J. Bowring,
      Kingdom and People of Siam,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China;
   but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the
   first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain)
   was concluded."

      _G. G. Chisholm,
      The Two Hemispheres,
      page 523._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Colquhoun,
      Amongst the Shans,
      introduction by T. de La Couperie,
      and sup. by H. S. Hallett._

SIBERIA: The Russian conquest.

   Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle
   of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the
   country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a
   Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack
   upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won,
   Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of
   Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The
   conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but
   soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into
   the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater
   acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests;
   wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or
   exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted.
   Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now
   called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to
   the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of
   China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."

      _W. Coxe,
      Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,
      part 2, chapter 1._

{2903}

SIBUZATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SIBYLS.
SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

   "Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of
   "Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter,
   and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the
   Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king
   and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for
   a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went
   and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the
   six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but
   they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went
   away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the
   same price for the remaining three. At this the king was
   astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They
   said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods,
   and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So
   he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more
   from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest
   of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two
   men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men
   of the sacred books."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 4._

   "Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are
   met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the
   Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The
   Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,'
   Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines
   ('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from
   Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv.
   299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy,
   v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the
   Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud
   Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these
   were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books,
   in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are
   all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline'
   books, and there seems to have been little difference between
   them."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 8, foot-note (volume 1)._

   "Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend
   of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the
   elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome;
   and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius
   Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by
   others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were
   written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the
   south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon
   palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his
   description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written
   upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of
   acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so
   much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the
   means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies
   and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been
   consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran
   and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of
   the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with
   the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the
   name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the
   Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the
   Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the
   last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. …
   Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan
   Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And
   St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who
   belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls'
   sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church.
   She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs
   and prophets of old."

      _H. Macmillan,
      Roman Mosaics,
      chapter 3._

   "Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared
   at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the
   name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of
   the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike
   on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost
   another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the
   most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to
   place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo
   adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the
   weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers
   of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold
   stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 47 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dionysius, History,
      book 4, section 62._

      See, also, CUMÆ.

SICAMBRI,
SIGAMBRI,
SUGAMBRI.

   See USIPETES;
   also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SICARII, The.

   See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.

   The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern
   Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and
   Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and
   Itali.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._

SICELS.
SICANIANS.

      See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SICILIAN VESPERS, The.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SICILIES, The Two.

      See Two SICILIES.

   ----------SICILY: Start--------

SICILY:
    The early inhabitants.

    The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is
    fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city
    of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave
    its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the
    eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this
    time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,
    whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,
    sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the
    adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the
    Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not
    more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been
    driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian
    race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward
    the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves
    occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to
    the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in
    possession of several points on the coast, and of some
    neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their
    commerce with the natives.
{2904}
   The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and
   Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore
   the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different
   tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …
   The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the
   Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland
   and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,
   who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where
   they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,
   destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of
   Sicily."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

SICILY:
   Phœnician and Greek colonies.

   "Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of
   antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in
   Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies,
   first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence
   of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history
   of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made
   more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the
   island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks
   came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy
   the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners
   that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland
   region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But
   there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the
   growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers.
   Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer
   the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of
   being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But
   instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks
   largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without
   any general conquest, the whole island became practically
   Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in
   Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its
   time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were,
   as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian
   colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did
   in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were
   not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their
   foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were
   settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the
   older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that
   their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels
   in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek
   settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician
   settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from
   Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in
   Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied
   small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their
   trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern
   Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached
   to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the
   Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to
   their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya,
   Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the
   time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently
   dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held,
   partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had
   been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern
   corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest
   of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of
   which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the
   other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the
   mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in
   after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle
   of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two
   branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a
   small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site
   for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which,
   though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards
   the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its
   Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the
   All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the
   modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was
   the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of
   the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East
   became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before
   the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred
   against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great
   central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner.
   It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as
   opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel
   subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was
   directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said
   that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the
   earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was
   the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in
   Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other
   plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th.
   Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek
   towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to
   the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused
   it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But
   it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most
   likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites
   to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the
   8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria,
   Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the
   first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in
   Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece.
   Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast
   of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and
   that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he
   was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The
   settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of
   Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called
   Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the
   new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula
   made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on
   which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the
   Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and
   fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. …
   Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers
   to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Story of Sicily,
      chapters 1-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapters 3-4 (volume 1)._

{2905}

SICILY: B. C. 480.
   Carthaginian invasion.
   Battle of Himera.

   During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C.
   480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an
   appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited
   by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city
   by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to
   reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender
   footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo,
   the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of
   the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible
   slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those
   who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made
   slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and
   scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable
   tidings.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 43._

SICILY: B. C. 415-413.
   Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.
   Its disastrous failure.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
   Carthaginian invasion.

   The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its
   neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens
   against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same
   protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help,
   against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the
   Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his
   grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before.
   Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand
   savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and
   laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was
   carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its
   inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were
   destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet
   remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and
   imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the
   fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of
   the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were
   overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct
   evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and
   then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact,
   demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is
   stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera
   and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it
   utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves;
   the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where
   Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called
   Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the
   site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge,
   Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned
   home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an
   armament even greater than before, and the great city of
   Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its
   population was very great; comprising, according to one
   account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000
   males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another
   account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons;
   numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as
   indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos,
   especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and
   pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its
   fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile
   in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these
   placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the
   Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was
   evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The
   Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending
   much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died
   of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon
   succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at
   Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela
   and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have
   been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who
   had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace
   was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which
   gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera,
   and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and
   Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been
   half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by
   its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 81-82, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapter 9 (volume 3)._

SICILY: B. C. 397-396.
   Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse,
   and his war with the Carthaginians.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

SICILY: B. C. 394-384.
   Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.

SICILY: B. C. 383.
   War with Carthage.

   Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh
   war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of
   war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius
   had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of
   serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was
   the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and
   sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The
   Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his
   troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged
   for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the
   entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While
   negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding
   to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his
   army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them
   with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced
   a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed
   the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating
   peace at heavy cost.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

SICILY: B. C. 344.
   Fall of the Tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

SICILY: B. C. 317-289.
   Syracuse under Agathokles.

   See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

SICILY: B. C. 278-276.
   Expedition of Pyrrhus.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

{2906}

SICILY: B. C. 264-241.
   The Mamertines in Messene.
   First war of Rome and Carthage.-
   Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.
   The Romans in possession.

      See PUNIC WAR: THE FIRST.

SICILY: B. C. 216-212.
   Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.
   The Roman siege of Syracuse.

      See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

SICILY: B. C. 133-103.
   Slave wars.

      See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY.

SICILY: A. D. 429-525.
   Under the Vandals, and the Goths.

   "Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to
   the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in
   Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been
   nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died
   A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the
   Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of
   Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of
   the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly
   tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the
   decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is
   possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it
   is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the
   island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway
   of Odovacar."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 4._

   Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and
   reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from
   invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits
   and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 9._

SICILY: A. D. 535.
   Recovered by Belisarius for the Emperor Justinian.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

SICILY: A. D. 550.
   Gothic invasion.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
   Conquest by the Saracens.

   The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the
   Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an
   influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor
   Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun.
   Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and
   Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established
   himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to
   improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the
   Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had
   set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines
   were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens
   occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited
   some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval
   armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then
   carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo
   capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for
   the first time, in 836. The war continued with various
   success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and
   the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces
   recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently
   occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year
   859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to
   preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying
   a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of
   Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender,
   and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some
   districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of
   arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the
   exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their
   territory, to a later period."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 3, section 1._

   "Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of
   the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to
   Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens
   displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly
   resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above
   twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the
   mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have
   been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not
   been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the
   Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the
   Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the
   rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and
   clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph.
   The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo,
   Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and
   Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of
   Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had
   the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and
   glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52._

   A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II.
   undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of
   his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes
   commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil
   himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople
   procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the
   prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans
   of Apulia."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

SICILY: A. D. 1060-1090.
   Norman conquest.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.
   Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.
   Prosperity and peace.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1081-1194.

SICILY: A. D. 1146.
   Introduction of Silk-culture and manufacture.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SICILY: A. D. 1194-1266.
   Under the Hohenstaufen.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1183-1250.

SICILY: A. D. 1266.
   Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies
   by Charles of Anjou.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.
   The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.
   Separation from the kingdom of Naples.
   Transfer to the House of Aragon.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SICILY: A. D. 1313.
   Alliance with the Emperor against Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

SICILY: A. D. 1442.
   Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples,
   or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SICILY: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown of Naples from
   those of Aragon and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

SICILY: A. D. 1530.
   Cession of Malta to the Knights of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

{2907}

SICILY: A. D. 1532-1553.
   Frightful ravages of the Turks along the coast.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570.

SICILY: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded by Spain to the Duke of Savoy.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.
   Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by
   Austria in exchange for Sardinia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Occupation by the Spaniards.
   Cession to Spain, with Naples,
   forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

SICILY: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

SICILY: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Held by the King, expelled from Naples by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

SICILY: A. D. 1821.
   Revolutionary insurrection.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Patriotic rising.
   A year of independence.
   Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.
   Liberation by Garibaldi.
   Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------SICILY: End--------

SICULI, The.

   See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.


SICYON,
SIKYON.

   "Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which
   pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows
   from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in
   northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon
   testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At
   one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the
   shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved
   the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian
   immigration dissolved the political connection between the
   cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian
   families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then
   assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of
   the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,
   engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and
   were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In
   time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a
   family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in
   Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two
   tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their
   wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their
   devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.

SICYON: B. C. 280-146.
   The Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

SIDON, The suicidal burning of.

   About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a
   revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,
   which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its
   prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge
   on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate
   resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might
   escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,
   and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable
   conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and
   such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching
   the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 90._

SIDONIANS, The.

      See PHŒNICIANS.

SIEBENBÜRGEN.

   The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and
   having reference to seven forts erected within it.

      _J. Samuelson,
      Roumania,
      page 182._

   ----------SIENA: Start--------

SIENA:
   The mediæval factions.

   "The way in which this city conducted its government for a
   long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in
   calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,
   rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The
   discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from
   the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of
   Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'
   Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain
   noble families. … The nobles split into parties among
   themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the
   government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine
   plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most
   influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,
   however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace
   rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme
   authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'
   Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course
   as their predecessors, except that they appear to have
   administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of
   government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen
   from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of
   Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori
   showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as
   is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to
   bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of
   the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the
   Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body
   formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft
   received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all
   who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the
   factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent
   they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact
   that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese
   were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation
   of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and
   the traditions of these parties were handed down from
   generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the
   16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'
   Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of
   Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century
   [1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 3._

{2908}

SIENA: A. D. 1460.
   War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

   ----------SIENA: End--------

SIENPI, The.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

SIERRA LEONE.

   "During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of
   blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the
   British banner. At the close of the war a large number of
   these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making
   that their future home; while others followed the army, to
   which they had been attached, to London. It was soon
   ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for
   those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to
   London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange
   land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In
   a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and
   poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that
   Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of
   colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in
   this measure by the Government. The first expedition left
   England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60
   whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.
   … On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles
   square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they
   immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the
   river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than
   one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the
   climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two
   years afterward they were attacked by a combination of
   natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the
   'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the
   enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable
   names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.
   The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this
   infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about
   60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from
   Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a
   hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In
   1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions
   of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was
   farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons
   from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in
   character than the original founders of the colony, and no
   little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.
   These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever
   joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.
   Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807
   the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,
   and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of
   suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone
   was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been
   regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British
   cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this
   colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source
   of its increase of population from that time."

      _J. L. Wilson,
      Western Africa,
      part 4, chapter 2._

SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE:
      A. D. 1789 (JUNE);
      1790;
      1791 (OCTOBER);
      1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SIFFIN, Battle of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

SIGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.

      See USIPETES;
      also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SIGEBERT I.,
   King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.

SIGEBERT II.,
   King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.

SIGEL, General Franz.
   Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
      1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

   Command in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

SIGISMUND,
SIGMUND,
   King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
   King of Germany, 1410-1437;
   Emperor, 1433-1437;
   King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.

   Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.

   Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.

   Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.

   Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.

SIGNORY, The Florentine.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.

SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.

SIKANS.
SIKELS.

   See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SIKHS, The.

   "The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of
   a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the
   vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to
   reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life
   to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the
   Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After
   wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,
   Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that
   he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many
   creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an
   ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the
   father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in
   preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of
   the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising
   toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him
   a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring
   disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new
   religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his
   successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the
   supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in
   committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in
   enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by
   Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and
   successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor
   Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established
   on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of
   the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his
   principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but
   which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into
   importance.
{2909}
   Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the
   offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every
   city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.
   … The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur
   Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers
   of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to
   the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He
   did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,
   authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his
   standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A
   military organisation based upon a religious principle, and
   directed by a strong central authority, will always become
   powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with
   decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were
   already loosening under the paralysing influence of the
   bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in
   succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed
   the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further
   simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,
   he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the
   'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There
   must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty
   Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were
   equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social
   distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist
   no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a
   nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's
   propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found
   himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a
   nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve
   years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes
   into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of
   the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,
   and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."
   But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan
   and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became
   masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession
   secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12
   confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in
   authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784
   that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by
   force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."
   The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who
   established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms
   with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and
   extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by
   the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of
   Peshawar in 1823.

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 11._

   The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,
   the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,
   and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are
   related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Cunningham,
      History of the Sikhs._

      _Sir L. Griffin,
      Ranjit Singh._

SIKSIKAS,
SISIKAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

SIKYON.

      See SICYON.

SILBURY HILL.

      See ABURY.

SILCHESTER, Origin of.

      See CALLEVA.

   ----------SILESIA: Start--------

SILESIA:
   Origin of the name:

      See LYGIANS.

SILESIA: 9th Century.
   Included in the kingdom of Moravia.

      See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

SILESIA: A. D. 1355.
   Declared an integral part of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

SILESIA: A. D. 1618.
   Participation in the Bohemian revolt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SILESIA: A. D. 1633.
   Campaign of Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SILESIA: A. D. 1648.
   Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
   Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
   Charles XII. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SILESIA: A. D. 1742.
   Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).

SILESIA: A. D. 1748.
   Cession to Prussia confirmed.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
   Overrun by the Austrians.
   Recovered by Frederick the Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

SILESIA: A. D. 1758.
   Again occupied by the Austrians.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.
   Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.

SILESIA: A. D. 1763.
   Final surrender to Prussia.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

   ----------SILESIA: End--------

SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.

   The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the
   Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took
   possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms
   to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First
   Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

SILESIAN WARS, The Third.

   The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.

      See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.

SILINGI, The.

   See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.
   Siege and capture by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SILLERY, The Mission at.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.

SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.

SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.

   A very ancient and most important inscription which was
   discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading
   into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates
   only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to
   the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and
   philologically is immense. … It shows us that several
   centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of
   form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the
   Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,
   therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art
   of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."

      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone-Lore,
      page 118._

{2910}

SILPHIUM.

      See CYRENAICA.

SILURES, The.

   An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to
   represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants
   of Britain.

      See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;
      also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

   The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

SILVER-GRAYS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;
      also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.

SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1893.

SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

SIMPACH, Battle of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

SIN.
SINÆ.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINDH.

      See SCINDE.

SINDMAN, The.

      See COMITATUS.

SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SINGIDUNUM.

      See BELGRADE.

SINIM.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINITES, The.

   A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of
   Lebanon.

SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

SION.

      See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

SIOUX, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

SIRBONIS LAKE.

      See SERBONIAN BOG.

SIRIS.
SIRITIS.
THURII.
METAPONTIUM.
TARENTUM.

   "Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]
   where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine
   side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian
   settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and
   Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of
   Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known
   even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know
   the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or
   Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of
   the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of
   Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the
   Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this
   scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At
   length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens
   [B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the
   historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the
   settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the
   Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,
   but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the
   compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as
   the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed
   both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the
   site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot
   three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of
   maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of
   Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated
   Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the
   Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have
   been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we
   do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …
   The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less
   celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of
   Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,
   was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony
   from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly
   about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the
   Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to
   the supremacy of the Romans."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SIRMIUM.

   Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital
   of Pannonia, and an important center of all military
   operations in that region.

SIRMIUM:
   Ruined by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

SIRMIUM:
   Captured by the Avars.

      See AVARS.

SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.

SISSETONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

SIX ACTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SIX ARTICLES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.

      See FIVE NATIONS.

SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.

SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.

SKALDS.

      See SCALDS.

SKINNERS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SKODRA (Scutari).

      See ILLYRIANS.

SKRÆLINGS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

SKUPTCHINA.

   The Servian parliament or legislature.

{2911}

SKYTALISM.

      See SCYTALISM.

SLAVE:
   Origin of the servile signification of the word.

   The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is
   derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic
   people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative
   name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the
   Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops
   were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian
   (exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word
   was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even
   to the style of the last Byzantines."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55, foot-note._

      See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.

      See SPARTACUS;
      and ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

   After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was
   filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being
   continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of
   these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great
   estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,
   simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory
   product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from
   hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful
   rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and
   its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to
   supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,
   and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus
   crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.
   Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the
   insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were
   successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it
   was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at
   Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without
   mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,
   from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.
   Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,
   both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in
   the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The
   Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the
   former established his ascendancy and called himself king
   Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy
   battles.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 48,
      and book 6, chapter 55._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 9._

   ----------SLAVERY: Start--------

SLAVERY: Ancient.
   Among the Oriental races.

   "From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct
   conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many
   modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of
   Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be
   not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.
   Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the
   historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the
   Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the
   conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on
   the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous
   among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has
   naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.
   The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.
   Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient
   times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel
   character; but we have no good account of slavery in these
   countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.
   Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,
   Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to
   slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in
   ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history
   there is much need for an account in which the sources of
   information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully
   utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict
   sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There
   were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,
   labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent
   uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,
   and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had
   slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered
   became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be
   represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of
   the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There
   was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might
   become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the
   rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the
   distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious
   equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of
   the Sudras."

      _R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 128-129._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations._

SLAVERY:
   Among the Greeks.

   "The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is
   impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the
   very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point
   of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened
   philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from
   time to time protesting against the necessity of the
   institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of
   human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the
   very earliest times the right of the strongest had established
   the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or
   ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold
   into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally
   regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave
   markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set
   a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,
   since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in
   Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.
{2912}
   In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most
   part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the
   Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied
   themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on
   the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not
   only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in
   particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave
   trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at
   Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the
   first of every month. … A large portion of the slave
   population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that
   is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave
   mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner
   disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the
   number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece
   was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of
   the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed
   greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as
   much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their
   cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those
   who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born
   slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.
   In early times even free men might become slaves by legal
   methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected
   their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were
   insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see
   DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by
   Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other
   Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of
   those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of
   the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their
   owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic
   population originally resident there were subdued by foreign
   tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their
   position differed in but few respects from that of the
   barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs
   were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the
   Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the
   position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive
   the statements of writers with great caution, since they
   undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the
   cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it
   is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …
   The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were
   very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in
   the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,
   in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them
   with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,
   at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal
   marriages between slaves were not possible, since they
   possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment
   separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of
   it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to
   earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they
   then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain
   proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,
   and when they had saved the necessary amount they could
   purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to
   agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to
   slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were
   differences in different states. … It would be impossible to
   make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on
   the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us
   any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a
   very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own
   no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very
   modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six
   persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands
   working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and
   those who were the property of the State and the temples,
   there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably
   exceeded that of the free population."

      _H. Blümner,
      The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2)._

SLAVERY:
   Among the Romans.

   Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
   never known elsewhere, before or since.

      See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

   Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain
   of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in
   reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,
   never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or
   permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw
   off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and
   slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
   slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an
   absolute equality."

      _W. R. Brownlow,
      Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
      lectures 1-2._

SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.

SLAVERY:
   Villeinage.
   Serfdom.

   "The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
   ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
   may be divided into three classes:

   I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most
   numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
   or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of
   the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,
   volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous
   race of men will appear from several circumstances.

   1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.
   They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,
   without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
   they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their
   manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th
   century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be
   restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little
   value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it
   away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it
   is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of
   the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The
   cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves
   might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws
   with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,
   lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.

{2913}

   2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of
   their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their
   actions and property. They were not originally permitted to
   marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even
   encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not
   considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European
   nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,
   slaves who married without their master's consent were
   subjected only to a fine. …

   3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with
   their parents, and became the property of their master. …

   4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that
   they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery
   continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner
   with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards
   slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,
   together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …

   5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes
   from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to
   him. …

   6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.
   Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of
   dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged
   to shave their heads. …

   II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or
   'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were
   transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in
   this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to
   their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after
   paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry
   belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked
   by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par
   Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided
   agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,
   page 773.

   III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were
   freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the
   first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of
   tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …
   that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and
   voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful
   masters. This they did in order that their masters might
   become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
   together with the means of subsisting themselves and their
   families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender
   their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of
   the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and
   monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of
   Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of
   people in France were reduced to this state at the
   commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.
   xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to
   Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion
   struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and
   contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the
   practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was
   executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another
   method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,
   or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some
   time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the
   hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards
   restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all
   the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,
   it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a
   frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
   vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
   liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      notes 9 and 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gurowski,
      Slavery in History,
      chapters 15-20._

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 3, chapter 5._

      See, also, DEDITITIUS.

SLAVERY: England.
   Villeinage.

   "Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all
   peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English
   conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms
   and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would
   render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves
   would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized
   Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would
   all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In
   those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to
   slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might
   become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,
   and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English
   [against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows
   that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the
   Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a
   region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of
   Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to
   1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be
   corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.
   Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there
   appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in
   Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,
   twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in
   Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to
   every five; in central England about one to every seven; in
   the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every
   nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,
   while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two
   hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln
   no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that
   the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view
   than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the
   social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many
   influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to
   alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be
   drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches
   replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the
   slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,
   notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a
   commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the
   other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the
   individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This
   could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his
   relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and
   stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most
   unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates
   to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the
   personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was
   common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.
{2914}
   Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century
   following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in
   Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had
   become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position
   of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of
   the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic
   in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were
   publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there
   transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence
   of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon
   so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against
   the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,
   the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of
   the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and
   children, gathered together from all England, were carried
   into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for
   purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not
   prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have
   submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the
   need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in
   the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their
   heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such
   cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing
   of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,
   which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold
   themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed
   support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such
   an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In
   addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to
   that condition in the ways above noted, there was another
   class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly
   as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as
   'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of
   the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a
   person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and
   seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to
   be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.
   … They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no
   arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws
   of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to
   have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any
   part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than
   that which related to the moral and social elevation of the
   slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard
   lot, both directly and indirectly."

      _C. McL. Andrews,
      The Old English Manor,
      page 181-188._

   The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the
   time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who
   must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their
   condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly
   7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the
   possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent
   paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were
   the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the
   medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no
   doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the
   township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a
   perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil
   they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and
   duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had
   become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of
   the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;
   irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but
   the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after
   the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of
   rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They
   are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order
   of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and
   coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and
   whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life
   compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which
   they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the
   villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but
   his master; and even against his master the law gave him a
   standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those
   who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt
   that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the
   minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the
   tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the
   class of native or born villeins the whole of the population
   described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and
   villani."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 132._

   "It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
   ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
   soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
   complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
   of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
   English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
   have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
   proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
   the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
   connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
   dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
   villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
   be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
   words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
   the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
   wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
   they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
   substance the same doctrine, although they use different
   terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
   difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
   same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
   distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
   free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
   distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
   'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
   although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
   else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
   come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
   from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
   the courts was of no avail.
{2915}
   … Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
   nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
   complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
   explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
   the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
   liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
   punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
   to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
   disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
   equality of condition between the English villain and the
   Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
   'nativus' indiscriminately."

      _P. Vinogradoff,
      Villainage in England,
      chapter 1._

   "Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of
   England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition
   of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves
   thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in
   secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a
   privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he
   became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that
   serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,
   thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and
   finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the
   number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have
   fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels
   under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;
   the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save
   the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under
   the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,
   the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of
   a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only
   emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal
   slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the
   soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may
   be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in
   England."

      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Hargrave,
      Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
      (Howell's State Trials, volume 20)._

      _W. R. Brownlow,
      Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
      lectures 3-4._

      See, also, MANORS.

SLAVERY: France.
   Villeinage.

   On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
   first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.

      See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.

   "In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only
   of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were
   cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their
   lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil
   rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the
   crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile
   cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I
   should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The
   accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural
   tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either
   of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand,
   they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread.
   In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent,
   many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became
   slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful
   lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into
   this state through inability to pay those pecuniary
   compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes
   heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect
   of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty
   of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of
   perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a
   villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. …
   But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two
   classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly
   different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II.,
   one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of
   property, and destitute of redress, except against the most
   outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and
   Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called
   serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to
   fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after
   innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken
   place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom
   is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have
   the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons
   in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an
   example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip
   the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a
   proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not
   generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not
   abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some
   places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté,
   that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by
   the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les
   lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed
   sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave
   their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any
   part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could
   these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes
   called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king,
   purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5.
   Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king
   to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on
   paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they
   existed in many parts when he wrote."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2, and foot-note (volume 1)._

   "The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the
   time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces
   annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution
   had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long
   before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches
   of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as
   the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in
   Normandy."

      _A. de Tocqueville,
      State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789,
      book 2, chapter 1._

{2916}

SLAVERY:
   Germany.

   "As the great distinction in the German community was between
   the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the
   distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those
   who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom
   the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the
   more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was
   thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between
   the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing
   property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a
   certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry
   without the lord's assent; and he and his children were
   affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated
   servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud,
   or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called
   Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs
   [Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural
   services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute
   property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The
   number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by
   the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their
   prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs
   and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this
   abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the
   severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was
   nearly accomplished before the 14th century."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

   "The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom
   in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was
   abolished:

   1. In Baden, in 1783.
   2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804.
   3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804.
   4. In Nassau, in 1808.
   5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom
   in his own domains so early as 1717.

   The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it
   throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it
   in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in
   the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till
   1809 that it disappeared altogether.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

   6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.
   7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished
   it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller
   territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.
   8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from
   1808 and 1809.
   9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.
   10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.
   11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.
   12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.
   13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.
   14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.
   15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.
   16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.
   17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.
   18. In Austria, from 1811.

   So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed
   'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of
   'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."

      _A. de Tocqueville,
      State of Society in France before 1789, note D._

SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.
   Completed emancipation of the peasantry.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

SLAVERY: Ireland: 12th Century.
   The Bristol Slave-trade.

      See BRISTOL: 12TH CENTURY.

SLAVERY: Moslem relinquishment of Christian slavery.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.

SLAVERY: Papal doctrine of the condemnation of the
Jews to perpetual bondage.

      See JEWS: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

SLAVERY: Poland.

   "The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to
   the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property
   of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between
   eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an
   abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one
   thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the
   noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It
   was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases
   was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for
   distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were
   domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land
   which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the
   feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants
   were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without
   permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he
   could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land
   prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is
   remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at
   a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and
   that his slavery began when other nations became free.
   Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th
   centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia,
   which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in
   the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they
   would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his
   lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III.,
   1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing
   his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the
   repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it
   became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that
   'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the
   peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or
   life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an
   arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the
   excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no
   help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his
   own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of
   the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the
   ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from
   which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."

      _Count von Moltke,
      Poland: an Historical Sketch,
      chapter 4._

SLAVERY:
   Rome, Italy, and the Church.

   "It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should,
   even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it
   was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the
   example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont
   to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces:
   thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of
   the Colonnas.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1204-13481;

   Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the
   Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

   Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the
   meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing
   any of the persons of the condemned was required to make
   slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of
   Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in
   foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had
   sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of
   which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was
   abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the
   Senate.
{2917}
   Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to
   retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th
   century to justify the existing state of things, a theological
   sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking
   Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a
   Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of
   any right to freedom."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      p. 75._

      See, also, CATTANI.

SLAVERY: Russia.
   Serfdom and Emancipation.

   "In the earliest period of Russian history the rural
   population was composed of three distinct classes. At the
   bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous.
   Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war,
   by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by
   insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals.
   Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural
   labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about
   the country and settled temporarily where they happened to
   find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place,
   distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher
   in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called.
   These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small
   farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free
   agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors
   of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a
   rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the
   18th century, we find that the position of the rural
   population has entirely changed in the interval. The
   distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and
   peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have
   melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are
   regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the
   State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of
   April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not
   even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done
   nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the
   18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition
   of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject
   to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in
   some respects legally and actually distinguished from the
   slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the
   other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great
   and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and
   military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his
   predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently
   always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When
   looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the
   slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural
   labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused,
   therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the
   various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed
   in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of
   this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax,
   which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the
   collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible
   for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not
   wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent
   to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune
   or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th
   century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of
   serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had
   steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly
   expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided
   symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I.
   in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a
   general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more
   glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than
   six committees were formed at different times to consider the
   question. But the practical result of all these efforts was
   extremely small."

      _D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 29._

   "The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855],
   like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform
   enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question,
   which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in
   a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly
   and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by
   the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces,
   praying that their relations with their serfs might be
   regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a
   way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor
   authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country
   'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid
   down the general principles according to which the
   amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step,
   and it was immediately followed by one still more significant.
   His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered
   the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over
   European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the
   Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous,
   patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and
   suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other
   provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of
   course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed
   emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however,
   serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not
   merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved
   instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very
   complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social,
   and political future of the nation. … It was universally
   admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their
   homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the
   proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to
   how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they
   should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined
   authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main
   point at issue was whether the serfs should become
   agricultural labourers dependent economically and
   administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed
   into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor
   gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian
   peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other
   peasantry in Europe."

      _Alexander II.
      (Eminent Persons:
      Biographies, reprinted from The Times)._

{2918}

   "On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the
   emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then
   consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage
   peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class
   were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since
   been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage
   peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in
   name. A certain portion of land, varying in different
   provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every
   'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in
   buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not
   slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than
   half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this
   promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown
   (that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."

      _W. H. Dixon,
      Free Russia,
      chapter 51._

    "Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent
    expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great
    benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to
    improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on
    the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the
    Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not
    far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither
    be denied nor concealed even by the official press."

      _Stepniak,
      The Russian Peasantry,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 7._

SLAVERY: Modern: Indians.
   Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and
   humane labors of Las Casas.

   "When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493],
   with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations
   between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to
   get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were
   undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led
   Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the
   neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of
   canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture
   men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked
   and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the
   Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and
   so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them
   captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught
   Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come
   back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids
   in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness
   to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they
   could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and
   then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes
   of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be
   sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly
   did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before
   and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of
   domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture.
   Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and
   Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they
   were for money, they for some time refused to accept it.
   Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could
   have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the
   Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging
   expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus
   tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and
   in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the
   entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this
   population was dense, a little from each person meant a good
   deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold
   or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there
   were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as
   an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in
   helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No
   doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races
   had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so
   speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were
   like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon
   sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of
   personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians
   at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into
   repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be
   ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till
   the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or
   partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages
   constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom
   it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state
   somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as
   far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus
   came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at
   first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to
   sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a
   most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando
   [who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians
   to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover,
   to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian
   faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about
   missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious
   order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of
   encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to
   certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the
   mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery'
   or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a
   hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards
   in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you,
   such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you
   are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In
   practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality,
   and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of
   Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he
   pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in
   effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was
   unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has
   seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at
   first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were
   soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the
   mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor,
   Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had
   become a hard one to deal with.
{2919}
   There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of
   property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a
   dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of
   vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about
   them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the
   labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against
   this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had
   his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil
   thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the
   colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the
   priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and
   he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of
   the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won
   the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of
   Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies,
   with minute instructions and ample powers for making
   investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las
   Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority
   to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The
   new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have
   done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must
   be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the
   Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed
   revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work
   in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the
   Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so
   long as this provision was retained the work of reform would
   go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and
   so the talk turned to the question of sending out white
   labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of
   Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license
   to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him
   in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their
   condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and
   proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the
   difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his
   life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so
   distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men.
   … In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such
   concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he
   would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion
   for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in
   the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the
   period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now
   dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or
   concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The
   fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony
   which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the
   mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves
   and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the
   wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of
   the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and
   devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final
   triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:

   1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief
   "forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty
   of excommunication."

   2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V.,
   the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and
   command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of
   war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian
   be made a slave.'

   This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of
   slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping
   provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be
   impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last
   compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be
   inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the
   crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of
   the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the
   dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the
   repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into
   villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America._

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Life of Las Casas._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 5)._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.
   Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.

   "The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in
   this history is not the first and most natural one, in which
   the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the
   spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the
   house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system
   culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the
   Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing
   civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible
   degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly
   so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose.
   This second period was marked by a commercial character. The
   slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the
   object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of
   barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be
   produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new
   branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more
   momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth,
   indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction
   of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of
   Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,
   however, no regular trade in negroes established by the
   Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,
   while that of other articles of commerce increased, until
   after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of
   multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by
   immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a
   void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by
   the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of
   the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.
{2920}
   They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that
   the Indians should live in some manner apart from the
   Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great
   'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however
   innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of
   licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,
   the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them
   to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of
   the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the
   Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing
   causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the
   mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour
   large communities of docile converts."-

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

   The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the
   West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to
   Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.
   John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1609-1755.
   In colonial New York.

   "From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to
   its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable
   record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was
   coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical
   doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved
   over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as
   to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company
   had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge
   to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they
   conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New
   Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received
   substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the
   subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the
   Province of New York, from the time they were first
   introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West
   India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work
   for their own benefit, and were not without hope of
   emancipation some day. But under the English government the
   condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of
   great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was
   passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a
   legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the
   English government." After the mad excitement caused by the
   pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the
   legislature turned its attention to additional legislation
   upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the
   Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their
   condition was but little removed from that of the brute
   creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the
   Province of New York, and have not found a single act
   calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."

      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

   A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in
   1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except
   the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk.
   It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.

      _Doc. History of New York,
      volume 3._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
   Beginning and ending in Massachusetts.

   In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by
   the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the
   following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any
   Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be
   lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as
   willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall
   have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of
   God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth
   morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be
   judged thereto by authority."

      _Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      volume 28, page 231._

   "No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of
   himself to another, although the power of doing this was
   recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way
   of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there
   are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and
   sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have
   been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many
   instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted
   in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. …
   It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe,
   and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, and 1676-1678.

   If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it
   was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here
   in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro
   slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought
   some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the
   first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick
   was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here
   before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived
   by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a
   Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master
   had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after
   the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an
   opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking
   to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon
   information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and
   abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the
   vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being
   sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,
   they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been
   done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far
   towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only
   compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them
   back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made
   this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the
   General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of
   the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,
   as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and
   such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
   others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most
   odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …
   In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the
   popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the
   Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both
   branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;
   acting under instructions from the Crown.
{2921}
   This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both
   branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These
   successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring
   illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of
   standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the
   condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created
   by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth
   that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by
   the home government.' … The action of the government [of
   Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the
   Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect
   to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship
   and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having
   learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this
   was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That
   the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct
   violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their
   Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles
   on which this and the other States have carried on their
   struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves
   living here at any one time, no census seems to have been
   taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley
   estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having
   arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were
   the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful
   calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In
   1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.
   Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773
   the action of the towns was more general and decided." In
   1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted
   a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that
   "'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
   essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the
   highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to
   construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which
   struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."

      _E. Washburn,
      Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts
      (Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:
      Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2)._

      _Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      Fifth Series, v. 3)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.
   First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1658.
   Introduction of slavery in Cape Colony.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670.
   Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions
   for the Carolinas.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.
   Early importance in South Carolina.
   Indian slavery also established.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1685-1772.
   Black slaves in England.

   "The extensive proprietary interests which, during last
   century, English merchants and members of the English
   aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies,
   involved the possession also on their part of many slaves.
   Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household
   servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity
   accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of
   black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar
   sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that
   in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's
   Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black
   slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were
   openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day
   represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a
   trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to
   consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country';
   hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to
   labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and
   revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the
   press advertisements of the day, made their escape,
   necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For
   instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an
   advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years
   of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the
   15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which
   is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his
   throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him
   back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar
   notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28,
   1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added
   that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's
   Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a
   collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a
   dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser'
   for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the
   Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to
   the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs;
   collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12
   years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale
   at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal
   Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we
   learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered
   for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public
   Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy
   Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at
   her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the
   small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected
   privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer
   is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged
   for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a
   sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro
   boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day,
   commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was
   'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' …
   The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale
   of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up
   and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a
   free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years
   been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England
   holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and
   the country generally should be declared illegal. From an
   early period in last century the subject had not only been
   debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been
   made matter of something like judicial decision.
{2922}
   At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of
   slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord
   Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general,
   gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal
   existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion
   of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into
   these countries from the West Indies did not render him free,
   and that he could be compelled to return again to those
   plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it
   could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition.
   It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued
   to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at
   one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone.
   Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion
   to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was
   brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro
   Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield,
   in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set
   foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From
   that day to the present this has remained the law of our land
   as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant
   feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he
   sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
   receive our air, that moment they are free.'"

      _Black Slaves in England
      (Chamber's Journal, January 31, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,
      pages 2-3._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.
   Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment
   among the Quakers.
   Emancipation in Pennsylvania.

   "So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in
   Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and
   followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of
   the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and
   holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian
   religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that
   province took up the subject as a public concern, and the
   result was, advice to the members of it to guard against
   future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly
   attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their
   possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed
   the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice,
   which had been before given. From this time it continued to
   keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though
   individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued
   the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended
   would have been the case after the public declarations which
   had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller
   and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore
   it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the
   members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian
   letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as
   we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of
   the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the
   Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members
   within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to
   desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they
   possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their
   condition. But that the first part of the subject of this
   exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same
   provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the
   members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the
   overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of
   it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be
   directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find
   the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject.
   By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were
   subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline,
   and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary
   occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present
   year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing,
   giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise
   acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond
   the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be
   excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the
   same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was
   then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to
   execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were
   to be disowned likewise."

      _T. Clarkson,
      History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual
   emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the
   first among the States to perform that great act of justice.

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.
   England and the Slave-trade.
   The Assiento contract with Spain.

   After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
   Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
   became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
   Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
   1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
   worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
   percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
   maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
   were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
   desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
   before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
   for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
   island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
   and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
   or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
   slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
   that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
   important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
   the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
   Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
   absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
   colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
   treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
   scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
   heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
   from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
   West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
   that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
   import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
   duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
   numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been
   excluded.
{2923}
   The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
   Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
   both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
   a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
   scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
   1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
   In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
   reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
   had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
   methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
   in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
   negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
   colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
   Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
   incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
   the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
   Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
   comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
   century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
   American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
   the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
   colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
   than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
   of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
   thrown into the Atlantic."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of English in the 18th Century,
      chapter 5 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States.
      (Author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      _D. Macpherson,
      Annals of Commerce,
      volume 4, pages 141-157._

      See, also,
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
      GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
      ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
   Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
   and Parliament.

   "The success of the American Revolution made it possible for
   the different states to take measures for the gradual
   abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the
   foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of
   public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …
   George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the
   obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In
   1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further
   importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be
   prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto
   this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the
   Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made
   the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in
   deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the
   clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his
   vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible
   for the States to legislate freely on the subject."

      _J. Fiske,
      T/w Critical Period of American History,
      page 71._

   "During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a
   law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
   amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
   assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
   the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then
   sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
   after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom
   met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the
   royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
   session held under the republican government, the assembly
   passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation
   of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this
   great political and moral evil, while the minds of our
   citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human
   nature."

      _T. Jefferson,
      Notes on the State of Virginia,
      query 8._

   "It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for
   the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but
   this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It
   is, however, true that from a very early period a certain
   movement against it may be detected in some American States,
   that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great
   and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,
   and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that
   importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State
   Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any
   measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy
   steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 5 (volume 2)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.
   Introduction into Louisiana.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
   Questioned early in Georgia.
   Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.
   The pretended Negro Plot in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
   Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.

   "The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the
   generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of
   these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at
   the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had
   been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were
   300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In
   1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to
   these, made up the African population of America, were
   scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      page 367._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
   The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

   "For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell
   of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see
   action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and
   below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural
   death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by
   any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made
   [1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was
   somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same
   manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.
   Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state
   constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.
   The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the
   state forbade it within New England territory. It was
   conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of
   Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference
   is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      volume 2, pages 834-835._

{2924}

   "Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law
   against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause
   of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact
   that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an
   Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st
   of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most
   of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by
   their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died
   out before 1806."

      _E. B. Sanford,
      History of Connecticut,
      page 252._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
   The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.

   "Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the
   earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had
   reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the
   colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of
   1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the
   philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures
   looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot
   be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement
   originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But
   little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this
   sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very
   year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct
   instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner
   of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly
   ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto
   slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all
   previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode
   Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'
   once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with
   movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,
   'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"

      _W. E. Foster,
      Stephen Hopkins,
      part 2, pages 98-100._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. D. Johnston,
      Slavery in Rhode Island,
      part 2._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
   Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
   The causes of its disappearance.

   Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His
   condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The
   whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a
   perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
   unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
   submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to
   imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
   manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what
   execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
   one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
   other, transforms those into despots and these into
   enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor
   patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be
   thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a
   conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the
   gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His
   wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
   God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the
   practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.
   Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be
   abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was
   rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of
   the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of
   these people after they are free? … He thought they had better
   be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took
   up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization
   Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With
   his practical mind he could not see how a half million of
   slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were
   voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how
   unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.
   While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he
   was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,
   1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author
   of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were
   taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of
   anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of
   the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring
   with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth
   to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will
   approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a
   minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and
   worth of character, preponderates against the greater number
   who have not the courage to divest their families of a
   property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.
   Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an
   opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a
   robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of
   America there are but few slaves, and they can easily
   disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in
   such train that in a few years there will be no slaves
   northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a
   disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in
   Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in
   the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'
   milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate
   of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot
   de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and
   conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This
   great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,
   afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in
   other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the
   recent formation of several state societies]; that he
   sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he
   did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be
   overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a
   prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,
   and information would not fail to vanquish it."

      _W. F. Poole,
      Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,
      pages 25-35, and foot-note._

{2925}

   "In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,
   Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the
   continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many
   of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not
   seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;
   and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly
   treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,
   like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina
   and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of
   Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the
   cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious
   development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the
   growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf
   states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just
   at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came
   to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters
   of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation
   in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about
   slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the
   anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern
   states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of
   gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.
   In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of
   slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having
   already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a
   bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved
   and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was
   passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed
   all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready
   to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the
   slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes
   thereafter imported."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      page 73._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Jefferson,
      Notes on the State of Virginia,
      query 18._

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1._

      _J. R. Brackett,
      The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
      (Essays in Constitutional History)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.
   Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.

      See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.
   Emancipation in Massachusetts.

      See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
   The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
   Exclusion forever from the Northwest
   Territory of the United States.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.
   Guaranteed to Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
   The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
   Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
   of slavery on the island.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.
   The institution entrenched in the Constitution
   of the new state of Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
   Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

   "In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the
   English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,
   including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour
   of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the
   cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from
   buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in
   1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the
   vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at
   Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the
   Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive
   British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and
   convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …
   In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from
   slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they
   prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, pages 67-68._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Clarkson,
      History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.
   Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
   Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
   Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.

   The following are passages from the Declaration against the
   Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the
   Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having
   taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name
   of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and
   enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of
   humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public
   voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt
   suppression; that since the character and the details of this
   traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind
   which attend it, completely developed, several European
   Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting
   a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing
   Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,
   either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal
   engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by
   a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain
   and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of
   Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim
   the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:
   That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …
   declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the
   universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure
   particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the
   spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their
   august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire
   of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of
   this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said
   Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this
   general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each
   particular Power may consider as most desirable for the
   definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the
   determining the period when this trade is to cease universally
   must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being
   understood, however, that no proper means of securing its
   attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be
   neglected."

      _L. Hertslet,
      Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
      volume 1, page 11._

{2926}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
   The organization of the American Colonization Society.
   The founding of Liberia.

   "Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for
   missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon
   transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of
   the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But
   the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention
   was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by
   founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,
   when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New
   Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in
   interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his
   project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was
   Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at
   Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the
   project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although
   supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt
   encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to
   attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in
   this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern
   interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and
   the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel
   Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly
   to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a
   notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod
   Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the
   object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of
   Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the
   desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and
   enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions
   organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to
   draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …
   With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about
   the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed
   during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills
   and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western
   coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was
   carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,
   where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to
   the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In
   May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before
   reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of
   the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a
   most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this
   exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It
   would have been most difficult to raise the large sum
   necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the
   whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but
   for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves
   had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March
   2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the
   unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They
   became subject to the laws of the State in which they were
   landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it
   was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the
   penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of
   'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the
   attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular
   to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His
   profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report
   of the Society, in which the attention of the public is
   earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill
   was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to
   do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,
   1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo
   colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The
   President of the United States is hereby authorized to make
   such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for
   the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of
   the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons
   of color as may be so delivered and brought within their
   jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons
   residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for
   receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,
   delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of
   the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed
   vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying
   out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to
   construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of
   colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December
   20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being
   made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel
   Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and
   John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship
   Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast
   of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be
   that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses
   of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.
   Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as
   its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various
   states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.
   On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed
   anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.
   sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of
   Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at
   Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on
   proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had
   reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.
   While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the
   site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground
   and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon
   carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the
   emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon
   obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body
   of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim
   Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected
   as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent
   out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at
   Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and
   secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable
   tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.
   of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It
   seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but
   the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up
   the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.
   Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In
   November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.
   schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was
   ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the
   colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and
   firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a
   valuable tract of land.
{2927}
   The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first
   habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land
   formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the
   mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small
   islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,
   the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were
   soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the
   bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance
   Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of
   thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,
   formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected
   rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date
   the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time
   sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever
   had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the
   incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres
   became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back
   to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant
   from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history
   by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found
   after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the
   wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones
   sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their
   heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their
   appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire
   distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival
   of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last
   gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance
   to make use of the agency established for them at so great an
   expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong
   under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores
   and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society
   completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as
   agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;
   under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when
   he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly
   determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th
   of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants
   and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.
   Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now
   been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first
   measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and
   lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of
   the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the
   holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a
   ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his
   health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United
   States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a
   false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the
   colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of
   discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at
   the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of
   insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from
   Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the
   difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole
   colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure
   was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on
   Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration
   of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde
   Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with
   all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his
   post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for
   an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,
   Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of
   colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner
   Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity
   and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth
   his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a
   Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving
   for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs
   to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name
   of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the
   Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the
   suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He
   returned from his successful mission in August leaving the
   most cordial relations established throughout the colony.
   Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a
   period of great prosperity now began." The national
   independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed
   until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph
   J. Roberts, was elected.

      _J. H. T. McPherson,
      History of Liberia
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies,
      series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Wilkeson,
      History of the American Colonies in Liberia._

      _A. H. Foote,
      Africa and the American Flag,
      chapters 10-11._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The opening struggle of the American conflict.
   The Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
   Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.
   Abolition in Central America.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.
   Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.

      See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.
   Final Emancipation in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
   The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
   Nat Turner's Insurrection.

   While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on
   which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its
   supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in
   the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the
   firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding
   interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met
   with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the
   word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political
   programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The
   immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of
   the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New
   Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the
   saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted
   with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on
   their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.
{2928}
   Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active
   interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,
   when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to
   consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to
   publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be
   considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can
   scarcely point to another instance in which the command of
   Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally
   construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing
   business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved
   children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse
   consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin
   and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as
   associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a
   young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,
   from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to
   be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a
   journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to
   Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was
   an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a
   zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way
   of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization
   society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his
   own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few
   months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing
   the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in
   Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it
   altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading
   spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce
   the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,
   in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith
   was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'
   His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was
   rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an
   outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England
   took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New
   Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with
   passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,
   and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for
   publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting
   slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,
   his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,
   and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means
   of public lectures through New England. Although his success
   was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a
   paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was
   not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to
   be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a
   negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared
   his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England
   Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example
   was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly
   that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery
   convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate
   practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American
   Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised
   the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event
   happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,
   contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into
   its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of
   slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in
   Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost
   the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The
   excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in
   Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all
   proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of
   the conspiracy."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
      William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9._

      _S. J. May,
      Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
      pages 1-90._

      _G. L. Austin,
      Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,
      chapter 3._

      _O. Johnson,
      William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
      chapters 1-5._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 1._

      _B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
      for the Abolition of Slavery._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
   Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
   Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;
      and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Emancipation in the British colonies.

   "The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural
   consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833
   the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British
   colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first
   of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their
   former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves
   till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation
   to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the
   West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,
   Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with
   the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it
   prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,
   according to his account, in the British West Indies at least
   230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it
   is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar
   colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,
   after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British
   possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, pages 68-69._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.
   The Atherton Gag.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
   The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.

   "Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and
   difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United
   States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest
   and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference
   was that which separated those who rejected from those who
   adopted the principle of political action. The former were
   generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian
   Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those
   antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic
   parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a
   separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty
   League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with
   Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the
   other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty
   League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to
   theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to
   policy."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Birney,
      James G. Birney and his Times,
      chapter 29._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1840, and 1844.

{2929}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.
   The Underground Railroad.

   The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in
   the United States] to those systematic and co-operative
   efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to
   aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were
   generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was
   familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama
   of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid
   thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of
   bondage. … The practical working of the system required
   'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of
   persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,
   singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and
   shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they
   could be despatched with safety to some other point along the
   route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness
   to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide
   extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the
   Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and
   it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these
   'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,
   not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway
   maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and
   women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming
   fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his
   pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous
   conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,
   to take their living and precious freights, often by
   unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their
   way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,
   many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,
   two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over
   2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,
   approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost
   and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground
   Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results
   secured."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      chapter 3._

      _W. Still,
      The Underground Railroad._

      _M. G. McDougal,
      Fugitive Slaves
      (Fay House Monographs, 3)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.
   Attempted insurrection in Cuba.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
   The contest over the annexation of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
   Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
   The Wilmot Proviso.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
   Abolition in Venezuela.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
   Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.
   The struggle for Kansas.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.
   Abolition in Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.
   The Dred Scott case.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
   The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
   The first war-thrust.
   General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).
   Act of Congress freeing slaves employed
   in the service of the Rebellion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
   Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
   in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
      PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
   to surrender fugitive slaves.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
      CODE.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Abolition in the District of Columbia and
   the Territories of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
   rescinded by President Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
      GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.

      See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
   Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
   Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
   President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
   Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JUNE).

{2930}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
   Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
   Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
   of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
   Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
   Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.
   The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures
   for its suppression.

   "While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures
   respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east
   central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in
   north central Africa what has been so successfully
   accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the
   discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him
   through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein
   murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of
   powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were
   followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and
   through the personal influence of an august personage he was
   finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of
   arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region
   of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of
   his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the
   effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the
   countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave
   trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to
   navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a
   chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout
   central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued
   until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the
   equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.
   Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had
   broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had
   commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,
   determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had
   Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which
   it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an
   old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and
   custom of the people had some connection with it. They had
   always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and
   enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a
   handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of
   supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?
   Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves
   released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking
   examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide
   and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was
   a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,
   Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years
   of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,
   however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,
   over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the
   personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a
   race can effect but little. … After another period of three
   years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The
   Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …
   All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been
   completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to
   Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years
   behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the
   civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and
   the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a
   pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion
   of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The
   occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in
   slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the
   watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a
   precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to
   sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with
   living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the
   interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the
   fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and
   Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of
   Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The
   partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin
   Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …
   was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner
   Africa.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

   The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in
   battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent
   for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and
   British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were
   equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British
   flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the
   Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the
   powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its
   opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power
   will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy
   and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of
   £120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of
   securing her territory against the malign influences of the
   slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting
   states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship
   of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as
   to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast
   towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are
   making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of
   military stations; severe regulations have been issued against
   the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been
   unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced
   administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial
   commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him.
   … So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000
   annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for
   the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo
   territory."

      _H. M. Stanley,
      Slavery and the Slave Trade in Africa (1893). _

      ALSO IN:
      _R. F. Clarke,
      Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,
      part 2._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1871-1888.
   Emancipation in Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.

{2931}

SLAVES AND GLADIATORS, Rising of the.

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

   ----------SLAVONIC PEOPLES: Start--------

SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.

   "The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient
   literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown
   to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic
   tribes have from the first designated these their eastern
   neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the
   Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the
   Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German
   form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the
   Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic
   population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while
   they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia,
   Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever
   applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must
   most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to
   call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was
   Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a
   knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them
   by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their
   western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and
   even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their
   boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the
   territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods
   and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians
   seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first
   centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes
   or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive
   home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers
   could no longer be contained within their ancient
   boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from
   without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which
   direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth
   centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By
   two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great
   masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend
   over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the
   Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population
   of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by
   their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the
   Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also
   the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they
   have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western
   territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated
   during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of
   their descendants exist. The other road by which the
   Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of
   the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the
   Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest
   westward, the Slovens."

      _V. Thomsen,
      Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 1._

   "A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of
   the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among
   ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course
   determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally
   dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the
   signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are,
   therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be,
   that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but
   'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,'
   followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know
   not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that
   speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a
   barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or
   Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile
   appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and
   intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient
   historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some
   have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like
   the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in
   the old world."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      The Fall of Rome,
      lecture 3._

      See SLAVE: ORIGIN, &c.

   "The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during
   the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two
   great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes
   Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian,
   Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into
   Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of
   which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic
   is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the
   contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from
   the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which
   only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,
   Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern
   Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast
   numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which
   is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten
   millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary;
   lastly, Polish (ten millions)."

      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      pages 239-240._

      See, also: ARYANS; SARMATIA; and SCYTHIANS.

SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7th Centuries.
   Migrations and settlements.

   "The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]
   seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which
   the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the
   Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian
   incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the
   South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than
   one European state, and their relations with Germany form an
   important part of the history of the Western Empire. These
   North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little
   later. But the South-western division plays a great part in
   the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves
   play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,
   the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the
   Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they
   appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as
   settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged
   Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a
   view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number
   of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of
   the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …
   Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of
   the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to
   the Empire. …
{2932}
   The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and
   Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the
   whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a
   fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the
   Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to
   Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached
   points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The
   Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be
   forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an
   extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount
   to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was
   Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which
   remained Greek or Roman."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Empire,
      chapter 5, section 4._

      See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

SLESWIG.

      See SCHLESWIG.

SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
      A. D. 1815-1828; and 1842.

SLIVNITZA, Battle of (1885).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      A. D. 1878-1886 (BULGARIA).

SLOBADYSSA, Battle of (1660).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

SLOVENES, The.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLUYS: A. D. 1587.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.

SLUYS: A. D. 1604.
   Taken by Prince Maurice of Nassau.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

SLUYS, Battle of (1340).

   Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second
   expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a
   French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in
   the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and
   with such success that almost the entire French fleet was
   taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III.,
      pages 77-79. _

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Froissart,
      Chronicles,
      (translated by Johnes).
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 50._

SMALKALDE, League of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.

      See PLAGUE, ETC.: 6-13TH CENTURIES,
      and MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.

SMERWICK, Massacre of (1580).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

SMITH, Captain John:
   American voyages and adventures.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610, and 1609-1616;
      also, AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

SMITH, Joseph, and the founding of Mormonism.

      See MORMONISM.

SMITH, Sir Sidney, and the siege of Acre.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

SMITH COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

SMOLENSK, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

SMYRNA: Turkish massacre of Christians (1821).

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

SNAKE INDIANS, OR SHOSHONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SNUFF-TAKERS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SOBIESKI, John,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1674-1697,
   and his deliverance of Vienna.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

SOBRAON, Battle of (1846).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

SOBRARBE, Kingdom of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

SOCAGE TENURE.
FREESOCAGE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

   ----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Start--------

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
   Communism.
   Socialism.
   Labor Organization.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
   Utopias, Ancient and Modern.

   "Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins
   about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of
   Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the
   equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In
   the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to
   advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of
   wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the
   groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was
   a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal
   aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to
   have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to
   property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,
   but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would
   allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to
   the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual
   indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest
   offspring. This community of wives and children was for the
   ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the
   artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say
   probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its
   details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream
   realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are
   kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud
   and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by
   Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific
   discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an
   island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose
   citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,
   Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and
   all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his
   'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose
   an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete
   in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at
   the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of
   goods, but not of women.
{2933}
   The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in
   imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun
   stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a
   community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord
   Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere
   fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In
   the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of
   Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with
   high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except
   by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the
   literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,
   pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington
   advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two
   thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of
   it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.
   Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be
   called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and
   hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make
   revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,
   nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired
   soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron
   in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,
   now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.
   As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous
   writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,
   Cabet, and Louis Blanc."

      _R. D. Hitchcock,
      Socialism,
      pages 33-36._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Kaufmann,
      Utopias._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:
   Socialism.
   Communism.
   Collectivism.

   "As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the
   Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions
   given by some leading French and German economists. The great
   German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those
   tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal
   than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may
   define as socialistic every tendency which demands the
   subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet
   more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every
   doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct
   the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to
   legally establish the balance by taking from those who have
   too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and
   that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a
   particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity,
   etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every
   socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in
   social conditions; and in the second place at realising those
   reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it
   as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"

      _T. Kirkup,
      A History of Socialism,
      introduction._

   "The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the
   real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To
   replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative
   method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by
   the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of
   collective capital, that is, by a method of production which
   would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ')
   organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or
   common ownership of the means of production by all the members
   of the society. This collective method of production would
   remove the present competitive system, by placing under
   official administration such departments of production as can
   be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well
   as the distribution among all of the common produce of all,
   according to the amount and social utility of the productive
   labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible
   formula the aim of the socialism of today."

      _A. Schäffle,
      The Quintessence of Socialism,
      pages 3-4._

   "Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property
   over against another state, does away with all ownership, on
   the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish
   in the using, or of their own labor in creating material
   products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the
   acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or
   association under the control of the state, with the
   exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment
   procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to
   what is properly called capital, or means of production in
   private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is
   a system or form of common life, in which the right of private
   or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or
   vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by
   French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its
   affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective
   way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It
   has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word
   socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or
   united life."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 1-8._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800.
   Origin of Trades Unions in England.

   "A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous
   association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or
   improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by
   our definition, expressly excluded from our history any
   account of the innumerable instances in which the manual
   workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their
   social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The
   ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance,
   find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in
   Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a
   curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge
   cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad
   material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in
   any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the
   innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave
   insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which
   the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from
   the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally
   free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more
   debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge
   of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that
   there were at all times, alongside of the independent master
   craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have
   occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. …
{2934}
   After detailed consideration of every published instance of a
   journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced
   that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such
   durable and independent combination of wage-earners against
   their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain
   other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed
   to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous
   existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,'
   presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate
   department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was
   governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the
   employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can
   bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the
   tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is,
   we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic
   advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed.
   … The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts
   belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social
   grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a
   master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry
   was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one
   or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service
   as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few
   years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would
   possess the same prospects of economic advancement that
   hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary
   handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the
   striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the
   building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth
   century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor
   began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c.,
   and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place
   to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern
   sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some
   length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and
   on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it
   might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the
   predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is
   not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism
   has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern
   Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations
   of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is
   to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade
   Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have
   been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The
   historical proof is all the other way. In London, for
   instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken
   existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still
   exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history
   do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from
   them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed
   to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and
   broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of
   Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of
   continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or
   improving the conditions of their employment. And when we
   remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth
   century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial
   'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons
   on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular
   trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations
   suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early
   years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of
   combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in
   certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual
   multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations
   presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the
   evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we
   see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular
   institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting
   together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith
   remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together,
   even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in
   a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
   raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one
   of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering
   of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.'
   More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a
   permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the
   journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the
   slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of
   these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through
   which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this
   far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. …
   We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the
   typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become
   a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that
   one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that
   we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master
   tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen
   Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to
   the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered
   into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working
   an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better
   carrying on their design have subscribed their respective
   names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several
   houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about
   London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several
   considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against
   them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and
   passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the
   giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum,
   all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the
   journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in
   effective though sometimes informal combination, the
   organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of
   call.'"

      _S. and B. Webb,
      The History of Trade-Unionism,
      chapter 1._

{2935}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.
   Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.

   "If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers,
   strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and
   Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more
   practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory
   of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the
   world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the
   practical application of his own theories. The establishment
   of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he
   dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate
   for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half
   measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates,
   and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose
   principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade'
   (1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French
   writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century.
   But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to
   others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in
   his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code;
   from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it
   out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made
   good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice
   called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no
   property existed there would appear none of its pernicious
   consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the
   phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. …
   Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such
   measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the
   right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property
   prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In
   1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally
   called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a
   portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of
   Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope
   of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of
   agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been
   fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of
   them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his
   hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf.
   When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a
   successful effort made to bring together the society or sect
   of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one
   mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of
   goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts.
   … There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals,
   as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion
   of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its
   sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The
   order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of
   the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the
   doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body
   of the police into their measures; and, when this force was
   disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee
   of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as
   many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks,
   and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting
   men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their
   disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to
   bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The
   leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé
   suffered death, and five others were banished."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 97-104._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1774-1875.
   The Communities of the Shakers.

      See SHAKERS.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.
   Robert Owen.
   His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.

   "Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over
   the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less
   tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new
   tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into
   modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation
   of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness
   the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and
   non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of
   the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans
   and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the
   population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of
   production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of
   ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of
   production—the only one possible under existing conditions.
   Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.
   … At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a
   manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike
   simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few
   born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of
   the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the
   product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the
   environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and
   especially during his period of development. In the industrial
   revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and
   the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making
   large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of
   putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing
   order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as
   superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.
   From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New
   Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same
   lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success
   that made him a European reputation. A population, originally
   consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very
   demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to
   2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,
   police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were
   unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in
   conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully
   bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of
   infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …
   Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a
   day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a
   crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers
   received their full wages an the time. And with all this the
   business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded
   large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen
   was not content. The existence which he secured for his
   workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human
   beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working
   part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing
   as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century
   before, it would have required the working part of a
   population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became
   of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons
   and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The
   answer was clear.
{2936}
   It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5
   per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to
   over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark
   held to a still greater extent for all the factories in
   England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,
   hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the
   masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction
   of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,
   to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was
   based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to
   say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this
   practical character."

      _F. Engels,
      Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,
      pages 19-24._

   Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The
   Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of
   humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most
   sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system,
   of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an
   admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of
   this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became
   actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a
   committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel,
   who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by
   the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the
   permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually
   presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a
   Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report
   on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary
   enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal
   speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and
   congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and
   country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining
   popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this
   time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public,
   by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical
   and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man
   from his method, who were fully aware of his generous
   philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal
   advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The
   rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent
   contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds,
   and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral
   responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new
   adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary
   Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his
   future society. …

      See A. D. 1805-1827: ROBERT OWEN AND THE
      COMMUNITY AT NEW HARMONY.

   In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the
   constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the
   'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a
   temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen
   was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had
   encountered discouragements in the old world."

      _M. Kaufmann,
      Utopias,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. L. Sargant,
      Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy._

      _Anonymous
      Life of Robert Owen. _

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.
   Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.

   During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a
   whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity,
   designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England
   they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the
   Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in
   response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade
   combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was
   expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an
   instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The
   workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been
   formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through
   the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of
   the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy
   was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in
   labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers
   towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished
   luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who
   had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation,
   became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The
   old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character.
   … It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave
   the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and
   the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate
   consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of
   somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright,
   and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began
   after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the
   employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier
   laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal
   with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed
   that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the
   opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But
   they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the
   Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of
   the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the
   recognition of combination had already done something to
   improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at
   least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted
   a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly
   avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless,
   the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in
   framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things
   previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental
   point that a combination of working men was not in itself
   illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such
   a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825
   that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important
   position in which we find them at the beginning of the
   seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law
   might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. …
   The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was
   in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one
   Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of
   criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took
   their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions
   generally.
{2937}
   In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade
   were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in
   Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences
   at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the
   suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had
   changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most
   searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which
   would, they declared, prove that they were in no way
   implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield.
   The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful
   defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the
   positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the
   co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the
   Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the
   employers, especially the more influential of them, which
   marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. …
   The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a
   most searching character, and their results are contained in
   eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and
   it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few
   Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further
   appeared that where no combination existed the relations
   between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the
   position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite
   desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation
   of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which
   was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of
   Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade
   Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that
   they register their rules, the same rights as were already
   enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier
   legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can
   sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can
   proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent
   conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of
   investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by
   that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the
   Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left
   to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have
   gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which
   amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action
   of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment
   as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the
   common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did,
   indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction
   of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever
   heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very
   vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution
   of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act
   of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme
   penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists
   either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and
   Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims
   were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those
   of other citizens."

      _G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,
      Social Peace,
      pages 86-102. _

      ALSO IN:
      _Le Comte de Paris,
      The Trades' Unions of England._

      _W. Trant,
      Trade Unions._

      _National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
      Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.
   George Rapp and the Harmony Society.
   Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.

   The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a
   tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in
   1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation
   in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater
   freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw
   all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform
   and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all
   things in common; and to labor for the common good of the
   whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and
   encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But
   in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to
   live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages
   were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain
   number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a
   celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In
   1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania
   and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the
   Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new
   settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its
   turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark
   colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New
   Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to
   establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their
   well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a
   busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a
   brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these
   have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for
   its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering
   110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable
   for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own
   town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in
   saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at
   Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is
   reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."

      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 63-91._

   At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the
   Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking
   to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts
   of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread
   far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the
   commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons
   was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had
   increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr.
   Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from
   New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the
   population also removed and scattered about the country. Those
   who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers
   and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate
   was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They
   sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their
   heirs and assigns have continued to do so."

      _J. H. Noyes,
      History of American Socialisms,
      chapter 4._

{2938}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886.
   The modern Co-operative movement in England.

   "The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the
   latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a
   co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey
   and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of
   industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish
   coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of
   Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits.
   The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage.
   Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the
   Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among
   the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century
   of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set
   up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English
   record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to
   establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence,
   after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French
   revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous
   with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop
   of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy
   and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in
   Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count
   Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for
   many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far
   exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of
   persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in
   England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau
   testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the
   co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a
   despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen
   made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and
   the large amount of profit which he expended upon their
   personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of
   Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all
   visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing
   generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a
   co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and
   provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's
   families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for
   the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial
   purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in
   being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised
   abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to
   supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance
   of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in
   1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises
   and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical
   co-operative societies with economical objects gradually
   extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid
   generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that
   others might profit likewise according to their means. His
   remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they
   might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores
   now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and
   saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund
   with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from
   300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England.
   There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of
   Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was
   the first which adopted the principle of giving the
   shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining
   profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of
   this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical
   effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted
   until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their
   own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of
   saving money for community purposes and establishing
   co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their
   members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent.
   interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which
   there was little to be had in those days, and under the
   impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½
   per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction,
   education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they
   not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of
   underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense
   and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their
   principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save
   their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught
   them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made
   no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and
   they taught the working classes around them, for the first
   time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of
   equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the
   'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation
   has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice,
   Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and
   Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive
   improvements in the law which gave the stores legal
   protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land,
   and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. …
   The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now
   exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit
   annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a
   business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital
   of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at
   Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies
   devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and
   many societies expend important sums for the same purpose,
   which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the
   twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done
   business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working
   people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other
   countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in
   England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the
   Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of
   stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy
   excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some
   remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost
   prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan.
   France has many distributive stores, and is likely to
   introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in
   industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system
   of co-operation."

{2939}

      _G. J. Holyoake,
      The Growth of Co-operation in England
      (Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887)._

   The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,
   under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,
   Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the
   co-operative movement.

      _R. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism,
      pages 249-251._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. J. Holyoake,
      History of Co-operation in England._

      _G. J. Holyoake,
      History of the Rochdale Pioneers._

      _B. Jones,
      Co-operative Production._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.
   Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.

   "Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,
   was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of
   the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,
   he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of
   nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies
   in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that
   he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound
   his socialistic views, which he further developed in
   'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),
   'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most
   important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau
   Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825
   Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was
   obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,
   to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to
   solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted
   suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career
   that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a
   thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,
   clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely
   made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his
   speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has
   unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,
   both as the historic founder of French socialism and as
   suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into
   Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French
   Revolution and by the feudal and military system still
   prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive
   liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a
   new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he
   from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.
   to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,
   to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which
   had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an
   arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control
   society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual
   direction of society should fall to the men of science. What
   Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State
   directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to
   organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear
   rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to
   life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of
   the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and
   capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present
   to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,
   to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall
   rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the
   poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,
   'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his
   teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this
   religious development of his teaching that occasioned his
   final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the
   'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself
   with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his
   object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple
   and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of
   Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few
   devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of
   their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of
   Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they
   advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed
   according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.
   This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the
   Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of
   spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family
   and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon
   advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire
   equality with man."

      _T. Kirkup,
      A History of Socialism,
      chapter 2._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.
   Fourier and Fourierism.

   "Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
   MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
   Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
   Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
   Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
   ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
   Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
   given his views to the world, but it received no attention
   until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
   beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
   Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
   groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
   square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
   are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
   be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
   of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
   buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
   reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
   or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
   common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
   work in common more than is necessary under the existing
   system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
   private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
   division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
   sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
   the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
   operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
   of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
   of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
   Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
   may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
   of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
   useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
   work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
   generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
   the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
   need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
   discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
{2940}
   Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
   is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
   long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
   and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
   intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
   regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
   But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
   compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
   perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
   vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
   opportunity of doing in the new community."

      _W. Graham,
      Socialism, New and Old,
      pages 98-100._

   Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his
   disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.
   Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had
   been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the
   doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples
   continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the
   founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number
   of guests was only 90; in the following year they had
   increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.
   Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the
   cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of
   immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives
   assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their
   presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the
   Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was
   established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with
   those of other socialist writers, obtained a large
   circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a
   regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its
   principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several
   newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded
   social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries
   of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were
   now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner
   toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to
   Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';
   Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many
   other shades of socialism and communism were springing into
   existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.
   Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in
   Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a
   series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and
   separate works treating of the subject were subsequently
   published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au
   active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for
   realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.
   In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the
   'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name
   of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of
   pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the
   disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the
   new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in
   their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained
   followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.
   Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian
   society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no
   less than 50 German families started from New York, under the
   leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to
   establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a
   time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.
   In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'
   appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,
   who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a
   work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great
   extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'
   He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the
   'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained
   but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable
   to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in
   the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his
   propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in
   existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the
   most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.
   … A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,
   Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to
   advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so
   modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was
   the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.
   Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these
   eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in
   1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of
   Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the
   States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing
   them. The first association in America to call itself a
   phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and
   lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,
   and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its
   officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There
   were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but
   of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The
   years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.
   Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then
   survived."

      _A. J. Booth,
      Fourier,
      (Fortnightly Review, December, 1872)._

   "Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
   'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
   (by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
   proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
   justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
   in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
   this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
   of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
   cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
   from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
   published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
   and household Association. Since then the subject has been
   considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
   been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
   destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
   means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
   paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
   vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
   a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
   the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
   the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
   generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
{2941}
   Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
   still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
   fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
   vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
   Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
   Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
   these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
   improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
   establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
   enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
   hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
   will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
   rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
   four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
   dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
   only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
   last four years of its existence."

      _J. H. Noyes,
      History of American Socialisms,
      chapter 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brisbane:
      Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
   Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
   The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
   of the present generation.

   "Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link
   between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of
   historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the
   most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon
   in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father
   being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed
   the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published
   an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a
   scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame
   Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his
   most important though far from his most voluminous work,
   published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's
   scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is
   Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being
   Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be
   imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and
   indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy
   for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841
   he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor
   Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he
   wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),
   which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl
   Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he
   showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected
   Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of
   '48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which
   time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he
   fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,
   entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In
   consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire
   to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France
   and died at Passy in 1865."

      _W. Morris and E. B. Bax,
      Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,
      chapter 18._

   "In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
   communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
   the state that it shall embrace all the more important
   concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
   would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
   therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
   banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
   most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
   individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
   elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
   work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
   gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
   In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority
   of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of
   intellectual development which that society has reached. …
   Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since
   the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society
   seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon
   published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions
   in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality
   necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must
   regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific
   anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect
   individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or
   socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon
   believed that if the state in all its departments were
   abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if
   the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its
   operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According
   to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either
   directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is
   because they have been subjected to the will of another, or
   are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to
   another. If the individual, after reaching the age of
   discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in
   every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts
   and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,
   prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow
   his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of
   others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on
   all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either
   separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,
   however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or
   remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.
   Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened
   self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form
   of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and
   substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the
   American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?
   One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch
   associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful
   disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading
   thinker among those who have found the source of evil in
   society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of
   social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not
   implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,
   and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.
{2942}
   They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon
   'active individuals, working here and there all over the
   country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five
   thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like
   Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be
   as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.
   Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the
   system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of
   monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is
   more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove
   it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless
   and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political
   machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties
   of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the
   family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage
   should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.
   This means that the contracting parties should agree to live
   together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the
   partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires
   it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love
   and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic
   Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the
   Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They
   borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,
   or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by
   Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's
   association they constituted the left wing, which, with its
   leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of
   Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the
   International in this country has been controlled wholly by
   the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those
   which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal
   Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds
   of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize
   an international revolutionary movement of the laboring
   classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as
   possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,
   with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of
   all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,
   ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins
   they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks
   or months will be necessary to make the transition. During
   that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,
   buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With
   these in their possession, and without the interposition of
   government, they will organize into associations or groups for
   the purpose of carrying on the work of society."

      _H. L. Osgood,
      Scientific Anarchism
      (Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Dubois,
      The Anarchist Peril._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
   Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.

   "St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight
   the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details
   of production, distribution, and transportation. It would
   besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a
   beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and
   imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,
   in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing
   forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at
   once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite
   extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social
   Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and
   workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was
   necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,
   capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,
   as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous
   for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,
   including the capitalists themselves, because the larger
   capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can
   destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they
   constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called
   co·operative production, with the difference that instead of
   voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first
   motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing
   up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of
   workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were
   to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of
   these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided
   in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could
   compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would
   beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted
   to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to
   industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by
   competition, he wished competition to cease between the
   different associations in any given industry; as he expressed
   it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to
   destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be
   divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally
   amongst the members of the association; the second to be
   devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the
   infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh
   on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of
   labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …
   Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would
   receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest
   would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but
   they would only participate in the net surplus in the
   character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,
   which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in
   France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social
   system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed
   to establish a number of associations of working men by the
   aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize
   expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,
   every one of the associations failed; while, on the other
   hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the
   workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships
   founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of
   distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not
   refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]
   which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain
   associations of working men who received advances from the
   Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were
   not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on
   being able to start a few: after the second rising the
   Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of
   which had failed by 1875."

      _W. Graham,
      Socialism, New and Old,
      chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note._

{2943}

   "In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,
   after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of
   francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's
   associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris
   alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the
   distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were
   accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which
   were composed of working men, comprising in all 434
   associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three
   of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434
   associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and
   there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen
   associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve
   others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had
   been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single
   one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance
   remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Socialism of To-day,
      chapter 5, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Blanc,
      1848: Historical Revelations,
      chapters 5-9, and 19._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.
   Icaria.

   In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,
   the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,
   very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,
   and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his
   social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them
   into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in
   February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what
   promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre
   for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by
   others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers
   reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned
   their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and
   finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to
   do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they
   had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined
   there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,
   were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were
   making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain
   with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his
   community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him
   were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more
   gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New
   Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was
   fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.
   "Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian
   principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are
   especially charged. The printing office is a place of great
   activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and
   German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of
   5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems
   to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,
   social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …
   These families … are far from the condition of the happy
   Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties
   they have encountered they must be accredited with having done
   remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet
   found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In
   November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,
   and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days
   after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled
   themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of
   St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by
   the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the
   community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no
   title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and
   were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on
   a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there
   Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,
   through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new
   secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which
   settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the
   Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from
   another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.

      _A. Shaw,
      Icaria._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.
   Brook Farm.

   On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association
   were made and executed which gave existence to an Association
   bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook
   Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of
   these articles, it was declared to be the object of the
   Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for
   the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,
   literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such
   lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be
   found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the
   Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to
   each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on
   the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By
   article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for
   themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on
   any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their
   capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five
   per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By
   article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may
   receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,
   instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these
   Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,
   were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles
   A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,
   Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.
   "The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'
   was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no
   difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large
   enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was
   actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four
   hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm
   of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten
   thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine
   miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from
   Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close
   vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous
   friends of the enterprise.
{2944}
   It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and
   upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative
   tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,
   humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place
   to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that
   Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the
   term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was
   about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no
   aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of
   the 'religious' associations which had been established in
   generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical
   arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or
   afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from
   being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was
   enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was
   no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition
   into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The
   thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some
   listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to
   church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own
   communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'
   (January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then
   appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make
   agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct
   and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,
   as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property
   to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to
   keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,
   at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on
   the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a
   certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and
   their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and
   their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase
   whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the
   community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To
   perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all
   trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,
   from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the
   health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it
   with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily
   or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on
   the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is
   a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time
   to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,
   extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much
   room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest
   moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,
   every species of industrial activity went on. In the
   afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became
   teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The
   evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste
   of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from
   the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,
   and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day
   in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being
   otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most
   cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were
   financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in
   the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the
   first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and
   the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."
   "The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm
   was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of
   Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it
   here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was
   incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The
   Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at
   this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution
   was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became
   the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first
   number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was
   about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,
   Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,
   Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for
   two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,
   Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The
   Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at
   Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was
   issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to
   speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There
   was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,
   however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it
   should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders
   and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the
   Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the
   purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best
   advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all
   social experiments came to an end.

      _O. B. Frothingham,
      George Ripley,
      chapters 3-4._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.
   Profit-sharing experiments.

   Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
   Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
   admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
   business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
   and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
   success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
   Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
   increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
   onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
   standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
   dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
   the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
   explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
   Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
   was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
   since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
   England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
   Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
   probably been an important reason for the small and slow
   increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
   of participation. …
{2945}
   In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
   industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
   and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
   general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
   entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
   the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
   by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
   followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
   then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
   at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
   1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
   Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
   of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
   instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
   [1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
   republics of France and the United States show the longest
   lists of profit sharing firms."

      _N. P. Gilman,
      Profit Sharing,
      chapter 9._

      See, also,
      SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
      The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
   Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
   "True Inspiration Congregations."

   In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,
   belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration
   Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a
   century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land
   in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others
   followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in
   the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a
   thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their
   leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired
   instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These
   messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.
   Communism appears to have been no part of their religious
   doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the
   only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously
   together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to
   remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously
   sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of
   Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal
   was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in
   their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the
   common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably
   thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,
   women and children.

      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 25-43._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
   Karl Marx.
   His theory of Capital.
   His socialistic influence.

   "The greatest and most influential name in the history of
   socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand
   Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves
   in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he
   studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of
   law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial
   subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous
   student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon
   gave up his intention of following an academic career as a
   teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish
   Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme
   democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his
   knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,
   and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the
   Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where
   he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his
   life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.
   Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which
   must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the
   early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the
   'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled
   from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his
   'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of
   Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la
   Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,
   who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and
   companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important
   work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two
   friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of
   opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic
   expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a
   kind of forerunner of the International, had established
   itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories
   of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction
   with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with
   Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name
   of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which
   resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the
   Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages
   of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that
   revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the
   nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of
   the agitator, which in the International and other movements
   has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles
   in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,
   Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy
   in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,
   where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his
   economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary
   programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der
   politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his
   great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in
   London, March 14, 1883."

      _T. Kirkup,
      A History of Socialism,
      chapter 7._

   "As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
   ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
   development in history, and sees in the progress of
   civilization merely the development of economic production,
   which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
   were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
   simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
   conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
   Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
   economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
   denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
   but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
   its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
   owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
   to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
   worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
{2946}
   All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
   modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
   by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
   pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
   of church property. However, he does not hold the present
   capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
   capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
   profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
   wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
   receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
   that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
   industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
   production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
   capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
   invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
   energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
   sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
   buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
   a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
   as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
   laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
   the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
   increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
   all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
   theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
   is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
   from the laborer's share in his product."

      _J. Bourdeau,
      German Socialism
      (New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,
      translated from Revue des Deux Mondes)._

   "The principal lever of Marx against the present form of
   industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the
   doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by
   labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in
   the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all
   go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain
   number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,
   actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,
   which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor
   per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to
   support himself and to rear up an average family; but at
   present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do
   the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,
   and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to
   the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital
   in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer
   works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do
   the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just
   sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope
   for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or
   concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will
   tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions
   remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may
   raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall
   again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the
   increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower
   the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this
   is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live
   at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get
   lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system
   of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be
   expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never
   exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between
   laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of
   carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for
   the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction
   of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in
   production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or
   districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of
   the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in
   society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a
   proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly
   or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the
   state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for
   granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can
   be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor
   and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state
   system itself."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 162-163._

      ALSO IN:
      _K. Marx,
      Capital._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.
   The founding of the Oneida Community.

   The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are
   followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a
   native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that
   state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,
   New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence
   for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,
   such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,
   were successfully established, and the community became
   prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the
   community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,
   there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard
   to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a
   scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the
   early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements
   of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at
   Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.

      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 259-293._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Noyes,
      History of American Socialisms,
      chapter 46._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
   Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.

   "Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,
   August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and
   Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the
   Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a
   position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to
   the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he
   became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as
   Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.
   Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in
   the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at
   Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and
   became also a member of the North German and German
   Reichstags.
{2947}
   For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative
   movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,
   and although his motto as a social reformer had always been
   'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was
   compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000
   from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April
   29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the
   co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the
   development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848
   he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative
   principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was
   no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful
   weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of
   Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on
   agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various
   works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden
   Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm
   zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu
   einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die
   Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'
   (Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in
   einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated
   the application of the co-operative principle to other
   organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,
   raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical
   beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,
   where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of
   shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase
   and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850
   he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on
   the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a
   similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long
   time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the
   consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the
   working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason
   for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was
   practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from
   which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,
   therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.
   Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather
   than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative
   agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,
   and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.
   Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small
   tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help
   themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was
   an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not
   in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point
   in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the
   capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at
   Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular
   classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which
   time the co-operative associations had a membership of
   200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers
   or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or
   loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no
   fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been
   established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and
   Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative
   Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to
   prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with
   the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a
   rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 7._

   The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch
   plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The
   number of societies in this association increased from 171 in
   1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named
   date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies,
   1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade,
   1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies,
   33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their
   own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed
   300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."

      _Science,
      September 9, 1887._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
   The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

   "The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late
   M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The
   Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,
   which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas
   of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the
   social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a
   worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had
   conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example
   to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the
   great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares
   for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating
   apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in
   France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet
   iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He
   began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed
   in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch
   establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there
   was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted
   by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it
   was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the
   French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin
   introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his
   gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a
   joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of
   profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.
   Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of
   the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands
   of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in
   the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.
   But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his
   stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.
   Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up
   to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until
   Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But
   when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in
   like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to
   keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the
   actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a
   true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or
   a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000
   francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to
   6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held
   by various employees in October, 1887.
{2948}
   The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a
   hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The
   'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;
   they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the
   Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will
   furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."

      _N. P. Gilman,
      Profit Sharing,
      pages 173-177._

   In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important
   of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for
   our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined
   into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive
   words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential
   advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be
   brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April,
   1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a
   palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in
   September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully
   occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building
   was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865.
   The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same
   time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace
   were added in the following order—the nursery and babies'
   school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths
   and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877,
   finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its
   completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about
   900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its
   population therefore already assumes the proportion of a
   considerable village; while its style of construction would
   easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating
   with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central
   building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to
   1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the
   enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances
   made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. …
   Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet
   social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin
   wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that
   the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I
   must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its
   foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains
   900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the
   most active intercourse and relations exist among all the
   inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict
   control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole
   life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual
   liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license
   simply by the influence of public opinion among its
   inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as
   a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other.
   There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot
   and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of
   warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of
   anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants
   at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if
   it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of
   the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as
   there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating
   with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate
   to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours
   in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's
   actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important
   factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that
   the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the
   poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its
   isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of
   coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin
   and members of his family, the heads of departments and other
   persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably
   above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in
   the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the
   rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of
   height, and such slight differences in the height and width of
   doors and windows as require careful observation to detect,
   and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of
   the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the
   difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the
   number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables
   him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at
   his disposal."

      _E. V. Neale,
      Associated Homes._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Howland,
      The Social Palace at Guise, and
      The Familistère at Guise
      (Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,
      and November, 1885)._

      _M. Godin,
      Social Solutions._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870.
   Nihilism in Russia.

   "For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity
   between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a
   little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great
   distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the
   house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of
   philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most
   various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted
   Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West
   nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party,
   contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her
   own native institutions in her own way; and there were at
   least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who
   were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But
   they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their
   host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw
   themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal.
   Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously
   they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted
   nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages
   in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new
   pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his
   system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like
   Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from
   Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the
   army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles
   among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany,
   where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their
   organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or
   Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the
   members of that school of thought, they had passed through
   precisely the same development.
{2949}
   Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the
   Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in
   which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system
   of society which would dispense with an authoritative
   government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the
   completion of Christianity and the realization of the
   Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of
   man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen.
   Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was
   strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's
   discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The
   Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt
   in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and
   superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution
   which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and
   was really a practical anticipation of that very social system
   which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no
   small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that
   the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the
   social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia,
   with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was
   obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to
   remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the
   great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty
   thousand complete little self-governing communities living on
   their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had
   been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the
   wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already
   raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political
   outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of
   1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of
   serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long
   gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the
   disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He
   saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his
   son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will
   find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy
   enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm,
   relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave
   pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of
   State—judicial administration, local government, popular
   education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not
   among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this
   period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in
   London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell),
   which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia.
   … Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told,
   became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before
   all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which
   was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This
   iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of
   Russian society at this period, and presently, under its
   influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism
   occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning
   and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in
   their description of it. The word was first employed by
   Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi
   Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his
   friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas
   Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil,
   nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies
   a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects
   nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything
   from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that
   come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A
   nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no
   principle without examination, no matter what credit the
   principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have
   nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in
   nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.'
   Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of
   nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most
   dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in
   everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not
   because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become
   convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because
   some author or another in Germany or England holds this or
   that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply
   Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their
   strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"

      _J. Rae,
      Contemporary Socialism,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, NIHILISM.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.
   Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the
   Social Democratic Party in Germany.

   "There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the
   later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no
   character that has secured more completely the attention of
   its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the
   way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had
   sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the
   two widely separated domains of German science and politics
   and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …
   In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle
   was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however
   large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been
   in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John
   Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in
   person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in
   love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age
   of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye
   has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.
   Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of
   contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature
   which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe
   literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each
   account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental
   standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much
   interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose
   merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To
   Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident
   into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of
   Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'
   discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one
   generally approaches a forsaken worship.
{2950}
   The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of
   socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the
   talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad
   road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in
   his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does
   not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,
   and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who
   saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom
   from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails
   Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more
   immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a
   formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to
   believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an
   object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of
   Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future
   'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his
   tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite
   Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy
   wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the
   good in such an avocation had from the first intended that
   Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his
   destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the
   source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no
   period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable
   of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a
   Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family
   had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they
   could to this arrangement."

      _L. J. Huff,
      Ferdinand Lassalle
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887)._

   "It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of
   the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the
   formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to
   his time, German laborers had been considered contented and
   peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party
   might be established in France or England, but that it was
   hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
   Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was
   able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them
   to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German
   working men's battalions, to use the social democratic
   expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the
   emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance
   materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from
   Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed
   their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
   to understand them, and this they never could have done
   without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages
   the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the
   laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably
   forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
   live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system
   and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were
   told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition
   of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
   be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers
   that government should aid them by the use of its credit to
   the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish
   co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of
   breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed
   measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so
   insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would
   solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
   necessary to have some definite party programme to insure
   success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social
   democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the
   event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the
   leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party
   called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine
   Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the
   fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated
   a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At
   the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm,
   lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
   social-democratic party with political power. Although
   Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin
   in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of
   labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His
   influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to
   live."

      _R. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
      chapter 12._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872.
   The International in Europe.

   The International came into being immediately after the
   holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At
   least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in
   its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862
   certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain
   newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,'
   started the idea that it would be a good thing to send
   delegates from the French working men to the London
   Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L'
   Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every
   way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of
   the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition,
   they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual
   interests which bind the working men of both countries
   together; the old leaven of international discord would settle
   down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy
   fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International
   is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little
   foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out.
   Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of
   the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by
   universal suffrage among the members of the several trades,
   and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of
   labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was
   facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed
   of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working
   men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle
   classes. At London the English working men gave the most
   cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of
   August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization'
   at the Freemasons' Tavern. …
{2951}
   They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium
   for the interchange of ideas on questions of international
   trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here
   in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th
   of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all
   nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
   presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of
   France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement,
   though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact
   which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the
   founder of the International. So far was this from being the
   case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it.
   The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the
   statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal
   Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the
   following year. In this committee England, France, Italy,
   Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and
   afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They
   were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret
   society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped
   to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. …
   Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly
   centralized organization, which would entrust the entire
   management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx
   carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed
   and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers
   seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first
   very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in
   1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was
   especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the
   International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its
   congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling
   factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in
   the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous
   Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive.
   First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and
   most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The
   various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this,
   and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of
   the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then,
   to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the
   adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step
   into power and leave the working men as they were before. The
   majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in
   reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic
   direction of the more intelligent members always persisted,
   and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of
   the International, and the only political brain that it
   contained. But to keep in existence a vast association
   embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and
   influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make
   use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to
   escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently
   no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only
   man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of
   the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very
   essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the
   middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican
   institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter
   claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of
   capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is
   evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement
   which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any
   complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism
   thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence.
   A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the
   International, namely, personal jealousies."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Socialism of To-day,
      chapter 9._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.
   Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,
   in the United States.

   The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry,
   or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the
   first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in
   November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers
   declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a
   "Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to
   advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following
   objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood
   among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of
   our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To
   foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To
   discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the
   fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality
   and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together,
   working together, buying together, selling together, and in
   general acting together for our mutual protection and
   advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid
   litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. …
   We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of
   monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and
   capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened
   statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but
   not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a
   proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as
   is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in
   our order."

      _R. T. Ely,
      The Labor Movement in America,
      chapter 3._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.
   The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.

   The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was
   established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas
   Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the
   founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North
   Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time
   he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a
   certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,
   in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which
   exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior
   cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very
   peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange
   spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined
   themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain
   to a "new life."
{2952}
   The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete
   surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,
   apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as
   the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those
   who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man
   of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and
   with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant
   with the society drew to it more attention than it might
   otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about
   2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and
   with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.
   The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with
   a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went
   to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,
   on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;
   others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now
   cultivated by other hands.

      _W. E. K.,
      Brocton (Buffalo Courier, July 19, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. O. W. Oliphant,
      Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.
   The Knights of Labor.

   "The second great attempt [the first having been 'the
   International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as
   society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was
   the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This
   organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city
   of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S.
   Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all
   garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the
   garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a
   trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate
   of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction
   prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to
   disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had
   quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization
   embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon
   education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use
   of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages
   system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of
   character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which
   enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship,
   and feeling withal a strong affection for secret
   organizations, having been for many years connected with the
   Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all
   wage-workers together in one organization, where measures
   affecting the interests of all could be intelligently
   discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done
   in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters'
   Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens
   invited the few members present to meet him, in order to
   discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid
   before his guests his plan of an organization, which he
   designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.'
   It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder
   described what he considered a tendency toward large
   combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form
   of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak
   and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great
   controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that
   surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that
   nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret
   organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather
   inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its
   membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the
   present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December
   28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving
   obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates
   subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the
   ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new
   Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were
   sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was
   not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded
   physicians from the Order, because professional confidence
   might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The
   rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was
   repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded,
   because the founders of the Order considered that their moral
   character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the
   new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional
   politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such
   secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in
   political work are not now excluded for that cause alone.
   Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the
   founders considered that the logical, if not the practical,
   career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and
   cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at
   the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded,
   because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive
   of articles of use, but results in great suffering and
   immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell
   or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such
   persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of
   the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did
   not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual
   and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any
   change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then
   a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the
   name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878,
   when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so
   far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general
   declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely
   secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd
   Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about;
   but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the
   membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The
   membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into
   the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until
   five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy
   in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the
   obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a
   conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years
   1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. …
   Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was
   brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement
   could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any
   kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against
   creeds.
{2953}
   The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of
   Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually,
   disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there
   were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about
   thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The
   third annual session of the General Assembly was held at
   Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied
   itself with general legislation, and was called upon to
   consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman.
   This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was
   accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand
   Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be
   five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of
   the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in
   September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this
   session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not
   worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session
   was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to
   deal with one of the most important actions in the history of
   the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and
   after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order
   should be made public. It also declared that women should be
   admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance
   law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was
   advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in
   September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the
   discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised
   constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as
   the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in
   strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for
   supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of
   members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of
   the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General
   Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and
   consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. …
   This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the
   Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The
   membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be,
   in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the
   eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and
   boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened
   at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted
   legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts.
   The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported
   at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session
   of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in
   October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the
   Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886,
   made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present
   membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been
   credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of
   nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the
   Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt
   in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886),
   while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from
   various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is,
   according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one
   million."

      _Carroll D. Wright,
      Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887)._

   "At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at
   Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman
   Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was
   succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first
   address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in
   addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong
   demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the
   currency."

      _Political Science Quarterly, June, 1894;
      Record of Political Events._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1872-1886.
   The International in America.

   By the order of the congress of the International held at the
   Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was
   transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then
   undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation
   of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to
   workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all
   international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law'
   passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878
   drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these
   have strengthened the cause of American socialism through
   membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor
   Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in
   party organization and name since 1873, and national
   conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The
   name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark
   Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and
   extremists had become definite, and the latter held their
   congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The
   terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago
   Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use
   of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even
   if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for
   that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor
   Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in
   Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of
   motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg
   Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in
   these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly
   and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by
   all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and
   international action. Second, Establishment of a free society
   based upon co-operative organization of production. Third,
   Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the
   productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery.
   Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and
   equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all
   without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all
   public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous
   (independent} communes and associations, resting on a
   federalistic basis.'"

      _R. T. Ely,
      The Labor Movement in America,
      chapters 8-9._

{2954}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.
   Socialist parties in Germany.
   Their increasing strength.

   Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist
   associations. The first was called the 'General Association of
   German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein).
   Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president
   the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its
   principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was
   the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die
   Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known
   deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its
   adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The
   first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed
   the intervention of the State in order to bring about a
   gradual transformation of society; the second, on the
   contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a
   revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a
   long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however,
   from the difference of the aims they had in view than in
   consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875,
   at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of
   the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische
   Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was
   nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was
   never complete, for as early as the month of August following
   a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German
   Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party
   does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now
   that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends
   representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the
   means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view.
   This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands,
   in order to pave the way for the solution of the social
   question, the creation of socialistic productive associations
   aided by the State, under the democratic control of the
   working people. These productive associations for manufacture
   and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large
   scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to
   arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct
   and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of
   age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct
   legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or
   war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of
   civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all
   laws restricting the right of association, the right of
   assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and
   free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people;
   compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State;
   and a declaration that religion is an object of private
   concern.'"

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Socialism of To-day,
      introduction and chapter 1._

   "The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in
   strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878,
   when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on
   the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social
   democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the
   Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which
   gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed
   against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united
   the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all
   became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting
   individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for
   the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have
   held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of
   course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The
   first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This
   resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party.
   The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both
   expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes,
   the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at
   Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It
   exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more
   wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous
   congress."

      _R. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism,
      chapter 14._

   At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the
   Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other
   single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet
   a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,
   to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.
   The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the
   socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation
   of the Empire:
   In 1871 it was 101,927;
   1874, 351,670;
   1877, 493,447;
   1878, 437,438;
   1881, 311,961;
   1884, 549,000;
   1887, 774,128;
   1890, 1,427,000.

   The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these
   figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was
   natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time.
   Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country;
   hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police
   restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was
   not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to
   circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve
   years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted,
   it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle
   [1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or
   pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had
   been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and
   300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws."
   But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the
   strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it
   in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the
   nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual
   a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th
   September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has
   never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890,
   with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional
   representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has
   carried only 37."

      _J. Rae,
      Contemporary Socialism,
      pages 33-34._

   The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest
   party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly
   1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. …
   Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the
   fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the
   universities."

      _R. T. Ely,
      Socialism,
      page 59._

   "The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in
   Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the
   term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht
   and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have
   suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …
   Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political
   and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.
{2955}
   He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he
   is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …
   He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and
   for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State
   all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no
   classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views
   in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as
   true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of
   politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at
   Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion
   at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a
   Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is
   without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,
   even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as
   'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm
   admirer of England."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 15._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.
   Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.
   The Single-Tax movement.

   The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous
   book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in
   his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and
   suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes,
   the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity
   of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of
   wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more
   and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact
   that the land on which and from which all must live is made
   the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no
   possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their
   cause; we have seen that private property in land has no
   warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of
   natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social
   development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a
   slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose
   either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land.
   The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the
   individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to,
   possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let
   them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell,
   and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the
   shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to
   confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor
   to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State
   should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the
   chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that
   might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery
   should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of
   extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it.
   By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would
   probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in
   attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making
   use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock,
   assert the common right to land by taking rent for public
   uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to
   make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.
   What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign
   remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of
   capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give
   remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free
   scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and
   taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry
   civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by
   taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal
   landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a
   single new function. In form, the ownership of land would
   remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and
   no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one
   could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land,
   no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was
   held, would be really common property, and every member of the
   community would participate in the advantages of its
   ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land
   values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other
   taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by
   proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."

      _H. George,
      Progress and Poverty,
      book 8, chapter 2._

   "Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world
   with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only
   readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more
   remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually
   extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition
   of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are
   sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in
   its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it
   created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically
   circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation.
   Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its
   saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held
   stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author
   was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a
   reformer of science and a renovator of society."

      _J. Rae,
      Contemporary Socialism,
      chapter 12._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
   State Socialistic measures of the German Government.

   "Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the
   Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with
   Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to
   add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for
   the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of
   the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the
   industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the
   high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness
   Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and
   1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the
   principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick
   insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of
   insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a
   measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the
   time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und
   Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought
   suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first
   part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince
   Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's
   early speeches on the social question he regarded the
   pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once
   desirable and inevitable. …
{2956}
   The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve
   million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,
   journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and
   apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries
   excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so
   long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a
   year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,
   river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,
   certain classes of small independent undertakers. The
   obligation to insure begins with the completion of the
   sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons
   who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn
   fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public
   pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,
   or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are
   paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the
   State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)
   for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when
   the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with
   proportionate contributions as follows:

   Wages.                    | Contributions.
                             | Weekly.    | Yearly (47 weeks).
   1st class 300 marks (£15) | 14 pfennig | 3'29 marks (3s. 3½d.)
   2nd class 500 marks (£25) | 20 pfennig | 4'70 marks (4s. 8½d.)
   3rd class 720 marks (£36) | 24 pfennig | 5'64 marks (5s. 7½d.)
   4th class 960 marks (£78) | 30 pfennig | 7'05 marks (7s.     ).

   Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay
   half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning
   of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of
   permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman
   has been insured for five years. The minimum period of
   contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years
   of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by
   illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by
   no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing
   his contributions, the period of his absence from work is
   reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are
   made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards
   supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the
   post-office monthly in advance."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      Bismarck and State Socialism,
      chapter 9._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1887-1888.
   Development of the "New Trade Unionism."

   "The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism
   are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and
   rules of the Unions started within the last two or three
   years. In these respects they either conform to the experience
   of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older
   Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them
   differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then,
   consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much?
   Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and
   methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and
   principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements,
   in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has
   been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at
   other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in
   various parts of the country; and in letters and articles
   which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public
   journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution
   of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries,
   is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union.
   Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project
   has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older
   Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been
   regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the
   recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September
   1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London
   delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection
   League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to
   carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass
   of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those
   sections of labour already organized, to provide means for
   communication and the interchange of information between all
   sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics
   as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is
   necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris
   Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by
   public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The
   mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the
   necessity for such an institution, in every industrial
   centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74
   voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The
   proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade
   Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in
   labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by
   the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing
   methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers
   adversely by throwing them out of employment, without
   compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons
   are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and
   pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that
   power should at once be granted to each municipality or County
   Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal
   control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment,
   and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee
   to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all
   others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon,
   and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of
   the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and
   they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle.
   The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working
   to that end for over two years."

      _G. Howell,
      Trade Unionism, New and Old,
      chapter 8, part. 2._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.
   Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"
   and the Nationalist movement.

   "The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an
   ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888],
   is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present
   condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward
   Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of
   the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts
   of the United States within the last twelve months. His
   romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their
   existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their
   declarations. …
{2957}
   The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is
   industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are
   no wars or government war powers. But the function has been
   assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every
   citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial
   army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal
   industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every
   citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual
   work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service'
   is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of
   education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After
   forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still
   remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.'
   There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this
   industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the
   Continental military service of the present day. Every new
   recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or
   common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what
   branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or
   with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek
   constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far
   as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades
   shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes
   for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in
   different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The
   principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole,
   harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers
   themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial
   army of the nation is the most important function of the
   President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies
   through three grades up to the officers. These officers are,
   in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen,
   colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The
   various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of
   which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the
   general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed
   through all the grades, from the common laborers up. …
   Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports
   of the President and the heads of departments at the end of
   their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must
   receive the assent of another, five years later, before going
   into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in
   the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence.
   In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is,
   therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are
   processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer
   of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the
   nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between
   individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he
   presents at a national distributing shop when in need of
   anything, and the amount due the government is punched out.
   The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not
   put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income
   as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on
   which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human
   being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children,
   are entitled to the same share of the products of the national
   industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most
   capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not
   of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no
   one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the
   comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute
   equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of
   charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is
   dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to
   every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every
   person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation
   directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of
   course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as
   their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of
   individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that
   they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred
   to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr.
   Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction
   that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that
   associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set
   forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the
   forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly,
   a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in
   September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The
   Nationalist Club,' in the following December."

      _N. P. Gilman,
      "Nationalism" in the United States
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889)._

   The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the
   Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present
   form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give
   them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their
   principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a
   socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced
   the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party,
   they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor
   of independent political action on the part of the
   wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for
   independent political action offered at the meeting of the
   American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."

      _R. T. Ely,
      Socialism,
      page 69._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
   The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.

   In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of
   the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,
   stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore
   their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down
   during the previous year and because of its refusal to
   arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the
   American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive
   organization of railway employees, formed by and under the
   presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,
   and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its
   own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to
   "boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to
   handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at
   Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June
   26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of
   traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the
   United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of
   the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers
   and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.
{2958}
   The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the
   strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
   within reach of the arm of the United States government. The
   powers of the national courts and of the national executive
   were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a
   ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.
   The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under
   arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President
   Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the
   determination of the Government to suppress a combination
   which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of
   commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by
   the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor
   organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal
   strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;
   but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general
   condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the
   Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the
   railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a
   commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its
   causes, but the report of the commission has not been
   published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
   The Coxey Movement.

   "A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of
   the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies
   of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington
   and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea
   seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up
   the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much
   needed in the country, the government should in the existing
   crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the
   employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He
   announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of
   Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on
   the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the
   unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March
   25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred
   men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through
   Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by
   the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds
   which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers
   of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers
   set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the
   detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but
   under an old District law was prevented by the police from
   entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders,
   attempting to elude the police and address the assembled
   crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a
   misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon,
   another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,'
   headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California,
   for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey
   force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads.
   This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed
   themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of
   freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St.
   Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though
   observing a degree of military discipline, the various
   'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in
   several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to
   the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf,
   to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a
   band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco,
   April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by
   simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were
   furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused
   absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council
   Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a
   train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however,
   to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued
   on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at
   that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which,
   at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some
   1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a
   stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a
   squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment
   of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days
   later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a
   band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."

      _Political Science Quarterly:
      Record of Political Events, June, 1894._

   There were straggling movements, from different quarters of
   the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged
   through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling
   favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an
   ignominious end.

   ----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: End--------

SOCIAL WAR:
   In the Athenian Confederacy.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

SOCIAL WAR:
   Of the Achaian and Ætolian Leagues.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SOCIAL WAR:
   Of the Italians.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

   Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to,
   has been incorporated in the more general article above.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

SOCIETY OF JESUS.

      See JESUITS.

SOCII, The.

   The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before
   the Roman franchise was extended to them.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

SOCMEN.

   Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to
   have been ceorls who were small landowners.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 8, note 3 (volume. 2)._

SOCRATES:
   As soldier and citizen.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 424-406;
      and GREECE: B. C. 406.

SOCRATES:
   As teacher. See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.


SODALITATES.

   "There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for
   social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,'
   and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations
   finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may
   assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political
   purposes."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

      See, also, COLLEGIA.

{2959}

SODOR AND MAN, The Bishopric of.

   In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the
   Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the
   neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers
   known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called
   Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the
   northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the
   point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the
   mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or
   and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish
   Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop
   of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as
   it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English
   possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

SOGDIANA.

   "North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope
   of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i.
   e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east,
   but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the
   Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian
   inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the
   modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the
   Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the
   north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to
   Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were
   similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda
   (Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the
   Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the
   fourth century B. C."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

      See, also, BOKHARA.

SOGDIANA.
   Occupied by the Huns.

      See HUNS, THE WHITE.

SOHR, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

   ----------SOISSONS: Start--------

SOISSONS:
   Origin of the name.

      See BELGÆ.

SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486.
   Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.

      See GAUL: A. D. 457-486;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

SOISSONS: A. D. 486.
   The capital of Clovis.

      See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.

SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752.
   One of the Merovingian capitals.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS: A. D. 1414.
   Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.

   In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the
   reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then
   having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under
   his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by
   storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the
   destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it
   cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have
   shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery
   in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands,
   young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives,
   holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many
   in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against
   their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others,
   who, after having satiated their own brutal passions,
   delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there
   is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by
   Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons,
   strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth,
   and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally
   ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the
   princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his
   departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1)._

   ----------SOISSONS: Start--------

SOISSONS, Battle of (718).

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS, Battle of (923).

   The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the
   overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in
   918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris,
   grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the
   malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most
   desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at
   Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The
   Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was
   among the slain.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 2, page 40._

SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SOKEMANNI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

SOLES, Society of.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SOLIDUS, The.

   "The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of
   gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 32, foot-note._

SOLON, The Constitution of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594;
      also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SOLWAY-FRITH,
SOLWAY MOSS,
   The Battle of.

   See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

SOLYMAN,
   Caliph, A. D. 715-717.

   Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.

   Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.

SOLYMI, The.

      See LYCIANS.

SOMA.
HAOMA.

   "It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant
   is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when
   properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to
   ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an
   exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has
   the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the
   juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question
   has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could
   have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it
   is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and
   that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used
   instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been
   identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is
   conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to
   have been the hop plant.

      _F. Max Müller,
      Biography of Words,
      appendix 3._

      See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

{2960}

SOMASCINES, The.

   The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from
   the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded
   in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted
   themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals,
   asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._

SOMATOPHYLAX.

   "A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first,
   as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for
   the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the
   body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed
   monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's
   person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of
   danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state,
   so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was
   given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly
   leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1)._

SOMERS, Lord,
   and the shaping of constitutional government in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

SOMNAUTH, The gates of.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.

SONCINO, Battle of (1431).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SONDERBUND, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

SONOMA: A. D. 1846.
   The raising of the Bear Flag.

      See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.

SONS OF LIBERTY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.

SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

SOPHENE, Kingdom of.

      See ARMENIA.

SOPHERIM.

      See SCRIBES.

SOPHI I.,
   Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.

   Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.

SOPHI, The.

      See MEGISTANES.

SORA, The School of.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SORABIANS, The.

   A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the
   country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by
   Charlemagne in 806.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 11._

SORBIODUNUM.

   A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site
   with Old Sarum of the present day.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

SORBONNE, The.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
      UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.

SORDONES, The.

   A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who
   inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2). _

SOTIATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SOUDAN, The.

      See SUDAN.

SOUFFRANCE, A.

   "The word is translated as a truce, but it means something
   very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more
   of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason
   why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this:
   The wars of the time generally arose from questions of
   succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable
   to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give
   in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in
   the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future
   discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for
   centuries."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);
      FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

   ----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------

SOUTH AFRICA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

   South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and
   perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the
   Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically
   including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based
   upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct
   representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The
   aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the
   A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The
   more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel,
   really represents but a small section of this great family,
   and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by
   strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All
   the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly
   hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never
   sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position
   the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its
   principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa
   or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the
   Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern
   division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they
   are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races.
   The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size,
   though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and
   with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most
   wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are
   the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain
   stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the
   Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of
   Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the
   outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin
   (men), have no material features in common with the great
   Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this
   presents some considerable points of difference. Their general
   type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown
   complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow
   forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin,
   body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small
   hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots
   are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or
   Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and
   thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana,
   settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …;
   lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion
   of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."

      _Hellwald-Johnston,
      Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 25._

      See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

{2961}

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
   Portuguese discovery.-
   Dutch possession.
   English acquisition.

   The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled
   by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

   He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of
   Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured.
   The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it
   by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by
   his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in
   truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. …
   Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal
   Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the
   west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the
   Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our
   second South African colony, which bears the name which he
   then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because
   he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has
   stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved.
   From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to
   have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be
   permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and
   first half of the next century as a port at which they could
   call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East
   Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to
   others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India
   Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to
   those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster,
   visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took
   possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of
   these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made
   by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade
   out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was
   deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as
   a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and
   the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came,
   but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first
   Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the
   new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus
   made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had
   in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going
   and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it
   was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority
   at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of
   Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch
   East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six
   years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first
   cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast.
   In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a
   half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To
   control them and to defend the place there were but 113
   European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at
   once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization,
   and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to
   retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much
   to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr.
   Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still
   felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession
   "was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race
   of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name
   of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in
   their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to
   have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,'
   'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) …
   Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were
   forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then
   hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the
   way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to
   be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character.
   They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and
   intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was
   driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the
   natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so
   much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This
   went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land
   from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent
   future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor
   and one of the native princes, by which the district of the
   Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal
   price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no
   further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by
   Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of
   those days did very much as the English have done since. … The
   Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow
   man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions.
   But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied
   opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a
   pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a
   Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the
   population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is
   Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so
   mingled with other races as to have lost much of their
   identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the
   Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of
   the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual
   progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be
   called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always
   with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who
   managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served
   with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained
   an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came
   the English. In that year the French Republican troops had
   taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795
   (JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner
   of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an
   authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the
   Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the
   English forces.
{2962}
   On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at
   the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double
   emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have
   regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely
   puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the
   English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out
   as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took
   possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No
   doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way
   house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we
   should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it
   not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly
   unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy
   and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been
   going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens
   in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be
   restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English
   Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. …
   But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war
   between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the
   necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this
   occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that
   time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall
   in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent
   with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the
   Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he
   did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and
   thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half
   of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."

      _A. Trollope,
      South Africa,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Greswell,
      Our South African Empire,
      volume 1, chapters 1-4._

      _R. Russell,
      Natal,
      part 2, chapters 1-3._

      _Sir B. Frere,
      Historical Sketch of South Africa
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S.,
      volumes 2 and 4). _

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
   The English and the Dutch Boers.
   The "Great Trek."
   Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,
   and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.
   The Boer War.

   The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a
   dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles
   of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic
   system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of
   Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it
   to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the
   Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas
   Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen
   exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in
   peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate
   the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed
   the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical
   notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of
   1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834.
   The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony
   which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find
   in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed,
   food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and
   of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own
   way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they
   wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people,
   farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and
   independent; and the colonial Government was by no means
   willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had
   colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the
   boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government
   was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this
   emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their
   waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and
   their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the
   interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion
   [the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their
   promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass'
   which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at
   Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood.
   The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered
   the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as
   the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred
   to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus
   successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon
   them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that
   it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent
   Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no
   slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal
   ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion.
   Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British
   rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was
   founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English
   Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects,
   and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again
   there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange
   settlement was placed under British authority, while the
   leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and,
   obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal
   Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the
   Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it
   back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government,
   and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically
   unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was
   entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which
   the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of
   the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal
   Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the
   natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But
   in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the
   worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the
   Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that
   she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection.
   Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the
   situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the
   condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires
   of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer
   nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the
   Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the
   territory of the British Crown.
{2963}
   As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce,
   independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without
   the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they
   had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their
   race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after
   deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against
   the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a
   scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease
   with which this confederation might be accomplished was
   carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. …
   Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to
   believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the
   English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal.
   'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do
   anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military
   command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir
   Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in
   his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle
   Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the
   disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English
   encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in
   England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr.
   Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and
   again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation
   of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were
   carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth,
   it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should
   have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered
   by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism
   denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some
   time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but
   in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There
   were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As
   in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was
   slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the
   landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury
   officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which
   certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost
   attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it
   would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was
   brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff
   was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers
   pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They
   were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist
   them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart,
   was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen
   Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful
   attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot
   affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. …
   On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the
   affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at
   Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic,
   established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend
   their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections
   aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of
   the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made
   to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an
   unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There
   were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. …
   Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from
   Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had
   reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came
   rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have
   felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong
   enough to render a good account of any rebels who might
   attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his
   force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250
   men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days'
   march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were
   marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and
   their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare
   of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst
   Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from
   among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel
   Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed
   despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be
   considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied
   simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he
   should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and
   firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be
   called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters,
   had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every
   shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising
   ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all,
   and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the
   officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly
   double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself
   badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all
   his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther,
   who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his
   despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once
   the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for
   a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and
   Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought
   gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the
   Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their
   murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer
   after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring
   aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the
   British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops
   seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet.
   But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir
   Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had
   met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to
   await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night,
   February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of
   the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill,
   which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek.
   Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some
   desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer
   storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen.
{2964}
   The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was
   poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was
   excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir
   George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if
   at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease
   firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by
   the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken
   prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon
   British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite
   obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General
   Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been
   negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before
   the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if
   there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter
   of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and
   concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called
   a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be
   re-established, with a British protectorate and a British
   Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the
   self-government for which they took up arms."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      England under Gladstone,
      chapter 5. _

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Nixon,
      Complete Story of the Transvaal._

      _T. F. Carter,
      Narrative of the Boer War._

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
   The Kafir wars.
   British absorption of Kafraria.

   "In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the
   depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the
   eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were
   driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military
   posts were formed along the border. A second war, however,
   broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove
   the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great
   Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs
   could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the
   second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force
   into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of
   territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For
   a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of
   the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the
   eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had
   done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British
   troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei
   river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the
   daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions
   of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on
   Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued
   extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to
   the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being
   then also declared over the territory extending from the
   latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at
   first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British
   Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in
   1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years
   subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along
   the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and
   destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was
   brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under
   the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the
   colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy
   the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its
   tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range,
   and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British
   since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently
   large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the
   Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under
   the government of the Cape."

      _Hellwald-Johnston,
      Africa
      (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 23._

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.
   Discovery of Diamonds.
   Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.

      See GRIQUAS.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
   The Zulu War.

   "At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of
   Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were
   two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and
   the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the
   English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion
   consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there
   lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends
   frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population.
   This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and
   1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the
   name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European
   inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which
   the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its
   territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most
   insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the
   persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which
   had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond
   the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation,
   organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great
   standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo.
   Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly
   relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of
   the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of
   natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a
   neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got
   into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon
   the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord
   Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South
   Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of
   the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he
   had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and
   energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle
   Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one
   who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme.
   … The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon
   the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their
   native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance
   that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be
   at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir
   Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of
   bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement
   of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his
   suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in
   virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic
   annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act
   brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of
   Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties.
{2965}
   Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of
   course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial
   Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were
   involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. …
   In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most
   important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in
   their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to
   inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners
   arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. …
   But before the Treaty could be carried out it required
   ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from
   his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he
   accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an
   opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In
   December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu
   Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand
   corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were
   unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military
   system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments
   approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a
   British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection
   of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for
   irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were
   thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given
   thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It
   proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for
   this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops
   which should have returned to England, and had applied to the
   Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to
   the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th,
   the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of
   the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion
   was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first
   step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The
   troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped
   at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a
   bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford,
   while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of
   the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who
   were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few
   Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp
   were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers
   and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the
   magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and
   hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious
   savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning
   from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter
   back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an
   immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was
   found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though
   only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson,
   towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had
   occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But
   the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except
   by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war
   was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With
   extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled
   against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue
   till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was
   known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an
   army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion
   there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the
   fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong
   formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their
   assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at
   Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless
   assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered
   with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the
   English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh
   invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been
   made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were
   never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently
   accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would
   appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according
   to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an
   accident, and the two last great battles were the result of
   local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys
   came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them,
   but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was
   fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then
   occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet
   Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a
   settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When
   this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen
   districts, each under a separate chief; the military system
   was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of
   arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which
   British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries
   against the will of the people was not however insisted on."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, pages 545-550._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,
      History of the Zulu War._

      _A. Wilmot,
      History of the Zulu War._

      _C. J. Norris-Newman,
      In Zululand with the British._

      _C. Vijn,
      Cetswayo's Dutchman._

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
   British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.
   Dominion of the British South Africa Company.
   War with King Lobengula.

   "The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to
   trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of
   the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by
   Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The
   reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines
   contained in this territory, were well known. … Other
   travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most
   favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but
   of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau
   known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural
   operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in
   1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland,
   and their reports all tended to show the desirability of
   taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was
   assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a
   protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was
   afraid. …
{2966}
   As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland,
   and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into
   Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was
   more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese
   … had been electrified into activity by the events of the past
   two years. That the attention of the British Government was
   directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a
   protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury,
   against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that
   country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then
   clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland
   could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded
   as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The
   British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that
   according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central
   Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective
   occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be
   admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast,
   but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans,
   Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the
   country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it
   out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused
   of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the
   end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a
   hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident
   that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the
   Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South
   African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and
   anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and
   the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on
   the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner
   in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly
   been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had
   great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it
   does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to
   persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing
   himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March
   1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her
   Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to
   inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February
   Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which
   secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her
   rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be
   expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the
   Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly
   established over the country attempts were made by large
   parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers
   as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the
   kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter
   against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful
   to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who
   gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the
   English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but
   even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and
   his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his
   warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they
   might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial
   period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty
   signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land,
   the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the
   country was said to abound, especially in the east, in
   Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked
   upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists,
   which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful
   diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British
   South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in
   recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the
   British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to be
   'the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
   British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
   African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
   dominions.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any
   further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of
   State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the
   representative of the Imperial Government, without, however,
   obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the
   expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company
   was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations
   of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which
   had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a
   consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its
   functions were to administer the country and to work the
   concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for
   which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When
   the British South African Company was prepared to enter into
   active occupation of the territories which they were
   authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of
   Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the
   south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being
   prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on
   the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise
   a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide
   of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between
   England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern
   limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and
   the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was
   taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal
   or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new
   agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which
   Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would
   have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the
   previous year. The boundary between the British Company's
   territories was drawn farther east than in the previous
   treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in
   a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe
   River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The
   boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the
   junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes
   south-west to the north-east corner of the South African
   Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the
   slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to
   come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the
   British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards
   was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese
   sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the
   navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to
   all nations."

      _J S. Keltie,
      The Partition of Africa,
      chapter 18._

{2967}

   By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had
   fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia.
   Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from
   the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in
   progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the
   Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated
   the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over
   the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the
   new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed
   impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The
   first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of
   the year the British were complete masters of the country, and
   Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said,
   during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which
   the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one
   instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one
   of whom survived.

   ----------SOUTH AFRICA: End--------

SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891,
      and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

   ----------SOUTH CAROLINA: Start--------

SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
      SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.
   The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.
   The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
   The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.
   The first settlement.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
   Locke's Constitution and its failure.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
   The founding of Charleston.
   The growth of the Colony.

   The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA:
   A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which
   is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This
   continued to be for some years the capital of the southern
   colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the
   disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be
   approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal
   command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the
   government literally following the people, who had in numbers
   anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government
   was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point,
   admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the
   confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and
   Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already
   been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation
   was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30
   houses were built, though this number could have met the wants
   of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at
   the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to
   us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans
   could not have been less numerous: and the additions which
   they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven
   or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement,
   were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and
   cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long
   time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of
   conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty,
   encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of
   creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal
   incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign
   region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was
   conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that
   place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with
   foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to
   Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the
   revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, …
   contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and
   provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her
   growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists,
   from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river
   nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they
   gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a
   town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations
   and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire,
   rising through the forest trees which surround it, still
   attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many
   of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes
   contributed to the growth and population of the new
   settlement."

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 2, chapter 1._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
   Spanish attack from Florida.
   Indian and Negro Slavery.

   "About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the
   establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within
   the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions
   than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,
   with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant
   territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement
   foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from
   the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …
   For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung
   over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon
   the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,
   where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered
   them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's
   brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,
   which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of
   existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their
   injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point
   of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an
   order from the Proprietors. …
{2968}
   The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate
   attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless
   in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of
   pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants
   of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a
   weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but
   little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian
   alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the
   colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations
   with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the
   original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery
   was already firmly established as the one system of industry.
   At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the
   shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for
   everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new
   territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,
   and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after
   remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West
   India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and
   proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt
   the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few
   traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …
   the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what
   had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an
   exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
   native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of
   slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities
   between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but
   it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very
   earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with
   their savage neighbours."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, Maryland,
      and the Carolinas,
      chapter 12._

   "Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was
   from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor.
   … The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at
   an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able
   man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as
   Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to
   buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can
   never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied
   so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told,
   the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the
   proportion of 22 to 12."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.
   Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,
   North and South.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
   Prosperity of the colony.
   Attack on St. Augustine.
   French attack on Charleston.

   "At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon
   South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling
   for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the
   extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and
   here and there of noble families in England, had abundant
   leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in
   proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
   where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature
   convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality,
   refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
   class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged
   bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the
   Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had
   gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position
   by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the
   scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of
   Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and
   thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be
   a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
   Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians
   march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard
   of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements.
   Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to
   Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived.
   Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid
   siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery
   for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
   it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared
   off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his
   own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on
   the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was
   planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war
   would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later,
   the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a
   French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of
   Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although
   yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir
   Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that
   the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.

      _W. J. Rivers,
      The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 5)._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
   War with the Spaniards of Florida.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
   The Cherokee War.

   "The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition
   against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning
   home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels
   with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which
   several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some
   chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this
   dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty
   style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at
   the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the
   Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the
   English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for
   retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox
   broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages
   as security for peace and the future delivery of the
   murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and
   confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the
   Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander
   of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,
   apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he
   gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier
   having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions
   fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.
{2969}
   Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,
   and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the
   frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,
   voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian
   scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and
   authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as
   slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General
   Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,
   chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western
   frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to
   return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …
   Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery
   entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort
   Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching
   then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,
   within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a
   large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,
   from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;
   or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself
   repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in
   obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the
   north. When this determination became known, the province was
   thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared
   themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a
   detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the
   solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the
   administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.
   Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions
   in America east of the Mississippi had been practically
   finished and the French and Indian War at the north was
   closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,
   the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in
   alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the
   Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for
   some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of
   safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to
   surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a
   part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after
   which, the Indians directed all their fury against the
   frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for
   assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was
   ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the
   province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee
   country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near
   the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians
   were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the
   defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for
   peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,
   they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at
   the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps
   within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,
   by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,
   procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was
   presently made."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 27 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ramsay,
      History of South Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 5, section 2. _

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 4, chapter 4._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act.
   The first Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;
      and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   Rapid progress of Revolution.
   Flight of the Royal Governor.

   In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina
   was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of
   Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second
   Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the
   non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At
   a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial
   Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety,
   issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two
   regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels.
   Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or
   interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in
   session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage
   large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with
   a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently
   summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to
   business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The
   Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting
   the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance
   was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse],
   especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was
   used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety,
   which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and
   brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to
   take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No
   resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the
   visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of
   war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of
   secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in
   the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter.
   A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for
   fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon
   expelled."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapters 30-31 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ramsay,
      History of South Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 7, section 1._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).
   Allegiance to King George renounced, independence
   assumed, and a state constitution adopted.

   "On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South
   Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks
   to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the
   American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of
   kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,
   exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies
   permission to create civil institutions, independent of the
   regal authority.
{2970}
   The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army
   of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of
   public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming
   the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,
   Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.
   The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end
   toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the
   criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;
   public and private affairs were running into confusion; the
   imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,
   so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate
   system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the
   organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior
   officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to
   Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments
   of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island
   was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and
   palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was
   ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.
   Within five days after the convention received the act of
   parliament of the preceding December which authorized the
   capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the
   hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,
   asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of
   all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the
   British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the
   violence of his officers, they established a constitution for
   South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen
   president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry
   Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was
   opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate
   exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of
   the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to
   declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has
   abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,
   and we owe no obedience to him.'"

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The war in the North.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778.
   State Constitution framed and adopted.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The war carried into the south.
   Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.
   Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
      and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
   Siege and surrender of Charleston.
   Defeat of Gates at Camden.
   British subjugation of the state.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
   Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Greene's campaign.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw springs.
   The British shut up in Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.
   The campaign in Virginia.
   Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.
   Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.
   The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831.
   The first railroad.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
   The plotting of the Rebellion.
   Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Beginning the War of Rebellion.
   The bombardment of Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
   Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast
   islands by Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:
      SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
   The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
   Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,
   and assault on Fort Wagner.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-
   Siege of Fort Wagner.
   Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
   Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-
   Sherman's march through the state.
   The burning of Columbia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).
   Provisional Government set up under
   President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

{2971}

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.
   Reconstruction.

   "After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans
   were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the
   Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan
   [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was
   quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional
   plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive
   hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring
   bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of
   Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
   1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston,
   January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil
   Government.' The previous registration of voters made in
   October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were
   whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a
   constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was
   71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801
   whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention
   34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted
   at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April,
   1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being
   elected at the same time. At this election the registration
   was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it,
   27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the
   approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State
   Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The
   Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern
   renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the
   white population of the State approves it, and not two per
   cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood
   what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took
   office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled
   on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9
   were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of
   Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were
   white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole
   Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members.
   At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted
   to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms)
   of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the
   funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including
   past-due and unpaid interest for three years."

      _W. Allen,
      Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,
      chapter 1._

   "Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the
   Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited
   the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and
   his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent
   and instructive account of public affairs during that trying
   time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most
   significant of the striking features of this book is that he
   undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing
   the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of
   completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates
   as follows:

   1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.
   2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the
   freedmen.
   3. The railroad frauds.
   4. The election frauds.
   5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the
   Bank of South Carolina.
   6. The census fraud.
   7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.
   8. General and legislative corruption. …

   Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state
   finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South
   Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have
   hitherto had possession of the state government, there is
   nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is
   worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This
   reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the
   governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican
   nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's
   administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with
   his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as
   before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and
   wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the
   Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and
   acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton
   governor.

      _J. J. Hemphill,
      Reconstruction in South Carolina
      (Why the Solid South? chapter 4)._

   Generally, for an account of the measures connected with
   "Reconstruction,"

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

   ----------SOUTH CAROLINA: End--------

SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
   Admission to the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)
      LEE'S FIRST INVASION.

SOUTH RIVER, The.

   The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South
   River and the North River by the Dutch, during their
   occupation of the territory of New Netherland.

SOUTH SEA:
   The name and its application.

      See PACIFIC OCEAN.

SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.

   "The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of
   Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being
   to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating
   debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.
   The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that
   sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on
   wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the
   creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the
   Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both
   by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the
   merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied
   Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning
   eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and
   many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt
   nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and
   gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in
   other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and
   of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any
   approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the
   Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for
   negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and
   sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed
   by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was
   very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal
   Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the
   war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company
   continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy
   corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,
   and it was considered on every occasion the rival and
   competitor of the Bank of England."
{2972}
   At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the
   government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great
   object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the
   irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the
   term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly
   £800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a
   competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now
   displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each
   seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but
   disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,
   until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous
   offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill
   finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In
   the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only
   17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants
   hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before
   they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be
   allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for
   even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The
   offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years
   and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they
   had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is
   computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of
   annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,
   during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,
   with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea
   Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose
   from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had
   received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a
   subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that
   the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was
   quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the
   stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such
   general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,
   had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,
   and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they
   passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly
   dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed
   an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion
   was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other
   mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change
   Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

   The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks
   were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about
   were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the
   number,
   'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;
   Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);
   Insurance of losses by servants;
   To make Salt-Water Fresh;
   For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;
   For Building of Ships against Pirates;
   For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;
   For improving of Malt Liquors;
   For recovering of Seamen's Wages;
   For extracting of Silver from Lead;
   For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable
   and fine Metal;
   For making of Iron with Pit-coal;
   For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;
   For trading in Human Hair;
   For flitting of Hogs;
   For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'

   But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking
   which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to
   pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one
   hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was
   the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same
   morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. …
   When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it
   is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first
   check to the public infatuation was given by the same body
   whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained
   an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias,
   against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but
   in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as
   distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their
   bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock
   began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day,
   and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline
   progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France
   [of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families
   were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were
   universal."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Anderson,
      History and Chronological Deduction
      of the Origin of Commerce,
      volume 3, page 43, and after._

      _J. Toland,
      Secret History of the South Sea Scheme
      (Works, volume 1)._

      _C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
      chapter 2._

SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.

   The organization of the so called Confederate States of
   America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to
   secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the
   Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of
   the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.

   A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the
   Emperor, Pedro I.

SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPAHIS.

   In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D.
   1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military
   fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to
   those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian
   Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of
   his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render
   military service himself in person, but, if the value of his
   fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to
   furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of
   that sum."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapters 6 and 10._

   "The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of
   nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings
   of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal
   service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on
   them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was
   granted them."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, TIMAR.

{2973}

   ----------SPAIN: Start--------

SPAIN:
   Aboriginal Peoples.

   "Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people,
   or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants
   crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The
   Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations
   of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few
   mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the
   peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature.
   Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and
   established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing
   in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called
   Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the
   two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of
   Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians
   had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they
   thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean,
   penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These
   original elements of the population were joined by colonists
   from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz
   and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the
   Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a
   Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium
   of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the
   character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the
   peninsula."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
      volume 1, page 372._

SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.
   The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-
   Beginning of Roman conquest.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
   Roman conquest.

   "The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the
   Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C.
   218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures
   by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a
   dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania
   Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica.
   At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but
   afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular
   authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two
   parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C.
   167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the
   time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was
   originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro
   was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession
   of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The
   centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish
   peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary
   of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed
   at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36°
   41' North latitude."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, CELTIBERIANS;
      LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.

SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
   Sertorius.

   Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the
   leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian
   Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against
   Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left
   Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is
   uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla
   had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain
   against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had
   thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the
   Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate
   Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in
   Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the
   Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the
   Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of
   the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes,
   Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at
   bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the
   peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large
   number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who
   formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there
   which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the
   republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and
   a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent
   against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated
   defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome
   by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him
   and assassinated him, B. C. 72.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 31-33._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 62._

SPAIN: B. C. 49.
   Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

SPAIN: B. C. 45.
   Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.
   His victory at Munda.

      See ROME: B. C. 45.

SPAIN: 3d Century.
   Early Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (SPAIN).

SPAIN: A. D. 408.
   Under the usurper Constantine.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
   Invasion of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.

   From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the
   barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept
   away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent
   its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of
   October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of
   tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of
   Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent
   historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the
   passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of
   contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was
   followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians
   exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the
   Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the
   cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced
   the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their
   fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied
   without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste
   of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and
   devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the
   inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the
   people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited
   only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the
   barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by
   the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,
   fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.
{2974}
   The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old
   Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the
   Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and
   Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and
   the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,
   another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again
   cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by
   a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even
   disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism
   to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there
   were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who
   refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to
   submit to the barbarian yoke.'"

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31._

SPAIN: A. D. 414-418.
   First conquests of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

SPAIN: A. D. 428.
   Conquests of the Vandals.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 428.

SPAIN: A. D. 477-712.
   The Gothic kingdom.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484; and 507-711.

SPAIN: A. D. 573.
   The Suevi overcome by the Visigoths.

      See SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.

SPAIN: A. D. 616.
   First expulsion of the Jews.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
   Conquest by the Arab-Moors.

   The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the
   whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of
   boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine
   authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish
   peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated
   usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church
   and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without
   strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political
   disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and
   demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in
   fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of
   Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow
   strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to
   bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason
   of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed
   daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his
   country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish
   conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to
   be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in
   its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that
   no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance
   incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of
   North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn
   Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths
   held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They
   had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had
   practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they
   learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had
   brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The
   numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution
   and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance.
   Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which
   Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at
   Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending
   the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that
   when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711,
   Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to
   cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the
   command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn
   Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the
   30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic
   followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed,
   Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name
   has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is
   also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata,
   the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with
   but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the
   extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of
   12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he
   encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had
   levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the
   small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the
   single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or
   nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of
   the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of
   July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and
   success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among
   the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the
   scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was
   practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether
   slain or fled was never known, and the organization of
   resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success
   with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his
   superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he
   pushed them out in all directions to seize the important
   cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and
   Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews
   that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the
   Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital,
   surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same
   spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's
   unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00()
   and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid
   siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and
   splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more
   valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July.
   Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless
   Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's
   first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish,
   invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern
   parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing
   Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of
   Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in
   the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from
   the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus,
   and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain,
      books 2-3 (volume 1)._

{2975}

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Condé,
      History of the Arabs in Spain,
      chapters 8-17 (volume 1)._

   For preceding events;

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS);
      and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.
   The rally of the fugitive Christians.

   "The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic
   Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the
   skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot.
   From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The
   very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of
   argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after
   battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to
   expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors
   had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence
   of which might have been the last rallying-point, was
   respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure
   and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no
   more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was
   the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the
   humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by
   the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all
   directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the
   first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken
   with them in their flight all the movable property they could
   carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the
   Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had
   hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier;
   while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected
   in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia,
   where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers
   and organization, and where they could find shelter and time
   for consultation as to the best manner of making head against
   the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by
   inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets,
   and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the
   Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have
   found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history
   are so covered with myth that some historians even question
   his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the
   Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and
   began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight
   centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from
   the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible
   cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems
   suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In
   Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as
   long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle
   of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil
   of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the
   indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier
   combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of
   this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its
   first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its
   origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every
   Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings
   that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous
   Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses,
   and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. …
   Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With
   commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and
   slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously
   into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned
   by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new
   nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._

   "The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is
   supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a
   kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo,
   and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but
   on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to
   the east other small states were growing up which developed
   into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of
   Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the
   Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet
   was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of
   castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of
   Leon."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5. _

   "The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign
   and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the
   Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of
   Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon
   penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old
   Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias
   since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.]
   founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on
   the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign
   of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of
   Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its
   ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his
   court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of
   the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as
   separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of
   independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was,
   perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title
   to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as
   the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy.
   Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre,
   always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."

      _E. McMurdo,
      History of Portugal,
      introduction, part 3._

SPAIN: A. D. 756-1031.
   The Caliphate of Cordova.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE:
      A. D. 756-1031.

SPAIN: A. D. 778.
   Charlemagne's conquests.

   The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a
   party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning
   Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish
   frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and
   acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a
   great army and advanced with little serious opposition to
   Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with
   garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.
   At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,
   the results of which are left uncertain.
{2976}
   It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news
   from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest
   incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of
   the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade
   and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized
   in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or
   Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the
   assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages
   would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with
   their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their
   independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne
   and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain
   without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in
   the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.
   The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.
   The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the
   rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap
   of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an
   unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of
   uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to
   death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who
   escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with
   forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so
   well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and
   brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and
   ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the
   royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,
   the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other
   renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had
   fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in
   this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with
   profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept
   alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic
   songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from
   generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the
   Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,
   the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven
   centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius
   of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal
   verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once
   mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,
   which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for
   this neglect."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 16, with foot-note. _

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 5._

      _G. P. R. James,
      History of Charlemagne,
      book 5._

      _J. O'Hagan,
      Song of Roland._

      _T. Bulfinch,
      Legends of Charlemagne._

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,
      book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 778-885 (?).
   Rise of the kingdom of Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: ORIGIN OF THE KINGDOM.

SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
   The rise of the kingdom of Castile.

   "Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century
   usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th
   century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards
   the close of the same century began to be called
   Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the
   defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of
   Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed
   towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the
   same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the
   former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same
   governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of
   the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest
   by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full
   century), not even the names are mentioned in the old
   chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo,
   who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six
   years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile,
   Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo,
   perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as
   he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the
   sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's
   daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of
   Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of
   Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown
   with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new
   kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving
   Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third.
   Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war
   with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in
   a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of
   Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of
   Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see,
   also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065,
   when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and
   Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso,
   and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072,
   when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who
   recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems,
   and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo
   de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms
   were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and
   continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of
   Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the
   church of Rome has canonized.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 1._


{2976a}
{2976b}

[IMAGE:
SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY
EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE.
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA.
EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.

DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA
RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER
FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA

SPAIN IN 1035,
SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH
OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON
THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).

DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM
NAVARRE
CASTILE
ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA
FRANCE

THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE
OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150.
NAVARRE.
LEON.
CASTILE.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.

SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
CASTILE AND LEON.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
GRANADA.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED
PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY.]

SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
   Petty and short-lived Moorish kingdoms.

   "The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or
   western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors
   throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had
   long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of
   Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of
   Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been
   the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war
   against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben
   Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a
   covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of
   Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had
   also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben
   Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,
   Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty
   states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.
   Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though
   slow to assume the title of kings were not the less
   independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.
{2977}
   The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the
   acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve
   and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail
   ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to
   the government of all Mohammedan Spain."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 1, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   "These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other,
   and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of
   Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from
   Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction
   to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them
   in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the
   Almoravides."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
   The Rise of the Kingdom of Aragon.

   The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and
   Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of
   Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in
   acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a
   lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of
   Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his
   possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to
   1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took
   in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original
   Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and
   Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his
   momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the
   dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and
   the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these
   the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance
   of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests
   from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to
   the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the
   county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great
   growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees
   and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the
   overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who
   allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D.
   1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at
   Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final
   arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne,
   from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign
   superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent
   kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a
   faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Geography of Europe,
      chapter 12, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 4._

      See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

SPAIN: A. D. 1086-1147.
   Domination of the Almoravides.

      See ALMORAVIDES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1140.
   Separation of Portugal from Castile.
   Its erection into an independent kingdom.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
   Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the
   decisive battle of Tolosa.

   The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see
   ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the
   Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in
   Christendom, but was productive in the end of many
   opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In
   the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from
   Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to
   give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary
   indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause.
   Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the
   Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades
   retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War,
   which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field.
   Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and
   the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under
   the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the
   fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed
   on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two
   great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of
   the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall,
   and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.
   The old monarchical constitution.
   The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.
   Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

      See BARCELONA: 12-16TH CENTURIES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
   Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.
   Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.
   Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.
   The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
   Castilian conquest of Cordova.

   Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of
   'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son
   Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter
   Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost
   always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her
   husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power
   ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time
   the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon
   his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but
   idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and
   educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the
   throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be
   acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to
   disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon
   [Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to
   the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his
   kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting
   the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst
   Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his
   succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order
   to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver
   her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he
   resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her
   hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she
   procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she
   presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town
   deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him.
{2978}
   This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the
   most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the
   Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the
   laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from
   the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity
   was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for
   its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make
   you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The
   Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in
   proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could
   sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious
   uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the
   several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were
   ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where
   Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the
   kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and
   many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far
   more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and
   enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the
   contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in
   furtherance of their separate views. Under these
   circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the
   greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and
   subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his
   conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura:
   and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his
   father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of
   Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las
   navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting
   himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom.
   He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen
   of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any.
   Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne,
   became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance
   between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for
   being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of
   Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility,
   and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore
   fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese,
   preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with
   Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths.
   He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and
   unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan
   enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the
   request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt
   neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings
   against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for
   the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful,
   but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his
   return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying
   only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He
   introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of
   wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements.
   Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated
   troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession,
   the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been
   temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by
   his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his
   first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By
   negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged
   wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given
   her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of
   Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed,
   and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward
   permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III.
   renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time
   that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for
   sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu
   Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the
   general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen,
   and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben
   Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed
   took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a
   few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated
   by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who
   succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben
   Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada,
   which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the
   kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish
   domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish
   romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in
   Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his
   Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might
   probably have offered effective resistance to Christian
   conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still
   called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia.
   The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and
   Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with
   independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the
   subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long
   the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other
   places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion
   by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the
   conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the
   territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by
   his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and
   submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal
   of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his
   Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."

      _M. M. Busk,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,
      Surnamed the Conqueror;
      translated by J. Forster._

SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
   The Moorish kingdom of Granada.
   The building of the Alhambra.

   "A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of
   their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they
   had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and
   beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to
   Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and
   is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had
   named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later
   times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a
   pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took
   the fruit as its emblem.
{2979}
   The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the
   Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great
   fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it
   elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants
   of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of
   them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their
   never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of
   Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees
   from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.
   The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian
   tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was
   of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,
   temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to
   belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his
   little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his
   Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille
   was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,
   but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither
   Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten
   cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he
   should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and
   the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a
   mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a
   secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by
   one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their
   cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.
   AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously
   for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full
   cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new
   modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle
   carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best
   farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and
   wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and
   sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm
   were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of
   the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada
   itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each
   crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives
   from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.
   The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly
   increasing population, and the king began to render the Al
   Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in
   existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for
   several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of
   the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the
   outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy
   red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son
   Mohammed II. followed in his steps."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      The Alhambra._

      _J. C. Murphy,
      Arabian Antiquities of Spain._

SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
   The conquest of Seville.
   The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,
   and their three successors in Castile.

   Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its
   schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared
   the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on
   the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King
   Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had
   become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay
   to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far
   as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation
   of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four
   centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now
   known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time
   with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France,
   who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were
   cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor,
   daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand
   was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it
   is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very
   wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he
   was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know
   more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not
   only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking
   a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante.
   Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was
   really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very
   naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of
   Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. …
   The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of
   one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the
   dignity.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

   "Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died
   during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose
   about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes
   was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that
   Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to
   the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand,
   grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of
   France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso
   "declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a
   war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards,
   was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was
   reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors
   except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled
   his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act,
   not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down
   maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his
   grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after
   them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho
   fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father
   revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and
   grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the
   king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and
   affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will.
   Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He
   reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son
   was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the
   grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter
   was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the
   Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation,
   especially through the unfortunate connection of the English
   Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.

      _E. E. and S. Hale,
      The Story of Spain,
      chapter 18._

{2980}

SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
   The slow crumbling of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.

   The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or
   Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú
   Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's
   injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni
   Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to
   serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies.
   He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then
   went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier
   troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon
   by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the
   Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested
   Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the
   Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back
   into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by
   a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, …
   dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312,
   Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by
   Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315.
   Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the
   Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded
   in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged
   Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not
   without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile,
   made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully
   defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled
   by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar
   from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was
   taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom
   Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his
   African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333.
   Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader,
   with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada,
   encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and
   was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the
   Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman
   in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his
   throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled
   for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359.
   And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the
   Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal
   power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to
   death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by
   difficulties, came to the strange determination to place
   himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King
   Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom
   his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The
   Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by
   putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless
   treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite
   brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by
   assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time,
   from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and
   Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the
   Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on
   decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who
   surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.'
   Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was
   already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A
   century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which
   Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and
   was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other
   strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were
   being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of
   Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and
   expel them."

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Condé,
      History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,
      part 4, chapters 9-33._

SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.
   Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.
   It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
   Pedro the Cruel of Castile and
   the invasion of the English Black Prince.

   "Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),
   had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from
   the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his
   step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of
   the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the
   pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had
   plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court
   of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,
   Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.
   Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the
   eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who
   had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in
   Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand
   enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of
   France] approved the project, and lent money and his best
   captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing
   and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which
   promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition
   "succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,
   and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take
   ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace
   at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to
   the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the
   government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why
   England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.
   Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But
   Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales
   by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent
   of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up
   the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000
   horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.
   1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and
   their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was
   taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on
   the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince
   demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and
   proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some
   months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's
   promises.
{2981}
   Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other
   diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said
   scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove
   into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to
   find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by
   the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results
   of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had
   achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,
   who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had
   left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the
   course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a
   little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which
   was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into
   the scale against England."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the Fourteenth Century,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 230-245._

      _P. Merimée,
      History of Peter the Cruel,
      volume 2, chapters 7-11._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
   Castile under the House of Trastamere.
   Discord and civil war.
   Triumph of Queen Isabella.
   The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.
   Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.

   "A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession
   of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was
   hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors,
   John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so
   unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in
   his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in
   comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara
   and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry
   II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his
   queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring …
   of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse
   prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and
   in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II.
   was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but
   for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility
   would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that
   prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile
   suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign
   than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with
   Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of
   Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external
   affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious.
   They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one
   memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14,
   1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting
   the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were
   unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the
   majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of
   conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and
   Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive
   territories in Castile, by the testament of their father
   Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent
   the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all
   ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro
   de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over
   his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons
   of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of
   this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner,
   his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly
   yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments
   of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de
   Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates
   were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of
   Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in
   character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying
   in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious,
   compared with any except that of his successor. If the father
   was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He
   had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as
   implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted
   for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer
   his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one
   Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her
   paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was
   formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an
   assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical
   pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates
   set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some
   duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The
   queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the
   enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his
   adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly,
   after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered
   as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest
   with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the
   succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This
   arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of
   that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This
   marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian
   oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as
   Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he
   considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took
   the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of
   the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in
   favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the
   right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the
   common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of
   the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to
   whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders
   among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of
   Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence
   of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than
   all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband
   had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty
   equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been
   defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their
   inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively
   made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of
   Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two
   kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian
   descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who
   has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of
   John II. of Castile.
{2982}
   In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession
   to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was
   one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the
   contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the
   question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese,
   three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in
   hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them;
   and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced
   to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the
   throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that
   the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a
   strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no
   means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. …
   Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's
   successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the
   history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of
   his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by
   his arms.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447;

   Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the
   government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a
   brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the
   death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged
   during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as
   the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of
   Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was
   entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the
   title of king, and administration of government, during her
   life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer
   produced events which are the chief stain on his memory.
   Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre,
   entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him
   in her testament not to assume the government without his
   father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince
   raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made
   prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly
   passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in
   Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open
   insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the
   Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered
   for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona,
   after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in
   their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of
   Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was
   destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for
   kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a
   younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded
   his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapters 1-5._

      See, also, NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

SPAIN: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown of Naples
   from those of Aragon and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
   The last struggle of the Moors.
   Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.

   "The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when,
   in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in
   Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand
   for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for
   you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians
   but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last
   proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums
   disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to
   the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the
   ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem
   surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000
   inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into
   slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he
   became more and more hated when he put four of the
   Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or
   Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole
   strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be
   relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don
   Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a
   sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from
   Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to
   street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the
   Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,'
   which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden
   to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated
   by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had
   once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be
   kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos'
   [Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it
   would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several
   times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the
   enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however,
   carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was
   to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three
   chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she
   strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which
   Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out
   Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and
   this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest
   of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with
   the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from
   following up his success by the struggles of the women in his
   harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named
   Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but
   she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or
   the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on
   the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha,
   who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name,
   Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in
   Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that
   Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned
   Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the
   window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's
   women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out
   against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by
   Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood
   shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king
   was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra;
   and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was
   obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd
   Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors in Spain,
      chapter 24._

{2983}

   "The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle,
   Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four
   years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This
   was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between
   the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long
   after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the
   Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king
   released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he
   might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once
   besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the
   Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again
   released, after many difficulties he came into power. The
   Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In
   1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short
   distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many
   neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and
   taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of
   Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to
   represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife
   between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the
   latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for
   Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender
   to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in
   splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day
   to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated
   with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very
   different was the condition of things and very depressed the
   spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered
   population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives,
   anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious
   representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the
   face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter
   denunciations of their king. When he had been released by
   Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when
   Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he
   would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to
   some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus'
   had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him
   to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could
   appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war
   against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this
   was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville,
   celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso,
   crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies
   of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to
   the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish
   king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original
   site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details
   of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on
   the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between
   individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper
   guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to
   Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned
   from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It
   was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the
   26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles
   from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse
   and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. …
   It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the
   place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in
   devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and
   capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a
   city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty
   and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an
   accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused
   great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the
   pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the
   place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors
   gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to
   capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great
   horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice
   was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   "After large discussion on both sides, the terms of
   capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of
   Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the
   free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights
   and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws,
   under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general
   control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested
   in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be
   protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the
   right of disposing of it on their own account, and of
   migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with
   vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years
   to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than
   those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none
   whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah
   [Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the
   Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian
   crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the
   date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances
   in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of
   January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty
   assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed
   over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his
   kinsmen.

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada._

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-
   The reorganization of the Hermandad,
   or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.

      See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.
   Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."
   Its horrible work.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPAIN: A. D. 1492.
   Expulsion of the Jews.

      See JEWS; 8-15TH CENTURIES.

{2984}

SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.
   Discovery of America.
   First voyages, colonizations and conquests.

   See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, 1493-1406, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1493.
   The Papal grant of the New World.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

SPAIN: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

SPAIN: A. D. 1495.
   Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope
   against Charles VIII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
   Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the
   Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.
   Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.
   Insanity of Joanna.
   Death of Queen Isabella.
   Regency of Ferdinand.
   His second marriage and his death.
   Accession of Charles, the first of the
   Austro-Spanish dynasty.

   Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married
   in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor
   Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of
   Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this
   marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent,
   February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to
   Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would
   one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy.
   The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not
   long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder
   daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this
   event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother.
   From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their
   entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. …
   In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a
   numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their
   journey," passing through France and being royally entertained
   on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of
   fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly
   recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the
   crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The
   circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of
   the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in
   Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished
   on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent,
   fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to
   hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social
   manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes
   than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court.
   … Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous
   disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with
   mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few
   personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her
   husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable
   jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and
   cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife,
   Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling
   through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis
   XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles
   with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never
   occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged
   in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided
   symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave
   birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she
   joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated
   by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in
   health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's
   unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the
   26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the
   crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor,"
   and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King
   Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in
   Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the
   absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son
   Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's
   death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had
   worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the
   accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The
   king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of
   administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the
   queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in
   January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of
   the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen
   and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then
   determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of
   Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender
   their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the
   realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to
   many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with
   Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his
   pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to
   Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by
   Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII.
   To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a
   niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix,
   and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in
   which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride
   and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of
   Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through
   his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself
   to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise,
   known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the
   government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip,
   and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing
   to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first
   attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April,
   1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in
   June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement
   "by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to
   Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the
   grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues
   secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government
   into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place
   his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the
   Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a
   high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and
   revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court
   in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity
   excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked
   serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure
   them long.
{2985}
   But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a
   fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented
   widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional
   council of regency carried on the government until December.
   After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance
   than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when
   Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year
   past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate
   daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. "
   Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of
   her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with
   that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never
   afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in
   any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the
   Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and
   far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella."
   He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d
   of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession
   of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs,
   thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of
   Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile
   during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of
   Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa.
   In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms,
   arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had
   been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not
   before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from
   the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her
   arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of
   himself as king.

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for
   the partition of Naples.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SPAIN: A. D. 1505-1510.
   Conquests on the Barbary coast.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

SPAIN: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

SPAIN: A. D. 1511-1513.
   Ferdinand of Aragon in the Holy League against France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.
   Conquest of Navarre.
   Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557.
   Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and
   colonization of Paraguay.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

SPAIN: A. D. 1516-1519.
   The great dominion of Charles.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

SPAIN: A. D. 1517.
   The Treaty of Noyon, between Charles and Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
   Popular discontent.
   Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.
   Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.
   Absolutism of the crown established.

   Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of
   discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the
   Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently
   slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that
   circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him
   as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest
   dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish
   favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of
   honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that
   they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a
   sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While
   Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for
   rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her
   monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left
   vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of
   France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for
   this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon
   his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

   "Charles received the news of his election to the imperial
   throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring
   mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same
   satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their
   blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of
   German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the
   Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in
   a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from
   Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal
   Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon
   as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a
   free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance,
   the indignation of the people became general and
   uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the
   citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in
   the next place, established a democratical form of government,
   composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city,
   they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan
   de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of
   an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the
   populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities,
   followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by
   Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously,
   destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by
   fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train
   of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding
   the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to
   disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.

      _J. Bigland,
      History of Spain,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

   "In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities
   met in Avila; and having formed an association called the
   Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate
   concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of
   the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian
   illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required
   him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the
   person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen
   displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised
   Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the
   kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and
   could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.
{2986}
   The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in
   her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to
   Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally
   deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular
   letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great
   concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by
   the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up
   a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …
   Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was
   forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open
   war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at
   first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges
   threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support
   the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered
   about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and
   persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set
   aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and
   inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection
   failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered
   Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,
   1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near
   Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.
   Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now
   submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of
   Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of
   the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four
   months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was
   compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;
   after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed
   the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the
   Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they
   had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all
   share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the
   cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to
   furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had
   stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They
   gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering
   pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile,
   assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing
   their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as
   absolute as that of Turkey."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 3 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The conquest of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519, to 1524.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523.
   The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of
   Bourbon against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.
   Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.
   The imperial revenge.
   Capture and sack of Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; and 1527.

SPAIN: A. D. 1524.
   Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.
   The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
   The Treaty of Madrid.
   Perfidy of Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
   Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors,
   or Moriscoes, completed.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.
   The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SPAIN: A. D. 1531-1541.
   Pizarro's conquest of Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, to 1533-1548.

SPAIN: A. D. 1535.
   Conquest and vassalage of Tunis.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
   Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
   Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SPAIN: A. D. 1541.
   Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556.
   Abdication of Charles.
   Accession of Philip II.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.
   War with France and the Pope.
   Successes in Italy and northwestern France.
   Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
   Early measures of Philip II.
   His stupid and stifling despotism.
   His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.
   His destruction of commerce and industry.
   His choice of Madrid for a capital.
   His building of the Escorial.

   "In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most
   extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation
   of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his
   Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the
   infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious
   reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to
   isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …
   For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without
   any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or
   to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the
   universities, colleges or schools established in foreign
   parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they
   should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic
   violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all
   his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the
   confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort
   of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There
   was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through
   which the thought of man could not pass without examination.
   No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without
   the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had
   their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes
   presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To
   those petitions which aimed at something practicable and
   judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he
   granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he
   promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and
   which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also
   published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and
   prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and
   other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry
   of the country. …
{2987}
   In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was
   rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the
   inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most
   alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means
   and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip
   received annually from his American Dominions alone more than
   1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000
   at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,
   after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,
   to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of
   titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal
   property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession
   of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the
   wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,
   and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon
   her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,
   according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of
   near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was
   one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing
   the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as
   if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling
   profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures
   [1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he
   preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city
   the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,
   and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and
   insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be
   one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and
   common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after
   having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]
   with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first
   stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel
   of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."

      _C. Gayarré,
      Philip II. of Spain,
      chapter 4._

   "The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in
   pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great
   battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been
   rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered
   document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually
   made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king
   designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is
   intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on
   whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place
   was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was
   better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial,
   or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography
   generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a
   religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to
   the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea
   in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme
   to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which,
   after careful examination, he selected for the building, was
   among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New
   Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584,
   the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years
   had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid.
   This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the
   erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice
   ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable
   treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by
   the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite
   workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was
   despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works
   of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased
   to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was
   left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of
   the Guadarrama."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1560.
   Disastrous expedition against Tripoli.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.
   Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
   Capture of Penon de Velez.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

SPAIN: A. D. 1565.
   The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida
   and occupation of the country.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565; and 1567-1568.

SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.
   Edict against the Moriscoes.
   Their rebellion and its suppression.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1568-1610.
   The Revolt o the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.
   The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
   Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

SPAIN: . D. 1572.
   Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the
   Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery,
   with Goletta, by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1580.
   Piratical warfare of England.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SPAIN: A. D. 1580.
   The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II.
   and secured by force.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

SPAIN: A. D. 1585.
   Secret alliance with the Catholic League of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.

SPAIN: A. D. 1587-1588.
   The expedition of the Armada, against England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1587-1588; and 1588.

SPAIN: A. D. 1590.
   Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.
   Parma's deliverance of Paris.
   Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

SPAIN: A. D. 1595-1598.
   War with France.
   The Peace of Vervins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
   Capture and plundering of Cadiz by the English and Dutch.

   "In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by
   the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and
   of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition
   was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.
   Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against
   Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On
   June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of
   the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap
   on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.
{2988}
   The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably
   with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the
   Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed
   here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the
   world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was
   sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex
   wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon
   Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he
   had been sent, insisted on returning home."

      _M. Creighton,
      The Age of Elizabeth,
      book 7, chapter 3._

   "The results of this expedition were considerable, for the
   king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some
   millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent
   possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to
   exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the
   Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected
   —would have been far more profitable, at least to England."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 32 (volume 3)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1598.
   Accession of Philip III.

SPAIN: A. D. 1598-1700.
   The first century of decline and decay.

   "Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings
   [Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire
   under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and
   commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the
   Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of
   Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient
   to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and
   imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621),
   Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this
   century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy,
   hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages,
   or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish
   empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests,
   discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a
   bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. …
   Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold,
   and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied
   themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in
   Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless
   churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its
   worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its
   horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the
   population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the
   enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed
   Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more
   practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of
   manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and
   peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the
   profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and
   went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought
   themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all
   work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation
   with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious
   foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent.
   Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the
   convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type
   of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic,
   political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay
   pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no
   civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined
   from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to
   6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from
   hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo,
   Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the
   lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary
   cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated.
   Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an
   unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities
   begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to
   Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they
   were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money
   to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high
   officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due;
   couriers charged with communications of the highest importance
   lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their
   journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and
   robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was
   unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the
   merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300
   ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself,
   however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the
   income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip
   II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax
   upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to
   fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were
   absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of
   a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In
   the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic
   and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of
   aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who
   had gained complete possession of the industrial and
   manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without
   them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write
   without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard.
   Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually
   transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into
   French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is
   said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from
   the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year.
   In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any
   way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry,
   trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy
   monopolize all economic and intellectual life."

      _J. A. Harrison,
      Spain,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip III._

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns
      of Philip IV. and Charles II._

SPAIN: A. D. 1609.
   Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.
   The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1619.
   Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand
   against Frederick of Bohemia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
   Accession of Philip IV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
   Renewal of war in the Netherlands.
   End of the truce.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

{2989}

SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.
   Hostile policy of Richelieu.
   The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War with France in Northern Italy over the
   succession to the duchy of Mantua.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635.
   New hostile alliances of France.
   Declaration of war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.
   The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.
   His invasion of France.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1642.
   The war with France and Savoy in Northern Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
   The war on the French frontier.
   Siege and battle of Fontarabia.
   French invasion of Roussillon.
   Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.

   In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees
   under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral
   of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and
   was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke
   d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There
   was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander,
   on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence,
   replied that could not be said of any place which contained
   the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege
   to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from
   the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz,
   with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of
   war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc:
   Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had
   expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious
   inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez …
   proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under
   Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on
   entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a
   month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de
   Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from
   its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men.
   "In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn,
   attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as
   the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army,
   amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry,
   under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the
   great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the
   frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is
   situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A
   formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on
   the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and,
   after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the
   Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia
   being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the
   kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly
   improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly
   until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the
   Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter
   ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did,
   "while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were
   totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their
   intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a
   still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the
   Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to
   Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the
   invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger,
   on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again
   entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish
   frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had
   hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies
   on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range
   of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them,
   and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore,
   divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these
   hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of
   Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain
   on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was
   invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty
   days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for
   the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so
   peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon
   the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January,
   1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it
   proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in
   the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those
   arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals,
   may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent
   intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French
   soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst
   forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection
   at Barcelona."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
      Philip IV. and Charles II.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 17._

SPAIN: A. D. 1639-1700.
   War with the piratical Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640.
   Revolution in Portugal
   That country resumes its independence.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
   Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.
   French conquest of Roussillon.

   After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the
   Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in
   Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip
   6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their
   proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states
   to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian
   troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the
   Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without
   enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps
   Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and
   annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the
   various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every
   sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up
   to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their
   dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them,
   and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and
   rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to
   obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate
   with the king and his minister.
{2990}
   These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an
   insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and
   inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested.
   These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh
   outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited
   popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general
   insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was
   slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered
   into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The
   courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh
   misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly
   directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more
   especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression
   of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are
   always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The
   Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the
   Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos,
   who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and
   called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which
   they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off
   the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been
   preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more
   than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no
   great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the
   marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent
   against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the
   minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous
   cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The
   town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the
   people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre,
   and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring
   crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct
   roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with
   France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu
   chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French
   crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for
   ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was
   immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to
   Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had
   shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with
   the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army
   as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline,
   than it really was; and the French officers were in
   consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia
   which was to support them, and still more disappointed when
   they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last
   resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez,
   D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the
   advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France,
   in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately
   besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and
   ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he
   agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops
   which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he
   executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on
   the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from
   Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the
   enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is
   probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once
   have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in
   part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of
   peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as
   advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of
   resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the
   French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more
   experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the
   Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to
   Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were
   defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became
   better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and
   though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and
   saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general
   result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At
   the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon;
   and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that
   small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it
   from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been
   taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country
   were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of
   France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry
   of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq
   Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of
   the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance
   they demanded.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

   The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of
   some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came
   rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu
   still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his
   adversaries."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
      volume 2: Olivarez._

SPAIN: A. D. 1643.
   Invasion of France from the Netherlands.
   Defeat at Rocroi.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
   The war in Catalonia.
   Sieges of Lerida.

   In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels
   of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to
   the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer
   of experience and determination, was put at the head of the
   Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the
   strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in
   command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at
   that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner
   heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than
   he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"
   but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was
   attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000
   men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to
   Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without
   accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the
   end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to
   the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,
   … the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at
   the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the
   disasters of the former general."
{2991}
   Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the
   strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the
   principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress
   surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …
   after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,
   encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of
   Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master
   of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was
   called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the
   insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook
   the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de
   Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and
   whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While
   he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised
   him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his
   lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to
   be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in
   Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in
   that province, while a considerable part of the army of
   Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain
   to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to
   pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege
   of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches
   with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than
   a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the
   siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

SPAIN: A. D. 1645-1646.
   French successes in Flanders.
   Loss of Dunkirk.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.
   Campaign against France in the Netherlands.
   The defeat at Lens.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.
   The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.
   Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

SPAIN: A. D. 1648.
   Conclusion of Peace with the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
   Subjugation of Catalonia.

   "During the four years which [in France] had been filled with
   the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with
   success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In
   1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had
   endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was
   possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish
   besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to
   capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and
   constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was
   again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful
   there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been
   expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He
   succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and
   defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have
   been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The
   inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want
   caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to
   Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place,
   but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions
   were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not
   in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he
   retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and
   those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without
   success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months,
   Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate
   was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He
   intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had
   reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no
   more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of
   Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and
   became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of
   Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of
   Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he
   excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies
   of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might
   have been saved for France and have remained a part of that
   kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was
   lost. This great and important province would have been a
   valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population
   would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have
   added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the
   Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot
   should thus have been determined. They were not closely
   related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left
   to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of
   having an opportunity for development in intelligence and
   prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.
   Alliance with the New Fronde in France.
   Defeat at Rethel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

SPAIN: A. D. 1652.
   Campaign on the Flemish frontier.
   Invasion of France.
   Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.
   War with England in alliance with France.
   Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

SPAIN: A. D. 1659.
   The Treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Territorial cessions to France.
   Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

SPAIN: A. D. 1665.
   Accession of Charles II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1667.
   Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.
   The War of the Queen's Rights.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
   Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.
   Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
   Peace with Portugal.
   Recognition of its independence.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1673-1679.
   The War of the Coalition to resist Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

{2992}

SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696.
   The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance
   against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

SPAIN: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   French conquests restored.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-
   The question of the Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.
   The will of Charles ll.

   As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain,
   Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and
   evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part
   of his internal administration, and in all his domestic
   relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so
   completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of
   age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even
   more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were
   aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not
   improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire.
   Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's
   eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would,
   therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded
   to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her
   espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of
   her posterity, all claim to the succession.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

   This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the
   Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife
   of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage
   renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had
   not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore
   considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of
   this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of
   Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim
   to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a
   daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to
   Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his
   mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly
   very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary
   rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a
   contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the
   Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the
   contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only
   party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be
   produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the
   weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would
   be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the
   Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes
   offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son;
   the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in
   favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of
   Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the
   question of the succession without consulting either Charles
   or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties
   to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it
   was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should
   succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The
   Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and
   the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of
   the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the
   dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this
   end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was
   accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the
   Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed
   when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and
   presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of
   Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland.
   It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands,
   should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this
   great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was
   agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent
   in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the
   province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed
   the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.
   Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of
   rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his
   runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his
   old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and
   inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.
   … When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived
   at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler
   of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of
   London was directed to remonstrate with the government of
   William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was
   commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing
   the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the
   chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the
   whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself,
   and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those
   powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was
   at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully
   availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the
   advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king
   died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will,
   bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of
   Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as
   the English ministers might have guessed that he would act.
   With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the
   obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his
   grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign
   hastened to take possession of his dominions."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV,
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Peace of Utrecht,
      chapters 6-10._

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      volume 1, introduction, section 3._

SPAIN: A. D. 1700.
   Accession of Philip V.

{2993}

SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
   The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.

   "Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of
Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn
   entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the
   European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,
   Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip
   V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded
   treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of
   political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such
   that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent
   management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his
   grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to
   raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at
   the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion
   of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this
   supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing
   letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was
   departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to
   the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to
   see the French making encroachments on the Spanish
   Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier
   against France; the preservation of which appeared to be
   equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in
   Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this
   point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,
   to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands
   the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this
   consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of
   Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish
   Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were
   quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a
   stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This
   circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to
   rouse the States-General against France. He found some
   difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to
   his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to
   mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of
   James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.
   Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince
   as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer
   any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of
   France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]
   was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United
   Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and
   the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies
   engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the
   duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the
   ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with
   Spain."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 25 (volume 5)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapter 9 (volume 1)._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 1-7._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.
   The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.

   The first approach to Spain of the War of the
   Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the
   Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against
   Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and
   Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition
   against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed.
   But had King William lived he would certainly not have
   selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman,
   endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the
   skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under
   him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar
   a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000
   men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet.
   Their proceedings have been related at full length in another
   history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession
   in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the
   first days of September—how even before they landed angry
   dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English,
   the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which
   Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the
   enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed.
   Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month
   it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of
   war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their
   return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to
   recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons
   from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly
   voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to
   unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they
   had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them.
   On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds
   amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted
   by some French frigates, which were the escort of the
   galleons, had expected an attack and made the best
   preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the
   treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order
   from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the
   neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts;
   they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and
   they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these
   means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom;
   Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the
   ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of
   the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French
   and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large
   amount of booty to the victors."

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      War of the Succession in Spain,
      chapters 3-4._

   For the campaigns of the War of the Succession in other
   quarters.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
   The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.
   The English take Gibraltar.

   "The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V.
   by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the
   Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in
   persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who
   was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between
   the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of
   Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a
   perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the
   States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the
   English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated
   commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after
   himself.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.

{2994}

   It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two
   Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British
   cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third
   less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the
   Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies.
   Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a
   reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to
   drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an
   Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his
   eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the
   throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's
   second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was
   proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The
   new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the
   assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of
   Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked
   for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to
   Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon,
   February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III.,
   together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed
   in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that
   side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that
   the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick,
   penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were
   driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under
   Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made
   an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for
   their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The
   importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was
   not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been
   neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English
   sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the
   eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded,
   scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same
   time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of
   this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August
   4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles
   III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen
   of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of
   Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress,
   and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis
   of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court
   afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and
   the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of
   the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French
   blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally
   compelled the raising of the siege."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5; chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _F. Sayer,
      History of Gibraltar,
      chapters 6-8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1704.
   The War of the Succession: Blenheim.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
   The War of the Succession: The capture of Barcelona.

   As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great
   warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the
   caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt,
   earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to
   Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary
   character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not
   excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He
   sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of
   5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a
   divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon,
   Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the
   arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he
   received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same
   number of recruits which he had brought from England. The
   prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince
   and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough
   opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the
   reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular
   siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the
   fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near
   Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the
   cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the
   surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of
   Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this
   reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the
   capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers
   of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid
   with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success,
   but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops
   were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three
   weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men
   of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of
   Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers
   said their troops should not join in an enterprise so
   manifestly impossible of success for a small force.
   Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all
   the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built
   on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded
   the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the
   siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made
   every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot
   soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the
   evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of
   Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all
   night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were
   under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works.
   Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered
   at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to
   repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire,
   leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain
   the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded,
   and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The
   citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by
   a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded
   from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this
   extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the
   surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in
   which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity,
   was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns
   of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful
   success by other daring operations. The German ministers and
   the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able,
   notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save
   Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king
   Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which
   Peterborough had accomplished for him."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 38._

{2995}

   The above is substantially, in brief, the account of
   Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of
   the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew
   the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728,
   called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The
   story has been recently told, however, in a very different way
   and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who
   declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history.
   Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be
   a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are
   included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works.
   Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter
   thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality,
   and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a
   note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged
   Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the
   interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric
   of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history.
   According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but
   Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on
   Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled
   to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been
   laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the
   memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been
   aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the
   present century."

      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      The War of the Succession in Spain,
      preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Warburton,
      Memoir of Peterborough,
      chapters 7-11 (volume 1)._

      _F. S. Russell,
      The Earl of Peterborough,
      volume 1, chapters 7-9._

SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
   The War of the Succession:
   Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.

   "The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed
   by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding
   country, determined to make a great effort. A large army,
   nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of
   Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of
   Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared
   before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by
   sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable
   danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched
   with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so
   small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a
   Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission
   from the British government gave him supreme power, not only
   over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board,
   over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open
   boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was
   picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships
   of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he
   announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with
   his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few
   hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet
   would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put
   out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the
   following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to
   Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which
   he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been
   some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of
   separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At
   Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to
   remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained
   on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the
   sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of
   Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and
   Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the
   capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to
   remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time
   the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed
   the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon,
   ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example
   of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The
   governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his
   trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the
   last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the
   struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that
   nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the
   dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were
   ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people.
   There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun
   as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more
   difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than
   the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an
   invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she
   puts forth when her regular military resistance has been
   beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance
   to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the
   spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura,
   rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the
   Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No
   soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the
   invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the
   country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and
   which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms
   behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off.
   In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow
   rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the
   Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the
   Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their
   mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers
   indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of
   them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in
   Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march
   from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with
   Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan.
{2996}
   The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite
   city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading
   Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get
   some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love,
   not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke
   advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him.
   But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to
   evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was
   collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly
   inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed
   a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was
   rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and
   vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity
   of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony
   with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the
   Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army,
   Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. …
   From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of
   fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had
   placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of
   Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that
   province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the
   enemy."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays)._

   In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of
   Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat
   on the French and rescued Turin.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1706-1707;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. T. Wilson,
      The Duke of Berwick,
      chapters 5-6._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapter 14 (volume 1)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
   The War of the Succession:
   The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.

   "The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After
   some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of
   Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas,
   wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected
   from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough,
   the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl
   of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the
   Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy
   numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the
   Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat
   superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the
   cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and
   Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot
   showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than
   the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still
   greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean
   Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a
   French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each
   other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body.
   Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three
   Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing
   themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they
   surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt
   [Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly
   10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were
   purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only
   about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at
   Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies,
   were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the
   army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia,
   which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The
   generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks
   of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole
   kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or
   four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of
   the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that
   was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered
   Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick
   joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on
   the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of
   Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October,
   and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida
   surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan
   mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the
   Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States
   of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October
   4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the
   enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the
   hearts of the French armies."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      The War of the Succession in Spain,
      chapters 23-26._

      _C. T. Wilson,
      The Duke of Berwick,
      chapter 7._

SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
   The War of the Succession:
   Bourbon reverses and final triumph.

   "In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the
   Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and
   Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war
   still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now
   filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general
   of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the
   emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The
   Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary
   distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the
   English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir
   Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and
   dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual
   supply of the precious metals from America. After a short
   siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of
   Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes
   gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of
   the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest
   impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his
   letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or
   retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the
   ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not
   without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and
   corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The
   fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and
   Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop
   the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.
   Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis
   pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of
   Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that
   he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …
{2997}
   The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous
   than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of
   abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not
   have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the
   American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous
   peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the
   victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven
   the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to
   Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in
   America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,
   rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more
   roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's
   arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful
   general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the
   recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began
   with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody
   battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which
   he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the
   disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of
   English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December
   9, 1710], was taken prisoner."

      _M. Callcott,
      Short History of Spain,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

   "As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa
   and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or
   wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst
   the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and
   100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations
   constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less
   than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had
   re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."

      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      The War of the Succession in Spain,
      chapters 27-34._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2)._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of the War of Succession in Spain,
      chapters 6-8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1711.
   The Austrian claimant of the throne becomes Emperor.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
   The betrayal of the Catalans.

   "Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to
   regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with
   a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the
   death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were
   passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had
   been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again
   and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again
   and again received from her ministers and generals the most
   solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When
   England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she
   might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making
   their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but,
   instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising
   the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple
   prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the
   convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the
   Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was
   referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King
   promising at that time to interpose their good offices to
   secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the
   strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily
   obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an
   acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud
   and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true,
   repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these
   privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported
   by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The
   English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the
   Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they
   should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which
   gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a
   direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of
   their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally
   silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to
   enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people,
   abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused
   to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to
   the indignation of the English Government, they still
   continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against
   overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the
   Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a
   squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their
   obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and
   of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually
   despatched, which would probably have been employed against
   Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords,
   and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the
   scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was
   more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with
   the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices
   in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan
   liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of
   Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more
   than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the
   Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the
   hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the
   city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till
   seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging
   army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been
   added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714,
   Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place
   in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards
   imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia
   were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this
   disastrous war."

      _W. E. R. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th century,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _C. T. Wilson,
      The Duke of Berwick,
      chapter 21._

{2998}

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
   Continued war with the Emperor.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Peace of Vienna.
   The Alliance of Hanover.

   "The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great
   part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it
   had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two
   principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor
   Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King
   of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen,
   Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to
   acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which
   the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor.
   To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish
   minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of
   France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as
   being the power most particularly interested in maintaining
   the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had
   been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United
   Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January
   4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least
   disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design
   of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the
   Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked
   Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest
   was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from
   the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the
   infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work,
   immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd,
   1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan
   of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King
   of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to
   obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal,
   and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The
   Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to
   acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in
   consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy
   and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the
   quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy
   was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange,
   which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion
   to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia.
   That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of
   Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and
   investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as
   the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as
   fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of
   the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who
   were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate
   to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it
   was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his
   refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The
   French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under
   Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and
   the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the
   resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple
   alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court,
   the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained.
   The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when
   the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus,
   Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at
   an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another.
   The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to
   the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor
   provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by
   chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive
   privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the
   coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long
   retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave
   mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his
   daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King
   Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The
   final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain—
   the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a
   treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725.
   "This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the
   provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the
   Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of
   the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand
   duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause
   contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain
   undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of
   Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the
   succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account
   that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The
   peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance
   between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the
   alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her
   hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce,
   besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the
   latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting
   that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near
   Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the
   Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two
   alliances."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      volume 1, chapters 7-10._

      _G. P. R. James,
      Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
      volume 4: Alberoni._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 22-30._

      _E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."
      chapters 2-10._

SPAIN: A. D. 1714.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.
   The Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
   Fresh quarrels with England.
   Siege of Gibraltar.
   Treaty of Seville.
   Second Treaty of Vienna.
   Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.

   "All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and
   Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties
   were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for
   war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of
   Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were
   published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea
   was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under
   Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February
   1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at
   Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the
   English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led
   to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain
   alone had any real desire for war. …
{2999}
   The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at
   Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France,
   Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to
   assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But
   Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to
   temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the
   death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with
   the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a
   port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass
   over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon
   dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne
   and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth
   Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the
   dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might
   frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian
   duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political
   influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries
   by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now
   opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for
   the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of
   that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except
   the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian
   duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the
   end they "became a mere farce, and the various
   plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress.
   Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having
   dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the
   French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more
   warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding
   all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she
   at length determined to accept what they offered. … She
   persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France
   and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th
   1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other
   differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian
   duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto
   Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000
   Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil
   government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip,
   indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering
   that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed
   across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus
   completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The
   Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its
   execution, on the understanding that they should receive
   entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established
   by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being
   thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke
   of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of
   that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age,
   however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at
   a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain,
   wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out
   the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in
   a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that
   treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in
   concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of
   France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which
   were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to
   accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was
   concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna.
   Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic
   Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the
   provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and
   agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands
   with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He
   also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince,
   or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power
   in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron
   disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of
   that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in
   the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir
   of Tuscany."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 14-15 (volume 2)._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 88 (volume 3)._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 36-40 (volume 3)._

      _E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"
      chapters 11-14._

SPAIN: A. D. 1733.
   The First Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Acquisition of Naples and Sicily,
   as a kingdom for Don Carlos.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

SPAIN: A. D. 1739.
   Outbreak of hostilities with England.
   The War of Jenkins' Ear.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

SPAIN: A. D. 1740.
   Unsuccessful attack of the English on Florida.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SPAIN: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747.

SPAIN: A. D. 1743.
   The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
   Arrangements concerning Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1746.
   Accession of Ferdinand VI.

SPAIN: A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the
   War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

SPAIN: A. D. 1759.
   Accession of Charles III.

SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.
   The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
   England declares War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

SPAIN: A. D. 1762-1763.
   Havana lost and recovered.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SPAIN: A. D. 1763.
   End and results of the Seven Years War.
   Florida ceded to Great Britain.
   Louisiana acquired from France.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.
   Occupation of Louisiana.
   The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

SPAIN: A. D. 1767.
   Suppression of the order of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1782.
   The unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

{3000}

SPAIN: A. D. 1782.
   Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between
   Great Britain and the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.
   The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation
   of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788.
   Accession of Charles IV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1791-1793.
   The Coalition against revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1793.
   Successes on the French frontier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

SPAIN: A. D. 1794.
   French successes in the Pyrenees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SPAIN: A. D. 1795.
   Peace and alliance with the French Republic.
   Cession of Spanish San Domingo.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
   Naval defeat by the English off Cape St. Vincent.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
   Cession of western part of Hayti, or San Domingo, to France.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SPAIN: A. D. 1801.
   Re-cession of Louisiana to France.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

SPAIN: A. D. 1802.
   The Peace of Amiens.
   Recovery of Minorca and Port Mahon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SPAIN: A. D. 1805.
   The naval defeat at Trafalgar.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.
   The popular rising.
   Accession of Ferdinand VII.

   "For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of
   revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his
   reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland;
   she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered
   Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to
   destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient,
   such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had
   remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had
   put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought
   himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and
   the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of
   doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on
   October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

   The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of
   the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the
   title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main
   provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold
   of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The
   occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving
   at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a
   following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under
   protection of the English fleet. At the same time there
   commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French
   troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived,
   and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish
   fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the
   army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and
   marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and
   take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the
   world, and even to a large party among the French themselves,
   the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The
   lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the
   name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had
   established a character for comparative moderation. But here
   was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on
   what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the
   hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become
   king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New
   World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement,
   although the course which events took seems to show that by
   means of a little delay he might have attained his end without
   such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had
   long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed
   to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the
   favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed
   an opposition, but in character he was not better than the
   trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on
   suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented
   this opposition without taking either side, and to have
   rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish
   people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who
   profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask
   him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime
   before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat
   now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at
   Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to
   the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand
   amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal
   mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon
   has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious
   letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame
   upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It
   warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an
   opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a
   'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in
   short, all that took place, but it has every mark of
   invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The
   reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French
   could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to
   encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under
   duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of
   Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a
   side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced
   to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he
   arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the
   30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news
   arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern
   suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in
   extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was
   learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really
   been suppressed.
{3001}
   This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that
   great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal
   monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent
   history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of
   the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled
   for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place
   throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A
   new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality
   movement of the nineteenth century."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Short History of Napoleon I.,
      chapter 5, lecture 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1800-1815,
      chapter 52 (volume 11)._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapters 2-5 (volume 1)._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapter 32._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).
   The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.
   National revolt.
   Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.
   French reverses.
   Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
   Arrival of English forces to aid the people.

   "Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had
   fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and
   indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly
   even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a
   still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however,
   consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for
   the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain.
   Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous
   of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish
   nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of
   Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last
   induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession
   of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and
   the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative
   but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness
   of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon
   to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he
   even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had
   usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his
   utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish
   notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a
   constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two
   after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th
   a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the
   crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive
   alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to
   be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of
   a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute,
   July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon
   Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from
   Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated
   May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their
   independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who
   had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a
   great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its
   effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and
   his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th,
   calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent
   views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted
   from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain;
   the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by
   the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced
   its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville
   followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox
   organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these
   insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres,
   principally of persons who had held high civil or military
   posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to
   these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the
   principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in
   pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out,
   and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and
   incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta
   issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare.
   Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such
   it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its
   population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed
   the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the
   disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from
   the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's
   fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats
   of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five
   French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in
   the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June
   14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in
   an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid
   with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the
   Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000
   men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina
   del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the
   temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora,
   and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than
   counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the
   French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and
   Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but
   they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at
   Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the
   French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down
   their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid
   August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the
   battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only
   inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them
   to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day
   after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him
   great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity
   towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot
   those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the
   exasperation of the people against their invaders, that
   numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz
   for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous
   inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the
   atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova.
   The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the
   Spaniards.
{3002}
   Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by
   Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of
   almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in
   several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length
   compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August
   14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the
   arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men
   from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in
   the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen
   and provided him the means to transport his troops from
   Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of
   the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish
   nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in
   their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also
   encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke
   of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th,
   and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom
   where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur
   Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego
   Bay, July 31st."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hamilton,
      Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
      volume 1, chapters 4-10._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      _General Foy,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volume 2, part 1._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 23-28._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).
   Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.
   Joseph reinstated at Madrid.

   The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in
   Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the
   Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the
   Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the
   fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish
   plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a
   prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th
   October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month
   Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his
   journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated
   Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General
   Joachim Blake [a Spanish officer of Irish descent]. But such
   vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that
   the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of
   these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day
   of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat
   at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his
   arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him
   with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000,
   held their ground till the morning of the second day's
   fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake
   made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who
   had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th;
   but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the
   Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about
   10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon.
   Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40
   guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal
   Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with
   35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the
   Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only
   maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the
   French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell
   back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The
   right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and
   now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan
   with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But
   this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish
   lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the
   artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by
   the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard
   appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at
   once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected,
   and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible
   in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro,
   overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the
   morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to
   arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French
   entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace,
   where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and
   renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city
   settled down once more to tranquil submission to the
   foreigner."

      _H. R. Clinton,
      The War in the Peninsula,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),
      Story of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).
   Wellington's first campaign.
   Convention of Cintra.
   Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
   Napoleon in the field.
   Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.
   His retreat.
   His repulse of Soult at Corunna.
   His death.

   "Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another
   corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the
   Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to
   co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by
   Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose
   exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse
   Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur
   Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on
   an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's
   corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000
   Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march
   towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French
   under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been
   joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their
   corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined
   Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force
   was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the
   morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their
   position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the
   20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British
   was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The
   attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French
   reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and
   centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the
   shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was
   nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private
   letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible
   beating on the 21st.
{3003}
   They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they
   would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not
   prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of
   the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and
   everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his
   corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when
   hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the
   evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to
   Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this
   instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated
   it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording
   it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite
   impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I
   wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and
   resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and
   Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at
   Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of
   Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions
   in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity
   of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion.
   The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice
   and convention on the part of the king being communicated to
   Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was
   again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention.
   The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the
   British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into
   Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with
   the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to
   lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir
   David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead
   of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that
   the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself
   come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the
   3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide
   tract of country. He had been led by false information to
   divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca,
   inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the
   French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced
   corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were
   gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David
   Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes
   of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards
   Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening
   of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring
   army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating
   them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The
   winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of
   the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common
   consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved
   his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he
   carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge
   by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not
   save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of
   the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At
   Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted
   his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to
   whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army,
   having received despatches which indicated that war with
   Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on
   the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had
   ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there
   were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind
   reception in the town; and their general applied himself to
   make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy
   that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the
   transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board;
   and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British
   remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The
   battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January.
   Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he
   had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the
   valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French
   infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a
   close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower
   ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before
   them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the
   guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd
   retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed
   'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the
   village. The British held their ground or drove off their
   assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful
   direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the
   earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the
   second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into
   Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before
   he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon
   General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to
   embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign
   came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and
   some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 57
      (abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7,
      of Popular History of England)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      books 2-4 (volume 1)._

      _J. M. Wilson,
      Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 13-16._

      _Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington,
      volume 4._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      General Sir John Moore
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, part 2, chapters 2-3._

      _General Foy,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volume 2, part 2._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (December-March).
   The siege of Saragossa.

   "When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado,
   who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of
   Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital.
   Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at
   Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were
   slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were
   taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having
   hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of
   the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous
   atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles.
{3004}
   The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour
   behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege
   of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce
   struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey
   and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended
   by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at
   Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the
   defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting
   glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up
   their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and,
   mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty
   garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For
   doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed,
   internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed
   by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong
   building was a separate fortification: there was no weak
   point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress,
   where the space covered by houses was the measure of the
   ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut
   down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the
   town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months,
   and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had
   large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers,
   and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the
   city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were
   fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid
   which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath
   of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering,
   and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to
   encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be
   invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar,
   who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An
   appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed
   unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong
   confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the
   commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at
   noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky
   being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of
   fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first
   observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving
   from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the
   pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and
   then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such
   excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first
   beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of
   the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was
   universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming
   with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured
   the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her
   protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At
   daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the
   works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a
   general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian
   campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left
   bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their
   leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely
   invested, the siege operations being directed by General La
   Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the
   town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was
   referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has
   surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be
   sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to
   Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged
   attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a
   heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the
   French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders
   maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a
   forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The
   guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their
   condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been
   taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello
   (who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were
   steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider,
   and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession
   of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the
   ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle
   fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked
   strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular
   resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into
   action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact
   moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease,
   the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis]
   were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no
   degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last
   extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should
   dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were
   constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens
   to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort
   which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had
   recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was
   unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was
   carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken,
   and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive
   toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled
   together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the
   shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread
   from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak,
   the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it
   alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the
   slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the
   beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five
   hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and
   thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and
   courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches,
   were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up
   by the flames of burning houses as the defence became
   concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault
   took place, and so much of the town was carried that further
   resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by
   the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the
   heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the
   Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all
   the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none
   but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished
   and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according
   to the French: on honourable terms, according to the
   Spaniards.
{3005}
   Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the
   history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted,
   they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were
   plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death.
   … The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another,
   surrendered to the French before the end of March. In
   Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met
   with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas
   after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of
   that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl
   of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in
   December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved
   Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000
   Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding
   at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including
   30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809
   Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the
   north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th
   February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding
   himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of
   Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be
   undertaken."

      _H. R. Clinton,
      The War in the Peninsula,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Book of Golden Deeds,
      page 365._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

      _Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 40._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-June).
   The war in Aragon.
   Siege of Gerona.

   "This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular
   war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced
   preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for
   some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but
   in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on
   the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess
   of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in
   the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th
   August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful
   assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of
   Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor,
   Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent
   by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand
   assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the
   French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600
   men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force,
   converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three
   successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced
   the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence
   devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were
   reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was
   yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr
   in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record;
   but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau,
   was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards
   died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was
   succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general
   whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the
   later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was
   unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the
   retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced
   with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in
   which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from
   the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach
   Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French
   asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards
   were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively
   at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely
   dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it
   had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 566-567._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
   Wellington again in the English command.
   The French advance into Portugal checked.
   Passage of the Douro by the English.
   Battle of Talavera.

   "Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna,
   conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to
   his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence,
   the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed,
   some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in
   possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia,
   which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to
   the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the
   French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000
   men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General
   Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The
   proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the
   entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the
   direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards,
   fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone
   walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove
   one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and
   Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime
   Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore,
   had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the
   English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on
   his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted
   that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north,
   Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should
   converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at
   Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should
   unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the
   occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain
   the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon
   the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of
   Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible
   that the campaign might have had the termination he desired;
   but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in
   his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution
   saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of
   the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned
   commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the
   marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail.
   England was now at the commencement of her greatest war.
{3006}
   The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions,
   though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by
   the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was
   known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the
   field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against
   France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the
   prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest
   point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a
   comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional
   Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the
   contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more
   effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the
   secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s
   colonial requirements left her little to show against the
   myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that
   60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for
   the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a
   force ever actually collected under the standards of
   Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors
   in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire
   on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the
   troops of the country; but these at first were little better
   than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of
   discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all
   foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious
   of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge
   which was denied to themselves. But above all these
   difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the
   Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these
   ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on
   the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of
   the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur
   Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared
   his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even
   if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample
   opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With
   these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be
   organised at its full strength; that it should be in part
   taken into British pay and under the direction of British
   officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English
   troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such
   was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his
   arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No
   longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government
   gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English
   commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was
   intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General
   Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the
   efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need
   only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable
   certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held
   a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There
   were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander:
   —either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on
   Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the
   result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these
   plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference
   having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at
   once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force
   under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to
   about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a
   respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions
   of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against
   Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner
   ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he
   arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to
   dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s
   intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by
   pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus
   intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main
   body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of
   these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he
   directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the
   southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in
   width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing
   himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course
   was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on
   transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank,
   and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived
   was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon
   supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose
   habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this
   memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he
   returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a
   company of the Buffs was established in the building.
   Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery.
   The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped
   by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however,
   held their ground; a passage was effected at other points
   during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual
   resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation,
   and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down
   that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult.
   … This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now
   at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to
   which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the
   defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no
   advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with
   such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his
   plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor
   as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of
   July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way
   towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of
   78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for
   the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000
   British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched
   to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force
   had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte,
   alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at
   Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each
   other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French
   troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while
   nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line
   of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus.
{3007}
   On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the
   best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the
   French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor
   and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great
   severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he
   remained master of the field against double his numbers,
   having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and
   having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of
   cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the
   French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field
   of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their
   whole disposable force upon the British army without success;
   and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable
   confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to
   those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the
   French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the
   opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his
   correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."

      _Memoir of Wellington,
      from "The Times" of September 15-16, 1852. _

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4)._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 62 (volume 13)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).
   Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,
   and Alba de Tormes.

   Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera,
   "Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging
   Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French
   armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp
   action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani;
   and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000
   Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by
   Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length,
   after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the
   scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them
   with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix
   their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence
   between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from
   his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was
   routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke
   del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort
   for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men,
   including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for
   this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga.
   The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez;
   but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the
   miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all
   their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result.
   Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry,
   20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the
   wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the
   Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the
   last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was
   evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis
   from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be
   effected."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).
   Wellington's difficulties.
   His retreat into Portugal.

   "In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the
   arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light
   troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the
   circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for
   Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he
   occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was
   advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the
   supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish
   General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in
   obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced
   from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in
   endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His
   advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of
   Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.
   Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that
   Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted
   from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that
   Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was
   speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility
   driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to
   Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the
   Generals, that the British army should immediately march to
   attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of
   Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of
   Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of
   Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British
   accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival
   there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult
   was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived
   from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be
   advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the
   corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had
   determined on quitting his position, and joining the British
   army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;
   and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left
   unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in
   this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In
   quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the
   only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British
   rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The
   whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once
   overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across
   the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the
   British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and
   leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of
   infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the
   remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,
   however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,
   soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,
   and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the
   works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,
   Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the
   British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army
   in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he
   succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced
   division of the enemy. …
{3008}
   Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately
   induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of
   Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the
   Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the
   complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the
   Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.
   With this action terminated the campaign which had been
   undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the
   enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at
   Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,
   and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country
   had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke
   of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered
   it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.
   But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,
   and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on
   Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his
   army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between
   the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained
   bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to
   Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis
   Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong
   representations of the privations to which the British army
   had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the
   authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared
   that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord
   Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his
   army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain
   triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The
   Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.
   The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord
   Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of
   that kingdom."

      _T. Hamilton,
      Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
      chapters 7 and 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Waite,
      Life of the Duke of Wellington,
      chapter 6._

      _Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2). _

SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (October-September).
   The Lines of Torres Vedras.

   "Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of
   Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last
   allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon
   boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that
   all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power
   would be turned against the only country which still struggled
   for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her
   bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so
   persevering? or the small English army effect against so
   formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so
   many nations? But during the very time when the world looked
   upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing
   weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced.
   Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or
   the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very
   circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last
   extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a
   project which will continue to be the admiration of the world,
   and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign
   rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later,
   the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny,
   provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded
   to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to
   aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the
   French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central
   junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there
   alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so
   inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion
   pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any
   offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted
   with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very
   limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month
   amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He
   therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions,
   rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive
   warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the
   risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea,
   and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster;
   where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the
   difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting
   our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should
   find it impossible to live. To stand out under these
   restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist
   with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him
   succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which
   afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the
   feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness
   and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which
   suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or
   originality of an operation which was, one may say, without
   precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for
   he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by
   the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost
   every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this
   point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was
   accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland.
   There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella
   presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and
   deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural
   barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than
   one military observer. … Wellington was the first who
   conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole
   peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred
   miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should
   be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by
   cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the
   Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia
   and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the
   Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their
   cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding
   Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He
   at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious
   and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident
   occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might
   embark in safety.
{3009}
   This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and
   the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as
   far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it
   followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the
   Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by
   the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning
   of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel
   Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of
   workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up
   intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for
   inundating the plain."

      _P. Lanfrey,
      Life of Napoleon I.,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Maxwell,
      Life of Wellington,
      volume 2, chapters 9-12._

      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A D. 1810.
   Revolt of the Argentine provinces.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.
   The French advance into Portugal.
   Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.

   "By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered
   fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the
   Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage,
   however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of
   Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this
   was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence
   was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the
   insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy
   general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of
   the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted
   in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was
   the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave
   Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the
   sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue
   Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his
   forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with
   memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on
   the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had
   entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September
   27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he
   advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his
   amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle
   utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders
   to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he
   was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled
   from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but
   as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a
   formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British
   commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern,
   forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and
   sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch
   a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia
   to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and
   Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a
   small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to
   retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted
   with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object
   and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of
   a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess
   defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he
   attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only
   missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men.
   This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in
   his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best
   lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been
   completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested
   Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered
   Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of
   Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded
   them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain
   that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana;
   that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged
   Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the
   nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had
   defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona,
   defended their walls to the last; and not a village from
   Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its
   lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had
   languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great
   chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In
   the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad
   Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese
   frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would
   direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a
   great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw
   open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made
   against the communications of the French, the object he
   steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of
   Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having
   just escaped from a great French army, so various were the
   fortunes of this most instructive war."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      Napoleon,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Hooper,
      Wellington,
      chapter 7._

      _J. H. Stocqueler,
      Life of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 4-10._

      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volumes 2-3._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      volumes 4-5._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and Empire,
      book 42 (volume 4)._

      _General Sir J. T. Jones,
      Journal of the Sieges in Spain,
      volume 1._

SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.
   Revolt and achievement of independence in
   Venezuela and New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

A. D. 1810-1825.
   Revolt and independence of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
   Wellington's victory at Salamanca.
   Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

   "In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between
   Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine,
   by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master;
   and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself
   at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in
   Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public
   attention, became from that hour, as far as France was
   concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective
   battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were
   forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in
   Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from
   time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and
   dispatched to reinforce the French armies.
{3010}
   Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and
   Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about
   1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while
   the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to
   operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The
   capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree,
   isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head
   of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a
   condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington
   had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south,
   was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet
   held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham
   was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre,
   probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and
   kept open the communications between the detached corps. On
   the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving
   of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and
   thither, rendering the communications between the French
   armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout
   the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single
   corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east,
   Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which
   did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while
   D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda
   with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total
   defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French
   far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns,
   Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard
   of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed
   with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army,
   formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might
   at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the
   counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such
   an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the
   commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks'
   repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the
   direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions
   crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town,
   and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them,
   marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca
   was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and
   a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the
   opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies
   without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the
   decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of
   the French, though masterly against one less self-collected,
   had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of
   hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw
   themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the
   event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and
   centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one
   direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and
   left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was
   the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never
   permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid
   the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and
   chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and
   soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his
   orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those
   fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into
   columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the
   devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order
   executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole
   of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners
   remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken
   and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the
   reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight.
   Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. …
   Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was
   carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm
   and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved
   upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do
   to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was
   not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be
   restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand
   prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other
   trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in
   addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds;
   whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to
   scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued
   his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant
   of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000
   men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of
   Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was
   communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward
   Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; …
   while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes
   of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the
   confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was
   conducted with all the celerity and good order which
   distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On
   the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid
   in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival,
   and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th
   came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed;
   Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and
   the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of
   every sort, returned to their usual employments."

      _General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry),
      Story of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 18 (volume 4)._

      _Lieutenant Colonel Williams,
      Life, and Times of Wellington,
      volume 1, pages 275-290._

{3011}

SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.
   Expulsion of the French.

   "The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but
   the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for
   in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two
   directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army,
   having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east),
   such were their numbers that each division became the centre
   of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against
   which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army
   of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand,
   Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it
   appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under
   Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk
   of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture
   of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole
   combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king
   before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the
   deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than
   had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to
   recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from
   Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no
   course left but to summon that general northward, and to make
   a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was
   the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened
   the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very
   existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not
   but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a
   great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The
   jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and
   the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the
   Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little
   while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession
   of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen
   all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than
   anything else which decided Wellington's course of action.
   While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in
   the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, …
   connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly
   threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected,
   the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to
   evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position
   there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the
   basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora,
   which forms in its course almost a right angle at the
   south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two
   sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high
   road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently
   large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered
   with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of
   some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the
   passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and
   drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond
   the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as
   best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the
   artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813].
   The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive
   and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack
   them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of
   Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible
   for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic
   niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France
   intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly
   quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series
   of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one
   his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St.
   Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the
   battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at
   length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne
   invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But
   by this time events on the other side of France had changed
   the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly
   driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be
   felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for
   the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious
   English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost
   Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards
   Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in
   Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of
   Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the
   Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great
   battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by
   both parties; the aim of the English general was however won,
   the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse
   evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it
   was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life
   which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already
   abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, pages. 1317-1321._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapters 76-77 (volume 16)._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 33-34._

      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the! Peninsula,
      volumes 4-5._

SPAIN: A. D. 1813.
   Possession of West Florida taken by the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).
   Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.
   Abolition of the Cortes.
   Re-establishment of the Inquisition.
   Hostility of the people to freedom.

   "The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when
   just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as
   they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An
   envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that
   Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the
   Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the
   English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner
   at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he
   had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in
   Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in
   his little mind at this time appears to have been that the
   Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and
   infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should
   return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending
   to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no
   notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to
   the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult
   whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;—
   which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted
   act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of
   Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of
   restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no
   ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms
   of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the
   circumstances under which it was made.
{3012}
   Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern
   quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who
   were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of
   restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813,
   therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be
   recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the
   territory of Spain should be what it had been before the
   war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that
   Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory,
   clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain
   should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights
   against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to
   King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed
   under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately
   be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive
   large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces
   in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a
   separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any
   regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act
   with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had
   invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative
   power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the
   Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the
   example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty
   know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how
   impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a
   state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops
   from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of
   Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with
   advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and
   exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late
   captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no
   better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of
   January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it
   might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies,
   at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the
   Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to
   Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own
   dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and
   negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They
   suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from
   Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him
   all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there
   was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed
   or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break
   out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. …
   He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before
   Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he
   entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went
   through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people
   cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but
   were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then
   followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to
   the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the
   abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the
   Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King
   before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole
   country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few
   months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state
   prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that
   convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the
   King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and
   became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and
   left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the
   great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of
   the proceedings of the late Cortes."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 6._

   "Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to
   have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a
   wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met
   with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people.
   On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom
   he and the great body of the nation were in perfect
   sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the
   core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The
   word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters
   over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The
   people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. …
   The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was
   everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the
   existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the
   offices which had existed under the old system, and then
   required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In
   reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of
   government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had
   been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to
   govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic
   one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the
   Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more
   conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned
   to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he
   brought upon himself an indelible reproach."

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 46 (volume 6)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
   The Constitution of 1812.
   Abrogated by Ferdinand.
   Restored by the Revolution of 1820.
   Intervention of the Holy Alliance.
   Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.

   "During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès
   had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which
   the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. …
   Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself
   to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry
   and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which
   all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès,
   and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled
   to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All
   national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not
   only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon
   the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The
   Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria,
   appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity,
   and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their
   opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten
   thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The
   kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's
   favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the
   courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a
   revolution in Spanish America.

      See
      ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;
      COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;
      MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;
      CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
      PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.

{3013}

   The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural
   economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of
   sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state
   of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were
   left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A
   successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga
   and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished
   himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself
   in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France,
   now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The
   Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the
   cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at
   Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when
   Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech;
   remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The
   Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents,
   and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the
   pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the
   State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of
   the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs
   restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three
   parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French
   'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate
   constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol
   of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy
   Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown.
   On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with
   moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of
   revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents,
   the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The
   revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by
   the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the
   clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the
   summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces
   in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of
   'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful
   atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French
   Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish
   affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon
   of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an
   army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the
   Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a
   Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the
   appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a
   street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough
   to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados
   from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or
   Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of
   the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern
   monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some
   resolution respecting Spain. …

      See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.

   They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the
   restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of
   observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was
   placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The
   Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old
   Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready
   to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of
   Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the
   ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th
   1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of
   Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from
   Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not
   enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King,
   and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish
   the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa,
   April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced
   was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not
   strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell
   [commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into
   negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to
   the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into
   Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency …
   was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French
   corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had
   reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they
   retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom
   they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was
   appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which
   capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès
   escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in
   November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the
   end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army
   of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release
   was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that
   had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed,
   was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular
   tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued
   an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French
   commander: an act, however, which on the principle of
   non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It
   is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the
   educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained
   in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister,
   endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all
   sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta,
   erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full
   extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of
   bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to
   resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in
   Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents
   styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the
   King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes
   listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and
   English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule
   uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The
   object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of
   his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the
   province disarmed, and many persons executed."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 8 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Blaquiere,
      Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution._

      _F. A. de Châteaubriand,
      Memoirs: Congress of Verona,
      volume 1._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 7, and 11-12._

{3014}

SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
   The Allies in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SPAIN: A. D. 1818.
   Chile lost to the Spanish crown.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPAIN: A. D. 1821.
   Mexican independence practically gained.
   Iturbide's empire.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1822-1823.
   The Congress of Verona.
   French intervention approved.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833.
   Accession of Isabella II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
   The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.
   Abdication of Christina.
   Regency of Espartero.
   Revolution of 1843.
   Accession of Queen Isabella.
   Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.

   "The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed,
   September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength
   lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the
   Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king
   under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful
   resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism
   and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent,
   Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the
   liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and
   Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of
   principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the
   skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could
   oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the
   advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish
   frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile
   with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina
   applied to England and France, and between those two states
   and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of
   April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the
   constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to
   drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year
   both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the
   Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos
   reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in
   July, and, after an adventurous journey through France,
   appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with
   courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with
   passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of
   Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the
   Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to
   have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the
   command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In
   1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of
   Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood
   of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and
   compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion
   in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent
   pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence
   in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief
   command than military science, and which deposed the most
   capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new
   commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We,
   the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your
   Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that
   category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated
   several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the
   northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and
   the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he
   [Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero,
   who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839,
   the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over
   to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained
   full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of
   Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's
   cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France,
   with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six
   years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he
   had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke
   of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to
   Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers,
   under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in
   Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in
   July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where
   they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end,
   but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had
   been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important
   and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well
   as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina
   had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the
   Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct.
   Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon
   as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency.
   … In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought
   to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger
   cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of
   the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the
   palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution
   of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of
   this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837.
   Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the
   elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the
   ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a
   municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal
   authorities in the hands of the administration. This
   occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when
   Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning
   victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to
   constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was
   the only man who could hold in check the revolution which
   threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th,
   1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such
   circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina,
   and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to
   the same result.
{3015}
   Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her
   favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her
   chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon
   published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was
   not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz,
   and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and
   grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life
   forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to
   all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country.
   October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to
   France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named
   Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and
   her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how
   actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working
   against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer
   relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals
   accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to
   England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a
   bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new
   insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to
   Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom
   Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money;
   Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in
   Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops.
   Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had
   conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at
   Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to
   return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the
   thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed
   the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister
   president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors
   were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue
   and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was
   altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure
   to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it
   the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in
   concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the
   marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of
   the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own
   youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to
   one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on
   account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet,
   and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the
   person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness,
   would be least likely to stand in the way of his son
   Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis
   Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Modern Times,
      section 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Bollaert,
      The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,
      volume 2._

      _C. F. Henningsen,
      A Twelve Months' Campaign with Zumalacarregui._

      _Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),
      Life of Palmerston,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.
   Cuba in danger from the United States.
   Filibustering movements.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

SPAIN: A. D. 1861.
   Allied intervention in Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866.
   War with Peru.
   Repulse from Callao.

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
   Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.
   Revolution of 1868.
   Flight of the Queen.
   Constitution of 1869.
   Religious toleration.
   Candidates for the vacant throne.
   Election of Amadeo of Italy.
   Unfriendliness of the nation to him.
   His abdication.

   "In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General
   Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused
   his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack
   of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more
   serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In
   October of the same year the Ministry, in a public
   proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic
   exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted
   an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a
   rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the
   country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been
   seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important
   municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the
   provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the
   municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By
   this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a
   despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The
   dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the
   government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the
   Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe
   criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations
   for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to
   ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal
   Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz,
   and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and
   co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A
   provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few
   others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was
   appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force
   and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was
   authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule
   the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the
   royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to
   Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border
   into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a
   time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent
   proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a
   provisional government was at once established. A decree of
   the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries,
   collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of
   historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and
   available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and
   transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here,
   under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob
   assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated
   the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those
   engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This
   outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy,
   awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created
   for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship.
{3016}
   The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of
   the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited
   populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety
   and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the
   angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the
   Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be
   submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first
   articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the
   Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government,
   assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking
   demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among
   whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact
   phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by
   General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday
   June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While
   recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important
   functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic,
   and adhered to the monarchical form of government as
   corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and
   as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal
   principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate
   outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and
   inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy.
   … Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial
   assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the
   people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges
   of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men
   before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed
   the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the
   exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown
   such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in
   the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger
   liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI.
   the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State
   religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and
   ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for
   public and private worship under the limitations of the
   universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even,
   professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the
   like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous
   condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional
   government, the title of Provisional Government having been
   changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was
   established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45.
   From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until
   December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the
   street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate
   ministries besides several changes of individual ministers;
   and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. …
   For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of
   Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default
   thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest
   embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of
   Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the
   Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. …
   Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being
   removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November
   3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of
   Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate
   for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to
   put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was
   elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of
   seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a
   full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no
   applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the
   building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty
   thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares,
   prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading
   Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised
   against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the
   Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and
   ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the
   formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince
   reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the
   presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps.
   The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the
   populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government
   resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men
   as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo
   never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure
   Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don
   Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were
   opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced
   that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were
   inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo,
   resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal
   authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which
   he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on
   the 11th of February, 1873.

      _J. L. M. Curry,
      Constitutional Government in Spain,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Harrison,
      Spain,
      chapters 27-28._

SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.
   Reign of Alphonso XII., son of Queen Isabella.

   On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by
   the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,
   strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.
   But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque
   provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited
   by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had
   troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces
   which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent
   young champion of divine right of course received the support
   of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the
   Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,
   who desired that their country should form a federation of
   provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and
   Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.
   A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to
   Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she
   had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican
   statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on
   landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most
   republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their
   extreme partisans.
{3017}
   His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north
   coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels
   shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid
   the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos
   and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The
   Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros
   or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had
   misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre
   henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,
   and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army
   of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of
   the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became
   more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe
   except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the
   change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,
   and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.
   The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to
   meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and
   the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in
   Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,
   whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power
   in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by
   lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He
   also strove to free the administration from the habits of
   bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in
   this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity
   of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)
   nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy
   classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The
   Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one
   deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House
   of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King
   Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel
   of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by
   the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this
   reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,
   who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on
   Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was
   over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the
   Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This
   aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November
   25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant
   child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."

      _J. H. Rose,
      A Century of Continental History,
      chapter 43._

SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894.
   Alphonso XIII.

   At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the
   queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name
   of her young son, Alphonso XIII.

   ----------SPAIN: End--------

SPALATO.

      See SALONA, ANCIENT.

   ----------SPANISH AMERICA: Start--------

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517.
   Discoveries and early settlements.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524.
   Discovery and conquest of Mexico.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
      and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533.
   Discovery and conquest or Peru.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
      and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
   Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.

      See ECUADOR.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
   Spanish conquests in Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
   Conquest of New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.
   Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,
   New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.

      See AUDIENCIAS.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724.
   The Araucanian War.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
   Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767.
   The Jesuits in Paraguay.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
   Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
      and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
   Revolt, independence and
   confederation of the Argentine Provinces.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818.
   Chilean independence achieved.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.
   The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
   Paraguayan independence accomplished.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.
   The independence of Mexico.
   Brief Empire of Iturbide.
   The Federal Republic established.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
   Independence acquired in the Central American States.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826.
   The Congress of Panama.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
   The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

   ----------SPANISH AMERICA: End--------

SPANISH ARMADA, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

SPANISH COINS.

   "The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under
   different names at different times. Thus during the
   discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but
   'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together
   with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being
   occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and
   before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of
   silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either
   of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50
   castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign
   of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65
   'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210
   maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,
   there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of
   Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440
   maravedis.
{3018}
   In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and
   equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of
   silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'
   whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one
   time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West
   Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,
   in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490
   maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,
   was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one
   third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was
   first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the
   weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of
   coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United
   States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,
   is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore
   a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,
   equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,
   5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,
   100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a
   doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming
   the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was
   equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high
   value of silver as compared with gold at the period in
   question."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note. _

SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPANISH ERA, The.

      See ERA, SPANISH.

SPANISH FURY, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

SPANISH INQUISITION, The.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPANISH MAIN, The.

   "The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of
   Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term
   'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of
   South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the
   Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the
   Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III.,
   chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena,
   and Porto Bello.

      See TIERRA FIRME.

   Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he
   speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, page 35, foot-note._

SPANISH MARCH, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------SPARTA: Start--------

SPARTA: The City.
   Its situation, origin and growth.
   Laconia.
   "Hollow Lacedæmon."

   "Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately
   from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of
   Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source
   is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very
   trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the
   city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a
   cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes
   over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town
   of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides,
   and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the
   town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow
   Lacedæmon' of Homer."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see
   DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in
   Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat
   of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The
   conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only
   full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ
   or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced
   to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or
   else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as
   Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks,
   composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural
   and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually
   stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far
   beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants
   of remoter points being on that account in any less degree
   citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the
   Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they
   were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. …
   Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ
   there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact,
   the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the
   mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides
   (hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than
   trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the
   incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains,
   the precipitous declivities of which they made available by
   means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free
   proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to
   primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The
   country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of
   the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably
   consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been
   conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on
   the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of
   handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important
   portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several
   risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos
   was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this
   is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally
   prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived
   the name of the Helots."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

{3019}

SPARTA:
   The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.

   "Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended
   their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of
   the progress of her power we have only the most meagre
   information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early
   period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad
   government, a condition of affairs which was certainly
   unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus
   attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual
   animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of
   Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants
   after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks
   of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the
   cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan
   history that the condition of the country was for a long time
   one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit
   of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of
   affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history.
   Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as
   the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her
   peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of
   his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides,
   though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of
   the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than
   four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In
   his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were
   introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably
   later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of
   the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus,
   when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess
   as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that
   the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The
   Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their
   peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to
   connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their
   authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately
   transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were
   given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any
   reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at
   Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good
   government.' They were therefore the oldest political
   ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found
   a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the
   tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia
   with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time
   to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward
   and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme
   power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a
   public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the
   community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and
   Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the
   first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the
   admixture of external elements, were divided into three
   tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that
   some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal
   arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of
   which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have
   been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including
   the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that
   each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the
   two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The
   Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time
   to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. …
   Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced
   that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid
   which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The
   elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the
   Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew
   naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The
   work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but
   in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious
   whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus
   forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools
   but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars
   upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the
   use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to
   be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by
   their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on
   any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also
   made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for
   ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at
   Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus.
   The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to
   diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and
   to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life.
   … About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus,
   two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan
   constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to
   the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was
   introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes
   and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and
   chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular
   decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is
   said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not
   know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find
   recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later
   times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though
   Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see
   EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle
   and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were
   five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of
   no great importance. But as they were intimately connected
   with the commons, elected from and by them as their
   representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a
   concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation
   for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time
   the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the
   state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the
   council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings
   were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing
   dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the
   increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the
   ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The
   kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always
   took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of
   Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only
   should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom
   for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time.
{3020}
   The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and
   no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but
   as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for
   failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of
   the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the
   dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a
   feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many
   attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a
   fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was
   allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is
   perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent
   two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a
   chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights
   should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the
   Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which
   of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and
   arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical
   connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan
   citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In
   historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No
   speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons
   duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given
   by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace,
   treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the
   ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of
   Sparta than her political constitution was the education and
   training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not
   exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was
   trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his
   life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of
   the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader
   ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the
   life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance
   were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender
   himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections.
   Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home;
   his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him
   at an early age to go through the same training in which he
   himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of
   sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in
   the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal
   freedom."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 6._

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,
      book 3 (volume 2)._

SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
   The First and Second Messenian Wars.
   Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.

   "The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the
   people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military
   brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that
   time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world.
   Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate,
   it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have
   anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to
   produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their
   political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to
   the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their
   attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The
   kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had
   previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and
   expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple
   in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the
   two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a
   quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the
   outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The
   circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the
   two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of
   the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain
   redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character,
   but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on
   the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their
   country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies.
   After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison
   was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which
   were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the
   Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to
   submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient
   writers give long details of the events of this twenty years'
   struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king
   Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the
   exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly
   known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of
   Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered
   people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise
   up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years'
   duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented
   as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own
   life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the
   later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by
   declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have
   been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name.
   In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as
   the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian
   communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread
   the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately,
   however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the
   days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian
   territory.

      See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

   To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of
   the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The
   Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern
   frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent
   communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and
   Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With
   these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some
   severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though
   they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the
   position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians
   wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of
   territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea
   down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th
   century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole
   area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000
   square miles.
{3021}
   To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in
   extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly
   insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and
   strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her
   power she never made any further addition to her possessions
   in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable
   natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a
   social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community
   could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages
   in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about
   the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having
   asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an
   active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside
   the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to
   Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the
   Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the
   Pisistratids."

      _C. H. Hanson,
      The Land of Greece,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 9._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 7-8._

SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.
   Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at
   Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

SPARTA: B. C. 508.
   Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

SPARTA: B. C. 501.
   Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SPARTA: B. C. 496.
   War with Argos.
   Prostration of the Argive state.

      See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.
   Headship in Greece recognized.
   Defiance of the Persian king.
   Enforced unity of Greece for war.

      See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.
   The Spartan headship.

      See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

SPARTA: B. C. 480.
   The Persian War.
   Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.

SPARTA: B. C. 478.
   Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,
   foiled by Themistocles.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.
   Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.
   Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.
   Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at
   its head.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.
   The great Earthquake.
   The Third Messenian War.
   Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.

      See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.

SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.
   Embittered enmity at Athens.
   Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.
   Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

SPARTA: B. C. 457.
   Interference in Phocis.
   Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

SPARTA: B. C.453.
   Five years truce with Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.
   Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara
   against Athenian rule or influence.
   The Thirty Years Truce.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

SPARTA: B. C. 440.
   Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.
   Hearing of charges against Athens.
   Congress of Allies.
   Decision for war.
   Theban attack on Platæa.
   Opening of the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.
   First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:
   Invasions of Attica.
   Plague at Athens.
   Death of Pericles.

      See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

SPARTA: B. C. 429-427.
   The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.

SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.
   Its failure.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.

SPARTA: B. C. 425.
   The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.
   Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.
   Athenian defeat at Delium.
   Death of Brasidas.
   Peace of Nikias.

      See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.
   The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.
   The Argive confederacy.
   War in Argos and Arcadia.
   Victory at Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
   Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SPARTA: B. C. 413.
   Negotiations with Persian satraps.
   Subsidies for war against Athens.
   Invasion of Attica.
   The Decelian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.
   Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His return to Athens.
   His second deposition and exile.

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

SPARTA: B. C. 406.
   The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

SPARTA: B. C. 405.
   The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

SPARTA: B. C. 404.
   End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
   The organizing of Spartan supremacy.
   The Harmosts in power.

   The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final
   by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta
   supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which
   is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire.
   The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens
   were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He
   availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system
   of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic
   confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of
   men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so
   elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were
   established.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

{3022}

   In order to give security and strength to those governing
   bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their
   side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again,
   was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the
   Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ
   (i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold
   sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict
   subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently
   also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans
   had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection,
   and how they at bottom designed to make no essential
   difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and
   the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise,
   submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the
   Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 72._

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

      _C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapter 1._

SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.
   War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.
   Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.
   Restored independence of Athens.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

SPARTA: B. C. 385.
   Destruction of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 385.

SPARTA: B. C. 383.
   Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

SPARTA: B. C. 383-379.
   Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.
   Liberation and triumph of Thebes.
   Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.
   The conflict with Thebes.
   Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.
   The battle of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

SPARTA: B. C. 353-331.
   Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

SPARTA: B. C. 317.
   Building of Walls.

   It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the
   distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great,
   that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The
   maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the
   deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a
   standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of
   the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the
   walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by
   the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the
   foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even
   safety at home."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 96._

SPARTA: B. C. 272.
   Siege by Pyrrhus.

   Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the
   city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious
   Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown,
   and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one,
   marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272)
   and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and
   repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away
   to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been
   solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another
   abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a
   woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which
   he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited
   forces.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60._

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

SPARTA: B. C. 227-221.
   Downfall in the Cleomenic War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SPARTA: A. D. 267.
   Ravaged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

SPARTA: A. D. 395.
   Plundered by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

   ----------SPARTA: End--------

SPARTACUS, The Rising of.

   Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the
   barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were
   numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these
   schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose
   parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced
   into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them
   for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of
   these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators
   escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They
   had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved
   to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing
   himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by
   other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under
   his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him
   were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with
   captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern
   Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved
   toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way,
   and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps;
   but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the
   proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward
   again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be
   blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus.
   In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals
   were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman
   lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated
   at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said
   to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to
   bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his
   life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the
   field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while
   6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the
   road between Capua and Rome.

      _G. Long,
      Decline cf the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SPARTAN EMPIRE.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

SPARTAN TRAINING.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE;
      also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

{3023}

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

   The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House
   of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment,
   nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally
   extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject
   to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only
   upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence
   occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large
   patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end
   of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of
   £4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy
   Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking
   rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the
   state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless
   contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his
   position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his
   way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the
   corridors used by members for passing to the committee,
   library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for
   anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his
   family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is
   outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching
   them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the
   chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business
   matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all
   members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the
   side."

      _The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117). _

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS.
SPENCEANS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPEUSINII.

      See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

SPHACTERIA, Capture of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPHINX, The.

   "About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid
   is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been
   given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of
   that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The
   body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where
   defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The
   total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres,
   equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches;
   the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The
   face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15
   centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a
   matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument
   of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know
   now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx
   was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren)
   gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It
   must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image
   of an Egyptian god called Armachis."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 70._

SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

   ----------SPIRES: Start--------

SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.
   The imperial Diets.
   Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,
   and its withdrawal.
   Protest of Lutheran princes.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

SPIRES: A. D. 1689.
   Destruction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SPIRES: A. D. 1713.
   Taken by the French.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------SPIRES: End--------

SPOILS SYSTEM, The.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

SPOLETO: A. D. 1155.
   Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

SPOLIA OPIMA.

   "The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima,
   which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a
   Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the
   commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but
   three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won
   by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by
   Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the
   Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus,
   a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated
   to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

SPORADES, The.

      See CYCLADES.

SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
      GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.

SPRING HILL, Engagement at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637.
   The first settlement.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

SPURS, The Day of the.

      See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SQUIRE.

      See CHIVALRY.

STAATEN-BUND.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

STADACONA.

      See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.

STADION, OR STADIUM, The.

      See HIPPODROME.

STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.

   "Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the
   Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the
   stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet.
   This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by
   Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure'
   … republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of
   Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may
   be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in
   reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the
   circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just
   about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a
   degree."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 6, note c._

STADTHOLDER.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

{3024}

STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE:
      17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.

STALLER AND HORDERE, The.

   "In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers
   of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the
   Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The
   Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect,
   as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of
   the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon
   monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost
   importance as the court became stationary and no longer
   maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller
   retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal
   constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the
   military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing
   importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money
   and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."

      _J. R. Green,
      Conquest of England,
      chapter 10, note._

   "The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel
   thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe,
   Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes
   Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume
   that he had the general management of the royal property, as
   well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The
   Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was
   properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon
   titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and
   Strator regis."

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      See, also, CONSTABLE.

STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

   During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders
   of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among
   them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the
   distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government
   which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of
   their party than had been known before in the history of the
   country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils
   system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in
   which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure
   of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and
   district,—became what was accurately described as a "political
   machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought
   under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions
   of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected
   to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of
   candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which
   controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics
   acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the
   name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican
   opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored
   Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked.
   They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third
   term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880,
   however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the
   nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when
   their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of
   Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the
   Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President
   when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is,
   official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the
   Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election,
   and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination
   of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the
   angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public
   life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.

      _J. C. Ridpath,
      Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
      chapters 10-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapters 24-25._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 60-65 (volume 2)._

STAMBOUL.

   "It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was
   only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a
   word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of
   Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of
   Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa,
   Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states
   that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves
   called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to
   have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to
   reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera,
   that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of
   what was originally called Pera."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 7, foot-note._

STAMFORD, Battle of.

      See LOSE-COAT FIELD.

STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).

STAMP ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765; and 1766.

STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).

   In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry
   I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's
   claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against
   Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of
   Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the
   dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the
   English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor
   of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no
   desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one
   chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with
   their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was
   full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of
   the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the
   crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many
   of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a
   refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England
   with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton
   in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern
   bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne
   upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three
   Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and
   St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the
   consecrated wafer.
{3025}
   The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some
   in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a
   well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the
   full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,
   which had now become the national weapon of the English;
   11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great
   standard above described, which probably resembled the
   "Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at
   Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 1, page 79._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.

STÄNDERATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.

STANWIX, Fort.

   The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,
   near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.

STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768.
   Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

STANZ, Battle of (1798).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

STANZ, Convention of.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.

STAOUELI, Battles of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

STAPLE.
STAPLERS, The.

   "A term which makes a great figure in the commercial
   regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that
   of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears
   to have meant a particular port or other place to which
   certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed
   or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could
   be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the
   king's staple was said to be established. The articles of
   English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were
   wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were
   accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the
   kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the
   Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least
   recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a
   charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of
   the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,
   and they could be carried for sale to no other port in
   Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed
   altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places
   within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at
   Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in
   1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and
   thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all
   staples were abolished and trade was set free from their
   restriction; but these were of brief duration.

      _G. L. Craik,
      History of British Commerce,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting
   the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,
   woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most
   prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the
   staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time
   of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple
   before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to
   which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or
   exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this
   was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,
   occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the
   reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at
   Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

      _C. Gross,
      The Gild Merchant,
      pages 140-141._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Anderson,
      History of Commerce,
      volume 1, page 216. and after._

STAR, Knights of the.

   "On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the
   almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,
   and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.
   Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were
   added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the
   crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and
   the same was embroidered on their mantles."

      _T. Johnes,
      Note to Froissart's Chronicles,
      book 1, chapter 152._

STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.

   "In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was
   in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber
   (la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court
   of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking
   cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the
   Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the
   Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as
   were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the
   3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately
   called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a
   distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the
   close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,
   probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction
   of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for
   judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court
   erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the
   Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the
   Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the
   administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart
   Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were
   inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this
   court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal
   extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it
   was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      pages 181-183._

   "The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
   power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
   was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
   sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
   men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
   the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
   Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
{3026}
   It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
   ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
   something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
   this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
   name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
   of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
   encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
   Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
   authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
   Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
   little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
   unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
   as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
   itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
   imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
   that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
   exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
   crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
   to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
   more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
   intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
   confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
   weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
   unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
   but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
   facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
   Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
   interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
   indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
   ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
   magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Privy Council,
      part 3, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2)._

STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.

   An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,
   to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by
   the British Crown.

      _Annual Register, 1861._

STAR SPANGLED BANNER:
   The circumstances of the writing of the song.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

STAROSTS.

   "Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.

      _Count Moltke,
      Poland,
      page 8._

         See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.

STARRY CROSS, Order of the.

   An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,
   by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

   ----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
   In the 14th Century.

   "I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the
   identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament
   of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see
   PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward
   existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This
   tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel
   for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.
   D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as
   follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were
   not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to
   make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order
   forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface
   himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he
   might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical
   rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,
   and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him
   at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for
   the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip
   himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably
   not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only
   as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,
   before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the
   States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,
   which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a
   very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the
   States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the
   outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the
   lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States
   took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They
   created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds
   raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned
   session in the following year to receive an accounting of the
   Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,
   King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his
   son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who
   became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the
   Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one
   and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the
   help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at
   Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the
   States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances
   which gave them full power to check and control the royal
   authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent
   commission, from their own membership, charged with a general
   superintendence of the administration of the government during
   the intervals between sessions of the States-General
   themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more
   promise of free government in France than across the channel.
   But the advantage which the national representatives acquired
   was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and
   discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels
   among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the
   deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as
   the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end
   by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers
   of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then
   ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the
   Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty
   recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of
   footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series
   of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and
   successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the
   power of the purse from the representatives of the people to
   the ministers of the crown."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 10._

{3027}

   "The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had
   greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they
   rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all
   political influence, and for some centuries were only empty
   shadows of national assemblies."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      period 4, book 2, chapter 3._

   "One single result of importance was won for France by the
   states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of
   the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to
   set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was
   incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King
   John, the states-general became one of the principles of
   national right; a principle which did not disappear even when
   it remained without application, and the prestige of which
   survived even its reverses."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
   The last States General before the Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
   The States-General of 1789.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).

   ----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------

STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,
      and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

   ----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------

STATES OF THE CHURCH:
   Origin.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
   The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
   Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;
      and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.
   Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
   Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.
   Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty
   under Julius II.

      See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,
      and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.
   Alienation of Parma and Placentia.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation of Ferrara.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.
   Annexation of Urbino.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
   Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Seizure by Napoleon.
   Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
   Final incorporation with the French Empire.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.
   Papal Sovereignty restored.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.
   Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------

STATUTES.

      See LAW.

STAURACIUS,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.

STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

   ----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------

STEAM ENGINE:
   The beginning of its invention, before Watt.

   "It is probable that the first contriver of a working
   steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.
   1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years
   [when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at
   Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education
   was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life
   Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and
   in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the
   famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at
   Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,
   wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works
   executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the
   hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied
   with water. … It is probable that the planning and
   construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute
   the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of
   experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to
   the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No
   description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables
   modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle
   and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it
   in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not
   leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and
   adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced
   it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's
   lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the
   same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir
   Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.
   immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions
   proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the
   Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent
   experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."
   Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four
   years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and
   received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment
   of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection
   that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an
   apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and
   consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment
   of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His
   success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as
   a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the
   attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a
   large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;
   but his undertakings were not successful.
{3028}
   He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate
   motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,
   turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the
   piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.
   "His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he
   finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his
   model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous
   boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means
   for the construction of another, and three years later he
   died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working
   steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with
   much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but
   slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.
   Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of
   steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards
   proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way
   cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.
   The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been
   demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine
   had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all
   that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power
   to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas
   Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the
   first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at
   Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of
   his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession
   of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time
   in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing
   contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these
   was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,
   turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is
   curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who
   invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to
   combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of
   the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it
   to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the
   grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is
   probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most
   important invention by the circumstance of his having been
   brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and
   being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the
   miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what
   he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he
   made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to
   create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the
   water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh
   steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a
   high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the
   imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the
   frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to
   its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of
   Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of
   which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked
   entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only
   used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in
   a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a
   pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"
   until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold
   water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation
   of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and
   efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
   machine."

      _S. Smiles,
      Lives of Boulton and Watt,
      chapters 1-4._

   "We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's
   Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and
   that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged
   him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of
   its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the
   promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal
   to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was
   never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

      _H. Dircks,
      Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
      page 337._

STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
   The improvements of James Watt.

   After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was
   effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of
   Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,
   educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,
   and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years
   later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his
   attention first, with all his profound physical and
   mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points
   involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says
   M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing
   from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the
   quantity of water which a given weight of coal could
   vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke
   of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the
   quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the
   cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a
   certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at
   different temperatures. All these investigations would have
   occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt
   brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a
   conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the
   labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under
   very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water
   into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the
   steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly
   cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,
   by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,
   lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam
   rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the
   cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently
   been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was
   immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain
   its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up
   to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great
   expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful
   contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this
   contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the
   steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate
   vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with
   a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be
   desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to
   render it complete.
{3029}
   The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel
   would give out its latent heat; this would raise the
   temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water
   vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the
   atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected
   water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and
   spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt
   attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,
   called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the
   beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the
   accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon
   the power of the machine, but the total gain was
   enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much
   work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.
   This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did
   not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the
   top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the
   pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the
   name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to
   Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the
   cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston
   through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,
   introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still
   using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in
   the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The
   engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;
   it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in
   it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the
   vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less
   striking in appearance, but of value in economising the
   consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a
   jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which
   could be filled with steam. By this means the air was
   prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to
   cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode
   of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected
   by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared
   on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements
   which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.
   Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had
   been called to the subject." Another two years had passed
   before he found the means to introduce his invention into
   practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,
   who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A
   patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of
   the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was
   erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],
   with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,
   Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to
   dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,
   but without the means of rendering it available." For five
   years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put
   aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which
   he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.
   Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and
   for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho
   Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific
   abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded
   enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly
   expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,
   where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund
   Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily
   supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made
   wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of
   the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first
   consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved
   steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining
   speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now
   yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at
   first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping
   water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be
   rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius
   of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it
   new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known
   as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the
   engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted
   to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in
   point of the additional power gained, was more important than
   the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of
   time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was
   introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in
   the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the
   quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
   and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all
   the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the
   steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,
   would occupy too much space."

      _Life of James Watt
      (Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17)._

   "The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements
   described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its
   distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did
   little more than improve it by altering the forms and
   proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it
   embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern
   engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be
   rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the
   work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,
   if ever, real developments."

      _R. H. Thurston,
      History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Smiles,
      Lives of Boulton and Watt,
      chapters 5-17._

      _J. P. Muirhead,
      Life of James Watt. _

      _J. P. Muirhead,
      Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions
      of James Watt._

   ----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------

STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
   The beginning of Railroads.

   "The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
   was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
   1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
   never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
   Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
   engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
   engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
   It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
   ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
   railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
{3030}
   After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
   vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
   means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
   feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
   made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
   the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
   sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
   widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
   varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
   essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
   original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
   itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
   when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
   rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
   engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
   heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
   be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
   of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
   used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
   tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
   in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
   Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
   trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
   directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
   by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
   and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
   blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

      _W. J. M. Rankine,
      Manual of the Steam Engine,
      pages xxv-xxvii._

   George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and
   self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed
   engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the
   following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to
   undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he
   called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had
   already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from
   the important improvements which he had effected in the
   colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after
   considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,
   he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a
   locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the
   West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the
   colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though
   quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of
   the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first
   engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.
   Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth
   wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett
   had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The
   engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent
   alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having
   been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the
   Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers
   were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in
   450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded
   carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and
   for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was
   indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been
   constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely
   economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the
   horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon
   a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great
   measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond
   that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to
   the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not
   be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than
   about three miles an hour. The result was anything but
   decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as
   useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the
   steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders
   of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],
   and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A
   second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was
   constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.
   "It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a
   mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has
   since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,
   although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily
   use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited
   comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson
   was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton
   Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three
   locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line
   was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with
   great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and
   Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the
   chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line
   took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had
   offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best
   locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and
   the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which
   attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial
   of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that
   Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down
   by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

      _S. Smiles,
      Life of George Stephenson,
      chapters 9-24._

   "Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
   railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
   State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
   school history of the United States knows something of the
   Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
   never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
   all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
   from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
   of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
   built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
   Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
   Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
   was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
   miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
   however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
   Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
   energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
   her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
   this true of South Carolina.
{3031}
   There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
   Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
   country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
   locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
   four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
   Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
   Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
   machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
   prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
   constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
   the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
   which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
   possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
   January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
   Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
   … In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
   had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
   the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
   indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
   There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
   a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
   About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
   speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
   which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
   place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
   August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
   other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
   scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
   hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
   demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
   ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
   country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
   take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
   Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
   world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
   mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
   1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
   trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
   was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
   Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
   not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
   but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
   after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
   each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
   to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
   already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
   March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
   however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
   on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
   Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
   moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
   Brown."

      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,
      chapter 1._

   ----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------

STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.

   "The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed
   by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,
   in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account
   seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
   results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to
   drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied
   the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,
   to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

      See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.

   In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent
   for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing
   to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive
   evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of
   experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model,
   which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his
   prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded
   by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay
   on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given
   to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like
   those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each
   side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable
   essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier,
   published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences
   et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss
   clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper
   relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan
   was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power,
   and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship
   propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were
   made in the United States to solve this problem. … William
   Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of
   Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful
   mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business,
   where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new,
   and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt.
   He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to
   driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the
   construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.
   Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a
   trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near
   Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was
   lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a
   second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of
   the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design,
   presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John
   Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an
   acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry,
   and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions
   of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 …
   Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study
   the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and
   protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the
   first suggestion which afterward … made the young
   portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In
   France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to
   perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine
   more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more
   regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last,
   readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. …
{3032}
   Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai,
   friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested,
   and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of
   applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined
   to attempt the realization of the plans which he had
   conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained
   from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and
   formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was
   commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in
   September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night,
   foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued,
   D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of
   D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to
   Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by
   the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished
   mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were
   adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by
   Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine.
   The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still
   undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at
   his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished
   himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John
   Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in
   view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's
   experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving
   a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current
   of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of
   General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been
   reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a
   great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling
   the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey
   died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before
   a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the
   age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from
   his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and
   steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an
   unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut
   mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he
   finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built
   his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model]
   was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels.
   … In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American
   Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he
   had substituted an endless chain and floats for the
   paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he
   tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of
   the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither
   paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on
   each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in
   1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the
   stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from
   Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of
   excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles
   an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven
   miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a
   passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington,
   Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the
   boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no
   serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch
   commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was
   never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United
   States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in
   1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796,
   Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little
   screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that
   part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison.
   This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like
   that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made
   engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this
   time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable
   future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in
   the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in
   Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an
   interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led
   to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that
   country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced
   experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple
   hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts
   of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he
   placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in
   1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next
   year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But
   for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In
   the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides
   Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas
   Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and
   William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the
   latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to
   make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion
   of ships so completely successful that no interruption
   subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of
   water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The
   first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to
   have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready
   for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte
   Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those
   who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the
   importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry
   Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the
   first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built
   in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed
   several other boats in 1815, and with his success
   steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated."
   Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few
   years in the United States, through the labors and exertions
   of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and
   Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803),
   where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three
   years later they renewed them in America, using an engine
   ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of
   1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was
   launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East
   River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in
   successful operation.
{3033}
   The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9
   deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the
   distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning
   in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable
   length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to
   be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the
   great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation
   an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont
   on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised
   the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and
   Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and
   enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to
   Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the
   Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he
   built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply
   between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year
   two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton
   had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by
   him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of
   Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it
   by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two
   screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly
   which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little
   ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had
   thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly
   on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at
   Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first
   steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans.
   "The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built
   in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."

      _R. H. Thurston,
      History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. H. Thurston,
      Robert Fulton._

      _C. D. Colden,
      Life of Robert Fulton._

      _T. Westcott,
      Life of John Fitch._

STEAM NAVIGATION:
   On the Ocean.

   "In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam.
   This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's
   Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between
   New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however,
   purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and
   fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being
   constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in
   use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left
   Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days,
   using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes
   several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.
   In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made
   to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah,
   touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days.
   Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her
   original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by
   being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But
   steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more
   boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam
   was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful
   kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in
   Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to
   Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had
   settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the
   question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross
   the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had
   become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it
   may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood
   was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes
   in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold
   genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an
   off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was
   then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western.
   She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4
   inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for
   the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great
   Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from
   Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was
   the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838;
   and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on
   April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the
   possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which
   the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased
   the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and
   prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the
   Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol
   on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on
   board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon
   of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor
   (where she had touched en route from London) four days before
   the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had
   nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on
   arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was
   barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the
   reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event
   which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had
   practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the
   Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return
   voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days,
   though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years
   following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic
   trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the
   President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a
   screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great
   Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was
   founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in
   company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver
   of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the
   paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean
   navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical
   introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer,
   John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of
   many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by
   Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States
   Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction
   of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the
   paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and
   more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river
   navigation.

      _F. E. Chadwick,
      The Development of the Steamship
      ("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Maginnis,
      The Atlantic Ferry,
      chapters 1-2._

      _R. H. Thurston,
      History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
      chapter 5._

      _W. C. Church,
      Life of Ericsson,
      chapters 6-10 (volume 1)._

{3034}

STEDMAN, FORT, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

STEEL BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

STEEL YARD, The Association of the.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

STEENWYK: Siege and relief (1581).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

STEIN, Prussian reform measures of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
      1807-1808; and 1808.

STEINKIRK, OR STEENKERKE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

STELA, OR STELE.

   "This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian
   archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in
   hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally
   rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians
   for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally
   speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to
   transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to
   the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of
   monumental placard."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 29, foot-note._

STENAY: A. D. 1654.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

STENAY: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

STEPHANUS, OR ESTIENNE,
   Robert and Henry, The Press of.

      See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1496-1598.

STEPHEN
   (of Blois), King of England, A. D. 1135-1154.

   Stephen I., Pope, A. D. 752, March.

   Stephen I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, 997-1038.

   Stephen II., Pope, 752-757.

   Stephen II., King of Hungary, 1114-1131.

   Stephen III., Pope, 768-772.

   Stephen III. and IV. (in rivalry),
   Kings of Hungary, 1161-1173.

   Stephen IV., Pope, 816-817.

   Stephen V., Pope, 885-891.

   Stephen V., King of Hungary, 1270-1272.

   Stephen VI., Pope, 896-897.

   Stephen VII., Pope, 929-931.

   Stephen VIII., Pope, 939-942.

   Stephen IX., Pope, 1057-1058.

   Stephen Batory, King of Poland, 1575-1586.

   Stephen Dushan, The Empire of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356.

STEPHENS, Alexander H.
   Opposition to Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

   Election to the Vice-Presidency of the rebellious
   "Confederate States."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

   The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).

STEPHENSON, George, and the beginning of railroads.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION.

STETTIN: A. D. 1630.
   Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus and his Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

STETTIN: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

STETTIN: A. D. 1677.
   Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

STETTIN: A. D. 1720.
   Cession by Sweden to Prussia.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

STEUBEN, Baron,
   in the Virginia campaign of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

STEVENS, Thaddeus, and the Reconstruction Committee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL), to 1868-1870.

STEWART, Captain Charles, and the frigate Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

STEWART DYNASTY, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603, to 1688.

STILICHO, Ministry of.

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 404-408.

STILLWATER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STIRLING, Earl of, The American grant to.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

STIRLING, General Lord, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

STIRLING, Wallace's victory at (1297).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

STIRLING CASTLE, Sieges of.

   Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England,
   after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and
   which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement.
   Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by
   the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate
   attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that
   the battle of Bannockburn was fought.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 22-23 (volume 2)._

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.

STOA, The.

   "We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in
   connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as
   a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The
   stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament
   of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks
   and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade
   bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface
   for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A
   stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of
   the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the
   Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of
   Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further
   extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have
   observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on
   the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade,
   … as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic
   stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice
   Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle,
   not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double
   colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the
   roof."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      part 1, section 27._

{3035}

STOCKACH, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1471.
   Battle of the Brunkeberg.

         See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1521-1523.
   Siege by Gustavus Vasa.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1612.
   Attacked by the Danes.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

STOCKHOLM, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

STOLA, The.

   "The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic
   descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated
   'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification
   displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females.
   Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under
   the name of palla."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1, page 38._

STOLHOFEN, The breaking of the lines of (1707).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

STONE AGE.
BRONZE AGE.
IRON AGE.

   "Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less
   abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities
   referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and
   other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of
   implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to
   classify these relics and remains according to their relative
   antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and
   ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an
   arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three
   periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the
   Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest
   was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed
   exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal
   for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age
   succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting
   instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be
   made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in
   the course of time iron replaced bronze for
   cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the
   Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so
   many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone,
   Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in
   different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been
   found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age
   into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New
   Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John
   Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and
   Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older
   of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very
   rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and
   never ground or polished."

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      pages 5-11._

STONE OF DESTINY, The.

      See LIA-FAIL.

STONE RIVER, OR MURFREESBOROUGH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

STONE STREET.

   An old Roman road which runs from London to Chichester.

STONEHENGE.

      See ABURY.

STONEMAN'S RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

STONEY CREEK, The Surprise at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).

STONINGTON, Bombardment of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

STONY POINT, The storming of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

STORTHING, The.

      See THING;
      also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;
      and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

STORY, Judge, and his judicial services.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1812.

STRAFFORD (Wentworth, Earl of) and Charles I.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641;
      also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

STRALSUND: The founding of the city.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1628.
   Unsuccessful siege by Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1678.
   Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1715.
   Siege and capture by the Danes and Prussians.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1720.
   Restoration by Denmark to Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.
   Occupied by the Patriot Schill.
   Stormed and captured by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

   ----------STRASBURG: Start--------

STRASBURG: A. D. 357.
   Julian's victory.

   The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the
   Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a
   Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed
   the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory
   for the Romans.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 19._

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
   The Oaths.

   During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of
   Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at
   Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig,
   formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in
   Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and
   their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in
   February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of
   friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence
   of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was
   repeated in the German language, and in the Romance
   language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has
   been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we
   have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the
   modern French was formed."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French Under the Carlovingians,
      translated by Bellingham,
      chapter 8._

{3036}

STRASBURG: A. D. 1525.
   Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.
   Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1674-1675.
   The passage of the Rhine given to the Germans.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1681.
   Seizure and annexation to France.

      Overthrow of the independence of the town
      as an Imperial city.

         See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1697.
   Ceded to France by the Treaty of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1870.
   Siege and capture by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

STRASBURG: A. D. 1871.
   Acquisition (with Alsace) by Germany.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

   ----------STRASBURG: End--------

STRATEGI.

   In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders
   appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the
   kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system
   belonged to a board of ten Strategi.

      G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

STRATHCLYDE.

      See CUMBRIA;
      also, SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

STRELITZ,
STRELTZE.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1698-1704.

STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

STUART, General J. E. B., The Raid of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

STUARTS, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

STUM, Battle of (1629).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

STUNDISTS, The.

   In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the
   Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name
   implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the
   great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants
   from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion,
   their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many
   years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept
   Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or
   later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants
   who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their
   sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their
   services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and
   prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New
   Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them
   found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple
   scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told
   their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the
   heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from
   village to village, and from province to province, till at
   length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces
   from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the
   land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to
   number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M.
   Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg,
   and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very
   considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions
   strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing
   Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and
   extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia.
   … Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire,
   the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a
   quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of
   Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as
   ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek
   Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the
   whole mass."

      _J. Brown, editor,
      The Stundists,
      preface and chapter. 14._

STUYVESANT, Peter, The administration of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664, to 1664.

STYRIA:
   Origin, and annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

STYRIA:A. D. 1576.
   Annexation of Croatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

STYRIA:17th Century.
   Suppression of the Reformation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

SUABIA, The Imperial House of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1183-1250.

SUABIA AND SUABIANS, Ancient.

      See SUEVI; and ALEMANNI.

SUABIAN BUND, OR LEAGUE, The.

      See LANDFRIEDE, &c.;
      also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SUABIAN CIRCLE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519;
      also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

SUARDONES, The.

      See AVIONES.

SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

   The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with
   which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood,
   and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No
   trace of it exists.

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2. page 103._

SUBLIME PORTE, The.

   "The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.
   [Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,
   describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The
   Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old
   sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of
   government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta
   Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight
   modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The
   Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man
   Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the
   details of their government by imagery drawn from the same
   metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported
   by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,
   the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and
   4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides
   these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military
   rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers
   employed in the court.
{3037}
   There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the
   law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most
   important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In
   Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their
   chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The
   … high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank
   to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor
   of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the
   authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of
   Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the
   Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was
   its president. … The Divan was also attended by the
   Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards
   became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the
   Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other
   officers of the court."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      pages 96-97._

      See, also, PHARAOHS.

SUB-TREASURY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.

SUBURA, at Rome, The.

   "Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline
   hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by
   the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the
   most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave
   name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it
   entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be
   inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius
   Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The
   Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small
   shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."

      _H. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 6, part 1._

SUCCESSION, The Austrian: The Question and War of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
      ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SUCCESSION, The Spanish:
   The question and war of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, to 1713-1725;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SUCCOTH.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

   ----------SUDAN: Start--------

SUDAN, OR SOUDAN, The.

   "Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that
   section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan.
   By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara,
   limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as
   it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no
   definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at
   the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is
   generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it
   properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands.
   Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression
   'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising
   Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore,
   strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right
   across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost
   to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the
   Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become
   sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the
   geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to
   make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region
   inhabited by them."

      _Hellwald-Johnston,
      Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 9._

SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.
   Egyptian conquest.
   General Gordon's government.
   The Mahdi's rebellion.
   The British campaign.
   Death of Gordon.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883; and 1884-1885.

   ----------SUDAN: End--------

SUDOR ANGLICUS.

      See SWEATING SICKNESS;
      and PLAGUE: A. D. 1486-1593.

SUDRAS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

SUESSIONES, The.

      See BELGÆ.

SUETONIUS PAULINUS: Campaigns in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

   ----------SUEVI: Start--------

SUEVI,
SUEBI, The.

   "I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are
   the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of
   Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes
   with names of their own, though they are called by the general
   designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to
   twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This
   distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also
   does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem
   to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the
   Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and
   Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as
   Suevia."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter. 38, with geographical note._

   "The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's
   Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly
   belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other
   German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering
   one."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, with note._

   "The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological
   term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country
   occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the
   Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal
   geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics,
   coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of
   Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part
   of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later
   than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). …
   Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for
   that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name
   of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.'
   With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia,
   or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with
   the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of
   France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the
   Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander
   to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225
   to A. D. 475."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus, epilegomena,
      section 20._

      See, also, ALEMANNI,
      and BAVARIA: THE ETHNOLOGY.

{3038}

SUEVI: B. C. 58.
   Expulsion from Gaul by Cæsar.

   A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name
   of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and
   entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of
   the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league
   against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the
   German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call,
   and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani,
   summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The
   Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors
   into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his
   Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then
   just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces
   and had signalized his first appearance in the field by
   stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying
   two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their
   mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in
   Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the
   Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with
   disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant
   war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul,
   was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place
   about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58
   B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and
   almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few
   followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 1, chapters 31-53._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 4._

SUEVI: A. D. 406-409.
   Final invasion of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

SUEVI: A. D. 409-414.
   Settlement in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
   Their history in Spain.

   "The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in
   Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became
   Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their
   history contains merely an account of the wars which they had
   to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and
   bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be
   brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths,
   united them to the monarchy of Spain."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume l)._

      See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 428,
      and GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-712.

SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.
   In Germany.

   Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the
   German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed
   southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the
   great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west
   corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the
   Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube,
   perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled
   with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no
   doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the
   time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the
   monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove
   remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar.
   The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation
   of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the
   mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia,
   which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the
   land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that
   occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      See, also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

   ----------SUEVI: End--------

SUEVIC SEA.

   The ancient name of the Baltic.

SUEZ CANAL, Opening of the (1869).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

SUFFERERS' LANDS, The.

      See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

SUFFETES.

   "The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless
   inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in
   Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by
   two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their
   name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our
   Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like
   their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of
   Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of
   their respective states."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

SUFFOLK RESOLVES, The.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

SUFFRAGE, Woman.

      See WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

SUFIS.

   A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi
   devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he
   must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his
   union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption
   into the Divine Being."

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapter 10._

SUGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.

      See USIPETES;
      also FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SUGAR ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

SUGAR-HOUSE PRISONS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

SUIONES, The.

   "Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones,
   seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men
   and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour
   wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of
   Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the
   Cimbri were derived the Normans."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford Translation,
      chapter 44 and note._

SULIOTES, The.

   "The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number
   of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity
   of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of
   episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …
   The chief families traced their origin to different villages
   and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they
   appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian
   Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from
   the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the
   well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in
   Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal
   community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in
   history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the
   great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and
   Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and
   seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being
   considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the
   mountain in time of war. …
{3039}
   They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,
   with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these
   were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the
   last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than
   200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in
   petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of
   their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes
   proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d
   1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.
   Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither
   written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the
   political unit of the State. The families were grouped
   together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there
   were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All
   disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the
   Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,
   the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As
   they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported
   them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for
   their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support
   themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in
   perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.
   The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in
   which the community was involved before their great struggle
   with Ali."

      _R. Rodd,
      The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece,
      chapter 10._

SULLA, Proscriptions by and Dictatorship of.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

SULLIVAN, General John,
   and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SULTAN, The Title.

   Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was
   first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of
   the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic
   word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William
   Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says:
   "It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but
   it seems at all events to have been older than the time of
   Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of
   Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed
   by the Bowides."

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

SUMIR,
SHUMIR.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

SUMTER, The Confederate cruiser.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.

   ----------SUMTER, Fort: Start--------

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.
   Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United
   States Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 MARCH-APRIL).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
   Attack and repulse of the Monitors.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
   Bombardment and unsuccessful assault.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).
   Recovery by the nation.
   The restoring of the flag.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

   ----------SUMTER, Fort: End--------

SUNNAH, The.

      See ISLAM.

SUNNI SECT, The.

      See ISLAM.

SUOVETAURILIA.

   Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the
   ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103._

SUPERIOR, Lake, The discovery of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SUPREMACY, The Acts of.

   The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence
   of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome,
   was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry
   VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and
   reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of
   England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy,
   annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as
   well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities,
   pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities,
   immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of
   Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining';
   with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies,
   errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by
   any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be
   reformed or corrected."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 11._

   The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and
   re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, The.

   "On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the
   Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a
   Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the
   first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that
   when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as
   spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,
   1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that
   any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until
   1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New
   York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His
   judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to
   accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so
   famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South
   Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so
   pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in
   his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate
   refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one
   of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,
   and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain
   associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was
   made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John
   Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.
   Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at
   the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.
{3040}
   In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.
   Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President
   Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade
   Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for
   his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to
   President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,
   was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models
   of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary
   form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his
   death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of
   Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then
   appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville
   W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his
   appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807
   an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added
   in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court
   to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the
   growth of the country."

      _J. S. Landon,
      The Constitutional History and Government
      of the United States,
      lecture 10._

   "The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii.,
   section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the
   number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present
   there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500
   (£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The
   justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the
   Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are
   removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even
   more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be
   removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of
   Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely
   anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary,
   regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the
   States against aggressions of either Congress or the
   President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote
   in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the
   continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than
   the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might
   flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result
   has justified their expectations. The judges have shown
   themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the
   security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches
   of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to,
   once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then
   unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from
   Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms
   of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal
   judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most
   States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed
   constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington
   from October till July in every year."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      part 1, chapter 22 (volume 1)._

   "It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world
   which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare
   an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and
   void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of
   the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting
   alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act
   illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed
   by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any
   other power. For in England there is no written constitution;
   the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting
   together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is
   not only possible that President, Senate, or House of
   Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three
   acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not
   boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the
   constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States,
   have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent
   to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution.
   If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can
   declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows
   directly from the difference between a written and an
   unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state
   which has a written constitution need vest in its highest
   court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly
   seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is
   highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can
   exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no
   written constitution, it cannot."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The English People in its Three Homes:
      Lectures to American Audiences,
      pages 191-192._

SURA, Battle of (A. D. 530).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SURENA.

   The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the
   Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the
   king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for
   an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who
   defeated Crassus.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      page 23._

SURGERY.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE.

SURINAM.

      See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

SURPLUS, The distribution of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SURRATT, Mrs.:
   The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

SUSA.
SUSIANA.
SHUSHAN.

   Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam,
   Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called,
   was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian
   empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther.
   A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife,
   undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has
   brought to light some remarkably interesting and important
   remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the
   Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city,
   and it is sometimes still used in that sense.

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
      appendix to chapter 10._

      See, also, ELAM; and BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

SUSIAN GATES.

   A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of
   Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had
   difficulty in forcing the Gates.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 93._

SUSIANA.

      See SUSA.

SUSMARSHAUSEN, Battle of(1648).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY, The.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

SUSQUEHANNAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

{3041}

SUSSEX.

   Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
   conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which
   acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly
   represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and
   Surrey.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SUTRIUM, Battle of.

   A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits
   ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 10._

SUTTEE, Suppression of, in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

SUVARROF,
SUWARROW,
   Campaigns of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;
      also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SVASTIKA, The.

      See TRI-SKELION.

SWAANENDAEL.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

SWABIA.

      See SUABIA.

SWAMP ANGEL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SWAN, The Order of the.

   A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th
   century, which disappeared in the century following, and was
   revived in 1843.

SWANS, The Road of the.

      See NORMANS.

SWEATING SICKNESS, The.

   The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and
   fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486,
   and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three
   instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was
   always in England, from which fact it took one of its names.
   Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which
   accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 318-319._

      See, also, PLAGUE, ETC.: A. D. 1485-1593.

SWEDEN: Early inhabitants.

      See SUIONES.

SWEDEN: History.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

SWEDEN: Constitution.

      See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SWEENEY, Peter B., and the Tweed Ring.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

SWERKER I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1155.

SWERKER II., King of Sweden, 1199-1210.

SWERKERSON.

      See CHARLES SWERKERSON;
      and JOHN SWERKERSON.

SWERRO, King of Norway, A. D. 1186-1202.

SWEYN I., King of Denmark, A. D. 991-1014.

   Sweyn II., King of Denmark, 1047-1076.

   Sweyn III., King of Denmark, 1156-1157.

   Sweyn Canutson, King of Norway, 1030-1035.

SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

   ----------SWITZERLAND: Start--------

SWITZERLAND:
   Early inhabitants.

      See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;
      also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

SWITZERLAND:
   The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation
   (Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of
   Austria.
   History divested of Legend.

   "It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar
   had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION
   OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of
   the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of
   Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman
   eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the
   lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of
   the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the
   mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no
   doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they
   have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day;
   but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the
   great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher
   valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the
   fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of
   these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet
   been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with
   could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than
   these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of
   Switzerland, having established among themselves that
   political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In
   ethnological history, they were the latest members of the
   Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants
   after the more accessible portions of the country had been
   peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the
   confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest
   of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall,
   settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had
   gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world,
   as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to
   Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall
   were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is
   supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent
   population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M.
   Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par
   Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied
   himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of
   property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of
   litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland,
   for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the
   Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the
   accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons,
   that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within
   their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of
   monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the
   ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the
   most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals
   through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who
   sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the
   community.
{3042}
   In either case there was to some extent a division of rule,
   and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger
   estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy
   in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive
   popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally
   figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious
   people, ever on the watch for the protection of their
   liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that,
   indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady
   adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their
   acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of
   notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the
   opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his
   ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to
   arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many
   fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman
   Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN
   EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to
   associate that mighty central organisation with popular
   liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong
   and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free
   cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the
   heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the
   Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their
   narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local
   conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled
   city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King
   of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history
   of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with
   the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a
   connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains,
   whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of
   the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as
   belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district
   fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen
   advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor
   to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the
   title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally
   exercised what power the Empire retained over its free
   communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily
   ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of
   sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it
   seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date
   the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the
   Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities,
   as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This
   instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the
   community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by
   Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the
   people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the
   enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them
   that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from
   the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point
   reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by
   others, is, that at this remote period the district which is
   now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as
   one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the
   immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's
   researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character
   of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we
   should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was
   most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it.
   The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz.
   … In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph
   over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is
   uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal
   lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his
   policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as
   emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters
   of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like
   their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to
   have certified their right to that character. In the
   fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not
   hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time
   even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden
   acted with the other two as an independent community. In the
   disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all
   three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications
   that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these
   mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of
   Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted
   for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed
   the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the
   Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the
   Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial
   power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the
   imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance
   candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his
   descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the
   electors should show that they retained their power by another
   choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their
   interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for
   their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy
   [Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection.
   Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the
   very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early
   independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of
   Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of
   unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old
   league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a
   Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and
   referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets
   down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for
   the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence
   arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If
   this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the
   Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the
   Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century
   earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the
   existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received
   history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the
   alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the
   battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in
   contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire.
{3043}
   The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church,
   endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in
   their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on
   the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the
   chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the
   end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of
   Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the
   Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by
   the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and
   that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the
   occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on
   Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the
   quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and
   the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no
   instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg
   side. It was the object of that power to obtain political
   ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or
   wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in
   which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those
   of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local,
   relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of
   parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and
   the like; others related to larger questions, as to the
   commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of
   goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms
   of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side
   of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising
   imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have
   obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which
   made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a
   critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss
   Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct
   light than either history or record preserves of the immediate
   motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the
   Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle
   for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of
   Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how
   Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons,
   could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an
   expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical
   writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects
   to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent
   to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a
   magnificent army did march against them, and that it was
   scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at
   Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event
   too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to
   dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed
   their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate
   to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation
   comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the
   base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation
   were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed
   M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the
   triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no
   consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the
   play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the
   Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences
   on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders,
   Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst,
   assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of
   Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league
   against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss
   Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William
   Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history
   under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear
   on it.

      _The Legend of Tell and Rütli
      (Edinburg Review, January, 1869)._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties._

      _J. Heywood,
      The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian
      Origin of the Legend of William Tell
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5)._

SWITZERLAND: 4-11th Centuries.

      See BURGUNDY.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.
   Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy
   beyond Lake Geneva.
   The city of Geneva surrounded.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
   The extension of the old Confederation,
   or "Old League of High Germany."
   The Three Cantons increased to Eight.

   "All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,
   and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of
   High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …
   a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from
   the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th
   and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of
   the states which formed the old Confederation lay
   geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further
   part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.
   But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,
   the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the
   small German-speaking territory which it took in at its
   extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically
   German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,
   first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even
   the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of
   Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally
   become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,
   that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,
   it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till
   the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical
   geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that
   there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has
   always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no
   less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the
   original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.
   The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss
   Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was
   more lasting and became more closely united than other German
   Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German
   Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its
   members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies
   and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in
   modern times been joined into one Federal body with the
   original German Confederates.
{3044}
   The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which
   formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union
   of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to
   become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The
   Confederation grew for a while by the admission of
   neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German
   Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of
   all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came
   the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to
   form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]
   came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small
   territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],
   which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of
   detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate
   lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close
   alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton
   separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those
   cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,
   were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various
   shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and
   towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,
   each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what
   in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th
   century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense
   of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made
   by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or
   other of its members, had now extended its territory to the
   Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,
   Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject
   territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate
   States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of
   confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was
   admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its
   European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a
   purely German power. The first extension beyond the original
   German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically
   German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the
   annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of
   Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton
   acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side
   of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the
   Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than
   this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian
   lands to the west."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 6._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
   Austrian defeats at Sempach and Naefels.

   "Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month
   than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won
   the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the
   petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement
   would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that
   there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and
   oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for
   some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace
   had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a
   sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare
   for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the
   intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne
   levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and
   entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow
   the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of
   war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of
   Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue,
   and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. …
   The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant
   swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions
   against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the
   truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first
   attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make
   Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to
   draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division
   of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town.
   Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls
   of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia,
   and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being
   variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched
   his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about
   way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending
   to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the
   Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to
   defend herself, and struck straight across the country in
   pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they
   encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The
   Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable
   road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully
   along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and
   then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their
   surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee
   and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss
   force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force
   taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost,
   and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset
   was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip
   his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove
   them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush
   them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed
   against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a
   foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A
   good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified
   by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the
   ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his
   comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my
   wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold
   of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to
   the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades
   rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the
   Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A
   fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and
   there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than
   700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great
   victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far
   greater military and political eminence. … The story of
   Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless
   but interesting discussion.
{3045}
   The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor
   denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried
   is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great
   Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of
   Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. …
   The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to
   that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their
   spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus
   valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing
   1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This
   peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in
   1412, for 50 years."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      The Story of Switzerland,
      chapter 15._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
   The Grey Leagues.
   Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.
   Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.
   The Swabian War.
   Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.

   "It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th
   century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons]
   felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against
   the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See
   of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic
   nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they
   began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and
   the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a
   century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of
   those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden
   into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur,
   which had been steadily rising in power, together with the
   immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined
   into an association, which assumed the name of the
   Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of
   the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league
   between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland,
   the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies.
   This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition
   because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more
   probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen.
   The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the
   great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of
   Toggenburg into the hands of females and their
   representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten
   Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the
   Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the
   Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to
   the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it
   1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil,
   as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth
   mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two,
   and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of
   the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed
   a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and
   aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of
   which they still considered themselves to form a part, and
   without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance
   or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This
   important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine
   territory, and which made the individual members of its
   numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was
   peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the
   formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure
   democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties
   with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose
   from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The
   Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive
   properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of
   contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the
   Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the
   Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower
   Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood
   between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But
   the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest,
   when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War
   (1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of
   south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his
   Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his
   encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey
   Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound
   Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the
   Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries.
   Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always
   ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in
   the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the
   Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal.
   Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this
   prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a
   narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens
   out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey
   Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many
   thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean
   estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened
   to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted
   villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of
   Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and
   secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best
   quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which
   the points at issue between the two parties were carefully
   defined."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      History of Graubünden
      (in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33)._

   During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty
   with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400
   red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described
   every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements
   arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles
   fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.
   The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single
   detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner
   victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his
   forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,
   under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards
   Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of
   Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The
   princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their
   low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,
   and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].
{3046}
   The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and
   Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject
   to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in
   name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of
   France."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 191 (volume 2)._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1476-1477.
   Defeat of Charles the Bold.

      See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.
   Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.
   Threatened rupture.
   The Convention of Stanz.
   Enlargement of the Confederacy.
   Its loose and precarious constitution.

   "In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in
   extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle
   and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the
   country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed
   to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no
   fair division of booty to give each one of the country states,
   who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even
   share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of
   contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had
   for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and
   Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal
   governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to
   the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves
   in the minority, refused again and again to admit these
   cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri,
   and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each
   other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a
   compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which
   they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the
   League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this
   point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to
   destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and
   Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was
   strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from
   side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward
   reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th
   of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like
   romance, so great was the transformation which took place in
   the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about
   to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an
   agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of
   Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in
   contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided
   according to the number of men sent into war, but new
   acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the
   states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was
   preserved and the idea of popular representation received its
   first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In
   another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn
   were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In
   1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel,
   which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most
   desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of
   Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying
   territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next,
   and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership
   of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the
   confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different
   relationships, other territories and cities more or less under
   its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied
   Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were
   attached to the central body not as equal members, but as
   friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began
   almost with the formation of the league, and gradually
   extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the
   Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the
   separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and
   several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so
   distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the
   confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject
   territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was
   administered by various members of the league in partnership.
   These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture
   of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the
   16th century nearly all the territory now included in
   Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation.
   Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and
   allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the
   18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ
   of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled
   to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss
   Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In
   these they were interested as partners in a business
   corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented
   complete rupture on several critical occasions."

      _J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
      chapter 1._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.
   Defeat by the French at Marignano.
   Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1515; and 1515-1518.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519.
   Geneva in civic relations with Berne and Freiburg.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.
   Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
   The spreading of the Reformation.
   Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.
   Differences between the Swiss Reformers
   and the German Protestants.
   The Conference at Marburg.
   Civil war among the Cantons.
   Death of Zwingli.

   From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only
   gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was
   reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that
   city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St.
   Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of
   them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only
   partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons
   it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From
   the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the
   degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral
   peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral
   life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and
   enlightenment.
{3047}
   Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities,
   coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had
   abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay],
   that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought
   with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far
   was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a
   majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for
   suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling
   that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders
   that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their
   territories; consequently he kept away from the great
   convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm
   between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length
   formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and
   some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the
   other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with
   Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed
   religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond
   bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons,
   Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign.
   His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized,
   God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at
   Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks
   to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to
   the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some
   day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they
   would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed,
   subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other.
   The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler
   Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got
   hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it
   on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group
   of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the
   whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A
   peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the
   Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted
   to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione'
   (1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet
   into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a
   scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of
   transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was
   by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his
   usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in
   his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and
   republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for
   a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss
   Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the
   impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against
   the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political
   leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to
   meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of
   reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was
   attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief
   leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things,
   but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well
   known, or rather through his determination to approve of no
   man's views except they should agree exactly with his own.
   Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This
   is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or
   symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home
   politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli,
   anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole
   republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest
   district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was
   indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war
   was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a
   stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts,
   but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy
   and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in
   the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded
   from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily
   guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished
   Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A
   second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the
   positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe
   four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come
   to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force,
   recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from
   treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly
   opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his
   friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the
   coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with
   the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched
   comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the
   reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed.
   Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin,
   worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Switzerland, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in the 16th century,
      books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3)._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
   Religious divisions and conflicts.
   Annexations of territory.
   Peace with the Duke of Savoy.
   The coming of Protestant refugees.
   Industrial progress.
   Peace.

   "A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the
   principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was
   now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a
   State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the
   Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the
   reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the
   Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow
   each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the
   presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each
   clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,
   became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened
   more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the
   endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes
   the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy
   extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a
   country divided between many governments, which the princes of
   Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,
   but which had become morselled among many claimants during a
   century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of
   Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.
{3048}
   Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour
   of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the
   city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and
   Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a
   treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect
   of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.
   That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated
   acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern
   appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed
   the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the
   provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they
   annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have
   ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its
   inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the
   liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of
   Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler
   conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,
   and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.
   A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;
   and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue
   was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These
   acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the
   county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last
   impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss
   of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the
   cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the
   reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests
   insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the
   ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back
   his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the
   two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of
   the rest.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

   The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been
   momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to
   belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers,
   however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The
   Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with
   their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained
   secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might
   now have added further to its power by admitting new members
   to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation.
   The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made
   it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without
   hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was
   pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later
   the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which
   the city had become the centre, refused the request. She
   remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always
   ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies.
   Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to
   political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the
   rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a
   hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of
   Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the
   Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the
   Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their
   neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress
   that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was
   due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of
   foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service
   gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade
   resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought
   by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of
   weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of
   watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost
   abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into
   the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another
   century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the
   Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven
   into war."

      C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Zschokke,
      History of Switzerland,
      chapters 33-41._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1536-1564.
   Calvin's Ecclesiastical State at Geneva.

         See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
   The Catholic revival and rally.
   The Borromean or Golden League.

   "Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival
   was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew
   of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was
   canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the
   Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours,
   constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to
   the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the
   Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread
   of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He
   called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan,
   where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the
   Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in
   1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons,
   the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the
   reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the
   same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of
   Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in
   Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the
   rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed
   themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the
   hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this
   way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss
   peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the
   semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the
   Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the
   Jesuits, before 1630."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Switzerland, chapter 25._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline revolt and war with the Grisons.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Acknowledged independence and
   separation from the German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

{3049}

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
   The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.
   Religious conflicts.
   Battles of Villmergen.
   The Peace of Aarau.

   "About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in
   all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong
   discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of
   the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of
   serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and
   that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for
   his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the
   taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their
   liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired
   with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on
   the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper
   coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne,
   a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley
   on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched,
   however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they
   yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there
   were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by
   the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a
   second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing
   less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten
   cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and
   the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an
   assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose
   Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their
   purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To
   this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of
   purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle.
   Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy
   to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For
   a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where
   they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small
   cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near
   Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight
   ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This
   battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No
   sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the
   smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the
   clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of
   Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure
   their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their
   cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched
   troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners
   to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless
   that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14,
   1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and
   were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon
   afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much
   as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted
   only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale
   than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first
   years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the
   outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in
   nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the
   country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over
   these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468.
   In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by
   Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by
   questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and
   called the people his serfs, in order that they might become
   so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of
   the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there
   was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to
   these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered
   them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road
   through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they
   turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they
   took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked
   by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the
   pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th
   of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the
   battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the
   Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and
   2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a
   general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage
   of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to
   yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate
   Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the
   Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became
   equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once
   more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with
   improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful
   protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long
   in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years
   from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither
   foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the
   different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited
   stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever.
   Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept
   people of the same canton and village apart, until the
   building which their forefathers had raised in the early days
   of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like
   a house of cards, at the first blow from France."

      _H. D. S. Mackenzie,
      Switzerland,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Zschokke,
      History of Switzerland,
      chapters 42-56._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
   The ferment of the French Revolution.
   Invasion and subjugation by the French.
   Robbing of the treasure of Berne.
   Formation of the Helvetic Republic.

   "The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions,
   battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and
   assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free.
   … Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the
   Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the
   danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the
   government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in
   view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the
   shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the
   contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they
   had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their
   everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence,
   cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. …
   All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne,
   Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy
   assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France.
{3050}
   Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such
   proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to
   put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by
   wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an
   armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished.
   More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her
   indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign
   countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had
   been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word
   or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and
   freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed
   the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased
   the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that
   Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a
   desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to
   Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the
   treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find
   cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. …
   Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon
   Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the
   forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many
   battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria,
   conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took
   the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace.
   He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the
   subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw
   this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring
   Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For
   their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to.
   But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and
   equal rights to these people, they may be your
   fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time;
   decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period
   for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and
   impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the
   Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of
   Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards
   also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto
   been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was
   added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates.
   … Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the
   frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They
   had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient
   treaties. But report said that the French intended to
   overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves
   masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in
   a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the
   cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for
   itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of
   French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg
   they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud,
   accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of
   Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they
   could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and
   Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to
   themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and
   promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of
   the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come
   for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received
   into their number 52 representatives of the country and said:
   'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms
   and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late.
   Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops
   to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but
   discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the
   very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light
   troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th
   March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the
   future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no
   more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free
   state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian
   republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city,
   shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in
   general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers,
   judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall
   elect the general government; the government shall appoint the
   cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was
   divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose
   the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud,
   Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united
   in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of
   Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in
   the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the
   Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed
   new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited
   to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly
   parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated
   with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied
   heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons
   of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated
   in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the
   mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original
   confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our
   fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will
   not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought
   valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but
   unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on
   the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a
   long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French
   troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven
   back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000
   of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously
   also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the
   strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They
   made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the
   Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the
   Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in
   seventy-four days it was dissolved."

      _H. Zschokke,
      The History of Switzerland,
      chapters 57 and 60._

{3051}

   "A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than
   that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal
   governments, against the monasteries, and against private
   individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted
   upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible,
   was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political
   rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for
   the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single
   national government, composed, like that of France, of a
   Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and
   districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in
   government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a
   level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought
   with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which
   they had inherited from their fathers; but they were
   compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming
   force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even
   now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole
   purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the
   invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The
   magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the
   word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length
   an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a
   condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French
   army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a
   handful of peasants met the French army at the village of
   Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September
   8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage.
   Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance:
   slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this
   so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   "Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of
   the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long
   been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it
   was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for
   accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded
   a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the
   Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was
   unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small
   corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and
   the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed
   to a union with the conquering Republic."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 25 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution (American Edition),
      volume 4, pages 248-252._

      _Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapters 13-14._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1797.
   Bonaparte's dismemberment of the Graubünden.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
   Campaign of the French against the Russians.
   Battle of Zurich.
   Carnage in the city.
   Suwarrow's retreat.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1800.
   Bonaparte's passage of the Great St. Bernard.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1802.
   Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
   Napoleon's Act of Mediation.
   Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by
   the Congress of Vienna.
   Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.
   The Federal Pact of 1815.
   The Sonderbund and Civil War.
   The Federal Constitution of 1848.

   "Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and
   after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on
   the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of
   Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had
   been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now
   consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution.
   The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau,
   Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the
   Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to
   each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only
   vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had,
   however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who
   represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants
   possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The
   Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern,
   Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which
   these were the capitals becoming successively directing
   Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of
   the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of
   Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation
   was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland
   could become entirely independent there was to be one more
   foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought
   with it the destruction of his work in that country, the
   neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the
   Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon
   condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new
   Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the
   Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel
   (which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been
   bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which
   had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but
   was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition
   of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to
   the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of
   Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were
   guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and
   Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815.
   Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in
   1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The
   Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact,
   drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the
   Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation,
   and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a
   return to the state of things previous to the French
   Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of
   their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation
   and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental
   vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The
   Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies
   instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the
   Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians
   of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the
   ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the
   beginning of the century, and the power of the people was
   greatly increased.
{3052}
   In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and
   Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense,
   some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847
   there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To
   political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau
   the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made
   to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half
   Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution
   the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to
   creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus
   giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent
   arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants
   of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of
   Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was
   the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the
   confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result
   of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the
   Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the
   chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years
   later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic
   Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret
   conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in
   danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were
   laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg.
   Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a
   violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the
   Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in
   favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the
   direction of superior public education, and this led to
   hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties.
   Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the
   expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and
   finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July
   1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of
   persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons
   had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents,
   abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all
   modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently
   not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the
   deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was
   declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between
   the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of
   25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops,
   under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small
   Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an
   end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became
   necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."

      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation,
      chapter 1._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1810.
   Annexation of the Valais to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1817.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1832.
   Educational reforms.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      SWITZERLAND.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
   The existing Federal Constitution.

   On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, the
   task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was
   confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was
   finished on the 8th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted
   to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half;
   others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was
   finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th
   September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the
   Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for
   the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely
   the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its
   authors had studied that of the United States. … It was
   natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were
   developed, and as the differences between the legislation of
   the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the
   first really Swiss Constitution should be found necessary.
   This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of
   a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers,
   were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th
   May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and
   by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no
   means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision, more
   acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was
   adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013.
   The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision,
   14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears
   date the 29th May 1874, and has since been added to and
   altered in certain particulars."

      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation,
      chapter 1._

   "Since 1848 … Switzerland has been a federal state, consisting
   of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and 6 half
   states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents an united
   front, while her internal policy allows to each Canton a large
   amount of independence. … The basis of all legislative
   division is the Commune or 'Gemeinde,' corresponding in some
   slight degree to the English 'Parish.' The Commune in its
   legislative and administrative aspect or 'Einwohnergemeinde'
   is composed of all the inhabitants of a Commune. It is
   self-governing and has the control of the local police; it
   also administers all matters connected with pauperism,
   education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the fire brigade,
   the maintenance of public peace and trusteeships. … At the
   head of the Commune is the 'Gemeinderath,' or 'Communal
   Council,' whose members are elected from the inhabitants for a
   fixed period. It is presided over by an 'Ammann,' or 'Mayor,'
   or 'President.' … Above the Commune on the ascending scale
   comes the Canton. … Each of the 19 Cantons and 6 half Cantons
   is a sovereign state, whose privileges are nevertheless
   limited by the Federal Constitution, particularly as regards
   legal and military matters; the Constitution also defines the
   extent of each Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed
   to secede and join itself to another Canton. … Legislative
   power is in the hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of
   the word the 'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the
   Canton, who have passed their 20th year and are not under
   disability from crime or bankruptcy.
{3053}
   The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
   alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
   decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
   100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
   considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
   determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
   new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
   such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
   voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
   political and administrative power of the Canton. It
   corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
   inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
   Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
   'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
   three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
   Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
   cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
   … The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
   together the Swiss Confederation. … The highest power of the
   Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,
   which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the
   'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English
   House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of
   Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the
   Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every
   Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for
   the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49
   electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The
   Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two
   representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded
   as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,
   but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is
   not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is
   demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)
   the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the
   bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of
   their representatives is called Das Referendum. …

      See REFERENDUM.

   The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the
   Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the
   Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by
   the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. …
   The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen
   by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath
   for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is
   exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the
   Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."

      _P. Hauri,
      Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
      (in Strickland's "The Engadine")._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation._

      _J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland._

      _Old South Leaflets,
      general series, number 18._

      _University of Pennsylvania,
      Publications, number 8._

   For the text of the Swiss Constitution,

      See CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1871.
   Exclusion of Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.

   The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile
   Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest
   census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was
   2,917,740.

   ----------SWITZERLAND: End--------

SWORD, German Order of the.

   See LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

SWORD, Swedish Order of the.

   An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after
   long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.

SYAGRIUS, Kingdom of.

      See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

SYBARIS.
SYBARITES.

   Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by
   Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in
   southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two
   rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter
   borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about
   twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal
   contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of
   Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had
   subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told
   that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against
   Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which
   have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon
   little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and
   extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become
   proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes
   illustrating these qualities were current, and served more
   than one purpose in antiquity."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

SYBOTA, Naval Battle of.

   Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra,
   in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The
   Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans,
   intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were
   drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 1, section 46._

SYCOPHANTS.

   "Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose
   to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain
   to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular
   trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing
   their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These
   denunciations were particularly directed against those who
   were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who
   therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished
   to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active
   guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies
   were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators
   persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate,
   envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full
   assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The
   Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion.
   … They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money
   from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt
   free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution
   beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

SYDENHAM, and Rational Medicine.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

{3054}

SYDNEY: First settlement (1788).

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

SYLLA.

      See SULLA.

SYLLABARIES.

   "A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and
   grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic
   student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of
   characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian
   and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by
   them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was
   frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians,
   these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of
   the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and
   not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in
   the decipherment of the inscriptions."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Assyria, its Princes, Priests and People,
      chapter 4._

SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.

SYLVANIA, The proposed State of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SYLVESTER II., Pope, A. D. 999-1003.

SYLVESTER III., Antipope, 1044.

SYMMACHIA.

   An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so
   called by the Greeks.

SYMMORIÆ, The.

   "In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378)
   the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or
   companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the
   property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details
   of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint
   liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of
   individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their
   collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those
   taxes which were not received at the proper time to be
   advanced by the most wealthy citizens."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of the Athenians
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 4, chapter 9._

SYMPOSIUM.

   The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast
   which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which
   was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of
   dancing, etc.

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      Course 2, lecture 5._

SYNHEDRION, OR SYNEDRION, The.

      See SANHEDRIM.

SYNOECIA.

      See ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

SYNOD OF THE OAK, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

   ----------SYRACUSE: Start--------

SYRACUSE: B. C. 734.
   The Founding of the city.

   "Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians,
   under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the
   ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his
   country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had
   excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower
   rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of
   other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most
   considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was
   founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly
   from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth
   settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built
   Agrigentum."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 12_.

   The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia.
   "Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated
   from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was
   bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn
   in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small
   part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the
   vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed
   alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the
   present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the
   same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another
   advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a
   spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its
   fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the
   abundance and goodness of its water."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 480.
   Defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera.

      See SICILY: B. C. 480.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
   Siege by the Athenians.

   The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and
   built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the
   deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian
   Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many
   reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and,
   as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and
   arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual
   jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in
   their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought
   them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse,
   enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the
   Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid.
   The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of
   the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the
   people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse,
   into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians
   were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a
   naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without
   any marked success. The result was to produce among the
   Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led
   them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not
   long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely
   destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had
   before received into her alliance, claimed help against
   Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C.
   416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades,
   whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints
   of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought
   about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking
   of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the
   Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any
   Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415
   the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the
   Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It
   consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and
   transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian
   slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades.
   On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement
   among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave
   the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance.
{3055}
   Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about
   a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation
   of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the
   accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became
   the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed
   before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt
   against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was
   successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army
   was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter
   quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a
   siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and
   on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised
   well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged.
   But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their
   favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal
   to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more
   vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and
   Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up
   a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in
   defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation
   was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the
   besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help
   and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long
   winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the
   capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too
   late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men,
   from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens,
   had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full
   of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated,
   on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able
   to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them
   in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on
   account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a
   final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an
   implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a
   hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more
   tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of
   Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the
   division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the
   pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded
   with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river
   Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword,
   although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were
   imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great
   numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow
   place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and
   suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the
   autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature
   engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had
   to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who
   died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like,
   lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and
   they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst.
   During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint
   of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which
   could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the
   condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length
   the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians
   and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them
   in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not
   accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all
   the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed
   of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the
   greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to
   the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points
   defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army
   perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of
   the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the
   Sicilian expedition."

      _Thucydides,
      History
      (translated by Jowett),
      books 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      volume 3._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 58-60._

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
   Dionysius and the Carthaginians.

   Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from
   the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian
   capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary
   escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had
   meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.
   Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way
   upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully
   the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the
   people, and making himself their master in the end. When the
   sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the
   fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully
   increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the
   Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,
   which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and
   took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering
   and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in
   this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian
   commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and
   recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to
   Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and
   gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants
   escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been
   reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was
   subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,
   Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan
   fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,
   was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,
   numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every
   description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there
   was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by
   land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.
   But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged
   themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon
   them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the
   latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their
   huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the
   sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so
   that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,
   aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied
   bodies.
{3056}
   The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely
   prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make
   progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend
   themselves against moderate energy on the part of the
   Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."
   In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted
   his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the
   escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians
   in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.
   394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the
   Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.
   As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut
   himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the
   prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion
   among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;
   but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 82._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
   Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

   "The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to
   have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it
   increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many
   difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with
   a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them
   the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê,
   driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out
   by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for
   dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it
   back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from
   Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of
   settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at
   Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by
   men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on
   further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel
   towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of
   commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the
   Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most
   powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him
   Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and
   cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion,
   and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at
   Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while.
   Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians
   also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn,
   seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from
   Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him,
   and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one
   of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391.
   "Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He
   commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the
   north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said
   to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger
   share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned
   his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took
   Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself,
   "beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in
   Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios
   sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece.
   "Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of
   the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his
   chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all
   defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid
   tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be
   recited; but the crowd would not hear them."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Story of Sicily,
      chapter 10._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 383.
   War with Carthage.

      See SICILY: B. C. 383.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
   Fall of the Dionysian tyranny.

   The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery
   from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in
   Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died
   in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was
   succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited
   nothing in character from his father but his vices and his
   shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was
   largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,
   brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had
   several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for
   his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great
   Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to
   a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result
   was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they
   began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while
   Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.
   After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from
   Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.
   The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his
   friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole
   city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the
   entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a
   protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half
   ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was
   surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much
   treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.
   Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make
   himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.
   He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a
   philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—
   misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as
   bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded
   ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered
   from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty
   he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,
   Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made
   himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for
   something more than a year, and he was then driven out by
   Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and
   half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was
   presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his
   place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who
   returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The
   condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of
   Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the
   great city seemed likely to perish.
{3057}
   At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people
   sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of
   Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching
   to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of
   1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in
   history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for
   Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the
   noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by
   an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,
   who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to
   become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune
   which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his
   enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated
   Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius
   in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused
   such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew
   fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now
   fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the
   stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of
   justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was
   then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great
   immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city
   revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other
   cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The
   Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a
   great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which
   narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the
   Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon
   resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a
   simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,
   to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 84-85._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Timoleon._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
   Under Agathokles.

   A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the
   brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated
   Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse
   despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who
   rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life,
   acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the
   command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained
   a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned
   them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317),
   for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke
   open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs,
   massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females.
   They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets,
   not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For
   two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary,
   rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000
   citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as
   prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as
   the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested
   the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of
   his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the
   rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is
   stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized,
   Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by
   acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in
   extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After
   some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians,
   and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310).
   Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder
   tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the
   war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that
   the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and
   confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly
   beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica,
   were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and
   Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his
   successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four
   years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape
   from the difficulties of his situation except by basely
   stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed
   by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight.
   Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous
   abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power
   and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of
   Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in
   289 B. C.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 97._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 212.
   Siege by the Romans.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.
   Sacked by Franks.

   The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the
   invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province,
   removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus,
   on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians
   soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of
   vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean,
   plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the
   west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies
   of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a
   handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the
   trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the
   escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and
   reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the
   delta of the Rhine.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 12._

SYRACUSE: A. D. 878.
   Siege and capture by the Saracens.

      See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

   ----------SYRACUSE: End--------

SYRIA.

   "Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the
   Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the
   latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land
   varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up
   by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been
   brought under one native government; yet its well-defined
   boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north,
   and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and
   separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly,
   therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of
   Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse
   process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first
   the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland
   to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria,
   was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the
   Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank
   to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits
   drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. …
   The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …

      See SEMITES.

{3058}

   Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human
   race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and
   exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has
   to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt
   and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent
   of Syria. …

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400, to B. C. 670-525].

   The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and
   the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile.
   Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt,
   the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria.
   When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a
   province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

   At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians.
   The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem
   invasion of the seventh century.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639

   She fell, of course, under the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh
   [century].

      See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073, and after;

   And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept
   through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and
   races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages,
   Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after.

   She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of
   the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all
   over by their essentially Greek civilisation.

      See SELEUCIDÆ;
      and JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

   Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in
   this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63;
      and JEWS: B. C. 166-40,
      and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

   The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of
   her for a century more. …

      See CRUSADES: A. D.1096-1099].

   Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition
   towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was
   decided on her plains, 1799.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

   Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number
   of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to
   plant upon her both their civilisation and her former
   religion."

      _George Adam Smith,
      Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone Lore._

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 4, chapter 9._

      See, also, DAMASCUS.

SYRIA, CŒLE.

      See CŒLE-SYRIA.

SYRO-CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, The.

      See SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.

   These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or
   rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply
   indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater
   Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the
   Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.

SYSSITIA, The.

   "The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the
   usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the
   citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The
   origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however
   from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but
   existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the
   Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in
   common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was
   provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who
   shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means
   reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who
   was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board.
   The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen
   persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous
   consent was required for every election. No member, not even
   the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some
   extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened
   chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table:
   such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 7-8._

SZATHMAR, Treaty of (1711).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

SZECHENYI, and the Hungarian wakening.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.

SZEGEDIN, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SZEGEDIN, The broken Treaty of.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

SZIGETH, Siege of (1566).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

T

TABELLARIÆ, Leges.

   "For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were
   given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was
   introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B.
   C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were
   named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in
   all four, namely:

   1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139.
   2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137.
   3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131.
   4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 4._

TABLES, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

TABORITES, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

TABREEZ, Battle of.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

TACHIES, The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

TACITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 275-276.

TACNA, Battle of (1880).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

TACULLIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).

   Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and
   having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a
   small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl
   of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after
   obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters
   of the great English Civil War.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 8._

{3059}

TADMOR.

      See PALMYRA.

TAENSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NATCHESAN FAMILY.

TAEXALI, The.

   A tribe which held the northeastern coast of ancient
   Caledonia.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

TAGLIACOZZO, Capture of Conradin at.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

TAGLIAMENTO, Battle of the (1797).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

TAGOS, OR TAGUS, The Greek title.

      See DEMIURGI.

TAIFALÆ, The.

   In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the
   province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are
   first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291
   (Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations
   are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c.
   31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of
   the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that
   they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they
   were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius,
   one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus
   (xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in
   their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of
   the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in
   the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and
   their district Theiphalia."

      _W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26._

TAILLE AND GABELLE, The.

   Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item
   in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English
   word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property
   of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the
   amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell
   chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with
   the most exact and honest system it should be accurately
   apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose
   and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed
   others; they released their friends or their villages, and
   imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large
   extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who
   had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this
   tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of
   the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth
   of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free
   from any personal tax, and under this head were probably
   included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of
   the officials of every kind, and the members of many
   professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained
   exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money,
   which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and
   peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of
   11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of
   France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000
   were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was
   the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast
   amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was
   farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was
   increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to
   collect its proceeds. The French government retained a
   monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of
   tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of
   necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that
   salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In
   some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000
   per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty
   times its present price in France, though it is still subject
   to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal
   exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject
   to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and
   several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling
   subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this
   duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the
   gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local
   insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also
   necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich.
   As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the
   commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount
   of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they
   were forced to take at the price established by the
   government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000
   livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers
   probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A
   family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of
   ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this
   duty."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 18 (volume 2)._

   "Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the
   tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was
   compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was
   bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,
   moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.
   To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was
   prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt
   [in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,
   was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the
   authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of
   200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and
   smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and
   death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered
   impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300
   livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow
   it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed
   to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was
   supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious
   regulations that one might suppose the object of the
   Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …
   But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The
   amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the
   Government, according to the exigencies of the financial
   situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the
   provinces were informed of the amount which their districts
   were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then
   made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité
   the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus
   apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in
   the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and
   remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now
   without a flash of indignation.
{3060}
   First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice
   presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had
   a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them
   the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to
   fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate
   neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid
   it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But
   this was far from being the worst feature. The chief
   inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in
   rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were
   responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they
   might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,
   or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while
   enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last
   farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always
   keeping well together for fear of violence, making their
   visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of
   imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side
   of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year
   pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those
   of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further
   on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in
   a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's
   beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys
   of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;
   for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to
   be thought of."

      _J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21)._

   Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both
   the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the
   gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their
   distribution and collection were much lessened.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   For an intimation of the origin of the taille,

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

TAIPING REBELLION, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

TAJ MAHAL, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

TAKBIR, The.

   The Mahometan war-cry—"God is Great."

TAKILMAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAKILMAN FAMILY.

TALAJOTS.

      See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

TALAVERA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

TALCA, Battle of (1818).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

TALENT, Attic, Babylonian, &c.

   "Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States,
   even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic
   origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina
   at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the
   obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven
   lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in
   general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter
   obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller
   pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic
   silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be
   1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the
   drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent
   to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. …
   Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also
   the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was
   weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73
   ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very
   little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later
   times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of
   Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in
   the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The
   new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared
   with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the
   light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli;
   so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic
   drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless
   the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was
   related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is
   to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but
   it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent …
   contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds,
   and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from
   the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman
   pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan
   as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the
   Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued
   in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate
   valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are
   equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given
   the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round
   numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more
   accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was
   estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was
   undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a
   weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared
   with silver, always depended upon the existing relation
   between them, was sometimes thus called."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 1, chapters 4-5._

      See, also, SHEKEL.

TALLAGE, The.

   "Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came
   a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings],
   which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and
   the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices
   after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important
   of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of
   the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected
   other property besides land, but the particular method in
   which it was to be collected was determined by the community
   on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the
   justices."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1)._

TALLEYRAND, Prince de:
   Alienation from Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.

TALLIGEWI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

{3061}

TALMUD, The.

   "The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a
   vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections,
   discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated
   of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic
   arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary;
   a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically
   referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud
   proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of
   two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. …
   The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of
   the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. …
   The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it
   sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi
   [Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the
   Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly
   the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The
   Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the
   Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the
   West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the
   traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is
   about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far
   the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks
   relate."

      _P. I. Hershon,
      Talmudic Miscellany,
      introduction._

   The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed
   at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more
   earlier.

      See, also, MISCHNA.

TALUKDARS.

   "A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many
   villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes.
   These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid
   their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native
   Government in former times made over by patent, to a person
   called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him
   responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence
   thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact,
   independent. … When the country came under British rule,
   engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken
   from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."

      _Sir R. Temple,
      James Thomason,
      page 158._

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

TAMANES, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

TAMASP I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1523-1576.

TAMASP II., Shah of Persia, 1730-1732.

TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.

      See TIMOUR.

TAMMANY RING, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

TAMMANY SOCIETY.
TAMMANY HALL.

   "Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the
   city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It
   was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing
   an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That
   society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in
   its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its
   constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General
   Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend
   to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an
   order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to
   have had in view the preservation of our democratic
   institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was
   founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city
   of New York, some time in the administration of President
   Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that
   early day, regarded the powers of the general government as
   dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to
   the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the
   country with institutions designed, and men determined, to
   preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic
   and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular,
   that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous
   were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a
   holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in
   its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter
   part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies,"
   from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be
   hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany
   supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and
   they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few
   others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were
   reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival.
   From this time it became a political institution, and took
   ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

   "The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany,
   the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of
   the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint
   of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes,
   each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There
   were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the
   council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type
   evidently of the President of the United States."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 3._

   "Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the
   'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was
   composed at first of the moderate men of both political
   parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party
   institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William
   Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was
   William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received
   the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt
   Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a
   national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and
   had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own
   country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its
   incorporation."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, page 362, foot-note._

   "One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or
   Columbian Order' and the political organization called for
   shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large
   building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it
   leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican
   General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more
   commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall
   means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street
   where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,
   the political body officially known as the Democratic
   Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …
{3062}
   The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly
   districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an
   assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these
   assembly districts there is held annually an election of
   members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General
   Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of
   no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is
   allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of
   Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding
   presidential election. Thus the number of the General
   Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from
   sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one
   General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in
   the district. In each assembly district there is also elected
   a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.
   He is always a member of the General Committee, and these
   thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the
   executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says
   a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the
   organization are directed, its candidates for offices are
   selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The
   General Committee meets every month, five hundred members
   constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as
   a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing
   election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,
   containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.
   This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There
   is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of
   the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,
   unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee
   is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general
   committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is
   divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they
   are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election
   district containing about four hundred voters. The election
   districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district
   has a district committee, composed of the members of the
   General Committee elected from that district, and of certain
   additional members chosen for the purpose. The district
   committee appoints in each of the election districts included
   in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is
   the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is
   responsible for the vote of his election district. There are
   about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and
   consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local
   bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district
   committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to
   a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district
   falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and
   another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an
   actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being
   selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a
   fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the
   captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,
   dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He
   is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to
   distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the
   street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The
   captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its
   voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how
   every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his
   report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election
   district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with
   accuracy what will be the vote of the city."

      _H. C. Merwin,
      Tammany Hall
      (Atlantic, February, 1894)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Home,
      The Story of Tammany
      (Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835)._

TAMULS, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

TAMWORTH MANIFESTO, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1887.

TANAGRA, Battle of (B. C. 457).

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

TANAIM, The.

   A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted
   themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 19._

TANAIS, The.

   The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the
   Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'

TANCRED, King of Naples and Sicily, A. D. 1189-1194.

TANCRED'S CRUSADE.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
      and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.

TANEY, Roger B.,
   and President Jackson's removal of the Deposits.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

   The Dred Scott Decision.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

TANFANA, Feast and massacre of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

TANIS.

      See ZOAN.

TANISTRY, Law of.

   "These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even
   the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very
   different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They
   were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is
   defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of
   chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the
   same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose,
   synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference
   given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to
   desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a
   perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish
   are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have
   been devised."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

      See, also, TUATH.

TANNENBURG, Battle of (1410).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TANOAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAÑOAN FAMILY.

TANTALIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS.

TAOUISM.

      See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

TAPÆ, Battles at.

      See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

TAPIO BISCKE, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TAPPANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

TAPROBANE.

   The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the
   ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not
   merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2)._

{3063}

TAPURIANS, The.

   "To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the
   Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the
   modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at
   the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

TARA, The Hill, the Feis, and the Psalter of.

   The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a
   triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which
   is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh
   Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ.
   "All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and
   military leaders throughout the country were regularly
   summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of
   being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a
   large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in
   enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the
   entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and
   glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these
   occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business
   transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall,
   and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or
   arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take
   his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound
   of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great
   solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly,
   or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but
   it would appear that one of its principal functions was the
   inspection of the national records, the writers of which were
   obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest
   penalties."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 24._

   The result of the examination and correction of the historical
   records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national
   register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have
   been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is
   supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel,
   which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was
   copied from it."

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

TARANTEENS,
TARENTINES,
TARRATINES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

TARAS.

      See TARENTUM.

TARASCANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TARASCANS.

TARBELLI, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TARENTINE WAR, The.

      See Rome: B. C. 282-275.

TARENTUM.

   Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek
   cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf
   which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour,
   almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its
   form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea,
   the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land
   side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus
   advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She
   possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens
   found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which
   the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to
   man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers.
   Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was
   the practice of the government to hire foreign captains,
   soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring
   an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian
   Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs
   the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war
   under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the
   enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours
   among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When
   the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown
   up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the
   Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted
   their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their
   own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._

      See, also, SIRIS.

TARENTUM: B. C. 282-275.
   Alliance with Pyrrhus and war with Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

TARENTUM: B. C. 212.
   Betrayed to Hannibal.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TARENTUM, Treaty of.

   The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their
   triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at
   Tarentum, B. C. 37.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 27._

TARGOWITZ, Confederates of.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

TARIFA: A. D. 1291.
   Taken by the Christians from the Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

   ----------TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS: Start--------

TARIFF: (The Netherlands): 15th Century.
   Early Free Trade and Reciprocity.

   In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the
   English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely
   relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And
   this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy
   what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their
   neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have
   passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers
   to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished
   clothes to be brought into their country in order that they
   might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in
   the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation
   of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent
   competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting
   ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the
   suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the
   government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was
   afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and
   competition were viewed.
{3064}
   But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and
   sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its
   reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was
   no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of
   English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless
   something else that they would buy from them. Among other
   articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar
   skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade
   in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various
   costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter
   regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father
   of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the
   Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates
   of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with
   England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently
   fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their
   assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the
   value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The
   Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all
   respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to
   be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the
   other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was
   confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of
   piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew
   survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for
   the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a
   year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was
   founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of
   the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever
   been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'
   and its different results began to appear. Not only were
   strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in
   Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to
   induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the
   wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267._

TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.
   Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.

      See VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.
   The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1664-1667.
   The System of Colbert.

   Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among
   statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and
   consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of
   his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of
   every kind. Although this system was far from being
   irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at
   the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then
   which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …
   It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which
   gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.
   This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest
   way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,
   and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One
   of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the
   taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true
   principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would
   have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the
   science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is
   to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France
   what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his
   sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the
   import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,
   and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said
   the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants
   in what consideration we hold at present everything that may
   concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means
   for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the
   regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,
   we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single
   import and one export duty, and also to diminish these
   considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish
   the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time
   Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)
   [see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and
   cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and
   manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the
   survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed
   only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the
   land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers
   were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped
   merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation
   with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the
   delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued
   ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and
   most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The
   lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert
   improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this
   fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument
   of his administration, we think we should present it in its
   true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably
   misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to
   make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in
   the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly
   were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed
   upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the
   home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither
   sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the
   manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most
   skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he
   subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they
   should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy
   fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article
   recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For
   the first offence, the products of the delinquents were
   attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the
   manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer
   himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have
   led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if
   his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures
   what was cruel in them.
{3065}
   Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often
   directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them
   information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign
   manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert
   was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive
   and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them
   since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would
   engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,
   they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his
   efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions
   to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his
   prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the
   administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is
   convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal
   tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally
   extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In
   vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'
   to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and
   honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice
   of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged
   ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of
   certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having
   been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with
   having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.
   He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the
   memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on
   provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import
   duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to
   repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the
   duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in
   September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the
   supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests
   of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and
   by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme
   frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against
   him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just
   created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive
   measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of
   1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of
   war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …
   From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial
   reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were
   to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.
   Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to
   languish in France under the influence of this system."

      _J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy in Europe,
      chapter 26._

      ALSO IN,
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under the Regency,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.
   Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.

   "Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to
   impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and
   South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,
   Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,
   however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the
   Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable
   sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise
   imported into this state without burdening commerce.'
   Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,
   sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.
   In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was
   appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river
   and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who
   wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their
   willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation
   of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the
   merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the
   interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were
   repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in
   the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions
   were made for their collection. September 20, came the
   important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of
   this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures
   which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles
   which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high
   specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;
   clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,
   6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and
   boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per
   hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included
   manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and
   papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The
   Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature
   of commodities which the country was then producing, as well
   as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."

      _W. Hill,
      First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
      pages 53-54._

   The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its
   reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial
   arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into
   Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very
   considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late
   war between the United States of America and Great Britain,
   when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,
   and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and
   mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of
   need, not only large quantities of weapons and other
   implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which
   the war could not have been carried on, whereby their
   oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And
   whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and
   other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of
   peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made
   here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers
   useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the
   making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that
   moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures
   imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no
   relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful
   manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this
   purpose. Be it enacted" &c.

      _Pennsylvania Laws, 1785._

   The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing
   impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem
   on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen
   ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the
   same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they
   would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;
   but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.

{3066}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
   The first tariff enactment.
   Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
   The "American System" proposed.

   "The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to
   the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.
   It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by
   Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of
   the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning
   towards the protective system. But this legislation was
   temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent
   system of the country was left for subsequent and more
   leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give
   the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to
   furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so
   congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A
   series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible
   kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the
   United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He
   took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great
   mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly
   two years had elapsed since the order for the report was
   passed that he sent in the document to the House of
   Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as
   able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever
   been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that
   report to regard it as a vindication of the general or
   abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from
   assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere
   was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of
   commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any
   predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem
   that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to
   find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the
   rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared
   to say that the United States would find it for her interest
   to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he
   had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined
   the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was
   resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic
   manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The
   principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite
   those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as
   the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by
   former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to
   withstand."

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Life of Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 11._

   Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument
   to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the
   country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken
   of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the
   United States, accompanied with an examination of the
   principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,
   it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by
   which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification
   of the objects which in the present state of things appear the
   most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures
   which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In
   order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted
   to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those
   which have been employed with success in other countries. The
   principle of these are:

   I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles
   which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be
   encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a
   virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the
   charges on foreign articles they enable the national
   manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The
   propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt
   upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous
   topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the
   laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has
   the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.
   Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though
   with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in
   contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,
   wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the
   country.

   II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to
   prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of
   encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be
   employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is
   in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an
   adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to
   prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United
   States; and there are other cases to which the principle may
   be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.
   Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own
   manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,
   a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every
   proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the
   principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of
   endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of
   advantages.

   III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of
   manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful
   supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is
   either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,
   the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the
   nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this
   species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is
   in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to
   be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain
   cases.

   IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most
   efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in
   some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced
   upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance
   on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat
   could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored
   by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are
   these:

   1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct
   than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate
   tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing
   the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in
   the first attempts.

{3067}

   2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of
   price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces
   it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the
   charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of
   protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first
   happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a
   different object (which may or may not increase the price of
   some other article according to the nature of that object);
   the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar
   object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the
   foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will
   have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such
   bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be
   raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other
   in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another
   source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,
   because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,
   it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase
   the total quantity of the article in the market.

   3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency
   to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the
   immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture
   does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect
   of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of
   the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may
   discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be
   expected from the sale of the article.

   4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only
   proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object
   of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is
   the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw
   material promoted by counteracting the interference of the
   foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the
   manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior
   to the domestic production of the material in sufficient
   quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be
   laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to
   promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the
   farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either
   destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the
   article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the
   conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;
   and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand
   for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in
   vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have
   been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the
   importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic
   production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages
   in the home market. It can have no influence upon the
   advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,
   no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true
   way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on
   foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is
   desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that
   duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the
   material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon
   both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer
   commences his enterprise under every advantage which is
   attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And
   the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by
   it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign
   material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,
   from an appearance of giving away the public money without an
   immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they
   serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the
   community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a
   serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money
   can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a
   new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more
   valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of
   productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it
   equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are
   admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign
   article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra
   expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic
   manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of
   the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,
   which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and
   wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and
   by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been
   noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,
   in the employment of this species of encouragement in the
   United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in
   the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the
   great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy
   charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,
   amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their
   bulk. …

   V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though
   distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties
   are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or
   manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.
   Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or
   superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are
   dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is
   to stimulate general effort. …

   VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
   The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly
   in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …

   VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the
   materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a
   general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with
   certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three
   cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the
   material is itself an object of general or extensive
   consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.
   Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition
   of which with a like domestic article is desired to be
   restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from
   being capable by a further process to be converted into a
   manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of
   which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material
   itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient
   abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the
   national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of
   manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a
   competition with some domestic production, the same reasons
   which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those
   materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general
   rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.
   …

{3068}

   VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
   home, and of the introduction into the United States of such
   as may have been made in other countries; particularly those
   which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and
   unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to
   manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are
   pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …

   IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
   commodities. This is not among the least important of the
   means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.
   It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.
   Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and
   exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and
   preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot
   fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
   to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
   quarters. …

   X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to
   place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general
   and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the
   purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for
   manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,
   which is to be expected from the institution lately
   established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …

   XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
   Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the
   domestic interests of a community; but they may, without
   impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to
   manufactures. …

   The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the
   growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,
   not merely necessary that the measures of government which
   have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to
   assist and protect them; but that those which only
   collaterally affect them, in the general course of the
   administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency
   to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are
   apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,
   among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards
   manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.
   They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates
   unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they
   vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and
   assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and
   liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on
   occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital
   supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed
   to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."

      _A. Hamilton,
      Report on Manufactures
      (Works, volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff._

      _R. W. Thompson,
      History of Protective Tariff Laws,
      chapters 6-7._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
   The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
   The sliding-scale.

   During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged
   period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.
   There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad
   were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801
   wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to
   1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending
   1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of
   starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,
   and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only
   well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon
   as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the
   reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the
   Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the
   importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be
   the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this
   country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as
   compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that
   therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order
   to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of
   Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which
   excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until
   the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other
   kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in
   prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a
   great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to
   the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according
   to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,
   and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by
   many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with
   intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.
   The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been
   lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law
   was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn
   and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,
   or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the
   legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the
   people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked
   with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for
   ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton
   House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the
   most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked
   by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn
   up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture
   were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked
   that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were
   called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of
   Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of
   London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various
   parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large
   popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public
   meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts
   of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous
   localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate
   meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,
   submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,
   however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn
   and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the
   most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when
   the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a
   sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the
   English market.
{3069}
   The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of
   the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36
   shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.
   the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per
   qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.
   8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon
   found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the
   operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less
   effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous
   law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per
   quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might
   at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was
   paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored
   until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the
   expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from
   injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable
   or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …
   Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,
   however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the
   Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign
   Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and
   Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to
   be used as food, and in order to provide against any
   infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were
   employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by
   smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used
   only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With
   bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of
   flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully
   reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is
   no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of
   discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in
   every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost
   every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed
   in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with
   derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.
   Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;
   scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order
   to be mitigated by philanthropy."

      _H. Ashworth,
      Recollections of Richard Cobden,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _D. Ricardo,
      On Protection to Agriculture
      (Works, pages 459-498)._

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Economic Interpretation of History,
      chapters 17-18._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
   The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").

   "The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the
   manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been
   their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal
   conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not
   always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties
   were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and
   unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their
   individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,
   petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new
   duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain
   prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,
   February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled
   maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended
   this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt
   and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary
   of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six
   days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,
   February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general
   tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual
   report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of
   the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time
   for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some
   discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he
   transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous
   February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new
   tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and
   Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into
   the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began
   March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was
   finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the
   Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the
   approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff
   were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at
   12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,
   28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties
   by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the
   article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by
   which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality
   was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square
   yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on
   articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below
   the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out
   in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic
   reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle
   party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as
   such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one
   of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,
   were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme
   protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles
   occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,
   cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and
   Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had
   fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was
   reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore
   the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on
   cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per
   cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend
   by making the first period three years and the second one
   year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28
   per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per
   cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,
   Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per
   cent. … After some debate the first period was made three
   years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816
   was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in
   its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter
   disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,
   however, were widely varied. …
{3070}
   Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the
   country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of
   depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the
   country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not
   fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new
   manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a
   growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to
   lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,
   Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created
   Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying
   the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill
   passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the
   Senate by one vote."

      _O. L. Elliott,
      The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833
      (Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),
      pages 163-211._

   "The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of
   home industry, and to the establishment of what was then
   called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects
   before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular
   commencement of the heated debates on that question which
   afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the
   federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue
   the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the
   earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and
   to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the
   incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and
   the champion of the American System, expressly placed the
   proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster
   was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the
   universality of the distress which had been described;
   claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed
   cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over
   expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great
   Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;
   denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,
   and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country
   where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,
   after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority
   of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so
   zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick
   couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous
   resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of
   four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products
   of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in
   Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,
   commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending
   presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of
   the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;
   General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as
   tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
   time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN
      _A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union,
      sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12)._

      _A. Walker,
      Science of Wealth,
      page 116._

      _F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      pages 68-76._

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 3._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
   The "Bill of Abominations."
   New England changes front.

   "In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in
   many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'
   It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers
   which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.
   Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this
   important question absolutely and entirely, and made no
   pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on
   this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on
   account of the startling change of position which it
   announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of
   the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not
   been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up
   to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it
   was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that
   manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the
   commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were
   told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
   taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus
   afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were
   urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,
   when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the
   war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act
   of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and
   settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New
   England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course
   of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet
   make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
   Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the
   will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that
   the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and
   that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed
   for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster
   changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an
   abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in
   the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of
   interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection
   Mr. Webster followed, it."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 6._

   "There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
   that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
   as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
   country by others, and had embarked her capital in
   manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
   manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
   appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
   from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
   … May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
   Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
   growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
   July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
   the convention in order to make allies of interests which
   would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
   plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
   The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
   and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
   represented, and so sugar was left out.
{3071}
   It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
   and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
   of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
   met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
   had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
   it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
   from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
   monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
   on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
   on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
   was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
   four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
   over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
   per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
   introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
   was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
   raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
   while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
   Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
   of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
   in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
   the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
   steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
   from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
   to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
   per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
   and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
   Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
   a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
   'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
   of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapter 9._

   "The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and
   manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the
   woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor
   that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other
   bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to
   get itself along."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 34._

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.
   Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.

   President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited
   attention to the fact that the public debt would be
   extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,
   therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce
   a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'
   was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests
   of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction
   should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted
   with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as
   it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a
   revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus
   arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a
   surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather
   in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the
   revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing
   protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It
   must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by
   Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on
   articles not coming into competition with American products. …
   Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce
   the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When
   objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,
   of the President, and of the whole administration party, he
   replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and
   strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the
   President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the
   Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from
   foreign countries, and not coming into competition with
   similar articles made or produced within the United States,
   ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines
   and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the
   Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill
   accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was
   adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord
   with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.
   It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected
   articles, but left the protective system without material
   change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.
   … The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own
   estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really
   effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three
   millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of
   the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely
   short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as
   ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to
   day."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Clay,
      Life, Correspondence and Speeches
      (Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
   The Southern opposition to protection.
   Nullification in South Carolina.
   The compromise tariff.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.
   The Zollverein.

   "The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an
   association of states, having for its declared object to
   secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting
   states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The
   terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia
   and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be
   regarded as the basis of the association. The states now
   [1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg,
   Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the
   Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and
   Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the
   three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886.
   Including these three states, which have since joined the
   union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven
   millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined
   the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German
   subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two
   Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is
   about three millions more.
{3072}
   The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the
   proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen
   without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in
   the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German
   states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of
   treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not
   admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the
   league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the
   German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has
   any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in
   fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated
   states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that
   the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other
   motives which have entered largely into the causes of its
   existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect
   to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally
   pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this
   general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of
   Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an
   opportunity of extending her political influence, and
   occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in
   reality secured her predominance among the German states. To
   these inducements we regret to be obliged to add
   another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their
   manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign
   competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be
   used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign
   manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress
   of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation,
   (Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the
   maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon
   perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of
   this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King
   of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to
   unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the
   federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power
   rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the
   Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not
   only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening
   states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected,
   in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became
   the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the
   barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years,
   however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed
   it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers
   (especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection
   against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to
   make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new
   Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford
   a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be
   regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the
   Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered
   in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They
   formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from
   five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in
   Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and
   published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They
   addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at
   Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so
   far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States,
   occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two
   others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name
   of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a
   more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria
   and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff
   of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly
   so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate
   customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became
   obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests.
   Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long
   time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high
   scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last,
   however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List
   states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent
   publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on
   the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for
   the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a
   binding national confederation. Between that date and the
   present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of
   other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and
   some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it.
   Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring
   states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg,
   which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the
   two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the
   Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to
   Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and
   Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The
   revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting
   states according to the population of each state
   respectively."

      _Edinburgh Review,
      January, 1844
      (volume 79, page 108)._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Krause,
      The Growth of German Unity,
      chapter 10._

      _F. List.
      National System of Political Economy,
      book 4, chapter 4._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1836-1839.
   Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

   "Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized
   body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836
   an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its
   principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,
   Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,
   notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,
   and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many
   other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of
   reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular
   organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester
   were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious
   attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price
   of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of
   1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the
   revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;
   pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of
   Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,
   because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of
   landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity
   of life at an artificially high rate. …
{3073}
   In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in
   Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They
   were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from
   this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and
   action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the
   history of every successful movement, when a section arises
   within the party, which refuses from that day forward either
   to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men
   was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the
   existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against
   these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the
   great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled
   a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition
   which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and
   which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an
   almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the
   alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never
   fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the
   existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from
   exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other
   countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their
   food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the
   English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called
   for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of
   foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and
   implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as
   affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful
   principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,
   1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in
   earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a
   subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out
   one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments
   when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,
   'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from
   confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the
   first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A
   great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary
   supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,
   convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On
   the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from
   other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action
   among the various associations throughout the country. This
   was the germ of what ultimately became the League."

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Robertson,
      Life and Times of John Bright,
      chapters 8 and 11-14._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.
   Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.
   His sliding-scale.
   His Tariff reductions.
   The first great step towards Free-Trade.

   The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in
   August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the
   opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech
   recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws
   affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It
   announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in
   England thought possible, although it was to be completed in
   little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved
   that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to
   consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three
   hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally
   offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law
   League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the
   sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of
   Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was
   based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year
   with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if
   foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a
   quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term
   of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a
   quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to
   modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the
   minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter;
   he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from
   50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in
   the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold
   grain back when it became dear. … So general was the
   dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured
   once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed
   8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120
   votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for
   the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than
   four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were
   easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House
   of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had
   passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been
   voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr.
   Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had
   been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income
   tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports
   of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties.
   "With these and with the income tax he calculated that he
   would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to
   propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and
   comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties
   to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials,
   of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured,
   and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly
   manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the
   tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of
   these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most
   of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a
   year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on
   foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian
   timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and
   butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty,
   he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also
   diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change
   in our system of national finance had never before been
   effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by
   the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was
   debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification
   of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at
   the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little
   or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year.
   Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His
   first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of
   trade."

      _F. G. Montague,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 8._

{3074}

   "Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might
   raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in
   the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles
   under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the
   fastenings and lightened the load."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 18 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Walpole,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.
   An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,
   with incidental protection.

   "There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years.
   The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the
   law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible.
   During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the
   country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the
   experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State
   banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept
   them several years without authority, but finally a bill had
   been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The
   time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the
   gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act
   of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at
   the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from
   some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of
   opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional
   protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was
   universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public
   revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the
   tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The
   committee on manufactures did not report to the House until
   the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill
   reported by the committee were the following:

   1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few
   exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.

   2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain
   interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances
   below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem
   duty.

   3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to
   discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840,
   after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per
   cent by the Act of 1833. …

   The subject was discussed at great length by the House,
   although the time was drawing near for making the last
   reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must
   be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of
   ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff
   laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately
   passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding
   a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the
   operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra
   session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of
   the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the
   debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of
   discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if
   at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be
   raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until
   the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in
   favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the
   proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might
   be raised without interfering with distribution. The House
   having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the
   proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution
   law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the
   Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was
   introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the
   Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso
   that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed,
   notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both
   Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a
   considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the
   President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional
   revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar
   to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso
   requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free
   of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope,
   imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the
   President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the
   proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution
   to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the
   bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a
   long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment
   expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the
   nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next
   four years."

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 6._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.
   The Repeal of the Corn Laws.
   Dissolution of the League.

   "The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which,
   being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the
   interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by
   any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to
   attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to
   benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the
   mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming
   more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative
   landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds
   who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No
   change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread
   was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest
   and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the
   people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the
   League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had
   received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to
   support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily
   contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners
   exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of
   heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the
   realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and
   argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of
   Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the
   newspaper press, and were eagerly read.
{3075}
   And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert
   Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days
   of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought
   home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the
   ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all
   further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet
   council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to
   what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5
   Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in
   council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling,
   and opening the ports for the admission of all species of
   grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the
   order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order
   to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law;
   and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a
   modification of the existing law, including the admission at a
   nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A
   serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in
   the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only
   ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen,
   Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to
   induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a
   subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so
   far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the
   cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his
   measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution
   to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her
   Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to
   smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic
   frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a
   promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed
   in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall
   Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his
   measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was
   called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government
   plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an
   immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel
   recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three
   years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that
   time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s.
   per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be
   under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that
   period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s.
   per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was
   received in a very different manner by the political parties
   in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the
   Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the
   opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve
   nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal
   recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the
   speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to
   his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his
   right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however,
   more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights'
   duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a
   majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240
   against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to
   have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider
   the straitened resources of the country as regards the first
   article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but
   by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in
   Ireland."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      part 4, chapter 4._

   "On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,'
   by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at
   Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years'
   task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health,
   fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes
   in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in
   the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief
   Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the
   purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him
   free for life for the political service of his country."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapters 8-10._

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      volume 1, chapters 15-16._

      _M. M. Trumbull,
      The Free Trade Struggle in England._

      _A. Bisset,
      Notes on the Anti-Corn Law Struggle._

      _Debate upon the Corn Laws in Session 1846._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.
   Lowered duties and the disputed effects.

   "In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,'
   from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It
   reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of
   the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the
   Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at
   home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more
   nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the
   Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was
   higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and
   large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported,
   bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in
   the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the
   government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for
   the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances
   the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates
   of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial
   crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue
   fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years,
   but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up
   to the old point."

      _A. L. Perry,
      Elements of Political Economy,
      page 464._

   "The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a
   conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They
   challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between
   1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of
   the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a
   hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular
   consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a
   healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a
   reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.
   Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our
   carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day
   the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage
   of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to
   what they term the symmetrical development of all the great
   interests of the country under this liberal tariff.
{3076}
   Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the
   commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while
   agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more
   flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of
   our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid
   to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they
   could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to
   the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the
   progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are
   denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general
   correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the
   prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to
   the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of
   1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the
   ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which
   came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes
   beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,
   indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of
   affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our
   large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the
   war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold
   in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus
   opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus
   of money was speedily created from the products of the rich
   mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in
   convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was
   materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This
   disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations
   of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the
   wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began
   in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased
   consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally
   closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with
   the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the
   boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was
   abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists
   maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have
   enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the
   moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America
   came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a
   disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the
   conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part
   have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this
   arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge
   responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and
   inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which
   both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally
   answerable."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.
   Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.
   The perfected tariff of Free Trade.

   "With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may
   be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection
   in this country altogether. That principle was a little
   complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the
   navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian
   colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty
   much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign
   lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made
   labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain
   continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on
   foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those
   countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at
   great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that
   free labour to establish which England had but just paid so
   large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade
   became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it
   seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to
   support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to
   him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle
   so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to
   drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often
   inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question,
   and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free
   Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea
   came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar
   duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves
   deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation
   against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the
   other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was
   not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been
   represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour
   really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it
   was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and
   uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the
   majority of the English people could be convinced that a
   lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign
   sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the
   products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and
   somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was
   allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar
   were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was
   admitted on the same terms into this country, without any
   reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to
   the conditions under which it was grown."

      _J. McCarthy,
      The Epoch of Reform,
      chapter 12._

   "The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in
   1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched
   battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance
   grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just
   reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three
   years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,
   1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.
   Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House
   of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of
   some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom
   which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of
   questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The
   discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to
   propose any return to the policy of protection during the
   present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great
   majority of members favourable to that policy should be
   returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the
   case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated
   a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few
   rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.
{3077}
   On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and
   luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he
   marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which
   he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours
   in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and
   statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or
   fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial
   scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total
   remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff
   underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was
   marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to
   free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,
   butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the
   small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;
   in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had
   survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as
   well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the
   various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and
   finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all
   the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the
   year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our
   present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of
   protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a
   free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in
   the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive
   manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by
   means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we
   import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates
   for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers
   to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade
   tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will
   presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy
   import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of
   them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it
   during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.

   Not produced in England:
   Tobacco, £8,589,681;
   Tea, 4,169,233;
   Wine, 1,469,710;
   Dried Fruit, 509,234;
   Coffee, 212,002;
   Chicory, 66,739;
   Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;
   Total, £15,061,270.

   Produced also in England:
   Spirits, £5,336,058;
   Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;
   Beer, 3,814;
   Vinegar, 671;
   Playing Cards, 522;
   Pickles. 17;
   Malt. 6;
   Spruce, 3;
   Total, £5,346,944.

   Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above
   figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum
   levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot
   produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion
   of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to
   afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every
   shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from
   abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for
   them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much
   for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the
   £5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import
   duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise
   duties, levied internally on the produce of the British
   distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the
   same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same
   duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength.
   It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit
   foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was
   burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the
   excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality
   is established, and no protection or preference whatever is
   enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the
   aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of
   British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The
   trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are
   explained in the same way. They also act as a mere
   counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British
   producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter
   no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is
   evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it
   one solitary shred of protection."

      _A. Mongredien,
      History of the Free Trade Movement in England,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hall,
      History of the Customs Revenue of England._

      _S. Dowell,
      History of Taxation and Taxes in England._

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.
   Moderation of Protective duties.
   The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.

   After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons
   in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an
   extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive.
   "The first serious attempt to alter this very severe
   restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The
   English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing
   most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up,
   and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the
   work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal,
   iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle,
   corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for
   ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was,
   however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures.
   A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all
   prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of
   30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn,
   in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The
   interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely
   subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and
   agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the
   long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the
   introduction of free competition. It was under such
   discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty
   of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure
   (the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of
   its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher),
   though only a finishing step in English tariff reform,
   inaugurated a new era in France."

      _C. F. Bastable,
      The Commerce of Nations,
      chapter 8._

   "By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish
   all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British
   produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.
   ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25
   per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other
   hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and
   other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French
   wines and brandies.
{3078}
   As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,
   and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit
   exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.
   Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other
   any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on
   imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said
   power might concede to any third power; and also not to
   enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation
   or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable
   to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,
   that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than
   she had done for the past, and England made another step in
   the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her
   manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of
   free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited
   to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both
   France and England entered into similar treaties with other
   nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations
   were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave
   to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in
   existence in countries not originally parties to the French
   treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its
   benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."

      _L. Levi,
      Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce
      (Journal of the Statistical Society,
      volume 40, 1877), page 3._

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.
   Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.
   Protection measures of 1878-1887.

   "Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the
   German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced
   protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of
   political life in Western Europe through the events of the
   years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered
   between nations produced, however, a strong movement in
   Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of
   commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted
   in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty
   of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of
   the international compacts for the promotion of commercial
   intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European
   history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a
   first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it
   did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a
   considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between
   the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for
   its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very
   influential association was formed, with free trade as the
   avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the
   champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of
   the highest order. They included the well-known economists
   Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth,
   Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually,
   the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and
   exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the
   governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results
   of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that
   the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring
   about improved commercial relations with other nations by the
   same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by
   the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France,
   Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter
   war against the two first named countries wherever the German
   tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial
   treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great
   achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous
   treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this
   reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same
   advantages that those two countries had insured to each other.
   The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of
   France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by
   Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing
   arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers
   and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly
   opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with
   the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new
   departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the
   advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862,
   after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was
   consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very
   broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark
   convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the
   respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The
   latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for
   the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing
   import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a
   'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of
   the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been
   commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal
   upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between
   the two countries. Austria was naturally against the
   conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with
   herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the
   means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied
   by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in
   1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years,
   that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition
   that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done
   in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the
   complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It
   was only a compact between two independent nations, but on
   more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly
   constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other
   directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the
   example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866
   into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain
   and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the
   contracting parties granted to each other the position of the
   most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties
   after the model of that between the Zollverein and France.
   These additional treaties were no more than the latter the
   work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising
   from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and
   South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther
   progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its
   forward march. …
{3079}
   A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to
   speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between
   the North-German Federation, the new political constellation
   Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after
   destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and
   Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue
   policy of all Germany was to be managed by the
   'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of
   representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of
   representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on
   a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain
   that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all
   Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one
   nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual
   monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in
   consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after
   the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory
   conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years,
   and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty,
   the principal reductions being on all agricultural products,
   wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the
   treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a
   substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the
   treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and
   Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each
   other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had
   granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland,
   Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of
   the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created
   Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free
   trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in
   hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic
   laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873
   the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the
   Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties
   on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The
   Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no
   less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the
   other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was
   not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part
   upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade
   movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the
   time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of
   a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest.
   Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began
   to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all
   Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and
   his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that
   their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince
   over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that
   was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became
   clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of
   the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the
   mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized
   in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front
   was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the
   Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a
   most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had
   been done by the government under his own eyes and with his
   full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the
   Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for
   the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the
   public finances in order to increase the revenues of the
   Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for
   the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee
   began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot
   haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May,
   1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of
   protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond
   all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. …
   The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the
   lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large
   majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the
   'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new
   faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on
   cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing
   duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great
   number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The
   protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883,
   inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the
   protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced
   that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still
   higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government
   brought every influence to bear against the opposition,
   resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority.
   Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of
   duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and
   raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even
   again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and
   especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced
   a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased
   membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag.
   … The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of
   Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon
   negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and
   Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."

      _H. Villard,
      German Tariff Policy
      (Yale Review, May, 1892)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Dawson,
      Bismarck and State Socialism._

TARIFF: (United States and Canada): A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty.

   The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian
   Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great
   Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of
   June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of
   September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin
   and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and
   William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,
   acting for the latter.
{3080}
   By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in
   addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen
   by the … convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing,
   and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North
   American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the
   United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her
   Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind,
   except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the
   bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
   Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands
   thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance
   from the shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and
   shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also
   upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
   nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
   do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
   British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
   said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
   understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
   the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
   all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby
   reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article
   provided for the appointment of commissioners and an
   arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise
   "as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right
   to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of
   fishermen of the United States contained in the next
   succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the
   treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern
   sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th
   parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the
   first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts
   and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is
   agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto
   annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British
   colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each
   country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and
   breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,
   smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.
   Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of
   fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,
   eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or
   marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,
   cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all
   kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber
   of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole
   or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.
   Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or
   unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.
   Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.
   Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the
   citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to
   navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada
   between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same
   tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's
   subjects, but the British Government retained the right to
   suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the
   Government of the United States might suspend the operations
   of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the
   right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the
   United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to
   open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of
   equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty
   should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river
   St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United
   States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided
   that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws
   were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial
   Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that
   it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at
   which it may come into operation, and further until the
   expiration of twelve months after either of the high
   contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish
   to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of
   the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as
   applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament
   of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should
   embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into
   effect; but not otherwise.

      _Treaties and Conventions between the
      United States and other Powers,
      edition of 1889, pages 448-452._

   The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having
   given the required notice in 1865.

      _F. E. Haynes,
      The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854
      (American Economic Association Publications,
      volume 7, number 6)._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.
   The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.

   "In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher
   range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The
   Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the
   present protective system. But this is by no means the case.
   The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of
   Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session
   preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed,
   undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the
   Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election,
   votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist
   leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in
   the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its
   consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next
   session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the
   Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was
   carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was
   entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session
   of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of
   the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time
   to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill
   tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the
   act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to
   restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they
   proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was
   to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific
   duties … established were in many cases considerably above the
   ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes
   made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron
   and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican
   party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the
   manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the
   movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts,
   said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection.
   He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil,
   next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an
   excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and
   irresponsible competition at home'.

      _Congressional Globe, 1859-60,
      page 1867._

{3081}

   Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and
   over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the
   manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial
   to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'

      _Congressional Globe, 1859-60,
      p. 2053._

      _C. F. Hunter's speech,
      Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 3010._

      In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of
      1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by
      manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …

      Congressional Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295.

   Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was
   fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue
   for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and
   as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861,
   additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular
   session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties
   was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a
   month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties
   on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864
   are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the
   latter is of particular importance, because it became the
   foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue
   acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that
   probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has
   seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension
   of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding
   increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan
   of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864
   was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the
   management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee
   on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done
   in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered
   necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same
   situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if
   the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great
   object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the
   measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of
   1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of
   taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who
   were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and
   those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but
   one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately,
   and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage
   to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent
   in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that
   year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. …
   Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he
   wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this,
   moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the
   public mind toward the question of import duties became
   distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which
   had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06
   per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as
   they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to
   almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864
   remained in force for twenty years without reductions."

      _F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      pages 158-169, with foot-note._

   Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,
   1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on
   dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, page 400._

TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.
   Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.

   Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and
   are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:
   capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use
   substantially the same methods and forms of government: while
   against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the
   superior climate and easier development of its southern
   neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural
   advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side
   of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered
   territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the
   well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and
   ultimate point of difference between the two countries is
   their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a
   system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of
   New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.
   According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be
   prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be
   variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the
   other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been
   more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added
   to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the
   artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.
   If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,
   while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New
   South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is
   inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have
   caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were
   not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead
   of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.
   Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain
   departments of national life is a fair indication of
   prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally
   allowed that an increase in population, a development of
   agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign
   commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the
   public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and
   that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period
   indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these
   tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we
   examine the position of the two Colonies as regards
   population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,
   manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them
   adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to
   all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very
   much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales
   in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was
   larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under
   cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while
   those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was
   ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.
   Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that
   New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every
   province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of
   Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.
{3082}
   She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next
   in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she
   maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this
   accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer
   that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade
   has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."

      _B. R. Wise,
      Industrial Freedom,
      appendix 3._

TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.
   Protectionist reaction on the Continent.
   High Tariff in France.

   "The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon
   III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little
   support in the national mind, and was hardly understood
   outside the small circle of French economists. The need of
   fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most
   prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist
   in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern
   commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased
   30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and
   spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As
   the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the
   taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by
   the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his
   resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not
   however to come into operation until compensating productive
   duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing
   commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in
   policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England
   and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to
   their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances,
   the former country required that if imported raw products were
   to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay
   an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of
   escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination
   of the treaties (in the technical language of international
   law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but
   as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion
   of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored
   to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw
   materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency
   was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system
   introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872
   imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign
   vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return
   to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in
   1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of
   French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports
   of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying
   trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native
   ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious
   task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties
   that the termination of the old engagements made necessary.
   The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several
   increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties.
   Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles
   were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties
   were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock
   and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new
   'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh
   treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or
   partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged
   by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from
   the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of
   articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all
   countries outside Europe came under the general code. The
   reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet
   very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The
   agricultural depression was the primary cause of the
   legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per
   quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and
   barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on
   indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under
   increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their
   partial success, the advocates of high duties have made
   further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used
   by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and
   the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the
   rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of
   30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under
   the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian
   commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the
   formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial
   treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal
   and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces
   that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout
   Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had
   largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently
   required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the
   country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by
   the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was
   that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher
   rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both
   in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and
   strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in
   securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and
   the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of
   the new system of high taxation with no conventional
   privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and
   Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in
   which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. …
   In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to
   say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked.
   … Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of
   protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891]
   adhered to the system of moderate duties."

      _C. F. Bastable,
      The Commerce of Nations,
      chapter 9._

   A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers,
   with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and
   adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi
   du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in
   duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to
   nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw
   materials in general are admitted free of duties. The
   commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.

{3083}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1883.
   Revision of the Tariff.

   In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into
   consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various
   questions relating to the agricultural, commercial,
   mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of
   the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the
   establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the
   existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.'
   Several things it was expected would be accomplished by
   revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of
   nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected
   to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede
   them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as
   would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves
   against foreign competition. The protective force of the
   existing tariff had been weakened in several important
   manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The
   composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the
   manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in
   their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a
   substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not
   by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best
   conservative opinion of the country, including that which had
   in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of
   the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the
   existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due
   recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to
   consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial
   prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily
   inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special
   interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive
   duties, except for establishing new industries, which more
   than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those
   of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties,
   or those above such standard of equalization, were positively
   injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit.
   They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing
   enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed
   by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a
   plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of
   skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the
   rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most
   part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time
   of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic
   production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present
   condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.
   And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially
   those which have been long established, it would seem that the
   improvements in machinery and processes made within the last
   twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had
   become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit
   our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a
   substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these
   views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff
   duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing
   feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold
   relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty
   and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more
   heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the
   difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,
   the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and
   dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired
   protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must
   have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the
   ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every
   succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was
   not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did
   not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton
   on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of
   more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to
   an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and
   favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country
   were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of
   floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty
   on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired
   the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the
   American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen
   manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted
   to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the
   manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired
   the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned
   them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious
   in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same
   conflict arose between other interests. The method of
   determining how much protection their several interests
   needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always
   been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the
   recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them
   were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law
   were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by
   the commission contained, not including the free list, 631
   articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly
   in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,
   were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631
   articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission
   were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have
   substantially the same rates, though levied under different
   clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than
   those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have
   been classed as doubtful."

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
      book 2, chapter 7._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.
   Attempts at Tariff Reform.
   The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
   President Cleveland's Message.
   The Mills Bill and its defeat.

   The slight concessions made in the protectionist
   tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
   the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
   question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
   American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
   early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
   "protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
   in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
   Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
   its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
   pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
   become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
   fathers as an economic heresy.
{3084}
   The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
   strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
   reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
   was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
   which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
   so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
   on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
   under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
   An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
   the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
   nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
   indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
   Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
   the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
   was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
   until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
   enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
   voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
   The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
   of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
   from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
   Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
   killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
   Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
   bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
   considerable number of articles and placing several others on
   the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
   but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
   During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
   on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
   shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
   steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
   House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
   duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
   the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
   led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
   were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
   he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
   the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
   that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
   sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
   the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
   duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
   the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
   to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
   with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
   refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
   the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
   arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
   same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
   attempt with no better success.

      _O. H. Perry,
      Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887)._

   The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,
   1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland
   which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the
   tariff question into precedence over all other issues in
   national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to
   array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the
   upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized
   the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by
   passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting
   his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of
   the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury
   and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the
   Treasury to which the President called attention was one of
   unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the
   excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying
   with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was
   $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such
   excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended
   June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our
   scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which
   this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into
   the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon
   importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied
   upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt
   liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected
   to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,
   necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this
   taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems
   to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship
   to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the
   vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary
   taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,
   as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to
   consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by
   precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the
   duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these
   imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised
   or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied
   upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these
   home manufactures, because they render it possible for those
   of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed
   articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for
   the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens
   that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,
   millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the
   foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind
   made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the
   same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported
   articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon
   into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,
   who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at
   least approximately equal to this duty to the home
   manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair
   revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will
   require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and
   especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,
   and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as
   are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire
   country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are
   subject to duty.
{3085}
   Many of these do not in any way compete with our own
   manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects
   of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the
   aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of
   luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries
   of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon
   which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be
   greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed
   upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free
   importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to
   reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent
   how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our
   manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a
   better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of
   other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.
   Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their
   sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from
   the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a
   glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more
   certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and
   contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for
   solution should be approached in a spirit higher than
   partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy
   and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective
   action. Both of the great political parties now represented in
   the Government have, by repeated and authoritative
   declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which
   permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,
   and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.
   … Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved
   by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.
   This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition
   which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition
   may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we
   award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such
   advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free
   trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic
   utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort
   in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the
   chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the
   Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the
   2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the
   Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in
   the present condition of things, to place our manufactures
   upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have
   advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our
   manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the
   intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,
   need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals
   in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets
   of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred
   many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues
   now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.
   Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that
   enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the
   most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us
   to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool
   $12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the
   woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by
   placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for
   a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw
   material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher
   duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay
   a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay
   a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule
   we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The
   specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited
   by high rates, who are protected against competition, and
   protected in combinations against the consumer of their
   products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for
   the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the
   amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.
   The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly
   article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is
   peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are
   necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem
   duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance
   with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing
   rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per
   cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per
   cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17
   per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.
   It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35
   per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45
   per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per
   cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,
   flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture
   and articles in common use. These were the more important
   modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills
   Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats
   of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a
   remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the
   subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found
   voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the
   Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as
   a matter of course. The protectionists of that body
   substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary
   direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.
   Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.
   The McKinley Act.

   "In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
   squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
   election of President Harrison were the results. … The
   election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
   certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
   independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
   President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
   many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
   the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
   made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
   they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
   favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
   policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
   led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
   advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
   various directions. …
{3086}
   Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
   of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
   pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
   This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
   Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
   resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
   necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
   Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
   leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
   popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."

      _F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      chapter 5._

   The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the
   Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on
   the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"
   said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the
   prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage
   a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration
   to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and
   by increased production and home competition insure fair
   prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon
   such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the
   soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this
   can be done without injury to any American industry, or
   wherever an existing home industry can be helped without
   detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the
   protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no
   duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of
   production here, including labor, and the cost of like
   production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have
   we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it
   involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance
   of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes
   proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the
   manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole
   measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of
   1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep
   were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States
   was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks
   was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters
   was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of
   raising grain and other farm products, to which they must
   return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The
   enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool
   tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the
   act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in
   alarming proportions, and the business has neither been
   satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties
   on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a
   pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class
   wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½
   cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,
   costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance
   from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that
   with the protection afforded by the increased duties
   recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will
   be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the
   home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to
   the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.
   The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require
   about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per
   cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on
   clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool
   growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the
   tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted
   clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to
   a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious
   injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,
   necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and
   dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our
   home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent
   than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is
   apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the
   last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of
   the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued
   invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly
   $90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home
   consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000
   pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising
   the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection
   to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have
   continued the system of compound duties which have proved to
   be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing
   first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,
   equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if
   imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad
   valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the
   proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several
   classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against
   foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready
   made clothing for the protection of the clothing
   manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty
   on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the
   specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on
   the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,
   and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the
   average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed
   91.78 per cent."

      _Report of the Committee on Ways and Means._

   "Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and
   Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
   weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
   one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
   19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
   with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
   lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
   the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
   it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
   between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
   bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
   by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
   approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
   Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
   law went into effect October 6.
{3087}
   Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:

   steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;

   tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents
   per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free
   list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic
   product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third
   of the importations;

   unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;

   bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a
   duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,
   provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,
   1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced
   in one year 5,000 tons;

   a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon
   beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United
   States between 1891 and 1905;

   all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in
   color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from
   three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent
   additional if imported from a country that pays an export
   bounty;

   a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;

   a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.
   on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;

   a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of
   raw wool designed to give more protection;

   paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.

   The following (among other) additions are made to the free
   list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in
   languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants
   and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,
   needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.
   … Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses
   which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more
   important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free
   by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were
   fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the
   Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the
   House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the
   House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as
   voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the
   Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of
   refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity
   with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion
   by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the
   recommendation of the International American Conference for
   improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the
   importance of securing the markets of central and South
   America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way
   than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending
   tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the
   free entry of the products of any American nation which should
   in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and
   manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea
   again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,
   criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as
   that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade
   concessions in return. He complained that there was not a
   section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that
   would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another
   barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the
   suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the
   bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by
   proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,
   tea and hides from any country which should impose on products
   of the United States exactions which in view of the free
   introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal
   and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to
   demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This
   reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference
   committee and became part of the law."

      _Political Science Quarterly:
      Record of Events, December, 1890._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.
   The Wilson Act.
   Protected interests and the Senate.

   Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of
   protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was
   submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between
   the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and
   congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then
   reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was
   again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both
   houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his
   policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself
   in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,
   produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890
   (see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the
   extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the
   treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,
   first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was
   accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of
   Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the
   more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under
   discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive
   collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic
   members of the House committee on ways and means began during
   the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The
   outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid
   before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the
   previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to
   terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false
   reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic
   features of the bill, as described in the statement of
   Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,
   the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of
   specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those
   great materials of industry that lie at the basis of
   production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,
   first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,
   as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free
   raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of
   industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as
   reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in
   the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the
   McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The
   important additions to the free list included iron ore,
   lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the
   existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from
   one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was
   repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.
{3088}
   Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of
   the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,
   features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business
   of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of
   the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of
   revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee
   set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this
   deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the
   House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the
   29th. During the consideration in committee a number of
   changes were made in the schedules, the most important being
   in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined
   sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate
   instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically
   repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The
   greatest general interest was excited, however, by the
   progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of
   which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after
   formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means
   committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.
   Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty
   on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits
   to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill
   … imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they
   were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,
   losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of
   income were required from all persons having over $3,500,
   under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the
   matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all
   interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income
   above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders
   by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in
   savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …
   The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously
   antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,
   headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways
   and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.
   On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A
   Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small
   majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the
   measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating
   the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.
   The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal
   revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44
   Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans
   not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to
   140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans
   in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee
   the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion
   in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of
   the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid
   before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the
   Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The
   most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal
   off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate
   on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,
   however, that many Democratic senators were seriously
   dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of
   their respective states, and at the end of April there was a
   lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted
   their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to
   in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance
   committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new
   sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very
   numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a
   net increase in rates."

      _Political Science Quarterly:
      Record of Political Events, June, 1894._

   Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it
   became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"
   and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by
   some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting
   obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the
   pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free
   opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the
   conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the
   expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as
   the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,
   1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the
   friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest
   advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the
   people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the
   exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most
   unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the
   indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial
   attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in
   their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,
   but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'
   will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally
   settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,
   becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if
   the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if
   it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing
   status continue, until the country can get rid of its
   purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with
   honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per
   head. This is the growing sentiment of business men
   generally."

      _H. A. Pierce,
      A Review of Finance and Business
      (Banker's Magazine, July, 1894)._

   First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the
   committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
   character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
   the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
   were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
   dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
   rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
   35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
   was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
   law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
   even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
   motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
   important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
   were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
   salt.
{3089}
   In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
   tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
   conference committee to break the strength of the combination
   against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
   reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
   passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
   conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
   House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
   to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
   law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
   adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
   ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
   acted on in the Senate.

   ----------TARIFF: End--------

TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.

TARPEIAN ROCK, The.

      See CAPITOLINE HILL.

TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.

      See ROME: B. C. 510.

TARRACONENSIS.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.
   Occupation by the French.
   Surrender to the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.
   Siege by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

TARSUS.

      See CILICIA.

TARTAN.

   The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the
   Assyrian armies.

TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TARTARS, OR TATARS.

   "The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the
   greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in
   imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the
   name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia
   after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and
   is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain
   tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as
   I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and
   whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of
   Northern Manchuria."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 25._

   "The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.
   It was long customary among geographical writers to give this
   title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a
   distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the
   Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether
   correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later
   authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have
   declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and
   by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the
   tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern
   division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian
   empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true
   origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to
   the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of
   whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be
   more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the
   customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is
   determined."

      _J. C. Prichard,
      Researches into the Physical History
      of the Races of Mankind,
      chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2)._

   "The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia
   and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],
   belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the
   Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he
   belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he
   belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to
   insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with
   which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at
   least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse
   to call a Turk a Kalmuk."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Nationalities of Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 23._

   "Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form
   generally current), a name given to nearly three million
   inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of
   Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants
   of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who
   inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous
   Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some
   extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.
   … The ethnographical features of the present Tartar
   inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,
   show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of
   Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the
   Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only
   Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were
   Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders
   were Turks."

      _P. A. Kropotkine,
      Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 2, division 1, page 37._

      See TURKS;
      and MONGOLS.

TARTESSUS.

   "The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician
   settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to
   the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of
   Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as
   Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth
   century."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 18._

   This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as
   Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 21, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Kenrick,
      Phoenicia,
      chapter 4, section 3._

TARUMI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

TARUSATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

TATARS.

      See TARTARS.

TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.

      See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.

{3090}

TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
   The Welcome to Monmouth.
   The Maids of Taunton and their flag.

   "When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an
   eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned
   towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great
   civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to
   the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and
   had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,
   afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole
   streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of
   the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years
   before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the
   Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and
   affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of
   flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his
   hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of
   the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.
   One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems
   of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of
   young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,
   and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,
   these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the
   queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from
   their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.

   The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,
   a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,
   "a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."

      See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;
      and CIMMERIANS.

TAURIS, Naval battle near.

   In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an
   important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little
   island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who
   commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove
   him out of the Adriatic.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 21._

TAVORA PLOT, The.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

TAWACONIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

TAXIARCH.
PHYLARCH.

   "The tribe appears to have been the only military
   classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only
   tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,
   under the general-in-chief."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

TAYLOR, General Zachary,
   The Mexican campaign of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

   Presidential election and administration.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

TCHINOVNIKS.

   To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in
   motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army
   of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the
   noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class
   called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays
   an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,
   but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to
   explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,
   are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,
   arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or
   rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man
   must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and
   he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step
   on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,
   the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what
   offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a
   necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does
   not designate any actual office, and the names of the
   different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."

      _D. M. "Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 13._

TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

TEA: Introduction into Europe.

   "The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it
   into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland
   in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent
   at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to
   introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it
   was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company
   first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into
   general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000
   lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000
   lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      page 239._

TEA-PARTY, The Boston.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

TECPANECAS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TECTOSAGES.

      See VOLCÆ.

TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811;
   and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

TECUNA, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

TEGYRA, Battle of.

   The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in
   the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
   Lokrian territory.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 38._

TEHUEL-CHE, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

TELINGAS, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

TELL, William, The Legend of.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

TELMELCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{3091}

TEMENIDÆ, The.

   "The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its
   royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves
   Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the
   same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide
   dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the
   disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel
   between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight
   of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,
   that during these troubles individual members of the royal
   house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for
   their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused
   affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the
   brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from
   the shores of Peloponnesus."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

TEMENITES.

   One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was
   so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it
   contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called
   Neapolis.

TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

TEMPE, Vale of.

      See THESSALY.

   ----------TEMPLARS: Start--------

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.
   The founding of the Order.

   "During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was
   constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,
   and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their
   visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of
   whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.
   Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce
   mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the
   monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the
   king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands
   of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,
   adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without
   ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king
   assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the
   canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and
   the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,
   or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were
   bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their
   order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted
   on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had
   to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was
   released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to
   implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de
   Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The
   Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an
   account of their order and its objects, which were highly
   approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of
   Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made
   some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as
   their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards
   added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was
   formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,
   which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble
   inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be
   glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three
   hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had
   become members of the order."

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
      chapter 4._

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
   The Order in England and elsewhere.

   "The Knights Templars first established the chief house of
   their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the
   south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly
   stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were
   afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple,
   established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure
   from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the
   wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when
   the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of
   Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the
   resources of the society were strictly and faithfully
   forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the
   faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers,
   power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original
   purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the
   knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more
   extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a
   large space of ground, extending from the White Friars
   westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the
   erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with
   the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great
   religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was
   called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original
   establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known
   by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for
   the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving
   brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of
   handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated
   by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious
   pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple
   Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in
   England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the
   Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms,
   churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets,
   windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common
   and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property
   possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the
   taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual
   income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at
   six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the
   Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in
   Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches
   arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of
   sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition
   to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and
   immunities."

      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 3._

{3092}

   When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property
   confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were
   granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl
   of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of
   Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for
   a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and
   during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied
   by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that
   order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into
   the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession
   as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a
   petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to
   assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was
   accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the
   Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of
   the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to
   the Crown."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 2, chapter 7._

   "Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of
   the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in
   pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking
   out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of
   Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres
   Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of
   learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant
   being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."

      _W. Thornbury,
      Old and New London,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars
      chapter 7._

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299.
   Their last campaign in Palestine.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314.
   The prosecution and destruction of the order.

   "When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on
   the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the
   Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus.
   By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all
   returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in
   France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them.
   In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against
   the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the
   King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian
   mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and
   death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the
   side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had
   held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no
   gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society
   endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore
   temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out
   respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and
   blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular
   proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard
   in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes.
   Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures,
   led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And
   there was more than this: there were strange rumours of
   horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to
   believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in
   October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested
   all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their
   goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his
   hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of
   the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark
   and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two
   hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the
   brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the
   depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what
   can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others
   threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They
   made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of
   their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the
   trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably
   little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their
   confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle
   which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the
   crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous
   practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us,
   in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the
   vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The
   knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of
   their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible
   prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which
   they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France,
   began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had
   received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but
   suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against
   the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's
   minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by
   the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of
   Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni
   suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be
   treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the
   Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an
   enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars
   perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis.
   … The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in
   March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed;
   and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given
   over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery
   of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to
   William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment
   did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the
   spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands.
   One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the
   order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand
   Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more.
   The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a
   commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the
   confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to
   perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master
   and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and
   declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the
   abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with
   devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered
   them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there
   they were fastened to the stake and burnt."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3._

{3093}

   In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated
   by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs
   of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to
   examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of
   the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of
   the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the
   effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the
   Templars in England was placed under the charge of a
   commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against
   them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own,
   giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part
   of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to
   the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to
   monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular
   habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In
   Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against
   the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases
   torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in
   France, and those places where Philip's influence was
   powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 7._

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5)._

   ----------TEMPLARS: End--------

TEMPLE, The (London).

      See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.

TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.

   After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which
   were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great
   Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his
   eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and
   plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to
   Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The
   temple, however, was built according to his design; its site,
   now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can
   still be traced with great certainty at the north-western
   angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The
   building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor
   Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of
   the greatest events of Roman history."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1)._

TEMPLE OF DIANA.

      See EPHESUS.

TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.

   "The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of
   Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood
   near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the
   verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small
   'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or
   perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much
   minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without
   columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its
   doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at
   peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional
   founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once
   after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of
   Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue,
   probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus
   Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to
   this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous
   shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which
   were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."

      _J. H. Middleton,
      Ancient Rome in 1885,
      chapter 5._

   The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after
   the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in
   Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of
   the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the
   computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ
   to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had
   refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his
   precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this
   solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly.
   … The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets
   and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A
   new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately
   predicted."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 60._

TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.

   "As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique
   capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add
   sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre
   of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …
   had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But
   it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built
   by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and
   he had received the promise that the great work should be
   accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself
   with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his
   reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the
   friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.
   … The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in
   letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A
   commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish
   the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and
   oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of
   an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers
   have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have
   spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure
   which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest
   and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it
   certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,
   the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly
   stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount
   Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of
   Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of
   the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the
   threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise
   this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human
   difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but
   less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been
   chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500
   yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,
   which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,
   quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out
   of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only
   have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It
   was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to
   his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone
   rendered such undertakings possible. …
{3094}
   Four classes were subject to it.

   1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn
   Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet
   30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one
   month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.

   2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such
   as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and
   worked for pay.

   3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or
   sold for debt, or home-born.

   4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal
   Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000
   burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of
   Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite
   officers.

   The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs
   of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the
   dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward,
   perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad
   narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that
   the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss
   of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of
   his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its
   materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and
   commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long,
   35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic
   habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations.
   … Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we
   know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level
   roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel
   at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the
   Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the
   three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or
   planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and
   silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with
   carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were
   decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do
   we know with certainty whether it was supported within by
   pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for
   twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred
   years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple
   of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries
   to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's
   Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its
   objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines
   which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood
   for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the
   Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till
   seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the
   Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the
   general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions
   and admitted many innovations."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      The First Book of Kings,
      chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible)._

TEN, The Council of.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

TEN YEARS WAR, The.

   The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,
   Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian
   War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The
   war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the
   Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic
   War.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      See ATHENS: B. C. 421.

TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster.
   The Tenant League.

      See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.

TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

TENCTHERI, The.

   See USIPETES.

TENEDOS.

   See TROJA;
   and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

TENEZ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

   ----------TENNESSEE: Start--------

TENNESSEE:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
   Shaftesbury and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748.
   First English exploration from Virginia.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.
   The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The first settlers in the eastern valley.
   The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.

   "Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial
   struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British
   king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists
   from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the
   mountains.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.

   But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations
   agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between
   the Ohio and the Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

   This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as
   offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,
   the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right
   than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great
   hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a
   debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own
   against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee
   consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running
   from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the
   Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka
   Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In
   this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the
   Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other
   streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The
   upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the
   headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;
   and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it
   was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from
   Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the
   valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the
   western frontier, the first movements of population went
   parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.
{3095}
   As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most
   part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western
   North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first
   settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great
   part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each
   case there was also a very considerable movement directly
   westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and
   intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the
   adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent
   passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a
   population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;
   yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but
   natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish
   Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close
   behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …
   In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first
   permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the
   settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia
   settlement, which had for a short time existed on the
   head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At
   first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of
   Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern
   boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of
   the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the
   Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and
   discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits
   of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that
   they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that
   their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the
   Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon
   their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to
   organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga
   commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came
   to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal
   governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the
   insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle
   ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of
   Alamance.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

   As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back
   counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up
   their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper
   Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving
   its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first
   comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers
   always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier
   civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of
   sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and
   beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the
   founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of
   Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some
   kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work
   equity between man and man. Two of their number already
   towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and
   merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next
   thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that
   portion of the Southwest which largely through their own
   efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither
   of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James
   Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for
   combination, so striking as existing together with the equally
   characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers
   determined to organize a government of their own. They
   promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring
   of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the
   movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement,
   by which their conduct should be governed; and these were
   known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed
   a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the
   mountains, or by a community composed of American-born
   freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and
   self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the
   Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance.
   They were the first men of American birth to establish a free
   and independent community on the continent. … The first step
   taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to
   organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of
   folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then
   elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or
   'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently
   the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each
   block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins
   and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier
   legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who
   proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier
   and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry
   on the actual business of government, and should exercise both
   judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a
   sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and
   enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this
   little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of
   full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true
   American style a purely democratic government with
   representative institutions."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),
      The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,
      chapters 2-6._

      _J. Phelan,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapters 1-3._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
   Annexation to North Carolina.
   Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.
   Consequent revolt.
   Repeal of the act of cession.

   "The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of
   association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an
   independent government, governed as the older colonies were
   governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between
   the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their
   views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a
   distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …
   rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary
   for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for
   annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The
   provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in
   November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were
   delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …
{3096}
   After the annexation of the Washington District the old form
   of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …
   In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington
   became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances
   of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of
   the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the
   inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was
   active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.
   Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,
   under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also
   the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on
   with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session
   of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance
   with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with
   the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,
   imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to
   the United States all the territory which is now the State of
   Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.

   This of course included all the settlements. The condition of
   the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years.
   Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the
   jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every
   respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession
   was first broached, it was accepted by the four
   representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well
   as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate
   solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of
   opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is
   no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection
   to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the
   cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was
   that North Carolina had left them without any form of
   government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept
   through the entire settlement. … The people regarded
   themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of
   their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in
   their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in
   the history of institutions that the possessors of English
   tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local
   self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter
   sessions, township, county, school district, or military
   company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so
   convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them
   as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the
   county court. Each company elected two representatives, and
   the representatives so elected in each county formed
   themselves into a committee, and the three committees of
   Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of
   impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a
   general convention to be elected by the people of the
   different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August,
   1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and
   Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention
   which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a
   'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of
   North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a
   future convention in which representation was to be according
   to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly
   inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still
   claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North
   Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was
   supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a
   new State."

      _J. Phelan,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapters 5-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Gilmore,
      John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder,
      chapter 2._

      _J. G. M. Ramsey,
      Annals of Tennessee,
      chapter 3._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780.
   The Battle of King's Mountain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785.
   The organization of the State of Franklin.

   "Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again
   under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried
   urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous
   November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions
   beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can
   be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and
   quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too
   intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think
   for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on
   Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried
   into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed
   much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why
   Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had
   nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of
   1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its
   protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in
   this condition had called a convention, had framed a
   constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a
   name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session
   at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of
   what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the
   second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given
   the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a
   constitution which they submitted to the people. It was
   expected that the men of the district would consider it
   carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which
   should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed
   upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as
   there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or
   Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution
   could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene
   till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to
   organize. Elections were held without delay; members were
   chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been
   accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the
   parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their
   business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March
   they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone
   excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded
   merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that
   time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a
   long one. But there would be no article in the list less
   plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came
   to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,
   it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such
   articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.
{3097}
   One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a
   shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling
   and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was
   worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard
   of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a
   three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in
   selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to
   place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally
   determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,
   should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In
   this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of
   every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the
   hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the
   East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the
   new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.
   Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon
   passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins
   of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of
   the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of
   the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high
   officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it
   was named after him."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. M. Ramsey,
      Annals of Tennessee,
      chapter 4._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
   The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.
   The rise of the state of Tennessee.

   On receiving news of the organization of the independent state
   of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a
   proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler
   judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its
   effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina
   "gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority
   still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government
   but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition
   of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated
   into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and
   both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both
   became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became
   enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims
   of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as
   the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit
   led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst
   of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect
   to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had
   been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however,
   in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The
   continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of
   parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse
   to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local
   government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be
   more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with
   his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly
   appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the
   independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin
   himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for
   counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally
   rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of
   the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were
   already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh
   outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of
   the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The
   conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the
   malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the
   reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased
   to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and
   their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until,
   in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and
   imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the
   aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and
   was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of
   allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults
   forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded
   in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong,
   and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784,
   "in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis
   Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of
   Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution,
   North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western
   territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to
   the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to
   be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."
   The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with
   William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796),
   the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a
   census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves,
   a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed,
   with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in
   Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as
   one of the United States of America. Its first Representative
   in the House was Andrew Jackson.

      _W. H. Carpenter,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapters 13-17._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Gilmore,
      John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder,
      chapters 4-12._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.
   Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).
   The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.

   "The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On
   the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with
   the object of following the lead, in secession, which South
   Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

{3098}

   It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The
   election took place on the 8th day of February. The people
   voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In
   disregard of this vote of the people, however, the
   legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing
   the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate
   States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris,
   sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He
   stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should
   become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force
   and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said
   state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall
   be under the chief control and direction of the President of
   the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state
   would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over
   all public property it might acquire from the United States.
   The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of
   both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th
   day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a
   declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of
   the people for ratification. This document waives the right of
   secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of
   Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract
   doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and
   independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances
   by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are
   hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the
   governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure.
   It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in
   declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union,
   placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right,
   which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."

      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Moore, editor,
      Rebellion Record,
      volume 1, documents 201-205._

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2)._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).
   The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.

   "For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee
   gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession
   was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been
   already delivered by its governor and legislature to the
   Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel
   troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at
   any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the
   straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300
   of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred
   from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of
   drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and
   villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of
   the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great
   honor, had no lot or part in the work."

      _W. G. Brownlow,
      Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession,
      pages 222-223._

   "Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated,
   the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to
   hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best
   course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The
   attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates
   present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four
   days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and
   Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to
   the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United
   States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States
   has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has
   thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The
   Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being
   dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue
   measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain
   protest! It was not long before those Unionists and
   protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and
   were hunted down like wild beasts."

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Humes,
      The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee,
      chapters 6-11._

      _W. Rule,
      Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2)._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).
   The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and
   Fort Donelson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March).
   Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).
   The continued advance of the Union armies.
   Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
   The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).
   Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender
   of Memphis by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).
   The Buell-Bragg campaign.
   Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).
   Bragg and Rosecrans.
   The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April).
   Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July).
   The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
      Burnside in east Tennessee.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
         BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
   The Chickamauga campaign and battle.
   The Union army at Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
   The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.
   Lookout Mountain.
   Missionary Ridge.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December).
   Siege of Knoxville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

{3099}

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).
   Winter operations.
   Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April).
   The Fort Pillow Massacre.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
   Forrest's raid.
   The capture of Athens.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).
   Hood's invasion and destruction.
   The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.
   President Johnson's recognition of the
   reconstructed State Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
   Reconstruction.
   Abolition of Slavery.
   Restoration of the State to its
   "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

   In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though
   Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of
   military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention
   originating from his recommendation and assembling under his
   auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of
   January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who
   'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never
   voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never
   voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee,
   as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and
   controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her
   citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government
   of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular
   convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution,
   'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and
   further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law
   recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took
   several other important steps, annulling in whole and in
   detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had
   made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was
   swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt
   created in aid of the war against the Union. All these
   proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of
   February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293
   against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at
   the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's
   requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly
   complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the
   popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G.
   Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of
   'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on
   the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second
   inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month
   later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the
   Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by
   National authority to that already decreed by the State. The
   Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent
   Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the
   United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was
   thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr.
   Lincoln."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

   After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee,
   more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to
   its constitutional relations with the United States, by the
   admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress.
   Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to
   obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the
   Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the
   reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing
   the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a
   proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to
   assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every
   effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required
   number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the
   President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification."
   By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of
   considering the members who were under arrest and confined in
   a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was
   assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified.
   "Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr.
   Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider
   a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the
   restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on
   Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced
   a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is
   hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to
   the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators
   and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified,
   upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing
   laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the
   House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the
   Senate.

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _Ira P. Jones,
      Reconstruction in Tennessee
      (Why the Solid South? chapter 7)._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871.
   The Ku Klux Klan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

   ----------TENNESSEE: End--------

TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

TENOCHTITLAN.

   The native name of the city of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TENPET, The.

      See MAGIANS.

TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.

TEQUESTA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TERENTILIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TERMILI, The.

      See LYCIANS.

TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TERRA FIRMA.

      See TIERRA FIRME.

{3100}

TERROR, The Reign of.

   As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of
   things that prevailed in France during a period of the French
   Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27
   (Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called
   is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June
   2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained
   power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The
   Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a
   deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the
   demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the
   following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may
   be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible
   Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).

TERTIARII, The.

      See BEGUINES, ETC.

TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

TESHER.

   The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert,
   signifying red earth.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

TESSERA HOSPITALIS.

      See HOSPES.

TEST ACT, and its Repeal.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673,
      and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

TETONS, The.

      See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TETRARCH.

   As originally used, this official title, from the Greek,
   signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or
   province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary
   princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a
   rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.

TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.

TEUKRIANS, The.

   "The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh
   century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he
   treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors
   represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica.
   However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather
   that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great
   occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually
   the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this
   region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic
   Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present
   use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 14._

TEUTECAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

TEUTONES.
TEUTONIC.

   "In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the
   Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names
   with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little.
   They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. …
   Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of
   the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical
   word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in
   question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,'
   'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,'
   'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch
   means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the
   Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the
   circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and
   Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is
   wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and
   Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on
   the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word
   meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective
   applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in
   opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary
   form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers.
   Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form
   'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection
   with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear
   that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the
   Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial
   the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting
   the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time,
   it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,
   irrespective of origin or locality."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus,
      appendix 3._


TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
   The founding of the order.

   "It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation
   of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190
   that it received its full organization as one of the
   recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement,
   like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About
   1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the
   siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife,
   intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice
   of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and
   interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer
   countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to
   Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and
   hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more
   distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that
   the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a
   chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he
   passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and
   to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One
   by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in
   his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the
   pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the
   care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their
   defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed
   Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of
   the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
   although they did not actually join this Order, whose
   operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during
   the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order
   received its final and complete organization as one of the
   great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the
   Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem
   by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and
   Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and
   sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the
   designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the
   Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed
   its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is
   much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this
   or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems,
   however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 3, chapter 1._

{3101}

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
   Conquest of Prussia.

   See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
   Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order
   and surrender of its territories.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809.
   Suppression by Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882; and 1882-1883.

TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).

   The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward
   IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected
   by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4,
   1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and
   slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was
   taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is
   uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died
   mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower.
   It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

   ----------TEXAS: Start--------

TEXAS:
   The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.

   Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century
   existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it,
   and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes,
   "the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their
   name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who]
   speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches,
   the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _President's Message, February 19, 1806,
      with accompanying documents._

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687.
   La Salle's shipwrecked colony.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
   Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.
   Condition as a Mexican province.
   Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.

   "By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the
   Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the
   western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west
   of the Sabine.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

   After the final ratification of that treaty by both
   governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to
   the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the
   country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province
   of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy
   of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western
   boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The
   province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native
   tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish
   settlements. … The whole population, including some
   settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded
   5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of
   old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the
   province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San
   Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the
   government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and
   military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such
   was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the
   year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the
   24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican
   form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent
   states,' known and designated as the 'United States of
   Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and
   Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly
   represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the
   establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico,
   the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite
   subject of national policy with the new government. To attract
   population for the settlement of the country, colonization
   laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from
   foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants
   within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws
   enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some
   portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,'
   were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and
   settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their
   respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being
   proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The
   first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham,
   Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required
   by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the
   United States. This enterprising man, having departed from
   Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey
   through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to
   be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who
   possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the
   arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's
   enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the
   Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the
   province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole
   area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into
   extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios'
   with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as
   well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment
   the population in all the departments until the year 1834,
   when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican
   Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of
   Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony
   comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire
   population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United
   States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this
   period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the
   vicinity of Bexar."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
      volume 2, pages 569-572._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Yoakum,
      History of Texas,
      volume 1, chapters 15-21._

{3102}

TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
   The introduction of Slavery.
   Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.
   Revolutionary movement under Houston.
   Independence of Mexico declared,
   and practically won at San Jacinto.

   The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with
   them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the
   Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the
   importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign
   countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the
   same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of
   slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States
   began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them.
   The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State
   and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase
   south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to
   the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the
   territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited
   for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for
   the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory
   for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of
   power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican
   government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the
   American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two
   to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the
   importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by
   the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within
   its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found
   themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in
   sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to
   its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and
   eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth
   looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as
   matters of very great importance, and the annexation project
   was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers
   in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation,
   and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican
   authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did
   not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the
   Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging
   the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was
   created by organizing three land companies in New York, which
   used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of
   issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and
   thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business
   speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to
   purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State
   under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the
   Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions,
   but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the
   coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into
   Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now
   received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of
   Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian
   wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting
   that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that
   President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions.
   Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American
   colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to
   collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna,
   who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at
   the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the
   unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took
   place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage.
   The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2,
   1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom
   there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution
   of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under
   its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible
   guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a
   Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious
   butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the
   American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at
   San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large
   number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate.
   These atrocities created a great excitement in the United
   States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800
   strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of
   1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner.
   When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the
   victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country,
   and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this
   the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the
   United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position.
   President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to
   march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to
   apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the
   boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican
   Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The
   organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been
   suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7._

      _A. M. Williams,
      Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas._

TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
   Eight years of independence.
   Annexation to the United States.
   The question in Congress and the country.

   "Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the
   independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic
   established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on
   that of the United States, and with General Houston
   inaugurated as its first President. The United States
   forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year
   application was made to the United States government to
   receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was
   at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was
   destined to play a most important part in American civil
   policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined
   attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive
   emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the
   temporary organization of a republic, and the application to
   be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a
   conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen
   or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in
   the republic.
{3103}
   Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the
   annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by
   General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his
   inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a
   Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The
   annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,
   owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was
   placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected
   him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.
   Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by
   the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty
   of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to
   the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the
   South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in
   the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
   Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for
   the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views
   previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and
   both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly
   defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk
   received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and
   made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his
   ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to
   make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the
   anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk
   was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait
   for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was
   introduced into the House of Representatives providing for
   annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for
   free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This
   proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure
   eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in
   which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,
   the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,
   unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged
   that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
   Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its
   territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be
   admitted with or without slavery, as their people might
   desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.
   Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to
   leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this
   great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;
   her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a
   state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under
   which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in
   the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not
   belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200
   miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore
   secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the
   substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years View,
      volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8, chapter 13._

      _H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
      chapter 10._

TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848.
   The Mexican War.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.

TEXAS: A. D. 1848.
   Territory extorted from Mexico in the
   Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

TEXAS: A. D. 1850.
   Sale of territory to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1862.
   Farragut's occupation of coast towns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June).
   Provisional government set up under President Johnson's
   Plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

   ----------TEXAS: End--------

TEZCUCO.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

THABORITES, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

THAI RACE, The.

      See SIAM.

THAMANÆANS, The.

   An ancient people who occupied the region in western
   Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the
   Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
      chapter 1._

THAMES, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

THANAGE.

   An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were
   held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, page 246._

THANE,
THEGN.

      See COMITATUS;
      and ETHEL;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THANET, The Jute Landing on.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.

THANKSGIVING DAY, The American:
   Its origin.

   "The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social
   enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the
   sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their
   landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the
   harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,
   combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The
   Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day
   secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.
   Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and
   brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three
   days, during which they captured five deer to add to the
   larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round
   of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors
   with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious
   services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful
   Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus
   heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England
   festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be
   a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become
   national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake
   shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …
{3104}
   In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is
   mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a
   religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it
   was so much a matter of course that the records did not
   mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with
   its sermon and holiday features."

      _J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      pages 179-180, and foot-note._

THANN,
THAUN,
   Battle of (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   Battle of (1809).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

THAPSACUS.

   Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka,
   at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where
   that river is fordable (though even here only at certain
   seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used
   alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long
   period. It was also a commercial route of importance in
   ancient times."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also, APAMEA.

THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

THASOS.
THASIAN MINES.

   Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern
   part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its
   gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians.
   Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast
   were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued
   by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

THAUR, The Cave of Mount.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

THAUSS, Battle of (1431).

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

THEATINES, The.

   The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were
   "Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro
   Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a
   lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the
   ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city,
   Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his
   pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of
   the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a
   Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it
   was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of
   Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name
   to the new order of the Theatines."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter-Reformation,
      page 28._

   "To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not
   only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from
   begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their
   dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular
   clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their
   intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the
   priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their
   clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the
   sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the
   Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests
   precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it
   grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be
   considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._

THEBAIS, The.

   The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from
   Thebes.

THEBES, Egypt.

   "No city of the old world can still show so much of her former
   splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of
   Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many
   of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came,
   fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great
   city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival,
   rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close
   of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line
   of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their
   capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a
   local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of
   Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty.
   Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries
   earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil
   and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of
   thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu,
   and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own
   famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name
   was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply
   Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we
   recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

   ----------THEBES, Greece: Start--------

THEBES, Greece:
   The founding of the city.

   "In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which
   stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the
   Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which
   separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,
   pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay
   the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,
   it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited
   the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians
   whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay
   on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and
   Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the
   ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.
   mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,
   Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and
   Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,
   Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.
   He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,
   on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few
   relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on
   the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly
   hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it
   nothing remains; even this number seven points to the
   Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by
   these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate
   belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;
   the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …
{3105}
   The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine
   stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,
   whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west
   belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician
   goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the
   Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this
   circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,
   Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and
   letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the
   Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,
   even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst
   they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing
   of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the
   other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the
   Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called
   Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—
   taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over
   from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most
   important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of
   Cadmea."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, BŒOTIA.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506.
   Unsuccessful war with Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480.
   Traitorous alliance with the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.
   Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.
   Punishment for the Persian alliance.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.
   War with Athens.
   Defeat at Œnophyta.
   Overthrow of the oligarchies.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.
   Bœotian revolution.
   Overthrow of Athenian influence.
   Defeat of Athens at Coronea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.
   Disastrous attack on Platæa.
   Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403.
   Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.
   The Corinthian War.
   Battle of Coronea.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383.
   The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.
   The liberation of the city.
   Rise of Epaminondas.
   Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378.
   The Sacred Band.

   "This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages
   of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the
   Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the
   Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front
   of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient
   institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a
   new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas.
   They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths,
   with whom they had presented themselves before the community
   on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as
   the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no
   longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three
   Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in
   feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already
   under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing
   themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the
   elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the
   rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and
   discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds
   of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like
   spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points
   of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the
   present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an
   honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 1._

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.
   Intervention in Peloponnesus.
   Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.
   Invasions of Sparta.
   Formation of the Arcadian Union.
   Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.
   The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.
   Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
   Loss of independence and liberty.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335.
   Revolt.
   Destruction by Alexander the Great.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316.
   Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290.
   Siege of by Demetrius.

   Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against
   Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of
   Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a
   siege which lasted nearly a year.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60._

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.
   Sack by the Normans of Sicily.
   Abduction of silk-weavers.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205.
   Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.

      See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311.
   Conquest by the Catalans.

      See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

   ----------THEBES, Greece: End--------

THEGN,
THANE.

   See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THEIPHALI.
THEIPHALIA.

      See TAIFALÆ.

THEMES.

   Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term
   thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military
   districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata,
   and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate
   geographical administrative divisions."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note._

      See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.

THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.

THEODORA,
   Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.

THEODORE, King of Corsica.

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

   Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.

   Theodore II., Pope, 898.

   Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.

   Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.

   Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.

   Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.

THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488;
      and ROME: A. D. 488-526.

{3106}

THEODOSIAN CODE, The.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor
   (Eastern), A. D. 378-395;
   (Western), 392-395;
   in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

   Theodosius II., Roman Emperor
   (Eastern), 408-450;
   (Western), 423-425.

   Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.

THEOPHILUS,
   Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.

THEORI.

   The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to
   its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and
   public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was
   specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose
   function it was to superintend and take charge of religious
   affairs in general, though they often possessed along with
   this some more extensive political power."

      _G. Schumann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 5._

THEORICON, The.

   "By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of
   the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state
   [Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less
   than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large
   sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money.
   By it is understood the money which was distributed among the
   people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly
   to restore to the citizens the sum required for their
   admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a
   better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with
   which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of
   the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently
   had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative
   offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent.
   They were elected by the assembly of the people through
   cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their
   number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one
   from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the
   treasury of the theorica its private treasury."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13._

THEOW.

   "In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow'
   [from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple,
   whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or
   purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the
   slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works
   for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because
   he cannot pay his debts."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 37._

THERA.

   The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the
   Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and
   weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have
   founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      See CYRENAICA.

   "The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic
   eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at
   the height of the Minoan civilization."

      _Wikipedia: Santorini.
      Transcriber's Note._

THERMÆ.

   "The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the
   common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was
   that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were
   formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for
   gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which
   stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and
   spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the
   Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of
   buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the
   Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each
   side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central
   mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other
   great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian,
   Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan
   as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the
   interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of
   marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as
   distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had
   none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were
   found in the courts of the great thermæ."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction._

THERMIDOR, The month.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

THERMIDORIANS.
   The Ninth of Thermidor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and
      1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.

      See THESSALY.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.
   The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352.
   Repulse of Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279.
   Defense against the Gauls.

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191.
   Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822.
   Greek victory over the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

THERVINGI, The.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

THESMOPHORIA, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THESMOTHETES.

      See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

THESPROTIANS.

      See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.

   ----------THESSALONICA: Start--------

THESSALONICA.

   Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the
   name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister
   of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave
   an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high
   commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the
   Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.
   Massacre ordered by Theodosius.

   A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the
   imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,
   was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish
   that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest
   possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,
   to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the
   assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been
   posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the
   races, but of a general massacre.
{3107}
   The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without
   discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of
   innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the
   number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some
   writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The
   guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent
   residence at Thessalonica."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 27._

THESSALONICA: A. D. 904.
   Capture and pillage by the Saracens.

   The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from
   Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of
   its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the
   fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down
   to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword
   were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the
   second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth.
   The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit
   dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 2._

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1204-1222.
   Capital of the kingdom of Saloniki.

      See SALONIKI.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1222-1234.
   The Greek empire.

      See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1430.
   Capture by the Turks.

   Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was
   taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430.
   "'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta,
   an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the
   hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family
   escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of
   the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day,
   each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets
   of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of
   caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries.
   Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men,
   mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of
   sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death
   itself.'"

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 10, section 27._

   ----------THESSALONICA: End--------

THESSALY.

   "The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length
   by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from
   the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus,
   and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge
   first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the
   northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route
   still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into
   Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the
   eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and
   richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills,
   after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the
   loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely
   free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys
   parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the
   Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth
   rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range
   which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the
   first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a
   steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus,
   with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute
   the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The
   mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is
   broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow
   cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned
   in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The
   imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to
   dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the
   sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his
   laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ],
   the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into
   which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a
   continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale,
   which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a
   separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its
   physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a
   huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at
   Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the
   Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in
   direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount
   Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is
   continued without interruption, though under various names and
   different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan
   Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus,
   connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and
   afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of
   Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of
   Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of
   Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally
   by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians,
   however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian
   plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading
   tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the
   country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing
   the Pindus mountain-range.

      See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS;
      and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

THETES, The.

      See DEBT, ANCIENT LEGISLATION CONCERNING: GREEK;
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

THEUDEBERT, King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 596-612.

THIASI.

   "The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had
   chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in
   whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal
   banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very
   varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes
   only social enjoyments."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece,
      part 3, chapter 3, section 2._

THIBAULT I., King of Navarre, A. D. 1236-1253.

   Thibault II., King of Navarre, 1253-1270.

THIBET.

      See TIBET.

THIERRY I., King of the Franks, at Metz, A. D. 511-534.

   Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;
   King of Burgundy, 596-613.

   Thierry III., King of the Franks
   (Neustria and Burgundy), 670-691.

   Thierry IV., King of the Franks
   (Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy), 720-737.

{3108}

THIERS, Adolphe, and the founding of the third French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

THIN.
THINÆ.

      See CHINA: The NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

THING.
THINGVALLA.
ALTHING.

   "The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen
   represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and
   allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many
   local names throughout England, and more especially in the
   extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and
   where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as
   an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the
   Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of
   Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air
   assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly
   going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the
   governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known
   as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed
   in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and
   Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly,
   and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well
   as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or
   great council."

      _R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,
      volume 1._

   "By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland,
   a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the
   coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened
   their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement
   of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were
   called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was
   independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of
   two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of
   nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon
   arrived when the progress of political thought began to work
   upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of
   local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a
   commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The
   Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of
   lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles
   deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west,
   between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará,
   (Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost
   to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or
   Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. …
   This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that
   is known to history."

      _G. L. Gomme,
      Primitive Folk-Moots,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Dasent,
      introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."_

      See, also, NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

THINGMEN.

      See HOUSECARLS.

THINIS.

      See MEMPHIS, EGYPT;
      also EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

THIONVILLE: A. D. 1643.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1643.

THIONVILLE: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

THIRD ESTATE, The.

   See ESTATES, THE THREE.

THIRTEEN COLONIES, The.

      See
      MASSACHUSETTS;
      RHODE ISLAND;
      CONNECTICUT;
      NEW HAMPSHIRE;
      NEW YORK;
      NEW JERSEY;
      PENNSYLVANIA;
      DELAWARE:
      MARYLAND;
      VIRGINIA;
      NORTH CAROLINA;
      SOUTH CAROLINA;
      GEORGIA;

      also, NEW ENGLAND.

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

THIRTY TYRANTS OF ATHENS, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THIRTY TYRANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

THIRTY YEARS TRUCE, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648:
      and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.

THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, The.

   "In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in
   number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were
   revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number,
   thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made
   binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 12._

THIS,
THINIS.

      See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE;
      also, MEMPHIS, EGYPT.

THISTLE: Its adoption as the national emblem of Scotland.

      See SAINT ANDREW: THE SCOTTISH ORDER.

THISTLE, Order of the.

   A Scottish order of knighthood instituted by James V. in 1530.

THOMAS, General George H.:
   Campaign against Zollicoffer.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

   Refusal of the command of the Army of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE;
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   The Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
      to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

   Campaign against Hood.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

THOMAS À BECKET, Saint, and King Henry II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

THOMPSON'S STATION, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

THORN, Peace of (1466).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

"THOROUGH," Wentworth and Laud's government system.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

THRACE: B. C. 323-281.
   The kingdom of Lysimachus and its overthrow.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280.

{3109}

THRACIANS, The.

   "That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and
   Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian
   tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the
   innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or
   Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race
   known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or
   under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. …
   Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and
   character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great
   uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a
   few particularities. … The general character of the race
   presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the
   presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It
   appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side
   of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of
   this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected,
   also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to
   present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in
   those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed
   not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of
   Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important
   differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with
   mercenary troops and slaves."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 26._

   "Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its
   prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the
   Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in
   resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. …
   No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the
   Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it
   broke up into several principalities."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 7, chapter 1._

   "Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest
   of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the
   Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development,
   and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as
   having any historically memorable course of its own. … The
   Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of
   peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful
   influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the
   place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their
   wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be
   conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty
   outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal
   mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating
   sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of
   blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous
   excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious
   and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of
   the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of
   vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and
   the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D.
   46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman
   province.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

   In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which
   had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and
   which, in the first century of our era, had excited the
   attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it
   occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had
   formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian
   tribes."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 1._

THREE CHAPTERS, The dispute of the.

   A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the
   Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in
   certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the
   works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the
   church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A
   solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the
   fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and
   anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication
   the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially
   cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In
   the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period
   of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an
   obscure angle of the Venetian province."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 1, chapter 4._

THREE F'S. The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

THREE HENRYS. War of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

THREE HUNDRED AT THERMOPYLÆ, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THREE HUNDRED OF THEBES, The.

      See THEBES: B. C. 378.

THREE KINGS, Battle of the.

      See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST, AND SINCE.

THREE LEGS OF MAN. The.

      See TRISKELION.

THREE PRESIDENCIES OF INDIA, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

THUCYDIDES: The origin of his history.

      See AMPHIPOLIS.

THUGS.
THUGGEE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

THULE.

   Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as
   supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce
   the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it
   vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of
   Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land
   nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance,
   resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me
   impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach
   to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the
   existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to
   the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it
   is impossible to say."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 15, section 2, foot-note._

   Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the
   coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But,
   whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and
   Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the
   most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge
   reached.

      _R. F. Burton,
      Ultima Thule,
      introduction, section 1 (volume 1)._

{3110}

THUNDERING LEGION, The.

   During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the
   Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi,
   on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous
   position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all
   access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last
   extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous
   storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while
   lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the
   barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed
   this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of
   one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian
   writers told a different story. They relate that the
   distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of
   Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being
   called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a
   prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion
   was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering
   Legion.

      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Eusebius,
      Ecclesiastical History,
      book 5, chapter 5._

THURII.
THURIUM.

      See SIRIS.

THURINGIA.
THURINGIANS, The.

   "To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the
   Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had
   united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the
   borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the
   Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti,
   one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had
   distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is
   not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but
   Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of
   Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to
   excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the
   motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul
   to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their
   defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his
   brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the
   Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province
   was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes,
   during two centuries, marched under the standards of the
   Merovingians."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

THURINGIA:
   Absorbed in Saxony.

      See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

THURM AND TAXIS, Prince, and the German postal system.

      See POST.

THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

THYNIANS. The.

      See BITHYNIANS.

TIBARENIANS, The.

   A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
   Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

TIBBOOS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

TIBERIAS, Battle of (1187).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

TIBERIAS, The Patriarch of.

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

TIBERIUS,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 14-37.

   German campaigns.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

   Tiberius II, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 578-582.

   Tiberius Absimarus, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 698-704.

TIBET.

   "The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west
   portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of
   Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions
   of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the
   orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys
   opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum
   ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually
   been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has
   pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as
   'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the
   confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is
   also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the
   same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to
   designate two countries widely differing in their physical and
   political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves.
   Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word
   meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and
   this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the
   seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of
   Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present
   inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the
   Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name
   restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern
   slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang
   —that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or
   Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and
   Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the
   inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal
   Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of
   Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000
   or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan
   plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted
   with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland
   seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the
   frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan
   Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state
   in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks
   chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land.
   Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its
   defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those
   of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains
   still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart
   from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various
   independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a
   distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size,
   with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking
   contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves,
   while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and
   feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people
   in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of
   their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected
   dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of
   music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for
   their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a
   flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of
   law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are
   scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their
   own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers
   against all strangers.
{3111}
   The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese
   frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of
   the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably
   constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. …
   The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some
   respects they are even more civilised than those of many
   European countries, for reading and writing are general
   accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap
   that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several
   of these works are kept simply on account of their magical
   properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has
   been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner,
   and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which
   the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the
   language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has
   nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a
   pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the
   Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,'
   is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of
   his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own
   pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he
   consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages,
   while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing
   his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual
   matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy
   chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high
   priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war
   must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to
   the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all
   receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan
   mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign
   of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth
   year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents,
   receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The
   whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely
   temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very
   houses and furniture and all movable property are held in
   trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful
   if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the
   administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact,
   is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house
   and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by
   begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are
   these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a
   distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to
   Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and
   other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet
   proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei,
   or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these
   provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either
   enjoy self-government or are directly administered from
   Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities
   interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in
   that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to
   Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be
   awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet,
   which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a
   dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in
   Lassa."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Bower,
      Diary of a Journey across Tibet,
      chapter 16._

TIBISCUS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Theiss.

TIBUR.

   An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it
   was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many
   wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th
   century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood
   became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in
   later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been
   identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named,
   but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to
   have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of
   Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14._

TIBURTINE SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

TICINUS, Battle on the.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM, The.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1825.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1731.-
   Built by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1756.
   Reconstructed by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1758.
   The bloody repulse of Abercrombie.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1759.
   Taken by General Amherst.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1775.
   Surprised and taken by the Green Mountain Boys.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1777.
   Recapture by Burgoyne.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

TIEN-TSIN, Treaty of (1858).

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

TIERRA FIRME.

   "The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]
   what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was
   easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they
   were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent
   they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the
   coast line of the continent extended itself and became known
   as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra
   firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which
   were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus
   general at first, in time became particular. As a designation
   for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.
   As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land
   became better known, new parts of it were designated by new
   names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of
   a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened
   itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on
   to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so
   far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time
   struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an
   equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme
   had existence for a long time.
{3112}
   It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,
   which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.
   The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at
   its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It
   was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá
   and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion
   of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the
   two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to
   the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors
   often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,
   which is misleading."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 290, foot-note._

      See, also, SPANISH MAIN.

TIERS ETAT.

      See ESTATES, THE THREE.

TIGORINI,
TIGURINI, in Gaul, The.

   After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109
   B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant
   conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves
   stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn
   for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and
   had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through
   their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose.
   Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni
   (position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten)
   crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges
   (about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul
   Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed
   itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which
   the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso,
   along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their
   death."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 5._

   Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,
   but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine
   Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of
   Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.

TIGRANOCERTA, Battle of (B. C. 69).

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

TIGRANOCERTA, The building of.

      See GORDYENE.

TILDEN, Samuel J.
   In the Free Soil Movement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

   The overthrow of the Tweed Ring.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

   Defeat in Presidential Election.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

TILLEMONT: A. D. 1635.
   Stormed and sacked by the Dutch and French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

TILLY, Count von: Campaigns.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, to 1631-1632.

TILSIT, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

TIMAR.
TIMARLI.
SAIM.
SPAHI.

   "It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all
   conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on
   conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe,
   obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however,
   ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European
   fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a
   proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the
   sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere
   creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution
   recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a
   democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was
   modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and
   smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were
   called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had
   assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief,
   which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the
   sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours
   ('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      The History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, introduction._

      See, also, SPAHIS.

TIMOCRACY.

      See GEOMORI.

TIMOLEON, and the deliverance of Sicily.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

TIMOUR, The Conquests of.

   "Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was
   called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame,
   from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European
   writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was
   of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the
   mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town
   near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early
   youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty
   chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had
   fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed
   Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of
   the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of
   his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that
   dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the
   thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the
   great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and
   the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his
   career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of
   the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of
   twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine
   several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a
   conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor
   Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor
   Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a
   portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of
   subjugated fellow-creatures."

      _E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 3._

   "Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his
   direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title
   of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a
   descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of
   whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may
   in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all
   practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as
   Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they
   had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of
   Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 6._

{3113}

   In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he
   subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He
   then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of
   the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of
   Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of
   its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a
   period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again
   in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous
   "Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a
   large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror
   completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia,
   extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and
   piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of
   Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career
   of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his
   campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the
   Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as
   Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible
   savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but
   it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and
   the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and
   desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which
   was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent
   conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of
   slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious
   purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which
   were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the
   Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of
   the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned
   from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the
   20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the
   enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his
   kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes
   swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death.
   Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the
   Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the
   sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary
   pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large
   enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by
   alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of
   Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When
   satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested
   there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition
   to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken
   in pieces.

      _A. Vambery,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapters 10, 11, 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapters 5-6._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 65._

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 7._

      _H. G. Smith,
      Romance of History,
      chapter 4._

TIMUCHI.

   This was the name given to the members of the senate or
   council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

TIMUCUA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TINNEH.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TIOCAJAS, Battles of.

      See ECUADOR: ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

TIPPECANOE, The Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

TIPPERMUIR, Battle of (1644).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

TIPPOO (OR TIPU) SAIB, English wars with.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793, and 1798-1805.

TIROL.

      See TYROL.

TIRSHATHA.

   An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions
   corresponded with those of High Sheriff.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 1._

TIRYNS.

      See ARGOS; and HERACLEIDÆ.

TITHE.

   "To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards
   God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition
   among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The
   custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."

      _H. Ewald.
      Antiquities of Israel,
      introduction, 3d section, II., 3_.

   Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates
   from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England.
   In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should
   pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the
   bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the
   legatine councils held in England."

      _W. Stubbs.
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1)._

TITHE OF SALADIN.

      See SALADIN, THE TITHE OF.

TITHES, Irish.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

TITIES, The.

      See ROME: THE BEGINNINGS.

TITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 79-81.

TIVITIVAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

TIVOLI.

      See TIBUR.

TLACOPAN.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TLASCALA.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

T'LINKETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TOBACCO:
   Its introduction into the Old World from the New.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

   The systematic culture of the plant introduced in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

TOBACCO NATION, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS;
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

TOBAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

TOGA, The Roman.

   "The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was
   originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly
   than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the
   shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak
   …, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it
   to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others
   construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a
   circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results
   arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,'
   page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a
   quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off
   into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to
   about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of
   the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same
   length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded
   lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in
   folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder
   in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga,
   however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the
   ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled
   across the back and through the right arm, the ends being
   again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the
   drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the
   right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' …
   The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally
   clung more tightly to the body."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 95._

{3114}

   "No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the
   toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great
   formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and
   folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as
   it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left
   unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the
   wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in
   early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods
   this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas
   of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed,
   and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial
   process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was
   left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga
   pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called
   pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round
   gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by
   all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights
   wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1._

TOGATI, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

TOGGENBURG WAR, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

TOGRUL BEG, Seljuk Turkish Sultan. A. D. 1037-1063.

TOHOMES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

TOHOPEKA, Battle of (1814).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

TOISECH.

      See RI.

TOISON D'OR.

   The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the
   English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."

      See GOLDEN FLEECE.

TOLBIAC, Battle of.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

TOLEDO, Ohio: A. D. 1805-1835.
   Site in dispute between Ohio and Michigan.

      See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 531-712.
   The capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 712.
   Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1083-1085.
   Recovery from the Moors.

   On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of
   Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of
   the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the
   death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son
   Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as
   invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI.
   After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085,
   the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied
   for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants
   and successors.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 1, chapter 1._

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.
   Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.
   Siege and surrender.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

TOLEDO, Councils of.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

TOLENTINO, Treaty of (1797).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

TOLERATION, and the Puritan theocracy
   In Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

   In Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.

TOLERATION ACT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

TOLOSA, Battle of Las Navas de (1211 or 1212).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232;
      also, ALMOHADES.

TOLTECS, The.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

TOMI.

   An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine,
   which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by
   the modern town of Kustendje.

TONE, Theobald Wolf, and the United Irishmen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

TONIKAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONIKAN FAMILY.

TONKAWAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONKAWAN FAMILY.

TONKIN.
COCHIN-CHINA.
ANNAM.
CAMBOJA.

   "The whole region which recent events have practically
   converted into French territory comprises four distinct
   political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the
   centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first
   two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a
   single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam.
   This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified
   form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to
   the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards
   extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of
   that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the
   third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application
   to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China
   under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration
   to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and
   fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking,
   Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally
   applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has
   in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the
   northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under
   the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and
   sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the
   administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its
   conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in
   much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State
   Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range
   projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth
   century and running in the same direction. After the erection
   of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North
   Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and
   southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the
   titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and
   'Inner Route.'
{3115}
   The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known,
   has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city
   of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching,
   that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this
   region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from
   its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable
   derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old
   Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam)
   nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the
   arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the
   coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills
   in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and
   intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose
   energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to
   resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare
   between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly
   historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was
   then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was
   divided into prefectures, and a civil and military
   organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the
   ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching
   (Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had
   already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In
   1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the
   Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced
   all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives
   to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was
   followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime
   provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French)
   Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had
   usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was
   acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in
   1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne
   with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802
   reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese
   sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more
   frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national
   party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are
   dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made
   rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to
   cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests
   and occasional intervention of France, this policy is
   persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by
   order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for
   more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly
   captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of
   the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the
   forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon),
   capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established
   French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862,
   ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining,
   provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened
   and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate
   of Camboja and the important strategical position of
   'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific
   expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes
   entertained of that river giving access to the trade of
   Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the
   Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in
   Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded
   with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way
   for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China,
   followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of
   1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole
   of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all
   diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included,
   except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the
   appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full
   administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national
   autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin
   and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French
   possession."

      _A. H. Keane,
      Eastern Geography,
      pages 98-104._

   "In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in
   Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the
   historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been
   at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.
   According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between
   the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the
   Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious
   ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in
   the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty
   state under French protection, which is limited east and west
   by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great
   Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its
   prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of
   Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with
   Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the
   Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern
   shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,
   the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest
   the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the
   local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic
   data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of
   his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from
   Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty
   claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active
   relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),
   which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the
   eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,
   Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with
   the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land
   of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the
   French protectorate, the political institutions of the
   Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who
   still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his
   subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates
   dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a
   royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;
   and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity
   of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary
   slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to
   purchase their freedom. …
{3116}
   On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the
   dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are
   of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any
   other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the
   Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as
   akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and
   records they have gradually spread along the coast from
   Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After
   driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about
   1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to
   Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here
   the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the
   Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the
   population."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 3, chapter 22._

TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

      See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

TONQUIN.

      See TONKIN.

TONTONTEAC.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

TONTOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TOPASSES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

TOPEKA CONSTITUTION, The.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

TOQUIS.

      See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.

TORBAY, Landing of William of Orange at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

TORDESILLAS, Treaty of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

TORGAU: A. D. 1525.
   Protestant League.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

TORGAU: A. D. 1645.
   Yielded to the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

TORGAU: A. D. 1760.
   Victory of Frederick the Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

TORGAU: A. D. 1813.
   Siege and capture by the Allies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

TORIES, English:
   Origin of the Party and the Name.

      See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
      and CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

TORIES, English:
   Of the American Revolution, and their exile.

   "Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were
   practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother
   country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the
   cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the
   governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution
   the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the
   enemy, until for a time it might be said that all
   revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however,
   was still applied to those who, though opposed to the
   usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation
   from England."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      page 269._

   "The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a
   piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found
   easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to
   leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially
   adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the
   penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that
   the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are
   those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look
   to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the
   patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the
   avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,
   were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.
   So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most
   despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for
   any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of
   respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a
   general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed
   resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or
   forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of
   the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the
   Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there
   rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready
   to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the
   estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war
   at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of
   reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of
   prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would
   fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of
   human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six
   months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that
   Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the
   delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of
   loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their
   forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the
   continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …
   They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the
   British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this
   character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his
   departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some
   measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to
   estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these
   hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge
   in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and
   additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same
   provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia"]
   sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large
   numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were
   shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one
   time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous
   for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the
   settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.
   At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the
   council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the
   disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,
   order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of
   the names of all persons, with those of their sons and
   daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and
   joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of
   separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the
   names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and
   representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was
   observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake
   Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to
   Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the
   north bank.
{3117}
   Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.
   Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to
   Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,
   then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.
   … As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they
   took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which
   is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Loyalists and their Fortunes
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, pages 185-214)._

   "Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years
   following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is
   estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the
   sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present
   support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her
   hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British
   Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 7, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Ryerson,
      The Loyalists of America and their Times._

      _L. Sabine,
      Biographical Sketches of the Loyalists of America._

TORNOSA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TORO, Battle of (1476).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

TOROMONOS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINES INHABITANTS.

TORONTO: A. D. 1749.
   The hospitable origin of the city.

   "The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to
   the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named
   Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a
   stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept
   them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French
   interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus
   the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

TORONTO: A. D. 1813.
   Taken and burned by the Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).

TORONTO: A. D. 1837.
   The Mackenzie rising.
   Defeat of the rebels.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

TORQUES.

   "The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended
   sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found
   in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic
   tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the
   Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but
   the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from
   the Latin."

      _S. Birch,
      On the Torc of the Celts
      (Archaeological Journal, volume 2)._

TORRES VEDRAS, The Lines of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
      and 1810-1812.

TORTONA: A. D. 1155.
   Destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

TORTOSA: A. D. 1640.
   Spanish capture and sack.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TORTUGAS:
   The Rendezvous of the Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

TORTURE.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL,: A. D.1708.

TORY.

      See TORIES.

TOTEMS.

   "A peculiar social institution exists among the [North
   American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I
   am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the
   tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so
   general, and its influence on political relations so
   important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities,
   independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands,
   and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each
   clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird,
   beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of
   the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example,
   the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the
   language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the
   name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being
   connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or
   less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf
   cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from
   the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows
   that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan
   can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled
   together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of
   different clans. To different totems attach different degrees
   of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and
   the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of
   his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the
   members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak
   different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound
   together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is
   killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge
   him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a
   cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose
   face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain
   privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes
   reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a
   sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious
   ceremonies or magic rites."

      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

   "A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards
   with superstitious respect, believing that there exists
   between him and every member of the class an intimate and
   altogether special relation. The name is derived from an
   Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of
   which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into
   literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian
   interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The
   connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent;
   the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for
   the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an
   animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As
   distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated
   individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species
   of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate
   natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects.
   Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three
   kinds:—

   (1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by
   inheritance from generation to generation;

   (2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all
   the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the
   other sex;

   (3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and
   not passing to his descendants."

      _J. G. Frazer,
      Totemism,
      pages 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. H. Morgan,
      League of the Iroquois,
      chapter 4._

      _L. H. Morgan,
      Ancient Society,
      part 2._

      _L. Fison and A. W. Howitt,
      Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
      appendix B._

      _W. R. Smith,
      Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,
      chapter 7._

{3118}

TOTILA, King of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

TOTONACOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TOTONACOS.

TOUL: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Possession acquired by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

TOUL: A. D. 1648.
   Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
   English aid called in.
   Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

   ----------TOULOUSE: Start--------

TOULOUSE: B. C. 106.
   Acquisition by the Romans.

   Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ
   Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the
   upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation
   of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106
   B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages
   which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the
   people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the
   garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that
   provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the
   year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him
   within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to
   do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of
   which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was
   sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way,
   its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused
   of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at
   Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a
   proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

TOULOUSE: A. D. 410-509.
   The Gothic kingdom.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419, and after.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 721.
   Repulse of the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 781.
   Made a county of Aquitaine.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

TOULOUSE: 10-11th Centuries.
   The rise of the Counts.

   The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes
   of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania,
   under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers
   but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In
   the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or
   Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called
   them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their
   ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania
   Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal.
   But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by
   the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the
   following century again rose to great importance and
   distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count
   Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the
   name of the little county which had been his earliest
   possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread
   over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania.
   In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue,
   which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse,
   lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the
   Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse
   itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half
   the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence
   was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the
   chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he
   left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian
   heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in
   1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius
   succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his
   claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger
   son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were
   disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left
   an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King
   Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William
   VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point
   whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the
   rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and
   changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to
   interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a
   land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as
   far as possible untouched."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume I, chapter 10._

      See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

TOULOUSE: 12th Century.
   The joyous court.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1209.
   The beginning of the Albigensian Crusades.

   See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1213.
   Conquest by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1229-1271.
   End of the reign of the Counts.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.
   The last battle of the Peninsular War.
   Occupation of the city by the English.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

TOURCOIGN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TOURNAY: A. D. 1513.
   Capture by the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1581.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1709.
   Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

{3119}

TOURNAY: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Siege.
   Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.
   Restoration at the Peace.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):
      A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1794.
   Battles near the city.
   Surrender to the French.

   FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

   ----------TOURNAY: End--------

TOURNEY.
TOURNAMENT.
JOUST.

   "The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin
   'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of
   these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of
   manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to
   strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from
   his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were
   always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword;
   the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered
   his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds,
   bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It
   was important, therefore, that constant exercise should
   accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he
   must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of
   him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas
   d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise
   was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single
   combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their
   arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general
   battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of
   cavalry equal in number."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      France under the Feudal System
      (Translated by W. Bellingham),
      chapter 8._

TOURS: A. D. 732.
   Defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TOURS: A. D. 1870.
   Seat of a part of the provisional
   Government of National Defense.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE, The career of.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

TOWER AND SWORD, The Order of the.

   This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso
   V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the
   order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a
   tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy
   that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian
   king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of
   northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians.
   Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."

      _S. A. Dunham.
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      volume 3, page 225 (American edition)._

TOWER OF LONDON, The.

   "Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards
   the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the
   State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred
   great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower
   Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two
   young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of
   the Tower itself."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      A Trip to England,
      page 56._

   "Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among
   palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of
   Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in
   favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular
   use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near
   some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon
   Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon
   stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we
   have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the
   Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the
   great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery,
   council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns
   and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."

      _W. H. Dixon,
      Her Majesty's Tower,
      chapter 1._

   "We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present
   Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of
   Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was
   suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned
   by Stow is 1078."

      _J. Britton and E. W. Brayley,
      Memoirs of the Tower of London,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord de Ros,
      Memorials of the Tower._

TOWN.

   "Burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various
   shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind
   from Rome downward: It is curious that this word should in
   ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer
   word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in
   some English dialects is still applied to a single house and
   its surroundings."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      City and Borough
      (Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889)._

      See, also, TOWNSHIP; BOROUGH; GUILDS; and COMMUNE.

TOWNSHEND MEASURES, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.

TOWNSHIP.

   "In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon
   conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'
   The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does
   not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.
   Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional
   History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the
   constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since
   then most writers on constitutional and legal history have
   followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used
   in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be
   understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers
   have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a
   'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is
   merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.
   Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was
   under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of
   some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and
   possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out
   that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for
   such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places
   where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent
   of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a
   village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general
   term for 'the villagers.' …
{3120}
   Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been
   found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon
   translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the
   laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …
   The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay
   investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature
   until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,
   its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good
   deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]
   continued to be the common popular term for what we may
   describe in general language as a rural centre of population
   even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the
   word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most
   naturally explained by supposing that it was the word
   ordinarily employed in England at the time of the
   migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very
   naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is
   no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a
   change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between
   tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,
   that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of
   scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak
   of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to
   the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the
   sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by
   freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an
   assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.
   We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption
   that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this
   question as to the position of the body of the population in
   the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and
   no student would say that at present the question is settled."

      _W. J. Ashley,
      The Anglo-Saxon "Township"
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894)._

TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, The New England.

   "When people from England first came to dwell in the
   wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon
   small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be
   known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of
   individuals or of separate families, but of
   church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the
   settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township
   would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed
   within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all
   the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming
   on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally
   situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with
   the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for
   defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and
   common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and
   after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their
   appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind
   of government which we may describe in the present tense, for
   its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two
   centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly
   govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak
   with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of
   one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax
   themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as
   early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is
   held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected
   to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions
   or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in
   the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church,
   which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as
   ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating
   to the administration of town affairs are discussed and
   adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public
   expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town
   taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are
   elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of
   the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or
   nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish
   government brought into a new country and adapted to the new
   situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact
   that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no
   longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a
   manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names
   had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was
   now the oldest and most generally descriptive name,
   'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a
   great part of the United States. … New York had from the very
   beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local
   self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies,
   which under the English rule were developed into
   town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New
   England. … The New York system is of especial interest,
   because it has powerfully influenced the development of local
   institutions throughout the Northwest."

      _J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the United States,
      chapters 2 and 4._

   "The name town first occurs in the record of the second
   colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts
   Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of
   Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame
   of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of
   the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of
   the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being
   certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and
   deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,
   to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public
   affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other
   inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their
   consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it
   was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should
   be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil
   affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at
   which time the earliest extant records were made, three
   persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs
   of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there
   perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the
   inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,
   1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name
   presently extended throughout New England to the municipal
   governors. …
{3121}
   The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,
   and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common
   government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,
   the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they
   have been named under the State Constitution—continued to
   represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,
   Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of
   representation still subsists."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the
   town organization, probably the most generally able and
   intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part
   in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New
   England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for
   independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon
   race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of
   the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel
   Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the
   creature of the town-meeting."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Channing,
      Town and County Government in the English Colonies
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10)._

      See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644;
      and SELECTMEN.

TOWTON, Battle of (A. D. 1461).

   On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met
   on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between
   the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention
   of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The
   battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed
   English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until
   the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been
   variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to
   38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of
   Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry
   VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

      _C. Ransome,
      Battle of Towton
      (English Historical Review, July, 1889)._

TOXANDRIA.

   After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D.
   358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the
   Roman Empire, in "an extensive district of Brabant, which was
   then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to
   be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy. …
   This name seems to be derived from the 'Toxandri' of Pliny,
   and very frequently occurs in the histories of the middle age.
   Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses, which extended
   from the neighbourhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal
   and the Rhine."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 19, with foot-note._

      See, also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

TOXARCHI, The.

   The commanders of the Athenian archers and of the city-watch
   (known as Scythians) were so called.

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 2, chapter 11. _

TRACHIS.
TRACHINIA.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
TRACT NINETY.

      See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

TRADES UNIONS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

TRAFALGAR, Naval Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

TRAJAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 98-117.

TRAJAN'S WALL.

   The Emperor Trajan "began a fortified line, afterwards
   completed, from the Rhine to the Danube. This great work was
   carried from Ratisbon to Mayence. It was known as Trajan's
   Wall. It may still be traced to some extent by the marks of a
   mound and a ditch."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Notes to the Germany of Tacitus,
      chapter 29._

TRAMELI, The.

      See LYCIANS.

TRANSALPINE.

   Beyond the Alps, looking from the Roman standpoint.

TRANSLEITHANIA.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

TRANSOXANIA.

      See BOKHARA.

TRANSPADANE GAUL.

   Cisalpine Gaul north of the Padus, or Po.

      See PADUS.

TRANSRHENANE.

   Beyond the Rhine,—looking from the Roman standpoint; that is,
   on the eastern and northern side of the Rhine.

TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TRANSYLVANIA: Early history.

      See DACIA.

TRANSYLVANIA: The Huns in possession.

      See HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

TRANSYLVANIA: 12th Century.
   Conquest by Hungary.
   Settlement of Germans.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1526-1567.
   John Zapolya, the waivod, elected King of Hungary.
   His contest with Ferdinand of Austria.
   His appeal to the Turks.
   The Sultan assumes suzerainty of the country.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
   Struggles between the Austrian and the Turk.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1606-1660.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1575.
   Stephen Batory, the Duke, elected King of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D: 1599-1601.
   Wallachian conquest.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1606.
   Yoke of the Ottomans partly broken.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Recovery of independence from the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1699.
   Ceded to the House of Austria by the Turks,
   in the Treaty of Carlowitz.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

TRANSYLVANIA, The Kentucky colony of.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

TRAPPISTS.

   The monks of La Trappe are often referred to as Trappists.
   "This celebrated abbey was one of the most ancient belonging
   to the Order of Cisteaux [the Cistercians]. It was established
   [A. D. 1140] by Rotrou, the second count of Perche, and
   undertaken to accomplish a vow made whilst in peril of
   shipwreck." In the 17th century the monks had become
   scandalous]y degenerate and dissolute. Their institution was
   reformed by M. de Rancé, who assumed the direction as abbot in
   1662, and who introduced the severe discipline for which the
   monastery was afterwards famous. Among its rules was one of
   absolute silence.

      _C. Lancelot,
      A Tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,
      volume 1, pages 113-186._

{3122}

TRASIMENE, Lake, Battle of (B. C. 217).

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TRASTEVERE.

   Trastevere was a suburb of Rome "as early as the time of
   Augustus; it now contains the oldest houses in Rome, which
   belong to the 11th and 12th centuries."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 103._

TRAUSI, The.

      See THRACIANS.

TRAVENDAHL, Treaty of (1700).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697-1700.

TRAVENSTADT, Battle of (1706).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

TREASON.

      See MAJESTAS.

TREATIES.

   The Treaties of which account is given in this work are so
   numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
   references to them under this general heading. They are
   severally indexed under the names by which they are
   historically known.

TREATY PORTS, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1812.

TREBIA,
TREBBIA,
   Battle of the.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

   Battle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

TREBIZOND:
   Origin of the city.

   "Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the Ten Thousand as
   an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendour
   from the munificence of the Emperor Hadrian, who had
   constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by
   nature of secure harbours. The city was large and populous."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

TREBIZOND: A. D. 258.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.
   The Greek empire.

   "The empire of Trebizond was the creation of accident. … The
   destruction of a distant central government, when
   Constantinople was conquered by the Frank Crusaders, left
   [the] provincial administration without the pivot on which it
   had revolved. The conjuncture was seized by a young man, of
   whom nothing was known but that he bore a great name, and was
   descended from the worst tyrant in the Byzantine annals, This
   youth grasped the vacant sovereignty, and, merely by assuming
   the imperial title, and placing himself at the head of the
   local administration, founded a new empire. Power changed its
   name and its dwelling, but the history of the people was
   hardly modified. The grandeur of the empire of Trebizond
   exists only in romance. Its government owed its permanence to
   its being nothing more than a continuation of a
   long-established order of civil polity, and to its making no
   attempt to effect any social revolution." The young man who
   grasped the sovereignty of this Asiatic fragment of the
   shattered Byzantine empire was Alexius, a grandson of
   Andronicus I., the last emperor at Constantinople of the
   family of Comnenos. This Alexius and his brother David, who
   had been raised in obscurity at Constantinople, escaped from
   the city before it was taken by the Crusaders, and fled to the
   coast of Colchis, "where their paternal aunt, Thamar,
   possessed wealth and influence. Assisted by her power, and by
   the memory of their tyrannical grandfather, who had been
   popular in the east of Asia Minor, they were enabled to
   collect an army of Iberian mercenaries. At the head of this
   force Alexios entered Trebizond in the month of April 1204,
   about the time Constantinople fell into the hands of the
   Crusaders. He had been proclaimed emperor by his army on
   crossing the frontier. To mark that he was the legitimate
   representative of the imperial family of Komnenos, and to
   prevent his being confounded with the numerous descendants of
   females, or with the family of the emperor Alexius III.
   (Angelos), who had arrogated to themselves his name, he
   assumed the designation of Grand-Komnenos. Wherever he
   appeared, he was acknowledged as the lawful sovereign of the
   Roman empire." For a time Alexius of Trebizond, with the help
   of his brother David, extended his dominions in Asia Minor
   with rapidity and ease, and he was brought very soon into
   collision with the other Greek emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who
   had established himself at Nicæa. It seemed likely, at first,
   that Trebizond would become the dominant power; but the
   movement of events which favored that one of the rival empires
   was presently stayed, and then reversed, even though Alexius
   took aid from the Latin emperor at Constantinople. Not many
   years later, in fact, the empire of Trebizond evaded
   extinction at the hands of the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, or
   Roum, only by paying tribute and acknowledging vassalage to
   that sovereign. For sixty years the so-called empire continued
   in a tributary relationship to the Seljuk sultans and to the
   grand khan of the Mongols who overthrew them in 1244. But, if
   not a very substantial empire during that period, it seems to
   have formed an exceedingly prosperous and wealthy commercial
   power, controlling not only a considerable coast territory on
   its own side of the Euxine, but also Cherson, Gothia, and all
   the Byzantine possessions in the Tauric Chersonesos; and "so
   close was the alliance of interest that these districts
   remained dependent on the government of Trebizond until the
   period of its fall." On the decline of the Mongol power, the
   empire of Trebizond regained its independence in 1280, and
   maintained it for nearly a century, when it was once more
   compelled to pay tribute to the later Mongol conqueror, Timur.
   At the end of the 14th century the little "empire" was reduced
   to a strip of coast, barely forty miles wide, extending from
   Batoun to Kerasunt, and the separated city of Oinaion, with
   some territory adjoining it. But, within this small compass,
   "few countries in Europe enjoyed as much internal tranquility,
   or so great security for private property." The commerce of
   Trebizond had continued to flourish, notwithstanding frequent
   quarrels and hostilities with the Genoese, who were the chief
   managers of its trade with the west. But the decay of the
   empire, politically, commercially, and morally, was rapid in
   its later years. First becoming tributary to the Ottoman
   conqueror of Constantinople, it finally shared the fate of the
   Byzantine capital. The city of Trebizond was surrendered to
   Mohammed II. in 1461. Its last emperor, David, was permitted
   to live for a time, with his family, in the European dominions
   of the Turk; but after a few years, on some suspicion of a
   plot, he was put to death with his seven sons, and their
   bodies were cast unburied to the dogs. The wife and mother of
   the dead—the fallen empress Helena—guarded them and dug a
   grave for them with her own hands. The Christian population of
   Trebizond was expelled from the city and mostly enslaved. Its
   place was taken by a Moslem colony.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Empire of Trebizond
      (History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond)._

{3123}

TREBONIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

TREK, The Great.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TREMECEN, The Kingdom of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

TREMONT, The Name.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

TRENT, The Council of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRENT AFFAIR, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

TRENTON: A. D. 1776.
   The surprise of the Hessians.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

   ----------TRÈVES: Start--------

TRÈVES:
   Origin.

   Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom
   it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony
   there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta
   was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.

      See TREVIRI.

TRÈVES:
   Under the Romans.

   "The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the
   first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic
   province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of
   the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the
   province and the seat of the governors, an author from the
   time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the
   chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of
   Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling
   of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul,
   Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme
   administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and
   thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul,
   their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century
   says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 3._

TRÈVES: A. D. 306.
   The Ludi Francici at.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

TRÈVES: A. D. 364-376.
   Capital of Valentinian and the Western Empire.

      See ROM[E: A. D. 363-379.

TRÈVES: A. D. 402.
   Abandoned by the Roman præfecture.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1125-1152.
   Origin of the Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1675.
   Taken from the French by the Imperialists.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1689.
   Threatened destruction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to the Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1704.
   Taken by Marlborough.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Extinction of the Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

   ----------TRÈVES: End--------

TREVILLIAN'S STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

TREVIRI, The.

   The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time,
   "whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both
   sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the
   Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 8._

TREVISAN MARCHES, Tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1230-1259.

TRIAD SOCIETY, OR
WATER-LILY SECT, The.

   The most extensive of the many secret societies among the
   Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad
   Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien
   kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the
   government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some
   other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In
   fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under
   its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost
   openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years,
   the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."

      _The Chinese Rebellion
      (North American Review, July, 1854)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Abbé Huc,
      Christianity in China, &c.
      volume 2, pages 274-277._

      _H. A. Giles,
      Historic China,
      pages 395-399._

TRIAL BY COMBAT.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

TRIANON TARIFF, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

TRIARII.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

TRIBE.
TRIBUS.

      See ROME, THE BEGINNING.

TRIBES, Greek.

      See PHYLÆ.

TRIBOCES, The.

   A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks
   of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand
   Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

      See, also, VANGIONES.

TRIBON, The.

   A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan
   youths, and sometimes by old men.

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      course 2, lecture 7._

TRIBUNAL, The Revolutionary.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL.).

TRIBUNES, Consular, or Military.

      See CONSULAR TRIBUNES.

TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

TRIBUNITIA, Potestas.

      See POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA.

TRIBUTUM, The.

   The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in
   the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a
   loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war
   out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was
   justified in living at the expense of her subjects was
   formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the
   tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was
   abolished, because the government could dispense with it after
   the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of
   the administration were now put off upon the subjects."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 7 (volume 4)._

TRICAMARON, Battle of (A. D. 533).

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

TRICASSES.

   The earlier name of the city of Troyes, France.

{3124}

TRICHINOPOLY:
   Siege and relief (1751).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.

   The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient
   Latin name of the town.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRIERARCHY.

      See LITURGIES.

TRINACRIA.

   The ancient Greek name of the island of Sicily.

TRINCOMALEE, Battle of (1767).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1498.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1801.
   Acquisition by England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

TRINITY HOUSE.

   "Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting
   example of the innate power and varied developments of the old
   gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it
   to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as
   an institution of high national importance, whose history is
   entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the
   welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an
   age when the tendency is to assume state control over all
   matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary
   corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its
   faithful labours, through a long course of years, have
   established its right and title. Although its earliest records
   appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that
   Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood
   already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the
   shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and
   lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession,
   are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places;
   in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn
   and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were
   one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also
   had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also
   happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for
   seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The
   objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the
   Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just
   about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed.
   … The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has
   always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than
   144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late
   years their funds applicable to such purposes have been
   curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the
   name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the
   title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford
   Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of
   the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to
   the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant
   with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To
   cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a
   supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were
   their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as
   administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at
   Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the
   direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566,
   established which throws considerable light on the position of
   the company at that time, endued them with the power of
   preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round
   the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How
   far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be
   interesting to know whether their progress round the whole
   shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its
   work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and
   beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general
   public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the
   corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private
   proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are
   therefore at present under their efficient central control. …
   The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important
   provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen,
   ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of
   piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of
   the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and
   armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain
   consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand
   from the author's careful researches among state papers and
   the muniments of the corporation."

      _Lucy T. Smith,
      Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond";
      by C. R. B. Barrett
      (English Historical Review, April, 1894)._

TRINOBANTES, The.

   The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to
   submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now
   embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their
   chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where
   the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern
   city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare,
   was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power.
   One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most
   obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the
   conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Colchester,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

      See also,
      BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

TRIOBOLON.

   Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens
   who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards
   paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the
   people.

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 2, chapter 15._

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.

   There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in
   European history; see, for example.

      NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668,
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

   But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is
   that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the
   three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and
   renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no
   doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with
   France.

   ----------TRIPOLI: Start--------

TRIPOLI, North Africa:
   Origin of the name of.

      See LEPTIS MAGNA.

{3125}

TRIPOLI, North Africa:
   History.

      See BARBARY STATES.

TRIPOLI, Syria:
   Capture by the Crusaders.
   Destruction of the Library.
   Formation of the Latin county.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111;
      and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1009-1144.

TRIPONTIUM.

   A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed
   the Avon, near modern Lilburne.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

TRISAGION, The.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.

TRI-SKELION.
GAMMADION.
FYLFOT-CROSS.
SVASTIKA.

   "One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a
   symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more
   familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears
   on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of
   Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but
   not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but
   of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient
   name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man,
   on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that
   island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its
   triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three
   cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of
   Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an
   identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island
   are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of
   several old English families, and it was in all probability
   first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader
   returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is
   but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the
   'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by
   Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively
   proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient
   city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing
   within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning
   the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of
   its coins by the decisive legend _MEΣ卍_. … The gammadion
   has travelled further afield than any other symbol of
   antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to
   the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to
   the 13th century B. C."

      _The Athenœum, August 13, 1802
      (Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's
      "La Migration des Symboles")._

TRITTYES.

      See PHYLÆ.

TRIUMPH AND OVATION, The Roman.

   "The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal
   entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real
   merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and
   dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the
   results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest.
   Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican
   times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to
   enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being
   granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis
   auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious
   campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was
   impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to
   Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the
   claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case
   in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been
   killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the
   procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and
   confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through
   which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The
   temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars.
   Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with
   festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the
   meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and
   Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the
   'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and
   numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while
   lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city
   dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. …
   Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to
   detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen
   with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally,
   preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal
   chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the
   tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the
   Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot
   holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a
   servus publicus standing behind him held the corona
   triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the
   procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the
   circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by
   way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and
   the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his
   golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and
   sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted
   for less important conquests, or to a general for victories
   not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga
   prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in
   later times he rode on horseback."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 100._

      See, also, VIA SACRA.

TRIUMVIRATE,
   The First.

      See ROME: B. C. 63-58.

   The Second.

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

TROIS ÉVÊCHÉS, Les, and their acquisition by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559, and 1670-1681;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TROISVILLE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TROJA.
TROY.
TROAD.
ILIUM.

   "In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia
   Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern
   projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago,
   Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida,
   abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were
   the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it
   concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the
   Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by
   Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the
   mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the
   Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous
   Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor,
   Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus,
   founded the city of Dardania.
{3126}
   Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the
   tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island
   lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had
   settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum;
   at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and
   introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between
   Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew
   the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between
   the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this
   intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the
   Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the
   Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations
   of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to
   either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians,
   Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of
   the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into
   rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the
   Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his
   bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a
   narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat
   plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle
   declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the
   innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with
   precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river
   breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by
   Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle
   declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the
   earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the
   abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the
   same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the
   immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above
   is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same
   rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the
   Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day
   the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and
   render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets
   was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja;
   over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view
   from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond
   the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient
   world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted
   above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander
   than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are
   believed by many scholars to have now established the location
   of ancient Troy.

      _H. Schliemann,
      Ilios: the City and Country of the Trojans._

   "Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven
   successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at
   Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the
   discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or
   Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or
   so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the
   character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later
   Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he
   could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth
   layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the
   excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in
   the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii,
   2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly
   establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great
   temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the
   acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis
   belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought
   to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides
   'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the
   Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the
   identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the
   period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that
   only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for
   this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be
   referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a
   magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered,
   although its architecture and the character of the finds
   suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in
   Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been
   exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of
   pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been
   brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the
   ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ,
   though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness
   of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building
   contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld
   uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and
   found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater
   height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A
   strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner
   staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture
   this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek
   antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing
   of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to
   the historical Greek period, did we not know that in
   historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the
   erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in
   Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer
   stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive
   foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and
   the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the
   same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and
   also pottery of the Mykenæan style."

      _The Nation,
      November 30, 1893._

   "The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant
   Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr.
   Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was
   readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr.
   Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam,
   instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new
   problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the
   works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient
   by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore
   decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city,
   however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this
   led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by
   the German Government, to extend excavations on this level,
   with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may
   possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's
   excavations obscured rather than aided this particular
   investigation.
{3127}
   The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space
   covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and,
   in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which
   Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has
   uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers,
   and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be
   assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."

      _The Nation,
      August 9, 1894._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Schuchardt,
      Schliemann's Excavations._

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      and HOMER.

TROPAION.

   The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on
   the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was
   constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 54._

TROPPAU, Congress of.

      See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

TROUBADOURS.
TROUVÈRES.
JOGLARS.
JONGLEURS.

   "The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called
   themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or
   'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the
   Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of
   poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this
   description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in
   which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year
   1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although
   there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest
   period of their existence. … In regard to the time within
   which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel
   assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more
   conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first
   commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to
   the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of
   the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to
   1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which
   extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of
   its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."

      _G. J. Adler,
      Introduction to Fauriel's
      "History of Provençal Poetry."_

   "Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical
   over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two
   branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and
   social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them,
   and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great
   divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively
   described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and
   generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most
   distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established
   that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and
   foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the
   Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses
   and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably
   comprehensive definition."

      _F. Hueffer,
      The Troubadours,
      chapter 6._

   "In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue
   d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language,
   subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the
   Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets,
   giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called
   themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of
   language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the
   Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were
   equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent
   their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and
   where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both
   accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have
   preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing,
   however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that
   remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical
   character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. …
   The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and
   fabliaux."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   "We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of
   Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to
   say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and
   Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for
   the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or
   absolute."

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Short History of French Literature,
      book 1, chapter 1._

TROY.

      See TROJA.

TROYES,
   Treaty of (1420).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

   Treaty of (1564).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

TRUCE, The Five Years.

      See FIVE YEARS TRUCE.

TRUCE, The Sacred.

      See OLYMPIC GAMES.

TRUCE, The Thirty Years.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

TRUCE OF GOD, The.

   "This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness,
   at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also
   to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy
   and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw
   daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and
   man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts
   of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so
   subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most
   parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his
   command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. …
   Every man claimed the right of private war against every other
   man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord
   or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and
   mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A
   movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could
   not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of
   old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of
   Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as
   waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a
   series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical
   decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the
   horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The
   movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and
   rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that
   all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain
   of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in
   that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the
   distinction between public and private war. …
{3128}
   But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in
   practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement.
   As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one
   universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and
   other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal
   cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to
   one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they
   engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years.
   From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and
   Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the
   establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After
   seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the
   requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found
   vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now
   attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the
   evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in
   this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and
   eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of
   His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be
   kept free from strife and bloodshed."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 8, section 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78._

TRUCELESS WAR, The.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

TRUELLAS, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

TRYON, Governor, The flight of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

TSHEKHS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE &c.

TSING, OR CH'ING, Dynasty, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TUARIKS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

TUATH.

   "Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the
   original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name
   originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify
   also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several
   of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger
   tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the
   kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these
   Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a
   fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial
   king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of
   all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or
   king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated
   by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but
   elective in the individual, the senior of the family being
   usually preferred."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, page 136-150._

TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.

   One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of
   Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been
   extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were
   conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the
   Milesians, or Scots.

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

TUBANTES, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN AND EARLIEST HISTORY.

TUCUMAN, The province of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

TUDELA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TUDORS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.

TUGENDBUND, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

TUILERIES, The.

   The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name
   from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the
   vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of
   it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis
   conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the
   Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to
   her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace
   was never very long or very closely connected with the history
   of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in
   that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred
   Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority.
   The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of
   France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did
   Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of
   it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent.
   … The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as
   it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The
   destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a
   lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and
   the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."

      _P. G. Hamerton,
      Paris in Old and Present Times,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _History of Paris
      (London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2._

TUILERIES: A. D. 1792.
   Mobbing of the King.
   The attack of August 10.
   Massacre of the Swiss.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

TUKUARIKAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

TULCHAN BISHOPS.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

TULLIANUM, The.

      See MAMERTINE PRISON.

TUMULT OF AMBOISE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

TUMULUS.

   A mound; usually a grave mound, or barrow.

TUN.
TUNSCIPE.

      See TOWN; TOWNSHIP;
      and BOROUGH.

TUNIC, The Roman.

   "The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton.
   Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple
   original type was never essentially modified by the additions
   of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn
   especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over
   it."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 95._

TUNIS, Ancient.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF;
      also, AFRICA, THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

TUNIS: A. D. 1270-1271.
   Crusade of Saint Louis.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

TUNIS: Modern history.

      See BARBARY STATES.


   ----------Volume 4: End--------

   ----------Volume 5: Start--------

      LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Map of the United States Showing its territorial development,
   To follow page 3286.

Maps of the United States in 1783, in 1790, in 1803, in 1840,
and in 1860,
   To follow page 3326.

Map of the principal theatre Of war in Virginia, 1861-1865,
   To follow page 3434.

Map of the Vicksburg Campaign,
   On page 3490.

Map of the Battle-field of Gettysburg,
   On page 3501.

Map of the Battle-field of Chattanooga,
   On page 3511.

Map of the Atlanta Campaign,
   On page 3531.


      SUPPLEMENT.

"Abelard" to "Wheatstone,"
   Pages 3669 to 3811.

Chronology of important and indicative events,
   Pages 3812 to 3856.

Lineage of European Sovereigns and great historical families,
   Pages 3857 to 3883.

Selected Bibliography,
   Pages 3885 to 3909.

List of works from which passages have been quoted
in "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading,"
   Pages 3910 to 3985.

{3129}

TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
   A tax or custom of two shillings on the tun of wine and
   sixpence on the pound of merchandise, which became, in
   England, from the fourteenth century, one of the regular
   parliamentary grants to the crown, for a long period. It grew
   out of an agreement with the merchants in the time of Edward
   II., to take the place of the former right of prisage; the
   right, that is, to take two tuns of wine from every ship
   importing twenty tuns or more,—one before and one behind the
   mast.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 17, sections 276-277 (volume 2)._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

TUPI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

TUPUYAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI, ETC.

TURAN.

   "The old Persians, who spoke an Aryan tongue, called their own
   land Iran, and the barbarous land to the north of it they
   called Turan. In their eyes, Iran was the land of light, and
   Turan was the land of darkness. From this Turan, the land of
   Central Asia, came the many Turkish settlements which made
   their way, first into Western Asia and then into Europe."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      chapter 2._

TURANIAN RACES AND LANGUAGES.

   The name Turanian has been given to a large group of peoples,
   mostly Asiatic, whose languages are all in the agglutinative
   stage and bear evident marks of a family relationship. "This
   race, one of the largest, both numerically and with regard to
   the extent of territory which it occupies, is divided into two
   great branches, the Ugro-finnish and the Dravidian. The first
   must be again subdivided into the Turkish, including the
   populations of Turkestan and of the Steppes of Central Asia,
   as well as the Hungarians who have been for a long time
   settled in Europe; and the Uralo-finnish group, comprising the
   Finns, the Esthonians, the Tchoudes, and, in general, nearly
   all the tribes of the north of Europe and Asia. The country of
   the Dravidian branch is, on the contrary, to the south. This
   branch is in fact composed of the indigenous people of the
   Peninsula of Hindustan; Tamuls, Telingas, Carnates, who were
   subjugated by the Arian race, and who appear to have
   originally driven before them the negroes of the Australian
   group, the original inhabitants of the soil, who are now
   represented by the almost savage tribe of the Khonds. The
   Turanian race is one of the oldest in the world. … The skulls
   discovered in France, England and Belgium, in caves of the
   close of the quaternary epoch, appear from their
   characteristics to belong to a Turanian race, to the
   Uralo-finnish group, and particularly resemble those of the
   Esthonians. Wherever the Japhetic or pure Indo-European race
   extended, it seems to have encountered a Turanian population
   which it conquered and finally amalgamated with itself."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that
   the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours
   —the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the
   name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar
   ethnologic term Turanian."

      _I. Taylor,
      Etruscan Researches,
      chapter 2._

TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of the.

      See RUSSIA: A.D. 1869-1881.

TURDETANI, The.

   "There is a tradition that the Turdetani (round Seville)
   possessed lays from very ancient times, a metrical book of
   laws, of 6,000 verses, and even historical records. At any
   rate, this tribe is described as the most civilized of all the
   Spanish tribes, and at the same time the least warlike."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 7._

   "The most mixed portion of the Peninsular population … is that
   of the water-system of the Guadalquiver and the parts
   immediately south and east of it, … the country of the
   Turdetani and Bastitani, if we look to the ancient
   populations—Bætica, if we adopt the general name of the
   Romans, Andalusia in modern geography; … it was the Iberians
   of these parts who were the first to receive foreign
   intermixture, and the last to lose it."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 2._

TURDETANIA.

   The ancient name of modern Andalusia, in Spain; known still
   more anciently as Tartessus.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
   Campaigns in the Thirty Years War and the war with Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644; 1646-1648;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
   The wars of the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
   Campaigns against the Spaniards under Condé.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656; and 1655-1658.

TURENNE, Vicomte de:
   Last campaigns.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1667; 1672-1674;
      and, 1674-1678.

TURGOT, Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

TURIERO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

   ----------TURIN: Start--------

TURIN: A. D. 312.
   Defeat of Maxentius by Constantine.

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

TURIN: 11-12th Centuries.
   Acquisition of Republican Independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

TURIN: 12th Century,
   Included in the original Italian possessions
   of the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

TURIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
   Occupation by the French and restoration to the Duke of Savoy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

TURIN: A. D. 1559.
   Held by France while other territory of the Duke of Savoy
   was restored to him.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

TURIN: A. D. 1562-1580.
   Evacuation by the French.
   Establishment of the seat of government
   by Duke Emanuel Philibert.
   Increased importance.

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

TURIN: A. D. 1639-1657.
   Extraordinary siege within a siege.
   The citadel, and its restoration by France to the Duke of Savoy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

TURIN: A. D. 1706.
   Siege by the French and rout of the besiegers.

      See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

   ----------TURIN: End--------

{3130}

TURIN PAPYRUS, The.

   An Egyptian papyrus preserved in the Turin Museum, for which
   it was purchased from M. Drovetti, consul-general of France.
   "If this papyrus were entire, the science of Egyptian
   antiquities could not possess a more valuable document. It
   contains a list of all the mythical or historical personages
   who were believed to have reigned in Egypt, from fabulous
   times down to a period we cannot ascertain, because the end of
   the papyrus is wanting. Compiled under Ramses II. (19th
   dynasty), that is, in the most flourishing epoch of the
   history of Egypt, this list has all the characteristics of an
   official document, and gives us the more valuable assistance,
   as the name of each king is followed by the duration of his
   reign, and each dynasty by the total number of years during
   which it governed Egypt. Unfortunately this inestimable
   treasure exists only in very small pieces (164 in number),
   which it is often impossible to join correctly."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 2._

   ----------TURKESTAN: Start--------

TURKESTAN.

   "Few even of the leading authorities are of accord as to the
   exact meaning of such common expressions as Turkestán or
   Central Asia. The Russians themselves often designate as
   Central Asia the second great administrative division of their
   Asiatic possessions, which is mainly comprised within the
   Aralo-Caspian depression. But this expression is misguiding in
   a geographical sense. To the portion of this division directly
   administered by the Governor-General, whose headquarters are
   at Tashkent, they give the still more questionable name of
   Eastern Turkestán—the true Eastern Turkestán, if there be any,
   lying beyond his jurisdiction in the Chinese province of
   Kashgaria. … Russian Turkestán is bordered on the west by the
   Caspian, the Ural river and mountains, on the east by the
   Pamir plateau, the Tian-Shan and Ala-tau ranges separating it
   from the Chinese Empire, northwards by the low ridge crossing
   the Kirghis steppes about the 51st parallel, and forming the
   water-parting between the Aralo-Caspian and Ob basins."

      _Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel: Asia,
      page 391-392._

   Of the region sometimes called Chinese Turkestan, the name
   "Kashgaria," "lately current in Europe, has no raison d'être
   since the collapse of the independent state founded by Yakub
   of Kashgar. In the same way the expression 'Kingdom of Khotan'
   fell into disuse after the city of Khotan had ceased to be the
   capital. The term 'Little Bokhara,' still in use some thirty
   years ago, pointed at the former religious ascendancy of
   Bokhara, but is now all the less appropriate that Bokhara
   itself has yielded the supremacy to Tashkent. Lastly, the
   expressions Eastern Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan are still
   applicable, because the inhabitants are of Turki speech, while
   the Chinese have again brought the country under subjection."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      See, also, YAKOOB BEG.

TURKESTAN: Ancient.

      See SOGDIANA.

TURKESTAN: 6th Century.
   Turkish conquest.

      See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

TURKESTAN: A. D. 710.
   Mahometan conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

TURKESTAN: A. D. 1859-1865.
   Russian conquest.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

   ----------TURKESTAN: Start--------

TURKEY.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after;
      also, SUBLIME PORTE.

   ----------TURKS: Start--------

TURKS: 6th Century.
   Beginning of their career.

   "At the equal distance of 2,000 miles from the Caspian, the
   Icy, the Chinese, and the Bengal seas, a ridge of mountains is
   conspicuous, the centre, and perhaps the summit, of Asia,
   which, in the language of different nations has been styled
   Imaus, and Caf, and Altai, and the Golden Mountains, and the
   Girdle of the Earth. The sides of the hills were productive of
   minerals; and the iron-forges, for the purpose of war, were
   exercised by the Turks, the most despised portion of the
   slaves of the great khan of the Geougen. But their servitude
   could only last till a leader, bold and eloquent, should arise
   to persuade his countrymen that the same arms which they
   forged for their masters might become in their own hands the
   instruments of freedom and victory. They sallied from the
   mountain; a sceptre was the reward of his advice. … The
   decisive battle which almost extirpated the nation of the
   Geougen established in Tartary the new and more powerful
   empire of the Turks. … The royal encampment seldom lost sight
   of Mount Altai, from whence the river Irtish descends to water
   the rich pastures of the Calmucks, which nourish the largest
   sheep and oxen in the world. … As the subject nations marched
   under the standard of the Turks, their cavalry, both men and
   horses, were proudly computed by millions; one of their
   effective armies consisted of 400,000 soldiers, and in less
   than fifty years they were connected in peace and war with the
   Romans, the Persians, and the Chinese. … Among their southern
   conquests the most splendid was that of the Nephthalites, or
   White Huns, a polite and warlike people, who possessed the
   commercial cities of Bochara and Samarcand, who had vanquished
   the Persian monarch, and carried their victorious arms along
   the banks and perhaps to the month of the Indus. On the side
   of the west the Turkish cavalry advanced to the lake Mæotis
   [Sea of Azov]. They passed that lake on the ice: The khan, who
   dwelt at the foot of Mount Altai, issued his commands for the
   siege of Bosphorus, a city the voluntary subject of Rome and
   whose princes had formerly been the friends of Athens."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 42._



      _W. Smith,
      Note to
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 42._
{3131}

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Newman,
      Lectures on the History of the Turks
      (Historical Sketches, volume 1), lectures 1-4._

      See, also, TARTARS; and MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: RACES EXISTING.

TURKS: A. D. 710.
   Subjugation by the Saracens.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

TURKS: A. D. 815-945.
   Slaves and masters of the Caliphate.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
   The Gaznevide empire.

   The decline of the Caliphate at Bagdad in the 9th century was
   signalized by the rise to practically independent power of
   several dynasties in its Persian and Central Asian dominions.
   Among these was the dynasty of the Samanides who ruled, for a
   hundred and twenty-five years, an extensive dominion in
   northern Persia and modern Afghanistan and in the Turkoman
   regions to the Oxus and beyond. In this dominion of the
   Samanides was included the Turkish tribes which had submitted
   to Islam and which were presently to become the master
   champions of the faith. Their first attainment of actual
   empire in the Moslem world was accomplished by the overthrow
   of the Samanide princes, and the chief instruments of that
   revolution were two Turks of humble origin—Sebectagi, or
   Sabektekin, and his son Mahmud. Sebectagi had been a slave (in
   the service of a high official under the Samanides) who gained
   the favor of his masters and acquired command of the city and
   province of Gazna; whence his famous son Mahmud was called the
   Gaznevide, and the wide conquests which the latter made are
   sometimes distinguished as the Gaznevide empire. "For him the
   title of Sultan was first invented [see SULTAN]; and his
   kingdom was enlarged from Transoxiana to the neighbourhood of
   Ispahan, from the shores of the Caspian to the mouth of the
   Indus. But the principal source of his fame and riches was the
   holy war which he waged against the Gentoos of Hindostan. …
   The Sultan of Gazna surpassed the limits of the conquests of
   Alexander; after a march of three months, over the hills of
   Cashmir and Thibet, he reached the famous city of Kinoge, on
   the Upper Ganges, and, in a naval combat on one of the
   branches of the Indus, he fought and vanquished 4,000 boats of
   the natives. Delhi, Lahor, and Multan were compelled to open
   their gates; the fertile kingdom of Guzarat attracted his
   ambition and tempted his stay." The throne of Mahmud scarcely
   outlasted himself. In the reign of his son Massoud, it was
   nearly overturned by another Turkish horde—later comers into
   the region of Bokhara from the steppes beyond. In a great
   battle fought at Zendecan, in Khorassan, A. D. 1038, Massoud
   was defeated and driven from Persia to a narrowed kingdom in
   Cabul and the Punjaub, which survived for more than a century
   longer and then disappeared.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 57._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Newman,
      Lectures on the History of the Turks
      (Historical Sketches, volume 1), lecture 4._

      See, also, INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

TURKS: (Seljuk), A. D. 1004-1063.
   Conquests of Seldjuk and Togrul Beg.

   "The history of the origin of the Seldjukides is obscured by
   numerous myths, but it appears from it that Seldjuk, or more
   correctly Seldjik, the son of Tokmak, and Subash, commander of
   the army of a prince named Pigu or Bogu, were expelled from
   their native steppes for some crime, and forced to seek their
   fortunes in strange countries. Seldjuk, with 100 horsemen,
   1,000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, migrated to a place on the
   southern confines of the desert, in the neighbourhood of Djend
   [described as distant twenty fersakhs from Bokhara]. He
   settled there and, with all his followers, embraced Islamism."
   Under Seldjuk and his two grandsons, Togrul and Tchakar, the
   Seldjukides grew formidable in numbers and power, on the
   border of the empire of Mahmud the Ghaznevide, then rising on
   the ruins of the principality of the Samanides. Thinking to
   control these turbulent kinsmen of his race, Mahmud unwisely
   proposed to them to quit the country they occupied, between
   the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and to settle themselves in
   Khorasan. "In the year … (1030), that is, within a year of the
   death of Sultan Mahmud, we find the Seldjukides west of Merv,
   on the ground now occupied by the Tekke-Turkomans, in the
   neighbourhood of the southern cities of Nisa and Abiverd, from
   which point they molested the rich province of Khorasan by
   constant raids, as grievously as is done by the Turkomans to
   this very day.' When it was too late, the Ghaznevide Sultan
   attempted to expel the marauders. His armies were routed, and
   the grandsons of Seldjuk were soon (A. D. 1039) in undisputed
   possession of the whole of Khorasan, with the rich and
   flourishing cities of Merv, Balkh, and Nishabur. A few years
   later they had pushed forward "over the ruins of the former
   power of the Buyyides [or Bouides, of Persia] to Azerbaïdjan,
   and, in the year 446 (1054) the skirmishers of the Turkish
   army, led by Togrul Beg, penetrated into the interior of the
   eastern Roman Empire [that is, into Asia Minor]; and although
   the bold inhabitants of the desert in their raid on the land
   of the Cæsars were bent rather on plunder than on actual
   conquest, yet even their temporary success against the great
   name of Rome—so long one of awe to the ancient
   Asiatic—increased enormously the prestige and reputation of
   the Seldjukides. Togrul Beg was said to meditate a pilgrimage
   to Mecca, with the object at the same time of clearing the
   road thither, which the state of anarchy in Bagdad had long
   rendered unsafe."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 6._

   "Togrul Beg, under pretence of a pilgrimage to Mekka had
   entered Irak at the head of a strong army, and sought to
   obtain admission into Baghdad. The khalif, in opposition to
   the advice of his vizier and the officers of the Turkish
   militia, consented; on the 22nd Ramadan, 447 (December, 1050),
   the name of Togrul was inserted in the public prayer; and
   three days after he made his entry into the city. He had taken
   an oath, before entering, to be the faithful and obedient
   servant of the khalif; but it is needless to add that he broke
   this immediately afterwards, and occupied the city in force. A
   dispute broke out between the Seljuk soldiers and some
   shop-keepers. The Baghdad Turks took the side of the citizens,
   the foreigners were driven out, and several of them killed and
   wounded. This riot was followed by a general attack upon the
   ill-fated city by the army of Togrul Beg. It was useless for
   the khalif and his vizier to protest their innocence. The
   Turkish chief denounced them as the murderers of his soldiers,
   and summoned the vizier to his camp to explain his conduct.
{3132}
   On his arrival there he was arrested and flung into prison.
   With this occurrence the rule of the Bouides in Baghdad may be
   said to have terminated, and that of the Seljuks commenced.
   Togrul Beg remained for a year inactive in Baghdad, neither
   visiting the khalif nor heeding his entreaties to put an end
   to the ravages and outrages perpetrated by his fierce and
   lawless soldiery on the wretched townspeople." The khalif was
   forced, nevertheless, to crown Sultan Togrul with two crowns,
   one to represent the sovereignty of Persia and the other the
   sovereignty of Arabia, and to confer on him the title of "The
   Sultan of the Court, the Right Hand of the Chief of Believers,
   the King of the East and of the West." The Seljuk sultan was
   now master of the Asiatic Mahometan empire. But civil war was
   still protracted for a period, by struggles of the partisans
   of the Bouides, assisted by the Fatimite Kalif of Egypt, and
   the unfortunate city of Baghdad suffered terribly at the hands
   of each party in turn. Togrul Beg, in the end, destroyed the
   opposition to his rule, and was at the point of marrying one
   of the kalif's daughters, when a sudden illness ended his
   life, A. D. 1063. He was succeeded by his nephew, Alp Arslan,
   who extended the empire of the Seljukides in Asia Minor and
   Armenia.

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 3, chapter 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
   Conquests of Alp Arslan.

   "Alp Arslan, the nephew and successor of Togrul Beg, carried
   on the havoc and devastation which had marked the career
   through life of his uncle. Togrul Beg had on two or three
   occasions invaded the Asiatic territories of the Byzantine
   Emperor; Alp Arslan carried these partial conquests to
   completion. He invaded in person the northern parts of Armenia
   and Iberia. He laid waste the country in the cruellest manner,
   for it was the notion of these barbarians that a country was
   not really conquered unless it was also depopulated. Iberia
   had been long celebrated for the industry of its inhabitants,
   the wealth of its numerous towns, and the valour of its
   people. There is no doubt they could have flung back the
   invaders had the Byzantine Empire come to their aid. But
   avarice was the dominant passion of the Emperor, Constantine
   X., and rather than disburse his loved hoards, he preferred to
   look idly on, while his fairest provinces were laid waste and
   overrun. The country was, in consequence, compelled to submit
   to the Seljuk Turks, and the invaders settling upon it, like a
   swarm of locusts, swiftly converted the happiest and most
   flourishing portion of Asia into a scene of poverty and
   desolation. From Iberia, Alp Arslan passed into Armenia. Ani,
   the capital, was stormed and taken, after a gallant defence,
   on the 6th June, 1064. … So great was the carnage that the
   streets were literally choked up with dead bodies; and the
   waters of the river were reddened from the quantity of bloody
   corpses."

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 3, chapter 2._

   "So far as one can judge from the evidence of modern and
   mediæval travellers and of Byzantine historians, Asia Minor,
   at the time of the Seljuk invasion of Alparslan, was thickly
   occupied by races who were industrious, intelligent, and
   civilised—races with a certain mixture of Greek blood and
   mostly Greek as to language. The numerous provincial cities
   were the centres of civilisation. Their walls and
   amphitheatres, their works of art, aqueducts, and other public
   buildings, give evidence of a long-continued sense of
   security, of peaceful and progressive peoples, and of a
   healthy municipal life. Wealth was widely diffused. … It was
   against this prosperous portion of the Empire, which had
   contributed largely to the wealth of the capital, that
   Alparslan turned his attention when the border states were no
   longer able to resist his progress. … The Strong Lion of the
   Seljuks devoured many cities and devastated the fairest
   provinces. Cappadocia was laid waste; the inhabitants of its
   capital, Cæsarea, were massacred. … Mesopotamia, Mitylene,
   Syria, and Cilicia were plundered."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 2._

   The career of Alp Arslan in Asia Minor was opposed by a
   courageous and vigorous emperor, Romanus Diogenes, or Romanus
   IV.; but Romanus exposed himself and his army rashly to the
   chances of a battle at Manzikert, A. D. 1071, on which all was
   staked. He lost; his army was routed, and he, himself, was
   taken prisoner. He was released on signing a treaty of peace
   and agreeing to pay a heavy ransom; but a revolution at
   Constantinople meantime had robbed him of the throne, deprived
   him of the means of fulfilling his engagements, and brought
   upon him, soon afterwards, a cruel end. Alp Arslan, provoked
   by the repudiation of the treaty, revenged himself on the
   ill-fated country which lay at his mercy. "Every calamity of
   this unfortunate period sinks into insignificance when
   compared with the destruction of the greater part of the Greek
   race, by the ravages of the Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1073-1092.
   The empire of Malek Shah and its subordinate Sultans.

   Alp Arslan, assassinated in 1073, "was succeeded by his son,
   Malek Shah, in whose reign the power of the Seljukian Turks
   attained its greatest height. … Turkestan, the home of his
   race, including Bokhara and Samarcand, was annexed by Malek,
   and the rule of the shepherd Sultan was admitted at Cashgar.
   In addition to Persia and the countries just mentioned, his
   territory included at one time nearly the whole of what is now
   Turkey in Asia. … The Seljukian empire, however, broke up on
   the death of Malek, which took place in 1092, and, after a
   period of civil war, was divided into four parts. … The only
   one of the divisions … with which I am concerned is that which
   was carved out of the dominions of the Roman empire, and of
   which the capital was, for the most part, at Iconium, a city
   which to-day, under the name of Konieh, retains somewhat of a
   sacred character among the Turks, because of its connection
   with the first Sultans who obtained the right to be Caliphs.
   Sultan Malek, eighteen years before his death, had prevented a
   quarrel with Suliman, his cousin, by consenting to allow him
   to be Sultan of the Seljuks in the lands of the Christian
   empire. With Suliman there begins the famous line of robber
   chiefs who are known as Seljukian Sultans of Rome or Roum, or
   as Sultans of Iconium."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 2._

{3133}

   "The dominion of Suleiman over the greater part of Asia Minor
   was recognised by a treaty with the Byzantine empire in 1074,
   when Michael VII. purchased the assistance of a Turkish
   auxiliary force against the rebellion of Oursel and his own
   uncle John Dukas. Nicephorus III. ratified the treaty
   concluded with Michael VII., augmented the power of the Turks,
   and abandoned additional numbers of Christians to their
   domination, to gain their aid in dethroning his lawful prince;
   and Nicephorus Melissenos, when he rebelled against Nicephorus
   III., repeated a similar treason against the traitor, and, in
   hopes of gaining possession of Constantinople, yielded up the
   possession of Nicæa to Suleiman, which that chief immediately
   made the capital of his dominions. … When Alexius ascended the
   throne [Alexius I. A. D. 1081], the Seljouk conquests in Asia
   Minor were still considered as a portion of the dominions of
   the Grand Sultan Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan, and
   Suleiman, the sultan of Nicæa, was only his lieutenant, though
   as a member of the house of Seljouk, and as cousin of
   Malekshah, he was honoured with the title of Sultan. The
   prominent position which his posterity occupied in the wars of
   the Crusaders, their long relations with the Byzantine empire,
   and the independent position they held as sultans of Iconium,
   have secured to them a far more lasting place in history than
   has been obtained by the superior but less durable dynasty of
   the grand sultans. … Toutoush, the brother of Malekshah, who
   acted as his governor at Damascus at the same time, became the
   founder of the Syrian dynasty of Seljouk sultans."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

   The empire of Malek Shah "was as vast as that of the Sassanian
   kings in the height of their glory. He encouraged the
   cultivation of science and literature, and his reign is famous
   for the reformation of the Calendar [in which work Omar
   el-Khayyam, the poet, was one of the astronomers employed]. An
   assembly of an the astronomers of Persia adopted a system of
   computing time which Gibbon says 'surpasses the Julian and
   approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian æra.' It was called
   the Jalalæan æra, from Jalalu-'d-Din, 'Glory of the Faith,'
   one of the titles of Malik-Shah, and commenced on March 15,
   1079."

      _C. R. Markham,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 6._

TURKS: A. D. 1092-1160.
   Dissolution of the empire of Malek Shah.

   "Melikshah's reign was certainly the culminating point of the
   glory of the Seldjukides. … Mindful of the oriental adage,
   'Perfection and decay go hand in hand,' he determined as far
   as possible to provide, during his own lifetime, against
   discord breaking out amongst those who should come after him,
   by dividing the empire between his different relations.
   Anatolia was given to Suleiman Shah, whose family had hitherto
   governed Gazan; Syria fell to his brother Tutush, the
   adversary of the Crusaders; Nushtekin Gartcha, who had raised
   himself from slavery to the rank of generalissimo, and who
   became later the founder of the dynasty of the Khahrezmides,
   was invested with Khahrezm; Aksonghar got Aleppo; Tchekermish
   Mosul, Kobulmish Damascus, Khomartekin Fars, and his son
   Sandjar was entrusted with the administration of Khorasan and
   Transoxania. These precautions proved, however, ineffectual to
   preserve the dynasty of the Seljukides from the common fate of
   oriental sovereign races, for after the death of Melikshah,
   which took place in 485 (1092), his son Berkyaruk (the Very
   Brilliant One) had scarcely ascended the throne before the
   flames of discord were kindled amongst the numerous members of
   the family, and they speedily fell a prey to the generals and
   the other relations of the deceased prince." Sandjar, who died
   in 1160, "was almost the only one of all his race who took to
   heart the decay of their power in their old hereditary
   dominions, or made any earnest endeavour to arrest it."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 6._

TURKS: A. D. 1097-1099.
   First encounters with the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

TURKS: A. D. 1101-1102.
   Destruction of three hosts of Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

TURKS: A. D. 1193.
   Overthrow by the Khuarezmians.

      See KHUAREZM

TURKS: (Ottoman): A. D. 1240-1326.
   Origin and rise of the modern Turkish power.

   On the final defeat and death, in Kurdistan, of the last
   Khuarezmian or Carizmian prince, who was pursued relentlessly
   by the Mongols of Jingis Khan and his successors, there was
   dissolved an army which included various Turkish hordes. The
   fragments of this Khuarezmian force were scattered and played
   several important parts in the history of the troubled time.
   "The bolder and more powerful chiefs invaded Syria, and
   violated the holy sepulchre of Jerusalem; the more humble
   engaged in the service of Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, and among
   these were the obscure fathers of the Ottoman line. They had
   formerly pitched their tents near the southern bank of the
   Oxus, in the plains of Mahan and Nesa; and it is somewhat
   remarkable that the same spot should have produced the first
   authors of the Parthian and Turkish empires. At the head or in
   rear of a Carizmian army, Soliman Shah was drowned in the
   passage of the Euphrates. His son Orthogrul became the soldier
   and subject of Aladin, and established at Surgut, on the banks
   of the Sangar, a camp of four hundred families or tents, whom
   he governed fifty-two years both in peace and war. He was the
   father of Thaman, or Athman, whose Turkish name has been
   melted into the appellation of the Caliph Othman; and if we
   describe that pastoral chief as a shepherd and a robber, we
   must separate from those characters all idea of ignominy and
   baseness. Othman possessed, and perhaps surpassed, the
   ordinary virtues of a soldier, and the circumstances of time
   and place were propitious to his independence and success. The
   Seljukian dynasty was no more, and the distance and decline of
   the Mogul Khans soon enfranchised him from the control of a
   superior. He was situate on the verge of the Greek empire. The
   Koran sanctified his 'gazi,' or holy war, against the
   infidels; and their political errors unlocked the passes of
   Mount Olympus, and invited him to descend into the plains of
   Bithynia. … It was on the 27th of July, in the year 1299 of
   the Christian era, that Othman first invaded the territory of
   Nicomedia; and the singular accuracy of the date seems to
   disclose some foresight of the rapid and destructive growth of
   the monster. The annals of the twenty-seven years of his reign
   would exhibit a repetition of the same inroads; and his
   hereditary troops were multiplied in each campaign by the
   accession of captives and volunteers.
{3134}
   Instead of retreating to the hills, he maintained the most
   useful and defensible posts, fortified the towns and castles
   which he had first pillaged; and renounced the pastoral life
   for the baths and palaces of his infant capitals. But it was
   not till Othman was oppressed by age and infirmities that he
   received the welcome news of the conquest of Prusa, which had
   been surrendered by famine or treachery to the arms of his son
   Orchan. … From the conquest of Prusa we may date the true era
   of the Ottoman empire. The lives and possessions of the
   Christian subjects were redeemed by a tribute or ransom of
   thirty thousand crowns of gold; and the city, by the labors of
   Orchan, assumed the aspect of a Mahometan capital."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 64._

   "Osman is the real Turkish name, which has been corrupted into
   Othman. The descendants of his subjects style themselves
   Osmanlis, which has in like manner been corrupted into
   Ottoman."

      _Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 64._

TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359.
   Progress of conquests in Asia Minor.

   The Janissaries.

   "Orchan [the son and successor of Othman] had captured the
   city of Nicomedia in the first year of his reign (1326); and
   with the new resources for warfare which the administrative
   genius of his brother [Alaeddin] placed at his command, he
   speedily signalised his reign by conquests still more
   important. The great city of Nice [Nicæa] (second to
   Constantinople only in the Greek Empire) surrendered to him in
   1330. … Numerous other advantages were gained over the Greeks:
   and the Turkish prince of Karasi (the ancient Mysia), who had
   taken up arms against the Ottomans, was defeated; and his
   capital city, Berghama (the ancient Pergamus), and his
   territory, annexed to Orchan's dominions. On the conquest of
   Karasi, in the year 1336 of our era, nearly the whole of the
   north-west of Asia Minor was included in the Ottoman Empire;
   and the four great cities of Brusa, Nicomedia, Nice, and
   Pergamus had become strongholds of its power. A period of
   twenty years, without further conquests, and without war,
   followed the acquisition of Karasi. During this time the
   Ottoman sovereign was actively occupied in perfecting the
   civil and military institutions which his brother had
   introduced; in securing internal order, in founding and
   endowing mosques and schools, and in the construction of vast
   public edifices. … Orchan died in the year 1359 of our era, at
   the age of seventy-five, after a reign of thirty-three years,
   during which the most important civil and military
   institutions of his nation were founded, and the Crescent was
   not only advanced over many of the fairest provinces of Asia,
   but was also planted on the European continent."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 2._

   It is with Othman's son Orkhan that the Ottoman Empire really
   begins. He threw off his nominal allegiance to the Sultan [of
   Iconium], though he still bore only the title of Emir. And in
   his time the Ottomans first made good their footing in Europe.
   But while his dominion was still only Asiatic, Orkhan began
   one institution which did more than anything else firmly to
   establish the Ottoman power. This was the institution of the
   tribute children. By the law of Mahomet … the unbeliever is
   allowed to purchase life, property, and the exercise of his
   religion, by the payment of tribute. Earlier Mahometan rulers
   had been satisfied with tribute in the ordinary sense. Orkhan
   first demanded a tribute of children. The deepest of wrongs,
   that which other tyrants did as an occasional outrage, thus
   became under the Ottomans a settled law. A fixed proportion of
   the strongest and most promising boys among the conquered
   Christian nations were carried off for the service of the
   Ottoman princes. They were brought up in the Mahometan faith,
   and were employed in civil or military functions, according to
   their capacity. Out of them was formed the famous force of the
   Janissaries, the new soldiers who, for three centuries, as
   long as they were levied in this way, formed the strength of
   the Ottoman armies. These children, torn from their homes and
   cut off from every domestic and national tie, knew only the
   religion and the service into which they were forced, and
   formed a body of troops such as no other power, Christian or
   Mahometan, could command. … While the force founded by Orkhan
   lasted in its first shape, the Ottoman armies were
   irresistible. But all this shews how far the Ottomans were
   from being a national power. Their victories were won by
   soldiers who were really of the blood of the Greeks, Slaves,
   and other conquered nations. In the same way, while the
   Ottoman power was strongest, the chief posts of the Empire,
   civil and military, were constantly held, not by native Turks,
   but by Christian renegades of all nations. The Ottoman power
   in short was the power, not of a nation, but simply of an
   army."

      E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      chapter 4.

   The name of Yeni Tscheri, which means 'new troops,' and which
   European writers have turned into Janissaries, was given to
   Orchan's young corps by the Dervish Hadji Beytarch."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389.
   The conquests in Europe of Amurath I.

   "The dissensions of the elder and younger Andronicus [Emperors
   at Constantinople, the younger—a grandson—in revolt and the
   elder finally deposed, A. D. 1320-1328], and the mistaken
   policy of Cantacuzene [Great Domestic of the empire, regent,
   after the death of Andronicus the younger, A. D. 1341, and
   then usurper of the throne from 1341 until 1355], first led to
   the introduction of the Turks into Europe; and the subsequent
   marriage of Orchan with a Grecian princess was acceded to by
   the Byzantine court as a faint bond of peace between a dreaded
   conqueror and a crouching state. The expectation of
   tranquillity was, however, fatally blasted; and, in the last
   quarrel of Cantacuzene with his pupil [John Palæologus, the
   youthful son of Andronicus the younger, who was deprived of
   his crown for fourteen years by Cantacuzene], the disastrous
   ambition of the former opened the path of Solyman, the son of
   Orchan, across the Hellespont [A. D. 1356], and laid the
   northern provinces of the kingdom open to the temporary
   ravages of the barbarians, thus inflicting a lasting and
   irremediable injury on the liberties of Christendom. The
   exploits of Solyman, however, led to no other permanent
   results than the example which they left to the ambition of
   Amurath I., who, amongst his earliest achievements, led his
   victorious army across the Hellespont [A. D. 1360], ravaged
   the extended district from Mount Hæmus to the Straits, and,
   taking possession of Adrianople [A. D. 1361], made it the
   first seat of his royalty, and the first shrine of
   Mahomedanism in Europe.
{3135}
   His conquests had now drawn a circle round the enfeebled
   dominions of the Emperor; and the submission of John
   Palæologus, together with his political views in more distant
   quarters, alone prevented Amurath from contracting the
   circumference to the centre, and annihilating the empire of
   the East, by seating himself on the throne of Byzantium. For
   the present, he turned his back upon the city, and pursued his
   course towards the wilds of Bulgaria and Servia."

      _Sir J. E. Tennent,
      History of Modern Greece,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   "Hitherto the Turkish victories in Europe had been won over
   the feeble Greeks; but the Ottomans now came in contact with
   the far more warlike Sclavonic tribes, which had founded
   kingdoms and principalities in Servia and Bosnia. Amurath also
   menaced the frontiers of Wallachia and Hungary. The Roman See,
   once so energetic in exciting the early crusades, had
   disregarded the progress of the new Mahometan power, so long
   as the heretical Greeks were the only sufferers beneath its
   arms. But Hungary, a country that professed spiritual
   obedience to the Pope, a branch of Latin Christendom, was now
   in peril; and Pope Urban V. preached up a crusade against the
   infidel Turks. The King of Hungary, the princes of Servia, of
   Bosnia and Wallachia, leagued together to drive the Ottomans
   out of Europe; and their forces marched towards Adrianople
   until they crossed the river Marizza at a point not more than
   two days' journey from that city." A single battle, fought on
   the Marizza, in 1363, broke this first Sclavonic league
   against the Turks, and Amurath proceeded in his acquisition of
   towns and territory from the Servians and Bulgarians until
   1376, when both people purchased a short peace, the former by
   paying a heavy annual tribute of money and soldiers, the
   latter by giving their king's daughter to the Turk. The peace
   thus secured only gave an opportunity to the Sclavic nations
   to organize one more great attempt to cast out their
   aggressive and dangerous neighbor. Servia led the movement,
   and was joined in it by the Bulgarians, the Bosnians, and the
   Skipetars of Albania, with aid likewise promised and rendered
   from Hungary, Wallachia, and Poland. But nothing prospered in
   the undertaking; it served the ambition of the Turks and
   quickened their conquest of southeastern Europe. Amurath fell
   upon Bulgaria first (A. D. 1389), broke down all resistance,
   dethroned the king and annexed his state to the Ottoman
   dominions. A few weeks later in the same year, on the 27th of
   August, 1389, the great and famous battle of Kossova was
   fought, which laid the heavy yoke of Turkish tyranny upon the
   necks of the Servian people, and the memory of which has been
   embalmed in their literature. Amurath was assassinated in the
   hour of victory by a despairing Servian nobleman, but lived
   long enough to command the execution of the captive Servian
   king.

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 2._

      _Madame E. L. Mijatovich,
      Kossovo._

      See, also,
      BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9-16TH CENTURIES.

TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.
   The conquests of Bajazet.
   The Emir becomes Sultan.
   His overthrow and capture by Timour.

   "The character of Bajazet, the son and successor of Amurath,
   is strongly expressed in his surname of Ilderim, or the
   Lightning; and he might glory in an epithet which was drawn
   from the fiery energy of his soul and the rapidity of his
   destructive march. In the fourteen years of his reign he
   incessantly moved at the head of his armies, from Boursa to
   Adrianople, from the Danube to the Euphrates. … No sooner had
   he imposed a regular form of servitude on the Servians and
   Bulgarians than he passed the Danube to seek new enemies and
   new subjects in the heart of Moldavia. Whatever yet adhered to
   the Greek empire in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly,
   acknowledged a Turkish master. … The humble title of emir was
   no longer suitable to the Ottoman greatness; and Bajazet
   condescended to accept a patent of sultan from the caliphs who
   served in Egypt under the yoke of the Mamelukes—a last and
   frivolous homage that was yielded by force to opinion, by the
   Turkish conquerors to the House of Abbas and the successors of
   the Arabian prophet. The ambition of the sultan was inflamed
   by the obligation of deserving this august title; and he
   turned his arms against the kingdom of Hungary, the perpetual
   theatre of the Turkish victories and defeats. Sigismond, the
   Hungarian king, was the son and brother of the emperors of the
   West; his cause was that of Europe and the Church; and on the
   report of his danger, the bravest knights of France and
   Germany were eager to march under his standard and that of the
   cross. In the battle of Nicopolis [September 28, A. D. 1396],
   Bajazet defeated a confederate army of 100,000 Christians, who
   had proudly boasted that if the sky should fall they could
   uphold it on their lances. The far greater part were slain or
   driven into the Danube; and Sigismond, escaping to
   Constantinople by the river and the Black Sea, returned, after
   a long circuit, to his exhausted kingdom. In the pride of
   victory, Bajazet threatened that he would besiege Buda; that
   he would subdue the adjacent countries of Germany and Italy;
   and that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the
   altar of St. Peter at Rome. His progress was checked, not by
   the miraculous interposition of the apostle, not by a crusade
   of the Christian powers, but by a long and painful fit of the
   gout. … At length the ambition of the victorious sultan
   pointed to the conquest of Constantinople; but he listened to
   the advice of his vizir, who represented that such an
   enterprise might unite the powers of Christendom in a second
   and more formidable crusade. His epistle to the emperor was
   conceived in these words: 'By the divine clemency, our
   invincible scimitar has reduced to our obedience almost all
   Asia, with many and large countries in Europe, excepting only
   the city of Constantinople; for beyond the walls thou hast
   nothing left. Resign that city; stipulate thy reward; or
   tremble for thyself and thy unhappy people at the consequences
   of a rash refusal.' But his ambassadors were instructed to
   soften their tone, and to propose a treaty, which was
   subscribed with submission and gratitude. A truce of ten years
   was purchased by an annual tribute of thirty thousand crowns
   of gold." The truce was soon broken by Bajazet, who found a
   pretext for again demanding the surrender of Constantinople.
   He had established his blockade of the city and would surely
   have won it by famine or assault if Timour's invasion of Asia
   Minor (A. D. 1402) had not summarily interrupted his plans and
   ended his career. Defeated at the battle of Angora and taken
   prisoner by the Tartar conqueror, he died a few months
   later—whether caged like a beast or held in more honorable
   captivity is a question in some dispute.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 64-65._

      See, also, TIMOUR.

{3136}

TURKS: A. D. 1393.
   Wallachian capitulation.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROMANIA, ETC.).

TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.
   Prostration and recovery.
   Conquests of Mahomet and Amurath II.

   It is one of the marvels of history that the Ottoman empire,
   broken and dismembered by Timour, recovered its vigor and
   re-entered upon a long career. After the fall of Bajazet,
   three fragments of his dominions were held by three of his
   surviving sons, while other portions were transferred by
   Timour to princes of the old Seljuk house. Civil war broke out
   between the brothers of the Ottoman race; it resulted in the
   triumph of Mahomet, the youngest (A. D. 1413), who reunited a
   large part of the dominions of his father. He reigned but
   eight years, which were years of peace for the Greeks, with
   whom Mahomet maintained a friendly intercourse. His son,
   Amurath II., was provoked to renew the state of war, and a
   formidable attack upon Constantinople was made in August,
   1422. The first assault failed, and disturbances at home
   recalled Amurath before he could repeat it. The Roman capital
   was reprieved for thirty years; but its trembling emperor paid
   tribute to the sultan and yielded most of the few cities that
   remained to him outside of his capital. The Ottoman power had
   become threatening again in Europe, and Servians, Bosnians,
   Albanians, Wallachians, Hungarians, and Poles now struck hands
   together in a combination, once more, to oppose it. "A severe
   struggle followed, which, after threatening the utter
   expulsion of the house of Othman from Europe, confirmed for
   centuries its dominion in that continent, and wrought the
   heavier subjugation of those who were then seeking to release
   themselves from its superiority. In 1442 Amurath was repulsed
   from Belgrade; and his generals, who were besieging
   Hermanstadt, in Transylvania, met with a still more disastrous
   reverse. It was at Hermanstadt that the renowned Hunyades
   first appeared in the wars between the Hungarians and the
   Turks. He was the illegitimate son of Sigismond, King of
   Hungary, and the fair Elizabeth Morsiney. In his early youth
   he gained distinction in the wars of Italy; and Comines, in
   his memoirs, celebrates him under the name of the White Knight
   of Wallachia. After some campaigns in Western Christendom,
   Hunyades returned to protect his native country against the
   Ottomans." At Hermanstadt, and again at Vasag, Hunyades
   defeated the Turks with great slaughter and rivalled them in
   the ferocity with which his prisoners were treated. His fame
   now gave a great impulse to the Crusade against the Turks
   which Pope Eugenius had preached, and drew volunteers to his
   standard from all the nations of the West. In 1443, Hunyades
   led a splendid and powerful army across the Danube near
   Semendra, drove the Turks beyond the Balkans, forced the
   passage of the mountains with a boldness and a skill that is
   compared with the exploits of Hannibal and Napoleon, and
   extorted from the Sultan a treaty (of Szegeddin, July 12,
   1444) which rescued a large Christian territory from the
   Moslem yoke. "The Sultan resigned all claims upon Servia and
   recognised George Brankovich as its independent sovereign.
   Wallachia was given up to Hungary." But the peace which this
   treaty secured was brief; Christian perfidy destroyed it, and
   the penalty was paid by whole centuries of suffering and shame
   for the Christians of the Danubian states. "Within a month
   from the signature of the treaty of Szegeddin the Pope and the
   Greek Emperor had persuaded the King of Hungary and his
   councillors to take an oath to break the oath which had been
   pledged to the Sultan. They represented that the confessed
   weakness of the Ottomans, and the retirement of Amurath [who
   had placed his son Mahomet on the throne and withdrawn from
   the cares of sovereignty] to Asia, gave an opportunity for
   eradicating the Turks from Europe which ought to be fully
   employed. The Cardinal Julian [legate of the Pope] pacified
   the conscientious misgivings which young King Ladislaus
   expressed, by his spiritual authority in giving dispensation
   and absolution in the Pope's name. … On the 1st of September,
   the King, the legate, and Hunyades, marched against the
   surprised and unprepared Turks with an army of 10,000 Poles
   and Hungarians. The temerity which made them expect to destroy
   the Turkish power in Europe with so slight a force was equal
   to the dishonesty of their enterprise." They advanced through
   Bulgaria to the Black Sea, and southward along its coast as
   far as Varna, which they took. There they were called to
   account. Amurath had resumed the sceptre, put himself at the
   head of 40,000 of the best warriors of Islam and on the 10th
   November he dashed them upon the Christian forces at Varna,
   with the broken treaty borne like a banner at their head. His
   victory was overwhelming. Cardinal Julian and the King of
   Hungary were both among the slain. Hunyades fled with a little
   remnant of followers and escaped to try fortune in other
   fields. "This overthrow did not bring immediate ruin upon
   Hungary, but it was fatal to the Sclavonic neighbours of the
   Ottomans, who had joined the Hungarian King against them.
   Servia and Bosnia were thoroughly reconquered by the
   Mahometans; and the ruin of these Christian nations, which
   adhered to the Greek Church, was accelerated by the religious
   intolerance with which they were treated by their fellow
   Christians of Hungary and Poland, who obeyed the Pope and
   hated the Greek Church as heretical. … The bigotry of the
   Church of Rome in preaching up a crusade against the sect of
   the Patarenes, which was extensively spread in that country
   [Bosnia], caused the speedy and complete annexation of an
   important frontier province to the Ottoman Empire. Seventy
   Bosnian fortresses are said to have opened their gates to the
   Turks within eight days. The royal house of Bosnia was
   annihilated, and many of her chief nobles embraced
   Mahometanism to avoid a similar doom." After once more
   attempting to escape from the throne, and being recalled by
   domestic disturbances, Amurath reigned yet six years,
   extending his dominions in the Peloponnesus, defeating once
   more his old antagonist, Hunyades, who invaded Servia (1448),
   but being successfully defied in Albania by the heroic
   Scanderbeg. He died in 1451.

{3137}

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 2._

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary,
      part 1, chapters 3-4._

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      books 10-11._

TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
   Conquest of Constantinople.
   The Empire organized and perfected by Mahomet II.

   Mahomet II., son of Amurath II., "finished the work of his
   predecessors; he made the Ottoman power in Europe what it has
   been ever since. He gave a systematic form to the customs of
   his house and to the dominion which he had won. His first act
   was the murder of his infant brother, and he made the murder
   of brothers a standing law of his Empire. He overthrew the
   last remnants of independent Roman rule, of independent Greek
   nationality, and he fixed the relations which the Greek part
   of his subjects were to bear both towards their Turkish
   masters and towards their Christian fellow-subjects. He made
   the northern and western frontiers of his Empire nearly what
   they still remain. The Ottoman Empire, in short, as our age
   has to deal with it, is, before all things, the work of
   Mahomet the Conqueror. The prince whose throne was fixed in
   the New Rome held altogether another place from even the
   mightiest of his predecessors. Mahomet had reigned two years,
   he had lived twenty-three, on the memorable day, May 29th
   1453, when the Turks entered the city of the Cæsars and when
   the last Emperor, Constantine, died in the breach. …

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.

   And now that the Imperial city was at last taken, Mahomet
   seemed to make it his policy both to gather in whatever
   remained unconquered, and to bring most of the states which
   had hitherto been tributary under his direct rule. Greece
   itself, though it had been often ravaged by the Turks, had not
   been added to their dominions. The Emperors had, in the very
   last days of the Empire before the fall of Constantinople,
   recovered all Peloponnesos, except some points which were held
   by Venice. Frank Dukes also reigned at Athens, and another
   small duchy lingered on in the islands of Leukas and
   Kephallenia and on the coasts of Akarnania. The Turkish
   conquest of the mainland, again saving the Venetian points,
   was completed by the year 1460, but the two western islands
   were not taken until 1479. Euboia was conquered in 1471. … The
   Empire of Trebizond was conquered in 1461, and the island of
   Lesbos or Mitylene in 1462. There was now no independent Greek
   state left. Crete, Corfu, and some smaller islands and points
   of coast, were held by Venice, and some of the islands of the
   Ægean were still ruled by Frank princes and by the Knights of
   Saint John. But, after the fall of Trebizond, there was no
   longer any independent Greek state anywhere, and the part of
   the Greek nation which was under Christian rulers of any kind
   was now far smaller than the part which was under the Turk.
   While the Greeks were thus wholly subdued, the Slaves fared no
   better. In 1459 Servia was reduced from a tributary
   principality to an Ottoman province, and six years later
   Bosnia was annexed also. … One little fragment of the great
   Slavonic power in those lands alone remained. The little
   district of Zeta, a part of the Servian kingdom, was never
   fully conquered by the Turks. One part of it, the mountain
   district called Tsernagora or Montenegro, has kept its
   independence to our times. Standing as an outpost of freedom
   and Christendom amid surrounding bondage, the Black Mountain
   has been often attacked, it has been several times overrun,
   but it has never been conquered. … To the south of them, the
   Christian Albanians held out for a long time under their
   famous chief George Castriot or Scanderbeg. After his death in
   1459, they also came under the yoke. These conquests of
   Mahomet gave the Ottoman dominion in Europe nearly the same
   extent which it has now. His victories had been great, but
   they were balanced by some defeats. The conquest of Servia and
   Bosnia opened the way to endless inroads into Hungary,
   South-eastern Germany and North-eastern Italy. But as yet
   these lands were merely ravaged, and the Turkish power met
   with some reverses. In 1456 Belgrade was saved by the last
   victory of Huniades [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458], and this
   time Mahomet the Conqueror had to flee. In another part of
   Europe, if in those days it is to be counted for Europe,
   Mahomet won the Genoese possessions in the peninsula of Crimea
   [A. D. 1475], and the Tartar Khans who ruled in that peninsula
   and the neighbouring lands became vassals of the Sultan. … The
   last years of Mahomet's reign were marked by a great failure
   and a great success. He failed to take Rhodes [A. D. 1480],
   which belonged to the Knights of Saint John; but his troops
   suddenly seized on Otranto in Southern Italy. Had this post
   been kept, Italy might have fallen as well as Greece; but the
   Conqueror died the next year, and Otranto was won back."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      books 12-13._

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapters 5-6._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 68._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

TURKS: A. D. 1454-1479.
   Treaty with Venice, followed by war.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

TURKS: A. D. 1479.
   Defeat at Kenyer-Mesö by the Hungarians and Wallachians.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
   The sad story of Prince Jem and the Christians.
   Massacre of the Shiites.
   Selim's conquests in Persia, Syria and Egypt.
   The Sultan becomes the successor of the Khalifs,
   the chief of Islam.

   "The long reign of Bayezid [or Bajazet] II. (1481-1512) which
   surpassed that of his father and grandfather, so that the
   three together nearly completed a century, was marked by a
   general lethargy and incapacity on the part of the Turkish
   Government. … Family dissensions were indeed the leading
   incidents of Bayezid's reign, and for many years he was kept
   in a state of anxious uncertainty by the ingenious intrigues
   of the Christian Powers concerning the custody of his brother,
   the unfortunate Prince Jem. The adventures of Prince Jem (the
   name is short for Jemshid, but in Europe it has been written
   Zizim) cast a very unpleasant light upon the honour of the
   Christians of his time, and especially upon the Knights of
   Rhodes. Of the two sons of Mohammed II. Jem was undoubtedly
   the one who was by nature fitted to be his successor. … Jem
   however, was not the first to hear of his father's death, and
   a year's warfare against his brother ended in his own defeat.
{3138}
   The younger prince then sought refuge with the Knights of
   Rhodes, who promised to receive him hospitably, and to find
   him a way to Europe, where he intended to renew his opposition
   to his brother's authority. D'Aubusson, the Grand Master of
   Rhodes, was too astute a diplomatist to sacrifice the solid
   gains that he perceived would accrue to his Order for the sake
   of a few paltry twinges of conscience; and he had no sooner
   made sure of Prince Jem's person, and induced him to sign a
   treaty, by which, in the event of his coming to the throne,
   the Order was to reap many sterling advantages, than he
   ingeniously opened negotiations with Sultan Bayezid, with a
   view to ascertain how much gold that sovereign was willing to
   pay for the safe custody of his refractory brother. It is only
   fair to say that Bayezid, who had no particle of cruelty in
   his nature, did all he could to come to terms with Jem. … All
   negotiation and compromise having proved ineffectual, he
   listened to the proposals of the crafty Grand Master, and
   finally agreed to pay him 45,000 ducats a year, so long as he
   kept Jem under his surveillance. The Knights of St. John
   possessed many commanderies, and the one they now selected for
   Jem's entertainment was at Nice, in the south of France. In
   1482 he arrived there, wholly unconscious of the plots that
   were being woven about him. … On one pretext or another the
   knights contrived to keep their prisoner at Nice for several
   months, and then transferred him to Rousillon, thence to Puy,
   and next to Sassenage, where the monotonies of captivity were
   relieved by the delights of love, which he shared with the
   daughter of the commandant, the beautiful Philipine Hélène,
   his lawful spouse being fortunately away in Egypt. Meanwhile
   Grand Master D'Aubusson was driving a handsome trade in his
   capacity of jailor. All the potentates of Europe were anxious
   to obtain possession of the claimant to the Ottoman throne,
   and were ready to pay large sums in hard cash to enjoy the
   privilege of using this specially dangerous instrument against
   the Sultan's peace. D'Aubusson was not averse to taking the
   money, but he did not wish to give up his captive; and his
   knightly honour felt no smirch in taking 20,000 ducats from
   Jem's desolate wife (who probably had not heard of the fair
   Hélène) as the price of her husband's release, while he held
   him all the tighter. Of such chivalrous stuff were made the
   famous knights of Rhodes; and of such men as D'Aubusson the
   Church made cardinals! A new influence now appeared upon the
   scene of Jem's captivity. Charles VIII. of France considered
   that the Grand Master had made enough profit out of the
   unlucky prince, and the king resolved to work the oracle
   himself. His plan was to restore Jem to a nominal sultanate by
   the aid of Matthias Corvinus, Ferdinand of Naples, and the
   Pope. He took Jem out of the hands of the knights, and
   transferred him to the custody of Innocent VIII., who kindly
   consented to take care of the prince for the sum of 40,000
   ducats a year, to be paid by his grateful brother at
   Constantinople." Innocent's successor, the terrible Borgia,
   Alexander VI., unsatisfied with this liberal allowance, opened
   negotiations with Constantinople looking to the payment of
   some heavy lump sum for summary riddance of poor Jem. But the
   sinister bargain was interrupted by Charles VIII. of France,
   who invaded Italy at this juncture, passed through Rome, and
   took the captive prince in his train when he went on to
   Naples. Jem died on the way, and few have doubted that Pope
   Alexander poisoned him, as he had poisoned many before. "The
   curious conclusion one draws from the whole melancholy tale
   is, that there was not apparently a single honest prince in
   Christendom to take compassion upon the captive." In 1512
   Bayezid was deposed by his son Selim, and did not long survive
   the humiliation. To avoid troubles of the Prince Jem
   character, Selim slew all his brothers and nephews, eleven in
   number, making a family solitude around the throne. Then he
   prepared himself for foreign conquest by exterminating the
   sometimes troublesome sect of the Shias, or Shiites, in his
   dominions. "A carefully organized system of detectives, whom
   Selim distributed throughout his Asiatic provinces, revealed
   the fact that the number of the heretical sect reached the
   alarming total of 70,000. Selim … secretly massed his troops
   at spots where the heretics chiefly congregated, and at a
   given signal 40,000 of them were massacred or imprisoned. …
   Having got rid of the enemy within his gates, Selim now
   proceeded to attack the head of the Shias, the great Shah
   Ismail himself [the founder of the Sufi line of Persian
   sovereigns, who had lately established his authority over the
   provinces of Persia]. … Selim set forth with an army estimated
   at over 140,000 men, 80,000 of which were cavalry. … After
   weary and painful marching, the Ottomans forced Ismail to give
   battle at Chaldiran [or Tabreez—see PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887],"
   and defeated him. "The victory of Chaldiran (1514) might have
   been followed by the conquest of Persia, but the privations
   which the soldiery had undergone had rendered them
   unmanageable, and Selim was forced to content himself with the
   annexation of the important provinces of Kurdistan and
   Dyarbekr, which are still part of the Turkish Empire; and then
   turned homewards, to prosecute other schemes of conquest. No
   peace, however, was concluded between him and the Shah, and a
   frontier war continued to be waged for many years. During the
   campaign against Persia, the Turks had been kept in anxiety by
   the presence on their flanks of the forces of the Mamluk
   Sultans of Egypt and Syria, whose frontiers now marched with
   the territory of the Ottomans." Turning his arms against the
   Mamluks, "Selim set out in 1516 for Syria, and meeting the
   Mamluk army on the field of Marj Dabik near Aleppo,
   administered a terrible defeat, in which the aged Sultan
   El-Ghuri was trampled to death. He found a brave successor in
   Tuman Bey, but in the interval the Turks had mastered Syria
   and were advancing to Gaza. Here the Mamluks made another
   stand, but the generalship of Sinan Pasha was not to be
   resisted any more than the preponderance of his forces. The
   final battle was fought at Reydaniya in the neighbourhood of
   Cairo, in January, 1517. … Twenty-five thousand Mamluks lay
   stark upon the field, and the enemy occupied Cairo. There a
   succession of street-fights took place." The perfidious
   Turkish Sultan finally cheated the Mamluks into submission by
   offering amnesty, and then put them to the sword, giving the
   city up to massacre. "Tuman Bey, after some further
   resistance, was captured and executed, and Egypt became a
   Turkish province. … Sultan Selim returned to Constantinople in
   1518, a much more dignified personage than he had set out.
{3139}
   By the conquest of the Mamluk kingdom he had also succeeded to
   their authority over the sacred cities of Arabia, Mekka and
   Medina, and in recognition of this position, as well as of his
   undoubted supremacy among Mohammedan monarchs, he received
   from the last Abbaside Khalif, who kept a shadowy court at
   Cairo, the inheritance of the great pontiffs of Baghdad. The
   'fainéant' Khalif was induced to make over to the real
   sovereign the spiritual authority which he still affected to
   exercise, and with it the symbols of his office, the standard
   and cloak of the Prophet Mohammed. Selim now became not only
   the visible chief of the Mohammedan State throughout the wide
   dominions subdued to his sway, but also the revered head of
   the religion of Islam, wheresoever it was practised in its
   orthodox form. The heretical Shias of Persia might reject his
   claim, but in India, in all parts of Asia and Africa, where
   the traditional Khalifate was recognized, the Ottoman Sultan
   henceforth was the supreme head of the church, the successor
   to the spiritual prestige of the long line of the Khalifs. How
   far this new title commands the homage of the orthodox Moslem
   world is a matter of dispute; but there can be no doubt that
   it has always added, and still adds, a real and important
   authority to the acts and proclamations of the Ottoman
   Sultan." Selim died in 1520, and was succeeded by his son
   Suleyman, or Solyman, who acquired the name of "the
   Magnificent."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Story of Turkey,
      chapters 8-9._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      books 15-18 (volume 2)._

      _A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      chapter 5._

TURKS: A. D. 1498-1502.
   War with the Venetians.

   "During the first 17 years of Bajazet's reign, the peace
   between the Venetians and the Porte, though occasionally
   menaced, remained on the whole undisturbed. The Venetians
   complained of the Turkish incursions; and the definitive
   occupation of Montenegro, while the Porte, on its side, was
   jealous because the Republic had reduced the Duke of Naxos to
   dependence, and obtained possession of Cyprus (1489). At last,
   in 1498, the Turks, after making great naval preparations,
   suddenly arrested all the Venetian residents at
   Constantinople, and in the following year seized Lepanto,
   which surrendered without striking a blow (August 1499). Soon
   after, a body of 10,000 Turks crossed the Isonzo, carrying
   fire and desolation almost to the lagoons of Venice. In August
   1500, Modon was taken by assault. … Navarino and Koron
   surrendered soon after, but towards the close of the year the
   Venetians were more successful. They captured Ægina,
   devastated and partly occupied Mytilene, Tenedos, and
   Samothrace, and with the help of a Spanish squadron, and 7,000
   troops, under Gonsalvo de Cordova, reduced the island of
   Cephalonia. For this service the grateful Venetians rewarded
   Gonsalvo with a present of 500 tuns of Cretan wine, 60,000
   pounds of cheese, 266 pounds of wrought silver, and the
   honorary freedom of their Republic. In 1501 the Venetian fleet
   was joined by a French, a Papal, and a Spanish squadron, but,
   through a want of cordiality among the commanders, little was
   effected. The Turks, however; had not made a better figure;
   and the Porte, whose attention was at that time distracted by
   the affairs of Persia, was evidently inclined for peace. The
   disordered state of the Venetian finances, and the decay of
   their commerce through the maritime discoveries of the
   Portuguese, also disposed them to negociation; although the
   sale of indulgences, granted to them by the Pope for this war,
   is said to have brought more than 700 pounds of gold into
   their exchequer. The war nevertheless continued through 1502,
   and the Venetians were tolerably successful, having captured
   many Turkish ships, and, with the assistance of the French,
   taken the island of Sta. Maura. But at length a treaty was
   signed, December 14th, by which Venice was allowed to hold
   Cephalonia, but restored Sta. Maura, and permitted the Porte
   to retain its conquests, including the three important
   fortresses of Modon, Koron, and Navarino."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

TURKS: A. D. 1519.
   The Sultan acquires sovereignty of Algiers and Tunis.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

TURKS: A. D. 1520.
   Accession of Solyman I.

TURKS: A. D. 1521-1526.
   Capture of Belgrade.
   Great invasion of Hungary.
   Overwhelming victory of Mohacs.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

TURKS: A. D. 1522.
   Conquest of the isle of Rhodes.
   Expulsion of the Knights of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

TURKS: A. D. 1526-1567.
   The Sultan suzerain of Transylvania and master of Hungary.
   Invasion of Austria and siege of Vienna.
   Death of Solyman the Magnificent.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

TURKS: A. D. 1527.
   Final subjugation of the Bosnians.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9-16TH CENTURIES.

TURKS: A. D. 1532-1553.
   Frightful depredations along the coast of Southern Italy.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

TURKS: A. D. 1542.
   Alliance with France.
   Siege of Nice.
   Ravages on the Italian coast.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

TURKS: A. D. 1551-1560.
   Unsuccessful attack on Malta.
   Capture of Tripoli.
   Disastrous attempt of the Christians to recover that city.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

TURKS: A. D. 1565.
   Unsuccessful attack on the Knights of St. John in Malta.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
   Reign of Selim II.
   War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
   Conquest of Cyprus.
   Great defeat at Lepanto.

   "In 1566, Solyman the Magnificent closed his long and
   prosperous reign. His son and successor, Selim II., possessed
   few of the qualities of his great father. Bred in the
   Seraglio, he showed the fruits of his education in his
   indolent way of life, and in the free indulgence of the most
   licentious appetites. With these effeminate tastes, he
   inherited the passion for conquest which belonged, not only to
   his father, but to the whole of his warlike dynasty. … The
   scheme which most occupied the thoughts of Selim was the
   conquest of Cyprus. … Selim, resolved on the acquisition of
   Cyprus, was not slow in devising a pretext for claiming it
   from Venice as a part of the Ottoman empire. The republic,
   though willing to make almost any concession rather than come
   to a rupture with the colossal power under whose shadow she
   lay, was not prepared to surrender without a struggle the
   richest gem in her colonial diadem. War was accordingly
   declared against her by the Porte, and vast preparations were
   made for fitting out an armament against Cyprus.
{3140}
   Venice, in her turn, showed her usual alacrity in providing
   for the encounter. She strained her resources to the utmost.
   In a very short time she equipped a powerful fleet, and took
   measures to place the fortifications of Cyprus in a proper
   state of defence. But Venice no longer boasted a navy such as
   in earlier days had enabled her to humble the pride of Genoa,
   and to ride the unquestioned mistress of the Mediterranean.
   The defences of her colonies, moreover, during her long repose
   had gradually fallen into decay. In her extremity, she turned
   to the Christian powers of Europe, and besought them to make
   common cause with her against the enemy of Christendom." The
   only responses to her appeal came, first, from Pope Pius V.,
   and finally, through his urgency, from Philip II. of Spain.
   After much deliberation, Philip agreed, in the spring of 1570,
   to enter into an alliance with Venice and the Pope against the
   Ottoman Porte. "The ensuing summer, the royal admiral, the
   famous John Andrew Doria, who was lying with a strong squadron
   off Sicily, put to sea, by the king's orders. He was soon
   after reinforced by a few galleys which were furnished by his
   holiness, and placed under the command of Mark Antonio
   Colonna. … On the last of August, 1570, the combined fleet
   effected its junction with the Venetians at Candia, and a plan
   of operations was immediately arranged. It was not long before
   the startling intelligence arrived that Nicosia, the capital
   of Cyprus, had been taken and sacked by the Turks, with all
   the circumstances of cruelty which distinguish wars in which
   the feeling of national hostility is embittered by religious
   hatred. The plan was now to be changed. A dispute arose among
   the commanders as to the course to be pursued. No one had
   authority enough to enforce compliance with his own opinion.
   The dispute ended in a rupture. The expedition was abandoned.
   … Still the stout-hearted pontiff was not discouraged;" nor
   did the king of Spain draw back. "Venice, on the other hand,
   soon showed that the Catholic king had good reason for
   distrusting her fidelity. Appalled by the loss of Nicosia,
   with her usual inconstancy, she despatched a secret agent to
   Constantinople, to see if some terms might not yet be made
   with the sultan." Her overtures, however, were coldly received
   by the sultan, and she was won back to the alliance. "Towards
   the close of 1570, the deputies from the three powers met in
   Rome to arrange the terms of the league." With much
   difficulty, a treaty was concluded, and ratified in May, 1571,
   to the effect that the operations of the league "should be
   directed against the Moors of Tunis, Tripoli, and Algiers, as
   well as against the Turks; that the contracting parties should
   furnish 200 galleys, 100 transports and smaller vessels,
   50,000 foot and 4,500 horse, with the requisite artillery and
   munitions; that by April, at farthest, of every succeeding
   year, a similar force should be held in readiness by the
   allies for expeditions to the Levant; and that any year in
   which there was no expedition in common, and either Spain or
   the republic should desire to engage in one on her own account
   against the infidel, the other confederates should furnish 50
   galleys towards it; that if the enemy should invade the
   dominions of any of the three powers, the others should be
   bound to come to the aid of their ally; that three-sixths of
   the expenses of the war should be borne by the Catholic king,
   two-sixths by the republic, the remaining sixth by the Holy
   See; … that each power should appoint a captain-general; that
   the united voices of the three commanders should regulate the
   plan of operations; that the execution of this plan should be
   intrusted to the captain-general of the league, and that this
   high office should be given to Don John of Austria [natural
   son of Charles V. and half-brother of Philip II.]. … Such were
   the principal provisions of the famous treaty of the Holy
   League." The sultan was not dismayed. "He soon got together a
   powerful fleet, partly drawn from his own dominions, and in
   part from those of the Moslem powers on the Mediterranean, who
   acknowledged allegiance to the Porte. The armada was placed
   under the command of Selim's brother-in-law, the Pacha Piali.
   … Early in the season [of 1571] the combined fleets sailed for
   the Adriatic, and Piali, after landing and laying waste the
   territory belonging to the republic, detached Uluch [dey of
   Algiers] with his squadron to penetrate higher up the gulf.
   The Algerine, in executing these orders, advanced so near to
   Venice as to throw the inhabitants of that capital into …
   consternation. … Meanwhile the Venetians were pushing forward
   their own preparations with their wonted alacrity,—indeed with
   more alacrity than thoroughness. … The fleet was placed under
   the command of Sebastian Veniero," and sailed before
   midsummer, "or as much of it as was then ready, for the port
   of Messina, appointed as the place of rendezvous for the
   allies. Here he was soon joined by Colonna, the papal
   commander, with the little squadron furnished by his holiness;
   and the two fleets lay at anchor … waiting the arrival of the
   rest of the confederates and of Don John of Austria." The
   latter reached Messina on the 25th of August. "The whole
   number of vessels in the armada, great and small, amounted to
   something more than 300. Of these full two thirds were 'royal
   galleys.' Venice alone contributed 106, besides six
   'galeazzas.' These were ships of enormous bulk. … The number
   of persons on board of the fleet, soldiers and seamen, was
   estimated at 80,000. … The soldiers did not exceed 29,000. …
   On the 16th of September the magnificent armament … stood out
   to sea." Before encountering the Turkish fleet, the allies
   received tidings "that Famagosta, the second city of Cyprus,
   had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and this under
   circumstances of unparalleled perfidy and cruelty. … The fall
   of Famagosta secured the fall of Cyprus, which thus became
   permanently incorporated in the Ottoman empire." On Sunday,
   October 7th, the armada of the Turks was found and attacked in
   the gulf of Lepanto. The terrific fight which ensued lasted
   only four hours, but those were hours of indescribable
   destruction and carnage. "It was indeed a sanguinary battle,
   surpassing in this particular any sea-fight of modern times.
   The loss fell much the most heavily on the Turks. There is the
   usual discrepancy about numbers; but it may be safe to estimate
   their loss at nearly 25,000 slain and 5,000 prisoners. What
   brought most pleasure to the hearts of the conquerors was the
   liberation of 12,000 Christian captives, who had been chained
   to the oar on board the Moslem galleys, and who now came
   forth, with tears of joy streaming down their haggard cheeks,
   to bless their deliverers.
{3141}
   The loss of the allies was comparatively small,—less than
   8,000." As to the armada of the Turks, "it may almost be said
   to have been annihilated. Not more than 40 galleys escaped out
   of near 250 which entered into the action. … The news of the
   victory of Lepanto caused a profound sensation throughout
   Christendom. … In Venice, which might be said to have gained a
   new lease of existence from the result of the battle, … the
   7th of October was set apart to be observed for ever as a
   national anniversary. … It is a great error to speak of the
   victory of Lepanto as a barren victory, which yielded no
   fruits to those who gained it. True, it did not strip the
   Turks of an inch of territory. … But the loss of
   reputation—that tower of strength to the conqueror—was not to
   be estimated."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of Philip II.,
      book 5, chapters 9-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 1, chapters 13-15._

TURKS: A. D. 1569-1570.
   First collision with the Russians.
   Vizir Sokolli's canal project and its frustration.
   Peace with the Czar.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Withdrawal of Venice from the Holy League.
   Conquest of Tunis by Don John of Austria
   and its recovery, with Goletta.

   "Ulucciali, whom Selim … made commander-in-chief of all his
   naval forces, exerted himself with extraordinary vigour and
   activity in fitting out a new fleet, to supply the place of
   that which had been ruined in the battle of Lepanto; and such
   at this time were the resources of the Turkish empire, that he
   was ready by the month of April [1572] to leave
   Constantinople, with more than 200 galleys, besides a great
   number of other ships. With this fleet he coasted along
   Negropont, the Morea, and Epirus; put the maritime towns into
   a posture of defence; chastised with great severity many of
   those Christians who had been concerned in the invitation
   given to Don John [who had just been offered the sovereignty
   of Albania and Macedonia by the Christians of those
   countries]; and afterwards took his station at Modon in the
   Morea, with an intention to watch there the motions of the
   enemy. He had full leisure to finish all the preparations
   which he judged to be necessary. The allies disputed long with
   one another concerning the plan of their future operations."
   and were also held inactive by the Spanish king's fear of an
   attack from France. "It was the last day of August before the
   allies could effectuate a junction of their forces; and it was
   the middle of September before they came in sight of the
   enemy. … Ulucciali drew out his fleet, as if he intended to
   offer battle; but no sooner had he made a single discharge of
   his artillery … than he retired under the fortifications of
   Modon." The allies thought first of besieging Modon, but gave
   up the project. They then sent Alexander Farnese, prince of
   Parma—afterwards so famous in the Netherlands—to reduce
   Navarino; but he had no success and abandoned the siege. The
   expedition then returned to Messina. The Venetians,
   dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, now faithlessly
   negotiated a separate peace with the Turks; but Philip II. of
   Spain maintained his alliance with the Pope (now Gregory
   XIII.), and ordered his brother, Don John, to proceed the next
   spring to Africa and undertake the reduction of Tunis. Don
   John obeyed the order, "carrying with him for this purpose a
   fleet of 2,000 sail, having 20,000 foot on board, besides 400
   light horse, 700 pioneers, and a numerous train of heavy
   artillery. Tunis was at this time in the hands of the Turks,
   commanded by Heder Basha, whom Selim had lately sent to govern
   the town and kingdom. Heder, seized with consternation at the
   approach of the Spanish fleet, left Tunis with his troops and
   a great number of the inhabitants, and Don John took
   possession of the place without meeting with the smallest
   opposition. Philip had instructed his brother, when he sent
   him on this expedition, to destroy Tunis, and to strengthen
   the fortifications of the isle and fortress of Goletta. But
   instead of complying with these instructions, Don John
   resolved to fortify the town more strongly than ever; and
   having laid the foundations of a new fort, or citadel, he
   treated all the inhabitants who remained with lenity and
   indulgence; and engaged many of those who had fled to return
   and submit to the Spanish government; after which he carried
   back his fleet to Sicily." It is believed that Don John had
   conceived ambitious hopes of a kingdom on the African border
   of the Mediterranean. "In the summer following [1573], Selim
   sent Ulucciali against Tunis, with a fleet consisting of 300
   ships, having about 40,000 troops on board, under the command
   of his son-in-law, Sinan Basha. The new fort which Don John
   had begun to build was not yet complete. Nor was the garrison
   which he had left strong enough to hold out long against so
   great a force." Before Don John could reassemble a fleet with
   which to make his way to the protection of his African
   conquest, both Tunis and Goletta were carried by assault, and
   passed again into the possession of the Turks and their
   Moorish vassals.

      _R. Watson,
      History of Philip II.,
      book 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 2, chapters 1-3._

TURKS: A. D. 1572-1623.
   Beginning of the decline of the Ottoman power.

   "The conquest of Cyprus was the last great exploit which ever
   added materially to the dominions of the Porte; the battle of
   Lepanto was the final blow which destroyed its naval
   superiority. The days of greatness had gone by. The kingdoms
   of the West were developing their strength, and had learnt the
   policy of union and of peace among themselves. Their armies
   had acquired the discipline and had learnt the lessons in
   which the Ottomans had shown so formidable an example; and
   their navy rode triumphant on the seas. The Empire, no longer
   in the hands of Charles V., with foreign interests to absorb
   its power, could bestow an undivided strength upon its own
   affairs; and the Emperor Ferdinand was looking forward with
   some hope to an incorporation of Hungary, which should end the
   weakness, and ensure the safety, of his eastern frontier. As
   the pre-eminence of the Porte, however, and the dread of it
   declined, a wider intercourse for her with Europe began. …
   Slowly the Sultans were beginning to take part in the schemes
   and combinations of the Christian Powers, from which they had
   hitherto so contemptuously stood aloof. Five reigns succeeded
   to that of Selim [the Sot, son of Solyman the Magnificent].
   during which the progress of decline continued marked.
{3142}
   The indolence of Amurath III. [1574-1595], the incapacity of
   Mahomet III. [1595-1603], the inexperience of Achmet I.
   [1603-1617], the imprudence of Othman II. [1618-1622], and the
   imbecility of Mustapha [1617-1618, and 1622-1623], contributed
   to bring the Ottoman Empire into a condition of anarchy and
   weakness. During the reign of Amurath hostilities with Austria
   were renewed, and successive losses testified to the enfeebled
   state of the Ottoman arms."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 3._

TURKS: A. D. 1591-1606.
   Wars in Hungary and Croatia.
   Great victory at Cerestes.
   Peace of Sitvatorok.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1595-1606.

TURKS: A. D. 1621-1622.
   War with Poland.
   Victory at Cecora and defeat at Choczim.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
   War with Persia.
   Siege and capture of Bagdad.
   Horrible massacre of the inhabitants.

   "During the first twelve years of the reign of Amurath IV.
   [1623-1635], the Ottoman Empire had been occupied with active
   hostilities in different parts of Europe, and especially with
   Poland, Germany, and the maritime powers of the Mediterranean.
   … In the east, however, great losses had been sustained. Shah
   Abbas, a sovereign well entitled to the epithet 'Great,' had
   repossessed himself of Diarbekr, Baghdad [1623], the district
   of the Euphrates, with Kourdistan; and, on the north, he had
   regained Armenia, and a considerable part of Anatolia. The
   Sultan therefore resolved to undertake an expedition to
   recover the territories thus taken from him, and to this he
   was encouraged by the death of his formidable foe the Persian
   monarch. Amurath marched from his capital early in 1635, to
   superintend the operations of the campaign. … In passing
   through Asia, he took care personally to examine into the
   conduct of his various Pashas, and wherever it was requisite
   he subjected them to a severe punishment. One of them, the
   Pasha of Erzeroum, was put to death. Having at that city
   reviewed his army, he found them to amount to 200,000 men, and
   as his first object was the seizure of Armenia, the key of the
   Persian provinces, he besieged Erivan, and notwithstanding a
   vigorous defence, the fortress in a few days surrendered.
   Tauris and the surrounding provinces speedily fell into his
   hands, and Amurath returned in the winter to Constantinople,
   entering the city in great triumph. The affairs of Europe were
   in such a state of confusion, that it was several years ere he
   again appeared in the east, the scene of so many of his
   victories. The Khan of Tartary threw off his allegiance, the
   Polish serfs appeared suddenly on the Caspian shores, and,
   joining a body of Russians, attacked and carried the fortress
   of Azof. … The European war, which at this time occurred,
   rendered it unnecessary for the Sultan to entertain any
   serious apprehension from his enemies in the west, who were
   sufficiently occupied with their own affairs. He therefore
   directed his attention to Persia, resolved to subjugate that
   country, and to seize upon Baghdad. To this end his
   preparations were proportionally great. An immense army was
   collected on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus. This mighty
   host numbered more than 300,000 armed men, and was accompanied
   by a numerous array of miners, as well as artillery. And after
   having consulted an astrologer, Amurath embarked amid all the
   display which Asiatic pomp could furnish, and directed his
   progress toward Persia. After a successful march, this immense
   army arrived at Baghdad. The city was strongly fortified, and
   defended by a resolute army of 80,000 men. The Shah, however,
   was absent in the northern part of his dominions, which had
   been threatened by an invasion from India, under Shah Jehan,
   father of the celebrated Aurungzebe. Baghdad, therefore, was
   left to its own resources. The operations of the siege began
   in October 1638. … The besieged made repeated sallies, with a
   force of five or six thousand men at a time, who, on retiring,
   were succeeded by a similar number, and thus the losses of the
   Ottoman army were sometimes very great. The 200 great guns,
   however, which played upon the ramparts, at length made a wide
   opening in the walls, and after five days' fighting in the
   breach thus made, where 'the slain lay in immense multitudes,
   and the blood was stagnated like a pool to wade through,' the
   city was taken. Quarter was given to 24,000 of the defenders,
   who remained alive, on condition that they would lay down
   their arms. But as soon as they had done so, the Sultan
   perfidiously issued orders to the Janizaries, and the work of
   butchery commenced, and was carried on by torch-light during
   the night on which the city was taken, and an indiscriminate
   slaughter took place, neither youth, nor age, nor sex being
   spared by the ruthless conqueror and his merciless soldiers. …
   In the morning of the 23d of December the Sultan marched into
   the city, passing with his army over the innumerable bodies of
   the unfortunate Persians, whose gallant defence merited a
   better fate. Some 15,000 women, children and old men were all
   that remained of the inhabitants, who, but a day or two
   before, filled every part of the magnificent capital. … The
   capture of Baghdad closed the military career of the Sultan."

      _R. W. Fraser,
      Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
      chapter 17._

   "A peace with Persia, on the basis of that which Solyman the
   Great had granted in 1555, was the speedy result of Amurath's
   victories (15th September, 1639). Eriwan was restored by the
   Porte; but the possession of Bagdad and the adjacent territory
   by the Ottomans was solemnly sanctioned and confirmed. Eighty
   years passed away before Turkey was again obliged to struggle
   against her old and obstinate enemy on the line of the
   Euphrates. … Amurath died at the age of 28, on the 9th of
   February, 1640."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 13._

TURKS: A. D. 1625-1626.
   War in Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

TURKS: A. D. 1640.
   Accession of Ibrahim.

TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.
   The war of Candia.
   Conquest of Crete.

   "The Turks attacked the island [of Crete] in 1645, and the war
   went on till 1669, when Crete was lost. This is called the war
   of Candia, from the long siege of the town of Candia, which
   was most gallantly defended by the Venetians, with the help of
   many volunteers from Western Europe. It must be remembered
   that, though the island has sometimes got to be called Candia,
   from the town of Candia and its memorable siege, yet the
   island itself has never changed its name, but has always been
   called Crete both by Greeks and Turks."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      page 145._

{3143}

   "The war which cost the republic of Venice the island of Crete
   owed its origin to the incessant irritation caused by the
   Western corsairs in the Archipelago. Some strong measures
   adopted by the Venetians to suppress the piracies committed by
   Turkish and Barbary corsairs in the Adriatic, created much
   dissatisfaction on the part of the Othoman government, which
   looked chiefly to the Mohammedan corsairs as a protection
   against the Christian corsairs in the Levant, and considered
   it the duty of the Venetians to suppress the piracies of these
   Christians. The Porte at last resolved to seek a profitable
   revenge, and a pretext soon presented itself. In 1644 some
   Maltese galleys made a prize which offended the personal
   feelings of the reigning sultan, Ibrahim. … As he feared to
   attack Malta, he resolved to make the Venetians responsible
   for the shelter which Crete had afforded to the corsairs. The
   Porte affected to consider Venice as a tributary State, which
   was bound to keep the Archipelago free from Christian
   corsairs, in return for the great commercial privileges it
   enjoyed in the Othoman empire. Immediate preparations were
   made for attacking Crete, but the project was concealed from
   the Venetian senate, under the pretence of directing the
   expedition against Malta. … In the month of June 1645, the
   Othoman army landed before Canea, which capitulated on the
   17th of August. This treacherous commencement of the war
   authorised the Christian powers to dispense with all the
   formalities of international law in lending assistance to the
   Venetians during the celebrated War of Candia, which lasted
   nearly 25 years. During this long struggle the Venetians
   generally maintained the superiority at sea, but they were
   unable to prevent the Othoman navy, whenever it exerted its
   full force, from throwing in supplies of fresh troops and
   ample stores, by which the Othoman army was enabled to command
   the whole island, and kept Candia, and the other fortresses in
   the hands of the republic, either blockaded or besieged. The
   Greeks generally favoured the Turks, who encouraged them to
   cultivate their lands by purchasing the produce at a liberal
   price, for the use of the army. … The squadrons of the
   republic often ravaged the coasts of the Othoman empire, and
   on one occasion they carried off about 5,000 slaves from the
   coast of the Morea, between Patras and Coron. In the year
   1656, after Mocenigo's great victory at the Dardanelles, they
   took possession of the islands of Tenedos and Lemnos, but they
   were driven from these conquests by the Othoman fleet in the
   following year. At the end of the year 1666, the grand vizier,
   Achmet Kueprily, one of the greatest ministers of the Othoman
   empire, took the command of the siege of Candia. The whole
   naval force of Venice, and numerous bands of French and
   Italian volunteers, attempted to force the grand vizier to
   raise the siege; but the skill of the Italian engineers, the
   valour of the French nobles, and the determined perseverance
   of Morosini, were vain against the strict discipline and
   steady valour of the Othoman troops. The works of the
   besiegers were pushed forward by the labours of a numerous
   body of Greek pioneers, and the fire of the powerful batteries
   at last rendered the place untenable. At this crisis Morosini
   proved himself a daring statesman and a sincere patriot. When
   he found that he must surrender the city, he resolved to make
   his capitulation the means of purchasing peace for the
   republic. … On the 27th September 1669, Achmet Kueprily
   received the keys of Candia, and the republic of Venice
   resigned all right to the island of Crete, but retained
   possession of the three insular fortresses of Karabusa, Suda,
   and Spinalonga, with their valuable ports. No fortress is said
   to have cost so much blood and treasure, both to the besiegers
   and the defenders, as Candia; yet the Greeks, in whose
   territory it was situated, and who could have furnished an
   army from the inhabitants of Crete sufficiently numerous to
   have decided the issue of the contest, were the people on the
   shores of the Mediterranean who took least part in this
   memorable war. So utterly destitute of all national feeling
   was the Hellenic race at this period."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece under Othoman and Venetian Domination,
      chapter 2._

TURKS: A. D. 1649.
   Accession of Mohammed IV.

TURKS: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Renewed war with Austria.
   Defeat at St. Gothard.
   A twenty years truce.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

TURKS: A. D. 1664-1665.
   Alliance with France broken.
   War of the French with Tunis and Algiers.
   See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

TURKS: A. D. 1670-1676.
   Wars with the Poles.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1606.

TURKS: A. D. 1681-1684.
   Rupture with France.
   French attack on Scio and war with the Barbary States.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

TURKS: A. D. 1683.
   Great invasion of Austria.
   Siege of Vienna.
   Overwhelming defeat by Sobieski and the Imperialists.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

TURKS: A. D. 1683-1699.
   Expulsion from Hungary.
   The Peace of Carlowitz.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War with the Holy League.
   Expulsion from Hungary.
   Venetian conquests in Greece.
   Revolution at Constantinople.
   Accession of Solyman II.
   Czar Peter's capture of Azov.
   The first Russian acquisition on the Black Sea.

   In 1684, "a league against the Turks, under the protection of
   the Pope, and thence called the Holy League, was formed by the
   Emperor, the King of Poland, and the Republic of Venice; and
   it was resolved to procure, if possible, the accession to it
   of the Czar of Muscovy. The Venetians were induced to join the
   league by the hope of recovering their former possessions, and
   declared war against the Sultan, Mahomet IV., July 15th. The
   war which ensued, now called the Holy War, lasted till the
   Peace of Carlowicz in 1609. Venice in this war put forth a
   strength that was little expected from that declining state.
   Many thousand Germans were enrolled in her army, commanded by
   Morosini, and by Count Königsmark, a Swede. The Austrians
   pursued the campaign in Hungary with success [steadily
   expelling the Turks—see HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1609]. … While the
   war in Hungary had been conducted by the Emperor with such
   eminent success, the King of Poland had made only some
   fruitless attempts upon Moldavia. The Czar of Muscovy, Ivan
   Alexiowitsch, who, after settling some disputes about
   boundaries with the King of Poland, had joined the Holy League
   in 1686, did not fare much better. All the attempts of the
   Russians to penetrate into the Crimea were frustrated by the
   Tartars.
{3144}
   The Venetians, on the other hand, had made some splendid
   conquests. St. Maura, Koron, the mountain tract of Maina,
   Navarino, Modon, Argos, Napoli di Romania, fell successively
   into their hands. The year 1687 especially was almost as fatal
   to the Turks in their war with Venice as in that with Hungary.
   In this year the Venetians took Patras, the castles at the
   entrance of the bay of Lepanto, Lepanto itself, all the
   northern coast of the Morea, Corinth, and Athens. Athens had
   been abandoned with the exception of the acropolis or citadel;
   and it was in this siege that one of the Venetian bombs fell
   into the Parthenon, which had been converted by the Turks into
   a powder magazine, and destroyed the greater part of those
   magnificent remains of classical antiquity. The acropolis
   surrendered September 29th. The fall of Athens, added to the
   disastrous news from Hungary, excited the greatest
   consternation and discontent at Constantinople," and brought
   about a revolution which deposed the sultan, raising his
   brother Solyman to the throne (1687) in his place. "By the
   capture of Malvasia in 1690, the Venetians completed the
   conquest of the Morea. The Isle of Chios, taken in 1694, was
   again lost the following year; but in Dalmatia and Albania the
   Venetian Republic made many permanent conquests, from the
   mountains of Montenegro to the borders of Croatia and the
   banks of the Unna. The operations of the Poles in the Turkish
   war were insignificant; but in July 1696, the Russians, under
   the Czar Peter, after many long and fruitless attempts, at
   length succeeded in taking Azov, at the mouth of the Don; a
   most important conquest as securing for them the entry into
   the Black Sea. It was the fall of this place, combined with
   the defeat at Zenta [in Hungary], that chiefly induced the
   Porte to enter into negociation for a peace."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

TURKS: A. D. 1691.
   Accession of Achmet II.

TURKS: A. D. 1695.
   Accession of Mustapha II.

TURKS: A. D. 1703.
   Accession of Achmet III.

TURKS: A. D. 1709-1714.
   Refuge given to Charles XII. of Sweden.
   His intrigues.
   Unlucky invasion of Moldavia by Peter the Great.
   The Treaty of the Pruth.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
   War with Venice and Austria.
   Recovery of the Morea and disasters in Hungary.
   The Peace of Passarowitz.

   "By the treaty of the Pruth the Russian conquest of Azof had
   been recovered. This success encouraged the hope of repairing
   the other losses that had been incurred in the former war.
   There were two states which had aggrandised themselves at
   Turkish expense, Austria and Venice. Of these the republic was
   far the less formidable and was naturally chosen as the first
   object of attack. A pretext was found in the protection which
   Venice had given to some Montenegrin fugitives, and in
   December, 1714, the Porte declared war. Venice was entirely
   unprepared, and moreover had failed to acquire popularity
   amongst her Greek subjects. In 1715, the grand vizier, Ali
   Cumurgi, landed in the Morea, and by the end of the year was
   master of the whole peninsula. Sailing thence he captured Suda
   and Spinalonga, the two last fortresses that Venice had been
   allowed to retain in Crete. The republic naturally appealed to
   her old ally, Austria, which had guaranteed her possessions by
   the treaty of Carlowitz. … As the Turk refused to give any
   satisfaction, war was inevitable. The intervention of Austria
   saved Venice from ruin. The grand vizier and the main body of
   the Turkish army had to be employed in Hungary. Still a
   considerable army and fleet was sent to attack Corfu. The
   Venetian troops were commanded by count Schulenburg, who had
   won a great reputation in the northern war, and whose services
   had been procured for the republic by Eugene. A heroic defence
   ended successfully, and in August, 1716, the Turks were
   compelled to raise the siege. 'It was the last glorious
   military exploit in the annals of the republic, and it was
   achieved by a German mercenary soldier.' Meanwhile the vizier,
   with an army of 150,000 men, had laid siege to Peterwardein,
   the most important of the Austrian border-fortresses in
   Hungary," and suffered death there, in a great defeat which
   prince Eugene inflicted upon his army, August 5, 1716. The
   same year, Eugene took Temesvar, and in August, 1717, he
   annihilated the Turkish army before Belgrad, capturing the
   town.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

   The result was the Treaty of Passarowitz, signed in July,
   1718. "Austria retained all its conquests, thus completing its
   possession of Hungary by acquiring the Banat of Temesvar, and
   adding to it Belgrad and a strip of Servia. The Turks, on
   their side, kept the Morea, while Venice was confirmed in its
   possession of Corfu and Santa Maura, together with the
   conquests which it had made in 1717 in Albania and Dalmatia."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 16._

TURKS: A. D. 1730.
   Accession of Mahmoud I.

TURKS: A. D. 1735-1739.
   War with Russia and Austria.
   Favourable Treaty of Belgrade.
   Important acquisitions of Territory from Austria.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

TURKS: A. D. 1754.
   Accession of Othman III.

TURKS: A. D. 1757.
   Accession of Mustapha III.

TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
   War with Russia on behalf of Poland.
   Concession of independence to the Crim Tartars.

   The Poles, in their struggle with Catherine II. of Russia
   found a strange champion in the Turk.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

   "The Sultan, Mustafa III., was opposed to intervention in
   Poland; but his hand was forced by a rising in Constantinople,
   and he declared war against Russia in October, 1768.
   Hostilities were not commenced till the next year, and they
   never assumed considerable proportions. The Turkish army was
   in the last stage of inefficiency, and the Russians, who were
   wholly unprepared for war, were little better. Galitzin, an
   incompetent commander, defeated the grand vizier, and took
   Khoczim after his first attack had been repulsed. His
   successor, Romanzow, 'the Russian Turenne,' acted with greater
   energy. He drove the Turks from Moldavia, and in 1770 he
   occupied Wallachia, won a great victory over vastly superior
   numbers at Kaghul [August 1, 1770], and advanced into the
   Crimea. At the same time a Russian fleet appeared in the
   Mediterranean with the avowed intention of restoring Greece to
   independence. But the admiral, Alexis Orloff, mismanaged the
   expedition. After encouraging the Greeks to rebel, he left
   them to the horrors of a Turkish revenge, and sailed towards
   Constantinople.
{3145}
   A victory over the Turkish fleet gave him possession of Chios
   and other islands of the Archipelago, but he refused, in spite
   of his English officers, to attempt the passage of the
   Dardanelles." In May, 1772, a truce was arranged and a
   congress assembled to settle the terms of peace. "But the
   Russian demands were too excessive for the Porte to accept,
   and the Turks resumed hostilities in 1773. They attempted to
   recover Moldavia and Wallachia, and for a time they succeeded
   in forcing the Russians to retreat. Mustafa III. died in
   December, and was succeeded by his brother Abdul Hamid. In the
   next year Romanzow won a complete victory, and compelled the
   grand vizier to accept the terms dictated to him at Kutschuk
   Kainardji [July 16, 1774]. The Russians restored the conquered
   provinces except Azof and Kinburn, only stipulating for
   toleration for the Christian population. The Tartars of the
   Crimea and Kuban were declared independent of the Porte, and
   authorised to elect their own Khan. Russian ships were allowed
   free passage through the Dardanelles, and the right of sailing
   in the Turkish seas and on the Danube. Poland, for which the
   Turks had undertaken the war, was not even mentioned in the
   treaty."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 20, sections 11-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 4, pages 405-441._

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.

TURKS: A. D. 1774.
   Accession of Abdul Hamid.

TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
   Acquisition of the Crimea by the Russians.
   War with Russia and Austria.
   The Treaties of Sistova and Jassy.
   Territorial concessions.

   "A peace of some years followed the treaty of Kainarji, if,
   indeed, that can be called peace where the most solemn
   engagements are perpetually evaded. On that treaty Catherine
   put what interpretation she pleased. … She offered her
   protection to the voivods of Wallachia and Moldavia, who, in
   consequence, were her vassals rather than those of the Porte.
   The Christians on the opposite bank of the Danube were in
   correspondence with Russia; they were encouraged to revolt, to
   claim her protection, to oppose the Turkish government in
   every way. … Though the Crimea had been declared independent,
   she proved that the word had reference merely to the authority
   of the sultan, and not to hers. … More than once … the Russian
   troops appeared in that peninsula. In 1776 they deposed the
   reigning khan, and elected in his stead another, who was
   easily induced to solicit the protection of the empress.
   Turkey threatened to resume the war. … At length … a new
   treaty, or rather a modification of the former, was signed at
   Constantinople in 1779. In it Russia promised to desist from
   some of her obnoxious pretensions in regard both to the two
   principalities and the Crimea; but promises cost little. …
   Almost every year brought new complaints and evasions. The
   foundation of the city of Cherson, about ten leagues from
   Otzakof, gave peculiar umbrage to the Porte. This place had
   now a population of 40,000; and the number of warlike vessels
   constructed in its arsenal were evidently intended to overawe
   Constantinople. In 1783 another insulting message was sent to
   the Turkish ministers,—that, let the conduct of the empress in
   regard to the Crimea be whatever it might, they should not
   interfere. At the same time she prevailed on the khan whom she
   had supported, Sahim Gherei, to make the most outrageous
   demands from the Porte. The khan's envoy was beheaded. Under
   the pretext of punishing the Turks for this insult to their
   'good ally,' the Russians requested permission to march
   through his territory. It was immediately granted; but no
   sooner were they in the peninsula than, instead of proceeding
   against the Turkish fortifications on the island of Taman,
   they seized the towns, forced the Mahometan authorities, in
   the khan's presence, to take the oath of allegiance to the
   empress, and seized on the revenues of the country. … The khan
   was now forced to resign his authority, and transfer it to
   Catherine; in return, he received some estates in Russia. A
   manifesto declared that the Crimea, Kuban, and Taman, were for
   ever incorporated with the empire. In a document of some
   length, and of great force, the Turkish ministry exposed to
   the world the unprincipled encroachments of their neighbours."
   But Russia responded to it by marshalling three great armies
   on the frontiers, with an exhibition of formidable fleets in
   the Euxine and the Baltic. "The Porte, terrified at this
   menacing display, listened to the advice of France and
   Austria; and, by another treaty (signed at Constantinople
   early in 1784) recognised the sovereignty of the empress over
   the Crimea, Taman, and a great part of Kuban. To the first and
   last of these places she restored their ancient classical
   names, Taurida and Caucasus." The treaty of Constantinople did
   not put an end to Russian aggressions, and in August, 1787,
   the Sultan declared war. "The campaign was opened with ardour.
   Knowing that Otzakof would be the earliest object of
   hostility, the Sultan sent a considerable force to cover it.
   Another army marched to the Danube, and the vizier in person
   took the field. … On the other hand, Potemkin, the
   commander-in-chief, having under his orders some of the best
   generals in the service, hastened to the frontiers, which were
   soon covered by Russian troops. At the same time the emperor
   Joseph [according to a prior agreement with Catherine] sent
   80,000 Austrians into Moldavia; while a powerful fleet in the
   Euxine prepared to co-operate with the allies, and another in
   the Baltic was ready to sail for the Mediterranean. It seemed,
   indeed, as if Catherine's favourite dream, the elevation of
   her grandson Constantine to the throne of the Greek empire,
   was about to be realised. Yet these mighty preparations had no
   commensurate effect. An attack on Kinburn by 5,000 Turks from
   the garrison of Otzakof was repulsed [by Suwarof] with heavy
   loss. But this advantage was counterbalanced by the dispersion
   of the Euxine fleet in a storm, with the loss of some vessels.
   These were the chief events of the first campaign. The second,
   of 1788, was more decisive. Otzakof was taken by assault, and
   the garrison [with nearly all the inhabitants] put to the
   sword. At the same time Joseph took Sobach; and his generals
   captured Soubitza [Dubitza?]. On the deep, too, fortune was
   equally adverse to the Turks. Their fleet was defeated in the
   Euxine. … In the following campaigns the superiority of the
   Russians was maintained. It would have been still more signal
   but for the jealousy of Potemkin, who could not tolerate
   success in any of his generals. … The death of Abdul Hamet,
   and the accession of Selim III., made no difference in the
   character of the war; it was still adverse to the Turks.
{3146}
   Fortress after fortress [including Belgrade, taken by General
   Loudon for the Austrians] was reduced by the enemy; and,
   though no general engagement was risked, the loss of men was
   not the less felt. Suwarof saved the Austrians [in Moldavia,
   defeating the Turks, who had nearly overwhelmed them, at
   Fockshani, July 30, and again at Rimnik, September 16, 1789];
   Repnin forced the Seraskier, Hussein Pasha, to seek refuge in
   Ismail; Komenski reduced Galatza; Ackerman fell into the power
   of the Christians; Bender was forced to capitulate. In the
   following campaign, the important fortress of Ismail was
   assailed: the siege was conducted by Suwarof, the most dreaded
   of all the Russian generals. … It was taken … though the loss
   was most severe; and, in revenge, the garrison, with the
   greater part of the population [nearly 40,000 in all], was put
   to the sword. Other successes followed, both on the banks of
   the Caspian, and on those of the Danube. Bohada was stormed;
   at Kotzim 100,000 Turks were defeated by Repnin; Varna was
   menaced; and the road to Adrianople lay open. The grand vizier
   now sued for peace, which Catherine was ready to grant, on
   conditions much less onerous than might have been expected."
   Austria had already made peace with the sultan and withdrawn
   from the war. By the treaty of Sistova, which the new emperor,
   Leopold, signed on the 4th of August, 1791, the Austrians
   relinquished all their conquests except the town of Old Orsova
   and a small district in Croatia along the left bank of the
   river Unna. With these slight variations the same boundary
   between Austria and Turkey was reconstituted in 1791 that had
   been defined by the treaty of Belgrade in 1739. The treaty of
   the Turks with Russia was signed at Jassy on the 9th of
   January 1792. "By that treaty, Catherine retained the whole
   country between the Bog and the Dniester, but restored all the
   other conquests which she had made since 1787. This was the
   last of the hostilities between Russia and the Porte during
   the reign of this empress; and the peace of Jassy enabled her
   to carry into effect her designs on Poland."

      _R. Bell,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 21._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      period 5, division 1, chapter 2 (volume 6)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Loudon,
      chapter 15._

TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.
   Attempted reforms of Sultan Selim III.
   Their fate and his.
   Palace revolutions.
   Reign of Mahmud II.
   War with Russia.

   "Abd-ul-Hamid died on the 7th April, 1789, and was succeeded
   by his nephew, Selim III (1789-1807). Although Selim had been
   confined in the Seraglio by his uncle, he had been in other
   respects well treated. His love of information and his natural
   talents had induced him to carry on an active correspondence
   with several servants of his father and his uncle. Their
   information had, however, in no way satisfied him, and he had
   commenced a correspondence with Choiseuil, the French envoy at
   Constantinople in 1786, and had also sent his intimate friend
   Isaac Bey to France, to enquire into the state measures and
   administrative organization of that country. Selim had also
   entered into correspondence with Louis XVI, and this lasted
   till 1789, when the French Revolution broke out simultaneously
   with Selim's ascension of the throne. All this throws a clear
   light upon Selim's eventual exertions to cause reforms which
   at last cost him both his throne and his life. His thirst for
   knowledge leads us to presume that he was not deficient in
   natural and sound talent. … But it was a mistake, that in his
   pursuit of knowledge, and desire to improve the institutions
   of Turkey—and the habits and character of its
   inhabitants—Selim should have applied to France, and to
   Frenchmen. That country was then on the eve of her great
   revolution. Theories of all kinds were afloat. … Selim would
   certainly have acted more wisely had he sought help from his
   own sensible mind; he would have easily perceived the palpable
   fact, that things which were suited for Christian nations were
   utterly inapplicable to the rude, uncivilized Turks. …
   Unfortunately ke set about the task with very different ideas,
   and listened to the suggestions of the sciolists who
   surrounded him. The first thing to which they drew his
   attention was the formation of a council of state, which not
   only restricted the power of the Grand Vizier, but that of the
   Sultan, very materially. The Reis Effendi, Raschid, was the
   soul of the council, and the boldest of these sciolists; and
   he had perfect liberty to carry on the work of reform. He set
   the printing presses again in activity which had been
   introduced in a preceding reign, sent for French officers, who
   founded an engineer academy, built arsenals and foundries, and
   openly stated that he took science under his protection. But
   his chief care was to form an army after the European fashion,
   in order by their assistance to gain the mastery over the
   Janissaries, in whom old customs and traditions found their
   most zealous guardians. He took several steps, therefore, to
   call into life the new military organization, called the Nizam
   Djedid; and as money was required for the purpose, he laid a
   tax on articles of consumption. This was quite sufficient to
   cause the popular discontent to burst into a flame. The Ulema
   declared themselves hostile to the Nizam Djedid, and Pashwan
   Oglu, Pacha of Widdin, who placed himself at the head of the
   Janissaries, openly rebelled against the Porte, which could
   not effect anything to check him, but acquiesced in all that
   was demanded. The extraordinary conquests of Napoleon diverted
   attention from Turkey, and instead of seeking to divide the
   dominions of a weak neighbour, the Great Powers of the
   Continent were trembling for their own safety. Egypt became
   the battle field between England and France [see FRANCE: A. D.
   1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST), and 1801-1802], and its invasion by
   Napoleon obliged the Turks to unite with the Allied Powers
   against France. When the French were expelled from Egypt, that
   province was restored to Turkey, and peace concluded between
   the two Powers. Selim, under the influence of General
   Sebastiani who was then French ambassador at Constantinople,
   signed [seized?] what was considered by him a favourable
   opportunity for renewing the war with Russia [see below], in
   which, however, the Turks were defeated both by land and sea.
   These misfortunes the Janissaries attributed to the new troops
   or Seymens. … At the end of May, 1807, the chiefs of the
   Janissaries and the Ulema had already formed their plans for
   the overthrow of the Sultan, when Selim accelerated the
   outbreak by going to the mosque on Friday, accompanied by a
   body of Seymens and the French ambassador, Sebastiani.
{3147}
   The Janissaries, aroused by this, broke out in open revolt,
   which soon grew of such a menacing nature by the co-operation
   of the Mufti, that Selim was compelled to promise the
   abolition of the Nizam, and the heads of those of his advisers
   who had promoted the measure. But the insurgents were not
   satisfied with this: they demanded the abdication of the
   Sultan, whom the Mufti declared unworthy to be a successor of
   Muhammad, through his partiality for foreigners, and marched
   to the Seraglio, to carry their designs into effect. But when
   the Mufti and the Ulema entered it, they found a new Sultan.
   Selim, under the conviction that he could not resist the storm
   his attempts at reform had created, had retired to the Harem,
   where his nephew, Mustapha, was confined, and led him to the
   throne: he had then attempted to destroy his own life by a cup
   of poisoned sherbet, but had been prevented by Mustapha, and
   was led into the apartments of the Royal Princes, with a
   promise that he should ever be treated as a friend and an
   uncle. On the same afternoon, Sultan Mustapha III [IV] (who
   reigned from 31st May, 1807, to 28th July, 1808) rode in
   solemn procession for the first time to the great mosque, was
   invested in the traditional manner with the sabre of Muhammad,
   then immediately did away with the Nizam Djedid, and restored
   the old customs. But among the Pachas in the provinces, there
   were several devoted partisans of reform. The most influential
   of these was Mustapha Bairaktar, Pacha of Rustchuk, who set
   out in July 1808, at the head of 18,000 men, to restore Selim
   to the throne. He succeeded in taking possession of the
   capital, and keeping the Sultan so long in ignorance of his
   designs, until he sent him orders to resign the throne in
   favour of Selim. As the Sultan had only one hour allowed him
   for consideration, he was so helpless that he followed the
   advice of the Mufti and had Selim cruelly murdered. As the
   gates of the Seraglio were not opened at the appointed time,
   and Bairaktar hurried up to enforce his authority, Selim's
   lifeless body was thrown over the wall. Upon this the Pacha
   ordered the Seraglio to be stormed, seized the Sultan,
   destroyed all those who had advised the abolition of the plans
   of reform, and placed Mustapha's younger brother on the
   throne. Mahmud II, the second son of Abd-ul-Hamid, was born on
   the 2nd July, 1785, and was consequently twenty-three years of
   age when he ascended the throne. … Mahmud appointed Mustapha
   Bairaktar his Grand Vizier, and, regardless of the fate of his
   predecessor, restored all the measures of reform which Selim
   had undertaken. Within three months the Janissaries were again
   in open rebellion, and on the night of the 14th November,
   1808, attacked the Seymens, destroyed a great number of them,
   and, after storming the new barracks, forced their way into
   the Grand Vizier's palace. He fled and appealed to the people
   for help, but the greater portion abused him as a renegade and
   joined the rebels. Bairaktar recognised his impending fate,
   but still ordered the execution of Mustapha, for fear he might
   reascend the throne. After this he retired with a body of
   Seymens into a stone tower, where he had before collected a
   quantity of gunpowder. He defended himself here for some time,
   but, at last, when the Janissaries rushed up in larger masses
   to the attack, he blew up the tower. The Janissaries then
   attacked the Seraglio, and, but for the fact that Mahmud was
   the last legitimate descendant of the race of Osman, they
   would have taken his life. But even this, probably, would not
   have saved him, had he not sent a deputation to the insurgents
   and given an unconditional assent to their demands. … As an
   additional guarantee for his own safety on the throne,
   ensanguined with the blood of his uncle and his brother,
   Mahmud ordered his brother's son, a child of three months old,
   to be strangled, and four of the Sultanas to be thrown into
   the Bosphorus. The reign of Mahmud is one of the longest and
   most important in the whole of Turkish history. It commenced
   with war. The Emperor Alexander menaced him on the Danube: the
   Hospodar of Servia, Czerny George, had rebelled against him.
   The campaign of the Turks in 1809, was, consequently, not a
   prosperous one. The contest lasted till 1812, when it was
   ended by the treaty of Bucharest, which surrendered the whole
   of Bessarabia, as far as the Pruth, to Russia. At the same
   time the Russian protectorate of the Greek Christian subjects
   of the Porte, which had been stipulated in the treaty of
   Kudjuk Kainardji, was again confirmed."

      _Sir J. Porter,
      Turkey,
      volume 1, pages 194-204._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapters 21-24._

TURKS: A. D. 1798.
   In the Coalition against France.
   War declared.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL.).

TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Alliance with Napoleon, and hostilities with Russia and England.
   British fleet before Constantinople.
   Its humiliating retreat.
   The English again in Egypt.
   Disastrous failure of their expedition.

   "Before the end of 1806, Russia had driven Selim into the arms
   of France; and war was declared at the Porte just after
   Napoleon's victories in Prussia had filled Alexander with
   alarm. His troops had overrun some Turkish territory before
   war was declared; but just at this juncture he wanted all his
   forces for the defence of his own frontier. He dreaded the
   effects of withdrawing them from the Turkish provinces, which
   would immediately fight for France; but he must do it. He
   besought the British to undertake another of those
   'diversions' which began to sound so disagreeably to the ears
   of Englishmen. … The Grenville Cabinet … gave orders to Sir
   John Duckworth, then cruising off Ferrol, to join Admiral
   Louis at the mouth of the Dardanelles. … Neither the efforts
   of Sebastiani [French representative at Constantinople] … nor
   any other warning that the English were coming, had roused the
   Turks to make the slightest preparation. The ships sailed
   proudly up the strait [February, 1807], undelayed by the fire
   of the forts at the narrowest part of the channel, and
   belching out flames and cannonballs as they went. They took
   and burned some Turkish ships, and appeared before
   Constantinople, to the horror of the whole population, who
   were absolutely without means of defence. The Divan would have
   yielded at once; but Sebastiani prevented it, and instigated a
   negotiation which proved a fatal snare to Sir John Duckworth,
   notwithstanding express warnings and instructions, strong and
   clear, from Lord Collingwood.
{3148}
   He was unwilling to destroy the city, and shoot down the
   defenceless inhabitants; and he allowed himself to be drawn
   on, from day to day, exchanging notes and receiving promises.
   … Meantime, not a moment was lost by Sebastiani and the Turks,
   whom he was instructing in Napoleon's methods of warfare.
   Women and children, Christians and Mohammedans, worked day and
   night at the defences; and in a few days the whole coast was
   bristling with artillery, and the chance was over. … There was
   nothing to be done but to get away as safely as they yet
   might. … For thirty miles (reckoning the windings of the
   channel) the ships ran the gauntlet of an incessant fire—and
   such a fire as was never seen before. Stone balls, weighing
   700 or 800 lbs., broke down the masts, crushed in the decks,
   snapped the rigging, and amazed the hearts of the sailors. The
   hills smoked from end to end, and the roar of the artillery
   rolled from side to side. In another week, Sir J. Duckworth
   declared in his dispatch, any return would have been
   impossible. The news of this singular affair spread fast over
   Europe. Every body thought the expedition gallantly conceived,
   and miserably weak in its failure. … So ended the second of
   the 'diversions' proposed under the Grenville Ministry. The
   third legacy of this kind that they left was a diversion on
   the side of Egypt. For some time, a notion had been gaining
   ground, in the minds of English politicians, that the Sultan
   would, some day soon, be giving Egypt to Napoleon, in return
   for the aid afforded to Constantinople, on the Danube, and
   elsewhere. Egypt was in an unhappy state. Mohammed Alee, the
   Viceroy, was at feud with the Memlooks; and the Arab
   inhabitants were made a prey of by both. The Grenville
   Ministry thought that a diversion in that direction would be
   of great service to Russia, and great injury to Napoleon; and
   they confidently reckoned on being enthusiastically received
   by the Arab inhabitants, and probably by the Memlooks also. In
   laying their plans, however, they strangely underrated the
   forces and the ability of Mohammed Alee; and they sent only
   between 4,000 and 5,000 men to the mouth of the Nile, instead
   of an army large enough to cope with the able and warlike
   Pasha of Egypt, and his Albanian troops. The small British
   force was drafted from the troops in Sicily. It landed without
   opposition on the 17th of March, supposing that Sir John
   Duckworth must by this time have conquered the Sultan, and
   that his province of Egypt would come very easily into our
   hands. No opposition was made to the landing of the troops,
   and Alexandria capitulated immediately. Only seven lives were
   lost on the British side. Within the city, however, no
   provisions were found." A detachment of 1,200 men sent to
   Rosetta for supplies were trapped in the city by Mohammed
   Alee's Albanians, and 400 of them, with their general, were
   shot down in the streets. Then Rosetta was besieged, with
   results of disastrous failure and the loss of 1,000 or 1,200
   more men. General Fraser, the Commander, "was discouraged from
   home, and hourly harassed by the enemy. … More and more of the
   enemy came up as his little force dwindled away; and at last,
   on the appearance of a column which he was unable to
   encounter, he sent out a flag of truce, with an offer to
   evacuate Egypt on the restoration of the prisoners taken since
   the invasion. This was in August, 1807; and in September the
   last English soldier left the mouth of the Nile. By this time,
   the Sultan had declared war against England, and had caused a
   seizure of all the British property in his dominions."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

TURKS: A. D. 1807.
   Accession of Mustapha IV.

TURKS: A. D. 1807.
   Schemes of Napoleon and Alexander I. at Tilsit
   for the partition of Turkey.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

TURKS: A. D. 1808.
   Accession of Mahmud II.

TURKS: A. D. 1821-1829.
   Revolt and recovery of independence by the Greeks.
   Battle of Navarino.
   Treaty of Adrianople.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

TURKS: A. D. 1822-1823.
   The Congress of Verona.

      See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

TURKS: A. D. 1826.
   Reforms of Mahmud II.
   Insurrection of the Janissaries.
   Their subjugation and destruction.

   "While the struggle in Greece was proceeding, Mahmud had been
   busily engaged with his internal reforms, many of which were
   of a nature to offend the prejudices of his subjects. His
   great object was to give a European character to the
   institutions and the manners of his country. He introduced the
   western style of dress into Turkey; abandoned the use of the
   turban, which Mohammedans generally regard with much
   veneration; and gave musical and theatrical entertainments
   within the sacred enclosure of the Seraglio. He resolved also
   to recommence the military reforms of his uncle Selim, and
   again to establish the Nizam Jedid, or body of troops
   organized after European models. This last design roused once
   more the savage fanaticism of the Janizaries. On the 15th of
   June, 1826, when the Sultan and the Grand Vizier were in the
   country, the dissatisfied troops rose in insurrection, and
   committed great excesses. The Grand Vizier, hastily recalled
   to the metropolis, took measures for vindicating his master's
   authority, and at once found himself supported, not only by
   the new troops, but by the Ulemas and Students. Mahmud arrived
   shortly afterwards at the Seraglio, and by his orders the
   Mufti unfolded the standard of the Prophet, and summoned all
   faithful Mohammedans to rally round that holy symbol. The city
   was soon divided into two hostile factions. The Janizaries
   concentrated their forces in one of the great squares, and
   threw up entrenchments. The supporters of the Sultan gathered
   in their front, and an attack was made by ordnance, before
   which the Janizaries retired into their fortified barracks,
   where they continued to fight with the resolution of despair.
   … The building was presently on fire from one end to the
   other. The frightful struggle was continued in the midst of
   the flames; all who endeavoured to escape were at once shot
   down; and before the day was over 6,000 Janizaries had
   perished at the hands of their fellow-troops. Fifteen thousand
   who had not taken part in the movement were exiled to
   different places in Asia Minor, and on the following day a
   Hatti-Sherif pronounced the abolition of a corps which had
   contributed so much to the military predominance of Turkey,
   but which had at length become a source of internal danger too
   great to be suffered."

      _E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
      volume 1, chapter 23._

{3149}

TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
   Convention of Ackerman.
   War with Russia.
   Surrender of Varna and Silistria.
   Disastrous battle of Koulevscha.
   Treaty of Hadrianople.
   Cessions of territory.

   "It was not to be expected that an event so remarkable as the
   destruction of the Janizaries would fail to be taken advantage
   of by the court of St. Petersburg. The Emperor Nicholas had
   brought with him to the Russian throne a thorough
   determination to carry out that aggressive policy of the
   Empress Catherine, of which the terms of the celebrated treaty
   of Kutschouc-Kainardji [see above: A. D. 1768-1774] afforded
   so striking an illustration, and the annihilation of the
   Ottoman army, as well as the distracted condition of many of
   the provinces of that empire, afforded an opportunity too
   tempting to be neglected. The Czar, therefore, demanded that
   the Sultan should conclude with him a treaty, the provisions
   of which were made the subject of discussion at Ackerman, a
   town in Bessarabia; and Mahmoud, pressed by the necessity of
   his condition, … had found it requisite to conclude the
   arrangement, and the celebrated convention of Ackerman was
   ratified in October 1826. This treaty proved of great
   importance to Russia. In addition to other provisions, it
   recognised the whole stipulations of the two treaties of
   Bucharest and Kainardji, by which Russia claimed the right to
   interpose in behalf of the members of the Greek church in the
   Ottoman dominions. … During the year which succeeded the
   ratification of the convention of Ackerman, Russia was
   occupied with the Persian war, which was prosecuted with great
   vigour by General Paskewitch, by whom very considerable
   advantages were obtained; and in November 1827 the treaty of
   Tourkmantchai was concluded between Russia and Persia. … It
   left the Emperor … at leisure to carry out those hostile
   intentions which his ready interference in the affairs of
   Greece, and a variety of other considerations, clearly proved
   him to entertain. The approaching war was indicated by the
   mutual recriminations of the hostile powers. Russia accused
   the Porte of an endeavour to cause a revolution in the
   Caucasus, and of a violation of treaties by closing the
   Bosphorus against Russian ships, and by its conduct towards
   its Christian subjects. There was no inconsiderable foundation
   for such a complaint, and especially for the latter part of
   it. … Both sides immediately prepared for the struggle, which
   a variety of circumstances have proved that the Czar had long
   contemplated, and only waited for a suitable opportunity of
   entering upon. … In the month of May [1828] the [Russian]
   force began to assemble on the banks of the Pruth, and crossed
   that river at three different points. Being unopposed by the
   Ottomans, the Russian forces almost immediately entered Jassy
   and Bucharest, took possession of Galatz, and in a few weeks
   had occupied the whole of the left bank of the Danube. To
   accomplish as rapidly as possible the objects of the campaign,
   as well as to avoid having their very wide]y extended line
   exposed to the enemy, it was resolved by the leaders of the
   Russian forces to cross the Danube at Brahilow, and thence to
   advance with rapidity upon Silistria, Varna, and Schumla. This
   resolution they immediately proceeded to carry into effect. …
   About the middle of July, the Russian force under General
   Rudiger on the right, and Generals Woinoff and Diebitcb on the
   left wing, accompanied by the Emperor Nicholas, moved toward
   Schumia; and the Ottoman army, whose instructions were to
   avoid general actions, and to throw their whole energy upon
   the defence of their fortifications, having engaged in battle
   with the enemy, retired within the entrenched camp surrounding
   that fortress, which now contained a force of 40,000 men. …
   The Emperor … resolved … to leave a corps of observation of
   30,000 men before Schumla, under General Wittgenstein, and to
   direct the principal efforts of his army, in the first
   instance, to the reduction of Varna. … On the 5th of
   September, after having been absent at Odessa for about a
   month, during which he was engaged making arrangements for
   obtaining levies from Russia, and in negotiating loans in
   Holland, the Emperor Nicholas arrived at Varna, to inspect the
   progress and encourage the operations of the besiegers. … The
   besieging force, towards the end of August, amounted to 40,000
   men, which, on the arrival of the Emperor, were reinforced by
   more than 20,000, with a great addition to the artillery
   already possessed by the invading army. This large force was
   further supported by the Russian fleet. … The details of the
   siege exhibit a series of assaults repulsed with the utmost
   valour and spirit by the besieged, and entailing an immense
   loss upon the Russians, both in men and superior officers; but
   the circumstance that the reinforcement sent to relieve the
   garrison could not approach, so closely was the place
   invested, and the destruction of a part of the walls by the
   cannon of the Russians, led to a surrender, and Jussouf Pasha
   delivered up the fortress to the Emperor on the 10th of
   October, after a siege of more than two months. The utmost
   efforts were made to reduce Silistria, after Varna had been
   surrendered, but the advance of the season, and the
   difficulties of the attempt, as well as the disastrous
   circumstances of the Russian army before Schumla, soon proved
   that nothing more could be attempted till the following
   spring. The campaign, therefore, was brought to a conclusion,
   and orders were issued for the Russians to retire beyond the
   Danube, and take up their winter quarters in Wallachia. The
   fall of Brahilow and Varna were the only important events of
   the campaign of 1828 in Europe, and even these successes had
   been attained at a vast expense of human life. Out of nearly
   160,000 men who had crossed the Danube at the beginning of the
   campaign, only about one-half remained. … In Asia operations
   were carried on by the Russians with equal vigour and much
   more success, in consequence, in a great measure, of the
   military genius and experience of General Paskewitch, who
   commanded the troops on the east of the Black Sea. … The first
   attack of the Russians in Asia was made upon the fortress of
   Anapa. … After a siege of about a month, the place was taken,
   with 85 guns and 3,000 prisoners, and the fleet sailed
   immediately to Varna. … After some other successes, General
   Paskewitch resolved upon attacking the town and fortress of
   Akhalzikh, a very important place in the pashalik of that
   name, and which was not only strongly fortified by nature and
   art, but had for its chief strength a resolute garrison of
   10,000 Ottomans, besides the armed inhabitants of the place.
   The Sultan's troops defended this important fortress with the
   most undaunted resolution. … The surrender of Akhalzikh was
   followed by that of other important places of strength, which
   closed the campaign of 1828 in Asia. … The campaign of 1828
   had rendered the most active preparations requisite on the
   part of both belligerents for the commencement of hostilities
   in the following spring.
{3150}
   The Ottoman soldiers, according to their usual custom,
   hastened from the garrisons to pass the winter in their homes,
   but the utmost efforts were made by the Porte to gather an
   adequate force to meet the exigencies of the struggle so soon
   to be renewed. Although only 10,000 men were left in Schumla
   during the winter, 40,000 assembled in that fortress early in
   spring. They were, however, for the most part new levies. …
   The Russians, on the other hand, were no less energetic in
   their arrangements. … It was impossible, however, before the
   month of May, from the condition of the Danube, to commence
   the campaign with the whole force, but by the tenth of that
   month the passage of the river was completed at Hirchova and
   Kalavatsch, below Silistria, the siege of which was
   immediately begun, while General Kouprianoff was stationed
   with a force at Pravadi, a fortress on the east of Schumla,
   and which, lying in the line of communication between
   Silistria and Varna, was important to the Russians as the
   means of keeping open a communication between the army of
   General Roth near Varna and the troops destined to act upon
   Silistria. Redschid Pasha, who on being recalled from Greece
   had been appointed Grand Vizier, had arrived at Schumla on the
   21st of March, and on perceiving the position of the invading
   army, formed the well-conceived design of attacking Pravadi
   and the force under General Roth. … This movement of the
   Vizier became immediately known to General Roth, who by means
   of a courier conveyed information of it to Count Diebitch.
   That General was too acute not to perceive the purpose of his
   adversary, and too enterprising not to endeavour immediately
   to take advantage of it. The Count therefore adopted a
   movement of the highest importance, and which, indeed, had the
   effect of deciding the campaign. Instead of marching to attack
   Redschid Pasha at Pravadi, he resolved to intercept his
   communication with the fortress he had quitted, and thus
   compel the Ottoman general either to come to a general
   engagement, which could hardly fail to result to the advantage
   of the Russians, or to fight his way towards Schumla through
   the Russian army, or leave the fortress of Schumla to its
   fate, which, feebly garrisoned as it was, could not be long
   delayed. This skilful manœuvre was no sooner resolved upon
   than it was carried into execution. … While the Russian force
   were rapidly advancing towards Koulevscha, a village between
   Pravadi and Schumla, and scarcely three miles from the latter,
   the Grand Vizier remained wholly ignorant of the fact that
   Diebitch had quitted Silistria, and persisted in the belief
   that the only opponents of his retreat to Schumla were
   Generals Roth and Rudiger. … The mistake was fatal. The
   Ottoman cavalry attacked the infantry of the Russians, who
   were overwhelmed by their charge; and Diebitch, having waited
   in expectation that the Vizier would descend from the eminence
   on which he was posted to complete his supposed victory, and
   finding that he did not make this movement, broke from his
   concealment among the hills, and suddenly attacked the Ottoman
   troops with his whole force. The effect was instantaneous. A
   universal panic seized the Vizier's forces, his cavalry and
   infantry fled in confusion, every attempt to bring them to a
   stand proved abortive, and he himself escaped with difficulty.
   The artillery and baggage all fell into the hands of the
   enemy. … The muster at Schumla on the return of the Vizier and
   his remaining troops exhibited the magnitude of their loss.
   Out of a fine army of 40,000 men, who a few days before had
   marched from the fortress full of confidence, only 12,000 foot
   and about 6,000 cavalry remained. After the fatal battle of
   Koulevscha, the siege of Silistria was carried on with
   redoubled vigour, and on the 30th of June the fortress
   surrendered, when the whole garrison were made prisoners of
   war, and to the number of 8,000, and the Russians found on the
   ramparts 238 cannon, in addition to those on board the vessels
   in the harbour. The fall of Silistria now determined the
   Russian commander-in-chief to push across the Balkans. … After
   defeating with great facility such troops as opposed their
   advance, the Russian army pressed on with the utmost activity
   towards Hadrianople, and entered the city not only unopposed,
   but amidst the rejoicings of a multitude of the Greek
   population. … The terror which this extraordinary event
   inspired at Constantinople may easily be imagined to have been
   extreme. The very heart of the empire had been assailed by the
   victorious invaders in Europe, while the tidings from the
   Asiatic provinces of the defeats sustained by the Sultan's
   forces opposed to General Paskewitch, greatly contributed to
   the public alarm. … In the midst of this tumult of public
   feeling, the ambassadors of England and Austria exerted
   themselves to the utmost to bring about a pacification; and …
   the Sultan reluctantly agreed to the conclusion of a treaty of
   peace. … The celebrated treaty of Hadrianople, which concluded
   the war of 1828-29, … contained sixteen distinct articles, by
   which, among other matters, the following conditions were
   agreed upon:—The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, and
   all the conquered places in Bulgaria and Roumelia, were
   restored to the Porte, with the exception of the islands at
   the mouth of the Danube, which were to remain the possession
   of Russia. In Asia all the recent conquests were to revert to
   the Porte, with the exception of Anapa, on the north-eastern
   shore of the Black Sea, several important fortresses, together
   with an extensive district situated to the north and east of a
   line of demarcation supposed to be drawn from the then
   existing boundary of the province of Gouriel, and thence by
   that of Imeritia direct to the point where the frontiers of
   Kars unite with those of Georgia. The conditions of the
   treaties of Kainardji, Bucharest, and Ackerman were confirmed;
   … the passage of the Dardanelles was declared open to all
   Russian merchant ships, as well as the undisputed navigation
   of the Black Sea; an indemnity for losses by Russian subjects
   was fixed at £750,000, to be paid in eighteen months; and the
   expenses of the war were to be paid to the Russian Government,
   amounting to 10,000,000 ducats, about £5,000,000. … To this
   treaty two separate acts were annexed, the provisions of which
   are of scarcely less importance than the treaty itself.
{3151}
   By these acts it was arranged that the Hospodars of Moldavia
   and Wallachia should be elected for life instead of for seven
   years; that no interference in the affairs of these provinces
   by any of the officers of the Porte should take place; that no
   fortified towns, nor any establishment of Muslims, should be
   retained by the Porte on the left bank of the Danube; that the
   Turkish towns on that bank of the river should belong to
   Wallachia; and that the Mussulmans who possessed property in
   such places should be required to sell it in the space of
   eighteen months. … The conclusion of these treaties, on the
   14th September 1829, terminated the war between Russia and the
   Ottoman Empire."

      _R. W. Fraser,
      Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
      chapters 30-31._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852,
      chapter 15._

TURKS: A. D. 1830.
   Recognition of the autonomy of Servia.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Rebellion of Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.
   Intervention of Russia and the Western Powers.
   Egypt made an hereditary pashalik.

   "The peace of Adrianople (1829) had greatly discredited the
   authority of the Porte; insurrections multiplied, and Turkish
   armies had to enter Bosnia and Albania. In these and all other
   matters by which the embarrassment of the Porte was increased,
   the ambitious Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt, had a hand. As
   payment for his services against the Greeks, he had demanded
   the pashalik of Damascus. Sultan Mahmoud II. had refused the
   demand, and only given him the promised Candia. Hence, while
   the Western powers were occupied with the consequences of the
   July revolution [in France], and all Europe appeared to be on
   the verge of a new upheaval, he undertook to seize his booty
   for himself. In consequence of a quarrel with Abdallah, Pasha
   of Acre, Ibrahim Pasha [son of Mehemed Ali], notorious for his
   barbarous conduct of the war in Peloponnesus, crossed the
   Egyptian frontier, October 20th, 1831, with an army organized
   on the European system, took Gaza, Jaffa and Jerusalem without
   resistance, and besieged Acre, which was resolutely defended
   by Abdallah. Mehemed Ali now demanded both pashaliks—Damascus
   and Acre. The sultan commanded him to evacuate Syria. The
   demand was naturally refused; so Mehemed and his son Ibrahim
   were outlawed. But the latter proceeded with his operations,
   took Acre by storm May 25th, 1832, and entered Damascus. In
   the mean time, a Turkish army, under Hussein Pasha, had
   advanced into Syria. Mehemed Pasha, Hussein's lieutenant, was
   defeated at Homs, July 9th. Hussein himself, attempting to
   retrieve this loss, was defeated at Beylan July 27th, and his
   army scattered. The sultan sent a new army against Ibrahim,
   under Reshid Pasha, the Grand Vizier, who had displayed great
   efficiency in the reduction of the Albanians and Bosnians.
   Reshid … was utterly defeated at Konieh December 20th, and was
   himself taken prisoner. The sultan was in a critical
   situation. He could not at the moment bring together another
   considerable army, while Ibrahim had 100,000 well-trained
   troops, and the road to Constantinople lay open before him."
   Russia, having no wish to see the energetic Pasha of Egypt in
   possession of that coveted capital, offered her help to the
   sultan and he was driven to accept it. "A Russian fleet
   appeared in the Bosphorus, and landed troops at Scutari, while
   a Russian army was on the march from the Danube to cover
   Constantinople. … At length England and France perceived how
   dangerous it was to forget the East in their study of the
   Dutch-Belgian question. Their ambassadors had enough to do, by
   a hasty peace, to make Russia's help unnecessary. As their
   threats made no impression on the victorious Mehemed Ali, they
   filled the sultan with distrust of Russia, and by representing
   a cession of territory to his vassal as the lesser of the two
   evils, persuaded him into the peace of Kutayah (May 6th,
   1833), by which Mehemed Ali received the whole of Syria and
   the territory of Adana, in south-eastern Asia Minor. Russia
   had to retire with her object unattained, but had no sooner
   been thrown out at the front door than she came in at the
   back. She called the sultan's attention to the favor shown to
   the insatiable pasha by England and France in the peace of
   Kutayah, and concluded with him, July 8th, 1833, the treaty of
   Unkiar-Skelessi, by which he entered into a defensive alliance
   with Russia for eight years, and pledged himself to permit no
   foreign vessel of war to pass through the Dardanelles. The
   Western powers took this outwitting very ill, and from that
   time on kept a sharp eye on Constantinople." Mehemed Ali was
   meantime giving another direction to his ambition. "The west
   coast of Arabia, as far as the English post at Aden, had been
   in his possession since 1829. He now sought to extend his sway
   over the eastern coast, and subdue the sultan of Muscat. … If
   this were to continue, the two most important roads to the
   East Indies, by Suez and by the Persian Gulf, would be in the
   hands of Mehemed Ali. … With Egypt, Syria, and Arabia in his
   hands, England's position in the East would receive a blow
   that must be felt. So it was a foregone conclusion which side
   England would take. In 1838 she concluded with the Porte a
   commercial treaty by which the abolition of all monopolies, as
   well as free exportation from all parts of the Turkish empire,
   including Egypt and Syria, was secured to her. Mehemed Ali
   hesitated about accepting this treaty; and Mahmoud, full of
   hate against a vassal who threatened ultimately to devour him,
   declared him a traitor, deprived him of all his dignities, and
   caused an army to advance into Syria under Hasiz Pasha. But
   again fortune was not favorable to the Turks. In their camp,
   as military adviser of the commander-in-chief, was a Prussian
   captain, Hellmuth von Moltke. For two years he had been
   assisting the sultan in planning and putting into execution
   military reforms. Recognizing the weakness and unreliable
   character of the Turkish army, he advised Hasiz Pasha to fall
   back on the strong camp at Biridshik, bring up the
   re-enforcements which were under way, and then risk a battle.
   But the Pasha would not listen to Moltke's advice, pronouncing
   retreat a disgrace. He was completely routed at Nisib, on the
   Euphrates, June 24th, 1839, and his army scattered. For the
   second time the road to Constantinople lay open to Ibrahim.
   Misfortunes fell thick and fast upon the Turks. Sultan Mahmoud
   died June 30th, and the empire fell to a sixteen-year old
   youth, his son Abdul Medshid. Five days later, Capudan Pasha,
   with the Turkish fleet, sailed out of the Dardanelles under
   orders to attack the Egyptians. Instead of this he went over
   to Mehemed Ali with his whole fleet—in consequence of French
   bribery, it was said. … In order to prevent Turkey from
   casting herself a second time into Russia's arms, four great
   powers—England, France, Austria, and Prussia—declared, July
   27th, 1839, that they would themselves take the Eastern
   question in hand.
{3152}
   To save herself from being wholly left out, Russia had to give
   her consent, and become a party to the treaty. But there were
   very different views as to the way in which the question was
   to be settled. France, which was striving after the control of
   the Mediterranean, and which, since Napoleon's campaign, had
   turned its eyes toward Egypt, wished to leave its friend
   Mehemed Ali in full possession. England saw her interests
   endangered by the pasha, thought France's occupation of
   Algiers quite enough, and was afraid that if Turkey were too
   weak she might become the defenceless prey of Russia. The
   latter wished at no price to allow the energetic pasha to
   enter upon the inheritance of Turkey, or even of a part of it,
   and was pleased at seeing the cordial understanding between
   France and England destroyed. Austria and Prussia supported
   England and Russia, and so France was left alone. The
   Anglo-Russian view found expression in the quadruple alliance
   which the great powers, with the exception of France,
   concluded in London, July 15th, 1840. By this the hereditary
   possession of the pashalik of Egypt, and the possession for
   life of a part of Syria, were secured to Mehemed Ali, in case
   he submitted to the conclusions of the conference within ten
   days. … The allied powers began hostilities against Mehemed
   Ali, who, relying on French assistance, refused to submit. The
   Anglo-Austrian fleet sailed to the Syrian coast, and took
   Beirut and Acre; and Alexandria was bombarded by Commodore
   Napier. This and the fall of the Thiers ministry brought
   Mehemed Ali to a full realization of his mistake. He might
   consider himself lucky in being allowed to hold Egypt as
   hereditary pashalik upon evacuating Syria, Arabia, and Candia,
   and restoring the Turkish fleet. For this favor he had to
   thank England, which sought by this means to secure his
   friendship and the Suez road to India. The catastrophe of the
   'sick man' [the Turk] was again put off for a few years."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 1-20._

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 16 (volume 3)._

TURKS: A. D. 1839.
   Accession of Abdul Medjid.

TURKS: A. D. 1853-1856.
   The Crimean War.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

A. D. 1861-1876.
   The reign of Abd-ul-Aziz, and accession of Abd-ul-Hamid.

   "Troubles broke out in the Lebanon in 1860, a French army was
   dispatched to restore order, and in the adjustment of rival
   claims an opportunity was afforded to Lord Dufferin for
   displaying those diplomatic talents for which he is renowned.
   In 1861 the Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, and with him passed away
   the hope of regenerating Turkey. His brother and successor
   Abd-ul-Aziz was an ignorant bigot, whose extravagance brought
   his country to avowed insolvency (1875), and thus deprived her
   of that sympathy which is seldom given to the impecunious. The
   only remarkable thing he did was to travel. No Ottoman Sultan
   had ever before left his own dominions, except on the war
   path, but Abd-ul-Aziz ventured even as far as London, without,
   however, awakening any enthusiasm on the part of his Allies.
   In 1876 he was deposed, and—found dead. How he came by his
   death is a matter of doubt, but his end is said to have turned
   the brain of his successor, Murad V., a son of Abd-ul-Mejid,
   who after three months was removed as an imbecile, and
   succeeded by his brother, … Abd-ul-Hamid."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Story of Turkey,
      chapter 17._

TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
   Union of Wallachia and Moldavia.
   Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
   Reforms demanded by the Great Powers.
   War with Servia.
   Conference at Constantinople.
   Russian preparations for war.

   "Before four years were over [after the termination of the
   Crimean War by the Treaty of Paris], one of the chief
   stipulations of the treaty was set aside. Wallachia and
   Moldavia, which it had been the policy of the Powers to
   separate, displayed a constant desire to join. Two of the
   great Continental Powers—France and Russia—favoured the
   junction. England, Austria, and Turkey, thinking that the
   union would ultimately lead to their independence, opposed
   their fusion under one prince. At last, after discussions,
   which at one moment seemed likely to rekindle the flames of
   war, an administrative union was arranged, which resulted, in
   due course, in the formal union of the two provinces in 1861.
   [In 1858, the two provinces chose the same prince, or
   hospodar, in the person of Prince John Couza, who took the
   title of Prince of Roumania. The Porte protested, but was
   induced, in 1861, to recognize this union of the coronets.
   Prince Couza aspired to absolutism, and was forced to abdicate
   in 1866. Then a German, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, was
   chosen by the two provinces to be his successor.] Thus, five
   years after the Peace of Paris, one of the stipulations on
   which England had insisted was surrendered. In 1870 the
   Franco-German War led to the obliteration of another of them.
   In November, when the armies of France were either beaten or
   besieged, Russia repudiated the clause of the Treaty of Paris
   which had limited the forces of Russia and Turkey in the Black
   Sea. The declaration of the Russian Government came as a
   painful shock to the British people. The determination of a
   great European state to tear up the clause of a treaty excited
   indignation. It was recollected, moreover, that it was for the
   sake of this clause that the Crimean War had been prolonged
   after the Vienna negotiations; and that all the blood which
   had been shed, and all the money which had been spent, after
   the spring of 1855, were wasted in its abandonment. … All that
   diplomacy was able to do was to lessen the shock by persuading
   the Russian Government to submit its proposal for the
   abrogation of the clause to a conference. … The conference
   met. … It had practically nothing to do but to record its
   assent to the Russian proposal. … For five years more the
   Eastern Question remained undisturbed. In the spring of 1875
   an insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, two of
   the northern provinces of European Turkey. The Porte failed to
   quench the disturbance; and, its efforts to do so increasing
   its pecuniary embarrassments, was forced in the autumn to
   repudiate the claims of its many creditors. … In the meanwhile
   the insurrection continued to spread, and attracted the
   attention of the great European Powers.
{3153}
   At the instigation of Austria a note was drawn up [by Count
   Andrassy, and known, therefore, as the Andrassy Note], which
   was at once signed by all the European Powers except England,
   and which was ultimately accepted by England also, declaring
   that 'the promises of reform made by the Porte had not been
   carried into effect, and that some combined action by the
   Powers of Europe was necessary to insist on the fulfilment of
   the many engagements which Turkey had made and broken.' As the
   note failed to effect its object, the representatives of the
   Northern Powers—Germany, Austria, and Russia—met at Berlin,
   proposed a suspension of arms for two months, and intimated
   that if Turkey in the two months failed to fulfil her broken
   promises, 'force would be used to compel her' to do so. The
   British Government, unwilling to join in a threat, refused to
   sign this new note. The insurrection went on; Servia,
   sympathising with the insurgents, declared war against Turkey;
   Russian officers and Russian troops fought in the Servian
   battalions; and Russia herself, setting her legions in motion,
   evidently prepared for hostilities. When these events
   occurred, large numbers of the English people were prepared to
   support the Turk. Though they had been partially estranged
   from the cause of Turkey by the repudiation of the Ottoman
   debt in the previous autumn, they recollected the sacrifices
   of the Crimean War; they were irritated with the manner in
   which one part of the Treaty of Paris had been torn up in
   1870; and they were consequently prepared to resist any
   further movement on the part of Russia. The Porte, however,
   dreading the extension of revolt, allowed its officers to
   anticipate disorder by massacre. The atrocious cruelty with
   which this policy was executed [especially in Bulgaria—see
   BALKAN and DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878] excited a general
   outburst of indignation in this country [England]; and the
   British Ministry, whose leader had hitherto displayed much
   sympathy with the Turks, found himself forced to observe a
   strict neutrality. In the short war which ensued in the autumn
   of 1876, the Servian troops proved no match for the Turkish
   battalions. At the request or command of Russia the Porte was
   forced to grant an armistice to the belligerents; and, on the
   suggestion of the British Ministry, a Conference of the Great
   Powers was held at Constantinople to provide for the better
   government of the Turkish provinces. The Constantinople
   Conference, held at the beginning of 1877, formed in many
   respects an exact parallel to the Vienna Conference held in
   the summer of 1855. … The Porte rejected all the proposals on
   which the other Powers were agreed. … In each case the failure
   of the Conference was followed by war. But the parallel ends
   at this point. … In the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, Turkey
   was left to fight her own battle alone."

      _S. Walpole,
      Foreign Relations,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
      volume 1, chapters 1-10._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      The Eastern Question,
      volume 1, chapters 3-9._

      _S. Menzies,
      Turkey Old and New,
      book 4. chapter 4 (volume 2)._

TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
   War with Russia.
   Heroic defense of Plevna.
   Defeat and surrender.

   "Russia had already massed large numbers of troops on her
   frontier, and Turkey was also engaged in the work of
   mobilization. On the 24th April the Emperor of Russia issued a
   manifesto to his subjects, in which he recited the interest of
   the empire in the Christian population of the Balkan
   peninsula, and the general desire that their condition should
   be ameliorated. He declared that all efforts at peace had been
   exhausted. … He had given the orders for the army to cross the
   frontier, and the advance upon Turkey was begun without delay.
   … The Turks had not been idle, though their preparations were
   by no means as complete as those of Russia. They had massed
   heavy bodies of troops along the Danube, and were prepared to
   resist the movements of the Russians south of that stream. …
   The first crossing [of the Russians] was made at Galatz, on
   the 22d June, by General Zimmermann, who went over with two
   regiments in pontoons and drove out the Turks who were posted
   on the heights on the opposite shore. Having obtained a
   footing in the Dobrudja, as the peninsula between the Danube
   and Black Sea is called, the Russians were able to throw
   bridges over the great stream, by which the whole left wing of
   the army moved across. Meantime the right wing, on the 26th
   June, sent a pontoon force over the Danube from Simnitza,
   under command of General Skobeleff, who drove out the small
   force of Turks posted there, though not without hard fighting.
   More pontoons followed, and then a bridge was thrown across on
   which the army could march. … By the first week of July the
   whole Russian army was safely encamped on the southern bank of
   the Danube, and getting in readiness to assume the offensive.
   … The advance did not begin in force until after the middle of
   the month. But before that time General Gourko … had pushed
   forward on the road to the Balkans, heading first for Tirnova.
   … On the 5th July the cavalry occupied Biela, … and on the 7th
   Gourko was in possession of Tirnova. … The Emperor joined the
   army at Biela on the 8th or 9th. Gourko was soon reported past
   the Balkans. … The first check of the Russians was at Plevna.
   They had previously captured Nicopolis with its garrison of
   7,000 men, having themselves lost about 1,300 officers and men
   killed and wounded. Orders had been given to occupy Plevna as
   soon as possible, and Baron Krudener sent forward General
   Schilder-Schuldner to carry out the orders. …
   Schilder-Schuldner had 6,500 men and 46 guns in the division
   with which he went to capture Plevna; he was attacked by a
   vastly superior force of Turks before he had reached his
   objective point, and the first battle of Plevna was disastrous
   to the Russians. … Nearly 3,000 men and 74 officers were
   killed or wounded. … The Russians retired to Nicopolis, and
   the Turks set to work to strengthen Plevna. … From the 20th to
   the 30th of July the Russians were engaged in bringing up
   reinforcements and getting ready for another attack. An order
   came for the assault of the Turkish position; Baron Krudener
   did not believe the assault advisable, but the command of the
   Grand Duke Nicholas left him no discretion." The assault was
   made on the 31st of July, and was repulsed, with a loss to the
   Russians of 170 officers and 7,136 men. "There was nothing for
   the Russians to do but send for reinforcements, and wait until
   they arrived. The advance into Turkey had received a severe
   check, from which recovery was not easy. From the offensive
   the Russians were thrown upon the defensive, and all as the
   result of a single battle of six or eight hours' duration.
   Happily for Russia, the Turkish army had no competent leader,
   or the army of the Czar might have been captured or drowned in
   the Danube.
{3154}
   The Turks had three armies in the field. … Mehemet Ali was at
   Shumla with 65,000 men; Osman Pasha at Plevna, with 50,000;
   and Suleiman Pasha at Yeni Zagra, with 40,000. … The order of
   the Czar for reinforcements was quickly issued, and resulted
   in the despatch of 120,000 regulars and 180,000 militia for
   the front. With these reinforcements went 460 pieces of
   artillery. … General Gourko took up his position in the Shipka
   Pass whence Suleiman Pasha sought in vain to dislodge him. …
   Towards the end of August the Russian reinforcements were
   assembled in such numbers that an advance could again be
   ventured. … The total Russian and Roumanian force for the
   attack of Plevna amounted to 90,000 men and 440 guns, while
   the Turks were estimated to have about 56,000 men—and Osman
   Pasha. … The attack began with a bombardment on the 6th
   September," which was kept up until the 11th, when the
   Russians again endeavored to carry the Turkish works by
   assault. Skobeleff, conspicuous, as he always was, in daring
   and in success, took one of the redoubts and held it until the
   next day, waiting vainly for reinforcements which were not
   sent. Elsewhere the assault failed. "The Russian killed and
   wounded were estimated at 18,000 to 20,000, and the Turkish
   about 5,000 less than the Russian. The capture by assault
   having been given up, the Russians sat down to invoke the aid
   of that engine, more powerful than all their batteries, the
   engine of starvation. … One by one the roads leading into
   Plevna were occupied, but it was nearly two months from the
   terrible battle of the 11th September before the routes for
   supplies and reinforcements destined for Osman Pasha could be
   secured. The investment was completed on the 3d November;
   120,000 Russians and Roumanians were around Plevna." On the
   morning of December 10 the beleaguered Turks made a desperate
   sortie, attempting to break the line of investment, having
   failed in which their stout-hearted commander surrendered
   unconditionally. "With the fall of Plevna and the surrender of
   its garrison of 40,000 men, the Turkish opposition practically
   ceased. Within a month from that event General Gourko had
   captured Sophia, and General Radetsky took the village of
   Shipka, in the Shipka Pass, and compelled the surrender of a
   Turkish army of 23,000 men. … Gourko and Skobeleff advanced
   upon Philippopolis by different routes and narrowly missed
   capturing Suleiman Pasha with his entire force. Skobeleff
   advanced upon Adrianople, which the Turks abandoned, and
   Slivno and Yeni-Zagra were occupied, all inside of thirty
   days. Plevna had made the Russians the masters of the
   situation, and they advanced upon Constantinople, the Turks
   retiring before them, and occasionally making a feeble
   resistance. Turkey asked the mediation of England, and
   finally, despairing of her aid, signed an armistice that
   became the basis of the treaty of San Stefano."

   _T. W. Knox,
   Decisive Battles Since Waterloo,
   chapter 21._

   The campaign of the Russians in Bulgaria was accompanied by
   another in Asiatic Turkey, where they, likewise, met with a
   temporary check, after pushing their first advance too
   confidently, and with an insufficient force. They invested
   Kars and advanced against Erzeroum, in May, 1877; but were
   defeated at Sevin and withdrew from both undertakings. Having
   received reinforcements, they resumed the offensive in
   October, attacking the main Turkish army, under Mukhtar Pasha,
   in its strong position at Aladsha, or on the Little Yahni and
   Great Yahni hills. Their first attack, on the 2d, was
   repulsed; they repeated it on the 15th with success, driving
   one wing of the enemy into Kars and forcing the other to
   surrender. Kars was then besieged and taken by assault
   November 17. The Turks suffered another defeat at Deve-Boyun,
   near Erzeroum, November 4, and they evacuated Erzeroum itself
   in February, 1878.

      _E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War._

      ALSO IN;
      _V. Baker,
      The War in Bulgaria._

      _F. V. Greene,
      The Russian Army and its Campaign in Turkey._

TURKS: A. D. 1878.
   Excitement in England over the Russian advance.
   The British fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
   Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

   "At the opening of 1878 the Turks were completely prostrate.
   The road to Constantinople was clear. Before the English
   public had time to recover their breath and to observe what
   was taking place, the victorious armies of Russia were almost
   within sight of the minarets of Stamboul. Meanwhile the
   English Government were taking momentous action. … Parliament
   was called together at least a fortnight before the time usual
   during recent years. The Speech from the Throne announced that
   her Majesty could not conceal from herself that, should the
   hostilities between Russia and Turkey unfortunately be
   prolonged, 'some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent
   on me to adopt measures of precaution.' This looked ominous to
   those who wished for peace, and it raised the spirits of the
   war party. There was a very large and a very noisy war party
   already in existence. It was particularly strong in London. It
   embraced some Liberals as well as nearly all Tories. It was
   popular in the music-halls and the public-houses of London. …
   The men of action got a nickname. They were dubbed the Jingo
   Party. … Some Tyrtæus of the tap-tub, some Körner of the
   music-halls, had composed a ballad which was sung at one of
   these caves of harmony every night amidst the tumultuous
   applause of excited patriots. The refrain of this war-song
   contained the spirit-stirring words:
      'We don't want to fight,
      but, by Jingo, if we do,
      We've got the ships,
      we've got the men,
      we've got the money too.'

   Some one whose pulses this lyrical outburst of national pride
   failed to stir called the party of its enthusiasts the
   Jingoes. … The name was caught up at once, and the party were
   universally known as the Jingoes. … The Government ordered the
   Mediterranean fleet to pass the Dardanelles and go up to
   Constantinople. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that
   he would ask for a supplementary estimate of six millions for
   naval and military purposes. Thereupon Lord Carnarvon, the
   Colonial Secretary, at once resigned. … Lord Derby was also
   anxious to resign, and indeed tendered his resignation, but he
   was prevailed upon to withdraw it. The fleet meanwhile was
   ordered back from the Dardanelles to Besika Bay. It had got as
   far as the opening of the Straits when it was recalled.
{3155}
   The Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons kept on
   protesting against the various war measures of the Government,
   but with little effect. … While all this agitation in and out
   of Parliament was going on … the news came that the Turks,
   utterly broken down, had been compelled to sign an armistice,
   and an agreement containing a basis of peace, at Adrianople.
   Then, following quickly on the heels of this announcement,
   came a report that the Russians, notwithstanding the
   armistice, were pushing on towards Constantinople with the
   intention of occupying the Turkish capital. A cry of alarm and
   indignation broke out in London. One memorable night a sudden
   report reached the House of Commons that the Russians were
   actually in the suburbs of Constantinople. The House for a
   time almost entirely lost its head. The lobbies, the
   corridors, St. Stephen's Hall, the great Westminster Hall
   itself, and Palace Yard beyond it, became filled with wildly
   excited and tumultuous crowds. If the clamour of the streets
   at that moment had been the voice of England, nothing could
   have prevented a declaration of war against Russia. Happily,
   however, it was proved that the rumour of Russian advance was
   unfounded. The fleet was now sent in good earnest through the
   Dardanelles, and anchored a few miles below Constantinople.
   Russia at first protested that if the English fleet passed the
   Straits Russian troops ought to occupy the city. Lord Derby
   was firm, and terms of arrangement were found—English troops
   were not to be disembarked, and the Russians were not to
   advance. Russia was still open to negotiation. Probably Russia
   had no idea of taking on herself the tremendous responsibility
   of an occupation of Constantinople. She had entered into a
   treaty with Turkey, the famous Treaty of San Stefano, by which
   she secured for the populations of the Christian provinces
   almost complete independence of Turkey, and was to create a
   great new Bulgarian State with a seaport on the Egean Sea. The
   English Government refused to recognise this Treaty. Lord
   Derby contended that it involved an entire readjustment of the
   Treaty of Paris, and that that could only be done with the
   sanction of the Great Powers assembled in Congress. Lord
   Beaconsfield openly declared that the Treaty of San Stefano
   would put the whole south-east of Europe directly under
   Russian influence. Russia offered to submit the Treaty to the
   perusal, if we may use the expression, of a Congress; but
   argued that the stipulations which merely concerned Turkey and
   herself were for Turkey and herself to settle between them.
   This was obviously an untenable position. … Turkey meanwhile
   kept feebly moaning that she had been coerced into signing the
   Treaty. The Government determined to call out the Reserves, to
   summon a contingent of Indian troops to Europe, to occupy
   Cyprus, and to make an armed landing on the coast of Syria. …
   The last hope of the Peace Party seemed to have vanished when
   Lord Derby left his office [which he did on the 28th of
   March]. Lord Salisbury was made Foreign Minister. … Lord
   Salisbury's first act in the office of Foreign Secretary was
   to issue a circular in which he declared that it would be
   impossible for England to enter a Congress which was not free
   to consider the whole of the provisions of the Treaty of San
   Stefano. … Prince Bismarck had often during these events shown
   an inclination to exhibit himself in the new attitude of a
   peaceful mediator. He now interposed again and issued
   invitations for a congress to be held in Berlin to discuss the
   whole contents of the Treaty of San Stefano. After some delay,
   discussion, and altercation, Russia agreed to accept the
   invitation on the conditions proposed, and it was finally
   resolved that a Congress should assemble in Berlin on the
   approaching June 13. To this Congress it was supposed by most
   persons that Lord Salisbury would be sent to represent
   England. Much to the surprise of the public, Lord Beaconsfield
   announced that he himself would attend, accompanied by Lord
   Salisbury, and conduct the negotiations in Berlin. The event
   was, we believe, without precedent. … The Congress was held in
   the Radzivill Palace, a building with a plain unpretending
   exterior in one of the principal streets of Berlin, and then
   in the occupation of Prince Bismarck. The Prince himself
   presided. … The Congress discussed the whole or nearly the
   whole of the questions opened up by the recent war. … The
   great object of most of the statesmen who were concerned in
   the preparation of the Treaty which came of the Congress, was
   to open for the Christian populations of the south-east of
   Europe a way into gradual self-development and independence.
   But on the other hand it must be owned that the object of some
   of the Powers, and especially, we are afraid, of the English
   Government, was rather to maintain the Ottoman Government than
   to care for the future of the Christian races. These two
   influences, acting and counteracting on each other, produced
   the Treaty of Berlin."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Time,
      chapter 65 (volume 4)._

      _ALSO IN: J. A. Froude,
      Lord Beaconsfield,
      chapter 16._

      _H. D. Traill,
      The Marquis of Salisbury,
      chapter 11._

      _R. Wilson,
      Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

TURKS: A. D. 1878.
   The Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin.

   "The First Article of the Treaty of San Stefano had reference
   to the new boundaries to be assigned to Montenegro. The
   accession of territory, which was not very large, was taken
   from the provinces of Bosnia and Albania, and lay to the
   north, east, and south of the original State. … It gave to the
   mountaineers their much-coveted admission to the sea. It was
   next provided that a European Commission, on which the Sublime
   Porte and the Government of Montenegro were to be represented,
   should be charged with fixing the definite limits of the
   Principality. … By Article II., the Sublime Porte recognized
   definitively the independence of the Principality of
   Montenegro. … Article III. dealt with Servia, which was
   recognized as independent. The new frontier of this
   Principality was to follow the course of the Drina, the
   Dezevo, the Raska, the Ibar, the Morava, and some other
   streams, and was drawn so as to give Little Zwornik, Zakar,
   Leskovatz, Ak Palanka, and Nisch, to the Servians. … In
   Article V., the Sublime Porte undertook to recognize the
   independence of Roumania, which would thus acquire a right to
   an indemnity, to be hereafter discussed between the two
   countries. The most important sections of the Treaty were of
   course those which had relation to Bulgaria. They commenced
   with Article VI., which set forth that Bulgaria was
   constituted an autonomous, tributary Principality, with a
   Christian Government and a national militia.
{3156}
   The definitive frontiers of the new Principality were to be
   traced by a special Russo-Turkish Commission before the
   evacuation of Roumelia by the Russian army. … The new Bulgaria
   was of very considerable dimensions. It extended from the
   Danube in the north to the Ægean in the south; and from the
   borders of Albania in the west to the Black Sea in the east.
   All that was left to Turkey in this part of her Empire was an
   irregular and somewhat narrow territory, running westward from
   Constantinople along the shores of the Sea of Marmora and the
   Ægean until it touched the limits of the new Principality, and
   extending no farther north than was sufficient to include
   Adrianople and its immediate neighbourhood. By this
   arrangement, the territory so left to the Sultan was
   completely separated from Thessaly and Albania. … According to
   Article VII., the Prince of Bulgaria was to be freely elected
   by the people, and confirmed by the Sublime Porte with the
   assent of the Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of
   the Great European Powers should be capable of being elected
   Prince of Bulgaria. … The introduction of the new system into
   Bulgaria, and the superintendence of its working, would be
   entrusted for two years to an Imperial Russian Commissioner. …
   By Article VIII., the Ottoman army would no longer remain in
   Bulgaria, and all the ancient fortresses would be razed at the
   expense of the local Government. … Until the complete
   formation of a native militia, the country would be occupied
   by Russian troops. … Article IX. declared that the amount of
   the annual tribute which Bulgaria was to pay the Suzerain
   Court would be determined by an agreement between Russia, the
   Ottoman Government, and the other Cabinets. … By Article X.,
   the Sublime Porte was to have the right to make use of
   Bulgaria for the transport, by fixed routes, of its troops,
   munitions, and provisions, to the provinces beyond the
   Principality, and vice versa. … Article XII. provided that all
   the Danubian fortresses should be razed, and that in future
   there should be no strongholds on the banks of the Danube, nor
   any men-of-war in the waters of Roumania, Servia, or Bulgaria.
   … Article XIV. imposed on Turkey the obligation to introduce
   reforms into Bosnia and the Herzegovina." Articles XV. and
   XVI. stipulated reforms in government of Crete, Epirus,
   Thessaly, Armenia, and other parts of the Ottoman Empire. "The
   question of the war-indemnities was arranged in Article XIX.,
   which set forth that the Emperor of Russia claimed, in all,
   1,410,000,000 roubles for losses imposed on Russia during the
   contest. … The Emperor, however, did not desire to receive the
   whole of this indemnity in the form of money-payments, but,
   taking into consideration the financial embarrassments of
   Turkey, and acting in accordance with the wishes of the
   Sultan, was willing to substitute for the greater part of the
   sums enumerated certain territorial cessions, consisting of
   the Sandjak of Tultcha, on the Danube (including the Delta
   Islands and the Isle of Serpents), and, in Asia, Ardahan,
   Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, and the territory extending as far as
   the Soghanli Dagh. With respect to the Sandjak of Tultcha and
   the Delta Islands, Russia, not wishing to annex that
   territory, reserved to herself the right of exchanging it for
   the part of Bessarabia detached from her by the Treaty of
   1856. … The ceded territories in Europe and Asia were to be
   taken as an equivalent for the sum of 1,100,000,000 roubles."
   The remaining Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano related to
   details of minor importance. "The Treaty of Berlin, signed by
   the Plenipotentiaries on the 13th of July, 1878, and of which
   the ratifications were exchanged on the 3rd of August, was the
   Treaty of San Stefano, with additions, subtractions, and
   amendments. … Speaking generally, it may be said that the
   objects of the Treaty of Berlin, as distinguished from its
   predecessor, were to place the Turkish Empire in a position of
   independence, and to protect the jeopardised rights of Europe.
   These ends it accomplished, or partially accomplished, by
   several important provisions. It divided the so-called
   Bulgaria into two provinces, of which the one to the north of
   the Balkans was formed into a tributary Principality, while
   the one to the south, which was to be designated Eastern
   Roumelia, was to remain under the direct authority of the
   Sultan, with administrative autonomy and a Christian
   Governor-General. It left to the Sultan the passes of the
   mountains, and the right of sending troops into the interior
   of Eastern Roumelia whenever there might be occasion. It
   reduced the stay of the Russian army in European Turkey. … It
   secured to Roumania, as compensation for the loss of that
   portion of Bessarabia which had been annexed to Moldavia by
   the Treaty of Paris (1856), a larger amount of territory,
   south of the Danube, than had been granted at San Stefano. It
   restored to Turkey the whole of the northern shores of the
   Ægean, a wide extent of country in Europe, and, in Asia, the
   valley of Alashgerd and the town of Bayazid. … It gave far
   ampler guarantees for religious liberty than had entered into
   the projects of the Czar."

      _E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
      volume 2, chapter 9 and 21._

   "In her private agreement with Russia, England had consented
   to the cession of Batoum, but she now sought to diminish the
   value of that post by stipulating that the fortifications
   should be demolished and the port declared free. The dispute,
   which at one time assumed a serious character, was finally
   settled by a declaration on the part of the Czar that Batoum
   should be a free port. Kars, Ardahan, and Batoum were ceded to
   Russia, the district of Khotur to Persia, and the Sultan
   pledged himself to carry out the requisite reforms in Armenia
   without loss of time, and to protect the inhabitants against
   the Kurds and Circassians. At the same time a secret treaty
   was made known which had been contracted between England and
   Turkey on the 4th of June. By this treaty the Porte pledged
   itself to carry out reforms in Asia Minor, and England, on her
   part, guaranteed the integrity of the Sultan's Asiatic
   possessions. To put England in a position to fulfil her part
   of the treaty, and as a pledge for the execution of the
   promised reforms, the Porte surrendered Cyprus to England as a
   naval and military station, the latter agreeing to regard the
   island as an integral part of the Turkish empire, and to make
   over the surplus revenue to the Sultan. This treaty, which had
   received the consent of Germany and Russia at the time of its
   execution, aroused great indignation in France and Italy. … To
   pacify the former state, Beaconsfield and Salisbury entered
   into a secret arrangement with Waddington, in accordance with
   which England was to put no obstacles in the way of a French
   occupation of Tunis—an arrangement of which the French
   government finally took advantage in the year 1881.
{3157}
   The English representatives had also entered into an
   arrangement with Austria in reference to Bosnia and
   Herzegovina. In the sitting of June 29th Andrassy read a
   memorandum in which he set forth that Austria had been
   disturbed for a whole year by the insurrection in those
   provinces, and had been compelled to receive and provide for
   over 150,000 Bosnian fugitives, who positively refused again
   to submit to the hardships of Turkish misrule; that Turkey was
   not in a position to restore order in the disturbed districts.
   … Thereupon the Marquis of Salisbury moved that Austria be
   charged with the occupation and administration of Bosnia and
   Herzegovina, and … the congress … decided to hand over those
   two provinces to Austro-Hungary. … The independence of Servia
   and Montenegro was recognized on condition that full freedom
   and political equality were accorded to the members of all
   religions. Servia received an addition to her population of
   280,000 souls, her most important acquisition being the city
   and fortress of Nish. She also assumed a part of the Turkish
   debt. The recognition of Roumanian independence was
   conditioned on the cession of Bessarabia to Russia, and the
   admission to political equality of the members of all
   religions—a condition which had special reference to the Jews.
   In compensation for Bessarabia Roumania was to receive the
   Dobrudsha and the islands at the mouth of the Danube. …
   Austria took possession of her share of the booty at once, but
   not without the most obstinate resistance."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 4, Numbers 518, 524-532._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      The Eastern Question,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

      See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878.

TURKS: A. D. 1894.
   Reported Atrocities in Armenia.

   A disturbance of some nature—the causes and extent of which
   have not yet been ascertained—occurring in Turkish Armenia
   during the late weeks of summer or early part of autumn, gave
   occasion for what is claimed to have been more horrible
   atrocities on the part of the Turkish soldiery than were
   committed in Bulgaria during the year 1877. The scene of
   alleged massacres is in the mountainous district of Sassoun,
   near the western end of Lake Van, where 6,000 men, women and
   children are said to have been slain. The Christian world
   having been roused, though not very promptly, by the reports
   of this fresh outbreak of barbarism, the Porte has been forced
   by pressure from the Powers to consent to the formation of a
   commission to investigate the affair. England, France and
   Russia are to be represented on the commission.

   ----------TURKS: End--------

TURLUPINS, The.

      See BEGUINES.

TURNER, Nat, The Insurrection of.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

TURONES, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul who gave their name to Touraine, the
   district which they inhabited, and to Tours, the chief town of
   that district.

      See GAULS; also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

   ----------TUSCANY:Start--------

TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.
   The founding of the duchy.
   The reign of Countess Matilda.
   The rise of the free cities.

   "The first Lombard duke of whom any sure record remains is a
   certain 'Alovisino' who flourished about the year 685; and the
   last, though of more doubtful existence, is 'Tachiputo,' in
   the 8th century, when Lucca was the principal seat of
   government, with the privilege of coining, although her Counts
   were not always Dukes and Marquises of Tuscany. About the year
   800, the title of Duke seems to have changed to that of Count,
   and although both are afterwards used the latter is most
   common: Muratori says, that this dignity was in 813 enjoyed by
   a certain Boniface whom Sismondi believes to be the ancestor
   of Countess Matilda; but her father, the son of Tedaldo,
   belonged to another race: he was the grandson to Attone, Azzo,
   or Adelberto, Count of Cannosa. … The line of Boniface I.
   finished in 1001 by the death of Hugo the Great. … After him,
   on account of the civil wars between Ardoino and Henry, there
   was no permanent Duke until 1014, when the latter appointed
   Ranieri, whom Conrad the Salique deposed in 1027, making room
   for Boniface the father of Countess Matilda. This heroine died
   in 1115 after a reign of active exertion for herself and the
   Church against the Emperors, which generated the infant and as
   yet nameless factions of Guelph and Ghibeline. …

      See 'War of Investitures,'
      PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122]

   The fearless assertion of her own independence by successful
   struggles with the Emperor was an example not overlooked by
   the young Italian communities under Matilda's rule. … These
   seeds of liberty began first to germinate amongst the Lombard
   plains, but quickly spreading over the Apennines were welcomed
   throughout Tuscany. …

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

   It seems probable that in Tuscany, towards the commencement of
   the 12th century, the Count's authority had passed entirely
   into the principal communities, leaving that of the Marquis as
   yet untouched; but there are reasons for believing that the
   Countess Matilda in some of her difficulties was induced to
   sell or cede a portion of her power, and probably all that of
   the Count's. … Altogether, there appears little reason to
   doubt the internal freedom of most Tuscan cities very early in
   the 11th century."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Villari,
      The Two First Centuries of Florentine History,
      volume I, chapter 2._

TUSCANY: A. D. 925-1020.
   The rise of Pisa.

      See PISA.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1063-1200.
   Cultivation of architecture at Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1077-1115.
   Countess Matilda and her Donation to the Holy See.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1215.
   Beginning of the wars of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1248-1278.
   The Guelf and Ghibelline wars.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1250-1293.
   Development of the popular constitution
   of the Florentine Commonwealth.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1282-1293.
   War between Pisa and Genoa.
   Battle of Meloria.
   War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

{3158}

TUSCANY: A. D. 1300-1313.
   The new factions of Florence.
   Bianchi and Neri.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1310-1313.
   The visitation of the Emperor, Henry VII.
   His war with the Guelfic cities.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1313-1328.
   The wars of Florence and Pisa.
   The subjection of Lucca to Castruccio Castracani
   and his war with the Florentines.
   The hostile visitation of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

TUSCANY: A. D 1336-1338.
   War of Florence with Mastino della Scala, of Verona.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1341-1343.
   Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans before Lucca.
   Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1353-1359.
   Sufferings and deliverance from "the Great Company."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1378-1427.
   The democratizing of Florence.
   The Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearances of the Medici.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1390-1402.
   Resistance of Florence to the conquests of the Duke of Milan.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1433-1464.
   The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1452-1454.
   War of Florence and Milan against Venice, Naples,
   Siena and other states.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1469-1492.
   The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent,
   at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1494-1509.
   The French deliverance of Pisa.
   The long struggle and reconquest by Florence.

      See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1502-1569.
   Restoration of the Medici in Florence and
   their creation of the grand duchy of Tuscany.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1725.
   Reversion of the grand duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1735.
   Reversion of the duchy secured to the ex-Duke of Lorraine.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
      and ITALY: A. D.1715-1735.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1796.
   Seizure of Leghorn by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

TUSCANY: A. D. 1801.
   The grand duchy transformed into the Kingdom of Etruria
   and given to the son of the Duke of Parma.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1807.
   End of the Kingdom of Etruria.
   Cession and annexation to France.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restored to Ferdinand III.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Revolution.
   Expulsion of the Grand Duke.
   Proclamation of a Republic and union with Rome.
   The old order restored.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1859-1861.
   Flight of the Grand Duke.
   Formation of a provisional government.
   Annexation to Sardinia.
   Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------TUSCANY: End--------

TUSCARORAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
      and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

TUSCULAN VILLAS.

   "In Cicero's time the number of country-houses which a wealthy
   Roman considered it necessary to possess had evidently become
   considerable, and the amount spent upon them very great. The
   orator himself had villas at Tusculum, Antium, Formiæ, Bairn,
   and Pompeii, besides his town-house on the Palatine, and his
   family seat at Arpinum. … The Tusculanum of Cicero had
   formerly been in the possession of Sylla. … Close to the Villa
   of Cicero, and so near that he could go across to fetch books
   from the library, was the Villa of Lucullus. … Many other
   Roman villas, lay on the Tusculan hills."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14, part 3._

TUSCULUM.

   "In the times of the Latin League, from the fall of Alba to
   the battle of Lake Regillus, Tusculum was the most prominent
   town in Latium. It suffered, like the other towns in Latium, a
   complete eclipse during the later Republic and the Imperial
   times; but in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth
   centuries, under the Counts of Tusculum, it became again a
   place of great importance and power, no less than seven popes
   of the house of Tusculum having sat in the chair of St.
   Peter." The ruins of Tusculum, about fifteen miles from Rome,
   on the Alban hills, have been considerably explored.

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14, part 2._

      See, also, ALBA.

TUTELOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TUTTLINGEN,
DÜTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

TWEED RING, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

TWELVE APOSTLES OF IRELAND.

      See CLONARD, MONASTERY OF.

TWELVE CÆSARS, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

   The Twelve Peers of France were the nobles and prelates "who
   held the great fiefs immediately from the Crown. … Their
   number had been fixed by Louis VII. at twelve; six lay and six
   ecclesiastical. They were the Dukes of Normandy, Burgundy,
   Guienne, the Counts of Champagne, Flanders, Toulouse; the
   Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishops of Laon, Noyon, Châlons,
   Beauvais and Langres. … The immediate vassals of the Duchy of
   France, who held of the King as Duke, not as King, were not
   Peers of France."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 6, with foot-note._

TWELVE TABLES OF THE LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TWENTY-SECOND PRAIRIAL, Law of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

TWIGGS, General, Treacherous surrender of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TWIGHTWEES, OR MIAMIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      also ILLINOIS AND MIAMIS, and SACS, ETC.

TWILLER, Wouter Van, The governorship of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

{3159}

TWO SICILIES, The Kingdom of the.

   The kingdom founded in Southern Italy and Sicily by the Norman
   conquest in the 11th century (see ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090, and
   1081-1194) maintained its existence until recent times,
   sometimes as a unit, and sometimes divided into the two
   dominions, insular and peninsular, of Sicily and Apulia, or
   Naples. The division occurred first after the rising against
   the French and the massacre known as "the Sicilian Vespers".

      See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

   The crown of Sicily was then acquired by Peter, king of
   Aragon, succeeded by his son Frederick. Charles of Anjou and
   his successors were left in possession of the kingdom of
   Naples, alone, although still claiming Sicily in union with
   it. "As the king who reigned at Naples would not give up his
   right to Sicily, … his kingdom is often called Sicily as well
   as the Island Kingdom; and so when at last the two kingdoms
   became one [again-see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447], the strange
   name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies arose."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      page 93._

      See, also, NAPLES, and SICILY.

TYCHE.

   One of the variously named parts of the ancient city of
   Syracuse, Sicily. Its position was northwest of Achradina.

TYCOON,
SHOGUN.

      See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

TYLER. John:
   Vice-Presidential election.
   Succession to the Presidency.
   Administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840, to 1845.

TYLER, Wat, The Rebellion of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

TYLIS, Celtic Empire of.

   "The empire of Tylis in the Haemus, which the Celts, not long
   after the death of Alexander [the Great], and nearly at the
   same time with their permanent settlement in Asia Minor, had
   founded in the Moeso-Thracian territory, destroyed the seed of
   Greek civilisation within its sphere, and itself succumbed
   during the Hannibalic war to the assaults of the Thracians,
   who extirpated these intruders to the last man."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 7._

TYNDARIS, Naval battle at (B. C. 257).

      See PUNIC WARS: THE FIRST.

TYNWALD, Court of.

      See MANX KINGDOM;
      and, also, THING.

TYRANTS, Greek.

   "A 'tyranny,' in the Greek sense of the word, was the
   irresponsible dominion of a single person, not founded on
   hereditary right, like the monarchies of the heroic ages and
   of many barbarian nations, nor on a free election, like that
   of a dictator or æsymnete, but on force. It did not change its
   character when transmitted through several generations, nor
   was any other name invented to describe it when power, which
   had been acquired by violence, was used for the public good;
   though Aristotle makes it an element in the definition of
   tyranny, that it is exercised for selfish ends. But, according
   to the ordinary Greek notions, and the usage of the Greek
   historians, a mild and beneficent tyranny is an expression
   which involves no contradiction."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 10._

   "In spite of the worst which has been said against them, the
   tyrants hold a legitimate place in the progress of Greek
   constitutional history. They were the means of breaking down
   the oligarchies in the interests of the people. … It was at
   Sicyon that the first tyrannis arose. … About the year 670 B.
   C. a certain Orthagoras, who is said to have been a cook,
   succeeded in establishing himself as tyrant in Sicyon. Of his
   reign no incident is recorded. He was succeeded by his son
   Myron."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Problems in Greek History,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, DESPOTS.

TYRAS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Dniester.

TYRCONNEL'S DOMINATION IN IRELAND.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

   ----------TYRE: Start--------

TYRE.

   "Justin represents Tyre as having been founded a year before
   the Capture of Troy, thus apparently reducing by about 1,500
   years the date assigned to it by the priests of the temple of
   Hercules. … Josephus places the settlement of Tyre 240 years
   before the building of Solomon's Temple. He refers no doubt to
   the same event as Justin, the occupation of the island by the
   Sidonians, as he cannot have been ignorant of the mention of
   Tyre in the Old Testament more than 240 years before Solomon.
   The date of the building of Solomon's Temple is itself
   disputed, estimates varying from 1012 B. C. to 969 B. C. …
   Tyre consisted of two parts, an island about three-quarters of
   a mile in length, separated from the mainland by a strait four
   stadia, about half a mile, in width at its northern end, and a
   town on the shore. The latter was distinguished as Palæ-Tyrus,
   or Ancient Tyre, and was the chief seat of the population,
   till the wars of the Assyrian monarchs against Phœnicia. It
   extended along the shore from the river Leontes in the north
   to the fountain of Rusel-Ain in the south, a distance of seven
   miles, great part of which would be suburb rather than city.
   Pliny, who wrote when its boundaries could still be traced,
   computes the circuit of Palæ-Tyrus and the island together at
   nineteen Roman miles, that of the island town being 22 stadia.
   … Though called Old Tyre, because it lay in ruins, when the
   younger city on the island was in the height of its
   prosperity, it was from the first connected with it; and the
   name of Tyre (Tsour), 'a rock,' would hardly be appropriate,
   except to the island. … It is probable that, from the first,
   the island, from the excellence of its natural harbour, was a
   naval station to the city on the mainland, and, as a place of
   security, the seat of the worship of the national deities,
   Astarte, Belus, Hercules. … The situation of Palæ-Tyrus was
   one of the most fertile spots on the coast of Phœnicia. The
   plain is here about five miles wide, the soil is dark, and the
   variety of its productions excited the wonder of the
   Crusaders. Near the southern extremity of the city was a
   fountain, which, communicating with some natural receptacle in
   the mountains above, poured forth copious and perennial
   streams of pure and cool water. An aqueduct distributed them
   through the town. … Whatever may have been the relative
   importance of Palæ-Tyrus and the island, previous to the great
   migration from Sidon, occasioned by the victory of the
   Ascalonites, there can be no doubt that from this time the
   population of the island greatly increased. The colonization
   of Gades took place about a century later. But we have no
   connected history of Tyre till near the age of Solomon."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia: History,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, PHŒNICIANS.

TYRE:
   The founding of the colony of Carthage.

      See CARTHAGE: THE FOUNDING OF.

TYRE: B. C. 598-585.
   Siege by Nebuchadnezzar.

      See PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.

{3160}

TYRE: B. C. 332.
   Siege and capture by Alexander the Great.

   After defeating the Persians at Issus (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
   334-330), Alexander turned his attention to the tributary
   Phœnician cities, whose fleets gave to the Great King a naval
   power more formidable than the hosts of the nations which
   marched at his command. Sidon, Byblus, and other towns
   submitted promptly to the conqueror. Tyre offered a qualified
   surrender, which did not satisfy the haughty Macedonian, and
   he instantly laid siege to the city. Having no adequate fleet
   with which to reach the island-town, he resolved to carry a
   causeway across the channel which separated the island from
   Old Tyre, on the mainland, and he demolished the buildings of
   the latter to provide materials for the work. It was an
   undertaking of immense magnitude and difficulty, and the
   ingenious Tyrians found many modes of interfering with it.
   They succeeded in destroying the mole when half of it had been
   built; but Alexander, with obstinate perseverance, began his
   work anew, on a larger scale than before. He also collected a
   strong fleet of war-galleys, from Cyprus and from the
   Phœnicians who had submitted to him, with which the opposition
   of the enemy was checked and his own operations advanced.
   After seven months of prodigious labor and incessant battle,
   the strong walls of Tyre were beaten down and the city taken.
   "It soon became a scene of unresisted carnage and plunder. The
   Macedonians, exasperated by the length and labours of the
   siege, which had lasted seven months, and by the execution of
   their comrades [Greek prisoners, whom the Tyrians had put to
   death on the walls, before the eyes of the besiegers, and cast
   into the sea], spared none that fell into their hands. The
   king—whom the Greeks call Azelmicus—with the principal
   inhabitants, and some Carthaginian envoys who had been sent
   with the usual offerings to Melkart, took refuge in his
   sanctuary: and these alone, according to Arrian, were exempted
   from the common lot of death or slavery. It was an act of
   clemency, by which the conqueror at the same time displayed
   his piety to the god. Of the rest, 8,000 perished in the first
   slaughter, and 30,000, including a number of foreign
   residents, were sold as slaves. But if we may believe Curtius,
   15,000 were rescued by the Sidonians [of Alexander's navy],
   who first hid them in their galleys, and afterwards
   transported them to Sidon—not, it must be presumed, without
   Alexander's connivance or consent. It sounds incredible, that
   he should have ordered 2,000 of the prisoners to be crucified.
   … Tyre was still occupied as a fortress, and soon recovered
   some measure of her ancient prosperity."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _Arrian,
      Anabasis of Alexander,
      book 2, chapters 15-24._

TYRE: B. C. 332-A. D. 638.
   Under Greek and Roman domination.

   "The Carians, with whom Alexander repeopled the city [of Tyre]
   fell into the habits of the former population, and both Tyre
   and Sidon recovered much of their commercial greatness. After
   a long struggle be·tween the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria,
   Phœnicia was finally secured to the latter by Antiochus the
   Great (B. C. 198). But the commercial rivalry of Egypt proved
   more serious even than political subjection; and the
   foundation of Berenice on the Red Sea diverted to Alexander
   much of the oriental commerce that had previously flowed
   through Tyre and Sidon. But still they did not succumb to
   their younger rival. Under the Romans, to whom Phœicia was
   subjected with Syria [by Pompeius the Great, B. C. 64], Tyre
   was still the first commercial city of the world."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 24._

TYRE: A. D. 638.
   Capture by the Moslems.

   After the taking of Jerusalem by the Caliph Omar, the Moslems
   made themselves masters of the remainder of Palestine very
   quickly. Tripoli was first won by treachery, and then the same
   traitor who had delivered it, making his way to Tyre,
   succeeded in bringing about the betrayal of that place. Many
   of the inhabitants were put to the sword; but many others are
   said to have saved their lives by accepting the religion of
   the victors. The fall of Tyre was followed by the flight from
   Cæsarea of Constantine, son of the Emperor Heraclius, who
   commanded in Syria, and the entire abandonment of that rich
   province to the Moslems.

      _S. Ockley,
      History of the Saracens,
      pages 251-253 (Bohn ed.)._

TYRE: A. D. 1124.
   Siege and Conquest by the Venetians and Crusaders.

   The Venetians took little or no part in the First Crusade,
   being largely engaged in commerce with the Saracens. But in
   1124—a full quarter of a century after the taking of
   Jerusalem—they found it wise to obtain an interest in the
   Christian conquests that were spreading along the Levantine
   coasts. They accordingly sent their doge, with a formidable
   fleet, to offer aid to the Latin king of Jerusalem—then
   Baldwin II.—for the reduction of either Ascalon or Tyre, both
   of which cities were still held by the Moslems. Finding it
   difficult to make choice between the two places, a solemn
   drawing of lots took place, at the altar of the Holy
   Sepulchre, as a means of ascertaining the will of God. The lot
   decided that Tyre should be attacked, and operations were
   accordingly begun. But "the Venetians, more devoted to the
   interests of their commerce and of their nation than to those
   of a Christian kingdom, demanded, before beginning the siege
   of Tyre, that they should enjoy a church, a street, a common
   oven, and a national tribunal in every city in Palestine. They
   further demanded other privileges and the possession of a
   third of the conquered city." The demands of the Venetians
   were complied with, and Tyre, after a siege of over five
   months, beleaguered by land and sea, was taken. The
   capitulation was an honorable one and honorably respected. The
   Moslem inhabitants were permitted to leave the city; the
   Christians entered it triumphally, and the day on which the
   news reached Jerusalem was made a festival.

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 5._

   ----------TYRE: End--------

TYROL:
   Origin of the county and its name.

   "Tyrol freed herself from the suzerainty of Bavaria in very
   early times. She was divided among a number of princes, lay
   and ecclesiastical. The principal of these were the counts of
   the Adige or of the Tyrol, and the counts of Andechs, who
   obtained the title of duke from Frederick I. [1152-1190], and
   called themselves dukes of Meran. Their race came to an end in
   1248, and their domains were united to those of the counts of
   Tyrol who thus be·came possessed of the larger part of the
   lands between the Inn and the Adige. Tyrol takes its name from
   the castle of Tirol, which was built on the site of the Roman
   station Teriolis, not far from Meran, on the upper waters of
   the Adige."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      page 144, footnote._

{3161}

   "After the dissolution of the classic Roman Empire, the
   Province of Rætia split up into parcels. … It is impossible,
   in a sketch like this, to follow the various dynastic and
   other changes, most of them extremely perplexed and obscure,
   which ensued between the 5th and 10th centuries. At the end of
   this period, the main constituents of the old province had
   assumed something like the shape which they now bear. That is
   to say, Rætia Secunda was separated from Rætia Prima, which
   had also lost what formerly belonged to it south of the Alpine
   ridge. … Tirol again had been detached from Rætia Prima, and
   had begun to form a separate entity. Meanwhile a power of
   first rate importance in the future history of Graubünden [the
   Grisons] had arisen: namely the Bishopric of Chur. … The
   Bishops of Chur took rank as feudal lords of the first class.
   … Originally an insignificant house, exercising … the
   functions of Bailies to the See of Chur, the Counts of Tirol
   acquired influence and territory under the shadow of distant
   ecclesiastical superiors."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      History of Graubünden
      (In Strickland's "The Engadine"),
      pages 23-27._

TYROL: A. D. 1363.
   Acquired by the House of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

TYROL: A. D. 1805.
   Taken from Austria and annexed to Bavaria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

TYROL: A. D. 1809.
   Heroic rising under Hofer, against the Bavarians and the French.
   The crushing of the revolt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

TYROL: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

   ----------TYROL: End--------

TYRONE'S REBELLIONS.
   The Wars of the O'Neils.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

TYRRHENIANS.
TYRRHENIAN SEA.

   The ancient race of people in western Italy whom the Romans
   called Etrusci, and who called themselves the Rasenna, were
   known to the Greeks as the Turrhenoi, or Tyrrhenians. They
   were an enterprising maritime people, and hence the Greeks
   called that part of the Mediterranean which washes the western
   Italian coast the Tyrrhenian Sea.

      See ETRUSCANS.

TZAR,
CZAR.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.

TZOMBOR, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

U.

U. C.,
A. U. C.,
A. U.

   Anno Urbis Conditæ: the "Year of Rome," reckoned from the
   founding of the city.

      See ROME: B. C. 753.

U. E. LOYALISTS.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

UAUPE, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

UBERTI FAMILY, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

UCHEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: UCHEAN FAMILY.

UCLES,
   Battle of (1108).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

   Battle of (1809).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

UDAIPORE,
OODEYPOOR.

      See RAJPOOTS.

UDHA-NALA, Battle of (1763).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

UGANDA.

   "It was in 1858 that the travellers Burton and Speke, starting
   from Zanzibar, first made Europe acquainted with the existence
   of that vast inland sea, the Victoria Lake, of which Rebmann
   and Ernhardt had already heard native reports. Four years
   later Speke and Grant, passing round the western shore,
   reached Uganda; and they found here, if I may employ the
   paradox, a singular, barbaric civilisation. Combined with the
   most barbarous usages and the grossest superstition were many
   of those advances in the scale of humanity which we are wont
   to accept as indications of civilisation. There was an appeal
   to law, and cases were decided after a formal hearing. The
   administration was vested in the king,—an absolute despot,
   —and from him downwards there existed a regular chain of
   delegated power and control. Well-made roads, kept constantly
   in repair, intersected the country in all directions. Rough
   bridges were constructed across river swamps. An army was
   maintained, and also a fleet of canoes on the waters of the
   lake. The arts of building, smith-work, &c., were very far in
   advance of anything to be found between Uganda and the coast.
   The ideas of decency, the use of clothing, and the planting of
   trees, were indications of long years of development, of which
   the intricate customs and etiquettes surrounding the Court
   were an additional proof. Speke traces the earliest
   developments of this civilisation to Unyoro and its shepherd
   kings, descendants of a nomadic, pastoral race—the Wahuma—whom
   he supposes to be an offshoot from the Abyssinians or Gallas.
   Uganda and the countries lying along the lake shore, being the
   richest province of this Wahuma empire—called Kitara—had to
   bring large quantities of produce to Unyoro for the king's
   use, and their inhabitants were looked on as slaves. The
   legend relates that a hunter named Uganda headed a revolt, and
   was proclaimed king under the name of Kimera. Mtesa was the
   seventh of the dynasty, according to Speke, which shows it to
   be of some little antiquity. Speke was enthusiastic about the
   fertility of Uganda, and the development of its people as
   compared with the savage tribes of Africa. The next European
   to visit the country was Colonel Chaillé Long, who was sent by
   Gordon in the summer of 1874. Stanley followed in 1875, and
   simultaneously Linant arrived in the country. In 1876 Gordon
   sent Emin with a party of soldiers to Mtesa's capital. They
   were for some time quartered there, and Gordon had views of
   annexing Uganda to the Egyptian Sudan. … Stanley was even
   louder in his praises of Uganda than Speke had been, and
   described it as the 'Pearl of Africa.' In consequence of his
   appeal on behalf of the people, a fund was started, and
   missionaries were despatched to Uganda. These arrived in June
   1877. … Some two years later—February 1879—the French (Roman
   Catholic) Algerian Mission despatched a party of 'White
   Fathers' to begin mission-work in Uganda.
{3162}
   The religious differences between these two conflicting
   creeds, which marked the very inauguration of the Roman
   Catholic mission, much puzzled and confused Mtesa, since both
   alike called themselves 'Christians.' The Arabs from the coast
   had already settled in Uganda, and brought with them the
   religion of Islam. … Mtesa showed great toleration to all
   creeds, though at one time he had leaned to Mohammedanism, and
   had ordered all Uganda to embrace that creed. Shortly after,
   however, as the followers of Islam refused to eat the king's
   meat because it was not killed in the orthodox way according
   to the Koran, he ordered the massacre of all Mohammedans.
   Mtesa died in the autumn of 1884, and Mwanga, then about
   eighteen years old, succeeded him—being selected from among
   Mtesa's sons on account of his personal likeness to the late
   king, since in Uganda paternity is often difficult to prove.
   At this time the three religions had made great progress, and
   their disintegrating influences on the old customs began to be
   more and more apparent. This was especially the case with
   regard to the Christians, who no longer regarded the king as
   divine, nor his acts, however gross and cruel, as having a
   divine sanction. They owned a Higher allegiance, though they
   remained obedient subjects, and distinguished themselves by
   bravery in war. Such an attitude was, of course, intolerable
   to a cruel despot like Mwanga. … There was still a further
   reason for suspicion and fear of the white men. … The Egyptian
   flag had been hoisted at Mruli and Fauvera in Unyoro, only
   just beyond the borders of Uganda, and Gordon's envoys—Colonel
   Long and Emin—and his troops had penetrated to Mtesa's
   capital. The Arabs also told of the doings of the Belgians on
   the Congo. At a later period reports reached Mwanga of German
   annexations in Usagara on the East Coast. Last, and most
   disturbing of all, was the news of Mr. Thomson's arrival near
   Usoga in the East—the route from the coast by which native
   tradition said that the conquerors of Uganda would come.
   Mwanga had succeeded his father in November 1884. Early in
   1885 he determined to stamp out those dangerous religions,
   Mohammedan and Christian alike, which were disintegrating his
   country. The missionaries Mackay and Ashe, were seized, and
   their followers persecuted. But the religion spread the more.
   A plot to depose Mwanga was discovered and crushed. With
   varying fortunes—sometimes treated leniently, sometimes the
   victims of violent persecution—the missionaries held their own
   till the autumn of 1885. Then came news of Bishop Hannington's
   approach." Unhappily the Bishop came by the forbidden Usoga
   route, and Mwanga ordered that he be killed, with all his men,
   which was done in October, 1885. "After this the position of
   the Europeans was very precarious, but not till the following
   May (1886) did the storm burst. Mwanga then threw aside all
   restraint, and butchered the Christian converts wholesale. …
   But in spite of the martyrdom by torture and burning, the
   religion grew. … The heroism inspired by religion in the early
   history of our own Church was repeated here in the heart of
   Africa." At length, in 1888, there was a revolt, in which
   Christians and Mohammedans seem to have combined, and Mwanga
   fled to an island at the south of the Lake. His brother Kiwewa
   was made king, and for a time, the Christians were in control
   of affairs. But the Mohammedans grew jealous, and by a sudden
   rising drove the Christians out. Kiwewa refusing to accept the
   creed of Islam, was deposed, and another brother, Karema, was
   raised to the throne. The exiled Christians now made overtures
   to Mwanga, and an alliance was concluded, which resulted in
   the overthrow of the Mohammedan or Arab party, and the
   restoration of Mwanga to the throne, in October, 1889. The two
   Christian factions, Catholic and Protestant, or French and
   English, divided the country and all the offices of government
   between them, but were bitterly jealous of each other and
   perpetually quarreled, while the defeated Mohammedans were
   still strong and unsubdued. Affairs were in this state when
   Dr. Peters, the explorer in command of the German "Emin Relief
   Expedition," came to Uganda, having learned of the rescue of
   Emin Pasha by Stanley. Dr. Peters, with the aid of the French
   party, succeeded in arranging some kind of treaty with Mwanga,
   and this alarmed the Imperial British East Africa Company (see
   AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891) when news of it had been received.
   That alarm was soon increased by intelligence that Emin Pasha
   had entered the German service and was about to conduct a
   strong expedition to the south of Lake Victoria Nyanza. These
   and other circumstances led to the despatching of Captain
   Lugard with a small force to Uganda to represent the British
   East Africa Company and establish its influence there. Captain
   Lugard arrived at Mengo, the capital of Uganda, on the 18th of
   December, 1890. Meantime Great Britain and Germany, by the
   Anglo-German Agreement of July 1, 1890 (see AFRICA: A. D.
   1884-1891) had settled all questions between them as to their
   respective "spheres of influence," and Uganda had been
   definitely placed within the British "sphere." This enabled
   Captain Lugard to secure the signing of a treaty which
   recognized the suzerainty of the Company, established its
   protectorate over Uganda, and conceded to it many important
   commercial and political powers. He remained in the country
   until June, 1892, during which time he was driven to take part
   in a furious war that broke out between the Catholic and
   Protestant parties. The war ended in a partition of territory
   between the factions, and three small provinces were, at the
   same time, assigned to the Mohammedans. After maintaining
   Captain Lugard and his force in the country for eighteen
   months, the Company found the cost so heavy and the prospect
   of returns so distant, that it came to a resolution to
   withdraw; but was induced by a subscription of £16,000 from
   the Church Missionary Society to remain for another year in
   the exercise of the control which it had acquired. At the end
   of 1892 the Company renewed its resolution to evacuate the
   region west of Lake Victoria, and the British Government was
   urgently pressed to take upon itself the administration of the
   country. It was only persuaded, however, to assume the cost of
   a further occupation of Uganda for three months by the
   Company's officers, in order to give more time for ensuring
   the safety of missionaries and other Europeans. It consented,
   moreover, to despatch a Commissioner to investigate the
   situation and report upon it. The official selected for that
   duty was Sir Gerald Porter, Consul-General at Zanzibar.
{3163}
   Sir Gerald returned to England with his report in December,
   1893, and died of typhoid fever in the month following. His
   report urged the maintenance of an effective control over the
   government of Uganda, to be exercised directly by the British
   Government, in the form of a Protectorate, keeping the king on
   his throne, with a Commissioner at his side to direct his
   action in all important particulars. After much discussion,
   the decision of the Government was announced at the beginning
   of June, 1894. It determined to establish the proposed
   Protectorate in Uganda, not extending to Unyoro, and to place
   a Sub-Commissioner on duty between Lake Victoria and the sea,
   for the purpose of watching over communications, and
   apparently without political powers. The Government declined
   to undertake the building of the railway from Mombassa on the
   coast to the Lake, for which the Imperial British East Africa
   Company had made surveys.

      _Captain F. D. Lugard,
      The Rise of our East African Empire._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir Gerald Porter,
      The British Mission to Uganda in 1893._

      _P. L. McDermott,
      British East Africa, or Ibea.
      The Spectator, June 9, 1894._

      See, also, AFRICAN EXPLORATION, &c., in Supplement.

UGRI.

      See HUNGARIANS.

UGRO-FINNISH RACES.

      See TURANIAN.

UHILCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

UIRINA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

UKASE.

   An edict of the Russian government, deriving the force of law
   from the absolute authority of the Czar.

UKRAINE, The.

      See RUSSIA, GREAT, &c.;
      also COSSACKS.

ULADISLAUS I.,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1083-1102.

   Uladislaus II., King of Bohemia, 1471-1516.

   Uladislaus II., Duke of Poland, 1138-1146.

   Uladislaus III., Duke of Poland, 1296-1333.

   Uladislaus IV. (Jagellon), King of Bohemia, 1471-1516;
   V. of Hungary, 1490-1516.

   Uladislaus V. (Jagellon), King of Poland
   and Duke of Lithuania, 1385-1434.

   Uladislaus VI., King of Poland, 1434-1444.

   Uladislaus VII., King of Poland, 1632-1648.

ULCA, Battle of the (A. D. 488).

      See Rom:: A. D. 488-526.

ULEMA.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

   ----------ULM: Start--------

ULM: A. D. 1620.
   Treaty of the Evangelical Union with the Catholic League.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

ULM: A. D. 1702-1704.
   Taken by the Bavarians and French,
   and recovered by Marlborough.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1704.

ULM: A. D. 1805.
   Mack's capitulation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

   ----------ULM: End--------

ULMENES.

      See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.

ULSTER, The Plantation of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.

ULTIMA THULE.

      See THULE.

ULTRA VIRES.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1846.

ULTRAMONTANE.
ULTRAMONTANISM.

   The term ultramontane (beyond the mountain) has been used for
   so long a time in France and Germany to indicate the extreme
   doctrines of Papal supremacy maintained beyond the Alps—that
   is, in Italy, and especially at Rome—that it has come to have
   no other meaning. The ultramontanists in each country are
   those who make themselves partisans of these doctrines, in
   opposition to the more independent division of the Roman
   Catholic Church.

UMBRIANS, The.

   "The Umbrians at one time possessed dominion over great part
   of central Italy. Inscriptions in their language also remain,
   and manifestly show that they spoke a tongue not alien to the
   Latin. The irruption of the Sabellian and of the Etruscan
   nations was probably the cause which broke the power of the
   Umbrians, and drove them back to a scanty territory between
   the Æsis, the Rubicon, and the Tiber."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section 2._

      See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

UNALACHTIGOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

UNAMIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

UNCIA, The.

      See As;
      also, FOOT, THE ROMAN.

UNCTION.

      See CORONATION.

UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1860.

UNELLI, The.

   The Unelli were one of the Armorican tribes of ancient Gaul.
   Their country was "the Cotantin of the ante-revolutionary
   period, the present department of Manche."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

UNIFORMITY, Acts of.

   Two Acts of Uniformity were passed by the English Parliament
   in the reign of Edward VI. (1548 and 1552), both of which were
   repealed under Mary. In 1559, the second year of Elizabeth, a
   more thorough-going law of the same nature was enacted, by the
   provisions of which, "
   (1) the revised Book of Common Prayer as established by Edward
   VI. in 1552, was, with a few alterations and additions,
   revised and confirmed.
   (2) Any parson, vicar, or other minister, whether beneficed or
   not, wilfully using any but the established liturgy, was to
   suffer, for the first offence, six months' imprisonment, and,
   if beneficed, forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year;
   for the second offence, a year's imprisonment; for the third,
   imprisonment for life.
   (3) All persons absenting themselves, without lawful
   or reasonable excuse, from the service at their parish church
   on Sundays and holydays, were to be punished by ecclesiastical
   censures and a fine of one shilling for the use of the poor."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 12._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.

   In 1662 soon after the Restoration, another Act of Uniformity
   was passed, the immediate effect of which was to eject about
   2,000 ministers from the established Church.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

UNIGENITUS, The Bull.

      See PORT ROYAL, AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D.1702-1715.

UNION, The German Protestant (17th Century).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

UNION JACK.

   The national flag of Great Britain and Ireland, uniting the
   red cross of St. George and the diagonal crosses of St. Andrew
   and St. Patrick, on a blue ground.

{3164}

UNION LEAGUE, The.

   A secret political society formed in the United States soon
   after the outbreak of the American Civil War, having for its
   object a closer and more effective organization of the
   supporters of the national government. It was very large in
   numbers for a time, but declined as the need of such an
   organization disappeared.

UNION OF BRUSSELS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

UNION OF CALMAR, The.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397; and 1397-1527.

UNION OF HEILBRONN, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

UNION OF UTRECHT, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

UNITARIANISM.

   "In its restricted sense Unitarianism means belief in the
   personal unity of God instead of in a community of divine
   persons. … Among the articles of Unitarian faith so
   understood, besides the doctrine of one supreme divine person,
   may be enumerated belief in human nature, in moral freedom, in
   human reason, in character as of more worth than ritual or
   creed, in the equal justice not to say mercy of God, in the
   unreality of a devil, not to say of evil, and in the ultimate
   salvation, or evolution into something better, of all souls.
   Without being in any sense the first article of the faith,
   either in the historical order as having been the
   starting-point, or in the logical order as underlying the
   whole system, or in the order of importance as being with us
   the doctrine of doctrines, it has happened in spite of a
   thousand protests that belief in God's personal unity has
   given its name to the entire confession. The movement first
   called Socinian, then Arminian, and finally Unitarian, began
   as a protest of the 'natural man' against two particularly
   hateful doctrines of Calvinism, that of total depravity and
   that of predestination."

      _S. C. Beach,
      Unitarianism and the Reformation
      (Unitarianism: its Origin and History)._

   "The establishment of distinct Unitarian churches in England
   dates back to 1774, when Theophilus Lindsey left the Church of
   England and went up to London to start the first avowedly
   Unitarian place of worship in the country. But that was not
   the beginning of Unitarianism. Centuries before this,
   Unitarianism began in England as an individual opinion, had
   first its martyr-age, then a period when it was a great
   ferment of controversy, and finally the distinct development
   of it which stands today in our English Unitarian body. The
   names of some of the Unitarian martyrs on the continent of
   Europe are comparatively well known,—Servetus, burned by
   Calvin; Valentine Gentilis the Italian; and other isolated
   students here and there, who had been stirred up by the
   Reformation spirit to read the Bible for themselves, and who
   could not stop where Luther and Calvin stopped. … What is
   called the 'era of toleration' began immediately after the
   overthrow of the Stuarts in 1688. The sects were now at
   liberty to go quietly on in their own way. On the one hand
   there was the great established Episcopal Church,—at a pretty
   low ebb in religious life, for its most earnest life had gone
   out of it on that 'black Bartholomew's Day, 1662,' when the
   two thousand Puritan clergy were ejected.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

   On the other hand were these Puritans,—'Dissenters' they began
   now to be called,—divided into three great sects, Baptists,
   Independents, and English Presbyterians. Now, these were all
   free. They could build churches, and they did. From 1693 to
   1720 was the great 'chapel'-building time. … But now, in this
   great development of chapel-building by these three
   denominations, a curious thing took place, which unexpectedly
   affected their after history. That curious thing was, that
   while the Baptists and Independents (or Congregationalists)
   tied down all these new chapels to perpetual orthodox uses by
   rigid doctrinal trust-deeds, … the English Presbyterians left
   theirs free. It seems strange that they should do so; for the
   Presbyterians had begun by being the narrowest sect of the
   Puritans, and the Scotch Presbyterians always remained so. But
   the English Presbyterians had very little to do with the
   Scotch ones, and through all the changes and sufferings they
   had had to go through they had become broadened; and so it
   carne to pass that now, when they were building their churches
   or chapels up and down the country, they left them free. … The
   English Presbyterians, thus left free, began to grow more
   liberal. … A general reverence for Christ took the place of
   the old distinct belief in his deity. … They opened the
   communion to all; they no longer insisted on the old
   professions of 'church-membership,' but counted all who
   worshipped with them 'the church.' Thus things were going on
   all through the middle of the last century. Of course it was
   not the same everywhere; some still held the old views. … One
   man among them, … Dr. Joseph Priestley, … was one of the
   leading scientists of his time,—a restless investigator, and
   at the same time an earnest religious thinker and student,
   just as eager to make out the truth about religion as to
   investigate the properties of oxygen or electricity. So he
   investigated Christianity, studied the creeds of the churches,
   came to the conclusion that they were a long way from the
   Christianity of Christ, and gradually came to be a
   thoroughgoing Unitarian. When he came to this conclusion he
   did not hide it; he proclaimed it and preached it. … The
   upshot of it was, that at length he aroused a large part of
   the body to the consciousness that they were really
   Unitarians. They still did not take the name; they disliked
   sect-names altogether. … And so, though they mostly continued
   to call themselves English Presbyterians, or simply
   Presbyterians, all the world began to call them Unitarians;
   and more and more the Baptists and Independents, or
   Congregationalists, who had formerly fellowshipped and worked
   with them, drew apart, and left them, as they are to-day, in
   the reluctant isolation of a separate Unitarian body. Two
   other movements of thought of a somewhat similar kind
   increased and strengthened this development of a separate
   Unitarian body,—one among the General Baptists, the other in
   the great Episcopal Church itself."

      _B. Herford,
      Unitarianism in England
      (Unitarianism: its Origin and History)._

{3165}

   "It is hard to trace the early history of Unitarianism in New
   England. The name was seldom used, yet not omitted with any
   view to concealment; for we have abundant proof that the
   ministers to whom it belonged preached what they believed
   clearly and fully. … But a marvellous change had taken place
   in the last century, at the beginning of which the denial of
   the Trinity would have seemed no better than blasphemy; while
   at its close nearly all the clergy of Boston and its vicinity
   and many others in Massachusetts were known to dissent from
   the ancestral creed, to have ceased to use Trinitarian
   doxologies, and to preach what was then known as Arianism,
   regarding Jesus Christ as the greatest and oldest of created
   beings, but in no proper sense as God. At the same time, so
   little stress was laid on the Trinity by its professed
   believers that, with two or three exceptions, these Arians
   remained in full church fellowship with those of the orthodox
   faith. In the territory now within the limits of Boston there
   were, a century ago, but two professedly Trinitarian
   ministers, one of them being Dr. Thacher, of the liberal
   Brattle Square Church, while Dr. Eckley, of the Old South
   Church, was known to entertain doubts as to the deity of
   Christ."

      _A. P. Peabody,
      Early New England Unitarians
      (Unitarianism: its Origin and History)._

UNITED BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum).

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and 1621-1648;
      also MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

UNITED IRISHMEN, The Society of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN, Formation of the.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, Creation of the.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

UNITED NETHERLANDS,
   or United Provinces, or United States of the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, 1581-1584,
      1584-1585, and after.

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

   ----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1620.
   Discovery and exploration of the Atlantic coast.

      See AMERICA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1752.
   First settlement and organization of the
   thirteen original English colonies.

   The earliest attempts at European settlement (as distinct from
   exploration) within the present limits of the United States
   were made by French Huguenots, under the patronage of Admiral
   Coligny; first at Port Royal, on Beaufort River, Florida,
   where Jean Ribaut, in 1562, placed a few colonists who soon
   abandoned the spot, and, two years later, at Fort Caroline, on
   St. John's River, in the same peninsula. The second colony,
   commanded by René de Laudonnière, was considerable in numbers
   but unpromising in character, and not likely to gain a footing
   in the country, even if it had been left in peace. It was
   tragically extinguished, however, by the Spaniards in
   September, 1565. The Spaniards had then established themselves
   in a fortified settlement at St. Augustine. It was surprised
   and destroyed in 1567 by an avenging Huguenot, but was
   promptly restored, and has survived to the present day,—the
   oldest city in the United States. (See FLORIDA.)—The first
   undertakings at colonization from England were inspired and
   led by Sir Walter Raleigh. After unsuccessful attempts, in
   conjunction with his elder half-brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert,
   to establish settlements in Newfoundland, Raleigh obtained a
   grant from Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, under which he planted a
   colony of 108 settlers, commanded by Ralph Lane, on Roanoke
   Island, within the boundaries of the present State of North
   Carolina. In honor of the virgin queen of England, the name
   Virginia was given to the region at large. Lane's colonists
   had expected to find gold, silver and pearls, and lost
   interest in the country when none could be discovered. In
   June, 1586, they persuaded Sir Francis Drake, who had touched
   at Roanoke with his fleet, to carry them home. Soon
   afterwards, several ships, sent out by Raleigh with
   reinforcements and supplies, arrived at the island, to find it
   deserted. They left fifteen men to hold the ground; but a year
   passed before another expedition reached the place. The fort
   was then found in ruins; the fifteen men had disappeared, and
   nothing of their fate could be learned. The new colony
   perished in the same way—its fate an impenetrable secret of
   the savage land. This was Raleigh's last venture in
   colonization. His means were exhausted; England was absorbed
   in watching and preparing for the Spanish Armada; the time had
   not come to "plant an English nation in America." Sir Walter
   assigned his rights and interests in Virginia to a company of
   merchant adventurers, which accomplished nothing permanently.
   Twenty years passed before another vigorous effort of English
   colonization was made. In 1606 King James issued a royal
   charter to a company singularly formed in two branches or
   divisions, one having its headquarters at London, and known as
   the London Company, the other established at Plymouth and
   known as the Plymouth Company. Between them they were given
   authority to occupy territory in America from the 34th to the
   45th degree of latitude; but the two grants overlapped in the
   middle, with the intention of giving the greater domain to the
   company which secured it by the earliest actual occupation.
   The London Company, holding the southward grant, despatched to
   Virginia a company of 105 emigrants, who established at
   Jamestown, on the northerly bank of James River (May 13,
   1607), the first permanent English settlement in America, and
   founded there the colony and the subsequent State of Virginia.
   The colony survived many hardships and trials, owing its
   existence largely to the energy and courage of the famous
   Captain John Smith, who was one of its chief men from the
   beginning. Its prosperity was secured after a few years by the
   systematic cultivation of tobacco, for which the demand in
   England grew fast. In 1619, negro slavery was introduced; and
   by that time the white inhabitants of Virginia had increased
   to nearly 4,000 in number, divided between eleven settlements.

      See VIRGINIA.

{3166}

   Meantime, the Plymouth Company had done nothing effectively in
   the northward region assigned to it. Bartholomew Gosnold, in
   1602, had examined the coast from Maine to Cape Cod, and built
   a lonely house on the island of Cuttyhunk; Martin Pring, in 1603,
   had loaded two ships with sassafras in Massachusetts Bay; a
   colony named in honor of the chief justice of England, Sir
   John Popham, had shivered through the winter of 1607-8 near
   the mouth of Kennebec River and then gone home; Captain John
   Smith, in 1614, had made a voyage to the country, in the
   interest of London merchants, and had named it New England;
   but no lasting English settlement had been made anywhere
   within the bounds of King James' grant to the Plymouth
   Company, at the waning of the year 1620, when Virginia was
   well grown. It was then by chance, rather than by design, that
   the small ship Mayflower landed a little company of religious
   exiles on the Massachusetts coast, at Plymouth (December 21,
   1620), instead of bearing them farther south. Driven from
   England into Holland by persecutions, twelve years before,
   this congregation of Independents, or Separatists, now sought
   liberty of conscience in the New World. They came with a
   patent from the London, or South Virginia Company, and
   expected to plant their settlement within that company's
   territorial bounds. But circumstances which seemed adverse at
   the time bent their course to the New England shore, and they
   accepted it for a home, not doubting that the proprietors of
   the land, who desired colonists, would permit them to stay.
   The next year they received a patent from the Council for New
   England, which had succeeded to the rights of the Plymouth
   Company. Of the hardships which these Pilgrim Fathers endured
   in the first years of their Plymouth Plantation, who does not
   know the story! Of the courage, the constancy and the prudence
   with which they overcame their difficulties, who has not
   admired the spectacle! For eight years they remained the only
   successful colony in New England. Then came the memorable
   movement of Puritans out of Old England into New England,
   beginning with the little settlement at Salem, under John
   Endicott; expanding next year into the "Governor and Company
   of Massachusetts Bay"; founding Dorchester, Roxbury,
   Charlestown, Watertown, and Boston, in 1630, and rapidly
   possessing and putting the stamp of the stern, strong Puritan
   character on the whole section of America which it planted
   with towns. In the Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay a
   cleavage soon occurred, on lines between democratic and
   aristocratic or theocratic opinion, and democratic seceders
   pushed southwestwards into the Connecticut Valley, where Dutch
   and English were disputing possession of the country. There
   they settled the question decisively, in 1635 and 1636, by
   founding the towns of Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield and
   Springfield. Three years later the three towns first named
   confederated themselves in a little republic, with a frame of
   government which is the first known written constitution, and
   so gave birth to the future State of Connecticut. In 1638 New
   Haven was founded by a company of wealthy nonconformists from
   England, under the lead of their minister, John Davenport, and
   was a distinct colony until 1662, when it was annexed to
   Connecticut by a royal charter. Another State, the smallest of
   the New England commonwealths, was taking form at this same
   time, in a little wedge of territory on Narragansett Bay,
   between Connecticut and Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the
   great apostle of a tolerant Christianity, driven from Salem by
   the intolerant Puritanism of the Bay, went forth with a few
   followers into the wilderness, bought land from the
   Narragansett Indians, and laid the foundations (1636) of the
   town of Providence. In that same year another small company of
   people, banished from Boston for receiving the teachings of
   Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, bought the island of Aquidneck or
   Aquetnet from the Indians and settled at its northern end.
   This community was soon divided, and part of it removed to the
   southern end of the island, beginning a settlement which grew
   to be the town of Newport. The island as a whole received the
   name of the Isle of Rhodes, or Rhode Island; and in 1644 its
   two settlements were united with Providence, under a charter
   procured in England by Roger Williams, forming the colony of
   Providence Plantations. In 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts,
   Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven, entered into a
   confederation, from which Rhode Island was excluded, calling
   themselves "The United Colonies of New England." The object of
   the confederation was common action in defence against the
   Indians and the Dutch on the Hudson. It was the beginning of
   the cementing of New England. Before this time, small
   settlements had been planted here and there in northern New
   England, within territory covered by grants made to Sir
   Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason. The province claimed
   by Gorges was subsequently called Maine, and that of Mason,
   New Hampshire; but Maine never rose to an independent colonial
   existence. After years of dispute and litigation, between
   1651, and 1677, the jurisdiction of Massachusetts was extended
   over the province, and it remained the "District of Maine"
   until 1820, when Massachusetts yielded the separation which
   made it a sovereign state in the American Union. The New
   Hampshire settlements were also annexed to Massachusetts, in
   1641, after Captain Mason's death; were separated in 1679, to
   be organized as a royal province; were temporarily reclaimed
   without royal authority in 1685; but finally parted from
   Massachusetts in 1692, from which time until the Revolution
   they remained a distinct colony.

      See NEW ENGLAND;
      also MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND,
      NEW HAMPSHIRE, and MAINE.

   While the English were thus colonizing New England at the
   north and Virginia at the south, the Dutch, not recognizing
   their claims to the country between, had taken possession of
   the important valley of the Hudson River and the region around
   its mouth, and had named the country "New Netherland." The
   river had been discovered in 1609 by Henry Hudson, an English
   sailor, but exploring in the service of the Dutch. Trading
   with the Indians for furs was begun the next year; the coast
   and the rivers of the region were actively explored; a New
   Netherland Company was chartered; a trading-house, called Fort
   Nassau, was built on the Hudson as far to the north, or nearly
   so, as Albany; but no real colonization was undertaken until
   1623. The New Netherland Company had then been superseded by
   the Dutch West India Company, with rights and powers extending
   to Africa as well as the West Indies and the North American
   coasts. It bought Manhattan Island and large tracts of land
   from the Indians, but had little success for several years in
   settling them. In 1629 it introduced a strange experiment,
   creating a kind of feudal system in the New World, by
   conveying great estates to individuals, called Patroons, or
   Patrons, who would undertake to colonize them, and who
   received with their territorial grant much of the powers and
   many of the characteristics of a feudal lord.
{3167}
   Several Patroon colonies were established on a baronial scale;
   but, generally, the system did not produce satisfactory
   results, and in 1640 the Company tried the better experiment
   of making the trade of New Netherland free to all comers,
   offering small independent grants of land to settlers, and
   limiting the Patroons in their appropriation of territory. The
   Company government, however, as administered by the directors
   or governors whom it sent out, was too arbitrary to permit a
   colonial growth at all comparable with that of New England.
   Collisions with the English in Connecticut arose, over
   questions of boundary, but the latter held their ground.
   Southward, on the Delaware, the Swedes made a settlement where
   the city of Wilmington now stands, and refused to be warned
   off by the Dutch, who claimed the region. This Swedish colony
   prospered and enlarged itself during sixteen years, but was
   overcome by Director Stuyvesant of New Netherland in 1654. A
   little later than the appearance of the Swedes on the
   Delaware, certain colonists from New Haven bought lands from
   the Indians on both banks of the Delaware and made attempts at
   settlement, in what is now New Jersey and on the site of the
   future city of Philadelphia. The Dutch and Swedes combined
   against them and they failed. In 1664 the whole situation in
   this middle region was changed by the English conquest of New
   Netherland. The territory so acquired—or regained, if the
   original English claim had been good—passed then, by royal
   grant, to the Duke of York (afterwards King James II.), and
   became the proprietary province of New York.

      See NEW YORK.

   The Duke of York, in turn, the same year, transferred to Lord
   John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the part of his domain
   which lay between the Hudson and the Delaware, and it received
   the name of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey. Under encouragement
   from Berkeley and Carteret the New Haven colonization was
   resumed. Ten years later Berkeley sold his rights to a party
   of Quakers who were seeking a refuge for their persecuted sect
   in the New World. A division of the province was made and the
   Quaker proprietors received West Jersey, while East Jersey
   remained to Carteret.

      See NEW JERSEY.

   Before this time, William Penn had become the principal owner
   of the West Jersey interest. Not long afterwards (1681), by
   surrendering a claim which his father held against the British
   government, Penn procured from King Charles II. a much greater
   proprietary domain, on the western side of the Delaware, being
   no less than the vast tract, 40,000 square miles in extent,
   which received the name of Pennsylvania. To his title from the
   king he added a deed of purchase from the Indians. Penn's
   scheme of colonization was very liberally framed, and it was
   conducted with marked success. Philadelphia, first laid out in
   1683, had 2,000 inhabitants in 1685, and Pennsylvania at large
   had 8,000. Penn himself did not find peace or happiness in his
   position as a princely proprietor; but he founded a great and
   prosperous commonwealth on noble lines.

      See PENNSYLVANIA.

   In order to possess one bank of the Delaware River and Bay to
   the sea, William Penn, after securing his grant from the king,
   bought additionally from the Duke of York the claims of the
   latter to that strip of territory which the Swedes had settled
   on and struggled for with the Dutch, and which took an
   independent political form in later days as the State of
   Delaware. The Delaware "territories," as they were called,
   never accepted their dependent relationship to Pennsylvania,
   and as early as 1702 it was found necessary to concede them a
   separate legislature, though they continued under Penn's
   proprietary government.

      See DELAWARE.

   Adjoining Penn's province on the south was the domain of
   another great proprietor, Lord Baltimore, whose title deed,
   from the same royal source as that of Penn, but prior in time
   by half a century, gave rise to conflicts which troubled the
   whole life of the peaceful Friend. The first Lord Baltimore
   (George Calvert) received from James I. in 1632 a patent which
   gave him territory on the northerly side of the Potomac River,
   stretching to the Delaware Bay and River and to the 40th
   parallel of north latitude. By its terms it did undoubtedly
   take in Delaware and part of Pennsylvania; but the intervening
   occupation by the Swedes and Dutch, the English conquest, and
   the royal grant to the Duke of York, confused the title. The
   controversy was not settled until 1761-7, when "Mason and
   Dixon's line" was run as the accepted boundary between
   Maryland and Pennsylvania. The lords proprietary of Maryland
   had been in conflict long before Penn's time with their
   neighbors at the south, in Virginia, and had many difficulties
   to encounter and many troubles in their undertaking to found a
   state. The powers they had received with their grant from the
   king were the largest that royalty could concede to a subject,
   and gave to their province the character of a palatine
   principality. But they exercised their substantial sovereignty
   with an admirable moderation. They were Catholics, and the
   early settlers in Maryland were largely though not wholly of
   that faith. But they introduced a policy of tolerance which
   was strange at the time to every other part of the New World
   except Rhode Island, and made their province free to all
   religions. Numerous Puritans entered it, especially from
   Virginia, where they were unwelcome; and these, it can hardly
   be denied, made ill returns for the tolerant hospitality they
   received. During the time of the Civil War, the Commonwealth
   and the Protectorate in England, the Maryland Puritans were
   hostile, not only to the proprietary government, but to its
   tolerant principles, and used the ascendancy which they
   frequently gained in a spirit that does not compare favorably
   with that of their adversaries. Subsequently the ascendancy of
   the Puritans gave way to that of the Anglican Church, without
   restoring the toleration which Catholicism in power had
   established—a rare instance in history—and which Protestantism
   in power had suppressed.

      See MARYLAND.

   Beyond the Virginia plantations, in the South, the coasts to
   which Raleigh had sent his first colonists, and to which the
   virgin queen had intended to give her name, waited long for
   settlement. The first durable colony within that territory
   which took its name in time from a less worthy sovereign was
   planted in 1653, at Albemarle, on the Chowan River, by a small
   company of dissenters from Virginia.
{3168}
   In 1665 a considerable party of emigrants from the Barbadoes,
   headed by a wealthy planter of that island, Sir John Yeamans,
   established themselves on Cape Fear River, near its mouth, in
   the district which was afterwards called Clarendon. Two years
   before this time, in 1663, King Charles II. had discharged
   some part of his heavy obligations to his loyal supporters by
   granting that whole section of the American continent which
   lies between the 31st and 36th parallels of latitude to a
   company of courtiers, including Clarendon, Monk, Shaftesbury,
   and others, and the province was named Carolina. It was
   divided into two great counties, Albemarle and Clarendon, and
   these corresponded somewhat nearly to the North Carolina and
   South Carolina of the present day. In 1670 the lords
   proprietors sent out a colony under William Sayle, which
   settled first at Port Royal; but Sayle died soon after
   landing, and the colonists were induced to migrate northwards
   to the Ashley River, where Sir John Yeamans met them with a
   considerable part of his Clarendon colony, and became the head
   of the united settlements. There they founded "Old
   Charleston," and, after a few years, shifting the site to the
   confluence of the Ashley and the Cooper, they began the
   building of the present city of Charleston. This became the
   nucleus of the subsequently distinct colony of South Carolina,
   as Albemarle did of that of North Carolina. The division was
   made in 1729, when the rights of the Proprietors were bought
   by the Crown, and the Carolinas became crown colonies. Until
   that time, the southern colony had made far greater progress
   than its northern twin. It had received a considerable
   immigration of Huguenots from France and of Scotch-Irish from
   the north of Ireland, as well as of English, and Charleston
   was becoming an important port, especially frequented by
   buccaneers. But after the displacement of the proprietary
   government, North Carolina began quickly to receive more than
   its share of the Scotch-Irish immigration and no small number
   of Highland Scotch. The colony was developed almost wholly in
   the agricultural direction, with few and small towns. Slavery
   was introduced at an early day, and rooted itself in the
   industrial system, as it did in that of all the southern
   settlements.

      See NORTH CAROLINA and SOUTH CAROLINA.

   The last of the "Thirteen Colonies" to come into existence was
   the colony of Georgia, founded so late as 1733 by General
   James Oglethorpe. It occupied territory too close in
   neighborhood to the Spaniards of Florida to be attractive to
   settlers in the 17th century. Its colonization was undertaken
   by General Oglethorpe primarily as a philanthropic enterprise
   for the benefit of unfortunate English debtors, who were
   released from prison and permitted to emigrate under his care;
   but secondarily to strengthen the defence of the English
   colonies against the Spaniards. He obtained his grant from
   George II. "in trust for the poor," and the colony was
   governed by trustees until 1752, when it was surrendered to
   the crown. The first emigrants left England in the fall of
   1732, and early in the next year Savannah was laid out by
   Oglethorpe in person. His scheme of colonization proved highly
   attractive, not only in England but on the continent, and
   numbers of Protestant Germans came over to become part of the
   original population of Georgia. At the outset, slavery was
   strictly prohibited; but the settlers thought themselves
   grievously oppressed by the denial of slaves, and their
   discontent became so great that in 1749 the trustees rescinded
   the prohibition.

      See GEORGIA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1620-1776.
   Constitutional relations of the colonies to the English Crown
   and Parliament.
   The working of the leaven of independence
   in New England Puritanism.

   The history of the development of the question between England
   and her colonies, as to their constitutional relations to one
   another, "falls naturally into two periods: first, from the
   beginning of English colonization in America to the Revolution
   of 1688; second, from 1688 to the Declaration of Independence.
   … Passing now to the history of the first period, it is to be
   observed that the leading institution in the English
   government at that time was the King in Council. … But in the
   17th century, owing to a combination of very strong political
   and religious forces, the struggle between the King in
   Parliament and the King in Council was … opened and pushed
   with vigor. It continued with alternations of success, but on
   the whole with results favorable to Parliament, till 1688.
   Then the King in Parliament finally gained the ascendancy, and
   this result was so secured by statute as never afterwards to
   be seriously called in question. The supremacy of Parliament
   was established by a series of royal concessions. The
   parliamentary party viewed these as compromises between
   Parliament and king. This gave color to the theory of social
   contract, which was now given new impulse and form by the
   parliamentarian writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. … It
   naturally follows from what has been said that the
   administration of colonial affairs previous to 1688 was in the
   hands of the King in Council. Such was the fact. The
   enterprises of discovery were fitted out under the patronage
   of the crown; the territories discovered or visited were taken
   possession of in its name; and grants of land, of rights of
   government and trade, were made to actual settlers by the
   kings. Every colonial charter is a proof of this. As the king
   was by the theory of English law feudal proprietor of England,
   so he became proprietor of colonial territory, though that
   territory was granted out in socage, one of the freest forms
   of English tenure. Certain superficial distinctions were
   introduced in the form of colonial governments, as royal,
   proprietary, and charter; but they all emanated from the
   crown. Its supremacy extended around and beneath them all. The
   fact that they were established by grant is proof of this,
   even though there had been no subsequent acts to enforce the
   control. They were colonies of the English crown; their
   inhabitants were its subjects. The true doctrine of
   sovereignty and allegiance necessitates this conclusion. …
   Parliament passed few statutes affecting the colonies. Yet,
   not to mention others, there were five such of very great
   importance which fall within this period: the Act of Supremacy
   (I Eliz. cap. I), and the four Navigation acts. In all these
   the colonies were expressly mentioned. But the relative
   position of crown and Parliament is illustrated by the fact
   that when in 1624 the Council was proceeding to annul the
   third Virginia charter, the House tried to interfere but was
   warned off—because the business concerned only the king and
   his advisers.
{3169}
   Moreover there was no lack of precedents for the extension not
   only of common law but of royal ordinances and statute law
   outside of the original realm of England. … Such in outline
   was the status of English colonial law previous to 1688. It
   was in the process of formation and adaptation to the new
   empire. There were ample precedents for the exercise of the
   rights of British sovereignty in America, but those rights had
   not yet been called into the fullest operation. Their
   legitimacy however was in general fully acknowledged by the
   colonists. They had been allowed great liberty in establishing
   their governments, erecting courts, levying taxes, organizing
   and calling out their militia for defence against the Indians.
   Colonial society had been allowed to develop freely in all
   lines and the product was far different from anything which
   existed in the mother country. It was democratic rather than
   aristocratic; it was also extremely particularistic, and too
   remote from England to feel much interest in the general
   concerns of the empire. In this divergence of social
   organization and interests, as between the colonies and the
   mother country, lay the germ which might develop into
   resistance on the part of the plantations, if at any time
   England should attempt to enforce her rightful supremacy over
   them. But as yet there was too little of the spirit of union
   among the colonists to make possible any combined action. Also
   those dynasties whose government had been most arbitrary in
   England, the Tudors and Stuarts, had, till the reign of James
   II, treated the colonies with great leniency. But the
   statements just made do not cover the whole ground. They
   describe the attitude of the colonies in general toward the
   mother country, but they do not describe the special
   conditions which prevailed in New England. If we wish to know
   how the theory of colonial independence originated, we must
   look in that direction. The American revolution cannot be
   explained without reference to the political character and
   tendencies of Puritanism. … Puritanism then was a political as
   well as a religious movement. On the one hand its doctrines
   contained a strong democratic leaven; on the other they
   contained principles which might lead to the separation of
   church and state. How the former tendency worked itself out in
   New England is familiar; how the latter failed of
   accomplishment there is equally well known. The Puritans of
   Massachusetts were not opposed to the union of church and
   state or to the employment of the secular power to enforce
   religious conformity. … What they were opposed to was every
   other form of state church except their own. … In order to
   maintain her peculiar system, Massachusetts had to be on her
   guard against all interference from outside. … The
   Massachusetts charter was brought over to this country. A few
   years later the Plymouth company was dissolved, and
   representation of the colony in England, except by such agents
   as she might send, ceased. The terms of the charter were very
   liberal; but like all the others it was a royal grant, and
   expressly stated that the inhabitants of the colony were to be
   subjects of England and were to enjoy all the liberties and
   immunities of such, as if they were in the realm of England.
   The oaths of supremacy and allegiance were to be administered
   to all who should go to the colony. The company was made a
   'body corporate and politic' and was given ample powers of
   government; but its laws, statutes, and ordinances were not to
   be contrary to the laws of England. The admission of freemen
   was left in the hands of the corporation. How did the Puritan
   oligarchy make use of this charter for serving the purposes of
   their government? In a word, they interpreted the expression
   'body corporate and politic' to mean an independent state, and
   virtually abandoned all legal connection with England except
   an empty acknowledgment of allegiance. The oath of allegiance
   was not administered, but instead an oath of fidelity to the
   government of Massachusetts. An ecclesiastical system wholly
   different from that of England was established. Only those
   were admitted to political rights, made freemen, who were
   members of a Congregational church. … The colony also
   exercised full legislative and judicial powers, and denied the
   right of appeal both practically and theoretically. The proof
   of this is most direct and convincing. To illustrate: in 1646
   the General Court refused to permit the appeal of Dr. Child
   and others who, as Presbyterians, desired to lay before
   Parliament the wrongs they suffered in Massachusetts. Not only
   was the right denied, but the petitioners were prevented by
   force from carrying their case to England. The same course was
   pursued in reference to appeals in ordinary judicial cases.
   During the discussion of the affair just mentioned it was
   boldly affirmed in the General Court that subjects were bound
   by English laws only so long as they lived in England; that
   neither statutes nor royal ordinances were in force beyond the
   seas. A little later than this both the magistrates and the
   elders were called upon to give their views on the legal
   relations between the colony and England. Both agreed that by
   their charter they 'had absolute power of government'; that
   their government was perfect and sufficient in all its parts,
   not needing the help of any superior to make it complete. They
   acknowledged that they had received the charter from England,
   and 'depended upon that state for protection and immunities as
   freeborn Englishmen'; but the duties which were correlative to
   those immunities, and which are necessary to a true conception
   of allegiance, were not mentioned. This position was
   consistently maintained by the Puritans of Massachusetts as
   long as they remained in power. In their correspondence with
   the home government and its officials between 1664 and 1684
   the right of appeal was always denied. Its exercise was never
   allowed. If we add to this the further statements that
   Massachusetts coined money; strove to enlarge the bounds of
   her patent, not only without consulting the king, but in
   defiance of his absolute prohibition; taxed English imports;
   and, without the consent of the home government, entered the
   New England confederation, some notion can be formed of the
   degree of independence claimed and exercised by that colony.
   The exercise of this independence however did not make it
   legal. It only illustrates the fact that the roots of the
   American revolution extend back into the times of which we are
   speaking. … It was to be expected that England would interfere
   to bring Massachusetts within the bounds of constitutional
   dependence. Complaints against the colony, on the part of
   Gorges and of those who had been banished by the Puritans,
   began very early.
{3170}
   These led to 'quo warranto' proceedings for the recall of the
   charter in 1635. But civil strife at home compelled the
   government of Charles I to abandon the project. Then came the
   period of the Commonwealth, when the views of the English
   government were so fully in harmony with those of the New
   England leaders that the practical independence of the colony
   was ignored. … From the restoration dates the beginning of a
   more comprehensive colonial policy." With the fall of the
   Massachusetts charter, in 1684, "closes the first stage in the
   development of the idea of colonial independence. The struggle
   between the Puritans of Massachusetts and the crown is the
   most significant fact in American history previous to 1760.
   The Puritans were defeated; the authority of England was
   reasserted. … But for our purpose the important result is that
   the Puritans left behind them an armory full of precedents and
   arguments in favor of colonial independence. They had
   constructed the American theory on that subject. That was the
   chief permanent result of their experiment. They had from
   first to last adhered to the theory which expediency taught
   them to adopt. They taught the colonists how to resist the
   exercise of the ecclesiastical and judicial supremacy of the
   crown. If now at any time in the future the Americans should
   consider themselves aggrieved by the acts of the English
   government, the Puritan spirit and theory would be likely to
   appear. Such was the aspect of affairs at the close of the
   first period of colonial history. After the revolution of
   1688, Parliament assumes more and more the control of American
   concerns. Statutes on those subjects multiply. The
   administration of the colonies becomes a branch of the
   ministerial government of Great Britain. The development of an
   imperial as distinguished from an insular policy is begun. The
   interference of England in colonial affairs became more
   frequent and the control asserted more extensive than
   heretofore. … The attitude of the colonists during this period
   was one of passive rather than active resistance.
   Parliamentary restrictions were so far evaded as not to be
   burdensome. … The records show that the burden of opinion in
   the colonies was jealousy of all government, so far as it
   operated as a restraint. The interference of government,
   whether colonial or imperial, was welcomed by the colonists,
   when it could be used for the advancement of their private or
   local interests; when larger objects were aimed at, it was if
   possible ignored or resisted. … The political condition of the
   colonies was for the first time clearly revealed during the
   French and Indian war. The history of Germany can furnish no
   more vivid spectacle of the evils of particularism than does
   that struggle. … The condition of anarchy and helplessness
   revealed by the war was such as to convince all the servants
   of the crown in America that active parliamentary interference
   was necessary, if the colonies were to be defended and
   retained as an integral part of the British empire. The fact
   that the British government, within a reasonable time after
   the close of the war, proceeded to put this suggestion into
   execution, implies nothing arbitrary or unreasonable. It had
   the undoubted constitutional right to do so; and so far as
   could be seen at the time, expediency prompted in the same
   direction. But during the century since the Puritan oligarchy
   of Massachusetts yielded to the supremacy of the crown, the
   theory of social contract had been fully developed. It had
   formulated the needs of the opposition in all the European
   countries to the system of absolutism. It was the theory of
   government very generally held by the Puritans in both England
   and America. … This theory, as soon as it was understood,
   would naturally find general acceptance in the colonies. … The
   American revolution, as truly as the French, was the outgrowth
   of the doctrine of natural rights and social contract. By this
   I mean simply that the doctrine in question formed the
   theoretical basis of both movements. So far as the American
   revolution is concerned the proof of this statement is
   contained in the writings of the patriot leaders at the time,
   the various state papers that were issued, and the doctrine
   that was held respecting the right of imperial taxation. No
   man contributed so much to bringing about the revolution as
   Samuel Adams; and his mind was saturated with the theory of
   social contract. He made it the basis of all his reasonings. …
   The reason why New England became the leader of the movement
   clearly appears. The process of development through which the
   colonies passed was a natural, and therefore a necessary one.
   It was slow and obscure, and therefore could not be clearly
   recognized at the time. But that it was nevertheless
   revolutionary becomes evident when we compare the views and
   aims of the colonists with the constitution of the British
   empire. When the two systems came into collision the colonists
   adopted a theory which was 'in the air' at the time, but one
   under which no government can be successfully carried on. When
   they came to erect a government of their own, they had to
   abandon it. It is not claimed that the doctrine of natural
   rights ever found such general acceptance in America as in
   France. The character of the people and the absence of a
   despotic government prevented that. But that the American
   revolution cannot be explained without assigning it a
   prominent place is evident. It is not intended to convey the
   impression that the colonists had no grievances. There were
   causes for complaint, but they were doubtless greatly
   exaggerated. A mind filled with the democratic theories of the
   times, and with the loose notions concerning sovereignty and
   allegiance which then prevailed, could easily imagine that
   Parliament, unless resisted, would establish a despotic
   government in America."

      _Professor H. L. Osgood,
      England and the Colonies
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
   The Navigation Acts and the colonies.
   Spirit and objects of the English restrictive commercial system.

   To the Act of Navigation, passed in 1651 (see NAVIGATION LAWS)
   is due a change in the relations of the colonies to the
   mother-country. "Henceforth they were regarded mainly as
   feeders to its carrying-trade, as consumers of its
   manufactures, as factories for the distribution of its
   capital, and, in a word, as mere commercial appendages of what
   was now the great commercial power. Dominion became
   subordinate to trade. … Beginning … with the re-enactment of
   the Navigation Act after the Restoration, we find that the new
   system which is to regulate colonial trade and define the
   relations of the colonies to the parent, is contained in three
   Acts of Parliament.
{3171}
   First, in the re-enactment itself of the Act of Navigation in
   1660; secondly, in an act, passed in 1663, entitled 'an Act
   for the encouragement of trade'; and, thirdly, in an act,
   passed in 1672, and entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of
   the Greenland and Eastland fisheries, and for the better
   securing the plantation trade.' … The three acts which created
   the system, were all passed in the reign of Charles II.; the
   others followed rapidly, and in great numbers, for a century,
   until the failure of the attempt to transform this system of
   trade into one of trade and revenue, by means of what is known
   as the Stamp Act. St. John's Navigation Act was reenacted in
   1660, under Charles II., as the first-fruits of the
   Restoration. This act forbade importation into or exportation
   out of the colonies, save what came and went in English ships,
   and its object was, to shut the doors of the colonies against
   foreign trade. In 1663 another step was taken, and an act was
   passed with the object, openly avowed in its fifth section, of
   keeping the colonies in 'a firmer dependence' upon England,
   and of making that kingdom the staple, or place of
   distribution, not only of colonial produce, 'but also of the
   commodities of other countries and places, for the supplying
   of them.' To effect this, the Act of 1663 went beyond that of
   1660, and exacted, that no European products or manufactures
   should be imported into any colony, except what had been
   actually laden and shipped in an English port, and carried
   'directly thence' to the importing colony. This act forced the
   colonists to get such supplies as they could not themselves
   furnish in England only, and thus not only could none but
   mariners of whom three fourths were English transport
   merchandise to and from the colonies, but the colonists
   themselves were not suffered to go anywhere but to England for
   that which they could not get at home. … This position of
   factor between the colonies and foreign markets was a
   lucrative one. But the spirit of trade is such, that it
   regards much as only a stepping-stone to more, and the next
   enactment concerning colonial trade, or that of 1672, betrays
   this characteristic. The existing factorage was maintained
   only between the colonial and foreign trade; it had no place
   in intercolonial traffic. … As this intercolonial trade
   developed, it attracted the observation of the English
   merchants, who at last demanded the control of it. In
   compliance with this demand, an act was passed in 1672,
   subjecting any enumerated commodity to a duty specified in the
   statute—and thus was destroyed the freedom, and, to a great
   extent, the incentive of intercolonial traffic. This act was
   well entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of the Greenland
   and Eastland fisheries, and for the better securing of the
   plantation trade.' History is silent respecting the fisheries,
   but it has been very outspoken concerning its effect on the
   plantations. The effect was this: if Rhode Island wished to be
   supplied by Massachusetts with one of the enumerated
   commodities, and Massachusetts desired to furnish Rhode Island
   with that commodity, the delivery of the goods could not be
   made by the producer to the consumer, but the article would
   have to be sent to England first, and landed there, and then
   be sent back from England to Rhode Island before the consumer
   could touch it. A line drawn from Boston, in Massachusetts, to
   Bristol, in England, and thence back to Newport, in Rhode
   Island, will show the course which such article must take, if
   sold by Massachusetts to Rhode Island, before the demands of
   English commerce were satisfied; it will in all probability
   likewise show the least angle with the longest sides ever
   subtended on the chart of trade. Should, however, the parties
   to the transaction desire to avoid the risk and delay incident
   to this phenomenal voyage, they could do so by paying the
   certain rates and duties prescribed by this statute."

      _E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty
      in the English Colonies of America,
      chapter 8 (with corrections by the author)._

   "Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the
   commerce of the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to
   1774, as affected by navigation laws, acts of trade, and
   revenue measures. No one who has read the 29 acts which
   comprise this legislation will recommend their perusal to
   another; for, apart from their volume, the construction of
   these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained lawyers
   like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients in
   respect to them. Nor have special students, like Bancroft,
   stated their effect with exact precision."

      _M. Chamberlain,
      The Revolution Impending: Critical Essay
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6),
      page 64._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. L. Beer,
      The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies
      (Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2)._

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      Economic Interpretation of History,
      chapter 15._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
   The First American Congress.
   King William's War.

   "After the accession [in England, A. D. 1689] of William and
   Mary, hostilities were declared between France and England,
   which extended to America; and thus began the first
   inter-colonial war [commonly known in American history as King
   William's War]. The French soon planned an invasion of Boston
   and New York. … On the 8th of February, 1690, a war-party, who
   had come stealthily from Canada, entered the open gates of the
   town of Schenectady, when it was snowing, and broke the
   stillness of midnight with the terrible yell and whoop of the
   savages. Men, women, and children, for two hours, were
   mercilessly butchered. Their dwellings were burned. The whole
   town was sacked. … The intelligence flew through the colonies.
   … Schenectady was the Fort Sumter of that day. The event had a
   political effect. It shamed the factions in New York at least
   into a truce. It roused a spirit of patriotism. The governor
   of Massachusetts urged, in letters to other colonies, the
   necessity for immediate action to provide for the common
   defence. … The General Court [of Massachusetts], in view of
   organizing a joint effort of the colonies, proposed to hold a
   congress. The call for a meeting is dated the 19th of March,
   1690. It relates, that their majesties' subjects had been
   invaded by the French and Indians; that many of the colonists
   had been barbarously murdered, and were in danger of greater
   mischiefs; and it proposed, as a measure of prevention, that
   the neighboring colonies, and Virginia, Maryland, and the
   parts adjacent, should be invited to meet at New York, and
   conclude on suitable methods for assisting each other for the
   safety of the whole land. The governor of New York was desired
   to transmit this invitation to the southern colonies. Such was
   the first call for a general congress in America.
{3172}
   It is free from narrowness. It is liberal in its spirit,
   simple in its terms, and comprehensive in its object. … The
   call elicited from several colonies interesting replies.
   Governor Hinckley, of Plymouth, entered with zeal into the
   measure, and, though the General Court was not in session,
   appointed a commissioner. The Quaker-governor of Rhode Island,
   Henry Bull, replied in an excellent spirit. … Though the time
   was too short to convene the assembly for the appointment of
   commissioners, he promised the aid of that colony to the
   utmost of its ability to resist the French and Indians. The
   head of the convention of Maryland wrote, that it was the
   design of the assembly to send arms and men to aid in the
   general defence. … President Bacon, of Virginia, replied, that
   the proposition would require the action of the assembly, and
   that nothing would be done until the arrival of the daily
   expected governor. The replies to the invitation were cordial.
   The commissioners of four colonies [Massachusetts, Plymouth,
   Connecticut, and New York] met at New York. … The
   deliberations led to a unanimous result. On the 1st of May, an
   agreement was signed by the delegates, in behalf of the five
   colonies [including Maryland under its promise], to raise a
   force of 855 men for the strengthening of Albany, and, 'by the
   help of Almighty God, subduing the French and Indian enemies.'
   It was agreed, that the lieutenant-governor of New York should
   name the commander of this force; that it should not be
   employed on any other service without the consent of the five
   colonies; and that the officers should be required to preserve
   among their men good order, punish vice, keep the Sabbath, and
   maintain the worship of God. No proposition appears to have
   been entertained for a permanent organization. … Efforts were
   made to obtain additional aid from New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
   and Rhode Island. … I need only state, as the result of this
   congress, that it was resolved to attempt the reduction of
   Canada by two lines of attack,—one to conquer Acadia, and then
   to move on Quebec; and the other, by the route of Lake
   Champlain, to assault Montreal. The New England forces under
   Sir William Phips, assigned to the first route, captured
   Acadia and Port Royal, and sailed for Quebec, in the
   expectation of being aided by the other forces who marched by
   the Champlain route. But they, under Fitz-John Winthrop, with
   the title of major, were not successful. Leisler [see NEW
   YORK: A. D. 1689-1691], with characteristic rashness, accused
   the commander of treachery; while the officers charged the
   commissary, Jacob Milborne, of New York, with inefficiency in
   procuring supplies. The failure of Winthrop occasioned the
   retreat of Phips."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Doc. History of New York,
      volume 2 (Leisler's administration)._

      _Documents relating to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 3._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1697.
   The Board of Trade for the Supervision of the Colonies.
   Plans of Colonial Union by Penn and others.

   "The king attempted a more efficient method of administering
   the colonies; and, in May 1696, a Board of Commissioners for
   Trade and Plantations, consisting of the chancellor, the
   president of the privy council, the keeper of the privy seal,
   the two secretaries of state, and eight special commissioners,
   was called into being. To William Blathwayte, who had drafted
   the new charter of Massachusetts, John Locke, and the rest of
   the commission, instructions were given by the crown 'to
   inquire into the means of making the colonies most useful and
   beneficial to England; into the staples and manufactures which
   may be encouraged there, and the means of diverting them from
   trades which May prove prejudicial to England; to examine into
   and weigh the acts of the assemblies; to set down the
   usefulness or mischief of them to the crown, the kingdom, or
   the plantations themselves; to require an account of all the
   moneys given for public uses by the assemblies of the
   plantations, and how the same are employed.' The
   administration of the several provinces had their unity in the
   person of the king, whose duties with regard to them were
   transacted through one of the secretaries of state; but the
   Board of Trade was the organ of inquiries and the centre of
   colonial information. Every law of a provincial legislature,
   except in some of the charter governments, if it escaped the
   veto of the royal governor, might be arrested by the
   unfavorable opinion of the law officer of the crown, or by the
   adverse report of the Board of Trade. Its rejection could come
   only from the king in council. … The Board of Trade was hardly
   constituted before it was summoned to plan unity in the
   military efforts of the provinces; and Locke with his
   associates despaired, on beholding them 'crumbled into little
   governments, disunited in interests, in an ill posture and
   much worse disposition to afford assistance to each other for
   the future.' The Board, in 1697, 'after considering with their
   utmost care,' could only recommend the appointment of 'a
   captain-general of all the forces and all the militia of all
   the provinces on the continent of North America, with power to
   levy and command them for their defence, under such
   limitations and instructions as to his majesty should seem
   best.' … With excellent sagacity—for true humanity perfects
   the judgment—William Penn matured a plan of a permanent
   union, by a national representation of the American States. On
   the 8th day of February 1697, he delivered his project for an
   annual 'congress,' as he termed it, of two delegates from each
   province. … But the ministry adopted neither the military
   dictatorship of Locke and his associates, nor the peaceful
   congress of William Penn."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   The following is the Plan of Union drafted by Penn: "A Briefe
   and Plaine Scheam how the English Colonists in the North parts
   of America, viz.: Boston, Connecticut, Road Island, New York,
   New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina may
   be made more usefull to the Crowne, and one another's peace
   and safty with an universall concurrence.
   1st. That the severall Colonies before mentioned do meet once
   a year, and oftener if need be, during the war, and at least
   once in two years in times of peace by their stated and
   appointed Deputies, to debate and resolve of such measures as
   are most adviseable for their better understanding, and the
   public tranquility and safety.
{3173}
   2d. That in order to it two persons well qualified for sence,
   sobriety and substance be appointed by each Province, as their
   Representatives or Deputies, which in the whole make the
   Congress to consist of twenty persons.
   3d. That the King's Commissioner for that purpose specially
   appointed shall have the chaire and preside in the said
   Congresse.
   4th. That they shall meet as near as conveniently may be to
   the most centrall Colony for use of the Deputies.
   5th. Since that may in all probability, be New York both
   because it is near the Center of the Colonies and for that it
   is a Frontier and in the King's nomination, the Governor of
   that Colony may therefore also be the King's High Commissioner
   during the Session after the manner of Scotland.
   6th. That their business shall be to hear and adjust all
   matters of Complaint or difference between Province and
   Province.
   As,
   1st, where persons quit their own Province and goe to another,
   that they may avoid their just debts, tho they be able to pay
   them,
   2nd, where offenders fly Justice, or Justice cannot well be
   had upon such offenders in the Provinces that entertaine them,
   3dly, to prevent or cure injuries in point of Commerce,
   4th, to consider of ways and means to support the union and
   safety of these Provinces against the public enemies. In which
   Congresse the Quotas of men and charges will be much easier,
   and more equally sett, then it is possible for any
   establishment made here to do; for the Provinces, knowing
   their own condition and one another's, can debate that matter
   with more freedome and satisfaction and better adjust and
   ballance their affairs in all respects for their common safty.
   7ly. That in times of war the King's High Commissioner shall
   be generall or chief Commander of the severall Quotas upon
   service against a common enemy as he shall be advised, for the
   good and benefit of the whole."

      _H. W. Preston,
      Documents illustrative of American History,
      page 146._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Growing despotism of the English mercantile policy.
   Systematic suppression of colonial manufactures.

   "By the erection, in 1696, of a new Standing Council, or Board
   of Trade, under the denomination of 'The Lords Commissioners
   for Trade and Plantations,' the interests of British commerce
   and the affairs of Colonial trade and government were confided
   to that body, which thenceforward became the repository of all
   official intelligence upon those subjects, and the medium of
   communication with the several governors and assemblies of the
   Colonies. Yearly reports of the state of the Provinces were
   required from the governors, in answer to queries addressed to
   them by the Board. An Act of Parliament of the same year still
   further restricted commercial intercourse, by limiting trade
   between England and her Colonies to English, Irish and
   Colonial built vessels, and by prohibiting Colonial produce
   from going to the ports of Ireland or Scotland. … The feeble
   attempts of the Colonists to make a portion of their own
   clothing from their abundant materials had not been unnoticed
   in England. Three years after—the Board of Trade having
   received complaints from English merchants and manufacturers,
   that the wool and woolen manufactures of Ireland and the North
   American plantations began to be exported to foreign markets
   formerly supplied by England—an Act passed the British
   Parliament, … dictated by that sleepless vigilance which
   guarded the staple manufacture of England. It prohibited the
   exportation of any wool or woolen manufacture from Ireland,
   except to certain ports in England; but, by way of
   compensation, virtually surrendered to Ireland the linen
   manufacture, then little regarded in comparison with the
   woolen interests. In reference to the Colonies, it was enacted
   that 'After the first day of December, 1699, no wool,
   woolfels, yarn, cloth, or woolen manufactures of the English
   plantations in America shall be shipped in any of the said
   English plantations, or otherwise loaden, in order to be
   transported thence to any place whatsoever, under the penalty
   of forfeiting ship and cargo, and £500 for each offence.' … A
   letter from New England to the Board of Trade [in 1715] …
   reiterates the necessity of employing the New England people
   in producing naval stores, to turn them from manufactures. …
   The discouragement of American manufactures, from this time,
   became the settled and avowed policy of the government, and,
   three years later, the Bill prohibiting the erection of forges
   and iron mills was introduced, and declared that the erecting
   of Manufactories in the Colonies 'tends to lessen their
   dependence upon Great Britain.' … The company of Feltmakers,
   in London, petitioned Parliament, in February, 1731, to
   prohibit the exportation of hats from the American Colonies,
   representing that foreign markets were almost altogether
   supplied from thence, and not a few sent to Great Britain. The
   petition was referred to a special committee, who reported
   that, in New York and New England, beaver hats were
   manufactured to the number, it was estimated, of 10,000
   yearly. … The exports were to the Southern plantations, the
   West Indies, and Ireland. In consequence of this evidence, and
   that furnished by the Board of Trade in the same session, an
   act was passed (5 George II. c. 22) that 'no hats or felts,
   dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished, shall be put on board
   any vessel in any place within any of the British plantations;
   nor be laden upon any horse or other carriage to the intent to
   be exported from thence to any other plantation, or to any
   other place whatever, upon forfeiture thereof, and the
   offender shall likewise pay £500 for every such offence.' …
   This severe and stringent law continued in force in the
   Colonies until the Revolution. It aimed at the prostration of
   one of the oldest and, on account of the abundance and
   cheapness of beavers and other furs, one of the most
   profitable branches of industry."

      _J. L. Bishop,
      History of American Manufactures,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

   In 1749 an act of Parliament was passed "to encourage the
   importation of pig and bar iron from his majesty's colonies in
   America, and to prevent the erection of any mill or other
   engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any plateing forge
   to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel in
   any of the said colonies." "Pig iron was allowed to be
   imported free to all parts of the kingdom, so as to secure
   cheap bar iron. But bar iron could not be imported at any port
   but London, and carried no further than ten miles from that
   city. This clause was intended to aid the owners of woods. In
   order to protect the nail trade, all slitting-mills in the
   colonies were ordered to be destroyed."

      _J. B. Pearse,
      Concise History of the Iron Manufacture
      of the American Colonies,
      page 121._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      volume 2._

      G. L. Beer,
      Commercial Policy of England toward the Colonies
      (Col. Col. Studies, volume 3).

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763 and 1764.

{3174}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1704-1729.
   The first colonial newspapers.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1754.
   First collisions with the French in the Ohio Valley.

   "As the year 1750 approached, there came upon the colonies two
   changes, destined to lead to a new political life. In the
   first place, the colonies at last began to overrun the
   mountain barrier which had hemmed them in on the west, and
   thus to invite another and more desperate struggle with the
   French. The first settlement made west of the mountains was on
   a branch of the Kanawha (1748); in the same season several
   adventurous Virginians hunted and made land-claims in Kentucky
   and Tennessee. Before the close of the following year (1749)
   there had been formed the Ohio Company, composed of wealthy
   Virginians, among whom were two brothers of Washington. King
   George granted them 500,000 acres, on which they were to plant
   100 families and build and maintain a fort. The first attempt
   to explore the region of the Ohio brought the English and the
   French traders into conflict; and troops were not long in
   following, on both sides.

      See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1748-1754.

   At the same time the home government was awaking to the fact
   that the colonies were not under strict control. In 1750 the
   Administration began to consider means of stopping unlawful
   trade."

      _R. G. Thwaites,
      The Colonies, 1492-1750
      (Epochs of American History),
      chapter 14, section 130._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.
   Preludes of the last French War.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753; 1755;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
   The eve of the great French war.
   Attitude of the colonies.

   "The quarrel in which the French and English now engaged was
   exclusively a colonial one. The possession and defence of the
   Americans had already cost, over and over again, a larger sum
   than the whole produce of their trade would have produced. The
   English had the mortification of observing that the colonists
   claimed an the security of Englishmen against attack, and
   repudiated their obligation to take a share of the burdens
   which their defence occasioned. Were they attacked by the
   French,—they were Englishmen, and had a right to the ægis
   which that name throws over all subjects of the crown; were
   they called upon for a subscription in aid of the war,—they
   were men who would not submit to be taxed without their own
   consent; were they taken at their word, and requested through
   their own assemblies to tax themselves,—they sometimes
   refused, and sometimes doled out a minute supply, taking care
   to mix up with their money bill some infringement on the royal
   prerogative, which rendered it impossible, except under severe
   exigency of the public service, for the governor to accept the
   terms offered. … The action of the colonies at this crisis was
   in accordance with their invariable policy. As soon as they
   perceived that the French meditated a war of aggression in
   America, a chorus of complaint and apprehension came at once
   from the colonists. Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts, and
   Clinton, Governor of New York, had convened an assembly at
   Albany during the last year of the last war, to concert
   measures for uniting an the colonies for common defence;
   Massachusetts and the other New England States were, of
   course, anxious that the union should be carried out. They
   were the barrier between the Canadas and the southern
   colonies, and if any attack was made they must bear the brunt
   of it. … The Congress of Albany, and especially the
   Legislature of Massachusetts, advocated the erection of a line
   of detached forts which might be so arranged as to overawe the
   French frontier, and defend the New England colonies from
   attack. … It was all in vain; every colony, with the exception
   of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina, refused to
   contribute one farthing towards the expense. … Even in 1753,
   when the French were actually on the Ohio, and Washington had
   brought back certain intelligence of their intentions and
   views, the Virginians refused supplies to Dinwiddie because
   they declared themselves 'easy on account of the French.' When
   at last the French had actually established themselves in
   fortified posts at Niagara, at Le Bœuf, and at Venango, when
   Contrecœur had driven a colonial officer out of a post which
   he held on the forks of the Monongahela, when Fort du Quesne
   had arisen on the ruins of an English stockade, they could no
   longer close their eyes to the danger which was actually
   within the boundaries of their State. They granted £10,000 of
   their currency; but Dinwiddie wrote home that the bill was so
   clogged with encroachments on the prerogative, that he would
   not have given his assent had not the public service rendered
   the supply imperatively necessary."

      _Viscount Bury,
      Exodus of the Western Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

   "The attitude of these various colonies towards each other is
   hardly conceivable to an American of the present time. They
   had no political tie except a common allegiance to the British
   Crown. Communication between them was difficult and slow, by
   rough roads traced often through primeval forests. Between
   some of them there was less of sympathy than of jealousy
   kindled by conflicting interests or perpetual disputes
   concerning boundaries. The patriotism of the colonist was
   bounded by the lines of his government, except in the compact
   and kindred colonies of New England, which were socially
   united, though politically distinct. The country of the New
   Yorker was New York, and the country of the Virginian was
   Virginia. The New England colonies had once confederated; but,
   kindred as they were, they had long ago dropped apart. … Nor
   was it this segregation only that unfitted them for war. They
   were all subject to popular legislatures, through whom alone
   money and men could be raised; and these elective bodies were
   sometimes factious and selfish, and not always either
   far-sighted or reasonable. Moreover, they were in a state of
   ceaseless friction with their governors, who represented the
   king, or, what was worse, the feudal proprietary. These
   disputes, though varying in intensity, were found everywhere
   except in the two small colonies which chose their own
   governors; and they were premonitions of the movement towards
   independence which ended in the war of Revolution. The
   occasion of difference mattered little. Active or latent, the
   quarrel was always present. … Divided in government; divided
   in origin, feelings, and principles; jealous of each other,
   jealous of the Crown; the people at war with the executive,
   and, by the fermentation of internal politics, blinded to an
   outward danger that seemed remote and vague,—such were the
   conditions under which the British colonies drifted into a war
   that was to decide the fate of the continent."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

{3175}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
   The Congress at Albany and its Plans of Union.
   Franklin's account.

   "In 1754, war with France being again apprehended, a congress
   of commissioners from the different colonies was, by an order
   of the Lords of Trade, to be assembled at Albany, there to
   confer with the chiefs of the Six Nations concerning the means
   of defending both their country and ours. Governor Hamilton
   [of Pennsylvania], having received this order, acquainted the
   House with it, requesting they would furnish proper presents
   for the Indians, to be given on this occasion; and naming the
   speaker (Mr. Norris) and myself to join Mr. Thomas Penn and
   Mr. Secretary Peters as commissioners to act for Pennsylvania.
   (The House approved the nomination, and provided the goods for
   the present, and tho' they did not much like treating out of
   the provinces;) and we met the other commissioners at Albany
   about the middle of June. In our way thither, I projected and
   drew a plan for the union of all the colonies under one
   government, so far as might be necessary for defense, and
   other important general purposes. As we passed thro' New York,
   I had there shown my project to Mr. James Alexander and Mr.
   Kennedy, two gentlemen of great knowledge in public affairs,
   and, being fortified by their approbation, I ventured to lay
   it before the Congress. It then appeared that several of the
   commissioners had formed plans of the same kind. A previous
   question was first taken, whether a union should be
   established, which passed in the affirmative unanimously. A
   committee was then appointed, one member from each colony, to
   consider the several plans and report. Mine happened to be
   preferred, and, with a few amendments, was accordingly
   reported. … The debates upon it in Congress went on daily,
   hand in hand with the Indian business. Many objections and
   difficulties were started, but at length they were all
   overcome, and the plan was unanimously agreed to, and copies
   ordered to be transmitted to the Board of Trade and to the
   assemblies of the several provinces. Its fate was singular:
   the assemblies did not adopt it, as they all thought there was
   too much 'prerogative' in it, and in England it was judged to
   have too much of the 'democratic.' The Board of Trade
   therefore did not approve of it, nor recommend it for the
   approbation of his majesty; but another scheme was formed,
   supposed to answer the same purpose better, whereby the
   governors of the provinces, with some members of their
   respective councils, were to meet and order the raising of
   troops, building of forts, etc., and to draw on the treasury
   of Great Britain for the expense, which was afterwards to be
   refunded by an act of Parliament laying a tax on America. …
   The different and contrary reasons of dislike to my plan makes
   me suspect that it was really the true medium; and I am still
   of opinion it would have been happy for both sides the water
   if it had been adopted. The colonies, so united, would have
   been sufficiently strong to have defended themselves; there
   would then have been no need of troops from England; of
   course, the subsequent pretence for taxing America, and the
   bloody contest it occasioned, would have been avoided."

      _B. Franklin,
      Autobiography
      (edited by John Bigelow)
      volume 1, pages 308-310._

   "When the members assembled at the Court House in Albany on
   the 19th of June, it was found that Pennsylvania, was not
   alone in appointing a distinguished citizen to represent her.
   On the roll of the congress were the names of
   Lieutenant-governor De Lancey, of New York, who presided; and
   from the same province William Smith, the historian, and the
   future Sir William Johnson, not yet made a baronet. From the
   proprietary provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland were the
   well known officials, John Penn, grandson of the founder;
   Richard Peters; and Benjamin Tasker. From the province of New
   Hampshire were her future governor, Meshech Weare, and
   Theodore Atkinson; and from the province of Massachusetts Bay,
   the late Lieutenant-governor, Thomas Hutchinson, Colonel John
   Chandler, of Worcester, and Oliver Partridge, a man of
   commanding influence in western Massachusetts. Lastly, the two
   colonies which had so tenaciously preserved their charter
   governments through the vicissitudes of more than a
   century,—Connecticut and Rhode Island,—had acceded to the
   repeated solicitations of the home government, and with
   unfeigned reluctance, we may be sure, had sent as
   representatives men of such wide experience in their colonial
   concerns as Roger Wolcott, Jr., and Stephen Hopkins,
   'America,' says Mr. Bancroft, 'had never seen an assembly so
   venerable for the states that were represented, or for the
   great and able men who composed it.' They were detained in
   this hospitable old Dutch town for more than three weeks. …
   Franklin's plan … was not approved by a single one of the
   colonial assemblies before which it was brought; and … no
   action was ever taken on it in England. Yet there is no
   contribution to constructive statesmanship preceding the year
   1776, which had a profounder effect on the subsequent growth
   and development of the idea of American nationality. Even in
   the amended form in which it was 'approved' by the congress,
   it was, says a recent writer, 'in advance of the Articles [of
   Confederation] in its national spirit, and served as the
   prototype of the constitution itself.'"

      _W. E. Foster,
      Stephen Hopkins: a Rhode Island Statesman,
      chapter 6 (part 1)._

   The Plan of Union, as adopted by the Congress at Albany, was
   accompanied by a "Representation of the Present State of the
   Colonies." The following is the full text of the
   Representation, followed by that of the Plan of Union:

   "That His Majesty's Title to the Northern Continent of
   America, appears to be founded on the Discovery thereof first
   made, and the Possession thereof first taken in 1497, under a
   Commission from Henry the VIIth, of England, to Sebastian
   Cabot. That the French have possessed themselves of several
   Parts of this Continent, which by Treaties, have been ceded
   and confirmed to them: That the Rights of the English to the
   whole Sea Coast, from Georgia, on the South, to the River St.
   Lawrence, on the North, excepting the Island of Cape-Breton,
   in the Bay of St. Lawrence, remains plain and indisputable.
{3176}
   That all the Lands or Countries Westward from the Atlantic
   Ocean to the South Sea, between 48 and 34 Degrees of North
   Latitude, were expressly included in the Grant of King James
   the First, to divers of his Subjects, so long since, as the
   Year 1606, and afterwards confirmed in 1620; and under this
   Grant, the Colony of Virginia claims an Extent as far West as
   to the South Sea; and the antient Colonies of the
   Massachusetts-Bay and Connecticut, were by their respective
   Charters, made to extend to the said South Sea; so that not
   only the Right to the Sea Coast, but to all the Inland
   Countries, from Sea to Sea, have at all Times been asserted by
   the Crown of England. That the Province of Nova Scotia or
   Accadia, hath known and determinate Bounds, by the original
   Grant from King James the First; and that there is abundant
   Evidence of the same, [and of the Knowledge] which the French
   had of these Bounds, while they were in Possession of it; and
   that these Bounds being thus known, the said Province by the
   Treaty of Utrecht, according to its antient Limits, was ceded
   to Great-Britain, and remained in Possession thereof, until
   the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, by which it was confirmed; but
   by said Treaty it is stipulated, That the Bounds of the said
   Province shall be determined by Commissioners, &c. That by the
   Treaty of Utrecht, the Country of the Five Cantons of the
   Iroquoise, is expressly acknowledged to be under the Dominion
   of the Crown of Great-Britain. That the Lake Champlain,
   formerly called Lake Iroquoise, and the Country Southward of
   it, as far as the Dutch or English Settlements, the Lake
   Ontario, Erie, and all the Countries adjacent, have by all
   antient Authors, French and English, been allowed to belong to
   the Five Cantons or Nations; and the whole of those Countries,
   long before the said Treaty of Utrecht, were by the said
   Nations, put under the Protection of the Crown of
   Great-Britain. That by the Treaty of Utrecht, there is a
   Reserve to the French, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries
   of the Five Nations, and other Indians in Friendship with
   Great-Britain, for the Sake of Commerce; as there is also to
   the English, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries of those
   in Friendship with France, for the same Purpose. That after
   the Treaty of Utrecht, the French built several Fortresses in
   the Country of the Five Nations, and a very strong one at a
   Place called Crown-Point, to the South of the Lake Champlain.
   That the French Court have evidently, since the Treaty of Aix
   la Chapelle, made this Northern Continent more than ever, the
   Object of its Attention. That the French have most unjustly
   taken Possession of a Part of the Province of Nova-Scotia; and
   in the River St. John's, and other Parts of said Province,
   they have built strong Fortresses; and from this River they
   will have, during the Winter and Spring Season, a much easier
   Communication between France and Canada, than they have
   heretofore had, and will be furnished with a Harbour more
   commodiously situated for the Annoying the British Colonies by
   Privateers and Men of War, than Louisbourg itself. That they
   have taken Possession of, and begun a Settlement at the Head
   of the River Kennebeck, within the Bounds of the Province of
   Main, the most convenient Situation for affording Support, and
   a safe Retreat, to the Eastern Indians, in any of their
   Attempts upon the Governments of New England. That it appears
   by the Information of the Natives, the French have been making
   Preparations for another Settlement, at a Place called Cohass,
   on Connecticut River, near the Head thereof, where 'tis but
   about ten Miles distant from a Branch of Merrimack River; and
   from whence, there is a very near and easy Communication with
   the Abnekais Indians, who are settled on the River St.
   Francois, about forty Miles from the River St. Lawrence; and
   it is certain, the Inhabitants of New-Hampshire, in which
   Province this Cohass is supposed to lie, have been interrupted
   and impeded by the French Indians, from making any Settlement
   there. That since the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, the French
   have increased the Number of their Forts in the Country of the
   great Lakes, and on the Rivers which run into the Mississippi,
   and are securing a Communication between the two Colonies of
   Louisiana and Canada, and at the same Time, putting themselves
   into a Capacity of annoying the Southern British Colonies, and
   preventing any further Settlements of His Majesty's Dominions.
   That they have been gradually increasing their Troops in
   America, transporting them in their Ships of War, which return
   to France with a bare Complement of Men, leaving the rest in
   their Colonies; and by this Means, they are less observed by
   the Powers of Europe, than they would be, if Transports as
   usual heretofore, were provided for this Purpose. That they
   have taken Prisoners diverse of His Majesty's Subjects,
   trading in the Country of the Iroquoise, and other inland
   Parts, and plundered such Prisoners of several Thousand Pounds
   Sterling; and they are continually exciting the Indians to
   destroy or make Prisoners the Inhabitants of the Frontiers of
   the British Colonies; which Prisoners are carried to Canada,
   and a Price equal to what Slaves are sold in the Plantations,
   is demanded for their Redemption and Release. That they are
   continually drawing off the Indians from the British Interest,
   and have lately perswaded one Half of the Onondago Tribe, with
   many from the other Nations along with them, to remove to a
   Place called Oswegachie, on the River Cadaracqui, where they
   have built them a Church and Fort; and many of the Senecas,
   the most numerous Nation, appear to be wavering, and rather
   inclined to the French. And it is a melancholy Consideration,
   that not more than 150 Men of all the several Nations, have
   attended this Treaty, altho' they had Notice, that all the
   Governments would be here by their Commissioners, and that a
   large Present would be given. That it is the evident Design of
   the French to surround the British Colonies, to fortify
   themselves on the Back thereof, to take and keep Possession of
   the Heads of all the important Rivers, to draw over the
   Indians to their Interest, and with the Help of such Indians,
   added to such Forces as are already arrived, and may be
   hereafter sent from Europe, to be in a Capacity of making a
   general Attack upon the several Governments; and if at the
   same Time, a strong Naval Force be sent from France, there is
   the utmost Danger, that the whole Continent will be subjected
   to that Crown: And that the Danger of such a Naval Force is
   not merely imaginary, may be argued from past Experience. For
   had it not been by the most extraordinary Interposition of
   Heaven, every Sea Port Town on the Continent, in the Year
   1746, might have been ravaged and destroyed, by the Squadron
   under the Command of the Duke D'Anville, notwithstanding the
   then declining State of the French, and the very flourishing
   State of the British Navy, and the further Advantage accruing
   to the English, from the Possession of Cape-Breton.
{3177}
   That the French find by Experience, they are able to make
   greater and more secure Advantages upon their Neighbours, in
   Peace than in War. What they unjustly possessed themselves of,
   after the Peace of Utrecht, they now pretend they have a Right
   to hold, by Virtue of the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, until the
   true Boundary between the English and French be settled by
   Commissioners; but their Conquests made during War, they have
   been obliged to restore. That the French Affairs relative to
   this Continent, are under one Direction, and constantly
   regarded by the Crown and Ministry, who are not insensible how
   great a Stride they would make towards an Universal Monarchy,
   if the British Colonies were added to their Dominions, and
   consequently the whole Trade of North-America engrossed by
   them. That the said Colonies being in a divided, disunited
   State, there has never been any joint Exertion of their Force,
   or Council, to repel or defeat the Measures of the French; and
   particular Colonies are unable and unwilling to maintain the
   Cause of the whole. That there has been a very great Neglect
   of the Affairs of the Iroquoise, as they are commonly called,
   the Indians of the Six Nations, and their Friendship and
   Alliance has been improved to private Purposes, for the Sake
   of the Trade with them, and the Purchase or Acquisition of
   their Lands, more than the Public Services. That they are
   supplied with Rum by the Traders, in vast and almost
   incredible Quantities; the Laws of the Colonies now in Force,
   being insufficient to restrain the Supply. And the Indians of
   every Nation, are frequently drunk, and abused in their Trade,
   and their Affections thereby alienated from the English; they
   often wound and murder one another in their Liquor, and to
   avoid Revenge, fly to the French; and perhaps more have been
   lost by these Means than by the French Artifice. That
   Purchases of Land from the Indians by private Persons, for
   small trifling Considerations, have been the Cause of great
   Uneasiness and Discontents; and if the Indians are not in fact
   imposed on and injured, yet they are apt to think they have
   been; and indeed, they appear not fit to be entrusted at
   Large, with the Sale of their own Lands: And the Laws of some
   of the Colonies, which make such Sales void, unless the
   Allowance of the Government be first obtained, seem to be well
   founded. That the Granting or Patenting vast Tracts of Land to
   private Persons or Companies, without Conditions of speedy
   Settlements, has tended to prevent the Strengthening the
   Frontiers of the particular Colony where such Tracts lie, and
   been Prejudicial to the rest. That it seems absolutely
   necessary, that speedy and effectual Measures be taken, to
   secure the Colonies from the Slavery they are threatened with:
   that any farther Advances of the French should be prevented;
   and the Encroachments already made, removed. That the Indians
   in Alliance or Friendship with the English, be constantly
   regarded under some wise Direction or Superintendency. That
   Endeavours be used for the Recovery of those Indians who are
   lately gone over to the French, and for securing those that
   remain. That some discreet Person or Persons be appointed to
   reside constantly among each Nation of Indians; such Person to
   have no Concern in Trade, and duly to communicate all Advices
   to the Superintendents. That the Trade with the said Indians
   be well regulated, and made subservient to the Public
   Interest, more than to private Gain. That there be Forts built
   for the Security of each Nation, and the better carrying on
   the Trade with them. That warlike Vessels be provided,
   sufficient to maintain His Majesty's Right to a free
   Navigation on the several Lakes. That all future Purchases of
   Lands from the Indians be void, unless made by the Government
   where such Lands lie, and from the Indians in a Body, in their
   public Councils. That the Patentees or Possessors of large
   unsettled Territories, be enjoined to cause them to be settled
   in a reasonable Time, on Pain of Forfeiture. That the
   Complaints of the Indians, relative to any Grants or
   Possessions of their Lands, fraudulently obtained, be inquired
   into, and all Injuries redressed. That the Bounds of those
   Colonies which extend to the South Seas, be contracted and
   limited by the Alleghenny or Apalachian Mountains; and that
   Measures be taken, for settling from time to time, Colonies of
   His Majesty's Protestant Subjects, Westward of said Mountains,
   in convenient Cantons, to be assigned for that Purpose. And
   finally, that there be an Union of His Majesty's several
   Governments on the Continent, that so their Councils,
   Treasure, and Strength, may be employed in due Proportion,
   against their common Enemy."

   The Plan of Union, adopted on the 10th of July, was as
   follows:

   "Plan of a proposed Union of the several Colonies of
   Massachusetts-Bay, New-Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode-Island,
   New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
   North-Carolina, and South Carolina, for their mutual Defence
   and Security, and for the Extending the British Settlements in
   North-America. That humble Application be made for an Act of
   the Parliament of Great-Britain, by Virtue of which One
   General Government may be formed in America, including all the
   said Colonies; within and under which Government, each Colony
   may retain its present Constitution, except in the Particulars
   wherein a Change may be directed by the said Act, as hereafter
   follows. That the said General Government be administered by a
   President General, to be appointed and supported by the Crown;
   and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the Representatives of
   the People of the several Colonies, met in their respective
   Assemblies. That within Months after the Passing of such Act,
   the House of Representatives in the several Assemblies, that
   happen to be sitting within that Time, or that shall be
   especially for that Purpose convened, may and shall chuse
   Members for the Grand Council, in the following Proportions;
   that is to say: Massachusetts-Bay, 7; New-Hampshire, 2;
   Connecticut, 5; Rhode-Island, 2; New-York, 4; New-Jersey, 3;
   Pennsylvania, 6; Maryland, 4; Virginia, 7, North-Carolina, 4;
   South Carolina, 4: = 48. Who shall meet for the first Time at
   the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, being called by the
   President General, as soon as conveniently may be, after his
   Appointment. That there shall be a new Election of Members for
   the Grand Council every three Years; and on the Death or
   Resignation of any Member, his Place shall be supplied by a
   new Choice, at the next Sitting of the Assembly of the Colony
   he represented.
{3178}
   That after the first three Years, when the Proportion of Money
   arising out of each Colony to the General Treasury, can be
   known, the Number of Members to be chosen for each Colony,
   shall from time to time, in all ensuing Elections, be
   regulated by that Proportion (yet so as that the Number to be
   chosen by any one Province, be not more than seven, nor less
   than two). That the Grand Council shall meet once in every
   Year, and oftener if Occasion require, at such Time and Place
   as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding Meeting, or as
   they shall be called to meet at by the President General on
   any Emergency; he having first obtained in writing, the
   Consent of seven of the Members to such Call, and sent due and
   timely Notice to the whole. That the Grand Council have Power
   to chuse their Speaker, and shall neither be dissolved,
   prorogued, nor continue sitting longer than six Weeks at one
   Time, without their own Consent, or the special Command of the
   Crown. That the Members of the Grand Council shall be allowed
   for their Service, Ten Shillings Sterling per Diem, during
   their Session and Journey to and from the Place of Meeting,
   twenty Miles to be reckoned a Day's Journey. That the Assent
   of the President General be requisite to all Acts of the Grand
   Council; and that it be his Office and Duty to cause them to
   be carried into Execution. That the President General, with
   the Advice of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian
   Treaties, in which the general Interest or Welfare of the
   Colonies may be concerned; and to make Peace or declare War
   with Indian Nations. That they make such Laws as they judge
   necessary for regulating all Indian Trade. That they make all
   Purchases from Indians for the Crown, of the Lands now not
   within the Bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be
   within their Bounds, when some of them are reduced to more
   convenient Dimensions. That they make new Settlements on such
   Purchases, by granting Lands in the King's Name, reserving a
   Quit-Rent to the Crown for the Use of the General Treasury.
   That they make Laws for regulating and governing such new
   Settlements, 'till the Crown shall think fit to form them into
   particular Governments. That they may raise and pay Soldiers,
   and build Forts for the Defence of any of the Colonies, and
   equip Vessels of Force to guard the Coast, and protect the
   Trade on the Ocean, Lakes, or great Rivers; but they shall not
   impress Men in any Colony, without the Consent of its
   Legislature. That for those Purposes, they have Power to make
   Laws, and lay and levy such general Duties, Imposts, or Taxes,
   as to themselves appear most equal and just, considering the
   Ability and other Circumstances of the Inhabitants in the
   several Colonies, and such as may be collected with the least
   Inconvenience to the People; rather discouraging Luxury, than
   loading industry with unnecessary Burthens. That they may
   appoint a general Treasurer and a particular Treasurer in each
   Government, when necessary; and from time to time, may order
   the Sums in the Treasuries of each Government, into the
   General Treasury, or draw on them for special Payments, as
   they find most convenient; yet no Money to issue, but by joint
   Orders of the President General and Grand Council, except
   where Sums have been appropriated to particular Purposes, and
   the President General is previously impowered by an Act, to
   draw for such Sums. That the general Accounts shall be yearly
   settled, and reported to the several Assemblies. That a Quorum
   of the Grand Council, impowered to act with the President
   General, do consist of Twenty-five Members; among whom there
   shall be one or more from a Majority of the Colonies. That the
   Laws made by them for the Purposes aforesaid, shall not be
   repugnant, but as near as may be agreeable, to the Laws of
   England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council, for
   Approbation, as soon as may be, after their passing; and if
   not disapproved within three Years after Presentation, to
   remain in Force. That in Case of the Death of the President
   General, the Speaker of the Grand Council for the Time being,
   shall succeed, and be vested with the same Power and
   Authorities, and continue 'till the King's Pleasure be known.
   That all Military Commission Officers, whether for Land or Sea
   Service, to act under this General Constitution, be nominated
   by the President General, but the Approbation of the Grand
   Council is to be obtained, before they receive their
   Commissions. And all Civil Officers are to be nominated by the
   Grand Council, and to receive the President General's
   Approbation, before they officiate. But in Case of Vacancy, by
   Death or Removal of any Officer, Civil or Military, under this
   Constitution, the Governor of the Provinces in which such
   Vacancy happens, may appoint, 'till the Pleasure of the
   President General and Grand Council can be known. That the
   particular Military as well as Civil Establishments in each
   Colony, remain in their present State, this General
   Constitution notwithstanding; and that on sudden Emergencies,
   any Colony may defend itself, and lay the Accounts of Expense
   thence arisen, before the President General and Grand Council,
   who may allow and order Payment of the same, as far as they
   judge such Accounts just and reasonable."

      _Stephen Hopkins,
      A True Representation of the Plan formed at Albany in 1754,
      for uniting all the British Northern Colonies;
      with introduction and notes by S. S. Rider
      (Rhode Island Historical Tracts, Number 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Proceedings of Commissioners at Albany
      (Doc. Hist. of New York, volume 2, pages 545-617)._

      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
      pages 253-258._

      _J. R. Brodhead, editor,
      Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 6, pages 853-905._

      _Journal of Congress at Albany in 1754
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      series 3, volume 5)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
   Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation
   of the colonies by act of Parliament.

   At the congress of American governors which General Braddock
   convened at Alexandria, in April, 1755, on his first arrival
   in America as commander-in-chief of the British forces,
   "Braddock directed their attention, first of all, to the
   subject of a colonial revenue, on which his instructions
   commanded him to insist, and his anger kindled 'that no such
   fund was already established.' The governors present,
   recapitulating their strifes with their assemblies, made
   answer: 'Such a fund can never be established in the colonies
   without the aid of parliament. Having found it impracticable
   to obtain in their respective governments the proportion
   expected by his majesty toward defraying the expense of his
   service in North America, they are unanimously of opinion that
   it should be proposed to his majesty's ministers to find out
   some method of compelling them to do it, and of assessing the
   several governments in proportion to their respective
   abilities.'
{3179}
   This imposing document Braddock sent forthwith to the
   ministry, himself urging the necessity of laying some tax
   throughout his majesty's dominions in North America. … I have
   had in my hands vast masses of correspondence, including
   letters from servants of the crown in every royal colony in
   America; from civilians, as well as from Braddock and Dunbar
   and Gage; from Delancey and Sharpe, as well as from Dinwiddie
   and Shirley; and all were of the same tenor. The British
   ministry heard one general clamor from men in office for
   taxation by act of parliament. … In England, the government
   was more and more inclined to enforce the permanent authority
   of Great Britain."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last Revision),
      volume 2, pages. 416-417._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, known in Europe
   as the Seven Years War:
   The English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1773, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, to 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;

   also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
   Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
   The English theory and the American theory of their relations.

   "The people of every colony were subject to two jurisdictions,
   one local and one general, that must be adjusted to each
   other. To effect such adjustment caused no little friction;
   and the Colonies and the Mother Country got on peaceably as
   long as they did, only because neither one pushed its theory
   of colonial relations to an extreme, each yielding something
   to the other and thus effecting a compromise. The Colonies
   held that the dominion which the Cabots discovered in America
   belonged to the King, rather than to the Kingdom, of England.
   Englishmen adventuring into this dominion to plant colonies
   were entitled to all the privileges of free-born Englishmen at
   home; trial by jury, habeas corpus, and exemption from taxes
   that their own representatives had not voted. The British
   Empire was not one dominion, but several dominions. Everyone
   of these dominions had, or should have, its own legislature to
   enact laws for its government. The Colonies were not one
   dominion, but 13 dominions; and in everyone the legislature
   was as supreme as Parliament was in England. Parliament,
   therefore, had nothing more to do with Massachusetts or
   Virginia than the legislatures of those colonies had to do
   with England. The King, who alone had a voice in the matter,
   had, in their charters, guaranteed to the Colonies the common
   law so far as this was applicable to their condition, and he
   was now powerless to withdraw what he had thus conceded. Such,
   in outline, was the American theory of colonial relations.
   Still, no one pretended that this theory had ever been fully
   carried out in practice. It must also be said that it did not
   appear fully formed at once, but grew up gradually. The
   British theory was that Englishmen continued Englishmen when
   they emigrated to the American dominions of the King; that the
   power of Parliament, to which they were subject in the old
   home, followed them to the new one; and that Parliament could
   yield them more or fewer powers of self-government for a time,
   and then withdraw them. It was also claimed that the Colonies
   were already represented in the House of Commons; since the
   several members of that body did not represent particular
   districts or constituencies, but the whole British Empire.
   Besides, it was asserted that the Colonies themselves had
   repeatedly acknowledged the authority of Parliament by
   submitting to its legislation. Still no one pretended that
   this theory had ever been fully carried out."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The American Government,
      sections 92-93._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      pages 30-32._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1761.
   Enforcement of revenue laws in Massachusetts.
   The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

   "Immediately after the conquest of Canada was completed,
   rumors were widely circulated … that the charters would be
   taken away, and the colonies reduced to royal governments. The
   officers of the customs began at once to enforce with
   strictness all the acts of parliament regulating the trade of
   the colonies, several of which had been suspended, or become
   obsolete, and thus had never been executed at all. The good
   will of the colonists or their legislatures, was no longer
   wanted in the prosecution of the war; and the commissioners of
   the customs were permitted and directed to enforce the
   obnoxious acts. Governor Bernard [of Massachusetts], who was
   always a supporter of the royal prerogative, entered fully
   into these views, and shewed by his opinion, his appointments
   and his confidential advisers, that his object would be, to
   extend the power of the government to any limits, which the
   ministry might authorize. The first demonstration of the new
   course intended to be pursued, was the arrival of an order in
   Council to carry into effect the Acts of trade, and to apply
   to the supreme judicature of the Province [Massachusetts], for
   Writs of Assistance, to be granted to the officers of the
   customs. In a case of this importance there can be no doubt,
   that Mr. Paxton, who was at the head of the customs in Boston,
   consulted with the Government and all the crown officers, as
   to the best course to be taken. The result was, that he
   directed his deputy at Salem, Mr. Cockle, in November, 1760,
   to petition the Superior Court, then sitting in that town, for
   'writs of assistance.' Stephen Sewall who was the Chief
   Justice, expressed great doubt of the legality of such a writ,
   and of the authority of the Court to grant it. None of the
   other judges said a word in favour of it; but as the
   application was on the part of the Crown, it could not be
   dismissed without a hearing, which after consultation was
   fixed for the next term of the Court, to be held in February,
   1761, at Boston, when the question was ordered to be argued.
   In the interval, Chief Justice Sewall died, and Lieutenant
   Governor Hutchinson was made his successor, thereby uniting in
   his person, the office of Lieutenant Governor with the
   emoluments of the commander of the castle, a member of the
   Council, Judge of Probate and Chief Justice of the Supreme
   Court! … The mercantile part of the community was in a state
   of great anxiety as to the result of this question. The
   officers of the Customs called upon Otis for his official
   assistance, as Advocate General, to argue their cause.
{3180}
   But, as he believed these writs to be illegal and tyrannical,
   be refused. He would not prostitute his office to the support
   of an oppressive act; and with true delicacy and dignity,
   being unwilling to retain a station, in which he might be
   expected or called upon to argue in support of such odious
   measures, he resigned it though the situation was very
   lucrative, and if filled by an incumbent with a compliant
   spirit, led to the highest favours of government. The
   merchants of Salem and Boston, applied to Mr. Pratt to
   undertake their cause, who was also solicited to engage on the
   other side; but he declined taking any part, being about to
   leave Boston for New York, of which province he had been
   appointed Chief Justice. They also applied to Otis and
   Thacher, who engaged to make their defence, and probably both
   of them without fees, though very great ones were offered. The
   language of Otis was, 'in such a cause, I despise all fees.' …
   The trial took place in the Council Chamber of the Old Town
   House, in Boston. … The judges were five in number, including
   Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, who presided as Chief Justice.
   The room was filled with all the officers of government, and
   the principal citizens, to hear the arguments in a cause that
   inspired the deepest solicitude. The case was opened by Mr.
   Gridley, who argued it with much learning, ingenuity, and
   dignity, urging every point and authority; that could be found
   after the most diligent search, in favour of the Custom house
   petition; making all his reasoning depend on this
   consideration—'if the parliament of Great Britain is the
   sovereign legislator of the British Empire.' He was followed
   by Mr. Thacher on the opposite side, whose reasoning was
   ingenious and able, delivered in a tone of great mildness and
   moderation. 'But,' in the language of President Adams, 'Otis
   was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical
   allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical
   events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a
   prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid
   torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before
   him. American Independence was then and there born. The seeds
   of patriots and heroes, to defend the 'Non sine Diis animosus
   infans'; to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there
   sown. Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me
   to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of
   Assistance. Then and there, was the first scene of the first
   act of opposition, to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain.
   Then and there, the child Independence was born. In fifteen
   years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared
   himself free.' 'There were no stenographers in those days,' to
   give a complete report of this momentous harangue. How gladly
   would be exchanged for it, a few hundred verbose speeches on
   some of the miserable, transient topics of the day, that are
   circulated in worthless profusion. Yet on this occasion, 'the
   seeds were sown,' and though some of them doubtless fell by
   the wayside or on stony places, others fell on good ground,
   and sprang up and increased and brought forth in due season,
   thirty, sixty and an hundred fold. … After the close of his
   argument, the Court adjourned for consideration, and at the
   close of the term, Chief Justice Hutchinson pronounced the
   opinion: 'The Court has considered the subject of writs of
   assistance, find can see no foundation for such a writ; but as
   the practice in England is not known, it has been thought best
   to continue the question to the next term, that in the
   meantime opportunity may be given to know the result.' No
   cause in the annals of colonial jurisprudence had hitherto
   excited more public interest; and none had given rise to such
   powerful argument. … An epoch in public affairs may be dated
   from this trial. Political parties became more distinctly
   formed, and their several adherents were more marked and
   decided. The nature of ultra-marine jurisdiction began to be
   closely examined; the question respecting raising a revenue
   fully discussed. The right of the British parliament to impose
   taxes was openly denied. 'Taxation without representation is
   tyranny,' was the maxim, that was the guide and watch word of
   all the friends of liberty. The crown officers and their
   followers adopted openly the pretensions of the British
   ministry and parliament, and considering their power to be
   irresistible, appealed to the selfishness of those who might
   be expectants of patronage, and to the fears of all quiet and
   timid minds, to adopt a blind submission, as the only safe or
   reasonable alternative. Otis took the side of his country, and
   as has been shewn, under circumstances that made his decision
   irrevocable. He was transferred at once from the ranks of
   private life, not merely to take the side, but to be the guide
   and leader of his country, in opposition to the designs of the
   British ministry. 'Although' says President Adams, 'Mr. Otis
   had never before interfered in public affairs, his exertions
   on this single occasion secured him a commanding popularity
   with the friends of their country, and the terror and
   vengeance of her enemies; neither of which ever deserted him.'
   His popularity was instantaneous, and universal; and the
   public were impatient for the approaching election, when they
   could make him a representative of Boston."

      _W. Tudor,
      Life of James Otis,
      chapters 5-7._

      See also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   The Treaty of Paris.
   Acquisition of Florida and Eastern Louisiana
   (as well as Canada) by Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers from the
   Western territory lately acquired from France.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   General effects, economically and politically,
   of the English trade regulations.

   "Economically the general results of the trade regulations
   were important. Robert Giffen has repeatedly pointed out how
   difficult it is, even with modern comparatively accurate
   methods, to obtain reliable results from the use of export and
   import statistics. This difficulty is immeasurably enhanced
   when we have to rely on the meagre figures of a century and a
   half ago. For we neither know how these statistics were taken,
   nor at all how accurate they are; while their inadequacy
   becomes clearly evident when we consider the large amount of
   smuggling carried on both in England and the colonies. One
   general proposition, however, can be formulated from the
   examination of these statistics, and that is the balance of
   trade between England and the colonies was unfavorable to the
   latter. And this was an inherent consequence of the mercantile
system, by which England regulated these commercial relations.
{3181}
   The colonies were unable to pay England for her manufactures
   entirely in raw materials, and the residue was paid in coin
   obtained from the favorable trade with Spain, Portugal, and
   the West Indies. All metal had to be sent to England; it was,
   as De Foe says, 'snatched up for returns to England in
   specie.' An important consequence followed from this
   continuous drain of specie. The colonies could with difficulty
   retain coin, and hence were forced either to fall back on
   barter, or to issue paper money. … While, on the one hand, the
   acts of trade and navigation are partially responsible for
   many sad passages in the fiscal history of the colonies, on
   the other hand they conduced to the development of a most
   important colonial industry. This industry was ship-building,
   for which the colonies were especially adapted on account of
   the cheapness of lumber. In developing this natural fitness,
   the protection afforded to English and colonial shipping by
   the Navigation Acts was an important factor. As a rule England
   did not discriminate against colonial and in favor of English
   ships, although the colonies frequently attempted by
   legislation to secure advantages for their own shipping. As a
   result of this policy ship building and the carrying trade
   increased rapidly, especially in the New England colonies. …
   So important did this industry become that in 1724 the ship
   carpenters of the Thames complained to the King, 'that their
   trade was hurt and their workmen emigrated since so many
   vessels were built in New England.' Massachusetts built ships
   not only for England, but also for European countries, and for
   the West Indies. … Politically the commercial regulations were
   not so important. Up to 1763 only slight political importance
   attaches to the system, for only in a negative way did it
   affect the political ideas of the colonists. The colonies were
   peopled by men of varied race and religion, who had little
   common consciousness of rights and wrongs and few common
   political ideals. The centrifugal forces among them were
   strong. Among centripetal forces, such as a common sovereign
   and a common system of private law, must be reckoned the fact
   that their commerce was regulated by a system which, as a
   rule, was uniform for all the colonies. When the acts of trade
   worked to their advantage, the colonists reaped common
   benefits; when they inflicted hardships, the colonists made
   common complaint. Moreover, the fact that England was unable
   to enforce certain of her acts, especially the Molasses Act,
   caused contempt for parliamentary authority. The continued
   and, by the very nature of things, the necessary violation of
   this law lead to a questioning of its sanction, while the open
   favoritism shown in it towards the West India colonies
   naturally aroused disaffection in those of the continent. The
   colonial system, as it was administered before 1763,
   contributed but slightly in bringing about the revolution of
   1776. As Mr. Ramsay has said, 'if no other grievances had been
   superadded to what existed in 1763, they would have been soon
   forgotten, for their pressure was neither great, nor
   universal. It was only when the fundamental basis of the acts
   was changed from one of commercial monopoly to one of revenue,
   that the acts became of vital political importance."

      _G. L. Beer,
      The Commercial Policy of England toward
      the American Colonies
      (Columbia College Studies in History, etc.,
      volume 3, number 2), chapter 7, section 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Determination in England to tax the colonies.
   The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.-"

   It did not take four years after the peace of 1763 to show how
   rapidly the new situation of affairs was bearing fruit in
   America. … The overthrow of their ancient enemy [the French in
   Canada], while further increasing the self-confidence of the
   Americans, at the same time removed the principal check which
   had hitherto kept their differences with the British
   government from coming to an open rupture. Formerly the dread
   of French attack had tended to make the Americans complaisant
   toward the king's ministers, while at the same time it made
   the king's ministers unwilling to lose the good will of the
   Americans. Now that the check was removed, the continuance or
   revival of the old disputes at once foreboded trouble; and the
   old occasions for dispute were far from having ceased. On the
   contrary the war itself had given them fresh vitality. If
   money had been needed before, it was still more needed now.
   The war had entailed a heavy burden of expense upon the
   British government as well as upon the colonies. The national
   debt of Great Britain was much increased, and there were many
   who thought that, since the Americans shared in the benefits
   of the war, they ought also to share in the burden which it
   left behind it. People in England who used this argument did
   not realize that the Americans had really contributed as much
   as could reasonably be expected to the support of the war, and
   that it had left behind it debts to be paid in America as well
   as in England. But there was another argument which made it
   seem reasonable to many Englishmen that the colonists should
   be taxed. It seemed right that a small military force should
   be kept up in America, for defence of the frontiers against
   the Indians, even if there were no other enemies to be
   dreaded. The events of Pontiac's war now showed that there was
   clearly need of such a force; and the experience of the royal
   governors for half a century had shown that it was very
   difficult to get the colonial legislatures to vote money for
   any such purpose. Hence there grew up in England a feeling
   that taxes ought to be raised in America as a contribution to
   the war debt and to the military defence of the colonies; and
   in order that such taxes should be fairly distributed and
   promptly collected, it was felt that the whole business ought
   to be placed under the direct supervision and control of
   parliament. … It was in 1763 that George Grenville became
   prime minister, a man of whom Macaulay says that he knew of
   'no national interests except those which are expressed by
   pounds, shillings, and pence.' Grenville proceeded to
   introduce into Parliament two measures which had consequences
   of which he little dreamed. The first of these measures was
   the Molasses Act [often called the Sugar Act], the second was
   the Stamp Act. Properly speaking, the Molasses Act was an old
   law which Grenville now made up his mind to revive and
   enforce. The commercial wealth of the New England colonies
   depended largely upon their trade with the fish which their
   fishermen caught along the coast and as far out as the banks
   of Newfoundland. The finest fish could be sold in Europe, but
   the poorer sort found their chief market in the French West
   Indies.
{3182}
   The French government, in order to ensure a market for the
   molasses raised in these islands, would not allow the planters
   to give any thing else in exchange for fish. Great quantities
   of molasses were therefore carried to New England, and what
   was not needed there for domestic use was distilled into rum,
   part of which was consumed at home, and the rest carried
   chiefly to Africa wherewith to buy slaves to be sold to the
   southern colonies. All this trade required many ships, and
   thus kept up a lively demand for New England lumber, besides
   finding employment for thousands of sailors and shipwrights.
   Now in 1733 the British government took it into its head to
   'protect' its sugar planters in the English West Indies by
   compelling the New England merchants to buy all their molasses
   from them; and with this end in view it forthwith laid upon
   all sugar and molasses imported into North America from the
   French islands a duty so heavy that, if it had been enforced,
   it would have stopped all such importation. … It proved to be
   impossible to enforce the act without causing more disturbance
   than the government felt prepared to encounter. Now in 1764
   Grenville announced that the act was to be enforced, and of
   course the machinery of writs of assistance was to be employed
   for that purpose. Henceforth all molasses from the French
   islands must either pay the prohibitory duty or be seized
   without ceremony. Loud and fierce was the indignation of New
   England over this revival of the Molasses Act. Even without
   the Stamp Act, it might very likely have led that part of the
   country to make armed resistance, but in such case it is not
   so sure that the southern and middle colonies would have come
   to the aid of New England. But in the Stamp Act, Grenville
   provided the colonies with an issue which concerned one as
much as another."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 6, chapters 2-3 (volume 5)._

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
   The climax of the mercantile colonial policy of England,
   and its consequences.

   "Historians, in treating of the American rebellion, have
   confined their arguments too exclusively to the question of
   internal taxation, and the right or policy of exercising this
   prerogative. The true source of the rebellion lay deeper, in
   our traditional colonial policy. Just as the Spaniards had
   been excited to the discovery of America by the hope of
   obtaining gold and silver, the English merchants utilized the
   discovery by the same fallacious method, and with the same
   fallacious aspirations. … A hundred years ago the commercial
   classes believed that the prime object of their pursuits was
   to get as much gold and silver into England as they could.
   They sought, therefore, to make their country, as nearly as
   they might, a solitary centre of the exportation of
   non-metallic commodities, that so she might be also the great
   reservoir into which the precious metals would flow in a
   return stream. On this base their colonial policy was erected.
   … So long as the colonies remained in their infancy the
   mercantile policy was less prejudicial to their interests. The
   monopoly of their commerce, the limitation of their markets,
   the discouragement of their manufactures, in some cases
   amounting to absolute prohibition, were all less fatal in a
   country where labour was dear, than they would be in a state
   where population was more fully developed and land had become
   scarcer. … A contraband trade sprung up between them and the
   colonies of Spain. Our settlers imported goods from England,
   and re-exported them to the Spanish colonies, in return for
   bullion and other commodities. The result of this was that the
   Spanish colonists had access to useful commodities from which
   they would otherwise have been debarred, that the American
   colonists could without distress remit the specie which was
   required by the nature of their dealings with England, and
   that a large market was opened for English products. This
   widely beneficial trade was incontinently suppressed in 1764,
   by one of those efforts of short-sighted rigour which might be
   expected from any government where George Grenville's
   influence was prominent. All smuggling was to be put down, and
   as this trade was contraband, it must be put down like the
   rest. The Government probably acted as they did in answer to
   the prayers of the mercantile classes, who could not see that
   they were cutting off the streams that fed their own
   prosperity. They only saw that a colonial trade had sprung up,
   and their jealousy blinded them to the benefits that accrued
   to themselves as a consequence of it. Their folly found them
   out. The suppression of the colonial trade was entrusted to
   the commanders of men-of-war. … We may be sure that the
   original grievance of the colonists was not softened by the
   manners of the officers who had to put the law into execution.
   The result of the whole transaction was the birth of a very
   strong sense in the minds of the colonists that the mother
   country looked upon them as a sponge to be squeezed. This
   conviction took more than a passing hold upon them. It was
   speedily inflamed into inextinguishable heat, first by the
   news that they were to be taxed without their own consent, and
   next by the tyrannical and atrocious measures by which it was
   proposed to crush their resistance. The rebellion may be
   characterised as having first originated in the blind
   greediness of the English merchants, and as having then been
   precipitated by the arbitrary ideas of the patricians, in the
   first instance, and afterwards of the King and the least
   educated of the common people. If the severe pressure of the
   mercantile policy, unflinchingly carried out, had not first
   filled the colonists with resentment and robbed them of their
   prosperity, the imperial claim to impose taxes would probably
   have been submitted to without much ado. And if the
   suppression of their trade in 1764 had not been instantly
   followed by Grenville's plan for extorting revenue from them,
   they would probably in time have been reconciled to the blow
   which had been dealt to their commerce. It was the conjunction
   of two highly oppressive pieces of policy which taught them
   that they would certainly lose more by tame compliance than
   they could possibly lose by an active resistance."

      _J. Morley,
      Edmund Burke,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Massey,
      History of England, Reign of George III.,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

{3183}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
   Patriotic self-denials.

   "Upon the news of the intention to lay [the Stamp Tax] … on
   the colonies, many people, the last year, had associated, and
   engaged to forbear the importation, or consumption, of English
   goods; and particularly to break off from the custom of
   wearing black clothes, or other mourning [it being generally
   of British manufacture—Foot-note], upon the death of
   relations. This agreement was then signed by some of the
   council, and representatives, and by great numbers of people
   in the town of Boston, and the disuse of mourning soon became
   general. This was intended to alarm the manufacturers in
   England. And now [in 1765], an agreement was made, and signed
   by a great proportion of the inhabitants of Boston, to eat no
   lamb during the year. This was in order to increase the
   growth, and, of course, the manufacture of wool in the
   province. Neither of these measures much served the purpose
   for which they were professedly intended, but they served to
   unite the people in an unfavourable opinion of parliament."

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
      pages 116-117._

   The movement thus started in Boston before the passage of the
   Stamp Act spread rapidly through the other provinces after the
   Act had been passed, and continued to be for several years a
   very serious expression of colonial patriotism and opposition
   to the oppressive policy of the mother country.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
   The Stamp Act.

   "The scheme of the imposition by Parliament of a tax on the
   American colonists to be collected by stamps was not a new
   one. Nearly forty years before this time, 'Sir William Keith,
   the late Governor of Pennsylvania, presented an elaborate
   disquisition to the King … proposing the extension of the
   stamp duties to the Colonies by Act of Parliament.' It had
   been one of the projects of the factious Dunbar, during his
   short career of turbulence and intrigue in New Hampshire.
   Governor Sharpe of Maryland and Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia
   had recommended a resort to it at the time of the abortive
   movement for a union of the Colonies. Its renewal at this time
   has been said to have been especially due to Charles
   Jenkinson, then only private secretary to Lord Bute, but who
   rose afterwards to be Earl of Liverpool. The project, as now
   resolved upon, was pursued with inconsiderate obstinacy,
   though it encountered a spirited debate when it was brought
   into the House of Commons [February, 1765]. … The bill was
   pending in the House between three and four weeks, at the end
   of which time it was passed, the largest number of votes which
   had been given against it in any stage of its progress not
   having amounted to fifty. It was concurred in by the House of
   Lords, where it appears to have met no resistance, and in due
   course [March 22] received the royal assent. No apprehension
   of consequences counselled a pause. The Stamp Act—as it has
   ever since been called by eminence—provided … for the payment,
   by British subjects in America to the English Exchequer, of
   specified sums, greater or less, in consideration of obtaining
   validity for each of the common transactions of business."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 6, chapter 3 (volume 5)._

   The following is the text of the Stamp Act:

   Whereas, by an act made in the last session of parliament,
   several duties were granted, continued, and appropriated,
   towards defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and
   securing the British colonies and plantations in America: and
   whereas, it is first necessary, that provision be made for
   raising a further revenue within your majesty's dominions in
   America, towards defraying the said expenses; we, your
   majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of
   Great Britain, in parliament assembled, have therefore
   resolved, to give and grant unto your majesty the several
   rites and duties hereinafter mentioned; and do most humbly
   beseech your majesty that it may be enacted, And be it
   enacted, by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the
   advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and
   commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the
   authority of the same, That from and after the first day of
   November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, there
   shall be raised, levied, collected and paid, unto his majesty,
   his heirs and successors, throughout the colonies and
   plantations in America, which now are, or hereafter may be,
   under the dominion of his majesty, his heirs and successors.

   1. For every skin of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of
   paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any
   declaration, plea, replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other
   pleading, or any copy thereof, in any court of law within the
   British colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of
   three pence.

   2. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any special bail, and appearance upon such bail in
   any such court, a stamp duty of two shillings.

   3. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which may be engrossed, written or printed,
   any petition, bill, or answer, claim, plea, replication,
   rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, in any court of
   chancery or equity, within the said colonies and plantations,
   a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.

   4. For every skin or piece of vellum, or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any copy of any petition, bill, answer, claim, plea,
   replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, in any
   such court, a stamp duty of three pence.

   5. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any monition, libel, answer, allegation, inventory,
   or renunciation, in ecclesiastical matters, in any court of
   probate, court of the ordinary, or other court exercising
   ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the said colonies and
   plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling.

   6. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any copy of any will, (other than the probate
   thereof,) monition, libel, answer, allegation, inventory, or
   renunciation, in ecclesiastical matters, in any such court, a
   stamp duty of six pence.

   7. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any donation, presentation, collation or institution,
   of or to any benefice, or any writ or instrument for the like
   purpose, or any register, entry, testimonial or certificate of
   any degree taken in any university, academy, college, or seminary
   of learning, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp
   duty of two pounds.

{3184}

   8. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any monition, libel, claim, answer, allegation,
   information, letter of request, execution, renunciation,
   inventory, or other pleading, in any admiralty court within
   the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one
   shilling.

   9. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
   piece of paper, on which any copy of any such monition, libel,
   claim, answer, allegation, information, letter of request,
   execution, renunciation, inventory or other pleading, shall be
   engrossed, written or printed, a stamp duty of six pence.

   10. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any appeal, writ of error, writ of dower, 'ad quod
   damnum,' certiorari, statute merchant, statute staple,
   attestation, or certificate, by any officer, or
   exemplification of any record or proceeding, in any court
   whatsoever within the said colonies and plantations, (except
   appeals, writs of error, certiorari, attestations,
   certificates, and exemplifications, for, or relating to the
   removal of any proceedings from before a single justice of the
   peace,) a stamp duty of ten shillings.

   11. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any writ of covenant for levying fines, writ of entry
   for suffering a common recovery, or attachment issuing out of,
   or returnable into any court within the said colonies and
   plantations, a stamp duty of five shillings.

   12. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   of piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any judgment, decree, or sentence, or dismission, or
   any record of nisi prius or postea, in any court within the
   said colonies or plantations, a stamp duty of four shillings.

   13. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any affidavit, common bail, or appearance,
   interrogatory, deposition, rule, order or warrant of any
   court, or any 'dedimus potestatem,' capias, subpæna, summons,
   compulsory citation, commission, recognisance, or any other
   writ, process, or mandate, issuing out of, or returnable into,
   any court, or any office belonging thereto, or any other
   proceeding therein whatsoever, or any copy thereof, or of any
   record not herein before charged, within the said colonies and
   plantations, (except warrants relating to criminal matters,
   and proceedings thereon, or relation thereto,) a stamp duty of
   one shilling.

   14. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any note or bill of lading, which shall be signed for
   any kind of goods, wares, or merchandize, to be exported from,
   or any docket or clearance granted within the said colonies
   and plantations, a stamp duty of four pence.

   15. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, letters of mart or commission for private ships of
   war, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of
   twenty shillings.

   16. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any grant, appointment, or admission of or to any
   public beneficial office or employment, for the space of one
   year, or any lesser time, of or above twenty pounds per annum,
   sterling money, in salary, fees, and perquisites, within the
   said colonies and plantations, (except commissions and
   appointments of officers of the army, navy, ordnance, or
   militia, of judges, and of justices of the peace,) a stamp
   duty of ten shillings.

   17. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which any grant of any liberty,
   privilege, or franchise, under the seal or sign manual, of any
   governor, proprietor, or public officer, alone, or in
   conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any
   council, or any council and assembly, or any exemplification
   of the same, shall be engrossed, written, or printed, within
   the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of six pounds.

   18. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or' piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any license for retailing of spirituous liquors, to
   be granted to any person who shall take out the same, within
   the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of twenty
   shillings.

   19. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any license for retailing of wine, to be granted to
   any person who shall not take out a license for retailing of
   spirituous liquors, within the said colonies and plantations,
   a stamp duty of four pounds.

   20. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any license for retailing of wine, to be granted to
   any person who shall take out a license for retailing of
   spirituous liquors, within the said colonies and plantations,
   a stamp duty of three pounds.

   21. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any probate of wills, letters of administration, or
   of guardianship for any estate above the value of twenty
   pounds sterling money, within the British colonies [and]
   plantations upon the continent of America, the islands
   belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and Bahama islands, a stamp
   duty of five shillings.

   22. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such probate, letters of administration or of
   guardianship, within all other parts of the British dominions
   in America, a stamp duty of ten shillings.

   23. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of
   money, not exceeding the sum of ten pounds sterling money,
   within the British colonies and plantations upon the continent
   of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and
   Bahama islands, a stamp duty of six pence.

{3185}

   24. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money
   above ten pounds, and not exceeding twenty pounds sterling
   money, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp
   duty of one shilling.

   25. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money
   above twenty pounds, and not exceeding forty pounds sterling
   money, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp
   duty of one shilling and six pence.

   26. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any order or warrant for surveying or setting out any
   quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, issued by
   any governor, proprietor, or any public officer, alone, or in
   conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any
   council, or any council and assembly, within the British
   colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of six
   pence.

   27. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such order or warrant for surveying or setting
   out any quantity of land above one hundred and not exceeding
   two hundred acres, within the said colonies and plantations, a
   stamp duty of one shilling.

   28. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such order or warrant for surveying or setting
   out any quantity of land above two hundred and not exceeding
   three hundred and twenty acres, and in proportion for every
   such order or warrant for surveying or setting out every other
   three hundred and twenty acres, within the said colonies and
   plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.

   29. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any original grant or deed, mesne conveyance, or
   other instrument whatever, by which any quantity of land, not
   exceeding one hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or
   assigned, within the British colonies and plantations upon the
   continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the
   Bermuda and Bahama islands (except leases for any term not
   exceeding the term of twenty-one years) a stamp duty of one
   shilling and six pence.

   30. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
   quantity of land, above one hundred and not exceeding two
   hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within
   such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of two
   shillings.

   31. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
   quantity of land, above two hundred, and not exceeding three
   hundred and twenty acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or
   assigned, and in proportion for every such grant, deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument, granting, conveying or
   assigning every other three hundred and twenty acres, within
   such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of two
   shillings and six pence.

   32. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
   quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, shall be
   granted, conveyed, or assigned, within all other parts of the
   British dominions in America, a stamp duty of three shillings.

   33. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
   printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
   quantity of land, above one hundred and not exceeding two
   hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within
   the same parts of the said dominions, a stamp duty of four
   shillings.

   34. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
   quantity of land, above two hundred and not exceeding three
   hundred and twenty acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or
   assigned, and in proportion for every such grant, deed, mesne
   conveyance, or other instrument, granting, conveying, or
   assigning every other three hundred and twenty acres, within
   the same parts of the said dominions, a stamp duty of five
   shillings.

   35. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any grant, appointment, or admission, of or to any
   beneficial office or employment, not hereinbefore charged,
   above the value of twenty pounds per annum sterling money, in
   salary, fees, or perquisites, or any exemplification of the
   same, within the British colonies and plantations upon the
   continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the
   Bermuda and Bahama islands, (except commissions of officers of
   the army, navy, ordnance, or militia, and of justices of the
   peace,) a stamp duty of four pounds.

   36. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any such grant, appointment, or admission, of or to
   any such public beneficial office or employment, or any
   exemplification of the same, within all other parts of the
   British dominions in America, a stamp duty of six pounds.

   37. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any indenture, lease, conveyance, contract,
   stipulation, bill of sale, charter party, protest, articles of
   apprenticeship or covenant, (except for the hire of servants
   not apprentices, and also except such other matters as
   hereinbefore charged,) within the British colonies and
   plantations in America, a stamp duty of two shillings and six
   pence.

{3186}

   38. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which any warrant or order for auditing
   any public accounts, beneficial warrant, order, grant, or
   certificate, under any public seal, or under the seal or sign
   manual of any governor, proprietor, or public officer, alone,
   or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or with
   any council, or any council and assembly, not herein before
   charged, or any passport or let pass, surrender of office, or
   policy of assurance, shall be engrossed, written, or printed,
   within the said colonies and plantations, (except warrants or
   orders for the service of the army, navy, ordnance, or
   militia, and grants of offices under twenty pounds per annum,
   in salary, fees, and perquisite,) a stamp duty of five
   shillings.

   39. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any notarial act, bond, deed, letter of attorney,
   procuration, mortgage, release, or other obligatory
   instrument, not herein before charged, within the said
   colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two shillings and
   three pence.

   40. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any register, entry, or enrolment of any grant, deed,
   or other instrument whatsoever, herein before charged, within
   the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of three
   pence.

   41. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
   printed, any register, entry, or enrolment of any grant, deed,
   or other instrument whatsoever not herein before charged,
   within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two
   shillings.

   42. And for and upon every pack of playing cards, and all
   dice, which shall be sold or used within the said colonies and
   plantations, the several stamp duties following: (that is to
   say,)

   43. For every pack of such cards, one shilling.

   44. And for every pair of such dice, ten shillings.

   45. And for and upon every paper called a pamphlet, and upon
   every newspaper, containing public news, or occurrences, which
   shall be printed, dispersed, and made public, within any of
   the said colonies and plantations, and for and upon such
   advertisements as are hereinafter mentioned, the respective
   duties following; (that is to say,)

   46. For every such pamphlet and paper, contained in a half
   sheet, or any lesser piece of paper, which shall be so
   printed, a stamp duty of one half penny for every printed copy
   thereof.

   47. For every such pamphlet and paper, (being larger than half
   a sheet, and not exceeding one whole sheet,) which shall be so
   printed, a stamp duty of one penny for every printed copy
   thereof.

   48. For every pamphlet and paper, being larger than one whole
   sheet, and not exceeding six sheets in octavo, or in a lesser
   page, or not exceeding twelve sheets in quarto, or twenty
   sheets in folio, which shall be so printed, a duty after the
   rate of one shilling for every sheet of any kind of paper
   which shall be contained in one printed copy thereof.

   49. For every advertisement to be contained in any gazette,
   newspaper, or other paper, or any pamphlet which shall be so
   printed, a duty of two shillings.

   50. For every almanac or calendar, for any one particular
   year, or for any time less than a year, which shall be written
   or printed on one side only of any one sheet, skin, or piece
   of paper, parchment, or vellum, within the said colonies and
   plantations, a stamp duty of two pence.

   51. For every other almanac, or calendar, for any one
   particular year, which shall be written or printed within the
   said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of four pence.

   52. And for every almanac or calendar, written or printed in
   the said colonies and plantations, to serve for several years,
   duties to the same amount respectively shall be paid for every
   such year.

   53. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
   or piece of paper, on which any instrument, proceeding, or
   other matter or thing aforesaid, shall be engrossed, written,
   or printed, within the said colonies and plantations, in any
   other than the English language, a stamp duty of double the
   amount of the respective duties before charged thereon.

   54. And there shall be also paid, in the said colonies and
   plantations, a duty of six pence for every twenty shillings,
   in any sum not exceeding fifty pounds sterling money, which
   shall be given, paid, contracted, or agreed for, with or in
   relation to any clerk or apprentice, which shall be put or
   placed to or with any master or mistress, to learn any
   profession, trade, or employment. 2. And also a duty of one
   shilling for every twenty shillings, in any sum exceeding
   fifty pounds, which shall be given, paid, contracted, or
   agreed for, with, or in relation to, any such clerk or
   apprentice.

   55. Finally, the produce of all the aforementioned duties
   shall be paid into his majesty's treasury; and there held in
   reserve, to be used, from time to time, by the parliament, for
   the purpose of defraying the expenses necessary for the
   defense, protection, and security of the said colonies and
   plantations.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
   News of the Stamp Act in the Colonies.
   Colonel Barre's speech and the Sons of Liberty.
   Patrick Henry's speech in the Virginia Assembly.
   Formal protests and informal mob-doings in Philadelphia,
   New York and Boston.

   In the course of the debate in the British House of Commons,
   on the Stamp Act, February 6, 1765, Charles Townshend, after
   discussing the advantages which the American colonies had
   derived from the late war, asked the question: "And now will
   these American children, planted by our care, nourished up to
   strength and opulence by our indulgence, and protected by our
   arms, grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the
   heavy burden under which we lie?" This called to his feet
   Colonel Isaac Barre who had served in America with Wolfe, and
   who had a knowledge of the country and people which most
   members of Parliament lacked. "They planted by your care!"
   exclaimed Barré. "No: your oppressions planted them in
   America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated,
   unhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost
   all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and, among
   others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle,
   and, I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any
   people upon the face of God's earth; and yet, actuated by
   principles of true English liberty, they met all hardships
   with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own
   country from the hands of those who should have been their
   friends.
{3187}
   They nourished up by your indulgence! They grew by your
   neglect of them. As soon as you began to care about them, that
   care was exercised in sending persons to rule them in one
   department and another, who were, perhaps, the deputies of
   deputies to some members of this house, sent to spy out their
   liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon
   them; men whose behavior on many occasions has caused the
   blood of those sons of Liberty to recoil within them; men
   promoted to the highest seats of justice, some who, to my
   knowledge, were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape
   being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own.
   They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in
   your defence; have exerted a valor amidst their constant and
   laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose
   frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts
   yielded all its little savings to your emolument. And believe
   me—remember I this day told you so—the same spirit of freedom
   which actuated that people at first will accompany them still.
   But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I
   do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I
   deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However
   superior to me in general knowledge and experience the
   respectable body of this house may be, yet I claim to know
   more of America than most of you, having seen and been
   conversant in that country. The people, I believe, are as
   truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous
   of their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they
   should be violated. But the subject is too delicate; I will
   say no more." Notes of Colonel Barré's speech were taken by a
   Mr. Ingersoll, one of the agents for Connecticut, who sat in
   the gallery. He sent home a report of it, which was published
   in the newspapers at New London, and soon the name of the
   "Sons of Liberty," which the eloquent defender of the
   resisting colonists had given to them, was on every lip.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, chapter 8._

   "Meantime [in 1765], 'The Sons of Liberty'—a term that grew
   into use soon after the publication of Barre's speech—were
   entering into associations to resist, by all lawful means, the
   execution of the Stamp Act. They were long kept secret, which
   occasioned loyalists to say that there was a private union
   among a certain sect of republican principles from one end of
   the continent to the other. As they increased in numbers, they
   grew in boldness and publicity, announcing in the newspapers
   their committees of correspondence, and interchanging solemn
   pledges of support."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      page 183._

   The Stamp Act was passed March 22, 1765. A copy of it was
   printed in the 'Pennsylvania Gazette' on April 18th, but this
   must necessarily have been in advance of news of its passage.
   The people of Philadelphia began at once to show their
   determination to make it [the Stamp Act] a nullity so far as
   revenue was concerned. An enforced frugality was the first
   step. … In the 'Pennsylvania Gazette' of April 18th there was
   an article against expensive and ostentatious funerals, the
   writer saying that often £70 or £100 were squandered on such
   occasions. August 15th, when Alderman William Plumsted was
   buried at St. Peter's Church, the funeral, by his own wish,
   was conducted in the plainest way, no pall, no mourning worn
   by relatives. In March, the Hibernia Fire Company resolved,
   'from motives of economy, and to reduce the present high price
   of mutton and encourage the breweries of Pennsylvania, not to
   purchase any lamb this season, nor to drink any foreign beer:
   Other fire companies and many citizens copied this example. …
   On October 25th the merchants and traders of Philadelphia
   subscribed to a non-importation agreement, such as were then
   being signed all over the country. In this article the
   subscribers agreed that, in consequence of the late acts of
   Parliament and the injurious regulations accompanying them,
   and of the Stamp Act, etc., in justice to themselves and in
   hopes of benefit from their example
   (1) to countermand all orders for English goods until the
   Stamp Act should be repealed;
   (2) a few necessary articles, or shipped under peculiar
   circumstances, are excepted;
   (3) no goods received for sale on commission to be disposed of
   until the Stamp Act should be repealed; and this agreement to
   be binding on each and all, as a pledge of word of honor."

      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

   The first stern note of defiance came from Virginia. Patrick
   Henry had lately been elected to the colonial assembly. Having
   waited in vain for the older leaders of the house to move in
   the matter of expressing the feeling of the colony on the
   subject, on the 29th of May, when the session was within three
   days of its expected close, "Mr. Henry introduced his
   celebrated resolutions on the stamp act. I will not withhold
   from the reader a note of this transaction from the pen of Mr.
   Henry himself. It is a curiosity, and highly worthy of
   preservation. After his death, there was found among his
   papers one sealed, and thus endorsed: 'Enclosed are the
   resolutions of the Virginia assembly in 1765, concerning the
   stamp act. Let my executors open this paper.' Within was found
   the following copy of the resolutions, in Mr. Henry's
   handwriting:—'Resolved, That the first adventurers and
   settlers of this, his majesty's colony and dominion, brought
   with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other
   his majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in this, his
   majesty's said colony, all the privileges, franchises, and
   immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and
   possessed by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, That by
   two royal charters, granted by King James I., the colonists,
   aforesaid, are declared entitled to all the privileges,
   liberties, and immunities of denizens and natural-born
   subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been
   abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, That
   the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen
   by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes
   the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of raising
   them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is
   the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, and
   without which the ancient constitution cannot subsist.
{3188}
   Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this most ancient
colony, have uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being thus
   governed by their own assembly, in the article of their taxes
   and internal police, and that the same hath never been
   forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath been constantly
   recognised by the king and people of Great Britain. Resolved,
   therefore, That the general assembly of this colony have the
   sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the
   inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest
   such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the
   general assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy
   British as well as American freedom.' On the back of the paper
   containing these resolutions, is the following endorsement,
   which is also in the handwriting of Mr. Henry himself:—'The
   within resolutions passed the house of burgesses in May, 1765.
   They formed the first opposition to the stamp act, and the
   scheme of taxing America by the British parliament. All the
   colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form
   an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had
   remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a
   burgess, a few days before, was young, inexperienced,
   unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that
   composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition,
   and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person
   was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone,
   unadvised, and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law-book
   wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent
   debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast
   on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm
   contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority,
   perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout
   America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party
   were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British
   taxation was universally established in the colonies. This
   brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries,
   and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a
   blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make
   of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If
   they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a
   contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness
   alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! whoever thou art,
   remember this; and in thy sphere, practise virtue thyself, and
   encourage it in others.—P. Henry.' Such is the short, plain,
   and modest account which Mr. Henry has left of this
   transaction. … It is not wonderful that even the friends of
   colonial rights who knew the feeble and defenceless situation
   of this country should be startled at a step so bold and
   daring. That effect was produced; and the resolutions were
   resisted, not only by the aristocracy of the house, but by
   many of those who were afterward distinguished among the
   brightest champions of American liberty. The following is Mr.
   Jefferson's account of this transaction: 'Mr. Henry moved and
   Mr. Johnston seconded these resolutions successively. They
   were opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Bland, Pendleton, Wythe, and
   all the old members, whose influence in the house had, till
   then, been unbroken. They did it, not from any question of our
   rights, but on the ground that the same sentiments had been,
   at their preceding session, expressed in a more conciliatory
   form, to which the answers were not yet received. But torrents
   of sublime eloquence from Henry, backed by the solid reasoning
   of Johnston, prevailed. The last, however, and strongest
   resolution was carried but by a single vote. The debate on it
   was most bloody. I was then but a student, and stood at the
   door of communication between the house and the lobby (for as
   yet there was no gallery) during the whole debate and vote;
   and I well remember that, after the numbers on the division
   were told and declared from the chair, Peyton Randolph (the
   attorney-general) came out at the door where I was standing,
   and said, as he entered the lobby: "By God, I would have given
   500 guineas for a single vote": for one would have divided the
   house, and Robinson was in the chair, who he knew would have
   negatived the resolution. Mr. Henry left town that evening;
   and the next morning, before the meeting of the house, Colonel
   Peter Randolph, then of the council, came to the hall of
   burgesses, and sat at the clerk's table till the house-bell
   rang, thumbing over the volumes of journals, to find a
   precedent for expunging a vote of the house. … Some of the
   timid members, who had voted for the strongest resolution, had
   become alarmed; and as soon as the house met, a motion was
   made and carried to expunge it from the journals.' … The
   manuscript journal of the day is not to be found; whether it
   was suppressed, or casually lost, must remain a matter of
   uncertainty; it disappeared, however, shortly after the
   session. … In the interesting fact of the erasure of the fifth
   resolution, Mr. Jefferson is supported by the distinct
   recollection of Mr. Paul Carrington, late a judge of the court
   of appeals of Virginia. and the only surviving member, it is
   believed, of the house of burgesses of 1765. The statement is
   also confirmed, if indeed further confirmation were necessary,
   by the circumstance that instead of the five resolutions, so
   solemnly recorded by Mr. Henry, as having passed the house,
   the journal of the day exhibits only … four. … 'By these
   resolutions,' says Mr. Jefferson, 'and his manner of
   supporting them, Mr. Henry took the lead out of the hands of
   those who had, theretofore, guided the proceedings of the
   house; that is to say, of Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, Randolph.'
   It was, indeed, the measure which raised him to the zenith of
   his glory. He had never before had a subject which entirely
   matched his genius, and was capable of drawing out all the
   powers of his mind. … It was in the midst of this magnificent
   debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the
   obnoxious act, that he exclaimed in a voice of thunder, and
   with the look of a god: 'Cesar had his Brutus—Charles the
   First, his Cromwell—and George the Third—('Treason!' cried the
   speaker—'Treason, treason!' echoed from every part of the
   house. It was one of those trying moments which is decisive of
   character. Henry faltered not for an instant; but rising to a
   loftier attitude, and fixing on the speaker an eye of the most
   determined fire, he finished his sentence with the firmest
   emphasis)—may profit by their example. If this be treason,
   make the most of it.' This was the only expression of defiance
   which escaped him during the debate. He was, throughout life,
   one of the most perfectly and uniformly decorous speakers that
   ever took the floor of the house. … From the period of which
   we have been speaking, Mr. Henry became the idol of the people
   of Virginia; nor was his name confined to his native state.
   His light and heat were seen and felt throughout the
   continent; and he was every where regarded as the great
   champion of colonial liberty."

      _W. Wirt,
      Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry,
      section 2._

{3189}

   "The publication of Mr. Henry's resolutions against the Stamp
   Act created a widespread and intense excitement. They were
   hailed as the action of the oldest, and hitherto the most
   loyal of the colonies; and as raising a standard of resistance
   to the detested Act. Mr. Otis pronounced them treasonable, and
   this was the verdict of the Government party. But, treasonable
   or not, they struck a chord which vibrated throughout America.
   Hutchinson declared that, 'nothing extravagant appeared in the
   papers till an account was received of the Virginia resolves.'
   Soon the bold exclamation of Mr. Henry in moving them was
   published, and he was hailed as the leader raised up by
   Providence for the occasion. The 'Boston Gazette' declared:
   'The people of Virginia have spoken very sensibly, and the
   frozen politicians of a more northern government say they have
   spoken treason.' But the people were no longer to be held down
   by 'the frozen politicians,' north or south. They commenced to
   form secret societies pledged to the resistance of the Act by
   all lawful means, which we called 'The Sons of Liberty.'"

      _W. W. Henry,
      Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches,
      volume 1, pages 93-94._

   At New York, "in May articles began to appear in the papers
   congratulating the public on the patriotic and frugal spirit
   that was beginning to reign in the Province of New York. The
   principal gentlemen of the city clad themselves in country
   manufactures or 'turned clothes.' Weyman printed in large type
   in his paper, the New York Gazette, the patriotic motto 'It is
   better to wear a homespun coat than lose our liberty.'
   Spinning was daily in vogue; materials being more wanting than
   industrial hands; a need the farmers were endeavoring to
   remedy by sewing more flax seed and keeping more sheep, and
   finally we notice the odd statement 'that little lamb came to
   market as no true lovers of their country or whose sympathetic
   breasts feel for its distresses will buy it, and that
   sassafras, balm and sage were greatly in use instead of tea
   and allowed to be more wholesome.' Funerals and mourning,
   which were then expensive luxuries, were modified and their
   extravagance curtailed. The Society for promoting Arts and
   Manufactures resolved to establish a bleaching field and to
   erect a flax spinning school where the poor children of the
   city should be taught the art. They also ordered large numbers
   of spinning wheels to be made and loaned to all who would use
   them. In September we find it announced that women's shoes
   were made, cheaper and better than the renowned Hoses,' by
   Wells, Lasher, Bolton, and Davis, and that there was a good
   assortment on hand; that boots and men's shoes were made, in
   every quarter of the city, better than the English made for
   foreign sale; wove thread stockings in sundry places; the
   making of linen, woolen, and cotton stuffs was fast
   increasing; gloves, hats, carriages, harness and cabinet work
   were plenty. The people were now self dependent; cards now
   appeared recommending that no true friend of his country
   should buy or import English goods, and the dry goods men were
   warned that their importations would lie on hand to their cost
   and ruin. There being now a sufficiency of home made goods it
   was proposed on the 19th October to establish a market for all
   kinds of Home Manufactures; and a market was opened under the
   Exchange in Broad Street on the 23d. From the shortness of the
   notice the design was not sufficiently known in the country
   and there was neither plenty nor variety; but numbers of
   buyers appeared and everything went off readily at good
   prices. The gentlemen merchants of the city, as they were
   styled, were not behind any class in patriotism or sacrifice.
   A meeting was called for Monday 28th October at Jones' house
   in the Fields, 'The Freemasons Arms,' but the attendance,
   owing to the short notice, not being sufficient to enter upon
   business, they were again summoned on the 30th October to meet
   the next day at four o'clock at Mr. Burns' long room at the
   City Arms to fall upon such methods as they shall then think
   most advisable for their reciprocal interest. On the 31st
   there was a general meeting of the principal merchants at this
   tavern, which was known under the various names of the City
   Arms, the Province Arms, the New York Arms, and stood on the
   upper corner of Broadway and Stone, now Thames street, on the
   site later occupied by the City Hotel. Resolutions were
   adopted and subscribed by upwards of two hundred of the
   principal merchants; 1st, to accompany all orders to Great
   Britain for goods or merchandize of any nature kind or quality
   whatever with instructions that they be not shipped unless the
   Stamp Act be repealed; 2nd, to countermand all outstanding
   orders unless on the conditions mentioned in the foregoing
   resolution; 3rd, not to vend any goods sent on commission,
   shipped after the 1st January succeeding, unless upon the same
   condition. In consequence of these resolutions the retailers
   of goods subscribed a paper obliging themselves not to buy any
   goods, wares or merchandize after the 1st January unless the
   Stamp Act were repealed. This was the first of the famous Non
   Importation Agreement, the great commercial measure of offense
   and defense against Great Britain. It punished friends and
   foes alike and plunged a large portion of the English people
   into the deepest distress; at the same time it taught the
   Colonies the value and extent of their own resources."

      _J. A. Stevens,
      The Stamp Act in New York
      (Magazine of American History, June, 1877)._

   The Stamp Act was reprinted in New York "with a death's-head
   upon it in place of the royal arms, and it was hawked about
   the streets under the title of 'The Folly of England and the
   Ruin of America.' In Boston, the church-bells were tolled, and
   the flags on the shipping put at half-mast. But formal
   defiance came first from Virginia." Patrick Henry had just
   been elected to the colonial assembly. "In a committee of the
   whole house, he drew up a series of resolutions, declaring
   that the colonists were entitled to all the liberties and
   privileges of natural-born subjects, and that 'the taxation of
   the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves
   to represent them, … is the distinguishing characteristic of
   British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot
   exist.'
{3190}
   It was further declared that any attempt to vest the power of
   taxation in any other body than the colonial assembly was a
   menace to British no less than to American freedom; that the
   people of Virginia were not bound to obey any law enacted in
   disregard of these fundamental principles; and that anyone who
   should maintain the contrary should be regarded as a public
   enemy. It was in the lively debate which ensued upon these
   resolutions, that Henry uttered those memorable words
   commending the example of Tarquin and Cæsar and Charles I. to
   the attention of George III. Before the vote had been taken
   upon all the resolutions, Governor Fauquier dissolved the
   assembly; but the resolutions were printed in the newspapers,
   and hailed with approval all over the country. Meanwhile, the
   Massachusetts legislature, at the suggestion of Otis, had
   issued a circular letter to all the colonies, calling for a
   general congress, in order to concert measures of resistance
   to the Stamp Act. The first cordial response came from South
   Carolina, at the instance of Christopher Gadsden, a wealthy
   merchant of Charleston and a scholar learned in Oriental
   languages, a man of rare sagacity and most liberal spirit. …
   The first announcement of the Stamp Act had called into
   existence a group of secret societies of workingmen known as
   'Sons of Liberty,' in allusion to a famous phrase in one of
   Colonel Barre's speeches. These societies were solemnly
   pledged to resist the execution of the obnoxious law. On the
   14th of August, the quiet town of Boston witnessed some
   extraordinary proceedings. …

      See LIBERTY TREE.

   Twelve days after, a mob sacked the splendid house of Chief
   Justice Hutchinson, threw his plate into the street, and
   destroyed the valuable library which he had been thirty years
   in collecting, and which contained many manuscripts, the loss
   of which was quite irreparable. As usual with mobs, the
   vengeance fell in the wrong place, for Hutchinson had done his
   best to prevent the passage of the Stamp Act. In most of the
   colonies, the stamp officers were compelled to resign their
   posts. Boxes of stamps arriving by ship were burned or thrown
   into the sea. … In New York, the presence of the troops for a
   moment encouraged the lieutenant-governor, Colden, to take a
   bold stand in behalf of the law. He talked of firing upon the
   people, but was warned that if he did so he would be speedily
   hanged on a lamp-post, like Captain Porteous of Edinburgh. A
   torchlight procession, carrying images of Colden and of the
   devil, broke into the governor's coach-house, and, seizing his
   best chariot, paraded it about town with the images upon it,
   and finally burned up chariot and images on the Bowling Green,
   in full sight of Colden and the garrison, who looked on from
   the Battery, speechless with rage, but afraid to interfere.
   Gage did not dare to have the troops used, for fear of
   bringing on a civil war; and the next day the discomfited
   Colden was obliged to surrender all the stamps to the common
   council of New York, by whom they were at once locked up in
   the City Hall. Nothing more was needed to prove the
   impossibility of carrying the Stamp Act into effect."

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   In Connecticut the stamp agent, Mr. Ingersoll, was compelled
   by a body of armed citizens to resign.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.

      ALSO IN:
      _D. R. Goodloe,
      The Birth of the Republic,
      chapter 1,
      (a compilation of accounts of proceedings in the
      several colonies)._

      _W. Tudor,
      Life of James Otis,
      chapter 14._

      _W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _I. W. Stuart,
      Life of Jonathan Trumbull,
      chapters. 7-8._

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
      pages 117-141. _

      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _M. C. Tyler,
      Patrick Henry,
      chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

   The delegates chosen, on the invitation of Massachusetts, to
   attend a congress for consultation on the circumstances of the
   colonies, met, October 7, 1765, in the City Hall at New York.
   "In no place were the Sons of Liberty more determined, or were
   their opponents more influential. It was the headquarters of
   the British force in America, the commander of which, General
   Gage, wielded the powers of a viceroy. A fort within the city
   was heavily mounted with cannon. Ships of war were moored near
   the wharves. The executive, Lieutenant-governor Colden, was
   resolved to execute the law. When the Massachusetts delegates
   called on him, he remarked that the proposed congress would be
   unconstitutional, and, unprecedented, and he should give it no
   countenance. The congress consisted of twenty-eight delegates
   from nine of the colonies; four, though sympathizing with the
   movement, not choosing representatives. Here several of the
   patriots, who had discussed the American question in their
   localities, met for the first time. James Otis stood in this
   body the foremost speaker. His pen, with the pens of the
   brothers Robert and Phillip Livingston, of New York, were
   summoned to service in a wider field. John Dickinson, of
   Pennsylvania, was soon to be known through the colonies by
   'The Farmer's Letters.' Thomas McKean and Cæsar Rodney were
   pillars of the cause in Delaware. Edward Tilghman was an
   honored name in Maryland. South Carolina, in addition to the
   intrepid Gadsden, had, in Thomas Lynch and John Rutledge, two
   patriots who appear prominently in the subsequent career of
   that colony. Thus this body was graced by large ability,
   genius, learning, and common sense. It was calm in its
   deliberations, seeming unmoved by the whirl of the political
   waters. The congress organized by the choice, by one vote, of
   Timothy Ruggles, a Tory,—as the chairman,—and John Cotton,
   clerk. The second day of its session, it took into
   consideration the rights, privileges, and grievances of the
   British American colonists.' After eleven days' debate, it
   agreed—each colony having one vote—upon a declaration of
   rights and grievances and ordered it to be inserted in the
   journal. [The following is the 'Declaration': 'The members of
   this congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments
   of affection and duty, to his majesty's person and government,
   inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the
   protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a
   sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British
   colonies on this continent; having considered, as maturely as
   time will permit, the circumstances of the said colonies,
   esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following
   declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most
   essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the
   grievances under which they labor by reason of several late
   acts of parliament.

{3191}

   1. That his majesty's subjects in these colonies owe the same
   allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from
   his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination
   to that august body the parliament of Great Britain.
   2. That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are
   entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his
   natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.
   3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a
   people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes
   be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given
   personally, or by their representatives.
   4. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their
   local circumstances cannot be, represented in the house of
   commons of Great Britain.
   5. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons
   chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been
   or can be constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their
   respective legislatures.
   6. That all supplies to the crown being free gifts from the
   people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the
   principles and spirit of the British constitution for the
   people of Great Britain to grant to his majesty the property
   of the colonists.
   7. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of
   every British subject in these colonies.
   8. That the late act of parliament entitled 'an act for
   granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties,
   in the British colonies and plantations in America,' &c., by
   imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies; and the
   said act, and several other acts, by extending the
   jurisdiction of the court of admiralty beyond its ancient
   limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and
   liberties of the colonists.
   9. That the duties imposed by several late acts of parliament,
   from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be
   extremely burdensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of
   specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable.
   10. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies
   ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the
   manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they
   eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted to
   the crown.
   11. That the restrictions imposed by several late acts of
   parliament on the trade of these colonies, will render them
   unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain.
   12. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these
   colonies depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights
   and liberties, and an intercourse with Great Britain mutually
   affectionate and advantageous.
   13. That it is the right of the British subjects in these
   colonies to petition the king, or either house of parliament.
   14. That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to
   the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to
   themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to his
   majesty, and humble application to both houses of parliament,
   to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying
   certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of
   parliament whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is
   extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the
   restriction of American commerce.'] …

   The delegates present from only six of the colonies—except
   Ruggles and Ogden—signed the petition; those from New York,
   Connecticut, and South Carolina not being authorized to sign.
   On the 25th of October, the congress adjourned. Special
   measures were taken to transmit the proceedings to the
   unrepresented colonies. The several assemblies, on meeting,
   heartily approved of the course of their delegates who
   concurred in the action of congress; but Ruggles, of
   Massachusetts, was reprimanded by the speaker, in the name of
   the House, and Ogden, of New Jersey, was hung in effigy by the
   people. The action of the assemblies was announced in the
   press. Meanwhile the Sons of Liberty, through their committees
   of correspondence, urged a continental Union; pledged a mutual
   support in case of danger; in some instances stated the
   numbers of armed men that might be relied on; and thus evinced
   a common determination to resist the execution of the Stamp
   Act."

      _R. Frothingham,
      Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Pitkin,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, appendices 5-9._

      _H. Niles,
      Principles and Acts of the Revolution (edition of 1876),
      pages 155-168._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
   Treaties with the Indians at German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Cession of Iroquois claims to western Pennsylvania,
   West Virginia and Kentucky.
   The drawing of the Indian boundary line.

   "After the success of Bradstreet and Bouquet [see PONTIAC'S
   WAR], there was no difficulty in concluding a treaty with all
   the Western Indians; and late in April, 1765, Sir William
   Johnson, at the German Flats, held a conference with the
   various nations, and settled a definite peace. At this meeting
   two propositions were made; the one to fix some boundary line,
   west of which the Europeans should not go; and the savages
   named, as this line, the Ohio or Alleghany and Susquehannah;
   but no definite agreement was made, Johnson not being
   empowered to act. The other proposal was, that the Indians
   should grant to the traders, who had suffered in 1763, a tract
   of land in compensation for the injuries then done them, and
   to this the red men agreed. … During the very year that
   succeeded the treaty of German Flats, settlers crossed the
   mountains and took possession of lands in western Virginia and
   along the Monongahela. The Indians, having received no pay for
   these lands, murmured, and once more a border war was feared.
   … And not only were frontier men thus passing the line tacitly
   agreed on, but Sir William himself was even then meditating a
   step which would have produced, had it been taken, a general
   Indian war again. This was the purchase and settlement of an
   immense tract south of the Ohio River, where an independent
   colony was to be formed. How early this plan was conceived we
   do not learn, but, from Franklin's letters, we find that it
   was in contemplation in the spring of 1766. At that time
   Franklin was in London, and was written to by his son,
   Governor Franklin of New Jersey, with regard to the proposed
   colony. The plan seems to have been to buy of the Six Nations
   the lands south of the Ohio, a purchase which it was not
   doubted Sir William might make, and then to procure from the
   King a grant of as much territory as the Company which it was
   intended to form would require. Governor Franklin,
   accordingly, forwarded to his father an application for a
   grant, together with a letter from Sir William, recommending
   the plan to the ministry; all of which was duly communicated
   to the proper department. But at that time there were various
   interests bearing upon this plan of Franklin. The old Ohio
   Company [see OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754] was still suing,
   through its agent, Colonel George Mercer, for a perfection of
   the original grant. …
{3192}
   General Lyman, from Connecticut we believe, was soliciting a
   new grant similar to that now asked by Franklin; and the
   ministers themselves were divided as to the policy and
   propriety of establishing any settlements so far in the
   interior,—Shelburne being in favor of the new colony,
   Hillsborough opposed to it. The Company was organized,
   however, and the nominally leading man therein being Mr.
   Thomas' Walpole, a London banker of eminence, it was known as
   the Walpole Company. … Before any conclusion was come to, it
   was necessary to arrange definitely that boundary line which
   had been vaguely talked of in 1765, and with respect to which
   Sir William Johnson had written to the ministry, who had
   mislaid his letters and given him no instructions. The
   necessity of arranging this boundary was also kept in mind by
   the continued and growing irritation of the Indians, who found
   themselves invaded from every side. … Franklin, the father,
   all this time, was urging the same necessity upon the
   ministers in England; and about Christmas of 1767, Sir
   William's letters on the subject having been found, orders
   were sent him to complete the proposed purchase from the Six
   Nations, and settle all differences. But the project for a
   colony was for the time dropped, a new administration coming
   in which was not that way disposed. Sir William Johnson having
   received, early in the spring, the orders from England
   relative to a new treaty with the Indians, at once took steps
   to secure a full attendance. Notice was given to the various
   colonial governments, to the Six Nations, the Delawares, and
   the Shawanese, and a Congress was appointed to meet at Fort
   Stanwix during the following October. It met upon the 24th of
   that month, and was attended by representatives from New
   Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; by Sir William and his
   deputies; by the agents of those traders who had suffered in
   the war of 1763; and by deputies from all of the Six Nations,
   the Delawares, and the Shawanese. The first point to be
   settled was the boundary line which was to determine the
   Indian lands of the West from that time forward; and this line
   the Indians, upon the 1st of November, stated should begin on
   the Ohio at the mouth of the Cherokee (or Tennessee) river;
   thence go up the Ohio and Alleghany to Kittaning; thence
   across to the Susquehannah, &c.; whereby the whole country
   south of the Ohio and Alleghany, to which the Six Nations had
   any claim, was transferred to the British. One deed, for a
   part of this land, was made on the 3d of November to William
   Trent, attorney for twenty-two traders, whose goods had been
   destroyed by the Indians in 1763. The tract conveyed by this
   was between the Kenhawa and Monongahela, and was by the
   traders named 'Indiana.' Two days afterward, a deed for the
   remaining western lands was made to the King, and the price
   agreed on paid down. These deeds were made upon the express
   agreement, that no claim should ever be based upon previous
   treaties, those of Lancaster, Logstown, &c.; and they were
   signed by the chiefs of the Six Nations, for themselves, their
   allies and dependents, the Shawanese, Delawares, Mingoes of
   Ohio, and others; but the Shawanese and Delaware deputies
   present did not sign them. Such was the treaty of Stanwix,
   whereon rests the title by purchase to Kentucky, western
   Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It was a better foundation,
   perhaps, than that given by previous treaties, but was
   essentially worthless; for the lands conveyed were not
   occupied or hunted on by those conveying them. In truth, we
   cannot doubt that this immense grant was obtained by the
   influence of Sir William Johnson, in order that the new
   colony, of which he was to be governor, might be founded
   there. … The white man could now quiet his conscience when
   driving the native from his forest home, and feel sure that an
   army would back his pretensions. … Meantime more than one bold
   man had ventured for a little while into the beautiful valleys
   of Kentucky, and, on the 1st of May, 1769, there was one going
   forth from his 'peaceable habitation on the Yadkin river in
   North Carolina,' whose name has since gone far and wide over
   this little planet of ours, he having become the type of his
   class. This was Daniel Boone. He crossed the mountains, and
   spent that summer and the next winter in the West. But, while
   he was rejoicing in the abundance of buffalo, deer, and
   turkeys among the cane-brakes, longer heads were meditating
   still that new colony, the plan of which had been lying in
   silence for two years and more. The Board of Trade was again
   called on to report upon the application, and Lord
   Hillsborough, the President, reported against it. This called
   out Franklin's celebrated 'Ohio Settlement,' a paper written
   with so much ability, that the King's Council put by the
   official report, and granted the petition, a step which
   mortified the noble lord so much that he resigned his official
   station. The petition now needed only the royal sanction,
   which was not given until August 14th, 1772; but in 1770, the
   Ohio Company was merged in Walpole's, and, the claims of the
   soldiers of 1756 being acknowledged both by the new Company
   and by government, all claims were quieted. Nothing was ever
   done, however, under the grant to Walpole, the Revolution soon
   coming upon America. After the Revolution, Mr. Walpole and his
   associates petitioned Congress respecting their lands, called
   by them 'Vandalia,' but could get no help from that body. What
   was finally done by Virginia with the claims of this and other
   companies, we do not find written, but presume their lands
   were all looked on as forfeited."

      _J. H. Perkins,
      English Discoveries in the Ohio Valley
      (North American Review, July, 1839)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
      volume 2, chapter 16._

      _B. Franklin, Works,
      (edited by Sparks),
      volume 4, pages 233-241, and 302-380._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
   Examination of Dr. Franklin before Parliament.

   On the 28th of January, 1766, while the bill for the repeal of
   the Stamp Act was pending in Parliament, Dr. Franklin was
   examined before the House of Commons, in Committee. The
   questions and answers of this very interesting examination, as
   reported in the Parliamentary History, were as follows:

   Q. What is your name, and place of abode?
   A. Franklin, of Philadelphia.

   Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among
   themselves?
   A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.

   Q. What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania,
   laid by the laws of the colony?
   A. There are taxes on all estates real and personal, a
   poll-tax, a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and
   businesses, according to their profits; an excise on all wine,
   rum, and other spirit; and a duty of ten pounds per head on all
   negroes imported, with some other duties.

{3193}

   Q. For what purposes are those taxes laid?
   A. For the support of the civil and military establishments
   of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted
   in the last war.

   Q. How long are those taxes to continue?
   A. Those for discharging the debt are to continue till 1772,
   and longer, if the debt should not be then all discharged. The
   others must always continue.

   Q. Was it not expected that the debt would have been sooner
   discharged?
   A. It was, when the peace was made with France and Spain; but
   a fresh war breaking out with the Indians, a fresh load of
   debt was incurred, and the taxes, of course, continued longer
   by a new law.

   Q. Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes?
   A. No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having
   been frequently ravaged by the enemy, and greatly
   impoverished, are able to pay very little tax. And therefore,
   in consideration of their distresses, our late tax laws do
   expressly favour those counties, excusing the sufferers; and I
   suppose the same is done in other governments.

   Q. Are not you concerned in the management of the post office
   in America?
   A. Yes; I am deputy post-master general of North America.

   Q. Don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all
   the inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?
   A. The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except
   in a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did,
   sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of
   postage, amounting, in many cases, to much more than that of
   the stamps themselves.

   Q. Are you acquainted with Newfoundland?
   A. I never was there.

   Q. Do you know whether there are any post-roads on that
   island?
   A. I have heard that there are no roads at all; but that the
   communication between one settlement and another is by sea
   only.

   Q. Can you disperse the stamps by post in Canada?
   A. There is only a post between Montreal and Quebec. The
   inhabitants live so scattered and remote from each other, in
   that vast country, that posts cannot be supported among them,
   and therefore they cannot get stamps per post. The English
   colonies too, along the frontiers, are very thinly settled.

   Q. From the thinness of the back settlements,
   would not the Stamp Act be extremely inconvenient
   to the inhabitants if executed?
   A. To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not
   get stamps when they had occasion for them, without taking
   long journeys, and spending, perhaps, three or four pounds,
   that the crown might get sixpence.

   Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able
   to pay the stamp duty?
   A. In my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the
   colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.

   Q. Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was
   all to be laid out in America?
   A. I know it is appropriated by the act to the American
   service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where
   the soldiers are, not in the colonies that pay it.

   Q. Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where
   the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the
   old colonies?
   A. I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know
   of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come
   from the colonies where it was spent directly to England; for
   I have always observed, that in every colony the more plenty
   of means of remittance to England, the more goods are sent
   for, and the more trade with England carried on.

   Q. What number of white inhabitants do you think there are in
   Pennsylvania?
   A. I suppose there may be about 160,000.

   Q. What number of them are Quakers?
   A. Perhaps a third.

   Q. What number of Germans?
   A. Perhaps another third; but I cannot speak with certainty.

   Q. Have any number of the Germans seen service, as soldiers,
   in Europe?
   A. Yes, many of them, both in Europe and America.

   Q. Are they as much dissatisfied with the stamp duty as the
   English?
   A. Yes, and more; and with reason, as their stamps are, in
   many cases, to be double.

   Q. How many white men do you suppose there are in North
   America?
   A. About 300,000, from 16 to 60 years of age.

   Q. What may be the amount of one year's imports into
   Pennsylvania from Britain?
   A. I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports
   from Britain to be above 500,000_l_.

   Q. What may be the amount of the produce of your province
   exported to Britain?
   A. It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted
   in Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed 40,000_l_.

   Q. How then do you pay the balance?
   A. The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West
   Indies, and sold in our own islands, or to the French,
   Spaniards, Danes, and Dutch; by the same carried to other
   colonies in North America, as to New England, Nova Scotia,
   Newfoundland, Carolina, and Georgia; by the same carried to
   different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal and Italy. In
   all which places we receive either money, bills of exchange,
   or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which,
   together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants
   and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the
   freights made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to
   discharge the balance, and pay for British manufactures
   continually used in the province, or sold to foreigners by our
   traders.

   Q. Have you heard of any difficulties lately laid on the
   Spanish trade?
   A. Yes, I have heard that it has been greatly obstructed by
   some new regulations, and by the English men of war and
   cutters stationed all along the coast in America.

   Q. Do you think it right, that America should be protected by
   this country, and pay no part of the expense?
   A. That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed and
   paid, during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many
   millions.

   Q. Were you not reimbursed by parliament? A. We were only
   reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our
   proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from
   us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.
   Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about 500,000_l_,
   and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed
   60,000_l_.

   Q. You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania;
   what do they amount to in the pound?
   A. The tax on all estates, real and personal, is eighteen
   pence in the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of
   trades and professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make
   full half a crown in the pound.

{3194}

   Q. Do you know any thing of the rate of exchange in
   Pennsylvania, and whether it has fallen lately?
   A. It is commonly from 170 to 175. I have heard that it has
   fallen lately from 175 to 162 and a half, owing, I suppose, to
   their lessening their orders for goods; and when their debts
   to this country are paid, I think the exchange will probably
   be at par.

   Q. Do not you think the people of America would submit to pay
   the stamp duty, if it was moderated?
   A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.

   Q. Are not the taxes in Pennsylvania laid on unequally, in
   order to burden the English trade, particularly the tax on
   professions and business?
   A. It is not more burdensome in proportion than the tax on
   lands. It is intended, and supposed to take an equal
   proportion of profits.

   Q. How is the assembly composed? Of what kinds of people are
   the members, landholders or traders?
   A. It is composed of landholders, merchants, and artificers.

   Q. Are not the majority landholders?
   A. I believe they are.

   Q. Do not they, as much as possible, shift the tax off from
   the land, to ease that; and lay the burthen heavier on trade?
   A. I have never understood it so. I never heard such a thing
   suggested. And indeed an attempt of that kind could answer no
   purpose. The merchant or trader is always skilled in figures,
   and ready with his pen and ink. If unequal burdens are laid on
   his trade, he puts an additional price on his goods; and the
   consumers, who are chiefly landholders, finally pay the
   greatest part, if not the whole.

   Q. What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before
   the year 1763?
   A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the
   government of the crown, and paid, in all their courts,
   obedience to acts of parliament. Numerous as the people are in
   the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts,
   citadels, garrisons or armies, to keep them in subjection.
   They were governed by this country at the expense only of a
   little pen, ink, and paper. They were led by a thread. They
   had not only a respect, but an affection for Great Britain,
   for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for
   its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of
   Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an
   Old-England man was, of itself, a character of some respect,
   and gave a kind of rank among us.

   Q. And what is their temper now?
   A. O, very much altered.

   Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws
   for America questioned till lately?
   A. The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all
   laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never
   disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce.

   Q. In what proportion hath population increased in America?
   A. I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together,
   taken at a medium, double in about 25 years. But their demand
   for British manufactures increases much faster, as the
   consumption is not merely in proportion to their numbers, but
   grows with the growing abilities of the same numbers to pay
   for them. In 1723, the whole importation from Britain to
   Pennsylvania, was but about 15,000_l_. sterling; it is
   now near half a million.

   Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the
   parliament of Great Britain?
   A. They considered the parliament as the great bulwark and
   security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke
   of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary
   ministers, they thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to
   oppress them; but they relied on it, that the parliament, on
   application, would always give redress. They remembered, with
   gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought
   into parliament, with a clause to make royal instructions laws
   in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass,
   and it was thrown out.

   Q. And have they not still the same respect for parliament?
   A. No; it is greatly lessened.

   Q. To what causes is that owing?
   A. To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on
   their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver
   into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making
   paper money among themselves; and then demand a new and heavy
   tax by stamps; taking away at the same time, trials by juries,
   and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions.

   Q. Don't you think they would submit to the Stamp Act, if it
   was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty
   reduced to some particulars, of small moment?
   A. No; they will never submit to it.

   Q. What do you think is the reason that the people of America
   increase faster than in England?
   A. Because they marry younger, and more generally.

   Q. Why so?
   A. Because any young couple that are industrious, may easily
   obtain land of their own, on which they can raise a family.

   Q. Are not the lower rank of people more at their ease in
   America than in England?
   A. They may be so, if they are sober and diligent, as they
   are better paid for their labour.

   Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same
   principle with that of the Stamp Act, how would the Americans
   receive it?
   A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it.

   Q. Have not you heard of the resolution of this House, and of
   the House of Lords, asserting the right of parliament relating
   to America, including a power to tax the people there?
   A. Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.

   Q. What will be the opinion of the Americans on those
   resolutions?
   A. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.

   Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the
   parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there?
   A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties
   to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was
   never supposed to be in parliament, as we are not represented
   there.

   Q. On what do you found your opinion, that the people in
   America made any such distinction?
   A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in
   conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be
   the opinion of every one, that we could not be taxed in a
   parliament where we were not represented. But the payment of
   duties laid by act of parliament, as regulations of commerce,
   was never disputed.

{3195}

   Q. But can you name any act of assembly, or public act of
   any of your governments, that made such distinction?
   A. I do not know that there was any; I think there was never
   an occasion to make any such act, till now that you have
   attempted to tax us: that has occasioned resolutions of
   assembly, declaring the distinction, in which I think every
   assembly on the continent, and every member in every assembly,
   have been unanimous.

   Q. What then could occasion conversations on that subject
   before that time?
   A. There was, in 1754, a proposition made (I think it came
   from hence) that in case of a war, which was then apprehended,
   the governors of the colonies should meet, and order the
   levying of troops, building of forts, and taking every other
   necessary measure for the general defence; and should draw on
   the treasury here, for the sums expended, which were
   afterwards to be raised in the colonies by a general tax, to
   be laid on them by act of parliament. This occasioned a good
   deal of conversation on the subject, and the general opinion
   was, that the parliament neither would, nor could lay any tax
   on us, till we were duly represented in parliament, because it
   was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of an English
   constitution.

   Q. Don't you know there was a time in New York, when it was
   under consideration to make an application to parliament, to
   lay taxes on that colony, upon a deficiency arising from the
   assembly's refusing or neglecting to raise the necessary
   supplies for the support of the civil government?
   A. I never heard of it.

   Q. There was such an application under consideration in New
   York; and do you apprehend they could suppose the right of
   parliament to lay a tax in America was only local, and
   confined to the case of a deficiency in a particular colony,
   by a refusal of its assembly to raise the necessary supplies?
   A. They could not suppose such a case, as that the assembly
   would not raise the necessary supplies to support its own
   government. An assembly that would refuse it, must want common
   sense, which cannot be supposed. I think there was never any
   such case at New York, and that it must be a
   misrepresentation, or the fact must be misunderstood. I know
   there have been some attempts, by ministerial instructions
   from hence, to oblige the assemblies to settle permanent
   salaries on governors, which they wisely refused to do; but I
   believe no assembly of New York, or any other colony, ever
   refused duly to support government, by proper allowances, from
   time to time, to public officers.

   Q. But in case a governor, acting by instruction, should call
   on an assembly to raise the necessary supplies, and the
   assembly should refuse to do it, do you not think it would
   then be for the good of the people of the colony, as well as
   necessary to government, that the parliament should tax them?
   A. I do not think it would be necessary. If an assembly could
   possibly be so absurd as to refuse raising the supplies
   requisite for the maintenance of government among them, they
   could not long remain in such a situation; the disorders and
   confusion occasioned by it, must soon bring them to reason.

   Q. If it should not, ought not the right to be in Great
   Britain of applying a remedy?
   A. A right only to be used in such a case, I should have no
   objection to, supposing it to be used merely for the good of
   the people of the colony.

   Q. But who is to judge of that, Britain or the colony?
   A. Those that feel can best judge.

   Q. You say the colonies have always submitted to external
   taxes, and object to the right of parliament only in laying
   internal taxes; now can you shew that there is any kind of
   difference between the two taxes to the colony on which they
   may be laid?
   A. I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a
   duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the
   first cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is
   offered to sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do
   not like it at that price, they refuse it: they are not
   obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the
   people without their consent, if not laid by their own
   representatives. The Stamp Act says, we shall have no
   commerce, make no exchange of property with each other,
   neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall
   neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such sums, and
   thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by
   the consequences of refusing to pay it.

   Q. But supposing the internal tax or duty to be laid on the
   necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that
   be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax?
   A. I do not know a single article imported into the northern
   colonies, but what they can either do without or make
   themselves.

   Q. Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to
   them?
   A. No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and
   good management, they may very well supply themselves with all
   they want.

   Q. Will it not take a long time to establish that manufacture
   among them; and must they not in the mean while suffer
   greatly?
   A. I think not. They have made a surprising progress already.
   And I am of opinion, that before their old clothes are worn
   out, they will have new ones of their own making.

   Q. Can they possibly find wool enough in North America?
   A. They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered
   into general combination to eat no more lamb, and very few
   lambs were killed last year. This course persisted in, will
   soon make a prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And
   the establishing of great manufactories, like those in the
   clothing towns here, is not necessary, as it is where the
   business is to be carried on for the purposes of trade. The
   people will all spin and work for themselves, in their own
   houses.

   Q. Can there be wool and manufacture enough in one or two
   years?
   A. In three years, I think, there may.

   Q. Does not the severity of the winter, in the northern
   colonies, occasion the wool to be of bad quality?
   A. No, the wool is very fine and good.

   Q. In the more southern colonies, as in Virginia, don't you
   know that the wool is coarse, and only a kind of hair?
   A. I don't know it. I never heard it. Yet I have been
   sometimes in Virginia. I cannot say I ever took particular
   notice of the wool there, but I believe it is good, though I
   cannot speak positively of it; but Virginia, and the colonies
   south of it, have less occasion for wool; their winters are
   short, and not very severe, and they can very well clothe
   themselves with linen and cotton of their own raising for the
   rest of the year.

{3196}

   Q. Are not the people in the more northern colonies obliged to
   fodder their sheep all the winter?
   A. In some of the most northern colonies they may be obliged
   to do it some part of the winter.

   Q. Considering the resolutions of parliament as to the right,
   do you think, if the Stamp Act is repealed, that the North
   Americans will be satisfied?
   A. I believe they will.

   Q. Why do you think so?
   A. I think the resolutions of right will give them very little
   concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into
   practice. The colonies will probably consider themselves in
   the same situation, in that respect, with Ireland; they know
   you claim the same right with regard to Ireland, but you never
   exercise it. And they may believe you never will exercise it
   in the colonies, any more than in Ireland, unless on some very
   extraordinary occasion.

   Q. But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary
   occasion? Is not the parliament?
   A. Though the parliament may judge of the occasion, the people
   will think it can never exercise such right, till
   representatives from the colonies are admitted into
   parliament, and that whenever the occasion arises,
   representatives will be ordered.

   Q. Did you never hear that Maryland, during the last war, had
   refused to furnish a quota towards the common defence?
   A. Maryland has been much misrepresented in that matter.
   Maryland, to my knowledge, never refused to contribute, or
   grant aids to the crown. The assemblies every year, during the
   war, voted considerable sums, and formed bills to raise them.
   The bills were, according to the constitution of that
   province, sent up to the council, or upper house, for
   concurrence, that they might be presented to the governor, in
   order to be enacted into laws. Unhappy disputes between the
   two houses, arising from the defects of that constitution
   principally, rendered all the bills but one or two abortive.
   The proprietary's council rejected them. It is true, Maryland
   did not contribute its proportion, but it was, in my opinion,
   the fault of the government, not of the people.

   Q. Was it not talked of in the other provinces as a proper
   measure to apply to parliament to compel them?
   A. I have heard such discourse: but as it was well known that
   the people were not to blame, no such application was ever
   made, or any step taken towards it.

   Q. Was it not proposed at a public meeting?
   A. Not that I know of.

   Q. Do you remember the abolishing of the paper currency in New
   England, by act of assembly?
   A. I do remember its being abolished in the Massachusetts Bay.

   Q. Was not lieutenant governor Hutchinson principally
   concerned in that transaction?
   A. I have heard so.

   Q. Was it not at that time a very unpopular law?
   A. I believe it might, though I can say little about it, as I
   lived at a distance from that province.

   Q. Was not the scarcity of gold and silver an argument used
   against abolishing the paper?
   A. I suppose it was.

   Q. What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as
   unpopular as it was at first?
   A. think it is not
   .
   Q. Have not instructions from hence been sometimes sent over
   to governors, highly oppressive and unpolitical?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Have not some governors dispensed with them for that
   reason?
   A. Yes, I have heard so.

   Q. Did the Americans ever dispute the controuling
   power of parliament to regulate the commerce?
   A. No.

   Q. Can any thing less than a military force carry the Stamp
   Act into execution?
   A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that
   purpose.

   Q. Why may it not?
   A. Suppose a military force sent into America, they
   will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do?
   They cannot force a man to take stamps who chuses
   to do without them. They will not find a rebellion;
   they may indeed make one.

   Q. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
   consequences?
   A. A total loss of the respect and affection the people of
   America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that
   depends on that respect and affection.

   Q. How can the commerce be affected?
   A. You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will
   take very little of your manufactures in a short time.

   Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
   A. I think they may very well do without them.

   Q. Is it their interest not to take them?
   A. The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries,
   mere conveniencies, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, &c.
   with a little industry they can make at home: the second they
   can do without, till they are able to provide them among
   themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part,
   they will strike off immediately. They are mere articles of
   fashion, purchased and consumed, because the fashion in a
   respected country, but will now be detested and rejected. The
   people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use
   of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many thousand
   pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.

   Q. Is it their interest to make cloth at home?
   A. I think they may at present get it cheaper from Britain, I
   mean of the same fineness and neatness of workmanship; but
   when one considers other circumstances, the restraints on
   their trade, and the difficulty of making remittances, it is
   their interest to make every thing.

   Q. Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with the
   tax, how would they receive it?
   A. I think it would be objected to.

   Q. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?
   A. Their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are wanted,
   they are to be asked of the several assemblies according to
   the old established usage, who will, as they have always done,
   grant them freely. And that their money ought not to be given
   away, without their consent, by persons at a distance,
   unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The
   granting aids to the crown, is the only means they have of
   recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it
   extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in which they
   have no representatives, should make a merit to itself of
   giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, and
   deprives them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and
   importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.

   Q. But is not the post office, which they have long received,
   a tax as well as a regulation?
   A. No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of
   the nature of a tax; it is merely a quantum meruit for a
   service done; no person is compellable to pay the money, if he
   does not chuse to receive the service. A man may still, as
   before the act, send his letter by a servant, a special
   messenger, or a friend, if he thinks it cheaper and safer.

{3197}

   Q. But do they not consider the regulations of the
   post-office, by the act of last year, as a tax?
   A. By the regulations of last year the rate of postage was
   generally abated near thirty per cent. through all America;
   they certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.

   Q. If an excise was laid by parliament, which they might
   likewise avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised,
   would they then not object to it?
   A. They would certainly object to it, as an excise is
   unconnected with any service done, and is merely an aid which
   they think ought to be asked of them, and granted by them if
   they are to pay it, and can be granted for them, by no others
   whatsoever, whom they have not impowered for that purpose.

   Q. You say they do not object to the right of parliament, in
   laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now,
   is there any kind of difference between a duty on the
   importation of goods and an excise on their consumption?
   A. Yes; a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have
   just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within
   their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain, by your
   fleets, the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of
   pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right
   to some toll or duty on merchandizes carried through that part
   of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in
   ships to maintain the safety of that carriage.

   Q. Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the
   produce of their lands exported? And would they not then
   object to such a duty?
   A. If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad as
   to lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to
   such a duty; not to your right of laying it, but they would
   complain of it as a burden, and petition you to lighten it.

   Q. Is not the duty paid on the tobacco exported a duty of that
   kind?
   A. That, I think, is only on tobacco carried coastwise from
   one colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for
   supporting the college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia.

   Q. Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural
   rights with those in North America?
   A. Undoubtedly.

   Q. And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported?
   A. I am not much acquainted with the West Indies, but the duty
   of four and a half per cent., on sugars exported, was, I
   believe, granted by their own assemblies.

   Q. How much is the poll tax in your province laid on unmarried
   men?
   A. It is, I think, fifteen shillings, to be paid by every
   single freeman, upwards of twenty one years old.

   Q. What is the annual amount of all the taxes in Pennsylvania?
   A. I suppose about 20,000_l_. sterling.

   Q. Supposing the Stamp Act continued, and enforced, do you
   imagine that ill humour will induce the Americans to give as
   much for worse manufactures of their own and use them,
   preferably to better of ours?
   A. Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one
   passion as another, their resentment as their pride.

   Q. Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade?
   A. The merchants are a very small number compared with the
   body of the people, and must discontinue their trade, if
   nobody will buy their goods.

   Q. What are the body of the people in the colonies?
   A. They are farmers, husbandmen or planters.

   Q. Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?
   A. No; but they would not raise so much. They would
   manufacture more, and plough less.

   Q. Would they live without the administration of justice in
   civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniencies of such a
   situation for any considerable time, rather than take the
   stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient
   force, where everyone might have them?
   A. I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps
   should be so protected as that everyone might have them. The
   Act requires sub-distributors to be appointed in every county
   town, district, and village, and they would be necessary. But
   the principal distributors, who were to have had a
   considerable profit on the whole, have not thought it worth
   while to continue in the office, and I think it impossible to
   find sub-distributors fit to be trusted, who, for the trifling
   profit that must come to their share, would incur the odium,
   and run the hazard that would attend it; and if they could be
   found, I think it impracticable to protect the stamps in so
   many distant and remote places.

   Q. But in places where they could be protected, would not the
   people use them rather than remain in such a situation, unable
   to obtain any right, or recover, by law, any debt?
   A. It is hard to say what they would do. I can only judge what
   other people will think, and how they will act, by what I feel
   within myself. I have a great many debts due to me in America,
   and I had rather they should remain unrecoverable by any law
   than submit to the Stamp Act. They will be debts of honour. It
   is my opinion the people will either continue in that
   situation, or find some way to extricate themselves, perhaps
   by generally agreeing to proceed in the courts without stamps.

   Q. What do you think a sufficient military force to protect
   the distribution of the stamps in every part of America?
   A. A very great force; I cannot say what, if the disposition
   of America is for a general resistance.

   Q. What is the number of men in America able to bear arms, or
   of disciplined militia?
   A. There are, I suppose, at least—[Question objected to. He
   withdrew. Called in again.]

   Q. Is the American Stamp Act an equal tax on that country?
   A. I think not.

   Q. Why so?
   A. The greatest part of the money must arise from lawsuits for
   the recovery of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of
   people, who were too poor easily to pay their debts. It is
   therefore a heavy tax on the poor, and a tax upon them for
   being poor.

   Q. But will not this increase of expense be a means of
   lessening the number of lawsuits?
   A. I think not; for as the costs all fall upon the debtor, and
   are to be paid by him, they would be no discouragement to the
   creditor to bring his action.

   Q. Would it not have the effect of excessive usury?
   A. Yes, as an oppression of the debtor.

{3198}

   Q. How many ships are there laden annually in
   North America with flax seed for Ireland?
   A. I cannot speak to the number of ships, but I know that in
   1752, 10,000 hogsheads of flax seed, each containing seven
   bushels, were exported from Philadelphia to Ireland. I suppose
   the quantity is greatly increased since that time; and it is
   understood that the exportation from New York is equal to that
   from Philadelphia.

   Q. What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax seed?
   A. They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling
   kind of linen.

   Q. Are there any slitting mills in America?
   A. I think there are three, but I believe only one at present
   employed. I suppose they will all be set to work, if the
   interruption of the trade continues.

   Q. Are there any fulling mills there?
   A. A great many.

   Q. Did you never hear that a great quantity of stockings were
   contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured
   in Philadelphia?
   A. I have heard so.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the
   Americans think they could oblige the parliament to repeal
   every external tax law now in force?
   A. It is hard to answer questions what people at such a
   distance will think.

   Q. But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of
   repealing the Act?
   A. I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a
   conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it,
   that while the same inexpediency subsists, you will never
   attempt to make such another.

   Q. What do you mean by its inexpediency?
   A. I mean its inexpediency on several accounts; the poverty
   and inability of those who were to pay the tax; the general
   discontent it has occasioned; and the impracticability of
   enforcing it. If the Act should be repealed, and the
   legislature should shew its resentment to the opposers of the
   Stamp Act, would the colonies acquiesce in the authority of
   the legislature?

   Q. What is your opinion they would do?
   A. I don't doubt at all, that if the legislature repeal the
   Stamp Act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.

   Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its
   right to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to
   their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
   A. The proceedings of the people in America have been
   considered too much together. The proceedings of the
   assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs,
   and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each
   other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they
   take to be their rights; they have not built a fort, raised a
   man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such
   opposition. The ringleaders of riot they think ought to be
   punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could.
   Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished,
   as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or
   estate. But as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by
   the legislature here on the people there, while they have no
   representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be
   submitted to.—They will oppose it to the last.—They do not
   consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them
   by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready
   to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large
   sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the
   crown.—They have not only granted equal to their abilities,
   but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their
   abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you
   yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred
   thousand pounds, and this they did freely and readily, only on
   a sort of promise from the secretary of state, that it should
   be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It was
   accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable
   manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and
   abused here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as
   ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust, in having put this
   nation to immense expense for their defence, and refusing to
   bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and
   clothed, near 25,000 men during the last war, a number equal
   to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion;
   they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes
   and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for
   discharging that debt. Government here was at that time very
   sensible of this; The colonies were recommended to parliament.
   Every year the King sent down to the House a written message
   to this purpose, That his Majesty, being highly sensible of
   the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North
   America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty's
   just rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to
   take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them
   a proper compensation. You will find those messages on your
   own journals every year of the war to the very last, and you
   did accordingly give 200,000_l_. annually to the crown,
   to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This
   is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from
   being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed
   their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only
   equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or
   reason for compensation. Indeed the sums reimbursed them, were
   by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their
   proportion; but they never murmured at that; they esteemed
   their sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and
   the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of
   compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to
   force money from a willing people; they had not refused giving
   money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been
   made: they were al ways willing and ready to do what could
   reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish
   to be considered.

   Q. But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in
   Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it?
   A. I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would
   permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British
   empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be
   looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider
   themselves as such. They are zealous for the honour and
   prosperity of this nation, and while they are well used, will
   always be ready to support it, as far as their little power
   goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the
   expedition against Carthagena, and they sent 3,000 men to join
   your army. It is true Carthagena is in America, but as remote
   from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They
   make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in
   them.
{3199}
   I know the last war is commonly spoke of here as entered into
   for the defence, or for the sake of the people of America. I
   think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits
   between Canada and Nova Scotia, about territories to which the
   crown indeed laid claim, but were not claimed by any British
   colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we
   had therefore no particular concern or interest in that
   dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your
   right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the
   treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the
   traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they
   took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their
   factors and correspondents, had erected there to secure that
   trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort
   (which was looked on here as another incroachment on the
   King's territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till
   after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. They were
   before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the
   troops were not therefore sent for their defence. The trade
   with the Indians, though carried on in America, is not an
   American interest. The people of America are chiefly farmers
   and planters; scarce any thing that they raise or produce is
   an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a
   British interest; it is carried on with British manufactures,
   for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers;
   therefore the war, as it commenced for the defence of
   territories of the crown, the property of no American, and for
   the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British
   war—and yet the people of America made no scruple of
   contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing
   it to a happy conclusion.

   Q. Do you think then that the taking possession of the King's
   territorial rights, and strengthening the frontiers, is not an
   American interest?
   A. Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American
   interest.

   Q. You will not deny that the preceding war, the war with
   Spain, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not
   occasioned by captures made in the American seas?
   A. Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there,
   with British manufactures.

   Q. Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with
   France, a war for America only?
   A. Yes: it was more particularly for America than the former,
   but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war,
   the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified, and the
   Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expense. It
   was put an end to by the army under general Bouquet; there
   were not above 300 regulars in that army, and above 1,000
   Pennsylvanians.

   Q. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend
   the Americans against the Indians?
   A. No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended
   themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much
   more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven
   the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to
   their assistance from this country. And can it be thought
   necessary now to send troops for their defence from those
   diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so
   populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for
   it; they are very able to defend themselves.

   Q. Do you say there were no more than 300 regular troops
   employed in the late Indian war?
   A, Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pennsylvania, which
   was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies.
   There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those
   remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon
   them, but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans,
   or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than
   that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so.

   Q. Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on
   the subject there, to grant to the crown?
   A. I certainly think so; they have always done it.

   Q. Are they acquainted with the Declaration of Rights; and do
   they know that by that statute, money is not to be raised on
   the subject but by consent of parliament?
   A. They are very well acquainted with it.

   Q. How then can they think they have a right to levy money for
   the crown, or for any other than local purposes?
   A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects only
   within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the
   crown, but by consent of parliament. The colonies are not
   supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their
   own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that
   respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to
   be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the
   colonies, the consent is given in the parliament of Ireland,
   or in the assemblies of the colonies. They think the
   parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent
   till it has representatives from America; for the Petition of
   Right expressly says, it is to be by common consent in
   parliament, and the people of America have no representatives
   in parliament, to make a part of that common consent.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and an act should
   pass, ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the
   sufferers by the riots, would they obey it?
   A. That is a question I cannot answer.

   Q. Suppose the King should require the colonies to grant a
   revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it,
   do they think they can grant a revenue to the King, without
   the consent of the parliament of Great Britain?
   A. That is a deep question. As to my own opinion I should
   think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked
   the occasion.

   Q, When money has been raised in the colonies, upon
   requisitions, has it not been granted to the King?
   A. Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for
   some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops,
   and not for money only.

   Q. If the act should pass, requiring the American Assemblies
   to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey
   it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an
   internal tax, would they obey it?
   A. The people will pay no internal tax: and I think an act to
   oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for
   I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated,
   they will take the matter into consideration, and if it is
   right to be done, they will do it of themselves.

{3200}

   Q. Do not letters often come into the post offices in America,
   directed into some inland town where no post goes?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Can any private person take up those letters, and carry
   them as directed?
   A. Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage
   that has accrued.

   Q. But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance
   to such an inland town?
   A. No.

   Q. Can the post-master answer delivering the letter, without
   being paid such additional postage?
   A. Certainly he can demand nothing, where he does no service.

   Q. Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a
   post office directed to him, and he lives in a place to which
   the post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that
   place, will the post-master deliver him the letter, without
   his paying the postage received at the place to which the
   letter is directed?
   A. Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it
   does not carry, or farther than it does carry it.

   Q. Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of parliament,
   to carry over the posts without pay?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?
   A. They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage
   from persons travelling with the post.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and the crown should
   make a requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would
   they grant it?
   A. I believe they would.

   Q. Why do you think so?
   A. I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in
   instruction from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as
   they always had done, so they should always think it their
   duty to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their
   circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for the
   purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the
   honour of communicating this instruction to that honorable
   gentleman then minister.

   Q. Would they do this for a British concern; as suppose a war
   in some part of Europe, that did not affect them?
   A. Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest.
   They consider themselves as a part of the whole.

   Q. What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
   colonies for aids?
   A. A letter from the secretary of state.

   Q. Is this all you mean, a letter from the secretary of state?
   A. I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter
   from the secretary of state, by his Majesty's command,
   reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to
   grant such aids as became their loyalty, and were suitable to
   their abilities.

   Q. Did the secretary of state ever write for money for the
   crown?
   A. The requisitions have been to raise clothe, and pay men,
   which cannot be done without money.

   Q. Would they grant money alone, if called on?
   A. In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they
   have money, or can procure it.

   Q. If the parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the
   assembly of Pennsylvania rescind their resolutions?
   A. I think not.

   Q. Before there was any thought of the Stamp Act, did they
   wish for a representation in parliament?
   A. No.

   Q. Don't you know that there is, in the Pennsylvania charter,
   an express reservation of the right of parliament to lay taxes
   there?
   A. I know there is a clause in the charter, by which the King
   grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless
   it be with the consent of the assembly, or by an act of
   parliament.

   Q. How then could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert, that
   laying a tax on them by the Stamp Act was an infringement of
   their rights?
   A. They understand it thus: by the same charter, and
   otherwise, they are entitled to all the privileges and
   liberties of Englishmen; they find in the Great Charters, and
   the Petition and Declaration of Rights, that one of the
   privileges of English subjects is, that they are not to be
   taxed but by their common consent; they have therefore relied
   upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the
   parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in
   the charter, assume a right of taxing them, till it had
   qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting
   representatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make
   a part of that common consent.

   Q. Are there any words in the charter that justify that
   construction?
   A. The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna
   Charta, and the Petition of Right, all justify it.

   Q. Does the distinction between internal and external taxes
   exist in the words of the charter?
   A. No, I believe not.

   Q. Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to
   the parliament's right of external taxation?
   A. They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately
   used here to shew them that there is no difference, and that
   if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to
   tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At
   present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly
   be convinced by these arguments.

   Q. Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania assemblies say,
   all taxes?
   A. If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words
   have not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By
   taxes they mean internal taxes; by duties they mean customs;
   these are the ideas of the language.

   Q. Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusetts Bay
   assembly?
   A. I have.

   Q. Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes
   can be laid on them by parliament?
   A. I don't know that they do; I believe not.

   Q. If the same tax should say neither tax nor imposition could
   be laid, does not that province hold the power of parliament
   can lay neither?
   A. I suppose that by the word imposition, they do not intend
   to express duties to be laid on goods imported, as regulations
   of commerce.

   Q. What can the colonies mean then by imposition as distinct
   from taxes?
   A. They may mean many things, as impressing of men, or of
   carriages, quartering troops on private houses, and the like;
   there may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.

   Q. Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of
   parliament?
   A. I have answered that.

   Q. Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?
   A. No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged
   by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means, and
   therefore, in such cases, are usually favoured in our tax
   laws.

{3201}

   Q. Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what
   favours are necessary?
   A. The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to
   make tax laws for America; I think it impossible.

   Q. Would the repeal of the Stamp Act be any discouragement of
   your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to
   manufacture decline it?
   A. Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time,
   the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily
   made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In
   the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little
   remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family
   manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price,
   they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling
   mills were very much disused in the last war in Pennsylvania,
   because bills were then plenty, and remittances could easily
   be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the
   assemblies of America to acknowledge the right of parliament
   to tax them, and, would they erase their resolutions?
   A. No, never.

   Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those
   resolutions?
   A. None, that I know of; they will never do it, unless
   compelled by force of arms.

   Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase
   them?
   A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their
   opinions.

   Q. Do they consider the post office as a tax, or as a
   regulation?
   A. Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; every
   assembly encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by
   grants of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and
   the people have always paid the postage.

   Q. When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?
   A. I brought them with me, when I came to England, about 15
   months since.

   Q. When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?
   A. Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was
   under consideration, and before the Bill was brought in.

   Q. Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to
   employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?
   A. In tobacco, to be sure.

   Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans?
   A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great
   Britain.

   Q. What is now their pride?
   A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make
   new ones.

   Withdrew.

      _Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 16, pages 138-160._

   "Mr. Sparks very justly says that there was no event in
   Franklin's life more creditable to his talents and character,
   or which gave him so much celebrity, as this examination
   before the House of Commons. His further statement, however,
   that Franklin's answers were given without premeditation and
   without knowing beforehand the nature or form of the question
   that was to be put, is a little too sweeping. In a memorandum
   which Franklin gave to a friend who wished to know by whom the
   several questions were put, he admitted that many were put by
   friends to draw out in answer the substance of what he had
   before said upon the subject."

      _J. Bigelow,
      Life of Benjamin Franklin,
      volume 1, page 507, foot-note._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and passage of the
   Declaratory Act.
   Speech of Pitt.

   "The Grenville Ministry had fallen in July [1765], and had
   been succeeded by that of Rockingham; and Conway, who had been
   one of the few opponents of the Stamp Act, was now Secretary
   of State for the Colonies. … The Stamp Act had contributed
   nothing to the downfall of Grenville; it attracted so little
   attention that it was only in the last days of 1765 or the
   first days, of 1766 that the new ministers learnt the views of
   Pitt upon the subject; it was probably a complete surprise to
   them to learn that it had brought the colonies to the verge of
   rebellion, and in the first months of their power they appear
   to have been quite uncertain what policy they would pursue. …
   Parliament met on December 17, 1765, and the attitude of the
   different parties was speedily disclosed. A powerful
   Opposition, led by Grenville and Bedford, strenuously urged
   that no relaxation or indulgence should be granted to the
   colonists. … Pitt, on the other hand, rose from his sick-bed,
   and in speeches of extraordinary eloquence, and which produced
   an amazing effect on both sides of the Atlantic, he justified
   the resistance of the colonists."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3)._

   The following is the main part of the speech delivered by Pitt
   (not yet made Lord Chatham) on the 14th of January, 1766, as
   imperfectly reported: "It is my opinion, that this kingdom has
   no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I
   assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be
   sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and
   legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this kingdom;
   equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of
   mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally
   bound by its laws, and equally participating in the
   constitution of this free country, The Americans are the sons,
   not the bastards of England! Taxation is no part of the
   governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift
   and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three
   estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence
   of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to
   clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the
   Commons alone. … When … in this House, we give and grant, we
   give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what
   do we do? 'We, your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give
   and grant to your Majesty'—what? Our own property! No! 'We
   give and grant to your Majesty' the property of your Majesty's
   Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. … There is an
   idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in
   the House. I would fain know by whom an American is
   represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the
   shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that
   respectable representation was augmented to a greater number!
   Or will you tell him that he is represented by any
   representative of a borough? a borough which, perhaps, its own
   representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten
   part of the Constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it
   does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual
   representation of America in this House is the most
   contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. It
   does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America
   represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in the
   possession of this, their constitutional right, of giving and
   granting their own money.
{3202}
   They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it! At the
   same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and
   legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws,
   by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation,
   in manufactures, in every thing, except that of taking their
   money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would
   draw the line. … Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving
   birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their
   sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that
   freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty
   of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation
   shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise.
   No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a
   liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have
   profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The
   gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America almost in
   open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three
   millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as
   voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit
   instruments to make slaves of the rest. … Since the accession
   of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more
   moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. … None
   of these thought or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of
   their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era
   of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some,
   when I had the honor to serve his Majesty, to propose to me to
   burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at
   their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of
   their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to
   the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous,
   an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to
   America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the
   benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied
   the national treasures! I am no courtier of America. I stand
   up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a
   right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over
   the colonies is sovereign and supreme. I would advise every
   gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that
   country. When two countries are connected together like
   England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one
   must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But
   she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental
   principles that are common to both. … The gentleman asks, When
   were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were
   they made slaves? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the
   honor of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of
   information which I derived from my office. I speak,
   therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at
   pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be
   bold to affirm, that the profits to Great Britain from the
   trade of the colonies through all its branches, is two
   millions a year. This is the fund that carried you
   triumphantly through the last war. The estates that were
   rented at two thousand pounds a year, three-score years ago,
   are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from
   fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold
   for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America
   pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier
   come with a boast, that he can bring 'a pepper-corn' into the
   exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation? I dare not
   say how much higher these profits may be augmented. … I am
   convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of
   America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where
   you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you
   ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid
   on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two
   nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let
   acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let
   not an English minister become a custom-house officer for
   Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong! Much may be
   amended for the general good of the whole! … A great deal has
   been said without doors of the power, of the strength of
   America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled
   with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this
   country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your
   troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a
   company of foot that has served in America, out of which you
   may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to
   make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the
   Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I
   am one who will lift up my hands against it. In such a cause
   your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would
   fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the
   State, and pull down the Constitution along with her. Is this
   your boasted peace—not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard,
   but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? … The
   Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and
   temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to
   madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you
   have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first
   from this side. I will undertake for America that she will
   follow the example. … Upon the whole I will beg leave to tell
   the House what is my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be
   repealed absolutely, totally and immediately. That the reason
   for the repeal be assigned, viz., because it was founded on an
   erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign
   authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as
   strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every
   point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade,
   confine their manufactures, and exercise every power
   whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their
   pockets without their consent."

      _Representative British Orations,
      pages 98-119._

   The views of Pitt "were defended in the strongest terms by
   Lord Camden, who pledged his great legal reputation to the
   doctrine that taxation is not included under the general right
   of legislation, and that taxation and representation are
   morally inseparable. … The task of the ministers in dealing
   with this question was extremely difficult. The great majority
   of them desired ardently the repeal of the Stamp Act; but the
   wishes of the King, the abstention of Pitt, and the divided
   condition of parties had compelled Rockingham to include in
   his Government Charles Townshend, Barrington, and Northington,
   who were all strong advocates of the taxation of America. …
{3203}
   In addition to all these difficulties the ministers had to
   deal with the exasperation which was produced in Parliament by
   the continual outrages and insults to which all who
   represented the English Government in America were exposed.
   Their policy consisted of two parts. They asserted in the
   strongest and most unrestricted form the sovereignty of the
   British Legislature, first of all by resolutions and then by a
   Declaratory Act affirming the right of Parliament to make laws
   binding the British colonies 'in all cases whatsoever,' and
   condemning as unlawful the votes of the colonial Assemblies
   which had denied to Parliament the right of taxing them. Side
   by side with this measure they brought in a bill repealing the
   Stamp Act. … The great and manifest desire of the commercial
   classes throughout England had much weight; the repeal was
   carried [March, 1766] through the House of Commons, brought up
   by no less than 200 members to the Lords, and finally carried
   amid the strongest expressions of public joy. Burke described
   it as 'an event that caused more universal joy throughout the
   British dominions than perhaps any other that can be
   remembered.'"

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Parliamentary History,
      volume 16, pages 112-205._

      _B. Franklin,
      Works (Sparks' editor),
      volume 4._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England 1713-1783,
      chapter 45._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.
   The Townshend measures.

   "The liberal Rockingham administration, after a few months of
   power, disappeared [July, 1766], having signalized itself as
   regarded America by the repeal of the Stamp Act, and by the
   Declaratory Act. Of the new ministry the leading spirit was
   Charles Townshend, a brilliant statesman, but unscrupulous and
   unwise. His inclinations were arbitrary; he regretted the
   repeal of the Stamp Act, as did also the king and Parliament
   in general, who felt themselves to have been humiliated. Pitt,
   indeed, now Earl of Chatham, was a member of the government;
   but, oppressed by illness, he could exercise no restraint upon
   his colleague, and the other members were either in sympathy
   with Townshend's views, or unable to oppose him. Townshend's
   three measures affecting America, introduced on the 13th of
   May, 1767, were: a suspension of the functions of the
   legislature of New York for contumacy in the treatment of the
   royal troops; the establishment of commissioners of the
   customs, appointed with large powers to superintend laws
   relating to trade; and lastly an impost duty upon glass, red
   and white lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea [see ENGLAND:
   A. D. 1765-1768]. This was an 'external' duty to which the
   colonists had heretofore expressed a willingness to submit;
   but the grounds of the dispute were shifting. Townshend had
   declared that he held in contempt the distinction sought to be
   drawn between external and internal taxes, but that he would
   so far humor the colonists in their quibble as to make his tax
   of that kind of which the right was admitted. A revenue of
   £40,000 a year was expected from the tax, which was to be
   applied to the support of a 'civil list,' namely, the paying
   the salaries of the new commissioners of customs, and of the
   judges and governors, who were to be relieved wholly or in
   part from their dependence upon the annual grants of the
   Assemblies; then, if a surplus remained, it was to go to the
   payment of troops for protecting the colonies. To make more
   efficient, moreover, the enforcement of the revenue laws, the
   writs of assistance, the denunciation of which by James Otis
   had formed so memorable a crisis, were formally legalized. The
   popular discontent, appeased by the repeal of the Stamp Act,
   was at once awake again, and henceforth in the denial of the
   right of Parliament to tax, we hear no more of acquiescence in
   commercial restrictions and in the general legislative
   authority of Parliament. … The plan for resistance adopted by
   the cooler heads was that of Samuel Adams, namely, the
   non-importation and the non-consumption of British products.
   From Boston out, through an impulse proceeding from him,
   town-meetings were everywhere held to encourage the
   manufactures of the Province and reduce the use of
   superfluities, long lists of which were enumerated. Committees
   were appointed everywhere to procure subscriptions to
   agreements looking to the furtherance of home industries and
   the disuse of foreign products. … Before the full effects of
   the new legislation could be seen, Townshend suddenly died;
   but in the new ministry that was presently formed Lord North
   came to the front, and adopted the policy of his predecessor,
   receiving in this course the firm support of the king, whose
   activity and interest were so great in public affairs that he
   'became his own minister.'"

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 3._

      _W. Belsham,
      Memoirs of the Reign of George III.,
      volume 1, page 139-142._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
   The Farmer's Letters of John Dickinson.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts,
   and the "Unrescinding Ninety-two."

   "The English ministry was probably misled by the strong
   emphasis which had been laid here during the controversies
   concerning the Stamp Act upon the alleged distinction between
   external and internal taxation. We had refused to submit to
   the latter, but admitted that the former might be binding upon
   the whole empire as a commercial regulation. In form the
   duties levied on paints, glass, tea, etc., were undoubtedly
   such a regulation, but it was at once contended here that, in
   point of fact and of principle, this was as much an exercise
   of the alleged right of Parliamentary taxation for the purpose
   of raising a revenue for imperial purposes as the Stamp Act
   itself. Although it was passed by the opponents of the Stamp
   Act, and by the Rockingham ministry, who professed to be our
   friends, the act met at once with opposition here. Late in
   October, 1767, it was denounced by a public meeting in Boston,
   which suggested a non-importation agreement as the best means
   of rendering its operations ineffective. These agreements were
   favorite expedients for manifesting political discontent in
   those days, but, as they were voluntary, their obligation sat
   somewhat loosely upon those who signed them. The truth is,
   that those who were most decided in opposition to the course
   of the ministry were somewhat puzzled as to the plan they
   should adopt to exhibit the earnestness of their discontent. …
   While the leaders of the opposition throughout the country
   were doubtful and hesitating, there appeared in the
   Pennsylvania Chronicle for the 2d of December, 1767, the first
   of a series of letters on the political situation, afterwards
   known as the 'Farmer's Letters.'
{3204}
   … The letters, fourteen in number, followed one another in
   quick succession, and they were read by men of all classes and
   opinions throughout the continent as no other work of a
   political kind had been hitherto read in America. It was, of
   course, soon known that John Dickinson was their author, and
   people remembered that he was the person who had formulated
   what was a genuine Bill of Rights in the Stamp Act Congress.
   The more these letters were read, the more convinced people
   became that in the comprehensive survey they took of our
   political relations with the mother-country, especially as
   these were affected by the last obnoxious act of Parliament,
   and in the plans which were proposed to remedy the evil, Mr.
   Dickinson had struck the true key-note of the opposition to
   the ministerial measures. He appeared at this crisis, as he
   did in the Stamp Act Congress, as the leader and guide in the
   controversy. From this time until the Declaration of
   Independence the Pennsylvania idea, which was embodied by Mr.
   Dickinson in these Farmer's Letters, 'controlled the destinies
   of the country;' and Mr. Bancroft only does justice to Mr.
   Dickinson's position when he recognizes fully his commanding
   influence during that period. We may say with pardonable pride
   (and it is one of those truths which many of our historians
   have managed in various ways to relegate to obscurity), that,
   as the leading spirit in the Stamp Act Congress, Dickinson
   gave form and color to the agitation in this country which
   brought about the repeal of that act, and that the arguments
   by which the claim of the ministry to tax us for revenue by
   such an act of Parliament as that levying duties on glass,
   paints, etc. was answered in the 'Farmer's Letters' first
   convinced the whole body of our countrymen, groping blindly
   for a cure for their grievances, that there was a legal
   remedy, and then forced the ministry to consent in a measure
   to the demand for a repeal of some of its most obnoxious
   provisions. It is worth remarking that when the ministry
   yielded at all it yielded to argument, and not to the boastful
   threats which were so common. The 'Farmer's Letters' gave
   courage and force to those who in February denounced the law
   in Pennsylvania; they formed the mainspring of the movement
   which resulted in the circular letter sent by the legislature
   of Massachusetts on the 17th of that month to the Assemblies
   of the other Colonies; in short, they had the rare good
   fortune not only of convincing those who suffered that the
   remedy was in their own hands, but also of pursuading those
   who had the power to abandon, or at least to modify their
   arbitrary measures. … Mr. Dickinson begins these grave essays
   with an air of simplicity as charming as it is calculated to
   attract the attention of the reader. 'I am a farmer,' he says,
   'settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the
   river Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a
   liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of
   life, but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without
   bustle as with it. Being generally master of my time, I spend
   a good deal of it in my library, which I think the most
   valuable part of my small estate. I have acquired, I believe,
   a greater knowledge of history and of the laws and
   constitution of my country than is generally attained by men
   of my class,' etc. He then explains the nature of the
   controversy with the mother-country, making it so clear that
   the points in dispute are comprehensible by a child. … As to
   our method of asserting our rights, he says, with an elevation
   of sentiment which reminds one of Edmund Burke more than of
   any other political writer, 'The cause of liberty is a cause
   of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It
   ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature.
   Those who engage in it should breathe a sedate yet fervent
   spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice,
   modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.' He shrinks,
   evidently with terror, from speaking of what may be the
   consequences of the persistent refusal of England to change
   her oppressive measures. … After showing in the most striking
   manner the nature of our wrongs, the letters turn gladly to
   the remedy that lies open to us. That remedy is based upon a
   cultivation of the spirit of conciliation on both sides, and
   Mr. Dickinson urges again and again upon his English readers
   the folly of their policy, by showing them the value of the
   American Colonies to them, and especially how the trade and
   wealth of the English merchants are bound up in the adoption
   of a liberal policy towards us. This is one of the most
   interesting and important topics discussed in these letters,
   and the subject is treated with elaborate skill, leading to
   convincing conclusions drawn from our history. It must not be
   forgotten that prior to the Revolution an impression widely
   prevailed among the most thoughtful of our own people, as well
   as among our friends in England, that if the English people
   could be made to understand the frightful losses they would
   suffer in case of a war in which we should be fighting for our
   independence, or even during a short interruption of the trade
   between the two countries, they would force the government to
   yield rather than run the risk of the consequences. … Even Dr.
   Franklin in London, who had had so many proofs of the
   indifference and contempt with which the representations of
   the Colonies in England were regarded … thought the appeal of
   the Farmer to Englishmen so irresistible that, although no
   friend of Dickinson's, he arranged that these letters should
   be reprinted in London."

      _C. J. Stillé,
      The Life and Times of John Dickinson,
      chapter 4._

   In February, 1768, "the Legislature of Massachusetts sent a
   Circular Letter [ascribed to Samuel Adams] to the Assemblies
   of the other colonies, in which was set forth the necessity of
   all acting together harmoniously, and of freely communicating
   the mind of each to the others. The course Massachusetts had
   pursued was described, with the contents of the petition and
   letters which had been written, and with the hope expressed
   that she would have their cordial co-operation in resistance
   to the ministerial measures. The notion that political
   independence was aimed at was strenuously denied, and the
   trust was entertained that what had been done would meet the
   approval of their 'common head and father,' and that the
   liberties of the colonies would be confirmed. This letter
   elicited response from some, others returned none officially,
   but all who answered replied favorably. It gave, however, the
   greatest offence to the ministry, and particularly to Lord
   Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
{3205}
   It seems that he read it entirely by the light which a letter
   from Governor Bernard to Lord Barrington had shed upon it.
   This epistle declared the real motive of the colonies to be a
   determination to be independent. Hillsborough, filled with
   this idea, communicated it to the other members of the
   cabinet, and thus the Circular Letter was laid before them,
   prejudged. It was determined that it merited consideration,
   but that the only notice to be given it should be one of
   censure, and, on the spur of the moment, they resolved upon
   two things: to require the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind
   the Letter, and to require the other legislatures before whom
   it had been laid to reject it. This was done, and the
   consequences were, that the General Court, or Legislature, of
   Massachusetts voted, by ninety-two to seventeen, that they
   would do nothing of the kind, and that the other legislatures
   gave the outcast a hearty welcome. As for the people, they
   showed their approval of their representatives by toasting,
   from one end of the country to the other, 'The unrescinding
   Ninety-two,' with whom was coupled the number Forty-five, or
   that of the famous' North Briton'; while the Bostonians added
   fuel to the flame by a riot on the score of the sloop Liberty,
   in which they attacked the houses of the Commissioners of the
   Customs, and made a bonfire of the Collector's boat. Shortly
   afterward, (but not by reason of the riot), four ships of war
   anchored in Boston harbor, and two regiments of soldiers were
   quartered on the town."

      _E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty,
      chapter 10 (with corrections by the author)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 6._

      _W. Thornton,
      The Pulpit of the Revolution,
      page 150._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The Massacre, and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
   Massachusetts threatened, and Virginia roused to her support.

   "The proceedings in Massachusetts attracted in England the
   greatest attention, elicited the severest comment, and,
   because a military force had been ordered to Boston to support
   the stand of the administration, created the greatest
   solicitude. … The king, on opening parliament, characterized
   the action of Boston as a subversion of the Constitution and
   evincing a disposition to throw off dependence on Great
   Britain. The indictment against the colonies was presented in
   sixty papers laid before parliament. Both Houses declared that
   the proceedings of the Massachusetts assembly in opposition to
   the revenue acts were unconstitutional, and derogatory to the
   rights of the crown and the parliament; that the Circular
   Letter tended to create unlawful combinations; that the call
   of a convention by the selectmen of Boston was proof of a
   design of setting up an independent authority; and both Houses
   proposed to transport the originators of the obnoxious
   proceedings to England for trial and condign punishment, under
   the cover of an obsolete act of Henry VIII. … The
   administration determined to make an example of Massachusetts,
   as the ring-leading province in political mischief, by
   transporting its popular leaders to England to be tried for
   their lives in the king's bench. Such was the purport of an
   elaborate despatch which Lord Hillsborough sent to Governor
   Bernard, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the
   conduct of any persons who had committed any overt act of
   resistance to the laws. … Thus a great issue was created that
   affected all the colonies. … There was no adequate step taken
   to meet the threatened aggression until the House of Burgesses
   of Virginia convened in May."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 6._

   "On the day of the prorogation of parliament [May 9, 1769] the
   legislature of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg. Great men
   were there; some who were among the greatest—Washington,
   Patrick Henry, and, for the first time, Jefferson. Botetourt
   [the governor], who opened the session in state, was in
   perfect harmony with the council, received from the house of
   burgesses a most dutiful address, and entertained fifty-two
   guests at his table on the first day, and as many more on the
   second. … But the assembly did not forget its duty, and
   devised a measure which became the example for the continent.
   It claimed the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants
   of Virginia. With equal unanimity, it asserted the lawfulness
   and expediency of a concert of the colonies in defence of the
   violated rights of America. It laid bare the flagrant tyranny
   of applying to America the obsolete statute of Henry VIII.;
   and it warned the king of 'the dangers that would ensue' if
   any person in any part of America should be seized and carried
   beyond sea for trial. It consummated its work by communicating
   its resolutions to every legislature in America, and asking
   their concurrence. The resolves were concise, simple, and
   effective; so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that
   time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest.
   The menace of arresting patriots lost its terrors; and
   Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union. … The
   next morning, the assembly had just time to adopt an address
   to the king, when the governor summoned them, and said: 'I
   have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects;
   you have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are
   dissolved accordingly.' Upon this, the burgesses met together
   as patriots and friends, with their speaker as moderator. They
   adopted the resolves which "Washington had brought with him
   from Mount Vernon, and which formed a well-digested,
   stringent, and practicable scheme of non-importation, until
   all the 'unconstitutional' revenue acts should be repealed. …
   The voice of the Old Dominion roused the merchants of
   Pennsylvania to approve what had been done. The assembly of
   Delaware adopted the Virginia resolves word for word; and
   every colony south of Virginia followed the example."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      pages 347-348._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 29._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

   On the 5th of March, 1770—the same day on which the tragical
   encounter of the king's troops with citizens of Boston
   occurred—Lord North introduced a motion in Parliament for the
   partial repeal of Townshend's revenue act; "not on the
   petitions of America, because they were marked by a denial of
   the right, but on one from merchants and traders of London.
   'The subject,' said he, 'is of the highest importance.
{3206}
   The combinations and associations of the Americans for the
   temporary interruption of trade have already been called
   unwarrantable in an address of this house; I will call them
   insolent and illegal. The duties upon paper, glass, and
   painters' colors bear upon the manufacturers of this country,
   and ought to be taken off. It was my intention to have
   extended the proposal to the removal of the other duties; but
   the Americans have not deserved indulgence. The preamble to
   the act and the duty on tea must be retained, as a mark of the
   supremacy of parliament and the efficient declaration of its
   right to govern the colonies.' … Thomas Pownall moved the
   repeal of the duty on tea. The house of commons, like Lord
   North in his heart, was disposed to do the work of
   conciliation thoroughly. … Had the king's friends remained
   neutral, the duty on tea would have been repealed; with all
   their exertions, in a full house, the majority for retaining
   it was but 62. Lord North seemed hardly satisfied with his
   success; and reserved to himself liberty to accede to the
   repeal, on some agreement with the East India Company. The
   decision came from the king."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 381-382._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 48 (volume 5.)_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1771.
   Suppression of the Regulators of North Carolina.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
   The Watauga Association.
   The founding of the State of Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
   The burning of the Gaspe.

   "One of the first overt acts of resistance that took place in
   this celebrated struggle [in the war of independence] occurred
   in 1772, in the waters of Rhode Island. A vessel of war had
   been stationed on the coast to enforce the laws, and a small
   schooner, with a light armament and twenty-seven men, called
   the Gaspé, was employed as a tender, to run into the shallow
   waters of that coast. On the 17th of June, 1772, a Providence
   packet, that plied between New York and Rhode Island, named
   the Hannah, and commanded by a Captain Linzee, hove in sight
   of the man-of-war, on her passage up the bay. The Hannah was
   ordered to heave-to, in order to be examined; but her master
   refused to comply; and being favoured by a fresh southerly
   breeze, that was fast sweeping him out of gunshot, the Gaspé
   was signalled to follow. The chase continued for
   five-and-twenty miles, under a press of sail, when the Hannah
   coming up with a bar, with which her master was familiar, and
   drawing less water than the schooner, Captain Linzee led the
   latter on a shoal, where she struck. The tide falling, the
   Gaspé … was not in a condition to be removed for several
   hours. The news of the chase was circulated on the arrival of
   the Hannah at Providence. A strong feeling was excited among
   the population, and towards evening the town drummer appeared
   in the streets, assembling the people in the ordinary manner.
   As soon as a crowd was collected, the drummer led his
   followers in front of a shed that stood near one of the
   stores, when a man disguised as an Indian suddenly appeared on
   the roof, and proclaimed a secret expedition for that night,
   inviting all of 'stout hearts' to assemble on the wharf,
   precisely at nine, disguised like himself. At the appointed
   hour, most of the men in the place collected at the spot
   designated, when sixty-four were selected for the bold
   undertaking that was in view. This party embarked in eight of
   the launches of the different vessels lying at the wharves,
   and taking with them a quantity of paving stones, they pulled
   down the river in a body. … On nearing the Gaspé, about two in
   the morning, the boats were hailed by a sentinel on deck. This
   man was driven below by a volley of the stones. The commander
   of the Gaspé now appeared, and ordering the boats off, he
   fired a pistol at them. This discharge was returned from a
   musket, and the officer was shot through the thigh. By this
   time, the crew of the Gaspé had assembled, and the party from
   Providence boarded. The conflict was short, the schooner's
   people being soon knocked down and secured. All on board were
   put into the boats, and the Gaspé was set on fire. Towards
   morning she blew up."

      _J. F. Cooper,
      Naval History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1173.
   The instituting of the Committees of Correspondence.
   The Tea Ships and "the Boston Tea-Party."

   "The surest way to renew and cement the union [of the
   colonies] was to show that the ministry had not relaxed in its
   determination to enforce the principal of the Townshend acts.
   This was made clear in August, 1772, when it was ordered that
   in Massachusetts the judges should henceforth be paid by the
   crown. Popular excitement rose to fever heat, and the judges
   were threatened with impeachment should they dare accept a
   penny from the royal treasury. The turmoil was increased next
   year by the discovery in London of the package of letters
   which were made to support the unjust charge against
   Hutchinson and some of his friends that they had instigated
   and aided the most extreme measures of the ministry. In the
   autumn of 1772 Hutchinson refused to call an extra session of
   the assembly to consider what should be done about the judges.
   Samuel Adams then devised a scheme by which the towns of
   Massachusetts could consult with each other and agree upon
   some common course of action in case of emergencies. For this
   purpose each town was to appoint a standing committee, and as
   a great part of their work was necessarily done by letter they
   were called 'committees of correspondence.' This was the step
   that fairly organized the Revolution."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 5._

   "The town records of Boston [November 2, 1772] say:—
   'It was then moved by Mr. Samuel Adams that a Committee of
   Correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons,
   to state the rights of the colonists and of this Province in
   particular as men and Christians and as subjects; and to
   communicate and publish the same to the several towns and to
   the world as the sense of this town, with the infringements
   and violations thereof that have been or from time to time may
   be made.' The motion occasioned some debate and seems to have
   been carried late at night; the vote in its favor, at last,
   was nearly unanimous. The colleagues of Adams, who had left
   him almost alone thus far, now declined to become members of
   the committee, regarding the scheme as useless or trifling.
   The committee was at last constituted without them; it was
   made up of men of little prominence but of thorough
   respectability. James Otis, in another interval of sanity, was
   made chairman, a position purely honorary, the town in this
   way showing its respect for the leader whose misfortunes they
   so sincerely mourned.
{3207}
   The Committee of Correspondence held its first meeting in the
   representatives' chamber at the town-house, November 3, 1772,
   where at the outset each member pledged himself to observe
   secrecy as to their transactions, except those which, as a
   committee, they should think it proper to divulge. According
   to the motion by which the committee was constituted, three
   duties were to be performed: 1st, the preparation of a
   statement of the rights of the colonists, as men, as
   Christians, and as subjects; 2d, a declaration of the
   infringement and violation of those rights; 3d, a letter to be
   sent to the several towns of the Province and to the world,
   giving the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was
   assigned to Samuel Adams, of the second to Joseph Warren, of
   the third to Benjamin Church. In a few days tidings came from
   the important towns of Marblehead, Roxbury, Cambridge, and
   Plymouth, indicating that the example of Boston was making
   impression and was likely to be followed. On November 20, at a
   town-meeting in Faneuil Hall, the different papers were
   presented: Otis sat as moderator, appearing for the last time
   in a sphere where his career had been so magnificent. The
   report was in three divisions, according to the motion. … In
   the last days of 1772, the document, having been printed, was
   transmitted to those for whom it had been intended, producing
   at once an immense effect. The towns almost unanimously
   appointed similar committees; from every quarter came replies
   in which the sentiments of Samuel Adams were echoed. In the
   library of Bancroft is a volume of manuscripts, worn and
   stained by time, which have an interest scarcely inferior to
   that possessed by the Declaration of Independence itself, as
   the fading page hangs against its pillar in the library of the
   State Department at Washington. They are the original replies
   sent by the Massachusetts towns to Samuel Adams's committee
   sitting in Faneuil Hall, during those first months of 1773.
   One may well read them with bated breath, for it is the touch
   of the elbow as the stout little democracies dress up into
   line, just before they plunge into actual fight at Concord and
   Bunker Hill. There is sometimes a noble scorn of the
   restraints of orthography, as of the despotism of Great
   Britain, in the work of the old town clerks, for they
   generally were secretaries of the committees; and once in a
   while a touch of Dogberry's quaintness, as the punctilious
   officials, though not always 'putting God first,' yet take
   pains that there shall be no mistake as to their piety by
   making every letter in the name of the Deity a rounded
   capital. Yet the documents ought to inspire the deepest
   reverence. They constitute the highest mark the town-meeting
   has ever touched. Never before and never since have
   Anglo-Saxon men, in lawful folk-mote assembled, given
   utterance to thoughts and feelings so fine in themselves and
   so pregnant with great events. To each letter stand affixed
   the names of the committee in autograph. This awkward scrawl
   was made by the rough fist of a Cape Ann fisherman, on shore
   for the day to do at town-meeting the duty his fellows had
   laid upon him: the hand that wrote this other was cramped from
   the scythe-handle, as its possessor mowed an intervale on the
   Connecticut; this blotted signature, where smutted fingers
   have left a black stain, was written by a blacksmith of
   Middlesex, turning aside a moment from forging a barrel that
   was to do duty at Lexington. They were men of the plainest;
   but as the documents containing statements of the most
   generous principles find the most courageous determination,
   were read in the town-houses, the committees who produced
   them, and the constituents for whom the committees stood, were
   lifted above the ordinary level. Their horizon expanded to the
   broadest; they had in view not simply themselves, but the
   welfare of the continent; not solely their own generation, but
   remote posterity. It was Samuel Adams's own plan, the
   consequences of which no one foresaw, neither friend nor foe.
   Even Hutchinson, who was scarcely less keen than Samuel Adams
   himself, was completely at fault. 'Such a foolish scheme,' he
   called it, 'that the faction must necessarily make themselves
   ridiculous.' But in January the eyes of men were opening. One
   of the ablest of the Tories, Daniel Leonard, wrote:—'This is
   the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued
   from the egg of sedition. I saw the small seed when it was
   implanted; it was a grain of mustard. I have watched the plant
   until it has become a great tree.' It was the transformation
   into a strong cord of what had been a rope of sand."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 13._

   "In the spring of 1773, Virginia carried this work of
   organization a long step further, when Dabney Carr suggested
   and carried a motion calling for committees of correspondence
   between the several colonies. From this point it was a
   comparatively short step to a permanent Continental Congress.
   It happened that these preparations were made just in time to
   meet the final act of aggression which brought on the
   Revolutionary War. The Americans had thus far successfully
   resisted the Townshend acts and secured the repeal of all the
   duties except on tea. As for tea they had plenty, but not from
   England; they smuggled it from Holland in spite of
   custom-houses and search-warrants. Clearly unless the
   Americans could be made to buy tea from England and pay the
   duty on it, the king must own himself defeated. Since it
   appeared that they could not be forced into doing this, it
   remained to be seen if they could be tricked into doing it. A
   truly ingenious scheme was devised. Tea sent by the East India
   Company to America had formerly paid a duty in some British
   port on the way. This duty was now taken off, so that the
   price of the tea for America might be lowered. The company's
   tea thus became so cheap that the American merchant could buy
   a pound of it and pay the threepence duty beside for less than
   it cost him to smuggle a pound of tea from Holland. It was
   supposed that the Americans would of course buy the tea which
   they could get most cheaply, and would thus be beguiled into
   submission to that principle of taxation which they had
   hitherto resisted. Ships laden with tea were accordingly sent
   in the autumn of 1773 to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and
   Charleston; and consignees were appointed to receive the tea
   in each of these towns. Under the guise of a commercial
   operation, this was purely a political trick.
{3208}
   It was an insulting challenge to the American people, and
   merited the reception which they gave it. They would have
   shown themselves unworthy of their rich political heritage had
   they given it any other. In New York, Philadelphia, and
   Charleston mass-meetings of the people voted that the
   consignees should be ordered to resign their offices, and they
   did so. At Philadelphia the tea-ship was met and sent back to
   England before it had come within the jurisdiction of the
   custom-house. At Charleston the tea was landed, and as there
   was no one to receive it or pay the duty, it was thrown into a
   damp cellar and left there to spoil. In Boston things took a
   different turn."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 5._

   "Acting upon the precedent of the time of the Stamp Act, when
   Oliver, the stamp commissioner, had resigned his commission
   under the Liberty Tree, a placard was posted everywhere on the
   3d of November, inviting the people of Boston and the
   neighboring towns to be present at Liberty Tree that day at
   noon, to witness the resignation of the consignees of the tea,
   and hear them swear to re-ship to London what teas should
   arrive. The placard closed,—'Show me the man that dares take
   this town.' At the time appointed, representatives Adams,
   Hancock, and Phillips, the selectmen and town clerk, with
   about five hundred more, were present at the Liberty Tree. But
   no consignees arrived, whereupon Molineux and Warren headed a
   party who waited upon them. The consignees, Clarke, a rich
   merchant, and his sons, Benjamin Faneuil, Winslow, and the two
   sons of Hutchinson, Thomas and Elisha, sat together in the
   counting-house of Clarke in King Street. Admittance was
   refused the committee, and a conversation took place through a
   window, during which the tone of the consignees was defiant.
   There was some talk of violence, and when an attempt was made
   to exclude the committee and the crowd attending them from the
   building, into the first story of which they had penetrated,
   the doors were taken off their binges and threats uttered.
   Molineux, generally impetuous enough, but now influenced
   probably by cooler heads, dissuaded the others from violence.
   … A town-meeting on November 5, in which an effort of the
   Tories to make head against the popular feeling came to
   naught, showed how overwhelming was the determination to
   oppose the introduction of the tea. … When news arrived on the
   17th that three tea-ships were on the way to Boston, for a
   second time a town-meeting demanded through a committee, of
   which Samuel Adams was a member, the resignation of the
   consignees. They evaded the demand; the town-meeting voted
   their answer not satisfactory, and at once adjourned without
   debate or comment. The silence was mysterious; what was
   impending none could tell. … On the 28th, the first of the
   tea-ships, the Dartmouth, Captain Hall, sailed into the
   harbor. Sunday though it was, the Committee of Correspondence
   met, obtained from Benjamin Rotch, the Quaker owner of the
   Dartmouth, a promise not to enter the vessel until Tuesday,
   and made preparations for a mass-meeting at Faneuil Hall for
   Monday forenoon, to which Samuel Adams was authorized to
   invite the surrounding towns. A stirring placard the next
   morning brought the townsmen and their neighbors to the place.
   After the organization, Samuel Adams, arising among the
   thousands, moved that: 'As the town have determined at a late
   meeting legally assembled that they will to the utmost of
   their power prevent the landing of the tea, the question be
   now put,—whether this body are absolutely determined that the
   tea now arrived in Captain Hall shall be returned to the place
   from whence it came.' There was not a dissenting voice. … In
   the afternoon, the meeting having resolved that the tea should
   go back in the same ship in which it had come, Rotch, the
   owner of the Dartmouth, protested, but was sternly forbidden,
   at his peril, to enter the tea. Captain Hall also was
   forbidden to enter any portion of it. 'Adams was never in
   greater glory,' says Hutchinson. The next morning, November
   30, the people again assembling, the consignees made it known
   that it was out of their power to send the tea back; but they
   promised that they would store it until word should come from
   their 'constituents' as to its disposal. … The Dartmouth each
   night was watched by a strong guard; armed patrols, too, were
   established, and six couriers held themselves ready, if there
   should be need to alarm the country. … During the first week
   in December arrived the Eleanor and the Beaver, also
   tea-ships, which were moored near the Dartmouth, and subjected
   to the same oversight. The 'True Sons of Liberty' posted about
   the town the most spirited placards. … The days flew by. At
   length came the end of the time of probation. If the cargo of
   the Dartmouth had not been 'entered' within that period, the
   ship according to the revenue laws, must be confiscated.
   Rotch, the Quaker owner, had signified his willingness to send
   the ship back to England with the cargo on board, if he could
   procure a clearance. The customs officials stood on
   technicalities; under the circumstances a clearance could not
   be granted. The grim British admiral ordered the Active and
   the Kingfisher from his fleet to train their broadsides on the
   channels, and sink whatever craft should try to go to sea
   without the proper papers. The governor alone had power to
   override these obstacles. It was competent for him to grant a
   permit which the revenue men and the admiral must respect. If
   he refused to do this, then on the next day the legal course
   was for the revenue officers to seize the Dartmouth and land
   the tea under the guns of the fleet. It was the 16th of
   December. A crowd of seven thousand filled the Old South and
   the streets adjoining. Nothing like it had ever been known.
   Town-meeting had followed town-meeting until the excitement
   was at fever heat. The indefatigable Committee of
   Correspondence had, as it were, scattered fire throughout the
   whole country. … Poor Quaker Rotch … felt himself, probably,
   the most persecuted of men, when the monster meeting forced
   him in the December weather to make his way out to Milton Hill
   to seek the permit from Hutchinson. … Meantime darkness had
   fallen upon the short winter day. The crowd still waited in
   the gloom of the church, dimly lighted here and there by
   candles. Rotch reappeared just after six, and informed the
   meeting that the governor refused to grant the permit until
   the vessels were properly qualified. As soon as the report had
   been made, Samuel Adams arose, for it was he who had been
   moderator, and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to
   save the country.'
{3209}
   It was evidently a concerted signal, for instantly … the
   famous war-whoop was heard, and the two or three score of
   'Mohawks' rushed by the doors, and with the crowd behind them
   hurried in the brightening moonlight to Griffin's wharf, where
   lay the ships. The tea could not go back to England; it must
   not be landed. The cold waters of the harbor were all that
   remained for it. Three hundred and forty-two chests were cast
   overboard. Nothing else was harmed, neither person nor
   property. All was so quiet that those at a distance even could
   hear in the calm air the ripping open of the thin chests as
   the tea was emptied. The 'Mohawks' found helpers, so that in
   all perhaps one hundred and fifty were actively concerned. Not
   far off in the harbor lay the ships of the fleet, and the
   Castle with the 'Sam Adams Regiments.' But no one interfered."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      volume 1, pages 372-375, 495-512;
      volume 2, pages 1-9, 24-29, 61-63, 80-81, 103-130._

      _R. Frothingham,
      Life of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 9._

      _Force's American Archives,
      volume 1._

      See, also, BOSTON: A. D. 1773;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (March-April).
   The Boston Port Bill.
   The Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.

   "The spoken defiance of the other colonies had been quite as
   efficient as the combination of threats and force to which
   Boston was compelled to resort, but Lord North launched the
   first retaliatory and punitive measure against that city. …
   The first of Lord North's bills was the Boston Port Act, which
   closed the harbor until indemnity for the tea there destroyed
   should be paid and the king be satisfied that thereafter the
   city would obey the laws. The demand for indemnity was fair
   but the indefinite claim of obedience was not only infamous in
   itself but, as Burke said, punished the innocent with the
   guilty. … North's second bill was a virtual abrogation of the
   Massachusetts charter. The council of twenty-eight had been
   hitherto elected every year in joint session of the assembly.
   The king might now appoint the whole body to any number, from
   twelve to thirty-six, and remove them at pleasure. The men so
   appointed were designated mandamus councillors. Thereafter
   town-meetings could be held only by permission of the governor
   and for the sole purpose of electing officers [General Gage
   was made governor under this act, and four regiments were
   placed in Boston for his support]. Sheriffs were to return all
   juries, and were to be named by the governor and hold office
   during his pleasure. The third bill was really a device of the
   king's, and it is said that the ministry was confused and
   shamefaced in presenting it. It ordained that magistrates,
   revenue officers, or other officials indicted in Massachusetts
   for capital offences were to be tried either in Nova Scotia or
   Great Britain. Another measure made legal the billeting of
   troops, against which Boston had hitherto striven with
   success, and a fifth, known as the Quebec Act, though
   depriving that province of the right of habeas corpus,
   restored the French customary law ('coutume de Paris'),
   established Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and by
   extending its boundaries to the Ohio and Mississippi, shut off
   the Northern English Colonies from westward extension. This
   was intended as an arbitrary settlement of a vexed question.
   The Puritans, however, … exclaimed that the next step would be
   the establishment among them of English episcopacy."

      _W. M. Sloane,
      The French War and the Revolution,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Johnston,
      The United States: its History and Constitution,
      sections. 57-58._

      _Parliamentary History,
      volume 17._

      _American Archives,
      series 4, volume 1, pages 35-220._

      _Lord Fitzmaurice,
      Life of the Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

   On the Quebec Act.

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (April-October).
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
   The Western territorial claims of Virginia.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (May-June).
   Effects of the Boston Port Bill.
   The call for a Continental Congress.

   "The Boston Port Bill was received in America with honors not
   accorded even to the Stamp Act. It was cried through the
   streets as 'A barbarous, cruel, bloody, and inhuman murder,'
   and was burnt by the common hangman on a scaffold forty-five
   feet high. The people of Boston gathered together in
   town-meeting at Faneuil Hall, and expresses were sent off with
   an appeal to all Americans throughout America. The responses
   from the neighborhood came like snow-flakes. Marblehead
   offered the use of its wharves to the Boston merchants; Salem
   averred that it would be lost to all feelings of humanity were
   it to raise its fortunes on the ruins of its neighbor.
   Newburyport voted to break off trade with Great Britain, and
   to lay up its ships. Connecticut, as her wont is, when moved
   by any vital occurrence, betook herself to prayer and
   humiliation, first, however, ordering an inventory to be taken
   of her cannon and military stores. Virginia, likewise,
   resolved to invoke the divine interposition, but, before
   another resolution which called for a Congress could be
   introduced, her House was precipitately dissolved; whereupon
   the resolution was brought up and passed at a meeting called
   in 'the Apollo,' where it was further declared that an attack
   on one colony was an attack upon all. Two days later the
   Massachusetts letter itself was received, upon which the
   Virginians called a convention. From all parts contributions
   in money poured into Boston, and resolutions were everywhere
   passed, declaring that no obedience was due the late acts of
   Parliament; that the right of imperial taxation did not exist;
   that those who had accepted office under pay of the king had
   violated their public duty; that the Quebec act establishing
   Roman Catholicism in Canada was hostile to the Protestant
   religion, and that the inhabitants of the colonies should use
   their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of
   war, and for that purpose should turn out under arms at least
   once a week. In the fulness of time, a cordon of ships was
   drawn around Boston, and six regiments and a train of
   artillery were encamped on the Common—the only spot in the
   thirteen colonies where the government could enforce an order.
   The conflict between constitutional liberty and absolutism had
   now reached that dangerous point where physical force became
   one of its elements. … The situation was at once recognized
   throughout the colonies, and the knowledge that in union there
   is strength, manifested itself in one general impulse toward a
   Colonial Congress. Committees of Correspondence were organized
   in every county, and throngs attended the public meetings.
{3210}
   'One great, wise, and noble spirit; one masterly soul
   animating one vigorous body,' was the way John Adams described
   this impulse. The Canadas alone remained inanimate. … But not
   so those to whom constitutional liberty was as the breath of
   life. On the 17th of June (1774) the Massachusetts Assembly,
   which had been removed by a royal order to Salem, answered
   Virginia by resolving on a call for a Continental Congress at
   Philadelphia. The governor, hearing of what was going on, sent
   the secretary of the colony to dissolve the Assembly, but,
   finding the doors shut upon him, he had to content himself
   with reading the message to the crowd outside. The House went
   on with its work, while, at the same time, a great meeting,
   with John Adams in the chair, was being held at Boston in
   Faneuil Hall. Twelve colonies agreed to send delegates to a
   Continental Congress to be held at Philadelphia in September."

      _E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the
      English Colonies of America,
      chapter 11 (with corrections by the author)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision)
      volume 4, chapter 1._

      See, also, BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774(May-July).
   Governor Hutchinson's departure for England.
   His conversation with King George.

   In May, 1774, Governor Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, who had
   applied some months before for leave of absence to visit
   England, was relieved by General Gage and took his departure.
   General Gage was temporarily commissioned to be "Captain
   General and Governor-in-Chief" of the Province of
   Massachusetts, and "Vice-Admiral of the same," combining the
   civil and military powers in himself. It was then supposed
   that Hutchinson's absence would be brief; but, to his endless
   grief, he never saw the country again. Soon after his arrival
   in England he had an interview with the king, which is
   reported at length in his Diary. The conversation is one of
   great historical interest, exhibiting King George's knowledge
   and ideas of American affairs, and representing the opinions
   of a high-minded American loyalist. It is reprinted here
   exactly as given in Governor Hutchinson's Diary, published by
   his great-grandson in 1883:

   "July 1st.—Received a card from Lord Dartmouth desiring to see
   me at his house before one o'clock. I went soon after 12, and
   after near an hour's conversation, his Lordship proposed
   introducing me immediately to the King. I was not dressed as
   expecting to go to Court, but his Lordship observing that the
   King would not be at St. James's again until Wednesday [this
   was Friday], I thought it best to go; but waited so long for
   his Lordship to dress, that the Levée was over; but his
   Lordship going in to the King, I was admitted, contrary, as
   Lord Pomfret observed to me, to custom, to kiss His Majesty's
   hand in his closet: after which, as near as I can recollect,
   the following conversation passed.

   K.—How do you do Mr. H. after y voyage?

   H.—Much reduced Sir by sea-sickness; and unfit upon that
   account, as well as my New England dress, to appear before
   your Majesty. Lord D. observed—Mr. H. apologised to me for his
   dress, but I thought it very well, as he is just come ashoar;
   to which the K. assented.

   K.—How did you leave your Government, and how did the people
   receive the news of the late measures in Parliament?

   H.—When I left Boston we had no news of any Act of Parliament,
   except the one for shutting up the port, which was extremely
   alarming to the people.

   (Lord D. said, Mr. H. came from Boston the day that Act was to
   take place, the first of June. I hear the people of Virginia
   have refused to comply with the request to shut up their
   ports, from the people of Boston, and Mr. H. seems to be of
   opinion that no colony will comply with that request.)

   K.—Do you believe, Mr. H., that the account from Virginia is
   true?

   H.—I have no other reason to doubt it, except that the
   authority for it seems to be only a newspaper; and it is very
   common for articles to be inserted in newspapers without any
   foundation. I have no doubt that when the people of Rhode
   Island received the like request, they gave this answer—that
   if Boston would stop all the vessels they then had in port,
   which they were hurrying away before the Act commenced, the
   people of R. Island would then consider of the proposal. The
   King smiled.

   Lord D.—Mr. H., may it please your Majesty, has shewn me a
   newspaper with an address from a great number of Merchants,
   another from the Episcopal Clergy, another from the Lawyers,
   all expressing their sense of his conduct in the most
   favourable terms. Lord Dartmouth thereupon took the paper out
   of his pocket and shewed it.

   K.—I do not see how it could be otherwise. I am sure his
   conduct has been universally approved of here by people of all
   parties.

   H.—I am very happy in your Majesty's favourable opinion of my
   administration.

   K.—I am intirely satisfied with it. I am well acquainted with
   the difficulties you have encountered, and with the abuse &
   injury offered you. Nothing could be more cruel than the
   treatment you met with in betraying your private letters.

   The K., turning to Lord D.—My Lord, I remember nothing in them
   to which the least exception could be taken.

   Lord D.—That appears, Sir, from the report of the Committee of
   Council, and from your Majesty's orders thereon.

   H.—The correspondence, Sir, was not of my seeking. It was a
   meer matter of friendly amusement, chiefly a narrative of
   occurrences, in relating of which I avoided personalities as
   much as I could, and endeavoured to treat persons, when they
   could not be avoided, with tenderness, as much as if my
   letters were intended to be exposed; whereas I had no reason
   to suppose they ever would be exposed.

   K.—Could you ever find Mr. H. how those letters came to New
   England?

   H.—Doctor F., may it please your Majesty, has made a publick
   declaration that he sent them, and the Speaker has
   acknowledged to me that he received them: I do not remember
   that he said directly from Doctor F., but it was understood
   between us that they came from him. I had heard before that
   they came either direct from him, or that he had sent them
   through another channel, and that they were to be communicated
   to six persons only, and then to be returned without suffering
   any copies to be taken, I sent for the Speaker and let him
   know what I had heard, which came from one of the six to a
   friend, and so to me. The Speaker said they were sent to him,
   and that he was at first restrained from shewing them to any
   more than six persons.

{3211}

   K.—Did he tell you who were the persons?

   H.—Yes, sir. There was Mr. Bowdoin, Mr. Pitts, Doctor
   Winthrop, Doctor Chauncy, Doctor Cooper, and himself. They are
   not all the same which had been mentioned before. The two Mr.
   Adamses had been named to me in the room of Mr. Pitts and
   Doctor Winthrop.

   K.—Mr. B. I have heard of Lord D.—I think he is father-in-law
   to Mr. T. [Temple].

   K.—Who is Mr. Pitts?

   H.—He is one of the Council—married Mr. B.'s sister.

   K.—I have heard of Doctor Ch. and Doctor Cooper, but who is
   Doctor Winthrop?

   H.—He is not a Doctor of Divinity, Sir, but of Law; a
   Professor of Mathematicks and Natural Philosophy at the
   College, and last year was chose of the Council.

   K.—I have beard of one Mr. Adams, but who is the other?

   H.—He is a Lawyer, Sir.

   K.—Brother to the other?

   H. No, Sir, a relation. He has been of the House, but is not
   now. He was elected by the two Houses to be of the Council,
   but negatived. The speaker further acquainted me that, after
   the first letter, he received another, allowing him to shew
   the Letters to the Committee of Correspondence; and afterwards
   a third, which allowed him to shew them to such persons as he
   could confide in, but always enjoined to send them back
   without taking copies. I asked him how he could be guilty of
   such a breach of trust as to suffer them to be made publick?
   He excused it by saying that he was against their being
   brought before the House, but was overruled; and when they had
   been read there, the people abroad compelled their
   publication, or would not be satisfied without it. Much more
   passed with which I will not trouble your Majesty; but after
   the use had been made of the Letters, which is so well known,
   they were all returned.

   K., turning to Lord D—This is strange:—where is Doctor F., my
   lord?

   Lord D.—I believe, Sir, he is in Town. He was going to
   America, but I fancy he is not gone.

   K.—I heard he was going to Switzerland, or to some part of the
   Continent.

   Lord D.—I think, Sir, there has been such a report.

   K.—In such abuse, Mr. H., as you met with, I suppose there
   must have been personal malevolence as well as party rage?

   H.—It has been my good fortune, Sir, to escape any charge
   against me in my private character. The attacks have been upon
   my publick conduct, and for such things as my duty to your
   Majesty required me to do, and which you have been pleased to
   approve of. I don't know that any of my enemies have
   complained of a personal injury.

   K.—I see they threatened to pitch and feather you.

   H.—Tarr & feather, may it please your Majesty; but I don't
   remember that ever I was threatened with it.

   Lord D.—Oh! yes, when Malcolm was tarred and feathered
   [Almanac for 1770, May, MS. Note], the committee for tarring
   and feathering blamed the people for doing it, that being a
   punishment reserved for a higher person, and we suppose you
   was intended.

   H.—I remember something of that sort, which was only to make
   diversion, there being no such committee, or none known by
   that name.

   K.—What guard had you, Mr. H.?

   H.—I depended, Sir, on the protection of Heaven. I had no
   other guard. I was not conscious of having done anything of
   which they could justly complain, or make a pretence for
   offering violence to my person. I was not sure, but I hoped
   they only meant to intimidate. By discovering that I was
   afraid, I should encourage them to go on. By taking measures
   for my security I should expose myself to calumny, and being
   censured as designing to render them odious for what they
   never intended to do. I was, therefore, obliged to appear to
   disregard all the menaces in the newspapers, and also private
   intimations from my friends who frequently advised me to take
   care of myself.

   K.—I think you generally live in the country,
   Mr. H.; what distance are you from town?

   H.—I have lived in the country, Sir, in the summer for 20
   years; but, except the winter after my house was pulled down,
   I have never lived in the country in winter until the last. My
   house is 7 or 8 miles from the Town, a pleasant situation, and
   most gentlemen from abroad say it has the finest prospect from
   it they ever saw, except where great improvements have been
   made by art, to help the natural view. The longest way the
   road is generally equal to the turnpike roads here; the other
   way rather rough.

   K.—Pray, what does Hancock do now? How will the late affair
   affect him?

   H.—I don't know to what particular affair your Majesty refers.

   K.—Oh, a late affair in the city, his bills being refused.
   (Turning to Lord D.) Who is that in the city, my Lord?

   Lord D. not recollecting—

   H.—I have heard, Sir, that Mr. Haley, a merchant in the city,
   is Mr. Hancock's principal correspondent.

   K.—Ay, that's the name.

   H.—I heard, may it please your Majesty, before I came from New
   England, that some small sums were returned, but none of
   consequence.

   K.—Oh, no, I mean within this month, large sums.

   Lord D.—I have heard such rumours, but don't know the
   certainty.

   H.—Mr. Hancock, Sir, had a very large fortune left him by his
   uncle, and I believe his political engagements have taken off
   his attention from his private affairs. He was sensible not
   long ago of the damage it was to him, and told me he was
   determined to quit all publick business, but soon altered his
   mind.

   K.—Then there's Mr. Cushing: I remember his name a long time:
   is not he a great man of the party?

   H.—He has been many years Speaker, but a Speaker, Sir, is not
   always the person of the greatest influence. A Mr. Adams is
   rather considered as the opposer of Government, and a sort of
   Wilkes in New England.

{3212}

   K.—What gave him his importance?

   H.—A great pretended zeal for liberty, and a most inflexible
   natural temper. He was the first that publickly asserted the
   Independency of the colonies upon the Kingdom, or the supreme
   Authority of it.

   K.—I have heard, Mr. H., that your ministers preach that, for
   the sake of promoting liberty or the publick good, any
   immorality or less evil may be tolerated?

   H.—I don't know, Sir, that such doctrine has ever been
   preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been
   publickly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call
   themselves sober men, that the good of the publick is above
   all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed
   with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be
   obtained by such means.

   K.—That's a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr. H., what is
   your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the
   Council? Will it be agreeable to the people, and will the new
   appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?

   H.—I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform
   myself who they are. I came to Town late last evening, and
   have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice
   that has been made.

   K.—Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable
   persons should be appointed.

   H.—The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of
   England; what are called Congregationalists. If the Council
   shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it
   will make the change more disagreeable.

   K.—Why are they not Presbyterians?

   H.—There are very few Churches which call themselves
   Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a
   Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which
   the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.

   Lord D.—The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any
   of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England,
   Congregationalists, or rather Independents.

   K.—Pray, what were your Ancestors, Mr. H.?

   H.—In general, Sir, Dissenters.

   K.—Where do you attend?

   H.—With both, Sir. Sometimes at your Majesty's chapel, but
   more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very
   worthy minister, a friend to Government, who constantly prays
   for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.

   K.—What is his name?

   H.—Doctor Pemberton.

   K.—I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good
   man. Who is minister at the chapel?

   H.—The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who
   frequently inculcates upon his hearers due subjection to
   Government, and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it;
   and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short
   prayer before sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and
   for the chief Ruler in the Province.

   K.—Why do not the Episcopal ministers in general do the same?

   H.—In general, Sir, they use no other prayer before sermon
   than a short collect out of the Liturgy.

   K.—No—(turning to Lord D.) It is not so here, my Lord?

   Lord D.—I believe it is, Sir. In your Majesty's Chapel they
   always use such a prayer. It is a form adapted.

   K.—I think you must be mistaken.

   Lord D.—No, Sir. This prayer used to be printed formerly, but
   of late it has not been printed with the service. In general
   the ministers use a collect, as Mr. Hutchinson says; sometimes
   the collect in the Communion service—'Prevent us, O Lord,'
   &c., but I think oftener the collect for the second Sunday in
   Advent.

   H.—My education, Sir, was with the Dissenters. I conceive
   there is no material difference between reading a prayer out
   of a book, and saying it 'memoriter,' without book.

   Lord D.—I think, Sir, it is not very material. The prayers of
   the Dissenters are in substance very much the same with those
   in the service of' the church.

   K.—I see no material difference, if the prayers be equally
   good, but will not that depend upon the minister? But, pray,
   Mr. H., why do your ministers generally join with the people
   in their opposition to Government?

   H.—They are, Sir, dependent upon the people. They are elected
   by the people, and when they are dissatisfied with them, they
   seldom leave till they get rid of them.

   K.—That must be very dangerous. If the people oblige them to
   concur with them in their erroneous principles on Government,
   they may do it in religion also, and this must have a most
   fatal tendency.

   H.—There is one check, Sir, upon the people. Unless a minister
   be dismissed by a council of Churches, the Province law makes
   provision for the recovery of the salary; but we have no
   instance where a minister, for any length of time, has brought
   suits for the recovery of his salary, after the people refuse
   to hear him. They generally weary him, and sooner or later
   they get clear of him.

   Lord D.—That's a considerable tye, however.

   K.—Pray, Mr. H., does population greatly increase in your
   Province?

   H.—Very rapidly, Sir. I used to think that Doctor F., who has
   taken such pains in his calculations, carried it too far when
   he supposed the inhabitants of America, from their natural
   increase, doubled their number in 25 years; but I rather think
   now that he did not; and I believe it will appear from the
   last return I made to the Secretary of State, that the
   Massachusets has increased in that proportion. And the
   increase is supposed, including the importation of foreigners,
   to be, upon the whole, greater in most of the Southern
   Colonies than in the Massachusets. We import no settlers from
   Europe, so as to make any sensible increase.

   K.—Why do not foreigners come to your Province as well as to
   the Southern Governments?

   H.—I take it, Sir, that our long cold winters discourage
   them. Before they can bring the land to such a state as to be
   able in summer to provide for their support in winter, what
   little substance they can bring with them is expended, and
   many of them have greatly suffered. The Southern colonies are
   more temperate.

   K.—What is the reason you raise no wheat in your Province?

{3213}

   H.—In most places, especially near the sea, it blasts.

   K.—To what cause is that owing?

   H.—It has been observed that when the grain is so forward as
   to be out of the milk the beginning of July, it seldom blasts;
   and that about the 8th or 10th of that month the weather
   becomes exceeding hot, and what are called the honey dews of
   the night are fixed upon the grains by the scalding sun in a
   hot morning, and if the grain be then in the milk it shrivels
   up, and the straw becomes rusty and black. This is a pretty
   general opinion of the cause.

   K.—To what produce is your climate best adapted?

   H.—To grazing, Sir; your Majesty has not a finer Colony for
   grass in all your dominions: and nothing is more profitable in
   America that pasture, because labour is very dear.

   K.—Then you import all your bread corn from the other
   Colonies?

   H.—No, Sir, scarce any, except for the use of the maritime
   towns. In the country towns the people raise grain enough for
   their own expending, and sometimes for exportation. They live
   upon coarse bread made of rye and corn mixed, and by long use
   they learn to prefer this to flour or wheat bread.
   K.—What corn?

   H.—Indian corn, or, as it is called in Authors, Maize.

   K.—Ay, I know it. Does that make good bread?

   H.—Not by itself, Sir; the bread will soon be dry and husky;
   but the Rye keeps it moist, and some of our country people
   prefer a bushel of Rye to a bushel of Wheat, if the price
   should be the same.

   K.—That's very strange.

   Lord D.—In many parts of Scotland, Sir, Rye is much esteemed
   as making good and wholesome bread.

   The King enquired very particularly into many other parts of
   the produce of the country, and the natural history of it, to
   which I gave the best answers I was capable of.

   K.—New York, I think, comes the next to Boston in their
   opposition to Government?

   H.—Does your Majesty think nearer than Pennsilvania?

   K.—Why, I can't say that they do of late.

   K.—Rhode Island, Mr. H., is a strange form of Government.

   H.—They approach, Sir, the nearest to a Democracy of any of
   your Colonies. Once a year all power returns to the people,
   and all their Officers are new elected. By this means the
   Governor has no judgment of his own, and must comply with
   every popular prejudice.

   K.—Who is their Governor now?

   H.—His name, Sir, is Wanton, a Gentleman who I have reason to
   think wishes to see Government maintained as much as any they
   could find in the Colonies.

   K.—How is it with Connecticut? are they much better?

   H.—The constitutions, Sir, are much the same; but Connecticut
   are a more cautious people; strive to make as little noise as
   may be, and have in general retained a good share of that
   virtue which is peculiarly necessary in such a form of
   Government.

   More was said upon the state of these and some of the other
   Colonies. There being something of a pause about this time, I
   turned to Lord Dartmouth and asked—Does your Lordship remember
   when you had the first account of the Lieutenant Governor's
   death, and whether it was before the Letters which I wrote by
   Governor Tryon?

   Lord D.—Oh, yes, I had a letter from you several weeks before
   that, giving an account of it.

   H.—There was a vessel sailed for Lisbon the day after he died,
   and I gave a letter to the master in charge, to put it on
   board the first Vessel for London, but was doubtful of the
   conveyance.

   K.—We never could find out which way that letter came. Is the
   present L. Governor a relation to the late Mr. Oliver?

   H.—No, Sir, not of the same family. I have no connection with
   him, nor did I ever let him know that I had mentioned him as
   one of the persons I thought might be proper for a Lieutenant
   Governor.

   K.—The Chief Justice, I think, is brother to the late
   Lieutenant Governor?

   H.—Yes, Sir.

   K.—We had thought of him, but as he was not one of those you
   had named, the present Gentleman, upon enquiry, appeared under
   all circumstances the most proper.

   H.—I had some particular inducement not to mention the Chief
   Justice. He is related to me, and his appointment would have
   increased the envy against both of us.

   K.—How is he related to you?

   H.—One of his sons, Sir, married one of my daughters. I was,
   besides, uncertain whether the salary would be continued; and
   if it should be, his salary as Chief Justice exceeded it,
   except in case of my absence, and then the expense of living,
   and the additional trouble from his post, I considered as more
   than an equivalent. I considered further, that the controversy
   in which he had been engaged as Chief Justice would render the
   administration peculiarly difficult just at that time; and I
   supposed it would immediately devolve upon him by my absence,
   having then no expectation of being superseded. I never took
   more pains to divest myself of all personal views than in
   mentioning proper persons for this place. I should have been
   more anxious, if I had not thought it not improbable that some
   person might be appointed, and sent from England.

   K.—What number of Indians had you in your Government?

   H.—They are almost extinct. Perhaps there are 50 or 60
   families at most upon the Eastern Frontier, where there is a
   small fort maintained; tho' I conceive the inhabitants would
   not be in the least danger. It looks, Sir, as if in a few
   years the Indians would be extinct in all parts of the
   Continent.

   K.—To what is that owing?

   H.—I have thought, Sir, in part to their being dispirited at
   their low despicable condition among the Europeans, who have
   taken possession of their country, and treat them as an
   inferior race of beings; but more to the immoderate use of
   spirituous liquors. There are near 100 families, perhaps more,
   of Indians who are domiciliated, and live, some in other towns,
   but most of them at a place called Mashpee, where they have a
   church, and a Missionary to preach to them, and also an Indian
   Minister who has been ordained, and preaches sometimes in
   their own language.

   K.—What, an Episcopal Minister?

   H.—No, Sir, of the Congregational persuasion or form of
   worship.

{3214}

   The King was particular in many other enquiries relative to my
   Administration, to the state of the Province, and the other
   Colonies. I have minuted what remained the clearest upon my
   mind, and as near the order in which they passed as I am able.
   He asked also what part of my family I brought with me, and
   what I left behind, and at length advised me to keep house a
   few days for the recovery of my health. I then withdrew. I was
   near two hours in the K. closet. Lord D. feared I was tired so
   long standing. I observed that so gracious a reception made me
   insensible of it."

      _Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson.
      chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September).
   The meeting of the First Continental Congress.

   "On the 5th day of September most of the delegates elected to
   the congress were in Philadelphia. They were invited by the
   speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly to hold their sessions in
   the State House, but decided to meet in the hall owned by the
   carpenters,—a fine brick building, having commodious rooms for
   the use of the committees, and an excellent library in the
   chambers. It is still in good preservation. At ten o'clock in
   the morning the delegates met at the City Tavern, walked to
   Carpenters' Hall, and began the sessions of the Continental
   Congress. This assembly, when all the members had taken their
   seats, consisted of 55 delegates, chosen by 12 colonies. They
   represented a population of 2,200,000, paying a revenue of
   £80,000 sterling. Georgia, which did not elect delegates, gave
   a promise to concur with her 'sister colonies' in the effort
   to maintain their right to the British Constitution. … In
   general, the delegates elect were men of uncommon ability, who
   had taken a prominent part in the political action of their
   several localities. … New England presented, in John Sullivan,
   vigor; in Roger Sherman, sterling sense and integrity; in
   Thomas Cushing, commercial knowledge; in John Adams, large
   capacity for public affairs; in Samuel Adams, a great
   character, with influence and power to organize. The Middle
   colonies presented, in Philip Livingston, the merchant prince
   of enterprise and liberality; in John Jay, rare public virtue,
   juridical learning, and classic taste; in William Livingston,
   progressive ideas tempered by conservatism; in John Dickinson,
   'The Immortal Farmer,' erudition and literary ability; in
   Cæsar Rodney and Thomas McKean, working power; in James Duane,
   timid Whiggism, halting, but keeping true to the cause; in
   Joseph Galloway, downright Toryism, seeking control, and at
   length going to the enemy. The Southern colonies presented, in
   Thomas Johnson, the grasp of a statesman; in Samuel Chase,
   activity and boldness; in the Rutledges, wealth and
   accomplishment; in Christopher Gadsden, the genuine American;
   and in the Virginia delegation, an illustrious group,—in
   Richard Bland, wisdom; in Edmund Pendleton, practical talent;
   in Peyton Randolph, experience in legislation; in Richard
   Henry Lee, statesmanship in union with high culture; in
   Patrick Henry, genius and eloquence; in Washington, justice
   and patriotism. 'If,' said Patrick Henry, 'you speak of solid
   information and sound judgment, Washington unquestionably is
   the greatest man of them all.' … The congress was organized by
   the choice of Peyton Randolph of Virginia for President, and
   Charles Thomson of Philadelphia, not a member, for Secretary.
   … A discussion … arose on the rules to be observed in
   determining questions, … which was renewed the next day, when
   it was agreed that each colony should have one vote."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and. T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Life and Times of John Dickinson,
      chapter 5._

      _V. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the! United States,
      volume 3, chapter 13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September-October).
   The action of the Congress.

   "The Congress first resolved 'to state the rights of the
   colonies in general, the several instances in which those
   rights were violated or infringed, and the means most proper
   for a restoration of them.' Next, 'to examine and report the
   several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of
   the colonies,' not earlier than the last nine years. While
   these subjects were under consideration, resolutions of Boston
   and its neighbors [Middlesex and Suffolk counties] were laid
   before them, stating their wrongs and merely defensive
   measures to which they would adhere, 'as long as such conduct
   may be vindicated by reason and the principles of
   self-preservation, but no longer.' … Congress unanimously
   approved and recommended 'a perseverance in this firm and
   temperate conduct,' trusting a change in the councils of the
   British nation. The merchants were urged not to order goods,
   and to suspend those ordered; and it was resolved, that after
   the first of next December there should be no importation of
   British goods, and no consumption of, or traffic in them. A
   loyal petition to the king was ordered, assuring him that by
   abolishing the system of laws and regulations of which the
   colonies complained, enumerating them, the jealousies they had
   caused would be removed, and harmony restored. 'We ask but for
   peace, liberty and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
   prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in
   our favor. Your royal authority over us, and our connection
   with Great Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously
   endeavor to support and maintain.' General Gage was entreated
   to discontinue the erection of the fortifications on Boston
   Neck, and to prevent all injuries on the part of the troops;
   and Massachusetts was asked 'temporarily to submit to a
   suspension of the administration of justice where it could not
   be procured in a legal and peaceable manner.' Persons
   accepting office under the recent act, changing the form of
   her government, were denounced, 'as the wicked tools of that
   despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which
   God, nature, and compact have given to America.' A memorial
   was next ordered to the inhabitants of the British colonies
   there represented, exposing their common wrongs and urging a
   united 'commercial opposition,' warning them to extend their
   views 'to mournful events,' to be 'in all respects prepared
   for every contingency, and to implore the favor of Almighty
   God.'
{3215}
   An appeal was made to the enlightened sympathies of the
   British people. … Finally, an address was made to the
   inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, inviting their
   co-operation. In the meantime, the form of a non-exportation,
   non-consumption association was adopted, and signed by each of
   the delegates. … A declaration of the rights and injuries of
   the colonies was made, in which the most difficult question
   was disposed of. The right to participate in the legislative
   council of their common country, was declared to be the
   foundation of English liberty and of all free government. … Of
   all these proceedings the language was that of peace, except
   where other language was demanded. For they approved the
   opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay to the
   execution of the late acts of Parliament, and declared, 'If
   these acts shall be attempted to be carried into execution by
   force, in such case all America ought to support them in their
   opposition,' and 'that seizing or attempting to seize any
   person in America, in order to transport such person beyond
   the sea for trial of offences committed within the body of a
   county in America, being against law, will justify, and ought
   to meet with, resistance and reprisal.' These were the
   essential resolutions. They bound the colonies to a common
   resistance to acts of force against all, or any one of them.
   They also declared their opinion of the necessity that another
   Congress should be held in the ensuing month of May, unless
   the redress of grievances which they had desired was obtained
   before that time, and that all the colonies in North America
   choose deputies, as soon as possible, to attend such Congress.
   On the twenty-sixth of October, after a secret session of
   fifty-one days, this body adjourned. The recommendations of
   this Congress were received with marked respect among the
   patriots of the colonies."

      _J. C. Hamilton,
      History of the United States as traced
      in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "Trained in all the theories of the mercantile system, America
   had been taught to believe (1) that two countries could
   continue to trade, though one of necessity did so at a loss;
   (2) that in the trade between England and the colonies, the
   former both through natural advantages and through law was the
   party to which the profit accrued; (3) that England was 'a
   shop-keeping nation,' whose very existence depended on her
   trade and manufactures. A suspension of trade between England
   and America therefore would mean misery, if not ruin, to the
   mother country, while the colonies would 'both save and gain.'
   With measures of non-importation, non-exportation and
   non-consumption, accordingly, did this otherwise powerless
   body hope to coerce the English people and government. Though
   founded on an economic fallacy, this method of action was
   certain to have a great effect in England. Twice already had
   it been employed on a limited scale—against the Stamp Act and
   against the revenue acts,—and each time with sufficient
   success to warrant the belief that its wider application would
   result in victory. Now the agents of the colonies in London
   were writing home: 'If you have virtue enough to resolve to
   stop, and to execute the resolution of stopping, your exports
   and imports for one year, this country must do you justice.' …
   In both England and America the temporary destruction of
   British trade was viewed not merely as an effective weapon,
   but as the only peaceful one which the colonies possessed. A
   failure to unite in a non-importation agreement against
   England would, according to a prominent English politician,
   leave nothing for the colonies 'but to decide between ruin and
   submission.' The question for the Congress was not, therefore,
   a choice of remedies, but merely whether, and to how great an
   extent, the dele·gates could be brought to agree to the only
   one within their reach. For even while accepting the system as
   effective against Great Britain, the delegates and their
   constituents had so far progressed as to realize that it bore
   with uneven force on the different colonies. The southern
   colonies were really no more diversified in their industries
   than the West India islands. South Carolina grew rice and
   indigo; North Carolina depended largely on tar, pitch and
   turpentine; Virginia raised tobacco. Unless these products
   could be exported to Europe, those colonies might suffer for
   the necessaries of life. … The first consideration of the
   subject in the Congress revealed serious difficulties. The
   Virginia delegation, 'to avoid the heavy injury that would
   arise,' were prevented by their instructions from agreeing to
   an immediate cessation of trade relations. Imports would cease
   on November 1, 1774, but exports must continue till August 10,
   1775. It was in vain they were told 'that a non-exportation at
   a future day cannot avail,' and that at the Virginia date
   non-exportation would not operate before the fall of 1776. The
   Virginians had determined to cure and sell their tobacco crop
   of 1774 before 'consideration of interest and of equality of
   sacrifice should be laid aside.' So vital, however, did most
   of the delegates consider the immediate enforcement, that it
   was proposed to act without Virginia; for Boston and New
   England, it was said, would need active support before that
   date. This proposition was defeated by the refusal of the
   delegates of North Carolina and Maryland to join unless
   Virginia should also make the sacrifice. With sorry grace the
   Congress had to accept the dictation of Virginia. But the
   trouble did not end here. Virginia's selfish interest having
   been triumphant, the South Carolina delegation sought for an
   equal advantage, and demanded that the two great products of
   that colony should be especially reserved from the
   non-exportation clause. … Rather than yield, the Congress
   preferred a cessation of business for several days, in order
   'to give Our [South Carolina] deputies time to recollect
   themselves.' But when the Association was ready for signing,
   the South Carolina delegates, with but one exception, seceded
   from the Congress, and their assent was only secured
   eventually through a compromise, by virtue of which rice alone
   was excluded from the agreement, while indigo was brought
   under its terms. Such were the secret deliberations of the
   Congress, in endeavoring to unite the colonies in the use of
   their only weapon. The first public results appeared in the
   form of a unanimous resolution, passed and published on
   September 22, requesting 'the merchants and others in the
   several colonies not to send to Great Britain any orders for
   goods,' and to delay or suspend orders already sent. Five days
   later it was unanimously resolved that after December 1, 1774,
   'there should be no importation into British America from
   Great Britain or Ireland, or from any other place,' of any
   goods, wares or merchandise exported from Great Britain or
   Ireland.
{3216}
   Three days later, with no assertion of unanimity, a resolution
   was announced to the effect 'that from and after the 10th day
   of September, 1775, the exportation of all merchandise and
   every commodity whatsoever to Great Britain, Ireland and the
   West Indies ought to cease, unless the grievances of America
   are redressed before that time,' and a committee was appointed
   to draft a plan for carrying into effect these resolves. On
   October 12 this committee brought in a report, which, after
   consideration and amendment, was on the 18th of October agreed
   to and ordered signed. On October 20 it was signed and ordered
   to be printed. Possessed of no real power, the Congress relied
   on the people to enforce this agreement. It was recommended
   that in every county, city and town a committee be chosen
   'whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct
   of all persons touching this Association.' With hardly an
   exception, this recommendation was adopted. … As America had
   refused to trade with Great Britain and her colonies, the
   government replied by acts prohibiting any such trade. The
   policy of 'exhausting its opponent by injuring itself' was at
   last to have a fair trial, but through British, not American
   action. The colonies were by law interdicted from all
   commerce, trade and fishing. But before the legislation went
   into effect blood had been shed at Lexington. The contest
   could no longer be fought with acts of Parliament and resolves
   of Congress; 'blows must decide.' The Association was
   distinctively a peace weapon. Had the Congress really expected
   war, no action could have been more foolish. A garrison soon
   to be beleaguered virtually shut its ports to supplies. No
   better proof is needed of how little the delegates wished or
   worked for separation."

      _P. L. Ford,
      The Association of the First Congress
      (Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891.)_



   'That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free
   government, is a right in the people to participate in their
   legislative council; and us the English colonists are not
   represented, and from their local and other circumstances
   cannot be properly represented in the British Parliament, they
   are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in
   their several provincial legislatures, where their rights of
   representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of
   taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of
   their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used
   and accustomed. But from the necessity of the case, and a
   regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully
   consent to the operation of such acts of the British
   Parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of
   our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the
   commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother
   country; and the commercial benefits of its respective
   members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or
   external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America,
   without their consent.' This was not precisely what John Adams
   wanted, but it was much. When this declaration went forth, the
   cause of Massachusetts, in whatever it might eventuate, was
   the cause of the colonies. It was nationalized. This was John
   Adams's greatest feat of statesmanship. On it the Success of
   the impending war, and the Declaration of Independence
   rested."

      _M. Chamberlain,
      John Adams, the Statesman of the
      American Revolution,
      pages 78-80._

   "How far the authority of this first congress extended,
   according to the instructions of the delegates, it is
   impossible to determine with certainty at this distance of
   time. But it is probable that the original intention was that
   it should consult as to the ways and means best calculated to
   remove the grievances and to guaranty the rights and liberties
   of the colonies, and should propose to the latter a series of
   resolutions, furthering these objects. But the force of
   circumstances at the time compelled it to act and order
   immediately, and the people, by a consistent following of its
   orders, approved this transcending of their written
   instructions. The congress was therefore not only a
   revolutionary body from its origin, but its acts assumed a
   thoroughly revolutionary character. The people, also, by
   recognizing its authority, placed themselves on a
   revolutionary footing, and did so not as belonging to the
   several colonies, but as a moral person; for to the extent
   that congress assumed power to itself and made bold to adopt
   measures national in their nature, to that extent the
   colonists declared themselves henceforth to constitute one
   people, inasmuch as the measures taken by congress could be
   translated from words into deeds only with the consent of the
   people. This state of affairs essentially continued up to
   March 1, 1781.
{3217}
   Until that time, that is, until the adoption of the articles
   of confederation by all the states, congress continued a
   revolutionary body, which was recognized by all the colonies
   as 'de jure' and 'de facto' the national government, and which
   as such came in contact with foreign powers and entered into
   engagements, the binding force of which on the whole people
   has never been called in question. The individual colonies, on
   the other hand, considered themselves, up to the time of the
   Declaration of Independence, as legally dependent upon England
   and did not take a single step which could have placed them
   before the mother country or the world in the light of 'de
   facto' sovereign states. They remained colonies until the
   'representatives of the United States' 'in the name of the
   good people of these colonies' solemnly declared 'these united
   colonies' to be 'free and independent states.' The
   transformation of the colonies into 'states' was, therefore,
   not the result of the independent action of the individual
   colonies. It was accomplished through the 'representatives of
   the United States'; that is, through the revolutionary
   congress, in the name of the whole people. Each individual
   colony became a state only in so far as it belonged to the
   United States and in so far as its population constituted a
   part of the people."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the
      United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      volume 2, pages 213-247._

      _J. Adams,
      Diary (Works, volume 2)
      pages 358-401._

      _Journal of the Congress which met at Philadelphia
      September 5, 1774
      (London: J. Almon)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774-1775.
   Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and
   Committee of Safety.
   Military preparations.

   "Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
   General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
   by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members
   elected to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved
   themselves into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th
   of October, adopted a plan for organizing the militia,
   maintaining it, and calling it out when circumstances should
   render it necessary. It provided that one quarter of the
   number enrolled should be held in readiness to muster at the
   shortest notice, who were called by the popular name of
   minute-men. An executive authority—the Committee of
   Safety—was created, clothed with large discretionary powers;
   and another called the Committee of Supplies. On the 27th
   Jedediah Preble, (who did not accept,) Artemas Ward, and Seth
   Pomeroy, were chosen general officers; and on the 28th, Henry
   Gardner was chosen treasurer of the colony, under the title of
   Receiver-General. Among the energetic acts of this memorable
   Congress, was one authorizing the collection of military
   stores. It dissolved December 10. The committee of safety, as
   early as November, authorized the purchase of materials for an
   army, and ordered them to be deposited at Concord and
   Worcester. These proceedings were denounced by General Gage,
   in a proclamation dated November 10, as treasonable, and a
   compliance with them was forbidden. In a short time the king's
   speech and the action of Parliament were received, which
   manifested a firm determination to produce submission to the
   late acts, and to maintain 'the supreme authority' of Great
   Britain over the colonies. General Gage regarded this
   intelligence as having 'cast a damp upon the faction,' and as
   having produced a happy effect upon the royalist cause.
   However, a second Provincial Congress (February 1 to 16, 1775)
   renewed the measures of its predecessor; and gave definiteness
   to the duties of the committee of safety, by 'empowering and
   directing' them (on the 9th of February) to assemble the
   militia whenever it was required to resist the execution of
   the two acts, for altering the government and the
   administration of justice. At the same time it appointed two
   additional generals, John Thomas, and William Heath, and made
   it the duty of the five general officers to take charge of the
   militia when called out by the committee of safety, and to
   'effectually oppose and resist such attempt or attempts as
   shall be made for carrying into execution by force' the two
   acts. … The conviction was fast becoming general that force
   only could decide the contest. Stimulated and sustained by
   such a public opinion, the committees of safety and supplies
   were diligent, through the gloomy months of winter, in
   collecting and storing at Concord and Worcester materials for
   the maintenance of an army."

      _R. Frothingham, Jr.,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 1. _

   The following citizens composed the Committee of Public
   Safety, viz., "John Hancock, Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church,
   Richard Devens, Benjamin White, Joseph Palmer, Abraham Watson,
   Azor Orne, John Pigeon, William Heath, and Thomas Gardner. The
   following 'Committee of Supplies' was announced, viz.,
   Elbridge Gerry, David Cheever, Benjamin Lincoln, Moses Gill,
   and Benjamin Hall. … By the first day of January, 1775, the
   garrison of Boston had been increased to thirty-five hundred
   men, and mounted three hundred and seventy men as a daily
   guard-detail, besides a field officers' guard of one hundred
   and fifty men on Boston Neck. Three brigades were organized
   and were officered, respectively by Generals Lord Percy,
   Pigott and Jones. In November of 1774, General Gage had
   advised the British government, that he, 'was confident, that
   to begin with an army twenty thousand strong, would in the end
   save Great Britain blood and treasure.' Meanwhile, the militia
   drilled openly, rapidly completed company organizations, and
   made many sacrifices to procure arms, powder and other
   materials of war. The Home government, in view of the serious
   aspect of affairs, ordered Generals Howe, Clinton, and
   Burgoyne to join General Gage, and announced that 'ample
   reinforcements would be sent out, and the most speedy and
   effectual measures would be taken to put down the rebellion,'
   then pronounced to already exist. On the eighth of April, the
   Provincial Congress resolved to take effectual measures to
   raise an army, and requested the cooperation of Rhode Island,
   New Hampshire and Connecticut. On the thirteenth, it voted to
   raise six companies of artillery, to pay them and keep them at
   drill. On the fourteenth it advised citizens to leave Boston
   and to remove to the country. On the fifteenth, it solemnly
   appointed a day for 'Public Fasting and Prayer,' and adjourned
   to the tenth day of May. The Committee of Public Safety at
   once undertook the task of securing powder, cannon and small
   arms. A practical embargo was laid upon all trade with Boston.
   The garrison could obtain supplies only with great difficulty,
   and, as stated by Gordon, 'nothing was wanting but a spark, to
   set the whole continent in a flame.'"

      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution.
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{3218}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-March).
   Vain efforts toward pacific statesmanship in the British
   Parliament, by Chatham, Burke, and others.

   A newly elected British Parliament "met on November 30, 1774;
   but no serious measure relating to America was taken till
   January 1775, when the House reassembled after the Christmas
   vacation. The Ministers had a large majority, and even apart
   from party interest the genuine feeling of both Houses ran
   strongly against the Americans. Yet at no previous period were
   they more powerfully defended. I have already noticed that
   Chatham, having returned to active politics after his long
   illness in 1774, had completely identified himself with the
   American cause, and had advocated with all his eloquence
   measures of conciliation. He … moved an address to the King
   praying that he would as soon as possible, 'in order to open
   the way towards a happy settlement of the dangerous troubles
   in America,' withdraw the British troops stationed in Boston.
   In the course of his speech he represented the question of
   American taxation as the root-cause of the whole division, and
   maintained that the only real basis of conciliation was to be
   found in a distinct recognition of the principle that
   'taxation is theirs, and commercial regulation ours;' that
   England has a supreme right of regulating the commerce and
   navigation of America, and that the Americans have an
   inalienable right to their own property. He fully justified
   their resistance, predicted that all attempts to coerce them
   would fail, and eulogised the Congress at Philadelphia as
   worthy of the greatest periods of antiquity. Only eighteen
   peers voted for the address, while sixty-eight opposed it. On
   February 1 he reappeared with an elaborate Bill for settling
   the troubles in America. It asserted in strong terms the right
   of Parliament to bind the colonies in all matters of imperial
   concern, and especially in all matters of commerce and
   navigation. It pronounced the new colonial doctrine that the
   Crown had no right to send British soldiers to the colonies
   without the assent of the Provincial Assemblies, dangerous and
   unconstitutional in the highest degree, but at the same time
   it recognised the sole right of the colonists to tax
   themselves, guaranteed the inviolability of their charters,
   and made the tenure of their judges the same as in England. It
   proposed to make the Congress which had met at Philadelphia an
   official and permanent body, and asked it to make a free grant
   for imperial purposes. England, in return, was to reduce the
   Admiralty Courts to their ancient limits, and to suspend for
   the present the different Acts complained of by the colonists.
   The Bill was not even admitted to a second reading. Several
   other propositions tending towards conciliation were made in
   this session. On March 22, 1775, Burke, in one of his greatest
   speeches, moved a series of resolutions recommending a repeal
   of the recent Acts complained of in America, reforming the
   Admiralty Court and the position of the judges, and leaving
   American taxation to the American Assemblies, without touching
   upon any question of abstract right. A few days later, Hartley
   moved a resolution calling upon the Government to make
   requisitions to the colonial Assemblies to provide of their
   own authority for their own defence; and Lord Camden in the
   House of Lords and Sir G. Savile in the House of Commons
   endeavoured to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act. All these
   attempts, however, were defeated by enormous majorities. The
   petition of Congress to the King was referred to Parliament,
   which refused to receive it, and Franklin, after vain efforts
   to effect a reconciliation, returned from England to America."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12. (volume 3)._

   The following are the more important passages of the speech of
   Burke, on moving the resolutions which he introduced in the
   House of Commons, March 22, 1775:

   "The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of
   war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate
   and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal
   discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire;
   not peace to depend on the juridical determination of
   perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy
   boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought
   in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace
   sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely
   pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference,
   and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the
   colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction
   to your people,—and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord)
   to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the
   bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to
   British government. My idea is nothing more. Refined policy
   ever has been the parent of confusion,—and ever will be so, as
   long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as
   easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely
   detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the
   government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an
   healing and cementing principle. … The capital leading
   questions on which you must this day decide are these two:
   First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what your
   concession ought to be. On the first of these questions we
   have gained … some ground. But I am sensible that a good deal
   more is still to be done. Indeed, Sir, to enable us to
   determine both on the one and the other of these great
   questions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be
   necessary to consider distinctly the true nature and the
   peculiar circumstances of the object which we have before us:
   because, after all our struggle, whether we will or not, we
   must govern America according to that nature and to those
   circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, not
   according to abstract ideas of right, by no means according to
   mere general theories of government, the resort to which
   appears to me, in our present situation, no better than arrant
   trifling. … The first thing that we have to consider with
   regard to the nature of the object is the number of people in
   the colonies. I have taken for some years a good deal of pains
   on that point. I can by no calculation justify myself in
   placing the number below two millions of inhabitants of our
   own European blood and color,—besides at least 500,000 others,
   who form no inconsiderable part of the strength and opulence
   of the whole. This, Sir, is, I believe, about the true number.
   There is no occasion to exaggerate, where plain truth is of so
   much weight and importance. But whether I put the present
   numbers too high or too low is a matter of little moment.
{3219}
   Such is the strength with which population shoots in that part
   of the world, that, state the numbers as high as we will,
   whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration ends. Whilst we
   are discussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it.
   Whilst we spend our time in deliberating on the mode of
   governing two millions, we shall find we have millions more to
   manage. Your children do not grow faster from infancy to
   manhood than they spread from families to communities, and
   from villages to nations. … But the population of this
   country, the great and growing population, though a very
   important consideration, will lose much of its weight, if not
   combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your
   colonies is out of all proportion beyond the numbers of the
   people. … The trade with America alone is now within less than
   £500,000 of being equal to what this great commercial nation,
   Eng]and, carried on at the beginning of this century with the
   whole world! … But, it will be said, is not this American
   trade an unnatural protuberance, that has drawn the juices
   from the rest of the body? The reverse. It is the very food
   that has nourished every other part into its present
   magnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and
   augmented more or less in almost every part to which it ever
   extended, but with this material difference: that of the six
   millions which in the beginning of the century constituted the
   whole mass of our export commerce the colony trade was but one
   twelfth part; it is now (as a part of sixteen millions)
   considerably more than a third of the whole. … I choose, Sir,
   to enter into these minute and particular details; because
   generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten and
   raise the subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we
   speak of the commerce of our colonies, fiction lags after
   truth, invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and
   barren. … I pass … to the colonies in another point of
   view,—their agriculture. This they have prosecuted with such a
   spirit, that, besides feeding plentifully their own growing
   multitude, their annual export of grain, comprehending rice,
   has some years ago exceeded a million in value. Of their last
   harvest, I am persuaded, they will export much more. At the
   beginning of the century some of these colonies imported corn
   from the mother country. For some time past the Old World has
   been fed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would
   have been a desolating famine, if this child of your old age,
   with a true filial piety, with a Roman charity, had not put
   the full breast of its youthful exuberance to the mouth of its
   exhausted parent. As to the wealth which the colonies have
   drawn from the sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter
   fully opened at your bar. You surely thought those
   acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite your
   envy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment
   has been exercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised
   your esteem and admiration. And pray, Sir, what in the world
   is equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the
   manner in which the people of New England have of late carried
   on the whale-fishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling
   mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating into the deepest
   frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, whilst we
   are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that
   they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that
   they are at the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen
   serpent of the South. Falkland Island, which seemed too remote
   and romantic an object for the grasp of national ambition, is
   but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their
   victorious industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more
   discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the
   poles. … I am sensible, Sir, that all which I have asserted in
   my detail is admitted in the gross, but that quite a different
   conclusion is drawn from it. America, gentlemen say, is a
   noble object,—it is an object well worth fighting for.
   Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of
   gaining them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to their
   choice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those
   who understand the military art will of course have some
   predilection for it. Those who wield the thunder of the state
   may have more confidence in the efficacy of arms. But I
   confess, possibly for want of this knowledge, my opinion is
   much more in favor of prudent management than of
   force,—considering force not as an odious, but a feeble
   instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so
   growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate
   connection with us. First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the
   use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a
   moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing
   again: and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be
   conquered. My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not
   always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory.
   If you do not succeed, you are without resource: for,
   conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no
   further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority
   are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged
   as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. A further
   objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very
   endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the
   thing which you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and
   consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than
   whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along
   with our own; because in all parts it is the British strength
   that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign
   enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still less
   in the midst of it. I may escape, but I can make no insurance
   against such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly
   to break the American spirit; because it is the spirit that
   has made the country. Lastly, we have no sort of experience in
   favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies.
   Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods
   altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to
   be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if feeling
   is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our
   attempt to mend it, and our sin far more salutary than our
   penitence. These, Sir, are my reasons for not entertaining
   that high opinion of untried force by which many gentlemen,
   for whose sentiments in other particulars I have great
   respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. But there is still
   behind a third consideration concerning this object, which
   serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which
   ought to be pursued in the management of America, even more
   than its population and its commerce: I mean its temper and
   character.
{3220}
   In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the
   predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.
   … This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English
   colonies, prob·ably, than in any other people of the earth,
   and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, to
   understand the true temper of their minds, and the direction
   which this spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open
   somewhat more largely. First, the people of the colonies are
   descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which
   still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The
   colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character
   was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction
   the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not
   only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English
   ideas and on English principles. … Your mode of governing
   them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom or
   mistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well
   as you, had an interest in these common principles. They were
   further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their
   provincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are
   popular in an high degree: some are merely popular; in all,
   the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share
   of the people in their ordinary government never fails to
   inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion
   from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance.
   If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the
   form of government, religion would have given it a complete
   effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new
   people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of
   professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The
   people are Protestants, and of that kind which is the most
   adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. … All
   Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of
   dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern
   colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is
   the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the
   Protestant religion. … Permit me, Sir, to add another
   circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part
   towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit: I
   mean their education. In no country, perhaps, in the world is
   the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous
   and powerful, and in most provinces it takes the lead. The
   greater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were
   lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to
   obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an
   eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after
   tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the
   law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen
   into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that
   they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's 'Commentaries'
   in America as in England. General Gage marks out this
   disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He
   states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or
   smatterers in law,—and that in Boston they have been enabled,
   by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of
   your capital penal constitutions. … The last cause of this
   disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful
   than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the
   natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean
   lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the
   effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roll,
   and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the
   want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to
   defeat an whole system. … Then, Sir, from these six capital
   sources, of descent, of form of government, of religion in the
   northern provinces, of manners in the southern, of education,
   of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of
   government,—from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty
   has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in
   your colonies, and increased with the increase of their
   wealth: a spirit, that, unhappily meeting with an exercise of
   power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable
   to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled
   this flame that is ready to consume us. … The question is not,
   whether their spirit deserves praise or blame,—what, in the
   name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the
   object, such as it is,—with all its glories, with all its
   imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, the
   importance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all
   these considerations we are strongly urged to determine
   something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule
   and line for our future conduct, which may give a little
   stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such
   unhappy deliberations as the present. … It should seem, to my
   way of conceiving such matters, that there is a very wide
   difference, in reason and policy, between the mode of
   proceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals,
   or even of bands of men, who disturb order within the state,
   and the civil dissensions which may, from time to time, on
   great questions, agitate the several communities which compose
   a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to
   apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great
   public con·test. I do not know the method of drawing up an
   indictment against an whole people. … I am not ripe to pass
   sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with
   magistracies of great authority and dignity, and charged with
   the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title
   that I am. I really think that for wise men this is not
   judicious, for sober men not decent, for minds tinctured with
   humanity not mild and merciful."

   In the closing part of his speech, Mr. Burke introduced
   successively and commented upon the following propositions, or
   resolutions, which formed in their entirety his plan of
   conciliation. At the end of his speaking they were rejected by
   a vote of 270 against 78:

   "That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North
   America, consisting of 14 separate governments, and containing
   two mil·lions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not had
   the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights
   and burgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court
   of Parliament.

{3221}

   That the said colonies and plantations have been made liable
   to, and bounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and
   taxes, given and granted by Parliament, though the said
   colonies and plantations have not their knights and burgesses
   in the said high court of Parliament, of their own election,
   to represent the condition of their country; by lack whereof
   they have been oftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies,
   given, granted, and assented to, in the said court, in a
   manner prejudicial to the common wealth, quietness, rest, and
   peace of the subjects inhabiting within the same.

   That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from other
   circumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for
   procuring a representation in Parliament for the said
   colonies.

   That each of the said colonies hath within itself a body,
   chosen, in part or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders,
   or other free inhabitants thereof, commonly called the General
   Assembly, or General Court, with powers legally to raise,
   levy, and assess, according to the several usages of such
   colonies, duties and taxes towards defraying all sorts of
   public services.

   That the said general assemblies, general courts, or other
   bodies legally qualified as aforesaid, have at sundry times
   freely granted several large subsidies and public aids for his
   Majesty's service, according to their abilities, when required
   thereto by letter from one of his Majesty's principal
   Secretaries of State; and that their right to grant the same,
   and their cheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grants,
   have been at sundry times acknowledged by Parliament. That it
   hath been found by experience, that the manner of granting the
   said supplies and aids by the said general assemblies hath
   been more agreeable to the inhabitants of said colonies, and
   more beneficial and conducive to the public service, than the
   mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies in Parliament,
   to be raised and paid in the said colonies.

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 7th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
   granting certain duties in the British colonies and
   plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties
   of customs, upon the exportation from this kingdom, of coffee
   and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said colonies or
   plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on China
   earthen ware exported to America; and for more effectually
   preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said
   colonies and plantations.'

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to
   discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein
   mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of
   goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the
   harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in
   North America.'

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
   the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of
   persons questioned for any acts done by them, in the execution
   of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in
   the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
   the better regulating the government of the province of the
   Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

   That it may be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the
   35th year of the reign of King Henry VIII., intituled, 'An act
   for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's
   dominions.'

   That, from the time when the general assembly, or general
   court, of any colony or plantation in North America, shall
   have appointed, by act of assembly duly confirmed, a settled
   salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges of
   the superior courts, it may be proper that the said chief
   justice and other judges of the superior courts of such colony
   shall hold his and their office and offices during their good
   behaviour, and shall not be removed therefrom, but when the
   said removal shall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon
   a hearing on complaint from the general assembly, or on a
   complaint from the governor, or the council, or the house of
   representatives, severally, of the colony in which the said
   chief justice and other judges have exercised the said
   offices.

   That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or
   vice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th
   George III., in such a manner as to make the same more
   commodious to those who sue or are sued in the said courts;
   and to provide for the more decent maintenance of the judges
   of the same."

      _Edmund Burke,
      Works,
      volume 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. MacKnight,
      Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      _J. Adolphus,
      History of England, Reign of George III.,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-April).
   Aims at independence disclaimed.

   "The denial that independence was the final object, was
   constant and general. To obtain concessions and to preserve
   the connection with England was affirmed everywhere; and John
   Adams, after the peace, went farther than this, for he
   said:—'There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I
   would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration
   to the state of things before the contest began, provided we
   could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.' If
   Mr. Adams be regarded as expressing the sentiments of the
   Whigs, they were willing to remain Colonists, provided they
   could have had their rights secured to them; while the Tories
   were contented thus to continue, without such security. Such,
   as it appears to me, was the only difference between the two
   parties prior to hostilities. … Franklin's testimony, a few
   days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had 'more
   than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to
   the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking,
   and conversing with them freely, [and] never had heard from
   any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for
   a separation, or a hint that such a thing would be
   advantageous to America.' Mr. Jay is quite as explicit.
   'During the course of my life,' said he, 'and until the second
   petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of
   any class, or of any description, express a wish for the
   independence of the Colonies.' 'It has always been, and still
   is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and
   impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.'
{3222}
   Mr. Jefferson affirmed, 'What, eastward of New York, might
   have been the dispositions towards England before the
   commencement of hostilities, I know not; but before that I
   never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great
   Britain; and after that its possibility was contemplated with
   affliction by all.' Washington, in 1774, fully sustains these
   declarations, and, in the 'Fairfax County Resolves,' it was
   complained that 'malevolent falsehoods' were propagated by the
   ministry to prejudice the mind of the king: 'particularly that
   there is an intention in the American Colonies to set up for
   independent States.' Mr. Madison was not in public life until
   May, 1776, but he says, 'It has always been my impression,
   that a reëstablishment of the Colonial relations to the parent
   country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the
   real object of every class of the people, till the despair of
   obtaining it,' &c. … The only way to dispose of testimony like
   this, is to impeach the persons who have given it."

      _L. Sabine,
      Biographical Sketches of Loyalists
      of the American Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 64-66._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-September).
   Revolution in South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.

   "On April 19, 1775, the Committees of safety could only count
   up twelve field-pieces in Massachusetts; and there had been
   collected in that colony 21,549 fire-arms, 17,441 pounds of
   powder, 22,191 pounds of ball, 144,699 flints, 10,108
   bayonets, 11,979 pouches, 15,000 canteens. There were also
   17,000 pounds of salt fish, 35,000 pounds of rice, with large
   quantities of beef and pork. Viewed as an evidence of the
   forethought of the colonists, these statistics are remarkable;
   but there was something heroic and indeed almost pathetic in
   the project of going to war with the British government on the
   strength of twelve field-pieces and seventeen thousand pounds
   of salt fish. Yet when, on the night of the 18th of April,
   1775, Paul Revere rode beneath the bright moonlight through
   Lexington to Concord, with Dawes and Prescott for comrades, he
   was carrying the signal for the independence of a nation. He
   had seen across the Charles River the two lights from the
   church-steeple in Boston which were to show that a British
   force was going out to seize the patriotic supplies at
   Concord; he had warned Hancock and Adams at Reverend Jonas
   Clark's parsonage in Lexington, and had rejected Sergeant
   Monroe's caution against unnecessary noise, with the
   rejoinder, 'You'll have noise enough here before long—the
   regulars are coming out.' As he galloped on his way the
   regulars were advancing with steady step behind him, soon
   warned of their own danger by alarm-bells and signal-guns.
   When Revere was captured by some British officers who happened
   to be near Concord, Colonel Smith, the commander of the
   expedition, had already halted, ordered Pitcairn forward, and
   sent back prudently for reinforcements. It was a night of
   terror to all the neighboring Middlesex towns, for no one knew
   what excesses the angry British troops might commit on their
   return march. The best picture we have of this alarm is in the
   narrative of a Cambridge woman, Mrs. Hannah Winthrop,
   describing 'the horrors of that midnight cry,' as she calls
   it. The women of that town were roused by the beat of drums
   and ringing of bells; they hastily gathered their children
   together and fled to the outlying farm-houses; seventy or
   eighty of them were at Fresh Pond, within hearing of the guns
   at Menotomy, now Arlington. The next day their husbands bade
   them flee to Andover, whither the college property had been
   sent, and thither they went, alternately walking and riding,
   over fields where the bodies of the slain lay unburied. Before
   5 A. M. on April 19, 1775, the British troops had reached
   Lexington Green, where thirty-eight men, under Captain Parker,
   stood up before six hundred or eight hundred to be shot at,
   their captain saying, 'Don't fire unless you are fired on; but
   if they want a war let it begin here.' It began there; they
   were fired upon; they fired rather ineffectually in return,
   while seven were killed and nine wounded. The rest, after
   retreating, reformed and pursued the' British towards Concord,
   capturing seven stragglers—the first prisoners taken in the
   war. Then followed the fight at Concord, where four hundred
   and fifty Americans, instead of thirty-eight, were rallied to
   meet the British. The fighting took place between two
   detachments at the North Bridge, where 'once the embattled
   farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world.'
   There the American captain, Isaac Davis, was killed at the
   first shot—he who had said, when his company was placed at the
   head of the little column, 'I haven't a man that is afraid to
   go.' He fell and Major Buttrick gave the order, 'Fire! for
   God's sake fire!' in return. The British detachment retreated
   in disorder, but their main body was too strong to be
   attacked, so they disabled a few cannon, destroyed some
   barrels of flour, cut down the liberty-pole, set fire to the
   court-house and then began their return march. It ended in a
   flight; they were exposed to a constant guerilla fire;
   minute-men flocked behind every tree and house; and only the
   foresight of Colonel Smith in sending for reinforcements had
   averted a surrender. At 2 P. M., near Lexington, Percy with
   his troops met the returning fugitives, and formed a hollow
   square, into which they ran and threw themselves on the ground
   exhausted. Then Percy in turn fell back. Militia still came
   pouring in from Dorchester, Milton, Dedham, as well as the
   nearer towns. A company from Danvers marched sixteen miles in
   four hours. The Americans lost ninety-three in killed, wounded
   and missing that day; the British, two hundred and
   seventy-three. But the important result was that every
   American colony now recognized that war had begun."

      _T. W. Higginson,
      History of the United States of America,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 2._

      _E. H. Goss,
      Life of Paul Revere,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _J. L. Watson,
      Paul Revere's Signal
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings,
      November 1876)._

      _P. Force, editor,
      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 2. _

      _E. Phinney,
      History of Battle at Lexington._

      _C. Hudson,
      History of Lexington,
      chapters 6-8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
   The first Provincial Convention in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

{3223}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
   The siege of Boston begun.

   "Reinforcements of foreign troops and supplies were constantly
   arriving in Boston. Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne came, as
   generals, on the 25th of May. Bitterness, ridicule, and
   boasting, with all the irritating taunts of a mercenary
   soldiery, were freely poured on the patriots and on the 'mixed
   multitude' which composed the germ of their army yet to be.
   The British forces had cooped themselves up in Bos·ton, and
   the provincials determined that they should remain there, with
   no mode of exit save by the sea. The pear-shaped peninsula,
   hung to the mainland only by the stem called the 'Neck,' over
   which the tide-waters sometimes washed, was equally an
   inconvenient position for crowding regiments in war-like
   array, and a convenient one for the extemporized army which
   was about to beleaguer them there. … The town of Charlestown,
   which lay under the enemy's guns, had contained a population
   of between two and three thousand. The interruption of all the
   employments of peace, and the proximity of danger, had brought
   poverty and suffering upon the people. They had been steadily
   leaving the town, with such of their effects as they could
   carry with them. It proved to be well for them that they had
   acted upon the warning. It would seem that there were less
   than 200 of its inhabitants remaining in it at the time of the
   battle, when the flames kindled by the enemy and bombs from a
   battery on Copp's Hill laid it in ashes. On the third day
   after the affair at Concord, the Provincial Congress again
   assembled, voted to raise at once 13,000 men, to rally at
   Cambridge and the neighborhood, and asked aid from the other
   provinces, to which Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New
   Hampshire responded. The forts, magazines, and arsenals, such
   as they then were, were secured for the country. … Of the
   15,000 men then gathered, by the cry of war, at Cambridge and
   Roxbury, all virtually, but not by formal investment, under
   the command of General Ward, nearly 10,000 belonged to
   Massachusetts, and the remainder to New Hampshire, Rhode
   Island, and Connecticut. They have been designated since, at
   various times and by different writers, under the extreme
   contrast of terms, as an 'organized army,' and a 'mob.' Either
   of these terms would be equally inappropriate. … Our troops
   were 'minute-men' extemporized into fragmentary companies and
   skeleton regiments. The officers, chosen on the village-green
   or in its public-house, paying for the honor by a treat, or
   perhaps because they kept the premises where the treat could
   be most conveniently furnished, were not commissioned or
   ranked as the leaders of an army for campaign service. The
   yeomen of town and village had not come together at the
   summons of a commander-in-chief through adjutant, herald, or
   advertisement. They came unbidden, at an alarm from the bell
   on their meeting-house, or from a post-rider, or from the
   telegrams transmitted by tongue and ear. … And for the most
   part they were as free to go away as they had been to come.
   They were enlisted after a fashion, some prime conditions of
   which were their own convenience or pleasure. … Such of them
   as came from the seaboard might bring with them old sails for
   tents, while the midsummer days made it scarcely a hardship to
   many to have only the heavens for a roof. Generally their
   towns were expected to keep them supplied with food. … The
   forces then mustered at Cambridge as a central camp, and,
   stretching from the left at Chelsea almost round to Dorchester
   on the right, for nearly three quarters of a circle, were
   indeed not organized, nor yet had they any characteristic of a
   mere mob. They combined in fact four inde·pendent armies,
   united in resistance to a foreign enemy. … Each of the
   Provinces had raised, commissioned, and assumed the supply of
   its respective forces, holding them subject to their several
   orders. After the battle in Charlestown, the Committee of War
   in Connecticut ordered their generals, Spencer and Putnam,
   while they were on the territory of this Province, to regard
   General Ward as the commander-in-chief, and suggested to Rhode
   Island and New Hampshire to issue the same instructions to
   their soldiers. … General Artemas Ward was a conscientious and
   judicious patriot. In the French war he had earned some
   military experience and fame. … On October 27, 1774, the
   Provincial Congress, in which he was a delegate, appointed him
   a general officer, and on May 19 following,
   Commander-in-chief. As such he served at Cambridge till the
   arrival of Washington. On the very day of the battle in
   Charlestown, when the great chieftain was selected for his
   high service, Ward was chosen by the Continental Congress as
   its first major-general. Though he was only in his 48th year
   when he was burdened with the responsibility of the opening
   warfare, his body was infirm from disease and exposure.
   Lieutenant-General Thomas, two years the senior of Ward, was
   second in command. … General Israel Putnam preceded his
   Connecticut troops in hurrying to the scene of war on the news
   of the affair at Lexington and Concord. His men soon followed
   him, with like enthusiasm. The New Hampshire troops, on their
   arrival at Medford, made choice of Colonel John Stark as their
   leader. Colonel Nathaniel Greene commanded a regiment from
   Rhode Island. … A few days after the affair at Lexington, when
   virtually the siege began, General Gage, the British
   commander, at the solicitation of some of the leading citizens
   assembled in Faneuil Hall, had, by a mutual understanding,
   entered into an agreement that such of the inhabitants as
   wished to depart from the town should be at liberty to do so,
   if they would leave their arms behind them and covenant not to
   engage in any hostility against his army. The agreement was
   availed of by many of the suffering and frightened people. …
   But the original freedom and fulness of this understanding, on
   the part of General Gage, were soon reduced by a very strict
   examination of those who sought to go out of the town, and by
   a rigid search of the effects which they wished to take with
   them. … Several of the inhabitants remained in it from
   different motives: some as devoted loyalists; some as timid
   neutrals; some as spies, to watch each hostile movement and to
   communicate it to their friends outside. … After hostilities
   commenced, General Gage, of course, regarded the citizens as
   alike prisoners, either in the same sense in which he was
   himself under restraint, or as abettors of those who were his
   enemies. … The population of the town, independent of the
   military, was then about 18,000. To all those who were not in
   sympathy with them the British behaved in an insulting and
   exasperating manner. … To show, as members of the English
   Church establishment, their contempt of congregational places
   of worship, they removed the pews and pulpit from the Old
   South meeting-house, and, covering the floor with earth, they
   converted it into a riding-school for Burgoyne's squadron of
   cavalry.
{3224}
   The two eastern galleries were allowed to remain, one for
   spectators, the other for a liquor-shop, while the fire in the
   stove was occasionally kindled by books and pamphlets from the
   library of a former pastor, Dr. Prince, which were in a room
   in the tower. … At the time of the skirmishes at Lexington and
   Concord there were about 4,000 British troops in Boston and at
   the Castle. The number was increased to more than 10,000
   before the action in Charlestown."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      History of the Battle of Bunker's Hill,
      pages 4-26._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 3._

      _George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 3._

      _Joseph Reed,
      Life and Correspondence,
      volume 1._

      _C. Stedman [English],
      History of the American War,
      volume 1, chapters 1 and 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April-June).
   The spreading of revolt.
   All the colonies in line with New England.

   "On the 23d of April, the day after the dissolution of the
   provincial Congress of New York, the news from Lexington burst
   upon the city. Though it was Sunday, the inhabitants speedily
   unloaded two sloops which lay at the wharfs, laden with flour
   and supplies for the British at Boston, of the value of
   £80,000. … The royal government lay hopelessly prostrate.
   Isaac Sears concerted with John Lamb to stop all vessels going
   to Quebec, Newfoundland, Georgia, or Boston, where British
   authority was still supreme. The people shut up the
   custom-house, and the merchants whose vessels were cleared out
   dared not let them sail. In the following days the military
   stores of the city of New York were secured, and volunteer
   companies paraded in the streets. … On the 1st of May the
   people, at the usual places of election, chose for the city
   and county a new general committee of one hundred, who
   'resolved in the most explicit manner to stand or fall with
   the liberty of the continent.' All parts of the colony were
   summoned to send delegates to a provincial convention, to
   which the city and county of New York deputed one-and-twenty
   as their representatives. … On the 2d of May the New Jersey
   committee of correspondence called a provincial congress for
   the 23d at Trenton. To anticipate its influence, the governor
   convened the regular assembly eight days earlier at
   Burlington, and laid before them the project of Lord North
   [adopted by the British parliament in February, offering to
   each colony freedom from taxation on its making satisfactory
   provision for the general defense and for support of
   government]. The assembly could see in the proposition no
   avenue to reconciliation, and declared their intention to
   'abide by the united voice of the continental congress.' Such,
   too, was the spirit of Pennsylvania. 'Let us not have it said
   of Philadelphia that she passed noble resolutions and
   neglected them,' were the words of Mifflin, youngest of the
   orators who on the 25th of April addressed the town-meeting
   called in that city on receiving the news from Lexington.
   Thousands were present, and agreed 'to associate for the
   purpose of defending with arms their lives, their property,
   and liberty.' Thomas Paine from that day 'rejected the sullen
   Pharaoh of the British throne forever.' … In Philadelphia,
   thirty companies, with 50 to 100 in each, daily practiced the
   manual exercise of the musket. One of them was raised from the
   Quakers. … The Pennsylvania assembly, which met on the first
   day of May, rejecting the overtures of the governor, 'could
   form no prospect of lasting advantages for Pennsylvania but
   from a communication of rights and property with the other
   colonies.' … On the 5th Franklin arrived, after a voyage over
   the smoothest seas, and the next morning was unanimously
   elected a deputy to the congress. … In Maryland, at the
   request of the colonels of militia, Eden, at Annapolis, gave
   up the arms and ammunition of the province to the freemen of
   the county. Pleased with his concession, the provincial
   convention distinguished itself by its moderation; and its
   delegates to congress determined to labor for a
   reconciliation. In Virginia [where, in the night of April
   20th, Governor Dunmore had carried off the gunpowder stored in
   the colony's magazine at Williamsburg, and where, as a
   consequence, the excited people were already in arms, though
   no further action had yet been taken], on the 2d of May, at
   the cry from Lexington, the independent company of Hanover and
   its county committee were called together by Patrick Henry.
   The soldiers, most of them young men, elected him their chief,
   and marched for Williamsburg, on the way greatly increasing in
   numbers. Alarmed by the 'insurrections,' Dunmore convened the
   council, and in a proclamation of the 3d pretended that he had
   removed the ammunition, lest it should be seized by slaves.
   Message after message could not arrest the march or change the
   purpose of Henry. … At sunrise on the 4th the governor's
   messenger met Henry at New Kent, and, as a compensation for
   the gunpowder taken out of the magazine, paid him £330, for
   which he was to account to the convention of Virginia. The sum
   was found to be more than the value of the powder, and the
   next Virginia convention directed the excess to be paid back.
   … In twelve or thirteen days the message from Lexington was
   borne to Newbern, in North Carolina, where it 'wrought a great
   change.' The governor, in his panic, ordered the cannon in the
   town to be dismounted; and, after a remonstrance made in the
   name of the inhabitants by Abner Nash, 'the oracle of their
   committee and a principal promoter of sedition,' he shipped
   his wife to New York and fled to Fort Johnston, where a
   sloop-of-war had its station. In South Carolina, Charles
   Pinckney, on learning the inflexibility of parliament, using
   power intrusted to him by the provincial congress, appointed a
   committee of five to place the colony in a state of defence;
   on the 21st of April, the very night after their organization,
   men of Charleston, without disguise, under their direction,
   seized all the powder in the public magazines, and removed 800
   stand of arms and other military stores from the royal
   arsenal. The tidings from Lexington induced the general
   committee to hasten the meeting of the provincial congress,
   whose members, on the 2d of June, Henry Laurens being their
   president, associated themselves for defence against every
   foe; 'ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes to secure
   her freedom and safety.' They resolved to raise two regiments
   of infantry and a regiment of rangers. … The people of
   Charleston are as mad as they are here in Boston,' was the
   testimony of Gage. The skirmish at Lexington became known in
   Savannah on the 10th of May, and added Georgia to the union.
   At that time she had about 17,000 white inhabitants and 15,000
   Africans. Her militia was not less than 3,000.
{3225}
   Her frontier, which extended from Augusta to St. Mary's, was
   threatened by the Creeks, with 4,000 warriors; the Chickasas,
   with 450; the Cherokees, with 3,000; the Choctas, with 2,500.
   But danger could not make her people hesitate. On the night of
   the 11th, Noble Wimberley Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward
   Telfair, and others, broke open the king's magazine in the
   eastern part of the city, and took from it over 500 pounds of
   powder. To the Boston wanderers they sent 63 barrels of rice
   and £122 in specie; and they kept the king's birthday by
   raising a liberty-pole."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Jones,
      History of New York during the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _W. Wirt,
      Life of Patrick Henry,
      section 5._

      _W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _Proceedings of New York Provincial Congress
      (New York State Archives, volume 1)._

      _W. H. Egle,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May).
   The surprising of Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

   "Early in the year 1775, as soon as it was made manifest by
   the attitude assumed on the part of the British government
   against the colonies, and by the conduct of General Gage in
   Boston, that open hostilities must inevitably commence in a
   short time, it began to be secretly whispered among the
   principal politicians in New England that the capture of
   Ticonderoga was an object demanding the first attention. In
   the month of March, Samuel Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren, as
   members of the Committee of Correspondence in Boston, sent an
   agent privately into Canada, on a political mission, with
   instructions to ascertain the feelings of the people there in
   regard to the approaching contest, and to make such reports as
   his observations should warrant. … This agent sent back
   intelligence from Montreal, and among other things advised,
   that by all means the garrison of Ticonderoga should be seized
   as quickly as possible after the breaking out of hostilities,
   adding that the people of the New Hampshire Grants had already
   agreed to undertake the task, and that they were the most
   proper persons to be employed in it. This hint was given three
   weeks anterior to the battle of Lexington, and how far it
   influenced future designs may not be known; but it is certain
   that, eight days after that event, several gentlemen at that
   time attending the Assembly in Hartford, Connecticut,
   concerted a plan for surprising Ticonderoga and seizing the
   cannon in that fortress, for the use of the army then marching
   from all quarters to the environs of Boston."

      _J. Sparks,
      Life of Ethan Allen
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1),
      page 270._

   The gentlemen above mentioned "borrowed of the Connecticut
   Treasury some 1,800 dollars, and enlisted Mott and Phelps of
   Hartford, and Blagden of Salisbury, to beat up recruits. With
   these they went northward, and at Pittsfield got the
   co-operation of Captains Easton and Brown. No time was to be
   lost, and they pushed on with some forty men to find that
   Vermont giant, Ethan Allen, at Bennington. Allen at once
   agreed to go; he sought out Seth Warner, and roused the 'Green
   Mountain Boys,' who were mostly Connecticut and Massachusetts
   men; so that, in a few days, there gathered at Castleton (7th
   of May, 1775) two hundred and seventy strong men. Allen was
   their first leader, Easton second, and Warner third. Their
   larger body was to cross the Lake in boats from Shoreham, and
   surprise 'Ty.' Captain Herrick, with thirty men, was to seize
   the pass of Skenesborough (now Whitehall) at the head of the
   Lake, and Captain Douglass was to search for and seize all
   boats and batteaux. While these things were in progress, the
   ambitious, active, and daring Benedict Arnold heard of this
   expedition, and at once got leave from the Committee of Safety
   at Cambridge, to lead it. He rode post-haste through
   Massachusetts to raise men, and, with a single follower,
   reached Castleton, and claimed the command. These rough cubs
   of the forest could not well understand why he should lead
   them, for had they not Allen, and Warner, and Easton, and
   Phelps, and Biggelow, and others? But they consented that he
   should join Allen as an equal; and so forward they went. On
   the 8th of May Captain Noah Phelps, disguised with rough
   farmer clothes, and a long beard, blundered into the fort at
   Ticonderoga, pretending he wanted to be shaved. He found the
   gates open, and discipline loose; for no telegraph had carried
   the Lexington news to them, nor had the winds wafted the smell
   of blood, or the sounds of muskets there. When the darkness
   was deepest on the night of the 9th, Allen and Arnold, with 83
   men, pulled across the Lake, landed near the fort, and then
   sent back the boats for Warner and his men. They had a boy,
   Nathan Beman, for a guide, and were full of courage. Allen
   formed his men, made them a little speech, and all was ready,
   when the question arose as to who should have the honor of
   entering the fort first. The dispute was warm between Arnold
   and Allen, but was finally quieted; and, side by side, at
   daylight, they rushed through the gate of the fort, defended
   only by sleeping men. The sentinel snapped his musket, and
   ran, giving the alarm; the garrison hastily turned out, to
   find themselves in the face of superior numbers. Allen sought
   and found the Commander's bed-room, and when Captain Delaplace
   waked, he saw any thing but an Angel of Mercy with white
   wings. Delaplace opened the door, with trowsers in hand, and
   there the great gaunt Ethan stood, with a drawn sword in his
   hand. 'Surrender!' said Ethan. 'To you?' asked Delaplace.
   'Yes, to me, Ethan Allen.' 'By whose authority?' asked
   Laplace. Ethan was growing impatient, and raising his voice,
   and waving his sword, he said: 'In the name of the Great
   Jehovah, and of the Continental Congress, by God!' Delaplace
   little comprehended the words, but surrendered at once. Thus,
   on the morning of 10th of May, the strong fortress of
   Ticonderoga was taken by the border-men, and with it 44
   prisoners, 120 iron cannon, with swivels, muskets, balls, and
   some powder, without the loss of a single man. The surprise
   was planned and paid for by Connecticut, and was led by Allen,
   a Connecticut-born man, but was carried out by the 'Green
   Mountain Boys.' Skenesborough (Whitehall) was surprised and
   seized, while Major Skene was out shooting. Arnold at once
   manned a schooner, taken at Skenesborough, and led an attack
   against an armed sloop at St. John's; he took her and the
   place, and returned in triumph to meet Allen, who, in
   batteaux, was coming to sustain him. Warner led a party
   against Crown Point, and took it, with its hundred cannon, and
   small garrison of 12 men.

{3226}

   News of these things was carried to the Continental Congress,
   reassembled at Philadelphia, which caused almost as much
   surprise there, as Allen's demand did to Captain Delaplace,
   and more exultation. They requested the Committees of Safety
   of New York and Albany, to have an inventory made of the
   stores, so that they might be returned 'when the restoration
   of harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies' should
   render it safe."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 2, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May).
   The Mecklenburg Declaration.

      See NORTH CAROLINA:. A. D. 1775 (MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May-August).
   The Second Continental Congress and its work.
   Its powers, theoretical and actual.
   Its opportunity.
   Its influence.
   The New England Army adopted as the "Continental Army,"
   and Washington made Commander-in-chief.

   "The second General Congress assembled at Philadelphia on the
   10th of May. Peyton Randolph was again elected as president;
   but being obliged to return, and occupy his place as speaker
   of the Virginia Assembly, John Hancock, of Massachusetts, was
   elevated to the chair. … Many of those most active in
   vindicating colonial rights, and Washington among the number,
   still indulged the hope of an eventual reconciliation, while
   few entertained, or, at least, avowed the idea of complete
   independence. A second 'humble and dutiful' petition to the
   king was moved, but met with strong opposition. John Adams
   condemned it as an imbecile measure, calculated to embarrass
   the proceedings of Congress. He was for prompt and vigorous
   action. Other members concurred with him. Indeed, the measure
   itself seemed but a mere form, intended to reconcile the
   half-scrupulous; for subsequently, when it was carried,
   Congress, in face of it, went on to assume and exercise the
   powers of a sovereign authority. A federal union was formed,
   leaving to each colony the right of regulating its internal
   affairs according to its own individual constitution, but
   vesting in Congress the power of making peace or war; of
   entering into treaties and alliances; of regulating general
   commerce; in a word, of legislating on all such matters as
   regarded the security and welfare of the whole community. The
   executive power was to be vested in a council of twelve,
   chosen by Congress from among its own members, and to hold
   office for a limited time. Such colonies as had not sent
   delegates to Congress might yet become members of the
   confederacy by agreeing to its conditions. Georgia, which had
   hitherto hesitated, soon joined the league, which thus
   extended from Nova Scotia to Florida. Congress lost no time in
   exercising their federated powers. In virtue of them, they
   ordered the enlistment of troops, the construction of forts in
   various parts of the colonies, the provision of armies,
   ammunition, and military stores; while, to defray the expense
   of these, and other measures, avowedly of self-defence, they
   authorized the emission of notes to the amount of $3,000,000,
   bearing the inscription of 'The United Colonies'; the faith of
   the confederacy being pledged for their redemption. A
   retaliating decree was passed, prohibiting all supplies of
   provisions to the British fisheries; and another, declaring
   the province of Massachusetts Bay absolved from its compact
   with the crown, by the violation of its charter; and
   recommending it to form an internal government for itself. …
   The situation of the New England army, actually besieging
   Boston, became an early and absorbing consideration. It was
   without munitions of war, without arms, clothing, or pay; in
   fact, without legislative countenance or encouragement. Unless
   sanctioned and assisted by Congress, there was danger of its
   dissolution. … The disposition to uphold the army was general;
   but the difficult question was, who should be
   commander-in-chief? … The opinion evidently inclined in favor
   of Washington; yet it was promoted by no clique of partisans
   or admirers. More than one of the Virginia delegates, says
   Adams, were cool on the subject of this appointment. … Adams,
   in his diary, claims the credit of bringing the members of
   Congress to a decision. … On the 15th of June, the army was
   regularly adopted by Congress, and the pay of the
   commander-in-chief fixed at $500 a month. Many still clung to
   the idea, that in all these proceedings they were merely
   opposing the measures of the ministry, and not the authority
   of the crown, and thus the army before Boston was designated
   as the Continental Army, in contradistinction to that under
   General Gage, which was called the Ministerial Army. In this
   stage of the business, Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, rose, and
   nominated Washington for the station of commander-in-chief.
   The election was by ballot, and was unanimous. It was formally
   announced to him by the president, on the following day, when
   he had taken his seat in Congress. Rising in his place, he
   briefly expressed his high and grateful sense of the honor
   conferred on him, and his sincere devotion to the cause.
   'But,' added he, 'lest some unlucky event should happen
   unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered by
   every gentleman in the room, that I this day declare, with the
   utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I
   am honored with. As to pay, I beg leave to assure the Congress
   that, as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to
   accept this arduous employment, at the expense of my domestic
   ease and happiness, I do not wish to make any profit on it. I
   will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those, I doubt not,
   they will discharge, and that is all I desire.'" Four
   major-generals,—Artemas Ward, Charles Lee, Philip Schuyler and
   Israel Putnam,—and eight brigadier-generals—Seth Pomeroy,
   Richard Montgomery, David Wooster, William Heath, Joseph
   Spencer, John Thomas, John Sullivan, and Nathaniel Greene—were
   appointed. "At Washington's express request, his old friend,
   Major Horatio Gates, then absent at his estate in Virginia,
   was appointed adjutant-general, with the rank of brigadier."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 39._

   "The Congress of 1775 was not content with mere expression of
   opinions. It took a large view of its powers. It realized that
   its efficiency depended wholly upon the acceptance of its acts
   by the principals of the different delegations; but, following
   its judgment as to what the patriotism of the colonies would
   approve and sustain, it initiated action of various kinds,
   which, from the beginning, assumed the certainty of adoption
   by the colonies, and derived all its energy from the
   probability of such ratification.
{3227}
   The Congress doubtless exceeded the letter of the instructions
   received by a portion of its members; but this was not from
   any misconception of those instructions. … In pointing out to
   the colonies the direction which their preparations for
   resistance ought to take, the Congress no more acted upon an
   imagined authority to command the colonies than does the
   lookout at the bow of the ship, when he reports the direction
   of danger to the officer of the deck. The Congress
   unquestionably enjoyed a prestige at this juncture which it
   subsequently lost. The people, and even the provincial
   conventions, occasionally addressed it in a tone which
   indicated that they unconsciously attributed to it power which
   it plainly did not possess."

      A. W. Small,
      The Beginnings of American Nationality
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 8th series, 1-2)
      page 73.

   "With the energy and recklessness of a French revolutionary
   body it might have blotted out the distinctions between
   colonies, and established a centralized government, to be
   modified in time by circumstances. In fact, it took no such
   direction. It began its course by recommendations to the new
   colonial governments; it relied on them for executive acts;
   and, as soon as the new colonies were fairly under way, they
   seized on the power of naming and recalling the delegates to
   the Congress. From that time the decadence of the Congress was
   rapid; the national idea became dimmer; and the assertions of
   complete sovereignty by the political units became more
   pronounced."

      _A. Johnston,
      The United States: its History and Constitution,
      sections 63-66 (chapter 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 10._

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _P. Force,
      American Archives,
      volume 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
   End of Royal Government in New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
   The end of Royal Government In Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
   The Battle of Bunker Hill.

   "British reinforcements, under three generals, Howe, Clinton,
   and Burgoyne, arrived at Boston soon after the fight at
   Lexington. Gage had now about 10,000 men. These occupied the
   town of Boston, which lay on a peninsula covering the middle
   of the harbor. Around them, on the hills of the mainland,
   there were about twice their number of undisciplined and
   poorly-armed Americans, without cannon and almost without
   food. Just north of Boston, another peninsula ran out into the
   harbor. On it there were several hills, and the Americans
   determined to seize and fortify one of them, called Bunker
   Hill. About 1,000 men, under Colonel Prescott, were sent into
   the peninsula for this on a suitable night. For some reason,
   they passed beyond Bunker Hill, and seized Breed's Hill, much
   closer to Boston. Breed's Hill is now usually called Bunker
   Hm, and the Bunker Hill monument is erected upon it. The
   American fortification was continued silently and swiftly
   through the night. In the morning of June 17, 1775, the
   British in Boston woke to see a long line of intrenchments
   running across the hill above them, and an American
   working-party busily strengthening it. For a time, the British
   frigates in the harbor kept up a slow and distant fire, to
   which the working-party paid no attention; but at noon the
   work was stopped, for the British troops were coming across
   the harbor in boats. Three thousand well armed, uniformed, and
   drilled soldiers, who had never known defeat in equal fight,
   landed near Charlestown, under General Howe. Here they formed
   at the water-side, and in a long, steady line began to move
   upward to scatter the 1,500 farmers who were watching them
   from the top of the hill. From the roofs of the houses in
   Boston, the rest of the British army and the townspeople were
   watching, anxious to see 'whether the Yankees would fight.'
   Most of the watchers expected to see the untrained soldiers in
   the fort fire a few hasty shots at a safe distance, and run.
   The fort held a threatening silence until the attacking column
   was within 150 feet. Then, at the word, came a sheet of fire
   from the marksmen within; and, when the smoke lifted, part of
   the British line was lying dead or wounded, and the rest were
   retreating hastily down the hill. The British were not
   cowards: the officers re-formed the line at the bottom of the
   hill, and, after setting fire to Charlestown, again advanced
   to the attack. Again there was a steady silence in the fort, a
   close and deadly fire, and the British line was driven down
   the hill again. The British then moved up the hill for the
   third time. The powder in the fort was now gone, and the
   garrison fought for a few minutes with gun stocks and stones
   against the British bayonets. But such a struggle was
   hopeless, and the British gained the fort. They were too tired
   to pursue the garrison, who escaped to the mainland."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for schools,
      sections 195-197._

   "As soon as Prescott saw the defence was hopeless, he ordered
   a retreat, and friend and foe mingled together as they surged
   out of the sally-port amid the clouds of dust which the
   trampling raised, for a scorching sun had baked the new-turned
   soil. It was now, while the confused mass of beings rocked
   along down the rear slope of the hill, that Warren [who had
   joined the defending force that morning as a volunteer] fell,
   shot through the head. No one among the Americans knew
   certainly that he was dead, as they left him. … Prescott did
   not conceal his indignation at not having been better
   supported, when he made his report at Ward's headquarters. He
   knew he had fought well; but neither he nor his contemporaries
   understood at the time how a physical defeat might be a moral
   victory. Not knowing this, there was little else than
   mortification over the result,—indeed, on both sides. … The
   general opinion seems to be that the Americans had about 1,500
   men engaged at one time, and that from 3,000 to 4,000 at
   different times took some part in it. The British had probably
   about the same numbers in all, but were in excess of the
   Americans at all times while engaged. The conflict with small
   arms lasted about ninety minutes."

      J. Winsor,
      _The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 2). _

   "How can we exaggerate the relative importance of this day's
   action? Did it not, in fact, not only open, but make the
   contest, dividing into two parties not only those determined
   for the ministry or for enfranchisement, but also all timid,
   hesitating, reluctant neutrals? It was impossible after this
   to avoid taking a side. It rendered all reconciliation
   impossible, till it should offer itself in the shape of
   independence.
{3228}
   It echoed the gathering cry that brought together our people
   from their farms and workshops, to learn the terrible art
   which grows more merciful only as it is more ferociously, that
   is, skilfully, pursued. The day needs no rhetoric to magnify
   it in our revolutionary annals. When its sun went down, the
   provincials had parted with all fear, hesitation, and
   reluctance. They found that it was easy to fight. … General
   Gage's account of the battle, acknowledging the loss of 226
   killed and 828 wounded, was received in London, July 25th.
   While the ministry received with dismay this official
   intelligence, and kept it back from publication, many private
   letters accompanying it in its transit anticipated with
   exaggerations its humiliating details."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      History of the Battle of Bunker's Hill,
      pages 102-105._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapters 4-7._

      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 16._

      _I. N. Tarbox,
      Life of Israel Putnam,
      chapters 7-11._

      _H. B. Dawson,
      Bunker Hill
      (Historical Magazine, June, 1868)._

      _S. A. Drake,
      Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex,
      chapter 3._

      _P. Force, editor,
      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 2._

      _F. Moore, editor,
      Diary of the American Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 97-103._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the American Revolution,
      volume 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (August-December).
   Unsuccessful expedition to Canada.

   "The exploits of Allen and Arnold at Ticonderoga … had invited
   further conquests; but the Continental Congress hesitated to
   take any steps which might seem to carry war across the line
   till the Canadians had the opportunity of casting in their lot
   with their neighbors. On the 1st of June, 1775, Congress had
   distinctly avowed this purpose of restraint; and they well
   needed to be cautious, for the Canadian French had not
   forgotten the bitter aspersions on their religion which
   Congress had, with little compunction, launched upon its
   professors, under the irritation of the Quebec Act. Still
   their rulers were aliens, and the traditional hatred of
   centuries between races is not easily kept in abeyance. Ethan
   Allen was more eager to avail himself of this than Congress
   was to have him; but the march of events converted the
   legislators, and the opportunity which Allen grieved to see
   lost was not so easily regained when Congress at last
   authorized the northern invasion. Arnold and Allen had each
   aimed to secure the command of such an expedition, the one by
   appealing to the Continental Congress, the other by
   representations to that of New York. Allen had also gone in
   person to Philadelphia, and he and his Green Mountain Boys
   were not without influence upon Congress, in their quaint and
   somewhat rough ways, as their exuberant patriotism later made
   the New York authorities forget their riotous opposition to
   the policy which that province had been endeavoring to enforce
   in the New Hampshire Grants. Connecticut had already sent
   forward troops to Ticonderoga to hold that post till Congress
   should decide upon some definite action; and at the end of
   June, 1775, orders reached Schuyler which he might readily
   interpret as authorizing him, if the Canadians did not object,
   to advance upon Canada. He soon started to assume command, but
   speedily found matters unpromising. The Johnsons were arming
   the Indians up the Mohawk and beyond in a way that boded no
   good, and they had entered into compacts with the British
   commanders in Canada. Arnold had been at Ticonderoga, and had
   quarrelled with Hinman, the commander of the Connecticut
   troops. Schuyler heard much of the Green Mountain Boys, but he
   only knew them as the lawless people of the Grants, and soon
   learned that Allen and Warner had themselves set to
   quarrelling. … In August the news from Canada began to be
   alarming. Richard Montgomery, an Irish officer who had some
   years before left the army to settle on the Hudson and marry,
   was now one of the new brigadiers. He urged Schuyler to
   advance and anticipate the movement now said to be intended by
   Carleton, the English general commanding in Canada. At this
   juncture Schuyler got word from Washington that a coöperating
   expedition would be dispatched by way of the Kennebec, which,
   if everything went well, might unite with Schuyler's before
   Quebec."

      _J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6)._

   The two movements were made, from Ticonderoga and from the
   Kennebec, with results which will be found related under
   CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776. "No expedition during the American
   Revolution had less elements of permanent value than those
   which were undertaken against Canada during the year 1775.
   Great results were anticipated, but none were realized. The
   obstacles were too substantial, and failure was inevitable.
   Wonderful endurance and great physical courage were
   manifested, and these were accompanied by a prodigious amount
   of faith, but there was neither ability nor opportunity for
   works commensurate with the faith. Certain Acts of Parliament,
   known as the Canadian Acts, were as offensive to Canadians as
   other legislation was to Americans; but the former were not
   pressed to the extremity of armed resistance. The people
   themselves having no harmony of religious or political views,
   were equally divided in language and race. Neither did the
   Canadians invite the aid of the colonies. The hypothesis that
   Canada would blend her destiny with that of New England, and
   would unite in resistance to the crown, certainly involved
   some identity of interest as well as of action. But the
   characters of the two people were too unlike to be unified by
   simple opposition to English legislation, and Canadians had no
   antecedents such as would prompt a hearty sympathy with New
   England and its controlling moral sentiment. Neither was there
   such a neighborly relation as admitted of prompt and adequate
   aid from one to the other, in emergencies calling for a
   combined effort. As a base of operations for a British army
   moving upon the colonies, Canada had the single advantage of
   being less distant from England than an Atlantic base, and
   many supplies could be procured without the expense and delay
   of their transportation across the Atlantic; but between
   Canada and the American colonies there was an actual
   wilderness. Hence a British offensive movement from Canada
   involved constant waste of men and materials, a deep line
   through an uninhabited or hostile region, and such a constant
   backing, as was both inconsistent with the resources of the
   base, and with a corresponding support of armies resting upon
   the sea coast. The British government was not ready for
   operations so extensive and so exhaustive of men and treasure;
   neither did it realize the necessity for that expenditure.
{3229}
   There were two alternatives, one illustrated by General
   Carleton's plan, viz., to hold the forts of Lake Champlain, as
   advanced, defensive positions; and the other, that of
   Burgoyne, to strike through the country and depend upon
   support from the opposite base. The true defense of the
   colonies from such expeditions depended upon the prompt
   seizure and occupation of the frontier posts. An American
   advance upon Canada was not only through a country
   strategically bad, but the diversion of forces for that
   purpose endangered the general issue, and entrusted its
   interests to the guardianship of an army already insufficient
   to meet the pressing demands of the crisis. The occupation of
   New York in 1775, by an adequate British force, would have
   infinitely outweighed all possible benefit from the complete
   conquest of Canada. At the very time when Washington could
   hardly hold the British garrison of Boston in check,—when he
   had an average of but nine rounds of ammunition per man, he
   was required to spare companies, ammunition, and supplies for
   a venture, profitless at best,—with the certainty that
   reinforcements could not be supplied as fast as the enemy
   could draw veteran regiments from Great Britain and Ireland,
   to defend or recover Canadian soil. In giving a rapid outline
   of this first attempt of the colonies to enlarge the theatre
   of active operations, it should be noticed that the initiative
   had been taken before General Washington had been elected
   commander-in-chief, and that Congress itself precipitated the
   final movement."

      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapters 19-29,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _J. Armstrong,
      Life of Richard Montgomery
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

      _J. Henry,
      Account of Arnold's Campaign against Quebec,
      by one of the Survivors._

      _I. N. Arnold,
      Life of Benedict .Arnold,
      chapters 3-5._

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington.
      volume 2, chapters 4-5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19-20._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (September).
   Flight of Govern or Tryon from New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Washington in command at Cambridge.
   The British forced out of Boston.

   Washington "arrived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 2d of
   July [1775], and on the following day presented himself at the
   head of the army. His head-quarters remained at Cambridge,
   till the evacuation of Boston by the royal forces on the 17th
   of March, 1776. The position of affairs was one of vast
   responsibility and peril. The country at large was highly
   excited, and expected that a bold stroke would be struck and
   decisive successes obtained. But the army was without
   organization and discipline; the troops unused to obey, the
   officers for the most part unaccustomed, some of them
   incompetent, to command. A few of them only had had a limited
   experience in the Seven Years' War. Most of the men had rushed
   to the field on the first alarm of hostilities, without any
   enlistment; and when they were enlisted, it was only till the
   end of the year. There was no military chest; scarce anything
   that could be called a commissariat. The artillery consisted
   of a few old field-pieces of various sizes, served with a very
   few exceptions by persons wholly untrained in gunnery. There
   was no siege train, and an almost total want of every
   description of ordnance stores. Barrels of sand, represented
   as powder, were from time to time brought into the camp, to
   prevent the American army itself from being aware of its
   deficiency in that respect. In the autumn of 1775, an alarm of
   small-pox was brought from Boston, and the troops were
   subjected to inoculation: There was no efficient power, either
   in the Provincial Assembly or the Congress at Philadelphia, by
   which these wants could be supplied and these evils remedied.
   Such were the circumstances under which General Washington
   took the field, at the head of a force greatly superior in
   numbers to the royal army, but in all other respects a very
   unequal match. Meantime the British were undisputed masters of
   the approaches to Boston by water. Washington's letters
   disclose extreme impatience under the inaction to which he was
   condemned; but the gravest difficulties attended the expulsion
   of the royal forces from Boston. It could only be effected by
   the bombardment and assault of that place; an attempt which
   must in any event have been destructive to the large
   non-combatant population, that had been unable to remove into
   the country, and which would have been of doubtful success,
   for the want of a siege train, and with troops wholly unused
   to such an undertaking. Having in the course of the year
   received some captured ordnance from Canada [from Fort
   Ticonderoga], and a supply of ammunition taken by privateers
   at sea, Washington was strongly disposed to assault the town,
   as soon as the freezing of the bay on the western side of the
   peninsula would allow the troops to pass on the ice. The
   winter, however, remained open longer than usual, and a
   council of war dissuaded this attempt. He then determined to
   occupy Nook's Hill (an eminence at the extremity of Dorchester
   'Neck,' as it was called, separated from Boston by a narrow
   arm of the harbor), and Dorchester Heights, which commanded
   Nook's Hill and the town itself. In this way the royal forces
   would be compelled to take the risk of a general action, for
   the purpose of dislodging the Americans, or else to evacuate
   the town. The requisite preparations having been made with
   secrecy, energy, and despatch, the heights were covered with
   breastworks on the night of the 4th of March, 1776, as 'by
   enchantment.' A partial movement, undertaken by the royal army
   to dislodge the Americans, was frustrated by stress of
   weather; and on the 17th of March, in virtue of an agreement
   to that effect with the municipal government, the town and
   harbor of Boston were evacuated by the British army and army
   without firing a gun. Thus, without a battle and without the
   destruction of a building in Boston, the first year of the war
   was brought to a successful and an auspicious close."

      _E. Everett,
      Life of Washington,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Washington,
      Writings; edited. by Ford,
      volume 3._

      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapters 8-13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The beginning of the American Navy,
   and the early fitting out of Privateers.

   "Before the end of 1775 the Continental Congress ordered that
   five ships of 32 guns should be built, five of 28, and three
   of 24. This order was carried out, and these vessels are the
   proper beginning of the navy of the United States. Almost
   everyone of them, before the war was over, had been captured,
   or burned to avoid capture.
{3230}
   But the names of the little fleet will always be of interest
   to Americans, and some of those names have always been
   preserved on the calendar of the navy. They are the
   'Washington,' 'Raleigh,' 'Hancock,' 'Randolph,' 'Warren,'
   'Virginia,' 'Trumbull,' 'Effingham,' 'Congress,' 'Providence,'
   'Boston,' 'Delaware,' 'Montgomery.' The State of Rhode Island,
   at the very outbreak of hostilities, commissioned Abraham
   Whipple, who went with his little vessel as far as Bermuda,
   and, from his experience in naval warfare earned in the French
   War, he was recognized as commodore of the little fleet of
   American cruisers. … Meanwhile, every maritime State issued
   commissions to privateers, and established admiralty or prize
   courts, with power to condemn prizes when brought in.
   Legitimate commerce had been largely checked, and … the seamen
   of the country, who had formerly been employed in the
   fisheries, or in our large foreign trade with the West India
   Islands and with Europe, gladly volunteered in the private
   service. Till the end of the war the seamen preferred the
   privateer service to that of the government. … The larger
   maritime States had in commission one or more vessels from the
   beginning, but they found the same difficulty which the
   Congress found in enlisting seamen, when any bold privateer
   captain came into rivalry with them. … As early as the 22d of
   December, in 1775, Congress had appointed Esek Hopkins, of
   Rhode Island, commander-in-chief of its navy, and had named
   four captains besides, with several lieutenants, the first of
   whom was John Paul Jones. … On the 10th of October [1776] a
   resolution of Congress fixed the rank of captains in the navy,
   … Paul Jones eighteenth on a list of twenty-four. Jones was
   not pleased that his rank was not higher, but eventually his
   achievements were such that his reputation probably now stands
   higher as a successful officer than that of any of the
   number."

      _E. E. Hale,
      Naval History of the American Revolution
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Cooper,
      Naval History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapters 4-6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January).
   Adoption of a Constitution in New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January-June).
   King George's war measures and Paine's "Common Sense."
   The setting of the tide of opinion toward national independence.

   "Disastrous news arrived from England before the close of the
   winter of 1775-6. The King had opened Parliament with a speech
   in which he had denounced the Colonists as rebels, seeking,
   with deceitful pretences, to establish an independent empire;
   and his Majesty recommended decisive, coercive measures
   against them. … The answer to the Royal Address (adopted by a
   vote of seventy-six to thirty-three in the Lords, and two
   hundred and seventy-eight to one hundred and eight in the
   Commons) gave assurances of the firm support of Parliament to
   the proposed measures. The very moderately conciliatory
   propositions made by the Duke of Richmond, Mr. Burke, and the
   Duke of Grafton, were summarily voted down, and not far from
   the middle of December the atrocious' Prohibitory Act,' as it
   was generally designated, passed. It was, in effect, a
   declaration of war, and a war unrestrained by the customs, and
   unmitigated by the decencies of civilization. It authorized
   the confiscation of American vessels and cargoes, and those of
   all nations found trading in American ports. It authorized
   British commanders to impress American crews into the British
   Navy, and to place them on the same footing with voluntarily
   enlisted seamen; that is, to give them a choice between
   parricide and being hung at a yardarm! Finally, it referred
   all future negotiations to two Commissioners, to be sent out
   along with a conquering armament, who were allowed to grant
   pardons to individuals and Colonies, on submission, thus
   leaving no future alternative opposed to the latter but the
   sword, and indicating that henceforth all appeals to King or
   Parliament were cut off. … Concurrently with these legislative
   steps, the practical ones for carrying on the war, with a
   large army, were entered upon. Finding it difficult or
   impossible to obtain the necessary recruits at home, and that
   the existing English and Irish regiments embarked with such
   reluctance that it was necessary to keep a guard upon the
   transports 'to keep them from deserting by wholesale,' the
   Ministry successively applied to Russia, the States-General,
   and finally, several of the German States for mercenaries. …
   The infamy of filling up the British armament was reserved for
   the Princes of three or four petty German States. … As the
   news of these events successively reached the American
   Congress and people, in the winter and spring of 1775-6, the
   contest took a new coloring. Not only the bold, but the
   moderate began now to see the real alternative before them.
   And at a critical moment the remedy, and the path to it, were
   pointed out by a master hand. 'Common Sense' was published by
   Thomas Paine, and a more effective popular appeal never went
   to the bosoms of a nation. Its tone, its manner, its biblical
   illusions, its avoidance of all openly impassioned appeals to
   feeling, and its unanswerable common sense were exquisitely
   adapted to the great audience to which it was addressed; and
   calm investigation will satisfy the historical student that
   its effect in preparing the popular mind for the Declaration
   of Independence, exceeded that of any other paper, speech, or
   document made to favor it, and it would scarcely be
   exaggeration to add, than all other such means put together.
   John Adams, with a childish perpetuance, and with a rancor so
   vehement that it appears ridiculous, spares no occasion to
   underrate Paine's services, and to assault his opinions and
   character. … His transparent motive seems to be to decry the
   author of a paper which had too much the credit of preparing
   the public mind for the Declaration of Independence, a credit
   which Mr. Adams was more than anxious to monopolize. Let us be
   just. Paine's services in paving the way to the Declaration
   are not to be mentioned on the same page with John Adams's.
   Moreover, Independence would have been declared, and, perhaps,
   nearly as early, had Paine never written. But he did, at a
   propitious moment, and with consummate adaptation, write a
   paper which went like the arrow which pierces the centre of
   the target. Its effect was instantaneous and tremendous. … The
   work ran through innumerable editions in America and France.
   The world rung with it. … It admits of no doubt that pretty
   early in 1776, all the true Whigs in Congress, moderates as
   well as ultras, became satisfied of the necessity and
   expediency of separation, and that henceforth it was only a
   question of time with them.
{3231}
   Enactments placing the struggle on the footing of open war,
   instead of mere insurrection—issuing letters of marque and
   reprisal against the enemies of our commerce—advising the
   local authorities to disarm the disaffected—opening the ports
   of the country to all nations but Great Britain—directing
   negotiations for foreign alliances to be undertaken—were
   successively made. Finally, on the 10th of May, a resolution,
   prepared by John Adams and R. H. Lee, passed the House,
   advising all the Colonies to form governments for themselves;
   and in this, unlike preceding instances of giving advice on
   the same subject, no limitation of the duration of the
   governments to be formed 'to the continuance of the present
   dispute' was inserted. This, with a befitting preamble,
   written by John Adams, was adopted on the 15th, … and was,
   obviously, a long and bold stride in the direction of
   independence, and must have been understood by all as its
   signal and precursor. … Congress cheered on those whom
   peculiar circumstances had rendered more backward, and it
   tarried for them a little by the way; on the other hand, it
   prudently waited for the prompting of the more forward. Thus
   it avoided the appearance of dominating over public
   opinion—thus it 'kept front and rear together.' Early in April
   (12th), North Carolina 'empowered' her delegates 'to concur
   with the delegates of other Colonies in declaring
   independency.' At its 'May session' (the day of the month not
   appearing in the record under our eye), the General Assembly
   of Rhode Island abolished its act of allegiance, and directed
   all commissions and legal processes henceforth to issue in the
   name and under the authority of the 'Governor and Company.'
   The Connecticut General Assembly, which met on the 9th of May,
   before its adjournment (date not before us), repealed its act
   against high treason, and made the same order with Rhode
   Island in regard to legal processes. On the 15th of May,
   Virginia took a still more decisive step, by instructing its
   delegates in Congress to move for a Declaration of
   Independence. … The Virginia delegates in Congress made choice
   of Richard H. Lee to move the resolutions contained in their
   instructions of May 15th; and he did so on Friday, the 7th day
   of June, John Adams seconding them. Their consideration was
   postponed until the next day, when they were referred to a
   committee of the whole, and debated throughout Saturday and
   the succeeding Monday. On the latter day (10th) Congress
   resolved: 'That the consideration of the first resolution be
   postponed to Monday, the first day of July next; and in the
   meanwhile, that no time be lost, in case the Congress agree
   thereto, that a committee be appointed to prepare a
   declaration to the effect of the said first resolution, which
   is in these words: That these Colonies are, and of right ought
   to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved
   from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all
   Political connection between them and the State of Great
   Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.'"

      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Bancroft,
      History of United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapters 24-28._

      _R. Frothingham,
      Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 11._

      _W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      volume 1, chapters 4-5._

      _American Archives,
      series 4, volume 6._

      _E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the
      English Colonies,
      chapter 11._

      _C. J. Stille,
      Life and Times of John Dickinson,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776;
      and VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January-June).
      Engagement of hireling Hessians
      to reinforce the British arms.

   "The [British] Cabinet had entertained some hopes of Russian
   auxiliaries [application for 20,000 of whom had been made to
   the Empress Catherine, who refused them with hardly concealed
   scorn], but the negotiation for that object could not be
   matured. Early in the year treaties were signed with the
   Landgrave of Hesse for taking into British pay 12,000 of his
   men; with the Duke of Brunswick and other petty potentates of
   Germany for 5,000 more. These little princes, seeing the need
   of England, which did not choose to lean, as she might and
   should have done, on her own right arm, insisted on obtaining,
   and did obtain, most usurious terms. Under the name of
   levy-money, there was to be paid to them the price of 30
   crowns for every foot-soldier. Under the name of subsidy, each
   of their Serene Highnesses was moreover to be indulged with a
   yearly sum, irrespective of the pay and subsistence of the
   troops; and on the plea that in this case no certain number of
   years was stipulated as the term of service, the Landgrave of
   Hesse claimed and was promised a double subsidy, namely
   450,000 crowns a year. The men were to enter into pay before
   they began to march! The subsidies were to be continued for
   one full year at least after the war was over and the troops
   had returned to their respective homes. Never yet, in short,
   was the blood of brave men sold on harder terms. The disgrace
   of this transaction to the German Princes who engaged in it
   requires little comment. … The ablest by far of the German
   Princes at that time, Frederick of Prussia, was not in general
   a man of compassionate feelings. He had no especial love or
   care for the North American cause. … Yet even Frederick
   expressed in strong terms his contempt for the scandalous
   man-traffic of his neighbours. It is said that whenever any of
   the newly hired Brunswickers or Hessians had to pass through
   any portion of his territory he claimed to levy on them the
   usual toll as for so many head of cattle, since he said they
   had been sold as such! Nor can the British ministry in this
   transaction be considered free from blame. … Certain it is
   that among the various causes which at this period wrought
   upon our trans-Atlantic brethren to renounce their connection
   with us, there was none more cogent in their minds than the
   news that German mercenaries had been hired and were coming to
   fight against them."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 53 (volume 6)._

   "The first German troops to start for America were the
   Brunswickers. These marched from Brunswick on February 22d,
   1776, 2,282 strong, and were embarked at Stade, near the mouth
   of the Elbe. The second division of Brunswickers embarked at
   the end of May—about 2,000 men. The first Hessians set out
   from Cassel early in March, and were shipped at Bremerlehe,
   near the mouth of the Weser. The second division was embarked
   in June. Together they numbered between 12,000 and 13,000 men.
{3232}
   They were for the most part excellent troops and well
   equipped, for the Landgrave's little army was one of the best
   in Germany. … The Prince of Waldeck sent his regiment through
   Cassel without trouble. The Prince of Hesse-Hanau, the
   Margrave of Anspach-Bayreuth, and the Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst
   had a longer road."

      _E. J. Lowell,
      The Hessians in the Revolutionary War,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. von Eelking,
      Memoirs of General Riedesel,
      volume 1, pages 18-88, and appendix._

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 22._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (February).
   Flight of the Royal Governor from Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (March).
   State government organized and a Constitution adopted in
   South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (April).
   North Carolina the first colony to declare for independence.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
   Rhode Island renounces allegiance to the King.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
   Popular vote for independence in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (APRIL-MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
   Arnold's retreat from Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May-June).
   Independence declared and Constitution adopted in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   The British repulsed at Charleston.

   "Early in 1776 the task was assigned to Clinton, who had in
   January departed from Boston, … to force and hold the Southern
   colonies to their allegiance.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

   Cornwallis, with troops, was sent over under convoy of Sir
   Peter Parker's fleet, to give Clinton the army he needed. The
   fleet did not reach North Carolina till May. In March,
   [Charles] Lee, while in New York, had wished to be ordered to
   the command in Canada, as 'he was the only general officer on
   the continent who could speak and think in French.' He was
   disappointed, and ordered farther south. By May he was in
   Virginia, ridding the country of Tories, and trying to find
   out where Parker intended to land. It was expected that
   Clinton would return north to New York in season to operate
   with Howe, when he opened the campaign there in the early
   summer, as that general expected to do, and the interval for a
   diversion farther south was not long. Lee had now gone as far
   as Charleston (South Carolina), and taken command in that
   neighborhood, while in charge of the little fort at the
   entrance of the harbor was William Moultrie, upon whom Lee was
   inculcating the necessity of a slow and sure fire, in case it
   should prove that Parker's destination, as it might well be,
   was to get a foothold in the Southern provinces, and break up
   the commerce which fed the rebellion through that harbor. The
   people of Charleston had been for some time engaged on their
   defences, and 'seem to wish a trial of their mettle,' wrote a
   looker-on. The fort in question was built of palmetto logs,
   and was unfinished on the land side. Its defenders had four
   days' warning, and the neighboring militia were summoned. On
   the 4th of June the hostile fleet appeared, and having landed
   troops on an adjacent island, it was not till the 27th that
   their dispositions were made for an attack. Their ships threw
   shot at the fort all day, which did very little damage, while
   the return fire was rendered with a precision surprising in
   untried artillerists, and seriously damaged the fleet, of
   which one ship was grounded and abandoned. The expected land
   attack from Clinton's troops, already ashore on Long Island,
   was not made. A strong wind had raised the waters of the
   channel between that island and Sullivan's Island so high that
   it could not be forded, and suitable boats for the passage
   were not at hand. A few days later the shattered vessels and
   the troops left the neighborhood, and Colonel Moultrie had
   leisure to count the cost of his victory, which was twelve
   killed and twice as many wounded. The courage of Sergeant
   Jasper, in replacing on the bastion a flag which had been shot
   away, became at once a household anecdote."

      _J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America.
      volume 6, chapter 2)._

      _ALSO IN:
      H. Flanders,
      Life of John Rutledge,
      chapter 10
      (Lives of the Chief Justices, volume 1)._

      _C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General William Moultrie
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapter 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   Resolutions for Independence.
   Making ready for the Declaration.

   "Things were now verging on every side to the same point.
   North Carolina had conferred the necessary powers to vote for
   independence and foreign alliances as early as the 12th of
   April. And now came the news from Richard Lee, to Mr. Adams,
   that on the very day of the passage of the significant
   preamble in congress, the 15th of May, the convention of
   Virginia had gone a step further, and had instructed their
   delegates to propose independence. Authority to assent to its
   natural consequences, a confederation and foreign alliances,
   followed as a matter of course. On the other hand, the
   convention of Massachusetts had referred the subject back to
   the people, to be considered and acted upon at their primary
   town meetings, and the responses had been for some time
   corning in unequivocally enough. So decided was the feeling
   that Joseph Hawley, impatient of the delay, was stimulating
   the nowise reluctant Gerry to greater exertions. Perceiving
   these encouraging indications in opposite quarters, the
   friends of independence now consulted together, and made up
   their minds that the moment had come for a final
   demonstration. Resolutions, embracing the three great points,
   were carefully matured, which it was arranged that Richard
   Henry Lee, on behalf of the delegates of Virginia, should
   present, and John Adams should second, for Massachusetts. The
   movement took place, accordingly, on the 7th of June. It
   appears on the journal, recorded with the customary caution,
   as follows:

   'Certain resolutions respecting independency being moved and
   seconded,—Resolved, that the consideration of them be referred
   till to-morrow morning; and that the members be enjoined to
   attend punctually at ten o'clock, in order to take the same
   into their consideration.' It was well that a measure of so
   momentous a character should be accompanied with as much of
   the forms of notice and special assignment as the body could
   properly give it. The record of what passed at the appointed
   time has come down to us very barren of details.
{3233}
   We only know that the resolutions were referred to the
   committee of the whole, where they were debated with great
   spirit during that day, Saturday, and again on Monday, the
   10th, by which time it had become quite clear that a majority
   of the colonies were prepared to adopt the first and leading
   resolution. This majority was composed of the four New
   England, and three out of the four southern colonies. But it
   being deemed unadvisable to place this great act upon so
   narrow a basis, and a prospect being held out of securing a
   more general concurrence by delaying the decision, a
   postponement until the 1st of July was effected by a change of
   the votes of two colonies. In the mean while, however, as it
   was thought suitable to accompany the act with an elaborate
   exposition of the causes which were held to justify it, a
   committee was ordered to have in charge the preparation of
   such a paper in season for the adjourned debate. … At the same
   time that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
   Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, all but the last
   named being of the movement, were appointed the committee to
   prepare a declaration, as mentioned, the congress formally
   voted a second committee, with powers to prepare and digest a
   form of confederation to be entered into between the colonies;
   and yet a third, to mature a plan of treaties to be proposed
   to foreign powers. In this compass were included all the
   elements of national sovereignty abroad and at home. … The
   bulk of opposition now centred in the five middle colonies,
   and the pillar upon which it leaned was John Dickinson. But
   under the combined assaults conducted by the leading colonies
   of Virginia and Massachusetts, it was plain that victory was
   become a mere question of time. Jonathan D. Sergeant, who had
   left congress to hasten a change in the counsels of New
   Jersey, had been so successful in spiriting up the assembly as
   to be able to write, on the 15th of June, to Mr. Adams, that
   the delegates about to be elected would be on the spot by the
   1st of July, the day to which the question had been assigned,
   and that they would 'vote plump.' Equally favorable news soon
   came from Maryland. … Thus were two States secured. But
   Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York yet remained to move. In
   the first of these, recourse was had once more to the
   so-called committees of conference. … And here, on the 23d of
   June, Dr. Benjamin Rush, then a young man, but acting entirely
   in sympathy and co-operation with the leaders in congress,
   moved and carried the appointment of a committee to declare
   the sense of the conference with respect to an independence of
   the province on the crown of Great Britain. He and James Smith
   were then joined with Thomas McKean, the chairman of the
   conference, in a committee, which was ready the next day with
   a report affirming the willingness of the deputies of the
   conference to concur in a vote declaring the United Colonies
   free and independent States. The report was adopted
   unanimously, was presented to congress on the 25th, and,
   doubtless, had its effect in determining those delegates of
   the colony to absent themselves on the final vote, upon whose
   resistance its adverse decision depended. As the hesitation of
   Delaware was chiefly owing to the feeling that pervaded the
   county of Sussex, Mr. Rodney had repaired thither for the
   purpose of bringing about a favorable change, in which errand
   the news came that he was laboring with success. The delegates
   from New York, no longer interposing any active opposition,
   yet unwilling to assume a responsibility which their
   constituents had not authorized, preferred to withdraw from
   participation in the decision. Such was the state of affairs
   on the 1st of July, to which day the discussion had been
   adjourned. There was then little doubt of an affirmative vote
   on the part of all but four colonies."

      _J. Q. Adams and C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      volume 1, pages 308-318._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   End of proprietary and royal government in Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Authorship, adoption and signing
   of the Declaration of Independence.

   For the last hundred years one of the first facts taught to
   any child of American birth is, that Jefferson wrote the
   Declaration of Independence. The original draft in his
   handwriting was afterward deposited in the State Department.
   It shows two or three trifling alterations, interlined in the
   handwritings of Franklin and Adams. Otherwise it came before
   Congress precisely as Jefferson wrote it. Many years afterward
   John Adams gave an account of the way in which Jefferson came
   to be the composer of this momentous document, differing
   slightly from the story told by Jefferson. But the variance is
   immaterial. … Jefferson's statement seems the better entitled
   to credit, and what little corroboration is to be obtained for
   either narrator is wholly in his favor. He says simply that
   when the Committee came together he was pressed by his
   colleagues unanimously to undertake the draft; that he did so;
   that, when he had prepared it, he submitted it to Dr. Franklin
   and Mr. Adams, separately, requesting their corrections,
   'which were two or three only and merely verbal,' 'interlined
   in their own handwritings'; that the report in this shape was
   adopted by the committee, and a 'fair copy,' written out by
   Mr. Jefferson, was then laid before Congress. A somewhat more
   interesting discussion concerns the question, how Jefferson
   came to be named first on the committee, to the entire
   exclusion of Lee, to whom, as mover of the resolution,
   parliamentary etiquette would have assigned the chairmanship.

       See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

   Many explanations have been given, of which some at least
   appear the outgrowth of personal likings and dislikings. It is
   certain that Jefferson was not only preëminently fitted for
   the very difficult task of this peculiar composition, but also
   that he was a man without an enemy. His abstinence from any
   active share in debate had saved him from giving irritation;
   and it is a truth not to be concealed, that there were cabals,
   bickerings, heart-burnings, perhaps actual enmities among the
   members of that famous body, which, grandly as it looms up,
   and rightly too, in the mind's eye, was after all composed of
   jarring human ingredients. It was well believed that there was
   a faction opposed to Washington, and it was generally
   suspected that irascible, vain, and jealous John Adams, then
   just rising from the ranks of the people, made in this matter
   common cause with the aristocratic Virginian Lees against
   their fellow-countrymen. … So it is likely enough that a
   timely illness of Lee's wife was a fortunate excuse for
   passing him by, and that partly by reason of admitted
   aptitude, partly because no risk could be run of any
   interference of personal feelings in so weighty a matter,
   Jefferson was placed first on the committee, with the natural
   result of doing the bulk of its labor.
{3234}
   On July 1, pursuant to assignment, Congress, in committee of
   the whole, resumed consideration of Mr. Lee's resolution, and
   carried it by the votes of nine colonies. South Carolina and
   Pennsylvania voted against it. The two delegates from Delaware
   were divided. Those from New York said that personally they
   were in favor of it and believed their constituents to be so,
   but they were hampered by instructions drawn a twelvemonth
   since and strictly forbidding any action obstructive of
   reconciliation, which was then still desired. The committee
   reported, and then Edward Rutledge moved an adjournment to the
   next day, when his colleagues, though disapproving the
   resolution, would probably join in it for the sake of
   unanimity. This motion was carried, and on the day following
   the South Carolinians were found to be converted; also a third
   member 'had come post from the Delaware counties' and caused
   the vote of that colony to be given with the rest;
   Pennsylvania changed her vote; and a few days later the
   Convention of New York approved the resolution, 'thus
   supplying the void occasioned by the withdrawing of her
   delegates from the vote.' On the same day, July 2, the House
   took up Mr. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration, and debated
   it during that and the following day and until a late hour on
   July 4. Many verbal changes were made, most of which were
   conducive to closer accuracy of statement, and were
   improvements. Two or three substantial amendments were made by
   the omission of passages; notably there was stricken out a
   passage in which George III. was denounced for encouraging the
   slave-trade. … No interpolation of any consequence was made.
   Jefferson had ample cause to congratulate himself upon this
   event of the discussion. … He himself spoke not a word in the
   debate. … The burden of argument, from which Jefferson wisely
   shrank, was gallantly borne by John Adams, whom Jefferson
   gratefully called 'the colossus of that debate.' Jefferson
   used afterward to take pleasure in tingeing the real solemnity
   of the occasion with a coloring of the ludicrous. The debate,
   he said, seemed as though it might run on interminably, and
   probably would have done so at a different season of the year.
   But the weather was oppressively warm, and the room occupied
   by the deputies was hard by a stable, whence the hungry flies
   swarmed thick and fierce, alighting on the legs of the
   delegates and biting hard through their thin silk stockings.
   Treason was preferable to discomfort, and the members voted
   for the Declaration and hastened to the table to sign it and
   escape from the horse-fly. John Hancock, making his great
   familiar signature, jestingly said that John Bull could read
   that without spectacles; then, becoming more serious, began to
   impress on his comrades the necessity of their 'all hanging
   together in this matter.' 'Yes, indeed,' interrupted Franklin,
   'we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
   separately.' … Amid such trifling, concealing grave thoughts,
   Jefferson saw his momentous document signed at the close of
   that summer afternoon."

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Thomas Jefferson,
      chapter 3._

   "The statements relative to signing the Declaration are
   conflicting. Jefferson states that it was signed generally on
   the 4th (Memoirs i, 94), and he in other places reiterates
   this statement, but this manuscript is not known to be extant.
   … According to the journals, Congress, on the 19th of July,
   resolved that the 'declaration, passed on the 4th, be fairly
   engrossed on parchment, with the title and style of "The
   unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of
   America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by
   every member of Congress.' On the 2d day of August, the
   journals say, 'The Declaration being engrossed, and compared
   at the table, was signed by the members.' … This manuscript is
   preserved in the office of the Secretary of State."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      page 545 and foot-note._

   "Because statesmen like Dickinson and communities like
   Maryland were slow in believing that the right moment for a
   declaration of independence had come, the preposterous theory
   has been suggested that the American Revolution was the work
   of an unscrupulous and desperate minority, which, through
   intrigue mingled with violence, succeeded in forcing the
   reluctant majority to sanction its measures. Such a
   misconception has its root in an utter failure to comprehend
   the peculiar character of American political life, like the
   kindred misconception which ascribes the rebellion of the
   colonies to a sordid unwillingness to bear their due share of
   the expenses of the British Empire. It is like the
   misunderstanding which saw an angry mob in every town-meeting
   of the people of Boston, and characterized as a 'riot' every
   deliberate expression of public opinion. No one who is
   familiar with the essential features of American political
   life can for a moment suppose that the Declaration of
   Independence was brought about by any less weighty force than
   the settled conviction of the people that the priceless
   treasure of self-government could be preserved by no other
   means. It was but slowly that this unwelcome conviction grew
   upon the people; and owing to local differences of
   circumstances it grew more slowly in some places than in
   others. Prescient leaders, too, like the Adamses and Franklin
   and Lee, made up their minds sooner than other people. Even
   those conservatives who resisted to the last, even such men as
   John Dickinson and Robert Morris, were fully agreed with their
   opponents as to the principle at issue between Great Britain
   and America, and nothing would have satisfied them short of
   the total abandonment by Great Britain of her pretensions to
   impose taxes and revoke charters. Upon this fundamental point
   there was very little difference of opinion in America. As to
   the related question of independence, the decision, when once
   reached, was everywhere alike the reasonable result of free
   and open discussion; and the best possible illustration of
   this is the fact that not even in the darkest days of the war
   already begun did any state deliberately propose to reconsider
   its action in the matter. The hand once put to the plough,
   there was no turning back."

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 4 (volume 1). _

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 28._

      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 4._

      _J. Madison,
      Papers,
      volume 1, pages 9-27._

      _J. Sanderson,
      Biographies of the Signers of the Declaration._

      See, also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{3235}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Text of the Declaration of Independence.

   The following is the text of the great manifesto:

   "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for
   one people to dissolve the political bands which have
   connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of
   the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of
   Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to
   the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
   causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these
   truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
   that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
   unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
   pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments
   are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
   consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
   becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
   People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
   Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
   organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
   likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
   will dictate that Governments long established should not be
   changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
   experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to
   suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
   by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when
   a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
   the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
   Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
   such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
   security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these
   Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them
   to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of
   the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
   injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
   establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To
   prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has
   refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary
   for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass
   Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in
   their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when
   so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He
   has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
   districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the
   right of Representation in the Legislature, a right
   inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has
   called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
   uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public
   Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
   compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative
   Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his
   invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a
   long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be
   elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
   Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their
   exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all
   the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
   He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States;
   for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of
   Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
   migration hither, and raising the conditions of new
   Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration
   of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing
   Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will
   alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
   payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New
   Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our
   People, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in
   times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our
   legislature. He has affected to render the Military
   independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has
   combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign
   to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving
   his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For
   quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For
   protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any
   Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these
   States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
   For imposing taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us
   in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For
   transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
   offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
   neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
   government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
   once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
   absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our
   Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
   fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our
   own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power
   to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated
   Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and
   waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our
   Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our
   people. He is at this time transporting large armies of
   foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation
   and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
   perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
   totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has
   constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
   to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners
   of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their
   Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and
   has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers,
   the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is
   an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and
   conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have
   Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated
   Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A
   Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may
   define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.
   Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Brittish
   brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by
   their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over
   us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our
   emigration and settlement here.
{3236}
   We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and
   we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to
   disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt
   our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to
   the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
   acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation,
   and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War,
   in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the
   united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
   appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
   of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
   good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
   That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free
   and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all
   Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
   connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and
   ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
   Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude
   Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
   other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right
   do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
   reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually
   pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
   Honor.

      John Hancock.
   New Hampshire
      Josiah Bartlett,
      Wm. Whipple,
      Matthew Thornton.
   Massachusetts Bay
      Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine,
      Elbridge Gerry.
   Rhode Island
      Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
   Connecticut.
      Roger Sherman, Sam'el Huntington, Wm. Williams,
      Oliver Wolcott.
   New York
      Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frans. Lewis, Lewis Morris.
   New Jersey
      Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson,
      John Hart, Abra. Clark.
   Pennsylvania
      Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton,
      Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson,
      Geo. Ross.
   Delaware.
      Cæsar Rodney, Geo. Read, Tho. M'Kean.
   Maryland
      Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone,
      Charles Carroll of Carrollton.
   Virginia.
      George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Th Jefferson,
      Benja. Harrison, Thos. Ne]son, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee,
      Carter Braxton.
   North Carolina.
      Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
   South Carolina.
      Edward Rutledge, Thos. Heyward, Junr.,
      Thomas Lynch, Junr., Arthur Middleton.
   Georgia.
      Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Constitutional effect of the Declaration of Independence.

   "The Declaration of Independence did not create thirteen
   sovereign states, but the representatives of the people
   declared that the former English colonies, under the name
   which they had assumed of the United States of America,
   became, from the 4th day of July, 1776, a sovereign state and
   a member of the family of nations, recognized by the law of
   nations; and further, that the people would support their
   representatives with their blood and treasure, in their
   endeavor to make this declaration a universally recognized
   fact. Neither congress nor the people relied in this upon any
   positive right belonging either to the individual colonies
   or to the colonies as a whole. Rather did the Declaration of
   Independence and the war destroy all existing political jural
   relations, and seek their moral justification in the right of
   revolution inherent in every people in extreme emergencies. …
   Political theories had nothing to do with this development of
   things. It was the natural result of given circumstances and
   was an accomplished fact before anyone thought of the legal
   consequences which might subsequently be deduced from it."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Independence declared in New Jersey
   and Governor Franklin arrested.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (August).
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   Battle of Long Island.

   "Washington had been informed, early in January, that General
   Sir Henry Clinton had sailed from Boston, with a considerable
   body of troops, on a secret expedition. Apprehending that the
   city of New York was his destination, he immediately
   dispatched General Charles Lee to Connecticut to raise troops,
   and to proceed to that city to watch and oppose Clinton
   wherever he might attempt to land. Six weeks before the
   evacuation of Boston [March 17, 1776], Lee had encamped near
   New York with twelve hundred militia. Already the Sons of
   Liberty had been busy, and overt acts of rebellion had been
   committed by them. They had seized the cannons at Fort George,
   and driven Tryon, the royal governor, on board the Asia, a
   British armed vessel in the harbor. In March, Clinton arrived
   at Sandy Hook, just outside New York harbor, and on the same
   day, the watchful Lee providentially entered the city. The
   movement, although without a knowledge of Clinton's position,
   was timely, for it kept him at bay. Foiled in his attempt upon
   New York, that commander sailed southward. … The destination
   of Howe, when he left Boston, was also unknown to Washington.
   Supposing he, too, would proceed to New York, he put the main
   body of his army in motion toward that city, as soon as he had
   placed Boston in a state of security. He arrived in New York
   about the middle of April [April 14], and proceeded at once to
   fortify the town and vicinity, and also the passes of the
   Hudson Highlands, fifty miles above. In the mean while,
   General Lee, who had been appointed to command the American
   forces in the South, had left his troops in the charge of
   General Lord Stirling [March 7], and was hastening toward the
   Carolinas to watch the movements of Clinton, arouse the Whigs,
   and gather an army there. … Pursuant to instructions, General
   Howe proceeded toward New York, to meet General Clinton and
   Parker's fleet. He left Halifax on the 11th of June, [1776],
   and arrived at Sandy Hook on the 29th. On the 2d of July he
   took possession of Staten Island, where he was joined by Sir
   Henry Clinton [July 11], from the South, and his brother,
   Admiral Lord Howe [July 12], with a fleet and a large land
   force, from England. Before the first of August, other vessels
   arrived with a part of the Hessian troops, and on that day,
   almost 30,000 soldiers, many of them tried veterans, stood
   ready to fall upon the republican army of 17,000 men, mostly
   militia, which lay intrenched in New York and vicinity, less
   than a dozen miles distant. The grand object in view was the
   seizure of New York and the country along the Hudson, so as to
   keep open a communication with Canada, separate the patriots of
   New England from those of the other states, and to overrun the
   most populous portion of the revolted colonies.
{3237}
   This was the military plan, arranged by ministers. They had
   also prepared instructions to their commanding generals, to be
   pacific, if the Americans appeared disposed to submit. Lord
   Howe and his brother, the general, were commissioned to 'grant
   pardon to all who deserved mercy,' and to treat for peace, but
   only on terms of absolute submission on the part of the
   colonies, to the will of the King and parliament. After making
   a foolish display of arrogance and weakness, in addressing
   General Washington as a private gentleman, and being assured
   that the Americans had been guilty of no offense requiring a
   'pardon' at their hands, they prepared to strike an immediate
   and effective blow. The British army was accordingly put in
   motion on the morning of the 22d of August [1776], and during
   that day, 10,000 effective men, and forty pieces of cannon,
   were landed on the western end of Long Island, between the
   present Fort Hamilton and Gravesend village. Already
   detachments of Americans under General Sullivan, occupied a
   fortified camp at Brooklyn, opposite New York, and guarded
   seven passes on a range of hills which extend from the Narrows
   to the village of Jamaica. When intelligence of the landing of
   the invading army reached Washington, he sent General Putnam,
   with large reinforcements, to take the chief command on Long
   Island; and to prepare to meet the enemy. The American troops
   on the island now [August 26], numbered about 5,000. The
   British moved in three divisions. The left, under General
   Grant, marched along the shore toward Gowanus; the right,
   under Clinton and Cornwallis, toward the interior of the
   island; and the center, composed chiefly of Hessians, under De
   Heister, marched up the Flatbush road, south of the hills.
   Clinton moved under cover of night, and before dawn on the
   morning of the 27th, he had gained possession of the Jamaica
   pass, near the present East New York. At the same time, Grant
   was pressing forward along the shore of New York Bay, and at
   day-break, he encountered Lord Stirling, where the monuments
   of Greenwood cemetery now dot the hills. De Heister advanced
   from Flatbush at the same hour, and attacked Sullivan, who,
   having no suspicions of the movements of Clinton, was watching
   the Flatbush Pass. A bloody conflict ensued, and while it was
   progressing, Clinton descended from the wooded hills, by the
   way of Bedford, to gain Sullivan's rear. As soon as the latter
   perceived his peril, he ordered a retreat to the American
   lines at Brooklyn. It was too late; Clinton drove him back
   upon the Hessian bayonets, and after fighting desperately,
   hand to hand, with the foe in front and rear, and losing a
   greater portion of his men, Sullivan was compelled to
   surrender. As usual, misfortunes did not come single. While
   these disasters were occurring on the left, Cornwallis
   descended the port-road to Gowanus, and attacked Stirling.
   They fought desperately, until Stirling was made prisoner.
   Many of his troops were drowned while endeavoring to escape
   across the Gowanus Creek, as the tide was rising; and a large
   number were captured. At noon the victory for the British was
   complete. About 500 Americans were killed or wounded, and
   1,100 were made prisoners. These were soon suffering dreadful
   horrors in prisons and prison-ships, at New York. The British
   loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners, was 367. It was with
   the deepest anguish that Washington had viewed, from New York,
   the destruction of his troops, yet he dared not weaken his
   power in the city, by sending reinforcements to aid them. He
   crossed over on the following morning [August 28], with
   Mifflin, who had come down from the upper end of York island
   with a thousand troops, and was gratified to find the enemy
   encamped in front of Putnam's lines, and delaying an attack,
   until the British fleet should co-operate with him. This delay
   allowed Washington time to form and execute a plan for the
   salvation of the remainder of the army, now too weak to resist
   an assault with any hope of success. Under cover of a heavy
   fog, which fell upon the hostile camps at midnight of the
   29th, and continued until the morning of the 30th, he silently
   withdrew them from the camp, and, unperceived by the British,
   they all crossed over to New York in safety, carrying
   everything with them but their heavy cannons. … Howe, who felt
   sure of his prey, was greatly mortified, and prepared to make
   an immediate attack upon New York, before the Americans should
   become reinforced, or should escape from it."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Family History of the United States,
      period 5, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. P. Johnston,
      The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn,
      chapters 1-5,
      (Members of Long Island History Society, volume 3)._

      _T. W. Field,
      The Battle of Long island
      (Members of Long Island History Society, volume 2)._

      _W. A. Duer,
      Life of Wm. Alexander, Earl of Stirling,
      chapter 5._

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (September).
   Quiet death of proprietary government in Pennsylvania
   and adoption of a State Constitution.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   Successes of the British.
   Washington's retreat into New Jersey.

   "At daybreak the British awoke, but it was too late. They had
   fought a successful battle, they had had the American army in
   their grasp, and now all was over. The victory had melted
   away, and, as a grand result, they had a few hundred
   prisoners, a stray boat with three camp-followers, and the
   deserted works in which they stood. To make such a retreat as
   this was a feat of arms as great as most victories, and in it
   we see, perhaps as plainly as anywhere, the nerve and
   quickness of the man who conducted it. It is true it was the
   only chance of salvation, but the great man is he who is
   entirely master of his opportunity, even if he have but one.
   The outlook, nevertheless, was, as Washington wrote, 'truly
   distressing.' The troops were dispirited, and the militia
   began to disappear, us they always did after a defeat.
   Congress would not permit the destruction of the city,
   different interests pulled in different directions,
   conflicting opinions distracted the councils of war, and, with
   utter inability to predict the enemy's movements, everything
   led to halfway measures and to intense anxiety, while Lord
   Howe tried to negotiate with Congress, and the Americans
   waited for events, Washington, looking beyond the confusion of
   the moment, saw that he had gained much by delay, and had his
   own plan well defined. … Everyone else, however, saw only past
   defeat and present peril.

{3238}

   The British ships gradually made their way up the river, until
   it became apparent that they intended to surround and cut off
   the American army. Washington made preparations to withdraw,
   but uncertainty of information came near rendering his
   precautions futile. September 15th the men-of-war opened fire,
   and troops were landed near Kip's Bay. The militia in the
   breastworks at that point had been at Brooklyn and gave way at
   once, communicating their panic to two Connecticut regiments.
   Washington, galloping down to the scene of battle, came upon
   the disordered and flying troops. He dashed in among them,
   conjuring them to stop, but even while he was trying to rally
   them they broke again on the appearance of some sixty or
   seventy of the enemy, and ran in all directions. In a tempest
   of anger Washington drew his pistols, struck the fugitives
   with his sword, and was only forced from the field by one of
   his officers seizing the bridle of his horse and dragging him
   away from the British, now within a hundred yards of the spot.
   … The rout and panic over, Washington quickly turned to deal
   with the pressing danger. With coolness and quickness he
   issued his orders, and succeeded in getting his army off,
   Putnam's division escaping most narrowly. He then took post at
   King's Bridge, and began to strengthen and fortify his lines.
   While thus engaged, the enemy advanced, and on the 16th a
   sharp skirmish was fought, in which the British were repulsed,
   and great bravery was shown by the Connecticut and Virginia
   troops, the two commanding officers being killed. This affair,
   which was the first gleam of success, encouraged the troops,
   and was turned to the best account by the general. Still a
   successful skirmish did not touch the essential difficulties
   of the situation, which then as always came from within,
   rather than without. To face and check 25,000 well equipped
   and highly disciplined soldiers, Washington had now some
   12,000 men, lacking in everything which goes to make an army,
   except mere individual courage and a high average of
   intelligence. Even this meagre force was an inconstant and
   diminishing quantity, shifting, uncertain, and always
   threatening dissolution. The task of facing and fighting the
   enemy was enough for the ablest of men; but Washington was
   obliged also to combat and overcome the inertness and dullness
   born of ignorance, and to teach Congress how to govern a
   nation at war. … Meanwhile the days slipped along, and
   Washington waited on the Harlem Plains, planning descents on
   Long Island, and determining to make a desperate stand where
   he was, unless the situation decidedly changed. Then the
   situation did change, as neither he nor anyone else apparently
   had anticipated. The British warships came up the Hudson past
   the forts, brushing aside our boasted obstructions, destroying
   our little fleet, and getting command of the river. Then
   General Howe landed at Frog's Point, where he was checked for
   the moment by the good disposition of Heath, under
   Washington's direction. These two events made it evident that
   the situation of the American army was full of peril, and that
   retreat was again necessary. Such certainly was the conclusion
   of the council of war, on the 16th, acting this time in
   agreement with their chief. Six days Howe lingered on Frog's
   Point, bringing up stores or artillery or something, … and
   gave six days to Washington. They were of little value to
   Howe, but they were of inestimable worth to Washington, who
   employed them in getting everything in readiness, in holding
   his council of war, and then on the 17th in moving
   deliberately off to very strong ground at White Plains. … On
   the 28th, Howe came up to Washington's position, and found the
   Americans quite equal in numbers, strongly intrenched, and
   awaiting his attack with confidence. He hesitated, doubted,
   and finally feeling that he must do something, sent 4,000 men
   to storm Chatterton Hill, an outlying post, where some 1,400
   Americans were stationed. There was a short, sharp action, and
   then the Americans retreated in good order to the main army,
   having lost less than half as many men as their opponents.
   With caution now much enlarged, Howe sent for reinforcements,
   and waited two days. The third day it rained, and on the
   fourth Howe found that Washington had withdrawn to a higher
   and quite impregnable line of hills, where he held all the
   passes in the rear and awaited a second attack. Howe
   contemplated the situation for two or three days longer, and
   then broke camp and withdrew to Dobbs Ferry. Such were the
   great results of the victory of Long Island, two wasted
   months, and the American army still untouched. Howe was
   resolved, however, that his campaign, should not be utterly
   fruitless, and therefore directed his attention to the
   defences of the Hudson, Fort Lee, and Fort Washington, and
   here he met with better success. Congress, in its military
   wisdom, had insisted that these forts must and could be held.
   … An attempt was made to hold both forts, and both were lost,
   as he [Washington] had foreseen. From Fort Lee the garrison
   withdrew in safety. Fort Washington was carried by storm,
   after a severe struggle. Twenty-six hundred men and all the
   munitions of war fell into the hands of the enemy. It was a
   serious and most depressing loss, and was felt throughout the
   continent. Meantime Washington had crossed into the Jerseys,
   and, after the loss of Fort Lee, began to retreat before the
   British, who, flushed with victory, now advanced rapidly under
   Lord Cornwallis."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapters 33-36._

      _G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      chapters 8-11 (volume 1)._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the American Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 23._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (October).
   Connecticut assumes independence and sovereignty.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   Washington's retreat through New Jersey and his
   masterly return movement.
   The victories at Trenton and Princeton
   retrieving the situation.

   "On the 17th [of November] Washington ordered Lee [who had
   lately returned from the south, and who had command of 7,000
   men at Northcastle] to come over and join him; but Lee
   disobeyed, and in spite of repeated orders from Washington he
   stayed at Northcastle till the 2d of December. General Ward
   had some time since resigned, so that Lee now ranked next to
   Washington. A good many people were finding fault with the
   latter for losing the 3,000 men at Fort Washington, although,
   as we have seen, that was not his fault but the fault of
   Congress.
{3239}
   Lee now felt that if Washington were ruined, he would surely
   become his successor in the command of the army, and so,
   instead of obeying his orders, he spent his time in writing
   letters calculated to injure him. Lee's disobedience thus
   broke the army in two, and did more for the British than they
   had been able to do for themselves since they started from
   Staten Island. It was the cause of Washington's flight through
   New Jersey, ending on the 8th of December, when he put himself
   behind the Delaware river, with scarcely 3,000 men. Here was
   another difficulty. The American soldiers were enlisted for
   short terms, and when they were discouraged, as at present,
   they were apt to insist upon going home as soon as their time
   had expired. It was generally believed that Washington's army
   would thus fall to pieces within a few days. Howe did not
   think it worth while to be at the trouble of collecting boats
   wherewith to follow him across the Delaware. Congress fled to
   Baltimore. People in New Jersey began taking the oath of
   allegiance to the crown. Howe received the news that he had
   been knighted for his victory on Long Island, and he returned
   to New York to celebrate the occasion. While the case looked
   so desperate for Washington, events at the north had taken a
   less unfavourable turn. Carleton [who began preparations to
   invade the province of New York as soon as Arnold retreated
   from Canada] had embarked on Lake Champlain early in the
   autumn with his fine army and fleet. Arnold had fitted up a
   small fleet to oppose his advance, and on the 11th of October
   there had been a fierce naval battle between the two near
   Valcour Island, in which Arnold was defeated, while Carleton
   suffered serious damage. The British general then advanced
   upon Ticonderoga, but suddenly made up his mind that the
   season was too late for operations in that latitude. The
   resistance he had encountered seems to have made him despair
   of achieving any speedy success in that quarter, and on the 3d
   of November he started back for Canada. This retreat relieved
   General Schuyler at Albany of immediate cause for anxiety, and
   presently he detached seven regiments to go southward to
   Washington's assistance. On the 2d of December Lee crossed the
   Hudson with 4,000 men, and proceeded slowly to Morristown.
   Just what he designed to do was never known, but clearly he
   had no intention of going beyond the Delaware to assist
   Washington, whom he believed to be ruined. Perhaps he thought
   Morristown a desirable position to hold, as it certainly was.
   Whatever his plans may have been, they were nipped in the bud.
   For some unknown reason he passed the night of the 12th at an
   unguarded tavern, about four miles from his army; and there he
   was captured next morning by a party of British dragoons, who
   carried him off to their camp at Princeton. The dragoons were
   very gleeful over this unexpected exploit, but really they
   could not have done the Americans a greater service than to
   rid them of such a worthless creature. The capture of Lee came
   in the nick of time, for it set free his men to go to the aid
   of Washington. Even after this force and that sent by Schuyler
   had reached the commander-in-chief, he found he had only 6,000
   men fit for duty. With this little force Washington instantly
   took the offensive. It was the turning-point in his career and
   in the history of the Revolutionary War. On Christmas, 1776,
   and the following nine days, an Washington's most brilliant
   powers were displayed. The British centre, 10,000 strong, lay
   at Princeton. The principal generals, thinking the serious
   business of the war ended, had gone to New York. An advanced
   party of Hessians, 1,000 strong, was posted on the bank of the
   Delaware at Trenton, and another one lower down, at
   Burlington. Washington decided to attack both these outposts,
   and arranged his troops accordingly, but when Christmas night
   arrived, the river was filled with great blocks of floating
   ice, and the only division which succeeded in crossing was the
   one that Washington led in person. It was less than 2,500 in
   number, but the moment had come when the boldest course was
   the safest. By daybreak Washington had surprised the Hessians
   at Trenton and captured them all. The outpost at Burlington,
   on hearing the news, retreated to Princeton. By the 31st
   Washington had got all his available force across to Trenton.
   Some of them were raw recruits just come in to replace others
   who had just gone home. At this critical moment the army was
   nearly helpless for want of money, and on New Year's morning
   Robert Morris was knocking at door after door in Philadelphia,
   waking up his friends to borrow the $50,000, which he sent off
   to Trenton before noon. The next day Cornwallis arrived at
   Princeton, and taking with him all the army, except a
   rear-guard of 2,000 men left to protect his communications,
   came on toward Trenton. When he reached that town, late in the
   afternoon, he found Washington entrenched behind a small creek
   just south of the town, with his back toward the Delaware
   river. 'Oho!' said Cornwallis, 'at last we have run down the
   old fox, and we will bag him in the morning.' He sent back to
   Princeton, and ordered the rearguard to come up. He expected
   next morning to cross the creek above Washington's right, and
   then press him back against the broad and deep river, and
   compel him to surrender. Cornwallis was by no means a careless
   general, but he seems to have gone to bed on that memorable
   night and slept the sleep of the just. Washington meanwhile
   was wide awake. He kept his front line noisily at work digging
   and entrenching, and made a fine show with his camp-fires.
   Then he marched his army to the right and across the creek,
   and got around Cornwallis's left wing and into his rear, and
   so went on gayly toward Princeton. At daybreak he encountered
   the British rear-guard, fought a sharp battle with it and sent
   it flying, with the loss of one-fourth of its number. The
   booming guns aroused Cornwallis too late. To preserve his
   communications with New York, he was obliged to retreat with
   all haste upon New Brunswick, while Washington's victorious
   army pushed on and occupied the strong position at Morristown.
   There was small hope of dislodging such a general from such a
   position. But to leave Washington in possession of Morristown
   was to resign to him the laurels of this half-year's work. For
   that position guarded the Highlands of the Hudson on the one
   hand, and the roads to Philadelphia on the other. Except that
   the British had taken the city of New York-which from the
   start was almost a foregone conclusion—they were no better off
   than in July when Lord Howe had landed on Staten Island. In
   nine days the tables had been completely turned.
{3240}
   The attack upon, an outpost had developed into a campaign
   which quite retrieved the situation. The ill-timed
   interference of Congress, which had begun the series of
   disasters, was remedied; the treachery of Lee was checkmated;
   and the cause of American Independence, which on Christmas Eve
   had seemed hopeless, was now fairly set on its feet. Earlier
   successes had been local; this was continental. Seldom has so
   much been done with such slender means."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 6._

   "The effect of these two unexpected strokes at Trenton and
   Princeton was to baffle Howe, and utterly disconcert his
   plans. Expecting to march upon Philadelphia at his leisure, he
   suddenly finds Washington turning about and literally cutting
   his way through the British posts, back to a point where he
   threatened Howe's flank and rear. The enemy were at once
   compelled to retire from all their positions below Brunswick,
   give up the thought of wintering in Philadelphia, and fall
   back to the vicinity of New York. When Horace Walpole heard of
   these movements, he wrote to Sir Horace Mann: 'Washington has
   shown himself both a Fabius and a Camillus. His march through
   our lines is allowed to have been a prodigy of generalship. In
   one word, I look upon a great part of America as lost to this
   country.' Here the campaign closed. Washington could not be
   dislodged from his strong mountain position, and Howe was
   satisfied to rest his troops and postpone further operations
   until the next season. Meantime the country took heart,
   Congress voted troops and supplies, and the army was recruited
   and organized on a better basis. 'The business of war is the
   result of Experience,' wrote Wolcott from Congress, with faith
   unshaken during the darkest hours of the campaign; and
   experience was now put to good profit. The crisis was passed.
   Events proved decisive. Hardship and anxiety were yet to come
   during succeeding years of the war; but it was the result of
   this year's struggle that cleared away misgivings and
   confirmed the popular faith in final success. England could do
   no more than she had done to conquer America; while America
   was now more ready than ever to meet the issue. Independence
   was established in the present campaign—in the year of its
   declaration; and more than to any others we owe this political
   privilege to the men who fought from Long Island to
   Princeton."

      _H. P. Johnston,
      Campaign of 1776,
      Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society,
      volume 3, part 1, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Hageman,
      History of Princeton,
      chapter 4, sections 4-5 (volume 1)._

      _J. O. Raum,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

      _W. B. Reed,
      Life of Joseph Reed,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 21._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   Prisoners and exchanges.
   British treatment of captives.
   The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house prison.

   In New York, during the British occupation of the city,
   "wretched indeed was the condition of the poor refugee, of the
   sick soldier, and, above all, the patriot prisoner. The
   newspapers are filled with calls for charitable contributions
   for women and children perishing with cold and hunger, for
   disabled soldiers and families without a shelter. … But if the
   favored Tories suffered, what must have been the condition of
   the patriot prisoners, confined by thousands in bleak
   barracks, churches, and prison-ships? Let us pass up Broadway,
   amidst the uncleared ruins, and, turning down Liberty Street,
   pause before a huge brick building near the Middle Dutch
   Church. It is five stories high, with broken windows, through
   which the fierce winds of winter rush unrestrained. Through
   its imperfect roof and various openings, snow, ice, and water
   penetrate to every part of the building. Sentries pace round
   its walls prepared to fire upon any of its maddened inmates
   who attempt in desperation to escape. Wounded men crawl to the
   windows begging aid; but the impassive sentinel turns back the
   gifts of the charitable. No communication with the prisoners
   can be allowed. The walls within are bare and cheerless, nor
   do any of the common conveniences of life soften the horrors
   of those dreary chambers. Yet the old Sugar-House is the most
   crowded building in New York, and hundreds of prisoners, some
   chained, others at large, fill its comfortless interior. In
   the old Sugar-House were confined the prisoners of Long
   Island, the captives of sudden forays, the patriot citizen,
   and the heroes of the rebel army. Clothed in rags and scarcely
   covered from the winter air, crowded in narrow apartments and
   broken by hunger and disease, the prisoners died by thousands.
   The sick lay down on beds of snow to perish; the feeble
   wounded quivered in the February blast. Food of the coarsest
   kind was served out to them in scanty measure, and devoured
   with the eagerness of famine. Every night ten or twenty died;
   every day their corpses were thrown into pits without a single
   rite of burial. When led out to be exchanged, the glad hope of
   freedom gave them no joy—they died on the way to their
   friends, or lingered out a few weeks of miserable decline in
   the hospitals of the Jerseys. So wretched was their condition
   that Washington refused to consider them fit subjects for
   exchange. 'You give us only the dead or dying,' he wrote to
   Howe, 'for our well-fed and healthy prisoners.' Howe, as if in
   mockery, replied that they had been kept in 'airy, roomy
   buildings,' on the same fare as his own soldiers. Washington
   pointed to the condition in which they reached him—diseased,
   famished, emaciated, and dying, as they were conducted to his
   quarters. Across the river, in Wallabout Bay, lay the
   prison-ship 'Jersey.' She was the hulk of a 64 gun ship, long
   unseaworthy, her masts and rigging gone, her figurehead broken
   off, and her whole appearance singularly repulsive. Yet on
   board of the Jersey were confined 1,200 captured seamen. She
   was never cleansed, and lay in that condition seven years. No
   fires warmed her occupants in winter, no screen sheltered them
   from the August sun; no physician visited the sick, no
   clergyman consoled the dying there. Poor and scanty food, the
   want of clothing, cleanliness, and exercise, and raging
   diseases that never ceased their ravages, made the Jersey a
   scene of human suffering to which the Black Hole of Calcutta
   might favorably compare. Benevolent Tories would sometimes
   convey by stealth food or clothing to her unhappy inmates; but
   this was little. Toward the close of the war the British, from
   shame or pity, made some improvement in her condition; but she
   remained throughout the contest a centre of sickness and
   death, always decimated by disease and always replenished with
   new victims. The bones of her dead, estimated at 11,000, lie
   buried on the Brooklyn shore. The crowded city itself was
   never free from contagion. In winter the smallpox made fearful
   ravages."

      _E. Lawrence,
      New York in the Revolution
      (Harper's Magazine, July, 1868)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Force's American Archives,
      4th Series, volume 6,
      5th Series, volumes 1-3._

      _History Magazine, 1866, sup._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 21._

{3241}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   Attitude and feeling of France.
   Her disposition to aid the colonies and the reasons for it.
   The American embassy to the French court.
   Silas Deane and Beaumarchais.
   Franklin at Passy.

   "On March 17, 1776, Vergennes presented to his associates in
   the cabinet—Maurepas, Turgot (controller-general), Sartine
   (secretary of the navy), and St. Germain (secretary of war)—a
   paper entitled 'Considerations,' which, after for many years
   evading the search of historians, … was brought to light by De
   Witt and republished by Doniol. In this important paper
   Vergennes, after some general reflections on the advantages
   which the two crowns of France and Spain derived from the
   continuance of the civil war in America, and, on the other
   hand, on the inconveniences which might arise from the
   independence of the Colonies, and the probability that, in
   case of failure in North America, England would, to recover
   its credit, turn its arms against the French and Spanish
   possessions in America, proceeds to consider the course at
   once to be pursued. He bitterly attacks the English for their
   habitual breach of good faith, violation of treaties, and
   disregard of that observance of the sacred laws of morality
   which distinguish the French, and infers that they will take
   the first opportunity to declare war against France or invade
   Mexico. No doubt, if the kings of France and Spain had martial
   tendencies; if they obeyed the dictates of their own
   interests, and perhaps the justice of their cause, which was
   that of humanity, so often outraged by England; if their
   military resources were in a sufficiently good condition, they
   would feel that Providence had evidently chosen that very hour
   for humiliating England and revenging on her the wrongs she
   had inflicted on those who had the misfortune to be her
   neighbors and rivals, by rendering the resistance of the
   Americans as desperate as possible. The exhaustion produced by
   this internecine war would prostrate both England and her
   Colonies, and would afford an opportunity to reduce England to
   the condition of a second-rate power; to tear from her the
   empire she aimed at establishing in the four quarters of the
   world with so much pride and injustice, and relieve the
   universe of a tyranny which desires to swallow up both all the
   power and all the wealth of the world. But the two crowns not
   being able to act in this way, they must have recourse to a
   circumspect policy." Vergennes "draws the following
   inferences:
   (1) That they should continue dexterously to keep the English
   ministry in a state of false security with respect to the
   intentions of France and Spain.
   (2) That it would be politic to give the insurgents secret
   assistance in military stores and money; that the admitted
   utility would justify this little sacrifice, and no loss of
   dignity or breach of equity would be involved in it.
   (3) That it would not be consistent with the king's dignity or
   interest to make an open contract with the insurgents until
   their independence was achieved.
   (4) That in case France and Spain should furnish assistance,
   they should look for no other return than the success of the
   political object they had at that moment in view, leaving
   themselves at liberty to be guided by circumstances as to any
   future arrangements.
   (5) That perhaps a too-marked inactivity at the present crisis
   might be attributed by the English to fear, and might expose
   France to insults to which it might not be disposed to submit.
   The English, he adds, respect only those who can make
   themselves feared.
   (6) That the result to which all these considerations led was
   that the two crowns should actively prepare means to resist or
   punish England, more especially as, of all possible issues,
   the maintenance of peace with that power was the least
   probable.
   … It would be a mistake, however, to attribute the French
   support of America exclusively to a feeling of revenge for the
   humiliations of the prior war. Other motives came in and
   exercised a decisive influence. There was a conviction, and a
   right one, in France that for Britain to hold under control
   the whole of North America as well as of India would give her
   a maritime supremacy, as well as a superiority in wealth,
   which would constitute a standing menace to the rest of the
   civilized world. There was, again, an enthusiasm among the
   young nobility and among officers in the army for America,
   which, even aside from the bitterness towards Britain with
   which it was mingled, had great effect on people as well as on
   court; and to this was added the sympathy of doctrinaire
   political philosophers who then and for some time afterwards
   had great power in forming French public opinion. By the
   enthusiasm of the young nobility the queen—brilliant, bold,
   weary of the traditions of the old court, inconsiderate as to
   ultimate political results—was affected, and through her her
   husband was reached. But above this was the sense of right
   which was uppermost in the breast of the unfortunate sovereign
   who then, with little political experience but high notions of
   duty as well as of prerogative, occupied the throne."

      _F. Wharton, editor,
      Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence
      of the United States,
      Introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "From the earliest moment France had been hopefully regarded
   by the colonists as probably their friend and possibly their
   ally. To France, therefore, the first American envoy was
   dispatched with promptitude [receiving his instructions in
   March and reaching Paris in the following June, 1776] even
   before there was a declaration of independence or an
   assumption of nationality. Silas Deane was the man selected.
   He was the true Yankee jack-at-all-trades; he had been
   graduated at Yale College, then taught school, then practiced
   law, then engaged in trade, had been all the while advancing
   in prosperity and reputation, had been a member of the first
   and second congresses, had failed of reëlection to the third,
   and was now without employment. Mr'. Parton describes him as
   'of somewhat striking manners and good appearance, accustomed
   to live and entertain in liberal style, and fond of showy
   equipage and appointment.' Perhaps his simple-minded
   fellow-countrymen of the provinces fancied that such a man
   would make an imposing figure at an European court.
{3242}
   He developed no other peculiar fitness for his position; he
   could not even speak French; and it proved an ill hour for
   himself in which he received this trying and difficult honor.
   … Deane arrived in France in June, 1776. He had with him a
   little ready money for his immediate personal expenses, and
   some letters of introduction from Franklin. It was intended to
   keep him supplied with money by sending cargoes of tobacco,
   rice, and indigo consigned to him, the proceeds of which would
   be at his disposal for the public service. He was instructed
   to seek an interview with de Vergennes, the French minister
   for foreign affairs, and to endeavor with all possible
   prudence and delicacy to find out what signs of promise the
   disposition of the French government really held for the
   insurgents. He was also to ask for equipment for 25,000
   troops, ammunition, and 200 pieces of field artillery, all to
   be paid for—when Congress should be able! In France he was to
   keep his mission cloaked in secure secrecy, appearing simply
   as a merchant conducting his own affairs. … Before the arrival
   of Deane the interests of the colonies had been already taken
   in hand and substantially advanced in France by one of the
   most extraordinary characters in history. Caron de
   Beaumarchais was a man whom no race save the French could
   produce, and whose traits, career, and success lie hopelessly
   beyond the comprehension of the Anglo-Saxon. Bred a
   watchmaker, he had the skill, when a mere youth, to invent a
   clever escapement balance for regulating watches; had he been
   able to insert it into his own brain he might have held more
   securely his elusive good fortunes. From being an ingenious
   inventor he became an adventurer general, watchmaker to the
   king, the king's mistresses, and the king's daughters, the
   lover, or rather the beloved, of the wife of the controller of
   the king's kitchen, then himself the controller, thence a
   courtier, and a favorite of the royal princesses. Through a
   clever use of his opportunities he was able to do a great
   favor to a rich banker, who in return gave him chances to
   amass a fortune, and lent him money to buy a patent of
   nobility. This connection ended in litigation, which was near
   ruining him; but he discovered corruption on the part of the
   judge, and thereupon wrote his Memorials, of which the wit,
   keenness, and vivacity made him famous. He then rendered a
   private, personal, and important service to Louis XV., and
   soon afterwards another to the young Louis XVI. … He became
   frenzied in the American cause. In long and ardent letters he
   opened upon King Louis and his ministers a rattling fire of
   arguments sound and unsound, statements true and untrue,
   inducements reasonable and unreasonable, forecastings probable
   and improbable, politics wise and unwise, all designed to show
   that it was the bounden duty of France to adopt the colonial
   cause."

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Benjamin Franklin,
      chapter 9._

   Soon after the arrival of Deane in Paris, the American
   Congress, having determined to declare the independence of the
   states represented in it, appointed a committee "to prepare
   the plan of a treaty to be proposed to foreign powers, which,
   after a long discussion, was at length agreed to, and
   ministers were appointed to negotiate the treaties proposed.
   Mr. Franklin, Mr. Deane, and Mr. Jefferson, were elected; but,
   the last mentioned gentleman having declined accepting the
   appointment offered him, Mr. Arthur Lee, then in London, was
   chosen in his place. These transactions were placed on the
   secret journals, and no member was permitted to give any
   specific information concerning them; or to state more than,
   'that congress had taken such steps as they judged necessary
   for obtaining foreign alliances.' The secret committee were
   directed to make an effectual lodgment in France of £10,000
   sterling, subject to the order of these commissioners. They
   assembled in Paris early in the winter, and had an immediate
   interview with the count De Vergennes. It was perceived that
   the success of the American cruisers, whose captures had been
   so considerable as to raise the price of insurance higher than
   it had been at any time during the war with both France and
   Spain, had excited a very favourable opinion of the capacities
   and energies of the nation. They were assured that the ports
   of France would remain open to their ships, and that the
   American merchants might freely vend in them every article of
   commerce, and purchase whatever might be useful for their
   country. But it was apparent that the minister wished to avoid
   a rupture with England, and was, therefore, unwilling to
   receive them openly as the ministers of the United States, or
   to enter into any formal negotiation with them."

      _J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

   "It is … a settled rule of diplomacy that a minister should
   not be pressed upon a foreign court by which it is understood
   that he will not be received. To this may be added the rule
   that applications for loans should, unless as part of a treaty
   alliance, be made through business channels. In disregard of
   these rules the majority of Congress, under the influence of
   Richard H. Lee and Samuel Adams, instituted a series of
   missions to European courts for the bare purpose of borrowing
   money, when the courts so addressed not only gave no
   intimation that they would receive these envoys, but when,
   from the nature of things, as well as from unofficial
   intimation, it should have been known that such reception
   would be refused. With France there was no difficulty, as
   France had intimated unofficially that such envoys would be
   received, at least in a private capacity, France being then
   ready to take the consequence of war with Britain. And this
   reception was accorded … first to Silas Deane, then to
   Franklin, and then to Arthur Lee. Here Franklin thought
   Congress should stop, saying that ministers should not be sent
   to sovereigns without first having some sort of assurance of
   recognition of the United States as an independent
   sovereignty, and that a 'virgin' republic, as he called it,
   should wait till there was some such recognition before
   thrusting embassies on foreign courts with demands for money.
   Congress thought differently. Arthur Lee was instructed to go
   to Madrid with an alternate commission to Berlin; William Lee
   was sent to Vienna, Dana to St. Petersburg, Adams to The
   Hague, Izard to Florence, and the instructions in each case
   were to demand not only recognition, but subsidy. … The policy
   of sending ministers to European courts where such ministers
   were not received worked injuriously to the United States from
   the mere fact of their non-reception. Another difficulty arose
   from the circumstance that several of these ministers took up
   their residence in Paris, and, without specific authority,
   considered it their duty to take part in the counsels of the
   American legation.
{3243}
   Thus Ralph Izard, commissioned to Tuscany, never went there,
   but remained in Paris, claiming a right to be informed of all
   the details of the negotiations with France, and occupying no
   small share of the time and care of Franklin with discussions
   of this claim, which Franklin could not accede to, but on
   which Izard continued to insist. When the triple legation of
   Franklin, Deane, and Arthur Lee (and afterwards Franklin,
   Arthur Lee, and Adams), was commissioned, it was understood
   that its members were to divide, so that one (Franklin) should
   remain in Paris, while the others should take charge of the
   missions to other capitals. But Arthur Lee, when he found that
   he could not be received in Madrid, or in Vienna, or in
   Berlin, made but brief excursions to Spain, to Austria, and to
   Berlin, reporting himself after each short trip promptly at
   Paris, there to differ from Franklin not only as to important
   business details, but as to the whole policy of the mission.
   When Adams was in Paris, during their joint mission, he
   concurred with Arthur Lee in what turned out to be the
   disastrous measure of removing Williams as commercial agent
   and putting in his place William Lee, with a nephew of William
   and Arthur Lee as clerk; while on the whole question of
   sending legations to foreign courts which had not consented to
   receive them, and in the still more important question of the
   attitude to be assumed by the commissioners to the French
   court, Adams agreed with Lee. … It is due to Adams to say that
   he saw the inherent difficulties of permanent missions
   conducted by three joint commissioners; that he recommended
   that there should be but one permanent minister to France; and
   that he recognized Franklin's great influence with the French
   ministry as a strong reason for his retention though without
   colleagues. But there can be no doubt that down to the period
   when Franklin became sole minister, the American cause in
   Europe was much embarrassed by the fact that he had colleagues
   associated with him."

      _F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of The United States,
      chapter 1, sections 16-17,
      and chapter 9, section 106 (volume 1)._

   Before Franklin or Lee reached France, Silas Deane had already
   entered into negotiations with Beaumarchais and opened a train
   of dealings which proved unfortunate for both. Leaving aside
   "all the long controversy about the rights and wrongs of
   Beaumarchais, which have never been completely and
   satisfactorily solved, … it appears that a large part of the
   misunderstanding between him and Deane and Arthur Lee is
   attributable to a change of plan between April and July, 1776.
   Beaumarchais's scheme of operation, when he saw Lee in London,
   was to expend money which should, at least in pretence and
   form, be obtained from the voluntary contributions of wealthy
   Frenchmen in aid of the American cause; but in July, when he
   saw Deane, that scheme had been dropped, and the project was
   that he should appear as a merchant. … In May, there was a
   plan on the part of the French government to employ a real
   merchant; now the plan was to employ a comedy merchant. This
   was exactly the role which Beaumarchais was qualified to fill,
   and he proceeded to establish and open a large house, with all
   the accessories of a house of business, as the same are
   understood and represented on the stage, At that time it was
   believed that the colonists had plenty of exportable products
   which they could and would contribute for the purpose
   [purchase?] of arms and ammunition. It was thought that their
   main difficulty would be to find any market in which they
   could purchase contraband of war. The chief assistance,
   therefore, which they would need from France would be secret
   permission to make this exchange in France. Beaumarchais's
   commercial operations would be real commercial operations, and
   at worst could only issue in some expenses and losses, on the
   balance of account, which the French government might have to
   make good. Beaumarchais approached Deane with all the forms
   and reality of a commercial proposition, and Deane assured him
   that he should have some returns in six months, and full pay
   for everything which he supplied in a year. Two days later
   they made a contract by which Congress was to pay the current
   price of the goods in America when they should arrive, or take
   them at the cost price, with insurance, charges, and
   commission 'proportioned to the trouble and care, which cannot
   now be fixed.' … August 18, Beaumarchais writes to the
   Committee of Secret Correspondence that, led by esteem for a
   people struggling for liberty, he has established an extensive
   commercial house, solely for the purpose of supplying them
   with all things useful, even gold for the payment of troops;
   and that without waiting for their consent he has already
   procured 200 cannons, 200,000 pounds of powder, 20,000 guns,
   with balls, lead, clothing, etc. He wants the cargoes
   consigned to him in return, and promises that he has great
   power to use any consignments whatsoever; but he wants
   especially tobacco. He signs this letter Roderique Hortales &
   Co. … A million livres were advanced by Spain to Beaumarchais,
   August 11, 1776, and the Farmers-general of France advanced a
   million livres, but took advantage of the distress of the
   Americans to stipulate that it should be paid for in tobacco
   at half its then current price. Beaumarchais also advanced
   money to Deane for his personal expenses; and it has never
   been doubted that he exerted himself with the utmost energy,
   if not always with the greatest prudence, to expedite the
   shipment of the goods. Of the three ships which he despatched
   at the end of the year, two were captured by the English; but
   the one which arrived was of the greatest possible value to
   the cause. … When Arthur Lee received his appointment as
   Commissioner to France and entered upon the discharge of his
   duties, he found that the promises made to him by Beaumarchais
   … had not been kept. He reported to the Committee of Secret
   Correspondence that a change in the mode of sending had been
   settled between Deane and Hortales. … Arthur Lee always held
   the attitude of suspicion that Deane and Beaumarchais were in
   a conspiracy to levy contributions for themselves on the free
   gifts of France to the United States. Franklin always affected
   to ignore the dealings with Beaumarchais, and to treat them as
   exclusively in the hands of Deane; while Congress always
   showed themselves very careful not to pay for anything which
   possibly was intended as a gift. Therefore Deane and
   Beaumarchais were left for years to claim and protest that
   there had been genuine mercantile contracts which had not been
   fulfilled, and they could scarcely obtain attention. … September
   8, 1777, Congress voted that Deane had no authority to make
   contracts with persons to come to America.
{3244}
   November 21, they voted to recall him. Undoubtedly the
   vexation which Deane had caused them by sending over a great
   number of persons to serve in the army, under contracts which
   enabled them to demand large pay and high rank, was the chief
   cause of irritation against him; but Arthur Lee had also been
   poisoning the mind of his brother, and through him, of the
   whole Lee-Adams faction in Congress, with suspicions of
   Deane's honesty. Deane had found himself transferred, within a
   period of two or three years, from an utterly obscure
   existence at Wethersfield, Connecticut, to the position of a
   quasi-ambassador at the court of France. He adopted a large
   and expensive style of living, and kept open house for the
   Americans at Paris. It is very reasonable to suppose that this
   large expenditure on his part was one of the chief grounds of
   belief that he was making great gain out of his position. …
   The affair of Silas Deane has importance far beyond the merits
   or the fate of that individual. The quarrel over him and his
   rights and wrongs, as will presently be seen, entered into the
   hottest party contests in Congress during the next two or
   three years, and it comes up again often subsequently. It has
   even been asserted that the intimacy into which John Adams was
   thrown with the Lees, in this connection, was what made him
   President of the United States, by winning him votes from
   Virginia in 1796. January 1, 1778, Beaumarchais, having heard
   that money had been given to the Americans through Grand, the
   banker, writes to Vergennes: 'So I have lost the fruit of the
   most noble and incredible labour by those very exertions which
   conduct others to glory.' … He is in terror of bankruptcy.
   Inasmuch as a treaty of alliance between France and the United
   States was now made, matters had entered upon a new stage.
   Beaumarchais, with his fictitious firm of Hortales, was no
   longer necessary or useful. The French government dealt
   directly with the American envoys in granting supplies and
   subsidies. April 7, Congress made a contract with Hortales
   that they should pay, for all the cargoes already shipped and
   those to be shipped, the first cost, charges, and freight, in
   France. The contract between Beaumarchais and Deane is
   recognized. Hortales is to pay bills drawn every two months at
   double usance for twenty-four million livres annually. This
   article, however, is subject to ratification by the house in
   Paris and the American Commissioners at Paris. American
   produce is to be exported and consigned to this house.
   Interest is to be paid on all sums due, with a commission of
   two and a half per cent. From this time Beaumarchais falls out
   of sight as an agent of aid and supplies to the American
   cause, and becomes a claimant, who considers that he has been
   treated with injustice and ingratitude by the United States."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "The episode of Beaumarchais … was a survival of the secret
   diplomacy of Louis XV, for a short time exercising an
   extraordinary influence in the first period of the reign of
   Louis XVI. Louis XVI, on reaching the throne, found the
   machinery of secret diplomacy so ingeniously constructed by
   his predecessor in full operation; and, … for one or two
   delicate inquiries at the outset of the new reign,
   Beaumarchais, who of all the diplomatists of this peculiar
   breed was the most adroit and fertile in expedients, was well
   fitted. Hence came his employment, and from his employment
   came his suggestions, full of brilliant wit and effective
   reasoning, as to America. But the antagonism between him and
   Vergennes was too marked to permit sustained political
   relationship; and when Franklin entered into diplomatic life
   in Paris Beaumarchais ceased to take a prominent political
   position. And even during the period of Beaumarchais' greatest
   activity it must be remembered that he was not technically
   Vergennes' subordinate. It was one of the peculiarities of the
   secret diplomacy of Louis XIV and Louis XV, as depicted by
   Broglie in his admirable treatise on that topic, that even the
   existence of the secret agent was not to be supposed to be
   known to the king's ostensible ministers. This was not the
   case with Beaumarchais; but at the same time Beaumarchais'
   political influence ceased … when, on the arrival of Franklin,
   Vergennes, with Franklin's aid, took control of Anglo-American
   diplomacy."

      _F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of the United States,
      chapter 4, section 55 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Hale,
      Franklin in France._

      _J. Bigelow, editor,
      Life of Franklin, by himself,
      volume 2, chapters 13-15._

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Franklin,
      part 6 (volume 2)._

      _L. de Lomenie,
      Beaumarchais and his Times,
      chapters 20-23 (volume 3)._

      _Papers in relation to the Case of Silas Deane
      (Seventy-Six Society, 1855)._

      _C. Tower, Jr.,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
   The Thirteen Colonies become States.
   The framing and adoption of State Constitutions.

   "The recommendations to form governments proceeded from the
   general congress; the work was done by the several states, in
   the full enjoyment of self-direction. Each of them claimed to
   be of right a free, sovereign, and independent state; each
   bound its officers to bear to it true allegiance, and to
   maintain its freedom and independence. Massachusetts, which
   was the first state to frame a government independent of the
   king, deviated as little as possible from the letter of its
   charter; and, assuming that the place of governor was vacant
   from the 19th of July 1775, it recognised the council as the
   legal successor to executive power. On the 1st day of May
   1776, in all commissions and legal processes, it substituted
   the name of its 'government and people' for that of the king.
   In June 1777, its legislature assumed power to prepare a
   constitution; but, on a reference to the people, the act was
   disavowed. In September 1779, a convention, which the people
   themselves had specially authorized, framed a constitution. It
   was in a good measure the compilation of John Adams, who was
   guided by the English constitution, by the bill of rights of
   Virginia, and by the experience of Massachusetts herself; and
   this constitution, having been approved by the people, went
   into effect in 1780. On the 5th of January 1776, New Hampshire
   shaped its government with the fewest possible changes from
   its colonial forms, like Massachusetts merging the executive
   power in the council. Not till June 1783 did its convention
   agree upon a more perfect instrument, which was approved by
   the people, and established on the 31st of the following
   October.
{3245}
   The provisional constitution of South Carolina dates from the
   26th of March 1776. In March 1778, a permanent constitution
   was introduced by an act of the legislature. Rhode Island
   enjoyed under its charter a form of government so thoroughly
   republican that the rejection of monarchy, in May 1776,
   required no change beyond a renunciation of the king's name in
   the style of its public acts. A disfranchisement of Catholics
   had stolen into its book of laws; but, so soon as it was
   noticed, the clause was expunged. In like manner, Connecticut
   had only to substitute the people of the colony for the name
   of the king; this was done provisionally on the 14th of June
   1776, and made perpetual on the 10th of the following October.
   Before the end of June of the same year Virginia, sixth in the
   series, first in the completeness of her work, by a
   legislative convention without any further consultation of the
   people, framed and adopted a bill of rights, a declaration of
   independence, and a constitution. On the second of July 1776,
   New Jersey perfected its new, self-created charter. Delaware
   next proclaimed its bill of rights, and, on the 20th of
   September 1776, the representatives in convention having been
   chosen by the freemen of the state for that very purpose,
   finished its constitution. The Pennsylvania convention adopted
   its constitution on the 28th of September 1776; but the
   opposition of the Quakers whom it indirectly disfranchised,
   and of a large body of patriots, delayed its thorough
   organization for more than five months. The delegates of
   Maryland, meeting on the 14th of August 1776, framed its
   constitution with great deliberation; it was established on
   the 9th of the following November. On the 18th of December
   1776, the constitution of North Carolina was ratified in the
   congress which framed it. On the 5th of February 1777, Georgia
   perfected its organic law by the unanimous agreement of its
   convention. Last of the thirteen came New York, whose
   empowered convention, on the 20th of April 1777, established a
   constitution that, in humane liberality, excelled them all.
   The privilege of the suffrage had been far more widely
   extended in the colonies than in England; by general consent,
   the extension of the elective franchise was postponed. The age
   of twenty-one was a qualification universally required. So,
   too, was residence, except that in Virginia and South Carolina
   it was enough to own in the district or town a certain
   freehold or 'lot.' South Carolina required the electors to
   'acknowledge the being of a God, and to believe in a future
   state of rewards and punishments.' 'White men alone could
   claim the franchise in Virginia, in South Carolina, and in
   Georgia; but in South Carolina a benign interpretation of the
   law classed the free octaroon as a white, even though
   descended through an unbroken line of mothers from an imported
   African slave; the other ten states raised no question of
   color. In Pennsylvania, in New Hampshire, and partially in
   North Carolina, the right to vote belonged to every resident
   taxpayer; Georgia extended it to any white inhabitant 'of any
   mechanic trade'; with this exception, Georgia and all the
   other colonies required the possession of a freehold, or of
   property variously valued, in Massachusetts at about $200, in
   Georgia at £10. Similar conditions had always existed, with
   the concurrence or by the act of the colonists themselves.
   Maryland prescribed as its rule that votes should be given by
   word of mouth; Virginia and New Jersey made no change in their
   usage; in Rhode Island each freeman was in theory summoned to
   be present in the general court; he therefore gave his proxy
   to his representative by writing his own name on the back of
   his vote; all others adopted the ballot, New York at the end
   of the war, the other eight without delay."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _American Archives,
      series 5, volumes 2-3 (as indexed)._

      See, also,
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776;
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1777;
      CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776;
      NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776;
      MARYLAND: A. D. 1776;
      GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777;
      NEW HAMPSHIRE: 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (January-December).
   The campaign on the Delaware.
   Lord Howe in possession of Philadelphia.
   Battles on the Brandywine and at Germantown.
   The winter of Washington's army at Valley Forge.

   "Washington remained at Morristown from the 7th of January
   until the 28th of May, during which time no military movement
   of importance took place. His men left for their homes as soon
   as their terms of service expired, and as few militia entered
   the camp to take their places, at times it seemed as if the
   army would be so reduced as to be unworthy of the name. It was
   not until late in the spring that the new levies reached
   headquarters. On the 28th of May the Americans marched to
   Middlebrook and took position behind the Raritan. On the 13th
   of June Howe marched from Brunswick and … endeavored to bring
   on a general engagement, … but Washington refused to leave the
   strong position he occupied, and Howe retired to Amboy. Early
   in April Howe had settled upon a campaign having for its
   object the capture of Philadelphia. He determined to embark
   his troops and transport them to the banks of the Delaware or
   Chesapeake, and march directly on the city. … On the 23d of
   July, after Howe's troops had been three weeks on the vessels,
   the fleet sailed, shaping its course southwesterly. … Signal
   fires were lighted along the Jersey coast as it was seen from
   time to time by those who were watching for it, and messengers
   carried inland the news of its progress. At last, on the 30th,
   it was spoken off the capes of Delaware, but Lord Howe deemed
   it too hazardous to sail up that river, and after consulting
   with his brother, the general, continued on his course
   southward. On the 15th of August he entered Chesapeake Bay,
   and on the 25th the troops were landed at Elk Ferry."
   Meantime, Washington had been in great uncertainty as to the
   destination and intentions of his antagonist, but had drawn
   his army near to Philadelphia. It had just been joined by
   several distinguished foreign officers, Lafayette, De Kalb and
   Pulaski in the number. At Philadelphia there was consternation
   on the approach of the enemy, but "the pacific influence which
   the presence of a large Quaker population exercised seemed to
   bear down all military efforts. … To impress the lukewarm with
   the strength of his forces, and to inspire hopes in the
   breasts of the patriotic, on the 24th of August Washington
   marched his army through the streets of Philadelphia.
{3246}
   The men were poorly armed and clothed, and to give them some
   uniformity they wore sprigs of green in their hats." The
   advance of Howe from Elk Ferry was slow, and it was not until
   the 11th of September that the Americans encountered him, at
   Chad's Ford, on the Brandywine, where they had taken position.
   In the battle which occurred that day the British gained a
   clear victory, by means of a successful flank movement which
   Cornwallis executed, crossing the river some miles above,
   while General Knyphausen made feigned attempts at Chad's Ford.
   "The American loss was about 1,000, killed, wounded, and
   prisoners; that of the British, 579. … The day after the
   battle Washington marched from Chester to Philadelphia. He
   rested his army two days at Germantown, and then recrossed the
   Schuylkill; public opinion demanding that another battle
   should be risked before the city should be given up. On the
   16th the two armies met on the high ground south of Chester
   Valley and prepared for action. The skirmishing had actually
   begun, when a violent storm stopped the engagement by ruining
   the ammunition of both armies. Washington withdrew to the
   hills north of the valley, and, finding it impossible to
   repair the damage done by the storm, retreated again over the
   Schuylkill, leaving Wayne behind him to watch the enemy and
   attack their rear should they attempt to follow." But Wayne
   was surprised at Paoli, and Washington was deceived by a
   feigned movement, so that Howe succeeded in entering
   Philadelphia without another battle, on the 26th, having
   occupied Germantown the day before. "The main portion of
   Howe's army remained at Germantown, a village of a single
   street, two miles in length, and five from the city." Here, on
   the morning of October 4th, Washington attacked him, and, for
   a time, with great success; but confusion and
   misunderstandings on the part of the attacking columns arose,
   which turned the half-won victory into a defeat. "The
   Americans lost nearly 1,100 killed, wounded, and prisoners;
   the British 521. … While the Americans were defeated in their
   object, the moral results of the battle were in their favor.
   It inspired them with confidence, and showed the world that,
   though driven from the field of Brandywine, they were still
   aggressive." The next few weeks were employed by Howe in
   reducing the forts which commanded the Delaware. Fort Mifflin
   was taken after a severe siege, and this compelled the
   abandonment of Fort Mercer, from which the British had been
   repulsed with heavy loss. Early in December Howe moved upon
   Washington's lines, at Whitemarsh, intending an attack; but
   found them so strong that he dared not venture the attempt,
   and returned to Philadelphia. "As the season was advancing,
   and the Americans were in no condition to keep the field, it
   was decided to go into winter-quarters at Valley Forge, on the
   west side of the Schuylkill, where the Valley Creek empties
   into the river. The surrounding hills were covered with woods
   and presented an inhospitable appearance. The choice was
   severely criticised, and De Kalb described it as a wilderness.
   But the position was central and easily defended. The army
   arrived there about the middle of December, and the erection
   of huts began. They were built of logs, and were 14 by 15 feet
   each. The windows were covered with oiled paper, and the
   openings between the logs were closed with clay. The huts were
   arranged in streets, giving the place the appearance of a
   city. It was the first of the year, however, before they were
   occupied, and previous to that the suffering of the army had
   become great. Although the weather was intensely cold the men
   were obliged to work at the buildings, with nothing to support
   life but flour mixed with water, which they baked into cakes
   at the open fires. … The horses died of starvation by
   hundreds, and the men were obliged to haul their own
   provisions and firewood. As straw could not be found to
   protect the men from the cold ground, sickness spread through
   their quarters with fearful rapidity. 'The unfortunate
   soldiers,' wrote Lafayette in after-years, 'were in want of
   everything; they had neither coats, hats, shirts, nor shoes;
   their feet and their legs froze till they became black, and it
   was often necessary to amputate them. … The army frequently
   remained whole days without provisions, and the patient
   endurance of both soldiers and officers was a miracle which
   each moment served to renew.' … While the country around
   Valley Forge was so impoverished by the military operations of
   the previous summer as to make it impossible for it to support
   the army, the sufferings of the latter were chiefly owing to
   the inefficiency of Congress. That body met at Lancaster after
   leaving Philadelphia, and at once adjourned to York, where its
   sessions were continued. But it in no way equalled the
   congresses which had preceded it. 'The Continental Congress
   and the currency,' wrote Gouverneur Morris in 1778, 'have
   greatly depreciated.'"

      _F. D. Stone,
      The Struggle for the Delaware
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 5)._

   The sufferings of the army at Valley Forge, and the shameful
   neglect which it experienced, were indignantly described by
   Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of
   Congress, December 23, 1777: "Since the month of July," he
   wrote, "we have had no assistance from the
   quartermaster-general, and to want of assistance from this
   department the commissary-general charges great part of his
   deficiency. To this I am to add, that, notwithstanding it is a
   standing order, and often repeated, that the troops shall
   always have two days' provisions by them, that they might be
   ready at any sudden call; yet an opportunity has scarcely ever
   offered, of taking an advantage of the enemy, that has not
   been either totally obstructed, or greatly impeded on this
   account. And this, the great and crying evil, is not all. The
   soap, vinegar, and other articles allowed by Congress, we see
   none of, nor have we seen them, I believe, since the battle of
   Brandywine. The first, indeed, we have now little occasion
   for; few men having more than one shirt, many only the moiety
   of one, and some none at all. In addition to which, as a proof
   of the little benefit received from a clothier-general, and as
   a further proof of the inability of an army, under the
   circumstances of this, to perform the common duties of
   soldiers, (besides a number of men confined to hospitals for
   want of shoes, and others in farmers' houses on the same
   account,) we have, by a field-return this day made, no less
   than two thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight men now in
   camp unfit for duty, because they are barefoot and otherwise
   naked.
{3247}
   By the same return it appears, that our whole strength in
   Continental troops, including the eastern brigades, which have
   joined us since the surrender of General Burgoyne, exclusive
   of the Mary]and troops sent to Wilmington, amounts to more
   than eight thousand two hundred in camp fit for duty;
   notwithstanding which; and that since the 4th instant, our
   numbers fit for duty, from the hardships and exposures they
   have undergone, particularly on account of blankets (numbers
   having been obliged, and still are, to sit up all night by
   fires, instead of taking comfortable rest in a natural and
   common way), have decreased near two thousand men. We find
   gentlemen, without knowing whether the army was really going
   into winter-quarters or not (for I am sure no resolution of
   mine would warrant the Remonstrance), reprobating the measure
   as much as if they thought the soldiers were made of stocks or
   stones, and equally insensible of frost and snow; and
   moreover, as if they conceived it easily practicable for an
   inferior army, under the disadvantages I have described ours
   to be, which are by no means exaggerated, to confine a
   superior one, in all respects well-appointed and provided for
   a winter's campaign, within the city of Philadelphia, and to
   cover from depredation and waste the States of Pennsylvania
   and Jersey. But what makes this matter still more
   extraordinary in my eye is, that these very gentlemen,—who
   were well apprized of the nakedness of the troops from ocular
   demonstration, who thought their own soldiers worse clad than
   others, and who advised me near a month ago to postpone the
   execution of a plan I was about to adopt, in consequence of a
   resolve of Congress for seizing clothes, under strong
   assurances that an ample supply would be collected in ten days
   agreeably to a decree of the State (not one article of which,
   by the by, is yet come to hand),—should think a winter's
   campaign, and the covering of these States from the invasion
   of an enemy, so easy and practicable a business. I can assure
   those gentlemen, that it is a much easier and less distressing
   thing to draw remonstrances in a comfortable room by a good
   fireside, than to occupy a cold, bleak hill, and sleep under
   frost and snow, without clothes or blankets. However, although
   they seem to have little feeling for the naked and distressed
   soldiers, I feel superabundantly for them, and, from my soul,
   I pity those miseries, which it is neither in my power to
   relieve or prevent. It is for these reasons, therefore, that I
   have dwelt upon the subject; and it adds not a little to my
   other difficulties and distress to find, that much more is
   expected of me than is possible to be performed, and that upon
   the ground of safety and policy I am obliged to conceal the
   true state of the army from public view, and thereby expose
   myself to detraction and calumny."

      _George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 6, pages 259-262._

   It was during this trying winter, while the army suffered at
   Valley Forge, that it was joined by Baron Steuben, an
   accomplished Prussian officer, trained in the school of
   Frederick the Great, with a record of distinguished service in
   the Seven Years War. He came as a volunteer, and was welcomed
   by Washington, who found in him the organizer, the
   disciplinarian, the instructor, which the rudely formed
   American army so greatly needed. The services rendered by
   Baron Steuben during that first winter of his stay in America
   were especially valuable, beyond measure. In his own account
   of the state of things which he found he says: "'My
   determination must have been very firm that I did not abandon
   my design when I saw the troops. Matters had to be remedied,
   but where to commence was the great difficulty. In the first
   place, I informed myself relative to the military
   administration. I found that the different branches were
   divided into departments. There were those of the
   quarter-master general, war commissary, provisions commissary,
   commissary of the treasury, or paymaster of forage, etc., etc.
   But they were all bad copies of a bad original. That is to
   say, they had imitated the English administration, which is
   certainly the most imperfect in Europe. The general asked me
   to give him some statements concerning the arrangements of the
   departments, and their various branches in the European
   armies. I gave them to him, and, detailing therein the duties
   of each department and of its different branches, dilated upon
   the functions of the quarter-masters (maréchaux généraux de
   logis) in particular, in which branch I had served myself for
   a long time in the Seven Years' War. But the English system,
   bad as it is, had already taken root. Each company and
   quarter-master had a commission of so much per cent. on all
   the money he expended. It was natural, therefore, that expense
   was not spared—that wants were discovered where there were
   none; and it was also natural that the dearest articles were
   those that suited the commissioners best. Hence the
   depreciation of our currency—hence the expense of so many
   millions. I pointed out to General Washington and several
   members of Congress the advantages of the contract system. I
   even drew up a memorandum on the subject, which Colonel
   Laurens translated into English, showing the way in which
   things were contracted for in the Prussian and French armies.
   But whether it was that they thought such a system
   impracticable in this country, or whether they were unable to
   check the torrent of expense, things remained as they were. I
   directed my attention to the condition of the troops, and I
   found an ample field, where disorder and confusion were
   supreme. … The number of men in a regiment was fixed by
   Congress, as well as in a company—so many infantry, cavalry,
   and artillery. But the eternal ebb and flow of men engaged for
   three, six, and nine months, who went and came every day,
   rendered it impossible to have either a regiment or a company
   complete; and the words company, regiment, brigade, and
   division, were so vague that they did not convey any idea upon
   which to form a calculation, either of a particular corps or
   of the army in general. They were so unequal in their number,
   that it would have been impossible to execute any maneuvers.
   Sometimes a regiment was stronger than a brigade. I have seen
   a regiment consisting of thirty men, and a company of one
   corporal! … The soldiers were scattered about in every
   direction. The army was looked upon as a nursery for servants,
   and every one deemed it his right to have a valet; several
   thousand soldiers were employed in this way. We had more
   commissaries and quarter-masters at that time than all the
   armies of Europe together; the most modest had only one
   servant, but others had two and even three.
{3248}
   If the captains and colonels could give no account of their
   men, they could give still less an account of their arms,
   accouterments, clothing, ammunition, camp equipage, etc.
   Nobody kept an account but the commissaries, who furnished all
   the articles. A company, which consisted, in May, of fifty
   men, was armed, clothed and equipped in June. It then
   consisted of thirty men; in July it received thirty recruits,
   who were to be clothed, armed and equipped; and not only the
   clothes, but the arms were carried off by those who had
   completed their time of service. General Knox assured me that,
   previous to the establishment of my department, there never
   was a campaign in which the military magazines did not furnish
   from 5,000 to 8,000 muskets to replace those which were lost
   in the way I have described above. The loss of bayonets was
   still greater. The American soldier, never having used this
   arm, had no faith in it, and never used it but to roast his
   beefsteak, and indeed often left it at home. This is not
   astonishing when it is considered that the majority of the
   States engaged their soldiers for from six to nine months.
   Each man who went away took his musket with him, and his
   successor received another from the public store. No captain
   kept a book. Accounts were never furnished nor required. As
   our army is, thank God, little subject to desertion, I venture
   to say that during an entire campaign there have not been
   twenty muskets lost since my system came into force. … The men
   were literally naked, some of them in the fullest extent of
   the word. The officers who had coats had them of every color
   and make. I saw officers, at a grand parade at Valley Forge,
   mounting guard in a sort of dressing-gown, made of an old
   blanket or woolen bed-cover. With regard to their military
   discipline, I may safely say no such thing existed. … I
   commenced operations by drafting 120 men from the line, whom I
   formed into a guard for the general-in-chief. I made this
   guard my military school. I drilled them myself twice a day;
   and to remove that English prejudice which some officers
   entertained, namely, that to drill a recruit was a sergeant's
   duty and beneath the station of an officer, I often took the
   musket myself to show the men the manual exercise which I
   wished to introduce. All my inspectors were present at each
   drill. We marched together, wheeled, etc., etc., and in a
   fortnight my company knew perfectly how to bear arms, had a
   military air, knew how to march, to form in column, deploy,
   and execute some little maneuvers with excellent precision. …
   I paraded them in presence of all the officers of the army,
   and gave them an opportunity of exhibiting all they knew. They
   formed in column; deployed; attacked with the bayonet; changed
   front, etc., etc. It afforded a new and agreeable sight for
   the young officers and soldiers. Having gained my point, I
   dispersed my apostles, the inspectors, and my new doctrine was
   eagerly embraced. I lost no time in extending my operations on
   a large scale. I applied my system to battalions, afterward to
   brigades, and in less than three weeks I executed maneuvers
   with an entire division in presence of the
   commander-in-chief.' … The most interesting narrative of the
   energy employed by Steuben, and the success of his system, is
   given by his favorite aid-de-camp and intimate friend, William
   North, who was with him from the beginning. He says in his
   biographical sketch: 'Certainly it was a brave attempt!
   Without understanding a word of the English language, to think
   of bringing men, born free, and joined together to preserve
   their freedom, into strict subjection; to obey without a word,
   a look, the mandates of a master! that master once their
   equal, or possibly beneath them, in whatever might become a
   man! It was a brave attempt, which nothing but virtue, or
   high-raised hopes of glory, could have supported. At the first
   parade, the troops neither understanding the command, nor how
   to follow in a changement to which they had not been
   accustomed, even with the instructor at their head, were
   getting fast into confusion. At this moment, Captain B.
   Walker, then of the second New York regiment, advanced from
   his platoon, and offered his assistance to translate the
   orders and interpret to the troops. "If," said the baron, "I
   had seen an angel from heaven, I should not have more
   rejoiced." … Walker became from that moment his aid-de-camp,
   and remained to the end of the baron's life his dear and most
   worthy friend. From the commencement of instruction, no time,
   no pains, no fatigue were thought too great, in pursuit of
   this great object. Through the whole of each campaign, when
   troops were to maneuver, and that was almost every day, the
   baron rose at three o'clock; while his servant dressed his
   hair he smoked a single pipe and drank one cup of coffee, was
   on horseback at sunrise, and, with or without his suite,
   galloped to the parade. There was no waiting for a tardy
   aid-de-camp, and those who followed wished they had not slept.
   Nor was there need of chiding; when duty was neglected, or
   military etiquette infringed, the baron's look was quite
   sufficient.' … Steuben enjoyed the confidence of both officers
   and men, and every thing he proposed was executed with as much
   precision as if it were an order from the commander-in-chief.
   Although he was only a volunteer, without any specific rank in
   the army, he had greater power and authority than any general
   could boast of."

      _F. Kapp,
      Life of Frederick William von Steuben,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 13, 18-19, and 23-27._

      _G. W. Greene,
      Life of General Nathanael Greene,
      book 2, chapters 16-25 (volume l)._

      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 17 (volume l)._

      _C. J. Stille,
      Major-General Anthony Wayne,
      Chapter 3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (June).
   Vermont denied admission to the Union.

      See VERMONT; A. D. 1777-1778.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (July).
   The coming of Lafayette.

   "La Fayette, barely nineteen years old, was in garrison at
   Metz, when he was invited to a dinner that his commander, the
   Count de Broglie, gave to the brother of the king of England,
   the Duke of Gloucester, then on his way through the city. News
   had just been received of the proclamation of the independence
   of the United States, and, the conversation having naturally
   fallen on this subject, La Fayette plied the duke with
   questions to acquaint himself with the events, entirely new to
   him, which were happening in America. Before the end of the
   dinner he had made his decision, and, from that moment, he no
   longer thought of anything else except setting out for the new
   world.
{3249}
   He went to Paris and confided his project to his friends, the
   Count de Segur and the Viscount de Noailles, who were to
   accompany him. The Count de Broglie, whom he also informed,
   tried to turn him from his design. 'I saw your uncle die in
   Italy,' he said to him, 'and your father at Min·den, and I do
   not wish to contribute to the ruin of your family by allowing
   you to go.' Nevertheless, he put La Fayette in communication
   with the former agent of Choiseul in Canada, the Baron de
   Kalb, who became his friend. De Kalb presented him to Silas
   Deane, who, considering him too young, wished to dissuade him
   from his project. But the news of the disasters experienced by
   the Americans before New York, at White Plains and in New
   Jersey, confirmed La Fayette in his resolution. He bought and
   fitted out a vessel at his own expense, and disguised his
   preparations by making a journey to London. Nevertheless his
   design was disclosed at Court. His family became angry with
   him. He was forbidden to go to America, and, to render this
   order effective, a lettre de cachet was issued against him.
   Nevertheless he left Paris with an officer named Mauroy,
   disguised himself as a courier, went on board his ship at
   Passage in Spain, and set sail April the 26th, 1777. He had
   several officers on board. La Fayette successfully avoided the
   English cruisers and the French vessels sent in pursuit of
   him. Finally, after a hazardous passage of seven weeks, he
   reached Georgetown, and, furnished with letters of
   recommendation from Deane, he reported to Congress."

      _T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapter 7._

   In consideration of the great personal sacrifice he had made
   in quitting France, and his offer to serve the American cause
   at his own expense and without pay, Congress, with hesitation,
   conferred on the young marquis the rank of Major General, but
   without command. He succeeded, too, in procuring a like
   commission for Baron de Kalb, who had accompanied him. While
   Lafayette was still busy with these arrangements, Washington
   came to Philadelphia, and they met at a dinner party. They
   seem to have been drawn to one another at the first exchange
   of words, and a friendship began which lasted through their
   lives. Lafayette was soon invited to become a member of the
   military family of the commander-in-chief.

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Tower, Jr.,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (July-October).
   The struggle for the Hudson.
   Burgoyne's expedition from Canada.
   His surrender at Saratoga.

   Early in the summer of 1777 a formidable expedition under
   General Burgoyne was set in motion from Canada toward Lake
   Champlain. "It was a part of Burgoyne's plan, not merely to
   take Ticonderoga, but to advance thence upon Albany, and, with
   the co-operation of the troops at New York, to get possession
   also of the posts in the Highlands. The British would then
   command the Hudson through its whole extent, and New England,
   the head of the rebellion, would be completely cut off from
   the middle and southern colonies. Burgoyne started on this
   expedition with a brilliant army of 8,000 men, partly British
   and partly Germans, besides a large number of Canadian
   boatmen, laborers and skirmishers. On the western shore of
   Lake Champlain, near Crown Point, he met the Six Nations in
   council, and after a feast and a speech, some 400 of their
   warriors joined this army. His next step was to issue a
   proclamation … threatening with all the extremities of war all
   who should presume to resist his arms. Two days after the
   issue of this proclamation, Burgoyne appeared [July 1] before
   Ticonderoga." The commander of that important fort, General
   St. Clair, found defense impracticable and evacuated the
   place. He was vigorously pursued in his retreat and only
   escaped with the loss of most of his bag·gage and stores,
   besides several hundred men, in killed, wounded, and
   prisoners. "After a seven days' march, he joined Schuyler at
   Fort Edward, on the Hudson. Here was assembled the whole force
   of the northern army, amounting to about 5,000 men; but a
   considerable part were militia hastily called in; many were
   without arms; there was a great deficiency of ammunition and
   provisions; and the whole force was quite disorganized. The
   region between Skenesborough [now Whitehall, where Burgoyne
   had halted] and the Hudson was an almost unbroken wilderness.
   Wood Creek was navigable as far as Fort Anne [which the
   Americans had fired and abandoned]; from Fort Anne to the
   Hudson, over an exceedingly rough country, … extended a single
   military road. While Burgoyne halted a few days at
   Skenesborough to put his forces in order, and to bring up the
   necessary supplies, Schuyler hastened to destroy the
   navigation of Wood Creek," and to make the road from Fort Anne
   as nearly impassable as a wilderness road can be made. "All
   the stock in the neighborhood was driven off, and the militia
   of New England was summoned to the rescue. … The advance from
   Skenesborough cost the British infinite labor and fatigue; but
   … [the] impediments were at length overcome; and Burgoyne,
   with his troops, artillery, and baggage, presently appeared
   [July 29] on the banks of the Hudson. … Fort Edward was
   untenable. As the British approached, the Americans crossed
   the river, and retired, first to Saratoga, and then to
   Stillwater, a short distance above the mouth of the Mohawk.
   Hardly had Schuyler taken up this position, when news arrived
   of another disaster and a new danger. While moving up Lake
   Champlain, Burgoyne had detached Colonel St. Leger, with 200
   regulars, Sir John Johnson's Royal Greens, some Canadian
   Rangers, and a body of Indians under Brant, to harass the New
   York frontier from the west. St. Leger laid siege to Fort
   Schuyler, late Fort Stanwix, near the head of the Mohawk, then
   the extreme western post of the State of New York. General
   Herkimer raised the militia of Tryon county, and advanced to
   the relief of this important post, which was held by
   Gansevoort and Willett, with two New York regiments. About six
   miles from the fort [near Oriskany, August 6], owing to want
   of proper precaution, Herkimer fell into an ambush. Mortally
   wounded, he supported himself against a stump, and encouraged
   his men to the fight. By the aid of a successful sally by
   Willett, they succeeded at last in repulsing the assailants,
   but not without a loss of 400, including many of the leading
   patriots of that region, who met with no mercy at the hands of
   the Indians and refugees. Tryon county, which included the
   whole district west of Albany, abounded with Tories.
{3250}
   It was absolutely necessary to relieve Fort Schuyler." General
   Arnold was accordingly despatched thither, with three
   regiments, and on his approach St. Leger, deserted by most of
   his Indian allies, retreated precipitately, leaving most of
   his stores and baggage behind. Meantime, Burgoyne was
   beginning to find his situation serious. To feed and otherwise
   supply his army was the chief difficulty. He could bring
   enough of stores to the head of Lake George, by the water
   carriage which he commanded, from Canada; but to transport
   them thence to the Hudson, though the distance was only
   eighteen miles, proved nearly impracticable. "The roads were
   so bad, and the supply of draft cattle so small, that, after a
   fortnight's hard labor, the British army had only four days'
   provision in advance." To improve his supplies, and partly,
   moreover, in the hope of finding discontent among the settlers
   of the New Hampshire Grants, Burgoyne sent 800 men, under
   Colonel Baum, into Vermont, They were defeated [August 16] at
   Bennington by the New Hampshire and Vermont militia under
   Colonel John Stark, and again defeated a second time the same
   day, after reinforcements had been sent to them. "Besides the
   killed, about 200 in number, the Americans took near 600
   prisoners, 1,000 stand of arms, as many swords, and four
   pieces of artillery. … The American loss was only 14 killed
   and 42 wounded. … The victory of Stark had a magical effect in
   reviving the spirits of the people and the courage of the
   soldiers."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 36 (volume 3)._

   "Burgoyne's position was by this time very dangerous. His
   Indians were leaving him; many of his best men had been killed
   or captured; and he was getting short of provisions. The army
   opposed to him was increasing: Congress was hurrying men up
   the Hudson; and the country militia were coming in rapidly.
   Burgoyne, therefore, desperately attempted to force his way
   through the American army. He crossed the Hudson, and moved
   slowly down its west bank toward the Mohawk. About the same
   time, Gates, who had been sent by Congress to take Schuyler's
   place, felt strong enough to move up the west bank of the
   Hudson, away from the Mohawk. The two armies met [September
   19] at Bemis Heights, between Saratoga Lake and the Hudson.
   The battle which followed [called by some writers the battle
   of Freeman's Farm] was not decisive: the British held the
   ground; but the Americans had shown that Burgoyne could not
   break through."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      sections 222-223._

   "Burgoyne now halted again, and strengthened his position by
   field-works and redoubts; and the Americans also improved
   their defences. The two armies remained nearly within
   cannon-shot of each other for a considerable time, during
   which Burgoyne was anxiously looking for intelligence of the
   promised expedition from New York, which, according to the
   original plan, ought by this time to have been approaching
   Albany from the south. At last, a messenger from Clinton made
   his way, with great difficulty, to Burgoyne's camp, and
   brought the information that Clinton was on his way up the
   Hudson to attack the American forts which barred the passage
   up that river to Albany. Burgoyne, in reply, on the 30th of
   September, urged Clinton to attack the forts as speedily as
   possible, stating that the effect of such an attack, or even
   the semblance of it, would be to move the American army from
   its position before his own troops. By another messenger, who
   reached Clinton on the 5th of October, Burgoyne informed his
   brother general that he had lost his communications with
   Canada, but had provisions which would last him till the 20th.
   Burgoyne described himself as strongly posted, and stated that
   though the Americans in front of him [at Stillwater] were
   strongly posted also, he made no doubt of being able to force
   them, and making his way to Albany; but that he doubted
   whether he could subsist there, as the country was drained of
   provisions. He wished Clinton to meet him there, and to keep
   open a communication with New York. Burgoyne had
   over-estimated his resources, and in the very beginning of
   October found difficulty and distress pressing him hard. The
   Indians and Canadians began to desert him; while, on the other
   hand, Gates's army was continually reinforced by fresh bodies
   of the militia. … Finding the number and spirit of the enemy
   to increase daily, and his own stores of provisions to
   diminish, Burgoyne determined on attacking the Americans in
   front of him, and by dislodging them from their position, to
   gain the means of moving upon Albany, or at least of relieving
   his troops from the straitened position in which they were
   cooped up. Burgoyne's force was now reduced to less than 6,000
   men. The right of his camp was on some high ground a little to
   the west of the river; thence his entrenchments extended along
   the lower ground to the bank of the Hudson, the line of their
   front being nearly at a right angle with the course of the
   stream. The lines were fortified with redoubts and
   field-works. … The numerical force of the Americans was now
   greater than the British, even in regular troops, and the
   numbers of the militia and volunteers which had joined Gates
   and Arnold were greater still. General Lincoln, with 2,000 New
   England troops, had reached the American camp on the 29th of
   September. Gates gave him the command of the right wing, and
   took in person the command of the left wing, which was
   composed of two brigades under Generals Poor and Leonard, of
   Colonel Morgan's rifle corps, and part of the fresh New
   England Militia. The whole of the American lines had been ably
   fortified under the direction of the celebrated Polish
   General, Kosciusko, who was now serving as a volunteer in
   Gates's army. The right of the American position, that is to
   say, the part of it nearest to the river, was too strong to be
   assailed with any prospect of success: and Burgoyne therefore
   determined to endeavour to force their left. For this purpose
   he formed a column of 1,500 regular troops, with two
   twelve-pounders, two howitzers, and six six-pounders. He
   headed this in person, having Generals Philips, Riedesel; and
   Fraser under him. The enemy's force immediately in front of
   his lines was so strong that he dared not weaken the troops
   who guarded them, by detaching any more to strengthen his
   column of attack. It was on the 7th of October that Burgoyne
   led his column forward; and on the preceding day, the 6th,
   Clinton had successfully executed a brilliant enterprise
   against the two American forts which barred his progress up
   the Hudson.
{3251}
   He had captured them both, with severe loss to the American
   forces opposed to him; he had destroyed the fleet which the
   Americans had been forming on the Hudson, under the protection
   of their forts; and the upward river was laid open to his
   squadron. He had also, with admirable skill and industry,
   collected in small vessels, such as could float within a few
   miles of Albany, provisions sufficient to supply Burgoyne's
   army for six months. He was now only 156 miles distant from
   Burgoyne; and a detachment of 1,700 men actually advanced
   within 40 miles of Albany. Unfortunately Burgoyne and Clinton
   were each ignorant of the other's movements; but if Burgoyne
   had won his battle on the 7th, he must on advancing have soon
   learned the tidings of Clinton's success, and Clinton would
   have heard of his. A junction would soon have been made of the
   two victorious armies, and the great objects of the campaign
   might yet have been accomplished. All depended on the fortune
   of the column with which Burgoyne, on the eventful 7th of
   October, 1777, advanced against the American position." It
   failed in the attempt to break the American line. Arnold, who
   bad been deprived of his command by Gates, rushed into the
   fight at its fiercest stage and assumed a lead, without
   authority, which contributed greatly to the result. General
   Fraser, on the British side, was wounded mortally by a
   sharp-shooter under Morgan's command. Burgoyne's whole force
   was driven back, with heavy losses in killed and wounded,
   leaving six cannon behind them, and the Americans, pursuing,
   carried part of their entrenchments by storm. By this success,
   the latter "acquired the means of completely turning the right
   flank of the British, and gaining their rear. To prevent this
   calamity, Burgoyne effected during the night an entire change
   of position. With great skill he removed his whole army to
   some heights near the river, a little northward of the former
   camp, and he there drew up his men, expecting to be attacked
   on the following day. But Gates was resolved not to risk the
   certain triumph which his success had already secured for him.
   He harassed the English with skirmishes, but attempted no
   regular attack. Meanwhile he detached bodies of troops on both
   sides of the Hudson to prevent the British from recrossing
   that river, and to bar their retreat. When night fell, it
   became absolutely necessary for Burgoyne to retire again, and,
   accordingly, the troops were marched through a stormy and
   rainy night towards Saratoga, abandoning their sick and
   wounded, and the greater part of their baggage, to the enemy.
   … Burgoyne now took up his last position on the heights near
   Saratoga; and hemmed in by the enemy, who refused any
   encounter, and baffled in all his attempts at finding a path
   of escape, he there lingered until famine compelled him to
   capitulate. The fortitude of the British army during this
   melancholy period has been justly eulogised by many native
   historians, but I prefer quoting the testimony of a foreign
   writer, as free from all possibility of partiality. Botta
   says: 'It exceeds the power of words to describe the pitiable
   condition to which the British army was now reduced. The
   troops were worn down by a series of toil, privation,
   sickness, and desperate fighting. They were abandoned by the
   Indians and Canadians; and the effective force of the whole
   army was now diminished by repeated and heavy losses, which
   had principally fallen on the best soldiers and the most
   distinguished officers, from 10,000 combatants to less than
   one-half that number. Of this remnant, little more than 3,000
   were English. In these circumstances, and thus weakened, they
   were invested by an army of four times their own number, whose
   position extended three parts of a circle round them; who
   refused to fight them, as knowing their weakness, and who,
   from the nature of the ground, could not be attacked in any
   part. In this helpless condition, obliged to be constantly
   under arms, while the enemy's cannon played on every part of
   their camp, and even the American rifle-balls whistled in many
   parts of the lines, the troops of Burgoyne retained their
   customary firmness, and while sinking under a hard necessity,
   they showed themselves worthy of a better fate. They could not
   be reproached with an action or a word, which betrayed a want
   of temper or of fortitude.' At length the 13th of October
   arrived, and as no prospect of assistance appeared, and the
   provisions were nearly exhausted, Burgoyne, by the unanimous
   advice of a council of war, sent a messenger to the American
   camp to treat of a convention. General Gates in the first
   instance demanded that the royal army should surrender
   prisoners of war. He also proposed that the British should
   ground their arms. Burgoyne replied, 'This article is
   inadmissible in every extremity; sooner than this army will
   consent to ground their arms in their encampment, they will
   rush on the enemy, determined to take no quarter.' After
   various messages, a convention for the surrender of the army
   was settled, which provided that 'The troops under General
   Burgoyne were to march out of their camp with the honours of
   war, and the artillery of the intrenchments, to the verge of
   the river, where the arms and artillery were to be left. The
   arms to be piled by word of command from their own officers. A
   free passage was to be granted to the army under
   Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to Great Britain, upon condition
   of not serving again in North America during the present
   contest.' The articles of capitulation were settled on the
   15th of October; and on that very evening a messenger arrived
   from Clinton with an account of his successes, and with the
   tidings that part of his force had penetrated as far as
   Esopus, within 50 miles of Burgoyne's camp. But it was too
   late. The public faith was pledged; and the army was, indeed,
   too debilitated by fatigue and hunger to resist an attack if
   made; and Gates certainly would have made it, if the
   convention had been broken off. Accordingly, on the 17th, the
   convention of Saratoga was carried into effect. By this
   convention 5,790 men surrendered themselves as prisoners. The
   sick and wounded left in the camp when the British retreated
   to Saratoga, together with the numbers of the British, German,
   and Canadian troops, who were killed, wounded, or taken, and
   who had deserted in the preceding part of the expedition, were
   reckoned to be 4,689. The British sick and wounded who had
   fallen into the hands of the Americans after the battle of the
   7th, were treated with exemplary humanity; and when the
   convention was executed, General Gates showed a noble delicacy
   of feeling, which deserves the highest degree of honour. Every
   circumstance was avoided which could give the appearance of
   triumph.
{3252}
   The American troops remained within their lines until the
   British had piled their arms; and when this was done, the
   vanquished officers and soldiers were received with friendly
   kindness by their victors, and their immediate wants were
   promptly and liberally supplied. Discussions and disputes
   afterwards arose as to some of the terms of the convention;
   and the American Congress refused for a long time to carry
   into effect the article which provided for the return of
   Burgoyne's men to Europe; but no blame was imputable to
   General Gates or his army, who showed themselves to be
   generous as they had proved themselves to be brave."

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 13_.

      ALSO IN:
      _General J. Burgoyne,
      State of the Expedition from Canada._

      _S. A. Drake,
      Burgoyne's Invasion._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Campaign of Burgoyne._

      _M. von Eelking,
      Memoir of General Riedesel,
      volume 1, pages 88-218._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 2, chapters 6-21._

      _Colonel M. Willett,
      Narrative of Military Actions,
      chapter 5._

      _C. Stark,
      Memoir of General John Stark,
      pages 46-140._

      _T. Dwight,
      Travels in New England and New York,
      volume 3, pages 220-233._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The British in Philadelphia.
   Their gay winter.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The Conway Cabal.

   The capitulation of Burgoyne at Saratoga "was an all-important
   event in its influence on the progress of the war; but its
   immediate effect was unpropitious to the reputation of the
   Commander-in-chief, who was compelled, at the close of the
   year, to place his army in a state of almost total destitution
   in winter-quarters at Valley Forge. The brilliant success of
   General Gates at Saratoga, in contrast with the reverses which
   had befallen the American Army under the immediate command of
   Washington, encouraged the operations of a cabal against him,
   which had been formed by certain disaffected officers of the
   army, and was countenanced by a party in Congress. The design
   was, by a succession of measures implying a want of
   confidence, to drive Washington to retire from the service in
   disgust: and, when this object was effected, to give the
   command of the army to General Gates, who lent a willing ear
   to these discreditable intrigues. A foreign officer in the
   American Army, of the name of Conway, was the most active
   promoter of the project, which was discovered by the
   accidental disclosure of a part of his correspondence with
   Gates. Washington bore himself on this occasion with his usual
   dignity, and allowed the parties concerned, in the army and in
   Congress, to take refuge in explanations, disclaimers, and
   apologies, by which those who made them gained no credit, and
   those who accepted them were not deceived. A part of the
   machinery of this wretched cabal was the publication, in
   London, and the republication in New York of [a] collection of
   forged letters … bearing the name of Washington, and intended
   to prove his insincerity in the cause of the Revolution.
   Nothing perhaps more plainly illustrates his conscious
   strength of character, than the disdainful silence with which
   he allowed this miserable fabrication to remain for twenty
   years without exposure. It was only in the year 1796, and when
   about to retire from the Presidency, that he filed, in the
   department of Slate, a denial of its authenticity."

      _E. Everett,
      Life of Washington,
      chapter 6._

   In a letter written May 30, 1778, addressed to Landon Carter,
   from the camp at Valley Forge, Washington alluded to the
   subject of the cabal as follows: "With great truth I think I
   can assure you, that the information you received from a
   gentleman at Sabine Hall, respecting a disposition in the
   northern officers to see me superseded in my command by
   General G—s is without the least foundation. I have very
   sufficient reasons to think, that no officers in the army are
   more attached to me, than those from the northward, and of
   those, none more so than the gentlemen, who were under the
   immediate command of G--s last campaign. That there was a
   scheme of this sort on foot, last fall, admits of no doubt:
   but it originated in another quarter; with three men who
   wanted to aggrandize themselves; but finding no support, on
   the contrary, that their conduct and views, when seen into,
   were likely to undergo severe reprehension, they slunk back,
   disavowed the measure, and professed themselves my warmest
   admirers. Thus stands the matter at present. Whether any
   members of Congress were privy to this scheme, and inclined to
   aid and abet it, I shall not take upon me to say; but am well
   informed, that no whisper of the kind was ever heard in
   Congress."

      _George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 7, page 39._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 28-30._

      _J. C. Hamilton,
      History of the United States
      in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
      volume 1, chapters 13-14._

      _J. Sparks,
      Life of Gouverneur Morris,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      _W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      chapter 46 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.
   Adoption and ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

   "On the 11th of June, 1776, the same day on which the
   committee for preparing the declaration of independence was
   appointed, congress resolved, that 'a committee be appointed
   to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be
   entered into between these colonies'; and on the next day a
   committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of a member
   from each colony. Nearly a year before this period (viz. on
   the 21st of July, 1775), Dr. Franklin had submitted to
   congress a sketch of articles of confederation, which does
   not, however, appear to have been acted on. … On the 12th of
   July, 1776, the committee appointed to prepare articles of
   confederation presented a draft, which was in the hand-writing
   of Mr. Dickenson, one of the committee, and a delegate from
   Pennsylvania. The draft, so reported, was debated from the 22d
   to the 31st of July, and on several days between the 5th and
   20th of August, 1776. On this last day, congress, in committee
   of the whole, reported a new draft, which was ordered to be
   printed for the use of the members. The subject seems not
   again to have been touched until the 8th of April, 1777, and
   the articles were debated at several times between that time
   and the 15th of November of the same year. On this last day
   the articles were reported with sundry amendments, and finally
   adopted by congress. A committee was then appointed to draft,
   and they accordingly drafted, a circular letter, requesting
   the states respectively to authorize their delegates in
   congress to subscribe the same in behalf of the state. … It
   carried, however, very slowly conviction to the minds of the
   local legislatures. Many objections were stated, and many
   amendments were proposed.
{3253}
   All of them, however, were rejected by congress, not probably
   because they were all deemed inexpedient or improper in
   themselves; but from the danger of sending the instrument back
   again to all the states, for reconsideration. Accordingly, on
   the 26th of June, 1778, a copy, engrossed for ratification,
   was prepared, and the ratification begun on the 9th day of
   July following. It was ratified by all the states, except
   Delaware and Maryland, in 1778; by Delaware in 1779, and by
   Maryland on the 1st of March, 1781, from which last date its
   final ratification took effect, and was joyfully announced by
   congress. In reviewing the objections taken by the various
   states to the adoption of the confederation in the form in
   which it was presented to them, … that which seemed to be of
   paramount importance, and which, indeed, protracted the
   ratification of the confederation to so late a period, was the
   alarming controversy in respect to the boundaries of some of
   the states, and the public lands, held by the crown, within
   these reputed boundaries."

      _J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   The following is the text of the Articles of Confederation:

   "Article I.
   The style of this Confederacy shall be,
   'The United States of America.'

   Article II.
   Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,
   and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this
   Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in
   Congress assembled.

   Article III.
   The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of
   friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
   security of their liberties, and their mutual and general
   welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all
   force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them,
   on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other
   pretense whatever.

   Article IV.
   The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
   intercourse among the people of the different States in this
   Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers,
   vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be
   entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in
   the several States; and the people of each State shall have
   free ingress and egress to and from any other State, and shall
   enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce subject
   to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the
   inhabitants thereof respectively; provided that such
   restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal
   of property imported into any State to any other State of
   which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no
   imposition, duties, or restriction shall be laid by any State
   on the property of the United States or either of them. If any
   person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other
   high misdemeanor in any State shall flee from justice and be
   found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of
   the governor or executive power of the State from which he
   fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having
   jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be
   given in each of these States to the records, acts, and
   judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every
   other State.

   Article V.
   For the more convenient management of the general interests of
   the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in
   such manner as the Legislature of each State shall direct, to
   meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every
   year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its
   delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to
   send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. No
   State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor
   by more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of
   being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six
   years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of
   holding any office under the United States for which he, or
   another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or
   emolument of any kind. Each State shall maintain its own
   delegates in any meeting of the States and while they act as
   members of the Committee of the States. In determining
   questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each
   State shall have one vote. Freedom of speech and debate in
   Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or
   place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be
   protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonment
   during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on,
   Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

   Article VI.
   No State, without the consent of the United States, in
   Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any
   embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement,
   alliance, or treaty with any king, prince, or state; nor shall
   any person holding any office of profit or trust under the
   United States, or any of them, accept of any present,
   emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any
   king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the United States,
   in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of
   nobility. No two or more States shall enter into any treaty,
   confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without the
   consent of the United States, in Congress assembled,
   specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be
   entered into, and how long it shall continue. No State shall
   lay any imposts or duties which may interfere with any
   stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States, in
   Congress assembled, with any king, prince, or state, in
   pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the
   courts of France and Spain. No vessel of war shall be kept up
   in time of peace by any State, except such number only as
   shall be deemed necessary by the United States, in Congress
   assembled, for the defense of such State or its trade, nor
   shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of
   peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the
   United States, in Congress assembled, shall be deemed
   requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of
   such State; but every State shall always keep up a
   well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
   accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use
   in public stores a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a
   proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage. No
   State shall engage in any war without the consent of the
   United States, in Congress assembled, unless such State be
   actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain
   advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians
   to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to
   admit of a delay till the United States, in Congress
   assembled, can be consulted; nor shall any State grant
   commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of
   marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by
   the United States, in Congress assembled, and then only
   against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof,
   against which war has been so declared, and under such
   regulations as shall be established by the United States, in
   Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates,
   in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that
   occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or
   until the United States, in Congress assembled, shall
   determine otherwise.

{3254}

   Article VII.
   When land forces are raised by any State for the common
   defense, all officers of or under the rank of Colonel shall be
   appointed by the Legislature of each State respectively by
   whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such
   State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by
   the State which first made the appointment.

   Article VIII.
   All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be
   incurred for the common defense, or general welfare, and
   allowed by the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be
   defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by
   the several States in proportion to the value of all land
   within each State, granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as
   such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be
   estimated, according to such mode as the United States, in
   Congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and
   appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid
   and levied by the authority and direction of the Legislatures
   of the several States, within the time agreed upon by the
   United States, in Congress assembled.

   Article IX.
   The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole
   and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war,
   except in the cases mentioned in the sixth Article; of sending
   and receiving ambassadors; entering into treaties and
   alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made,
   whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall
   be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on
   foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from
   prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of
   goods or commodities whatever; of establishing rules for
   deciding, in all cases, what captures on land and water shall
   be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval
   forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or
   appropriated; of granting letters of marque and reprisal in
   times of peace; appointing courts for the trial of piracies
   and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing
   courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all
   cases of captures; provided that no member of Congress shall
   be appointed a judge of any of the said courts. The United
   States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort
   on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or
   that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning
   boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which
   authority shall always be exercised in the manner following:
   Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful
   agent of any State in controversy with another, shall present
   a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and
   praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order
   of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the
   other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the
   appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall
   then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners
   or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining
   the matter in question; but if they cannot agree, Congress
   shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and
   from the list of such persons each party shall alternately
   strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number
   shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less
   than seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct,
   shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out by lot; and
   the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of
   them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally
   determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the
   judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the
   determination; and if either party shall neglect to attend at
   the day appointed, without showing reasons which Congress
   shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to
   strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons
   out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike
   in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment
   and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner
   before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any
   of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such
   court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court
   shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence or judgment,
   which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment
   or sentence and other proceedings being in either case
   transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress
   for the security of the parties concerned; provided, that
   every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an
   oath, to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme
   or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried,
   'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question,
   according to the best of his judgment, without favor,
   affection, or hope of reward.' Provided, also, that no State
   shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United
   States. All controversies concerning the private right of soil
   claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose
   jurisdictions, as they may respect such lands, and the States
   which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or
   either of them being at the same time claimed to have
   originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction,
   shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the
   United States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in
   the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes
   respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
   The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also have the
   sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and
   value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the
   respective States; fixing the standard of weights and measures
   throughout the United States; regulating the trade and
   managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of
   the States; provided that the legislative right of any State,
   within its own limits, be not infringed or violated;
{3255}
   establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to
   another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such
   postage on the papers passing through the same as may be
   requisite to defray the expenses of the said office;
   appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of
   the United States, excepting regimental officers; appointing
   all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all
   officers whatever in the service of the United States; making
   rules for the government and regulation of the said land and
   naval forces, and directing their operations. The United
   States, in Congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint
   a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be
   denominated 'A Committee of the States,' and to consist of one
   delegate from each State, and to appoint such other committees
   and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the
   general affairs of the United States under their direction; to
   appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no
   person be allowed to serve in the office of president more
   than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the
   necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the
   United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for
   defraying the public expenses; to borrow money or emit bills
   on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half
   year to the respective States an account of the sums of money
   so borrowed or emitted; to build and equip a navy; to agree
   upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from
   each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white
   inhabitants in such State, which requisition shall be binding;
   and thereupon the Legislature of each State shall appoint the
   regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip
   them in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the United
   States; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and
   equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the
   time agreed on by the United States, in Congress assembled;
   but if the United States, in Congress assembled, shall, on
   consideration of circumstances, judge proper that any State
   should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than
   its quota, and that any other State should raise a greater
   number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall
   be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the same
   manner as the quota of such State, unless the Legislature of
   such State shall judge that such extra number can not be
   safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise,
   officer, clothe, arm, and equip as many of such extra number
   as they judge can be safely spared, and the officers and men
   so clothed, armed, and equipped shall march to the place
   appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States,
   in Congress assembled. The United States, in Congress
   assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of
   marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any
   treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value
   thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the
   defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor
   emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United
   States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of
   vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land
   or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander-in-chief
   of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same,
   nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning
   from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a
   majority of the United States, in Congress assembled. The
   Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to
   any time within the year, and to any place within the United
   States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer
   duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the
   journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts
   thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military
   operations as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas
   and nays of the delegates of each State, on any question,
   shall be entered on the journal when it is desired by any
   delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his
   or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the
   said journal except such parts as are above excepted, to lay
   before the Legislatures of the several States.

   Article X.
   The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be
   authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the
   powers of Congress as the United States, in Congress
   assembled, by the consent of nine States, shall, from time to
   time, think expedient to vest them with; provided that no
   power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of
   which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine
   States in the Congress of the United States assembled is
   requisite.

   Article XI.
   Canada, acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the
   measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and
   entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other
   colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission
   be agreed to by nine States.

   Article XII.
   All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts
   contracted by or under the authority of Congress, before the
   assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present
   Confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge
   against the United States, for payment and satisfaction
   whereof the said United States and the public faith are hereby
   solemnly pledged.

   Article XIII.
   Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United
   States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this
   Confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this
   Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and
   the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any
   time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration
   be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be
   afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State. AND
   WHEREAS it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to
   incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively
   represent in Congress to approve of, and to authorize us to
   ratify, the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual
   Union, know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue
   of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do,
   by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective
   constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and
   every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual
   Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein
   contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the
   faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by
   the determinations of the United States, in Congress
   assembled, on all questions which by the said Confederation
   are submitted to them; and that the Articles thereof shall be
   inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent,
   and that the Union shall be perpetual.
{3256}
   In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.
   Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth
   day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
   and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence
   of America."

   "Under these Articles of Confederation the treaty of peace
   with England was concluded and the American nation was
   governed until the final adoption of the Constitution of the
   United States. The main defect of the Articles of
   Confederation was, that although powers sufficiently adequate
   to create a government were ceded, there was no power to raise
   revenue, to levy taxes, or to enforce the law, except with the
   consent of nine States; and although the government had power
   to contract debts, there were no means by which to discharge
   them. The government had power to raise armies and navies, but
   no means wherewith to pay them, unless the means were voted by
   the States themselves; they could make treaties with foreign
   powers, but had no means to coerce a State to obey such
   treaty. In short, it was a government which had the power to
   make laws, but no power to punish infractions thereof.
   Washington himself said: 'The Confederation appears to me to
   be little more than the shadow without the substance, and
   Congress a nugatory body.' Chief Justice Story, in summing up
   the leading defects of the Articles of Confederation, says:
   'There was an utter want of all coercive authority to carry
   into effect its own constitutional measures; this of itself
   was sufficient to destroy its whole efficiency as a
   superintendent government, if that may be called a government
   which possessed no one solid attribute of power. In truth,
   Congress possessed only the power of recommendation. Congress
   had no power to exact obedience or punish disobedience of its
   ordinances; they could neither impose fines nor direct
   imprisonments, nor divest privileges, nor declare forfeitures,
   nor suspend refractory officers. There was no power to
   exercise force.'"

      _S. Sterne,
      Constitutional History of the United States,
      chapter 1._

   "The individual states had attributed to themselves, in the
   Articles of Confederation, no powers which could place them in
   relation to foreign nations in the light of sovereign states.
   They felt that all such claims would be considered ridiculous,
   because back of these claims there was no real corresponding
   power. Congress therefore remained, as heretofore, the sole
   outward representative of sovereignty. But the power to
   exercise the prerogatives was taken from it, and this without
   placing it in any other hands. The changes effected by the
   Articles of Confederation were rather of a negative than of a
   positive nature. They did not give the State which was just
   coming into being a definite form, but they began the work of
   its dissolution. … The practical result … was that the United
   States tended more and more to split up into thirteen
   independent republics, and … virtually ceased to be a member
   of the family of nations bound together by the 'jus gentium.'"

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _D. R. Goodloe,
      The Birth of the Republic,
      pages 353-366._

      _H. W. Preston,
      Documents illustrative of American History,
      pages 218-231._

   On the operation and failure of the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

   On the question of the western territorial claims of several
   of the States, and the obstacle which it brought in the way of
   the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1781-1786.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (February).
   The Treaty with France.

   "The account of Burgoyne's surrender, which was brought to
   France by a swift-sailing ship from Boston, threw Turgot and
   all Paris into transports of joy. None doubted the ability of
   the states to maintain their independence. On the 12th of
   December their commissioners had an interview with Vergennes.
   'Nothing,' said he, 'has struck me so much as General
   Washington's attacking and giving battle to General Howe's
   army. To bring troops raised within the year to this, promises
   everything. The court of France, in the treaty which is to be
   entered into, intend to take no advantage of your present
   situation. Once made, it should be durable; and therefore it
   should contain no condition of which the Americans may
   afterward repent, but such only as will last as long as human
   institutions shall endure, so that mutual amity may subsist
   forever. Entering into a treaty will be an avowal of your
   independence. Spain must be consulted, and Spain will not be
   satisfied with an undetermined boundary on the west. Some of
   the states are supposed to run to the South Sea, which might
   interfere with her claim to California.' It was answered that
   the last treaty of peace adopted the Mississippi as a
   boundary. 'And what share do you intend to give us in the
   fisheries?' asked Vergennes; for in the original draft of a
   treaty the United States had proposed to take to themselves
   Cape Breton and the whole of the island of Newfoundland.
   Explanations were made by the American commissioners that
   their later instructions removed all chances of disagreement
   on that subject. … The question of a French alliance … was
   discussed by Vergennes with the Marquis d'Ossun, the late
   French ambassador in Madrid, as the best adviser with regard
   to Spain, and the plan of action was formed. Then these two
   met the king at the apartment of Maurepas, where the plan,
   after debate, was finally settled. Maurepas, at heart opposed
   to the war, loved ease and popularity too well to escape the
   sway of external opinion; and Louis XVI. sacrificed his own
   inclination and his own feeling of justice to policy of state
   and the opinion of his advisers. So, on the 6th of February, a
   treaty of amity and commerce and an eventual defensive treaty
   of alliance were concluded between the king of France and the
   United States, on principles of equality and reciprocity, and
   for the most part in conformity to the proposals of congress.
   In commerce each party was to be placed on the footing of the
   most favored nation. The king of France promised his good
   offices with the princes and powers of Barbary. As to the
   fisheries, each party reserved to itself the exclusive
   possession of its own. Accepting the French interpretation of
   the treaties of Utrecht and of Paris, the United States
   acknowledged the right of French subjects to fish on the banks
   of Newfoundland, and their exclusive right to half the coast
   of that island for drying-places.
{3257}
   On the question of ownership in the event of the conquest of
   Newfoundland the treaty was silent. The American proposal,
   that free ships give freedom to goods and to persons, except
   to soldiers in actual service of an enemy, was adopted.
   Careful lists were made out of contraband merchandises. The
   absolute and unlimited independence of the United States was
   described as the essential end of the defensive alliance; and
   the two parties mutually engaged not to lay down their arms
   until it should be assured by the treaties terminating the
   war. Moreover, the United States guaranteed to France the
   possessions then held by France in America, as well as those
   which it might acquire by a future treaty of peace; and, in
   like manner, the king of France guaranteed to the United
   States their present possessions and acquisitions during the
   war from the dominions of Great Britain in North America. A
   separate and secret act reserved to the king of Spain the
   power of acceding to the treaties. Within forty-two hours of
   the signature of these treaties of commerce and alliance the
   British ministry received the news by special messenger from
   their spy in Paris, but it was not divulged." It was
   officially communicated to the British government on the 13th
   of March, when ambassadors were withdrawn on both sides and
   war soon followed.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions of the United States
      (edition of 1889),
      page 296._

      _T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (June).
   Peace-proposals from England.
   British evacuation of Philadelphia and march to New York.
   Battle of Monmouth.

   "On May 11th, Sir Henry Clinton relieved Sir William Howe at
   Philadelphia, and the latter took his departure in a blaze of
   mock glory. … The new commander was more active than his
   predecessor, but no cleverer, and no better fitted to cope
   with Washington. … Expecting a movement by the enemy,
   Washington sent Lafayette forward to watch Philadelphia.
   Clinton, fresh in office, determined to cut him off, and by a
   rapid movement nearly succeeded in so doing. Timely
   information, presence of mind, and quickness, alone enabled
   the young Frenchman to escape, narrowly but completely.
   Meantime, a cause for delay, that curse of the British
   throughout the war, supervened. A peace commission, consisting
   of the Earl of Carlisle, William Eden, and Governor Johnstone,
   arrived. They were excellent men, but they came too late.
   Their propositions three years before would have been well
   enough, but as it was they were worse than nothing. Coolly
   received, they held a fruitless interview with a committee of
   Congress, tried to bribe and intrigue, found that their own
   army had been already ordered to evacuate Philadelphia [in
   apprehension of the arrival of the expected French fleet]
   without their knowledge, and finally gave up their task in
   angry despair, and returned to England to join in the chorus
   of fault-finding which was beginning to sound very loud in
   ministerial ears. Meanwhile, Washington waited and watched,
   puzzled by the delay, and hoping only to harass Sir Henry with
   militia on the march to New York. But, as the days slipped by,
   the Americans grew stronger, while Sir Henry weakened himself
   by sending 5,000 men to the West Indies, and 3,000 to Florida.
   When he finally started [evacuating Philadelphia June 17], he
   had with him less than 10,000 men, while the Americans had
   13,000, nearly all continental troops. Under these
   circumstances, Washington determined to bring on a battle. He
   was thwarted at the outset by his officers, as was wont to be
   the case. Lee had returned more whimsical than ever, and at
   the moment was strongly adverse to an attack. … Washington was
   harassed of course by all this, but he did not stay his
   purpose, and as soon as he knew that Clinton actually had
   marched, he broke camp at Valley Forge and started in pursuit.
   There were more councils of an old-womanish character, but
   finally Washington took the matter into his own hands, and
   ordered forth a strong detachment to attack the British
   rear-guard. They set out on the 25th, and as Lee, to whom the
   command belonged, did not care to go, Lafayette [see above: A.
   D. 1777 (JULY)] was put in charge. As soon as Lafayette had
   departed, however, Lee changed his mind, and insisted that all
   the detachments in front, amounting to 6,000 men, formed a
   division so large that it was unjust not to give him the
   command. Washington, therefore, sent him forward next day with
   two additional brigades, and then Lee by seniority took
   command on the 27th of the entire advance. In the evening of
   that day, Washington came up, reconnoitred the enemy, and saw
   that, although their position was a strong one, another day's
   unmolested march would make it still stronger. He therefore
   resolved to attack the next morning, and gave Lee then and
   there explicit orders to that effect. In the early dawn he
   despatched similar orders, but Lee apparently did nothing
   except move feebly forward, saying to Lafayette, 'You don't
   know the British soldiers; we cannot stand against them.' He
   made a weak attempt to cut off a covering party, marched and
   countermarched, ordered and countermanded, until Lafayette and
   Wayne, eager to fight, knew not what to do, and sent hot
   messages to Washington to come to them. Thus hesitating and
   confused, Lee permitted Clinton to get his baggage and train
   to the front, and to mass all his best troops in the rear
   under Cornwallis, who then advanced against the American
   lines. Now there were no orders at all, and the troops did not
   know what to do, or where to go. They stood still, then began
   to fall back, and then to retreat. A very little more and
   there would have been a rout. As it was, Washington alone
   prevented disaster. … As the ill tidings grew thicker,
   Washington spurred sharper and rode faster through the deep
   sand and under the blazing mid-summer sun. At last he met Lee
   and the main body all in full retreat. He rode straight at
   Lee, savage with anger, not pleasant to look at, one may
   guess, and asked fiercely and with a deep oath, tradition
   says, what it all meant. … Lee gathered himself and tried to
   excuse and palliate what had happened, but although the brief
   words that followed are variously reported to us across the
   century, we know that Washington rebuked him in such a way,
   and with such passion, that all was over between them. Lee …
   went to the rear, thence to a court-martial, thence to
   dismissal and to a solitary life. … Having put Lee aside,
   Washington rallied the broken troops, brought them into
   position, turned them back, and held the enemy in check.
{3258}
   It was not an easy feat, but it was done, and when Lee's
   division again fell back in good order the main army was in
   position, and the action became general. The British were
   repulsed, and then Washington, taking the offensive, drove
   them back until he occupied the battlefield of the morning.
   Night came upon him still advancing. He halted his army, lay
   down under a tree, his soldiers lying on their arms about him,
   and planned a fresh attack, to be made at daylight. But when
   the dawn came it was seen that the British had crept off, and
   were far on their road. The heat prevented a rapid pursuit,
   and Clinton got into New York. Between there and Philadelphia
   he had lost 2,000 men, Washington said, and modern authorities
   put it at about 1,500, of whom nearly 500 fell at Monmouth. …
   Monmouth has never been one of the famous battles of the
   Revolution, and yet there is no other which can compare with
   it as an illustration of Washington's ability as a soldier. …
   Its importance lies in the evidence which it gives of the way
   in which Washington, after a series of defeats, during a
   winter of terrible suffering and privation, had yet developed
   his ragged volunteers into a well-disciplined and effective
   army. The battle was a victory, but the existence and the
   quality of the army that won it were a far greater triumph.
   The dreary winter at Valley Forge had indeed borne fruit."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapters 54-56._

      _Mrs. M. Campbell,
      Life of General W. Hull,
      chapter 14._

      _The Lee Papers,
      volumes 2-3
      (New York Historical Society Collection, 1872-1873)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (June-November).
   The war on the border.
   Activity of Tories and Indians.
   The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

   "The Six Nations were stirred to hostility by Sir John Johnson
   and the Mohawk chief Joseph Brant, with Walter Butler, of
   infamous name. Their tory partisans were more cruel than the
   red men. At Cobleskill, Schoharie county, June 1, 1778, Brant
   won a savage triumph with a mixed force, and burned and
   plundered the settlement. Springfield was also destroyed, and
   the assailants retired. A month later the Indians were again
   at Cobleskill, and, burning where they went, beat off a force
   that attempted to check them. The valley of the Schohariekill
   was in the succeeding year subjected to invasions from the
   Senecas, and suffered severely. About Fort Stanwix the tories
   and red men were continually hovering, and more than once
   persons were pounced upon and scalped in sight of the works.
   In 1778, in the early autumn, German Flats was visited by
   Brant and his followers, and was entirely destroyed, although
   all the inhabitants but two were warned in season to escape
   with their lives. An expedition was sent after the Indians,
   but failed to bring the warriors to battle, and was rewarded
   only by laying waste the Indian villages of Unadilla and
   Oquaga, and capturing a large supply of cattle and provisions.
   At Cherry Valley a fort had been built, and the village was
   occupied by a band of colonial troops under Colonel Ichabod
   Alden. He rested in security, and the settlers were scattered
   in their habitations, regardless of warnings of approaching
   foes. Under cover of a severe storm of snow and rain, November
   11, Brant and Butler, with 800 Indians and tories, swooped
   upon the homes, and 43 persons, including women and children,
   were butchered, 40 taken prisoners, all the buildings were
   burned, and the domestic animals seized. So brutal was the
   massacre that Brant charged Butler and the tories with acting
   against his protests. Brant himself was content, July 19,
   1779, with destroying the church, mills, houses, and barns at
   Minnisink, Orange county, without sacrificing lives, but
   turned upon a party sent in pursuit, and, after capturing a
   detachment, butchered the wounded, and slew 45 who tried to
   escape. Such deeds produced a terror in the colony. No one
   knew where the red men and tories would strike next. To check
   and counteract them, excursions were made against the tribes
   in their homes. One of these was led by Colonels Van Schaick
   and Willett from Fort Stanwix in April, 1779). Proceeding by
   Wood Creek and Oneida Lake, they penetrated the villages of
   the Onondagas, which they destroyed, and seized the provisions
   and even the weapons of the red men, who fled into the
   wilderness."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      chapter 24 (volume 2)._

   The following account of the attack on Cherry Valley is from a
   pen friendly to Butler and from sources favorable to the Tory
   side: "After an exhausting march next day through a blinding
   snow-storm and over ground covered with deep wet snow and mud,
   Butler halted his men at dark in a pine wood which afforded
   them some shelter, six miles from Cherry Valley. He assembled
   the chiefs and proposed that as soon as the moon rose, they
   should resume their march and surround the house occupied by
   the officers, while he made a rush upon the fort with the
   rangers. They readily assented, but before the time appointed
   arrived it began to rain violently, and they obstinately
   refused to move until daybreak. It was then arranged that
   Captain McDonnel with 50 picked rangers and some Indians
   should storm the house, while Butler with the remainder
   assailed the fort. Without tents, blankets or fires, they
   spent a sleepless night cowering beneath the pines, and were
   glad to move as soon as day appeared. They had approached
   unperceived within a mile of the fort by passing through a
   dense swamp, when the Indians in front fired at two men
   cutting wood. One fell dead; the other, though bleeding, ran
   for his life and the entire body of Indians set up a whoop and
   followed at full speed. Unhappily the rangers had just been
   halted to fix flints and load their rifles, and the Indians
   obtained a long start. The Continental officers attempted to
   escape to the fort but only two or three reached it. The
   colonel, five other officers and twenty soldiers, were killed
   on the way and the lieutenant-colonel, three subalterns, and
   ten privates were taken. The colors of the regiment were
   abandoned in the house and burnt in it. The garrison of the
   fort was fully alarmed, and opened a fierce fire of artillery
   and small arms. The rangers seized and burnt a detached
   block-house, and fired briskly at the loop-holes in the
   palisades for ten minutes, when Butler saw with horror and
   consternation that the Indians had set their officers at
   defiance, and dispersed in every direction to kill and
   plunder. Their wretched misconduct forced him to collect all
   the rangers into a compact body on an eminence near the
   principal entrance to the fort, to oppose a sally by the
   garrison, which then undoubtedly outnumbered them
   considerably.
{3259}
   There he was obliged to remain inactive all day under a
   ceaseless, chilling rain, while blazing houses and shrieks of
   agony told their pitiful tale in the settlement below. At
   nightfall he marched a mile down the valley and encamped. He
   then struggled with indifferent success to rescue the
   prisoners. Those surrendered were placed next the camp fires
   and protected by his whole force. Next morning most of the
   Indians and the feeblest men among the rangers were sent away
   with a huge drove of captured cattle for the supply of the
   garrison at Niagara, and McDonnel and Brant, with 60 rangers
   and 50 Indians, swept the valley from end to end, ruthlessly
   burning every building and stack in sight, while Butler, with
   the remainder, again stood guard at the gate of the fort. He
   hoped that this appalling spectacle would provoke the garrison
   to sally out and fight, but the lesson of Wyoming had not been
   lost on them, and they continued to look on from the walls in
   silent fury. Another great herd of cattle was collected, and
   Butler leisurely began his retreat, having had only two
   rangers and three Indians wounded during the expedition. He
   did not disguise the dark side of the story in his letter to
   Colonel Bolton of the 17th November. 'I have much to lament,'
   he said, 'that notwithstanding my utmost precautions to save
   the women and children, I could not prevent some of them
   falling victims to the fury of the savages. They have carried
   off many of the inhabitants and killed more, among them Colin
   Cloyd, a very violent rebel. I could not prevail on the
   Indians to leave the women and children behind, though the
   second morning Captain Johnson (to whose knowledge of the
   Indians and address in managing them I am much indebted) and I
   got them to permit twelve, who were loyalists, and whom I
   concealed, with the humane assistance of Mr. Joseph Brant and
   Captain Jacobs of Ochquaga, to return. The death of the women
   and children on this occasion may, I believe, be truly
   ascribed to the rebels having falsely accused the Indians of
   cruelty at Wyomen. This has much exasperated them, and they
   are still more incensed at finding that the colonel and those
   who had then laid down their arms, soon after marching into
   their country intending to destroy their villages, and they
   declared that they would be no more accused falsely of
   fighting the enemy twice, meaning they would in future give no
   quarter.'"

      _E. Cruikshank,
      The Story of Butler's Rangers,
      pages 55-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Campbell,
      Annals of Tryon County,
      chapter 5._

      _Centennial Celebrations of New York,
      pages 359-383._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life of Brant,
      volume 1, chapter 17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (July).
   The war on the border.
   Bloody work of the Tories and their Indian allies.
   The Massacre at Wyoming.

   "In 1778, according to the plan of campaign as given by Guy
   Johnson in his correspondence, the English forces on the
   western borders of New York were divided into two bodies: one,
   consisting of Indians under Brant, to operate in New York,
   while Deputy Superintendent Butler with the other should
   penetrate the settled district on the Susquehanna. Brant
   [Joseph Brant, the Mohawk chief], who, according to Colonel
   Claus, 'had shown himself to be the most faithful and zealous
   subject his majesty could have in America,' did his work
   unsparingly, and ruin marked his track. In the valley of the
   upper Mohawk and the Schoharie nothing but the garrison-houses
   escaped, and labor was only possible in the field when muskets
   were within easy reach. Occasionally blows were struck at the
   larger settlements. … In July, 1778, the threatened attack on
   Wyoming took place. This region was at that time formally
   incorporated as the county of Westmoreland of the colony of
   Connecticut. … In the fall of 1776, two companies, on the
   Continental establishment, had been raised in the valley, in
   pursuance of a resolution of Congress, and were shortly
   thereafter ordered to join General Washington. Several
   stockaded forts had been built during the summer at different
   points. The withdrawal of so large a proportion of the
   able-bodied men as had been enlisted in the Continental
   service threw upon the old men who were left behind the duty
   of guarding the forts. … In March, 1778, another military
   company was organized, by authority of Congress, to be
   employed for home defence. In May, attacks were made upon the
   scouting parties by Indians, who were the forerunners of an
   invading army. The exposed situation of the settlement, the
   prosperity of the inhabitants, and the loyalty with which they
   had responded to the call for troops, demanded consideration
   from Connecticut, to whose quota the companies had been
   credited, and from Congress, in whose armies they had been
   incorporated; but no help came. On June 30th, an armed labor
   party of eight men, which went out from the upper fort, was
   attacked by Major Butler, who, with a force estimated by the
   American commander in his report at 800 men, Tories and
   Indians in equal numbers, had arrived in the valley. This
   estimate was not far from correct; but if we may judge from
   other raiding forces during the war, the proportion of whites
   is too large, for only a few local Tories had joined Butler.
   The little forts at the upper end of the valley offered no
   resistance to the invaders. On July 3d, there were collected
   at 'Forty Fort,' on the banks of the river, about three miles
   above Wilkesbarre, 230 Americans, organized in six companies
   (one of them being the company authorized by Congress for home
   defence), and commanded by Colonel Zebulon Butler, a resident
   in the valley and an officer in the Continental army. It was
   determined, after deliberation, to give battle. In the
   afternoon of that day, this body of volunteers, their number
   being swelled to nearly 300 by the addition of old men and
   boys, marched up the valley. The invaders had set fire to the
   forts of which they were in possession. This perplexed the
   Americans, as was intended, and they pressed on towards the
   spot selected by the English officer for giving battle. This
   was reached about four in the afternoon, and the attack was at
   once made by the Americans, who fired rapidly in platoons. The
   British line wavered, but a flanking fire from a body of
   Indians concealed in the woods settled the fate of the day
   against the Americans. They were thrown into confusion. No
   efforts of their officers could rally them while exposed to a
   fire which in a short time brought down every captain in the
   band. The Indians now cut off the retreat of the
   panic-stricken men, and pressed them towards the river. All
   who could saved their lives by flight. Of the 300 who went out
   that morning from Forty Fort, the names are recorded of 162
   officers and men killed in the action or in the massacre which
   followed.
{3260}
   Major Butler, the British officer in command, reported the
   taking of 'two hundred and twenty-seven scalps' 'and only five
   prisoners.' Such was the exasperation of the Indians,
   according to him, that it was with difficulty he saved these
   few. He gives the English loss at two whites killed and eight
   Indians wounded. During the night the worst passions of the
   Indians seem to have been aroused in revenge for Oriskany.
   Incredible tales are told of the inhumanity of the Tories.
   These measures of vengeance fell exclusively upon those who
   participated in the battle, for all women and children were
   spared. As soon as the extent of the disaster was made known,
   the inhabitants of the lower part of the valley deserted their
   homes, and fled in the direction of the nearest settlements.
   Few stayed behind who had strength and opportunity to escape.
   In their flight many of the fugitives neglected to provide
   themselves with provisions, and much suffering and some loss
   of life ensued. The fugitives from the field of battle took
   refuge in the forts lower down the valley. The next day,
   Colonel Zebulon Butler, with the remnants of the company for
   home defence, consisting of only fourteen men, escaped from
   the valley. Colonel Denison, in charge of Forty Fort,
   negotiated with Major Butler the terms of capitulation which
   were ultimately signed. In these it was agreed that the
   inhabitants should occupy their farms peaceably, and their
   lives should be preserved 'intire and unhurt.' With the
   exception that Butler executed a British deserter whom he
   found among the prisoners, no lives were taken at that time.
   Shortly thereafter, the Indians began to plunder, and the
   English commander, to his chagrin, found himself unable to
   check them. Miner even goes so far as to say that he promised
   to pay for the property thus lost. Finding his commands
   disregarded, Butler mustered his forces and withdrew, without
   visiting the lower part of the valley. The greater part of the
   Indians went with him, but enough remained to continue the
   devastation, while a few murders committed by straggling
   parties of Indians ended the tragedy. The whole valley was
   left a scene of desolation."

      _A. McF. Davis,
      The Indians and the Border Warfare of the Revolution
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 8)._

   "Rarely, indeed, does it happen that history is more at fault
   in regard to facts than in the case of Wyoming. The remark may
   be applied to nearly every writer who has attempted to narrate
   the events connected with the invasion of Colonel John Butler.
   Ramsay, and Gordon, and Marshall—nay, the British historians
   themselves—have written gross exaggerations. Marshall,
   however, in his revised edition, has made corrections. … Other
   writers, of greater or less note, have gravely recorded the
   same fictions, adding, it is to be feared, enormities not even
   conveyed to them by tradition. The grossest of these
   exaggerations are contained in Thatcher's Military Journal and
   Drake's Book of the Indians. The account of the marching out
   of a large body of Americans from one of the forts, to hold a
   parley, by agreement, and then being drawn into an ambuscade
   and all put to death, is false; the account of 70 Continental
   soldiers being butchered, after having surrendered, is also
   totally untrue. No regular troops surrendered, and all escaped
   who survived the battle of the 3d. … There is still another
   important correction to be made. … This correction regards the
   name and the just fame of Joseph Brant, whose character has
   been blackened with all the infamy, both real and imaginary,
   connected with this bloody expedition. Whether Captain Brant
   was at any time in company with this expedition is doubtful;
   but it is certain, in the face of every historical authority,
   British and American, that, so far from being engaged in the
   battle, he was many miles distant at the time of its
   occurrence. … It will, moreover, be seen, toward the close of
   the present work, that after the publication of Campbell's
   'Gertrude of Wyoming,' in which poem the Mohawk chieftain was
   denounced as 'the Monster Brant,' his son repaired to England,
   and, in a correspondence with the poet, successfully
   vindicated his father's memory."

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life of Joseph Brant,
      volume 1, page 339, foot-note, page 338 and footnote._

   "No lives were taken by the Indians after the surrender; but
   numbers of women and children perished in the dismal swamp on
   the Pokono range of mountains, in the flight. … The whole
   number of people killed and missing was about 300. … The
   greatest barbarities of this celebrated massacre were
   committed by the tories."

      _W. L. Stone,
      Poetry and History of Wyoming,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. Miner,
      History of Wyoming,
      Letters 17-18._

      _G. Peck,
      Wyoming._

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (July-November).
   The French fleet and army and their undertakings.
   Ill fortune and ill-feeling between the new allies.
   The failure at Newport.

   "The first minister of France to the United States, M. Gérard,
   came accompanied by a fleet and army, under D'Estaing, (July.)
   'Unforeseen and unfavorable circumstances,' as Washington
   wrote, 'lessened the importance of the French services in a
   great degree.' In the first place, the arrival was just late
   enough to miss the opportunity of surprising the British fleet
   in the Delaware, not to mention the British army on its
   retreat to New York. In the next place, the French vessels
   proved to be of too great draught to penetrate the channel and
   cooperate in an attack upon New York. Thus disappointing and
   disappointed, D'Estaing engaged in an enterprise against
   Newport, still in British hands. It proved another failure.
   But not through the French alone; the American troops that
   were to enter the island at the north being greatly
   behindhand. The same day that they took their place, under
   Sullivan, Greene, and Lafayette, the French left theirs at the
   lower end of the island, in order to meet the British fleet
   arriving from New York, (August 10.) A severe storm prevented
   more than a partial engagement; but D'Estaing returned to
   Newport only to plead the injuries received in the gale as
   compelling his retirement to Boston for repairs. The orders of
   the French government had been peremptory, that in case of any
   damage to the fleet it should put into port at once. So far
   was D'Estaing from avoiding action on personal grounds, that
   when Lafayette hurried to Boston to persuade his countrymen to
   return, the commander offered to serve as a volunteer until
   the fleet should be refitted. The Americans, however, talked
   of desertion and of inefficiency,—so freely, indeed, as to
   affront their faithful Lafayette.
{3261}
   At the same time, large numbers of them imitated the very
   course which they censured, by deserting their own army. The
   remaining forces retreated from their lines to the northern
   end of the island, and, after an engagement, withdrew to the
   mainland, (August 30.) It required all the good offices of
   Lafayette, of Washington, and of Congress, to keep the peace
   between the Americans and their allies. D'Estaing, soothed by
   the language of those whom he most respected, was provoked, on
   the other hand, by the hostility of the masses, both in the
   army and amongst the people. Collisions between his men and
   the Bostonians kept up his disgust; and, when his fleet was
   repaired, he sailed for the West Indies, (November.) … On the
   part of the British, there was nothing attempted that would
   not have been far better unattempted. Marauding parties from
   Newport went against New Bedford and Fairhaven. Others from
   New York went against Little Egg Harbor. Tories and Indians
   —'a collection of banditti,' as they were rightly styled by
   Washington, descended from the northern country to wreak
   massacre at Wyoming and at Cherry Valley. The war seemed to be
   assuming a new character: it was one of ravages unworthy of
   any cause, and most unworthy of such a cause as the British
   professed to be. Affairs were at a low state amongst the
   Americans."

      _S. Eliot,
      History of the United States,
      part 3, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      chapters 21-22 (volume 2)._

      _O. W. B. Peabody,
      Life of General John Sullivan
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 3)._

      _J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (December).
   Anxieties of Washington.
   His opinion of Congress.
   The serious defects and errors of that body.

   "Much of the winter was passed by Washington in Philadelphia,
   occupied in devising and discussing plans for the campaign of
   1779. It was an anxious moment with him. Circumstances which
   inspired others with confidence, filled him with solicitude.
   The alliance with France had produced a baneful feeling of
   security, which, it appeared to him, was paralyzing the
   energies of the country. England, it was thought, would now be
   too much occupied in securing her position in Europe, to
   increase her force or extend her operations in America. Many,
   therefore, considered the war as virtually at an end; and were
   unwilling to make the sacrifices, or supply the means
   necessary for important military undertakings. Dissensions,
   too, and party feuds were breaking out in Congress, owing to
   that relaxation of that external pressure of a common and
   imminent danger, which had heretofore produced a unity of
   sentiment and action. That august body had, in fact, greatly
   deteriorated since the commencement of the war. Many of those
   whose names had been as watchwords at the Declaration of
   Independence had withdrawn from the national councils;
   occupied either by their individual affairs, or by the affairs
   of their individual States. Washington, whose comprehensive
   patriotism embraced the whole Union, deprecated and deplored
   the dawning of this sectional spirit."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 38._

   The following, from a letter written by Washington in
   December, 1778, to Benjamin Harrison, Speaker of the Virginia
   House of Delegates, intimates the grave anxieties which filled
   his mind, and the opinion of Congress with which he had
   returned from a visit to Philadelphia:

   "It appears as clear to me as ever the Sun did in its meridian
   brightness, that America never stood in more eminent need of
   the wise, patriotic, and spirited exertions of her Sons than
   at this period; and if it is not a sufficient cause for
   general lamentation, my misconception of the matter impresses
   it too strongly upon me, that the States, separately, are too
   much engaged in their local concerns, and have too many of
   their ablest men withdrawn from the general council, for the
   good of the common weal. … As there can be no harm in a pious
   wish for the good of one's Country, I shall offer it as mine,
   that each State would not only choose, but absolutely compel
   their ablest men to attend Congress; and that they would
   instruct them to go into a thorough investigation of the
   causes, that have produced so many disagreeable effects in the
   army and Country; in a word, that public abuses should be
   corrected & an entire reformation worked. Without these, it
   does not in my Judgment require the spirit of divination to
   foretell the consequences of the present administration; nor
   to how little purpose the States individually are framing
   constitutions, providing laws, and filling offices with the
   abilities of their ablest men. These, if the great whole is
   mismanaged, must sink in the general wreck, and will carry
   with it the remorse of thinking, that we are lost by our own
   folly and negligence, or the desire perhaps of living in ease
   and tranquillity during the expected accomplishment of so
   great a revolution, in the effecting of which the greatest
   abilities, and the honestest men our (i. e. the American)
   world affords, ought to be employed. It is much to be feared,
   my dear Sir, that the States, in their separate capacities,
   have very inadequate ideas of the present danger. Removed
   (some of them) far distant from the scene of action, and
   seeing and hearing such publications only, as flatter their
   wishes, they conceive that the contest is at an end, and that
   to regulate the government and police of their own State is
   all that remains to be done; but it is devoutly to be wished,
   that a sad reverse of this may not fall upon them like a
   thunder-clap, that is little expected. I do not mean to
   designate particular States. I wish to cast no reflections
   upon any one. The Public believe (and, if they do believe it,
   the fact might almost as well be so), that the States at this
   time are badly represented, and that the great and important
   concerns of the nation are horribly conducted, for want either
   of abilities or application in the members, or through the
   discord & party views of some individuals. … P. S.
   Philadelphia: 30th. This letter was to have gone by Post from
   Middlebrook but missed that conveyance, since which I have
   come to this place at the request of Congress whence I shall
   soon return. I have seen nothing since I came here (on the 22d
   Inst.) to change my opinion of Men or Measrs., but abundant
   reason to be convinced that our affairs are in a more
   distressed, ruinous and deplorable condition than they have
   been in since the commencement of the War.—By a faithful
   laborer then in the cause—By a man who is daily injuring his
   private Estate without even the smallest earthly advantage not
   common to all in case of a favorable Issue to the dispute—By
   one who wishes the prosperity of America most devoutly and
   sees or thinks he sees it, on the brink of ruin, you are
   beseeched most earnestly, my dear Colonel Harrison, to exert
   yourself in endeavoring to rescue your Country by (let me add)
   sending your ablest and best Men to Congress—these characters
   must not slumber nor sleep at home in such times of pressing
   danger—they must not content themselves in the enjoyment of
   places of honor or profit in their own Country while the
   common interests of America are mouldering and sinking into
   irretrievable (if a remedy is not soon applied) ruin in which
   theirs also must ultimately be involved.
{3262}
   If I was to be called upon to draw a picture of the times and
   of Men, from what I have seen, and heard, and in part know, I
   should in one word say that idleness, dissipation &
   extravagance seems to have laid fast hold of most of
   them.—That speculation—peculation—and an insatiable thirst
   for riches seems to have got the better of every other
   consideration and almost of every order of Men.—That party
   disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the
   day whilst the momentous concerns of an empire—a great and
   accumulated debt—ruined finances—depreciated money—and want
   of credit (which in their consequences is the want of
   everything) are but secondary considerations and postponed
   from day to day—from week to week as if our affairs wear the
   most promising aspect—after drawing this picture, which from
   my Soul I believe to be a true one, I need not repeat to you
   that I am alarmed and wish to see my Countrymen roused.—I
   have no resentments, nor do I mean to point at any particular
   characters,—this I can declare upon my honor for I have every
   attention paid me by Congress that I can possibly expect and
   have reason to think that I stand well in their estimation,
   but in the present situation of things I cannot help asking—
   Where is Mason—Wythe—Jefferson—Nicholas—Pendleton—Nelson—and
   another I could name—and why, if you are sufficiently
   impressed with your danger do you not (as New York has done in
   the case of Mr. Jay) send an extra member or two for at least
   a certain limited time till the great business of the Nation
   is put upon a more respectable and happy establishment.—Your
   Money is now sinking 5 Pr. ct. a day in this city; and I shall
   not be surprized if in the course of a few months a total stop
   is put to the currency of it.—And yet an Assembly—a concert—a
   Dinner—or supper (that will cost three or four hundred pounds)
   will not only take Men off from acting in but even from thinking
   of this business while a great part of the Officers of ye Army
   from absolute necessity are quitting the service and ye more
   virtuous few rather than do this are sinking by sure degrees
   into beggary and want.—I again repeat to you that this is not
   an exaggerated acct.; that it is an alarming one I do not
   deny, and confess to you that I feel more real distress on
   account of the prest. appearances of things than I have done
   at any one time since the commencement of the dispute—but it
   is time to bid you once more adieu.—Providence has heretofore
   taken me up when all other means and hope seemed to be
   departing from me in this."

      _George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W: C. Ford,
      volume 7, pages 297-303._

   "The first Continental Congress enjoyed and deserved in a
   remarkable degree the respect and confidence of the country.
   The second Congress was composed of eminent men, and
   succeeded, for a time, to the honors and reputation of the
   first. But when it attempted to pass from discussion to
   organization, and to direct as well as to frame the machinery
   of administration, its delays and disputes and errors and
   contradictions and hesitations excited a well-founded distrust
   of its executive skill. Conscious of this distrust, it became
   jealous of its authority; and instead of endeavoring to
   regain, by correcting its errors, the ground which it had lost
   by committing them, it grew suspicious and exacting in
   proportion to the decay of its strength. And while this
   critical change in its relations to the country was taking
   place, important changes took place also in the materials of
   which it was composed,—some of its wisest members being
   removed by death, or imperative calls to other fields of duty,
   or by failing of re-election at the regular expiration of
   their terms of office. Among the first elements with which it
   was brought into collision were the newly organized
   governments of the States. The question of State rights, that
   unsolved problem of our history, begins almost with the
   beginning of the war. How abundant and active the materials of
   disunion were, and how difficult it was even for leading men
   to rise above them might be proved by numerous passages in the
   letters of Washington and Greene, if it were not still more
   evident from the conduct of the local legislatures. How far
   this spirit might have been counteracted or controlled if the
   policy of the Congress had been that policy of prompt decision
   and energetic action which, commanding respect at all times,
   commands in times of general danger general and implicit
   obedience, it is impossible to say. … Another element with
   which it was brought into immediate and constant relations was
   the army; and, unfortunately for both, these relations, from
   their very nature, brought into immediate and constant
   contrast the elements of opposition which they both contained,
   rather than the elements of harmonious action, which they also
   contained in an almost equal degree. If the Congress was
   composed of the representatives of the people, the army was
   composed in a large proportion of the constituents of the
   Congress. More than once also, during the course of the war,
   men who had done good work for their country as soldiers,
   withdrawing from their original field of action, did equally
   good service for her as statesmen. And more than once, too,
   men who had proved themselves wise and eloquent in counsel
   were found at the head of a regiment, or even in more
   subordinate positions in the army. … The real interest and the
   real object of the citizen in arms and of the citizen in the
   toga were still the same. But their point of view was
   different. The ever-present object of Congress was discussion
   as a means of organization. The ever-present object of the
   leaders of the army was decision as a means of action.
   Congress counted obstacles, weighed difficulties, balanced
   opposing advantages, eating and sleeping meanwhile and
   refreshing mind and body as nature bade. But while Congress
   was deliberating upon the best way of procuring meat, the army
   was often brought to the verge of starvation for the want of
   it. While Congress was discussing by a warm fire the most
   eligible method of providing the army with tents and blankets,
   half the army was sleeping on the snow without either blanket
   or tent.
{3263}
   While Congress was framing elaborate resolutions, and drawing
   out and equipping regiments upon paper, officers in the field
   were standing disheartened before their thinned and
   disheartened ranks. … Errors of statesmanship, like errors of
   generalship, would easily have been forgiven and forgotten;
   for both statesmen and generals had still much to learn.
   Unfortunately, while the best generals strove earnestly to
   correct their errors by their experience, Congress, in too
   many things, clung obstinately to its errors, in spite of the
   most decisive experience. Those errors were twofold,—errors of
   policy and errors of principle,—the one tending to undermine
   the respect which, in the beginning, was felt for their
   wisdom; the other, to awaken a general distrust of their
   justice. The first year of the war demonstrated the danger of
   short enlistments and temporary levies. But more than half the
   second year was allowed to pass before it was decided to raise
   an army for the whole duration of the war. The first campaign
   demonstrated the necessity of providing by regularly organized
   departments for the food, clothing, and transportation of the
   army; but it was not till late in the second year that a board
   of war was organized; and not till later still that the
   Quartermaster-General and Commissary-General were allowed to
   devote themselves to their duty in camp, instead of waiting
   idly for orders at the door of Congress. All experience and
   the simplest reasoning showed the importance of strengthening
   the hands of their General by passing promptly all the acts
   needed for the conduct of an army in the field, or the support
   and instruction of an army in quarters; but, in spite of all
   experience and the plainest reason, Congress persisted in its
   unseasonable delays. … The policy of the Congress, in the
   organization and support of the army, was a policy of
   tergiversation and delay. No wonder that the army, leaders and
   all, should early lose their confidence in its wisdom! But the
   dissatisfaction did not end here. One of the earliest felt of
   the numerous wants of the army was the want of good officers.
   … To select them in the beginning from the mass of unproved
   candidates was impossible; but in the course of two campaigns,
   the characters and pretensions of men were well tried, the
   chaff thoroughly sifted, and what remained might be
   confidently accepted as sound. … It was evidently the policy
   of Congress to secure by all proper and reasonable inducements
   the services of such officers for the war. It was the duty of
   Congress, in its dealings with them, to remember that in
   becoming soldiers, and exposing themselves to the dangers and
   privations of a soldier's life, they adopted, with the ideas
   of subordination that lie at the basis of military discipline,
   the ideas of rank and grade which define and circumscribe that
   subordination. But Congress remembered nothing of this. It
   required of them the service of officers, but gave them a pay
   hardly sufficient to enable them to live like private
   soldiers. It demanded the present sacrifice of cold, hunger,
   hard service, and exposure to sickness, wounds, and death; and
   refused the prospective reward of half-pay or pension when
   sickness or wounds should have incapacitated them for further
   exertion, or death should have made their wives unprotected
   widows, and their children helpless orphans. Forgetting that
   pride is an essential element of the military character, and
   that self-respect is essential to a healthy and sustaining
   pride, it trifled with their claims to rank by the accepted
   rules of service, and claimed and exercised the power of
   dealing with commissions according to its own good pleasure."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Clark's conquest of the Northwest for Virginia, and its
   annexation to the district of Kentucky.

   "Virginia … had more western enterprise than any other colony.
   In 1774 Dunmore's war gave her the 'back-lands,' into which
   her frontiersmen had been for some time pressing. Boone was a
   Carolinian, but Kentucky was a distinctively Virginia colony.
   In 1776 the Virginia legislature erected the County of
   Kentucky, and the next year a Virginia judge dispensed justice
   at Harrodsburg. Soon the colony was represented in the
   legislature of the parent state. While thus extending her
   jurisdiction over the region southwest of the Ohio, the Old
   Dominion did not forget the language of [her charter] of 1609,
   'up into the land throughout from sea to sea, west and
   northwest.' George Rogers Clark, a Virginian who had made
   Kentucky his home, was endowed with something of the general's
   and statesman's grasp. While floating down the Ohio in 1776,
   being then 24 years of age, he conceived the conquest of the
   country beyond the river. … Clark says he had since the
   beginning of the war taken pains to make himself acquainted
   with the true situation of the Northwestern posts; and in 1777
   he sent two young hunters to spy out the country more
   thoroughly, and especially to ascertain the sentiments of the
   'habitants.' On the return of these hunters with an
   encouraging report, he went to Williamsburg, then the capital
   of Virginia, where he enlisted Governor Patrick Henry and
   other leading minds in a secret expedition to the Illinois.
   Acting under a vaguely worded law, authorizing him to aid 'any
   expedition against their Western enemies,' Governor Henry gave
   Clark some vague public instructions, directing him to enlist,
   in any county of the commonwealth, seven companies of men who
   should act under his command as a militia, and also private
   instructions that were much more full and definite. … Both the
   public and private instructions are dated January 2, 1778. The
   governor also gave the young captain a small supply of money.
   Clark immediately re-crossed the mountains and began to
   recruit his command. … Overcoming as best he could the
   difficulties that environed him, he collected his feeble
   command at the Falls of the Ohio. On June 26, 1778, he began
   the descent of the river. Leaving the Ohio at Fort Massac,
   forty miles above its mouth, he began the march to Kaskaskia.
   This fell into his hands, July 5th, and Cahokia soon after,
   both without the loss of a single life. Clark found few
   Englishmen in these villages, and the French, who were weary
   of British rule, he had little difficulty in attaching to the
   American interest. Vincennes, soon after, surrendered to a
   mere proclamation, when there was not an American soldier
   within one hundred miles of the place. … Clark prevailed upon
   100 men to re-enlist for eight months; he then filled up his
   companies with recruits from the villages, and sent an urgent
   call to Virginia for re-enforcements. The salutary influence
   of the invasion upon the Indians was felt at once; it 'began
   to spread among the nations even to the border of the lakes;'
   and in five weeks Clark settled a peace with ten or twelve
   different tribes. …
{3264}
   And now Clark began really to feel the difficulties of his
   situation. Destitute of money, poorly supplied, commanding a
   small and widely scattered force, he had to meet and
   circumvent an active enemy who was determined to regain what
   he had lost. Governor Hamilton [the British governor at
   Detroit] projected a grand campaign against the French towns
   that had been captured and the small force that held them. The
   feeble issue was the capture, in December, 1778, of Vincennes,
   which was occupied by but two Americans. Clark, who was in the
   Illinois at the time of this disaster, at once put his little
   force in motion for the Wabash, knowing, he says, that if he
   did not take Hamilton, Hamilton would take him; and, February
   25, 1779, at the end of a march of 250 miles, that ranks in
   peril and hardship with Arnold's winter march to Canada, he
   again captured the town, the fort, the governor, and his whole
   command. Hamilton was sent to Virginia a prisoner of war,
   where he was found guilty of treating American prisoners with
   cruelty, and of offering the Indians premiums for scalps, but
   none for prisoners." Clark was ambitious to extend his march
   to Detroit, but could not compass the necessary means.
   "'Detroit lost for a few hundred men,' was his pathetic lament
   as he surrendered an enterprise that lay near his heart. Had
   he been able to achieve it, he would have won and held the
   whole Northwest. As it was he won and held the Illinois and
   the Wabash in the name of Virginia and of the United States.
   The bearing of this conquest on the question of western
   boundaries will be considered in another place, but here it is
   pertinent to remark that the American Commissioners, in 1782,
   at Paris, could plead 'uti possidetis' in reference to much of
   the country beyond the Ohio, for the flag of the Republic,
   raised over it by George Rogers Clark, had never been lowered.
   It would not be easy to find in our history a case of an
   officer accomplishing results that were so great and
   far-reaching with so small a force. Clark's later life is
   little to his credit, but it should not be forgotten that he
   rendered the American cause and civilization a very great
   service. All this time the British were not idle. War-party
   after war-party was sent against the American border. In 1780
   a grand expedition was organized at Detroit and sent to
   Kentucky under the command of Captain Bird. But it
   accomplished nothing commensurate with its magnitude and cost.
   … The Northwest had been won by a Virginia army, commanded by
   a Virginia officer, put in the field at Virginia's expense.
   Governor Henry had promptly announced the conquest to the
   Virginia delegates in Congress. … But before Patrick Henry
   wrote this letter, Virginia had welded the last link in her
   chain of title to the country beyond the Ohio. In October,
   1778, her Legislature declared: 'All the citizens of the
   commonwealth of Virginia, who are actually settlers there, or
   who shall hereafter be settled, on the west side of the Ohio,
   shall be included in the district of Kentucky which shall be
   called Illinois County.' Nor was this all. Soon after,
   Governor Henry appointed a lieutenant-commandant for the new
   county, with full instructions for carrying on the government.
   The French settlements remained under Virginia jurisdiction
   until March, 1784."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Clark's Campaign in the Illinois
      (Ohio Valley History Series, 3)._

      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      chapter 7._

      _A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 16-18._

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 2, chapters 2-3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The French Alliance.
   Peril of France.
   Doubtful feeling in America.
   Spanish mediation with England.

   "From the third volume of Doniol's comprehensive work on the
   'Participation de la France a l'etablissement des Ètats Unis,'
   published in 1888, we are able to learn for the first time the
   extreme peril of France in 1778-1779. When Vergennes advised
   the recognition of the independence of the United States, it
   was on the same grounds that Canning advised the recognition
   of the independence of the Spanish South American States many
   years afterwards. The fair distribution of power in the
   civilized world, which was threatened in the latter period by
   the Holy Alliance, was threatened in the former period by the
   assumption of maritime supremacy by Britain. In each the
   object was to call up a new sovereignty in America, so as to
   check an undue concentration of sovereignty in Europe,
   Undoubtedly Vergennes was aided, as Canning was aided, by the
   enthusiasm felt by men of liberal views for a revolution that
   was expected to extend the domain of liberalism; but with
   Vergennes, as with Canning, the object was the establishing of
   a power abroad which could resist a dangerous aggression at
   home. When in February, 1778, France acknowledged the
   independence of the United States, Vergennes had good reason
   to hold either that Britain would not resent the insult by
   war, or that she would find that in such a war the odds were
   against her. A British army had just capitulated at Saratoga.
   America, so it was reported to Vergennes and so he believed,
   was unanimous in determining to defend her liberties to the
   last. In Holland there was a strong party which was expected
   to force the States-General into a recognition of their sister
   republic. Spain had already secretly advanced a million of
   francs to the American commissioners. From Frederick the
   Great, delighted to see his British relatives, who had not
   always supported him in his troubles, annoyed by a revolt in
   their own domain, came words very encouraging to the American
   envoys. Catharine II listened with apparent satisfaction to a
   scheme which would relieve her infant shipping from British
   oppression. It looked as if, should Britain declare war
   against France, she would have against her the armies and
   navies of all continental Europe, aided by the people of her
   American Colonies in a compact mass. But in a few months there
   came a great change. The British army under Howe was so
   largely reenforced as for the immediate present to give it a
   great superiority over any army Congress could bring against
   it in open field. … It is true that the news in April of the
   French treaty revived the energies of the revolutionists; but
   this treaty had its drawbacks, as the old dislike of France,
   in part inherited from England, in part the product of the
   Seven-years war, intensified the yearning for the mother
   country which in many hearts still remained. French officers
   complained that on their first arrival in New England they
   were received with sullen aversion by the people, though
   welcomed by the revolutionary leaders.
{3265}
   The French army and navy, for the first year in which they
   were engaged in America, did no good to the American cause;
   and so great was the popular irritation at their inactivity,
   so strong, it was said, continued to be the old race
   attachment to England, that intelligent French observers in
   America advised Vergennes that he must move warily, for at any
   moment America might make a separate peace with Britain and
   then join the British forces against France. No doubt these
   reports, so far as they pronounced this to be the drift of a
   large minority in Congress, were unfounded in fact. They were
   nevertheless communicated under high sanction to Vergennes,
   and produced in his mind the liveliest anxiety. … English
   influence had for a time regained its ascendency in Holland.
   Prussia and Russia, having tasted the delights of neutral
   commerce, let it be plainly understood that they would not
   abandon a neutrality so profitable for the risks of
   belligerency. And Spain had taken alarm and was backing out
   not merely from the family compact, but from her recent
   promise to aid the insurgents. Aiding the insurgents, her
   minister declared, would be cutting her own throat, and no aid
   to the insurgents should be given except on a very heavy
   equivalent. If France was to meet the shock of the British
   navy alone she might be swept from the seas, and, aside from
   this danger, her finances were in such a ruinous condition
   that her bankruptcy was imminent. One of two courses must be
   adopted, not only to save France but to save the independence
   of the United States and the consequent equipoise of power for
   which France has gone to war. There must be either a general
   peace, which would include the independence of the United
   States, or there must be war, with Spain joining the allies. …
   It was in this condition of affairs that the position of Spain
   in 1778-1779 became of commanding importance. She offered
   herself as mediator between the allies and their common enemy,
   and through her the terms of pacification were discussed. In
   the negotiations, protracted and on both sides largely
   insincere, between Spain and Britain relative to the proposed
   pacification, the winter of 1778-1779 was consumed."

      _F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of the United States,
      chapter 5, section 86 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The War carried into the South.
   Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.

   Towards the end of November, 1778, a "body of troops, under
   Lieutenant-colonel Campbell, sailed [from New York] for
   Georgia In the squadron of Commodore Hyde Parker; the British
   cabinet having determined to carry the war into the Southern
   States. At the same time General Prevost, who commanded in
   Florida, was ordered by Sir Henry Clinton to march to the
   banks of the Savannah River, and attack Georgia in flank,
   while the expedition under Campbell should attack it in front
   on the seaboard. … The squadron of Commodore Hyde Parker
   anchored in the Savannah River towards the end of December. An
   American force of about 600 regulars, and a few militia under
   General Robert Howe, were encamped near the town, being the
   remnant of an army with which that officer had invaded
   Florida, in the preceding summer, but had been obliged to
   evacuate it by a mortal malady which desolated his camp.
   Lieutenant-colonel Campbell landed his troops on the 29th of
   December, about three miles below the town. The whole country
   bordering the river is a deep morass, cut up by creeks, and
   only to be traversed by causeways. Over one of these, 600
   yards in length, with a ditch on each side, Colonel Campbell
   advanced, putting to flight a small party stationed to guard
   it. General Howe had posted his little army on the main road,
   with the river on his left and a morass in front. A negro gave
   Campbell information of a path leading through the morass, by
   which troops might get unobserved to the rear of the
   Americans. Sir James Baird was detached with the light
   infantry by this path, while Colonel Campbell advanced in
   front. The Americans, thus suddenly attacked in front and
   rear, were completely routed; upwards of 100 were either
   killed on the spot, or perished in the morass; 38 officers and
   415 privates were taken prisoners, the rest retreated up the
   Savannah River and crossed into South Carolina. Savannah, the
   capital of Georgia, was taken possession of by the victors,
   with cannon, military stores and provisions; their loss was
   only seven killed and nineteen wounded. Colonel Campbell
   conducted himself with great moderation; protecting the
   persons and property of the inhabitants, and proclaiming
   security and favor to all that should return to their
   allegiance. Numbers in consequence flocked to the British
   standard: the lower part of Georgia was considered as subdued,
   and posts were established by the British to maintain
   possession. While Colonel Campbell had thus invaded Georgia in
   front, General Prevost" entered the State from Florida, "took
   Sunbury, the only remaining fort of importance, and marched to
   Savannah, where he assumed the general command, detaching
   Colonel Campbell against Augusta. By the middle of January
   (1779) all Georgia was reduced to submission. A more
   experienced American general than Howe had by this time
   arrived to take command of the Southern Department,
   Major-general Lincoln, who had gained such reputation in the
   campaign against Burgoyne, and whose appointment to this
   station had been solicited by the delegates from South
   Carolina and Georgia. He had received his orders from
   Washington in the beginning of October."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 37._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Washington guarding the Hudson.
   The storming of Stony Point.
   Marauding warfare of the British.

   "After Clinton slipped away from Monmouth and sought refuge in
   New York, Washington took post at convenient points and
   watched the movements of the enemy. In this way the summer
   passed. As always, Washington's first object was to guard the
   Hudson, and while he held this vital point firmly, he waited,
   ready to strike elsewhere if necessary. It looked for a time
   as if the British intended to descend on Boston, seize the
   town, and destroy the French fleet, which had gone there to
   refit. Such was the opinion of Gates, then commanding in that
   department, and as Washington inclined to the same belief, the
   fear of this event gave him many anxious moments.
{3266}
   He even moved his troops so as to be in readiness to march
   eastward at short notice; but he gradually became convinced
   that the enemy had no such plan. … The main army, therefore,
   remained quiet, and when the autumn had passed went into
   winter-quarters in well-posted detachments about New York. In
   December Clinton made an ineffectual raid [in New Jersey], and
   then all was peaceful again, and Washington was able to go to
   Philadelphia and struggle with Congress, leaving his army more
   comfortable and secure than they had been in any previous
   winter. … He now hoped and believed that the moment would come
   when, by uniting his army with the French, he should be able
   to strike the decisive blow. Until that time came, however, he
   knew that he could do nothing on a great scale, and he felt
   that meantime the British, abandoning practically the eastern
   and middle States, would make one last desperate struggle for
   victory, and would make it in the south. Long before anyone
   else, he appreciated this fact, and saw a peril looming large
   in that region. … All this, however, did not change his own
   plans one jot. He believed that the south must work out its
   own salvation, as New York and New England had done with
   Burgoyne, and he felt sure that in the end it would be
   successful. But he would not go south, nor take his army
   there. … The British might overrun the north or invade the
   south, but he would stay where he was, with his grip upon New
   York and the Hudson River. The tide of invasion might ebb and
   flow in this region or that, but the British were doomed if
   they could not divide the eastern colonies from the others.
   When the appointed hour came, he was ready to abandon
   everything and strike the final and fatal blow; but until then
   he waited and stood fast with his army, holding the great
   river in his grasp. He felt much more anxiety about the south
   than he had felt about the north, and expected Congress to
   consult him as to a commander, having made up his mind that
   Greene was the man to send. But Congress still believed in
   Gates, who had been making trouble for Washington all winter;
   and so Gates was sent, and Congress in due time got their
   lesson, and found once more that Washington understood men
   better than they did. In the north the winter was
   comparatively uneventful. The spring passed, and in June
   Clinton came out and took possession of Stony Point and
   Verplanck's Point, and began to fortify them. It looked a
   little as if Clinton might intend to get control of the Hudson
   by slow approaches, fortifying, and then advancing until he
   reached West Point. With this in mind, Washington at once
   determined to check the British by striking sharply at one of
   their new posts. Having made up his mind, he sent for Wayne
   and asked him if he would storm Stony Point. Tradition says
   that Wayne replied, 'I will storm hell, if you will plan it.'
   A true tradition, probably, in keeping with Wayne's character,
   and pleasant to us to-day as showing with a vivid gleam of
   rough human speech the utter confidence of the army in their
   leader, that confidence which only a great soldier can
   inspire. So Washington planned, and Wayne stormed [July 15,
   1779], and Stony Point fell. It was a gallant and brilliant
   feat of arms, one of the most brilliant of the war. Over 500
   prisoners were taken, the guns were carried off, and the works
   destroyed, leaving the British to begin afresh with a good
   deal of increased caution and respect. Not long after, Harry
   Lee stormed Paulus Hook with equal success, and the British
   were checked and arrested, if they intended any extensive
   movement. On the frontier, Sullivan, after some delays, did
   his work effectively. … In these various ways Clinton's circle
   of activity was steadily narrowed, but it may be doubted
   whether he had any coherent plan. The principal occupation of
   the British was to send out marauding expeditions and cut off
   outlying parties. Tryon burned and pillaged in Connecticut [at
   New Haven, Fairfield and Norwalk], Matthews in Virginia [at
   Norfolk, Portsmouth and elsewhere], and others on a smaller
   scale elsewhere in New Jersey and New York. … It was enough
   for Washington to hold fast to the great objects he had in
   view, to check Clinton and circumscribe his movements.
   Steadfastly he did this through the summer and winter of
   1779."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 38-40,
      and volume 4, chapter 1._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 31._

      _J. Armstrong,
      Life of Anthony Wayne
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 4)._

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Major-General Anthony Wayne,
      chapter 5_

      _G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathaniel Greene,
      book 3, chapters 3-7 (volume. 2)._

      See, also, WEST POINT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (August-September).
   General Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

   For the purpose of putting an end to the destructive and
   bloody incursions of Tories and Indians from western New York,
   directed against the border settlements of that state and
   Pennsylvania—as at Cherry Valley and Wyoming—General
   Washington, in the early part of the year 1779, determined
   upon a measure for carrying the war into the home of the
   invaders. "The command was entrusted to General Sullivan. The
   army organized for the expedition was in three divisions. That
   part of it under the immediate command of General Sullivan,
   coming from Pennsylvania, ascended the Susquehannah to Tioga
   Point. Another division under the command of General James
   Clinton, constructing batteaux at Schenectady, ascended the
   Mohawk and rendezvoused at Canajoharrie, opened a road to the
   head of Otsego Lake, and from thence proceeded in a formidable
   fleet of over 200 batteaux, to Tioga Point, forming a junction
   with the force under General Sullivan, on the 22d of August.
   Previous to the arrival of General Clinton, Sullivan had sent
   forward a detachment which fell in with a scouting party of
   Indians, and a skirmish ensued. The combined forces amounted
   to 5,000 men. The expedition had been so long preparing, and
   upon the march, that the enemy were well apprized of an that
   was going on. Their plan of defence contemplated a decisive
   engagement upon the Chemung river. For this purpose the
   Rangers and regular British troops, under the command of
   Colonel John Butler, Colonels Guy and Sir John Johnson, Major
   Walter N. Butler and Captain M'Donald, and the Indians under
   Brant, had concentrated their forces upon a bend of the river,
   near the present village of Elmira [then called Newtown],
   where they had thrown up a long breast work of logs. The
   united forces of the British allies, as computed by General
   Sullivan, was about 1,500.
{3267}
   Having ascertained their position, General Sullivan marched in
   full force and attacked them in the forenoon of the 29th of
   August. … The battle had been waged about two hours, when the
   British and Indians perceiving their forces inadequate, and
   that a maneuver to surround them was likely to be successful,
   broke and fled in great disorder. 'This,' says John Salmon, of
   Livingston county, who belonged to the expedition and gave an
   account of it to the author of the Life of .Mary Jemison, 'was
   the only regular stand made by the Indians. In their retreat
   they were pursued by our men to the Narrows, where they were
   attacked and killed in great numbers, so that the sides of the
   rocks next the River looked as if blood had been poured on
   them by pailfuls.' The details of all that transpired in this
   campaign are before the public in so many forms, that their
   repetition here is unnecessary. The route of the army was via
   'French Catherine's Town,' head of Seneca Lake, down the east
   shore of the Lake to the Indian village of Kanadesaga (Old
   Castle), and from thence to Canandaigua, Honeoye, head of
   Conesus Lake, to Groveland. The villages destroyed (with the
   apple trees and growing crops of the Indians,) were at
   Catherinestown, Kendai, or 'Apple Town' on the east side of
   the Lake, eleven miles from its foot, Kanadesaga, Honeoye,
   Conesus, Canascraga, Little Beard's Town, Big Tree, Canawagus,
   and on the return of the army, Scawyace, a village between the
   Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, and several other Cayuga villages. …
   The march of Sullivan, the devastations committed by his army,
   would at this distant period seem like Vandalism, in the
   absence of the consideration that he was acting under strict
   orders; and that those orders were approved, if not dictated,
   by Washington. The campaign was a matter of necessity; to be
   effectual, it was not only necessary that its acts should be
   retaliatory and retributive, but that the haunts, the
   retreats, of a foe so ruthless, must be broken up. The object
   was to destroy all the means of subsistence of the Senecas,
   desolate their homes, prevent their return to them, and if
   possible, induce their permanent retreat beyond the Niagara
   River. The imprudence, the want of sagacity, which Colonel
   Stone has imputed to General Sullivan in alarming every
   village he approached by the sound of his cannon, the author
   conceives a misapprehension of his motives. Stealthy, quiet
   approaches, would have found as victims, in every village, the
   old men, the women and children—the warriors away, banded with
   their British allies. Humanity dictated the forewarning, that
   those he did not come to war against could have time to flee.
   … The march of General Sullivan, after leaving the Chemung,
   was bloodless, except in a small degree—just as it should have
   been, if he could not make victims of those he was sent to
   punish. The third expedition of this campaign, which has
   generally been lost sight of by historians, was that of
   General Broadhead. He left Fort Pitt in August with 600 men,
   and destroyed several Mingo and Muncey tribes living on the
   Allegany, French Creek, and other tributaries of the Ohio. The
   heavy artillery that General Sullivan brought as far as
   Newton, would indicate that Niagara was originally the
   destination. There the General and his officers, seeing how
   long it had taken to reach that point, in an probability
   determined that too much of the season had been wasted, to
   allow of executing their tasks in the Indian country, making
   their roads and moving the army and all its appointments to
   Niagara before the setting in of winter. Besides, before the
   army had reached the valley of the Chemung, the fact was
   ascertained that there would be a failure in a contemplated
   junction with the army under General Broadhead. After the
   expedition of General Sullivan, the Indians never had any
   considerable permanent re-occupancy of their villages east of
   the Genesee river. They settled down after a brief flight, in
   their villages on the west side of the river in the
   neighborhood of Geneseo, Mt. Morris and Avon, and at Gardeau,
   Canadea, Tonawanda, Tuscarora, Buffalo Creek, Cattaraugus and
   Allegany."

      _O. Turner,
      History of the Pioneer Settlement
      of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase,
      part 1, chapter 4._

   "In his general orders of the 17th of October, General
   Washington announced to the army the result of the expedition,
   as follows: 'The Commander-in-chief has now the pleasure of
   congratulating the army on the complete and full success of
   Major General Sullivan, and the troops under his command,
   against the Seneca and other tribes of the Six Nations, as a
   just and necessary punishment for their wanton depredations,
   their unparalleled and innumerable cruelties, their deafness
   to all remonstrances and entreaty, and their perseverance in
   the most horrid acts of barbarity. Forty of their towns have
   been reduced to ashes, some of them large and commodious; that
   of the Genesee alone containing one hundred and twenty-eight
   houses. Their crops of corn have been entirely destroyed,
   which, by estimation, it is said, would have provided 160,000
   bushels, besides large quantities of vegetables of various
   kinds. Their whole country has been overrun and laid waste,
   and they themselves compelled to place their security in a
   precipitate flight to the British fortress at Niagara. And the
   whole of this has been done with the loss of less than forty
   men on our part, including the killed, wounded, captured, and
   those who died natural deaths. The troops employed in this
   expedition, both officers and men, throughout the whole of it,
   and in the action they had with the enemy, manifested a
   patience, perseverance and valor that do them the highest
   honor. In the course of it, when there still remained a large
   extent of the enemy's country to be prostrated, it became
   necessary to lessen the issues of provisions to half the usual
   allowance. In this the troops acquiesced with a most general
   and cheerful concurrence, being fully determined to surmount
   every obstacle, and to prosecute the enterprise to a complete
   and successful issue. Major General Sullivan, for his great
   perseverance and activity, for his order of march and attack,
   and the whole of his dispositions; the Brigadiers and officers
   of all ranks, and the whole of the soldiers engaged in the
   expedition, merit and have the Commander-in-chief's warmest
   acknowledgements for their important services upon this
   occasion.' On the 9th of November, 1779, General Sullivan
   wrote to the President of Congress: 'It is with the deepest
   regret I find myself compelled to request from Congress
   liberty to retire from the army. My health is so much impaired
   by a violent bilious disorder, which seized me in the
   commencement and continued during the whole of the western
   expedition, that I have not the smallest hope of a perfect
   recovery.' …
{3268}
   General Sullivan, in transmitting to Congress an official
   account of his operations, reported that … 'Every creek and
   river has been traced, and the whole country explored in
   search of Indian settlements, and I am well persuaded that,
   except one town situated near the Alleghany, about fifty-eight
   miles from Chinesee, there is not a single town left in the
   country of the Five Nations. … I flatter myself that the
   orders with which I was entrusted are fully executed, as we
   have not left a single settlement or field of corn in the
   country of the Five Nations, or is there even the appearance
   of an Indian on this side of Niagara. Messengers and small
   parties have been constantly passing, and some imprudent
   soldiers who straggled from the army mistook the route and
   went back almost to Chinesee without discovering even the
   track of an Indian.' Sullivan was mistaken in regard to the
   destruction of all the Indian towns as there were several
   small villages undiscovered by his troops. The principal
   villages, however, and probably nine-tenths of the growing
   crops, upon which the Indians had depended for sustenance
   during the following winter, were effectually destroyed. …
   While Sullivan fully accomplished the task given him to
   perform, the results expected were not fully realized. The
   power of the savages had been weakened, but they were not
   entirely subdued until years afterward, when 'Mad Anthony
   Wayne' defeated the confederated bands of the Indians of the
   west, in 1794, a measure which thoroughly humbled the Indians
   of Western New York, and gave to the settlers peace and
   security. Sullivan's expedition was fruitful of great results
   in other ways, however, than the temporary subjugation of the
   Indians. The fertile and beautiful country now forming the
   western part of the State of New York, was then an unknown
   wilderness, and its value and attractiveness were first made
   known to the white people through this expedition. … Soon
   after the close of the war the tide of emigration commenced to
   flow westward. From the New England States, Pennsylvania and
   New Jersey, came hardy pioneers, led on by the glowing
   accounts they had heard of the new country, and the vicinity
   of the inland lakes, the borders of the flowing streams, the
   forest-covered hills became the dwelling places of a rapidly
   growing band of settlers. The road which Sullivan had opened
   from the Susquehanna valley was followed by many of the
   settlers, even to the banks of the Genesee. Thus many of those
   who had shared the perils and privations of Sullivan's
   expedition against the Indian tribes of Western New York,
   afterward became settlers of the land they had aided to
   conquer."

      _A. T. Norton,
      History of Sullivan's Campaign against the Iroquois,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. L. Doty,
      History of Livingston County, New York,
      chapter 7._

      _O. W. B. Peabody,
      Life of John Sullivan
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume. 3), chapter 7._

      _Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John
      Sullivan, with records of Centennial Celebrations
      (including Historical Address by Reverend David Craft,
      pages 331-388)._

      _J. E. Seaver,
      Life of Mary Jemison,
      appendix 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (September).
   Paul Jones' great sea-fight.
   The Bon Homme Richard and the Serapis.

   "Near the end of July [1779], Paul Jones, a Scot by birth, in
   the service of the United States, sailed from l'Orient as
   commander of a squadron, consisting of the Poor Richard ['Bon
   Homme Richard,' Jones named her, in compliment to Franklin and
   to the language of the country from which Franklin's influence
   procured the ship] of 40 guns, many of them unserviceable; the
   Alliance of 36 guns, both American ships-of-war; the Pallas, a
   French frigate of 32; and the Vengeance, a French brig of 12
   guns. They ranged the western coast of Ireland, turned
   Scotland, and, cruising off Flamborough Head, descried the
   British merchant fleet from the Baltic, under the convoy of
   the Serapis of 44 guns and the Countess of Scarborough of 20
   guns. An hour after sunset, on the 23d of September, the
   Serapis, having a great superiority in strength, engaged the
   Poor Richard. Paul Jones, after suffering exceedingly in a
   contest of an hour and a half within musket-shot, bore down
   upon his adversary, whose anchor he hooked to his own quarter.
   The muzzles of their guns touched each other's sides. Jones
   could use only three nine-pounders beside muskets from the
   round-tops, but combustible matters were thrown into every
   part of the Serapis, which was on fire no less than ten or
   twelve times. There were moments when both ships were on fire.
   After a two-hours' conflict in the first watch of the night,
   the Serapis struck its flag. Jones raised his pendant on the
   captured frigate, and the next day had but time to transfer to
   it his wounded men and his crew before the Poor Richard went
   down. The French frigate engaged and captured the Countess of
   Scarborough. The Alliance, which from a distance had raked the
   Serapis during the action, not without injuring the Poor
   Richard, had not a man injured. On the fourth of October the
   squadron entered the Texel with its prizes. The British
   ambassador, of himself and again under instructions, reclaimed
   the captured British ships and their crews, 'who had been
   taken by the pirate Paul Jones of Scotland, a rebel and a
   traitor.' 'They,' he insisted, 'are to be treated as pirates
   whose letters of marque have not emanated from a sovereign
   power.' The grand pensionary would not apply the name of
   pirate to officers bearing the commissions of congress. In
   spite of the stadholder, the squadron enjoyed the protection
   of a neutral port."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, page 350._

      ALSO IN.
      _A. S. Mackenzie,
      Life of Paul Jones,
      chapters 8-9 (volume 1)._

      _Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones,
      pages 179-235._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 24._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (September-October).
   Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the Americans and French.

   "The state of affairs in the South had called so imperatively
   for the attention of Congress that a portion of Washington's
   army had been detached to join General Lincoln. Washington
   solicited more powerful aid from D'Estaing, who then commanded
   in the West Indies an army sufficiently powerful to crush
   entirely the English in Georgia. The French admiral received
   this application just after having fought a hard battle
   against Commodore Byron without any decisive result, yet such
   as obliged the latter to go into port to refit. The former,
   being thus for a time master of the sea, determined at once to
   comply with the request, took on board 6,000 land-troops, and
   steered direct for Savannah, where, arriving quite
   unexpectedly, he captured by surprise a fifty-gun ship and
   three frigates. Prevost, too, was very unprepared, having his
   force broken up into detachments distributed along the
   frontier; but these being instantly ordered in, obeyed with
   such promptitude that, before the French had landed and formed
   a junction with Lincoln, nearly all had arrived.
{3269}
   On the 16th of September, D'Estaing appeared before the place
   and summoned it to surrender. Prevost, under pretext of
   negotiation, obtained a suspension for twenty-four hours,
   during which Colonel Maitland entered with the last and
   largest detachment, eluding the Americans by a route supposed
   impassable; and the full determination to resist was then
   announced. The opinion of all military men now is that
   D'Estaing was guilty of the most outrageous folly in not
   marching at once to the attack of the city, without summoning
   the weakened garrison to surrender at all. The surprise would
   have then been complete, and the victory sure. … A regular
   siege was now commenced. Heavy ordnance and stores were
   brought up from the fleet, and the besieging army broke
   ground. By the 1st of October they had pushed their sap within
   300 yards of the abattis, on the left of the British lines.
   Several batteries were opened on the besieged, which played
   almost incessantly upon their works, but made no impression on
   them. The situation of D'Estaing was becoming critical. More
   time had already been consumed on the coast of Georgia than he
   had supposed would be necessary for the destruction of the
   British force in that State. He became uneasy for the
   possessions of France in the West Indies, and apprehensive for
   the safety of the ships under his command. The naval officers
   remonstrated strenuously against longer exposing his fleet on
   an insecure coast, at a tempestuous season of the year, and
   urged the danger of being overtaken by a British squadron when
   broken and scattered by a storm." D'Estaing accordingly
   decided that he must either raise the siege or attempt the
   enemy's works by storm. "The latter part of the alternative
   was adopted. … On the morning of the 9th of October, before
   day, … about 3,500 French and 1,000 Americans, of whom between
   600 and 700 were regulars and the residue militia of
   Charleston, advanced in three columns, led by D'Estaing and
   Lincoln, aided by the principal officers of both nations, and
   made a furious assault on the British lines. Their reception
   was warmer than had been expected. … Both the French and
   Americans planted their standards on the walls, and were
   killed in great numbers while endeavoring to force their way
   into the works. For about fifty minutes the contest was
   extremely obstinate." Then the assailants gave way and a
   retreat was ordered. "In this unsuccessful attempt the French
   lost in killed and wounded about 700 men. Among the latter
   were the Count D'Estaing himself, Major General De Fontanges,
   and several other officers of distinction. The continental
   troops lost 234 men, and the Charleston militia, who, though
   associated with them in danger, were more fortunate, had one
   captain killed and six privates wounded. Count Pulaski was
   among the slain. The loss of the garrison was astonishingly
   small. In killed and wounded it amounted only to 55. So great
   was the advantage of the cover afforded by their works. …
   Count D'Estaing, having committed a blunder at the beginning,
   had committed a worse blunder at the end, by insisting on the
   assault, as unnecessary as it was rash. … He [now] insisted on
   raising the siege, and both the French and American armies
   moved from their ground on the evening of the 18th of October.
   D'Estaing sailed for the West Indies; and Lincoln recrossed
   the Savannah at Zubly's Ferry and again encamped in South
   Carolina."

      _C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General Marion
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Jones, Jr.,
      History of Georgia,
      volume 2, chapters 20-21._

      _J. Sparks,
      Life of Pulaski
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 4)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (January-April).
   The gloomy winter at Morristown.
   Depreciation to worthlessness of the Continental Currency.
   Consequent sufferings of the army and the country.

   "The year 1780 opened upon a famishing camp. 'For a fortnight
   past,' writes Washington, on the 8th of January, 'the troops,
   both officers and men, have been almost perishing with want.
   Yet,' adds he, feelingly, 'they have borne their sufferings
   with a patience that merits the approbation, and ought to
   excite the sympathies, of their countrymen.' The severest
   trials of the Revolution, in fact, were not in the field,
   where there were shouts to excite and laurels to be won; but
   in the squalid wretchedness of ill-provided camps, where there
   was nothing to cheer and everything to be endured. To suffer
   was the lot of the revolutionary soldier. A rigorous winter
   had much to do with the actual distresses of the army, but the
   root of the evil lay in the derangement of the currency.
   Congress had commenced the war without adequate funds, and
   without the power of imposing direct taxes. To meet pressing
   emergencies, it had emitted paper money, which, for a time,
   passed currently at par; but sank in value as further
   emissions succeeded, and that already in circulation remained
   unredeemed. The several States added to the evil by emitting
   paper in their separate capacities: thus the country gradually
   became flooded with a 'continental currency,' as it was
   called; irredeemable, and of no intrinsic value. The
   consequence was a general derangement of trade and finance.
   The continental currency declined to such a degree that forty
   dollars in paper were equivalent to only one in specie.
   Congress attempted to put a stop to this depreciation by
   making paper money a legal tender, at its nominal value, in
   the discharge of debts, however contracted. This opened the
   door to knavery, and added a new feature to the evil. The
   commissaries now found it difficult to purchase supplies for
   the immediate wants of the army, and impossible to provide any
   stores in advance. They were left destitute of funds, and the
   public credit was prostrated by the accumulating debts
   suffered to remain uncancelled. The changes which had taken
   place in the commissary department added to this confusion.
   The commissary-general, instead of receiving, as heretofore, a
   commission on expenditures, was to have a fixed salary in
   paper currency, and his deputies were to be compensated in
   like manner, without the usual allowance of rations and
   forage. No competent agents could be procured on such terms. …
   In the present emergency Washington was reluctantly compelled,
   by the distresses of the army, to call upon the counties of
   the State for supplies of grain and cattle, proportioned to
   their respective abilities. … Wherever a compliance with this
   call was refused, the articles required were to be impressed:
   it was a painful alternative, yet nothing else could save the
   army from dissolution or starving. … As the winter advanced,
   the cold increased in severity.
{3270}
   It was the most intense ever remembered in the country. The
   great bay of New York was frozen over. … The insular security
   of the place was at an end. … Washington was aware of the
   opportunity which offered itself for a signal 'coup de main,'
   but was not in a condition to profit by it."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapters 1 and 4._

   "Paper for $9,000,000 was issued before any depreciation
   began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected
   it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah
   Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a
   member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the
   people when they could go to the printing-office and get a
   cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began,
   Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills.
   Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who
   'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for
   speculators who bought up for a rise. … The enemy, perceiving
   the terrible harm the Americans were doing themselves, thought
   it well to help on the movement. They counterfeited the bills
   and passed them through the lines. At the end of 1779 Congress
   was at its wit's end for money. Its issues had put specie
   entirely out of reach, and the cause was in danger of being
   drowned under the paper sea. … The French alliance helped more
   by giving means of procuring loans in Europe than by military
   assistance. Congress promised to limit its issues to
   $200,000,000, and tried a new form of note; also loan offices
   and lotteries. Over 350,000,000 were issued in all, but it is
   doubtful if more than 200,000,000 were out at any one time. In
   the spring of 1780 the bills were worth two cents on the
   dollar, and then ceased to circulate. Specie now came into
   circulation, being brought by the French, and also that
   expended by the English passing the lines. The paper was now
   worth more for an advertisement or a joke than for any
   prospect of any kind of redemption. A barber's shop in
   Philadelphia was papered with it, and a dog, coated with tar,
   and with the bills stuck all over him, was paraded in the
   streets."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 44-47._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1774-1789,
      book 1._

      _J. J. Knox,
      United States Notes,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING, A. D. 1775-1780.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (February-August).
   The siege and capture of Charleston by the British.
   Defeat of Gates at Camden.
   South Carolina subdued.

   "After the failure of the attack on Savannah was learned by
   Sir Henry Clinton, he sent a large additional force to the
   South. Reinforcements were also sent on to Lincoln, while the
   main body of the American army went into winter quarters near
   Morristown, New Jersey. Sir Henry Clinton, as soon as his
   forces, which had been dispersed by a storm, had been
   collected at Savannah, proceeded to invest Charleston,"
   landing his troops on St. John's Island in February. The
   blockading of the port and operations for the investment of
   the city were conducted cautiously and with success. On the
   12th of May, the American commander, General Lincoln, "finding
   himself incapable of defending Charleston, decided on
   capitulating; and he acceded to the terms which the besiegers
   had first offered. The fortifications, shipping, artillery,
   and public stores were all surrendered. The garrison, and all
   who had borne arms, were prisoners of war. The militia were
   allowed to return home on parole. In the siege the British
   lost 76 killed, and 189 wounded. The Americans about an equal
   number. The prisoners, exclusive of sailors, amounted to
   5,618, counting all the adult males of the town. To bring the
   country entirely under subjection, Clinton sent forth three
   detachments. The first and largest, in the northern part of
   the State, was under Lord Cornwallis. He detached Colonel
   Tarleton with his legion of cavalry and mounted infantry, to
   disperse Colonel Buford, then encamped near the North Carolina
   line. [Buford] was overtaken at the Waxhaws, and, on his
   refusal to surrender, Tarleton made a furious charge on
   Buford's men, when some, in dismay, threw down their arms and
   asked for quarter, and some fired on the enemy. After this
   partial resistance, no quarter was given. Colonel Buford, with
   a few of the horse, and about 100 infantry, escaped; 113 were
   killed on the spot; 150 so badly wounded as to be incapable of
   being moved; and 53 were brought away as prisoners. The
   American officers deny (what the British assert), that any who
   had laid down their arms had again taken them up. All further
   resistance to the enemy in South Carolina and Georgia seems
   then to have ceased. The two other detachments of the British
   army every where received the submission of the inhabitants,
   who either gave their parole not again to bear arms against
   the king, or took the oath of allegiance. In a proclamation
   for settling the government, Sir Henry Clinton required all to
   return to their allegiance on pain of being treated as rebels
   and enemies. He then returned to New York, leaving Lord
   Cornwallis in command, with 4,000 troops. … Lord Cornwallis,
   considering South Carolina as entirely reannexed to Great
   Britain, would admit of no neutrality among the inhabitants;
   but insisted on their taking the oath of allegiance, which,
   however, was generally taken with reluctance by the people of
   the lower country. … A considerable force, under Baron de
   Kalb, had been ordered for the Southern army by Congress; but,
   for want of money, and a sufficient Commissary department,
   they were so delayed in their march, that it was late in July
   before they reached Cape Fear River. Here they were joined by
   General Gates, who had been appointed to the command of the
   Southern army. The men of this detachment, ill-fed, suffered
   greatly from dysentery. In South Carolina, Gates was joined by
   Porterfield's Virginia regiment, Rutherford's corps of North
   Carolina militia, and Armaud's legion. … Gates having under
   him about 4,000 men, of whom the regulars were less than
   1,000, took post at Clermont. As the force of the Americans
   was daily increasing, Cornwallis, having under him about 2,000
   men, of whom 1,900 were regulars, decided on attacking the
   American army. It so happened, that the period chosen by
   Cornwallis to surprise Gates, was the very moment in which
   Gates proposed to surprise his adversary; and thus the
   advanced corps of both armies unexpectedly met at two o'clock
   in the morning [August 6, near Camden].
{3271}
   After some skirmishing, in which the British seemed to have
   had a decided advantage, both parties suspended their
   operations till the morning. On the first onset of the
   British, the Virginia militia under General Stevens fled with
   precipitation, and were followed by the infantry of Armstrong;
   and, except Colonel Dixon's regiment, the whole South Carolina
   division followed the example. Very few of the militia of
   either State discharged a single musket. Gates was borne away
   by the torrent, and, with General Caswell, retreated to
   Clermont, in the hope of collecting a sufficient number of the
   fugitives to cover the retreat of the regulars; but the hope
   was vain. He was fain to proceed to Hillsborough, to concert
   the future plan of operations. Thus left with an inadequate
   force on the field, De Kalb made a stout resistance; but in an
   impetuous charge he fell, after having received twelve wounds.
   His troops were then unable to rally, and their discomfiture
   was complete. Their loss, in killed, wounded and prisoners,
   could not have been less than 1,000 men. The British lost 325
   men. Just before the action, Sumter had captured a convoy, and
   made 200 prisoners; but was subsequently surprised by
   Tarleton, who recaptured the stores, killed 150, and took 300
   prisoners. Sumter escaped with difficulty. There was no longer
   any armed American force in South Carolina, and Cornwallis
   resorted to energetic means of preventing disaffection. All
   those who were found in arms after they had submitted to
   British protection were considered as having forfeited their
   lives, and several of them were hung on the spot. But these
   severities, instead of their intended effect, produced a
   strong reaction; and Sumter was able to collect a new force,
   with which he greatly annoyed the north-western parts of the
   State."

      _G. Tucker,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ramsey,
      History of South Carolina,
      section 7 (volume l)._

      _H. Lee,
      Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department,
      chapter 17._

      _F. Bowen,
      Life of Benjamin Lincoln,
      chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).
   Fresh help from France.
   The arrival of Rochambeau and his army, with a fleet.

   "La Fayette's second visit to his native country [1770], was
   most opportune. He arrived in Paris at the moment when the war
   for the independence of America was in high popularity
   throughout France. He was put in arrest a week for his
   disobedience to the order not to leave France, but this was a
   mere formality. Vergennes received him in private. His example
   had roused the spirit of the French nobles. The stage
   resounded with his applauses. Crowds followed his steps. Marie
   Antoinette, with her quick, enthusiastic spirit, joyed at his
   distinction. The council of state, the Parliament, the towns,
   the corporations mingled in the noble excitement. The Royal
   Treasury was assured support by patriotic offers of
   contributions, and then was formed the auxiliary army that was
   to bear succor to America. This public enthusiasm triumphed
   over the hesitating reluctance of Maurepas, and the economical
   prudence of Necker. The army, placed under the command of the
   veteran Rochambeau, commended for his 'steadiness, wisdom,
   ability and prudence,' a pupil of the Marshal de Belle Isle,
   distinguished in frequent service, was to be composed of 6,000
   troops. Among these shone forth the most brilliant of the
   nobility."

      _J. C. Hamilton,
      History of the United States,
      as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

   "La Fayette … made the ministers understand that if he was not
   placed in command of the expedition, which would surprise the
   Americans, at least it was imperative to place over it a
   French general who would consent to serve under the American
   commander-in-chief. But he knew well that his old companions
   in arms in France were jealous of his rapid military fortune
   and brilliant renown. He knew still better that the officers
   who were his seniors in rank would be unwilling to serve under
   him. His first proposition, therefore, was only made to
   satisfy public feeling in America, which left the management
   of this affair almost entirely in his hands. In view of the
   serious difficulties that necessarily would result from the
   adoption of such a decision—difficulties that might have most
   disastrous consequences for the cause to which he had devoted
   himself—he promised to make the Americans understand that he
   had preferred remaining at the head of one of their divisions
   and that he had refused the command of the French forces. But
   he insisted upon this point, that, in order to avoid wounding
   the self-respect of the Americans, it was indispensable to
   choose a general to command the expedition, whose promotion
   had been recent and whose talents were certainly equal to his
   mission, but who, considering this mission as a distinction,
   would consent to acknowledge General Washington's supremacy.
   The choice that was made, under these conditions, of the Count
   de Rochambeau was perfectly satisfactory to him, and, without
   waiting for the departure of the expedition, he embarked at
   Rochefort, on February the 18th, 1780, on board the frigate
   Hermione, which the king had given him as being a swift
   sailer. … He was anxious to inform Washington of the good news
   himself, and immediately upon his landing at Boston, on April
   the 28th, he hastened to Morristown to rejoin his well-beloved
   and revered friend, as he called him in his letters. … General
   Heath, who commanded the militia in the State of Rhode Is]and,
   announced on the 11th of July, the arrival of the French
   squadron to General Washington, who was then with his staff at
   Bergen. La Fayette set out almost immediately, provided with
   instructions from the commander-in-chief, dated the 15th, to
   repair to the French general and admiral to confer with them.
   For some time Washington had been considering a plan of
   offensive operation for the capture of the city and the
   garrison of New York. This plan, which conformed with the
   wishes of the French government, was only to be carried out
   upon certain conditions. First, it was necessary that the
   French troops should unite with the American forces, and,
   secondly, that the French should have a naval superiority over
   the forces of Admirals Graves and Arbuthnot, who had effected
   their junction at New York the day after the arrival of the
   French at Newport. This last condition was far from being
   fulfilled. … It had been foreseen that the English, who had
   concentrated their land and naval forces at New York, would
   not give the French time to establish themselves on Rhode
   Island; and Washington informed Rochambeau that Sir Henry
   Clinton was embarking his troops and would come shortly to
   attack the forces of the expedition with the squadrons
   assembled under the command of Admiral Arbuthnot, which were
   anchored at Sandy Hook, beyond New York, at the mouth of the
   Hudson River.
{3272}
   The American general watched these movements, and, while he
   gave frequent information to the French of the projected
   attack upon them, he tried to prevent it. … At the same time,
   Washington crossed the Hudson above West Point with the
   greater part of his troops, and proceeded to King's Bridge, at
   the northern end of the island, where he made some hostile
   demonstrations. This manœuvre detained General Clinton, who
   had already embarked eight thousand men upon the ships of
   Arbuthnot. He landed his troops and gave up his project.
   Nevertheless, the English admiral set sail and appeared before
   Rhode Island with eleven ships of the line and a few frigates,
   twelve days after the French had landed. … On August the 9th,
   when La Fayette had returned to the headquarters of
   Washington, which were at Dobb's Ferry, ten miles above King's
   Bridge, on the right bank of the North River, he wrote to
   Rochambeau and de Ternay an urgent dispatch, in which he
   finished, in the name of the American general, by proposing to
   the French generals to come at once to attempt an attack on
   New York. … On the other hand, the same courier brought a
   letter from Washington which made no mention of this project,
   but which only replied by a kind of refusal to the request of
   Rochambeau for a conference, 'wherein in an hour of
   conversation they could agree upon more things than in volumes
   of correspondence.' Washington said with truth that he did not
   dare to leave his army in front of New York, for it might be
   attacked at any moment, and that by his presence he prevented
   the departure of the large body of the English forces that
   might have been sent against Rhode Island. Indeed, it is
   certain that if some differences had not arisen between
   General Clinton and Admiral Arbuthnot, the French might have
   found themselves in a dangerous position at the beginning.
   From the earliest letters exchanged upon this occasion some
   discord resulted between La Fayette, Rochambeau and
   Washington, but, owing to the good sense of Rochambeau,
   matters were soon smoothed over. He wrote in English to the
   American general to ask him thereafter to address himself
   directly to him, and to explain the reasons that induced him
   to postpone assuming the offensive. At the same time he
   urgently requested a conference. From that moment the
   relations between the two leaders were excellent. The mere
   presence of the French squadron and army, though they were
   still paralyzed and really blockaded by Admiral Arbuthnot, had
   effected a useful diversion, since the English had not been
   able to profit by all the advantages resulting from the
   capture of Charleston, and, instead of carrying on operations
   in the Carolinas with superior forces, they had had to bring
   the greater part of them back to New York."

      _T. Balch,
      The French in America in the War of Independence,
      chapters 10-11._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (August-September).
   The Treason of Benedict Arnold.

   "Washington contemplated the aspect of affairs with the
   greatest alarm. Doubtful if the army could be kept together
   for another campaign, he was exceedingly anxious to strike
   some decisive blow. He proposed to Rochambeau, commanding the
   French troops at Newport, an attack upon New York; but that
   was not thought feasible without a superior naval force.
   Letters were sent to the French admiral in the West Indies
   entreating assistance; and Washington presently proceeded to
   Hartford, there to meet Rochambeau, to devise some definite
   plan of operations. During Washington's absence at Hartford, a
   plot came to light for betraying the important fortress of
   West Point and the other posts of the Highlands into the hands
   of the enemy, the traitor being no other than Arnold, the most
   brilliant officer and one of the most honored in the American
   army. The qualities of a brilliant soldier are unfortunately
   often quite distinct from those of a virtuous man and a good
   citizen. … Placed in command at Philadelphia, … he [Arnold]
   lived in a style of extravagance far beyond his means, and he
   endeavored to sustain it by entering into privateering and
   mercantile speculations, most of which proved unsuccessful. He
   was even accused of perverting his military authority to
   purposes of private gain. The complaints on this point, made
   to Congress by the authorities of Pennsylvania, had been at
   first unheeded; but, being presently brought forward in a
   solemn manner, and with some appearance of offended dignity on
   the part of the Pennsylvania council, an interview took place
   between a committee of that body and a committee of Congress,
   which had resulted in Arnold's trial by a court martial.
   Though acquitted of the more serious charges, on two points he
   had been found guilty, and had been sentenced to be
   reprimanded by the commander-in-chief. Arnold claimed against
   the United States a large balance, growing out of the
   unsettled accounts of his Canada expedition. This claim was
   greatly cut down by the treasury officers and when Arnold
   appealed to Congress, a committee reported that more had been
   allowed than was actually due. Mortified and soured, and
   complaining of public ingratitude, Arnold attempted, but
   without success, to get a loan from the French minister. Some
   months before, he had opened a correspondence with Sir Henry
   Clinton under a feigned name, carried on through Major Andre,
   adjutant general of the British army. Having at length made
   himself known to his correspondents, to give importance to his
   treachery, he solicited and obtained from Washington, who had
   every confidence in him, the command in the Highlands, with
   the very view of betraying that important position into the
   hands of the enemy. To arrange the terms of the bargain, an
   interview was necessary with some confidential British agent;
   and Andre, though not without reluctance, finally volunteered
   for that purpose. Several previous attempts having failed, the
   British sloop-of-war Vulture, with Andre on board, ascended
   the Hudson as far as the mouth of Croton River, some miles
   below King's Ferry. Information being sent to Arnold under a
   flag, the evening after Washington left West Point for
   Hartford he dispatched a boat to the Vulture, which took Andre
   on shore, for an interview on the west side of the river, just
   below the American lines. Morning appeared before the
   arrangements for the betrayal of the fortress could be
   definitely completed, and Andre was reluctantly persuaded to
   come within the American lines, and to remain till the next
   night at the house of one Smith, a dupe or tool of Arnold's,
   the same who had been employed to bring Andre from the ship.
{3273}
   For some reason not very clearly explained, Smith declined to
   convey Andre back to the Vulture. … Driven thus to the
   necessity of returning by land, Andre laid aside his uniform,
   assumed a citizen's dress, and, with a pass from Arnold in the
   name of John Anderson, a name which Andre had often used in
   their previous correspondence, he set off toward sunset on
   horseback, with Smith for a guide. They crossed King's Ferry,
   passed all the American guards in safety, and spent the night
   near Crom Pond, with an acquaintance of Smith's. The next
   morning, having passed Pine's Bridge, across Croton River,
   Smith left Andre to pursue his way alone. The road led through
   a district extending some thirty miles above the island of New
   York, not included in the lines of either army, and thence
   known as the 'Neutral Ground,' a populous and fertile region,
   but very much infested by bands of plunderers called 'Cow
   Boys' and 'Skinners.' The 'Cow Boys' lived within the British
   lines, and stole or bought cattle for the supply of the
   British army. The rendezvous of the 'Skinners' was within the
   American lines. They professed to be great patriots, making it
   their ostensible business to plunder those who refused to take
   the oath of allegiance to the State of New York." On the
   morning of Andre's journey, the road to Tarrytown, on which he
   rode, was being guarded by a small party of men, who watched
   for cattle thieves, and for suspicious travelers generally.
   Three of these intercepted the unfortunate young officer and
   discovered his character. Arnold received intelligence of what
   had happened in time to make his escape to the Vulture. Andre
   was examined before a board of which Lafayette, Steuben and
   Greene were members, and on his own statements was executed as
   a spy. The sympathy with him was very great, among Americans
   as well as among his own countrymen; but lenity in the case
   appeared too dangerous to Washington and his military
   advisers.

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 41 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapters 2, 7, and 9-11._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      The Two Spies._

      _J. Sparks,
      Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold
      (Library of American Biographies,
      volume 3, chapters 8-15)._

      _W. Sargent,
      Life of Major John André,
      chapters 11-21._

      _I. N. Arnold,
      Life of Benedict Arnold,
      chapters 13-18._

      _J. H. Smith,
      Authentic Narrative of the Causes which led
      to the Death of Major André._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapters 30-32._

      See, also, WEST POINT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (August-December).
   Partisan warfare in South Carolina.
   Sumter and Marion.

   A name "which recalls thrilling tales of desperate enterprise,
   surprises at midnight, sudden attacks in the gray twilight of
   morning, lurking-places in the depths of forests, restless
   activity, and untiring perseverance, is the name of Thomas
   Sumter. He comes before us tall, vigorous, dauntless, with a
   bold bearing, and imperious brow, stern to look upon, fierce
   in his self-will, arrogant in his decisions, tenacious in his
   prejudices, resolute and vigorous in the execution of his own
   plans, remiss and almost luke-warm in carrying out the plans
   of others. Born in South Carolina just as that colony had
   passed from the control of the Proprietaries to the control of
   the King, he lived to see her take the first decided step
   towards passing out of the Union. Little has been preserved of
   his early life, although his subsequent career in the Senate
   of the United States proves that he was not deficient in
   education then, wherever or whenever acquired. In the
   Revolution be took an early part, and soon made himself
   conspicuous as a bold and enterprising officer. But it was not
   till after the siege of Charleston that his talents were
   brought fully into play. Then at the head of a body of
   volunteers he moved rapidly from point to point, keeping alive
   the hopes of the Whigs and the fears of the Tories in the
   regions watered by the Broad River, the Ennoree, and the
   Tiger. … History, like tradition, has her favorite characters,
   on which she dwells with peculiar fondness, delighting herself
   in preserving the memory of every exploit, and giving the
   brightest tints to every circumstance connected with their
   career. … Of these children of a happy star, no one holds in
   our Revolutionary history the same place as Francis Marion.
   His story, irregularly told by a friend and companion, took an
   early hold upon the heart of the people; and the romantic
   traits of his career, warming the imagination of a great poet,
   have been recorded in beautiful verse. Impartial judgment and
   sober research have left his own laurels unimpaired, although
   they have dissipated the halo which tradition and fancy had
   shed around his men. His life forms one of those pictures upon
   which the mind loves to dwell, from the singular combination
   of rare qualities which it displays. His ancestors were
   Huguenot exiles, who took refuge in South Carolina, from the
   dragonnades of Louis XIV. His father was a planter near
   Georgetown, who, portioning out his estate to his children as
   they came of age, had nothing left for Francis, the youngest,
   and his next nearest brother, while they were yet children. At
   sixteen Francis found himself compelled to choose a pursuit
   for his support. With only a common English education, and no
   money to carry him through the preparatory courses, he could
   neither be a physician nor a lawyer. He resolved to be a
   sailor, and started upon a voyage to the West Indies. But his
   ship was burnt in a gale, and after tossing about eight days
   in an open boat, without water and with nothing but the raw
   flesh and skin of a single dog to eat, and seeing several of
   his companions die of hunger, he, with the starving survivors,
   were rescued, barely alive. He renounced the sea, returned to
   Georgetown, and engaged in farming. The Cherokee war of 1759
   found him hard at his work. He was now twenty-six, small in
   frame, low in stature, but vigorous, active, and healthy. By
   nature he was taciturn and reticent, with nothing in the
   expression of his face to attract or interest a casual
   observer, but still inspiring confidence and commanding
   respect in those who were brought into intimate relations with
   him. When, therefore, a company of volunteers was raised to
   serve against the Indians, he was chosen lieutenant. In a
   second expedition, which soon after became necessary, he was
   made captain. Next came the War of Independence; and joining
   the first South Carolina levies, he was presently made a
   major; and with this rank took part in the gallant defense of
   Fort Moultrie in 1776. His next promotion was to the command
   of a regiment as lieutenant-colonel.
{3274}
   During the siege of Charleston his leg was accidentally
   broken, a lucky accident, which left him free when the city
   fell, to engage in an adventurous system of warfare which was
   the only possible system in that low state of our fortunes.
   In the course of this he was promoted by Governor Rutledge to
   a brigadiership. When he first appeared in Gates's camp, he
   had but twenty men with him, or rather twenty between men and
   boys. Some of them were negroes. With these he rescued 150 of
   the prisoners of Camden, coming upon the British escort by
   surprise and overpowering it. Early in September a body of 200
   Tories attempted to surprise him. He had 53 men with him when
   he heard of their intention, and instantly setting forward,
   surprised an advance party of 45, killing or wounding all but
   15, and then attacked the main body of 200, and put them to
   flight. Before the end of the month he surprised another body
   of 60 men; and in October one of 200. His force was constantly
   fluctuating between 20 men and 70. Up to the 18th of October
   he had never had over 70. They went and came as they chose,
   their number ever ebbing and flowing like the tide. Sometimes
   the very men who had fought with him were ranged in arms
   against him; a few only serving from honest zeal and true love
   of country. … As his slender form concealed a lion heart, so
   under his cold, impassive face, there was a perpetual glow of
   tender sympathies. … Without claiming for Marion those powers
   of combination which belong to the highest order of military
   genius, he must be allowed to have excelled in all the
   qualities which form the consummate partisan,—vigilance,
   promptitude, activity, energy, dauntless courage, and unshaken
   self-control. … Two principles controlled all his actions, and
   shaped all his ends; the love of country, pure, earnest, and
   profound; the love of right, sincere, undeviating, and
   incorruptible."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3)._

   "The other partisans … had been compelled to take refuge in
   the mountains. Marion found his security in the swamps. This
   able partisan maintained his ground below and along the Santee
   river, and managed, among the defiles and swamps of that
   region, to elude all the activity of his enemies. His force
   had been collected chiefly among his own neighbors, were
   practised in the swamps, and familiar with the country. Like
   Sumter, utterly unfurnished with the means of war at first, he
   procured them by similar means. He took possession of the saws
   from the mills, and converted them into sabres. So much was he
   distressed for ammunition that he has engaged in battle when
   he had not three rounds of powder to each man of his party. …
   Various were the means employed to draw off or drive away his
   followers. The houses on the banks of the Pedee, Lynch's
   Creek, and Black river, from whence they were chiefly taken,
   were destroyed by fire, the plantations devastated, and the
   negroes carried away. But the effect of this wantonness was
   far other than had been intended. Revenge and despair
   confirmed the patriotism of these ruined men, and strengthened
   their resolution. … For months, their only shelter was the
   green wood and the swamp—their only cover the broad forest and
   the arch of heaven. … With a policy that nothing could
   distract—a caution that no artifice could mislead—Marion led
   his followers from thicket to thicket in safety, and was never
   more perfectly secure than when he was in the neighborhood of
   his foe. He hung upon his flanks along the march—he skirted
   his camp in the darkness of the night—he lay in wait for his
   foraging parties—he shot down his sentries, and, flying or
   advancing, he never failed to harass the invader, and extort
   from him a bloody toll at every passage through swamp,
   thicket, or river, which his smaller parties made. In this
   sort of warfare—which is peculiarly adapted to the
   peculiarities of the country in Carolina, and consequently to
   the genius of her people—he contrived almost wholly to break
   up the British communications by one of the most eligible
   routes between the seaboard and the interior."

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 5, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General Francis Marion
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapters 14-15.

      _W. G. Simms,
      Life of Francis Marion._

      _Horry and Weems,
      Life of Marion._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Vermont as an independent State negotiating with the British.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1781.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Greene's campaign in the south.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw Springs.
   The British shut up in Charleston.
   Cornwallis withdrawn to Virginia.

   "After his victory at Camden, Lord Cornwallis found it
   necessary to give his army some rest from the intense August
   heat. In September he advanced into North Carolina, boasting
   that he would soon conquer all the states south of the
   Susquehanna river. … In traversing Mecklenburg county
   Cornwallis soon found himself in a very hostile and dangerous
   region, where there were no Tories to befriend him. One of his
   best partisan commanders, Major Ferguson, penetrated too far
   into the mountains. The back-woodsmen of Tennessee and
   Kentucky, the Carolinas, and western Virginia were aroused;
   and under their superb partisan leaders—Shelby, Sevier,
   Cleaveland, McDowell, Campbell, and Williams—gave chase to
   Ferguson, who took refuge upon what he deemed an impregnable
   position on the top of King's Mountain. On the 7th of October
   the backwoodsmen stormed the mountain, Ferguson was shot
   through the heart, 400 of his men were killed and wounded, and
   all the rest, 700 in number, surrendered at discretion. The
   Americans lost 28 killed and 60 wounded. … In the series of
   events which led to the surrender of Cornwallis, the battle of
   King's Mountain played a part similar to that played by the
   battle of Bennington in the series of events which led to the
   surrender of Burgoyne. It was the enemy's first serious
   disaster, and its immediate result was to check his progress
   until the Americans could muster strength enough to overthrow
   him. The events, however, were much more complicated in
   Cornwallis's case, and took much longer to unfold themselves.
   … As soon as he heard the news of the disaster he fell back to
   Winnsborough, in South Carolina, and called for
   reinforcements. While they were arriving, the American army,
   recruited and reorganized since its crushing defeat at Camden,
   advanced into Mecklenburg county. Gates was superseded by
   Greene, who arrived upon the scene on the 2d of December.
   Under Greene were three Virginians of remarkable
   ability,—Daniel Morgan; William Washington, who was a distant
   cousin of the commander-in-chief; and Henry Lee, familiarly
   known as 'Light-horse Harry,' father of the great general,
   Robert Edward Lee.
{3275}
   The little army numbered only 2,000 men, but a considerable
   part of them were disciplined veterans, fully a match for the
   British infantry." To increase this small force, Baron
   Steuben, the military organizer and disciplinarian of the
   Revolutionary armies, was sent down to Virginia, for the
   purpose of recruiting and organizing troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

   Thereupon detachments from the British army at New York were
   dispatched by sea to Virginia, and Arnold, the traitor, was
   given command of them. "The presence of these subsidiary
   forces in Virginia was soon to influence in a decisive way the
   course of events. Greene, on reaching South Carolina, acted
   with boldness and originality. He divided his little army into
   two bodies, one of which cooperated with Marion's partisans in
   the northeastern part of the state, and threatened
   Cornwallis's communications with the coast. The other body he
   sent under Morgan to the southwestward, to threaten the inland
   posts and their garrisons. Thus worried on both flanks,
   Cornwallis presently divided his own force, sending Tarleton
   with 1,100 men to dispose of Morgan. Tarleton came up with
   Morgan on the 17th of January, 1781, at a grazing-ground known
   as the Cowpens, not far from King's Mountain. The battle which
   ensued was well fought, and on Morgan's part it was a
   wonderful piece of tactics. With only 900 men in open field he
   surrounded and nearly annihilated a superior force. The
   British lost 230 in killed and wounded, 600 prisoners, and all
   their guns. Tarleton escaped with 270 men. The Americans lost
   12 killed and 61 wounded. The two battles, King's Mountain and
   the Cowpens, deprived Cornwallis of nearly all his light-armed
   troops, and he was just entering upon a game where swiftness
   was especially required. It was his object to intercept Morgan
   and defeat him before he could effect a junction with the
   other part of the American army. It was Greene's object to
   march the two parts of his army in converging directions
   northwards across North Carolina and unite them in spite of
   Cornwallis. By moving in this direction Greene was always
   getting nearer to his reinforcements from Virginia, while
   Cornwallis was always getting further from his supports in
   South Carolina. … The two wings of the American army came
   together and were joined by the reinforcements; so that at
   Guilford Court House, on the 15th of March, Cornwallis found
   himself obliged to fight against heavy odds, 200 miles from
   the coast and almost as far from the nearest point in South
   Carolina at which he could get support. The battle of Guilford
   was admirably managed by both commanders and stubbornly fought
   by the troops. At nightfall the British held the field, with
   the loss of nearly one third of their number, and the
   Americans were repulsed. But Cornwallis could not stay in such
   a place, and could not afford to risk another battle. There
   was nothing for him to do but retreat to Wilmington, the
   nearest point on the coast. There he stopped and pondered. His
   own force was sadly depleted, but he knew that Arnold in
   Virginia was being heavily reinforced from New York. The only
   safe course seemed to march northward and join the operations
   in Virginia; then afterwards to return southward. This course
   Cornwallis pursued, arriving at Petersburg and taking command
   of the troops there on the 20th of May. Meanwhile Greene,
   after pursuing Cornwallis for about 50 miles from Guilford,
   faced about and marched with all speed upon Camden, 160 miles
   distant. … Lord Rawdon held Camden. Greene stopped at
   Hobkirk's Hill, two miles to the north, and sent Marion and
   Lee to take Fort Watson, and thus cut the enemy's
   communications with the coast. On April 23 Fort Watson
   surrendered; on the 25th Rawdon defeated Greene at Hobkirk's
   Hill, but as his communications were cut the victory did him
   no good. He was obliged to retreat toward the coast, and
   Greene took Camden on the 10th of May. Having thus obtained
   the commanding point, Greene went on until he had reduced
   every one of the inland posts. At last, on the 8th of
   September, he fought an obstinate battle at Eutaw Springs, in
   which both sides claimed the victory. … Here, however, as
   always after one of Greene's battles, it was the enemy who
   retreated and he who pursued. His strategy never failed. After
   Eutaw Springs the British remained shut up in Charleston under
   cover of their ships, and the American government was
   reëstablished over South Carolina. Among all the campaigns in
   history that have been conducted with small armies, there have
   been few, if any, more brilliant than Greene's."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapters 65-71._

      _G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      volume 3, chapters 1-23._

      _L. C. Draper,
      King's Mountain and its Heroes._

      _H. Lee,
      Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department,
      chapters 18-34._

      _J. Graham,
      Life of General Daniel Morgan,
      chapters 13-17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (January).
   The Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

   "As the year 1781 opened and the prospect of a new year of
   struggle became certain, and the invasion of the Southern
   States began to indicate the prospect of a southern campaign,
   which was at all times unpopular with northern troops, a
   disaffection was developed which at last broke forth in open
   mutiny, and a peremptory demand for discharge. This irritation
   was aggravated by hunger, cold, and poverty. Marshall says:
   'The winter brought not much relaxation from toil, and none
   from suffering. The soldiers were perpetually on the point of
   starvation, were often entirely without food, were exposed
   without proper clothing to the rigors of winter; and had now
   served almost twelve months without pay.' … On the 1st of
   January the Pennsylvania line revolted; Captain Billings was
   killed in an attempt to suppress the mutiny; General Wayne was
   powerless to restore order, and 1,300 men, with six guns,
   started to Princeton, with the declared purpose to march to
   Philadelphia, and obtain redress. They demanded clothing, the
   residue of their bounty, and full arrears of pay. A committee
   from Congress and the State authorities of Pennsylvania at
   once entered into negotiations with the troops for terms of
   compromise. The American Commander-in-chief was then at New
   Windsor. A messenger from General Wayne informed him on the 3d
   of January of the revolt, and the terms demanded. It appears
   from Washington's letters that it was his impulse, at the
   first intimation of the trouble, to go in person and attempt
   its control. His second impression was to reserve his
   influence and authority until all other means were exhausted.
{3276}
   The complaint of the mutineers was but a statement of the
   condition of all the army, so far as the soldiers had served
   three years; and the suffering and failure to receive pay were
   absolutely universal. Leaving the preliminary discussion with
   the civil authorities who were responsible for much of the
   trouble, the Commander-in-chief appealed to the Governors of
   the northern States for a force of militia to meet any attacks
   from New York, and declined to interfere until he found that
   the passion had passed and he could find troops who would at
   all hazards execute his will. It was one of the most difficult
   passages in the war, and was so handled that the
   Commander-in-chief retained his prestige and regained control
   of the army. … General Clinton received information of the
   revolt as early as Washington, on the morning of the 23d, and
   sent messengers to the American army with propositions,
   looking to their return to British allegiance. He entirely
   misconceived the nature of the disaffection, and his agents
   were retained in custody. It is sufficient to say that a
   portion of the troops were discharged without critical
   examination of their enlistments, on their own oath; that many
   promptly reenlisted, that as soon as Washington found that he
   had troops who did not share in the open mutiny, he used force
   and suppressed the disaffection, and that the soldiers
   themselves hung several agents who brought propositions from
   General Clinton which invited them to abandon their flag and
   join his command. The mutiny of the American army at the
   opening of the campaign of 1781, was a natural outbreak which
   human nature could not resist, and whatever of discredit may
   attach to the revolt, it will never be unassociated with the
   fact that, while the emergency was one that overwhelmed every
   military obligation by its pressure, it did not affect the
   fealty of the soldiers to the cause for which they took up
   arms. … La Fayette thus wrote to his wife, 'Human patience has
   its limits. No European army would suffer the tenth part of
   what the Americans suffer. It takes citizens to support
   hunger, nakedness, toil, and the total want of pay, which
   constitute the condition of our soldiers, the hardiest and
   most patient that are to be found in the world.'"

      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapter 67._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Egle,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapter 12._

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Major-General Anthony Wayne,
      chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (January-May).
   Benedict Arnold and the British in Virginia.
   Opening of Lafayette's campaign in that state.

   "In January, 1781, the news reached headquarters in the
   Highlands of New York that General [Benedict] Arnold had
   landed in Virginia with a considerable force, was laying waste
   the country, and had already destroyed the valuable stores
   collected at Richmond; opposed to him were only the small
   commands of Steuben and Muhlenberg. The situation was very
   alarming, and threatened to place all the Southern States in
   the hands of the British. If Arnold succeeded in destroying
   the few American troops in Virginia, he could then march to
   the assistance of Cornwallis, who, with a superior force, was
   pressing General Greene very hard in the Carolinas. To defeat
   or capture Arnold before he could further prosecute his
   designs was, therefore, of the utmost importance. For this
   purpose it was necessary to send a detachment from the main
   army against Arnold by land, and a naval force to Chesapeake
   Bay to prevent his escape by sea. Washington at once
   communicated the state of affairs to Rochambeau, who, with the
   French fleet, had long been blockaded at Newport. Taking
   advantage of the serious injuries lately suffered by the
   blockading English fleet in consequence of a storm, Admiral
   Destouches despatched M. de Tilly to the Chesapeake with a
   ship-of-the-line and two frigates. To cooperate with these
   French vessels, Washington detached 1,200 light infantry from
   the main army, and placed them under the command of Lafayette.
   That officer was particularly chosen for this important trust,
   because the confidence reposed in him by both the American and
   French troops made him, in Washington's opinion, the fittest
   person to conduct a combined expedition. Thus opened the only
   campaign in America which afforded Lafayette an opportunity to
   show what abilities he possessed as an independent commander,
   and on this campaign his military reputation must chiefly
   rest. Lafayette moved rapidly southward," to Annapolis; but,
   the coöperating movement of the French fleet having, meantime,
   been frustrated by an attack from the English squadron, his
   instructions required him to abandon the expedition and
   return. He had already set his troops in motion northward when
   different instructions reached him. Two more British regiments
   had been sent to Virginia, under General Philips, who now took
   command of all the forces there, and this had increased the
   anxiety of Washington. "The situation of the Southern States
   had become extremely perilous. General Greene had all he could
   do to fight Lord Cornwallis's superior force in North
   Carolina. Unless a vigorous opposition could be made to
   Philips, he would have no difficulty in dispersing the militia
   of Virginia, and in effecting a junction with Cornwallis.
   With their forces so combined, the British would be masters in
   the South. Washington at once determined to place the defence
   of Virginia in Lafayette's hands. … Lafayette marched with
   such rapidity … that he reached Richmond, where there were
   valuable stores to be protected, a day in advance of General
   Philips. From his post on the heights of the town he saw the
   British set fire to the tobacco warehouses at Manchester, just
   across the river, but there were neither men nor boats enough
   to make an attack possible. Philips, on his part, was too much
   impressed with the show of strength made by the Americans to
   prosecute his plans on Richmond, and retreating down the James
   river, burning and laying waste as he went, he camped at Hog
   Island. Lafayette followed, harassing the enemy's rear, as far
   as the Chickahominy. Here the situation underwent a
   considerable change. Lord Cornwallis, after his long and
   unsuccessful campaign against Greene in North Carolina, made
   up his mind that his exhausting labors there would prove
   unprofitable until Virginia should be subjugated. His men were
   worn out with incessant marching and fighting, while no
   substantial advantage had been gained. Hearing that General
   Greene had marched to attack Lord Rawdon at Camden in South
   Carolina, he determined to join Philips.
{3277}
   That officer, accordingly, received orders while at Hog Island
   to take possession of Petersburg and there await Cornwallis's
   arrival. … On the 13th of May, General Philips died at
   Petersburg of a fever. … Cornwallis arrived at Petersburg on
   the 20th of May. His forces now amounted to over 5,000 men,
   which number was soon increased to 8,000."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of Lafayette,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 3, chapter 17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (May-October).
   Cornwallis in Virginia and the trap into which he fell.
   Siege of Yorktown by the French and Americans.
   Surrender of the British army.

   "On the 24th of May, Cornwallis, having rested his troops,
   marched from Petersburg, and endeavored to engage the American
   forces. But Lafayette, having removed the military stores from
   Richmond, retreated across the Chickahominy to Fredericksburg,
   where he expected to meet General Wayne and a battalion of
   Pennsylvania troops, without whose assistance he could not
   venture any fighting. … Cornwallis … moved between Lafayette
   and the town of Albemarle, where had been placed a great part
   of the military stores from Richmond, which now seemed doomed
   to destruction. But on the 10th of June Lafayette had received
   his expected reënforcement of Wayne's Pennsylvanians, and thus
   strengthened felt able to assume the offensive. Rapidly
   crossing the Rapidan he approached close to the British army
   which blocked the road to Albemarle. Nothing could have better
   suited Cornwallis, who prepared for a conflict in which he
   felt sure of a decisive victory. Lafayette, however, had not
   lost sight of the vital feature of his campaign,—to protect
   the property of the State without losing his army. Through his
   scouts he discovered an old unused road to Albemarle, unknown
   to the enemy. While Cornwallis was preparing for battle, he
   had the road cleared, and under cover of the night marched his
   men through it and took up a strong position before the town.
   There he was joined by militia from the neighboring mountains,
   and he showed so strong a front that the British commander did
   not venture an attack. … The British commander, so far foiled
   in his objects, had to march back to Richmond and thence to
   Williamsburg, near the coast, thus practically abandoning
   control over any part of Virginia except where naval forces
   gave possession. Lafayette effected a junction with Baron
   Steuben on the 18th of June, and thus increased his force to
   about four thousand men. The Americans had now become the
   pursuers instead of the pursued, and followed the British,
   harassing their rear and flanks."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

   "There now came a pause in the Virginia Campaign, at least in
   daily operations and excitements. The State north of the James
   was relieved. Cornwallis crossed to the south side, at Cobham,
   on the 7th [July]; and Lafayette, retiring up the river,
   encamped, about the 20th, on the now historic Malvern Hill,
   then described as one of the healthiest and best watered spots
   in the State. … The entire British army was soon after
   concentrated at Portsmouth, and preparations made to transport
   a considerable portion of it to New York. Lafayette,
   meanwhile, at Malvern Hill, could only await developments. He
   thought of sending re-enforcements to Greene, and asked
   Washington if, in case Cornwallis left Virginia, he might not
   return to the Northern army. … But while the marquis and
   Washington and Greene were speculating on the future movements
   of Cornwallis and were persuaded, from embarkations at
   Portsmouth, that he was to be deprived of a large part of his
   force by Clinton, unexpected intelligence came to hand.
   Instead of any part going to New York, the British force
   suddenly made its appearance, during the first days in August,
   at Yorktown, on the Virginia peninsula, which it had abandoned
   but three weeks before. Here again was a new situation.
   Cornwallis, at last, at Yorktown—the spot he was not to leave
   except as a prisoner of war. Why he went there is a simple
   explanation. Clinton decided, upon certain dissenting opinions
   expressed by Cornwallis respecting the situation in Virginia,
   not to withdraw the force in the Chesapeake which he had
   called for, and which was about to sail for New York, but
   permitted Cornwallis to retain the whole—all with which he had
   been pursuing Lafayette and the large garrison at Portsmouth,
   a total of about seven thousand, rank and file. His new
   instructions, conveyed at the same time, were to the effect
   that his Lordship should abandon Portsmouth, which both
   generals agreed was too unhealthy for the troops, and fortify
   Old Point Comfort, where Fort Monroe now stands, as a naval
   station for the protection of the British shipping. In
   addition, if it appeared necessary, for the better security of
   the Point, to occupy Yorktown also, that was to be done.
   Obeying these instructions, Cornwallis ordered a survey of Old
   Point Comfort; but, upon the report of his engineers, was
   obliged to represent to Clinton that it was wholly unfit and
   inadequate for a naval station, as it afforded little
   protection for ships, and could not command the channel, on
   account of its great width. Then, following what he believed
   to be the spirit of his orders, Cornwallis, before hearing
   from Clinton, moved up to Yorktown, and began to fortify it in
   connection with Gloucester, on the opposite shore, as the best
   available naval station. Clinton made no subsequent
   objections, and there Cornwallis remained until his surrender.
   His occupation of the place was simply an incident of the
   campaign—a move taken for convenience and in the interests of
   the navy and the health of his command."

      _H. P. Johnston,
      The Yorktown Campaign,
      chapter 3._

   "The march of Lord Cornwallis into Virginia was the first
   emphatic fact which enabled General Washington to plan an
   efficient offensive. The repeated detachment of troops from
   New York so sensibly lessened the capacity of its garrison for
   extensive field service at the north, that the American
   Commander-in-chief determined to attack that post, and as a
   secondary purpose, thereby to divert General Clinton from
   giving further aid to troops in the Southern States. As a
   matter of fact, the prudent conduct of the Virginia campaign
   eventually rallied to the support of General La Fayette an
   army, including militia, nearly as large as that of
   Washington, and the nominal strength of the allied army near
   Yorktown, early in September, was nearly or quite as great as
   that of Lord Cornwallis. There were other elements which, as
   in previous campaigns, hampered operations at the north. The
   Indians were still troublesome in Western New York, and the
   Canadian frontier continued to demand attention. The American
   navy had practically disappeared.
{3278}
   The scarcity of money and a powerless recruiting service,
   increased the difficulties of carrying on the war in a manner
   that would use to the best advantage the troops of France. …
   The position of the American Commander-in-chief at this time
   was one of peculiar personal mortification. Appeals to State
   authorities failed to fill up his army. Three thousand Hessian
   reinforcements had landed at New York, and the government as
   well as himself would be compromised before the whole world by
   failure to meet the just demands which the French auxiliaries
   had a right to press upon his attention. Relief came most
   opportunely. The frigate Concorde arrived at Newport, and a
   reiteration of the purpose of Count de Grasse to leave St.
   Domingo on the 3d of August, for the Chesapeake direct, was
   announced by a special messenger. The possibilities of the
   future at once quickened him to immediate action. With a
   reticence so close that the army could not fathom his plans,
   he re-organized his forces for a false demonstration against
   New York and a real movement upon Yorktown. … Letters to the
   Governors of northern States called for aid as if to capture
   New York. Letters to La Fayette and the Count de Grasse
   embodied such intimations of his plans as would induce proper
   caution to prevent the escape of Lord Cornwallis, and secure
   transportation at Head of Elk. Other letters to authorities in
   New Jersey and Philadelphia, expressly defining a plan of
   operations against New York via Staten Island, with the
   assurance of ample naval support, were exposed to interception
   and fell into the hands of General Clinton. As late as the
   19th, the roads leading to King's Bridge were cleared of
   obstructions, and the army was put in readiness to advance
   against New York Island. On the same day the New Jersey
   regiment and that of Colonel Hazen crossed the Hudson at
   Dobb's Ferry, to threaten Staten Island, and ostensibly to
   cover some bake-houses which were being erected for the
   purpose of giving color to the show of operations against New
   York. The plan of a large encampment had been prepared, which
   embraced Springfield and the Chatham Pass to Morristown, and
   this was allowed to find its way to Clinton's headquarters.
   General Heath was assigned to command of the Hudson-river
   posts, with two regiments from New Hampshire, ten from
   Massachusetts, five from Connecticut, the Third artillery,
   Sheldon's dragoons, the invalid corps, all local companies,
   and the militia. The following forces were selected to
   accompany the Commander-in-chief, viz., the light infantry
   under Colonel Scammel, four light companies from New York and
   Connecticut, the Rhode Island regiment, under the new army
   establishment, two New York regiments, that of New Jersey and
   Hazen's regiment, (the last two already across the Hudson) and
   Lamb's artillery, in all about 2,000 men. The American troops
   crossed on the 21st, at King's Ferry, and encamped near
   Haverstraw. The French army followed, and the army was united
   on the 25th. … General Washington and suite reached
   Philadelphia about noon, August 30th. The army had already
   realized the fact that they were destined southward. Some
   dissatisfaction was manifested; but Count de Rochambeau
   advanced $20,000 in gold upon the pledge of Robert Morris that
   he would refund the sum by the 1st of October, and the effect
   upon the troops, who had long been without any pay, was
   inspiring."

      _H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapter 74._

   "Leaving Philadelphia, with the Army, on the 5th of September,
   Washington meets an express near Chester, announcing the
   arrival, in Chesapeake Bay, of the Count de Grasse, with a
   fleet of twenty-eight ships of the line, and with 3,500
   additional French troops, under the command of the Marquis de
   St. Simon, who had already been landed at Jamestown, with
   orders to join the Marquis de La Fayette! 'The joy' says the
   Count William de Deux-Ponts, in his precious journal, 'the joy
   which this welcome news produces among all the troops, and
   which penetrates General Washington and the Count de
   Rochambeau, is more easy to feel than to express.' But, in a
   foot-note to that passage, he does express and describe it, in
   terms which cannot be spared and could not be surpassed, and
   which add a new and charming illustration of the emotional
   side of Washington's nature. 'I have been equally surprised
   and touched,' says the gallant Deux-Ponts, 'at the true and
   pure joy of General Washington. Of a natural coldness and of a
   serious and noble approach, which in him is only true dignity,
   and which adorn so well the chief of a whole nation, his
   features, his physiognomy, his deportment, all were changed in
   an instant. He put aside his character as arbiter of North
   America, and contented himself for a moment with that of a
   citizen, happy at the good fortune of his country. A child,
   whose every wish had been gratified, would not have
   experienced a sensation more lively, and I believe I am doing
   honor to the feelings of this rare man in endeavoring to
   express all their ardor.' Thanks to God, thanks to France,
   from all our hearts at this hour, for 'this true and pure joy'
   which lightened the heart, and at once dispelled the anxieties
   of our incomparable leader. It may be true that Washington
   seldom smiled after he had accepted the command of our
   Revolutionary Army, but it is clear that on the 5th of
   September he not only smiled but played the boy. … 'All now
   went merry,' with him, 'as a marriage bell.' Under the
   immediate influence of this joy, which he had returned for a
   few hours to Philadelphia to communicate in person to
   Congress, … and while the Allied Armies are hurrying
   southward, he makes a hasty trip with Colonel Humphreys to his
   beloved Mount Vernon and his more beloved wife—his first visit
   home since he left it for Cambridge in 1775. Rochambeau, with
   his suite, joins him there on the 10th, and Chastellux and his
   aids on the 11th; and there with Mrs. Washington, he dispenses
   for two days, 'a princely hospitality' to his foreign guests.
   But the 13th finds them all on their way to rejoin the Army at
   Williamsburg, where they arrive on the 15th, 'to the great joy
   of the troops and the people,' and where they dine with the
   Marquis de St. Simon. On the 18th Washington and Rochambeau,
   with Knox and Chastellux and Du Portail, and with two of
   Washington's aids, Colonel Cobb of Massachusetts, and Colonel
   Jonathan Trumbull, jr., of Connecticut, embark on the
   'Princess Charlotte' for a visit to the French fleet. … A few
   days more are spent at Williamsburg on their return, where
   they find General Lincoln already arrived with a part of the
   troops from the North, having hurried them as Washington
   besought him, 'on the wings of speed,' and where the word is
   soon given, 'On, on, to York and Gloucester!'
{3279}
   Washington takes his share of the exposure of this march, and
   the night of the 28th of September finds him, with all his
   military family, sleeping in an open field within two miles of
   Yorktown, without any other covering, as the journal of one of
   his aids states, 'than the canopy of the heavens, and the
   small spreading branches of a tree,' which the writer predicts
   'will probably be rendered venerable from this circumstance
   for a length of time to come.' … Everything now hurries,
   almost with the rush of a Niagara cataract, to the grand fall
   of Arbitrary Power in America. Lord Cornwallis had taken post
   here at Yorktown as early as the 4th of August, after being
   foiled so often by 'that boy' as he called La Fayette, whose
   Virginia campaign of four months was the most effective
   preparation for all that was to follow, and who, with singular
   foresight, perceived at once that his lordship was now fairly
   entrapped, and wrote to Washington, as early as the 21st of
   August, that 'the British army must be forced to surrender.'
   Day by day, night by night, that prediction presses forward to
   its fulfillment. The 1st of October finds our engineers
   reconnoitering the position and works of the enemy. The 2d
   witnesses the gallantry of the Duke de Lauzun and his legion
   in driving back Tarleton, whose raids had so long been the
   terror of Virginia and the Carolinas. On the 6th, the Allied
   Armies broke ground for their first parallel, and proceeded to
   mount their batteries on the 7th and 8th. On the 9th, two
   batteries were opened—Washington himself applying the torch to
   the first gun; and on the 10th three or four more were in
   play—silencing the enemy's works, and making,' says the
   little diary of Colonel Cobb, 'most noble music.' On the 11th,
   the indefatigable Baron Steuben was breaking the ground for
   our second parallel, within less than four hundred yards of
   the enemy, which was finished the next morning, and more
   batteries mounted on the 13th and 14th. But the great
   achievement of the siege still awaits its accomplishment. Two
   formidable British advanced redoubts are blocking the way to
   any further approach, and they must be stormed. The allied
   troops divide the danger and the glory between them, and
   emulate each other in the assault. One of these redoubts is
   assigned to the French grenadiers and chasseurs, under the
   general command of the Baron de Viomesnil. The other is
   assigned to the American light infantry, under the general
   command of La Fayette. But the detail of special leaders to
   conduct the two assaults remains to be arranged. Viomesnil
   readily designates the brave Count William to lead the French
   storming party, who, though he came off from his victory
   wounded, counts it 'the happiest day of his life.' A question
   arises as to the American party, which is soon solved by the
   impetuous but just demand of our young Alexander Hamilton to
   lead it. And lead it he did, with an intrepidity, a heroism,
   and a dash unsurpassed in the whole history of the war. … Both
   redoubts were soon captured; and these brilliant actions
   virtually sealed the fate of Cornwallis. 'A small and
   precipitate sortie,' as Washington calls it, was made by the
   British on the following evening, resulting in nothing; and
   the next day a vain attempt to evacuate their works, and to
   escape by crossing over to Gloucester, was defeated by a
   violent and, for us … most providential storm of rain and
   wind. … A suspension of hostilities, to arrange terms of
   capitulation, was proposed by Cornwallis on the 17th; the 18th
   was occupied at Moore's House in settling those terms; and on
   the 19th the articles were signed by which the garrison of
   York and Gloucester, together with all the officers and seamen
   of the British ships in the Chesapeake, 'surrender themselves
   Prisoners of War to the Combined Forces of America and
   France.'"

      _Robert C. Winthrop,
      Address at the Centennial Celebration of the Surrender
      of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Oct. 19, 1881._

      ALSO IN:
      _Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      volume 1, chapters 4-5._

      _Marquis Cornwallis,
      Answer to Sir H. Clinton._

      _Count de Deux-Ponts,
      My Campaigns in America, 1781._

      _T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapters 13-22._

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 25-26, and 28._

      _George Washington,
      Writings, edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 9._

      _C. Tower,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 25-28._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1782.
   Practical suspension of hostilities.
   Difficulty of maintaining the army.
   Financial distress of the country.

   "Immediately after the surrender of Yorktown Washington
   returned with his army to the vicinity of New York [see
   NEWBURGH], but he felt himself far too weak to attempt its
   capture, and hostilities were restricted to a few indecisive
   skirmishes or predatory enterprises. It is curious to notice
   how far from sanguine Washington appeared even after the event
   which in the eyes of most men, outside America, had determined
   the contest without appeal. It was still impossible, he
   maintained, to do anything decisive unless the sea were
   commanded by a naval force hostile to England, and France
   alone could provide this force. The difficulties of
   maintaining the army were unabated. 'All my accounts,' he
   wrote in April 1782, 'respecting the recruiting service are
   unfavourable; indeed, not a single recruit has arrived to my
   knowledge from any State except Rhode Island, in consequence
   of the requisitions of Congress in December last.' He strongly
   urged the impossibility of recruiting the army by voluntary
   enlistment, and recommended that, in addition to the
   compulsory enrolment of Americans, German prisoners should be
   taken into the army. Silas Deane, in private letters,
   expressed at this time his belief that it would be utterly
   impossible to maintain the American army for another year; and
   even after the surrender of Cornwallis, no less a person than
   Sir Henry Clinton assured the Government that, with a
   reinforcement of only 10,000 men he would be responsible for
   the conquest of America. … Credit was gone, and the troops had
   long been unpaid. 'The long sufferance of the army,' wrote
   Washington in October 1782, 'is almost exhausted. It is high
   time for a peace.' Nothing, indeed, except the great
   influence, the admirable moderation and good sense, and the
   perfect integrity of Washington could have restrained the army
   from open revolt. … Holland, immediately after the surrender
   of Yorktown, had recognised the independence of America, which
   had as yet only been recognised by France. John Adams was
   received as representative at the Hague, and after several
   abortive efforts he succeeded in raising a Dutch loan. France,
   as her ablest ministers well knew, was drifting rapidly
   towards bankruptcy, yet two American loans, amounting together
   to £600,000, were extorted in the last year of the war.
{3280}
   Up to the very eve of the formal signature of peace, and long
   after the virtual termination of the war, the Americans found
   it necessary to besiege the French Court for money. As late as
   December 5, 1782, Franklin wrote from Paris to Livingston
   complaining of the humiliating duty which was imposed on him.
   … The reply of Livingston was dated January 6, 1783, and it
   paints vividly the extreme distress in America. 'I see the
   force,' he writes, 'of your objections to soliciting the
   additional twelve millions, and I feel very sensibly the
   weight of our obligations to France, but every sentiment of
   this kind must give way to our necessities. It is not for the
   interest of our allies to lose the benefit of all they have
   done by refusing to make a small addition to it. … The army
   demand with importunity their arrears of pay. The treasury is
   empty, and no adequate means of filling it presents itself.
   The people pant for peace; should contributions be exacted, as
   they have hitherto been, at the point of the sword, the
   consequences may be more dreadful than is at present
   apprehended. I do not pretend to justify the negligence of the
   States in not providing greater supplies. Some of them might
   do more than they have done; none of them all that is
   required. It is my duty to confide to you, that if the war is
   continued in this country, it must be in a great measure at
   the expense of France. If peace is made, a loan will be
   absolutely necessary to enable us to discharge the army, that
   will not easily separate without pay.' It was evident that the
   time for peace had come. The predatory expeditions which still
   continued in America could only exasperate still further both
   nations, and there were some signs—especially in the conflicts
   between loyalists and revolutionists—that they were having
   this effect. England had declared herself ready to concede the
   independence America demanded. Georgia and South Carolina,
   where the English had found so many faithful friends, were
   abandoned in the latter half of 1782, and the whole force of
   the Crown was now concentrated at New York and in Canada.
   France and Spain for a time wished to protract negotiations in
   hopes that Rodney might be crushed, that Jamaica and
   afterwards Gibraltar might be captured; but all these hopes
   had successively vanished. … If the war continued much longer
   America would almost certainly drop away, and France, and
   perhaps Spain, become bankrupt."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 15 (volume 4)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
   The cession of Western Territory
   by the States to the Federal Union.
   The Western Reserve of Connecticut.

   Although the Articles of Confederation were adopted by
   Congress in 1777 and ratified immediately by most of the
   States, it was not until 1781 that they became operative by
   the assent of all. "New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland held out
   against ratifying them for from two to four years. The secret
   of their resistance was in the claims to the western
   territory. … The three recalcitrant States had always had
   fixed western boundaries, and had no legal claim to a share in
   the western territory. … New Jersey and Delaware gave up the
   struggle in 1778 and 1779; but Maryland would not and did not
   yield, until her claims were satisfied. Dr. H. B. Adams has
   shown that the whole question of real nationality for the
   United States was bound up in this western territory; that
   even a 'league government' could not continue long to govern a
   great and growing territory like this without developing into
   a real national government, even without a change of strict
   law; and that the Maryland leaders were working under a
   complete consciousness of these facts."

      _A. Johnston,
      The United States: Its History and Constitution,
      sections 89-90._

   The western claims of Virginia were the most sweeping and were
   founded upon the oldest historical document. "The charter
   granted by James I. to South Virginia, in 1600 [see VIRGINIA:
   A. D. 1609-1616] … embraced the entire north-west of North
   America, and, within certain limits, all the islands along the
   coast of the South Sea or Pacific Ocean. … The following is
   the grant: 'All those lands, countries and territories
   situate, lying and being in that part of America called
   Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort,
   all along the sea-coast to the northward 200 miles; and from
   the said Point or Cape Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the
   southward 200 miles; and all that space and circuit of land
   lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid, up into
   the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and north-west; and
   also all the islands lying within 100 miles along the coast of
   both seas of the precinct aforesaid.' The extraordinary
   ambiguity of this grant of 1609, which was always appealed to
   as a legal title by Virginia, was first shown by Thomas Paine.
   … The chief ambiguity … lay in the interpretation of the words
   'up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and
   north-west.' From which point was the north-west line to be
   drawn, from the point on the sea-coast 200 miles above, or
   from the point 200 miles below Cape Comfort? … The more
   favorable interpretation for Virginia and, perhaps, in view of
   the expression 'from sea to sea,' more natural interpretation,
   was to draw the north-western line from the point on the
   sea-coast 200 miles above Point Comfort, and the western line
   from the southern limit below Point Comfort. This gave
   Virginia the greater part, at least, of the entire north-west,
   for the lines diverged continually. … At the outbreak of the
   Revolution, Virginia had annexed the 'County of Kentucky' to
   the Old Dominion, and, in 1778, after the capture of the
   military posts in the north-west by Colonel George Rogers
   Clarke, … that enterprising State proceeded to annex the lands
   beyond the Ohio, under the name of the County of Illinois

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
      CLARKE'S CONQUEST.

   The military claims of Virginia were certainly very strong,
   but it was felt by the smaller States that an equitable
   consideration for the services of other colonies in defending
   the back country from the French, ought to induce Virginia to
   dispose of a portion of her western territory for the common
   good. It is easy now to conceive how royal grants to
   Massachusetts and Connecticut of lands stretching from ocean
   to ocean, must have conflicted with the charter claims and
   military title of Virginia to the great north-west. … The
   claims of Massachusetts were based upon the charter granted by
   William and Mary, in 1691, and those of Connecticut upon the
   charter granted by Charles II., in 1662. …
{3281}
   The former's claim embraced the lands which now lie in
   southern Michigan and Wisconsin, or, in other words, the
   region comprehended by the extension westward of her present
   southern boundary and of her ancient northern limit, which was
   'the latitude of a league north of the inflow of Lake
   Winnipiseogee in New Hampshire. The western claims of
   Connecticut [the zone lying between her northern and southern
   boundaries—41° and 42° 2' north latitude—extended westward]
   covered portions of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. …
   The extension of charter boundaries over the far west by
   Massachusetts and Connecticut led to no trespass on the
   intervening charter claims of New York. Connecticut fell into
   a serious controversy, however, with Pennsylvania, in regard
   to the possession of certain lands in the northern part of the
   latter State, but the dispute, when brought before a court
   appointed by Congress, was finally decided in favor of
   Pennsylvania. But in the western country, Massachusetts and
   Connecticut were determined to assert their chartered rights
   against Virginia and the treaty claims of New York; for, by
   virtue of various treaties with the Six Nations and allies,
   the latter State was asserting jurisdiction over the entire
   region between Lake Erie and the Cumberland mountains, or, in
   other words, Ohio and a portion of Kentucky. These claims were
   strengthened by the following facts: First, that the chartered
   rights of New York were merged in the Crown by the accession
   to the throne, in 1685, of the Duke of York as James II.;
   again, that the Six Nations and tributaries had put themselves
   under the protection of England, and that they had always been
   treated by the Crown as appendant to the government of New
   York; moreover, in the third place, the citizens of that State
   had borne the burden of protecting these Indians for over a
   hundred years. New York was the great rival of Virginia in the
   strength and magnitude of her western claims." In 1780,
   Maryland still insisting upon the surrender of these western
   land claims to the federal government, and refusing to ratify
   the Articles of Confederation until such cession was made, the
   claimant States began to yield to her firmness. On the 1st of
   March, 1781, the offer of New York to cede her claims,
   providing Congress would confirm her western boundary, was
   made in Congress. "On that very day, Maryland ratified the
   Articles and the first legal union of the United States was
   complete. The coincidence in dates is too striking to admit of
   any other explanation than that Maryland and New York were
   acting with a mutual understanding. … The offer of Virginia,
   reserving to herself jurisdiction over the County of Kentucky;
   the offer of Connecticut, withholding jurisdiction over all
   her back lands; and the offer of New York, untrammeled by
   burdensome conditions and conferring upon Congress complete
   jurisdiction over her entire western territory,—these three
   offers were now prominently before the country. … On the 29th
   of October, 1782, Mr. Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, moved that
   Congress accept the right, title, jurisdiction, and claim of
   New York, as ceded by the agents of that state on the first of
   March, 1781. … On the 13th day of September, 1783, it was
   voted by Congress to accept the cession offered by Virginia,
   of the territory north-west of the Ohio, provided that state
   would waive the obnoxious conditions concerning the guaranty
   of Virginia's boundary, and the annulling of all other titles
   to the north-west territory. Virginia modified her conditions
   as requested, and on the 20th of October, 1783, empowered her
   delegates in Congress to make the cession, which was done by
   Thomas Jefferson, and others, March 1, 1784."

      _H. B. Adams,
      Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 3d series, Number 1),
      pages 9-11, 19-22, 36-39._

   The Massachusetts deed of cession was executed April 19, 1785.
   It conveyed the right and title of the state to all lands
   "west of a meridian line drawn through the western bent or
   inclination of Lake Ontario, provided such line should fall 20
   miles or more west of the western limit of the Niagara River"
   —that being the western boundary of New York, fixed four years
   before. In May, 1786, Connecticut authorized a cession which
   was not complete. Instead of beginning at the western boundary
   line of Pennsylvania, her conveyance was of lands beyond a
   line 120 miles west of the Pennsylvania line—thus retaining
   her claim to the large tract in Ohio known subsequently as the
   Western Reserve, or Connecticut Reserve. "The acceptance of
   this cession was strongly opposed in Congress. … After a
   severe struggle it was accepted, May 26, 1786, Maryland alone
   voting in the negative."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 13._

   South Carolina executed the cession of her western claims in
   1787; North Carolina in 1790, and Georgia in 1802.

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain: its History,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (February-May).
   Peace Resolutions in the British House of Commons.
   Retirement of Lord North.
   Pacific overtures through General Carleton.

   "Fortunately for the United States, the temper of the British
   nation on the question of continuing the American war was not
   in unison with that of its sovereign. That war into which the
   nation had entered with at least as much eagerness as the
   minister had now become almost universally unpopular. Motions
   against the measures of administration respecting America were
   repeated by the opposition, and on every new experiment the
   strength of the minority increased. At length, on the 27th of
   February [1782], general Conway moved in the house of commons,
   'that it is the opinion of this house that a further
   prosecution of offensive war against America, would, under
   present circumstances, be the means of weakening the efforts
   of this country against her European enemies, and tend to
   increase the mutual enmity so fatal to the interests both of
   Great Britain and America.' The whole force of administration
   was exerted to get rid of this question, but was exerted in
   vain; and the resolution was carried. An address to the king
   in the words of the motion was immediately voted, and was
   presented by the whole house. The answer of the crown being
   deemed inexplicit, it was on the 4th of March resolved by the
   commons, 'that the house will consider as enemies to his
   majesty and the country, all those who should advise or
   attempt a further prosecution of offensive war on the
   continent of North America.' These votes were soon followed by
   a change of administration [Lord North resigning and being
   succeeded by Lord Rockingham, with Fox, Shelburne, Burke and
   Sheridan for colleagues], and by instructions to the
   commanding officers of his Brittanic majesty's forces in
   America which conformed to them. …
{3282}
   Early in May, Sir Guy Carleton, who had succeeded Sir Henry
   Clinton in the command of all the British forces in the United
   States, arrived at New York. Having been also appointed in
   conjunction with admiral Digby a commissioner to negotiate a
   peace, he lost no time in conveying to general Washington
   copies of the votes of the British parliament, and of a bill
   which had been introduced on the part of administration,
   authorizing his majesty to conclude a peace or truce with
   those who were still denominated the revolted colonies of
   North America. These papers he said would manifest the
   dispositions prevailing with the government and people of
   England towards those of America, and if the like pacific
   temper should prevail in this country, both inclination and
   duty would lead him to meet it with the most zealous
   concurrence. He had addressed to congress, he said, a letter
   containing the same communications, and he solicited from the
   American general a passport for the person who should convey
   it. At this time, the bill enabling the British monarch to
   conclude a peace or truce with America had not passed into a
   law; nor was any assurance given that the present
   commissioners possessed the power to offer other terms, than
   those which had formerly been rejected. General Carleton
   therefore could not hope that negotiations would commence on
   such a basis; nor be disappointed that the passports he
   requested were refused by congress, to whom the application
   was, of course, referred. … The several states passed
   resolutions expressing their objections to separate
   negotiations, and declaring those to be enemies to America who
   should attempt to treat without the authority of congress. But
   the public votes which have been stated, and probably the
   private instructions given to the British general, restrained
   him from offensive war, and the state of the American army
   disabled general Washington from making any attempt on the
   posts held by the enemy. The campaign of 1782 consequently
   passed away without furnishing any military operations of
   moment between the armies under the immediate direction of the
   respective commanders in chief."

      _J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope)
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 65 (volume 7)._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (April).
   Recognition by the Dutch Republic.

   "Henry Laurens, the American plenipotentiary to the
   Netherlands, having been taken captive and carried to England,
   John Adams was appointed in his place. The new envoy had
   waited more than eight months for an audience of reception.
   Encouraged by the success at Yorktown, on the 9th of January
   1782 Adams presented himself to the president of the
   states-general, renewed his formal request for an opportunity
   of presenting his credentials, and 'demanded a categorical
   answer which he might transmit to his sovereign.' He next went
   in person to the deputies of the several cities of Holland,
   and, following the order of their rank in the confederation,
   repeated his demand to each one of them. The attention of
   Europe was drawn to the sturdy diplomatist, who dared, alone
   and unsupported, to initiate so novel and bold a procedure.
   Not one of the representatives of foreign powers at the Hague
   believed that it could succeed;" but, beginning with
   Friesland, in February, the seven states, one by one, declared
   in favor of receiving the American envoy. "On the day which
   chanced to be the seventh anniversary of 'the battle of
   Lexington' their high mightinesses, the states-general,
   reporting the unanimous decision of the seven provinces,
   resolved that John Adams should be received as the minister of
   the United States of America. The Dutch republic was the
   second power in the world to recognise their independence."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, page 527._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Q. and C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (September).
   The opening of negotiations for Peace.

   The Rockingham ministry, which succeeded Lord North's in the
   British government, in March, 1782 (see ENGLAND: A. D.
   1782-1783), "though soon dissolved by the death of the Marquis
   of Rockingham, were early distracted by a want of unanimity,
   and early lost the confidence of the people. The negotiation
   with America during May and June made no progress. Mr. Oswald
   was the agent of Lord Shelburne, known to be opposed to the
   acknowledgment, and Mr. Grenville, of Mr. Fox. This ministry
   had been forced upon the king by a vote of the House of
   Commons. The hopes of regaining America were again excited by
   the decisive victory of Lord Rodney in the West Indies [see
   ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782], and the unexpected successes of Sir
   Eyre Coote against Hyder Ali in the East; and, if credit may
   be given to the reports of the day, the government looked
   forward with some confidence to the making a separate peace
   with Congress by means of Sir Guy Carleton, who had been
   appointed to the command of the forces in North America. … Mr.
   Adams, writing from the Hague, June 13, 1782, observes, 'I
   cannot see a probability that the English will ever make
   peace, until their finances are ruined, and such distress
   brought upon them, as will work up their parties into a civil
   war.' It was not till September of the same year, under Lord
   Shelburne's administration, formed upon the dissolution of the
   Rockingham, that the British government took a decisive and
   sincere step to make peace, and authorized their commissioner,
   Mr. Oswald, at Paris, to acknowledge the independence of the
   colonies. … This is the first instruction given by the British
   Ministry in which it was proposed to recognize the celebrated
   act of July 4th, 1776. A great and immediate progress was now
   made in the preliminaries. … The commission, under which the
   preliminaries of the treaty were actually concluded, was
   issued by Congress in June 1781. It empowered 'John Adams,
   Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and Thomas
   Jefferson, or the majority of them, or such of them as may
   assemble, or in case of the death, absence, indisposition, or
   other impediment of the others, to any one of them, full power
   and authority, general and special commission, … to sign, and
   thereupon make a treaty or treaties, and to transact every
   thing that may be necessary for completing, securing and
   strengthening the great work of pacification, in as ample
   form, and with the same effect, as if we were personally
   present and acted therein.'
{3283}
   All the commissioners, except Mr. Jefferson, were present
   during the discussions, being in Europe at the time the
   meeting was appointed. Mr. Jefferson was in America, and did
   not leave it, as a report reached the government that the
   preliminaries were already signed. Mr. Oswald's commission in
   proper form was not issued till the 21st of September."

      _The Diplomacy of the United States,
      chapter 8._

   "At the moment … that negotiations were set on foot, there
   seemed but little hope of finding the Court of France
   peaceably inclined. Fox alone among the Ministers, though
   strongly opposed to a French alliance, inclined to a contrary
   opinion, and imagined that the independence of America once
   recognized, no further demands would be made upon England. It
   was therefore his wish to recognize that independence
   immediately, and by a rapid negotiation to insure the
   conclusion of what he believed would prove a favourable peace.
   Shelburne on the contrary believed that further concessions
   would be asked by France, and that the best chance England
   possessed of obtaining honourable terms, was to reserve the
   recognition of independence as part of the valuable
   consideration to be offered to the Colonies for favourable
   terms, and to use the points where the interests of France,
   Spain, and the Colonies were inconsistent, to foment
   difficulties between them, and be the means of negotiating, if
   necessary, a separate peace with each of the belligerents, as
   opportunity might offer. The circumstances of the time
   favoured the design. Vergennes had not gone to war for the
   sake of American independence, but in order to humiliate
   England. He not only did not intend to continue the war a day
   longer than was necessary to establish a rival power on the
   other side of the Atlantic, but was desirous of framing the
   peace on conditions such as would leave England, Spain, and
   the United States to balance one another, and so make France
   paramount. He therefore intended to resist the claim which the
   Colonies had invariably advanced of pushing their frontiers as
   far west as the Mississippi, and proposed following the
   example of the Proclamation of 1763, to leave the country
   between Florida and the Cumberland to the Indians, who were to
   be placed under the protection of Spain and the United States,
   and the country north of the Ohio to England, as arranged by
   the Quebec Act of 1774. Nor was he prepared to support the
   claim of the New Englandmen to fish on the banks off
   Newfoundland, over a considerable portion of which he desired
   to establish an exclusive right for his own countrymen, in
   keeping with the French interpretation of the Treaties of
   Utrecht and Paris. Of a still more pronounced character were
   the views of Spain. Her troops had recently conquered West
   Florida and threatened East Florida as well. She had
   determined to obtain formal possession of these territories,
   and to claim that they ran into the interior till they reached
   the great lakes. The United States, according to both the
   French and Spanish idea, were therefore to be restricted to a
   strip of land on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, bounded by
   almost the same line which France had contended for against
   England after the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1779, when the
   alliance of France was not a year old, and the great triumph
   over Burgoyne was fresh, Congress notwithstanding the pressure
   of M. Gerard, the French envoy, had adopted the following
   conditions as the ultimatum of peace:

   (l.) The acknowledgment of the independence of the United
   States by Great Britain, previous to any treaty or negotiation
   for peace.

   (2.) The Mississippi as their western boundary.

   (3.) The navigation of that river to the southern boundary of
   the States with a port below it.

   They also passed a resolution to the effect that any
   interference after the conclusion of peace by any power with
   the fishery off Newfoundland hitherto exercised by the
   inhabitants of the Colonies, should be regarded as a casus
   belli. 'The advice of the allies, their knowledge of American
   interests, and their own discretion,' were in other matters to
   guide the American Commissioners sent to the European Courts.
   As however the war progressed, and French assistance,
   especially in money, became of greater and greater importance
   to the Congress, the tone of their instructions became
   sensibly modified, under the pressure, first of M. Gérard and
   then of Count Luzerne, his successor. On the 25th January
   1780, M. Gérard having obtained the appointment of a Committee
   of Congress, informed them that the territories of the United
   States extended no further west than the limits to which
   settlements were permitted by the English proclamation of
   1763; that the United States had no right to the navigation of
   the Mississippi, having no territories adjoining any part of
   the river; that Spain would probably conquer both Floridas,
   and intended holding them; and that the territory on the east
   side of the Mississippi belonged to Great Britain, and would
   probably be conquered by Spain. He at the same time urged upon
   Congress the immediate conclusion of an alliance with that
   power, to which Jay had been sent as Commissioner in 1779. On
   the 15th February, Congress having considered this
   communication, resolved to instruct Jay to abandon the claim
   to the navigation of the Mississippi. This practically implied
   the abandonment of the claim to that river as the western
   boundary. Shortly after, and again on the demand of Luzerne,
   the instructions to Adams, who had been appointed Commissioner
   for negotiating a peace, and was then in Europe, were altered.
   Independence was to be the sole ultimatum, and Adams was to
   undertake to submit to the guidance of the French Minister in
   every respect. 'You are to make the most candid and
   confidential communications,' so his amended instructions ran,
   'upon all subjects to the Ministers of our generous ally the
   King of France; to undertake nothing in the negotiations for
   peace or truce without their knowledge or concurrence, and to
   make them sensible how much we rely upon his Majesty's
   influence for effectual support in every thing that may be
   necessary to the present security or future prosperity of the
   United States of America.' As a climax Count Luzerne suggested
   and Congress agreed to make Jay, Franklin, Jefferson, and
   Laurens, joint Commissioners with Mr. Adams. Of the body thus
   appointed Jefferson refused to serve, while Laurens, as
   already seen, was captured on his way to England. Of the
   remaining Commissioners, John Adams was doubly odious to the
   diplomatists of France and Spain, because of his fearless
   independence of character, and because of the tenacity with
   which as a New Englander he clung to the American rights in
   the Newfoundland fisheries; Jay had been an enthusiastic
   advocate for the Spanish alliance, but the cavalier treatment
   he had received at Madrid, and the abandonment of the
   Mississippi boundary by Congress, had forced upon him the
   conviction that his own country was being used as a tool by
   the European powers, for their own ulterior objects. The
   French he hated.
{3284}
   He said 'they were not a moral people, and did not know what
   it was.' Not so Franklin, influenced partly by his long
   residence in the French capital, and by the idea that the
   Colonies were more likely to obtain their objects, by a firm
   reliance upon France than by confidence in the generosity of
   England. He also pointed to the terms of the treaty he had
   negotiated with the former power, which forbade either party
   to conclude a separate peace without the leave previously
   obtained of the other, as imposing a moral and legal
   obligation on his countrymen to follow the policy which he
   believed their interests as a power required them to adopt.
   Meanwhile the King of France congratulated Congress on having
   entrusted to his care the interests of the United States, and
   warned them that if France was to be asked to continue
   hostilities for purely American objects it was impossible to
   say what the result might be, for the system of France
   depended not merely on America, but on the other powers at
   war."

      _Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
      Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

   "Benjamin Franklin, now venerable with years, had been doing
   at the court of Versailles a work hardly less important than
   that of Washington on the battle-fields of America. By the
   simple grace and dignity of his manners, by his large good
   sense and freedom of thought, by his fame as a scientific
   discoverer, above all by his consummate tact in the management
   of men, the whilom printer, king's postmaster-general for
   America, discoverer, London colonial agent, delegate in the
   Continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of
   Independence, had completely captivated elegant, free-thinking
   France. Learned and common folk, the sober and the frivolous
   alike swore by Franklin. Snuff-boxes, furniture, dishes, even
   stoves were gotten up 'à la Franklin.' The old man's portrait
   was in every house. That the French Government, in spite of a
   monarch who was half afraid of the rising nation beyond sea,
   had given America her hearty support, was in no small measure
   due to the influence of Franklin. And his skill in diplomacy
   was of the greatest value in the negotiations now pending."

      _E. B. Andrews,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, pages 208-209._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Hale,
      Franklin in France,
      volume 2, chapters 3-4._

      _Lord J. Russell,
      Life of Fox,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (September-November).
   The Peace parleyings at Paris.
   Distrust of French aims by Jay and Adams.
   A secret and separate negotiation with England.

   "The task of making a treaty of peace was simplified both by
   [the change of ministry which placed Lord Shelburne at the
   head of affairs in England] … and by the total defeat of the
   Spaniards and French at Gibraltar in September [see ENGLAND;
   A. D. 1780-1782]. Six months before, England had seemed
   worsted in every quarter. Now England, though defeated in
   America was victorious as regarded France and Spain. The
   avowed object for which France had entered into alliance with
   the Americans, was to secure the independence of the United
   States, and this point was now substantially gained. The chief
   object for which Spain had entered into alliance with France
   was to drive the English from Gibraltar, and this point was
   now decidedly lost. France had bound herself not to desist
   from the war until Spain should recover Gibraltar; but now
   there was little hope of accomplishing this, except by some
   fortunate bargain in the treaty, and Vergennes tried to
   persuade England to cede the great stronghold, in exchange for
   West Florida, which Spain had lately conquered, or for Oran or
   Guadaloupe. Failing in this, he adopted a plan for satisfying
   Spain at the expense of the United States; and he did this the
   more willingly as he had no love for the Americans, and did
   not wish to see them become too powerful. France had strictly
   kept her pledges; she had given us valuable and timely aid in
   gaining our independence; and the sympathies of the French
   people were entirely with the American cause. But the object
   of the French government had been simply to humiliate England,
   and this end was sufficiently accomplished by depriving her of
   her thirteen colonies. The immense territory extending from
   the Alleghany Mountains to the Mississippi River, and from the
   border of West Florida to the Great Lakes, had passed from the
   hands of France into those of England at the peace of 1763;
   and by the Quebec Act of 1774 England had declared the
   southern boundary of Canada to be the Ohio River. … Vergennes
   maintained that the Americans ought to recognize the Quebec
   Act, and give up to England all the territory north of the
   Ohio River. The region south of this limit should, he thought,
   be made an Indian territory, and placed under the protection
   of Spain and the United States. … Upon another important point
   the views of the French government were directly opposed to
   American interests. The right to catch fish on the banks of
   Newfoundland had been shared by treaty between France and
   England; and the New England fishermen, as subjects of the
   king of Great Britain, had participated in this privilege. The
   matter was of very great importance, not only to New England,
   but to the United States in general. … The British government
   was not inclined to grant the privilege, and on this point
   Vergennes took sides with England, in order to establish a
   claim upon her for concessions advantageous to France in some
   other quarter. … Jay [who had lately arrived in Paris to take
   part in the negotiations] soon began to suspect the designs of
   the French minister. He found that he was sending M. de
   Rayneval as a secret emissary to Lord Shelburne under an
   assumed name; he ascertained that the right of the United
   States to the Mississippi valley was to be denied; and he got
   hold of a dispatch from Marbois, the French secretary of
   legation at Philadelphia, to Vergennes, opposing the American
   claim to the Newfoundland fisheries. As soon as Jay learned
   these facts, he sent his friend Dr. Benjamin Vaughan to Lord
   Shelburne to put him on his guard, and while reminding him
   that it was greatly for the interest of England to dissolve
   the alliance between America and France, he declared himself
   ready to begin the negotiations without waiting for the
   recognition of independence, provided that Oswald's commission
   should speak of the thirteen United States of America, instead
   of calling them colonies and naming them separately.
{3285}
   This decisive step was taken by Jay on his own responsibility,
   and without the knowledge of Franklin, who had been averse to
   anything like a separate negotiation with England. It served
   to set the ball rolling at once. … Lord Shelburne at once
   perceived the antagonism that had arisen between the allies,
   and promptly took advantage of it. A new commission was made
   out for Oswald, in which the British government first
   described our country as the United States; and early in
   October negotiations were begun and proceeded rapidly. On the
   part of England the affair was conducted by Oswald, assisted
   by Strachey and Fitzherbert, who had succeeded Grenville. In
   the course of the month John Adams arrived in Paris, and a few
   weeks later Henry Laurens. … The arrival of Adams fully
   decided the matter as to a separate negotiation with England.
   He agreed with Jay that Vergennes should be kept as far as
   possible in the dark until everything was cut and dried, and
   Franklin was reluctantly obliged to yield. The treaty of
   alliance between France and the United States had expressly
   stipulated that neither power should ever make peace without
   the consent of the other. … In justice to Vergennes, it should
   be borne in mind that he had kept strict faith with us in
   regard to every point that had been expressly stipulated. … At
   the same time, in regard to matters not expressly stipulated,
   Vergennes was clearly playing a sharp game against us; and it
   is undeniable that, without departing technically from the
   obligations of the alliance, Jay and Adams—two men as
   honourable as ever lived—played a very sharp defensive game
   against him. … The treaty with England was not concluded until
   the consent of France had been obtained, and thus the express
   stipulation was respected; but a thorough and detailed
   agreement was reached as to what the purport of the treaty
   should be, while our not too friendly ally was kept in the
   dark."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      chapter 1._

   "If his [Vergennes'] policy had been carried out, it seems
   clear that he would have established a claim for concessions
   from England by supporting her against America on the
   questions of Canada and the Canadian border and the
   Newfoundland fishery. … The success of such a policy would
   have been extremely displeasing to the Congress, and Jay and
   Adams defeated it. … The act was done, and if it can be
   justified by success, that justification, at least, is not
   wanting."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 15 (volume 4)._

   "The instructions of congress, given to the American
   commissioners under the instigation of the French court, were
   absolute and imperative, 'to undertake nothing without the
   knowledge and concurrence of that court, and ultimately to
   govern themselves by their advice and opinion.' These orders,
   transmitted at the time of the enlargement of the commission,
   had just been reinforced by assurances given to quiet the
   uneasiness created in France by the British overtures through
   Governor Carleton. Thus far, although the commissioners had
   felt them to be derogatory to the honor of their country, as
   well as to their own character as its representatives, there
   had been no necessity for action either under or against them.
   But now that matters were coming to the point of a serious
   negotiation, and the secondary questions of interest to
   America were to be determined, especially those to which
   France had shown herself indifferent, not to say adverse, it
   seemed as if no chance remained of escaping a decision. Mr.
   Jay, jealous of the mission of De Rayneval, of which not a
   hint had been dropped by the French court, suspicious of its
   good faith from the disclosures of the remarkable dispatch of
   Marbois, and fearful of any advice like that of which he had
   received a foretaste through M. de Rayneval, at the same time
   provoked that the confidence expected should be all on one
   side, the Count communicating nothing of the separate French
   negotiation, came to the conclusion that the interests of
   America were safest when retained in American hands. He
   therefore declared himself in favor of going on to treat with
   Great Britain, without consulting the French court. Dr.
   Franklin, on the other hand, expressing his confidence in that
   court, secured by his sense of the steady reception of
   benefits by his country, signified his willingness to abide by
   the instructions he had received. Yet it is a singular fact,
   but lately disclosed, that, notwithstanding this general
   feeling, which was doubtless sincerely entertained, Dr.
   Franklin had been the first person to violate those
   instructions, at the very inception of the negotiations, by
   proposing to Lord Shelburne the cession of Canada, and
   covering his proposal with an earnest injunction to keep it
   secret from France, because of his belief that she was adverse
   to the measure. … It may fairly be inferred that, whatever
   Franklin might have been disposed to believe of the French
   court, his instincts were too strong to enable him to trust
   them implicitly with the care of interests purely American.
   And, in this, there can be no reasonable cause for doubt that
   he was right. The more full the disclosures have been of the
   French policy from their confidential papers, the more do they
   show Count de Vergennes assailing England in America, with
   quite as fixed a purpose as ever Chatham had to conquer
   America in Germany. Mr. Adams had no doubt of it. He had never
   seen any signs of a disposition to aid the United States from
   affection or sympathy. On the contrary, he had perceived their
   cause everywhere made subordinate to the general
   considerations of continental politics. Perhaps his
   impressions at some moments carried him even further, and led
   him to suspect in the Count a positive desire to check and
   depress America. In this he fell into the natural mistake of
   exaggerating the importance of his own country. In the great
   game of nations which was now playing at Paris under the
   practised eye of France's chief (for Count de Maurepas was no
   longer living), the United States probably held a relative
   position, in his mind, not higher than that of a pawn, or
   possibly a knight, on a chess-table. Whilst his attention was
   absorbed in arranging the combinations of several powers, it
   necessarily followed that he had not the time to devote that
   attention to any one, which its special representative might
   imagine to be its due. But even this hypothesis was to Mr.
   Adams justification quite sufficient for declining to submit
   the interests of his country implicitly to the Count's
   control. If not so material in the Count's eyes, the greater
   the necessity of keeping them in his own care. He therefore
   seized the first opportunity to announce to his colleagues his
   preference for the views of Mr. Jay.
{3286}
   After some little reflection, Dr. Franklin signified his
   acquiescence in this decision. His objections to it had
   doubtless been increased by the peculiar relations he had
   previously sustained to the French court, and by a very proper
   desire to be released from the responsibility of what might
   from him be regarded as a discourteous act. No such delicacy
   was called for on the part of the other commissioners. Neither
   does it appear that Count de Vergennes manifested a sign of
   discontent with them at the time. He saw that little
   confidence was placed in him, but he does not seem to have
   made the slightest effort to change the decision or even to
   get an explanation of it. The truth is, that the course thus
   taken had its conveniences for him, provided only that the
   good faith of the American negotiators, not to make a separate
   peace, could be depended upon. Neither did he ever affect to
   complain of it, excepting at one particular moment when he
   thought he had cause to fear that the support he relied on
   might fail."

      _J. Q. and C. F. Adams,
      The Life of John Adams,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

   "The radical difference between Franklin and his colleagues
   was in the question of trust. Franklin saw no reason to
   distrust the fidelity of France at any time to her engagements
   to the United States during the revolutionary war. His
   colleagues did not share this confidence, and yet, while
   impressed by this distrust of their ally, they made no appeal
   for explanation. The weight of opinion, as will hereafter be
   more fully seen, is now that Franklin was right, and they in
   this respect wrong. But whatever may have been the correctness
   of their view, it was proper that, before making it the basis
   of their throwing off the burden of treaty obligation and
   their own instructions, they should have first notified France
   of their complaint. Obligations cannot be repudiated by one
   party on the ground of the failure of the other party to
   perform some condition imposed on him, without giving him
   notice of the charge against him, so that he could have the
   opportunity of explanation. It may be added, on the merits,
   that the extenuation set up by Jay and Adams, that France was
   herself untrue to her obligations, however honestly they
   believed it, can not now be sustained. Livingston, who knew
   more of the attitude of France than any public man on the
   American side except Franklin, swept it aside as groundless.
   Edward Everett, one of the most accomplished historical
   writers and diplomatists the country has ever produced,
   speaks, as we shall see, to the same effect, and other
   historical critics of authority, to be also hereafter cited,
   give us the same conclusion. Yet there are other reasons which
   may excuse their course, and that of Franklin, who concurred
   with them rather than defeat a peace. In the first place, such
   was their isolation, that their means of communication with
   Congress was stopped; and they might well have argued that if
   Congress knew that the English envoys refused to treat with
   them except in secret conference their instructions would have
   been modified. In the second place we may accept Adams'
   statement that Vergennes was from time to time informally
   advised of the nature of the pending propositions. In the
   third place, the articles agreed on in 1782 were not to be a
   definite treaty except with the assent of France. … It now
   appears that the famous Marbois letter, handed to Jay by one
   of the British loyalists, and relied on by him as showing
   France's duplicity, was disavowed by Marbois; and there are,
   aside from this, very strong reasons to distrust its
   genuineness. In the second place, we have in the
   correspondence of George III a new light thrown, on the action
   taken by Jay in consequence of this letter. … Benjamin
   Vaughan, while a gentleman of great amiability and personal
   worth, was, when Jay sent him without Franklin's knowledge on
   a confidential mission to the British ministry, in the employ
   of that ministry as secret agent at Paris. It is due to Jay to
   say that he was ignorant of this fact, though he would have
   been notified of it had he consulted Franklin. One of the most
   singular incidents of this transaction is that George III,
   seeking double treachery in thus sending back to him his own
   agent in the guise of an agent from the American legation,
   regarded it as a peculiarly subtle machination of Franklin,
   which it was his duty to baffle by utterly discrediting
   Benjamin Vaughan. It should be added that Franklin's
   affection for Benjamin Vaughan was in no wise diminished by
   Vaughan's assumption, with an honesty which no one who knew
   him would question, of this peculiar kind of mediatorship. And
   in Jay Franklin's confidence was unabated. He more than once
   said that no one could be found more suited than Jay to
   represent the United States abroad. And when, in view of
   death, he prepared to settle his estate, he selected; Jay as
   his executor."

      _F. Wharton,
      The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence
      of the United States,
      chapter 9, section 111,
      and chapter 13, section 158 (volume 1)._

   Writing to M. de la Luzerne, the French Minister in the United
   States, under date of December 19, 1782, Count de Vergennes
   expressed himself on the conduct of the American Commissioners
   as follows: "You will surely be gratified, as well as myself,
   with the very extensive advantages, which our allies, the
   Americans, are to receive from the peace; but you certainly
   will, not be less surprised than I have been, at the conduct
   of the Commissioners. According to the instructions of
   Congress, they ought to have done nothing without our
   participation. I have informed you, that the King did not seek
   to influence the negotiation any further than his offices
   might be necessary to his friends. The American Commissioners
   will not say that I have interfered, and much less that I have
   wearied them with my curiosity. They have cautiously kept
   themselves at a distance from me. Mr. Adams, one of them,
   coming from Holland, where he had been received and served by
   our ambassador, had been in Paris nearly three weeks, without
   imagining that he owed me any mark of attention, and probably
   I should not have seen him till this time, if I had not caused
   him to be reminded of it. Whenever I have had occasion to see
   anyone of them, and inquire of them briefly respecting the
   progress of the negotiation, they have constantly clothed
   their speech in generalities, giving me to understand that it
   did not go forward, and that they had no confidence in the
   sincerity of the British ministry. Judge of my surprise, when,
   on the 30th of November, Dr. Franklin informed me that the
   articles were signed. The reservation retained on our account
   does not save the infraction of the promise, which we have
   mutually made, not to sign except conjointly.
{3287}
   I owe Dr. Franklin the justice to state, however, that on the
   next day he sent me a copy of the articles. He will hardly
   complain that I received them without demonstrations of
   sensibility. It was not till some days after, that, when this
   minister had come to see me, I allowed myself to make him
   perceive that his proceeding in this abrupt signature of the
   articles had little in it, which could be agreeable to the
   King. He appeared sensible of it, and excused, in the best
   manner he could, himself and his colleagues. Our conversation
   was amicable."

      _J. Bigelow,
      Life of Benjamin Franklin,
      volume 3, page 207, note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Jay,
      The Peace Negotiations of 1782-3
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 2)._

      _E. Fitzmaurice,
      Life of the Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 3, chapter 6._

      _E. E. Hale,
      Franklin in France,
      volume 2, chapters 5-8._

      _H. Doniol,
      Histoire de la Participation de la France
      à l'établissement des États-Unis d'Amérique, tome 5._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.

[Image: Map of the United States.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.
   Grievances of the Army.
   The Newburgh Addresses.

   "Nothing had been done by Congress for the claims of the army,
   and it seemed highly probable that it would be disbanded
   without even a settlement of the accounts of the officers, and
   if so, that they would never receive their dues. Alarmed and
   irritated by the neglect of Congress; destitute of money and
   credit and of the means of living from day to day; oppressed
   with debts; saddened by the distresses of their families at
   home, and by the prospect of misery before them,—they
   presented a memorial to Congress in December [1782], in which
   they urged the immediate adjustment of their dues, and offered
   to commute the half-pay for life, granted by the resolve of
   October, 1780, for full pay for a certain number of years, or
   for such a sum in gross as should be agreed on by their
   committee sent to Philadelphia to attend the progress of the
   memorial through the house. It is manifest from statements in
   this document, as well as from other evidence, that the
   officers were nearly driven to desperation, and that their
   offer of commutation was wrung from them by a state of public
   opinion little creditable to the country. … The committee of
   the officers were in attendance upon Congress during the whole
   winter, and early in March, 1783, they wrote to their
   constituents that nothing had been done. At this moment, the
   predicament in which Washington stood, in the double relation
   of citizen and soldier, was critical and delicate in the
   extreme. In the course of a few days, all his firmness and
   patriotism, all his sympathies as an officer, on the one side,
   and his fidelity to the government, on the other, were
   severely tried. On the 10th of March, an anonymous address was
   circulated among the officers at Newburgh, calling a meeting
   of the general and field officers, and of one officer from
   each company, and one from the medical staff, to consider the
   late letter from their representatives at Philadelphia, and to
   determine what measures should be adopted to obtain that
   redress of grievances which they seemed to have solicited in
   vain. It was written with great ability and skill [by John
   Armstrong, afterwards General]. … Washington met the crisis
   with firmness, but also with conciliation. He issued orders
   forbidding an assemblage at the call of an anonymous paper,
   and directing the officers to assemble on Saturday, the 15th,
   to hear the report of their committee, and to deliberate what
   further measures ought to be adopted as most rational and best
   calculated to obtain the just and important object in view.
   The senior officer in rank present [General Gates] was
   directed to preside, and to report the result to the
   Commander-in-chief. On the next day after these orders were
   issued, a second anonymous address appeared from the same
   writer. In this paper he affected to consider the orders of
   General Washington, assuming the direction of the meeting, as
   a sanction of the whole proceeding which he had proposed.
   Washington saw, at once, that he must be present at the
   meeting himself, or that his name would be used to justify
   measures which he intended to discountenance and prevent. He
   therefore attended the meeting, and under his influence,
   seconded by that of Putnam, Knox, Brooks, and Howard, the
   result was the adoption of certain resolutions, in which the
   officers, after reasserting their grievances, and rebuking all
   attempts to seduce them from their civil allegiance, referred
   the whole subject of their claims again to the consideration
   of Congress. Even at this distant day, the peril of that
   crisis can scarcely be contemplated without a shudder. Had the
   Commander-in-chief been other than Washington, had the leading
   officers by whom he was surrounded been less than the noblest
   of patriots, the land would have been deluged with the blood
   of a civil war."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution of the United States,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 11._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1784.
   Persecution and flight of the Tories or Loyalists.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (April).
   Formation of the Society of the Cincinnati.

      See CINCINNATI, THE SOCIETY OF THE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (September).
   The definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
   the United States.

   The four difficult questions on which the British and American
   negotiators at Paris arrived, after much discussion and wise
   compromise, at a settlement of differences originally wide,
   were
   (1) Boundaries;
   (2) Fishing rights;
   (3) Payment of debts from American to British merchants that
   were outstanding when the war began;
   (4) Amnesty to American loyalists, or Tories, and restoration
   of their confiscated property.

   Within two months after the separate negotiations with England
   opened an agreement had been reached, and preliminary or
   provisional articles were signed on the 30th of November,
   1782. The treaty was not to take effect, otherwise than by the
   cessation of hostilities, until terms of peace should be
   agreed upon between England and France. This occurred in the
   following January, and on the 3d of September, 1783, the
   definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the
   United States was signed [at Paris]. Its essential provisions
   were the following:

    "Article 1.
    His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States,
    viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and
    Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
    Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
    South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and
    independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for
    himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to
    the Government, propriety and territorial rights of the same,
    and every part thereof.

{3288}

   Article II.
   And that all disputes which might arise in future, on the
   subject of the boundaries of the United States may be
   prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the
   following are, and shall be their boundaries, viz: From the
   north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that angle which is
   formed by a line drawn due north from the source of Saint
   Croix River to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which
   divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St.
   Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to
   the northwestern most head of Connecticut River; thence down
   along the middle of that river, to the 45th degree of north
   latitude; from thence, by a line due west on the said
   latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy;
   thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario,
   through the middle of said lake until it strikes the
   communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence
   along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through
   the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along
   the middle of said water communication into the Lake Huron;
   thence through the middle of said lake to the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence
   through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and
   Philipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of
   said Long Lake, and the water communication between it and the
   Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through
   the said lake to the most northwestern point thereof, and from
   thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence
   by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river
   Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of
   the 31st degree of north latitude. South, by a line to be
   drawn due east from the determination of the line last
   mentioned, in the latitude of 31 degrees north of the Equator,
   to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence
   along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River;
   thence strait to the head of St. Mary's River; and thence down
   along the middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean.
   East, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St.
   Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and
   from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands,
   which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from
   those which fall into the river St. Lawrence; comprehending all
   islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the
   United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east
   from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova
   Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall
   respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean;
   excepting such islands as now are, or heretofore have been,
   within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

   Article III.
   It is agreed that the people of the United States shall
   continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every
   kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of
   Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of Saint Lawrence, and at all
   other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both
   countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that
   the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to
   take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of
   Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or
   cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays, and
   creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in
   America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to
   dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and
   creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long
   as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same or
   either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
   the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement,
   without a previous agreement for that purpose with the
   inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

   Article IV.
   It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no
   lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in
   sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

   Article V.
   It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to
   the legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the
   restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have
   been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also
   of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in
   districts in the possession of His Majesty's arms, and who
   have not borne arms against the said United States. …

   Article VI.
   That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any
   prosecutions commenced, against any person or persons for, or
   by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the
   present war. …

   Article VII.
   There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between His
   Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the
   subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore
   all hostilities, both by sea and land, shall from henceforth
   cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty,
   and His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed,
   and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any
   negroes or other property of the American inhabitants,
   withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said
   United States. …

   Article VIII.
   The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to
   the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects
   of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States."

      _Documents Illustrative of American History,
      edited by H. W. Preston,
      page 232._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 370-379._

      _Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 23._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (November-December).
   The British evacuation of New York.
   Dissolution of the Continental Army and Washington's
   farewell to it.

   "The definitive treaty had been signed at Paris on the 3d of
   September, 1783, and was soon to be ratified by the United
   States in Congress assembled. The last remnant of the British
   army in the east had sailed down the Narrows on the 25th of
   November, a day which, under the appellation of Evacuation
   Day, was long held in grateful remembrance by the inhabitants
   of New York, and was, till a few years since, annually
   celebrated with fireworks and with military display. Of the
   continental army scarce a remnant was then [at the beginning
   of 1784] in the service of the States, and these few were
   under the command of General Knox. His great work of
   deliverance over, Washington had resigned his commission, had
   gone back to his estate on the banks of the Potomac, and was
   deeply engaged with plans for the improvement of his
   plantations.
{3289}
   The retirement to private life of the American Fabius, as the
   newspapers delighted to call him, had been attended by many
   pleasing ceremonies, and had been made the occasion for new
   manifestations of affectionate regard by the people. The same
   day that witnessed the departure of Sir Guy Carleton from New
   York also witnessed the entry into that city of the army of
   the States. Nine days later Washington bid adieu to his
   officers. About noon on Thursday, the 4th of December, the
   chiefs of the army assembled in the great room of Fraunces's
   Tavern, then the resort of merchants and men of fashion, and
   there Washington joined them. Rarely as he gave way to his
   emotions, he could not on that day get the mastery of them. …
   He filled a glass from a decanter that stood on the table,
   raised it with a trembling hand, and said: 'With a heart full
   of love and gratitude I now take leave of you, and most
   devoutly wish your latter days may be as prosperous and happy
   as your former ones have been glorious and honorable.' Then he
   drank to them, and, after a pause, said: 'I cannot come to
   each of you to take my leave, but shall be obliged if you will
   each come and shake me by the hand.' General Knox came forward
   first, and Washington embraced him. The other officers
   approached one by one, and silently took their leave. A line
   of infantry had been drawn up extending from the tavern to
   Whitehall ferry, where a barge was in waiting to carry the
   commander across the Hudson to Paulus Hook. Washington, with
   his officers following, walked down the line of soldiers to
   the water. The streets, the balconies, the windows, were
   crowded with gazers. All the churches in the city sent forth a
   joyous din. Arrived at the ferry, he entered the barge in
   silence, stood up, took off his hat and waved farewell. Then,
   as the boat moved slowly out into the stream amid the shouts
   of the citizens, his companions in arms stood bareheaded on
   the shore till the form of their illustrious commander was
   lost to view."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 33._

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 6-7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   After the war.
   Resistance to the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace.
   National feebleness and humiliation.
   Failure of the Articles of Confederation.
   Movements toward a firmer Constitution.

   "The revolution was at last accomplished. The evils it had
   removed, being no longer felt, were speedily forgotten. The
   evils it had brought pressed heavily upon them. They could
   devise no remedy. They saw no way of escape. They soon began
   to grumble, became sullen, hard to please, dissatisfied with
   themselves and with everything done for them. The States,
   differing in habits, in customs, in occupations, had been
   during a few years united by a common danger. But the danger
   was gone; old animosities and jealousies broke forth again
   with all their strength, and the union seemed likely to be
   dissolved. In this state of public discontent the House met at
   Philadelphia early in January, 1784. Some days were spent in
   examining credentials of new members, and in waiting for the
   delinquents to come in. It was not till the 14th of the month
   that the definitive treaty was taken under consideration and
   duly ratified. Nothing remained, therefore, but to carry out
   the stipulations with as much haste as possible. But there
   were some articles which the people had long before made up
   their minds never should be carried out. While the treaty was
   yet in course of preparation the royal commissioners had
   stoutly insisted on the introduction of articles providing for
   the return of the refugees and the payment of debts due to
   British subjects at the opening of the war. The commissioners
   on behalf of the United States, who well knew the tempers of
   their countrymen, had at first firmly stood out against any
   such articles. But some concessions were afterward made by
   each party, and certain stipulations touching the debts and
   the refugees inserted. Adams, who wrote in the name of his
   fellow-commissioners, … hoped that the middle line adopted
   would be approved. The middle line to which Adams referred was
   that Congress should recommend the States to make no more
   seizures of the goods and property of men lately in arms
   against the Confederation, and to put no bar in the way of the
   recovery of such as had already been confiscated. It was
   distinctly understood by each side that these were
   recommendations, and nothing more than recommendations. Yet no
   sooner were they made known than a shout of indignation and
   abuse went up from all parts of the country. The community in
   a moment was divided between three parties. The smallest of
   the three was made up of the Tories, who still hoped for place
   and power, and still nursed the delusion that the past would
   be forgotten. Yet they daily contributed to keep the
   remembrance of it alive by a strong and avowed attachment to
   Great Britain. Opposed to these was the large and influential
   body of violent Whigs, who insisted vehemently that every
   loyalist should instantly be driven from the States. A less
   numerous and less violent body of Whigs constituted the third
   party." The fury of the violent Whigs proved generally
   irresistible and great numbers of the obnoxious Tories fled
   before it.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

   Some "sought a refuge in Florida, then a possession of Spain,
   and founded settlements which their descendants have since
   raised to prosperous and beautiful villages, renowned for
   groves of orange-trees and fields of cane. Others embarked on
   the British ships of war, and were carried to Canada or the
   island of Bermuda; a few turned pirates, obtained a sloop, and
   scoured the waters of Chesapeake bay. Many went to England,
   beset the ministry with petitions for relief, wearied the
   public with pathetic stories of the harsh ingratitude with
   which their sufferings had been requited, and were accused,
   with much show of reason, by the Americans of urging the
   severe restrictions which England began to lay on American
   commerce. Many more … set out for Nova Scotia. … The open
   contempt with which, in all parts of the country, the people
   treated the recommendation of Congress concerning the refugees
   and the payment of the debts, was no more than any man of
   ordinary sagacity could have foretold. Indeed, the state into
   which Congress had fallen was most wretched. … Each of the
   thirteen States the Union bound together retained all the
   rights of sovereignty, and asserted them punctiliously against
   the central government.
{3290}
   Each reserved to itself the right to put up mints, to strike
   money, to levy taxes, to raise armies, to say what articles
   should come into its ports free and what should be made to pay
   duty. Toward the Continental Government they acted precisely
   as if they were dealing with a foreign power. In truth, one of
   the truest patriots of New England had not been ashamed to
   stand up in his place in the Massachusetts House of Deputies
   and speak of the Congress of the States as a foreign
   government. Every act of that body was scrutinized with the
   utmost care. The transfer of the most trivial authority beyond
   the borders of the State was made with protestations, with
   trembling, and with fear. Under such circumstances, each
   delegate felt himself to have much the character, and to be
   clothed with very much of the power, of ambassadors. He was
   not responsible to men, he was responsible to a State. … From
   beginning to end the system of representation was bad. By the
   Articles of Confederation each of the thirteen little
   republics was annually to send to Congress not more than seven
   and not less than two delegates. No thought was taken of
   population. … But this absolute equality of the States was
   more apparent than real. Congress possessed no revenue. The
   burden of supporting the delegates was cast on those who sent
   them, and, as the charge was not light, a motive was at once
   created for preferring a representation of two to a
   representation of seven, or, indeed, for sending none at all.
   While the war was still raging and the enemy marching and
   counter-marching within the border of every State, a sense of
   fear kept up the number of delegates to at least two. Indeed,
   some of the wealthier and more populous States often had as
   many as four congressmen on the floor of the House. But the
   war was now over. The stimulus derived from the presence of a
   hostile army was withdrawn, and the representation and
   attendance fell off fast. Delaware and Georgia ceased to be
   represented. From the ratification of the treaty to the
   organization of the Government under the Constitution six
   years elapsed, and during those six years Congress, though
   entitled to 91 members, was rarely attended by 25. The House
   was repeatedly forced to adjourn day after day for want of a
   quorum. On more than one occasion these adjournments covered a
   period of thirteen consecutive days. … No occasion, however
   impressive or important, could call out a large attendance.
   Seven States, represented by twenty delegates, witnessed the
   resignation of Washington. Twenty-three members, sitting for
   eleven States, voted for the ratification of the treaty. … It
   is not surprising, therefore, that Congress speedily
   degenerated into a debating club, and a debating club of no
   very high order. Neglected by its own members, insulted and
   threatened by its mutinous troops, reviled by the press, and
   forced to wander from city to city in search of an abiding
   place, its acts possessed no national importance whatever. It
   voted monuments that never were put up, rewarded meritorious
   services with sums of money that never were paid, formed wise
   schemes for the relief of the finances that never were carried
   out, and planned on paper a great city that never was built.
   In truth, to the scoffers and malcontents of that day, nothing
   was more diverting than the uncertain wanderings of Congress.
   … In the coffee-houses and taverns no toasts were drunk with
   such uproarious applause as 'A hoop to the barrel' and 'Cement
   to the Union'; toasts which not long before had sprung up in
   the army and come rapidly into vogue. … The men who, in after
   years, came to eminence as the framers of the Constitution,
   who became renowned leaders of the Federalists, presidents,
   cabinet ministers, and constitutional statesmen, were then in
   private life, abroad, or in the State Assemblies. Washington
   was busy with his negroes and tobacco; Adams was minister to
   Holland; Jefferson still sat in Congress, but was soon to be
   sent as minister to France; Madison sat in the Virginia House
   of Deputies; Hamilton was wrangling with Livingston and Burr
   at the bar of New York; Jay was minister to Spain."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   Hamilton's description, in one of the papers of the
   Federalist, of the state of the country in 1787, is very
   graphic: "We may indeed, with propriety," he wrote, "be said
   to have reached almost the last stage of National humiliation.
   There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride, or
   degrade the character of an independent nation, which we do
   not experience. Are there engagements, to the performance of
   which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These
   are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we
   owe debts to foreigners, and to our own citizens, contracted
   in a time of imminent peril, for the preservation of our
   political existence! These remain without any proper or
   satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable
   territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign
   power, which, by express stipulations, ought long since to
   have been surrendered! These are still retained, to the
   prejudice of our interests not less than of our rights. Are we
   in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have
   neither troops, nor treasury, nor Government. Are we even in a
   condition to remonstrate with dignity? The just imputations on
   our own faith, in respect to the same treaty, ought first to
   be removed. Are we entitled by nature and compact to a free
   participation in the navigation of the Mississippi? Spain
   excludes us from it. Is public credit an indispensable
   resource in time of public danger? We seem to have abandoned
   its cause as desperate and irretrievable. Is commerce of
   importance to National wealth? Ours is at the lowest point of
   declension. Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a
   safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our
   Government even forbids them to treat with us. Our ambassadors
   abroad are the mere pageants of mimic sovereignty. Is a
   violent and unnatural decrease in the value of land a symptom
   of National distress? The price of improved land in most parts
   of the country is much lower than can be accounted for by the
   quantity of waste land at market, and can only be fully
   explained by that want of private and public confidence, which
   are so alarmingly prevalent among all ranks, and which have a
   direct tendency to depreciate property of every kind. Is
   private credit the friend and patron of industry? That most
   useful kind which relates to borrowing and lending is reduced
   within the narrowest limits, and this still more from an
   opinion of insecurity than from the scarcity of money.
{3291}
   To shorten an enumeration of particulars which can afford
   neither pleasure nor instruction, it may in general be
   demanded what indication is there of National disorder,
   poverty, and insignificance, that could befall a community so
   peculiarly blessed with natural advantages as we are, which
   does not form a part of the dark catalogue of our public
   misfortunes? … The great and radical vice in the construction
   of the existing Confederation is in the principle of
   legislation for States or Governments, in their corporate or
   collective capacities, and as contradistinguished from the
   individuals of which they consist. Though this principle does
   not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it
   pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest
   depends. Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United
   States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for
   men and money, but they have no authority to raise either, by
   regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
   The consequence of this is, that, though in theory their
   resolutions concerning those objects are laws,
   constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in
   practice they are mere recommendations, which the States
   observe or disregard at their option. … There is nothing
   absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance
   between independent nations, for certain defined purposes
   precisely stated in a treaty; regulating all the details of
   time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to
   future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good
   faith of the parties. … If the particular States in this
   country are disposed to stand in a similar relation to each
   other, and to drop the project of a general discretionary
   superintendence, the scheme would indeed be pernicious, and
   would entail upon us all the mischiefs which have been
   enumerated under the first head; but it would have the merit
   of being, at least, consistent and practicable. Abandoning all
   views towards a Confederate Government, this would bring us to
   a simple alliance offensive and defensive; and would place us
   in a situation to be alternately friends and enemies of each
   other, as our mutual jealousies and rivalships, nourished by
   the intrigues of foreign nations, should prescribe to us. But
   if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation;
   if we still will adhere to the design of a National
   Government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending
   power, under the direction of a common Council, we must
   resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which
   may be considered as forming the characteristic difference
   between a league and a Government; we must extend the
   authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens,—the
   only proper objects of Government."

      _Alexander Hamilton,
      The Federalist,
      number 15._

   "Many of the States refused or neglected to pay even their
   allotted shares of interest upon the public debt, and there
   was no power in Congress to compel payment. Eighteen months
   were required to collect only one-fifth of the taxes assigned
   to the States in 1783. The national credit became worthless.
   Foreign nations refused to make commercial treaties with the
   United States, preferring a condition of affairs in which they
   could lay any desired burden upon American commerce without
   fear of retaliation by an impotent Congress. The national
   standing army had dwindled to a corps of 80 men. In 1785
   Algiers declared war against the United States. Congress
   recommended the building of five 40-gun ships of war. But
   Congress had only power to recommend. The ships were not
   built, and the Algerines were permitted to prey on American
   commerce with impunity. England still refused to carry out the
   Treaty of 1783, or to send a Minister to the United States.
   The Federal Government, in short, was despised abroad and
   disobeyed at home. The apparent remedy was the possession by
   Congress of the power of levying and collecting internal taxes
   and duties on imports, but, after long urging, it was found
   impossible to gain the necessary consent of all the States to
   the article of taxation by Congress. In 1786, therefore, this
   was abandoned, and, as a last resort, the States were asked to
   pass an Amendment intrusting to Congress the collection of a
   revenue from imports. This Amendment was agreed to by all the
   States but one. New York alone rejected it, after long debate,
   and her veto seemed to destroy the last hope of a continuance
   of national union in America. Perhaps the dismay caused by the
   action of New York was the most powerful argument in the minds
   of many for an immediate and complete revision of the
   government. The first step to Revision was not so designed. In
   1785 the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, in pursuance
   of their right to regulate commerce, had appointed
   Commissioners to decide on some method of doing away with
   interruptions to the navigation of Chesapeake Bay. The
   Commissioners reported their inability to agree, except in
   condemning the Articles of Confederation. The Legislature of
   Virginia followed the report by a resolution, inviting the
   other States to meet at Annapolis, consider the defects of the
   government, and suggest some remedy. In September, 1786,
   delegates from five of the Middle States assembled, but
   confined themselves to discussion, since a majority of the
   States were not represented. The general conclusion was that
   the government, as it then stood, was inadequate for the
   protection, prosperity or comfort, of the people, and that
   some immediate and thorough reform was needed. After drawing
   up a report for their States and for Congress, recommending
   another Convention to be held at Philadelphia, in May, 1787,
   they adjourned. Congress, by resolution, approved their report
   and the proposed Convention. The Convention met, as proposed,
   May 14th, 1787."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, chapter 1._

   "Four years only elapsed, between the return of peace and the
   downfall of a government which had been framed with the hope
   and promise of perpetual duration. … But this brief interval
   was full of suffering and peril. There are scarcely any evils
   or dangers, of a political nature, and springing from
   political and social causes, to which a free people can be
   exposed, which the people of the United States did not
   experience during that period."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution,
      book 3, chapter 1_.

   "It is not too much to say that the period of five years
   following the peace of 1783 was the most critical moment in
   all the history of the American people."

      _J. Fiske,
      Critical Period of American History,
      page 55._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 3._

{3292}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1789.
   Depressed state of Trade and Industry.
   Commercial consequences of the want of nationality.

   "The effect of the Revolutionary War on the merchant marine of
   the colonies, which thereby secured their independence as the
   United States, was not so disastrous as might have been
   expected. Many ships were lost or captured, and the gains of
   maritime commerce were reduced; but to offset these losses an
   active fleet of privateers found profitable employment in the
   seizure of English merchantmen, and thus kept alive the
   maritime spirit of the country, and supplied a revenue to the
   shipowners whose legitimate pursuits were suspended by the
   war. In 1783, therefore, the American merchant marine was in a
   fairly healthy condition. During the next six years the
   disadvantages of the new situation made themselves felt.
   Before the Revolution the colonies had had open trade with
   their fellow-subjects in the British West India Islands. The
   commerce thus carried on was a very profitable business. The
   island colonies were supplied with lumber, corn, fish, live
   stock, and surplus farm produce, which the continent furnished
   in abundance, together with rough manufactured articles such
   as pipe staves, and in return the ships of New York and New
   England brought back great quantities of coffee, sugar,
   cotton, rum, and indigo. … As a result of independence, the
   West India business was entirely cut off. The merchantmen of
   the United States then came in on the footing of foreign
   vessels, and all such vessels, under the terms of the
   Navigation Act, were rigorously excluded from trade with the
   British colonies. It was evident, however, that the sudden
   cessation of this trade, whatever loss it might inflict on the
   newly created state, would be tenfold more harmful to the
   islands, which had so long depended upon their neighbors of
   the mainland for the necessaries of life. Pitt, then
   Chancellor of the Exchequer, appreciated this difficulty, and
   in 1783 brought a bill into Parliament granting open trade as
   to articles that were the produce of either country. The
   measure failed, owing to Pitt's resignation, and the next
   ministry, in consequence of the violent opposition of British
   shipowners, passed a merely temporary act, vesting in the
   crown the power of regulating trade with America. This power
   was occasionally exercised by suspending certain provisions of
   the navigation laws, under annual proclamations, but it did
   not serve to avert the disaster that Pitt had foreseen.
   Terrible sufferings visited the population of the West India
   colonies, and between 1780 and 1787 as many as 15,000 slaves
   perished from starvation, having been unable to obtain the
   necessary supply of food when their own crops had been
   destroyed by hurricanes. Apart from the unfavorable condition
   of the West India trade, another and more important cause had
   operated to check the prosperous development of American
   commerce. The only bond of political union at this time was
   that formed by the Articles of Confederation, constituting a
   mere league of independent States, any one of which could pass
   laws calculated to injure the commerce of the others."

      _J. R. Soley,
      Maritime Industries of America
      (The United States of America, edition by N. S. Shaler,
      volume 1, chapter 10)._

   "The general commerce of the granulated mass of communities
   called the United States, from 1783 to 1780, was probably the
   poorest commerce known in the whole history of the country.
   England sent America £3,700,000 worth of merchandise in 1784,
   and took in return only £750,000. The drain of specie to meet
   this difference was very severe, and merchants could not meet
   the engagements so rashly made. They had imported luxuries for
   customers who were poor, and non-payment through all the
   avenues of trade was the consequence. One circumstance and
   detail of the internal management of this commerce added to
   the distress and to the necessary difficulties of the time.
   Immediately after the peace, British merchants, factors, and
   clerks came across the seas in streams, to take advantage of
   the new opportunities for trade. It seemed to the citizens to
   be a worse invasion of their economic rights than the coming
   of the troops had been to the political rights of the old
   colonists. The whole country was agitated, but action was
   initiated in Boston in 1785. The merchants met and discussed
   all these difficulties. They pledged themselves to buy no more
   goods of British merchants or factors in Boston. In about
   three weeks the mechanics and artisans met in the old Green
   Dragon Tavern and committed themselves to the same policy. But
   the merchants went beyond mere non-intercourse with traders at
   home. The root of the difficulty was in the ill-regulation or
   want of regulation of our commerce with all foreign countries.
   The confederation was giving and not getting. Where it should
   have gotten, foreigners were getting, because the parts of the
   country had not agreed to unite in acquiring for the common
   benefit, lest some part should be injured in the process.
   Congress made treaties for the Confederation. But if unable to
   treat with any} power which excluded American shipping from
   its ports, or laid duties on American produce, Congress did
   not control our ports in an equivalent manner. Each individual
   state was to decide whether the unfriendly power should trade
   at its own ports. This in effect nullified any retaliatory
   action. England, being the best market, virtually controlled
   any change in commerce, as it was then conducted. Her ports
   were closed to American products unless they were brought in
   British vessels. France admitted our vessels to her ports, but
   her merchants cried out against the competition. It was feared
   that the ministers would be obliged to yield to their clamor
   and close the ports. Probably the poor economic condition of
   the country affected the foreign trade even more than the bad
   adjustment of foreign relations. All causes combined to form
   two parties, one advocating imposts upon foreign trade or a
   Navigation Act, the other opposing this scheme, and insisting
   upon absolute freedom of commerce. It was in this direction
   that the Boston people moved, after they had instituted
   non-intercourse in their own market with British traders. They
   petitioned Congress to remedy these embarrassments of trade,
   and sent a memorial to their own legislature. This document
   urged that body to insist on action by Congress. They formed a
   Committee of Correspondence to enforce these plans upon the
   whole country."

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1780,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   Plans for new States in the Northwest Territory.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1784.

{3293}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   Revolt in Tennessee against the
   territorial cession to Congress.
   The State of Franklin.

      See TENNESSEE; A. D. 1776-1784; and 1785.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   The first daily Newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING and PRESS; A. D. 1784-1813.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   The financial administration of Robert Morris.
   Cost of the war.

   From May, 1781, until April, 1785, the burden of the financial
   management of the revolutionary struggle rested upon Robert
   Morris, of Philadelphia, who held the office which Congress
   had created and entitled "the Superintendent of Finances."
   Morris's detractors argued that he deserved no great credit
   for his management of the finances as compared with his
   predecessors, because in his time everything turned in his
   favour. It is true that if things had remained as before, he
   could not have restored the finances; for the miracle of
   carrying on a war without means has never yet been performed
   by anybody. The events which gave him an opportunity to
   restore the finances, by intelligent and energetic action,
   were as follows. The first was the collapse of the paper
   currency and its absolute removal from circulation, in May,
   1781, just before he took office. As soon as it was out of the
   way, specie came in. He was able to throw aside all the
   trammels in which the treasury operations had been entangled
   by the paper system. It is true that he did not succeed in his
   attempt to relieve himself entirely from these anticipations,
   which, inasmuch as they were anticipations, would have used up
   the revenues of his time; but it was a great gain for him to
   be able to conduct his current operations at least in terms of
   specie. The second thing in his favour was the great help
   granted by France in 1781, and especially the importation of a
   part of this in specie. This enabled him to found the bank,
   from which he borrowed six times what he put into it. The
   chief use of the bank to him, however, was to discount the
   notes which he took for bills of exchange. Then also it was
   possible for him to reduce the expenses in a way which his
   predecessors had not had the courage or the opportunity to
   accomplish, because in their time the abuses of the old method
   had not gone far enough to force acquiescence in the reforms.
   In Morris's time, and chiefly, as it appears, by his exertions
   and merit, the expenditures were greatly reduced for an army
   of a given size. When the war came to an end, it was possible
   for him to reduce the entire establishment to a very low
   scale. Next we notice that the efforts to introduce taxation
   bore fruit which, although it was trivial in one point of
   view, was large enough to be very important to him in his
   desperate circumstances. Finally, when his need was the
   greatest, and these advantages and opportunities proved
   inadequate, the rise of American credit made the loan in
   Holland possible, and this carried him through to the result.
   … By the Report of 1790 the total amount of expenditures and
   advances at the treasury of the United States, during the war,
   in specie value, was estimated as follows;
   1775 and 1776, $20,064,666.
   1777, $24,986,646.
   1778, $24,289,438.
   1779, $10,794,620.
   1780, $3,000,000.
   1781, $1,942,465.
   1782, $3,632,745.
   1783, $3,226,583.
   1784, $548,525 to November 1.
   Total $92,485,693.

   This table shows how the country lapsed into dependence on
   France after the alliance was formed. The round number
   opposite 1780 is very eloquent. It means anarchy and
   guesswork. … According to the best records we possess, the
   cost of the war to the United States, reduced to specie value
   year by year at the official scale of depreciation, which,
   being always below the truth, makes these figures too high,
   was, as above stated, $92,485,693, at the treasury. There were
   also certificates of indebtedness out for $16,708,009. There
   had been expended in Europe, which never went through the
   treasury, $5,000,000. The States were estimated to have
   expended $21,000,000. Total, $135,000,000. Jefferson
   calculated it at $140,000,000, by adding the debts incurred
   and the continental currency. The debt contracted by England
   during the war was £115,000,000, for which £91,000,000 were
   realized. The Comptroller of the Treasury of France said that
   it cost 60,000,000 livres a year to support the army in
   America. Vergennes told Lafayette, in November, 1782, that
   France had expended 250,000,000 livres in the war. There is an
   often-repeated statement that the war cost France
   1,200,000,000 livres, or 1,280,000,000, or 1,500,000,000.
   Arthur Young put it at £50,000,000, sterling. Probably if
   60,000,000 a year for five years, or $60,000,000, was taken as
   the amount directly expended for and in America by France, it
   would be as fair a computation as could be made of her
   contribution to American independence. She had large
   expenditures elsewhere in the prosecution of her war against
   Great Britain, and her incidental losses of ships, etc., were
   great. When England abandoned the effort to subdue the
   colonies, she was in a far better position for continuing it
   than either of her adversaries. George III. was by no means
   stupid in his comments and suggestions about the war. No
   Englishman of the period said things which now seem wiser in
   the retrospect. As early as September, 1780, he said: 'America
   is distressed to the greatest degree. The finances of France,
   as well as Spain, are in no good situation: This war, like the
   last, will prove one of credit.' This opinion was fully
   justified in 1782. French finances were then hastening toward
   bankruptcy, so that France could not continue the war expenses
   or the loans and subsidies to America. English credit was
   high. October 2, 1782, Vergennes wrote to Montmorin, that the
   English fleet was stronger than at the beginning of the war,
   while the fleets of France and Spain were weaker; that French
   finances were greatly weakened, while English credit was high;
   that England had recovered influence in Russia, and through
   Russia on Prussia and Austria. He wanted peace and
   reconciliation with England in order to act with her in
   eastern Europe. If England had chosen to persevere in the war,
   the matter of credit would have been the most important
   element in her chances of success, aside from the natural
   difficulties of the enterprise."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.
   Disputes with England over the execution of the Treaty of Peace.
   Difficulties with Spain.
   The question of the Navigation of the Mississippi.
   Eastern jealousy and Western excitement.

{3294}

   "Serious disputes soon arose, concerning the execution of the
   treaty of peace; and each nation complained of infractions by
   the other. On the part of the United States, it was alleged
   that negroes had been carried away, contrary to the treaty;
   and as early as May, 1783, congress instructed their ministers
   for negotiating peace to remonstrate to the British court
   against this conduct of their commander in America, and to
   take measures to obtain reparation. The United States, also,
   complained that the western posts had not been sur·rendered,
   agreeably to treaty stipulations. Great Britain, on her part,
   alleged that legal impediments had been interposed to prevent
   the collection of British debts in America; and that the 5th
   and 6th articles, relating to the property of the loyalists,
   had not been complied with. In June, 1784, the legislature of
   Virginia not only declared that there had been an infraction
   on the part of Great Britain of the 7th article, in detaining
   the slaves and other property of the citizens of the United
   States, but instructed their delegates in congress to request
   that a remonstrance be presented to the British court against
   such infraction and to require reparation. They also directed
   them to inform congress that the state of Virginia conceived a
   just regard to the national honor and interest obliged her
   assembly to withhold their co-operation in the complete
   fulfilment of the treaty until the success of such
   remonstrance was known, or they should have further directions
   from congress. They at the same time declared, that as soon as
   reparation for such infraction should be made, or congress
   should judge it indispensably necessary, such acts as
   inhibited the recovery of British debts should be repealed,
   and payment made, in such time and manner as should consist
   with the exhausted situation of the state. In consequence of
   these difficulties and disputes, congress, early in the year
   1785, determined to send a minister plenipotentiary to Great
   Britain; and on the 24th of February John Adams was appointed
   to represent the United States at the court of London. He was
   instructed 'in a respectful but firm manner to insist that the
   United States be put, without further delay, into possession
   of all the posts and territories within their limits which are
   now held by British garrisons.' … Mr. Jefferson was soon after
   appointed to represent the United States at the court of
   Versailles, in the room of Dr. Franklin, who had leave to
   return home, after an absence of nine years. Mr. Livingston
   having resigned the office of secretary of foreign affairs,
   Mr. Jay, in March, 1784, and before his return from Europe,
   was appointed in his place. Mr. Adams repaired to the British
   court, and was received as the first minister from the United
   States since their independence was acknowledged. … In
   December, 1785, Mr. Adams presented a memorial to the British
   secretary of state, in which, after stating the detention of
   the western posts contrary to the stipulations in the treaty
   of peace, he in the name and in behalf of the United States
   required 'that all his majesty's armies and garrisons be
   forthwith withdrawn from the said United States, from all and
   every of the posts and fortresses before enumerated, and from
   every port, place and harbor, within the territory of the said
   United States, according to the true intention of the
   treaties.' To this memorial the British secretary, lord
   Carmarthen, returned an answer, on the 28th of February, 1786,
   in which he acknowledges the detention of the posts, but
   alleges a breach of the 4th article of the treaty of peace on
   the part of the United States, by interposing impediments to
   the recovery of British debts in America. … This answer was
   accompanied with a statement of the various instances in which
   the 4th article had been violated by acts of the states. The
   complaints of Great Britain also extended to breaches of the
   5th and 6th articles of the treaty, relating to the recovery
   of certain property and to confiscations. The answer of the
   British secretary was submitted to congress; and in order to
   remove the difficulties complained of, that body, in March,
   1787, unanimously declared that all the acts, or parts of
   acts, existing in any of the states, repugnant to the treaty
   of peace, ought to be repealed; and they recommended to the
   states to make such repeal by a general law. … A circular
   letter to the states accompanied these declarations, in which
   congress say, 'we have deliberately and dispassionately
   examined and considered the several facts and matters urged by
   Great Britain, as infractions of the treaty of peace, on the
   part of America, and we regret that, in some of the states,
   too little attention has been paid to the public faith pledged
   by that treaty.' In consequence of this letter, the states of
   New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
   Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, passed acts
   complying with the recommendations contained in it. The
   operation of the act of Virginia, however, which repealed all
   acts preventing the recovery of debts due to British subjects,
   was suspended until the governor of that state should issue a
   proclamation, giving notice that Great Britain had delivered
   up the western posts, and was also taking measures for the
   further fulfilment of the treaty of peace by delivering up the
   negroes belonging to the citizens of that state, carried away
   contrary to the 7th article of the treaty, or by making
   compensation for the same. … The British court was not yet
   disposed to enter into any commercial treaty with the United
   States. The ministers were, no doubt, satisfied that the
   advantages they enjoyed under their own regulations were
   greater than could be obtained by any treaty they could make
   with America. And this was, probably, one of the principal
   reasons of their refusal to enter into any such treaty. As the
   British court declined sending a minister to the United
   States, Mr. Adams, in October, 1787, at his request, had leave
   to return home. … The United States had also at this period to
   encounter difficulties with Spain as well as Great Britain.
   The two Floridas having been ceded to his catholic majesty,
   serious disputes soon arose, not only on the old subject of
   the navigation of the Mississippi, but with respect to the
   boundaries of Louisiana and the ceded territory. The Spanish
   court still persisted in its determination to exclude the
   Americans from the navigation of the Mississippi. … In
   December, 1784, congress declared it necessary to send a
   minister to Spain, for the purpose of adjusting the
   interfering claims of the two nations respecting the
   navigation of the Mississippi, and other matters highly
   interesting to the peace and good understanding which ought to
   subsist between them. This was prevented by the appointment of
   Don Diego Gardoqui, a minister from Spain, who arrived in the
   United States and was acknowledged by congress in the summer
   of 1785.
{3295}
   Soon after his arrival, Mr. Jay, then secretary of foreign
   affairs, was appointed to treat with the Spanish minister on
   the part of the United States. … As Mr. Jay, by his
   instructions, was not to conclude a treaty until the same was
   communicated to congress and approved by them, and was also
   specially directed to obtain a stipulation acknowledging the
   right of the United States to their territorial claims and the
   free navigation of the Mississippi, as established in their
   treaty with Great Britain, he, on the 3d of August, 1786,
   submitted to congress the … plan of a commercial treaty, and
   stated the difficulties in obtaining the stipulation required.
   … 'Circumstanced as we are [said Mr. Jay] I think it would be
   expedient to agree that the treaty should be limited to twenty
   five or thirty years, and that one of the articles should
   stipulate that the United States would forbear to use the
   navigation of that river below their territories to the ocean.
   Thus the duration of the treaty and of the forbearance in
   question should be limited to the same period.' … Among other
   reasons, Mr. Jay stated that the navigation of the Mississippi
   was not at that time very important, and would not probably
   become so in less than twenty five or thirty years, and that a
   forbearance to use it, while it was not wanted, was no great
   sacrifice—that Spain then excluded the people of the United
   States from that navigation; and that it could only be
   acquired by war, for which the United States were not then
   prepared; and that in case of war France would no doubt join
   Spain. Congress were much divided on this interesting subject.
   The seven states at the north, including Pennsylvania, were
   disposed, in case a treaty could not otherwise be made, to
   forbear the use of the navigation of the Mississippi below the
   southern boundary of the United States, for a limited time,
   and a resolution was submitted to congress repealing Mr. Jay's
   instructions of the 25th of August, 1785, and which was
   carried, seven states against five. … This, however, was to be
   on the express condition that a stipulation of forbearance
   should not be construed to extinguish the right of the United
   States, independent of such stipulation, to use and navigate
   said river from its source to the ocean; and that such
   stipulation was not to be made unless it should be agreed in
   the same treaty that the navigation and use of the said river
   above such intersection to its source should be common to both
   nations—and Mr. Jay was to make no treaty unless the
   territorial limits of the United States were acknowledged and
   secured according to the terms agreed between the United
   States and Great Britain. … As by the confederation the assent
   of nine states was necessary in making a treaty the same
   number was considered requisite in giving specific
   instructions in relation to it; … and it was questioned
   whether the previous instructions given to Mr. Jay could be
   rescinded without the assent of nine states. These proceedings
   in congress, though with closed doors, soon became partly
   known, and excited great alarm in Virginia and in the western
   settlements. … While these negociations were pending, the
   fertile country at the west was settling with a rapidity
   beyond the most sanguine calculations; and it is not
   surprising that the news of an actual or intended abandonment
   of the navigation of the Mississippi, the only outlet for
   their productions, should have excited great alarm among its
   inhabitants. They were much exasperated by the seizure and
   confiscation of American property by the Spaniards, on its way
   down the river, which took place about the same time. The
   proposition made in congress was magnified into an actual
   treaty, and called from the western people most bitter
   complaints and reproaches. … To quiet the apprehensions of the
   western inhabitants, the delegates from North Carolina, in
   September, 1788, submitted to congress a resolution declaring
   that 'whereas many citizens of the United States, who possess
   lands on the western waters, have expressed much uneasiness
   from a report that congress are disposed to treat with Spain
   for the surrender of their claim to the navigation of the
   river Mississippi; in order therefore to quiet the minds of
   our fellow citizens by removing such ill founded
   apprehensions, resolved, that the United States have a clear,
   absolute, and unalienable claim to the free navigation of the
   river Mississippi, which claim is not only supported by the
   express stipulations of treaties, but by the great law of
   nature.' The secretary of foreign affairs, to whom this
   resolution was referred, reported, that as the rumor mentioned
   in the resolution was not warranted by the negociations
   between the United States and Spain, the members be permitted
   to contradict it, in the most explicit terms. Mr. Jay also
   stated, there could be no objection to declaring the right of
   the United States to the navigation of the river clear and
   absolute—that this had always been his opinion; and that the
   only question had been whether a modification of that right
   for equivalent advantages was advisable; and though he
   formerly thought such a modification might be proper, yet that
   circumstances and discontents had since interposed to render
   it questionable. He also advised that further negociations
   with Spain be transferred to the new general government. On
   this report, congress, on the 16th of September, 1788, in
   order to remove the apprehensions of the western settlers,
   declared that the members be permitted to contradict the
   report referred to by the delegates from North Carolina; and
   at the same time resolved 'that the free navigation of the
   river Mississippi is a clear and essential right of the United
   States, and that the same ought to be considered and supported
   as such.' All further negociations with Spain were also
   referred to the new federal government."

      _T. Pitkin,
      Political and Civil History of the United States,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

   "It was important for the frontiersmen to take the Lake Posts
   from the British; but it was even more important to wrest from
   the Spaniards the free navigation of the Mississippi. While
   the Lake Posts were held by the garrisons of a foreign power,
   the work of settling the northwestern territory was bound to
   go forward slowly and painfully; but while the navigation of
   the Mississippi was barred, even the settlements already
   founded could not attain to their proper prosperity and
   importance. … The Westerners were right in regarding as
   indispensable the free navigation of the Mississippi. They
   were right also in their determination ultimately to acquire
   the control of the whole river, from the source to the mouth.
   However, the Westerners wished more than the privilege of
   sending down stream the products of their woods and pastures
   and tilled farms.
{3296}
   They had already begun to cast longing eyes on the fair
   Spanish possessions. … Every bold, lawless, ambitious leader
   among the frontier folk dreamed of wresting from the Spaniard
   some portion of his rich and ill-guarded domain. It was not
   alone the attitude of the frontiersmen towards Spain that was
   novel, and based upon a situation for which there was little
   precedent. Their relations with one another, with their
   brethren of the seaboard, and with the Federal Government,
   likewise had to be adjusted without much chance of profiting
   by antecedent experience. Many phases of these relations
   between the people who stayed at home and those who wandered
   off to make homes, between the frontiersmen as they formed
   young States, and the Central Government representing the old
   States, were entirely new, and were ill-understood by both
   parties. … The attitude towards the Westerners of certain
   portions of the population in the older States, and especially
   in the northeastern States, was one of unreasoning jealousy
   and suspicion; and though this mental attitude rarely
   crystallized into hostile deeds, its very existence, and the
   knowledge that it did exist, embittered the men of the West. …
   In the northeastern States, and in New England especially,
   this feeling showed itself for two generations after the close
   of the Revolutionary War. On the whole the New Englanders have
   exerted a more profound and wholesome influence upon the
   development of our common country than has ever been exerted
   by any other equally numerous body of our people. They have
   led the nation in the path of civil liberty and sound
   governmental administration. But too often they have viewed
   the nation's growth and greatness from a narrow and provincial
   standpoint, and have grudgingly acquiesced in, rather than led
   the march towards, continental supremacy. In shaping the
   nation's policy for the future their sense of historic
   perspective seemed imperfect. … The extreme representatives of
   this northeastern sectionalism not only objected to the growth
   of the West at the time now under consideration, but even
   avowed a desire to work it harm, by shutting the Mississippi,
   so as to benefit the commerce of the Atlantic States. … These
   intolerant extremists not only opposed the admission of the
   young western States into the Union, but at a later date
   actually announced that the annexation by the United States of
   vast territories beyond the Mississippi offered just cause for
   the secession of the northeastern States. Even those who did
   not take such an advanced ground felt an unreasonable dread
   lest the West might grow to overtop the East in power. … A
   curious feature of the way many honest men looked at the West
   was their inability to see how essentially transient were some
   of the characteristics to which they objected. Thus they were
   alarmed at the turbulence and the lawless shortcomings of
   various kinds which grew out of the conditions of frontier
   settlement and sparse population. They looked with anxious
   foreboding to the time when the turbulent and lawless people
   would be very numerous, and would form a dense and powerful
   population; failing to see that in exact proportion as the
   population became dense, the conditions which caused the
   qualities to which they objected would disappear. Even the men
   who had too much good sense to share these fears, even men as
   broadly patriotic as Jay, could not realize the extreme
   rapidity of western growth. Kentucky and Tennessee grew much
   faster than any of the old frontier colonies had ever grown;
   and from sheer lack of experience, eastern statesmen could not
   realize that this rapidity of growth made the navigation of
   the Mississippi a matter of immediate and not of future
   interest to the West. … While many of the people on the
   eastern seaboard thus took an indefensible position in
   reference to the trans-Alleghany settlements, in the period
   immediately succeeding the Revolution, there were large bodies
   of the population of these same settlements, including very
   many of their popular leaders, whose own attitude towards the
   Union was, if anything, more blameworthy. They were clamorous
   about their rights, and were not unready to use veiled threats
   of disunion when they deemed these rights infringed; but they
   showed little appreciation of their own duties to the Union. …
   They demanded that the United States wrest from the British
   the Lake Posts, and from the Spaniards the navigation of the
   Mississippi. Yet they seemed incapable of understanding that
   if they separated from the Union they would thereby forfeit
   all chance of achieving the very purposes they had in view,
   because they would then certainly be at the mercy of Britain,
   and probably, at least for some time, at the mercy of Spain
   also. They opposed giving the United States the necessary
   civil and military power, although it was only by the
   possession and exercise of such power that it would be
   possible to secure for the westerners what they wished. In all
   human probability, the whole country round the Great Lakes
   would still be British territory, and the mouth of the
   Mississippi still in the hands of some European power, had the
   folly of the separatists won the day and had the West been
   broken up into independent states. … This final triumph of the
   Union party in these first-formed frontier States was fraught
   with immeasurable good."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 3, chapter 3._

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1787.
   First troubles and dealings with the Barbary pirates.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1786-1787.
   Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
   The, Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
   Exclusion of Slavery forever.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787;
      also, EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
   The framing of the Federal Constitution.
   The Union constructed of compromises.

   The convention of delegates appointed to revise the Articles
   of Confederation, but which took upon itself the task of
   framing anew a Federal Constitution for the States, assembled
   at Philadelphia on the 25th of May, 1787, eleven days later
   than the day appointed for its meeting. "The powers conferred
   by the several states were not uniform. Virginia,
   Pennsylvania, and New Jersey appointed their delegates 'for
   the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution;' North
   Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Georgia 'to decide upon
   the most effectual means to remove the defects of the Federal
   Union;' New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut 'for the sole
   and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation;'
   South Carolina and Maryland 'to render the Federal
   Constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation.'
{3297}
   Rhode Island held aloof. She was governed by a class of men
   who wanted to pay their debts in paper money, and she did not
   wish to surrender her power to collect duties upon the goods
   that came into her port. The trade of Newport at that day
   surpassed that of New York. Connecticut came in reluctantly,
   and New Hampshire late in July, 1787. … Washington was made
   president of the convention. … Many names great in the
   revolutionary struggle were absent from the roll of delegates.
   John and Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, were not there.
   Patrick Henry of Virginia refused to attend. Thomas Jefferson
   and John Jay were absent from the country. George Washington
   and Benjamin Franklin, however, were there. … Among the
   younger men was James Madison of Virginia. … Alexander
   Hamilton came from New York. … Charles C. Pinckney was a
   delegate from South Carolina. … James Wilson of Pennsylvania
   was a Scotchman. He surpassed all others in his exact
   knowledge of the civil and common law, and the law of nations.
   … Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman came from Connecticut. …
   Many of the 55 delegates shared Hamilton's contempt for a
   democracy, but the strength they would repose in a government
   they preferred to retain in the states. … The first business
   of the convention was the adoption of rules. Each state was to
   have one vote. Such was the rule in the Confederate Congress.
   Seven states made a quorum. The convention was to sit with
   closed doors, and everything was to be kept secret: nothing
   was to be given to the public except the completed work. This
   injunction of secrecy was never removed. Fortunately James
   Madison kept a pretty full account of the debates and
   proceedings, all in his own hand."

      _J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 3._

   "Madison tells us in his report of these debates that previous
   to the opening of the Convention it had been a subject of
   discussion among the members present, as to how the States
   should vote in the Convention. Several of the members from
   Pennsylvania had urged that the large States unite in refusing
   to the small States an equal vote, but Virginia, believing
   this to be injudicious if not unjust, ' discountenanced and
   stilled the project.' On the 29th the real business of the
   Convention was opened by Edmund Randolph, who as Governor of
   Virginia was put forward as spokesman by his colleagues. He
   began by saying that as the Convention had originated from
   Virginia, and the delegation from this State supposed that
   some proposition was expected from them, the task had been
   imposed on him. After enumerating the defects of the
   Confederation, he detailed the remedy proposed. This latter
   was set forth in fifteen resolutions and was called afterwards
   the Virginia plan of government. Charles Pinckney from South
   Carolina had also a draft of a federal government, which was
   read and like the former referred to a committee of the whole
   House. … The Committee of the Whole … debated from day to day
   the resolutions contained in the Virginia plan, and on the
   13th of June they reported nineteen resolutions based upon
   those of Virginia, forming a system of government in outline.
   On the following day Mr. Paterson, of New Jersey, asked for
   time to prepare another plan founded on the Articles of
   Confederation. This was submitted to the Convention on the
   15th. The Virginia and the New Jersey plan were contrasted
   briefly by one of the members: Virginia plan proposes two
   branches in the legislature, Jersey, a single legislative
   body; Virginia, the legislative powers derived from the
   people, Jersey, from the States; Virginia, a single executive,
   Jersey, more than one; Virginia, a majority of the legislature
   can act, Jersey, a small majority can control; Virginia, the
   legislature can legislate on all national concerns, Jersey,
   only on limited objects; Virginia, legislature to negative all
   State laws, Jersey, giving power to the executive to compel
   obedience by force; Virginia, to remove the executive by
   impeachment, Jersey, on application of a majority of the
   States; Virginia, for the establishment of inferior judiciary
   tribunals, Jersey, no provision. Neither of these plans
   commended themselves to men like Hamilton, who wanted a strong
   government, and were afraid of democracy or giving power to
   the people. He thought the Virginia plan 'but pork still with
   a little change of the sauce.' The Articles of Confederation
   amended, as in the New Jersey plan, set forth a government
   approved of by the opposite wing of the Convention, consisting
   of men like Lansing, who professed an ultra devotion to the
   rights and autonomy of the States. … The Convention did not go
   again into committee of the whole, but continued to debate the
   nineteen resolutions from the 19th of June until the 23d of
   July. Some of these were referred to grand committees,
   consisting of one member from each State, or they were
   referred to select committees consisting of five members."

      _K. M. Rowland,
      Life of George Mason,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

   "The plan presented by Mr. Patterson, called the New Jersey
   plan, was concerted and arranged between the deputations of
   that State, of Delaware, of New York, and of Connecticut, with
   the individual cooperation of Mr. Luther Martin, one of the
   delegates of Maryland. The extreme jealousy … manifested by
   the representatives of the two first-named States with regard
   to the equal suffrage of the States in the common councils of
   the Confederacy, was the principal source of their aversion to
   the plan reported by the committee of the whole. The delegates
   of Connecticut, and Messrs. Lansing and Yates,—forming a
   majority of the delegation of New York,—united with the
   deputations of New Jersey and Delaware, not so much from an
   exclusive attachment to the principle of the sovereignty and
   equality of the States, as from the policy of preserving the
   existing framework of the confederation, and of simply vesting
   in Congress, as then organized, a few additional powers. It
   was under the influence of these mixed political views that
   the New Jersey plan was conceived and prepared. It proposed to
   vest in the existing Congress,—a single body in which all the
   States had an equal suffrage,—in addition to the powers
   already given to it by the articles of confederation, that of
   raising revenue by imposts and stamp and postage duties, and
   also that of passing acts for the regulation of commerce with
   foreign nations and between the States; leaving the
   enforcement of all such acts, in the first instance, to the
   State courts, with an ultimate appeal to the tribunals of the
   United States.
{3298}
   Whenever requisitions on the States for contributions should
   be made, and any State should fail to comply with such
   requisitions within a specified time, Congress was to be
   authorized to direct their collection in the non-complying
   States, and to pass the requisite acts for that purpose. None
   of the foregoing powers, however, were to be exercised by
   Congress without the concurrence of a certain number of the
   States, exceeding a bare majority of the whole. The plan also
   proposed the organization of a Federal executive and a Federal
   judiciary. … It was, finally, provided that if any State, or
   any body of men in any State, shall oppose or prevent the
   carrying into execution any act of Congress passed in virtue
   of the powers granted to that body, or any treaty made and
   ratified under the authority of the United States, the Federal
   executive shall be authorized to call forth the power of the
   confederated States, or so much thereof as may be necessary,
   to enforce and compel an obedience to the acts, or an
   observance of the treaties, whose execution shall have been so
   opposed or prevented. Such were the salient features of the
   plan now brought forward as a substitute for the Virginia
   propositions, as reported by the committee of the whole. … In
   the progress of the discussion upon the two plans, Colonel
   Hamilton, of New York, made an elaborate speech, declaring
   himself to be opposed to both, and suggesting a third and more
   absolute plan, which he thought was alone adequate to the
   exigencies of the country. He frankly avowed his distrust of
   both republican and federal government, under any
   modification. He entered into a minute analysis of the various
   sources and elements of political power, in order to show that
   all these would be on the side of the State governments, so
   long as a separate political organization of the States was
   maintained, and would render them an over-match for any
   general government that could be established, unless a
   'complete sovereignty' was vested in the latter. He thought it
   essential, therefore, to the ends of a good and efficient
   government of the whole country, that the State governments,
   with their vast and extensive apparatus, should be
   extinguished; though 'he did not mean,' he said, 'to shock
   public opinion by proposing such a measure.' He also expressed
   his despair of the practicability of establishing a republican
   government over so extensive a country as the United States.
   He was sensible, at the same time, that it would be unwise to
   propose one of any other form. Yet 'he had no scruple,' he
   said, 'in declaring that, in his private opinion, the British
   government was the best in the world, and that he doubted much
   whether any thing short of it would do in America.' He
   descanted upon the securities against injustice, violence, and
   innovation, afforded, in the English system, by the permanent
   constitution of the House of Lords, and by the elevated and
   independent position of the monarch. He thence deduced the
   necessity of as permanent a tenure as public opinion in this
   country would bear, of the leading branches of the new
   government. 'Let one branch of the legislature,' he said,
   'hold their places for life, or at least during good behavior.
   Let the executive also be for life.' In concluding, he
   expressed his conviction that 'a great progress was going on
   in the public mind; that the people will, in time, be
   unshackled from their prejudices; and, whenever that happens,
   they will themselves not be satisfied at stopping where the
   plan brought forward by Mr. Randolph [the Virginia plan] would
   place them, but would be ready to go as far, at least, as he
   proposed.' He then read a plan of government he had prepared,
   which, he said, he did not submit as a proposition to the
   convention, but as giving a correct sketch of his ideas, and
   to suggest the amendment which he should probably offer to the
   Virginia plan in the future stages of its consideration. … The
   convention now had presented for their consideration three
   distinct schemes of government: one purely Federal, founded
   upon the idea of preserving undiminished the sovereignty and
   equality of the States, and of constituting a special
   political agency in Congress for certain purposes, but still
   under the dependence and control of the States; another of a
   consolidated character, bottomed on the principle of a virtual
   annihilation of the State sovereignties and the creation of a
   central government, with a supreme and indefinite control over
   both individuals and communities; the third a mixed and
   balanced system, resting upon an agreed partition of the
   powers of sovereignty between the States and the Union,—one
   portion to be vested in the Union for certain objects of
   common and national concern, the residue retained by the
   States for the regulation of the general mass of their
   interior and domestic interests. … On the 19th of June … Mr.
   King, of Massachusetts, moved that 'the committee do now rise,
   and report that they do not agree to the propositions offered
   by the Honorable Mr. Patterson; and that they report to the
   House the resolutions offered by the Honorable Mr. Randolph,
   heretofore reported from a committee of the whole.' The motion
   was carried by the votes of Massachusetts, Connecticut,
   Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
   Georgia, in the affirmative,—New York, New Jersey, and
   Delaware voting in the negative; and Maryland, divided."

      _W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of James Madison,
      chapter 29._

   "It appeared," wrote Madison, in a letter to Jefferson,
   October 24th "to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the
   Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No
   proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor
   of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
   It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could
   not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a
   confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of
   the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A
   compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice,
   and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and
   the guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious
   and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a
   civil war than the administration of a regular Government.
   Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which,
   instead of operating on the States, should operate without
   their intervention on the individuals composing them; and
   hence the change in the principle and proportion of
   representation.
{3299}
   This ground-work being laid, the great objects
   which presented themselves were:
   1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper
   stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential
   characters of Republican Government:
   2. To draw a line of demarkation which would give to the
   General Government every power requisite for general purposes,
   and leave to the States every power which might be most
   beneficially administered by them.
   3. To provide for the different interests of different parts
   of the Union.
   4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small
   States.

   Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The
   whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can
   well be conceived by those who were not concerned in the
   execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural
   diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated
   subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord
   which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle. The first
   of these objects, as respects the Executive, was peculiarly
   embarrassing. On the question whether it should consist of a
   single person or a plurality of co-ordinate members, on the
   mode of appointment, on the duration in office, on the degree
   of power, on the re-eligibility, tedious and reiterated
   discussions took place. The plurality of co-ordinate members
   had finally but few advocates. Governor Randolph was at the
   head of them. The modes of appointment proposed were various;
   as by the people at large, by electors chosen by the people,
   by the Executives of the States, by the Congress; some
   preferring a joint ballot of the two Houses; some, a separate
   concurrent ballot, allowing to each a negative on the other
   house; some, a nomination of several candidates by one House,
   out of whom a choice should be made by the other. Several
   other modifications were started. The expedient at length
   adopted seemed to give pretty general satisfaction to the
   members. As to the duration in office, a few would have
   preferred a tenure during good behaviour; a considerable
   number would have done so in case an easy and effectual
   removal by impeachment could be settled. It was much agitated
   whether a long term, seven years for example, with a
   subsequent and perpetual ineligibility, or a short term, with
   a capacity to be re-elected, should be fixed. In favor of the
   first opinion were urged the danger of a gradual degeneracy of
   re-elections from time to time, into first a life and then a
   hereditary tenure, and the favorable effect of an incapacity
   to be reappointed on the independent exercise of the Executive
   authority. On the other side it was contended that the
   prospect of necessary degradation would discourage the most
   dignified characters from aspiring to the office; would take
   away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its
   duties—the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment; would
   stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the
   constitutional term; and instead of producing an independent
   administration and a firmer defence of the constitutional
   rights of the department, would render the officer more
   indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon
   be obliged to quit forever, and more ready to yield to the
   encroachments of the Legislature, of which he might again be a
   member. The questions concerning the degree of power turned
   chiefly on the appointment to offices, and the controul on the
   Legislature. An absolute appointment to all offices, to some
   offices, to no offices, formed the scale of opinions on the
   first point. On the second, some contended for an absolute
   negative, as the only possible means of reducing to practice
   the theory of a free Government, which forbids a mixture of
   the Legislative and Executive powers. Others would be content
   with a revisionary power, to be overruled by three-fourths of
   both Houses. It was warmly urged that the judiciary department
   should be associated in the revision. The idea of some was,
   that a separate revision should be given to the two
   departments; that if either objected, two-thirds, if both,
   three-fourths, should be necessary to overrule. In forming the
   Senate, the great anchor of the government, the questions, as
   they come within the first object, turned mostly on the mode
   of appointment, and the duration of it. The different modes
   proposed were:

   1. By the House of Representatives.
   2. By the Executive.
   3. By electors chosen by the people for the purpose.
   4. By the State Legislatures.

   On the point of duration, the propositions descended from good
   behaviour to four years, through the intermediate terms of
   nine, seven, six, and five years. The election of the other
   branch was first determined to be triennial, and afterwards
   reduced to biennial. The second object, the due partition of
   power between the General and local Governments, was perhaps,
   of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an
   entire abolition of the States; some, for indefinite power of
   Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of
   the States; some, for such a power without a negative; some,
   for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative; the
   majority, finally, for a limited power without the negative.
   The question with regard to the negative underwent repeated
   discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. … I
   return to the third object above mentioned, the adjustments of
   the different interests of different parts of the continent.
   Some contended for an unlimited power over trade, including
   exports as well as imports, and over slaves as well as other
   imports; some, for such a power, provided the concurrence of
   two-thirds of both Houses were required; some, for such a
   qualification of the power, with an exemption of exports and
   slaves; others, for an exemption of exports only. The result
   is seen in the Constitution. South Carolina and Georgia were
   inflexible on the point of the slaves. The remaining object
   created more embarrassment, and a greater alarm for the issue
   of the Convention, than all the rest put together. The little
   States insisted on retaining their equality in both branches,
   unless a compleat abolition of the State Governments should
   take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non.
   The large States, on the other hand, urged that as the new
   Government was to be drawn principally from the people
   immediately, and was to operate directly on them, not on the
   States; and, consequently, as the States would lose that
   importance which is now proportioned to the importance of
   their voluntary compliance with the requisitions of Congress,
   it was necessary that the representation in both Houses should
   be in proportion to their size. It ended in the compromise
   which you will see, but very much to the dissatisfaction of
   several members from the large States."

      _J. Madison,
      Letters and other Writings,
      volume 1, pages 344-354._

{3300}

   "Those who proposed only to amend the old Articles of
   Confederation and opposed a new Constitution, objected that a
   government formed under such a Constitution would be not a
   federal, but a national, government. Luther Martin said, when
   he returned to Maryland, that the delegates 'appeared totally
   to have forgot the business for which we were sent. … We had
   not been sent to form a government over the inhabitants of
   America considered as individuals. … That the system of
   government we were intrusted to prepare was a government over
   these thirteen States; but that in our proceedings we adapted
   principles which would be right and proper only on the
   supposition that there were no state governments at all, but
   that all the inhabitants of this extensive continent were in
   their individual capacity, without government, and in a state
   of nature.' He added that, 'in the whale system there was but
   one federal feature, the appointment of the senators by the
   States in their sovereign capacity, that is by their
   legislatures, and the equality of suffrage in that branch; but
   it was said that this feature was only federal in appearance.'
   The Senate, the second house as it was called in the
   convention, was in part created, it is needless to say, to
   meet, or rather in obedience to, reasoning like this. … The
   Luther Martin protestants were too radical to remain in the
   convention to the end, when they saw that such a confederacy
   as they wanted was impossible. But there were not many who
   went the length they did in believing that a strong central
   government was necessarily the destruction of the state
   governments. Still fewer were those who would have brought
   this about if they could. … The real difficulty, as Madison
   said in the debate on that question, and as he repeated again
   and again after that question was settled, was not between the
   larger and smaller States, but between the North and South;
   between those States that held slaves and those that had none.
   Slavery in the Constitution, which has given so much trouble
   to the Abolitionists of this century, and, indeed, to
   everybody else, gave quite as much in the last century to
   those who put it there. Many of the wisest and best men of the
   time, Southerners as well as Northerners, and among them
   Madison, were opposed to slavery. … Everywhere north of South
   Carolina, slavery was looked upon as a misfortune which it was
   exceedingly desirable to be free from at the earliest possible
   moment; everywhere north of Mason and Dixon's Line, measures
   had already been taken, or were certain soon to be taken, to
   put an end to it; and by the Ordinance for the government of
   all the territory north of the Ohio River, it was absolutely
   prohibited by Congress, in the same year in which the
   Constitutional Congress met. But it was, nevertheless, a thing
   to the continued existence of which the anti-slavery people of
   that time could consent without any violation of conscience.
   Bad as it was, unwise, wasteful, cruel, a mockery of every
   pretense of respect for the rights of man, they did not
   believe it to be absolutely wicked. … The question with the
   North was, how far could it yield; with the South, how far
   could it encroach. It turned mainly an representation. … There
   were some who maintained at first that the slave population
   should not be represented at all. Hamilton proposed in the
   first days of the convention 'that the rights of suffrage in
   the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the
   number of free inhabitants.'"

      _S. H. Gay,
      James Madison,
      chapters 7-8._

   "When the great document was at last drafted by Gouverneur
   Morris, and was all ready far the signatures [September 17,
   1787], the aged Franklin produced a paper, which was read for
   him, as his voice was weak. Same parts of this Constitution,
   he said, he did not approve, but he was astonished to find it
   so nearly perfect. Whatever opinion he had of its errors he
   would sacrifice to the public good, and he hoped that every
   member of the convention who still had objections would on
   this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and for
   the sake of unanimity put his name to this instrument.
   Hamilton added his plea. A few members, he said, by refusing
   to sign, might do infinite mischief. … From these appeals, as
   well as from Washington's solemn warning at the outset, we see
   how distinctly it was realized that the country was on the
   verge of civil war. Most of the members felt so, but to some
   the new government seemed far too strong, and there were three
   who dreaded despotism even more than anarchy. Mason, Randolph,
   and Gerry refused to sign. … In the signatures the twelve
   states which had taken part in the work were all represented,
   Hamilton signing alone for New York."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      page 303._

   A "popular delusion with regard to the Constitution is that it
   was created out of nothing; or, as Mr. Gladstone puts it, that
   ·It is the greatest work ever struck off at any one time by
   the mind and purpose of man.' The radical view on the other
   side is expressed by Sir Henry Maine, who informs us that the
   'Constitution of the United States is a modified version of
   the British Constitution … which was in existence between 1760
   and 1787.' The real source of the Constitution is the
   experience of Americans. They had established and developed
   admirable little commonwealths in the colonies; since the
   beginning of the Revolution they had had experience of State
   governments organized on a different basis from the colonial;
   and, finally, they had carried on two successive national
   governments, with which they had been profoundly discontented.
   The general outline of the new Constitution seems to be
   English; it was really colonial. The President's powers of
   military command, of appointment, and of veto were similar to
   those of the colonial governor. National courts were created
   on the model of colonial courts. A legislature of two houses
   was accepted because such legislatures had been common in
   colonial times. In the English Parliamentary system as it
   existed before 1760 the Americans had had no share; the later
   English system of Parliamentary responsibility was not yet
   developed, and had never been established in colonial
   governments; and they expressly excluded it from their new
   Constitution. They were little more affected by the experience
   of other European nations. … The chief source of the details
   of the Constitution was the State constitutions and laws then
   in force. Thus the clause conferring a suspensive veto on the
   President is an almost literal transcript from the
   Massachusetts constitution. In fact, the principal experiment
   in the Constitution was the establishment of an electoral
   college; and of all parts of the system this has worked least
   as the framers expected. The Constitution represents,
   therefore, the accumulated experience of the time. … The real
   boldness of the Constitution is the novelty of the federal
   system which it set up."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union
      (Epochs of American History),
      section 62._

{3301}

   "That a constitution should be framed in detail by a body of
   uninstructed delegates, expressly chosen for that purpose, was
   familiar in the States of the Union; but was perhaps
   unexampled elsewhere in the world, and was certainly
   unexampled in the history of federations. That the instrument
   of federal government should provide for proportional
   representation in one house, and for a federal court, was a
   step in federal organization which marks a new federal
   principle. For many purposes the Union then created was
   stronger than the Prussian monarchy at that moment. In many
   respects the States were left stronger than the little
   nominally independent German principalities. The great merit
   of the members of the convention is their understanding of the
   temper of their own countrymen. They selected out Of English,
   or colonial, or State usages such practices and forms as
   experience had shown to be acceptable to the people. … The
   Convention had further the wisdom to express their work in
   general though carefully stated principles. All previous
   federal governments had been fettered either by an imperfect
   and inadequate statement, as in the constitution of the United
   Netherlands, or by an unwritten constitution with an
   accumulation of special precedents, as in the Holy Roman
   Empire. The phrases of the Constitution of 1787 were broad
   enough to cover cases unforeseen. A third distinction of the
   federal Convention is the skill with which it framed
   acceptable compromises upon the three most difficult questions
   before it. The two Houses of Congress satisfied both large and
   small States; the three-fifths representation of slaves
   postponed an inevitable conflict; the allowance of the slave
   trade for a term of years made it possible for Congress to
   perfect commercial legislation. The Convention had profited by
   the experience of the Confederation: on every page of the
   Constitution may be found clauses which would not have stood
   there had it been framed in 1781. An adequate revenue was
   provided; foreign and interstate commerce was put under the
   control of Congress; the charge of foreign affairs was given
   entirely to the central authority; the powers of government
   were distributed among three departments."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Introduction to the Study of Federal Government,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Eliot,
      Debates in the Convention at Philadelphia, 1787._

      _J. Madison,
      Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution._

      _W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of James Madison,
      chapters 27-33 (volume 2)._

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution of
      the United States._

      _G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution of the United States._

      _C. E. Stevens,
      Sources of the Constitution of the United States._

      _J. H. Robinson,
      The Original and Derived Features of the Constitution.
      (Annals of the American Academy of Political and
      Social Science, volume l)._

   For the text of the Constitution.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
   The struggle for the Federal Constitution in the States.
   Its ratification.
   The end of the Confederation.

   The fate of the proposed Constitution remained doubtful for
   many months after the adjournment of the convention. Hamilton
   said it would be arrogance to conjecture the result. …
   Delaware was the first state to accept it, [December 7, 1787].
   Gratified by the concession of equality in the federal Senate,
   the ratification was prompt, enthusiastic, and unanimous.
   Pennsylvania was the second [December 12]. The opposition was
   sharp, but Franklin was president of the state, and Wilson a
   delegate to the state convention. Their influence was great. …
   The ratification was effected by a vote of 46 to 23. Then New
   Jersey [December 18] and Georgia [January 2, 1788] followed
   unanimously. Next came Connecticut [January 9] by a vote of
   128 to 40. The result in these five states was the more easily
   obtained because the friends of the Constitution were prompt
   to act. With delay in the other states came a bitterness of
   contention which made the result doubtful. The first close
   struggle was in Massachusetts. The public creditor favored the
   proposed Constitution. He saw in it some hope of his long
   deferred pay. But the debtor class opposed it; for it would
   put an end to cheap paper money, with which they hoped to pay
   their debts, when it became still cheaper. … Hancock and Adams
   scarcely favored the Constitution. They feared it infringed
   upon the rights of the people, and especially upon the rights
   of the states. … Hancock finally came forward as a mediator.
   He proposed that the Constitution be ratified, with an
   accompanying recommendation that it be amended in the
   particulars in which it was thought to be defective. His
   proposition was adopted, and the Constitution was ratified
   [February 6] by a vote of 187 to 168. Maryland next ratified
   the Constitution with much unanimity [April 28],
   notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Luther Martin. …
   South Carolina followed next [May 23], and ratified the
   Constitution by a majority of 76, but recommended amendments
   substantially like those of Massachusetts. South Carolina was
   the eighth state; and, if one more could be obtained, the
   Constitution would take effect between the nine ratifying
   states. There remained the five states of Virginia, New York,
   New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. The state
   convention of Virginia was called for the 2d of June 1788, of
   New York for the 17th, and of New Hampshire for the 18th of
   the same month. The result was expected to be adverse in
   everyone of these states. In Virginia the opposition was led
   by Patrick Henry. … Henry was ably seconded by Richard Henry
   Lee, William Grayson, and George Mason. … James Monroe
   followed their lead. James Madison and Governor Randolph were
   the leading champions of the new Constitution. … John
   Marshall, afterwards chief justice, came to their assistance.
   … The debate lasted a month. It may be read with instruction,
   as it is reported in the volumes of Elliot. The ratification
   prevailed [June 25] by a majority of ten in a vote of 186.
   After all, the influence of Washington procured the result. …
   Meanwhile, the state of New Hampshire had ratified the
   Constitution [June 21], but the fact was not known in
   Virginia. The opposition to the Constitution was great and
   bitter in the State of New York. Fortunately the convention
   was held so late that New Hampshire, the ninth state, had
   ratified while the New York convention was engaged in its
   heated discussions. Two thirds of the delegates were elected
   to oppose it. … The friends of the Constitution felt, long
   before the convention assembled, that public discussion might
   be useful in overcoming the hostile attitude of the state.
{3302}
   Accordingly, a series of essays in exposition of the
   Constitution was written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, over
   the common signature of 'Publius.' These essays were published
   in a newspaper, between October, 1787, and June, 1788. … They
   were subsequently collected and published in a volume styled
   'The Federalist.' From that day to this, 'The Federalist' has
   held unequalled rank as an authority upon the construction of
   the Constitution." On the 24th of June a fleet courier,
   employed by Hamilton, brought from Concord to Poughkeepsie,
   where the New York convention sat, news of the ratification of
   the Constitution by New Hampshire, the ninth state. "Now,
   indeed, the situation was changed. There was no longer a
   confederacy; the Union was already formed. … The state must
   either join the new system or stay out of it. New York was not
   favorably situated for a separate nation. New England on the
   east, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the south, belonged
   to the new Union. Canada was on the north. … Delay, with its
   altered circumstances, finally brought to Hamilton and his
   party the victory that had been denied to argument and
   eloquence. But the Anti-Federalists were reluctant to yield,
   and the debate was prolonged," until the 26th of July, when
   the ratification was carried by 30 votes against 27. "North
   Carolina remained out of the Union until November, 1789, and
   Rhode Island until June, 1790. … The ratification by nine
   states having been certified to the Congress of the
   Confederacy, that body adopted a resolution fixing the first
   Wednesday of March, 1789, as the day when the new government
   should go into operation. As the day fell on the 4th of March,
   that day became fixed for the beginning and the end of
   congressional and presidential terms."

      _J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      chapter 7._

      _G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution of the United States,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

      _J. Elliot, editor,
      Debates in the State Convention on the Adoption
      of the Federal Constitution._

      _The Federalist._

      _A. Hamilton,
      Works,
      volume 2._

      _W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      chapters 34-36 (volume 2)._

      _K. M. Rowland,
      Life of George Mason.
      volume 2, chapters 6-8_.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
   The First Presidential Election.
   Washington called to the head of the new Government.

   "The adoption of the Federal constitution was another epoch in
   the life of Washington. Before the official forms of an
   election could be carried into operation a unanimous sentiment
   throughout the Union pronounced him the nation's choice to
   fill the presidential chair. He looked forward to the
   possibility of his election with characteristic modesty and
   unfeigned reluctance; as his letters to his confidential
   friends bear witness. … The election took place at the
   appointed time [the first Wednesday in January, 1789], and it
   was soon ascertained that Washington was chosen President for
   the term of four years from the 4th of March. By this time the
   arguments and entreaties of his friends, and his own
   convictions of public expediency, had determined him to
   accept. … From a delay in forming a quorum of Congress the
   votes of the electoral college were not counted until early in
   April, when they were found to be unanimous in favor of
   Washington 'The delay,' said he in a letter to General Knox,
   'may be compared to a reprieve; for in confidence I tell you
   (with the world it would obtain little credit), that my
   movements to the chair of government will be accompanied by
   feelings not unlike those of a culprit, who is going to the
   place of his execution; so unwilling am I, in the evening of a
   life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode
   for an ocean of difficulties, without that competency of
   political skill, abilities and inclination, which are
   necessary to manage the helm.' … At length on the 14th of
   April he received a letter from the president of Congress,
   duly notifying him of his election; and he prepared to set out
   immediately for New York, the seat of government."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 37._

   The secondary electoral votes, by which the Vice President
   was, at that time, chosen, were scattered among eleven
   candidates. John Adams received the greater number (34) though
   not quite a majority of the 69, and was elected.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
   Passage of the Act of Congress organizing the
   Supreme Court of the United States.

      See SUPREME COURT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Hamilton's report on Manufactures.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1789-1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
   Organization of the Federal government
   and first administration of Washington.
   The dividing of Parties.
   Federalists and Democratic Republicans.

   "March 4th, 1789, had been appointed for the formal
   inauguration of the new Government, but the members elect had
   not yet unlearned the Confederacy's slovenly habits. It was
   not until April 6th that a sufficient number of members of
   Congress arrived in New York to form a quorum and count the
   electoral votes. At that time, and until 1805, no electoral
   votes were cast distinctively for President and
   Vice-President. Each elector voted by ballot for two persons.
   If a majority of all the votes were cast for any person, he
   who received the greatest number of votes became President,
   and he who received the next greatest number became
   Vice-President. When the votes were counted in 1789 they were
   found to be, for George Washington, of Virginia, 69 (each of
   the electors having given him one vote), for John Adams, of
   Massachusetts, 34, and 35 for various other candidates.
   Washington received notice of his election, and, after a
   triumphal progress northward from his home at Mount Vernon,
   was sworn into office April 30th [at Federal Hall, corner Wall
   and Nassau Streets, New York]. The Vice-President had taken
   his place as presiding officer of the Senate a few days
   before. Frederick A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, was chosen
   Speaker of the House, but the vote had no party divisions, for
   Parties were still in a state of utter confusion. Between the
   extreme Anti-federalists, who considered the Constitution a
   long step toward a despotism, and the extreme Federalists, who
   desired a monarchy modeled on that of England, there were all
   varieties of political opinion. … The extreme importance of
   Washington lay in his ability, through the universal
   confidence in his integrity and good judgment, to hold
   together this alliance of moderate men for a time, and to
   prevent party contests upon the interpretation of federal
   powers until the Constitution should show its merit and be
   assured of existence.
{3303}
   The President selected his Cabinet with a careful regard to
   the opposite opinions of his supporters. The Treasury
   Department was given to Alexander Hamilton, of New York, a
   Federalist. … The War Department was given to General Henry
   Knox, of Massachusetts, also a Federalist. The State
   Department was given to Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, an
   Anti-federalist. … Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, also an
   Anti-federalist, was appointed Attorney-General, and John Jay,
   of New York, a Federalist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
   Twelve Amendments were adopted by this Session of Congress, in
   order to meet the conscientious objections of many moderate
   Anti-federalists, and to take the place of a 'Bill of Rights.'
   Ten of these, having received the assent of the necessary
   number of States, became a part of the Constitution, and now
   stand the first ten of the Amendments. They were intended to
   guarantee freedom of religion, speech, person, and property. …
   January 9th [1790] Hamilton offered his famous Report on the
   Settlement of the Public Debt. It consisted of three
   recommendations, first, that the foreign debt of the
   Confederacy should be assumed land paid in full; second, that
   the domestic debt of the Confederacy, which had fallen far
   below par and had become a synonym for worthlessness, should
   also be paid at its par value; and third, that the debts
   incurred by the States during the Revolution, and still
   unpaid, should be assumed and paid in full by the Federal
   Government. Hamilton's First recommendation was adopted
   unanimously. The Second was opposed, even by Madison and many
   moderate Anti-federalists, on the ground that the domestic
   debt was held by speculators, who had bought it at a heavy
   discount, and would thus gain usurious interest on their
   investment. Hamilton's supporters argued that, if only for
   that reason, they should be paid in full, that holders of
   United States securities might learn not to sell them at a
   discount, and that the national credit might thus be
   strengthened for all time to come. After long debate the
   second recommendation was also adopted. Hamilton's Third
   recommendation involved a question of the powers of the
   Federal Government. It therefore for the first time united all
   the Anti-federalists in opposition to it. They feared that the
   rope of sand of the Confederacy was being carried to the
   opposite extreme; that the 'money power' would, by this
   measure, be permanently attached to the Federal Government;
   and that the States would be made of no importance. But even
   this recommendation was adopted, though only by a vote of 31
   to 26 in the House. A few days later, however, the
   Anti-federalists received a reinforcement of seven newly
   arrived North Carolina members. The third resolution was at
   once reconsidered, and voted down by a majority of two.
   Hamilton secured the final adoption of the third resolution by
   a bargain which excited the deep indignation of the
   Anti-federalists. A National Capital was to be selected. The
   Federalists agreed to vote that it should be fixed upon the
   Potomac River [see WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791], after
   remaining ten years in Philadelphia, and two Anti-federalist
   members from the Potomac agreed in return to vote for the
   third resolution, which was then finally adopted. Hamilton's
   entire report was thus successful. Its immediate effects were
   to appreciate the credit of the United States, and to enrich
   the holders of the Continental debt. Its further effect was to
   make Hamilton so much disliked by Anti-federalists that,
   despite his acknowledged talents, his party never ventured to
   nominate him for any elective office. … Party Organization may
   be considered as fairly begun about the close [of the first
   Session of the Second Congress, in 1792]. … The various
   Anti-federalist factions, by union in resisting the
   Federalists, had learned to forget minor differences and had
   been welded into one party which only lacked a name. That of
   Anti-federalist was no longer applicable, for its opposition
   to the Federal Union had entirely ceased. A name was supplied
   by Jefferson, the recognized leader of the party, after the
   French Revolution had fairly begun its course. That political
   convulsion had, for some time after 1789, the sympathy of both
   Federalists and Anti-federalists, for it seemed the direct
   outgrowth of the American Revolution. But, as its leveling
   objects became more apparent, the Federalists grew cooler and
   the Anti-federalists warmer towards it. The latter took great
   pains, even by dress and manners, to show the keenness of
   their sympathy for the Republicans of France, and about this
   time adopted the name Democratic-Republican, which seemed
   sufficiently comprehensive for a full indication of their
   principles. This has always been the official party title. It
   is now abbreviated to Democratic, though the name Democrat was
   at first used by Federalists as one of contempt, and the party
   called itself Republican, a title which it could hardly claim
   with propriety, for its tendency has always been toward a
   democracy, as that of its opponents has been toward a strong
   republic. The name Republican, therefore, belongs most
   properly to its present possessors (1879). But it must be
   remembered that the party which will be called Republican
   until about 1828 was the party which is now called
   Democratic."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 2._

   Jefferson's bitterness of hostility to the Federalists was due
   to the belief that they aimed at the overthrow of the
   Republic. His conviction as to these really treasonable
   purposes in the leaders of the party was often expressed, but
   never more distinctly than in a letter written in 1813 to an
   English traveller, Mr. Melish. At the same time, he set forth
   the principles and aims of his own party: "Among that section
   of our citizens called federalists," he wrote, "there are
   three shades of opinion. Distinguishing between the leaders
   and people who compose it, the leaders consider the English
   constitution as a model of perfection, some, with a correction
   of its vices, others, with all its corruptions and abuses.
   This last was Alexander Hamilton's opinion, which others, as
   well as myself, have often heard him declare, and that a
   correction of what are called its vices would render the
   English an impracticable government. This government they
   wished to have established here, and only accepted and held
   fast, at first, to the present constitution, as a
   stepping-stone to the final establishment of their favorite
   model. This party has therefore always clung to England as
   their prototype and great auxiliary in promoting and effecting
   this change. A weighty minority, however, of these leaders,
   considering the voluntary conversion of our government into a
   monarchy as too distant, if not desperate, wish to break off
   from our Union its eastern fragment, as being, in truth, the
   hot-bed of American monarchism, with a view to a commencement
   of their favorite government, from whence the other States may
   gangrene by degrees, and the whole be thus brought finally to
   the desired point.
{3304}
   For Massachusetts, the prime mover in this enterprise, is the
   last State in the Union to mean a final separation, as being
   of all the most dependent on the others. Not raising bread for
   the sustenance of her own inhabitants, not having a stick of
   timber for the construction of vessels, her principal
   occupation, nor an article to export in them, where would she
   be, excluded from the ports of the other States, and thrown
   into dependence on England, her direct, and natural, but now
   insidious rival? At the head of this minority is what is
   called the Essex Junto of Massachusetts. But the majority of
   these leaders do not aim at separation. In this, they adhere
   to the known principle of General Hamilton, never, under any
   views, to break the Union. Anglomany, monarchy, and
   separation, then, are the principles of the Essex federalists.
   Anglomany and monarchy, those of the Hamiltonians, and
   Anglomany alone, that of the portion among the people who call
   themselves federalists. These last are as good republicans as
   the brethren whom they oppose, and differ from them only in
   their devotion to England and hatred of France which they have
   imbibed from their leaders. The moment that these leaders
   should avowedly propose a separation of the Union, or the
   establishment of regal government, their popular adherents
   would quit them to a man, and join the republican standard;
   and the partisans of this change, even in Massachusetts, would
   thus find themselves an army of officers without a soldier.
   The party called republican is steadily for the support of the
   present constitution. They obtained at its commencement all
   the amendments to it they desired. These reconciled them to it
   perfectly, and if they have any ulterior view, it is only,
   perhaps, to popularize it further, by shortening the
   Senatorial term, and devising a process for the responsibility
   of judges, more practicable than that of impeachment. They
   esteem the people of England and France equally, and equally
   detest the governing powers of both. This I verily believe,
   after an intimacy of forty years with the public councils and
   characters, is a true statement of the grounds on which they
   are at present divided, and that it is not merely an ambition
   for power. An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise
   of power over his fellow citizens. And considering as the only
   offices of power those conferred by the people directly, that
   is to say, the executive and legislative functions of the
   General and State governments, the common refusal of these,
   and multiplied resignations, are proofs sufficient that power
   is not alluring to pure minds, and is not, with them, the
   primary principle of contest. This is my belief of it; it is
   that on which I have acted; and had it been a mere contest who
   should be permitted to administer the government according to
   its genuine republican principles, there has never been a
   moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it
   the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books.
   You expected to discover the difference of our party
   principles in General Washington's valedictory, and my
   inaugural address. Not at all. General Washington did not
   harbor one principle of federalism. He was neither an
   Angloman, a monarchist, nor a separatist. He sincerely wished
   the people to have as much self-government as they were
   competent to exercise themselves. The only point on which he
   and I ever differed in opinion, was, that I had more
   confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion
   of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they
   might trust themselves with a control over their government.
   He has asseverated to me a thousand times his determination
   that the existing government should have a fair trial, and
   that in support of it he would spend the last drop of his
   blood. He did this the more repeatedly, because he knew
   General Hamilton's political bias, and my apprehensions from
   it."

      _T. Jefferson,
      Letter to Mr. Melish, January 13, 1813
      (Writings, edited by Washington, volume 6)._

   The view taken at the present day of the Federalism and the
   Federalists of the first three decades of the Union, among
   those who see more danger in the centrifugal than in the
   centripetal forces in government, are effectively stated in
   the following: "The popular notion in regard to Federalism is
   that to which the name naturally gives rise. By Federalists
   are commonly understood those men who advocated a union of the
   States and an efficient Federal government. This conception is
   true, but is at the same time so limited that it may fairly be
   called superficial. The name arose from its first object which
   the friends of the Constitution strove to achieve; but this
   object, the more perfect union, and even the Constitution
   itself, were but means to ends of vastly more importance. The
   ends which the Federalists sought formed the great principles
   on which the party was founded, and it can be justly said that
   no nobler or better ends were ever striven for by any
   political party or by any statesmen. The first and paramount
   object of the Federalists was to build up a nation and to
   create a national sentiment. For this they sought a more
   perfect union. Their next object was to give the nation they
   had called into existence not only a government, but a strong
   government. To do this, they had not only to devise a model,
   to draw a constitution, to organize a legislature, executive,
   and judiciary, but they had to equip the government thus
   formed with all those adjuncts without which no government can
   long exist under the conditions of modern civilization. The
   Federalists had to provide for the debt, devise a financial
   and foreign policy, organize an army, fortify the ports, found
   a navy, impose and collect taxes, and put in operation an
   extensive revenue system. We of the English race—whose creed
   is that governments and great political systems grow and
   develop slowly, are the results of climate, soil, race,
   tradition, and the exigencies of time and place, who wholly
   disavow the theory that perfect governments spring in a night
   from the heated brains of Frenchmen or Spaniards—can best
   appreciate the task with which our ancestors grappled. … Upon
   a people lately convulsed by civil war, upon a people who had
   lost their old political habits and traditions without finding
   new ones in their stead, it was necessary to impose a
   government, and to create a national sentiment. This the
   Federalists did, and they need no other eulogy.
{3305}
   With no undue national pride, we can justly say that the
   adoption and support of the Constitution offer an example of
   the political genius of the Anglo-Saxon race to which history
   cannot furnish a parallel. The political party to whose
   exertions these great results were due was the Federal party.
   They were the party of order, of good government, and of
   conservatism. Against them was ranged a majority of their
   fellow-citizens. But this majority was wild, anarchical,
   disunited. The only common ground on which they could meet was
   that of simple opposition. The only name they had was
   anti-Federalists. They had neither leaders, discipline,
   objects, nor even a party cry. Before the definite aims and
   concentrated ability of the Federalists, they fled in helpless
   disorder, like an unarmed mob before advancing soldiers. But,
   though dispersed, the anti-Federalists were still in a
   numerical majority. They needed a leader, organization, and
   opportunity, and they soon found all three. Thomas Jefferson
   arrived in New York, not only to enter into Washington's
   cabinet, and lend the aid of his great talents to the success
   of the new scheme, but soon also to put himself at the head of
   the large though demoralized opposition to the administration
   he had sworn to support. Filled with the wild democratic
   theories which his susceptible nature had readily imbibed in
   France, Jefferson soon infused them into the minds of most of
   his followers. Instead of a vague dislike to any and all
   government, he substituted a sharp and factious opposition to
   each and every measure proposed by the friends of the
   Constitution."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      chapters 37-46 (volume 3)._

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Jefferson,
      chapters 42-47._

      _M. Van Buren,
      Political Parties in the United States,
      chapters 2-4._

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in New York,
      volume 1, chapters 1-2._

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 5, chapters 1-16._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1810.
   Founding of the Roman Episcopate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790.
   The First Census.

   Total population, 3,929,827,
   classed and distributed as follows:

North.

                White.   Free black. Slave.
Connecticut.    232,581      2,801    2,759
Maine.           96,002        538        0
Massachusetts.  373,254      5,463        0
New Hampshire.  141,111        630      158
New Jersey.     169,954      2,762   11,423
New York.       314,142      4,654   21,324
Pennsylvania.   424,099      6,537    3,737
Rhode Island.    64,689      3,469      952
Vermont.         85,144        255       17
                    ---        ---      ---
Total         1,900,976     27,109   40,370

South.

                White.   Free black. Slave.
Delaware.        46,310      3,899    8,887
Georgia.         52,886        398   29,264
Kentucky.        61,133        114   11,830
Maryland.       208,649      8,043  103,036
North Carolina. 288,204      4,975  100,572
South Carolina. 140,178      1,801  107,094
Tennessee.       32,013        361    3,417
Virginia.       442,115     12,766  293,427
                    ---        ---      ---
Total         1,271,488     32,357  657,527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790-1795.
   War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
   and Wayne's decisive victory.

      See NORTHWESTERN TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   Admission of Vermont to the Union.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   Incorporation of the first Bank of the United States.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   The founding of the Federal Capital.

      See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   Adoption of the first ten Amendments
   to the Federal Constitution.

   The first ten amendments to the Constitution (see CONSTITUTION
   OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), embodying a declaration of
   rights which was thought to be necessary by many who had
   consented to the adoption of the Constitution, but only with
   the understanding that such amendments should be added, were
   proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
   First Congress, on the 25th of September, 1789. At different
   dates between November 20, 1789 and December 15, 1791, they
   were ratified by eleven of the then fourteen States. "There is
   no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures
   of Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified them."

      _Constitution,
      Rules and Manual of the UNITED STATES SENATE (1885)
      page 61._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
   Admission of Kentucky to the Union.
   Slavery in the Constitution of the new State.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
   Second Presidential Election.

   George Washington re-elected with unanimity, receiving 132
   votes of the Electoral College, John Adams, Vice President,
   receiving 77 votes, with 50 cast for George Clinton, 4 for
   Jefferson and 1 for Burr.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   The First Fugitive Slave Law.

   For some time after the adoption of the Federal Constitution,
   its provision relating to the rendition of persons "held to
   service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
   escaping into another" remained without legislation to execute
   it; "and it is a striking fact that the call for legislation
   came not from the South, but from a free State; and that it
   was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by kidnappers. … A
   free negro named John was seized at Washington, Pennsylvania,
   in 1791, and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Pennsylvania,
   at the instigation of the Society for the Abolition of
   Slavery, asked the return of the three kidnappers; but the
   Governor of Virginia replied that, since there was no national
   law touching such a case, he could not carry out the request.
   On the matter being brought to the notice of Congress by the
   Governor of Pennsylvania," a bill was passed which "became law
   by the signature of the President, February 12, 1793. … The
   act provided at the same time for the recovery of fugitives
   from justice and from labor; but the alleged criminal was to
   have a protection through the requirement of a requisition, a
   protection denied to the man on trial for his liberty only.
   The act was applicable to fugitive apprentices as well as to
   slaves, a provision of some importance at the time. In the
   Northwest Territory there were so-called negro apprentices,
   who were virtually slaves, and to whom the law applied, since
   it was in terms extended to all the Territories. Proceedings
   began with the forcible seizure of the alleged fugitive. The
   act, it will be observed, does not admit a trial by jury.
{3306}
   It allowed the owner of the slave, his agent or attorney, to
   seize the fugitive and take him before any judge of a United
   States Circuit or District Court, or any local magistrate. The
   only requirement for the conviction of the slave was the
   testimony of his master, or the affidavit of some magistrate
   in the State from which he came, certifying that such a person
   had escaped. Hindering arrest or harboring a slave was
   punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars. The law thus
   established a system allowing the greatest harshness to the
   slave and every favor to the master. Even at that time, when
   persons might still be born slaves in New York and New Jersey,
   and gradual emancipation had not yet taken full effect in
   Rhode Island and Connecticut, it was repellent to the popular
   sense of justice; there were two cases of resistance 'to the
   principle of the act before the close of 1793. Until 1850 no
   further law upon this subject was passed, but as the
   provisions of 1793 were found ineffectual, many attempts at
   amendment were made."

      _M. G. McDougall,
      Fugitive Slaves, 1619-1865
      (Fay House Monographs, number 3), pages 17-19._

   "The fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution is of course
   obligatory, but there is a wide distinction between the
   fugitive-slave clause and the fugitive-slave law. The
   Constitution gives no power to Congress to legislate on the
   subject, but imposes on the States the obligation of
   rendition. Chief-Justice Hornblower, of New York, and
   Chancellor Walworth, of New York, long since pronounced the
   fugitive law of '93 unconstitutional on this very ground."

      _William Jay,
      Letter to Josiah Quincy
      (quoted in B. Tuckerman's "William Jay and the
      Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery")._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   Popular sympathy with the French Revolution.
   Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality.
   Insolent conduct of the French minister, Genet.

   "The French Revolution, as was natural from the all-important
   services rendered by France to the United States in their own
   revolutionary struggle, enlisted the warm sympathy of the
   American people. … As the United States were first introduced
   to the family of nations by the alliance with France of 1778,
   the very important question arose, on the breaking out of the
   war between France and England, how far they were bound to
   take part in the contest. The second article of the treaty of
   alliance seemed to limit its operation to the then existing
   war between the United States and Great Britain; but by the
   eleventh article the two contracting powers agreed to
   'guarantee mutually from the present time and forever, against
   all other powers,' the territories of which the allies might
   be in possession respectively at the moment the war between
   France and Great Britain should break out, which was
   anticipated as the necessary consequence of the alliance. Not
   only were the general sympathies of America strongly with
   France, but the course pursued by Great Britain toward the
   United States, since the peace of 1783, was productive of
   extreme irritation, especially her refusal to give up the
   western posts, which … had the effect of involving the
   northwestern frontier in a prolonged and disastrous Indian
   war. These causes, together with the recent recollections of
   the revolutionary struggle, disposed the popular mind to make
   common cause with France, in what was regarded as the war of a
   people struggling for freedom against the combined despots of
   Europe. Washington, however, from the first, determined to
   maintain the neutrality of the country;" and, with the
   unanimous advice of his cabinet, he issued (April 22, 1793) a
   proclamation of neutrality. "This proclamation, though
   draughted by Mr. Jefferson and unanimously adopted by the
   Cabinet, was violently assailed by the organs of the party
   which followed his lead. … The growing excitement of the
   popular mind was fanned to a flame by the arrival at
   Charleston, South Carolina [April 9], of 'Citizen' Genet, who
   was sent as the minister of the French Republic to the United
   States. Without repairing to the seat of government, or being
   accredited in any way, in his official capacity, he began to
   fit out privateers in Charleston, to cruise against the
   commerce of England. Although the utmost gentleness and
   patience were observed by the executive of the United States
   in checking this violation of their neutrality, Genet assumed
   from the first a tone of defiance, and threatened before long
   to appeal from the government to the people. These insolent
   demonstrations were of course lost upon Washington's firmness
   and moral courage. They distressed, but did not in the
   slightest degree intimidate him; and their effect on the
   popular mind was to some extent neutralized by the facts, that
   the chief measures to maintain the neutrality of the country
   had been unanimously advised by the Cabinet, and that the duty
   of rebuking his intemperate course had devolved upon the
   secretary of state [Jefferson], the recognized head of the
   party to which Genet looked for sympathy."

      _E. Everett,
      Life of Washington,
      chapter 8._

   A demand for "Genet's recall was determined on during the
   first days of August. There was some discussion over the
   manner of requesting the recall, but the terms were made
   gentle by Jefferson, to the disgust of the Secretary of the
   Treasury and the Secretary of War [Hamilton and Knox], who
   desired direct methods and stronger language. As finally toned
   up and agreed upon by the President and cabinet, the document
   was sufficiently vigorous to annoy Genet, and led to bitter
   reproaches addressed to his friend in the State Department. …
   The letter asking Genet's recall, as desired by Washington,
   went in due time, and in the following February came a
   successor. Genet, however, did not go back to his native land,
   for he preferred to remain here and save his head, valueless
   as that article would seem to have been. He spent the rest of
   his days in America, married, harmless, and quite obscure. His
   noise and fireworks were soon over, and one wonders now how he
   could ever have made as much flare and explosion as he did."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 2, pages 155-156._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _J. T. Morse,
      Life of Hamilton,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      _American State Papers,
      volume 1, pages 140-188, 243-246, and 311-314._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   Whitney's Cotton-gin and the series of inventions
   which it made complete.
   Their political effect.
   The strengthening of the Slave Power, and the
   strengthening of Unionism.

   "Some English artisans, who, about the middle of the last
   century, were obtaining a scanty living by spinning, weaving
   and other such occupations, turned their inventive talent to
   the improvement of their art.
{3307}
   Paul and Wyatt introduced the operation of spinning by
   rollers; Highs, or Hargreaves, invented the jenny, by which a
   great many threads could be spun as easily as one. Paul
   devised the rotating carding-engine; Crompton the mule;
   Arkwright the water-frame, which produced any number of
   threads of any degree of fineness and hardness. These
   ingenious machines constituted a very great improvement on the
   spindle and distaff of ancient times, and on the
   spinning-wheel, originally brought from Asia, or perhaps
   reinvented in Europe. At length one spinner was able to
   accomplish as much work as one hundred could have formerly
   done. While the art of producing threads was undergoing this
   singular improvement, Cartwright, a clergyman, invented, in
   1785, the power-loom, intended to supersede the operation of
   weaving by hand, and to make the production of textile fabrics
   altogether the result of machinery. After some modifications,
   that loom successfully accomplished the object for which it
   was devised. As these inventions succeeded, they necessarily
   led to a demand for motive power. In the first little cotton
   factory, the germ of that embodiment of modern industry, the
   cotton-mill, a water-wheel was employed to give movement to
   the machinery. The establishment was, therefore, necessarily
   placed near a stream, where a sufficient fall could be
   obtained. The invention of the steam-engine by Watt, which was
   the consequence of the new and correct views of the nature of
   vapors that had been established by Dr. Black, supplied, in
   due time, the required motive power, and by degrees the
   water-wheel went almost out of use. Textile manufacture needed
   now but one thing more to become of signal importance—it
   needed a more abundant supply of raw material. … Cotton, the
   fibre chiefly concerned in these improvements, was obtained in
   limited quantities from various countries; but, at the time of
   the adoption of the Constitution, not a single pound was
   exported from the United States. What was grown here was for
   domestic consumption. Every good housewife had her
   spinning-wheel, every plantation its hand-loom. The difficulty
   of supplying cotton fibre in quantity sufficient to meet the
   demands of the new machinery was due to the imperfect means in
   use for separating the cotton from its seeds—a tedious
   operation, for the picking was done by hand. Eli Whitney, a
   native of Massachusetts, by his invention of the cotton-gin in
   1793, removed that difficulty. The fibre could be separated
   from the seeds with rapidity and at a trifling cost. There was
   nothing now to prevent an extraordinary development in the
   English manufactures. A very few years showed what the result
   would be. In 1790 no cotton was exported from the United
   States. Whitney's gin was introduced in 1793. The next year
   about 1½ million of pounds were exported; in 1795, about 5¼
   millions; in 1860, the quantity had reached 2,000 millions of
   pounds. The political effect of this mechanical invention,
   which thus proved to be the completion of all the previous
   English inventions, being absolutely necessary to give them
   efficacy, was at once seen in its accomplishing a great
   increase and a redistribution of population in England. … In
   the United States the effects were still more important.
   Cotton could be grown through all the Southern Atlantic and
   the Gulf States. It was more profitable than any other
   crop—but it was raised by slaves. Whatever might have been the
   general expectation respecting the impending extinction of
   slavery, it was evident that at the commencement of this
   century the conditions had altogether changed. A powerful
   interest had come into unforeseen existence both in Europe and
   America which depended on perpetuating that mode of labor.
   Moreover, before long it was apparent that, partly because of
   the adaptation of their climate to the growth of the plant,
   partly because of the excellence of the product, and partly
   owing to the increasing facilities for interior
   transportation, the cotton-growing states of America would
   have a monopoly in the supply of this staple. But, though
   mechanical invention had reinvigorated the slave power by
   bestowing on it the cotton-gin, it had likewise strengthened
   unionism by another inestimable gift—the steam-boat. At the
   very time that the African slave-trade was prohibited, Fulton
   was making his successful experiment of the navigation of the
   Hudson River by steam. This improvement in inland navigation
   rendered available, in a manner never before contemplated, the
   river and lake system of the continent; it gave an
   instantaneous value to the policy of Jefferson, by bringing
   into effectual use the Mississippi and its tributaries; it
   crowded with population the shores of the lakes; it threw the
   whole continent open to commerce, it strengthened the central
   power at Washington by diminishing space, and while it
   extended geographically the domain of the republic, it
   condensed it politically. It bound all parts of the Union more
   firmly together. … In the Constitution it had been agreed that
   three fifths of the slaves should be accounted as federal
   numbers in the apportionment of federal representation. A
   political advantage was thus given to slave labor. This closed
   the eyes of the South to all other means of solving its
   industrial difficulties. … To the cotton-planter two courses
   were open. He might increase his manual force, or he might
   resort to machinery. … It required no deep political
   penetration for him to perceive that the introduction of
   machinery must in the end result in the emancipation of the
   slave. Machinery and slavery are incompatible—the slave is
   displaced by the machine. In the Southern States political
   reasons thus discouraged the introduction of machinery. Under
   the Constitution an increased negro force had a political
   value, machinery had none. The cotton interest was therefore
   persuaded by those who were in a position to guide its
   movements, that its prosperity could be secured only through
   increased manual labor."

      _Dr. J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      section 3, chapter 16 (volume 1)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794.
   Resistance to the Excise.
   The Whisky Insurrection in Pennsylvania.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Threatening relations with Great Britain.
   The Jay Treaty.

   "The daily increasing 'love-frenzy for France,' and the
   intemperate language of the Democratic press, naturally
   emphasized in England that reaction against America which set
   in with the treaty of peace. On the other hand, the retention
   of the frontier posts in violation of that treaty was a thorn
   in the side of the young Republic. In the course of the war
   England had adopted, by successive Orders in Council, a policy
   ruinous to the commerce of neutral nations, especially of the
   United States.
{3308}
   In the admiralty courts of the various British West India
   islands hundreds of ships from New England were seized and
   condemned, for carrying French produce or bearing cargoes of
   provisions chartered to French ports. The New England
   fishermen and shipowners were vociferous for war, and the
   Democratic clubs denounced every British insult and celebrated
   every French victory. On March 26, 1794, an embargo against
   British ships was proclaimed for thirty days, and then
   extended for thirty days longer. The day after the embargo was
   laid, Dayton, of New Jersey, moved in Congress to sequester
   all moneys due to British creditors, and apply it towards
   indemnifying shipowners for losses incurred through the Orders
   in Council; and on April 21st the Republicans moved a
   resolution to suspend, all commercial intercourse with Great
   Britain till the western posts should be given up, and
   indemnity be paid for injuries to American commerce in
   violation of the rights of neutrals. The passage of such an
   act meant war; and for war the United States was never more
   unprepared. … Peace could be secured only by immediate
   negotiation and at least a temporary settlement of the causes
   of neutral irritation, and for such a task the ministers at
   London and Washington were incompetent or unsuited. … In this
   crisis Washington decided to send to England a special envoy.
   Hamilton was his first choice, but Hamilton had excited bitter
   enmities." On Hamilton's recommendation, John Jay, the Chief
   Justice, was chosen for the difficult mission, and he sailed
   for England in May, 1794, landing at Falmouth on the 8th of
   June. Within the succeeding five months he accomplished the
   negotiation of a treaty, which was signed on the 19th of
   November. "The main points that Jay had been instructed to
   gain were compensation for negroes [carried away by the
   British armies on the evacuation of the country in 1783],
   surrender of the posts, and compensation for spoliations; in
   addition, a commercial treaty was desired. When Secretary for
   Foreign Affairs, Jay had argued that the negroes, some 3,000
   in number, who, at the time of the evacuation, were within the
   British lines, relying on proclamations that offered freedom,
   and who followed the troops to England, came within that
   clause of the treaty of peace which provided that the army
   should be withdrawn without 'carrying away any negroes or
   other property.' Lord Grenville, however, insisted upon
   refusing any compensation. Once within the British lines, he
   said, slaves were free for good and all. … From any point of
   view the matter was too insignificant to wreck the treaty upon
   it, and Jay waived the claim. As to the western posts [Oswego,
   Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, etc.], it was agreed that they
   should be surrendered by June 12, 1796. But compensation for
   the detention was denied on the ground that it was due to the
   breach of the treaty by the United States in permitting the
   States to prevent the recovery of British debts." For the
   determination and payment of such debts, it was now provided
   that a board of five commissioners should sit at Philadelphia;
   while another similar board at London should award
   compensation for irregular and illegal captures or
   condemnations made during the war between Great Britain and
   France. "Under this clause American merchants received
   $10,345,000. … The disputed questions of boundaries, arising
   from the construction of the treaty of peace, were referred to
   joint commissioners: properly enough, as the confusion was due
   to ignorance of the geography of the Northwest. British and
   American citizens holding lands at the time respectively in
   the United States and in any of the possessions of Great
   Britain were secured in their rights; a clause much objected
   to in America, but which was obviously just. A still more
   important provision followed, a novelty in international
   diplomacy, and a distinct advance in civilization: that war
   between the two countries should never be made the pretext for
   confiscation of debts or annulment of contracts between
   individuals. In the War of 1812 the United States happened for
   the moment to be the creditor nation, and the millions which
   this provision saved to her citizens it would be difficult to
   estimate. … It was the commercial articles which excited the
   most intense hostility in America. … To unprejudiced eyes,
   after the lapse of a hundred years, considering the mutual
   exasperation of the two peoples, the pride of England in her
   successes in the war with France, the weakness and division of
   the United States, the treaty seems a very fair one. Certainly
   one far less favorable to America would have been infinitely
   preferable to a war, and would probably in the course of time
   have been accepted as being so. The commercial advantages were
   not very considerable, but they at least served as 'an
   entering wedge,' to quote Jay's expression, and they were 'pro
   tanto' a clear gain to America. … The treaty was not published
   till July 2d. … Even before its contents were known, letters,
   signed 'Franklin,' appeared abusing the treaty; and in
   Philadelphia an effigy of Jay was placed in the pillory, and
   finally taken down, guillotined, the clothes fired, and the
   body blown up. It was clear, then, that it was not this
   particular treaty, but any treaty at all with Great Britain,
   that excited the wrath of the Republicans. On July 4th toasts
   insulting Jay or making odious puns on his name, were the
   fashion. … On June 24th the treaty was ratified by the Senate,
   with the exception of the article about the West India trade.
   On August 15th it was signed, with the same exception by
   Washington."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      chapter 11._

   "The reception given to the treaty cannot be fully explained
   by the existing relations between the United States and
   England. It was only in consequence of its Francomania that
   the opposition assumed the character of blind rage."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 124._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6._

      _W. Jay,
      Life of John Jay,
      volume 1, chapters 8-10
      and volume 2, pages 216-264._

      _American State Papers,
      volume 1, pages 464-525._

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
   Admission of Tennessee to the Union.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
   Washington's Farewell Address.

   "The period for the presidential election was drawing near,
   and great anxiety began to be felt that Washington would
   consent to stand for a third term. No one, it was agreed, had
   greater claim to the enjoyment of retirement, in consideration
   of public services rendered; but it was thought the affairs of
   the country would be in a very precarious condition should he
   retire before the wars of Europe were brought to a close.
{3309}
   Washington, however, had made up his mind irrevocably on the
   subject, and resolved to announce, in a farewell address, his
   intention of retiring. Such an instrument, it will be
   recollected, had been prepared for him from his own notes, by
   Mr. Madison, when he had thought of retiring at the end of his
   first term. As he was no longer in confidential intimacy with
   Mr. Madison, he turned to Mr. Hamilton as his adviser and
   coadjutor, and appears to have consulted him on the subject
   early in the present year [1796], for, in a letter dated New
   York, May 10th, Hamilton writes: 'When last in Philadelphia,
   you mentioned to me your wish that I should "re-dress" a
   certain paper which you had prepared. As it is important that
   a thing of this kind should be done with great care and much
   at leisure, touched and retouched, I submit a wish that, as
   soon as you have given it the body you mean it to have, it may
   be sent to me.' The paper was accordingly sent, on the 15th of
   May, in its rough state, altered in one part since Hamilton
   had seen it. 'If you should think it best to throw the whole
   into a different form,' writes Washington, 'let me request,
   notwithstanding, that my draft may be returned to me (along
   with yours) with such amendments and corrections as to render
   it as perfect as the formation is susceptible of; curtailed if
   too verbose, and relieved of all tautology not necessary to
   enforce the ideas in the original or quoted part. My wish is,
   that the whole may appear in a plain style; and be handed to
   the public in an honest, unaffected, simple garb.' We forbear
   to go into the vexed question concerning this address; how
   much of it is founded on Washington's original 'notes and
   heads of topics'; how much was elaborated by Madison, and how
   much is due to Hamilton's recasting and revision. The whole
   came under the supervision of Washington; and the instrument,
   as submitted to the press, was in his handwriting, with many
   ultimate corrections and alterations. Washington had no pride
   of authorship; his object always was to effect the purpose in
   hand, and for that he occasionally invoked assistance, to
   ensure a plain and clear exposition of his thoughts and
   intentions. The address certainly breathes his spirit
   throughout, is in perfect accordance with all his words and
   actions, and 'in an honest, unaffected, simple garb,' embodies
   the system of policy on which he had acted throughout his
   administration. It was published in September [17], in a
   Philadelphia paper called the Daily Advertiser. The
   publication of the Address produced a great sensation. Several
   of the State legislatures ordered it to be put on their
   journals."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 5, chapter 30._

   The following is the text of the Address.

   "To the people of the United States.
   Friends and Fellow-Citizens:
   The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the
   executive government of the United States, being not far
   distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts
   must be employed in designating the person, who is to be
   clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper,
   especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of
   the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the
   resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among
   the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg
   you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured,
   that this resolution has not been taken without a strict
   regard to an the considerations appertaining to the relation,
   which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in
   withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my
   situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of
   zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful
   respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full
   conviction that the step is compatible with both. The
   acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to
   which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform
   sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a
   deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly
   hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power,
   consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to
   disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been
   reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this,
   previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation
   of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on
   the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with
   foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled
   to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice,
   that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal,
   no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with
   the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded,
   whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in
   the present circumstances of our country, you will not
   disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions, with
   which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on
   the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will
   only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed
   towards the organization and administration of the government
   the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was
   capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of
   my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still
   more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to
   diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of
   years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of
   retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome.
   Satisfied, that, if any circumstances have given peculiar
   value to my services, they were temporary, I have the
   consolation to believe, that, while choice and prudence invite
   me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
   In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to
   terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not
   permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of
   gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many
   honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast
   confidence with which it has supported me; and for the
   opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my
   inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering,
   though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have
   resulted to our country from these services, let it always be
   remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in
   our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions,
   agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst
   appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often
   discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of
   success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the
   constancy of your support was the essential prop of the
   efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were
   effected.
{3310}
   Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me
   to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that
   Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its
   beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be
   perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of
   your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its
   administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom
   and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of
   these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made
   complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of
   this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of
   recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption
   of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps,
   I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which
   cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger,
   natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the
   present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to
   recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments, which are
   the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable
   observation, and which appear to me all-important to the
   permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered
   to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the
   disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly
   have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget,
   as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my
   sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven
   as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts,
   no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm
   the attachment. The unity of Government, which constitutes you
   one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so: for it
   is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the
   support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of
   your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which
   you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from
   different causes and from different quarters, much pains will
   be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the
   conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your
   political fortress against which the batteries of internal and
   external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though
   often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite
   moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of
   your national Union to your collective and individual
   happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and
   immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think
   and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety
   and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous
   anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a
   suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and
   indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt
   to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to
   enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various
   parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and
   interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country,
   that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The
   name of American, which belongs to you, in your national
   capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more
   than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With
   slight shades of difference, you have the same religion,
   manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a
   common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence
   and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and
   joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
   But these considerations, however powerfully they address
   themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by
   those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here
   every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives
   for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.
   The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South,
   protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in
   the productions of the latter, great additional resources of
   maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of
   manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse,
   benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture
   grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own
   channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular
   navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in
   different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of
   the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of
   a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The
   East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and
   in the progressive improvement of interior communications by
   land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for
   the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures
   at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to
   its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater
   consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of
   indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight,
   influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic
   side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of
   interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can
   hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own
   separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connexion
   with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
   While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate
   and particular interest in Union, all the parts combined
   cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts
   greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater
   security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of
   their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable
   value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those
   broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently
   afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same
   governments, which their own rivalships alone would be
   sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances,
   attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter.
   Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those
   overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of
   government, are inauspicious to liberty and which are to be
   regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In
   this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a
   main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought
   to endear to you the preservation of the other.
{3311}
   These considerations speak a persuasive language to every
   reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of
   the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a
   doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a
   sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation
   in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that
   a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency
   of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a
   happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and
   full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to
   Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience
   shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will
   always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who in
   any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands. In
   contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it
   occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should
   have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical
   discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western;
   whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that
   there is a real difference of local interests and views. One
   of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within
   particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims
   of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much
   against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from
   these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each
   other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal
   affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately
   had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the
   negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous
   ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in
   the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the
   United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the
   suspicious propagated among them of a policy in the General
   Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their
   interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been
   witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great
   Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing
   they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations,
   towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their
   wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the
   Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be
   deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever
   them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens? To the
   efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the
   whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between
   the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably
   experience the infractions and interruptions, which all
   alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this
   momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by
   the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated
   than your former for an intimate Union, and for the
   efficacious management of your common concerns. This
   Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and
   unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature
   deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the
   distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and
   containing within itself a provision for its own amendment,
   has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect
   for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in
   its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of
   true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right
   of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of
   Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists,
   till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole
   people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the
   power and the right of the people to establish Government
   presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the
   established Government. All obstructions to the execution of
   the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever
   plausible character, with the real design to direct, control,
   counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the
   constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental
   principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize
   faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to
   put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the
   will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising
   minority of the community; and, according to the alternate
   triumphs of different parties, to make the public
   administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous
   projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and
   wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by
   mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the
   above descriptions may now and then answer popular ends, they
   are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent
   engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men
   will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to
   usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying
   afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust
   dominion. Towards the preservation of your government, and the
   permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not
   only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to
   its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care
   the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious
   the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the
   forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the
   energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be
   directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be
   invited, remember that time and habit are at least as
   necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of
   other human institutions; that experience is the surest
   standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing
   constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the
   credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual
   change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion;
   and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management
   of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a
   government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect
   security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find
   in such a government, with powers properly distributed and
   adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than
   a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the
   enterprise of faction, to confine each member of the society
   within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all
   in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person
   and property.
{3312}
   I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the
   state, with particular reference to the founding of them on
   geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more
   comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner
   against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
   This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature,
   having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.
   It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or
   less stilled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the
   popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is
   truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one
   faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge,
   natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
   countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
   itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a
   more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and
   miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to
   seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
   individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing
   faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors,
   turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation,
   on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an
   extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be
   entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of
   the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and
   duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves
   always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the
   Public Administration. It agitates the Community with
   ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity
   of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and
   insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
   corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government
   itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy
   and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and
   will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free
   countries are useful checks upon the administration of the
   Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.
   This within certain limits is probably true; and in
   Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with
   indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But
   in those of the popular character, in Governments purely
   elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their
   natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of
   that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being
   constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of
   public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be
   quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its
   bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should
   consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of
   thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those
   intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves
   within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in
   the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon
   another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the
   powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create,
   whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just
   estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it,
   which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to
   satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of
   reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by
   dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and
   constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against
   invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments
   ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our
   own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to
   institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the
   distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be
   in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment
   in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there
   be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance,
   may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by
   which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must
   always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or
   transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. Of all
   the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
   prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.
   In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who
   should labor to subvert these great pillars of human
   happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and
   Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man,
   ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace
   all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it
   simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for
   reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation
   desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation
   in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the
   supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.
   Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education
   on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
   forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in
   exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true,
   that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular
   government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force
   to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere
   friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to
   shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an
   object of primary importance, institutions for the general
   diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a
   government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that
   public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important
   source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One
   method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as
   possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace,
   but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for
   danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel
   it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by
   shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in
   time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars
   may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity
   the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution
   of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is
   necessary that public opinion should cooperate.
{3313}
   To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is
   essential that you should practically bear in mind, that
   towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to
   have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be
   devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and
   unpleasant, that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from
   the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice
   of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid
   construction of the conduct of the government in making it,
   and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining
   revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
   Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate
   peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this
   conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally
   enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at
   no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the
   magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by
   an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in
   the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would
   richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by
   a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not
   connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue?
   The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment
   which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible
   by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more
   essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
   particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,
   should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and
   amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The
   Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or
   an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave
   to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is
   sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
   Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more
   readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight
   causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when
   accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence
   frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody
   contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment,
   sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best
   calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates
   in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what
   reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of
   the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by
   pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.
   The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has
   been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one
   Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
   the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
   common interest, in cases where no real common interest
   exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other
   betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and
   wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or
   justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
   Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to
   injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily
   parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting
   jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the
   parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives
   to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote
   themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or
   sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium,
   sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances
   of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for
   public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base
   of foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or
   infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable
   ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly
   enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do
   they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the
   arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or
   awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or
   weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to
   be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of
   foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me,
   fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be
   constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that
   foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
   Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must
   be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very
   influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it.
   Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive
   dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see
   danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the
   arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist
   the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected
   and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and
   confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The
   great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations,
   is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them
   as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have
   already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
   good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary
   interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.
   Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the
   causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.
   Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
   ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of
   her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of
   her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant
   situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.
   If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the
   period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from
   external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will
   cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be
   scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the
   impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly
   hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or
   war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why
   forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our
   own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our
   destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace
   and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
   interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer
   clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
   world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for
   let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity
   to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable
   to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the
   best policy.
{3314}
   I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in
   their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and
   would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep
   ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable
   defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances
   for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse
   with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and
   interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal
   and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive
   favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of
   things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams
   of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so
   disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define
   the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to
   support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that
   present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but
   temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or
   varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate;
   constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to
   look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay
   with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept
   under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place
   itself in the condition of having given equivalents for
   nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude
   for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to
   expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It
   is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride
   ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these
   counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope
   they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish;
   that they will control the usual current of the passions, or
   prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto
   marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter
   myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit,
   some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to
   moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the
   mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures
   of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense
   for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been
   dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I
   have been guided by the principles which have been delineated,
   the public records and other evidences of my conduct must
   witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of
   my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to
   be guided by them. In relating to the still subsisting war in
   Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the
   index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by
   that of your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the
   spirit of that measure has continually governed me,
   uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
   After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights
   I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under
   all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and
   was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position.
   Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon
   me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and
   firmness. The considerations, which respect the right to hold
   this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail.
   I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of
   the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the
   Belligerent Powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The
   duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without
   anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity
   impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act,
   to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards
   other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that
   conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and
   experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to
   endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its
   yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption
   to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary
   to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
   Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am
   unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too
   sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may
   have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently
   beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which
   they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my
   Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and
   that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its
   service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent
   abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon
   be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as
   in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it,
   which is so natural to a man, who views in it the native soil
   of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I
   anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I
   promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment
   of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign
   influence of good laws under a free government, the ever
   favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust,
   of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
      GEORGE WASHINGTON."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
   Third Presidential Election.
   Washington succeeded by John Adams.

   After the appearance of Washington's Farewell Address, the
   result of the Presidential election became exceedingly
   doubtful. "There was no second man to whom the whole of the
   nation could be won over. The Federalists … could not bring
   forward a single candidate who could calculate on the
   unanimous and cheerful support of the entire party. There
   still prevailed at the time a feeling among the people that
   the vice-president had a sort of claim to the succession to
   the presidency. But even apart from this, Adams would have
   been one of the most prominent candidates of the Federalists.
   The great majority of them soon gave him a decided preference
   over all other possible candidates. On the other hand, some of
   the most distinguished and influential of the Federalists
   feared serious consequences to the party and the country from
   the vanity and violence as well as from the egotism and
   irresolution with which he was charged. But to put him aside
   entirely was not possible, nor was it their wish. They
   thought, however, to secure a greater number of electoral
   votes for Thomas Pinckney, the Federal candidate for the
   vice-presidency, which, as the constitution then stood, would
   have made him president and Adams vice-president.
{3315}
   Although this plan was anxiously concealed from the people, it
   caused the campaign to be conducted by the party with less
   energy than if the leaders had been entirely unanimous. France
   was naturally desirous of Jefferson's success. … Wolcott
   asserted that Adet had publicly declared that France's future
   policy towards the United States would depend on the result of
   the election. Some did not hesitate to say that, on this
   account, Jefferson should have the preference, but on the more
   thoughtful Federalists it exerted the very opposite influence.
   There is no reason for the assumption that the issue of the
   election would have been different, had Adet behaved more
   discreetly. But his indiscretion certainly contributed to make
   the small majority expected for Adams completely certain,
   while Hamilton's flank movement in favor of Pinckney helped
   Jefferson to the vice-presidency. … The result of the
   election, however, left the country in a very serious
   condition. Washington's withdrawal removed the last restraint
   from party passion."

      _H. von Holst,
      The Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   Adams received 71 votes in the Electoral College and Jefferson
   68. As the constitution then provided, the majority of votes
   elected the President and the next greatest number of votes
   elected the Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.
   Troubles with the French Republic.
   The X, Y, Z correspondence.
   On the brink of war.

   "Mr. Adams took his cabinet from his predecessor; it was not a
   strong one, and it was devoted to Hamilton, between whom and
   the new President there was soon a divergence, Hamilton being
   fond of power, and Adams having a laudable purpose to command
   his own ship. The figure of speech is appropriate, for he
   plunged into a sea of troubles, mainly created by the
   unreasonable demands of the French government. The French
   'Directory,' enraged especially by Jay's treaty with England,
   got rid of one American minister by remonstrance, and drove
   out another [Pinckney] with contempt. When Mr. Adams sent
   three special envoys [Gerry, Marshall, and Pinckney], they
   were expected to undertake the most delicate negotiations with
   certain semi-official persons designated in their
   correspondence only by the letters X, Y, Z. The plan of this
   covert intercourse came through the private secretary of M. de
   Talleyrand, then French Minister for Foreign Affairs; and the
   impudence of these three letters of the alphabet went so far
   as to propose a bribe of 1,200,000 francs (some $220,000) to
   be paid over to this minister. 'You must pay money, a great
   deal of money,' remarked Monsieur Y ('Il faut de l'argent,
   beaucoup de l'argent'). The secret of these names was kept,
   but the diplomatic correspondence was made public, and created
   much wrath in Europe as well as in America. Moreover, American
   vessels were constantly attacked by France, and yet Congress
   refused to arm its own ships. At last the insults passed
   beyond bearing, and it was at this time that 'Millions for
   defence, not one cent for tribute,' first became a proverbial
   phrase, having been originally used by Charles C. Pinckney. …
   Then, with tardy decision, the Republicans yielded to the
   necessity of action, and the Federal party took the lead. War
   was not formally proclaimed, but treaties with France were
   declared to be no longer binding. An army was ordered to be
   created, with Washington as Lieutenant-general and Hamilton as
   second in command; and the President was authorized to appoint
   a Secretary of the Navy and to build twelve new ships-of-war.
   Before these were ready, naval hostilities had actually begun;
   and Commodore Truxtun, in the United States frigate
   Constellation, captured a French frigate in West Indian waters
   (February 9. 1799), and afterwards silenced another, which
   however escaped. Great was the excitement over these early
   naval successes of the young nation. Merchant-ships were
   authorized to arm themselves, and some 300 acted upon this
   authority. … The result of it all was that France yielded.
   Talleyrand, the very minister who had dictated the insults,
   now disavowed them, and pledged his government to receive any
   minister the United States might send. The President, in the
   most eminently courageous act of his life, took the
   responsibility of again sending ambassadors; and did this
   without even consulting his cabinet, which would, as he well
   knew, oppose it. They were at once received, and all danger of
   war with France was at an end. This bold stroke separated the
   President permanently from at least half of his own party,
   since the Federalists did not wish for peace with France. His
   course would have given him a corresponding increase of favor
   from the other side, but for the great mistake the Federalists
   had made in passing certain laws, called the 'Alien' law and
   the 'Sedition' law."

      _T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Austin,
      Life of Elbridge Gerry,
      volume 2, chapters 5-8._

      _John Quincy and Charles Francis Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1800.
   Early attitude of the Slavocracy in Congress.
   Treatment of Free Blacks.

   "Many people will not allow the least blame to be cast on this
   period [the later years of the 18th century], because it does
   not harmonize with their admiration of the 'fathers,' and
   because they have adopted, without any proof, the common view
   that the deeper shadows of slavery and slavocracy first
   appeared comparatively late. … In reading through the debates
   [in Congress], single striking instances of injustice do not
   make the deepest impression. It is the omnipresent
   unwillingness to practice justice towards colored
   persons,—yes, even to recognize them as actual beings. When
   the defense of their rights is demanded, then congress has
   always a deaf ear. … Swanwick of Pennsylvania laid before the
   house of representatives, January 30, 1797, a petition from
   four North Carolina negroes who had been freed by their
   masters. Since a state law condemned them to be sold again,
   they had fled to Philadelphia. There they had been seized
   under the fugitive slave law … and now prayed congress for its
   intervention. Blount of North Carolina declared that only when
   it was 'proved' that these men were free, could congress
   consider the petition. Sitgreaves of Pennsylvania asked, in
   reply to this, what sort of proof was offered that the four
   negroes were not free. This question received no answer. Smith
   of South Carolina and Christie of Maryland simply expressed
   their amazement that any member whatever could have presented
   a petition of 'such an unheard-of nature.'
{3316}
   Swanwick and some other representatives affirmed that the
   petition must be submitted to a committee for investigation
   and consideration, because the petitioners complained of
   violation of their rights under a law of the Union. No reply
   could be made to this and no reply was attempted. This
   decisive point was simply set aside, and it was voted by fifty
   ayes to thirty-three noes not to receive the petition. … In
   order to reach this result, Smith had produced the customary
   impression by the declaration that the refusal of the demand
   made by the representatives from the southern states would
   drive a 'wedge' into the Union. When, three years later, the
   same question was brought before congress again by a petition
   of the free negroes of Philadelphia, Rutledge of South
   Carolina declared in even plainer terms that the south would
   be forced to the sad necessity of going its own way. … The
   whites who troubled themselves about slaves or free colored
   persons had no better reception. Year after year the Quakers
   came indefatigably with new petitions, and each time had to
   undergo the same scornful treatment. … In all the cases
   mentioned, the tactics of the representatives of the
   slaveholding interest were the same and they maintained them
   unchanged up to the last. If congress was urged to act in any
   way which did not please them, then slavery was always a
   'purely municipal affair.'"

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
   The Alien and Sedition Laws and
   the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

   "The outrages which we suffered from the injustice of England
   and France gave additional bitterness to the strife between
   parties at home. The anti-federal press was immoderate in its
   assaults upon the administration. It so happened that several
   of the anti-federal papers were conducted by foreigners.
   Indeed, there were many foreigners in the country whose
   sympathies were with the French, and their hostility to the
   administration was open and passionate. The federal leaders
   determined to crush out by the strong arm of the law these
   publishers of slanders and fomenters of discontent. Hence the
   famous 'alien and sedition laws' were passed. The remedy
   devised was far worse than the disease. It hastened the
   federal party to its tomb, and was the occasion of the
   formulation of that unfortunate creed of constitutional
   construction and of state sovereignty known as the 'Virginia
   and Kentucky Resolutions' of 1798-99."

      _J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 6._

   The series of strong measures carried by the Federalists
   comprised the Naturalization Act of June 18, the Alien Act of
   June 25, the second Alien Act, of July 6, and the Sedition Act
   of July 14, 1798.

   The text of the Naturalization Act is as follows:

   June 18, 1798. Acts of the Fifth Congress,
   Statute II., Chapter liv.:

   "An Act supplementary to, and to amend the act, intituled 'An
   act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to
   repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.'

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
   assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen
   of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner
   prescribed by the act, intituled 'An act to establish an
   uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act
   heretofore passed on that subject,' he shall have declared his
   intention to become a citizen of the United States, five
   years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time
   of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the
   satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case,
   that he has resided within the United States fourteen years,
   at least, and within the state or territory where, or for
   which such court is at the time held, five years, at least,
   besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations
   and proofs, by the said act required, anything therein to the
   contrary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who
   was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of
   the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one
   thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year
   after the passing of this act—and any alien who shall have
   made the declaration of his intention to become a citizen of
   the United States, in conformity to the provisions of the act,
   intituled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of
   naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on
   that subject,' may, within four years after having made the
   declaration aforesaid, be admitted to become a citizen, in the
   manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that
   he has resided five years, at least, within the limits, and
   under the jurisdiction of the United States: And provided
   also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen
   or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States
   shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then
   admitted to become a citizen of the United States."

      _Statutes at Large of the United States, edition 1850.
      volume 1, pages 566-567._

   The following is the text of the two Alien Acts:

   June 25, 1798. Statute II., Chapter lviii.
   "An Act Concerning Aliens.

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
   assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the
   United States at any time during the continuance of this act,
   to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the
   peace and safety of the United States, or shall have
   reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable
   or secret machinations against the government thereof, to
   depart out of the territory of the United States, within such
   time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be
   served on such alien by de·livering him a copy thereof, or
   leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the
   office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other
   person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any
   alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within
   the United States after the time limited in such order for his
   departure, and not having obtained a license from the
   President to reside therein, or having obtained such license
   shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on
   conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding
   three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a
   citizen of the United States.
{3317}
   Provided always and be it further enacted, that if any alien
   so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the
   President, by evidence to be taken before such person or
   persons as the President shall direct, who are for that
   purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury
   or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such
   alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to
   such alien to remain within the United States for such time as
   he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate.
   And the President may also require of such alien to enter into
   a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may
   direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the
   satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take
   the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien
   during his residence in the United States, and not violating
   his license, which license the President may revoke whenever
   he shall think proper.

   Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful
   for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem
   it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out
   of the territory thereof, any alien who may or shall be in
   prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested
   and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as
   shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have
   obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the
   opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy
   removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United
   States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto,
   unless by permission of the President of the United States,
   such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long
   as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may
   require.

   Section 3. And be it further enacted, That every master or
   commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port
   of the United States after the first day of July next, shall
   immediately on his arrival make report in writing to the
   collector, or other chief officer of the customs of such port,
   of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their
   names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they
   shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe
   allegiance, their occupation and a description of their
   persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof, and on
   failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and pay
   three hundred dollars, for the payment whereof on default of
   such master or commander, such vessel shall also be holden,
   and may by such collector or other officer of the customs be
   detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector, or other
   officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the officer
   of the department of state true copies of all such returns.

   Section 4. And be it further enacted, That the circuit and
   district courts of the United States, shall respectively have
   cognizance of all crimes and offences against this act. And
   all marshals and other officers of the United States are
   required to execute all precepts and orders of the President
   of the United States issued in pursuance or by virtue of this
   act.

   Section 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful
   for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United
   States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of
   his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find
   convenient; and all property left in the United States by any
   alien, who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be, and remain
   subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if
   this act had not been passed.

   Section 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall
   continue and be in force for and during the term of two years
   from the passing thereof.

   Approved, June 25, 1798."

      _Statutes at Large of the United States, edition 1850,
      Volume I., pages 570-572._

   July 6, 1798. Statute II., Chapter lxvi.
   "An Act respecting Alien Enemies.

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
   assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between
   the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any
   invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated,
   attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United
   States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President
   of the United States shall make public proclamation of the
   event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the
   hostile nation or government, being males of the age of
   fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United
   States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be
   apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien
   enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and
   he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his
   proclamation thereof or other public act, to direct the
   conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States,
   towards the aliens who shall become liable as aforesaid; the
   manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be
   subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their
   residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal
   of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United
   States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to
   establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary
   in the premises and for the public safety; Provided, that
   aliens resident within the United States, who shall become
   liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not
   be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against
   the public safety, shall be allowed for the recovery,
   disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for
   their departure, the full time which is, or shall be
   stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between
   the United States and the hostile nation or government, of
   which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects:
   and when no such treaty shall have existed, the President of
   the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable
   time as may be consistent with the public safety, and
   according to the dictates of humanity and national
   hospitality.

   Section 2. And be it further enacted, That after any
   proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty
   of the several courts of the United States, and of each state,
   having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and
   justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall
   be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint,
   against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be
   resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to
   the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the
   tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations
   which the President of the United States shall and may
   establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be
   duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or
   Justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such
   complaint, and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and
   may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the
   territory of the United States, or to give such sureties for
   their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained,
   conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall or
   may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or
   otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which
   shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

{3318}

   Section 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the
   duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy
   shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United
   States, or by the order of any court, judge or justice, as
   aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as
   aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by
   himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to
   be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of
   the territory of the United States; and for such removal the
   marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United
   States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same,
   as the case may be.

   Approved, July 6, 1798."

      _Statutes at Large of the United States, edition of 1850,
      Volume I, page 577._

   The text of the Sedition Act is as follows:

   JULY 14, 1798. Chapter lxxiv.

   "An Act in addition to the act, entitled 'An Act for the
   punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress
   assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or
   conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or
   measures of the government of the United States, which are or
   shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the
   operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or
   prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the
   government of the United States, from undertaking, performing
   or executing, his trust or duty; and if any person or persons,
   with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to
   procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or
   combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel,
   advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he
   or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on
   conviction before any court of the United States having
   jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not
   exceeding five thousand dollars and by imprisonment during a
   term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and
   further at the discretion of the court may be holden to find
   sureties for his good behavior in such sum, and for such time,
   as the said court may direct.

   Section 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall
   write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to
   be written, printed, uttered or published or shall knowingly
   and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or
   publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or
   writings against the government of the United States, or
   either house of the Congress of the United States, or the
   President of the United States, with intent to defame the said
   government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said
   President, or to bring them or either of them, into contempt
   or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either, or any of
   them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or
   to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any
   unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any
   law of the United States, or any act of the President of the
   United States, and one in pursuance of any such law, or of the
   powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States,
   or to resist, oppose or defeat any such law or act, or to aid,
   encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation
   against the United States, their people or government, then
   such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the
   United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished
   by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by
   imprisonment not exceeding two years.

   Section 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any
   person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or
   publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the
   defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in
   his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the
   publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the
   cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact,
   under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

   Section 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall
   continue and be in force until the third day of March, one
   thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided that
   the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a
   prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law,
   during the time it shall be in force. Approved July 14, 1798."

   "There has been a general effort on the part of biographers to
   clear their respective heroes from all responsibility for
   these ill-fated measures. The truth is, that they had the full
   support of the congressmen and senators who passed, them, of
   the President who signed them, and of all the leaders in the
   States, who almost all believed in them; and they also met
   with very general acceptance by the party in the North.
   Hamilton went as far in the direction of sustaining the
   principle of these laws as any one. He had too acute a mind to
   believe with many of the staunch Federalist divines of New
   England, that Jefferson and Madison were Marats and
   Robespierres, and that their followers were Jacobins who, when
   they came to power, were ready for the overthrow of religion
   and society, and were prepared to set up a guillotine and pour
   out blood in the waste places of the federal city. But he did
   believe, and so wrote to Washington, after the appearance of
   the X. Y. Z. letters that there was a party in the country
   ready to 'new model' the constitution on French principles, to
   form an offensive and defensive alliance with France, and make
   the United States a French province. He felt, in short, that
   there was a party in America ready for confiscation and social
   confusion. A year later, in 1799, he wrote to Dayton, the
   speaker of the national House of Representatives, a long
   letter in which he set forth very clearly the policy which he
   felt ought to be pursued.
{3319}
   He wished to give strength to the government, and increase
   centralization by every means, by an extension of the national
   judiciary, a liberal system of internal improvements, an
   increased and abundant revenue, an enlargement of the army and
   navy, permanence in the laws for the volunteer army, extension
   of the powers of the general government, subdivision of the
   States as soon as practicable, and finally a strong sedition
   law, and the power to banish aliens. This was what was termed
   at that day a 'strong and spirited' policy; it would now be
   called repressive, but by whatever name it is designated, it
   was the policy of Hamilton, and is characteristic of both his
   talents and temperament. Except as to the subdivision of
   States, it was carried out pretty thoroughly in all its main
   features by the Federalists. The alien and sedition laws,
   although resisted in Congress, did not much affect public
   opinion at the elections which immediately ensued, and the
   Federalists came into the next Congress with a large
   majority."

      _Henry Cabot Lodge,
      Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 9._

   "The different portions of the country were affected according
   to the dominant political opinion. Where the Federalists were
   strong political feeling bore them headlong into prosecutions
   under the new powers. In the Republican States a sense of
   injury and danger went hand in hand, and the question of the
   hour was how to repel the threatening destruction. Mr.
   Jefferson did not fail to see that the great opportunity for
   his party had come. His keen political sagacity detected in an
   instant the fatal mistake the administration had made, and he
   began at once to look about him for the best means to turn his
   opponents' mistake to his own advantage. Naturally he felt
   some delicacy in appearing too forward in assailing a
   government of which he himself was the second in office.
   Nevertheless he lent himself willingly to the task of
   organizing, in a quiet way, a systematic assault upon these
   laws of Congress, and at once opened a correspondence
   calculated to elicit the best judgment of his coadjutors and
   gradually drew out a programme of action. Virginia was by no
   means unanimous in reprobating these laws. She had a large and
   influential body of Federalists. … But the influence of
   Jefferson was paramount and the result of Jeffersonian
   principles soon appeared on every hand. Meetings were held in
   many of the counties upon their county court days at which
   were adopted addresses or series of resolutions condemning or
   praying for the repeal of these laws. … New York, New Jersey,
   and Pennsylvania sent petitions of appeal to Congress. … But
   it was in Kentucky that the greatest resistance was evoked.
   The feeling in that State was, indeed, little short of frenzy,
   and a singular unanimity was displayed even in the most
   extreme acts and sentiments. This grew out of no passing
   passion. It was based upon the most vigorous elements in her
   character as a people. Kentucky was at this time somewhat
   apart from the rest of the Union. … Her complaints, just and
   unjust, had been many, but hitherto she had not gained the
   nation's ear. But the time was now ripe for her to assert
   herself."

      _E. D. Warfield,
      The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
      chapter 1._

   The famous Kentucky Resolutions, substantially drafted by
   Jefferson, as he acknowledged fifteen years afterwards, but
   introduced in the Legislature of Kentucky by John
   Breckenridge, on the 8th of November, 1798, were adopted by
   that body, in the lower branch on the 10th and in the upper on
   the 13th. Approved by the Governor on the 16th, they were
   immediately printed and copies officially sent to every other
   state and to members of Congress. They were as follows:

   "I. Resolved, that the several states composing the United
   States of America, are not united on the principle of
   unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by
   compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the
   United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a
   General Government for special purposes, delegated to that
   Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to
   itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self
   Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes
   undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and
   are of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a
   state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to
   itself, the other party: That the Government created by this
   compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the
   extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would
   have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the
   measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of
   compact among parties having no common judge, each party has
   an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as
   of the mode and measure of redress.

   II. Resolved, that the Constitution of the United States
   having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason,
   counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United
   States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Seas, and
   offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes
   whatever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of
   the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, 'that
   the powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
   to the states respectively, or to the people,' therefore also
   the same act of Congress passed on the 14th day of July, 1798,
   and entitled 'An act in addition to the act entitled an act
   for the punishment of certain crimes against the United
   States;' as also the act passed by them on the 27th of June,
   1798, entitled 'An act to punish frauds committed on the Bank
   of the United States' (and all other their acts which assume
   to create, define, or punish crimes other than those
   enumerated in the constitution) are altogether void and of no
   force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such
   other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and
   exclusively to the respective states, each within its own
   Territory.

{3320}

   III. Resolved, that it is true as a general principle, and is
   also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the
   Constitution that 'the powers not delegated to the United
   States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
   states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the
   people;' and that no power over the freedom of religion,
   freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to
   the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
   the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right
   remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people:
   That thus was manifested their determination to retain to
   themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of
   speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening
   their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be
   separated from their use, should be tolerated, rather than the
   use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all
   abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious
   opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right
   of protecting the same, as this state by a Law passed on the
   general demand of its Citizens, had already protected them
   from all human restraint or interference; and that in addition
   to this general principle and express declaration, another and
   more special provision has been made by one of the amendments
   to the Constitution which expressly declares that 'Congress
   shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion, or
   prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the
   freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the
   same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of
   religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch, that whatever
   violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the
   others, and that libels, falsehoods, and defamation, equally
   with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the
   cognizance of federal tribunals. That therefore the act of the
   Congress of the United States passed on the 14th day of July,
   1798, entitled 'An act in addition to the act for the
   punishment of certain crimes against the United States,' which
   does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is
   altogether void and of no effect.

   IV. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction
   and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that
   no power over them has been delegated to the United States,
   nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their
   power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle,
   and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also
   declared, that 'the powers not delegated to the United States
   by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are
   reserved to the states respectively or to the people,' the act
   of the Congress of the United States passed on the 22d day of
   June, 1798, entitled 'An act concerning aliens,' which assumes
   power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is
   not law, but is altogether void and of no force.

   V. Resolved, that in addition to the general principle as well
   as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are
   reserved, another and more special provision inserted in the
   Constitution from abundant caution has declared, 'that the
   migration or importation of such persons as any of the states
   now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
   prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.' That this
   Commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends
   described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens;
   that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a
   provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be
   nugatory; that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a
   prohibition of their migration, and is therefore contrary to
   the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

   VI. Resolved, that the imprisonment of a person under the
   protection of the Laws of this Commonwealth on his failure to
   obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the
   United States, as is undertaken by the said act entitled 'An
   act concerning aliens,' is contrary to the Constitution, one
   amendment to which has provided, that 'no person shall be
   deprived of liberty without due process of law,' and that
   another having provided 'that in all criminal prosecutions the
   accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an
   impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
   accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him,
   to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
   favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
   defence,' the same act undertaking to authorize the President
   to remove a person out of the United States who is under the
   protection of the Law, on his own suspicion, without
   accusation, without jury, without public trial, without
   confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having
   witnesses in his favour, without defence, without counsel, is
   contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is
   therefore not law but utterly void and of no force. That
   transferring the power of judging any person who is under the
   protection of the laws, from the Courts to the President of
   the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning
   Aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which
   provides, that 'the judicial power of the United States shall
   be vested in Courts, the Judges of which shall hold their
   offices during good behaviour,' and that the said act is void
   for that reason also; and it is further to be noted, that this
   transfer of Judiciary powers is to that magistrate of the
   General Government who already possesses all the Executive,
   and a qualified negative in all the Legislative power.

   VII. Resolved, that the construction applied by the General
   Government (as is evinced by sundry of their proceedings) to
   those parts of the Constitution of the United States which
   delegate to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
   imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the
   common defence, and general welfare of the United States, and
   to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
   carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution
   in the Government of the United States, or any department
   thereof, goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed
   to their power by the Constitution—That words meant by that
   instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of the
   limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to
   give unlimited powers, nor a part so to be taken, as to
   destroy the whole residue of the instrument: That the
   proceedings of the General Government under colour of these
   articles, will be a fit and necessary subject for revisal and
   correction at a time of greater tranquility, while those
   specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate
   redress.

   VIII. Resolved, that the preceding Resolutions be transmitted
   to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this
   Commonwealth, who are hereby enjoined to present the same to
   their respective Houses, and to use the best endeavours to
   procure at the next session of Congress, a repeal of the
   aforesaid unconstitutional and obnoxious acts.

{3321}

   IX. Resolved lastly, that the Governor of this Commonwealth
   be, and is hereby authorised and requested to communicate the
   preceding Resolutions to the Legislatures of the several
   States, to assure them that this Commonwealth considers Union
   for specified National purposes, and particularly for those
   specified in their late Federal compact, to be friendly to the
   peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the states: that
   faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and
   meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the
   several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation:
   that it does also believe, that to take from the states all
   the powers of self government, and transfer them to a general
   and consolidated Government, without regard to the special
   delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that
   compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of
   these states: And that therefore, this Commonwealth is
   determined, as it doubts not its Co-states are, tamely to
   submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers in no
   man or body of men on earth: that if the acts before specified
   should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the
   General Government may place any act they think proper on the
   list of crimes and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or
   not enumerated by the Constitution as cognizable by them: that
   they may transfer its cognizance to the President or any other
   person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and
   jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the
   sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole
   record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable
   description of the inhabitants of these states, being by this
   precedent reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one
   man and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from
   us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the
   power of a majority of Congress, to protect from a like
   exportation or other more grievous punishment the minority of
   the same body, the Legislatures, Judges, Governors, and
   Counsellors of the states, nor their other peaceable
   inhabitants who may venture to reclaim the constitutional
   rights and liberties of the states and people, or who for
   other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views or
   marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought
   dangerous to his or their elections or other interests public
   or personal: that the friendless alien has indeed been
   selected as the safest subject of a first experiment: but the
   citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed; for
   already has a Sedition Act marked him as its prey: that these
   and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested on
   the threshold, may tend to drive these states into revolution
   and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against Republican
   Governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be
   believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron:
   that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the
   men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our
   rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism:
   free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence;
   it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited
   Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust
   with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the
   limits to which and no further our confidence may go; and let
   the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition
   Acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing
   limits to the Government it created, and whether we should be
   wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what the
   Government is if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our
   choice have conferred on the President, and the President of
   our choice has assented to and accepted over the friendly
   strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our Country and its laws
   had pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our
   choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the
   President than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of
   justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and
   subsistence of law and justice. In questions of power then let
   no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from
   mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this
   Commonwealth does therefore call on its Co-states for an
   expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning Aliens,
   and for the punishment of certain crimes hereinbefore
   specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not
   authorized by the Federal Compact? And it doubts not that
   their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment
   unaltered to limited Government, whether general or
   particular, and that the rights and liberties of their
   Co-states will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked
   on a common bottom with their own: That they will concur with
   this Commonwealth, in considering the said acts so palpably
   against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised
   declaration, that the compact is not meant to be the measure
   of the powers of the General Government, but that it will
   proceed in the exercise over these states of all powers
   whatsoever: That they will view this as seizing the rights of
   the states and consolidating them in the hands of the General
   Government with a power assumed to bind the states (not merely
   in cases made federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws
   made, not with their consent, but by others against their
   consent: That this would be to surrender the form of
   Government we have chosen, and to live under one deriving its
   powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that
   the Co-states recurring to their natural right in cases not
   made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void and of
   no force, and will each unite with this Commonwealth in
   requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress."

   In the month following this declaration from Kentucky, on the
   21st of December, Virginia affirmed substantially the same
   threatening doctrine, more temperately and cautiously set
   forth in resolutions drawn by Madison as follows:

   "Resolved, that the General Assembly of Virginia doth
   unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend
   the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of
   this state against every aggression, either foreign or
   domestic, and that they will support the government of the
   United States in all measures warranted by the former.

   That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to
   the union of the states, to maintain which, it pledges all its
   powers; and that for this end it is their duty to watch over
   and oppose every infraction of those principles which
   constitute the only basis of that union, because a faithful
   observance of them can alone secure its existence, and the
   public happiness.

{3322}

   That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare
   that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as
   resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties;
   as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument
   constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are
   authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that
   in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of
   other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who
   are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to
   interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for
   maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities,
   rights and liberties appertaining to them.

   That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret
   that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the
   Federal Government, to enlarge its powers by forced
   constructions of the constitutional charter which defines
   them; and that indications have appeared of a design to
   expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from
   the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of
   confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued), so as
   to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular
   enumeration, which necessarily explains and limits the general
   phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees into
   one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable
   consequence of which would be to transform the present
   republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at
   best a mixed monarchy. That the General Assembly doth
   particularly protest against the palpable and alarming
   infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the
   'Alien and Sedition Acts,' passed at the last session of
   Congress, the first of which exercises a power nowhere
   delegated to the Federal Government; and which by uniting
   legislative and judicial powers to those of executive,
   subverts the general principles of free government, as well as
   the particular organization and positive provisions of the
   federal constitution: and the other of which acts, exercises
   in like manner a power not delegated by the constitution, but
   on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of
   the amendments thereto; a power which more than any other
   ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled
   against the right of freely examining public characters and
   measures, and of free communication among the people thereon,
   which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian
   of every other right.

   That this state having by its convention which ratified the
   federal constitution, expressly declared, 'that among other
   essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press
   cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any
   authority of the United States,' and from its extreme anxiety
   to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry
   or ambition, having with other states recommended an amendment
   for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to
   the constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency
   and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to
   the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared
   and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may
   be fatal to the other.

   That the good people of this commonwealth having ever felt and
   continuing to feel the most sincere affection to their
   brethren of the other states, the truest anxiety for
   establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most
   scrupulous fidelity to that constitution which is the pledge
   of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness:
   The General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like
   dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will
   concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby
   declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and
   that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each
   for cooperating with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the
   authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the states
   respectively, or to the people. That the Governor be desired
   to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the
   executive authority of each of the other states, with a
   request, that the same may be communicated to the legislature
   thereof.

   And that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and
   Representatives, representing this state in the Congress of
   the United States."

   In later years, after Calhoun and his school had pushed these
   doctrines to their logical conclusion, Madison shrank from the
   result, and endeavored to disown the apparent meaning of what
   Jefferson had written and he had seemed to endorse in 1798. He
   denounced Nullification and Secession as "twin heresies," and
   denied that they were contained or implied in the resolutions
   of 1798—either those adopted in Kentucky or the responsive
   ones written by himself for the legislature of Virginia. The
   Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were followed in 1799 by another
   series, in which the right of a sovereign State to nullify
   obnoxious laws of the Federal Government was no longer
   asserted by implication, but was put into plain terms—as
   follows: "That the principle and construction, contended for
   by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general
   government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers
   delegated to it, stop not short of despotism,—since the
   discretion of those who administer the government, and not the
   Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the
   several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and
   independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the
   infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties,
   of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument,
   is the rightful remedy." It was Mr. Madison's desire to cast
   on these resolutions of 1799, with which Jefferson had nothing
   to do, the odium of the nullification doctrine, and to remove
   the stigma from the resolutions of 1798, in which the word
   "nullification" makes no appearance; "neither that," pleaded
   Madison, "nor any equivalent term." But, when Madison made
   this plea, in 1830, "it was not then generally known, whether
   Mr. Madison knew it or not, that one of the resolutions and
   part of another which Jefferson wrote to be offered in the
   Kentucky legislature in 1798 were omitted by Mr. Nicholas [to
   whom Mr. Jefferson had entrusted them], and that therein was
   the assertion … 'where powers are assumed which have not been
   delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.'
{3323}
   The next year, when additional resolutions were offered by Mr.
   Breckenridge, this idea in similar, though not in precisely the
   same language, was presented [as quoted above]. … In 1832,
   this fact, on the authority of Jefferson's grandson and
   executor, was made public; and further, that another
   declaration of Mr. Jefferson's in the resolution not used was
   an exhortation to the co-States, 'that each will take measures
   of its own for providing that neither these acts nor any
   others of the general government, not plainly and
   intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be
   exercised within their respective territories.'"

      _S. H. Gay,
      James Madison,
      chapter 15._

   "The publication of the Kentucky resolutions … was instantly
   followed by a new crop of remonstrances and petitions from the
   people. … Memorials by scores came in from each State, and the
   signatures appended to some were as many as sixteen hundred.
   Those from Pennsylvania alone bore over eighteen thousand
   names. … Such memorials as reached the House were sent to a
   committee, who, late in February, reported. … The report
   closed with three resolutions, and these were: that it was not
   in the interest of the public good to repeal either the Alien
   Law, or the Sedition Law, or any of the laws respecting the
   army, the navy, or the revenue of the United States. On the
   twenty-fifth of February, the House being in Committee of the
   Whole, the three resolutions were taken up one by one.
   Gallatin spoke long and well against the first; but it was
   carried. Mr. Nicholas spoke at greater length against
   agree·ing to the second. But the Federalists had made up their
   minds to accept the report, and, as Nicholas went on, treated
   him with great disrespect. They assembled in groups about the
   House, laughed, coughed, and talked at the top of their
   voices; nor would the Speaker command order in the room. When
   Nicholas finished, shouts of 'Question! Question!' rose from
   all sides. A member from North Carolina hoped the question
   would not be taken. The hour was late. Other members had
   something to say. An hour or two on the morrow might well be
   spent in discussion. He moved the committee should rise. … The
   motion to rise was lost, the question on the second resolution
   was carried, the question on the third resolution was carried,
   then the committee rose. The House then agreed to the action
   of the committee on each of the three resolutions. The Federal
   party was now at the height of its prosperity and power. It
   controlled the Senate. It controlled the House. Outwardly it
   was great and powerful, but within that dispute had begun
   which, in a few short months, drove Pickering and M'Henry from
   the Cabinet, split the party in twain, and gave to the country
   the strange spectacle of staunch and earnest Federalists
   wrangling and contending and overwhelming each other with
   abuse."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      A History of the United States,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      _J. Madison,
      Works,
      volume 4, pages 95-110, and 506-555._

      _T. Jefferson,
      Works,
      volume 7, page 229;
      and volume 9, pages 464-471._

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 148._

      _J. T. Morse,
      Life of Hamilton,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
   The convention with France and the French Spoliation Claims
   incident to it.

   "In the instructions to the American envoys in France they had
   been directed to secure a claims commission, the abrogation of
   the former treaties, and the abolition of the guarantee of
   1778, as it was called, contained in Article XI. of the Treaty
   of Alliance of that year, and covering 'the present
   possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as
   those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace.'
   Upon none of these points were the envoys able to carry out
   their instructions. In reference to claims, a distinction,
   which was finally embodied in the treaty, was drawn by the
   French government between two classes of claims: first, debts
   due from the French government to American citizens for
   supplies furnished, or prizes whose restoration had been
   decreed by the courts; and secondly, indemnities for prizes
   alleged to have been wrongfully condemned. The treaty provided
   that the first class, known as debts, should be paid, but
   excluded the second, or indemnity class. In reference to the
   indemnity claims, and to the questions involved in the old
   treaties, including, of course, the guarantee of 1778, as the
   envoys were not able to come to an agreement, the treaty
   declared that the negotiation was postponed. The Senate of the
   United States expunged this latter article, inserting in its
   place a clause providing for the duration of the present
   convention; and this amendment was accepted by the French
   government, with the proviso that both governments should
   renounce the pretensions which were the object of the original
   article. To this the Senate also agreed, and upon this basis
   the convention was finally ratified. It thus appears that the
   United States surrendered the claims of its citizens against
   France for wrongful seizures, in return for the surrender by
   France of whatever claim it might have had against the United
   States for the latter's failure to fulfil the obligations
   assumed in the earlier treaties [especially the guaranty of
   the possessions of France in America, which was undertaken in
   the treaty of 1778]. The United States, therefore, having
   received a consideration for its refusal to prosecute the
   claims of its citizens, thereby took the place, with respect
   to the claimants, of the French government, and virtually
   assumed the obligations of the latter. … The claims for
   indemnity thus devolving upon the United States, known as the
   French Spoliation Claims, have been from that day to this the
   subject of frequent report and discussion in Congress, but
   with no result until the passage of the act of January 20,
   1885, referring them to the Court of Claims. At the present
   time (1888) they are undergoing judicial examination before
   that tribunal."

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 6; and editor's foot-note)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      section 248 (volume 2, pages 714-728)._

      _D. Webster,
      Works,
      volume 4, pages 152-178._

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 117-120._

      _W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      volume 1, pages 132-155._

      _Report of Secretary of State
      (United States Senate, Ex. Doc. no. 74 and 102,
      49th Congress 1st session)._

   Spoliations committed by the French in the Revolutionary and
   Napoleonic wars subsequently to the year 1800, were
   indemnified under the provisions of the treaty for the
   Louisiana purchase (see LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803); under the
   treaty with Spain in 1819, and under a later treaty with
   France which was negotiated in Andrew Jackson's most
   imperative manner in 1831. These do not enter into what have
   become historically specialized as the French Spoliation
   Claims.

{3324}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
   The Second Census.

   Total population, 5,305,937, (an increase of slightly more
   than 35 per cent. since 1790), classed and distributed as
   follows:

North.

                 White.   Free black.  Slave.
Connecticut.    244,721    5,330         951
Indiana.          4,577      163         135
Maine.          150,901      818           0
Massachusetts.  416,793    6,452           0
New Hampshire.  182,898      856           8
New Jersey.     195,125    4,402      12,422
New York.       556,039   10,374      20,343
Ohio.            45,028      337           0
Pennsylvania.   586,094   14,561       1,706
Rhode Island.    65,437    3,304         381
Vermont.        153,908      557           0
                    ---      ---         ---
Total         2,601,521   47,154      35,946

South.

                        White.   Free black.   Slave.
Delaware.               49,852      8,268      6,153
District of Columbia.   10,066        783      3,244
Georgia.               101,678      1,019     59,404
Kentucky.              179,871        741     40,343
Maryland.              216,326     19,587    105,635
Mississippi.            5,179        182      3,489
North Carolina.        337,764      7,043    133,296
South Carolina.        196,255      3,185    146,151
Tennessee.              91,709        309     13,584
Virginia.              514,280     20,124    345,796
                           ---        ---        ---
Total                1,702,980     61,241    857,095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800-1801.
   The Fourth Presidential Election
   Inauguration of Jefferson.

   "Adams, whom Dr. Franklin aptly described as 'always an honest
   man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things
   absolutely out of his senses,' was approaching the end of his
   term as President, and public attention was absorbed in the
   task of choosing a successor. … At the time of Adams's
   election, a sectional feeling, destined in the future to work
   so much evil, had already been developed; and he in
   consequence received from States south of the Potomac but two
   electoral votes. New York had given him her twelve, yet the
   entire majority over his competitor was but three in all the
   colleges. The national parties were not unequally matched in
   the State; and it was evident that, could its vote be diverted
   to Jefferson in the next contest, his victory would be
   assured. Hence, strenuous efforts were made to accomplish this
   end, and for months society was like a seething caldron. The
   trouble with France had, for the moment, swelled the numbers
   of the Federalists, and closed up their ranks; but the
   capricious course of the President, and the violent disruption
   of the cabinet, rent them asunder, never to be re-united. …
   During the French excitement, it seemed almost certain that,
   after the local election, they would have a majority in the
   new Legislature, and thus retain for their candidate the
   electoral vote of New York. This pleasing prospect was soon
   obscured. When its people found Mr. Adams sternly enforcing
   the Sedition Law, and exercising the power it conferred in an
   unfeeling manner upon one of their most esteemed citizens
   [Judge Peck], they turned with disgust from a party which they
   held responsible for its enactment, as well as for this
   violent procedure. The permanent ascendency which the
   Republicans seemed to have acquired in the metropolis had been
   wrested from them, in the spring of 1799, by the unpopularity
   of a scheme of Burr's, already conspicuous in the State as an
   unscrupulous political tactician. He had been a member of the
   assembly the preceding year, and, under the pretence of
   supplying pure and wholesome water, obtained a charter which
   enabled the corporators to engage in banking. In consequence
   of the feeling this aroused, he did not dare present himself
   again as a candidate, but, with great tact and unwearied
   efforts, succeeded in healing divisions in his party, and
   nominating a delegation for the assembly, which embraced the
   Republicans most eminent for wealth, station, or family
   influence. Governor Clinton headed the list. … The result
   followed which Burr had anticipated. The Federal majority of
   the last year was overcome, and New York City secured by the
   Republicans, giving them control of the State. Adams
   subsequently received but four electoral votes south of
   Maryland, and Jefferson became his successor. Burr, to whose
   untiring exertions this great victory was due, was thereby
   inducted into the office of Vice-President. At that time, the
   Legislature appointed the electors for the State; and the
   Republicans, then anticipating a defeat, had at a previous
   session advocated that, for the future, these should be chosen
   directly by the people in separate districts, hoping thus to
   secure a sufficient number to elect their Presidential
   candidate. The Federalists, thinking their supremacy in the
   assembly assured, refused to support the plan. Now, however,
   when it became known that their adversaries had gained a
   majority in the Legislature on which would devolve the duty of
   choosing the electors, Hamilton addressed a letter to Governor
   Jay, suggesting that the present body, whose term would not
   expire before July, should be again convened, in order to pass
   a measure which, when before proposed by the Republicans, had
   been denounced as unconstitutional. Jay had too much regard
   for principle to entertain the idea. After his death, the
   letter was found among his papers, endorsed, 'Proposing a
   measure for party purposes which I think it would not become
   me to adopt.' It is related that a noted French duellist, when
   required to forgive his enemies before receiving absolution,
   exclaimed, My enemies? I have none. I have killed them all!
   Mr. Jefferson might have responded in the same manner, the
   morrow after the Presidential election. To the one party, the
   result seemed like the breaking up of an ice gorge—the
   harbinger of spring. To the other it appeared as an avalanche
   of French principles, destructive alike of religion and
   established government. Both were at fault. President
   Jefferson was quite as unable to destroy the work of his
   predecessors as he was to depart from their policy of
   neutrality. The Sedition and Alien Laws soon expired by
   limitation; but the great measures of the former
   administrations were too wise, and had struck their roots too
   deep into the national sentiment, to be suddenly overturned."

      _W. Whitelock,
      Life and Times of John Jay,
      chapter 22._

{3325}

   In the Electoral College, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr,
   both Democratic Republicans, received an equal number of votes
   (73), and the election was carried into the House of
   Representatives, where Jefferson was chosen President and Burr
   Vice President. "Adams, stung to the heart by the election of
   Jefferson, refused to witness the hateful spectacle of his
   successor's inauguration. He spent his last hours in filling
   up vacancies to place patronage out of Jefferson's reach; then
   he departed, the old order in his person giving place with a
   frown and a shudder to the new. Adams did not hate monarchy,
   he thought that for England it was good. In the eyes of
   Jefferson monarchy was the incarnate spirit of evil and to rid
   mankind of it by example was the mission of the American
   Republic. Every vestige of the half monarchical state which
   Washington had retained was now banished from the President's
   mansion and life. No more coaches-and-six, no more court
   dress, no more levees. Although Jefferson did not, as legend
   says, ride to his inauguration and tie his horse to the fence,
   he was inaugurated with as little ceremony as possible. He
   received an ambassador in slippers down at the heel, and in
   the arrangement of his dinner parties was so defiant of the
   rules of etiquette as to breed trouble in the diplomatic
   circle. Yet with all his outward simplicity the Virginian
   magnate and man of letters, though he might be a Republican,
   could not in himself be a true embodiment of democracy. He was
   the friend of the people, but not one of them. … The desired
   day had come when the philosopher was to govern. The words of
   the address which Jefferson, unlike the demagogic sons of
   thunder in the present day, read in a very low voice, are the
   expression by its great master and archetype of the republican
   idea which has hitherto reigned supreme in the mind of the
   American people. These words are monumental, 'Equal and exact
   justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious
   or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
   nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the
   State governments in all their rights, as the most competent
   administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest
   bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies, the preservation
   of the general government in its whole constitutional vigour,
   as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a
   jealous care of the right of election by the People; a mild
   and safe correction of abuses which are lopped by the sword of
   revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute
   acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital
   principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to
   force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
   a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for
   the first movements in war, till regulars may relieve them;
   the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;
   economy in the public expense, that labour may be lightly
   burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and sacred
   preservation of the public faith; encouragement of
   agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid, the diffusion of
   information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of
   public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and
   freedom of person under the protection of the "habeas corpus,"
   and trial by jurors impartially selected;—these principles
   form the bright constellation which has gone before us and
   guided our steps through an age of revolution and
   reformation.' Jefferson's wand was the pen. Yet he is
   strangely apt to fall into mixed metaphors and even into
   platitudes. This address has not escaped criticism."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 3._

   "Jefferson had reached the presidential chair at a most
   fortunate moment. … The prospect of a speedy peace in Europe
   promised effectual and permanent relief from those serious
   embarrassments to which, during war on the ocean, American
   commerce was ever exposed from the aggressions of one or of
   all the belligerents. The treasury was fuller, the revenue
   more abundant than at any previous period. Commerce was
   flourishing, and the pecuniary prosperity of the country very
   great. All the responsibility of framing institutions, laying
   taxes, find providing for debts, had fallen on the ousted
   administration. Succeeding to the powers and the means of the
   Federal government without sharing any of the unpopularity at
   the expense of which they had been attained, and ambitious not
   so much of a splendid as of a quiet and popular
   administration, the new president seemed to have before him a
   very plain and easy path. … To the offices of Secretary of
   State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General, left
   vacant by the resignation of the late incumbents, Jefferson
   nominated James Madison, Henry Dearborn, and Levi Lincoln, the
   latter an early leader of the opposition in Massachusetts. …
   As the Senate stood at present, still containing, as it did,
   of the members present a majority of Federalists, Jefferson
   did not think proper to make any further nominations; but,
   soon after the adjournment, he appointed as Secretary of the
   Treasury Albert Gallatin, all along the financial member of
   the opposition. … The Navy Department, after being refused by
   Chancellor Livingston, was given to Robert Smith, brother of
   the Baltimore member of Congress. Livingston, however, having
   reached the age of sixty, and being obliged, under a
   Constitutional provision, to vacate the chancellorship of New
   York, consented to accept the embassy to France. … Habersham
   was continued as post-master-general for some six months, …
   but he presently gave way to Gideon Granger, a leader of the
   Connecticut Republicans."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States, 2d series,
      chapter 16 (volume 2, or volume 5 of whole work)._

   "The first act of the new Cabinet was to reach a general
   understanding in regard to the objects of the Administration.
   These appear to have been two only in number: reduction of
   debt and reduction of taxes, and the relation to be preserved
   between them."

      _H. Adams,
      Life of Albert Gallatin,
      page 276._

   "Under President Jefferson, the heads of the great departments
   of the government were changed, nor was there any just reason
   to complain of this measure; as they formed a part of his
   political council; and, as the chief executive officer of
   government, he had a perfect right to select his confidential
   friends and advisers. But when afterwards, and within a few
   months, he removed able and upright men from offices of a
   subordinate grade, his conduct was considered improper and
   arbitrary, and as partaking somewhat of the 'right of
   prerogative,' usually claimed and exercised by royal princes.
   … In his inaugural address, Mr. Jefferson said, 'We have
   gained little, if we encourage a political intolerance as
   wicked as impolitic. We are all brethren of the same
   principles; we are all republicans, and all federalists.'
{3326}
   Yet in less than fifty days he removed fourteen federal
   officers; without any allegation of unfaithfulness or
   inefficiency: on the plea, indeed, that his predecessor had
   removed two public officers on account of their political
   opinions; and had appointed none to office in the government
   but such as were of the same sentiments and views as the
   administration. 'Few died, and none resigned,' he said; and
   therefore, to equalize public offices between the two great
   political parties, it was necessary, in his opinion, to remove
   a part of those then employed, and to appoint others more
   friendly to the new administration. For a very few of the
   removals there might have been sufficient or justifiable
   reasons offered; but in most instances the changes were made
   merely for political opinions."

      _A. Bradford,
      History of the Federal Government, 1789-1839,
      chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
   Appointment of John Marshall to be
   Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
   His Constitutional decisions.

   On the 31st of January, 1801, near the close of the term of
   President Adams, the latter appointed John Marshall, who had
   been Secretary of State in his cabinet since the previous May,
   to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was a memorable
   appointment,—the most memorable, perhaps, that has ever been
   made by official and not popular selection, in America, since
   Washington was appointed to the command of the continental
   army. Its result was to place the new, uninterpreted, plastic
   Constitution of the Federal Republic under the hands of a
   master, during thirty-four years of the period in which it
   hardened into practical, determined law. It decided the
   character of the Constitution, and by that decision the great
   instrument was made a bond of nationality, firm, strenuous and
   enduring. "The abilities of the new Chief Justice were
   recognized by the profession and the public at the time of his
   appointment, but the attractive qualities of his heart and his
   kindly manners soon caused respect and reverence to ripen into
   affection. Perhaps no American citizen except Washington ever
   conciliated so large a measure of popularity and public
   esteem. … In surveying the results of the labors of
   thirty-four years recorded in thirty-two volumes of reports,
   it is obvious that it was in the decision of cases involving
   international and constitutional law that the force and
   clearness of the Chief Justice's intellect shone most
   conspicuous. Such was the ready assent of his colleagues on
   the bench to his supremacy in the exposition of constitutional
   law, that in such causes a dissenting opinion was almost
   unknown. Having had occasion to discuss and thoroughly study
   the Constitution, both in the Virginia convention which
   adopted it and afterward in the legislature, he had
   preconceived opinions concerning it, as well as perfect
   familiarity with it. But in the hot contest waging between the
   friends of a strict and those of a liberal construction of its
   language, he wished to take no part. He stated that there
   should be neither a liberal nor a strict construction, but
   that the simple, natural, and usual meaning of its words and
   phrases should govern their interpretation. In the case of
   Gibbons v. Ogden, in which he is called upon to define the
   true rule of construction of the United States Constitution
   regarding the rights of the States and the rights and powers
   of the general government, he studiously avoids each extreme,
   steering safely in the middle course. He lays down his own
   rule thus clearly and definitely:—'This instrument contains
   an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to
   their government. It has been said that these powers ought to
   be construed strictly; but why ought they to be so construed?
   Is there one sentence in the Constitution which gives
   countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated
   powers, that which grants expressly the means for carrying all
   others into execution, Congress is authorized to make all laws
   that shall be necessary and proper for the purpose. But this
   limitation on the means which may be used is not extended to
   the powers which are conferred, nor is there one sentence in
   the Constitution which has been pointed out by the gentlemen
   of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that
   prescribes this rule. We do not therefore think ourselves
   justified in adopting it. If they contend only against that
   enlarged construction which would extend words beyond their
   natural and obvious import, we might question the application
   of the term but should not controvert the principle. If they
   contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some
   theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the
   government those powers which the words of the grant, as
   usually understood, import, and which are consistent with the
   general views and objects of the instrument; for that narrow
   construction which would cripple the government, and render it
   unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be
   instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly
   understood, render it competent; then we cannot perceive the
   propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as a rule
   by which the Constitution is to be expounded.' … Marshall's
   dictum that there must be neither a strict nor a liberal
   construction of the Constitution, but that the natural meaning
   of the words must govern, was undoubtedly sound and wise. The
   broad proposition was above criticism; it meant only that the
   language of the instrument should not be stretched or wrenched
   in any direction; and however politicians or even statesmen
   might feel, there was no other possible ground for a judge to
   take. Jefferson might regard it as a duty to make the
   Constitution as narrow and restricted as possible; Hamilton
   might feel that there was an actual obligation upon him to
   make it as broad and comprehensive as its words would admit.
   But Jefferson and Hamilton, in a different department of
   public life from Marshall, had duties and obligations
   correspondingly different from his. They might properly try to
   make the Constitution mean what it seemed to them for the
   public welfare that it should mean. Marshall could not
   consider any such matter; he had only to find and declare what
   it did mean, what its words actually and properly declared,
   not what they might possibly or desirably be supposed or
   construed to declare. This was the real force and the only
   real force of his foregoing assertion. As an abstract
   statement of his function it was impregnable. But, as with
   most broad principles, the difficulty lay in the application
   of it to particular cases. The constitutional questions which
   came before Marshall chiefly took the form of whether or not
   the Constitution conferred some power or authority upon
   Congress, or upon the Executive. Then the Federalist lawyers
   tried to show how much the language could mean, and the
   anti-Federalist counsel sought to show how little it could
   mean, and each urged that public policy was upon his side.
{3327}
   The decision must be yes or no; the authority did or did not
   rest in the government. It was easy to talk about the natural
   and proper meaning of the words; but after all it was the
   question at issue; did they (not could they) say yes, or did
   they (not could they) say no, to the special authority sought
   to be exercised. Now it is one thing to be impartial and
   another to be colorless in mind. Judge Marshall was impartial
   and strongly possessed of the judicial instinct or faculty.
   But he was by no means colorless. He could no more eliminate
   from his mind an interest in public affairs, and opinions as
   to the preferable forms of government and methods of
   administration, than he could cut out and cast away his mind
   itself. Believing that the Constitution intended to create and
   did create a national government, and having decided notions
   as to what such a government must be able to do, he was
   subject to a powerful though insensible influence to find the
   existence of the required abilities in the government. … The
   great majority of his decisions were in accordance with
   Federalist principles of construction and of policy. The
   Republicans all denounced him as a Federalist, even of an
   extreme type."

      _A. B. Magruder,
      John Marshall,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Flanders,
      Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court,
      volume 2._

      _J. Story,
      John Marshall
      (North American Review, volume 26)._

[Image: The United States in 1860.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
   First American naval demonstration against the Barbary Pirates.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802.
   Admission of Ohio to the Union.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802-1804.
   Land cessions of Georgia annexed to Mississippi Territory.

      See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
   The Louisiana Purchase.
   Its constitutional and political aspects.

   "The Mississippi question, which had played so important a
   part in the times of the confederation, had arisen again and
   demanded a solution, as Spain had, on the 1st of October,
   1800, ceded the whole of Louisiana to France. The United
   States had had experience enough already of how dangerous and
   how great an obstacle in the way of the commercial development
   of the country it might become, if the mouth of the
   Mississippi were in the possession of a foreign power, even if
   it were no stronger than Spain. Jefferson had not shared in
   this experience in vain. This was one of the instances in
   which he gave evidence of a really statesmanlike insight. He
   wrote on the 18th of April, 1802, to his embassador Livingston
   in Paris: This cession 'completely reverses all the political
   relations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in
   our political course. … There is on the globe one single spot,
   the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy.'
   Livingston was instructed to enter into negotiations
   immediately for the cession of New Orleans and the Floridas,
   in case France should consider the possession of Louisiana
   indispensably necessary. As Bonaparte at this very time
   entertained the idea of resuming the old French colonial
   policy, the negotiations remained long without result. The
   uprising of the negroes in San Domingo and the warlike turn
   which the affairs of Europe began again to assume, disposed
   him more favorably towards the American offer. On the 30th of
   April, 1803, the treaty, ceding the whole of Louisiana to the
   United States for $15,000,000, was concluded in Paris.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

   Hamilton shared Jefferson's view, that the purchase of
   Louisiana was a question of the greatest, and even of vital,
   importance for the Union. His opposition on other occasions to
   the policy of the administration, and his personal enmity to
   the president, did not prevent his lending him a helping hand
   in this matter when an opportunity offered. The great majority
   of the Federalists opposed this increase of the territory of
   the Union with as much decision as Hamilton advocated it. They
   showed in their attitude towards this question a
   short-sightedness which would have been astonishing even among
   the doctrinarians of the opposite party."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, pages 183-185._

   "Mr. Jefferson belonged to the school of strict construction,
   and was in fact its leader and apostle. … Under a construction
   of the Constitution as strict as he had been insisting upon,
   it was plain that the government would have no power to
   acquire foreign territory by purchase, and that any attempt in
   that direction would be usurpation. … To give the necessary
   authority an amendment of the Constitution would be essential,
   and amendment would be a slow process which might not be
   accomplished in time to meet the emergency. The case would be
   complicated by the fact that if the territory was acquired a
   considerable population would be brought into the Union and
   thus made citizens by a process of naturalization not
   contemplated by the Constitution. Mr. Madison, the Secretary
   of State, agreed with the President in his views. To use Mr.
   Jefferson's words, "The Constitution has made no provision for
   our holding foreign territory; still less for incorporating
   foreign nations into our Union.' But under circumstances so
   imperative he thought the political departments of the
   government should meet the emergency by consummating the
   purchase, and 'then appeal to the nation for an additional
   article in the Constitution approving and confirming an act
   which the nation had not previously authorized.' He did not
   conceal from himself, however, that in so doing ground would
   be occupied which it would be difficult to defend, and he
   proceeds to say: 'The less that is said about any
   constitutional difficulty the better. Congress should do what
   is necessary in silence. I find but one opinion as to the
   necessity of shutting up the Constitution for some time.' Mr.
   John Quincy Adams held similar views. … But it is difficult to
   conceive of any doctrine more dangerous or more distinctly
   antagonistic to the fundamental ideas of the American Union
   than the doctrine that the Constitution may be 'shut up' for a
   time in order that the government may accomplish something not
   warranted by it. The political immorality was obvious and
   glaring; more so in the case of the apostle of strict
   construction than it could have been if advanced by any other
   statesman of the day. … But Mr. Jefferson's political mistake
   was scarcely greater than that committed by his opponents:
   and, indeed, from a party standpoint it was no mistake
   whatsoever, but a bold measure of wise policy.

{3328}

   … The purchase, according to the Federal view of the
   Constitution, was perfectly legitimate. … But the Federalists
   in general took narrow and partisan views, and in order to
   embarrass the administration resorted to quibbles which were
   altogether unworthy the party which had boasted of Washington
   as its chief and Hamilton as the exponent of its doctrines. …
   The Federal leaders did not stop at cavils; they insisted that
   the unconstitutional extension of territory was in effect a
   dissolution of the Union, so that they were at liberty to
   contemplate and plan for a final disruption."

      _Judge T. M. Cooley,
      The Acquisition of Louisiana
      (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, number 3)._

   The result of the debates on the Louisiana treaty, in the
   Senate and the House, "decided only one point. Every speaker,
   without distinction of party, agreed that the United States
   government had the power to acquire new territory either by
   conquest or by treaty; the only difference of opinion regarded
   the disposition of this territory after it was acquired. Did
   Louisiana belong to the central government at Washington, or
   to the States? … Whether the government at Washington could
   possess Louisiana as a colony or admit it as a State, was a
   difference of no great matter if the cession were to hold
   good; the essential point was that for the first time in the
   national history all parties agreed in admitting that the
   government could govern. … Even in 1804 the political
   consequences of the act were already too striking to be
   overlooked. Within three years of his inauguration Jefferson
   bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its
   will, annexed it to the United States by an act which he said
   made blank paper of the Constitution; and then he who had
   found his predecessors too monarchical, and the Constitution
   too liberal in powers,—he who had nearly dissolved the bonds
   of society rather than allow his predecessor to order a
   dangerous alien out of the country in a time of threatened
   war,—made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded
   over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings.
   Such an experience was final; no century of slow and
   half-understood experience could be needed to prove that the
   hopes of humanity lay thenceforward, not in attempting to
   restrain the government from doing whatever the majority
   should think necessary, but in raising the people themselves
   till they should think nothing necessary but what was good."

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States of America
      during the first Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 331-342. _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
   Report on the British impressment of seamen from American ships.

   "In consequence of a resolution of the Senate, calling upon
   the President for information respecting the violation of the
   national flag, and the impressment of American seamen, he
   communicated to that body a letter from the Secretary of
   State, specifying all the cases of impressment which had come
   to the knowledge of that Department. The Secretary had no
   information of the violation of the national flag, except in
   the recent aggression of Morocco. It appeared, by this report,
   that 43 citizens of the United States had been impressed by
   the British, of whom 12 had protections. Ten were natives of
   the British dominions, and 17 of other countries, none of whom
   were stated to have been naturalized. Thus a practice which,
   even within the British dominions, violates the dearest rights
   of personal liberty, and which their courts have never
   ventured to justify, and which is excused and acquiesced in on
   the plea of necessity, was unhesitatingly exercised by British
   navy officers on board of American vessels."

      _G. Tucker,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 12 (volume 2)._

   "When the captain of a British frigate overhauled an American
   merchant-vessel for enemy's property or contraband of war, he
   sent an officer on board who mustered the crew, and took out
   any seamen whom he believed to be British. The measure, as the
   British navy regarded it, was one of self-protection. If the
   American government could not or would not discourage
   desertion, the naval commander would recover his men in the
   only way he could. Thus a circle of grievances was established
   on each side. … The growth of American shipping stimulated
   desertions from the British service to the extent of injuring
   its efficiency; and these desertions in their turn led to a
   rigorous exercise of the right of impressment. To find some
   point at which this vicious circle could be broken was a
   matter of serious consequence to both countries, but most so
   to the one which avowed that it did not mean to protect its
   interest by force. Great Britain could have broken the circle
   by increasing the pay and improving the condition of her
   seamen; but she was excessively conservative, and the burdens
   already imposed on her commerce were so great that she could
   afford to risk nothing. … Conscious of her own power, she
   thought that the United States should be first to give way.
   Had the American government been willing to perform its
   neutral obligations strictly, the circle might have been
   broken without much trouble; but the United States wished to
   retain their advantage, and preferred to risk whatever England
   might do rather than discourage desertion, or enact and
   enforce a strict naturalization law, or punish fraud, The
   national government was too weak to compel the States to
   respect neutral obligations, even if it had been disposed to
   make the attempt. The practice of impressment brought the two
   governments to a deadlock on an issue of law. No one denied
   that every government had the right to command the services of
   its native subjects, and as yet no one ventured to maintain
   that a merchant-ship on the high seas could lawfully resist
   the exercise of this right; but the law had done nothing to
   define the rights of naturalized subjects or citizens. The
   British government might, no doubt, impress its own subjects;
   but almost every British sailor in the American service
   carried papers of American citizenship, and although some of
   these were fraudulent, many were genuine. The law of England,
   as declared from time out of mind by every generation of her
   judges, held that the allegiance of a subject was
   indefeasible, and therefore that naturalization was worthless.
   The law of the United States, as declared by Chief-Justice
   Ellsworth in 1799, was in effect the same."

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States of America, during
      the first Administration of Thomas Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

{3329}

   "Great Britain was clearly in the wrong. She ought to have
   kept her seamen by increasing their pay and putting an end to
   the grievances which produced the mutiny of the Nore. In
   heartlessly neglecting to render the service just to the
   common sailor, and at the same time making a brutal use of
   impressment, aristocratic government showed its dark side. It
   is true that impressment was conscription in a coarse form,
   and that the extreme notion of indefeasible allegiance still
   prevailed. But the practice, however lawful, was intolerable,
   and its offensiveness was sure to be aggravated by the conduct
   of British commanders full of the naval pride of their nation
   and perhaps irritated by the loss of their crews; for it is
   not denied that many British seamen were seduced from the
   service and that the American marine, both mercantile and
   national, was largely manned in this way."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804.
   Federalist Secession movement.

   "In the winter … of 1803-4, immediately after, and as a
   consequence of, the acquisition of Louisiana, certain leaders
   of the Federal party conceived the project of the dissolution
   of the Union, and the establishment of a Northern Confederacy.
   The justifying causes to those who entertained it were, that
   the annexation of Louisiana to the Union transcended the
   constitutional powers of the government of the United States;
   that it created, in fact, a new confederacy, to which the
   States, united by the former compact, were not bound to
   adhere; that it was oppressive to the interests and
   destructive to the influence of the Northern section of the
   Confederacy, whose right and duty it therefore was to secede
   from the new body politic, and to constitute one of their own.
   It was lamented that one inevitable consequence of the
   annexation of Louisiana to the Union would be to diminish the
   relative weight and influence of the Northern section; that it
   would aggravate the evil of the slave representation; and
   endanger the Union itself, by the expansion of its bulk, and
   the enfeebling extension of its line of de·fence against
   foreign invasion. A Northern Confederacy was thought to be the
   only probable counterpoise to the manufacture of new States in
   the South. This project was quietly and extensively discussed
   at the time, by the members of Congress from Massachusetts and
   Connecticut especially. General Hamilton, indeed, was chosen
   as the person to be placed, at the proper time, at the head of
   the military movement which, it was foreseen, would be
   necessary for carrying the plan into execution. He was
   consulted on the subject; and although it is quite certain
   that he was opposed to it, he consented to attend a meeting of
   Federalists in Boston in the autumn of 1804, but his untimely
   death, in the summer of that year, prevented the meeting. To
   whatever proportions, however, the project might otherwise
   have gone, it was checked by the advantage which was evident
   to all of the securing of so large a domain, by the great
   desirableness of preventing France from holding the mouth of
   our great river, and by the settlement of the question of our
   national boundaries. These considerations gave a quietus for a
   time to the suggestions of sectional jealousy."

      _C. F. Robertson,
      The Louisiana Purchase in its Influence
      upon the American System
      (Papers of the American Historical Association, volume 1),
      pages 262-263._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804.
   Fifth Presidential Election.

   Thomas Jefferson, Democratic Republican, reelected by the vote
   of 162 Electors in the College, against 14 voting for Charles
   C. Pinckney, Federalist. George Clinton was chosen Vice
   President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Impeachment and trial of Judge Chase.

   In the closing hours of the session of Congress which expired
   March 4, 1803, proceedings of impeachment were begun for the
   removal from the bench of Judge Pickering, United States
   District Judge of New Hampshire, who had become mentally
   incapable of discharging the duties of his office. "By the
   federalists, the attack on Judge Pickering was taken as the
   first of a series of impeachments, intended to revolutionize
   the political character of the courts, but there is nothing to
   prove that this was then the intent of the majority. The most
   obnoxious justice on the supreme bench was Samuel Chase of
   Maryland, whose violence as a political partisan had certainly
   exposed him to the danger of impeachment; but two years had
   now passed without producing any sign of an intention to
   disturb him, and it might be supposed that the administration
   thus condoned his offences. Unluckily, Judge Chase had not the
   good taste or the judgment to be quiet. He irritated his
   enemies by new indiscretions, and on May 13, 1803, nearly
   three months after Pickering's impeachment, Mr. Jefferson, in
   a letter to Joseph H. Nicholson, suggested that it would be
   well to take him in hand:—'You must have heard of the
   extraordinary charge of Chase to the grand jury at Baltimore.
   Ought this seditious and official attack on the principles of
   our Constitution and on the proceedings of a State to go
   unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the
   public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions
   for your consideration. As for myself, it is better that I
   should not interfere.' … Nicholson seems to have passed on to
   Randolph the charge he had received from the President. … On
   January 5, 1804, Randolph rose to move for an inquiry into the
   conduct of Judge Chase. … After a long debate, the inquiry was
   ordered, and Randolph, with his friend Nicholson, was put at
   the head of the committee. On March 26, 1804, they reported
   seven articles of impeachment. … With this the session ended,
   and the trial went over to the next year. … The impeachment of
   Justice Chase is a landmark in American history, because it
   was here that the Jeffersonian republicans fought their last
   aggressive battle, and, wavering under the shock of defeat,
   broke into factions which slowly abandoned the field and
   forgot their discipline. That such a battle must one day be
   fought for the control of the Judiciary was from the beginning
   believed by most republicans who understood their own
   principles. Without controlling the Judiciary, the people
   could never govern themselves in their own way; and although
   they might, over and over again, in every form of law and
   resolution, both state and national, enact and proclaim that
   theirs was not a despotic but a restricted government, which
   had no right to exercise powers not delegated to it, and over
   which they, as States, had absolute control, it was none the
   less certain that Chief Justice Marshall and his associates
   would disregard their will, and would impose upon them his
   own. The people were at the mercy of their creatures. The
   Constitutions of England, of Massachusetts, of Pennsylvania,
   authorized the removal of an obnoxious judge on a mere address
   of the legislature, but the Constitution of the United States
   had so fenced and fortified the Supreme Court that the
   legislature, the Executive, the people themselves, could
   exercise no control over it.
{3330}
   A judge might make any decision, violate any duty, trample on
   any right, and if he took care to commit no indictable offence
   he was safe in office for life. On this license the
   Constitution imposed only one check: it said that all civil
   officers should be removed from office 'on impeachment for,
   and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
   misdemeanors.' This right of impeachment was as yet undefined,
   and if stretched a little beyond strict construction it might
   easily be converted into something for which it had not been
   intended. … Judge Chase's offences were serious. The immediate
   cause of impeachment, his address to the grand jury at
   Baltimore on the 2d May, 1803, proved that he was not a proper
   person to be trusted with the interpretation of the laws. In
   this address he said that those laws were rapidly destroying
   all protection to property and all security to personal
   liberty. 'The late alteration of the federal Judiciary,' said
   he, 'by the abolition of the office of the sixteen circuit
   judges, and the recent change in our state Constitution by the
   establishing of universal suffrage, and the further alteration
   that is contemplated in our state Judiciary, if adopted, will,
   in my judgment, take away all security for property and
   personal liberty. The independence of the national Judiciary
   is already shaken to its foundations, and the virtue of the
   people alone can restore it.' That by this reference to the
   virtue of the people he meant to draw a contrast with the want
   of virtue in their government was made clear by a pointed
   insult to Mr. Jefferson: 'The modern doctrines by our late
   reformers, that all men in a state of society are entitled to
   enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, have brought this mighty
   mischief upon us, and I fear that it will rapidly progress
   until peace and order, freedom and property, shall be
   destroyed.' … There was gross absurdity in the idea that the
   people who, by an immense majority, had decided to carry on
   their government in one way should be forced by one of their
   own servants to turn about and go in the opposite direction;
   and the indecorum was greater than the absurdity, for if Judge
   Chase or any other official held such doctrines, even though
   he were right, he was bound not to insult officially the
   people who employed him. On these grounds Mr. Jefferson
   privately advised the impeachment, and perhaps Randolph might
   have acted more wisely had he followed Mr. Jefferson's hint to
   rely on this article alone, which in the end came nearer than
   any other to securing conviction. … The articles of
   impeachment which Randolph presented to the House on March 26,
   1804, and which were, he claimed, drawn up with his own hand,
   rested wholly on the theory of Chase's criminality; they
   contained no suggestion that impeachment was a mere inquest of
   office. But when Congress met again, and, on December 3, the
   subject came again before the House, it was noticed that two
   new articles, the fifth and sixth, had been quietly
   interpolated, which roused suspicion of a change in Randolph's
   plan. … No one could doubt that Randolph and his friends,
   seeing how little their ultimate object would be advanced by a
   conviction on the old charges, inserted these new articles in
   order to correct their mistake and to make a foundation for
   the freer use of impeachment as a political weapon. The
   behavior of Giles and his friends in the Senate strengthened
   this suspicion. He made no concealment of his theories, and
   labored earnestly to prevent the Senate from calling itself a
   court, or from exercising any functions that belonged to a
   court of law."

      _H. Adams,
      John Randolph,
      chapters 4-6._

   The doctrine of impeachment which Giles (Senator from
   Virginia) and John Randolph maintained, in connection with the
   trial of Judge Chase, and which seems to have been acquiesced
   in by the majority of their party, is reported by John Quincy
   Adams from a conversation to which he was a listener. In Mr.
   Adams' Memoirs, under date of December 21, 1804, the incident
   is related as follows: "There was little business to do [in
   the Senate], and the adjournment took place early. Sitting by
   the fireside afterwards, I witnessed a conversation between
   Mr. Giles and Mr. Israel Smith, on the subject of
   impeachments; during which Mr. John Randolph came in and took
   part in the discussion. Giles labored with excessive
   earnestness to convince Smith of certain principles, upon
   which not only Mr. Chase, but all the other Judges of the
   Supreme Court, excepting the one last appointed, must be
   impeached and removed. He treated with the utmost contempt the
   idea of an 'independent' judiciary—said there was not a word
   about such an independence in the Constitution, and that their
   pretensions to it were nothing more nor less than an attempt
   to establish an aristocratic despotism in themselves. The
   power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House
   of Representatives; the power of trying impeachments was given
   equally without limitation to the Senate; and if the Judges of
   the Supreme Court should dare, as they had done, to declare an
   act of Congress unconstitutional, or to send a mandamus to the
   Secretary of State, as they had done, it was the undoubted
   right of the House of Representatives to impeach them, and of
   the Senate to remove them, for giving such opinions, however
   honest and sincere they may have been in entertaining them.
   Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution; it was no
   prosecution at all. The Senate sitting for the trial of
   impeachments was not a court, and ought to discard and reject
   all process of analogy to a court of justice. A trial and
   removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any
   criminality or corruption in him. Congress had no power over
   the person, but only over the office. And a removal by
   impeachment was nothing more than a declaration by Congress to
   this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are
   suffered to carry them into effect you will work the
   destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the
   purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better. In
   answer to all this, Mr. Smith only contended that honest error
   of opinion could not, as he conceived, be a subject of
   impeachment. And in pursuit of this principle he proved
   clearly enough the persecution and tyranny to which those of
   Giles and Randolph inevitably lead. It would, he said,
   establish 'a tyranny over opinions,' and he traced all the
   arguments of Giles to their only possible issue of rank
   absurdity. In all this conversation I opened my lips but once,
   in which I told Giles that I could not assent to his
   definition of the term impeachment."

      _J. Q. Adams,
      Memoirs,
      edited by C. F. Adams,
      volume 1, pages 322-323._

{3331}

   The trial of Judge Chase was opened on the 9th of February,
   1805, and ended on the 23d. By votes ranging from 15 to 34
   (the total number of Senators being 34), he was acquitted on
   each of the charges—a result attributed considerably to the
   offensive and incapable manner in which the prosecution had
   been conducted by John Randolph.

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 2, page 77._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Expedition of Lewis and Clark across the continent.
   The first exploration of the Missouri and beyond.

   Captain Meriwether Lewis and Captain William Clark "were the
   first men to cross the continent in our zone, the truly golden
   zone. A dozen years before them, Mackenzie had crossed in
   British dominions far north, but settlements are even now
   sparse in that parallel. Still earlier had Mexicans traversed
   the narrowing continent from the Gulf to the Pacific, but
   seemed to find little worth discovery. It was otherwise in the
   zone penetrated by Lewis and Clark. There development began at
   once and is now nowhere surpassed. Along their route ten
   States, with a census in 1890 of eight and a half millions,
   have arisen in the wilderness. … The credit of our Great
   Western discovery is due to Jefferson, though he never crossed
   the Alleghanies. When Columbus saw the Orinoco rushing into
   the ocean with irrepressible power and volume, he knew that he
   had anchored at the mouth of a continental river. So
   Jefferson, ascertaining that the Missouri, though called a
   branch, at once changed the color and character of the
   Mississippi, felt sure that whoever followed it would reach
   the innermost recesses of our America. Learning afterward that
   Captain Gray had pushed into the mouth of the Columbia only
   after nine days' breasting its outward current, he deemed that
   river a worthy counterpart of the Missouri, and was convinced
   that their headwaters could not be far apart in longitude.
   Inaugurated in 1801, before his first Presidential term was
   half over he had obtained, as a sort of secret-service fund,
   the small sum which sufficed to fit out the expedition. He had
   also selected Lewis, his private secretary, for its head, and
   put him in a course of special training. But the actual voyage
   up the Missouri, purchased April 30, 1803, was not begun till
   the middle of May, 1804. Forty-five persons in three boats
   composed the party. … After 171 days the year's advance ended
   with October, for the river was ready to freeze. The distance
   up stream they reckoned at 1,600 miles, or little more than 9
   miles a day, a journey now made by railroad in forty-four
   hours. … Winter quarters were thirty miles above the Bismarck
   of our day. Here they were frozen in about five months. The
   huts they built and abundant fuel kept them warm. Thanks to
   their hunters and Indian traffic, food was seldom scarce.
   Officials of the Hudson's Bay Company (who had a post within a
   week's journey) and many inquisitive natives paid them visits.
   From all these it was their tireless endeavor to learn
   everything possible concerning the great unknown of the river
   beyond. Scarcely one could tell about distant places from
   personal observation, but some second-hand reports were
   afterward proved strangely accurate, even as to the Great
   Falls, which turned out to be a thousand miles away. It was
   not long, however, before they learned that the wife of
   Chaboneau, whom they had taken as a local interpreter, was a
   captive whose birth had been in the Rocky Mountains. She,
   named the Bird-woman, was the only person discoverable after a
   winter's search who could by possibility serve them as
   interpreter and guide among the unknown tongues and
   labyrinthine fastnesses which they must encounter. Early in
   April, 1805, the explorers, now numbering thirty-two, again
   began to urge their boats up the river, for their last year's
   labors had brought them no more than half-way to their first
   objective, its source. No more Indian purveyors or pilots:
   their own rifles were the sole reliance for food. Many a
   wigwam, but no Indian, was espied for four months and four
   days after they left their winter camp. It was through the
   great Lone Land that they groped their dark and perilous way.
   In twenty days after the spring start they arrived at the
   Yellowstone, and in thirty more they first sighted the Rocky
   Mountains. Making the portage at the Great Falls cost them a
   month of vexatious delay. Rowing on another month brought them
   on August 12 to a point where one of the men stood with one
   foot each side of the rivulet, and 'thanked God that he had
   lived to bestride the Missouri, heretofore deemed endless.'
   They dragged their canoes, however, up the rivulet for five
   days longer. It was 460 days since they had left the mouth of
   the river, and their mileage on its waters had been 3,096
   miles. A mile further they stood on the great divide, and
   drank of springs which sent their water to the Pacific. But
   meantime they had been ready to starve in the mountains. Their
   hunters were of the best, but they found no game: buffaloes
   had gone down into the lowlands, the birds of heaven had fled,
   and edible roots were mostly unknown to them. For more than
   four months they had looked, and lo! there was no man. It was
   not till August 13 that, surprising a squaw so encumbered with
   pappooses that she could not escape, and winning her heart by
   the gift of a looking-glass and painting her cheeks, they
   formed friendship with her nation, one of whose chiefs proved
   to be a brother of their Bird-woman. Horses were about all
   they could obtain of these natives, streams were too full of
   rapids to be navigable, or no timber fit for canoes was within
   reach. So the party, subsisting on horse-flesh, and afterwards
   on dog-meat, toiled on along one of the worst possible routes.
   Nor was it till the 7th of October that they were able to
   embark in logs they had burned hollow, upon a branch of the
   Columbia, which, after manifold portages and perils, bore them
   to its mouth and the goal of their pilgrimage, late in
   November. Its distance from the starting-point, according to
   their estimate, was 4,134 miles. … Many an episode in this
   eventful transcontinental march and countermarch will
   hereafter glorify with romantic associations islands, rivers,
   rocks, cañons, and mountains all along its track. Among these
   none can be more touching than the story of the Bird-woman,
   her divination of routes, her courage when men quailed, her
   reunion with a long-lost brother, her spreading as good a
   table with bones as others could with meat, her morsel of
   bread for an invalid benefactor, her presence with her infant
   attesting to savages that the expedition could not be hostile.
   But when bounties in land and money were granted to others,
   she was unthought of. Statues of her, however, must yet be
   reared by grateful dwellers in lands she laid open for their
   happy homes. Western poets will liken her to Ariadne and
   Beatrice."

      The Nation,
      October 26, 1893
      (Reviewing Dr. Coues' edition of "History of the
      Expedition under the Command of Lewis and Clark").

{3332}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805,
   Jefferson's Plans of National defense.
   His Gunboat fleet.

   Mr. Jefferson's views as to the measures required for national
   defense, in the disturbed foreign relations of the country,
   were indicated in his message to Congress, when it assembled
   in November, 1804, but were afterwards communicated more fully
   to Mr. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the committee to
   which the subject was referred. "Concerning fortifications, he
   remarks that the plans and estimates of those required for our
   principal harbours, made fifty millions of dollars necessary
   for their completion. It would require 2,000 men to garrison
   them in peace, and 50,000 in war. When thus completed and
   manned, they would avail but little, as all military men agree
   that when vessels might pass a fort without tacking, though it
   may annoy, it cannot prevent them. Two modes of effecting the
   same object might be 'adopted in aid of each other.' 1. Heavy
   cannon on travelling carriages, with militia trained to the
   management of them. 2. Floating batteries or gunboats. There
   were, he estimated, fifteen harbours in the United States
   needing and deserving defence. They would require 250
   gunboats. The cost of these had been estimated at 2,000
   dollars each, but he puts it down at 4,000, amounting in all
   to 1,000,000 dollars. Such of them as were kept under a
   shelter, ready to be launched, when wanted, would cost nothing
   more than an inclosure, or sentinel; those that were afloat,
   with men enough to take care of them, about 2,000 dollars a
   year each; and those fully manned for action about 8,000
   dollars a year. He thought twenty-five of the second
   description enough, when France and England were at war. When
   at war ourselves, some of the third description would be
   required, the precise number depending on circumstances. There
   were ten then built and building, and fifteen more it was
   thought would be sufficient to put every harbour into a
   respectable state of defence. Congress, neither fulfilling the
   wishes of the President, nor altogether resisting them, gave
   the President the means of partially trying his favourite
   scheme, by the appropriation of 60,000 dollars. The
   sufficiency of this species of naval defence occasioned a good
   deal of discussion about this time between the opponents and
   the supporters of the administration. … The scheme was
   vehemently assailed by his adversaries in every form of
   argument and ridicule, and was triumphantly adduced as a
   further proof that he was not a practical statesman. The
   officers of the navy were believed to be, with scarcely an
   exception, opposed to the system of gunboats, especially those
   who were assigned to this service, partly because it was found
   to be personally very uncomfortable, and yet more, perhaps,
   because the power they wielded was so inferior, and their
   command so insignificant, compared with that to which they had
   been familiarized. It was like compelling a proud man to give
   up a fine richly caparisoned charger for a pair of panniers
   and a donkey. To stem the current of public opinion, which so
   far as it was manifested, set so strong against these
   gunboats, and to turn it in their favour, Mr. Jefferson
   prevailed on Paine, who had since his return been addressing
   the people of the United States on various topics, through the
   newspapers, to become their advocate. He set about it with his
   wonted self-confidence and real talent in enforcing his views,
   and proceeded to show that a gun from a gunboat would do the
   same execution as from a seventy-four, and cost no more,
   perhaps less; but a ship carrying seventy-four guns, could
   bring only one half to bear on an enemy at once, whereas if
   they were distributed among seventy-four boats, they could all
   be equally effective at once. In spite of this logic, the
   public, pinning its faith on experienced men, remained
   incredulous; and when, soon afterwards, many of the new marine
   were driven ashore in a tempest, or were otherwise destroyed,
   no one seemed to regard their loss as a misfortune, and the
   officers of the navy did not affect to conceal their
   satisfaction: nor has any attempt been since made to replace
   them. … The error of Mr. Jefferson was not, as his enemies
   charged, in adopting a visionary scheme of defence, but in
   limiting his views from a motive of economy, to the protection
   of the harbours, and in leaving his country's commerce and
   seamen, on the ocean, defenceless."

      _G. Tucker,
      The Life of Thomas Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
   Difficulties with Great Britain.
   Neutral rights.
   The Right of Search.
   Impressment.
   Blockade by Orders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees.
   Embargo and Non-intercourse.

   For a time, after 1803, almost the whole carrying trade of
   Europe was in American hands. "The merchant flag of every
   belligerent, save England, disappeared from the sea. France
   and Holland absolutely ceased to trade under their flags.
   Spain for a while continued to transport her specie and her
   bullion in her own ships protected by her men-of-war. But
   this, too, she soon gave up, and by 1806 the dollars of Mexico
   and the ingots of Peru were brought to her shores in American
   bottoms. It was under our flag that the gum trade was carried
   on with Senegal; that the sugar trade was carried on with
   Cuba; that coffee was exported from Caracas; and hides and
   indigo from South America. From Vera Cruz, from Carthagena,
   from La Plata, from the French colonies in the Antilles, from
   Cayenne, from Dutch Guiana, from the Isles of France and
   Reunion, from Batavia and Manilla, great fleets of American
   merchantmen sailed for the United States, there to neutralize
   the voyage and then go on to Europe. They filled the
   warehouses at Cadiz and Antwerp to overflowing. They glutted
   the markets of Embden and Lisbon, Hamburg and Copenhagen with
   the produce of the West Indies and the fabrics of the East,
   and, bringing back the products of the looms and forges of
   Germany to the New World, drove out the manufactures of
   Yorkshire, Manchester, and Birmingham. But this splendid trade
   was already marked for destruction. That Great Britain should
   long treat it with indifference was impossible. … She
   determined … to destroy it, and to destroy it in two ways: by
   paper blockades and by admiralty decisions. In January, 1804,
   accordingly, Great Britain blockaded the ports of Guadeloupe
   and Martinique. In April her commander at Jamaica blockaded
   Curaçoa. In August she extended the blockade to the Straits of
   Dover and the English Channel."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 3, pages 225-226._

{3333}

   "It had not yet come to be the acknowledged law of nations
   that free ships make free goods. But nearly the same purpose
   was answered, if the property of belligerents could be safely
   carried in neutral ships under the pretense of being owned by
   neutrals. The products of the French colonies, for example,
   could be loaded on board of American vessels, taken to the
   United States and reshipped there for France as American
   property. England looked upon this as an evasion of the
   recognized public law that property of belligerents was good
   prize. … It was denied that neutrals could take advantage of a
   state of war to enter upon a trade which had not existed in
   time of peace; and American ships were seized on the high
   seas, taken into port, and condemned in the Admiralty Courts
   for carrying enemy's goods in such a trade. The exercise of
   that right, if it were one by the recognized law of nations,
   would be of great injury to American commerce, unless it could
   be successfully resisted. … A war with England must be a naval
   war; and the United States not only had no navy of any
   consequence, but it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, in
   contrast with the policy of the preceding administrations,
   that there should be none, except … gunboats kept on wheels
   and under cover in readiness to repel an invasion. But there
   was no fear of invasion, for by that England could gain
   nothing. 'She is renewing,' Madison wrote in the autumn of
   1805, 'her depredations on our commerce in the most ruinous
   shapes, and has kindled a more general indignation among our
   merchants than was ever before expressed.' These depredations
   were not confined to the seizing and confiscating American
   ships under the pretense that their cargoes were contraband.
   Seamen were taken out of them on the charge of being British
   subjects and deserters, not only on the high seas in larger
   numbers than ever before, but within the waters of the United
   States. No doubt these seamen were often British subjects and
   their seizure was justifiable, provided England could
   rightfully extend to all parts of the globe and to the ships
   of all nations the merciless system of impressment to which
   her own people were compelled to submit at home. … But even if
   it could be granted that English naval officers might seize
   such men without recourse to law, wherever they should be
   found and without respect for the flag of another nation, it
   was a national insult and outrage, calling for resentment and
   resistance, to impress American citizens under the pretense
   that they were British subjects. But what was the remedy? As a
   last resort in such cases, nations have but one. Diplomacy and
   legislation may be first tried, but if these fail, war must be
   the final ordeal. For this the Administration made no
   preparation, and the more evident the unreadiness the less was
   the chance of redress in any other way. … The first measure
   adopted to meet the aggressions of the English was an act
   prohibiting the importation of certain British products. This
   had always been a favorite policy with Madison. … The
   President and Secretary were in perfect accord; for Jefferson
   preferred anything to war, and Madison was persuaded that
   England would be brought to terms by the loss of the best
   market for her manufactures. … But the Administration did not
   rely upon legislation alone in this emergency. The President
   followed up the act prohibiting the introduction of British
   goods by sending William Pinkney to England in the spring of
   1806, to join Monroe, the resident minister, in an attempt at
   negotiation. These commissioners soon wrote that there was
   good reason for hoping that a treaty would be concluded, and
   thereupon the non-importation act was for a time suspended. In
   December came the news that a treaty was agreed upon, and soon
   after it was received by the President. … Monroe and Pinkney
   were enjoined, in tho instructions written by the Secretary of
   State, to make the abandonment of impressment the first
   condition of a treaty. A treaty, nevertheless, was agreed
   upon, without this provision. … Without consulting the Senate,
   though Congress was in session when the treaty was received,
   and although the Senate had been previously informed that one
   had been agreed upon, the President rejected it. … As
   England's need of seamen increased, the captains of her
   cruisers, encouraged by the failure of negotiation, grew
   bolder in overhauling American ships. … In the summer of 1807
   an outrage was perpetrated on the frigate Chesapeake, as if to
   emphasize the contempt with which a nation must be looked upon
   which only screamed like a woman at wrongs which it wanted the
   courage and strength to resent, or the wisdom to compound for.
   The Chesapeake was followed out of the harbor of Norfolk by
   the British man-of-war Leopard, and when a few miles at sea,
   the Chesapeake being brought to under the pretense that the
   English captain wished to put some dispatches on board for
   Europe, a demand was made for certain deserters supposed to be
   on the American frigate. Commodore Barron replied that he knew
   of no deserters on his ship, and that he could permit no
   search to be made, even if there were. After some further
   altercation the Englishman fired a broadside, killing and
   wounding a number of the Chesapeake's crew. Commodore Barron
   could do nothing else but surrender, for he had only a single
   gun in readiness for use, and that was fired only once and
   then with a coal from the cook's galley. The ship was then
   boarded, the crew mustered, and four men arrested as
   deserters. Three of them were negroes,—two natives of the
   United States, the other of South America. The fourth man,
   probably, was an Englishman. … For this direct national
   insult, explanation, apology, and reparation were demanded,
   and at the same time the President put forth a proclamation
   forbidding all British ships of war to remain in American
   waters. … Some preparation was made for war, but it was only
   to call upon the militia to be in readiness, and to order Mr.
   Jefferson's gunboats to the most exposed ports. Great Britain
   was not alarmed. The captain of the Leopard, indeed, was
   removed from his command, as having exceeded his duty; but a
   proclamation on that side was also issued, requiring all ships
   of war to seize British seamen on board foreign merchantmen,
   to demand them from foreign ships of war, and if the demand
   was refused to report the fact to the admiral of the fleet. …
   New perils all the while were besetting American commerce.
{3334}
   In November, 1806, Napoleon's Berlin decree was promulgated,
   forbidding the introduction into France of the products of
   Great Britain and her colonies, whether in her own ships or
   those of other nations. … The decree, it was declared, was a
   rightful retaliation of a British order in council of six
   months before, which had established a partial blockade of a
   portion of the French coast. … In the autumn of 1807 [the
   President] called a special session of Congress. … He sent a
   special message to the Senate, recommending an embargo. An act
   was almost immediately passed, which, if anything more was
   needed to complete the ruin of American commerce, supplied
   that deficiency. A month before this time the English ministry
   had issued a new order in council—the news of which reached
   Jefferson as he was about to send in his message—proclaiming a
   blockade of pretty much all Europe, and forbidding any trade
   in neutral vessels, unless they had first gone into some
   British port and paid duties on their cargoes; and within 24
   hours of the President's message, recommending the embargo,
   Napoleon proclaimed a new decree from Milan, by which it was
   declared that any ship was lawful prize that had anything
   whatever to do with Great Britain. … Within four months of its
   enactment, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts declared, in a
   debate in Congress, that 'an experiment, such as is now
   making, was never before—I will not say tried—it never before
   entered into the human imagination. There is nothing like it
   in the narrations of history or in the tales of fiction.' …
   The prosperity and tranquillity which marked the earlier years
   of Jefferson's administration disappeared in its last year. …
   The mischievous results of the embargo policy were evident
   enough to a sufficient number of Republicans to secure, in
   February, 1809, the repeal [by the Non-intercourse Bill] of
   that measure, to take effect the next month as to all
   countries except England and France."

      _S. H. Gay,
      James Madison,
      chapter 17._

   The Non-intercourse Bill which repealed the general provisions
   of the Embargo Act "excluded all public and private vessels of
   France and England from American waters; forbade under severe
   penalties the importation of British or French goods; … and
   gave the President authority to reopen by proclamation the
   trade with France or England in case either of these countries
   should cease to violate neutral rights. … Such a
   non-intercourse merely sanctioned smuggling."

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      Second Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, page 445._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 3, chapters 3-7._

      _E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      chapters 5 and 7._

      _A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution,
      chapters 17-18 (volume 2)._

      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapters 7, 16, and 21 (volume 2-3)._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Aaron Burr's filibustering scheme.
   His arrest and trial.

   Aaron Burr had been chosen vice-president in 1800. But he had
   lost all his friends in both parties in the election. In the
   course of a bitter political quarrel in New York, in 1804, he
   challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton was mad enough to
   accept the challenge and was killed. Burr, "after his duel
   with General Hamilton, and after the term of his office as
   vice-president had expired, … seemed to be left alone, and
   abandoned by all political parties. The state of public
   feeling in New York was such, after the death of Hamilton,
   that his presence in that city could not be endured. In New
   Jersey he had been indicted by a grand jury for murder. Thus
   situated, his ambitious, active and restless spirit rendered
   his condition intolerable to himself. On the 22nd March, but a
   few days after he left forever the presidency of the United
   States senate, he wrote to his son-in-law, Mr. Joseph Alston,
   that he 'was under ostracism. In New York,' said he, 'I am to
   be disfranchised, and in New Jersey to be hanged. Having
   substantial objections to both, I shall not, for the present,
   hazard either, but shall seek another country.' Accordingly,
   early in May, he left Philadelphia for the western country,
   and arrived at Lexington, in Kentucky, on the 20th of that
   month. After travelling with great rapidity through that
   state, he directed his course to Nashville, in Tennessee, and
   from thence he journied through the woods to Natchez. From
   Natchez he went by land to New Orleans, where he arrived on
   the 25th June, 1805. At that time, General Wilkinson was in
   that city, or in its neighborhood, and commanded the United
   States troops stationed there. It does not appear that he
   remained long in New Orleans, but soon again returned to
   Lexington, in Kentucky, by the way of Nashville. He was at
   Cincinnati, and at several places in Ohio, but in a very short
   time made his appearance at St. Louis, in Missouri, and from
   thence he travelled to Washington, at which place he arrived
   on the 29th day of November. These immense journies he
   performed in a little more than six months; before the great
   western rivers were rendered navigable by steam, and when the
   roads were badly constructed; and through a considerable part
   of the country traversed by him there were no roads at all.
   His movements were veiled in mystery, and all men wondered
   what could be the motive which induced these extraordinary
   journies. From January, 1806, to the month of August
   following, he spent his time principally in Washington and
   Philadelphia; but, in the month of August, he again set his
   face towards the west, and was soon afterwards found in
   Kentucky. About this time boats were provided, provisions and
   munitions of war were collected, and men were gathering at
   different points on the Ohio and Cumberland rivers. Government
   now began to be alarmed. Mr. Tiffin, governor of Ohio, under
   the advice of the president (Jefferson), seized the boats and
   their cargo, and Burr was arrested in Kentucky; but no
   sufficient proof appearing against him he was discharged. On
   the 23d January, 1807, Mr. Jefferson sent a message to
   congress, accompanied by several affidavits, in which he gave
   the history of Burr's transactions, so far as they had come to
   the knowledge of the administration. The message stated that,
   on the 21st of October, General Wilkinson wrote to the
   president that, from a letter he had received from Burr, he
   had ascertained that his objects were, a severance of the
   union on the line of the Allegany mountains, an attack upon
   Mexico, and the establishment of an independent government in
   Mexico, of which Burr was to be the head. That to cover his
   movements, he had purchased, or pretended to have purchased,
   of one Lynch, a tract of country claimed by Baron Bastiop,
   lying near Natchitoches, on which he proposed to make a
   settlement.
{3335}
   That he had found, by the proceedings of the governor and
   people of Ohio and Kentucky, that the western people were not
   prepared to join him; but notwithstanding, there was reason to
   believe that he intended, with what force he could collect, to
   attack New Orleans, get the control of the funds of the bank,
   seize upon the military and naval stores which might be found
   there, and then proceed against Mexico. The president assured
   congress that there was no reason to apprehend that any
   foreign power would aid Colonel Burr. A considerable part of
   the evidence going to show that Burr entertained criminal
   designs, depended on the affidavit of Wilkinson. It is not my
   intention to examine into the proofs of the guilt or innocence
   of Burr, further than to remark, that from the character of
   the vain, vaporing and unprincipled Wilkinson, as before and
   since developed, no dependence can safely be placed upon his
   statements, unless supported by strong circumstances, or other
   evidence; and I believe it will not at this day be doubted,
   that if Burr plotted treason, Wilkinson, in the first
   instance, agreed to be his accomplice; that, as their
   operations progressed, he began seriously to doubt of success,
   and then communicated his knowledge of the affair to the
   government, in order to save himself, and perhaps obtain a
   reward. … That Burr himself was deceived by Wilkinson, there
   can be no doubt. … But there was other evidence besides that
   of Wilkinson, against Burr, which has never been explained. …
   If his object was merely an attack upon Mexico, why did he not
   openly avow it, when charged and indicted for treason against
   his country? … Again, unless Colonel William Eaton, the man
   who had then recently so gallantly distinguished himself on
   the Barbary coasts, has perjured himself, Burr did form a
   treasonable plot against his country. Colonel Eaton, on the
   26th January, deposed, in open court, held before Judge Cranch
   and others, at Washington, that during the preceding winter
   (1806), Burr called upon him, and, in the first instance,
   represented that he was employed by the government to raise a
   military force to attack the Spanish Provinces in North
   America, and invited Eaton to take a command in the
   expedition; that Eaton, being a restless, enterprising man,
   readily acceded to the proposal; that Burr made frequent calls
   upon him, and in his subsequent interviews complained of the
   inefficiency and timidity of the government, and, eventually,
   fully developed his project; which was to separate the western
   states from the union, and establish himself as sovereign of
   the country. … Burr did not succeed in collecting and
   organizing a force on the western waters; but, on the 1st day
   of March, he was discovered wandering alone in the Tombigbee
   country, near the line of Florida. … The trial of the
   indictment against Burr, for treason, occupied many weeks, but
   he was finally acquitted by the jury, without swearing any
   witness in his defence. The acquittal seems to have been on
   technical grounds. … After his acquittal, Colonel Burr appears
   still to have persevered in the project of making an effort to
   detach Mexico from the Spanish government. On the 7th of June,
   1808, he sailed from New York for Europe, it would seem in the
   hope of engaging the British government to fit out an
   expedition against Mexico, in which he would take a part. In
   this he was entirely unsuccessful. His application to the
   French government was equally vain and useless. He spent four
   years wandering about in Europe."

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Safford,
      The Blennerhassett Papers,
      chapters 6-15._

      _M. L. Davis,
      Memoirs of Burr,
      volume 2, chapters 17-20._

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Burr,
      chapters 21-26 (volume 2)._

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      Second Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapters 10-14 and 19._

      _D. Robertson,
      Report of Trials of Burr._

      See BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812.
   The Cumberland Road.
   The first National work of "Internal Improvement."

   "In 1806 the United States began the Cumberland Road, its
   first work of the kind; but it was intended to open up the
   public lands in Ohio and the country west, and was nominally
   paid for out of the proceeds of those public lands. Just as
   the embargo policy was taking effect, Gallatin, encouraged by
   the accumulation of a surplus in the Treasury, brought in a
   report, April 4, 1808, suggesting the construction of a great
   system of internal improvements: it was to include coastwise
   canals across the isthmuses of Cape Cod, New Jersey, upper
   Delaware and eastern North Carolina; roads were to be
   constructed from Maine to Georgia, and thence to New Orleans,
   and from Washington westward to Detroit and St. Louis. He
   estimated the cost at twenty millions, to be provided in ten
   annual instalments. Jefferson himself was so carried away with
   this prospect of public improvement that he recommended a
   constitutional amendment to authorize such expenditures. The
   whole scheme disappeared when the surplus vanished; but from
   year to year small appropriations were made for the Cumberland
   Road, so that up to 1812 more than $200,000 had been expended
   upon it."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union
      (Epochs of American History),
      section 121._

   "The Cumberland Road was always a pet enterprise with Mr.
   Clay. … Its eastern terminus was Cumberland on the Potomac,
   from which it takes its name. Thence it was projected to
   Wheeling on the Ohio, crossing the Alleganies; from Wheeling
   to Columbus, Ohio; and thence westward through Indiana,
   Illinois, and Missouri, to Jefferson, the capital of the
   latter State. … After Mr. Clay went to Congress in 1806, and
   while he was there, this great national work required and
   realized his constant attention and zealous advocacy. It was
   owing to his exertions chiefly that it ever reached Wheeling,
   and passed on so far into the State of Ohio. The last
   appropriations made for this road were in 1834 and 1835, with
   a view of repairing it, and giving it over to the States
   through which it passed, if they would accept it, and keep it
   in repair."

      _C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 6, page 7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
   Practical beginning of steam-boat navigation.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
   Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
   The measure in Congress.
   Significance of Southern action.

   By the terms of the Constitution, Congress was deprived of
   power to interfere with the importation of slaves before the
   year 1808, but no longer. The time now approached when that
   restraint would cease, and the President in his annual message
   brought the subject to notice.
{3336}
   "It was referred to a committee of which Mr. Early of Georgia
   was the chairman. There was no difference of opinion as to the
   prohibition of the traffic, or at least no expression of any;
   but the practical details of the law, the penalties by which
   it was to be enforced, and, above all, the disposition to be
   made of such negroes as might be brought into the country in
   violation of it, gave rise to violent and excited debates. The
   committee reported a law prohibiting the slave-trade after the
   31st of December, 1807, imposing certain penalties for its
   breach, and providing that all negroes imported after that
   date should be forfeited. The object of this provision
   undoubtedly was to obtain directly what the Constitution only
   gave indirectly and by implication,—the sanction of the
   government of the United States to the principle of
   slave-holding, by making it hold and sell men as property. The
   astuteness of the slave-holding mind on all points touching
   slavery was shown in this proposition, and all the tactics of
   bullying and bluster with which later Congressional campaigns
   have made us familiar, were employed in the debate to which it
   gave rise. It having been moved that the words 'shall be
   entitled to his or her freedom' should be inserted after the
   word 'forfeited,' a furious fight ensued over this amendment.
   The Southern members resisted it, on the ground that the
   emancipation of the imported Africans would increase the
   number of free negroes, who, as Mr. Early affirmed, 'were
   considered in the States where they are found in considerable
   numbers as instruments of murder, theft, and conflagration.'
   And so craftily was this proposition of forfeiture to the
   government qualified, that its drift was not at first
   discerned by the Northern members. For, strong as was their
   disapprobation of slavery in the abstract, they felt no
   disposition to expose their Southern brethren to all the
   horrors of insurrection which it was assumed would follow the
   multiplication of free negroes. Indeed, Mr. Early candidly
   said, that, if these negroes were left free in the Southern
   States, not one of them would be alive in a year. And although
   the Federalists as a party, and Mr. Quincy eminently among
   them, regarded the political element of slavery as full of
   dangers to the future of the nation, these opinions had worked
   no personal and social alienation between Northern and
   Southern men, such as has since taken place. … There was,
   therefore, quite disposition enough to arrange this matter in
   the way the most satisfactory to the masters, without so rigid
   a regard to the rights of the negroes as, it is to be hoped,
   would have been had in later times. Mr. Quincy at first
   opposed striking out the forfeiture clause, on the ground that
   this was the only way in which the United States could get the
   control of the Africans, so as to dispose of them in the
   manner most for their own interest. … These views influenced a
   majority of the Northern members until the question of the
   final passage of the bill approached. At last they came to a
   sense of the disgrace which the forfeiture of the negroes to
   the government, and the permission to it to sell them as
   slaves if it so pleased, would bring upon the nation, and the
   whole matter was recommitted to a committee of one from each
   State. … This committee reported a bill providing that such
   imported negroes should be sent to such States as had
   abolished slavery, there to be bound out as apprentices for a
   term of years, at the expiration of which they should be free.
   This bill produced a scene of great and violent excitement on
   the part of the slaveholders. Mr. Early declared that the
   people of the South would resist this provision with their
   lives! This resistance to a measure which proposed doing all
   the slaveholders had demanded for their own safety, to wit,
   removing the imported negroes from the slaveholding domain and
   providing for them in the Free States, showed that their
   purpose was, at least in part, to have the negroes sold as
   slaves to themselves. This object they did virtually gain at
   last, as the final settlement was by a bill originating in the
   Senate, providing that, though neither importer nor purchaser
   should have a title to such negroes, still the negroes should
   be subject to any regulation for their disposal that should be
   made by the States into which they might be brought. The
   design of the slaveholding party to make the United States
   recognize the rightfulness of property in man was thus
   avoided, but it was at the cost of leaving the imported
   Africans to the tender mercies of the Slave States. The fact
   that the slaveholders were greatly incensed at the result, and
   regarded it as an injury and an affront, does not make this
   disposition of these unfortunates any the less discreditable
   to Congress or the nation."

      _E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
   The effects of the Embargo.

   "The dread of war, radical in the Republican theory, sprang
   not so much from the supposed waste of life or resources as
   from the retroactive effects which war must exert upon the
   form of government; but the experience of a few months showed
   that the embargo as a system was rapidly leading to the same
   effects. … Personal liberties and rights of property were more
   directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in
   Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war. …
   While the constitutional cost of the two systems was not
   altogether unlike, the economical cost was a point not easily
   settled. No one could say what might be the financial expense
   of embargo as compared with war. Yet Jefferson himself in the
   end admitted that the embargo had no claim to respect as an
   economical measure. … As the order was carried along the
   seacoast, every artisan dropped his tools, every merchant
   closed his doors, every ship was dismantled. American
   produce—wheat, timber, cotton, tobacco, rice—dropped in value
   or became unsalable; every imported article rose in price;
   wages stopped; swarms of debtors became bankrupt; thousands of
   sailors hung idle round the wharves trying to find employment
   on coasters, and escape to the West Indies or Nova Scotia. A
   reign of idleness began; and the men who were not already
   ruined felt that their ruin was only a matter of time. The
   British traveller, Lambert, who visited New York in 1808,
   described it as resembling a place ravaged by pestilence:—'The
   port indeed was full of shipping, but they were dismantled and
   laid up; their decks were cleared, their hatches fastened
   down, and scarcely a sailor was to be found on board. Not a
   box, bale, cask, barrel, or package was to be seen upon the
   wharves.' … In New England, where the struggle of existence
   was keenest, the embargo struck like a thunderbolt, and
   society for a moment thought itself at an end.
{3337}
   Foreign commerce and shipping were the life of the people,
   —the ocean, as Pickering said, was their farm. The outcry of
   suffering interests became every day more violent, as the
   public learned that this paralysis was not a matter of weeks,
   but of months or years. … The belief that Jefferson, sold to
   France, wished to destroy American commerce and to strike a
   deadly blow at New and Old England at once, maddened the
   sensitive temper of the people. Immense losses, sweeping away
   their savings and spreading bankruptcy through every village,
   gave ample cause for their complaints. Yet in truth, New
   England was better able to defy the embargo than she was
   willing to suppose. She lost nothing except profits which the
   belligerents had in any case confiscated; her timber would not
   harm for keeping, and her fish were safe in the ocean. The
   embargo gave her almost a monopoly of the American market for
   domestic manufactures; no part of the country was so well
   situated or so well equipped for smuggling. … The growers of
   wheat and live stock in the Middle States were more hardly
   treated. Their wheat, reduced in value from two dollars to
   seventy-five cents a bushel, became practically unsalable. …
   The manufacturers of Pennsylvania could not but feel the
   stimulus of the new demand; so violent a system of protection
   was never applied to them before or since. Probably for that
   reason the embargo was not so unpopular in Pennsylvania as
   elsewhere, and Jefferson had nothing to fear from political
   revolution in this calm and plodding community. The true
   burden of the embargo fell on the Southern States, but most
   severely upon the great State of Virginia. Slowly decaying,
   but still half patriarchal, Virginia society could neither
   economize nor liquidate. Tobacco was worthless; but 400,000
   negro slaves must be clothed and fed, great establishments
   must be kept up, the social scale of living could not be
   reduced, and even could not clear a large landed estate
   without creating new encumbrances in a country bankruptcy
   where land and negroes were the only forms of property on
   which money could be raised. Stay-laws were tried, but served
   only to prolong the agony. With astonishing rapidity Virginia
   succumbed to ruin, while continuing to support the system that
   was draining her strength."

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      Second Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

   "'Our passion,' said Jefferson, 'is peace.' He not only
   recoiled as a philanthropist from bloodshed, but as a
   politician he with reason dreaded military propensities and
   sabre sway. Such preparations for war as he could be induced
   to make were scrupulously defensive, and his fleet of
   gun-boats for the protection of the coast to be launched when
   the invader should appear excited a smile. Alone among all
   statesmen he tried to make war without bloodshed by means of
   an embargo on trade. … It is not the highest of his titles to
   fame in the eyes of his countrymen, but it may be not the
   lowest in the court of humanity, that he sacrificed his
   popularity in the attempt to find a bloodless substitute for
   war. His memory recovered from the shock and his reign over
   American opinion endured."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The United States:
      An outline of Political History, 1492-1871,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. A. Hill,
      Trade and Commerce of Boston, 1780-1880
      (Memorial History of Boston,
      volume 4, part 2, chapter 8)._

      _E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapters 6-7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
   Sixth Presidential Election.
   Jefferson succeeded by Madison.

   "In anticipation of Jefferson's retirement there had been … no
   little dispute and lively canvassing as to the next incumbency
   of the presidential chair. … Upon Madison, it was generally
   considered that Jefferson had fixed his personal preference. …
   But Madison had many political enemies in the Republican ranks
   among Virginians themselves. … Monroe was the growing
   favorite. Republicans in Congress, who, from one cause or
   another, had become disaffected to the Secretary of State,
   made their new choice manifest. The Quids [see QUIDS], having
   courted Monroe by letter when he was abroad, crowded about him
   when he passed through Washington on his way home, just as the
   Embargo became a law. … Monroe hesitated, unwilling to make a
   breach; and rather than hazard the Republican cause, or the
   future prospects of their favorite, his more temperate friends
   took him off the list of candidates, so that at the usual
   Congressional caucus, held at the capital, Madison was
   nominated almost unanimously for President, and George Clinton
   for Vice-President. But out of 139 Republican Senators and
   Representatives only 89 were present at this caucus, some
   being sick or absent from the city, and others keeping away
   because dissatisfied. Clinton had been a disappointed
   candidate, as well as Monroe, for the highest honors. … His
   ambition was pursued beyond the caucus, notwithstanding his
   renomination as Vice-President, until the friends of Madison,
   who had profited by the diversion among competitors,
   threatened to drop Clinton from the regular ticket unless he
   relinquished his pretensions to a higher place than that
   already assigned him. Meantime the schismatic Republicans had
   united in protesting to the country against Congressional
   dictation, at the same time pronouncing that the caucus which
   had nominated Madison was irregularly held. This open letter
   was signed by 17 Republican members of Congress. …
   Unfortunately for their influence in the canvass, however,
   they could not agree as to whether Monroe or Clinton should
   head the ticket. Objectionable, moreover, as the Congressional
   caucus might be, many more Presidential terms elapsed before
   other nominating machinery superseded it. National delegates,
   the national congress or convention of a party, was an idea
   too huge as yet for American politics to grasp in these days
   of plain frugality. … Harassed with foes within and without,
   with dissensions among the friends of rival candidates for the
   succession, with an odious and profitless measure to execute,
   against which citizens employed both cunning and force, it
   seemed, at one time, as if the administration party would go
   down in the fall elections. But Jefferson's wonderful
   popularity and the buoyancy of Republican principles carried
   the day. The regular Presidential ticket prevailed, not
   without a diminished majority."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 6, section 2 (volume 2)._

   James Madison, Democratic Republican, was elected, receiving
   122 votes in the Electoral College; George Clinton, of the
   same party, receiving 6, and Charles C. Pinckney, Federalist,
   47. George Clinton was chosen Vice President.

{3338}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808-1810.
   Substitution of Non-intercourse for Embargo.
   Delusive conduct of Napoleon.

   "All through the year 1808 and the first two months of 1809,
   the heavy hand of the embargo was laid on American commerce.
   The close of Jefferson's administration was signalized by an
   important change in the policy of the American Government.
   Almost the last act which Jefferson performed as President was
   to sign the new law which repealed the embargo, and
   substituted non-intercourse—a law which instead of universal
   prohibition of trade, merely prohibited commerce with Great
   Britain and with the countries under French control. The
   statute further authorized the President to suspend this
   prohibition as to either Great Britain or France as soon as
   one or the other should desist from violating neutral rights.
   An excuse for renewing commercial relations was not long
   delayed. On April 21, 1809, immediately upon the rather
   unexpected conclusion of a liberal and satisfactory diplomatic
   arrangement with Erskine, the British minister in Washington,
   the non-intercourse act was suspended as to Great Britain; and
   foreign trade, long dormant, suddenly sprang into excessive
   activity. This happy truce was short-lived. Erskine had
   effected his arrangement by a deliberate and almost defiant
   disregard of Canning's instructions; and his acts were
   promptly disavowed by his government. His recall was followed
   by a renewal of non-intercourse under a presidential
   proclamation of August 9, 1809. But notwithstanding the
   disavowal of Erskine, the British Government had made an
   apparent concession to the United States by the adoption of
   new orders in council which revoked the stringent prohibitions
   of the orders of 1807, and substituted a paper blockade of all
   ports and places under the government of France—a distinction
   which, on the whole, was perhaps without any important
   difference. France, on the other hand, entered upon a course
   of further aggressions. Louis Bonaparte was driven from his
   kingdom of Holland because he refused to attack neutral
   commerce, and all American ships found lying at Amsterdam were
   seized. Finally, by the decree of Rambouillet, every American
   ship found in any French port was confiscated and ordered
   sold. England and the United States thus seemed for the moment
   to be slowly drawing together in the presence of a common
   enemy, when suddenly the whole situation of affairs was
   changed by the formal announcement on August 5, 1810, of the
   Emperor's intended revocation of the decrees of Berlin and
   Milan, such revocation to take place on the first day of the
   following November, provided the British Government revoked
   their orders in council, or (and this was the important
   provision) the United States caused their rights to be
   respected. This promise, as Napoleon had privately pointed out
   a few days before, committed him to nothing; but it was
   accepted with all seriousness on the part of the United
   States. In reliance upon the imperial word, commercial
   intercourse with Great Britain—which had been once more
   resumed in May, 1810—was for the third time suspended. This,
   it was thought, was 'causing American rights to be respected';
   and although the condemnation of American ships went on
   without a pause in every continental port, the Government of
   the United States clung with the strongest pertinacity to the
   belief that Napoleon's declarations were sincere. The
   practical effect of all this was to bar the door against any
   possible settlement with Great Britain. Commerce was now
   permanently suspended; there was a long list of grievances to
   be redressed, and negotiation was exhausted."

      _G. L. Rives, editor,
      Selections from the Correspondence of Thomas Barclay,
      chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810.
   The Third Census.

   Total population, 7,215,791 (being an increase of nearly 36½
   per cent. over the population shown in 1800), classed and
   distributed as follows:

North.

                     White.    Free black.  Slave.
Connecticut.         255,279      6,453        310
Illinois.             11,501        613        168
Indiana.              23,890        393        237
Maine.               227,736        969          0
Massachusetts.       465,303      6,737          0
Michigan.              4,618        120         24
New Hampshire.       213,390        970          0
New Jersey.          226,861      7,843     10,851
New York.            918,699     25,333     15,017
Ohio.                228,861      1,899          0
Pennsylvania.        786,804     22,492        795
Rhode Island.         73,314      3,609        108
Vermont.             216,963        750          0
                     -------     ------     ------
Total              3,653,219     78,181     27,510

South.

                     White.    Free black.  Slave.
Delaware.             55,361     13,136      4,177
District of Columbia. 16,079      2,549      5,395
Georgia.             145,414      1,801    105,218
Kentucky.            324,237      1,713     80,561
Louisiana.            34,311      7,585     34,660
Maryland.            235,117     33,927    111,502
Mississippi.          23,024        240     17,088
Missouri.             17,227        607      3,011
North Carolina.      376,410     10,266    168,824
South Carolina.      214,196      4,554    196,365
Tennessee.           215,875      1,317     44,535
Virginia.            551,534     30,570    392,518
                     -------    -------    -------
                   2,208,785    108,265  1,163,854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Continued provocation from England and France.
   The "War of 1812" against Great Britain declared.

   "Congress, on May 1, 1810, passed an act providing that
   commercial non-intercourse with the belligerent powers should
   cease with the end of the session, only armed ships being
   excluded from American ports; and further, that, in case
   either of them should recall its obnoxious orders or decrees,
   the President should announce the fact by proclamation, and if
   the other did not do the same within three months, the
   non-intercourse act should be revived against that one,—a
   measure adopted only because Congress, in its helplessness,
   did not know what else to do. The conduct of France had
   meanwhile been no less offensive than that of Great Britain.
   On all sorts of pretexts American ships were seized in the
   harbors and waters controlled by French power. A spirited
   remonstrance on the part of Armstrong, the American Minister,
   was answered by the issue of the Rambouillet Decree in May,
   1810, ordering the sale of American vessels and cargoes
   seized, and directing like confiscation of all American
   vessels entering any ports under the control of France.
{3339}
   This decree was designed to stop the surreptitious trade that
   was still being carried on between England and the continent
   in American bottoms. When it failed in accomplishing that end,
   Napoleon instructed his Minister of Foreign Affairs,
   Champagny, to inform the American Minister that the Berlin and
   Milan Decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on
   November 1, 1810, if the English would revoke their Orders in
   Council, and recall their new principles of blockade, or if
   the United States would 'cause their rights to be respected by
   the English,'—in the first place restore the non-intercourse
   act as to Great Britain. … The British government, being
   notified of this by the American Minister, declared on
   September 29 that Great Britain would recall the Orders in
   Council when the revocation of the French decrees should have
   actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutrals should
   have been restored. … Madison, … leaning toward France, as was
   traditional with the Republican party, and glad to grasp even
   at the semblance of an advantage, chose to regard the
   withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees as actual and done
   in good faith, and announced it as a matter of fact on
   November 1, 1810. French armed ships were no longer excluded
   from American ports. On February 2, 1811, the non-importation
   act was revived as to Great Britain. In May the British Court
   of Admiralty delivered an opinion that no evidence existed of
   the withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which resulted
   in the condemnation of a number of American vessels and their
   cargoes. Additional irritation was caused by the capture, off
   Sandy Hook, of an American vessel bound to France, by some
   fresh cases of search and impressment, and by an encounter
   between the American frigate President and the British sloop
   Little Belt, which fired into one another, the British vessel
   suffering most. But was American commerce safe in French
   ports? By no means. … Outrages on American ships by French
   men-of-war and privateers went on as before, … The pretended
   French concession was, therefore, a mere farce. Truly, there
   were American grievances enough. Over 900 American ships had
   been seized by the British, and more than 550 by the French. …
   By both belligerents the United States had been kicked and
   cuffed like a mere interloper among the nations of the earth,
   who had no rights entitled to respectful consideration. Their
   insolence seemed to have been increased by the irresolution of
   the American government, the distraction of counsel in
   Congress, and the division of sentiment among the people. …
   But … young Republican leaders came to the front to interpret
   the 'national spirit and expectation.' They totally eclipsed
   the old chiefs by their dash and brilliancy. Foremost among
   them stood Henry Clay; then John C. Calhoun, William Lowndes,
   Felix Grundy, Langdon Cheves, and others. They believed that,
   if the American Republic was to maintain anything like the
   dignity of an independent power, and to preserve, or rather,
   regain, the respect of mankind in any degree,—ay, its
   self-respect,—it must cease to submit to humiliation and
   contemptuous treatment; it must fight,—fight somebody who had
   wronged or insulted it. The Republicans having always a tender
   side for France, and the fiction of French concessions being
   accepted, the theory of the war party was that, of the two
   belligerents, England had more insolently maltreated the
   United States. Rumors were spread that an Indian war then
   going on, and resulting in the battle of Tippecanoe on
   November 7, 1811, was owing to English intrigues. Adding this
   to the old Revolutionary reminiscences of British oppression,
   it was not unnatural that the national wrath should generally
   turn against Great Britain. … Not only the regular army was
   increased, but the President was authorized to accept and
   employ 50,000 volunteers. Then a bill was introduced providing
   for the building of ten new frigates. … The war spirit in the
   country gradually rose, and manifested itself noisily in
   public meetings, passing resolutions, and memorializing
   Congress. It was increased in intensity by a sensational
   'exposure,' a batch of papers laid before Congress by the
   President in March, 1812. They had been sold to the government
   by John Henry, an Irish adventurer, and disclosed a
   confidential mission to New England, undertaken by Henry in
   1809 at the request of Sir James Craig, the governor of
   Canada, to encourage a disunion movement in the Eastern
   States. This was the story. Whatever its foundation, it was
   believed, and greatly increased popular excitement." On the
   4th of April the President signed a bill laying an embargo on
   commerce with Great Britain for ninety days. "All over the
   country the embargo was understood as meaning an immediate
   preparation for war. … In May, 1812, President Madison was
   nominated for reelection by the congressional caucus. It has
   been said that he was dragooned into the war policy by Clay
   and his followers with the threat that, unless he yielded to
   their views, another candidate for the presidency would be
   chosen. This Clay denied, and there was no evidence to
   discredit his denial. Madison was simply swept into the
   current by the impetuosity of Young America. … On June 1 the
   President's war message came. On June 18 a bill in accordance
   with it, which had passed both Houses, was signed by the
   President, who proclaimed hostilities the next day. Thus Young
   America, led by Henry Clay, carried their point. But there was
   something disquieting in their victory. The majority they
   commanded in Congress was not so large as a majority for a
   declaration of war should be. In the House, Pennsylvania and
   the states south and west of it gave 62 votes for the war, and
   32 against it; the states north and east of Pennsylvania gave
   17 yeas and 32 nays,—in all 79 for and 49 against war. This
   showed a difference of sentiment according to geographical
   divisions. Not even all the Republicans were in favor of war.
   … Nor were the United States in any sense well prepared for a
   war with a first-class power."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Perkins,
      History of the Late War,
      chapters 1-2._

      _C. J. Ingersoll,
      Historical Sketch of the Second War between
      the United States and Great Britain,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapters 9-12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
   Refusal to re-charter the Bank of the United States.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.

{3340}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
   General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his league.
   The Battle of Tippecanoe.

   "During the interval between the Tripolitan war and the war of
   1812, one noticeable campaign was made against the Indians.
   The operation took place in 1811, under General William H.
   Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, and was directed
   against the Shawnees and other tribes which adhered to
   Tecumseh. This chief, with his brother, known as 'the
   Prophet,' had been engaged since 1806 in planning a species of
   crusade against the whites, and had acquired great influence
   among the northwestern Indians. For the previous two years
   Harrison's suspicions had been aroused by reports of
   Tecumseh's intrigues, and attempts had been made from time to
   time to negotiate with him, but without satisfactory results.
   In the summer of 1811 it was decided to strike a decisive blow
   at the Indians, and in the autumn Harrison, with a regiment of
   regulars under Colonel Boyd, and a force of militia, marched
   upon Tecumseh's town, situated on the Tippecanoe River. On the
   7th of November the Indians, in Tecumseh's absence, attempted
   to surprise Harrison's camp, but in the battle which followed
   they were driven off, and presently abandoned their town,
   which Harrison burned. The invading force then retired. The
   importance of the expedition was largely due to the military
   reputation which Harrison acquired by it."

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States
      (Narrative and Critical History of the United States,
      volume 7, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _American State Papers: Indian Affairs,
      volume 1, page 776._

      _E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Tecumseh,
      chapters 12-23._

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      First Administration of Madison,
      volume 2, chapters 4-5._

      _J. B. Dillon,
      History of Indiana,
      chapters 35-38._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (April).
   Admission of Louisiana into the Union.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (June-October).
   Rioting at Baltimore.
   The opening of the war and the unreadiness of the nation for it.
   Hull's disastrous campaign and surrender, at Detroit.

   "It was perhaps characteristic of the conduct of the war, that
   the first blood spilled should be American blood, shed by
   Americans. … In the night of June 22d, three days after the
   proclamation of war, a mob in Baltimore sacked the office of
   the 'Federal Republican,' edited by Alexander Hanson, because
   he had opposed the war policy. The mob also attacked the
   residences of several prominent Federalists, and burned one of
   them. Vessels in the harbor, too, were visited and plundered.
   About a month later Hanson resumed the publication of his
   paper, and in the night of July 26th the mob gathered again."
   This time they were resisted and one was killed; whereupon the
   authorities seized Hanson and his friends and lodged them in
   jail. "The rioters, thus encouraged by those whose business it
   was to punish them, attacked the jail the next night, murdered
   General Lingan [one of Hanson's defenders], injured General
   [Henry] Lee so that he was a cripple for the rest of his life,
   and beat several of the other victims and subjected them to
   torture. The leaders of the mob were brought to trial, but
   were acquitted! In this state of affairs, the war party in the
   country being but little stronger than the peace party, the
   youngest and almost the weakest of civilized nations went to
   war with one of the oldest and most powerful. The regular army
   of the United States numbered only 6,000 men; but Congress had
   passed an act authorizing its increase to 25,000, and in
   addition to this the President was empowered to call for
   50,000 volunteers, and to use the militia to the extent of
   100,000. Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, was made a
   major-general and appointed to command the land forces.
   Against the thousand vessels and 144,000 sailors of the
   British navy, the Americans had 20 war-ships and a few
   gunboats, the whole carrying about 300 guns. But these
   figures, taken alone, are deceptive; since a very large part
   of the British force was engaged in the European wars, and the
   practical question was, what force the United States could
   bring against so much as England could spare for operations on
   the high seas and on this side of the Atlantic. In that
   comparison, the discrepancy was not so great, and the United
   States had an enormous element of strength in her fine
   merchant marine. Her commerce being temporarily suspended to a
   large degree, there was an abundance both of ships and
   sailors, from which to build up a navy and fit out a fleet of
   privateers. Indeed, privateering was the business that now
   offered the largest prizes to mariners and ship-owners. … War
   with Great Britain being determined upon, the plan of campaign
   that first and most strongly presented itself to the
   Administration was the conquest of the British provinces on
   our northern border. … In planning for the invasion of Canada,
   the Administration counted largely upon a supposed readiness
   of the Canadians to throw off their allegiance to Great
   Britain and join with the United States. Such expectations
   have almost never been realized, and in this instance they
   were completely disappointed. In the preceding February,
   William Hull, Governor of the Territory of Michigan, who had
   rendered distinguished service in the Revolution, had been
   made a brigadier-general and placed in command of the forces
   in Ohio, with orders to march them to Detroit, to protect the
   Territory against the Indians, who were becoming troublesome.
   In June he was in command of about 2,000 men, in northern
   Ohio, moving slowly through the wilderness. On the day when
   war was declared, June 18th, the Secretary of War wrote him
   two letters. The first, in which the declaration was not
   mentioned, was despatched by a special messenger, and reached
   General Hull on the 24th. The other informed him of the
   declaration of war, but was sent by mail to Cleveland, there
   to take its chance of reaching the General by whatever
   conveyance might be found. The consequence was, that he did
   not receive it till the 2d of July. But every British
   commander in Canada learned the news several days earlier.
   Hull arrived at Detroit on the 5th of July and set about
   organizing his forces. On the 9th he received from the War
   Department orders to begin the invasion of Canada by taking
   possession of Malden, 15 miles below Detroit, on the other
   side of the river, if he thought he could do so with safety to
   his own posts. He crossed on the 12th, and issued a
   proclamation to the Canadians." He found the enemy too
   strongly fortified at Malden to be prudently assaulted with
   raw troops and without artillery. "So it was decided to defer
   the attack, and in a few days came the news that, on the
   declaration of war, a force of over 600—British and
   Indians—had promptly moved against the American post at
   Michilimackinac—on the rocky little island of Mackinaw,
   commanding the strait between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—and
   the garrison of 61 officers and men capitulated on the 16th of
   July.
{3341}
   This disaster to the Americans roused the Indians to renewed
   hostility against them, while it proportionately disheartened
   Hull, and seems to have been the first step in the breaking
   down of his courage. After a few skirmishes, he recrossed to
   Detroit on the 7th of August. Meanwhile the British Colonel
   Proctor had arrived at Malden with reënforcements, and on
   Hull's withdrawal to Detroit he threw a force across the river
   to intercept his supplies. This force consisted of a small
   number of British regulars and a considerable number of
   Indians commanded by the famous Tecumseh." Two considerable
   engagements occurred between this force and detachments sent
   out to meet an expected supply train. In the first, the
   Americans were badly beaten; in the second, they drove the
   enemy to their boats with heavy loss; but the supply train was
   not secured. "During this gloomy state of things at Detroit, a
   bloody affair took place on ground that is now within the city
   of Chicago. Fort Dearborn stood at the mouth of Chicago River,
   and was occupied by a garrison of about 50 soldiers, with
   several families. Captain Nathan Heald, commanding the post,
   had been ordered by General Hull to abandon it and remove his
   force to Detroit. "To conciliate the neighboring Indians who
   professed friendliness, he promised to give them all the
   property in the fort which he could not carry; but before
   making the delivery to them he foolishly destroyed all the
   arms, the gunpowder and the liquors. Enraged by this
   proceeding, which they considered a trick, the savages pursued
   Captain Heald's small party, waylaid them among the Sand-hills
   on the lake shore, and massacred the greater part, twelve
   children included. The scalps which they took were sold to
   Colonel Proctor, "who had offered a premium for American
   scalps." The same day on which this occurred, August 15th,
   "the British General Isaac Brock, who had arrived at Malden a
   few days before and assumed command there, formally demanded
   the surrender of Detroit. This demand included a plain threat
   of massacre in case of refusal. Said Brock in his letter: 'It
   is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination;
   but you must be aware that the numerous bodies of Indians who
   have attached themselves to my troops will be beyond my
   control the moment the contest commences.' … Brock's force,
   according to his own testimony, numbered 1,330 men, including
   600 Indians, and he had also two ships of war. Hull had
   present for duty about 1,000 men. Brock sent a large body of
   Indians across the river that night, at a point five miles
   below the fort, and early in the morning crossed with the
   remainder of his troops, and at once marched on the place." On
   the approach of the attacking force Hull offered to surrender.
   "The articles of capitulation were drawn up, and the American
   general surrendered, not merely the fort and its garrison, but
   the whole Territory of Michigan, of which he was Governor. …
   Hull's officers were incensed at his action, and he was
   subsequently court-martialled, convicted of cowardice, and
   condemned to death; but the President pardoned him, in
   consideration of his age and his services in the Revolution. …
   Subsequent investigations, if they do not exonerate General
   Hull, have at least greatly modified the blame attached to
   him."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-15,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Clarke,
      History of the Campaign of 1812 and
      Surrender of the Post at Detroit._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Hull's Surrender
      (Potter's American Monthly, August, 1875)._

      _F. S. Drake,
      Memorials of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati,
      pages 341-354._

      _S. C. Clark,
      Hull's Surrender at Detroit
      (Magazine of American History, volume 27)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
   The opposition of the Federalists to the war.

   "Unfortunately for the Federalists, while they were wholly
   right in many of their criticisms on the manner in which the
   war came about, they put themselves in the wrong as to its
   main feature. We can now see that in their just wrath against
   Napoleon they would have let the nation remain in a position
   of perpetual childhood and subordination before England. No
   doubt there were various points at issue in the impending
   contest, but the most important one, and the only one that
   remained in dispute all through the war, was that of the right
   of search and impressment. … It must be understood that this
   was not a question of reclaiming deserters from the British
   navy, for the seamen in question had very rarely belonged to
   it. There existed in England at that time an outrage on
   civilization, now abandoned, called impressment, by which any
   sailor and many who were not sailors could be seized and
   compelled to serve in the navy. The horrors of the
   'press-gang,' as exhibited in the sea-side towns of England,
   have formed the theme of many novels. It was bad enough at
   home, but when applied on board the vessels of a nation with
   which England was at peace, it became one of those outrages
   which only proceed from the strong to the weak, and are never
   reciprocated. Lord Collingwood said well, in one of his
   letters, that England would not submit to such an aggression
   for an hour. Merely to yield to visitation for such a purpose
   was a confession of national weakness; but the actual case was
   far worse than this. … We have … Cobbett's statement of the
   consequences. 'Great numbers of Americans have been
   impressed,' he adds, 'and are now in our navy. … That many of
   these men have died on board our ships, that many have been
   worn out in the service, there is no doubt.' … In 1806 the
   merchants of Boston had called upon the general government to
   'assert our rights and support the dignity of the United
   States.' … Yet it shows the height of party feeling that when,
   in 1812, Mr. Madison's government finally went to war for
   these very rights, the measure met with the bitterest
   opposition from the whole Federalist party, and from the
   commercial States generally. A good type of the Federalist
   opposition on this particular point is to be found in the
   pamphlets of John Lowell. John Lowell was the son of the
   eminent Massachusetts judge of that name; he was a
   well-educated lawyer, who was president of the Massachusetts
   Agricultural Society, and wrote under the name of 'A New
   England Farmer.' In spite of the protests offered half a dozen
   years before by his own neighbors, he declared the whole
   outcry against impressment to be a device of Mr. Madison's
   party. … He argued unflinchingly for the English right of
   search, called it a 'consecrated' right, maintained that the
   allegiance of British subjects was perpetual, and that no
   residence in a foreign country could absolve them. …
{3342}
   While such a man, with a large party behind him, took this
   position, it must simply be said that the American republic
   had not yet asserted itself to be a nation. Soon after the
   Revolution, when some one spoke of that contest to Franklin as
   the war for independence, he said, 'Say rather the war of the
   Revolution; the war for independence is yet to be fought.' The
   war of 1812 was just the contest he described. To this
   excitement directed against the war, the pulpit very largely
   contributed, the chief lever applied by the Federalist clergy
   being found in the atrocities of Napoleon. … The Federalist
   leaders took distinctly the ground that they should refuse to
   obey a conscription law to raise troops for the conquest of
   Canada; and when that very questionable measure failed by one
   vote in the Senate, the nation may have escaped a serious
   outbreak. … It might, indeed, have been far more dangerous
   than the Hartford Convention of 1814 [see UNITED STATES OF
   AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER)], which was, after all, only a
   peaceable meeting of some two dozen men, with George Cabot at
   their head—men of whom very few had even a covert purpose of
   dissolving the Union, but who were driven to something very
   near desperation by the prostration of their commerce and the
   defencelessness of their coast."

      _T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapters 11-12._

      _E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapters 11-14._

      See, also, BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (September-November).
   The opening of the war on the New York frontier.
   The Battle of Queenstown Heights.

   "To put Dearborn [who commanded in the northern department] in
   a condition to act with effect, Governor Tompkins [of the
   state of New York] made the greatest efforts to get out the
   New York quota of militia. The Democratic Legislature of
   Vermont voted to add to the pay of their militia in service as
   much as was paid by the United States. At the same time they
   passed a stringent drafting law, and offered $30 bounty to
   volunteers. By the co-operating exertions of these states and
   of the war department, some 3,000 regulars and 2,000 militia
   were presently assembled on Lake Champlain, under Dearborn's
   immediate command. Another force of 2,000 militia was
   stationed at different points along the south bank of the St.
   Lawrence, their left resting on Sackett's Harbor. A third army
   was collected along the Niagara River, from Fort Niagara to
   Buffalo, then a village of a thousand or two inhabitants, in
   the midst of a newly-settled district. This latter force of
   nearly 6,000 men, half regulars and volunteers and half
   militia, was under the immediate command of Major-general Van
   Rensselaer, a Federalist. … The first skirmishes on the New
   York frontier grew out of attempts, not unsuccessful, made
   principally from Ogdensburg, a new but much the largest
   village on the American side of the St. Lawrence, to intercept
   the British supplies proceeding upward in boats. The militia
   officer in command at Ogdensburg was General Jacob Brown. A
   Pennsylvanian by birth, a Quaker by education, while employed
   as a teacher in the city of New York, some newspaper essays of
   his had attracted the attention of Alexander Hamilton, to
   whom, during the quasi war of '98, he became military
   secretary. Removing afterward to the new settlements of
   Northwestern New York, his enterprise had founded the
   flourishing village of Brownsville, not far from Sackett's
   Harbor. … His success in repulsing a British force of 700 men,
   which attempted to cross from Prescott to attack Ogdensburg,
   laid the foundation of a military reputation which soon placed
   him at the head of the American army. There had been built on
   Lake Ontario, out of the gun-boat appropriations, but by a
   fortunate improvement upon Jefferson's model, a sloop of war
   of light draft, mounting 16 guns. This vessel, called the
   Oneida, just before the breaking out of the war had been
   furnished with a regular-bred commander and crew. She was
   attacked shortly after at Sackett's Harbor by five British
   vessels, three of them larger than herself, but manned only by
   lake watermen. By landing part of her guns, and establishing a
   battery on shore, she succeeded, however, in beating them off.
   Hull's failure having shown how important was the control of
   the lakes, a judicious selection was made of Captain Chauncey,
   hitherto at the head of the New York Navy Yard, to take
   command on those waters. Along with Henry Eckford as naval
   constructor, and soon followed by ship-carpenters, naval
   stores, guns, and presently by parties of seamen, he was sent
   to Sackett's Harbor [September, 1812], then held by a garrison
   of 200 regulars. That newly-settled region could supply
   nothing but timber; every thing else had to be transported
   from Albany at vast expense. … A 24-gun ship was at once
   commenced; for immediate use, Chauncey purchased six of the
   small schooners employed in the then infant commerce of the
   lake, which, though very ill adapted for war, he armed with
   four guns each. With these and the Oneida he put out on the
   lake, and soon [November 8] drove the British ships into
   Kingston. … While thus employed, Chauncey had sent Lieutenant
   Elliot to Buffalo, with a party of seamen, to make
   arrangements for a force on the upper lakes. Elliot, soon
   after his arrival, succeeded in cutting out [October 9] from
   under the guns of Fort Erie, nearly Opposite Buffalo, two
   British vessels just arrived from Detroit. One, the late
   Adams, which the British had armed and equipped, grounded, and
   it became necessary to destroy her. The other, the Caledonia,
   of two guns, was brought off, and became the nucleus of the
   naval force of Lake Erie. Elliot also purchased several small
   schooners lying in the Niagara River; but they, as well as the
   Caledonia, lay blockaded at Black Rock [now a part of the city
   of Buffalo], the passage into the lake being commanded by the
   guns of Fort Erie. The troops along the Niagara frontier,
   highly excited by Elliot's exploit, demanded to be led against
   the enemy; and, under the idea that the British village of
   Queenstown, at the foot of the falls [a few miles below] might
   furnish comfortable winter quarters for a part of his troops,
   Van Rensselaer resolved to attack it."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      2d series, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

{3343}

   The Niagara River, 35 miles long, which conducts the waters of
   the upper lakes through Erie into Ontario, constituted an
   important military frontier in such a war; its banks sparsely
   settled, and the crossing a narrow one. Below the roaring
   cataracts had assembled another little army, supplied in great
   measure by regiments of the New York quota, Major-General Van
   Rensselaer, of the militia of that State, a prominent
   Federalist, being in command. Hull's sudden surrender left
   Brock free to confront this second adversary with a moderate
   force from the Canada side, not without feeling uncertain as
   to where the American blow would be struck. By October Van
   Rensselaer had 6,000 men, half of them regulars; and, yielding
   to the impatience of his volunteers and the public press, he
   gave orders to cross the river from Lewiston to Queenston.
   High bluffs arose on either side. There were not boats enough
   provided to carry more than half the advance party at a time.
   Too much reliance was placed upon militia, while regulars won
   the laurels. Wool, a young captain, and Lieutenant-Colonel
   Scott did gallant work on Queenston Heights; and General
   Brock, the conqueror of Detroit, fell mortally wounded; but
   reinforcements crossed too slowly, and with the green militia
   dreading death, many of the reserve pleading legal exemption
   from service in an enemy's country, their deserted comrades on
   the Canada side, unable to return, were forced to surrender.
   Van Rensselaer, whose advance had been premature, resigned in
   disgust, leaving a less capable but more pretentious officer,
   of Virginia birth, General Alexander Smyth, to succeed him.
   Smyth had a gift of windy composition, which fortunately,
   imposed upon the inhabitants of Western New York just long
   enough to check despondency and restore a glow to the
   recruiting service. 'Come on, my heroes,' was his cry, 'and
   when you attack the enemy's batteries, let your rallying word
   be: "The cannon lost at Detroit, or death!". All this inkshed
   promised an exploit for invading Canada from the upper end of
   the Niagara, between Fort Erie and Chippewa. By the 27th of
   November Smyth had concentrated at Black Rock, near Buffalo, a
   fair army, 4,500 troops, comprising, in addition to the
   regulars, volunteer regiments from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
   New York; the last under the command of General Porter, the
   representative in Congress, whose report, twelve months
   before, had given the first loud note of war. The big moment
   approached; but, notwithstanding the sonorous promise of
   'memorable to-morrows,' and an embarkation to the music of
   'Yankee Doodle,' one or two shivering attempts were made to
   land on the opposite shore, and then the volunteers were
   dismissed to their homes, and regulars ordered into
   winter-quarters. Disorderly scenes ensued. Our insubordinate
   and mortified soldiers discharged their muskets in all
   directions. Porter having openly charged Smyth with cowardice,
   the two crossed to Grand Island to fight a duel, and then
   shook hands. … But the country could not be reconciled to such
   generalship, and Smyth was presently cashiered."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 8, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Van Rensselaer,
      Narrative of the Affair of Queenstown._

      _J. Symons,
      The Battle of Queenstown Heights._

      _General W. Scott,
      Memoirs, by himself,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      _W. H. Merritt,
      Journal during the War of 1812._

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      First Administration of Madison,
      volume 2, chapter 16._

      _F. B. Tupper,
      Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock,
      chapters 13-14._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
   Seventh Presidential Election.

   James Madison was re-elected, receiving in the electoral
   college 128 votes, against 89 cast for DeWitt Clinton,
   Federalist. Elbridge Gerry was elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Possession of West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Indifference to the Navy at the beginning of the war.
   Its Efficiency and its Early Successes.

   "The young leaders of the war party in congress looked to
   successes on land and territorial conquest, and had an
   indifference to the field which the ocean afforded. And yet
   the triumphs of our young fleet in the Revolution, the alarm
   which John Paul Jones excited in English homes, and, later,
   the brilliant achievements in the Mediterranean, the heroes of
   which were still in the prime of their service, might have
   inspired better counsel. Madison's cabinet were said to have
   without exception opposed the increase and use of our navy;
   indeed, somewhat after Jefferson's idea in imposing the
   embargo—to save our vessels by laying them up. The advice of
   Captains Charles Stewart and William Bainbridge, who happened
   to be in Washington at the time of the declaration of war,
   determined Madison to bring the navy into active service. One
   of the chief causes of the war being the impressment of our
   seamen, it seems to-day surprising that their ardor in defense
   of 'Free Trade and Sailors' Rights,'—the cry under which our
   greatest triumphs were won—should have been either passed by
   or deprecated."

      _J. A. Stevens,
      Second War with Great Britain
      (Magazine of American History, May-June, 1893)._

   "Although [the American navy] had never been regarded by the
   government with favor, it happened that the three most
   essential measures had been adopted to secure its efficiency,—
   the ships built for it were the best of their class in the
   world, the officers had been carefully selected (200 out of a
   total of 500 having been retained under the Peace
   Establishment Act), and they had received—at least a large
   number of them—in Preble's squadron at Tripoli a training such
   as had fallen to the lot of few navies, either before or
   since. To these three causes the successes of 1812 were
   directly due; and although Commodore Preble died in 1807, the
   credit of the later war belongs more to him than to any other
   one man. It was not only that he formed many of the individual
   officers who won the victories of 1812-15,—for Hull, Decatur,
   Bainbridge, Macdonough, Porter, Lawrence, Biddle, Chauncey,
   Warrington, Charles Morris, and Stewart were all in his
   squadron,—but he created in the navy the professional spirit
   or idea, which was the main quality that distinguished it from
   the army in the war with Great Britain. At the outbreak of the
   war there were 18 vessels in the navy, ranging from 44-gun
   frigates to 12-gun brigs. There were also 176 gunboats, on
   which a large sum of money had been expended, but which were
   of no use whatever. … Immediately after the declaration of
   war, the frigates in commission in the home ports, together
   with two of the sloops, put to sea as a squadron under
   Commodore John Rodgers. They fell in with the English frigate
   'Belvidera,' but she got away from them; and after an
   ineffectual cruise across the Atlantic, they returned home,
   without meeting anything of consequence.

{3344}

   Three weeks later, the 'Constitution,' under Captain Hull,
   sailed from Annapolis. Soon after leaving the Chesapeake she
   came upon a British squadron of one sixty-four and four
   frigates, and then ensued the famous three days' chase, in the
   course of which, by a marvel of good seamanship and good
   discipline, the American frigate escaped. After a short
   respite in Boston, Hull set out again, and on the 19th of
   August he fought and captured the 'Guerrière,' Captain Dacres,
   in an engagement lasting about an hour. The 'Constitution,'
   being armed with 24-pounders instead of 18's, threw at a
   broadside a weight of shot half as large again as that of the
   'Guerrière,' and her crew was numerically superior in a still
   greater degree. Nevertheless, the immensely greater
   disproportion in the casualties which the 'Constitution'
   inflicted and received, and the short time which she took to
   do the work, cannot be explained by the difference in force
   alone; for the 'Guerrière' had five times as many killed and
   wounded as her opponent, and at the close of the engagement
   she was a dismasted wreck, while the 'Constitution' had
   suffered no injury of importance. The essential point of
   difference lay in the practical training and skill of the
   crews in gunnery. … In the next action, in October, the sloop
   'Wasp,' Captain Jacob Jones, captured the English brig
   'Frolic,' of approximately the same force. The relative loss
   of English and Americans was again five to one. Both vessels
   were soon after taken by a seventy-four. Later in the same
   month, another frigate action took place, the 'United States,'
   under Decatur, capturing the 'Macedonian.' The advantage of
   the Americans in men was about the same as in the first
   action, while in guns it was greater. The American casualties
   were 13, the English 104. This difference was not due to the
   fact that the American guns were 24's and 42's, instead of
   18's and 32's, or that the Americans had three more of them in
   a broadside; it was really due to the way in which the guns on
   both sides were handled. Shortly after this capture, a cruise
   in the Pacific was projected for a squadron to be composed of
   the 'Constitution,' 'Essex,' and 'Hornet.' The 'Essex' failed
   to meet the other vessels at the rendezvous off the coast of
   Brazil, and went on the Pacific cruise alone [having great
   success]. The 'Constitution,' now commanded by Bainbridge, met
   the frigate 'Java,' near Brazil, on the 29th of December. The
   antagonists were more nearly matched than in the previous
   frigate actions, but the fight, lasting a little over an hour,
   resulted in the total defeat and surrender of the 'Java,' with
   a loss of 124 to the Americans' 34. The 'Java' was a wreck,
   and could not be taken into port, and Bainbridge returned
   home. Two months later, February 24, 1813, the 'Hornet,'
   commanded by Lawrence, met the 'Peacock' off the Demerara, and
   reduced her in fifteen minutes to a sinking condition, while
   the 'Hornet's' hull was hardly scratched. The English sloop
   sank so quickly that she carried down part of her own crew and
   three of the 'Hornet's' who were trying to save them. The
   casualties, apart from those drowned, were 5 in the 'Hornet'
   and 38 in the 'Peacock.' … The moral effect in England of
   these defeats was very great. … In March, 1813, Admiral Sir
   John Warren assumed the command of the British squadron on the
   American coast. Although rather past his prime, his defects
   were more than compensated by the activity of his second in
   command, Rear-Admiral Cockburn, who during this summer and the
   next kept the coasts of Chesapeake Bay in a continuous state
   of alarm by successful raids, in which much valuable property
   was destroyed. Among the more important of the actions of 1813
   were the capture and destruction (in part) of Havre de Grace,
   Md., early in May, and an attack on the village of Hampton,
   Va., on the 25th of June. 'Acts of rapine and violence' on the
   part of the invading forces characterized the latter attack,
   which excited intense indignation throughout the country. … In
   the summer of 1813 occurred the first serious reverse of the
   navy during the war. On the 1st of June the frigate
   'Chesapeake,' Captain James Lawrence, sailed from Boston to
   engage the 'Shannon,' which was lying outside, waiting for the
   battle. The two ships were nearly matched in guns and men,
   what slight difference there was being in favor of the
   'Chesapeake'; but the crew of the latter had been recently
   shipped and was partly composed of disaffected men, and
   Lawrence had had no time to discipline them. The engagement
   was short and decisive. Ranging up alongside of the 'Shannon,'
   whose crew had been brought to the highest state of efficiency
   by Captain Broke their commander, the 'Chesapeake' at the
   first fire received a severe injury in the loss of several of
   her officers. Falling foul of the 'Shannon' she was
   effectually raked, and presently a boarding party, led by
   Captain Broke, got possession of her deck. The great mortality
   among the officers [including Captain Lawrence, who had
   received a mortal wound just before his ship was boarded, and
   whose dying appeal, 'Don't give up the ship,' became the
   battle cry of the American navy during the remainder of the
   war], and the want of discipline in the crew, resulted in a
   victory for the boarders. The battle lasted fifteen minutes
   only, and the 'Chesapeake' was carried as a prize to Halifax.
   During this summer the naval war on the ocean continued with
   varying fortunes, two important actions being fought. The brig
   'Argus,' Captain Allen, after a successful voyage in the Irish
   Sea, in which many prizes were taken and destroyed, was
   captured by the English brig 'Pelican,' on the 14th of August.
   Early in September the brig 'Enterprise,' commanded by
   Lieutenant Burrows, captured the English brig 'Boxer,' near
   Portland, Me."

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States
      (Narrative and Critical History of the United States,
      volume 7, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapters 2-5._

      _J. F. Cooper,
      History of the Navy of the United States,
      volume 2, chapters 9-22._

      _A. S. Mackenzie,
      Life of Decatur,
      chapters 10-12._

      _D. D. Porter,
      Memoirs of Commander David Porter._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Harrison's northwestern campaign.
   Winchester's defeat.
   Perry's naval victory on Lake Erie.
   The Battle of the Thames and death of Tecumseh.
   Recovery of Detroit and Michigan.

   "Great was the indignation of the West, great the
   mortification of our whole people, on learning that, instead
   of capturing Upper Canada at the first blow, we had lost our
   whole Michigan Territory. The task now was to retake Detroit
   under a competent commander. Ohio and Kentucky went on filling
   rapidly their quotas, while urging the administration to march
   them under Harrison.
{3345}
   The President hesitated, doubtful whether Harrison was a man
   of sufficient military experience. He proposed that Monroe
   should go to the scene, as a volunteer, if not to command; but
   Monroe restrained his first military ardor, as was prudent,
   and Winchester, of Tennessee, another of the recent
   brigadiers, and a revolutionary veteran, was selected. The
   selection, however, gave umbrage to the Kentuckians, whose
   State government had already made Harrison a brevet
   major-general of militia. The hero of Tippecanoe was finally
   assigned to the chief command of the Western army, Madison
   countermanding his first orders. Harrison's route for Detroit
   was by way of Fort Wayne and Fort Defiance to the falls of the
   Maumee. But it was late in the fall [October 1812] before the
   new military arrangements could be completed; and through a
   swampy wilderness, infested as it was with hostile Indians,
   the progress of the column was toilsome and discouraging; and,
   except for the destruction of a few Indian villages on the
   way, the deeds of prowess were reserved for a winter campaign.
   … The winter expedition of the Northwest army … [was] retarded
   by a disaster which overtook Winchester's command near the
   Maumee Rapids, at a little village on the River Raisin. By
   Harrison's orders Winchester had started for these Rapids,
   whence, having first concentrated troops as if for winter
   quarters, the design was that he should advance 50 miles
   farther, when weather permitted, cross the frozen Detroit, and
   fall suddenly upon Malden. Winchester not only pushed on
   incautiously to his first destination, but, with a design more
   humane than prudent, undertook to protect against a British
   and Indian raid the alarmed inhabitants of Frenchtown [now
   Monroe, Michigan], a place 30 miles nearer Malden. Here
   [January 22, 1813] he was overpowered by the enemy, which fell
   upon the American force suddenly at daybreak, with yells and a
   shower of bomb-shells and canister. Winchester having been
   taken prisoner, Colonel Proctor, the British commander,
   extorted from him the unconditional surrender of all his
   troops, some 700 in number, as the only means of saving them
   from the tomahawk and scalping-knife. … Our sick and wounded …
   the British commander shamefully abandoned to their fate. …
   Officers and men, many of them the flower of Kentucky,
   perished victims to barbarities … abhorrent to civilized
   warfare, of which the British Colonel Proctor and Captain
   Elliott were not innocent. Besides the American loss in
   prisoners at the sad affair of the Raisin, nearly 200 were
   killed and missing. Hearing at the Upper Sandusky of
   Winchester's intended movement, Harrison had pressed to his
   relief with reinforcements, but fugitives from Frenchtown
   brought the melancholy tidings of disaster; and Harrison fell
   back to the Rapids, there to strengthen the post known as Fort
   Meigs, and go into winter quarters. The terms of many of his
   troops having now expired, the Northwestern army was for many
   months too feeble to begin a forward movement. But Harrison
   possessed the unabated confidence of the West, and, promoted
   to be one of the new major-generals, he received, through the
   zealous co-operation of Ohio and Kentucky, whose people were
   inflamed to take vengeance, enough volunteer reinforcements
   [May] to relieve Fort Meigs [which was twice besieged in 1813
   by British and Indians] from Proctor's investment in the
   spring, and at length the quota requisite for resuming the
   offensive; other frontier plans of the War Department having
   long deranged his own in this quarter. The splendid
   co-operation of an American flotilla on Lake Erie opened the
   way to Detroit and victory. For that memorable service
   Commodore Chauncey had detailed an aspiring young naval
   officer, Captain Oliver H. Perry, of Rhode Island. Our little
   Lake squadron was tediously constructed at Presqu' Isle (now
   Erie). When all at last was ready [in August, 1813], Perry,
   who had long chafed in spirit while the British fleet hovered
   in sight like a hawk, sailed forth to dispute the supremacy of
   the broad inland waters. His heavier vessels were floated over
   the bar not without difficulty. After conferring at Sandusky
   upon the combined plan of operations with General Harrison,
   from whom he received a small detail of soldiers to act as
   marines and supply vacancies in his crews, he offered battle
   to Barclay, the British commander,—the latter a veteran in
   naval experience, who had served under Nelson at Trafalgar.
   Barclay had lain idly for several weeks at Malden, in hopes of
   procuring additional sailors, purposely avoiding an action
   meanwhile. But Proctor's army having now run short of
   provisions, longer delay was inexpedient. At sunrise on
   September 10th Perry descried the approaching British fleet
   from his look-out, a group of islands off Sandusky. Ten miles
   to the north of this locality, which was known as Put-in-bay,
   the two squadrons at noon engaged one another,—Perry
   approaching at an acute angle, and keeping the weather-gage,
   while Barclay's vessels hove to in close order. In officers
   and men the fleets were about equally matched; there were 6
   British vessels to the American 9, but the former carried more
   guns, and were greatly superior for action from a distance.
   With 30 long guns to Perry's 15, Barclay had the decided
   advantage at first, and our flag-ship, the Lawrence, exposed
   to the heaviest of the British cannonade, became terribly
   battered, her decks wet with carnage, her guns dismounted.
   Undismayed by this catastrophe, Perry dropped into a little
   boat with his broad pennant and banner, and crossed to his
   next largest vessel, the Niagara, the target for 15 minutes of
   a furious fire while being rowed over. Climbing the Niagara's
   deck, and hoisting once more the emblems of commander, our
   brave captain now pierced the enemy's line with his new
   flag-ship, followed by his smaller vessels, and, gaining at
   last that advantage of a close engagement which for nearly
   three hours had eluded him, he won the fight in eight minutes.
   The colors of the Detroit, Barclay's flag-ship, struck first,
   three others followed the example, and two of the British
   squadron attempting to escape were overtaken and brought back
   triumphantly. 'We have met the enemy and they are ours,' was
   Perry's laconic dispatch to Harrison, written in pencil on the
   back of an old letter, with his navy-cap for a rest; 'two
   ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop.' … Barclay lay
   dangerously wounded, and his next in command died that
   evening. … To Harrison's expectant army, augmented by 3,500
   mounted Kentuckians, whom Governor Shelby led in person, the
   word of advance was now given. …
{3346}
   Perry's flotilla, aided by the captured vessels, presently
   landed the American troops on the Canada side. Proctor had
   already begun the retreat, having first dismantled the fort at
   Malden and burned the barracks. Harrison pursued him beyond
   Sandwich, covered by the flotilla, until near a Moravian town,
   up the river Thames [some 30 miles east of Lake St. Clair],
   the enemy was overtaken, with Tecumseh's braves. Here, upon
   well-chosen ground, the British made a final stand [October
   5], but at the first impetuous charge of our cavalry their
   line broke, and only the Indians remained to engage in a
   desperate hand-to-hand fight. Among the slain was the famous
   Tecumseh, dispatched, as tradition asserts, by the pistol of
   Colonel Johnson, a Kentucky officer prominent in the battle.
   Proctor himself escaped in a carriage with a few followers,
   incurring afterwards the royal reprimand. … The baleful
   British and Indian alliance was broken up by these victories,
   while Detroit, Michigan, and all that Hull had lost, and a
   fair portion of Upper Canada besides, passed into American
   control. Among American generals in this war Harrison enjoyed
   the rare felicity of having fully accomplished his
   undertaking."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 8, section 2
      and chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2)._

   "The victory of Lake Erie was most important, both in its
   material results and in its moral effect. It gave us complete
   command of all the upper lakes, prevented any fears of
   invasion from that quarter, increased our prestige with the
   foe and our confidence in ourselves, and ensured the conquest
   of Upper Canada; in all these respects its importance has not
   been overrated. But the 'glory' acquired by it most certainly
   has been estimated at more than its worth. … The simple truth
   is, that, where on both sides the officers and men were
   equally brave and skilful, the side which possessed the
   superiority in force, in the proportion of three to two, could
   not well help winning. … Though we had nine guns less, yet, at
   a broadside, they threw half as much metal again as those of
   our antagonist."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of the British Navy,
      chapter 36 (volume 3)._

      _E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Tecumseh,
      chapters 26-34._

      _I. R. Jackson,
      Life of W. H. Harrison,
      chapters 7-9._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapters 16-17, and 23-26._

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the Battle of Lake Erie._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (April-July).
   The burning of Toronto.
   The capture of Fort George.

   "The American fleet on Lake Ontario had been increased, and in
   1813 controlled the lake. General Sheaffe had succeeded Brock
   as Governor as well as commander of the forces. Some 600
   troops were in York [now Toronto], the capital. York had about
   1,000 inhabitants, and was not regarded as of strategic
   importance. The Americans, however, set sail from Sackett's
   Harbour with 16 sail and 2,500 men to attack it. The enemy
   landed [April 27] to the west of the town, and General Sheaffe
   evacuated the works, and retired down the Kingston Road. The
   Americans invested the town, and though skirmishing took
   place, had an easy victory. The land force was under General
   Pike, an officer well known as having, when a lieutenant,
   explored the sources of the Mississippi. Just as the Americans
   had well filled the fort, the powder-magazine exploded with
   violence, killing and wounding about 250. General Pike, struck
   in the breast by a flying stone, died soon after. The
   Americans, contrary to the articles of surrender, shamefully
   burnt the town, and retired from York on the 2nd of May, 1813.
   While the squadron was absent, Sackett's Harbour was attacked
   by a strong force. The garrison seemed to be on the point of
   surrendering the fort, when Sir George Prevost, to the
   surprise of all, ordered a retreat. Little York taken,
   Commodore Chauncey then crossed the lake to Fort George at the
   mouth of the Niagara River. General Vincent commanded the
   fort. Twenty-four of Hull's guns frowned from its bastions.
   Its defender had 1,340 men. The American army on the Niagara
   frontier numbered 6,000. Chauncey had eleven war-vessels and
   900 seamen. On the 27th of May the expected day came. Vincent
   drew his men out about a mile from the fort and awaited the
   attack. He was overpowered and retired, having lost nearly 450
   soldiers. The Canadian force retired to a strong position,
   'Beaver Dams,' twelve miles from Niagara on the heights,
   having given up Fort Erie and Chippewa and blown up Fort
   George. Vincent had now 1,600 men, and with these he retired
   to Burlington Heights, near the present city of Hamilton. An
   American army of 2,500 men followed General Vincent to Stoney
   Creek. On the night of the 8th of June, Colonel Harvey of the
   British force, with upwards of 750 men, fell stealthily on the
   sleeping American army, scattered the troops, killed many,
   captured the American generals Chandler and Winder, and about
   100 men, along with guns and stores. The adventurers then
   retired to their camp. The scattered American soldiers
   reassembled in the morning and retired in a disorderly manner
   down the country to Fort George. Vincent now followed the
   retreating army and reoccupied Beaver Dams. One of his
   outposts was held by Lieutenant Fitzgibbon and 30 men.
   Smarting with defeat, the American general sought to surprise
   this station as a basis for future attacks. He secretly
   despatched Colonel Boerstler with nearly 700 men to capture
   it. A wounded militiaman, living within the lines at
   Queenston, heard by chance of the expedition. … The alarm was
   given [by the militiaman's wife, who travelled 20 miles
   through the forest, at night] and that night the men lay on
   their arms. Early next morning the American party came, but an
   ambuscade had been prepared for them, and after severe
   fighting 542 men surrendered into the hands of some 260.
   General Dearborn soon after retired from the command of the
   American army, to be succeeded by General Boyd. British
   parties captured Fort Schlosser and Black Rock on the Niagara
   River at this time, though at the latter place with the loss
   of Colonel Bishopp, the idol of his men. Colonel Scott, in
   command of troops on board Commodore Chauncey's fleet, again
   scoured Lake Ontario. Landing at Burlington Heights on the
   31st of July, they did nothing more than reconnoitre the works
   and depart. Afterwards the second attack on York was made and
   the barracks burnt. After this a trial of strength took place
   between Sir James Yeo's fleet, now sent forth from Kingston
   Harbour, and Chauncey's squadron. The Americans lost two
   vessels in a squall, and two were captured by the British, but
   the result between the two fleets was indecisive."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 8, section 5._

      _ALSO IN:
      R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-1815,
      chapter 7._

{3347}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (October-November).
   The abortive expedition against Montreal.

   "While Perry and Harrison were … reclaiming our lost ground on
   Lake Erie and in the northwest, Armstrong was preparing to
   carry out his favorite plan of a descent on Kingston and
   Montreal. When he accepted the post of Secretary of War, he
   transferred his department from Washington to Sackett's
   Harbor, so that he might superintend in person the progress of
   the campaign. … Although Wilkinson had superseded Dearborn, as
   commander-in-chief of this district in July, he did not issue
   his first orders to the army till the 23d of August. … General
   Wade Hampton, who had been recalled from the fifth military
   district to the northern frontier, encamped with his army,
   4,000 strong, at Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain. The plan
   finally adopted by the Secretary was, to have Wilkinson drop
   down the St. Lawrence, and without stopping to attack the
   English posts on the river, form a junction with General
   Hampton, when the two armies should march at once on Montreal.
   These two Generals were both Revolutionary officers, and
   consequently too advanced in years to carry such an expedition
   through with vigor and activity. Besides, a hostile feeling
   separated them, rendering each jealous of the other's command.
   … Chauncey, In the mean time, after an action with Yeo, in
   which both parties claimed the victory, forced his adversary
   to take refuge in Burlington Bay. He then wrote to Wilkinson
   that the lake was clear of the enemy, and reported himself
   ready to transport the troops down the St. Lawrence. The
   greatest expectations were formed of this expedition. The
   people knew nothing of the quarrel between Wilkinson and
   Hampton, and thought only of the strength of their united
   force. … While Wilkinson was preparing to fulfill his part of
   the campaign, Hampton made a bold push into Canada on his own
   responsibility. Advancing from Plattsburg, he marched directly
   for St. John, but finding water scarce for his draft cattle,
   owing to a severe drought, he moved to the left, and next day
   arrived at Chateaugay Four Corners, a few miles from the
   Canada line. Here he was overtaken by an order from Armstrong,
   commanding him to remain where he was, until the arrival of
   Wilkinson. But jealous of his rival, and wishing to achieve a
   victory in which the honor would not be divided, he resolved
   to take upon himself the responsibility of advancing alone.
   Several detachments of militia had augmented his force of
   4,000, and he deemed himself sufficiently strong to attack
   Prevost, who he was told had only about 2,000 ill assorted
   troops under him. He therefore gave orders to march, and
   cutting a road for 24 miles through the wilderness, after five
   days great toil, reached the British position. Ignorant of its
   weakness, he dispatched Colonel Purdy at night by a circuitous
   route to gain the enemy's flank and rear and assail his works,
   while he attacked them in front. Bewildered by the darkness,
   and led astray by his guide, Colonel Purdy wandered through
   the forest, entirely ignorant of the whereabouts of the enemy
   or of his own. General Hampton, however, supposing that he had
   succeeded in his attempt, ordered General Izard to advance
   with the main body of the army, and as soon as firing was
   heard in the rear to commence the attack in front. Izard
   marched up his men and a skirmish ensued, when Colonel De
   Salaberry, the British commander, who had but a handful of
   regulars under him, ordered the bugles, which had been placed
   at some distance apart on purpose to represent a large force,
   to sound the charge. The ruse succeeded admirably, and a halt
   was ordered. The bugles brought up the lost detachment of
   Purdy, but suddenly assailed by a concealed body of militia,
   his command was thrown into disorder and broke and fled.
   Disconcerted by the defeat of Purdy, Hampton ordered a
   retreat, without making any attempt to carry the British
   intrenchments. … Hampton, defeated by the blasts of a few
   bugles, took up his position again at the Four Corners, to
   wait further news from Wilkinson's division. The latter having
   concentrated his troops at Grenadier Island, embarked them
   again the same day that Hampton advanced, against orders,
   towards Montreal. Three hundred boats, covering the river for
   miles, carried the infantry and artillery, while the cavalry,
   500 strong, marched along the bank. … They were two weeks in
   reaching the river. Wilkinson, who had been recalled from New
   Orleans, to take charge of this expedition, was prostrated by
   the lake fever, which, added to the infirmities of age,
   rendered him wholly unfit for the position he occupied.
   General Lewis, his second in command, was also sick. The
   season was already far advanced—the autumnal storms had set
   in earlier than usual—everything conspired to ensure defeat;
   and around this wreck of a commander, tossed an army,
   dispirited, disgusted, and doomed to disgrace. General Brown
   led the advance of this army of invasion, as it started for
   Montreal, 180 miles distant. … When it reached the head of the
   long rapids at Hamilton, 20 miles below Ogdensburg, Wilkinson
   ordered General Brown to advance by land and cover the passage
   of the boats through the narrow defiles, where the enemy had
   established block houses. In the mean time the cavalry had
   crossed over to the Canadian side and, with 1,500 men under
   General Boyd, been despatched against the enemy, which was
   constantly harassing his rear. General Boyd, accompanied by
   Generals Swartwout and Covington as volunteers, moved forward
   in three columns. Colonel Ripley advancing with the 21st
   Regiment, drove the enemy's sharp shooters from the woods, and
   emerged on an open space, called Chrystler's Field, and
   directly in front of two English regiments. Notwithstanding
   the disparity of numbers this gallant officer ordered a
   charge, which was executed with such firmness that the two
   regiments retired. Rallying and making a stand, they were
   again charged and driven back. … At length the British retired
   to their camp and the Americans maintained their position on
   the shore, so that the flotilla passed the Saut in safety.
   This action [called the battle of Chrystler's Farm, or
   Williamsburg] has never received the praise it deserves—the
   disgraceful failure of the campaign having cast a shadow upon
   it. The British, though inferior in numbers, had greatly the
   advantage in having possession of a stone house in the midst
   of the field. …
{3348}
   Nearly one-fifth of the entire force engaged were killed or
   wounded. … The army, however, still held its course for
   Montreal. Young Scott, who had joined the expedition at
   Ogdensburg, was 15 miles ahead, clearing, with a detachment of
   less than 800 men, the river banks as he went. Montreal was
   known to be feebly garrisoned, and Wilkinson had no doubt it
   would fall an easy conquest. He therefore sent forward to
   Hampton to join him at St. Regis, with provisions. Hampton, in
   reply, said, that his men could bring no more provisions than
   they wanted for their own use, and informed him, in short,
   that he should not co-operate with him at all, but make the
   best of his way back to Lake Champlain. On receiving this
   astounding news, Wilkinson called a council of war, which
   reprobated in strong terms the conduct of Hampton, and decided
   that in consideration of his failure, and the lateness of the
   season, the march should be suspended, and the army retire to
   winter quarters. This was carried into effect, and Wilkinson
   repaired to French Mills, on Salmon river, for the winter, and
   Hampton to Plattsburg."

      _J. T. Headley,
      The Second War with England,
      volume 1, chapter. 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 8._

      _S. Perkins,
      History of the Late War,
      chapter 12._

      _J. Armstrong,
      Notices of the War of 1812,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (December).
   Retaliatory devastation of the Niagara frontier.
   Fort Niagara surprised.
   The burning of Buffalo.

   "The withdrawal of troops from the Niagara frontier to take
   part in Wilkinson's expedition left the defence of that line
   almost entirely to militia, and the term for which the militia
   had been called out expired on the 9th of December. The next
   day General George McClure, who had been left in command at
   Fort George, found himself at the head of but 60 effective
   men, while the British General Drummond had brought up to the
   peninsula 400 troops and 70 Indians—released by the failure of
   Wilkinson's expedition—and was preparing to attack him.
   McClure thereupon determined to evacuate the fort, as the only
   alternative from capture or destruction, and remove his men
   and stores across the river to Fort Niagara. He also
   determined to burn the village of Newark, that the enemy might
   find no shelter. The laudable part of this plan was but
   imperfectly carried out; he failed to destroy the barracks,
   and left unharmed tents for 1,500 men, several pieces of
   artillery, and a large quantity of ammunition, all of which
   fell into the hands of Drummond's men. But the inexcusable
   part—the burning of a village in midwinter, inhabited by
   noncombatants who had been guilty of no special offence—was
   only too faithfully executed. The inhabitants were given
   twelve hours in which to remove their goods, and then the
   torch was applied, and not a house was left standing. This
   needless cruelty produced its natural result; Drummond
   determined upon swift and ample retaliation. In the night of
   December 18th, just one week after the burning of Newark, he
   threw across the Niagara a force of 550 men. They landed at
   Five Mile Meadows, three miles above Fort Niagara, and marched
   upon it at once, arriving there at four o'clock in the
   morning. McClure, who had received an intimation of the
   enemy's intention to devastate the American frontier, had gone
   to Buffalo to raise a force to oppose him. The garrison of the
   fort consisted of about 450 men, a large number of whom were
   in the hospital. The command had been left to a Captain
   Leonard, who at this time was three miles away, sleeping at a
   farm-house. The most elaborate preparations had been made for
   the capture of the fort, including scaling-ladders for
   mounting the bastions. But the Americans seemed to have
   studied to make the task as easy as possible. The sentries
   were seized and silenced before they could give any alarm, and
   the main gate was found standing wide open, so that the
   British had only to walk straight in and begin at once the
   stabbing which had been determined upon. The guard in the
   south-east block-house tired one volley, by which the British
   commander, Colonel Murray, was wounded, and a portion of the
   invalids made what resistance they could. A British lieutenant
   and five men were killed, and a surgeon and three men wounded.
   Sixty-five Americans, two-thirds of whom were invalids, were
   bayoneted in their beds; 15 others, who had taken refuge in
   the cellars, were despatched in the same manner, and 14 were
   wounded; 20 escaped, and all the others, about 340, were made
   prisoners. … On the same morning, General Riall, with a
   detachment of British troops and 500 Indians, crossed from
   Queenstown." Lewiston, Youngstown, Tuscarora and Manchester
   (now Niagara Falls) were plundered and burned, and the houses
   and barns of farmers along the river, within a belt of several
   miles, were destroyed. "The bridge over Tonawanda Creek had
   been destroyed by the Americans, and at this point the enemy
   turned back, and soon recrossed the Niagara to the Canada
   side. The alarm at Buffalo brought General Hall, of the New
   York militia, to that village, where he arrived the day after
   Christmas. He found collected there a body of 1,700 men, whom
   it would have been gross flattery to call a 'force.' They were
   poorly supplied with arms and cartridges, and had no
   discipline and almost no organization. Another regiment of 300
   soon joined them, but without adding much to their efficiency.
   On the 28th of December, Drummond reconnoitred the American
   camp, and determined to attack it; for which purpose he sent
   over General Riall on the evening of the 29th with 1,450 men,
   largely regulars, and a body of Indians. One detachment landed
   two miles below Black Rock, crossed Canajokaties [or
   Scajaquada] Creek in the face of a slight resistance, and took
   possession of a battery. The remainder landed at a point
   between Buffalo and Black Rock [two villages then, now united
   in one city], under cover of a battery on the Canadian shore.
   Poor as Hall's troops were, they stood long enough to fire
   upon the invaders and inflict considerable loss. … Both sides
   had artillery, with which the action was opened. As it
   progressed, however, the American line was broken in the
   centre, and Hall was compelled to fall back. His subsequent
   attempts to rally his men were of no avail, and he himself
   seems to have lost heart, as Lieutenant Riddle, who had about
   80 regulars, offered to place them in front for the
   encouragement of the militia to new exertion, but Hall
   declined. … Both Buffalo and Black Rock were sacked and
   burned, and no mercy was shown. With but two or three
   exceptions, those of the inhabitants who were not able to run
   away were massacred. …
{3349}
   It is related that in Buffalo a widow named St. John 'had the
   address to appease the ferocity of the enemy so far as to
   remain in her house uninjured.' Her house and the stone jail
   were the only buildings not laid in ashes. In Black Rock every
   building was either burned or blown up, except one log house,
   in which a few women and children had taken refuge. … Five
   vessels lying at the wharves were also burned. In this
   expedition the British lost 108 men, killed, wounded or
   missing. More than 50 of the Americans were found dead on the
   field. Truly, an abundant revenge had been taken for the
   burning of Newark. … On New Year's day of 1814 the settlers
   along the whole length of the Niagara—those of them who
   survived—were shivering beside the smouldering embers of
   their homes."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-1815,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
      chapters 24-25._

      _W. Ketchum,
      History of Buffalo,
      volume 2, chapter 15._

      _O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 589-606._

      _W. Dorsheimer,
      Buffalo during the war of 1812
      (Buffalo Historical Society Publication, volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   British blockade of the Atlantic coast.

   "The blockade of the Atlantic coast was enforced by British
   vessels from the beginning of the year 1813. At first they
   were inclined to spare the coast of New England, which they
   supposed to be friendly to Great Britain, but this policy was
   soon abandoned, and the whole coast was treated alike. Groups
   of war-vessels were stationed before each of the principal
   sea-ports, and others were continually in motion along the
   coast, from Halifax on the north to the West Indies. Early in
   1813, they took possession of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay as a
   naval station, and the American Government ordered all the
   lights to be put out in the neighboring light-houses. The
   Atlantic coast was thus kept in a state of almost constant
   alarm, for the British vessels were continually landing men at
   exposed points to burn, plunder, and destroy. … In 1813, the
   defenceless towns of Lewes, Havre de Grace, and Hampton (near
   Fortress Monroe) were bombarded, and Stonington, Conn., in
   1814; and a number of smaller towns were burned or plundered.
   Attacks on New York and other larger cities were prevented
   only by fear of torpedoes, by means of which the Americans had
   nearly blown up one or two British ships which ventured too
   near New York. … Maine, as far as the Penobscot River, was
   seized by the British in 1814, and was held until the end of
   the war."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      sections 384-386._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (August-April).
   The Creek War.
   General Jackson's first campaign.

   The great Indian chief Tecumseh had been trying for years to
   unite all the red men against the whites. There would have
   been an Indian war if there had been no war with England, but
   the latter war seemed to be Tecumseh's opportunity. Among the
   southwestern Indians he found acceptance only with the Creeks,
   who were already on the verge of civil war, because some
   wanted to adopt civilized life, and others refused. The latter
   became the war party, under Weatherford [Red Eagle], a very
   able half-breed chief. The first outbreak in the Southwest,
   although there had been some earlier hostilities, was the
   massacre of the garrison and refugees at Fort Mims, at the
   junction of the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers, August 30, 1813.
   There were 553 persons in the fort, of whom only 5 or 6
   escaped. … The result of the massacre at Fort Mims was that
   Alabama was almost abandoned by whites. Terror and desire for
   revenge took possession of Georgia and Tennessee. September
   25th the Tennessee Legislature voted to raise men and money to
   aid the people of Mississippi territory against the Creeks."
   Andrew Jackson, one of the two major-generals of the Tennessee
   militia, was then confined to his bed by a wound received in a
   recent fight with Thomas H. Benton and Benton's brother. "As
   soon as he possibly could, Jackson took the field. Georgia had
   a force in the field under General Floyd. General Claiborne
   was acting at the head of troops from Louisiana and
   Mississippi. This Indian war had a local character and was
   outside the federal operations, although in the end it had a
   great effect upon them. … The Creek war was remarkable for
   three things: (1) the quarrels between the generals, and the
   want of concert of action; (2) lack of provisions; (3)
   insubordination in the ranks. … On three occasions Jackson had
   to use one part of his army to prevent another part from
   marching home, he and they differing on the construction of
   the terms of enlistment. He showed very strong qualities under
   these trying circumstances. … In the conduct of the movements
   against the enemy his energy was very remarkable. So long as
   there was an enemy unsubdued Jackson could not rest, and could
   not give heed to anything else. … At the end of March [1814]
   Jackson destroyed a body of the Creeks at Tohopeka, or
   Horse-Shoe Bend, in the northeast corner of the present
   Tallapoosa County, Alabama. With the least possible delay he
   pushed on to the last refuge of the Creeks, the Hickory
   Ground, at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa, and the
   Holy Ground a few miles distant. The medicine men, appealing
   to the superstition of the Indians, had taught them to believe
   that no white man could tread the latter ground and live. In
   April the remnant of the Creeks surrendered or fled to
   Florida, overcome as much by the impetuous and relentless
   character of the campaign against them as by actual blows.
   Fort Jackson was built on the Hickory Ground. The march down
   through Alabama was a great achievement, considering the
   circumstances of the country at the time. … The Creek campaign
   lasted only seven months. In itself considered, it was by no
   means an important Indian war, but in its connection with
   other military movements it was very important. Tecumseh had
   been killed at the battle of the Thames, in Canada, October 5,
   1813. His scheme of a race war died with him. The Creek
   campaign put an end to any danger of hostilities from the
   southwestern Indians, in alliance either with other Indians or
   with the English. … This campaign … was the beginning of
   Jackson's fame and popularity, and from it dates his career.
   He was 47 years old. On the 31st of May he was appointed a
   major-general in the army of the United States, and was given
   command of the department of the South. He established his
   headquarters at Mobile in August, 1814."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapter 2._

{3350}

      ALSO IN:
      _G. C. Eggleston,
      Red Eagle._

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 14 (volume 2)._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapters 33-34._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (July-September).
   On the Niagara Frontier.
   Chippewa.
   Lundy's Lane.
   Fort Erie.

   "After the desolation of the Niagara frontier in 1813, there
   appeared to be nothing for the parties to contend for in that
   quarter. No object could be obtained by a victory on either
   side, but the temporary occupation of a vacant territory; yet
   both parties seemed to have selected this as the principal
   theatre on which to display their military prowess in the year
   1814. Lieutenant General Drummond, governor of Upper Canada,
   concentrated the forces of that province at Fort George, and
   retained the possession of Niagara. The American Generals
   Smyth, Hampton, Dearborn, and Wilkinson, under whose auspices
   the campaigns of 1812 and 1813, on the Canada border, were
   conducted, had retired from that field; and General Brown was
   appointed major general, and, with the assistance of
   Brigadiers Scott and Ripley, designated to the command of the
   Niagara frontier. He left Sackett's Harbour in May, with a
   large portion of the American troops. … On his arrival at
   Buffalo, calculating upon the co-operation of the Ontario
   fleet, he determined on an attempt to expel the British from
   the Niagara peninsula. With this view he crossed the river on
   the 3d of July. … On the same day he invested Fort Erie, and
   summoned it to surrender, allowing the commandant two hours to
   answer the summons. At five in the afternoon the fort
   surrendered, and the prisoners, amounting to 137, were removed
   to Buffalo. On the morning of the fourth General Scott
   advanced with his brigade and corps of artillery, and took a
   position on the Chippewa plain, half a mile in front of the
   village, his right resting on the river, and his front
   protected by a ravine. The British were encamped in force at
   the village. In the evening General Brown joined him with the
   reserve under General Ripley, and the artillery commanded by
   Major Hindman. General Porter arrived the next morning, with
   the New York and Pennsylvania volunteers, and a number of
   Indians of the six nations. … At four in the afternoon,
   General Porter advanced, taking the woods in order to conceal
   his approach, and … met the whole British force approaching in
   order of battle. General Scott, with his brigade and Towser's
   artillery, met them on the plain, in front of the American
   encampment, and was directly engaged in close action with the
   main body. General Porter's command gave way. … The reserve
   were now ordered up, and General Ripley passed to the woods in
   left of the line to gain the rear of the enemy; but before
   this was effected, General Scott had compelled the British to
   retire. Their whole line now fell back, and were eagerly
   pursued. … The British left 200 dead on the ground. … The
   American loss was 60 killed, and 268 wounded and missing.
   After the battle of Chippewa, the British retired to Fort
   George; and General Brown took post at Queenston, where he
   remained some time, expecting reinforcements. … On the 20th,
   General Brown advanced with his army towards Fort George,
   drove in the outposts, and encamped near the fort, in the
   expectation that the British would come out and give him
   battle. On the 22d, he returned to his former position at
   Queenston; here he received a letter from General Gaines,
   informing him that the heavy guns, and the rifle regiment,
   which he had ordered from Sackett's harbour, together with the
   whole fleet, were blockaded in that port, and no assistance
   was to be expected from them. On the 24th, he fell back to
   Chippewa, and on the 25th received intelligence that the
   enemy, having received large reinforcements from Kingston,
   were advancing upon him. The first brigade under General
   Scott, Towser's artillery, all the dragoons and mounted men,
   were immediately put in motion on the Queenston road. On his
   arrival at the Niagara cataract, General Scott learned that
   the British were in force directly in his front, separated
   only by a narrow piece of wood. Having despatched this
   intelligence to General Brown, he advanced upon the enemy, and
   the action commenced at six o'clock in the afternoon. … The
   British artillery had taken post on a commanding eminence, at
   the head of Lundy's lane, supported by a line of infantry,
   out of the reach of the American batteries. This was the key
   of the whole position; from hence they poured a most deadly
   fire on the American ranks. It became necessary either to
   leave the ground, or to carry this post and seize the height.
   The latter desperate task was assigned to Colonel Miller. On
   receiving the order from General Brown, he calmly surveyed the
   position, and answered 'I will try, sir,' which expression was
   afterwards the motto of his regiment. … Colonel Miller
   advanced coolly and steadily to his object, amid a tremendous
   fire, and at the point of the bayonet, carried the artillery
   and the height. The guns were immediately turned upon the
   enemy; General Ripley now brought up the 23d regiment, to the
   support of Colonel Miller; the first regiment was rallied and
   brought into line, and the British were driven from the hill.
   … The British rallied under the hill, and made a desperate
   attempt to regain their artillery, and drive the Americans
   from their position, but without success; a second and third
   attempt was made with the like result. General Scott was
   engaged in repelling these attacks, and though with his
   shoulder fractured, and a severe wound in the side, continued
   at the head of his column, endeavouring to turn the enemy's
   right flank. The volunteers under General Porter, during the
   last charge of the British, precipitated themselves upon their
   lines, broke them, and took a large number of prisoners.
   General Brown … received a severe wound on the thigh, and in
   the side, and … consigned the command to General Ripley. At
   twelve o'clock, both parties retired from the field to their
   respective encampments, fatigued and satiated with slaughter.
   … The battle [called Lundy's Lane, or Bridgewater, or Niagara]
   was fought to the west of, and within half a mile of the
   Niagara cataract. … Considering the numbers engaged, few
   contests have ever been more sanguinary. … General Brown
   states his loss to be, killed, 171; wounded, 572; missing,
   117; [total] 860. General Drummond acknowledges a loss of,
   killed, 84; wounded, 559; missing and prisoners, 235; [total]
   878. … General Ripley, on the 26th, fell back to Fort Erie.
   General Brown retired to Buffalo, and General Scott to
   Batavia, to recover from their wounds."

      _S. Perkins,
      History of the Late War,
      chapter 17._

{3351}

   "Fort Erie was a small work with two demi-bastions; one upon
   the north and the other upon the south front. It was built of
   stone, but was not of sufficient strength to resist ordnance
   heavier than the field artillery of that day. Ripley at once
   commenced to strengthen the position. Fortunately, General
   Drummond delayed his advance for two days, giving the
   Americans an opportunity of which they industriously availed
   themselves. … Fort Erie was changed into an entrenched camp,
   with its rear open toward the river. General Drummond appeared
   before the fort, on the 3d of August, with a force of 5,350
   men. He established his camp two miles distant, back of
   Waterloo, and commenced a double line of entrenchments within
   400 yards of the main work. The same morning he threw a force
   of about 1,000 men across the river, and landed them below
   Squaw Island, with the intention of seizing Buffalo,
   destroying the stores gathered there, and interrupting the
   communications of the American army. This soldierly plan was
   happily frustrated by Major Morgan with a battalion of the
   First Rifles, 250 strong. … During the following fortnight
   several skirmishes occurred in front of Fort Erie, in one of
   which the gallant Colonel Morgan was killed. General Drummond,
   having been still further reinforced, determined not to wait
   for the slow results of a siege, but to carry the place by
   assault. At two o'clock in the morning of the 3d of August,
   the British army moved to the attack in three columns. One was
   ordered to carry the Douglass battery, upon the extreme right
   of our position; another column was to engage the fort itself;
   but the main attack was directed against the Towson battery
   upon Snake Hill. Brigadier-General Gaines, who had lately
   arrived, was now in command of the American forces. … The
   evening before, a shell had exploded a small magazine in Fort
   Erie, and General Gaines was apprehensive that the enemy would
   take advantage of this disaster and attack him,—one-third of
   the troops were therefore kept at their post through the
   night, which was dark and rainy. His precautions were well
   taken. At half-past two the tramp of a heavy column was heard
   approaching Towson's redoubt. Instantly a sheet of fire
   flashed from our lines, lighting up the night, and revealing
   the enemy 1,500 strong. They had been ordered to attack with
   the bayonet; and, to insure obedience, the flints had been
   removed from their muskets. With complete courage they
   approached to within reach of the light abattis, between Snake
   Hill and the lake. But after a desperate struggle they fell
   back. Again they advanced, and this time succeeded in planting
   scaling ladders in the ditch in front of the redoubt. But
   their ladders were too short, and the assailants were driven
   off with severe loss. Meanwhile a detachment endeavored to
   turn our position by wading out into the river, and passing
   round our left. Ripley met them promptly. Numbers were killed
   or wounded, and were carried off by the current, and the
   remainder of the detachment were captured: Five times the
   obstinate English returned to the assault, but each time
   without success. … The other British columns waited until the
   engagement on the left was at its height. On our right the
   enemy advanced to within 50 yards of the Douglass battery, but
   were then driven back. At the fort the contest was more
   severe. The assailants, led by Colonel Drummond, an officer of
   singular determination, advanced through a ravine north of the
   fort, and attacking simultaneously all the salient points,
   they swarmed over the parapet into the north bastion. … The
   garrison of the fort rallied, and after a severe contest
   succeeded in regaining possession of the bastion. A second and
   third time Drummond returned to the assault with no better
   success. But with invincible tenacity he clung to his purpose.
   Moving his troops, under cover of the night and the dense
   cloud of battle which hung along the ramparts, silently round
   the ditch, he suddenly repeated the charge. The English ran up
   their ladders so quickly that they gained the top of the
   glacis before the defenders could rally to resist them. … The
   garrison of the fort made repeated unsuccessful efforts to
   retake the bastion; but at day-break it was still in the
   enemy's possession. Powerful detachments were then brought up
   from the left and center, and a combined attempt was made from
   several different directions to drive the British from their
   position; but, after a desperate struggle, this likewise
   failed. The guns of the Douglass battery, and those under
   Captain Fanning, were turned upon the bastion, and Captain
   Biddle was placing a piece of artillery to enfilade it, while
   several hundred of the American reserve stood ready to rush
   upon it. At this moment a loud explosion shook the earth, and
   the whole bastion leaped into the air, carrying with it both
   its assailants and defenders. The cause of this explosion has
   never been accurately ascertained. It is generally supposed to
   have been accidental. … The shattered columns of the foe now
   retired to their encampment. The British report stated their
   loss at 905 killed, wounded and missing; of whom 222 were
   killed, including 14 officers; 174 wounded; and 186 prisoners
   remained in our hands. Our loss, including 11 prisoners, was
   84 men. In the bombardment of the day before we had 45 killed
   and wounded; swelling our total loss to 129. A few days after
   this, Drummond was reinforced by two regiments, and reopened
   fire along his own line. The bombardment continued through the
   remainder of the month of August. On the 28th, General Gaines
   was wounded by a shell, which fell into his quarters, and
   General Ripley again assumed the command, but was soon
   superseded by General Brown, who had recovered from the wound
   received at Lundy's Lane. General Porter, by dint of
   superhuman efforts, gathered a considerable body of militia at
   Buffalo, to reinforce the fort. … Notwithstanding the victory
   I have just described, and the reinforcements brought by
   Porter, the American army at Fort Erie was in a very dangerous
   situation. Their foe was daily increasing in number, and three
   new batteries were thrown up, whose fire was rapidly making
   the position untenable. … Under the pressure of this great
   necessity, General Porter planned a sortie, which was
   submitted to General Brown; who approved it, and ordered it to
   be carried out. … By this enterprise, altogether the most
   brilliant military event which occurred on this frontier
   during the war, all of the enemy's guns in position were made
   useless, and their entrenchments destroyed. We took 385
   prisoners, including 11 commissioned officers, and killed or
   wounded 600 men. Our own loss was 510. … Four days after this,
   General Drummond raised the siege, and fell back to Fort
   George."

      _W. Dorsheimer,
      Buffalo during the War of 1812
      (Buffalo Historical Society Publications, volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Cruikshank,
      The Battle of Lundy's Lane
      (Lundy's Lane Historical Society)._

      _General W. Scott,
      Memoirs by himself,
      chapters 9-11 (volume 1)._

      _C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
      chapter 26._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapters 35-36._

      _The Attack on Fort Erie
      (Portfolio, February, 1816)._

{3352}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (August-September).
   Capture and destruction of the national Capital.
   Attempt against Baltimore.

   Early in the "summer of 1814, rumors spread through the
   capital of a great British armament preparing at Bermuda, some
   said for an attack on New York, others on Baltimore and
   Annapolis, while others asserted quite as vehemently that the
   national capital was the chosen object of British vengeance.
   How easy it would be, they argued, for Admiral Sir George
   Cockburn, who had been a year with his fleet in Chesapeake
   Bay, when reinforced by the Bermuda armament to disembark a
   strong column at any point on the western shore of the
   Chesapeake—but forty miles distant—and by a forced march
   capture the city. But by some strange fatuity, the President
   and his cabinet treated these possibilities as unworthy of
   credence. 'The British come here!' a Cabinet officer is
   reported to have said, in answer to the representations of
   citizens. "What should they come here for?' Sure enough: a
   provincial village of 6,000 inhabitants. But then there were
   the state papers and public buildings, the moral effect of
   capturing an enemy's capital, and the satisfaction of
   chastising the city where a British minister had been obliged
   to ask for his recall on the ground of ill-treatment. …
   Colonel James Monroe, a gallant soldier of the Revolution, was
   now Secretary of State; another Revolutionary soldier, General
   Armstrong, was Secretary of War, and acting on their advice,
   President Madison did substantially nothing for the defence of
   his capital. Fort Washington, commanding the Potomac, which
   Major L'Enfant had planned early in the war, was hurried
   forward to completion; but no defences on the landward side
   were erected, and no army was called out to defend it. What
   was done was this: The District of Columbia, Maryland, and
   that part of Virginia north of the Rappahannock, were created
   a tenth military district under command of General W. H.
   Winder, a brave officer, who had seen service in the
   Northwest, and who had recently returned from long detention
   in Canada as prisoner of war. General Winder on taking command
   (June 26, 1814) found for the defence of Washington
   detachments of the 36th and 38th regulars, amounting to a few
   hundred men, but nothing more—no forts, no guns, no army. A
   force of 13 regiments of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
   militia had been drafted, but were not to be called into
   active service until the enemy should appear—an arrangement
   against which General Winder protested in vain. … While these
   weak and ineffectual preparations are being made, the enemy
   has been marshalling his forces. Early in August Rear-Admiral
   Cockburn's blockading squadron had been joined in the Potomac
   by the fleet of Vice-Admiral Cochrane, who as ranking officer
   at once took command." A few days later the expected Bermuda
   expedition arrived bringing 4,000 troops—veterans from
   Wellington's army—under General Ross. A little flotilla of
   gunboats on the Chesapeake, commanded by Commodore Barney, was
   driven into Patuxent River and there abandoned and burned.
   Then the enemy landed in force at Benedict and marched on
   Washington, while the Secretary or War still insisted that
   Baltimore must be, in the nature of things, the place they
   would strike, At Bladensburg they were met (August 24th) by
   General Winder with some 5,000 hastily collected militia and
   volunteers and less than 1,000 regular troops, sailors, and
   marines—poor materials for an army with which to face 4,000
   hardened veterans of the Peninsular War. The battle ended in
   the utter routing of the American forces and the abandonment
   of Washington to the British invaders.

      _C. B. Todd,
      The Story of Washington,
      chapter 8._

   "This battle, by which the fate of the American capital was
   decided, began about one o'clock in the afternoon, and lasted
   till four. The loss on the part of the English was severe,
   since, out of two-thirds of the army, which were engaged,
   upwards of 500 men were killed and wounded; and what rendered
   it doubly severe was, that among these were numbered several
   officers of rank and distinction. … On the side of the
   Americans the slaughter was not so great. Being in possession
   of a strong position, they were of course less exposed in
   defending than the others in storming it; and had they
   conducted themselves with coolness and resolution, it is not
   conceivable how the battle could have been won. But the fact
   is that, with the exception of a party of sailors from the gun
   boats, under the command of Commodore Barney, no troops could
   behave worse than they did."

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Campaign of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
      chapter 9._

   When Winder's troops abandoned Washington "fire was put at the
   navy yard to a new frigate on the stocks, to a new
   sloop-of-war lately launched, and to several magazines of
   stores and provisions, for the destruction of which ample
   preparations had been made. By the light of this fire, made
   lurid by a sudden thunder-gust, Ross, toward evening, advanced
   into Washington, at that time a straggling village of some
   8,000 people, but, for the moment, almost deserted by the male
   part of the white inhabitants. From Gallatin's late residence,
   one of the first considerable houses which the column reached,
   a shot was fired which killed Ross's horse, and which was
   instantly revenged by putting fire to the house. After three
   or four volleys at the Capitol, the two detached wings were
   set on fire. The massive walls defied the flames, but all the
   interior was destroyed, with many valuable papers, and the
   library of Congress—a piece of Vandalism alleged to be in
   revenge for the burning of the Parliament House at York.
   [Chaplain Gleig, who was with the British forces under Ross,
   states in the narrative quoted from above that the party fired
   upon from Gallatin's house bore a flag of truce, and that
   Ross's destructive proceedings in Washington were consequent
   on that fact.] … The president's house, and the offices of the
   Treasury and State Departments near by, were set on fire. …
   The next morning the War Office was burned. …
{3353}
   Several private houses were burned, and some private
   warehouses broken open and plundered; but, in general, private
   property was respected." On the night of the 20th the British
   withdrew, returning as they came; but on the 29th their
   frigates, ascending the Potomac, arrived at Alexandria and
   plundered that city heavily. "Within less than a fortnight
   after the re-embarkation of Ross's army, the British fleet,
   spreading vast alarm as it ascended the Chesapeake, appeared
   off the Patapsco [September 12]. … A landing was effected the
   next day at North Point, on the northern shore of that
   estuary, some eight miles up which was Fort M'Henry, an open
   work only two miles from Baltimore, commanding the entrance
   into the harbor, which found, however, its most effectual
   protection in the shallowness of the water. The defense of the
   city rested with some 10,000 militia. … A corps 3,000 strong
   had been thrown forward toward North Point. As Ross and
   Cockburn, at the head of a reconnoitering party, approached
   the outposts of this advanced division, a skirmish ensued, in
   which Ross was killed. … The fleet, meanwhile, opened a
   tremendous cannonade on Fort M'Henry; but … at such a distance
   as to render their fire ineffectual. It was under the
   excitement of this cannonade that the popular song of the
   'Star Spangled Banner' was composed, the author [Francis Scott
   Key] being then on board the British fleet, whither he had
   gone to solicit the release of certain prisoners, and where he
   was detained pending the attack. An attempt to land in boats
   also failed; and that same night, the bombardment being still
   kept up, the British army, covered by rain and darkness,
   retired silently to their ships and re-embarked."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 6, pages 510-520._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Williams,
      Invasion and Capture of Washington._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (September).
   Prevost's invasion of New York.
   Macdonough's naval victory on Lake Champlain.

   Lake Champlain, "which had hitherto played but an
   inconspicuous part, was now to become the scene of the
   greatest naval battle of the war. A British army of 11,000 men
   under Sir George Prevost undertook the invasion of New York by
   advancing up the western bank of Lake Champlain. This advance
   was impracticable unless there was a sufficiently strong
   British naval force to drive back the American squadron at the
   same time. Accordingly, the British began to construct a
   frigate, the Confiance, to be added to their already existing
   force, which consisted of a brig, two sloops, and 12 or 14
   gun-boats. The Americans already possessed a heavy corvette, a
   schooner, a small sloop, and 10 gun-boats or row-galleys; they
   now began to build a large brig, the Eagle, which was launched
   about the 16th of August. Nine days later, on the 25th, the
   Confiance was launched. The two squadrons were equally
   deficient in stores, etc.; the Confiance having locks to her
   guns, some of which could not be used, while the American
   schooner Ticonderoga had to fire her guns by means of pistols
   flashed at the touchholes (like Barclay on Lake Erie).
   Macdonough and Downie were hurried into action before they had
   time to prepare themselves thoroughly; but it was a
   disadvantage common to both, and arose from the nature of the
   case, which called for immediate action. The British army
   advanced slowly toward Plattsburg, which was held by General
   Macomb with less than 2,000 effective American troops. Captain
   Thomas Macdonough, the American commodore, took the lake a day
   or two before his antagonist, and came to anchor in Plattsburg
   harbor. The British fleet, under Captain George Downie, moved
   from Isle-aux-Noix on September 8th, and on the morning of the
   11th sailed into Plattsburg harbor." The American force
   consisted of the ship Saratoga, Captain Macdonough, the brig
   Eagle, the schooner Ticonderoga, the sloop Preble, and ten
   row-galleys, or gunboats mounting one or two guns each—"in
   all, 14 vessels of 2,244 tons and 882 men, with 86 guns
   throwing at a broadside 1,194 lbs. of shot, 480 from long, and
   714 from short guns. The force of the British squadron in guns
   and ships is known accurately, as most of it was captured." It
   consisted of the frigate Confiance, the brig Linnet, the
   sloops Chubb and Finch, and twelve gunboats—"in all, 16
   vessels, of about 2,402 tons, with 937 men, and a total of 92
   guns, throwing at a broadside 1,192 lbs., 660 from long and
   532 from short pieces. … Young Macdonough (then but 28 years
   of age) calculated all … chances very coolly and decided to
   await the attack at anchor in Plattsburg Bay, with the head of
   his line so far to the north that it could hardly be turned. …
   The morning of September 11th opened with a light breeze from
   the northeast. Downie's fleet weighed anchor at daylight, and
   came down the lake with the wind nearly aft, the booms of the
   two sloops swinging out to starboard. At half-past seven, the
   people in the ships could see their adversaries' upper sails
   across the narrow strip of land ending in Cumberland Head,
   before the British doubled the latter. … As the English
   squadron stood bravely in, young Macdonough, who feared his
   foes not at all, but his God a great deal, knelt for a moment,
   with his officers, on the quarter-deck; and then ensued a few
   minutes of perfect quiet." The fierce battle which followed
   lasted about two hours and a half, with terribly destructive
   effects on both sides. The British commander, Downie, was
   killed early in the action. "On both sides the ships had been
   cut up in the most extraordinary manner; the Saratoga had 55
   shot-holes in her hull, and the Confiance 105 in hers, and the
   Eagle and Linnet had suffered in proportion. The number of
   killed and wounded can not be exactly stated; it was probably
   about 200 on the American side, and over 300 on the British. …
   The effects of the victory were immediate and of the highest
   importance. Sir George Prevost and his army [which had arrived
   before Plattsburg on the 6th, and which, simultaneously with
   the naval advance, had made an unsuccessful attack on the
   American defensive works, at the mouth of the Saranac, held by
   General Alexander Macomb] at once fled in great haste and
   confusion back to Canada, leaving our northern frontier clear
   for the remainder of the war; while the victory had a very
   great effect on the negotiations for peace. In this battle the
   crews on both sides behaved with equal bravery, and left
   nothing to be desired in this respect; but from their rawness
   they of course showed far less skill than the crews of most of
   the American and some of the British ocean cruisers. …
   Macdonough in this battle won a higher fame than any other
   commander of the war, British or American.
{3354}
   He had a decidedly superior force to contend against, the
   officers and men of the two sides being about on a par in
   every respect; and it was solely owing to his foresight and
   resource that we won the victory. He forced the British to
   engage at a disadvantage by his excellent choice of position,
   and he prepared beforehand for every possible contingency. …
   Down to the time of the Civil War he is the greatest figure in
   our naval history."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-1815,
      chapter 15._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
   The Hartford Convention.

   "The commercial distress in New England, the possession by the
   enemy of a large part of the District of Maine, the fear of
   their advance along the coast, and the apparent neglect of the
   Federal Government to provide any adequate means of
   resistance, had led the Legislature of Massachusetts, in
   October, to invite the other New England States to send
   delegates to Hartford, Connecticut, 'to confer upon the
   subject of their public grievances.' Delegates [26 in number]
   from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, and from
   parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, met at Hartford in
   December and remained in session for three weeks. In their
   report to their State Legislatures they reviewed the state of
   the country, the origin and management of the war, and the
   strong measures lately proposed in Congress, and recommended
   several Amendments to the Constitution, chiefly with intent to
   restrict the powers of Congress over commerce, and to prevent
   naturalized citizens from holding office. In default of the
   adoption of these Amendments, another convention was advised,
   'in order to decide on the course which a crisis so momentous
   might seem to demand.' This was the famous Hartford
   Convention. The peace which closely followed its adjournment
   removed all necessity or even desire for another session of
   it. Its objects seem to have been legitimate. But the
   unfortunate secrecy of its proceedings, and its somewhat
   ambiguous language, roused a popular suspicion, sufficient for
   the political ruin of its members, that a dissolution of the
   Union had been proposed, perhaps resolved upon, in its
   meetings. Some years afterward those concerned in it were
   compelled in self-defense to publish its journal, in order to
   show that no treasonable design was officially proposed. It
   was then, however, too late, for the popular opinion had
   become fixed. Neither the Federal party which originated, nor
   the Federalist politicians who composed, the assembly, were
   ever freed from the stigma left by the mysterious Hartford
   Convention."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d ed.,
      chapter 8._

   The language of the report of the Hartford Convention "was so
   skillfully selected that it cannot be said with certainty
   whether the convention deduced from the nature of the Union a
   positive right in the individual states to withdraw from the
   Union, or whether it claimed only a moral justification for
   revolution. It was prudent enough in the declaration of its
   position on the constitutional question not to venture beyond
   vague, double-meaning expressions, except so far as it could
   appeal to its opponents. But it went just far enough to repeat
   almost verbatim the declaration of faith laid down in the
   Kentucky resolutions of 1798. If the members of the
   convention, and those in sympathy with them, were 'Maratists,'
   they could claim that they had become so in the school of
   Madison and Jefferson."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 268._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Dwight,
      History of the Hartford Convention._

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapters 11-13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
   The Treaty of Peace concluded at Ghent.

   "In September, 1812, Count Romanzoff suggested to Mr. [John
   Quincy] Adams the readiness of the Emperor [of Russia] to act
   as mediator in bringing about peace between the United States
   and England. The suggestion was promptly acted upon, but with
   no directly fortunate results. The American government acceded
   at once to the proposition, and, at the risk of an impolitic
   display of readiness, dispatched Messrs. Gallatin and Bayard
   to act as Commissioners jointly with Mr. Adams in the
   negotiations. These gentlemen, however, arrived in St.
   Petersburg only to find themselves in a very awkward
   position," since the offered mediation of the Czar was
   declined by England. The latter power preferred to negotiate
   directly with the United States, and presently made proposals
   to that effect, intimating her readiness "to send
   Commissioners to Gottingen, for which place Ghent was
   afterwards substituted, to meet American Commissioners and
   settle terms of pacification. The United States renewed the
   powers of Messrs. Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin, … and added
   Jonathan Russell, then Minister to Sweden, and Henry Clay.
   England deputed Lord Gambier, an Admiral, Dr. Adams, a
   publicist, and Mr. Goulbourn, a member of Parliament and Under
   Secretary of State. These eight gentlemen accordingly met in
   Ghent on August 7, 1814. It was upwards of four months before
   an agreement was reached. … The eight were certainly an odd
   assemblage of peacemakers. The ill-blood and wranglings
   between the opposing Commissions were bad enough, yet hardly
   equalled the intestine dissensions between the American
   Commissioners themselves. … The British first presented their
   demands, as follows: 1. That the United States should conclude
   a peace with the Indian allies of Great Britain, and that a
   species of neutral belt of Indian territory should be
   established between the dominions of the United States and
   Great Britain, so that these dominions should be nowhere
   conterminous, upon which belt or barrier neither power should
   be permitted to encroach even by purchase, and the boundaries
   of which should be settled in this treaty. 2. That the United
   States should keep no naval force upon the Great Lakes, and
   should neither maintain their existing forts nor build new
   ones upon their northern frontier; it was even required that
   the boundary line should run along the southern shore of the
   lakes; while no corresponding restriction was imposed upon
   Great Britain, because she was stated to have no projects of
   conquest as against her neighbor. 3. That a piece of the
   province of Maine should be ceded, in order to give the
   English a road from Halifax to Quebec. 4. That the
   stipulations of the treaty of 1783, conferring on English
   subjects the right of navigating the Mississippi, should be
   now formally renewed. The Americans were astounded; it seemed
   to them hardly worth while to have come so far to listen to
   such propositions."
{3355}
   But, after long and apparently hopeless wrangling, events in
   Europe rather than in America brought about a change of
   disposition on the part of the British government;
   instructions to the commissioners were modified on both sides,
   and, quite to their own surprise, they arrived at agreements
   which were formulated in a Treaty and signed, December 24,
   1814. "Of the many subjects mooted between the negotiators
   scarcely any had survived the fierce contests which had been
   waged concerning them. The whole matter of the navigation of
   the Mississippi, access to that river, and a road through
   American territory, had been dropped by the British; while the
   Americans had been well content to say nothing of the
   Northeastern fisheries, which they regarded as still their
   own.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

   The disarmament on the lakes and along the Canadian border,
   and the neutralization of a strip of Indian territory, were
   yielded by the English. The Americans were content to have
   nothing said about impressment; nor was anyone of the many
   illegal rights exercised by England formally abandoned. The
   Americans satisfied themselves with the reflection that
   circumstances had rendered these points now only matters of
   abstract principle, since the pacification of Europe had
   removed all opportunities and temptations for England to
   persist in her previous objectionable courses. For the future
   it was hardly to be feared that she would again undertake to
   pursue a policy against which it was evident that the United
   States were willing to conduct a serious war. There was,
   however, no provision for indemnification. Upon a fair
   consideration, it must be admitted that, though the treaty was
   silent upon all the points which the United States had made
   war for the purpose of enforcing, yet the country had every
   reason to be gratified with the result of the negotiation."

      _J. T. Morse,
      John Quincy Adams,
      pages 75-96._

   "Instead of wearing themselves out over impracticable, perhaps
   impossible, questions, the commissioners turned their
   attention to the northern boundary between the two countries,
   and it was by them forever settled, and in such manner as to
   give the United States the foundation for its future
   greatness. … The victory of the American diplomats at Ghent
   was two-fold: first, they secured the benefits desired without
   enumerating them—even to a greater extent than if the benefits
   had been enumerated; and second, if they had insisted upon an
   enumeration of the benefits obtained, it is apparent they
   would have periled the entire treaty and lost all."

      _T. Wilson,
      The Treaty of Ghent
      (Magazine of American History, November, 1888)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 6 (volume l)._

      _J. Q. Adams,
      Memoirs (Diary)
      chapter 9 (volumes 2-3)._

   Following is the text of the treaty:

   Article I.
   There shall be a firm and universal peace between His
   Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their
   respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people,
   of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All
   hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this
   treaty shall have been ratified by both parties, as
   hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions
   whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the
   war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty,
   excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be
   restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or
   carrying away any of the artillery or other public property
   originally captured in the said forts or places, and which
   shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of
   this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all
   archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public
   nature or belonging to private persons, which, in the course
   of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the officers of
   either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable,
   forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and
   persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands
   in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties,
   shall remain in the possession of the party in whose
   occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the
   ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting
   the title to the said islands shall have been made in
   conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No
   disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the
   islands and territories claimed by both parties shall, in any
   manner whatever, be construed to affect the right of either.

   Article II.
   Immediately after the ratification of this treaty by both
   parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the
   armies, squadrons, officers, subjects and citizens of the two
   Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all
   causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes
   which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this
   treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that all vessels and effects
   which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the
   said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North
   America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to
   the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in
   the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west
   longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on
   each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other
   parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or
   equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels,
   for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies;
   forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all
   parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean
   south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of
   Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south
   of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other
   parts of the world, without exception.

   Article III.
   All prisoners of war taken on either side, as well by land as
   by sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the
   ratifications of this treaty, as hereinafter mentioned, on
   their paying the debts which they may have contracted during
   their captivity. The two contracting parties respectively
   engage to discharge, in specie, the advances which may have
   been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of
   such prisoners.

{3356}

   Article IV.
   Whereas it was stipulated by the second article in the treaty
   of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three,
   between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of
   America, that the boundary of the United States should
   comprehend all islands within twenty leagues of any part of
   the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be
   drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries,
   between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the
   other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the
   Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are, or
   heretofore have been, within the limits of Nova Scotia; and
   whereas the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which
   is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan, in
   the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as
   being comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which
   said islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic
   Majesty, as having been, at the time of and previous to the
   aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred and
   eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova
   Scotia: In order, therefore, finally to decide upon these
   claims, it is agreed that they shall be referred to two
   Commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz:
   One Commissioner shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty,
   and one by the President of the United States, by and with the
   advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the said two
   Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to
   examine and decide upon the said claims according to such
   evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of His
   Britannic Majesty and of the United States respectively. The
   said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province
   of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such
   other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
   Commissioners shall, by a declaration or report under their
   hands and seals, decide to which of the two contracting
   parties the several islands aforesaid do respectively belong,
   in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace
   of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. And if the
   said Commissioners shall agree in their decision, both parties
   shall consider such decision as final and conclusive. It is
   further agreed that, in event of the two Commissioners
   differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them,
   or in the event of both or either of the said Commissioners
   refusing, or declining, or wilfully omitting to act as such,
   they shall make, jointly or separately, a report or reports,
   as well to the Government of His Britannic Majesty as to that
   of the United States, stating in detail the points on which
   they differ, and the grounds upon which their respective
   opinions have been formed, or the grounds upon which they, or
   either of them, have so refused, declined, or omitted to act.
   And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United
   States hereby agree to refer the report or reports of the said
   Commissioners to some friendly sovereign or State, to be then
   named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to decide
   on the differences which may be stated in the said report or
   reports, or upon the report of one Commissioner, together with
   the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have
   refused, declined or omitted to act, as the case may be. And
   if the Commissioner so refusing, declining or omitting to act,
   shall also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he
   has so done, in such manner that the said statement may be
   referred to such friendly sovereign or State, together with
   the report of such other Commissioner, then such sovereign or
   State shall decide ex parte upon the said report alone. And
   His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States
   engage to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or
   State to be final and conclusive on all the matters so
   referred.

   Article V.
   Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north
   from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the
   former treaty of peace between the two Powers as the northwest
   angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of
   Connecticut River, has yet been ascertained; and whereas that
   part of the boundary line between the dominions of the two
   Powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix
   directly north to the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova
   Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those
   rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from
   those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the northwestern
   most head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle
   of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude;
   thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes
   the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed: it
   is agreed that for these several purposes two Commissioners
   shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in
   the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the
   next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in the
   present article. The said Commissioners shall meet at St.
   Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have
   power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall
   think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to
   ascertain and determine the points above mentioned, in
   conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of
   one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, and shall cause
   the boundary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix
   to the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, to be surveyed and marked
   according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall
   make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration
   under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true map
   of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and
   longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the
   northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other
   points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both
   parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally
   and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of
   the said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of
   them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

{3357}

   Article VI.
   Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the
   boundary of the United States from the point where the
   forty-fifth degree of north latitude strikes the river
   Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior, was declared to be
   "along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the
   middle of said lake, until it strikes the communication by
   water between that lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle
   of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said
   lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake
   Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Superior;" and
   whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said
   river, lakes, and water communications, and whether certain
   islands lying in the same were within the dominions of His
   Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order,
   therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall be
   referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, and
   authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect
   to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
   otherwise specified in this present article. The said
   Commissioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in
   the State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such
   other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
   Commissioners shall, by a report or declaration, under their
   hands and seals, designate the boundary through the said
   river, lakes and water communications, and decide to which of
   the two contracting parties the several islands lying within
   the said rivers, lakes, and water communications, do
   respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the
   said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
   And both parties agree to consider such designation and
   decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said
   two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
   refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

   Article VII.
   It is further agreed that the said two last-mentioned
   Commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties
   assigned to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they
   are hereby, authorized upon their oaths impartially to fix and
   determine, according to the true intent of the said treaty of
   peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, that
   part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers
   which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron
   and Lake Superior, to the most northwestern point of the Lake
   of the Woods, to decide to which of the two parties the
   several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and
   rivers, forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in
   conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of
   one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; and to cause such
   parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and
   marked. The said Commissioners shall, by a report or
   declaration under their hands and seals, designate the
   boundary aforesaid, state their decision on the points thus
   referred to them, and particularize the latitude and longitude
   of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, and
   of such other parts of the said boundary as they may deem
   proper. And both parties agree to consider such designation
   and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the
   said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
   refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

   Article VIII.
   The several boards of two Commissioners mentioned in the four
   preceding articles shall respectively have power to appoint a
   Secretary, and to employ such surveyors or other persons as
   they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all their respective
   reports, declarations, statements and decisions and of their
   accounts, and of the journal of their proceedings, shall be
   delivered by them to the agents of His Britannic Majesty and
   to the agents of the United States, who may be respectively
   appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of
   their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be
   respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between
   the two contracting parties, such agreement being to be
   settled at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of
   this treaty. And all other expenses attending the said
   Commissions shall be defrayed equally by the two parties. And
   in the case of death, sickness, resignation or necessary
   absence, the place of every such Commissioner, respectively,
   shall be supplied in the same manner as such Commissioner was
   first appointed, and the new Commissioner shall take the same
   oath or affirmation, and do the same duties. It is further
   agreed between the two contracting parties, that in case any
   of the islands mentioned in any of the preceding articles,
   which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to
   the commencement of the present war between the two countries,
   should, by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners
   aforesaid, or of the sovereign or State so referred to, as in
   the four next preceding articles contained, fall within the
   dominions of the other party, all grants of land made previous
   to the commencement of the war, by the party having had such
   possession, shall be as valid as if such island or islands
   had, by such decision or decisions, been adjudged to be within
   the dominions of the party having had such possession.

   Article IX.
   The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately
   after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities
   with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may
   be at war at the time of such ratification; and forthwith to
   restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the
   possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed
   or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven,
   previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes
   or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against
   the United States of America, their citizens and subjects,
   upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
   such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And
   His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end
   immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to
   hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with
   whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and
   forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively
   all the possessions, rights and privileges which they may have
   enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and
   eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that
   such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all
   hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects,
   upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
   such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

{3358}

   Article X.
   Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the
   principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His
   Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
   efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed
   that both the contracting parties shall use their best
   endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.

   Article XI.
   This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both
   sides, without alteration by either of the contracting
   parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be
   binding on both parties and the ratifications shall be
   exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this
   day, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the
   respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and
   have thereunto affixed our seals. Done, in triplicate, at
   Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight
   hundred and fourteen.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
   The last fighting at Sea.
   The exploits of "Old Ironsides."

   "During the latter part of the war, as might have been
   foreseen, there was little opportunity for American frigates
   to show that they could keep up the fame they had so
   gloriously won. The British were determined that none of them
   that ventured out to sea should escape; and by stationing a
   squadron, which their great resources enabled them to do,
   before each port where a frigate lay, they succeeded in
   keeping it cooped up and inactive. … The 'Adams,' which had
   been a 28-gun frigate, but which was now a corvette, managed
   to slip out from Washington in January, 1814, under the
   command of Charles Morris. … Six months were passed in
   cruising, part of the time off the Irish coast, but with no
   great success." Returning home, the "Adams" went ashore at the
   mouth of the Penobscot, but was got off, much injured, and was
   taken up the river for repairs. An English expeditionary force
   pursued the crippled vessel, and her commander was forced to
   set her on fire. "At this time the 'Constitution' [Old
   Ironsides, as she was popularly called] was … lying at Boston,
   watched by a squadron of the enemy. She had proved a lucky
   ship, … and her present captain, Charles Stewart, who had been
   one of Preble's lieutenants at Tripoli, was certainly a man
   well fitted to make the most of any chance he had. The frigate
   had been in port since April, at first repairing, and later
   unable to get out owing to the presence of the enemy's
   squadron." In December, however, the " Constitution" contrived
   to give the blockaders the slip and made her way across the
   Atlantic to the neighborhood of Madeira, where she fought and
   captured, at one time, two British war vessels—the corvette
   "Cyana" of 22 guns, and the sloop "Levant," of 20 guns. A few
   days afterwards, as the "Constitution," with her two prizes,
   was lying at anchor in Port Praya, Cape de Verde Islands,
   Captain Stewart sighted, outside, no less than three ships of
   the very blockading squadron which he had slipped away from at
   Boston, and which had pursued him across the ocean. He made
   his escape from the port, with both his prizes, in time to
   avoid being hemmed in, and speedily outsailed his pursuers.
   The latter, giving up hope of the "Constitution," turned their
   attention to one of the prizes and succeeded in recovering
   her. "The only other frigate that left port in the last year
   of the war was less fortunate than the 'Constitution.' This
   was the 'President,' now under Commodore Decatur. She was at
   New York, and for some time had lain at anchor off Staten
   Island watching for an opportunity to pass the blockading
   squadron." On a stormy night in January, 1815 (after the
   treaty of peace had been actually signed at Ghent, but before
   news of it had reached America), he made the attempt, but was
   discovered and chased by four of the blockading ships. After a
   race which lasted from dawn until nearly midnight, and a
   running fight of two hours, Decatur found escape to be
   impossible and surrendered his ship.

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Boys of 1812,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapters 7-9._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapter 41._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (January).
   Jackson's victory at New Orleans.

   In October of the last year "dispatches from the American
   envoys abroad announced that 12,000 to 15,000 British troops
   would leave Ireland early in September for New Orleans and
   Mobile. Intelligence reached Washington, December 9th, by way
   of Cuba, that the British Chesapeake force, under Admiral
   Cochrane, had united at Jamaica with these other troops, and
   all were ready to sail for the mouths of the Mississippi.
   'Hasten your militia to New Orleans,' now urged Monroe upon
   the Executives of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia; 'do not
   wait for this government to arm them; put all the arms you can
   find into their hands; let every man bring his rifle or musket
   with him; we shall see you paid.' … Great results had been
   expected by Great Britain from the secret expedition fitted
   out against Louisiana. … Fifty British vessels, large and
   small, bore 7,000 British land troops—comprising the invading
   force from the Chesapeake and a veteran reinforcement from
   England—across the Gulf of Mexico from Jamaica to the ship
   channel near the entrance of Lake Borgne, thus approaching New
   Orleans midway between the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay.
   Here the fleet anchored; and, after dispersing a meagre
   flotilla of American gunboats, which opposed their progress in
   vain, the invaders took full possession of Lake Borgne, and,
   by means of lighter transports, landed troops upon a lonely
   island at the mouth of the Pearl River, which served as the
   military rendezvous. Crossing thence to the northwestern end
   of Lake Borgne, a sparsely-settled region, with plantations
   and sugar-works, half of this invading army, by the 23d
   [December], struck the Mississippi at a point within nine
   miles of New Orleans. Not a gun had been fired since the
   trifling engagement with the American flotilla. The British
   believed their near approach unknown, and even unsuspected, in
   the city; they meant to capture it by an assault both
   brilliant and sudden. … But Jackson had received his
   instructions in good season, and from the 2d of December New
   Orleans had been, under his vigilant direction, a camp in
   lively motion." Martial law was proclaimed; "free men of color
   were enrolled; convicts were released to become soldiers; the
   civic force was increased to its utmost.
{3359}
   Jackson inspected and strengthened the defences in the
   vicinity, erect·ing new batteries. … With his newly arrived
   volunteers from neighboring States, quite expert, many of
   them, in the use of the rifle and eager for fight, Jackson
   found himself presently at the head of 5,000 effective men,
   less than 1,000 of whom were regulars." With a portion of
   these, supported by one of the two armed vessels on the river,
   he boldly attacked the enemy, on the evening of the 23d, but
   accomplished little more than to demonstrate the energy of the
   defence he was prepared to make. On the 28th the English
   (having previously destroyed one of the troublesome vessels in
   the river, the Carolina, with hot shot) returned the attack,
   but did not break the American lines. Then General Pakenham,
   the English commander, brought up heavy guns from the fleet,
   and soon convinced General Jackson that cotton bales, which
   the latter had piled up before his men, were too light and too
   combustible for breastworks against artillery; but the lesson
   proved more useful than otherwise, and the British batteries
   were answered with fully equal effect by an American
   cannonade. "Pakenham's last and boldest experiment was to
   carry Jackson's lines by storm on both sides of the river; and
   this enterprise, fatal, indeed, to those who conceived it,
   gives immortal date to the 8th of January,—the day on which
   the battle of New Orleans was fought. Four days before this
   momentous battle, over 2,000 Kentucky militia, under General
   Adair, arrived at New Orleans, ready soldiers, but miserably
   equipped. Of their number 700 were marched to the front.
   Pakenham's army, swelled by a body of reinforcements,
   commanded by General Lambert, another of Wellington's
   officers, now consisted in all of 10,000 troops, the flower of
   Brit·ish veterans. On the day of the battle Jackson had only
   half as many soldiers on the New Orleans side of the river,
   and of these the greater part were new recruits under
   inexperienced officers. On the opposite bank General Morgan,
   with about 1,500 men, among them detachments of Kentuckians
   and Louisiana militia, had intrenched himself in expectation
   of an assault. Jackson had penetrated the enemy's design,
   which was to make the main attack upon his lines, while a
   lesser force crossed the Mississippi to drive Morgan up the
   bank. Jackson's grand defences, extending for a mile and a
   half from the Mississippi, along his ditch or canal, to an
   impassable cypress swamp, consisted of earthworks, a redoubt
   next the river to enfilade the ditch, and eight batteries, all
   well mounted. The schooner Louisiana and Commander Patterson's
   marine battery across the river protected this line. Another
   intrenchment had been thrown up a mile and a half in the rear,
   as a rallying-point in case of need. There was a third line
   just below the city. … The morn·ing fog rolled away on the 8th
   of January. Pakenham, under the fire of a battery he had
   erected during the night, advanced with the main body of
   British troops to storm Jackson's position." The Americans,
   behind their breastworks, withheld their fire until the
   storming columns were 200 yards away, and then poured volley
   on volley into the approaching mass of men. "This, with the
   steady fire from the American batteries all along the line, as
   the foe advanced over a large bare plain, made hideous gaps in
   the British ranks, throwing them into utter confusion. It was
   a fearful slaughter. Dead bodies choked the ditch and strewed
   the plain. Gallant Highlanders flung themselves forward to
   scale the ramparts only to fall back lifeless. Soldiers who
   had served under Wellington in Spain broke, scattered, and
   ran. Of the four British generals commanding, Pakenham was
   killed, Gibbs mortally wounded, Keane disabled by a shot in
   the neck; only Lambert remained. Thornton, across the river,
   had driven Morgan from his lines meantime, and silenced
   Patterson's battery; but this enterprise might have cost him
   dearly, had he not in season received orders from Lambert to
   return instantly. In this battle the British lost not less
   than 2,600, all but 500 of whom were killed or wounded; while
   only 8 were killed and 13 wounded on the American side. Having
   buried his dead presently under a flag of truce, Lambert, whom
   this calamity had placed in command, retreated hastily under
   cover of the night, abandoning the expedition. Re-embarking at
   Lake Borgne, and rejoining the fleet, he next proceeded to
   invest Fort Bowyer, at the entrance of Mobile Bay, only to
   learn, after its little garrison had surrendered, that a
   treaty of peace [signed December 24, 1814, two weeks before
   the battle of New Orleans was fought] annulled the conquest. …
   Rude and illiterate as he was, Jackson showed at New Orleans
   the five prime attributes of military genius: decision,
   energy, forethought, dispatch, skill in employing resources."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States of America,
      chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Walker,
      Jackson and New Orleans._

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 2, chapters 1-23._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
      chapters 18-23._

      _M. Thompson,
      The Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 9._

      _G. W. Cable,
      The Creoles of Louisiana,
      chapters 26-27._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815.
   Final war with the Algerines and suppression of their piracies.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Incorporation of the second Bank of the United States.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816; and 1817-1833.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Admission of Indiana into the Union.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   The increased Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Organization of the American Colonization Society.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1849.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Eighth Presidential Election.

   James Monroe, Democratic Republican, was elected over Rufus
   King, Federalist, receiving 183 out of 217 votes cast in the
   electoral college. Daniel D. Tompkins was chosen Vice
   President. "Opposition to the War of 1812 proved fatal to the
   Federal party, which ceased to exist as a national party with
   the close of Mr. Madison's administration. Not only did the
   odium of opposing the war tend to annihilate that party, but
   the questions upon which the two parties differed were, in a
   great measure, settled or disposed of by the war; others,
   relating to the general interests of the country, such as a
   tariff, internal improvements, the chartering of a national
   bank, erecting fortifications, etc., taking their place, and
   finding advocates and opponents in both the old parties.
   Candidates for President and Vice-President were then selected
   by the respective parties by what was termed a Congressional
   caucus.
{3360}
   Mr. Monroe was placed in nomination for President by a caucus
   of the Republican members of Congress, Daniel D. Tompkins, of
   New York, being nominated by the same caucus for
   Vice-President. Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, was Mr. Monroe's
   competitor, and fell but few votes behind him in the caucus.
   Rufus King was the candidate of the Federal party, or what
   there was left of it, against Mr. Monroe. The latter received
   183 electoral votes, the former 34. No President ever
   encountered less opposition during his four or eight years'
   service than Mr. Monroe. Parties and the country seemed to be
   tired of contention, and desirous to enjoy repose. A most able
   cabinet was selected, consisting of Mr. J. Q. Adams as
   Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the
   Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith Thompson,
   Secretary of the Navy; and William Wirt, Attorney-General."

      _N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   "Remembering only the almost unopposed election and second
   election of Mr. Monroe, we are apt to think of him as the
   natural and easy choice of the people. As a matter of fact he
   was not a great favorite with Republican politicians. He was
   first nominated by a narrow majority. … Numerous meetings were
   held in various parts of the country to protest against the
   caucus system, the most noteworthy of which, perhaps, was held
   in Baltimore, in which meeting Roger B. Taney, afterward Chief
   Justice, took a most prominent part. The nomination being
   made, the presidential election was practically decided. There
   was no canvass, worthy of the name."

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1817.
   The opening of the question of "Internal Improvements."

   "The passage of the bank bill in 1816 was to give the United
   States a million and a half of dollars. Calhoun, therefore,
   came forward, December 23, 1816, with a bill proposing that
   this sum be employed as a fund 'for constructing roads and
   canals and improving the navigation of watercourses.' 'We
   are,' said he, 'a rapidly—I was about to say a
   fearfully—growing country. … This is our pride and danger, our
   weakness and our strength.' The constitutional question he
   settled with a phrase: 'If we are restricted in the use of our
   money to the enumerated powers, on what principle can the
   purchase of Louisiana be justified?' The bill passed the House
   by 86 to 84; it was strongly supported by New York members,
   because it was expected that the general government would
   begin the construction of a canal from Albany to the Lakes; it
   had also large support in the South, especially in South
   Carolina. In the last hours of his administration Madison
   vetoed it. His message shows that he had selected this
   occasion to leave to the people a political testament; he was
   at last alarmed by the progress of his own party, and, like
   Jefferson, he insisted that internal improvements were
   desirable, but needed a constitutional amendment. The
   immediate effect of the veto was that New York, seeing no
   prospect of federal aid, at once herself began the
   construction of the Erie Canal, which was opened eight years
   later."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union
      (Epochs of American History),
      section 121._

   "Mr. Monroe came out, in his first message to Congress,
   coinciding, on this point, with Mr. Madison's veto. It is due
   to both of them, however, to say that they were the advocates
   of internal improvement, and recommended an amendment of the
   constitution with that view. Nevertheless, Mr. Madison, by his
   veto, had dashed the cup from the lips to the ground, as he
   went out of office; and Mr. Monroe coming in, at least for
   four years, probably for eight—it proved to be eight—broke the
   cup in advance, so that it could not be used during his term
   of office, without an amendment of the constitution. … Three
   presidents successively, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr.
   Monroe, had officially expressed their opinion adverse to a
   power vested in Congress by the constitution for projects of
   internal improvement, as contemplated by the measures
   proposed. Not satisfied with these decisions, Mr. Clay and his
   friends were instrumental in having a resolution brought
   forward, in the fifteenth Congress, declaring that Congress
   had power, under the constitution, to make appropriations for
   the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals. …
   The resolution declaring the power to be vested in Congress by
   the constitution, to make appropriations for the construction
   of military roads, post-roads, and canals, was adopted by a
   vote of 90 to 75; and the principle involved has been
   practically applied by acts of Congress, from that time to the
   present."

      _C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Wheeler,
      History of Congress, comprising a
      History of Internal Improvements,
      volume 2, page 109, and after._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1818.
   The First Seminole War.
   Jackson's arbitrary conquest of Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1817.
   Admission of Mississippi into the Union.

      See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Treaty with Great Britain relating to Fisheries.

      See FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Admission of Illinois into the Union.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1819.
   The Dartmouth College Case.

      See SUPPLEMENT: DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The first bitter Conflict concerning Slavery.
   The Missouri Compromise,
   on the admission of Missouri to the Union.

   "On March 6, 1818, a petition was presented in the House of
   Representatives praying that Missouri be admitted as a state.
   A bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state
   government was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and
   Tallmadge of New York moved, as an amendment, that the further
   introduction of slavery should be prohibited, and that all
   children born within the said state should be free at the age
   of twenty-five years. Thus began the struggle on the slavery
   question in connection with the admission of Missouri, which
   lasted, intermittently, until March, 1821. No sooner had the
   debate on Tallmadge's proposition begun than it became clear
   that the philosophical anti-slavery sentiment of the
   revolutionary period had entirely ceased to have any influence
   upon current thought in the South.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

   The abolition of the foreign slave-trade had not, as had been
   hoped, prepared the way for the abolition of slavery or
   weakened the slave interest in any sense. On the contrary,
   slavery had been immensely strengthened by an economic
   development making it more profitable than it ever had been
   before. The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney, in
   1793, had made the culture of cotton a very productive source
   of wealth.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

{3361}

   In 1800 the exportation of cotton from the United States was
   19,000,000 pounds, valued at $5,700,000. In 1820 the value of
   the cotton export was nearly $20,000,000, almost all of it the
   product of slave labor. The value of slaves may be said to
   have at least trebled in twenty years. The breeding of slaves
   became a profitable industry. Under such circumstances the
   slave-holders arrived at the conclusion that slavery was by no
   means so wicked and hurtful an institution as their
   revolutionary fathers had thought it to be. … On the other
   hand, in the Northern States there was no such change of
   feeling. Slavery was still, in the nature of things, believed
   to be a wrong and a sore. … The amendment to the Missouri
   bill, providing for a restriction with regard to slavery, came
   therefore in a perfectly natural way from that Northern
   sentiment which remained still faithful to the traditions of
   the revolutionary period. And it was a great surprise to most
   Northern people that so natural a proposition should be so
   fiercely resisted on the part of the South. It was the sudden
   revelation of a change of feeling in the South which the North
   had not observed in its progress. 'The discussion of this
   Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls,'
   wrote John Quincy Adams. The slave-holders watched with
   apprehension the steady growth of the Free States in
   population, wealth, and power. In 1790 the population of the
   two sections had been nearly even. In 1820 there was a
   difference of over 600,000 in favor of the North in a total of
   less than ten millions. In 1790 the representation of the two
   sections in Congress had been about evenly balanced. In 1820
   the census promised to give the North a preponderance of more
   than 30 votes in the House of Representatives. As the
   slave-holders had no longer the ultimate extinction, but now
   the perpetuation, of slavery in view, the question of
   sectional power became one of first importance to them, and
   with it the necessity of having more Slave States for the
   purpose of maintaining the political equilibrium at least in
   the Senate. A struggle for more Slave States was to them a
   struggle for life. This was the true significance of the
   Missouri question. The debate was the prototype of all the
   slavery debates which followed in the forty years to the
   breaking out of the civil war. … The dissolution of the Union,
   civil war, and streams of blood were freely threatened by
   Southern men, while some anti-slavery men declared themselves
   ready to accept all these calamities rather than the spread of
   slavery over the territories yet free from it. … On February
   16, 1819, the House of Representatives adopted the amendment
   restricting slavery, and thus passed the Missouri bill. But
   the Senate, eleven days afterwards, struck out the
   anti-slavery provision and sent the bill back to the House. A
   bill was then passed organizing the Territory of Arkansas, an
   amendment moved by Taylor of New York prohibiting the further
   introduction of slavery there having been voted down. … Thus
   slavery was virtually fastened on Arkansas. But the Missouri
   bill failed in the fifteenth Congress. The popular excitement
   steadily increased. The sixteenth Congress met in December,
   1819. In the Senate the admission of Missouri with slavery was
   coupled with the admission of Maine, on the balance-of-power
   principle that one free state and one slave state should
   always be admitted at the same time. An amendment was moved
   absolutely prohibiting slavery in Missouri, but it was voted
   down. Then Mr. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, on January 18,
   1820, proposed that no restriction as to slavery be imposed
   upon Missouri in framing a state constitution, but that in all
   the rest of the country ceded by France to the United States
   north of 30° 30', this being the southern boundary line of
   Missouri, there should be neither slavery nor involuntary
   servitude. This was the essence of the famous Missouri
   Compromise, and, after long and acrimonious debates and
   several more votes in the House for restriction and in the
   Senate against it, this compromise was adopted. By it the
   slave power obtained the present tangible object it contended
   for; free labor won a contingent advantage in the future. …
   Clay has been widely credited with being the 'father' of the
   Missouri Compromise. As to the main features of the measure
   this credit he did not deserve. So far he had taken a
   prominent but not an originating part in the transaction."
   But, at the next session of Congress, when the Missouri
   question was unexpectedly reopened, and as threateningly as
   ever, Clay assumed a more important part in connection with
   the final settlement of it. "The bill passed at the last
   session had authorized the people of Missouri to make a state
   constitution without any restriction as to slavery. The formal
   admission of the state was now to follow. But the Constitution
   with which Missouri presented herself to Congress not only
   recognized slavery as existing there; it provided also that it
   should be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as
   would be necessary to prevent free negroes or mulattoes from
   coming into or settling in the state." This provoked a new
   revolt on the part of the Northern opponents of slavery, and
   it was only through Clay's exertions as a pacificator that
   Missouri was conditionally admitted to the Union at length
   [March 3, 1820], the condition being that "the said state
   shall never pass any law preventing any description of persons
   from coming to or settling in the said state who now are, or
   hereafter may become, citizens of any of the states of this
   Union." The legislature of Missouri gave its assent, as
   required, to this "fundamental condition," and the
   "compromise" became complete. "The public mind turned at once
   to things of more hopeful interest, and the Union seemed safer
   than ever. The American people have since become painfully
   aware that this was a delusion."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "The immediate contest was not over the question of the
   prohibition of slavery in the Territories. The great struggle
   lasted for nearly three years, but the final proposition which
   closed the controversy and which prohibited slavery in almost
   all the then Federal territory was probably not debated more
   than three hours. It was accepted without discussion by the
   great bulk of the advocates of Missouri's free admission. Very
   few slavery extensionists questioned the right and power of
   Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to the Territories.
{3362}
   That question, in the minds of those who opposed restriction
   in Missouri, was incidental to the question of the right of
   Congress to impose conditions upon a State. Incidentally the
   question of slavery in the Territories came up in the case of
   Arkansas, a country south of Missouri, in which slavery was
   already a fact. The restrictionists themselves recognized the
   fact that the plain, simple issue 'of limiting the area of
   human slavery would be strengthened by bringing it before the
   country unincumbered with the question of imposing conditions
   on a State, though most of them never wavered in their belief
   that conditions might be imposed. On the one hand it was only
   Southern zealots who denied to Congress the power to prohibit
   slavery in the Territories; on the other hand many in the
   North who opposed slavery believed that Congress might not
   impose conditions upon a State. In the cabinet of Monroe, in
   which sat Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, it was unanimously
   agreed that Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the
   Territories. But John Quincy Adams, also a member of that
   cabinet, who hated slavery with all the strength of his soul,
   thought it was unconstitutional to bind a State by conditions.
   … The struggle indicated a notable change in the southern mind
   on the slavery question, and that a slave power was forming
   which would attempt to control all legislation of the federal
   Union affecting slavery. … The struggle and the compromise
   afford the first clear demarcation between the sections. From
   this time the equilibrium of political power was a matter of
   first concern to a section of States and to a powerful
   political interest. Mason and Dixon's line is extended toward
   the west, and now marks a political division. The slave States
   were now, and for the first time, clearly separated from the
   free. A geographical line dividing the sections was
   established."

      _J. A. Woodburn,
      Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise
      (Report of American Historical Association, 1893),
      pages 289-294._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      _J. Quincy,
      Life of John Quincy Adams,
      chapter 5._

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819.
   Admission of Alabama into the Union.

      See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819-1821.
   Acquisition of Florida from Spain.
   Definition of the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
   Admission of Maine into the Union as a State.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1820;
      also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
   Ninth Presidential Election.

   "Monroe like Washington was re-chosen President by a vote
   practically unanimous. One, however, of the 232 electoral
   votes cast was wanting to consummate this exceptional honor;
   for a New Hampshire elector, with a boldness of discretion
   which, in our days and especially upon a close canvass, would
   have condemned him to infamy, threw away upon John Quincy
   Adams the vote which belonged like those of his colleagues to
   Monroe, determined, so it is said, that no later mortal should
   stand in Washington's shoes. Of America's Presidents elected
   by virtual acclamation history furnishes but these two
   examples; and as between the men honored by so unapproachable
   a tribute of confidence, Monroe entered upon his second term
   of office with less of real political opposition than
   Washington."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 10, section. 2 (volume 3)._

   Daniel D. Tompkins was re-elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
   The Fourth Census.

   Total population, 9,638,191 (an increase exceeding 33 per
   cent. over the enumeration of 1810), classed and distributed
   as follows:

North.

                 White.   Free black.   Slave.
Connecticut.     267,161     7,844        97
Illinois.         53,788       457       917
Indiana.         145,758     1,230       190
Maine.           297,340       929         0
Massachusetts.   516,419     6,740         0
Michigan.          8,591       174         0
New Hampshire.   243,236       786         0
New Jersey.      257,409    12,460     7,557
New York.      1,332,744    29,279    10,088
Ohio.            576,572     4,723         0
Pennsylvania.  1,017,094    30,202       211
Rhode Island.     79,413     3,554        48
Vermont.         234,846       903         0
                     ---       ---       ---
Total          5,030,371    99,281    19,108

South.

                 White.  Free black.   Slave.
Alabama.          85,451       571    41,879
Arkansas          12,579        59     1,617
Delaware.         55,282    12,958     4,509
District of
  Columbia.       22,614     4,048     6,377
Georgia.         189,566     1,763   149,654
Kentucky.        434,644     2,759   126,732
Louisiana.        73,383    10,476    69,064
Maryland.        260,223    39,730   107,397
Mississippi.      42,176       458    32,814
Missouri.         55,988       347    10,222
North Carolina.  419,200    14,612   205,017
South Carolina.  237,440     6,826   258,475
Tennessee.       339,927     2,727    80,107
Virginia.        603,087    36,889   425,153
                     ---       ---       ---
Total          2,831,560   134,223 1,519,017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
   Beginning of emigration to Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.
   The Era of Good Feeling.

   With the closing of the war of 1812-14, and the disappearance
   of the party of the Federalists, there came a period of
   remarkable quietude in the political world. "Then followed the
   second administration of Monroe, to which was given, perhaps
   by the President himself, a name which has secured for the
   whole period a kind of peaceful eminence. It was probably
   fixed and made permanent by two lines in Halleck's once famous
   poem of 'Alnwick Castle,' evidently written during the poet's
   residence in England in 1822-23. Speaking of the change from
   the feudal to the commercial spirit, he says: "'Tis what our
   President Monroe, Has called "the era of good feeling."' … It
   would seem from this verse that Monroe himself was credited
   with the authorship of the phrase; but I have been unable to
   find it in his published speeches or messages, and it is
   possible that it may be of newspaper origin, and that Halleck,
   writing in England, may have fathered it on the President
   himself."

      _T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      page 394._

{3363}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.
   The enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine.

   One lasting mark of distinction was given to the
   administration of President Monroe by the importance which
   came to be attached to his enunciation of the principle of
   policy since known as the "Monroe Doctrine." This was simply a
   formal and official statement of the national demand that
   foreign nations shall not interfere with the affairs of the
   two American continents. "There has been a good deal of
   dispute as to the real authorship of this announcement,
   Charles Francis Adams claiming it for his father, and Charles
   Sumner for the English statesman Canning. Mr. Gilman, however,
   in his late memoir of President Monroe, has shown with
   exhaustive research that this doctrine had grown up gradually
   into a national tradition before Monroe's time, and that he
   merely formulated it, and made it a matter of distinct record.
   The whole statement is contained in a few detached passages of
   his message of December 2, 1823. In this he announces that
   'the American continents, by the free and independent
   condition which they have assumed and maintain, are not to be
   considered as subjects for colonization by European powers.'
   Further on he points out that the people of the United States
   have kept aloof from European dissensions, and ask only in
   return that North and South America should be equally let
   alone. 'We should consider any attempt on their part to extend
   their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to
   our peace and safety;' and while no objection is made to any
   existing colony or dependency of theirs, yet any further
   intrusion or interference would be regarded as 'the
   manifestation of an unfriendly spirit towards the United
   States.' This in brief, is the 'Monroe doctrine' as originally
   stated; and it will always remain a singular fact that this
   President—the least original or commanding of those who early
   held that office—should yet be the only one whose name is
   identified with what amounts to a wholly new axiom of
   international law."

      _T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 16._

   "At a cabinet meeting May 13, 1818, President Monroe
   propounded several questions on the subject of foreign
   affairs, of which the fifth, as recorded by J. Q. Adams, was
   this: 'Whether the ministers of the United States in Europe
   shall be instructed that the United States will not join in
   any project of interposition between Spain and the South
   Americans, which should not be to promote the complete
   independence of those provinces; and whether measures shall be
   taken to ascertain if this be the policy of the British
   government, and if so to establish a concert with them for the
   support of this policy.' He adds that all these points were
   discussed, without much difference of opinion. On July 31,
   1818, Rush had an important interview with Castelreagh in
   respect to a proposed mediation of Great Britain between Spain
   and her colonies. The coöperation of the United States was
   desired. Mr. Rush informed the British minister that 'the
   United States would decline taking part, if they took part at
   all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the
   independence of the colonies.' 'This,' he added, 'was the
   determination to which his government had come on much
   deliberation.' … Gallatin writes to J. Q. Adams, June 24,
   1823, that before leaving Paris he had said to M.
   Chateaubriand on May 13, 'The United States would undoubtedly
   preserve their neutrality provided it were respected, and
   avoid every interference with the politics of Europe. … On the
   other hand, they would not suffer others to interfere against
   the emancipation of America.' … After Canning had proposed to
   Rush (September 19, 1823) that the United States should
   coöperate with England in preventing European interference
   with the Spanish-American colonies, Monroe consulted Jefferson
   as well as the cabinet, on the course which it was advisable
   to take, and with their approbation prepared his message. …
   Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Sumner is not
   justified in saying that the 'Monroe doctrine proceeded from
   Canning,' and that he was 'its inventor, promoter, and
   champion, at least so far as it bears against European
   intervention in American affairs.' Nevertheless, Canning is
   entitled to high praise for the part which he took in the
   recognition of the Spanish republics, a part which almost
   justified his proud utterance, 'I called the New World into
   existence to redress the balance of the Old.'"

      _D. C. Gilman,
      James Monroe,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Sumner,
      Prophetic Voices concerning America,
      page 157._

      _G. F. Tucker,
      The Monroe Doctrine._

      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      section 57 (volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   The Protective Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Tenth Presidential Election.
   No choice by the People.
   Election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.

   "In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the
   influences to control and secure the interests predominating
   in the different sections of the country became more active.
   Crawford of Georgia, Calhoun of South Carolina, Adams of
   Massachusetts, and Clay of Kentucky, were the most prominent
   candidates. In December, Barbour of Virginia was superseded,
   as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay of
   Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and to
   that resistance to the tariff and to internal improvements
   which was regarded as dependent on his success. The question
   whether a Congressional caucus, by the instrumentality of
   which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had obtained the
   Presidency, should be again held to nominate a candidate for
   that office, was the next cause of political excitement. The
   Southern party, whose hopes rested on the success of Crawford,
   were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of the other
   candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient.
   Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff
   and public improvements, hesitated. … But the Democracy of
   that state … held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
   recommending a Congressional caucus. This motion would have
   been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama,
   about this time, nominated Andrew Jackson for the Presidency,
   and accompanied their resolutions in his favor with a
   recommendation to their representatives to use their best
   exertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a
   President. The popularity of Jackson, and the obvious
   importance to his success of the policy recommended by
   Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels of Pennsylvania, so that
   only three representatives from that state attended the
   Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, and which
   consisted of only 60 members, out of 261, the whole number of
   the House of Representatives; of which Virginia and New York,
   under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constituted nearly one half.
{3364}
   Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawford was
   nominated for the Presidency. … But the days of Congressional
   caucuses were now numbered. The people took the nomination of
   President into their own hands [and John Quincy Adams and
   Henry Clay were brought into the field]. … The result of this
   electioneering conflict was that, by the returns of the
   electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that
   none of the candidates had the requisite constitutional
   majority; the whole number of votes being 261—of which Andrew
   Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41,
   and Henry Clay 37. [The popular vote cast as nearly as can be
   determined, was: Jackson, 153,544; Adams, 108,740; Crawford,
   46,618; Clay, 47,136.] For the office of Vice-President, John
   C. Calhoun had 180 votes, and was elected. … Of the 84 votes
   cast for Mr. Adams, not one was given by either of the three
   great Southern slaveholding states. Seventy-seven were given
   to him by New England and New York. The other seven were cast
   by the Middle or recently admitted states. The selection of
   President from the candidates now devolved on the House of
   Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution.
   But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those
   slaveholding states, with the exception of Kentucky, and her
   delegates were equally divided between him and General
   Jackson. The decisive vote was, in effect, in the hands of Mr.
   Clay, then Speaker of the House, who cast it for Mr. Adams; a
   responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding
   the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and in defiance
   of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state,
   declaring their preference for General Jackson. On the final
   vote Andrew Jackson had 7 votes, William H. Crawford 4, and
   John Quincy Adams 13; who was, therefore, forthwith declared
   President of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th
   of March, 1825. … Immediately after his inauguration, Mr.
   Adams appointed Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Secretary of State. …
   General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr.
   Clay's preference of Mr. Adams. … He immediately put into
   circulation among his friends and partisans an unqualified
   statement to the effect that Mr. Adams had obtained the
   Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on
   the condition that he should be elevated to the office of
   Secretary of State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and
   authority, asserting that he possessed evidence of its truth;
   and, although Mr. Clay and his friends publicly denied the
   charge, and challenged proof of it, two years elapsed before
   they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when
   adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; the
   whole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed
   mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect
   for which it was calculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and
   friends made it the source of an uninterrupted stream of abuse
   upon Mr. Adams, through his whole administration."

      _J. Quincy,
      Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams,
      chapters 6-7._

   The new administration "stood upon the same political basis as
   that of Mr. Monroe. It was but a continuance of the same party
   ascendency. It looked to no change of measures, and to no
   other change of men than became inevitably necessary to supply
   the vacancies which the accidents of political life had
   created. Mr. Clay was called to the State Department [and was
   maliciously accused of having bargained for it when he threw
   his influence at last in Mr. Adams' favor]. … The country …
   indulged the hope of a prosperous career in the track which
   had been opened by Mr. Madison, and so successfully pursued by
   Mr. Monroe. Less confidently, however, it indulged the hope of
   a continuance of that immunity from party contention and
   exasperation which had characterized the last eight years. The
   rising of an opposition was seen, at the very commencement of
   this administration, like a dark cloud upon the horizon, which
   gradually spread towards the zenith, not without much rumbling
   of distant thunder and angry flashes of fire. It was quite
   obvious to shrewd observers that the late election had
   disappointed many eager spirits, whose discontent was likely
   to make head against the predominant party, and, by uniting
   the scattered fragments of an opposition which had heretofore
   only slept, whilst the country had supposed it extinct, would
   present a very formidable antagonist to the new
   administration. The extraordinary popularity of General
   Jackson, the defeat of his friends by the vote of the House of
   Representatives, the neutrality of his political position, his
   avowed toleration towards political opponents, and what was
   thought to be his liberal views in regard to prominent
   political measures—for as yet nothing was developed in his
   opinions to set him in direct opposition to the policy or
   principles which governed the administration either of Madison
   or Monroe—all these considerations gave great strength to the
   position which he now occupied, and, in the same degree,
   emboldened the hopes of those who looked to him as the proper
   person to dispute the next election against the present
   incumbent. Many of those who had hoped to see the reign of
   good feeling and of abstinence from party strife prolonged,
   will remember with what surprise they saw this gathering of
   hostile elements, and heard it proclaimed by an authoritative
   political leader [Colonel Richard M. Johnson], in the first
   days of the new administration, that it should be and ought to
   be opposed, 'even if it were as pure as the angels at the
   right hand of the throne of God.' Such a declaration was not
   less ominous of what was to come than it was startling for its
   boldness and its novelty in the history of the government. …
   The opposition … took an organized form—became compact,
   eager, intolerant and even vindictive."

      _J. P. Kennedy,
      Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

   "Monroe was the last President of the Virginian line, John
   Quincy Adams the last from New England. The centre of power
   was passing from the east to the west. Adams was a genuine New
   Englander of the Puritan stock, austerely moral, from his
   boyhood laboriously self-trained, not only staid but solemn in
   his teens, intensely self-conscious, ever engaged in
   self-examination, the punctual keeper of a voluminous diary,
   an invariably early riser, a daily reader of the Bible even in
   the White House, scrupulously methodical and strictly upright
   in all his ways; but testy, unconciliatory, unsympathetic,
   absolutely destitute of all the arts by which popularity is
   won.
{3365}
   His election does the highest credit to the respect of the
   electors for public virtue unadorned. The peculiar features of
   his father's character were so intensified in him that he may
   be deemed the typical figure rather than his father. In
   opinions he was a Federalist who having broken with his party
   on the question of foreign relations and the embargo had been
   put out of its pale but had retained its general mould. As he
   was about the last President chosen for merit not for
   availability, so he was about the last whose only rule was not
   party but the public service. So strictly did he observe the
   principle of permanency and purity in the Civil Service, that
   he refused to dismiss from office a Postmaster-General whom he
   knew to be intriguing against him. The demagogic era had come
   but he would not recognize its coming. He absolutely refused
   to go on the stump, to conciliate the press, to do anything
   for the purpose of courting popularity and making himself a
   party. His obstinacy was fatal to his ambition but is not
   dishonourable to his memory."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 4._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825.
   The visit of Lafayette.

   One of the most deeply interesting events of the year 1824 was
   the arrival in the country of the honored Lafayette, companion
   of Washington and friend of the American Republic in its
   struggle for independence. He came on the invitation of the
   national Government and was entertained as its guest. "He
   arrived at Staten Island on Sunday, 15th of August, 1824,
   accompanied by his son, George Washington Lafayette, and his
   son-in-]aw, M. Le Vasseur. Here he remained until Monday, and
   was then met and welcomed by a distinguished committee from
   New York, who escorted him to that city. … The arrival of
   Lafayette was an event which stirred the whole country;
   everybody was anxious to see him, and every State and city in
   the Union extended an invitation to him to visit such State or
   city; and he did so, being everywhere received with the most
   enthusiastic manifestations of love and respect. … He spent a
   little over a year in the United States, traveling most of the
   time. … Having visited every portion of the United States and
   received the affectionate homage of the people, General
   Lafayette returned to Washington, where he became in fact 'the
   Nation's Guest' at the Presidential mansion. Soon after the
   meeting of Congress, in December, 1824, a bill was reported by
   a joint committee of the two Houses granting to him a township
   of land and the sum of $200,000, which became a law."

      _N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 89-91._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Levasseur,
      Lafayette in America, in 1824-1825._

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1836.
   Schemes of the Slave Power for acquiring Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
   Opposition to the Administration.
   The question of Internal Improvements.
   Reconstruction of Parties.
   Democrats and National Republicans.

   The inaugural address of President Adams "furnished a topic"
   against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the
   old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the
   constitution. It was the topic of internal national
   improvement by the federal government. The address extolled
   the value of such works, considered the constitutional
   objections as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the
   hope that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be
   solved in a practical blessing; and declared the belief that,
   in the execution of such works, posterity would derive a
   fervent gratitude to the founders of our Union and most deeply
   feel and acknowledge the beneficent action of our government.
   The declaration of principles which would give so much power
   to the government … alarmed the old republicans, and gave a
   new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration, in
   addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the
   House of Representatives. … This new ground of opposition was
   greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first annual
   message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again
   largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would
   require a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress
   informed that the President had accepted an invitation from
   the American States of Spanish origin, to send ministers to
   their proposed Congress on the Isthmus of Panama.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

   It was, therefore, clear from the beginning that the new
   administration was to have a settled and strong opposition. …
   There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr.
   Clay's nomination to the State department, growing out of his
   support of Mr. Adams in the election of the House of
   Representatives, and acceptance of office from him; but
   overruled by a majority of two to one."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

   "From the very beginning of this Administration both factions
   of the Strict Constructionists united in an opposition to the
   President which became stronger through his whole term of
   office, until it overcame him. His ill-advised nomination of
   Clay to a post in his Cabinet gave color to the charge of a
   corrupt bargain between him and Clay, by which Adams was to
   receive the Clay vote in the House, and Clay was to be
   rewarded by the position of Secretary of State, which was then
   usually considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. Clay
   angrily denied any such bargain, and the renewal of charges
   and denials, each with its appropriate arguments, gave
   abundant material for debate. The Clay and Adams factions soon
   united and took the distinctive party name of National
   Republicans. Some years afterward this name was changed to
   that of Whigs. They maintained the loose constructionist
   principles of the Federalists, and, in addition, desired a
   Protective Tariff and a system of public improvements at
   national expense. … In October, 1825, the Tennessee
   Legislature nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and
   Jackson accepted the nomination. Crawford's continued
   ill-health compelled his adherents to look elsewhere for a
   candidate, and they gradually united upon Jackson. At first
   the resulting coalition was known as 'Jackson Men,' but, as
   they began to take the character of a national party, they
   assumed the name of Democrats, by which they have since been
   known. They maintained the strict constructionist principles
   of the Republican party, though the Crawford faction in the
   South went further, and held the extreme ground of the
   Kentucky Resolutions of 1799."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d edition,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapters 10-12._

{3366}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
   The Tariff "Bill of Abominations."
   Change of front in New England.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES: A. D. 1828).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
   Eleventh Presidential Election.
   Triumph of Jackson and the new Democracy.

   Andrew Jackson was again put in nomination for the Presidency,
   while President Adams was supported for re-election by the
   National Republicans. "The campaign was conducted, on both
   sides, on very ruthless methods. Niles said it was worse than
   the campaign of 1798. Campaign extras of the 'Telegraph' were
   issued weekly, containing partisan material, refutations of
   charges against Jackson, and slanders on Adams and Clay. The
   Adams party also published a monthly of a similar character.
   The country was deluged with pamphlets on both sides. These
   pamphlets were very poor stuff, and contain nothing important
   on any of the issues. They all appeal to low tastes and
   motives, prejudices and jealousies. … In September, 1827, the
   Tammany General Committee and the Albany 'Argus' came out for
   Jackson, as it had been determined, in the programme, that
   they should do. A law was passed for casting the vote of New
   York in 1828 by districts. The days of voting throughout the
   country ranged from October 31st to November 19th. The votes
   were cast by the Legislature in Delaware and South Carolina;
   by districts in Maine, New York, Maryland, Tennessee;
   elsewhere, by general ticket. Jackson got 178 votes to 83 for
   Adams. The popular vote was 648,273 for Jackson; 508,064 for
   Adams. Jackson got only one vote in New England. … For
   Vice-President, Richard Rush got all the Adams votes; Calhoun
   [who was elected] got all the Jackson votes except 7 of
   Georgia, which were given to William Smith, of South Carolina.
   General Jackson was therefore triumphantly elected President
   of the United States, in the name of reform, and as the
   standard-bearer of the people, rising in their might to
   overthrow an extravagant, corrupt, aristocratic, federalist
   administration, which had encroached on the liberties of the
   people, and had aimed to corrupt elections by an abuse of
   federal patronage. Many people believed this picture of
   Adams's administration to be true. Andrew Jackson no doubt
   believed it. Many people believe it yet. Perhaps no
   administration, except that of the elder Adams, is under such
   odium. There is not, however, in our history any
   administration which, upon a severe and impartial scrutiny,
   appears more worthy of respectful and honorable memory. Its
   chief fault was that it was too good for the wicked world in
   which it found itself. In 1836 Adams said, in the House, that
   he had never removed one person from office for political
   causes, and that he thought that was one of the principal
   reasons why he was not reëlected."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapter 5._

   "In this election there was a circumstance to be known and
   remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from the
   non-slaveholding, General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the
   slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves,
   and both received a large vote (73 each) in the free
   States—and of which at least 40 were indispensable to their
   election. There was no jealousy, or hostile or aggressive
   spirit in the North at that time against the South!"

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapter 38._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
   The Nullification doctrine and ordinance of South Carolina.
   The Hayne and Webster debate.
   President Jackson's proclamation.
   The Compromise Tariff.

   "In May, 1828, a meeting of the South Carolina delegation in
   Congress was held in Washington, at the rooms of General
   Hayne, one of the Senators of that State, to concert measures
   against the tariff and the protective policy which it
   embodied. From the history of the times, and the disclosures
   subsequently made, it is apparent that some violent things
   were said at this meeting, but it broke up without any
   definite plan. In the course of the following summer, there
   were many popular meetings in South Carolina, largely
   attended, at which the tariff of 1824 was treated as an act of
   despotism and usurpation, which ought to be openly resisted. …
   They occasioned anxiety and regret among the friends of the
   Union throughout the country, though nothing more. But, in the
   autumn, the Legislature of South Carolina adopted an
   'Exposition and Protest,' which gave form and substance to the
   doctrines which thenceforward became known as 'Nullification.'
   In order to understand them, however, as a theory of the
   Federal Constitution, it is necessary to state the theory to
   which they are opposed, and to overthrow which they were
   brought forward. The Government of the United States, under
   the Constitution, had hitherto been administered upon the
   principle that the extent of its powers is to be finally
   determined by its supreme judicial tribunal, not only when
   there is any conflict of authority between its several
   departments, but also when the authority of the whole
   Government is denied by one or more of the States. … Aside
   from the authority of [the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
   of 1798]—an authority that was doubtful, because their
   interpretation was not clear—there had been no important
   assertion of the principle that a State can determine for its
   citizens whether they are to obey an act of Congress, by
   asserting its unconstitutional character, and that the right
   to do this is implied as a right inherent in a State, under
   the Constitution, and results from the nature of the
   Government. This, however, was what the advocates of
   nullification now undertook to establish. The remedy which
   they sought, against acts which they regarded as usurpations,
   was not revolution, and not the breaking up the Union, as they
   claimed; but it was a remedy which they held to exist within
   the Union, and to have been contemplated by the people of the
   States when they established the Constitution. How far they
   considered such a theory compatible with the continued
   existence of the Union, I am not aware that they undertook to
   explain. … Although the Legislature of South Carolina had thus
   propounded a theory of resistance, and held that there was
   then a case in the tariff which would justify a resort to it,
   no steps were yet taken toward the immediate exercise of the
   asserted power." In the great debate between General Hayne of
   South Carolina and Daniel Webster, which occurred in the
   Senate, in January, 1830, the doctrine of nullification
   received for the first time a discussion which sank deep into
   the mind of the nation.
{3367}
   The original subject-matter of the debate was a resolution
   relating to Western land sales; but Hayne in his first speech
   made an attack on New England which drew out Webster in
   vindication, and then, when the South Carolinian replied, he
   boldly and broadly set forth the nullifying theory which his
   State had accepted from the sophistical brain of John C.
   Calhoun. It received its refutation then and there, in
   Webster's final speech. "The effect of this speech upon the
   country, that immediately followed its delivery, it is not
   easy for us at the present day to measure. … Vast numbers of
   Mr. Webster's speech were … published and circulated in
   pamphlet editions, after all the principal newspapers of the
   country had given it entire to their readers. The popular
   verdict, throughout the Northern and Western and many of the
   Southern States was decisive. A great majority of the people
   of the United States, of all parties, understood, appreciated,
   and accepted the view maintained by Mr. Webster of the nature
   of the Constitution, and the character of the government which
   it establishes."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      chapter 16 (volume 1)._

   If Webster's speech had solidified the majority opinion of the
   country in resistance to nullification, it had not paralyzed
   the nullifying movement. In the summer of 1831, and again in
   August, 1832, Calhoun published addresses to the people of
   South Carolina, elaborating his doctrine, and "urging an
   immediate issue on account of the oppressive tariff
   legislation under which the South was then suffering. The
   Legislature of South Carolina was convened by the governor to
   meet on October 22, for the purpose of calling a convention
   'to consider the character and extent of the usurpations of
   the general government.' The convention met on November 19,
   and adopted without delay an 'ordinance' declaring that the
   tariff act of 1828, and the amendments thereto passed in 1832,
   were null and void; that it should be held unlawful to enforce
   the payment of duties thereunder within the State of South
   Carolina; that it should be the duty of the legislature to
   make laws giving effect to the ordinance; … and that, if the
   general government should attempt to use force to maintain the
   authority of the federal law, the State of South Carolina
   would secede from the Union,—the ordinance to go into full
   effect on February 1, 1833. The legislature, which met again
   on November 19, passed the 'appropriate' laws. But these
   enactments were not very fierce; as Webster said, they 'limped
   far behind the ordinance.' Some preparation, although little,
   was made for a conflict of arms;" nor was there any certain
   show of readiness in other Southern States to stand by South
   Carolina in the position she had taken. "President Jackson's
   annual message, which went to Congress on December 4, 1832,
   was remarkably quiet in tone," and neither alarmed the
   nullifiers nor gave confidence to the friends of the Union;
   but "six days later, on December 10, came out Jackson's famous
   proclamation against the nullifiers, which spoke thus: 'The
   Constitution of the United States forms a government, not a
   league. … Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of
   giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them.
   To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is
   to say that the United States are not a nation.' He appealed
   to the people of South Carolina, in the tone of a father, to
   desist from their ruinous enterprise; but he gave them also
   clearly to understand that, if they resisted by force, the
   whole power of the Union would be exerted to maintain its
   authority. All over the North, even where Jackson had been
   least popular, the proclamation was hailed with unbounded
   enthusiasm. … The nullifiers in South Carolina received the
   presidential manifesto apparently with defiance. The governor
   of the state issued a counter-proclamation. Calhoun resigned
   the vice-presidency, and was immediately sent to the Senate to
   fight the battle for nullification there." The president, now
   thoroughly roused, called on Congress for extraordinary powers
   to meet the emergency, and a bill embodying his wishes—called
   the "Force Bill"—was introduced. But, at the same time, while
   they showed this bold front to the nullifiers, Congress and
   the executive began to prepare a retreat from the ground they
   had held on the tariff. Henry Clay took the field again, in
   the exercise of his peculiar talents for compromise, and the
   result was the nearly simultaneous passage (February 26 and
   27, 1833) through Congress of the "Force bill" and of a
   compromise tariff bill, which latter provided for a graduated
   reduction of the duties year by year, until 1842, when they
   should stand at 20 per cent., as a horizontal rate, with a
   large free-list. "The first object of the measure was
   attained: South Carolina repealed her nullification ordinance.
   … But before long it became clear that beyond the repeal of
   the nullification ordinance, the compromise had settled
   nothing. The nullifiers strenuously denied that they had in
   any sense given up their peculiar doctrine."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

   "The theory of nullification, as set forth by Calhoun, even
   now, after it has received the benefit of careful study and
   able expounding by historians, is not clear. He always avowed
   a loyalty to the Union, but the arguments by which he sought
   to demonstrate that nullification was compatible with the
   existence of the Union, and indeed a guarantee of its
   perpetuity, did not occasion much solicitude to the majority
   of his party. But no one at the North understood the fallacy
   of his reasoning or the real end and aim of his party more
   clearly than did the Union men of his state. They reasoned
   simply. Said the Camden, S. C. 'Gazette': 'We know of only two
   ways, under our government, to get rid of obnoxious
   legislation. We must convince a majority of the nation that a
   given enactment is wrong and have it repealed in the form
   prescribed by the constitution, or resist it
   extra-constitutionally by the sword. … But this everlasting
   cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation
   to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond
   patient endurance from a people not absolutely confined in
   their own mad-houses.' … A fact … that historians have failed
   to lay any stress upon, and that nevertheless deserves some
   notice, is the holding of a state convention of the Union
   party of South Carolina immediately after the nullification
   convention had completed its work. It was the last important
   action of that party in the state.
{3368}
   Randell Hunt, who presented the first resolutions, epitomized
   the views of the convention and the question it should
   consider in three sentences: 'That the Union party
   acknowledges no allegiance to any government except that of
   the United States. That in referring this resolution to the
   general committee they be instructed to inquire whether it is
   not expedient to give a military organization to the Union
   party throughout the state. Whether it will not be necessary
   to call in the assistance of the general government for
   maintaining the laws of the United States against the
   arbitrary violence which is threatened by the late
   convention.' The resolutions which were adopted declared that
   the ordinance of nullification violated the constitution of
   the United States and had virtually destroyed the Union, since
   by preventing the general government from enforcing its laws
   within the boundaries of the state, it made the state a
   sovereignty paramount to the United States. They denounced the
   provisions of the ordinance as tyrannical and oppressive, and
   the test oath as especially incompatible with civil liberty,
   in that it disfranchised nearly half the citizens of the
   state. They pointed scornfully to the project of a standing
   army in the state. … They concluded by declaring the continued
   opposition of the signers to the tariff, and their
   determination to protect themselves against intolerable
   oppression. The resolutions were signed by all the members of
   the convention, about 180 in number. In point of fact, the
   Unionists were not disposed to favor any compromise measures,
   and looked rather with disfavor upon Mr. Clay's bill, as a
   measure which was being forced upon the country. Congress,
   they thought, ought not to modify the tariff until the
   nullification ordinance had been repealed. But the greater
   force was with the nullifiers, and the number of their
   opponents was dwindling. Caught by the enthusiasm and fighting
   spirit of their neighbors, some of the Unionists joined the
   nullification military companies that were being organized,
   and others, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle against a
   superior force, in sorrow and disgust shook the dust of South
   Carolina from their feet, preferring to begin life over again
   in other parts of the South, less charged with sentiments that
   they believed to be treasonable. … The Unionist party, crushed
   and helpless, was only too anxious to bury all feuds. It never
   was an active force in the state again, but the bold spirit
   which had actuated its members was manifested later, when the
   struggle for state sovereignty was more widespread; and some
   of the most intrepid Union men of the South in the civil war
   were those who had fled from South Carolina years before, when
   the nullification party had triumphed."

      _G. Hunt,
      South Carolina during the Nullification Struggle
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapters 10 and 13._

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 3, chapters 32-34._

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 78-89._

      _J. C. Calhoun,
      Works,
      volume 6
      (Reports and Public Letters)._

      _O. L. Elliott,
      The Tariff Controversy in the United States,
      chapter 5._

   The following is the text of the "Ordinance to nullify certain
   acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be
   laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
   commodities," adopted by the State Convention of South
   Carolina on the 24th of November, 1832:

   "Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts,
   purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign
   imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
   domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes
   and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the
   expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and
   individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain
   foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured
   in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher
   and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to
   be protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the
   constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such
   protection, and hath violated the true meaning and intent of
   the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the
   burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of
   the confederacy: And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its
   just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose
   of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and
   purposes which the constitution of the United States
   authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and
   collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the
   constitution. We, therefore, the people of the State of South
   Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and
   it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and
   parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting
   to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the
   importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual
   operation and effect within the United States, and, more
   especially, an act entitled 'An act in alteration of the
   several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved on the
   nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and
   twenty-eight, and also an act entitled 'An act to alter and
   amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved
   on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
   thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United
   States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and
   are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its
   officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and
   obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered
   into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts,
   and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in
   affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and
   void. And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful
   for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State
   or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties
   imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but
   it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures
   and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to
   this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the
   operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress
   of the United States within the limits of this State, from and
   after the 1st day of February next, and the duty of all other
   constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being
   within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required
   and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and
   such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or
   adopted in obedience thereto.
{3369}
   And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
   decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in
   question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of
   such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the
   purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the
   aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal
   be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States,
   nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for
   that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be
   taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and
   enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of
   the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the
   person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt
   with as for a contempt of the court. And it is further
   ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor,
   profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members
   of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in
   such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath
   well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance,
   and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in
   pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of
   the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such person or
   persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be
   forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or
   persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter
   elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or
   military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until
   the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on
   the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to
   discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner,
   have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be empanelled in
   any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall
   be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature
   passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in
   addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will
   well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and
   such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry
   the same into operation and effect, according to the true
   intent and meaning thereof. And we, the people of South
   Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the
   government of the United States, and the people of the
   co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our
   ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare
   that we will not submit to the application of force on the
   part of the federal government, to reduce this State to
   obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress,
   of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval
   force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional
   authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the
   ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing
   the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said
   ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government,
   to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her
   commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null
   and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the
   country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South
   Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will
   henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further
   obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection
   with the people of the other States; and will forthwith
   proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other
   acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of
   right do. Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth
   day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
   hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the
   declaration of the independence of the United States of
   America."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
   Introduction of the "Spoils System."

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
   The Kitchen Cabinet of President Jackson.

   Major Lewis, one of the Tennessee friends of General Jackson,
   who accompanied him to Washington and was persuaded to remain,
   with his residence at the White House; General Duff Green,
   editor of the "United States Telegraph"; Isaac Hill, editor of
   the "New Hampshire Patriot," and Amos Kendall, late the editor
   of a Jackson paper in Kentucky, but a native of
   Massachusetts:—"these were the gentlemen … who, at the
   beginning of the new administration, were supposed to have
   most of the President's ear and confidence, and were
   stigmatized by the opposition as the Kitchen Cabinet."

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 3, chapter 16._

   After the breach between Jackson and Calhoun, Duff Green
   adhered to the latter. The "Globe" newspaper was then founded,
   to be the organ of the administration, and Francis P. Blair,
   called from Kentucky to undertake the editorship, acquired at
   the same time Duff Green's vacated seat in the Kitchen
   Cabinet.

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 3, page 501._

   "The establishment of the 'Globe,' the rupture with Calhoun,
   and the breaking up of the first cabinet had inaugurated a
   bitter war between the two rival papers, though really between
   the President and Mr. Calhoun, in consequence of which there
   were rich revelations made to the public."

      _N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 186._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829-1832.
   Rise of the Abolitionists.

   "Between the years 1829 and 1832 took place a remarkable
   series of debates in Virginia on the subject of slavery,
   brought about by dissatisfaction with the State constitution
   and by the Nat Turner massacre, in which a number of slaves
   had risen against their masters. In these debates the evils of
   slavery were exposed as clearly as they were afterwards by the
   Abolitionists, and with an outspoken freedom which, when
   indulged in by Northern men, was soon to be denounced as
   treasonable and incendiary. These Southern speakers were
   silenced by the Slave Power. But there were men in the North
   who thought the same and who would not be silenced. Chief
   among these was William Lloyd Garrison. He had begun his
   memorable career by circulating petitions in Vermont in 1828
   in favor of emancipation in the District of Columbia. Having
   joined Lundy in Baltimore in editing the 'Genius of Universal
   Emancipation,' he had suffered ignominy in the cause, in a
   Southern jail; drawing from persecution and hardship only new
   inspiration, he began the publication of the 'Liberator', at
   Boston in January, 1831.
{3370}
   In the following year, under his leadership, was formed the
   New England Anti-Slavery Society, which placed itself on the
   new ground that immediate, unconditional emancipation, without
   expatriation, was the right of every slave and could not be
   withheld by his master an hour without sin. In March, 1833,
   the 'Weekly Emancipator' was established in New York, with the
   assistance of Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and under the
   editorship of William Goodell. In the same year appeared at
   Haverhill, Massachusetts, a vigorous pamphlet by John G.
   Whittier, entitled 'Justice and Expediency, or Slavery
   considered with a View to its Rightful and Effectual Remedy,
   Abolition.' Nearly simultaneously were published Mrs. Lydia
   Maria Child's 'Appeal in Behalf of that Class of Americans
   called Africans,' and a pamphlet by Elizur Wright, Jr., a
   professor in the Western Reserve College, on 'The Sin of
   Slavery and its Remedy.' These publications and the doctrines
   of the 'Liberator' produced great excitement throughout the
   country."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for the
      Abolition of Slavery,
      chapter 3._

   The "Liberator" "was a weekly journal, bearing the names of
   William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp as publishers. Its
   motto was, 'Our Country is the World, Our Countrymen are
   Mankind,' a direct challenge to those whose motto was the
   Jingo cry of those days, 'Our Country, right or wrong!' It was
   a modest folio, with a page of four columns, measuring
   fourteen inches by nine and a quarter. … The paper had not a
   dollar of capital. It was printed at first with borrowed type.
   Garrison and Knapp did all the work of every kind between
   them, Garrison of course doing the editorials. That he wrote
   them can hardly be said: his habit was often to set up without
   manuscript. … The publishers announced in their first issue
   their determination to go on as long as they had bread and
   water to live on. In fact, they lived on bread and milk, with
   a little fruit and a few cakes, which they bought in small
   shops below. Garrison apologizes for the meagreness of the
   editorials, which, he says, he has but six hours, and those at
   midnight, to compose, all the rest of his time and the whole
   of that of his companion being taken up by the mechanical
   work. … It was against nothing less than the world, or at
   least the world in which he lived, that this youth of
   twenty-six, with his humble partner, took up arms. Slavery was
   at the height of its power. … The salutatory of the
   'Liberator' avowed that its editor meant to speak out without
   restraint. 'I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising
   as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think or speak or
   write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on
   fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue
   his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to
   gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has
   fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the
   present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not
   excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.'
   This promise was amply kept. … In private and in his family he
   was all gentleness and affection. Let it be said, too, that he
   set a noble example to controversial editors in his fair
   treatment of his opponents. Not only did he always give
   insertion to their replies, but he copied their criticisms
   from other journals into his own. Fighting for freedom of
   discussion, he was ever loyal to his own principle. What is
   certain is that the 'Liberator,' in spite of the smallness of
   its circulation, which was hardly enough to keep it alive,
   soon told. The South was moved to its centre. The editorials
   probably would not have caused much alarm, as the slaves could
   not read. What was likely to cause more alarm was the
   frontispiece, which spoke plainly enough to the slave's eye.
   It represented an auction at which 'slaves, horses and other
   cattle' were being offered for sale, and a whipping-post at
   which a slave was being flogged. In the background was the
   Capitol at Washington, with a flag inscribed 'Liberty'
   floating over the dome. … On seeing the 'Liberator' the realm
   of slavery bestirred itself. A Vigilance Association took the
   matter in hand. First came fiery and bloodthirsty editorials;
   then anonymous threats; then attempts by legal enactment to
   prevent the circulation of the 'Liberator' at the South. The
   Grand Jury of North Carolina found a true bill against
   Garrison for the circulation of a paper of seditious tendency,
   the penalty for which was whipping and imprisonment for the
   first offence, and death without benefit of clergy for the
   second. The General Assembly of Georgia offered a reward of
   five thousand dollars to anyone who, under the laws of that
   State, should arrest the editor of the 'Liberator', bring him
   to trial, and prosecute him to conviction. The South
   reproached Boston with allowing a battery to be planted on her
   soil against the ramparts of Southern institutions. Boston
   felt the reproach, and showed that she would gladly have
   suppressed the incendiary print and perhaps have delivered up
   its editor; but the law was against her, and the mass of the
   people, though wavering in their allegiance to morality on the
   question of slavery, were still loyal to freedom of opinion. …
   It was just at this time that the South and its clientage at
   the North were thrown into a paroxysm of excitement by the
   Bloody Monday, as Nat Turner's rising at Southampton was
   called. The rising was easily suppressed, and Virginia saw, as
   Jamaica has since seen, how cruel is the panic of a dominant
   race. Not the slightest connection of the outbreak with
   Northern abolitionism was traced. That Garrison or anyone
   connected with him ever incited the slaves to revolt, or said
   a word intentionally which could lead to servile war, seems to
   be utterly untrue. His preaching to the slaves, on the
   contrary, was always patience, submission, abstinence from
   violence, while in his own moral code he carried
   non-resistance to an extreme. Moreover, his championship held
   out hope, and what goads to insurrection is despair."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      William Lloyd Garrison,
      pages 60-65._

   "Mr. Emerson once said, 'Eloquence is dog-cheap in
   anti-slavery meetings.' … On the platform you would always see
   Garrison; with him was … Sam May. Stephen S. Foster was always
   there. … Parker Pilsbury, James Buffum, Arnold Buffum, Elizur
   Wright, Henry C. Wright, Abigail Kelley, Lucy Stone, Theo. D.
   Weld, the sisters Grimké, from South Carolina; John T.
   Sargent, Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Lydia M. Child, Fred Douglas, Wm.
   W. Brown and Francis Jackson. The last was a stern Puritan,
   conscientious, upright, clear-minded, universally respected.
   Edmund Quincy also was there, and he never spoke without
   saying something that had a touch of wit as well as of logic.
   Oliver Johnson … was one of the very first members of the
   Society. Theodore Parker, Samuel J. May, John Pierpont,
   Charles L. Stearns, Charles L. Redwood, George Thompson
   (another wonderfully eloquent man), and, above all, Wendell
   Phillips."

      _J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

{3371}

A. D. 1830.
   The Fifth Census.

   Total population, 12,866,020 (being about 33½ per cent. more
   than in 1820), classed and distributed as follows:

North.

                       White.   Free black. Slave.
Connecticut.          289,603    8,047         25
Illinois.             155,061    1,637        747
Indiana.              339,399    3,629          3
Maine                 398,263    1,190          2
Massachusetts.        603,359    7,048          1
Michigan.              31,346      261         32
New Hampshire.        268,721      604          3
New Jersey.           300,266   18,303      2,254
New york.           1,873,663   44,870         75
Ohio.                 928,329    9,568          6
Pennsylvania.       1,309,900   37,930        403
Rhode Island.          93,621    3,561         17
Vermont.              279,771      881          0

Total               6,871,302  137,529      3,568

South.
                       White.   Free black. Slave.
Alabama.              190,406    1,572    117,549
Arkansas.              25,671      141      4,576
Delaware.              57,601   15,855      3,292
District of Columbia.  27,563    6,152      6,119
Florida.               18,385      844     15,501
Georgia.              296,806    2,486    217,531
Kentucky.             517,787    4,917    165,213
Louisiana.             89,441   16,710    109,588
Maryland.             291,108   52,938    102,994
Mississippi            70,443      519     65,659
Missouri.             114,795      569     25,091
North Carolina.       472,843   19,543    245,601
South Carolina.       257,863    7,921    315,401
Tennessee.            535,746    4,555    141,603
Virginia.             694,300   47,348    469,757

Total               3,660,758  182,070  2,005,475

   In the decade between 1820 and 1830 the immigrant arrivals in
   the United States, as officially recorded, numbered 143,439,
   of which 75,803 were from the British Islands. Prior to 1821,
   there is no official record of immigration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1830-1831.
   The first railroads.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
   The prospective surplus and necessary tariff reduction.
   Clay's delusive measure.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1832.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
   Twelfth Presidential Election.
   Re-election of General Jackson.

   General Jackson, renominated by his party almost without
   question, was re-elected over three competitors, the popular
   vote being as follows: Andrew Jackson, Democrat, 687,502;
   Henry Clay, National Republican, 530,189; William Wirt,
   Anti-Masonic, 33,108; John Floyd (voted for only in South
   Carolina, where electors were chosen by the legislature). The
   vote in the electoral college stood: Jackson 219, Clay 49,
   Floyd 11, Wirt 7. Martin Van Buren was elected Vice President.

   "This election is notable for several reasons. It marks the
   beginning of the system of national nominating conventions; it
   gave Jackson a second term of office, in which he was to
   display his peculiar qualities more conspicuously than ever;
   it compacted and gave distinct character to the new Democratic
   party; and it practically settled directly the fate of the
   Bank of the United States, and indirectly the question of
   nullification. Jackson was easily re-elected, for he had
   established a great popularity, and the opposition was
   divided. A new party came into the field, and marked its
   advent by originating the national nominating convention. This
   was the Anti-Masonic party".

      See NEW YORK: A. D.1826-1832.

   Both the Democratic and the National Republican parties
   adopted the invention of the Anti-Masons, and made their
   nominations for the first time by the agency of great national
   conventions.

      _W. Wilson,
      Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
      page 62._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
   President Jackson's overthrow of the United States Bank.
   The removal of the Deposits.

   "The torrents of paper-money issued during the revolutionary
   war, which sunk in value to nothing, converted the old
   prejudice against paper promises-to-pay into an aversion that
   had the force of an instinct. To this instinctive aversion, as
   much as to the constitutional objections urged by Mr.
   Jefferson and his disciples, was owing the difficulty
   experienced by Alexander Hamilton in getting his first United
   States bank chartered. Hence, also, the refusal of Congress to
   recharter that bank in 1811. Hence the unwillingness of Mr.
   Madison to sanction the charter of the second bank of the
   United States in 1816. But the bank was chartered in 1816, and
   went into existence with the approval of all the great
   republican leaders, opposed only by the extreme Jeffersonians
   and by the few federalists who were in public life. … But,
   long before General Jackson came into power, the bank appeared
   to have lived down all opposition. In the presidential
   campaign of 1824 it was not so much as mentioned, nor was it
   mentioned in that of 1828. … At the beginning of the
   administration of General Jackson, the Bank of the United
   States was a truly imposing institution. Its capital was
   thirty-five millions. The public money deposited in its vaults
   averaged six or seven millions; its private deposits, six
   millions more; its circulation, twelve millions; its
   discounts, more than forty millions a year; its annual
   profits, more than three millions. Besides the parent bank at
   Philadelphia, with its marble palace and hundred clerks, there
   were 25 branches in the towns and cities of the Union. … Its
   bank-notes were as good as gold in every part of the country.
   … The bank and its branches received and disbursed the entire
   revenue of the nation. … There is a tradition in Washington to
   this day, that General Jackson came up from Tennessee to
   Washington, in 1829, resolved on the destruction of the Bank
   of the United States, and that he was only dissuaded from
   aiming a paragraph at it in his inaugural address by the
   prudence of Mr. Van Buren. … General Jackson had no thought of
   the bank until he had been President two months. He came to
   Washington expecting to serve but a single term, during which
   the question of re-chartering the bank was not expected to
   come up.
{3372}
   The bank was chartered in 1816 for twenty years, which would
   not expire until 1836." But, in 1829, the influence of Isaac
   Hill, one of the so-called "Kitchen Cabinet" at Washington,
   involved the irascible President in an endeavor to bring about
   the removal of Jeremiah Mason, a political opponent, who had
   been appointed to the presidency of the branch of the United
   States Bank at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "The correspondence
   began in June and ended in October. I believe myself warranted
   in the positive assertion, that this correspondence relating
   to the desired removal of Jeremiah Mason was the direct and
   real cause of the destruction of the bank."

      _J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 3, chapter 20._

   "As soon as the issue between him and the Bank of the United
   States was declared, Jackson resolved that the bank must be
   utterly destroyed. The method was suggested by Kendall and
   Blair, of the Kitchen Cabinet. It was to cripple the available
   means of the bank by withdrawing from it and its branches the
   deposits of public funds. In the message of December, 1832,
   Jackson had expressed his doubt as to the safety of the
   government deposits in the bank, and recommended an
   investigation. The House, after inquiry, resolved on March 2,
   by 109 to 46 votes, that the deposits were safe. The bank was
   at that period undoubtedly solvent, and there seemed to be no
   reason to fear for the safety of the public money in its
   custody. But Jackson had made up his mind that the bank was
   financially rotten; that it had been employing its means to
   defeat his reëlection; that it was using the public funds in
   buying up members of Congress for the purposes of securing a
   renewal of its charter, and of breaking down the
   administration; and that thus it had become a dangerous agency
   of corruption and a public enemy. Therefore the public funds
   must be withdrawn, without regard to consequences. But the law
   provided that the public funds should be deposited in the Bank
   of the United States or its branches, unless the Secretary of
   the Treasury should otherwise 'order and direct,' and in that
   case the Secretary should report his reasons for such
   direction to Congress. A willing Secretary of the Treasury was
   therefore needed. In May, 1833, Jackson reconstructed his
   Cabinet for the second time. … For the Treasury Department
   Jackson selected William J. Duane of Philadelphia, who was
   known as an opponent of the bank. Jackson, no doubt, expected
   him to be ready for any measure necessary to destroy it. In
   this he was mistaken. Duane earnestly disapproved of the
   removal of the deposits as unnecessary, and highly dangerous
   to the business interests of the country. … A majority of the
   members of the Cabinet thought the removal of the deposits
   unwise. … In the business community there seemed to be but one
   voice about it. The mere rumor that the removal of the
   deposits was in contemplation greatly disturbed the money
   market. But all this failed to stagger Jackson's resolution. …
   The Cabinet, with the exception of the Secretary of the
   Treasury, bowed to Jackson's will. But Duane would not shelter
   himself behind the President's assumed responsibility to do an
   act which, under the law, was to be his act. He also refused
   to resign. If he had to obey or go, he insisted upon being
   removed. Jackson then formally dismissed him, and transferred
   Roger B. Taney from the attorney generalship to the treasury.
   Benjamin F. Butler of New York, a friend of Van Buren, was
   made Attorney General. Taney forthwith ordered the removal of
   the deposits from the Bank of the United States; that is to
   say, the public funds then in the bank were to be drawn out as
   the government required them, and no new deposits to be made
   in that institution. The new deposits were to be distributed
   among a certain number of selected state banks, which became
   known as the 'pet banks.' … The money market became stringent.
   Many failures occurred. The general feeling in business
   circles approached a panic." But the very disturbance was
   charged upon the Bank, itself; the people rallied to the
   support of their favorite, "Old Hickory," and when the
   national charter of the Bank expired, in March, 1836, there
   was no hope of its renewal. It obtained a charter from the
   State of Pennsylvania, and continued business as a State
   institution until it went to pieces in the general commercial
   shipwreck of 1837-41.

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapters 11-14._

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 49, 56, 64-67, 77, and 92-111._

      _M. St. C. Clarke and D. A. Hall,
      History of the Bank of the United States._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.
   Organization of the Whig Party.

   The largest section of the opposition to the Jacksonian
   Democracy "was organized in 1834 as the Whig party. According
   to the 'Whig Almanac' for 1838, the party as then constituted
   comprised: '(1) Most of those who, under the name of National
   Republicans, had previously been known as supporters of Adams
   and Clay, and advocates of the American system [of
   tariff-protection]; (2) Most of those who, acting in defence
   of what they deemed the assailed or threatened rights of the
   States, had been stigmatized as Nullifiers, or the less
   virulent State Rights' men, who were thrown into a position of
   armed neutrality towards the administration by the doctrines
   of the proclamation of 1832 against South Carolina; (3) A
   majority of those before known as Anti-Masons; (4) Many who
   had up to that time been known as Jackson men, but who united
   in condemning the high-handed conduct of the Executive, the
   immolation of Duane, and the subserviency of Taney; (5)
   Numbers who had not before taken any part in politics, but who
   were now awakened from their apathy by the palpable
   usurpations of the Executive and the imminent peril of our
   whole fabric of constitutional liberty and national
   prosperity.' It was not to be expected that a party composed
   of such various elements would be able to unite on one
   candidate with heartiness; and, as the event proved, it was
   necessary that some time should elapse before anything like
   homogeneity could be given to the organization. Nullification
   was not popular among the Whigs of the North, nor did the
   State Rights' people of South Carolina and other States care
   about the war on the bank and the removal of the deposits."

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 14._

{3373}

   "It was now felt instinctively that, in the existing struggle
   between the parties actually arrayed against each other, and
   in the principles and doctrines of those who were in power,
   there was a peculiar fitness in the revival of a term which,
   on both sides of the Atlantic, had been historically
   associated with the side of liberty against the side of power.
   The revival of the name of Whigs was sudden, and it was a
   spontaneous popular movement. In progress of time, it enabled
   the public men who were leading the opposition to the party of
   the Administration to consolidate an organization of distinct
   political principles, and to strengthen it by accessions from
   those who had found reason to be dissatisfied with the
   opinions prevailing among the friends of the President."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      volume 1, page 499._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835.
   First Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery
   in the District of Columbia.
   Exclusion of Antislavery literature from the Mails.

   "It was during the Twenty-third Congress, 1835, that the
   abolition of slavery, especially in the District of Columbia,
   may be said to have begun to move the public mind at the
   North. The first petitions presented to Congress for the
   abolition of slavery, at least the first to attract attention,
   were presented by Mr. Dickson, from the Canandaigua district,
   New York, who addressed the House in support of the prayer of
   the petitioners. Perhaps his speech, more than the petition he
   presented, served to stir up a feeling on the part of Southern
   men, and to cause other and numerous similar petitions to be
   gotten up at the North and sent to Congress. … The labors of
   the enemies of slavery, or 'Abolitionists,' had commenced, and
   by indefatigable men who believed they were serving God and
   the cause of humanity, and consequently it was with them a
   labor of conscience and duty, with which nothing should be
   allowed to interfere. Instead of petitions to Congress, they
   now sent large boxes of tracts, pamphlets, and various
   publications which the Southern people denominated
   'incendiary,' to the post-office at Charleston, South
   Carolina, and other cities, to be distributed, as directed, to
   various persons. This increased the complaints and
   inflammatory articles in the Southern papers. The publications
   thus sent were stopped in the post-office, and the postmasters
   addressed the head of the department, Amos Kendall, on the
   subject, who replied that though the law authorized the
   transmission of newspapers and pamphlets through the mail, yet
   the law was intended to promote the general good of the
   public, and not to injure any section; and intimated that,
   such being the effect of these publications at the South,
   postmasters would be justified in withholding them."

      _N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 294-295._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
   The inflation of credits, and Speculation.
   The great collapse.

   "When the United States Bank lost the government deposits,
   late in 1833, they amounted to a little less than $10,000,000.
   On January 1, 1835, more than a year after the state banks
   took the deposits, they had increased to a little more than
   $10,000,000. But the public debt being then paid and the outgo
   of money thus checked, the deposits had by January 1, 1836,
   reached $25,000,000, and by June 1, 1836, $41,500,000. This
   enormous advance represented the sudden increase in the sales
   of public lands, which were paid for in bank paper, which in
   turn formed the bulk of the government deposits. … The
   increase in the sales of public lands was the result of all
   the organic causes and of all the long train of events which
   had seated the fever of speculation so profoundly in the
   American character of the day. … The increase of government
   deposits was only fuel added to the flames. The craze for
   banks and credits was unbounded before the removal of the
   deposits had taken place, and before their great increase
   could have had serious effect. … The insanity of speculation
   was in ample though unobserved control of the country while
   Nicholas Biddle [President of the United States Bank] still
   controlled the deposits, and was certain to reach a climax
   whether they stayed with him or went elsewhere. … The
   distribution of the surplus among the states by the law of
   1836 was the last and in some respects the worst of the
   measures which aided and exaggerated the tendency to
   speculation. By this bill, all the money above $5,000.000 in
   the treasury on January 1, 1837, was to be 'deposited' with
   the states in four quarterly installments commencing on that
   day. … From the passage of the deposit bill in June, 1836,
   until the crash in 1837, this superb donation of thirty-seven
   millions was before the enraptured and deluded vision of the
   country. Over nine millions and a quarter to be poured into
   'improvements' or loaned to the needy,—what a luscious
   prospect! The lesson is striking and wholesome, and ought not
   to be forgotten, that, when the land was in the very midst of
   these largesses, the universal bankruptcy set in. During 1835
   and 1836 there were omens of the coming storm. Some perceived
   the rabid character of the speculative fever. William L.
   Marcy, governor of New York, in his message of January, 1836,
   answering the dipsomaniac cry for more banks, declared that an
   unregulated spirit of speculation had taken capital out of the
   state; but that the amount so transferred bore no comparison
   to the enormous speculations in stocks and in real property
   within the state. … The warning was treated contemptuously;
   but before the year was out the federal administration also
   became anxious, and the increase in land sales no longer
   signified to Jackson an increasing prosperity. … So Jackson
   proceeded with his sound defense of the famous specie
   circular, long and even still denounced as the 'causa cansans'
   of the crisis of 1837. By this circular, issued on July 11,
   1836, the secretary of the treasury had required payment for
   public lands to be made in specie, with an exception until
   December 15, 1836, in favor of actual settlers and actual
   residents of the state in which the lands were sold. …
   Jackson's specie circular toppled over the house of cards,
   which at best could have stood but little longer. … An
   insignificant, part of the sales had been lately made to
   settlers. They were chiefly made to speculators. … Of the real
   money necessary to make good the paper bubble promises of the
   speculators not one tenth part really existed. Banks could
   neither make their debtors pay in gold and silver, nor pay
   their own notes in gold and silver. So they suspended. The
   great and long concealed devastation of physical wealth and of
   the accumulation of legitimate labor by premature improvements
   and costly personal living, became now quickly apparent.
   Fancied wealth sank out of sight."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 102-161._

      _F. A. Walker,
      Money,
      chapter 21._

      _C. Juglar,
      Brief History of Panics,
      page 58._

{3374}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1843.
   The Second Seminole War.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   The Atherton Gag.

   "At this time [1835-36], the Northern abolitionists sent
   petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery in the
   District of Columbia. They contended that as this territory
   was under the control of the United States' Government, the
   United States was responsible for slavery there; and that the
   Free States were bound to do what they could to have slavery
   brought to an end in that District. But the Slave States were
   not willing to have anything said on the subject, so they
   passed what was called a 'gag' law in the House of
   Representatives, and ruled that all petitions which had any
   relation to slavery should be laid on the table without being
   debated, printed or referred. John Quincy Adams opposed this
   rule resolutely, maintaining that it was wrong and
   unconstitutional. … He continued to present petitions, as
   before, for the abolition of slavery in the District. When the
   day came for petitions he was one of the first to be called
   upon; and he would sometimes occupy nearly the whole hour in
   presenting them, though each one was immediately laid on the
   table. One day he presented 511."

      _J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      page 45._

   The gag-law has sometimes taken the name of the Atherton gag
   from its New Hampshire author.

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, page 338._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Gidding,
      History of the Rebellion,
      pages 104-124._

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      John Quincy Adams,
      pp. 246-280._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   Admission of Arkansas into the Union.

      See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   Jackson's administration reviewed.

   "What of the administration as a whole? Parton's view is as
   follows: 'I must avow explicitly the belief that,
   notwithstanding the good done by General Jackson during his
   presidency, his elevation to power was a mistake on the part
   of the people of the United States. The good which he effected
   has not continued, while the evil which he began remains.'
   Sumner, in commenting on 'Jackson's modes of action in his
   second term,' says: 'We must say of Jackson that he stumbled
   along through a magnificent career, now and then taking up a
   chance without really appreciating it; leaving behind him
   disturbed and discordant elements of good and ill just fit to
   produce turmoil and dis·aster in the future.' Later he adds:
   'Representative institutions are degraded on the Jacksonian
   theory just as they are on the divine-right theory, or on the
   theory of the democratic empire. There is not a worse
   perversion of the American system of government conceivable
   than to regard the President as the tribune of the people.'
   The view of von Holst may be inferred from the following
   passages: 'In spite of the frightful influence, in the real
   sense of the expression, which he exercised during the eight
   years of his presidency, he neither pointed out nor opened new
   ways to his people by the superiority of his mind, but only
   dragged them more rapidly onward on the road they had long
   been travelling, by the demoniacal power of his will.' The
   meaning of the bank struggle is thus defined: 'Its
   significance lay in the elements which made Jackson able
   actually and successfully to assert his claims, in conflict
   both with the constitution and with the idea of republicanism,
   to a position between Congress and the people as patriarchal
   ruler of the republic.' Elsewhere he tells us that the 'curse
   of Jackson's administration' is that it weakened respect for
   law; that 'the first clear symptom' of 'the decline of a
   healthy political spirit' was the election and re-election of
   Jackson to the presidency; that his administration paved a
   'broad path for the demoralizing transformation of the
   American democracy'; and that 'his "reign" receives the stamp
   which characterizes it precisely from the fact that the
   politicians knew how to make his character, with its texture
   of brass, the battering-ram with which to break down the last
   ramparts which opposed their will.' According to Parton,
   Sumner, and von Holst, as I understand them, the net result of
   Jackson's influence upon the American people was to hasten
   their progress toward political ruin. I think this conclusion
   erroneous. The gravest accusation against Jackson is, that his
   influence undermined respect for law. It is plausibly argued
   that, since he himself was impatient of authority, his example
   must have stimulated lawlessness in his followers. It may be
   urged, in reply, that the history of the country does not
   support the charge. The worst exhibitions of general
   lawlessness which have disgraced the United States were the
   anti-abolitionist mobs of Jackson's own day—for which he was
   not responsible. Since then, the American people, in spite of
   the demoralizations of the war and reconstruction periods,
   have steadily grown in obedience to law. … It is a curious
   circumstance that the relation of Jackson to sectionalism has
   received very little attention; and yet the growth of
   sectionalism, i. e., the tendency to divide the Union into two
   portions, politically separate and independent, is the fact
   which, from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the ordinances
   of secession in 1860, gives our political history its
   distinctive character. The one important question concerning
   Jackson, as indeed concerning every public man during the
   forty years which precede the Civil War, is: What did he do
   towards saving the Union from sectionalism? … Jackson came
   before the country as a disciple of Jefferson, and therefore
   as a believer in state rights. There was, it is true, much in
   his temper and situation which favored centralization;
   nevertheless, he was an honest, though moderate and somewhat
   inconsistent Jeffersonian, and he won and retained the
   confidence of the state-rights element in the democratic
   party. Moreover, he identified himself with the newly
   enfranchised and poorer citizens just rising to political
   self-consciousness. In these ways, his following came to
   include a large majority of his fellow-citizens, and, what was
   of the utmost importance, by far the larger proportion of
   those whose political character and opinions were as yet
   plastic. … Jackson became, to a degree never realized by any
   other man in our history, the trusted leader and teacher of
   the masses. … This intimate relation to the people, and this
   unparalleled power over the people, Jackson used to impress
   upon them his own love of the Union and his own hatred of
   sectionalism. … His character was altogether national. It is
   easy to think of Calhoun as a southerner and a South
   Carolinian; but it would not be easy to think of Jackson as
   belonging to Tennessee or to the border states.
{3375}
   The distribution of his support in the election of 1832 is
   instructive. New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania, as well
   as Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, were Jackson's states. He was
   not looked upon as the representative of any particular
   section. His policy as President showed no trace of
   sectionalism. Its aim was the welfare of the masses
   irrespective of section. To him state lines had little
   meaning; sectional lines, absolutely none. There is another
   way in which he rendered great though unconscious service to
   the cause of national unity: he made the government, hitherto
   an unmeaning abstraction, intelligible and attractive to the
   people. … The chief value, then, of Jackson's political
   career, was its educational effect. His strong conviction of
   the national character of the Union, his brave words and acts
   in behalf of the rights of the Union, sank deep into the
   hearts of followers and opponents."

      _A. D. Morse,
      Political Influence of Andrew Jackson
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1886)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   Thirteenth Presidential Election.
   Martin Van Buren chosen.

   "As Vice-president, Van Buren was at the side of Jackson
   during his second term as President. It was the period of the
   first experiment in producing panics; of reckless expansions
   of the currency; of extravagant speculation; of an
   accumulating surplus revenue; of the last struggles of the
   Bank of the United States for the continuance of its powers.
   There was not a difficult question on which Jackson did not
   open his mind to the Vice-president with complete and
   affectionate confidence. He has often been heard to narrate
   incidents illustrating the prompt decision and bold judgment
   of his younger friend; and in those days of vehement conflicts
   between the power of the people and interests embodied against
   that power, the daring energy of the one was well united with
   the more tranquil intrepidity of the other. How fully this was
   recognized by the people appears from the action of the
   Democratic party of the Union. In May, 1835, it assembled in
   convention at Baltimore, and by a unanimous vote placed Van
   Buren in nomination as their candidate for the Presidency. …
   The Democracy of the Union supported Van Buren with entire
   unanimity. Out of two hundred and eighty-six electoral votes
   he received one hundred and seventy; and, for the first time,
   the Democracy of the North saw itself represented in the
   Presidential chair. Electoral votes were given for Van Buren
   without regard to geographical divisions: New York and
   Alabama, Missouri and Maine, Virginia and Connecticut, were
   found standing together. His election seemed friendly to the
   harmony and the perpetuity of the Union."

      _G. Bancroft,
      Martin Van Buren.
      chapter 5._

   Mr. Van Buren received a clear majority of the popular vote
   cast at the election, namely, 762,678, against 735,651 cast in
   opposition, but divided between four Whig candidates, namely,
   William H. Harrison, who received 73 electoral votes, Hugh L.
   White, who received 26, Daniel Webster who received 14, and
   Willie P. Mangum, who received 11. Richard M. Johnson was
   chosen Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
   Admission of Michigan into the Union.

      See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
   The introduction of the Sub-treasury system.

   "When the banks went down, they had the government deposits:
   this was in May, 1837. Van Buren's administration was only two
   months old. The President was a warm admirer of Jackson, and
   had formally announced that he would continue his
   predecessor's policy with respect to the management of the
   deposits. But the 'experiment' had suddenly culminated. The
   government deposits were not in its control, and could not be
   regained; their transfer from one part of the country to
   another had ceased. … Once more, therefore, the government was
   confronted with a grave question touching its deposits and the
   circulating medium. It now essayed a brand-new experiment.
   This was nothing less than keeping the deposits itself, and
   transferring and paying them as occasion required; while the
   people were left to regulate the currency themselves. This was
   a very wide departure from any former policy. The mode
   proposed of keeping the public deposits may be briefly
   described. The treasury building at Washington was to
   constitute the treasury of the United States, and the public
   money was to be kept within its vaults. The mint at
   Philadelphia, the branch at New Orleans, the new custom-houses
   in New York and Boston, were also to contain branch treasury
   vaults. Places were also to be prepared at Charleston, St.
   Louis, and elsewhere. The treasurer of the United States at
   Washington, and the treasurers of the mints at Philadelphia
   and New Orleans, were to be 'receivers-general,' to keep the
   public money. … At the extra session of Congress in 1837, the
   Executive recommended the sub-treasury experiment. Congress
   refused to try it, although a majority in both Houses belonged
   to the same political party as the President. Nevertheless,
   the system was continued, without legislative sanction, until
   1840, when Congress finally passed a bill legalizing the
   measure. At the presidential election in 1840 a party
   revolution occurred, and the sub-treasury system, which had
   formed a prominent issue in the campaign, was unqualifiedly
   condemned by the people. Congress repealed the law, and passed
   a bill creating another national bank," which President Tyler
   vetoed.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.

   "Thus the keeping of the public money remained in the hands of
   the government officials, without legislative regulation,
   until the passage of the sub-treasury bill, in 1846. The
   system established at that time has been maintained ever
   since."

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 29, 41, 64-65._

      _D. Kinley,
      The Independent Treasury of the United States._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837-1838.
   Antislavery Petitions in the Senate.
   Calhoun's Resolutions, forcing the issue.

   "The movements for and against slavery in the session of
   1837-1838 deserve to be noted, as of disturbing effect at the
   time; and as having acquired new importance from subsequent
   events. Early in the session a memorial was presented in the
   Senate from the General Assembly of Vermont, remonstrating
   against the annexation of Texas to the United States, and
   praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of
   Columbia—followed by many petitions from citizens and
   societies in the Northern States to the same effect; and,
   further, for the abolition of slavery in the Territories—for
   the abolition of the slave trade between the States—and for
   the exclusion of future slave States from the Union. …
{3376}
   The question which occupied the Senate was as to the most
   judicious mode of treating these memorials, with a view to
   prevent their evil effects: and that was entirely a question
   of policy, on which senators disagreed who concurred in the
   main object. Some deemed it most advisable to receive and
   consider the petitions—to refer them to a committee—and
   subject them to the adverse report which they would be sure to
   receive; as had been done with the Quakers' petitions at the
   beginning of the government. Others deemed it preferable to
   refuse to receive them. The objection raised to this latter
   course was, that it would mix up a new question with the
   slavery agitation which would enlist the sympathies of many
   who did not co-operate with the Abolitionists—the question of
   the right of petition. … Mr. Clay, and many others were of
   this opinion; Mr. Calhoun and his friends thought otherwise;
   and the result was, so far as it concerned the petitions of
   individuals and societies, what it had previously been—a
   half-way measure between reception and rejection—a motion to
   lay the question of reception on the table. This motion,
   precluding all discussion, got rid of the petitions quietly,
   and kept debate out of the Senate. In the case of the memorial
   from the State of Vermont, the proceeding was slightly
   different in form, but the same in substance. As the act of a
   State, the memorial was received; but after reception was laid
   on the table. Thus all the memorials and petitions were
   disposed of by the Senate in a way to accomplish the two-fold
   object, first, of avoiding discussion; and, next, condemning
   the object of the petitioners. It was accomplishing all that
   the South asked; and if the subject had rested at that point,
   there would have been nothing in the history of this session,
   on the slavery agitation, to distinguish it from other
   sessions about that period: but the subject was revived; and
   in a way to force discussion, and to constitute a point for
   the retrospect of history. Every memorial and petition had
   been disposed of according to the wishes of the senators from
   the slaveholding States; but Mr. Calhoun deemed it due to
   those States to go further, and to obtain from the Senate
   declarations which should cover all the questions of federal
   power over the institution of slavery: although he had just
   said that paper reports would do no good. For that purpose, he
   submitted a series of resolves—six in number—which derive
   their importance from their comparison, or rather contrast,
   with others on the same subject presented by him in the Senate
   ten years later; and which have given birth to doctrines and
   proceedings which have greatly disturbed the harmony of the
   Union, and palpably endangered its stability. The six
   resolutions of this period (1837-1838) undertook to define the
   whole extent of the power delegated by the States to the
   federal government on the subject of slavery; to specify the
   acts which would exceed that power; and to show the
   consequences of doing anything not authorized to be done—
   always ending in a dissolution of the Union. The first four of
   these related to the States; about which, there being no
   dispute, there was no debate. The sixth, without naming Texas,
   was prospective, and looked forward to a case which might
   include her annexation; and was laid upon the table to make
   way for an express resolution from Mr. Preston on the same
   subject. The fifth related to the territories, and to the
   District of Columbia, and was the only one which excited
   attention, or has left a surviving interest. It was in these
   words: 'Resolved that the intermeddling of any State, or
   States, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this
   District, or any of the territories, on the ground or under
   the pretext that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of
   any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a
   direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the
   slaveholding States.' The dogma of 'no power in Congress to
   legislate upon the existence of slavery in territories' had
   not been invented at that time; and, of course, was not
   asserted in this resolve, intended by its author to define the
   extent of the federal legislative power on the subject. The
   resolve went upon the existence of the power, and deprecated
   its abuse." Mr. Clay offered an amendment, in the nature of a
   substitute, consisting of two resolutions, the first of which
   was in these words: "'That the interference by the citizens of
   any of the States, with the view to the abolition of slavery
   in this District, is endangering the rights and security of
   the people of the District; and that any act or measure of
   Congress, designed to abolish slavery in this District, would
   be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the
   States of Virginia and Maryland—a just cause of alarm to the
   people of the slaveholding States—and have a direct and
   inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union.' The
   vote on the final adoption of the resolution was: (Yeas 37,
   Nays 8]. … The second resolution of Mr. Clay applied to
   slavery in a territory where it existed, and deprecated any
   attempt to abolish it in such territory, as alarming to the
   slave States, and as violation of faith towards its
   inhabitants, unless they asked it; and in derogation of its
   right to decide the question of slavery for itself when
   erected into a State. This resolution was intended to cover
   the case of Florida, and ran thus: 'Resolved that any attempt
   of Congress to abolish slavery in any territory of the United
   States in which it exists would create serious alarm and just
   apprehension in the States sustaining that domestic
   institution, and would be a violation of good faith towards
   the inhabitants of any such territory who have been permitted
   to settle with, and hold, slaves therein; because the people
   of any such territory have not asked for the abolition of
   slavery therein; and because, when any such territory shall be
   admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof shall
   be entitled to decide that question exclusively for
   themselves.' And the vote upon it was—[Yeas 35, Nays 9]. …
   The general feeling of the Senate was that of entire
   repugnance to the whole movement—that of the petitions and
   memorials on the one hand, and Mr. Calhoun's resolutions on
   the other. The former were quietly got rid of, and in a way to
   rebuke, as well as to condemn their presentation; that is to
   say, by motions (sustained by the body) to lay them on the
   table. The resolutions could not so easily be disposed of,
   especially as their mover earnestly demanded discussion, spoke
   at large, and often himself; and 'desired to make the
   question, on their rejection or adoption, a test question.'"

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapter 33._

{3377}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
   The Sixth Census.

   Total population, 17,069,453 (exceeding that of 1830 by nearly
   33 per cent.), classed and distributed as follows:

North.

                        White.  Free black.     Slave.
Connecticut.           301,856    8,105            17
Illinois.              472,254    3,598           331
Indiana.               678,698    7,165             3
Iowa.                   42,924      172             16
Maine.                 500,438    1,355             0
Massachusetts.         729,030    8,669             0
Michigan.              211,560      707             0
New Hampshire.         284,036      537             1
New Jersey.            351,588   21,044           674
New York.            2,378,890   50,027             4
Ohio.                1,502,122   17,342             3
Pennsylvania.        1,676,115   47,854            64
Rhode Island.          105,587    3,238             5
Vermont.               291,218      730             0
Wisconsin.              30,749      185            11

Total                9,557,065   170,728        1,129

South.

                         White.  Free black.    Slave.
Alabama.               335,185    2,039       253,532
Arkansas.               77,174      465        19,935
Delaware.               58,561   16,919         2,605
District of Columbia.   30,657    8,361         4,694
Florida.                27,943      817        25,717
Georgia.               407,695    2,753       280,944
Kentucky.              590,253    7,817       182,258
Louisiana.             158,457   25,502       168,452
Maryland.              318,204   62,078        89,737
Mississippi.           179,074    1,366       195,211
Missouri.              323,888    1,574        58,240
North Carolina.        484,870   22,732       245,817
South Carolina.        259,084    8,276       327,038
Tennessee.             640,627    5,524       183,059
Virginia.              740,858   49,852       449,087

Total                4,632,530  215,575     2,486,326

   The number of immigrants arriving in the United States between
   1830 and 1840, according to official reports, was 599,125, of
   whom 283,191 were from the British Islands, and 212,497 from
   other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
   Fourteenth Presidential Election.
   The Log-cabin and Hard-cider campaign.

   William Henry Harrison, Whig, was elected President, over
   Martin Van Buren, Democrat, and James G. Birney, candidate of
   the "Liberty Party." The popular vote cast was: Harrison
   1,275,016, Van Buren 1,129,102, Birney 7,069. The electoral
   vote stood: Harrison 234, Van Buren 60, Birney none. John
   Tyler was elected Vice President. In the early part of the
   campaign, a Baltimore newspaper, making a foolish attempt to
   cast ridicule on General Harrison, said that a pension of a
   few hundred dollars and a barrel of hard cider would content
   him in his log cabin for life. This fatuous remark gave the
   Whigs a popular cry which they used with immense effect, and
   "the log-cabin and hard-cider campaign," as it is known in
   American history, was memorable for its song-singing
   enthusiasm.—"If one could imagine a whole nation declaring a
   holiday or season of rollicking for a period of six or eight
   months, and giving themselves up during the whole time to the
   wildest freaks of fun and frolic, caring nothing for business,
   singing, dancing, and carousing night and day, he might have
   some faint notion of the extraordinary scenes of 1840. It
   would be difficult, if not impossible, otherwise to form even
   a faint idea of the universal excitement, enthusiasm,
   activity, turmoil, and restlessness which pervaded the country
   during the spring, summer, and fall of that memorable year.
   Log cabins large enough to hold crowds of people were built in
   many places. Small ones, decorated with 'coon-skins, were
   mounted on wheels and used in processions. The use of the
   'coon-skins soon led to the adoption of the 'coon (raccoon)
   itself as an emblem and adjunct of the log cabin, and its
   'counterfeit presentment' was hoisted in all the Whig papers.
   Meetings were everywhere, and every day, held in
   neighborhoods, school-houses, villages, towns, counties,
   cities, States, varying in number from ten to one hundred
   thousand; and wherever there was a gathering there were also
   speaking and singing. Ladies attended these meetings, or
   conventions, in great numbers, and joined in the singing.
   Farmers, with big teams and wagons, would leave their fields
   and travel ten, twenty, or thirty miles, accompanied by their
   families and neighbors, to attend a convention or a barbecue
   and listen to distinguished orators. Crowds on the road,
   multitudes in big wagons drawn by four, six, or eight horses,
   made the welkin ring with their log-cabin songs. Nobody slept,
   nobody worked, nobody rested; at least so it seemed, for all
   were on the 'qui vive' and in motion. The entire population
   seemed to be absorbed in the great duty of electing General
   Harrison and thus changing the government. …

   What has caused this great commotion, motion, motion,
   Our country through?
   It is the ball a rolling on
   For Tippecanoe and Tyler too,
   For Tippecanoe and Tyler too.'

   The original or special friends of General Harrison very
   naturally claimed that it was his popularity which produced
   such an unprecedented 'commotion' 'our country through.' But
   in this they were mistaken. The popularity of no one man could
   have produced such a universal outpouring of the people from
   day to day for weeks and months unceasingly, abandoning
   everything else, and giving time and money unstintedly to
   carry the election. General Harrison was but the
   figure-head,—the representative of the Whig party for the time
   being. Few had ever heard of him. The people knew from history
   and the campaign papers that he had been a general in the then
   late war with England; that he had won a victory at the battle
   of Tippecanoe over the British and Indians, and also at the
   battle of the Thames, in Canada, where Tecumseh, the noted
   Indian warrior, was killed. This was enough to make a hero of
   him by those who had a purpose to serve in doing so. As to his
   fitness for the Presidency, the people knew nothing and cared
   nothing. A change in the government was what they desired and
   were determined to have."

      _N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events,
      volume 2, pages 107-110._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840-1841.
   The McLeod case.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

{3378}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.
   The Death of President Harrison.
   Breach between President Tyler and the Whig Party
   which elected him.

   President Harrison died suddenly on the 4th of April, 1841,
   and Vice President John Tyler became President. Tyler was a
   Calhoun Democrat in politics, although nominated and elected
   by the Whigs, and the financial measures favored by the latter
   were especially obnoxious to him. "Congress met May 31st,
   1841. … A bill to abolish the Sub-Treasury of the previous
   Administration was passed by both Houses and signed by the
   President. A bill to incorporate 'The Fiscal Bank of the
   United States' was passed by both Houses. It was weeded of
   many of the objectionable features of the old United States
   Bank, but was hardly less odious to the Democrats. It was
   vetoed by the President. … An effort to pass the bill over the
   veto did not receive a two-thirds majority. The Whig leaders,
   anxious to prevent a party disaster, asked from the President
   an outline of a bill which he would sign. After consultation
   with the Cabinet, it was given, and passed by both Houses.
   September 9th the President vetoed this bill also, and an
   attempt to pass it over the veto did not receive a two-thirds
   majority. The action of the President, in vetoing a bill drawn
   according to his own suggestions, and thus apparently
   provoking a contest with the party which had elected him,
   roused the unconcealed indignation of the Whigs. The Cabinet,
   with one exception [Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who
   remained in President Tyler's cabinet until May, 1843], at
   once resigned. The Whig members of Congress issued Addresses
   to the People, in which they detailed the reforms designed by
   the Whigs and impeded by the President, and declared that 'all
   political connection between them and John Tyler was at an end
   from that day forth.' … The President filled the vacancies in
   the Cabinet by appointing Whigs and Conservatives. His
   position was one of much difficulty. His strict
   constructionist opinions, which had prevented him from
   supporting Van Buren, would not allow him to approve a
   National Bank, and yet he had accepted the Vice-Presidency
   from a party pledged to establish one. The over hasty
   declaration of war by the Whigs put a stop to his
   vacillations, and compelled him to rely upon support from the
   Democrats. But only a few members of Congress, commonly known
   as 'the corporal's guard,' recognized Tyler as a leader."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d ed.,
      chapter 15, sections 2-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. G. Tyler,
      Letters and Times of the Tylers,
      volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _C. Colton,
      Life and Times of Henry Clay,
      chapters 14-15._

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 80-85._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
   Victory of John Quincy Adams in defending the Right of Petition.

   "January 21, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition from 45
   citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, praying for the
   dissolution of the Union, and moved it be referred to a select
   committee, with instructions to report why the petition should
   not be granted. There was at once great excitement and members
   called out, 'Expel him,' 'Censure him.' After a good deal of
   fruitless endeavor to accomplish something, the House
   adjourned, and forty or fifty slaveholders met to decide what
   kind of resolutions should be presented to meet the case.
   Thomas F. Marshall of Kentucky was selected by this caucus
   from Congress to propose the resolutions, which were to the
   effect that for presenting such a petition to a body each of
   whom had taken an oath to maintain the Constitution, Mr. Adams
   was virtually inviting them to perjure themselves, and that
   therefore he deserved the severest censure. Marshall supported
   this with a very violent speech. Mr. Wise followed in another.
   Then Mr. Adams arose and asked the clerk to read the first
   paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, being the one
   which recognizes the right of every people to alter or abolish
   their form of Government when it ceases to accomplish its
   ends. He said that those who believed that the present
   Government was oppressive had the right (according to the
   Declaration of Independence, on which the whole of our
   national unity reposes), to petition Congress to do what they
   believed was desirable; and all that Congress could properly
   do would be to explain to them why such an act could not be
   performed. He replied with great severity to Mr. Wise and said
   that Mr. Wise had come into that Hall a few years before with
   his hands dripping with the blood of one of his fellow beings.
   In this he alluded to the part which Mr. Wise had taken in the
   duel between Mr. Graves of Kentucky, and Cilley of Maine, in
   which the latter had been killed. As for Mr. Marshall, who had
   accused him of treason, he spoke of him with great scorn. 'I
   thank God!' said he 'that the Constitution of my country has
   defined treason, and has not left it to the puny intellect of
   this young man from Kentucky to say what it is. If I were the
   father of this gentleman from Kentucky, I should take him from
   this House and put him to school where he might study his
   profession for some years until he became a little better
   qualified to appear in this place.' Mr. Adams had on his desk
   a great many books and references prepared for his use by some
   anti-slavery gentlemen then in Washington; after he had gone
   on for some time with his speech he was asked how much more
   time he would probably occupy. He replied 'I believe Mr. Burke
   took three months for his speech on Warren Hastings'
   indictment. I think I may probably get through in ninety days,
   perhaps in less time.' Thereupon they thought it just as well
   to have the whole thing come to an end and it was moved that
   the matter should be laid on the table. Mr. Adams consented,
   and it was done."

      _J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      pages 57-59._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
   The tariff act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1842.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
   The Ashburton Treaty with England.
   Settlement of Northeastern boundary questions.

   "It was arranged in December by the Peel ministry that Lord
   Ashburton should be sent to Washington as a special minister
   from Great Britain, with full powers to settle the boundary,
   and all other pending disputes with the United States. …
   Ashburton, formerly Alexander Baring, of the eminent banking
   firm of Baring Brothers, and a son of its original founder,
   was now an old man, who had retired on a princely fortune, and
   being indifferent to fame, aspired only to bring these two
   countries to more friendly terms. Like his father before him,
   he had tact and plain good sense, and understood well the
   American character, having married here during his youth. Lord
   Ashburton arrived early the next April, and on the 13th of
   June entered upon the duties of his mission.
{3379}
   Maine and Massachusetts, the States most interested in the
   disputed boundary, sent commissioners of their own to yield an
   assent in this branch of the business. The whole business as
   conducted at our capital had an easy and informal character.
   Webster and Lord Ashburton represented alone their respective
   governments; no protocols were used, nor formal records; and
   the correspondence and official interviews went on after a
   friendly fashion in the heat of summer, and while Congress was
   holding its long regular session. … This Washington or
   Ashburton treaty, as it is called to this day, bore date of
   the day [August 9] when it was formally signed. It passed by
   the Oregon or north-western boundary, a point on which harmony
   was impossible, and this was the most pregnant omission of
   all; it passed by the 'Caroline' affair; it ignored, too, the
   'Creole' case, for Great Britain would not consent to
   recognize the American claim of property in human beings. Nor,
   on the other side, were the debts of delinquent States assumed
   by the United States, as many British creditors had desired.
   Mutual extradition in crimes under the law of nations, and the
   delivery of fugitives from justice, were stipulated. But the
   two chief features of this treaty were: a settlement of the
   boundary between Great Britain and the United States on the
   north-east, extending westward beyond the great lakes, and a
   cruising convention for the mutual suppression of the
   slave-trade. As to the northeast territory in dispute, which
   embraced some 12,000 square miles, seven-twelfths, or about as
   much as the King of the Netherlands had awarded, were set off
   to the United States; Great Britain taking the residue and
   securing the highlands she desired which frown upon the
   Canadian Gibraltar, and a clear though circuitous route
   between Quebec and Halifax. Our government was permitted to
   carry timber down the St. John's River, and though becoming
   bound to pay Maine and Massachusetts $300,000 for the strip of
   territory relinquished to Great Britain, gained in return
   Rouse's Point, on Lake Champlain, of which an exact survey
   would have deprived us. By the cruising convention clause,
   which the President himself bore a conspicuous part in
   arranging, the delicate point of 'right of search' was
   avoided; for instead of trusting Great Britain as the police
   of other nations for suppressing the African slave-trade, each
   nation bound itself to do its full duty by keeping up a
   sufficient squadron on the African coast. It so happened that
   Great Britain, by softening the old phrase 'right of search'
   into 'right of visitation,' had been inducing other nations to
   guarantee this police inspection of suspected slave vessels.
   In December, 1841, ambassadors of the five great European
   powers arranged in London a quintuple league of this
   character. But France, hesitating to confirm such an
   arrangement, rejected that league when the Ashburton treaty
   was promulgated, and hastened to negotiate in its place a
   cruising convention similar to ours on the slave-trade
   suppression; nor was the right of search, against which
   America had fought in the war of 1812, ever again invoked,
   even as a mutual principle, until by 1862 the United States
   had grown as sincere as Great Britain herself in wishing to
   crush out the last remnant of the African traffic. This
   cruising convention, however, left the abstract question of
   search untouched, and in that light Sir Robert Peel defended
   himself in Parliament. The Ashburton treaty was honorable, on
   the whole, for each side; what it arranged was arranged
   fairly, and what it omitted was deferred without prejudice. …
   So satisfactory, in fine, was the treaty, despite all
   criticism, that the Senate ratified it by more than a
   three-fourths vote, and at a time, too, when the Whig Congress
   was strongly incensed against the administration, and Webster
   had made bitter enemies."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 17, pages 400-403._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Webster,
      Diplomatic and Official Papers._

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Webster,
      chapters 28-29 (volume 2)._

      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
      other countries (edition of 1889),
      pages 432-438._

      _I. Washburn, Jr.,
      The Northeastern Boundary
      (Maine Historical Society Collections, volume 8)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.
   Fifteenth Presidential Election.
   Choice of James K. Polk.

   The Texas treaty of annexation had been held in committee in
   the Senate "till the national conventions of the two parties
   should declare themselves. Both conventions met in Baltimore,
   in May, to name candidates and avow policies. The Whigs were
   unanimous as to who should be their candidate: it could be no
   one but Henry Clay. Among the Democrats there was a very
   strong feeling in favor of the renomination of Van Buren. But
   both Clay and Van Buren had been asked their opinion about the
   annexation of Texas, both had declared themselves opposed to
   any immediate step in that direction, and Van Buren's
   declaration cost him the Democratic nomination. He could have
   commanded a very considerable majority in the Democratic
   convention, but he did not command the two-third's majority
   required by its rules, and James K. Polk of Tennessee became
   the nominee of his party." Polk had been Speaker of the House
   of Representatives, and was honorably though slightly known to
   the country. The only new issue presented in the party
   "platforms" was offered by the Democrats in their resolution
   demanding "'the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of
   Texas, at the earliest practicable period'; and this proved
   the makeweight in the campaign. … The 'Liberty Party,' the
   political organization of the Abolitionists, commanded now, as
   it turned out, more than 60,000 votes. … Had the 'Liberty' men
   in New York voted for Clay, he would have been elected."

      _W. Wilson,
      Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
      section 73 (chapter 6)._

   Polk received of the popular votes, 1,337,243, against
   1,299,062 cast for Henry Clay, Whig, and 62,300 cast for James
   G. Birney, candidate of the Liberty Party. Electoral vote:
   Polk, 170; Clay, 105; Birney, none. George M. Dallas was
   elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1845,
   The annexation of Texas and the agitation preceding it.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1846.
   The Oregon boundary question and its settlement.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

{3380}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.
   Preserving the equilibrium between Free and Slave States.
   Admission of Iowa and Florida.

   "The slave-masters … had long pretended that the equilibrium
   between the free and slave States must be preserved at all
   hazards, and twice had they resorted to the violent device of
   arbitrarily linking two measures that had nothing in common
   for that purpose,—in 1820 combining the bills for the
   admission of Missouri and Maine, and in 1836 those for the
   admission of Michigan and Arkansas. In pursuance of the same
   purpose and line of policy, they were now unwilling to receive
   without a consideration the free State of Iowa, which had
   framed a constitution in the autumn of 1844, and was asking
   for admission. Some makeweight must be found before this
   application could be complied with. This they managed to
   discover in an old constitution, framed by the Territory of
   Florida five years before. Though Florida was greatly
   deficient in numbers, and her constitution was very
   objectionable in some of its features, they seized this
   occasion to press its claims, and to make its admission a
   condition precedent to their consent that Iowa should be
   received. The House Committee on Territories reported in favor
   of the admission of the two in a single measure. In the
   closing hours of the XXVIIIth Congress the bill came up for
   consideration. … The constitution of Florida not only
   expressly denied to the legislature the power to emancipate
   slaves, but gave it the authority to prevent free colored
   persons from immigrating into the State, or from being
   discharged from vessels in her ports." All attempts to require
   an amendment of the Florida constitution in these particulars
   before recognizing that ill-populated territory as a State,
   were defeated, and the bill admitting Florida and Iowa became
   a law on the 3d of March, 1845.

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
   The Slavery question in the Democratic Party.
   Hunkers and Barnburners.
   The Wilmot Proviso.

   "With Polk's accession and the Mexican war, the schism in the
   Democratic ranks over the extension of American slave
   territory became plainer. Even during the canvass of 1844 a
   circular had been issued by William Cullen Bryant, David
   Dudley Field, John W. Edmonds, and other Van Buren men,
   supporting Polk, but urging the choice of congressmen opposed
   to annexation. Early in the new administration the division of
   New York Democrats into 'Barnburners' and 'Old Hunkers'
   appeared. The former were the strong pro-Van Buren, anti-Texas
   men, or 'radical Democrats,' who were likened to the farmer
   who burned his barn to clear it of rats. The latter were the
   'northern men with southern principles,' the supporters of
   annexation, and the respectable, dull men of easy consciences,
   who were said to hanker after the offices. The Barnburners
   were led by men of really eminent ability and exalted
   character: Silas Wright, then governor, Benjamin F. Butler,
   John A. Dix, chosen in 1845 to the United States senate,
   Azariah C. Flagg, the famous comptroller, and John Van Buren,
   the ex-president's son. … Daniel S. Dickinson and William L.
   Marcy were the chief figures in the Hunker ranks. Polk seemed
   inclined, at the beginning, to favor, or at least to placate,
   the Barnburners. … Jackson's death in June, 1845, deprived the
   Van Buren men of the tremendous moral weight which his name
   carried, and which might have daunted Polk. It perhaps also
   helped to loosen the weight of party ties on the Van Buren
   men. After this the schism rapidly grew. In the fall election
   of 1845 the Barnburners pretty thoroughly controlled the
   Democratic party of the state [of New York] in hostility to
   the Mexican war, which the annexation of Texas had now
   brought. Samuel J. Tilden of Columbia county, and a profound
   admirer of Van Buren, became one of their younger leaders. Now
   arose the strife over the 'Wilmot proviso,' in which was
   embodied the opposition to the extension of slavery into new
   territories. Upon this proviso the modern Republican party was
   formed eight years later; upon it, fourteen years later,
   Abraham Lincoln was chosen president; and upon it began the
   war for the Union, out of whose throes came the vastly grander
   and unsought beneficence of complete emancipation. David
   Wilmot was a Democratic member of Congress from Pennsylvania;
   in New York he would have been a Barnburner. In 1846 a bill
   was pending to appropriate $3,000,000 for use by the president
   in a purchase of territory from Mexico as part of a peace.
   Wilmot proposed an amendment that slavery should be excluded
   from any territory so acquired. All the Democratic members, as
   well as the Whigs from New York, and most strongly the Van
   Buren or Wright men, supported the proviso. The Democratic
   legislature [of New York] approved it by the votes of the
   Whigs with the Barnburners and the Soft Hunkers, the latter
   being Hunkers less friendly to slavery. It passed the house at
   Washington, but was rejected by the senate."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      chapter 11._

   In the slang nomenclature which New York politics have always
   produced with great fertility Hard-Shell and Soft-Shell were
   terms often used instead of Hunker and Barnburner.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846.
   The Walker Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846-1847.
   War with Mexico.
   Conquest of California and New Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847; and 1847;
      also, CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847;
      and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1847.
   Calhoun's aggressive policy of agitation, forcing the
   Slavery issue upon the North.
   His program of disunion.

   "On Friday, the 19th of February [1847], Mr. Calhoun
   introduced into the Semite his new slavery resolutions,
   prefaced by an elaborate speech, and requiring an immediate
   vote upon them. They were in these words: 'Resolved, That the
   territories of the United States belong to the several States
   composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and
   common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent
   and representative of the States of this Union, has no right
   to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly,
   or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States
   of this Union, by which any of them shall be deprived of its
   full and equal right in any territory of the United States
   acquired or to be acquired. Resolved, That the enactment of
   any law which should directly, or by its effects, deprive the
   citizens of any of the States of this Union from emigrating,
   with their property, into any of the territories of the United
   States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore,
   be a violation of the constitution, and the rights of the
   States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation
   of that perfect equality which belongs to them as members of
   this Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union
   itself.
{3381}
   Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political
   creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, have the
   unconditional right to form and adopt the government which
   they may think best calculated to secure their liberty,
   prosperity, and happiness; and that, in conformity thereto, no
   other condition is imposed by the federal constitution on a
   State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that
   its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition
   of any other by Congress would not only be in violation of the
   constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on
   which our political system rests.' These resolutions, although
   the sense is involved in circumlocutory phrases, are
   intelligible to the point, that Congress has no power to
   prohibit slavery in a territory, and that the exercise of such
   a power would be a breach of the constitution, and leading to
   the subversion of the Union. … Mr. Calhoun demanded the prompt
   consideration of his resolutions, giving notice that he would
   call them up the next day and press them to a speedy and final
   vote. He did call them up, but never called for the vote, nor
   was any ever had. … In the course of this year, and some
   months after the submission of his resolutions in the Senate
   denying the right of Congress to abolish slavery in a
   territory, Mr. Calhoun wrote a letter to a member of the
   Alabama Legislature, which furnishes the key to unlock his
   whole system of policy in relation to the slavery agitation,
   and its designs, from his first taking up the business in
   Congress in the year 1835, down to the date of the letter; and
   thereafter. The letter was in reply to one asking his opinion
   'as to the steps which should be taken' to guard the rights of
   the South. … It opens with this paragraph: 'I am much
   gratified with the tone and views of your letter, and concur
   entirely in the opinion you express, that instead of shunning,
   we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery
   question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is
   our duty—due to ourselves, to the Union, and our political
   institutions, to force the issue on the North. We are now
   stronger relatively than we shall be hereafter, politically
   and morally. Unless we bring on the issue, delay to us will be
   dangerous indeed. It is the true policy of those enemies who
   seek our destruction. Its effects are, and have been, and will
   be to weaken us politically and morally, and to strengthen
   them. Such has been my opinion from the first. Had the South,
   or even my own State backed me, I would have forced the issue
   on the North in 1835, when the spirit of abolitionism first
   developed itself to any considerable extent. It is a true
   maxim, to meet danger on the frontier, in politics as well as
   war. Thus thinking, I am of the impression, that if the South
   act as it ought, the Wilmot Proviso, instead of proving to be
   the means of successfully assailing us and our peculiar
   institution, may be made the occasion of successfully
   asserting our equality and rights, by enabling us to force the
   issue on the North. Something of the kind was indispensable to
   rouse and unite the South. On the contrary, if we should not
   meet it as we ought, I fear, greatly fear, our doom will be
   fixed. It would prove that we either have not the sense or
   spirit to defend ourselves and our institutions.' The phrase
   'forcing the issue' is here used too often, and for a purpose
   too obvious, to need remark. The reference to his movement in
   1835 confirms all that was said of that movement at the time
   by senators from both sections of the Union. … At that time
   Mr. Calhoun characterized his movement as defensive—as done in
   a spirit of self-defence: it was then characterized by
   senators as aggressive and offensive: and it is now declared
   in this letter to have been so. He was then openly told that
   he was playing into the hands of the abolitionists, and giving
   them a champion to contend with, and the elevated theatre of
   the American Senate for the dissemination of their doctrines,
   and the production of agitation and sectional division. All
   that is now admitted, with a lamentation that the South, and
   not even his own State, would stand by him then in forcing the
   issue. So that chance was lost. Another was now presented. The
   Wilmot Proviso, so much deprecated in public, is privately
   saluted as a fortunate event, giving another chance for
   forcing the issue. The letter proceeds: 'But in making up the
   issue, we must look far beyond the proviso. It is but one of
   many acts of aggression, and, in my opinion, by no means the
   most dangerous or degrading, though more striking and
   palpable.' … So that, while this proviso was, publicly, the
   Pandora's box which filled the Union with evil, and while it
   was to Mr. Calhoun and his friends the theme of endless
   deprecation, it was secretly cherished as a means of keeping
   up discord, and forcing the issue between the North and the
   South. Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to the serious question of
   disunion, and of the manner in which the issue could be
   forced. 'This brings up the question, how can it be so met,
   without resorting to the dissolution of the Union? … There is,
   in my opinion, but one way in which it can be met; and that is
   … by retaliation.' … Then follows an argument to justify
   retaliation. … Retaliation by closing the ports of the State
   against the commerce of the offending State: and this called a
   constitutional remedy, and a remedy short of disunion. … The
   letter proceeds with further instructions upon the manner of
   executing the retaliation: 'My impression is, that it should
   be restricted to sea-going vessels, which would leave open the
   trade of the valley of the Mississippi to New Orleans by
   river, and to the other Southern cities by railroad; and tend
   thereby to detach the North-western from the North-eastern
   States.' … This confidential letter from Mr. Calhoun to a
   member of the Alabama legislature of 1847, has come to light,
   to furnish the key which unlocks his whole system of slavery
   agitation which he commenced in the year 1835. That system was
   to force issues upon the North under the pretext of
   self-defence, and to sectionalize the South, preparatory to
   disunion, through the instrumentality of sectional
   conventions, composed wholly of delegates from the
   slaveholding States."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 167-168._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Peace with Mexico.
   The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   The acquisition of Territory.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Admission of Wisconsin into the Union.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Increased reservation of public lands for School support.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.

{3382}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   The Free Soil Convention at Buffalo and its nominations.

   The "Barnburner" Democrats of New York, or Free Soilers as
   they began to be called, met in convention at Utica, February
   16, 1848, and chose delegates to the approaching national
   Democratic Convention at Baltimore. In April the Barnburner
   members of the Legislature issued an elaborate address,
   setting forth the Free Soil principles of the Democratic
   fathers. The authors of the address were afterwards known to
   be Samuel J. Tilden and Martin and John Van Buren. The
   national Democratic Convention assembled in May, 1848. "It
   offered to admit the Barnburner and Hunker delegations
   together to cast the vote of the State. The Barnburners
   rejected the compromise as a simple nullification of the vote
   of the State, and then withdrew. Lewis Cass was nominated for
   president, the Wilmot proviso being thus emphatically
   condemned. For Cass had declared in favor of letting the new
   territories themselves decide upon slavery. The Barnburners,
   returning to a great meeting in the City Hall Park at New
   York, cried 'The lash has resounded through the halls of the
   Capitol!' and condemned the cowardice of northern senators who
   had voted with the South. … The delegates issued an address
   written by Tilden, fearlessly calling Democrats to independent
   action. In June a Barnburner convention met at Utica," which
   named Van Buren for the Presidency and called a national
   convention of all Free Soilers to meet at Buffalo, August 9,
   1848. "Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams,
   presided at the Buffalo convention; and in it Joshua R.
   Giddings, the famous abolitionist, and Salmon P. Chase, were
   conspicuous. To the unspeakable horror of every Hunker there
   participated in the deliberations a negro, the Rev. Mr. Ward.
   Butler [Benjamin F., of New York], reported the resolutions in
   words whose inspiration is still fresh and ringing. … At the
   close were the stirring and memorable words: 'We inscribe on
   our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men;
   and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a
   triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.' Joshua Leavitt
   of Massachusetts, one of the 'blackest' of abolitionists,
   reported to the convention the name of Martin Van Buren for
   president." The nomination was acclaimed with enthusiasm, and
   Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. "In
   September, John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted
   the Free-soil nomination for governor of New York. The
   Democratic party was aghast. The schismatics had suddenly
   gained great dignity and importance. … The Whigs had in June
   nominated Taylor, one of the two heroes of the Mexican war. …
   The anti-slavery Whigs hesitated for a time: but Seward of New
   York and Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune finally led
   most of them to Taylor, rather than, as Seward said, engage in
   'guerrilla warfare' under Van Buren. … This launching of the
   modern Republican party was, strangely enough, to include in
   New York few besides Democrats."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      chapter 11._

   "The Buffalo Convention was one of the more important
   upheavals in the process of political disintegration which
   went steadily on between the years 1844, when the 'Birneyites'
   deprived Henry Clay of the electoral vote of New York, and
   1856, when the Whig party disappeared, and the pro-slavery
   Democracy found itself confronted by the anti-slavery
   Republican organization of the North. In 1848, though the Whig
   party was already doomed, its time had not yet come. The Free
   Soil movement of 1848 was, therefore, premature; and moreover,
   as the result afterwards showed, there was something almost
   ludicrous in a combination of 'Conscience Whigs' of
   Massachusetts, in revolt over the nomination of the
   slave-owning General Taylor, with the 'Barnburning' Democrats
   of New York, intent only upon avenging on Cass the defeat of
   Van Buren. None the less the Free Soil movement of 1848
   clearly foreshadowed the Republican uprising of 1856, and of
   the men who took part in the Buffalo convention an unusually
   large proportion afterwards became prominent as political
   leaders."

      _C. F. Adams,
      Richard Henry Dana,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

      _J. W. Schuckers,
      Life of Salmon P. Chase,
      chapter 11._

      _R. B. Warden,
      Life of Salmon P. Chase,
      chapter 21._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Sixteenth Presidential Election.
   Inauguration and death of General Taylor.

   In the Presidential election of 1848, the Democratic party put
   forward as its candidate Lewis Cass; the Whigs named General
   Zachary Taylor; and the Free Soil Party placed Martin Van
   Buren in nomination. That the Whig Party should again have set
   aside its distinguished leader, Henry Clay, caused great grief
   among his devoted followers and friends. "But there were those
   in it who had grown gray in waiting for office under the
   banner of Mr. Clay, and whose memories were refreshed with
   what was effected by the éclat of military glory under General
   Jackson. It was hard, and might seem ungrateful, to abandon a
   great and long-tried leader. But the military feather waved
   before their eyes, and they were tempted. … It needed a
   leader, or a few leaders to give the signal of defection; and
   they were not wanting. One after another of the great names of
   the party fell off from Mr. Clay and inclined to General
   Taylor; and when the national Whig Convention met at
   Philadelphia, in June, 1848, to nominate a candidate for the
   Presidency, the first ballot showed that seven out of twelve
   of the Kentucky delegation, against the expectations and
   wishes of their constituency, had deserted Mr. Clay, and gone
   over to General Taylor. The influence of this fact was
   great—perhaps decisive. For if Mr. Clay's own State was
   against him, what could be expected of the other States? On
   the fourth ballot General Taylor had 52 majority, and was
   declared the nominee. … In November following, General Taylor
   was elected President of the United States, and Millard
   Fillmore Vice-President. As in the case of General Harrison,
   who died in thirty days after his inauguration, so in the case
   of General Taylor … he, too, died in sixteen months after he
   had entered on the duties of his office."

      _C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

   The popular vote cast at the election was, for Taylor,
   1,360,099; Cass, 1,220,544; for Van Buren, 291,263. The
   electoral vote was, for Taylor, 163; for Cass, 127; for Van
   Buren, none. Millard Fillmore, elected Vice President,
   succeeded to the Presidency on the death of General Taylor,
   July 9, 1850.

      _O. O. Howard,
      General Taylor,
      chapters 21-24._

{3383}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   The Seventh Census.

   Total population, 23,191,876, nearly 36 per cent. greater than
   in 1840. The remnant of slavery in the northern States which
   appears in this census, still lingering in New Jersey, was not
   quite extinguished in the succeeding decade. The
   classification and distribution of population was as follows:

North.

                        White.    Free black.   Slave.
California.             91,635        962           0
Connecticut.           363,099      7,693           0
Illinois.              846,034      5,436           0
Indiana.               977,154     11,262           0
Iowa.                  191,881        333           0
Maine.                 581,813      1,356           0
Massachusetts.         985,450      9,064           0
Michigan.              395,071      2,583           0
Minnesota.               6,038         39           0
New Hampshire.         317,456        520           0
New Jersey.            465,509     23,810         236
New York.            3,048,325     49,069           0
Ohio.                1,955,050     25,279           0
Oregon.                 13,087        207           0
Pennsylvania.        2,258,160     53,626           0
Rhode Island.          143,875      3,670           0
Utah.                   11,354          0          26
Vermont.               313,402        718           0
Wisconsin.             304,756        635           0

                    13,269,149    196,262         262

South.

                        White.   Free black.  Slave.
Alabama.               426,514      2,265     342,844
Arkansas.              162,189        608      47,100
Delaware.               71,169     18,073       2,290
District of Columbia.   37,941     10,059       3,687
Florida.                47,203        932      39,310
Georgia.               521,572      2,931     381,682
Kentucky.              761,413     10,011     210,981
Louisiana.             255,491     17,462     244,809
Maryland.              417,943     74,723      90,368
Mississippi.           295,718        930     309,878
Missouri.              592,004      2,618      87,422
New Mexico.             61,547          0           0
North Carolina.        553,028     27,463     288,548
South Carolina.        274,563      8,960     384,984
Tennessee.             756,836      6,422     239,459
Texas.                 154,034        397      58,161
Virginia.              894,800     54,333     472,528

Total                6,283,965    238,187   3,204,051

   The immigration in the decade preceding this census had risen
   to 1,713,251 in number of persons, 1,047,763 coming from the
   British Islands (mostly from Ireland), and 549,739 from other
   parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   Henry Clay's last "Compromise."
   Free California, and the Fugitive Slave Law.
   Webster's Seventh of March Speech
   and Seward's Declaration of the "Higher Law."

   "In 1848 gold was discovered in California. The tide of
   adventurers poured in. They had no slaves to take with them
   and no desire to acquire any. In less than a year the newly
   gathered people outnumbered the population of some of the
   smaller states. They organized a state government with an
   antislavery constitution, and demanded admission into the
   Union. True, the greater part of the proposed state lies north
   of 36° 30' [the dividing line of the Missouri Compromise], but
   its climate, tempered by the Pacific Ocean, is of rare
   mildness. If any part of the newly acquired territory should
   be opened to slavery, it seemed that California was the part
   best suited for it. If California repelled slavery, there was
   small hope that the remainder of the new territory would
   embrace it. Congress debated for ten months over the admission
   of California. The threatened inequality in numbers of the
   free and slave states was the central subject of contention,
   and the Union seemed again in danger of disruption."

      _J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 8._

   "One day toward the close of January [January 29, 1850], Henry
   Clay rose from his chair in the Senate Chamber, and waving a
   roll of papers, with dramatic eloquence and deep feeling,
   announced to a hushed auditory that he held in his hand a
   series of resolutions proposing an amicable arrangement of all
   questions growing out of the subject of slavery. Read and
   explained by its author this plan of compromise was to admit
   California, and to establish territorial governments in New
   Mexico, and the other portions of the regions acquired from
   Mexico, without any provisions for or against slavery—to pay
   the debt of Texas and fix her western boundary—to declare
   that it was 'inexpedient' to abolish slavery in the District
   of Columbia, but 'expedient' to put some restrictions on the
   slave trade there, to pass a new and more stringent fugitive
   slave law, and to formally deny that Congress had any power to
   obstruct the slave trade between the States. Upon this plan of
   compromise and the modifications afterward made in it, began
   that long debate, since become historic, which engrossed the
   attention of Congress and the country for eight weary months.
   At the outset, many of those who had threatened 'Disunion,'
   opposed 'Clay's Compromise,' because it did not go far enough,
   while the 'Wilmot Proviso' men were equally resolute in
   opposing it, because it went too far. Seward with many other
   Northern Whigs, adhered to the 'President's Plan' [which
   simply favored the admission of California and New Mexico
   under constitutions which he had invited their people to
   frame], as being a much more just and speedy way of solving
   the problem. Avowing himself unterrified by the threats of
   'Disunion,' he insisted that neither 'Compromise' nor the
   'Fugitive Slave Law' was necessary, and that it was both the
   right and the duty of Congress to admit the Territories as
   free States, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,
   and the slave trade between the States. Southern feeling was
   predominant in the Senate Chamber, as it had been for many
   years. Neither of the two great parties was opposed to
   slavery, and the recognized leaders of both were men of
   Southern birth. … Mr. Clay's resolutions, unsatisfactory as
   they were, to anti-slavery men, at first met with objections
   from Southern members. One 'deeply regretted the admission
   that slavery did not exist in the territories.' Several would
   'never assent to the doctrine that slaveholders could not go
   there, taking their property with them.' Some questioned the
   validity of the Mexican decree, abolishing slavery in New
   Spain, and doubted the constitutionality of any attempt on the
   part of Congress to exclude it. Prognostications and threats
   of 'disunion' were freely made.
{3384}
   On the other hand, there began to be signs of a growing
   disposition, on the part of many Northern men, to give up the
   'Proviso' for the sake of peace; and to follow the lead of Mr.
   Clay. Conservative Southern Whigs were quite ready to meet
   these half way. Seward's position was regarded as 'ultra' by
   both classes; and it not unfrequently happened that, on
   questions in the Senate relating to slavery, only three
   Senators, Seward, Chase, and Hale, would be found voting
   together, on one side, while all the other Senators present
   were arrayed against them, on the other. Newspapers, received
   from all parts of the country, showed that elsewhere, as well
   as at the capital, the proposed compromise was an engrossing
   topic. Great meetings were held at the North in support of it.
   State Legislatures took ground, for and against it. Fresh fuel
   was added to the heated discussion by a new 'Fugitive Slave
   Law,' introduced by Senator Mason of Virginia, and by the talk
   of Southern Conventions, and 'Secret Southern Caucuses.' …
   March was an eventful month. Time enough had elapsed for each
   Senator to receive, from the press and people of his State,
   their response, in regard to Clay's proposed compromise.
   Resolutions pro and con had come from different Legislatures.
   … Each of the leaders in senatorial debate felt that the hour
   had come for him to declare whether he was for or against it.
   … Mr. Calhoun, though in failing health, obtained the floor
   for a speech. Everybody awaited it with great interest,
   regarding him as the acknowledged exponent of Southern
   opinion. … An expectant throng filled the Senate Chamber. His
   gaunt figure and attenuated features attested that he had
   risen from a sick bed; but his fiery eyes and unshaken voice
   showed he had no intention of abandoning the contest. In a few
   words he explained that his health would not permit him to
   deliver the speech he had prepared, but that 'his friend the
   Senator behind him (Mason) would read it for him.' Beginning
   by saying that he had 'believed from the first that the
   agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by
   some timely and effective measure, end in "disunion,"' the
   speech opposed Clay's plan of adjustment; attacked the
   President's plan; adverted to the growing feeling that the
   South could not remain in Union 'with safety and honor';
   pointed out the gradual snapping, one after another, of the
   links which held the Union together, and expressed the most
   gloomy forebodings for the future. Three days later a similar,
   or greater, throng gathered to listen to Webster's great '7th
   of March speech,' which has ever since been recorded as
   marking an era in his life. He rose from his seat near the
   middle of the chamber, wearing his customary blue coat with
   metal buttons, and with one hand thrust into the buff vest,
   stood during his opening remarks, as impassive as a statue;
   but growing slightly more animated as he proceeded. Calm,
   clear, and powerful, his sonorous utterances, while they
   disappointed thousands of his friends at the North, lent new
   vigor to the 'Compromisers,' with whom, it was seen, he would
   henceforth act."

      _F. W. Seward,
      Seward at Washington, 1846-1861,
      chapter 16._

   The first and longer part of Mr. Webster's speech was an
   historical review of the slavery question, and an argument
   maintaining the proposition, as he afterwards stated it in a
   few words, that there is "not a square rod of territory
   belonging to the United States the character of which, for
   slavery, or no slavery is not already fixed by some
   irrepealable law." The concluding part of his speech contained
   the passages which caused most grief among and gave most
   offense to his friends and admirers at the North. They are
   substantially comprised in the quotations following,—together
   with his eloquent declamation against the thought of
   secession: Mr. President, in the excited times in which we
   live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and
   recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of
   grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or
   supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country
   from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense
   of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I
   shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon these various
   grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin
   with complaints of the South. I will not answer, further than
   I have, the general statements of the honor·able Senator from
   South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of
   the South in consequence of the manner of administering this
   government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth.
   These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter
   into them. But I will allude to other complaints of the South,
   and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation;
   and that is, that there has been found at the North, among
   individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform
   fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of
   persons bound to service who have escaped into the free
   States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right,
   and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern
   legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the
   country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and
   the article of the Constitution which says to these States
   that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as
   binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man
   fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find
   excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional
   obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution
   addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the
   States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to
   other States 'shall be delivered up,' and I confess I have
   always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the
   States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into
   another State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of
   that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import
   of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the
   Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my
   judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I
   entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was
   before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of
   the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service
   to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the
   authority of this government. I do not know, on the whole,
   that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to
   respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity
   of judicial decisions.
{3385}
   As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives
   are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the
   national judicature, and my friend at the head of the
   Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before the
   Senate, which with some amendments to it, I propose to
   support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I
   desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the
   North, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not
   carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression,
   to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober
   and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a
   question of conscience. What right have they, in their
   legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get
   round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of
   the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose
   slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. Neither in
   the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the
   Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an
   attempt. … I repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a
   well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which
   ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the
   different departments of this government to remove; which
   calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the
   judicature of this government, in the several States, to do
   all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and
   for their restoration to those who claim them. … Complaint has
   been made against certain resolutions that emanate from
   legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only
   on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes
   recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing
   slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be called upon to
   present any resolutions here which could not be referable to
   any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I should
   be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts
   any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any
   opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at
   the present moment in the States, for two reasons: first,
   be·cause I do not consider that the legislature of
   Massachusetts has anything to do with it; and next, because I
   do not consider that I, as her representative here, have
   anything to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite
   too common; and if the legislatures of the States do not like
   that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down
   than I have to uphold it; It has become in my opinion quite
   too common a practice for the State legislatures to present
   resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all
   subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction
   more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or
   desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too
   imperative a shape. … Then Sir, there are the Abolition
   societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to
   which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think
   them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty
   years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same
   time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and
   good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited
   feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of
   liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what
   else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or
   an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do
   not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these
   societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their
   proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their
   interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain
   to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this
   point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates
   in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made
   by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery
   was discussed in that body. Everyone spoke of slavery as he
   thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets
   were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on
   that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read
   by every colored man who could read, and to those who could
   not read, those debates were read by others. At that time
   Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question,
   and to let that part of her population know as much of the
   discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been
   said by the honorable member from South Carolina, these
   Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835.
   It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent
   incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate,
   they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong
   feeling; in other words they created great agitation in the
   North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The
   bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their
   rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in
   Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was
   opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and
   shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether any body
   in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Governor
   McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to
   the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause;
   and everything that these agitating people have done has been,
   not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind
   faster, the slave population of the South. Again, Sir, the
   violence of the Northern press is complained of. The press
   violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are
   outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and
   there are reproaches as vehement in the South against the
   North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are
   violent; they mistake loud and violent talk, for eloquence and
   for reason. They think that he who talks loudest reasons best.
   And this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is
   here, and I trust always will be. … Well, in all this I see no
   solid grievance, no grievance presented by the South, within
   the redress of the government, but the single one to which I
   have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the
   injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive
   slaves. There are also complaints of the North against the
   South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and
   gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution,
   recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and
   recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the
   representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of
   sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that,
   by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to
   acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North
   finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South
   and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where
   it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the
   compact of the Constitution.
{3386}
   They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being
   regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped
   would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the
   South as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and
   extended; an institution which the South has already extended
   to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new
   territory. Well, then, passing from that, every body in the
   North reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers
   contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those
   presses to which I have alluded, are careful to spread about
   among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any
   Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing
   that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there
   are many such things, as every body will admit, from the
   South, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the
   reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and
   produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the
   North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing
   in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate
   which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from
   Louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I
   suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in
   this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give
   offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to
   give offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to
   run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the
   laboring people of the North, giving the preference, in all
   points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves
   of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose
   that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. He was merely
   expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that
   sort will be received by the laboring people of the North?
   Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the
   whole North. They are the people who till their own farms with
   their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men.
   Let me say, Sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the
   North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they
   cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they
   provide the means of independence. … There is a more tangible
   and irritating cause of grievance at the North. Free blacks
   are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally
   as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern
   port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police
   or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till
   the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only
   irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr.
   Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a
   well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The
   North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional;
   and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard
   it as a great grievance. Now, Sir, so far as any of these
   grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can
   be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they
   have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in
   mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to
   endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better
   feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and
   the North. Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard
   from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that
   this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of
   opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of
   any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear
   with distress and anguish the word 'secession,' especially
   when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and
   known to the country, and known all over the world, for their
   political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your
   eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The
   dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The
   breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without
   ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's
   pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees
   these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre,
   and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without
   convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies
   rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the
   realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe.
   There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable
   secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution
   under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be
   thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the
   mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear
   almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not
   state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but,
   Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that
   disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce
   war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its two-fold
   character. Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The
   concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic
   to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side
   and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the
   line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain
   American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to
   become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no
   country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here,
   or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where
   is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle
   still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the
   ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers, and our
   grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us
   with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our
   children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if
   we of this generation should dishonor these ensign of the
   power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is
   every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. … Sir,
   nobody can look over the face of this country at the present
   moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense
   and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to
   admit, that ere long the strength of America will be in the
   Valley of the Mississippi.
{3387}
   Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast
   has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two,
   and leaving free States at its source and on it branches, and
   slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate
   government? … To break up this great government! to dismember
   this glorious country! To astonish Europe with an act of folly
   such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any
   government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no
   secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of
   secession."

      _Daniel Webster,
      Works,
      volume 5, page 324._

   "The speech, if exactly defined, is, in reality, a powerful
   effort, not for compromise or for the Fugitive Slave Law, or
   any other one thing, but to arrest the whole anti-slavery
   movement, and in that way put an end to the dangers which
   threatened the Union and restore lasting harmony between the
   jarring sections. It was a mad project. Mr. Webster might as
   well have attempted to stay the incoming tide at Marshfield
   with a rampart of sand as to seek to check the anti-slavery
   movement by a speech. Nevertheless, he produced a great
   effect. … The blow fell with terrible force, and here … we
   come to the real mischief which was wrought. The 7th of March
   speech demoralized New England and the whole North. The
   abolitionists showed by bitter anger the pain, disappointment,
   and dismay which this speech brought. The Free-Soil party
   quivered and sank for the moment beneath the shock. The whole
   anti-slavery movement recoiled. The conservative reaction
   which Mr. Webster endeavored to produce came and triumphed.
   Chiefly by his exertions the compromise policy was accepted
   and sustained by the country. The conservative elements
   everywhere rallied to his support, and by his ability and
   eloquence it seemed as if he had prevailed and brought the
   people over to his opinions. It was a wonderful tribute to his
   power and influence, but the triumph was hollow and
   short-lived. He had attempted to compass an impossibility.
   Nothing could kill the principles of human liberty, not even a
   speech by Daniel Webster, backed by all his intellect and
   knowledge, his eloquence and his renown. The anti-slavery
   movement was checked for the time, and pro-slavery democracy,
   the only other positive political force, reigned supreme. But
   amid the falling ruins of the Whig party, and the evanescent
   success of the Native Americans, the party of human rights
   revived; and when it rose again, taught by the trials and
   misfortunes of 1850, it rose with a strength which Mr. Webster
   had never dreamed of."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 9._

   "A public meeting in Faneuil Hall condemned the action of
   Webster. Theodore Parker, who was one of the principal
   speakers, said: 'I know no deed in American history done by a
   son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of
   Benedict Arnold. … The only reasonable way in which we can
   estimate this speech is as a bid for the presidency.' In the
   main, the Northern Whig press condemned the salient points of
   the speech. … Whittier, in a song of plaintive vehemence
   called 'Ichabod,' mourned for the 'fallen' statesman whose
   faith was lost, and whose honor was dead. … This was the
   instant outburst of opinion; but friends for Webster and his
   cause came with more deliberate reflections. … When the first
   excitement had subsided, the friends of Webster bestirred
   themselves, and soon testimonials poured in, approving the
   position which he had taken. The most significant of them was
   the one from eight hundred solid men of Boston, who thanked
   him for 'recalling us to our duties under the Constitution,'
   and for his 'broad national and patriotic views.' The tone of
   many of the Whig papers changed, some to positive support,
   others to more qualified censure. The whole political
   literature of the time is full of the discussion of this
   speech and its relation to the compromise. It is frequently
   said that a speech in Congress does not alter opinions; that
   the minds of men are determined by set political bias or
   sectional considerations. This was certainly not the case in
   1850. Webster's influence was of the greatest weight in the
   passage of the compromise measures, and he is as closely
   associated with them as is their author. Clay's adroit
   parliamentary management was necessary to carry them through
   the various and tedious steps of legislation. But it was
   Webster who raised up for them a powerful and much-needed
   support from Northern public sentiment. At the South the
   speech was cordially received; the larger portion of the press
   commended it with undisguised admiration. … On the 11th of
   March, Seward spoke. … When Seward came to the territorial
   question, his words created a sensation, 'We hold,' he said,
   'no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired
   lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates
   our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain (i. e.
   the territories not formed into States) to union, to justice,
   to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher
   law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over
   the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The
   territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common
   heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the
   Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust
   as to secure in the highest attainable degree their
   happiness.' This remark about 'a higher law,' while far
   inferior in rhetorical force to Webster's 'I would not take
   pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to
   re-enact the will of God,' was destined to have transcendent
   moral influence. A speech which can be condensed into an
   aphorism is sure to shape convictions. These, then, are the
   two maxims of this debate; the application of them shows the
   essential points of the controversy."

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   In the political controversies which accompanied and followed
   the introduction of the Compromise measures, the Whigs who
   supported the Compromise were called "Silver-Grays," or
   "Snuff-Takers," and those who opposed it were called
   "Woolly-Heads," or "Seward-Whigs."

{3388}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   Mr. Clay's last compromise.
   The Omnibus Bill.
   The Fugitive Slave Law as passed.

   On the 17th of April, "a select committee of the Senate,
   headed by Mr. Clay, reported a bill consisting of 39 sections,
   embodying most of the resolutions which had been discussed.
   From its all-comprehensive nature it was called the Omnibus
   Bill. The points comprehended in the omnibus bill were as
   follows:

   1st. When new states formed out of Texas present themselves,
   it shall be the duty of Congress to admit them;

   2d. The immediate admission of California, with the boundaries
   which she has proposed;

   3d. The establishment of territorial governments for Utah and
   New Mexico, without the Wilmot proviso;

   4th. The combination of points 2 and 3 in one bill;

   5th. The excission from Texas of all New Mexico, rendering
   therefor a pecuniary equivalent;

   6th. The enactment of a law for the effectual rendition of
   fugitive slaves escaping into the free states;

   7th. No interference with slavery in the District of Columbia,
   but the slave trade therein should be abolished, under heavy
   penalties.

   This bill was discussed until the last of July, and then
   passed by the Senate, but it had been so pruned by successive
   amendments that it contained only a provision for the
   organization of a territorial government for Utah. In this
   condition it was sent to the House. There, as a whole, the
   bill was rejected, but its main heads were passed in August as
   separate bills, and were designated the compromise measures of
   1850, and, in their accepted shape, required:

   (1) Utah and New Mexico to be organized into territories,
   without reference to slavery;

   (2) California to be admitted as a free state;

   (3) $10,000,000 to be paid to Texas for her claim to New
   Mexico;

   (4) fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters; and

   (5) the slave trade to be abolished in the District of
   Columbia.

   The compromises were received by the leaders of the two great
   parties as a final settlement of the vexed questions which had
   so long troubled Congress and agitated the country, but the
   storm was only temporarily allayed. In accordance with these
   measures California became a state of the Union September 9,
   1850. The most important feature of this bill, in its bearing
   upon future struggles and conflicts, was the fugitive slave
   law. … In the midst of the discussion of these topics occurred
   the death of the President, July 9, 1850, one year and four
   months after his inauguration. … Mr. Fillmore was inaugurated
   on the 10th of July, 1850. He departed from the policy of his
   predecessor, organized a new cabinet, used his influence in
   favor of the compromise measures," and gave his signature to
   the Fugitive Slave Law.

      _W. R. Houghton,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 15._

   "It was apparent to everyone who knew anything of the
   sentiments of the North that this law could not be executed to
   any extent. Seward had truly said that if the South wished
   their runaway negroes returned they must alleviate, not
   increase, the rigors of the law of 1793; and to give the
   alleged fugitive a jury trial, as Webster proposed, was the
   only possible way to effect the desired purpose. If we look
   below the surface we shall find a strong impelling motive of
   the Southern clamor for this harsh enactment other than the
   natural desire to recover lost property. Early in the session
   it took air that a part of the game of the disunionists was to
   press a stringent fugitive slave law, for which no Northern
   man could vote; and when it was defeated, the North would be
   charged with refusing to carry out a stipulation of the
   Constitution. Douglas stated in the Senate that while there
   was some ground for complaint on the subject of surrender of
   fugitives from service, it had been greatly exaggerated. The
   excitement and virulence were not along the line bordering on
   the free and slave States, but between Vermont and South
   Carolina, New Hampshire and Alabama, Connecticut and
   Louisiana. Clay gave vent to his astonishment that Arkansas,
   Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, States which very
   rarely lost a slave, demanded a stricter law than Kentucky,
   which lost many. After the act was passed Senator Butler, of
   South Carolina, said: 'I would just as soon have the law of
   1793 as the present law, for any purpose, so far as regards
   the reclamation of fugitive slaves;' and another Southern
   ultra never thought it would be productive of much good to his
   section. Six months after the passage of the law, Seward
   expresses the matured opinion 'that political ends—merely
   political ends—and not real evils, resulting from the escape
   of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the
   enactment.'"

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The fugitive-slave law was to make the citizens of the Free
   States do for the slave-holders what not a few of the
   slave-holders were too proud to do for themselves. Such a law
   could not but fail. But then it would increase the
   exasperation of the slave-holders by its failure, while
   exasperating the people of the Free States by the attempts at
   enforcement. Thus the compromise of 1850, instead of securing
   peace and harmony, contained in the most important of its
   provisions the seeds of new and greater conflicts. One effect
   it produced which Calhoun had clearly predicted when he warned
   the slave-holding states against compromises as an invention
   of the enemy: it adjourned the decisive conflict until the
   superiority of the North over the South in population and
   material resources was overwhelming."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 26 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapters 15-16._

      _H. Clay,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches; edited by Colton,
      volume 6._

      _W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      volume 1, pages 51-131.
      and volume 4._

      _J. S. Pike,
      First Blows of the Civil War,
      pages 1-98._

      _H.Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapters 18-28._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
      chapter. 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also, HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE.

   The following is the complete text of the Fugitive Slave Law:
   "An act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled 'An
   Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping
   from the Service of their Masters,' approved February twelfth,
   one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three.

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
   the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
   persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed
   commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the
   Circuit Courts of the United States, and who, in consequence
   of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers
   that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of
   the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for
   any crime or offence against the United States, by arresting,
   imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by virtue of the
   thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of
   September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled 'An Act
   to establish the judicial courts of the United States,' shall
   be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and
   discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

{3389}

   SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court
   of each organized Territory of the United States shall have
   the same power to appoint commissioners to take
   acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take
   depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now
   possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all
   commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such
   purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of
   the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise
   all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners
   appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for
   similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge
   all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

   SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts
   of the United States, and the Superior Courts of each
   organized Territory of the United States, shall from time to
   time enlarge the number of commissioners, with a view to
   afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor,
   and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.

   SECTION 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners
   above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges
   of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in
   their respective circuits and districts within the several
   States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the
   Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and
   vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon
   satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and
   remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the
   restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from
   which such persons may have escaped or fled.

   SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the
   duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute
   all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this
   act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy
   marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when
   tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the
   same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of
   one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the
   motion of such claimant by the Circuit or District Court for
   the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such
   fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time
   in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such
   fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such
   marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his
   official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such
   claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said
   fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he
   escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when
   thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and
   efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the
   Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are
   hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties
   respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any
   one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute
   all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them
   in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with
   authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be
   appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon
   and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of
   the proper county, when necessary to insure a faithful
   observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in
   conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good
   citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt
   and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services
   may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said
   warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, anywhere
   in the State within which they are issued.

   SECTION 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held
   to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United
   States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another
   State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons
   to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or
   their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of
   attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the
   seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory
   in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such
   fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one
   of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the
   proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of
   such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and
   arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without
   process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken,
   forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose
   duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such
   claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof
   being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be
   taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or
   by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by
   some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal
   officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions
   under the laws of the State or Territory from which such
   person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a
   certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as
   aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer
   thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish
   the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by
   affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or
   labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so
   arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or
   persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from
   which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that
   said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant,
   his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the
   substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such
   fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the
   State or Territory in which such service or labor was due, to
   the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with
   authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney,
   to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be
   necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and
   remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory
   whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or
   hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged
   fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this
   and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive
   of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted,
   to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which
   he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person
   or persons by any process issued by any court, judge,
   magistrate, or other person whomsoever.

{3390}

   SECTION 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who
   shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent
   such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons
   lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a
   fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process
   as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such
   fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such
   claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or
   persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested,
   pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall
   aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as
   aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such
   claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons
   legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal
   such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of
   such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such
   person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid,
   shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not
   exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding
   six months, by indictment and conviction before the District
   Court of the United States for the district in which such
   offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of
   criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the
   organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover
   forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured
   by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for
   each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action
   of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts
   aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have
   been committed.

   SECTION 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their
   deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial
   Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as
   may be allowed to them for similar services in other cases;
   and where such services are rendered exclusively in the
   arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant,
   his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive
   may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient
   proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in the whole
   by such claimant, his agent or attorney; and in all cases
   where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be
   entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in
   each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the
   claimant, his or her agent or attorney; or a fee of five
   dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of
   such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery,
   inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and
   examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his
   or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to
   execute the process to be issued by such commissioners for the
   arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as
   aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars
   each for each person he or they may arrest and take before any
   such commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of
   such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed
   reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional
   services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such
   as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in
   custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his
   detention, and until the final determination of such
   commissioner; and, in general, for performing such other
   duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her
   attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees
   to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by
   the officers of the courts of justice within the proper
   district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by
   such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such
   supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be
   delivered to such claimants by the final determination of such
   commissioners or not.

   SECTION 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit
   made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney,
   after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to
   apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his
   or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits
   of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty
   of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in
   his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled,
   and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or
   attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby
   authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may
   deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in
   his service so long as circumstances may require. The said
   officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the
   same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are
   now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be
   certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest
   is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.

   SECTION 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person
   held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the
   District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to
   whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their
   agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein,
   or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to
   such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and
   that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party.
   Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the
   matters so proved, and also a general description of the
   person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be;
   and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the
   attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court,
   being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in
   which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited
   to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the
   law of the United States to cause persons escaping from
   service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken
   to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and
   that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the
   party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the
   said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either
   oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the
   said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she
   shall be delivered up to the claimant.
{3391}
   And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person
   authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants of
   fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other
   evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of
   his right to take any such person identified and proved to be
   owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall
   authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such
   person to the State or Territory from which he escaped:
   Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as
   requiring the production of a transcript of such record as
   evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be
   heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent
   in law. Approved, September 18, 1850."

      _Statutes at Large,
      ix. 462-465._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
   The Hülsemann Letter.
   Kossuth in America.

   In July, 1850, Daniel Webster became Secretary of State in the
   cabinet of President Fillmore and retained that post until his
   death, in October, 1852. "The best-known incident of this
   period was that which gave rise to the famous 'Hülsemann
   letter.' President Taylor had sent an agent to Hungary to
   report upon the condition of the revolutionary government,
   with the intention of recognizing it if there were sufficient
   grounds for doing so. When the agent arrived, the revolution
   was crushed, and he reported to the President against
   recognition. These papers were transmitted to the Senate in
   March, 1850. Mr. Hülsemann, the Austrian Charge, thereupon
   complained of the action of our administration, and Mr.
   Clayton, then Secretary of State, replied that the mission of
   the agent had been simply to gather information. On receiving
   further instructions from his government, Mr. Hülsemann
   rejoined to Mr. Clayton, and it fell to Mr. Webster to reply,
   which he did on December 21, 1850. The note of the Austrian
   Chargé was in a hectoring and highly offensive tone, and Mr.
   Webster felt the necessity of administering a sharp rebuke.
   'The Hülsemann letter,' as it was called, was, accordingly
   dispatched. It set forth strongly the right of the United
   States and their intention to recognize any de facto
   revolutionary government, and to seek information in all
   proper ways in order to guide their action. … Mr. Webster had
   two objects. One was to awaken the people of Europe to a sense
   of the greatness of this country, the other to touch the
   national pride at home. He did both. … The affair did not,
   however, end here. Mr. Hülsemann became very mild, but he soon
   lost his temper again. Kossuth and the refugees in Turkey were
   brought to this country in a United States frigate. The
   Hungarian hero was received with a burst of enthusiasm that
   induced him to hope for substantial aid, which was, of course,
   wholly visionary. The popular excitement made it difficult for
   Mr. Webster to steer a proper course, but he succeeded, by
   great tact, in showing his own sympathy, and, so far as
   possible, that of the government, for the cause of Hungarian
   independence and for its leader, without going too far. … Mr.
   Webster's course, … although carefully guarded, aroused the
   ire of Mr. Hülsemann, who left the country, after writing a
   letter of indignant farewell to the Secretary of State."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Webster,
      Works,
      volume 6, pages 488-504._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1851.
   The Lopez Filibustering expedition to Cuba.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
   Appearance of the Know Nothing or American Party.

   "A new party had by this time risen to active importance in
   American politics. It appeared in 1852, in the form of a
   secret, oath-bound organization, of whose name, nature, and
   objects nothing was told even to its members until they had
   reached its higher degrees. Their consequent declaration that
   they knew nothing about it gave the society its popular name
   of Know Nothings. It accepted the name of the American Party.
   Its design was to oppose the easy naturalization of
   foreigners, and to aid the election of native-born citizens to
   office. Its nominations were made by secret conventions of
   delegates from the various lodges, and were voted for by all
   members under penalty of expulsion in case of refusal. At
   first, by endorsing the nominations of one or other of the two
   great parties, it decided many elections. After the passage of
   the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the Know Nothing organization was
   adopted by many Southern Whigs who were unwilling to unite
   with the Democracy, and became, for a time, a national party.
   It carried nine of the State elections in 1855, and in 1856
   nominated Presidential candidates. After that time its
   Southern members gradually united with the Democracy, and the
   Know Nothing party disappeared from politics."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d edition,
      chapter 18, section 4._

   The ritual, rules, etc., of the American, or Know Nothing
   party are given in the following work.

      _T. V. Cooper,
      American Politics,
      pages 56-68._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Holmes,
      Parties and their Principles,
      pages 287-295._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
   Seventeenth Presidential Election.
   Franklin Pierce.

   "The question of slavery, in its comprehensive bearings,
   formed the turning point in the presidential canvass of 1852.
   … The national democratic convention which nominated Mr.
   Pierce, unanimously adopted a platform approving the
   compromise of 1850 as the final decision of the slavery
   question. The Whig party were widely divided on the question
   of acquiescence in the compromise measures, and still more at
   variance in regard to the claims of rival candidates for the
   presidency. Mr. Seward's friends in the free states united in
   the support of General Scott, who had, to a considerable
   extent, stood aloof from the agitations of the last few years.
   On the other hand, the exclusive supporters of the compromise,
   as a condition of party allegiance, were divided between
   Millard Fillmore, at that time acting president, and Daniel
   Webster, secretary of state. The Whig convention met in
   Baltimore on the 17th of June, 1852, two weeks after the
   democratic convention, and nominated General Scott as their
   candidate for president. A large majority of the delegates
   from New York, and a considerable number from other states,
   maintained their opposition to the test resolutions which were
   proposed by the other branch of the party. These resolutions,
   however, were adopted, and a platform was thus established
   resembling, in its main features, that of the democrats. …
   Supported by several advocates of this new platform on the
   ground of his personal popularity, General Scott received the
   nomination.
{3392}
   He was, however, regarded with great suspicion by a large
   number of whigs in the slaveholding states. … Many ardent
   friends of the compromise … refused to rally around General
   Scott, distrusting his fidelity to the compromise platform;
   while a large number of the Whigs of the free states, through
   aversion to the platform, assumed a neutral position or gave
   their support to a third candidate. Another portion of the
   Whig party nominated Mr. Webster, who died [October 24, 1852],
   not only refusing to decline the nomination, but openly
   avowing his disgust with the action of the party."

      _G. E. Baker,
      Memoir of William. H. Seward
      (Seward's Works, volume 4)._

   "The Democratic convention was held, first, on June 1, 1852,
   at Baltimore. It was a protracted convention, for it did not
   adjourn until the 6th of the month, but it was not very
   interesting. … After a short contest, the two-thirds rule was
   adopted by an overwhelming majority. The struggle over the
   nomination was protracted. On the first ballot, General Cass
   had 116; James Buchanan, 93; William L. Marcy, 27; Stephen A.
   Douglas, 20; Joseph Lane, 13; Samuel Houston, 8; and there
   were 4 scattering. The number necessary to a choice was 188. …
   On the twenty-ninth trial, the votes were: for Cass, 27; for
   Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate had more
   than 26. At this point Cass began to recover his strength, and
   reached his largest number on the thirty-fifth trial, namely,
   131. On that same ballot, Virginia gave 15 votes to Franklin
   Pierce. Mr. Pierce gained 15 more votes on the thirty-sixth
   trial; but at that point his increase ceased, and was then
   slowly resumed, as the weary repetition of balloting without
   effect went on. The forty-eighth trial resulted as follows:
   for Cass, 73; for Buchanan, 28; for Douglas, 33; for Marcy,
   90; for Pierce, 55; for all others, 8. The forty-ninth trial
   was the last. There was a 'stampede' for Pierce, and he
   received 282 votes to 6 for all others. Ten candidates were
   voted for as a candidate for the vice-presidency.—On the
   second ballot, William R. King of Alabama was unanimously
   nominated. … The anti-slavery organization, the Free Soil
   Democrats, though a much less important political factor than
   they had been four years earlier, held their convention in
   Pittsburg on August 11. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts
   presided. John P. Hale of New Hampshire was nominated for
   President, and George W. Julian of Indiana for Vice-President.
   … The canvass was not a very spirited one. All the early
   autumn elections were favorable to the Democrats, and the
   result in November was a crushing defeat of the Whigs in the
   popular vote and one still more decisive in the electoral
   vote. … The popular and electoral votes were as follows."
   Popular vote: Franklin Pierce, 1,601,274; Winfield Scott,
   1,386,580; John P. Hale, 155,825. Electoral vote: Pierce, 254;
   Scott, 42.

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 18._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
   The appearance of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and its effect.

   "Of the literary forces that aided in bringing about the
   immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860,
   we may affirm with confidence that by far the most weighty was
   the influence spread by this book. This story, when published
   [1851-1852] as a serial in the 'National Era,' an anti-slavery
   newspaper at Washington, attracted little attention, but after
   it was given to the world in book form in March, 1852, it
   proved the most successful novel ever written. The author felt
   deeply that the Fugitive Slave law was unjust, and that there
   was cruelty in its execution; this inspired her to pour out
   her soul in a protest against slavery. She thought that if she
   could only make the world see slavery as she saw it, her
   object would be accomplished; she would then have induced
   people to think right on the subject. The book was composed
   under the most disheartening circumstances. Worn out with the
   care of many young children; overstrained by the domestic
   trials of a large household, worried because her husband's
   small income did not meet their frugal needs; eking out the
   poor professor's salary by her literary work in a house too
   small to afford a study for the author—under such conditions
   there came the inspiration of her life. … The effect produced
   by the book was immense. Whittier offered up 'thanks for the
   Fugitive Slave law; for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's
   Cabin.' Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs
   in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph
   still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as
   a 'whirl of excitement.' Choate is reported to have said:
   'That book will make two millions of abolitionists.' Garrison
   wrote the author: 'All the defenders of slavery have let me
   alone and are abusing you.'"

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      volume 1, pages 278-280._

   Writing only nine months after the publication of "Uncle Tom's
   Cabin," C. F. Briggs, in Putnam's Monthly Magazine, said:
   "Never since books were first printed has the success of Uncle
   Tom been equalled; the history of literature contains nothing
   parallel to it, nor approaching it; it is, in fact, the first
   real success in bookmaking, for all other successes in
   literature were failures when compared with the success of
   Uncle Tom. … There have been a good many books which were
   considered popular on their first appearance, which were
   widely read and more widely talked about. But what were they
   all, compared with Uncle Tom, whose honest countenance now
   overshadows the reading world, like the dark cloud with a
   silver lining. Don Quixote was a popular book on its first
   coming out, and so was Gil Blas, and Richardson's Pamela, and
   Fielding's Tom Jones, and Hannah More's Cœlebs, and Gibbon's
   Decline and Fall; and so were the Vicar of Wakefield, and
   Rasselas, and the Tale of a Tub, and Evelina, the Lady of the
   Lake, Waverley, the Sorrows of Werter, Childe Harold, the Spy,
   Pelham, Vivian Grey, Pickwick, the Mysteries of Paris, and
   Macaulay's History. These are among the most famous books that
   rose suddenly in popular esteem on their first appearance, but
   the united sale of the whole of them, within the first nine
   months of their publication, would not equal the sale of Uncle
   Tom in the same time. … It is but nine months since this Iliad
   of the blacks, as an English reviewer calls Uncle Tom, made
   its appearance among books, and already its sale has exceeded
   a million of copies; author and publisher have made fortunes
   out of it, and Mrs. Stowe, who was before unknown, is as
   familiar a name in all parts of the civilized world as that of
   Homer or Shakspeare. Nearly 200,000 copies of the first edition
   of the work have been sold in the United States, and the
   publishers say they are unable to meet the growing demand.
{3393}
   The book was published on the 20th of last March, and on the
   1st of December there had been sold 120,000 sets of the
   edition in two volumes. 50,000 copies of the cheaper edition
   in one, and 3,000 copies of the costly illustrated edition. …
   They [the publishers] have paid to the author $20,300 as her
   share of the profits on the actual cash sales of the first
   nine months. But it is in England where Uncle Tom has made his
   deepest mark. Such has been the sensation produced by the book
   there, and so numerous have been the editions published, that
   it is extremely difficult to collect the statistics of its
   circulation with a tolerable degree of exactness. But we know
   of twenty rival editions in England and Scotland, and that
   millions of copies have been produced. … We have seen it
   stated that there were thirty different editions published in
   London, within six months of the publication of the work here,
   and one firm keeps 400 men employed in printing and binding
   it. … Uncle Tom was not long in making his way across the
   British Channel, and four rival editions are claiming the
   attention of the Parisians, one under the title of 'le Père
   Tom,' and another of 'la Case de l'Oncle Tom.'"

      _Uncle Tomitudes
      (Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1853)._

   "In May, 1852. Whittier wrote to Garrison: 'What a glorious
   work Harriet Beecher Stowe has wrought. Thanks for the
   Fugitive Slave Law. Better for slavery that that law had never
   been enacted, for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's Cabin.' …
   Macaulay wrote, thanking her for the volume, assuring her of
   his high respect for the talents and for the benevolence of
   the writer. Four years later, the same illustrious author,
   essayist, and historian wrote to Mrs. Stowe: 'I have just
   returned from Italy, where your fame seems to throw that of
   all other writers into the shade. There is no place where
   Uncle Tom, transformed into Il Zio Tom, is not to be found.'
   From Lord Carlisle she received a long and earnest epistle, in
   which he says he felt that slavery was by far the 'topping'
   question of the world and age, and that he returned his 'deep
   and solemn thanks to Almighty God, who has led and enabled you
   to write such a book.' The Rev. Charles Kingsley, in the midst
   of illness and anxiety, sent his thanks, saying: 'Your book
   will do more to take away the reproach from your great and
   growing nation than many platform agitations and
   speechifyings.' Said Lord Palmerston, 'I have not read a novel
   for thirty years; but I have read that book three times, not
   only for the story, but for the statesmanship of it.' Lord
   Cockburn declared: 'She has done more for humanity than was
   ever before accomplished by any single book of fiction.'
   Within a year Uncle Tom's Cabin was scattered all over the
   world. Translations were made into all the principal
   languages, and into several obscure dialects, in number
   variously estimated from twenty to forty. The librarian of the
   British Museum, with an interest and enterprise which might
   well put our own countrymen to blush, has made a collection
   which is unique and very remarkable in the history of books.
   American visitors may see there thirty-five editions (Uncle
   Tom's Cabin) of the original English, and the complete text,
   and eight of abridgments and adaptations. Of translations into
   different languages there are nineteen, viz.: Armenian, one;
   Bohemian, one; Danish, two distinct versions; Dutch, one;
   Flemish, one; French, eight distinct versions, and two dramas;
   German, five distinct versions, and four abridgments;
   Hungarian, one complete version, one for children, and one
   versified abridgment; Illyrian, two distinct versions;
   Italian, one; Polish, two distinct versions; Portuguese, one;
   Roman, or modern Greek, one; Russian, two distinct versions;
   Spanish, six distinct versions; Swedish, one; Wallachian, two
   distinct versions; Welsh, three distinct versions."

      _Mrs. F. T. McCray,
      Uncle Tom's Cabin
      (Magazine of American History, January, 1890)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852-1854.
   The Perry Expedition.
   Opening of intercourse with Japan.

      See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1853.
   The Gadsden Purchase of Arizona.

      See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
   The doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty."

   "The slavery agitation apparently had died away both in
   congress and throughout the country. This calm, however, was
   doomed to a sudden interruption. The prospect of … beneficent
   legislation was destroyed by the introduction of a measure
   which at once supplanted all other subjects in congress and in
   the political interests of the people. This was the novel and
   astounding proposal of Mr. Douglas [Senator Stephen A.
   Douglas, of Illinois], in relation to the Kansas and Nebraska
   territories. … The measure … alluded to … was a provision in
   the bill for the organization of a territory in Nebraska,
   declaring that the states which might at any future time be
   formed in the new territory should leave the question of
   slavery to be decided by the inhabitants thereof on the
   adoption of their constitution,—[this being in accordance with
   the doctrine which its advocates styled 'Popular Sovereignty,'
   but which took the commoner name of 'Squatter Sovereignty'
   from its opponents]. This provision was, as explained by the
   bill itself, the application of the compromise policy of 1850
   to Nebraska, and, as was evident, virtually repealed the
   Missouri Compromise of 1820, which guarantied that slavery
   should be forever excluded from the territory in question.
   But, in order to bring the supporters of the bill and its
   opponents to a more decided test, an amendment was moved
   expressly annulling that portion of the Missouri Compromise
   which related to the subject. Mr. Douglas, after some
   deliberation, accepted the amendment, and modified his plan so
   far as to introduce a new bill for the organization of
   Nebraska and Kansas within the same limits, instead of the
   territory of Nebraska alone, according to the original
   programme. The administration lost no time in adopting this
   policy as their own. It was at first proposed to hasten the
   passage of the bill through both houses so rapidly as to
   prevent any remonstrance on the part of the people. But the
   opponents of the measure, including Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, Mr.
   Sumner, Mr. Truman Smith, Mr. Wade, Mr. Everett, Mr. Bell, Mr.
   Houston, and Mr. Fessenden, combined against it such an
   earnest and effective resistance that the attention of the
   country was aroused, and an indignant protest called forth
   from the people of the free states. The bill, however, passed
   the senate on the 4th day of March, 1854, after a discussion
   which had occupied nearly every day of the session since the
   23d of January. …
{3394}
   On the 21st of March, Mr. Richardson of Illinois, in the
   house, moved to refer the bill, as it came from the senate, to
   the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman.
   Mr. Francis B. Cutting, of New York, moved that it be sent to
   the committee of the whole, where it could be freely
   discussed. His motion was carried, after a severe struggle, by
   a vote of 110 to 95. This was regarded as a triumph of the
   enemies of the bill and inspired hopes of its ultimate defeat
   in the house. On the 22d of May, after a most exciting
   contest, lasting nearly two months, in committee of the whole,
   Mr. Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, by an extraordinary
   stratagem in parliamentary tactics, succeeded in closing the
   debate and bringing the bill to a vote in the house, where it
   finally passed, before adjournment, by a vote of 113 to 100."
   Returned to the senate, on account of amendments which had
   been made to it, it passed that body again "by vote of 35 to
   13; and amid the firing of cannon and the shouting of its
   friends, it was sent to the president for his signature, at
   three o'clock in the morning of May 26, 1854. President Pierce
   promptly gave it his approval, and the odious measure became
   the law of the land. Thus was abrogated the Missouri
   Compromise—a law enacted thirty years before with all the
   solemnity of a compact between the free and the slave
   states—and a territory as large as the thirteen original
   states opened to slavery. The act was consummated by the
   cooperation of the north. Originating with a senator from a
   free state, it was passed by a congress containing in each
   branch a majority of members from the free states, and was
   sanctioned by the approval of a free state president. The
   friends of this legislation attempted to defend it on the
   pretence that it was not an original act, but only declaratory
   of the true intent and significance of the compromise measures
   of 1850."

      _G. E. Baker,
      Memoir of William H. Seward
      (volume 4 of Seward's Works),
      pages 24-27._

   Senator Douglas' explanation of the reasons on which he
   grounded his Kansas-Nebraska Bill is given in a report made by
   Lieutenant-Colonel Cutts, of conversations held by him with
   the Senator in 1859, and taken down in writing at the time, in
   the exact language of Mr. Douglas. "There was," said Senator
   Douglas, "a necessity for the organization of the Territory,
   which could no longer be denied or resisted. … Mr. Douglas, as
   early as the session of 1843, had introduced a bill to
   organize the Territory of Nebraska, for the purpose of opening
   the line of communication between the Mississippi Valley and
   our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, known as the Oregon
   country, and which was then under the operation of the treaty
   of joint occupation, or rather non occupation, with England,
   and was rapidly passing into the exclusive possession of the
   British Hudson's Bay Fur Company, who were establishing posts
   at every prominent and commanding point in the country. … Mr.
   Douglas renewed the introduction of his bill for the
   organization of Nebraska Territory, each session of Congress,
   from 1844 to 1854, a period of ten years, and while he had
   failed to secure the passage of the act, in consequence of the
   Mexican war intervening, and the slavery agitation which
   ensued, no one had objected to it upon the ground that there
   was no necessity for the organization of the Territory. During
   the discussions upon our Territorial questions during this
   period, Mr. Douglas often called attention to the fact that a
   line of policy had been adopted many years ago, and was being
   executed each year, which was entirely incompatible with the
   growth and development of our country. It had originated as
   early as the administration of Mr. Monroe, and had been
   continued by Mr. Adams, General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren,
   Harrison, and by Tyler, by which treaties had been made with
   the Indians to the east of the Mississippi River, for their
   removal to the country bordering upon the States west of the
   Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, with guaranties in said
   treaties that the country within which these Indians were
   located should never be embraced within any Territory or
   State, or subjected to the jurisdiction of either, so long as
   grass should grow and water should run. These Indian
   settlements, thus secured by treaty, commenced upon the
   northern borders of Texas, or Red River, and were continued
   from year to year westward, until when, in 1844, Mr. Douglas
   introduced his first Nebraska Bill, they had reached the
   Nebraska or Platte River, and the Secretary of War was then
   engaged in the very act of removing Indians from Iowa, and
   settling them in the valley of the Platte River, with similar
   guaranties of perpetuity, by which the road to Oregon was
   forever to be closed. It was the avowed object of this Indian
   policy to form an Indian barrier on the western borders of
   Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, by Indian settlements, secured
   in perpetuity by a compact that the white settlements should
   never extend westward of that line. This policy originated in
   the jealousy, on the part of the Atlantic States, of the
   growth and expansion of the Mississippi Valley, which
   threatened in a few years to become the controlling power of
   the nation. … This restrictive system received its first cheek
   in 1844, by the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, which was
   served on the Secretary of War, by its author, on the day of
   its introduction, with a notice that Congress was about to
   organize the Territory, and therefore he must not locate any
   more Indians there. In consequence of this notice, the
   Secretary (by courtesy) suspended his operations until
   Congress should have an opportunity of acting upon the bill;
   and inasmuch as Congress failed to act that session, Mr.
   Douglas renewed his bill and notice to the Secretary each
   year, and thus prevented action for ten years, and until he
   could procure action on the bill. … When Congress assembled at
   the session of 1853-1854, in view of this state of facts, Mr.
   Douglas renewed his Nebraska Act, which was modified, pending
   discussion, by dividing into two Territories, and became the
   Kansas-Nebraska Act. … The jealousies of the two great
   sections of the Union, North and South, had been fiercely
   excited by the slavery agitation. The Southern States would
   never consent to the opening of those Territories to
   settlement, so long as they were excluded by act of Congress
   from moving there and holding their slaves; and they had the
   power to prevent the opening of the country forever, inasmuch
   as it had been forever excluded by treaties with the Indians,
   which could not be changed or repealed except by a two-third
   vote in the Senate.
{3395}
   But the South were willing to consent to remove the Indian
   restrictions, provided the North would at the same time remove
   the Missouri restriction, and thus throw the country open to
   settlement on equal terms by the people of the North and
   South, and leave the settlers at liberty to introduce or
   exclude slavery as they should think proper." The same report
   gives a distinction which Senator Douglas drew between
   "Popular Sovereignty" and "Squatter Sovereignty," as follows:
   "The name of Squatter Sovereignty was first applied by Mr.
   Calhoun, in a debate in the United States Senate in 1848,
   between himself and General Cass, in respect to the right of
   the people of California to institute a government for
   themselves after the Mexican jurisdiction had been withdrawn
   from them, and before the laws of the United States had been
   extended over them. General Cass contended that in such a case
   the people had a right, an inherent and inalienable right, to
   institute a government for themselves and for their own
   protection. Mr. Calhoun replied that, with the exception of
   the native Californians, the inhabitants of that country were
   mere squatters upon the public domain, who had gone there in
   vast crowds, without the authority of law, and were in fact
   trespassers as well as squatters upon the public lands, and to
   recognize their right to set up a government for themselves
   was to assert the doctrine of 'Squatter Sovereignty.' The term
   had no application to an organized Territory under the
   authority of Congress, or to the powers of such organized
   Territory, but was applied solely to an unorganized country
   whose existence was not recognized by law. On the other hand,
   what is called 'Popular Sovereignty' in the Territories, is a
   phrase used to designate the right of the people of an
   organized Territory, under the Constitution and laws of the
   United States, to govern themselves in respect to their own
   internal polity and domestic affairs."

      _S. A. Douglas,
      Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and Party Questions
      (reported by J. M. Cutts),
      pages 86-92, and 123-124._

   "The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the beginning of
   the end, the fatal step of the South on its road to
   destruction. Throughout the North the conviction grew that
   Union and slavery could not exist much longer together. On the
   4th of July, 1854, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the
   Constitution of the United States with the words, 'The Union
   must be dissolved!' He represented only an extreme sentiment.
   But the people at large began to calculate the value of this
   Union for which so many sacrifices had been made. Slavery
   became odious to many persons hitherto indifferent to the
   subject, on the ground that it persistently and selfishly
   placed the Union in peril."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for
      the Abolition of Slavery,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Van Buren,
      Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties,
      chapter 8._

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of James Buchanan,
      chapter 9._

      _S. A. Douglas,
      Popular Sovereignty in the Territories
      (Harper's Magazine, September, 1859)._

      _H. von Holst.
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapters 6-8._

      _H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
      chapter 14._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Solidification of Anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
   The birth of the new Republican Party.

   "The determined purpose of the Slave Power to make slavery the
   predominating national interest was never more clearly
   revealed than by the proposed repeal of the Missouri
   compromise. This was a deliberate and direct assault upon
   freedom. Many, indeed, under the pleas of fraternity and
   loyalty to the Union, palliated and apologized for this breach
   of faith; but the numbers were increasing every hour, as the
   struggle progressed, who could no longer be deceived by these
   hollow pretences. … Pulpits and presses which had been dumb,
   or had spoken evasively and with slight fealty to truth, gave
   forth no uncertain sound. … To the utterances of the sacred
   desk were added the action of ecclesiastical bodies,
   contributions to the press, and petitions to State
   legislatures and to Congress. … These discussions from pulpit,
   platform, and press, all pointed to political action as the
   only adequate remedy. In the Northern States there were
   Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, anti-slavery Whigs, anti-Nebraska
   Democrats, and anti-slavery members of the American party,
   which had just come into existence. … As the conflict
   progressed, large and increasing numbers saw that no help
   could be reasonably hoped but through the formation of a new
   party that could act without the embarrassment of a Southern
   wing. But the formation of a national and successful party
   from materials afforded by the disintegration of hitherto
   hostile organizations was a work of great delicacy and
   difficulty. Such a party could not be made;—it must grow out
   of the elements already existing. It must be born of the
   nation's necessities and of its longings for relief from the
   weakness, or wickedness, of existing organizations. The mode
   of organizing this new party of freedom varied according to
   the varying circumstances of different localities and the
   convictions of different men. … One of the earliest, if not
   the earliest, of the movements that contemplated definite
   action and the formation of a new party, was made in Ripon,
   Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, in the early months of 1854." A
   public meeting, held in one of the churches of the town, was
   followed by a second meeting, on the 20th of March, at which
   definite proceedings were taken. "By formal vote the town
   committees of the Whig and Free Soil parties were dissolved,
   and a committee of five, consisting of three Whigs, one
   Free-Soiler, and one Democrat, was chosen. 'The work done on
   that evening,' says Mr. Bovey [one of its originators], 'was
   fully accepted by the Whig and Free Soil parties of all this
   section immediately; and very soon—that is to say, in a few
   months—by those parties throughout the entire State.' A State
   convention was held in July, by which the organization of the
   party was perfected for the State, a majority of the
   delegation was secured for the next Congress, and a
   Free-Soiler, Charles Durkee, was elected to the Senate of the
   United States. At the meeting of the 20th of March, Mr. Bovey,
   though stating his belief that the party should and probably
   would take the name of 'Republican,' advised against such a
   christening at that time and by that small local body of men.
   He, however, wrote to the editor of the New York 'Tribune,'
   suggesting the name. … But that 'little eddy' on that far-off
   margin was only one of many similar demonstrations,—signs of a
   turn of the tide in the great sea of American politics.
{3396}
   In Washington, on the morning after the passage of the
   Kansas-Nebraska bill, there was a meeting of some thirty
   members of the House at the rooms of Thomas D. Eliot and
   Edward Dickinson, of Massachusetts, called at the instance of
   Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, for consultation in regard to
   the course to be adopted in the exigencies of the case. The
   hopelessness of any further attempts through existing
   organizations was generally admitted; though a few still
   counselled adherence to the Whig party, in the expectation of
   securing its aid for freedom. But most present had become
   convinced that in a new party alone lay any reasonable hope of
   successful resistance to the continued aggressions of the
   arrogant and triumphant Slave Power. The name 'Republican' was
   suggested, discussed, and finally agreed upon as appropriate
   for the new organization. … But, whatever suggestions others
   may have made, or whatever action may have been taken
   elsewhere, to Michigan belongs the honor of being the first
   State to form and christen the Republican Party." A mass
   convention of Whigs and Free Soilers in that State was held on
   the 6th of July, at which the name was formally adopted, along
   with a "platform" of principles opposing the extension of
   slavery and demanding its abolition in the District of
   Columbia. "Though the Republican Party was not immediately
   organized in all the free States, its spirit inspired and its
   ideas largely pervaded the North. Within one year eleven
   Republican Senators were elected and fifteen States had
   secured anti-Nebraska majorities. Out of 142 Northern members
   of the House, 120 were opposed to the iniquitous measure. They
   were in sufficient numbers not only to control the election of
   Speaker, but they were able, by a majority of 15, to declare
   that 'in the opinion of this House, the repeal of the Missouri
   compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', was
   an example of useless and factious agitation of the slavery
   question, unwise and unjust to the American people.' Several
   States which had failed to organize a Republican Party in 1854
   did so in 1855."

      _H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 31._

   "The refusal of the Whigs in many States to surrender their
   name and organization, and more especially the abrupt
   appearance of the Know-Nothings on the field of parties,
   retarded the general coalition between the Whigs and the
   Free-soilers which so many influences favored. As it turned
   out, a great variety of party names were retained or adopted
   in the Congressional and State campaigns of 1854, the
   designation of 'anti-Nebraska' being perhaps the most common,
   and certainly for the moment the most serviceable, since
   denunciation of the Nebraska bill was the one all-pervading
   bond of sympathy and agreement among men who differed very
   widely on almost all other political topics. This affiliation,
   however, was confined exclusively to the free States. In the
   slave States, the opposition to the Administration dared not
   raise the anti-Nebraska banner, nor could it have found
   followers; and it was not only inclined but forced to make its
   battle either under the old name of Whigs, or as became more
   popular, under the new appellation of 'Americans,' which grew
   into a more dignified synonym for Know-Nothings. … While the
   measure was yet under discussion in the House in March, New
   Hampshire led off by an election completely obliterating the
   eighty-nine Democratic majority in her Legislature.
   Connecticut followed in her footsteps early in April. Long
   before November it was evident that the political revolution
   among the people of the North was thorough, and that election
   day was anxiously awaited merely to record the popular verdict
   already decided. The influence of this result upon parties,
   old and new, is perhaps best illustrated in the organization
   of the Thirty-fourth Congress, chosen at these elections
   during the year 1854, which witnessed the repeal of the
   Missouri Compromise. Each Congress, in ordinary course, meets
   for the first time about one year after its members are
   elected by the people, and the influence of politics during
   the interim needs always to be taken into account. In this
   particular instance this effect had, if anything, been
   slightly reactionary, and the great contest for the
   Speakership during the winter of 1855-1856 may therefore be
   taken as a fair manifestation of the spirit of politics in
   1854. The strength of the preceding House of Representatives,
   which met in December, 1853, had been: Whigs, 71;
   Free-soilers, 4; Democrats, 159—a clear Democratic majority of
   84. In the new Congress there were in the House, as nearly as
   the classification could be made, about 108 anti-Nebraska
   members, nearly 40 Know-Nothings, and about 75 Democrats; the
   remaining members were undecided. The proud Democratic
   majority of the Pierce election was annihilated."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Long, editor,
      The Republican Party: its History, etc._

      _A. Holmes,
      Parties and their Principles,
      pages 274-278._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1856.
   The beginning of the struggle for Kansas.
   Free-state settlers against Missouri "Border-ruffians."

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Canadian Reciprocity Treaty and its abrogation.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &c.
      (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856.
   Long contest for the Speakership of the House.
   Election of Mr. Banks, Republican.
   Mr. Giddings' account.

   "The free-soil party was now rapidly increasing in numbers and
   influence. The Whig organization had disbanded: Yet its
   leaders had too much pride of opinion to admit that the
   anti-slavery men were right in their policy or in their
   construction of the Constitution. Indeed, their prejudices
   were too strong to permit them to join any other existing
   organization. They therefore instituted a new party called the
   'Know Nothings' or 'American party.' Their leading policy was
   the exclusion of foreigners from office. … It was a secret
   society, known to each other by signs, grips and passwords. It
   increased rapidly in numbers, and in the autumn of 1844 they
   elected a large majority of officers in all of the free
   States. … The effect of their success became apparent at the
   assembling of the thirty-fourth Congress. It had placed the
   democratic party in a very decided minority in the House of
   Representatives. … And the Free-soilers or Republicans were
   placed in a most critical position. Their difficulty arose
   from the determination of aspiring politicians to give all
   influence into the hands of the organization which had
   recently sprung up.
{3397}
   Members of this new party were at the city of Washington some
   weeks before the assembling of Congress, making such political
   arrangements as they regarded necessary to secure the success
   for the 'Know Nothings.' But all were conscious that neither
   they nor the Free-soilers could succeed except by uniting with
   each other." A partial combination of Know Nothings with the
   Republicans was effected at a meeting on Friday before the
   opening of the session of Congress. "Late in the day a
   resolution was introduced pledging the members to vote for any
   man on whom a majority of the members should unite, provided
   he stood pledged by his past life or present declarations so
   to arrange the committees of the House as to give respectful
   answers to petitions concerning slavery. This resolution was
   adopted by a unanimous vote of more than 70 members. But the
   leading members of the 'Know Nothings' did not appear at any
   of the caucuses. It was in this unorganized form that members
   opposed to the extension of slavery met their associates on
   Monday in the Hall of Representatives, to enter upon a contest
   unequalled in the previous history of our Government. The
   House consisted of 234 members—225 of whom answered to their
   names at the first calling of the roll. The first business in
   order was the election of Speaker: And the ballots being
   counted, it was found that William A. Richardson, the
   democratic candidate, had 74 votes; Lewis D. Campbell, of
   Ohio, the 'Know Nothing' candidate, had 53 votes; Humphrey
   Marshall, of Kentucky, the southern Know Nothing candidate, 30
   votes; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, was supported by
   those Free-soilers or Republicans who refused to support any
   man placed in nomination by the Know Nothings; and Hiram M.
   Fuller, of Pennsylvania, received the votes of 17 members of
   the Know Nothing party who refused to support any other
   candidate. There were several other ballots cast during the
   day, with little change. The voting continued on the second,
   third, fourth and fifth days, without material change, except
   that Mr. Campbell's vote rose on one occasion as high as 75.
   After the result of the twenty-third ballot was announced, Mr.
   Campbell withdrew his name from the list of candidates. On the
   withdrawal of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Banks' rose regularly until
   the 15th December, when it reached 107. … On the 19th
   December, the ballot showed Mr. Banks to have 106, and Mr.
   Richardson 75. Messrs. Marshall and Fuller, with their
   adherents, continuing to vote by themselves. During the
   debates the Republicans were constantly assailed, and as the
   writer [Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio] was the oldest member of
   that party, he felt constrained to vindicate their cause. He
   assured the Democrats and 'Know Nothings' that the Republicans
   must soon come into power: And when once in power they would
   not permit southern members to dissolve the Union. This seemed
   to arouse much angry feeling. Mr. McMullen, of Virginia,
   replied with much spirit, declaring that whenever a northern
   President should be elected the South would dissolve the
   Union. This is believed to be the first distinct enunciation
   in Congress that the Union was to be dissolved upon the
   election of a northern President. Northern Democrats appeared
   mortified at the imprudence of Mr. McMullen. Mr. Banks, in a
   public speech made some two years previously in Maine, had
   said, that if we were to extend slavery or dissolve the Union,
   he would say, 'Let the Union slide.' This saying was now
   seized upon by southern men as an insuperable objection to Mr.
   Banks' election: While, at the same time, Mr. Brooks, of South
   Carolina, assured the House and the country that unless
   slavery were extended he desired to see the Union slide.
   Members appeared by common consent to enter upon a general
   debate, which was suspended on the 24th so long as to take a
   ballot, which showed no substantial change in the parties. On
   the 27th, four ballots were taken with a similar result. … On
   the 28th December the balloting was resumed, and continued
   through that and the following day without material change of
   parties, and debate was again renewed. … The President of the
   United States sent his annual message to the Senate on the
   31st December, and his private secretary appeared at the
   entrance of the House of Representatives and announced that he
   had brought with him the annual message of the President, to
   be presented to that body. Aware that this was intended to
   exert an influence against the Republicans, the author at once
   objected to receiving it, as it was an attempt to introduce a
   new practice—for up to that time no President had ever
   presumed to thrust his message upon an unorganized body—and
   that it could not constitutionally be received by members
   until a Speaker were elected. But a majority voted to receive
   it. The next attempt was to read it to the House; but it was
   again objected that it was not addressed to members in their
   disorganized condition, but was addressed to the Senate and
   House of Representatives, which had not then been organized.
   This objection was sustained, and although they had received
   the message, they refused to read it. The new year found the
   House unorganized, with the President's message lying upon the
   Clerk's desk unopened and unread. One ballot was taken. A
   motion was next made to take up and read the President's
   message; but, after debate, the motion was laid on the table.
   Members now began to make arrangements for continuing the
   contest indefinitely. Most of them had expected to draw their
   mileage to defray their current expenses; but being unable to
   do that until the House were organized, found themselves out
   of funds. In many Republican districts the people met in
   public conventions and passed resolutions approving the action
   of their Representatives, made provisions for their members to
   draw on their local banks for such funds as they deemed
   necessary for defraying expenses at Washington. To meet these
   expenses, some State Legislatures made appropriations from
   their State funds. Soon as the republican party became
   consolidated, its members became more confident. Those of
   greatest experience assured their friends that as the
   President, officers of government, and the army and navy must
   go without pay until the House should be organized, the
   pressure would soon be so great upon the democratic party that
   they would be compelled to submit to the election of a
   republican Speaker. Some State Legislatures passed resolutions
   sustaining the action of their Representatives, declaring the
   issue involved to be the extension or non-extension of
   slavery. …
{3398}
   On the 29th January several propositions were made for an
   immediate organization. They were rejected, but by such small
   majorities as to indicate an organization at no very distant
   period; and the Republicans now felt one, and only one doubt
   in regard to success. The southern 'Know Nothings' had been
   Whigs, and bitterly hated the Democrats; and the question now
   presented was, whether they would unite with their old enemies
   rather than see a republican Speaker elected. On the 3d
   February a resolution was presented, declaring that three more
   ballots should be taken and if no election were had, the
   candidate having the highest number of votes on the 4th ballot
   should be declared Speaker. Soon after this vote was announced
   the House adjourned. Members now felt that the contest was
   drawing to a close. The next morning … Mr. Aiken, of South
   Carolina, was announced as the democratic candidate. And the
   first ballot, under the resolution, showed little change of
   parties. Banks received 102 votes; Aiken, 92; Fuller, 13;
   Campbell, 4; and Wells, 2. By this time the spacious galleries
   were filled with eager spectators, the lobbies and passages
   were crowded by men and ladies anxious for the result. The
   next ballot was taken without any change of parties. A motion
   was made to adjourn, but it was voted down by 159 to 52. Mr.
   Fuller announced that he was no longer a candidate. The result
   now appeared to be anticipated by all, and as the Clerk
   commenced calling the roll of members for the final vote,
   there appeared to be the most intense interest felt on all
   sides of the House. … When the roll had been called through
   there was so much confusion that it was difficult for anyone
   to be heard. But the clerks and tellers proceeded in their
   duties, and when the count was completed, Mr. Benson, of Maine
   —one of the tellers—rose, and in a loud voice proclaimed that
   'On the one hundred and thirty-third ballot Nathaniel P. Banks
   had received 103 votes; Mr. Aiken had received 100 votes; Mr.
   Fuller had received 6 votes; and Mr. Campbell had received 4
   votes. That Mr. Banks having received the highest number of
   votes on this ballot, was declared duly elected Speaker of the
   thirty-fourth Congress.' At this announcement the spectators
   in the galleries broke forth in wild excitement. Cheer after
   cheer went up, amid the waving of handkerchiefs and
   demonstrations of unrestrained exultation, which were
   responded to by hisses from the Administration side of the
   House. … The effect of this victory was felt through the
   country. … Sixteen years before this occurrence Mr. Adams and
   the author of these sketches were the only representatives in
   Congress of the doctrines now supported by a majority of the
   House. The slaveholders and those who sympathized with them
   appeared to realize that political power was gradually
   escaping from their grasp, and that the day was rapidly
   approaching when the people would resume control of the
   Government."

      _J. R. Giddings,
      History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 26._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1860.
   Walker's Filibustering in Nicaragua.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
   Refusal to sign the Declaration of Paris.
   Proposed amendment.

      See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
   Senator Sumner's speech on "The Crime against Kansas,"
   and the assault upon him by Brooks of South Carolina.

   "The most startling speech made during the debate [on affairs
   in Kansas], and which, from the events succeeding, became the
   most celebrated, was that of Charles Sumner. It was delivered
   on the 19th and 20th days of May and was published under the
   title of 'The Crime against Kansas.' … If there had been no
   more to Sumner's speech than the invective against the slave
   power, he would not have been assaulted by Preston Brooks. Nor
   is it probable that the bitter attack which the senator made
   on South Carolina would have provoked the violence, had it not
   been coupled with personal allusions to Senator Butler, who
   was a kinsman of Brooks. … It was said that Seward, who read
   the speech before delivery, advised Sumner to tone down its
   offensive remarks, and he and Wade regretted the personal
   attack. But Sumner was not fully 'conscious of the stinging
   force of his language.' To that, and because he was terribly
   in earnest, must be attributed the imperfections of the
   speech. He would annihilate the slave power, and he selected
   South Carolina and her senator as vulnerable points of attack.
   … Two days after this exciting debate (May 22d) when the
   Senate at the close of a short session adjourned, Sumner
   remained in the Chamber, occupied in writing letters. Becoming
   deeply engaged, he drew his arm-chair close to his desk, bent
   over his writing, and while in this position was approached by
   Brooks, a representative from South Carolina and a kinsman of
   Senator Butler. Brooks, standing before and directly over him,
   said: 'I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a
   libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of
   mine.' As he pronounced the last word, he hit Sumner on the
   head with his cane with the force that a dragoon would give to
   a sabre-blow. Sumner was more than six feet in height and of
   powerful frame, but penned under the desk he could offer no
   resistance, and Brooks continued the blows on his defenceless
   head. The cane broke, but the South Carolinian went on beating
   his victim with the butt. The first blows stunned and blinded
   Sumner, but instinctively and with powerful effort he wrenched
   the desk from its fastenings, stood up, and with spasmodic and
   wildly directed efforts attempted unavailingly to protect
   himself. Brooks took hold of him, and, while he was reeling
   and staggering about, struck him again and again. The
   assailant did not desist until his arm was seized by one who
   rushed to the spot to stop the assault. At that moment Sumner,
   reeling, staggering backwards and sideways, fell to the floor
   bleeding profusely and covered with his blood. The injury
   received by Sumner was much more severe than was at first
   thought by his physicians and friends. Four days after the
   assault, he was able to give at his lodgings his relation of
   the affair to the committee of the House of Representatives.
   But, in truth, the blows would have killed most men. Sumner's
   iron constitution and perfect health warded off a fatal
   result; but it soon appeared that the injury had affected the
   spinal column. The next three years and a half was a search
   for cure. … At last he went to Paris and put himself under the
   care of Dr. Brown-Séquard, whose treatment of actual
   cauterization of the back eventually restore him to a fair
   degree of health; but he never regained his former physical
   vigor.
{3399}
   He was not able to enter regularly again on his senatorial
   career until December, 1859. … The different manner in which
   the North and the South regarded this deed is one of the many
   evidences of the deep gulf between these two people caused by
   slavery. … When Brooks returned to South Carolina he received
   an enthusiastic welcome. He was honored as a glorious son of
   the Palmetto State, and making him the present of a cane was a
   favorite testimonial. … At the North the assault of Brooks was
   considered brutal and cowardly; at the South, his name was
   never mentioned without calling him gallant or courageous,
   spirited or noble. … A committee was appointed by the House
   which took a large amount of evidence, and the majority
   reported a resolution in favor of the expulsion of Brooks. On
   this resolution, the vote was 121 to 95; but as it required
   two thirds, it was not carried. Only three Southern
   representatives publicly condemned the assault; only one voted
   to expel Brooks. After the decision by the House, Brooks made
   a speech, which he ended by resigning his place as
   representative. His district re-elected him almost
   unanimously: there were only six votes against him."

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Sumner,
      Works,
      volume 4, pages 125-342._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
   Eighteenth Presidential Election.
   Buchanan made President.

   "The presidential campaign of … 1856, showed a striking
   disintegration and re-formation of political groups. Nominally
   there were four parties in the field: Democrats, Whigs, Native
   Americans or Know-Nothings, and Republicans. The Know-Nothings
   had lately won some State elections, but were of little
   account as a national organization, for they stood upon an
   issue hopelessly insignificant in comparison with slavery.
   Already many had gone over to the Republican camp; those who
   remained nominated as their candidates Millard Fillmore and
   Andrew J. Donelson. The Whigs were the feeble remnant of a
   really dead party, held together by affection for the old
   name; too few to do anything by themselves, they took by
   adoption the Know-Nothing candidates. The Republican party had
   been born only in 1854. Its members, differing on other
   matters, united upon the one doctrine, which they accepted as
   a test: opposition to the extension of slavery. They nominated
   John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton, and made a platform
   whereby they declared it to be 'both the right and the duty of
   Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of
   barbarism, polygamy and slavery.' … In this Convention 110
   votes were cast for Lincoln for the second place on the
   ticket. … In the Democratic party there were two factions. The
   favorite candidate of the South was Franklin Pierce, for
   reelection, with Stephen A. Douglas as a substitute or second
   choice; the North more generally preferred James Buchanan, who
   was understood to be displeased with the repeal of the
   Missouri Compromise. The struggle was sharp, but was won by
   the friends of Buchanan, with whom John C. Breckenridge was
   coupled. The campaign was eager, for the Republicans soon
   developed a strength beyond what had been expected and which
   put the Democrats to their best exertions. The result was:
   popular vote, Democrats [Buchanan] 1,838,169, Republicans
   [Fremont] 1,341,264, Know-Nothings and Whigs [Fillmore]
   874,534; electoral vote, Democrats 174, Republicans 114,
   Know-Nothings and Whigs, 8. Thus James Buchanan became
   President of the United States, March 4, 1857. … Yet, while
   the Democrats triumphed, the Republicans enjoyed the presage
   of the future; they had polled a total number of votes which
   surprised everyone; on the other hand, the Democrats had lost
   ten States which they had carried in 1852 and had gained only
   two others, showing a net loss of eight States; and their
   electoral votes had dwindled from 254 to 174."

      _J. T, Morse, Jr.,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856-1859.
   The continued struggle in Kansas.
   The Topeka vs. the Lecompton Constitution.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
   The Dred Scott decision.

   "Dred Scott was a negro slave, the property of Dr. Emerson, a
   surgeon in the army. In 1834, Dred was carried by his master
   from the slave state of Missouri, first, to the military post
   at Rock Island in the free state of Illinois, where he
   remained till April or May, 1836; and, thence, to Fort
   Snelling, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, and lying
   north of the line of the Missouri Compromise, in both of which
   places he was held as a slave. At Fort Snelling, in the year
   1836, he was married to Harriet, a negro slave, who had also
   been brought to Fort Snelling by her master, Major Taliaferro,
   and there sold to Dr. Emerson. In 1838, Dred, with his wife
   and a child which had been born to him, was carried back by
   his master to the state of Missouri. Subsequently, Dred, with
   his wife, his daughter Eliza, and another daughter, Lizzie,
   who was born after the return of her family to Missouri, was
   sold to John F. A. Sandford—the defendant in the present case.
   Dred commenced his efforts for the establishment of the
   freedom of himself and family in the state courts of Missouri.
   The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county.
   Before this court, the judgment was in his favor, but, on
   appeal by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state,
   this judgment was reversed, and the case remanded to the court
   below,—where it remained, awaiting the decision of the suit
   which, in the meanwhile, Dred had brought in the United States
   courts. This second suit was brought before the Circuit Court
   of the United States for the district of Missouri, and thence
   carried, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court at Washington.
   It may be added that the first suit was brought against Dr.
   Emerson, but the second against Mr. Sandford, to whom Dred had
   been sold. The action, though brought to assert the title of
   Dred Scott and his family to freedom, was, in form, an action
   of trespass 'vi et armis,' which is the usual form employed in
   that state to try questions of this kind. The plaintiff,
   Scott, in his writ both makes a declaration of the acts of
   trespass—which of course are the acts of restraint necessarily
   implied in holding himself and family as slaves—and avers,
   what was necessary to give the court jurisdiction, that he and
   the defendant are citizens of different states; that is, that
   he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of
   New York. At the April term of the court, in 1854, the
   defendant Sandford pleads, that the court has not
   jurisdiction, because the plaintiff is not a citizen of
   Missouri, but a negro of African descent, whose ancestors, of
   pure African blood, were brought into this country and sold as
   slaves.
{3400}
   To this plea the plaintiff demurs as insufficient; the
   demurrer is argued at the same term, and is sustained by the
   court, that is, the court asserts its jurisdiction over the
   case." It was on this plea that the case went finally to the
   Supreme Court of the United States and was decided in 1857.
   "The question of negro citizenship came up in the
   consideration of the question of jurisdiction. For the
   question of jurisdiction was the question, whether the
   plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri, as he had averred in his
   declaration; and the only fact pleaded to disprove his
   citizenship was the fact that Scott was a negro of African
   descent, whose ancestors had been sold as slaves in the United
   States. The court, however, decided that this fact did not
   exclude the possibility of his being a citizen; in other
   words, it decided that a negro of this description can be a
   citizen of the United States. The first question before the
   Supreme Court was, whether it could rejudge this determination
   of the circuit court."

      _W. A. Larned,
      Negro Citizenship
      (New Englander, August, 1857)._

   The decision of the Supreme Court, delivered by Chief Justice
   Taney, March 6, 1857, not only closed the door of freedom to
   Dred Scott, but shut the doors of the United States courts
   against him and all those of his race who were or had been
   slaves, or who sprang from an ancestry in the servile state.
   The opinion of Chief Justice Taney was concurred in by all the
   justices except Curtis and McLean-Justice Nelson dissenting on
   one point only. The arguments and the sentiments in the
   opinion which gave most offence to the conscience and the
   reason of the country were the following: "It becomes … our
   duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are
   not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to
   sue as a citizen in a court of the United States. This is
   certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the
   first time has been brought for decision before this court.
   But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring it,
   and it is our duty to meet it and decide it. The question is
   simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into
   this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the
   political community formed and brought into existence by the
   Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled
   to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied
   by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the
   privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the
   cases specified in the Constitution. It will be observed, that
   the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors
   were negroes of the African race, and imported into this
   country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue
   before the court, therefore, is whether the descendants of
   such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born
   of parents who had become free before their birth, are
   citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is
   used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being
   the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be
   understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only,
   that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans
   who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. … The
   words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are
   synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe
   the political body who, according to our republican
   institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and
   conduct the Government through their representatives. They are
   what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every,
   citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of
   this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class
   of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a
   portion of this people, and are constituent members 'of this
   sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not
   included, and were not intended to be included, under the word
   'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none
   of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides
   for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the
   contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate
   and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the
   dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained
   subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges
   but such as those who held the power and the Government might
   choose to grant them. It is not the province of the court to
   decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy,
   of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the
   political or law-making power. … In discussing this question,
   we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State
   may confer within its own limits, and the rights of
   citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means
   follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a
   citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United
   States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the
   citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and
   privileges of a citizen in any other State. … The question
   then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in
   relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the
   citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro
   African race, at that time in this country, or who might
   afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be
   made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single
   State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue
   him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State
   without their consent? … The court think the affirmative of
   these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the
   plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of
   Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
   States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its
   courts. It is true, every person, and every class and
   description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption
   of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several
   States, became also citizens of this new political body; but
   none other. … It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine
   who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution
   was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the
   Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when
   they separated from Great Britain and formed new
   sovereignties, and took their places in the family of
   independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were
   recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights
   and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and
   who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of
   Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
{3401}
   In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of
   the times, and the language used in the Declaration of
   Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had
   been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they
   had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of
   the people, nor intended to be included in the general words
   used in that memorable instrument. It is difficult at this day
   to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that
   unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and
   enlightened portions of the world at the time of the
   Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution was
   framed and adopted. But the public history of every European
   nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They
   had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of
   an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
   white race, either in social or political relations; and so
   far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
   bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully
   be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold,
   and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic,
   whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at
   that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the
   white race." Finally, having, with great elaboration, decided
   the question of citizenship adversely to Dred Scott and all
   his kind, the Court proceeded to obliterate the antislavery
   provision of the Missouri Compromise, which constituted one of
   the grounds on which Dred Scott claimed his freedom. "It is
   the opinion of the court," wrote Chief Justice Taney, "that
   the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding
   and owning property of this kind in the territory of the
   United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not
   warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that
   neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made
   free by being carried into this territory; even if they had
   been carried there by the owner, with the intention of
   becoming a permanent resident. We have so far examined the
   case, as it stands under the Constitution of the United
   States, and the powers thereby delegated to the Federal
   Government. But there is another point in the case which
   depends on State power and State law. And it is contended, on
   the part of the plaintiff, that he is made free by being taken
   to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, independently of his
   residence in the territory of the United States; and being so
   made free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery by
   being brought back to Missouri. Our notice of this part of the
   case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends
   was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the
   case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82.
   In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio,
   with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to
   Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition,
   as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when
   they were brought back into that State, and not of Ohio; and
   that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of
   a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly
   before the court, and the decision that this court had not
   jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of
   the case. So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken
   into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as
   such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free
   or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of
   Illinois. … Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of
   this court, that it appears by the record before us that the
   plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense
   in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the
   Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no
   jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it.
   Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be
   reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be
   dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

      _Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the
      United States in the case of
      Dred Scott vs. John F. A. Sandford
      (Howard's Reports, volume 19)._

   "By this presentation of the iniquity, naked and in its most
   repulsive form, Taney did no small harm to the party which he
   intended to aid. It has been said that slavery plucked ruin on
   its own head by its aggressive violence. It could not help
   showing its native temper, nor could it help feeding its
   hunger of land, insisting on the restoration of its runaways,
   or demanding a foreign policy such as would fend off the
   approach of emancipation. But Taney's judgment was a
   gratuitous aggression and an insult to humanity at the same
   time, for which, supposing that the Southern leaders inspired
   it, they paid dear. If the slave was mere property, his owner
   might be entitled to take him anywhere, and thus slavery might
   be made national. The boast of a daring partisan of slavery
   might be fulfilled, that the day would come when men might be
   bought and sold in Boston as freely as any other goods. The
   issue, which all the politicians had striven to keep out of
   sight, was presented in its most startling and shocking form."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      page 235._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 39._

      _S. Tyler,
      Memoirs of Roger B. Taney,
      chapters 4-5._

      _A. Johnston,
      The United States: Its History and Constitution,
      section 249._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
   Tariff reduction.
   The financial collapse.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857-1859.
   The Mormon rebellion in Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
   Treaty with China.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
   The Lincoln and Douglas debate in Illinois.

   The senatorial term of Mr. Stephen A. Douglas being about to
   expire, the choice of his successor became an issue which
   controlled the election of members of the Illinois
   Legislature, in the fall of 1858. Mr. Douglas received an
   endorsement at the hands of the Democratic State Convention,
   in April, which virtually nominated him for re-election.
   Abraham Lincoln, who had come markedly to the front in his
   state during the Kansas discussions, "was the man already
   chosen in the hearts of the Republicans of Illinois for the
   same office, and therefore with singular appropriateness they
   passed, with great unanimity, at their convention in
   Springfield on the 16th of June, the characteristic
   resolution: 'That Hon. Abraham Lincoln is our first and only
   choice for United States Senator to fill the vacancy about to
   be created by the expiration of Mr. Douglas' term of office.'
{3402}
   There was of course no surprise in this for Mr. Lincoln. He
   had been all along led to expect it, and with that in view had
   been earnestly and quietly at work preparing a speech in
   acknowledgment of the honor about to be conferred on him. This
   speech he wrote on stray envelopes and scraps of paper, as
   ideas suggested themselves, putting them into that
   miscellaneous and convenient receptacle, his hat. As the
   convention drew near he copied the whole on connected sheets,
   carefully revising every line and sentence, and fastened them
   together, for reference during the delivery of the speech, and
   for publication. The former precaution, however, was
   unnecessary, for he had studied and read over what he had
   written so long and carefully that he was able to deliver it
   without the least hesitation or difficulty. … Before
   delivering his speech he invited a dozen or so of his friends
   over to the library of the State House, where he read and
   submitted it to them. After the reading he asked each man for
   his opinion. Some condemned and not one endorsed it. One man,
   more forcible than elegant, characterized it as a 'd-d fool
   utterance;' another said the doctrine was 'ahead of its time;'
   and still another contended that it would drive away a good
   many voters fresh from the Democratic ranks. Each man attacked
   it in his criticism. I was the last to respond. Although the
   doctrine announced was rather rank, yet it suited my views,
   and I said, 'Lincoln, deliver that speech as read and it will
   make you President.' At the time I hardly realized the force
   of my prophecy. Having patiently listened to these various
   criticisms from his friends—all of which with a single
   exception were adverse—he rose from his chair, and after
   alluding to the careful study and intense thought he had given
   the question, he answered all their objections substantially
   as follows: 'Friends, this thing has been retarded long
   enough. The time has come when these sentiments should be
   uttered; and if it is decreed that I should go down because of
   this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth—let me
   die in the advocacy of what is just and right.' The next day,
   the 17th, the speech was delivered just as we had heard it
   read. [The part of this famous speech which made the
   profoundest impression and gave rise to the most discussion
   was the opening part, contained in the following sentences:
   'If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
   tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.
   We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was
   initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of
   putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of
   that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has
   constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a
   crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided
   against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot
   endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect
   the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to
   fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will
   become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents
   of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it
   where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in
   the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push
   it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the
   States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no
   tendency to the latter condition? Let anyone who doubts
   carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal
   combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the
   Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him
   consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do,
   and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of
   its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he
   can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action
   among its chief architects, from the beginning.'] … Lincoln
   had now created in reality a more profound impression than he
   or his friends anticipated. Many Republicans deprecated the
   advanced ground he had taken, the more so as the Democrats
   rejoiced that it afforded them an issue clear and
   well-defined. Numbers of his friends distant from Springfield,
   on reading his speech, wrote him censorious letters; and one
   well-informed co-worker predicted his defeat, charging it to
   the first ten lines of the speech. These complaints, coming
   apparently from every quarter, Lincoln bore with great
   patience. To one complainant who followed him into his office
   he said proudly, 'If I had to draw a pen across my record, and
   erase my whole life from sight, and I had one poor gift or
   choice left as to what I should save from the wreck, I should
   choose that speech and leave it to the world unerased.'
   Meanwhile Douglas had returned from Washington to his home in
   Chicago. Here he rested for a few days until his friends and
   co-workers had arranged the details of a public reception on
   the 9th of July, when he delivered from the balcony of the
   Tremont House a speech intended as an answer to the one made
   by Lincoln in Springfield. Lincoln was present at this
   reception, but took no part in it. The next day, however, he
   replied. Both speeches were delivered at the same place.
   Leaving Chicago, Douglas passed on down to Bloomington and
   Springfield, where he spoke on the 16th and 17th of July
   respectively. On the evening of the latter day Lincoln
   responded again in a most effective and convincing effort. The
   contest now took on a different phase. Lincoln's Republican
   friends urged him to draw Douglas into a joint debate, and he
   accordingly sent him a challenge on the 24th of July. … On the
   30th Douglas finally accepted the proposition to 'divide time,
   and address the same audiences,' naming seven different
   places, one in each Congressional district, outside of Chicago
   and Springfield, for joint meetings. The places and dates
   were, Ottawa, August 21; Freeport, August 27; Jonesboro,
   September 15; Charleston, September 18; Galesburg, October 7;
   Quincy, October 13; and Alton, October 15. … During the
   canvass Mr. Lincoln, in addition to the seven meetings with
   Douglas, filled thirty-one appointments made by the State
   Central Committee, besides speaking at many other times and
   places not previously advertised. … The election took place on
   the second of November, and while Lincoln received of the
   popular vote a majority of over 4,000, yet the returns from
   the legislative districts foreshadowed his defeat. In fact,
   when the Senatorial election took place in the Legislature,
   Douglas received 54 and Lincoln 46 votes—one of the results of
   the lamentable apportionment law then in operation."

      _W. H. Herndon and J. W. Weik,
      Lincoln, the True Story of a Great Life,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

{3403}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
   Admission of Oregon into the Union, with a constitution
   excluding free colored People.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown's attack on Slavery in Virginia.
   The tragedy at Harper's Ferry.

   "On the 17th of October, 1859, this country was bewildered and
   astounded while the fifteen Slave States were convulsed with
   fear, rage, and hate, by telegraphic dispatches from Baltimore
   and Washington, announcing the outbreak, at Harper's Ferry, of
   a conspiracy of Abolitionists and negroes, having for its
   object the devastation and ruin of the South, and the massacre
   of her white inhabitants. … As time wore on, further advices,
   with particulars and circumstances, left no room to doubt the
   substantial truth of the original report. An attempt had
   actually been made to excite a slave insurrection in Northern
   Virginia, and the one man in America to whom such an
   enterprise would not seem utter insanity and suicide, was at
   the head of it." This was John Brown, of Osawatomie, who had
   been fighting slavery and the border ruffians in Kansas (see
   KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859) for five years, and had now changed
   his field. "A secret convention, called by Brown, and attended
   only by such whites and blacks as he believed in thorough
   sympathy with his views, had assembled in a negro church at
   Chatham, Canada West, May 8, 1858; at which Convention a
   'Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the
   United States' had been adopted. It was, of course, drafted by
   Brown, and was essentially an embodiment of his political
   views. … John Brown was chosen Commander-in-Chief; J. H. Kagi,
   Secretary of War; Owen Brown (son of John), Treasurer; Richard
   Realf, Secretary of State. Brown returned to the States soon
   after his triumphal entry into Canada as a liberator. … He was
   in Hagerstown, Maryland, on the 30th [of June, 1859], where he
   registered his name as 'Smith, and two sons, from Western New
   York.' He told his landlord that they had been farming in
   Western New York, but had been discouraged by losing two or
   three years' crops by frost, and they were now looking for a
   milder climate, in a location adapted to wool-growing, etc.
   After looking about Harper's Ferry for several days, they
   found, five or six miles from that village, a large farm, with
   three unoccupied houses, the owner, Dr. Booth Kennedy, having
   died the last Spring. These houses they rented for a trifle
   until the next March, paying the rent in advance. … After they
   had lived there a few weeks, attracting no observation, others
   joined them from time to time, including two of Brown's young
   daughters; and one would go and another come, without exciting
   any particular remark. … Meantime, the greater number of the
   men kept out of sight during the day, so as not to attract
   attention, while their arms, munitions, etc., were being
   gradually brought from Chambersburg, in well-secured boxes. No
   meal was eaten on the farm, while old Brown was there, until a
   blessing had been asked upon it; and his Bible was in daily
   requisition. The night of the 24th of October was originally
   fixed upon by Brown for the first blow against Slavery in
   Virginia, by the capture of the Federal Arsenal at Harper's
   Ferry; and his biographer, Redpath, alleges that many were on
   their way to be with him on that occasion, when they were
   paralyzed by the intelligence that the blow had already been
   struck, and had failed. The reason given for this, by one who
   was in his confidence, is, that Brown, who had been absent on
   a secret journey to the North, suspected that one of his party
   was a traitor, and that he must strike prematurely, or not at
   all. But the women who had been with them at the Kennedy
   farm—the wives or daughters of one or another of the party—had
   already been quietly sent away; and the singular complexion of
   their household had undoubtedly begun to excite curiosity, if
   not alarm, among their neighbors. … Harper's Ferry was then a
   village of some 5,000 inhabitants, lying on the Virginia side
   of the Potomac, and on either side of its principal tributary,
   the Shenandoah, which here enters it from the South. Its site
   is a mere nest or cup among high, steep mountains. … Here the
   Baltimore and Ohio Railroad crosses the Potomac. … Washington
   is 57 miles distant by turnpike; Baltimore 80 miles by
   railroad. … One of its very few streets was entirely occupied
   by the work-shops and offices of the National Armory, and had
   an iron railing across its entrance. In the old Arsenal
   building, there were usually stored from 100,000 to 200,000
   stand of arms. The knowledge of this had doubtless determined
   the point at which the first blow of the liberators was to be
   struck. The forces with which Brown made his attack consisted
   of seventeen white and five colored men, though it is said
   that others who escaped assisted outside, by cutting the
   telegraph wires and tearing up the railroad track. The
   entrance of this petty army into Harper's Ferry on Sunday
   evening … seems to have been effected without creating alarm.
   They first rapidly extinguished the lights of the town; then
   took possession of the Armory buildings, which were only
   guarded by three watchmen, whom, without meeting resistance or
   exciting alarm, they seized and locked up in the guardhouse.
   It is probable that they were aided, or, at least, guided, by
   friendly negroes belonging in the village. … At a quarter-past
   one, the western train arrived, and its conductor found the
   bridge guarded by armed men. … A little after midnight, the
   house of Colonel Washington was visited by six of Brown's men
   under Captain Stevens, who captured the Colonel, seized his
   arms, horses, etc., and liberated his slaves. On their return,
   Stevens and party visited the house of Mr. Alstadtt and his
   son, whom they captured, and freed their slaves. These, with
   each male citizen as he appeared in the street, were confined
   in the Armory until they numbered between forty and fifty.
   Brown informed his prisoners that they could be liberated on
   condition of writing to their friends to send a negro apiece
   as ransom. At daylight, the train proceeded, Brown walking
   over the bridge with the conductor. Whenever anyone asked the
   object of their captors, the uniform answer was, 'To free the
   slaves;' and when one of the workmen, seeing an armed guard at
   the Arsenal gate, asked by what authority they had taken
   possession of the public property, he was answered, 'By the
   authority of God Almighty!' The passenger train that sped
   eastward from Harper's Ferry, by Brown's permission, in the
   early morning of Monday, October 17th, left that place completely
   in the military possession of the insurrectionists. …
{3404}
   But it was no longer entirely one-sided. The white Virginians,
   who had arms, and who remained unmolested in their houses,
   prepared to use them. … Several Virginians soon obtained
   possession of a room overlooking the Armory gates, and fired
   thence at the sentinels who guarded them, one of whom was
   mortally wounded. Still, throughout the forenoon, the
   liberators remained masters of the town. … Had Brown chosen to
   fly to the mountains with his few followers, he might still
   have done so, though with a much slenderer chance of impunity
   than if he had, according to his original plan, decamped at
   midnight, with such arms and ammunition as he could bear away.
   Why he lingered, to brave inevitable destruction, is not
   certain; but it may fairly be presumed that he had private
   assurances that the negroes of the surrounding country would
   rise. … At all events, if his doom was already sealed, his
   delay at least hastened it. Half an hour after noon, a militia
   force, 100 strong, arrived from Charlestown, the county seat,
   and were rapidly disposed so as to command every available
   exit from the place. … Militia continued to pour in; the
   telegraph and railroad having been completely repaired, so
   that the Government at Washington, Governor Wise at Richmond,
   and the authorities at Baltimore, were in immediate
   communication with Harper's Ferry, and hurrying forward troops
   from all quarters. … Night found Brown's forces reduced to
   three unwounded whites beside himself, with perhaps half a
   dozen negroes from the vicinity. Eight of the insurgents were
   already dead; another lay dying beside the survivors; two were
   captives mortally wounded, and one other unhurt. Around the
   few survivors were 1,500 armed, infuriated foes. … During that
   night, Colonel Lee, with 90 United States marines and two
   pieces of artillery, arrived, and took possession of the
   Armory guard, very close to the engine-house. … At seven in
   the morning, after a parley which resulted in nothing, the
   marines advanced to the assault, broke in the door of the
   engine-house by using a ladder as a battering-ram, and rushed
   into the building. One of the defenders was shot and two
   marines wounded; but the odds were too great; in an instant,
   all resistance was over. Brown was struck in the face with a
   saber and knocked down, after which the blow was several times
   repeated, while a soldier ran a bayonet twice into the old
   man's body."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

   "The Virginians demonstrated amply during the Civil War that
   they were not cowards. What made them shake in their shoes was
   not John Brown and his handful of men, but the shadows which
   their excited imagination saw standing behind them. … The best
   evidence of the frightful genuineness of the panic is the
   brazen impudence with which it was brought forward as the
   justifying motive for the many atrocities which marked the
   trial. The brutalizing influences of slavery came to light
   with terrible vividness. Kapp's statement that Brown 'enjoyed
   very careful treatment' is not mistaken, but it is true only
   of the later period of his imprisonment. Watson Brown, whose
   life was prolonged until the early morning of the 19th of
   October, complained of the hard bench he was forced to lie on,
   His fellow-prisoner, Coppoc, begged for a mattress, or at
   least a blanket, for the dying man, but could obtain neither.
   Both Brown himself and Stevens, who was even more seriously
   wounded, had nothing furnished them but wretched straw.
   Redpath (page 373) assures us that 'from October 19 till
   November 7 no clean clothing was given to Brown, but that he
   lay in his soiled and blood-stained garments just as he had
   fallen at Harper's Ferry.' On the 25th of October he was
   brought before the court; he was not at first carried there on
   a camp-bed, as was the case afterward, but compelled to walk,
   leaning on two men. Virginia could not wait till he could
   stand. … There was no such haste to carry out the sentence as
   there had been to bring the trial to a close. On the 2d of
   November, Brown was sentenced to suffer death by hanging on
   the 2d of December."

      _H. von Holst,
      John Brown,
      pages 139-155._

   "Brown actually expected that the raid on Harper's Ferry would
   be the stroke with which Moses called forth water from the
   rock. The spring was to turn southward, and in its swift
   course to swell to a mighty river. He declared expressly to
   Governor Wise, and later still in his letters, that he had not
   intended simply to break the chains of a few dozen or a few
   hundred slaves, and to take them again to Canada. Emancipation
   was to be spread farther and farther, and the freedmen were to
   remain in the Southern States. Heaven itself could not have
   brought this about, unless it had sent the angel of judgment
   to cast down into the dust the whole white population from
   Florida to Maine." At the last, when John Brown, wounded and a
   prisoner, lay waiting his death, "he did not perceive that his
   undertaking could not have succeeded under any circumstances;
   but he did see that his failure and its consequences achieved
   much greater results than its most complete success could have
   done. … 'I can leave to God,' he writes, 'the time and manner
   of my death, for I believe now that the sealing of my
   testimony before God and man with my blood will do far more to
   further the cause to which I have earnestly devoted myself,
   than anything else I have done in my life.' And a few days
   later, 'My health improves slowly, and I am quite cheerful
   concerning my approaching end, since I am convinced that I am
   worth infinitely more on the gallows than I could be anywhere
   else.' … One year after the execution of Brown, on the 20th of
   December, 1860, South Carolina declared its secession from the
   Union, and on May 11, 1861, the Second Massachusetts Regiment
   of infantry was raised, which was first to sing on its march
   South:
      'John Brown's body lies mouldering in the grave,
      His soul goes marching on.'"

      _H. von Holst,
      John Brown,
      pages 139-155, 125-126, 167-175._

   "Editors persevered for a good while in saying that Brown was
   crazy; but at last they said only that it was 'a crazy
   scheme,' and the only evidence brought to prove it was that it
   cost him his life. I have no doubt that if he had gone with
   5,000 men, liberated 1,000 slaves, killed a hundred or two
   slaveholders, and had as many more killed on his own side, but
   not lost his own life, these same editors would have called it
   by a more respectable name. Yet he has been far more
   successful than that."

      _H. D. Thoreau,
      The Last Days of John Brown
      (Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapter 45._

      _F. B. Sanborn,
      Life and Letters of John Brown,
      chapters 15-17._

      _J. Redpath,
      Public Life of Captain John Brown._

{3405}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860.
   The Eighth Census.

   Total population, 31,443,322, being an increase exceeding 35½
   per cent. over the population of 1850; classified and
   distributed as follows:

North.

                        White.   Free black.  Slave.
California.            361,353     4,086          0
Colorado.               34,231        46          0
Connecticut.           451,520     8,627          0
Dakota.                  2,576         0          0
Illinois.            1,704,323     7,628          0
Indiana.             1,339,000    11,428          0
Iowa.                  673,844     1,069          0
Kansas.                106,579       625          2
Maine.                 626,952     1,327          0
Massachusetts.       1,221,464     9,602          0
Michigan.              742,314     6,799          0
Minnesota.             171,864       259          0
Nebraska.               28,759        67         15
Nevada.                  6,812        45          0
New Hampshire.         325,579       494          0
New Jersey.            646,699    25,318         18
New York.            3,831,730    49,005          0
Ohio.                2,302,838    36,673          0
Oregon.                 52,337       128          0
Pennsylvania.        2,849,266    56,849          0
Rhode Island.          170,668     3,952          0
Utah.                   40,214        30         29
Vermont.               314,389       709          0
Washington.             11,138        30          0
Wisconsin.             774,710     1,171          0
                           ---       ---        ---
Total               18,791,159   225,967         64

South.

                        White.  Free black.  Slave.
Alabama.               526,431     2,690    435,080
Arkansas.              324,191       144    111,115
Delaware.               90,589    19,829      1,798
District of Columbia.   60,764    11,131      3,185
Florida.                77,748       932     61,745
Georgia.               591,588     3,500    462,198
Kentucky.              919,517    10,684    225,483
Louisiana.             357,629    18,647    331,726
Maryland.              515,918    83,942    87,189
Mississippi.           353,901       773    436,631
Missouri.            1,063,509     3,572    114,931
New Mexico              82,924        85          0
North Carolina.        631,100    30,463    881,059
South Carolina.        291,388     9,914    402,406
Tennessee.             826,782     7,300    275,719
Texas.                 421,294       855    182,566
Virginia.            1,047,411    58,042    490,865
                          ----       ---        ---
Total                8,182,684   262,008  8,958,696

   Immigration in the preceding decade added 2,598,214 to the
   population, being 1,388,098 from the British Islands, and
   1,114,564 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860.
   The Southern view of Slavery.

   The state of opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery to
   which the people of the southern states had arrived in 1860 is
   set forth with brevity and distinctness in Claiborne's Life of
   General Quitman, which was published that year: "In the early
   stages of African slavery in the South," says the writer, "it
   was by many considered an evil, that had been inflicted upon
   the country by British and New England cupidity. The Africans
   were regarded as barbarians, and were governed by the lash.
   The very hatred of the 'evil' forced upon us was, in a
   measure, transferred to the unhappy victims. They were treated
   with severity, and no social relations subsisted between them
   and the whites. By degrees slavery began to be considered 'a
   necessary evil,' to be got rid of by gradual emancipation, or
   perhaps not at all, and the condition of the slave sensibly
   improved. The natural sense of justice in the human heart
   suggested that they had been brought here by compulsion, and
   that they should be regarded not as savages, but as captives,
   who were to be kindly treated while laboring for their
   ultimate redemption. The progress of anti-slavery sentiment in
   the Northern States (once regarded by the South as a harmless
   fanaticism), the excesses it has occasioned, and the
   unconstitutional power it claims, at length prompted a general
   and searching inquiry into the true status of the negro. The
   moment that the Southern mind became convinced, that slavery,
   as it exists among us, instead of being a moral, social, and
   political evil, is a moral, social, and political good, and is
   the natural condition of the negro, as ordained by Providence,
   and the only condition in which he can be civilized and
   instructed, the condition of the Southern slave underwent a
   thorough change. As a permanent fixture, as a hereditary
   heirloom, as a human being with an immortal soul, intrusted to
   us by God for his own wise purposes, his value increased, and
   his relation to his owner approximated to the relation of
   guardian and ward. Interest taught us that it would be wise to
   cherish what was to be the permanent means of production and
   profit, and religion exacted the humane and judicious
   employment of the 'talent' committed to our care. Thus the
   most powerful influences that sway the heart and the judgment
   are in operation for the benefit of the slave, and hence his
   present comfortable and constantly ameliorating condition. It
   is due, almost solely, to the moral convictions of the
   slaveholder. Our laws protect the slave in life and limb, and
   against cruel and inordinate punishment. Those laws are
   rigorously applied, though rarely necessary, for public
   opinion, more formidable than law, would condemn to execration
   and infamy the unjust and cruel master. Since these
   convictions in regard to slavery have been adopted almost
   unanimously in the South, the value of negroes has quadrupled.
   This, however, is in some measure an evil, because the
   tendency is to concentrate the slaves in the hands of the few,
   who are able to pay the extraordinary rates now demanded. It
   would be better for the commonwealth, and give additional
   solidity to our system of domestic servitude, if every family
   had an interest in it, secured, to a limited extent, against
   liability for debt. It should constitute in the South, if
   practicable, a part of every homestead, and then interest, and
   household tradition, and the friendly, confidential, and even
   affectionate relations that in the present state of public
   feeling prevail between master and slave, would unite all men
   in its defense. Neither land, nor slaves, which are here more
   valuable than land, should, by either direct or indirect
   legislation, be concentrated in few hands. Every citizen
   should have, if possible, that immediate interest in them
   which would make him feel that, in defending the commonwealth
   and its institutions, he is defending his own inheritance."

      _J. F. H. Claiborne,
      Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

{3406}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (April-November).
   Nineteenth Presidential Election.
   Division of the Democratic Party.
   Four candidates in the field.
   A victory for freedom in the choice of Abraham Lincoln.

   "Mr. J. W. Fell, a politician of Pennsylvania, says that after
   the debates of 1858 [with Douglas] he urged Lincoln to seek
   the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1860. Lincoln,
   however, replied curtly that men like Seward and Chase were
   entitled to take precedence, and that no such 'good luck' was
   in store for him. … In the winter of 1859-60 sundry 'intimate
   friends,' active politicians of Illinois, pressed him to
   consent to be mentioned as a candidate. He considered the
   matter over night and then gave them the desired permission,
   at the same time saying that he would not accept the
   vice-presidency. … With the opening of the spring of 1860 the
   several parties began the campaign in earnest. The Democratic
   Convention met first, at Charleston, April 23; and immediately
   the line of disruption opened. Upon the one side stood
   Douglas, with the moderate men and nearly all the Northern
   delegates, while against him were the advocates of extreme
   Southern doctrines, supported by the administration and by
   most of the delegates from the 'Cotton States.' The majority
   of the committee appointed to draft the platform were
   anti-Douglas men; but their report was rejected, and that
   offered by the pro-Douglas minority was substituted, 165 yeas
   to 138 nays. Thereupon the delegations of Alabama,
   Mississippi, Florida, and Texas, and sundry delegates from
   other States, withdrew from the Convention, taking away 45
   votes out of a total of 303. Those who remained declared the
   vote of two thirds of a full Convention, i. e., 202 votes, to
   be necessary for a choice. Then during three days 57 ballots
   were cast, Douglas being always far in the lead, but never
   polling more than 152½ votes. At last, on May 3, an
   adjournment was had until June 18, at Baltimore. At this
   second meeting contesting delegations appeared, and the
   decisions were uniformly in favor of the Douglas men, which
   provoked another secession of the extremist Southern men. A
   ballot showed 173½ votes for Douglas out of a total of 191½;
   the total was less than two thirds of the full number of the
   original Convention, and therefore it was decided that any
   person receiving two thirds of the votes cast by the delegates
   present should be deemed the nominee. The next ballot gave
   Douglas 181½. Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia was nominated for
   vice-president. On June 28, also at Baltimore [after a meeting
   and adjournment from Richmond, June 11], there came together a
   collection composed of original seceders at Charleston, and of
   some who had been rejected and others who had seceded at
   Baltimore. Very few Northern men were present, and the body in
   fact represented the Southern wing of the Democracy. Having,
   like its competitor, the merit of knowing its own mind, it
   promptly nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky and Joseph
   Lane of Oregon, and adopted the radical platform which had
   been reported at Charleston. These doings opened, so that it
   could never be closed, that seam of which the thread had long
   been visible athwart the surface of the old Democratic party.
   … In May the Convention of the Constitutional Union party met,
   also at Baltimore. This organization was a sudden outgrowth
   designed only to meet the present emergency. … The party died,
   of necessity, upon the day when Lincoln was elected, and its
   members were then distributed between the Republicans, the
   Secessionists, and the Copperheads. John Bell, of Tennessee,
   the candidate for the presidency, joined the Confederacy;
   Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, the candidate for the
   vice-presidency, became a Republican. The party never had a
   hope of electing its men; but its existence increased the
   chance of throwing the election into Congress; and this hope
   inspired exertions far beyond what its own prospects
   warranted. On May 16 the Republican Convention came together
   at Chicago, where the great 'Wigwam' had been built to hold
   10,000 persons. … Many candidates were named, chiefly Seward,
   Lincoln, Chase, Cameron, Edward Bates of Missouri, and William
   L. Dayton of New Jersey. Thurlow Weed was Seward's lieutenant.
   Horace Greeley, chiefly bent upon the defeat of Seward, would
   have liked to achieve it by the success of Bates. David Davis,
   aided by Judge Logan and a band of personal friends from
   Illinois, was manager for Lincoln. Primarily the contest lay
   between Seward and Lincoln. … Upon the third ballot … those
   who were keeping the tally saw that it stood:—Seward, 180;
   Lincoln, 231½; Chase, 24½; Bates, 22; Dayton, 1; McLean, 5;
   Scattering, 1. … Before the count could be announced, a
   delegate from Ohio transferred four votes to Lincoln. This
   settled the matter; and then other delegations followed, till
   Lincoln's score rose to 354. … Later in the day the convention
   nominated Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, on tho second ballot, by
   367 votes, for the vice-presidency. … Almost from the
   beginning it was highly probable that the Republicans would
   win, and it was substantially certain that none of their
   competitors could do so. The only contrary chance was that no
   election might be made by the people, and that it might be
   thrown into Congress."

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

   At the popular election, the votes were:
   Lincoln, 1,866,452
      (Free-States vote, 1,840,022, Slave States vote, 26,430);
   Douglas, 1,375,157
      (Free States vote, 1,211,632, Slave States vote, 163,525);
   Breckenridge, 847,953
      (Free States vote, 277,082, Slave States vote, 570,871);
   Bell, 590,631
      (Free States vote, 74,658, Slave States vote, 515,973).

   In the Electoral College, the four candidates were voted
   for as follows:
      Lincoln, 180;
      Breckenridge, 72;
      Bell, 39;
      Douglas, 12.

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. W. Raymond,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapter 4._

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the
      Great Rebellion,
      page 1._

      _J. G. Holland,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapters 15-16._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapters 13-16._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

{3407}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (November-December).
   The plotting of the rebellion.
   Secession of South Carolina.

   "The long-hoped-for opportunity of trying the experiment of
   secession was now at last presented. Abraham Lincoln had been
   elevated to the presidency by a strictly sectional vote; and
   though the fact could not be denied that he had been elected
   in a perfectly constitutional manner, … yet, no sooner was it
   ascertained that it was almost certain that he would receive a
   majority of the electoral votes of the whole Union, than steps
   began to be taken for carrying into effect a revolutionary
   project which had engrossed the thoughts and sensibilities of
   a small class of extreme Southern politicians, mainly confined
   to the State of South Carolina, for some thirty years
   preceding. … So thoroughly matured was the project of
   secession in the minds of Southern extremists in South
   Carolina, that they are known actually to have commenced
   movements looking to this desired end before even the
   presidential election had taken place, and when the result
   which soon ensued was yet but a strong probability.
   Accordingly we find Governor Gist, as early as the 5th of
   November, 1860, addressing a message to the South Carolina
   Legislature, embodying the following bold and explicit
   declarations. … 'That an exposition of the will of the people
   may be obtained on a question involving such momentous
   consequences, I would earnestly recommend that, in the event
   of Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency, a Convention
   of the people of this state be immediately called, to consider
   and determine for themselves the mode and measure of redress.
   My own opinions of what the Convention should do are of little
   moment; but, believing that the time has arrived when
   everyone, however humble he may be, should express his
   opinions in unmistakable language, I am constrained to say
   that the only alternative left, in my judgment, is the
   secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. The
   indications from many of the Southern States justify the
   conclusion that the secession of South Carolina will be
   immediately followed, if not adopted simultaneously by them,
   and ultimately by the entire South. … I would also
   respectfully recommend a thorough reorganization of the
   militia, so as to place the whole military force of the state
   in a position to be used at the shortest notice and with the
   greatest efficiency. … In addition to this general
   preparation, I would recommend that the services of 10,000
   volunteers be immediately accepted.' … I desire not to
   particularize on this painful subject to an extent which might
   now prove annoying, and therefore proceed briefly to state
   that the Legislature of South Carolina provided for the
   assemblage of a state Convention, the members of which were to
   be elected on the 6th of December, while the conventional body
   itself was to come together on the 19th of the same month;
   that the Convention did assemble on the last-mentioned day,
   and, after an excited debate of several days' continuance,
   adopted an Ordinance of Secession on the 20th of December.
   Commissioners were sent with a copy of the ordinance to each
   of the slave states, in order to quicken co-operative action,
   and notification was duly made as to these events to the
   Federal government in Washington City. The next secession
   movement it was expected would come off in the State of
   Georgia. A Convention for this purpose had been already
   called. It was known that Alexander H. Stephens, Herschel V.
   Johnson, and other public men, of elevated standing and of
   extended influence, would be members of the Convention, and it
   was expected that they would exert themselves to the utmost to
   prevent the imitation by the State of Georgia of the rash
   example which had just been set by South Carolina; and it was
   likewise known that eminent personages from the State of South
   Carolina would attend the Convention of Georgia, in order to
   urge immediate co-operation. Under these circumstances, I took
   it upon myself to persuade the public men of most influence in
   the city of Nashville, where I was then residing, to send ten
   or fifteen delegates forthwith to Milledgeville, respectfully
   and earnestly to protest against extreme action on the part of
   Georgia. … I urged these views for several days most
   zealously, but, I regret to say, without success; some
   supposing that there was no serious danger of the Convention
   of Georgia adopting an Ordinance of Secession, and others that
   there was reason to fear, if we should send delegates to
   Milledgeville, it might result in fatally compromising our own
   attitude. The manly opposition made by Mr. Stephens to the
   attempt to draw Georgia into the Secession maelstrom is well
   known. This want of success is a circumstance which I shall
   ever deplore as the most unfortunate event of a public nature
   which has occurred within my recollection. Alabama, Florida,
   Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were now soon enrolled among
   the seceded States. Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia,
   Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware still
   stood firm, despite all the efforts essayed to shake their
   constancy. It is indeed true, as Mr. Greeley has deliberately
   recorded, that after the secession 'conspiracy had held
   complete possession of the Southern mind for three months,
   with the Southern members of the cabinet, nearly all the
   Federal officers, most of the governors and other state
   functionaries, and seven eighths of the prominent and active
   politicians pushing it on, and no force exerted against nor in
   any manner threatening to resist it, a majority of the slave
   states, with two thirds of the free population of the entire
   slaveholding region, was openly and positively adverse to it,
   either because they regarded the alleged grievances of the
   South as exaggerated if not unreal, or because they believed
   that those wrongs would rather be aggravated than cured by
   disunion.'"

      _H. S. Foote,
      War of the Rebellion,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay,
      The Outbreak of Rebellion,
      chapter 1._

      _S. W. Crawford,
      The Genesis of the Civil War,
      chapters 2-5._

      _F. Moore, editor,
      Rebellion Record,
      volume 1._

   The following is the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession,
   adopted December 20, together with the Declaration of Causes
   which was promulgated by the Convention four days later:

   "An Ordinance to dissolve the Union between the State of South
   Carolina and other States united with her under the compact
   entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.'
   We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention
   assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared
   and ordained. That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention,
   on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one
   thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the
   Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and
   also, all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this
   State, ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are
   hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between
   South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United
   States of America,' is hereby dissolved."

{3408}

   "Declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify
   the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

   The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention
   assembled, on the 26th day of April, A. D., 1852, declared
   that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United
   States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon
   the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State
   in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference
   to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States,
   she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that
   time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and
   further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State
   of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place
   among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining
   United States of America, and to the nations of the world,
   that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to
   this act. In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire
   embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the
   government of that portion composed of the thirteen American
   Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued,
   which resulted, on the 4th July, 1776, in a Declaration, by
   the Colonies, 'that they are, and of right ought to be, free
   and independent States; and that, as free and independent
   States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace,
   contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other
   acts and things which independent States may of right do.'
   They further solemnly declared that whenever any 'form of
   government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was
   established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
   it, and to institute a new government.' Deeming the Government
   of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends,
   they declared that the Colonies 'are absolved from all
   allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
   connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and
   ought to be, totally dissolved.' In pursuance of this
   Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States
   proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for
   itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the
   administration of government in all its
   departments—Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes
   of defence, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in
   1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of
   Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the
   administration of their external relations to a common agent,
   known as the Congress of the United States, expressly
   declaring, in the first article, 'that each State retains its
   sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power,
   jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation,
   expressly delegated to the United States in Congress
   assembled. Under this Confederation the War of the Revolution
   was carried on, and on the 3d September, 1783, the contest
   ended, and a definitive Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in
   which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the
   following terms:

   'Article 1.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United
   States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island
   and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
   Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
   South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and
   independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for
   himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to
   the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same
   and every part thereof.' Thus were established the two great
   principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a
   State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a
   Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which
   it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of
   these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and
   was recognized by the mother Country as a free, sovereign and
   independent State. In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the
   States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th
   September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption
   of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the
   Constitution of the United States. The parties to whom this
   Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States;
   they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed,
   the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the
   General Government, as the common agent, was then to be
   invested with their authority. If only nine of the thirteen
   States had concurred, the other four would have remained as
   they were—separate sovereign States, independent of any of the
   provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did
   not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone
   into operation among the other eleven; and during that
   interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent
   nation. By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon
   the several States, and the exercise of certain of their
   powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their
   continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all
   doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers
   not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
   prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States,
   respectively, or to the people. On 23d May, 1788, South
   Carolina, by a Convention of her people, passed an Ordinance
   assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own
   Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had
   undertaken. Thus was established, by compact between the
   States, a Government, with defined objects and powers, limited
   to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the
   whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving
   it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary
   any specification of reserved rights. We hold that the
   Government thus established is subject to the two great
   principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we
   hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a
   third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We
   maintain that in every compact between two or more parties,
   the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the
   contracting parties to perform a material part of the
   agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and
   that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to
   his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all
   its consequences.

{3409}

   In the present case, that fact is established with certainty.
   We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately
   refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional
   obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
   The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article,
   provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in
   one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
   shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
   discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered
   up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be
   due.' This stipulation was so material to the compact, that
   without it that compact would not have been made. The greater
   number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had
   previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a
   stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the
   government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now
   composes the States north of the Ohio river. The same article
   of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the
   several States of fugitives from justice from the other
   States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed
   laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States.
   For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing
   hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the
   Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their
   obligations, and the laws of the General Government have
   ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States
   of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
   Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana,
   Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either
   nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to
   execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is
   discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of
   them has the State Government complied with the stipulation
   made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early
   day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional
   obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led
   her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the
   remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress.
   In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave
   has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and
   Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged
   with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the
   State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been
   deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding
   States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is
   released from her obligation. The ends for which this
   Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be 'to form
   a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
   tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
   general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
   ourselves and our posterity.' These ends it endeavored to
   accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was
   recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own
   institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized
   by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving
   them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct
   taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the
   importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for
   the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these
   ends for which this Government was instituted have been
   defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive
   of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those
   States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety
   of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of
   property established in fifteen other States and recognized by
   the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the
   institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open
   establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is
   to disturb the peace and to claim the property of the citizens
   of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands
   of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have
   been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile
   insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been
   steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the
   power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the
   Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article
   establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting
   the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn
   across the Union, and all the States north of that line have
   united in the election of a man to the high office of
   President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are
   hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the
   administration of the Common Government, because he has
   declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half
   slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the
   belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
   This sectional combination for the subversion of the
   Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by
   elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of
   the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes
   have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the
   South, and destructive of its peace and safety. On the 4th
   March next, this party will take possession of the Government.
   It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the
   common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made
   sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until
   it shall cease throughout the United States. The Guaranties of
   the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights
   of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no
   longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection,
   and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
   Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation,
   and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that
   public opinion at the North has invested a great political
   error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.
   We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates,
   in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
   world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly
   declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State
   and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that
   the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the
   nations of the world, as a separate and independent State;
   with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
   alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and
   things which independent States may of right do."

{3410}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   President Buchanan's surrender.
   His disunion message and its evil effects.

   Congress met on the first Monday of December and received from
   President Buchanan "his mischievous and deplorable message …
   —a message whose evil effect can never be estimated, and whose
   evil character can hardly be exaggerated. The President
   informed Congress that 'the long-continued and intemperate
   interference of the Northern people with the question of
   slavery in the Southern States has at last produced its
   natural effect.' … The President found that the chief
   grievance of the South was in the enactments of the Free
   States known as 'personal liberty laws' [designed to protect
   free citizens, black or white, in their right to trial by
   jury, which the fugitive slave law denied to a black man
   claimed as a slave]. … Very likely these enactments, inspired
   by an earnest spirit of liberty, went in many cases too far,
   and tended to produce conflicts between National and State
   authority. That was a question to be determined finally and
   exclusively by the Federal Judiciary. Unfortunately Mr.
   Buchanan carried his argument beyond that point. … After
   reciting the statutes which he regarded as objectionable and
   hostile to the constitutional rights of the South, and after
   urging their unconditional repeal upon the North, the
   President said: 'The Southern States, standing on the basis of
   the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice
   from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the
   Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have
   been willfully violated. … In that event, the injured States,
   after having used all peaceful and constitutional means to
   obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance
   to the government of the Union.' By this declaration the
   President justified, and in effect advised, an appeal from the
   constitutional tribunals of the country to a popular judgment
   in the aggrieved States, and recognized the right of those
   States, upon such popular judgment, to destroy the
   Constitution and the Union. … Mr. Buchanan proceeded to argue
   ably and earnestly against the assumption by any State of an
   inherent right to secede from the government at its own will
   and pleasure. But he utterly destroyed the force of his
   reasoning by declaring that, 'after much serious reflection'
   he had arrived at 'the conclusion that no power has been
   delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the
   Federal Government, to coerce a State into submission which is
   attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn,' from the
   Union. … Under these doctrines the Government of the United
   States was shorn of all power to preserve its own existence,
   and the Union might crumble and fall while its constituted
   authorities stood paralyzed and impotent. This construction
   was all that the extremists of the South desired. With so much
   conceded, they had every thing in their own hands. … Men who,
   under the wholesome restraint of executive power, would have
   refrained from taking aggressive steps against the National
   Government, were by Mr. Buchanan's action forced into a
   position of hostility. Men in the South, who were disposed to
   avoid extreme measures, were by taunt and reproach driven into
   the ranks of Secession. … The evil effects of Mr. Buchanan's
   message were not confined to the slave States. It did
   incalculable harm in the free States. It fixed in the minds of
   tens of thousands of Northern men who were opposed to the
   Republican party, the belief that the South was justified in
   taking steps to break up the government, if what they termed a
   war on Southern institutions should be continued. This feeling
   had in turn a most injurious influence in the South."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years in Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 10.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21128_

      ALSO IN:
      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of James Buchanan,
      volume 2, chapters 16-17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Vain concessions and humiliations of the North proposed.
   The Crittenden compromise.

   "When, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Boteler, of
   Virginia, proposed to refer so much of the President's Message
   as related to the perilous condition of the country to a
   committee of thirty-three—one from each state—not less than
   52 members from the Slave States refused to vote. 'I pay no
   attention to any action taken in this body,' said one. 'I am
   not sent here to patch up difficulties,' said another. The
   Democratic members from the Free States did their utmost to
   compose the dissension—some of them who subsequently became
   conspicuous in the war—suggesting concessions which doubtless
   they looked back upon with regret. It was proposed that
   persons of African blood should never be considered as
   citizens of the United States; that there should never be any
   interference with slavery in the Territories, nor with the
   interstate slave-trade; that the doctrine of state-rights
   should be admitted, and power of coercion denied to the
   government. Among the dissatisfied members, one would allow
   any state at pleasure to secede, and allot it a fair share of
   the public property and territory. Another would divide the
   Union into four republics; another would abolish the office of
   President, and have in its stead a council of three, each of
   whom should have a veto on every public act. Propositions such
   as these show to what length the allies of the slave power
   would have gone to preserve it and give it perpetuity. At this
   stage, Mr. Crittenden [Senator John J. Crittenden of
   Kentucky], proposed in the Senate certain amendments of the
   Constitution, and resolutions known subsequently as the
   Crittenden Compromise. The essential features of his plan were
   the re-establishing of the Missouri Compromise: that in all
   territory of the United States north of 36° 30' slavery should
   be prohibited; in all south of that line, not only permitted,
   but protected; that from such territory north or south states
   might be admitted with or without slavery, as the Constitution
   of each might determine; that Congress should have no power to
   abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction in a slave
   state, nor in the District of Columbia, without the consent of
   the adjoining states, nor without compensation to the
   slaveholders, nor to prevent persons connected with the
   government bringing their slaves into the District; that
   Congress should have no power to hinder the interstate or
   territorial transport of slaves; that the national government
   should pay a full value to the owner of a fugitive slave who
   might have been rescued from the officers; that no amendments
   of the Constitution should ever be made which might affect
   these amendments, or other slave compromises already existing
   in the Constitution.
{3411}
   He also recommended to the states that had enacted laws in
   conflict with the existing fugitive slave acts, their repeal;
   and in four resolutions made provision for the more perfect
   execution of those acts. But the dissension was too deep to be
   closed by such a measure as Mr. Crittenden's, which contained
   nothing that could satisfy the North. The South was resolved
   not to be satisfied with any thing. It had taken what was
   plainly an irreversible step. According]y, Mr. Crittenden's
   proposition was eventually lost."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 31 (section 6, volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 24._

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the
      Great Rebellion,
      pages 48-90._

      _J. A. Logan,
      The Great Conspiracy,
      chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
   Floyd's treachery in the War Department.
   Cabinet rupture.
   Loyalty reinstated in the national government.

   "In November, 1860, the fortifications of Charleston Harbor
   consisted of three works—Castle Pinckney, an old-fashioned,
   circular brick fort, on Shute's Folly Island, and about one
   mile east of the city; Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan's Island,
   still farther to the east, and famous as being on the site of
   the old fort of palmetto logs, where, during the long
   bombardment by the British fleet in Revolutionary days, the
   gallant William Jasper leaped from the low rampart upon the
   beach below, and seizing the flag that had been shot down,
   rehoisted it above the fort; and lastly, Fort Sumter, an
   unfinished fortification, named after General Thomas Sumter,
   the famous partisan leader of the Revolution, and who was
   familiarly known as the 'gamecock of the Carolinas.' The
   armament of Castle Pinckney consisted of 22 cannon, 2 mortars,
   and 4 light pieces; that of Moultrie of 45 cannon and 7 light
   pieces; while Sumter mounted 78 heavy guns of various calibre.
   The entire force of United States troops in these
   fortifications was composed of two weak companies of artillery
   under command of Major Robert Anderson, and a few engineer
   employees under Captain John G. Foster. Of these a sergeant
   and squad of men were stationed at Castle Pinckney for the
   care of the quarters and the guns; a similar handful were at
   Sumter; while most of the little force were at Moultrie, where
   Anderson had his headquarters. Such was the military situation
   when South Carolina began to proclaim, without disguise, her
   purpose to secede and to possess herself of the fortifications
   on her coast. … Our Government paid no apparent heed, and yet
   the authorities at Washington were fully and betimes
   forewarned. … On the files of the Engineer Department I found
   a letter, which still remains there, dated as early as
   November 24, 1860, from Captain Foster to Colonel De Russy,
   then the chief of the engineer corps, in which the captain
   states that, at the request of Major Anderson, he has, in
   company with that officer, made a thorough inspection of the
   forts in the harbor; that, in the opinion of Anderson, one
   additional company of artillery should at once be sent to
   garrison Castle Pinckney, which in the terse language of the
   letter, 'commands the city of Charleston.' Upon the back of
   the letter is the simple but significant indorsement, in his
   own hand-writing, 'Return to Governor Floyd.' You may recall
   him as Mr. Buchanan's Secretary of War. On November 30,
   Captain Foster again writes to Colonel De Russy, saying: 'I
   think that more troops should have been sent here to guard the
   forts, and I believe that no serious demonstration on the part
   of the populace would have met such a course.' On this is
   indorsed: 'Colonel Cooper says this has been shown to the
   Secretary of War. H. G. W.' The initials, placed there by
   himself, are those of the gallant Horatio G. Wright, who
   succeeded to the command of the Sixth Army Corps after the
   loved Sedgwick fell. On December 2, application was made by
   Captain Foster for the small supply of four boxes of muskets
   and sixty rounds of cartridge per man, to arm the few
   civilians or hired laborers who constituted the engineer
   corps. These arms and ammunition were in the United States
   arsenal at Charleston, a building which still had a Federal
   keeper, and over which still floated the Federal flag. On this
   application is the following indorsement, also in General
   Wright's handwriting: 'Handed to adjutant-general, and by him
   laid before the Secretary of War on the sixth of December.
   Returned by adjutant-general on the seventh. Action deferred
   for the present. See Captain Foster's letter of December 4.' …
   On December 17, Captain Foster, acting on his own patriotic
   judgment, but without orders, went to Charleston and took from
   the Federal arsenal forty muskets, with which to arm his
   laborers. Early on the morning of the 19th, he received a
   telegram from Secretary Floyd, directing him instantly to
   return the arms to the arsenal. On the next day, the 20th, the
   South Carolinians decided, in State convention, to secede, and
   proclaimed their State an independent sovereignty. … All alike
   were delirious with the epidemic madness of the hour, were
   hopeful, resolute, enthusiastic. Bells pealed and cannon
   boomed. … But few ventured to breast the storm. There was one,
   whose name should live honored in in a nation's memory, a
   wise, true man, the greatest lawyer of his State, James L.
   Pettigrew, who, when his minister first dropped from the
   service the prayer for the President of the United States,
   rose in his pew in the middle aisle of Charleston's most
   fashionable church, and slowly and with distinct voice
   repeated: 'Most humbly and heartily we beseech Thee with Thy
   favor to behold and bless Thy servant, the President of these
   United States.' Then, placing his prayer-book in the rack, and
   drawing his wife's arm within his own, he left the church, nor
   entered it again until his body was borne there for burial. To
   their honor be it said, that even the Carolinians respected
   his sincerity and candor, and never molested him. … On the
   night of December 26, Major Anderson evacuated Fort Moultrie,
   which was untenable by his small force, spiked his guns,
   burned the gun-carriages, and transferred his small command in
   two schooners to Fort Sumter. This act was without orders and
   against the do-nothing and helpless policy which had thus far
   controlled the Government. But it showed the wisdom and prompt
   decision of the trained soldier and the spirit of the loyal
   citizen. … Let us recall the appearance of Sumter when
   Anderson transferred his feeble garrison to its protection.
   The fort was built on an artificial island, which had been
   constructed by dumping stone upon a shoal that lay on the
   south side of the principal ship channel to Charleston Harbor.
   Sumter was pentagonal in form, and its five sides of brick,
   made solid by concrete, rose 60 feet above the water. It was
   pierced for an armament of 135 guns, which were to be placed
   in three tiers.
{3412}
   Two tiers were to be in casemates, and one 'en barbette,' or
   on the top of the wall. The embrasures of the upper tier of
   casemates were never completed. They were filled up with brick
   during Major Anderson's occupation of the fort, and so
   remained during all the succeeding operations and siege.
   Seventy-eight guns of various calibre composed its then
   armament, the most efficient of which were placed 'en
   barbette.' On the east and west sides of the parade were
   barracks for the privates, and on the south side were the
   officers' quarters. These were all wooden structures. The
   wharf by which access was had to the fort was on the southern
   side against the gorge wall. Looking from the sea front,
   Sumter lay nearly midway between Sullivan's Island on the
   north and the low, sandy ridges of Morris on the south, and
   about 1,400 yards from either. The main ship channel was
   between Sumter and Sullivan's Island. The water between the
   fort and Morris Island was for the most part comparatively
   shallow. James Island lay to the west and southwest, while to
   the northwest, and at a distance of three and one-third miles,
   rose the steeples of Charleston. The city could have been
   barely reached by the heaviest guns of the barbette battery.
   Castle Pinckney lay in the direction of the city, and was
   distant about two and one-third miles. Sullivan's, Morris, and
   James Islands thus formed a segment of three-fourths of a
   circle around Sumter. They were so close under the guns of the
   fort that, with the then limited experience in the
   construction of earthworks, no batteries could have been
   erected under fire from Sumter sufficiently strong to prevent
   the re-enforcement and supplying of the fort, had Anderson
   been allowed to open fire at the first upon the rebel working
   parties. … At noon of December 27, the flag of the nation was
   raised over the defenders of the fort. Major Anderson knelt,
   holding the halliards, while Reverend Matthew Harris, an army
   chaplain, offered fervent prayer for that dear flag and for
   the loyal few who stood beneath its folds. … And then all
   wearily the days and weeks dragged on. New fortifications rose
   day by day on each sandhill about the harbor; vessels of war,
   bearing the Confederate flag, steamed insultingly near, and
   the islands were white as harvest fields, with the tents of
   the fast-gathering rebel soldiery; and still, by positive
   orders, Anderson was bidden to stand in idle helplessness
   beside his silent indignant cannon."

      _General Stewart L. Woodford,
      The Story of Fort Sumter
      (Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion,
      pages 259-266)._

   On the 29th of December, three days after Anderson had
   transferred his command to Fort Sumter, Floyd gave up his work
   of treachery in the War Department, and resigned. Howell Cobb
   had resigned the Treasury Department previously, on the 10th.
   A few days later, January 8, Jacob Thompson withdrew from the
   Interior Department. Loyal men now replaced these
   secessionists in the Cabinet. Joseph Holt of Kentucky took the
   place of Floyd in the War Department; John A. Dix of New York
   succeeded Cobb in the Treasury, and the place of Thompson was
   not filled. Edwin M. Stanton entered the Cabinet as
   Attorney-General, taking the place of Jeremiah S. Black who
   became Secretary of State. General Cass had held the State
   Department until December 12, when he, too, resigned, but for
   reasons opposite to those of Floyd and Cobb. He left the
   Government because it would not reinforce the Charleston
   forts.

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the
      Great Rebellion,
      page 28._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. W. Crawford,
      Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter,
      chapters 1, and 6-10._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapters 18-29,
      and volume 3, chapter 1-6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860-1861 (December-February).
   Seizure of arms, arsenals, forts, and other
   public property by the Southern insurgents.
   Base surrender of an army by Twiggs.

   "Directly after Major Anderson's removal to Fort Sumter, the
   Federal arsenal in Charleston, containing many thousand stand
   of arms and a considerable quantity of military stores, was
   seized by the volunteers, now flocking to that city by
   direction of the State authorities; Castle Pinckney, Fort
   Moultrie, and Sullivan's Island were likewise occupied by
   them, and their defenses vigorously enlarged and improved. The
   Custom-House, Post-Office, etc., were likewise appropriated,
   without resistance or commotion. … Georgia having given
   [January 2, 1861] a large popular majority for Secession, her
   authorities immediately took military possession of the
   Federal arsenal at Augusta, as also of Forts Pulaski and
   Jackson, commanding the approaches by sea to Savannah. North
   Carolina had not voted to secede, yet Governor Ellis
   simultaneously seized the United States Arsenal at
   Fayetteville, with Fort Macon, and other fortifications
   commanding the approaches to Beaufort and Wilmington. Having
   done so, Governor Ellis coolly wrote to the War Department
   that he had taken the step to preserve the forts from seizure
   by mobs! In Alabama, the Federal arsenal at Mobile was seized
   on the 4th, by order of Governor Moore. It contained large
   quantities of arms and munitions. Fort Morgan, commanding the
   approaches to Mobile, was likewise seized, and garrisoned by
   State troops. … In Louisiana, the Federal arsenal at Baton
   Rouge was seized by order of Governor Moore on the 11th. Forts
   Jackson and St. Philip, commanding the passage up the
   Mississippi to New Orleans, and Fort Pike, at the entrance of
   Lake Pontchartrain, were likewise seized and garrisoned by
   State troops. The Federal Mint and Custom-House at New Orleans
   were left untouched until February 1st, when they, too, were
   taken possession of by the State authorities. … In Florida,
   Fort Barrancas and the Navy Yard at Pensacola were seized by
   Florida and Alabama forces on the 13th; Commander Armstrong
   surrendering them without a struggle. He ordered Lieutenant
   Slemmer, likewise, to surrender Forts Pickens and McRae; but
   the intrepid subordinate defied the order, and, withdrawing
   his small force from Fort McRae to the stronger and less
   accessible Fort Pickens, announced his determination to hold
   out to the last. He was soon after besieged therein by a
   formidable volunteer force; and a dispatch from Pensacola
   announced that 'Fort McRae is being occupied and the guns
   manned by the allied forces of Florida, Alabama, and
   Mississippi.' … The revenue cutter Cass, stationed at Mobile,
   was turned over by Captain J. J. Morrison to the authorities
   of Alabama at the end of January.
{3413}
   The McClellan, Captain Breshwood, stationed on the Mississippi
   below New Orleans, was, in like manner, handed over to those
   of Louisiana. General Dix had sent down a special agent to
   secure them, but he was too late. The telegraph dispatch
   whereby General Dix directed him, 'If any person' attempts to
   haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot,' sent an
   electric thrill through the loyal heart of the country.
   Finally, tidings reached Washington, about the end of
   February, that Brigadier-General Twiggs, commanding the
   department of Texas, had disgracefully betrayed his trust, and
   turned over his entire army, with all the posts and
   fortifications, arms, munitions, horses, equipments, etc., to
   General Ben. M'Culloch, representing the authorities of Texas,
   now fully launched upon the rushing tide of treason. The Union
   lost by that single act at least half its military force, with
   the State of Texas, and the control of our Mexican frontier. …
   The defensive fortifications located within the seceding
   States were some 30 in number, mounting over 3,000 guns, and
   having cost at least $20,000,000. Nearly all these had been
   seized and appropriated by the Confederates before Mr.
   Lincoln's inauguration, with the exception of Fortress Monroe
   (Virginia), Fort Sumter (South Carolina), Fort Pickens
   (Florida), and the fortresses on Key West and the Tortugas,
   off the Florida coast."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (January-February).
   Secession of Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana,
   Alabama, and Texas.
   Opposition of Alexander H. Stephens, in Georgia.

   "On the 9th day of January, 1861, the State of Mississippi
   seceded from the Union. Alabama and Florida followed on the
   11th day of the same month; Georgia on the 20th; Louisiana on
   the 26th; and Texas on the 1st of February. Thus, in less than
   three mouths after the announcement of Lincoln's election, all
   the Cotton States … had seceded from the Union, and had,
   besides, secured every Federal fort within their limits,
   except the forts in Charleston harbor, and Fort Pickens, below
   Pensacola, which were retained by United States troops."

      _E. A. Pollard,
      The First Year of the War,
      chapter 1._

   The secession of Georgia was powerfully but vainly opposed by
   the foremost citizen of that state, Alexander H. Stephens,
   whose speech before the Legislature of Georgia, in protest
   against the disruption of the Union, had been one of the
   notable utterances of the time. "Shall the people of the
   South," asked Mr. Stephens, "secede from the Union in
   consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency
   of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly,
   candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought.
   In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally
   chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for any State
   to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still
   in maintaining the constitution of the country. To make a
   point of resistance to the government, to withdraw from it
   because a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in
   the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the constitution. Many
   of us have sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the
   mere election of a man to the presidency, and that, too, in
   accordance with the prescribed forms of the constitution, make
   a point of resistance to the government, without becoming the
   breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by withdrawing
   ourselves from it? Would we not be in the wrong? Whatever fate
   is to befall this country, let it never be laid to the charge
   of the people of the South, and especially to the people of
   Georgia, that we were untrue to our national engagements. Let
   the fault and the wrong rest upon others. … Let the fanatics
   of the North break the constitution, if such is their fell
   purpose. Let the responsibility be upon them. … We went into
   the election with this people. The result was different from
   what we wished; but the election has been constitutionally
   held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the government
   and go out of the Union on that account, the record would be
   made up hereafter against us. But it is said Mr. Lincoln's
   policy and principles are against the constitution, and that,
   if he carries them out, it will be destructive of our rights.
   Let us not anticipate a threatened evil. If he violates the
   constitution, then will come our time to act. Do not let us
   break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, that is the
   time for us to strike. I think it would be injudicious and
   unwise to do this sooner. I do not anticipate that Mr. Lincoln
   will do anything to jeopard our safety or security, whatever
   may be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the
   constitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at
   this time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This
   shows the wisdom of our system. The President of the United
   States is no emperor, no dictator—he is clothed with no
   absolute power. He can do nothing unless he is backed by power
   in Congress. The House of Representatives is largely in a
   majority against him. In the very face and teeth of the heavy
   majority which he has obtained in the northern States, there
   have been large gains in the House of Representatives to the
   conservative constitutional party of the country, which here I
   will call the national democratic party, because that is the
   cognomen it has at the North. … Is this the time, then, to
   apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority in the
   House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of his
   unconstitutional principles in that body? In the Senate he
   will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four
   against him. … Mr. Lincoln cannot appoint an officer without
   the consent of the Senate—he cannot form a cabinet without the
   same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third
   (the embodiment of toryism), who had to ask the whigs to
   appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a cabinet
   utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be
   compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a cabinet, if
   the democracy of that party chose to put him on such terms. He
   will be compelled to do this, or let the government stop, if
   the national democratic men (for that is their name at the
   North), the conservative men in the Senate, should so
   determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a cabinet which
   would aid him, or allow him to violate the constitution? Why
   then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union when his
   hands are tied—when he can do nothing against us?"

      _A. H. Stephens,
      Speech against Secession, November 14, 1860
      (in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private;
      by H. Cleveland")._

{3414}

   But when Georgia, despite his exertions, was drawn into the
   movement of rebellion, Mr. Stephens surrendered to it, and
   lent his voice to the undertaking which he had proved to be
   without excuse.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   The Peace Convention.

   "The General Assembly of Virginia, on the 19th of January,
   adopted resolutions inviting representatives of the several
   States to assemble in a Peace Convention at Washington, which
   met on the 4th of February. It was composed of 133
   Commissioners, many from the border States, and the object of
   these was to prevail upon their associates from the North to
   unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would
   prevent their own States from seceding and enable them to
   bring back six of the cotton States which had already
   seceded." On the 15th of February a committee of the
   Convention reported certain proposed amendments to the
   Constitution which "were substantially the same with the
   Crittenden Compromise;

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
      VAIN CONCESSIONS;

   but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms
   of the first and by far the most important section were
   restricted to the present Territories of the United States. On
   motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was
   further amended, but not materially changed, by the adoption
   of the substitute offered by him. Nearly in this form it was
   afterwards adopted by the Convention. The following is a copy:

   'In all the present territory of the United States north of
   the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north
   latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of
   crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of
   that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service
   or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall
   any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature
   to prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States
   of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights
   arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to
   judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the
   course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of
   said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe,
   shall contain a population equal to that required for a member
   of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be
   republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing
   with the original States, with or without involuntary
   servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.'…

   More than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting
   upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners.
   The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th
   February, when it was taken on the first vitally important
   section, as amended. This section, on which all the rest
   depended, was negatived by a vote of eight States to eleven.
   Those which voted in its favor were Delaware, Kentucky,
   Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
   Tennessee. And those in the negative were Connecticut,
   Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York,
   North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia." A
   reconsideration of the vote was moved, however, and on the day
   following (February 27), "the first section was adopted, but
   only by a majority of nine to eight States, nine being less
   than a majority of the States represented. … From the nature
   of this vote, it was manifestly impossible that two-thirds of
   both Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment,
   even if the delay had not already rendered such action
   impracticable before the close of the session. The remaining
   sections of the amendment were carried by small majorities,"
   and the proposed amendment of the Constitution was reported to
   Congress, with a request that it be submitted to the
   Legislatures of the States, but no action upon it was taken.

      _T. V. Cooper,
      American Politics,
      pages 106-108._

   "Most of the Southerners thought these propositions worse than
   nothing. Hunter preferred the present position under the
   constitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition.
   Mason, the other Senator from the state that had issued the
   call for the Peace Convention, said that he would consider
   himself a traitor if he should recommend such propositions.
   Wigfall of Texas, however, bore off the palm by saying: 'If
   those resolutions were adopted, and ratified by three-fourths
   of the states of this Union, and no other cause ever existed,
   I make the assertion that the seven states now out of the
   Union would go out upon that.' Many of the Republicans were
   equally strong in their opposition to them. Chandler of
   Michigan spoke the substance of the opinions of several on his
   side of the Senate when he expressed himself in the language
   of the 'stump' by saying: 'No concession, no compromise,—ay,
   give us strife, even to blood,—before a yielding to the
   demands of traitorous insolence.' … John Tyler, the president
   of the convention that passed them, and Seddon returned to
   their state and denounced the recommendations of the Peace
   Convention as a delusion, a sham and an insult to the South. …
   Hawkins of Florida told the House, when the question was first
   touched upon, that the day of compromise was past and that he
   and his state were opposed to all and every compromise. Pugh
   and Clopton of Alabama both spoke boldly for secession and
   against any temporizing policy. Congress had been in session
   but ten days, and neither of the committees on compromise had
   had time to report, when a large number of the members of
   Congress from the extreme Southern States issued a manifesto
   declaring that 'argument was exhausted' and that 'the sole and
   primary aim of each slaveholding state ought to be its speedy
   and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union.'
   … The boldness of these facts is startling, even when viewed
   at this distance. They make it perfectly evident that it was
   not the constitution which the South was desirous of saving,
   but the institution of slavery which she was determined to
   preserve. Likewise on the Northern side we find that those who
   were courageous, logical, and intellectually vigorous in
   political speculation considered the constitution of less
   importance than the development of their ideas of freedom.
   These people were called Abolitionists. Although their
   political strength was not great, some one of their many ideas
   found sympathy in the mind of almost every Northerner of
   education or of clear moral intentions. This explains how John
   A. Andrew could be elected governor of Massachusetts, although
   known to have presided over a John Brown meeting.
{3415}
   The purpose of the Abolitionists was 'the utter extermination
   of slavery wheresoever it may exist.' Wendell Phillips
   surprised very few Abolitionists when, knowing that the
   Confederacy was forming, he rejoiced that 'the covenant with
   death' was annulled and 'the agreement with hell' was broken
   in pieces, and exclaimed: 'Union or no Union, constitution or
   no constitution, freedom for every man between the oceans, and
   from the hot Gulf to the frozen pole! You may as well dam up
   Niagara with bulrushes as bind our anti-slavery purpose with
   Congressional compromise.' Congress had to consider such facts
   as these, as well as the compromises which were proposed.
   Stephen A. Douglas felt compelled to say, as early as January,
   1861, that there were Democrats in the Senate who did not want
   a settlement. And it was plain to all that most of the
   Republicans discouraged further concessions. Nor would a
   constitutional amendment have been possible unless the
   Northern members had first recognized the seven states as
   being out of the Union, for it would otherwise have required
   the support of all but one of the states that were still
   active. That the 'personal liberty' laws were a violation of
   the constitution, and that the execution of the fugitive slave
   law of 1850 had been unconstitutionally obstructed, were
   unquestioned facts, directly or indirectly recognized by many
   of the Republican leaders. Nevertheless, the North was much
   more inclined to continue in this unconstitutional position
   than to yield to the demands of the South."

      _F. Bancroft,
      The Final Efforts at Compromise
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. A. Wise,
      Seven Decades of the Union,
      chapter 15._

      _L. G. Tyler,
      Letters and Times of the Tylers,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

      _L. E. Chittenden,
      Report of Debates and Proceedings in Secret Session
      of the Conference Convention, Washington, 1861._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Adoption of a Constitution for
   "The Confederate States of America."
   Election of a President and Vice President.

   "Early in February, 1861, a convention of six seceding states,
   South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
   Florida, was held at Montgomery, Alabama. They were
   represented by 42 persons. Measures were taken for the
   formation of a provisional government. After the vote on the
   provisional Constitution was taken, Jefferson Davis was
   elected President, and Alexander H. Stephens Vice-President of
   the Confederacy for the current year. The inauguration of Mr.
   Davis took place on February 18th. Both were shortly after
   re-elected permanently for six years. … The permanent
   Constitution adopted for 'The Confederate States of America,'
   the title now assumed, was modeled substantially on that of
   the United States. It was remarked that, after all, the old
   Constitution was the most suitable basis for the new
   Confederacy. Among points of difference must be noticed that
   the new instrument broadly recognized, even in its preamble,
   the contested doctrine of state-rights. … Inducements and
   threats were applied to draw Virginia and the other Border
   States into the Confederacy. … With an ominous monition, the
   second article reads, 'Congress shall … have power to prohibit
   the introduction of slaves from any state not a member of this
   Confederacy.' At this time Virginia was receiving an annual
   income of $12,000,000 from the sale of slaves. In 1860 12,000
   slaves were sent over her railroads to the South and
   Southwest. One thousand dollars for each was considered a low
   estimate. Notwithstanding this, the Ordinance of Secession did
   not pass the Virginia Convention until some weeks subsequently
   (April 17)."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 32 (volume 1)._

   The preamble of the Constitution declared that "the people of
   the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and
   independent character, invoking the favor and guidance of
   Almighty God, ordained a Constitution to form a permanent
   Federal Government and for other purposes. The change in
   phraseology was obviously to assert the derivative character
   of the Federal Government and to exclude the conclusion which
   Webster and others had sought to draw from the phrase, 'We,
   the people of the United States.' In the Executive department,
   the Constitution provided, in accordance with the early
   agreement of the Convention of 1787, that the President should
   be elected for six years and be ineligible. A seat upon the
   floor of either House of Congress might be granted to the
   principal officer in each of the Executive departments with
   the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his
   department. The President was empowered to remove at pleasure
   the principal officer in each of the Executive departments and
   all persons connected with the diplomatic service. To give
   entire control of Cabinet officers and of foreign ministers
   was considered to be necessary for the proper discharge of the
   President's duties and for the independence of his department.
   All other civil officers could be removed when their services
   were unnecessary, or for dishonesty, inefficiency, misconduct,
   or neglect of duty, but the removals in such cases, with the
   reasons therefor, were to be reported to the Senate, and no
   person rejected by the Senate could be reappointed to the same
   office during the recess of the Senate. The President was
   empowered, while approving portions of an appropriation bill,
   to disapprove particular items, as in other like cases of
   veto, the object being to defeat log-rolling combinations
   against the Treasury. Admitting members of the Cabinet to
   seats upon the floor of Congress with right of discussion
   (which worked well during the brief life of the Confederacy),
   was intended to secure greater facility of communication
   betwixt the Executive and the Legislative departments and
   enforce upon the heads of the departments more direct personal
   responsibility. By ineligibility of the President and
   restriction of the power of removal, the Congress, acting as a
   convention, sought to secure greater devotion to public
   interests, freedom from the corrupting influences of Executive
   patronage, and to break up the iniquitous spoils system which
   is such a peril to the purity and perpetuity of our
   Government. The Judicial department was permitted to remain
   substantially as it was in the old Government. The only
   changes were to authorize a tribunal for the investigation of
   claims against the Government, the withholding from the
   Federal Courts jurisdiction of suits between citizens of
   different States, and the enactment of a wise provision that
   any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting
   solely within the limits of any State, might be impeached by a
   vote of two thirds of both branches of the Legislature
   thereof.

{3416}

   The provisions in reference to the election of Senators and
   Representatives and the powers and duties of each House were
   unaltered except that the electors of each State were required
   to be citizens, and the Senators were to be chosen by the
   Legislatures of the State at the session next immediately
   preceding the beginning of the term of service. In reference
   to the general powers of Congress, some of the changes were
   more vital. The general welfare clause was omitted from the
   taxing grant. Bounties from the Treasury and extra
   compensation to contractors, officers, and agents were
   prohibited. 'A Protective Tariff' was so far forbidden that no
   duties or taxes on importations could be laid to promote or
   foster any branch of industry. Export duties were allowed with
   the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses. Congress was
   forbidden to make internal improvements except to furnish
   lights, beacons, buoys, to improve harbors, and to remove
   obstructions in river navigation, and the cost of these was to
   be paid by duties levied on the navigation facilitated. That
   the objects might be better attained, States, with the consent
   of Congress and under certain other restrictions, were allowed
   to lay a duty on the sea-going tonnage participating in the
   trades of the river or harbor improved. States, divided by
   rivers, or through which rivers flowed, could enter into
   compacts for improving their navigation. Uniform laws of
   naturalization and bankruptcy were authorized, but bankruptcy
   could not affect debts contracted prior to the passage of the
   law. A two-thirds vote was made requisite to appropriate money
   unless asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of the
   departments. Every law must relate but to one subject, and
   that was to be expressed in the title. To admit new States
   required a vote of two thirds of each House, the Senate voting
   by States. Upon the demand of any three States, legally
   assembled in their several conventions, Congress could summon
   a convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, but
   the convention was confined in its action to propositions
   suggested by the States making the call. … 'The importation of
   negroes of the African race was forbidden, and Congress was
   required to pass laws effectually to prevent it.' The right of
   transit or sojourn with slaves in any State was secured and
   fugitive slaves—called 'slaves' without the euphemism of the
   old instrument—were to be delivered up on the claim of the
   party to whom they belonged. Congress could prohibit the
   introduction of slaves from States and Territories not
   included in the Confederacy, and laws impairing the right of
   property in negro slaves were prohibited. Slaves could be
   carried into any Territory of the Confederacy by citizens of
   the Confederate States and be protected as property. This
   clause was intended to forbid 'squatter sovereignty,' and to
   prevent adverse action against property in slaves, until the
   Territory should emerge from a condition of pupilage and
   dependence into the dignity, equality, and sovereignty of a
   State, when its right to define 'property' would be beyond the
   interference or control of Congress."

      _J. L. M. Curry,
      The Southern States of the American Union,
      chapter 13._

   Alexander H. Stephens, in his "Constitutional view of the late
   War between the States," expresses the opinion that the
   selection of Jefferson Davis for the Presidency of the
   Confederacy was due to a misunderstanding. He says that a
   majority of the states were looking to Georgia for the
   President, and the Georgia delegation had unanimously agreed
   to present Mr. Toombs, who would have been acceptable. But a
   rumor got currency that Georgia would put forward Howell Cobb,
   whereupon the other states took up Davis, and united upon him.
   It was generally understood, says Mr. Stephens, that Davis
   "did not desire the office of President. He preferred a
   military position, and the one he desired above all others was
   the chief command of the army."

      _A. H. Stephens,
      Constitutional View of the War between the States,
      volume 2, page 328-333._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. B. Rhett,
      The Confederate Government at Montgomery
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1, pages 99-111)._

      _Jefferson Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      part 3, chapter. 5, and appendix K (volume 1)._

   The text of both the Provisional and the Permanent
   Constitution of the Confederate States is given in the
   appendix referred to.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Urgency of South Carolina for the reduction of Fort Sumter
   before the inauguration of President Lincoln.

   "I am perfectly satisfied," wrote Governor Pickens of South
   Carolina to Howell Cobb, "President of the Provisional
   Congress" of the Confederacy, in a letter dated February 13,
   1861,—"I am perfectly satisfied that the welfare of the new
   confederation and the necessities of the State require that
   Fort Sumter should be reduced before the close of the present
   administration at Washington. If an attack is delayed until
   after the inauguration of the incoming President of the United
   States, the troops now gathered in the capital may then be
   employed in attempting that which, previous to that time, they
   could not be spared to do. They dare not leave Washington now
   and do that which then will be a measure too inviting to be
   resisted. Mr. Lincoln cannot do more for this State than Mr.
   Buchanan has done. Mr. Lincoln will not concede what Mr.
   Buchanan has refused. Mr. Buchanan has placed his refusal upon
   grounds which determine his reply to six States, as completely
   as to the same demand if made by a single State. If peace can
   be secured, it will be by the prompt use of the occasion, when
   the forces of the United States are withheld from our harbor.
   If war can be averted, it will be by making the capture of
   Fort Sumter a fact accomplished during the continuance of the
   present administration, and leaving to the incoming
   administration the question of an open declaration of war.
   Such a declaration, separated, as it will be, from any present
   act of hostilities during Mr. Lincoln's administration, may
   become to him a matter requiring consideration. That
   consideration will not be expected of him, if the attack on
   the fort is made during his administration, and becomes,
   therefore, as to him, an act of present hostility. Mr.
   Buchanan cannot resist, because he has not the power. Mr.
   Lincoln may not attack, because the cause of the quarrel will
   have been, or may be, considered by him as past. Upon this
   line of policy I have acted, and upon the adherence to it may
   be found, I think, the most rational expectation of seeing
   that fort, which is even now a source of danger to the State,
   restored to the possession of the State without those
   consequences which I should most deeply deplore."

      _Official Records,
      volume 1, page 256._

{3417}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February-March).
   The inauguration and the
   inaugural address of President Lincoln.

   "On the 11th of February, with his family and some personal
   friends, Lincoln left his home at Springfield for Washington.
   … On his way to Washington, he passed through the great states
   of Indiana, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and
   was everywhere received with demonstrations of loyalty, as the
   representative of the national government. He addressed the
   people at the capitals of these states, and at many of their
   chief towns and cities. The city of Washington was surrounded
   by slave territory, and was really within the lines of the
   insurgents. Baltimore was not only a slaveholding city, but
   nowhere was the spirit of rebellion more hot and ferocious
   than among a large class of its people. The lower classes, the
   material of which mobs are made, were reckless, and ready for
   any outrage. From the date of his election to the time of his
   start for Washington, there had often appeared in the press
   and elsewhere, vulgar threats and menaces that he should never
   be inaugurated, nor reach the capital alive. Little attention
   was paid to these threats, yet some of the President's
   personal friends, without his knowledge, employed a detective,
   who sent agents to Baltimore and Washington to investigate. …
   The detectives ascertained the existence of a plot to
   assassinate the President elect, as he passed through
   Baltimore. The first intelligence of this conspiracy was
   communicated to Lincoln at Philadelphia. On the facts being
   laid before him, he was urged to take the train that night
   (the 21st of February), by which he would reach Washington the
   next morning, passing through Baltimore earlier than the
   conspirators expected, and thus avoid the danger. Having
   already made appointments to meet the citizens of Philadelphia
   at, and raise the United States flag over, Independence Hall,
   on Washington's birthday, the 22nd, and also to meet the
   Legislature of Pennsylvania at Harrisburgh, he declined
   starting for Washington that night. Finally his friends
   persuaded him to allow the detectives and the officers of the
   railways to arrange for him to return from Harrisburgh, and,
   by special train, to go to Washington the night following the
   ceremonies at Harrisburgh. … He went to Harrisburgh according
   to arrangement, met the Legislature, and retired to his room.
   In the meanwhile, General Scott and Mr. Seward had learned,
   through other sources, of the existence of the plot to
   assassinate him, and had despatched Mr. F. W. Seward, a son of
   Senator Seward, to apprise him of the danger. Information
   coming to him from both of these sources, each independent of
   the other, induced him to yield to the wishes of his friends,
   and anticipate his journey to Washington. Besides, there had
   reached him from Baltimore no committee, either of the
   municipal authorities or of citizens, to tender him the
   hospitalities, and to extend to him the courtesies of that
   city, as had been done by every other city through which he
   had passed. He was persuaded to permit the detective to
   arrange for his going to Washington that night. The telegraph
   wires to Baltimore were cut, Harrisburgh was isolated, and,
   taking a special train, he reached Philadelphia, and driving
   to the Baltimore depot, found the Washington train waiting his
   arrival, stepped on board, and passed on without interruption
   through Baltimore to the national capital. … He afterwards
   declared: 'I did not then, nor do I now believe I should have
   been assassinated, had I gone through Baltimore as first
   contemplated, but I thought it wise to run no risk where no
   risk was necessary.' … On the 4th of March, 1861, he was
   inaugurated President of the United States. … In the open air,
   and with a voice so clear and distinct that he could be heard
   by thrice ten thousand men, he read his inaugural address, and
   on the very verge of civil war, he made a most earnest appeal
   for peace."

      _I. N. Arnold,
      Life of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapters 11-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 3, chapters 19-21. _

      _H. J. Raymond,
      Life of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapters 5-6._

   The following is the full text of the inaugural address, from
   Lincoln's "Complete Works."

   "Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a
   custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to
   address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath
   prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be
   taken by the President 'before he enters on the execution of
   his office.' I do not consider it necessary, at present, for
   me to discuss those matters of administration about which
   there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems
   to exist among the people of the southern states, that, by the
   accession of a republican administration, their property and
   their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There
   has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.
   Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the
   while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found
   in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses
   you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, when I declare
   that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
   with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.
   I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no
   inclination to do so.' Those who nominated and elected me did
   so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar
   declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than
   this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a
   law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution
   which I now read: 'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of
   the rights of the states, and especially the right of each
   state to order and control its own domestic institutions
   according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to
   that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of
   our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless
   invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory,
   no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.'
   I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so I only press
   upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of
   which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and
   security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the
   now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the
   protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the
   laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states
   when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to
   one section as to another.
{3418}
   There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives
   from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly
   written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
   'No person held to service or labor in one state under the
   laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of
   any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service
   or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
   whom such service or labor may be due.' It is scarcely
   questioned that this provision was intended by those who made
   it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the
   intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress
   swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this
   provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then,
   that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause
   'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if
   they would make the effort in good temper, could they not,
   with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of
   which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some
   difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced
   by national or by state authority; but surely that difference
   is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered,
   it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by
   which authority it is done. And should anyone, in any case, be
   content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely
   unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again,
   in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of
   liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be
   introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case,
   surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same
   time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in
   the Constitution which guarantees that 'the citizens of each
   state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
   citizens in the several states'? I take the official oath
   today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to
   construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules.
   And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of
   Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will
   be much safer for all, both in official and private stations,
   to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand
   unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find
   impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is
   seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President
   under our National Constitution. During that period, fifteen
   different and greatly distinguished citizens have in
   succession administered the executive branch of the
   Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and
   generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of
   precedent, I now enter upon the same task, for the brief
   constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar
   difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only
   menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in the
   contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the
   union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if
   not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
   governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper
   ever had a provision in its organic law for its own
   termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of
   our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever,
   it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not
   provided for in the instrument itself. Again, if the United
   States be not a government proper, but an association of
   states in the nature of a contract merely, can it, as a
   contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who
   made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so
   to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
   Descending from these genera] principles, we find the
   proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is
   perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The
   Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in
   fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured
   and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It
   was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen
   states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be
   perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation, in 1778. And
   finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining
   and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect
   Union.' But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a
   part only of the states be lawfully possible, the Union is
   less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the
   vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that
   no state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of
   the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are
   legally void; and that acts of violence within any state or
   states against the authority of the United States are
   insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
   I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the
   laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability,
   I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly
   enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully
   executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a
   simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as
   practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people,
   shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative
   manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded
   as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union
   that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In
   doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and
   there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national
   authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold,
   occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the
   Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond
   what may be necessary for these objects there will be no
   invasion, no using of force against or among the people
   anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior
   locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent
   competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices,
   there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among
   the people for that object. While the strict legal right may
   exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these
   offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so
   nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego,
   for the time, the uses of such offices. The mails, unless
   repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the
   Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have
   that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm
   thought and reflection.
{3419}
   The course here indicated will be followed, unless current
   events and experience shall show a modification or change to
   be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion
   will be exercised according to circumstances actually
   existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of
   the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal
   sympathies and affections. That there are persons, in one
   section or another, who seek to destroy the Union at all
   events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither
   affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word
   to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I
   not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the
   destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its
   memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain
   precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step,
   while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills
   you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the
   certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you
   fly from—will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
   All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional
   rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right,
   plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think
   not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party
   can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of
   a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the
   Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of
   numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly
   written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of
   view, justify revolution—certainly would if such a right were
   a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
   minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them
   by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions in
   the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning
   them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision
   specifically applicable to every question which may occur in
   practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any
   document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for
   all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be
   surrendered by national or by state authority? The
   Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit
   slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not
   expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the
   Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From
   questions of this class spring all our constitutional
   controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and
   minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority
   must, or the Government must cease. There is no other
   alternative; for continuing the Government is acquiescence on
   one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede
   rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn,
   will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will
   secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled
   by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a
   new Confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede
   again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to
   secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now
   being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there
   such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose
   a new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed
   secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the
   essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by
   constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing
   easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and
   sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.
   Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to
   despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as
   a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that,
   rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in
   some form, is all that is left. I do not forget the position
   assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decide
   by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must
   he binding in any case upon the parties to a suit, as to the
   object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high
   respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other
   departments of the Government; and while it is obviously
   possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given
   case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to
   that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled
   and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be
   borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the
   same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy
   of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole
   people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
   Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation
   between parties in personal actions, the people will have
   ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent
   practically resigned their Government into the hands of that
   eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon
   the Court or the Judges. It is a duty from which they may not
   shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them, and it
   is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions
   to political purposes. One section of our country believes
   slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other
   believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the
   only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the
   Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign
   slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law
   can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people
   imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the
   people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a
   few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly
   cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the
   separation of the sections than before. The foreign
   slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately
   revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive
   slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be
   surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we
   cannot separate; we cannot remove our respective sections from
   each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A
   husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence
   and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of
   our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to
   face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must
   continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that
   intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after
   separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than
   friends can make laws?
{3420}
   Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than
   laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot
   fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no
   gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old
   questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. This
   country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
   inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
   government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
   amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or
   overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many
   worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the
   National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation
   of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the
   people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of
   the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should,
   under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a
   fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I
   will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems
   preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the
   people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or
   reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen
   for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they
   would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed
   amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have
   not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal
   Government shall never interfere with the domestic
   institutions of the states, including that of persons held to
   service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I
   depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments,
   so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be
   implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being
   made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all
   his authority from the people, and they have conferred none
   upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The
   people themselves can do this also if they choose, but the
   Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to
   administer the present government as it came to his hands, and
   to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should
   there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of
   the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In
   our present differences is either party without faith of being
   in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his
   eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on
   yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely
   prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American
   people. By the frame of the Government under which we live,
   this same people have wisely given their public servants but
   little power for mischief; and have with equal wisdom provided
   for the return of that little to their own hands at very short
   intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance,
   no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can
   very seriously injure the Government in the short space of
   four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well
   upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by
   taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot
   haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that
   object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object
   can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied
   still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the
   sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while
   the new administration will have no immediate power, if it
   would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are
   dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still
   is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence,
   patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has
   never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to
   adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your
   hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is
   the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not
   assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves
   the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to
   destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one
   to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' I am loth to close. W
   are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though
   passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of
   affection. The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every
   battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and
   hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the
   chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will
   be, by the better angels of our nature."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
   President Lincoln and his Cabinet.
   Secretary Seward.

   President Lincoln, "in selecting his cabinet, which he did
   substantially before he left Springfield for Washington, …
   thought it wise to call to his assistance the strong men of
   his party, especially those who had given evidence of the
   support they commanded as his competitors in the Chicago
   convention. … This was sound policy under the circumstances.
   It might indeed have been foreseen that among the members of a
   cabinet so composed, troublesome disagreements and rivalries
   would break out. But it was better for the President to have
   these strong and ambitious men near him as his coöperators
   than to have them as his critics in Congress, where their
   differences might have been composed in a common opposition to
   him. As members of his cabinet he could hope to control them,
   and to keep them busily employed in the service of a common
   purpose, if he had the strength to do so. Whether he did
   possess this strength was soon tested by a singularly rude
   trial. There can be no doubt that the foremost members of his
   cabinet, Seward and Chase, the most eminent Republican
   statesmen, had felt themselves wronged by their party when in
   its national convention it preferred to them for the
   presidency a man whom, not unnaturally, they thought greatly
   their inferior in ability and experience as well as in
   service. … Seward, who, as Secretary of State, considered
   himself next to the Chief Executive, and who quickly
   accustomed himself to giving orders and making arrangements
   upon his own motion, thought it necessary that he should
   rescue the direction of public affairs from hands so
   unskilled, and take full charge of them himself. At the end of
   the first month of the administration he submitted a
   'memorandum' to President Lincoln, which has been first
   brought to light by Nicolay and Hay, and is one of their most
   valuable contributions to the history of those days.

{3421}

   In that paper Seward actually told the President that, at the
   end of a month's administration, the government was still
   without a policy, either domestic or foreign; that the slavery
   question should be eliminated from the struggle about the
   Union; that the matter of the maintenance of the forts and
   other possessions in the South should be decided with that
   view; that explanations should be demanded categorically from
   the governments of Spain and France, which were then
   preparing, one for the annexation of San Domingo, and both for
   the invasion of Mexico; that if no satisfactory explanations
   were received war should be declared against Spain and France
   by the United States; that explanations should also be sought
   from Russia and Great Britain, and a vigorous continental
   spirit of independence against European intervention be
   aroused all over the American continent; that this policy
   should be incessantly pursued and directed by somebody; that
   either the President should devote himself entirely to it, or
   devolve the direction on some member of his cabinet, whereupon
   all debate on this policy must end. This could be understood
   only as a formal demand that the President should acknowledge
   his own incompetency to perform his duties, content himself
   with the amusement of distributing post offices, and resign
   his power as to all important affairs into the hands of his
   Secretary of State. … Had Lincoln, as most Presidents would
   have done, instantly dismissed Seward, and published the true
   reason for that dismissal, it would inevitably have been the
   end of Seward's career. But Lincoln did what not many of the
   noblest and greatest men in history would have been noble and
   great enough to do. He considered that Seward was still
   capable of rendering great service to his country in the place
   in which he was, if rightly controlled. He ignored the insult,
   but firmly established his superiority. In his reply, which he
   forthwith dispatched, he told Seward that the administration
   had a domestic policy as laid down in the inaugural address
   with Seward's approval; that it had a foreign policy as traced
   in Seward's dispatches with the President's approval; that if
   any policy was to be maintained or changed, he, the President,
   was to direct that on his responsibility; and that in
   performing that duty the President had a right to the advice
   of his secretaries. Seward's fantastic schemes of foreign war
   and continental policies Lincoln brushed aside by passing them
   over in silence. Nothing more was said. Seward must have felt
   that he was at the mercy of a superior man."

      _Carl Schurz,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      pages 67-73._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln: a History,
      volume 3, chapters 22 and 26._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
   Surrender of Alexander H. Stephens to Secession.
   His "Corner-stone" speech at Savannah.

   The following is from a speech made by Alexander H. Stephens
   at Savannah, on the evening after the secession of Georgia,
   which he had opposed, but to which he now yielded himself
   without reserve. It is a speech that became famous on account
   of its bold declaration that Slavery formed the "corner-stone"
   of the New Confederacy. "The new constitution," said Mr.
   Stephens, "has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
   questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery
   as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our
   form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late
   rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast,
   had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union
   would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is
   now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the
   great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be
   doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of
   the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
   constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in
   violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in
   principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil
   they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion
   of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order
   of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass
   away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution,
   was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is
   true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution
   while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly
   urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured,
   because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas,
   however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the
   assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was
   a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when
   the 'storm came and the wind blew.' Our new government is
   founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are
   laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the
   negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery
   —subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal
   condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the
   history of the world, based upon this great physical,
   philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in
   the process of its development, like all other truths in the
   various departments of science. It has been so even amongst
   us."

      _A. H. Stephens,
      Speech in Savannah, March 21, 1861
      (in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private;
      by H. Cleveland")._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March-April).
   The breaking of rebellion into open war
   by the attack on Fort Sumter.
   President Lincoln's statement of the circumstances.
   His first difficulties.
   Attitude of the Border States.

   The circumstances under which the first blow of the civil war
   was struck by the rebels at Charleston were recited by
   President Lincoln, in his Message to Congress, at the special
   session convened July 4, 1861; "On the 5th of March (the
   present incumbent's first full day in office), a letter of
   Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter, written on the 28th
   of February and received at the War Department on the 4th of
   March, was by that department placed in his hands. This letter
   expressed the professional opinion of the writer that
   reinforcements could not be thrown into that fort within the
   time for his relief, rendered necessary by the limited supply
   of provisions, and with a view of holding possession of the
   same, with a force of less than 20,000 good and
   well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the
   officers of his command, and their memoranda on the subject
   were made inclosures of Major Anderson's letter.
{3422}
   The whole was immediately laid before Lieutenant-General
   Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson in opinion.
   On reflection, however, he took full time, consulting with
   other officers, both of the army and the navy, and at the end
   of four days came reluctantly but decidedly to the same
   conclusion as before. He also stated at the same time that no
   such sufficient force was then at the control of the
   government, or could be raised and brought to the ground
   within the time when the provisions in the fort would be
   exhausted. In a purely military point of view, this reduced
   the duty of the administration in the case to the mere matter
   of getting the garrison safely out of the fort. It was
   believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under the
   circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity
   under which it was to be done would not be fully understood;
   that by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary
   policy; that at home it would discourage the friends of the
   Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far to insure to the
   latter a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be our
   national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed.
   Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be
   reached Fort Pickens might be reinforced. This last would be a
   clear indication of policy, and would better enable the
   country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military
   necessity. An order was at once directed to be sent for the
   landing of the troops from the steamship 'Brooklyn' into Fort
   Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the
   longer and slower route by sea. The first return news from the
   order was received just one week before the fall of Fort
   Sumter. The news itself was that the officer commanding the
   'Sabine,' to which vessel the troops had been transferred from
   the 'Brooklyn,' acting upon some quasi armistice of the late
   administration (and of the existence of which the present
   administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had
   only too vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had
   refused to land the troops. To now reinforce Fort Pickens
   before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was
   impossible—rendered so by the near exhaustion of provisions in
   the latter-named fort. In precaution against such a
   conjuncture, the government had, a few days before, commenced
   preparing an expedition as well adapted as might be to relieve
   Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately
   used, or not, according to circumstances. The strongest
   anticipated case for using it was now presented, and it was
   resolved to send it forward. As had been intended in this
   contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of
   South Carolina that he might expect an attempt would be made
   to provision the fort; and that, if the attempt should not be
   resisted, there would be no effort to throw in men, arms, or
   ammunition, without further notice, or in case of an attack
   upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given; whereupon
   the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even
   awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition. It is
   thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter
   was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the
   assailants."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 56-57._

   The President's delay of action in the case of Fort Sumter was
   mainly due, on the political side of the question, to the
   state of things in the border states—especially in Virginia.
   "There were fifteen slave states, which those engaged in the
   rebellion hoped to lead or to force into secession. At the
   time of the inauguration, only seven of these fifteen—less
   than a majority—had revolted. The cotton states alone had
   followed the lead of South Carolina out of the Union. Several
   weeks had passed since a state had seceded; and unless other
   states could be dragooned into the movement, the rebellion
   would be practically a failure from the start. Such a
   confederacy could not hope to live a year, and would be
   obliged to find its way back into the Union upon some terms.
   In the meantime, two or three conventions in the border states
   [Virginia, April 4, and Missouri, March], delegated freshly
   from the people, had voted distinctly and decidedly not to
   secede. [Kentucky and Tennessee had refused even the call of
   conventions; while North Carolina, February 28, and Arkansas,
   March 18, of the states farther south, had voted secession
   down.] The affairs of the confederacy were really in a very
   precarious condition when Mr. Lincoln came into power. The
   rebel government was making very much more bluster than
   progress. It became Mr. Lincoln's policy so to conduct affairs
   as to strengthen the Union feeling in the border states, and
   to give utterance to no sentiment and to do no deed which
   should drive these states toward the confederacy. … The
   confederacy found that it must make progress or die. The rebel
   Congress passed a measure for the organization of an army, on
   the 9th of March, and on the 12th two confederate
   commissioners—Mr. Forsyth of Alabama and Mr. Crawford of
   Georgia—presented themselves at the State Department at
   Washington for the purpose of making a treaty with the United
   States. They knew, of course, that they could not be received
   officially, and that they ought to be arrested for treason.
   The President would not recognize them, but sent to them a
   copy of his inaugural, as the embodiment of the views of the
   government. … In the meantime, Lieutenant Talbot, on behalf of
   Mr. Lincoln, was having interviews with Governor Pickens of
   South Carolina and with General Beauregard, in command of the
   confederate forces there, in which he informed them that
   provisions would be sent to Fort Sumter, peaceably if
   possible,—otherwise by force. This was communicated to L. P.
   Walker, then rebel Secretary of War. Before Talbot had made
   his communication, Beauregard had informed Major Anderson, in
   command of Fort Sumter, that he must have no further
   intercourse with Charleston; and Talbot himself was refused
   permission to visit that gallant and faithful officer. … The
   wisdom of Mr. Lincoln's waiting became evident at a day not
   too long delayed. Fort Pickens, which the rebels had not
   taken, was quietly reinforced [April 12], and when the vessels
   which carried the relief [to Sumter] were dispatched, Mr.
   Lincoln gave official information to General Beauregard that
   provisions were to be sent to Major Anderson in Fort Sumter,
   by an unarmed vessel. He was determined that no hostile act on
   the part of the government should commence the war, for which
   both sides were preparing; although an act of open war had
   already transpired in Charleston harbor"—the rebel batteries
   having fired upon and driven off the unarmed steamer Star of
   the West, which had been sent to convey troops and provisions
   to Fort Sumter on the 9th of January, two months before
   Lincoln's inauguration.
{3423}
   "Beauregard laid this last intelligence before his Secretary
   of War, and, under special instructions, on the 12th of April,
   he demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter. He was ready to make
   the demand, and to back it by force. The city of Charleston
   was full of troops, and, for months, batteries had been in
   course of construction, with the special purpose of compelling
   the surrender of the fort. Major Anderson had seen these
   batteries going up, day after day, without the liberty to fire
   a gun. He declined to surrender. He was called upon to state
   when he would evacuate the fort. He replied that on the 15th
   he would do so, should he not meantime receive controlling
   instructions from the government, or additional supplies. The
   response which he received was that the confederate batteries
   would open on Fort Sumter in one hour from the date of the
   message. The date of the message was 'April 12, 1861, 3:30 A.
   M.' Beauregard was true to his word. At half past four the
   batteries opened upon the Fort, which, after a long and
   terrible bombardment, and a gallant though comparatively
   feeble defense by a small and half-starved garrison, was
   surrendered the following day. … The fall of Sumter was the
   resurrection of patriotism. The North needed just this. Such a
   universal burst of patriotic indignation as ran over the North
   under the influence of this insult to the national flag has
   never been witnessed. It swept away all party lines as if it
   had been flame and they had been flax."

      _J. G. Holland,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Seward,
      Seward at Washington,
      chapter 56._

      _S. W. Crawford,
      Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter,
      chapters 24-32._

      _A. Doubleday,
      Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie,
      chapters 8-11._

      _A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 1, chapters 2-4._

      _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      The Century Company,
      volume 1, pages 40-83._

      _S. L. Woodford,
      The Story of Fort Sumter
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      N. Y. Com. L. L. of the United States)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   President Lincoln's call to arms.
   The mighty uprising of the North.
   The response of disloyal Governors.

   "By the next morning (Sunday April 14) the news of the close
   of the bombardment and capitulation of Sumter was in
   Washington. In the forenoon, at the time Anderson and his
   garrison were evacuating the fort, Lincoln and his Cabinet,
   together with sundry military officers, were at the Executive
   Mansion, giving final shape to the details of the action the
   Government had decided to take. A proclamation, drafted by
   himself, copied on the spot by his secretary, was concurred in
   by his Cabinet, signed, and sent to the State Department to be
   sealed, filed, and copied for publication in the next
   morning's newspapers. The document bears date April 15
   (Monday), but was made and signed on Sunday." It was as
   follows:

   "Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time
   past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof
   obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
   Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations
   too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of
   judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals
   by law: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the
   United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the
   Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and
   hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the
   Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in
   order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to
   be duly executed. The details for this object will be
   immediately communicated to the State authorities through the
   War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor,
   facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the
   integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the
   perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs
   already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the
   first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will
   probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which
   have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost
   care will be observed, consistently with the objects
   aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or
   interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful
   citizens in any part of the country. And I hereby command the
   persons composing the combination aforesaid to disperse and
   retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty
   days from date. Deeming that the present condition of public
   affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in
   virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene
   both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are
   therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers,
   at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday the fourth day of July
   next, then and there to consider and determine such measures
   as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem
   to demand. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand,
   and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done
   at the city of Washington, this 15th day of April, in the year
   of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of
   the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
   Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward,
   Secretary of State."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 34._

   "In view of the subsequent gigantic expansion of the civil
   war, eleventh-hour critics continue to insist that a larger
   force should have been called at once. They forget that this
   was nearly five times the then existing regular army; that
   only very limited quantities of arms, equipments, and supplies
   were in the Northern arsenals; that the treasury was bankrupt;
   and that an insignificant eight million loan had not two weeks
   before been discounted nearly six per cent. by the New York
   bankers, some bids ranging as low as eighty-five. They forget
   that the shameful events of the past four months had elicited
   scarcely a spark of war feeling; that the loyal States had
   suffered the siege of Sumter and firing on the 'Star of the
   West' with a dangerous indifference. They forget the doubt and
   dismay, the panic of commerce, the division of counsels, the
   attacks from within, the sneers from without—that faith seemed
   gone and patriotism dead. Twenty-four hours later all this was
   measurably changed, … The guns of the Sumter bombardment woke
   the country from the political nightmare which had so long
   tormented and paralyzed it.
{3424}
   The lion of the North was fully roused. Betrayed, insulted,
   outraged, the free States arose as with a cry of pain and
   vengeance. War sermons from pulpits; war speeches in every
   assemblage; tenders of troops; offers of money; military
   proclamations and orders in every newspaper; every city
   radiant with bunting; every village-green a mustering ground;
   war appropriations in every legislature and in every city or
   town council; war preparations in every public or private
   workshop; gun-casting in the great foundries; cartridge-making
   in the principal towns; camps and drills in the fields;
   parades, drums, flags, and bayonets in the streets; knitting,
   bandage-rolling, and lint-scraping in nearly every household.
   Before the lapse of forty-eight hours a Massachusetts
   regiment, armed and equipped, was on its way to Washington;
   within the space of a month the energy and intelligence of the
   country were almost completely turned from the industries of
   peace to the activities of war."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 4, chapters 4-5._

   "In intelligence no army, except perhaps the Athenian, can
   have ever equalled or approached that of the North. Most of
   the soldiers carried books and writing materials in their
   knapsacks, and mail bags heavily weighted with letters were
   sent from every cantonment. Such privates would sometimes
   reason instead of obeying, and they would see errors of their
   commanders to which they had better have been blind. But on
   the whole, in a war in which much was thrown upon the
   individual soldier, intelligence was likely to prevail. In
   wealth, in the means of providing the weapons and ammunitions
   of war, the North had an immense advantage, which, combined
   with that of numbers, could not fail, if, to use Lincoln's
   homely phrase, it 'pegged away,' to tell in the end. It was
   also vastly superior in mechanical invention; which was
   destined to play a great part, and in mechanical skill; almost
   every Yankee regiment was full of mechanics, some of whom
   could devise as well as execute. In artillery and engineering
   the North took the lead from the first, having many civil
   engineers, whose conversion into military civil engineers was
   easy. The South, to begin with, had the contents of Federal
   arsenals and armouries, which had been well stocked by the
   provident treason of Buchanan's Minister of War. … But when
   these resources were exhausted, replacement was difficult, the
   blockade having been established, though extraordinary efforts
   in the way of military manufacture were made. To the wealthy
   North, besides its own factories, were opened the markets of
   England and the world. Of the small regular army the
   Confederacy had carried off a share, with nearly half the
   regular officers. The South had the advantage of the
   defensive, which, with long-range muskets and in a difficult
   country, was reckoned in battle as five to two. The South had
   the superiority of the unity, force, and secrecy which
   autocracy lends to the operations of war. On the side of the
   North these were comparatively wanting."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 5._

   In six of the eight Slave-labor States included in the call,
   the President's Proclamation and the requisition of the
   Secretary of War "were treated by the authorities with words
   of scorn and defiance. The exceptions were Maryland and
   Delaware. In the other States, disloyal Governors held the
   reins of power. 'I have only to say,' replied Governor Letcher
   of Virginia, 'that the militia of this State will not be
   furnished to the powers at Washington for any such purpose as
   they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern
   States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object—an
   object, in my judgment, not within the province of the
   Constitution or the Act of 1795—will not be complied with. You
   have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we
   will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration
   has exhibited toward the South.' Governor Ellis, of North
   Carolina, answered:—'Your dispatch is received, and if
   genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt,
   I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy of troops, made
   by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the
   States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, and
   a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked
   violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the
   liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North
   Carolina.' Governor Magoffin, of Kentucky, replied:—'Your
   dispatch is received. I say emphatically that Kentucky will
   furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her
   sister Southern States.' Governor Harris, of Tennessee,
   said:—'Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion,
   but 50,000, if necessary, for the defense of our rights, or
   those of our Southern brethren.' Governor Rector, of Arkansas,
   replied:—'In answer to your requisition for troops from
   Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that
   none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to
   injury.' … Governor Jackson, of Missouri, responded:—'There
   can be, I apprehend, no doubt that these men are intended to
   make war upon the seceded States. Your requisition, in my
   judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in
   its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied
   with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry
   on such an unholy crusade.' … Governor Hicks, of Maryland,
   appalled by the presence of great dangers, and sorely pressed
   by the secessionists on every side, hastened, in a
   proclamation, to assure the people of his State that no troops
   would be sent from Maryland unless it might be for the defense
   of the National Capital, and that they (the people) would, in
   a short time, 'have the opportunity afforded them, in a
   special election for members of the Congress of the United
   States, to express their devotion to the Union, or their
   desire to see it broken up.' Governor Burton, of Delaware,
   made no response until the 26th, when he informed the
   President that he had no authority to comply with his
   requisition. At the same time he recommended the formation of
   volunteer companies for the protection of the citizens and
   property of Delaware, and not for the preservation of the
   Union. … In the seven excepted Slave-labor States in which
   insurrection prevailed, the proclamation and the requisition
   produced hot indignation, and were assailed with the bitterest
   scorn. … Even in the Free-labor States, there were vehement
   opposers of the war policy of the Government from its
   inception." But, speaking generally, "the uprising of the
   people of the Free-labor States in defense of Nationality was
   a sublime spectacle. Nothing like it had been seen on the
   earth since the preaching of Peter the Hermit and of Pope
   Urban the Second filled all Christian Europe with religious
   zeal, and sent armed hosts, with the cry of 'God wills it! God
   wills it!' to rescue the sepulcher of Jesus from the hands of
   the infidel."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Moore, editor,
      Rebellion Record,
      volume 1._

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapters 4-6._

{3425}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   The Morrill Tariff Act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Secession of Virginia.

   See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-JUNE).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Activity of Rebellion in Virginia and Maryland.
   Peril of the national capital.
   Attack on Massachusetts volunteers in Baltimore.

   "Massachusetts, always the most zealous, was the first in the
   field [with troops in response to the President's call], and
   on the 17th [April] she forwarded a regiment of volunteers
   from Boston to Washington. Pennsylvania, although nearly
   one-half of her votes had been given for Mr. Breckinridge,
   followed this example; and, owing to her geographical
   position, her volunteers reached the shores of the Potomac in
   advance of all the others. After passing through the great
   city of Baltimore in the midst of an incipient insurrection,
   they encamped around the Capitol, on the 18th of April. The
   seceders, on their side, had not lost a moment in Virginia.
   They were in possession of Richmond, where the convention was
   in session. … The workshops and arsenal of Harper's Ferry,
   situated at the confluence of the Potomac and the Shenandoah,
   on a spot which was destined to play an important part during
   the war, were only guarded by a detachment of 64 dismounted
   dragoons; and the Virginia volunteers, assembled in the
   valleys of the Blue Ridge, were ready to take possession of
   them as soon as the ordinance for the secession of Virginia
   should furnish them a pretext. They were then to cross the
   Potomac and join the insurgents of Maryland, for the purpose
   of attempting the capture of Washington, where their
   accomplices were expecting them. On the morning of the 18th
   [April], a portion of them were on their march, in the hope of
   seizing the prey which was to be of so much value to the
   future armies of the Confederacy. But Lieutenant Jones, who
   was in command at Harper's Ferry, had been informed of the
   approach of the Confederate troops under the lead of Ashby—a
   chief well known since; notwithstanding their despatch, they
   only arrived in sight of Harper's Ferry in time to see from a
   distance a large conflagration that was consuming the
   workshops, store-houses, and the enormous piles of muskets
   heaped in the yards, while the Federal soldiers who had just
   kindled it were crossing the Potomac on their way to
   Washington. The Confederates found nothing but smoking ruins,
   and some machinery, which they sent to Richmond; their allies
   from Maryland had not made their appearance, and they did not
   feel strong enough to venture alone to the other side of the
   Potomac. During the last few days the authorities of Virginia
   had been making preparations for capturing the Norfolk [or
   Gosport] arsenal (navy-yard). That establishment possessed a
   magnificent granite basin, construction docks, and a depot of
   artillery with more than 2,000 guns; a two-decked vessel was
   on the stocks, two others, with a three-decker, three
   frigates, a steam sloop, and a brig, lay dismantled in the
   port; the steam frigate Merrimac was there undergoing repairs;
   the steam sloop Germantown was in the harbor ready to go to
   sea, while the sailing sloop Cumberland was lying to at the
   entrance of the port. … Commodore McCauley, the Federal
   commandant, was surrounded by traitors," and, being deficient
   in energy and capability, he allowed himself to be put in a
   position where he thought it necessary to sink all the vessels
   in the harbor except the Cumberland. As they were sinking,
   reinforcements arrived from Washington, under Captain
   Paulding, who superseded McCauley in command. But they came
   too late. Captain Paulding could do nothing except hastily
   destroy as far as possible the sinking ships and the arsenal
   buildings, and then retreat. "The Confederates found abundant
   resources in artillery and 'materiel' of every description in
   Norfolk; the fire was soon extinguished, the docks repaired,
   and they succeeded in raising the Merrimac, which we shall see
   at work the following year. Fort Monroe had just been occupied
   by a small Federal garrison. Its loss would have been even
   more disastrous to the Federal cause than that of the Norfolk
   navy-yard and arsenal, because the Confederates, instead of
   having to cover Richmond, would have been able to blockade
   Washington by sea and besiege it by land. … The example of
   Virginia fired the enthusiasm of the secessionists everywhere,
   and they applied themselves to the task of drawing into the
   conflict those slave States which were still hesitating. … The
   sight of the Pennsylvania volunteers had caused a great
   irritation in Baltimore. That city, the largest in the slave
   States, … warmly sympathized with the South. Her location on
   the railway line which connects Washington with the great
   cities of the North imparted to her a peculiar importance.
   Consequently, the accomplices of the South, who were numerous
   in Baltimore, determined to seize the first opportunity that
   might offer to drag that city into the rebellion. … The
   looked-for opportunity occurred … April 19. When the Sixth
   Massachusetts Regiment, with a few battalions of Pennsylvania
   volunteers, arrived at the northern station, an immense crowd
   bore down upon them. A line of rails, laid in the centre of
   the streets, connected this with the southern station, and
   enabled the cars, drawn by horses, to pass through the city.
   The crowd surround the soldiers of the Sixth Massachusetts,
   who occupy these cars. The last cars are stopped, and the
   occupants, being obliged to get out, endeavor to make their
   way through the crowd. But, being hemmed in on all sides, they
   are soon attacked by a shower of stones, which wound many of
   them, and injure a few mortally. The soldiers have to defend
   themselves, and the first discharge of musketry, which has
   considerable effect, opens them a passage. But the aggressors,
   being armed, rally, and a regular battle ensues. … The ground
   is strewn with the wounded of both parties. At last, the
   Massachusetts soldiers rejoin their comrades at the southern
   station," and are conveyed to Washington. "Baltimore was
   thenceforth in possession of the secessionists, who were fully
   determined to take advantage of the situation of that city to
   intercept all communications between Washington and the North.
{3426}
   Accordingly, they hastened to burn the railroad bridges which
   had been constructed over large estuaries north of Baltimore,
   and to cut the telegraph wires. Deprived of all sources of
   information from the North, the capital of the Union was soon
   wrapped in mournful silence. For some days the occupant of the
   White House was unable to forward any instructions to the
   people who had remained faithful to the Union; but their zeal
   did not abate on that account. Patriotism extinguished all
   party animosities in the hearts of most of the Democrats who
   had opposed the election of Mr. Lincoln. In the presence of
   the national peril they loyally tendered their assistance to
   the President; and breaking loose from their former
   accomplices of the South, they assumed the name of War
   Democrats in opposition to that of Peace Democrats."

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 1, book 2, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Hanson,
      History of the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteers,
      pages 21-57._

      _G. W. Brown,
      Baltimore and the 29th of April, 1861
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 3)._

      _Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April: South Carolina).
   Monarchical cravings.
   Intensity of the Carolinian hatred of New England and the North.

   Mr. Russell, who was famous in his day as a correspondent of
   "The Times" (London), spent some time in South Carolina at the
   beginning of the war, and described the state of feeling there
   in a letter from Charleston, written at the end of April:
   "Nothing I could say," he wrote, "can be worth one fact which
   has forced itself upon my mind in reference to the sentiments
   which prevail among the gentlemen of this State. I have been
   among them for several days. I have visited their plantations,
   I have conversed with them freely and fully, and I have
   enjoyed that frank, courteous and graceful intercourse which
   constitutes an irresistible charm of their society. From all
   quarters have come to my ears the echoes of the same voice. …
   That voice says, 'If we could only get one of the royal race
   of England to rule over us, we should be content.' Let there
   be no misconception on this point. That sentiment, varied in a
   hundred ways, has been repeated to me over and over again.
   There is a general admission that the means to such an end are
   wanting, and that the desire cannot be gratified. But the
   admiration for monarchical institutions on the English model,
   for privileged classes, and for a landed aristocracy and
   gentry, is undisguised and apparently genuine. With the pride
   of having achieved their independence is mingled in the South
   Carolinians' hearts a strange regret at the result and
   consequences, and many are they who 'would go back tomorrow if
   we could.' An intense affection for the British connection, a
   love of British habits and customs, a respect for British
   sentiment, law, authority, order, civilization, and
   literature, preeminently distinguish the inhabitants of this
   State, who, glorying in their descent from ancient families on
   the three islands, whose fortunes they still follow, and with
   whose members they maintain not unfrequently familiar
   relations, regard with an aversion of which it is impossible
   to give an idea to one who has not seen its manifestations,
   the people of New England and the populations of the Northern
   States, whom they regard as tainted beyond cure by the venom
   of 'Puritanism.' Whatever may be the cause, this is the fact
   and the effect. 'The State of South Carolina was,' I am told,
   'founded by gentlemen.' It was not established by
   witch-burning Puritans, by cruel persecuting fanatics, who
   implanted in the North the standard of Torquemada, and
   breathed into the nostrils of their newly-born colonies all
   the ferocity, blood-thirstiness, and rabid intolerance of the
   Inquisition. … We could have got on with these fanatics if
   they had been either Christians or gentlemen,' says [one],
   'for in the first case they would have acted with common
   charity, and in the second they would have fought when they
   insulted us; but there are neither Christians nor gentlemen
   among them!' 'Any thing on earth!' exclaims [another], 'any
   form of government, any tyranny or despotism you will; but
   '—and here is an appeal more terrible than the adjuration of
   all the Gods—'nothing on earth shall ever induce us to submit
   to any union with the brutal, bigoted blackguards of the New
   England States, who neither comprehend nor regard the feelings
   of gentlemen! Man, woman and child, we'll die first.' … The
   hatred of the Italian for the Tedesco, of the Greek for the
   Turk, of the Turk for the Russ, is warm and fierce enough to
   satisfy the prince of darkness, not to speak of a few little
   pet aversions among allied powers and the atoms of composite
   empires; but they are all mere indifference and neutrality of
   feeling compared to the animosity evinced by the 'gentry' of
   South Carolina for the 'rabble of the North.' The contests of
   Cavalier and Roundhead, of Vendean and Republican, even of
   Orangeman and Croppy, have been elegant joustings, regulated
   by the finest rules of chivalry, compared with those which
   North and South will carry on if their deeds support their
   words. 'Immortal hate, the study of revenge' will actuate
   every blow, and never in the history of the world, perhaps,
   will go forth such a 'væ victis' as that which may be heard
   before the fight has begun. There is nothing in all the dark
   caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the
   South Carolinians profess for the Yankees. That hatred has
   been swelling for years, till it is the very life-blood of the
   state. … Believe a southern man as he believes himself, and
   you must regard New England and the kindred States as the
   birthplace of impurity of mind among men and of unchastity in
   women—the home of free love, of Fourrierism, of infidelity, of
   abolitionism, of false teachings in political economy and in
   social life; a land saturated with the drippings of rotten
   philosophy, with the poisonous infections of a fanatic press;
   without honor or modesty; whose wisdom is paltry cunning,
   whose valor and manhood have been swallowed up in a corrupt,
   howling demagogy, and in the marts of a dishonest commerce."

      _W. H. Russell,
      Letter to the Times (London), April 30, 1861._

{3427}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   Proclamation by the Confederate President.
   President Lincoln's proclamation of a Blockade of Southern ports.
   The Queen's proclamation of British neutrality.

   On the 17th of April, two days after President Lincoln's call
   for troops, Jefferson Davis, the chief of the rebellious
   Confederacy, published a counter-proclamation, giving notice
   of the intention of the government at Montgomery to issue
   letters of marque to privateers, for the destruction of
   American commerce. It was as follows:

   "Whereas, Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States
   has, by proclamation announced the intention of invading this
   Confederacy with an armed force, for the purpose of capturing
   its fortresses, and thereby subverting its independence, and
   subjecting the free people thereof to the dominion of a
   foreign power; and whereas it has thus become the duty of this
   Government to repel the threatened invasion, and to defend the
   rights and liberties of the people by all the means which the
   laws of nations and the usages of civilized warfare place at
   its disposal; Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of
   the Confederate States of America, do issue this my
   Proclamation, inviting all those who may desire, by service in
   private armed vessels on the high seas, to aid this Government
   in resisting so wanton and wicked an aggression, to make
   application for commissions or Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
   to be issued under the Seal of these Confederate States. And I
   do further notify all persons applying for Letters of Marque,
   to make a statement in writing, giving the name and a suitable
   description of the character, tonnage, and force of the
   vessel, and the name and place of residence of each owner
   concerned therein, and the intended number of the crew, and to
   sign said statement and deliver the same to the Secretary of
   State, or to the Collector of any port of entry of these
   Confederate States, to be by him transmitted to the Secretary
   of State. And I do further notify all applicants aforesaid
   that before any commission or Letter of Marque is issued to
   any vessel, the owner or owners thereof, and the commander for
   the time being, will be required to give bond to the
   Confederate States, with at least two responsible sureties,
   not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of five
   thousand dollars; or if such vessel be provided with more than
   one hundred and fifty men, then in the penal sum of ten
   thousand dollars, with condition that the owners, officers,
   and crew who shall be employed on board such commissioned
   vessel, shall observe the laws of these Confederate States and
   the instructions given to them for the regulation of their
   conduct. That they shall satisfy all damages done contrary to
   the tenor thereof by such vessel during her commission, and
   deliver up the same when revoked by the President of the
   Confederate States. And I do further specially enjoin on all
   persons holding offices, civil and military, under the
   authority of the Confederate States, that they be vigilant and
   zealous in discharging the duties incident thereto; and I do,
   moreover, solemnly exhort the good people of these Confederate
   States as they love their country, as they prize the blessings
   of free government, as they feel the wrongs of the past and
   these now threatened in aggravated form by those whose enmity
   is more implacable because unprovoked, that they exert
   themselves in preserving order, in promoting concord, in
   maintaining the authority and efficacy of the laws, and in
   supporting and invigorating all the measures which may be
   adopted for the common defence, and by which, under the
   blessing of Divine Providence, we may hope for a speedy, just,
   and honorable peace.
      In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and
      caused the Seal of the Confederate States to be affixed,
      this seventeenth day of April 1861.
      By the President,
      (Signed) Jefferson Davis. R. Toombs, Secretary of State."

   The response to this menace was a second proclamation by
   President Lincoln, announcing a blockade of the ports of the
   Confederacy, and warning all persons who should accept and act
   under the proposed letters of marque that they would be held
   amenable to the laws against piracy. This proclamation was in
   the following language:

   "Whereas an insurrection against the government of the United
   States has broken out in the States of South Carolina,
   Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas,
   and the laws of the United States for the collection of the
   revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to
   that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be
   uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a
   combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have
   threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize
   the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels,
   and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged
   in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United
   States: And whereas an executive proclamation has been already
   issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly
   proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force
   for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress
   in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:
   Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
   States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and
   to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and
   property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful
   occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and
   deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the
   same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to
   set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States
   aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and
   of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose
   a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and
   exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with
   a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or
   shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be
   duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels,
   who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such
   warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter
   or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to
   the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her
   and her cargo, as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I
   hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the
   pretended authority of the said States, or under any other
   pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the
   persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held
   amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention
   and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto
   set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be
   affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day
   of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
   and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States
   the eighty-fifth. Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William
   H. Seward, Secretary of State."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 35-36._

{3428}

   Apparently on unofficial information of these announcements,
   indicating a state of civil war in the United States, the
   Government of Great Britain made haste—unfriendly haste, as
   the United States complained—to declare neutrality between the
   belligerents, thus placing the insurgent Confederacy on an
   exactly equal footing with the United States so far as a
   foreign recognition might do so. The Queen's Proclamation was
   as follows:

   "Whereas, We are happily at peace with all Sovereigns, Powers,
   and States; And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced
   between the Government of the United States of America and
   certain States styling themselves 'the Confederate States of
   America'; And whereas we, being at peace with the Government
   of the United States, have declared our Royal determination to
   maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest
   between the said contending parties; We, therefore, have
   thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to
   issue this our Royal Proclamation: And we do hereby strictly
   charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict
   neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to
   abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and
   statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in
   relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their
   peril." After reciting the language of certain statutes which
   forbid the subjects of Her Majesty to engage, without leave
   and license from the Crown, in any foreign military or naval
   service, or to furnish or equip any ship or vessel for service
   against any state with which Her Majesty is not at war, the
   Proclamation proceeds as follows: "Now, in order that none of
   our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the
   penalties imposed by said statute, we do hereby strictly
   command, that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any
   act, matter or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of
   the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the
   said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure. And we do
   hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons
   whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them
   shall presume, in contempt of this Royal Proclamation, and of
   our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their
   duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest,
   or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that
   behalf—as, for example and more especially, by entering into
   the military service of either of the said contending parties
   as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or
   by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship
   or vessel of war or transport of or in the service of either
   of the said contending parties; or by serving as officers,
   sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of
   marque of or from either of the said contending parties; or by
   engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas with
   intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by
   procuring or attempting to procure, within Her Majesty's
   dominions, at home or abroad, others to do so; or by fitting
   out, arming, or equipping, any ship or vessel to be employed
   as a ship-of-war, or privateer, or transport, by either of the
   said contending parties; or by breaking, or endeavoring to
   break, any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on
   behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by
   carrying officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores
   or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed
   to be contraband of war according to the law of modern usage
   of nations, for the use or service of either of the said
   contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be
   liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the
   said statute, or by the law of nations, in that behalf imposed
   or denounced. And we do hereby declare that all our subjects
   and persons entitled to our protection who may misconduct
   themselves in the premises will do so at their peril and of
   their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any
   protection from us against any liability or penal
   consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high
   displeasure by such misconduct.
      Given at our Court at the White Lodge, Richmond Park, this
      13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the
      24th year of our reign. God save the Queen."

   In the complaint of the United States subsequently submitted
   to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, the facts attending
   this remarkably hastened Proclamation of Neutrality were set
   forth as follows: "Before any armed collision had taken place,
   there existed an understanding between Her Majesty's
   Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French,
   with a view to securing a simultaneous and identical course of
   action of the two Governments on American questions. … The
   fact that it had been agreed to by the two Governments was
   communicated to Mr. Dallas, by Lord John Russell, on the first
   day of May, 1861. There was nothing in the previous relations
   between Great Britain and the United States which made it
   necessary for Her Majesty's Government to seek the advice or
   to invite the support of the Emperor of the French in the
   crisis which was threatened. … When the news of the bloodless
   attack upon Fort Sumter became known in Europe, Her Majesty's
   Government apparently assumed that the time had come for the
   joint action which had been previously agreed upon; and,
   without waiting to learn the purposes of the United States, it
   announced its intention to take the first step by recognizing
   the insurgents as belligerents. The President's Proclamation,
   which has since been made the ostensible reason for this
   determination, was issued on the 19th of April, and was made
   public in the Washington newspapers of the morning of the
   20th. An imperfect copy of it was also telegraphed to New
   York, and from thence to Boston, in each of which cities it
   appeared in the newspapers of the morning of the 20th. The New
   York papers of the 20th gave the substance of the
   Proclamation, without the official commencement and close, and
   with several errors of more or less importance. The Boston
   papers of the same date, in addition to the errors in the New
   York copy, omitted the very important statement in regard to
   the collection of the revenue, which appears in the
   Proclamation as the main cause of its issue.
{3429}
   During the morning of the 19th of April, a riot took place in
   Baltimore, which ended in severing direct communication, by
   rail or telegraph, between Washington and New York.
   Telegraphic communication was not restored until the 30th of
   the month. The regular passage of the mails and trains was
   resumed about the same time. … It is absolutely certain that
   no full copy of the text of the Proclamation could have left
   Washington by the mails of the 19th, and equally certain that
   no copy could have reached New York from Washington after the
   19th for several days. On the 20th the steamer Canadian sailed
   from Portland, taking the Boston papers of that day, with the
   imperfect copy of the Proclamation, in which the clause in
   regard to the collection of the revenue was suppressed. This
   steamer arrived at Londonderry on the 1st of May, and the
   'Daily News' of London, of the 2d of May, published the
   following telegraphic items of news: 'President Lincoln has
   issued a Proclamation, declaring a blockade of all the ports
   in the seceded States. The Federal Government will condemn as
   pirates all privateer-vessels which may be seized by Federal
   ships.' The Canadian arrived at Liverpool on the 2d of May,
   and the 'Daily News,' of the 3d, and the 'Times,' of the 4th
   of May, published the imperfect Boston copy of the
   Proclamation. … No other than the Boston copy of the
   Proclamation appears to have been published in the London
   newspapers. It is not likely that a copy was received in
   London before the 10th, by the Fulton from New York. It was on
   this meager and incorrect information that the advice of the
   British Law Officers was based, upon which that Government
   acted. … On the 5th of May the steamship Persia arrived at
   Liverpool with advices from New York to the 25th of April.
   Lord John Russell stated on Monday, the 6th of May, in a
   communication to Lord Cowley, 'that Her Majesty's Government
   received no dispatches from Lord Lyons by the mail which has
   just arrived, [the Persia,] the communication between
   Washington and New York being interrupted.' In the same
   dispatch Lord Cowley is informed 'that Her Majesty's
   Government cannot hesitate to admit that such Confederacy is
   entitled to be considered as a belligerent, and as such
   invested with all the rights and prerogatives of a
   belligerent,' and he is instructed to invite the French
   Government to a joint action, and a line of joint policy with
   the British Government, toward the United States."

      _The Case of the United States before the Tribunal
      of Arbitration at Geneva
      [42d congress, 2d session, Senate ex. doc. 31],
      pages 24-27._

   "The British government is accustomed to preserve an attitude
   of neutrality towards contending nations; but it would seem
   that neutrality does not so far interfere with the sympathies
   and freedom of its subjects as to compel it to issue
   proclamations against Irishmen enlisting with Francis Joseph,
   or Englishmen fighting for Victor Emanuel and Garibaldi. … In
   the case of the United States, the laws of England and its
   treaty stipulations with our Government already forbade its
   subjects from engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow our
   institutions. The proclamation, therefore, in forbidding
   English subjects to fight in the service of the rebels against
   the United States, simply declared the law as it was already
   understood; while in forbidding Englishmen to fight for the
   United States against the rebels, it intervened to change the
   existing practice, to revive the almost obsolete act of Geo.
   III. forbidding English subjects from engaging in foreign
   service without the royal consent, which had slumbered in
   regard to Austria and Italy, for the purpose of forbidding
   Englishmen from assisting to maintain in the United States
   constitutional order against conspiracy and rebellion, and the
   cause of freedom against chattel slavery. The first effect of
   the proclamation, therefore, was to change the position in
   which England and Englishmen stood to the United States, to
   the disadvantage of the latter. Before the proclamation, for
   an Englishman to serve the United States Government in
   maintaining its integrity was regarded honorable; after the
   proclamation such service became a crime. The proclamation
   makes it an offence now for an Englishman to fight for the
   Government at Washington as great as it was for Englishmen
   before the proclamation to fight for the rebels of Montgomery.
   It thus, in a moral view, lowered the American Government to
   the level of the rebel confederacy, and in the next place, it
   proceeded, in an international view, to place the rebel
   confederacy on a par with the American Government. … No
   ingenuity can blind us to these facts:—Before the
   proclamation, to support our Government was an honorable
   office for the subjects of Great Britain, and the rebels were
   insurgents, with no rights save under the American
   Constitution. After the proclamation, for an Englishman to
   serve the United States is a crime, and the rebels are
   elevated into a belligerent power—and this intervention of
   England, depriving us of a support which her practice
   permitted, and giving the rebels a status and right they did
   not possess, we are coolly told is neutrality. … What would
   England have said to such a proclamation of neutrality from us
   in her domestic troubles in Canada, in Ireland, or in India?
   What would the English people have thought of a state paper
   from Washington, declaring it the sovereign will of the people
   of the United States to remain perfectly neutral in the
   contest being waged in Hindostan between the British
   government on the one side and the Mogul dynasty on the other,
   and forbidding American citizens to enter the services of
   either of the said belligerents? What would they have thought
   of the American President intimating with cold etiquette that
   it was a matter of profound indifference to this Government
   which of the belligerents should be victorious, the King of
   Oude and Nana Sahib, or Lord Canning and the immortal
   Havelock?"

      _John Jay,
      The Great Conspiracy:
      Address at Mount Kisco, July 4, 1861._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers,
      chapter 2._

      _W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      volume 5
      (Diplomatic History of the War)._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 4, chapter 15._

      _M. Bernard,
      Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain
      during the American Civil War,
      chapters 4-10._

      See, also, ALABAMA CLAIMS.

{3430}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April-May: Maryland).
   The ending of rebellious trouble in Baltimore and the state.
   General Butler in the field.

   The Eighth Massachusetts Regiment, Colonel Monroe, arrived at
   Philadelphia on the 20th of April, the day following the
   passage of the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment through Baltimore,
   and its battle with the rebel mob of that city. The Eighth was
   accompanied by General Benjamin F. Butler, who had been
   appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts to command the
   first brigade from that state. At Philadelphia General Butler
   "first heard of the attack on the Sixth, in Baltimore. His
   orders commanded him to march through that city. It was now
   impossible to do so with less than 10,000 armed men. He
   counselled with Major-General Robert Patterson, who had just
   been appointed commander of the 'Department of Washington,'
   which embraced the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and
   Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and whose
   head-quarters were at Philadelphia. Commodore Dupont,
   commandant of the Navy Yard there, was also consulted, and it
   was agreed that the troops should go by water from Perryville,
   at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, to Annapolis, and
   thence across Maryland to Washington." This route was
   accordingly taken by General Butler. Colonel Lefferts, who had
   reached Philadelphia with the New York Seventh Regiment,
   preferred to attempt going directly to Washington by a steamer
   which he secured for the purpose; but a report of rebel
   batteries on the Potomac turned him back, and his regiment,
   likewise, proceeded to Annapolis, arriving there some hours
   after the Eighth Massachusetts. Despite the protests and
   remonstrances of the Governor of Maryland-who was striving
   hard to put his state in an attitude of "neutrality," and to
   persuade the national government to respect it by passing no
   armed troops across Maryland soil—both regiments were landed,
   and took possession of the town, where the secessionists were
   making ready to capture the Naval Academy and the training
   ship Constitution. The track of the railroad from Annapolis
   had been torn up and the locomotives disabled. The mechanics
   of the Massachusetts Eighth proceeded quickly to repair both,
   and the two regiments moved forward. "The troops reached
   Annapolis Junction on the morning of the 25th, when the
   co-operation of the two regiments ceased, the Seventh New York
   going on to Washington, and the Eighth Massachusetts remaining
   to hold the road they had just opened. Before their departure
   from Annapolis, the Baltic, a large steamship transport, had
   arrived there with troops, and officers speedily followed.
   General Scott ordered General Butler to remain there, hold the
   town and the road, and superintend the forwarding of troops to
   the Capital. The 'Department of Annapolis,' which embraced the
   country twenty miles on each side of the railway, as far as
   Bladensburg, was created, and General Butler was placed in
   command of it, with ample discretionary powers to make him a
   sort of military dictator. … At the close of April, General
   Butler had full 10,000 men under his command at Annapolis, and
   an equal number were guarding the seat of Government
   [Washington]." Meantime, Baltimore had been given up to the
   control of the Secessionists, though the Maryland Unionists
   were numerous and strong and were gathering courage to assert
   themselves. But the rebellious and riotous city was now
   brought to its senses. On the 5th of May General Butler sent
   two regiments to occupy the Relay House, within nine miles of
   Baltimore. On the 9th, a force of 1,200 Pennsylvania troops
   and regulars, ordered forward by General Patterson from
   Philadelphia, were landed near Fort McHenry, under the guns of
   a United States vessel, and marched through the city. On the
   night of the 13th, General Butler, in person, with about 1,000
   men, including the Massachusetts Sixth, entered the place and
   took a commanding position on Federal Hill, which was
   afterwards permanently fortified. From that day the disloyalty
   in Baltimore gave no trouble to the Government.

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2._

      _J. Parton,
      General Butler in New Orleans,
      chapters 4-5._

      _T. Winthrop,
      New York Seventh Regiment: Our March to Washington
      (Life in the Open Air)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Call for additional volunteers.

   On the 3d of May the President issued a call for forty
   additional regiments of volunteers; directed an increase of
   the regular army by ten regiments, and ordered the enlistment
   of 18,000 seamen—acts subsequently legalized by Congress.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Exportation of cotton from the Confederacy,
   excepting through its seaports, prohibited.

   On the 21st of May, 1861, the Congress of the Confederate
   States passed an act declaring that "from and after the 1st
   day of June next, and during the existence of the blockade of
   any of the ports of the Confederate States of America by the
   Government of the United States, it shall not be lawful for
   any person to export any raw cotton or cotton yarn from the
   Confederate States of America except through the seaports of
   the said Confederate States."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Secession of North Carolina.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   General Butler at Fortress Monroe and his "Contrabands."
   The first military thrust at Slavery.

   General Butler was commissioned as Major-General of Volunteers
   on the 16th of May, and on the 20th he was ordered to the
   command at Fortress Monroe. He arrived at the Fortress on the
   22d and assumed the command. "On the evening of the second day
   after his arrival at the post, the event occurred which will
   for ever connect the name of General Butler with the history
   of the abolition of slavery in America. Colonel Phelps's visit
   to Hampton [the previous day] had thrown the white inhabitants
   into such alarm that most of them prepared for flight, and
   many left their homes that night, never to see them again. In
   the confusion three negroes escaped, and, making their way
   across the bridges, gave themselves up to a Union picket,
   saying that their master, Colonel Mallory, was about to remove
   them to North Carolina to work upon rebel fortifications
   there, far away from their wives and children, who were to be
   left in Hampton. They were brought to the fortress, and the
   circumstance was reported to the general in the morning. … He
   needed laborers. He was aware that the rebel batteries that
   were rising around him were the work chiefly of slaves,
   without whose assistance they could not have been erected in
   time to give him trouble. He wished to keep these men. The
   garrison wished them kept. The country would have deplored or
   resented the sending of them away. If they had been Colonel
   Mallory's horses, or Colonel Mallory's spades, or Colonel
   Mallory's percussion caps, he would have seized them and used
   them without hesitation.
{3431}
   Why not property more valuable for the purposes of the
   rebellion than any other? He pronounced the electric words,
   'These men are Contraband of War; set them at work.' 'An
   epigram,' as Winthrop remarks, 'abolished slavery in the
   United States.' The word took; for it gave the country an
   excuse for doing what it was longing to do. … By the time the
   three negroes were comfortably at work upon the new
   bake-house, General Butler received the following brief
   epistle, signed 'J. B. Carey, major-acting, Virginia
   volunteers': 'Be pleased to designate some time and place when
   it will be agreeable to you to accord to me a personal
   interview.' The general complied with the request." The
   interview occurred that afternoon, and was not between
   strangers; for General Butler and Major Carey were old
   political allies—hard-shell democrats both. The essential part
   of the conversation which ensued was as follows: "Major Carey:
   'I am informed that three negroes, belonging to Colonel
   Mallory, have escaped within your lines. I am Colonel
   Mallory's agent and have charge of his property. What do you
   intend to do with regard to those negroes?' General Butler: 'I
   propose to retain them.' Major Carey: 'Do you mean, then, to
   set aside your constitutional obligations?' General Butler: 'I
   mean to abide by the decision of Virginia, as expressed in her
   ordinance of secession, passed the day before yesterday. I am
   under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country,
   which Virginia now claims to be.' Major Carey: 'But you say,
   we can't secede, and so you cannot consistently detain the
   negroes.' General Butler: 'But you say, you have seceded, and
   so you cannot consistently claim them. I shall detain the
   negroes as contraband of war. You are using them upon your
   batteries. It is merely a question whether they shall be used
   for or against the government. Nevertheless, though I greatly
   need the labor which has providentially fallen into my hands,
   if Colonel Mallory will come into the fort, and take the oath
   of allegiance to the United States, he shall have his negroes,
   and I will endeavor to hire them from him.' Major Carey:
   'Colonel Mallory is absent.' The interview here terminated,
   and each party, with polite farewell, went its way. This was
   on Friday, May 24. On Sunday morning, eight more negroes came
   in. … They continued to come in daily, in tens, twenties,
   thirties, till the number of contrabands in the various camps
   numbered more than 900. A commissioner of negro affairs was
   appointed, who taught, fed and governed them." General Butler
   reported his action to the Government, and on the 30th of May
   the Secretary of War wrote to him: "Your action in respect to
   the negroes who came within your lines, from the service of
   the rebels, is approved. … While … you will permit no
   interference, by persons under your command, with the
   relations of persons held to service under the laws of any
   state, you will, on the other hand, so long as any state
   within which your military operations are conducted remain
   under the control of … armed combinations, refrain from
   surrendering to alleged masters any persons who come within
   your lines." "So the matter rested for two months, at the
   expiration of which events revived the question."

      _J. Parton,
      General Butler in New Orleans,
      chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May: Virginia).
   First Advance of Union Troops across the Potomac.
   Death of Ellsworth at Alexandria.

   "Already 'Confederate' pickets were occupying Arlington
   Heights and the Virginia shore of the Long Bridge, which spans
   the Potomac at Washington City; and engineers had been seen on
   those heights selecting eligible positions for batteries. A
   crisis was evidently at hand, and the General-in-chief was now
   persuaded to allow an immediate invasion of Virginia. Orders
   were at once issued [May 23] for the occupation of the shores
   of the Potomac opposite, and also the city of Alexandria, nine
   miles below, by National troops. General Mansfield was in
   command of about 13,000 men at the Capital. Toward midnight,
   these forces in and around Washington were put in motion for
   the passage of the river, at three different points. One
   column was to cross at the Aqueduct Bridge, at Georgetown;
   another at the Long Bridge, at Washington; and a third was to
   proceed in vessels, and seize the city of Alexandria. The
   three invading columns moved almost simultaneously. … The
   troops moving by land and water reached Alexandria at about
   the same time. The National frigate Pawnee was lying off the
   town, and her commander had already been in negotiation for
   the evacuation of Alexandria by the insurgents. A detachment
   of her crew, bearing a flag of truce, now hastened to the
   shore in boats, and leaped eagerly upon the wharf just before
   the zouaves [the New York Fire Zouave Regiment, under Colonel
   Ellsworth] reached it. They were fired upon by some Virginia
   sentries, who instantly fled from the town. Ellsworth,
   ignorant of any negotiations, advanced to the center of the
   city, and took possession of it in the name of his Government,
   while the column under Wilcox marched through different
   streets to the Station of the Orange and Alexandria Railway,
   and seized it, with much rolling stock. They there captured a
   small company (thirty-five men) of Virginia cavalry, under
   Captain Ball. Other Virginians, who had heard the firing of
   the insurgent pickets, escaped by way of the railroad.
   Alexandria was now in quiet possession of the National troops,
   but there were many violent secessionists there who would not
   submit. Among them was a man named Jackson, the proprietor of
   an inn called the Marshall House. The Confederate flag had
   been flying over his premises for many days, and had been
   plainly seen from the President's house in Washington. It was
   still there, and Ellsworth went in person to take it down.
   When descending an upper staircase with it, he was shot by
   Jackson, who was waiting for him in a dark passage, with a
   double-barreled gun, loaded with buckshot. Ellsworth fell
   dead, and his murderer met the same fate an instant afterward,
   at the hands of Francis E. Brownell, of Troy, who, with six
   others, had accompanied his commander to the roof of the
   house. He shot Jackson through the head with a bullet, and
   pierced his body several times with his saber-bayonet. …
   Ellsworth was a very young and extremely handsome man, and was
   greatly beloved for his generosity, and admired for his
   bravery and patriotism. His death produced great excitement
   throughout the country. It was the first of note that had
   occurred in consequence of the National troubles, and the very
   first since the campaign had actually begun, a few hours
   before.
{3432}
   It intensified the hatred of rebellion and its abettors; and a
   regiment was raised in his native State (New York) called the
   Ellsworth Avengers. Intrenching tools were sent over the
   Potomac early on the morning of the 24th, and the troops
   immediately commenced casting up intrenchments and redoubts,
   extending from Roach's Spring, on the Washington and
   Alexandria Road, across Arlington Heights, almost to the Chain
   Bridge."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Moore,
      Anecdotes, Poetry and Incidents of the War,
      page 391._

      _J. T. Headley,
      The Great Rebellion,
      chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-June).
   Tennessee dragged into the rebel Confederacy.
   Loyal resistance of East Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY) and (JUNE).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-July: Missouri).
   The baffling of the 'Secessionists in Missouri.
   Lyon's capture of Camp Jackson.
   The Battle of Boonville.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-September: Kentucky).
   The struggle for the state.
   Secession and Neutrality overcome.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-SEPTEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (June: Virginia).
   The fight at Big Bethel.

   "Major-General Butler and staff arrived at Fortress Monroe
   Wednesday afternoon, May 22d. … Colonel Magruder—late Colonel
   in the United States service, and an officer of much
   distinction as an obstinate combatant—was placed in command
   (rebel) of the Peninsula. … Troops rapidly poured into
   Butler's department, and he soon found himself in a condition
   to act on the offensive. Magruder's scouts and cavalry greatly
   annoyed the two camps mentioned. They had, also, seized
   several Union men. These raids became so frequent and annoying
   that a night attack was concerted upon their positions at
   Little Bethel and Big Bethel—the latter, near the north branch
   of Back River, where it was understood Magruder's outposts
   were throwing up strong works. Brigadier-General Pierce, of
   the Massachusetts troops, was detailed to command the
   expedition. … Approaching the enemy's position at Big Bethel,
   it was found that their guns commanded all points of approach.
   The road leading up to the bridge over the creek was swept by
   their artillery. A thick woods to the left of the road
   afforded some protection to the Federal left. An open field on
   the right of the approach only offered a house and
   out-buildings as a cover. The enemy occupied a hill, beyond
   the creek, which almost completely secured their front. At
   their rear was a dense wood. This gave them the advantage of
   ground, greatly. A reconnaissance would have demonstrated the
   futility of a front attack except by artillery. The only hope
   for the Federals was in a flank movement, higher up the creek,
   by which, the stream being passed, the enemy could be
   assaulted in their works, at the point of the bayonet, if
   necessary. This movement was only attempted partially at a
   late hour in the day. The rebels were well prepared, and only
   awaited the appearance of the head of the Federal advance to
   open a sharp fire. … The fight was, from the first, extremely
   unequal. A front attack was sheer folly. But, the flank
   movement was not ordered. … The fortunes of the day needed but
   a master-hand to direct them, to have turned in favor of the
   Union troops. … Lieutenant-Colonel Washburne had … arranged
   for a flank movement which, with a combined attack from the
   front, must have ended the struggle; but the order for retreat
   was given before the movement could be executed. … The Federal
   loss was 14 killed, 49 wounded and five missing. Among the
   killed were two of the most gallant and noble men in the
   service—Major Theodore Winthrop, Secretary and Aid to General
   Butler, and first-Lieutenant John T. Greble, of the United
   States regular artillery, Second regiment. The rebels
   pronounced their loss to have been but one killed and four
   wounded. The retreat was accomplished in good order—the enemy
   not pursuing."

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 2, division 4, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 17._

      _Life and Poems of Theodore Winthrop,
      chapter 9._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (June-July: West Virginia).
   General McClellan's campaign in the mountains.
   Rich Mountain and Carrick's Ford.

   "Although some thousands of West Virginians had volunteered to
   fight for the Union, none of them were encamped on the soil of
   their State until after the election held [May 23] to ratify
   or reject the Ordinance of Secession. …

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-JUNE)]

   The Virginians who volunteered were mustered in and organized
   at Camp Carlile, in Ohio, opposite Wheeling, under the command
   of Colonel Kelly, himself a Virginian. George B. McClellan,
   who had been appointed a Major-General and assigned to the
   command of the Department of the Ohio, remained at Cincinnati,
   his home. Three days after the election aforesaid, he issued
   from that city a spirited address 'To the Union men of Western
   Virginia.' … A brief and stirring address to his soldiers was
   issued simultaneously with the above; and, both being read to
   those in Camp Carlile that evening, the 1st Virginia, 1,100
   strong, Colonel Kelly, crossed to Wheeling early next morning,
   closely followed by the 16th Ohio, Colonel Irvine. The 14th
   Ohio, Colonel Steedman, crossed simultaneously, and quietly
   occupied Parkersburg, the terminus of the Northwestern branch
   of the Baltimore and Ohio road. A Rebel force, then holding
   Grafton, which connected the branch aforesaid with the main or
   Wheeling division of the railroad, had meditated a descent on
   Wheeling; but, finding themselves anticipated and outnumbered,
   they obstructed and destroyed the railroad west of them," and
   fell back to Philippi, some fifteen miles southward. "General
   McClellan having ordered that Philippi be captured by
   surprise, the attempt was made on the night of June 2d. Two
   brigades of two regiments each approached the Rebel camp by
   different roads" and dispersed it completely, with some loss
   on both sides, capturing the tents, provisions and munitions.
   The Rebel commander, Colonel Porterfield, "gathering up such
   portion of his forces as he could find, retreated hastily to
   Beverly, and thence to Huttonsville; where the Rebel array was
   rapidly increased by conscription, and Governor Wise placed in
   command. General McClellan arrived at Grafton on the 23d. …
   His forces were rapidly augmented, till they amounted, by the
   4th of July, to over 30,000 men; while the Rebels in his front
   could hardly muster 10,000 in all.
{3433}
   He therefore resolved to advance. The Rebel main force,
   several thousand strong, under General Robert S. Garnett, was
   strongly intrenched on Laurel Hill, a few miles north of
   Beverly, … while a smaller detachment, under Colonel John
   Pegram was intrenched upon the summit and at either base of
   Rich Mountain … three or four miles distant from the Rebel
   main body." General Rosecrans, sent by a detour of eight miles
   through the mountains to Pegram's rear, drove the rebels (July
   11) from their position, at the point of the bayonet; and the
   following day their commander, with about 600 men, was forced
   to surrender. "General McClellan pushed on to Beverly, which
   he entered early next morning, flanking General Garnett's
   position at Laurel Hill and compelling him to a precipitate
   flight northward. Six cannon, 200 tents, 60 wagons and over
   100 prisoners, were the trophies of this success. The Rebel
   loss in killed and wounded was about 150; the Union about 50.
   General Garnett, completely flanked, thoroughly worsted, and
   fearfully outnumbered, abandoned his camp at Laurel Hill
   without a struggle, crossing the Laurel Mountains eastward, by
   a by-road, into the narrow valley of Cheat river. … At length,
   having crossed the Cheat at a point known as Carrick's Ford,
   which proffered an admirable position for defense. Garnett
   turned [July 14] to fight." But the Union force which pursued
   him was overpowering; Garnett himself was killed in the battle
   at the Ford and his command fled in confusion. General
   McClellan telegraphed to Washington, next day, from
   Huttonsville: "We have completely annihilated the enemy in
   Western Virginia. Our loss is about 13 killed and not more
   than 40 wounded; while the enemy's loss is not far from 200
   killed; and the number of prisoners we have taken will amount
   to at least 1,000. We have captured seven of the enemy's guns
   in all. A portion of Garnett's forces retreated; but I look
   for their capture by General Hill, who is in hot pursuit."
   "This expectation was not realized. The pursuit was only
   continued two miles beyond the ford; when our weary soldiers
   halted, and the residue of the Rebels, under Colonel Ramsey,
   turning sharply to the right, made their way across the
   mountains, and joined General Jackson at Monterey." Meantime,
   simultaneously with General McClellan's advance on Beverly,
   another strong Union force, under General Cox, had moved from
   Guyandotte to the Kanawha, and up that river to Charleston,
   which it reached on the 25th of July. Governor Wise, who
   commanded the rebels in the Kanawha Valley, retreated, General
   Cox pursuing, until the pursuit was checked on the 29th by
   Wise's destruction of Gauley bridge. The rebels then made good
   their flight to Lewisburg, in Greenbrier county, where Wise
   was reinforced and superseded by General John B. Floyd.

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 32._

   "The war in Western Virginia seemed to have ended with the
   dispersion of Garnett's forces, and there was much rejoicing
   over the result. It was premature. The 'Confederates' were not
   disposed to surrender to their enemy the granaries that would
   be needed to supply the troops in Eastern Virginia, without a
   severer struggle. General Robert E. Lee succeeded Garnett, and
   more important men than Wise and Floyd took the places of
   these incompetents. Rosecrans succeeded McClellan, who was
   called to the command of the Army of the Potomac, and the war
   in the mountain region of Virginia was soon renewed."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2, page 193-293._

      _V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 28._

      _J. D. Cox,
      McClellan in West Virginia
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July).
   First depredations of the Confederate cruiser Sumter.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July: Virginia).
   The seat of the rebel government transferred to Richmond.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

[Image: The Principal Theatre of War in Virginia.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July: Virginia).
   On to Richmond.
   The First Battle of Bull Run, or Manassas.

   "The Southern Government having inclined to the defensive
   policy as that upon which they should act, their first object
   was to prevent an advance of any Federal force into Virginia.
   Early in the month of May troops were assembled in Richmond,
   and pushed forward toward the northeastern boundary of the
   State, to a position known as Manassas Junction. … It is here
   that a railroad from Alexandria, another from Staunton up the
   valley and through Manassas Gap, and another from Gordonsville
   unite. At Gordonsville the railroad from Richmond and the line
   from East Tennessee unite. As a point for concentration none
   more eligible exists in northeastern Virginia. The advantages
   for fortification are naturally such that the place can be
   rendered impregnable. Here the centre of the northern force of
   the Southern army was posted, with the left wing pushed
   forward to Winchester [under the command of General Joseph E.
   Johnston, with the Union General Patterson opposed to him] and
   the right extended to the Potomac, and sustained by heavy
   batteries which served to blockade the river. The Federal
   force, the advance of which was assembled at Washington for
   the defence of that city against any attack by the Southern
   troops, was posted on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on
   Arlington Heights, which were strongly fortified. Their right
   was pushed some distance up the Potomac, and chiefly on the
   Maryland side, while their left occupied Alexandria. The
   armies of both sides consisted of raw militia hastily brought
   together, and of volunteers who for the first time had put on
   the uniform, and taken up the weapons of the soldier. On both
   sides the forces were constantly accumulating. On the morning
   of June 27th, the consolidated report of General Mansfield,
   commanding the Department of Washington, gives the number of
   troops in that city and vicinity. The privates, including
   regulars and volunteers present for duty, numbered 22,846 men.
   The grand aggregate of the force, including officers, etc.,
   present and absent, was 34,160 men. The force of General
   Patterson, commanding in Maryland above Washington, and also
   on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on the 28th of June, was
   returned, embracing officers and men enlisted and present for
   duty, 15,923. Of these about 550 were reported as sick."

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      page 67._

{3434}

   "The return of Johnston's [Confederate] army for June 30th
   showed his total force present for duty to have been 10,654;
   but this includes some troops which, though assigned to his
   army, did not join him till after July 3d. … A prime object of
   Johnston in taking post at Winchester was, that he might be
   enabled to join the army at Manassas in case of need. On June
   2d, only a week after Johnston's arrival at Harper's Ferry,
   Beauregard had reached Manassas and assumed command. He and
   Johnston at once communicated with each other, and agreed in
   their views of the importance of mutual support. … As soon as
   Johnston ascertained … that McClellan [from West Virginia] was
   not moving on Romney and Winchester, the feasibility of this
   movement to Manassas at the right time became greater. The
   only problem then remaining was to so time it as to arrive
   just long enough before the impending battle to take part in
   it, and not so long as to cause, by the news of his arrival, a
   corresponding transfer of Patterson. … It was for the purpose
   of gaining as much start as possible on Patterson that
   Johnston had retired to Winchester, instead of remaining
   opposite the Northern force at Martinsburg. He kept his
   cavalry well out, in order to be informed as promptly as
   possible of the slightest change in Patterson's position.
   Meanwhile the grand Federal advance upon Manassas had
   commenced."

      _R. M. Hughes,
      General Johnston,
      pages 47-51._

   The advance from Washington, which began on the 16th of July,
   and which resulted in the grievous defeat of the Union forces
   at Bull Run, or Manassas, on Sunday, the 21st, was undertaken
   to appease the impatient, ignorant clamor of Northern
   newspapers, and in opposition to the judgment and the plans of
   General Scott, who was then at the head of the National army.
   The cry "On to Richmond" was taken up by Congressmen and
   Senators, and the pressure on the government became too strong
   to be resisted. Instead of keeping the raw troops, hurriedly
   gathered at Washington, in camps of instruction, until they
   were properly drilled and until their officers had acquired
   some experience in handling them, they were hurriedly pushed
   into a serious campaign movement, against an enemy likewise
   untrained, to be sure, but who was far better prepared to
   receive an attack than the assailants were to make one.
   General Irwin McDowell had been recently placed in command of
   the army intended for the field, with General Mansfield
   commanding the troops in Washington. The former had "entered
   on his new and responsible duties with great alacrity, working
   night and day to prepare his command for the approaching
   conflict. … McDowell was laboring at a great
   disadvantage—drilling and preparing his troops as best he
   could—under the heavy pressure from the North to deliver
   battle to the enemy in his front. Secretary Chase was the
   champion, in the Cabinet, of the intense feeling in the North
   that the war should be pushed at once, with a vigor that would
   end it soon. … There is no doubt that General Scott was
   weakened with the administration, for the reason that he did
   not believe in the prevailing opinion that a few days would
   crush the rebellion; and the more the old hero insisted, or
   faithfully stood by his views, the more it antagonized the
   opinion of those who hoped and said it would end speedily. At
   the Cabinet meeting a week before, General Hamilton says:
   'General Montgomery Blair said he would march to Richmond with
   10,000 men, armed with lathes.' 'Yes,' said General Scott, 'as
   prisoners of war.' Continuing General Hamilton's statement of
   the events which occurred prior to the battle and during its
   progress, he says: 'On the Sunday preceding the battle of Bull
   Run, Scott directed me, his military secretary, to say to
   McDowell that he wished him to dine with him without fail. At
   the dinner, at which General McDowell appeared, General Scott
   used every possible argument to dissuade General McDowell from
   fighting the first battle of Bull Run under the then existing
   condition of public affairs. … He then begged General McDowell
   to go to Secretary Chase, his kinsman, and aid him (General
   Scott) in preventing a forward movement at that moment; one of
   the arguments used by General Scott being that the Union
   sentiment of the South had been surprised by the suddenness
   and promptitude of the movement in favor of secession; that he
   (General Scott) was well advised that the Union sentiment was
   recovering itself, and gaining head in the South; that from
   the moment blood was shed the South would be made a unit.
   General McDowell regretted that he could not agree with
   General Scott in his views, and arose and retired. … In the
   course of the succeeding week General McDowell reported to
   General Scott his proposed plan of battle. It was hung upon
   the wall, and I followed with a pointer the positions
   indicated by General McDowell as those he intended the forces
   under his command should occupy. After General McDowell had
   gone through a detailed statement of his plan, and had
   finished, General Scott remarked, "General McDowell, that is
   as good a plan of battle as I ever saw upon paper." General
   McDowell said in rep]y: "General Scott, the success of this
   whole plan depends upon General Patterson holding General
   Johnston in check at Winchester." General Scott remarked that
   General Johnston was a very able soldier, that he had a
   railroad at his command with which to move his troops, and if
   General McDowell's plan of battle, which had just been
   presented to him, depended upon General Patterson holding
   General Johnston in check, his plan was not worth the paper it
   was drawn upon.' That ended that interview."

      _J. H. Stine,
      History of the Army of the Potomac,
      pages 7-10._

   Says General McDowell, in his subsequent report of the
   movement and the disastrous battle:
   "When I submitted to the General-in-Chief, in compliance with
   his verbal instructions, the plan of operations and estimate
   of force required, the time I was to proceed to carry it into
   effect was fixed for the 8th of July (Monday). Every facility
   possible was given me by the General-in-Chief and heads of the
   administrative departments in making the necessary
   preparations. But the regiments, owing, I was told, to want of
   transportation, came over slowly. Many of them did not come
   across until eight or nine days after the time fixed upon, and
   went forward without my ever seeing them and without having
   been together before in a brigade. The sending re-enforcements
   to General Patterson by drawing off the wagons was a further
   and unavoidable cause of delay. Notwithstanding the herculean
   efforts of the Quartermaster-General, and his favoring me in
   every possible way, the wagons for ammunition, subsistence,
   &c., and the horses for the trains and for the artillery, did
   not all arrive for more than a week after the time appointed
   to move.
{3435}
   I was not even prepared as late as the 15th ultimo, and the
   desire I should move became great, and it was wished I should
   not, if possible, delay longer than Tuesday, the 10th ultimo.
   When I did set out on the 10th I was still deficient in wagons
   for subsistence, but I went forward, trusting to their being
   procured in time to follow me. The trains thus hurriedly
   gotten together, with horses, wagons, drivers, and
   wagon-masters all new and unused to each other, moved with
   difficulty and disorder, and was the cause of a day's delay in
   getting the provisions forward, making it necessary to make on
   Sunday the attack we should have made on Saturday. I could
   not, with every exertion, get forward with the troops earlier
   than we did. I wished them to go to Centreville the second
   day, which would have taken us there on the 17th, and enabled
   us, so far as they were concerned, to go in to action on the
   19th instead of the 21st; but when I went forward from Fairfax
   Court-House beyond Germantown to urge them forward, I was told
   it was impossible for the men to march farther. They had only
   come from Vienna, about 6 miles, and it was not more than 6½
   miles farther to Centreville, in all a march of 12½ miles; but
   the men were foot-weary, not so much, I was told, by the
   distance marched, as by the time they had been on foot, caused
   by the obstructions in the road and the slow pace we had to
   move to avoid ambuscades. The men were, moreover, unaccustomed
   to marching, their bodies not in condition for that kind of
   work, and not used to carrying even the load of 'light
   marching order.'"

      _Brig. General I. McDowell,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, pages 323-324)._

   The advance of the Union Army was made "in five divisions,
   commanded by Generals Tyler, Hunter, Heintzelman, Runyon, and
   Miles. Among the brigade commanders that afterward rose to
   eminence were William T. Sherman, Ambrose E. Burnside, Erastus
   D. Keyes, and Oliver O. Howard. The total force was somewhat
   over 34,000 men; but Runyon's division was left to guard the
   line of communication with Washington, and the number that
   actually moved against the enemy was about 28,000 with 49 guns
   and a battalion of cavalry. So little did strict military
   discipline as yet enter into the policy of the Government that
   a large number of civilians, including several members of
   Congress, obtained passes enabling them to ride out in
   carriages, close in the rear of the army, to witness the
   expected battle. … The troops marched by the Warrenton
   turnpike, and found themselves in the presence of the enemy on
   the banks of Bull Run on the 18th. … The enemy's outposts had
   fallen back as the army advanced, and the first serious
   opposition was met at Blackburn's Ford," where some sharp
   fighting occurred between Tyler's division and the Confederate
   troops under Longstreet. "McDowell, finding that Beauregard
   was very strongly intrenched on his right, and that the roads
   in that direction were not good, changed his plan and
   determined to attack on the north or left wing. Another reason
   for doing this lay in the fact that McDowell had distrusted
   Patterson from the first, having no faith that he would hold
   Johnston. … The action at Blackburn's Ford had been fought on
   Thursday. Friday and Saturday were consumed in reconnoissances
   and searching for a suitable ford on the upper part of the
   stream, where a column could cross and, marching down on the
   right bank, uncover the fords held by the enemy and enable the
   remainder of the army to cross. Such a ford was found at
   length, and on Sunday morning, the 21st, the army was put in
   motion. McDowell did not know that Johnston had easily eluded
   Patterson and with two fifths of his forces joined Beauregard
   on Saturday. … The Confederate commanders had actually ordered
   a forward movement of their own right wing; but as they saw
   the development of McDowell's plan they recalled that, and
   gradually strengthened their left to meet the onset. … The
   battleground was a plateau, wooded and broken."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Rebellion,
      chapter 4._

   In the Report of the Confederate General Beauregard, the
   plateau which now became the principal battle ground of the
   conflict is described as follows: "It is inclosed on three
   sides by small water-courses, which empty into Bull Run within
   a few yards of each other a half a mile to the south of the
   stone bridge. Rising to an elevation of quite 100 feet above
   the level of Bull Run at the bridge, it falls off on three
   sides to the level of the enclosing streams in gentle slopes,
   but which are furrowed by ravines of irregular direction and
   length, and studded with clumps and patches of young pines and
   oaks. The general direction of the crest of the plateau is
   oblique to the course of Bull Run in that quarter and to the
   Brentsville and turnpike roads, which intersect each other at
   right angles. Immediately surrounding the two houses …
   [mentioned below] are small open fields of irregular outline,
   not exceeding 150 acres in extent. The houses, occupied at the
   time, the one by the Widow Henry and the other by the free
   negro Robinson, are small wooden buildings, the latter densely
   embowered in trees and environed by a double row of fences on
   two sides. Around the eastern and southern brow of the plateau
   an almost unbroken fringe of second-growth pines gave
   excellent shelter for our marksmen, who availed themselves of
   it with the most satisfactory skill. To the west, adjoining
   the fields, a broad belt of oaks extends directly across the
   crest on both sides of the Sudley road, in which during the
   battle regiments of both armies met and contended for the
   mastery. From the open ground of this plateau the view
   embraces a wide expanse of woods and gently undulating open
   country of broad grass and grain fields in all directions."

      _General G. T. Beauregard,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, pages 493-494)._

   At an early hour in the afternoon, the Union forces had driven
   the enemy from this plateau and seemed to be in a position
   which promised victory to them. Says General McDowell in his
   official report: "The enemy was evidently disheartened and
   broken. But we had then been fighting since 10.30 o'clock in
   the morning, and it was after 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The
   men had been up since 2 o'clock in the morning, and had made
   what to those unused to such things seemed a long march before
   coming into action, though the longest distance gone over was
   not more that 9½ miles; and though they had three days'
   provisions served out to them the day before, many, no doubt,
   either did not get them, or threw them away on the march or
   during the battle, and were therefore without food. They had
   done much severe fighting.
{3436}
   Some of the regiments which had been driven from the hill in
   the first two attempts of the enemy to keep possession of it
   had become shaken, were unsteady, and had many men out of the
   ranks. It was at this time that the enemy's re-enforcements
   came to his aid from the railroad train (understood to have
   just arrived from the valley with the residue of Johnston's
   army). They threw themselves in the woods on our right, and
   opened a fire of musketry on our men, which caused them to
   break and retire down the hillside. This soon degenerated into
   disorder, for which there was no remedy. Every effort was made
   to rally them, even beyond the reach of the enemy's fire, but
   in vain. The battalion of regular infantry alone moved up the
   hill opposite to the one with the house, and there maintained
   itself until our men could get down to and across the
   Warrenton turnpike on the way back to the position we occupied
   in the morning. The plain was covered with the retreating
   groups, and they seemed to infect those with whom they came in
   contact. The retreat soon became a rout, and this soon
   degenerated still further into a panic. Finding this state of
   affairs was beyond the efforts of all those who had assisted
   so faithfully during the long and hard day's work in gaining
   almost the object of our wishes, and that nothing remained on
   that field but to recognize what we could no longer prevent, I
   gave the necessary orders to protect their withdrawal, begging
   the men to form a line, and offer the appearance, at least, of
   organization and force. They returned by the fords to the
   Warrenton road, protected, by my order, by Colonel Porter's
   force of regulars. Once on the road, and the different corps
   coming together in small parties, many without officers, they
   became intermingled, and all organization was lost."

      _Brigadier General I. McDowell,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, page 320)._

   "The battle of Bull Run was a misfortune, and not a disgrace,
   to the Federal arms; but the reports of losses on both sides
   prove that it was bravely disputed. … The rout—or, in other
   words, the panic— … was one of those accidents to which even
   victorious armies are sometimes liable, and against which old
   troops are not always able to guard. The importance of the
   battle of Bull Run cannot be measured by the amount of losses
   sustained by the two contending parties. … Its immediate
   effect upon military operations was to produce a sudden change
   in the attitude of the belligerents. The possession of
   Virginia, with the exception of that portion which had been
   recaptured by McClellan, was secured to the Confederates.
   Richmond was beyond danger of any attack, and Washington was
   threatened anew. … But it was chiefly through its moral effect
   that this first encounter was to exercise a powerful influence
   upon the war of which it was only the prelude. The South saw
   in this victory a kind of ratification of her claims. It was
   not only the Federal soldiers who were vanquished on that day,
   but with them all who had remained more or less openly loyal
   to the Union in the Southern States. … This disaster, which
   might have discouraged the North, proved, on the contrary, a
   salutary lesson."

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 2._

   "Those only can realize the condition of our Army, at that
   time, who can recall the incidents of this memorable campaign
   and the battle with which it closed. The crowds of curious and
   impertinent spectators who accompanied and often rode through
   our ranks; the long and fatal delay of Hunter's column, on the
   morning of the battle—a delay occasioned by a few
   baggage-waggons, which should have been miles in rear—the many
   ludicrous, yet sad, scenes on the field; the heroic, but
   fruitless, gallantry of separate regiments, each attempting,
   in detail, the accomplishment of a work which required the
   combined effort of all; the dread, on the part of our men, of
   those terrible 'masked batteries' and 'the fierce Black-horse
   Cavalry,' neither of which ever had an existence except in the
   imaginative brains of our newspaper reporters, all help to
   fill up the picture. … I believe the plan of this battle to
   have been well-conceived, notwithstanding its disastrous
   result. We were compelled to take the offensive against troops
   in position, and upon a field, the topography of which was
   unknown to nearly all our officers. Notwithstanding these
   facts, successes would have been achieved but for the
   impatient spirit which hurried us on, without the slightest
   preparation. Of the march, the battle, the rout, and the
   disorderly retreat to Washington, the description given by
   William H. Russell was not greatly exaggerated. It was far
   more truthful than many of the descriptions given by the
   reporters of our own papers. Who has forgotten the newspaper
   accounts of the conduct of the celebrated Fire Zouaves—of the
   prodigies of valor performed by them—of their bayonet
   charges—of their heroic assaults—of the fearful destruction
   inflicted by them upon the enemy—and, finally, when the order
   to retreat came, of the great difficulty experienced by the
   officers in forcing 'these gallant, but bloodthirsty lambs,'
   as they were called, to cease fighting and commence
   retreating? We all remember these accounts, and many others of
   a similar character; and yet, every intelligent officer who
   was on the field knows that this regiment dispersed at the
   first fire, and so thoroughly was it dispersed that it was
   from that day never again known as a military organization.
   This campaign, and every subsequent one, of the War, taught us
   that the rough element of our cities—the prize-fighter, the
   veteran of a score of street-fights—does not necessarily make
   the most valuable soldier. On the contrary, many a pale-faced
   boy, who, from a sense of duty, has left school or
   counting-room to join our Army, has exhibited a degree of
   endurance on the march and of bravery on the field, seldom
   equalled by the rough element of our cities."

      _General H. W. Slocum,
      Military Lessons taught by the War
      (Historical Magazine, February 1871)_.

   "The failure of the Confederate army to pursue after the
   battle of Manassas has been much criticised, and has caused
   much acrimonious discussion. General Johnston, however, never
   hesitated to assume his share of the responsibility for the
   action taken, though insisting that the course pursued was
   proper, and the only practicable one under the circumstances.
   … The troops who had been actually engaged all day, in the hot
   summer season, were in no condition to follow up the enemy.
   But the great obstacle to any effective pursuit was the
   weakness of the cavalry arm in the Southern army. Its entire
   strength was considerably under 2,000 men, and a large
   proportion of these were not in call.
{3437}
   Many of those within reach had been fighting for hours, and
   were in little better condition than the infantry. All who
   were available were sent off in immediate pursuit, with the
   result of greatly swelling the number of prisoners and
   captured guns. But by the time the captors turned their prizes
   over to proper guards, the Northern army had covered a
   sufficient distance to be out of danger, being protected in
   their retreat by large bodies of troops that had not been
   engaged. This was all that could be accomplished. … The fact
   that the condition of the Confederate troops put any active
   pursuit out of the question is established by the official
   reports. General Johnston's report says: 'Our victory was as
   complete as one gained by infantry and artillery can be.' …
   The same reasons apply with equal force to any attempted
   advance during the few days succeeding the battle. The army
   was not in a condition to make the movement, being itself much
   demoralized by the engagement. Many thought the war over and
   went home; many accompanied wounded comrades to their homes;
   for the ties of discipline were not as strong then as in a
   veteran army. But a yet stronger obstacle to an advance was
   the lack of necessary transportation. … Even if the
   Confederates had advanced and captured the intrenchments
   opposite Washington, they could have accomplished nothing.
   They could not have crossed the river on the bridge under the
   fire of the Federal vessels of war. They had no artillery of
   sufficient range to bombard Washington from the southern side,
   even if they had been disposed to wage war in that manner.
   They had no sufficient supply of ammunition."

      _R. M. Hughes,
      General Johnston,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      _J. G. Nicolay,
      Outbreak of the Rebellion,
      chapters 13-16._

      _J. B. Fry and others,
      Campaign of the First Bull Run
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1)._

      _J. E. Cook,
      Stonewall Jackson,
      part 1, chapter 12._

      _A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).
   Enlistment of volunteers authorized by Congress.

   The enlistment of 500,000 volunteers was authorized by Acts of
   Congress passed July 22 and 25.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July-September: Missouri).
   Sigel's well-conducted retreat from Carthage.
   Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
   Siege of Lexington.
   Fremont in command.

   The flight of Governor Jackson and his followers from
   Booneville was westward, to Warsaw, on the Osage, first, and
   thence into Vernon County, where they were joined, July 3, by
   General Sterling Price.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

   "Their united force is stated by Pollard, at 3,600. Being
   pursued by Lyon, they continued their retreat next day,
   halting at 9 P. M., in Jasper County, 23 miles distant. Ten
   miles hence, at 10 A. M. next morning, they were confronted by
   a Union force 1,500 strong, under Colonel Franz Sigel, who had
   been dispatched from St. Louis by the 'Southwestern Pacific
   road, to Rolla, had marched thence to Springfield, and had
   pushed on to Mount Vernon, Lawrence County, hoping to prevent
   a junction between Jackson and some forces which his
   Brigadiers were hurrying to his support. Each army appears to
   have started that morning with intent to find and fight the
   other; and such mutual intentions are seldom frustrated. Sigel
   found the Rebels, halted after their morning march, well
   posted, vastly superior in numbers and in cavalry, but
   inferior in artillery, which he accordingly resolved should
   play a principal part in the battle. In the cannonade which
   ensued, he inflicted great damage on the Rebels and received
   very little, until, after a desultory combat of three or four
   hours, the enemy resolved to profit by their vast superiority
   in cavalry by outflanking him, both right and left. This
   compelled Sigel to fall back. … The retreat was made in
   perfect order … to Carthage, and through that town to
   Sarcoxie, some fifteen miles eastward. It was well, indeed,
   that he did so; for Jackson's force was augmented, during that
   night and next morning, by the arrival of Price from the
   southward, bringing to his aid several thousand Arkansas and
   Texas troops, under Generals Ben McCulloch and Pearce. Our
   loss in the affair of Carthage was 13 killed and 31
   wounded—not one of them abandoned to the enemy; while the
   Rebels reported their loss at 40 to 50 killed and 125 to 150
   wounded. Sigel, now outnumbered three or four to one, was
   constrained to continue his retreat, by Mount Vernon, to
   Springfield; where General Lyon, who had been delayed by lack
   of transportation, joined and outranked him on the 10th."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 35._

   "The month of August came, and found General Lyon at
   Springfield, hoping to receive reenforcements; but the battle
   of Bull Run had occurred, and rendered it impossible to send
   him aid. Major General Fremont had been appointed [July 9] to
   the command of the Western Department, and had reached St.
   Louis (July 25). Meantime Confederate troops were pouring over
   the southern frontier of Missouri, and Lyon, finding that they
   were advancing upon him in two columns, determined to strike
   before he should be overwhelmed by the combined Louisiana,
   Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas troops. His force did not exceed
   5,500, his antagonist had more than 12,000. A skirmish
   occurred at Dug Spring (August 1st), in which he had the
   advantage; but he could not prevent the junction of the two
   columns. Hereupon he fell back to Springfield. His position
   had now become one of great difficulty. Political as well as
   military considerations rendered it almost impossible for him
   to retreat farther. He therefore determined to resume the
   offensive, and compensate for his weakness by audacity. Moving
   out of Springfield on a very dark night (August 9-10), and
   having ordered Sigel, with 1,200 men and six guns, to gain the
   enemy's rear by their right, he was ready, as soon as day
   broke, to make an attack on their front [on Wilson's Creek].
   But the disparity of force was too great. Sigel was
   overwhelmed. He lost five out of his six guns, and more than
   half his men. The attack in front was conducted by Lyon in
   person with very great energy. His horse was shot under him;
   he was twice wounded, the second time in the head. In a final
   charge he called to the Second Kansas Regiment, whose colonel
   was at that moment severely wounded, 'Come on, I will lead
   you,' and in so doing was shot through the heart. After the
   death of Lyon the battle was still continued, their artillery
   preserving the national troops from total defeat. News then
   coming of Sigel's disaster, a retreat to Springfield, distant
   about nine miles, was resolved on. It was executed without
   difficulty.
{3438}
   In this battle of Wilson's Creek there were 223 killed, 721
   wounded, 292 missing, on the national side; and, as may be
   inferred from the determined character of the assault, the
   loss of the Confederates was very great. They had been so
   severely handled that they made no attempt at pursuit, and the
   retreat was continued by the national troops, who, on the
   19th, had fallen back to Rolla. After this action, the
   Confederate commanders, McCulloch and Price, quarreling with
   each other, and unable to agree upon a plan for their
   campaign, the former returned to Arkansas, the latter advanced
   from Springfield toward Lexington. Here he found a national
   force of about three thousand (2,780) under Colonel Mulligan.
   Attempts were made by General Fremont to re-enforce Mulligan,
   but they did not succeed. Meantime the assailing forces were
   steadily increasing in number, until they eventually reached
   28,000, with 13 pieces of artillery. They surrounded the
   position and cut off the beleaguered troops from water. They
   made repeated assaults without success until [September] 20th,
   when they contrived a movable breastwork of hemp-bales, which
   they rolled before them as they advanced, and compelled
   Mulligan, who had been twice wounded, to surrender
   unconditionally. On receiving news of this disaster, Fremont
   at once left St. Louis with the intention of attacking Price,
   but that general instantly retreated, making his way back to
   the southwest corner of the state, where he rejoined McCulloch
   and his Confederate troops."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 47 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. L. Snead,
      The Fight for Missouri,
      chapters 11-14._

      _J. Peckham,
      General Lyon and Missouri in 1861,
      book 4._

      _J. C. Fremont, F. Sigel and others,
      Wilson's Creek, Lexington and Pea Ridge
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War', volume 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July-November).
   McClellan's rise to the chief command.
   Creation of the Army of the Potomac.
   Reorganization of the western armies.

   "Immediately after the battle of Bull Run, Major General
   McClellan was assigned to the command of the Military
   Department of Washington and Northeastern Virginia. Lieutenant
   General Scott retained his command as general in chief of the
   American army, until the end of October. 'I found,' says
   General McClellan in his report, 'no army to command—a mere
   collection of regiments cowering on the banks of the Potomac,
   some perfectly raw, others dispirited by the recent defeat.
   Nothing of any consequence had been done to secure the
   southern approaches to the capital by means of defensive
   works; nothing whatever had been undertaken to defend the
   avenues to the city on the northern side of the Potomac. The
   number of troops in and around the city was about 50,000
   infantry, less than 1,000 cavalry, 650 artillerymen, with nine
   imperfect field batteries of 30 pieces.' … General McClellan
   at once commenced the organization of the great army
   authorized by Congress. His views of the military position and
   appropriate military conduct were, for the most part,
   accepted, and such was the patriotism of the people, the
   resolution of Congress, the energy of the executive, that the
   Army of the Potomac had reached, on October 27th, a strength
   of … 168,318. It was the general's opinion that the advance
   upon the enemy at Manassas should not be postponed beyond the
   25th of November. It was his desire that all the other armies
   should be stripped of their superfluous strength, and, as far
   as possible, every thing concentrated in the force under his
   command. On the 31st of October, General Scott, having found
   his bodily infirmities increasing, addressed a letter to the
   Secretary of War requesting to be placed on the retired list.
   … His desire was granted. An order was simultaneously issued
   appointing General McClellan commander-in-chief under the
   President. This change in his position at once produced a
   change in General McClellan's views. Hitherto he had
   undervalued the importance of what was to be done in the West.
   He had desired the Western armies to act on the defensive. Now
   he wished to institute an advance on East Tennessee, and
   capture Nashville contemporaneously with Richmond. … In
   preparation for this, the Department of the West was
   reorganized. On the day following that of McClellan's
   promotion, Fremont was removed from his command. His
   department was subdivided into three: (1.) New Mexico, which
   was assigned to Colonel Canby; (2.) Kansas, to General Hunter;
   (3.) Missouri, to General Halleck. To General Buell was
   assigned the Department of the Ohio, and to General Rosecrans
   that of West Virginia. The end of November approached, and
   still the Army of the Potomac had not moved. The weather was
   magnificent, the roads excellent. … Winter at last came, and
   nothing had been done. … Considering the military condition of
   the nation when General McClellan undertook the formation and
   organization of the great Army of the Potomac, the time
   consumed in bringing that force into a satisfactory condition
   was far from being too long. … From the resources furnished
   without stint by Congress McClellan created that army. Events
   showed that his mental constitution was such that he could not
   use it on the battlefield. … There probably never was an army
   in the world so lavishly supplied as that of the Potomac
   before the Peninsular expedition. General McDowell, who knew
   the state of things well, declared, in his testimony before
   the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, 'There
   never was an army in the world supplied as well as ours. I
   believe a French army of half the size could be supplied with
   what we waste.'"

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapters 44 and 49 (volume 2)._

   "Some persons, who ought to have known better, have supposed
   that in organizing the Army of the Potomac I set too high a
   model before me and consumed unnecessary time in striving to
   form an army of regulars. This was an unjustifiable error on
   their part. I should, of course, have been glad to bring that
   army to the condition of regulars, but no one knew better than
   myself that, with the means at my command, that would have
   been impossible within any reasonable or permissible time.
   What I strove for and accomplished was to bring about such a
   condition of discipline and instruction that the army could be
   handled on the march and on the field of battle, and that
   orders could be reasonably well carried out. … In spite of all
   the clamor to the contrary, the time spent in the camps of
   instruction in front of Washington was well bestowed, and
   produced the most important and valuable results. Not a day of
   it was wasted.
{3439}
   The fortifications then erected, both directly and indirectly,
   saved the capital more than once in the course of the war, and
   enabled the army to manœuvre freely and independently. … No
   other army we possessed could have met and defeated the
   Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. And, with all the
   courage, energy, and intelligence of the Army of the Potomac,
   it probably would not have been equal to that most difficult
   task without the advantage it enjoyed during its sojourn in
   the camps around Washington."

      _G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. McClellan,
      Report on the Organization and Campaigns
      of the Army of the Potomac._

      _Prince de Joinville,
      The Army of the Potomac._

      _Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      37th Congress, 3d session, H. R., part. 1._

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August).
   Act of Congress freeing Slaves employed
   in the service of the Rebellion.

   In August, Congress passed an "Act to confiscate property used
   for insurrectionary purposes." As originally framed, it only
   confiscated "any property used or employed in aiding, abetting
   or promoting insurrection, or resistance to the laws," which
   would not include slaves. A new section was added, declaring
   that "whenever hereafter during the present insurrection
   against the Government of the United States, any person held
   to labor or service under the law of any State shall be
   required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or
   service is due to take up arms against the United States, or
   to work in or upon any fort, dock, navy-yard, armory,
   intrenchment or in any military or naval service whatever
   against the Government of the United States, the person to
   whom such service or labor is due shall forfeit his claim
   thereto." The law further provided that, "whenever any person
   shall seek to enforce his claim to a slave, it shall be a
   sufficient answer to such claim, that the slave had been
   employed in the military or naval service against the United
   States contrary to the provisions of this Act."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, page 342._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, pages 568-570._

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the Rebellion,
      page 195._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August: North Carolina).
   The Hatteras expedition.

   "General Wool relieved General Butler August 16th, 1861, of
   the command at Fortress Monroe. Butler was detailed to active
   duty. The War and Navy Departments having arranged the first
   of a series of expeditions against the Southern coast, the
   command of the land forces was conferred upon Butler—Commodore
   S. H. Stringham directing the naval arm. Materials for the
   adventure were rapidly gathered at Fortress Monroe from the
   date of August 16th to the 26th, on which day the fleet took
   its departure. … Not until the vessels were at sea were any
   but the directors of the enterprize aware of the point of
   attack. Forts Hatteras and Clark commanded the entrance to the
   Sounds of Pamlico and Albemarle, whose waters were a great
   rendezvous for traders running the blockade. … Fort Hatteras
   was an exceedingly formidable battery. It was nearly
   surrounded by water, and was only approached by a circuitous
   and narrow neck of land. … The secrecy and rapidity of
   preparation by the Federals caught the rebels somewhat
   unprepared for the attack. … The bombardment opened Wednesday
   morning, at ten o'clock, preparatory to the landing of the
   land forces on the beach above Fort Hatteras. … A heavy surf
   rolled in upon the treacherous sands. After infinite labor,
   and the beaching of three small boats, the landing was
   suspended for the day. Those already on shore—315 in
   number—were safe under the guns of the fleet. … The
   bombardment continued during the entire first day. No land
   assault was attempted. Fort Hatteras replied with great vigor,
   but with little avail. … On the morning of the 29th, the
   cannonade opened early. A cloudless sky and a clear sea
   blessed the cause of the assailants. During the night a
   transport heavily laden with troops reenforced the fort,
   running down the Sound which was yet open. Fort Clark was
   occupied by the Federal forces, and refused its aid to assist
   its late confederate. The conflict soon raged with extreme
   vigor on both sides. At eleven o'clock the Confederate flag
   fluttered uneasily a moment—then ran down the halyards and a
   white flag was slowly run to the peak. … Articles of
   capitulation were signed on board the flag-ship Minnesota.
   Butler then landed and took formal possession of the largest
   fortification. The number of prisoners surrendered was 615,
   who were all placed on the Minnesota. In four days time they
   were in New York harbor. … The first design, it would appear,
   was to destroy the forts, stop up the channel with old hulks,
   and to return, temporarily at least, to Fortress Monroe with
   the entire force; but the place proved to be so strong that
   Butler left Weber and Hawkins' commands in possession."

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 2, division 5, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August-October: Missouri).
   Fremont's premature proclamation of freedom to slaves of
   rebels and Lincoln's modification of it.
   The change of command.

   "On the 31st of August, General Fremont [commanding in the
   West] issued a proclamation declaring martial law, defining
   the lines of the army of occupation, and threatening with
   death by the bullet all who should be found within those lines
   with arms in their hands. Furthermore, the real and personal
   property of all persons in the state [Missouri] who should
   take up arms against the United States was declared
   confiscated to the public use, and their slaves, if they had
   any, were declared free men. This proclamation produced a
   strong effect upon the public mind. The proclaiming of freedom
   to the slaves of rebels struck the popular chord, particularly
   among thoroughly loyal men in the free states. Of course, it
   maddened all the sympathizers with the rebellion, infuriated
   the rebels themselves, and perplexed those loyal men who had
   upon their hands the task of so conducting affairs as to hold
   to their allegiance the border slave states which had not
   seceded. Mr. Lincoln did not approve some features of General
   Fremont's proclamation. As soon as he read it, he wrote, under
   date of September 2d, to the General, that there were two
   points in it which gave him anxiety. The first was, that, if
   he should shoot a man according to his proclamation, 'the
   confederates would certainly shoot our best men in their hands
   in retaliation, and so, man for man, indefinitely.'
{3440}
   He therefore ordered him to allow no man to be shot under the
   proclamation without first having his (the President's)
   approbation or consent. The second cause of anxiety was that
   the paragraph relating to the confiscation of property and the
   liberation of slaves of traitorous owners would alarm
   Unionists at the South, and perhaps ruin the fair prospect of
   saving Kentucky to the Union. He, therefore, wished General
   Fremont, as of his own motion, so to modify his proclamation
   as to make it conformable to the confiscation act just passed
   by the extra session of Congress, which only freed such slaves
   as were engaged in the rebel service. … General Fremont
   received the President's letter respectfully, and replied to
   it September 8th, stating the difficulties under which he
   labored, with communication with the government so difficult,
   and the development of perplexing events so rapid in the
   department under his command. As to the part of his
   proclamation concerning the slaves, he wished the President
   openly to order the change desired, as, if he should do it of
   his own motion, it would imply that he thought himself wrong,
   and that he had acted without the reflection which the gravity
   of the point demanded. This the President did, in a dispatch
   under date of September 11th, in the words: 'It is therefore
   ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so
   modified, held, and constructed, as to conform to, and not to
   transcend, the provisions on the same subject contained in the
   act of Congress entitled, An act to confiscate property used
   for insurrectionary purposes, approved August 6, 1861; and
   that such act be published at length with this order.' Before
   this order had been received, or on the day following its
   date, General Fremont, though acquainted with the President's
   wishes, manumitted two slaves of Thomas L. Snead of St. Louis,
   in accordance with the terms of his proclamation. Although Mr.
   Lincoln desired General Fremont so to modify his proclamation
   as to make it accordant with the act of Congress approved
   August 6th, it is hardly to be supposed that he did it solely
   out of respect to that act. … If he had believed that the time
   had come for the measure of liberating the slaves of rebels by
   proclamation, the act of Congress would not have stood in his
   way. This act was an embodiment of his policy at that time,
   and he used it for his immediate purpose. … Complications in
   the personal relations of General Fremont and Colonel F. P.
   Blair, under whose personal and family influence General
   Fremont had received his position, occurred at an early day.
   Colonel Blair doubtless thought that he had not sufficient
   weight in the General's counsels, and the General, doubtless,
   exercised his right in choosing his own counselors. … It was a
   very unhappy quarrel, and it is quite likely that there was
   blame upon both sides, though it occurred between men equally
   devoted to the sacred cause of saving the country to freedom
   and justice. … Mr. Lincoln always gave to each the credit due
   to his motives, and so far refused to mingle in the general
   quarrel that grew out of the difficulty, that he kept the
   good-will of both sides, and compelled them to settle their
   own differences. … General Fremont at length took the field in
   person. On the 8th of October he left Jefferson City for
   Sedalia. As he advanced with his forces, Price retreated,
   until it was widely reported that he would give battle to the
   national forces at Springfield. Just as Fremont was making
   ready to engage the enemy, he was overtaken by an order
   relieving him of his command. He was succeeded by General
   Hunter; but Hunter's command was brief, and was transferred at
   an early day to General Halleck. General Fremont was relieved
   of his command by the President not because of his
   proclamation, not because he hated slavery, and not because he
   believed him corrupt or vindictive or disloyal. He relieved
   him simply because he believed that the interests of the
   country, all things considered, would be subserved by
   relieving him and putting another man in his place. The matter
   was the cause of great excitement in Missouri, and of much
   complaint among the radical anti-slavery men of the country:
   but the imputations sought to be cast upon the President were
   not fastened to him; and did not, four years later, when
   Fremont himself became a candidate for the presidency, prevent
   the warmest anti-slavery men from giving Mr. Lincoln their
   support. The federal army under General Hunter retreated
   without a battle; and thus the campaign, inaugurated with
   great show and immense expense, was a flat failure."

      _J. G. Holland,
      Life of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. Fremont,
      In Command in Missouri
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1),
      pages 278-288._

      _W. Dorsheimer,
      Fremont's Hundred Days in Missouri
      (Atlantic Monthly, volume 9, 1862)._

      _Official Record,
      series 1, volume 3, pages 466-564._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(August-December: West Virginia).
   Rosecrans against Lee.
   Battles of Carnifex Ferry and Cheat Summit.

   "When General McClellan was called [July 22] to take General
   McDowell's place at the head of the Army of the Potomac,
   Brigadier-General William S. Rosecrans was left in command of
   the troops in West Virginia. General Robert E. Lee, the
   Confederate commander, who had gathered together the forces
   which had been defeated under Garnett and Pegram, and some
   others, found himself in August at the head of about 16,000
   men. Lee made his headquarters at Huntersville, while General
   John B. Floyd … took up a position on the Gauley River for the
   purpose of cutting off General Cox of Ohio, who, with a
   brigade of Rosecrans's army, had just driven a Confederate
   force under ex-Governor Henry A. Wise of Virginia out of the
   Kanawha Valley. Floyd surprised and routed the Seventh Ohio
   under Colonel Tyler, and then moved to a place on the Gauley
   River called Carnifex Ferry, hoping to cut off Cox from
   Rosecrans. But early in September Rosecrans, leaving part of
   his army under General Joseph J. Reynolds to watch Lee,
   marched southward with about 10,000 men and [September 10]
   attacked Floyd, who had strongly fortified himself with about
   2,000 men on the banks of the river. After a severe fight of
   three or four hours, in which the Union troops lost heavily,
   Rosecrans, finding the position much stronger than he
   expected, gave orders at twilight to stop the assault until
   morning; but when morning came no enemy was to be seen; Floyd,
   finding his enemy much superior in numbers, had crossed the
   river in the night over a bridge hastily built of logs, and
   retreated to the mountains 30 miles away. Rosecrans followed,
   but finally fell back again to the Gauley. When Rosecrans
   marched against Floyd, Reynolds took up a strong position on
   Cheat Mountain."

      _J. D. Champlin,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 10._

{3441}

   "General Lee proposed first to win a victory, if possible,
   over Reynolds. He was combative, anxious to strike, but many
   difficulties confronted him. He fully realized he had been
   sent to West Virginia to retrieve Confederate disasters, and
   that he had a most difficult task to perform. The Federal
   commander [his main force at Elk Water] held the center summit
   of Cheat Mountain pass, the mountain having three well-defined
   summits. … It was necessary first to carry this well-selected
   position of the Federal troops. A citizen surveyor, in
   sympathy with the South and familiar with the mountain paths,
   had made a trip to an elevated point where he could clearly
   see the Federal position, and reported his observations to
   General Lee. Afterward he made a second reconnoissance,
   accompanied by Colonel Albert Rust, of the Third Arkansas
   Regiment, who was anxious to see the nature of the ground and
   the strength of the position for himself. They reported to
   General Lee that in their opinion the enemy's position could
   be assailed with success with troops which could be guided to
   the point they had reached. General Lee decided to make the
   attack, and gave to Rust a column of 1,200 infantry. … The
   movement was to begin at night, which happened to be a very
   rainy one. All the troops, however, got in the positions
   assigned to them without the knowledge of the enemy, where
   they waited, every moment expecting to hear the rattle of
   Rust's muskets, who had been charged with the capture of the
   pass on Cheat Mountain; but hour after hour passed, and no
   sounds were heard. After a delay of many hours, and the enemy
   had divined the nature of the attack, the troops were ordered
   back to their former position. There had been only a small
   conflict between cavalry, in which Colonel John A. Washington,
   General Lee's aid-de-camp, who had been sent with Major W. H.
   F. Lee to reconnoiter the enemy, was killed from an ambuscade.
   … Rust claims in his reports that spies had communicated the
   movements of the Confederate troops to the enemy. This officer
   evidently did not attack, because he found, on getting close
   to the Federal position, that it was much stronger than he had
   thought it was from the preliminary reconnoissances he had
   made. As the attack of the whole depended on the assault of
   this force, the failure to attack caused a corresponding
   failure of the whole movement. … This movement having failed,
   and knowing that the enemy would be prepared for any second
   attempt which, from the nature of the country, would have to
   be similar to the one already tried, General Lee decided to
   turn his attention to the commands of Wise and Floyd in front
   of Rosecrans, leaving General H. R. Jackson in Reynolds's
   front. He proceeded at once to Floyd's command, which he
   reached on September 20th, and then to Wise's camp, closely
   inspecting both. He at once perceived that Wise's position was
   the strongest and offered the best means for successful
   defense, and promptly concentrated his forces at that point. …
   Rosecrans had advanced to the top of Big Sewell Mountain and
   had placed his army in a strong position. General Lee, with te
   troops of Wise, Floyd, and Loring—about 8,000 men—occupied a
   position on a parallel range. The two armies were now in close
   proximity to each other, both occupying strong defensive
   positions. Lee and Rosecrans, having been officers of the
   engineers, were fully aware of the great disadvantage an
   attacking army would have, and each waited, hoping the other
   would attack. After occupying these positions for twelve days,
   Rosecrans, on the night of October 6th, retreated. The
   condition of the roads, the mud, the swollen streams, the
   large numbers of men with typhoid fever and measles, the
   condition of the horses, of the artillery, and transportation,
   were such that Lee decided not to pursue. … The rapid approach
   of winter and the rainy season terminated the campaign in this
   section. … At the termination of this campaign of General
   Lee's the Confederate Government did not bestow much attention
   upon this section. The majority of the people seemed inclined
   to support the Federal side. … It must be admitted that
   General Lee retired from West Virginia with diminished
   military reputation. Great results had been expected from his
   presence there. Garnett's defeat and death were to be avenged,
   and the whole of that portion of Virginia speedily wrested
   from the Federal arms. The public did not understand the
   difficulties of the situation, or comprehend why he did not
   defeat Reynolds, or the failure to attack Rosecrans."

      _F. Lee,
      General Lee,
      chapter 6._

   After Lee left General H. R. Jackson in front of Reynolds'
   position, the former established himself in a fortified camp
   on Buffalo Hill, and was unsuccessfully attacked there by
   Reynolds, October 3. Two months later, on the 13th of
   December, the attack was repeated by Reynolds' successor in
   command, General Milroy, and again without success. Meantime,
   Floyd had been driven into the mountains, with little
   fighting, by Rosecrans, and military operations, for the time,
   were at an end.

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 1, book 4, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 28._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(September-November: On the Mississippi).
   General Grant's first battle, at Belmont.

   In August, General Ulysses S. Grant, who had been serving for
   a few weeks in Missouri, first as Colonel of the 21st Illinois
   Regiment, and later as a brigadier-general, was assigned by
   General Fremont to "the command of the district of south-east
   Missouri, embracing all the territory south of St. Louis, in
   Missouri, as well as all southern Illinois." On the 4th of
   September he established his headquarters at Cairo, Illinois,
   and the next day, having learned from a scout that the rebels
   were preparing to seize Paducah, at the mouth of the Tennessee
   River, he placed a couple of regiments of troops and a light
   battery on board of steamers: and occupied the place on the
   6th,—telegraphing meanwhile for orders, but not waiting for
   them. His movement anticipated the enemy by a few hours, only,
   and secured a command of the Tennessee, the importance of
   which was afterward demonstrated by Grant, himself, when he
   moved on Forts Henry and Donelson. In his "Memoirs" General
   Grant says: "From the occupation of Paducah up to the early
   part of November, nothing important occurred with the troops
   under my command.
{3442}
   I was reinforced from time to time and the men were drilled
   and disciplined preparatory for the service which was sure to
   come. By the 1st of November I had not fewer than 20,000 men.
   … About the 1st of November I was directed from department
   headquarters to make a demonstration on both sides of the
   Mississippi River with the view of detaining the rebels within
   their lines. Before my troops could be got off, I was notified
   from the same quarter that there were some 3,000 of the enemy
   on the St. Francis River about 50 miles west, or south-west,
   from Cairo, and was ordered to send another force against
   them. I dispatched Colonel Oglesby at once with troops
   sufficient to compete with the reported number of the enemy.
   On the 5th word came from the same source that the rebels were
   about to detach a large force from Columbus to be moved by
   boats down the Mississippi and up the White River, in
   Arkansas, in order to reinforce Price, and I was directed to
   prevent this movement if possible." To carry out these orders,
   General Grant directed a demonstration to be made from Paducah
   towards Columbus, while, at the same time, he conveyed some
   3,000 troops down the river, in steamers, and attacked a camp
   of rebels at Belmont, immediately opposite Columbus. The
   battle was a severe one. "The officers and men engaged at
   Belmont were then under fire for the first time. Veterans,"
   says General Grant, "could not have behaved better than they
   did up to the moment of reaching the rebel camp. At this point
   they became demoralized from their victory and failed to reap
   its full reward. … The moment the camp was reached our men
   laid down their arms and commenced rummaging the tents to pick
   up trophies. Some of the higher officers were little better
   than the privates. They galloped about from one cluster of men
   to another and at every halt delivered a short eulogy upon the
   Union cause and the achievements of the command." The result
   was a rallying of the defeated rebels and a reinforcement from
   Columbus which forced the Unionists to retire with haste. "Our
   loss at Belmont was 485 in killed, wounded and missing. About
   125 of our wounded fell into the hands of the enemy. We
   returned with 175 prisoners and two guns, and spiked four
   other pieces. The loss of the enemy, as officially reported,
   was 642 men, killed, wounded and missing. We had engaged about
   2,500 men, exclusive of the guard left with the transports.
   The enemy had about 7,000; but this includes the troops
   brought over from Columbus who were not engaged in the first
   defence of Belmont. The two objects for which the battle of
   Belmont was fought were fully accomplished. The enemy gave up
   all idea of detaching troops from Columbus. … If it had not
   been fought, Colonel Oglesby would probably have been captured
   or destroyed with his 3,000 men. Then I should have been
   culpable indeed."

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 19-20 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of U. S. Grant,
      chapter 1._

      _W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapter 24._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (October: Virginia).
   Confederate project for the invasion of the North
   vetoed by Jefferson Davis.

   "Between the 4th of August and the 15th of October more than
   110 regiments and thirty batteries, comprising at least
   100,000 men, were added to the forces in Washington and its
   neighborhood, and there appeared to be no limit to the
   resources and patriotism of the North. Moreover, the Northern
   troops were so well provided for in all respects, owing to the
   immense resources at the disposal of the United States
   Government, that there was every reason to expect in the
   spring of 1862 a decidedly improved condition in health and
   vigor, in self-confidence, and in all soldierly qualities, on
   the part of the soldiers. The army at Manassas, on the other
   hand, owing to the straitened means of the Confederate
   Government, was barely kept comfortable in the matter of
   clothing and shelter, and its chief officers looked forward
   with undisguised apprehension to the coming winter. … It was
   easy for any one instructed in military matters to see that if
   the Federal authorities would only be content to defer active
   operations until the patriotic levies of the North should have
   learned 'the trade of the soldier,'—should have acquired
   familiarity with the use of arms, habits of obedience, trust
   in their officers and superiors, discipline,—the Federal
   general would enter on the next campaign with all those
   chances of success which attend largely superior numbers,
   better arms and equipment, and a sound and thorough
   organization of his army. Such in fact was the view of the
   situation taken by the sagacious officer who commanded the
   lately victorious army at Manassas Junction, Joseph E.
   Johnston. In his opinion his two corps commanders, Beauregard
   … and G. W. Smith, … entirely concurred. They saw that
   something must be done to break up this constantly increasing
   Federal army while it was yet in the process of formation. The
   Confederate generals determined to urge their views upon the
   President of the Southern Confederacy. Mr. Davis responded at
   once to their expressed wish for a conference upon the
   military situation, and he reached Manassas on September 30,
   1861. The conference was held the next day. The generals
   strongly advised Mr. Davis to reinforce the army at Manassas
   so that they might cross the Potomac, cut the communications
   of Washington with the North, and carry the war into the
   enemy's country. Johnston and Beauregard fixed the strength of
   an army adequate to these tasks at 60,000 men. Smith was
   content with a force of 50,000. Additional transportation and
   supplies of ammunition were also demanded. The army then at
   Manassas numbered about 40,000 men. With the quality of the
   soldiers the generals seemed to be perfectly content. They
   only asked that the additional troops sent should be of an
   equal degree of efficiency,—'seasoned soldiers' as
   distinguished from 'fresh volunteers.' But President Davis
   decided that he could not furnish the required reinforcement
   without 'a total disregard of the safety of other threatened
   positions.' The project was therefore dropped, and no further
   attempt was made during the ensuing autumn and winter to
   interfere with the uninterrupted development of the Federal
   army at and near Washington in organization and efficiency. …
   It is altogether probable that the Confederate army was at
   that time decidedly the superior of its antagonist in many
   important respects. It had the prestige of victory. … We may
   fairly say therefore, that an invasion of the North,
   undertaken in October, 1861, held out a very fair promise of a
   successful result for the Confederate arms."

      _J. C. Ropes,
      The Story of the Civil War,
      chapter 10._

{3443}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (October: Virginia).
   The affair at Ball's Bluff, or Leesburg.

   "The true story of the affair of Ball's Bluff, is, in brief,
   as follows: One of General Stone's officers, Captain
   Philbrick, of the 15th Massachusetts, thought that he had
   discovered a camp of the enemy about one mile beyond
   Harrison's island in the direction of Leesburg. Having
   completed the feint of crossing made in the course of the
   20th, General Stone at 10.30 P. M. of the same day issued his
   orders for the surprise of the supposed camp at daybreak of
   the 21st. Colonel Devens, of the 15th Massachusetts, was
   entrusted with the duty, with four companies of his regiment.
   Colonel Lee, of the 20th Massachusetts, was directed to
   replace Colonel Devens in Harrison's island with four
   companies of his own regiment, one of which was to pass over
   to the Virginia shore and hold the heights there to cover
   Colonel Devens's return. Colonel Devens was directed to
   'attack the camp at daybreak, and, having routed, to pursue
   them as far as he deems prudent, and to destroy the camp, if
   practicable, before returning.' … Having accomplished this
   duty, Colonel Devens will return to his present position,
   unless he shall see one on the Virginia side near the river
   which he can undoubtedly hold until reinforced, and one which
   can be successfully held against largely superior numbers. In
   which case he will hold on and report.' In obedience to these
   orders Colonel Devens crossed about midnight with five
   companies (instead of four), numbering about 300 men, and
   halted until daybreak in an open field near the bluffs
   bordering the shore. While there he was joined by Colonel Lee
   with 100 men of the 20th Massachusetts, who halted here to
   cover his return. At daybreak he advanced about a mile towards
   Leesburg, and then discovered that the supposed camp did not
   exist. After examining the vicinity and discovering no traces
   of the enemy, he determined not to return at once, but at
   about half-past six A. M. sent a non-commissioned officer to
   report to General Stone that he thought he could remain where
   he was until reinforced. At about seven o'clock a company of
   hostile riflemen were observed on the right, and a slight
   skirmish ensued. A company of cavalry being soon observed on
   the left, the skirmishers were drawn back to the woods, and,
   after waiting half an hour for attack, the command was
   withdrawn to the position held by Colonel Lee; but, after
   again scouting the woods, Colonel Devens returned to his
   advanced position. About eight o'clock the messenger returned
   from General Stone with orders for Colonel Devens to remain
   where he was, and that he would be reinforced. The messenger
   was again sent back to report the skirmish that had taken
   place. Colonel Devens then threw out skirmishers and awaited
   reinforcements. At about ten o'clock the messenger again
   returned with the information that Colonel Baker [Senator
   Edward D. Baker, of California] would soon arrive with his
   brigade and take command. Between nine and eleven Colonel
   Devens was joined by Lieutenant-Colonel Learned with the
   remainder of the 15th. bringing up his command to 28 officers
   and 625 men. About midday Colonel Devens learned that the
   enemy were gathering on his left, and about half-past twelve
   or one he was strongly attacked; and as he was in great danger
   of being outflanked, and no reinforcements had arrived, at
   about a quarter-past two he fell back to the bluff, where he
   found Colonel Baker, who directed him to take the right of the
   position he proposed to occupy. … At about three o'clock the
   enemy attacked in force, the weight of his attack being on our
   centre and left. At about four our artillery was silenced, and
   Colonel Devens was ordered to send two of his companies to
   support the left of our line; shortly after he learned that
   Colonel Baker had been killed. Colonel Coggswell then assumed
   command, and, after a vain attempt to cut his way through to
   Edward's Ferry, was obliged to give the order to retreat to
   the river-bank and direct the men to save themselves as best
   they could. I have gone thus much into detail because at the
   time I was much criticised and blamed for this unfortunate
   affair, while I was in no sense responsible for it."

      _G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      chapter 11._

   In connection with the disaster at Ball's Bluff (called the
   battle of Leesburg by the Confederates) a great wrong seems to
   have been done to General Stone. Accused of disloyalty, he was
   arrested, but on no specific charge, imprisoned for six
   months, denied a trial, and set free without explanation. He
   went abroad and for many years was Chief of the General Staff
   to the Khedive of Egypt.

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. B. Irwin,
      Ball's Bluff and the arrest of General Stone
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 2, pages 123-134)._

      _Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      37th Congress, 3d session, H. R., part 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(October-December: South Carolina-Georgia).
   The Port Royal Expedition.
   Capture of Hilton Head.
   Extensive occupation of the coast.
   Savannah threatened.

   "On the 29th of October, another and far stronger naval and
   military expedition [than that against the Hatteras forts] set
   forth from Hampton Roads, and, clearing the capes of Virginia,
   moved majestically southward. Genera] T. W. Sherman [not to be
   confused with General William T. Shennan of the Western
   armies] commanded the land forces, consisting of 13 volunteer
   regiments, forming three brigades, and numbering not less than
   10,000 men; while the fleet—commanded by Commodore Samuel F.
   Du Pont—embraced the steam-frigate Wabash, 14 gun-boats, 22
   first-class and 12 smaller steamers, with 26 sailing vessels.
   After a stormy passage, in which several transports were
   disabled and four absolutely lost, Commodore Du Pont, in his
   flag-ship, came to off Port Royal, South Carolina, during the
   night of November 3d and 4th; and, after proper soundings and
   reconnoissances, which developed the existence of a new fort
   on either side of the entrance, the commodore brought his most
   effective vessels into action at 9 A. M., on Thursday,
   November 7th, taking the lead in his flagship, the Wabash—the
   gunboats to follow at intervals in due order. Thus the
   fighting portion of the fleet steamed slowly up the bay by the
   forts, receiving and returning the fire of the batteries on
   Bay Point as they passed up, and exchanging like compliments
   with the stronger fort on Hilton Head as they came down. Thus
   no vessel remained stationary under fire; so that the enemy
   were at no time enabled to gain, by experiment and
   observation, a perfect aim. The day was lovely; the spectacle
   magnificent; the fight spirited, but most unequal.
{3444}
   Despite the general presumption that batteries, well manned
   and served, are superior to ships when not ironclad, the
   terrible rain of shot and shell upon the gunners in the Rebel
   forts soon proved beyond human endurance. … The battle … raged
   nearly five hours, with fearful carnage and devastation on the
   part of the Rebels, and very little on ours, when the
   overmatched Confederates, finding themselves slaughtered to no
   purpose, suddenly and unanimously took to flight. … The Rebel
   forts were fully manned by 1,700 South Carolinians, with a
   field battery of 500 more stationed not far distant. The
   negroes, save those who had been driven off by their masters,
   or shot while attempting to evade them, had stubbornly
   remained on the isles."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      chapter 36._

   "The effect of the battle of Port Royal was as largely felt in
   the North, where it revived the hopes of her people, as in the
   South, to whose people it revealed the presence of a new and
   pressing danger. The Federals had conquered a strong base of
   operations on the enemy's coast; they had carried the war into
   South Carolina. … Sherman might, perhaps, at the first moment
   of his adversary's disorder, have been able to push his
   success farther, and to lead his army upon Charleston, or
   Savannah. But he was afraid of risking such a venture. … The
   occupation of most of the islands in the vicinity of the St.
   Helena group was the natural consequence of the victory of
   Hilton Head. It was effected gradually before the end of the
   year. Among all the points of the coast which the Federals had
   thus seized without striking a blow, thanks to the prestige of
   their success, the most important was Tybee Island, at the
   entrance of the Savannah River. Situated on the right bank of
   the mouth of that river, and being the spot where the
   lighthouse stands, Tybee Island enabled the Federals, as soon
   as they became masters of it, to obstruct the passage of the
   blockade-runners on their way to the great mart of Savannah.
   At a distance of about 600 feet from its borders, on an islet
   in the middle of the river, stood Fort Pulaski. … A few days
   after, the navy extended its conquests still farther south,"
   occupying the channel between the Tybee Island group and the
   Warsaw Islands, "and thus opening a passage for future
   operations, which would enable them to reach Savannah by
   turning Fort Pulaski. … At the end of the year, Dupont's
   fleet, supported by detachments from Sherman's army, was in
   possession of the five large bays of North Edisto, St. Helena,
   Port Royal, Tybee, Warsaw, and the whole chain of islands
   which forms the coast of Carolina and Georgia between those
   bays."

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      _D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapter 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (November).
   The Trent affair.
   Arrest of Mason and Slidell.

   "On the 8th of November, 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes, of the
   United States Steamer San Jacinto, intercepted on the ocean H.
   B. M. [His Britannic Majesty] mail packet boat Trent, having
   on board four rebel emissaries bound for England. Having
   boarded the Trent, an officer of the San Jacinto, with an
   armed guard, arrested the rebels Mason, Slidell, McFarland and
   Eustis, and transferred them to the San Jacinto. The Trent
   then proceeded on her voyage. Captain Wilkes conveyed his
   captives to Boston, where they were consigned to Fort Warren,
   then a receptacle for political prisoners. When this
   transaction became known to the British government, immediate
   preparations were made for war. In the United States, the act
   was hailed as a victory. The Secretary of the Navy publicly
   applauded Captain Wilkes, and the House of Representatives did
   the same. The Secretary of State, upon whom the chief
   responsibility in the matter rested, saw, more clearly than
   others, that a breach of international law had been committed
   by the commander of the San Jacinto. The President coincided
   with Mr. Seward, and it was at once resolved to restore the
   rebel captives to the protection of the British flag."

      _G. E. Baker,
      Biographical Memoir of William H. Seward
      (volume 5 of Seward's Works, pages 10-11)._

   In his diplomatic correspondence as quoted in the volume cited
   above, under the caption "Diary or Notes on the War,"
   Secretary Seward wrote:

   "November 30, 1861.—Captain Wilkes, in the Steamer San
   Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer, and taken
   from her deck two insurgents who were proceeding to Europe on
   an errand of treason against their own country. Lord Lyons has
   prudently refrained from opening the subject to me, as, I
   presume, waiting instructions from home. We have done nothing
   on the subject to anticipate the discussion, and we have not
   furnished you with any explanations. We adhere to that course
   now, because we think it more prudent that the ground taken by
   the British government should be first made to us here, and
   that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be had here.
   In the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board a British
   vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted without any instructions
   from the government, the subject is therefore free from the
   embarrassment which might have resulted if the act had been
   specially directed by us. …

   January 20, 1862.—We have reason to be satisfied with our
   course in the Trent affair. The American people could not have
   been united in a war which, being waged to maintain Captain
   Wilkes's act of force, would have practically been a voluntary
   war against Great Britain. At the same time it would have been
   a war in 1861 against Great Britain for a cause directly the
   opposite of the cause for which we waged war against the same
   power in 1812." In a despatch to Lord Lyons, British Minister,
   Mr. Seward had written: "If I decide this case in favor of my
   own government, I must disavow its most cherished principles,
   and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. The
   country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those
   principles, and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the
   case itself. It will be seen, therefore, that this government
   could not deny the justice of the claim presented to us in
   this respect upon its merits. We are asked to do to the
   British nation just what we have always insisted all nations
   ought to do to us. … By the adjustment of the present case
   upon principles confessedly American, and yet, as I trust,
   mutually satisfactory to both of the nations concerned, a
   question is finally and rightly settled between them, which,
   heretofore exhausting not only all forms of peaceful
   discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more
   than half a century alienated the two countries from each
   other."

      _W. H. Seward,
      To Lord Lyons, December 26, 1861
      (Works, volume 5, Diplomatic History of the War,
      pages 308-309)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Bernard,
      Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain,
      chapter 9._

      _D. M. Fairfax,
      Captain Wilkes's Seizure of Mason and Slidell
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 135-142)._

{3445}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862
(December-March: Virginia).
   Protracted inaction of McClellan.
   His Plan of Campaign and its frustration by
   the rebel evacuation of Centreville.

   "When Congress assembled … in the beginning of December, 1861,
   so successful had been the exertions of the authorities, and
   so zealously had the people responded to their country's call,
   that the consolidated morning reports, furnished your
   committee by the adjutant general of the army, showed that,
   exclusive of the command of General Dix, at Baltimore, the
   army of the Potomac consisted of about 185,000 men. During the
   time this large army had been collecting and organizing,
   nothing of importance had transpired in connexion with it,
   except the closing of the navigation of the Potomac by the
   rebels, which your committee treat of more at length in
   another part of this report, and the melancholy disaster of
   Ball's Bluff, which is made the subject of a separate report.
   The weather during the fall season, and for some weeks after
   the convening of Congress, continued unusually favorable for
   active military operations. As month after month passed
   without anything being done by the army of the Potomac, the
   people became more and more anxious for the announcement that
   the work of preparation had been completed and active
   operations would soon be commenced. From the testimony before
   your committee it appeared that the army of the Potomac was
   well armed and equipped, and had reached a high state of
   discipline by the last of September or the first of October.
   The men were ready and eager to commence active operations.
   The generals in command of the various divisions were opposed
   to going into winter quarters, and the most of them declared
   they had no expectation of doing so. … Your committee
   endeavored to obtain as accurate information, as possible in
   relation to the strength and position of the enemy in front of
   Washington. The testimony of the officers in our army here
   upon that point, however, was far from satisfactory. Early in
   December an order had been issued from headquarters
   prohibiting the commanders in the front from examining any
   persons who should come into our lines from the direction of
   the enemy; but all such persons were to be sent, without
   examination, to the headquarters of the army. Restrictions
   were also placed upon the movements of scouts. The result was,
   that the generals examined appeared to be almost entirely
   ignorant of the force of the enemy opposed to them, having
   only such information as they were allowed to obtain at
   headquarters. The strength of the enemy was variously
   estimated at from 70,000 to 210,000 men. Those who formed the
   highest estimate based their opinion upon information received
   at headquarters. … Subsequent events have proved that the
   force of the enemy was below even the lowest of these
   estimates, and the strength of their fortifications very
   greatly overestimated. Your committee also sought to ascertain
   what number of men could be spared from this army for
   offensive operations elsewhere, assuming that the works of the
   enemy in front were of such a character that it would not be
   advisable to move directly upon them. The estimate of the
   force necessary to be left in and around Washington to act
   entirely on the defensive, to render the capital secure
   against any attack of the enemy, as stated by the witnesses
   examined upon that point, was from 50,000 to 80,000 men,
   leaving 100,000 or upwards that could be used for expeditions
   at other points. … The subject of the obstruction of the
   navigation of the Potomac naturally demanded the consideration
   of your committee. … As was well urged by the Navy Department,
   the whole question amounted simply to this: Would the army
   co-operate with the navy in securing the unobstructed
   navigation of the Potomac, or, by withholding that cooperation
   at that time, permit so important a channel of communication
   to be closed. After repeated efforts, General McClellan
   promised that 4,000 men should be ready at a time named to
   proceed down the river. … The troops did not arrive, and the
   Navy Department was informed of the fact by Captain Craven.
   Assistant Secretary Fox, upon inquiring of General McClellan
   why the troops had not been sent according to agreement, was
   informed by him that his engineers were of the opinion that so
   large a body of troops could not be landed, and therefore he
   had concluded not to send them. Captain Fox replied that the
   landing of the troops was a matter of which the Navy
   Department had charge. … It was then agreed that the troops
   should be sent the next night. Captain Craven was again
   notified, and again had his flotilla in readiness for the
   arrival of the troops. But no troops were sent down at that
   time, nor were any ever sent down for that purpose. Captain
   Fox, in answer to the inquiry of the committee as to what
   reason was assigned for not sending the troops according to
   the second agreement, replied that the only reason, so far as
   he could ascertain, was, that General McClellan feared it
   might bring on a general engagement. … Upon the failure of
   this plan of the Navy Department, the effective vessels of the
   Potomac flotilla left upon the Port Royal expedition. The
   navigation of the river was almost immediately thereafter
   closed, and remained closed until the rebels voluntarily
   evacuated their batteries in the March following, no steps
   having been taken, in the meantime, for reopening
   communication by that route. On the 19th of January, 1862, the
   President of the United States, as commander-in-chief of the
   army and navy, issued orders for a general movement of all the
   armies of the United States, one result of which was the
   series of victories at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, &c., which
   so electrified the country and revived the hopes of every
   loyal man in the land. After this long period of inaction of
   the army of the Potomac, the President of the United States,
   on the 31st of January, 1862, issued the following order: …
   'Ordered, That all the disposable force of the army of the
   Potomac, after providing safely for the defence of Washington,
   be formed into an expedition for the immediate object of
   seizing and occupying a point upon the railroad southwestward
   of what is known as Manassas Junction; all details to be in
   the discretion of the general-in-chief, and the expedition to
   move before or on the 22d day of February next. Abraham
   Lincoln.'

{3446}

   To this order General McClellan wrote an elaborate reply of
   the same date, objecting to the plan therein indicated as
   involving 'the error of dividing our army by a very difficult
   obstacle, (the Occoquan,) and by a distance too great to
   enable the two portions to support each other, should either
   be attacked by the masses of the enemy, while the other is
   held in check.' He then proceeded to argue in favor of a
   movement by way of the Rappahannock or Fortress Monroe, giving
   the preference to the Rappahannock route. He stated that 30
   days would be required to provide the necessary means of
   transportation. He stated that he regarded 'success as
   certain, by all the chances of war,' by the route he proposed,
   while it was 'by no means certain that we can beat them (the
   enemy) at Manassas.' … Your committee have no evidence, either
   oral or documentary, of the discussions that ensued or the
   arguments that were submitted to the consideration of the
   President that led him to relinquish his own line of
   operations and consent to the one proposed by Genera]
   McClellan, except the result of a council of war, held in
   February, 1862. That council, the first, so far as your
   committee have been able to ascertain, ever called by General
   McClellan, and then by direction of the President, was
   composed of twelve generals. … To them was submitted the
   question whether they would indorse the line of operations
   which General McClellan desired to adopt. The result of the
   deliberation was a vote of eight to four in favor of the
   movement by way of Annapolis, and thence down the Chesapeake
   bay, up the Rappahannock, landing at Urbana, and across the
   country to Richmond. The four generals who voted against the
   proposed movement were Generals McDowell, Sumner, Heintzelman,
   and Barnard. General Keyes voted for it with the qualification
   that no change should be made until the enemy were driven from
   their batteries on the Potomac. … Before the movement by way
   of Annapolis could be executed, the enemy abandoned their
   batteries upon the Potomac, and evacuated their position at
   Centreville and Manassas, retiring to the line of the
   Rappahannock. When General McClellan, then in the city of
   Washington, heard that the enemy had evacuated Manassas, he
   proceeded across the river and ordered a general movement of
   the whole army in the direction of the position lately
   occupied by the enemy. The enemy moved on the morning of the
   10th of March, the greater part of it proceeding no further
   than Fairfax Court-House. A small force of the army proceeded
   to Manassas and beyond to the line of the Rappahannock,
   ascertaining that the enemy had retired beyond that river and
   destroyed the railroad bridge across it. … On the 13th of
   March General McClellan convened at Fairfax Court-House a
   council of war, consisting of four of the five commanders of
   army corps, (General Banks being absent,) and informed them
   that he proposed to abandon his plan of movement by way of the
   Rappahannock, and submitted to them instead a plan of movement
   by way of the York and James rivers."

      _Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War,
      37th Congress, 3d session, H. R. Rep.,
      part 1, pages 6-12._

   The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, consisting of
   Senators Wade, Chandler, and Andrew Johnson, and of
   Representatives Gooch, Covode, Julian, and Odell, was
   appointed in December, 1861. This Committee "was for four
   years one of the most important agencies in the country. It
   assumed, and was sustained by Congress in assuming, a great
   range of prerogative. It became a stern and zealous censor of
   both the army and the Government; it called soldiers and
   statesmen before it, and questioned them like refractory
   schoolboys. … It was often hasty and unjust in its judgments,
   but always, earnest, patriotic, and honest. … General
   McClellan and his immediate following treated the committee
   with something like contempt. But the President, with his
   larger comprehension of popular forces, knew that he must take
   into account an agency of such importance; and though he
   steadily defended General McClellan and his deliberateness of
   preparation before the committee, he constantly assured him in
   private that not a moment ought to be lost in getting himself
   in readiness for a forward movement. … December was the fifth
   month that General McClellan had been in command of the
   greatest army ever brought together on this continent. It was
   impossible to convince the country that a longer period of
   preparation was necessary before this army could be led
   against one inferior in numbers, and not superior in
   discipline or equipment. … McClellan reported to the Secretary
   of War, that Johnston's army, at the end of October, numbered
   150,000, and that he would therefore require, to make an
   advance movement with the Army of the Potomac, a force of
   240,000. Johnston's report of that date shows an effective
   total of 41,000 men. … Aware that his army was less than
   one-third as strong as the Union forces, Johnston contented
   himself with neutralizing the army at Washington, passing the
   time in drilling and disciplining his troops, who, according
   to his own account, were seriously in need of it. He could not
   account for the inactivity of the Union army. Military
   operations, he says, were practicable until the end of
   December; but he was never molested."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 9._

   McClellan says, "It certainly was not till late in November,
   1861, that the Army of the Potomac was in any condition to
   move, nor even then were they capable of assaulting entrenched
   positions. By that time the roads had ceased to be practicable
   for the movement of armies, and the experience of subsequent
   years proved that no large operations could be advantageously
   conducted in that region during the winter season. Any success
   gained at that time in front of Washington could not have been
   followed up and a victory would have given us the barren
   possession of the field of battle, with a longer and more
   difficult line of supply during the rest of the winter. If the
   Army of the Potomac had been in condition to move before
   winter, such an operation would not have accorded with the
   general plan I had determined upon after succeeding General
   Scott as general in command of the armies"

      _G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      pages 199-200._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapters 3-4._

      _A. S. Webb,
      The Peninsula
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 3) chapter 2._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      book 5, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      _G. B. McClellan,
      The Peninsular Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 2, pages 160-187)._

      _G. B. McClellan,
      Complete Report._

      _J. G. Barnard,
      The Peninsular Campaign and its Antecedents._

      _J. C. Ropes,
      General McClellan's Plans
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 1)._

{3447}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862
(December-April: Virginia).
   Jackson's first campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Battle of Kernstown.

   "Soon after the battle of Bull Run Stonewall Jackson was
   promoted to major-general, and the Confederate Government
   having on the 21st of October, 1861, organized the Department
   of Northern Virginia, under command of General Joseph E.
   Johnston, it was divided into the Valley District, the Potomac
   District, and Aquia District, to be commanded respectively by
   Major-Generals Jackson, Beauregard, and Holmes," In November,
   Jackson's force was about 10,000 men. "His only movement of
   note in the winter of 1861-62 was an expedition at the end of
   December to Bath and Romney, to destroy the Baltimore and Ohio
   railroad and a dam or two near Hancock, on the Chesapeake and
   Ohio canal. … In March Johnston withdrew from Manassas, and
   General McClellan collected his army of more than 100,000 men
   on the Peninsula. … Jackson's little army in the Valley had
   been greatly reduced during the winter from various causes, so
   that at the beginning of March he did not have over 5,000 men
   of all arms available for the defense of his district, which
   began to swarm with enemies all around its borders,
   aggregating more than ten times his own strength. Having
   retired up the Valley, he learned that the enemy had begun to
   withdraw and send troops to the east of the mountains to
   cooperate with McClellan. This he resolved to stop by an
   aggressive demonstration against Winchester, occupied by
   General Shields, of the Federal army, with a division of 8,000
   to 10,000 men. A little after the middle of March, Jack·son
   concentrated what troops he could, and on the 23d he occupied
   a ridge at the hamlet of Kernstown, four miles south of
   Winchester. Shields promptly attacked him, and a severe
   engagement of several hours ensued, ending in Jackson's
   repulse about dark, followed by an orderly retreat up the
   Valley to near Swift Run Gap in Rockingham county. The pursuit
   was not vigorous nor persistent. Although Jackson retired
   before superior numbers, he had given a taste of his fighting
   qualities that stopped the withdrawal of the enemy's troops
   from the Valley. The result was so pleasing to the Richmond
   government and General Johnston that it was decided to
   reënforce Jackson by sending General Ewell's division to him
   at Swift Run Gap, which reached him about the 1st of May."

      _J. D. Imboden,
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 282-285)._

   "The losses at Kernstown were:
      Union, 118 killed, 450 wounded, 22 missing=590;
      Confederate, 80 killed, 375 wounded, 263 missing=718."

      _N. Kimball,
      Fighting Jackson at Kernstown
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, page 307, footnote)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Gordon,
      Brook Farm to Cedar Mountain,
      chapter 3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863.
   President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.

   On the 27th of April, 1861, President Lincoln issued the
   following order "To the Commanding General, Army of the United
   States"—at that time, General Scott: "You are engaged in
   suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the United
   States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military
   line which is now or which shall be used between the city of
   Philadelphia and the city of Washington you find resistance
   which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas
   corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the
   officer in command at the point at which resistance occurs,
   are authorized to suspend that writ." On the 2d of July,
   another order was issued in exactly the same language, except
   that it gave authority to suspend the writ at "any point on or
   in the vicinity of any military line … between the city of New
   York and the city of Washington." On the 14th of October, a
   third order to General Scott declared: "The military line of
   the United States for the suppression of the insurrection may
   be extended so far as Bangor, Maine. You and any officer
   acting under your authority are hereby authorized to suspend
   the writ of habeas corpus in any place between that place and
   the city of Washington." On the 2d of December a specific
   order to General Halleck, commanding in the Department of
   Missouri, authorized the suspension of the writ within the
   limits of his command; and a similar order, long previously,
   had specially empowered the commander of the forces of the
   United States on the coast of Florida to do the same. On the
   24th of September, 1862, a general proclamation by the
   President subjected to martial law "all rebels and insurgents,
   their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all
   persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia
   drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and
   comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States";
   and suspending the writ of habeas corpus "in respect to all
   persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the
   rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal,
   military prison, or other place of confinement, by any
   military authority, or by the sentence of any court martial or
   military commission." On the 3d of March, 1863, the authority
   of the President to suspend habeas corpus (which some thought
   questionable) was confirmed by act of Congress; and on the
   15th of September in that year another general proclamation
   was issued, referring to the act and declaring a suspension of
   the writ "throughout the United States, in the cases where, by
   the authority of the President of the United States, military,
   naval, and civil officers of the United States, or any of
   them, hold persons under their command, or in their custody,
   either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders or abettors of
   the enemy, or officers, soldiers, or seamen enrolled or
   drafted or mustered or enlisted in, or belonging to, the land
   or naval forces of the United States, or as deserters
   therefrom, or otherwise amenable to military law, or the rules
   and articles of war, or the rules or regulations prescribed
   for the military or naval service by authority of the
   President of the United States; or for resisting a draft, or
   for any other offense against the military or naval service."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 38, 45, 54, 85, 93, 239, 406._

{3448}

   "Whether it is the President or Congress that has power under
   the constitution to suspend the privilege of the writ of
   habeas corpus was a burning question during the civil war. …
   The case of John Merryman … was the first to come up for
   judicial interpretation. Merryman lived near Baltimore, and
   appears to have been suspected of being captain of a secession
   troop, of having assisted in destroying railroads and bridges
   for the purpose of preventing troops from reaching Washington,
   and of obstructing the United States mail. By order of General
   Keim of Pennsylvania he was arrested at night in his own
   house, and taken to Fort McHenry at that time in command of
   General George Cadwallader. Taney, who was then chief justice
   of the United States, granted a habeas corpus, but Cadwallader
   refused to obey it, saying that the privilege had been
   suspended by the President. On the return of the writ, the
   Chief Justice filed an opinion denying that the President had
   any power to suspend habeas corpus and affirming that such
   power rested with Congress alone. Lincoln continued to arrest
   and imprison without any regard to this opinion, and indeed
   was advised by his Attorney-General that he was not bound to
   notice it. … The writ of habeas corpus was … not suspended by
   Congress until the rebellion was half over. In other words,
   Lincoln suspended it for two years of his own accord and
   without authority from anyone; for two years he made arrests
   without warrants and held men in prison as long as he pleased.
   … There are few things in American history more worthy of
   discussion than the power exercised by Lincoln in those two
   years. It was absolute and arbitrary and, if unauthorized, its
   exercise was a tremendous violation of the constitution.
   Whether it was justifiable and necessary is another matter. If
   it was unconstitutional and yet necessary in order to save the
   Union, it shows that the constitution is defective in not
   allowing the government the proper means of protecting itself.
   That Lincoln used this power with discretion and forbearance
   there is no doubt. He was the most humane man that ever
   wielded such authority. He had no taste for tyranny, and he
   knew the temper of the American people. But, nevertheless,
   injustice was sometimes done. His subordinates had not always
   their master's nature."

      _S. G. Fisher,
      The Suspension of Habeas Corpus
      during the War of the Rebellion
      (Political Science Quarterly,
      September, 1888)._

   The view which President Lincoln himself entertained, and
   under which he assumed and exercised authority to suspend the
   writ of habeas corpus, was submitted to Congress in his first
   Message, when it convened in special session, July 4, 1861. He
   said: "Soon after the first call for militia, it was
   considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in
   proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the
   privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to
   arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes
   and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous
   to the public safety. This authority has purposely been
   exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and
   propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and
   the attention of the country has been called to the
   proposition that one who has sworn to 'take care that the laws
   be faithfully executed' should not himself violate them. Of
   course some consideration was given to the questions of power
   and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of
   the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were
   being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one third of
   the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution,
   even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means
   necessary to their execution some single law, made in such
   extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically,
   it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to
   a very limited ex·tent be violated? To state the question more
   directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the
   government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even
   in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the
   government should be overthrown, when it was believed that
   disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it
   was not believed that this question was presented. It was not
   believed that any law was violated. The provision of the
   Constitution that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
   shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or
   invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to
   a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be
   suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public
   safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of
   rebellion, and that the public safety does require the
   qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was
   authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and
   not the executive, is vested with this power. But the
   Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to
   exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for
   a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of
   the instrument intended that in every case the danger should
   run its course until Congress could be called together, the
   very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended
   in this case, by the rebellion. … Whether there shall be any
   legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted
   entirely to the better judgment of Congress."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 59-60._

   Congress gave tacit approval to this view of the President's
   powers by passing no act on the subject until nearly two years
   afterwards, as shown above.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-February: Kentucky—Tennessee).
   The first breaking of the Confederate line.
   Grant's capture of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson.

   "At the beginning of the new year the Union armies were over
   660,000 strong, backed by a fleet of 212 vessels. McClellan
   lay quiet upon the Potomac all winter, drilling, organizing,
   disciplining the Army of the Potomac. In his front was Joe
   Johnston, with a much smaller force, pushing forward with
   equal energy the schooling of his soldiers. The Western
   generals were more active. Albert Sidney Johnston, perhaps the
   most promising Southern officer, was in command in the West,
   with headquarters at Bowling Green. Buell lay in Johnston's
   front, having superseded Sherman, whose 'crazy' suggestion
   that 250,000 men would be required for operations on the
   Western field had lost him the confidence of his superiors.
   There was abundant method in his madness, as time all too
   fully showed. In [Eastern] Kentucky the Confederate Humphrey
   Marshall had been creating more or less political trouble, and
   General Garfield was sent against him with some 2,000 men.
   Marshall somewhat outnumbered Garfield; but in a vigorous
   January campaign [beginning at Paintsville, January 7, and]
   culminating at Prestonburg [January 10], Garfield quite
   dispersed his forces, and drove him into the mountains.

{3449}

   About the same time, Zollicoffer, with some 12,000 men, had
   retreated from his post in advance of Cumberland Gap, where he
   held the extreme right of the Southern line, to Mill Spring,
   in Central Kentucky. General George H. Thomas was charged with
   the duty of disposing of him. With about an equal force Thomas
   promptly moved upon his enemy, and in a sharp action at Mill
   Spring [January 19] utterly broke up his army. He thus early
   showed the rare vigor he afterwards so fully developed.
   Zollicoffer was killed. This first of our substantial western
   victories (called 'Fishing Creek' by the enemy) [and also
   called the battle of Logan Cross Roads by some Union writers]
   was a great encouragement to our arms. Crittenden, who
   succeeded to the command, withdrew his troops across the
   Cumberland, abandoning his artillery and trains. Eastern
   Kentucky was thus freed from the Confederates. Halleck's first
   task as commander of the Western armies was to penetrate the
   Confederate line of defense. This could be done by breaking
   its centre or by turning one of its flanks. The former
   appeared most feasible to Grant, and Commodore Foote, who
   commanded the naval forces. Under instructions from Halleck,
   seven of the gun-boat flotilla, with Grant's 17,000 men in
   reserve, moved up the Tennessee river to attack Fort Henry and
   essay the value of gun-boats in amphibious warfare. Grant
   landed below the fort, and Foote then opened fire upon it.
   Tilghman, in command, foreseeing its capture, was shrewd
   enough to send off the bulk of his force to Fort Donelson. He
   himself made a mock defense with a handful of men,
   surrendering the fort after the garrison was well on its way.
   Without the twin citadel of Donelson [distant about eleven
   miles, southeastwardly, on the Cumberland River], however,
   Fort Henry was but a barren triumph, for no column could
   advance up the Tennessee river while this garrison threatened
   its flank. It was here that Grant earned his first laurels as
   a stanch soldier, by compelling, after a stubborn fight, the
   surrender of this second fortress with its entire garrison.
   Every effort had been made by Johnston to hold the place. He
   must here fight for the possession of Nashville. Fort Donelson
   was strongly fortified and garrisoned. Grant moved against it
   from Fort Henry with 15,000 men; 5,000 less than the enemy.
   The ground is difficult; the troops are green. But
   reinforcements and the fleet come to Grant's assistance. The
   fort is fully invested, under great difficulties from severity
   of weather and the inexperience of the men. Happily there is
   not much ability in the defense. Floyd, the senior officer,
   determines to cut his way out. He falls heavily upon Grant's
   right, held by McClernand and backed by Wallace, thinking to
   thrust them aside from the river and to escape over the road
   so won. A stubborn resistance defeats this sortie, though but
   narrowly. A general assault is ordered, which effects a
   lodgment in the works. Divided responsibilities between Floyd,
   Buckner, and Pillow weaken the defense so as to operate a
   surrender. Our loss was 2,300. The Confederates captured were
   over 15,000 men. These successes broke through the centre of
   the Confederate line, established with so much pains, and
   compromised its flanks. Johnston found that he must retire to
   a new line. This lay naturally along the Memphis and
   Charleston Railroad. He had retreated from Bowling Green on
   receipt of the news of the fall of Fort Henry, and was forced
   thereby to cede to Buell possession of Nashville, and
   practically of Kentucky. The advanced flank on the Mississippi
   at Columbus was likewise compromised, and with the bulk of the
   armament was withdrawn to Island No. 10, some forty miles
   below Cairo. We could congratulate ourselves upon a very
   substantial gain."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 21-23._

      _J. M. Hoppin,
      Life of Rear Admiral Foote,
      chapters 16-18._

      _W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapters 26-28._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 7._

      _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-March: Missouri-Arkansas).
   Expulsion of the Confederates from Missouri.
   Battle of Pea Ridge.

   "Late in December General Samuel R. Curtis took command of
   12,000 National troops at Rolla, and advanced against Price,
   who retreated before him to the northwestern corner of
   Arkansas, where his force was joined by that of General
   McCulloch, and together they took up a position in the Boston
   Mountains. Curtis crossed the line into Arkansas, chose a
   strong place on Pea Ridge, in the Ozark Mountains, intrenched,
   and awaited attack. Because of serious disagreements between
   Price and McCulloch, General Earl Van Dorn, who ranked them
   both, was sent to take command of the Confederate force,
   arriving late in January. There is no authentic statement as
   to the size of his army. He himself declared that he had but
   14,000 men, while no other estimate gave fewer than twice that
   number. Among them was a large body of Cherokee Indians,
   recruited for the Confederate service by Albert Pike, who
   thirty years before had won reputation as a poet. On March 5,
   1862, Van Dorn moved to attack Curtis, who knew of his coming
   and formed his line on the bluffs along Sugar Creek, facing
   southward. His divisions were commanded by Generals Franz
   Sigel and Alexander S. Asboth and Colonels Jefferson C. Davis
   and Eugene A. Carr, and he had somewhat more than 10,000 men
   in line, with 48 guns. The Confederates, finding the position
   too strong in front, made a night march to the west, with the
   intention of striking the Nationals on the right flank. But
   Curtis discovered their movement at dawn, promptly faced his
   line to the right about, and executed a grand left wheel. His
   army was looking westward toward the approaching foe, Carr's
   division being on the right, then Davis, then Asboth, and
   Sigel on the left. But they were not fairly in position when
   the blow fell. Carr was struck most heavily, and, though
   reenforced from time to time, was driven back a mile in the
   course of the day. Davis, opposed to the corps of McCulloch,
   was more successful; that General was killed and his troops
   were driven from the field. In the night Curtis reformed and
   strengthened his lines, and in the morning the battle was
   renewed. This day Sigel executed some brilliant and
   characteristic manœvres. To bring his division into its place
   on the left wing, he pushed a battery forward, and while it
   was firing rapidly its infantry supports were brought up to it
   by a right wheel; this movement was repeated with another
   battery and its supports to the left of the first, and again,
   till the whole division had come into line, pressing back the
   enemy's right.
{3450}
   Sigel was now so far advanced that Curtis's whole line made a
   curve, enclosing the enemy, and by a heavy concentrated
   artillery fire the Confederates were soon driven to the
   shelter of the ravines, and finally put to rout. The National
   loss in this action [called the battle of Elk Horn by the
   Confederates]—killed, wounded, and missing—was over 1,300,
   Carr and Asboth being among the wounded. The Confederate loss
   is unknown. Generals McCulloch and McIntosh were killed, and
   Generals Price and Slack wounded. Owing to the nature of the
   ground, any effective pursuit of Van Dorn's broken forces was
   impracticable."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Baxter,
      Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove._

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 3, pages 56-71._

      _Official Records, series 1,
      volume 8, pages 189-330._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-April: North Carolina).
   Burnside's expedition to Roanoke and
   capture of Newbern and Beaufort.

   "Roanoke Island, lying behind Bodie's Island, the sand-bar
   that shuts off Upper North Carolina from the Atlantic Ocean,
   offers some of the most interesting souvenirs of early
   American history. … As stated by General Wise, to whom its
   defense was intrusted by the Confederate government, it was
   the key to all the rear defenses of Norfolk. It unlocked two
   sounds, eight rivers, four canals, two railroads. It guarded
   more than four fifths of the supplies of Norfolk. The seizure
   of it endangered the subsistence of the Confederate army
   there, threatened the navy yard, interrupted the communication
   between Norfolk and Richmond, and intervened between both and
   the South. … After the capture of Hatteras Inlet in August,
   1861, light-draught steamers, armed with a rifle gun, often
   stealthily came out of these waters to prey upon commerce. …
   An expedition for operating on this part of the North Carolina
   coast was placed under command of General Burnside, who was
   ordered (January 7th, 1862) to unite with Flag-officer
   Goldsborough, in command of the fleet, at Fortress Monroe,
   capture Newbern, seize the Weldon Railroad, and reduce Fort
   Macon. The force consisted of 31 steam gun-boats, some of them
   carrying heavy guns; 11,500 troops, conveyed in 47 transports;
   a fleet of small vessels for the transportation of sixty days'
   supplies. It left Hampton Roads on the night of January 11th,
   and arrived off Hatteras in two days, as a storm was coming
   on. The commander found with dismay that the draught of
   several of his ships was too great to permit them to enter. …
   Some dishonest ship-sellers in New York had, by
   misrepresentation, palmed off on the government unsuitable
   transport vessels, of which several were lost in that
   tempestuous sea. … It was only by the greatest exertion and
   perseverance, and not until a whole fortnight had elapsed,
   that the entrance to Pamlico Sound was completed. The villainy
   that led to this delay gave the Confederates ample time for
   preparation. Not until the end of another week (February 7th)
   had the reorganized expedition gained the entrance to Croatan
   Sound, and worked through its shallow, marshy passes. The
   weather was beautiful by day; there was a bright moonshine at
   night. The gun-boats found a Confederate fleet drawn up behind
   the obstructions, across the channel, near Pork Point. They
   opened fire on the fort at that point. It was returned both
   from the works and the shipping. Meantime troops were being
   landed at Ashby's, a small force, which was attempting to
   resist them, being driven off by the fire of the ships. The
   debarkation went on, though it was raining heavily and night
   had set in. It was continued until 10,000 men had been landed
   on the marsh. Before dark, however, the work at Pork Point had
   been silenced, and the Confederate fleet had retired to Weir's
   Point. … When day broke, Burnside commenced forcing his way up
   the island. He moved in three columns, the central one,
   preceded by a howitzer battery, upon the only road, the right
   and left through the woods. The battery that obstructed this
   road was soon carried, though not without resistance. The men
   had to wade waist-deep in the water of the pond that protected
   it. … Toward Nag's Head the Confederate force, expelled from
   the captured work, attempted to retreat. They were, however,
   overtaken, and the rest of the command on the north of the
   island, 2,500 strong, was compelled to surrender. The
   Confederate fleet was pursued to Elizabeth City, whither it
   had fled, and there destroyed. A large part of the town was
   burned. A portion of the national fleet went into the harbor
   of Edenton and captured that town. Winton, on the Chowan
   River, shared the same fate. Burnside next made an attack
   (March 14th) on Newbern, one of the most important sea-ports
   of North Carolina. As the troops advanced from the place of
   landing, the gun-boats shelled the woods in front of them, and
   thereby cleared the way. A march of 18 miles in a rain-storm,
   and over execrable roads, did not damp the energy of the
   soldiers. … Newbern was captured, and with it 46 heavy guns, 3
   batteries of light artillery, and a large amount of stores.
   Burnside's losses were 90 killed and 466 wounded. Preparations
   were next made for the reduction of Fort Macon, which commands
   the entrance of Beaufort Harbor. On April 25th it was
   bombarded by three steamers and three shore batteries; the
   former, however, in the course of an hour and a half, were
   compelled to withdraw. But the shore batteries, continuing
   their attack, silenced the guns of the garrison, and, in the
   course of the afternoon, compelled the surrender of the fort.
   In connection with this expedition some operations of minor
   importance occurred. … The chief result, however, was the
   closure of the ports and suppression of commerce. General
   Burnside's forces were eventually, for the most part,
   withdrawn. They were taken to Alexandria, and joined the army
   of General Pope."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 59 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapters 8-9._

      _A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 1, chapters 3-5._

      _B. P. Poore,
      Life of Burnside,
      chapters 12-14._

{3451}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(February-April: Georgia-Florida).

   Siege and capture of Fort Pulaski.
   Temporary occupation of Florida.
   Discouragement of Unionists.

   The blockade of Fort Pulaski may be dated from the 22d of
   February. Preparations were then made on Tybee Island to
   bombard it. The most of the work had to be done in the night.
   The work was carried on under the supervision of General
   Gillmore, who was in chief command, and on the 9th of April
   eleven batteries, containing an aggregate of 36 guns, were in
   readiness to open fire. General David Hunter, who had just
   succeeded General Sherman in command of the Department,
   arrived at Tybee on the evening of the 8th. At sunrise, on the
   morning of the 10th, Hunter sent Lieutenant J. H. Wilson to
   the fort, with a summons to the commander of the garrison to
   surrender. The latter refused, saying: "I am here to defend
   this fort, not to surrender it." At a few minutes after eight
   o'clock the batteries opened fire, and at the end of thirty
   hours the garrison surrendered. In reporting the capture,
   General Hunter wrote: "At the end of eighteen hours' firing
   the fort was breached in the southeast angle, and at the
   moment of surrender, 2 p. m. on the 11th instant, we had
   commenced preparations for storming. The whole armament of the
   fort—47 guns, a great supply of fixed ammunition, 40,000
   pounds of powder, and large quantities of commissary stores,
   have fallen into our hands; also 360 prisoners, of whom the
   officers will be sent North by the first opportunity that
   offers. The result of this bombardment must cause, I am
   convinced, a change in the construction of fortifications as
   radical as that foreshadowed in naval architecture by the
   conflict between the Monitor and Merrimac. No works of stone
   or brick can resist the impact of rifled artillery of heavy
   caliber." General Benham, immediately commanding the
   operations, remarked in his report: "This siege is … the first
   trial, at least on our side of the Atlantic, of the modern
   heavy and rifled projectiles against forts erected and
   supposed to be sufficiently strong prior to these inventions,
   almost equaling, as it would appear, the revolution
   accomplished in naval warfare by the iron-clad vessels
   recently constructed." Captain (acting Brigadier-General) Q.
   A. Gillmore, the officer immediately in charge of the works on
   Tybee Island, has given, in a report made in 1865 to the
   Adjutant-General of the United States of America, an account
   of the difficulties under which the batteries which performed
   the chief part in the siege were erected: "Tybee Island is
   mostly a mud marsh, like other marsh islands on this coast.
   Several ridges and hummocks of firm ground, however, exist
   upon it, and the shore of Tybee Roads, where the batteries
   were located, is partially skirted by low sand banks, formed
   by the gradual and protracted action of the wind and tides.
   The distance along this shore from the landing place to the
   advanced batteries is about 2½ miles. The last mile of this
   route, on which the seven most advanced batteries were placed,
   is low and marshy, lies in full view of Fort Pulaski, and is
   within effective range of its guns. The construction of a
   causeway resting on fascines and brush-wood over this swampy
   portion of the line; the erection of the several batteries,
   with the magazines, gun platforms, and splinter-proof
   shelters; the transportation of the heaviest ordnance in our
   service by the labor of men alone; the hauling of ordnance
   stores and engineer supplies, and the mounting of the guns and
   mortars on their carriages and beds had to be done almost
   exclusively at night, alike regardless of the inclemency of
   the weather and of the miasma from the swamps. No one except
   an eye-witness can form any but a faint conception of the
   herculean labor by which mortars of 8½ tons' weight and
   columbiads but a trifle lighter were moved in the dead of
   night over a narrow causeway, bordered by swamps on either
   side, and liable at any moment to be overturned and buried in
   the mud beyond reach. The stratum of mud is about 12 feet
   deep, and on several occasions the heaviest pieces,
   particularly the mortars, became detached from the
   sling-carts, and were with great difficulty, by the use of
   planks and skids, kept from sinking to the bottom. Two hundred
   and fifty men were barely sufficient to move a single piece on
   sling-carts. The men were not allowed to speak above a
   whisper, and were guided by the notes of a whistle. The
   positions selected for the five most advanced batteries were
   artificially screened from view from the fort by a gradual and
   almost imperceptible change, made little by little every
   night, in the condition and appearance of the brush-wood and
   bushes in front of them. No sudden alteration of the outline
   of the landscape was permitted. After the concealment was once
   perfected to such a degree as to afford a good and safe
   parapet behind it less care was taken, and some of the work in
   the batteries requiring mechanical skill was done in the
   daytime, the fatigue parties going to their labor before break
   of day and returning in the evening after dark. … The three
   breaching batteries—Sigel, Scott, and McClellan—were
   established at a mean distance of 1,700 yards from the scarp
   walls of Fort Pulaski. The circumstance, altogether new in the
   annals of sieges, that a practicable breach, which compelled
   the surrender of the work, was made at that distance in a wall
   7½ feet thick, standing obliquely to the line of fire and
   backed by heavy casemate piers and arches, cannot be ignored
   by a simple reference to the time-honored military maxims that
   'Forts cannot sustain a vigorous land attack,' and that 'All
   masonry should be covered from land batteries.'"

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 6, pages 134-135, 155, 161._

   "By this victory, won on the first anniversary of the fall of
   Fort Sumter [April 12], the port of Savannah was sealed
   against blockade-runners. The capture of Fort Jackson above,
   and of the city, would have been of little advantage to the
   Nationals then, for the forces necessary to hold them were
   needed in more important work farther down the coast. While
   Gillmore and Viele were besieging Fort Pulaski, Commodore
   Dupont and General Wright were making easy conquests on the
   coast of Florida." Fort Clinch, on Amelia Island, Fernandina,
   Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and other places, were abandoned
   by the Rebels on the approach of the National forces. But
   these conquests proved rather unfortunate than otherwise. "At
   first, the hopes they inspired in the breasts of the Union
   people developed quite a widespread loyalty. A Union
   convention was called to assemble at Jacksonville on the 10th
   of April, to organize a loyal State Government, when, to the
   dismay of those engaged in the matter, General Wright prepared
   to withdraw his forces, two days before the time when the
   convention was to meet. … In consequence, … very little Union
   feeling was manifested in Florida during the remainder of the
   war."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

{3452}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (February-April: Tennessee).
   The advance up River.
   Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

   "By the end of February, 1862, Major-General Halleck commanded
   all the armies in the valley of the Mississippi, from his
   headquarters in St. Louis. These were, the Army of the Ohio,
   Major-General Buell, in Kentucky; the Army of the Tennessee,
   Major-General Grant, at Forts Henry and Donelson; the Army of
   the Mississippi, Major-General Pope; and that of General S. R.
   Curtis, in Southwest Missouri. He posted his chief of staff,
   General Cullum, at Cairo, and me [General Sherman] at Paducah,
   chiefly to expedite and facilitate the important operations
   then in progress up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. …
   General Buell had also followed up the rebel army, which had
   retreated hastily from Bowling Green to and through Nashville,
   a city of so much importance to the South that it was at one
   time proposed as its capital. Both Generals Grant and Buell
   looked to its capture as an event of great importance. On the
   21st General Grant sent General Smith with his division to
   Clarksville, 50 miles above Donelson, toward Nashville, and on
   the 27th went himself to Nashville to meet and confer with
   General Buell, but returned to Donelson the next day." Orders
   sent by General Halleck to Grant did not reach the latter, and
   a supposed disobedience occurred which caused him to be
   hastily relieved from his command, which was transferred to
   General C. F. Smith, on the 4th of March. Halleck's purpose
   "was evidently to operate up the Tennessee River, to break up
   Bear Creek Bridge and the railroad communications between the
   Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers, and no doubt he was provoked
   that Generals Grant and Smith had turned aside to Nashville.
   In the mean time several of the gunboats, under Captain
   Phelps, United States Navy, had gone up the Tennessee as far
   as Florence, and on their return had reported a strong Union
   feeling among the people along the river. On the 10th of
   March, having received the necessary orders from General
   Halleck, I embarked my division at Paducah. … I … steamed up
   the Tennessee River, following the two gunboats, and, in
   passing Pittsburg Landing, was told by Captain Gwin that, on
   his former trip up the river, he had found a rebel regiment of
   cavalry posted there, and that it was the usual landing-place
   for the people about Corinth, distant 30 miles. I sent word
   back to General Smith that, if we were detained up the river,
   he ought to post some troops at Pittsburg Landing. We went on
   up the river cautiously, till we saw Eastport and Chickasaw,
   both of which were occupied by rebel batteries and a small
   rebel force of infantry. We then dropped back quietly to the
   mouth of Yellow River, a few miles below," where the troops
   were landed and an attempt made to push out and destroy the
   Memphis and Charleston railroad; but heavy rains had so
   swollen all the streams that the expedition was foiled and
   returned. "Once more embarked, I concluded to drop down to
   Pittsburg Landing, and to make the attempt from there. During
   the night of the 14th, we dropped down to Pittsburg Landing,
   where I found Hurlbut's division in boats. Leaving my command
   there, I steamed down to Savannah, and reported to General
   Smith in person, who saw in the flooded Tennessee the full
   truth of my report; and he then instructed me to disembark my
   own division, and that of General Hurlbut, at Pittsburg
   Landing; to take positions well back, and to leave room for
   his whole army; telling me that he would soon come up in
   person, and move out in force to make the lodgment on the
   railroad, contemplated by General Halleck's orders. … Within a
   few days, Prentiss's division arrived and camped on my left,
   and afterward McClernand's and W. H. L. Wallace's divisions,
   which formed a line to our rear. Lew Wallace's division
   remained on the north side of Snake Creek, on a road leading
   from Savannah or Crump's Landing to Purdy. General C. F. Smith
   remained back at Savannah, in chief command, and I was only
   responsible for my own division. I kept pickets well out on
   the roads, and made myself familiar with all the ground inside
   and outside my lines. … We were all conscious that the enemy
   was collecting at Corinth, but in what force we could not
   know, nor did we know what was going on behind us. On the 17th
   of March, General U. S. Grant was restored to the command of
   all the troops up the Tennessee River, by reason of General
   Smith's extreme illness, and because he had explained to
   General Halleck satisfactorily his conduct after Donelson; and
   he too made his headquarters at Savannah, but frequently
   visited our camps. … From about the 1st of April we were
   conscious that the rebel cavalry in our front was getting
   bolder and more saucy. … On Sunday morning, the 6th, early,
   there was a good deal of picket-firing, and I got breakfast,
   rode out along my lines, … and saw the rebel lines of battle
   in front coming down on us as far as the eye could reach. All
   my troops were in line of battle, ready, and the ground was
   favorable to us. … In a few minutes the battle of 'Shiloh'
   began with extreme fury, and lasted two days. … Probably no
   single battle of the war gave rise to such wild and damaging
   reports. It was publicly asserted at the North that our army
   was taken completely by surprise; that the rebels caught us in
   our tents; bayoneted the men in their beds; that General Grant
   was drunk; that Buell's opportune arrival saved the Army of
   the Tennessee from utter annihilation, etc. These reports were
   in a measure sustained by the published opinions of Generals
   Buell, Nelson, and others, who had reached the
   steamboat-landing from the east, just before nightfall of the
   6th, when there was a large crowd of frightened, stampeded
   men, who clamored and declared that our army was all destroyed
   and beaten. Personally I saw General Grant, who with his staff
   visited me about 10 A. M. of the 6th, when we were desperately
   engaged. But we had checked the headlong assault of our enemy,
   and then held our ground. This gave him great satisfaction,
   and he told me that things did not look as well over on the
   left. … He came again just before dark, and described the last
   assault made by the rebels at the ravine, near the
   steamboat-landing, which he had repelled by a heavy battery
   collected under Colonel J. D. Webster and other officers, and
   he was convinced that the battle was over for that day. He
   ordered me to be ready to assume the offensive in the morning,
   saying that, as he had observed at Fort Donelson at the crisis
   of the battle, both sides seemed defeated, and whoever assumed
   the offensive was sure to win.
{3453}
   General Grant also explained to me that General Buell had
   reached the bank of the Tennessee River opposite Pittsburg
   Landing, and was in the act of ferrying his troops across at
   the time he was speaking to me. About half an hour afterward
   General Buell himself rode up to where I was. … Buell said
   that Nelson's, McCook's, and Crittenden's divisions of his
   army, containing 18,000 men, had arrived and could cross over
   in the night, and be ready for the next day's battle. I argued
   that with these reënforcements we could sweep the field. Buell
   seemed to mistrust us, and repeatedly said that he did not
   like the looks of things, especially about the boat-landing,
   and I really feared he would not cross over his army that
   night, lest he should become involved in our general disaster.
   … Buell did cross over that night, and the next day we assumed
   the offensive and swept the field, thus gaining the battle
   decisively. Nevertheless, the controversy was started and kept
   up, mostly to the personal prejudice of General Grant, who as
   usual maintained an imperturbable silence. … Beauregard [who
   took the rebel command after General Albert Sidney Johnston
   fell in the first day's battle afterward reported his entire
   loss as 10,699. Our aggregate loss, made up from official
   statements, shows 1,700 killed, 7,495 wounded, 3,022
   prisoners; aggregate, 12,217, of which 2,167 were in Buell's
   army, leaving for that of Grant 10,050. This result is a fair
   measure of the amount of fighting done by each army. … The
   battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing, was one of the most
   fiercely contested of the war. On the morning of April 6,
   1862, the five divisions of McClernand, Prentiss, Hurlbut, W.
   H. L. Wallace, and Sherman, aggregated about 32,000 men. We
   had no intrenchments of any sort, on the theory that as soon
   as Buell arrived we would march to Corinth to attack the
   enemy. The rebel army, commanded by General Albert Sidney
   Johnston, was, according to their own reports and admissions,
   45,000 strong."

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs, 4th edition,
      chapter 10 (volume 1);
      or 1st edition, chapter 9 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 23-25._

      _W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapters 30-35._

      _U. S. Grant, D. C. Buell, and others,
      Shiloh
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 10._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
   President Lincoln's proposal of Compensated Emancipation
   approved by Congress.

   On the 6th of March President Lincoln addressed to Congress
   the following Special Message: "Fellow-citizens of the Senate
   and House of Representatives: I recommend the adoption of a
   joint resolution by your honorable bodies, which shall be
   substantially as follows: Resolved, That the United States
   ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt gradual
   abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to
   be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for
   the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such
   change of system. If the proposition contained in the
   resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the
   country, there is the end; but if it does command such
   approval, I deem it of importance that the States and people
   immediately interested should be at once distinctly notified
   of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to
   accept or reject it. The Federal Government would find its
   highest interest in such a measure, as one of the most
   efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the
   existing insurrection entertain the hope that this government
   will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of
   some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave
   States north of such part will then say, 'The Union for which
   we have struggled being already gone, we now choose to go with
   the Southern section.' To deprive them of this hope
   substantially ends the rebellion; and the initiation of
   emancipation completely deprives them of it as to all the
   States initiating it. The point is not that all the States
   tolerating slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate
   emancipation; but that while the offer is equally made to all,
   the more Northern shall, by such initiation, make it certain
   to the more Southern that in no event will the former ever
   join the latter in their proposed confederacy. I say
   'initiation' because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden
   emancipation is better for all. In the mere financial or
   pecuniary view, any member of Congress, with the census tables
   and treasury reports before him, can readily see for himself
   how very soon the current expenditures of this war would
   purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named
   State. Such a proposition on the part of the General
   Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal authority to
   interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it
   does, the absolute control of the subject in each case to the
   State and its people immediately interested. It is proposed as
   a matter of perfectly free choice with them. In the annual
   message, last December, I thought fit to say, 'The Union must
   be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be
   employed.' I said this not hastily, but deliberate]y. War has
   been made, and continues to be, an indispensable means to this
   end. A practical reacknowledgment of the national authority
   would render the war unnecessary, and it would at once cease.
   If, however, resistance continues, the war must also continue;
   and it is impossible to foresee all the incidents which may
   attend and all the ruin which may follow it. Such as may seem
   indispensable, or may obviously promise great efficiency,
   toward ending the struggle, must and will come. The
   proposition now made, though an offer only, I hope it may be
   esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration
   tendered would not be of more value to the States and private
   persons concerned than are the institution and property in it,
   in the present aspect of affairs? While it is true that the
   adoption of the proposed resolution would be merely
   initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it is
   recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important
   practical results. In full view of my great responsibility to
   my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of
   Congress and the people to the subject. Abraham Lincoln,
   Washington, March 6, 1862."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 129-130._

{3454}

   "Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, having moved and carried a
   reference of this Message by the House to a Committee of the
   Whole on the State of the Union, and Mr. R. Conkling, of New
   York, having moved the resolve above recommended, a debate
   sprung up thereon; which is notable only as developing the
   repugnance of the Unionists of the Border Slave States, with
   that of the Democrats of all the States, to compensated or any
   other Emancipation. … It passed the House by 89 Yeas
   (Republicans, West Virginians, and a few others not strictly
   partisans) to 31 Nays." On the 2d of April, the resolution
   passed the Senate, by 32 Yeas to 10 Nays. "The President of
   course approved the measure; but no single Slave State ever
   claimed its benefits; and its only use inhered in its
   demonstration of the willingness of the Unionists to increase
   their already heavy burdens to pay for the slaves of the
   Border States—a willingness which the infatuation of the
   ruling class in those States rendered abortive."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 23._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
   The Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac.

   "In August 1861 the Northern States had determined to obtain
   ironclad steam vessels, and at the end of that month Ericsson
   offered to construct in a few months a vessel which would
   destroy the rebel squadron. A board of officers was appointed
   to consider plans proposed, and in September it recommended
   that a vessel on Ericsson's design should be built. She was
   commenced in October, launched on January 30th, 1862, and
   completed on February 15th, 1862. The design provided for a
   hull not more than 2 ft. above the water, and with a flat
   bottom, that the draught might not exceed 10 ft. The sides, to
   a short distance below the water line, were protected with
   4-in. plates. In the centre of the deck was built a circular
   turret, revolving on a central spindle, and protected with 8
   in. of iron. Inside the turret were mounted two 11-in. smooth
   bore guns, pointing through port holes. They could thus fire
   in any direction without turning the vessel, an obvious
   advantage not only on the open sea but especially in narrow
   waters, for which she was more intended. Such was the famous
   'Monitor,' a name given by Ericsson to his creation to
   admonish the leaders of the Southern Rebellion, and to be also
   a monitor to the Lords of the Admiralty in England, suggesting
   to them doubts as to the propriety of their building four
   broadside ironclads at three and a half million dollars each."

      _S. Eardley-Wilmot,
      The Development of Navies,
      chapter 4._

   "While the Secretary of the Navy was urging forward the
   construction of the first iron-clads, it was known that the
   rebel government was making great exertions in the same
   direction. Iron-clad vessels were under way at New Orleans,
   Charleston, and at some other points, while at Norfolk the
   Merrimack [the old frigate of that name, roofed slopingly with
   railroad iron, was very near completion in the winter of
   1861-62.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1861 (APRIL)
      ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

   The formidable character of this mailed frigate constrained
   the Government to make every effort to complete the Monitor
   [the first of the turreted iron-clads, invented by John C.
   Ericsson] in season to meet her whenever she should come out;
   and it is stated that information obtained by a rebel spy of
   the state of forwardness in which the Monitor was, induced the
   rebels to put a double force upon their frigate, so that she
   might be able to attack our fleet in Hampton Roads before the
   Monitor's arrival, and, if possible, also to make a raid upon
   Washington or the Northern cities. This extra labor, it is
   said, gained the one day in which the Merrimack destroyed the
   Cumberland and Congress. … The Monitor, commanded by
   Lieutenant John L. Worden, reached the scene of late disaster
   to our cause, and of her coming triumph, on the 8th of March,
   at 9 o'clock P. M., and Lieutenant Worden reported for orders
   to Captain Marston, the commander of the Roanoke. The
   Minnesota, one of our noblest frigates, the Roanoke of the
   same class, but partially disabled, the frigate Congress, and
   the sloop Cumberland, had been stationed at the mouth of the
   James River to watch for, to engage, and, if possible,
   destroy, capture, or stop the expected rebel iron-clad frigate
   then ready for sea at Norfolk. These vessels carried very
   heavy batteries, and it was hoped that they would be able to
   cope with the Merrimack. How vain such an expectation was, her
   first day's operations fully and sadly demonstrated. It is
   probably no exaggeration to say that she would have destroyed
   easily, and without any material damage to herself, every
   wooden ship then in our Navy, had they been within her reach,
   and with none but themselves to oppose her."

      _C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      chapter 21._

   "Such was the state of affairs when the Monitor arrived at
   Hampton Roads, that the sturdy commanders trembled in face of
   the coming day, and all was silence and gloom. The
   sloop-of-war Cumberland, having a crew of 300 men, and
   mounting 24 guns, now lay on the bottom with only her
   top-gallant masts and pennant above the water, marking the
   spot where 117 mangled bodies lay buried beneath the waves.
   The Congress, a 50-gun frigate, had also met her destruction,
   and now lay on shore with the flames kindled by hot shot of
   the Merrimac sweeping out her hull. The Roanoke and Minnesota,
   steam frigates of 40 guns each, the pride of the navy and the
   most perfect of any men-of-war of the period, laid hard and
   fast on shore, with broken machinery and as powerless as if
   they had been unarmed. The capture or entire destruction of
   the Federal fleet at Hampton Roads and the escape of the
   Merrimac and the rebel cruisers seemed inevitable." Arriving
   in the evening of the 8th, the Monitor anchored near the
   frigate Minnesota at Newport News. "At half-past five in the
   morning all hands were called, and the ship was immediately
   cleared of her sea-rig and got ready for battle. … At
   half-past seven o'clock a long line of black smoke was seen,
   preceded by the steamers Jamestown, Patrick Henry and Teazer.
   It was the signal for battle. The crews of the different
   vessels stood by their guns, fuzes in hands. The Monitor
   steamed slowly from beneath the bows of the Minnesota, where
   she had been partly concealed, to meet the challenger in an
   open field. It was alike an astonishment to the rebels and our
   own people; neither had seen her when she arrived, and many
   were the conjectures of what it could be. Some said a huge
   water tank; others an infernal machine; none that she had
   guns, and not till they saw steam rise from her deck did they
   think she had power to move herself. … The Merrimac stopped
   her engines, as if to survey and wonder at the audacity of the
   nondescript. The Monitor was approaching on her starboard bow.
{3455}
   Then, as if seized with impulsive rage, and as if a huge
   breath would waft her enemy away, the Merrimac poured a
   broadside of solid shot at her. For an instant she was
   enveloped in smoke, and people who were looking on held their
   breath in doubt of seeing the Monitor again. It was a moment
   of great suspense. Then as a gentle breeze swept over the
   scene the Monitor appeared. At this instant the flash of her
   own guns was seen, and then their report, louder than any
   cannon that had ever been heard, thundered across the sea. It
   seemed to jar the very earth, and the iron scales of the
   invincible crumbled and cracked from their fastenings. One on
   board the Merrimac at this time has told me that, though at
   first entirely confident of victory, consternation took hold
   of them all. 'D-n it!' said one, 'the thing is full of guns!'
   The enthusiasm at this moment among the thousand of civilians
   and soldiers, who lined the shore to witness the fight, was
   beyond description and their own control. Such a spontaneous
   burst of cheers was never before heard. Men were frantic with
   joy. The Monitor continued her approach, reserving fire that
   every shot might take effect, until she came parallel with the
   Merrimac, but heading in the opposite direction. In this way
   they passed slowly within a few yards of each other, both
   delivering and receiving the other's fire. … Captain Worden
   headed again towards the Merrimac with renewed confidence and
   engaged her at close quarters. Again they joined in close
   combat, the Monitor lying bow on, at times touching, both
   delivering their fire as rapidly as possible. At the same time
   the marines on the Merrimac poured an incessant fire of
   musketry at the peek-holes about the pilot-house and turret.
   The speed of the two vessels was about equal, but the light
   draught of the Monitor gave her an advantage. The rebels
   finding that they could make nothing of the invulnerable
   cheese-box, as they called her, and foiled and maddened at the
   loss of their coveted prize, turned towards the Minnesota,
   determined, if possible, to destroy her. The Merrimac went
   head on and received a full broadside of the Minnesota. Fifty
   solid nine-inch shot struck square. Any wooden vessel that
   ever floated would have gone to pieces under such a fire. The
   Merrimac was unharmed. She returned the fire with her forward
   rifle guns. One shell passed through four rooms, tearing away
   partitions and setting the ship on tire. Another passed
   through the boiler of the steamer Dragon which lay alongside,
   blowing her up and killing and wounding 17 men. Before a third
   was fired the Monitor interposed, compelling the Merrimac to
   change her position. The two combatants then made a complete
   circle in their endeavors to get a favorable position, each
   seeking to discharge a broadside into some vital part. The
   Merrimac then turned sharp and made a plunge towards the
   Minnesota, but Worden was vigilant, and crossed the stern of
   the Merrimac, sending two solid shot into her. To get back
   again between her and the Minnesota, the Monitor had almost to
   cross her bow. The Merrimac steamed up quickly, and finding
   that the Monitor would be struck with her prow Worden sheered
   towards the enemy's stern, avoiding a direct blow, and, as
   they came into collision, each vessel delivered a broadside
   into the other. At this point a shell from the Merrimac struck
   the pilot-house exactly over the peek-hole through which
   Captain Worden was looking. The shell exploding, filled his
   face and eyes with powder and fragments of iron, utterly
   blinding and for a time rendering him unconscious. Lieutenant
   Greene, who had been in charge of the turret division,
   immediately left the guns and spent full thirty minutes
   nursing the wounded commander, during which time the gunners
   shotted the guns, and, as the Merrimac was turning away,
   discharged them at close range into her stern, a blow that
   made her whole frame shudder and seemed at once to be fatal.
   There was no officer to direct the movements of the vessel
   except the pilot Howard. As the two combatants parted from the
   struggle they were headed in opposite directions, both away
   from their goal. Presuming that the fight would be continued,
   Pilot Howard ran the vessel a short distance down the channel
   and turning brought her again close to the protection of the
   Minnesota, when Lieutenant Greene stepped into the pilot-house
   and assumed command. It was then observed that the Merrimac
   had taken the channel and was heading towards Norfolk. She was
   soon joined by her consorts, and taken up to their refuge
   under the batteries of Craney Island, the Merrimac apparently
   sagging down astern. Thus ended the greatest naval battle of
   the world. … The only perceptible danger to those on board the
   Monitor, after the first round from the Merrimac, was to those
   in the turret, who were in great danger from the flying of
   bolt heads driven with great force across the turret, and from
   the concussion, which would for a time paralyze a man if he
   should in any way be in contact with the turret when struck by
   a shot."

      _F. B. Butts,
      The Monitor and the Merrimac
      (Soldiers' and Sailors' Historical Society of Rhode Island,
      Fourth series, Number 6)._

   "The engagement in Hampton Roads on the 8th of March, 1862,
   between the Confederate iron-clad Virginia, or the Merrimac,
   as she is known at the North, and the United States wooden
   fleet, and that on the 9th, between the Virginia and the
   Monitor, was, in its results, in some respects the most
   momentous naval conflict ever witnessed. No battle was ever
   more widely discussed or produced a greater sensation. It
   revolutionized the navies of the world. … Rams and iron-clads
   were in future to decide all naval warfare. In this battle old
   things passed away, and the experience of a thousand years of
   battle and breeze was forgotten. The naval supremacy of
   England vanished in the smoke of this fight, only to reappear
   some years later more commanding than ever. The effect of the
   news was best described by the London 'Times,' which said:
   'Whereas we had available for immediate purposes 149
   first-class war-ships: we have now two, these two being the
   Warrior and her sister Ironside. There is not now a ship in
   the English navy apart from these two that it would not be
   madness to trust to an engagement with that little Monitor.'
   The Admiralty at once proceeded to reconstruct the navy. … The
   same results were produced in France, which had but one
   sea-going iron-clad, La Gloire, and this one, like the
   Warrior, was only protected amidships. … And so with all the
   maritime powers. In this race the United States took the lead,
   and at the close of the war led all the others in the numbers
   and efficiency of its iron-clad fleet. … Our loss [that is,
   the Confederate loss on the Virginia, or Merrimac, in the
   first day's battle, with the wooden ships] in killed and
   wounded was 21.
{3456}
   The armor was hardly damaged, though at one time our ship was
   the focus on which were directed at least 100 heavy guns
   afloat and ashore. But nothing outside escaped. … We slept at
   our guns, dreaming of other victories in the morning. But at
   daybreak we discovered, lying between us and the Minnesota, a
   strange-looking craft, which we knew at once to be Ericsson's
   Monitor, which had long been expected in Hampton Roads, and of
   which, from different sources, we had a good idea. She could
   not possibly have made her appearance at a more inopportune
   time for us, changing our plans, which were to destroy the
   Minnesota, and then the remainder of the fleet below Fortress
   Monroe. She appeared but a pigmy compared with the lofty
   frigate which she guarded. But in her size was one great
   element of her success. … After an early breakfast, we got
   under way and steamed out toward the enemy, opening fire from
   our bow pivot, and closing in to deliver our starboard
   broadside at short range, which was returned promptly from her
   11-inch guns. Both vessels then turned and passed again still
   closer. The Monitor was firing every seven or eight minutes,
   and nearly every shot struck. Our ship was working worse and
   worse, and after the loss of the smoke-stack, Mr. Ramsay,
   chief engineer, reported that the draught was so poor that it
   was with great difficulty he could keep up steam. Once or
   twice the ship was on the bottom. Drawing 22 feet of water, we
   were confined to a narrow channel, while the Monitor, with
   only 12 feet immersion, could take any position, and always
   have us in range of her guns. … Several times the Monitor
   ceased firing, and we were in hopes she was disabled, but the
   revolution again of her turret and the heavy blows of her
   11-inch shot on our sides soon undeceived us. … Lieutenant
   Jones now determined to run her down or board her. For nearly
   an hour we manœuvred for a position. … The ship was as
   unwieldy as Noah's Ark. … And so, for six or more hours, the
   struggle was kept up. At length, the Monitor withdrew over the
   middle ground where we could not follow. … The battle was a
   drawn one, so far as the two vessels engaged were concerned.
   But in its general results the advantage was with the
   Monitor."

      _J. T. Wood,
      The First Fight of Iron Clads
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1, pages 692-711)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Ericsson,
      The Building of the Monitor
      (Battles and Leaders. volume 1, pages 730-744)._

      _W. C. Church,
      Life of John Ericsson,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 1)._

      _Gideon Welles,
      The First Iron-Clad Monitor
      (Annals of the War by leading Participants),
      page 17._

      _C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      chapter 21._

   On the evacuation of Norfolk by the Confederates, in May,
   1862, the Merrimac was destroyed. The following December the
   Monitor went down in a storm at sea, while on her way to
   Charleston, and only a few of her crew were saved.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
   Amendment of the Military Code.
   Officers forbidden to surrender fugitive Slaves.

   "As the formal orders of the government regarding the
   treatment of slaves who sought refuge near the armies were not
   always executed, Congress determined to give them a legal
   sanction; and on the 25th of February and the 13th of March
   both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduced a
   new article in the military code, prohibiting officers, at the
   risk of dismissal, from interfering to restore fugitive slaves
   to their masters. Notwithstanding the powers with which the
   government was thus armed, great difficulty was experienced in
   applying this law in those regiments whose commanders openly
   professed their sympathies in favor of slavery."

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, page 733._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(March-April: On the Mississippi).
   New Madrid and Island No. 10.

   On the surrender of Fort Donelson to General Grant, Columbus,
   on the Mississippi, was hastily abandoned by the rebels, who
   fell back to Island Number Ten, thirty miles below, where
   strong works had been erected. These it was hoped would
   command the passage of the river. "Following the course of the
   Mississippi, this island is about ten miles above New Madrid,
   Missouri, which is 79 miles below Cairo; but on account of a
   long bend in the river … the island is really further south
   than New Madrid. New Madrid is at the most northerly part of
   the bend, and its guns were so placed as to be able to fire at
   vessels coming either way. Besides Fort Thompson, named after
   Jeff Thompson, it was defended by several batteries and by six
   gunboats, mounting heavy guns, which had come up the river
   from New Orleans and were under the command of Commodore
   Hollins. … As the land around New Madrid is very flat, these
   gunboats could fire upon troops approaching the place by land.
   On the same day when the flag of the Union was hoisted over
   the deserted works of the Confederates at Columbus [March 4],
   a Union army under General John Pope, who had been commanding
   in eastern Missouri, appeared before New Madrid. Seeing that
   he could do but little with his field artillery, he sent to
   Cairo for heavy guns; and while waiting for these he built a
   battery at Point Pleasant, about ten miles below New Madrid,
   so as to blockade the river at that place and prevent supplies
   from being sent up to the town. Meanwhile the Confederates
   strengthened their works and reinforced the garrison with men
   from Island Number Ten, while their fleet of gunboats was
   increased to nine. Four heavy guns were sent from Bird's Point
   to General Pope by the Cairo and Fulton Railway, which brought
   them within 20 miles of where they were wanted. … On the night
   of March 12 a thousand spades were at work within half a mile
   of Fort Thompson, and at daylight the guns were in position
   ready for action. Pope opened a cannonade at once on the
   gunboats and on Fort Thompson, both of which replied
   vigorously. The fight raged all day long; several of the gun
   boats were disabled and the Union army was gradually shutting
   in the Confederates on the land side, when their commander,
   General McCown, seeing the danger of capture, left the place
   in the night, during a heavy thunder-storm, and removed all
   his troops to Island Number Ten. … General Pope lost 51 men in
   killed and wounded during the day's bombardment; the loss of
   the Confederates is not known, but is thought to have been
   more than a hundred. About the time of the capture of New
   Madrid, Commodore Foote sailed from Cairo with a fleet of
   seven iron-clad gunboats, one wooden gunboat, and ten
   mortar-boats, for the purpose of aiding General Pope in the
   attack on Island Number Ten. He came in sight of the island on
   Saturday, March 15, and on the next morning opened the
   bombardment with the rifled guns of the Benton, his flag-ship.
{3457}
   The mortar-boats, moored at convenient places along the shore,
   soon took part in the firing, and rained bombs into the
   Confederate works. … Commodore Foote kept up the bombardment
   for many days, without doing much damage to the Confederate
   works. But while he kept the enemy busy, General Pope had been
   engaged in digging a canal across the swampy peninsula formed
   by the bend of the river, so that vessels could go through to
   New Madrid without having to pass Island Number Ten. … A large
   number of men were employed, and after nineteen days of hard
   labor a channel deep enough for light-draught vessels was cut
   through. In the night of April 1 a few men from the gunboats,
   aided by some of Pope's soldiers, landed on the Kentucky
   shore, opposite Island Number Ten, took one of the batteries
   by surprise and spiked its six guns. … A few nights afterward
   the Carondelet [gunboat] ran safely by all the batteries at
   midnight, during a heavy thunderstorm. … Two nights afterward
   the Pittsburgh, another gunboat, performed the same feat, with
   the same good fortune; and a few days later the Confederates
   were astonished to see a fleet of transports laden with troops
   and several floating batteries join the gunboats at New
   Madrid. … The gunboats soon silenced the one-gun batteries on
   the opposite side of the river below New Madrid," and the
   Confederates, attempting to escape, were intercepted and
   captured (April 7), both those on the mainland and those on
   the Island.

      _J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 16._

   Said General Pope in his report: "It is almost impossible to
   give a correct account of the immense quantity of artillery,
   ammunition, and supplies of every description which fell into
   our hands. Three generals, 273 field and company officers,
   6,700 privates, 123 pieces of heavy artillery, 35 pieces of
   field artillery (all of the very best character and latest
   patterns), 7,000 stand of small-arms, tents for 12,000 men,
   several wharf-boat loads of provisions, an immense quantity of
   ammunition of all kinds, many hundred horses and mules, with
   wagons and harness, &c., are among the spoils. Very few, if
   any, of the enemy escaped, and only by wading and swimming
   through the swamps. The conduct of the troops was splendid
   throughout, as the results of this operation and its whole
   progress very plainly indicate. We have crossed this great
   river, the banks of which were lined with batteries and
   defended by 7,000 men. We have pursued and captured the whole
   force of the enemy and all his supplies and material of war,
   and have again recrossed and reoccupied the camps at New
   Madrid, without losing a man or meeting with any accident.
   Such results bespeak efficiency, good conduct, high
   discipline, and soldierly deportment of the best character far
   more conclusively than they can be exhibited in pitched battle
   or the storming of fortified places."

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 8._

   "In the years since 1862, Island No. 10 … has disappeared. The
   river, constantly wearing at its upper end, has little by
   little swept away the whole. … On the other shore a new No. 10
   has risen."

      _A. T. Mahan,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Gulf and Inland Waters,
      chapter 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March-May: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign.
   McClellan before Yorktown.

   "When Manassas had been abandoned by the enemy [see UNITED
   STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (December-March: Virginia)]
   and he had withdrawn behind the Rapidan, the Urbana movement
   lost much of its promise, as the enemy was now in position to
   reach Richmond before we could do so. The alternative remained
   of making Fort Monroe and its vicinity the base of operations.
   The plan first adopted was to commence the movement with the
   First Corps as a unit, to land north of Gloucester and move
   thence on West Point; or, should circumstances render it
   advisable, to land a little below Yorktown to turn the
   defenses between that place and Fort Monroe. The Navy
   Department were confident that we could rely upon their
   vessels to neutralize the Merrimac and aid materially in
   reducing the batteries on the York River. … As transports
   arrived very slowly, especially those for horses, and the
   great impatience of the Government grew apace, it became
   necessary to embark divisions as fast as vessels arrived, and
   I decided to land them at Fort Monroe, holding the First Corps
   to the last, still intending to move it in mass to turn
   Gloucester. On the 17th of March the leading division embarked
   at Alexandria. The campaign was undertaken with the intention
   of taking some 145,000 troops, to be increased by a division
   of 10,000 drawn from the troops in the vicinity of Fort
   Monroe. … On the 12th of March I learned that there had
   appeared in the daily papers the order relieving me from the
   general command of all the armies and confining my authority
   to the Department of the Potomac. I had received no previous
   intimation of the intention of the Government in this respect.
   … On my arrival at Fort Monroe on the 2d of April, I found
   five divisions of infantry, Sykes's brigade of regulars, two
   regiments of cavalry, and a portion of the reserve artillery
   disembarked. Another cavalry regiment and a part of a fourth
   had arrived, but were still on shipboard; comparatively few
   wagons had come. … The best information obtainable represented
   the Confederate troops around Yorktown as numbering at least
   15,000, with about an equal force at Norfolk; and it was clear
   that the army lately at Manassas, now mostly near
   Gordonsville, was in position to be thrown promptly to the
   Peninsula. … On my arrival at Fort Monroe I learned, in an
   interview with Flag-Officer Goldsborough, that he could not
   protect the James as a line of supply, and that he could
   furnish no vessels to take an active part in the reduction of
   the batteries at York and Gloucester or to run by and gain
   their rear. He could only aid in the final attack after our
   land batteries had essentially silenced their fire. I thus
   found myself with 53,000 men in condition to move, faced by
   the conditions of the problem just stated. Information was
   received that Yorktown was already being reenforced from
   Norfolk, and it was apprehended that the main Confederate army
   would promptly follow the same course. I therefore determined
   to move at once with the force in hand, and endeavor to seize
   a point—near the Halfway House—between Yorktown and
   Williamsburg, where the Peninsula is reduced to a narrow neck,
   and thus cut off the retreat of the Yorktown garrison and
   prevent the arrival of reenforcements.
{3458}
   The advance commenced on the morning of the 4th of April, and
   was arranged to turn successively the intrenchments on the two
   roads; the result being that, on the afternoon of the 5th, the
   Third Corps was engaged with the enemy's outposts in front of
   Yorktown and under the artillery fire of the place. The Fourth
   Corps came upon Lee's Mills and found it covered by the
   unfordable line of the Warwick, and reported the position so
   strong as to render it impossible to execute its orders to
   assault. Thus all things were brought to a stand-still, and
   the intended movement on the Halfway House could not be
   carried out. Just at this moment came a telegram, dated the
   4th, informing me that the First Corps [McDowell's] was
   withdrawn from my command. Thus, when too deeply committed to
   recede, I found that another reduction of about 43,000 …
   diminished my paper force to 92,000, instead of the 155,000 on
   which the plans of the campaign had been founded, … which
   reduced the numbers actually available for battle to some
   67,000 or 68,000. The order withdrawing the First Corps also
   broke up the Department of the Potomac, forming out of it the
   Department of the Shenandoah, under General Banks, and the
   Department of the Rappahannock, under General McDowell, the
   latter including Washington. … In our front was an intrenched
   line, apparently too strong for assault, and which I had now
   no means of turning, either by land or water. … Whatever may
   have been said afterward, no one at the time—so far as my
   knowledge extended—thought an assault practicable without
   certain preliminary siege operations. … We were thus obliged
   to resort to siege operations in order to silence the enemy's
   artillery fire, and open the way to an assault. All the
   batteries would have been ready to open fire on the 5th, or,
   at latest, on the morning of the 6th of May; … but during the
   night of the 3d and 4th of May the enemy evacuated his
   positions. … Meanwhile, on the 22d of April, Franklin's
   division of McDowell's corps had joined me by water, in
   consequence of my urgent calls for reënforcements … [and, May
   7th] disembarked near West Point and took up a suitable
   position to hold its own and cover the landing of
   reënforcements."

      _G. B. McClellan,
      The Peninsular Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 160-187)._

   General Joseph E. Johnston, who assumed command of the
   Confederate forces on the Peninsula, April 17, says in his
   "Narrative": "I went to the Peninsula as soon as possible,
   reaching General Magruder's headquarters early in the morning.
   … That officer had estimated the importance of at least
   delaying the invaders until an army capable of coping with
   them could be formed; and opposed them with about a tenth of
   their number, on a line of which Yorktown, intrenched, made
   the left flank. This boldness imposed upon the Federal
   general, and made him halt to besiege instead of assailing the
   Confederate position. This resolute and judicious course on
   the part of General Magruder was of incalculable value. It
   saved Richmond, and gave the Confederate Government time to
   swell that officer's handful to an army. … The arrival of
   Smith's and Longstreet's divisions increased the army on the
   Peninsula to about 53,000 men, including 3,000 sick. … I could
   see no other object in holding the position than that of
   delaying the enemy's progress, to gain time."

      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. Palfrey,
      The Siege of Yorktown
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1, pages 31-92)._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March-June).
   Appointment of Military Governors in Tennessee,
   North Carolina, and Louisiana.

   "By the Union victories in the spring of 1862 very
   considerable areas of territory in States in rebellion came
   under the control and occupation of the Union armies. … The
   sudden change from Confederate to Federal authority involved
   everywhere either a serious derangement or total cessation of
   the ordinary administration of local civil law, and the
   displacement from the occupied territory of State governments
   and State officials who claimed to be exercising functions
   under ordinances of secession, and yielding obedience to the
   self-styled Confederate States. A similar displacement had
   occurred in Virginia and in Missouri during the year 1861, but
   in those States prompt remedies were available," by means of
   popular movements, through delegated conventions, which
   abrogated the rebellious and reinstated loyal State
   governments in operation. The courses pursued in Virginia and
   Missouri were not practicable, however, in other cases, and "a
   substitute was found in the appointment of military governors
   to represent and exert such State and local authority as the
   anomalous conditions made practicable, and as the supreme
   military necessities might allow. The first of these
   appointments occurred in Tennessee. Nashville, the capital,
   having been evacuated about February 23, 1862, President
   Lincoln nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Andrew Johnson
   (March 4, 1862) as military governor with the rank of
   brigadier-general. … Conforming to this precedent, Mr.
   Lincoln, through the Secretary of War, appointed Edward
   Stanley military governor of North Carolina, 'with authority
   to exercise and perform, within the limits of that State, all
   and singular the powers, duties, and functions pertaining to
   the office of military governor (including the power to
   establish all necessary offices and tribunals, and suspend the
   writ of habeas corpus) during the pleasure of the President,
   or until the loyal inhabitants of that State shall organize a
   civil government in conformity with the Constitution of the
   United States.' … In like manner, soon after news was received
   of the successes in the Gulf, Colonel G. F. Shepley (of the
   12th Maine Infantry) of Butler's army was appointed military
   governor of Louisiana, this selection being made because
   General Butler had already designated him to act as mayor of
   the city of New Orleans, and it was thought best to combine
   both functions in the same individual."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapter 16._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April: On the Mississippi).
   Farragut's passage of the lower forts
   and capture of New Orleans.

   "About the close of the gloomy and disastrous year 1861, the
   Government of the United States determined to regain control
   of the Mississippi. … After long consideration, Farragut was
   chosen as the naval officer to command in the Gulf. The story
   of his southern birth, and of his steadfast loyalty to his
   flag, is too well known to be here repeated. His formal orders
   put him in command of the 'Western Gulf Blockading Squadron,'
   and these were issued in January, 1862.
{3459}
   But confidential instructions were also given him, by which he
   was especially charged with the 'reduction of the defences
   guarding the approaches to New Orleans, and the taking
   possession of that city.' He was to be assisted by a
   mortar-fleet of schooners, under commander D. D. Porter. … On
   February 2d, 1862, Farragut sailed for the Gulf, in the
   sloop-of-war Hartford, which was so long to bear his flag,
   successfully, through manifold dangers. The Hartford was a
   wooden screw-steamer, full ship-rigged, and of 1,900 tons
   burthen. She was of comparatively light draught, and,
   therefore, well suited to the service she was called upon to
   perform. … The Hartford arrived at her rendezvous, Ship
   Island, 100 miles north-northeast of the mouths _ of the
   Mississippi, on February 20th. A military force, to co-operate
   with Farragut's fleet, was sent out, under General B. F.
   Butler, and arrived at Ship Island on March 25th."

      _E. Shippen,
      Naval Battles,
      chapter 41._

   "At a point about 30 miles above the head of the passes, where
   the river makes its last great bend—the lowest favorable
   locality for defense before reaching the Gulf—the United
   States Government had erected two forts, St. Philip on the
   left or north bank, and Jackson a little farther down stream
   on the right. … The Confederate Government had early taken
   possession of these forts, and put them in complete order.
   When Farragut's fleet appeared before them, Fort Jackson, with
   its water battery, mounted 75 guns, and St. Philip about 40. …
   Just above the forts lay a rebel fleet of 15 vessels, under
   Commodore J. K. Mitchell, including the iron-clad ram Manassas
   and an immense floating battery covered with railroad iron,
   called the Louisiana. Just below Fort Jackson the Confederates
   had obstructed the river with a heavy chain, brought from
   Pensacola. … The task that lay before Farragut was, to break
   through the obstructions, pass between the forts, conquer the
   rebel fleet, and then steam up to New Orleans, lay the city
   under his guns, and demand its surrender. For its
   accomplishment he had 6 sloops-of-war, 16 gunboats, 21
   schooners, each carrying a 13-inch mortar, and 5 other
   vessels. The fleet carried over 200 guns. … The schooners
   sailed up partly, or were towed by steamers, and on the
   morning of the 18th of April they had all reached their
   positions, ready to open fire. … For six days and nights the
   mortars kept up an unremitting fire, mainly on Fort Jackson,
   throwing nearly 6,000 shells. The Confederates acknowledged a
   loss of 14 killed and 39 wounded by the bombardment. …
   Farragut's patience was sorely tried by this delay. He had
   never had much faith in the mortars, and now it was evident,
   as he had anticipated, that almost the only practical effect
   of the bombardment was, to give the enemy long warning of the
   attack by the ships. … Having decided to run by the forts, he
   confided to his trusted Fleet Captain, Bell, the dangerous
   mission of proceeding with the gunboats Pinola and Itasca to
   make a passage for his fleet through the chain obstructions. …
   A sufficient opening was made for the fleet to pass through,
   in spite of the heavy fire to which the party were subjected.
   … Farragut had made up his mind to run by the forts at the
   close of the fifth day's bombardment; but the necessity of
   repairing damages to two of his vessels delayed him
   twenty-four hours longer. He had intended to lead the column
   in his flag-ship Hartford; but in the final disposition he
   gave that post to Captain Theodorus Bailey, at his own earnest
   request, who hoisted his red flag on the gunboat Cayuga. … The
   attempt to pass was to be made in the night, April 23-24;
   and, as the moon would rise about half past 3 o'clock in the
   morning, the fleet were warned to expect the signal for
   sailing at about 2 o'clock. … Lieutenant Commanding Caldwell
   sent up in the Itasca to examine the obstructions and find
   whether the passage was still open. At 11 o'clock he gave the
   signal that it was, and about the same time the enemy opened
   fire on him, sent down burning rafts, and lighted the immense
   piles of wood which they had prepared on the shore near the
   ends of the chain. … It was half past 3, the hour of moonrise,
   before all was ready. In the light of the blazing rafts and
   bonfires, moon or no moon made little difference now. …
   Captain Bailey led off with his division of 8 vessels, whose
   objective was Fort St. Philip, and all of them passed through
   the opening in the cable. Both forts opened fire upon his
   flag-ship, the Cayuga, soon after she had passed the hulks.
   Five minutes later she was pouring grape and canister into St.
   Philip, and in ten minutes more she had passed beyond range of
   that work, to find herself surrounded by 11 rebel gun-boats.
   Three of them attempted to board her at once. An 11-inch shot
   was sent through one of them at the close range of 30 yards,
   and she immediately ran aground and burned up. The Parrott gun
   on the forecastle drove off another; and Bailey was preparing
   to close with the third, when the Oneida and Varuna, which had
   run in close to St. Philip, thus avoiding the elevated guns of
   the fort, while they swept its bastions with grape and
   scrapnel, came up to the assistance of the Cayuga. The Oneida
   ran under full steam into one of the rebel ships, cut her
   nearly in two, and left her to float down stream a helpless
   wreck. She fired right and left into the others, and then went
   to the assistance of the Varuna, which was ashore on the left
   bank, hard pressed by the Governor Moore and another, said to
   be the Manassas. The Varuna was rammed by them both, and sank
   at the end of 15 minutes; but in that time it is claimed that
   she put three 8-inch shells into the Governor Moore, and so
   crippled her with solid shot that she surrendered to the
   Oneida, and drove five 8-inch shells into another, which sent
   her ashore. Still another of her shells exploded the boiler of
   a rebel steamer. The Pensacola steamed steadily but slowly by,
   firing with great deliberation and regularity. … The
   Mississippi was fought regularly in line, like the Pensacola,
   but escaped with light losses. She encountered the ram
   Manassas, which gave her a severe cut on the port quarter
   below the water-line, and disabled her machinery. But she
   riddled the ram with shot, boarded her, and set her on fire,
   so that she drifted below the forts and blew up. The Katahdin
   ran close to the forts, steamed by rapidly, and got near the
   head of the line, where she put a few good shots into the
   iron-clad Louisiana. The Kineo ran by close under St. Philip,
   and then assisted the Mississippi in handling the ram
   Manassas; but she was afterward attacked by three rebel gun
   boats at once, and, her pivot-gun carriage becoming injured,
   she withdrew and continued on up stream.
{3460}
   The Wissahickon ran ashore before she reached the forts, got
   off, passed them, and above ran ashore again. Most of these
   operations were carried on in the darkness occasioned by the
   thick smoke, lighted, however, by the lurid flashes of more
   than 200 guns. The Hartford, bearing Flag-Officer Farragut,
   led the second division of the fleet. … In attempting to avoid
   a fire-raft, she grounded on a shoal near St. Philip. At the
   same time the ram Manassas pushed a raft upon her port
   quarter, and in an instant she was on fire. A part of the crew
   went to 'fire quarters' and soon subdued the flames, while the
   working of her guns was steadily continued, and she was then
   backed off into deep water. This movement turned the ship's
   head down stream, and it was with some difficulty that she was
   turned around against the current; but this was finally
   accomplished, and she continued to steam up the river, firing
   into several of the enemy's vessels as she passed. Among these
   was a steamer full of men, apparently a boarding-party. She
   was making straight for the Hartford when Captain Broome's
   gun, manned by marines, planted a shell in her, which
   exploded, and she disappeared. … The Brooklyn got out of her
   course, ran over one of the hulks, and became entangled in the
   raft, where she suffered a raking fire from Fort Jackson, and
   a pretty severe one from St. Philip. Scarcely was she
   disentangled and on her way up stream when she was butted by
   the Manassas, which, however, had not headway enough to damage
   her much, and slid off in the darkness. Then she was attacked
   by a large rebel steamer, but gave her the port broadside at
   fifty yards and set her on fire. Groping along through a black
   cloud of smoke from a fire-raft, she came close abreast of St.
   Philip, into which she poured such tremendous broadsides that
   by the flashes the gunners were seen running to shelter, and
   for the time the fort was silenced. The Brooklyn then passed
   on, and engaged several of the enemy's gunboats at short
   range. One of these, the Warrior, came under the port
   broadside, when eleven 5-second shells were instantly planted
   in her, all of which exploded, setting her on fire, and she
   was run ashore. The Brooklyn was under fire an hour and a
   half, and her losses were almost as severe as those of the
   Pensacola. The Richmond, a slow ship, brought up the rear of
   the second division, steaming steadily and working her guns
   with great regularity. … The Sciota, carrying Fleet-Captain
   Bell, led the third division. She steamed by the forts, firing
   as she passed, and above them burned two steamboats. … The
   Iroquois passed within 50 yards of Fort Jackson without
   injury, but was subjected to a terrible raking cross-fire from
   St. Philip, and was also raked by the McCrea. … Her losses
   were heavy. The Pinola passed up in line, firing her 11-inch
   pivot-gun and Parrott rifles at the flashes of Fort Jackson's
   guns, which at first were all that could be seen; then she
   emerged from the cloud of smoke, stood over toward St. Philip,
   and in the light of the blazing rafts received the discharges
   of its 40 guns. She was the last vessel that passed the forts,
   and got up in time to put one or two shells into the gunboats
   of the enemy. The Kennebec got out of her course, became
   entangled in the rafts, and did not get free till it was broad
   daylight and too late to attempt a passage. The Itasca,
   arriving in front of Fort Jackson, received a shot in her
   boiler, which made it impossible for her to proceed, and was
   turned down stream. The Winona got astray among the hulks, and
   lost so much time that when she came within range of Fort
   Jackson it was daylight, and the fleet had passed on. The
   first three or four shots from the fort swept away the entire
   crew of her rifled gun, save one man. Still she kept on, until
   the lower battery of St. Philip opened on her at less than
   point-blank range; this was too much for her, and she
   prudently headed down stream and ran out of the fire. Thus was
   accomplished a feat in naval warfare which had no precedent,
   and which is still without a parallel except the one furnished
   by Farragut himself, two years later, at Mobile. Starting with
   17 wooden vessels, he had passed with all but 3 of them,
   against the swift current of a river but half a mile wide,
   between two powerful earthworks which had long been prepared
   for him, his course impeded by blazing rafts, and immediately
   thereafter had met the enemy's fleet of 15 vessels, two of
   them iron-clad, and either captured or destroyed every one of
   them. And all this with a loss of but one ship from his own
   squadron."

      _L. Farragut,
      Life of Farragut,
      chapters 18-19._

   Commander Porter, who kept up the mortar fire while Farragut
   was forcing his way, says of the battle: "No grander or more
   beautiful sight could have been realized than the scenes of
   that night. From silence, disturbed now and then only by the
   slow fire of the mortars,—the phantom-like movements of the
   vessels giving no sound—an increased roar of heavy guns began,
   while the mortars burst forth into rapid bombardment, as the
   fleet drew near the enemy's works. Vessel after vessel added
   her guns to those already at work, until the very earth seemed
   to shake from their reverberations. A burning raft added its
   lurid glare to the scene, and the fiery tracks of the
   mortar-shells, as they passed through the darkness aloft, and
   sometimes burst in mid-air, gave the impression that heaven
   itself had joined in the general strife. The succeeding
   silence was almost as sudden. From the weighing of the
   anchors, one hour and ten minutes saw the vessels by the
   forts, and Farragut on his way to New Orleans, the prize
   staked upon the fierce game of war just ended."

      _D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      page 185._

   "General Lovell, who was in command at New Orleans, had come
   down the river in a steamboat to observe the operations and
   was very nearly captured; he hastened back to the city to
   withdraw his forces. When the news spread through the streets
   that the Federal fleet had passed the forts and had destroyed
   the Confederate flotilla, a strange scene followed; a scene
   impossible, perhaps, in any other American city under parallel
   circumstances. The brave, active, fighting men of New Orleans
   were far away in the armies of the South; but they had left
   behind a slinking swarm of human vermin. … These, when they
   saw a hopeless panic seize the good people of the city, poured
   forth from their dens and began an indiscriminate pillaging of
   houses, shops, and storage-sheds. Thus while the better class
   of citizens were frantically setting fire to the cotton (some
   12,000 bales) the cut-throats and ruffians, the hardened women
   and even the lawless children, were raging from place to
   place, back and forth, here and there, wildly plundering and
   aimlessly destroying. … All the public materials, consisting
   of army supplies, were heaped up in the middle of the streets
   and burned.
{3461}
   General Lovell withdrew his soldiers on the evening of the
   24th, leaving the city at the mercy of the Federal fleet,
   which at 1 o'clock on the following day steamed up the river
   and anchored in the middle of the stream not far from the foot
   of Canal Street. … The mob which lately had been committing
   such foul deeds, now swayed back and forth in the streets,
   hooting, yelling and cursing, urging the people to resist the
   landing of the Federals. Commodore Farragut demanded the
   formal surrender of the city, but the mayor was powerless. He
   could not surrender the city while the people were controlled
   by an unreasoning mob. Consequently, on the 20th, a detachment
   under command of Fleet Captain H. H. Bell was sent ashore to
   take possession of the public buildings."

      _M. Thompson,
      The Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 11._

   "The success was almost beyond price to the Union Government
   from its moral importance on both sides of the Atlantic. As to
   the material advantage won, it may be best judged of by the
   statement of the well-known Confederate writer, Mr. Pollard: …
   'It was a heavy blow to the Confederacy. It annihilated us in
   Louisiana; separated us from Texas and Arkansas; diminished
   our resources and supplies by the loss of one of the greatest
   grain and cattle countries within the limits of the
   Confederacy; gave to the enemy the Mississippi River, with all
   its means of navigation, for a base of operations.' … In
   calling the capture of New Orleans 'one of the most remarkable
   triumphs in the whole history of naval operations' he [Mr.
   Welles, Secretary of the Navy] is fully justified."

      _C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biog.,
      page 167-168._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. D. Porter, J. R. Bartlett and others,
      The Capture of New Orleans
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2)._

      _A. T. Mahan,
      Admiral Farragut,
      chapter 7._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April-May: Alabama).
   General Mitchell's expedition.

   The division of Buell's army commanded by General Ormsby M.
   Mitchell left Nashville with the other divisions of that army,
   late in March, but took the road to Murfreesboro, while the
   latter marched toward Pittsburg Landing. On the 4th of April
   General Mitchell marched from Murfreesboro to Shelbyville, 26
   miles distant. "On the 7th he advanced to Fayetteville, 27
   miles farther, and the next forenoon, the 8th, 15 miles
   beyond, he crossed the State line of Alabama. Continuing his
   march six miles farther, and being within ten miles of
   Huntsville, Alabama, he halted for the artillery and infantry
   to come up." At an early hour the next morning he entered the
   town, taking it completely by surprise. "Before the close of
   the day 100 miles of the Memphis and Charleston railroad were
   in his possession, stretching in one direction as far as
   Stevenson, and in the other as far as Decatur. … From Decatur
   he pushed on at once to Tuscumbia. Thus, without the loss of a
   single life, General Mitchell placed his army midway between
   Corinth and Chattanooga, prevented the destruction of a fine
   bridge at Decatur, opened communication with General Buell,
   and also the navigation of the Tennessee. The occupation of
   Huntsville also cut off all communication between the east and
   west by the Memphis and Charleston railroad. … This extension
   of General Mitchell's lines to hold the railroad rendered his
   situation precarious. Soon the enemy began to gather in force
   and threaten him. … He was raised to the rank of a
   major-general, and ordered to report directly to the [war]
   department, and his force was constituted an independent
   corps. But he got no reënforcements, he was left in such a
   condition that he at first hardly had anything to report but
   that he had been gradually driven from those positions, the
   gaining of which had made him a major-general." Subsequently
   he advanced upon Chattanooga; but that important position was
   not secured. A little later General Mitchell was transferred
   to Port Royal, South Carolina.

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 15._

   It was in connection with General Mitchell's expedition that
   the thrilling episode of the railroad raid in Georgia
   occurred, narratives of which have been published by one of
   the participants, Reverend William Pittenger, first under the
   title of "Capturing a Locomotive," and afterwards with the
   title "Daring and Suffering," and also as "The Great
   Locomotive Chase." Volume Two of "Battles and Leaders of the
   Civil War" also contains the story, entitled "The Locomotive
   Chase in Georgia," preceded by General Buell's critical
   account of Mitchell's entire operations.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(April-May: Tennessee-Mississippi).
   The bloodless and bootless conquest of Corinth.

   "General Halleck arrived at Pittsburg landing on the 11th of
   April and immediately assumed command in the field. On the
   21st General Pope arrived with an army 30,000 strong, fresh
   from the capture of Island Number Ten in the Mississippi
   River. He went into camp at Hamburg landing five miles above
   Pittsburg. Halleck had now three armies: the Army of the Ohio,
   Buell commanding; the Army of the Mississippi, Pope
   commanding; and the Army of the Tennessee. His orders divided
   the combined force into the right wing, reserve, centre, and
   left wing. … I [General Grant] was named second in command of
   the whole, and was also supposed to be in command of the right
   wing and reserve. … Preparations were at once made upon the
   arrival of the new commander for an advance on Corinth. …
   Corinth, Mississippi, lies in a south-westerly direction from
   Pittsburg landing and about 19 miles away as the bird would
   fly, but probably 22 by the nearest wagon-road. It is about
   four miles south of the line dividing the States of Tennessee
   and Mississippi, and at the junction of the Mississippi and
   Chattanooga Railroad with the Mobile and Ohio road which runs
   from Columbus to Mobile. … Corinth was a valuable strategic
   point for the enemy to hold, and consequently a valuable one
   for us to possess ourselves of. We ought to have seized it
   immediately after the fall of Donelson and Nashville, when it
   could have been taken without a battle, but failing then it
   should have been taken, without delay, on the concentration of
   troops at Pittsburg landing after the battle of Shiloh. In
   fact, the arrival of Pope should not have been awaited. There
   was no time from the battle of Shiloh up to the evacuation of
   Corinth when the enemy would not have left if pushed. … On the
   30th of April the grand army commenced its advance from Shiloh
   upon Corinth. The movement was a siege from the start to the
   close.

{3462}

   The National troops were always behind intrenchments, except
   of course the small reconnoitring parties sent to the front to
   clear the way for an advance. Even the commanders of these
   parties were cautioned, 'not to bring on an engagement.' … For
   myself, I was little more than an observer. Orders were sent
   direct to the right wing or reserve, ignoring me, and advances
   were made from one line of intrenchments to another without
   notifying me. My position was so embarrassing in fact that I
   made several applications during the siege to be relieved. …
   On the 28th of May, General Logan, whose command was then on
   the Mobile and Ohio railroad, said to me that the enemy had
   been evacuating for several days, and that if allowed he could
   go into Corinth with his brigade. … Beauregard published his
   orders for the evacuation of Corinth on the 26th of May and
   fixed the 29th for the departure of his troops, and on the
   30th of May General Halleck had his whole army drawn up
   prepared for battle and announced in orders that there was
   every indication that our left was to be attacked that
   morning. Corinth had already been evacuated and the National
   troops marched on and took possession without opposition.
   Everything had been destroyed or carried away. The Confederate
   commander had instructed his soldiers to cheer on the arrival
   of every train, to create the impression among the Yankees
   that reinforcements were arriving. There was not a sick or
   wounded man left by the Confederates, nor stores of any kind.
   Some ammunition had been blown up—not removed—but the trophies
   of war were a few Quaker guns, logs of about the diameter of
   ordinary cannon, mounted on wheels of wagons and pointed in
   the most threatening manner towards us. The possession of
   Corinth by the National troops was of strategic importance,
   but the victory was barren in every other particular. …
   General Halleck at once commenced erecting fortifications
   around Corinth on a scale to indicate that this one point must
   be held if it took the whole National army to do it. … They
   were laid out on a scale that would have required 100,000 men
   to fully man them. … These fortifications were never used. …
   After the capture of Corinth a movable force of 80,000 men,
   besides enough to hold all the territory acquired, could have
   been set in motion for the accomplishment of any great
   campaign for the suppression of the rebellion. In addition to
   this fresh troops were being raised to swell the effective
   force. But the work of depletion commenced."

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 26 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. F. Force,
      From Fort Henry to Corinth
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 2),
      chapter 8._

      _A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 24 (volume 1)._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 10._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April-June).
   Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia
   and in the Territories.

   On the 16th of December, 1861, Mr Wilson, of Massachusetts,
   introduced in the Senate of the United States a bill for the
   immediate emancipation of the slaves in the District of
   Columbia; "for the payment to their loyal owners of an average
   sum of $300; for the appointment of a commission to assess the
   sum to be paid; and the appropriation of $1,000,000. This bill
   was reported back on the 13th of February, 1862, with
   amendments. On the 24th he introduced a bill which, he said,
   was supplementary to that already before the Senate, to repeal
   the act extending the laws of Maryland over the District, and
   to annul all those statutes which gave the cities of
   Washington and Georgetown authority to pass ordinances
   discriminating against persons on account of color. On the
   12th of March it came up for debate in committee of the whole.
   The debate on these resolutions, the bill, and other cognate
   measures exhibit elements of interest hardly found in any
   other session of the American Congress on record. It was
   emphatically a new departure. … No important change was made,
   and on the 3d of April, 1862, the bill introduced by Mr.
   Wilson more than three months before was passed by a vote of
   29 to 14. The bill was taken up in the House the next week,
   and gave rise to a brief but brilliant debate. … The bill …
   passed the House by a vote of 92 to 38, and received the
   approval of the President on the 16th day of April, 1862. The
   President, in his message accompanying his approval of the
   bill, had stated some objections to it. These objections were
   that certain classes, such as married women, minors, and
   persons absent from the District, were not sufficiently
   protected and provided for; and he suggested that these
   defects should be remedied by additional legislation"—which
   was done. "On the 24th of March, 1862, Mr. Arnold, of
   Illinois, introduced a bill into the House of Representatives
   to render freedom national and slavery sectional. It was
   referred to the Committee on Territories, was reported on the
   1st of May, with an amendment, and made the order of the day
   for the 8th. It provided that freedom should be the
   fundamental law of the land, and that slavery should no longer
   exist in all places under the direct and exclusive control of
   the Federal government. It prohibited slavery in all
   Territories, then or thereafter existing; in all places
   purchased by the government, with the consent of the
   legislatures of the several States, for forts, magazines,
   arsenals, doek-yards, and other needful buildings; in all
   vessels on the high seas, and on all national highways, beyond
   the territory and jurisdiction of the several States. … The
   difficulties, … real or seeming, constitutional or other, were
   too great to secure the united action of the friends of the
   underlying principle of the bill as reported by the committee.
   Mr. Lovejoy, therefore, moved a substitute restricting its
   action entirely to the Territories. The substitute was
   accepted, and the bill as thus amended was carried by a vote
   of 85 to 50. The preamble was so amended as to read, 'An act
   to secure freedom to all persons within the Territories of
   the United States.' In the Senate, on the 15th of May, Mr.
   Browning, reported the bill from the Committee on Territories
   with an amendment that, from and after the passage of the act,
   there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
   any existing Territory, or in any Territory thereafter formed
   or acquired. It was, substantially, the application of the
   principle of the ordinance of 1787 to all the territory then
   possessed or thereafter to be acquired. On the 9th of June the
   Senate proceeded to its consideration, adopted the amendment,
   and passed the bill by a vote of 28 to 10. The House agreed to
   the Senate amendment, and the bill thus amended was passed on
   the 17th, and approved by the President on the 19th of June."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapters 21 and 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Tremain,
      Slavery in the District of Columbia
      (University of Nebraska: Seminary Papers Number 2)._

{3463}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   Passage of the Homestead Act.

   "The homestead bill, or the granting of free homes from and on
   the public domain, became a national question in 1852. The
   Free Soil Democracy, at Pittsburg, Pa., August 11, 1852, in
   National Convention, nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire,
   and George W. Julian, of Indiana, for President and
   Vice-President, and adopted the following as the 12th plank or
   resolution in their platform: 'That the public lands of the
   United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to
   individuals, nor granted to corporations, but should be held
   as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be
   granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless
   settlers.' Thereafter it became a national question until its
   passage in 1862, and was in the platforms of political
   parties. It was petitioned for and against. Public sentiment
   was aroused. It was a serious innovation and would cause an
   almost entire change in the settlement laws. Instead of the
   public lands being sold for cash, for profit, or being taken,
   first, under the pre-emption system, which eventuated in cash
   purchases, they were to be given to actual settlers who would
   occupy, improve, and cultivate them for a term of years, and
   then receive a patent free of acreage charges, with fees paid
   by the homesteader sufficient to cover cost of survey and
   transfer of title. … The rich and fertile lands of the
   Mississippi Valley were fast filling up with settlers.
   Agricultural lands in the Middle States, which, after the year
   1824, were bought for $1.25 per acre, now sold at from $50 to
   $80 per acre. Former purchasers of these Government lands in
   the Middle, Western, and Southern States, were selling their
   early purchases for this great advance, and moving west, to
   Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri, and there again
   taking cheap Government lands under the pre-emption laws. The
   western emigration caused a rush—a migration of neighborhoods
   in many localities of the older Western States. Following the
   sun, their pillar of fire, these State founders moved
   westward, a resistless army of agents of American
   civilization, and there was a demand for homes on the public
   lands, and a strong pressure for the enactment of a law which
   should confine locators to small tracts, and require actual
   occupation, improvement, and cultivation. A fierce political
   battle now ensued, beginning in 1854, and continuing until
   1862, the year of the passage of the law. The demand of the
   settlers was incessant and constant." Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of
   Pennsylvania, made himself the special champion of the measure
   in Congress. On the 1st of February, 1859, a bill embodying
   its principles was carried in the House, but was not permitted
   to reach a vote in the Senate. The slaveholding interest was
   almost solidly against it. In March, 1860, a similar bill was
   again passed by the House. The Senate substituted a bill
   granting homesteads to actual settlers at twenty-five cents
   per acre, instead of free of cost. After protracted
   conferences, the House was forced to accept the Senate bill,
   with slight amendments. But if the enemies of the measure had
   so nearly lost their control of Congress, they still owned the
   President—Buchanan—and he killed it by a veto. Then came the
   rebellion and civil war, absorbing all minor questions, and
   nearly two years went by before the law which opened the
   public lands freely to all actual settlers was adopted. It
   became a law by the signature of President Lincoln on the 20th
   of May, 1862. The following are the essential provisions of
   the Act: "That any person who is the head of a family, or who
   has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen
   of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration
   of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization
   laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms
   against the United States Government or given aid and comfort
   to its enemies, shall, from and after the first January,
   eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one
   quarter-section or a less quantity of unappropriated public
   lands, upon which said person may have filed a pre-emption
   claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be
   subject to pre-emption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or
   less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated
   lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located
   in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the
   public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed:
   Provided, That any person owning or residing on land may,
   under the provisions of this act, enter other land lying
   contiguous to his or her said land, which shall not, with the
   land so already owned and occupied, exceed in the aggregate
   one hundred and sixty acres. … That the person applying for
   the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the
   register of the land office in which he or she is about to
   make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or
   receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is
   twenty-one or more years of age, or shall have performed
   service in the Army or Navy of the United States, and that he
   has never borne arms against the Government of the United
   States or given aid and comfort to its enemies, and that such
   application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit,
   and that said entry is made for the purpose of actual
   settlement and cultivation, and not, either directly or
   indirectly, for the use or benefit of any other person or
   persons whomsoever; and upon filing the said affidavit with
   the said register or receiver, and on payment of ten dollars,
   he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity
   of land specified: Provided, however, That no certificate
   shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration
   of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the
   expiration of such time, or at any time within two years
   thereafter, the person making such entry—or if he be dead,
   his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or
   in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in
   case of her death—shall prove by two credible witnesses that
   he, or she, or they have resided upon or cultivated the same
   for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of
   filing the affidavit aforesaid, and shall make affidavit that
   no part of said land has been alienated, and that he has borne
   true allegiance to the Government of the United States; then,
   in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of
   the United States, shall be entitled to a patent, as in other
   cases provided for by law:
{3464}
   And provided, further, That in case of the death of both
   father and mother, leaving an infant child or children under
   twenty-one years of age, the right and fee shall inure to the
   benefit of said infant child or children; and the executor,
   administrator, or guardian may, at any time within two years
   after the death of the surviving parent, and in accordance
   with the laws of the State in which such children for the time
   being have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of
   said infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchaser
   shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be
   entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the
   office fees and sum of money herein specified. … That if, at
   any time after the filing of the affidavit, … and before the
   expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven,
   after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the
   register of the land office, that the person having filed such
   affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or
   abandoned the said land for more than six months at any time,
   then and in that event the land so entered shall revert to the
   Government.' … This original homestead act has been amended
   several times. … The principal amendments were in the nature
   of extension of its privileges, and the limit of 80 acres of
   land of the double minimum class, $2.50 per acre, within
   certain road limits, has since been done away with by acts of
   March 3, 1879, July 1, 1879, and June 15, 1880; there now
   being but one class of agricultural lands, so for as regards
   the minimum quantity in homestead entries. The act of June 8,
   1872, was known as the soldiers' and sailors' homestead act.
   It gave honorably discharged soldiers and sailors from the
   Army and Navy of the United States lands under the homestead
   act in any locality, and deducted from the five years'
   residence which was required to make title their term of
   service in the Army and Navy during the war of the Rebellion.
   One year's residence and cultivation, however, were necessary.
   … The soldiers' additional homestead provision was to give
   those soldiers who had had the benefit of the homestead act,
   to the extent of a quantity under 160 acres, an additional
   amount, so as to make their allowance 160 acres."

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      chapter 27._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
   rescinded by President Lincoln.

   Major General David Hunter, having lately succeeded to the
   command at Hilton Head, South Carolina, issued, on the 9th of
   May, 1862, a General Order (No. 11), declaring martial law in
   Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, and adding: "Slavery and
   martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the
   persons in these States … heretofore held as slaves are
   therefore declared forever free." This order was rescinded by
   President Lincoln in a Proclamation, dated May 19, in which he
   used the following language: "Whether it be competent for me,
   as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the
   slaves of any State or States free; and whether at any time,
   or in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable
   to the maintenance of the Government, to exercise such
   supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility,
   I reserve to myself, and which I cannot feel justified in
   leaving to the decision of commanders in the field."

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during
      the Great Rebellion,
      pages 250—251._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, ch. 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: South Carolina).
   Employment of the freed Negroes as armed soldiers.

   The negroes within the Union lines in South Carolina, at
   Hilton Head and elsewhere, were placed under the charge, at
   first, of agents appointed by the Treasury Department; but
   disagreements arose between these agents and the military
   authorities, and the former were recalled. "These several
   agents had been replaced by a superior officer of the staff,
   General Saxton, who was himself placed under the orders Of
   General Hunter with the rank of a military commander. By this
   action the government at Washington sustained Hunter in his
   conflict with the agents Of the Treasury Department—a
   conflict originating in very serious causes, for it affected
   the question of slavery in its most vital points. … Mr.
   Cameron [Secretary of the Treasury] had authorized General
   Sherman to organize the negroes into squads and companies. The
   latter had at first only been employed in manual labor, such
   as the construction of forts, roads and wharves; but Hunter,
   on taking Sherman's place, saw that he could give a much wider
   interpretation to the Secretary's instructions. He substituted
   muskets for the pick-axes used by the detachments of negro
   laborers organized by his predecessor; and, instead of making
   them dig the earth, he had them taught military exercises. Nor
   did he stop here; but wishing to increase the number of these
   new soldiers, he gathered all the adult negroes residing on
   the adjoining islands at Hilton Head on the 12th of May, in
   order to induce them to enter the military service. … The
   civil agents complained bitterly of the trouble this measure
   had created among the people entrusted to their charge, and
   thence sprung the quarrel which Mr. Lincoln cut short by
   deciding in favor of Hunter. The protection granted to
   fugitive slaves was the first logical consequence of the war,
   their enrolment in the Federal armies was the second. As
   untimely and impolitic as was the proclamation by which Hunter
   had taken upon himself to free the slaves outside of his
   jurisdiction, the creation Of the first negro regiment was an
   act skilfully conceived. It was essentially a military act; it
   raised and ennobled the freedman by entrusting him with arms;
   its legality was unquestionable from the moment that the
   President approved of it, for there was no law to prevent him
   from enlisting colored volunteers. In short, it showed to the
   Confederates that the Washington government was determined not
   to allow itself to be any longer paralyzed by the vain hope Of
   reconciliation. … But notwithstanding the success of this
   first experiment, considerable time elapsed before the Federal
   government concluded to follow Hunter in this direction."

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 7, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Williams,
      History of Negro troops in the War of the Rebellion,
      chapter 5._

{3465}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: The Battle of Williamsburg
   and the slow advance to the Chickahominy.

   On the evacuation Of the rebel works at Yorktown, "our columns
   followed on in pursuit, McClellan remaining in Yorktown, busy
   with questions of transportation. The enemy under Longstreet
   had awaited our approach at Williamsburg. Hooker first
   attacked, having been brought to a stand by a work known as
   Fort Magruder, and kept up a heavy pounding all the forenoon
   [May 5). Kearny came to his rescue when Hooker's men were all
   but spent. Hancock moved around the enemy's left, seized some
   abandoned redoubts, and made a brilliant diversion. But there
   was no cooperation in our attack; no one on the field was in
   supreme command, and the day was fruitlessly spent in partial
   blows. The enemy retreated at night. Our loss was 2,200;
   theirs in all probability less."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-eye View of our Civil War,
      chapter 11._

   "General Johnston says [' Narrative,' p. 124]:
   'We fought for no other purpose than to hold the ground long
   enough to enable our baggage-trains to get out of the way of
   the troops. This object was accomplished without difficulty.
   There was no time during the day when the slightest
   uncertainty appeared.' He also says that Longstreet's and
   Hill's divisions slept on the field; that what deserves to be
   called fighting ceased two hours before dark, yet the
   Confederates held the field until the next morning, when they
   resumed their march. … There may be a little rose-color about
   these statements, but the substantial facts seem to be
   accurately stated. … General McClellan made no pursuit after
   Williamsburg, for reasons which he who will may find stated in
   his Report; and we may pass on with the single additional
   remark that the battle of Williamsburg was unnecessary, for
   the position might have been turned by a movement by our
   right. This was actually accomplished by Hancock, after Hooker
   had met with all his heavy loss; and it might as well have
   been done before as after. … The three weeks which followed
   the battle of Williamsburg were so devoid of incident that it
   seems to be sufficient to say that the Confederates moved up
   the Peninsula in two columns. The right column, composed of
   the divisions of Smith and Magruder, followed the road by New
   Kent Court House, and in three marches reached the Baltimore
   Cross Roads, 19 miles from Barhamsville. The left column,
   composed of the divisions of Longstreet and D. H. Hill,
   reached in the same number of marches the Long Bridges. The
   army remained five days in this position, facing to the east.
   … The iron-clad Virginia [better known as the Merrimac] was
   destroyed on, or just before, the 14th of May. This event
   opened the James River to our navy; and, to be ready to meet
   an advance up that river as well as from the direction of West
   Point, the Confederate forces were ordered to cross the
   Chickahominy on the 15th May. On the 17th their army encamped
   about three miles from Richmond, in front of the line of
   redoubts constructed in 1861. … During this period the weather
   was generally fine, cool and breezy, but gradually tending
   towards heat. … McClellan sent out cavalry reconnoissances
   from Williamsburg on the 5th and 7th May. … The advance of the
   main body began on the 8th; and on the 10th headquarters were
   at Roper's Church, 19 miles from Williamsburg, with all the
   troops which had arrived by land, except Hooker's, in the
   vicinity of that place. … By the 15th, headquarters, and the
   divisions of Franklin, Porter, Sykes, and Smith, reached
   Cumberland on the Pamunkey. … On the 19th of May, headquarters
   and the corps of Porter and Franklin moved to Tunstall's
   Station on the railroad, five miles from White House. On the
   20th, Casey's division forded the Chickahominy, where Bottom's
   Bridge had been, and occupied the opposite heights. Bottom's
   Bridge was immediately rebuilt. … On the 22d, headquarters
   moved to Cold Harbor. On the 24th, we carried the village of
   Mechanicsville, but the enemy destroyed the bridge on which
   the Mechanicsville Turnpike crossed the river. On the same day
   our left advance secured a position at Seven Pines, the point
   of junction of the Nine-Mile Road with the Williamsburg road,
   which last road crosses the Chickahominy at Bottom's Bridge. …
   It is difficult to account for, or justify, the slowness of
   McClellan's march. The distance from Williamsburg to the
   middle of a line drawn from Bottom's Bridge to Cold Harbor,
   measuring by the road, is about 40 miles. That from West Point
   to the same point, measuring in the same way, is considerably
   less. One might almost say that, in the three weeks which
   McClellan took to accomplish this distance, he might have
   marched his army all the way in order of battle, bridging
   streams, felling trees, making roads, and supplying his army
   as he advanced. 'I had hoped,' he says, 'by rapid movements to
   drive before me, or capture, the enemy on the Peninsula, open
   the James River, and press on to Richmond, before he should be
   materially re-enforced.' What was there to hinder his making
   the attempt? Instead of that he followed him at the average
   rate of rather less than two miles a day."

      _F. W. Palfrey,
      After the fall of Yorktown
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1, pages 95-114)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapter 5._

      _Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      38th Congress 2d session, volume 1._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 11, part 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
   Evacuation of Norfolk by the Rebels.
   Destruction of the Merrimac.

   "The movement of our grand army up the Peninsula, in
   connection with Burnside's successes and captures in North
   Carolina, had rendered the possession of Norfolk by the Rebels
   no longer tenable. … General Wool, commanding at Fortress
   Monroe, having organized an expedition designed to reduce that
   important city, led it thither on the 10th; finding the bridge
   over Tanner's Creek on fire, but no enemy to dispute
   possession of Norfolk, which was quietly surrendered by its
   Mayor. The Navy Yard and Portsmouth were in like manner
   repossessed; the Rebels, ere they left, destroying every thing
   that would burn, partially blowing up the Dry Dock, and
   completely destroying their famous iron-clad known to us as
   the Merrimac. They left about 200 cannon. … Two unfinished
   iron-clads were among the vessels fired by the Rebels ere they
   left."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, page 127._

{3466}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: Fair Oaks, or Seven Pines.

   "On the 25th of May General McClellan issued a general order,
   which was read throughout the camps, directing the troops, as
   they advanced beyond the Chickahominy, to be prepared for
   battle at a moment's notice, and to be entirely unencumbered,
   with the exception of ambulances; to carry three days rations
   in their haversacks, leaving their knapsacks with their
   wagons, which were on the eastern side of the river, carefully
   parked. … The divisions from the corps of Generals Heintzelman
   and Keyes were among the first to cross the Chickahominy. They
   took a position on the right bank somewhat advanced therefrom.
   The right wing rested near New Bridge, the centre at Seven
   Pines, and the left flank on the White Oak Swamp. General
   Sumner's corps remained on the east side of the river. On the
   30th the Confederate General Johnston made arrangements for an
   attack upon the Federal army, for the purpose of cutting off,
   if possible, the corps of Generals Heintzelman and Keyes
   before they could be joined by General Sumner. He selected the
   divisions of Generals Longstreet, Huger, G. W. Smith, D. H.
   Hill, and Whiting. His plan was that Generals Hill and
   Longstreet should advance by the road to Williamsburg and make
   the attack in front, and that General Huger should move on the
   road to Charles City and attack in flank the troops assailed
   by Generals Hill and Longstreet. General Smith was ordered to
   the junction of the New Bridge Road and the Nine Mile Road,
   and to be in readiness to fall on the right flank of General
   Keyes and to cover the left of General Longstreet. The forces
   of Generals Hill, Longstreet, and Smith were in position early
   on the morning of Saturday, May 31, and waited until afternoon
   for General Huger to get into position. Prince de Joinville,
   who was a competent spectator, thus describes ['Campagne de l'
   Armèe du Potomac, Mars-Juillet, 1862'] the scenes which
   followed this attack: 'At the moment it was thus attacked the
   Federal army occupied a position having the form of a V. The
   base of the V is at Bottom's Bridge, where the railroad
   crosses the Chickahominy. The left arm stretches toward
   Richmond, with this railroad and the road from that city to
   Williamsburg. There stood the left wing, composed of four
   divisions echeloned, one behind the other, between Fair Oaks
   and Savage stations, and encamped in the woods on both sides
   of the road. The other arm of the V, the right, follows the
   left bank of the river; that is the right wing. There are
   these five divisions and the reserve. Should one desire to
   communicate from one extremity to the other of those two
   wings, going by Bottom's Bridge, the way is very long, not
   less than 12 or 15 miles. In an air line the distance, on the
   contrary, is very trifling, but between the two arms of the V
   flows the Chickahominy. It was to connect both arms, in the
   space between them, that the construction of 3 or 4 bridges
   had been undertaken, only one of which was serviceable on the
   31st of May. It had been built by General Sumner, nearly half
   way between Bottom's Bridge and the most advanced point of the
   Federal lines. It saved the army that day from a disaster.'
   The other bridges were not ready. They were structures of
   logs, and time was required to build them. The approaches were
   always bad, and the tedious labor of corduroying long
   distances was necessary. 'It was against the left wing of the
   army that every effort of the enemy was directed. That wing
   had its outposts at Fair Oaks station, on the York river
   railroad, and at a place called Seven Pines, on the
   Williamsburg road. There the Federals had thrown up a redoubt
   in a clearing, where a few houses were to be seen, and
   constructed abatis, to increase the field for sharpshooting of
   the troops posted there. The rest of the country was
   completely covered with woods. The previous day there had been
   a frightful storm, with torrents of rain, and the roads were
   frightful. All at once, about one o'clock in the afternoon,
   the weather being dark and gloomy, a very spirited fusilade is
   heard. The pickets and sentries are violently driven in; the
   woods which surround Fair Oaks and Seven Pines are filled with
   clouds of the enemy's sharpshooters. The troops rush to arms
   and fight in desperation; but their adversaries' forces
   constantly increase, and their losses do not stop them. The
   redoubt of the Seven Pines is surrounded, and its defenders
   die bravely. … Meanwhile Heintzelman rushes to the rescue with
   his two divisions. As at Williamsburg, Kearney arrives in good
   time to reëstablish the fight. Berry's brigade, of this
   division, composed of Michigan regiments and an Irish
   battalion, advances firm as a wall into the midst of the
   disordered mass which wanders over the battle field, and does
   more by its example than the most powerful reënforcements.
   About a mile of ground has been lost, 15 pieces of cannon, the
   camp of the division of the advance guard, that of General
   Casey; but now we hold our own. A sort of line of battle is
   formed across the woods, perpendicularly to the road and the
   railroad, and there the repeated assaults of the enemy's
   masses are resisted. The left cannot be turned, where is the
   White Oak Swamp, an impassable morass; but the right may be
   surrounded. At this very moment, in fact, a strong column of
   Confederates has been directed against that side. If it
   succeeds in interposing between Bottom's Bridge and the
   Federal troops, which hold beyond Savage's Station, the entire
   left wing is lost. It will have no retreat, and is doomed to
   yield to numbers; but precisely at this moment—that is to say,
   at 6 o'clock in the evening—new actors appear on the scene.
   General Sumner, who has succeeded in passing the Chickahominy,
   with Sedgwick's division, over the bridge constructed by his
   troops, and who, like a brave soldier, has marched straight
   through the woods to the sound of the cannon, arrived suddenly
   on the left flank of the column with which the enemy is
   endeavoring to cut off Heintzelman and Keyes. He plants in the
   clearing a battery which he has succeeded in bringing with
   him. … In vain Johnston sends against this battery his best
   troops, those of South Carolina—the Hampton Legion among
   others. In vain he rushes on it himself; nothing can shake the
   Federals, who, at nightfall, valiantly led by General Sumner
   in person, throw themselves upon the enemy at the point of the
   bayonet, and drive him furiously, with frightful slaughter and
   fear, back as far as Fair Oaks Station. Night put an end to
   the combat. On both sides nothing was known of the result of
   the battle but what each one had seen with his own eyes. …
   Evidently Johnston had flattered himself, in throwing all his
   forces on the four divisions of the left wing, that he could
   annihilate them before any aid could come to them from the
   main body of the army on the left bank of the Chickahominy.
   For the moment he had recoiled before the energetic resistance
   of those four divisions, and also before the furious and
   unforeseen attack of Sumner's troops.
{3467}
   No doubt he had counted on the terrible storm of the previous
   day to have swelled the Chickahominy so as to render the
   establishment of a bridge impossible, or to sweep away in its
   overflowing waters those already established; but the
   capricious river baffled his plans, as it did some hours later
   those of his adversaries. The effect of the deluge was not
   immediate; the rise in the water delayed its appearance 24
   hours. Was this unhoped-for delay turned to account with all
   desirable activity on the part of the Federals? That is a
   question which will remain always in dispute. … It was not
   until 7 o'clock in the evening that the idea of securing all
   the bridges without delay, and causing the whole army to cross
   at daybreak to the right bank of the Chickahominy, was
   entertained. It was now too late. Four hours had been lost,
   and the opportunity—that moment so fleeting, in war as in
   other circumstances—had gone. The rise, on which Johnston had
   vainly counted, and which had not hindered Sumner from
   crossing, came on during the night. The river rose suddenly
   from two feet, and continued to swell with rapidity, carrying
   away the new bridges, tearing up and sweeping off the trees
   which formed the planking of Sumner's bridges, and covering
   the entire valley with its overflowing waters. Nothing could
   cross. At the earliest dawn of day the combat was resumed with
   great fury on the left bank. The enemy came on in a body, but
   without order or method, and rushed upon the Federals, who,
   knowing that they were inferior in numbers and without hope of
   being supported, did not attempt to do more than resist and
   hold their ground. They fought with fierce determination on
   both sides, without any noise, without any cries, and whenever
   they were too hardly pressed they made a charge with the
   bayonet. … Toward midday the fire gradually diminished, then
   ceased. The enemy retreated; but the Federals were not in a
   position to pursue them. No one then knew what a loss the
   Southerners had just suffered in the person of their
   commander, General Johnston, who was severely wounded. It was
   to his absence that was owing, in a great measure, the
   unskilful attacks against the Federal army in the morning. …
   Who can say what would have been the result if at this moment
   the 35,000 fresh troops left on the other side of the
   Chickahominy had appeared on the flank of this disordered mass
   after having successfully crossed the bridges?'"

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 19 (quoting and translating from
      Prince de Joinville's "Campagne de l'Armée du Potomac")._

   "After this battle of Seven Pines—or Fair Oaks, as the
   Northern people prefer to call it—General McClellan made no
   step forward, but employed his troops industriously in
   intrenching themselves."

      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      page 142._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Smith,
      Two days of Battle at Seven Pines
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 220-263)._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 11, part 1._

      _W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapter 7-8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-June: Virginia).
   Stonewall Jackson's second campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Winchester.
   Cross Keys.
   Port Republic.

   "At the time the Army of the Potomac was toiling painfully up
   the Peninsula towards Richmond, the remaining forces in
   Northern Virginia presented the extraordinary spectacle of
   three distinct armies, planted on three separate lines of
   operations, under three independent commanders. The highland
   region of West Virginia had been formed into the 'Mountain
   Department' under command of General Fremont; the Valley of
   the Shenandoah constituted the 'Department of the Shenandoah'
   under General Banks; and the region covered by the direct
   lines of approach to Washington had been erected into the
   'Department of the Rappahannock,' and assigned to General
   McDowell. … The Administration, growing more easy touching the
   safety of the capital, determined, in response to General
   McClellan's oft-repeated appeals for re-enforcements, to send
   forward McDowell's corps,—not, indeed, as he desired, to
   re-enforce him by water, but to advance overland to attack
   Richmond in co-operation with the Army of the Potomac. … After
   numerous delays, the time of advance of this column was at
   length fixed for the 26th of May, a date closely coincident
   with the arrival of the Army of the Potomac on the
   Chickahominy. The head of McDowell's column had already been
   pushed eight miles south of Fredericksburg; and McClellan, to
   clear all opposition from his path, sent forward Porter's
   corps to Hanover Junction, where he had a sharp encounter with
   a force of the enemy under General Branch, whom he repulsed
   with a loss of 200 killed and 700 prisoners, and established
   the right of the Army of the Potomac within fifteen miles, or
   one march, of McDowell's van. McDowell was eager to advance,
   and McClellan was equally anxious for his arrival, when there
   happened an event which frustrated this plan and all the hopes
   that had been based thereon. This event was the irruption of
   Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley. The keen-eyed
   soldier at the head of the main Confederate army, discerning
   the intended junction between McDowell and McClellan, quickly
   seized his opportunity, and intrusted the execution of a bold
   'coup' to that vigorous lieutenant who had already made the
   Valley ring with his exploits." Jackson, who had been resting
   for a time in a position between the south fork of the
   Shenandoah and Swift Run Gap, was joined, on the 30th of
   April, by Ewell's division from Gordonsville, and by other
   re-enforcements, which "raised his force to about 15,000 men.
   Banks' force, reduced by the detachment of Shields' division,
   sent to General McDowell, to about 5,000 men, was posted at
   Harrisonburg. Fremont was at Franklin, across the mountains;
   but one of his brigades, under Milroy, had burst beyond the
   limits of the Mountain Department, and seemed to be moving to
   make a junction with Banks, with the design, as Jackson
   thought, of advancing on Staunton. Jackson determined to
   attack these forces in detail. Accordingly, he posted Ewell so
   as to hold Banks in check, whilst he himself moved to
   Staunton. From here he threw forward five brigades, under
   General Edward Johnson (May 7), to attack Milroy. The latter
   retreated to his mountain fastness, and took position at a
   point named McDowell, where, re-enforced by the brigade of
   Schenck, he engaged Johnson, but was forced to retire on
   Fremont's main body at Franklin. Having thus thrown off Milroy
   eccentrically from communication with Banks, Jackson returned
   (May 14) to destroy the force under that officer." Banks
   retreated down the Valley, followed by Jackson, who diverged a
   little to capture a garrison of 700 men at Front Royal.
{3468}
   On the 24th, Banks made a stand on the heights of Winchester
   and gave fight, "till, being assailed on both flanks, he
   retired hastily to the north bank of the Potomac (May 25),
   making a march of 53 miles in 48 hours. Jackson continued the
   pursuit as far as Halltown, within two miles of Harper's
   Ferry, where he remained till the 30th, when, finding heavy
   forces converging on his rear, he began a retrograde movement
   up the Valley. The tidings of Jackson's apparition at
   Winchester on the 24th, and his subsequent advance to Harper's
   Ferry, fell like a thunderbolt on the war-council at
   Washington. The order for McDowell's advance from
   Fredericksburg, to unite with McClellan, was instantly
   countermanded; and he was directed to put 20,000 men in motion
   at once for the Shenandoah Valley, by the line of the Manassas
   Gap Railroad. … In vain he pointed out that it was impossible
   for him either to succor Banks or co-operate with Fremont; …
   that it would take him a week or ten days to reach the Valley,
   and that by this time the occasion for his services would have
   passed by. In vain General McClellan urged the real motive of
   the raid—to prevent re-enforcements from reaching him."
   McDowell moved from the east and Fremont from the west,
   converging on Strasburg. "The two columns moved rapidly; they
   had almost effected a junction on the 31st; but that very day
   Jackson, falling back from Harper's Ferry, slipped between the
   two, and made good his retreat up the Valley. … The pursuers
   did their best: they pushed on, Fremont following in the path
   of Jackson up the Valley of the Shenandoah; while McDowell
   sent forward Shields' division by the lateral Luray Valley,
   with a view to head him off when he should attempt to break
   through the gaps of the Blue Ridge." On the 8th of June
   Ewell's division of Jackson's army "repulsed Fremont, while
   Jackson held Shields in check. Early next morning, drawing in
   Ewell and concentrating his forces, Jackson threw himself
   across the river, burned the bridge to prevent Fremont from
   following; fell upon Shields' advance, consisting of two
   brigades under General Tyler, and repulsed him, capturing his
   artillery. The former of these affairs figures in history as
   the battle of Cross Keys, and the latter as the battle of Port
   Republic. In this exciting month's campaign, Jackson made
   great captures of stores and prisoners; but this was not its
   chief result. Without gaining a single tactical victory he had
   yet achieved a great strategic victory; for by skilfully
   manœuvring 15,000 men he succeeded in neutralizing a force of
   60,000. It is perhaps not too much to say that he saved
   Richmond."

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      pages 122-128._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Imboden,
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, page 282-301)._

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Stonewall Jackson: a Military Biography,
      part 2, chapters 8-17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-July: On the Mississippi).
   The first undertakings against Vicksburg.

   "New Orleans once secured and handed over to General Butler,
   Farragut pushed up the Mississippi, and in the course of the
   next two months the Union flag was hoisted at Baton Rouge,
   Natchez, and every town of importance as high as Vicksburg.
   This city, strong by its natural position on high bluffs
   sloping gently landward, and already partly converted into a
   fortress by intrenchments heavily armed, was now (since the
   surrender of Memphis on the 6th of June) the only point of
   importance held by the Confederates on the banks of the great
   river. It at once, therefore, assumed an importance well
   warranted by its later history. Summoned on the 18th of May to
   evacuate the place, General M. L. Smith, who held it, gave a
   decided refusal; and Farragut found it necessary to await once
   more the arrival of Porter's flotilla, which was not brought
   up and reported ready until the 27th of June. On the 28th a
   general attack took place, Farragut succeeding in taking two
   of his three frigates and six gun-boats above the batteries,
   but producing no effect on the defences. 'The enemy leave
   their guns for the moment,' says his hasty report, 'but return
   to them as soon as we have passed, and rake us.' About 50 men
   were killed and wounded on board, and the Brooklyn frigate,
   with two gun-boats, forced to retreat below the place. The
   bombardment continued at intervals, pending an application to
   General Halleck at Corinth for a corps of his army to aid the
   fleet, and the result of an experiment (the first of three)
   made to cut a ship canal through the isthmus opposite
   Vicksburg, and leave the Federal ships an independent passage.
   On the 15th of July their possession of the river was suddenly
   challenged by a large ram, the Arkansas, which the
   Confederates had been fitting on the Yazoo, a considerable
   stream entering the Mississippi just above Vicksburg. … Her
   plating, however, proved to be weak, and her machinery very
   defective." The career of the Arkansas was brief and harmless.
   In August she was knocked to pieces by the shells of the
   Essex, "whose commander had taken charge of the Lower
   Mississippi on the departure of Farragut. The latter officer,
   in compliance with orders from Mr. Welles, had abandoned his
   contest with the Vicksburg works on the 20th of July, and made
   down stream for New Orleans, whence he proceeded with his
   squadron to carry on operations along the coast of Texas,
   where the chief posts were (for the time) recovered to the
   Union by his detachments in the course of a few weeks. 'All we
   want,' he wrote on the 15th of October, 'is a few soldiers to
   hold the places, and we will soon have the whole coast. It is
   a more effectual blockade to have the vessels inside instead
   of outside.'"

      _C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biography,
      pages 169-171._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Farragut,
      Life of David G. Farragut,
      chapter. 20._

      _D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapter 21._

      _R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps.
      chapters 2-3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-December: Louisiana).
   New Orleans under General Butler.

   The army which accompanied Farragut's naval expedition against
   New Orleans, to assist its operations and to occupy the city
   and the lower Mississippi region when taken, was placed under
   the command of General Benjamin F. Butler. It consisted
   nominally of 18,000 men, but is said to have actually mustered
   less than 14,000. It was composed of regiments which had been
   raised by Butler in New England especially for the enterprise,
   his preparations having commenced as early as September, 1861.
   These troops were partly gathered at Ship Island, in the Gulf,
   some time before Farragut made ready his fleet; the remainder
   were at the rendezvous in good time, and the whole were in
   waiting, on board transports, at the passes, when Farragut
   carried his fleet past Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
{3469}
   "General Butler … now proceeded to execute his part of the
   duty. He brought his forces into the rear of St. Philip,
   Porter keeping up a bombardment. On the 27th of April the
   garrison had become so demoralized as to refuse to fight any
   longer. The forts were therefore surrendered on the next day.
   … On the 1st of May New Orleans 'was formally occupied by
   United States troops. The loss on the national side in
   achieving this great victory was 40 killed and 177 wounded. …
   General Butler now entered on the difficult task of governing
   New Orleans. Its population, though greatly diminished to
   strengthen the Confederate armies in the Border States—a cause
   of bitter complaint to the inhabitants—still numbered about
   140,000. Almost one half of it was of foreign birth. Perhaps
   no city in the world had in its lower classes a more dangerous
   and desperate population. There was a wide-spread hope that a
   French force would soon come to their help. By firmness,
   strict yet considerate, he controlled the municipal
   authorities; by severity he put down the mob. He was a terror
   to tricky tradesmen, a benefactor to the starving poor. He
   cleaned the streets, enforced sanitary regulations, and kept
   out yellow fever. He put an effectual stop to the operations
   of Confederate agents, who were illicitly obtaining supplies
   for their cause. … He arrested Mumford, the person who had
   hauled down the national flag at the Mint [where it had been
   raised by one of Farragut's officers before the arrival of the
   troops], brought him before a military commission, convicted
   and executed him." This execution of Mumford (by hanging) drew
   from the Confederate President, Davis, a proclamation
   denouncing Butler as "an outlaw and common enemy of mankind";
   directing that, if captured, he should be immediately hung;
   declaring the commissioned officers of his command "not
   entitled to be considered as soldiers engaged in honorable
   warfare, but as robbers and criminals"; and ordering that "no
   commissioned officer of the United States taken captive shall
   be released on parole before exchange until the said Butler
   shall have met with due punishment for his crimes." "Some
   women of New Orleans, relying on the immunity of their sex,
   gratified their animosity by insulting national officers in
   public places. One of them ventured so far as to spit in the
   face of an officer who was quietly walking in the street.
   Hereupon was issued 'General Order No. 28' [known as 'the
   Woman Order,' which gave notice that] … 'hereafter, when any
   female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show
   contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she
   shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of
   the town plying her vocation.' … The feeling of personal
   hatred to Butler grew daily more and more intense. He was
   accused of improper tampering with the banks, speculating in
   sequestrated property, and, through the agency of his brother,
   carrying on illegal but profitable transactions in sugar and
   cotton. In South Carolina a reward of $10,000 had been offered
   for his assassination. Throughout the Confederacy he received
   an ignominious surname, and was known as 'Butler the Beast.'
   The government felt constrained to send a commission to New
   Orleans to investigate his transactions. Its conclusion was
   that he had evidently acted 'under a misapprehension, to be
   referred to the patriotic zeal which governs him.'" In
   December General Butler was recalled and General Banks was
   sent to take his place.

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 52 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

      _J. Parton,
      General Butler in New Orleans,
      chapters 11-32._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June: On the Mississippi).
   The capture of Memphis.
   The naval fight before the city.

   After the evacuation of Corinth by Beauregard, "Fort Pillow,
   40 miles above Memphis, was no longer of any account, for the
   Union army could take it from the rear. The Confederates,
   therefore, spiked the guns, burned their barracks and what
   supplies they could not take away; and the Confederate
   gunboats went down the river to Memphis, where several of the
   boats had been built. Commodore Montgomery commanded the
   fleet. He had eight vessels. … Fort Pillow evacuated! It was
   astounding news to the people of Memphis. They learned it at
   noon, June 5th. The merchants closed their stores. Some of
   them began to pack their goods. Some of the citizens jumped on
   board the cars and fled from the city. The Confederate fleet
   made its appearance. 'I shall retreat no farther,' said
   Commodore Montgomery; 'I shall fight a battle in front of the
   city, and to-morrow morning you will see Lincoln's gunboats
   sent to the bottom.' The dawn is breaking when I step from the
   Benton, the flag-ship of Commodore Davis [commanding the Union
   river fleet], to the tugboat Jessie Benton. … The Union fleet
   is at anchor three miles above the city. 'Drop down below the
   city and see if you can discover the Confederate fleet,' is
   the order to the captain of the Jessie Benton. We sweep around
   the majestic bend of the river and behold the city. The first
   rays of the sun are gilding the spires of the churches. A
   crowd of people is upon the levee—men, women, and children—who
   have come out to see the Union fleet sent to the bottom. …
   Suddenly a vessel with a black cloud of smoke rolling from the
   chimneys shoots into the stream. It is the Little Rebel,
   Commodore Montgomery's flag-ship. One by one the other vessels
   follow, forming in two lines of battle. In the front line,
   nearest the city, is the Beauregard, next the Little Rebel,
   then the Price and Sumter. In the second line, behind the
   Beauregard, is the Lovell, then the Thompson, Bragg, and Van
   Dorn. … There are five gunboats in the Union fleet. The Benton
   is nearest the Tennessee shore, then the Carondelet,
   Louisville, St. Louis, and Cairo. There are also two rams—the
   Queen City and Monarch. The rams are river steamers, with
   thick oak sides; they carry no cannon, but on each boat are
   100 riflemen. 'Round to; head down stream; keep in line with
   the flag-ship,' was the order which we on board the Jessie
   Benton carried to each boat of the line." In the fight which
   followed, and which is graphically described by the
   eye-witness here quoted, the Price and the Beauregard were run
   down by the rams; the Little Rebel, the Lovell, the Thompson
   and the Bragg were destroyed by shot and shell; the Sumter
   driven ashore, and the Van Dorn alone escaped. On the Union
   side, only the ram Queen City was disabled.
{3470}
   "In an hour's time the Confederate fleet was annihilated. … It
   is not known how many men were lost on the Confederate side,
   but probably from 80 to 100. Colonel Ellet was the only one
   injured on board the Union fleet. … The victory opens the
   Upper Mississippi from Cairo to Vicksburg."

      _C. C. Coffin,
      Drumbeat of the Nation,
      chapter 10._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: McClellan fortifying and Lee
   preparing for a bold attack.

   "When McClellan crossed the Chickahominy it was thought he
   would advance immediately upon Richmond. This expectation was
   disappointed, however, for instead of advancing he began to
   fortify his position. The right wing rested on the
   Chickahominy a little below New Bridge, and the left extended
   to the White Oak Swamp, embracing a front of about four miles,
   nearly parallel with that of the Confederates. The opposing
   lines were separated by an interval but little exceeding a
   mile, but each was obscured from the other's view by the
   intervening forest. The picket-lines were often within close
   musket-range of each other. … The strength of the Confederate
   force was always greatly overestimated by McClellan, and his
   frequent and urgent calls for reinforcements exposed his want
   of confidence in his own strength. General Lee [who took
   command of the Confederate army June 1, General Johnston being
   disabled], knowing this uneasy, insecure feeling of his
   antagonist, and McDowell's force, which had always been a
   thorn in his side, being about this time withdrawn from
   Fredericksburg for the support of Banks and Shields in the
   Valley, prepared … to assume the offensive. He conceived the
   bold plan of crossing the Chickahominy, and, attacking the
   Federal right wing, to force it back and seize McClellan's
   line of communication with his base of operations. This plan
   being successfully executed, the Federal general would be
   compelled to save his army as best he could by retreat.
   Preparatory to the execution of this plan General J. E. B.
   Stuart was ordered to make a reconnoissance in the rear of the
   Federal position. This officer, with a force of about 1,000
   cavalry, executed his instructions with great boldness and
   success. He made the entire circuit of the Federal army and
   gained much important information, … captured many prisoners
   and destroyed Federal stores to the value of $7,000,000. … His
   design being confirmed by Stuart's successful reconnoissance,
   Lee proceeded to organize a force requisite for the
   accomplishment of his proposed enterprise. The troops that
   could be conveniently spared from North Carolina, South
   Carolina, and Georgia were ordered to Richmond. … At the same
   time General Jackson was ordered to withdraw secretly from the
   Valley and proceed with such expedition as would enable him to
   reach Hanover Junction by the afternoon of the 25th of June.
   In order to mask his designs from the Federals, Lee directed
   Whiting's division and Lawton's brigade to proceed to
   Staunton, apparently with the view of reinforcing Jackson, but
   really under orders to return immediately and join that
   general on the 25th at Hanover Junction. This movement further
   strengthened McClellan in his opinion of Lee's vastly superior
   force, and completely blinded him in regard to the real
   intentions of that general. General Lee determined to attack
   the Federal right wing on the morning of the 26th of June."

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      page 169._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June-July: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: The Seven Days Battle and Retreat.
   Mechanicsville.
   Gaines' Mill.
   Savage Station.
   Glendale.'
   Malvern Hill.

   "Since the battle of Fair Oaks the Second Corps (Sumner) had
   remained on the right bank of the Chickahominy, where it had
   been followed in the month of June by the Sixth Corps
   (Franklin). So that only the Fifth Corps (Porter) remained on
   the left bank, recently reënforced by McCall's division. All
   the efforts of the enemy were made there, and there the great
   seven days' contest commenced. On the 26th of June, A. P.
   Hill, preceding Jackson by twenty-four hours, endeavored to
   force the passage of Beaver Dam Creek, defended by the
   Pennsylvanians under McCall. He was repulsed with considerable
   loss on the Mechanicsville road. But, during the night, Porter
   was compelled to fall back to a position more tenable against
   a force become much superior to his own, Jackson and
   Longstreet having united against his lines. On the 27th, then,
   the Fifth Corps, with about 25,000 men, was assailed by 70,000
   Confederates on Gaines' Mill Heights, and defended itself
   there obstinately, until our own cavalry came fatally to the
   enemy's aid. Unskilfully handled and roughly repulsed, it fell
   back in disorder on our lines, where it put everything into
   confusion, artillery and infantry. The Confederates, coming on
   at the charge, finished the overthrow, and the Fifth Corps
   would have been destroyed if the coming of the night had not
   enabled our decimated troops to cross to the right bank of the
   Chickahominy, destroying the bridges behind them. [This
   battle, called Gaines' Mill by the Federals, was named Cold
   Harbor, or Chickahominy, by the Rebels.] … As soon as Porter
   had crossed safely on the 28th, the general retreat commenced.
   Keyes crossed White Oak swamp first, and took position to
   protect the passage of the immense army trains and the great
   herds of cattle. Then, on the 29th, after having repulsed a
   cavalry attack, he continued his way towards the James, where
   he arrived on the 30th, at the same time that Porter reached
   Haxall's Landing. Much less favored, the three other corps
   suspended their march only to fight and ceased to fight only
   to march. But all this was done without any general system, in
   the absence of superior supervision, and of orders in
   accordance with circumstances. On the 29th the enemy crossed
   the Chickahominy to unite all his force on the right bank;
   Franklin advised Sumner, and the two, acting together, fell
   back on Savage Station, where they took up position, with the
   intention, aided by Heintzelman, of repelling the dangerous
   attack which menaced them. But Heintzelman, adhering to his
   general instructions, after destroying the material of the
   railroad, the provisions, munitions of war, arms and baggage
   that there was neither time nor means of carrying away,
   hastened to cross White Oak swamp, uncovering Sumner's left.
   The latter learned of the retreat of the Third Corps only from
   a furious attack by the enemy on the very side which he
   believed protected by Heintzelman. He did not the less sustain
   the shock with an unshakable solidity, and fought all the
   afternoon with four divisions without being broken at any
   point.
{3471}
   The enemy, worn out by the useless attacks, retired at
   nightfall. Then only did he receive any news from McClellan;
   under the form of an order to Sumner to fall back, along with
   Franklin, to the other side of White Oak swamp, abandoning our
   general hospitals at Savage Station, and the 2,500 sick and
   wounded in them. On the Morning of the 30th, Jackson presented
   himself, to cross the swamp after us. He found the bridge
   destroyed, and endeavored to force a passage at several
   points. He was everywhere repulsed and kept in check the whole
   day by the obstinate resistance of Franklin, while farther on,
   towards the James, Longstreet was held by Heintzelman and
   McCall, who prevented him from cutting our army in two at
   Glendale. This was not done without hard fighting. The
   Confederates, arriving by the New Market road at a right angle
   to the Quaker road, which was our line of march, struck, in
   the first place, the Pennsylvania reserves, broke their line,
   outflanking it on the right and on the left, captured a
   battery of artillery, and pushed resolutely on through that
   dangerous breach. They then struck Hooker's division, which
   threw them obliquely on Sumner's Corps. Soon afterward,
   Kearney occupied the vacant space, and, as on the evening
   before, the sun set with the rebels unsuccessful. [This day's
   battle is variously named after Glendale, New Market,
   Frazier's Farm, and Nelson's Farm.] But, the same evening,
   Franklin, left without orders, and seeing his position was
   becoming more and more dangerous, abandoned White Oak swamp
   and fell back towards the James. At that news, which was
   promptly sent to him from several directions, Heintzelman sent
   in vain to headquarters to ask for instructions. Left to his
   own devices, he concluded that the wisest course was to follow
   the retrograde movement, and retreated with his corps. Sumner
   still remained, and, seeing himself left alone and without
   support, he decided, in his turn, to do as the others had
   done. On the morning of the 31st, he arrived on the Malvern
   Heights, where the three corps, the Second, Third, and Sixth,
   found themselves united, not, as has been benevolently said,
   by the wise combinations of General McClellan, but by the
   fortunate inspiration of the commanders, who had received no
   orders to that effect. 'At daylight,' said General Sumner, in
   his testimony before the Congressional committee, 'I called on
   General McClellan, on the banks of the James. He told me that
   he had intended that the army should hold the position it had
   the night before, and that no order for retreat had been sent;
   but that, since the rest of the army had fallen back, he was
   glad that I had done the same.' It was found that the plateau
   of Malvern Hill was admirably formed for a defensive position.
   General Humphreys, of the corps of topographical engineers,
   was ordered to examine the position, and he traced a
   formidable line with the left resting at Haxall's Landing on
   the James, where it was protected by the gun-boats, while the
   right was thrown back on some fields covered with thick woods,
   and cut up by marshy streams. The summits and slopes of the
   plateau were bristling with cannon, sweeping the plain over
   the heads of our infantry deployed in front of them. In that
   position, the army awaited a last attack. The enemy played
   there his last card, and lost the game. … He tried his fortune
   and gave battle July 1. On every point his columns were thrown
   back in disorder, crushed in every attack by the double fire
   of artillery and infantry. Dash was not enough now. On this
   occasion, the enemy was compelled to acknowledge himself
   beaten and incapable of pursuing us any further. But our men
   were slow to believe in success. On receiving the order, a few
   hours later, after night had put an end to the contest, to
   retire to Harrison's Landing, they naturally concluded that we
   were not strong enough to hold out long against the enemy. …
   Worn out by fatigue and fighting, exhausted by privations and
   by vigils, discouraged, and suspecting that it was not fortune
   alone that had betrayed them, they dragged themselves along
   without order … during that last night march, which had all
   the character of a rout."

      _R. de Trobriand,
      Four Years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 13._

   "If McClellan deserves sharp criticism for not having sooner
   made up his mind, and still more for his failure to discover
   and use the absence of the Confederates in his front, where
   his advance in mass, according to General Magruder's
   officially expressed opinion, 'would have insured his success,
   and the occupation of the works about Richmond, and
   consequently the city,' his character as a commander never
   shone so brightly as in the hour of disaster and danger, when
   Porter's wing was driven in upon his centre. The ill-success
   of his campaign as a whole has caused his conduct at this
   crisis to be done scant justice to. But there is no military
   reputation in the world which would not be increased by the
   manner in which that retreat to the James was conducted from
   the moment it began."

      _C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biog.,
      page 114._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapters 12-17._

      _A. S. Webb,
      Campaigns of the Civil War,
      volume 3: The Peninsula, chapter 9._

      _F. J. Porter, W. B. Franklin, D. H. Hill, and others,
      The Seven Days' Fighting
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2)._

      _G. B. McClellan,
      Complete Report,
      part 2._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 11, parts. 1-2._

      _Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War
      (Senate Reports, 37th Congress,
      3d session, volume 2, part 1)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(June-October: Tennessee-Kentucky).
   Ineffective dispersion of Western armies.
   Failure to secure Chattanooga and Vicksburg.
   Bragg's invasion of Kentucky.
   The race for Louisville.
   Battle of Perryville.
   End of Buell's campaign.

   "We left the Federals in possession of Corinth and Memphis,
   the army of Beauregard disappearing in the depths of
   semi-tropical forests where the Tombigbee takes its source,
   and Montgomery's ships lying at the bottom of the Mississippi.

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI)
      and (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The part to be played by the Federal fleets was fully laid
   out; Farragut, by ascending the river, and Davis, by
   descending it, were to endeavor to join hands and destroy all
   the obstacles which still obstructed its course. What, in the
   mean time, was the large army encamped at Corinth going to do?
   It had allowed Beauregard to escape at the very moment when it
   felt sure of crushing him; but it could yet strike some
   decisive blows either to eastward or westward, the
   Confederates being nowhere sufficiently numerous to make any
   strong opposition.
{3472}
   Eastward, Mitchell had forced open the way to Chattanooga and
   approached the gap which opens south-east of that town, before
   which, at a subsequent period, so much blood was shed at the
   battles of Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge. He was master of
   the passes of the Tennessee, and the Federals, stationed at
   Corinth, could reach Chattanooga much more speedily than their
   adversary encamped at Tupelo. They might probably conquer by
   the same stroke the whole upper course of the river which
   waters this town. Westward, the Federals could sweep both
   sides of the Mississippi, cause all the Confederate works
   which defended them to fall, and perhaps prevent the enemy
   from erecting the formidable citadels of Vicksburg and Port
   Hudson, the capture of which, at a later period, cost so dear.
   … Everything … was in favor of prompt and vigorous action. But
   Halleck divided his army, and, notwithstanding the resources
   he had at his disposal, allowed his adversaries to forestall
   him everywhere. … The army of the Ohio left Corinth on the
   10th of June, and Buell was ordered to proceed with it in the
   direction of Chattanooga, where Mitchell was beginning to be
   sorely pressed; but this movement was slowly executed.
   Sherman, at the head of his own division and that of Hurlbut,
   proceeded toward Memphis, dropping detachments of troops as
   far as Holly Springs to cover his left flank. The rebuilding
   of the Mobile Railway, which had been completely destroyed by
   the enemy, was a considerable undertaking. Begun on the 9th of
   June, it was only finished on the 26th. The Confederates had
   profited by this delay. The new general-in-chief, Braxton
   Bragg [who had superseded Beauregard], had boldly divided his
   army and abandoned the position of Tupelo, which Halleck still
   believed him to occupy. He had determined to cover at once the
   two points we have already indicated as being of the greatest
   importance for the future of the war, Chattanooga and
   Vicksburg. He proceeded toward the first with all the old army
   of Johnston, consisting of the corps of Hardee and Polk, as
   rapidly as the difficulties of communication in that portion
   of the Southern States allowed. He had the merit and good
   fortune to reach Chattanooga before Buell. It was not too
   soon, for a few days previous, the 7th of June, the Federal
   General Negley, with his single brigade and some cannon, had
   nearly taken possession of this city by surprise. Bragg found
   it of great advantage to transfer the war to the vicinity of
   Chattanooga. Master of this position, indeed, he could menace
   either Tennessee or Kentucky, Nashville or Louisville and
   wrest from the Federals all the conquests they had achieved
   during the last few months by taking them in rear. He was also
   drawing near Virginia."

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._

   "Halleck soon leaves for Washington to assume supreme control
   of the Union forces from the War Department. Grant is left in
   command of the Army of the Tennessee, Buell of the Army of the
   Ohio, Pope of the Army of the Mississippi. Everyone is without
   definite instructions; there is no one head; and the Western
   armies are practically put upon the defensive. Rosecrans
   succeeds Pope, who is transferred to Virginia, and to Grant's
   lot now fall the armies of the Mississippi and Tennessee,
   42,000 effectives, with which to keep open his communications
   with Buell and guard the railroad from Memphis to Decatur.
   While Grant and Sherman devote their energies to the line of
   the Mississippi, Buell is ordered to regain East Tennessee,
   where the loyal population is in extreme suffering. Mitchell's
   [General O. M. Mitchell] capture of Huntsville [in Alabama,
   which he surprised, by a remarkable forced march, from
   Nashville, in April], and some hundred miles of the Memphis
   and Charleston Railroad, which he had held, together with all
   territory north of the Tennessee river, had been full of
   possibilities. Had he but received the authority, he might
   readily have anticipated Bragg in taking possession of
   Chattanooga, and have saved much subsequent blood and
   treasure. For this town is the key to that entire strategic
   field. … Buell supposed that Bragg would attempt to turn his
   right in order to obtain possession of Nashville. He therefore
   concentrated the bulk of his force at Murfreesboro. Thomas,
   then commanding a wing of the Army of the Ohio, whose military
   intuitions were as keen as his judgment was reliable, … was
   shrewd enough to recognize Bragg's crossing of the Tennessee
   river as a threat to invade Kentucky. Not so Buell, to his
   sorrow. By a sudden movement, Bragg steals a march around
   Buell's left, through the Sequatchie Valley [August 28], and
   marches straight toward Louisville, while Kirby Smith turns
   Cumberland Gap, defeats Nelson at Richmond, and makes for
   Cincinnati. … Thoroughly alarmed, as is also the country,
   Buell at once swings his left in pursuit of Bragg, while he
   endeavors to retain his grasp on Nashville with his right.
   Bragg has the shorter line and the start. But he is delayed a
   day or two [September 16-17] by the capture of Mumfordsville,
   and by scattering his forces instead of pushing home. This is
   a serious fault on Bragg's part. He fairly holds success in
   his hand, but forfeits it by this delay. After some rapid
   marching and manœuvring, Buell enters Louisville just ahead of
   his opponent. The authorities in Washington have lost all
   confidence in Buell. He is summarily relieved from command and
   Thomas appointed to succeed him. But this magnanimous soldier,
   though far from always agreeing with the methods of his chief,
   declines the proffered honor, and, at his earnest
   solicitation, Buell is reinstated. The Army of the Ohio
   marches out to meet Bragg, with Thomas second in command.
   Bragg expects to defend the line of the Kentucky and Duck
   rivers, but divides his forces, leaving Kirby Smith near
   Frankfort. Buell makes a demonstration upon Bragg's
   communications. After some cautious feeling, Buell comes upon
   Hardee with only 15,000 men, at Perryville, where, had he at
   once attacked, he could have punished Bragg severely for this
   division. But, owing to lack of water, one-half of Buell's
   army is distant from the field, and he in turn pays the
   penalty of lack of concentration. Polk joins Hardee, and the
   latter [October 8] falls heavily upon McCook, who holds
   Buell's left, and bears him back. But he cannot break the
   Union centre; and after a stubborn conflict Bragg retires,
   leaving to our forces the field. Our left has not been
   engaged. The loss is nearly 5,000 men on either side, a
   quarter of the numbers actually engaged. On being followed up,
   Bragg retreats through Cumberland Gap, and leaves Kentucky and
   Tennessee once more in our possession. His retreat ends only
   at Chattanooga.
{3473}
   What Bragg expected to obtain in Kentucky was a vast accession
   of recruits and horses, as did Lee in Maryland. Both fell
   short of their calculations, though Bragg carried off a goodly
   train of supplies. Forgetful of what he had really done, the
   South was bitter in its criticism of Bragg's failure to hold
   Eastern Tennessee and Kentucky. … Halleck now insists that
   Buell shall undertake a campaign in East Tennessee, still
   occupied by the enemy. But Buell alleges the utter
   impossibility of subsisting his troops so far from the
   railroad; and again concentrates at Nashville. Here he is
   relieved [October 30] and General Rosecrans is appointed to
   the command."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. C. Buell, J. Wheeler, and others,
      The Perryville Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 12-15 (volume 1)._

      _J. B. Fry,
      Operations of the Army under Buell._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 16._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Three hundred thousand more.

   On the 2d of July, 1862, the President issued his proclamation
   calling for 300,000 volunteers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Land-grant for agricultural and mechanical Colleges.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Prescription of the Ironclad Oath.
   See IRONCLAD OATH.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   The fitting out of the Rebel cruiser, Alabama, at Liverpool.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Confiscation of the property of rebels,
   giving freedom to their slaves.

   Immediately on the assembling of Congress at its regular
   session in December, 1861, "Mr. Trumbull of Illinois
   introduced a bill, providing that the slaves of all who had
   taken up arms against the United States should 'become forever
   thereafter free, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.' …
   On the 25th of February it came up for general debate, which
   was very extended. … Divergences of views, even among those
   who had been most prominent and pronounced in their
   antislavery action, and the general drift of the discussion,
   seemed to preclude any reasonable hope of agreement upon any
   motion or measure then before the Senate. It was therefore
   moved by Mr. Clark of New Hampshire to refer the whole matter,
   the original bill, and all motions, amendments, and
   substitutes, to a select committee. This, too, gave rise to a
   sharp debate. … The motion was carried by a vote of 24 to 14;
   and the committee, consisting of Clark, Collamer, Trumbull,
   Cowan, Wilson, Harris, Sherman, Henderson, and Willey, was
   appointed. Mr. Trumbull declining, Mr. Harlan was appointed in
   his place. The committee reported 'a bill to suppress
   insurrection, and punish treason and rebellion'; and on the
   16th of May it came up for consideration. Its main provision
   was that at any time after the passage of the act, the
   President might issue his proclamation that the slaves of
   persons found, 30 days after the issuing of the proclamation,
   in arms against the government, will be free, any law or
   custom to the contrary; that no slave escaping from his master
   shall be given up, unless the claimant proves he has not given
   aid or comfort to the Rebellion; and that the President shall
   be authorized to employ persons of African descent for the
   suppression of the Rebellion. … The bill was further debated,
   but did not reach a vote. In the House a substantially similar
   course was pursued. On the first day of the regular session
   Mr. Eliot of Massachusetts introduced a resolution
   confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of those
   engaged in the Rebellion. It did not, however, come up for
   consideration till the close of the following week. … A motion
   was finally made and carried to refer the whole subject to a
   select committee of seven, consisting of Olin, Eliot, Noell,
   Hutchins, Mallory, Beaman, and Cobb. Mr. Olin was excused, and
   Mr. Sedgwick of New York was appointed in his place. On the
   14th of May Mr. Eliot from the committee reported two
   bills,—the one confiscating Rebel property, and the other
   freeing the slaves of Rebels,—and opened the debate on 'the
   twin measures of confiscation and emancipation.' … On the 26th
   of May Mr. Eliot closed the debate, and the two bills he had
   reported from the special committee were brought to a vote.
   The first, or that providing for the confiscation of Rebel
   property, was passed by a strong majority. The second, or that
   freeing the slaves of Rebels, coming up for action, the first
   business was the disposal of the several amendments that had
   been offered. The amendments having all been voted down, the
   original bill was lost by a vote of 74 to 78. That vote was,
   however, reconsidered and the bill was recommitted. On the
   18th of June Mr. Eliot moved a substitute for the bill
   reported by the committee, which was accepted by the House,
   and the bill, as thus amended, was passed by a vote of 82 to
   54. The gist of this bill consisted in the provision, that all
   slaves of persons found in rebellion 60 days after the
   President shall issue his proclamation should be free; and the
   President should appoint commissioners to carry its provisions
   into effect. The House confiscation bill was taken up in the
   Senate on the 23d of June. An amendment was moved by Mr. Clark
   combining confiscation and emancipation. The amendment was
   sharply debated, but was adopted on the 28th. The bill as
   amended was adopted by a vote of 28 to 13. The bill as thus
   amended was taken up in the House on the 3d of July, and the
   House non-concurred in the Senate's amendment. … A committee
   of conference was appointed, which reported, on the 11th, in
   substance the Senate amendment. The report was accepted by
   both bodies, … and the President gave it his approval on the
   17th. It provided that all slaves of Rebels coming into the
   possession or under the protection of the government should be
   deemed captives of war, and made free; that fugitive slaves
   should not be surrendered; that no person engaged in the
   military or naval service should render fugitives on pain of
   being dismissed from the service; and that the President might
   employ persons of the African race for the suppression of the
   Rebellion in such manner as he might deem best."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, pages 373-377._

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the Rebellion,
      pages 196-203._

{3474}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July-August: Virginia).
   The end of the Peninsular Campaign.
   The army at Harrison's Landing.
   Results of the Seven Days fighting.
   Withdrawal from the Peninsula.

   "On reaching Harrison's Landing there were scarcely 50,000 men
   in the ranks, but on the 4th of July, when the corps
   commanders made their reports, it was found that the net
   losses of the army since the 20th of June amounted to 15,249
   men, of whom 1,582 had been killed, 7,700 wounded, and 5,958
   missing. This last figure comprised, besides prisoners, all
   the soldiers who had been left on the field of battle, whose
   fate, whether killed or wounded, could not be ascertained; to
   this number may be added, without exaggeration, 6,000 sick or
   lame who had gone to the hospital in consequence of the
   excessive fatigues of the preceding days. McClellan therefore
   found himself with about 84,000 men under arms, not counting
   those who had just joined him. The losses of Lee's army during
   the seven days amounted to 20,000 men, to which number must
   also be added at least 5,000 rendered unfit for active service
   by the same causes which had operated with his adversaries;
   this army, therefore, had undergone a diminution of 25,000
   men. This was more than one-fourth of its effective force on
   the 26th of June. An interlude was to follow this great
   struggle. While McClellan was fortifying himself at Harrison's
   Landing, Lee, hampered like himself by the difficulty of
   subsisting his army, was obliged to fall back as far as the
   environs of Richmond. … In the estimation of those who did not
   allow themselves to be troubled by foolish alarms and were not
   blinded by party prejudices, McClellan's situation was far
   from bad. … Planted on the James, McClellan could, either by
   ascending this river or by seizing upon Petersburg, strike
   much deadlier blows at Richmond than when his army lay across
   the Chickahominy, far from any water communication. Such was
   the position of the two armies about the 7th of July. On this
   day the steamer coming from Fortress Monroe landed a passenger
   at Harrison's Landing, whose dress, as simple as his manners,
   did not at first attract any attention, but in whom people
   soon recognized President Lincoln. He had come to consult with
   the commander of the army of the Potomac about the measures to
   be adopted under those grave circumstances. … On the occasion
   of his interview with McClellan at Harrison's Landing, the
   latter had so thoroughly demonstrated the importance of that
   position that [the President] went back fully determined to
   allow the chief of the army of the Potomac full freedom of
   action. But General Halleck … claimed for himself, as
   commander-in-chief [lately so appointed], the exclusive
   direction of all the armies in the field, and Mr. Lincoln,
   conscious of his own incompetency, submitted to this new
   authority." Measures taken during July for placing the army of
   the Potomac again upon the offensive were altered on the 3d of
   August, when Halleck gave orders to McClellan to transfer his
   army with all possible expedition to Aquia Creek, on the
   Potomac, for the support of General Pope and the Army of
   Virginia.

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 4
      and book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 24._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July-August: Virginia).
   The beginning of Pope's campaign: Cedar Mountain, or Cedar Run.

   "While Lee and McClellan were resting, important events were
   taking place at Washington and in Northern Virginia. The
   Federal administration, satisfied of the impolicy of the
   separate departments and independent commands which they had
   organized in that region, had determined to unite under one
   leader the three armies of Banks, Fremont, and McDowell, which
   Jackson had beaten or baffled in succession. … Their united
   armies were henceforth to be styled the Army of Virginia,
   while McClellan's forces continued to be known as the Army of
   the Potomac. General John Pope, whose deeds and still more his
   dispatches in the West, had given him some reputation, was
   called to Washington and placed at the head of the new army.
   General Pope was assigned to command on the 26th of June. …
   The unification of these commands under Pope was followed by
   another and still more important change of the same kind. The
   dissatisfaction of the Federal administration with General
   McClellan had been steadily growing for many months. This
   officer's caution often exposed him, and sometimes not
   unjustly, to the charge of timidity. … No doubt other causes,
   such as his moderation and his conservative political views,
   rendered him distasteful to the progressive radicals who at
   this time predominated in Mr. Lincoln's cabinet; but it must
   be confessed that McClellan's military conduct was not such as
   to inspire confidence or diminish antagonisms, and it, alone,
   is sufficient to account for the manner in which he was
   treated by his government. … After the Seven Days' Battles,
   the Federal government called General Halleck from the West …
   and placed him in chief command of the armies of the United
   States, the position from which McClellan had been deposed in
   March. The order assigning General Halleck was dated July 11,
   but the latter did not arrive in Washington and enter upon his
   duties until Ju]y 23. By this appointment it was designed to
   give a common head to the two armies in Virginia, and insure
   the cooperation of McClellan and Pope. The first great
   question that presented itself to Halleck was, what to do with
   McClellan's forces, and on the day after assuming command he
   left Washington to visit this army. The visit seems to have
   satisfied him of the propriety of withdrawing the Army of the
   Potomac at once from the Peninsula, and of placing it on the
   line of the Rappahannock. … During the month of Ju]y, while
   McClellan was resting at Westover, General Pope, though in
   Washington, was not idle. Having devoted some days to the
   reorganization and equipment of his command, he directed the
   concentration of the mass of his forces at the eastern base of
   the Blue Ridge Mountains in Rappahannock County, from which
   position he could cover the approach to Washington, or
   threaten the flank of any columns going toward the Shenandoah
   Valley, while he prepared for an aggressive campaign. …
   General Lee on July 13 ordered Jackson with the veteran troops
   of his own and Ewell's division to Gordonsville to oppose
   Pope's advance. The force thus sent numbered about 11,000 men.
   Robertson's brigade of cavalry, which was already in Pope's
   front, added 1,000 or 1,200 more. General Lee remained with
   some 65,000 men between McClellan and Richmond. General
   Jackson reached the vicinity of Gordonsville on July 19. His
   arrival was opportune. The Federal reconnoitring parties had
   already advanced through Culpeper to the Rapidan, and on July
   14 Banks had been ordered to send forward all his cavalry
   under Hatch to seize Gordonsville."

      _William Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapter 20._

{3475}

   "After ascertaining that the enemy were in large force under
   General Pope … Jackson applied to General Lee for
   reinforcements. The division of A. P. Hill was immediately
   sent to him, and, with this accession to his small army,
   Jackson had no intention of remaining idle or of awaiting an
   attack from so powerful a foe, but determined to strike a blow
   himself before the enemy had time to concentrate all their
   forces. He therefore advanced towards them on the 7th of
   August. Before taking this step, it was observed that he was
   much in prayer, but this was his custom previous to every
   battle. … Pope's army was gathering in all its strength at
   Culpepper Court-House, and on the 9th of August Jackson's
   little army came in contact with his advance-guard about six
   miles from the Court-House, on the borders of a little stream
   called Cedar Run. Here hostilities began by a furious
   cannonade on both sides, lasting two hours, when, about five
   o'clock in the afternoon, the infantry of both armies became
   hotly engaged. The conflict was fierce and stubborn, but the
   overwhelming numbers of the enemy swept down with such
   impetuosity that the weaker party were forced to yield, and it
   looked as if it were doomed to destruction. Ewell, Early, A.
   P. Hill, Winder, and other commanders all fought their bravest
   and best—the gallant Winder receiving a mortal wound—and
   still they were pressed back. 'It was at this fearful moment,'
   says his late chief-of-staff, Dr. Dabney, 'that the genius of
   the storm reared his head, and in an instant the tide was
   turned, Jackson appeared in the mid-torrent of the highway, …
   he drew his own sword (the first time in the war), and shouted
   to the broken troops with a voice which pealed higher than the
   roar of battle: "Rally, brave men, and press forward! Your
   general will lead you! Jackson will lead you† Follow me!" This
   appeal was not in vain, and the Federals, startled by this
   unexpected rally, were driven from the field. They afterwards
   made an attempt to retrieve the fortunes of the day, which
   they had so nearly won, by an assault from a magnificent body
   of cavalry, but even this was repelled, and the troopers
   driven in full retreat.' … This battle of Cedar Run [called
   Cedar Mountain by the Unionists] Jackson himself pronounced
   the most successful of his exploits. … In this battle the
   Confederates had between eighteen and twenty thousand men
   engaged, while the Federals, according to their own returns,
   had thirty-two thousand. Jackson, however, had one
   incalculable advantage over the enemy, which he gained by his
   promptitude in seizing and holding Slaughter's Mountain—an
   elevation which commanded all the surrounding plains, and
   enabled him to overlook the whole scene of action. … It was to
   the advantage of this position as well as the bravery of his
   troops that he was indebted for his complete success. By this
   victory Pope received such a blow that he was deterred from
   making another advance until he could gather reinforcements.
   Burnside's corps was withdrawn from North Carolina and sent on
   to Culpepper Court-House, and it was believed that McClellan's
   remaining forces would be recalled from James River and sent
   also to swell the ranks of the grand 'Army of Virginia,' as
   the command of Pope was called. At all events, General Lee was
   convinced that McClellan was incapable of further aggression,
   and that the most effective way to dislodge him from the
   Peninsula was to threaten Washington! He therefore determined
   to move his army from Richmond to Gordonsville. He began his
   march on the 13th, and four days after, on the 17th, McClellan
   evacuated the Peninsula and removed his troops to the
   Potomac." Pope's army was withdrawn behind the Rappahannock.
   "General Lee now ordered Jackson to cross the Rappahannock
   high up, and by a forced march go to Manassas and get in
   Pope's rear. Other divisions were sent to Pope's front, and
   the two hostile armies marched along on either side of the
   stream, opening fire upon each other whenever the opportunity
   offered. Jackson continued his march up stream until he
   reached Warrenton Springs, on the 22d, where he found the
   bridge destroyed, but he passed Early's brigade over on a
   mill-dam, and took possession of the Springs. Before other
   troops could be crossed to his support, a sudden and heavy
   rainfall swelled the river so as to render it impassable, and
   Early was thus cut off from his friends and surrounded by the
   enemy. His situation was one of extreme peril, but he managed
   to conceal his troops in the woods, and hold his foes at bay
   with artillery, until Jackson had constructed a temporary
   bridge, and by the dawn of the morning of the 24th the gallant
   Early, with his command, had recrossed the river without the
   loss of a man. While a fierce artillery duel was going on
   across the river between A. P. Hill and the enemy, Jackson
   left the river-bank a few miles, and marched to the village of
   Jeffersonton. He was thus lost sight of by the Federals, and
   to Longstreet was given the task of amusing Pope by the
   appearance of a crossing at Warrenton Springs. Jackson was now
   preparing to obey Lee's order to separate himself from the
   rest of the army, pass around Pope to the westward, and place
   his corps between him and Washington at Manassas Junction.

      _Mrs. M. A. Jackson,
      Life and letters of General Thomas J. Jackson,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Gordon.
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 1-3._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 19._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(July-September: Missouri-Arkansas).
   Warfare with the Rebel Guerrillas.

   "Since the autumn of 1861, General J. M. Schofield, Lyon's
   second at the battle of Wilson's Creek, had been in command of
   the militia of Missouri, and in June, 1862, that State was
   erected into a separate military district, with Schofield at
   its head. He was vigilant and active; but when Curtis withdrew
   to the Mississippi, and left Arkansas and Southern Missouri
   open to the operations of guerrilla bands, then numerous in
   the western part of the former State, he found his forces
   inadequate to keep down the secessionists in his district.
   When Price crossed the Mississippi, early in May, he sent back
   large numbers of Missourians to recruit guerrilla bands for
   active service during, the summer, and these, at the middle of
   July, were very numerous in the interior, and were preparing
   to seize important points in the State. To meet the danger,
   Schofield obtained authority from the Governor to organize all
   the militia of the State.
{3476}
   This drew a sharp dividing line between the loyal and disloyal
   inhabitants. He soon had 50,000 names on his rolls, of whom
   nearly 20,000 were ready for effective service at the close of
   July, when the failure of the campaign against Richmond so
   encouraged the secessionists in Missouri that it was very
   difficult to keep them in check. Schofield's army of
   volunteers and militia was scattered over Missouri in six
   divisions, and for two months a desperate and sanguinary
   guerrilla warfare was carried on in the bosom of that
   Commonwealth, the chief theater being northward of the
   Missouri River, in McNeill's division, where insurgent bands
   under leaders like Poindexter, Porter, Cobb, and others, about
   5,000 strong, were very active." They were also aided by
   incursions from Arkansas, under Hughes, Coffey and other
   leaders. The encounters were many and fierce. At Kirksville,
   August 6, and Chariton River, four days later, the loyal
   forces achieved considerable victories; at Independence (which
   was captured) August 11, and at Lone Jack, about the same
   time, they suffered defeat. These were the principal
   engagements of the month. With the cooperation of General
   Blunt, commanding in Kansas, the Arkansas invasion was driven
   back. Missouri was now somewhat relieved, but the Confederates
   were gathering in force in Arkansas, where they were joined by
   conscripts from Southern Missouri and a large number of troops
   from Texas. Their entire number was estimated to be 50,000 at
   the middle of September, with General T. C. Hindman in chief
   command. … So threatening was this gathering that Schofield
   took the field in person, and General Curtis succeeded him in
   command of the District of Missouri." Schofield's vanguard,
   under General Salomon, encountered the enemy at Newtonia,
   September 30, and was defeated; but the Confederates retreated
   before the united forces of Schofield and Blunt and "were
   chased about 30 miles into Arkansas."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 4, chapter 3._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August).
   Draft of Militia for nine months.

   By proclamation, August 4, the President ordered a draft of
   300,000 militia, for nine months service unless sooner
   discharged.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August).
   President Lincoln's "policy" explained to Horace Greeley.

   "Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.
   Hon. Horace Greeley.
   Dear Sir:
   I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself
   through the New York 'Tribune.' If there be in it any
   statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be
   erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there
   be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely
   drawn, I do not, now and here, argue against them. If there be
   perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive
   it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always
   supposed to be right. As to the policy I 'seem to be
   pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in
   doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest
   way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority
   can be restored, the nearer the Union will be the Union as it
   was.' If there be those who would not save the Union unless
   they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
   them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless
   they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree
   with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
   Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
   could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it;
   and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do
   it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
   alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the
   colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
   Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe
   it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
   shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do
   more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
   I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I
   shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true
   views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of
   official duty; and I intend no modification of my
   oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be
   free.
      Yours, A. Lincoln."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 227-228._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August: Virginia.)
   General Pope's campaign: Stonewall Jackson's movement
   into the rear of the Federal Army.

   "By the capture of Pope's papers [effected in a raid of
   Stuart's cavalry to the Federal rear] Lee gained an accurate
   knowledge of the situation of the Federal army. Acting on it,
   he ordered Jackson to advance his corps to Jeffersonton and
   secure the bridge over the Rappahannock at Warrenton Springs.
   … Jackson, on arriving at Jeffersonton in the afternoon of the
   22d, found that the bridge on the Warrenton turnpike had been
   destroyed by the Federals. … On the 23d Lee ordered
   Longstreet's corps to follow Jackson and mass in the vicinity
   of Jeffersonton. The headquarters of the army was also moved
   to that place. … General Longstreet made a feint on the
   position of Warrenton on the morning of the 24th, under cover
   of which Jackson's corps was withdrawn from the front to the
   vicinity of the road from Jeffersonton to the upper fords of
   the Rappahannock. Jackson was then directed to make
   preparations to turn the Federal position and seize their
   communications about Manassas Junction. Longstreet continued
   his cannonade at intervals throughout the day, to which the
   Federals replied with increasing vigor, showing that Pope was
   massing his army in Lee's front. It was the object of Lee to
   hold Pope in his present position by deluding him with the
   belief that it was his intention to force a passage of the
   river at that point, until Jackson by a flank movement could
   gain his rear. Longstreet, on the morning of the 25th, resumed
   his cannonade with increased energy, and at the same time made
   a display of infantry above and below the bridge. Jackson
   then, moved up the river to a ford eight miles above; crossing
   at that point and turning eastward, by a rapid march he
   reached the vicinity of Salem. Having made a march of 25
   miles, he bivouacked for the night. Stuart's cavalry covered
   his right flank, the movement being masked by the natural
   features of the country. The next morning at dawn the march
   was resumed by the route through Thoroughfare Gap. The
   cavalry, moving well to the right, passed around the west end
   of Bull Run Mountain and joined the infantry at the village of
   Gainesville, a few miles from the Orange and Alexandria Railroad.
{3477}
   Pressing forward, still keeping the cavalry well to the right,
   Jackson struck the railroad at Bristoe Station late in the
   afternoon, where he captured two empty trains going east.
   After dark he sent a detachment under Stuart to secure
   Manassas Junction, the main depot of supplies of the Federal
   army. The cavalry moved upon the flanks of this position,
   while the infantry, commanded by Trimble, assaulted the works
   in front and carried them with insignificant loss, capturing
   two batteries of light artillery with their horses and a
   detachment of 300 men, besides an immense amount of army
   supplies. The next morning, after effectually destroying the
   railroad at Bristoe, Jackson … moved his main body to
   Manassas, where he allowed his troops a few hours to refresh
   themselves upon the abundant stores that had been captured.
   About 12 o'clock the sound of artillery in the direction of
   Bristoe announced the Federal advance. Not having
   transportation to remove the captured supplies, Jackson
   directed his men to take what they could carry off, and
   ordered the rest to be destroyed. General Ewell, having
   repulsed the advance of two Federal columns [at Bristoe
   Station], rejoined Jackson at Manassas. The destruction of the
   captured stores having been completed, Jackson retired with
   his whole force to Bull Run, and took a position for the
   night, a part of his troops resting on the battle-field of the
   previous year. Pope, … upon learning that Jackson was in his
   rear, … immediately abandoned his position on the Rappahannock
   and proceeded with al despatch to intercept him before he
   could be reinforced by Lee. His advance having been arrested
   on the 27th by Ewell, he did not proceed beyond Bristoe that
   day. Lee on the 26th withdrew Longstreet's corps from its
   position in front of Warrenton Springs, covering the
   withdrawal by a small rear-guard and artillery, and directed
   it to follow Jackson by the route he had taken the day before.
   … The corps bivouacked for the night in the vicinity of Salem.
   On the morning of the succeeding day, the 27th, a messenger
   appeared bringing the important and cheering news of the
   success of Jackson at Bristoe and Manassas. … Thoroughfare Gap
   was reached about noon of the 28th. It was quickly found to be
   occupied by a Federal force. Some slight attempt was made to
   dislodge the enemy, but without success, as their position
   proved too strong, and it seemed as if the movement of the
   Confederate army in that direction was destined to be
   seriously interfered with. Meanwhile, nothing further had been
   heard from Jackson, and there was a natural anxiety in regard
   to his position and possible peril. … Under these critical
   circumstances General Lee made every effort to find some
   available route over the mountains," and had already succeeded
   in doing so when his adversary saved him further trouble.
   "Pope … had ordered McDowell to retire from the Gap and join
   him to aid in the anticipated crushing of Jackson. McDowell
   did so, leaving Rickett's division to hold the Gap. In evident
   ignorance of the vicinity of Longstreet's corps, this force
   was also withdrawn during the night, and on the morning of the
   29th Lee found the Gap unoccupied, and at once marched through
   at the head of Longstreet's column. … Pope had unknowingly
   favored the advance of the Confederate commander. His removal
   of McDowell from his position had been a tactical error of
   such magnitude that it could not well be retrieved. … The
   cannonade at the Gap on the 28th had informed Jackson of Lee's
   proximity. He at once took a position north of the Warrenton
   turnpike, his left resting on Bull Run. … About three o'clock
   the Federals bore down in heavy force upon Ewell and
   Taliaferro, who maintained their positions with admirable
   firmness, repelling attack after attack until night. The loss
   on both sides was considerable. … Jackson, with barely 20,000
   men, now found himself confronted by the greater part of the
   Federal army. Any commander with less firmness would have
   sought safety in retreat. But having heard the Confederate
   guns at Thoroughfare Gap, he knew that Lee would join him the
   next day. Therefore he determined to hold his position at all
   hazards. By the morning of the 29th … Hood's division had
   reached the south side of the mountain, and early in the day
   was joined by the remainder of Longstreet's corps, by way of
   the open Gap. While these important movements were in
   progress, Pope had resumed his attack upon Jackson. … On the
   arrival of Lee, Pope discontinued his attack, and retired to
   the position which the year before had been the scene of the
   famous battle of Bull Run, or Manassas."

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. L. Dabney,
      Life and Campaigns of General Thomas J. Jackson._

      _G. H. Gordon,
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 4-10._

      _W. B. Taliaferro,
      Jackson's Raid around Pope
      (Battles and Leader, volume 2, pages 501-511)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August-September: Virginia).
   The end of General Pope's campaign: Groveton.
   Second Bull Run.
   Chantilly.

   "By contradictory orders and the useless marches and
   counter-marches they involved, Pope's opportunity was thrown
   away, and instead of fighting Jackson's corps alone, it was
   the entire army of Lee with which he had to deal,—this, too,
   with his forces very much out of position, and he himself
   ignorant both of his own situation and that of the enemy.
   When, towards noon [August 29], Pope, coming from Centreville,
   reached the field near Groveton, he found the situation as
   follows: Heintzelman's two divisions, under Hooker and
   Kearney, on the right, in front and west of the Sudley Springs
   road; Reno and Sigel holding the centre,—Sigel's line being
   extended a short distance south of the Warrenton turnpike;
   Reynolds with his division on the left. But the commander was
   ignorant of the whereabouts of both Porter and McDowell, and
   he knew not that Longstreet had joined Jackson! The troops had
   been considerably cut up by the brisk skirmishing that had
   been going on all morning. An artillery contest had also been
   waged all forenoon between the opposing lines; but it was at
   long range and of no effect. The position of the troops in
   front of Jackson's intrenched line was one that promised very
   little success for a direct attack, and especially for a
   partial attack. Nevertheless, at three o'clock, Pope ordered
   Hooker to assault. The attempt was so unpromising that that
   officer remonstrated against it; but the order being
   imperative, he made a very determined attack with his
   division," and was driven back.
{3478}
   "Too late for united action, Kearney was sent to Hooker's
   assistance, and he also suffered repulse. Meanwhile, Pope had
   learnt the position of Porter's command, and, at half-past
   four in the afternoon, sent orders to that officer to assail
   the enemy's right flank and rear,—Pope erroneously believing
   the right flank of Jackson, near Groveton, to be the right of
   the Confederate line. Towards six, when he thought Porter
   should be coming into action, he directed Heintzelman and Reno
   to assault the enemy's left. The attack was made with vigor,
   especially by Kearney," but the enemy brought up heavy
   reserves and repelled the assault. "Turning now to the left,
   where Porter was to have assailed the Confederate left
   [right], it appears that the order which Pope sent at
   half-past four did not reach Porter till about dusk. He then
   made dispositions for attack, but it was too late. It is,
   however, more than doubtful that, even had the order been
   received in time, any thing but repulse would have resulted
   from its execution. … Contrary to Pope's opinion, he [Porter]
   had then, and had had since noon, Longstreet's entire corps
   before him. So, as firing now died away in the darkling woods
   on the right, a pause was put for the day to the chaos and
   confusion of this mismanaged battle [known as the battle of
   Groveton], in which many thousand men had fallen on the Union
   side. It would have been judicious for General Pope, in the
   then condition of his army, to have that night withdrawn
   across Bull Run and taken position at Centreville, or even
   within the fortifications of Washington. By doing so he would
   have united with the corps of Franklin and Sumner, then
   between Washington and Centreville. … With untimely obstinacy,
   Pope determined to remain and again try the issue of battle.
   To utilize Porter's corps, he drew it over from the isolated
   position it had held the previous day to the Warrenton road. …
   Now, by one of those curious conjunctures which sometimes
   occur in battle, it so was that the opposing commanders had
   that day formed each the same resolution: Pope had determined
   to attack Lee's left flank, and Lee had determined to attack
   Pope's left flank. And thus it came about that when
   Heintzelman pushed forward to feel the enemy's left, the
   refusal of that flank by Lee, and his withdrawal of troops to
   his right for the purpose of making his contemplated attack on
   Pope's left, gave the impression that the Confederates were
   retreating up the Warrenton turnpike towards Gainesville. …
   Pope … telegraphed to Washington that the enemy was
   'retreating to the mountains,'—a dispatch which, flashed
   throughout the land, gave the people a few hours, at least, of
   unmixed pleasure. To take advantage of the supposed 'retreat'
   of Lee, Pope ordered McDowell with three corps—Porter's in the
   advance—to follow up rapidly on the Warrenton turnpike, and
   'press the enemy vigorously during the whole day.' But no
   sooner were the troops put in motion to make this pursuit of a
   supposed flying foe, than the Confederates, hitherto concealed
   in the forest in front of Porter, uncovered themselves." The
   result of this misdirected movement was a fatal check,
   Porter's troops being fearfully cut up and driven back.
   "Jackson immediately took up the pursuit, and was joined by a
   general advance of the whole Confederate line—Longstreet
   extending his right so as, if possible, to cut off the retreat
   of the Union forces." In this attempt, however, he was foiled,
   and "under cover of the darkness the wearied troops retired
   across Bull Run, by the stone bridge, and took position on the
   heights of Centreville. Owing to the obscurity of the night,
   and the uncertainty of the fords of Bull Run, Lee attempted no
   pursuit." The engagement of this day is called the Second
   Battle of Bull Run, or the Second Battle of Manassas, as it
   was named by the Confederate victors. "At Centreville, Pope
   united with the corps of Franklin and Sumner, and he remained
   there during the whole of the 31st. But Lee had now yet given
   up the pursuit. Leaving Longstreet on the battle-field, he
   sent Jackson by a detour on Pope's right, to strike the Little
   River turnpike, and by that route to Fairfax Courthouse; to
   intercept, if possible, Pope's retreat to Washington.
   Jackson's march was much retarded by a heavy storm that
   commenced the day before and still continued. Pope, meantime,
   fell back to positions covering Fairfax Courthouse and
   Germantown; and on the evening of the 1st of September,
   Jackson struck his right, posted at Ox Hill." The short but
   severe action which then occurred (called the battle of
   Chantilly) was indecisive. Jackson's attack was repelled, but
   the repulse cost the lives of two excellent officers of high
   rank and reputation, Generals Kearney and Stevens, besides
   many men. "On the following day, September 2d, the army was,
   by order of General Halleck, drawn back within the lines of
   Washington."

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      pages 184-193._

   "The Second Battle of Bull Hun … was a severe defeat for
   General Pope; but it was nothing else. It was not a rout, nor
   anything like a rout. … Lee claims to have captured in these
   engagements 30 pieces of artillery and 7,000 unwounded
   prisoners."

      _J. C. Ropes,
      The Army under Pope
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 4),
      chapters 8-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Gordon,
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 11-13._

      _The Virginia Campaign of General Pope
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 2)._

      _J. Pope,
      The Second Battle of Bull Run
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 449-494)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 12, part 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September: Maryland).
   Lee's first invasion: His cold reception and disappointment.

   "The defeat of General Pope opened the way for movements not
   contemplated, probably, by General Lee, when he marched from
   Richmond. … He accordingly determined to advance into
   Maryland—the fortifications in front of Washington, and the
   interposition of the Potomac, a broad stream easily defended,
   rendering a movement in that direction unpromising. On the 3d
   of September, therefore, and without waiting to rest his army,
   which was greatly fatigued with the nearly continuous marching
   and fighting since it had left the Rapidan, General Lee moved
   toward Leesburg, crossed his forces near that place, and to
   the music of the bands playing the popular air, 'Maryland, my
   Maryland,' advanced to Frederick City, which he occupied on
   the 7th of September. Lee's object in invading Maryland has
   been the subject of much discussion. … It can only be said
   that General Lee, doubtless, left the future to decide his
   ultimate movements; meanwhile he had a distinct and
   clearly-defined aim, which he states in plain words.
{3479}
   His object was to draw the Federal forces out of Virginia. …
   The condition of affairs in Maryland, General Lee says,
   'encouraged the belief that the presence of our army, however
   inferior to that of the enemy, would induce the Washington
   Government to retain all its available force to provide for
   contingencies which its course toward the people of that State
   gave it reason to apprehend,' and to cross the Potomac 'might
   afford us an opportunity to aid the citizens of Maryland in
   any efforts they might be disposed to make to recover their
   liberty.' It may be said, in summing up on this point, that
   Lee expected volunteers to enroll themselves under his
   standard, tempted to do so by the hope of throwing off the
   yoke of the Federal Government, and the army certainly shared
   this expectation. The identity of sentiment generally between
   the people of the States of Maryland and Virginia, and their
   strong social ties in the past, rendered this anticipation
   reasonable, and the feeling of the country at the result
   afterward was extremely bitter. Such were the first designs of
   Lee; his ultimate aim seems as clear. By advancing into
   Maryland and threatening Baltimore and Washington, he knew
   that he would force the enemy to withdraw all their troops
   from the south bank of the Potomac, where they menaced the
   Confederate communications with Richmond; when this was
   accomplished, as it clearly would be, his design was, to cross
   the Maryland extension of the Blue Ridge, called there the
   South Mountain, advance by way of Hagerstown into the
   Cumberland Valley, and, by thus forcing the enemy to follow
   him, draw them to a distance from their base of supplies,
   while his own communications would remain open by way of the
   Shenandoah Valley. … The Southern army was concentrated in the
   neighborhood of Frederick City by the 7th of September, and on
   the next day General Lee Issued an address to the people of
   Maryland. … This address, couched in terms of such dignity,
   had little effect upon the people. Either their sentiment in
   favor of the Union was too strong, or they found nothing in
   the condition Of affairs to encourage their Southern feelings.
   A large Federal force was known to be advancing; Lee's army,
   in tatters, and almost without supplies, presented a very
   uninviting appearance to recruits, and few joined his
   standard, the population in general remaining hostile or
   neutral. … Lee soon discovered that he must look solely to his
   own men for success in his future movements. He faced that
   conviction courageously; and, without uttering a word of
   comment, or indulging in any species of crimination against
   the people of Maryland, resolutely commenced his movements
   looking to the capture of Harper's Ferry and the invasion of
   Pennsylvania."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Life of Robert E. Lee,
      part 5, chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September: Maryland).
   Lee's first invasion: Harper's Ferry.
   South Mountain.
   Antietam.

   "On the 2d of September the President went to General
   McClellan's house in Washington, asked him to take command
   again of the Army of the Potomac, in which Pope's army had now
   been merged, and verbally authorized him to do so at once. The
   first thing that McClellan wanted was the withdrawal of
   Miles's force, 11,000 men, from Harper's Ferry—where, he said,
   it was useless and helpless—and its addition to his own force.
   All authorities agree that in this he was obviously and
   unquestionably right; but the marplot hand of Halleck
   intervened, and Miles was ordered to hold the place. Halleck's
   principal reason appeared to be a reluctance to abandon a
   place where so much expense had been laid out. Miles, a worthy
   subordinate for such a chief, interpreted Halleck's orders
   with absolute literalness, and remained in the town, instead
   of holding it by placing his force on the heights that command
   it. As soon as it was known that Lee was in Maryland,
   McClellan set his army in motion northward, to cover
   Washington and Baltimore and find an opportunity for a
   decisive battle. He arrived with his advance in Frederick on
   the 12th, and met with a reception in striking contrast to
   that accorded to the army that had left the town two days
   before. … But this flattering reception was not the best
   fortune that befell the Union army in Frederick. On his
   arrival in the town General McClellan came into possession of
   a copy of General Lee's order, dated three days before, in
   which the whole campaign was laid out. … General Lee had taken
   it for granted that Martinsburg and Harper's Ferry would be
   evacuated at his approach (as they should have been); and when
   he found they were not, he had so far changed or suspended the
   plan with which he set out as to send back a large part of his
   army to capture those places and not leave a hostile force in
   his rear." This was easily accomplished by Jackson and McLaws,
   the latter of whom took possession of the heights commanding
   the town, where Miles waited to be trapped. "A bombardment the
   next day compelled a surrender when Jackson was about to
   attack. General Miles was mortally wounded by one of the last
   shots. About 11,000 men were included in the capitulation,
   with 73 guns. … Jackson, leaving the arrangements for the
   sur·render to A. P. Hill, hurried with the greater part of his
   force to rejoin Lee, and reached Sharpsburg on the morning of
   the 16th. The range known as the South Mountain, which is a
   continuation of the Blue Ridge north of the Potomac, is about
   1,000 feet high. The two principal gaps are Turner's and
   Crampton's, each about 400 feet high, with the hills towering
   600 feet above it. When McClellan learned the plans of the
   Confederate commander, he set his army in motion to thwart
   them. He ordered Franklin's corps to pass through Crampton's
   Gap and press on to relieve Harper's Ferry; the corps of Reno
   and Hooker, under command of Burnside, he moved to Turner's
   Gap. The movement was quick for McClellan, but not quite quick
   enough for the emergency. He might have passed through the
   Gaps on the 13th with little or no opposition, and would then
   have had his whole army between Lee's divided forces, and
   could hardly have failed to defeat them disastrously and
   perhaps conclusively. But he did not arrive at the passes till
   the morning of the 14th; and by that time Lee had learned of
   his movement and recalled Hill and Longstreet, from Boonsboro
   and beyond, to defend Turner's Gap, while he ordered McLaws to
   look out for Crampton's. … There was stubborn and bloody
   fighting all day, with the Union forces slowly but constantly
   gaining ground, and at dark the field was won," at both the
   passes. The two engagements were called the battle of South
   Mountain by the Federals, the Battle of Boonsboro by the
   Confederates.
{3480}
   At Turner's Gap there was a loss of about 1,500 on each side,
   and 1,500 Confederates were made prisoners; at Crampton's Gap,
   the loss in killed and wounded was some 500 on each side, with
   400 Confederate prisoners taken. The Union army had forced the
   passage of the mountains, but Lee had gained time to unite his
   scattered forces. "He withdrew across the Antietam, and took
   up a position on high ground between that stream and the
   village of Sharpsburg. … Lee now had his army together and
   strongly posted. But it had been so reduced by losses in
   battle and straggling that it numbered but little over 40,000
   combatants. … McClellan had somewhat over 70,000 men. … The
   ground occupied by the Confederate army, with both flanks
   resting on the Potomac, and the Antietam flowing in front, was
   advantageous. The creek was crossed by four stone bridges and
   a ford, and all except the northernmost bridge were strongly
   guarded. The land was occupied by meadows, cornfields, and
   patches of forest, and was much broken by outcropping ledges.
   McClellan only reconnoitered the position on the 15th. On the
   16th he developed his plan of attack, which was simply to
   throw his right wing across the Antietam by the upper and
   unguarded bridge, assail the Confederate left, and when this
   had sufficiently engaged the enemy's attention and drawn his
   strength to that flank, to force the bridges and cross with
   his left and centre. … All day long an artillery duel was kept
   up. … It was late in the afternoon when Hooker's corps crossed
   by the upper bridge, advanced through the woods, and struck
   the left flank, which was held by two brigades of Hood's men.
   Scarcely more than a skirmish ensued, when darkness came on,
   and the lines rested for the night where they were." At
   sunrise, next morning, Hooker assaulted Jackson and was
   seriously wounded in the fighting which followed. Sumner's
   corps finally joined in the attack, and all the forenoon the
   battle was desperate in that part of the field. "But while
   this great struggle was in progress on McClellan's right, his
   centre and left, under Porter und Burnside, did not make any
   movement to assist. At noon Franklin arrived from Crampton's
   Gap, and was sent over to help Hooker and Sumner, being just
   in time to check a new advance by more troops brought over
   from the Confederate right. At eight o'clock in the morning
   Burnside had been ordered to carry the bridge in his front,
   cross the stream, and attack the Confederate right. But,
   though commanded and urged repeatedly, it was one o'clock
   before he succeeded in doing this, and two more precious hours
   passed away before he had carried the ridge commanding
   Sharpsburg and captured the Confederate battery there. Then
   came up the last division of Lee's forces (A. P. Hill's) from
   Harper's Ferry, 2,000 strong, united with the other forces on
   his left, and drove Burnside from the crest and re-took the
   battery. Here ended the battle; not because the day was
   closed, or any apparent victory had been achieved, but because
   both sides had been so severely punished that neither was
   inclined to resume the fight. Every man of Lee's force had
   been actively engaged, but not more than two thirds of
   McClellan's. The reason why the Confederate army was not
   annihilated or captured must be plain to any intelligent
   reader. … General McClellan reported his entire loss at
   12,469, of whom 2,010 were killed. General Lee reported his
   total loss in the Maryland battles as 1,567 killed and 8,724
   wounded, saying nothing of the missing; but the figures given
   by his division commanders foot up 1,842 killed, 9,399
   wounded, and 2,292 missing—total 13,533. … Nothing was done on
   the 18th, and when McClellan determined to renew the attack on
   the 19th, he found that his enemy had withdrawn from the field
   and crossed to Virginia by the ford at Shepherdstown. The
   National commander reported the capture of more than 6,000
   prisoners, 13 guns, and 39 battle-flags, and that he had not
   lost a gun or a color. As he was also in possession of the
   field … and had rendered Lee's invasion fruitless of anything
   but the prisoners carried off from Harper's Ferry, the victory
   was his."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Palfrey,
      The Antietam and Fredericksburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 5)._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 3, chapter 4._

      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 4._

      _A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th. Army Corps,
      part 2, chapters 2-3._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 19._

      _G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      chapters 33-38._

      _D. H. Hill, J. D. Cox, J. Longstreet, and others,
      Lee's Invasion of Maryland
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2)._

      _W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapters 37-48._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September).
   President Lincoln's Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation,
   and the attitude of Northern parties on the Slavery question.

   Abraham Lincoln "believed that without the Union permanent
   liberty for either race on this continent would be impossible.
   And because of this belief, he was reluctant, perhaps more
   reluctant than most of his associates, to strike slavery with
   the sword. For many months, the passionate appeals of millions
   of his associates seemed not to move him. He listened to all
   the phases of the discussion, and stated in language clearer
   and stronger than any opponent had used, the dangers, the
   difficulties, and the possible futility of the act. In
   reference to its practical wisdom, Congress, the Cabinet, and
   the country were divided. Several of his generals had
   proclaimed the freedom of slaves within the limits of their
   commands. The President revoked their proclamations. His first
   Secretary of War had inserted a paragraph in his annual report
   advocating a similar policy. The President suppressed it. On
   the 19th of August, 1862, Horace Greeley published a letter
   addressed to the President, entitled 'The Prayer of Twenty
   Millions,' in which he said, 'On the face of this wide earth,
   Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined,
   intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that
   all attempts to put down the rebellion and at the same time
   uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile.' To
   this the President responded in that ever memorable reply of
   August 22, in which he said:—'If there be those who would not
   save the Union unless they could at the same time save
   slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would
   not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy
   slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object is to
   save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery.
{3481}
   If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would
   do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would
   do it,—and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving
   others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery
   and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save
   the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
   believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
   whenever I shall believe that what I am doing hurts the cause,
   and I shall do more whenever I believe doing more will help
   the cause.' Thus, against all importunities on the one hand
   and remonstrances on the other, he took the mighty question to
   his own heart, and, during the long months of that terrible
   battle-summer, wrestled with it alone. But at length he
   realized the saving truth, that great unsettled questions have
   no pity for the repose of nations. On the 22d of September, he
   summoned his Cabinet to announce his conclusion. It was my
   good fortune, on that same day, and a few hours after the
   meeting, to hear, from the lips of one who participated, the
   story of the scene. As the chiefs of the Executive Departments
   came in, one by one, they found the President reading a
   favorite chapter from a popular humorist. He was lightening
   the weight of the great burden which rested upon his spirit.
   He finished the chapter, reading it aloud. And here I quote,
   from the published Journal of the late Chief Justice, an
   entry, written immediately after the meeting, and bearing
   unmistakable evidence that it is almost a literal transcript
   of Lincoln's words: 'The President then took a graver tone and
   said: "Gentlemen I have, as you are aware, thought a great
   deal about the relation of this war to slavery; and you all
   remember that, several weeks ago, I read to you an order I had
   prepared upon the subject, which, on account of objections
   made by some of you, was not issued. Ever since then my mind
   has been much occupied with this subject, and I have thought
   all along that the time for acting on it might probably come.
   I think the time has come now. I wish it was a better time. I
   wish that we were in a better condition. The action of the
   army against the rebels has not been quite what I should have
   best liked. But they have been driven out of Maryland, and
   Pennsylvania is no longer in danger of invasion. When the
   rebel army was at Frederick, I determined as soon as it should
   be driven out of Maryland to issue a proclamation of
   emancipation, such as I thought most likely to be useful. I
   said nothing to any one, but I made a promise to myself and
   (hesitating a little) to my Maker. The rebel army is now
   driven out, and I am going to fulfil that promise. I have got
   you together to hear what I have written down. I do not wish
   your advice about the main matter, for that I have determined
   for myself. This I say without intending anything but respect
   for any one of you. But I already know the views of each on
   this question. They have been heretofore expressed, and I have
   considered them as thoroughly and carefully as I can. What I
   have written is that which my reflections have determined me
   to say. If there is anything in the expressions I use, or in
   any minor matter which any of you thinks had best be changed,
   I shall be glad to receive your suggestions. One other
   observation I will make, I know very well that many others
   might, in this matter as in others, do better than I can; and
   if I was satisfied that the public confidence was more fully
   possessed by any one of them than by me, and knew of any
   constitutional way in which he could be put in my place, he
   should have it. I would gladly yield it to him. But though I
   believe I have not so much of the confidence of the people as
   I had some time since, I do not know that, all things
   considered, any other person has more; and, however this may
   be, there is no way in which I can have any other man put
   where I am. I am here. I must do the best I can and bear the
   responsibility of taking the course which I feel I ought to
   take." The President then proceeded to read his Emancipation
   Proclamation, making remarks on the several parts as he went
   on, and showing that he had fully considered the subject in
   all the lights under which it had been presented to him.' The
   Proclamation was amended in a few matters of detail. It was
   signed and published that day."

      _J. A. Garfield,
      Works,
      volume 2, pages 538-540._

   "I was alone with Mr. Lincoln more than two hours of the
   Sunday next after Pope's defeat in August, 1802. That was the
   darkest day of the sad years of the war. … When the business
   to which I had been summoned by the President was over—strange
   business for the time: the appointment of assessors and
   collectors of internal revenue—he was kind enough to ask my
   opinion as to the command of the army. The way was thus opened
   for conversation, and for me to say at the end that I thought
   our success depended upon the emancipation of the slaves. To
   this he said: 'You would not have it done now, would you? Must
   we not wait for something like a victory?' This was the second
   and most explicit intimation to me of his purpose in regard to
   slavery. In the preceding July or early in August, at an
   interview upon business connected with my official duties, he
   said, 'Let me read two letters,' and taking them from a
   pigeon-hole over his table he proceeded at once to do what he
   had proposed. I have not seen the letters in print. His
   correspondent was a gentleman in Louisiana, who claimed to be
   a Union man. He tendered his advice to the President in regard
   to the reorganization of that State, and he labored zealous]y
   to impress upon him the dangers and evils of emancipation. The
   reply of the President is only important from the fact that
   when he came to that part of his correspondent's letter he
   used this expression: 'You must not expect me to give up this
   government without playing my last card.' Emancipation was his
   last card. He waited for the time when two facts or events
   should coincide. Mr. Lincoln was as devoted to the
   Constitution as was ever Mr. Webster. In his view, a military
   necessity was the only ground on which the overthrow of
   slavery in the States could be justified. Next, he waited for
   a public sentiment in the loyal States not only demanding
   emancipation but giving full assurance that the act would be
   sustained to the end. As for himself, I cannot doubt that he
   had contemplated the policy of emancipation for many months,
   and anticipated the time when he should adopt it."

      _G. S. Boutwell,
      Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by
      Distinguished Men of his Time,
      pages 123-125._

{3482}

   "It was after all efforts for voluntary emancipation by the
   states interested, with pecuniary aid from the national
   treasury, had failed [that the President determined to decree
   emancipation in the rebellious states by a military order]. To
   Mr. Seward and myself the President communicated his purpose,
   and asked our views, on the 13th of July 1862. It was the day
   succeeding his last unsuccessful and hopeless conference with
   the representatives in Congress from the border slave states,
   at a gloomy period of our affairs, just after the reverses of
   our armies under McClellan before Richmond. The time, be said,
   had arrived when we must determine whether the slave element
   should be for or against us. Mr. Seward … was appalled and not
   prepared for this decisive step, when Mr. Lincoln made known
   to us that he contemplated, by an executive order, to
   emancipate the slaves. Startled with so broad and radical a
   proposition, he informed the President that the consequences
   of such an act were so momentous that he was not prepared to
   advise on the subject without further reflection. … While Mr.
   Seward hesitated and had the subject under consideration, the
   President deliberately prepared his preliminary proclamation,
   which met the approval, or at least the acquiescence, of the
   whole Cabinet, though there were phases of opinion not
   entirely in accord with the proceedings. Mr. Blair, an
   original emancipationist, and committed to the principle,
   thought the time to issue the order inopportune, and Mr. Bates
   desired that the deportation of the colored race should be
   coincident with emancipation. Aware that there were shades of
   difference among his counsellors, and hesitation and doubt
   with some, in view of the vast responsibility and its
   consequences, the President devised his own scheme, held
   himself alone accountable for the act, and, unaided and
   unassisted, prepared each of the proclamations of freedom."

      _G. Welles,
      Lincoln and Seward,
      pages 210-212._

   The preliminary or monitory Proclamation of Emancipation,
   issued on the 22d of September, 1862, was as follows:

   "'I. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of
   America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof,
   do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore,
   the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically
   restoring the constitutional relations between the United
   States and each of the States and the people thereof, in which
   States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed. That
   it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again
   recommend the adoption of a practical measure, tendering
   pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all the
   slave States, so-called, the people whereof may not then be in
   rebellion against the United States, and which States may then
   have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt,
   the immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their
   respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of
   African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or
   elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the
   governments existing there, will be continued. That on the
   first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
   eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
   within any State, or designated part of a State, the people
   whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,
   shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the
   Executive Government of the United States, including the
   military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and
   maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
   acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
   they may make for their actual freedom. That the Executive
   will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation,
   designate the States, or parts of States if any, in which the
   people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion
   against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the
   people thereof, shall, on that day, be in good faith
   represented in the Congress of the United States by members
   chosen thereto at elections, wherein a majority of the
   qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall,
   in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed
   conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof,
   are not then in rebellion against the United States.' Then,
   after reciting the language of 'An act to make an additional
   article of war,' approved March 13, 1862, and also sections 9
   and 10 of the Confiscation Act, approved July 17, 1862, and
   enjoining their enforcement upon all persons in the military
   and naval service, the proclamation concludes: 'And I do
   hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the
   military and naval service of the United States to observe,
   obey, and enforce, within their respective spheres of service,
   the acts and sections above recited. And the Executive will,
   in due time, recommend that all citizens of the United States,
   who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the
   rebellion, shall, upon the restoration of the constitutional
   relations between the United States and the people, if that
   relation shall have been suspended or disturbed, be
   compensated for all losses by acts of the United States,
   including the loss of slaves.'"

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapters 6 and 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(September-October: Mississippi).
   Union successes under Grant.
   Iuka and Corinth.

   "In July, Pope was ordered to Virginia, and on the 17th of
   that month Halleck was assigned to the command of all the
   armies, superseding McClellan. He repaired at once to
   Washington, and Grant was directed to establish his
   headquarters at Corinth. Grant's jurisdiction was not,
   however, enlarged by the promotion of Halleck: on the
   contrary, the new general-in-chief first offered the command
   of the Army of the Tennessee to Colonel Robert Allen, a
   quarter-master, who declined it, whereupon it was allowed to
   remain under Grant. He was, however, left somewhat more
   independent than while Halleck had heen immediately present in
   the field. Four divisions of his army (including Thomas's
   command), were within the next two months ordered to Buell,
   who was stretching out slowly, like a huge, unwieldy snake,
   from Eastport to Decatur, and from Decatur towards
   Chattanooga. This subtraction put Grant entirely on the
   defensive. He had possession of Corinth, the strategic point,
   but was obliged to hold the railroads from that place and
   Bolivar, north to Columbus, which last, on account of the low
   water in the Tennessee, he had made his base of supplies. … He
   remained himself eight weeks at Corinth, narrowly watching the
   enemy, who, commanded by Van Dorn and Price, harassed and
   threatened him continually.

{3483}

   During this time, he directed the strengthening and
   remodelling of the fortifications of Corinth. … New works,
   closer to the town, were … erected. … Van Dorn at last
   determined to move part of his force (under Price), east of
   Grant, apparently with a view to crossing the Tennessee and
   reënforcing Bragg in the Kentucky campaign. Grant notified
   Halleck of the probability of such a movement, and of his
   intention to prevent it. … On the 13th [of September], Price
   advanced from the south and seized Iuka, 21 miles east of
   Corinth. … Grant had called in his forces some days before to
   the vicinity of Corinth, had repeatedly cautioned all his
   commanders to hold their troops in readiness, and when the
   enemy's cavalry moved towards Iuka, and cut the railroad and
   telegraph wires between that place and Burnsville, seven miles
   to the westward, Grant began his operations. Price was at
   Iuka, and Van Dorn four days off, to the southwest,
   threatening Corinth. Grant's object was to destroy Price,
   before the two could concentrate, and then to get back to
   Corinth and protect it against Van Dorn. He accordingly
   ordered Brigadier-General Rosecrans, whose troops were posted
   south of Corinth, to move by way of Renzi, along the south
   side of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, and attack Iuka
   from that direction; while Major-General Ord, with a force
   brought hurriedly from Bolivar and Jackson, was to push
   towards Burnsville, and from there take roads on the north
   side of the railroad, attacking Iuka from that quarter. Ord
   had 8,000 men, and Rosecrans reported 9,000, a greater force
   combined than Price had, according to Grant's estimate."
   Rosecrans's movement was delayed, and he was attacked
   (September 19) in heavy force as he neared Iuka, Ord's advance
   having been held back waiting for him. He kept his ground, but
   lost in the action a battery of artillery, besides 736 men,
   killed and wounded. That night the enemy retreated from Iuka,
   over a road which Rosecrans was expected to occupy, but did
   not. "By the battle of Iuka, the enemy was simply checked in
   his plans, not seriously crippled in his force. Price moved
   around by a circuitous route and joined Van Dorn, and the same
   state of affairs continued which had annoyed Grant for so many
   weeks. He put Rosecrans in command at Corinth, and Ord at
   Bolivar, and on the 23d of September removed his own
   headquarters to Jackson, from which point he could communicate
   more readily with all points of his district, including
   Memphis and Cairo. The rebels were in force at La Grange and
   Ripley. … At last it was rendered certain … that Corinth was
   to be the place of attack. Grant thereupon directed Rosecrans
   to call in his forces, and sent Brigadier-General McPherson to
   his support from Jackson, with a brigade of troops." He also
   "hurried Ord and Hurlbut by way of Pocahontas from Bolivar, 44
   miles away, to be ready to strike Van Dorn in flank or rear,
   as he advanced, and at least to create a diversion, if they
   could not get into the town. On the 2d of October the rebel
   array, under Van Dorn, Price, Lovell, Villepigue, and Rust,
   appeared in front of Corinth. … On the 3d the fighting began
   in earnest. Rosecrans had about 19,000 men, and the enemy had
   collected 38,000 for this important movement, which was to
   determine the possession of northern Mississippi and West
   Tennessee. Rosecrans pushed out about five miles, towards
   Chewalla, Grant having ordered him to attack, if opportunity
   offered; but the enemy began the fight, and, on the afternoon
   of the 3d, the battle turned in favor of Van Dorn. Rosecrans
   was driven back to his defences on the north side of Corinth,
   and it was now found how important was the labor bestowed on
   these fortifications, by Grant's order, a month previous. The
   enemy was checked until morning; but, early on the 4th, the
   whole rebel army, flushed with the success of the day before,
   assaulted the works. The fighting was fierce; the rebels
   charging almost into the town, when an unexpected fire from
   the forts drove them back in confusion. Again and again, they
   advanced to the works, but each time were received with a
   determination equal to their own. Once, the national troops
   came near giving way entirely, but Rosecrans rallied them in
   person, and the rebels were finally repulsed before noon, with
   a loss admitted by themselves to be double that of Rosecrans.
   The national loss was 315 killed, 1,812 wounded, and 232
   prisoners and missing. Rosecrans reported the rebel dead at
   1,423, and took 2,225 prisoners. … The repulse was complete,
   by 11 o'clock in the morning, but unfortunately was not
   followed up by Rosecrans, till the next day. The rebels,
   however, started off in haste and disorder immediately after
   the fight; and on the 5th, while in full retreat, were struck
   in flank, as Grant had planned, by Hurlbut and Ord, and the
   disaster was rendered final. This occurred early on the
   morning of the 5th, at the crossing of the Hatchie river,
   about ten miles from Corinth. … A battery of artillery and
   several hundred men were captured, and the advance was
   dispersed or drowned. … Had Rosecrans moved promptly the day
   before, he would have come up in the rear of Van Dorn, either
   as he was fighting Ord, or while attempting to pass this
   defile [six miles up the stream, where Van Dorn finally made
   his crossing]. In either event, the destruction of the rebels
   must have been complete. … These two fights relieved the
   command of West Tennessee from all immediate danger."

      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   "Satisfied that the enemy was retreating [on the 4th], I
   ordered Sullivan's command to push him with a heavy skirmish
   line, and to keep constantly feeling them. I rode along the
   lines of the commands, told them that, having been moving and
   fighting for three days and two nights, I knew they required
   rest, but that they could not rest longer than was absolutely
   necessary. I directed them to proceed to their camps, provide
   five days' rations, take some needed rest, and be ready early
   next morning for the pursuit."

      _W. S. Rosecrans,
      The Battle of Corinth
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2), page 753._

{3484}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(September-December: Missouri-Arkansas).
   Social demoralizations of the Civil War.
   Battle of Prairie Grove.

   "The dispersion and suppression of the guerrilla bands [in
   Missouri] did not serve wholly to terminate local disturbances
   and offenses. The restraints of a common public opinion no longer
   existed. Neighborhood good-will had become changed to
   neighborhood hatred and feud. Men took advantage of the
   license of war to settle personal grudges by all the
   violations of law, varying from petty theft to assassination;
   and parallel with this thirst for private revenge was the
   cupidity which turned crime into a source of private gain. … A
   rearrangement of military command appears in an order of the
   President under date of September 19, 1862, directing that
   Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and the bordering Indian Territory
   should constitute a new department to be called the Department
   of the Missouri, to be commanded by Major-General Samuel R.
   Curtis. … This new arrangement served to change the relative
   positions of Schofield and Curtis. The former, gathering what
   troops he could, took the field in a campaign towards
   Southwest Missouri to meet the expected invasion from
   Arkansas, while the latter, recalled from a short leave of
   absence, came to St. Louis (September 24, 1862) to take up his
   headquarters and assume the general administration of the new
   Department of the Missouri. … The difficulties in the military
   situation had grown primarily out of the error of Halleck … in
   postponing the opening of the Mississippi River. When, in the
   spring and summer of 1862, Halleck abandoned all thought of
   pursuing that prime and comprehensive object, and left
   Vicksburg to grow up into an almost impregnable Confederate
   citadel, he blighted the possibility of successful Union
   campaigns on both sides of the great river. … From the
   midsummer of 1862, therefore, until the fall of Vicksburg in
   midsummer of 1863, military campaigning in the
   trans-Mississippi country ceases to have any general
   significance. … The only action of importance which marks the
   military administration of Curtis was the battle of Prairie
   Grove in the northwest corner of Arkansas, where on the 7th of
   December the detachments respectively commanded by the Union
   generals James G. Blunt (who had been hovering all summer
   along the border of Kansas) and Francis J. Herron, who,
   finding Blunt pressed by the enemy coming northward with a
   view of entering Missouri, advanced by forced marches from
   near Springfield and formed a junction with Blunt just in the
   nick of time to defeat the Confederates under General Hindman.
   The losses on each side were about equal, and on the day
   following the engagement the Confederates retreated southward
   across the protecting barrier of the Boston Mountains. It was
   in a diminished degree a repetition of the battle of Pea
   Ridge, fought in the preceding March within 20 or 30 miles of
   the same place. … So effectually did this engagement serve to
   scatter the rebel forces that Schofield reported January 31,
   1863, 'There is no considerable force of the enemy north of
   the Arkansas River; indeed I believe they have all gone or are
   going, as rapidly as possible, to Vicksburg. Ten thousand
   infantry and artillery can be spared from Southern Missouri
   and Northern Arkansas.'"

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Baxter,
      Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove._

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 10, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      _W. Britton,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion on the Border,
      chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (October-December: Virginia).
   The final removal of McClellan.
   Burnside at Fredericksburg.

   "Both armies … felt the need of some repose; and, glad to be
   freed from each other's presence, they rested on their
   arms—the Confederates in the Shenandoah Valley, in the
   vicinity of Winchester, and the army of the Potomac near the
   scene of its late exploits, amid the picturesque hills and
   vales of Southwestern Maryland. The movement from Washington
   into Maryland to meet Lee's invasion was defensive in its
   purpose, though it assumed the character of a
   defensive-offensive campaign. Now that this had been
   accomplished and Lee driven across the frontier, it remained
   to organize on an adequate scale the means of a renewal of
   grand offensive operations directed at the Confederate army
   and towards Richmond. The completion of this work, including
   the furnishing of transportation, clothing, supplies, etc.,
   required upwards of a month, and during this period no
   military movement occurred, with the exception of a raid into
   Pennsylvania by Stuart. About the middle of October, that
   enterprising officer, with twelve or fifteen hundred troopers,
   crossed the Potomac above Williamsport, passed through
   Maryland, penetrated Pennsylvania, occupied Chambersburg,
   where he burnt considerable government stores, and after
   making the entire circuit of the Union army, recrossed the
   Potomac below the mouth of the Monocacy. He was all the way
   closely pursued by Pleasonton with 800 cavalry. … On the
   recrossing of the Potomac by Lee after Antietam, McClellan
   hastened to seize the débouehé of the Shenandoah Valley, by
   the possession of Harper's Ferry. … At first McClellan
   contemplated pushing his advance against Lee directly down the
   Shenandoah Valley, as he found that, by the adoption of the
   line east of the Blue Ridge, his antagonist, finding the door
   open, would again cross to Maryland. But this danger being
   removed by the oncoming of the season of high-water in the
   Potomac, McClellan determined to operate by the east side of
   the Blue Ridge, and on the 26th his advance crossed the
   Potomac by a ponton-bridge at Berlin, five miles below
   Harper's Ferry. By the 2d November the entire army had crossed
   at that point. Advancing due southward towards Warrenton, he
   masked the movement by guarding the passes of the Blue Ridge,
   and by threatening to issue through these, he compelled Lee to
   retain Jackson in the Valley. With such success was this
   movement managed, that on reaching Warrenton on the 9th, while
   Lee had sent half of his army forward to Culpepper to oppose
   McClellan's advance in that direction, the other half was
   still west of the Blue Ridge, scattered up and down the
   Valley, and separated from the other moiety by at least two
   days' march. McClellan's next projected move was to strike
   across obliquely westward and interpose between the severed
   divisions of the Confederate force; but this step he was
   prevented from taking by his sudden removal from the command
   of the Army of the Potomac, while on the march to Warrenton.
   Late on the night of November 7th, amidst a heavy snow-storm,
   General Buckingham, arriving post-haste from Washington,
   reached the tent of General McClellan at Rectortown. He was
   the bearer of the following dispatch, which he handed to
   General McClellan: … 'By direction of the President of the
   United States, it is ordered that Major-General McClellan be
   relieved from the command of the Army of the Potomac, and that
   Major-General Burnside take the command of that army.' … It
   chanced that General Burnside was at the moment with him in
   his tent.
{3485}
   Opening the dispatch and reading it, without a change of
   countenance or of voice, McClellan passed over the paper to
   his successor, saying, as he did so: 'Well, Burnside, you are
   to command the army.' Thus ended the career of McClellan as
   head of the Army of the Potomac. … The moment chosen was an
   inopportune and an ungracious one; for never had McClellan
   acted with such vigor and rapidity-never had he shown so much
   confidence in himself or the army in him. And it is a notable
   fact that not only was the whole body of the army—rank and
   file as well his officers—enthusiastic in their affection for
   his person, but that the very general appointed as his
   successor was the strongest opponent of his removal."

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 6, sections 2-3. _

   "It is dangerous to shift commanders on the eve of battle, and
   our cavalry had already engaged the Confederates'; it is more
   dangerous to change the plans of troops moving in the vicinity
   of the enemy. But as if impelled to do some new thing … the
   new commander of the Army of the Potomac determined upon a
   flank movement by his left on the north of the river towards
   Fredericksburg. … Only by movements equally wary and rapid, as
   well as by sure means of crossing the river, could Burnside's
   manœuvre possibly succeed. In this last element he counted on
   Halleck, and, of course, failed. The promised pontoons did
   not, and could scarcely have been expected to come. Arrived at
   Fredericksburg Burnside still might have crossed by the fords,
   for the water was low. And once in possession of the heights
   beyond the city he could afford to wait. But, slower than even
   his predecessor, Burnside sat down at Falmouth, on the north
   side of the river, while Lee, having learned of his movement,
   by forced marches concentrated his army on the opposite bank,
   and prepared to erect impregnable defences in his front. …
   Before Burnside got ready to take any active steps, Marye's
   Heights, back of Fredericksburg, had been crowned by a triple
   line of works, and Lee had brought together nearly 90,000
   troops to man them. Two canals and a stone wall in front of
   the left, as well as open, sloping ground on both flanks,
   served to retain an attacking party for a long period under
   fire. To assault these works in front was simple madness. To
   turn them below necessitated the crossing of a wide and now
   swollen river, in the face of a powerful enemy in his
   immediate front. … To turn them above was practicable, but it
   was a confessed return to McClellan's plan. Burnside chose the
   first. Preparations foe crossing were begun. The better part
   of three days [December 11-13] was consumed in throwing the
   bridges and putting over the two Grand Divisions of Franklin
   and Sumner, all of which was accomplished under fire. But Lee
   was by no means unwilling to meet the Army of the Potomac
   after this fashion. Such another happy prospect for him was
   not apt soon again to occur. He did not dispute the crossing
   in force. Burnside's one chance in a hundred lay in a
   concentrated assault sharply pushed home before the enemy
   could oppose an equal force. But in lieu of one well-sustained
   attack, or of two quite simultaneous, Burnside frittered away
   this single chance by putting in Franklin on the left and
   Sumner on the right, without concerted action." Both assaults
   were bloodily repulsed. "Hooker is ordered across. Under
   protest, and yet Hooker lacked not stomach for a fight, he
   obeys the useless order, and leads his men into the slaughter
   pen. … All is in vain. Even the Army of the Potomac cannot do
   the impossible. The defeated troops are huddled into
   Fredericksburg, and gradually withdrawn across the river.
   Burnside was insane enough to wish to repeat the assault next
   day. But the counsels of his officers prevailed on him to
   desist. No such useless slaughter, with the exception,
   perhaps, of Cold Harbor, occurred during our war, and 13,000
   men paid the penalty. The enemy's loss was but one in three of
   ours."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps,
      part 2, chapters 4-8.

      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapters 5-6._

      _B. P. Poore,
      Life of Burnside,
      chapters 18-19._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 21._

      _J. Longstreet,
      D. N. Couch, and others,
      Burnside at Fredericksburg,
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _F. W. Palfrey,
      The Antietam and Fredericksburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 5), pages 129-135._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (December: On the Mississippi).
   The second attempt against Vicksburg.
   General Sherman and Admiral Porter.
   Miscarriage of Grant's plans.

   "Rear-Admiral Porter took command of the Mississippi squadron
   in October, 1862. … Up to this time the gun-boats had,
   strictly speaking, been under the control of the Army, but now
   all this was changed, and the Mississippi Squadron, like all
   the other naval forces, was brought directly under the
   supervision of the Secretary of the Navy. … The new
   arrangement left the commander of the squadron at liberty to
   undertake any expedition he thought proper, and he was not in
   the least hampered by any instructions from the Navy
   Department. … Before Admiral Porter left Washington he was
   informed by the President that General McClernand had been
   ordered to raise an Army at Springfield, Illinois, to
   prosecute the siege of Vicksburg. The President expressed the
   hope that the rear-admiral would co-operate heartily with
   General McClernand in the operations to be carried on. But as
   Vicksburg never would have been taken if it had depended on
   General McClernand's raising an Army sufficient for the
   purpose, the Admiral, immediately on his arrival at Cairo,
   sent a message to General Grant, at Holly Springs,
   Mississippi, informing him of McClernand's intention; that he,
   Porter, had assumed command of the Mississippi Squadron, and
   was ready to cooperate with the Army on every occasion where
   the services of the Navy could be useful. A few days
   afterwards General Grant arrived at Cairo and proposed an
   expedition against Vicksburg, and asking the rear-admiral, if
   he could furnish a sufficient force of gun-boats, to accompany
   it. Grant's plan was to embark Sherman from Memphis, where he
   then was, with 30,000 soldiers, to be joined at Helena,
   Arkansas, by 10,000 more. Grant himself would march from Holly
   Springs with some 60,000 men upon Granada. General Pemberton
   would naturally march from Vicksburg to stop Grant at Granada,
   until reinforcements could be thrown into Vicksburg from the
   south, and while Pemberton was thus absent with the greater
   part of his Army, Sherman and Porter could get possession of
   the defences of Vicksburg.
{3486}
   General Grant having been informed that the gun-boats would be
   ready to move at short notice, and having sent orders to
   Sherman to put his troops aboard the transports as soon as the
   gun-boats arrived in Memphis, returned immediately to Holly
   Springs to carry out his part of the programme. … The
   expedition from Memphis got away early in December, 1862.
   Commander Walke, in the 'Carondelet,' being sent ahead with
   [three iron-clads and two so-called 'tin-clads'] … to clear
   the Yazoo River of torpedoes and cover the landing of
   Sherman's Army when it should arrive. This arduous and
   perilous service was well performed," but one of the
   iron-clads engaged in it, the Cairo, was sunk by a torpedo.
   "General Sherman moved his transports to a point on the river
   called Chickasaw Bayou without the loss of a man from
   torpedoes or sharpshooters, his landing [December 27] being
   covered in every direction by the gunboats. Sherman first made
   a feint on Haines' Bluff, as if to attack the works, and then
   landed at Chickasaw Bayou. Owing to the late heavy rains he
   found the roads to Vicksburg heights almost impassable, and
   when he attempted to advance with his Army he was headed off
   by innumerable bayous, which had to be bridged, or corduroy
   roads built around them. It was killing work. Even at this
   time Vicksburg had been fortified at every point, and its only
   approaches by land led through dense swamps or over boggy open
   ground, where heavy guns were placed, so as to mow down an
   advancing Army. A general has seldom had so difficult a task
   assigned him, and there was little chance of Sherman's
   succeeding unless Pemberton had drawn off nearly all his
   forces to oppose Grant's advance on Granada. … Sherman and his
   Army overcame everything and at last reached terra firma. In
   the meanwhile the Navy was doing what it could to help the
   Army. … Grant had left Holly Springs with a large Army at the
   time he had appointed, merely with the design of drawing
   Pemberton from Vicksburg and thus helping Sherman in his
   attack on that place. … Grant moved towards Granada, and
   everything looked well; but the Confederate General, Earl Van
   Dorn, dashed into Holly Springs, 28 miles in the rear of the
   Union Army, capturing the garrison and all their stores. At
   the same time General Forrest pushed his cavalry into West
   Tennessee, cutting the railroad to Columbus at several points
   between that place and Jackson. … Due precautions had been
   taken to prevent this mishap by leaving a strong force behind
   at Holly Springs, but the commanding officer was not on the
   alert and his capture was a complete surprise. In this raid of
   the Confederates a million dollars' worth of stores were
   destroyed. Under the circumstances it was impossible for Grant
   to continue his march on Granada, which Pemberton perceiving,
   the latter returned to Vicksburg in time to assist in
   Sherman's repulse. … Sherman made all his arrangements to
   attack the enemy's works on the 20th of December, 1862, and
   the assault took place early on that day. One division
   succeeded in occupying the batteries on the heights, and hoped
   shortly to reach those commanding the city of Vicksburg, but
   the division that was to follow the advance was behind time
   and the opportunity was lost. A portion of Pemberton's Army
   had returned from Granada just in time to overwhelm and drive
   back the small force that had gained the hills. … The enemy
   did not follow, being satisfied with driving our troops from
   the heights, and there was nothing left for Sherman to do but
   to get his Army safely back to the transports."

      _D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapter 7._

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
(December-January: Tennessee).
   Bragg and Rosecrans.
   The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

   "The Confederate government was greatly disappointed with the
   issue of Bragg's campaign. Scarcely had he reached Chattanooga
   when he was ordered to move northward again. Rosecrans, on
   assuming command of Buell's army, … concentrated his forces at
   Nashville, and there accumulated large supplies. … Bragg had
   already reached Murfreesborough on his second northward march
   from Chattanooga. Rosecrans had given out that it was his
   intention to take up his winter quarters at Nashville, and
   Bragg, supposing that this would be the case, sent out strong
   detachments of cavalry under Morgan and Forrest, the former
   being ordered to break Rosecrans's communications. As it was
   about the season of Christmas, Murfreesborough was the scene
   of much gayety … and the giddy Confederates danced on floors
   carpeted with the American flag. Suddenly, on the 26th of
   December, Rosecrans moved. His march commenced in a heavy min.
   The Confederate outposts retired before his advance, the
   pressure upon them being so vigorous that they had not time to
   destroy the bridges on the Jefferson and Murfreesborough
   turnpikes. On the 30th, Bragg, finding he was about to be
   assailed, had concentrated his army a couple of miles in front
   of Murfreesborough. The position of the national army, which
   was 43,000 strong on the evening of that day, was on the west
   side of Stone River, a sluggish stream fringed with cedar
   brakes, and here flowing in a north-northwesterly course. The
   line ranged nearly north and south, and was three or four
   miles in length. Crittenden was on its left, with three
   divisions. Wood, Vancleve, Palmer; Thomas in the centre, with
   two divisions, Negley and Rousseau, the latter in reserve;
   McCook on the right with three, Sheridan, Davis, Johnson. The
   left wing touched the river. … Bragg's army, 62,000, stood
   between Rosecrans and Murfreesborough. … Breckinridge's
   division formed his right, in his centre, under Polk, were two
   divisions, those of Withers and Cheatham; on his left, under
   Hardee, two divisions, Cleburne and McCown. The river
   separated Breckinridge from the rest of the Confederate army.
   Rosecrans had concentrated two thirds of his force on his
   left. His intention was that his right wing, standing on the
   defensive, should simply hold its ground; but his extreme
   left, the divisions of Wood and Vancleve, crossing Stone
   River, should assail Breckinridge's division, exposed there,
   and seize the heights. … On his part, also, Bragg had
   determined to take the offensive. … Both intended to strike
   with the left, and therefore both massed their force on that
   wing. … In the dawn of the last day of the year (1862), while
   Rosecrans's left was rapidly crossing Stone River to make its
   expected attack, Bragg, with his left, had already anticipated
   him. Coming out of a fog which had settled on the
   battle-field, he fell furiously upon Johnson's division, and
   so unexpectedly that two of its batteries were taken before a
   gun could be fired.
{3487}
   The Confederate success was decisive. Johnson's division,
   which was on the extreme national right, was instantly swept
   away. Davis, who stood next, was assailed in front and on his
   uncovered flank. He made a stout resistance, but the shock was
   too great; he was compelled to give way, with the loss of many
   guns. And now the triumphant Confederate left, the centre also
   coming into play, rushed upon the next division—but that was
   commanded by Sheridan. Rosecrans's aggressive movement was
   already paralyzed; nay, more, it had to be abandoned. He had
   to withdraw his left for the purpose of saving his right and
   defending his communications. He must establish a new line.
   The possibility of doing this—the fate of the battle—rested on
   Sheridan." He held his ground for an hour, until "the
   cartridge-boxes of his men were empty. The time had come when
   even Sheridan must fall back. But, if he had not powder, he
   had steel. The fixed bayonets of his reserve brigade covered
   him, and he retired, unconquered and unshaken, out of the
   cedar thicket toward the Nashville road. In this memorable and
   most glorious resistance he had lost 1,630 men. 'Here's all
   that are left,' he said to Rosecrans, whom he had saved and
   now met. After Sheridan had been pushed back, there was
   nothing for Negley but to follow. … Meantime, on a knoll in
   the plain to which these divisions had receded, Rosecrans had
   massed his artillery. He was forming a new line, in which the
   army would face southwestwardly, with the Nashville turnpike
   on its rear." Against this new line the Confederates dashed
   themselves, desperately but vainly, four times that day, and
   were repelled with horrible slaughter. "Bragg, unwilling to be
   foiled, now brought Breckinridge, who had hitherto been
   untouched, across the river to make a final attempt on
   Rosecrans's left flank with 7,000 fresh men. His first attack
   was repulsed; he made a second; it shared the same fate. So
   stood affairs when night came, … the closing night of 1862. On
   New Year's Day nothing was done; the two armies, breathless
   with their death-struggle, stood looking at each other. On
   January 2d Rosecrans was found, not retreating, but busily
   engaged in trying to carry out his original plan. He had made
   his position impregnable; he had thrown a force across Stone
   River, and, as he at first intended, was getting ready to
   crown with artillery the heights beyond the east bank.
   Hereupon Bragg brought Breckinridge back to his old position,
   ordering him to drive the enemy across the river—a task which
   that officer bravely tried, but only imperfectly accomplished,
   for the artillery on the opposite bank tore his division to
   pieces. In twenty minutes he lost 2,000 men. A violent storm
   prevented the renewal of the battle on the 3d. On that night
   Bragg, despairing of success, withdrew from Murfreesborough,
   retreating to Tullahoma. … In these dreadful battles the
   Confederates lost 14,700 men. On the national side there were
   killed 1,553, wounded more than 7,000, prisoners more than
   3,000; more than one third of its artillery and a large
   portion of its train were taken. The losses were about one
   fourth of each army. Henceforth the Confederates abandoned all
   thought of crossing the Ohio River."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 53 (volume 2)._

   "The enemy in retiring did not fall back very far—only behind
   Duck River to Shelbyville and Tullahoma—and but little
   endeavor was made to follow him. Indeed, we were not in
   condition to pursue, even if it had been the intention at the
   outset of the campaign. … The victory quieted the fears of the
   West and Northwest, destroyed the hopes of the secession
   element in Kentucky, renewed the drooping spirits of the East
   Tennesseans, and demoralized the disunionists in Middle
   Tennessee; yet it was a negative victory so far as concerned
   the result on the battle-field. Rosecrans seems to have
   planned the battle with the idea that the enemy would continue
   passive, remain entirely on the defensive, and that it was
   necessary only to push forward our left in order to force the
   evacuation of Murfreesboro'. … Had Bragg followed up with the
   spirit which characterized its beginning the successful attack
   by Hardee on our right wing—and there seems no reason why he
   should not have done so—the army of Rosecrans still might have
   got back to Nashville, but it would have been depleted and
   demoralized."

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 12-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Stevenson,
      Battle of Stone's River._

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1)._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 20._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January).
   The final Proclamation of Emancipation.

   The immediate practical effect of the warning Proclamation of
   Emancipation issued by President Lincoln on the 22d of
   September, 1862, "did, perhaps, more nearly answer the
   apprehensions of the President than the expectations of those
   most clamorous for it. It did, as charged, very much 'unite
   the South and divide the North.' The cry of 'the perversion of
   the war for the Union into a war for the negro' became the
   Democratic watchword, and was sounded everywhere with only too
   disastrous effect, as was plainly revealed by the fall
   elections with their large Democratic gains and Republican
   losses. Indeed, it was the opinion of Mr. Greeley that, could
   there have been a vote taken at that time on the naked issue,
   a large majority would have pronounced against emancipation.
   But Mr. Lincoln did not falter. Notwithstanding these
   discouraging votes at the North, and the refusal of any
   Southern State to avail itself of the proffered immunity and
   aid of his Proclamation of September, he proceeded, at the
   close of the hundred days of grace allowed by it, to issue his
   second and absolute Proclamation, making all the slaves of the
   Rebel States and parts of States forever and irreversibly
   free." It was in the following words:

   "Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year
   of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a
   proclamation was issued by the President of the United States,
   containing, among other things, the following, to wit: 'That
   on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
   thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as
   slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the
   people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United
   States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and
   the Executive Government of the United States, including the
   military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and
   maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
   acts to repress such persons or any of them, in any efforts
   they may make for their actual freedom.
{3488}
   That the Executive will, on the first day of January
   aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of
   states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall
   then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact
   that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in
   good faith represented in the Congress of the United States,
   by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of
   the qualified voters of such state shall have participated,
   shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be
   deemed conclusive evidence that such state, and the people
   thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.'
   Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
   States, by virtue of the power in me vested as
   Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States,
   in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and
   government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary
   war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first
   day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so
   to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred
   days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate,
   as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof
   respectively are this day in rebellion against the United
   States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana
   (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson,
   St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre
   Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including
   the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
   Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except
   the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
   the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth
   City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of
   Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the
   present left precisely as if this proclamation were not
   issued. And, by virtue of the power and for the purpose
   aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as
   slaves within said designated states and parts of states are
   and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive
   Government of the United States, including the military and
   naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the
   freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people
   so declared to be free, to abstain from all violence, unless
   in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in
   all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable
   wages. And I further declare and make known that such persons
   of suitable condition will be received into the armed service
   of the United States, to garrison forts, positions, stations,
   and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said
   service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of
   justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military
   necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and
   the gracious favor of Almighty God.
      In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused
      the seal of the United States to be affixed.
      Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January,
      in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
      sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States
      of America the eighty-seventh.
      Abraham Lincoln.
      By the President: William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

   "Though the immediate effects of the Proclamation might not
   have answered all that was expected of it, it was not many
   months before its happy influences became manifest. Its
   tendency from the first was to unify and consolidate the
   antislavery and Christian sentiment of the land, to give
   dignity and consistency to the conflict. … It strengthened,
   too, the cause immensely with other nations, secured the
   sympathy and moral support of Christendom, and diminished, if
   it did not entirely remove, the danger of foreign
   intervention."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 28._

   "Fame is due Mr. Lincoln, not alone because he decreed
   emancipation, but because events so shaped themselves under
   his guidance as to render the conception practical and the
   decree successful. Among the agencies he employed none proved
   more admirable or more powerful than this two-edged sword of
   the final proclamation, blending sentiment with force,
   leaguing liberty with Union, filling the voting armies at home
   and the fighting armies in the field. In the light of history
   we can see that by this edict Mr. Lincoln gave slavery its
   vital thrust, its mortal wound. It was the word of decision,
   the judgment without appeal, the sentence of doom."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln.
      volume 6, chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 10, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

      _W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
      William Lloyd Garrison,
      volume 4. chapters 3-4._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January: Arkansas).
   The capture of Arkansas Post, or Fort Hindman.

   Sherman withdrew his troops from the attempt against Vicksburg
   on the 2d of January, and on the 4th he relinquished the
   command to General McClernand, who had come down the river
   with orders to assume it. On that same day "the expedition
   sailed on the same transports that had brought them from
   Vicksburg, convoyed by Admiral Porter's fleet of gunboats, to
   attack Fort Hindman, commonly known as Arkansas Post, an old
   French settlement situated on the left or north bank of the
   Arkansas River, 50 miles from its mouth and 117 below Little
   Rock. … The expedition moved up the White River through the
   cut-off which unites its waters with those of the Arkansas, up
   the latter stream to Notrib's farm, three miles below Fort
   Hindman. … By noon on the 10th the landing was completed, and
   the troops were on the march to invest the post. … The
   gunboats opened a terrific fire upon the enemy during the
   afternoon, to distract his attention. By nightfall the troops
   were in position." Next morning a combined attack began, which
   the garrison endured until 4 o'clock P. M. when the white flag
   was raised. "Our entire loss in killed was 129; in wounded,
   831; and in missing, 17; total, 977. … By the surrender there
   fell into our hands 5,000 men. … After sending the prisoners
   to St. Louis, having destroyed the defences and all buildings
   used for military purposes, on the 15th of January the troops
   re-embarked on the transports and proceeded to Napoleon,
   Arkansas, whence on the 17th … they returned to Milliken's
   Bend."

      _S. M. Bowman and R B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapters 7-8._

{3489}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January-April: Virginia).
   Command given to Hooker.
   President Lincoln's Letter to him.
   Demoralized state of the Army of the Potomac,
   and its improvement.

   "General Burnside retired from a position he had never sought,
   to the satisfaction, and, be it said to his credit, with the
   warm personal regard of all. Sumner, whom the weight of years
   had robbed of strength, but not of gallantry, was relieved at
   his own request; Franklin was shelved. Hooker thus became
   senior general officer, and succeeded to the command. No man
   enjoyed a more enviable reputation in the Army of the Potomac.
   … His commands so far had been limited; and he had a frank,
   manly way of winning the hearts of his soldiers. He was in
   constant motion about the army while it lay in camp; his
   appearance always attracted attention; and he was as well
   known to almost every regiment as its own commander. He was a
   representative man. … Nothing shows more curiously a weak spot
   in Hooker's character than the odd pride he took in Mr.
   Lincoln's somewhat equivocal letter to him at the time of his
   appointment: … 'I have placed you [wrote the President] at the
   head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course, I have done this
   upon what appears to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I
   think it best for you to know that there are some things in
   regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe
   you to be a brave and skilful soldier, which of course I like.
   I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession,
   in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself; which
   is a valuable, if not an indispensable quality. You are
   ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather
   than harm; but I think that, during General Burnside's command
   of the army, you have taken counsel of your ambition and
   thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great
   wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable
   brother-officer. I have heard, in such a way as to believe it,
   of your recently saying that both the army and the Government
   needed a dictator. Of course, it was not for this, but in
   spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those
   generals who gain success can set up dictators. What I now ask
   of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.
   The Government will support you to the utmost of its ability,
   which is neither more nor less than it has done or will do for
   all commanders. I much fear that the spirit you have aided to
   infuse into the army, of criticising their commander and
   withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I
   shall assist you as far as I can to put it down. Neither you
   nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out
   of an army while such a spirit prevails in it. And now, beware
   of rashness! Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless
   vigilance go forward, and give us victories!' … Hooker was
   appointed January 26, 1863; and Burnside, with a few earnest
   words, took leave of the army. The troops received their new
   chief with a heartiness and confidence which, since
   McClellan's re-instatement, had not been equalled. Hooker was
   to all the soul and embodiment of the growth and history of
   this weather-beaten Army of the Potomac. And the salutary
   changes he at once began to make,—for Hooker never lacked the
   power of organization—were accepted with alacrity; and a
   spirit of cheerful willingness succeeded speedily to what had
   been almost a defiant obedience. The army was in a lamentably
   low state of efficiency. Politics mingled with camp duties;
   and the disaffection of officers and men, coupled with an
   entire lack of confidence in the ability of the Army of the
   Potomac to accomplish anything, were pronounced. Desertions
   occurred at the rate of 200 a day. … Hooker states that he
   found 2,922 officers, and 81,964 enlisted men, entered as
   absent on the rolls of the army, a large proportion from
   causes unknown. Sharp and efficient measures were at once
   adopted, which speedily checked this alarming depletion of the
   ranks. … The testimony of all general officers of the Army of
   the Potomac concurs in awarding the highest praise to Hooker
   for the manner in which he improved the condition of the
   troops during the three months he was in command prior to
   Chancellorsville. … On the 30th of April the Army of the
   Potomac, exclusive of provost-guard, consisted of about
   130,000 men under the colors,—'for duty equipped,' according
   to the morning report. … While the Army of the Potomac lay
   about Falmouth [opposite Fredericksburg], awaiting orders to
   move, Lee occupied the heights south of the Rappahannock, from
   Banks's Ford above to Port Royal (or Skenker's Neck), below
   Fredericksburg, a line some 15 miles in length as the crow
   flies. … Lee's forces numbered about 60,000 men, for duty."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      The Campaign of Chancellorsville,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the 2nd Army Corps,
      chapter 7._

      _R. De Trobriand,
      Four Years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 20._

[Image: Map of Vicksburg and Vicinity.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(January-April: On the Mississippi).
   Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg.
   Futile operations of the first four months.

   "General Grant took personal command of the movement against
   Vicksburg on the 30th of January, 1863. … The first plan made
   was to dig a canal across the neck of land, or peninsula in
   front of Vicksburg,—below the city,—at a point where the
   isthmus was only a mile and a fifth in width. This had been
   begun before General Grant's arrival. If a canal could have
   been made large enough for large steamboats, then no matter
   how strong were the fortifications of Vicksburg, the boats
   would pass through, far away from their fire. So a canal ten
   feet wide and six deep was made here, in the hope that the
   freshets of the river would widen it, and so make it large
   enough for large steamers. But very little came of the canal.
   When the river did rise, it would not flow where it was meant
   to do. It flooded the camps of the workmen. Meanwhile the
   Rebels had made new batteries below it. Thus ended plan number
   one. Another similar plan, to open a route by Lake Providence
   and Bayou Baxter, Bayou Macon, and the Washita and Red River,
   did not succeed better. The canals attempted here were both on
   the west of the river. A very bold attempt was made on the
   east side, by what was known as the Yazoo Pass, into the
   Tallahatchee and Yazoo River. The expeditions sent out by this
   route would come out above Vicksburg; but it was hoped that
   thus the Rebel gunboats on the Yazoo River might be destroyed.
   If a practicable route were made here, the whole army could be
   moved to Haine's Bluff,—above Vicksburg,—an upland region very
   desirable for occupation.
{3491}
   But nothing came of this movement, though some hard work and
   some hard fighting were done in it. What resulted of
   importance was, that the troops found their way into the
   granary from which Vicksburg had been fed; and in the
   resistance, many of the Rebels were destroyed. In such
   attempts February and March passed away. Meanwhile Admiral
   Farragut, of the navy, ran by the Rebel batteries at Port
   Hudson, so that he communicated with Grant below
   Vicksburg,—and Grant could communicate with General Banks, who
   was trying to do at Port Hudson what Grant was trying to do
   above. The distance from Vicksburg to Port Hudson is about 120
   miles in a straight line, and more than twice that by the
   crooked river. Grant now determined to pass the city of
   Vicksburg on the west side of the river by marching his army
   by land—with the help of boats on some bayous if possible—from
   Milliken's Bend, which is twenty miles above Vicksburg, to New
   Carthage, which is about as far below. At his request Admiral
   Porter sent seven of his iron-clads, with three steamers and
   ten barges, down the river, past the Rebel batteries. They
   were well laden with forage and supplies. The crews of all but
   one refused to go. But volunteers from the army offered,
   enough to man a hundred vessels had they been needed. On a
   dark night of the 16th of April, led by Admiral Porter, they
   steamed down, with the barges in tow. They turned the bend
   without being noticed. Then the first batteries opened on
   them. The Rebels set fire to houses so as to light up the
   scene; and from the ships the crews could see the men at the
   batteries and in the streets of Vicksburg. Though every vessel
   was hit, all got by, except the Henry Clay steamer. Finding
   she was sinking, her commander cut off the barge he was
   towing, which drifted safely down, and, soon after, the vessel
   herself took fire. The crew escaped in their boats,—the vessel
   blazed up and lighted up all around. At last, however, after
   the boats had been under fire two hours and forty minutes, the
   whole fleet except the Henry Clay arrived safely below the
   batteries. Grant had thus secured, not only forage and stores,
   but the means of transportation. On the 26th of April five
   more vessels passed successfully, one being lost as before.
   Grant was now strong enough to cross the Mississippi River.
   His army had to march seventy miles on the west side by muddy
   roads, scarcely above the river line. He feared he might have
   to go as far down as a little town called Rodney for a good
   landing-place on the east side. But a friendly negro man, who
   knew the country, brought in information that there was a good
   road inland from Bruinsburg,—and so it proved. Grand Gulf, on
   the river, where the Rebels had a post, was still between
   Grant and Bruinsburg. Porter attacked it with his gunboats,
   and Grant was ready to land 10,000 troops to storm the place
   if the batteries were silenced. But Porter did not succeed.
   Grant therefore marched his troops down on the west side of
   the river. Porter ran by Grand Gulf with transports in the
   night, and, on the morning of the 30th of April, Grant crossed
   the river with 10,000 men. They did not carry a tent nor a
   wagon. General Grant and his staff went without their horses.
   It was said afterwards that his whole baggage was a
   toothbrush! Other divisions followed, and on the 3d of May he
   left the river, and marched, not directly on Vicksburg, but
   more inland, to cut off all communication with that city. His
   army took three days' rations with them, and relied
   principally for provisions on the stores in the rich country
   through which they marched."

      _E. E. Hale,
      Stories of War told by Soldiers,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapter 4._

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 31-32._

      _G. W. Brown,
      The Mississippi Squadron and the Siege of Vicksburg
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      New York Com. L. L. of the United States)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1863(February-April: Tennessee).
   Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

   "In February [on the 3d], General Wheeler, Bragg's chief of
   Cavalry, tried to capture Fort Donaldson, so as to stop the
   navigation of the Cumberland River, by which some of
   Rosecrans's supplies came in steamboats to Nashville. The fort
   had not been repaired after its capture by Grant, but the
   Village of Dover near it had been fortified, and it was then
   held by Colonel A. C. Harding with about 600 men. The Union
   men fought bravely, and in the evening the gunboat Fair Play
   came up and opened a fire on the Confederates which drove them
   away in confusion, with a loss of more than 500 men. Harding's
   loss was 126. Early in March, General Van Dorn appeared near
   Franklin [a little below Nashville] with a large force of
   mounted men. Colonel Colburn, of the 33d Indiana, moved
   Southward from Franklin with 2,700 men. Van Dorn and Forrest
   met him, and after a fight of several hours [March 5] Colburn
   had to surrender with 1,300 of his men."

      _J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 31._

   "Sheridan, with his division, and about 1,800 cavalry, under
   Colonel Minty, first swept down toward Shelbyville, and then
   around toward Franklin, skirmishing in several places with
   detachments of Van Dorn's and Forrest's men. In a sharp fight
   at Thompson's Station, he captured some of the force which
   encountered Colburn. He finally drove Van Dorn beyond the Duck
   River, and then returned to Murfreesboro', with a loss during
   his ten days' ride and skirmishing of only five men killed and
   five wounded. His gain was nearly 100 prisoners. On the 18th
   of March, Colonel A. S. Hall, with a little over 1,400 men,
   moved eastward from Murfreesboro' to surprise a Confederate
   camp at Gainesville. He was unexpectedly met by some of
   Morgan's cavalry, when he fell back to Milton, twelve miles
   northeast of Murfreesboro' and took a strong position on
   Vaught's Hill. There he was attacked by 2,000 men, led by
   Morgan in person. With the aid of Harris's Battery skilfully
   worked, Hall repulsed the foe after a struggle of about three
   hours. Morgan lost between 300 and 400 men killed and wounded.
   Among the latter was himself. Hall's loss was 55 men, of whom
   only 6 were killed. Early in April, General Granger, then in
   command at Franklin, with nearly 5,000 troops, was satisfied
   that a heavy force under Van Dorn was about to attack him. He
   was then constructing a fort (which afterwards bore his name),
   but only two siege-guns and two rifled cannon, belonging to an
   Ohio battery, were mounted upon it.
{3492}
   The fort … completely commanded the approaches to Franklin. …
   On the 10th, Van Dorn, with an estimated force of 9,000
   mounted men and two regiments of foot, pressed rapidly forward
   along the Columbia and Lewisburg turnpikes, and fell upon
   Granger's front. The guns from the fort opened destructively
   upon the assailants, and their attack was manfully met by
   Granger's troops. Van Dorn soon found himself in a perilous
   situation, for Stanley [commanding cavalry] came up and struck
   him a heavy blow on the flank. Smith [with cavalry] was
   ordered forward to support Stanley, and Baird's troops
   were_thrown across the river to engage in the fight. The
   Confederates were routed at all points on Granger's front,
   with a heavy Joss in killed and wounded, and about 500
   prisoners. Van Dorn then turned his whole force upon Stanley
   before Smith reached him, and with his overwhelming numbers
   pushed him back and recovered most of the captured men. By
   this means Van Dorn extricated himself from his perilous
   position, and, abandoning his attempt to capture Franklin, he
   retired to Spring Hill, with a loss of about three hundred men
   in killed, wounded and prisoners. The Union loss was about 37
   killed, wounded and missing."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapter 18, (volume 1)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 23._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (March).
   The Conscription Act.

   "The Rebel Congress having long since passed [April 16, 1862]
   a conscription act whereby all the "White males in the
   Confederacy between the ages of 18 and 35 were placed at the
   disposal of their Executive, while all those already in the
   service, though they had enlisted and been accepted for
   specific terms of one or two years, were held to serve through
   the war, our Congress was constrained to follow afar off in
   the footsteps of the enemy; since our ranks, [after] our heavy
   losses in the bloody struggles of 1862, were filled by
   volunteers too slowly for the exigencies of the service. The
   act providing 'for the enrollment of the National forces' was
   among the last passed [March 3, 1863] by the XXXVIIth Congress
   prior to its dissolution. It provided for the enrollment, by
   Federal provost-marshals and enrolling officers, of all
   able-bodied male citizens (not Whites only), including aliens
   who had declared their intention to become naturalized,
   between the ages of 18 and 45—those between 20 and 35 to
   constitute the first class; all others the second class—from
   which the President was authorized, from and after July 1, to
   make drafts at his discretion of persons to serve in the
   National armies for not more than three years; anyone drafted
   and not reporting for service to be considered and treated as
   a deserter. A commutation of $300 was to be received in lieu
   of such service: and there were exemptions provided of certain
   heads of Executive Departments; Federal judges; Governors of
   States; the only son of a widow, or of an aged and infirm
   father, dependent on that son's labor for support; the father
   of dependent motherless children under 12 years of age, or the
   only adult brother of such children, being orphans; or the
   residue of a family which has already two members in the
   service, &c., &c. The passage and execution of this act
   inevitably intensified and made active the spirit of
   opposition to the War. Those who detested every form of
   'coercion' save the coercion of the Republic by the Rebels,
   with those who especially detested the National effort under
   its present aspects as 'a war not for the Union, but for the
   Negro,' were aroused by it to a more determined and active
   opposition. The bill passed the House by Yeas 115, Nays 49—the
   division being so nearly as might be, a party one—while in the
   Senate a motion by Mr. Bayard that it be indefinitely
   postponed was supported by 11 Yeas (all Democrats) to 35 Nays:
   consisting of every Republican present, with Messrs.
   McDougall, of California, Harding and Nesmith of Oregon. The
   bill then passed without a call of the Yeas and Nays."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April: South Carolina).
   The naval attack on Charleston.
   Repulse of the Monitors.

   "The engagements in which turret iron-clads had been concerned
   had given to the government and the public a high opinion of
   their offensive and defensive qualities. It seemed as if
   nothing could withstand the blow of their heavy shot, and no
   projectile penetrate their invulnerable turrets. It was
   supposed that a fleet of such ships could without difficulty
   force a passage through Charleston Harbor, in spite of its
   numerous defenses, and, appearing before the city, compel its
   surrender. … On the 7th of April [1863] Admiral Dupont made
   the experiment. He had seven Ericsson Monitors, the frigate
   Ironsides, partially iron-clad, and a frailer iron-clad, the
   Keokuk, constructed on a plan differing from that of the
   Monitors. His intention was to disregard the batteries on
   Morris's Island, attack the northwest face of Sumter, and
   force his way up to the city. His fleet had 32 guns; the
   opposing forts, in the aggregate, 300. At noon on that day the
   signal was given to weigh anchor. The Weehawken, a Monitor,
   took the lead. She had a raft-like contrivance attached to her
   bows, for the purpose of removing obstructions and exploding
   torpedoes. This occasioned some delay at the outset, through
   its interference with her movements. On her way up she
   exploded a torpedo, which, though it lifted her a little, did
   no damage. At 2.10 P, M. she encountered obstructions
   extending across the harbor from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter;
   beyond these, piles were seen extending from James's Island to
   the Middle Ground. At 2.50 P. M. the guns of Fort Moultrie
   opened upon her, followed shortly after by all the batteries
   on Sullivan's Island, Morris's Island, and Fort Sumter. Not
   being able to pass the obstructions, the Weehawken, and
   subsequently other Monitors, the Passaic, Nahant, etc., were
   obliged to turn, which threw the line into confusion, as the
   other vessels, advancing, approached. This was particularly
   the case with the flag-ship Ironsides, which became entangled
   with the Monitors, and could not bring her batteries to bear
   upon Fort Sumter without risk of firing into them; she was
   obliged, on her way up, to anchor twice to avoid going ashore,
   on one of these occasions in consequence of having come into
   collision with two of the Monitors. The plan of the
   Confederates was, by means of obstructions, to detain the
   ships, while a concentrated fire was poured upon them in this
   the 'first circle,' as it was termed.
{3493}
   Two other still more powerful circles of fire must be passed
   before the city could be reached. While in the centre of the
   first circle, it was apparent that the Monitors were at a
   fearful disadvantage. The forts and earth-works were armed
   with heavy guns of the best construction. No ship was exposed
   to the severest fire of the enemy for more than forty minutes,
   yet in that brief period time of the ironclads were wholly or
   partially disabled. In these forty minutes the battle was
   substantially over, the question settled. The Keokuk was
   struck 99 times, of which 19 were under her water-line. She
   was in a sinking condition. She had been able to return only
   three shots. The Passaic was struck 27 times; her turret was
   jammed, and could not for some time be turned. The Nahant was
   most seriously damaged; her turret was jammed, her captain
   wounded, her quarter-master killed by a bolt which flew off
   and struck him on the head. Many of the bolts of both turret
   and pilot-house were thus broken; the latter became nearly
   untenable in consequence of the nuts and ends flying across
   it. All the other Monitors had received damages more or less
   severe. The mailed frigate Ironsides had lost one port
   shutter, her bow was penetrated by a red-hot shot. The damage
   inflicted on Fort Sumter was comparatively insignificant. It
   was Dupont's belief that, had the iron-clads been in action
   half an hour longer, they would all have been disabled. 'To my
   regret,' he says, 'I soon became convinced of the utter
   impracticability of taking the city of Charleston by the force
   under my command.' … The iron-clad fleet had therefore been
   unable to pass the first line of obstructions, or to get out
   of 'the first circle of fire.' The slowness of its fire was no
   match for the rapidity and weight of that of the forts. The
   iron-clads were able to fire only 139 times from the 14 guns
   they could bring into action; the forts, from 76 guns, fired
   2,209 times. The projectiles they used were wrought-iron
   bolts, some of them tipped with steel, solid shot, shells, of
   which 40 were filled with melted cast-iron, others with
   incendiary composition. The total amount of cannon-powder used
   by the forts was 21,093 pounds. The government, thus satisfied
   that its iron-clad fleet was insufficient for the forcing of
   Charleston Harbor and the capture of the city, now changed its
   purposes, restricting its attempts to a more complete
   blockade, the detention of a large confederate force in the
   vicinity by continually threatening military operations, and
   the destruction of Fort Sumter for the sake of a moral
   effect."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 72 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the War,
      chapter 33._

      _C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 2, chapter 33._

      _W. C. Church,
      Life of Ericsson,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      _A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 30 (volume 2)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 14._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April-May: Virginia).
   Hooker's disastrous movement.
   Chancellorsville.
   Stonewall Jackson's last flank movement.

   "Being now [April 28] fully prepared for active operations,
   Hooker determined to take the initiative by moving on the left
   of his opponent's position. By careful study of Lee's position
   he correctly concluded that his left was his most vulnerable
   point. In order to mask his real design he sent forward a
   force of 10,000 cavalry under General Stoneman to operate upon
   Lee's lines of communication with Richmond, and sent Sedgwick
   with a force of 30,000 men still further to mask his movement.
   Stoneman crossed the Rappahannock at Kelly's Ford on the 29th,
   and Sedgwick appeared on the 28th on the heights below
   Fredericksburg. These preparatory measures having been taken,
   Hooker proceeded to the execution of his plan. Swinton, after
   a picturesque description of the passage of the Rappahannock
   and the Rapidan, tells us 'that on the afternoon of the 30th
   of April four corps of the Federal army had gained the
   position of Chancellorsville, where Hooker at the same time
   established his headquarters.' Chancellorsville is situated
   ten miles southwest of Fredericksburg. It is not, as its name
   implies, a town or village, but simply a farm-house with its
   usual appendages, situated at the edge of a small field
   surrounded by a dense thicket of second growth, which sprang
   up after the primeval forest had been cut to furnish fuel to a
   neighboring furnace. This thicket extends for miles in every
   direction, and its wild aspect very properly suggests its
   name, The Wilderness. The intersection of several important
   roads gives it the semblance of strategic importance, while in
   reality a more unfavorable place for military operations could
   not well be found. Hooker, however, seemed well pleased with
   his acquisition, for on reaching Chancellorsville on Thursday
   night he issued an order to the troops in which he announced
   that 'the enemy must either ingloriously fly or come out from
   behind his defences and give us battle on our own ground,
   where certain destruction awaits him.' … General Lee was fully
   aware of the preparations that were being made by his
   adversary, but calmly awaited the complete development of his
   plans before exerting his strength to oppose him. … On the
   28th … Lee ordered Jackson to concentrate his whole corps in
   the immediate vicinity of Fredericksburg. Early on the morning
   of the 29th Sedgwick crossed the Rappahannock below the mouth
   of Deep Run, but made no other aggressive movement on that day
   or the day following. On the night of the 30th, Lee was
   informed of Hooker's arrival at Chancellorsville. He had been
   previously informed of Stoneman's movements against his line
   of operations by General Stuart, and was now satisfied that
   the main attack of the enemy would come from the direction of
   Chancellorsville. Therefore on the morning of the 1st of May
   he made the necessary preparations to meet it. Accompanied by
   his staff, he took a position on a height where one of his
   batteries overlooked the Rappahannock. He there observed
   carefully the position of Sedgwick, while waiting for
   information from the direction of Chancellorsville. … Very
   soon the sound of cannon indicated that the work had begun. At
   the same time couriers arrived from Stuart and Anderson
   informing the general that the enemy were advancing on the old
   turnpike, the plank road, and on the river roads, and asking
   for reinforcements. McLaws was immediately ordered to the
   support of Anderson, and shortly after Jackson was ordered to
   follow with three of his divisions, leaving … a force of about
   9,000 men and 45 pieces of artillery in observation of
   Sedgwick. When Jackson joined McLaws and Anderson a lively
   skirmish was in progress, in which he immediately
   participated.
{3494}
   When General Lee arrived he found the Federals were being
   driven back to Chancellorsville. At the close of the afternoon
   they had retired within their lines. General Lee occupied the
   ridge about three-quarters of a mile south-east and south of
   Chancellorsville. The opposing armies were hidden from each
   other by the intervening thicket of brushwood. … It was
   obvious that the Federal position was too formidable to be
   attacked in front with any hope of success; therefore Lee
   proceeded to devise a plan by which the position of Hooker
   might be turned and a point of attack gained from which no
   danger was apprehended by the Federal commander. … The
   execution of a movement so much in accordance with his genius
   and inclination was assigned to General Jackson. … At dawn on
   the morning of the 2d, Jackson's corps, 22,000 strong, was in
   motion, and while it was making one of the most famous flank
   movements on record, General Lee, with the divisions of
   Anderson and McLaws, with 20 pieces of artillery, a force not
   exceeding 12,000 men, occupied the position he had assumed the
   previous evening, and General Hooker, with 90,000 men, lay
   behind his breastworks awaiting the Confederate attack. …
   After making a circuitous march of 15 miles, Jackson reached a
   point on the Orange Courthouse road three miles in the rear of
   Chancellorsville. Had Hooker possessed a handful of cavalry
   equal in spirit to the 'Virginia horsemen' under W. H. F. Lee
   that neutralized Stoneman's ten thousand, he might have
   escaped the peril that now awaited him. On the arrival of
   Jackson on the plank road, Fitz Lee, who had covered his
   movement with his brigade of cavalry, conducted him to a
   position from which he obtained a view of the enemy, which
   disclosed the following scene: 'Below and but a few hundred
   yards distant ran the Federal line of battle. There was the
   line of defence, with abatis in front, and long lines of
   stacked arms in rear. … The soldiers were in groups in the
   rear, laughing, chatting, and smoking, probably engaged here
   and there in games of cards and other amusements indulged in
   while feeling safe and comfortable, awaiting orders. In the
   rear of them were other parties driving up and butchering
   beeves.' Returning from this point of observation, Jackson
   proceeded to make his dispositions of attack, which by six
   o'clock were completed. … Howard's corps was first assailed.
   This corps, being surprised, was panic-stricken and fled
   precipitately, and in its flight communicated the panic to the
   troops through which it passed. Jackson's forces followed,
   routing line after line, until arrested by the close of day.
   The rout of the Federal army was fast becoming general, and it
   was only saved from entire defeat by the interposition of
   night. When compelled to halt Jackson remarked that with one
   more hour of daylight he could have completed the destruction
   of the Federal army. This, the most famous of all Jackson's
   brilliant achievements, closed his military career. After his
   troops had halted, and while the lines were being adjusted, he
   rode forward with several of his staff to reconnoitre the
   Federal position." The party were mistaken by some of their
   own men for Federal horsemen and received a volley which
   struck down Stonewall Jackson. He was wounded in both arms by
   three bullets, and died from the effects eight days afterward.
   "Early on the morning of the 3d the attack was resumed by the
   Confederates with great vigor. Hooker, taking advantage of the
   night, had restored order in his army and strengthened his
   position; his troops regained courage and contested the field
   with great stubbornness until ten o'clock when they yielded at
   every point and rapidly retreated … within the strong line of
   defences which had been previously constructed to cover the
   road to the United States Ford. … While the operations above
   described were in progress at Chancellorsville, General Early,
   by skilful manœuvring, had detained Sedgwick at Fredericksburg
   until the 3d, when that general, by a determined advance,
   forced back Early, carried Marye's Heights, and proceeded
   toward Chancellorsville. The condition of affairs was
   communicated to General Lee during the fore·noon. Wilcox's
   brigade, then at Banks's Ford, was ordered to intercept
   Sedgwick and retard his advance, while McLaws's division was
   ordered to support him. Wilcox on reaching Salem Church, six
   miles from Chancellorsville, encountered the Federal advance,
   and after a sharp conflict he repulsed it with loss. The
   success of Wilcox delayed Sedgwick until Anderson and McLaws
   could come up. The premeditated attack on Hooker being thus
   interrupted, Lee, on the forenoon of the 4th, repaired to the
   neighborhood of Fredericksburg. A combined attack was then
   directed to be made by Early on the rear, while McLaws and
   Anderson bore down upon the front. The battle was hotly
   contested during the afternoon, in which the forces of
   Sedgwick were defeated, and were only saved from destruction
   by a night-passage across the Rappahannock at Banks's Ford. On
   the 5th Lee collected his forces at Chancellorsville to give
   the 'coup de grace' to Hooker, but that general, under cover
   of a dark and stormy night, effected his retreat beyond the
   Rappahannock at the United States Ford."

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 14._

   The Federal loss at Chancellorsville, in killed and wounded,
   was 12,197; missing 5,000; total, 17,197. Confederate loss,
   killed and wounded, 10,266; missing 2,753; total, 13,019.

      _A. Doubleday,
      Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 6), chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Dodge,
      Campaign of Chancellorsville._

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 8._

      _D. N. Couch, O. O. Howard, and others,
      Chancellorsville
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 4._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 25._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April-May: Mississippi).
   Grierson's Raid.

   Reporting to headquarters at Washington, on the 5th of May,
   1863, General Hurlbut, commanding at Memphis, Tennessee, said:
   "As the spring opened, I was daily more and more impressed
   with the feasibility of a plan, long entertained, of pushing a
   flying column of cavalry through the length of Mississippi,
   cutting the Southern Railroad. By consent and approval of
   General Grant, I prepared a system of movements along my
   entire line from Memphis to Corinth for the purpose of
   covering this cavalry dash. At the same time General Rosecrans
   proposed to me to cover a movement of 1,800 cavalry from
   Tuscumbia down into Alabama and Georgia.
{3495}
   This did not interfere with my plan, but simply required extra
   force to be developed from Corinth. Delays incident to
   combined movements, especially from separate commands, kept
   his expeditionary column back for six days. I commenced the
   movement from Corinth on the 15th [April]. … On the 17th,
   Colonel B. H. Grierson, Sixth Illinois Cavalry, with his own
   regiment, the Seventh Illinois, and Second Iowa, moved from La
   Grange, by way of Pontotoc, with orders, after passing
   Pontotoc, to proceed straight down, throwing one regiment to
   the left toward Okolona, and to push for and destroy the
   Chunkey River Bridge and any others they could reach, and
   either return, or proceed to Baton Rouge, as might be found
   advisable. On the same day, April 17, a column of infantry
   1,500 strong, and one battery, moved by railroad from La
   Grange to Coldwater, with orders to push rapidly between
   Coldwater and the Tallahatchee, and take Chalmers in flank and
   rear while attacked in front by three regiments, a battery,
   and 200 cavalry from Memphis, which left here on the 18th. I
   considered that the effect of these movements would be to
   puzzle the enemy and withdraw his force from the central line,
   which has proven to be correct. … Grierson, on the 19th,
   detached the Second Iowa below Pontotoc, which fought its way
   gallantly back to La Grange and came home well mounted. The
   main cavalry column (Sixth and Seventh Illinois) proceeded,
   without loss or engagement, to Newton, on the Southern
   Mississippi Railroad, and there destroyed bridges." Colonel
   Grierson, in his own full report of the remarkable expedition
   thus set on foot, after narrating the proceedings of his
   command until it struck Newton Station, on the 24th of April,
   continues: "From captured mails and information obtained by my
   scouts, I knew that large forces had been sent out to
   intercept our return, and having instructions from
   Major-General Hurlbut and Brigadier-General Smith to move in
   any direction from this point which, in my judgment, would be
   best for the safety of my command and the success of the
   expedition, I at once decided to move south, in order to
   secure the necessary rest and food for men and horses, and
   then return to La Grange through Alabama, or make for Baton
   Rouge, as I might hereafter deem best. … After resting about
   three hours, we moved south to Garlandville. At this point we
   found the citizens, many of them venerable with age, armed
   with shot-guns and organized to resist our approach. As the
   advance entered the town, these citizens fired upon them and
   wounded one of our men. We charged upon them and captured
   several. After disarming them, we showed them the folly of
   their actions, and released them. Without an exception they
   acknowledged their mistake, and declared that they had been
   grossly deceived as to our real character. One volunteered his
   services as guide, and upon leaving us declared that hereafter
   his prayers should be for the Union Army. I mention this as a
   sample of the feeling which exists, and the good effect which
   our presence produced among the people in the country through
   which we passed. Hundreds who are skulking and hiding out to
   avoid conscription, only await the presence of our arms to
   sustain them, when they will rise up and declare their
   principles; and thousands who have been deceived, upon the
   vindication of our cause would immediately return to loyalty."
   It was not until the 2d of May that Grierson and his small
   force reached the Union lines at Baton Rouge. The total
   accomplishments of the expedition—aside from the important
   revelation it made of the condition of things in that region
   of the Confederacy—are summed up in the Colonel's report as
   follows: "During the expedition we killed and wounded about
   100 of the enemy, captured and paroled over 500 prisoners,
   many of them officers, destroyed between 50 and 60 miles of
   railroad and telegraph, captured and destroyed over 3,000
   stand of arms, and other army stores and Government property
   to an immense amount; we also captured 1,000 horses and mules.
   Our loss during the entire journey was 3 killed, 7 wounded, 5
   left on the route sick; the sergeant-major and surgeon of the
   Seventh Illinois left with Lieutenant-Colonel Blackburn, and 9
   men missing, supposed to have straggled. We marched over 600
   miles in less than sixteen days. The last twenty-eight hours
   we marched 76 miles, had four engagements with the enemy, and
   forded the Comite River, which was deep enough to swim many of
   the horses. During this time the men and horses were without
   food or rest. Much of the country through which we passed was
   almost entirely destitute of forage and provisions, and it was
   but seldom that we obtained over one meal per day. Many of the
   inhabitants must undoubtedly suffer for want of the
   necessaries of life, which have reached most fabulous prices."

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 24, part 1, pages 520-529._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(April-July: On the Mississippi).
   Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg.
   The final operations.
   His personal account of the siege and capture.

   "April 30th was spent in transporting troops across the river
   [to Bruinsburg]. The troops were moved out towards Port Gibson
   as fast as they were landed. On the 1st of May the advance met
   the enemy under Bowen about four miles west of Port Gibson,
   where quite a severe battle was fought, resulting in the
   defeat of the enemy, who were driven from the field. On May 2d
   our troops moved into Port Gibson, and, finding that the
   bridges over Bayou Pierre were destroyed, spent the balance of
   the day in rebuilding and crossing them, and marching to the
   North Fork, where we encamped for the night. During the night
   we rebuilt the bridge across the North Fork, which had also
   been destroyed, and the next day (the 3d) pushed on, and,
   after considerable skirmishing, reached the Big Black, near
   Hankinson's Ferry, and the Mississippi at Grand Gulf. … Here I
   [General Grant] … received a letter from Banks stating that he
   could not be at Port Hudson [which Grant had intended to join
   Banks in attacking, before he turned against Vicksburg] for
   some days, and then, with an army of only 15,000 men. As I did
   not regard this force of as much value as the time which would
   be lost in waiting for it, I determined to move on to
   Vicksburg. The 4th, 5th, and 6th of May were spent in
   reconnoitering towards Vicksburg, and also in crossing
   Sherman's troops over to Grand Gulf. On the 7th, Sherman
   having joined the main body of the army, the troops across the
   Big Black were withdrawn, and the movement was commenced to
   get in position on the Vicksburg and Jackson railroad so as to
   attack Vicksburg from the rear. This occupied the army from the
   7th to the 12th, when our position was near Fourteen Mile
   creek, Raymond being our right flank, our left resting on the
   Big Black.
{3496}
   To obtain this position we fought the battle of Raymond, where
   Logan's and Crocker's divisions of McPherson's corps defeated
   the Confederates under General Gregg, driving him back on
   Jackson; Sherman and McClernand both having some skirmishing
   where they crossed Fourteen Mile creek. As the army under
   Pemberton was on my left flank, and that under General Joseph
   E. Johnston on my right at Jackson, I determined to move the
   army rapidly on Jackson, capturing and destroying that place
   as a military depot; then turn west and destroy the army under
   Pemberton, or drive it back into Vicksburg. The 13th was spent
   in making the first of these moves. On the 14th Jackson was
   attacked with Sherman's and McPherson's corps. The place was
   taken, and all supplies that could be of service to the enemy
   were destroyed, as well as the railroad bridge. On the 15th
   the troops were faced to the west and marched towards
   Pemberton, who was near Edwards's Station. The next day, the
   16th, we met the enemy at Champion's Hill, and, after a
   hard-fought battle, defeated and drove him back towards
   Vicksburg, capturing 18 guns and nearly 3,000 men. This was
   the hardest-fought battle of the campaign. On the 17th we
   reached the Big Black, where we found the enemy intrenched.
   After a battle of two or three hours' duration we succeeded in
   carrying their works by storm, capturing much artillery and
   about 1,200 men. … We crossed on the morning of the 18th, and
   the outworks of Vicksburg were reached before night, the army
   taking position in their front. On the 19th there was
   continuous skirmishing with the enemy while we were getting
   into better positions. … At two o'clock I ordered an assault.
   It resulted in securing more advanced positions for all our
   troops, where they were fully covered from the fire of the
   enemy, and the siege of Vicksburg began. … Most of the army
   had now been for three weeks with only five days' rations
   issued by the commissary. They had had an abundance of food,
   however, but had begun to feel the want of bread. … By the
   night of the 21st full rations were issued to all the troops.
   … I now determined on a second assault. … The attack was
   ordered to commence on all parts of the line at ten o'clock A.
   M. on the 22d with a furious cannonade from every battery in
   position. All the corps commanders set their time by mine, so
   that all might open the engagement at the same minute. The
   attack was gallant, and portions of each of the three corps
   succeeded in getting up to the very parapets of the enemy …
   but at no place were we able to enter. … As soon as it was
   dark our troops that had reached the enemy's line and had been
   obliged to remain there for security all day were withdrawn,
   and thus ended the last assault on Vicksburg. A regular siege
   was now determined upon. … The Union force that had crossed
   the Mississippi river up to this time was less than 43,000
   men. … The enemy had at Vicksburg, Grand Gulf, Jackson, and on
   the roads between these places, quite 60,000 men. … My line
   was more than 15 miles long, extending from Haines's Bluff to
   Vicksburg, thence to Warrenton. The line of the enemy was
   about seven. In addition to this, having an enemy at Canton
   and Jackson in our rear, who was being constantly reënforced,
   we required a second line of defense, facing the other way. I
   had not troops enough under my command to man this. General
   Halleck appreciated the situation and, without being asked for
   reinforcements, forwarded them with all possible dispatch. …
   Johnston … abstained from making an assault on us, because it
   would simply have inflicted loss on both sides without
   accomplishing any result. We were strong enough to have taken
   the offensive against him; but I did not feel disposed to take
   any risk of loosing our hold upon Pemberton's army, while I
   would have rejoiced at the opportunity of defending ourselves
   against an attack by Johnston." The siege was of six weeks'
   duration, ending on the memorable 4th of July with the
   surrender of Pemberton and 31,000 men, who were released on
   parole. "Our men were no sooner inside the lines than the two
   armies began to fraternize, We had had full rations from the
   time the siege commenced to the close. The enemy had been
   suffering, particularly towards the last. I myself saw our men
   taking bread from their haversacks and giving it to those whom
   they had so recently been engaged in starving out."

      _U. S. Grant,
      The Siege of Vicksburg
      (Century Magazine, September, 1885)._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 31-30._

      _The Vicksburg Year
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapters 6-8._

      _F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapters 5-6._

      _W. Swinton,
      Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 7._

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 24._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (May-June).
   The arrest of Vallandigham.
   President Lincoln to the Copperheads.

   "The man whose name became unfortunately pre-eminent for
   disloyalty at this time was Clement L. Vallandigham, a
   Democrat, of Ohio. General Burnside was placed in command of
   the Department of the Ohio, March 25, 1863, and having for the
   moment no Confederates to deal with, he turned his attention
   to the Copperheads, whom he regarded with even greater
   animosity. His Order No. 38, issued on April 13, … warned
   persons with treasonable tongues that, unless they should keep
   that little member in order, they might expect either to
   suffer death as traitors, or to be sent southward within the
   lines of 'their friends.' Now Mr. Vallandigham had been a
   member of Congress since 1856; … he was the popular and rising
   leader of the Copperhead wing of the Democracy. Such was his
   position that it would have been ignominious for him to allow
   any Union general to put a military gag in his mouth. Nor did
   he. On the contrary he made speeches which at that time might
   well have made Unionists mad with rage, and which still seem
   to have gone far beyond the limit of disloyalty which any
   government could safely tolerate. Therefore on May 4 he was
   arrested by a company of soldiers, brought to Cincinnati, and
   thrown into jail. His friends gathered in anger, and a riot
   was narrowly avoided. At once, by order of General Burnside,
   he was tried by a military commission. He was charged with
   'publicly expressing sympathy for those in arms against the
   government of the United States, and declaring disloyal
   sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of
   weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to
   suppress an unlawful rebellion.' …
{3497}
   The evidence conclusively sustained the indictment, and the
   officers promptly pronounced him guilty, whereupon he was
   sentenced by Burnside to confinement in Fort Warren. … The
   Democrats throughout the North, rapidly surveying the
   situation, seized the opportunity which perhaps had been too
   inconsiderately given them. The country rang with plausible
   outcries and high sounding oratory concerning military
   usurpation, violation of the Constitution, and stifling
   freedom of speech. … Mr. Lincoln only showed that he felt the
   pressure of the criticism and denunciation by commuting the
   sentence, and directing that Vallandigham should be released
   from confinement and sent within the Confederate lines,—which
   was, indeed, a very shrewd and clever move, and much better
   than the imprisonment. Accordingly the quasi rebel was
   tendered to and accepted by a Confederate picket, on May 25.
   He protested vehemently, declared his loyalty, and insisted
   that his character was that of a prisoner of war. But the
   Confederates, who had no objection whatsoever to his peculiar
   methods of demonstrating 'loyalty' to their opponents,
   insisted upon treating him as a friend, the victim of an enemy
   common to themselves and him; and instead of exchanging him as
   a prisoner, they facilitated his passage through the blockade
   on his way to Canada. There he arrived in safety, and thence
   issued sundry manifestoes to the Democracy. On June 11 the
   Democratic Convention of Ohio nominated him as their candidate
   for governor, and it seems that for a while they really
   expected to elect him. … On May 16 a monster meeting of 'the
   Democrats of New York' was told by Governor Seymour that the
   question was: 'whether this war is waged to put down rebellion
   at the South, or to destroy free institutions at the North.'
   Excited by such instigation, the audience passed sundry
   damnatory resolutions and sent them to the President. Upon
   receiving these Mr. Lincoln felt that he must come down into
   the arena, without regard to official conventionality. On June
   12 he replied by a full presentation of the case, from his
   point of view. He had once more to do the same thing in
   response to another address of like character which was sent
   to him on June 11 by the Democratic State Convention of Ohio."

      _J. T. Morse,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

   To the New York Democrats, Mr. Lincoln said: "It is asserted
   in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a military
   commander, seized and tried 'for no other reason than words
   addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of
   the administration, and in condemnation of the military orders
   of the general.' Now, if there be no mistake about this, if
   this assertion is the truth and the whole truth, if there was
   no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest
   was wrong. But the arrest, as I understand, was made for a
   very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to
   the war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was made
   because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the
   raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and
   to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to
   suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the
   political prospects of the administration or the personal
   interests of the commanding general, but because he was
   damaging the army, upon the existence of which the life of the
   nation depends. He was warring upon the military, and this
   gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands
   upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military
   power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistake of
   fact, which I would be glad to correct on reasonably
   satisfactory evidence. I understand the meeting whose
   resolutions I am considering to be in favor of suppressing the
   rebellion by military force—by armies. Long experience has
   shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertion shall
   be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires,
   and the law and the Constitution sanction, this punishment.
   Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I
   must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to
   desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by
   getting a father, or brother, or friend into a public meeting,
   and there working upon his feelings till he is persuaded to
   write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for
   a wicked administration of a contemptible government, too weak
   to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that, in
   such a case, to silence the agitator and save the boy is not
   only constitutional, but withal a great mercy. If I be wrong
   on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in
   believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in
   cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires
   them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of
   rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require
   them: in other words, that the Constitution is not in its
   application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or
   invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of
   profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself
   makes the distinction, and I can no more be persuaded that the
   government can constitutionally take no strong measures in
   time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could
   not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be
   persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a
   sick man because it can be shown to not be good food for a
   well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended
   by the meeting, that the American people will by means of
   military arrests during the rebellion lose the right of public
   discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of
   evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus throughout the
   indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any
   more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so
   strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to
   persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his
   healthful life. In giving the resolutions that earnest
   consideration which you request of me, I cannot overlook the
   fact that the meeting speak as 'Democrats.' Nor can I, with
   full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly
   presumed deliberation with which they prepared their
   resolutions, be permitted to suppose that this occurred by
   accident, or in any way other than that they preferred to
   designate themselves 'Democrats' rather than 'American
   citizens.'
{3498}
   In this time of national peril I would have preferred to meet
   you upon a level one step higher than any party platform,
   because I am sure that from such more elevated position we
   could do better battle for the country we all love than we
   possibly can from those lower ones where, from the force of
   habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish hopes of the
   future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and
   strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other.
   But since you have denied me this, I will yet be thankful for
   the country's sake that not all Democrats have done so. He on
   whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and
   tried is a Democrat, having no old party affinity with me, and
   the judge who rejected the constitutional view expressed in
   these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham
   on habeas corpus is a Democrat of better days than these,
   having received his judicial mantle at the hands of President
   Jackson. And still more, of all those Democrats who are nobly
   exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the
   battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course
   taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a
   single one condemning it. I cannot assert that there are none
   such."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 849-350._

   To the Ohio Democrats, the President wrote as follows; "You
   claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in
   the Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and
   this because, as you claim, he has not damaged the military
   service by discouraging enlistments, encouraging desertions or
   otherwise; and that if he had he should have been turned over
   to the civil authorities under the recent acts of Congress. I
   certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham has specifically
   and by direct language advised against enlistments and in
   favor of desertion and resistance to drafting. We all know
   that combinations, armed in some instances, to resist the
   arrest of deserters began several months ago; that more
   recently the like has appeared in resistance to the enrolment
   preparatory to a draft; and that quite a number of
   assassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had
   to be met by military force, and this again has led to
   bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of responsibility
   more weighty and enduring than any which is merely official, I
   solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the
   military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course
   in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged in a greater degree
   than to any other cause; and it is due to him personally in a
   greater degree than to any other one man. These things have
   been notorious, known to all, and of course known to Mr.
   Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they
   originated with his special friends and adherents. With
   perfect knowledge of them, he has frequently if not constantly
   made speeches in Congress and before popular assemblies; and
   if it can be shown that, with these things staring him in the
   face, he has ever uttered a word of rebuke or counsel against
   them, it will be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one
   of which is yet I am totally ignorant. When it is known that
   the whole burden of his speeches has been to stir up men
   against the prosecution of the war, and that in the midst of
   resistance to it he has not been known in any instance to
   counsel against such resistance, it is next to impossible to
   repel the inference that he has counseled directly in favor of
   it. With all this before their eyes, the convention you
   represent have nominated Mr. Vallandigham for governor of
   Ohio, and both they and you have declared the purpose to
   sustain the National Union by all constitutional means. But of
   course they and you in common reserve to yourselves to decide
   what are constitutional means; and, unlike the Albany meeting,
   you omit to state or intimate that in your opinion an army is
   a constitutional means of saving the Union against a
   rebellion, or even to intimate that you are conscious of an
   existing rebellion being in progress with the avowed object of
   destroying that very Union. At the same time your nominee for
   governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to you and to
   the world to declare against the use of an army to suppress
   the rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages
   desertion, resistance to the draft, and the like, because it
   teaches those who incline to desert and to escape the draft to
   believe it is your purpose to protect them, and to hope that
   you will become strong enough to do so. After a short personal
   intercourse with you, gentlemen of the committee, I cannot say
   I think you desire this effect to follow your attitude; but I
   assure you that both friends and enemies of the Union look
   upon it in this light. It is a substantial hope, and by
   consequence a real strength to the enemy. If it is a false
   hope and one which you would willingly dispel, I will make the
   way exceedingly easy. I send you duplicates of this letter in
   order that you, or a majority of you, may, if you choose,
   indorse your names upon one of them and return it thus
   indorsed to me with the understanding that those signing are
   thereby committed to the following propositions and to nothing
   else;

   1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the
   object and tendency of which is to destroy the National Union;
   and that, in your opinion, an army and navy are constitutional
   means for suppressing that rebellion;

   2. That no one of you will do anything which, in his own
   judgment, will tend to hinder the increase, or favor the
   decrease, or lessen the efficiency of the army or navy while
   engaged in the effort to suppress that rebellion; and

   3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have
   the officers, soldiers, and seamen of the army and navy, while
   engaged in the effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed,
   clad, and otherwise well provided for and supported.

   And with the further understanding that upon receiving the
   letter and names thus indorsed, I will cause them to be
   published, which publication shall be, within itself, a
   revocation of the order in relation to Mr. Vallandigham. It
   will not escape observation that I consent to the release of
   Mr. Vallandigham upon terms not embracing any pledge from him
   or from others as to what he will or will not do. I do this
   because he is not present to speak for himself, or to
   authorize others to speak for him; and because I should expect
   that on his returning he would not put himself practically in
   antagonism with the position of his friends. But I do it
   chiefly because I thereby prevail on other influential
   gentlemen of Ohio to so define their position as to be of
   immense value to the army—thus more than compensating for the
   consequences of any mistake in allowing Mr. Vallandigham to
   return; so that, on the whole, the public safety will not have
   suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and all
   others, I must hereafter, as heretofore, do so much as the
   public safety may seem to require. I have the honor to be
   respectfully yours."

      _Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 362-363._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, .
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 12._

{3499}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (May-July: On the Mississippi).
   Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.
   The clear opening of the great River.

   "About the middle of May all the available force near the
   river was concentrated at Baton Rouge, to assist in the attack
   on Port Hudson. Thence Generals Augur and Sherman moved to the
   south and east of that position, to cooperate with General
   Banks. From Simmesport General Banks moved his army to invest
   Port Hudson. … It was on the 21st of May that General Banks
   landed, and on the next day a junction was effected with the
   advance of Major-General Augur and Brigadier-General Sherman.
   … On the 25th, the enemy was compelled to abandon his first
   line of works. On the next day General Weitzel's brigade,
   which had covered the rear in the march from Alexandria,
   arrived, and on the morning of the 27th a general assault was
   made on the fortifications. Port Hudson, or Hickey's Landing,
   as it was called some years ago, is situated on a bend in the
   Mississippi river, about 22 miles above Baton Rouge, and 147
   above New Orleans." It was strongly fortified and well
   defended by Colonel Frank Gardner. The artillery of General
   Banks opened fire on the 27th, and at ten o'clock the same day
   an assault was made, in which the colored soldiers showed much
   firmness and bravery. The assault failed and the losses in it
   were heavy. "A bombardment of the position had been made by
   the fleet under Admiral Farragut, for a week previous to this
   assault. Reconnoissances had discovered that the defences were
   very strong, consisting of several lines of intrenchments and
   rifle pits, with abatis of heavy trees felled in every
   direction. The upper batteries on the river were attacked by
   the Hartford and Albatross, which had run the blockade, and
   the lower by the Monongahela, Richmond, Genesee, and Essex. On
   the 14th of June, after a bombardment of several days, another
   assault on Port Hudson was made. … All the assaulting columns
   were compelled to fall back under the deadly fire of the
   enemy, and the fighting finally ceased about 11 o'clock in the
   morning. The loss of General Banks was nearly 700 in killed
   and wounded. … After these two attempts to reduce Port Hudson
   by a land assault, on the 27th of May and 14th of June, the
   purpose to make another was given up by General Banks, until
   he had fully invested the place by a series of irresistible
   approaches. He was thus engaged in pushing forward his works
   when Vicksburg was surrendered. Information of this surrender
   was sent to General Banks, and it was made the occasion for
   firing salutes and a general excitement in his camp, which
   attracted the attention of the enemy, to whom the surrender
   was communicated. General Gardner, upon receiving the
   information, sent by flag of truce, about midnight of the 7th,
   the following note to General Banks: … 'Having received
   information from your troops that Vicksburg has been
   surrendered, I make this communication to request you to give
   me the official assurance whether this is true or not, and if
   true, I ask for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to the
   consideration of terms for surrendering this position.'"

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 29._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapter 7._

      _R. B. Irwin,
      Port Hudson
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps,
      chapters 15-18._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume. 26._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June).
   Call for Six-Months Men.

   A call for 100,000 men to serve six months, for the repulse of
   the invasion of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and
   Ohio, was issued June 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June: Virginia).
   Lee's second movement of invasion and the inducements to it.
   Northern invitation and Southern clamor.
   The Southern view.

   "The defeat of General Hooker at Chancellorsville was the
   turning-point of the war, and for the first time there was
   apparently a possibility of inducing the Federal Government to
   relinquish its opposition to the establishment of a separate
   authority in the South. The idea of the formation of a
   Southern Confederacy, distinct from the old Union, had, up to
   this time, been repudiated by the authorities at Washington as
   a thing utterly out of the question; but the defeat of the
   Federal arms in the two great battles of the Rappahannock had
   caused the most determined opponents of separation to doubt
   whether the South could be coerced to return to the Union;
   and, what was equally or more important, the proclamations of
   President Lincoln, declaring the slaves of the South free, and
   placing the United States virtually under martial law, aroused
   a violent clamor from the great Democratic party of the North,
   who loudly asserted that all constitutional liberty was
   disappearing. This combination of non-success in military
   affairs and usurpation by the Government emboldened the
   advocates of peace to speak out plainly, and utter their
   protest against the continuance of the struggle, which they
   declared had only resulted in the prostration of all the
   liberties of the country. Journals and periodicals, violently
   denunciatory of the course pursued by the Government, all at
   once made their appearance in New York and elsewhere. A peace
   convention was called to meet in Philadelphia. … On all sides
   the advocates of peace on the basis of separation were heard
   raising their importunate voices. … The plan of moving the
   Southern army northward, with the view of invading the Federal
   territory, seems to have been the result of many
   circumstances. The country [Southern] was elated with the two
   great victories of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and
   the people were clamorous for active operations against an
   enemy who seemed powerless to stand the pressure of Southern
   steel. The army, which had been largely augmented by the
   return of absentees to its ranks, new levies, and the recall
   of Longstreet's two divisions from Suffolk, shared the general
   enthusiasm; and thus a very heavy pressure was brought to bear
   upon the authorities and on General Lee, in favor of a forward
   movement, which, it was supposed, would terminate in a signal
   victory and a treaty of peace. Lee yielded to this view of
   things rather than urged it. … Another important consideration
   was the question of supplies. … More than ever before, these
   supplies were now needed; and when General Lee sent, in May or
   June, a requisition for rations to Richmond, the
   commissary-general is said to have endorsed upon the paper,
   'If General Lee wishes rations, let him seek them in
   Pennsylvania.'
{3500}
   The considerations here stated were the main inducements for
   that great movement northward which followed the battle of
   Chancellorsville. … Throughout the month of May, Lee was
   busily engaged in organizing and equipping his forces for the
   decisive advance. Experience had now dictated many alterations
   and improvements in the army. It was divided into three 'corps
   d'armée,' each consisting of three divisions, and commanded by
   an officer with the rank of lieutenant-general. Longstreet
   remained at the head of his former corps. Ewell succeeded
   Jackson in command of 'Jackson's old corps', and A. P. Hill
   was assigned to a third corps made up of portions of the two
   others. … On the last day of May, General Lee had the
   satisfaction of finding himself in command of a well-equipped
   and admirably-officered army of 68,352 bayonets, and nearly
   10,000 cavalry and artillery—in all, about 80,000 men. … Lee
   began his movement northward on the 3d day of June, just one
   month after the battle of Chancellorsville. … Pursuing his
   design of manœuvring the Federal army out of Virginia, without
   coming to action, Lee first sent forward one division of
   Longstreet's corps in the direction of Culpepper, another then
   followed, and, on the 4th and 5th of June, Ewell's entire
   corps was sent in the same direction—A. P. Hill remaining
   behind on the south bank of the Rappahannock, near
   Fredericksburg, to watch the enemy there, and bar the road to
   Richmond. These movements became speedily known to General
   Hooker, whose army lay north of the river near that point, and
   on the 5th he laid a pontoon just below Fredericksburg, and
   crossed about a corps to the south bank, opposite Hill. This
   threatening demonstration, however, was not suffered by Lee to
   arrest his own movements. … He continued the withdrawal of his
   troops, by way of Culpepper, in the direction of the
   Shenandoah Valley." On the morning of the 9th of June, "two
   divisions of Federal cavalry, supported by two brigades of
   'picked infantry,' were sent across the river at Kelly's and
   Beverley's Fords, east of the court-house, to beat up the
   quarters of Stuart and find what was going on in the Southern
   camps. The most extensive cavalry fight [known as the battle
   of Brandy Station, or the battle of Fleetwood], probably, of
   the whole war, followed. … This reconnoisance in force … had
   no other result than the discovery of the fact that Lee had
   infantry in Culpepper. … This attempt of the enemy to
   penetrate his designs had not induced General Lee to interrupt
   the movement of his infantry toward the Shenandoah Valley. The
   Federal corps sent across the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg,
   still remained facing General Hill, and, two days after the
   Fleetwood fight, General Hooker moved up the river with his
   main body, advancing the Third Corps to a point near
   Beverley's Ford. But these movements were disregarded by Lee.
   On the same day Ewell's corps moved rapidly toward Chester
   Gap, passed through that defile in the mountain, pushed on by
   way of Front Royal, and reached Winchester on the evening of
   the 13th, having in three days marched 70 miles. The position
   of the Southern army now exposed it to very serious danger,
   and at first sight seemed to indicate a deficiency of
   soldiership in the general commanding it. In face of an enemy
   whose force was at least equal to his own, Lee had extended
   his line until it stretched over a distance of about 100
   miles. … When intelligence now reached Washington that the
   head of Lee's column was approaching the Upper Potomac, while
   the rear was south of the Rappahannock, the President wrote to
   General Hooker: 'If the head of Lee's army is at Martinsburg,
   and the tail of it on the plank road, between Fredericksburg
   and Chancellorsville, the animal must be very slim
   somewhere—could you not break him?' … It would seem that
   nothing could have been plainer than the good policy of an
   attack upon Hill at Fredericksburg, which would certainly have
   checked Lee's movement by recalling Longstreet from Culpepper,
   and Ewell from the Valley. But … instead of reënforcing the
   corps sent across at Fredericksburg and attacking Hill,
   General Hooker withdrew the corps, on the 13th, to the north
   bank of the river, got his forces together, and began to fall
   back toward Manassas."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Life of General Robert E. Lee,
      part 6, chapters 9-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 9._

[Image: Map of the Battlefield of Gettysburg. July 1-3, 1863.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June-July: Pennsylvania).
   Lee's Invasion.
   The Battle of Gettysburg.

   "Hooker started toward Washington. Ewell gained possession of
   Winchester and Martinsburg, but not of Harper's Ferry. There
   is a rocky and thickly wooded range of heights called the Bull
   Run Mountains, running from Leesburg south. As Hooker had not
   occupied them but was farther to the East, Lee desired to do
   so, for it would give him a strong position on Hooker's flank
   and bring him (Lee) very near to Washington. He therefore
   directed his cavalry to reconnoiter in that direction.
   Stuart's reconnoitering party met the Union cavalry at Aldie,
   and after a hard battle retreated. A series of cavalry combats
   ensued, ending in the retreat of Stuart's cavalry behind the
   Blue Ridge. Hooker was strongly posted east of the Bull Run
   range and could not be attacked with much chance of success.
   As Lee could not well remain inactive or retreat, he resolved
   to invade Pennsylvania. This was a hazardous enterprise, for
   Hooker might intervene between him and Richmond. Stuart's
   cavalry was left to prevent this catastrophe by guarding the
   passes in the Blue Ridge. Stuart was also directed to harass
   Hooker and attack his rear should he attempt to cross the
   Potomac in pursuit of Lee. Lee reached Chambersburg with
   Longstreet's and Hill's corps. Ewell's corps was in advance at
   Carlisle [June 27] and York," and advance bodies of cavalry
   were threatening Harrisburg. The militia of Pennsylvania, New
   York and Maryland were called out in force, but arms and
   ammunition for them were inadequate. "On June 28th, Hooker
   determined to send Slocum's corps and the garrison of Harper's
   Ferry—the latter about 10,000 strong—to operate against Lee's
   rear. This was an excellent plan, but Hooker's superior,
   General Halleck, refused to allow him to remove the troops
   from Harper's Ferry; and Hooker said if he could not manage
   the campaign in his own way, he preferred to give up the
   command of the army."
{3502}
   He was accordingly relieved and the command was given to
   Major-General George G. Meade, of the Fifth Corps. Meantime
   (June 25-27) the Union army had crossed the Potomac and
   advanced to Frederick, Maryland. "On June 28th, Lee learned
   from a scout that the Union army was in his rear and that his
   communication with Richmond was seriously endangered. … In
   this emergency he concluded to threaten Baltimore. As a
   preliminary measure, he directed his entire army to move on
   Gettysburg. This he hoped would induce Meade to concentrate in
   his front and leave his rear free; which was precisely what
   Meade did do. … Under the impression that Lee's army was
   spread out along the Susquehanna from Carlisle to York, Meade
   threw out his own forces fan-shaped to march in that
   direction. … The Union corps were marching on and getting
   farther apart, while the enemy were concentrating. The advance
   of Hill's corps, on the morning of July 1st, struck Buford's
   division of Union cavalry a short distance to the west of
   Gettysburg, and in spite of a stout resistance forced it
   slowly back towards the town. The First Corps at this time was
   five miles south of Gettysburg. General Reynolds went to the
   support of Buford with the nearest division of the First
   Corps—Wadsworth's—and directed that the others follow. While
   forming his line of battle he was killed. General Howard
   succeeded to the command of the field, but did not issue any
   orders to the First Corps until the afternoon. In the meantime
   General Doubleday continued the contest, captured a great part
   of the forces that had assailed him, and cleared his immediate
   front of all enemies. Before the Eleventh Corps came up the
   enemy could have walked right over the small force opposed to
   them, but owing to the absence of Stuart's cavalry [which, not
   crossing the Potomac to follow Lee until the 27th, had
   undertaken a long raid around the Union forces, and did not
   succeed in joining the main body of the Confederates until
   July 2d] they had not been kept informed as to the movements
   Meade was making, and fearing that the whole Union army was
   concentrated in their front they were overcautious. There was
   now a lull in the battle for about an hour. The remainder of
   the First Corps came up and was followed soon after by the
   Eleventh Corps under General Schurz. About the same time the
   Confederate corps of General Ewell arrived and made a junction
   with that of Hill. General Howard assumed command of the Union
   forces. Repeated attacks were now made against the First Corps
   by Ewell from the north and Hill from the west; but the
   Confederate charges were successfully repulsed. … Ewell's
   attack also struck the Eleventh Corps on the right and front
   with great force. … General Meade, when he heard of Reynold's
   death, was 14 miles from Gettysburg at Taneytown, preparing to
   form line of battle along Pipe Creek. He at once sent General
   Hancock forward with orders to assume command of the field.
   Hancock, perceiving that Cemetery Ridge [about half a mile
   south of Gettysburg] was an admirable position for a defensive
   battle, determined to hold it if possible. This was not an
   easy thing to do, for the enemy were in overwhelming force,
   and the feeble remnants of the First and Eleventh Corps were
   not in a condition to make a prolonged resistance. … Hancock
   directed Doubleday to send a force to Culp's Hill on the
   right, while he instructed Buford to parade up and down on the
   extreme left with his cavalry. The enemy were thus led to
   suppose that the Union line was a long one and had been
   heavily reënforced. As the losses on both sides had been
   tremendous, probably not exceeded for the same number of
   troops during the war, the enemy hesitated to advance,
   particularly as some movements of Kilpatrick's cavalry seemed
   to threaten their rear. They therefore deferred action until
   Meade concentrated the next day. On General Hancock's
   recommendation General Meade ordered his entire army to
   Gettysburg. By dusk part of the Third Corps had arrived, and
   soon after the Twelfth Corps and the Second Corps were close
   at hand. … Most of the troops, though worn out with hard
   marching, arrived by midday of July 2d. The Sixth Corps had 34
   miles to march and came later in the afternoon. … The attack
   as ordered by General Lee was to begin with Longstreet on the
   right and be made 'en échelon.' That is, as soon as Longstreet
   was fairly engaged, Hill's corps was to take up the fight and
   go in, and as soon as Hill was fairly engaged, Ewell's corps
   on the right was to attack. The object was to keep the whole
   Union line in a turmoil at once, and prevent reënforcements
   going from any corps not engaged to another that was fighting;
   but Hill did not act until Longstreet's fight was over, and
   Ewell did not act until Hill had been repulsed. … The enemy …
   failed in every attack against Meade's main line, with the
   exception of that portion south of Culp's Hill. Elated by the
   fact that he had made a lodgement there, Ewell determined to
   hold on at all hazards and sent heavy reënforcements during
   the night to aid Johnson to make an attack in the morning. …
   So ended the battle of the second day. At day dawn [July 3]
   General Warren, acting for General Meade, established a cordon
   of troops and batteries which drove Johnson out of his
   position on the right. … Lee having failed in his attacks both
   on Meade's left and right had to decide at once whether he
   would give up the contest and retreat, or make another attempt
   to force the Union line. As he had been reënforced by Stuart's
   cavalry, and as a fresh division under Pickett was available,
   he determined to try to pierce the left center of the Union
   army and disperse the force opposed to him. To this end he
   directed Longstreet to form a strong column of attack to be
   composed of Pickett's division and Pettigrew's division and
   two brigades of Pender's division, under Trimble, of Hill's
   corps. To create confusion and prevent General Meade from
   sending reënforcements to the menaced point, Stuart was
   ordered to ride around the right of the Union army and make an
   attack in rear. And still more to facilitate the attack 135
   guns were to concentrate their fire against the Union center
   and disperse the forces assembled there. About 1 P. M. the
   terrific cannonade began and lasted for two hours, by which
   time the Confederate ammunition was nearly exhausted. …
   Stuart's cavalry attack proved abortive, for it was met and
   frustrated by two brigades of Gregg's cavalry aided by
   Custer's brigade, after a severe battle, which was hotly
   contested on both sides. Stuart's further progress was checked
   and he was forced to retreat. … Pickett formed his great
   column of attack and came forward as soon as the fire from the
   Union batteries slackened."
{3503}
   Fresh guns had, however, been brought into position and swept
   the ground over which Pickett moved. His charge, one of the
   most desperately determined of the whole war, was heroically
   met by Gibbon's division of the Second Corps and by part of
   the First Corps, under the personal direction of General
   Hancock, who was severely wounded in the terrible conflict.
   Pickett was forced to retreat with the survivors of his
   onslaught, and "the whole plain was soon covered with
   fugitives; but, as no pursuit was ordered, General Lee in
   person succeeded in rallying them and in re-forming the line
   of battle. The next day, July 4th, General Lee drew back his
   flanks and at evening began his retreat by two routes—the main
   body on the direct road to Williamsport through the mountains,
   the other via Chambersburg, the latter including the immense
   train of the wounded. Gregg's division (except Huey's brigade)
   was sent in pursuit by way of Chambersburg, but the enemy had
   too much the start to render the chase effective. Kilpatrick,
   however, got in front of the main body on the direct route
   and, after a midnight battle at Monterey, fought during a
   terrific thunder storm, succeeded in making sad havoc of
   Ewell's trains. … Lee concentrated his army in the vicinity of
   Williamsport, but as French had destroyed his pontoon bridge,
   and as the Potomac had risen, he was unable to cross. He
   therefore fortified his position. Meade did not follow Lee
   directly, but went around by way of Frederick. After
   considerable delay the Union army again confronted that of Lee
   and were about—under orders from President Lincoln-to make an
   attack, when Lee slipped away on the night of July 14th to the
   Virginia side of the Potomac. This ended the campaign of
   Gettysburg. The Union loss was 3,072 killed, 14,497 wounded,
   5,434 missing=Total, 23,003. The Confederate loss was 2,592
   killed, 12,709 wounded, 5,150 missing=Total, 20,451."

      _A. Doubleday,
      Gettysburg made plain (with 29 maps)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Doubleday,
      Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 6, part 2)._

      _J. Longstreet, H. J. Hunt and others,
      Gettysburg
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 8._

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 15._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 3, book 3, chapter 4._

      _D. X. Junkin and F. H. Norton,
      Life of General Hancock,
      chapters 11-13._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 27._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June-July: Tennessee).
   The Tullahoma campaign.

   "During the first six months of the year 1863 the Army of the
   Cumberland remained at Murfreesboro' and was comparatively
   inactive. The troops were employed in the construction of
   elaborate fortifications and in divers minor operations with
   defensive or tentative objects. … Late in June the Army of the
   Cumberland advanced against its old enemy, the Confederate
   Army of the Tennessee, then holding the line of Duck River. In
   this movement the Fourteenth Corps [General Thomas] was in the
   centre, its appropriate place, and drove the enemy from
   Hoover's Gap and from several positions in front of that gap.
   General McCook [Twentieth Corps] on the right had a severe
   combat at Liberty Gap, but finally pressed the enemy from the
   hills. General Crittenden [Twenty-first Corps] on the left did
   not meet much opposition. When Bragg's army had been driven
   from its defensive line on Duck River, General Rosecrans moved
   his army towards Manchester, and regarding this movement as
   indicating either an attack upon his position at Tullahoma, or
   the interruption of his communications, Bragg fell back from
   that place. He did not consider himself strong enough to meet
   Rosecrans in battle, and he consequently retreated first to
   the Cumberland Mountains, and, soon after, across the
   Tennessee River to Chattanooga. The Tullahoma campaign was
   begun on the 23d of June and terminated on the 4th of July.
   The enemy fought at the gaps of the mountains, but the defense
   on the whole was feeble. The result was the possession by the
   Army of the Cumberland of the region from Murfreesboro' to
   Bridgeport, Alabama. At the close of the campaign the army
   advanced to the northern base of the Cumberland Mountains, and
   there halted to make preparations for a campaign south of the
   Tennessee River."

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of General George H. Thomas,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapter 19 (volume 1)._

      _H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7)._

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      _D. S. Stanley,
      The Tullahoma Campaign
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: On the Mississippi).
   The Defence of Helena.

   "One of the most brilliant of the minor victories of the war
   was gained at Helena, Arkansas, on the west bank of the
   Mississippi, on the 4th of July, General Holmes [Confederate]
   had asked and received permission to take that place, in the
   middle of June, and had mustered for that purpose an army of
   nearly 10,000 men. The garrison of Helena consisted of a
   division of the Thirteenth Corps and a brigade of cavalry
   numbering in all 4000 men, commanded by Major-General B. M.
   Prentiss. Holmes felt so sure of victory that he doubtless
   selected the 4th of July for his attack in a mere spirit of
   bravado. He assaulted at daylight with converging columns, two
   of which made considerable impression upon the outworks, but
   never reached the town. The defense of the Union troops was
   singularly skilful and energetic, and, after a few hours of
   fighting, Holmes, finding himself utterly defeated, retired at
   half-past ten. The little army of Prentiss was, of course, too
   small to pursue. The last Confederate attempt to hold the
   Mississippi River thus ended in a complete and most
   humiliating repulse."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 11._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: Mississippi).
   The capture and destruction of Jackson.

   When Vicksburg surrendered, Johnston was hovering in the rear
   of Grant's army, and Sherman was watching his movements. On
   the very day the surrender was completed the latter marched
   rapidly upon Jackson, with 50,000 men, Johnston retreating
   before him. The city was invested on the 10th, and defended by
   the Confederates until the night of the 16th when they
   evacuated with haste. General Sherman, writing to Admiral
   Porter on the 19th of July, said: "We … have 500 prisoners,
   are still pursuing and breaking railroads, so that the good
   folks of Jackson will not soon again hear the favorite
   locomotive whistle.
{3504}
   The enemy burned nearly all the handsome dwellings round about
   the town because they gave us shelter or to light up the
   ground to prevent night attacks. He also set fire to a chief
   block of stores in which were commissary supplies, and our
   men, in spite of guards, have widened the circle of fire, so
   that Jackson, once the pride and boast of Mississippi, is now
   a ruined town. State-house, Governor's mansion, and some fine
   dwellings, well within the lines of intrenchments, remain
   untouched. I have been and am yet employed in breaking up the
   railroad 40 miles north and 60 south; also 10 miles east. My
   10-miles break west, of last May, is still untouched, so that
   Jackson ceases to be a place for the enemy to collect stores
   and men."

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 24, part 3, page 531._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: Kentucky).
   John Morgan's Raid into Ohio and Indiana.

   "The most famous raid of this time was that made in July by
   John Morgan across the Ohio River. General Buckner was then in
   East Tennessee, near the borders of Kentucky, getting ready to
   make another dash toward Louisville, and Morgan went ahead to
   prepare the way. He crossed the Cumberland River into Kentucky
   with about 3,000 mounted men, sacked Columbia, captured
   Lebanon with 400 prisoners, and rode on through Bardstown to
   Brandenburg on the Ohio River, plundering and destroying as he
   went. Many Kentuckians had joined him on the way, and he then
   had 4,000 men and ten pieces of artillery. The advance of
   Rosecrans's army just at that time prevented Buckner from
   joining him, and Morgan determined to cross into Indiana.
   There were two gunboats in the river, but he kept them off
   with his artillery while his men crossed on two captured
   steamboats. Morgan then rode through Indiana toward Cincinnati
   fighting home guards, tearing up railroads, burning bridges
   and mills and capturing much property. The whole State was
   aroused by the danger, and thousands of armed men started
   after the bold riders. Morgan became alarmed, and after
   passing around Cincinnati, almost within sight of its
   steeples, turned toward the Ohio to cross again into Kentucky.
   A large Union force was following, others were advancing on
   his flanks, and gunboats and steamboats filled with armed men
   were moving up the river to cut him off. The people aided the
   pursuers all they could by cutting down trees and barricading
   the roads to stop Morgan's march. He was so delayed by these
   and other things that he did not reach the Ohio until July
   19th. He hoped to cross at a place called Buffington Ford, but
   the Union men were upon him and he had to turn and fight.
   After a severe battle, in which the Union troops were helped
   by gunboats which cut off the raiders from crossing the ford,
   about 800 of Morgan's men surrendered, and the rest, with
   Morgan himself, fled up the river fourteen miles to Bellville,
   where they tried to cross by swimming their horses. About 300
   men had succeeded in getting over when the gunboats came up
   and opened fire on them. A fearful scene ensued, for it was a
   struggle of life and death. … Some got across, some were shot
   and some drowned. Morgan was not among the fortunate ones who
   escaped. With about 200 men he fled further up the river to
   New Lisbon, where he was surrounded and forced to surrender.
   This was a wonderful raid, but it did not do the Confederate
   cause any good. A large part of the property destroyed was
   private property, and this roused the anger of all the people
   of the Border States. … Morgan and some of his officers were
   sent to Columbus and confined in the penitentiary, from which
   he and six others escaped in the following November by making
   a hole through the bottom of their cell and digging a tunnel
   under the foundations of the building."

      _J. D. Champlin Jr.,
      Young Folk's History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 31._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. W. Duke,
      History of Morgan's Cavalry,
      chapters 14-15._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 23._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: New York).
   The Draft Riots.

      See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1863.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: South Carolina).
   The lodgement on Morris Island, and the assault on Fort Wagner.

   After Du Pont's attack upon the forts in Charleston harbor
   "the Confederates enjoyed two months of undisturbed leisure
   for the construction and strengthening of their works, though
   all this time the matter of a new essay at the reduction of
   Sumter occupied more than its proper share of the attention of
   the Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (APRIL: South CAROLINA).

   The forces in the Department of the South were not sufficient
   to undertake a siege of Charleston by land, and the exigencies
   of the more important campaigns going forward in Virginia,
   Tennessee and Mississippi prevented their being reenforced. It
   was resolved, therefore, to restrict operations to the harbor
   and the islands immediately adjoining, and Admiral John A.
   Dahlgren—after the death of Admiral Foote, who had been
   designated for the purpose—and General Q. A. Gillmore were
   charged with the command of the military and naval forces
   engaged. … Admiral Dahlgren … assumed command on the 6th of
   July. Gillmore had already been on the ground some three
   weeks, and had nearly completed his preparations for a descent
   upon Morris Island, when Dahlgren arrived. The admiral,
   without a moment's delay, entered into the plans of the
   general, and within forty-eight hours collected his scattered
   monitors and steamed away to the harbor of Charleston. Morris
   Island is a low strip of sandy beach, which lies to the south
   of Charleston and, with Sullivan's Island to the north, guards
   the entrance to the harbor, the two stretching out to sea like
   the open jaws of an alligator. They are each about three and a
   half miles long, separated from the mainland on the north, and
   from the high ground of James Island on the south, by miry and
   impracticable marshes stretching a distance of two or three
   miles. Their inner ends are a little less than four miles from
   the Charleston wharves, with Fort Sumter lying midway.
   Gillmore resolved to make his attack from Folly Island, which
   lies on the coast directly south of Morris, which it greatly
   resembles in conformation, and from which it is separated by
   Light House Inlet. It was occupied by a brigade under General
   Israel Vogdes, who had fortified the southern end of it,
   controlling the waters of Stono harbor and the approaches of
   James Island.
{3505}
   There was a heavy growth of underbrush at both ends of the
   island; taking advantage of this, Vogdes, under Gillmore's
   direction, constructed ten powerful batteries near its
   southern extremity, completely masked from the enemy's view;
   their purpose being to operate against the enemy's guns near
   the landing place, to protect the debarkation of the troops,
   and to cover their retreat in case of necessity. Most of this
   work was done at night, and all of it as silently as possible.
   … Alfred H. Terry's division of 4,000 and George C. Strong's
   brigade of 2,500 were quietly brought together on Folly
   Island, and on the afternoon of the 8th of July the former
   force was sent up the Stono to make a demonstration against
   James Island, while Strong's brigade was ordered to descend
   upon Morris Island at daybreak of the 9th. Colonel T. W.
   Higginson of the First South Carolina Volunteers, colored, was
   ordered at the same time to cut the railroad between
   Charleston and Savannah; a duty in which General Gillmore says
   he 'signally failed.' The others punctually performed the
   tasks assigned them. Terry's feint against Stono was so
   imposing as to be taken for the real attack, by Beauregard,
   who hastily gathered together a considerable force to resist
   him, and paid little attention to the serious movement on the
   beach." The Confederate troops on Morris Island, taken by
   surprise, were "speedily driven out of all their batteries
   south of Wagner, and abandoned to Gillmore three-fourths of
   the island, with 11 pieces of heavy ordnance. The next day he
   ordered Strong's brigade to assault Fort Wagner, an attempt
   which failed, with slight loss on each side. On the 16th Terry
   was attacked by a superior force on James Island, and although
   he repulsed the enemy with the assistance of the gunboats
   which accompanied him, he was recalled to Fol]y Island, the
   purpose of his demonstration having been accomplished.
   Although General Gillmore had as yet no conception of the
   enormous strength of Fort Wagner, the assault and repulse of
   the 11th of July convinced him that it could not be carried
   offhand. He therefore determined, on consultation with Admiral
   Dahlgren, to establish counter-batteries against it, hoping
   with the combined fire of these and the gunboats to dismount
   the guns of the work and so shake its defense as to carry it
   by a determined assault. The preparations were made with great
   energy, and by the morning of the 18th, exactly one week after
   the first assault, General Gillmore was ready for the second."
   The batteries and the fleet opened fire on the fort at noon of
   July 18th; its defenders were soon driven from the parapets,
   and "in the course of the afternoon the whole work seemed to
   be beaten out of shape"; but, being constructed of fine quartz
   sand, it had suffered damage only in appearance. At twilight,
   the storming party, headed by Colonel Robert G. Shaw and his
   Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Regiment of colored troops, made a
   most brave and resolute assault, actually climbing the parapet
   of the fort, but only to leave 1500 dead, dying and wounded
   upon its treacherous sands. The heroic young Colonel Shaw fell
   dead among the foremost men; General Strong, Colonel Chatfield
   and Colonel Putnam were killed or mortally wounded; General
   Truman Seymour was wounded severely, and many other excellent
   officers were in the lists of the slain or the sadly disabled.
   "The death of Colonel Shaw was widely lamented, not only
   because of his personal worth, but because he had become in a
   certain sense the representative of the best strain of New
   England anti-slavery sentiment. The Confederates recognized
   this representative character by their treatment of his
   corpse, replying to a request of his friends for his remains,
   that they 'had buried him under a layer of his niggers.'"

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Higginson,
      Army Life in a Black Regiment._

      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Troops,
      chapter 9._

      _M. V. Dahlgren,
      Memoirs of John A. Dahlgren,
      chapter 14._

      _A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 31 (volume 2)._

      _D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War,
      volume 2: The Atlantic Coast, chapter 7._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 28._

      _L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers,
      chapters. 4-5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July-November: Virginia).
   Meade and Lee on the Rapidan.
   Bristoe Station.
   Rappahannock Station.
   Kelly's Ford.
   Mine Run.

   The 18th of July found the whole army of General Meade once
   more on the Virginia side of the Potomac. "His plan for the
   pursuit of Lee was not unlike that of McClellan a year before,
   but although he displayed much greater expedition and energy
   in the execution of it than were shown by his predecessor, the
   results, through no fault of his own, were unimportant.
   General French, who had taken no part in the battle of
   Gettysburg, had been placed in command of the Third Corps; he
   was an old officer of the regular army, excellent in drill, in
   routine, and all the every-day details of the service, but
   utterly unfit for an enterprise requiring great audacity and
   celerity. He was assigned upon this expedition to the duty of
   throwing his corps through Manassas Gap and attacking the
   flank of the enemy as he moved southward by Front Royal. Meade
   succeeded in getting French into the Gap in time to have
   broken the rebel army in two; but when he attacked, it was in
   so inefficient a Manner, and with so small a portion of his
   force, that the day was wasted and the enemy made their way
   down the Valley to the lower gaps. This failure was a source
   of deep mortification to General Meade. … The pursuit of the
   enemy was not continued further. … The months of August and
   September were a period of repose for the Army of the Potomac.
   It was in fact in no condition to undertake active operations;
   a considerable body of troops had been taken from Meade for
   service in South Carolina, and a strong detachment had been
   sent to the City of New York for the purpose of enforcing the
   draft there. General Lee had retired behind the Rapidan for
   several weeks of rest; neither army was ready at that time to
   attack the other." Early in September Longstreet's Corps was
   detached from Lee's army and sent west to strengthen Bragg at
   Chattanooga, and in the latter part of the same month about
   13,000 men (Eleventh and Twelfth Corps) were taken from Meade
   and sent, under Hooker's command, to the same scene of pending
   conflict. "But, even with this reduction of his command, after
   the return of the troops detached to the North, Meade found
   himself with an army of about 68,000 men; and, knowing this
   force to be somewhat superior to that of the enemy, he
   resolved to cross the Rapidan and attack him; but again, as so
   often happened in the history of the contending armies in
   Virginia, Lee had formed the project of a similar enterprise,
   and began its execution a day or two in advance. He had
   learned of the departure of two corps for the West." On the
   9th of October "he began a flanking movement to the right of
   the Union line."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 9._

{3506}

   "Conceiving that the Confederates would move by the Warrenton
   pike, in order to cross Bull Run and get possession of
   Centreville—thus to interpose between the Federal army and
   Washington—Meade retired as speedily as possible. He had, in
   reality, the start in the race, notwithstanding the day's loss
   in the return movement. … On the morning of the 14th, Lee
   advanced from Warrenton in two columns, but not by the 'pike.'
   The left, under Hill, moving by the turnpike to New Baltimore,
   was ordered to strike the railroad at Bristoe Station; the
   right column, under Ewell, taking a more easterly route, was
   directed to effect a junction at the same point. When Hill
   approached Bristoe, Meade's army, with the exception of
   Warren's corps, had passed that point. As the head of this
   column came up, the 5th Corps, under General Sykes, had just
   crossed Broad Run. Hill at once formed a line of battle to
   attack the rear of that corps, when Warren came up, and, by a
   bold onset, drove the enemy back, securing 450 prisoners and 5
   guns. The National army, having won the race for position, and
   obtained possession of the heights of Centreville, Lee's
   movement was at an end, and he had but to retire to his old
   line again … and, on the 18th, began his retrograde movement.
   The following day Meade commenced pursuit, with the intention
   of attacking the enemy on his retreat, but did not overtake
   him, being detained by a heavy ruin storm, which so raised
   Bull Run as to render it unfordable. … On the 7th of November
   the whole army was put in motion toward the Rappahannock,
   along which river the enemy was in position at Rappahannock
   Station and Kelly's Ford. In two columns Meade advanced toward
   these points. General French, commanding the left
   wing—composed of the 1st, 2d and 3d Corps—was directed to
   cross at Kelly's Ford, while the right wing—comprising the
   5th and 6th Corps, under General Sedgwick—marched upon
   Rappahannock Station. The 3d Corps, under Birney, led the
   advance on Kelly's Ford. Reaching that point, without waiting
   for pontoons, Birney crossed his own division by wading,
   carried the rifle-pits, captured 500 prisoners and prevented
   the enemy re-enforcing their troops at the Ford, by means of
   batteries which he planted on the hills that commanded the
   crossing. At the same time the right wing was contending
   against more formidable obstacles at Rappahannock Station.
   Early's division of Ewell's corps occupied a series of works
   on the north side of the river. … Gaining a good position,
   commanding the fort from the rear, Sedgwick planted his guns
   and opened a fierce cannonade upon the enemy's several
   batteries. Under cover of this fire, the temporary works were
   assaulted and carried at the bayonet's point. Over 1,500
   prisoners, 4 guns and 8 standards were captured. Sedgwick's
   loss was about 300 in killed and wounded. The right column now
   crossed the river without opposition, and, uniting with
   French's forces, advanced to Brandy Station. November 8th was
   lost in getting forward the trains, and in reconnoitering.
   Under cover of that night Lee withdrew across the Rapidan.
   Taking position between the Rappahannock and the Rapidan,
   Meade remained quietly and undisturbed for two weeks. Finding
   Lee indisposed for action, the Federal leader resolved once
   more to try and bring on a general engagement. … The
   Confederate army having gone into winter quarters, was located
   over a wide extent of country. … This separation of the
   enemy's corps, led Meade to hope, that, by crossing the lower
   fords of the Rapidan, and advancing rapidly on the plank and
   turnpike roads to Orange, C. H., he could concentrate his army
   against Ewell's corps, cripple or destroy it, and then be able
   to turn upon Hill, and in this way break Lee's army in
   detail." But delays occurred which "frustrated the object of
   the movement; … disclosed Meade's intention to the enemy, who
   at once concentrated his entire force behind Mine Run, having
   also time given for additional entrenchments along the menaced
   points. The enemy's position was found to be exceedingly
   strong by nature, and further perfected by the skill of busy
   hands. … In front was Mine Run, a shallow stream, but
   difficult to cross on account of its steep banks, the marshy
   nature of the ground, and the dense undergrowth with which it
   was flanked. … 'In view of the season of the year [said
   General Meade in his subsequent report], the impossibility of
   moving from that place if there came on even a couple of days
   of rain; having failed in my first plan, which was to attack
   the enemy before they could concentrate; and then having
   failed in my plan to attack them after they had concentrated,
   in the manner which I have related, I concluded that, under
   the circumstances, it was impossible for me to do anything
   more.' And this was the end of a movement, which, like
   Hooker's advance to flank Fredericksburg, opened with fair
   promise of success, and, like that advance, was a failure from
   incidents which the situation permitted rather than asserted."

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 12, chapter 1 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 10._

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Life of General Robert E. Lee,
      part 7._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 29._

      _A. A. Humphreys,
      From Gettysburg to the Rapidan._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August: Missouri-Kansas).
   Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
   The sacking and burning of Lawrence.

   "Since the fall of Vicksburg many rebel soldiers had returned
   from Arkansas to their homes in Western Missouri, and under
   the secret orders so frequently sent from commanders in the
   South into that State, the guerrilla bands along the Kansas
   border suddenly grew in numbers and audacity. Though the whole
   region was patrolled almost day and night by Union detachments
   and scouts, a daring leader named Quantrell, who had been for
   some weeks threatening various Kansas towns, assembled a band
   of 300 picked and well-mounted followers at a place of
   rendezvous near the line, about sunset of August 20. His
   object being divined, half a dozen Union detachments from
   different points started in chase of him; but skilfully
   eluding all of them by an eccentric march, Quantrell crossed
   the State line, and, reaching the open prairie country, where
   roads were unnecessary, pushed directly for Lawrence, Kansas.
{3507}
   … This town was 40 miles in the interior, and had no reason to
   apprehend an attack, and though it could have assembled
   several hundred men under arms in half an hour, its
   inhabitants had no dream of danger when the marauders entered
   the place at sunrise of August 21. Quantrell stationed
   detachments to prevent any assembling or concentration of the
   citizens, and then began a scene of pillage, arson and
   massacre too horrible to relate. Stores and banks were robbed,
   185 buildings burned, and from 150 to 200 inhabitants murdered
   with a cold-blooded fiendishness which seems impossible to
   believe of Americans. The direful work occupied but three or
   four hours, when the perpetrators remounted their horses and
   departed. Though they managed their retreat with such skill as
   to avoid a general encounter, the pursuit was so hot that in
   several skirmishes, and by cutting off stragglers and
   laggards, 100 or more of the band were killed. The sudden
   calamity raised excitement on the Kansas border to almost a
   frenzy."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, page 211._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August-September: Tennessee).
   Burnside's deliverance of East Tennessee.
   The Union Army in Knoxville.

   "Ever since the Federals had become masters of Kentucky they
   had projected all expedition into East Tennessee. … Early In
   the year 1862 the Federals had taken the defile of Cumberland
   Gap, the principal door to East Tennessee; but drawn into the
   pursuit of their adversaries in other directions, they had
   very wisely renounced proceeding beyond the gap, and shortly
   thereafter the Confederates had retaken the defile. In 1863
   the role of liberator of East Tennessee was reserved for
   General Burnside: it was an honorable compensation accorded to
   the unfortunate but gallant soldier vanquished at
   Fredericksburg. Two divisions of the Ninth Corps designated to
   undertake this campaign having been, on June 4th, sent to the
   aid of Grant, it became necessary to commence new
   preparations. The scattered troops in Kentucky, several
   regiments recruited in that State or composed of refugees from
   East Tennessee, and a part of the fresh levies made in Ohio
   and Indiana, formed the Twenty-third Corps, under the orders
   of General Hartsuff. At the end of June … this little army was
   in readiness to move, when Morgan started on his raid [and
   Burnside's troops were sent in the pursuit]. Six weeks were
   lost. It was the beginning of August. The Ninth Corps was
   coming back from Vicksburg. But the men, worn out by the
   climate, had need of rest. Burnside could not wait for them."
   He set out upon his movement into East Tennessee with about
   20,000 men, leaving Camp Nelson, near Lexington, on the 16th
   of August. The Confederate General Buckner opposed him with an
   equal number, including 3000 under General Fraser at
   Cumberland Gap. Instead of attempting to force the passage of
   the gap, Burnside "determined to make a flank movement around
   the defile, by traversing more to the south, in the State of
   Tennessee, the high table-land which on that side bears the
   designation of Cumberland plateau. The roads which Burnside
   would have to cross were long and difficult to travel, and
   that portion of the country was little known, besides being
   bare of resources; but the very difficult character of the
   roads warranted the belief that the Confederates would be illy
   prepared for defence in that region. No precaution was
   neglected to ensure the success of this laborious and perilous
   march," and the success achieved was perfect. "One can
   understand with what joy the Federals, after eleven days of
   toilsome march, entered the rich valley, a kind of promised
   land, which stretched out before them. Public rumor had
   greatly exaggerated their numbers. … Bragg, fearing with
   reason lest by its flanking movements it [the division which
   Burnside led in person] should separate him from Buckner and
   then fall upon Chattanooga, had sent his lieutenant an order
   to evacuate Knoxville." Buckner withdrew and Burnside made a
   triumphal entry into Knoxville on the 3d of September.
   "According to the testimony of eye-witnesses, the joy of the
   people was beyond description. Innumerable Federal flags which
   had been preserved in secret were displayed at the windows."
   Frazer, who had not been withdrawn from Cumberland Gap, found
   himself entrapped, when, on the 9th of September, Burnside
   appeared before his works, and he surrendered without a shot.

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 3, chapters 4-5._

      _T. W. Humes,
      The Loyal Mountaineers of East Tennessee,
      chapter 13._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 30, part 2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August-September: Tennessee).
   Rosecrans's advance to Chattanooga.
   Evacuation of the place by the Confederates.
   Battle of Chickamauga.

   "The seizure and occupation of the strategic point Chattanooga
   was an essential part of the campaign by the national forces
   against the Confederates. The Atlantic portion of the Southern
   States is separated from the Mississippi Valley by majestic
   folds of the earth's surface, constituting the Appalachian
   Ranges. These folds run, in a general manner, parallel to each
   other, and at intervals are crossed by transverse depressions
   or gaps. Such passages or gateways are therefore of great
   commercial, political and military importance. Chattanooga,
   which in the Cherokee language means 'The Hawk's Nest,' is a
   little town seated in one of these transverse depressions,
   through which the Tennessee River and a system of railroads
   pass. … From the region of Chattanooga the earth-folds range
   in a southwesterly direction. Enumerating such of them as are
   of interest on the present occasion, they are from west to
   east as follows: Raccoon or Sand Mountain, Lookout Mountain,
   Missionary Ridge, Pigeon Mountain, Chickamauga Hills. …
   Chattanooga Valley … through which runs a stream of the same
   name, is formed on the west by Lookout Mountain, here about
   2,400 feet high, and on the east by Missionary Ridge, so
   called because Catholic Missionaries had established, many
   years ago, churches and schools upon it among the Cherokee
   Indians. From the summit of Lookout Mountain portions of not
   fewer than six States may be seen." In his Tullahoma campaign)
   Rosecrans, in July, had compelled Bragg and the Confederate
   army, by skilful flanking movements, to fan back to
   Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1863 (June-July: Tennessee).

{3508}

   He had ever since been urged from Washington to pursue his
   attack and dislodge the enemy from the mountains. But he
   delayed further movements for a month, repairing his railroad
   communications, asking for reinforcements, and waiting for
   corn to ripen for food and forage. When he advanced, it was to
   turn the left of Bragg's position at Chattanooga, and "reach
   his rear between Dalton and Atlanta. To do this, he had to
   cross the Tennessee River below Chattanooga, and then pass the
   three or four successive mountain ridges. … Rosecrans reached
   the Tennessee River on the evening of the 20th of August, and
   shelled Chattanooga from the heights on the north bank on the
   21st. Bridges were thrown over the river at Caperton's Ferry,
   mouth of Battle Creek, and Shell Mound, and the army, except
   the cavalry, safely crossed in face of the enemy. By the 8th
   of September" the several movements planned for Thomas, McCook
   and Crittenden were successfully accomplished, and Chattanooga
   was abandoned by the Confederates. "Thus the first object of
   Rosecrans's campaign was accomplished: the important strategic
   point Chattanooga was obtained. … Rosecrans, believing himself
   perfectly secure in Chattanooga, and being convinced that
   Bragg was fleeing southward, did nothing to fortify himself.
   Taking measures to pursue his antagonist, he directed
   Crittenden to leave one brigade at Chattanooga as a garrison,
   and with the rest move forward to Ringgold. Thomas was to
   march to Lafayette, and McCook upon Alpine and Summer Creek.
   But Bragg, so far from continuing, had stopped his retreat—he
   was concentrating at Lafayette. He had received, or was on the
   point of receiving, the powerful re-enforcements directed to
   join him. He was strictly ordered to check the farther advance
   of the Army of the Cumberland. … Rosecrans had separated three
   corps of his army by mountain ridges and by distances greater
   than those intervening between each of them and the enemy.
   Bragg had concentrated opposite his centre, and was holding
   such a position that he could attack any of them with
   overwhelming numbers. He had caused deserters and citizens to
   go into Rosecrans's lines to confirm him in the impression
   that the Confederates were in rapid retreat. … On the 11th of
   September, Crittenden, not stopping to fortify Chattanooga,
   pushed on toward Ringgold to cut off Buckner, who he had heard
   was coming from East Tennessee to the support of Bragg.
   Finding that Buckner had already passed, he turned toward
   Lafayette to follow him, going up the east side of the
   Chickamauga, but meeting a steadily increasing resistance he
   took alarm, and fell back across that stream at Lee and
   Gordon's Mills. The forces he had encountered were Cheatham's
   and Walker's divisions. Thomas, who had now discovered Bragg's
   position, directed McCook, who was advancing on Rome, to fall
   back instantly and connect with him. Rosecrans's troops had
   thus become scattered along an extended line from Lee and
   Gordon's Mills to Alpine, a space of about forty miles. By the
   17th they were brought more within supporting distance, and on
   the morning of the 18th a concentration was begun toward
   Crawfish Spring, but it was slowly executed. At this time the
   two armies were confronting each other on the opposite banks
   of the Chickamauga, a stream which, rising at the junction of
   Missionary Ridge and Pigeon Mountain … empties into the
   beautiful Tennessee River above Chattanooga. In the Indian
   tongue Chickamauga means 'The Stagnant Stream,' 'The River of
   Death'—a name, as we shall soon find, of ominous import.
   Rosecrans was on the west bank of the Chickamauga. … On the
   18th his right was … at Gordon's Mills, his left near the road
   across from Rossville. Bragg's intention was to flank this
   left and interpose between it and Chattanooga. … On the 18th
   Longstreet's troops were arriving from Virginia, and Bragg was
   ready. … The battle of Chickamauga commenced on the morning of
   the 19th." Bragg's flanking movement, executed under General
   Polk, and directed against the left of Rosecrans's line, where
   Thomas had command, did not succeed. "The centre was then
   assailed and pressed back, but, having been re-enforced, it
   recovered its ground. Night came, and the battle was thus far
   indecisive. … The night was spent in preparation. Thomas
   constructed abatis and breastworks before his lines. … Bragg
   was still determined to flank the national left, and intervene
   between it and Chattanooga. He had ordered Polk to begin the
   battle as soon as it was light enough to see," but Polk
   delayed and it was not until 10 o'clock that "Breckenridge's
   division, followed by Cleburne's, advanced against the
   breastworks of Thomas, which were mostly in Cleburne's front.
   Cleburne moved directly upon them, Breckenridge swinging round
   to flank them. With so much energy were these attacks made,
   that Thomas had to send repeatedly to Rosecrans for help. The
   Confederates had been gaining ground, but with these
   re-enforcements Thomas succeeded in driving back Cleburne with
   very great loss, and even in advancing on the right of
   Breckenridge." But, presently, by some blunder in the giving
   or construing of an order, one division—that of General
   "Wood—was withdrawn from Rosecrans line and posted uselessly
   in the rear. "By this unfortunate mistake a gap was opened in
   the line of battle, of which Hindman, of Longstreet's corps,
   took instant advantage, and, striking Davis in flank and rear,
   threw his whole division into confusion. … That break in the
   line was never repaired. Longstreet's masses charged with such
   terrible energy that it was impossible to check them. The
   national right and centre were dispersed, flying toward
   Rossville and Chattanooga. Sheridan, however, at length
   succeeded in rallying a considerable portion of his division,
   and managed to reach Thomas. On Thomas, who, in allusion to
   these events, is often called 'The Rock of Chickamauga.' the
   weight of the battle now fell. Everything depended on his
   firmness. … In the flight of the right and part of the centre
   from the field, Rosecrans, McCook and Crittenden were
   enveloped and carried away. … Rosecrans … went to Chattanooga,
   and thence telegraphed to Washington that his army had been
   beaten. Thomas still remained immovable in his position," and
   at a critical moment he was saved from a movement into his
   rear, by General Gorden Granger, who pushed to the front with
   some reserves. "Night came, and the Confederates were still
   unable to shake him. But, as most of the army had retreated to
   Chattanooga, he now deliberately fell back to Rossville. … The
   dead and wounded he left in the hands of the enemy. On the
   21st he offered battle again, and that night withdrew into the
   defences of Chattanooga."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 67, volume 3._

{3509}

   "During the heavy fighting of the 20th, Thomas was the only
   general officer on the field of rank above a division
   commander. … Well was he called the 'Rock of Chickamauga,' …
   There is nothing finer in history than Thomas at Chickamauga.
   All things considered, the battle of Chickamauga, for the
   forces engaged, was the hardest fought and the bloodiest
   battle of the Rebellion. … The largest number of troops
   Rosecrans had of all arms on the field during the two days'
   fighting was 55,000 effective men. … Rosecrans's losses
   aggregated killed, 1,687; wounded, 9,394; missing, 5,255.
   Total loss, 16,336. Bragg, during the battle, when his entire
   five corps were engaged, had about 70,000 effective troops in
   line. … His losses, in part estimated, were 2,673 killed,
   16,274 wounded, and 2,003 missing, a total of 20,950. A full
   report of the rebel losses was never made."

      _H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7), chapters 11-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 1, chapters 2-6._

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of Major-General George H. Thomas,
      chapters 6-7._

      _W. B. Hazen,
      Narrative of Military Service,
      chapters 8-9._

      _D. H. Hill, E. Opdycke, and others,
      Chickamauga
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 30._

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(August-October: Arkansas-Missouri).
   The breaking of Confederate authority in Arkansas.
   Occupation of Little Rock by national forces.
   Rebel raids into Missouri.

   "After the surrender of Vicksburg, the Federal General Steele
   was sent to Helena, with a considerable force, and instructed
   to form a junction with General Davidson, who was moving south
   from Missouri, by way of Crowley's Ridge, west of the St.
   Francis, and with the combined force drive the Confederates
   south of the Arkansas River. Having effected this junction and
   established his depot and hospitals at Duvall's Bluff, on the
   White River, General Steele, on the 1st of August, advanced
   against the Confederate army, which fell back toward Little
   Rock. After several successful skirmishes, he reached the
   Arkansas River, and threw part of his force upon the south
   side, to threaten the Confederate communications with
   Arkadelphia, their depot of supplies, and flank their position
   at Little Rock. General Marmaduke was sent out with a cavalry
   force to beat the Federals back, but was completely routed.
   Seeing what must be the inevitable result of this movement of
   General Steele, the Confederate General Holmes destroyed what
   property he could, and after a slight resistance retreated
   with his army in great disorder, pursued by the Federal
   cavalry, and on the 10th of September General Steele, with the
   Federal army, entered the capital of Arkansas. His entire
   losses in killed, wounded and missing, in this whole movement,
   did not exceed 100. He captured 1,000 prisoners, and such
   public property as the Confederates had not time to destroy.
   The Federal cavalry continued to press the retreating
   Confederates southward; but a small force, which had eluded
   pursuit and moved eastward, attacked the Federal garrison at
   Pine Bluff, on the Arkansas, south of Little Rock, hoping to
   recapture it and thus cripple the Federals and break their
   communications. The attempt, which was made on the 28th of
   October, was repulsed with decided loss on the part of the
   confederates, and the same day the Federal cavalry occupied
   Arkadelphia, and the Confederates retreated toward the Red
   River. This completely restored Arkansas to the Federal
   authority, except a small district in the extreme southwest,
   and the region of Northwest Arkansas, over which the guerrilla
   and other irregular troops of the Confederates continued to
   roam, in their plundering excursions into Missouri, Kansas,
   and the Indian Territory. Some of these were conducted on a
   large scale. … The Confederate General Cabell, collecting
   together as many of the guerrillas and Indians as possible,
   and some of the routed troops driven from Little Rock and its
   vicinity, started with a force variously estimated at from
   4,000 to 10,000, in the latter part of September, from the
   Choctaw settlements of the Indian Territory, crossed the
   Arkansas River east of Fort Smith, and, on the 1st of October,
   a detachment of his troops, under General Shelby, joined
   Coffee at Crooked Prairie, Missouri, intending to make a raid
   into Southwestern Missouri. This combined force, numbering
   2,000 or 2,500 men, penetrated as far as the Missouri River at
   Booneville, but were pursued by the Missouri militia, and
   finally brought to a stand about eight miles southwest of
   Arrow Rock, on the evening of the 12th of October. General E.
   B. Brown who commanded the Federal troops, fought them till
   dark that evening, and during the night, having detached a
   small force to attack them in the rear, renewed the battle the
   next morning at eight A. M. After a sharp contest they fled,
   completely routed and broken up, with a loss of several
   hundred in killed, wounded and prisoners. They were pursued to
   the Arkansas line and prisoners gleaned all the way. … With
   these last convulsive throes, the active existence of the
   Confederate authority in Arkansas died out. On the 12th of
   November a meeting was held at Little Rock, to consult on
   measures for the restoration of the State to the Union, and
   was succeeded by others in different parts of the State."

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 36._

      ALSO IN:
      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civile war in America,
      volume 4, book 3, chapter 3._

      _W. Britton,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion on the Border,
      chapters 21-22._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(August-December: South Carolina).
   Siege and Reduction of Fort Wagner.
   Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

   After the unsuccessful assault and bloody repulse of July 18th
   General Gillmore began against Fort Wagner the operations of a
   regular siege.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA)

   "Trenches were dug, and by the middle of August the batteries
   were within a quarter-mile of Wagner and within two and a half
   miles of Sumter. The work on these batteries had to be done
   mostly by night, for the forts kept up a heavy fire. Another
   battery was also begun in the marsh on the west side of Morris
   Island. The black mud there was so soft that it would not bear
   the weight of a man, and was at least 16 feet deep. After the
   site was chosen, a lieutenant was ordered to superintend the
   work, and told to call for whatever materials he wanted. Being
   something of a wag, he sent to the quartermaster for 100 men 18
   feet high, to work in mud 16 feet deep; but as men of that
   height could not be had, he had to be satisfied with workmen
   of common stature.
{3510}
   All the work had to be done in the dark, for it was within
   range of the guns of the forts. During fourteen nights piles
   were driven through the mud into the solid ground beneath, and
   on them were piled 15,000 bags of sand to form a parapet.
   After breaking down several trucks, a monster eight-inch
   Parrott gun, a 200-pounder, was dragged across the swamp and
   mounted, and about the middle of August the Swamp Angel, as
   the soldiers named it, was ready to throw shells into
   Charleston, nearly five miles away. On the 17th of August
   twelve land-batteries and the monitors opened fire on Sumter,
   Wagner, and Gregg. The heaviest of the fire was aimed at
   Sumter, as General Gillmore wished to silence it before he
   made another assault on Wagner. The bombardment was kept up
   for seven days, when Gillmore sent a dispatch to General
   Halleck, saying: 'Fort Sumter is to-day (August 24) a
   shapeless and harmless mass of ruins.' On the 21st of August,
   General Gillmore wrote to General Beauregard, who was in
   command in Charleston, demanding the evacuation of Fort Sumter
   and of Morris Island, threatening, in case of refusal, to
   bombard Charleston. Not hearing from him, he ordered a few
   shells to be thrown into the city from the Swamp Angel. Some
   of them fell in the streets and frightened the people, but did
   little damage. Beauregard then wrote him a letter in which he
   accused him of barbarity in 'turning his guns against the old
   men, the women and children, and the hospitals of a sleeping
   city,' and called the act 'unworthy of any soldier. General
   Gillmore replied that it was the duty of the commander of an
   attacked place to 'see to it that the non-combatants were
   removed,' and that he (Beauregard) had had forty days' time in
   which to do it. But the Swamp Angel was fired only a few
   times. At the thirty-sixth shot it burst and blew out the
   whole of its breech, and no other gun was mounted in its
   place. Gillmore then turned his attention once more to Fort
   Wagner, which he determined to assault again. To do this it
   was necessary to silence its guns and drive its defenders into
   the bomb-proofs; so a heavy fire was opened on it by the
   batteries, while the armored frigate New Ironsides poured
   eleven-inch shells into it from the sea side. The bombardment
   was kept up day and night, strong calcium lights being used by
   night to blind the Confederates and to show all parts of their
   works. The Confederates, driven from their guns, were obliged
   to fly for safety to their bomb-proofs. In the morning of
   September 7, the troops, under General Terry, were about ready
   to make the assault, when it was reported that the fort was
   empty. The garrisons of both Wagner and Gregg had fled during
   the night, and the whole of Morris Island was at last in
   possession of the Union troops. The next night an attack was
   made on Sumter by thirty boat-loads of men from the fleet.
   They reached the base of the walls and began to go up,
   thinking that the garrison was asleep; but before they reached
   the top a fire of musketry and hand-grenades was opened on
   them by the Confederates within, aided by some gun boats
   outside, and the assailants were driven off with a loss of
   about 200. But little more was done against Charleston during
   the rest of the year. General Gillmore thought that, as
   Sumter's guns were silenced, the fleet might easily pass into
   the harbor and capture Charleston. But Admiral Dahlgren did
   not care to run the risk of the torpedoes and powder-mines
   over which he knew he would have to pass. Besides, General
   Beauregard had taken advantage of the long delay in taking
   Wagner to strengthen the inner forts. Fort Johnson had been
   made into a powerful earthwork, and the fleet, even if Sumter
   were passed, would meet with as hot a fire as had been
   experienced outside. General Gillmore therefore contented
   himself with repairing Wagner and Gregg and turning their guns
   on Charles·ton and the forts defending it. As they were a mile
   nearer the city than the Swamp Angel battery, a slow
   bombardment was kept up until near the end of the year. About
   half of Charleston was reached by the shells, and many
   buildings were greatly injured. As the wharfs and most of the
   harbor were under fire, blockade-runners could no longer run
   in, and the business of the city was thus wholly destroyed."

      _J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folk's History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 32._

      ALSO IN:
      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 3, chapter 2._

      _A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 2, chapters 32-34._

      _C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 2, chapter 35._

      _L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers.,
      chapters 6-7._

[Image: Map of the Battlefield of Chattanooga. 1863.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (October-November: Tennessee).
   The raising of the siege of Chattanooga.
   "Battle above the Clouds," on Lookout Mountain.
   Assault of Missionary Ridge.
   The Rout of Bragg's army.

   After its defeat at Chickamauga the National Army was
   practically besieged on Chattanooga. Bragg acquired strong
   positions on Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge, and was
   able to cut off all of Rosecrans's routes of supply, except
   one long and difficult wagon-road. On the 17th of October an
   important reorganization of the Union armies in the West was
   effected. "The departments of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and
   the Tennessee, were united under the title of Military
   Division of the Mississippi, of which General Grant was made
   commander, and Thomas superseded Rosecrans in command of the
   Army of the Cumberland. General Hooker, with two corps, was
   sent to Tennessee. Grant arrived at Chattanooga on the 23d of
   October, and found affairs in a deplorable condition. It was
   impossible to supply the troops properly by the one
   wagon-road, and they had been on short rations for some time,
   while large numbers of the mules and horses were dead. Grant's
   first care was to open a new and better line of supply.
   Steamers could come up the river as far as Bridgeport, and he
   ordered the immediate construction of a road and bridge to
   reach that point by way of Brown's Ferry, which was done
   within five days, the 'cracker line,' as the soldiers called
   it, was opened, and thenceforth they had full rations and
   abundance of everything. The enemy attempted to interrupt the
   work on the road; but Hooker met them at Wauhatchie, west of
   Lookout Mountain, and after a three-hours' action drove them
   off [with It loss of 416 killed and wounded, the Confederate
   loss being unknown]. Chattanooga was now no longer in a state
   of siege; but it was still seriously menaced by Bragg's army,
   which held a most singular position.
{3512}
   Its flanks were on the northern ends of Lookout Mountain and
   Mission Ridge, the crests of which were occupied for some
   distance, and its centre stretched across Chattanooga valley.
   This line was twelve miles long, and most of it was well
   intrenched. Grant ordered Sherman [coming from Memphis] to
   join him with one corps, and Sherman promptly obeyed, but as
   he did considerable railroad repairing on the way, he did not
   reach Chattanooga till the 15th of November. Meanwhile
   Longstreet with 20,000 troops had been detached from Bragg's
   army and sent against Burnside at Knoxville. After Sherman's
   arrival, Grant had about 80,000 men."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 20._

   "My orders for battle," writes General Grant, "were all
   prepared in advance of Sherman's arrival, except the dates,
   which could not be fixed while troops to be engaged were so
   far away. The possession of Lookout Mountain was of no special
   advantage to us now. Hooker was instructed to send Howard's
   corps to the north side of the Tennessee, thence up behind the
   hills on the north side, and to go into camp opposite
   Chattanooga; with the remainder of the command, Hooker was, at
   a time to be afterwards appointed, to ascend the western slope
   between the upper and lower palisades, and so get into
   Chattanooga Valley. The plan of battle was for Sherman to
   attack the enemy's right flank, form a line across it, extend
   our left over South Chickamauga River so as to threaten or
   hold the railroad in Bragg's rear, and thus force him either
   to weaken his lines elsewhere or lose his connection with his
   base at Chickamauga Station. Hooker was to perform like
   service on our right. His problem was to get from Lookout
   Valley to Chattanooga Valley in the most expeditious way
   possible; cross the latter valley rapidly to Rossville, south
   of Bragg's line on Missionary Ridge, form line there across
   the ridge facing north, with his right flank extended to
   Chickamauga Valley east of the ridge, thus threatening the
   enemy's rear on that flank and compelling him to reinforce
   this also. Thomas, with the Army of the Cumberland, occupied
   the centre, and was to assault while the enemy was engaged
   with most of his forces on his two flanks. To carry out this
   plan, Sherman was to cross at Brown's Ferry and move east of
   Chattanooga to a point opposite the north end of Mission
   Ridge, and to place his command back of the foot-hills out of
   sight of the enemy on the ridge." Remaining in this concealed
   position until the time of attack, Sherman's army was then,
   under cover of night, to be rapidly brought back to the south
   side of the Tennessee, at a point where Missionary Ridge
   prolonged would touch the river, this being done by pontoons
   ready provided at a spot also concealed. The execution of the
   plan was delayed by heavy rains until November 23, when
   Burnside's distress at Knoxville forced Grant to begin his
   attack on Bragg by an advance of Thomas's army, at the center,
   before the flanking preparations were completed. "This
   movement [General Grant's narrative continues] secured to us a
   line fully a mile in advance of the one we occupied in the
   morning, and the one which the enemy had occupied to this
   time. The fortifications were rapidly turned to face the other
   way. During the following night they were made strong. We lost
   in this preliminary action about 1,100 killed and wounded,
   while the enemy probably lost quite as heavily, including the
   prisoners that were captured. With the exception of the firing
   of artillery, kept up from Missionary Ridge and Fort Wood
   until night closed in, this ended the fighting for the first
   day. … By the night of the 23d Sherman's command was in a
   position to move," and by daylight two divisions of his
   command were on the south side of the river, "well covered by
   the works they had built. The work of laying the bridge, on
   which to cross the artillery and cavalry, was now begun. … By
   a little past noon the bridge was completed, as well as one
   over the South Chickamauga … and all the infantry and
   artillery were on the south side of the Tennessee. Sherman at
   once formed his troops for assault on Missionary Ridge. … By
   half-past three Sherman was in possession of the height
   without having sustained much loss. … Artillery was dragged to
   the top of the hill by hand, The enemy did not seem to be
   aware of this movement until the top of the hill was gained.
   There had been a drizzling rain during the day, and the clouds
   were so low that Lookout Mountain and the top of Missionary
   Ridge were obscured from the view of persons in the valley.
   But now the enemy opened fire upon their assailants, and made
   several attempts with their skirmishers to drive them away,
   but without avail. Later in the day a more determined attack
   was made, but this, too, failed, and Sherman was left to
   fortify what he had gained. … While these operations were
   going on to the east of Chattanooga, Hooker was engaged on the
   west. He had three divisions … all west of Lookout Creek. The
   enemy had the east bank of the creek strongly picketed and
   entrenched. … The side of Lookout Mountain confronting
   Hooker's command was rugged, heavily timbered, and full of
   chasms. … Early on the morning of the 24th Hooker moved
   Geary's division, supported by a brigade of Cruft's, up
   Lookout Creek, to effect a crossing. The remainder of Cruft's
   division was to seize the bridge over the creek, near the
   crossing of the railroad. … This attracted the enemy so that
   Geary's movement farther up was not observed. A heavy mist
   obscured him from the view of the troops on the top of the
   mountain. He crossed the creek almost unobserved, and captured
   the picket of over 40 men on guard near by. He then commenced
   ascending the mountain directly in his front. … By noon Geary
   had gained the open ground on the north slope of the mountain,
   with his right close up to the base of the upper palisade, but
   there were strong fortifications in his front. The rest of the
   command coming up, a line was formed from the base of the
   upper palisade to the mouth of Chattanooga Creek. Thomas and I
   were on the top of Orchard Knob. Hooker's advance now made our
   line a continuous one. … The day was hazy, so that Hooker's
   operations were not visible to us except at the moments when
   the clouds would rise. But the sound of his artillery and
   musketry was heard incessantly. The enemy on his front was
   partially fortified, but was soon driven out of his works.
   During the afternoon the clouds, which had so obscured the top
   of Lookout all day as to hide whatever was going on from the
   view of those below, settled down and made it so dark where
   Hooker was as to stop operations for the time. At four o'clock
   Hooker reported his position as impregnable.
{3513}
   By a little after five direct communication was established,
   and a brigade of troops was sent from Chattanooga to reinforce
   him. … The morning of the 25th opened clear and bright, and
   the whole field was in full view from the top of Orchard Knob.
   It remained so all day. Bragg's headquarters were in full
   view. … Sherman was out as soon as it was light enough to see,
   and by sunrise his command was in motion. Three brigades held
   the hill already gained. Morgan L. Smith moved along the east
   base of Missionary Ridge; Loomis along the west base … and
   Corse with his brigade was between the two, moving directly
   towards the hill to be captured." The fighting was severe for
   hours, and Bragg moved heavy masses of troops to resist
   Sherman's advance, while a division from Thomas was sent to
   reinforce the latter. "It had now got to be late in the
   afternoon, and I had expected before this to see Hooker
   crossing the ridge in the neighborhood of Rossville and
   compelling Bragg to mass in that direction also. The enemy had
   evacuated Lookout Mountain during the night, as I expected he
   would. In crossing the valley he burned the bridge over
   Chattanooga Creek, and did all he could to obstruct the roads
   behind him. Hooker was off bright and early, with no
   obstructions in his front but distance and the destruction
   above named. He was detained four hours crossing Chattanooga
   Creek, and thus was lost the immediate advantage I expected
   from his forces. … But Sherman's condition was getting so
   critical that the assault for his relief could not be delayed
   any longer. Sheridan's and Wood's divisions had been lying
   under arms from early morning, ready to move the instant the
   signal was given. I now directed Thomas to order the charge at
   once." In this splendid charge the Union troops drove the
   Confederates from the first line of their works and then
   pushed on, with no further orders, to the second line, with
   the same success. "The retreat of the enemy along most of his
   line was precipitate, and the panic so great that Bragg and
   his officers lost all control over their men. Many were
   captured and thousands threw away their arms in their flight.
   Sheridan pushed forward until he reached the Chickamauga River
   at a point above where the enemy crossed. … To Sheridan's
   prompt movement the Army of the Cumberland and the nation are
   indebted for the bulk of the capture of prisoners, artillery,
   and small arms that day. … The enemy confronting Sherman, now
   seeing everything to their left giving way, fled also. …
   Hooker [pushing on to Rossville as soon as he had succeeded in
   getting across Chattanooga Creek] … came upon the flank of a
   division of the enemy, which soon commenced a retreat along
   the ridge. This threw them on Palmer. They could make but
   little resistance in the position they were caught in, and as
   many of them as could do so escaped. Many, however, were
   captured. … The victory at Chattanooga was won against great
   odds, considering the advantage the enemy had of position."

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 42-44 (volume 2)._

   "Grant's losses in these battles were 757 killed, 4,529
   wounded, and 330 missing; total 5,616. The enemy's losses were
   fewer in killed and wounded, owing to the fact that he was
   protected by intrenchments, while the national' soldiers were
   without cover. Grant captured 6,142 prisoners, 40 pieces of
   artillery, 69 artillery carriages and caissons, and 7,000
   stand of small arms; by far the greatest capture, in the open
   field, which had then been made during the war. The battle of
   Chattanooga was the grandest ever fought west of the
   Alleghanies. It covered an extent of 13 miles, and Grant had
   over 60,000 men engaged. The rebels numbered only 45,000 men,
   but they enjoyed immense advantages of position in every part
   of the field." Pursuit of the retreating Confederates began
   early in the morning of the 26th, and considerable fighting
   occurred on that day and the next. At Ringgold, Hooker was
   checked by Cleburne's division, which held an easily defended
   gap while the main column with its trains were moved beyond
   reach. In this battle at Ringgold Hooker lost 65 killed and
   377 wounded. He took three pieces of artillery and 230
   prisoners.

      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapters 11-12 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 5.

      _H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7),
      chapters 13-14._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 2._

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 21-22 (volume 1)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 31._

      _B. F. Taylor,
      Mission Ridge and Lookout Mountain._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (October-December: Tennessee).
   The Siege of Knoxville.

   "The Army of the Cumberland remaining quiet at Chattanooga,
   Bragg (or his superiors) conceived the idea of improving his
   leisure by a movement on Burnside, which Longstreet was
   assigned to lead. Burnside had by this time spread his force
   very widely, holding innumerable points and places southward
   and eastward of Knoxville by brigades and detachments; and
   Longstreet advancing silently and rapidly, was enabled to
   strike heavily [October 20] at the little outpost of
   Philadelphia, held by Colonel F. T. Wolford, with the 1st,
   11th, and 12th Kentucky cavalry and 45th Ohio mounted
   infantry—in all about 2,000 men. Wolford … withstood several
   hours, hoping that the sound of guns would bring him
   assistance from Loudon in his rear; but none arrived; and he
   was at length obliged to cut his way out; losing his battery
   and 32 wagons, but bringing off most of his command, with 51
   prisoners. … Our total loss in prisoners to Longstreet
   southward of Loudon is stated by Halleck at 650. The enemy
   advancing resolutely yet cautiously, our troops were withdrawn
   before them from Lenoir and from Loudon, concentrating at
   Campbell's Station—General Burnside, who had hastened from
   Knoxville at the tidings of danger, being personally in
   command. Having been joined by his old (9th) corps, he was now
   probably as strong as Longstreet; but a large portion of his
   force was still dispersed far to the eastward, and he
   apprehended being flanked by an advance from Kingston on his
   left. He found himself so closely pressed, however, that he
   must either fight or sacrifice his trains; so he chose an
   advantageous position and suddenly faced the foe: his
   batteries being all at hand, while those of his pursuers were
   behind; so that he had decidedly the advantage in the fighting
   till late in the afternoon, when they brought up three
   batteries and opened, while their infantry were extended on
   either hand, as if to outflank him.
{3514}
   He then fell back to the next ridge, and again faced about;
   holding his position firmly till after nightfall; when—his
   trains having meantime obtained a fair start—he resumed his
   retreat, and continued it unmolested until safe within the
   sheltering intrenchments of Knoxville. Our loss in this affair
   was about 800; that of the enemy was probably greater. …
   Longstreet continued his pursuit and in due time beleaguered
   the city [November 17], though he can hardly be said to have
   invested it. … The defenses were engineered by Captain Poe,
   and were signally effective. Directly on getting into
   position, a smart assault was delivered on our right, held by
   the 12th Illinois, 45th Ohio, 3d Michigan, and 12th Kentucky,
   and a hill carried; but it was not essential to the defenses.
   Our loss this day was about 100; among them was General W. P.
   Sanders, of Kentucky, killed. Shelling and skirmishing barely
   served to break the monotony for ten weary days, when—having
   been reenforced by Sam Jones, and one or two other small
   commands from Virginia—Longstreet delivered an assault, by a
   picked storming party of three brigades, on an unfinished but
   important work known as Fort Sanders, on our left, but was
   bloodily repelled by General Ferrero, who held it—the loss of
   the assailants being some 800, … while on our side the entire
   loss that night was about 100; only 15 of these in the fort.
   And now—Bragg having been defeated by Grant before
   Chattanooga, and a relieving force under Sherman being close
   at hand—Longstreet necessarily abandoned the siege, and moved
   rapidly eastward unassailed to Russellville, Virginia: our
   entire loss in the defense having been less than 1,000; while
   his must have been twice or thrice that number. Sherman's
   advance reached the city, and Burnside officially announced
   the raising of the siege, December 5th."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps,
      part 3, chapter 6._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 31, part 1._

      _T. W. Humes.
      The Loyal Mountaineers of East Tennessee,
      chapters 14-16._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (November).
   President Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg.

   "By the retreat of Lee from Gettysburg and the immediate
   pursuit by Meade, the burial of the dead and care of the
   wounded on that great battlefield were left largely to the
   military and local authorities of the State of Pennsylvania.
   Governor Andrew G. Curtin gave the humane and patriotic duty
   his thoughtful attention; and during its execution the
   appropriate design of changing a portion of the field into a
   permanent cemetery, where the remains of the fallen heroes
   might be brought together, and their last resting-place
   suitably protected and embellished, was conceived and begun.
   The citizen soldiery from seventeen of the loyal States had
   taken part in the conflict on the Union side, and the several
   Governors of these States heartily cooperated in the project,
   which thus acquired a National character. This circumstance
   made it natural that the dedication ceremonies should be of
   more than usual interest and impressiveness. Accordingly, at
   the beginning of November, 1863, when the work was approaching
   its completion, Mr. David Wills, the special agent of Governor
   Curtin, and also acting for the several States, who had not
   only originated, but mainly superintended, the enterprise,
   wrote the following letter of invitation to President Lincoln:
   'The several States having soldiers in the Army of the
   Potomac, who were killed at the battle of Gettysburg, or have
   since died at the various hospitals which were established in
   the vicinity, have procured grounds on a prominent part of the
   battlefield for a cemetery, and are having the dead removed to
   them and properly buried. These grounds will be consecrated
   and set apart to this sacred purpose, by appropriate
   ceremonies, on Thursday, the 19th instant. Honorable Edward
   Everett will deliver the oration. I am authorized by the
   Governors of the different States to invite you to be present
   and participate in these ceremonies, which will doubtless be
   very imposing and solemnly impressive. It is the desire that
   after the oration, you, as Chief Executive of the nation,
   formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few
   appropriate remarks. It will be a source of great
   gratification to the many widows and orphans that have been
   made almost friendless by the great battle here, to have you
   here personally; and it will kindle anew in the breasts of the
   comrades of these brave dead, who are now in the tented field
   or nobly meeting the foe in the front, a confidence that they
   who sleep in death on the battlefield are not forgotten by
   those highest in authority; and they will feel that, should
   their fate be the same, their remains will not be uncared-for.
   We hope you will be able to be present to perform this last
   solemn act to the soldier dead on this battlefield.' President
   Lincoln expressed his willingness to perform the duty
   requested of him. … At the appointed hour on the 19th a vast
   procession, with military music, moved to the cemetery grounds
   where, in the midst of a distinguished auditory, the orator of
   the day, Edward Everett, made an address worthy alike of his
   own fame and the extraordinary occasion. … Mr. Everett ended
   in a brilliant peroration, the echoes of which were lost in
   the long and hearty plaudits of the great multitude, and then
   President Lincoln arose to fill the part assigned him in the
   programme. It was a trying ordeal to fittingly crown with a
   few brief sentences the ceremonies of such a day, and such an
   achievement in oratory; finished, erudite, apparently
   exhaustive of the theme, replete with all the strength of
   scholastic method and the highest graces of literary culture.
   If there arose in the mind of any discriminating listener on
   the platform a passing doubt whether Mr. Lincoln would or
   could properly honor the unique occasion, that doubt vanished
   with his opening sentence; for then and there the President
   pronounced an address of dedication so pertinent, so brief yet
   so comprehensive, so terse yet so eloquent, linking the deeds
   of the present to the thoughts of the future, with simple
   words, in such living, original, yet exquisitely molded,
   maxim-like phrases that the best critics have awarded it an
   unquestioned rank as one of the world's masterpieces in
   rhetorical art.
{3515}
   He said:

   'Four-score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on
   this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
   dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
   Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that
   nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long
   endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We
   have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final
   resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that
   nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we
   should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we
   cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men,
   living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far
   above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little
   note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never
   forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to
   be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought
   here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to
   be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,—that
   from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that
   cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—
   that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have
   died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new
   birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the
   people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'"

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 7._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (December).

   The President's Message to Congress, at the opening of its
   session, December 8, was accompanied by the following
   Proclamation of Amnesty, which made known the terms of
   political reconstruction and rehabilitation that would be
   favored by the Executive, in dealing with rebellious citizens
   who might return to their allegiance:

   "Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States, it
   is provided that the President 'shall have power to grant
   reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,
   except in cases of impeachment;' and Whereas a rebellion now
   exists whereby the loyal State governments of several States
   have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have
   committed and are now guilty of treason against the United
   States; and 'Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and
   treason, laws have been enacted by Congress declaring
   forfeitures and confiscation of property and liberation of
   slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, and also
   declaring that the President was thereby authorized at any
   time thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may
   have participated in the existing rebellion, in any State or
   part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at
   such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for
   the public welfare; and Whereas the congressional declaration
   for limited and conditional pardon accords with well
   established judicial exposition of the pardoning power; and
   Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of
   the United States has issued several proclamations, with
   provisions in regard to the liberation of slaves; and Whereas
   it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said
   rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States, and
   to reinaugurate loyal State governments within and for their
   respective States: Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of
   the United States, do proclaim, declare and make known to all
   persons who have directly, or by implication, participated in
   the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a
   full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them, with
   restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves,
   and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have
   intervened, and upon the condition that every such person
   shall take and subscribe an oath, and thenceforward keep and
   maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be
   registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the
   tenor and effect following, to wit:

    'I, ------, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God,
    that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and
    defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union
    of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner,
    abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed
    during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so
    long and so far as not repealed, modified, or held void by
    Congress, or by decision of the Supreme Court; and that I
    will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all
    proclamations of the President made during the existing
    rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as
    not modified or declared void by decision of the Supreme
    Court. So help me God.'

   The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing
   provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or
   diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate
   Government; all who have left judicial stations under the
   United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have
   been, military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate
   Government above the rank of colonel in the Army, or of
   lieutenant in the Navy; all who left seats in the United
   States Congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned
   commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States, and
   afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in
   any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in
   charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war,
   and which persons may have been found in the United States
   service as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity. And I
   do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever in
   any of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
   Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, [Virginia?], Florida, South
   Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less
   than one tenth in number of the votes cast in such State at
   the presidential election of the year of our Lord one thousand
   eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid
   and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter
   by the election law of the State existing immediately before
   the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others,
   shall re-establish a State government which shall be
   republican, and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall
   be recognized as the true government of the State, and the
   State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the
   constitutional provision which declares that 'the United
   States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a
   republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
   against invasion; and, on application of the Legislature, or
   the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened),
   against domestic violence.' And I do further proclaim,
   declare, and make known that any provision which may be
   adopted by such State government in relation to the freed
   people of such State, which shall recognize and declare their
   permanent freedom, provide for their education, and which may
   yet be consistent, as a temporary arrangement, with their
   present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class,
   will not be objected to by the national Executive.
{3516}
   And it is suggested as not improper, that, in constructing a
   loyal State government in any State, the name of the State,
   the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the
   general code of laws, as before the rebellion, be maintained,
   subject only to the modifications made necessary by the
   conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, not
   contravening said conditions, and which may be deemed
   expedient by those framing the new State government. To avoid
   misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that this
   proclamation, so far as it relates to State governments, has
   no reference to States wherein loyal State governments have
   all the while been maintained. And for the same reason, it may
   be proper to further say, that whether members sent to
   Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats
   constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses,
   and not to any extent with the Executive. And still further,
   that this proclamation is intended to present the people of
   the States wherein the national authority has been suspended,
   and loyal State governments have been subverted, a mode in and
   by which the national authority and loyal State governments
   may be re-established within said States, or in any of them;
   and, while the mode presented is the best the Executive can
   suggest, with his present impressions, it must not be
   understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable.
   Given under my hand, at the City of Washington, the eighth day
   of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United
   States of America the eighty-eighth.
   ABRAHAM LINCOLN."

   In the Message Mr. Lincoln gave his reasons for the
   Proclamation, and explained the grounds on which he rested the
   policy declared in it, as follows: "On examination of this
   proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing is
   attempted beyond what is amply justified by the Constitution.
   True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to
   take it. The man is only promised a pardon in case he
   voluntarily takes the oath. The Constitution authorizes the
   Executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute
   discretion; and this includes the power to grant on terms, as
   is fully established by judicial and other authorities. It is
   also proffered that if, in any of the States named, a State
   government shall be, in the mode prescribed, set up, such
   government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United
   States, and that under it the State shall, on the
   constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion and
   domestic violence. The constitutional obligation of tire
   United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a
   republican form of government, and to protect the State, in
   the cases stated, is explicit and full. But why tender the
   benefits of this provision only to a State government set up
   in this particular way? This section of the Constitution
   contemplates a case wherein the element within a State,
   favorable to republican government, in the Union, may be too
   feeble for an opposite and hostile element external to or even
   within the State; and such are precisely the cases with which
   we are now dealing. An attempt to guarantee and protect a
   revived State government, constructed in whole, or in
   preponderating part, from the very element against whose
   hostility and violence it is to be protected, is simply
   absurd. There must be a test by which to separate the opposing
   elements so as to build only from the sound; and that test is
   a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound whoever will
   make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness. But if it
   be proper to require, as a test of admission to the political
   body, an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United
   States, and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and
   proclamations in regard to slavery? Those laws and
   proclamations were enacted and put forth for the purpose of
   aiding in the suppression of the rebellion. To give them their
   fullest effect, there had to be a pledge for their
   maintenance. In my judgment they have aided, and will further
   aid, the cause for which they were intended. To now abandon
   them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but
   would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. I may
   add at this point, that while I remain in my present position
   I shall not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation
   Proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is
   free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts
   of Congress. For these and other reasons it is thought best
   that support of these measures shall be included in the oath;
   and it is believed the Executive may lawfully claim it in
   return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, which
   he has clear constitutional power to withhold altogether, or
   grant upon the terms which he shall deem wisest for the public
   interest. It should be observed, also, that this part of the
   oath is subject to the modifying and abrogating power of
   legislation and supreme judicial decision. The proposed
   acquiescence of the national Executive in any reasonable
   temporary State arrangement for the freed people is made with
   the view of possibly modifying the confusion and destitution
   which must at best attend all classes by a total revolution of
   labor throughout whole States. It is hoped that the already
   deeply afflicted people in those States may be somewhat more
   ready to give up the cause of their affliction, if, to this
   extent, this vital matter be left to themselves; while no
   power of the national Executive to prevent an abuse is
   abridged by the proposition. The suggestion in the
   proclamation as to maintaining the political frame-work of the
   States on what is called reconstruction, is made in the hope
   that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save
   labor, and avoid great confusion. But why any proclamation now
   upon this subject? This question is beset with the conflicting
   views that the step might be delayed too long or be taken too
   soon. In some States the elements for resumption seem ready
   for action, but remain inactive, apparently for want of a
   rallying-point—a plan of action. Why shall A adopt the plan of
   B, rather than B that of A? And if A and B should agree, how
   can they know but that the General Government here will reject
   their plan? By the proclamation a plan is presented which may
   be accepted by them as a rallying-point, and which they are
   assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may bring
   them to act sooner than they otherwise would. The objection to
   a premature presentation of a plan by the national Executive
   consists in the danger of committals on points which could be
   more safely left to further developments. Care has been taken
   to so shape the document as to avoid embarrassments from this
   source.
{3517}
   Saying that, on certain terms, certain classes will be
   pardoned, with rights restored, it is not said that other
   classes, or other terms, will never be included. Saying that
   reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified
   way, it is not said it will never be accepted in any other
   way. The movements, by State action, for emancipation in
   several of the States, not included in the Emancipation
   Proclamation, are matters of profound gratulation. And while I
   do not repeat in detail what I have heretofore so earnestly
   urged upon this subject, my general views and feelings remain
   unchanged; and I trust that Congress will omit no fair
   opportunity of aiding these important steps to a great
   consummation. In the midst of other cares, however important,
   we must not lose sight of the fact that the war power is still
   our main reliance. To that power alone we can look, yet for a
   time, to give confidence to the people in the contested
   regions, that the insurgent power will not again overrun them.
   Until that confidence shall be established, little can be done
   anywhere for what is called reconstruction. Hence our chiefest
   care must still be directed to the army and navy, who have
   thus far borne their harder part so nobly and well. And it may
   be esteemed fortunate that in giving the greatest efficiency
   to these indispensable arms, we do also honorably recognize
   the gallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose them,
   and to whom, more than to others, the world must stand
   indebted for the home of freedom disenthralled, regenerated,
   enlarged, and perpetuated.
   Abraham Lincoln."

      _A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 442-456._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
(December-April: Tennessee-Mississippi).
   Winter operations.
   Sherman's Meridian Expedition.
   Longstreet's withdrawal from East Tennessee.

   "Sherman was at Vicksburg. On a line with Vicksburg, but
   almost on the eastern boundary of the State, was the town of
   Meridian. Here two railroads crossed, one running north and
   south, extending from Mobile into the heart of Tennessee, and
   the other extending to the eastward into Alabama and Georgia.
   Railroads were few in the South at that time and the junction
   had made Meridian an important point. Here the Confederates
   had erected great warehouses for the storage of provisions and
   munitions of war. A considerable body of troops, too, was
   maintained at this point, whence they could be sent speedily
   by rail north or south, east or west, as the necessity might
   arise. General Sherman determined to fall upon Meridian, drive
   away the Confederate garrison, burn the arsenal and tear up
   the railroads so as to isolate the different parts of the
   Confederacy thenceforth. But in addition to accomplishing this
   he desired to effect the defeat and dispersal of the
   Confederate cavalry force under General Forrest, which was
   operating in Northern Mississippi and Southern Tennessee.
   Forrest was a brave and dashing leader. His men were hardy
   troopers, used to quick marches and reckless of danger. To
   crush him and annihilate his command would be a notable
   victory for the Union cause. Full of this project, Sherman
   boarded a steamer at Vicksburg and set out for Memphis, where
   were the headquarters of General W. Sooy Smith, then chief of
   cavalry in the division of the Mississippi. The river was full
   of great cakes of floating ice that bumped against the prow of
   the boat and ground against her sides until those on board
   feared that she might be sent to the bottom. But Memphis was
   reached without accident, and Sherman and the chief of cavalry
   were soon in earnest consultation. General Smith was ordered
   to take the field against Forrest with a force of 7,000 men. …
   It was agreed that General Smith should start from Memphis on
   February 1 and march southeast, while Sherman should leave
   Vicksburg February 3, and march due east. Thus they would
   effect a junction in the vicinity of Meridian. Sherman then
   re-embarked on the icy river and made his way back to
   Vicksburg. Promptly on the appointed day the head of Sherman's
   column passed out through the chain of earthworks that girdled
   the land ward side of Vicksburg. It was to be an expedition of
   destruction—a raid. His force of 25,000 men was in light
   marching order and advanced with such rapidity that the
   Confederates were driven from the very first, without having
   time to rally and oppose the advance of the invaders. Jackson
   was reached without any fighting, other than slight
   skirmishing with Polk's cavalry. The ministerial general had
   but 9,000 men in all, so he dared not make a determined stand
   against Sherman, but fled, without even destroying his pontoon
   bridge across the Pearl River, whereby the Federal advance was
   much expedited. From Jackson eastward the path of Sherman's
   army was marked by a broad belt of ashes and desolation. No
   public property was spared, nor anything which could be
   applied to public uses. Mills, railway stations, and rolling
   stock were burned. Railway tracks were torn up, the ties
   heaped on roaring fires and the rails heated red· hot and
   twisted out of shape. Sometimes the soldiers would twine a hot
   rail about a young tree, making what they facetiously termed
   'Jeff Davis's neck-ties.' To Sherman's lines came escaping
   slaves in droves, old and young men, women and pickaninnies. …
   The slaves still further impoverished their masters by taking
   horses and mules with them when they fled, so that after
   Sherman's army had passed, most of the plantations in its
   track were stripped of their live-stock, both cattle and
   human. When Meridian was reached its defenders were nowhere to
   be seen. Sherman took possession and waited for Smith. Days
   passed without any word coming from the cavalry column. After
   a week in Meridian, Sherman set the torch to the public
   buildings and retraced his steps toward Vicksburg. He had
   taken 400 prisoners, destroyed 150 miles of track, 67 bridges,
   20 locomotives and 28 cars; had burned several thousand bales
   of cotton, a number of steam mills, and over 2,000,000 bushels
   of corn. Over 1,000 Union white refugees and 8,000 negroes
   followed in his wake. In 1866, the historian Lossing, passing
   through Meridian, asked the Mayor of the town if Sherman had
   done the place much injury. 'Injury!' was the emphatic reply,
   'Why, he took it away with him.'"

      _W. J. Abbot,
      Battle Fields and Victory,
      chapter 1._

{3518}

   General Smith, in his report to General Sherman, gave the
   reasons for the falling back of the cavalry expedition, as
   follows: "We advanced to West Point and felt of the enemy, who
   was posted back of the Sakatonchee on our right and the Oktibbeha
   in our front, in force fully equal to my own that was
   available for service, encumbered as we were with our
   pack-mules and the captured stock, which by this time must
   have numbered full 3,000 horses and mules. The force consisted
   of mounted infantry, which was dismounted and in strong
   position under good cover, and beyond obstacles which could
   only be passed by defiles. To attempt to force my way through
   under such circumstances would have been the height of folly.
   I could not cross the Tombigbee, as there were no bridges and
   the stream could not be forded. To have attempted to turn the
   position by our right would have carried me all the way round
   to Houston again, and Forrest could again check me at the
   Houlka Swamp. I was ten days behind time; could get no
   communication through to you; did not know but what you were
   returning, and so determined to make a push at Forrest in
   front while I retired all my incumbrances and my main body
   rapidly toward Okolona, just in time to prevent a rebel
   brigade from getting in my rear, which had been thrown back
   for that purpose. We then retired, fighting for over 60 miles
   day and night."

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 32, part 1, page 252._

   In East Tennessee, during the winter little was done by either
   army. A slight encounter occurred at Dandridge, in January,
   between Longstreet's forces and those of the Union General
   Parke. In April Longstreet was recalled by Lee, and the Ninth
   Corps, with Burnside again in command, went back to the army
   of the Potomac.

      _J. D. Cox,
      Atlanta
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 9),
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 4, chapter 1._

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History,
      chapter 38._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-July).
   President Lincoln's plan of reconstruction, and its
   application to Louisiana.
   The opposing Congressional plan.

   "The proclamation which accompanied the Annual Message of the
   President for 1864 embodied the first suggestions of the
   Administration on the important subject of reconstructing the
   Governments of those States which had joined in the secession
   movement. The matter had been canvassed somewhat extensively
   by the public press, and by prominent politicians, in
   anticipation of the overthrow of the rebellion. … A
   considerable number of the friends of the Government, in both
   houses, maintained that, by the act of secession, the revolted
   States had put themselves outside the pale of the
   Constitution, and were henceforth to be regarded and treated,
   not as members of the Union, but as alien enemies:—that their
   State organizations and State boundaries had been expunged by
   their own act; and that they were to be readmitted to the
   jurisdiction of the Constitution, and to the privileges of the
   Union, only upon such terms and conditions as the Federal
   Government of the loyal States might prescribe. … After the
   appearance of the President's proclamation, the movement
   towards reconstruction in Louisiana assumed greater
   consistency, and was carried forward with greater steadiness
   and strength. On the 8th of January a very large Free State
   Convention was held at New Orleans, at which resolutions were
   adopted indorsing all the acts and proclamations of the
   President, and urging the immediate adoption of measures for
   the restoration of the State to its old place in the Union. On
   the 11th, General Banks issued a proclamation, appointing an
   election for State officers on the 22d of February, who were
   to be installed on the 4th of March, and another election for
   delegates to a convention to revise the Constitution of the
   State on the first Monday in April. The old Constitution and
   laws of Louisiana were to be observed, except so far as they
   relate to slavery. … Under this order, parties were organized
   for the election of State officers. The friends of the
   National Government were divided, and two candidates were put
   in nomination for Governor, Honorable Michael Hahn being the
   regular nominee, and representing the supporters of the policy
   of the President, and Honorable B. F. Flanders being put in
   nomination by those who desired a more radical policy than the
   President had proposed. Both took very decided ground against
   the continued existence of slavery within the State. … The
   election resulted in the election of Mr. Hahn. … Mr. Hahn was
   inaugurated as Governor on the 4th of March. On the 15th he
   was clothed with the powers previously exercised by General
   Banks, as military governor. … On March 16th, Governor Hahn
   issued a proclamation, notifying the electors of the State of
   the election for delegates to the convention previously
   ordered by General Banks. The party which elected Governor
   Hahn succeeded also in electing a large majority of the
   delegates to the convention, which met in New Orleans on the
   6th of April. On the 11th of May it adopted, by a vote of 70
   to 16, a clause of the new Constitution, by which slavery was
   forever abolished in the State. The Constitution was adopted
   on the 5th of September, by a vote of 6,836 to 1,566. Great
   umbrage was taken at these proceedings by some of the best
   friends of the cause, as if there had been an unauthorized and
   unjustifiable interference on the part of the President. … In
   Arkansas, where a decided Union feeling had existed from the
   outbreak of the rebellion, the appearance of the proclamation
   was the signal for a movement to bring the State back into the
   Union. On the 20th of January, a delegation of citizens from
   that State had an interview with the President, in which they
   urged the adoption of certain measures for the
   re-establishment of a legal State Government, and especially
   the ordering of an election for Governor. … Meantime, a
   convention had assembled at Little Rock, composed of delegates
   elected without any formality, and not under the authority of
   the General Government, and proceeded to form a new State
   Constitution, and to fix a day for an election. … The
   convention framed a constitution abolishing slavery, which was
   subsequently adopted by a large majority of the people. It
   also provided for the election of State officers on the day
   appointed for the vote upon the constitution; and the
   legislature chosen at that election elected two gentlemen,
   Messrs. Fishback and Baxter, as United States Senators, and
   also Representatives. These gentlemen presented their
   credentials at Washington. … The whole matter was referred to
   the Judiciary Committee, who … reported on the 27th of June
   that on the facts it did not appear that the rebellion was so
   far suppressed in Arkansas as to entitle the State to
   representation in Congress, and that therefore Messrs.
   Fishback and Baxter were not entitled to seats as Senators
   from the State of Arkansas. And the Senate on the next day
   adopted their report by a vote of 27 to 6.
{3519}
   In the House, meanwhile, the Committee on Elections, to whom
   the application of the Arkansas members had been referred,
   reported to postpone their admission until a commission could
   be sent to inquire into and report the facts of the election,
   and to create a commission for the examination of all such
   cases. This proposition was, however, laid on the table, and
   the members were not admitted. … The cause of the rejection of
   these Senators and Representatives was, that a majority in
   Congress had not agreed with the President in reference to the
   plan of reconstruction which he proposed. A bill for the
   reconstruction of the States was introduced into the Senate,
   and finally passed both Houses on the last day of the session.
   It provided that the President should appoint, for each of the
   States declared in rebellion, a Provisional Governor, who
   should be charged with the civil administration of the State
   until a State Government should be organized and such other
   civil officers as were necessary for the civil administration
   of the State; that as soon as military resistance to the
   United States should be suppressed and the people had
   sufficiently returned to their obedience, the Governor should
   make an enrolment of the white male citizens, specifying which
   of them had taken the oath to support the Constitution of the
   United States, and if those who had taken it were a majority
   of the persons enrolled, he should order an election for
   delegates to a Constitutional Convention, to be elected by the
   loyal white male citizens of the United States aged twenty-one
   years. … The bill further provided that when a constitution
   containing … provisions [excluding rebels from office,
   prohibiting slavery, and repudiating Confederate debts] should
   have been framed by the convention and adopted by the popular
   vote, the Governor should certify that fact to the President,
   who, after obtaining the assent of Congress, should recognize
   this government so established as the Government of the State,
   and from that date senators and representatives and electors
   for President and Vice-President should be elected in the
   State. … This bill thus passed by Congress was presented to
   the President just before the close of the session, but was
   not signed by him."

      _H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 16._

   The President's reasons for not signing the bill were given to
   the public as well as to Congress in the following
   Proclamation:

   "Whereas, at the late session, Congress passed a bill to
   'guarantee to certain States, whose governments have been
   usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government,' a
   copy of which is hereunto annexed; And whereas the said bill
   was presented to the President of the United States for his
   approval less than one hour before the sine die adjournment of
   said session, and was not signed by him; And whereas the said
   bill contains, among other things, a plan for restoring the
   States in rebellion to their proper practical relation in the
   Union, which plan expresses the sense of Congress upon that
   subject, and which plan it is now thought fit to lay before
   the people for their consideration: Now, therefore, I, Abraham
   Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare,
   and make known, that, while I am (as I was in December last,
   when by proclamation I propounded a plan for restoration)
   unprepared, by a formal approval of this bill, to be
   inflexibly committed to any single plan of restoration; and,
   while I am also unprepared to declare that the free-State
   constitutions and governments already adopted and installed in
   Arkansas and Louisiana shall be set aside and held for nought,
   thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens who have
   set up the same as to further effort, or to declare a
   constitutional competency in Congress to abolish slavery in
   States, but am at the same time sincerely hoping and expecting
   that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout
   the nation may be adopted, nevertheless I am fully satisfied
   with the system for restoration contained in the bill as one
   very proper plan for the loyal people of any State choosing to
   adopt it, and that I am, and at all times shall be, prepared
   to give the executive aid and assistance to any such people,
   so soon as the military resistance to the United States shall
   have been suppressed in any such State, and the people thereof
   shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the
   Constitution and the laws of the United States, in which cases
   military governors will be appointed, with directions to
   proceed according to the bill.

   In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused
   the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city
   of Washington, this eighth day of July, in the year of our
   Lord one thousand eight hundred an sixty-four, and of the
   independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.
   Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward,
   Secretary of State."

      _A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 545._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapters 16-17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (January-February: Florida).
   Unsuccessful Operations.
   Battle of Olustee.

   "Early in the winter of 1863-64, General Gillmore, commanding
   the Department of the South, … resolved upon an expedition
   into Florida to take possession of such portions of the
   Eastern and Northern sections of the State as could be easily
   held by small garrisons. … He afterwards added another detail
   to his plan: to assist in bringing Florida back into the
   Union, in accordance with the President's Proclamation of
   December 8, 1863. This came in time to be regarded by the
   opponents of the Administration as the sole purpose of the
   expedition, and Mr. Lincoln has received a great deal of
   unjust censure for having made a useless sacrifice of life for
   a political end. … The expedition to Florida was under the
   immediate charge of General Truman Seymour, an accomplished
   and gallant officer of the regular army. He landed at
   Jacksonville and pushed forward his mounted force 20 miles to
   Baldwin. … Gillmore himself arrived at Baldwin on the 9th of
   February, and after a full conference and, as he thought,
   understanding with Seymour, returned to Jacksonville. … On the
   18th he was surprised at receiving a letter from Seymour,
   dated the day before, announcing his intention of moving at
   once to the Suwanee River without supplies, and asking for a
   strong demonstration of the army and navy in the Savannah
   River to assist his movement. … Gillmore wrote a peremptory
   letter, ordering him to restrict himself to holding Baldwin
   and the south prong of the St. Mary's River and occupying
   Palatka and Magnolia, and dispatched a staff officer to
   Florida with it. He arrived too late.
{3520}
   Seymour had made up his mind that there was less risk in going
   forward than in staying at Baldwin, and like the brave and
   devoted soldier that he was had resolved to take the
   responsibility. He marched rapidly out towards Olustee, where
   the enemy under General Joseph Finegan was supposed to be, but
   came upon them unexpectedly about two miles east of that
   place. The forces were equal in numbers, about 5,500 on each
   side; the advantage to the Confederates was that they were in
   a strong position selected by themselves and ready for the
   fight. General J. R. Hawley, who commanded a brigade of
   infantry in the battle, says: 'We rushed in, not waiting for
   the proper full formation, and were fought in detail.' …
   Seymour's attack was constantly repulsed with heavy loss,
   until at nightfall he fell back to a new line. He was not
   pursued, and retired in good order and unmolested to
   Jacksonville. The Union loss was 1861; the Confederate, 940.
   This misadventure put an end for the moment to the attempt to
   occupy Florida."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Jones and J. R. Hawley,
      Olustee
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers,
      chapter 8._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (February-March: Virginia).
   Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid to Richmond.

   "Public feeling throughout the North had been greatly excited
   by the deplorable condition of the prisoners of war held at
   Richmond. Early in the year, before the opening of the great
   campaign, some expeditions had been undertaken both from the
   Army of the Potomac and from Fortress Monroe, with the
   intention of relieving them. On February 27th, Custer, with
   1500 horse, had crossed the Rapidan on a feint to the west of
   the Confederate army, while Kilpatrick, starting on the
   following day, moved down on its opposite flank, by
   Spottsylvania Court House, to within 3½ miles of Richmond,
   passing its first and second lines of defenses [March], but
   being obliged to fall back from its third. Pursued by a force
   of the enemy, he was compelled to cross the White House
   Railroad and move down the peninsula. A detachment of
   Kilpatrick's force, 400 strong, under Colonel Ulric Dahlgren,
   leaving the main body at Spottsylvania, had gone to the right
   through Louisa and Goochland Counties, intending to cross the
   James River and enter Richmond from the south, while
   Kilpatrick attacked it on the north. But the river was found
   to be too deep to be forded. Dahlgren passed down the north
   bank to the fortifications of Richmond, forcing his way
   through the outer works, but being repulsed from the inner.
   Finding that Kilpatrick's attempt had miscarried, he moved
   toward King and Queen Court House; but after crossing the
   Mattapony at Dabney's Ferry, he fell into an ambuscade [March
   3], his command being scattered, and himself killed. Under a
   false pretense that papers were found upon him showing an
   intention to set fire to Richmond, and take the lives of Davis
   and his cabinet, his corpse was insulted and the place of its
   interment concealed. At the time of his death he was but 21
   years of age."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 82 (volume 3)._

   "The document alleged to have been found upon the person of
   Colonel Dahlgren is utterly discredited by the fact that the
   signature attached to it cannot possibly be his own, because
   it is not his name,—a letter is misplaced, and the real name
   Dahlgren is spelled 'Dalhgren'; hence it is undeniable that
   the paper is not only spurious, but is a forgery. … It is
   entirely certain that no such orders were ever issued by
   Colonel Dahlgren."

      _Admiral J. A. Dahlgren,
      Memoirs of Ulric Dahlgren,
      pages 233-234._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biography,
      page 185._

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 10._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 33._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (March-April).
   General Grant in chief command of the whole army.
   His plans of campaign.

   "Immediate]y after the victories at Chattanooga Mr. Washburne
   of Illinois, the devoted friend and firm supporter of General
   Grant through good and evil report, introduced a bill in
   Congress to revive the grade of lieutenant-general in the
   army. The measure occasioned a good deal of discussion. This
   high rank had never been conferred on any citizen of the
   republic except Washington, who held it for a short time
   before his death. It was discontinued for more than half a
   century and then conferred by brevet only upon General Scott.
   There were those who feared, or affected to fear, that so high
   a military rank was threatening to the liberties of the
   republic. The great majority of Congress, however, considered
   the liberties of the republic more robust than this fear would
   indicate, and the bill was finally passed on the 26th cf
   February, and received the approval of the President on the
   29th of February. … Immediately upon signing the bill the
   President nominated Grant to the Senate for the office created
   by it. … The Senate immediately confirmed his nomination, and
   on the 3d of March the Secretary of War directed him to report
   in person to the War Department as early as practicable. … He
   started for Washington the next day, but in the midst of his
   hurried preparations for departure he found time to write a
   letter of the most warm and generous friendship to Sherman."
   Grant's commission as Lieutenant-General of the Army of the
   United States was formally presented to him by President
   Lincoln on the 9th of March. "After the presentation of the
   commission a brief conversation took place. General Grant
   inquired what special service was expected of him. The
   President replied that our country wanted him to take
   Richmond; he said our generals had not been fortunate in their
   efforts in that direction and asked if the Lieutenant-General
   could do it. Grant, without hesitation, answered that he could
   if he had the troops. These the President assured him he
   should have. There was not one word said as to what route to
   Richmond should be chosen. The next day Grant visited General
   Meade at the headquarters of the Army of the Potomac at Brandy
   Station. … Meade said that it was possible Grant might want an
   officer to command the Army of the Potomac who had been with
   him in the West, and made especial mention of Sherman. He
   begged him if that was the case not to hesitate about making
   the change. … Grant assured him that he had no thought of
   making any change; and that Sherman could not be spared from
   the West. He returned to Washington on the 11th. The next day
   he was placed in command of all the armies by orders from the
   War Department; but without waiting for a single day to accept
   the lavish proffers of hospitality which were showered upon
   him, he started West again on the evening of the 11th of
   March.
{3521}
   In that short time he had utterly changed his views and plans
   for the future conduct of the war. He had relinquished the
   purpose he had hitherto firmly held of leading the Western
   armies on the great campaign to Atlanta and the sea, and had
   decided to take the field with the Army of the Potomac. …
   Sherman at his request was promoted to command the Military
   Division of the Mississippi, McPherson succeeded to Sherman's
   command of the Department of the Tennessee, and Logan was
   promoted to the command of McPherson's corps." The necessary
   arrangements were quickly made. General Sherman assumed his
   enlarged command on the 18th of March, and General Grant a few
   days later was with the Army of the Potomac. He "established
   his headquarters at Culpeper Court House near the end of
   March, and spent a month in preparations for the great
   campaign which he, in common with the entire North, hoped
   would end the war. … The plan of the Lieutenant-General, as
   set forth in his report, was extremely simple. So far as
   practicable, the armies were to move together, and towards one
   common center. Banks was to finish his operations in
   Louisiana, and, leaving a small garrison on the Rio Grande,
   was to concentrate an army of some 25,000 men, and move on
   Mobile. Sherman was to move simultaneously with the other
   armies, General Johnston's army being his objective, and the
   heart of Georgia his ultimate aim. Sigel, who was in command
   in the Shenandoah, was to move to the front in two columns,
   one to threaten the enemy in the Valley, the other to cut the
   railroads connecting Richmond with the Southwest. Gillmore was
   to be brought north with his corps, and in company with
   another corps, under W. F. Smith, was to form an army under
   General B. F. Butler to operate against Richmond south of the
   James. Lee's army was to be the objective point of Meade,
   reënforced by Burnside. As to the route by which the Army of
   the Potomac was to advance, Grant reserved his decision until
   just before he started upon his march. … The two armies lay in
   their intrenchments on both sides of the Rapidan. The
   headquarters … of Lee [were] at Orange Court House; the Army
   of Northern Virginia guarded the south bank of the river for
   18 or 20 miles, Ewell commanding the right half, A. P. Hill
   the left. The formidable works on Mine Run secured the
   Confederate right wing, which was further protected by the
   tangled and gloomy thickets of the Wilderness. Longstreet had
   arrived from Tennessee with two fine divisions, and was held
   in reserve at Gordonsville. The two armies were not so
   unequally matched as Confederate writers insist. The strength
   of the Army of the Potomac, present for duty equipped, on the
   30th of April, was 122,146; this includes the 22,708 of
   Burnside's Ninth Corps. The Army of Northern Virginia numbered
   at the opening of this campaign not less than 61,953. While
   this seems like a great disparity of strength, it must not be
   forgotten that the Confederate general had an enormous
   advantage of position. The dense woods and the thickly
   timbered swamps … were as well known to him as the lines of
   his own hand, and were absolutely unknown to his antagonist."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapters 13-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 46-47 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (March-May: Louisiana).
   The Red River Expedition.

   "As the third year began, General Banks conceived the idea
   that the trade of Western Louisiana could be opened by the
   medium of the Red river, and projected an expedition to take
   possession of the country adjacent to its course. This river
   is open for navigation by larger vessels, only during the high
   water of March and April. Porter was to command the fleet of
   twenty of the finest vessels on the Mississippi, and Sherman
   was persuaded to lend some of his troops for the purpose. A.
   J. Smith was to start from Vicksburg with 10,000 men, while
   Banks would proceed up river from New Orleans, with Franklin's
   division. Steele from Little Rock was to operate towards
   Shreveport to join the main army. General Taylor was in
   command of the enemy's forces at Shreveport. The fleet started
   up the Red river in company with the transports carrying A. J.
   Smith's column. Fort De Russy was captured [March 14], the
   enemy retiring before our troops, and Alexandria and
   Nachitoches fell into our hands as the joint force advanced.
   Banks put in an appearance a week later. There was more or
   less skirmishing with the enemy's horse and outposts along the
   entire route; and near Mansfield, at Sabine Cross-Roads, the
   vanguard met the enemy in force. Sufficient care had not been
   taken to keep the several bodies concentrated. It was on Smith
   that the attack fell [April 8], and though this general's
   record for endurance is of the best, he was nevertheless badly
   worsted with a loss of 2,000 men out of 8,000 engaged, and
   some twenty guns. Retiring to Pleasant Hill, another stand was
   made for the possession of what had been so far gained. … The
   fleet had meanwhile reached Grand Écore. High water was coming
   to an end, and Porter was obliged to return down river, to
   Alexandria. Here it was found that most of the vessels were of
   too heavy draught to pass the falls below the town; and the
   loss of most of them would have been certain, but for a dam
   and waterway ably constructed by Colonel Bailey, an engineer
   remarkably fertile in expedients. By means of this device the
   fleet was safely floated over. On the retreat, Alexandria was
   burned [May 15] by accident, traceable to no particular cause,
   though, naturally enough laid by the Confederates to our
   spirit of revenge."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of our Civil war,
      chapter 31._

   "We prefer not to enter into the bitter discussions to which
   this disastrous campaign gave rise on both sides of the line.
   A life-long quarrel sprang up between Kirby Smith and Taylor,
   between Banks and Porter, while Franklin, Charles P. Stone
   (Banks's chief-of-staff), and Albert L. Lee, all of whom
   relinquished their commands, added their quota of
   misunderstanding and resentment. … The Committee on the
   Conduct of the War made an investigation of the matter in the
   year 1865, at the time when the antagonism between Mr. Lincoln
   and the Radicals in relation to the subject of reconstruction
   had assumed an acute form. … The charge was made by the
   committee against Banks, that what he had in view was to carry
   out measures for the establishment of a State government in
   Louisiana, and to afford an egress for cotton and other
   products of that region, and that the attention directed to
   the accomplishment of these objects exerted an unfavorable
   influence on the expedition. … The honorable poverty in which
   General Banks has passed his subsequent life is the best
   answer to the reckless charges of his enemies."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapters 41-42._

      _Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War,
      38th Congress, 2d Session, volume 2._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 33._

      _R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps,
      chapters 23-28._

{3522}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(March-October: Arkansas-Missouri).
   Last important operations in the West.
   Price's raid.

   "During the winter of 1863-1864 the forces of Generals Steele
   and Blunt held the Arkansas River as a Federal line of
   advance. … During this period of inactivity, however, Steele
   was making preparations for a vigorous spring campaign. It was
   decided that the column under General Banks and the columns
   under General Steele from Little Rock and Fort Smith should
   converge toward Shreveport, Louisiana. The Federal columns
   under Steele left Little Rock and Fort Smith the latter part
   of March, moved toward the Southern part of the State, and
   after some fighting and manœuvring drove General Price's
   forces from Camden, Arkadelphia and Washington. In the midst
   of these successful operations, Steele received information
   that Banks' army had been defeated and was retreating and that
   Price had received reënforcements from Kirby Smith of 5000
   infantry and a complement of artillery, and would at once
   assume the offensive.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (March-May: Louisiana).

   Not feeling strong enough to fight the combined Confederate
   forces, Steele determined to fall back upon Little Rock. He
   had scarcely commenced his retrograde movement when Smith and
   Price began to press him vigorously. A retreating fight was
   kept up for several days, until the Federal army reached
   Jenkins's Ferry on the Saline River," where Smith and Price
   made an energetic attack on the Federal army (April 30) and
   were repulsed with heavy loss. "After the battle of Jenkins's
   Ferry, instead of making preparations to attack the Federal
   forces at Little Rock and Fort Smith, Price commenced
   organizing his forces for an expedition into Missouri. …
   Price's army for the invasion of Missouri numbered some 15,000
   men and 20 pieces of artillery before crossing the Arkansas
   River, and consisted of three divisions, commanded by Generals
   Fagan, Marmaduke and Shelby. … About the 1st of September,
   while strong demonstrations were being made against Fort Smith
   and Little Rock, Price, with his army, crossed the Arkansas
   River about half-way between those points, at Dardanelle, and
   marched to the northern part of the State without opposition,
   and, in fact, without his movements being definitely known to
   General Rosecrans, who then commanded the Department of the
   Missouri at St. Louis," to which he had been appointed in
   January. At Pilot Knob, where they arrived September 26th, the
   Confederates were opposed by General Thomas Ewing, Jr., with a
   small force of 1051 men. The fortifications at Pilot Knob were
   strong and Ewing held them against the vigorous attacks of
   Price throughout the 27th, but evacuated that night, blowing
   up the magazine and retreating safely. The Confederate
   invaders then marched on St. Louis and attacked the outer
   defences of the city, some miles to the south of it, but found
   themselves opposed by the veterans of General A. J. Smith's
   division, which had been opportunely stopped on its way down
   the Mississippi River to join Sherman. Foiled at St. Louis,
   Price then moved upon Jefferson City, the State capital, but
   was closely pursued and driven off. Advancing westward, he was
   met at Lexington, October 20th, by forces from Kansas, under
   General Blunt, but forced the latter to retire from the town,
   after severe fighting. Thence to Independence his progress was
   steadily resisted by Generals Blunt and Curtis, with
   volunteers and militia from Kansas. At Independence, on the
   22d, Pleasonton's cavalry, of Rosecrans's army, came up and
   formed a junction with the forces of Curtis, and the next day
   they engaged Price in battle near Westport. "The opposing
   armies fought over an area of five or six square miles, and at
   some points the fighting was furious. … About the middle of
   the afternoon Price's lines began to give way, and by sundown
   the entire Confederate army was in full retreat southward
   along the State line, closely pursued by the victorious
   Federal forces." At the crossing of the Marais des Cygnes
   River he lost ten pieces of his artillery and a large number
   of prisoners, including Generals Marmaduke and Cabell. "At
   Newtonia in south-west Missouri, on the 28th of October, Price
   made another stand, and was attacked by the pursuing forces …
   and finally driven from the field with heavy loss. This was
   next to the severest battle of the campaign. Blunt, and some
   of the Missouri troops, continued the pursuit to the Arkansas
   River, but Price did not again attempt to make a stand. His
   line of march from Westport to Newtonia was strewn with the
   debris of a routed army. He crossed the Arkansas River above
   Fort Smith with a few pieces of artillery, with his army
   demoralized and reduced by captures and dispersion to perhaps
   less than 5,000 men. Most of the noted guerrilla bands
   followed him from the State. The 'Price raid,' as it was
   called in the West, was the last military operation of much
   consequence that took place in Missouri and Arkansas. It is
   certain that Price lost more than he gained in war material
   and that the raid did not tend to strengthen the Confederate
   cause in the West."

      _W. Britton,
      Résumé of Military Operations in
      Missouri and Arkansas, 1864-1865
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

   "In General Price's report occurs the following summary of the
   campaign: 'I marched 1,434 miles, fought 43 battles and
   skirmishes, captured and paroled over 3,000 Federal officers
   and men, captured 18 pieces of artillery, 3,000 stand of
   small-arms, 16 stand of colors … and destroyed property to the
   cost of $10,000,000. I lost ten pieces of artillery. 2 stand
   of colors, 1,000 small arms, while I do not think I lost 1,000
   prisoners. … I brought with me at least 5,000 recruits.'"

      _Editor's note to above._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (April: Tennessee).
   The Massacre at Fort Pillow.

   After General Sherman's return from his raid to Meridian, and
   General William Sooy Smith's return to Memphis, the
   Confederate cavalry leader Forrest advanced into Tennessee,
   devastating the country. "He captured Jackson in that State,
   on the 23d of March, and moving northward, appeared before
   Paducah, held by Colonel Hicks with 650 men.
{3523}
   His demand for a surrender was accompanied with a threat: 'If
   you surrender, you shall be treated as prisoners of war; but
   if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quarter:' he
   made three assaults, and then retired, having lost 1,500 men.
   On the 12th of April he was at Fort Pillow, which was
   garrisoned by 19 officers and 538 men, of whom 262 were
   negroes. This force was not a part of the army, but a
   nondescript body in process of formation, placed there to
   cover a trading-post for the convenience of families supposed
   to be friendly, or at least not hostile; it had been left in
   violation of Sherman's peremptory orders. The attack was made
   before sunrise; and after some severe fighting, Major Booth,
   the commanding officer of the garrison, was killed. Major
   Brodford, who succeeded him, drew the troops from the outer
   line of intrenchments into the fort, and continued the contest
   until afternoon. A gun-boat which had been co-operating in the
   defense, withdrew to cool or clean her guns, and, the fire
   slackening, Forrest sent a summons to surrender, and shortly
   after a second, demanding that the surrender should be made in
   twenty minutes. These terms were declined by Bradford. But
   while the negotiations were in progress, the assailants were
   stealthily advancing, and gaining such positions that they
   could rush upon the fort. Accordingly, as soon as Bradford's
   answer was received, they sprang forward. The fort was
   instantly carried. Its garrison threw down their arms and
   fled, seeking refuge wherever they could. And now was
   perpetrated one of the most frightful acts of all recorded
   history. The carnage did not cease with the struggle of the
   storming, but was continued as a carnival of murder until
   night, and renewed again the next morning. Without any
   discrimination of color, age, or sex, the fugitives were
   dragged from their hiding-places, and cruelly murdered.
   Wounded men, who had made a gallant defense, were atrociously
   compelled to stand up and be shot; some were burnt in their
   tents, some were stabbed. For the black soldiers there was no
   mercy. 'They were massacred because they were niggers,' and
   the whites 'because they were fighting with niggers.' General
   Stephen E. Lee, the superior of Forrest, partly denying and
   partly excusing this atrocity, says, 'It is generally conceded
   by all military precedent that, when the issue has been fairly
   presented and the ability displayed, fearful results are
   expected to follow a refusal to surrender. The case under
   consideration is almost an extreme one. You had a servile race
   armed against their masters, and in a country which had been
   desolated by almost unprecedented outrages.' The Committee of
   Congress on the Conduct of the War appointed a sub-committee
   to go to such places as they might deem necessary, and take
   testimony in relation to the Fort Pillow massacre. Their
   report presents facts in connection with this massacre of the
   deepest atrocity. Men were not only shot in cold blood and
   drowned, but were even crucified, buried alive, nailed to the
   floors of houses, which were then set on fire. 'No cruelty,'
   says this committee, 'which the most fiendish malignity could
   devise, was omitted by these murderers.' 'From 300 to 400 men
   are known to have been killed at Fort Pillow, of whom at least
   300 were murdered in cold blood after the post was in
   possession of the rebels, and our men had thrown down their
   arms and ceased to offer resistance.' … It should be mentioned
   in behalf of General Forrest that one of the witnesses, who
   had been rewounded, testified that 'Forrest gave orders to
   stop the firing.'"

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 74 (volume 3)._

   "I arrived off the fort at 6 a. m. on the morning of the 13th
   inst. [April]. … About 8 a. m. the enemy sent in a flag of
   truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put
   me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p.
   m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our
   wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the
   terms proposed. … We found about 70 wounded men in the fort
   and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. … All
   the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after
   the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops
   was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive
   savageness which was never equalled by the most merciless of
   the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to
   the truth of this statement could be seen. … Strewn from the
   fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind
   logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection
   from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies
   bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold blooded
   and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops."

      _Report of Acting-Master W. Ferguson,
      United States Steamer Silver Cloud
      (Official Records, Series 1, volume 32, part 1, page 571)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War
      (30th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report Number 65)._

      _Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4., book 4, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (April-May: North Carolina).
   Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
   Surrender of Plymouth.

   In the squadron [of the Confederates] we were gladdened by the
   success of our iron-clad ram Albemarle, which vessel, under
   Captain James B. Cooke, had (after overcoming innumerable
   difficulties) succeeded in descending the Roanoke river, April
   19th [1864], and dispersing the Federal squadron off Plymouth,
   North Carolina. She sunk the steamer Southfield, and drove the
   other vessels off; and her presence led to the recapture of
   Plymouth by the Confederates. On the 5th of May the Albemarle
   started from Plymouth with the small steamer Bombshell in
   company, on what was called a secret expedition. I think it
   probable the intention was to destroy the wooden men-of-war in
   the sounds, and then tow troops in barges to Hatteras and
   retake it. If this could have been done the Albemarle would
   have had it all her own way, and Roanoke island, Newbern and
   other places would again have fallen into the hands of the
   Confederates. Shortly after leaving Plymouth the Albemarle
   fell in with the Federal squadron, consisting of the steamers
   Mattabesett, Sassacus, Wyalusing, Whitehead, Miami, Ceres,
   Commodore Hull and Seymour—all under the command of Captain
   Melancton Smith, and after a desperate combat was forced to
   return to Plymouth."

      _W. H. Parker,
      Recollections of a Naval Officer,
      page 339._

      ALSO IN:
      J. R. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers
      (The Navy in the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 4.

      _D. Ammen,
      The Atlantic Coast
      (same Series, volume 2), chapter 9._

      _B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy,
      volume 2, chapter 36._

{3524}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Grant's movement on Richmond.
   The Battle of the Wilderness.

   "The movement of the Army of the Potomac commenced early on
   the morning of the 4th of May, under the immediate direction
   and orders of Major-General Mead, pursuant to instructions.
   Before night the whole army was across the Rapidan—the Fifth
   and Sixth Corps crossing at Germanna Ford, and the Second
   Corps at United States' (Ely's) Ford, the cavalry, under
   Major-General Sheridan, moving in advance,—with the greater
   part of its trains, numbering about 4,000 wagons, meeting with
   but slight opposition. The average distance traveled by the
   troops that day was about 12 miles. This I regarded as a great
   success, and it removed from my mind the most serious
   apprehensions I had entertained, that of crossing the river in
   the face of an active, large, well-appointed, and ably
   commanded army, and how so large a train was to be carried
   through a hostile country and protected. Early on the 5th, the
   advance corps (the Fifth, Major General G. K. Warren
   commanding), met and engaged the enemy outside his
   intrenchments near Mine Run. The battle raged furiously all
   day, the whole army being brought into the fight as fast as
   the corps could be got upon the field, which, considering the
   density of the forest and narrowness of the roads, was done
   with commendable promptness.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (April-May: Virginia).

   General Burnside, with the Ninth Corps, was at the time the
   Army of the Potomac moved, left with the bulk of his corps at
   the crossing of the Rappahannock River and Alexandria
   railroad, holding the road back to Bull Run, with instructions
   not to move until he received notice that a crossing of the
   Rapidan was secured, but to move promptly as soon as such
   notice was received. This crossing he was apprised of on the
   afternoon of the 4th. By 6 o'clock of the morning of the 6th
   he was leading his corps into action near the Wilderness
   Tavern, some of his troops having marched a distance of over
   30 miles, crossing both the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers.
   Considering that a large proportion (probably two-thirds), of
   his command was composed of new troops, unaccustomed to
   marches and carrying the accouterments of a soldier, this was
   a remarkable march. The battle of the Wilderness was renewed
   by us at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 6th, and continued
   with unabated fury until darkness set in, each army holding
   substantially the same position that they had on the evening
   of the 5th. After dark the enemy made a feeble attempt to turn
   our right flank, capturing several hundred prisoners and
   creating considerable confusion. But the promptness of General
   Sedgwick, who was personally present and commanded that part
   of our line, soon reformed it and restored order. On the
   morning of the 7th reconnaissances showed that the enemy had
   fallen behind his intrenched lines, with pickets to the front,
   covering a part of the battle-field. From this it was evident
   to my mind that the two days' fighting had satisfied him of
   his inability to further maintain the contest in the open
   field, notwithstanding his advantage of position, and that he
   would await an attack behind his works. I therefore determined
   to push on and put my whole force between him and Richmond,
   and orders were at once issued for a movement by his right
   flank. On the night of the 7th the march was commenced toward
   Spottsylvania Court House, the Fifth Corps moving on the most
   direct road. But the enemy having become apprised of our
   movement, and having the shorter line, was enabled to reach
   there first."

      _General U. S. Grant,
      Official Report
      (Official Records, Series 1, volume 36, part 1, page 18)._

   The casualties of the Army of the Potomac and Burnside's Ninth
   Corps (then not incorporated with it) in the battle of the
   Wilderness were "2,265 killed, 10,220 wounded, and 2,902
   missing. Total, 15,387. Killed and wounded, 12,485. … The
   woods took fire in many places, and it is estimated that 200
   of our wounded perished in the flames and smoke. According to
   the tabular statement, Part First, 'Medical and Surgical
   History of the War,' the casualties in the Army of Northern
   Virginia were 2,000 killed, 6,000 wounded, and 3,400 missing.
   The authority for this statement is not given, and I do not
   find anywhere records of the loss of that army in the
   Wilderness. … Both sides lost many valuable officers in this
   battle, [including, on the Union side, General Wadsworth]. …
   So far as I know, no great battle ever took place before on
   such ground. But little of the combatants could be seen, and
   its progress was known to the senses chiefly by the rising and
   falling sounds of a vast musketry that continually swept along
   the lines of battle many miles in length, sounds which at
   times approached to the sublime."

      _A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865
      (Campaigns of the Civil war, volume 12), chapter 2._

   "All the peculiar advantages of the Army of the Potomac were
   sacrificed in the jungle-fighting into which they were thus
   called to engage. Of what use here were the tactical skill and
   the perfection of form, acquired through long and patient
   exercise; of what use here the example and the personal
   influence of a Hays or a Hancock, a Brooke or a Barlow? How
   can a battle be fitly ordered in such a tangle of wood and
   brush, where troops can neither be sent straight to their
   destination nor seen and watched over, when, after repeatedly
   losing direction and becoming broken into fragments in their
   advance through thickets and jungles, they at last make their
   way up to the line of battle, perhaps at the point they were
   designed to reinforce, perhaps far from it? … It will never
   cease to be an object of amazement to me that, with such a
   tract in prospect, the character of it being known, in
   general, to army headquarters through the Chancellorsville
   campaign … a supreme effort was not made … to carry the Army
   of the Potomac either through these jungles toward Mine Run,
   or past it, toward Spottsylvania."

      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. M. Law, A. S. Webb, and others,
      The Wilderness Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 50-51 (volume 2)._

      _W. Swinton,
      The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 9._

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Sheridan's raid to Richmond.

   "When the Army of the Potomac emerged from the Wilderness,
   Sheridan was sent to cut Lee's communications. This was the
   first of the remarkable raids of that remarkable leader, in
   Virginia, and, though short, was a destructive one. He took
   with him a greater portion of the cavalry led by Merritt,
   Gregg and Wilson, and, cutting loose from the army, he swept
   over the Po and the Ta, crossed the North Anna on the 9th, and
   struck the Virginia Central railway at Beaver Dam Station,
   which he captured.
{3525}
   He destroyed ten miles of the railway; also its rolling stock,
   with a million and a half of rations, and released 400 Union
   prisoners, on their way to Richmond from the Wilderness. There
   he was attacked in flank and rear by General J. E. B. Stuart
   and his cavalry, who had pursued him from the Rapid Anna
   [Rapidan], but was not much impeded thereby. He pushed on,
   crossed the South Anna at Ground-squirrel Bridge, and at
   daylight on the morning of the 11th, captured Ashland Station,
   on the Fredericksburg road, where he destroyed the railway
   property, a large quantity of stores, and the road itself for
   six miles. Being charged with the duty of not only destroying
   these roads, but of menacing Richmond and communicating with
   the army of the James, … Sheridan pressed on in the direction
   of the Confederate capital, when he was confronted by Stuart
   at Yellow Tavern, a few miles north of Richmond, where that
   able leader, having made a swift circuitous march, had
   concentrated all of his available cavalry. Sheridan attacked
   him at once, and, after a sharp engagement, drove the
   Confederates toward Ashland, on the north fork of the
   Chickahominy, with a loss of their gallant leader, who, with
   General Gordon, was mortally wounded. Inspirited by this
   success, Sheridan pushed along the now open turnpike toward
   Richmond, and made a spirited dash upon the outer works.
   Custer's brigade carried them at that point and made 100
   prisoners. As in the case of Kilpatrick's raid, so now, the
   second line of works were too strong to be carried by cavalry.
   The troops in and around the city had rallied for their
   defense, and in an attack the Nationals were repulsed. Then
   Sheridan led his command across the Chickahominy, at Meadow
   Bridge, where he beat off a considerable force of infantry
   sent out from Richmond, and who attacked him in the rear,
   while another force assailed his front. He also drove the foe
   on his front, when he destroyed the railway bridge there, and
   then pushed on southward to Haxall's Landing, on the James
   River, where he rested three days and procured supplies. Then,
   by way of White House and Hanover Court House, he leisurely
   returned to the Army of the Potomac, which he rejoined on the
   25th of May."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 18-19._

      _H. B. McClellan,
      Life and Campaigns of Major-General J. E. B. Stuart,
      chapter 20._

      _J. B. Jones,
      A Rebel War Clerk's Diary,
      volume 2, pages 202-208._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Grant's movement upon Richmond: Spottsylvania Court House.
   The Bloody Angle.

   "Throughout the entire day succeeding this first great
   conflict [in The Wilderness], General Lee remained quiet,
   watching for some movement of his adversary. His success in
   the preliminary struggle had been gratifying, considering the
   great disproportion of numbers, but he indulged no expectation
   of a retrograde movement across the Rapidan, on the part of
   General Grant. He expected him rather to advance, and
   anxiously awaited some development of this intention. There
   were no indications of such a design up to the night of the
   7th, but at that time, to use the words of a confidential
   member of Lee's staff, 'he all at once seemed to conceive the
   idea that his enemy was preparing to forsake his position, and
   move toward Hanover Junction via the Spottsylvania
   Court-House, and, believing this, he at once detailed
   Anderson's division with orders to proceed rapidly toward the
   court-house. General Anderson commenced his march about nine
   o'clock at night, when the Federal column was already upon its
   way. A race now began for the coveted position, and General
   Stuart, with his dismounted sharp-shooters behind improvised
   breastworks, harassed and impeded the Federal advance, at
   every step, throughout the night. This greatly delayed their
   march, and their head of column did not reach the vicinity of
   Spottsylvania Court-House until past sunrise. General Warren,
   leading the Federal advance, then hurried forward, followed by
   General Hancock, when suddenly he found himself in front of
   breastworks, and was received with a fire of musketry. Lee had
   succeeded in interposing himself between General Grant and
   Richmond. On the same evening the bulk of the two armies were
   facing each other on the line of the Po. … General Lee had
   taken up his position on the south bank of one of the four
   tributaries of the Mattapony. These four streams are known as
   the Mat, Ta, Po, and Nye Rivers, and bear the same relation to
   the main stream that the fingers of the open hand do to the
   wrist. General Lee was behind the Po, which is next to the
   Nye, the northern-most of these water-courses. Both were
   difficult to cross, and their banks heavily wooded. It was now
   to be seen whether, either by a front attack or a turning
   movement, General Grant could oust his adversary, and whether
   General Lee would stand on the defensive or attack. All day,
   during the 9th, the two armies were constructing breastworks
   along their entire fronts, and these works, from the Rapidan
   to the banks of the Chickahominy, remain yet [1871] in
   existence. On the evening of this day a Federal force was
   thrown across the Po, on the Confederate left, but soon
   withdrawn; and on the 10th a similar movement took place near
   the same point, which resulted in a brief but bloody conflict,
   during which the woods took fire, and many of the assaulting
   troops perished miserably in the flames. The force was then
   recalled, and, during that night and the succeeding day,
   nothing of importance occurred, although heavy skirmishing and
   an artillery-fire took place along the lines. On the morning
   of the 12th, at the first dawn of day, General Grant made a
   more important and dangerous assault than any yet undertaken
   in the campaign. This was directed at a salient on General
   Lee's right centre, occupied by Johnson's division of Ewell's
   corps, and was one of the bloodiest and most terrible
   incidents of the war. For this assault [made by three
   divisions of Hancock's corps] General Grant is said to have
   selected his best troops. These advanced in a heavy charging
   column, through the half-darkness of dawn, passed silently
   over the Confederate skirmishers, scarcely firing a shot, and,
   just as the first streak of daylight touched the eastern
   woods, burst upon the salient, which they stormed at the point
   of the bayonet. The attack was a complete surprise, and
   carried everything before it. The Southern troops, asleep in
   the trenches, woke to have the bayonet thrust into them, to be
   felled with clubbed muskets, and to find the works apparently
   in secure possession of the enemy before they could fire a
   shot.
{3526}
   Such was the excellent success of the Federal movement, and
   the Southern line seemed to be hopelessly disrupted. Nearly
   the whole of Johnson's division were taken prisoners—the
   number amounting to more than 3,000—and 18 pieces of artillery
   fell into the hands of the assaulting column. The position of
   affairs was now exceedingly critical; and, unless General Lee
   could reform his line at the point, it seemed that nothing was
   left him but an abandonment of his whole position. The Federal
   army had broken his line; was pouring into the opening; and,
   to prevent him from concentrating at the point to regain
   possession of the works, heavy attacks were begun by the enemy
   on his right and left wings. It is probable that at no time
   during the war was the Southern army in greater danger of a
   bloody and decisive disaster. At this critical moment General
   Lee acted with the nerve and coolness of a soldier whom no
   adverse event can shake. … Line of battle was promptly formed
   a short distance in rear of the salient then in the enemy's
   possession, and a fierce charge was made by the Southerners,
   under the eye of Lee, to regain it. … The word ferocious best
   describes the struggle which followed. It continued throughout
   the entire day, Lee making not less than five distinct
   assaults in heavy force to recover the works. The fight
   involved the troops on both flanks, and was desperate and
   unyielding. The opposing flags were at times within only a few
   yards of each other, and so incessant and concentrated was the
   fire of musketry that a tree of about 18 inches in diameter
   was cut down by bullets, and is still preserved, it is said,
   in the city of Washington, as a memorial of this bloody
   struggle. The fighting only ceased several hours after dark.
   Lee had not regained his advanced line of works, but he was
   firmly rooted in an interior and straighter line, from which
   the Federal troops had found it impossible to dislodge him."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Life of General Robert E. Lee,
      part 8, chapter 4._

   "For the distance of nearly a mile, amid a cold, drenching
   rain, the combatants [on the 12th, at the salient] were
   literally struggling across the breastworks. They fired
   directly into each other's faces, bayonet thrusts were given
   over the intrenchments; men even grappled their antagonists
   across the piles of logs and pulled them over, to be stabbed
   or carried to the rear as prisoners. … Never before, since the
   discovery of gunpowder, had such a mass of lead been hurled
   into a space so narrow as that which now embraced the scene of
   combat. Large standing trees were literally cut off and
   brought to the ground by infantry fire alone; their great
   limbs whipped into basket stuff that could be woven by the
   hand of a girl. … If any comparisons can be made between the
   sections involved in that desperate contest, the fiercest and
   deadliest fighting took place at the west angle, ever
   afterwards known as 'The Bloody Angle.' … All day the bloody
   work went on. … The trenches had more than once to be cleared
   of the dead, to give the living a place to stand. All day
   long, and even into the night, the battle lasted, for it was
   not till twelve o'clock, nearly twenty hours after the command
   'Forward' had been given to the column at the Brown House,
   that the firing died down, and the Confederates, relinquishing
   their purpose to retake the captured works, began in the
   darkness to construct a new line to cut off the salient."

      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 15._

   General Humphreys estimates Grant's losses in killed and
   wounded on the 12th at 6,020; missing 800. Lee's losses that
   day in killed, wounded and prisoners he concludes to have been
   between 9,000 and 10,000. His estimate of losses on the 10th
   is 4,100 (killed and wounded) on the Union side, and 2,000 on
   the Confederate side. Major General John Sedgwick, commanding
   the Sixth Army Corps, was killed in the skirmishing of the
   9th.

      _A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. N. Galloway,
      Hand to Hand Fighting at Spotsylvania
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 36._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Grant's movement upon Richmond:
   from Spottsylvania to the Chickahominy.

   "The lines of Spottsylvania remained still intact, and General
   Grant, who might easily have turned the position and manœuvred
   his antagonist out of it, seemed bent on carrying it by direct
   attack. Accordingly, during the succeeding week [after the
   battle of the 12th], various movements of corps were made from
   flank to flank, in the endeavor to find a spot where the lines
   could be broken. These attempts were skilfully met at every
   point—the Confederates extending their line to correspond
   with the shiftings of the army; so that wherever attack was
   essayed, the enemy bristled out in breastworks, and every
   partial assault made was repulsed. Day by day Grant continued
   to throw out towards the left, in the hope of overlapping and
   breaking in the Confederate right flank: so that from
   occupying, as the army did on its arrival, a line extending
   four or five miles to the northwest of Spottsylvania
   Courthouse, it had at the end of ten days assumed a position
   almost due east of that place, the left resting at a distance
   of four miles at Massaponax Church. After twelve days of
   effort, the carrying of the position was seen to be hopeless;
   and General Grant, abandoning the attempt, resolved by a
   turning operation to disengage Lee from a position seen to be
   unassailable. Preparations for this movement were begun on the
   afternoon of the 19th; but the enemy, observing these,
   retarded its execution by a bold demonstration against the
   Union right. … This attack somewhat disconcerted the
   contemplated movement, and delayed it till the following
   night, May 20th, when the army, moving by the left, once more
   took up its march towards Richmond. Before the lines of
   Spottsylvania the Army of the Potomac had for twelve days and
   nights engaged in a fierce wrestle, in which it had done all
   that valor may do to carry a position by nature and art
   impregnable. … Language is inadequate to convey an impression
   of the labors, fatigues, and sufferings of the troops. … Above
   40,000 men had already fallen in the bloody encounters of the
   Wilderness and Spottsylvania [General Humphreys—in 'Virginia
   Campaign of 1864 and 1865,' page 117—makes the total of
   killed and wounded from May 5 to 21, to be 28,207, and the
   entire losses of the army, including the missing and the sick
   sent back to Washington, 37,335]. … The exhausted army began
   to lose its spirit.
{3527}
   It was with joy, therefore, that it at length turned its back
   upon the lines of Spottsylvania. … The two armies once fairly
   on the march … neither … seems to have sought to deal the
   other a blow … and both headed, as for a common goal, towards
   the North Anna. … The advances of the 21st and 22d brought the
   different corps [of the Army of the Potomac], which had moved
   on parallel roads at supporting distance, within a few miles
   of the North Anna River. Resuming the march on the morning of
   Monday, May 23d, the army in a few hours reached the northern
   bank of that stream. But it was only to descry its old enemy
   planted on the opposite side." Warren's corps crossed the
   river at Jericho Ford without resistance, but was furiously
   assailed late in the afternoon and held its ground, taking
   nearly 1,000 prisoners. The left column, under Hancock, forced
   a passage in the face of the enemy, carrying a bridge by
   storm. But nothing was gained by these successes. "While Lee,
   after the passage of Hancock on the left, threw his right wing
   back from the North Anna, and on the passage of Warren on the
   right threw back his left wing, he continued to cling with his
   centre to the river; so that … his army took up a very
   remarkable line in the form of an obtuse-angled triangle. …
   The game of war seldom presents a more effectual checkmate
   than was here given by Lee; for after Grant had made the
   brilliantly successful passage of the North Anna, the
   Confederate commander, thrusting his centre between the two
   wings of the Army of the Potomac, put his antagonist at
   enormous disadvantage, and compelled him, for the
   reenforcement of one or the other wing, to make a double
   passage of the river. The more the position of Lee was
   examined, the more unpromising attack was seen to be; and
   after passing the two following days in reconnoissances, and
   destroying some miles of the Virginia Central Railroad,
   General Grant determined to withdraw across the North Anna and
   take up a new line of advance. The withdrawal from the North
   Anna was begun at dark of the 26th of May, when the Second,
   Fifth and Sixth Corps retired by different bridges to the
   north bank. … The Second Corps held position till the morning
   of the 27th, when it covered the rear. From the North Anna the
   line of march of the army made a wide circuit eastward and
   then southward to pass the Pamunkey. This river is formed by
   the confluence of the North and South Anna; and the Pamunkey
   in turn uniting with the Mattapony forms the York River,
   emptying into Chesapeake Bay. Thus the successful passage of
   the Pamunkey would not only dislodge Lee from the lines of the
   North and South Anna, but would bring the army in
   communication with a new and excellent water-base." The
   crossing of the Pamunkey, at and near Hanovertown, was
   accomplished without difficulty on the 27th and 28th, "and the
   routes to White House, at the head of York River, being opened
   up, the army was put in communication with the ample supplies
   floated by the waters of Chesapeake Bay. Grant's new turning
   movement was met by a corresponding retrograde movement on the
   part of Lee, and as he fell back on a direct line less than
   half the distance of the great detour made by the Army of the
   Potomac, it was not remarkable that, on crossing the Pamunkey,
   the Confederate force was again encountered, ready to accept
   the gage of battle. Lee assumed a position in advance of the
   Chickahominy. … The region in which the army was now operating
   revived many reminiscences in the minds of those who had made
   the Peninsular Campaign under McClellan. … Gaines' Mill and
   Mechanicsville were within an hour's ride; Fair Oaks could be
   reached in a two hours' trot; Richmond was ten miles off. …
   Reconnoissances showed Lee to be in a very strong position
   covering the approaches to the Chickahominy, the forcing of
   which it was now clear must cost a great battle."

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      part 11, chapters 3-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapters 18-19 (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   The Co-operative movement of the Army of the James.

   In the plan and arrangement of General Grant's campaign,
   General Butler, commanding at Fortress Monroe, was instructed
   "to collect all the forces of his command that could be spared
   from garrison duty estimated at not less than 20,000, and
   operate on the south side of James river, Richmond being his
   objective. To his force 10,000 men from South Carolina, under
   Gillmore, were to be added. He was ordered to take City Point
   as soon as notification of movement was given, and fortify it.
   By this common advance from the Rapidan and Fortress Monroe
   the two armies would be brought into co-operation. … As
   arranged, Butler moved from Fortress Monroe on May 4th,
   Gillmore having joined him with the 10th Corps. The next day
   he occupied, without opposition, both City Point and Bermuda
   Hundred, his movement being a complete surprise. On the 7th he
   made a reconnoissance against the Richmond and Petersburg
   Railroad, destroying a portion of it after some fighting. On
   the night of the 9th he received dispatches from Washington
   informing him that Lee was retreating to Richmond and Grant in
   pursuit. He had, therefore, to act with caution, fearing that
   he might have Lee's whole army on his hands. On the evening of
   the 13th and morning of the 14th he carried a portion of the
   enemy's first line of defenses at Drury's Bluff, or Fort
   Darling. The time thus consumed from the 6th left no
   possibility of surprising and capturing Richmond and
   Petersburg, enabling, as it did, Beauregard to collect his
   forces in North and South Carolina, and bring them to the
   defense of these places. On the 16th the Confederates attacked
   Butler in his position in front of Drury's Bluff, forced him
   back into his entrenchments between the forks of James and
   Appomattox Rivers [in the district called Bermuda Hundred],
   and, intrenching strongly in his front, not only covered the
   railroads and city, but completely neutralized his forces. …
   Butler's army being confined at Bermuda Hundred, most of the
   re-enforcements from the South were now brought against the
   Potomac Army. In addition to this, probably not less than
   15,000 men, under Breckenridge, arrived from the Western part
   of Virginia. The position of Bermuda Hundred being easy to
   defend, Grant, leaving only enough to secure what had heen
   gained, took from it all available forces under W. F. Smith,
   and joined them to the Army of the Potomac."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 3, pages 368 and 382-385._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapter 5._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 36, part 2._

{3528}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Georgia).
   Sherman's Movement upon Atlanta: Johnston's Retreat.

   Sherman now held command of the three armies of the Tennessee,
   the Cumberland, and the Ohio, having McPherson, Thomas and
   Schofield for their subordinate commanders, respectively. The
   main army of the rebellion in the West, Joe Johnston
   commanding, was at Dalton, northern Georgia, confronting
   Thomas at Chattanooga. "Grant and Sherman had agreed to act in
   concert. While the former should thrust Lee back upon
   Richmond, his late lieutenant was to push Johnston towards
   Atlanta. And Banks was to transfer his forces from New Orleans
   to Mobile and thence move towards and join hands with the
   Western armies. Sherman devoted his earliest energies to the
   question of transportation and railroads. Baggage was reduced
   to the lowest limits, the higher officers setting the example.
   Actual supplies and fighting-material were alone to be
   carried. Luxuries were to be things of the past; comforts to
   be forgotten. War's stern reality was to be each one's lot.
   Probably no officer in such high command ever lived so
   entirely from hand to mouth as did Sherman and his military
   family during the succeeding campaigns. The entire equipment
   of his army head-quarters would have shamed the shabbiest
   regimental outfit of 1861. Spring was to open with a general
   advance. It was agreed to put and keep the Confederates on the
   defensive by a policy of constant hammering. Bragg had been
   removed to satisfy public opinion in the South, but was
   nominally called to Richmond to act as Mr. Davis'
   chief-of-staff. Johnston, as commander of the Department, had
   personally undertaken to hold head against Sherman. But the
   fact that he possessed neither the President's good will nor
   that of his new adviser, militated much against a happy
   conduct of the campaign. Sherman's forces occupied a front
   sixteen miles in advance of Ringgold, just south of
   Chattanooga. McPherson and the Army of the Tennessee was on
   his right with 25,000 men and 100 guns. Thomas and the Army of
   the Cumberland held the centre with 60,000 men and 130 guns.
   Schofield and the Army of the Ohio formed the left wing. His
   command was 15,000 men and 30 guns. This grand total of
   100,000 men and 260 guns formed an army of as good stuff as
   ever bore arms, and the confidence of the leader in his men
   and of the men in their leader was unbounded. Johnston himself
   foresaw the necessity of a strictly defensive campaign, to
   which his far from sanguine character, as well as his judgment
   as to what the existing conditions demanded, made him
   peculiarly suited. Counted after the same fashion as Sherman's
   army, Johnston had some 75,000 men. … He intrenched every step
   he took; he fought only when attacked; he invited battle only
   when the conditions were largely in his favor. Subsequent
   events showed how wise beyond his critics he could be. Sherman
   took the measure of the intrenchments at Dalton with care,
   and, though he outnumbered his antagonist, preferred not to
   hazard an engagement at such odds when he might force one on
   better ground. This conduct shows in strong contrast with
   Grant's, when the latter first met his opponent at this same
   moment in Virginia. Sherman despatched McPherson towards
   Resaca, on the railroad in Johnston's rear, with instructions
   to capture the town if possible. Combined with this flanking
   movement, a general advance was made upon the Confederate
   lines, and after tactical manœuvring of several days in front
   of Rocky Face Ridge, Johnston concluded to retire from his
   stronghold. McPherson had strangely failed to seize Resaca,
   though an excellent chance had offered, and at this place the
   Confederate army took up its new stand. … Sherman faced his
   antagonist on the line of Camp Creek in front of Resaca, with
   his right flank resting on the Oostanaula. From this position
   he operated by unintermitted tapping upon Johnston's defences
   at constantly varying points, without, however, bringing on a
   general engagement [though the losses were 2,747 Union and
   2,800 Confederate]. … Sherman's uniform tactics during this
   campaign, varied indefinitely in details, consisted, as will
   be seen, in forcing the centre of the army upon Johnston's
   lines, while with the right and left he operated upon either
   flank as chance or ground best offered. Johnston did not
   propose to hazard an engagement unless all conditions were in
   his favor. He attempted a stand at Adairsville, twenty miles
   south of Resaca, but shortly withdrew to Kingston and
   Cassville. Each captain manœuvred for a chance to fight the
   other at a disadvantage. … From Cassville, Johnston retired
   across the Etowah. So far this campaign had been one of
   manœuvres. Neither combatant had suffered material loss. Like
   two wrestlers, as yet ignorant of each other's strength or
   quickness, they were sparring for a hold. … The Union army was
   growing skillful. Local difficulties multiplied many fold by
   bad maps and hostile population were overcome in considerable
   measure by an able corps of topographical engineers. … Bridges
   were uniformly burned and railroads wrecked by the retreating
   Confederates. To save delays in rebuilding, so far as
   possible, trestles were fitted in the rear to a scale with
   interchangeable timbers, so that bridges could be constructed
   with a speed never before dreamed of. No sooner had the
   Confederates put torch to a bridge, than a new one arose as by
   magic, and the whistle of the locomotive always followed hard
   upon the heels of the army."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of our Civil War,
      chapters 42-43._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _T. B. Van Horn,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 25-28 (volume 2)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 38, part 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-June: Virginia).
   Grant's Movement upon Richmond: The Battle of Cold Harbor.

   "The passage of [the Pamunkey] had been completed on May 28,
   and then, after three days of marching, interspersed with the
   usual amount of fighting, the army found itself again
   confronted by Lee's main line on the Totopotomoy. The
   operations which followed were known as the battle of Cold
   Harbor. On the afternoon of May 31st, Sheridan, who was on the
   left flank of the army, carried, with his cavalry, a position
   near the old well and cross roads known as Old Cold Harbor,
   and, with his men dismounted behind rough breast-works, held
   it against Fitzhugh Lee until night. To this point, during the
   night, marched the van·guard of the Army of the Potomac. …
   About 9 the next day (June 1st) the head of the column reached
   Sheridan's position, and the cavalry was withdrawn.
{3529}
   The enemy, who had been seriously threatening Sheridan,
   withdrew from our immediate front within their lines and
   awaited us, occupying a strong outer line of intrenchments in
   front of our center, somewhat in advance of their main
   position, which included that on which the battle of Gaines'
   Mill had been fought two years before. It covered the
   approaches to the Chickahominy, which was the last formidable
   obstacle we had to meet before standing in front of the
   permanent works of Richmond. A large detachment, composed of
   the Eighteenth Corps and other troops from the Army of the
   James, under General W. F. Smith, had disembarked at White
   House on the Pamunkey, and was expected to connect that
   morning with the Sixth Corps at Cold Harbor. A mistake in
   orders caused an unnecessary march and long delay. In the
   afternoon, however, Smith was in position on the right of the
   Sixth Corps. Late in the afternoon both corps assaulted. The
   attack was made vigorously and with no reserves. The outer
   line in front of the right of the Sixth and the left of the
   Eighteenth was carried brilliantly, and the enemy was forced
   back, leaving several hundred prisoners in our hands. … This
   left the well and the old tavern at Cold Harbor in our rear,
   and brought us in front of the most formidable position yet
   held by the enemy. In front of him was a wooded country,
   interspersed with clearings here and there, sparsely
   populated, and full of swamps. Before daylight the Army of the
   Potomac stood together once more almost within sight of the
   spires of Richmond, and on the very ground where, under
   McClellan, they had defended the passage of the river they
   were now endeavoring to force. On the 2d of June our
   confronting line, on which the burden of the day must
   necessarily fall, consisted of Hancock on the left, Wright in
   the center, and Smith on the right. Warren and Burnside were
   still farther to the right, their lines refused, or drawn
   back, in the neighborhood of Bethesda Church, but not
   confronting the enemy. … No reconnoissance had been made other
   than the bloody one of the evening before. Everyone felt that
   this was to be the final struggle. No further flanking marches
   were possible. Richmond was dead in front. No further wheeling
   of corps from right to left by the rear; no further dusty
   marches possible on that line, even 'if it took all summer.'
   The general attack was fixed for the afternoon of the 2d, and
   all preparations had been made, when the order was
   countermanded and the attack postponed until half-past four
   the following morning. Promptly at the hour named on the 3d of
   June the men moved from the slight cover of the rifle-pits,
   thrown up during the night, with steady, determined advance,
   and there rang out suddenly on the summer air such a crash of
   artillery and musketry as is seldom heard in war. No great
   portion of the advance could be seen from any particular
   point, but those of the three corps that passed through the
   clearings were feeling the fire terribly. Not much return was
   made at first from our infantry, although the fire of our
   batteries was incessant. The time of actual advance was not
   over eight minutes. In that little period more men fell
   bleeding as they advanced than in any other like period of
   time throughout the war. A strange and terrible feature of
   this battle was that as the three gallant corps moved on
   [necessarily diverging, the enemy's line forming an arc of a
   circle, with its concave side toward them] each was enfiladed
   while receiving the full force of the enemy's direct fire in
   front. … At some points the slashings and obstructions in the
   enemy's front were reached. Barlow, of Hancock's corps, drove
   the enemy from an advanced position, but was himself driven
   out by the fire of their second line. R. O. Tyler's brigade
   (the Corcoran Legion) of the same corps swept over an advance
   work, capturing several hundred prisoners. One officer alone;
   the colonel of the 164th New York [James P. McMahon], seizing
   the colors of his regiment from the dying color-bearer as he
   fell, succeeded in reaching the parapet of the enemy's main
   works, where he planted his colors and fell dead near the
   ditch, bleeding from many wounds. Seven other colonels of
   Hancock's command died within those few minutes. No troops
   could stand against such a fire, and the order to lie down was
   given all along the line. At points where no shelter was
   afforded, the men were withdrawn to such cover as could be
   found, and the battle of Cold Harbor, as to its result at
   least, was over. … Shortly after midday came the order to
   suspend for the present all further operations, and directing
   corps commanders to intrench, 'including their advanced
   positions,' and directing also that reconnoissances be made,
   'with a view to moving against the enemy's works by regular
   approaches'. … When night came on the groans and moaning of
   the wounded, all our own, who were lying between the lines,
   were heart-rending. Some were brought in by volunteers from
   our intrenchments, but remained for three days uncared for
   beneath the hot summer suns and the unrefreshing dews of the
   sultry summer nights. … An impression prevails in the popular
   mind, and with some reason perhaps, that a commander who sends
   a flag of truce asking permission to bury his dead and bring
   in his wounded, has lost the field of battle. Hence the
   reluctance upon our part to ask a flag of truce. In effect it
   was done at last on the evening of the third day after the
   battle, when, for the most part, the wounded needed no further
   care and our dead had to be buried almost where they fell."

      _M. T. McMahon,
      Cold Harbor
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

   "According to the report of the Medical Director, Surgeon
   McParlin, the wounded brought to the hospitals from the battle
   of the 3d of June numbered 4,517. The killed were at least
   1,100. The wounded brought to the hospitals from the battle of
   the 1st of June were 2,125; the killed were not less than 500.
   The wounded on the 1st and 3d of June were, therefore, 6,642,
   and the killed not less than 1,600; but, adopting the number
   of killed and missing furnished General Badeau from the
   Adjutant General's office, 1,769 killed, 1,537 missing
   (many—most, indeed—of them, no doubt, killed), we have 8,411
   for the killed and wounded, and for the total casualties,
   9,948."

      _A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865
      (Campaigns of the Civil War),
      page 191._

   "I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor
   was ever made. … At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was
   gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained. Indeed,
   the advantages other than those of relative losses, were on
   the Confederate side. … This charge seemed to revive their
   hopes temporarily; but it was of short duration. The effect
   upon the Army of the Potomac was the reverse. When we reached
   the James River, however, all effects of the battle of Cold
   Harbor seemed to have disappeared."

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter. 55 (volume 2)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 36._

{3530}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-June: Virginia).
   The Campaigning in the Shenandoah Valley, and
   Sheridan's raid to Trevillian Station.

   "In the spring of 1864, the Department of West Virginia, which
   included the Shenandoah Valley, was under the command of
   Major-General Franz Sigel. A large portion of his forces was
   in the Kanawha region, under Brigadier-General George Crook. …
   In opening his Virginia campaign, Lieutenant-General Grant
   directed Sigel to form two columns, whereof one, under Crook,
   should break the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad at the New
   River bridge, and should also, if possible, destroy the
   salt-works at Saltville; while the other column, under Sigel
   himself, proceeding up the Shenandoah Valley, was to distract
   attention from Crook by menacing the Virginia Central Railroad
   at Staunton."

      _G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 11),
      chapter 2._

   "Early in May, General Sigel entered the Valley with a force
   of 10,000 or 12,000 men [6,000 or 7,000, according to Pond, as
   above], and proceeded to advance toward Staunton. The Valley
   at that time was occupied only by a small force under General
   Imboden, which was wholly inadequate for its defence. General
   Breckenridge was therefore withdrawn from South-Western
   Virginia to oppose Sigel. On the 15th of May, Breckenridge
   with a force of 3,000 men [4,600 to 5,000—Pond] encountered
   Sigel at Newmarket and defeated him and compelled him to
   retire behind Cedar Creek. The cadets of the Virginia Military
   Institute formed a portion of Breckenridge's division, and
   behaved with distinguished gallantry. … After the battle of
   Newmarket Breckenridge was withdrawn from the Valley to
   reinforce Lee … in the neighborhood of Hanover Junction. In
   the meantime Crook and Averill had reached the Virginia and
   Tennessee Railroad, where they inflicted some damage, but were
   compelled to retire by a force sent against them by General
   Sam Jones. They then proceeded to join the main column
   operating in the Valley. After the battle of Newmarket, Sigel
   was relieved by General David Hunter, who was instructed by
   General Grant to advance upon Staunton, thence to
   Charlottesville, and on to Lynchburg if circumstances favored
   that movement. Breckenridge having been withdrawn, General W.
   E. Jones was ordered to the Valley to oppose Hunter, who
   slowly advanced, opposed by Imboden with an almost nominal
   force. About the 4th of June, Imboden was joined by General
   Jones in the neighborhood of Harrisonburg with a force of
   between 3,000 and 4,000 men, which he had hastily collected in
   Southwestern Virginia. … Although greatly outnumbered, he
   [Jones] engaged Hunter near Port Republic [at the village of
   Piedmont, which gives its name to the battle], where he was
   defeated and killed. … After the fall of Jones, McCauslin
   opposed Hunter with gallantry and vigor, but his small force
   was no match for the greatly superior force against which he
   contended. The affairs in the Valley now began to attract the
   attention of the commanding generals of both armies. It was
   evident that if Hunter could succeed in taking Lynchburg and
   breaking up the canal and Central Railroad, it would only be
   necessary to tap the Richmond and Danville and the Petersburg
   and Weldon railroads to complete a line of circumvallation
   around Richmond and Petersburg. On the 7th of June General
   Grant detached General Sheridan, with a large cavalry force,
   with instructions to break up the Central Railroad between
   Richmond and Gordonsville, then proceed to the James River and
   Kanawha Canal, break that line of communication with Richmond,
   and then to co-operate with Hunter in his operations against
   Lynchburg. About the same time General Lee sent General
   Breckenridge with his division, 2,500 strong, to occupy
   Rockfish Gap of the Blue Ridge to deflect Hunter from
   Charlottesville and protect the Central Railroad as far as
   practicable. A few days later General Early was detached by
   General Lee to oppose Hunter, and take such other steps as in
   his judgment would tend to create a diversion in favor of
   Richmond. General Sheridan, in compliance with his
   instructions, proceeded by a circuitous route to strike the
   railroad somewhere in the neighborhood of Gordonsville. This
   movement was, however, discovered by General Hampton, who,
   with a considerable force of cavalry encountered Sheridan on
   the 12th of June at Travillians [or Trevillian's] Station.
   After much severe and varied fighting Sheridan was defeated,
   and in order to escape was obliged to make a night-retreat.
   [In his 'Memoirs,' Sheridan claims the victory, having forced
   Hampton back and taken 500 prisoners; but learning that Hunter
   would not meet him, as expected, at Charlottesville, he turned
   back to rejoin Grant south of Richmond]. … This was one of the
   most masterly and spirited cavalry engagements of the war.
   Hunter, finding Rockfish Gap occupied in force, was unable to
   comply with that part of his instructions which directed him
   to Charlottesville. He therefore continued his march up the
   Valley, with the view of reaching Lynchburg by way of some one
   of the passes of the Blue Ridge south of the James River. In
   the neighborhood of Staunton he was joined by Crook and
   Averill, increasing his force to about 20,000 men, including
   cavalry and artillery. From Staunton he advanced by way of
   Lexington and Buchanan, burning and destroying everything that
   came in his way, leaving a track of desolation rarely
   witnessed in the course of civilized warfare." Before Hunter's
   arrival at Lynchburg, General Early, who withdrew his corps
   (formerly Stonewall Jackson's, and lately commanded by Ewell),
   from Richmond on the 13th of June, had reached that city and
   was prepared to defend it. "Hunter, finding himself
   unexpectedly confronted by Early, relinquished his intended
   attack upon the city and sought safety in a rapid
   night-retreat."

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1. chapter 21._

[Image: Map of the Atlanta Campaign. Page 331.]

{3532}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-September: Georgia).
   Sherman's Movement upon Atlanta: New Hope Church.
   Kenesaw.
   Peach Tree Creek.
   The siege and capture of the city.

   From Cassville, for reasons given in his memoirs, Johnston
   continued his retreat behind the next spur of mountains to
   Allatoona. "Pausing for a few days," writes General Sherman,
   "to repair the railroad without attempting Allatoona, of which
   I had personal knowledge acquired in 1844, I resolved to push
   on toward Atlanta by way of Dallas; Johnston quickly detected
   this, and forced me to fight him, May 25th-28th, at New Hope
   Church, four miles north of Dallas, with losses of 3,000 to
   the Confederates and 2,400 to us. The country was almost in a
   state of nature—with few or no roads, nothing that a European
   could understand; yet the bullet killed its victim there as
   surely as at Sevastopol. Johnston had meantime picked up his
   detachments, and had received reënforcements from his rear
   which raised his aggregate strength to 62,000 men, and
   warranted him in claiming that he was purposely drawing us far
   from our base, and that when the right moment should come he
   would turn on us and destroy us. We were equally confident,
   and not the least alarmed. He then fell back to his position
   at Marietta, with Brush Mountain on his right, Kenesaw his
   center and Lost Mountain his left. His line of ten miles was
   too long for his numbers, and he soon let go his flanks and
   concentrated on Kenesaw. We closed down in battle array,
   repaired the railroad up to our very camps, and then prepared
   for the contest. Not a day, not an hour, not a minute was
   there a cessation of fire. Our skirmishers were in absolute
   contact, the lines of battle and the batteries but little in
   rear of the skirmishers; and thus matters continued until June
   27th, when I ordered a general assault, with the full
   cooperation of my great lieutenants, Thomas, McPherson and
   Schofield, as good and true men as ever lived or died for
   their country's cause; but we failed, losing 3,000 men to the
   Confederate loss of 630. Still, the result was that within
   three days Johnston abandoned the strongest possible position
   and was in full retreat for the Chattahoochee River. We were
   on his heels; skirmished with his rear at Smyrna Church on the
   4th day of July, and saw him fairly across the Chattahoochee
   on the 10th, covered and protected by the best line of field
   intrenchments I have ever seen, prepared long in advance. … We
   had advanced into the enemy's country 120 miles, with a
   single-track railroad, which had to bring clothing, food,
   ammunition, everything requisite for 100,000 men and 23,000
   animals. The city of Atlanta, the gate city, opening the
   interior of the important State of Georgia, was in sight; its
   protecting army was shaken but not defeated, and onward we had
   to go. … We feigned to the right, but crossed the
   Chattahoochee by the left, and soon confronted our enemy
   behind his first line of intrenchments at Peach Tree Creek,
   prepared in advance for this very occasion. At this critical
   moment the Confederate Government rendered us most valuable
   service. Being dissatisfied with the Fabian policy of General
   Johnston, it relieved him, and General Hood was substituted to
   command the Confederate army [July 18]. Hood was known to us
   to be a 'fighter' … and I confess I was pleased at this
   change. … I was willing to meet the enemy in the open country,
   but not behind well-constructed parapets. Promptly, as
   expected, General Hood sallied from his Peach Tree line on the
   20th of July, about midday, striking the Twentieth Corps
   (Hooker), which had just crossed Peach Tree Creek by
   improvised bridges. The troops became commingled and fought
   hand to hand desperately for about four hours, when the
   Confederates were driven back within their lines, leaving
   behind their dead and wounded. These amounted to 4,796 men, to
   our loss of 1,710. We followed up and Hood fell back to the
   main lines of the city of Atlanta. We closed in, when again
   Hood, holding these lines with about one-half his force, with
   the other half made a wide circuit by night, under cover of
   the woods, and on the 22d of July enveloped our left flank 'in
   air,' a movement that led to the hardest battle of the
   campaign. He encountered the Army of the Tennessee—skilled
   veterans who were always ready to fight, were not alarmed by
   flank or rear attacks, and met their assailants with heroic
   valor. The battle raged from noon to night, when the
   Confederates, baffled and defeated, fell back within the
   intrenchments of Atlanta. Their losses are reported 8,499 to
   ours of 8,641; but among our dead was McPherson, the commander
   of the Army of the Tennessee. While this battle was in
   progress, Schofield at the center and Thomas on the right made
   efforts to break through the intrenchments at their fronts,
   but found them too strong to assault. The Army of the
   Tennessee was then shifted, under its new commander (Howard),
   from the extreme left to the extreme right, to reach if
   possible, the railroad by which Hood drew his supplies, when,
   on the 28th of July, he repeated his tactics of the 22d,
   sustaining an overwhelming defeat, losing 4,632 men to our
   700. These three sallies convinced him that his predecessor,
   General Johnston, had not erred in standing on the defensive.
   Thereafter the Confederate army in Atlanta clung to its
   parapets. I never intended to assault these, but gradually
   worked to the right to reach and destroy his line of supplies,
   because soldiers, like other mortals, must have food. Our
   extension to the right brought on numerous conflicts, but
   nothing worthy of note, till about the end of August I
   resolved to leave one corps to protect our communications to
   the rear, and move with the other five to a point (Jonesboro')
   on the railroad 20 miles below Atlanta, not fortified. This
   movement was perfectly strategic, was successful, and resulted
   in our occupation of Atlanta, on the 2d of September, 1864.
   The result had a large effect on the whole country, at the
   time, for solid and political reasons. I claim no special
   merit to myself, save that I believe I followed the teachings
   of the best masters of the 'science of war' of which I had
   knowledge. … But I had not accomplished all, for Hood's army,
   the chief 'objective,' had escaped. Then began the real
   trouble. We were in possession of Atlanta, and Hood remained
   at Lovejoy's Station, 30 miles south-east, on the Savannah
   Railroad, with an army of about 40,000 veterans inured to war,
   and with a fair amount of wagons to carry his supplies,
   independent of the railroads."

      _W. T. Sherman and others,
      Atlanta
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

      _J. D. Cox,
      Atlanta
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 9),
      chapters 7-16._

      _C. C. Chesney,
      The Atlanta Campaign
      (Fort. Rev., Nov. 1895)._

      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative,
      chapters 9-11._

      _Official Records,
      series 1, volume 38._

      _J. B. Hood,
      Advance and Retreat,
      chapters 12-13._

{3533}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-November).
   The Twentieth Presidential Election.
   Renomination and Re-election of Abraham Lincoln.

   "Preparations for the nomination of candidates had begun to be
   made, as usual, early in the spring of 1864. Some who saw most
   clearly the necessities of the future, had for some months
   before expressed themselves strongly in favor of the
   renomination of President Lincoln. But this step was contested
   with great warmth and activity by prominent members of the
   political party by which he had been nominated and elected
   four years before. Nearly all the original Abolitionists and
   many of the more decidedly anti-slavery members of the
   Republican party were dissatisfied, that Mr. Lincoln had not
   more rapidly and more sweepingly enforced their extreme
   opinions. Many distinguished public men resented his rejection
   of their advice, and many more had been alienated by his
   inability to recognize their claims to office. The most
   violent opposition came from those who had been most
   persistent and most clamorous in their exactions. And as it
   was unavoidable that, in wielding so terrible and so absolute
   a power in so terrible a crisis, vast multitudes of active and
   ambitious men should be disappointed in their expectations of
   position and personal gain, the renomination of Mr. Lincoln
   was sure to be contested by a powerful and organized effort.
   At the very outset this movement acquired consistency and
   strength by bringing forward the Honorable S. P. Chase,
   Secretary of the Treasury, a man of great political boldness
   and experience, and who had prepared the way for such a step
   by a careful dispensation of the vast patronage of his
   department, as the rival candidate. But it was instinctively
   felt that this effort lacked the sympathy and support of the
   great mass of the people, and it ended in the withdrawal of
   his name as a candidate by Mr. Chase himself. The National
   Committee of the Union Republican party had called their
   convention, to be held at Baltimore, on the 8th of June."
   Those who opposed Mr. Lincoln's nomination issued a call for a
   convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, on the 31st of May.
   The Cleveland Convention, attended by about 150 persons, put
   in nomination General John C. Fremont, for President, and
   General John Cochrane, of New York, for Vice President.
   "General Fremont's letter of acceptance was dated June 4th.
   Its main scope was an attack upon Mr. Lincoln for
   unfaithfulness to the principles he was elected to defend, and
   upon his administration for incapacity and selfishness. … He
   intimated that if the Baltimore convention would nominate
   anyone but Mr. Lincoln he would not stand in the way of a
   union of all upon the nominee. … The Convention, the
   nomination and the letter of acceptance, fell dead upon the
   popular feeling [and Fremont withdrew his candidacy in
   September]. … The next form which the effort to prevent Mr.
   Lincoln's nomination and election took was an effort to bring
   forward General Grant as a candidate." But this was decisively
   checked by General Grant, himself. The Convention at
   Baltimore, when it assembled on the 8th of June, showed no
   hesitation in nominating Abraham Lincoln for reelection, and
   it associated with him, Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, as its
   candidate for Vice President. The National Convention of the
   Democratic party was held at Chicago, beginning August 29th,
   The second resolution which it adopted in its platform
   declared that, "after four years of failure to restore the
   Union by the experiment of war … justice, humanity, liberty
   and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made
   for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate
   convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end
   that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be
   restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." On
   this issue, having nominated General George B. McClellan for
   President, and George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, for Vice
   President, the opponents of the war went to the country in the
   election, in November, and were overwhelmingly defeated. "Of
   all the States which voted on that day, General McClellan
   carried but three—New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky."

      _H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 18._

   The electoral vote was for Lincoln 212, for McClellan 21. The
   popular vote cast was, for Lincoln 2,213,665, for McClellan,
   1,802,237. Many of the States had made provision for taking
   the votes of soldiers in the field, and the army vote was
   116,887 for Lincoln against 33,748 for McClellan.

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 21._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
   Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

   At every session of Congress from 1861 to 1864 ineffectual
   attempts were made in the Senate and in the House of
   Representatives to accomplish the repeal of the Fugitive Slave
   Laws of 1793 and 1850. It was not until June of the latter
   year that the necessary bill was passed—by the House on the
   6th, by a vote of 82 to 57, and by the Senate on the 22d by 27
   to 12. The President approved it on the 28th, and it became a
   law.

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 29._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
   Revenue Measures.
   The War Tariff and Internal Taxes.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
   The destruction of the Alabama by the Kearsarge.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June: Virginia).
   Grant's movement to the south of James River.
   The Siege of Petersburg.

   "In consequence of the check at Cold Harbor, a restlessness
   was becoming general among the people, which the government in
   vain pretended not to notice. … Public opinion, shaken in its
   confidence, already began to listen to the sinister
   interpretations of the opposition journals, when, in the last
   half of June, it learned that the lieutenant: general had
   boldly crossed the James and laid siege before Petersburg. …
   This passage of the James was … a very fine movement, as ably
   executed as it was boldly conceived. It inaugurated a new
   phase in the campaign. … Henceforth, the battering not having
   produced the expected effect, Grant was about to try the
   resources of military science, and give precedence to
   strategic combinations. In the first place, he took his
   measures so well to conceal his intentions from the enemy that
   the latter did not recognize the character of the movement
   until it was already executed. Warren was ordered to occupy
   Lee's attention by the menace of an advance on Richmond from
   the direction of White Oak Swamp, while Smith (W. F.)
   reëmbarked from White House to return to Bermuda Hundred, and
   Hancock, with the Second Corps, would be transferred to the
   right bank of the James by a flotilla of large steamers
   collected at Wilcox Landing for that purpose.
{3534}
   At the same time, a bridge of boats was thrown across a little
   below, where there were thirteen fathoms of water in the
   channel, and where the river was more than 2,000 feet broad.
   The Fifth and Sixth Corps crossed over on the bridge. Grant
   hoped to get hold of Petersburg by a 'coup de main.' If he had
   succeeded, the fall of Richmond would have soon followed in
   all probability. Unfortunately, delays occurred and
   contretemps which caused the opportunity to fail and
   completely modified the course of events. General Smith (W.
   F.), after having carried the first line, which was defended
   by militia only, did not know how to take advantage of his
   first success. Proceeding methodically and cautiously, where
   it was, above all, necessary to act with vigor and promptness,
   he put off the serious work until the next morning. Hancock,
   in his turn, debarked on the right bank, did not receive the
   order to march on Petersburg until he had been delayed to wait
   for rations which were behind-hand, and went astray in his
   march owing to false indications on a map which had been sent
   to him as correct. In short, he lost precious hours in the
   afternoon of June 15, and on the morning of the 16th it was
   too late; Lee's troops had arrived. Nevertheless, the
   intrenchments thrown up hastily by the enemy were not so
   formidable that they might not be carried. In the morning, a
   fresh attack, with Birney's and Gibbon's divisions, met with
   some success, but with no decisive results. In the afternoon,
   the Ninth Corps having arrived, the attempt was renewed on a
   greater scale, and it ended by carrying the line at sundown,
   after a hard fight and considerable loss. On the next morning,
   a new assault, always by the Second Corps, supported by the
   Ninth. The enemy lost more ground and a redoubt of importance.
   In the evening, he succeeded in surprising the intrenchments
   which Burnside had taken from him. All these fights were not
   without cost; the loss of that day alone, on our side,
   amounted to 4,000 men. The Confederates defended the ground
   step by step, with such determination, only to gain the time
   necessary to finish a stronger and better selected line, on
   the hills immediately around the city. They retired to these
   lines in the following night, and during the whole of the 18th
   they sustained in them a series of attacks which met with no
   success. From that day, the siege of Petersburg was resolved
   upon, and regular works were begun. It must be remarked that
   this siege was not a siege, properly speaking. The place was
   never even invested. It lies 22 miles south of Richmond, on
   the right, bank of the Appomattox, eight miles southwest of
   City Point, where that river empties into the James, and where
   the new base of supplies of the army was naturally
   established. So that we had turned Richmond to put ourselves
   across a part of the enemy's communications with the South,
   and directly threaten the rest. These communications were: the
   railroads to Norfolk, Weldon and Lynchburg, and the Jerusalem
   and Boydton roads, all ending at Petersburg. Besides these,
   the Confederate capital had only the James River Canal, to the
   west, and the Dansville railroad, to the south. The latter did
   not extend beyond the limits of Virginia, but it crossed the
   Lynchburg railroad at Burksville, which doubled its resources.
   If, then, we succeeded in enveloping Petersburg only on the
   right bank of the Appomattox, the population and the
   Confederate army would be reduced to draw all their supplies
   from Richmond by a single-track railroad. To accomplish that
   was our effort; to prevent it, the enemy's: that was the point
   towards which all the operations of the siege were directed
   for nine months. On the day on which we finally succeeded,
   Petersburg and Richmond fell at the same blow, and the whole
   structure of the rebellion crumbled with these two cities."

      _R. de Trobriand,
      Four Years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 28._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapters 19-23._

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 56 (volume 2)._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 40._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July).
   The Greeley and the Jaques-Gilmore Peace Missions.

   "Two abortive efforts to open a door to accommodation between
   the belligerents were made during this gloomy period. One of
   these originated with certain Confederates then in Canada, one
   of whom wrote [July 5, 1864] to the author of this work
   [Horace Greeley], averring that Messrs. Clement C. Clay, of
   Alabama, James P. Holcombe, of Virginia, and George N. Sanders
   (the writer) would proceed to Washington in the interest of
   Peace, if full protection were accorded them. Being otherwise
   confidentially assured that the two former had full powers
   from Richmond, Mr. Greeley forwarded the application to
   President Lincoln, urging that it be responded to, and
   suggesting certain terms of reunion and peace which he judged
   might be advantageously proffered to the Rebels, whether they
   should be accepted or rejected. … The 'Plan of Adjustment,'
   which he suggested that the President might advantageously
   offer," contemplated the restoration of the Union, abolition
   of slavery, with $400,000,000 paid in compensation to the
   slave states, and complete amnesty for all political offenses.
   "The President hereupon saw fit—alike to the surprise and the
   regret of his correspondent—to depute him to proceed to
   Niagara, and there communicate with the persons in question.
   He most reluctantly consented to go, but under a
   misapprehension which insured the failure of the effort in any
   event. Though he had repeatedly and explicitly written to the
   President that he knew nothing as to what the Confederates in
   Canada might or would propose as a basis of adjustment … it
   was expected on the President's part that he was virtually and
   substantially to negotiate and settle the basis of a
   pacification with them; so that their visit to Washington was,
   in effect, to be the result, and not the possible occasion, of
   adjustment und peace. … The whole matter thus terminated in
   failure and disappointment, with some exasperation on the
   Rebel side, and very decided condemnation on the part of the
   opposition. … Happily, another negotiation—even more irregular
   and wholly clandestine—had simultaneously been in progress at
   Richmond, with a similar result. Rev. Colonel James F. Jaques,
   73d Illinois, with Mr. J. R. Gilmore, of New York, had, with
   President Lincoln's knowledge, but without his formal
   permission, paid a visit to the Confederate capital on a Peace
   errand; being allowed to pass through the lines of both armies
   for the purpose.
{3535}
   Arrived in Richmond they addressed a joint letter to Judah P.
   Benjamin, Secretary of State, requesting an interview with
   President Davis, which was accorded; and a long, familiar,
   earnest colloquy ensued, wherein the Confederate chief
   presented his ultimatum in these terms: … The North was mad
   and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the
   war came; and now it must go on till the last man of this
   generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his
   musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right
   to self-government. We are not fighting for Slavery, we are
   fighting for Independence; and that or extermination we will
   have'. … Thus it was not only incontestably settled but
   proclaimed, through the volunteered agency of two citizens,
   that the War must go on until the Confederacy should be
   recognized as an independent power, or till it should be
   utterly, finally overthrown. The knowledge of this fact was
   worth more than a victory to the National cause."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States
      during the Great Rebellion,
      pages 301-307._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July: Virginia-Maryland.)
   Early in the Shenandoah Valley.
   His invasion of Maryland and approach to Washington.

   "… [General Jubal Anderson] Early had forced Hunter into the
   Kanawha region far enough to feel assured that Lynchburg could
   not again be threatened from that direction;

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   [Early then] united to his own corps General John C.
   Breckenridge's infantry division and the cavalry of Generals
   J. H. Vaughn, John McCausland, B. T. Johnson, and J. D.
   Imboden, which heretofore had been operating in southwest and
   western Virginia under General Robert Ransom, Jr., and with
   the column thus formed, was ready to turn his attention to the
   lower Shenandoah Valley. At Early's suggestion General Lee
   authorized him to move north at an opportune moment, cross the
   upper Potomac into Maryland and threaten Washington. … By
   rapid marching Early reached Winchester on the 2d of July, and
   on the 4th occupied Martinsburg, driving General Sigel out of
   that place the same day that Hunter's troops, after their
   fatiguing retreat through the mountains, reached Charlestown,
   West Virginia. Early was thus enabled to cross the Potomac
   without difficulty, when, moving around Harper's Ferry,
   through the gaps of the South Mountain, he found his path
   unobstructed till he reached the Monocacy, where Ricketts's
   division of the Sixth Corps, and some raw troops that had been
   collected by General Lew Wallace, met and held the
   Confederates till the other reinforcements that had been
   ordered to the capital from Petersburg could be brought up.
   Wallace contested the line of the Monocacy with obstinacy, but
   had to retire finally toward Baltimore. The road was then open
   to Washington, and Early marched to the outskirts and began
   against the capital the demonstrations [July 11-12] which were
   designed to divert the Army of the Potomac from its main
   purpose in front of Petersburg. Early's audacity in thus
   threatening Washington had caused some concern to the
   officials in the city, but as the movement was looked upon by
   General Grant as a mere foray which could have no decisive
   issue, the Administration was not much disturbed till the
   Confederates came in close proximity. Then was repeated the
   alarm and consternation of two years before, fears for the
   safety of the capital being magnified by the confusion and
   discord existing among the different generals in Washington
   and Baltimore; and the imaginary dangers vanished only with
   the appearance of General Wright, who with the Sixth Corps and
   one division of the Nineteenth Corps, pushed out to attack
   Early as soon as he could get his arriving troops in hand, but
   under circumstances that precluded celerity of movement; and
   as a consequence the Confederates escaped with little injury,
   retiring across the Potomac to Leesburg, unharassed save by
   some Union cavalry that had been sent out into Loudoun County
   by Hunter, who in the meantime had arrived at Harper's Ferry
   by the Baltimore and Ohio railroad. From Leesburg Early
   retired through Winchester toward Strasburg, but when the head
   of his column reached this place he found that he was being
   followed by General Crook with the combined troops of Hunter
   and Sigel only, Wright having returned to Washington under
   orders to rejoin Meade at Petersburg. This reduction of the
   pursuing force tempting Early to resume the offensive, he
   attacked Crook at Kernstown, and succeeded in administering
   such a check as to necessitate this general's retreat to
   Martinsburg, and finally to Harper's Ferry. Crook's withdrawal
   restored to Early the line of the upper Potomac, so,
   recrossing this stream, he advanced again into Maryland, and
   sending McCausland on to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, laid that
   town in ashes [July 30] leaving 3,000 non-combatants without
   shelter or food. … This second irruption of Early and his
   ruthless destruction of Chambersburg led to many
   recommendations on the part of General Grant looking to a
   speedy elimination of the confusion then existing among the
   Union forces along the upper Potomac, but for a time the
   authorities at Washington would approve none of his
   propositions. … Finally the manœuvres of Early and the raid to
   Chambersburg compelled a partial compliance, though Grant had
   somewhat circumvented the difficulty already by deciding to
   appoint a commander for the forces in the field that were to
   operate against Early. On the 31st of July General Grant
   selected me as this commander. … On the evening of August 1, I
   was relieved from immediate duty with the Army of the Potomac,
   but not from command of the cavalry as a corps organization. I
   arrived at Washington on the 4th of August, and the next day
   received instructions from General Halleck, to report to
   General Grant at Monocacy Junction, whither he had gone direct
   from City Point, in consequence of a characteristic despatch
   from the President indicating his disgust with the confusion,
   disorder and helplessness prevailing along the upper Potomac,
   and intimating that Grant's presence there was necessary."

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864,
      chapters 4-6._

      _F. Sigel,
      Sigel in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

{3536}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July: Virginia).
   The siege of Petersburg: The Mine.

   "Burnside's corps held a position directly in front of
   Petersburg, including a point where our lines, owing to the
   nature of the ground, had been pushed up to within 150 yards
   of the enemy's, where a fort projected beyond their average
   front. Under this fort a mine had been run from a convenient
   ravine or hollow within our lines, which was entirely screened
   from the enemy's observation; and this mine would seem to have
   been completed not only without countermining by the Rebels,
   but without being even suspected by them; though a report of
   its existence (probably founded on the story of some deserter
   or prisoner) was printed in one of the Richmond journals. All
   being ready, the morning of July 30th was fixed for springing
   the mine; which was to be instantly followed, of course, by
   the opening of our guns all along the front, and by an assault
   at the chasm opened in the enemy's defences by the explosion.
   … The explosion took place; hoisting the fort into the air,
   annihilating its garrison of 300 men, and leaving in its stead
   a gigantic hollow or crater of loose earth, 150 feet long by
   some 60 wide and 25 to 30 deep. Instantly, our guns opened all
   along the front; and the astounded enemy may well have
   supposed them the thunders of doom. But it was indispensable
   to success that a column of assault should rush forward
   instantly and resolutely, so as to clear the chasm and gain
   the crest before the foe should recover from his surprise;
   and, on this vital point failure had already been secured. The
   9th corps, as then constituted, was not that from which any
   commanding general would have selected a storming party; yet
   because it was Burnside's mine, his corps was, without
   discussion, allowed to furnish the column of assault. His
   inspecting officer had reported that, of its four divisions,
   that composed of Blacks was fittest for this perilous service;
   but Grant, discrediting this, had directed that one of the
   three White divisions should be chosen. Thereupon, the leaders
   of these divisions were allowed to cast lots to see which of
   them should go in—or rather which two of them should stay
   out—and the lot fell on the 1st, Brigadier-General Ledlie—and
   no man in the army believed this other than the worst choice
   of the three. … Several minutes passed—precious, fatal
   minutes!—before Ledlie's division, clearing with difficulty
   the obstacles in its path—went forward into the chasm, and
   there stopped, though the enemy at that point were still
   paralyzed and the deciding crest completely at our mercy. Then
   parts of Burnside's two remaining White divisions (Potter's
   and Wilcox's) followed; but once in the crater, Ledlie's men
   barred the way to a farther advance, and all huddled together,
   losing their formation and becoming mixed up; General Potter
   finally extricating himself, and charging toward the crest;
   but with so slender a following that he was soon obliged to
   fall back. Two hours were thus shamefully squandered, while
   the Rebels recovering their self-possession, were planting
   batteries on either side, and mustering their infantry in an
   adjacent ravine; and now—when more men in the crater could
   only render the confusion more hopeless and magnify the
   disaster—Burnside threw in his Black division; which, passing
   beyond and rather to the right of the crater, charged toward
   the crest, but were met by a fire of artillery and musketry
   which speedily hurled them back into the crater, where all
   order was lost, all idea of aught beyond personal safety
   abandoned, while the enemy's shells and balls poured into it
   like hail, rendering it an arena of unresisted slaughter. … A
   first Rebel assault on our unfortunates was repulsed in sheer
   desperation; and thousands of course took the risk of darting
   out of the death-trap and racing at top speed to our lines;
   but our loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners was 4,400;
   while that of the enemy, including 300 blown up in the fort,
   was barely 1,000."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, pages 590-591._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Powell and others,
      The Battle of the Petersburg Crater
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 4, chapter 5._

      _A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapter 9._

      _Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      38th Congress, 2d Session: volume 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August: Virginia).
   The Siege of Petersburg: Fighting for the Weldon Road.
   Battle of Reams's Station.
   The Dutch Gap Canal.

   "Taking advantage of the absence of many of Lee's troops from
   Petersburg, Grant made a vigorous movement for securing
   possession of the Weldon road, not more than three miles from
   the left flank of his lines on the Jerusalem plank road. This
   movement was made by Warren, with the Fifth Corps, on the
   morning of the 18th of August, and at noon he reached the
   coveted railway without opposition, where he left Griffin to
   hold the point seized, while with the divisions of Ayres and
   Crawford he moved toward Petersburg. He had marched but a
   short distance when a division of Confederates suddenly and
   heavily fell upon his flank. … Warren held the ground he had
   gained at a cost of 1,000 men killed, wounded and prisoners."
   The next day (August 19), Lee sent Hill with a heavy force to
   drive Warren from the road, and the attempt, desperately made,
   was nearly successful, but not quite. Two days later it was
   repeated, and the Confederates were repulsed with a loss of
   1,200 men. "In his entire movement for the possession of the
   road Warren lost, in killed, wounded and missing, 4,450 men.
   He now rendered his position almost impregnable, and General
   Lee was compelled to see one of his most important lines of
   communication wrested from him. On the day of Warren's Victory
   [August 21], Hancock, who … had been called from the north
   bank of the James [where an unsuccessful demonstration towards
   Richmond had been made from Deep Bottom], and who had moved
   with part of his corps rapidly toward the Weldon road, in the
   rear of Warren, struck that highway north of Reams's Station,
   and destroyed the track to that point and some miles south of
   it. He formed an intrenched camp at Reams's," and was attacked
   there on the 25th by Hill with such determination that he was
   forced back to a rear line, "where the troops had been
   rallied, and when night fell Hancock withdrew from Reams's
   Station. He had lost in the fight 2,400 of his 8,000 men, and
   five guns; 1,700 of the men were made prisoners. Hill's loss
   was but little less, and he, too, withdrew from Reams's. But
   this disaster did not loosen Warren's hold upon the Weldon
   road. … For about a month after the battle of Reams's Station
   there was comparative quiet along the lines of the opposing
   armies. … A strong party of colored soldiers had been set to
   work by General Butler on the north side of the James, under
   cover of a battery on that side mounting 100-pounder Parrott
   guns, in digging a canal across the narrow isthmus of a
   peninsula formed by a sharp bend in the river, called Farrar's
   Island.
{3537}
   By this canal it was intended to secure a nearer base of
   operations against Richmond, and afford a passage for the
   National war vessels, by which they might flank several
   important works of the Confederates." The Dutch Gap Canal, as
   it was called, did not prove successful, the necessary depth
   of water never being secured during the war, though the canal
   has been brought into use since.

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. S. Michie,
      Dutch Gap Canal
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4, page 575)._

      _O. B. Willcox,
      Actions on the Weldon Railroad
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4, page 568)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August: Alabama).
   The Battle of Mobile Bay.
   Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

   "After the capitulation of Vicksburg the vessels of the
   so-called Gulf Squadron which had been cruising on the lower
   Mississippi and its tributaries were in part joined to the
   Upper Squadron, under the command of Admiral Porter. The
   remainder were recalled to their duties on the outside
   blockade. Admiral Farragut was now free to turn his whole
   attention to the coast of the Gulf, whither he returned in
   January, 1864, after a well-earned rest at the North. Mobile
   was now the principal port in the possession of the
   Confederates in this quarter, and earnestly did the Admiral
   desire to attack and reduce the forts at the entrance of the
   bay. But troops were required to invest the forts after the
   fleet had passed them, and at this moment it seemed that there
   were no troops to be spared. It was also much to be desired
   that at least a few monitors should be added to the fleet, but
   neither were these as yet available. So the time wore on;
   winter passed into spring and spring into summer, but still
   the attack was not made. This delay was of incalculable
   advantage to the enemy, enabling him to complete his
   preparations. The Confederate force afloat in Mobile Bay was
   commanded by Admiral Franklin Buchanan. … This force consisted
   of only four vessels, but they nevertheless made an important
   addition to the defences of the place. Three of them were only
   paddle-wheel gun-boats … while the fourth was the iron-clad
   ram Tennessee … the most formidable vessel that the
   Confederates had ever built. … The City of Mobile lies at the
   head of a long bay, which is about 20 miles wide at its lower
   end. The greater portion of the bay is very shallow, too
   shallow even for vessels of moderate draft. The entrance lies
   between a long sandspit … and a shoal. … The ship-channel
   between the shoals, five miles in length, is perhaps half a
   mile wide at its narrowest point. Two forts guarded the
   passage,—on the right hand Fort Morgan, on Mobile Point, and
   on the left Fort Gaines, on Dauphin Island. … In addition to
   the land and naval defences, additional protection had been
   given by obstructions in the water. A line of piles ran out
   from Fort Gaines, which was continued nearly across the main
   ship-channel by a triple line of torpedoes. The eastern end of
   the row of torpedoes was marked by a red buoy, and between the
   buoy and Fort Morgan the channel had been left open for
   blockade runners. The open space, only 100 yards wide, lay
   directly under the guns of the fort, and it was through this
   narrow passage that Admiral Farragut intended to carry his
   fleet. The ships were gradually assembled toward the latter
   part of July. The Admiral's plan of action was simple, but in
   the highest degree effective. His fleet consisted of four
   monitors and fourteen wooden vessels, seven of the latter
   large and seven small. The wooden vessels were arranged in
   pairs, as at Port Hudson, each of the larger vessels having a
   smaller one lashed to her port side, so that if one was
   disabled the engines of the other would carry both past the
   forts. The four monitors were placed in a flanking column
   inshore, between the fleet and Fort Morgan. … At six o'clock
   on the morning of the 5th of August the fleet started with the
   flood tide. The Admiral took up his position in the port main
   rigging of the Hartford, so that he might have a good post of
   observation. [According to accounts given by officers who were
   on board the Hartford, Admiral Farragut climbed the rigging,
   after the battle began, in order to get above the thickest of
   the smoke, and Captain Drayton sent a man to lash him where he
   stood, so that, if wounded, he might not fall to the deck]. …
   Above the fort, and just beyond the obstructions, lay the
   Confederate ram Tennessee and her three attendant gunboats. …
   Soon after half-past six the Tecumseh [the leading monitor]
   fired the first two shots at Fort Morgan. For half an hour
   after this, the ships advanced in silence. Then the fort
   opened on the Brooklyn, and presently the whole line of
   vessels was hotly engaged. Their concentrated fire kept down
   that of the enemy, and all seemed at this time to be going
   well with the fleet. The Tecumseh, though all the while
   advancing, was now silent, reserving her fire for the
   Tennessee, which lay beyond the obstructions. Captain Craven
   saw the red buoy, but it seemed so close to the beach that he
   thought there must have been a mistake in his orders; and
   altering his course, he headed straight for the Tennessee,
   passing to the westward of the buoy right over the line of
   torpedoes. Suddenly there came a frightful explosion; the huge
   mass of iron gave a lurch first to one side, then to the
   other; her bow made one downward plunge, her screw was seen
   for a moment revolving high in air, and she sank to the bottom
   of the channel. Of 120 men on board only 21 were saved. … From
   the Brooklyn, leading the main column, something was now
   descried in the water ahead which resembled torpedo-buoys, and
   the sloop, with the Octorara lashed to her side, suddenly
   stopped, and in a moment they were backing down on the vessels
   astern of them. The bows of the two ships turned, falling off
   towards the fort, so that they blocked up the channel. The
   Hartford, the Admiral's flag-ship, which was next astern, also
   stopped to prevent a collision, but she was drifting fast with
   the Metacomet toward the two vessels ahead, and the Richmond
   and Port Royal were close upon them, followed by the others.
   At that moment it seemed as if nothing could save the vessels
   of the fleet from being thrown into hopeless confusion, massed
   together as they were directly under the guns of the fort. It
   was in that moment, at the crisis of the battle, that the calm
   and dauntless spirit of the Admiral rose to its greatest
   height. … 'Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!'
   came the command, in clear, ringing tones from the Admiral's
   place in the rigging.
{3538}
   In a moment the Hartford had turned, and dashing with the
   Metacomet past the Brooklyn, rushed straight over the barrier.
   Snap, snap, went the primers of the torpedoes under the bottom
   of the ship,—the officers and men could hear them,—but no
   explosion followed, and the Hartford passed safely into the
   waters above. Meanwhile the four ships lay entangled under
   Fort Morgan. A collision seemed inevitable, but Captain
   Jenkins of the Richmond, an officer of cool head and splendid
   courage, backed away from the others, and began a furious
   cannonade on the fort with his whole broadside, driving the
   enemy out of the water-batteries. The Brooklyn was by this
   means able to recover, and presently she steamed ahead,
   followed by the Richmond and the rest of the fleet. … No
   sooner was the battle with the fort over than a new battle
   began with the Tennessee. The moment that the ships had fairly
   entered the bay, the Confederate ram … came charging down the
   whole line, taking each vessel in turn," but doing no serious
   injury to any. On the arrival of the monitors, which had
   lagged behind, "the Tennessee took refuge under the guns of
   the fort, and the fleet rejoined the Hartford, now four miles
   up the bay." Meantime the Hartford and the Metacomet had
   disposed of two of the Confederate gunboats: the Selma, which
   surrendered, and the Gaines, which had been run ashore and set
   on fire. The third, the Morgan, took shelter, with the
   Tennessee, near the fort. "The Hartford had by this time come
   to anchor, and her crew went to breakfast. The other ships
   gradually joined her. But the battle was not yet over. It was
   now a little before nine o'clock, and suddenly the Tennessee
   was reported approaching." In the battle which ensued, the
   stout iron-clad was rammed repeatedly by the Monongahela, the
   Lackawanna, the Hartford and the Ossipee, and pounded by the
   terrible guns of the monitor Chickasaw, until, with her
   commander wounded, her tiller-chains and smoke stack gone, her
   port shutters jammed, and her armor starting from the frame,
   she raised the white flag. "A few days later the forts
   surrendered, and Mobile, as a Confederate port, ceased to
   exist. The fall of the city did not come about until some time
   afterward; indeed no immediate attempt was made upon it, for
   the capture of the forts and the occupation of Mobile Bay
   served every purpose of the Federal Government."

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Sailor Boys of '61,
      chapter 13._

   "This great victory cost the Union fleet 335 men. … The losses
   in the rebel fleet were 10 killed and 16 wounded—confined to
   the Tennessee and Selma—and 280 prisoners taken. The loss in
   the forts is unknown."

      _Loyal Farragut,
      Life of David Glasgow Farragut,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. O. Kinney and J. D. Johnston;
      Farragut at Mobile Bay,
      and
      The Ram Tennessee at Mobile Bay,
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _A. T. Mahan,
      The Gulf and Inland Waters
      (The Navy in the Civil War, volume 3),
      chapter 8._

      _A. T. Mahan,
      Admiral Farragut,
      chapter 10._

      _Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 39._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August-October: Virginia).
   Sheridan's Victories in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Winchester.
   Fisher's Hill.
   Cedar Creek.
   The famous Ride.

   "The events of July showed the urgent need of unity of command
   in Northern Virginia, and the lieutenant-general, in August,
   consolidated these four departments [of Washington, the
   Susquehanna, West Virginia and the Middle Department] into
   one, named the Middle Military Division, under General Hunter.
   That officer, however, before entering on the proposed
   campaign, expressed a willingness to be relieved, and General
   P. H. Sheridan, who had been transferred from the Army of the
   Potomac to the command of the forces in the field under
   Hunter, was appointed in his stead." General Sheridan was
   appointed to the command on the 7th of August, and took the
   field with an effective force (which included the Sixth and
   Nineteenth Corps) of 40,000 men, 10,000 being cavalry. "His
   operations during that month and the fore part of September
   were mainly confined to manœuvres having for their object to
   prevent the Confederates from gaining the rich harvests of the
   Shenandoah Valley. But after once or twice driving Early
   southward to Strasburg, he each time returned on his path
   towards Harper's Ferry. General Grant had hesitated in
   allowing Sheridan to take a real initiative, as defeat would
   lay open to the enemy the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania
   before another army could be interposed to check him. Finding,
   however, while on a personal visit to General Sheridan, in the
   month of September, that that officer expressed great
   confidence of success, he authorized him to attack. At this
   time the Confederate force held the west bank of Opequan
   Creek, covering Winchester; and the Union force lay in front
   of Berryville, twenty miles south of Harper's Ferry. The
   situation of the opposing armies was peculiar: each threatened
   the communications of the other, and either could bring on a
   battle at any time. It would appear that General Early had
   designed assuming the offensive." He made a movement which
   General Sheridan was prompt to take advantage of, on the
   morning of September 19th, and a battle ensued—known as the
   battle of Winchester, but some times called the battle of
   Opequan Creek—which resulted in a victory for the latter. "It
   is due to state that there was a great disparity in the
   numbers engaged—Early's force consisting of 8,500 muskets and
   3,000 sabres, while Sheridan's strength was thrice that of the
   aggregate Confederate force. Sheridan's preponderance in horse
   enabled him to extend far beyond and overlap the Confederate
   left, and when, after several hours of indecisive fighting
   between the infantry, a general advance was, at four P. M.,
   made by the whole line, the cavalry, by an impetuous charge,
   carried the fortified heights: the Confederates … broke in
   confusion, retiring from the field and through Winchester,
   with the Union forces in pursuit. Night, however, prevented
   Sheridan from following up the victory, among the trophies of
   which were 2,500 prisoners, five pieces of artillery, and nine
   battle-flags. … After his defeat at Winchester, Early did not
   pause in his southward retreat till he reached Fisher's Hill,
   near Strasburg, 30 miles south of Winchester. This is a very
   defensible position, commanding the débouché of the narrow
   Strasburg valley between the north fork of the Shenandoah
   River and the North Mountain. On these obstacles Early rested
   his flank. In front of this position Sheridan arrived on the
   morning of the 22d and formed his force for a direct attack,
   while he sent Torbert with two divisions of cavalry by the
   parallel Luray Valley, to gain New Market, 20 miles in Early's
   rear. After much manœuvring, and several ineffectual efforts
   to force the position, an attack of cavalry was made from the
   right.
{3539}
   Under cover of this mask a corps of infantry was moved to that
   flank, and by an impetuous assault carried the Confederate
   left resting on the North Mountain. A general attack in front
   then disrupted Early's whole line, and the Confederates
   retired in great disorder, leaving behind 16 pieces of
   artillery and several hundred prisoners. … Early's retreat was
   not stayed until he reached the lower passes of the Blue
   Ridge, whither he retired with a loss of half his army.
   Sheridan, after pushing the pursuit as far as Staunton, and
   operating destructively against the Virginia Central Railroad,
   returned and took position behind Cedar Creek near Strasburg.
   Previously to abandoning the country south of Strasburg, it
   was laid waste by the destruction of all barns, grain, forage,
   farming implements, and mills. The desolution of the
   Palatinate by Turenne was not more complete. On the withdrawal
   of Sheridan, Early, after a brief respite, and being
   re-enforced by Kershaw's division of infantry and 600 cavalry
   from Lee's army, again marched northward down the Valley, and
   once more ensconced himself at Fisher's Hill. Sheridan
   continued to hold position on the north bank of Cedar Creek.
   Nothing more important than cavalry combats, mostly favorable
   to the Federal arms, took place, until the 19th of October,
   when Early assumed a bold offensive that was near giving him a
   victory as complete as the defeat he had suffered. … The army
   was, at this time, temporarily under the command of General
   Wright—Sheridan being absent at Washington. The position held
   by the Union force was too formidable to invite open attack,
   and Early's only opportunity was to make a surprise. This that
   officer now determined on, and its execution was begun during
   the night of the 18-19th of October." A flanking column,
   "favored by a heavy fog … attained, unperceived, the rear of
   the left flank of the Union force, formed by Crook's Corps …
   and rushed into the camp—the troops awaking only to find
   themselves prisoners. To rally the men in their bewilderment
   was impossible, and Crook's Corps, being thoroughly broken up,
   fled in disorder, leaving many guns in the hands of the enemy.
   As soon as this flank attack was developed, Early, with his
   other column, emerged from behind the hills west of Cedar
   Creek, and crossing that stream, struck directly the troops on
   the right of Crook. This served to complete the disaster, and
   the whole Union left and centre became a confused mass,
   against which the Confederates directed the captured artillery
   (18 guns), while the flanking force swept forward to the main
   turnpike. Such was the scene on which the light of day dawned.
   The only force not yet involved in the enemy's onset was the
   Sixth Corps, which by its position was somewhat in rear. With
   this General Ricketts quickly executed a change of front,
   throwing it forward at right angles to its former position,
   and firmly withstood the enemy's shock. Its chief service was,
   however, to cover the general retreat which Wright now
   ordered, as the only practicable means of reuniting his force.
   … At the first good position between Middletown and Newtown,
   Wright was able to rally and reform the troops, form a compact
   line, and prepare either to resist further attack, or himself
   resume the offensive. It was at this time, about half-past ten
   A. M., that General Sheridan arrived upon the field from
   Winchester, where he had slept the previous night. Hearing the
   distant sounds of battle rolling up from the south, Sheridan
   rode post to the front, where arriving, his electric manner
   had on the troops a very inspiriting effect. General Wright
   had already brought order out of confusion and made
   dispositions for attack. … A counter-charge was begun at three
   o'clock in the afternoon. … A large part of Early's force, in
   the intoxication of success, had abandoned their colors and
   taken to plundering the abandoned Federal camps. The refluent
   wave was as resistless as the Confederate surge had been. …
   The retreat soon became a rout. … In the pursuit all the
   captured guns were retaken and 23 in addition, The captures
   included, besides, near 1,500 prisoners. … With this defeat of
   Early all operations of moment in the Shenandoah forever
   ended," and most of the troops on both sides were recalled to
   the main field of operations, at Petersburg.

      _W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 12, part 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864,
      chapters 7-13._

      _M. M. Granger,
      The Battle of Cedar Creek
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery,
      L. L. of the United States, volume 3)._

      _W. Merritt,
      Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley._

      _J. A. Early,
      Winchester, Fisher's Hill, and Cedar Creek
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps,
      chapters 33-34._

      _H. C. King,
      The Battle of Cedar Creek
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      New York Com. L. L. of the United States)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (September-October: Georgia)
   Atlanta cleared of its former inhabitants.
   Sherman's Preparations for the March to the Sea.
   Hood's Raid to the rear.

   "During the month of September, Sherman's army remained
   grouped about Atlanta. … The Army of the Cumberland, under
   Major-General Thomas, held Atlanta; the Army of the Tennessee,
   commanded by Major-General Howard, was at East Point; and the
   Army of the Ohio occupied Decatur. … Sherman now determined to
   make Atlanta exclusively a military post. On the 4th of
   September he issued the following orders: 'The city of Atlanta
   belonging exclusively for warlike purposes, it will at once be
   vacated by all except the armies of the United States and such
   civilian employes as may be retained by the proper departments
   of the Government.' … This order fell upon the ears of the
   inhabitants of Atlanta like a thunderbolt." To a remonstrance
   addressed to him by the mayor and two councilmen of the city,
   he replied: "We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in
   all America. To secure this we must stop the war that now
   desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop the war,
   we must defeat the rebel armies that are arrayed against the
   laws and Constitution, which all must respect and obey. To
   defeat these armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in
   their recesses. … My military plans make it necessary for the
   inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of
   services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and
   comfortable as possible. … War is cruelty and you cannot
   refine it; and those who brought war on our country deserve
   all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. … You
   might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against
   these terrible hardships of war." A truce of ten days was
   arranged, during which "446 families were moved south,
   comprising 705 adults, 860 children and 79 servants, with an
   average of 1,651 pounds of furniture and household goods of
   all kinds to each family."

      _S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapter 18._

{3540}

   "General Hood, meanwhile, kept his forces in the neighborhood of
   Jonesboro, receiving his supplies by the Macon road. His army
   numbered about 40,000 men, exclusive of the Georgia militia;
   and, as if to show that no immediate offensive movement was
   contemplated, the latter were withdrawn from him by Governor
   Brown soon after the evacuation of Atlanta. … To allow their
   principal Southern army to rust in inactivity, was not however
   the intention of the rebel authorities. … Something must be
   done, and that speedily, to arrest the progress of the Federal
   army, or Georgia and perhaps the Gulf States, would be
   irretrievably lost. … The whole army of General Hood, it was
   decided, should rapidly move in a compact body to the rear of
   Atlanta, and, after breaking up the railroad between the
   Chattahoochee and Chattanooga, push on to Bridgeport and
   destroy the great railroad bridge spanning the Tennessee river
   at that place. Should this be accomplished, Atlanta would be
   isolated from Chattanooga, and the latter in turn isolated
   from Nashville, and General Sherman, cut off from his primary
   and secondary bases, would find Atlanta but a barren conquest
   to be relinquished almost as soon as gained, and would be
   obliged to return to Tennessee. Atlanta would then fall from
   lack of provisions, or in consequence of the successful
   attacks of the Georgia militia. In connection with this
   movement, General Forrest, confessedly their ablest cavalry
   officer, was already operating in Southern Tennessee. … A week
   sufficed to complete General Hood's arrangements, and by the
   2d of October his army was across the Chattahoochee and on the
   march to Dallas, where the different corps were directed to
   concentrate. At this point he was enabled to threaten Rome and
   Kingston, as well as the fortified places on the railroad to
   Chattanooga; and there remained open, in case of defeat, a
   line of retreat southwest into Alabama. From Dallas he
   advanced east toward the railroad, and, on the 4th, captured
   the insignificant stations of Big Shanty and Ackworth,
   effecting a thorough destruction of the road between the two
   places. He also sent a division under General French to
   capture the Federal post at Allatoona Pass, where he had
   ascertained that a million and a half of rations for the
   Federal army were stored, on which he probably depended to
   replenish his commissariat. … General Sherman, … immediately
   upon hearing that General Hood had crossed the Chattahoochee,
   … despatched General Corse with reënforcements to Rome, which
   he supposed the enemy were aiming at. During the previous week
   he had sent General Thomas with troops to Nashville to look
   after Forrest. His bridges having meanwhile been carried away
   by a freshet which filled the Chattahoochee, he was unable to
   move his main body until the 4th, when three pontoons were
   laid down, over which the armies of the Cumberland, the
   Tennessee, and the Ohio crossed, and took up their march in
   the direction of Marietta, with 15 days' rations. The 20th
   corps, General Slocum, was left to garrison Atlanta. Learning
   that the enemy had captured Big Shanty and Ackworth, and were
   threatening Allatoona, and alive to the imperative necessity
   of holding the latter place, General Sherman at once
   communicated by signals instruction to General Corse at Rome
   to reënforce the small garrison and hold the defences until
   the main body of the Federal army could come to his
   assistance. Upon receiving the message General Corse placed
   900 men on the cars, and reached Allatoona before the attack
   of French. With this addition the garrison numbered 1,700 men,
   with six guns. Early on the morning of the 5th, General
   French, with 7,000 troops, approached Allatoona, and summoned
   the Federal commander, 'in order to save the unnecessary
   effusion of blood,' to make an immediate surrender; to which
   the latter replied: 'I shall not surrender, and you can
   commence the unnecessary effusion of blood whenever you
   please.' The battle opened at 8 A. M., and was waged hotly
   until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Driven from fort to fort,
   until they reached their last defence, the garrison fought
   with an obstinacy and desperation worthy of the great stake
   for which they contended. Their general was wounded early in
   the action, but relaxed in no degree his efforts to repel the
   enemy. … During the heat of the contest General Sherman
   reached the summit of Kenesaw Mountain, whence he repeatedly
   signalled to General Corse to hold out to the last. The
   announcement of approaching succor animated the garrison to
   renewed exertions, and they threw back the assaulting columns
   of the enemy again and again, finally compelling them to
   retire, beaten and disheartened, in the direction of Dallas.
   Their retreat was hastened by the rapid approach of Stanley's
   (4th) corps from the direction of Pine Mountain. The enemy
   left 700 to 800 killed, wounded and prisoners in the hands of
   the Federals, and their total loss must have exceeded 1,000.
   The garrison lost 600 men. The town of Allatoona was reduced
   to a mere wreck by the [severe fire of the enemy, and all the
   Federal artillery and cavalry horses were killed; but the
   valuable stores were saved, and the fort and pass held. The
   only important injury done by the rebels, was the destruction
   of six or seven miles of railroad between Big Shanty and
   Allatoona, which General Sherman immediately commenced to
   repair. For several days subsequent to the fight at Allatoona,
   General Sherman remained in the latter place, watching the
   movements of Hood, who, he suspected, would march for Rome,
   and thence toward Bridgeport, or else to Kingston. … General
   Hood, however, crossing the Etowah and avoiding Rome, moved
   directly north, and on the 12th Stuart's corps of his army
   appeared in front of Resaca, the defences of which were held
   by Colonel Weaver with 600 men and three pieces of artillery.
   … No serious attack was made upon the garrison, the enemy
   being more intent upon destroying the railroad toward Dalton
   than wasting their time or strength upon the reduction of a
   post, the possession of which they wisely considered would be
   of no particular advantage to them. … Meanwhile the rebel
   army, pursuing its devastating march north, reached Dalton on
   the 14th. … The 14th and 15th were employed by the enemy in
   continuing the destruction of the railroad as far as Tunnel
   Hill. …
{3541}
   The approach of the Federal columns now warned General Hood to
   move off to the west, and the 16th found him in full retreat
   for Lafayette, followed by General Sherman. … From Lafayette
   the enemy retreated in a southwesterly direction into Alabama
   through a broken and mountainous country, but scantily
   supplied with food for man or beast; and passing through
   Summerville, Gaylesville, and Blue Pond, halted at Gadsdens,
   on the Coosa River, 75 miles from Lafayette. Here he paused
   for several days, receiving a few reënforcements brought up by
   General Beauregard, who had on the 17th assumed command of the
   Confederate military division of the West. … General Hood
   still retained his special command, subject to the supervision
   or direction of General Beauregard, and his army, after
   remaining a few days in Gadsden, moved, about the 1st of
   November, for Warrington, on the Tennessee River, 30 miles
   distant. General Sherman meanwhile remained at Gaylesville,
   which place his main body reached about the 21st, watching the
   enemy's movements. … Whatever … might be the final result of
   Hood's flanking movement, it had entirely failed to interrupt
   the Federal communications to a degree that would compel the
   evacuation of Atlanta. … In the light of subsequent events it
   would now appear that General Sherman, making only a show of
   following his adversary, deliberately lured him into Northern
   Alabama, for the purpose of pursuing an uninterrupted march
   with his own army through the heart of Georgia. The
   ill-advised plan of General Hood had given him the very
   opportunity which he desired, and he prepared at once to avail
   himself of it."

      _W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History in the United States,
      chapter 45. _

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Cox,
      Atlanta
      (Campaigns of the Civil war, volume 9),
      chapter 17._

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

      _T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of Major-General George H. Thomas,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      _J. B. Hood,
      Advance and Retreat,
      chapter 15._

      _Official Records,
      1st Series, volume 39._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   Admission of Nevada into the Union.

      See NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   Report on secret disloyal associations in the North.
   Knights of the Golden Circle, etc.

   "During more than a year past [this report bears date October
   8, 1864], it has been generally known to our military
   authorities that a secret and treasonable organization,
   affiliated with the Southern Rebellion, and chiefly military
   in its character, has been rapidly extending itself throughout
   the West. A variety of agencies … have been employed, and
   successfully, to ascertain its nature and extent, as well as
   its aims and its results; and, as this investigation has led
   to the arrest, in several States, of a number of its prominent
   members, as dangerous public enemies, it has been deemed
   proper to set forth in full the acts and purposes of this
   organization. … This secret association first developed itself
   in the West in the year 1862, about the period [August] of the
   first conscription of troops, which it aimed to obstruct and
   resist. Originally known in certain localities as the 'Mutual
   Protection Society,' the 'Circle of Honor,' or the 'Circle' or
   'Knights of the Mighty Host,' but more widely as the 'Knights
   of the Golden Circle,' it was simply an inspiration of the
   Rebellion, being little other than an extension, among the
   disloyal and disaffected at the North, of the association of
   the latter name, which had existed for some years at the South
   [see GOLDEN CIRCLE, KNIGHTS OF], and from which it derived all
   the chief features of its organization. During the Summer and
   Fall of 1863, the Order, both at the North and South,
   underwent some modifications as well as a change of name. In
   consequence of a partial exposure which had been made of the
   signs and ritual of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Sterling
   Price had instituted, as its successor in Missouri, a secret
   political association, which he called the Corps de Belgique,
   or Southern League, his principal coadjutor being Charles L.
   Hunt, of St. Louis, then Belgian Consul at that city. …
   Meanwhile, also, there had been instituted at the North, in
   the autumn of 1863, by sundry disloyal persons, prominent
   among whom were Vallandigham and P. C. Wright, of New York, a
   secret, Order intended to be general throughout the country …
   and which was termed, and has since been widely known as the
   O. A. K., or 'Order of American Knights.' … The secret signs
   and character of the Order having become known to our military
   authorities, further modifications in the ritual and forms
   were introduced, and its name was finally changed to that of
   the O. S. L., or 'Order of the Sons of Liberty,' or the
   'Knights of the Order of the Sons of Liberty.' These later
   changes are represented to have been first instituted … in May
   last [1864], but the new name was at once generally adopted
   throughout the West, though in some localities the association
   is still better known as the 'Order of American Knights.'
   Meanwhile, also, the Order has received certain local
   designations. In parts of Illinois it has been called at times
   the 'Peace Organization,' in Kentucky the 'Star Organization,'
   and in Missouri the 'American Organization;' these, however,
   being apparently names used outside of the lodges of the
   Order. Its members have also been familiarly designated as
   'Butternuts' by the country people of Illinois, Indiana, and
   Ohio. … The 'Temples' or 'Lodges' of the Order are numerously
   scattered through the States of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio,
   Missouri, and Kentucky. They are also officially reported as
   established, to a less extent, in Michigan and the other
   Western States, as well as in New York, Pennsylvania, New
   Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland,
   Delaware, and Tennessee. … It has been asserted by delegates
   to the Supreme Council of February last, that the number was
   there represented to be from 800,000 to 1,000,000; but
   Vallandigham, in his speech last summer at Dayton, Ohio,
   placed it at 500,000, which is probably much nearer the true
   total. … Although the Order has, from the outset, partaken of
   the military character, it was not till the summer or fall of
   1863 that it began to be generally organized as an armed
   body.' … In March last the entire armed force of the Order
   capable of being mobilized for effective service was
   represented to be 340,000 men."

      _J. Holt,
      Judge Advocate General's Report on Secret Associations
      and Conspiracies against the Government._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States
      during the Great Rebellion,
      appendix, pages 445-454._

      _J. A. Logan,
      The Great Conspiracy,
      page 499, and appendix chapter B._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 1._

      See, also, COPPERHEADS.

{3542}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   The St. Albans Raid.

   "Along the Northern border … the rebel agents, sent thither on
   'detached service' by the Rebel Government, were active in
   movements intended to terrify and harass the people. On the
   19th of October, a party of them made a raid into St. Albans,
   Vermont, robbing the banks there, and making their escape
   across the lines into Canada with their plunder, having killed
   one of the citizens in their attack. Pursuit was made, and
   several of the marauders were arrested in Canada. Proceedings
   were commenced to procure their extradition [which were
   protracted until after the close of the war]. … The Government
   received information that this affair was but one of a
   projected series, and that similar attempts would be made all
   along the frontier. More than this, there were threats,
   followed by actual attempts, to set fire to the principal
   Northern cities."

      _H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      page 611._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 1._

      _Correspondence relating to the Fenian Invasion
      and the Rebellion of the Southern States
      (Ottawa, 1869), pages 117-138._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October: North Carolina).
   The destruction of the ram Albemarle.

   The ram Albemarle, which had proved in the spring so dangerous
   an antagonist to the blockading vessels in the North Carolina
   Sounds, was still lying at Plymouth, in the Roanoke River, and
   another attack from her was feared by the fleet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA).

   "She was finally destroyed by a brave young lieutenant,
   William B. Cushing, who blew her up with a torpedo. Though
   only twenty years old, he was one of the most daring officers
   in the navy, and he had become noted for his fearlessness in
   the expeditions in the sounds and rivers of North Carolina.
   One dark night (October 27) he set out from the fleet in a
   steam launch—a long open boat used by naval vessels—with a
   crew of thirteen officers and men. The launch was fitted with
   a torpedo which could be run out forward on the end of a long
   boom so as to be thrust under the vessel to be attacked.
   Cushing got within sixty feet of the Albemarle before his boat
   was seen. The guards then shouted the alarm, rang the boat's
   bell, and began firing their muskets at the launch. There was
   a raft of logs thirty feet wide around the Albemarle to
   protect her from just such attacks, but Cushing ran the bow of
   the launch upon the logs, lowered the boom so that the torpedo
   came right under the side of the vessel, and fired it. At the
   same moment a shot from one of the great guns of the ram
   crashed through the launch, and it was overwhelmed by a flood
   of water thrown up by the explosion of the torpedo. The
   Confederates called out to Cushing to surrender, but he
   refused, and ordering his men to save themselves as they best
   could, he sprang into the water amid a shower of musket balls
   and swam down the river. He succeeded in reaching the shore,
   almost exhausted, and hid himself during the next day in a
   swamp, where he was cared for by some negroes. From them he
   heard that the Albemarle had been sunk by his torpedo. The
   next night he found a small boat in a creek, paddled in it
   down the river, and before midnight was safe on board one of
   the vessels of the fleet. Only one other man of the party
   escaped, all the rest being either drowned or captured. The
   Albemarle being thus put out of the way, Plymouth was
   recaptured a few days afterward."

      _J. D. Champlin, Jr.
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Cushing, E. Holden, and others,
      The Confederate Ram Albemarle
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (November: Tennessee).
   Hood's advance Northward.
   The Battle of Franklin.

   When General Sherman started on his march to the sea General
   Thomas was left to oppose Hood. "The force Thomas had for this
   purpose was curiously small, considering how formidable Hood's
   army had been in the Atlanta Campaign, and still was. All
   Thomas had for immediate field service were the Fourth and
   Twenty-Third Corps, numbering together about 22,000 infantry,
   and also about 3,000 cavalry. These troops were sent to
   Pulaski, Tennessee, in command of General Schofield, Thomas,
   himself remaining at Nashville. A little after the middle of
   November, 1864, Hood crossed the Tennessee River and
   inaugurated his campaign by a flank movement. He made a rapid
   march upon Columbia, with the view of getting in behind
   Schofield, who was at Pulaski. But Schofield retired to
   Columbia in time to frustrate Hood's plans. The two armies
   remained in close proximity to each other at Columbia until
   November 28th, when Hood made another skilfully-planned flank
   movement … to Spring Hill, in rear of Schofield. Again Hood
   was foiled. … General Thomas at Nashville wanted the
   Confederates held back as long as possible, in order that he
   might have time to receive there his expected reinforcement of
   A. J. Smith's corps. It was, therefore, Schofield's duty to
   check Hood's advance as long as he could. … He started General
   Stanley, with a division of 5,000 men, and a great part of his
   artillery, to Spring Hill (12 miles north of Columbia) early
   in the morning. He put two other divisions on the road. He
   held one division in front of Columbia, and prevented the
   enemy from crossing the river during the entire day, and also
   that night. Stanley reached Spring Hill in time to prevent
   Hood from occupying that place. He skirmished and fought with
   Hood's advance troops at Spring Hill during the afternoon of
   November 29th. … Schofield … accomplished exactly what he
   believed he could accomplish. He held back his enemy at
   Columbia with one hand and fenced off the blow at Spring Hill
   with the other. … The beneficial result of all this bold
   management of Schofield, November 29th, was apparent the next
   day in the battle of Franklin. Hood fought that great battle
   practically without his artillery. He only had the two
   batteries which he took with him on his detour to Spring Hill.
   Those two he used. … But his vast supply of artillery had all
   been detained at Columbia too long to be of any service at the
   time and place it was most needed. … The Federal troops left
   Spring Hill in the night for Franklin, ten miles distant.
   Early in the morning of November 30th they began to arrive at
   Franklin, and were placed in position covering the town. Early
   the same morning the Confederates moved up from Spring Hill,
   following hard upon the rearmost of the Federals. …
{3543}
   General Stanley says, in his official report: 'From one
   o'clock until four in the evening, the enemy's entire force
   was in sight and forming for attack. Yet, in view of the
   strong position we held, and reasoning from the former course
   of the rebels during the campaign, nothing appeared so
   improbable as that they would assault.'" The assault was made,
   however, with a terrible persistency which proved the ruin of
   Hood's army, for it failed. "The Confederate loss in this
   dreadful battle can be estimated from data given. There is
   good authority for stating the killed at 1,750. The usual
   proportion of killed and wounded is four or five to one. This
   would make the killed and wounded not less than 7,000 or
   8,000. The attacking force numbered full 20,000. … Hood's loss
   was, indeed, more than one-third of the attacking force. The
   Federal loss was much smaller, being 1,222 killed and wounded.
   … One of the features of this battle was the enormous
   expenditure of ammunition [100 wagon loads] in the short time
   of its duration. … The expenditure of so much ammunition
   produced a dense smoke, which hung over the field, and brought
   on sudden darkness, like an eclipse. So noticeable was this
   phenomenon, it is mentioned in all the official reports. … In
   the darkness of the night the battle ended. The Confederates
   desisted, and the Federal line became quiet. … In their front,
   and so near that the outstretched hand could almost reach
   them, were thousands of men in the agonies of death. The wail
   that went up from that field as the thunder of the battle
   ceased can never be forgotten by those who heard it. … The
   [Federal] troops were quietly withdrawn before midnight. A
   silent rapid march brought them to Nashville the next morning,
   and weary with fighting and marching they bivouacked in the
   blue grass pastures under the guns of Fort Negley."

      _T. Speed,
      The Battle of Franklin
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3). _

      ALSO IN:
      _T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of General George H. Thomas,
      chapter 13._

      _J. B. Hood,
      Advance and Retreat,
      chapters 10-17._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (November-December: Georgia).
   Sherman's March to the Sea.

   "It was at Alatoona, probably, that Sherman first realized
   that, with the forces at his disposal, the keeping open of his
   line of communications with the North would be impossible if
   he expected to retain any force with which to operate
   offensively beyond Atlanta.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (September-October: Georgia).

   He proposed, therefore, to destroy the roads back to
   Chattanooga, when all ready to move, and leave the latter
   place garrisoned. … Sherman thought Hood would follow him,
   though he proposed to prepare for the contingency of the
   latter moving the other way while he was moving south, by
   making Thomas strong enough to hold Tennessee and Kentucky. I
   myself [writes General Grant] was thoroughly satisfied that
   Hood would go north, as he did. On the 2d of November I
   telegraphed Sherman authorizing him definitely to move
   according to the plan he had proposed: that is, cutting loose
   from his base, giving up Atlanta and the railroad back to
   Chattanooga. … Atlanta was destroyed so far as to render it
   worthless for military purposes before starting, Sherman
   himself remaining over a day to superintend the work and see
   that it was well done. Sherman's orders for this campaign were
   perfect. Before starting, he had sent back all sick, disabled
   and weak men, retaining nothing but the hardy, well-inured
   soldiers to accompany him on his long march in prospect. … The
   army was expected to live on the country. … Each brigade
   furnished a company to gather supplies of forage and
   provisions for the command to which they belonged. … The skill
   of these men, called by themselves and the army 'bummers,' in
   collecting their loads and getting back to their respective
   commands, was marvellous."

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 59 (volume 2)._

   All preparations being completed, General Sherman caused the
   foundries, mills and shops of every kind in Rome to be
   destroyed on the 10th of November, and "started on the 12th
   with his full staff from Kingston to Atlanta. … As Sherman
   rode towards Atlanta that night he met railroad trains going
   to the rear with furious speed. He was profoundly impressed
   with the strange aspect of affairs: two hostile armies
   marching in opposite directions, each in the full belief that
   it was achieving a final and conclusive result in the great
   war. 'I was strongly inspired,' he writes, 'with a feeling
   that the movement on our part was a direct attack upon the
   rebel army and the rebel capital at Richmond, though a full
   thousand miles of hostile country intervened; and that for
   better or worse it would end the war.' The result was a
   magnificent vindication of this soldierly intuition. His army
   consisted in round numbers of 60,000 men, the most perfect in
   strength, health, and intelligence that ever went to war. He
   had thoroughly purged it of all inefficient material, sending
   to the rear all organizations and even all individuals that he
   thought would be a drag upon his celerity or strength. His
   right wing, under Howard, consisted of the Fifteenth Corps,
   commanded by Osterhaus, in the absence of John A. Logan; and
   the Seventeenth Corps, commanded by Frank P. Blair, Jr. The
   left wing, commanded by Slocum, comprised the Fourteenth
   Corps, under Jeff. C. Davis, and the Twentieth Corps, under A.
   S. Williams. In his general orders he had not intimated to the
   army the object of their march. 'It is sufficient for you to
   know,' he said, 'that it involves a departure from our present
   base and a long, difficult march to a new one.' His special
   field orders are a model of clearness and conciseness. The
   habitual order of march was to be, wherever practicable, by
   four roads as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at
   points to be indicated from time to time. There was to be no
   general train of supplies; behind each regiment should follow
   one wagon and one ambulance; a due proportion of wagons for
   ammunition and provision behind each brigade; the separate
   columns were to start at seven in the morning and make about
   fifteen miles a day. The army was to subsist liberally on the
   country; forage parties, under the command of discreet
   officers, were to gather near the routes traveled whatever was
   needed by the command, aiming to keep in the wagons a reserve
   of at least ten days' provisions; soldiers were strictly
   forbidden to enter dwellings of inhabitants or commit
   trespasses; the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton gins,
   etc., was intrusted to corps commanders alone.
{3544}
   No destruction of property was to be permitted in districts
   where the army was unmolested; but relentless devastation was
   ordered in case of the manifestation of local hostility by the
   shooting of soldiers or the burning of bridges. … Precisely at
   seven o'clock on the morning of the 16th of November the great
   army started on its march. A band struck up the anthem of
   'John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave'; the
   soldiers caught up the refrain, and, to the swelling chorus of
   'Glory, Hallelujah,' the great march was begun. The month that
   followed will always remain to those 60,000 men the most
   romantic and inspiring memory of their lives. The weather was
   favorable all the way; to veterans the marches were of
   reasonable length; the work of destroying the Southern
   railroads was so easy to their experienced hands that it
   hardly delayed the day's march. With the exception of the
   affair on the 22d of November, when P. J. Phillips with a
   division of Smith's Georgia troops attacked C. C. Walcutt's
   Brigade, which was marching as the rear-guard of the right
   wing at Griswoldville, and met with a severe repulse, and a
   series of cavalry fights between Wheeler and Kilpatrick near
   'Waynesboro', there was no fighting to do between Atlanta and
   Savannah. A swarm of militia and irregular cavalry hung, it is
   true, about the front and flank of the marching army, but were
   hardly a source of more annoyance than so many mosquitoes
   would have been. The foragers brought in every evening their
   heterogeneous supplies from the outlying plantations, and
   although they had to defend themselves every day from
   scattered forces of the enemy, the casualties which they
   reported each evening were insignificant. The utmost efforts
   of Sherman and his officers to induce the negroes to remain
   quietly at home were not entirely successful. The promise of
   freedom which was to come to them from the victory of the
   Union cause was too vague and indefinite to content them. …
   The simple-hearted freedmen gathered in an ever-increasing
   cloud in rear of the army; and when the campaign was over they
   peopled the sea-islands of Georgia and furnished, after the
   war, the principal employment of the Freedmen's Commission.
   The march produced an extraordinary effervescence throughout
   the Confederacy. If words could avail anything against heavy
   battalions, Sherman would have been annihilated in his first
   day's march. … As Sherman drew near to Milledgeville on the
   23d of November the Georgia Legislature passed an act to levy
   the population en masse; but this act of desperate legislation
   had no effect in checking the march of the 'Yankees,' and the
   Governor, State officers, and Legislature fled in the utmost
   confusion as Sherman entered the place. The Union general
   occupied the Executive Mansion for a day; some of the soldiers
   went to the State House, organized themselves into a
   constituent assembly, and after a spirited mock-serious
   debate, repealed the ordinance of secession. Sherman took the
   greatest possible pains to prevent any damage to the city and
   marched out on the 24th on the way to Millen. … Finding it
   impossible to stop him, the Georgia State troops by sharp
   marching had made their way directly to the vicinity of
   Savannah, where Sherman himself arrived and invested the city
   from the Savannah to the little Ogeechee River, on the 10th of
   December."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 9, chapter 20._

   On the 13th, Fort McAllister, which commanded the Ogeechee
   River, was stormed and taken by Hazen's division, and
   communication was opened with Admiral Dahlgren, and with
   General Foster, the Union commander at Port Royal. On the
   17th, General Hardee, the Confederate commander at Savannah,
   refused a demand for the surrender of the city, but on the
   night of the 20th he escaped, with his forces, and on the 22d
   General Sherman telegraphed to President Lincoln: "I beg to
   present to you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah, with
   150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition; also about 25,000
   bales of cotton."

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 10),
      chapter 3._

      _O. O. Howard, and others,
      Sherman's March
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

      _G. W. Nichols,
      The Story of the Great March._

      _W. B. Hazen,
      Narrative of Military Service,
      chapters 21-22._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (December: Tennessee).
   The Battle of Nashville and the destruction of Hood's army.

   After the battle of Franklin Hood went forward to Nashville,
   with his badly shaken army, and invested that place.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   Thomas was strongly fortified, and quietly took his time to
   make ready before striking his audacious antagonist, unmoved
   by repeated demands for an advance, from the War Office, the
   President, and General Grant. "With all just confidence in
   Thomas' ability, the entire North insisted on instant action,
   and Grant finally ordered Thomas either to move upon Hood at
   once or else turn over the command to Schofield. Thomas
   quietly replied that he would cheerfully do the latter, if
   directed, but would not attack Hood until he was satisfied
   that the time was ripe. He desired both favorable weather and
   to increase his force of mounted men. But the enemy was
   devastating a considerable part of Tennessee and was forcing
   all the young men into their ranks; and everyone was fearful
   of a repetition of Bragg's march to the Ohio in 1862. Logan
   was finally ordered to Nashville to supplant Thomas. But
   before he could reach the ground, Thomas had struck his blow.
   His preparations had been two weeks before substantially
   completed. Small detachments were at Murfreesboro',
   Chattanooga, and along the railroad. This latter had been,
   however, interrupted by Hood for a number of days. A heavy
   storm of sleet and ice had made the country almost impassable
   and would render the operations of the attacking party
   uncertain. Thomas had made up his mind to wait for clearing
   weather. Finally came sunshine and with it Thomas' advance.
   Hood lay in his front, with Stewart on his left, Lee in the
   centre and Cheatham on the right, while a portion of Forrest's
   cavalry was operating out upon his left. He had some 44,000
   men, but his check and heavy losses at Franklin had seriously
   impaired the 'morale' of his army as well as thinned his
   ranks. Hood could, however, not retreat. He was committed to a
   death-struggle with Thomas. It was his last chance as a
   soldier. The Union general had placed A. J. Smith on his
   right, the Fourth corps in the centre, and Schofield on the
   left. He advanced on Hood, bearing heavily with his right,
   while sharply demonstrating with his left. The position of the
   Confederate Army had placed A. J. Smith's corps obliquely to
   their general line of battle, an advantage not to be
   neglected.
{3545}
   Smith pushed in, later supported by Schofield, and
   successively capturing the field-works erected by the enemy's
   main line and reserves, disastrously crushed Hood's left
   flank. Meanwhile Wood was making all but equal headway against
   Hood's right, and the first day closed with remarkable success
   for the amount of loss sustained. Still this was not victory.
   The morrow might bring reverse. Hood's fight promised to be
   with clenched teeth. Hood seriously missed Forrest, whom he
   had detached on a raiding excursion and without whose cavalry
   his flanks were naked. Cheatham he moved during the night over
   from the right to sustain his left, which had proved the
   weaker wing. On the morning of the next day he lay intrenched
   upon the hills back of his former line, with either flank
   somewhat refused. Thomas sent Wilson with his cavalry to work
   his way unobserved around the extreme left flank thus thrown
   back. At 4 P. M. a general assault was made all along the
   line. Upon our left, Wood's advance did not meet with success.
   On the right, however, A. J. Smith's onset, concentrated at
   the salient of Hood's left centre, proved heavy enough to
   break down the Confederate defense. Sharply following up his
   successes, allowing no breathing time to the exultant troops,
   Smith pushed well home, and overcoming all resistance, drove
   the enemy in wild confusion from the field. Meanwhile Wilson's
   troopers, dismounted, fell upon the Confederate flank and rear
   and increased the wreck tenfold. This advantage again enabled
   Wood to make some headway, and with renewed joint effort the
   rout of the enemy became overwhelming. Almost all organization
   was lost in Hood's army as it fled across the country towards
   Franklin. Pursuit was promptly undertaken, but though
   seriously harassed, Hood saved himself beyond the Tennessee
   river with the remnants of his army. Thomas' losses were 3,000
   men, Hood's were never officially given, but our trophies
   included 4,500 prisoners and 53 guns. Thomas had settled all
   adverse speculation upon his slowness in attacking Hood by the
   next to annihilation he wrought when he actually moved upon
   him. No army was so completely overthrown during our war."

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of our Civil War,
      chapter 58._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapter 35 (volume 2)._

      _W. Swinton,
      The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 11._

      _J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea, Franklin and Nashville
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 10),
      chapters 6-7._

      _H. Stone,
      Repelling Hood's Invasion
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _H. Coppée,
      General Thomas,
      chapter 11-12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
(December-January: North Carolina).
   The Capture of Fort Fisher.

   "In the latter part of 1864 two ports only, Wilmington and
   Charleston, remained to the Confederates. … The northward
   march of Sherman would cut off Charleston, too, so that the
   Confederates would have to abandon it. The National government
   now desired to complete its work by capturing Fort Fisher, and
   thus finally shutting off the Confederacy from all
   communication with the foreign world. The accomplishment of
   this task was in no wise easy. … The army and navy co-operated
   in the attempts to reduce Fort Fisher. There were more than 50
   men-of-war tossing on the waves before the lowering sea-front
   of the work. Six thousand five hundred men were in the
   military force. They were in command of General B. F. Butler,
   whom we saw last in New Orleans. The General's active and
   ingenious mind conceived a plan for destroying the fort
   without sacrificing a single Federal soldier. He procured an
   old gun-boat, painted it white and otherwise disguised it, so
   as to look like a blockade-runner, stored 250 tons of
   gunpowder in its hold with fuses penetrating every part, ran
   the craft in within 1,500 feet of the works and exploded it.
   Butler expected that the shock would demolish the seaward face
   of the fort altogether, and perhaps bury the guns under great
   masses of sand, but in this he was mistaken, for the heavy
   bastions were not in the least disturbed by the shock. … The
   navy then took its turn, and for some hours the heavy vessels
   of Admiral Porter's fleet poured so rapid and well aimed a
   fire upon the work, that the garrison were driven from their
   guns, and only the occasional report of a heavy cannon told
   that the fort was still tenanted. But secure in their heavy
   bomb-proofs, the garrison minded the storm of shells and solid
   shot no more than the well-housed farmer heeds a hailstorm. It
   was very clear that Fort Fisher could not be taken at long
   range. … The original plan had contemplated an assault as soon
   as the fire of the fleet should have silenced the guns of the
   fort, and in pursuance of this 700 men had been landed from
   the army transports. But the weather was too rough to permit
   of landing more troops that day, and the next morning General
   Butler concluded that Fort Fisher was impregnable, withdrew
   his men already landed, and sailed away, greatly to the
   disgust of the navy. This was on the 25th of December, 1864.
   The chagrin of the whole North over the failure of the
   expedition was so great that it was speedily determined to
   renew the attempt. January 13th saw a new Federal force, this
   time under command of General A. H. Terry, landing on the
   shore of the sandy neck of land above the fort. … At early
   dawn of the 15th the attack was begun. The ships arranged in a
   great semicircle poured their fire upon the fort, dismantling
   guns, driving the garrison to the bomb-proofs, and mowing down
   the stockade. A line of sharp-shooters, each carrying a shovel
   in one hand and a gun in the other, spring out from Terry's
   most advanced lines, rush forward to within 175 yards of the
   fort and dig pits for their protection before the Confederates
   can attack them. Then the sharpshooters and the navy occupy
   the attention of the enemy, while Curtis's brigade dashes
   forward and digs a trench within 500 yards of the fort. By
   this time too a party of 2,000 sailors and marines has been
   landed from the fleet. They are to storm the sea-wall of the
   fort while the army attacks its landward face. Suddenly the
   thunder of the naval artillery is stilled. There is a moment
   of silence, and then the shrill scream of the whistles rises
   from every steamer in the fleet. It is the signal for the
   assault. The sailors on the beach spring to their feet and
   dash forward at a rapid run; they fire no shot, for they carry
   no guns. Cutlasses and pistols, the blue-jackets' traditional
   weapons, are their only arms. Toward the other side of the
   fort came Terry's troops. … The fate of the naval column is
   quickly determined. Upon it is concentrated the fire of the
   heaviest Confederate batteries, Napoleon guns, Columbiads, and
   rifles shotted with grape and cannister.
{3546}
   The blue-jackets, unable to reply to this murderous fire, and
   seeing their companions falling fast around them, waver, halt,
   and fall back to the beach, throwing themselves upon the
   ground to escape the enemy's missiles. But though repulsed
   they have contributed largely to the capture of the fort.
   While the chief attention of Confederates has been directed
   toward them, the troops have been carrying all before them on
   the other front. Colonel Lamb turns from his direction of the
   defense against the naval column to see three Union flags
   waving over other portions of the work. … The Confederates
   were determined, even desperate. Long after the fort was
   virtually in the hands of its captors they stubbornly clung to
   a bomb-proof. Finally they retreated to Battery Buchanan and
   there maintained themselves stoutly until late at night when,
   all hope being at an end, they surrendered themselves, and the
   National victory was complete."

      _W. J. Abbot,
      Battle-Fields and Victory,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapters 49-51._

      _W. Lamb and T. O. Selfridge, Jr.,
      The Capture of Fort Fisher
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (January).
   Congressional adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

   "On the last day of [January, 1865] … one of the grandest
   events of the century was witnessed in the House of
   Representatives in the final passage of the Constitutional
   Amendment [the Thirteenth] forever prohibiting slavery.
   Numerous propositions on the subject had been submitted, but
   the honor of drafting the one adopted belongs to Lyman
   Trumbull, who had introduced it early in the first session of
   this Congress. It passed the Senate on the 8th of April, 1864,
   only six members voting against it, … but failed in the House
   on the 15th of June following. It now came up on the motion of
   Mr. Ashley to reconsider this vote. Congress had abolished
   slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibited it in all
   the Territories. It had repealed the Fugitive Slave law, and
   declared free all negro soldiers in the Union armies and their
   families; and the President had played his grand part in the
   Proclamation of Emancipation. But the question now to be
   decided completely overshadowed all others. The debate on the
   subject had been protracted and very spirited. … The time for
   the momentous vote had now come, and no language could
   describe the solemnity and impressiveness of the spectacle
   pending the roll-call. The success of the measure had been
   considered very doubtful, and depended upon certain
   negotiations, the result of which was not fully assured, and
   the particulars of which never reached the public. The anxiety
   and suspense during the balloting produced a deathly
   stillness, but when it became certainly known that the measure
   had prevailed the cheering in the densely-packed hall and
   galleries surpassed all precedent and beggared all
   description. Members joined in the general shouting, which was
   kept up for several minutes, many embracing each other, and
   others completely surrendering themselves to their tears of
   joy. It seemed to me I had been born into a new life."

      _G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 11._

   "The Joint Resolution passed [the House of Representatives, on
   the 31st of January], 119 to 56, 8 not voting, 10 Democrats
   voting aye. … It was the greatest day the House had ever seen,
   nor is it likely ever to see a greater."

      _O. J. Hollister,
      Life of Schuyler Colfax,
      page 245._

   The Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified before the close
   of the year by three-fourths of the States, and its embodiment
   in the Constitution of the United States proclaimed by the
   Secretary of State on the 18th of December, 1865, is as
   follows:

   "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
   as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
   duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
   place subject to their jurisdiction.

   Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article
   by appropriate legislation."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February).
   The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

   "Several informal attempts at opening negotiations for the
   termination of hostilities were made in the course of this
   Winter—Honorable Francis P. Blair, of Maryland, visiting
   Richmond twice on the subject, with the consent, though not by
   the request, of President Lincoln. At length, upon their
   direct application, Messrs. Alex. H. Stephens, John A.
   Campbell, and Robert M. T. Hunter, were permitted to pass
   General Grant's lines before Petersburg, and proceed to
   Fortress Monroe; where [on board a steamer in Hampton Roads]
   they were met by Gov. [Secretary of State] Seward, followed by
   President Lincoln; and a free, full conference was had."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 30._

   Secretary Seward first went to meet the three Confederate
   Commissioners, with the following letter of instructions from
   President Lincoln, dated January 31, 1865: "Honorable William
   H. Seward, Secretary of State: You will proceed to Fortress
   Monroe, Virginia, there to meet and informally confer with
   Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, on the basis of my
   letter to F. P. Blair, Esq., of January 18, 1865, a copy of
   which you have. You will make known to them that three things
   are indispensable, to wit:
   1. The restoration of the national authority throughout all
   the States.
   2. No receding by the executive of the United States on the
   slavery question from the position assumed thereon in the late
   annual message to Congress, and in preceding documents.
   3. No cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and
   the disbanding of all forces hostile to the government.

   You will inform them that all propositions of theirs, not
   inconsistent with the above, will be considered and passed
   upon in a spirit of sincere liberality. You will hear all they
   may choose to say, and report it to me. You will not assume to
   definitely consummate anything. Yours, etc., Abraham Lincoln."
   Two days later, the President followed him, persuaded by a
   telegram from General Grant to meet the Commissioners
   personally. In a subsequent message to the Senate, Mr. Lincoln
   reported the results of the conference as follows: "On the
   morning of the 3d, the three gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens,
   Hunter, and Campbell, came aboard of our steamer, and had an
   interview with the Secretary of State and myself, of several
   hours' duration. No question of preliminaries to the meeting
   was then and there made or mentioned. No other person was
   present; no papers were exchanged or produced; and it was, in
   advance, agreed that the conversation was to be informal and
   verbal merely.
{3547}
   On our part the whole substance of the instructions to the
   Secretary of State, hereinbefore recited, was stated and
   insisted upon, and nothing was said inconsistent therewith;
   while, by the other party, it was not said that in any event
   or on any condition, they ever would consent to reunion; and
   yet they equally omitted to declare that they never would so
   consent. They seemed to desire a postponement of that
   question, and the adoption of some other course first which,
   as some of them seemed to argue, might or might not lead to
   reunion; but which course, we thought, would amount to an
   indefinite postponement. The conference ended without result."

      _A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 644-649._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 20._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February: South Carolina).
   Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.
   Federal occupation of the City.

   While General Hardee, with 14,000 men, waited at Charleston
   for the expected coming of General Sherman to attack that
   city, the latter pursued a movement which made Charleston
   untenable and shook it like a ripened apple into the hands of
   General Gillmore, who was waiting at the gates. The
   Confederates evacuated the city in haste and with reckless
   disorder, and it was occupied by the Federal troops on the
   morning of the 18th of February. The following is the report
   of Colonel A. G. Bennett, who was the first to enter the city:
   "On the morning of February the 18th I received information
   that led me to believe the defences and lines guarding the
   city of Charles·ton had been deserted by the enemy. I
   immediately proceeded to Cummings Point, from whence I sent a
   small boat in the direction of Fort Moultrie, which boat, when
   40 yards east from Fort Sumter, was met by a boat from
   Sullivan's Island, containing a full corps of band musicians
   abandoned by the enemy. These con·firmed my belief of an
   evacuation. I had no troops that could be available under two
   hours, as, except in a few pontoon boats, there were no means
   whatever of landing troops near the enemy's works or into the
   city. I directed Major Hennessy to proceed to Fort Sumter and
   there replace our flag. The flag was replaced over the
   southeast angle of Fort Sumter at 9 o'clock A. M. I now pushed
   for the city, stopping at Fort Ripley and Castle Pinckney,
   from which works Rebel flags were hauled down and the American
   flag substituted. … I landed at Mill's wharf, Charleston, at
   10 o'clock A. M. where I learned that a part of the enemy's
   troops yet remained in the city, while mounted patrols were
   out in every direction applying the torch and driving the
   inhabitants before them. I at once addressed to the Mayor of
   the city [a communication demanding its surrender]. … My whole
   force consisted of five officers and the armed crews of two
   small boats, comprising in all 22 men. Both officers and men
   volunteered to advance from the wharf into the city; but no
   reenforcements being in sight, I did not deem it expedient to
   move on. Public buildings, stores, warehouses, private
   dwellings, shipping, etc., were burning and being fired by
   armed Rebels, but with the force at my disposal it was
   impossible to save the cotton and other property. While
   awaiting the arrival of my troops at Mill's wharf, a number of
   explosions took place. The Rebel commissary depot was blown
   up, and with it is estimated that not less than 200 human
   beings—most of whom were women and children—were blown to
   atoms. These people were engaged in procuring food for
   themselves and their families by permission from the Rebel
   military authorities. … Observing a small boat sailing toward
   the bay under a flag of truce, I put off to it, and received
   from a member of the common council a letter [from the Mayor,
   announcing the evacuation of the city by the Confederate
   military authorities]. … The deputation sent to convey the
   above letter represented to me that the city was in the hands
   of either the Rebel soldiery or the mob. They entreated of me
   in the name of humanity to interpose my military authority and
   save the city from utter destruction. … Two companies of the
   52d Pennsylvania regiment and about 30 men of the 3d Rhode
   Island volunteer heavy artillery having landed, I proceeded
   with them to the citadel. I here established my headquarters,
   and sent small parties in all directions with instructions to
   impress negroes wherever found, and to make them work the fire
   apparatus, until all fires were extinguished."

      _A. G. Bennett,
      Report, February 24, 1865
      (quoted in Tenney's Military and Naval History
      of the Rebellion, chapter 49)._

   At noon on the 14th of April, 1865, the fourth anniversary of
   the lowering of the flag of the United States at Fort Sumter,
   it was formally raised by General Anderson over the ruins of
   the fort, with impressive ceremonies, in which many visitors
   from the North took part. An address was delivered on the
   occasion by the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(February-March: The Carolinas).
   Sherman's march from Savannah to Goldsboro.
   The burning of Columbia.
   The Battle of Bentonsville.

   "By the middle of January, a lodgment had been effected in
   South Carolina [at Pocotaligo, on the railroad between
   Savannah and Charleston], and Sherman had his whole army once
   more in hand as a moving column. He had no idea of wasting
   time on either Charleston or Augusta, but he determined to
   play upon the fears of the rebels, and compel them to retain a
   force to protect those places. … Accordingly he gave out with
   some ostentation that he was moving upon either Charles·ton or
   Augusta. Early in January the heavy winter rains set in,
   rendering the roads almost impassable. … This flood delayed
   the departure of the column for quite two weeks. … On the 1st
   of February, the army designed for the active campaign from
   Savannah northward was again 60,000 strong; and, as before,
   was composed of two wings, the right under Howard and the left
   under Slocum. Kilpatrick was once more chief of cavalry.
   Sixty-eight guns accompanied the command. The wagons were
   2,500 in number, and carried an ample supply of ammunition for
   one great battle, forage for a week, and provisions for twenty
   days. For fresh meat Sherman depended on beeves driven on the
   hoof, and such cattle, hogs, and poultry as might be gathered
   on the march. … Sherman … started on his northward march on
   the 1st of February. On that day his right wing was south of
   the Salkehatchie river, and his left still struggling in the
   swamps of the Savannah, at Sister's Ferry. … The division
   generals led their columns through the swamps, the water up to
   their shoulders, crossed over to the pine land beyond, and
   then, turning upon the rebels who had opposed the passage,
   drove them off in utter disorder.
{3548}
   All the roads northward had been held for weeks by Wheeler's
   cavalry, and details of negro laborers had been compelled to
   fell trees and burn bridges to impede the national march.
   Sherman's pioneers, however, removed the trees, and the heads
   of columns rebuilt the bridges before the rear could close up,
   and the rebels retreated behind the Edisto river at
   Branchville. … Sherman determined to waste no time on
   Branchville, which the enemy could no longer hold, and turned
   his columns directly north upon Columbia, where it was
   supposed the rebels would concentrate. Attempts were made to
   delay him at the crossings of the rivers; there were numerous
   bridge-heads with earth or cotton parapets to carry, and
   cypress swamps to cross; but nothing stayed his course. On the
   13th, he learned that there was no enemy in Columbia except
   Hampton's cavalry. Hardee, at Charleston, took it for granted
   that Sherman was moving upon that place, and the rebels in
   Augusta supposed that they were Sherman's object; so
   Charleston and Augusta were protected, while Columbia was
   abandoned to the care of the cavalry." With little or no
   resistance, Sherman entered the capital of South Carolina on
   the 17th of February. "Hampton had ordered all cotton, public
   and private, to be moved into the streets and fired. Bales
   were piled up everywhere, the rope and bagging cut, and the
   tufts of cotton blown about by the wind, or lodged in the
   trees and against the houses, presented the appearance of a
   snow-storm. Some of these piles of cotton were burning in the
   heart of the town. Sherman, meanwhile, had given orders to
   destroy the arsenals and public property not needed by his
   army, as well as railroad stations and machines, but to spare
   all dwellings, colleges, schools, asylums, and 'harmless
   private property'; and the fires lighted by Hampton were
   partially subdued by the national soldiers. But before the
   torch had been put to a single building by Sherman's order,
   the smouldering fires set by Hampton were rekindled by the
   wind and communicated to the buildings around. About dark the
   flames began to spread, and were soon beyond the control of
   the brigade on duty in the town. An entire division was now
   brought in, but it was found impossible to check the
   conflagration, which by midnight had become quite
   unmanageable. It raged till about four A. M. on the 18th, when
   the wind subsided, and the flames were got under control. …
   Beauregard, meanwhile, and the rebel cavalry, had retreated
   upon Charlotte, in North Carolina, due north from Columbia;
   and on the 20th and 21st Sherman followed as far as Winnsboro.
   … At Winnsboro, however, Sherman turned his principal columns
   northeastward towards Goldsboro, still 200 miles away. Heavy
   rains again impeded his movements … and it was not till the 3d
   of March that the army arrived at Cheraw. At this point large
   quantities of guns and ammunition were captured, brought from
   Charleston under the supposition that here, at least, they
   would be secure. Hardee had moved due north from Charleston by
   his only remaining railroad, through Florence, but only
   reached Cheraw in time to escape with his troops across the
   Pedee river, just before Sherman arrived. … Having secured the
   passage of the Pedee … Sherman had but little uneasiness about
   the future. … On the 11th of March, Fayetteville was reached,
   and Sherman had traversed the entire extent of South Carolina.
   On the 12th, he sent a dispatch to Grant, the first since
   leaving the Savannah. … On the 15th of March, the command
   began its march for Goldsboro." The scattered Confederate
   forces were now getting together and General Johnston had been
   put in command of them. "Sherman estimated the entire rebel
   force at 37,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry; but only Hardee,
   with 10,000 infantry and one division of cavalry, was in the
   immediate front." On the 15th Hardee was encountered at
   Averysboro, where he attempted to check Sherman's advance
   while Johnston concentrated in the rear. Some sharp fighting
   occurred, in which Sherman lost 77 men killed and 477 wounded.
   Hardee reported his loss at 500. In the morning he had
   disappeared. "From Averysboro both wings turned eastward by
   different roads, and on the night of the 18th of March the
   army was within 27 miles of Goldsboro, and only five from
   Bentonsville. The columns were now about ten miles apart." At
   Bentonsville, on the 19th, Slocum's wing was attacked by
   Johnston, who had marched his whole command with great
   rapidity, hoping to "overwhelm Sherman's left flank before it
   could be relieved by its co-operating column." But Slocum held
   his ground that day against six distinct assaults, and the
   next day Sherman brought his whole army into position. He did
   not push the enemy, however, either on the 20th or on the
   21st, being uncertain as to Johnston's strength. During the
   night of the 21st the latter retreated. "The total national
   loss was 191 killed, and 1,455 wounded and missing. Johnston
   states his losses to have been 223 killed, 1,467 wounded, and
   653 missing; but Sherman captured 1,621 prisoners. Sherman
   admits that he committed an error in not overwhelming his
   enemy. Few soldiers, however, are great enough to accuse
   themselves of an error, and fewer still but might accuse
   themselves of greater ones than can ever be laid at Sherman's
   door. At daybreak on the 22d … the army moved to Goldsboro,
   where Schofield had already arrived.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

   … Thus was concluded one of the longest and most important
   marches ever made by an organized army in civilized war."

      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 31 (volume 3)._

   At Columbia, "I observed, as I passed along the street, that
   many shops had been gutted, and that paper, rags, and litter
   of all kinds lay scattered on the floors, in the open
   doorways, and on the ground outside. I was told on good
   authority that this had been done by the Confederate troops
   before our arrival. It was a windy day, and a great deal of
   loose cotton had been blown about and caught on the fences and
   in the branches of the shade trees along the street. It has
   been said that this had something to do with spreading the
   fire which afterward took place. I think this very doubtful. …
   I have never doubted that Columbia was deliberately set on
   fire in more than a hundred places. No one ordered it, and no
   one could stop it. The officers of high rank would have saved
   the city if possible; but the army was deeply imbued with the
   feeling that as South Carolina had begun the war she must
   suffer a stern retribution."

      _W. B. Hazen,
      Narrative of Military Service,
      chapters 23-25._

{3549}

   "I disclaim on the part of my army any agency in this fire,
   but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia
   remains unconsumed."

      _Sherman's Official Report
      (Rebellion Record, volume 11)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapters 26-29._

      _H. W. Slocum and W. Hampton,
      Sherman's March and The Battle of Bentonville
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(February-March: North Carolina).
   Occupation of Wilmington.
   Battle of Kinston.
   Junction with Sherman at Goldsboro.

   On the 9th of February, General Schofield, transferred from
   the west, arrived at Fort Fisher with Cox's division of the
   Twenty-third Corps, and took command of the newly created
   Department of North Carolina. Advancing on Wilmington, the
   Confederates, under Hoke, retreating before him, he occupied
   that city on the 22d. This accomplished, General Cox was sent
   to Newberne to take command of forces ordered there, and to
   open communication thence by railroad with Goldsboro,
   preparatory to the arrival of General Sherman at that point.
   In the prosecution of this undertaking, he fought the battle
   of Kinston, March 10, repelling a fierce attack by Bragg with
   the forces which were being collected against Sherman: "After
   Bragg's retreat, Schofield steadily pressed the work of
   rebuilding the railway. Kinston was occupied on March 14th."
   On the 21st Schofield entered Goldsboro, "and there, in a
   couple of days more, was reassembled the grand army under
   Sherman, whose march from Savannah had been quite as
   remarkable as the former one from Atlanta to the sea."

      _J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea
      (Campaigns of the Civil War),
      chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February-March: Virginia).
   Sheridan's destroying march through Central Virginia.
   Battle of Waynesborough.

   "The last campaign against Lee may be said to have been
   inaugurated when General Sheridan started with his cavalry
   from Winchester, Virginia, on the 27th of February, 1865, with
   a sort of carte blanche of destruction as to the enemy's
   supply depots and communications. The general's instructions
   looked to his crossing the James River above Richmond, and his
   possible junction with the command of General Sherman
   somewhere in North Carolina; but the swollen condition of the
   James and the destruction of the bridges prevented his
   crossing. … General Sheridan's command on this expedition
   consisted of the first cavalry division, under Brevet
   Major-General Wesley Merritt, and the third cavalry division,
   under Brevet Major-General George A. Custer, to whose division
   was added one brigade of the cavalry of the old army of West
   Virginia, under Colonel Capehart. … They left Winchester on a
   damp, disagreeable morning. … But the spirits of the bold
   dragoons were not dampened, and they felt lively enough to
   push on to Waynesborough to the camp of General Jubal Early,
   late of the Confederacy, upon whom the brilliant Custer fell
   with his division, and soon had his guns, and men, and
   'materiel,' and would have had him but that he had sufficient
   presence of mind to absent his person when he found how things
   were going. This was General Early's last appearance in public
   life. … Early's command at Waynesborough being now dispersed
   or captured, … General Sheridan proceeded to occupy
   Charlottesville. … Then on again toward Lynchburg and the
   James River. … When it was found impossible to cross the James
   River, attention was for a while directed to the demolition of
   the James River and Kanawha Canal. … When the ingenious
   destruction corps could devise no further damage here, the
   command turned off to try its hand upon a railroad or two. All
   the time the rains had descended—the flood-gates of the clouds
   were up and the water kept pouring through. … Although nothing
   short of a flotilla seemed likely to ride out the storm, the
   cavalry rode on hopefully, and came safely to harbor at the
   White House, on the Pamunkey, where supplies were furnished
   them, and where the March winds blew them dry again. …
   Immediately upon his arrival at this depot, General Sheridan
   reported to General Grant, at City Point, for orders."

      _With General Sheridan in Lee's Last Campaign;
      by a Staff Officer,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864,
      chapter 14._

      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 31 (volume 3)._

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March).
   Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

   "The President in his annual message, December, 1863, had
   estimated the colored soldiers in the service at 'nearly
   100,000.' They were mostly from the border States, and the
   slaves of loyal masters. While they were fighting the battles
   of the country, their masters, who were generally opposed to
   their enlistment, could sell into perpetual slavery their
   wives and children. To deter slaves from enlisting, or to
   punish them when they did enlist, slave-masters made
   merchandise of the wives and children of colored soldiers, and
   often sold them into a harsher bondage. To put an end to a
   practice so cruel, unjust, injurious, and dishonorable to the
   country, Mr. Wilson introduced into the Senate on the 8th of
   January [1864], in his bill to promote enlistments, a
   provision declaring that when any man or boy of African
   descent, owing service or labor in any State, under its laws,
   should be mustered into the military or naval service of the
   United States, he, and his mother, wife, and children, should
   be forever free." The bill was warmly debated and its
   supporters did not succeed in bringing it to a vote during
   that session of Congress. At the next session, on the 13th of
   December, 1864, Mr. Wilson introduced a joint resolution "to
   make free the wives and children of persons who had been, or
   might be, mustered into the service of the United States."
   This passed the Sen·ate a few days later, by a vote of 27 to
   10; was passed by the House on the 22d of February, 1865, and
   signed by the President on the 3d of March.

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 30._

{3550}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March).
   President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

   "The days of the Confederacy were evidently numbered. Only the
   last blow remained to be struck. Then Lincoln's second
   inauguration came [March 4, 1865], and with it his second
   inaugural address. Lincoln's famous 'Gettysburg speech has
   been much and justly admired. But far greater, as well as far
   more characteristic, was that inaugural in which he poured out
   the whole devotion and tenderness of his great soul. It had
   all the solemnity of a father's last admonition and blessing
   to his children before he lay down to die. … No American
   President had ever spoken words like these to the American
   people. America never had a President who found such words in
   the depth of his heart."

      _C. Schurz,
      Abraham Lincoln: an Essay,
      pages 103-104._

   The following is the text of the Inaugural Address:

   "Fellow-countrymen: At this second appear·ing to take the oath
   of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an
   extended address than there was at the first. Then a
   statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued,
   seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four
   years, during which public declarations have been constantly
   called forth on every point and phase of the great contest
   which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies
   of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The
   progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is
   as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust,
   reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope
   for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On
   the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all
   thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war.
   All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugural
   address was being delivered from this place, devoted
   altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents
   were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to
   dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both
   parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather
   than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war
   rather than let it perish. And the war came. One-eighth of the
   whole population were colored slaves, not distributed
   generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part
   of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful
   interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause
   of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this
   interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend
   the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right
   to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
   Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the
   duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated
   that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even
   before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an
   easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.
   Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each
   invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that
   any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing
   their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us
   judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could
   not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully. The
   Almighty has his own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of
   offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to
   that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that
   American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the
   providence of God, must needs come, but which, having
   continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove,
   and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war,
   as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we
   discern therein any departure from those divine attributes
   which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him?
   Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty
   scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that
   it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's 250
   years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop
   of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn
   with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must
   be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
   altogether.' With malice toward none; with charity for all;
   with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right,
   let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the
   nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the
   battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may
   achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves,
   and with all nations."

      _A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 656-657._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March-April: Virginia).
   The Flanking of Lee's lines.
   Battle of Five Forks.
   Final assault at Petersburg and Confederate retreat.

   "One of the most anxious periods of my experience during the
   rebellion," wrote General Grant, "was the last few weeks
   before Petersburg. I felt that the situation of the
   Confederate army was such that they would try to make an
   escape at the earliest practicable moment, and I was afraid,
   every morning, that I would awake from my sleep to hear that
   Lee had gone, and that nothing was left but a picket line. … I
   was naturally very impatient for the time to come when I could
   commence the spring campaign, which I thoroughly believed
   would close the war. … Sherman was anxious that I should wait
   where I was until he could come up, and make a sure thing of
   it; but I had determined to move as soon as the roads and
   weather would admit of my doing so. I had been tied down
   somewhat in the matter of fixing any time at my pleasure for
   starting, until Sheridan, who was on his way from the
   Shenandoah Valley to join me, should arrive, as both his
   presence and that of his cavalry were necessary to the
   execution of the plans which I had in mind. However,
   [Sheridan] having arrived at White House on the 19th of March,
   I was enabled to make my plans. … It is now known that early
   in the month of March Mr. Davis and General Lee had a
   consultation about the situation of affairs in and about
   Richmond and Petersburg, and they both agreed that these
   places were no longer tenable for them, and that they must get
   away as soon as possible. They, too, were waiting for dry
   roads, or a condition of the roads which would make it
   possible to move. General Lee, in aid of his plan of escape,
   and to secure a wider opening to enable them to reach the
   Danville road with greater security than he would have in the
   way the two armies were situated, determined upon an assault
   upon the right of our lines around Petersburg." The assault
   was made by General Gordon early in the morning of March 25th,
   and Fort Stedman, with three contiguous batteries, were taken
   by surprise. The captured fort and batteries were soon
   recovered, however, and the Confederate troops who entered
   them were made prisoners.
{3551}
   "This effort of Lee's cost him about 4,000 men, and resulted
   in their killing, wounding and capturing about 2,000 of ours.
   … The day that Gordon was making dispositions for this attack
   (24th of March) I issued my orders for the movement to
   commence on the 29th. Ord, with three divisions of infantry
   and Mackenzie's cavalry, was to move in advance on the night
   of the 27th, from the north side of the James River, and take
   his place on our extreme left, 30 miles away. … Ord was at his
   place promptly. Humphreys and Warren were then on our extreme
   left with the 2d and 5th corps. They were directed on the
   arrival of Ord, and on his getting into position in their
   places, to cross Hatcher's Run and extend out west toward Five
   Forks, the object being to get into a position from which we
   could strike the South Side Railroad and ultimately the
   Danville Railroad. There was considerable fighting in taking
   up these new positions for the 2d and 5th corps, in which the
   Army of the James had also to participate somewhat, and the
   losses were quite severe. This was what was known as the
   battle of White Oak Road. … The 29th of March came, and
   fortunately, there having been a few days free from rain, the
   surface of the ground was dry, giving indications that the
   time had come when we could move. On that day I moved out with
   all the army available after leaving sufficient force to hold
   the line about Petersburg. It soon set in raining again,
   however, and in a very short time the roads became practically
   impassable for teams, and almost so for cavalry. … It became
   necessary … to build corduroy roads every foot of the way as
   we advanced, to move our artillery upon, The army had become
   so accustomed to this kind of work, and were so well prepared
   for it, that it was done very rapidly. The next day, March
   30th, we had made sufficient progress to the south-west to
   warrant me in starting Sheridan with his cavalry over by
   Dinwiddie with instructions to then come up by the road
   leading north-west to Five Forks, thus menacing the right of
   Lee's line, … The column moving detached from the army still
   in the trenches was, excluding the cavalry, very small. The
   forces in the trenches were themselves extending to the left
   flank. Warren was on the extreme left when the extension
   began, but Humphreys was marched around later and thrown into
   line between him and Five Forks. My hope was that Sheridan
   would be able to carry Five Forks, get on the enemy's right
   flank and rear, and force them to weaken their centre to
   protect their right, so that an assault in the centre might be
   successfully made. General Wright's corps had been designated
   to make this assault, which I intended to order as soon as
   information reached me of Sheridan's success. … Sheridan moved
   back to Dinwiddie Court-House on the night of the 30th, and
   then took a road leading northwest to Five Forks. He had only
   his cavalry with him. Soon encountering the rebel cavalry he
   met with a very stout resistance. He gradually drove them back
   however until in the neighborhood of Five Forks. Here he had
   to encounter other troops, besides those he had been
   contending with, and was forced to give way. In this condition
   of affairs he notified me of what had taken place and stated
   that he was falling back toward Dinwiddie gradually and
   slowly, and asked me to send Wright's corps to his assistance.
   I replied to him that it was impossible to send Wright's corps
   … and that I would send Warren. Accordingly orders were sent
   to Warren to move at once that night (the 31st) to Dinwiddie
   Court-House and put himself in communication with Sheridan as
   soon as possible, and report to him. He was very slow in
   moving, some of his troops not starting until after 5 o'clock
   next morning. … Warren reported to Sheridan about 11 o'clock
   on the 1st, but the whole of his troops were not up so as to
   be much engaged until late in the afternoon. … Sheridan
   succeeded by the middle of the afternoon or a little later in
   advancing up to the point from which to make his designed
   assault upon Five Forks itself. He was very impatient to make
   the assault and have it all over before night, because the
   ground he occupied would be untenable for him in bivouac
   during the night. … It was at this junction of affairs that
   Sheridan wanted to get Crawford's division in hand, and he
   also wanted Warren. He sent staff officer after staff officer
   in search of Warren, directing that general to report to him,
   but they were unable to find him. At all events Sheridan was
   unable to get that officer to him. Finally he went himself. He
   issued an order relieving Warren and assigning Griffin to the
   command of the 5th corps. The troops were then brought up and
   the assault successfully made. … It was dusk when our troops
   under Sheridan went over the parapets of the enemy. The two
   armies were mingled together there for a time in such manner
   that it was almost a question which one was going to demand
   the surrender of the other. Soon, however, the enemy broke and
   ran in every direction; some 6,000 prisoners, besides
   artillery and small-arms in large quantities, falling into our
   hands. … Pursuit continued until about 9 o'clock at night,
   when Sheridan halted his troops, and knowing the importance to
   him of the part of the enemy's line which had been captured,
   returned. … This was the condition which affairs were in on
   the night of the 1st of April. I then issued orders for an
   assault by Wright and Parke at 4 o'clock on the morning of the
   2d." The assault was successfully made, and the outer works of
   Petersburg were soon in the hands of the National troops.
   Early in the morning of the 3d the enemy evacuated Petersburg
   and Grant and Meade took possession of the city. The following
   day they were visited there by President Lincoln, who had been
   at City Point for a week, or more, watching the course of
   events.

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 63-65 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

      _A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapters 12-13._

      _H. Porter,
      Five Forks and the Pursuit of Lee
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _R. de Trobriand,
      Four years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 34._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 11).
   President Lincoln's last public address.
   His view of Reconstruction in Louisiana.

   On the evening of the 11th of April, a great multitude of
   people gathered about the White House, to convey their
   congratulations to the President and to signify their joy at
   the sure prospect of peace. Mr. Lincoln came out and spoke to
   them, expressing first his participation in their gladness,
   and then turning to discuss briefly the criticism which had
   opened upon his policy of reconstruction, as practically
   illustrated in Louisiana.
{3552}
   He spoke of his message and proclamation of December, 1863
   (quoted above); of the approval given to them by every member
   of his cabinet; of the entire silence at the time of all who
   had become critics and objectors since action under the plan
   had been taken in Louisiana. He then went on as follows: "When
   the message of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached
   New Orleans, General Banks wrote me that he was confident that
   the people, with his military cooperation, would reconstruct
   substantially on that plan. I wrote to him and some of them to
   try it. They tried it, and the result is known. Such has been
   my only agency in getting up the Louisiana government. As to
   sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But as bad
   promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a
   bad promise, and break it whenever I shall be convinced that
   keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but I have not
   yet been so convinced. I have been shown a letter on this
   subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer
   expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely
   fixed on the question whether the seceded States, so called,
   are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps add
   astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since I have
   found professed Union men endeavoring to make that question, I
   have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As
   appears to me, that question has not been, nor yet is, a
   practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while
   it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect
   other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As
   yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad as
   the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all—a
   merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the seceded
   States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation
   with the Union, and that the sole object of the government,
   civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get
   them into that proper practical relation. I believe that it is
   not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without
   deciding or even considering whether these States have ever
   been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely
   at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever
   been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to
   restoring the proper practical relations between these States
   and the Union, and each forever after innocently indulge his
   own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the States
   from without into the Union, or only gave them proper
   assistance, they never having been out of it. The amount of
   constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana
   government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it
   contained 50,000, or 30,000, or even 20,000, instead of only
   about 12,000, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some
   that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I
   would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very
   intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.
   Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government,
   as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is,
   will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it,
   or to reject and disperse it? Can Louisiana be brought into
   proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining
   or by discarding her new State government? Some 12,000 voters
   in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn
   allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political
   power of the State, held elections, organized a State
   government, adopted a free-State constitution, giving the
   benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and
   empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise
   upon the colored man. Their legislature has already voted to
   ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by
   Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These
   12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to
   perpetual freedom in the State—committed to the very things,
   and nearly all the things, the nation wants—and they ask the
   nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their
   committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost
   to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the
   white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help
   you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of
   liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we
   will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering
   the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined
   when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and
   paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring
   Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I
   have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary,
   we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the
   converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and
   nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and
   argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed
   it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The
   colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired
   with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant
   that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it
   sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by
   running backward over them? Concede that the new government of
   Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the
   fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than
   by smashing it. Again, if we reject Louisiana we also reject
   one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national
   Constitution. To meet this proposition it has been argued that
   no more than three-fourths of those States which have not
   attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the
   amendment. I do not commit myself against this further than to
   say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure
   to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by
   three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and
   unquestionable. I repeat the question: Can Louisiana be
   brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner
   by sustaining or by discarding her new State government? What
   has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other
   States. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each State,
   and such important and sudden changes occur in the same State,
   and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case that no
   exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to
   details and collaterals. Such exclusive and inflexible plan
   would surely become a new entanglement. Important principles
   may and must be inflexible. In the present situation, as the
   phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement
   to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not
   fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper."

      _A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 673-675._

{3553}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April: Virginia).
   The abandonment of Richmond and retreat of Lee.
   Battle of Sailor's Creek.
   Surrender at Appomattox Court House.

   "The success of the Federal army in breaking the lines of
   Petersburg had rendered the retreat of the Confederate force
   imperative. An effort to hold Richmond with every line of
   communication with the South broken or in imminent danger
   would have been madness. But by abandoning his works and
   concentrating his army, which still amounted to about 30,000
   men, General Lee might retire to some natural stronghold in
   the interior, where the defensible features of the country
   would enable him to oppose Grant's formidable host until he
   could rally strength to strike an effective blow. This course
   was at once decided upon, and early on the morning of the 2d
   of April, Lee sent a despatch to the Government authorities at
   Richmond informing them of the disastrous situation of affairs
   and of the necessity of his evacuating Petersburg that night.
   Orders were also sent to the forces north of the James to move
   at once and join him, while all the preparations necessary for
   the evacuation of Richmond, both as the seat of government and
   as a military post, were expeditiously made. There was,
   indeed, no time to be lost. … By midnight the evacuation was
   completed. … As the troops moved noiselessly onward in the
   darkness that just precedes the dawn, a bright light like a
   broad flash of lightning illumined the heavens for an instant;
   then followed a tremendous explosion. 'The magazine at Fort
   Drewry is blown up,' ran in whispers through the ranks, and
   again silence reigned. Once more the sky was overspread by a
   lurid light, but not so fleeting as before. It was now the
   conflagration of Richmond that lighted the night-march of the
   soldiers, and many a stout heart was wrung with anguish at the
   fate of the city and its defenceless inhabitants. The burning
   of public property of little value had given rise to a
   destructive fire that laid in ashes nearly one-third of the
   devoted city. … The retreat of Lee's army did not long remain
   unknown to the Federals. The explosion of the magazine at Fort
   Drewry and the conflagration of Richmond apprised them of the
   fact, and they lost no time in taking possession of the
   abandoned works and entering the defenceless cities. On the
   morning of the 3d of April the mayor of Richmond surrendered
   the city to the Federal commander in its vicinity, and General
   Weitzel took immediate possession. He at once proceeded to
   enforce order and took measures to arrest the conflagration,
   while with great humanity he endeavored to relieve the
   distressed citizens. … As soon as Grant became aware of Lee's
   line of retreat he pushed forward his whole available force,
   numbering 70,000 or 80,000 men, in order to intercept him on
   the line of the Richmond and Danville Railroad. Sheridan's
   cavalry formed the van of the pursuing column, and was closely
   followed by the artillery and infantry. Lee pressed on as
   rapidly as possible to Amelia Court-house, where he had
   ordered supplies to be deposited for the use of his troops on
   their arrival. … The hope of finding a supply of food at this
   point, which had done much to buoy up the spirits of the men,
   was destined to be cruelly dispelled. Through an unfortunate
   error or misapprehension of orders the provision-train had
   been taken on to Richmond without unloading its stores at
   Amelia Court-house. … It was a terrible blow alike to the men
   and to their general. … The only chance remaining to the Army
   of Northern Virginia was to reach the hill-country without
   delay. Yet here it was detained by the error of a railroad
   official, while the precious minutes and hours moved
   remorselessly by. … Yet no murmur came from the lips of the
   men to the ear of their commander, and on the evening of that
   unfortunate day [April 5th] they resumed their weary march in
   silence and composure. Some small amount of food had been
   brought in by the foragers, greatly inadequate for the wants
   of the soldiers, yet aiding them to somewhat alleviate the
   pangs of hunger. A handful of corn was now a feast to the
   weary veterans as they trudged onward through the April night.
   … Sheridan's cavalry was already upon the flank of the
   Confederate army, and the infantry was following with all
   speed. … During the forenoon of [the 6th] the pursuing columns
   thickened and frequent skirmishes delayed the march. These
   delays enabled the Federals to accumulate in such force that
   it became necessary for Lee to halt his advance in order to
   arrest their attack till his column could close up, and the
   trains and such artillery as was not needed for action could
   reach a point of safety. This object was accomplished early in
   the afternoon. Ewell's, the rearmost corps in the army, closed
   upon those in front at a position on Sailor's Creek, a small
   tributary of the Appomattox River. … His corps was surrounded
   by the pursuing columns and captured with but little
   opposition. About the same time the divisions of Anderson,
   Pickett, and Bushrod Johnson were almost broken up, about
   10,000 men in all being captured. The remainder of the army
   continued its retreat during the night of the 6th, and reached
   Farmville early on the morning of the 7th, where the troops
   obtained two days' rations, the first regular supplies they
   had received during the retreat. At Farmville a short halt was
   made to allow the men to rest and cook their provisions. The
   effective portion of the Army of Northern Virginia did not now
   exceed 10,000 men. This great reduction had been caused by the
   disaster of the previous day at Sailor's Creek, by desertions
   on the retreat, and by an exhaustion which obliged many to
   leave the ranks. Those who still remained by their colors were
   veterans whose courage never failed, and who were yet ready to
   face any odds. The heads of the Federal columns beginning to
   appear about eleven o'clock, the Confederates resumed their
   retreat." On the afternoon of the 7th, Lee received a note
   from Grant calling upon him to surrender, and replied to it,
   asking what terms would be offered. Further notes were
   exchanged between the two commanders the following day, while
   the retreat continued. Lee hoped to reach Appomattox Court
   House and secure supplies that were there, which might enable
   him to "push on to the Staunton River and maintain himself
   behind that stream until a junction could be made with
   Johnston." But when, in the afternoon of April 8th, he reached
   the neighborhood of Appomattox Court House, "he was met by the
   intelligence of the capture of the stores placed for his army
   at the station two miles beyond.
{3554}
   Notwithstanding this overwhelming news, he determined to make
   one more effort to force himself through the Federal toils
   that encompassed him." This attempt was made at three o'clock
   on the morning of the 9th of April, General Gordon leading the
   attack, which failed. Lee then yielded to his fate, and sent a
   flag of truce, asking for an interview with Grant to arrange
   terms of surrender. "Grant had not yet come up, and while
   waiting for his arrival General Lee seated himself upon some
   rails which Colonel Talcott of the Engineers had fixed at the
   foot of an apple tree for his convenience. This tree was half
   a mile distant from the point where the meeting of Lee and
   Grant took place, yet wide-spread currency has been given to
   the story that the surrender took place under its shade, and
   'apple-tree' jewelry has been profusely distributed from the
   orchard in which it grew. About 11 o'clock General Lee,
   accompanied only by Colonel Marshall of his staff, proceeded
   to the village to meet General Grant, who had now arrived. The
   meeting between the two renowned generals took place at the
   house of a Mr. McLean at Appomattox Court-house, to which
   mansion, after exchanging courteous salutations, they repaired
   to settle the terms on which the surrender of the Army of
   Northern Virginia should be concluded. … The written
   instrument of surrender covered the following points:
   Duplicate rolls of all the officers and men were to be made,
   and the officers to sign paroles for themselves and their men,
   all agreeing not to bear arms against the United States unless
   regularly exchanged. The arms, artillery, and public property
   were to be turned over to an officer appointed to receive
   them, the officers retaining their side-arms and private
   horses and baggage. In addition to this, General Grant
   permitted every man of the Confederate army who claimed to own
   a horse or mule to retain it for farming purposes, General Lee
   remarking that this would have a happy effect. … After
   completion of these measures General Lee remarked that his men
   were badly in need of food, that they had been living for
   several days on parched corn exclusively, and requested
   rations and forage for 25,000 men. These rations were granted
   out of the car-loads of Confederate provisions which had been
   stopped by the Federal cavalry. … Three days after the
   surrender the Army of Northern Virginia had dispersed in every
   direction, and three weeks later the veterans of a hundred
   battles had changed the musket and the sword for the
   implements of husbandry. … Thousands of soldiers were set
   adrift on the world without a penny in their pockets to enable
   them to reach their homes. Yet none of the scenes of riot that
   often follow the disbanding of armies marked their course."

      _A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 21._

   "General Grant's behavior at Appomattox was marked by a desire
   to spare the feelings of his great opponent. There was no
   theatrical display; his troops were not paraded with bands
   playing and banners flying, before whose lines the
   Confederates must march and stack arms. He did not demand
   Lee's sword, as is customary, but actually apologized to him
   for not having his own, saying it had been left behind in the
   wagon; promptly stopped salutes from being fired to mark the
   event, and the terms granted were liberal and generous. 'No
   man could have behaved better than General Grant did under the
   circumstances,' said Lee to a friend in Richmond. 'He did not
   touch my sword; the usual custom is for the sword to be
   received when tendered, and then handed back, but he did not
   touch mine,' Neither did the Union chief enter the Southern
   lines to show himself or to parade his victory, or go to
   Richmond or Petersburg to exult over a fallen people, but
   mounted his horse and with his staff started for Washington.
   Washington, at Yorktown, was not as considerate and thoughtful
   of the feelings of Cornwallis or his men. Charges were now
   withdrawn from the guns, flags furled, and the Army of the
   Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia turned their backs
   upon each other for the first time In four long, bloody
   years,"

      _F. Lee,
      General Lee,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 65-67._

      _H. Porter,
      The Surrender at Appomattox Court House
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

      _A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 33-34 (volume 3)._

      _J. W. Keifer,
      The Battle of Sailor's Creek
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April: Virginia).
   President Lincoln at Richmond.
   The assembling and dispersing of "the gentlemen who have
   acted as the Legislature of Virginia."
   Virtual Proclamations of the end of the war.

   "President Lincoln had been at City Point and vicinity for
   several days before the fall of Richmond, in constant
   communication with the General-in-chief, at the front,
   receiving dispatches from him and transmitting them instantly
   to the Secretary of War, whence they were diffused over the
   country, by the telegraph. On the day after Richmond was
   evacuated, he went up to that city in Admiral Porter's
   flag-ship, the Malvern, Captain Ralph Chandler, with the
   Sangamon, several tugs, and 30 small boats, with about 300
   men, had already cleared the channel of the river of
   torpedoes, and made the navigation comparatively safe. When
   near Rocketts, the President and the Admiral left the Malvern,
   and proceeded to the city in the commander's gig. With its
   crew, armed with carbines, they landed and walked to Weitzel's
   quarters, in the late residence of Davis, cheered on the way
   by the huzzas and grateful ejaculations of a vast concourse of
   emancipated slaves, who had been told that the tall man was
   their Liberator. They crowded around him so thickly, in their
   eagerness to see him, and to grasp his hand, that a the of
   soldiers were needed to clear the way, After a brief rest at
   Weitzel's, the President rode rapidly through the principal
   streets of Richmond, in an open carriage, and, at near sunset,
   departed for City Point. Two days afterward, the President
   went to Richmond again, accompanied by his wife, the
   Vice-President, and several Senators, when he was called upon
   by leading Confederates, several of them members of the rebel
   Virginia Legislature, whose chief business was to endeavor to
   arrange a compromise whereby the equivalent for submission
   should be the security to the Virginia insurgents, as far as
   possible, of their political power and worldly possessions.
{3555}
   The President was assured by Judge Campbell a member of the
   Confederate 'Government' (who, for two years, had been
   satisfied, he said, that success was impossible), that the
   so-called Virginia Legislature, if allowed to reassemble, with
   the Governor, would work for the reconstruction of the Union,
   their first step being the withdrawal of the Virginia troops
   from the field, on condition that the confiscation of property
   in Virginia should not be allowed. Anxious to end the war
   without further bloodshed, if possible, and satisfied that the
   withdrawal of the Virginia troops—in other words, nearly all
   of Lee's army—would accomplish it, he left with General
   Weitzel, on his departure from Richmond [April 6], authority
   to allow 'the gentlemen who have acted as the Legislature of
   Virginia, in support of the rebellion, to assemble at Richmond
   and take measures to withdraw the Virginia troops and other
   support from resistance to the General Government.' A
   safeguard was given. The fugitives returned, with the
   Governor, but instead of performing in good faith what had
   been promised in their name, they began legislating generally,
   as if they were the legal representatives of the people of
   Virginia. So soon as notice of this perfidy was given to the
   President after his return to Washington, he directed Weitzel
   to revoke the safeguard, and allow 'the gentlemen who had
   acted as the Legislature of Virginia' to return to private
   life. The surrender of Lee had, meanwhile, made the
   contemplated action unnecessary. The President was blamed by
   the loyal people for allowing these men to assemble with
   acknowledged powers; and the Confederates abused him for
   dissolving the assembly. The President returned to Washington
   City on the day of Lee's surrender, where he was the recipient
   of a multitude of congratulations because of the dawn of
   peace. On the 11th he issued proclamations, one declaring the
   closing, until further notice, of certain ports in the
   Southern States, whereof the blockade had been raised by their
   capture, respectively; and the other, demanding, henceforth,
   for our vessels in foreign ports, on penalty of retaliation,
   those privileges and immunities which had hitherto been denied
   them on the plea of according equal belligerent rights to the
   Republic and its internal enemies. … On the following day an
   order was issued from the War Department, which had been
   approved by General Grant, putting an end to all drafting and
   recruiting for the National army, and the purchase of
   munitions of war and supplies; and declaring that the number
   of general and staff officers would be speedily reduced, and
   all military restrictions on trade and commerce be removed
   forthwith. This virtual proclamation of the end of the war
   went over the land on the anniversary of the evacuation of
   Fort Sumter [April 14], while General Anderson was replacing
   the old flag over the ruins of that fortress."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 20._

      _C. C. Coffin,
      Late Scenes in Richmond
      (Atlantic Monthly, June, 1865)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 14th).
   The Assassination of President Lincoln.

   "From the very beginning of his Presidency, Mr. Lincoln had
   been constantly subject to the threats of his enemies and the
   warnings of his friends. … Although he freely discussed with
   the officials about him the possibilities of danger, he always
   considered them remote, as is the habit of men
   constitutionally brave, and positively refused to torment
   himself with precautions for his own safety. He would sum the
   matter up by saying that both friends and strangers must have
   daily access to him in all manner of ways and places; his life
   was therefore in reach of anyone, sane or mad, who was ready
   to murder and be hanged for it; that he could not possibly
   guard against all danger unless he were to shut himself up in
   an iron box, in which condition he could scarcely perform the
   duties of a President; by the hand of a murderer he could die
   only once; to go continually in fear would be to die over and
   over. He therefore went in and out before the people, always
   unarmed, generally unattended. … Four years of threats and
   boastings, of alarms that were unfounded, and of plots that
   came to nothing thus passed away; but precisely at the time
   when the triumph of the nation over the long insurrection
   seemed assured, and a feeling of peace and security was
   diffused over the country, one of the conspiracies, not
   seemingly more important than the many abortive ones, ripened
   in the sudden heat of hatred and despair. A little band of
   malignant secessionists, consisting of John Wilkes Booth, an
   actor, of a family of famous players, Lewis Powell, alias
   Payne, a disbanded rebel soldier from Florida, George
   Atzerodt, formerly a coach maker, but more recently a spy and
   blockade runner of the Potomac, David E. Herold, a young
   druggist's clerk, Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin,
   Maryland secessionists and Confederate soldiers, and John H.
   Surratt, had their ordinary rendezvous at the house of Mrs.
   Mary E. Surratt, the widowed mother of the last named,
   formerly a woman of some property in Maryland, but reduced by
   reverses to keeping a small boarding-house in Washington.
   Booth was the leader of the little coterie. He was a young man
   of twenty-six. … He was a fanatical secessionist; had assisted
   at the capture and execution of John Brown, and had imbibed at
   Richmond and other Southern cities where he had played, a
   furious spirit of partisanship against Lincoln and the Union
   party. After the reelection of Mr. Lincoln, which rang the
   knell of the insurrection, Booth, like many of the
   secessionists North and South, was stung to the quick by
   disappointment. He visited Canada, consorted with the rebel
   emissaries there, and at last—whether or not at their
   instigation cannot certainly be said—conceived a scheme to
   capture the President and take him to Richmond. He spent a
   great part of the autumn and winter inducing a small number of
   loose fish of secession sympathies to join him in this
   fantastic enterprise. … There are indications in the evidence
   given on the trial of the conspirators that they suffered some
   great disappointment in their schemes in the latter part of
   March, and a letter from Arnold to Booth, dated March 27,
   showed that some of them had grown timid of the consequences
   of their contemplated enterprise and were ready to give it up.
   He advised Booth, before going further, 'to go and see how it
   will be taken in R---d.' But timid as they might be by nature,
   the whole group was so completely under the ascendency of
   Booth that they did not dare disobey him when in his presence;
   and after the surrender of Lee, in an access of malice and rage
   which was akin to madness, he called them together and
   assigned each his part in the new crime, the purpose of which
   had arisen suddenly in his mind out of the ruins of the
   abandoned abduction scheme.
{3556}
   This plan was as brief and simple as it was horrible. Powell,
   alias Payne, the stalwart, brutal, simple-minded boy from
   Florida, was to murder Seward; Atzerodt, the comic villain of
   the drama, was assigned to remove Andrew Johnson; Booth
   reserved for himself the most difficult and most conspicuous
   role of the tragedy; it was Herold's duty to attend him as a
   page and aid in his escape. Minor parts were assigned to stage
   carpenters and other hangers-on, who probably did not
   understand what it all meant. Herold, Atzerodt, and Surratt
   had previously deposited at a tavern at Surrattsville,
   Maryland, owned by Mrs. Surratt, but kept by a man named
   Lloyd, a quantity of ropes, carbines, ammunition, and whisky,
   which were to be used in the abduction scheme. On the 11th of
   April Mrs. Surratt, being at the tavern, told Lloyd to have
   the shooting irons in readiness, and on Friday, the 14th,
   again visited the place and told him they would probably be
   called for that night. The preparations for the final blow
   were made with feverish haste; it was only about noon of the
   14th that Booth learned the President was to go to Ford's
   Theater that night. It has always been a matter of surprise in
   Europe that he should have been at a place of amusement on
   Good Friday; but the day was not kept sacred in America,
   except by the members of certain churches. It was not,
   throughout the country, a day of religious observance. The
   President was fond of the theater; it was one of his few means
   of recreation. It was natural enough that, on this day of
   profound national thanksgiving, he should take advantage of a
   few hours' relaxation to see a comedy. Besides, the town was
   thronged with soldiers and officers, all eager to see him; it
   was represented to him that appearing occasionally in public
   would gratify many people whom he could not otherwise meet. …
   From the moment Booth ascertained the President's intention to
   attend the theater in the evening his every action was alert
   and energetic. He and his confederates, Herold, Surratt and
   Atzerodt, were seen on horseback in every part of the city. He
   had a hurried conference with Mrs. Surratt before she started
   for Lloyd's tavern. … Booth was perfectly at home in Ford's
   Theater, where he was greatly liked by all the employees,
   without other reason than the sufficient one of his youth and
   good looks. Either by himself or with the aid of his friends
   he arranged his whole plan of attack and escape during the
   afternoon. He counted upon address and audacity to gain access
   to the small passage behind the President's box; once there,
   he guarded against interference by an arrangement of a wooden
   bar to be fastened by a simple mortice in the angle of the
   wall and the door by which he entered, so that the door could
   not be opened from without. He even provided for the
   contingency of not gaining entrance to the box by boring a
   hole in its door, through which he might either observe the
   occupants or take aim and shoot. He hired at a livery stable a
   small, fleet horse, which he showed with pride during the day
   to barkeepers and loafers among his friends. The moon rose
   that night at ten o'clock A few minutes before that hour he
   called one of the underlings of the theater to the back door
   and left him there holding his horse. He then went to a saloon
   near by, took a drink of brandy, and, entering the theater,
   passed rapidly through the crowd in rear of the dress circle
   and made his way to the passage leading to the President's
   box. He showed a card to a servant in attendance and was
   allowed to pass in. He entered noiselessly, and, turning,
   fastened the door with the bar he had previously made ready,
   without disturbing any of the occupants of the box, between
   whom and himself there yet remained the slight partition and
   the door through which he had bored the hole. … Holding a
   pistol in one hand and a knife in the other, he opened the box
   door, put the pistol to the President's head, and fired;
   dropping the weapon, he took the knife in his right hand, and
   when Major Rathbone sprang to seize him he struck savagely at
   him. Major Rathbone received the blow on his left arm,
   suffering a wide and deep wound. Booth, rushing forward, then
   placed his left hand on the railing of the box and vaulted
   lightly over to the stage. It was a high leap, but nothing to
   such a trained athlete. … He would have got safely away but
   for his spur catching in the folds of the Union flag with
   which the front of the box was draped. He fell on the stage,
   the torn flag trailing on his spur, but instantly rose as if
   he had received no hurt, though in fact the fall had broken
   his leg; he turned to the audience, brandishing his dripping
   knife, and shouting the State motto of Virginia, 'Sic Semper
   Tyrannis,' and fled rapidly across the stage and out of sight.
   Major Rathbone had shouted, 'Stop him!' The cry went out, 'He
   has shot the President.' From the audience, at first stupid
   with surprise, and afterwards wild with excitement and horror,
   two or three men jumped upon the stage in pursuit of the
   flying assassin; but he ran through the familiar passages,
   leaped upon his horse, which was in waiting in the alley
   behind, rewarded with a kick and a curse the call-boy who had
   held him, and rode rapidly away in the light of the just risen
   moon. The President scarcely moved; his head drooped forward
   slightly, his eyes closed. … It was afterward ascertained that
   a large derringer bullet had entered the back of the head on
   the left side, and, passing through the brain, had lodged just
   behind the left eye. By direction of Rathbone and Crawford,
   the President was carried to a house across the street and
   laid upon a bed in a small room at the rear of the hall, on
   the ground floor. … The President had been shot a few minutes
   past ten. The wound would have brought instant death to most
   men, but his vital tenacity was extraordinary. … At twenty-two
   minutes after seven he died. Stanton broke the silence by
   saying, 'Now he belongs to the ages.'" At the same hour in
   which the President was murdered, an attempt was made by one
   of Booth's fellow conspirators to kill the Secretary of State.
   Mr. Seward had been thrown from his carriage a few days before
   and was prostrated by the serious injuries received.
   Pretending to bring a prescription from his physician, the
   assassin, Payne, made his way into the sick-room of the
   Secretary and stabbed him three times, but not fatally, in the
   neck and cheek. Two sons, Frederick and Augustus Seward, were
   seriously wounded in defending their father, and a
   soldier-nurse who was present struggled bravely with the
   assassin, though weaponless, and was stabbed repeatedly.
{3557}
   Payne escaped for the time, but was caught a few days later.
   Booth made his way to Port Tobacco, and thence across the
   Potomac, into Virginia, assisted and concealed by numerous
   sympathizers. He eluded his pursuers until the 25th of April,
   when he was hunted down by a party of soldiers, while sleeping
   in a barn, below Fredericksburg, and, refusing to surrender,
   was shot. "The surviving conspirators, with the exception of
   John H. Surratt, were tried by a military commission sitting
   in Washington in the months of May and June. … Mrs. Surratt,
   Payne, Herold, and Atzerodt were hanged on the 7th of July;
   Mudd, Arnold, and O'Laughlin were imprisoned for life at the
   Tortugas, though the term was afterwards shortened; and
   Spangler, the scene shifter at the theater, was sentenced to
   six years in jail. John H. Surratt escaped to Canada," and
   thence to England. "He wandered over Europe, enlisted in the
   Papal Zouaves, deserted and fled to Egypt, where he was
   detected and brought back to Washington in 1867. His trial
   lasted two months and ended in a disagreement of the jury."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10. chapters 14-15._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 21._

      _J. G. Holland,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapter 30._

      _B. P. Poore,
      Reminiscences,
      volume 2, chapter 15._

      _B. Pittman,
      Report of the Trial of the Conspirators.
      Trial of John H. Surratt._

      _T. M. Harris,
      Assassination of Lincoln: a History._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 15th).
   Succession of Andrew Johnson, Vice President, to the Presidency.

   "On the day after the assassination, Mr. Johnson, having been
   apprised of the event, took the oath of office, at his rooms,
   in the presence of the Cabinet, and of several members of
   Congress, and was thus quietly inducted into the high position
   so summarily vacated by the martyred President. In the few
   remarks made on the occasion, as to 'an indication of any
   policy which may be pursued,' he said it 'must be left for
   development as the administration progresses'; and his own
   past course in connection with the Rebellion 'must be regarded
   as a guaranty for the future.' To several delegations which
   waited upon him he was, however, more explicit. … 'I know it
   is easy, gentlemen [he said to a delegation from New
   Hampshire], for any one who is so disposed to acquire a
   reputation for clemency and mercy. But the public good
   imperatively requires a just discrimination in the exercise of
   these qualities. … The American people must be taught to know
   and understand that treason is a crime. … It must not be
   regarded as a mere difference of political opinion. It must
   not be excused as an unsuccessful rebellion, to be overlooked
   and forgiven.' … It is not surprising, therefore, with
   utterances like these, in such seeming harmony with his
   antecedents as a Southern Unionist,—antecedents which had
   secured his nomination and election to the
   Vice-Presidency,—that many were disposed to regard his
   advancement to the Presidency at that particular juncture as
   but another evidence of Providential favor, if not of Divine
   interposition, by which the nation was to be saved from what
   many feared might prove Mr. Lincoln's ill-timed leniency and
   misplaced confidence. … Such gratulations, however, were of
   short continuance. Whatever the cause or design, the new
   President soon revealed the change that had taken place and
   the purpose to adopt and pursue a policy the exact reverse of
   what, with such prompt and unequivocal words, he had
   indicated."

      _H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 43._

   "Johnson was inaugurated at 11 o'clock on the morning of the
   15th, and was at once surrounded by radical and conservative
   politicians, who were alike anxious about the situation. I
   spent most of the afternoon in a political caucus, held for
   the purpose of considering the necessity for a new Cabinet and
   a line of policy less conciliatory than that of Mr. Lincoln;
   and while everybody was shocked at his murder, the feeling was
   nearly universal that the accession of Johnson to the
   Presidency would prove a godsend to the country. Aside from
   Mr. Lincoln's known policy of tenderness to the Rebels, which
   now so jarred upon the feelings of the hour, his well-known
   views on the subject of reconstruction were as distasteful as
   possible to radical Republicans. … On the following day, in
   pursuance of a previous engagement, the Committee on the
   Conduct of the War met the President at his quarters in the
   Treasury Department. He received us with decided cordiality,
   and Mr. Wade said to him: 'Johnson we have faith in you. By
   the gods, there will be no trouble now in running the
   government!'"

      _G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 11._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 26th).
   General Johnston's surrender.

   On the 11th of April, at Smithfield, North Carolina, General
   Sherman had news of the surrender of Lee. Entering Raleigh on
   the 13th, he received, next day, a communication from the
   Confederate General Johnston proposing a truce "to permit the
   civil authorities to enter into the needful arrangements to
   terminate the existing war." In reply he invited a conference
   with Johnston, which occurred on the 17th—the day on which
   news of the assassination of President Lincoln was received.
   "Sherman said frankly that he could not recognize the
   Confederate civil authority as having any existence, and could
   neither receive nor transmit to Washington any proposition
   coming from them. He expressed his ardent desire for an end to
   devastation, and offered Johnston the same terms offered by
   Grant to Lee. Johnston replied that he would not be justified
   in such a capitulation, but suggested that they might arrange
   the terms of a permanent peace. The suggestion pleased General
   Sherman; the prospect of ending the war without the shedding
   of another drop of blood was so tempting to him that he did
   not sufficiently consider the limits of his authority in the
   matter." The result was that, on the 18th, Sherman and
   Johnston signed a memorandum of agreement which provided for
   the disbanding of all the Confederate armies, the recognition
   of the State governments of the several States lately forming
   the rebel Confederacy, the complete restoration of their old
   status in the Union, and complete amnesty to all concerned in
   the rebellion. This was forwarded to Washington, and, of
   course, it was disapproved, but with an unnecessary
   publication of sharp censure of General Sherman, and with
   expressions that seemed to imply distrust of the loyalty of
   his motives. General Grant was ordered to proceed to General
   Sherman's headquarters and to direct further operations.
{3558}
   He executed this mission with great delicacy, and his presence
   with Sherman was hardly known. The latter held a second
   conference with Johnston on the 26th, and there General
   Johnston made the surrender of his army on the same terms that
   had been granted to Lee.

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 92 (volume 3)._

      _J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapter 12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April-May).
   The end of the Rebellion.
   Fall of Mobile.
   Stoneman's Raid.
   Wilson's Raid.
   Capture of Jefferson Davis.
   The final surrenders.

   After the surrender of Johnson, "there were still a few
   expeditions out in the South that could not be communicated
   with, and had to be left to act according to the judgment of
   their respective commanders. … The three expeditions which I
   had tried so hard to get off from the commands of Thomas and
   Canby did finally get off: one under Canby himself, against
   Mobile, late in March; that under Stoneman from East Tennessee
   on the 20th; and the one under Wilson, starting from Eastport,
   Mississippi, on the 22d of March. They were all eminently
   successful, but without any good result. Indeed much valuable
   property was destroyed and many lives lost at a time when we
   would have liked to spare them. … Stoneman entered North
   Carolina and then pushed north to strike the Virginia and
   Tennessee Railroad. He got upon that road, destroyed its
   bridges at different places and rendered the road useless to
   the enemy up to within a few miles of Lynchburg. His approach
   caused the evacuation of that city about the time we were at
   Appomattox, and was the cause of a commotion we heard of
   there. He then pushed south, and was operating in the rear of
   Johnston's army about the time the negotiations were going on
   between Sherman and Johnston for the latter's surrender. In
   this raid Stoneman captured and destroyed a large amount of
   stores, while 14 guns and nearly 2,000 prisoners were the
   trophies of his success. Canby appeared before Mobile on the
   27th of March. The city of Mobile was protected by two forts,
   besides other intrenchments—Spanish Fort, on the east side of
   the bay, and Fort Blakely, north of the city. These forts were
   invested. On the night of the 8th of April, the National
   troops having carried the enemy's works at one point, Spanish
   Fort was evacuated; and on the 9th, the very day of Lee's
   surrender, Blakely was carried by assault, with a considerable
   loss to us. On the 11th the city was evacuated. … Wilson moved
   out [from Eastport, Mississippi] with full 12,000 men, well
   equipped and well armed. He was an energetic officer and
   accomplished his work rapidly. Forrest was in his front, but
   with neither his old-time army nor his old-time prestige. … He
   had a few thousand regular cavalry left, but not enough to
   even retard materially the progress of Wilson's cavalry. Selma
   fell on the 2d of April. … Tuscaloosa, Montgomery and West
   Point fell in quick succession. These were all important
   points to the enemy by reason of their railroad connections,
   as depots of supplies, and because of their manufactories of
   war material. … Macon surrendered on the 21st of April. Here
   news was received of the negotiations for the surrender of
   Johnston's army. Wilson belonged to the military division
   commanded by Sherman, and of course was bound by his terms.
   This stopped all fighting. General Richard Taylor had now
   become the senior Confederate officer still at liberty east of
   the Mississippi River, and on the 4th of May he surrendered
   everything within the limits of this extensive command.
   General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the trans-Mississippi
   department on the 26th of May, leaving no other Confederate
   army at liberty to continue the war. Wilson's raid resulted in
   the capture of the fugitive president of the defunct
   confederacy before he got out of the country. This occurred at
   Irwinville, Georgia, on the 11th of May. For myself, and I
   believe Mr. Lincoln shared the feeling, I would have been very
   glad to have seen Mr. Davis succeed in escaping, but for one
   reason: I feared that, if not captured, he might get into the
   trans-Mississippi region and there set up a more contracted
   confederacy. … Much was said at the time about the garb Mr.
   Davis was wearing when he was captured. [Mr. Davis, in his own
   narrative, and Captain G. W. Lawton, of the 4th Michigan
   Cavalry, which made the capture, agree in stating that the
   fugitive chief of the Confederacy wore when taken a lady's
   'waterproof,' with a shawl over his head and shoulders. Mr.
   Davis says that he picked up his wife's waterproof in mistake
   for his own when he ran from the tent in which he was
   surprised, while camping, and that his wife threw the shawl
   over him. Captain Lawton asserts that he carried a tin-pail,
   that he affected to be bent with age, and that when he stepped
   out Mrs. Davis asked the soldiers at the tent entrance to let
   her 'old mother' go to the run for water.] I cannot settle
   this question from personal knowledge of the facts; but I have
   been under the belief, from information given to me by General
   Wilson shortly after the event, that when Mr. Davis learned
   that he was surrounded by our cavalry he was in his tent
   dressed in a gentleman's dressing gown. Naturally enough, Mr.
   Davis wanted to escape, and would not reflect much how this
   should be accomplished provided it might be done successfully.
   … Every one supposed he would be tried for treason if
   captured, and that he would be executed. Had he succeeded in
   making his escape in any disguise it would have been adjudged
   a good thing afterwards by his admirers."

      _U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 69 (volume 2)._

   "Davis was taken, via Savannah and the ocean, to Fortress
   Monroe; where he was long closely and rigorously imprisoned,
   while his family were returned by water to Savannah and there
   set at liberty. Secretary Reagan—the only person of
   consequence captured with Davis—was taken to Boston, and
   confined, with Vice-President Stephens (captured about this
   time also in Georgia), in Fort Warren; but each was liberated
   on parole a few months thereafter."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 35._

      ALSO IN:
      _Major-General Wilson,
      How Jefferson Davis was overtaken._

      _J. H. Reagan,
      Flight and Capture of Jefferson Davis
      (in Annals of the War by leading Participants)._

      _G. W. Lawton,
      "Running at the Heads"
      (Atlantic Monthly, September, 1865)._

      _J. Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapter 54 (volume 2)._

      _C. C. Andrews,
      History of the Campaign of Mobile._

{3559}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May).
   Feeling of surrendered Confederate officers.

   After the surrender of Johnston, General Jacob D. Cox was put
   in command of the military district within which the surrender
   occurred, and had charge of the arrangements made for paroling
   and disbanding the Confederate forces. In a paper prepared for
   the Ohio Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion
   of the United States, General Cox has given an interesting
   report of conversations which he had in that connection with
   General Johnston and General Hardee. Talking with General
   Hardee of the war, the latter was asked "what had been his own
   expectation as to the result, and when had he himself
   recognized the hopelessness of the contest. 'I confess,' said
   he, laughing, 'that I was one of the hot Southerners who
   shared the notion that one man of the South could whip three
   Yankees; but the first year of the war pretty effectually
   knocked that nonsense out of us, and, to tell the truth, ever
   since that time we military men have generally seen that it
   was only a question how long it would take to wear our army
   out and destroy it. We have seen that there was no real hope
   of success, except by some extraordinary accident of fortune,
   and we have also seen that the politicians would never give up
   till the army was gone. So we have fought with the knowledge
   that we were to be sacrificed with the result we see to-day,
   and none of us could tell who would live to see it. We have
   continued to do our best, however, and have meant to fight as
   if we were sure of success.' … Johnston was very warm in his
   recognition of the soldierly qualities and the wonderful
   energy and persistence of our army and the ability of Sherman.
   Referring to his own plans, he said he had hoped to have had
   time enough to have collected a larger force to oppose
   Sherman, and to give it a more complete and efficient
   organization. The Confederate government had reckoned upon the
   almost impassable character of the rivers and swamps to give a
   respite till spring—at least they hoped for this. 'Indeed,'
   said he, with a smile, 'Hardee here,' giving a friendly nod of
   his head toward his subordinate, 'reported the Salkehatchie
   Swamps as absolutely impassable; but when I heard that Sherman
   had not only started, but was marching through those very
   swamps at the rate of thirteen miles a day, making corduroy
   road every foot of the way, I made up my mind there had been
   no such army since the days of Julius Cæsar.' Hardee
   laughingly admitted his mistaken report from Charleston, but
   justified it by saying that all precedent was against such a
   march, and that he would still have believed it impossible if
   he had not seen it done."

      _J. D. Cox,
      The Surrender of Johnston's Army
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery,
      Loyal Legion, United States,
      volume 2, page 249-256)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May).
   Statistics of the Civil War.

   "In a statistical exhibit of deaths in the Union army,
   compiled (1885), under the direction of Adjutant-General Drum,
   by Joseph W. Kirkley, the causes of death are given as
   follows:
   Killed in action, 4,142 officers, 62,916 men;
   died of wounds received in action, 2,223 officers, 40,789 men,
   of which number 99 officers and 1,973 men were prisoners of war;
   died of disease, 2,795 officers and 221,791 men, of which
   83 officers and 24,783 men were prisoners;
   accidental deaths (except drowned), 142 officers and 3,972 men,
   of which 2 officers and 5 men were prisoners;
   drowned, 106 officers and 4,838 men,
   of which 1 officer and 6 men were prisoners;
   murdered, 37 officers and 483 men;
   killed after capture, 14 officers and 90 men;
   committed suicide, 26 officers and 365 men;
   executed by United States military authorities, 267 men;
   executed by the enemy, 4 officers and 60 men;
   died from sunstroke, 5 officers and 308 men, of which 20
   men were prisoners;
   other known causes, 62 officers and 1,972 men,
   of which 7 officers and 312 men were prisoners;
   causes not stated, 28 officers and 12,093 men,
   of which 9 officers and 2,030 men were prisoners.
   Total 9,584 officers, and 349,944 men,
   of which 219 officers and 29,279 men were prisoners.
   Grand aggregate, 359,528;
   aggregate deaths among prisoners, 29,498.

   Since 1885 the Adjutant-General has received evidence of the
   death in Southern prisons of 694 men not previously accounted
   for, which increases the number of deaths among prisoners to
   30,192, and makes a grand aggregate of 360,222." Total number
   of men furnished to the United States Army and Navy during the
   War from the several States and Territories, 2,778,304; of
   which number, 2,494,592 were white troops, 101,207 were
   sailors and marines, and 178,975 were colored troops. "The
   work of mustering out volunteers began April 29th and up to
   August 7th 640,806 troops had been discharged; on September
   14th the number had reached 741,107, and on November 15th
   800,963. On November 22d, 1865, the Secretary of War reported
   that Confederate troops surrendered and were released on
   parole" to the number of 174,223. Official returns show the
   whole number of men enrolled (present and absent) in the
   active armies of the Confederacy, as follows:

   January 1, 1862, 318,011;
   January 1, 1863, 465,584;
   January 1, 1864, 472,781;
   January 1, 1865, 439,675.

   "Very few, if any, of the local land forces, and none of the
   naval are included in the tabular exhibit. If we take the
   472,000 men in service at the beginning of 1864, and add
   thereto at least 250,000 deaths occurring prior to that date,
   it gives over 700,000. The discharges for disability and other
   causes and the desertions would probably increase the number
   (inclusive of the militia and naval forces) to over 1,000,000.
   Northern writers have assumed that the Confederate losses
   equalled the Union losses; no data exist for a reasonably
   accurate estimate."

      _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 4, pages 767-768._

   "In the four years of their service the armies of the Union,
   counting every form of conflict, great and small, had been in
   2,265 engagements with the Confederate troops. From the time
   when active hostilities began until the last gun of the war
   was fired, a fight of some kind—a raid, a skirmish, or a
   pitched battle—occurred at some point on our widely extended
   front nearly eleven times per week upon an average. Counting
   only those engagements in which the Union loss in killed,
   wounded, and missing exceeded 100, the total number was
   330,—averaging one every four and a half days. From the
   northernmost point of contact to the southernmost, the
   distance by any practicable line of communication was more
   than 2,000 miles. From East to West the extremes were 1,500
   miles apart.
{3560}
   During the first year of hostilities—one of preparation on
   both sides—the battles were … 35 in number, of which the most
   serious was the Union defeat at Bull Run. In 1862 the war had
   greatly 'increased in magnitude and intensity, as is shown by
   the 84 engagements between the armies. The net result of the
   year's operations was highly favorable to the Rebellion. In
   1863 the battles were 110 in number—among them some of the
   most significant and important victories for the Union. In
   1864 there were 73 engagements, and in the winter and early
   spring of 1865 there were 28. In fact, 1864-65 was one
   continuous campaign. … Not only in life but in treasure the
   cost of the war was enormous. In addition to the large
   revenues of the Government which had been currently absorbed,
   the public debt at the close of the struggle was
   $2,808,549,437.55. The incidental losses were innumerable in
   kind, incalculable in amount. Mention is made here only of the
   actual expenditure of money—estimated by the standard of gold.
   The outlay was indeed principally made in paper, but the faith
   of the United States was given for redemption in coin—a faith
   which has never been tarnished, and which in this instance has
   been signally vindicated by the steady determination of the
   people. Never, in the same space of time, has there been a
   National expenditure so great. … For the three years of the
   rebellion, after the first year, our War Department alone
   expended $603,314,411.82. $690,391,048.66, and $1,030,690,400
   respectively. … At the outbreak of hostilities the Government
   discovered that it had no Navy at command. The Secretary, Mr.
   Welles, found upon entering his office but a single ship in a
   Northern port fitted to engage in aggressive operations. … By
   the end of the year 1863 the Government had 600 vessels of war
   which were increased to 700 before the rebellion was subdued.
   Of the total number at least 75 were ironclad."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 2,
      and volume 1, chapter 25._

   "Eleven Confederate cruisers figured in the 'Alabama claims'
   settlement between the United States and Great Britain. They
   were the Alabama, Shenandoah, Florida, Tallahassee, Georgia,
   Chickamauga, Nashville, Retribution, Sumter, Sallie and
   Boston. The actual losses inflicted by the Alabama
   ($6,547,609) were only about $60,000 greater than those
   charged to the Shenandoah. The sum total of the claims filed
   against the eleven cruisers for ships and cargoes was
   $17,900,633, all but about $4,000,000 being caused by the
   Alabama and Shenandoah. … In the 'Case of the United States' …
   it is stated that while in 1860 two-thirds of the commerce of
   New York was carried on in American bottoms, in 1863
   three-fourths was carried on in foreign bottoms. The transfer
   of American vessels to the British flag to avoid capture is
   stated thus:
   In 1861, vessels 126, tonnage 71,673;
   in 1862, vessels 135, tonnage 64,578;
   in 1863, vessels 348, tonnage 252,579;
   in 1864, vessels 106, tonnage 92,052.

   … The cruisers built or purchased in England for the
   Confederate navy, were the Florida, Alabama, Shenandoah and
   Rappahannock. The latter never made a cruise, and the others
   were procured for the government by James D. Bulloch, naval
   agent. … He also had constructed in France the armored ram
   Stonewall."

      _J. T. Scharf,
      History of the Confederate States Navy,
      chapter 26._

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS.

   "The greatest of all the lessons afforded to humanity by the
   Titanic struggle in which the American Republic saved its life
   is the manner in which its armies were levied, and, when the
   occasion for their employment was over, were dismissed. Though
   there were periods when recruiting was slow and expensive, yet
   there were others, when some crying necessity for troops was
   apparent, that showed almost incredible speed and efficiency
   in the supply of men. Mr. Stanton, in his report for 1865,
   says: 'After the disasters on the Peninsula in 1862, over
   80,000 troops were enlisted, organized, armed, equipped, and
   sent into the field in less than a month. Sixty thousand
   troops have repeatedly gone to the field within four weeks;
   and 90,000 infantry were sent to the armies from the five
   States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin within
   twenty days.'"

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 17._

      See also, PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May-July).
   President Johnson's measures of Reconstruction
   in the Insurrectionary States.

   "On the 10th of May the President [Andrew Johnson] issued a
   proclamation declaring substantially that actual hostilities
   had ceased, and that 'armed resistance to the authority of the
   Government in the insurrectionary States may be regarded at an
   end.' This great fact being officially recognized, the
   President found himself face to face with the momentous duty
   of bringing the eleven States of the Confederacy into active
   and harmonious relations with the Government of the Union. …
   An extra session of Congress seemed specially desirable at the
   time, and had one been summoned by the President, many of the
   troubles which subsequently resulted might have been averted.
   … Declining to seek the advice of Congress, in the
   embarrassments of his position, President Johnson necessarily
   subjected himself to the counsel and influence of his
   Cabinet," in which he had made no changes since President
   Lincoln's death. Among the members of the cabinet, the one who
   succeeded in obtaining ascendancy was Mr. Seward, who had
   rapidly recovered from his injuries and resumed the direction
   of the Department of State. Mr. Seward "was firmly persuaded
   that the wisest plan of reconstruction was the one which would
   be speediest; that for the sake of impressing the world with
   the strength and the marvelous power of self-government, with
   its Law, its Order, its Peace, we should at the earliest
   possible moment have every State restored to its normal
   relations with the Union. He did not believe that guarantee of
   any kind beyond an oath of renewed loyalty was needful. He was
   willing to place implicit faith in the coercive power of
   self-interest operating upon the men lately in rebellion. … By
   his arguments and by his eloquence Mr. Seward completely
   captivated the President. He effectually persuaded him that a
   policy of anger and hate and vengeance could lead only to evil
   results. … The President was gradually influenced by Mr.
   Seward's arguments, though their whole tenor was against his
   strongest predilections and against his pronounced and public
   committals to a policy directly the reverse. … Mr. Seward's
   influence was supplemented and enhanced by the timely and
   artful interposition of clever men from the South. … He
   [President Johnson] was not especially open to flattery, but
   it was noticed that words of commendation from his native
   section seemed peculiarly pleasing to him. …
{3561}
   On the 29th of May … two decisive steps were taken in the work
   of reconstruction. Both steps proceeded on the theory that
   every act needful for the rehabilitation of the seceded States
   could be accomplished by the Executive Department of the
   Government. … The first of these important acts of
   reconstruction, upon the expediency of which the President and
   Mr. Seward had agreed, was the issuing of a Proclamation of
   Amnesty and Pardon to 'all persons who have directly or
   indirectly participated in the existing Rebellion,' upon the
   condition that such persons should take and subscribe an
   oath—to be registered for permanent preservation—solemnly
   declaring that henceforth they would 'faithfully support,
   protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States and
   the union of the States thereunder;' and that they would also
   'abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations
   which have been made during the existing Rebellion, with
   reference to the emancipation of slaves.' … The general
   declaration of amnesty was somewhat narrowed in its scope by
   the enumeration, at the end of the proclamation, of certain
   classes which were excepted from its benefit." Of the thirteen
   classes thus excepted, the first six were nearly identical
   with those excepted in President Lincoln's proclamation of
   December 8, 1863.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

   The classes added were: "Seventh, 'All persons who have been,
   or are, absentees from the United States for the purpose of
   aiding the Rebellion.' … Eighth, 'All officers in the rebel
   service who had been educated at the United-States Military or
   Naval Academy.' … Ninth, 'All men who held the pretended
   offices of governors of States in insurrection against the
   United States.' … Tenth, 'All persons who left their homes
   within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States,
   and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the
   pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the
   Rebellion.' … Eleventh, 'All persons who have been engaged in
   the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the
   high seas … and upon the lakes and rivers that separate the
   British Provinces from the United States.' … Twelfth, 'All
   persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain amnesty and
   pardon, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, as
   prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind
   either before or after conviction.' … Thirteenth, 'All
   participants in the Rebellion, the estimated value of whose
   taxable property is over $20,000.' … Full pardon was granted,
   without further act on their part, to all who had taken the
   oath prescribed in President Lincoln's proclamation of
   December 8, 1863, and who had thenceforward kept and
   maintained the same inviolate. … A circular from Mr. Seward
   accompanied the proclamation, directing that the oath might
   'be taken and subscribed before any commissioned officer,
   civil, military, or naval, in the service of the United
   States, or before any civil or military officer of a loyal
   State or Territory, who, by the laws thereof, may be qualified
   to administer oaths.' Everyone who took the oath was entitled
   to a certified copy of it, … and a duplicate, properly
   vouched, was forwarded to the State Department. … With these
   details complete, a second step of great moment was taken by
   the Government on the same day (May 29). A proclamation was
   issued appointing William W. Holden provisional governor of
   the State of North Carolina. … The proclamation made it the
   duty of Governor Holden, 'at the earliest practicable period,
   to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary
   and proper for assembling a convention—composed of delegates
   who are loyal to the United States and no others—for the
   purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof, and
   with authority to exercise, within the limit of said State,
   all the powers necessary and proper to enable the loyal people
   of the State of North Carolina to restore said State to its
   constitutional relations to the Federal Government.' … It was
   specially provided in the proclamation that in 'choosing
   delegates to any State Convention no person shall be qualified
   as an elector or eligible as a member unless he shall have
   previously taken the prescribed oath of allegiance, and unless
   he shall also possess the qualifications of a voter as defined
   under the Constitution and Laws of North Carolina as they
   existed on the 20th of May, 1861, immediately prior to the
   so-called ordinance of secession.' Mr. Lincoln had in mind, as
   was shown by his letter to Governor Hahn of Louisiana, to try
   the experiment of negro suffrage, beginning with those who had
   served in the Union Army, and who could read and write; but
   President Johnson's plan confined the suffrage to white men,
   by prescribing the same qualifications as were required in
   North Carolina before the war. … A fortnight later, on the
   13th of June, a proclamation was issued for the reconstruction
   of the civil government of Mississippi, and William L. Sharkey
   was appointed provisional governor. Four days later, on the
   17th of June, a similar proclamation was issued for Georgia
   with James Johnson for provisional governor, and for Texas
   with Andrew J. Hamilton for provisional governor. On the 21st
   of the same month Lewis E. Parsons was appointed provisional
   governor of Alabama, and on the 30th Benjamin F. Perry was
   appointed provisional governor of South Carolina. On the 13th
   of July the list was completed by the appointment of William
   Marvin as provisional governor of Florida. The precise text of
   the North Carolina proclamation, 'mutatis mutandis,' was
   repeated in each one of those relating to these six States. …
   For the reconstruction of the other four States of the
   Confederacy different provisions were made." In Virginia, the
   so-called "Pierpont government"—see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861
   (JUNE-NOVEMBER)—"the shell of which had been preserved after
   West Virginia's separate existence had been recognized by the
   National Government, with its temporary capital at Alexandria,
   was accepted by President Johnson's Administration as the
   legitimate Government of Virginia. All its archives, property,
   and effects, as was afterwards said by Thaddeus Stevens, were
   taken to Richmond in an ambulance. … A course not dissimilar
   to that adopted in Virginia was followed in Louisiana,
   Arkansas, and Tennessee. In all of them the so-called
   'ten-per-cent' governments established under Mr. Lincoln's
   authority were now recognized. … The whole scheme of
   reconstruction, as originated by Mr. Seward and adopted by the
   President, was in operation by the middle of July, three
   months after the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.
{3562}
   Every step taken was watched with the deepest solicitude by
   the loyal people. The rapid and thorough change in the
   President's position was clearly discerned and fully
   appreciated. His course of procedure was dividing the
   Republican party, and already encouraging the hopes of those
   in the North who had been the steady opponents of Mr.
   Lincoln's war policy, and of those in the South who had sought
   for four years to destroy the Great Republic."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 18-20._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (July-December).
   Reports of Carl Schurz and General Grant on the condition
   of affairs in the lately rebellious States.

   In the summer of 1865 the Honorable Carl Schurz was
   commissioned by President Johnson to visit the Southern States
   and investigate the condition of affairs in them. Mr. Schurz,
   on returning from this mission, made a report of the result of
   his observations and inquiries, and the conclusions to which
   they led him, which was transmitted to the Senate, by the
   President, on the 18th of December. The views thus submitted
   were summarized at the close of the report, as follows: "I may
   sum up all I have said in a few words. If nothing were
   necessary but to restore the machinery of government in the
   States lately in rebellion in point of form, the movements
   made to that end by the people of the south might be
   considered satisfactory. But if it is required that the
   southern people should also accommodate themselves to the
   results of the war in point of spirit, those movements fall
   far short of what must be insisted upon. The loyalty of the
   masses and most of the leaders of the southern people consists
   in submission to necessity. There is, except in individual
   instances, an entire absence of that national spirit which
   forms the basis of true loyalty and patriotism. The
   emancipation of the slaves is submitted to only in so far as
   chattel slavery in the old form could not be kept up. But
   although the freedman is no longer considered the property of
   the individual master, he is considered the slave of society,
   and all independent State legislation will share the tendency
   to make him such. The ordinances abolishing slavery passed by
   the conventions under the pressure of circumstances will not
   be looked upon as barring the establishment of a new form of
   servitude. Practical attempts on the part of the southern
   people to deprive the negro of his rights as a freeman may
   result in bloody collisions, and will certainly plunge
   southern society into restless fluctuations and anarchical
   confusion. Such evils can be prevented only by continuing the
   control of the national government in the States lately in
   rebellion until free labor is fully developed and firmly
   established, and the advantages and blessings of the new order
   of things have disclosed themselves. This desirable result
   will be hastened by a firm declaration on the part of the
   government, that national control in the south will not cease
   until such results are secured. Only in this way can that
   security be established in the south which will render
   numerous immigration possible, and such immigration would
   materially aid a favorable development of things. The solution
   of the problem would be very much facilitated by enabling all
   the loyal and free-labor elements in the south to exercise a
   healthy influence upon legislation. It will hardly be possible
   to secure the freedman against oppressive class legislation
   and private persecution, unless he be endowed with a certain
   measure of political power. As to the future peace and harmony
   of the Union, it is of the highest importance that the people
   lately in rebellion be not permitted to build up another
   'peculiar institution' whose spirit is in conflict with the
   fundamental principles of our political system; for as long as
   they cherish interests peculiar to them in preference to those
   they have in common with the rest of the American people,
   their loyalty to the Union will always be uncertain. I desire
   not to be understood as saying that there are no well-meaning
   men among those who were compromised in the rebellion. There
   are many, but neither their number nor their influence is
   strong enough to control the manifest tendency of the popular
   spirit. There are great reasons for hope that a determined
   policy on the part of the national government will produce
   innumerable and valuable conversions. This consideration
   counsels lenity as to persons, such as is demanded by the
   humane and enlightened spirit of our times, and vigor and
   firmness in the carrying out of principles, such as is
   demanded by the national sense of justice and the exigencies
   of our situation." With the report of Mr. Schurz, the
   President transmitted to the Senate, at the same time, a
   letter written by General Grant after making a hurried tour of
   inspection in some of the Southern States, during the last
   week of November and early in December. General Grant wrote:
   "Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the
   point of the bayonet throughout the States in rebellion, have
   left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that
   ready obedience to civil authority the American people have
   generally been in the habit of yielding. This would render the
   presence of small garrisons throughout those States necessary
   until such time as labor returns to its proper channel, and
   civil authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone,
   either those holding places under the government or citizens
   of the southern States, who think it practicable to withdraw
   the military from the south at present. The white and the
   black mutually require the protection of the general
   government. There is such universal acquiescence in the
   authority of the general government throughout the portions of
   country visited by me, that the mere presence of a military
   force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain
   order. The good of the country, and economy, require that the
   force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen,
   (elsewhere in the southern States than at forts upon the
   seacoast no force is necessary,) should all be white troops.
   The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning many of
   them. The presence of black troops, lately slaves, demoralizes
   labor, both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a
   resort for the freedmen for long distances around. White
   troops generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small
   number of them can maintain order in a given district. Colored
   troops must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves.
   It is not the thinking men who would use violence towards any
   class of troops sent among them by the general government, but
   the ignorant in some places might; and the late slave seems to
   be imbued with the idea that the property of his late master
   should, by right, belong to him, or at least should have no
   protection from the colored soldier.
{3563}
   There is danger of collisions being brought on by such causes.
   My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of
   the southern States are anxious to return to self-government,
   within the Union, as soon as possible; that whilst
   reconstructing they want and require protection from the
   government; that they are in earnest in wishing to do what
   they think is required by the government, not humiliating to
   them as citizens, and that if such a course were pointed out
   they would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that
   there cannot be a greater commingling, at this time, between
   the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those
   intrusted with the lawmaking power. … In some instances, I am
   sorry to say, the freedman's mind does not seem to be
   disabused of the idea that a freedman has the right to live
   without care or provision for the future. The effect of the
   belief in division of lands is idleness and accumulation in
   camps, towns, and cities. In such cases I think it will be
   found that vice and disease will tend to the extermination or
   great reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected
   that the opinions held by men at the south for years can be
   changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require, for a
   few years, not only laws to protect them, but the fostering
   care of those who will give them good counsel, and on whom
   they rely."

      _39th Congress, 1st Session,
      Senate Ex. Doc. no. 2, pages 45-46, 106-107._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (December).
   The end of Slavery.
   Proclamation of the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.
   The creation of the Freedmen's Bureau.

   On the last day of the 38th Congress, March 3, 1865, an Act
   was passed to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen
   and refugees. It was among the last Acts approved by Mr.
   Lincoln, and was designed as a protection to the freedmen of
   the South and to the class of white men known as "refugees,"—
   driven from their homes on account of their loyalty to the
   Union. The Act provided that the Bureau should have
   "supervision and management of all abandoned lands, and the
   control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from
   rebel States, or from any district of country within the
   territory embraced in the operations of the army, under such
   rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the
   bureau and approved by the President. The said bureau shall be
   under the management and control of a commissioner, to be
   appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
   of the Senate. … The Secretary of War may direct such issues
   of provisions, clothing, and fuel as he may deem needful for
   the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute
   and suffering refugees and freedmen, and their wives and
   children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct. …
   The President may, by and with the advice and consent of the
   Senate, appoint an assistant commissioner for each of the
   States declared to be in insurrection, not exceeding ten. …
   Any military officer may be detailed and assigned to duty
   under this act without increase of pay or allowances. … The
   commissioner, under the direction of the President, shall have
   authority to set apart for the use of loyal refugees and
   freedmen such tracts of land, within the insurrectionary
   States, as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United
   States shall have acquired title by confiscation, or sale, or
   otherwise. And to every male citizen, whether refugee or
   freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than
   40 acres of such land, and the person to whom it is so
   assigned shall be protected in the use and enjoyment of the
   land for the term of three years, at an annual rent not
   exceeding 6 per centum upon the value of said land as it was
   appraised by the State authorities in the year 1860. … At the
   end of said term, or at any time during said term, the
   occupants of any parcels so assigned may purchase the land and
   receive such title thereto as the United States can convey. …
   On the 20th of May, 1865, Major-General O. O. Howard was
   appointed Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. He gave great
   attention to the subject of education; and after planting
   schools for the freedmen throughout a great portion of the
   South, in 1870—five years after the work was begun—he made a
   report. It was full of interest. In five years there were
   4,239 schools established, 9,307 teachers employed, and
   247,333 pupils instructed. In 1868 the average attendance was
   89,396; but in 1870 it was 91,398, or 79¾ per-cent. of the
   total number enrolled. The emancipated people sustained 1,324
   schools themselves, and owned 592 school buildings. The
   Freedmen's Bureau furnished 654 buildings for school
   purposes."

      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      part 8, chapters 21-22 (volume 2)._

   As the original act, "by experience, had proved somewhat
   inadequate for the ends in view, Congress, in the early part
   of February, 1866, submitted an act amendatory … for executive
   approval. Its main features consisted in the reservation of
   three millions of acres of public land in the South from the
   operation of the homestead and pre-emption laws for occupation
   by former slaves at a rental to be approved by designated
   authorities, an extension of the former means of relief in the
   way of food and clothing, and the punishment, by tribunals
   composed of the agents and officials of the bureau, of all
   persons who should violate the rights under this act of its
   designated beneficiaries. … The President, chafing under the
   non-admission to their representation in Congress of the
   Southern States which under his policy had been restored,
   vetoed the bill February 19 on various grounds, among the more
   important of which, and the only ones of particular import,
   were that the measure violated constitutional guarantees in
   that no person by our organic code should be deprived of life,
   liberty or property without due process of law, and that
   taxation should never be imposed without representation. …
   February 21st the bill was again put upon its passage, but not
   obtaining a two-thirds vote in the Senate, consequently failed
   to become a law. … The third Freedmen's Bureau bill, of July,
   1866, was another attempt to amend the original law of March
   3, 1865, as to juridical measures for the enforcement thereof,
   and to perfect the distribution of the abandoned and
   confiscated lands of the South among the blacks. It was much
   milder in form than the one vetoed in February of the same
   year, as it did not make violations of the proposed law a
   criminal offence.
{3564}
   It proposed to give jurisdiction of such violations, however,
   to military tribunals, made up of the agents and officers of
   the bureau, until the Southern States had been restored to
   their representation in Congress. … July 16, 1866, the
   President vetoed the bill as a matter of course. He could have
   pursued no other action without self-contradiction. Congress,
   moreover, could not have reasonably expected a different
   result. It framed the bill not with an eye for executive
   approval, but with regard to its ability to pass it over the
   disapproval of that official, which it did on the same day the
   veto message was received, thereby making it a law of the
   land."

      _O. Skinner,
      The Issues of American Politics,
      part 2, chapter 2._

   "The law made the agents of this Bureau guardians of freedmen,
   with power to make their contracts, settle their disputes with
   employers, and care for them generally. The position of Bureau
   agent was one of power, of responsibility, capable of being
   used beneficently, and sometimes, no doubt, it was; but these
   officials were subjected to great temptation. … Nearly every
   one of these agents who remained South after reconstruction
   was a candidate for office; and many actually became
   Governors, Judges, Legislators, Congressmen, Postmasters,
   Revenue officers, etc."

      _H. A. Herbert,
      Why the Solid South?
      chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866 (December-April).
   The Reconstruction question in Congress.
   The Joint Committee of Fifteen.
   The shaping of the Fourteenth Amendment.

   The "independent measures of the Executive for reconstruction
   were far from giving satisfaction to the Republican party.
   Within a few days after the meeting of Congress, in December,
   1865, Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, asked leave to introduce a
   joint resolution which provided that a committee of fifteen
   members should be appointed—nine of whom were to be members of
   the House and six to be members of the Senate—for the purpose
   of inquiring into the condition of the states which had formed
   the so-called Confederate States of America. This committee
   was to report whether these states or any of them were
   entitled to be represented in either house of Congress. Leave
   was given to report at any time, by bill or otherwise, and
   until such should be made and finally acted upon by Congress,
   no member was to be received into either house from any of
   those states. All papers relating to this representation in
   Congress were to be referred to this committee without debate.
   This resolution was adopted in the House by a vote of—yeas
   133, nays 36." In the Senate it received amendments which made
   it a concurrent, instead of a joint resolution, and which
   struck out the clause relating to the non-admittance of
   members from the States in question pending the committee's
   report, and also that which required a reference of papers to
   the committee without debate.

      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapter 18._

   The Joint Committee on Reconstruction was constituted by the
   appointment (December 14), on the part of the House, of
   Thaddeus Stevens, Elihu B. Washburn, Justin S. Morrill, Henry
   Grider, John A. Bingham, Roscoe Conkling, George S. Boutwell,
   Henry T. Blow, and Andrew J. Rogers; and by the appointment
   (December 21), on the part of the Senate, of William Pitt
   Fessenden, James W. Grimes, Ira Harris, Jacob M. Howard,.
   Reverdy Johnson, and George H. Williams. The most serious
   question connected with the problem of reconstruction was that
   arising from the great increase of representation in Congress,
   and consequent augmentation of political weight and power,
   that must necessarily accrue to the lately rebellious States
   from the emancipation of their slaves. To this question the
   Committee gave their attention first. By an original provision
   of the Constitution, representation is based on the whole
   number of free persons in each State and three-fifths of all
   other persons. "When all become free, representation for all
   necessarily follows. As a consequence the inevitable effect of
   the rebellion would be to increase the political power of the
   insurrectionary States, whenever they should be allowed to
   resume their positions as States of the Union. As
   representation is by the Constitution based upon population,
   your committee [said their report, when made, on the 8th of
   June, 1866] did not think it advisable to recommend a change
   of that basis. … It appeared to your committee that the rights
   of these persons by whom the basis of representation had been
   thus increased should be recognized by the general government.
   … It did not seem just or proper that all the political
   advantages derived from their becoming free should be confined
   to their former masters, who had fought against the Union, and
   withheld from themselves, who had always been loyal. … Doubts
   were entertained whether Congress had power, even under the
   amended Constitution, to prescribe the qualifications of
   voters in a State, or could act directly on the subject. It
   was doubtful, in the opinion of your committee, whether the
   States would consent to surrender a power they had always
   exercised, and to which they were attached. As the best if not
   the only method of surmounting the difficulty, and as
   eminently just and proper in itself, your committee came to
   the conclusion that political power should be possessed in all
   the States exactly in proportion as the right of suffrage
   should be granted, without distinction of color or race. This
   it was thought would leave the whole question with the people
   of each State, holding out to all the advantage of increased
   political power as an inducement to allow all to participate
   in its exercise." To this conclusion the committee arrived as
   early as the 22d of January, when they made a preliminary
   report, recommending an amendment to the constitution to the
   effect that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be
   apportioned among the several States which may be included
   within this Union according to their respective numbers,
   counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding
   Indians not taxed: Provided, That whenever the elective
   franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account
   of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be
   excluded from the basis of representation." Grave objections
   were found to the proposed exclusion of the colored race as a
   whole from the basis of representation, in case the suffrage
   should be denied to any part of it. It was shown, moreover,
   that disfranchisement might be practically accomplished on
   other grounds than that of race or color and the intended
   effect of the constitutional provision evaded.
{3665}
   Hence the proposition of the Committee failed in the Senate
   (March 9, 1866), though adopted by the House (January 31). On
   the 20th of February, the Committee on Reconstruction reported
   a concurrent resolution, "That in order to close agitation
   upon a question which seems likely to disturb the action of
   the Government, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is
   agitating the minds of the people of the eleven States which
   have been declared to be in insurrection, no Senator or
   Representative shall be admitted into either branch of
   Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have
   declared such State entitled to such representation." The
   House adopted this important concurrent resolution the same
   evening. In the Senate it was debated until the 2d of March,
   when it was passed by a vote of 29 to 18. On the 30th of April
   the Reconstruction Committee reported a joint resolution
   embodying a comprehensive amendment to the Constitution,
   designed to protect the rights of the freedmen of the South,
   as citizens of the United States, and to fix the basis of
   representation in Congress, as well as to settle other
   questions arising out of the Rebellion. As adopted by Congress
   in June, and subsequently ratified by the legislatures of the
   necessary number of States this became what appears as the
   Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (JUNE).

   "This proposed amendment to the Constitution was accompanied
   by two bills, one of which provided that when any State lately
   in insurrection should have ratified the amendment, its
   Senators and Representatives, if found duly elected and
   qualified, should be admitted as members of Congress. The
   other bill declared the high ex-officials of the late
   Confederacy ineligible to any office under the Government of
   the United States."

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 3, and 13-19._

      ALSO IN:
      _Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction,
      39th Congress, 1st session.
      H. R. Report, number. 30._

      _A. R. Conkling,
      Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling,
      chapter 14._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866.
   The Fenian movement and invasion of Canada.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (February).
   The French warned out of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D.1861-1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).
   The passage of the first Civil Rights Bill
   over the President's veto.

   "Immediately on the reassembling of Congress after the
   holidays, January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull [in the Senate], in
   pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill 'to protect
   all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and
   furnish the means of their vindication.' This bill, having
   been read twice, was referred to the Committee on the
   Judiciary." A few days later the bill was reported back from
   the Committee, and it came up for discussion on the 29th of
   January. On the 1st of February it passed the Senate and went
   to the House. In that body it was reported from the Judiciary
   Committee on the 1st of March, and debate upon the measure
   began. It passed the House, with some amendments, March 13th,
   by a vote of 111 to 38. The amendments of the House were
   agreed to by the Senate, and it went to the President, who
   returned it with an elaborate veto message on the 27th of
   March. In the Senate, on the 6th of April, by 33 ayes to 15
   nays, and in the House three days later, by 122 affirmative
   votes to 41 in the negative, the bill was passed
   notwithstanding the veto, and became law. As enacted, the
   Civil Rights Bill declared "that all persons born in the
   United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding
   Indians not taxed, are … citizens of the United States; and
   such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any
   previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except
   as a punishment for crime, … shall have the same right in
   every State and Territory of the United States to make and
   enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to
   inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
   personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws
   and proceedings for the security of person and property as is
   enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
   punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law,
   statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary
   notwithstanding." Section 2 of the act provided penalties for
   its violation. The remaining sections gave to the district and
   circuit courts of the United States cognizance of all crimes
   and offenses committed against the provisions of the act;
   extended the jurisdiction of those courts and enlarged and
   defined the powers and duties of the district attorneys,
   marshals, deputy marshals and commissioners of the United
   States, to that end; made it lawful for the President "to
   employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United
   States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent
   the violation and enforce the due execution of this act;" and,
   finally, provided that "upon all questions of law arising in
   any cause under the provisions of this act a final appeal may
   be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States."

      W_. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 9-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 48._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (June).
   Congressional adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

   The joint resolution, embodying the important amendment to the
   Federal Constitution which became, when ratified, the
   Fourteenth Amendment, reported to Congress on the 30th of
   April, 1866, by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction was
   passed by the House of Representatives on the 10th of May, and
   by the Senate on the 8th of June, with amendments which the
   House concurred in on the 13th of June.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL).

   Having no constitutional power to veto the resolution,
   President Johnson sent a message to Congress on the 22d
   expressing his disapproval of it. The proposed constitutional
   amendment as it passed both Houses of Congress, and as it
   became part of the constitution of the United States by
   subsequent ratification of the States, is as follows:

   "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
   States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
   of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
   State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
   shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
   property without due process of law; nor deny to any person
   within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

{3566}

   Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
   several States according to their respective numbers, counting
   the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians
   not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
   choice of electors for President and Vice President of the
   United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and
   judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
   Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
   of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
   the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
   participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
   representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
   which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
   number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

   Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
   Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold
   any office, civil or military, under the United States, or
   under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
   member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or
   as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or
   judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
   the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
   rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
   enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
   each House, remove such disability.

   Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
   States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
   payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
   insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But
   neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay
   any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
   rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss
   or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
   and claims shall be held illegal and void.

   Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
   appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 17-18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July).
   Restoration of Tennessee to her
   "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July).
   The New Orleans Riot.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (October-March).
   The Reconstruction issue before the people.
   Congress sustained by the North.
   President Johnson and the South.
   Rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Southern States.

   In the elections of 1866 the canvass turned upon the issue
   between Congress and the President concerning Reconstruction,
   and the popular verdict was overwhelmingly adverse to the
   Presidential policy, while a new Congress was elected far more
   Radical in disposition than its predecessor. Every Northern
   State was swept by the Republicans, with heavily increased
   majorities. Even those "which had been tenaciously Democratic
   gave way under the popular pressure. … The aggregate majority
   for the Republicans and against the Administration in the
   Northern States was about 390,000 votes. In the South the
   elections were as significant as in the North, but in the
   opposite direction. Wherever Republican or Union tickets were
   put forward for State or local offices in the Confederate
   States, they were defeated by prodigious majorities. Arkansas
   gave a Democratic majority of over 9,000, Texas over 40,000,
   and North Carolina 25,000. The border slave States were
   divided. Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky gave strong
   majorities for the Democrats, while West Virginia and Missouri
   were carried by the Republicans. The unhappy indication of the
   whole result was that President Johnson's policy had inspired
   the South with a determination not to submit to the legitimate
   results of the war, but to make a new fight and, if possible,
   regain at the ballot-box the power they had lost by war. The
   result of the whole election was to give to the Republicans
   143 representatives in Congress and to the Democrats but 49."
   But when Congress assembled, in December, the President was
   found to be inflexibly determined to pursue the line of policy
   which he had marked out. In his message he reiterated his
   views "with entire disregard of the popular result which had
   so significantly condemned him. … The President's position …
   excited derision and contempt in the North, but it led to
   mischievous results in the South. The ten Confederate States
   which stood knocking at the door of Congress for the right of
   representation, were fully aware, as was well stated by a
   leading Republican, that the key to unlock the door had been
   placed in their own hands. They knew that the political
   canvass in the North had proceeded upon the basis, and upon
   the practical assurance (given through the press, and more
   authoritatively in political platforms), that whenever any
   other Confederate State should follow the example of
   Tennessee, it should at once be treated as Tennessee had been
   treated. Yet, when this position had been confirmed by the
   elections in all the loyal States, and was, by the special
   warrant of popular power, made the basis of future admission,
   these ten States, voting upon the Fourteenth Amendment at
   different dates through the winter of 1866-67, contemptuously
   rejected it. In the Virginia Legislature only one vote could
   be found for the Amendment. In the North-Carolina Legislature
   only 11 votes out of 148 were in favor of the Amendment. In
   the South-Carolina Legislature there was only one vote for the
   Amendment. In Georgia only two votes out of 169 in the
   Legislature were in the affirmative. Florida unanimously
   rejected the Amendment. Out of 106 votes in the Alabama
   Legislature only ten could be found in favor of it.
   Mississippi and Louisiana both rejected it unanimously. Texas,
   out of her entire Legislature, gave only five votes for it,
   and the Arkansas Legislature, which had really taken its
   action in the preceding October, gave only three votes for the
   Amendment. … It was naturally inferred and was subsequently
   proved, that the Southern States would not have dared to take
   this hostile attitude except with the encouragement and the
   unqualified support of the President."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 10-11._

{3567}

   "No factor in those elections [of 1866] proved more potential
   than the rejection by Southern Legislatures of the pending
   Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
   The clauses on which its acceptance or rejection turned in
   these assemblies were: Section II., which apportioned
   Representatives in Congress upon the basis of the voting
   population; and Section II!., which provided that no person
   should hold office under the United States who, having taken
   an oath as a Federal or state officer to support the
   Constitution, had subsequently engaged in the war against the
   Union. It was claimed by the friends of the Amendment to be
   especially unfair that the South should have representation
   for its freedmen and not give them the ballot. The right,
   however, of a state to have representation for all its free
   inhabitants, whether voters or not, was secured by the
   Constitution, and that instrument even allowed three-fifths
   representation for slaves. New York, Ohio, and other states
   denied the ballot to free negroes; some states excluded by
   property qualification and others by educational tests, yet
   all enjoyed representation for all their peoples. The reply to
   this was that the Constitution ought to be amended because the
   South would now have, if negroes were denied the ballot, a
   larger proportion of non-voters than the North. Southern
   people were slow to see that this was good reason for change
   in the Constitution, especially as they believed they were
   already entitled to representation, and conceived that they
   ought to have a voice in proposing as well as in the
   ratification of amendments. Five of the restored states had
   already ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, and such
   ratification had been counted valid. If they were states, they
   were certainly entitled to representation. So they claimed. It
   was perhaps imprudent for Southern people at that time to
   undertake to chop logic with their conquerors, or indeed to
   claim any rights at all. … The insuperable objection, however,
   to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was to be
   found in the clause which required the people of the late
   Confederate States to disfranchise their own leaders, to brand
   with dishonor those who had led them in peace and in war."

      _H. A. Herbert,
      Why the Solid South?
      (Noted Men on the Solid South)
      pages 15-16._

   In a letter addressed, November 25, 1866, to General Richard
   Taylor, lately of the Confederate army, and brother-in-law of
   Jefferson Davis, General Grant wrote: "I have talked with
   several members of Congress who are classed with the Radicals;
   Schenck and Bidwell for instance. They express the most
   generous views as to what would be done if the Constitutional
   amendments proposed by Congress were adopted by the Southern
   States. What was done in the case of Tennessee was an earnest
   of what would be done in all cases. Even the disqualification
   to hold office imposed on certain classes by one article of
   the amendment would, no doubt, be removed at once, except it
   might be in the cases of the very highest offenders, such, for
   instance, as those who went abroad to aid in the Rebellion,
   those who left seats in Congress, etc. All or very nearly all
   would soon be restored, and so far as security to property and
   liberty is concerned, all would be restored at once. I would
   like exceedingly to see one Southern State, excluded State,
   ratify the amendments to enable us to see the exact course
   that would be pursued. I believe it would much modify the
   demands that may be made if there is delay." "But the
   President's endeavors did not cease. … He used all the
   authority of his office to dissuade the Southerners from
   accepting the amendment which the entire North had ratified. …
   He converted good feeling and good will on both sides into
   discord, and precipitated disasters almost equal to those from
   which the State had barely escaped. … This view of Johnson's
   conduct was thenceforth steadily maintained by Grant."

      _A. Badeau,
      Grant in Peace,
      chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (December-March).
   The Tenure-of-Office Bill.

   "Against the early decision of the founders of the Government,
   … against the repeatedly expressed judgment of ex-President
   Madison, against the equally emphatic judgment of Chief
   Justice Marshall, and above all, against the unbroken practice
   of the Government for 78 years, the Republican leaders now
   determined to deprive the President of the power of removing
   Federal officers. Many were induced to join in the movement
   under the belief that it was important to test the true
   meaning of the Constitution in the premises, and that this
   could be most effectively done by directly restraining by law
   the power which had been so long conceded to the Executive
   Department. To that end Mr. Williams of Oregon, on the first
   Monday of December, 1866, introduced a bill 'to regulate the
   tenure of civil offices.'"

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, page 270._

   "After grave consideration and protracted discussion in both
   houses of Congress, the [Tenure-of-Office bill] was passed
   near the close of the session. On the 2d of March [1867] the
   bill encountered the veto of the President, who saw in the
   measure serious interference with the ability of the Executive
   to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
   Constitution of the United States. The bill was immediately
   passed over the veto without debate. The act thus passed
   provides that officers appointed by and with the advice and
   consent of the Senate shall hold their offices until their
   successors are in like manner appointed and qualified. Members
   of the Cabinet hold their offices during the term of the
   President by whom they are appointed, and for one month
   thereafter, subject to removal by consent of the Senate."

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      page 560._

   Soon after the inauguration of President Grant, in 1868, the
   Tenure-of-Office act was so far modified as to practically
   release the President from the restraint which it put upon his
   power of removal.

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 18, and Appendix B._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.
   Organization of the Bureau of Education.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
    The Ku-Klux Klan of the Southern States and its outrages.

    "It would have been contrary to the experience of mankind,
    and an exception to all the teachings of history, if the
    social and political revolution which the results of the war
    had imposed on the states then recently insurgent had gone
    into operation peacefully, harmoniously, and successfully. It
    was impossible for such to be the case. The transition was
    from a state in which the superiority and domination of the
    white race over the colored race existed unquestioned for
    centuries. It was to a condition of things in which the most
    prominent whites were disfranchised and deprived of the right
    to hold public offices. Their late slaves were enfranchised,
    and the judicial and other offices were largely filled by
    dishonest and unfriendly strangers from the North. What was
    worse still, many of these places were filled by ignorant and
    brutal negroes. The transition was too sudden and violent. It
    was hard to submit to it quietly.
{3568}
    No people, least of all such a proud and intolerant people as
    that of the South, could see their local governments
    transferred from their own hands into the hands of their
    former slaves without being goaded into violent resistance.
    This resistance took the form, in most of the Southern
    States, not of armed opposition to the Federal or the state
    governments, but of organized intimidation and terrorism. It
    was directed against the colored people and against their
    white allies and leaders. It made an objective point of the
    agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, ministers of the gospel, and
    school teachers,—all adventurers from the North, or men who
    had, in quest of fortune, immigrated into these states. All
    of these classes were regarded as public or private enemies.
    They were designated by the opprobrious title of
    'carpet-baggers.' The history of these outrages fills many
    volumes of reports made by joint and separate committees of
    the two houses of Congress. It is from these volumes, from
    reports of military commanders in the South, and from other
    official documents, that the following epitome, exhibiting
    the lawlessness that prevailed in the Southern States during
    the … decade between 1865 and 1875, is made. These documents
    are so full of the details of crime and violence, and are so
    voluminous, that it is exceedingly difficult to select from
    them, or to convey a correct idea of their relations. Very
    soon after the close of the Civil War, almost as soon as the
    Reconstruction acts were begun to be put in operation, secret
    societies were organized in various states of the South.
    Their object, either secret or avowed, was to prevent the
    exercise of political rights by the negroes. These societies
    took various names, such as 'The Brotherhood,' 'The Pale
    Faces,' 'The Invisible Empire,' 'The Knights of the White
    Camellia'; but all these were finally merged into, or
    compounded with, the formidable and dreaded society
    denominated the 'Ku-Klux Klan.' Their acts of lawlessness and
    cruelty have passed into local and congressional history as
    'Ku-Klux outrages.' The State of Virginia was a remarkable
    exception to the other states in its exemption from crimes of
    this character; while the two neighboring States of North
    Carolina and Tennessee furnished, perhaps, more material for
    investigation into Ku-Klux outrages than any other portion of
    the South. This barbarous and bloodthirsty organization is
    said to have originated in 1866. There is no doubt that the
    Ku-Klux Klan was organized at first only to scare the
    superstitious blacks. It is true that it arose out of the
    frivolities of some young Tennesseans. Horrid tales were told
    to frighten the negroes from roaming about and pilfering. The
    testimony before the committee on that subject, of which the
    writer was a member, showed that they daily visited houses
    and talked their foolish talk; that they were 'mummicking
    about,'—whatever that means. … There is no doubt that
    political reasons had their influence after the Ku-Klux were
    under way. … Certain it is, that they soon came to be made
    use of, in the most arbitrary, cruel, and shocking manner,
    for the furtherance of political ends, and for the crushing
    out of Republicanism in the Southern States; to which party
    the colored people were almost unanimously attached. The
    crimes and outrages narrated in these pages had their origin,
    almost exclusively, in political causes,—in the effort on the
    part of the whites to set at naught the rights of suffrage
    guaranteed to the negroes, and to exclude from Federal,
    state, county, and local offices all persons whose reliance
    for election to such offices was mainly if not altogether, on
    negro votes. General Forrest estimated the strength of the
    Ku-Klux organization in Tennessee at 40,000. He expressed the
    belief that it was still stronger in other states. The
    members were sworn to secrecy, under the penalty of death for
    breach of fidelity. Their ordinary mode of operation—as
    gathered from the mass of evidence—was to patrol the country
    at night. They went well armed and mounted. They wore long
    white gowns. They masked their faces. Their appearance
    terrified the timid and superstitious negroes who happened to
    see them as they rode past, and who then regarded them as
    ghostly riders. But most frequently they surrounded and broke
    into the cabins of the negroes; frightened and maltreated the
    inmates; warned them of future vengeance; and probably
    carried off some obnoxious negro, or 'carpet-bagger,' whose
    fate it was to be riddled with murderous bullets, hung to the
    limb of a tree, or mercilessly whipped and tortured, for some
    offense, real or imaginary, but generally because he was
    active in politics or in negro schools or churches. …
    According to the majority report of the Senate select
    committee of March 10, 1871, the Ku-Klux associations, by
    whatever name known, were instituted in North Carolina in
    1867 or 1868. … The report of the Senate committee of the
    10th of March, 1871, before referred to, recites a startling
    number of Ku-Klux outrages. They embrace whipping,
    mutilation, and murder. These cruelties took place in North
    Carolina, between December, 1868, and December, 1870. The
    report gives some of the horrifying details."

      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 25-26._

   "Senator Scott, in a speech in the Senate, gave as the result
   of the investigation that came to his own knowledge, as
   follows: In North Carolina, in 14 counties, there were 18
   murders and 315 whippings. In South Carolina, 9 counties, 35
   murders and 276 other flagrant outrages. In Georgia, 20
   counties, 72 murders and 126 whippings. In Alabama, 26
   counties, 215 murders and 116 other outrages. In Florida, in
   one county alone there were 153 cases of homicide. In
   Mississippi, 20 counties, 23 homicides and 76 other cases of
   outrage. In 99 counties in different States he found 526
   homicides and 2,009 cases of whipping. But the committee state
   that in Louisiana alone in the year 1868 there were more than
   1,000 murders, and most of them were the result of the
   operations of the Ku Klux."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 45._

      ALSO IN:
      _Report of Joint Select Committee
      (42d Congress, 2d session, Senate Report, number 41)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (January).
   Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia.

   As early as the 18th of January, 1866, the House of
   Representatives passed a bill extending the suffrage in the
   District of Columbia, by striking out the word "white" from
   all laws and parts of laws prescribing the qualification of
   electors for any office in the District, and declaring that no
   person should be disqualified from voting at any election in
   the District on account of color.
{3569}
   As it was known that the President would veto the bill if sent
   to him, the Senate held it until the next session. In
   December, 1866, it was called up in that body by Senator
   Sumner, and after considerable debate was passed, December
   13th. On the 7th of January following it was returned by the
   President with his veto, but was passed over the veto by the
   Senate (29 to 10) the same day, and by the House (113 to 38)
   the day following, thus becoming a law.

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 4 and 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
   The Purchase of Alaska.

      See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
   The Military Reconstruction Acts of Congress.

   "Congress had declared amply enough how the rebel States
   should not be reinstated. Two years after the close of the
   war, however, the Union was still unrestored, and while
   claiming, under the Constitution, absolute jurisdiction of the
   question, Congress had failed to prescribe the terms on which
   the Union should be restored. … Both the country and Congress
   were at last convinced by the course of events that
   affirmative Congressional action was indispensable, involving
   the sweeping away of Mr. Johnson's ex-rebel State governments
   and the enfranchisement of the emancipated slaves. Mr. Stevens
   had been of that opinion ever since the emasculation by the
   Senate of the Fourteenth Amendment, as adopted by the House
   [which had proposed to exclude from the right to vote for
   Representatives in Congress and for Presidential electors,
   'until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who
   voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid
   and comfort'], and immediately thereupon proposed a measure
   containing the germ of the Military Reconstruction Act. Called
   up from time to time, and pressed upon the attention of the
   House by Mr. Stevens, it was passed on the 13th day of
   February, 1867, after a four weeks' debate upon it in
   Committee of the Whole. By the 20th both Houses had agreed
   upon it, and passed it. On the 2d day of March the President
   returned it to the House with his veto, over which it was at
   once passed by both Houses; and with only two days of the
   Thirty-ninth Congress to spare, it become law."

      _O. J. Hollister,
      Life of Schuyler Colfax,
      chapter 9._

   The Military Reconstruction Act set forth in its preamble that
   "Whereas, no legal State governments or adequate protection
   for life or property now exists in the rebel States
   [enumerating all the late Confederate States except
   Tennessee]; … and whereas it is necessary that peace and good
   order should be enforced in said States until loyal and
   republican State governments can be legally established:
   therefore, Be it enacted, … That said rebel States shall be
   divided into military districts and made subject to the
   military authority of the United States, as hereinafter
   prescribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the
   first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second
   district, Georgia, Alabama and Florida the third district,
   Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana
   and Texas the fifth district." Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the act
   made it the duty of the President to assign to the command of
   each of the said districts an officer of the army not below
   the rank of brigadier-general, and defined the duties and
   powers of such commander, providing for the assignment to him
   of an adequate military force. Section 5 provided "That when
   the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a
   constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution
   of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention
   of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State 21
   years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous
   condition, who have been resident in said State for one year
   previous to the day of such election, except such as may be
   disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony
   at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that
   the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as
   have the qualifications herein stated for electors of
   delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a
   majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification
   who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such
   constitution shall have heen submitted to Congress for
   examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the
   same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature
   elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed
   by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen,
   and when said article shall have become a part of the
   Constitution of the United States, said State shall be
   declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators
   and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their
   taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the
   preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said
   State." It was further provided that no person excluded from
   office by the Fourteenth Amendment should be a member of the
   convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel
   States, and that any civil government which might exist in any
   of the said States prior to the admission of its
   representatives to Congress should be deemed provisional only,
   and subject to the paramount authority of the United States.
   "The friends of this measure were dissatisfied with it on the
   ground of its incompleteness in not containing provisions for
   carrying it into effect in accordance with the purpose of its
   framers. … The Fortieth Congress, meeting on the 4th of March,
   immediately upon the close of its predecessor, proceeded
   without delay to perfect and pass over the President's veto
   [March 23, 1867] a bill supplementary to the act to provide
   for the more efficient government of the rebel States." By
   this supplementary act specific instructions were given as to
   the course of procedure to be followed in making a
   registration of the voters qualified under the act and in
   conducting the elections provided for.

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _Why the Solid South?
      (Noted Men on the Solid South.)_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (March-May).
   Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson.

   "Until the spring of 1866, a year after Mr. Johnson became
   President, there was entire harmony between him and his
   Cabinet. … No objection was raised even to that part of the
   President's first message which treated of the suffrage
   question, by any member of the Cabinet. It was in fact
   approved by all, and by none more heartily than by Mr.
   Stanton. A change took place soon after the Civil Rights bill
   became a law over the President's veto, and bitter controversy
   arose between the President and Congress.
{3570}
   In this controversy, and at its commencement, Mr. Dennison
   [Postmaster-general] and Mr. Harlan [Secretary of the
   Interior] sided with Congress and tendered their resignations,
   which were very reluctantly accepted. They resigned because
   they could not heartily sustain the President, but there was
   no breach of the social relations which had existed between
   them. Mr. Speed [Attorney-general] soon after followed the
   example of Dennison and Harlan. Mr. Stanton [Secretary of War]
   also sided with Congress, but he did not resign. He was
   advised by prominent political and personal friends to
   'stick,' and he did so, contrary to all precedent and in
   opposition to the judgment of conservative men of his party. …
   He attended the Cabinet meetings, not as an adviser of the
   President, but as an opponent of the policy to which he had
   himself been committed, and the President lacked the nerve to
   dismiss him. … In this crisis of his political life, Mr.
   Johnson exhibited a want of spirit and decision which
   astonished those who were familiar with his antecedents. He
   knew when the Tenure-of-Office Bill was before Congress that
   the object of its leading supporters was to tie his hands, and
   yet he refrained from using them when they were free. … When
   he did act he acted unwisely. He retained Mr. Stanton in his
   Cabinet when his right to remove him was unquestionable. He
   suspended him [August 12, 1867] after the Tenure-of-Office
   Bill had become a law, and in accordance with its provisions,
   [directing General Grant to act as Secretary of War ad
   interim]; and when the Senate refused to approve of the
   suspension [January 13, 1868], he issued orders for his
   removal and the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary
   of War ad interim. If he had tried to give his enemies an
   advantage over him, to furnish them with weapons for his own
   discomfiture, he could not have done it more effectually. … If
   he had removed Mr. Stanton instead of suspending him, and
   justified his action on the ground that his control of the
   members of his Cabinet was a constitutional right of which he
   could not be deprived by Congress, he probably would not have
   been impeached. The gist of the charges against him was that
   he had violated a law of Congress in removing Mr. Stanton, or
   issuing an order for his removal, after the Senate had refused
   to sanction his suspension. In the articles of impeachment
   there were other charges against the President, the most
   serious of which were that he had delivered intemperate,
   inflammatory speeches, which were intended to bring into
   contempt the Congress of the United States and duly enacted
   laws. The speeches made by the President in Cleveland, St.
   Louis, and other places in August and September, 1866—in fact,
   all his public addresses during his contest with Congress—were
   in the worst possible taste, derogatory to himself and to his
   high position; but they … did not constitute good ground for
   his impeachment; and this was the opinion of the House, which
   in January, 1867, after they were made, refused to impeach him
   by the decisive vote of 108 to 57. Other causes for his
   impeachment were subsequently sought for. His bank account was
   examined. His private conduct in Washington was carefully
   scrutinized. Men were employed to investigate his public and
   private character in Tennessee, but nothing was found to his
   discredit. … Nothing was found to justify his impeachment but
   the order which he issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton and
   his appointment of General Thomas to be Secretary of the War
   Department ad interim after the Senate had refused to sanction
   Mr. Stanton's suspension." The formal presentment by the House
   of Representatives of its Impeachment against the President,
   at the bar of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment,
   was made on the 5th day of March, 1868. The answer of the
   President was presented on the 23d; the trial opened on
   Monday, the 30th of March, and closed on the 26th of May
   following. "The trial was a very interesting one, not only to
   the people of the United States, but to the people of other
   countries. … It was the first instance in the history of
   nations of the trial of the head of a government before one of
   the branches of the law-making power, sitting as a judicial
   tribunal, on charges presented by another. The presiding
   officer was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—the
   senators of the respective States were the jury—the House of
   Representatives the prosecutor. The managers to conduct the
   impeachment for the House were John A. Bingham, George S.
   Boutwell, James F. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas
   Williams, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Logan, all members of
   the House, all lawyers, and some of them distinguished in the
   profession. The President entered his appearance by Henry
   Stanbery, Benjamin K. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William H.
   Evarts, and Thomas A. K. Nelson. William S. Groesbeck, in the
   course of the trial, appeared and took part as counsel for the
   President in place of Mr. Black." The result of the trial was
   a failure of the Impeachment. The senators who voted "guilty"
   were 35 in number—being less than two-thirds of the
   whole—against 19. Of those who voted in the negative, seven
   were Republicans who had steadily opposed the President's
   policy; four were Republicans who had adhered to him
   throughout; eight were Democrats.

      _H. McCulloch,
      Men and Measures of Half a Century,
      chapter 26._

   In the opinion of Mr. Blaine, "the sober reflection of later
   years has persuaded many who favored Impeachment that it was
   not justifiable on the charges made," and that "the President
   was impeached for one series of misdemeanors, and tried for
   another series."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      Trial of Andrew Johnson,
      (Published by Order of the Senate), 3 volumes.

      Trial of Andrew Johnson,
      Congressional Globe, Supplement, 40th Congress, 2d session.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868.
   The Burlingame Treaty with China.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (November).
   The Twenty-first Presidential Election.

   General Ulysses S. Grant, nominated by the Republican party,
   was elected President in November 1868, by 3,012,833 votes of
   the people against 2,703,249 votes cast for Horatio Seymour,
   ex-Governor of New York, the candidate of the Democratic
   party. The electoral vote returned and counted was 214 for
   Grant and 80 for Seymour, who carried the States of New York,
   New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky,
   and Oregon. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, was elected Vice
   President, over General Frank P. Blair.

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 22._

{3571}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Reconstruction complete.
   Restoration of all the Southern States
   to representation in Congress.

   "On the 22d of June, 1868, an act was passed, with the
   following preamble and resolution, for the admission of
   Arkansas:—'Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of an
   act entitled, An act for the more efficient government of the
   Rebel States, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary
   thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of State
   government, which is republican, and the legislature of said
   State has duly ratified the amendment of the Constitution of
   the United States proposed by the XXXIXth Congress, and known
   as Article XIV.; Therefore, Be it enacted, etc., that the
   State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to representation
   in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, upon the
   following fundamental condition.' The 'fundamental condition,'
   as finally agreed upon, was, 'That there shall never be in
   said State any denial or abridgment of the elective franchise,
   or of any other right, to any person by reason or on account
   of race or color, except Indians not taxed.' The bill was
   vetoed by the President on the 20th, but passed over the veto
   on the 22d in the House by the vote of 111 to 31, and in the
   Senate by a vote of 30 to 7. On the 25th of June a similar act
   was passed admitting the States of North Carolina, South
   Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in
   pursuance of a similar preamble, with the conditions that they
   should ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, that they should not
   deprive 'any citizen, or class of citizens of the State of the
   right to vote by the constitution thereof'; and that no person
   prohibited from holding office by said Amendment should be
   'deemed eligible to any office in either of said States unless
   relieved from disability as provided in said amendment'; the
   State of Georgia being also required to declare 'null and
   void' certain provisions of its constitution, and 'in addition
   give the assent of said State to the fundamental condition
   herein before imposed on the same.' The bill passed the House,
   May 14,—yeas 110, nays 35; in the Senate, June 9,—yeas 31,
   nays 5. It was vetoed by the President on the 25th, and
   passed, the same day, by both houses, over the Presidential
   veto. On the 27th of January, 1870, Virginia was admitted into
   the Union by a vote, in the House, of 136 to 58; and in the
   Senate by a vote of 47 to 10. The following were the preamble,
   oaths, and conditions precedent: 'Whereas the people of
   Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of State
   government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of
   Virginia, elected under said constitution, has ratified the
   Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
   United States; and whereas the performance of these several
   acts in good faith is a condition precedent to a
   representation of the State in Congress,' said State should be
   admitted to a representation in Congress; with the additional
   conditions precedent, however, that the constitution should
   never be so amended as to deprive any class of citizens of the
   right 'to vote,' 'to hold office,' on account of race, color,
   or previous condition of servitude; neither should there be
   'other qualifications' required for such reason; nor should
   any be deprived of 'school rights or privileges' on such
   account. On the 3d of February Mississippi was admitted by a
   bill resembling the former in every particular, by
   substantially the same vote. On the 30th of March Texas was
   readmitted to the Union on a bill very similar, though not
   identical with the above. … By this act of Congress the last
   of the 'wayward sisters' was brought back and restored to the
   family of States, and the fractured Union was, outwardly at
   least, repaired. It was ten years, eight months, and twenty
   days after South Carolina raised the banner of revolt and led
   off in 'the dance of death.'"

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 27-31._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1876.
   The reconstructed government of South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
   Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and
   its rejection by the Senate.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
   Gold Speculation.
   Black Friday.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
   Founding of the Order of Knights of Labor.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.
   The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

   "The great defect of the Fourteenth Amendment, as freely
   charged during its discussion, was its at least tacit
   recognition of the right of States to disfranchise the
   ex-slaves, should they so elect. True, they could not do it
   without sacrificing so much in the basis of their
   representation in Congress; but if they were willing to make
   that sacrifice, there was nothing in the amendment to prevent
   such discrimination. To remedy that defect … it was resolved
   to incorporate into the organic law a new provision for their
   protection, and to supplement the amendments of the
   Constitution already adopted by another. There were
   accordingly introduced into both houses, almost
   simultaneously, measures for that purpose. … In the House, on
   the 11th of January, 1869, Mr. Boutwell reported from the
   Committee on the Judiciary a joint resolution proposing an
   amendment which provided that the right to vote of no citizen
   should be abridged by the United States or any State by reason
   of race, color, or previous condition of slavery." The joint
   resolution was adopted in the House, 150 affirmative to 42
   negative votes, on the 30th of January. Adopted in the Senate
   with amendments, by 39 to 16 votes, it went to a Committee of
   Conference, on whose report the joint resolution was finally
   adopted by both Houses on the 25th of February, and submitted
   for ratification to the legislatures of the States, in the
   following form:

   "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
   shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
   State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
   servitude.

   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
   article by appropriate legislation."

   "The amendment received the votes of 29 States, constituting
   the requisite three fourths, and thus became a part of the
   organic law. On the 30th of March, 1870, President Grant
   communicated the fact to Congress in a special message."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 47._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapters 16 and 19._

{3572}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1890.
   Recovery of the domination of Whites at the South.
   Suppression of the Colored vote.
   Prosperity of the Southern States.

   "Between 1869 and 1876, the whites had in every Southern State
   except South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, regained
   control of the government, and in 1876 those three States were
   also recovered. The circumstances were different, according to
   the character of the population in each State. In some a union
   of the moderate white Republicans with the Democrats, brought
   about by the disgust of all property holders at the scandals
   they saw and at the increase to their burdens as tax-payers,
   had secured legitimately chosen majorities, and ejected the
   corrupt officials. In some the same result was attained by
   paying or otherwise inducing the negroes not to go to the
   polls, or by driving them away by threats or actual violence.
   Once possessed again of a voting majority, the whites, all of
   whom had by 1872 been relieved of their disabilities, took
   good care, by a variety of devices, legal and extra-legal, to
   keep that majority safe; and in no State has their control of
   the government been since shaken. President Hayes withdrew, in
   1877, such Federal troops as were still left at the South, and
   none have ever since been despatched thither. … With the
   disappearance of the carpet-bag and negro governments, the
   third era in the political history of the South since the war
   began. The first had been that of exclusively white suffrage;
   the second, that of predominantly negro suffrage. In the
   third, universal suffrage and complete legal equality were
   soon perceived to mean in practice the full supremacy of the
   whites. To dislodge the coloured man from his rights was
   impossible, for they were secured by the Federal Constitution
   which prevails against all State action. The idea of
   disturbing them was scarcely entertained. Even at the election
   of 1872 the Southern Democrats no more expected to repeal the
   Fifteenth Amendment than the English Tories expected at the
   election of 1874 to repeal the Irish Church Disestablishment
   Act of 1869. But the more they despaired of getting rid of the
   amendment, the more resolved were the Southern people to
   prevent it from taking any effect which could endanger their
   supremacy. They did not hate the negro, certainly not half so
   much as they hated his white leaders by whom they had been
   robbed. 'We have got,' they said, 'to save civilization,' and
   if civilization could be saved only by suppressing the
   coloured vote, they were ready to suppress it. … The modes of
   suppression have not been the same in all districts and at all
   times. At first there was a good deal of what is called
   'bulldozing,' i. e. rough treatment and terrorism, applied to
   frighten the coloured men from coming to or voting at the
   polls. Afterwards, the methods were less harsh. Registrations
   were so managed as to exclude negro voters, arrangements for
   polling were contrived in such wise as to lead the voter to
   the wrong place so that his vote might be refused; and, if the
   necessity arose, the Republican candidates were counted out,
   or the election returns tampered with. 'I would stuff a
   ballot-box,' said a prominent man, 'in order to have a good,
   honest government;' and he said it in good faith, and with no
   sense of incongruity. Sometimes the local negro preachers were
   warned or paid to keep their flocks away. … Notwithstanding
   these impediments, the negro long maintained the struggle,
   valuing the vote as the symbol of his freedom, and fearing to
   be re-enslaved if the Republican party should be defeated.
   Leaders and organizers were found in the Federal
   office-holders, of course all Republicans. … After 1884,
   however, when the presidency of the United States passed to a
   Democrat, some of these office-holders were replaced by
   Democrats and the rest became less zealous. … Their friends at
   the North were exasperated, not without reason, for the gift
   of suffrage to the negroes had resulted in securing to the
   South a larger representation in Congress and in presidential
   elections than it enjoyed before the war, or would have
   enjoyed had the negroes been left unenfranchised. They argued,
   and truly, that where the law gives a right, the law ought to
   secure the exercise thereof; and when the Southern men replied
   that the negroes were ignorant, they rejoined that all over
   the country there were myriads of ignorant voters, mostly
   recent immigrants, whom no one thought of excluding.
   Accordingly in 1890, having a majority in both Houses of
   Congress and a President of their own party, the Republican
   leaders introduced a bill subjecting the control of Federal
   elections to officers to be appointed by the President, in the
   hope of thus calling out a full negro vote, five sixths of
   which would doubtless have gone to their party. The measure
   appeared to dispassionate observers quite constitutional, and
   the mischief it was designed to remedy was palpable. … It
   passed the House, but was dropped in the Senate under the
   threat of an obstructive resistance by the (then Democratic)
   minority. Secure, however, as the dominance of the whites
   seems now to be against either Northern legislation or negro
   revolt, the Southern people are still uneasy and sensitive on
   the subject. … This horror of negro supremacy is the only
   point in which the South cherishes its old feelings. Hostility
   to the Northern people has almost disappeared. … Just because
   they felt that they had fought well, they submitted with
   little resentment, and it has become a proverb among them that
   the two classes which still cherish bitterness are the two
   classes that did not fight,—the women and the clergy. … Not,
   however, till the whites regained control between 1870 and
   1876, did the industrial regeneration of the country fairly
   begin. Two discoveries coincided with that epoch which have
   had an immense effect in advancing material prosperity, and
   changing the current of men's thoughts. The first was the
   exploration of the mineral wealth of the highland core of the
   country. … The second discovery was that of the possibility of
   extracting oil from the seeds of the cotton plant, which had
   formerly been thrown away, or given to hogs to feed on. The
   production of this oil has swelled to great proportions,
   making the cultivation of cotton far more profitable. … Most
   of the crop now raised, which averages eight millions of
   bales, and in 1894 was expected to exceed ten millions (being
   more than double that which was raised, almost wholly by slave
   labour, before the war), is now raised by white farmers; while
   the mills which spin and weave it into marketable goods are
   daily increasing and building up fresh industrial
   communities."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth
      (3d edition). chapter 92 (volume 2)._

{3573}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1870.
   The Ninth Census.

   Total population, 38,558,371 (exceeding that of 1860
   by 7,115,049), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.
                        White.   Black.
Maine.                 624,809    1,606
New Hampshire.         317,697      580
Vermont.               329,613      924
Massachusetts.       1,443,156    13,947
Rhode Island.          212,219    4,980
Connecticut.           527,549    9,668
New York.            4,330,210   52,081
New Jersey.            875,407   30,658
Pennsylvania.        3,456,609   65,294

Total               12,117,269  179,738

South Atlantic division.

Delaware.              102,221   22,794
Maryland.              605,497  175,391
District of Columbia.   88,278   43,404
Virginia.              712,089  512,841
West Virginia.         424,033   17,980
North Carolina.        678,470  391,650
South Carolina.        289,667  415,814
Georgia.               638,926  545,142
Florida.                96,057   91,689

Total                3,635,238  2,216,705

North central division.

Ohio.                2,601,946     63,213
Indiana.             1,655,837     24,560
Illinois.            2,511,096     28,762
Michigan.            1,167,282     11,849
Wisconsin.           1,051,351      2,113
Minnesota.             438,257        759
Iowa.                1,188,207      5,762
Missouri.            1,603,146    118,071
Dakota.                 12,887         94
Nebraska.              122,117        789
Kansas.                346,377     17,108

Total               12,698,503    273,080

South central division.

Kentucky.            1,098,692    222,210
Tennessee.             936,119    322,331
Alabama.               521,384    475,510
Mississippi.           382,896    444,201
Louisiana.             362,065    364,210
Texas.                 564,700    253,475
Arkansas.              362,115    122,169

Total                4,227,971  2,204,106

Western division.
Montana.                18,306        183
Wyoming.                 8,726        183
Colorado.               39,221        456
New Mexico.             90,393        172
Arizona.                 9,581         26
Utah.                   86,044        118
Nevada.                 38,959        357
Idaho.                  10,618         60
Washington.             22,195        207
Oregon.                 86,929        346
California.            499,424      4,272

Total                  910,396      6,380

Grand total.        33,589,377  4,880,009

   In addition the census shows 63,199 Chinese, 65 Japanese, and
   25,731 civilized Indians, making a total of 38,558,371, as
   stated above. In the decade preceding this census the
   immigrant arrivals numbered 2,466,752, of which 1,106,970 were
   from the British Islands, and 1,073,429 from other parts of
   Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.
   Renewed Negotiations with Great Britain.
   The Joint High Commission, the Treaty of Washington
   and the Geneva Award.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.
   The first Civil-Service Reform Act.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (April).
   The Force Bill.

   At the extra session of Congress, which met March 4, 1871 a
   sweeping Act was passed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.
   "This Act allowed suit in Federal courts by the party injured
   against any person who should in any way deprive another of
   the rights of a citizen; it made it a penal offence to
   conspire to take away from any person the rights of a citizen;
   it provided that inability, neglect, or refusal by any State
   to suppress such conspiracy, to protect the rights of its
   citizens, or to call upon the President for aid, should be
   'deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the
   laws' under the XIVth Amendment; it declared such
   conspiracies, if not suppressed by the authorities, 'a
   rebellion against the Government of the United States'; it
   authorized the President, 'when in his judgment the public
   safety shall require it,' to suspend the privilege of the writ
   of habeas corpus in any district, and suppress the
   insurrection by means of the army and navy; and it excluded
   from the jury-box any person 'who shall, in the judgment of
   the court, be in complicity with any such combination or
   conspiracy.' The authority to suspend the privilege of the
   writ of habeas corpus was to cease after the end of the next
   regular Session of Congress."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, page 214._

      ALSO IN:
      _Annual Cyclopœdia, 1871,
      page 228._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
   Decision of the San Juan Water Boundary Question
   by the Emperor of Germany.

      See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
   The Twenty-second Presidential Election.

   The leading candidates for President in 1872 were General
   Grant, nominated for re-election by the main body of the
   Republican Party, and Horace Greeley, of New York, put forward
   by a revolted section of that party and accepted and supported
   by the Democratic Party. "In 1870 the Republican party in
   Missouri had split into two parts. The 'Radical' wing wished
   to maintain for the present the disqualifications imposed on
   the late rebels by the State Constitution during the war; the
   'Liberal' wing, headed by B. Gratz Brown and Carl Schurz,
   wished to abolish these disqualifications and substitute
   'universal amnesty and universal enfranchisement.' Supported
   by the Democrats, the Liberal Republicans carried the State,
   though opposed by the Federal office-holders and the influence
   of the Administration. This success stimulated a reaction in
   the National Republican party, many of whose members believed
   that the powers of the Federal Government over the local
   concerns of the States had already been enforced up to or
   beyond constitutional limits, that the various enforcement
   Acts were designed rather for the political advancement of
   President Grant's personal adherents than for the benefit of
   the country, the freedmen, or even of the Republican party;
   and that the efforts to police the Southern States by the
   force of the Federal Government ought to cease.
{3574}
   In the spring of 1871 the Liberal Republicans and Democrats of
   Ohio began to show symptoms of common feeling on these
   subjects, and during the summer the 'Liberal' movement
   continued to develop within the Republican party. January
   24th, 1872, the Missouri Liberals issued a call for a National
   Convention at Cincinnati in the following May." At the meeting
   in Cincinnati the Liberal Republican Convention nominated
   Horace Greeley for President, and B. Gratz Brown for Vice
   President. The Democratic National Convention which met at
   Baltimore, June 9th, adopted these candidates, with the
   "platform" on which they were nominated. "A few recalcitrant
   Democrats met at Louisville, Kentucky, September 3d, and
   nominated Charles O'Conor, of New York, and John Quincy Adams,
   of Massachusetts."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition., chapter 22._

   The Prohibitionists put in nomination James Black, of
   Pennsylvania, for President, and John Russell, of Michigan,
   for Vice President. The Republican nominee for Vice President,
   on the ticket with General Grant, was Henry Wilson, of
   Massachusetts. The popular vote cast was 3,585,444, or
   3,597,132, for Grant, and 2,843,563, or 2,834,125 for Greeley
   (according to the return that may be counted from Louisiana,
   where two rival returning boards disputed authority with one
   another); 29,489 for O'Conor and 5,608 for Black. Mr. Greeley
   died on the 29th of November, 1872, before the electoral
   colleges cast their vote, the consequence being that the
   Democratic votes in the colleges were scattered. The following
   is the electoral vote for President as counted by Congress:
   Grant, 286; Thomas A. Hendricks, 42; B. Gratz Brown 18;
   Charles J. Jenkins 2; David Davis, 1. The votes of Louisiana
   and Arkansas were rejected, as were three votes cast in
   Georgia for Horace Greeley, deceased.

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 15._

      _E. McPherson,
      Handbook of Politics for 1872 and 1874._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872-1873.
   The Credit Mobilier Scandal.

      See CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873.
   The so-called "demonetization of silver."

   "We have heard a great deal in later years about the
   surreptitious demonetization of silver in 1873. There was,
   however, vastly too much criticism wasted on the act of 1873;
   for the real demonetization of silver in the United States was
   accomplished in 1853. It was not the result of accident; it
   was a carefully considered plan, deliberately carried into
   legislation in 1853, twenty years before its nominal
   demonetization by the act of 1873. … In 1853 the single
   standard was gold. This was a situation which no one rebelled
   against. Indeed, no one seemed to regard it as anything else
   than good fortune (except so far as the subsidiary coins had
   disappeared). … In the debates it was proposed that, as the
   cause of the change in the relative values of gold and silver
   was the increased product of gold, the proper remedy should be
   to increase the quantity of gold in the gold coins. … There
   was no discussion as to how a readjustment of the ratio
   between the two metals might be reached, for it was already
   decided that only one metal was to be retained. This decision,
   consequently, carried us to a point where the ratio between
   the two metals was not of the slightest concern. And so it
   remained. The United States had no thought about the ratios
   between gold and silver thereafter until the extraordinary
   fall in the value of silver in 1876. … In the provisions of
   the act of 1853 nothing whatever was said as to the silver
   dollar-piece. It had entirely disappeared from circulation
   years before, and acquiescence in its absence was everywhere
   found. No attempt whatever was thereafter made to change the
   legal ratio, in order that both metals might again be brought
   into concurrent circulation. Having enough gold, the country
   did not care for silver. … In 1873 we find a simple legal
   recognition of that which had been the immediate result of the
   act of 1853, and which had been an admitted fact in the
   history of our coinage during the preceding twenty years. In
   1853 it had been agreed to accept the situation by which we
   had come to have gold for large payments, and to relegate
   silver to a limited service in the subsidiary coins. The act
   of 1873, however, dropped the dollar piece out of the list of
   silver coins. In discontinuing the coinage of the silver
   dollar, the act of 1873 thereby simply recognized a fact which
   had been obvious to everybody since 1849. It did not introduce
   anything new, or begin a new policy. Whatever is to be said
   about the demonetization of silver as a fact must center in
   the act of 1853. Silver was not driven out of circulation by
   the act of 1873, which omitted the dollar of 412½ grains,
   since it had not been in circulation for more than twenty-five
   years. … The act of February 12, 1873, is known as the act
   which demonetized the silver dollar. Important consequences
   have been attached to it, and it has even been absurdly
   charged that the law was the cause of the commercial crisis of
   September, 1873. As if a law which made no changes in the
   actual metallic standard in use, and which had been in use
   thus for more than twenty' years, had produced a financial
   disaster in seven months! To any one who knows of the
   influence of credit and speculation, or who has followed the
   course of our foreign trade since the Civil War, such a theory
   is too absurd to receive more than passing mention. To the
   year 1873 there had been coined of 412½-grain dollars for
   purposes of circulation, only $1,439,457, and these were
   coined before 1806."

      _J. L. Laughlin,
      History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      part 1, chapters 5 and 7._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873.
   The Panic.

   "The panic of 1873 differed very materially from the other
   great panics by which this country has been afflicted. Lack of
   capital was the main difficulty in 1837 and 1857. Population
   had increased so rapidly that millions of human beings were
   out of work, and apprehension spread lest there might not be
   food enough to go around. In 1873, however, men were well
   employed. Business of all kinds was in excellent condition,
   and no one doubted for a moment that there would be plenty for
   every man to eat. The excellent condition of trade, in fact,
   was the chief factor in the panic of 1873. Everyone was busy,
   and wanted money with which to carry on his trade. For two
   years before the crash, money had been in great demand.
{3575}
   Railroads had recently been built to an extent such as this
   country had never known before. Whereas, in 1861, railroad
   construction amounted to only 651 miles, in 1871 it reached
   the then unprecedented figure of 7,779 miles. This new
   mileage, moreover, was mainly in the West, where the immediate
   remuneration was but slight. Railroads were being pushed
   forward into regions which could not be expected to return an
   income for twenty years. The cost of railroad construction in
   this country during the five years preceding September, 1873,
   was estimated by the Comptroller of the Currency at no less
   than $1,700,000,000. The money to pay for this extravagant
   building was obtained, not from the earnings of the old
   portions of the road, but from enormous issues of railroad
   bonds, placed to a large extent among the banks of this
   country, but still more among the capitalists of Europe. In
   the Northern Pacific Company occurred the most flagrant abuse
   of railroad credit the world has ever known. … One after
   another of the Western roads defaulted in paying the interest
   on its bonds. The result was, that, by the summer of 1873, the
   market for new issues of railroad bonds had practically
   disappeared. Meantime the banks and bankers of New York were
   loaded down with railroad paper. The railroads had borrowed
   money for short periods in the expectation that before their
   notes fell due they would have raised the money to make
   payment by the sale of bonds. A temporary relief was felt, in
   June, 1873, through the customary midsummer ease in money. But
   this temporary respite only made the difficulty worse. Deluded
   by the momentary calm, the New York banks added still further
   to their loans. … The year before, money had grown tight early
   in September, and the more cautious banks began gradually to
   call their loans, fearing that the experience of 1872 might be
   renewed. But the rates for money did not noticeably increase,
   and the only cause for excitement early in the month was the
   failure, on September 8, of the Mercantile Warehouse and
   Security Company, owing to advances on bonds of the Missouri,
   Kansas & Texas Railroad. This was followed, on the 13th, by
   the failure of Kenyon Cox & Co., of which firm Daniel Drew was
   a member, caused by loans to the Canada Southern Railroad. By
   this time the sky was heavily overcast. Money was now
   advancing rapidly, the New York banks were calling loans on
   every hand, and new loans on railroad paper were scarcely to
   be had at all. Suddenly, on the 18th of September, the tempest
   burst. On the morning of that dark day, Jay Cooke, the agent
   of the U. S. Government, with some four millions of deposits
   from all parts of the country, and his fifteen millions of
   Northern Pacific paper, declared his inability to meet his
   debts. The report flew down 'the street' with the ferocity of
   a cyclone. Railroad shares were thrown upon the market by the
   bushel, in utter disregard of their intrinsic value. … Stock
   brokers continued to announce their failures all day long.
   Nothing seemed able to withstand the shock, and when, on
   September 19, the great banking house of Fisk & Hatch went
   under, terror became universal. A run was started on the Union
   Trust Co., which was believed to have close intimacy with
   Vanderbilt's railroads, and on the Fourth National Bank, whose
   dealings were largely with Wall street brokers. The panic, was
   by this time so general that the banks began to refuse one
   another's certified checks, and on the 20th a considerable
   number of the New York banks suspended payment. On that day
   the Union Trust Co., the National Trust Co., and the National
   Bank of the Commonwealth all closed their doors. At 11 o'clock
   on the 20th, the New York Stock Exchange, for the first time
   in its history, closed its doors, and the Governing Committee
   announced that the board would not be opened till further
   notice. This high-handed measure caused an outcry for the
   moment, but on calmer judgment it was generally conceded that
   the measure was a good one. On the evening of that Saturday,
   September 20, the Clearing House Association met and adopted a
   plan similar to that adopted in the panic of 1857, and in
   substance this: Any bank in the Clearing House Association
   might deposit with a committee of five persons, to be
   appointed for that purpose, an amount of its bills receivable,
   or other securities to be approved by the committee, and the
   committee were then to issue to that bank certificates of
   deposit, bearing interest at 5 per cent. per annum, to an
   amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the securities or bills
   receivable so deposited. These certificates could be used in
   settlement of balances at the Clearing House for a period not
   to extend beyond the 1st of the following November, and they
   were to be received by creditor banks during that period
   daily, in the proportion which they bore to the aggregate
   amount of the debtor balances paid at the Clearing House. The
   amount of certificates should not exceed $10,000,000. The
   legal tenders belonging to the associated banks were to be
   considered and treated as a common fund held for mutual aid
   and protection, and the committee were given power to equalize
   the same by assessment or otherwise in their discretion. This
   scheme, simple as it was, proved of the utmost efficacy in
   mitigating the evils that must always follow a distrust among
   banks. The lull occasioned by the intervening Sunday was
   employed by President Grant and Secretary of the Treasury
   Richardson in a visit to New York. All day long they gave
   audience to business men at the Fifth Avenue Hotel.
   Suggestions of every description were offered as a remedy for
   the disease. The most feasible proposition, and that which was
   finally adopted, was the purchase of Government bonds. …
   Shortly after his return from the Fifth Avenue Hotel,
   Secretary Richardson announced his intention to buy Government
   bonds, and, in a few days, $13,000,000 of the U. S. greenbacks
   were thus absorbed. … On Tuesday, September 30, the Stock
   Exchange was once more opened. It was expected on all hands
   that this would be the signal for another onslaught. But so
   general was this expectation that most persons refrained for
   the moment from offering their stocks. As a result, the market
   opened a trifle higher than it had closed ten days before. It
   continued to advance, moreover, till October 7. On that day a
   new decline set in, and on October 14 came a fearful drop,
   which carried prices lower than on September 20. From this
   reaction there was a gradual improvement till October 31, when
   the failure of Hoyt, Sprague & Co., the great mill owners of
   Providence and New York, once more shook the market and
   brought stocks, on October 31 and November 1, to the lowest
   prices of the year.
{3576}
   With those prices it became manifest that the panic had
   reached its end. Money had already begun to flow to New York
   both from Europe and from the West, and the public, tempted by
   the excessive decline in stocks, began to purchase freely. The
   result was a steady though gradual improvement through the
   remainder of the year."

      _The Panic of 1873
      (Banker's Magazine, November, 1891)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.
   The Whisky Ring.

      See WHISKY RING.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.
   The second Civil Rights Bill and
   its declared unconstitutionality.

   "Congress, to give full effect to the fourteenth amendment to
   the federal Constitution, passed an act in 1875, which
   provided that all persons within the jurisdiction of the
   United States shall be entitled to the full and equal
   enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and
   privileges of inns, public conveyances on land and water,
   theatres and other places of public amusement, subject only to
   the conditions and limitations established by law, and
   applicable alike to citizens of every race and color,
   regardless of any previous condition of servitude. … In 1883
   the act was held unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment,
   says Bradley, J., does not 'invest Congress with power to
   legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State
   legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State
   legislation or State action of the kinds referred to. It does
   not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for
   the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of
   redress against the operation of State laws and the action of
   State officers, executive and judicial, when these are
   subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the
   amendment.' Civil Rights Cases, 109 United States 3."

      _T. M. Cooley,
      Constitutional Limitations which rest upon the
      Legislative Power of the States, 6th edition,
      pages 733-734 and foot-note._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   Admission of Colorado into the Union.

      See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   The Sioux War.
   Battle of Little Big Horn.
   Death of General Custer.

   Hostilities with a powerful confederation of Sioux or Dakota
   tribes of Indians, in the northwest, were brought about, in
   the spring of 1876, by gold discoveries in the Black Hills and
   the consequent rush of miners into the Indian reservation. To
   subdue the hostile Indians, three military expeditions were
   set in motion,—from Fort Fetterman, under General Crook, from
   Fort Ellis, in Montana, under General Gibbon, and from
   Bismarck, in Dakota, under General Terry. These were to
   converge on the upper waters of the Yellowstone, where Sitting
   Bull, the able chief of the Sioux, and his camp, in the valley
   of the small stream commonly known as the Little Big Horn. The
   Sioux warrior used the advantages of his central position like
   a Napoleon, striking his assailants in turn, as they came
   near, with far stronger forces than they knew him to possess.
   Crook was forced back; Gibbon was brought to a halt. Terry
   came last on the ground. His command included the famous
   Seventh Cavalry,—the regiment of General Custer. In ignorance
   of the surprising number of braves which Sitting Bull had
   collected, Custer was sent to make a detour and attack the
   Indian camp from the rear. Doing so, on the 25th of June, he
   rode into a death trap. Five companies of the regiment, with
   its heroic commander at their head, were surrounded so
   overwhelmingly that not one man escaped. The remaining seven
   companies were too far from the others to cooperate in the
   attack. They fortified a bluff and held their ground until the
   27th, when Terry and Gibbon came to their relief. The Indians
   retreated toward the mountains. The campaign was soon resumed,
   and prosecuted through the fall and winter, until Sitting Bull
   and some of his followers fled into British America and the
   remaining hostiles surrendered.

      _F. Whittaker,
      Complete Life of General George A. Custer,
      book 8, chapter 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Finerty,
      War Path and Bivouac,
      part 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   The Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia.

   In 1871, the Congress of the United States passed an act to
   provide for the commemoration, in 1876, of the centennial
   anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, by holding an
   exhibition, at Philadelphia, "of American and foreign arts,
   products, and manufactures." The act created a commission,
   composed of one delegate from each state and territory of the
   United States, to which commission was committed the
   "exclusive control" of the contemplated exhibition; though the
   State of Pennsylvania was required to make provision for the
   erection of suitable buildings. "To the surprise of those
   writers who had contended that there would be no exhibits from
   abroad,' there was shown a universal desire on the part of all
   nations to co-operate liberally in the World's Fair of 1876.
   These different governments appropriated large sums of money,
   selected as commissioners men of the highest standing, loaned
   to the exhibition their most valuable works of art, and in
   every sense indicated a desire on the part of the Old World to
   forget the past and to unite itself closely with the future of
   the New. Singular as it may seem, there was no disposition on
   the part of Congress to facilitate and aid in carrying out
   this grand enterprise. The money had to be raised by private
   subscription, from all sections of the United States, and it
   was only by a determined and persistent effort with Congress
   that at last a government loan was secured of $1,500,000,
   which loan has been called up by the government and repaid
   since that time. The City of Philadelphia appropriated
   $1,000,000 and the State of Pennsylvania $1,500,000, and all
   other states, notably New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New
   Hampshire, etc., subscribed to the stock issued by the
   Centennial Board of Finance. In 1873, the location so well
   known as Fairmount Park was selected for the exposition, and
   immediate possession given by the City of Philadelphia, free
   from all expense or charge, and who also liberally contributed
   to the success of the World's Fair 1876 by the erection of two
   magnificent bridges over the Schuylkill at a cost of over
   $2,500,000, in addition to the various improvements made in
   Fairmount Park. … The total number of exhibitors at the
   World's Fair 1876 was estimated at 30,864, the United States
   heading the list with 8,175; Spain and her colonies, 3,822;
   Great Britain and colonies, 3,584; and Portugal, 2,462. …

{3577}

   The exhibition opened on the 10th of May, 1876, and from that
   time until November 10, 1876, there were admitted a grand
   total of 9,910,966 persons, of whom 8,004,274 paid admission
   fees amounting to $3,813,724.49."

      _C. B. Norton,
      World's Fairs, chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.
   The Twenty-third Presidential Election and its disputed result.
   The Electoral Commission.

   Four candidates for the Presidency were named and voted for by
   as many different parties in 1876, although the contest of the
   election was practically between the Republicans and
   Democrats, as in previous years. The former, after a prolonged
   struggle of rival factions, put in nomination ex-Governor
   Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, with William A. Wheeler, of New
   York, for Vice President. The candidates of the Democratic
   party were ex-Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, for
   President, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice
   President. Before these nominations were made, the Prohibition
   Reform party and the party calling itself the Independent, but
   popularly known as the "Greenback party," had already brought
   candidates into the field. The first named put Green Clay
   Smith, of Kentucky and G. T. Stewart, of Ohio, in nomination;
   the nominees of the last named were Peter Cooper, of New York,
   and Samuel F. Cary, of Ohio. "Thirty-eight States participated
   in the election. Colorado had been admitted to the Union in
   August, 1876, and, in order to save an additional election,
   the choice of electors for that occasion was conferred upon
   the legislature. All the other States appointed them by
   popular vote. The polls had hardly closed on the day of
   election, the 7th of November, when the Democrats began to
   claim the presidency. The returns came in so unfavorably for
   the Republicans that there was hardly a newspaper organ of the
   party which did not, on the following morning, concede the
   election of Mr. Tilden. He was believed to have carried every
   Southern State, as well as New York, Indiana, New Jersey, and
   Connecticut. The whole number of electoral votes was 369. If
   the above estimate were correct, the Democratic candidates
   would have 203 votes, and the Republican candidates 166 votes.
   But word was sent out on the same day from Republican
   headquarters at Washington that Hayes and Wheeler were elected
   by one majority; that the States of South Carolina, Florida,
   and Louisiana had chosen Republican electors. Then began the
   most extraordinary contest that ever took place in the
   country. The only hope of the Republicans was in the perfect
   defence of their position. The loss of a single vote would be
   fatal. An adequate history of the four months between the
   popular election and the inauguration of Mr. Hayes, would fill
   volumes. Space can be given here for only a bare reference to
   some of the most important events. Neither party was
   over-scrupulous, and no doubt the acts of some members of each
   party were grossly illegal and corrupt. … In four States,
   South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon, there were
   double returns. In South Carolina there were loud complaints
   that detachments of the army, stationed near the polls, had
   prevented a fair and free election. Although the board of
   State canvassers certified to the choice of the Hayes
   electors, who were chosen on the face of the returns, the
   Democratic candidates for electors met on the day fixed for
   the meeting of electors and cast ballots for Tilden and
   Hendricks. In Florida there were allegations of fraud on both
   sides. The canvassing board and the governor certified to the
   election of the Hayes electors, but, fortified by a court
   decision in their favor, the Democratic electors also met and
   voted. In Louisiana there was anarchy. There were two
   governors, two returning boards, two sets of returns showing
   different results, and two electoral colleges. In Oregon the
   Democratic governor adjudged one of the Republican electors
   ineligible, and gave a certificate to the highest candidate on
   the Democratic list. The Republican electors, having no
   certificate from the governor, met and voted for Hayes and
   Wheeler. The Democratic elector, whose appointment was
   certified to by the governor, appointed two others to fill the
   vacancies, when the two Republican electors would not meet
   with him, and the three voted for Tilden and Hendricks. All of
   these cases were very complicated in their incidents, and a
   brief account which should convey an intelligible idea of what
   occurred is impossible. … Thus, for the first and only time in
   the history of the country, the election ended in such a way
   as to leave the result in actual doubt, and in two States the
   number of legal votes given for the electors was in dispute. …
   As soon as the electoral votes were cast it became a question
   of the very first importance how they were to be counted. It
   was evident that the Senate would refuse to be governed by the
   22nd joint rule [under which no electoral vote to which any
   member of either House objected could be counted unless both
   Houses agreed to the counting of it]—in fact the Senate voted
   to rescind the rule,—and it was further evident that if the
   count were to take place in accordance with that rule it would
   result in throwing out electoral votes on both sides on the
   most frivolous pretexts. It was asserted by the Republicans
   that, under the Constitution, the President of the Senate
   alone had the right to count, in spite of the fact that the
   joint rule, the work of their party, had assumed the power for
   the two Houses of Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats,
   who had always denounced that rule as unconstitutional, now
   maintained that the right to count was conferred upon
   Congress. A compromise became necessary, and the moderate men
   on both sides determined to effect the establishment of a
   tribunal, as evenly divided politically as might be, which
   should decide all disputed questions so far as the
   Constitution gave authority to Congress to decide them. The
   outcome of their efforts was the Electoral Commission law of
   1877," by which a Commission was created, consisting of
   fifteen members—the Senate appointing five from its own body,
   the House five, and four Associate-Justices of the Supreme
   Court, designated in the bill, appointing a fifth from the
   same court. The Senators selected were Edmunds, Morton,
   Frelinghuysen (Republicans), and Thurman and Bayard
   (Democrats). The Representatives were Payne, Hunton, Abbott
   (Democrats), and Garfield and Hoar (Republicans). The four
   Supreme Court Justices designated by the Act were Clifford,
   Field (Democrats), Strong and Miller (Republicans). They
   selected for the fifth member of the Commission Justice
   Bradley, who was a Republican.
{3578}
   "The natural choice of the justices would have been their
   associate, David Davis; but he had been ejected only five days
   before as senator from Illinois, and it was regarded by him
   and by others as improper that he should serve. Thus the
   commission consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats.
   If Judge Davis had been selected, there would have been only
   seven Republicans, and the result of the operation of the law
   might have been different. … The count had begun on the first
   day of February, and the final vote upon Wisconsin was not
   reached until the early morning of March 2. As question after
   question was decided uniformly in favor of the Republicans, it
   became evident to the Democrats that their case was lost. They
   charged gross partisanship upon the Republican members of the
   Electoral Commission, in determining every point involved in
   the dual returns for their own party, though as a matter of
   fact there does not seem to have been much room for choice
   between the two parties on the score of partisanship. Each
   member of the commission favored by his vote that view which
   would result in adding to the electoral vote of his own party.
   But as the result of the count became more and more certainly
   a Republican triumph, the anger of the Democrats arose. Some
   of them were for discontinuing the count; and the symptoms of
   a disposition to filibuster so that there should be no
   declaration of the result gave reason for public disquietude.
   But the conservative members of the party were too patriotic
   to allow the failure of a law which they had been instrumental
   in passing to lead to anarchy or revolution, and they sternly
   discountenanced all attempts to defeat the conclusion of the
   count. The summing up of the votes [Hayes, 185; Tilden, 184],
   was read by Mr. Allison of Iowa, one of the tellers on the
   part of the Senate, at a little after four o'clock, on the
   morning of the 2d of March, amid great excitement. … Mr. Ferry
   thereupon declared Rutherford B. Hayes elected President, and
   William A. Wheeler Vice-President, of the United States. The
   decision was acquiesced in peaceably by the whole country, and
   by men of every party. But the Democrats have never ceased to
   denounce the whole affair as a fraud. … It is to be hoped that
   the patriotism of the American people and their love of peace
   may never again be put to such a severe test as was that of
   1876 and 1877." According to the Democratic count, the popular
   vote stood:
   Tilden, 4,300,590;
   Hayes,  4,036,298;
   Cooper,    81,737;
   Smith,      9,522.
   The Republican count gave:
   Tilden, 4,285,992;
   Hayes,  4,033,768.

      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. O'Neil,
      The American Electoral System,
      chapters 20-21._

      _A. M. Gibson,
      A Political Crime._

      _Congressional Record,
      volume 5 (1877), parts 1-2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877.
   Halifax Fishery Award.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
   The Farmers' Alliance.

   The Farmers' Alliance "is the outcome of a movement which
   first culminated, shortly after the Civil War had ended, in
   the formation of the Patrons of Husbandry, or, as they were
   more commonly called, 'The Grange,' the object of which
   organization was the mutual protection of farmers against the
   encroachments of capital. The collapse of the Grange was due
   to a mistake it had made in not limiting its membership
   originally to those whose interests were agricultural. The
   first 'Alliance' was formed in Texas, to oppose the wholesale
   buying up of the public lands by private individuals. … For
   about ten years the Alliance remained a Southern organization.
   In 1887, about ten years after the first local Alliance in
   Texas was formed, and five after the State Alliance, the
   'Farmers' Union' of Louisiana united with it, under the name
   of the 'Farmers' Alliance and Co-operative Union of America.'
   Branches were quickly established," in other Southern States.
   "Later in the same year, the 'Agricultural Wheel,' a similar
   society operating in the States of Arkansas, Missouri,
   Kentucky, and Tennessee, was amalgamated with the Alliance,
   the new organization being called 'The Farmers' and Laborers'
   Union of America.' The spirit of the movement had
   simultaneously been embodied in the 'National Farmers'
   Alliance' of Illinois, which was started in 1877, and quickly
   extended into Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas,
   and Dakota. A minor organization, the 'Farmers' Mutual Benefit
   Association,' was started in 1887, in the southern part of
   Illinois. Finally, in 1889, at a meeting held in St. Louis,
   these different bodies were all practically formed into a
   union for political purposes, aiming at legislation in the
   interests of farmers and laborers; and the present name of the
   'Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union' was chosen. … Its
   main professed object is the destruction of the money power in
   public affairs, and the opposition of all forms of monopoly.
   It demands the substitution of legal tender treasury notes for
   National bank notes; also an extension of the public currency
   sufficient for the transaction of all legitimate business; the
   money to be given to the people on security of their land, at
   the lowest rates consistent with the cost of making and
   handling it. It demands government control, not only of money,
   but of the means of transportation and every other public
   function."

      _Quarterly Register of Current History,
      volume 1, page 132._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. M. Drew,
      The Present Farmers' Movement
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891)._

      See, also,
      SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.
   The Bland Silver Bill.

   The act familiarly known as the Bland Bill was passed by
   Congress in 1878. "Although the silver dollar of which the
   coinage was resumed in 1878 dates back as a coin to the
   earlier days of the Republic, its reissue in that year marks a
   policy so radically new that the experience of previous years
   throws practically no light on its working. The act of 1878
   provided for the purchase by the government, each month, of
   not less than two million dollars' worth, and not more than
   four million dollars' worth, of silver bullion, for coinage
   into silver dollars at the rate of 412½ grains of standard
   silver (or 371¼ grains of fine silver) for each dollar. The
   amount of the purchases, within the specified limits, was left
   to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. As every
   Secretary of the Treasury, throughout the period in which the
   act was in force, kept to the minimum amount, the practical
   result was a monthly purchase of two million dollars' worth of
   silver bullion. The act is sometimes described as having
   called for a monthly issue of two million silver dollars; but
   this was not the exact situation.
{3579}
   The amount of silver obtainable with two million dollars
   obviously varies according to the price of the metal in terms
   of the dollars with which the purchases are made. In February,
   1878, when the first purchases were made, those dollars were
   the inconvertible United States notes, or greenbacks, worth
   something less than their face in gold. … When specie payments
   were resumed, on the first of January, 1879, and the
   greenbacks became redeemable in gold, the measure of value in
   the United States became gold, and the extent of the coinage
   of silver dollars under the act of 1878 became simply a
   question of how much silver bullion could be bought with two
   million dollars of gold. The price of silver in 1878 was, in
   terms of gold, not far from a dollar for an ounce of standard
   silver. After 1878 it went down almost steadily. … The silver
   dollar of 412½ grains contains less than an ounce (480 grains)
   of standard silver. The monthly purchase of two million
   dollars' worth of silver therefore yielded more than two
   million silver dollars, the amount being obviously greater as
   the price of silver went lower. On the average, the monthly
   yield was not far from two and a half millions of silver
   dollars. So much each month, therefore, or thirty millions of
   silver dollars a year, was roughly the addition to the
   currency of the community from the act of 1878. An important
   provision of the act of 1878 was that authorizing the issue of
   silver certificates against the deposit of silver dollars. …
   The dollars and certificates between them constitute what we
   may call the silver currency of the act of 1878. The passage
   of that act was due to causes easily described. It was part of
   the opposition to the contraction of the currency and the
   resumption of specie payments, which forms the most important
   episode of our financial history between 1867 and 1879. … No
   doubt some additional force was given to the movement in favor
   of the use of silver from the desire of the silver-mining
   States and their representatives, that the price of the metal
   should be kept up through a larger use of it for coinage. But
   this element, while sometimes prominent in the agitation, was
   not then, as it has not been in more recent years, of any
   great importance by itself. The real strength of the agitation
   for the wider use of silver as money comes from the conviction
   of large masses of the people that the community has not
   enough money."

      _F. W. Taussig,
      The Silver Situation in the United States,
      part 1._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.
   The Twenty-fourth Presidential Election.

   For the twenty-fourth Presidential election, in 1880, the
   Republicans, meeting at Chicago, June 2, named General James
   A. Garfield, of Ohio, as its candidate for President and
   Chester A. Arthur, of New York, for Vice President. The
   so-called Greenback party (which had appeared four years
   before, in the election of 1876), meeting at Chicago on the
   9th of June, put in nomination, for President, James B. Weaver
   of Iowa, and, for Vice President, B. J. Chambers, of Texas.
   The main object and principle of the Greenback party was set
   forth in the following declarations of its platform: "That the
   right to make and issue money is a sovereign power to be
   maintained by the people for the common benefit. The
   delegation of this right to corporations is a surrender of the
   central attribute of sovereignty. … All money, whether
   metallic or paper, should be issued and its volume controlled
   by the government, and not by or through banking corporations,
   and, when so issued, should be a full legal tender for all
   debts, public and private. … Legal tender currency [the
   greenback notes of the civil-war period] should be substituted
   for the notes of the national banks, the national banking
   system abolished, and the unlimited coinage of silver, as well
   as gold, established by law." The Prohibitionists
   (Temperance), in convention at Cleveland, June 17, nominated
   Neal Dow, of Maine, for President, and A. M. Thompson, of
   Ohio, for Vice President. On the 22d of June, at Cincinnati,
   the Democratic party held its convention and nominated General
   Winfield S. Hancock, of Pennsylvania, for President, and
   William H. English, of Indiana, for Vice President. At the
   election, in November, the popular vote cast was 4,454,416 for
   Garfield, 4,444,952 for Hancock, 308,578 for Weaver, and
   10,305 for Dow. The electoral votes were divided between
   Garfield and Hancock, being 214 for the former and 155 for the
   latter. Every former slave-state was carried by the Democratic
   party, together with New Jersey, California and Nevada.

      _E. McPherson,
      Handbook of Politics for 1880 and 1882._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. Ridpath,
      Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
      chapters 10-11._

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      chapter 29._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.
   The Tenth Census.

   Total population, 50,155,783 (exceeding that of 1870 by
   11,5117,412), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.

                        White.       Black.
Maine.                  646,852      1,451
New Hampshire.          346,229        685
Vermont.                331,218      1,057
Massachusetts.        1,763,782     18,697
Rhode Island.           269,939      6,488
Connecticut.            610,769     11,547
New York.             5,016,022     65,104
New Jersey.           1,092,017     38,853
Pennsylvania.         4,197,016     85,535

Total                14,273,844    229,417

South Atlantic division.
Delaware.               120,160     26,442
Maryland.               724,693    210,230
District of Columbia.   118,006     59,596
Virginia.               880,858    631,616
West Virginia.          592,537     25,886
North Carolina.         867,242    531,277
South Carolina.         391,105    604,332
Georgia.                816,906    725,133
Florida.                142,605    126,690

Total                 4,654,112  2,941,202

North Central division.
Ohio.                 3,117,920     79,900
Indiana.              1,938,798     39,228
Illinois.             3,031,151     46,368
Michigan.             1,614,560     15,100
Wisconsin.            1,309,618      2,702
Minnesota.              776,884      1,564
Iowa.                 1,614,600      9,516
Missouri.             2,022,826    145,350
Dakota.                 133,147        401
Nebraska.               449,764      2,385
Kansas.                 952,155     43,107

Total                16,961,423    385,621

{3580}

South Central division.
                        White.       Black.
Kentucky.             1,377,179    271,451
Tennessee.            1,138,831    403,151
Alabama.                662,185    600,103
Mississippi.           479,398    650,291
Louisiana.              454,954    483,655
Texas.                1,197,237    393,384
Arkansas.               591,531    210,666

Total                 5,901,315  3,012,701

Western division.

Montana.                 35,385        346
Wyoming.                 19,437        298
Colorado.               191,126      2,435
New Mexico.             108,721      1,015
Arizona.                 35,160        155
Utah.                   142,423        232
Nevada.                  53,556        488
Idaho.                   29,013         53
Washington.              67,199        325
Oregon.                 163,075        487
California.             767,181      6,018

Total                 1,612,276     11,852

Grand total.         43,402,970  6,580,793

   In addition the census shows 105,465 Chinese, 148 Japanese,
   and 66,407 civilized Indians, making a total of 50,155,783, as
   stated above. The immigrants arriving in the country during
   the preceding ten years numbered 2,944,695, of whom 989,163
   were from the British Islands and 1,357,801 from other parts
   of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.
   The brief administration of President Garfield.
   His assassination.

   "President Hayes had left the new administration a heritage of
   hatred from the Stalwart element of the Republican party. It
   was President Garfield's chief wish, politically, to heal up
   the chasm which the past had opened, and not to recognize one
   faction more than another. … The defeat of the Stalwarts at
   Chicago, by Garfield, naturally tended to transfer their
   hostility from the outgoing to the incoming President."

      See STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

   "For months before the inauguration, the embarrassment which
   threatened Garfield was foreseen by the country." The
   inevitable outbreak of hostilities occurred the moment that
   the President made a nomination in New York which was
   distasteful to the arrogant Senator from that State, Roscoe
   Conkling, who imperiously led the Stalwart forces. This
   happened upon the presentation of the name of William H.
   Robertson for Collector of the Port of New York. In order to
   force a division in the Republican party upon the quarrel
   between himself and President Garfield, Senator Conkling
   resigned his seat in the Senate of the United States and
   presented himself to the Legislature of New York as a
   candidate for re-election. He counted, without doubt, upon an
   easy triumph, expecting to be returned to Washington, bearing
   the mandate of his party, so to speak, and humbling the
   President into submissive obedience to his behests. He was
   disappointed; his re-election was defeated; but the furious
   contest which went on during some weeks, engendered bitter
   passions, which had their effect, no doubt, in producing the
   awful tragedy that soon ensued. By the end of June the clamor
   of the strife had greatly subsided; the Senate had adjourned,
   and the weary President made ready to join Mrs. Garfield at
   Long Branch, where she was just recovering from a serious
   illness. "On the morning of the 2d of July … the President
   made ready to put his purpose into execution. Several members
   of the Cabinet, headed by Secretary Blaine, were to accompany
   him to Long Branch. A few ladies, personal friends of the
   President's family, and one of his sons, were of the company;
   and as the hour for departure drew near they gathered at the
   depot of the Baltimore and Potomac Railway to await the train.
   The President and Secretary Blaine were somewhat later than
   the rest. … When the carriage arrived at the station at
   half-past nine o'clock, the President and Mr. Blaine left it
   and entered the ladies' waiting-room, which they passed
   through arm in arm. A moment afterwards, as they were passing
   through the door into the main room, two pistol shots suddenly
   rang out upon the air. Mr. Blaine saw a man running, and
   started toward him, but turned almost immediately and saw that
   the President had fallen. It was instantly realized that the
   shots had been directed with fatal accuracy at the beloved
   President. Mr. Blaine sprang toward him, as did several
   others, and raised his head from the floor. … A moment after
   the assassin was discovered … and, in the middle of B Street,
   just outside of the depot, was seized by the policemen and
   disarmed. A pistol of very heavy caliber was wrenched out of
   his hand, and it became clear that a large ball had entered
   the President's body. The assassin gave his name as Charles
   Jules Guiteau. … [He] was found to be a mixture of fool and
   fanatic, who, in his previous career, had managed to build up,
   on a basis of total depravity, a considerable degree of
   scholarship. He was a lawyer by profession, and had made a
   pretense of practicing in several places—more particularly in
   Chicago. … In the previous spring, about the time of the
   inauguration, he had gone to Washington to advance a claim to
   be Consul-General at Paris. … Hanging about the Executive
   Mansion and the Department of State for several weeks, he
   seemed to have conceived an intense hatred of the President,
   and to have determined on the commission of the crime." The
   wounded President lingered for eighty days, during which long
   period of suffering there were many alternations of hope and
   fear in his case. He died on the 19th of September. His
   assassin was tried and executed for the crime, though much
   doubt of his sanity exists. The Vice-President, Chester A.
   Arthur, became President for the remainder of the term.

      _J. C. Ridpath,
      Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
      chapters 12-13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1882.
   Passage of the Edmunds Bill, to suppress Polygamy in Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1883.
   Passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Bill.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
   Financial Disasters.

   "The month of May, 1884, concludes the prosperous period which
   followed the crisis of 1873. During this period the most
   gigantic speculations in railroads occurred; the zenith of the
   movement was in 1880, and as early as 1881 a retrograde
   movement began, only to end in the disasters in question. The
   decline in prices had been steady for three years; they had
   sunk little by little under the influence of a ruinous
   competition, caused by the number of new lines and the
   lowering of rates, but above all through the manipulations by
   the managers on a scale unexampled until now.
{3581}
   In connection with the disasters of May, 1884, the names of
   certain speculators who misused other people's money, such as
   Ward, of Grant & Ward; Fish, President of the Marine Bank; and
   John C. Eno, of the Second National Bank, will long be
   remembered. General Grant, who was a silent partner in Ward's
   concern, was an innocent sufferer, both in fortune and
   reputation."

      _C. Juglar,
      Brief History of Panics,
      pages 102-103._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
   The Twenty-fifth Presidential Election.
   Appearance of the Independents or "Mugwumps."

   James G. Blaine, of Maine, and General John A. Logan, of
   Illinois, nominated at Chicago, June 3, were the Republican
   candidates for President and Vice President, in the election
   of 1884. The Democratic National Convention, held, likewise,
   at Chicago, July 8, put forward Governor Grover Cleveland, of
   New York, as its candidate for President, with Thomas A.
   Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice President. General Benjamin F.
   Butler, of Massachusetts, and General A. M. West, of
   Mississippi, received double nominations, from the National or
   Greenback party and an Anti-Monopoly party (so-called) for
   President and Vice President, respectively; while the
   Prohibitionists put in nomination John P. St. John, of Kansas,
   and William Daniel, of Maryland. The election was an
   exceedingly close one, its result turning upon a plurality of
   only 1,149 in New York, by which that state was given to
   Cleveland, with its 36 electoral votes, securing his election.
   The total popular vote counted as follows: Cleveland,
   4,874,986; Blaine, 4,851,981; Butler, 175,370; St. John,
   150,369. The electoral vote was divided between Cleveland and
   Blaine, 219 for the former and 182 for the latter.

      _E. McPherson,
      Hand-book of Politics, 1884 and 1886._

      _Annual Cyclopœdia, 1884._

   "At the presidential election of 1884 a section of the
   Republican party, more important by the intelligence and
   social position of the men who composed it than by its voting
   power, 'bolted' (to use the technical term) from their party,
   and refused to support Mr. Blaine. Some simply abstained,
   some, obeying the impulse to vote which is strong in good
   citizens in America, voted for Mr. St. John, the
   Prohibitionist candidate, though well aware that this was
   practically the same thing as abstention. The majority,
   however, voted against their party for Mr. Cleveland, the
   Democratic candidate; and it seems to have been the
   transference of their vote which turned the balance in New
   York State, and thereby determined the issue of the whole
   election in Mr. Cleveland's favour." This group "goes by the
   name of Mugwumps. … The name is said to be formed from an
   Indian word denoting a chief or aged wise man, and was applied
   by the 'straight-out' Republicans to their bolting brethren as
   a term of ridicule. It was then taken up by the latter as a
   term of compliment; though the description they used formally
   in 1884 was that of 'Independent Republicans.' … The chief
   doctrine they advocate is … the necessity of reforming the
   civil service by making appointments without reference to
   party, and a general reform in the methods of politics by
   selecting men for Federal, State, and municipal offices, with
   reference rather to personal fitness than to political
   affiliations."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth (3d edition, revised),
      chapter 56, with foot-note (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed controversies.
   The rejected Treaty.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
   The Bering Sea controversy and arbitration.

   "Four serious international controversies have arisen out of
   the rival claims of Russia, Great Britain, Spain, and the
   United States to the shores and waters of the northwest coast
   of the continent of North America. The first of these was in
   consequence of an attempt of the Spanish Government, in 1790,
   to prevent the British from trading with the natives of that
   coast. It was settled by the Nootka Sound Convention of
   October 28, 1790, by which the subjects of both powers enjoyed
   equal privileges of trade to all points not already occupied.
   The second controversy was the result of an attempt of Russia
   in 1821 to prohibit England and the United States from trading
   anywhere north of the 51st parallel, or to approach within 100
   Italian miles of the coast. Both governments energetically
   protested and secured treaties in 1824 and 1825, by which they
   retained the right of fishing and of landing on unoccupied
   points of that coast. The third controversy was as to the
   division of the coast between Great Britain and the United
   States, Spain having by the treaties of 1824 and 1825 accepted
   the parallel of 54° 40' as her southern boundary. The rival
   claims of the two remaining powers, after long diplomatic
   discussion, were settled by the treaty of July 17, 1846,
   according to which the parallel of 49° was made the dividing
   line. By the treaty of March 30, 1867, with Russia, all the
   dominions and claims of that country on the continent of North
   America and the outlying islands thereof were transferred to
   the United States. A further, and still pending, controversy
   arose in 1886 through the seizure by United States vessels of
   Canadian vessels engaged in the taking of seals in waters not
   far distant from the Aleutian Islands. The claim of the United
   States was that it had acquired from Russia exclusive rights
   in Behring Sea, at least with regard to seal fishing. The
   British Government representing the Canadians denied that
   there could be any exclusive rights outside three miles off
   shore. By an agreement of February 29, 1892, the question has
   been submitted to arbitration," the arbitrators to give "a
   distinct decision" upon each of the following five points:

   "1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the
   Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries
   therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the
   time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

   2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal
   fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain?

   3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea
   included in the phrase 'Pacific Ocean,' as used in the treaty
   of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if
   any, in the Behring's Sea, were held and exclusively exercised
   by Russia after said treaty?

{3562}

   4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to the jurisdiction and
   as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water
   boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia
   of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United
   States under that treaty?

   5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right, of
   protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the
   islands of the United States in Behring's Sea, when such seals
   are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?"

      _American History Leaflets,
      number 6._

   The arbitrators to whom these points of the question were
   submitted under the treaty were seven in number, as follows:
   Justice John M. Harlan, of the Supreme Court of the United
   States, and Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama, appointed by
   the United States; Rt. Hon. Lord Hannan, and Sir John S. D.
   Thompson, Prime Minister of Canada, appointed by Great
   Britain; Senator Baron Alphonse de Courcelles, formerly French
   Ambassador at Berlin, appointed by the French government;
   Senator Marquis E. Visconti Venosta, appointed by the Italian
   government; and Judge Mons. Gregers Gram, Minister of State,
   appointed by the government of Sweden. The Court of
   Arbitration met at Paris, beginning its sessions on March 23,
   1893. The award of the Tribunal, signed on the 15th of August,
   1893, decided the five points submitted to it, as follows:

   (1) That Russia did not, after 1825, assert or exercise any
   exclusive jurisdiction in Bering Sea, or any exclusive rights
   in the seal fisheries;

   (2) that no such claims on the part of Russia were recognized
   or conceded by England;

   (3) that the body of water now known as Bering Sea was
   included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty
   of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and that no
   exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Bering Sea or as to the
   seal fisheries there were held or exercised by Russia after
   the treaty of 1825;

   (4) that all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and the
   seal fisheries in Bering Sea east of the water boundary did
   pass unimpaired to the United States under the treaty of March
   30, 1867;

   (5) that the United States has not any right of protection or
   property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the
   United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found outside
   the ordinary three-mile limit.

   Mr. Morgan alone dissented from the decision rendered on the
   first and second points, and on the second division of the
   third point. Justice Harlan and Mr. Morgan both dissented on
   the fifth point. On the fourth point, and on the first
   division of the third, the decision was unanimous. These
   points of controversy disposed of, the Arbitrators proceeded
   to prescribe the regulations which the Governments of the
   United States and Great Britain shall enforce for the
   preservation of the fur seal. The regulations prescribed
   prohibit the killing, capture or pursuit of fur seals, at any
   time or in any manner, within a zone of sixty miles around the
   Pribilov Islands; prohibit the same from May 1 to July 31 in
   all the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Bering Sea,
   which is north of 35° north latitude and eastward of the 180th
   degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water
   boundary described in Article I. of the Treaty of 1867 between
   the United States and Russia; and following that line up to
   Bering Straits; allow only sailing vessels, with licenses, to
   take part in fur seal fishing operations, and forbid the use
   of nets, firearms and explosives, except as to shot guns
   outside of Bering Sea. As promulgated, the Award bore the
   signatures of all the Arbitrators.

   _The Behring Sea Arbitration:
   Letters to The Times._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1888.
   Tariff Message of President Cleveland.
   Attempted revision of the Tariff.
   Defeat of the Mills Bill.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1884-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.
   The Twenty-sixth Presidential election.

   President Cleveland was nominated for re-election by the
   Democratic National Convention, held at St. Louis, June 5,
   with Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, for Vice President. The
   Republican Convention, at Chicago, June 19, named Benjamin
   Harrison, of Indiana, for President, and Levi P. Morton, of
   New York, for Vice President. At Indianapolis, May 30, the
   Prohibition party had already put in nomination General
   Clinton B. Fisk, of New Jersey, and John A. Brooks, of
   Missouri, for President and Vice President, respectively. The
   Union Labor Party, convening at Cincinnati, May 15, had
   nominated Alson J. Streeter, of Illinois, and Charles E.
   Cunningham, of Arkansas; the United Labor Party, a rival
   organization, had put forward Robert H. Cowdrey, of Illinois,
   and William H. T. Wakefield, of Kansas; and still another
   labor ticket had been brought forward in February, at
   Washington, where an organization calling itself the
   Industrial Reform party, put Albert E. Redstone, of
   California, and John Colvin, of Kansas, in nomination. At Des
   Moines, Iowa, May 15, the National Equal Rights party had
   named a woman for the Presidency, in the person of Mrs. Belva
   Lockwood, of Washington, with Alfred H. Love, of Philadelphia,
   named for Vice President. Finally, in August, an organization
   attempting to revive the American Party of former days,
   convening at Washington, presented James L. Curtis, of New
   York, for President, and James R. Greer of Tennessee (who
   declined the honor) for Vice President. In the ensuing
   election, the popular vote was distributed as follows:
   Cleveland 5,540,329;
   Harrison, 5,439,853;
   Fisk,       249,506;
   Streeter,   146,935;
   Cowdrey,      2,818;
   Curtis,       1,591.

   Notwithstanding the greater number of votes cast for Cleveland
   (his plurality being 100,476), Harrison was chosen President
   by the electoral votes, receiving 233. while 168 were given
   for Cleveland.

      Appletons Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888,
      pages 773-782, and 799-828.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
   The opening of Oklahoma.
   The Johnstown Flood.
   The Pan-American Congress.
   Admission of seven new States.

   "In the centre of Indian Territory there is a large district
   called, in the Indian language, Oklahoma, or the 'Beautiful
   Land.' This tract was finally purchased from the Indians by
   the United States, early in 1889. On the 22d of April, of that
   year, some 50,000 persons were waiting impatiently on the
   borders of Oklahoma for President Harrison's signal, giving
   them permission to enter and take up lands in the coveted
   region. At precisely twelve o'clock noon, of that day, the
   blast of a bugle announced that Oklahoma was open to
   settlement. Instantly an avalanche of human beings rushed
   wildly across the line, each one eager to get the first
   chance. Towns made of rough board-shanties and of tents sprang
   up in all directions. The chief of these were Oklahoma City
   and Guthrie. At the end of four months, the latter had a
   population of about 5,000, with four daily papers and six
   banks; and arrangements, doubtless since completed, were being
   made to start a line of street cars, and light the city with
   electricity.
{3583}
   A week after the opening of Oklahoma, the centennial
   anniversary of the inauguration of Washington, and of the
   beginning of our government under the Constitution, was
   celebrated in New York City [April 29-May 1]. … In a little
   less than a month from that occasion, the most terrible
   disaster of the kind ever known in our history occurred (May
   31, 1889) in Western Pennsylvania. By the breaking of a dam, a
   body of water forty feet high and nearly half a mile in width
   swept down through a deep and narrow valley. In less than
   fifteen minutes, the flood had traversed a distance of
   eighteen miles. In that brief time, it dashed seven towns out
   of existence, and ended by carrying away the greater part of
   Johnstown. The whole valley at that place was choked with
   ruins; at least 5,000 persons lost their lives, and property
   worth ten million dollars was utterly destroyed. In the autumn
   (October 2, 1889), representatives of the leading governments
   of Central and of South America, together with the Republic of
   Mexico, met representatives chosen by the United States in a
   conference or congress held at Washington. The object of the
   congress was to bring about a closer union of the Americas,
   for purposes of trade, and of mutual advantage. The delegates
   spent six weeks in visiting the principal commercial and
   manufacturing cities of the United States. They then returned
   to Washington, and devoted the greater part of the remainder
   of the year and part of 1890 to the discussion of business."

      _D. H. Montgomery,
      Leading Facts of American History,
      sections 390-392._

   "An act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States,
   and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota,
   Montana, and Washington, to form constitutions and State
   governments … was approved by President Cleveland, February
   22, 1889. This act provided that the Territory of Dakota
   should be divided on the line of the seventh standard
   parallel. … On the 4th of July, 1889, the four conventions
   assembled-for North Dakota at Bismarck, for South Dakota at
   Sioux Falls, for Montana at Helena, and for Washington at
   Olympia."

      _F. N. Thorpe,
      Recent Constitution-making in the United States
      (Annals of the American Academy of
      Political and Social Science, September, 1891)._

   Acceptable constitutions having been framed and adopted in the
   several proposed new states, North Dakota and South Dakota
   were admitted to the Union by proclamation of President
   Harrison, November 3, 1889, Montana, November 8, and
   Washington, November 11, in the same year. "Early in the
   session of the fifty-first Congress, Wyoming presented her
   claims for Statehood, asking for admission to the Union under
   the Constitution of September, 1889, which was adopted by the
   people on November 5 following. The bill for admission passed
   the House of Representatives on March 27, 1890, passed the
   Senate on June 27, and received the President's signature on
   July 10. By its terms Wyoming became a state from and after
   the date of the President's approval." Idaho had previously
   been admitted, by a bill which received the President's
   signature on the 3d of July, 1890.

      _Appletons' Annual Cyclopœdia, 1890 and 1889._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890.
   McKinley Tariff Act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES); A. D. 1890.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890.
   The Eleventh Census.

   Total population 62,622,250 (exceeding that of 1880 by
   12,466,467, classed and distributed as follows;

North Atlantic division.

                        White.     Black.
Maine.                  659,263     1,190
New Hampshire.          375,840       614
Vermont.                331,418       937
Massachusetts.        2,215,373    22,144
Rhode Island.           337,859     7,393
Connecticut.            733,438    12,302
New York.             5,923,952    70,092
New Jersey.           1,396,581    47,638
Pennsylvania.         5,148,257   107,596

Total                17,121,981   269,906

South Atlantic division.
Delaware.               140,066    28,386
Maryland .              826,493   215,657
District of Columbia.   154,695    75,572
Virginia.             1,020,122   635,438
West Virginia.          730,077    32,690
North Carolina.       1,055,382   561,018
South Carolina.         462,008   688,934
Georgia.                978,357   858,815
Florida.                224,949   166,180

Total                 5,592,149 3,262,690

North Central division.
Ohio.                 3,584,805    87,113
Indiana.              2,146,736    45,215
Illinois.             3,768,472    57,028
Michigan.             2,072,884    15,223
Wisconsin.            1,680,473     2,444
Minnesota.            1,296,159     3,683
Iowa.                 1,901,086    10,685
Missouri.             2,528,458   150,184
North Dakota.           182,123       373
South Dakota.           327,290       541
Nebraska.             1,046,888     8,913
Kansas.               1,376,553    49,710

Total                21,911,927   431,112

South Central division.
Kentucky.             1,590,462   268,071
Tennessee.            1,336,637   430,678
Alabama.                833,718   678,489
Mississippi.            544,851   742,559
Louisiana.              558,395   559,193
Texas.                1,745,935   488,171
Oklahoma.                58,826     2,973
Arkansas.               818,752   309,117

Total                 7,487,576 3,479,251

Western division.
Montana.                127,271     1,490
Wyoming.                 59,275       922
Colorado.               404,468     6,215
New Mexico.             142,719     1,956
Arizona.                 55,580     1,357
Utah.                   205,899       588
Nevada.                  39,084       242
Idaho.                   82,018       201
Washington.             340,513     1,602
Oregon.                 301,758     1,186
California.           1,111,672    11,322

Total                 2,870,257    27,081

Grand Total.         54,983,890 7,470,040

{3584}

   In addition the census shows 107,475 Chinese, 2,039 Japanese,
   and 58,806 civilized Indians, making a total of 62,622,250, as
   stated above.

   Immigration in the preceding decade rose to 5,246,613 in the
   total arrivals, 1,462,839 being from the British Islands and
   3,258,743 from other European countries. In the single year
   ending June 30, 1890, the immigrants arriving from Europe
   numbered 443,225 (273,104 males, 170,121 females), of whom
   57,020 were from England; 53,024 from Ireland; 12,041 from
   Scotland: 92,427 from Germany; 22,062 from Hungary: 11,073
   from Poland; 33,147 from Russia: 51,799 from Italy; 29,632
   from Sweden; 11,370 from Norway; 9,366 from Denmark; 6,585
   from France.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.
   The Silver Bill and its effect.
   Financial Panic.
   Extra Session of Congress.
   Repeal of the Sherman Act.

   "The act of July 14, 1890 [known as the Sherman Act], repealed
   the silver act of 1878, and so brought to a close the precise
   experiment tried under that measure. … But the new act … is
   even more remarkable than that of 1878. It is unique in
   monetary history. It provides that the Secretary of the
   Treasury shall purchase each month at the market price four
   and a half million ounces of silver bullion. In payment he
   shall issue Treasury notes of the United States, in
   denominations of between one dollar and one thousand dollars.
   These Treasury notes, unlike the old silver certificates, are
   a direct legal tender for all debts, public or private, unless
   a different medium is expressly stipulated in the contract.
   They differ from the silver certificates in another respect;
   they are redeemable either in gold or silver coin, at the
   discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The indirect
   process of redemption which, as we have seen, was applied to
   the silver certificates, is replaced for the new notes by
   direct redemption. The avowed object is to keep the silver
   money equal to gold, for it is declared to be 'the established
   policy of the United States to maintain the two metals at a
   parity with each other on the present legal ratio, or such
   ratio as may be provided by law.' The act of 1878 is repealed;
   but the coinage of two million ounces of silver into dollars
   is to be continued for a year (until July 1, 1891). Thereafter
   it is directed that only so many silver dollars shall be
   coined as may be needed for redeeming any Treasury notes
   presented for redemption. Practically, this means that the
   coinage shall cease; redemption in silver dollars will not be
   called for. The coinage of silver dollars accordingly was
   suspended by the Treasury on July 1, 1891; a change which was
   the occasion of some vociferous abuse and equally vociferous
   praise, but which in reality was of no consequence whatever.
   The monthly issues of the new Treasury notes vary, like those
   of the old silver certificates, with the price of silver. But
   the new issues vary directly with the price of silver, while,
   as we have seen, the old issues varied inversely with the
   price. The volume of Treasury notes issued is equal to the
   market price of four and one half million ounces of silver. If
   silver sells at $1. 20 an ounce, the monthly issue of notes
   will be $5,400,000; if at $1.00 an ounce, $4,500,000. For a
   month or two after the passage of the act, the price of silver
   advanced rapidly, and at its highest, in August, 1890, touched
   $1.21. But the rise proved to be but temporary. After
   September a steady decline set in, and continued almost
   without interruption through the rest of 1890, through 1891,
   and through 1892. The year 1891 opened with silver at a price
   of about $1.00 an ounce; by the close of the year the price
   had fallen to about 95 cents. In 1892 a still further and more
   marked decline set in, and by the close of the year the price
   had gone as low as 85 cents."

      _F. W. Taussig,
      The Silver Situation in the United States,
      chapter 6._

   "On June 5 [1893] President Cleveland publicly declared his
   purpose to call an extra session of Congress to meet in the
   first half of September for the consideration of the country's
   financial conditions, which seemed critical. On the 26th of
   June the authorities of India closed the mints in that empire
   to the free coinage of silver. The signs of a panic
   immediately multiplied and four days later appeared the
   president's proclamation summoning Congress to meet in extra
   session August 7. The call was based on the 'perilous
   condition in business circles,' which was declared to be
   largely the result of a 'financial policy … embodied in unwise
   laws, which must be executed until repealed by Congress.' The
   issue of this proclamation was the signal for much excitement
   among the Populists and in silver-producing circles. Silver
   conventions were held in Denver, July 11, and in Chicago,
   August 2, in which addresses were made and resolutions adopted
   denouncing with much energy any proposition to repeal the
   Sherman Act without some provision for the free coinage of
   silver, and claiming that the existing financial crisis was a
   deliberately devised scheme of British and American bankers,
   with President Cleveland as their ally, to bring about the
   exclusion of silver from use as money. The president's
   message, presented to the houses August 8, brought the
   question before Congress. The message embodied an exposition
   of what Mr. Cleveland considered the evils of the Sherman Act,
   concluding with an earnest recommendation that its purchase
   clause be immediately repealed. While still holding that
   tariff reform was imperatively demanded, the president
   considered that it should be postponed to action on the silver
   law. In Congress the silver men, without reference to party
   lines, took an attitude of energetic resistance to any project
   for unconditional repeal of the purchase clause."

      _Political Science Quarterly, December, 1893._

   In the House, the resistance was soon overcome by strong
   pressure of unmistakable public opinion, and the repeal was
   carried on the 28th of August. In the Senate the Silver
   faction proved so much stronger that it blocked the bill until
   the end of October, indifferent to the ruinous effect which
   this action was having on the business and the industries of
   the country. In September, while the fate of the bill remained
   in doubt, the "Banker's Magazine" reported that the doubt had
   "aggravated the money stringency, until it absolutely became
   impossible for the great majority of business men to obtain
   the necessary funds, or credit to transact their affairs. In
   this respect, probably, no panic within the memory of the
   present generation has been so severe; and yet, it has been
   the least violent for one so universal and protracted. But it
   is the collapse that follows an acute attack of disease, which
   leaves its victim prostrated, after the crisis has been passed,
   and which must precede ultimate recovery, by giving time to
   restore exhausted strength. …
{3585}
   This was different from most panics this country has
   experienced, inasmuch as it was strictly an artificial one,
   caused by bad legislation, rather than general financial kite
   flying, while commercial affairs were seldom, if ever, on a
   sounder or safer basis, from the fact that they had, for a
   long time, been more free from speculation, with but few
   exceptions, than for years. Hence it has been the financial
   machinery by which commerce is transacted, rather than
   commerce itself, that has been deranged; and, for this reason,
   trade will revive much more rapidly when this artificial
   pressure is removed, than it has revived after former panics,
   which were either purely financial, or commercial, or both, as
   the result of wild speculation and general inflation of
   prices."

      _H. A. Pierce,
      A Review of Finance and Business
      (Banker's Magazine, September, 1893)._

   The repeal measure was finally carried in the Senate, becoming
   law by the President's signature November 1, when a slow
   recovery of business confidence began, much retarded and
   disturbed, however, by the uncertainty attending expected
   action of Congress on tariff and currency questions.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

      ALSO IN:
      _L. R. Ehrich,
      The Question of Silver,
      page 23._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   Chinese Exclusion Act.

   A bill "to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons
   into the United States," reported by Mr. Geary, of California,
   was passed by the House, April 4, 1892, yeas 179, nays 43, 107
   not voting. In the Senate, a substitute, going little further
   than to continue the then existing laws for the regulation of
   Chinese immigration, was reported from the Committee on
   Foreign Relations and adopted. The two bills were referred to
   a Conference Committee, with the result that a compromise
   measure, slightly modified from the House bill, was passed by
   both branches of Congress, on the 3d and 4th of May, and
   signed by the President on the 5th. It continues former laws
   for ten years. It directs "that any Chinese person or person
   of Chinese descent when convicted and adjudged under any of
   said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the
   United States," shall be removed to China, or to such other
   country as he may prove to be a subject or citizen of. It
   declares that any such person under arrest "shall be adjudged
   to be unlawfully within the United States, unless such person
   shall establish, by affirmative proof, … his lawful right to
   remain in the United States"; and that any such person
   "convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or
   remain in the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor
   for a period of not exceeding one year, and thereafter removed
   from the United States, as hereinbefore provided." The act
   denies bail, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, by
   a Chinese person seeking to land in the United States. It
   requires all Chinese laborers who were within the limits of
   the United States at the time of the passage of the act, and
   who were entitled to remain, to obtain certificates of
   residence, from district collectors of internal revenue, and
   orders the deportation of those who had failed to do so at the
   expiration of one year. This extraordinary measure of
   exclusion has been commonly known as the "Geary Act."

      _E. McPherson,
      Hand-book of Politics, 1892._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   Settlement of the Alaskan Boundary.

   A convention between the governments of the United States and
   Great Britain was entered into and ratifications exchanged in
   August, 1892, providing for a coincident or joint survey, "as
   may in practice be found most convenient," to determine the
   boundary line between Alaska and the Canadian provinces.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   Controversy with Chile.
   Warlike Presidential Message.

      See (in Supplement) CHILE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   First commissioning of a Papal Delegate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   The Twenty-seventh Presidential Election.

   Five parties presented candidates in the presidential election
   held November 8, 1892—namely: the Democratic, the Republican,
   the People's, or Populist, the Prohibitionist, and the
   Socialistic Labor. The nominees of the Democratic Party were
   Grover Cleveland, for President, and Adlai E. Stevenson, for
   Vice President; of the Republican Party, Benjamin Harrison and
   Whitelaw Reid, for President and Vice President, respectively;
   of the Populist Party, James B. Weaver and James G. Field; of
   the Prohibition Party, John Bidwell and James B. Cranfill; of
   the Socialistic Labor Party, Simon Wing and Charles H.
   Matchett. The dominant Issues in the canvass were the tariff
   question and the silver question. "The Democrats named no
   electoral tickets in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota,
   and Wyoming, but voted for the people's party electors with
   the object of taking those States away from the Republicans.
   They put out an electoral ticket in Nevada, but still voted
   mostly for the Populist electors. In North Dakota also there
   was a partial fusion between the Democrats and the People's
   party, and in Minnesota a part of the Weaver electoral ticket
   was accepted by the Democrats. In Louisiana there was a fusion
   of the Republicans and the People's party, each nominating
   half of the 8 electors. In Alabama there was a fusion of some
   of the Republicans with the People's party. In Texas a
   Republican ticket called the Lily White was set up, which
   differed from the regular ticket. In Michigan a new electoral
   law, which was declared constitutional by the United States
   Supreme Court on October 17, 1892, provided for the separate
   election of a Presidential elector in each Congressional
   district, and in consequence the electoral vote of the State
   was divided. In Oregon the name of one of the four electors on
   the People's ticket was also placed on the Democratic ticket.
   … The total popular vote cast was reported as 12,154,542," of
   which Cleveland received 5,556,553; Harrison, 5,175,577;
   Weaver, 1,122,045; Bidwell 279,191; Wing, 21,191. The
   electoral votes of the States were cast as follows: Cleveland,
   277; Harrison, 145; Weaver, 22; giving Cleveland a clear
   majority of 110.

      _Appletons' Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892._

   "The most striking feature of the elections was the great
   losses of the Republicans in the West. Illinois and Wisconsin
   went Democratic by large majorities, California and Ohio were
   very close, and Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Nevada chose
   Populist electors. The Democrats carried all the Northern
   states generally regarded as doubtful, viz., Connecticut, New
   York and Indiana, but they nearly lost Delaware.
{3586}
   An unusual incident of the result was the division of the
   electoral votes in several states, owing to the closeness of
   the popular vote. Thus in Ohio one Cleveland elector and in
   Oregon one Weaver elector was chosen, the others being
   Republican; and in California and North Dakota Mr. Harrison
   secured single votes in the same way. From the conditions of
   fusion between the Democrats and Populists in the last-named
   state, it resulted that one of her three electoral votes was
   given to each of the three candidates. In Michigan, under the
   district method of choosing electors recently established,
   Harrison got nine votes and Cleveland five."

      _Political Science Quarterly, June, 1893._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.
   Abandonment of Polygamy by the Mormons.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.
   Revolution in the Hawaiian Islands and proposed annexation.

      See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.
   The Wilson Tariff Act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1894.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.
   The Strike at Pullman.
   The Coxey Movement.

         See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Provision for the admission of Utah as a State.

   On the 17th of July, 1894, the President, by his signature,
   gave effect to a bill which provides for the admission of Utah
   to the Union as a State. The admission, however, cannot become
   a completed fact before the later part of the year 1895, since
   the bill provides for the holding of a convention in March,
   1895, to frame a constitution for the proposed new State, and
   for submitting such constitution to the people at the election
   in November, 1895.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
   The Status of Civil-service Reform.
   Commissioner Roosevelt's Review.

   "In 1883 the civil service law was established at Washington,
   and in the larger post-offices and custom-houses throughout
   the country, taking in a total of some 14,000 employees. The
   great extensions since have all taken place during the last
   six years, a period which happens to include my own term of
   service with the Commission, so that I write of them at first
   hand. In 1889 the railway mail service was added, in 1893 all
   the free delivery post-offices, and in 1894 all the smaller
   custom-houses and the internal revenue service. Other
   important but smaller extensions have been made, and the
   larger offices have grown, so that now about 50,000 employees
   are under the protection of the law. There are, of course, and
   there always must be in a body so large, individual cases
   where the law is evaded, or even violated; and as yet we do
   not touch the question of promotions and reductions. But,
   speaking broadly, and with due allowance for such
   comparatively slight exceptions, these 50,000 places are now
   taken out of the political arena. They can no longer be
   scrambled for in a struggle as ignoble and brutal as the
   strife of pirates over plunder; they no longer serve as a vast
   bribery chest with which to debauch the voters of the country.
   Those holding them no longer keep their political life by the
   frail tenure of service to the party boss and the party
   machine; they stand as American citizens, and are allowed the
   privilege of earning their own bread without molestation so
   long as they faithfully serve the public. The classified
   service, the service in which the merit system is applied, has
   grown fast. It is true that the outside service where the
   spoils theories are still applied in all their original
   nakedness, has grown only less fast. The number of offices
   under the government has increased very rapidly during the
   last twenty years; but the growth of the classified service
   has been even more rapid, so that a constantly increasing
   percentage of the whole is withdrawn from the degrading grasp
   of the spoils system. Now, something like a quarter of all the
   offices under the federal government in point of numbers,
   representing nearly a half in point of salaries, has been put
   upon the basis of decency and merit. This has been done by the
   action of successive Presidents under the law of 1883, without
   the necessity of action by Congress. There still remain some
   things that can be done without further legislation. For
   instance, the labor force in the navy yards was put on a merit
   basis, and removed from the domain of politics, under
   Secretary Tracy. This was done merely by order of the
   Secretary of the Navy, which order could have been reversed by
   his successor, Secretary Herbert. Instead of reversing it,
   however, Secretary Herbert has zealously lived up to its
   requirements, and has withstood all pressure for the weakening
   of the system in the interests of the local party machines and
   bosses. It is unsafe to trust to always having Secretaries of
   the Navy like Messrs. Tracy and Herbert. The Civil Service
   Commission should be given supervision over the laborers who
   come under the direction of Cabinet officers. Indeed, all the
   laboring force and all the employees of the District of
   Columbia employed by the federal government should be put
   under the Commission. When this has been done, and when a few
   other comparatively slight extensions have been made, all that
   can be accomplished by the unaided action of the executive
   will have been accomplished. Congress must then itself act by
   passing some such bill as that of Senator Lodge in reference
   to fourth-class postmasters; by passing some bill in reference
   to the consular service on the outlines of that suggested by
   Senator Morgan (but giving power to the Civil Service
   Commission itself in the matter); and then by providing that
   all postmasters and similar officers shall hold office during
   good behavior, including as well those nominated by the
   President and confirmed by the Senate as those appointed by
   the President alone. Of all the offices under the federal
   government, not one in a hundred can properly be called
   political."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Present Status of Civil Service Reform
      (Atlantic, February, 1895)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
   President Cleveland's Special Message on
   the condition of the National Finances.

   In a special message to Congress, on the 28th of January,
   1895, President Cleveland renewed an earnest appeal which be
   had made at the opening of the session, for legislation to
   correct the mischievous working of the existing currency
   system of the country. The condition of the national finances,
   produced by unwise laws, was set forth clearly in this
   message, as follows: "With natural resources unlimited in
   variety and productive strength, and with a people whose
   activity and enterprise seek only a fair opportunity to
   achieve national success and greatness, our progress should
   not be checked by a false financial policy and a heedless
   disregard of sound monetary laws, nor should the timidity and
   fear which they engender stand in the way of our prosperity.
{3587}
   It is hardly disputed that this predicament confronts us
   to-day. Therefore, no one in any degree responsible for the
   making and execution of our laws should fail to see a
   patriotic duty in honestly and sincerely attempting to relieve
   the situation. … The real trouble which confronts us consists
   in a lack of confidence, widespread and constantly increasing,
   in the continuing ability or disposition of the Government to
   pay its obligations in gold. This lack of confidence grows to
   some extent out of the palpable and apparent embarrassment
   attending the efforts of the Government under existing laws to
   procure gold, and to a greater extent out of the impossibility
   of either keeping it in the Treasury or canceling obligations
   by its expenditure after it is obtained. The only way left
   open to the Government for procuring gold is by the issue and
   sale of its bonds. The only bonds that can be so issued were
   authorized nearly twenty-five years ago, and are not well
   calculated to meet our present needs. Among other
   disadvantages, they are made payable in coin, instead of
   specifically in gold, which, in existing conditions, detracts
   largely and in an increasing ratio from their desirability as
   investments. It is by no means certain that bonds of this
   description can much longer be disposed of at a price
   creditable to the financial character of our Government. The
   most dangerous and irritating feature of the situation,
   however, remains to be mentioned. It is found in the means by
   which the Treasury is despoiled of the gold thus obtained
   without canceling a single Government obligation and solely
   for the benefit of those who find profit in shipping it abroad
   or whose fears induce them to hoard it at home. We have
   outstanding about five hundred millions of currency notes of
   the Government for which gold may be demanded, and, curiously
   enough, the law requires that when presented and, in fact,
   redeemed and paid in gold, they shall be reissued. Thus the
   same notes may do duty many times in drawing gold from the
   Treasury; nor can the process be arrested as long as private
   parties, for profit or otherwise, see an advantage in
   repeating the operation. More than $300,000,000 in these notes
   have already been redeemed in gold, and notwithstanding such
   redemption they are all still outstanding. Since the 17th day
   of January, 1894, our bonded interest-bearing debt has been
   increased $100,000,000 for the purpose of obtaining gold to
   replenish our coin reserve. Two issues were made amounting to
   fifty millions each—one in January and the other in November.
   As a result of the first issue there was realized something
   more than $58,000,000 in gold. Between that issue and the
   succeeding one in November, comprising a period of about ten
   months, nearly $103,000,000 in gold were drawn from the
   Treasury. This made the second issue necessary, and upon that
   more than fifty-eight millions in gold was again realized.
   Between the date of this second issue and the present time,
   covering a period of only about two months, more than
   $69,000,000 in gold have been drawn from the Treasury. These
   large sums of gold were expended without any cancellation of
   Government obligations or in any permanent way benefiting our
   people or improving our pecuniary situation. The financial
   events of the past year suggest facts and conditions which
   should certainly arrest attention. More than $172,000,000 in
   gold have been drawn out of the Treasury during the year for
   the purpose of shipment abroad or hoarding at home. While
   nearly one hundred and three millions of this amount was drawn
   out during the first ten months of the year, a sum aggregating
   more than two-thirds of that amount, being about sixty-nine
   millions, was drawn out during the following two months, thus
   indicating a marked acceleration of the depleting process with
   the lapse of time. The obligations upon which this gold has
   been drawn from the Treasury are still outstanding and are
   available for use in repeating the exhausting operation with
   shorter intervals as our perplexities accumulate. Conditions
   are certainly supervening tending to make the bonds which may
   be issued to replenish our gold less useful for that purpose.
   … It will hardly do to say that a simple increase of revenue
   will cure our troubles. The apprehension now existing and
   constantly increasing as to our financial ability does not
   rest upon a calculation of our revenue. The time has passed
   when the eyes of investors abroad and our people at home were
   fixed upon the revenues of the Government. Changed conditions
   have attracted their attention to the gold of the Government.
   There need be no fear that we can not pay our current expenses
   with such money as we have. There is now in the Treasury a
   comfortable surplus of more than $63,000,000, but it is not in
   gold, and therefore does not meet our difficulty. I can not
   see that differences of opinion concerning the extent to which
   silver ought to be coined or used in our currency should
   interfere with the counsels of those whose duty it is to
   rectify evils now apparent in our financial situation. They
   have to consider the question of national credit, and the
   consequences that will follow from its collapse. Whatever
   ideas may be insisted upon as to silver or bimetallism, a
   proper solution of the question now pressing upon us only
   requires a recognition of gold as well as silver, and a
   concession of its importance, rightfully or wrongfully
   acquired, as a basis of national credit, a necessity in the
   honorable discharge of our obligations payable in gold, and a
   badge of solvency. … While I am not unfriendly to silver, and
   while I desire to see it recognized to such an extent as is
   consistent with financial safety and the preservation of
   national honor and credit, I am not willing to see gold
   entirely banished from our currency and finances. To avert
   such a consequence I believe thorough and radical remedial
   legislation should be promptly passed. I therefore beg the
   Congress to give the subject immediate attention. In my
   opinion the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to
   issue bonds of the Government for the purpose of procuring and
   maintaining a sufficient gold reserve and the redemption and
   cancellation of the United States legal-tender notes and the
   Treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver under the law
   of July 14, 1890. We should be relieved from the humiliating
   process of issuing bonds to procure gold to be immediately and
   repeatedly drawn out on these obligations for purposes not
   related to the benefit of our Government or our people.
{3588}
   The principal and interest of these bonds should be payable on
   their face in gold, because they should be sold only for gold or
   its representative, and because there would now probably be
   difficulty in favorably disposing of bonds not containing this
   stipulation. … The Secretary of the Treasury might well be
   permitted, at his discretion, to receive on the sale of bonds
   the legal-tender and Treasury notes to be retired, and, of
   course, when they are thus retired or redeemed in gold they
   should be canceled. These bonds under existing laws could be
   deposited by national banks as security for circulation; and
   such banks should be allowed to issue circulation up to the
   face value of these or any other bonds so deposited, except
   bonds outstanding bearing only 2 per cent interest, and which
   sell in the market at less than par. National banks should not
   be allowed to take out circulating notes of a less
   denomination than $10, and when such as are now outstanding
   reach the Treasury, except for redemption and retirement, they
   should be canceled and notes of the denomination of $10 and
   upward issued in their stead. Silver certificates of the
   denomination of $10 and upward should be replaced by
   certificates of denominations under $10. As a constant means
   for the maintenance of a reasonable supply of gold in the
   Treasury our duties on imports should be paid in gold,
   allowing all other dues to the Government to be paid in any
   other form of money. I believe all the provisions I have
   suggested should be embodied in our laws if we are to enjoy a
   complete reinstatement of a sound financial condition." The
   President's recommendations were not acted upon. The silver
   interest in Congress defeated all measures introduced for the
   purpose and left the situation unchanged. The Government was
   forced to a new issue of bonds under the old act, for the
   replenishing of its gold reserve.

   ----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------

UNITED STATES BANK.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816, 1817-1833;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

UNITED STATES CHRISTIAN COMMISSION.

      See SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

      See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES SANITARY COMMISSION.

      See SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES SENATE.

      See SENATE, THE AMERICAN.

UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION;
      also VERMONT, VIRGINIA and WISCONSIN UNIVERSITIES,
      and (in SUPPLEMENT) BROWN, MINNESOTA, and TULANE.

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.;
      A. D. 1873-1889, and 1887-1892.

UNKIAR-SKELESSI, Treaty of (1833).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

UNSTRUTT, Battle of the (1075).

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

UPCHURCH POTTERY.

   The Upchurch marshes, on the Medway, above Sheerness, were the
   site of extensive potteries in the time of the Roman
   occupation of Britain, and remains of the ware manufactured
   are abundant in the neighborhood.

      _Thomas Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon,
      chapter 8._

UPPER HOUSE.

      See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF.

UPSALA, Battle of (1520).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

UPSAROKAS, OR CROWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

UR OF THE CHALDEES.

   "The Ur Kasdim, i. e. 'Ur of the Chaldæans' in the Hebrew
   Scriptures, is the modern Mug-heir, southeast of Babylon; on
   clay-tablets discovered in the ruins of this place we find
   cuneiform symbols, which are to be read as Uru."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 1._

URARDA
ARARAT.

      See ALARODIANS.

URBAN II., Pope, A. D. 1088-1099.

   Urban III., Pope, 1185-1187.

   Urban IV., Pope, 1261-1264.

   Urban V., Pope, 1362-1370.

   Urban VI., Pope, 1378-1389.

   Urban VII., Pope, 1590, September 15 to September 27.

   Urban VIII., Pope, 1623-1644.

URBARIUM, of Maria Theresa, The.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

URBINO: Annexation to the States of the Church (1631).

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

URGENDJ, Destruction by the Mongols.

      See KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.

URICONIUM,
VIROCONIUM.

   An important Roman town in Britain, extensive remains of which
   have been unearthed at modern Wroxeter. It was the station of
   the 14th legion.

      _J. C. Anderson,
      The Roman city of Uriconium._

   Uriconium was totally destroyed by the West Saxons in 583. "A
   British poet in verses still left to us sings piteously the
   death-song of Uriconium, 'the white town in the valley,' the
   town of white stones gleaming among the green woodlands."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 5._

URRACA,
   Queen of Castile and Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

URSINI, The.

      See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

URSULINES, The.

   The origin of the order of the Ursulines "is ascribed to
   Angela di Brescia, about the year 1537, though the Saint from
   whom it received its name, Ursula Benincasa, a native of
   Naples, was born ten years afterwards. … The duties of those
   holy sisters were the purest within the circle of human
   benevolence—to minister to the sick, to relieve the poor, to
   console the miserable, to pray with the penitent. These
   charitable offices they undertook to execute without the bond
   of any community, without the obligation of any monastic vow,
   without any separation from society, any renouncement of their
   domestic duties and virtues."

      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Church,
      chapter 19, section 6._

   ----------URUGUAY: Start--------

URUGUAY:
   The name.

   "The Uruguay is called so after a bird, the Uru, which is
   found in the woods on its banks, and the term Uruguay
   signifies the country of the Uru."

      _T. J. Hutchinson,
      The Parana,
      page 44._

URUGUAY: A. D. 1714-1777.
   The settlement.
   The contest for, between Spain and Portugal.
   Relinquishment by the latter.
   Inclusion in the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{3589}

URUGUAY: A. D. 1826-1828.
   The subject of war between Brazil and the Argentine Republic.
   Independence established and recognized.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

   ----------URUGUAY: End--------

USCOCKS, The.

   "During the reign of Ferdinand [Emperor, 1558-1564], several
   bodies of Christians, quitting the provinces which had been
   recently conquered by the Turks, obtained from the Austrian
   sovereigns a refuge at Clissa, in Dalmatia, under the
   condition of forming themselves into a frontier militia
   continually in arms against the infidels, and, from their
   emigration, received the name of Uscocks, which, in the
   language of the country, signifies wanderers. They fulfilled
   the purpose of their establishment; and, being at length
   expelled by the Turks, received a new asylum at Senga, a
   ruined fortress in Croatia, on the coast of the Adriatic
   gulph. Here, their numbers increasing by the accession of
   Italian banditti and other marauders, they were rendered more
   formidable than before; for they no longer confined their
   predatory incursions to the land, but became pirates by sea. …
   Their audacity increasing with success and plunder, they
   pillaged, without distinction, the vessels of all the nations
   who traded in the Adriatic." They were attacked by the Turks
   and the Venetians, and the latter, at length, in the early
   part of the 17th century, forced the Duke of Styria, who had
   protected the freebooters, to allow their stronghold at Segna
   to be demolished. "The Uscocks, being transplanted to
   Carlstadt, soon lost their name and distinction."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 42 (volume 2)._

USDIÆ, The.

      See IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

USES, The Statute of.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1535, and 1557.

USHANT, Naval battle off (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

USIPETES AND TENCTHERI, Cæsar's overthrow of the.

   The Usipetes and Tenctheri, two German tribes, whose home was
   on the lower course of the Rhine, north and south of the
   Lippe, being hard pressed by the Suevi, crossed the Rhine, B.
   C. 55, and began to spread themselves along the Valley of the
   Meuse. Cæsar marched against them with great promptitude,
   refused to parley with them, accused them of treacherous
   attempts to gain time, and was himself charged with wicked
   treachery, in seizing their chiefs who met him with pacific
   propositions. It is certain, at all events, that he was able
   to attack them when they were deprived of leaders, and to
   slaughter them with so little resistance that not one Roman
   soldier was killed. Those who escaped the sword were driven
   into the Rhine (probably at its point of junction with the
   Moselle) and almost the entire mass of 180,000 are said to
   have perished. The remnant took refuge with the Sicambri or
   Sigambri, on the farther shore of the Rhine. Cæsar demanded
   the surrender of them, and, when refused, he caused his
   engineers to bridge the river in ten days, led his army across
   it and laid waste the country of the Sigambri. This was the
   first crossing of the Rhine by the Romans. The Suevi offered
   battle to the Roman invaders, but Cæsar prudently returned,
   and destroyed the bridge.

      _Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 4, chapters 1-19._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

   ----------UTAH: Start--------

UTAH: A. D. 1847.
   Migration of Mormons from Nauvoo and their settlement on the
   Great Salt Lake.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

UTAH: A. D. 1848.
   Acquisition from Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.
   The proposed State of Deseret.
   Organization of the Territory of Utah.
   Its name.

   "Until the year 1849 the Mormons were entirely under the
   control of their ecclesiastical leaders, regarding the
   presidency not only as their spiritual head, but as the source
   of law in temporal matters. … There was already in their midst
   a small percentage of gentile citizens, gathered … from nearly
   all the civilized nations of the earth. … Not infrequently
   litigation arose among the gentiles, or between Mormon and
   gentile; and though strict justice may have been done by the
   bishops, it was difficult for the latter to believe that such
   was the case. … Thus it became advisable to establish for the
   benefit of all some judicial authority that could not be
   questioned by any, whether members of the church or not, and
   this authority must be one that, being recognized by the
   government of the United States, would have the support of its
   laws and the shield of its protection. Further than this, if
   the Mormons neglected to establish such government, the
   incoming gentiles would do so ere long. Early in 1849,
   therefore, a convention was summoned of 'the inhabitants of
   that portion of Upper California lying east of the Sierra
   Nevada Mountains,' and on the 4th of March assembled at Salt
   Lake City. A committee was appointed to draught a
   constitution, under which the people might govern themselves
   until congress should otherwise provide by law. A few days
   later the constitution was adopted, and a provisional
   government organized, under the name of the State of Deseret.
   An immense tract of country was claimed, extending from
   latitude 33° to the border of Oregon, and from the Rocky
   Mountains to the Sierra Nevada, together with a section of the
   territory now included in southern California, and the strip
   of coast lying between Lower California and 118° 30' of west
   longitude. The seat of government was to be at Salt Lake
   City." In July Almon W. Babbitt was elected delegate to
   Congress, and that body was petitioned to admit the
   provisionally organized State into the Union. The delegate and
   his petition met with a cool reception at Washington; but in
   September, 1850, Congress passed an act organizing the
   Territory of Utah, and Brigham Young was appointed Governor.
   "The act to establish a territorial government for Utah placed
   the southern boundary at the 37th parallel, the section
   between that limit and the 33d parallel being included in the
   Territory of New Mexico [organized at the same time], with the
   exception of the part transferred to California, by which
   State Utah was to be bounded on the west. On the north, Oregon
   was to remain as the boundary, and on the east the Rocky
   Mountains." "The word Utah originated with the people
   inhabiting that region. Early in the 17th century, when New
   Mexico was first much talked of by the Spaniards, the
   principal nations of frequent mention as inhabiting the
   several sides of the locality about that time occupied were
   the Navajos, the Yutas, the Apaches, and the Comanches. Of the
   Utah nation, which belongs to the Shoshone family, there were
   many tribes. … The early orthography of the word Utah is
   varied." "Yuta" "was a common spelling by the early
   Spaniards, and might be called the proper one. Later we have
   'Youta,' 'Eutaw,' 'Utaw,' and 'Utah.'"

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21 (Utah), chapter 17, and foot-note, page 34._

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

{3590}

UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.
   The Mormon Rebellion.

   "To this would-be 'State of Deseret' President Fillmore had
   assigned Brigham Young, the spiritual head of the church, as
   territorial governor; and by 1857, when a Democratic President
   showed the disposition to apply the usual temporal rule of
   rotation to the office, Young was rebellious, and the whole
   Mormon population, refusing allegiance to anyone but their
   consecrated head, began to drill and gird on their armor for
   resistance. Judges of the territorial courts had to flee for
   their lives; justice, which had long been tampered with to
   absolve church members from punishment, was deprived of
   process. It was charged that the Mormon hierarchy had leagued
   with Indian tribes to impel them to atrocities against the
   Gentile inhabitants, while their own Danites, or destroying
   angels, were secretly set apart and bound by horrid oath to
   pillage and murder such as made themselves obnoxious to the
   theocracy. … President Buchanan appointed as the new governor
   of Utah Alfred Cumming, a man combining courage with
   discretion, and filled the judicial and other vacancies which
   existed. To protect those new officers and aid them in
   discharging their functions, he ordered a detachment of
   regulars to accompany them to the Salt Lake region. The need
   of this was soon apparent. Early in September, 1857, a part of
   the troops left Fort Laramie, and on the 15th of the same
   month Brigham Young, parading audaciously the commission he
   still held from the United States, forbade all armed forces
   from entering the territory, and called upon his people to
   defend themselves against the 'armed mercenary mob' of
   invaders. His legislature, meeting later, sustained him in his
   bitter diatribe against the 'profane, drunken, and corrupt
   officials,' which a Washington administration was trying to
   force upon Utah territory at the point of the bayonet. A
   Mormon force had meanwhile advanced to impede the approach of
   our regulars, capturing and burning three supply trains of
   wagons laden with tents and provisions, stampeding the horses,
   and so crippling Fort Bridger, which was distant some twelve
   days' march from Salt Lake city, as to deprive our army, on
   its arrival, of a proper winter's shelter after its long and
   fatiguing march, and compel General Johnston, who commanded
   this important post, to despatch part of his forces upon a
   dreary and hazardous expedition to New Mexico for further
   supplies. Johnston's despatches in October showed the
   President that unless a large force was quickly sent out, a
   long conflict would be inevitable. Buchanan and his Secretary
   of War asked from the present Congress ten new regiments, of
   which five might be used to bring the Mormons to subjection.
   But the Lecompton controversy was raging; and the use of
   Federal troops to put down the free-State movement in Kansas
   had caused such mistrust and irritation that none but the
   President's unshaken supporters felt inclined to place more
   troops at his disposal. The bill for an army increase was
   lost, though both Houses passed a measure authorizing the
   President to accept for the Utah disturbances two regiments of
   volunteers. The volunteers were not called out; but Buchanan
   mustered a military force out of the regulars strong enough to
   overawe and overpower Utah's rebellious inhabitants. Two peace
   commissioners also bore to Utah a proclamation from the
   President, dated April 6th, which offered free pardon, except
   to those who persisted still in disloyal resistance. Governor
   Cumming, upon his arrival, made a like announcement. These
   conciliatory efforts, backed by an irresistible show of
   military strength, brought the Mormons to a speedy
   acknowledgment of allegiance. They fought not a battle, but
   manifested a purpose to burn their houses and make a new and
   peaceable retreat into the wilderness. From this purpose,
   after some conferences, they were at length dissuaded; and it
   was agreed in June between the Mormon leaders and our
   commissioners that the United States soldiery should be kept
   out of sight as much as possible while Utah remained tranquil.
   On the last day of the same month the new governor,
   accompanied by Brigham Young, came back to Salt Lake city to
   assume functions which were fully recognized. A few days
   earlier, and before the Mormons had begun to return to their
   homes, General Johnston and his troops, leaving Fort Bridger,
   reached the desolate city, marched through its streets, and,
   crossing its river Jordan, encamped on the opposite bank.
   While abandoning all further effort at violent resistance, the
   Mormons still clung to the hope of being left to govern
   themselves and preserve their institutions against the world's
   contaminating touch, by gaining the indispensable condition of
   practical isolation and independence. To this Congress in its
   next winter's session they renewed the former petitions they
   had presented for immediate admission to the Union as the
   'State of Deseret.' And should this request be denied, they
   prayed that the organic act of the territory might be so
   amended as to give the inhabitants the right to choose their
   own governor, judges, and other officers. All this Congress
   quietly ignored; and in military circles it was still
   generally believed that, for all this outward show of loyal
   acquiescence, the Mormons felt at heart no more affection for
   the United States than for any foreign nation; that the only
   rule they really recognized was that of their religion and the
   will of their hierarchy; and that force must still be used to
   compel them. Such views were entertained by General Albert
   Sidney Johnston, the military commander at Utah, destined to
   later distinction in the art of war. But Cumming, the
   governor, who had the temporizing instincts of a civilian,
   thought differently. The two came into collision when Mormons
   were brought to trial in the courts for a slaughter of
   emigrants in 1857, known as the Mountain Meadow massacre.
   [This was the massacre, by Indians and Mormons, of a party of
   136 emigrants, from Arkansas and Missouri, who were passing
   through Utah to California; it occurred in September, 1857, in
   a valley called the Mountain Meadows, about 300 miles south of
   Salt Lake city; only 17 young children were saved from the
   slaughter.] At the request of the Federal judge, Johnston
   furnished a military detachment to guard the prisoners; and
   when Cumming, the governor, interposed because of the angry
   remonstrance of the people, Johnston would not remove them.
   Buchanan, being appealed to, sustained the governor's
   authority."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 22 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21, chapters 18-21._

      _W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapter 13._

      _Mrs. T. B. H. Stenhouse,
      Tell it All,
      chapter 23._

      _Report of United States Secretary of the Interior,
      36th Congress, 1st session,
      Senate Ex. Doc., number 42 (volume 11)._

{3591}

UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.
   The Edmunds Act and its enforcement.
   Abandonment of Polygamy by the Mormons.
   Proclamation of Amnesty for past offenses against the law.

   In March, 1882, an Act of Congress (known as the Edmunds Act)
   was passed for the purpose of making efficient the law against
   polygamy in the territories, which had stood among the
   statutes of the United States for twenty years, without power
   on the part of the federal courts or officials in Utah to
   enforce it, as against Mormon juries. Besides repeating the
   penalties prescribed In the Act of 1862, the Act of 1882
   provides, in its eighth section, that "no polygamist,
   bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman,
   and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as
   aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place
   over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction,
   shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such
   Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or
   appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of
   public trust, honor, or emolument in, under, or for any such
   Territory or place, or under the United States." The ninth and
   last section is as follows: "Section 9. That all the
   registration and election offices of every description in the
   Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant, and each and
   every duty relating to the registration of voters, the conduct
   of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the
   canvassing and returning of the same, and the issuing of
   certificates or other evidence of election, in said Territory,
   shall, until other provisions be made by the legislative
   assembly of said Territory, as is hereinafter by this section
   provided, be performed, under the existing laws of the United
   States and said Territory, by proper persons, who shall be
   appointed to execute such offices and perform such duties by a
   Board of five persons, to be appointed by the President, by
   and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than
   three of whom shall be members of one political party, and a
   majority of whom shall be a quorum. The members of said Board
   so appointed by the President shall each receive a salary at
   the rate of three thousand dollars per annum, and shall
   continue in office until the legislative assembly of said
   Territory shall make provision for filling said offices as
   herein authorized. The Secretary of the Territory shall be the
   secretary of said Board and keep a journal of its proceedings,
   and attest the action of said Board under this section. The
   canvass and return of all the votes at elections in said
   Territory for members of the legislative assembly thereof
   shall also be returned to said Board, which shall canvass all
   such returns and issue certificates of election for those
   persons who, being eligible for such election, shall appear to
   have been lawfully elected, which certificates shall be the
   only evidence of the right of such persons to sit in such
   assembly: Provided, That said Board of five persons shall not
   exclude any person otherwise eligible to vote from the polls
   on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the
   subject of bigamy or polygamy, nor shall they refuse to count
   any such vote on account of the opinion of the person casting
   it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy, but each house of
   such assembly, after its organization, shall have power to
   decide upon the elections and qualifications of its members.
   And at or after the first meeting of said legislative assembly
   whose members shall have been elected and returned according
   to the provisions of this act, said legislative assembly may
   make such laws, conformable to the organic act of said
   Territory, and not inconsistent with other laws of the United
   States, as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the
   offices in said Territory declared vacant by this act."—The
   following Proclamation, issued by the President of the United
   States on the 4th day of January, 1893, may be looked upon as
   the sequel and consequence of the legislation recorded above:
   "Whereas Congress, by a statute approved March 22, 1882, and
   by statutes in furtherance and amendment thereof, defined the
   crimes of bigamy, polygamy, and unlawful cohabitation in the
   Territories and other places within the exclusive jurisdiction
   of the United States and prescribed a penalty for such crimes;
   and Whereas, on or about the 6th day of October, 1890, the
   Church of the Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon
   Church, through its president, issued a manifesto proclaiming
   the purpose of said church no longer to sanction the practice
   of polygamous marriages and calling upon all members and
   adherents of said church to obey the laws of the United States
   in reference to said subject-matter; and Whereas it is
   represented that since the date of said declaration the
   members and adherents of said church have generally obeyed
   said laws and have abstained from plural marriages and
   polygamous cohabitation; and Whereas, by a petition dated
   December 19, 1891, the officials of said church, pledging the
   membership thereof to a faithful obedience to the laws against
   plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation, have applied to me
   to grant amnesty for past offenses against said laws, which
   request a very large number of influential non-Mormons,
   residing in the Territories, have also strongly urged; and
   Whereas, the Utah Commission, in their report bearing date
   September 15, 1892, recommended that said petition be granted
   and said amnesty proclaimed, under proper conditions as to the
   future observance of the law, with a view to the encouragement
   of those now disposed to become law abiding citizens; and
   Whereas, during the past two years such amnesty has been
   granted to individual applicants in a very large number of
   cases, conditioned upon the faithful observance of the laws of
   the United States against unlawful cohabitation; and there are
   now pending many more such applications: Now therefore, I,
   Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue
   of the power in me vested, do hereby declare and grant a full
   amnesty and pardon to all persons liable to the penalties of
   said act by reason of unlawful cohabitation under the color of
   polygamous or plural marriage, who have since November 1, 1890,
   abstained from such unlawful cohabitation; but upon the
   express condition that they shall in the future faithfully
   obey the laws of the United States hereinbefore named, and not
   otherwise. Those who shall fail to avail themselves of the
   clemency hereby offered will be vigorously prosecuted. In
   witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
   seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of
   Washington this 4th day of January, in the year of our Lord
   1893, and of the Independence of the United States the 117th.
   Benjamin Harrison."

{3592}

UTAH: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Provision for admission to the Union as a State.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894-1895.

   ----------UTAH: End--------

UTAHS, UTES, PIUTES, etc.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

   ----------UTICA: Start--------

UTICA:
   Origin.

   "The most ancient Phœnician colonies were Utica, nearly on the
   northern-most point of the coast of Africa, and in the same
   gulf (now known as the gulf of Tunis) as Carthage, over
   against Cape Lilybæum in Sicily,—and Gades, or Gadeira, on
   the south-western coast of Spain; a town which, founded
   perhaps near one thousand years before the Christian era, has
   maintained a continuous prosperity, and a name (Cadiz)
   substantially unaltered, longer than any town in Europe. How
   well the site of Utica was suited to the circumstances of
   Phœnician colonists may be inferred from the fact that
   Carthage was afterwards established in the same gulf and near
   to the same spot, and that both the two cities reached a high
   pitch of prosperity."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 18._

      [Transcriber's note: The meaning of the phrase
      '…name (Cadiz)…' appears to be ambiguous.
      "The site of … Utica is … about 30 km from Tunis and 30 km
      from Bizerte and near … Zhana, … Ghar El Melh, … El Alia,
      … Metline."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utica%2C_Tunisia]

UTICA:
   Relations to Carthage.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

UTICA:
   Curio's defeat.

   Curio, the legate or lieutenant sent first by Cæsar to Africa
   (B. C. 49), to attack the Pompeian forces in that quarter,
   undertook with two legions to reduce the city of Utica, which
   had became the capital of the Roman Province. Juba, king of
   Numidia, who was personally hostile to both Curio and Cæsar,
   came to the assistance of the Pompeians and forced Curio to
   withdraw from its besieging lines into the neighboring
   Cornelian camp, which was a famous military entrenchment left
   by Scipio Africanus. There he might have waited in safety for
   re-enforcements; but the wily Numidian tempted him out by a
   feigned retreat and then overwhelmed him. Curio and most of
   his men were slain.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 7._

UTICA:
   Last stand of the opponents of Cæsar.

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

   ----------UTICA: End--------

UTRAQUISTS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

   ----------UTRECHT: Start--------

UTRECHT:
   The Episcopal Principality.

   "At the last ford of the Rhine a hamlet had in Roman times
   been built, possibly a fort also. Nothing is preserved
   regarding it but the name, which, in the mutations of
   language, passed from Ultrajectum into Utrecht. Towards the
   conclusion of the 7th century, Clement Willebrod, an English
   priest, who had been educated at the monastery of Ripon,
   coming as a missionary into those parts, succeeded, with the
   aid of eleven of his fellow-countrymen, in winning over the
   Frisian people to the Christian faith. He fixed his abode at
   Utrecht, of which he was afterwards appointed bishop; and
   gifts of land, at the time of little worth, were made to his
   successors by Pepin and Charlemagne. Such was the commencement
   of the temporal grandeur of the prince-bishops, whose dynasty
   attained to a power little less than sovereign during the
   middle ages. … With ready access to the sea, and not without
   an early disposition towards these pursuits which their
   kinsmen of the Rhineland towns were beginning to follow, the
   inhabitants of Utrecht soon became good sailors and good
   weavers, and their city throve apace. Enriched by successive
   grants of privileges and lands, the bishops of Utrecht
   gradually became powerful feudal lords."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.
   The bishopric grasped by the House of Burgundy.

   "Utrecht was still a separate state, governed by its sovereign
   bishop, who was elected by the votes of the chapter, subject
   to the approval of the Pope. On the vacancy which occurred
   towards the end of the year 1455, the choice of the canons
   fell upon Gisbert van Brederode, who had previously been
   archdeacon of the cathedral, and was held in general esteem
   amongst the people as well as the clergy. The Duke of Burgundy
   coveted so rich a prize, rather for its political importance,
   however, … than for any direct or immediate gain." The Duke
   appealed to Rome; Gisbert was put back into his archdeaconry,
   with an annuity for life, and David, a natural son of Duke
   Philip, was made bishop. "Thus the foundation was laid for the
   permanent union of Utrecht to the other provinces, although
   its final accomplishment was destined to be deferred yet many
   years."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

UTRECHT: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

UTRECHT: A. D. 1579.
   The Union of the Seven Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
   The Treaties which ended the War of the Spanish Succession,
   forming the Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

   The long War of the Spanish Succession was brought to a close
   (except as between Germany and France) by negotiations at
   Utrecht, which resulted in the concluding of a number of
   treaties between the several powers concerned, constituting
   collectively what is known as the Peace of Utrecht.
   Negotiations to this end were begun by England and France
   early in 1711, and preliminaries were settled between them and
   signed in October of that year. This action of the English
   compelled the other allies to consent to a general conference,
   which opened at Utrecht January 20, 1712. The discussion of
   terms lasted more than a year, while the war went on. Between
   Germany and France the war still continued and it was at
   Rastadt (March, 1714), not Utrecht, that the last named powers
   came to their agreement of peace. The several treaties
   concluded at Utrecht were most of them signed on the 31st day
   of March. O. S., or April 11, N. S., in the year 1713, "by the
   plenipotentiaries of France, England, Portugal, Prussia,
   Savoy, and the United Provinces; the emperor resolving to
   continue the war, and the king of Spain refusing to sign the
   stipulations until a principality should be provided in the
   Low Countries for the princess Ursini, the favourite of his
   queen [a demand which he subsequently withdrew].
{3593}
   The chief articles of this memorable pacification were to the
   following purport: It was stipulated that, … Philip, now
   established on the Spanish throne; should renounce all right
   to the crown of France; that the dukes of Berry and Orleans,
   the next heirs to the French monarchy after the infant
   dauphin, should in like manner renounce all right to the crown
   of Spain, in the event of their accession to the French
   throne; that, on the death of Philip, and in default of his
   male issue, the succession of Spain and the Indies should be
   secured to the duke of Savoy; that the island of Sicily should
   be instantly ceded by his Catholic majesty to the same prince,
   with the title of king; that France should also cede to him
   the valleys of Pragelas, Oulx, Sezanne, Bardonache, and
   Château-Dauphin, with the forts of Exilles and Fenestrelles,
   and restore to him the duchy of Savoy and the county of Nice;
   and that the full property and sovereignty of both banks and
   the navigation of the Marañan, or river of Amazons, in South
   America, should belong to the king of Portugal. It was
   declared that the king of Prussia should receive Spanish
   Guelderland, with the sovereignty of Neufchâtel and Valengin,
   in exchange for the principality of Orange and the lordship of
   Châlons, and that his regal title should be acknowledged; that
   the Rhine should form the boundary of the German empire on the
   side of France; and that all fortifications, beyond that
   river, claimed by France, or in the possession of his most
   Christian majesty, should either be relinquished to the
   emperor or destroyed; that the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of
   Milan, and the Spanish territories on the Tuscan shore, should
   be ceded to the house of Austria; that the sovereignty of the
   Spanish Netherlands should likewise be secured to that family;
   but that the elector of Bavaria (to whom they had been granted
   by Philip) should retain such places as were still in his
   possession, until he should be reinstated in all his German
   dominions, except the Upper Palatinate, and also be put in
   possession of the island of Sardinia, with the title of king:
   that Luxemburg, Namur, and Charleroy should be given to the
   states-general as a barrier, together with Mons, Menin,
   Tournay, and other places; and that Lisle, Aire, Bethune, and
   St. Venant, should be restored to France. It was agreed that
   the French monarch should acknowledge the title of queen Anne,
   and the eventual succession of the family of Hanover to the
   British throne; that the fortifications of Dunkirk (the cause
   of much jealousy to England, and raised at vast expense to
   France) should be demolished, and the harbour filled up; that
   the island of St. Christopher (which had long been possessed
   jointly by the French and English, but from which the French
   had been expelled in 1702) should be subject to this country
   [England]; that Hudson's Bay and Straits (where the French had
   founded a settlement, but without dispossessing the English,
   and carried on a rival trade during the war), the town of
   Placentia, and other districts of the island of Newfoundland
   (where the French had been suffered to establish themselves,
   through the negligence of government), and the long-disputed
   province of Nova Scotia (into which the French had early
   intruded, out of which they had been frequently driven, and
   which had been finally conquered by an army from New England
   in 1710), should be considered as the dependencies of the
   British crown: that Minorca and the fortress of Gibraltar
   (conquered from Spain) should remain in the possession of
   Great Britain; and that the Assiento, or contract for
   furnishing the Spanish colonies in South America with negroes,
   should belong to the subjects of Great Britain for the term of
   thirty years. That these conditions, especially on the part of
   Great Britain, were very inadequate to the success and expense
   of the war, will be allowed by every intelligent man, whose
   understanding is not warped by political prejudices. … The
   other confederates had greater cause to be satisfied, and the
   emperor [Charles VI.] as much as any of them; yet was he
   obstinate in refusing to sign the general pacification, though
   two months were allowed him to deliberate on the terms. But he
   had soon reason to repent his rashness in resolving to
   continue the war alone. … The imperial army on the Rhine,
   commanded by prince Eugene, was not in a condition to face the
   French under Villars, who successively took Worms, Spire,
   Keiserlautern, and the important fortress of Landau. He forced
   the passage of the Rhine … and reduced Freyburg, the capital
   of the Breisgau. Unwilling to prosecute a disastrous war, the
   emperor began seriously to think of peace; and conferences,
   which afterward terminated in a pacific treaty, were opened
   between prince Eugene and Villars, at Ranstadt. The terms of
   this treaty, concluded on the 6th of March (N. S.) 1714 [but
   ratified at Baden the next September, and sometimes called the
   Treaty of Baden], were less favourable to the emperor than
   those which had been offered at Utrecht. The king of France
   retained Landau, which he had before proposed to cede, with
   several fortresses behind the Rhine, which he had agreed to
   demolish [but restored Freiburg]. He procured the full
   re-establishment of the electors of Bavaria and Cologne in
   their dominions and dignities; the former prince consenting to
   relinquish Sardinia to the emperor, in return for the Upper
   Palatinate. … The principal articles in regard to Italy and
   the Low Countries were the same with those settled at Utrecht.
   Relaxing in his obstinacy, the king of Spain also acceded to
   the general pacification."

      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, letter 23 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Peace of Utrecht,
      chapters 24-29._

      _T. Macknight,
      Life of Bolingbroke,
      chapters 8-9._

      _G. W. Cooke,
      Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 108-110._

      _J. C. Collins,
      Bolingbroke,
      section 1._

      _A. Hassall,
      Life of Bolingbroke,
      chapter 3._

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776;
      CANADA: A. D.1711-1713;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

   ----------UTRECHT: End--------

UTRECHT SCHOOL OF ST. MARTIN.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: NETHERLANDS.

UXBRIDGE, Attempted Treaty of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

UXELLODUNUM, Siege of.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

UXMAL, Ruins of.

      See MEXICO: ANCIENT, THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.

UZES, The.

      See PATCHINAKS.

{3594}

V.

VACALUS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Waal.

VACCÆI, The.

   One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 1._

VACCINATION, The discovery of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.

VACOMAGI, The.

   A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory extended along
   the border of the Highlands, from the Moray Firth to the Tay.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

VACSLAV.

      See WENCESLAUS.

VADIMONIAN LAKE, Battle of the.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

VAISYAS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

VALDEMAR I. (called The Great), King of Denmark, A. D. 1157-1182.

   Valdemar I., King of Sweden, 1266-1275.

   Valdemar II., King of Denmark, 1202-1241.

   Valdemar III., King of Denmark, 1340-1375.

VALDEVEZ, The Tourney of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

VALEA ALBA, Battle of (1476).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.)

VALENCIA: A. D. 1031-1092.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

   ----------VALENCIENNES: Start--------

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1566.
   Crushing of the first revolt against Spanish tyranny in the
   Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1656.
   Siege and failure of Turenne.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1677.
   Taken by Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1679.
   Cession to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1793.
   Siege and capture by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1794.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JANUARY-JULY).

   ----------VALENCIENNES: End--------

VALENS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 364-378.

VALENTIA.

   One of the Roman provinces formed in Britain, extending from
   the wall of Hadrian to the wall of Antoninus, covering
   southern Scotland. It was named in honor of the Emperor
   Valentinian.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337; and 367-370.

VALENTINE, Pope, A. D. 827, September to October.

VALENTINIAN I., Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 364-375.

   Valentinian II., Roman Emperor (Western), 375-392.

   Valentinian III., Roman Emperor (Western), 425-455.

VALERIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253-260.

VALERIAN LAWS.

      See ROME: B. C. 509.

VALERIO-HORATIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 449.

VAL-ES-DUNES, Battle of (1047).

      See NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.

VALLACHIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

VALLACHS, The.

      See WALLACHS.

VALLADOLID, Battle of (1813).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

VALLANDIGHAM, Clement L., The arrest of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JUNE).

VALLEY FORGE:
   Washington's army in winter quarters.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

VALLI.
VALLUM.

      See CASTRA.

VALMY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

VALOIS, The House of.

   The direct line of the Capetian kings of France, descendants
   of Hugh Capet, ended in 1328, with the death of Charles IV.
   The crown then passed to the late king's cousin, Philip of
   Valois, son of Charles Count of Valois, who was the second son
   of Philip III. He became Philip VI. in the series of French
   kings, and with him began the royal dynasty or House of
   Valois, which came to an end in 1589, on the assassination of
   Henry III., yielding the throne to the Bourbon family.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1328.

   For source of the name.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

VALOUTINA, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

VALTELINE, Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

VALTELINE WAR.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

VAN BUREN, Martin.
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836, to 1841.

   Defeat in Presidential Election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.

   The Free Soil Movement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

      See BRITISH COLUMBIA.

VANDALIA, The proposed western colony of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

   ----------VANDALS: Start--------

VANDALS:
   Origin and early movements.

   "Gibbon declares that a striking resemblance, in manners,
   complexion, religion, and language, indicates that the Goths
   and Vandals were originally one great people; and he cites the
   testimony of Pliny and Procopius in support of this belief.
   According to this theory, therefore, the Vandals are of the
   Teutonic stock. Other learned men have endeavoured to identify
   them with the Wendes; and the Wendes, as we have seen,
   according to the authority of Jornandes and others, were
   members of the Slavic race. The question has been examined,
   with great learning and ingenuity, by M. L. Marcus, Professor
   at the College of Dijon, in a work upon Vandal history. His
   conclusion, drawn from a comparison of what Tacitus, Pliny,
   Procopius, and Jornandes have left us upon the subject, is
   favourable to the hypothesis of Gibbon. Between the Wendes and
   the Vindili of Pliny, who were undoubtedly Vandals, he
   considers that no nearer point of union can be found than that
   of the Asiatic origin common to all nations of Slavic and
   Teutonic blood.
{3595}
   He accounts for the fact that some confusion upon the subject
   subsists in ancient writers, by the supposition that the
   Slaves, after the great migration of Goths and Vandals to the
   South, occupied the locality they had abandoned on the coasts
   of the Baltic, and became inheritors of the name, as well as
   of the land, of their predecessors. Hence they were commonly,
   though incorrectly, called Vindili, or Vandals. … The earliest
   locality of the tribe, so far as authentic history can trace
   them, seems to have been the district between the Vistula and
   the Elbe. Here they were found by the Langobardi, in their
   migration towards the South. … In the time of Pliny, we have
   that writer's testimony to the fact that the Vandals were
   still to be found between the two rivers. But during the next
   two centuries their unwarlike habits must have tended to
   diminish their importance among their fierce and active
   neighbours, of whom the Goths were the most formidable, and
   probably the most aggressive. Tacitus, at any rate, in his
   tractate upon the Germans [A. D. 100], merely notices them by
   name. … Another half-century finds them in a strong position
   among the mountains which form the northern frontier of
   Bohemia. It is certain that they took part in the great
   Marcomannic war [A. D. 168-180]. … In the treaty made by
   Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, with the Marcomanni [A.
   D. 180], the Vandals are one of the tribes secured from the
   hostility of those persevering enemies of the Roman empire. At
   this time, Ptolemy informs us that the Vandals occupied the
   districts lying around the sources of the Elbe; and all other
   investigation confirms the statement." A hundred years later,
   the Vandals appear to have been planted in a district on the
   Danube, east of the Theiss; from which they were soon
   afterwards driven by the Goths. They were then permitted by
   the emperor Constantine to pass the frontiers of the empire
   and settle in Pannonia, where they accepted Christianity and
   exhibited "the greatest aptitude for commerce and the arts of
   peace." Despite their Christianity, however, and despite their
   aptitude for the "arts of peace," the Vandals, after seventy
   years of friendly neighboring with the Romans, joined the
   savage pack of Alans, Sueves and Burgundians which, on the
   last day of the year 406, broke into Gaul and shattered the
   empire and the civilization of Rome beyond the Alps.

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      The Fall of Rome,
      lecture 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

VANDALS: A. D. 406-409.
   Final Invasion of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

A. D. 409-414.
   Settlement in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

VANDALS: A. D. 428.
   Conquests in Spain.

   "After the retreat of the Goths [A. D. 418] the authority of
   Honorius had obtained a precarious establishment in Spain,
   except only in the province of Gallicia, where the Suevi and
   the Vandals had fortified their camps in mutual discord and
   hostile independence. The Vandals prevailed, and their
   adversaries were besieged in the Nervasian hills, between Leon
   and Oviedo, till the approach of Count Asterius compelled, or
   rather provoked, the victorious barbarians to remove the scene
   of war to the plains of Bætica. The rapid progress of the
   Vandals soon required a more effectual opposition, and the
   master-general Castinus marched against them with a numerous
   army of Romans and Goths. Vanquished in battle by an inferior
   enemy, Castinus fled with dishonour to Tarragona. … Seville
   and Carthagena became the reward, or rather the prey, of the
   ferocious conquerors."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33._

   Southern Spain, the ancient Bætica, acquired from the Vandals
   the name Vandalusia, which became Andalusia.

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 2._

VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
   Conquests in Africa.

   In May, A. D. 429, the Vandals passed from Spain into Africa,
   invited by Count Boniface, the Roman governor of the African
   province. The latter had been deceived by an intriguing rival,
   Count Aetius, who persuaded him that the imperial Court at
   Ravenna were planning his disgrace and death. Thus incited to
   rebellion, as an act of self defense, he called the Vandals to
   his help. The latter had just fallen under the leadership of a
   new and terrible king—the bold and ruthless Genseric, who was
   destined to make the name of his people a proverb through all
   time for ferocity and barbarism. To the Vandals were united
   the Alans, and Genseric invaded Africa with some 80,000 men.
   He was joined, moreover, by great numbers of disaffected
   native Mauritanians, or Moors, and was welcomed by swarms of
   the fanatical Donatists, whose "vandalism" could quite equal
   his own. Count Boniface shrank aghast from the terrible
   invasion he had summoned, and learning, too late, how foully
   he had been played upon, returned to his allegiance with
   penitent energy and zeal. He turned his arms against Genseric;
   but it was in vain. "The victorious barbarians insulted the
   open country; and Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius were the
   only cities that appeared to rise above the general
   inundation. … The seven fruitful provinces, from Tangier to
   Tripoli, were overwhelmed. … The Vandals, where they found
   resistance, seldom gave quarter; and the deaths of their
   valiant countrymen were expiated by the ruin of the cities
   under whose walls they had fallen. Careless of the
   distinctions of age or sex or rank, they employed every
   species of indignity and torture to force from the captives a
   discovery of their hidden wealth." Defeated in a battle which
   he ventured, Boniface retired into Hippo Regius and stood a
   siege of fourteen months. A second battle, won by the Vandals,
   decided the fate of the city, but its inhabitants escaped, for
   the most part, by sea, before the barbarians broke in. The
   great Bishop of Hippo, the venerable St. Augustine, was in the
   city when the siege began, but died before it ended, in his
   seventy-sixth year. "When the city, some months after his
   death, was burned by the Vandals, the library was fortunately
   saved which contained his voluminous writings." Hippo fell in
   the summer of A. D. 431. It was not until eight years later
   that Carthage succumbed,—taken treacherously, by surprise, on
   the 9th of October, 439; being 585 years after the destruction
   of the ancient city by the younger Scipio. The provinces of
   Africa were now fully in the possession of the Vandals, and
   the loss of their cor

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7._

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2._

VANDALS: A. D. 429-477.
   In Sicily.

      See SICILY: A. D. 429-525.

{3596}

VANDALS: A. D. 431-533.
   Ruin of Africa under their dominion.

   "The Vandals were bigoted Arians and their government was
   peculiarly tyrannical; they always treated the Roman
   inhabitants of Africa as political enemies, and persecuted
   them as religious opponents. The Visigoths in Spain had
   occupied two thirds of the subjugated lands, the Ostrogoths in
   Italy had been satisfied with one third; and both these people
   had acknowledged the civil rights of the Romans as citizens
   and Christians. The Vandals adopted a different policy.
   Genseric reserved immense domains to himself and to his sons.
   He divided the densely peopled and rich districts of Africa
   proper among the Vandal warriors, exempting them from taxation
   and binding them to military service. … They seized all the
   richest lands, and the most valuable estates, and exterminated
   the higher class of the Romans. Only the poorer proprietors
   were permitted to preserve the arid and distant parts of the
   country. Still, the number of the Romans excited the fears of
   the Vandals, who destroyed the walls of the provincial towns
   in order to prevent the people from receiving succours from
   the Eastern Empire. … When Genseric conquered Carthage, his
   whole army amounted only to 50,000 warriors; yet this small
   horde devoured all the wealth of Africa in the course of a
   single century, and, from an army of hardy soldiers, it was
   converted Into a caste of luxurious nobles living in splendid
   villas round Carthage. In order fully to understand the
   influence of the Vandals on the state of the country which
   they occupied, it must be observed that their oppressive
   government had already so far lowered the condition and
   reduced the numbers of the Roman provincials, that the native
   Moors began to reoccupy the country from which Roman industry
   and Roman capital had excluded them. … As the property of the
   province was destroyed, Its Roman inhabitants perished."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece Under the Romans,
      chapter 3, section 5._

VANDALS: A. D. 455.
   The sack of Rome by Genseric.

      See ROME: A. D. 455

VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
   End of the kingdom and nation.

   The weakened and disordered state of the Vandal kingdom,
   concurring with the revival of a military spirit in the
   eastern Roman empire, which the great soldier Belisarius had
   brought about, encouraged the Emperor Justinian to attempt, A.
   D. 533, a reconquest of the lost Roman provinces in Africa.
   With a fleet of six hundred ships, bearing 37,000 men,
   Belisarius set sail from Constantinople in the month of June
   and landed early in September on the African coast, about five
   days journey from Carthage,—having halted at a port in Sicily
   on the voyage. A few days later, he defeated the Vandal king,
   Gelimer, in a battle (Ad Decimus) fought at ten miles distance
   from his capital, and entered Carthage in triumph (September
   15, A. D. 533), received with joy by its Roman and Catholic
   inhabitants, long persecuted and humiliated by the Arian
   Vandals. A second and decisive battle was fought some weeks
   afterwards at Tricamaron, twenty miles away from Carthage, and
   there and then the Vandal kingdom came to its end. Gelimer
   fled into the wilds of Numidia, was pursued, and, having
   surrendered himself in the March following, was sent to
   Constantinople, and passed the remainder of his days in peace
   and modest luxury on a comfortable estate in Galatia. "The
   fall of the Vandal monarchy was an event full of meaning for
   the future history of Africa. There can be little doubt that
   in destroying it Justinian was unconsciously removing the most
   powerful barrier which might in the next century have arrested
   the progress of Mohammedanism."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 15 (v 3)._

   "The bravest of the Vandal youth were distributed into five
   squadrons of cavalry, which adopted the name of their
   benefactor. … But these rare exceptions, the reward of birth
   or valour, are insufficient to explain the fate of a nation
   whose numbers, before a short and bloodless war, amounted to
   more than 600,000 persons. After the exile of their king and
   nobles, the servile crowd might purchase their safety by
   abjuring their character, religion, and language; and their
   degenerate posterity would be insensibly mingled with the
   common herd of African subjects. Yet even in the present age,
   and in the heart of the Moorish tribes, a curious traveller
   has discovered the white complexion and long flaxen hair of a
   northern race; and it was formerly believed that the boldest
   of the Vandals fled beyond the power, or even the knowledge,
   of the Romans, to enjoy their solitary freedom on the shores
   of the Atlantic ocean."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 41._

   ----------VANDALS: End--------

VAN DIEMEN'S LAND,
TASMANIA:
   Discovery and naming.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

VANGIONES.
TRIBOCI.
NEMETES.

   "The Rhine bank itself is occupied by tribes unquestionably
   German—the Vangiones, the Triboci, and the Nemetes."—"These
   tribes dwelt on the west bank of the Rhine, in what is now
   Rhenish Bavaria."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany;
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      with geographical notes._

VANNES, Origin of.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

VAN RENSSELAER, Patroon Killian,
   The land purchases of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

VAN RENSSELAER, General Stephen,
   and the Battle of Queenston Heights.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VAN RENSSELAER MANOR.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
      and LIVINGSTON MANOR.

VAN TWILLER, Wouter, The governorship of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

VARANGIAN SEA.

   One of the ancient names of the Baltic.

      _R. G. Latham,
      Native-Races of Russian Empire,
      chapter 16._

VARANGIANS, OR WARINGS.
THE WARING GUARD.

   Varangians "was the name of the Byzantine equivalent to the
   'soldiers of a free-company' In the 11th and 12th centuries.
   The soldiers were almost wholly Scandinavians—to a great
   extent the Swedes of Russia. The reasons against believing
   Varangian to be the same word as Frank, are: 1. The mention of
   Franci along with them, as a separate people. 2. The extent to
   which the Varangians were Scandinavians, rather than Germans
   of the Rhine. In favour of it is: The form of the present
   Oriental name for Europeans—Feringi. This, in my mind,
   preponderates. Connected by name only with the Franks, the
   truer ethnological affinities of the Varangians were with the
   Scandinavians of Russia."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus, Epilegomena,
      section. 17._

{3597}

   "Many of the Warings and probably of the English also had
   taken military service at an early period under the Byzantine
   emperors. They formed a body-guard for the Emperor, and soon
   gained for themselves a renown greater than that possessed by
   the earlier imperial guard of the Immortals. The Byzantine
   writers usually speak of them as the barbarian guard or as the
   axe-bearers. Their weapon was the Danish battle-axe, or rather
   bill, and seems not to have had two blades turning different
   ways like those of a halberd, but to have had one with a sharp
   steel spike projecting, so that the weapon could be used
   either to strike or to thrust. Anna, the daughter of Alexis
   the First, calls them Warings or Varangians. Nicetas speaks of
   them as Germans. The Western writers call them usually Danes,
   or 'English and Danes.' The conquest of England by William the
   Norman caused many of the English to emigrate to Russia and so
   to Constantinople, where they joined the Waring guard. …
   Warings and English, while occupants of the Greek palace,
   still spoke their own language, had their own laws, and chose,
   with certain exceptions, their own officers. The one in
   command was called the acolyth, or follower, because his place
   was immediately behind the Emperor."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 6. section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _V. Thomsen,
      The Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 3._

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

VARAVILLE, Battle of.

   A decisive victory over the French, invading Normandy, by Duke
   William—afterwards the Conqueror of England—A. D. 1058.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._

VARCHONITES, The.

      See AVARS.

VARIAN LAW.

      See MAJESTAS.

VARIAN MASSACRE, The.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

VARINI, The.

      See AVIONES.

VARKANA.

      See HYRCANIA.

VARNA, The battle of (1444).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

VARNA, Siege and capture (1828).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

VARUS, and his Legions, The destruction of.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

VASCONES, The.

      See BASQUES.

VASSAL.

      See FEUDALISM.

VASSAR COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

VASSILI.

      See BASIL.

VASSY, The Massacre of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

VATICAN, THE.
THE LEONINE CITY.

   "The name Vatican was applied by the writers of the Augustan
   age to the whole range of hills extending along the western
   bank of the Tiber, including the Janiculum and the Monte
   Mario. … But the name Vaticanus has now been restricted to the
   small hill standing behind the Basilica of St. Peter's, upon
   which the Vatican Museum and the Papal Gardens are situated.
   This hill is a small projecting portion of the range which
   includes the Janiculum and Monte Mario, and it is separated
   from the Janiculum by a depression, along which the street of
   the Borgo S. Spirito runs. The derivation of the name Vatican
   is lost. Gellius has preserved a quotation from Varro, in
   which the word is said to be derived from a deity Vaticanus,
   the presiding god of the first rudiments of speech ('vagire,'
   'vagitanus'). Paulus Diaconus gives a different explanation,
   founded on the supposed expulsion of the Etruscans in
   fulfilment of an oracle ('vatum responso expulsis Etruscis');
   and from this Niebuhr and Bunsen, following him, have supposed
   that an Etruscan city existed here in ancient times. There
   appears to be no sufficient evidence of such a settlement."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 11._

   In the ninth century, at the time of the pontificate of Leo
   IV., "the nations of the West and North who visited the
   threshold of the apostles had gradually formed the large and
   populous suburb of the Vatican, and their various habitations
   were distinguished, in the language of the times, as the
   'schools' of the Greeks and Goths, of the Lombards and Saxons.
   But this venerable spot was still open to sacrilegious insult:
   the design of enclosing it with walls and towers exhausted all
   that authority could command or charity would supply: and the
   pious labour of four years was animated in every season and at
   every hour by the presence of the indefatigable pontiff. The
   love of fame, a generous but worldly passion, may be detected
   in the name of the Leonine City, which he bestowed on the
   Vatican; yet the pride of the dedication was tempered with
   Christian penance and humility."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52._

VATICAN COUNCIL, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

VATICAN LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: EUROPE, and ITALY.

VAUCHAMP. Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

VAUDOIS.

      See WALDENSES.

VAUGHT'S HILL, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

VAVASSOR,
VAVASOUR.

      See FEUDAL TENURES;
      also CATTANI.

VECTIGAL, THE.
VECTIGALIA.

   "Pascua—Vectigalia-Publicum-are the terms employed to denote
   generally the Revenues of Rome, from whatever source derived.
   Pascua, i. e. Pasture lands, signified Revenue; because, in
   the earliest ages, the public income was derived solely from
   the rent of pastures belonging to the state. … Vectigal is the
   word used more frequently than any other to denote the Revenue
   of the state generally. … Publicum, in its widest acceptation,
   comprehended every thing which belonged to the community at
   large."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 8._

   "Cicero states that there was a difference between Sicily and
   all the other Roman provinces in the management of the
   Vectigal, which is the name for the contribution which the
   provinces made to the Roman State. All the provinces except
   Sicily paid either a fixed land-tax (vectigal stipendiarium)
   or tenths [decumæ] or other quotæ of their produce, and these
   tenths were let at Rome by the censors to the Publicani, who
   paid the State a certain sum for the privilege of collecting
   the tenths and made out of them what profit they could. … The
   tenths of wheat and barley were let in Sicily to the
   Publicani, but sometimes a community would bid for its tenths
   and pay them itself."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

{3598}

VECTIS.
   The ancient name of the Isle of Wight.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 24, section 2 (volume 2)._

VEDAS.
VEDIC HYMNS.
VEDISM.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

VEHMGERICHTS.
VEHMIC COURTS.

   "In times when political, social, and legal life are in
   process of fermentation, and struggling towards a new order of
   things, the ordinary tribunals lose their authority, and from
   the body of the people men spring up to protect the right in a
   primitive fashion, and to punish the criminal who has escaped
   the ordinary penalties of the law. Thus, at the close of the
   Middle Ages, or, more precisely, the first half of the 15th
   century, the Vehmgerichts (or Vehmic Courts, also called Free
   Courts, Franchise Courts, Secret Courts) rose to an authority
   which extended all over Germany, which knew no respect of
   persons, and before which many evil-doers in high places, who
   had bade defiance to the ordinary tribunals, were made to
   tremble. The name 'Vehme' is derived from the old German
   'vervehmen,' which means to ban, or to curse. The Vehmic
   courts were peculiar to Westphalia, and even there could only
   be held on the 'Red Land'—that is, the district between the
   Rhine and the Weser. They were dependent on the German Emperor
   alone, and their presidents, the Free-counts, received from
   the Emperor in person, or from his representative, the Elector
   of Cologne, the power of life and death. They traced their
   origin to Charlemagne, who, respecting the legal customs of
   the old heathen Saxons, introduced county courts among them
   after they had been converted to Christianity. For, even in
   the most ancient times, the Saxon freemen used to assemble at
   an appointed season, after they had held their great
   sacrifice, and hold a 'Thing' under the presidency of one of
   their oldest members, called the Grave, or Count, where they
   inflicted punishment and administered justice. The Vehmic
   court consisted of a Free-count and a number of assessors, who
   were called 'The Initiated,' because they knew the secrets of
   the holy Vehme. There must be at least fourteen of these
   assessors, but there were generally twice that number. As it
   was no secret when a man was all assessor, and as it
   contributed greatly to the safety of his person, since people
   took good care not to molest a member of the holy Vehme, it
   gradually came about that men from every German province
   obtained admission into the number of assessors. When the
   Emperor Sigismund was elected into the number of 'The
   Initiated' at the Franchise Court of Dortmund, the number of
   assessors is said to have amounted to 100,000, among whom were
   many princes and nobles. And about a thousand assessors are
   said to have been present when the ban was issued against Duke
   Henry of Bavaria in 1429. … There was a 'secret court' to
   which only the initiated had access, and a 'public court'
   which was held in the morning in the light of day at a known
   court-house. The presidents' chairs were always set in the
   open air under a lime, oak, pear, or hawthorn tree, an often
   near a town, castle, or village. At Dortmund the president's
   chair was placed close to the town wall under a lime-tree,
   which, though sadly shattered, is still standing between the
   rails inside the railway station. Round the stone table were
   ranged three stone benches for the assessors; on the table
   there was carved in relief the German imperial eagle, and on
   it was placed the sword of justice, … The Vehmic court which
   was originally, and was bound to be, a public one, gradually
   altered its character, enveloped itself in mysterious
   darkness, and under the cloak of secrecy lent itself to all
   sorts of unrighteous objects. In 1461, accordingly, princes
   and cities leagued together to suppress the irregularities of
   these courts, and as soon as the orderly administration of
   justice came into existence with the rise of the new princely
   authority, they perished from their own impotence."

      _A. W. Grube,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      Introduction to "Anne of Geierstein."_

      _A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

VEII.
VEIENTINE WARS.

      See ROME: B. C. 406-396.

VELABRUM, The.

      See FORUM BOARIUM.

VELETRI, Battle of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

VELETRI, Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VELIBORI, The.

      See IRELAND. TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VELITES.

   The light infantry of the Roman army, as distinguished from
   the heavy-armed legionaries. "The velites did not wear any
   corslet or cuirass, but their tunic appears to have been
   formed of leather. … It is possible also that the velites
   sometimes wore, instead of leather, a tunic of quilted linen."

      _C. Boutell,
      Arms and Armour,
      chapter 4._

VELLICA, Battle of.

      See CANTABRIANS.

VELLINGHAUSEN, or
KIRCH-DEN-KERN, Battle of (1761).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

VELLORE, Sepoy mutiny and massacre at (1806).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

VELOCASSES, The.

      See BELGÆ.

VENATIONES.

   Contests of wild beasts with each other or with men, in the
   Roman amphitheatres, were called Venationes.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquities,
      chapter 10._

VENDEE, The War in La.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793
      (MARCH-APRIL), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
      1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL); and 1794-1796.

VENDEMIARE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

VENDEMIARE: The 13th.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

VENEDI, The.

   "The Venedi extended beyond the Peucini and Bastarnæ [around
   the mouths of the Danube] as far as the Baltic Sea; where is
   the Sinus Venedicus, now the Gulf of Dantzig. Their name is
   also preserved in Wenden, a part of Livonia. When the German
   nations made their irruption into Italy, France, and Spain,
   the Venedi, also called Winedi, occupied their vacant
   settlements between the Vistula and Elbe. Afterward they
   crossed the Danube, and seized Dalmatia, Illyricum, Istria,
   Carniola, and the Noric Alps. A part of Carniola still retains
   the name of Windismarck derived from them. This people were
   also called Slavi."

      _Tacitus,
      The Germans,
      note to Oxford Translation,
      chapter 46._

   "The Venedi [of Tacitus] … are obviously the Wends—the name by
   which the Germans always designate the neighbouring Slavonian
   populations; but which is no more a national name than that of
   Wälsch, which they apply in like manner to the Latin races on
   their southern frontiers."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 26, section. 2, foot-note (volume 2)._

      See, also, SLAVONIC PEOPLES, and VANDALS.

{3599}

VENEDI OF BOHEMIA, The.

      See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

VENEDOTIA.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

VENETA.

      See (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL, The.

   One of the tribes or nations of Cisalpine Gaul bore the name
   of the Veneti. The Veneti occupied the country between the
   rivers Adige and Plavis and seem to have been considerably
   civilized when they first appear in history. They became
   allies of the Romans at an early day and were favorably dealt
   with when Gallia Cisalpina was added to the dominions of
   Rome. "No ancient writer distinctly states to what race the
   Veneti belonged. They are said to have resembled the Illyrians
   in dress and manners; but the very way in which this statement
   is made shows that its author did not regard them as
   Illyrians. … I have no doubt that the Veneti belonged to the
   race of the Liburnians, and that accordingly they were a
   branch of the wide-spread Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, in consequence
   of which they also became so easily Latinized." The capital
   city of the Veneti was Patavium (modern Padua). "Patavium was
   a very ancient and large town, and it is strange that it
   appears as such in Roman history all at once. It is mentioned
   as early as the fifth century [B. C.], during the expedition
   of the Spartan Cleonymus; it is also spoken of at the time of
   Caesar and of the triumvirs. But Strabo is the first who
   describes Patavium as a large town, and in such a manner as to
   make it evident that it was an ancient place. He says that,
   next to Rome, it was the wealthiest city of Italy. … In the
   time of Augustus it was a large commercial and manufacturing
   place."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 246._


VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, The.

   "The Veneti were one of the Armoric states of the Celtae.
   Their neighbours on the south were the Namnetes or Nannetes
   (Nantes), on the east the Redones, and on the north the
   Curiosolitae, and the Osismi in the north-west part of
   Bretagne, in the department of Finistère. The chief town of
   the Veneti was Dariorigum, now Vannes, on the bay of Morbihan
   in the French department of Morbihan, which may correspond
   nearly to the country of the Veneti. The Veneti were the most
   powerful of all the maritime peoples who occupied the
   peninsula of Bretagne. They had many vessels in which they
   sailed to the island Britannia, to Cornwall and the parts
   along the south coast of England, as we may assume. They
   surpassed all their neighbours in skill and experience in
   naval affairs."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

   The Veneti, "together with the Aulerci, Rhedones [or Redones],
   Carnutes, Andi and Turones, occupied the whole space between
   the lower Seine and the lower Loire, and were apparently
   closely united among themselves."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 7._

   "The Andes [Andi] are the people whom Tacitus names the
   Andecavi, and the copyists of Ptolemy have named Ondicavae.
   They were west of the Turones, and their position is defined
   by the town Juliomagus or Civitas Andecavorum, now Angers on
   the Mayenne."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

   "In my opinion these Veneti were the founders of the Veneti in
   the Adriatic, for almost all the other Keltic nations in Italy
   have passed over from the country beyond the Alps, as for
   instance the Boii and Senones. … However, I do not maintain my
   opinion positively; for in these matters probability is quite
   sufficient."

      _Strabo,
      Geography;
      translated by Hamilton and Falconer,
      book 4, chapter 4, section 1._

VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, The.
   Cæsar's campaign.

   Cæsar's third campaign in Gaul, B. C. 56, was directed against
   the Veneti and their Armorican neighbors. These tribes had
   submitted themselves in the previous year to Cæsar's
   lieutenant, the younger Crassus; but the heavy exactions of
   the Romans provoked a general rising, and Cæsar was called to
   the scene in person. The Veneti were so amphibious a race, and
   their towns were generally placed so much out of the reach of
   a land army, that he found it necessary to build a fleet at
   the mouth of the Loire and bring it up against them. But the
   Veneti were better sailors than the Romans and their ships
   were more strongly built, so that the advantage would have
   still remained to them if Roman inventiveness had not turned
   the scale. Cæsar armed his men with hooked knives at the end
   of long poles, with which they cut the rigging of the Venetian
   ships and brought down their clumsy sails, which were of
   leather. By this means he overcame and destroyed them, in a
   great naval fight. When the survivors submitted, he ruthlessly
   slew the senatorial elders and sold the remnant of the people
   into slavery.

      _Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 3, chapters 7-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 7._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 6._

VENETIA.

      See VENICE.

   ----------VENEZUELA: Start--------

VENEZUELA:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED,
      and COAJIRO.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1499-1550.
   Discovery and naming of the province.
   Its first occupation by German adventurers.

   "The province contiguous to Santa Martha on the east was first
   visited by Alonso de Ojeda, in the year 1499.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.

   The Spaniards, on their landing there, having observed some
   huts in an Indian village, built upon piles, in order to raise
   them above the stagnated water which covered the plain, were
   led to bestow upon it the name of Venezuela, or little Venice.
   … They made some attempts to settle there, but with little
   success. The final reduction of the province was accomplished
   by means very different from those to which Spain was indebted
   for its other acquisitions in the new world. The ambition of
   Charles V. often engaged him in operations of such variety and
   extent that his revenues were not sufficient to defray the
   expense of carrying them into execution. Among other
   expedients for supplying the deficiency of his funds, be had
   borrowed large sums from the Velsers of Augsburg, the most
   opulent merchants at that time In Europe. By way of
   retribution for these, or in hopes, perhaps, of obtaining a
   new loan, he bestowed upon them the province of Venezuela, to
   be held as an hereditary fief from the crown of Castile, on
   condition that within a limited time they should render
   themselves masters of the country, and establish a colony
   there. …
{3600}
   Unfortunately they committed the execution of their plan to
   some of those soldiers of fortune with which Germany abounded
   in the 16th century. These adventurers, impatient to amass
   riches, that they might speedily abandon a station which they
   soon discovered to be very uncomfortable, instead of planting
   a colony in order to cultivate and improve the country,
   wandered from district to district in search of mines,
   plundering the natives with unfeeling rapacity, or oppressing
   them by the imposition of intolerable tasks. In the course of
   a few years, their avarice and exactions, in comparison with
   which those of the Spaniards were moderate, desolated the
   province so completely that it could hardly afford them
   subsistence, and the Velsers relinquished a property from
   which the inconsiderate conduct of their agents left them no
   hope of ever deriving any advantage. When the wretched
   remainder of the Germans deserted Venezuela, the Spaniards
   again took possession of it."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of America,
      book 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Depous,
      Travels in South America,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, EL DORADO.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1718-1731.
   Embraced in the viceroyalty of New Granada.
   Raised to a distinct captain-generalship.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The War of Independence.
   Miranda and Bolivar.
   The great Earthquake.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1821.
   Beginning of the Emancipation of Slaves.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1821-1826.
   Confederation with New Granada and Ecuador in the
   Republic of Colombia, and the breaking of the Confederacy.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
   Summary record of revolutions and civil wars.
   The strife of the Yellows and the Blues.

   "In all countries, under whatever name they may be known,
   there are two great political parties; the conservatives and
   the reformers. … Venezuela is no exception to the general
   rule; there is the 'Oligarquia,' which desires to let things
   alone, and the 'Liberal' party, which wishes to remould them
   in accordance with the spirit of the age. The Spanish
   misgovernment left a legacy of bitterness and anarchy that has
   been the cause of much misery. Political passion runs very
   high in the country, and its history for a generation between
   these two parties has been a continual struggle, always more
   or less warlike. The existence of Venezuela in an independent
   capacity is due, in a large measure, to the personal ambition
   of Paez, by whose influence the great Liberator was exiled
   from his fatherland, and the republic separated from Colombia.
   Whatever may have been the real wishes of the people, the
   death of Bolivar put an end to all thoughts of re-union; and
   Paez became its first constitutional president. The second
   president was the learned Dr. José Maria Vargas, whose
   election in March 1835 was said to have been irregular, and
   led to the ' Revolucion de las Reformas.' He was deposed and
   expelled in July, but in August recalled to power! General
   Paez now took the field against the ' reformistas,' and a
   civil war ensued, continuing until March 1836, when they were
   completely subjugated, and treated with great rigour by order
   of the Congress, but against the desire of Paez, who entreated
   to be allowed to deal with them clemently. In 1836, Dr. Vargas
   resigned the presidency, and after the remainder of his term
   had been occupied by three vice-presidents, General Paez, in
   1839, became again the legitimate head of the nation. Now that
   the grave had closed over Simon Bolivar, the passions which
   had prevented the recognition of his greatness died also, and
   on the 17th of December 1842, the ashes of the immortal
   Liberator were transferred from Santa Maria with every mark of
   public respect and honour and received a magnificent national
   funeral, in the Temple of San Francisco, in Caracas. The fifth
   president was General Soublette, and the sixth General Jose
   Tadeo Monagas, who was elected in 1847. A great part of the
   Venezuelan people believe that all the evils that have fallen
   upon the republic since 1846 have had their origin in the
   falsification of votes, said to have taken place during the
   election of Monagas for president. The liberal candidate was
   Antonio Leocadio Guzman; and it is asserted that he had a
   majority of votes. … Monagas did not have an easy tenure of
   office, for the opposition of Paez led to two years of civil
   war. Here it may be noted to the credit of the liberal party
   that, at a time when many of its opponents were prisoners, it
   abolished the penalty of death for political offences. To his
   brother, General Jose Gregorio Monagas, afterwards president
   of the republic, was due the emancipation of the slaves. The
   famous law of March 24th, 1854, conceded liberty and equal
   rights to all; but by a strange irony of fortune, he who had
   given the precious boon of freedom to thousands died himself
   incarcerated in a political prison. … At the beginning of 1859
   the discontent of the liberals had reached a pitch which led
   to the outbreak of the War of the Federation. It was in this
   struggle that the present leader of the liberal party first
   displayed his military skill." Antonio Guzman Blanco, born in
   1830 and educated for the law, lived some years in the United
   States, part of the time as Secretary of Legation at
   Washington. Driven from Venezuela in 1858, "his expatriation
   soon after brought him in contact, first in St. Thomas and
   afterwards in Curazao, with General Falcon, then the head of
   'los liberales.' Falcon landed in Venezuela in July 1859, and
   proclaimed the Federal Republic. Many rose to support him, and
   in Caracas, on the 1st of August, the president, Monagas, was
   arrested; the next day the same troops declared against the
   Federation, and fired upon the people! So commenced the five
   years' War of the Federation, which has left, even to the
   present day, its black and ruined tracks across the face of
   the country. On the 30th of September was fought the battle of
   Sabana de la Cruz, resulting in the fall of Barquisimeto. In
   this action, so fortunate for the liberals, Guzman Blanco made
   his acquaintance with war, and showed so much military talent
   and energy that he was induced to leave his civil duties and
   take a 'comandante's' commission. The victory of Santa Ines,
   in December of the same year, followed. … The attack on San
   Carlos followed soon after, and was a disaster for the
   federals, who lost their general, Zamora, and were forced to
   retreat.
{3601}
   Falcon sought aid in Nueva Granada." The next year Guzman
   Blanco won the victory of Quebrada-seca, October 21, 1862.
   "Other victories followed, and were crowned by the grand and
   decisive combat of the 16th, 17th, and 18th of April, which
   gave the province of Caracas to the Federals, and led to a
   treaty between the two parties. The peace of Coche was
   arranged by Señor Pedro José Rojas, secretary to the Dictator,
   as Paez was sometimes called, and Guzman Blanco, as
   representative of Falcon, the chief of the revolution. Paez,
   by this treaty, undertook to abdicate 30 days later, when an
   assembly of 80, nominated in equal parts by the chiefs of each
   party, was to decide on a programme for the future. The
   assembly met in Victoria, and nominated Falcon President and
   Guzman Blanco provisional vice-president of the Federation.
   Falcon entered Caracas in triumph on July 24, 1863, and Guzman
   Blanco became Minister of Finance and of Foreign Relations."
   Guzman Blanco visited Europe in 1864 and 1867 to negotiate
   loans. "Meanwhile, in Caracas, the 'oligarquia,' which now
   assumed the name of the Blue party (El Partido Azul), was not
   idle, and its activity was increased by dissensions in the
   opposition. A section of the liberal party [or 'los
   amarillos'-'Yellows'] had become greatly disaffected to
   Marshal Falcon, who abdicated in favour of two revolutionary
   chiefs, Bruzual and Urrutia. This led to the treaty of
   Antimano, by which the 'partido azul' recognized the new
   government, but directly afterwards proclaimed the presidency
   of General José Tadeo Monagas. Three days' sanguinary combat,
   at the end of July 1868, gave it possession of Caracas."
   Guzman Blanco, returning at this juncture from Europe, was
   driven to take refuge in the island of Curazao; but in
   February, 1870, he reappeared in Venezuela; was supported by a
   general rising; took Caracas by assault, and defeated the
   Blues in several battles. "The congress of plenipotentiaries
   of the states met at Valencia, and nominated Guzman Blanco
   provisional president, and by the end of the year the enemy
   was nearly everywhere defeated."

      _J. M. Spence,
      The Land of Bolivar,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   From the liberation of Venezuela to the present time, "every
   successive President seems to have been employed, during his
   short lease of power, in trying to enrich himself and his
   adherents, without the least consideration for his unfortunate
   country. On paper all the laws are perfect, and the
   constitution all that could be desired, but experience has
   shown that the influence of the executive power is able to
   subdue and absorb every other power, legislative or judicial.
   One law which the Congress passed, viz:—that of division of
   the National property among the defenders of the country, as
   the only way of rewarding their heroic services, has become a
   precedent of very bad import. At first, those who had risen
   and driven out the Spaniards divided the land among
   themselves, but as successive Generals strove for and gained
   the Presidency they again forfeited the property of the
   opposing party, and divided their possessions among their own
   followers. … Paez, Vargas, Paez, Zea, Soublette, Paez, Gil,
   Monagas, Falcon, Monagas, Polidor, Pulgar, Blanco, Linares,
   Blanco, Crespo, and again Blanco, have succeeded each other
   with marvellous rapidity, the principal occupation of the
   deposed President being to conspire against his successor.
   Some of them succeeded to power more than once, but Don Gusman
   Blanco alone, since Bolivar, seems to have got a firm hold of
   the Government, and although, by the letter of the
   Constitution, he can only hold power for two years at a time,
   and cannot possibly hold two terms consecutively, yet the
   intervening Presidents were little more than dummies to keep
   his seat warm. … At present [1886] Don Gusman Blanco is
   supreme. He is reported to be immensely wealthy, and is a man
   of great capacity and intelligence."

      _W. Barry,
      Venezuela,
      chapter 5._

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
   The constitution.
   The rule of General Blanco.
   The Revolution of 1889.

   "The Venezuelan Constitution is modelled after the American
   Constitution, with modifications grounded upon the Calhoun
   doctrine of State rights.

      See CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.

   The confederation consists of eight States, which are supreme
   and coordinate in their sovereign rights. The National
   Government represents, not the people, but the States. … In
   1869 opened an era of peace and progress under the political
   domination of General Guzman Blanco. For 20 years, whether he
   was the head of a Provisional Government established by force
   of arms, or the constitutional Executive, or Minister to
   France, his will was the supreme force in the State. … He
   suppressed Clericalism and established genuine religious
   liberty. He built rail-ways, improved the public roads, and
   adorned the cities. … He developed the industries and commerce
   of the country, and promoted its prosperity by a policy at
   once strong and pacific. It was a system of political
   absolutism. … A reaction against it was inevitable. … The
   signal for a political revolution was raised by university
   students in October, 1889. They began operations by flinging
   stones at a statue of Guzman Blanco in Caracas. … It was a
   singularly effective revolution, wrought without bloodshed or
   excitement. This political movement was successful because
   Guzman Blanco was in Paris, and his personal representative in
   the executive office was not disposed to resent public
   affronts to his patron. The President, Dr. Rojas Paul, was a
   wise and discreet man. … He reörganized his Cabinet so as to
   exclude several of the devoted partisans of Guzman Blanco, and
   brought Dr. Anduesa Palacio into the field as a candidate for
   the Presidency. … Anduesa's administration, instead of being
   an era of reform, reproduced all the vices and corruption of
   the old order, and none of its progressive virtues. After two
   years it ended in civil war, usurpation, and the enforced
   resignation of Anduesa."

      _I. N. Ford,
      Tropical America,
      chapter 12._

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1892-1893.
   Constitutional Government restored.

   Anduesa Palacio resigned in favor of Vice President Villegas,
   and the legality of the succession was disputed by the
   opposition, under ex-President Joaquin Crespo. The civil war
   continued, and three short-lived dictatorships were set up in
   succession; but in October, 1892, Crespo entered Caracas and
   established a constitutional government. In June, 1893, a new
   constitution was adopted. In October, Crespo was elected
   President for a term of four years.

   ----------VENEZUELA: End--------

VENI, VIDI, VICI.

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

{3602}

   ----------VENICE: Start--------

VENICE: A. D. 452.
   The origin of the republic.

   When Attila the Hun, in the year 452, crossed the Alps and
   invaded Italy, "the savage destroyer undesignedly laid the
   foundations of a republic which revived, in the feudal state
   of Europe, the art and spirit of commercial industry. The
   celebrated name of Venice, or Venetia, was formerly diffused
   over a large and fertile province of Italy, from the confines
   of Pannonia to the river Addua, and from the Po to the Rhætian
   and Julian Alps. Before the irruption of the barbarians, fifty
   Venetian cities flourished in peace and prosperity. … Many
   families of Aquileia, Padua, and the adjacent towns, who fled
   from the sword of the Huns, found a safe though obscure refuge
   in the neighbouring islands. At the extremity of the Gulf,
   where the Adriatic feebly imitates the tides of the ocean,
   near a hundred small islands are separated by shallow water
   from the continent, and protected from the waves by several
   long slips of land, which admit the entrance of vessels
   through some secret and narrow channels. Till the middle of
   the 5th century these remote and sequestered spots remained
   without cultivation, with few inhabitants, and almost without
   a name. But the manners of the Venetian fugitives, their arts
   and their government, were gradually formed by their new
   situation; and one of the epistles of Cassiodorus, which
   describes their condition about seventy years afterwards, may
   be considered as the primitive monument of the republic. …
   Fish was the common, and almost the universal, food of every
   rank: their only treasure consisted in the plenty of salt
   which they extracted from the sea."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35._

   "The inhabitants of Aquileia, or at least the feeble remnant
   that escaped the sword of Attila, took refuge at Grado.
   Concordia migrated to Caprularia (now Caorle). The inhabitants
   of Altinum, abandoning their ruined villas, founded their new
   habitations upon seven islands at the mouth of the Piave,
   which, according to tradition, they named from the seven gates
   of their old city. … From Padua came the largest stream of
   emigrants. They left the tomb of their mythical ancestor,
   Antenor, and built their humble dwellings upon the islands of
   Rivus Altus and Methamaucus, better known to us as Rialto and
   Malamocco. This Paduan settlement was one day to be known to
   the world by the name of Venice. But let us not suppose that
   the future Queen of the Adriatic sprang into existence at a
   single bound like Constantinople or Alexandria. For 250 years,
   that is to say for eight generations, the refugees on the
   islands of the Adriatic prolonged an obscure and squalid
   existence,—fishing, salt-manufacturing, damming out the waves
   with wattled vine-branches, driving piles into the sand-banks;
   and thus gradually extending the area of their villages. Still
   these were but fishing-villages, loosely confederated
   together, loosely governed, poor and insignificant. … This
   seems to have been their condition, though perhaps gradually
   growing in commercial importance, until at the beginning of
   the 8th century the concentration of political authority in
   the hands of the first doge, and the recognition of the Rialto
   cluster of islands as the capital of the confederacy, started
   the Republic on a career of success and victory."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

VENICE: A. D. 554-800.
   A dukedom under the Exarchs of Ravenna.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

VENICE: A. D. 568.
   A refuge from the invading Lombards.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
   The early constitution of government.
   Origin of the Doges.
   Resistance to Pippin, king of the Lombards.
   Removal to the Rialto and founding of the new capital city.

   "Each island had at first its own magistrate: the magistrates
   of the most considerable being called Tribunes Major, the
   others, Tribunes Minor, and the whole being equally subject to
   the council-general of the community; which thus constituted a
   kind of federal republic. This lasted nearly three hundred
   years, when it was found that the rising nation had fairly
   outgrown its institutions. Dangerous rivalries arose among the
   tribunes. … At a meeting of the Council-General in A. D. 697,
   the Patriarch of Grado proposed the concentration of power in
   the hands of a single chief, under the title of Doge or Duke.
   The proposition was eagerly accepted, and they proceeded at
   once to the election of this chief. 'It will be seen (remarks
   Daru) that the Dogeship saved independence and compromised
   liberty. It was a veritable revolution, but we are ignorant by
   what circumstances it was brought about. Many historians
   assert that the change was not effected till the permission of
   the Pope and the Emperor was obtained.' The first choice fell
   on Paolo Luca Anabesto. It was made by twelve electors, the
   founders of what were thenceforth termed the electoral
   families. The Doge was appointed for life: he named his own
   counsellors: took charge of all public business; had the rank
   of prince, and decided all questions of peace and war. The
   peculiar title was meant to imply a limited sovereignty, and
   the Venetians uniformly repudiated, as a disgrace, the bare
   notion of their having ever submitted to a monarch. But many
   centuries passed away before any regular or well-defined
   limits were practically imposed; and the prolonged struggle
   between the people and the Doges, depending mainly on the
   personal character of the Doge for the time being, constitutes
   the most startling and exciting portion of their history." The
   third Doge, one Urso, alarmed the people by his pretensions to
   such a degree that they slew him, and suppressed his office
   for five years, substituting a chief magistrate called
   "maestro dell a milizia." "The Dogeship was then [742]
   restored in the person of Theodal Urso (son of the last Doge),
   who quitted Heraclea [then the Venetian capital] for
   Malamocco, which thus became the capital." In his turn,
   Theodal Urso lost the favor of the people and was deposed and
   blinded. "It thenceforth became the received custom in Venice
   to put out the eyes of deposed Doges." Later in the 8th
   century the Dogeship was secured by a family which went far
   towards making it hereditary, and rendering it boldly
   tyrannical; but the yoke of the would-be despots—Giovanni and
   Maurice, father and son—was broken in 804, and they were
   driven to flight. The head of the conspiracy which expelled
   them, Obelerio, was then proclaimed Doge.
{3603}
   "The events of the next five years are involved in obscurity.
   One thing is clear. Pepin, King of the Lombards [son of
   Charlemagne], either under the pretence of a request for aid
   from the new Doge, or to enforce some real or assumed rights
   of his own, declared war against the Republic, and waged it
   with such impetuosity that his fleet and army, after carrying
   all before them, were only separated from Malamocco, the
   capital, by a canal. In this emergency, Angelo Participazio,
   one of those men who are produced by great occasions to mark
   an era, proposed that the entire population should remove to
   Rialto, which was separated by a broader arm of the sea from
   the enemy, and there hold out to the last. No sooner proposed
   than done. They hastily embarked their all; and when Pepin
   entered Malamocco, he found it deserted. After losing a large
   part of his fleet in an ill-advised attack on Rialto, he gave
   up the enterprise, and Angelo Participazio was elected Doge in
   recognition of his services, with two tribunes for
   counsellors. One of his first acts was to make Rialto the
   capital, instead of Malamocco or Heraclea, which had each been
   the seat of Government at intervals. 'There were round Rialto
   some sixty islets, which the Doge connected by bridges. They
   were soon covered with houses. They were girt with a
   fortification; and it was then that this population of
   fugitives gave to this rising city, which they had just
   founded in the middle of a morass, the name of Venetia, in
   memory of the fair countries from which their fathers had been
   forcibly expatriated. The province has lost its name, and
   become subject to the new Venice.'"

      _The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1874, volume 137), pages 417-420._

   In 803 Charlemagne concluded a treaty, at Aix-la-Chapelle,
   with Nicephorus I. the Byzantine or Eastern Emperor,
   establishing boundaries between the two empires which disputed
   the Roman name. "In this treaty, the supremacy of the Eastern
   Empire over Venice, Istria, the maritime parts of Dalmatia,
   and the south of Italy, was acknowledged; while the authority
   of the Western Empire in Rome, the exarchate of Ravenna, and
   the Pentapolis, was recognised by Nicephorus. The commerce of
   Venice with the East was already so important, and the
   Byzantine administration afforded so many guarantees for the
   security of property, that the Venetians, in spite of the
   menaces of Charlemagne, remained firm in their allegiance to
   Nicephorus. … Venice, it is true, found itself in the end
   compelled to purchase peace with the Frank empire, by the
   payment of an annual tribute of thirty-six pounds of gold, in
   order to secure its commercial relations from interruption;
   and it was not released from this tribute until the time of
   Otho the Great. It was during the reign of Nicephorus that the
   site of the present city of Venice became the seat of the
   Venetian government, Rivalto (Rialto) becoming the residence
   of the duke and the principal inhabitants, who retired from
   the continent to escape the attacks of Pepin [king of Italy,
   under his father, Charlemagne]. Heraclea had previously been
   the capital of the Venetian municipality. In 810 peace was
   again concluded between Nicephorus and Charlemagne, without
   making any change in the frontier of the two empires."

      _G. Finlay,
      Byzantine Empire, 716-1057,
      book 1, chapter 2, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapters 1-2._

VENICE: 8th Century:
   Still subject to the Eastern Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 717-800.

VENICE: A. D. 810-961.
   Spread of commerce and naval prowess.
   Destruction of Istrian pirates.
   Conquests in Dalmatia.

   "During the ninth, and the first sixty years of the tenth
   centuries,—from the government of Angelo Participazio, to the
   coming into Italy of Otho the Great,—the Venetian affairs,
   with brief intervals of repose, were wholly occupied with
   civil commotions and naval wars. The doges of the republic
   were often murdered; its fleets were sometimes defeated; but,
   under every adverse circumstance, the commercial activity, the
   wealth, and the power of the state were still rapidly
   increasing. In the ninth century the Venetians, in concert
   with the Greeks, encountered, though with indifferent success,
   the navies of the Saracens; but the Narentines, and other
   pirates of Dalmatia, were their constant enemies, and were
   frequently chastised by the arms of the republic The Venetian
   wealth invited attacks from all the freebooters of the seas,
   and an enterprise undertaken by some of them who had
   established themselves on the coast of Istria deserves, from
   its singularity and the vengeance of the republic, to be
   recorded in this place. According to an ancient custom, the
   nuptials of the nobles and principal citizens of Venice were
   always celebrated on the same day of the year and in the same
   church. … The Istrian pirates, acquainted with the existence
   of this annual festival, had the boldness [A. D. 944] to
   prepare an ambush for the nuptial train in the city itself.
   They secretly arrived over night at an uninhabited islet near
   the church of Olivolo, and lay hidden behind it with their
   barks until the procession had entered the church, when
   darting from their concealment they rushed into the sacred
   edifice through all its doors, tore the shrieking brides from
   the arms of their defenceless lovers, possessed themselves of
   the jewels which had been displayed in the festal pomp, and
   immediately put to sea with their fair captives and their
   booty. But a deadly revenge overtook them. The doge, Pietro
   Candiano III., had been present at the ceremony: he shared in
   the fury and indignation of the affianced youths: they flew to
   arms, and throwing themselves under his conduct into their
   vessels, came up with the spoilers in the lagunes of Caorlo. A
   frightful massacre ensued: not a life among the pirates was
   spared, and the victors returned in triumph with their brides
   to the church of Olivolo. A procession of the maidens of
   Venice revived for many centuries the recollection of this
   deliverance on the eve of the purification. But the doge was
   not satisfied with the punishment which he had inflicted on
   the Istriots. He entered vigorously upon the resolution of
   clearing the Adriatic of all the pirates who infested it: he
   conquered part of Dalmatia, and he transmitted to his
   successors, with the ducal crown, the duty of consummating his
   design."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 1, part 2._

{3604}

VENICE: A. D. 829.
   The translation of the body of St. Mark.
   The Winged Lion of St. Mark.

   "In the second year of the reign of Doge Giustiniano
   Particiacio there was brought to Venice from Alexandria the
   body of the holy evangelist St. Mark. For, as Petrus Damianus
   says, Mark was brought from Alexandria into Venice, that he
   who had shone in the East like the morning star might shed his
   rays in the regions of the West. For Egypt is held to be the
   East and Venice the West. There he had held the rule of the
   Church of Alexandria, and here, being, as it were, born again,
   he obtained the sovereignty of Aquileia. Now this is how the
   thing was done. The king of the Saracens wishing to build
   himself a palace in Babylon, gave command that stones should
   be taken from the Christian churches and other public places,
   that they might build him a splendid house. And at that time
   there came by chance to the Church of St. Mark, Bon, tribune
   of Malamocco, and Rustico da Torcello, who had been forced by
   the wind, contrary to the edicts of Venice, to put in to the
   harbour of Alexandria with ten ships laden with merchandise,
   and they observing the sadness of the guardians of the church
   (two Greeks, by name Stauratio, a monk, and Theodoro, a
   priest), inquired the cause. And they answered that by reason
   of the impious edict of the king they feared the ruin of the
   church. Thereupon they prayed them to give them the holy body
   that they might carry it to Venice, promising them that the
   Doge of Venice would receive it with great honour. But the
   keepers of the church were filled with fear at their petition,
   and answered reproaching them and saying: 'Know ye not how the
   blessed St. Mark, who wrote the Gospel, St. Peter dictating at
   his request, preached in these parts and baptised into the
   faith the men of these regions? If the faithful should become
   aware, we could not escape the peril of death.' But to that
   they answered: 'As for his preaching, we are his firstborn
   sons, for he first preached in the parts of Venetia and
   Aquileia. And in peril of death it is commanded, "If they
   persecute you in one city, flee ye to another," which the
   evangelist himself obeyed when in the persecution at
   Alexandria he fled to Pentapolis.' But the keepers said:
   'There is no such persecution now that we should fear for our
   persons.' But while they spake, came one and broke down the
   precious stones of the church, and when they would not suffer
   it they were sorely beaten. Then the keepers seeing the
   devastation of the church, and their own great danger,
   listened to the prayer of the Venetians and appointed them a
   day when they should receive the holy body. Now the body was
   wrapped in a robe of silk sealed with many seals from the head
   to the feet. And they brought the body of St. Claudia, and
   having cut the robe at the back and taken away the body of St.
   Mark, they placed in its stead the blessed Claudia, leaving
   the seals unbroken. But a sweet odour quickly spread into the
   city, and all were filled with astonishment, and not doubting
   that the body of the evangelist had been moved, they ran
   together to the church. But when the shrine was opened and
   they saw the garment with the seals unbroken, they returned
   quickly to their homes. And when the body should be borne to
   the boats, they covered it with herbs and spread over it
   pork-flesh for the passers-by to see, and went crying,
   'Khanzir, khanzir!' which is the Saracen's abomination. And
   when they reached the ships they covered it with a sail while
   they passed through the Saracen ships. And as they sailed to
   Venice the ship which bore it with many others was saved from
   peril of shipwreck. For when the ships had been driven in the
   night by a tempestuous wind and were not far from Monte, the
   blessed St. Mark appeared to the Monk Dominic and bade him
   lower the sails of the ships. Which, when they had done, the
   dawn appearing, they found themselves close to the island
   which is called Artalia. And ten of them, having asked and
   obtained pardon for breaking the edicts of the Doge, they came
   to the port of Olivola. And the Doge, and the clergy, and the
   people came to meet them, and brought the body, with songs of
   thanksgiving, to the Doge's chapel."

      _Old Chronicle;
      translated in "The City in the Sea,"
      by the Author of "Belt and Spur,"
      chapter 3._

   "Our fathers did not welcome the arrival of the captured
   eagles of France, after the field of Waterloo, with greater
   exultation than the people of Venice the relics of the blessed
   Evangelist. They abandoned themselves to processions, and
   prayers, and banquets, and public holidays. … The winged 'Lion
   of St. Mark' was blazoned on the standards, and impressed on
   the coinage of the Republic. … The Lion became the theme of
   many political symbols. Thus it was represented with wings to
   show that Venetians could strike with promptitude; sitting, as
   a sign of their gravity in counsel—far such is the usual
   attitude of sages; with a book in its paws, to intimate their
   devotion to commerce; in war time the book was closed, and a
   naked sword substituted."

      _W. H. D. Adams,
      The Queen of the Adriatic,
      pages 42-43._

      See, also, LION OF ST. MARK.

VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
   Development of the constitution of the aristocratic Republic.
   The Grand Council.
   The Council of Ten.
   The Golden Book.

   "It was by slow and artfully disguised encroachments that the
   nobility of Venice succeeded in substituting itself for the
   civic power, and investing itself with the sovereignty of the
   republic. During the earlier period, the doge was an elective
   prince, the limit of whose power was vested in assemblies of
   the people. It was not till 1032 that he was obliged to
   consult only a council, formed from amongst the most
   illustrious citizens, whom he designated. Thence came the name
   given them of 'pregadi' (invited). The grand council was not
   formed till 1172, 140 years later, and was, from that time,
   the real sovereign of the republic. It was composed of 480
   members, named annually on the last day of September, by 12
   tribunes, or grand electors, of whom two were chosen by each
   of the six sections of the republic. No more than four members
   from one family could be named. The same counsellors might be
   re-elected each year. As it is in the spirit of a corporation
   to tend always towards an aristocracy, the same persons were
   habitually re-elected; and when they died their children took
   their places. The grand council, neither assuming to itself
   nor granting to the doge the judicial power, gave the first
   example of the creation of a body of judges, numerous,
   independent, and irremovable; such, nearly, as was afterwards
   the parliament of Paris. In 1179, it created the criminal
   'quarantia'; called, also, the 'vecchia quarantia,' to
   distinguish it from two other bodies of forty judges, created
   in 1229. The grand council gave a more complete organization
   to the government formed from among its members. It was
   com·posed of a doge; of six counsellors of the red robe, who
   remained only eight months in office, and who, with the doge,
   formed the 'signoria'; and of the council of pregadi, composed
   of 60 members, renewed each year. …
{3605}
   In 1249, the sovereign council renounced the election of the
   doge, and intrusted it to a commission drawn by lot from among
   the whole council; this commission named another: which,
   reduced by lot to one fourth, named a third; and by these
   alternate operations of lot and election, at length formed the
   last commission of 41 members, who could elect the doge only
   by a majority of 25 suffrages. It was not till towards the end
   of the 13th century that the people began to discover that
   they were no more than a cipher in the republic, and the doge
   no more than a servant of the grand council,—surrounded,
   indeed, with pomp, but without any real power. In 1289, the
   people attempted themselves to elect the doge; but the grand
   council obliged him whom the popular suffrages had designated
   to leave Venice, and substituted in his place Pietro
   Gradenigo, the chief of the aristocratic party. Gradenigo
   undertook to exclude the people from any part in the election
   of the grand council, as they were already debarred from any
   participation in the election of a doge. … The decree which he
   proposed and carried on the 28th of February, 1297, is famous
   in the history of Venice, under the name of 'serrata del
   maggior consiglio' (shutting of the grand council). He legally
   founded that hereditary aristocracy,—so prudent, so jealous,
   so ambitious,—which Europe regarded with astonishment;
   immovable in principle, unshaken in power; uniting some of the
   most odious practices of despotism with the name of liberty;
   suspicious and perfidious in politics; sanguinary in revenge;
   indulgent to the subject; sumptuous in the public service,
   economical in the administration of the finances; equitable
   and impartial in the administration of justice; knowing well
   how to give prosperity to the arts, agriculture, and commerce;
   beloved by the people who obeyed it, whilst it made the nobles
   who partook its power tremble. The Venetian aristocracy
   completed its constitution, in 1311, by the creation of the
   Council of Ten, which, notwithstanding its name, was composed
   of 16 members and the doge. Ten counsellors of the black robe
   were annually elected by the great council, in the months of
   August and September; and of the six counsellors of the red
   robe, composing a part of the signoria, three entered office
   every four months. The Council of Ten, charged to guard the
   security of the state with a power higher than the law, had an
   especial commission to watch over the nobles, and to punish
   their crimes against the republic. In this they were
   restrained by no rule: they were, with respect to the
   nobility, the depositaries of the power of the great council,
   or rather of a power unlimited, which no people should intrust
   to any government. Some other decrees completed the system of
   the 'serrata del maggior consiglio.' It was forbidden to the
   quarantia to introduce any 'new man' into power. In 1315, a
   register was opened, called the Golden Book, in which were
   inscribed the names of all those who had sat in the great
   council. In 1319, all limitation of number was suppressed;
   and, from that period, it sufficed to prove that a person was
   the descendant of a counsellor, and 25 years of age, to be by
   right a member of the grand council of Venice."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 5._

   "When the Republic was hard pressed for money, inscriptions in
   the Golden Book were sold at the current price of 100,000
   ducats. … Illustrious foreigners were admitted, as they are
   made free of a corporation amongst us. … The honour was not
   disdained even by crowned heads. … The original 'Libro d' oro'
   was publicly burned in 1797, but extracts, registers, and
   other documents are extant from which its contents might be
   ascertained."

      _The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, volume 137, page 433)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Flagg,
      Venice, the City of the Sea,
      introduction._

      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Venice,
      chapter 4._

      _H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapters 5 and 9._

VENICE: A. D. 1085.
   Acquires the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

VENICE: A. D. 1099-1101.
   The first Crusade.

   "The movement of the crusades brings Venice to the very
   forefront of European history. Her previous development had
   been slowly preparing the way for her emergence. The Council,
   held at Clermont in 1095, resolved that the armament should
   leave Europe early in the following year. The Pope and the
   leaders of the Crusades were obliged to turn their attention
   to the question of transport for the vast and amorphous mob,
   which, without discipline, with no distinction of ranks, with
   no discrimination between soldier and monk, between merchant
   and peasant, between master and man, was now bent on reaching
   the Holy Land, almost as eager to die there as to achieve the
   object of their mission, the recovery of the Sepulchre. The
   three maritime states of Italy—Genoa, Pisa, and Venice—were
   each ready to offer their services. Each was jealous of the
   other, and each determined to prevent the other from reaping
   any signal commercial advantage from the religious enthusiasm
   of Europe. Venice was not only the most powerful, but also the
   most eastern, of the three competitors. It was natural that
   the choice should fall on her. When the Pope's invitation to
   assist in the Crusade reached the city, however, it seems that
   the Government did not at once embrace the cause officially in
   the name of the whole Republic. There was, at first, a
   tendency to leave the business of transport to private
   enterprise. But on receipt of the news that Jerusalem had
   fallen, the Venetian Government began to take active steps in
   the matter. … The Crusade was accepted with enthusiasm. The
   whole city engaged in preparing a fleet which should be worthy
   of the Republic. Then, after a solemn mass in S. Mark's, at
   which the standard of the Cross and the standard of the
   Republic were presented to the leaders, the soldiers of the
   Cross embarked on the fleet which numbered 200 ships, and set
   sail down the Adriatic, making for Rhodes, where they were to
   winter. At Rhodes two incidents of great significance in
   Venetian history took place. The Eastern Emperors had never
   viewed with favour the incursion of the Crusaders. The
   creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem was really a usurpation
   of Imperial territory. Alexius I. now endeavoured to persuade
   the Venetians to withdraw from the enterprise. In this he
   failed; Venice remained true to the Cross, and to her
   commercial interests. It is at this point that we find the
   beginnings of that divergence between Constantinople and the
   Republic, which eventually declared itself in open hostility,
   and led up to the sack of Constantinople in the fourth
   Crusade.

{3606}

   Alexius, finding that the Venetians were not inclined to obey
   him, resolved to punish them. An instrument was ready to his
   hand. The Pisans saw with disfavour the advent of their
   commercial rivals in Eastern waters. They were willing to
   hoist the Imperial standard as opposed to the crusading cross,
   and to sail down upon the Venetians at Rhodes. They were
   defeated. The Venetians released all the prisoners except
   thirty of the more prominent among them who were detained as
   hostages. The first fruits of the Crusade, as far as Venice
   was concerned, were the creation of two powerful enemies, the
   Emperor and the Pisans."

      _H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapter 6._

VENICE: A. D. 1102.
   Hungarian conquest of Dalmatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

VENICE: A. D: 1114-1141.
   Wars for Dalmatia with the Hungarians.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

VENICE: A. D. 1127-1128.
   Beginning of quarrels with the Byzantine Empire.

   "Previous to this time [about 1127], the Venetian republic had
   generally been a firm ally of the Byzantine empire, and, to a
   certain degree, it was considered as owing homage to the
   Emperor of Constantinople. That connection was now dissolved,
   and those disputes commenced which soon occupied a prominent
   place in the history of Eastern Europe. The establishment of
   the Crusaders in Palestine had opened a new field for the
   commercial enterprise of the Venetians, and in a great measure
   changed the direction of their maritime trade; while the
   frequent quarrels of the Greeks and Franks compelled the
   trading republics of Italy to attach themselves to one of the
   belligerent parties, in order to secure a preference in its
   ports. For a short time, habit kept the Venetians attached to
   the empire; but they soon found that their interests were more
   closely connected with the Syrian trade than with that of
   Constantinople. They joined the kings of Jerusalem in
   extending their conquests, and obtained considerable
   establishments in all the maritime cities of the kingdom. From
   having been the customers and allies of the Greeks, they
   became their rivals and enemies. The commercial fleets of the
   age acted too often like pirates; and it is not improbable
   that the Emperor John had good reason to complain of the
   aggressions of the Venetians. Hostilities commenced; the Doge
   Dominico Michieli, one of the heroes of the republic,
   conducted a numerous fleet into the Archipelago, and plundered
   the islands of Rhodes and Chios, where he wintered. Next year
   he continued his depredations in Samos, Mitylene, Paros, and
   Andros. … Peace was re-established by the emperor reinstating
   the Venetians in the enjoyment of all the commercial
   privileges they had enjoyed before the war broke out."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 2._

VENICE: A. D. 1177.
   Pretended Papal Grant of the sovereignty of the Adriatic.
   Doubtful story of the humiliation of Frederick Barbarossa.

   A "notable epoch in early Venetian history is the grant on
   which she based her claim to the sovereignty of the Adriatic.
   In the course of the fierce struggle between Alexander III.
   and Frederick Barbarossa [see ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183], the
   Pope, when his fortunes were at the lowest, took refuge with
   the Venetians, who, after a vain effort at reconciliation,
   made common cause with him, and in a naval encounter obtained
   so signal a victory that the Emperor was compelled to sue for
   peace and submit to the most humiliating terms. The crowning
   scene of his degradation has been rendered familiar by the
   pencil, the chisel, and the pen. … The Emperor, as soon as he
   came into the sacred presence, stripped off his mantle and
   knelt down before the Pope to kiss his feet. Alexander,
   intoxicated with his triumph and losing all sense of
   moderation or generosity, placed his foot on the head or neck
   of his prostrate enemy, exclaiming, in the words of the
   Psalmist, 'Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis' &c. ('Thou
   shalt tread upon the asp and the basilisk' …). 'Non tibi, sed
   Petro' ('Not to thee, but Peter'), cried the outraged and
   indignant Emperor. 'Et mihi et Petro' ('To both me and
   Peter'), rejoined the Pope, with a fresh pressure of his heel.
   … Sismondi (following a contemporary chronicler} narrates the
   interview without any circumstance of insult, and describes it
   as concluding with the kiss of peace. There are writers who
   contend that Alexander was never at Venice, and that the
   Venetians obtained no victory on his behalf. But the weight of
   evidence adduced by Daru strikes us to be quite conclusive in
   favour of his version. … In return for the good offices of
   Venice on this occasion … Alexander presented the reigning
   Doge, Ziani, with a ring, saying, 'Receive this ring, and with
   it, as my donation, the dominion of the sea, which you, and
   your successors, shall annually assert on an appointed day, so
   that all posterity may understand that the possession of the
   sea was yours by right of victory, and that it is subject to
   the rule of the Venetian Republic, as wife to husband.' … The
   well-known ceremony of wedding the Adriatic, religiously
   observed with all its original pomp and splendour during six
   centuries, was in itself a proclamation and a challenge to the
   world. It was regularly attended by the papal nuncio and the
   whole of the diplomatic corps, who, year after year, witnessed
   the dropping of a sanctified ring into the sea, and heard
   without a protest the prescriptive accompaniment: 'Desponsamus
   te, mare, in signum veri perpetuique domini' (we espouse thee,
   sea, in sign of true and perpetual dominion)."

      _The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1874, volume 137),
      pages 421-423._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.
      against the Communes of Lombardy,
      book 11._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

VENICE: A. D. 1201.
   Cause of Hostility to Constantinople.

   "Of late years the Venetians had had difficulties with the New
   Rome. … These difficulties arose, in great measure, from the
   fact that the influence of Venice in Constantinople was no
   longer sufficient to exclude that of the other Italian
   republics. … But the hostility to Constantinople reached its
   height when the Venetians learned that Alexis had, in May
   1201, received an embassy from Genoa, and was negotiating with
   Ottobono della Croce, its leader, for the concession of
   privileges for trade in Romania which Venice had hitherto
   regarded as exclusively her own. From this time the Doge
   appears to have determined to avenge the wrongs of his state
   on the ruler who had ventured to favour his rivals."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 8._

{3607}

VENICE: A. D. 1201-1203.
   Perfidious part in the conquest of Constantinople.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

VENICE: A. D. 1204.
   Share of the Republic in the partition of the Byzantine Empire.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

VENICE: A. D. 1216.
   Acquisition of the Ionian Islands.

      See CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880;
      and IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

VENICE: A. D. 1256-1258.
   Battles with the Genoese at Acre.

   "At the period of the Crusades, it was usual in those cities
   or towns where the Christians held sway, to assign to each of
   the mercantile communities which had borne a part in the
   conquest or recovery of the particular district, a separate
   quarter where they might have their own mill, their own oven,
   their own bath, their own weights and measures, their own
   church, and where they might be governed by their own laws,
   and protected by their own magistrates. … At Saint Jean
   d'Acre, however, the Church of Saint Sabbas was frequented by
   the Venetians and the Genoese in common; and it happened that,
   in course of time, both nations sought to found a right to the
   exclusive property of the building." Collisions ensued, in one
   of which (1256), the Genoese drove the Venetians from their
   factory at Acre and burned the church of Saint Sabbas. The
   Venetians retaliated by sending a squadron to Acre which
   destroyed all the Genoese shipping in the port, burned their
   factory, and reduced a castle near the town which was held by
   a Genoese garrison. Early in 1257 the fleets of the two
   republics met and fought a battle, between Acre and Tyre, in
   which the Venetians were the victors. On the 24th of June,
   1258, a second battle was fought very nearly on the same spot,
   and again Venice triumphed, taking 2,600 prisoners and 25
   galleys. Through the efforts of the Pope, a suspension of
   hostilities was then brought about; but other causes of war
   were working in the east, which soon led to fresh encounters
   in arms between the two jealous commercial rivals.

      _W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

VENICE: A. D. 1261-1263.
   The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
   Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
   War between the Republics.
   The victory at Malvasia.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

VENICE: A. D. 1294-1299.
   War with Genoa.
   Disastrous defeat at Curzola.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

VENICE: 14th Century.
   Fleets.
   Commerce.
   Industries.

   "In the 14th century Venice had 3,000 merchantmen manned by
   25,000 sailors. A tenth part of these were ships exceeding 700
   tons burden. There were besides 45 war-galleys manned by
   11,000 hands; and 10,000 workmen, as well as 36,000 seamen,
   were employed in the arsenals. The largest of the war-galleys
   was called the Bucentaur; it was a state vessel of the most
   gorgeous description. Every year the Doge of Venice, seated
   upon a magnificent throne surmounted by a regal canopy,
   dropped from this vessel a ring into the Adriatic, to
   symbolise the fact that land and sea were united under the
   Venetian flag. This ceremony commemorated the victory gained
   over the fleet of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa In 1177,
   when the Venetians obliged him to sue for peace.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1177.

   Ascension Day was selected for its celebration, and the
   Bucentaur, glorious with new scarlet and gold, its deck and
   seats inlaid with costly woods, and rowed with long banks of
   burnished oars, for many years bore the Doge to plight his
   troth with the words, 'We espouse thee, O Sea! in token of
   true and eternal sovereignty.' The merchant fleet of Venice
   was divided into companies sailing together according to their
   trade. Their routes, and the days for departure and return,
   their size, armament, crew, and amount of cargo, were all
   defined. In those times the seas were as much infested with
   pirates as the deserts with robbers; each squadron therefore
   hired a convoy of war-galleys for its protection on the
   voyage. There were six or seven such squadrons in regular
   employment. The argosies of Cyprus and Egypt, and the vessels
   engaged in the Barbary and Syrian commerce, concentrated their
   traffic chiefly at Alexandria and Cairo. The so-called
   Armenian fleet proceeded to Constantinople and the Euxine,
   visiting Kaffa and the Gulf of Alexandretta. A Catalonian
   fleet traded with Spain and Portugal, and another with France;
   while the most famous of all, the Flanders galleys, connected
   the seaports of France, England, and Holland with the great
   commercial city of Bruges. The internal traffic with Germany
   and Italy was encouraged with equal care, oriental produce
   arriving from Constantinople and Egypt, and many other
   commodities being distributed, at first by way of Carinthia,
   and afterwards of the Tyrol. Germans, Hungarians, and
   Bohemians conducted this distribution. In Venice a bonded
   warehouse (fondaco dei tedeschi), or custom-house, was
   accorded to the Germans, where they were allowed to offer
   their wares for sale, though only to Venetian dealers. Similar
   privileges were granted to the Armenians, Moors, and Turks,
   but not to the Greeks, against whom a strong animosity
   prevailed. … The ancient industries of preparing salt and
   curing fish were never disregarded. The Adriatic sands
   supplied material adapted for a glass of rare beauty and
   value, of which mirrors and other articles of Venetian
   manufacture were made. Venetian goldsmiths' work was
   universally famed. Brass and iron foundries prepared the raw
   material for the armourers, whose weapons, helmets, and
   bucklers were unsurpassed for strength and beauty.
   Ship-building, with a people whose principle it was always to
   have more ships than any other state, was necessarily a very
   important branch of industry. Not satisfied with penetrating
   to every part already opened to enterprise, the Venetians
   travelled into regions before unknown, and gave to the world
   the record of their daring adventures. Maffeo and Nicolo Polo
   spent fifteen years visiting Egypt, Persia, India, the Khan of
   Tartary, and the Grand Khan or Emperor of China. Marco Polo,
   son of Nicolo, as well as Barthema and Joseph Barbaro,
   extended the knowledge obtained by their precursors in
   northern Europe and Asia."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      page 98-101._

      See (In Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Anderson,
      Origin of Commerce,
      volume 1._

      _Venetian Commerce
      (Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, volume 5, pages 393-411)._

VENICE: A. D. 1336-1338.
   Alliance with Florence against Mastino della Scala.
   Conquest of Treviso and other territory on the mainland.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

{3608}

VENICE: A. D. 1351-1355.
   Alliance with the Greeks and Aragonese in war with Genoa.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VENICE: A. D. 1358.
   Loss of Dalmatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
   Renewed war with Genoa.
   The defeat at Pola.

   The treaty of June, 1355, between Venice and Genoa (see
   CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355), established a peace which
   lasted only until April, 1378, when, "a dispute having arisen
   between the rival States in relation to the island of Tenedos,
   which the Venetians had taken possession of, the Signory
   formally declared war against Genoa, which it denounced as
   false to all its oaths and obligations. On the 26th of this
   month, Vettore Pisani was invested with the supreme command of
   the naval forces of the republic. … The new commander-in-chief
   was the son of Nicolo Pisani, and had held a commission in the
   Navy for 25 years. … Of the seamen he was the idol. … Pisani
   sailed from Venice early in May, with 14 galleys; and, on the
   30th of the month, while cruising off Antium, came across a
   Genoese squadron of 10 galleys, commanded by Admiral Fieschi.
   It was blowing a gale at the time, and five of Pisani's
   vessels, which had parted company with him, and fallen to
   leeward, were unable to rejoin him, while one of Fieschi's
   drifted ashore, and was wrecked. Thus the battle which
   immediately ensued was between equal forces; but the Genoese
   admiral was no match for Vettore Pisani," and sustained a
   disastrous defeat, losing four vessels, with all their
   officers and crew. "During the summer, Pisani captured great
   numbers of the enemy's merchantmen; but was unable to find
   their fleet, which, under Luciano Doria, was actively engaged
   in cutting up Venetian commerce in the East. In November he
   asked permission to return to Venice to refit his vessels,
   which were in a very bad condition, but this was denied him;
   and, being kept constantly cruising through the winter, at its
   expiration only six of his vessels were found to be seaworthy.
   Twelve others, however, were fitted out at their own expense
   and sent to him by his friends, who perceived that his
   political enemies were making an effort to ruin him. At the
   end of February, 1379, Michele Steno and Donato Zeno were
   appointed by the Government' proveditori' of the fleet. These
   officers, like the field deputies of the Dutch republic in
   later times, were set as spies over the commander-in-chief,
   whose operations they entirely controlled. On the 1st of May,
   Pisani left Brindisi, bound to Venice, having a large number
   of merchantmen in charge, laden with wheat; and, on the 6th
   instant, as the weather looked squally, put into Pola, with
   his convoy, for the night. On the following morning, at
   day-break, it was reported to him that Doria was off the port
   with 25 vessels; whereupon he determined not to leave his
   anchorage until Carlo Zeno, whom he was expecting with a
   reenforcement of 10 galleys, should be seen approaching. But
   the Proveditori, loudly denouncing such a determination as a
   reflection upon the valor of his officers and men, ordered
   him, peremptorily, in the name of the Senate, to engage the
   enemy without delay." The result was an overwhelming defeat,
   out of which Pisani brought six galleys, only—" which were all
   that were saved from this most terrible engagement, wherein
   800 Venetians perished and 2,000 were taken prisoners. …
   Pisani was now violently assailed by his enemies; although
   they well knew that he had fought the battle of Pola against
   his own judgment, and agreeably to the wishes of the
   government, as made known to him by its accredited agents,
   Michele Steno and Donato Zeno. The Great Council decreed his
   immediate removal from the supreme command, and he was brought
   to Venice loaded with chains." Condemned, upon trial before
   the Senate, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

      _F. A. Parker,
      The Fleets of the World,
      pages 100-105._

VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
   The war of Chioggia.
   The dire extremity of the Republic and her deliverance.

   After the great victory of Pola, which cost the Genoese the
   life of Luciano D'Oria, they lost no time in pressing their
   beaten enemy, to make the most of the advantage they had won.
   "Fresh galleys were forthwith placed under the command of
   Pietro, another of the noble D'Oria family; and before the
   eyes of all Genoa, and after the benediction of the
   archbishop, the fleet sailed from the harbour, and a great cry
   was raised from roof to roof, and from window to window, and
   each alley and each street re-echoed it with enthusiasm, 'to
   Venice! to Venice!' On arriving in the Adriatic, Pietro D'Oria
   joined the fleet already there, and prepared for his attack on
   Venice. These were pitiful days for the Queen of the Adriatic,
   the days of her greatest peril and humiliation. The Lord of
   Padua joined the Genoese; the King of Hungary sent troops, as
   did also the Marquis of Friuli, and all seemed lost to her
   both by sea and land. Everywhere within the city was misery
   and dismay. … To possess himself of Chioggia, which was 25
   miles distant from Venice, was D'Oria's first plan. It was the
   key of the capital, commanded the entrance to the harbour, and
   cut off any assistance which might come from Lombardy.
   Chioggia was very strong in itself, defended by bastions on
   all sides; its weak point lay in being built on two sides of a
   river, which was spanned by a large wooden bridge. It was the
   first care of the defenders to block up the mouth of this
   river. After a few days of gallant defence, and a few days of
   gallant attack by sea and land, the defenders of Chioggia were
   reduced to the last extremity. The entrance to the river was
   broken open, and the bridge, which for some time was a
   stumbling-block to the besiegers, was destroyed with all the
   soldiers upon it by the bravery of a Genoese sailor, who took
   a boat laden with tar and wool and other combustible
   materials, and set fire to it, escaping by means of swimming.
   The defenders having thus perished in the flames, and Chioggia
   being taken [August, 1379], the triumph of the Genoese was at
   its height. It now seemed as if Pietro D'Oria had but the word
   of command to give, and Venice would have met with the same
   fate as Pisa had but a century before. But with this the
   fortune of the Ligurians began to wane. One small cannon of
   leather, with a wooden car, brought from Chioggia as a trophy
   to Genoa, is all that exists to-day to testify to their
   victory." The Venetians, in consternation at the fall of
   Chioggia, sent a deputation to D'Oria humbly offering to
   submit to any terms of peace he might dictate; but the
   insolent victor ordered them home with the message that there
   could be no peace until he had entered their city to bridle
   the bronze horses which stand on the Piazza of St. Mark.
{3609}
   This roused the indignation and courage of Venice anew, and
   every nerve was strained in the defense of the port. "Vettor
   Pisani, who since the defeat at Pola had languished in prison,
   was brought out by unanimous consent, and before an assembled
   multitude he quietly and modestly accepted the position of
   saviour of his country. … The one saving point for Venice lay
   in the arrival of a few ships from Constantinople, which …
   Carlo Zeno had under his command, endeavouring to make a
   diversion in the favour of the Venetians at the Eastern
   capital. Pending the return of this fleet, the Venetians made
   an attack on Chioggia. And an additional gleam of hope raised
   the spirits of Pisani's men in the disaffection of the King of
   Hungary from the Genoese cause; and gradually, as if by the
   magic hand of a fickle fortune, Pietro D'Oria found himself
   and his troops besieged in Chioggia, instead of going on his
   way to Venice as he had himself prophesied. But the Genoese
   position was still too strong, and Pisani found it hopeless to
   attempt to dislodge them; his troops became restless: they
   wished to return to Venice, though they had sworn never to go
   back thither except as conquerors. It was in this moment of
   dire distress that the ultimate resort was vaguely whispered
   from the Venetian Council Hall to the Piazza. A solemn decree
   was passed, 'that if within four days the succour from Carlo
   Zeno did not arrive, the fleet should be recalled from
   Chioggia, and then a general council should be held as to
   whether their country could be saved, or if another more
   secure might not be found elsewhere.' Then did the law-givers
   of Venice determine that on the fifth day the lagunes should
   be abandoned, and that they should proceed en masse to Crete
   or Negropont to form for themselves a fresh nucleus of power
   on a foreign soil. It is indeed hard to realize that the fate
   of Venice, associated with all that is Italian, the offspring
   of the hardy few who raised the city from the very waves, once
   hung in such a balance. But so it was, when towards the
   evening of the fourth day [January 1, 1380] sails were
   descried on the horizon, and Carlo Zeno arrived to save his
   country from so great a sacrifice. Meanwhile, at Chioggia the
   Genoese were day by day becoming more careless; they felt
   their position so strong, they talked merrily of fixing the
   day when they should bivouac on the Piazza of St. Mark. Little
   did they dream of the net of misfortune into which they were
   being drawn so fast. Besides reinforcements by sea, assistance
   by land flocked in towards Venice. Barnabo Visconti, and his
   company of the Star, a roving company of Germans, and the
   celebrated Breton band under Sir John Hawkwood, the
   Englishman, all hurried to assist the fallen banner of St.
   Mark. Pietro D'Oria did all he could to maintain discipline
   amongst his troops; but when he fell one day in an engagement,
   through being struck by a Venetian arrow, a general
   demoralization set in, and their only thought was how to save
   themselves and abandon Chioggia. … On the 18th of February,
   1380, the Venetians made another gallant attack. Both sides
   fought with desperation, the Genoese for life, their rivals
   for their country and their country's fame. Fearful slaughter
   occurred amongst the Genoese, and they were obliged to retire
   within the walls. … Driven to extremities, on the 22nd of June
   In that year, 4,000 Genoese were taken to the public prisons
   in Venice. … Since both parties were tired of war, and
   weakened with these extreme efforts, it was no difficult
   matter to establish a peace [August 8, 1381]."

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. O. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 20 (volume 3)._

      _H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapter 12._

VENICE: A. D. 1386.
   Acquisition of Corfu.

      See Corfu: A. D. 1216-1880.

VENICE: A. D. 1406-1447.
   Acquisition of neighboring territory in northeastern Italy.

   On the death of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of
   Milan (see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447), the eastern parts of his
   duchy, "Padua, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, were gradually added
   to the dominion of Venice. By the middle of the 15th century,
   that republic had become the greatest power In northern
   Italy."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 241._

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VENICE: A. D. 1426-1447.
   League with Florence, Naples, Savoy, and other States
   against the Duke of Milan.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

VENICE: A. D. 1450-1454.
   War with Milan and Florence.
   Alliance with Naples and Savoy.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

VENICE: A. D. 1454-1479.
   Treaty with the Turks, followed by war.
   Loss of ground in Greece and the islands.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

VENICE: A. D. 1460-1479.
   Losing struggle with the Turks in Greece and the Archipelago.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

VENICE: A. D. 1469-1515.
   The early Printers.
   The Aldine Press.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

VENICE: A. D. 1489.
   Acquisition of Cyprus.

      See Cyprus: A. D.1489-1570.

VENICE: A. D. 1492-1496.
   The invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. of France.
   Alliance with Naples, Milan, Spain, the Emperor and the Pope.
   Expulsion of the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.
   The rising power and spreading dominion of the republic.
   The fears and jealousies excited.

   "The disturbances which had taken place In Italy since Charles
   VIII.'s advent there, came very opportunely for their [the
   Venetians'] plans and policy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496; 1499-1500; 1501-1504.

   On every available occasion the Venetians spread their power
   all round about them. In the struggle between Charles and
   Ferrantino [or Ferdinand, of Naples] they acquired five fine
   cities in Apulia, excellently situated for their requirements,
   which they peopled by the reception of fugitive Jews from
   Spain. Moreover, in the kingdom of Naples, one party had
   declared for them. … Tarento raised their standard. During the
   Florentine disorders they were within an ace of becoming
   masters of Pisa. In the Milanese feuds they acquired Cremona
   and Ghiara d'Adda. Their power was all the more terrible, as
   they had never been known to lose again anything which they
   had once gotten. No one doubted that their aim was the
   complete sovereignty over the whole of Italy.
{3610}
   Their historians always talked as if Venice was the ancient
   Rome once more. … The Turkish war, which had kept them a while
   employed, now at an end, they next tried their fortune in
   Romagna, and endeavoured, availing themselves of the quarrels
   between the returning nobles and Cesar [Borgia, son of Pope
   Alexander VI.], to become, if not the sole, at all events the
   most powerful, vassals of the papal chair. … The Venetians
   prepared to espouse the cause of those whom Cesar had
   suppressed. The cities reflected how genuine and substantial
   that peace was that the lion of Venice spread over all its
   dependencies. Having appeared in this country at the end of
   October, 1503, and having first promised the Malatesti other
   possessions in their own country, they took Rimini, with the
   concurrence of the prince and citizens. Without ado they
   attacked Faenza. … They continued their conquests, and, in the
   territories of Imola, Cesena, and Forli, took stronghold after
   stronghold. … Then it was that the first minister of France
   stated his belief that, 'had they only Romagna, they would
   forthwith attack Florence, on account of a debt of 180,000
   guilders owing them.' If they were to make an inroad into
   Tuscany, Pisa would fall immediately on their arrival. Their
   object in calling the French into the Milanese territory was,
   that they considered them more fitted to make a conquest than
   to keep it; and, in the year 1504, they were negotiating how
   it were possible to wrest Milan again from them. Could they
   only succeed in this, nothing in Italy would be able longer to
   withstand them. 'They wanted,' as Macchiavelli said, 'to make
   the Pope their chaplain.' But they met with the staunchest
   resistance in Julius [the Pope, Julius II.], as in him they
   could discover no weak point to attack. As pointedly as he
   could express himself, he declared to them, on the 9th
   November, 1503, that, 'though hitherto their friend, he would
   now do his utmost against them, and would besides incite all
   the princes of Christendom against them.'"

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
      book 2, chapter 3._

VENICE: A. D. 1498-1502.
   War with the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1498-1502.

VENICE: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Alliance with France against the Duke of Milan.
   French conquest of the duchy.
   Acquisition of Cremona.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

VENICE: 15-17th Centuries.
   The decline of Venetian commerce and its causes.

   "Commerce was for a long time free at Venice; and the republic
   only began to decline when its government had caused the
   source of its prosperity to be exhausted by monopoly. At first
   all the young patricians were subjected to the most severe
   ordeals of a commercial training. They were often sent as
   novices on board state-vessels to try fortune with a light
   venture, so much did it enter into the views of the
   administration to direct all citizens toward industrial
   occupations! The only reproach that can be brought against the
   Venetians, is the effort to exclude foreigners from all
   competition with them. Although commercial jealousy had not
   yet erected prohibitions into a system, and the ports of the
   republic were open to all the merchandise of the world, yet
   the Venetians only permitted its transportation in their own
   ships; and they reigned as absolute masters over all the
   Mediterranean. War had given them security from the Pisans,
   the Sicilians and the Genoese. Spain, long occupied by the
   Moors, gave them little occasion of offence. France disdained
   commerce; England had not yet begun to think of it; the
   republic of Holland was not in existence. Under cover of the
   right of sovereignty on the gulf, which she had arrogated to
   herself, Venice reserved the almost exclusive right to
   navigate. Armed flotillas guarded the mouths of all her
   rivers, and allowed no barque to enter or depart without being
   vigorously examined. But what profited that jealous solicitude
   for the interests of her navigation? A day came when the
   Portuguese discovered the Cape of Good Hope, and all that
   structure of precautions and mistrust suddenly fell to pieces.
   Here begin the first wars of customs-duties, and political
   economy receives from history valuable instruction. The
   Venetians had levelled all obstacles, but for themselves
   alone, and to the exclusion of other nations. Their
   legislation was very strict in respect to foreigners, in the
   matter of commerce. The laws forbade a merchant who was not a
   subject of the republic to be even received on board a vessel
   of the state. Foreigners paid customs-duties twice as high as
   natives. They could neither build nor buy vessels in Venetian
   ports. The ships, the captains, the owners, must all be
   Venetian. Every alliance between natives and strangers was
   interdicted; there was no protection, no privileges and no
   benefits save for Venetians: the latter, however, all had the
   same rights. In Venice itself, and there alone, was it
   permitted to negotiate with the Germans, Bohemians and
   Hungarians. As national manufactures acquired importance, the
   government departed from the liberal policy it had hitherto
   pursued, and the manufacturers obtained an absolute
   prohibition of such foreign merchandise as they produced. In
   vain, in the 17th century, did declining commerce urge the
   reestablishment of former liberties and the freedom of the
   port: the attempt was made for a brief moment, but the spirit
   of restriction won the day, and the prohibitory regime early
   prepared the way for the death of the republic. The people of
   Ita]y, however, pardoned the Venetians for their commercial
   intolerance, because of the moderate price at which they
   delivered all commodities. The Jews, Armenians, Greeks and
   Germans flocked to Venice and engaged with safety in
   speculations, which were always advantageous, because of the
   security which the credit institutions gave and the recognized
   probity of the merchants. But soon Venice saw numerous
   manufactures spring up in Europe rivaling her own, and her
   commerce encountered most formidable competition in that of
   the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and English. The discovery of
   the Cape of Good Hope took away from her the monopoly of the
   spices of the Indies.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

   The taking of Constantinople, by Mahomet II, had already
   deprived her of the magnificent privileges which her subjects
   enjoyed in that rich capital of the Orient. But the discovery
   of America and the vigorous reprisals of Charles V, who, at
   the commencement of his reign, in 1517, doubled the
   customs-duties which the Venetians paid in his states,
   completed the ruin of that fortunate monopoly which had made
   all Europe tributary. Charles V raised the import and export
   duties on all Venetian merchandise to twenty per cent; and
   this tariff, which would to-day appear moderate, sufficed then
   to prevent the Venetians from entering Spanish ports.
{3611}
   Such was the origin of the exclusive system, the fatal
   invention which the republic of Venice was so cruelly to
   expiate. So long as she sought fortune only in the free
   competition of the talent and capital of her own citizens, she
   increased from age to age and became for a moment the arbiter
   of Europe; but as soon as she wished to rule the markets by
   the tyranny of monopoly, she saw a league formed against her
   commerce, formidable for a very different reason from that of
   Cambray."

      _J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy in Europe,
      chapter 20._

      See, also (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

VENICE: A. D. 1501.
   Hostile schemes of the Emperor and the King of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai.
   The republic despoiled of her continental provinces.

   "The craving appetite of Louis XII., … sharpened by the loss
   of Naples, sought to indemnify itself by more ample
   acquisitions in the north. As far back as 1504, he had
   arranged a plan with the emperor for the partition of the
   continental possessions of Venice. …

      See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

   The scheme is said to have been communicated to Ferdinand [of
   Aragon] in the royal interview at Savona [1507]. No immediate
   action followed, and it seems probable that the latter
   monarch, with his usual circumspection, reserved his decision
   until he should be more clearly satisfied of the advantages to
   himself. At length the projected partition was definitely
   settled by the celebrated treaty of Cambray, December 10th,
   1508, between Louis XII. and the emperor Maximilian, in which
   the Pope, King Ferdinand, and all princes who had any claims
   for spoliations by the Venetians, were invited to take part.
   The share of the spoil assigned to the Catholic monarch
   [Ferdinand] was the five Neapolitan cities, Trani, Brindisi,
   Gallipoli, Pulignano, and Otranto, pledged to Venice for
   considerable sums advanced by her during the late war. The
   Spanish court, and, not long after, Julius II., ratified the
   treaty, although it was in direct contravention of the avowed
   purpose of the pontiff, to chase the 'barbarians' from Italy.
   It was his bold policy, however, to make use of them first for
   the aggrandisement of the church, and then to trust to his
   augmented strength and more favorable opportunities for
   eradicating them altogether. Never was there a project more
   destitute of principle or sound policy. There was not one of
   the contracting parties who was not at that very time in close
   alliance with the state, the dismemberment of which he was
   plotting. As a matter of policy, it went to break down the
   principal barrier on which each of these powers could rely for
   keeping in check the overweening ambition of its neighbors,
   and maintaining the balance of Italy. The alarm of Venice was
   quieted for a time by assurances from the courts of France and
   Spain that the league was directed solely against the Turks,
   accompanied by the most hypocritical professions of good will,
   and amicable offers to the republic. The preamble of the
   treaty declares that, it being the intention of the allies to
   support the pope in a crusade against the infidel, they first
   proposed to recover from Venice the territories of which she
   had despoiled the church and other powers, to the manifest
   hindrance of these pious designs. … The true reasons for the
   confederacy are to be found in a speech delivered at the
   German diet, some time after, by the French minister Hélian.
   'We,' he remarks, after enumerating various enormities of the
   republic, 'wear no fine purple; feast from no sumptuous
   services of plate; have no coffers overflowing with gold. We
   are barbarians. Surely,' he continues in another place, 'if it
   is derogatory to princes to act the part of merchants, it is
   unbecoming in merchants to assume the state of princes.' This,
   then, was the true key to the conspiracy against Venice; envy
   of her superior wealth and magnificence, hatred engendered by
   her too arrogant bearing, and lastly the evil eye with which
   kings naturally regard the movements of an active, aspiring
   republic. To secure the co-operation of Florence, the kings of
   France and Spain agreed to withdraw their protection from
   Pisa, for a stipulated sum of money.

      See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

   There is nothing in the whole history of the merchant princes
   of Venice so mercenary and base as this bartering away for
   gold the independence for which this little republic had been
   so nobly contending for more than 14 years. Early in April,
   1509, Louis XII. crossed the Alps at the head of a force which
   bore down all opposition. City and castle fell before him, and
   his demeanor to the vanquished, over whom he had no rights
   beyond the ordinary ones of war, was that of an incensed
   master taking vengeance on his rebellious vassals. In revenge
   for his detention before Peschiera, he hung the Venetian
   governor and his son from the battlements. This was an outrage
   on the laws of chivalry, which, however hard they bore on the
   peasant, respected those of high degree. … On the 14th of May,
   1509, was fought the bloody battle of Agnadel, which broke the
   power of Venice and at once decided the fate of the war.
   Ferdinand had contributed nothing to these operations, except
   by his diversion on the side of Naples, where he possessed
   himself without difficulty of the cities allotted to his
   share. They were the cheapest, and, if not the most valuable,
   were the most permanent acquisitions of the war, being
   reincorporated in the monarchy of Naples. Then followed the
   memorable decree by which Venice released her continental
   provinces from their allegiance, authorizing them to provide
   in any way they could for their safety; a measure which,
   whether originating in panic or policy, was perfectly
   consonant with the latter. The confederates, who had remained
   united during the chase, soon quarrelled over the division of
   the spoil. Ancient jealousies revived. The republic, with cool
   and consummate policy, availed herself of this state of
   feeling. Pope Julius, who had gained all that he had proposed,
   and was satisfied with the humiliation of Venice, now felt all
   his former antipathies and distrust of the French return in
   full force. The rising flame was diligently fanned by the
   artful emissaries of the republic, who at length effected a
   reconciliation on her behalf with the haughty pontiff. The
   latter … planned a new coalition for the expulsion of the
   French, calling on the other allies to take part in it."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 2, chapter 22 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 9, chapter 10 (volume 4)._

      _The City in the Sea,
      chapter 21._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 5, chapter 14._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      _H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapters 17-18._

{3612}

VENICE: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The breaking of the League of Cambrai.
   The" Holy League" of Pope Julius with Venice,
   Ferdinand, Maximilian, and Henry VIII. against France.
   The French expelled from Italy.
   The Republic recovers its domain.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

VENICE: A. D. 1517.
   Peace with the Emperor Maximilian.
   Recovery of Verona.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

VENICE: A. D. 1526.
   The Holy League against the Emperor, Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

VENICE: A. D. 1527.
   Fresh alliance with France and England against the Emperor.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

VENICE: A. D. 1570-1571.
   Holy League with Spain and the Pope against the Turks.
   Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

VENICE: A. D. 1572.
   Withdrawal from the Holy League.
   Separate peace with the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

VENICE: 16th Century.
   The Art of the Renaissance.

   "It was a fact of the greatest importance for the development
   of the fine arts in Italy that painting in Venice reached
   maturity later than in Florence. Owing to this circumstance
   one chief aspect of the Renaissance, its material magnificence
   and freedom, received consummate treatment at the hands of
   Titian, Tintoretto, and Veronese. To idealise the sensualities
   of the external universe, to achieve for colour what the
   Florentines had done for form, to invest the worldly grandeur
   of human life at one of its most gorgeous epochs with the
   dignity of the highest art, was what these great artists were
   called on to accomplish. Their task could not have been so
   worthily performed in the fifteenth century as in the
   sixteenth, if the development of the æsthetic sense had been
   more premature among the Venetians. Venice was precisely
   fitted for the part her painters had to play. Free, isolated,
   wealthy, powerful; famous throughout Europe for the pomp of
   her state equipage, and for the immorality of her private
   manners; ruled by a prudent aristocracy, who spent vast wealth
   on public shows and on the maintenance of a more than imperial
   civic majesty: Venice with her pavement of liquid chrysoprase,
   with her palaces of porphyry and marble, her frescoed façades,
   her quays and squares aglow with the costumes of the Levant,
   her lagoons afloat with the galleys of all nations, her
   churches floored with mosaics, her silvery domes and ceilings
   glittering with sculpture bathed in molten gold: Venice
   luxurious in the light and colour of a vaporous atmosphere,
   where sea-mists rose into the mounded summer clouds; arched
   over by the broad expanse of sky, bounded only by the horizon
   of waves and plain and distant mountain ranges, and reflected
   in all its many hues of sunrise and sunset upon the glassy
   surface of smooth waters: Venice asleep like a miracle of opal
   or of pearl upon the bosom of an undulating lake:—here and
   here only on the face of the whole globe was the unique city
   wherein the pride of life might combine with the lustre of the
   physical universe to create and stimulate in the artist a
   sense of all that was most sumptuous in the pageant of the
   world of sense. … The Venetians had no green fields and trees,
   no garden borders, no blossoming orchards, to teach them the
   tender suggestiveness, the quaint poetry of isolated or
   contrasted tints. Their meadows were the fruitless furrows of
   the Adriatic, hued like a peacock's neck; they called the
   pearl-shells of their Lido flowers, fior di mare. Nothing
   distracted their attention from the glories of morning and of
   evening presented to them by their sea and sky. It was in
   consequence of this that the Venetians conceived colour
   heroically, not as a matter of missal-margins or of
   subordinate decoration, but as a motive worthy in itself of
   sublime treatment. In like manner, hedged in by no limitary
   hills, contracted by no city walls, stifled by no narrow
   streets, but open to the liberal airs of heaven and ocean, the
   Venetians understood space and imagined pictures almost
   boundless in their immensity. Light, colour, air, space: those
   are the elemental conditions of Venetian art; of those the
   painters weaved their ideal world for beautiful and proud
   humanity. … In order to understand the destiny of Venice in
   art, it is not enough to concentrate attention on the
   peculiarities of her physical environment. Potent as these
   were in the creation of her style, the political and social
   conditions of the Republic require also to be taken into
   account. Among Italian cities Venice was unique. She alone was
   tranquil in her empire, unimpeded in her constitutional
   development, independent of Church interference, undisturbed
   by the cross purposes and intrigues of the despots, inhabited
   by merchants who were princes, and by a free-born people who
   had never seen war at their gates. The serenity of undisturbed
   security, the luxury of wealth amassed abroad and liberally
   spent at home, gave a physiognomy of ease and proud
   self-confidence to all her edifices. The grim and anxious
   struggles of the Middle Ages left no mark on Venice. How
   different was this town from Florence, every inch of whose
   domain could tell of civic warfare. … It is not an
   insignificant, though a slight, detail, that the predominant
   colour of Florence is brown, while the predominant colour of
   Venice is that of mother-of-pearl, concealing within its
   general whiteness every tint that can be placed upon the
   palette of a painter. The conditions of Florence stimulated
   mental energy and turned the forces of the soul inwards. Those
   of Venice inclined the individual to accept life as he found
   it. Instead of exciting him to think, they disposed him to
   enjoy, or to acquire by industry the means of manifold
   enjoyment. To represent in art the intellectual strivings of
   the Renaissance was the task of Florence and her sons; to
   create a monument of Renaissance magnificence was the task of
   Venice."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
      chapter 7._

{3613}

VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
   The Republic under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   Conflict with the Pope.
   The Interdict which had no terrors.

   "In the Constitution of the Republic at this time [1606] there
   were three permanent officials called Counsellors of Law, or
   State Counsellors, whose duties were to instruct the Doge and
   Senate on the legal bearings of any question in dispute in
   which the Republic was involved. But at the beginning of this
   year, because of the ecclesiastical element that frequently
   appeared in these quarrels (for they were mostly between the
   State and the Pope), the Senate resolved to create a new
   office, namely, that of 'Teologo-Consultore,' or Theological
   Counsellor. In looking about for one to fill this office the
   choice of Doge and Senate unanimously fell upon Fra Paolo
   Sarpi. … I have called Fra Paolo Sarpi the greatest of the
   Venetians. … Venice has produced many great men—Doges,
   soldiers, sailors, statesmen, writers, poets, painters,
   travellers—but I agree with Mrs. Oliphant that Fra Paolo is 'a
   personage more grave and great, a figure unique in the midst
   of this ever animated, strong, stormy, and restless race'; and
   with Lord Macaulay, who has said of him that 'what he did, he
   did better than anybody.' … He was supreme as a thinker, as a
   man of action, and as a transcript and pattern of every
   Christian principle. … Foreigners who came to Venice sought
   above all things to see him as 'the greatest genius of his
   age.' … On the 28th of January, 1606, he entered upon his
   public duties." From that time until his death, seventeen
   years later, he not only held the office of Theological
   Counsellor, but the duties of the three Counsellors of Law
   were gradually transferred to him, as those offices were
   vacated, in succession, by death. "During this time question
   after question arose for settlement, many of which were of
   momentous import, the resolution of which bore, not upon the
   interests of Venice merely, but of Europe; and affected, not
   the then living generation only, but a remote posterity. In
   every case Fra Paolo's advice was sought, in every case it was
   followed, and in every case it was right. The consequence was
   that the history of the Republic during these seventeen years
   was one unbroken record of great intellectual and moral
   victories. … Never was there in any land, by any Government, a
   servant more honoured and more beloved. The solicitude of the
   Doge, of the dreaded Council of Ten, of the Senate, of the
   whole people, for the safety and well-being of their
   Consultore, was like that of a mother for her only child.
   'Fate largo a Fra Paolo'—'Make room for Fra Paolo,' was often
   heard as he passed along the crowded Merceria. Fra Paolo loved
   Venice with an undying devotion, and Venice loved him with a
   romantic and tender affection. The Pope, whose quarrels with
   the Republic were the chief cause of the creation of the
   office of Theological Counsellor, and of Fra Paolo's election
   to it, was Paul V. … Strained relations … [had] existed
   between Venice and the Vatican during the last years of
   Clement VIII.'s Pontificate. His seizure of the Duchy of
   Ferrara, his conduct in the matter of the Patriarch Zane's
   appointment, his attempt to cripple the book-trade of Venice
   by means of the Index Expurgatorius, all led to serious
   disputes, in everyone of which he got the worst of it. Pope
   Paul V., who was then Cardinal Borghese, chafed at what he
   considered Clement's pusillanimity. Talking of these matters
   to the Venetian ambassador at Rome, Leonardo Donato, he once
   said, 'If I were Pope, I would place Venice under an interdict
   and excommunication;' 'And if I were Doge,' was the reply, 'I
   would trample your interdict and excommunication under foot.'
   Curiously enough, both were called upon to fill these offices,
   and both proved as good as their words. … Paul V. … found
   several excuses for quarrel. The Patriarch, Matteo Zane—he
   whose appointment had been a matter of dispute with Clement
   VIII.—died, and the Senate appointed Francesco Vendramin as
   his successor. Pope Paul claimed the right of presentation,
   and demanded that he should be sent to Rome for examination
   and approval. The Senate replied by ordering his investiture,
   and forbidding him to leave Venice. Again, money had to be
   raised in Brescia for the restoration of the ramparts, and the
   Senate imposed a tax on all the citizens—laymen and
   ecclesiastics alike. Pope Paul V. claimed exemption for the
   latter, as being his subjects. The Senate refused to listen to
   him. … These differences were causing both the Pope and the
   Republic to look to their armoury and to try the temper of
   their weapons, when two more serious matters occurred which
   brought them into open warfare. The prologue was passed, the
   drama was about to open. First, two priests in high position
   were leading flagrantly wicked and criminal lives. … The
   Senate sent its officers, and had the offenders seized and
   brought to Venice, and locked up from further mischief in the
   dungeons of the Ducal Palace. Pope Paul V. angrily
   remonstrated, and peremptorily demanded their instant
   liberation, on the ground that being priests they were not
   amenable to the secular arm. … Secondly, two ecclesiastical
   property laws were in force throughout the Republic; by one
   the Church was prohibited from building any new monasteries,
   convents, or churches without the consent of the Government
   under penalty of forfeiture; and by the other it was
   disqualified from retaining property which it might become
   possessed of by donation or by inheritance, but was bound to
   turn it into money. … Pope Paul V. … demanded the repeal of
   these property laws. These two demands, regarding the
   imprisoned ecclesiastics and the property laws, were first put
   forward in October, 1605. … Early in December, the Pope,
   impatient to bring the quarrel to a head, threatened to place
   Venice under interdict and excommunication if it did not yield
   to his demands. … It was at this acute stage of the quarrel
   that the Republic laid hold of Fra Paolo Sarpi, and, as we
   have already noted, made him its Theological Counsellor, and
   the struggle henceforth became, to a large extent, a duel
   between 'Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar.' On the very day
   that Fra Paolo accepted this office he informed the Senate
   that two courses of action were open to them. They could argue
   the case either de jure or de facto. First, de jure, that is,
   they could appeal against the judgment of the Pope to a Church
   Council. … Secondly, the Republic could adopt the de facto
   course; that is, it could rely on its own authority and
   strength. It could set these over against the Pope's, and
   whilst willing to argue out the matter in a spirit of reason
   with him, yet meet his force with opposing force. If he turned
   a deaf ear to right, there was no help for it but to make it a
   question of might. The de facto course was therefore the one
   Fra Paolo recommended; adding very significantly, 'He who
   appeals to a Council admits that the righteousness of his
   cause may be questioned, whereas that of Venice is
   indisputable.'
{3614}
   The Senate hailed the advice thus given, and instructed him to
   draw out a reply to the Pope's brief in accordance with it. …
   From the moment this reply was received a bitter controversy
   was set on foot. Renewed demands came from Rome, and renewed
   refusals were sent from Venice. … Meanwhile the eyes of all
   the Courts of Europe were directed to the great struggle, and
   Venice made them more than spectators by laying its case as
   prepared by their Consultore fairly and fully before them. The
   time had not arrived for any nation to enter as a party into
   the contest, but all frankly expressed their opinions, which
   were, with the exception of that of Spain, unequivocally on
   the side of Venice. … At last the Pope determined to put into
   execution the threats contained in the briefs, and to place
   the Republic under interdict and excommunication. On the 17th
   of April, 1606, the bull of interdict and excommunication was
   launched; twenty-four days being allowed Venice for
   repentance, with three more added of the Pope's gracious
   clemency. The die was thus cast by Pope Paul V., by which he
   was either to humble the Republic, or discredit himself and
   his 'spiritual arms' in the sight of Europe. The bull was a
   sweeping one. … No more masses were to be said. Baptism,
   marriage, and burial services were to cease. The churches were
   to be locked up, and the priests could withdraw from the
   devoted land. All social relationships were dissolved.
   Marriages were declared invalid, and all children born were
   illegitimate. Husbands could desert their wives, and children
   disobey their parents. Contracts of all kinds were declared
   null and void. Allegiance to the Government was at an end."

      _A. Robertson,
      Fra Paolo Sarpi,
      chapter 5, and preface._

   "It was proposed in the college of Venice to enter a solemn
   protest, as had been done in earlier times; but this proposal
   was rejected, on the ground that the sentence of the pope was
   in itself null and void, and had not even a show of justice.
   In a short proclamation, occupying only a quarto page,
   Leonardo Donato made known to the clergy the resolution of the
   republic to maintain the sovereign authority, 'which
   acknowledges no other superior in worldly things save God
   alone.' Her faithful clergy would of themselves perceive the
   nullity of the 'censures' issued against them, and would
   continue the discharge of their functions, the cure of souls
   and the worship of God, without interruption. No alarm was
   expressed, no menaces were uttered, the proclamation was a
   mere expression of confidence and security. It is, however,
   probable that something more may have been done by verbal
   communication. By these proceedings, the question of claim and
   right became at once a question of strength and of possession.
   Commanded by their two superiors—the pope and the republic—to
   give contradictory proofs of obedience, the Venetian clergy
   were now called on to decide to which of the two they would
   render that obedience. They did not hesitate; they obeyed the
   republic: not a copy of the brief was fixed up. The delay
   appointed by the pope expired; public worship was everywhere
   conducted as usual. As the secular clergy had decided, so did
   also the monastic orders. The only exception to this was
   presented by the orders newly instituted, and in which the
   principle of ecclesiastical restoration was more particularly
   represented; these were the Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins.
   The Jesuits, in so far as they were themselves concerned, were
   not altogether decided; they first took counsel of their
   Provincial at Ferrara, and afterwards of their General in
   Rome, who referred the question to the pope himself. Paul V.
   replied that they must either observe the interdict, or shake
   the dust from their feet and leave Venice. A hard decision
   assuredly, since they were distinctly informed that they would
   never be permitted to return; but the principle of their
   institution allowed them no choice. Embarking in their boats,
   they departed from the city, and took shelter in the papal
   dominions. Their example influenced the other two orders. A
   middle course was proposed by the Theatines, but the Venetians
   did not think it advisable; they would suffer no division in
   their land, and demanded either obedience or departure. The
   deserted churches were easily provided with other priests, and
   care was taken that none should perceive a deficiency. … It is
   manifest that the result was a complete schism. The pope was
   amazed; his exaggerated pretensions were confronted by the
   realities of things with the most unshrinking boldness. Did
   any means exist by which these might be overcome? Paul V.
   thought at times of having recourse to arms. … Legates were
   despatched, and troops fitted out; but in effect they dared
   not venture to attempt force. There would have been cause to
   apprehend that Venice would call the Protestants to her aid,
   and thus throw all Italy, nay the Catholic world at large,
   into the most perilous commotions. They must again betake
   themselves, as on former occasions, to political measures, for
   the adjustment of these questions touching the rights of the
   Church. … I have neither inclination nor means for a detailed
   account of these negotiations through the whole course of the
   proceedings. … The first difficulty was presented by the pope,
   who insisted, before all things, that the Venetian laws, which
   had given him so much offence, should be repealed; and he made
   the suspension of his ecclesiastical censures to depend on
   their repeal. But the Venetians, also, on their part, with a
   certain republican self-complacency, were accustomed to
   declare their laws sacred and inviolable. When the papal
   demand was brought under discussion in January, 1607, although
   the college wavered, yet at last it was decidedly rejected in
   the senate. The French, who had given their word to the pope,
   succeeded in bringing the question forward once more in March,
   when of the four opponents in the college, one at least
   withdrew his objections. After the arguments on both sides had
   again been fully stated in the senate, there was still, it is
   true, no formal or express repeal of the laws, but a decision
   was adopted to the effect that 'the republic would conduct
   itself with its accustomed piety.' However obscure these words
   appear, the ambassador and the pope thought they discovered in
   them the fulfilment of their wishes. The pope then suspended
   his censures."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 6, section 12 (volume 2)._

   "The moral victory remained with Venice. She did not recall
   her laws as to taxation of the clergy and the foundation of
   new churches and monasteries [nor permit the Jesuits to
   return, until many years later]. … The hero of the whole
   episode, Fra Paolo Sarpi, continued to live quietly in his
   convent of the Servites at S. Fosca.

{3615}

   The Government received warning from Rome that danger was
   threatening. In its turn it cautioned Fra Paolo. But he paid
   little or no heed." On the 25th of October, 1607, towards five
   o'clock in the evening, as he was returning to his convent, he
   was attacked by three assassins, who inflicted serious wounds
   upon him and left him for dead. By great care, however, Fra
   Paolo's life was saved, and prolonged until 1623. The would-be
   assassins escaped into the Papal States, where "they found not
   only shelter but a welcome."

      _H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

VENICE: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valteline War.
   Alliance with France and Savoy against the Austro-Spanish power.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

VENICE: A. D. 1629-1631.
   League with France against Spain and the Emperor.
   The Mantuan War.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

VENICE: A. D. 1645-1669.
   The war of Candia with the Turks.
   Loss of Crete.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

VENICE: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.
   Siege and capture of Athens.
   Conquest of the Morea and parts of Dalmatia and Albania.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

VENICE: A. D. 1699.
   Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
   Turkish Cession of part of the Morea and most of Dalmatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

VENICE: A. D. 1714-1718.
   War with the Turks.
   The Morea lost.
   Defense of Corfu.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

VENICE: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

VENICE: A. D. 1796.
   Bonaparte's schemes for the destruction of the Republic.
   The picking of the quarrel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1797.
   The ignominious overthrow of the Republic by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      and 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VENICE: A. D. 1797 (October).
   City and territories given over to Austria
   by the Treaty of Campo-Formio.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1805.
   Territories ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

VENICE: A. D. 1814.
   Transfer of Venetian states to Austria.
   Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF; AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

VENICE: A. D. 1815.
   Restoration of the Bronze Horses taken away by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   Provisional government under Daniel Manin.
   Renewed subjugation.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VENICE: A. D. 1859.
   Grievous disappointment in the Austro-Italian war.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VENICE: A. D. 1866.
   Relinquishment by Austria.
   Annexation to the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

   ----------VENICE: End--------

VENICONII, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VENLOO, Surrender of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

VENNER'S INSURRECTION.

      See FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

VENNONES, The.

      See RHÆTIA.

VENTA.

   Three important cities in Roman Britain bore the name of
   Venta; one occupying the site of modern Winchester, a second
   standing near Norwich, the third at Caerwent in Wales. They
   were distinguished, respectively, as Venta Belgarum, Venta
   Icenorum and Venta Silurum.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon._

VENTÔSE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.


VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1519.
   Founded by Cortes.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1839.
   Attacked by the French.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1847.
   Bombardment and capture by the Americans.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

VERAGUA: A. D. 1502.
   Attempted settlement by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A D. 1498-1505.

VERAGUA: A. D. 1509.
   Attempted settlement by Nicuesa.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1511.

VERCELLI: A. D. 1638-1659.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
   Restoration to Savoy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

VERDUN: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Possession taken by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

VERDUN: A. D. 1648.
   Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

VERDUN, The Treaty of: A. D. 843.

   The contest and civil war which arose between the three
   grandsons of Charlemagne resulted in a treaty of partition,
   brought about in 843, which forever dissolved the great Frank
   Empire of Clovis, and of the Pippins and Karls who finished
   what he began. "A commission of 300 members was appointed to
   distribute itself over the surface of the empire, and by an
   exact examination of the wealth of each region, and the wishes
   of its people, acquire a knowledge of the best means of making
   an equitable division. The next year the commissioners
   reported the result of their researches to the three kings,
   assembled at Verdun, and a treaty of separation was drawn up
   and executed, which gave Gaul, from the Meuse and Saone as far
   as the Pyrenees, to Karl; which gave Germany, beyond the
   Rhine, to Ludwig the Germanic; and which secured to Lother
   Italy, with a broad strip on the Rhine, between the dominions
   of Karl and Ludwig, under the names of Lotheringia or
   Lorraine. This was the first great treaty of modern Europe; it
   began a political division which lasted for many centuries;
   the great empire of Karl was formally dismembered by it, and
   the pieces of it scattered among his degenerate descendants."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 18._

{3616}

   "The treaty of Verdun, in 843, abrogated the sovereignty that
   had been attached to the eldest brother and to the imperial
   name in former partitions; each held his respective kingdom as
   an independent right. This is the epoch of a final separation
   between the French and German members of the empire. Its
   millenary was celebrated by some of the latter nation in
   1843."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1 (volume l)._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.

VERGARA, Treaty of (1839).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

VERGENNES, Count de,
   and the French alliance with the revolted American Colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1776-1778;
      1778 (FEBRUARY): 1778-1779,
      and 1782 (SEPTEMBER) and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERGNIAUD AND THE GIRONDISTS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

VERGOBRET, The.

   The chief magistrate of the tribe of Gauls known as the Ædui
   was called the vergobret. "Cæsar terms this magistrate
   vergobretus, which Celtic scholars derive from the words
   'ver-go-breith,' ('homme de jugement,' O'Brien, Thierry). He
   was elected by a council of priests and nobles, and had the
   power of life and death. But his office was only annual."
   Divitiacus, the Æduian friend of Cæsar and the Romans, had
   been the vergobret of his tribe.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 6, foot-note._

VERMANDOIS, House of.

   The noble House of Vermandois which played an important part
   in French history during the Middle Ages, boasted a descent
   from Charlemagne, through his best loved son, Pippin, king of
   Italy. "Peronne and the Abbey of Saint-Quintin composed the
   nucleus of their Principality; but, quietly and without
   contradiction, they had extended their sway over the heart of
   the kingdom of Soissons; and that antient Soissons, and the
   rock of Lâon, and Rheims, the prerogative city of the Gauls,
   were all within the geographical ambit of their territory. In
   such enclavures as we have named, Vermandois did not possess
   direct authority. Lâon, for example, had a Count and a bishop,
   and was a royal domain."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5, section 6 (volume 1)._

   ----------VERMONT: Start--------

VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
   Beginning of settlement.
   The New Hampshire Grants and the conflict with New York.
   Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

   "Among the causes of the controversies which existed between
   the colonies in early times, and continued down to the
   revolution, was the uncertainty of boundary lines as described
   in the old charters. … A difficulty of this kind arose between
   the colony of New York and those of Connecticut,
   Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. By the grant of King Charles
   II. to his brother, the Duke of York, the tract of country
   called New York was bounded on the east by Connecticut River,
   thus conflicting with the express letter of the Massachusetts
   and Connecticut charters, which extended those colonies
   westward to the South Sea, or Pacific Ocean. After a long
   controversy, kept up at times with a good deal of heat on both
   sides, the line of division between these colonies was fixed
   by mutual agreement at 20 miles east of Hudson's River,
   running nearly in a north and south direction. … The
   Massachusetts boundary was decided much later to be a
   continuation of the Connecticut line to the north, making the
   western limit of Massachusetts also 20 miles from the same
   river. … Meantime New Hampshire had never been brought into
   the controversy, because the lands to the westward of that
   province beyond Connecticut River had been neither settled nor
   surveyed. There was indeed a small settlement at Fort Dummer
   on the western margin of the River, which was under the
   protection of Massachusetts. … Such was the state of things
   when Benning Wentworth became governor of New Hampshire, with
   authority from the King to issue patents for unimproved lands
   within the limits of his province. Application was made for
   grants to the west of Connecticut River, and even beyond the
   Green Mountains, and in 1749 he gave a patent for a township 6
   miles square, near the north west angle of Massachusetts, to
   be so laid out, that its western limit should be 20 miles from
   the Hudson, and coincide with the boundary line of Connecticut
   and Massachusetts continued northward. This township was
   called Bennington. Although the governor and council of New
   York remonstrated against this grant, and claimed for that
   colony the whole territory north of Massachusetts as far
   eastward as Connecticut River, yet Governor Wentworth was not
   deterred by this remonstrance from issuing other patents,
   urging in his justification, that New Hampshire had a right to
   the same extension westward as Massachusetts and Connecticut."
   After the British conquest of Canada, 1760, "applications for
   new patents thronged daily upon Governor Wentworth, and within
   four years' time the whole number of townships granted by him,
   to the westward of Connecticut River, was 138. The territory
   including these townships was known by the name of the New
   Hampshire Grants, which it retained till the opening of the
   revolution, when its present name of Vermont began to be
   adopted."

      _J. Sparks,
      Life of Ethan Allen
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

   "Lieutenant Governor Colden, acting chief magistrate of New
   York in the absence of General Monckton, perceiving the
   necessity of asserting the claims of that province to the
   country westward of the Connecticut river, wrote an energetic
   letter to Governor Wentworth, protesting against his grants.
   He also sent a proclamation among the people, declaring the
   Connecticut river to be the boundary between New York and New
   Hampshire. But protests and proclamations were alike unheeded
   by the governor and the people until the year 1764, when the
   matter was laid before the King and council for adjudication.
   The decision was in favor of New York. Wentworth immediately
   bowed to supreme authority, and ceased issuing patents for
   lands westward of the Connecticut. The settlers, considering
   all questions in dispute to be thus finally disposed of, were
   contented, and went on hopefully in the improvement of their
   lands. Among these settlers in the Bennington township were
   members of the Allen family, in Connecticut, two of whom,
   Ethan and Ira, were conspicuous in public affairs for many
   years, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe. The
   authorities of New York, not content with the award of
   territorial jurisdiction over the domain, proceeded, on the
   decision of able legal authority, to assert the right of
   property in the soil of that territory, and declared
   Wentworth's patents all void.
{3617}
   They went further. Orders were issued for the survey and sale
   of farms in the possession of actual settlers, who had bought
   and paid for them, and, in many instances, had made great
   progress in improvements. In this, New York acted not only
   unjustly, but very unwisely. This oppression, for oppression
   it was, was a fatal mistake. It was like sowing dragons' teeth
   to see them produce a crop of full-armed men. The settlers
   were disposed to be quiet, loyal subjects of New York. They
   cared not who was their political master, so long as their
   private rights were respected. But this act of injustice
   converted them into rebellious foes, determined and defiant. …
   Meanwhile speculators had been purchasing from New York large
   tracts of these estates in the disputed territory, and were
   making preparations to take possession. The people of the
   Grants sent one of their number to England, and laid their
   cause before the King and council. He came back in August,
   1767, armed with an order for the Governor of New York to
   abstain from issuing any more patents for lands eastward of
   Lake Champlain. But as the order was not 'ex post facto' in
   its operations, the New York patentees proceeded to take
   possession of their purchased lands. This speedily brought on
   a crisis, and for seven years the New Hampshire Grants formed
   a theater where all the elements of civil war, except actual
   carnage, were in active exercise. … The hardy yeomanry who
   first appeared in arms for the defense of their territorial
   rights, and afterwards as patriots in the common cause when
   the Revolution broke out, were called Green Mountain Boys."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Williams,
      History of Vermont,
      chapter 9._

      _W. Slade, editor,
      Vermont State Papers,
      pages 1-49._

      _Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volumes 1 and 3._

VERMONT: A. D. 1775.
   Ticonderoga surprised by the Green Mountain Boys.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

VERMONT: A. D. 1777.
   Stark's victory at Bennington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.
   State independence declared and constitution framed.
   Admission to the Union denied.

   "The settlers in the land which this year [1777] took the name
   of Vermont refused by a great majority to come under the
   jurisdiction of New York; on the 15th of January 1777, their
   convention declared the independence of their state. At
   Windsor, on the 2d of June, they appointed a committee to
   prepare a constitution; and they hoped to be received into the
   American union. But, as New York opposed, congress, by an
   uncertain majority against a determined minority, disclaimed
   the intention of recognising Vermont as a separate state. … On
   the 2d of July the convention of Vermont reassembled at
   Windsor. The organic law which they adopted, blending the
   culture of their age with the traditions of Protestantism,
   assumed that all men are born free and with inalienable
   rights; that they may emigrate from one state to another, or
   form a new state in vacant countries; that 'every sect should
   observe the Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious
   worship'; that every man may choose that form of religious
   worship 'which shall seem to him most agreeable to the
   revealed will of God. 'They provided for a school in each
   town, a grammar-school in each county, and a university in the
   state. All officers, alike executive and legislative, were to
   be chosen annually and by ballot; the freemen of every town
   and all one year's residents were electors. Every member of
   the house of representatives must declare his 'belief in one
   God …; in the divine inspiration of the scriptures; and in the
   Protestant religion.' The legislative power was vested in one
   general assembly, subject to no veto. … Slavery was forbidden
   and forever; and there could be no imprisonment for debt. …
   After the loss of Ticonderoga, the introduction of the
   constitution was postponed [until March, 1778], lest the
   process of change should interfere with the public defence."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, pages 157, and 161-162._

      ALSO IN;
      _Ira Allen,
      History of Vermont
      (Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 1, pages 375-393)._

      _Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 3._

      _R. E. Robinson,
      Vermont: a Study of Independence,
      chapters 10-14._

VERMONT: A. D. 1781.
   Negotiations with the British authorities
   as an independent State.

   Vermont had repeatedly applied for admission into the Union;
   but the opposition of her neighbors, who claimed her
   territory, and the jealousy of the southern states, who
   objected to the admission of another northern state, prevented
   favorable action in Congress. In 1780 a fresh appeal was made
   with a declaration that if it failed the people of the Green
   Mountains would propose to the other New England states and to
   New York, "an alliance and confederation for mutual defense,
   independent of Congress and of the other states." If neither
   Congress nor the northern states would listen to them, then,
   said the memorial, "they are, if necessitated to it, at
   liberty to offer or accept terms of cessation of hostilities
   with Great Britain without the approbation of any other man or
   body of men." "The British generals in America had for some
   time entertained hopes of turning the disputes in relation to
   Vermont to their own account, by detaching that district from
   the American cause and making it a British province. But the
   first intimation of their views and wishes was communicated in
   a letter from Colonel Beverly Robinson to Ethan Allen; dated
   New York, March 30th, 1780. In July, this letter was delivered
   to Allen in the street in Arlington, by a British soldier in
   the habit of an American farmer. Allen perused the letter, and
   then told the bearer that he should consider it, and that he
   might return. … Allen immediately communicated the contents of
   this letter to Governor Chittenden and some other confidential
   friends, who agreed in opinion, that no answer should be
   returned. Robinson, not receiving a reply to his letter and
   supposing it to have been miscarried, wrote again to Allen on
   the 2d of February, 1781, enclosing his former letter. In his
   second letter, after saying he had received new assurances of
   the inclination of Vermont to join the king's cause, he said
   that he could then write with more authority; and assured
   Allen that he and the people of Vermont could obtain the most
   favorable terms, provided they would take a decisive and
   active part in favor of Great Britain. He requested an answer;
   and that the way might be pointed out for continuing the
   correspondence; and desired to be informed in what manner the
   people of Vermont could be most serviceable to the British
   cause.
{3618}
   Allen returned no answer to either of these letters; but, on
   the 9th of March, 1781, inclosed them in a letter to Congress,
   informing them of all the circumstances which had thus far
   attended the business. He then proceeded to justify the
   conduct of Vermont in asserting her right to independence, and
   expressed his determinate resolution to do every thing in his
   power to establish it. … 'I am confident,' said he, 'that
   Congress will not dispute my sincere attachment to the cause
   of my country, though I do not hesitate to say, I am fully
   grounded in opinion, that Vermont has an indubitable right to
   agree on terms of a cessation of hostilities with Great
   Britain, provided the United States persist in rejecting her
   application for an union with them.' … During the spring of
   1780, some of the scouting parties belonging to Vermont had
   been taken by the British and carried prisoners to Canada. On
   the application of their friends to Governor Chittenden, he,
   in the month of July, sent a flag with a letter to the
   commanding officer in Canada, requesting their release or
   exchange. In the fall, the British came up lake Champlain in
   great force, and a very favorable answer was returned by
   General Haldimand to Governor Chittenden's letter. A flag was
   at the same time sent to Ethan Allen, then a brigadier general
   and commanding officer in Vermont, proposing a cessation of
   hostilities with Vermont, during negotiations for the exchange
   of prisoners."

      _Z. Thompson,
      History of the State of Vermont,
      chapter 4, section 6._

   "The immediate results were a truce, which covered not only
   Vermont but the frontiers of New York to Hudson river; the
   disbanding of the militia of Vermont; and the retiring of the
   British troops to winter quarters in Canada. Until the truce
   became generally known, the results of it occasioned much
   surprise in New York. It was further agreed, that the
   commissioners of both parties should meet on the subject of
   the cartel, and go together to Canada. This was attempted, but
   failed on account of the difficulty of getting through the ice
   on Lake Champlain. After contending several days with the
   elements, the commissioners separated; but 'while their men
   [wrote Ira Allen] were breaking through the ice, much
   political conversation and exhibits of papers took place.'
   Williams ['History of Vermont'] is more definite: 'the British
   agents availed themselves of this opportunity to explain their
   views, to make their proposals, and offer as complete an
   establishment for Vermont, from the royal authority, as should
   be desired. The commissioners from Vermont treated the
   proposals with affability and good humor, and though they
   avoided bringing anything to a decision, the British concluded
   they were in a fair way to effect their purposes.' The
   subsequent negotiations at Isle aux Noix, between Ira Allen
   and the British commissioners, as to matters beyond settling a
   cartel, were secret, and even the commander of the post had no
   knowledge of them, although he was associated with the British
   commissioners on the question of an exchange of prisoners.
   These facts show that the public had no knowledge except of a
   truce for a humane and proper attempt to relieve citizens of
   Vermont, and its officers and soldiers, who were then
   prisoners in Canada; and the conclusion is that all the
   suspicion that then existed of the patriotism and fidelity of
   the great body of the people of the state, and all the obloquy
   since drawn from the negotiation with Haldimand and cast upon
   the state, were entirely unjust. If any body was really at
   fault, the number implicated was very small. Williams asserted
   that 'eight persons only in Vermont, were in the secret of
   this correspondence;' and Ira Allen that, in May, 1781, 'only
   eight persons were in the secret, but more were added as the
   circumstances required.'"

      _Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 2, introduction._

   "By the definitive treaty between Great Britain and the United
   States, September 3, 1783, Vermont was included within the
   boundaries separating the independent American from British
   territory, and thus the independence of Vermont was
   acknowledged first by the mother country. The State had been
   de facto independent from its organization; and therefore the
   following record, with the other papers contained in this and
   the first volume of the Historical Society Collections covers
   the existence of Vermont as an independent and sovereign
   state."

      _Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 2, page 397._

      ALSO IN:
      _Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 2,
      Haldimand Papers._

      _D. Brymner,
      Report on Canadian Archives, 1889,
      pages 53-58._

      _R. E. Robinson,
      Vermont: a Study of Independence,
      chapter 15._

VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Renunciation of the claims of New York
   and admission of the State to the Union.

   "The rapid increase of the population of Vermont having
   destroyed all hope on the part of New York, of re-establishing
   her jurisdiction over that rebellious district, the holders of
   the New York grants, seeing no better prospect before them,
   were ready to accept such an indemnity as might be obtained by
   negotiation. Political considerations had also operated. The
   vote of Vermont might aid to establish the seat of the federal
   government at New York. At all events, that state would serve
   as a counterbalance to Kentucky, the speedy admission of which
   was foreseen. The Assembly of New York [July, 1789] had
   appointed commissioners with full powers to acknowledge the
   independence of Vermont, and to arrange a settlement of all
   matters in controversy. To this appointment Vermont had
   responded, and terms had been soon arranged. In consideration
   of the sum of $30,000, as an indemnity to the New York
   grantees, New York renounced all claim of jurisdiction
   [October 7, 1790], consented to the admission of Vermont into
   the Union, and agreed to the boundary heretofore claimed—the
   western line of the westernmost townships granted by New
   Hampshire and the middle channel of Lake Champlain. This
   arrangement was immediately ratified by the Legislature of
   Vermont. A Convention, which met at the beginning of the year
   [1791], had voted unanimously to ratify the Federal
   Constitution, and to ask admission into the Union.
   Commissioners were soon after appointed by the Assembly to
   wait upon Congress and to negotiate the admission. No
   opposition was made to it, and [February 18, 1791] within
   fourteen days after the passage of the bill for the
   prospective admission of Kentucky, Vermont was received into
   the Union, from and after the termination of the present
   session of Congress. The Constitution under which Vermont came
   into the Union, originally adopted in 1777, had been slightly
   altered in 1785. Most of its provisions seem to have been
   copied from the first Constitution of Pennsylvania. … The
   revision of 1785 struck out the requirement of Protestantism;
   another revision in 1793, still following the example of
   Pennsylvania, released the members of Assembly from the
   necessity of any religious subscription."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Beckley,
      History of Vermont,
      chapters 5-6._

      _J. L. Heaton,
      Story of Vermont,
      chapter 4._

{3619}

VERMONT: A. D. 1812.
   Vigorous support of the war with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1864.
   The St. Albans Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER)
      THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

   ----------VERMONT: End--------

VERMONT UNIVERSITY.

   "At the time of the organization of the State government, in
   1798, the University of Vermont was endowed with lands which
   proved subsequently to amount to 29,000 acres. In 1791 the
   university was organized. … The early years of the university,
   planted as it was in the wilderness, were full of struggles
   and misfortunes. The State was generous in the extreme at the
   beginning, but failed to support the university it had
   created. The land was poor and brought little income, the
   whole tract bringing but 2,500 dollars at that time. In 1813
   the buildings of the university were seized by the Government
   and used for the storage of United States arms, by which much
   damage was suffered, and the houseless students all left, most
   of them to shoulder muskets against the British invaders. The
   buildings were rented in 1814 for the United States Army.
   Worse misfortunes occurred in 1824, the buildings being
   consumed by fire, but were restored by the citizens of
   Burlington in the following year. For the first ninety-five
   years of the corporate existence of the university the State
   never gave anything toward the support of it more than has
   been set forth in the above statements."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States
      (Bureau of Education, Circ. of Information, 1890, number 1),
      pages 125-126._

VERNEUIL, Battle of (1424).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

VERNICOMES.

   A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory was the eastern
   half of Fife.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

VEROMANDUI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

   ----------VERONA: Start--------

VERONA: A. D. 312.
   Siege, battle, and victory of Constantine.

      See ROME: A. D. 805-323.

VERONA: A. D. 403.
   Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

VERONA: A. D. 489.
   Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
   Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

   "Pavia and Verona [as well as his ordinary capital city,
   Ravenna] were also places honoured with the occasional
   residence of Theodoric. At both he built a palace and public
   baths. … At Verona, the palace, of which there were still some
   noble remains incorporated into the castle of the Viscontis,
   was blown up by the French in 1801, and an absolutely modern
   building stands upon its site. … It seems probable that
   Theodoric's residence at both these places depended on the
   state of Transalpine politics. When the tribes of the middle
   Danube were moving suspiciously to and fro, and the vulnerable
   point by the Brenner Pass needed to be especially guarded, he
   fixed his quarters at Verona. When Gaul menaced greater
   danger, then he removed to Ticinum [Pavia]. It was apparently
   the fact that Verona was his coign of vantage, from whence be
   watched the German barbarians, which obtained for him from
   their minstrels the title of Dietrich of Bern. Thus strangely
   travestied, he was swept within the wide current of the
   legends relating to Attila, and hence it is that the really
   grandest figure in the history of the migration of the peoples
   appears in the Nibelungen Lied, not as a great king and
   conqueror on his own account, but only as a faithful squire of
   the terrible Hunnish king whose empire had in fact crumbled
   into dust before the birth of Theodoric."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

VERONA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Acquisition of Republican Independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano and the crusade against him.

   "In the north-eastern corner of Italy the influence of the old
   Lombard lords, which had been extinguished there as in most
   other parts of the peninsula, was succeeded by that of a
   family that had accompanied one of the emperors from Germany.
   … The eye of a traveller passing from Verona to Padua may
   still be struck by one or two isolated hills, which seem as it
   were designed by nature to be meet residences for the tyrants
   of the surrounding plains. One of these gave birth to a person
   destined to become the scourge of the neighbouring country. …
   Eccelino di Romano … was descended from a German noble brought
   into Italy by Otho III. The office of Podesta of Verona had
   become hereditary in his family. In the wars of the second
   Frederic [1236-1250], he put himself at the head of the
   Ghibellines in the surrounding principalities, and became a
   strenuous supporter of the emperor. Under the protection of so
   powerful an ally, be soon made himself master of Padua, where
   he established his headquarters, and built the dungeons, where
   the most revolting cruelties were inflicted on his victims."

      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   In 1237, the emperor, Frederick II., "obliged to return to
   Germany, left under the command of Eccelino a body of German
   soldiers, and another of Saracens, with which this able
   captain made himself, the same year, master of Vicenza, which
   he barbarously pillaged, and the following year of Padua. …
   Eccelino judged it necessary to secure obedience, by taking
   hostages from the richest and most powerful families; he
   employed his spies to discover the malcontents, whom he
   punished with torture, and redoubled his cruelty in proportion
   to the hatred which he excited." Subsequently, the emperor
   confided "the exclusive government of the Veronese marches
   [also called the Trevisan marches] to Eccelino. The hatred
   which this ferocious man excited by his crimes fell on the
   emperor. Eccelino imprisoned in the most loathsome dungeons
   those whom he considered his enemies, and frequently put them
   to death by torture, or suffered them to perish by hunger. …
{3620}
   In the single town of Padua there were eight prisons always
   full, notwithstanding the incessant toil of the executioner to
   empty them; two of these contained each 300 prisoners. A
   brother of Eccelino, named Alberic, governed Treviso with less
   ferocity, but with a power not less absolute." Eccelino
   maintained the power which he had gathered into his hands for
   several years after Frederick's death. At length, the pope,
   "Alexander IV., to destroy the monster that held in terror the
   Trevisan march, caused a crusade to be preached in that
   country. He promised those who combated the ferocious Eccelino
   all the indulgences usually reserved for the deliverers of the
   Holy Land. The marquis d'Este, the count di San Bonifazio,
   with the cities of Ferrara, Mantua, and Bologna, assembled
   their troops under the standard of the church; they were
   joined by a horde of ignorant fanatics from the lowest class."
   Headed by the legate Philip, archbishop of Ravenna, the
   crusaders took Padua, June 18, 1256, and "for seven days the
   city was inhumanly pillaged by those whom it had received as
   deliverers. As soon as Eccelino was informed of the loss he
   had sustained, he hastened to separate and disarm the 11,000
   Paduans belonging to his army; he confined them in prisons,
   where all, with the exception of 200, met a violent or
   lingering death. During the two following years, the Guelphs
   experienced nothing but disasters: the legate, whom the pope
   had placed at their head, proved incompetent to command them;
   and the crowd of crusaders whom he called to his ranks served
   only to compromise them, by want of courage and discipline. …
   The following year, this tyrant, unequalled in Ita]y for
   bravery and military talent, always an enemy to luxury, and
   proof against the seductions of women, making the boldest
   tremble with a look, and preserving in his diminutive person,
   at the age of 65, all the vigor of a soldier, advanced into
   the centre of Lombardy, in the hope that the nobles of Milan,
   with whom he had already opened a correspondence, would
   surrender this great city." But, by this time, even his old
   Ghibelline associates had formed alliances with the Guelphs
   against him, and he was beset on all sides. "On the 16th of
   September, 1259, whilst he was preparing to retire, he found
   himself stopped at the bridge of Cassano. … Repulsed, pursued
   as far as Vimercato, and at last wounded in the foot, he was
   made prisoner and taken to Soncino: there, he refused to
   speak; rejected all the aid of medicine; tore off all the
   bandages from his wounds, and finally expired, on the eleventh
   day of his captivity. His brother with all his family were
   massacred in the following year."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
   Rise of the House of the Scaligeri.
   Successes of Can' Grande della Scala.
   Wars and Reverses of Mastino.

   After the death of Eccelino, Verona, by its own choice came
   under the government of the first Mastino della Scala, who
   established the power of a house which became famous in
   Italian history. Mastino's grandson, Cane, or Can' Grande
   della Scala, "reigned in that city from 1312 to 1329, with a
   splendor which no other prince in Ita]y equalled. … Among the
   Lombard princes he was the first protector of literature and
   the arts. The best poets, painters, and sculptors of Italy,
   Dante, to whom he offered an asylum, as well as Uguccione da
   Faggiuola, and many other exiles illustrious in war or
   politics, were assembled at his court. He aspired to subdue
   the Veronese and Trevisan marches, or what has since been
   called the Terra Firma of Venice. He took possession of
   Vicenza; and afterwards maintained a long war against the
   republic of Padua, the most powerful in the district, and that
   which had shown the most attachment to the Guelph party and to
   liberty." In 1328, Padua submitted to him; and "the year
   following he attacked and took Treviso, which surrendered on
   the 6th of July, 1329. He possessed himself of Feltre and
   Cividale soon after. The whole province seemed subjugated to
   his power; but the conqueror also was subdued." He died on the
   22d of the same month in which Treviso was taken.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 6._

   Can' Grande was succeeded by his nephew, the second Mastino
   della Scala, who, in the next six years, "extended his states
   from the northeastern frontiers of Italy to the confines of
   Tuscany; and the possession of the strong city of Lucca now
   gave him a secure footing in this province. He shortly made it
   appear to what purpose he meant to apply this new advantage.
   Under the plea of re-establishing the Ghibelin interests, but
   in reality to forward his own schemes of dominion, he began to
   fill all Tuscany with his machinations. Florence was neither
   slow to discover her danger, nor to resent the treachery of
   her faithless ally,"—which Mastino had recently been.
   Florence, according]y, formed an alliance with Venice, which
   Mastino had rashly offended by restricting the manufacture of
   salt on the Trevisan coast, and by laying heavy duties on the
   navigation of the Po. Florence agreed "to resign to Venice the
   sole possession of such conquests as might be made in that
   quarter; only reserving for herself the acquisition of Lucca,
   which she was to obtain by attacking Mastino in Tuscany,
   entirely with her own resources. Upon these terms an alliance
   was signed between the two republics, and the lord of Verona
   had soon abundant reason to repent of the pride and treachery
   by which he had provoked their formidable union (A. D. 1336).
   … During three campaigns he was unable to oppose the league in
   the field, and was compelled to witness the successive loss of
   many of his principal cities (A. D. 1337). His brother Albert
   was surprised and made prisoner in Padua, by the treachery of
   the family of Carrara, who acquired the sovereignty of that
   city; Feltro was captured by the Duke of Carinthia, Brescia
   revolted, and fell with other places to Azzo Visconti. … In
   this hopeless condition Mastino artfully addressed himself to
   the Venetians, and, by satisfying all their demands, detached
   them from the general interests of the coalition (A. D. 1338).
   By a separate treaty which their republic concluded with him,
   and which was then only communicated to the Florentines for
   their acceptance, Mastino ceded to Venice Treviso, with other
   fortresses and possessions, and the right of free navigation
   on the Po; he agreed at the same time to yield Bassano and an
   extension of territory to the new lord of Padua, and to
   confirm the sovereignty of Brescia to Azzo Visconti; but for
   the Florentine republic no farther advantage was stipulated
   than the enjoyment of a few castles which they had already
   conquered in Tuscany."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4, part 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

{3621}

VERONA: A. D. 1351-1387.
   Degeneracy and fall of the Scaligeri.
   Subjugation by the Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VERONA: A. D. 1405.
   Added to the dominion of Venice.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VERONA: A. D. 1797.
   Massacre of French Soldiers.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VERONA: A. D. 1814.
   Surrender to the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

   ----------VERONA: End--------

VERONA, The Congress of (after Troppau and Laybach).

   "The rapid spread of revolution in Europe inspired serious
   misgivings among the great powers, and impelled the Holy
   Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE] to show its true colours. Austria
   was especially alarmed by the movement in Naples [see ITALY:
   A. D. 1820-1821], which threatened to overthrow its power in
   Italy, and Metternich convoked a congress at Troppau, in Upper
   Silesia (October, 1820), at which Austria, Russia, Prussia,
   France and England were represented. Neapolitan affairs were
   the chief subject of discussion, and it was soon evident that
   Austria, Russia and Prussia were agreed as to the necessity of
   armed intervention. England made a formal protest against such
   high-handed treatment of a peaceful country; but as the
   protest was not supported by France, and England was not
   prepared to go to war for Naples, it was disregarded. The
   three allied powers decided to transfer the congress to
   Laybach and to invite Ferdinand I. to attend in person." The
   result of the conference at Laybach was a movement of 60,000
   Austrian troops into Naples and Sicily, in March, 1821, and a
   restoration of Ferdinand, who made a merciless use of his
   opportunity for revenge.

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 25, section 8._

   From Laybach, the allied sovereigns issued a circular to their
   representatives at the various foreign courts, in which
   portentous document they declared that "useful and necessary
   changes in legislation and in the administration of states
   could only emanate from the free will, and from the
   intelligent and well-weighed convictions, of those whom God
   has made responsible for power. Penetrated with this eternal
   truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with
   frankness and vigour. They have declared that, in respecting
   the rights and independence of legitimate power, they regarded
   as legally null, and disavowed by the principles which
   constituted the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms
   operated by revolt and open hostilities." "These principles,
   stated nakedly and without shame, were too much even for Lord
   Castlereagh. In a despatch, written early in the year 1821,
   while admitting the right of a state to interfere in the
   internal affairs of another state when its own interests were
   endangered, he protested against the pretension to put down
   revolutionary movements apart from their immediate bearing on
   the security of the state so intervening, and denied that
   merely possible revolutionary movements can properly be made
   the basis of a hostile alliance. The principles of the Holy
   Alliance were not intended to remain a dead letter; they were
   promptly acted upon. Popular movements were suppressed in
   Naples and Piedmont; and intervention in Spain, where the
   Cortes had been summoned and the despotic rule of Ferdinand
   VII. had been overthrown, was in contemplation. Greece
   imitated the example set in the western peninsulas of Europe.
   The Congress of Verona was summoned, and Lord Castlereagh (now
   the Marquis of Londonderry) was preparing to join it, when in
   an access of despondency, the origin of which is variously
   explained, he took his own life." He was succeeded in the
   British Ministry by Mr. Canning.

      _F. H. Hill,
      George Canning,
      chapter 20._

   "The first business which presented itself to Mr. Cunning was
   to devise a system by which the Holy Alliance could be
   gradually dissolved, and England rescued from the consequences
   of her undefined relations with its members. The adjourned
   Congress was on the point of assembling at Verona, and as it
   was necessary to send a representative in place of Lord
   Castlereagh, who seems to have been terrified at the prospect
   that lay before him, the Duke of Wellington was selected, and
   dispatched without loss of time. … The very first blow he
   [Canning] struck in the Congress of Verona announced to the
   world the attitude which England was about to take, and her
   total denial of the rights of the Alliance to interfere with
   the internal affairs of any independent nation. It appeared
   that France had collected a large army in the south, and not
   having legitimate occupation for it, proposed to employ it in
   the invasion of Spain [see Spain: A. D. 1814-1827]. This
   monstrous project was submitted to Congress, and ardently
   approved of by Russia. It was now that England spoke out for
   the first time in this cabal of despots. … After some
   interchanges of notes and discussions agreed to by the allies,
   the British plenipotentiary, as he was instructed, refused all
   participation in these proceedings, and withdrew from the
   Congress. This was the first step that was taken to show the
   Alliance that England would not become a party to any act of
   unjust aggression or unjustifiable interference. A long
   correspondence ensued between Mr. Canning and M. de
   Chateaubriand. … The French king's speech, on opening the
   Chambers, revealed the real intentions of the government,
   which Mr. Canning had penetrated from the beginning. The
   speech was, in fact, a declaration of war against Spain,
   qualified by the slightest imaginable hypothesis. But, happily
   for all interests, there was no possibility of disguising the
   purpose of this war, which was plainly and avowedly to force
   upon the people of Spain such a constitution as the king (a
   Bourbon), in the exercise of his absolute authority, should
   think fit to give them. … Against this principle Mr. Canning
   entered a dignified protest. … Although he could not avert
   from Spain the calamity of a French invasion, he made it clear
   to all the world that England objected to that proceeding, and
   that she was no longer even to be suspected of favoring the
   designs of the Holy Alliance. The French army made the passage
   of the Bidassoa. From that moment Mr. Canning interfered no
   farther. He at once disclosed the system which he had already
   matured and resolved upon. Having first protested against the
   principle of the invasion, he determined to maintain the
   neutrality of England in the war that followed.
{3622}
   By this course he achieved the end he had in view, of severing
   England from the Holy Alliance without embroiling her in any
   consequent responsibilities. … Mr. Canning's 'system' of
   foreign policy, as described in his own language, resolved
   itself into this principle of action, that 'England should
   hold the balance, not only between contending nations, but
   between conflicting principles; that, in order to prevent
   things from going to extremities, she should keep a distinct
   middle ground, staying the plague both ways.' … The
   development of this principle, as it applied to nations, was
   illustrated in the strict but watchful neutrality observed
   between France and Spain; and, as it applied to principles, in
   the recognition of the independence of the Spanish-American
   colonies. The latter act may be regarded as the most important
   for which Mr. Canning was officially responsible, as that
   which exerted the widest and most distinct influence over the
   policy of other countries, and which most clearly and
   emphatically revealed the tendency of his own. It showed that
   England would recognize institutions raised up by the people,
   as well as those which were created by kings. It gave the
   death-blow to the Holy Alliance." The logic and meaning of Mr.
   Canning's recognition of the Spanish American republics found
   expression in one famous passage of a brilliant speech which
   he made in the House of Commons, December 12, 1826,
   vindicating his foreign policy. "If France," he said,
   "occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the
   consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade
   Cadiz? No, I looked another way—I sought materials of
   compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such
   as our ancestors had known her, I resolved that if France had
   Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the
   New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

      _R. Bell,
      Life of the Right Honourable George Canning,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. H. Hill,
      George Canning,
      chapter 20._

      _F. A. Châteaubriand,
      The Congress of Verona._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 8 and 12 (volume l,—American edition)._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

VERRAZANO, Voyages of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

   ----------VERSAILLES: Start--------

VERSAILLES.

   Louis XIV. "preferred Versailles to his other chateaux,
   because Fontainebleau, Chambord, Saint-Germain, were
   existences ready created, which Francois I. and Henri IV. had
   stamped with the ineffaceable imprint of their glory: at
   Versailles, everything was to be made, save the modest
   beginning left by Louis XIII. … At Versailles, everything was
   to be created, we say,—not only the monuments of art, but
   nature itself. This solitary elevation of ground, although
   pleasing enough through the woods and hills that surrounded
   it, was without great views, without sites, without waters,
   without inhabitants. … The sites would be created by creating
   an immense landscape by the hand of man; the waters would be
   brought from the whole country by works which appalled the
   imagination; the inhabitants would be caused, if we may say
   so, to spring from the earth, by erecting a whole city for the
   service of the chateau. Louis would thus make a city of his
   own, a form of his own, of which he alone would be the life.
   Versailles and the court would be the body and soul of one and
   the same being, both created for the same end, the
   glorification of the terrestrial God to whom they owed
   existence. … The same idea filled the interior of the palace.
   Painting deified Louis there under every form, in war and in
   peace, in the arts and in the administration of the empire; it
   celebrated his amours as his victories, his passions as his
   labors. All the heroes of antiquity, all the divinities of
   classic Olympus, rendered him homage or lent him their
   attributes in turn. He was Augustus, he was Titus, he was
   Alexander; he was thundering Jupiter, he was Hercules, the
   conqueror of monsters; oftener, Apollo, the inspirer of the
   Muses and the king of enlightenment. Mythology was no longer
   but a great enigma, to which the name of Louis was the only
   key; he was all the gods in himself alone. … Louis, always
   served in his desires by the fertility of his age, had found a
   third artist, Lenostre, to complete Lebrun and Mansart. Thanks
   to Lenostre, Louis, from the windows of his incomparable
   gallery of mirrors, saw nought that was not of his own
   creation. The whole horizon was his work, for his garden was
   the whole horizon. … Whole thickets were brought full-grown
   from the depths of the finest forests of France, and the arts
   of animating marble and of moving waters filled them with
   every prodigy of which the imagination could dream. An
   innumerable nation of statues peopled the thickets and lawns,
   was mirrored in the waters, or rose from the bosom of the
   wave. … Louis had done what he wished; he had created about
   him a little universe, in which he was the only necessary and
   almost the only real being. But terrestrial gods do not create
   with a word like the true God. These buildings which stretch
   across a frontage of twelve hundred yards, the unheard-of
   luxury of these endless apartments, this incredible multitude
   of objects of art, these forests transplanted, these waters of
   heaven gathered from all the slopes of the heights into the
   windings of immense conduits from Trappes and Palaiseau to
   Versailles, these waters of the Seine brought from Marly by
   gigantic machinery through that aqueduct which commands from
   afar the valley of the river like a superb Roman ruin, and
   later, an enterprise far more colossal! that river which was
   turned aside from its bed and which it was undertaken to bring
   thirty leagues to Versailles over hills and valleys, cost
   France grievous efforts and inexhaustible sweats, and
   swallowed up rivers of gold increasing from year to year. …
   Versailles has cost France dearly, very dearly; nevertheless
   it is important to historic truth to set aside in this respect
   too long accredited exaggerations. … The accounts, or at least
   the abstracts of the accounts, of the expenditures of Louis
   XIV. for building, during the greater part of his reign, have
   been discovered. The costs of the construction, decoration,
   and furnishing of Versailles, from 1664 to 1690, including the
   hydraulic works and the gardens, in addition to the
   appendages,—that is, Clagny, Trianon, Saint-Cyr, and the two
   churches of the new city of Versailles,—amount to about one
   hundred and seven millions, to which must be added a million,
   or a million and a half perhaps, for the expenses of the years
   1661-1663, the accounts of which are not known, and three
   million two hundred and sixty thousand francs for the
   sumptuous chapel, which was not built until 1699-1710.
{3623}
   The proportion of the mark to the franc having varied under
   Louis XIV., it is difficult to arrive at an exact reduction to
   the present currency. … The expenses of Versailles would
   represent to-day more than four hundred millions. This amount
   is enormous; but it is not monstrous like the twelve hundred
   millions of which Mirabeau speaks, nor, above all, madly
   fantastic like the four thousand six hundred millions imagined
   by Volney."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Ritchie,
      Versailles._

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1789.
   Opening scenes of the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY), and after.

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1870.
   Headquarters of the German court and the army besieging Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1871.
   Assumption of the dignity of Emperor of Germany
   by King William of Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871.

   ----------VERSAILLES: End--------

VERTERÆ.

   A Roman city in Britain, which probably occupied the site of
   the modern town of Brough, in Westmoreland, where many remains
   of the Romans have been found.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman, and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

VERTURIONES, The.

   A name by which one of the Caledonian tribes was known to the
   Romans.

VERULAMIUM.
VERULAM.

   "The 'oppidum' of Cassivelaunus [the stronghold which Cæsar
   reduced on his second invasion of Britain] is generally
   believed to have been situated where the modern town of St.
   Alban's now stands [but the point is still in dispute]. An
   ancient ditch can still be traced surrounding a considerable
   area on the banks of the River Ver, from which the Roman town
   of Verulam [Verulamium] took its name. This town, which
   probably originated in the camp of Cæsar, grew into an
   important city in Roman times. It stands on the opposite side
   of the River Ver, and is still known for its Roman remains."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 2._

      See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

VERVINS, Treaty of (1598).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

VESONTIO.

   Modern Besançon, in France; originally the largest of the
   towns of the Sequani.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 2._

VESPASIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69-79.

VESPUCIUS, Americus (or Amerigo Vespucci), The voyages of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498; 1499-1500;
      1500-1514; 1503-1504.

      Also (in Supplement)
      AMERICA: THE ALLEGED FIRST VOYAGE OF VESPUCIUS.

VESTAL VIRGINS.

   "The Vestals ('virgines Vestales,' 'virgines Vestæ') were
   closely connected with the college of pontifices. They are
   said to have come from Alba soon after the foundation of Rome:
   at first there were two Vestals for each of the two tribes,
   Ramnes and Tities; afterwards two others were added for the
   Luceres, and the number of six was exceeded at no period. The
   vestal, on being chosen, was not allowed to be younger than
   six or older than ten years. … She was clad in white garments
   and devoted to the service of Vesta for thirty years. … After
   this period she was at liberty either to remain in the service
   of the goddess (which was generally done) or to return to her
   family and get married. Her dress was always white; round her
   forehead she wore a broad band like a diadem ('infula'), with
   ribbons ('vittæ') attached to it. During the sacrifice, or at
   processions, she was covered with a white veil. … She was
   carefully guarded against insult or temptation; an offence
   offered to her was punished with death; … in public everyone,
   even the consul, made way to the lictor preceding the maiden.
   At public games and pontifical banquets she had the seat of
   honour; and a convicted criminal accidentally meeting her was
   released. Amongst her priestly functions was the keeping of
   the eternal fire in the temple of Vesta, each Vestal taking
   her turn at watching. … Breach of chastity on the part of the
   Vestal was punished with death."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103._

VESTINIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

VESUVIUS:
   Great eruption.
   Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

      See POMPEII.

VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

VETERA: A. D. 69.
   Siege and Massacre.

   The most important success achieved by the Batavian patriot,
   Civilis, in the revolt against the Romans which he led, A. D.
   69, was the siege and capture of Vetera,—a victory sullied by
   the faithless massacre of the garrison after they had
   capitulated.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 58._

VETO, The Aragon.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

VETO:
   The Polish Liberum Veto.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

VETO:
   Of the President of the United States.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
      Article I., Section 7.

VETTONES, The.

   A people who occupied the part of ancient Spain between the
   Tagus and the Upper Douro at the time of the Roman conquest
   of that country.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 1._

VIA SACRA AT ROME, The.

   "The Via Sacra began at the Sacellum Streniæ, which was on the
   part of the Esquiline nearest to the Colosseum; on reaching
   the Summa Via Sacra … it turned a little to the right,
   descending the Clivus Sacer; at the foot of the slope it
   passed under the arch of Fabius, by the side of the Regia;
   thence it ran in a straight line, passing by the Basilica
   Æmilia, the arch of Janus, the Curia Hostilia, till it reached
   the foot of the Capitoline Hill, where, turning to the left,
   it ascended the Clivus Capitolinus, and reached its
   termination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The Via
   Sacra, as Ovid tells us, took its name from the sacred rites
   which were performed on it. Along this road passed the
   processions of priests with the sacred animals to be
   sacrificed at the altar of Jupiter Capitolinus. … Along this
   road also passed the triumphal processions of the victorious
   Roman generals. The procession entered Rome by the Porta
   Triumphalis, passed through the Circus Maximus, then, turning
   to the left, proceeded along the road at the foot of the
   southeast slope of the Palatine, when it joined the Via Sacra,
   and again turned to the left and ascended the Velia; on reaching
   the Summa Via Sacra it descended the Clivus Sacer, and then
   passed along the rest of the Via Sacra till it reached its
   destination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where the
   victorious general lay before the god the spoils of his
   conquests."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 121._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Parker,
      Archaeology of Rome,
      part 6._

{3624}

VICARS, or Vice-Præfects, of the Roman Empire.

      See DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

VICENZA: A. D. 1237.
   Pillage by Eccelino di Romano.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

VICKSBURG: A. D. 1862-1863.
   The defense, the siege and the capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),
      and (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);
      1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI):
      and 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

VICTOR II., Pope, A. D. 1055-1057.

   Victor III., Pope, 1086-1087.

   Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, 1630-1637.

   Victor Amadeus II.,
      Duke of Savoy, 1675-1730:
      King of Sicily, 1713-1720;
      King of Sardinia, 1720-1730.

   Victor Amadeus III.,
      Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1773-1796.

   Victor Emanuel I.,
      Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1802-1821.

   Victor Emanuel II.,
      King of Sardinia, 1849-1861;
      King of Italy, 1861-1878.

VICTORIA, Queen of England, A. D. 1837.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1837.
   The founding of the colony.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1850-1855.
   Separation from New South Wales.
   Discovery of gold.
   Adoption of a Constitution.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1862-1892.
   Comparative view.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (AUSTRALIA): A. D. 1862-1892;
      and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

VICTORIA CROSS, The.

   An English naval and military decoration, instituted after the
   Crimean War, on the 29th of January, 1856, by the command of
   Queen Victoria.

VICUS.

   According to Niebuhr, the term "Vicus" in Roman
   topography—about which there has been much controversy—"means
   nothing else but a quarter or district [of the city] under the
   superintendence of its own police officer."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 86._

      See, also, GENS.

VIDOMME.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

   ----------VIENNA, Austria: Start--------

VIENNA, Austria: Origin of.

      See VINDOBONA.

VIENNA, Austria: 12th Century.
   Fortification and commercial advancement by the Austrian Dukes.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1485.
   Siege, capture, and occupation by Matthias of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1529.
   Siege by the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1619.
   Threatened by the Bohemian army.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1645.
   Threatened by the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1683.
   Siege by the Turks.
   Deliverance by John Sobieski.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1805.
   Surrendered to Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1809.
   Capitulation to Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1848.
   Revolutionary riots.
   Bombardment of the city.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VIENNA, The Congress of.

   "At the end of September [1814] the centre of European
   interest passed to Vienna. The great council of the Powers, so
   long delayed, was at length assembled. The Czar of Russia, the
   Kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Würtemberg, and nearly
   all the statesmen of eminence in Europe, gathered round the
   Emperor Francis and his Minister, Metternich, to whom by
   common consent the presidency of the Congress was offered.
   Lord Castlereagh represented England, and Talleyrand France.
   Rasumoffsky and other Russian diplomatists acted under the
   immediate directions of their master, who on some occasions
   even entered into personal correspondence with the Ministers
   of the other Powers. Hardenberg stood in a somewhat freer
   relation to King Frederick William: Stein was present, but
   without official place. The subordinate envoys and attaches of
   the greater Courts, added to a host of petty princes and the
   representatives who came from the minor Powers, or from
   communities which had ceased to possess any political
   existence at all, crowded Vienna. In order to relieve the
   antagonisms which had already come too clearly into view,
   Metternich determined to entertain his visitors in the most
   magnificent fashion; and although the Austrian State was
   bankrupt, and in some districts the people were severely
   suffering, a sum of about £10,000 a day was for some time
   devoted to this purpose. The splendour and the gaieties of
   Metternich were emulated by his guests. … The Congress had
   need of its distractions, for the difficulties which faced it
   were so great that, even after the arrival of the Sovereigns,
   it was found necessary to postpone the opening of the regular
   sittings until November. By the secret articles of the Peace
   of Paris, the Allies had reserved to themselves the disposal
   of all vacant territory, although their conclusions required
   to be formally sanctioned by the Congress at large. The
   Ministers of Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia accordingly
   determined at the outset to decide upon all territorial
   questions among themselves, and only after their decisions
   were completely formed to submit them to France and the other
   Powers. Talleyrand, on hearing of this arrangement, protested
   that France itself was now one of the Allies, and demanded
   that the whole body of European States should at once meet in
   open Congress. The four Courts held to their determination,
   and began their preliminary sittings without Talleyrand. But
   the French statesman had, under the form of a paradox, really
   stated the true political situation. The greater Powers were
   so deeply divided in their aims that their old bond of common
   interest, the interest of union against France, was now less
   powerful than the impulse that made them seek the support of
   France against one another.
{3625}
   Two men had come to the Congress with a definite aim:
   Alexander had resolved to gain the Duchy of Warsaw, and to
   form it, with or without some part of Russian Poland, into a
   Polish kingdom, attached to his own crown: Talleyrand had
   determined, either on the question of Poland, or on the
   question of Saxony, which arose out of it, to break allied
   Europe into halves, and to range France by the side of two of
   the great Powers against the two others. The course of events
   favoured for a while the design of the Minister: Talleyrand
   himself prosecuted his plan with an ability which, but for the
   untimely return of Napoleon from Elba, would have left France,
   without a war, the arbiter and the leading Power of Europe.
   Since the Russian victories of 1812, the Emperor Alexander had
   made no secret of his intention to restore a Polish Kingdom
   and a Polish nationality. Like many other designs of this
   prince, the project combined a keen desire for personal
   glorification with a real generosity of feeling. Alexander was
   thoroughly sincere in his wish not only to make the Poles
   again a people, but to give them a Parliament and a free
   Constitution. The King of Poland, however, was to be no
   independent prince, but Alexander himself: although the Duchy
   of Warsaw, the chief if not the sole component of the proposed
   new kingdom, had belonged to Austria and Prussia after the
   last partition of Poland, and extended into the heart of the
   Prussian monarchy. Alexander insisted on his anxiety to atone
   for the crime of Catherine in dismembering Poland: the
   atonement, however, was to be made at the sole cost of those
   whom Catherine had allowed to share the booty. Among the other
   Governments, the Ministry of Great Britain would gladly have
   seen a Polish State established in a really independent form;
   failing this, it desired that the Duchy of Warsaw should be
   divided, as formerly, between Austria and Prussia. Metternich
   was anxious that the fortress of Cracow at any rate should not
   fall into the hands of the Czar. Stein and Hardenberg, and
   even Alexander's own Russian counsellors, earnestly opposed
   the Czar's project, not only on account of the claims of
   Prussia on Warsaw, but from dread of the agitation likely to
   be produced by a Polish Parliament among all Poles outside the
   new State. King Frederick William, however, was unaccustomed
   to dispute the wishes of his ally; and the Czar's offer of
   Saxony in substitution for Warsaw gave to the Prussian
   Ministers, who were more in earnest than their master, at
   least the prospect of receiving a valuable equivalent for what
   they might surrender. By the treaty of Kalisch, made when
   Prussia united its arms with those of Russia against Napoleon
   (February 27th, 1813), the Czar had undertaken to restore the
   Prussian monarchy to an extent equal to that which it had
   possessed in 1805. It was known before the opening of the
   Congress that the Czar proposed to do this by handing over to
   King Frederick William the whole of Saxony, whose Sovereign,
   unlike his colleagues in the Rhenish Confederacy, had
   supported Napoleon up to his final overthrow at Leipzig. Since
   that time the King of Saxony had been held a prisoner, and his
   dominions had been occupied by the Allies. The Saxon question
   had thus already gained the attention of all the European
   Governments. … Talleyrand alone made the defence of the King
   of Saxony the very centre of his policy, and subordinated all
   other aims to this. His instructions, like those of
   Castlereagh, gave priority to the Polish question; but
   Talleyrand saw that Saxony, not Poland, was the lever by which
   he could throw half of Europe on to the side of France; and
   before the four Allied Courts had come to any single
   conclusion, the French statesman had succeeded, on what at
   first passed for a subordinate point, in breaking up their
   concert. For a while the Ministers of Austria, Prussia, and
   England appeared to be acting in harmony; and throughout the
   month of October all three endeavoured to shake the purpose of
   Alexander regarding Warsaw. Talleyrand, however, foresaw that
   the efforts of Prussia in this direction would not last very
   long, and he wrote to Louis XVIII. asking for his permission
   to make a definite offer of armed assistance to Austria in
   case of need. Events took the turn which Talleyrand expected.
   … He had isolated Russia and Prussia, and had drawn to his own
   side not only England and Austria but the whole body of the
   minor German States. … On the 3rd of January, 1815, after a
   rash threat of war uttered by Hardenberg, a secret treaty was
   signed by the representatives of France, England, and Austria,
   pledging these Powers to take the field, if necessary, against
   Russia and Prussia in defence of the principles of the Peace
   of Paris. The plan of the campaign was drawn up, the number of
   the forces fixed. Bavaria had already armed; Piedmont,
   Hanover, and even the Ottoman Porte, were named as future
   members of the alliance. It would perhaps be unfair to the
   French Minister to believe that he actually desired to kindle
   a war on this gigantic scale. Talleyrand had not, like
   Napoleon, a love for war for its own sake. His object was
   rather to raise France from its position as a conquered and
   isolated Power; to surround it with allies. … The conclusion
   of the secret treaty of January 3rd marked the definite
   success of his plans. France was forthwith admitted into the
   council hitherto known as that of the Four Courts, and from
   this time its influence visibly affected the action of Russia
   and Prussia, reports of the secret treaty having reached the
   Czar immediately after its signature. The spirit of compromise
   now began to animate the Congress. Alexander had already won a
   virtual decision in his favour on the Polish question, but he
   abated something of his claims, and while gaining the lion's
   share of the Duchy of Warsaw, he ultimately consented that
   Cracow, which threatened the Austrian frontier, should be
   formed into an independent Republic, and that Prussia should
   receive the fortresses of Dantzic and Thorn on the Vistula,
   with the district lying between Thorn and the border of
   Silesia. This was little for Alexander to abandon; on the
   Saxon question the allies of Talleyrand gained most that they
   demanded. The King of Saxony was restored to his throne, and
   permitted to retain Dresden and about half of his dominions.
   Prussia received the remainder. In lieu of a further expansion
   in Saxony, Prussia was awarded territory on the left bank of
   the Rhine, which, with its recovered Westphalian provinces,
   restored the monarchy to an area and population equal to that
   which it had possessed in 1805. But the dominion given to
   Prussia beyond the Rhine, though considered at the time to be
   a poor equivalent for the second half of Saxony, was in
   reality a gift of far greater value.
{3626}
   It made Prussia, in defence of its own soil, the guardian and
   bulwark of Germany against France. … It gave to Prussia
   something more in common with Bavaria and the South, and
   qualified it, as it had not been qualified before, for its
   future task of uniting Germany under its own leadership. The
   Polish and Saxon difficulties, which had threatened the peace
   of Europe, were virtually settled before the end of the month
   of January."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

   "Prussia obtained Posen with the town of Thorn in the east,
   and in the west all that had been lost by the treaty of
   Tilsit, the duchies of Jülich and Berg, the old electoral
   territories of Cologne and Trier with the city of Aachen, and
   parts of Luxemburg and Limburg. Russia received the whole of
   the grand-duchy of Warsaw except Posen and Thorn, and
   Alexander fulfilled his promises to the Poles by granting them
   a liberal constitution. … Swedish Pomerania had been ceded by
   the treaty of Kiel to Denmark, but had long been coveted by
   Prussia. The Danish claims were bought off with two million
   thalers and the duchy of Lauenburg, but Hanover had to be
   compensated for the latter by the cession of the devotedly
   loyal province of East Friesland, one of the acquisitions of
   Frederick the Great. Hanover, which now assumed the rank of a
   kingdom without opposition, was also aggrandised by the
   acquisition of Hildesheim, Goslar, and other small districts.
   Austria was naturally one of the great gainers by the
   Congress. Eastern Galicia was restored by Russia, and the
   Tyrol, Salzburg, and the Inn district by Bavaria. As
   compensation for the Netherlands, Venetia and Lombardy became
   Austrian provinces. Bavaria, in return for its losses in the
   east, received Würzburg, Aschaffenburg, and its former
   possessions in the Palatinate. Long discussions took place
   about the constitution to be given to Germany, and here the
   hopes of the national party were doomed to bitter
   disappointment. … Finally a Confederation was formed which
   secured the semblance of unity, but gave almost complete
   independence to the separate states.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

   The members numbered thirty-eight, and included the four
   remaining free cities, Frankfort, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen,
   and the kings of Denmark and the Netherlands. … In Italy the
   same process of restoration and subdivision was carried out.
   Victor Emmanuel I. recovered his kingdom of Sardinia, with the
   addition of Genoa as compensation for the portion of Savoy
   which France retained. Modena was given to a Hapsburg prince,
   Francis IV., son of the archduke Ferdinand, and Beatrice the
   heiress of the house of Este. Tuscany was restored to
   Ferdinand III., a brother of the Austrian Emperor. Charles
   Louis, son of the Bourbon king of Etruria, was compensated
   with Lucca and a promise of the succession in the duchy of
   Parma, which was for the time given to Napoleon's wife, Maria
   Louisa. Pius VII. had already returned to Rome, and the Papal
   states now recovered their old extent. But Pius refused at
   first to accept these terms because he was deprived of Avignon
   and the Venaissin, and because Austrian garrisons were in
   occupation of Ferrara and Comacchio. Naples was left for a
   time in the hands of Joachim Murat, as a reward for his
   desertion of Napoleon after the battle of Leipzig. Switzerland
   was declared independent and neutral, but its feudal unity was
   loosened by a new constitution (August, 1815). The number of
   cantons were raised to twenty-two by the addition of Geneva,
   Wallis (Vallais), and Neufchâtel the last under Prussian
   suzerainty. The position of capital was to be enjoyed in
   rotation by Berne, Zurich, and Lucerne. The kingdom of the
   Netherlands was formed for the house of Orange by the union of
   Holland and Belgium and the addition of Luxemburg, which made
   the king a member of the German Confederation. The professed
   object of this artificial union of Catholics and Protestants
   was the erection of a strong bulwark against French
   aggressions."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 24, section 52._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 1, number 27._

      _Prince Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 8 (volume 2)._

      _Prince Talleyrand,
      Correspondence with Louis XVIII.
      during the Congress of Vienna._

      _Prince Metternich,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, pages 553-599._

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 8 (volume 3)._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 92 (volume 19)._

VIENNA, Imperial Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: EUROPE.

VIENNA,
   Treaty of (1725).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

   Treaty of (1735).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   Treaty of (1864).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

VIENNE, OR VIENNA, on the Rhone.

   Vienne, on the Rhone, was the chief town of the Allobroges in
   ancient times,—subsequently made a Roman colony. It was from
   Vienne that Lugdunum (Lyons) was originally colonized.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 500.
   Under the Burgundians.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

VIENNE on the Rhone: 11th Century.
   Founding of the Dauphiny.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 1349.
   The appanage of the Dauphins of France.

      See DAUPHINS;
      also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

VIGILANCE COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO, The.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

VIGO BAY, The Destruction of Spanish treasure ships in.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

VIKINGS.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

VILAGOS, Hungarian surrender at (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VILLA VICIOSA,
VILLA VIÇOSA, Battle of (1665).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

VILLA VICIOSA: Battle of (1710).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

VILLAFRANCA. Peace of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VILLALAR, Battle of (1521).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

VILLEIN TAX, OR TAILLE.

      See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

VILLEINAGE. Tenure in.

      See FEUDAL TENURES; and MANORS.

VILLEINS.
VILLANI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN (ESPECIALLY UNDER ENGLAND);
      also, DEDITITIUS.

VILLERSEXEL, Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

VILLMERGEN, Battles of(1656, 1712, and 1841).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789: and 1803-1848.

{3627}

VIMIERO, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D.: 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

VIMINAL, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

VIMORY, Battle of (1587).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1735.
   Founded by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Taken and retaken from the British by
   the Virginian General Clark.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
      CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VINCENTIAN CONGREGATION, The.

      See LAZARISTS.

VINCI, Battle of (A. D. 717).

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

VINDALIUM, Battle at (B. C. 121).

      See ALLOBROGES, CONQUEST OF THE.

VINDELICIANS, The.

      See RHÆTIA.

VINDOBONA.

   Vindobona, modern Vienna, on the Danube, originally a town of
   the Celts, in Pannonia, became a Roman military and naval
   station and a frontier city of importance. Marcus Aurelius
   died at Vindobona, A. D. 180.

VINEÆ.

   The vineæ of Roman siege operations were "covered galleries,
   constructed of wicker work (vimina) generally, and sometimes
   of wood, for the purpose of covering the approach of the
   besiegers."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 3, foot-note._

VINLAND.

      See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

VIONVILLE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

VIRCHOW, and Cellular Pathology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

VIRGATE.

      See HIDE OF LAND;
      also, MANORS.

   ----------VIRGINIA: Start--------

VIRGINIA.
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
      and CHEROKEES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1584.

   The name given first to Raleigh's Roanoke settlement,
   on the Carolina coast.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
   The Virginia Company of London and its charter.
   The colony planted at Jamestown.

   "The colonization of the North American coast had now become
   part of the avowed policy of the British government. In 1606 a
   great joint-stock company was formed for the establishment of
   two colonies in America. The branch which was to take charge
   of the proposed southern colony had its headquarters in
   London; the management of the northern branch was at Plymouth
   in Devonshire. Hence the two branches are commonly spoken of
   as the London and Plymouth Companies. The former was also
   called the Virginia Company, and the latter the North Virginia
   Company, as the name of Virginia was then loosely applied to
   the entire Atlantic coast north of Florida. The London Company
   had jurisdiction from 34° to 38° north latitude; the Plymouth
   Company had jurisdiction from 45° down to 41°; the intervening
   territory, between 38° and 41° was to go to whichever company
   should first plant a self-supporting colony."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 2._

   "The charter for colonizing the great central territory of the
   North American continent, which was to be the chosen abode of
   liberty, gave to the mercantile corporation nothing but a
   wilderness, with the right of peopling and defending it. By an
   extension of the prerogative, which was in itself illegal, the
   monarch assumed absolute legislative as well as executive
   powers. … The general superintendence was confided to a
   council in England; the local administration of each colony to
   a resident council. The members of the superior council in
   England were appointed exclusively by the king, and were to
   hold office at his good pleasure. Their authority extended to
   both colonies, which jointly took the name of Virginia. Each
   of the two was to have its own resident council, of which the
   members were from time to time to be ordained and removed
   according to the instructions of the king. To the king,
   moreover, was reserved supreme legislative authority over the
   several colonies, extending to their general condition and the
   most minute regulation of their affairs. … The summer was
   spent in preparations for planting the first colony, for which
   the king found a grateful occupation in framing a code of
   laws. The superior council in England was permitted to name
   the colonial council, which was independent of the emigrants,
   and had power to elect or remove its president, to remove any
   of its members, and to supply its own vacancies. Not an
   element of popular liberty or control was introduced. Religion
   was established according to the doctrine and rites of the
   church within the realm. … Then, on the 19th day of December,
   in the year of our Lord 1606, one hundred and nine years after
   the discovery of the American continent by Cabot, forty-one
   years from the settlement of Florida, the squadron of three
   vessels, the largest not exceeding 100 tons' burden, with the
   favor of all England, stretched their sails for 'the dear
   strand of Virginia, earth's only paradise.' … The enterprise
   was ill concerted. Of the 105 on the list of emigrants, there
   were but 12 laborers and few mechanics. They were going to a
   wilderness, in which, as yet, not a house was standing; and
   there were 48 gentlemen to 4 carpenters. Neither were there
   any men with families. Newport, who commanded the ships, was
   acquainted with the old passage, and sailed by way of the
   Canaries and the West India Islands. As he turned to the
   north, a severe storm, in April, 1607, carried his fleet
   beyond the settlement of Raleigh, into the magnificent bay of
   the Chesapeake. The headlands received and retain the names of
   Cape Henry and Cape Charles, from the sons of King James; the
   deep water for anchorage, 'putting the emigrants in good
   Comfort,' gave a name to the northern point; and within the
   capes a country opened which appeared to 'claim the
   prerogative over the most pleasant places in the world.' … A
   noble river was soon entered, which was named from the
   monarch; and, after a search of seventeen days, … on the 13th
   of May they reached a peninsula about 50 miles above the mouth
   of the stream, where the water near the shore was so very deep
   that the ships were moored to trees.
{3628}
   Here the council, except Smith, who for no reason unless it
   were jealousy of his superior energy was for nearly a month
   kept out of his seat, took the oath of office, and the
   majority elected Edward Maria Wingfield president for the
   coming year. Contrary to the earnest and persistent advice of
   Bartholomew Gosnold, the peninsula was selected for the site
   of the colony, and took the name of Jamestown."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. D. Neill,
      History of the Virginia Company of London,
      chapter 1,
      and Virginia Vetusta,
      chapters 1-2._

      _J. Burk,
      History of Virginia,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      _E. M. Wingfield,
      Discourse of Virginia,
      edited by C. Deane (Archœologia Americana, volume 4)._

      _H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 1._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610.
   The settlement at Jamestown and the services
   of Captain John Smith.

   "Among the leaders of the expedition were Gosnold, the voyager
   and discoverer, and a prime mover in the affair; Wingfield,
   one of the first-named patentees, John Smith, Ratcliffe,
   Martin, Kendall, and Percy. Of these men John Smith has become
   famous. He has taken place among the founders of states, and a
   romantic interest has attached itself to his name. For
   centuries his character and deeds have been applauded, while
   in late years they have become a theme for censure and
   detraction. Modern investigation has relentlessly swept a way
   the romance, and torn in pieces many of the long accepted
   narratives in which Smith recorded his own achievements. Yet
   it was not wholly by a false and fluent pen that Smith
   obtained and held his reputation. He was something more than a
   plausible writer of fiction. He was the strongest and most
   representative man among the Virginian colonists. … With this
   hopeful company Newport left the Downs on the 1st of January,
   1607. The worthy Richard Hakluyt sent them a paper containing
   much good advice and some ingenious geographical speculations,
   and Drayton celebrated their departure in clumsy verses filled
   with high-flown compliments. The advice of the priest and the
   praise of the poet were alike wasted. By an arrangement
   ingeniously contrived to promote discord, devised probably by
   royal sagacity, the box containing the names of the council
   was not to be opened until the voyagers reached their
   destination. Dissension broke out almost immediately. Whatever
   the merits of the differences, this much is certain, that
   Smith was the object of the concentrated jealousy and hatred
   of his companions. … On the 13th of May, 1607, the settlers
   landed at Jamestown, sent out exploring parties, and began
   fortifications. A fortnight later, under the command of
   Wingfield, they repulsed an attack by the Indians; and on the
   22d of June Newport sailed for England, and left them to their
   own resources. The prospect must have been a dreary one:
   nothing answered to their expectations. Instead of valuable
   mines, the adventurers found only a most fertile soil; instead
   of timid, trusting South American Indians, they encountered
   wild tribes of hardy, crafty, and hostile savages; instead of
   rich, defenceless, and barbarian cities, an easy and splendid
   spoil, they found a wilderness, and the necessity of hard
   work. From the miserable character of the settlers, dangerous
   factions prevailed from the first, until Smith obtained
   control, and maintained some sort of order—despotically,
   perhaps, but still effectually. No one would work, and famine
   and the Indians preyed upon them mercilessly. A small fort and
   a few wretched huts, built after much quarrelling, represented
   for many months all that was accomplished. The only relief
   from this dark picture of incompetent men perishing, without
   achievement, and by their own folly, on the threshold of a
   great undertaking, is to be found in the conduct of Smith.
   Despite almost insurmountable obstacles, Smith kept the colony
   together for two years. He drilled the soldiers, compelled
   labor, repaired the fort, traded with the Indians, outwitted
   them and kept their friendship, and made long and daring
   voyages of discovery. He failed to send home a lump of gold,
   but he did send an excellent map of the Company's territory.
   He did not discover the passage to the South Sea, but he
   explored the great bays and rivers of Virginia. He did not
   find Raleigh's lost colonists, but he managed to keep his own
   from total destruction. The great result of all Smith's
   efforts was the character of permanency he gave to the
   settlement. Because he succeeded in maintaining an English
   colony for two consecutive years in America, the London
   Company had courage to proceed; and this is what constitutes
   Smith's strongest claim to the admiration and gratitude of
   posterity. To suppose that he had the qualities of a founder
   of a state is a mistake, although in some measure he did the
   work of one. … His veracity as a historian in the later years
   of his life has been well-nigh destroyed. But little faith can
   be placed in the 'Generall Historie,' and modern investigation
   has conclusively relegated to the region of legend and of
   fiction the dramatic story of Smith's rescue by Pocahontas.
   The shadow of doubt rests upon all his unsupported statements;
   but nothing can obscure his great services, to which the world
   owes the foundation of the first English colony in America.
   Yet, after all his struggles, Smith was severely blamed by the
   Company, apparently because Virginia was not Peru. In a manly
   letter he sets forth the defects of the colony, the need of
   good men with families, industrious tradesmen and farmers, not
   'poor gentlemen and libertines.' Before, however, the actual
   orders came to supersede him, Smith resigned, or was forced
   out of the government, and returned to England. The feeble
   life of the colony wasted fast after his departure and during
   the sickness of Percy, who succeeded to the command."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Captain John Smith,
      General Historie of Virginia,
      books 2-3._

      _J. Ashton,
      Adventures and Discoveries of Captain John Smith,
      newly ordered,
      chapters 6-21._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

      _E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Pocahontas._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
   The new Charter.
   The colony taking root.
   Introduction of Tobacco culture.

   "The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at the
   beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving
   them, the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged
   privileges. This was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under
   the corporate name of 'The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers
   and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in
   Virginia.'
{3629}
   The new Association, which embraced representatives of every
   rank, trade, and profession, included twenty-one peers, and
   its list of names presents an imposing array of wealth and
   influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged, and
   made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within 100
   miles of it,—200 miles north and 200 south of Point
   Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus
   distant and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was
   empowered to choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under
   the instructions and regulations of the last, the Governor was
   invested with absolute civil and military authority. … Thomas
   West (Lord Delaware), the descendant of a long line of noble
   ancestry, received the appointment of Governor and
   Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the
   second charter, which was on a grander scale than any
   preceding it, and which consisted of nine vessels, sailed from
   Plymouth on the 1st of June, 1609. Newport, the commander of
   the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates, Lieutenant-General, and Sir
   George Somers, Admiral of Virginia, were severally authorized,
   whichever of them might first arrive at Jamestown, to
   supersede the existing administration there until the arrival
   of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but not
   being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves,
   they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also
   the wife and daughters of Gates. … On the 23d of July the
   fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was lost,
   others damaged, and the 'Sea Venture,' which carried Gates,
   Somers, and Newport, with about 150 settlers, was cast ashore
   on the Bermudas. … Early in August the 'Blessing,' Captain
   Archer, and three other vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up
   James River, and soon after the 'Diamond,' Captain Ratcliffe,
   appeared, without her mainmast, and she was followed in a few
   days by the 'Swallow,' in like condition. The Council being
   all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of the
   sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony;
   and the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the
   brother of Lord Delaware, as temporary president. The term of
   Smith expiring soon after, George Percy—one of the original
   settlers, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and a brave
   and honorable man—was elected president. … Smith, about
   Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England, or, as all
   contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent
   thither 'to answer some misdemeanors.' These were doubtless of
   a venial character; but the important services of Smith in the
   sustenance of the colony appear not to have been as highly
   esteemed by the Company as by Smith himself. He complains that
   his several petitions for reward were disregarded, and he
   never returned to Virginia. … At the time of his departure for
   England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven boats, a good
   stock of provisions, nearly 500 settlers, 20 pieces of cannon,
   300 guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools, horses, cattle,
   swine, etc. Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades,
   and contained between fifty and sixty houses. … No effort by
   tillage being made to replenish their provisions, the stock
   was soon consumed, and the horrors of famine were added to
   other calamities. The intense sufferings of the colonists were
   long remembered, and this period is referred to as 'the
   starving time.' In six months their number was reduced to 60,
   and such was the extremity of these that they must soon have
   perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked
   'Sea Venture,' though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe
   landing at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical
   productions of the islands, they, under the direction of Gates
   and Somers, constructed for their deliverance two vessels from
   the materials of the wreck and cedar-wood, the largest of the
   vessels being of 80 tons burden. … Six of the company,
   including the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island.
   The company of 140 men and women embarked on the completed
   vessels—which were appropriately named the 'Patience' and the
   'Deliverance'—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they
   landed at Jamestown. … So forlorn was the condition of the
   settlement that Gates reluctantly resolved to abandon it." The
   whole colony was accordingly embarked and was under sail down
   the river, when it met a fleet of three vessels, bringing
   supplies and new settlers from England, with Lord Delaware,
   who had resolved to come out in person, as Governor and
   Captain-General of Virginia. Gates and his disheartened
   companions turned back with these new comers, and all were set
   vigorously at work to restore the settlement. "The
   administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious
   for so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and
   under his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to
   order and contentment." His health failing, Lord Delaware
   returned to England the following spring, whither Sir Thomas
   Gates had gone. Sir Thomas Dale had already been sent out with
   the appointment of high marshal, bearing a code of
   extraordinary laws which practically placed the colony under
   martial rule. Gates returned in June, 1611, with 300
   additional settlers and a considerable stock of cows and other
   cattle. During that year and the next several new settlements
   were founded, at Dutch Gap, Henrico, and Bermuda Hundred,
   individual grants of property began to be made, and many signs
   of prosperity appeared. The year 1612 "was a marked one, in
   the inauguration by John Rolfe [who married Pocahontas two
   years later, having lost his first wife] of the systematic
   culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert a controlling
   influence in the future welfare and progress of the colony,
   and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to
   subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as
   manufacturing." In the spring of 1613, Sir Thomas Gates left
   the colony, finally, returning to England, and the government
   fell to the hands of Dale, who remained at the head until
   1616.

      _R. A. Brock,
      Virginia, 1606-1689
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stith,
      History of Virginia,
      book. 3._

      _J. H. Lefroy,
      Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement
      of the Bermudas,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      chapters 13-16._

      _H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 14._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1613.
   The French settlements in Acadia destroyed by Argall
   and the Dutch at New York forced to promise tribute.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

{3630}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1617-1619.
   The evil days of Argall, and the better
   administration that followed.
   Meeting of the first provincial Assembly.

   "A party of greedy and unprincipled adventurers headed by Lord
   Rich, soon after the Earl of Warwick, acquired sufficient
   influence in the Company to nominate a creature of their own
   as Deputy-Governor. Their choice of Argall [Samuel Argall]
   would in itself have tainted their policy with suspicion.
   Whether dealing with the Indians, the French, or the Dutch, he
   had shown himself able, resolute, and unscrupulous.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

   To do him justice, he seems at least to have understood the
   principle of Tiberius, that a shepherd should shear his sheep,
   not flay them. His first measure was to provide a sufficient
   supply of corn for the maintenance of the colony. With that he
   appeared to think that his duty to the settlers was at end. …
   An event soon occurred which released Argall from the fear of
   a superior, and probably emboldened him in his evil courses.
   Lord Delaware, who had sailed in a large vessel with 200
   emigrants," died on the voyage. "Argall now began to show that
   his care for the well-being of the colony was no better than
   the charity of the cannibal who feeds up his prisoner before
   making a meal on him. Trade with the Indians was withheld from
   individuals, but, instead of being turned to the benefit of
   the Company, it was appropriated by Argall. The planters were
   treated as a slave-gang working for the Deputy's own private
   profit. The Company's cattle were sold, and the proceeds never
   accounted for. During this time a great change had come over
   the Company at home. An energetic and public-spirited party
   had been formed, opposed alike to Sir Thomas Smith and to Lord
   Rich. Their leader was Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of that
   country party which was just beginning to take its stand
   against the corruptions of the court policy. Side by side with
   him stood one whose name has gained a wider though not a more
   honourable repute, the follower of Essex, the idol of
   Shakespeare, the brilliant, versatile Southampton. … The …
   year 1619 was remarkable in the annals of the colony. It is
   hardly an exaggeration to say that it witnessed the creation
   of Virginia as an independent community. From the beginning of
   that year we may date the definite ascendancy of Sandys and
   his party, an ascendancy which was maintained till the
   dissolution of the Company, and during which the affairs of
   Virginia were administered with a degree of energy,
   unselfishness, and statesmanlike wisdom, perhaps unparalleled
   in the history of corporations. One of the first measures was
   to send out Yeardley to supersede Argall. … When Yeardley
   arrived he found that Argall had escaped. No further attempt
   seems to have been made to bring him to justice. In the next
   year he was commanding a ship against the Algerines." Soon
   afterwards, Sir Edwin Sandys was placed officially at the head
   of the Company, by his election to be Treasurer, in the place
   of Sir Thomas Smith. "About the same time that these things
   were doing in England, a step of the greatest importance was
   being taken in Virginia. Yeardley, in obedience to
   instructions from the Company, summoned an Assembly of
   Burgesses from the various hundreds and plantations. At one
   step Virginia, from being little better than a penal
   settlement, ruled by martial law, became invested with
   important, though not full, rights of self-government. Though
   we have no direct evidence of the fact, there is every
   probability that during the administrations of Yeardley and
   Argall the number of independent planters possessing estates
   of their own, with labourers employed in the service of their
   masters, not of the Company, had increased. Unless such an
   influence had been at work, it is scarcely possible that the
   experiment of constitutional government should have succeeded,
   or even have been tried. On the 30th of July, 1619, the first
   Assembly met in the little church at Jamestown. … In England
   the Company under its new government set to work with an
   energy before unknown to it, to improve the condition of the
   colony. … To check the over-production of tobacco a clause was
   inserted in all fresh patents of land binding the holder to
   cultivate a certain quantity of other commodities. Everything
   was done to encourage permanent settlers rather than mere
   traders. Apprentices, unmarried women, and neat cattle were
   sent out. New forms of industry, too, were set on foot, such
   as timber yards, silk manufactures, iron foundries, and
   vineyards. … In the year 1619 alone over 1,200 persons were
   sent out, half as private settlers or servants, half at the
   expense of the Company."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 6._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction of Negro Slavery.

   "In the month of August, 1619, five years after the commons of
   France had petitioned for the emancipation of every serf in
   every fief, a Dutch man-of-war entered James River and landed
   20 negroes for sale. This is the sad epoch of the introduction
   of negro slavery; but the traffic would have been checked in
   its infancy had it remained with the Dutch. Thirty years after
   this first importation of Africans, Virginia to one black
   contained fifty whites; and, after seventy years of its
   colonial existence, the number of its negro slaves was
   proportionably much less than in several of the northern
   states at the time of the war of independence."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      part 2, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 4._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624.
   Plot and Massacre by the Indians.
   Arbitrary dissolution of the Virginia Company by King James.

   "On the 22nd of March, 1622, a memorable massacre occurred in
   the Colony. … On the evening before, and on that morning, the
   savages as usual came unarmed into the houses of the planters,
   with fruits, fish, turkies and venison to sell. In some places
   they actually sate down to breakfast with the English. At
   about the hour of noon, the savages rising suddenly and
   everywhere at the same time, butchered the colonists with
   their own implements, sparing neither age, sex, nor condition.
   Three hundred and forty-seven men, women and children fell in
   a few hours. … The destruction might have been universal but
   for the disclosure of a converted Indian, named Chanco, who,
   during the night before the massacre, revealed the plot to one
   Richard Pace, with whom he lived.
{3631}
   Pace … repaired before day to Jamestown and gave the alarm to
   Sir Francis Wyatt, the Governor. His vigilance saved a large
   part of the Colony. … The court of James I., jealous of the
   growing power of the Virginia Company and of its too
   republican spirit, seized upon the occasion of the massacre to
   attribute all the calamities of the Colony to its
   mismanagement and neglect, and thus to frame a pretext for
   dissolving the charter." The Company, supported by the
   colonists, resisted the high-handed proceedings of the King
   and his officers, but vainly. In November, 1624, "James I.
   dissolved the Virginia Company by a writ of Quo Warranto,
   which was determined only upon a technicality in the
   pleadings. The company had been obnoxious to the ill will of
   the King on several grounds. The corporation had become a
   theatre for rearing leaders of the opposition, many of its
   members being also members of parliament. … Charles I.
   succeeding [1625] to the crown and principles of his father,
   took the government of Virginia into his own hands. The
   company thus extinguished had expended £150,000 in
   establishing the Colony, and transported 9,000 settlers
   without the aid of government. The number of stockholders, or
   adventurers, as they were styled, was about 1,000, and the
   annual value of exports from Virginia was, at the period of
   the dissolution of the charter, only £20,000. The company
   embraced much of the rank, wealth, and talent of the kingdom.
   … As the act provided no compensation for the enormous
   expenditure incurred, it can be looked upon as little better
   than confiscation effected by chicane and tyranny.
   Nevertheless the result was undoubtedly favorable to the
   Colony."

      _C. Campbell,
      Introduction to the History of the Colony
      and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stith,
      History of Virginia,
      books 4-5._

      _E. D. Neill,
      History of the Virginia Company of London,
      chapters 14-17._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1628.
   Attempted settlement by Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Clayborne quarrel with Lord Baltimore
   and the Maryland colony.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1639-1652.
   Loyalty to King Charles.
   The Refuge of the Cavaliers.

   "Under Charles I. little worthy of notice occurred in the
   political history of Virginia. … Attempts were made to raise a
   revenue on tobacco, and subsequently to establish a royal
   monopoly of the tobacco trade. The attempts were averted, and
   the king contented himself with the preemption of the
   Virginian tobacco, and with enacting that no foreign vessel
   should be allowed to trade with Virginia, or to carry
   Virginian goods. In 1639 an attempt was made to re-establish
   the authority of the company, but was strenuously and
   successfully opposed by the assembly. That the royal
   government sat lightly on Virginia may be inferred from the
   loyal tone which had thus early become a characteristic of the
   colony. After the establishment of the commonwealth, 'Virginia
   was whole for monarchy and the last country belonging to
   England that submitted to obedience to the commonwealth of
   England,' and under Berkeley's government the plantation was a
   safe refuge for the defeated cavaliers. … But as soon as two
   or three parliamentary ships appeared [1652] all thoughts of
   resistance were laid aside. Yet, whether from lenity or
   caution, the parliament was satisfied with moderate terms. The
   submission of the colonists was accepted as free and
   voluntary."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The American Colonies,
      chapter 2._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1644.
   Fresh Indian outbreak and massacre of whites.

   "After a peace of five or six years, the Indians, provoked by
   continued encroachments on their lands, and instigated, it is
   said, by the aged chief Opechancanough, formed a new scheme
   for the extermination of the colonists. They were encouraged
   by signs of discord among the English, having seen a fight in
   James River between a London ship for the Parliament and a
   Bristol ship for the king. Five hundred persons perished in
   the first surprise, which took place, according to Winthrop,
   the day before Good Friday, appointed by the governor, 'a
   courtier, and very malignant toward the way of our churches,'
   to be observed as a fast for the good success of the king. For
   defense, the planters were concentrated in a few settlements;
   … forts were built at the points most exposed; and a ship was
   sent to Boston for powder, which, however, the General Court
   declined to furnish. This occasion was taken by 'divers
   godly-disposed persons' of Virginia to remove to New England.
   … The Indians were presently driven from their fastnesses.
   Opechancanough, decrepit and incapable of moving without
   assistance, … was taken prisoner and carried to Jamestown,
   where he was shot in the back by a vindictive soldier
   appointed to guard him. The Indian towns were broken up, and
   their 'clear lands possessed by the English to sow wheat in.'
   Opechancanough's successor submitted; and a peace was made by
   act of Assembly, the Indians ceding all the lands between
   James and York Rivers. No Indian was to come south of York
   River under pain of death. The Powhatan confederacy was
   dissolved. The Indians of lower Virginia sunk into servile
   dependence, and dwindled away, or, migrating to the south and
   west, were mingled and confounded with other tribes."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 2, chapter 5._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.
   Under the Commonwealth and Cromwell, and the Stuart Restoration.
   Two sides of the story.
   Origin of the name of "The Old Dominion."

   "After this, Sir William Berkeley [governor] made a new peace
   with the Indians, which continued for a long time unviolated.
   … But he himself did not long enjoy the benefit of this
   profound peace; for the unhappy troubles of king Charles the
   first increasing in England, proved a great disturbance to him
   and to all the people. They, to prevent the infection from
   reaching that country, made severe laws against the Puritans,
   though there were as yet none among them. But all
   correspondence with England was interrupted, supplies
   lessened, and trade obstructed. … At last the king was
   traitorously beheaded in England, and Oliver installed
   Protector. However, his authority was not acknowledged in
   Virginia for several years after, till they were forced to it
   by the last necessity. For in the year 1651, by Cromwell's
   command, Captain Dennis, with a squadron of men of war,
   arrived there from the Carribbee islands, where they had been
   subduing Bardoes. The country at first held out vigorously
   against him, and Sir William Berkeley, by the assistance of
   such Dutch vessels as were then there, made a brave
   resistance.
{3632}
   But at last Dennis contrived a stratagem which betrayed the
   country. He had got a considerable parcel of goods aboard,
   which belonged to two of the Council, and found a method of
   informing them of it. By this means they were reduced to the
   dilemma, either of submitting or losing their goods. This
   occasioned factions among them; so that at last, after the
   surrender of all the other English plantations, Sir William
   was forced to submit to the usurper on the terms of a general
   pardon. However, it ought to be remembered, to his praise, and
   to the immortal honor of that colony, that it was the last of
   all the king's dominions that submitted to the usurpation; and
   afterwards the first that cast it off, and he never took any
   post or office under the usurper. Oliver had no sooner subdued
   the plantations, but he began to contrive how to keep them
   under, that so they might never be able for the time to come
   to give him farther trouble. To this end, he thought it
   necessary to break off their correspondence with all other
   nations, thereby to prevent their being furnished with arms,
   ammunition, and other warlike provisions. According to this
   design, he contrived a severe act of Parliament [1651],
   whereby he prohibited the plantations from receiving or
   exporting any European commodities but what should be carried
   to them by Englishmen, and in English built ships. …

      See NAVIGATION ACT, ENGLISH.

   Notwithstanding this act of navigation, the Protector never
   thought the plantations enough secured, but frequently changed
   their governors, to prevent their intriguing with the people.
   So that, during the time of the usurpation, they had no less
   than three governors there, namely, Diggs, Bennet and Mathews.
   The strange arbitrary curbs he put upon the plantations
   exceedingly afflicted the people … and inspired them with a
   desire to use the last remedy, to relieve themselves from this
   lawless usurpation. In a short time afterwards a fair
   opportunity happened; for Governor Mathews died, and no person
   was substituted to succeed him in the government. Whereupon
   the people applied themselves to Sir William Berkeley (who had
   continued all this time upon his own plantation in a private
   capacity) and unanimously chose him their governor again
   [March, 1660]. Sir William … told the people … that if he
   accepted the government it should be upon their solemn
   promise, after his example, to venture their lives and
   fortunes for the king, who was then in France. This was no
   great obstacle to them, and therefore with an unanimous voice
   they told him they were ready to hazard all for the king. …
   Sir William Berkeley embraced their choice, and forthwith
   proclaimed Charles II. king of England, Scotland, France,
   Ireland and Virginia, and caused all process to be issued in
   his name. Thus his majesty was actually king in Virginia
   before he was so in England. But it pleased God to restore him
   soon after to the throne of his ancestors."

      _R. Beverley,
      History of Virginia,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "The government of Virginia, under the Commonwealth of
   England, was mild and just. While Cromwell's sceptre commanded
   the respect of the world, he exhibited generous and politic
   leniency towards the infant and loyal colony. She enjoyed
   during this interval free trade, legislative independence and
   internal peace. The governors were men who by their virtues
   and moderation won the confidence and affections of the
   people. No extravagance, rapacity, or extortion, could be
   alleged against the administration. Intolerance and
   persecution were unknown, with the single exception of a
   rigorous act banishing the Quakers. But rapine, extravagance,
   extortion, intolerance and persecution were all soon to be
   revived under the auspices of the Stuarts. … Richard Cromwell
   resigned the protectorate in March, 1660. Matthews,
   governor-elect, had died in the January previous. England was
   without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. Here was a two
   fold interregnum. The assembly, convening on the 13th of
   March, 1660, declared by their first act that, as there was
   then in England 'noe resident absolute and generall confessed
   power,' therefore the supreme government of the colony should
   rest in the assembly. By the second act, Sir William Berkeley
   was appointed governor, and it was ordered that all writs
   should issue in the name of the assembly. … No fact in our
   history has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than
   this reappointment of Sir William Berkeley, before the
   restoration of Charles II. … Sir William was elected, not by a
   tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the
   royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the
   king proclaimed. Sir William, however, made no secret of his
   loyalty. … Sir William was elected on the 21st of the same
   month, about two months before the restoration of Charles II.
   Yet the word king, or majesty, occurs no where in the
   legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth
   in England until the 11th of October, 1660—more than four
   months after the restoration. Virginia was indeed loyal, but
   she was too feeble to express her loyalty."

      _C. Campbell,
      Introduction to the History of the Colony
      and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
      chapters 21-22._

   "There is no doubt whatever that if the Virginians could have
   restored the King earlier they would have done so; and
   Berkeley, who is known to have been in close communication and
   consultation with the leading Cavaliers, had sent word to
   Charles II. in Holland, toward the end of the Commonwealth,
   that he would raise his flag in Virginia if there was a
   prospect of success. This incident has been called in
   question. It is testified to by William Lee, Sheriff of
   London, and a cousin of Richard Lee, Berkeley's emissary, as a
   fact within his knowledge. Charles declined the offer, but was
   always grateful to the Virginians. The country is said to have
   derived from the incident the name of the 'Old Dominion,'
   where the King was King, or might have been, before he was
   King in England."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 2, chapter 10._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1651-1672.
   The English Navigation Acts and trade restrictions.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.
   The Restoration and its rewards to Virginia loyalty.
   Oppression, discontent, and Bacon's Rebellion.

   At the time of the restoration of the English monarchy, in the
   person of Charles II., the colony of Virginia "numbered not
   far from 50,000 souls, a large proportion of whom, especially,
   we may suppose, those of middle life and most active habits,
   were natives of the soil, bound to it by the strongest ties of
   interest and affection, and by their hopes of what it was
   destined to become in the opening future.
{3633}
   Here was a state of things, comprising, in the apprehensions
   of the people, many of the elements of the highest happiness
   and prosperity. … But all this was totally and suddenly
   changed, and universal distress brought upon the land, by the
   new restrictive clauses added to the original Navigation Act,
   by the first Parliament of Charles. By the act of the Long
   Parliament it had been simply provided that foreign vessels
   should import into England no other products than such as were
   grown or manufactured in their own country; a shaft aimed
   principally at the Dutch. … By Charles's Commons this first
   hint was … expanded into a voluminous code of monopolizing
   enactments, by which the trade of the world was regulated on
   the principle of grasping for England every possible
   commercial advantage, and inflicting upon all other nations
   the greatest possible commercial injury. … Upon the colonies,
   one and all, this cruel policy bore with a weight which almost
   crushed them. … From 1660, when this monopolizing policy took
   its beginning, the discontent of the people increased day by
   day, as each new prohibition was proclaimed. Commerce lay
   dead. Tobacco would no longer pay for its cultivation, much
   less enrich the laborious planter; manufactures, as that of
   silk, after being attempted, failed to bring the hoped-for
   relief, and there seemed no prospect but starvation and ruin.
   What wonder that mischief lay brewing in the hearts of a
   people who, for their almost slavish loyalty, met only these
   thankless returns of injury and injustice; for the Virginians
   of that day were monarchists in the full meaning of the term.
   … Other causes conspired with these purely political ones to
   bring the public mind of Virginia into such a state of deep
   exasperation as to find its relief only in insurrection. Of
   these, one was particularly a source of irritation; namely,
   the grants of vast tracts of territory, made by the wasteful
   and profligate King to his needy and profligate favorites,
   made wholly irrespective of present owners and occupiers, who
   were transferred, like serfs of the soil, to any great
   patentee to whom the caprice of Charles chose to consign
   them." The discontent culminated in 1676, under the influence
   of an excitement growing out of trouble with the Indians.
   After more than thirty years of quiet, the natives became
   hostile and threatening. "Various outrages were first
   committed by the Indians, on whom the whites, as usual,
   retaliated; murder answered to murder, burning to burning,
   till, throughout the whole border country, were kindled the
   flames of an exterminating Indian war, accompanied by all its
   peculiar horrors. In the excited state of the public mind,
   these new calamities were laid at the door of the government."
   Governor Berkeley was accused of having an interest in the
   profits of trade with the Indians which restrained him from
   making war on them. Whether the charge was true or false, he
   gave color to it by his conduct. He took no steps to protect
   the colony. Nor would he authorize any self-defensive measures
   on the part of the people themselves. They "went so far as to
   engage that, if the Governor would only commission a general,
   whomsoever he would, they would 'follow him at their own
   charge.' Still they were not heard. Under such circumstances
   of neglect and excessive irritation, they took the case into
   their own hands." They chose for their leader Nathaniel Bacon,
   a young Englishman of education, energy and talent, who had
   been in the colony about three years, and who had already
   attained a seat in the Governor's Council. Bacon accepted the
   responsibility, "commission or no commission," and, in the
   spring of 1676, put himself at the head of 500 men, with whom
   he marched against the Indians. The governor, after formally
   proclaiming him a rebel, raised another army and marched, not
   against the Indians, but against Bacon. He was hardly out of
   Jamestown, however, before the people of that neighborhood
   rose and took possession of the capital. On learning of this
   fresh revolt, he turned back, and found himself helpless to do
   anything but submit. The result was the summoning of a new
   Assembly, to which Bacon was elected from his county, and the
   making of some progress, apparently, towards a curing of
   abuses and the removing of causes of discontent. But something
   occurred—exactly what has never been made clear—which led to
   a sudden flight on Bacon's part from Jamestown, and the
   gathering of his forces once more around him. Re-entering the
   capital at their head, he extorted from Governor Berkeley a
   commission which legalized his military office, and armed with
   this authority he proceeded once more against the Indians.
   "But as soon as he was sufficiently distant to relieve the
   Governor and his friends from their fears, all that had been
   granted was revoked; a proclamation was issued, again
   denouncing Bacon as a rebel, setting a price upon his head,
   and commanding his followers to disperse." Again, Bacon and
   his army retraced their steps and took possession of
   Jamestown, the governor flying to Accomac. A convention of the
   inhabitants of the colony was then called together, which
   adopted a Declaration, or Oath, in which they fully Identified
   themselves with Bacon in his course, and swore to uphold him.
   The latter then moved once more against the Indians; Berkeley
   once more got possession of the seat of government, and, once
   more, Bacon (who had fought the Indians meantime at Bloody Run
   and beaten them) came back and drove him out. "The whole
   country … was with Bacon, and merely a crowd of cowardly
   adventurers about the Governor. Nothing would seem, at this
   moment, to have stood between Bacon and the undisputed,
   absolute control of the colony, had no unforeseen event
   interposed, as it did, to change the whole aspect of affairs."
   This unforeseen event was the sudden death of Bacon, which
   occurred in January, 1677, at the house of a friend. "Some
   mystery attaches to the manner of it," and there were, of
   course, sinister whispers of foul play. "But, however and
   wherever Bacon died, it could never be discovered where he was
   buried, nor what disposition had been made of his body. … The
   death of Bacon was, in effect, the restoration of Sir William
   Berkeley to his lost authority, and the termination of the
   war; there being not an individual, among either his
   counsellors or officers, of capacity sufficient to make good
   his place. … Berkeley, gradually subduing all opposition, and
   making prisoners of many of the prime movers of the revolt, in
   a short time saw the authority of his government completely
   reestablished. … The historians of the period inform us that
   no less than 25 persons were executed during the closing
   period of the rebellion and the few next succeeding months."

      _W. Ware,
      Memoir of Nathaniel Baron
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 9._

      _J. Burk,
      History of Virginia,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapters 10-11._

      _E. Eggleston,
      Nathaniel Baron
      (Century Magazine, July, 1890)._

{3634}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1689-1690.
   King William's War.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1691.
   The founding of William and Mary College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1619-1819.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710.
   Colonization of Palatines.

      See PALATINES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.
   Crossing the Blue Ridge.
   The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.
   Possession taken of the Shenandoah Valley.

   "Lord Orkney is made Governor, but as usual sends his deputy,
   and in the year 1710 appears the stalwart soldier and ruler,
   Sir Alexander Spotswood. Alexander Spotswood, or Spottiswoode,
   as his family were called in Scotland, rises like a landmark
   above the first years of the century. When he came to Virginia
   he was only 34 and in the bloom of his manhood. But he had
   already fought hard, and his faculties as a soldier and ruler
   were fully developed. … The Virginians received Spotswood with
   open arms. He was a man after their own heart, and brought
   with him when he came (June 1710) the great writ of Habeas
   corpus. The Virginia people had long claimed that this right
   was guaranteed to them by Magna Charta, since they were
   equally free Englishmen with the people of England. Now it was
   conceded, and the great writ came,—Spotswood's letter of
   introduction. It was plain that he was not a new Berkeley
   looking to the King's good pleasure as his law, or a new
   Nicholson ready to imprison people or put halters around their
   necks; but a respecter of human freedom and defender of the
   right. … In … 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood set out on an
   expedition which much delighted the Virginians. There was a
   very great longing to visit the country beyond the Blue Ridge.
   That beautiful unknown land held out arms of welcome, and the
   Governor, who had in his character much of the spirit of the
   hunter and adventurer, resolved to go and explore it. Having
   assembled a party of good companions, he set out in the month
   of August, and the gay company began their march toward the
   Blue Ridge Mountains. The chronicler of the expedition
   describes the picturesque cavalcade followed by the
   pack-horses and servants,—'rangers, pioneers, and Indians';
   how they stopped to hunt game; bivouacked 'under the canopy';
   laughed, jested, and regaled themselves with 'Virginia wine,
   white and red, Irish usquebaugh, brandy, shrub, two kinds of
   rum, champagne, canary, cherry-punch, and cider.' In due time
   they reached the Blue Ridge, probably near the present Swift
   Run Gap, and saw, beyond, the wild valley of the Shenandoah.
   On the summit of the mountain they drank the health of the
   King, and named two neighboring peaks 'Mt. George' and 'Mt.
   Alexander,' after his Majesty and the Governor; after which
   they descended into the valley and gave the Shenandoah the
   name of the 'Euphrates.' Here a bottle was buried—there were,
   no doubt, a number of empty ones—containing a paper to testify
   that the valley of the Euphrates was taken possession of in
   the name of his Majesty, George I. Then the adventurers
   reascended the mountain, crossed to the lowland, and returned
   to Williamsburg. This picturesque incident of the time gave
   rise to the order of the 'Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.'
   The horses had been shod with iron, which was unusual, as a
   protection against the mountain roads; and Spotswood sent to
   London and had made for his companions small golden horseshoes
   set with garnets and other jewels, and inscribed 'Sic juvat
   transcendere montes.'"

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 2, chapters 21-22._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
   Treaty with the Six Nations and
   purchase of the Shenandoah Valley.

   "The Six Nations still retained the right to traverse the
   great valley west of the Blue Ridge. Just at this inopportune
   moment [1743], some of their parties came into bloody
   collision with the backwoodsmen of Virginia, who had
   penetrated into that valley. Hostilities with the Six Nations,
   now that war was threatened with France, might prove very
   dangerous, and Clinton [governor of New York] hastened to
   secure the friendship of these ancient allies by liberal
   presents; for which purpose, in conjunction with commissioners
   from New England, he held a treaty at Albany. … The
   difficulties between Virginia and the Six Nations were soon
   after [1744] settled in a treaty held at Lancaster, to which
   Pennsylvania and Maryland were also parties, and in which, in
   consideration of £400, the Six Nations relinquished all their
   title to the valley between the Blue Ridge and the central
   chain of the Allegany Mountains."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      page 59._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1748-1754.
   First movements beyond the mountains to
   dispute possession with the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1754.
   Opposing the French occupation of the Ohio Valley.
   Washington's first service.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War.
   Braddock's defeat and after.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1756.
   Number of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1756.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1759-1761.
   The Cherokee War.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.
   The Parsons' Cause and Patrick Henry.

   "In Virginia as well as in Pennsylvania, a vigorous opposition
   to vested rights foreshadowed what was to come. A short crop
   of tobacco having suddenly enhanced the price of that staple,
   or, what is quite as like]y, the issue of paper money in
   Virginia, first made that same year [1755], having depreciated
   the currency, the Assembly had passed a temporary act,
   authorizing the payment of all tobacco debts in money at
   twopence per pound—the old rate, long established by usage.
   Three years after, under pretence of an expected failure of
   the crop, this tender act was renewed.
{3635}
   Francis Fauquier, who had just succeeded Dinwiddie as
   lieutenant governor, a man of more complying temper than his
   predecessor, readily consented to it. The salaries of the
   parish ministers, some sixty-five in number, were payable in
   tobacco. They were likely to be considerable losers by this
   tender law; and, not content with attacking it in pamphlets,
   they sent an agent to England, and by the aid of Sherlock,
   bishop of London, procured an order in council pronouncing the
   law void. Suits were presently brought to recover the
   difference between twopence per pound in the depreciated
   currency and the tobacco to which by law the ministers were
   entitled. In defending one of these suits [1763], the
   remarkable popular eloquence of Patrick Henry displayed itself
   for the first time. Henry was a young lawyer, unconnected with
   the ruling aristocracy of the province, and as yet without
   reputation or practice. The law was plainly against him, and
   his case seemed to be hopeless. He had, however, a strong
   support in the prevailing prejudice in favor of the tender
   law, and in the dissatisfaction generally felt at the king's
   veto upon it. Addressing the jury in a torrent of eloquence as
   brilliant as it was unexpected, he prevailed upon them to give
   him a verdict. The Assembly voted money to defend all suits
   which the parsons might bring; and, notwithstanding their
   clear legal right in the matter, they thought it best to
   submit without further struggle."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Wirt,
      Life of Patrick Henry,
      chapter 1._

      _M. C. Tyler,
      Patrick Henry,
      chapter 4._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act and Patrick Henry's resolutions.
   The First Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1766-1773.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1770, to 1773.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1768.
   The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769.
   Attempted prohibition of Slave Trade nullified by George III.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1713-1776.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The first settlement of Tennessee.
   The Watauga Association.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
   Western territorial claims of the Old Dominion.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Bill,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms.
   Ticonderoga.
   The Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
   The end of Royal Government.
   Lord Dunmore's flight.

   Not long after the excited demonstrations which followed
   Governor Dunmore's removal of powder from the public magazine
   at Williamsburg, the governor received Lord North's
   "conciliatory proposition," and "he convened the House of
   Burgesses, on the 1st of June, to take it into consideration.
   This withdrew Peyton Randolph from Congress, as had been
   anticipated, and Mr. Jefferson succeeded to the vacancy. But
   the latter was not permitted to leave the Burgesses before an
   answer to the ministerial proposition was framed. … How much
   the answer was 'enfeebled' by the doubts and scruples of the
   moderate members, we cannot say, but it rings true
   revolutionary metal, and it was a noble lead off for the
   Assemblies of the other Colonies. … The House, after the
   customary expression of a desire for reconciliation, declare
   that they have examined it (the Ministerial proposition)
   minutely, viewed it in every light in which they are able, and
   that, 'with pain and disappointment, they must ultimately
   declare that it only changed the form of oppression without
   lightening its burden.' … In the meantime events had
   transpired which soon afterwards terminated the official
   career of the Earl of Dunmore, and with it the royal
   government in Virginia. On the 5th of June, three men who
   entered the public magazine were wounded by a spring gun
   placed there by the orders of the Governor, and on the 7th, a
   committee of the House, appointed to inspect the magazine,
   found the locks removed from the serviceable muskets, and they
   also discovered the powder which had been placed in mine.
   These things highly exasperated the multitude, and on a rumor
   getting abroad that the same officer who had before carried
   off the powder was again advancing towards the city with an
   armed force, they rose in arms. The Governor's assurance that
   the rumor was unfounded restored tranquillity. He, however,
   left the city in the night with his family and went on board
   the Fowey, lying at York, twelve miles distant. He left a
   message declaring that he had taken this step for his safety,
   and that thenceforth he should reside and transact business on
   board of the man of war! An interchange of messages, acrid and
   criminatory on his part, firm and spirited on the part of the
   House, was kept up until the 24th of June; when, on his final
   refusal to receive bills for signature except under the guns
   of an armed vessel, the House declared it a high breach of
   privilege, and adjourned to the 12th of October. But a quorum
   never afterwards attended. … We soon find the Earl of Dunmore
   carrying on a petty but barbarous predatory warfare against
   the people he had so lately governed."

      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Lord Dunmore's warfare.
   Norfolk destroyed.

   "Having drawn together a considerable force, Dunmore ascended
   Elizabeth River to the Great Bridge, the only pass by which
   Norfolk can be approached from the land side; dispersed some
   North Carolina militia collected there; made several
   prisoners; and then, descending the river [November 1775],
   took possession of Norfolk. The rise of that town had been
   very rapid. Within a short time past it had become the
   principal shipping port of Virginia.
{3636}
   Its population amounted to several thousands, among whom were
   many Scotch traders not well disposed to the American cause.
   Fugitive slaves and others began now to flock to Dunmore's
   standard. A movement was made in his favor on the east shore
   of Maryland, which it required a thousand militia to suppress.
   The Convention of Virginia, not a little alarmed, voted four
   additional regiments, afterward increased to seven, all of
   which were presently taken into continental pay. … Woodford,
   with the second Virginia regiment, took possession of the
   causeway leading to the Great Bridge, which was still held by
   Dunmore's troops. An attempt to dislodge the Virginians having
   failed, with loss, Dunmore abandoned the bridge and the town,
   and again embarked. Norfolk was immediately occupied by
   Woodford, who was promptly joined by Howe's regiment from
   North Carolina. After a descent on the eastern shore of
   Virginia [January, 1776], to whose aid marched two companies
   of Maryland minute men, being re-enforced by the arrival of a
   British frigate, Dunmore bombarded Norfolk. A party landed and
   set it on fire. … The part which escaped was presently burned
   by the provincials, to prevent it from becoming a shelter to
   the enemy. Thus perished, a prey to civil war, the largest and
   richest of the rising towns of Virginia. Dunmore continued,
   during the whole summer, a predatory warfare along the rivers,
   of which his naval superiority gave him the command, burning
   houses and plundering plantations, from which he carried off
   upward of 1,000 slaves. He was constantly changing his place
   to elude attack; but watched, pursued, and harassed, he
   finally found it necessary to retire to St. Augustine with his
   adherents and his plunder."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 32 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Campbell,
      Introduction to History of Virginia.,
      chapter 33_.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1784.
   The exercise of sovereignty over Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
   Independence declared and a Constitution adopted.
   Declaration of Rights.

   "There was a sudden change in public sentiment; and the idea
   of independence, said to be alarming to Virginians in March
   [1776] was welcome to them in April. One writes on the 2d:
   'Independence is now the talk here. … It will be very soon, if
   not already, a favorite child.' Another, on the 12th, writes:
   'I think almost every man, except the treasurer, is willing to
   declare for independence.'" On the 23d, the Charlotte County
   Committee charged its delegates in convention to use their
   best endeavors "that the delegates which are sent to the
   General Congress be instructed immediately to cast off the
   British yoke." On the next day, a majority of the freeholders
   of James City took similar action. "In May, the avowals for
   independence were numerous. In this spirit and with such aims,
   a new convention was chosen, and on the 6th of May met in
   Williamsburg. It contained illustrious men,—among them, James
   Madison, in the twenty-fifth year of his age; George Mason, in
   the maturity of his great powers; Richard Bland, Edmund
   Pendleton, and Patrick Henry, rich in Revolutionary fame. … On
   the 14th of May the convention went into a committee of the
   whole on the state of the colony, with Archibald Carey in the
   chair; when Colonel Nelson submitted a preamble and
   resolutions on independence, prepared by Pendleton. These were
   discussed in two sittings of the committee, and then reported
   to the House. They were opposed chiefly by delegates from the
   Eastern District, but were advocated by Patrick Henry, and
   passed unanimously when 112 members were present,—about 20
   absenting themselves. This paper enumerated the wrongs done to
   the colonies … and instructed the delegates appointed to
   represent the colony in the General Congress 'to propose to
   that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and
   independent States,' and to 'give the assent of the colony to
   measures to form foreign alliances and a
   confederation,—provided the power of forming government for
   the internal regulations of each colony be left to the
   colonial legislatures.' The same paper also provided for a
   committee to form a plan of government for Virginia. This
   action was transmitted by the President to the other
   assemblies, accompanied by a brief circular. … It was hailed
   by the patriots in other colonies with enthusiasm. … The
   convention agreed (June 12) upon the famous Declaration of
   Rights declaring all men equally free and independent, all
   power vested in and derived from the people, and that
   government ought to be for the common benefit; also that all
   men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion
   according to the dictates of conscience. It also complied with
   the recommendation of Congress, by forming a constitution and
   electing a governor and other officers."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. B. Grigsby,
      The Virginia Convention of 1776._

      _W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _K. M. Rowland,
      Life of George Mason,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

   The following is the text of the Declaration of Rights:

   "A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the
   good People of Virginia, assembled in full and free
   Convention, which rights do pertain to them and their
   posterity as the basis and foundation of government.

   I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent,
   and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter
   into a state of society, they cannot by any compact, deprive
   or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
   liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property,
   and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

   II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived
   from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and
   servants, and at all times amenable to them.

   III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the
   common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation
   or community; of all the various modes and forms of
   government, that is best which is capable of producing the
   greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most
   effectually secured against the danger of maladministration;
   and that, when a government shall be found inadequate or
   contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath
   an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform,
   alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most
   conducive to the public weal.

{3637}

   IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or
   separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in
   consideration of public services, which not being descendible,
   neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge
   to be hereditary.
   V. That the legislative, executive and judicial powers should
   be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be
   restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the
   burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be
   reduced to a private station, return into that body from which
   they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by
   frequent, certain and regular elections, in which all, or any
   part of the former members to be again eligible or ineligible,
   as the laws shall direct.

   VI. That all elections ought to be free, and that all men
   having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with,
   and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage,
   and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property for public
   uses, without their own consent, or that of their
   representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they
   have not in like manner assented, for the public good.

   VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of
   laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives
   of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to
   be exercised.

   VIII. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath
   a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to
   be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for
   evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial
   jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous
   consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to
   give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his
   liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his
   peers.

   IX. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
   excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
   inflicted.

   X. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may
   be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a
   fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named,
   or whose offence is not particularly described and supported
   by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be
   granted.

   XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits
   between man and man, the ancient trial by jury of twelve men
   is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

   XII. That the freedom of the press is one of the great
   bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by
   despotic governments.

   XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of
   the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe
   defence of a free State; that standing armies in time of
   peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
   all cases the military should be under strict subordination
   to, and governed by, the civil power.

   XIV. That the people have a right to uniform government; and
   therefore, that no government separate from or independent of
   the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established
   within the limits thereof.

   XV. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can
   be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to
   justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by
   a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

   XVI. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
   and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by
   reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore
   all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
   according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
   duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and
   charity towards each other.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1779.
   The war in the north.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   Alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1779.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1808.
   Antislavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778.
   Suppression of the Transylvania Company in Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Clark's conquest of the Northwest and its organization
   under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
   British coast raids, at Norfolk and elsewhere.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
   Settlement of boundaries with Pennsylvania.
   The Pan-handle.

   "In 1779 commissioners appointed by the two States met at
   Baltimore to agree upon the common boundaries of Pennsylvania
   and Virginia. … On both sides there was an evident desire to
   end the dispute. Various lines were proposed and rejected. On
   August 31 the commissioners signed this agreement: 'To extend
   Mason and Dixon's line due west five degrees of longitude, to
   be computed from the River Delaware, for the southern boundary
   of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian line drawn from the
   western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said
   State be the western boundary of Pennsylvania forever.' This
   contract was duly ratified by the legislatures of the two
   States. In 1785 Mason and Dixon's line was extended, and the
   southwestern corner of Pennsylvania established. The
   'Pan-handle' is what was left of Virginia east of the Ohio
   River and north of Mason and Dixon's line, after the boundary
   was run from this point to Lake Erie in 1786. … It received
   its name in legislative debate from Honorable John McMillan,
   delegate from Brooke County, to match the Accomac projection,
   which he dubbed the Spoonhandle."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      page 109 and foot-note._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   Arnold's ravages.
   Lafayette's campaign.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1784.
   Cession of Western territorial claims to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
   The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1791-1792.
   Separation of Kentucky and its admission
   to the Union as a State.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1798.
   The Nullifying Resolutions of Madison.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1808.
   The Embargo and its effects.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

{3638}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1813.
   The coasts raided by British naval parties.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 INDIFFERENCE TO THE NAVY.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1831.
   The Nat Turner insurrection of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown's invasion at Harper's Ferry.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (January-June).
   Attempted peace-making.
   The State carried into rebellion.
   Separation of West Virginia, which adheres to the Union.

   "Early in January, 1861, the Virginia Assembly met at Richmond
   to determine the action of the Commonwealth in the approaching
   struggle. It was plain that war was coming unless the
   authorities of the United States and of the seceding States
   would listen to reason; and the first proceedings of the
   Assembly looked to peace and the restoration of fraternal
   union. Virginia recommended to all the States to appoint
   deputies to a Peace Convention. …

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY) THE PEACE CONVENTION].

   Thus ended in failure the first attempt of Virginia to
   preserve the national peace; and the crisis demanded that she
   should promptly decide upon her course. On February 13 (1861)
   a Convention assembled at Richmond, and a Committee was
   appointed on Federal Relations. On March 10 (1861), this
   Committee reported fourteen resolutions protesting against all
   interference with slavery; declaring secession to be a right;
   and defining the grounds on which the Commonwealth would feel
   herself to be justified in exercising that right, namely: the
   failure to obtain guarantees; the adoption of a warlike policy
   by the Government of the United States; or the attempt to
   exact the payment of duties from the seceded States, or to
   reënforce or recapture the Southern forts. These resolves
   clearly define the attitude of Virginia at this critical
   moment. After prolonged discussion, all but the last had
   passed the Convention when intelligence came that war had
   begun. The thunder of cannon from Charleston harbor broke up
   the political discussion. … Mr. Lincoln had expressed himself
   in his inaugural with perfect plainness. Secession was
   unlawful, and the Union remained unbroken; it was his duty to
   execute the laws, and he should perform it. To execute the
   laws it was necessary to have an army; and (April 15, 1861)
   President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling for 75,000
   troops from the States remaining in the Union. The direct
   issue was thus presented, and Virginia was called upon to
   decide the momentous question whether she would fight against
   the South or against the North. … As late as the first week in
   April the Convention had refused to secede by a vote of 89 to
   45. Virginia was conscientiously following her old traditions
   and would not move. Now the time had come at last. … On the
   17th of April, two days after the Federal proclamation, the
   Convention passed an ordinance of secession and adhesion to
   the Southern Confederacy, by a vote of 88 to 55, which was
   ratified by the people by a majority of 96,750 votes, out of a
   total of 161,018. West Virginia refused to be bound by the
   action of the Convention, and became a separate State, but the
   Virginia of the Tidewater and Valley went with the South."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 3, chapter 22._

   "Of the 46 delegates from the territory now comprising West
   Virginia, 29 voted against [the ordinance of secession], 9 for
   it, 7 were absent and one excused. Those who voted against it
   hastened to leave the city," and, on reaching their homes,
   became generally the leaders of a movement to separate their
   section of the State from the Old Dominion. On the 13th of May
   a convention of delegates from the counties of Northwestern
   Virginia was held at Wheeling, by the action of which a more
   general convention was called and held at the same place on
   the 11th day of June. The latter convention assumed the power
   to reorganize the government of the State of Virginia.

      _V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 21-23._

      ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      _Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 3, chapter 25,
      and volume 4, chapter 19._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Letcher's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Seizure of Harper's Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL). ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (June-November).
   The loyal State government organized in West Virginia.
   Steps taken toward separation from the old State.

   A Convention held on the 11th of June in West Virginia
   declared the State offices of Virginia vacant by reason of the
   treason of those who had been elected to hold them, and
   proceeded to form a regular State organization, with Francis
   H. Pierpont for the executive head. Maintaining that the loyal
   people were entitled to speak for the whole State they
   declared that their government was the government of Virginia.
   They subsequently admitted delegates from Alexandria and
   Fairfax Counties in Middle Virginia and from Accomac and
   Northampton Counties on the eastern shore. Thus organized, the
   government was acknowledged by Congress as the government of
   Virginia and senators and representatives were admitted to
   seats. The Pierpont Government, as it was called, then adopted
   an ordinance on the 20th of August, 1861, providing "for the
   formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of
   this State." The ordinance was approved by a vote of the
   people, and on the 26th of November the Convention assembled
   in Wheeling to frame a constitution for the new government.

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (July).
   Richmond made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

   "The Conspiracy had no intention originally of establishing
   its seat of government at Richmond. That was a part of the
   price exacted by Virginia for her secession, and it was not
   paid without reluctance. It is to be remembered that at that
   time every thing seemed to turn on what the Border States
   would do. … By establishing the seat of government at
   Richmond, it became certain that the most powerful of the
   Southern armies would always be present in Virginia. If
   Virginia had been abandoned, all the Border States would have
   gone with the North. … The Confederates having determined on
   the transfer of their seat of government to Richmond, the
   necessary preparations were completed, and their Congress
   opened its first session in that city on the 20th of July,
   1861."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 39 (volume 2)._

{3639}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The Battleground of the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA), and after.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (April-November).
   The separation of West Virginia consummated.

      See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
   The last meeting of the Secession Legislature.
   President Lincoln's Permit.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
   Recognition of the Pierpont State Government
   by President Johnson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865-1870.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

   ----------VIRGINIA: End--------

VIRGINIA, University of.

   "In 1816 the Legislature of Virginia authorized the president
   and directors of the Literary Fund to report a plan for a
   university at the next session of the Assembly. The committee
   made a full report as requested, but nothing was accomplished
   beyond bringing the subject of education prominently before
   the people. At the legislative session of 1817-18 that part of
   the bill relating to a university and the education of the
   poor was passed. … In the bill authorizing the establishment
   of the university, it was provided that the sum of $45,000 per
   annum should be given for the education of the poor, and
   $15,000 to the university. The commissioners having reported
   in favor of Central College as the most convenient place in
   Albemarle County, the Legislature decided, after much
   discussion, to locate the university at Charlottesville, and
   to assume the property and site of Central College. The
   commissioners embodied in their report an exhaustive plan for
   a university, chiefly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States,
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1890, number 1), pages 174-175._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. B. Adams,
      Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1888, number 1)._

VIRGINIA, West.

      See WEST VIRGINIA.

VIROCONIUM.

      See URICONIUM.

VISCONTI, The House of the.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VISIGOTHS.

      See GOTHS.

VITALIAN, Pope, A. D. 657-672.

VITELLIAN CIVIL WAR.

      See ROME: A. D. 69.

VITELLIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

VITEPSK, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

VITTORIA, Battle of (1813).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

VIZIR,
VIZIER.

   "Like the Sassanian emperors, the Caliph was not only the
   divinely appointed ruler, but the embodiment of the government
   itself. His word was literally law, and his caprice might at
   any moment overturn the most careful calculations of the
   ministers, or deprive them of life, power, or liberty, during
   the performance of their most active duties, or at a most
   critical juncture. It was very seldom, however, that this
   awful personage condescended to trouble himself about the
   actual details of the executive government. The Vizier, as the
   word implies [Vizier, in Arabic Wazir, means 'One who bears a
   burden,'—Foot-note], was the one who bore the real burden of
   the State, and it was both his interest and that of the people
   at large to keep the Caliph himself as inactive as possible,
   and to reduce him, in fact, to the position of a mere puppet."

      _E. H. Palmer,
      Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
      chapter. 1._

      See, also, SUBLIME PORTE.

VLADIMIR I. (called The Great)
   Duke of Kiev, A. D. 981-1015.

   VLADIMIR II., Duke of Kiev, 1113-1126.

VOCATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

VOCLAD, OR VOUGLÉ, Battle of.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

VOCONIAN LAW.

   The object of the Voconian Law, passed at Rome about 169 B. C.
   under the auspices of Cato the censor, "was to limit the
   social influence of women, by forbidding rich citizens to make
   them heiresses of more than one half of their whole estate."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4)._

VODIÆ, The.

      See IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VOIVODES,
WOIWODES.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
      also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1350 (SERVIA).

VOLATERRÆ, Siege of.

   Some remnants of the armies defeated by Sulla, in the civil
   war which ended in his mastery of Rome and the Roman state (B.
   C. 82), took refuge in the strong Etruscan town of Volaterræ,
   and only capitulated after a siege of two years.

       _W. Ihne,
       History of Rome,
       book 7, chapter 19 (volume 5)._

VOLCÆ, The.

   "When the Romans entered the south of France, two tribes
   occupied the country west of the Rhone as far at least as
   Tolosa (Toulouse) on the Garonne. The eastern people, named
   the Volcae Arecomici, possessed the part between the Cebenna
   or Cevenna range (Cevennes), the Rhone, and the Mediterranean,
   and according to Strabo extended to Narbonne. The chief town
   of these Volcae was Nemausus (Nismes). The Volcae Tectosages
   had the upper basin of the Garonne: their chief town was
   Tolosa."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

VOLSCIAN WARS OF ROME.

      See ROME: B. C. 489-450.

VOLSCIANS, The.

      See OSCANS; also ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

VOLTA, Battle of (1848).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VOLTURNO, Battle of the (1860).
      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

VOLUNTII, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES;
      also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VRACHOPHAGOS, Battle of (1352).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VROEDSCHAP, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
      LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

VULCANAL AT ROME, The.

   "The Vulcanal, or, as it is called by Livy, the Area Vulcani,
   must have been close to the Senaculum [early meeting place of
   the Senate], on the slope of the Capitol. It seems to have
   been originally an open space of some extent, used for public
   meetings, especially those of the Comitia Tributa, and
   dedicated to Vulcan. Sacrifices of small fish were offered to
   Vulcan here, and a temple dedicated to that god stood also
   here in the earliest times, but it was afterwards, on the
   enlargement of the pomœrium beyond the Palatine, removed for
   religious reasons to the Circus Flaminius, and the Vulcanal
   became simply a consecrated area."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 6, part 1._

      _C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      page 209._

{3640}

VULGAR ERA.

      See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

W.

WAARTGELDERS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

WABASH RIVER:
   Called the River St. Jerome by the French (1712).

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

WABENAKIES, OR ABNAKIS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS.

WACOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

WAGER OF BATTLE.
TRIAL BY COMBAT.
JUDICIAL COMBAT.

   "Trial by combat does not seem to have established itself
   completely in France till ordeals went into disuse, which
   Charlemagne rather encouraged, and which, in his age, the
   clergy for the most part approved. The former species of
   decision may, however, be met with under the first Merovingian
   kings (Greg. Turon, l. vii. c. 19, l. x. c. 10), and seems to
   have prevailed in Burgundy. It is established by the laws of
   the Alemanni or Suabians. Baluz. t. i. p. 80. It was always
   popular in Lombardy. … Otho II. established it in al disputes
   concerning real property. … God, as they deemed, was the
   judge. The nobleman fought on horseback, with all his arms of
   attack and defence; the plebeian on foot, with his club and
   target. The same were the weapons of the champions to whom
   women and ecclesiastics were permitted to intrust their
   rights. If the combat was intended to ascertain a civil right,
   the vanquished party, of course, forfeited his claim and paid
   a fine. If he fought by proxy, the champion was liable to have
   his hand struck off: a regulation necessary, perhaps, to
   obviate the corruption of these hired defenders. In criminal
   cases the appellant suffered, in the event of defeat, the same
   punishment which the law awarded to the offence of which he
   accused his adversary. Even where the cause was more peaceably
   tried, and brought to a regular adjudication by the court, an
   appeal for false judgment might indeed be made to the
   suzerain, but it could only be tried by battle. And in this,
   the appellant, if he would impeach the concurrent judgment of
   the court below, was compelled to meet in combat everyone of
   its members; unless he should vanquish them all within the
   day, his life, if he escaped from so many hazards, was
   forfeited to the law. If fortune or miracle should make him
   conqueror in every contest, the judges were equally subject to
   death, and their court forfeited their jurisdiction for ever.
   … Such was the judicial system of France when St. Louis [A. D.
   1226-1270] enacted that great code which bears the name of his
   Establishments. The rules of civil and criminal procedure, as
   well as the principles of legal decisions, are there laid down
   with much detail. But that incomparable prince, unable to
   overthrow the judicial combat, confined himself to discourage
   it by the example of a wiser jurisprudence. It was abolished
   throughout the royal domains." Trial by combat "was never
   abolished by any positive law, either in France [at large] or
   England. But instances of its occurrence are not frequent even
   in the fourteenth century."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1)._

   "Nor was the wager of battle confined to races of Celtic or
   Teutonic origin. The Slavonic tribes, as they successively
   emerge into the light of history, show the same tendency to
   refer doubtful points of civil and criminal law to the
   arbitrament of the sword. The earliest records of Hungary,
   Bohemia, Poland, Servia, Silesia, Moravia, Pomerania,
   Lithuania, and Russia, present evidences of the prevalence of
   the system." The last recorded instance of the wager of battle
   in France was in 1549. "In England, the resolute conservatism,
   which resists innovation to the last, prolonged the existence
   of the wager of battle until a period unknown in other
   civilized nations. … It was not until the time of Elizabeth
   that it was even abolished in civil cases. … Even in the 17th
   century, instances of the battle ordeal between persons of
   high station are on record." As late as 1818 the right was
   claimed and conceded by the judges, in a criminal case which
   caused much excitement. "The next year the act 59 Geo. III.
   chap. 46, at length put an end for ever to this last remnant
   of the age of chivalry."

      _H. C. Lea,
      Superstition and Force,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1818.

WAGER OF LAW.

   "This was the remarkable custom which was subsequently known
   as canonical compurgation, and which long remained a part of
   English jurisprudence, under the name of the Wager of Law. The
   defendant, when denying the allegation under oath, appeared
   surrounded by a number of companions—'juratores,'
   'conjuratores,' 'sacramentales,' 'collaudantes,'
   'compurgatores,' as they were variously termed—who swore, not
   to their knowledge of the facts, but as sharers and partakers
   in the oath of denial. This curious form of procedure derives
   importance from the fact that it is an expression of the
   character, not of an isolated sept, but of nearly all the
   races that have moulded the destinies of Europe. The
   Ostrogoths in Italy, and the Wisigoths of the South of France
   and Spain were the only nations in whose codes it occupies no
   place, and they, … at an early period, yielded themselves
   completely to the influence of the Roman civilization. … The
   church, with the tact which distinguished her dealings with
   her new converts, was not long in adopting a system which was
   admirably suited for her defence in an age of brute force."

      _H. C. Lea,
      Superstition and Force,
      chapter 1._

   On the abolition of the Wager of Law.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1833.

WAGNER, Fort,
   The assault on, the siege, and the final reduction of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA),
      and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

WAGRAM, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{3641}

WAHABEES, The.

   "The Wahabees derive their name from Abdul Wahab, the father
   of Sheikh Muhammad, their founder, who arose about the
   beginning of the last century, in the province of Najd, in
   Arabia. The object of the Wahabee movement was to sweep away
   all later innovations, and to return to the original purity of
   Islam, as based upon the exact teaching of the Koran and the
   example of Mahomet. The principles of the sect rapidly spread
   among the Arab tribes, and were adopted by the sovereign
   princes of Darayeh, in Najd. Impelled by religious zeal and
   political ambition, and allured by the prospect of plunder,
   the Wahabees soon acquired nearly the whole of Arabia, and
   menaced the neighbouring Pashaliks of Turkey and Egypt. Mecca
   and Medina soon fell into their hands, the shrine was
   despoiled of its rich ornaments, and the pilgrim route to the
   Kaaba closed for some years. Early in this century (1811),
   Muhammad Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, at the bidding of the
   Sultan, set himself to check the progress of this aggressive
   sect; and his son Ibrahim Pasha completed the work (1818). …
   The following particulars of the Wahabee reform need only be
   added. They reject the decisions of the 'four orthodox
   doctors,' and the intercessions of saints; they condemn the
   excessive reverence paid to Mahomet, and deny his mediation,
   until the last day. They also disapprove of the ornamenting of
   tombs, &c."

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapter 10, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
      chapter 11._

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      page 103._

WAHLSTADT, Battle of (1241).

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
      and LIEGNITZ, THE BATTLE OF.

WAHPETONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WAIILATPUAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAIILATPUAN FAMILY.

WAIKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WAITANGI, Treaty of.

      See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.

WAITZEN, Battles of(1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

WAIWODES,
WOIWODES,
VOIVODES.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WAKASHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

WAKEFIELD, Battle of (1460).

   Queen Margaret, rallying the loyal Lancastrians of the north
   of England, met her enemy, the Duke of York, and the enemies
   of her party, on Wakefield Green, December 30, 1460, and
   defeated them with great slaughter, the Duke of York being
   found among the slain. But her fruitless victory was soon
   reversed by young Edward, Earl of March, eldest son of the
   deceased Duke of York, who deposed King Henry VI. and planted
   himself on the throne, before the same winter had passed.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WAKEFIELD SYSTEM, The.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

WALCHEREN EXPEDITION, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

WALDEMAR.

      See VALDEMAR.

WALDENSES,
VAUDOIS, The.

   "Let me at the outset express my conviction that the whole
   attempt to ascribe to the Waldenses an earlier date than the
   latter half of the 12th century, to throw back their origin
   some two hundred years, or sometimes much more than this, even
   to the times of Claudius of Turin (d. 839), is one which will
   not stand the test of historical criticism; while the
   endeavour to vindicate for them this remote antiquity has
   introduced infinite confusion into their whole history. The
   date of Waldo, who, as I cannot doubt, is rightly recognized
   as their founder, we certainly know. When it is sought to get
   rid of their relation to him as embodied in the very name
   which they bear, and to change this name into Vallenses, the
   Men of the Valleys or the Dalesmen, it is a transformation
   which has no likelihood, philological or historic, to
   recommend it. … Peter Waldo,—for we will not withhold from him
   this Christian name, although there is no authority for it
   anterior to the beginning of the 15th century,—was a rich
   citizen and merchant of Lyons [in the later half of the 12th
   century]. Not satisfied with those scanty portions of
   Scripture doled out to the laity in divine services, and
   yearning above all for a larger knowledge of the Gospels, he
   obtained from two friends among the priesthood a copy of these
   last and of some other portions of Scripture translated into
   the Romance language; a collection also of sayings from the
   Fathers. The whole movement remained to the end true to this
   its first motive—the desire namely for a fuller acquaintance
   with the Word of God. That Word he now resolved to make the
   rule of his life. … He …, as a first step, sells all that he
   has, and bestows it upon the poor. In the name which he adopts
   for himself and for the companions whom he presently
   associates with him, the same fact of a voluntary poverty, as
   that which above all they should embody in their lives, speaks
   out. On this side of the Alps they are Poor Men of Lyons; on
   the Italian, Poor Men of Lombardy. … And now he and his began
   to preach in the streets of Lyons, to find their way into
   houses, to itinerate the country round. Waldo had no intention
   herein of putting himself in opposition to the Church, of
   being a Reformer in any other sense than St. Francis or St.
   Bernard was a Reformer, a quickener, that is, and reviver of
   the Church's spiritual life. His protest was against practical
   mischiefs, against negligences and omissions on the part of
   those who should have taught the people, and did not.
   Doctrinal protest at this time there was none. But for Rome
   all forms of religious earnestness were suspicious which did
   not spring directly from herself. … In 1178 the Archbishop of
   Lyons forbade their preaching or expounding any more. Such as
   did not submit had no choice but to quit Lyons, and betake
   themselves elsewhere. And thus it came to pass that not the
   city, already so illustrious in ecclesiastical story, where
   Irenæus taught and Blandina suffered, … but the Alpine
   mountains must shelter these outcasts, and in turn be made
   famous by their presence." In 1209, Pope Innocent III. made an
   attempt to absorb Waldo's society in an "Order of Poor
   Catholics," which he instituted. "Failing this, he repeated, a
   few years later, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the
   Church's sentence against the Waldenses, including them under
   a common ban with the Cathari and the whole rabble rout of
   Manichæans and others with whom they have so often since been
   confounded. …
{3642}
   Enemies have sought to confound, that so there might be
   imputed to the Waldenses any evil which had been brought home
   to the Albigenses. … Friends have sought to identify them out
   of the wish to recruit the scanty number of witnesses for
   Scriptural and Apostolical truth in the dark ages of the
   Church; as certainly it would prove no small numerical
   addition if the Albigenses might be counted among these." It
   seems to be certain that the Waldenses were not spared by the
   crusaders who exterminated the Albigenses of southern France
   between 1209 and 1229. They fled before that storm into the
   recesses of the Alps. "But they were numerous in North Italy
   as well; and far more widely scattered over the whole of
   central Europe than their present dwelling place and numbers
   would at all suggest. They had congregations in Florence, in
   Genoa, in Venice, above all in Milan; there were Waldensian
   communities as far south as Calabria; they were not unknown in
   Arragon; still less in Switzerland; at a later day they found
   their way to Bohemia, and joined hands with the Hussites
   there."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
      lecture 17._

   "The valleys which the Vaudois have raised into celebrity lie
   to the west of Piemont, between the province of Pignerol and
   Briançon, and adjoining on the other side to the ancient
   Marquisate of Susa, and that of the Saluces. The capital, La
   Tour, being about 36 miles from Turin, and 14 from Pignerol.
   The extent of the valleys is about 12 Italian miles, making a
   square of about 24 French leagues. The valleys are three in
   number, Luzern, Perouse, and St. Martin. The former (in which
   the chief town is now Catholic) is the most beautiful and
   extensive."

      _J. Bresse,
      History of the Vaudois,
      part 1, chapter i._

   The Waldenses are sometimes confused, mistakenly, with the
   Albigenses, who belonged to an earlier time.

      See ALBIGENSES.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Muston,
      The Israel of the Alps._

      _E. Comba,
      History of the Waldenses of Italy._.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1526-1561.
   Identification with the Calvinists.
   Persecuting war of the Duke of Savoy.
   The tolerant treaty of Cavour.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1546.
   Massacre of the remnant in Provence and Venaissin.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.
   The second Persecution and Massacre.
   Cromwell's intervention.

   "They [the Vaudois, or Waldenses] had experienced persecutions
   through their whole history, and especially after the
   Reformation; but, on the whole, the two last Dukes of Savoy,
   and also Christine, daughter of Henry IV. of France, and
   Duchess-Regent through the minority of her son, the present
   Duke, had protected them in their privileges, even while
   extirpating Protestantism in the rest of the Piedmontese
   dominions. Latterly, however, there had been a passion at
   Turin and at Rome for their conversion to the Catholic faith,
   and priests had been traversing their valleys for the purpose.
   The murder of one such priest, and some open insults to the
   Catholic worship, about Christmas 1654, are said to have
   occasioned what followed. On the 25th of January, 1654-5, an
   edict was issued, under the authority of the Duke of Savoy,
   'commanding and enjoining every head of a family, with its
   members, of the pretended Reformed Religion, of what rank,
   degree, or condition soever, none excepted, inhabiting and
   possessing estates in the places of Luserna … &c., within
   three days, to withdraw and depart, and be, with their
   families, withdrawn out of the said places, and transported
   into the places and limits marked out for toleration by his
   Royal Highness during his good pleasure,' … unless they gave
   evidence within 20 days of having become Catholics.
   Furthermore it was commanded that in every one even of the
   tolerated places there should be regular celebration of the
   Holy Mass, and that there should be no interference therewith,
   nor any dissuasion of anyone from turning a Catholic, also on
   pain of death. All the places named are in the Valley of
   Luserna, and the object was a wholesale shifting of the
   Protestants of that valley out of nine of its communes and
   their concentration into five higher up. In vain were there
   remonstrances at Turin from those immediately concerned. On
   the 17th of April, 1655, the Marquis di Pianezza, entered the
   doomed region with a body of troops mainly Piedmontese, but
   with French and Irish among them. There was resistance,
   fighting, burning, pillaging, flight to the mountains, and
   chasing and murdering for eight days, Saturday, April 24,
   being the climax. The names of about 300 of those murdered
   individually are on record, with the ways of the deaths of
   many of them. Women were ripped open, or carried about impaled
   on spikes; men, women, and children, were flung from
   precipices, hacked, tortured, roasted alive; the heads of some
   of the dead were boiled and the brains eaten; there are forty
   printed pages, and twenty-six ghastly engravings, by way of
   Protestant tradition of the ascertained variety of the
   devilry. The massacre was chiefly in the Valley of Luserna,
   but extended also into the other two valleys. The fugitives
   were huddled in crowds high among the mountains, moaning and
   starving; and not a few, women and infants especially,
   perished amid the snows. … There was a shudder of abhorrence
   through Protestant Europe, but no one was so much roused as
   Cromwell. … On Thursday the 17th of May, and for many days
   more, the business of the Savoy Protestants was the chief
   occupation of the Council. Letters, all in Milton's Latin, but
   signed by the Lord Protector in his own name, were despatched
   (May 25) to the Duke of Savoy himself, to the French King, to
   the States General of the United Provinces, to the Protestant
   Swiss Cantons, to the King of Sweden, to the King of Denmark,
   and to Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania. A day of humiliation
   was appointed for the Cities of London and Westminster, and
   another for all England." A collection of money for the
   sufferers was made, which amounted, in England and Wales, to
   £38,000—equal to about £137,000 now. Cromwell's personal
   contribution was £2,000—equivalent to £7,500 in money of the
   present day. The Protector despatched a special envoy to the
   court of Turin, who addressed very plain and bold words to the
   Duke. Meanwhile Blake with his fleet was in the Mediterranean,
   and there were inquiries made as to the best place for landing
   troops to invade the Duke's dominions. "All which being known
   to Mazarin, that wily statesman saw that no time was to be
   lost.
{3643}
   While Mr. Downing [second commissioner sent by Cromwell] was
   still only on his way to Geneva through France, Mazarin had
   instructed M. Servien, the French minister at Turin, to
   insist, in the French King's name, on an immediate settlement
   of the Vaudois business. The result was a 'Patente di Gratia e
   Perdono,' or 'Patent of Grace and Pardon,' granted by Charles
   Emanuel to the Vaudois Protestants, August 19, in terms of a
   Treaty at Pignerol, in which the French Minister appeared as
   the real mediating party and certain Envoys from the Swiss
   Cantons as more or less assenting. As the Patent substantially
   retracted the Persecuting Edict and restored the Vaudois to
   all their former privileges, nothing more was to be done."
   These events in Piedmont drew from Milton his immortal sonnet,
   beginning: "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 5, book 1, chapter 1, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      _A. Muston,
      The Israel of the Alps,
      volume 1, part 2, chapters 6-9._

WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.
   Toleration obtained by William of Orange.

   "In the spring of 1691, the Waldensian shepherds, long and
   cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised
   by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy
   returned to their homes. Children, who had been taken from
   their parents to be educated by priests, were sent back.
   Congregations, which had hitherto met only by stealth and with
   extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the
   face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew
   that their fate had been a subject of discussion at the Hague,
   and that they owed the happiness of their firesides and the
   security of their humble temples to the ascendency which
   William [of Orange] exercised over the Duke of Savoy," who had
   lately joined the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. of France.

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 17._

   ----------WALDENSES: End--------

WALDSHUT: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   ----------WALES: Start--------

WALES:
    Origin of the name.

       See WELSH.

WALES:
   Ancient tribes.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

WALES: 6th Century.
   The British states embraced in it.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

WALES: A. D. 1066-1135.
   The Norman Conquest.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.
   The final conquest.

   "All the other races had combined on the soil of Britain, the
   Welsh would not. The demands of feudal homage made by the
   kings of England were evaded or repudiated; the intermarriages
   by which Henry II. and John had tried to help on a national
   agreement had in every case failed. In every internal
   difficulty of English politics the Welsh princes had done
   their best to embarrass the action of the kings; they had
   intrigued with every aspirant for power, had been in league
   with every rebel. … The necessity of guarding the Welsh border
   had caused the English kings to found on the March a number of
   feudal lordships, which were privileged to exercise almost
   sovereign jurisdictions, and exempted from the common
   operation of the English law. The Mortimers at Chirk and
   Wigmore, the Bohuns at Hereford and Brecon, the Marshalls at
   Pembroke, and the Clares in Glamorgan, were out of the reach
   of the King, and often turned against one another the arms
   which had been given them to overawe the Welsh. … So long as
   the Welsh were left free to rebel the Marchers must be left
   free to fight. … Llewelyn, the prince of North Wales, had, by
   the assistance given to Simon de Montfort, earned as his
   reward a recognition of his independence, subject only to the
   ancient feudal obligations. All the advantages won during the
   early years of Henry III. had been thus surrendered. When the
   tide turned Llewelyn had done homage to Henry; but when he was
   invited, in 1273, to perform the usual service to the new
   king, he refused; and again, in 1274 and 1275, he evaded the
   royal summons. In 1276, under the joint pressure of
   excommunication and a great army which Edward brought against
   him, he made a formal submission; performed the homage, and
   received, as a pledge of amity, the hand of Eleanor de
   Montfort in marriage. But Eleanor, although she was Edward's
   cousin, was Earl Simon's daughter, and scarcely qualified to
   be a peacemaker. Another adviser of rebellion was found in
   Llewelyn's brother David, who had hitherto taken part with the
   English, and had received special favours and promotion from
   Edward himself. … The peace made in 1277 lasted about four
   years. In 1282 the brothers rose, seized the border castles of
   Hawarden, Flint, and Rhuddlan, and captured the Justiciar of
   Wales, Roger Clifford. Edward saw then that his time was come.
   He marched into North Wales, carrying with him the courts of
   law and the exchequer, and transferring the seat of government
   for the time to Shrewsbury. He left nothing undone that might
   give the expedition the character of a national effort. He
   collected forces on all sides; he assembled the estates of the
   realm, clergy, lords, and commons, and prevailed on them to
   furnish liberal supplies; he obtained sentence of
   excommunication from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Welsh
   made a brave defence, and, had it not been for the almost
   accidental capture and murder of Llewelyn in December, England
   might have found the task too hard for her. The death of
   Llewelyn, however, and the capture of David in the following
   June, deprived the Welsh of their leaders, and they submitted.
   Edward began forthwith his work of consolidation. … In 1284 he
   published at Rhuddlan a statute, called the Statute of Wales,
   which was intended to introduce the laws and customs of
   England, and to reform the administration of that country
   altogether on the English system. The process was a slow one;
   the Welsh retained their ancient common law and their national
   spirit; the administrative powers were weak and not
   far-reaching; the sway of the lords Marchers was suffered to
   continue; and, although assimilated, Wales was not
   incorporated with England. It was not until the reign of Henry
   VIII. that the principality was represented in the English
   Parliament, and the sovereignty, which from 1300 onwards was
   generally although not invariably bestowed on the king's
   eldest son, conferred under the most favourable circumstances
   little more than a high-sounding title and some slight and
   ideal claim to the affection of a portion of the Welsh people.
   The task, however, which the energies of his predecessors had
   failed to accomplish was achieved by Edward. All Britain south
   of the Tweed recognised his direct and supreme authority, and
   the power of the Welsh nationality was so far broken that it
   could never more thwart the determined and united action of
   England."

      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 13._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 3, chapter 3._

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      chapter 25._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages._

{3644}

WALES: A. D. 1402-1413.
   Owen Glendower's Rebellion.

   "Since the day when it was conquered by Edward I. Wales had
   given the kings of England very little trouble. The Welsh
   remained loyal to the son and grandson of their conqueror, and
   were the most devoted friends of Richard II., even when he had
   lost the hearts of his English subjects. But on the usurpation
   of Henry [IV.] their allegiance seems to have been shaken: and
   Owen Glendower, who was descended from Llewelyn, the last
   native prince of Wales, laid claim to the sovereignty of the
   country [A. D. 1402]. He ravaged the territory of Lord Grey of
   Ruthin, and took him prisoner near Snowdon; then, turning
   southwards, overran Herefordshire and defeated and took
   prisoner Sir Edmund Mortimer, uncle to that young Earl of
   March, who should have been heir to the crown after Richard
   according to the true order of descent. In this battle upwards
   of a thousand Englishmen were slain, and such was the fierce
   barbarity of the victors that even the women of Wales
   mutilated the dead bodies in a manner too gross to be
   described, and left them unburied upon the field till heavy
   sums were paid for their interment. It was necessary to put
   down this revolt of Glendower, and the King collected an army
   and went against him in person. It was the beginning of
   September; but owing, as the people thought, to magical arts
   and enchantments practised by the Welshman, the army suffered
   dreadfully from tempests of wind, rain, snow, and hail before
   it could reach the enemy. In one night the King's tent was
   blown down, and he himself would have been killed if he had
   not retired to rest with his armour on. Finally the enterprise
   had to be abandoned. … Glendower continued as troublesome as
   ever, and the King was unable from various causes to make much
   progress against him. At one time money could not easily be
   raised for the expedition. At another time, when he actually
   marched into the borders of Wales [A. D. 1405], his advance
   was again impeded by the elements. The rivers swelled to an
   unusual extent, and the army lost a great part of its baggage
   by the suddenness of the inundation. The French, too, sent
   assistance to Glendower, and took Carmarthen Castle. Some time
   afterwards [A. D. 1407] the King's son, Henry Prince of Wales,
   succeeded in taking the castle of Aberystwith; but very soon
   after Owen Glendower recovered it by stealth. In short, the
   Welsh succeeded in maintaining their independence of England
   during this whole reign, and Owen Glendower ultimately got
   leave to die in peace." On the accession of Henry V. (A. D.
   1413), "the Welsh, who had been so troublesome to his father,
   admired his valour and claimed him as a true prince of Wales,
   remembering that he had been born at Monmouth, which place was
   at that time within the principality. They discovered that
   there was an ancient prophecy that a prince would be born
   among themselves who should rule the whole realm of England;
   and they saw its fulfilment in King Henry V."

      _J. Gairdner,
      The Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter. 4, section 3;
      and chapter 5, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Wylie,
      History of England under Henry IV.,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

   ----------WALES: End--------

WALES, Prince of.

   "When Edward I. subdued Wales, he is said to have promised the
   people of that country a native prince who could not speak
   English, and taking advantage of the fact that his queen,
   Eleanor, was delivered of a child at Carnarvon Castle, in
   North Wales, he conferred the principality upon his infant son
   Edward, who was yet unable to speak. By the death of his
   eldest brother Alphonso, Edward became heir to the throne, to
   which he afterwards succeeded as Edward II.; but from this
   time forward, the principality has been appropriated solely to
   the eldest sons of the kings of England, who previous to this
   period had only borne the title of 'Lord Prince.' In 1841, for
   the first time, the dukedom of Saxony was introduced among the
   reputed titles of the Prince of Wales. This dignity his Royal
   Highness derives merely in right of his own paternal descent.
   … Without any new creation, and previous to his acquiring the
   title of Prince of Wales, the heir-apparent of the sovereign
   is Duke of Cornwall, the most ancient title of its degree in
   England. Edward the Black Prince … was created the first Duke
   of Cornwall in 1337. … The dukedom merges in the Crown when
   there is no heir apparent, and is immediately inherited by the
   prince on his birth, or by the accession of his father to the
   throne, as the case may be. … The earldom of Chester is one of
   the titles conferred by patent, but it was formerly a
   principality, into which it had been erected by the 21st of
   Richard II. In the reign of Henry IV., however, the act of
   parliament by which it had been constituted was repealed, and
   it has ever since been granted in the same patent which
   confers the title of Prince of Wales. As the eldest sons of
   the kings of Scotland have enjoyed the titles of Duke of
   Rothsay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, and Hereditary Great
   Steward of Scotland, those dignities are also invariably
   attributed to the Prince of Wales."

      _C. R. Dodd,
      Manual of Dignities,
      part 2._

WALI.

   An Arabian title, given to certain governors of extensive
   provinces under the caliphate. It seems to have had a
   viceroyal significance, marking the bearer of it as an
   immediate representative of the caliph.

      _T. P. Hughes,
      Dictionary of Islam._

WALID I., Caliph, A. D. 705-715.

   Walid II., Caliph, 743-744.

WALKER, William:
   Filibustering in Nicaragua.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

WALL IN BRITAIN, Roman.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

WALL OF CHINA, The Great.

      See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

WALL OF PROBUS.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

WALLACE, William, and the Scottish struggle for independence.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

{3645}

WALLACHS,
WALLACHIANS.
WALLACHIA: The name.

   This is one of the forms of a name which the ancient Germanic
   peoples seem to have given to non-Germanic nations whom they
   associated in any wise with the Roman empire.

      See WELSH.

   For an account of the Wallachians of southeastern Europe, and
   their country.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

WALLENSTEIN, Campaigns of.

      See GERMANY:
      A. D. 1624-1626; 1627-1629; 1630; 1631-1632; and 1632-1634.

WALLHOF, Battle of (1626).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

WALLINGFORD, Treaty of.

   A treaty concluded, A. D. 1153, between King Stephen and
   Matilda, who claimed the English crown as the heir of her
   father, Henry I. By the treaty Stephen was recognized as king
   and Matilda's son Henry (who became Henry II.) was made his
   heir.

WALLOONS, The.

   "In Namur, Liege, and Luxembourg, the speech is what is called
   Walloon, the same word as Welsh, and derived from the German
   root 'wealh,' a foreigner. By this designation the Germans of
   the Flemish tongue denoted the Romano-Belgic population whose
   language was akin to the French, and whom a hilly and
   impracticable country (the forest districts of the Ardennes)
   had more or less protected from their own arms. Now the
   Walloon is a form of the Romano-Keltic so peculiar and
   independent that it must be of great antiquity, i. e., as old
   as the oldest dialect of the French, and no extension of the
   dialects of Lorraine, or Champagne, from which it differs
   materially. It is also a language which must have been formed
   on a Keltic basis. … The Walloons, then, are Romano-Keltic;
   whereas the Flemings are Germans, in speech and in blood."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

WALPOLE, The administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721, and 1727-1741.

WALPOLE COMPANY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

WÄLSCH, The.

      See VENEDI.

WALTER, the Penniless, Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

WAMPANOAGS,
POKANOKETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

WAMPUM.

   "Wampum, or wompam, according to Trumbull was the name of the
   white beads made from stems or inner whorls of the Pyrula
   Carica or Canaliculata periwinkle shells so common on all the
   south Coast of New England. When strung they were called
   wampon or wampom—peage or peake or peg, equivalent to 'strings
   of white beads,' for peage means 'strung beads.' Color was the
   basis of the nomenclature, as well as of the difference in
   value. 'Wompi' was white; 'Sacki' was black; 'Suckauhock' was
   the black beads made from the dark part of the poquauhock, the
   common quahog, Venus' mercenaria or round clam shell. The
   value of the black was generally twice that of the white. …
   The word generally used among the Dutch who led in introducing
   the bead currency of the Indians, Sewan or Zeewand, was more
   general in its application than wampum. But whatever the
   difficult Indian linguistic process may have been, the New
   England men soon settled on wampum and peage as the working
   names for this currency. The shell cylinders, black or white,
   were about one-eighth of an inch in diameter and one-quarter
   long. There were shorter beads used for ornaments, but there
   is hardly any trace of them in the currency. … The Indians
   strung the beads on fibres of hemp or tendons taken from the
   flesh of their forest meat. … The strings of peage were
   embroidered on strips of deer-skin, making the 'Máchequoce,' a
   girdle or belt 'of five inches thicknesse,' or more, and to
   the value of ten pounds sterling or more, which was worn about
   the waist or thrown over the shoulders like a scarf. More than
   10,000 beads were wrought into a single belt four inches wide.
   These belts were in common use like the gold and jewelry of
   our day. They also played the same symbolic part which
   survives in the crown jewels and other regalia of civilized
   nations. … Whenever the Indians made an important statement in
   their frequent negotiations, they presented a belt to prove
   it, to give force to their words. … It gave to the words the
   weight of hard physical facts and made the expression an
   emblem of great force and significance. The philologists call
   this literary office, this symbolic function of wampum, an
   elementary mnemonic record. The same was fulfilled by the
   quippus, knotted strings or quipu of the ancient Peruvians. …
   'This belt preserves my words' was a common remark of the
   Iroquois Chief in council. … The Iroquois were a mighty
   nation, almost an incipient state. Their only records were in
   these mnemonic beads. … Tradition gives to the Narragansetts
   the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both
   for use and exchange. … The Long Island Indians manufactured
   the beads in large quantities and then were forced to pay them
   away in tribute to the Mohawks and the fiercer tribes of the
   interior. Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets,
   which carried a permanent value, through the constancy of the
   Indian desire for them. … After the use of wampum was
   established in colonial life, contracts were made payable at
   will in wampum, beaver, or silver. … The use began in New
   England in 1627. It was a legal tender until 1661, and for
   more than three quarters of a century the wampum was current
   in small transactions."

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: 17th CENTURY;
      QUIPU; and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

WANBOROUGH, Battle of.

      See HWICCAS.

WANDIWASH, Battle of (1760).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

WAPANACHKIK, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

WAPENING, The.

   The mediæval armed assembly of Ghent and other Flemish towns.

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 12, chapter 1._

WAPENTAKE, The.

      See HUNDRED, THE.

WAPISIANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WAPPINGERS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

WAR OF 1812, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; 1808;
      and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

WAR OF JENKINS' EAR, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

WAR OF LIBERATION.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

{3646}

WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740, to 1744-1745;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
      ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

WAR OF THE FEDERATION.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

WAR OF THE LOVERS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

WAR OF THE QUEEN'S RIGHTS.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

WAR OF THE REBELLION (of the American Slave States),
or War of Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

   Statistics.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY) STATISTICS.

WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702, and after;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

WAR OF THE THREE HENRYS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

WARAUS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WARBECK, PERKIN, Rebellion of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

WARBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

WARD, General Artemas, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST), and (JUNE).

WARINGS, The.

      See VARANGIANS.

WARNA,
VARNA, Battle of (1444).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

WARREN, Dr. Joseph, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY), and (JUNE).

WARS OF RELIGION IN FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

WARS OF THE ROSES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WARSAW: A. D. 1656.
   Three days battle with Swedes and Brandenburgers.
   Defeat of the Poles.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

WARSAW: A. D. 1792-1794.
   Occupied by the Russians.
   Their forces expelled.
   Capture of the city by Souvorof.
   Its acquisition by Prussia.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792; and 1793-1796.

WARSAW: A. D. 1807.
   Created a Grand Duchy, and ceded to the King of Saxony.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

WARSAW: A. D. 1815.
   The Grand Duchy given to Russia.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

WARSAW: A. D. 1830-1831.
   Revolt.
   Attack and capture by the Russians.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

WARTBURG,
   Luther at.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

   German students' demonstration (1817).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

WARTENBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

WARWICK, the King-maker.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WARWICK PLANTATION.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.

WASHAKIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

WASHINGTON, George:
   First campaigns.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754, and 1755.

   In the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST), to 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

   The framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789, to 1796.

   Farewell Address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.

   ----------WASHINGTON (City): Start--------

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1791.
   The founding of the Federal Capital.

   "One important duty which engaged the President's
   [Washington's] attention during part of the recess [of
   Congress] related to the purchase and survey of the new
   Federal city. The site chosen on the Potomac by himself and
   the commissioners, in conformity with law [see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792], lay a few miles to the north of
   Mount Vernon on the Maryland side of the river, at the
   confluence of the Eastern Branch, and just below Georgetown.
   The tradition goes that, while a young surveyor scouring the
   neighboring country, Washington had marked the advantages of
   this spot for a great city. … The entire soil belonged in
   large parcels to a few plain, easy, Maryland farmers, who rode
   over to Georgetown for their flour and bacon. One of these
   only, David Burns, was obstinate about making terms; and the
   subsequent rise of land in the western quarter of the city,
   which his farmhouse now occupied, rendered his little daughter
   in time the heiress of Washington, and confirmed his claims to
   historical consideration as the most conspicuous grantor of
   the National Capital. For procuring this choice spot on behalf
   of his countrymen, the President conducted the negotiations in
   person, and the purchase of the Federal city was concluded
   upon just and even generous terms. Each owner surrendered his
   real estate to the United States with no restriction except
   that of retaining every alternate lot for himself. The
   government was permitted to reserve all tracts specially
   desired at £25 an acre, while the land for avenues, streets,
   and alleys should cost nothing. Thus the Federal Capital came
   to the United States as substantially a free conveyance of
   half the fee of the soil in consideration of the enhanced
   value expected for the other half. … Major l'Enfant, a French
   architect, was selected to plan and lay out the new city. The
   highways were mapped and bounded substantially as they exist
   at this day, being so spacious and so numerous in comparison
   with building lots as to have admitted of no later change, in
   the course of a century, except in the prudent direction of
   parking, enlarging sidewalks, and leaving little plats in
   front of houses to be privately cared for. Streets running due
   north and south from the northern boundary to the Potomac were
   intersected at right angles by others which extended east and
   west.
{3647}
   To mar the simplicity of this plan, however, which so far
   resembled that of Philadelphia, great avenues, 160 feet wide,
   were run diagonally, radiating like spokes, from such main
   centres as Capitol Hill and the President's house. … This new
   Capital, by the President modestly styled 'the Federal City,'
   but to which the commissioners, by general acclamation,
   proceeded in September to affix his illustrious name, was
   America's first grand essay at a metropolis in advance of
   inhabitants. … The founder himself entered with unwonted ardor
   into the plans projected for developing this the new Capital.
   Not only did he picture the city which bore his name as an
   instructor of the coming youth in lessons of lofty patriotism,
   but he prophesied for it national greatness apart from its
   growth as the repository of the nation. He believed it would
   become a prosperous commercial city, its wharves studded with
   sails, enjoying all the advantages of Western traffic by means
   of a canal linking the Potomac and Ohio rivers, so as to bring
   Western produce to the seaboard. The ten-mile square which
   comprised the territorial District of Columbia, inclusive of
   the Capital, stretched across the Potomac, taking Georgetown
   from the Maryland jurisdiction, and Alexandria from Virginia.
   … The first corner-stone of this new Federal district was
   publicly laid with Masonic ceremonies, and though the auction
   sale of city lots in autumn proved disappointing, the idea
   prevailed that the government would gain from individual
   purchasers in Washington city a fund ample enough for erecting
   there all the public buildings at present needed."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 2, section 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Clemmer,
      Ten Years in Washington,
      chapters 1-3._

      _C. B. Todd,
      The Story of Washington,
      chapters 1-2._

      _J. A. Porter,
      The City of Washington
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 3, numbers 11-12)._

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1814.
   In the hands of the British.
   Destruction of public buildings.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1861 (April).
   The threatening activity of rebellion.
   Peril of the national capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   The coming of the first defenders of the national capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL),
      and (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1862 (April).
   Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1864.
   Approached and threatened by Early.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1867.
   Extension of suffrage to the Negroes.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (JANUARY).

   ----------WASHINGTON (City): End--------

WASHINGTON, Fort: A. D. 1776.
   Capture by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

WASHINGTON,
   The proposed state, to be formed west of Pennsylvania.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1784.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1846.
   Possession for the United States secured by the settlement
   of the Oregon boundary question with England.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1889.
   Admission to the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

WASHINGTON, Treaty of (1842).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1842 THE ASHBURTON TREATY.

   Treaty of (1871).

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1865-1886.

WASHOAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WASHOAN FAMILY.

WAT TYLER'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

WATAUGA ASSOCIATION, The.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

WATERFORD: A. D. 1170.
   Stormed and taken by Strongbow.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

WATER-LILY SECT, The.

      See TRIAD SOCIETY.

WATERLOO CAMPAIGN, Napoleon's.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

WATERLOO FIELD, in Marlborough's Campaigns:

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.

WATERWAYS.

      See (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

WATHEK, Al, Caliph, A. D. 841-847.

WATLING STREET.

   The Milky Way was known to our early English ancestors as
   Watling Street, signifying the road "by which the hero-sons of
   Waetla marched across" the heavens. When they settled in
   England they transferred the name Watling Street to the great
   Roman road which they found traversing the island, from London
   to Chester. Portions of the road, in London and elsewhere,
   still bear the name. Even in Chaucer's time the Milky Way
   appears to have been sometimes called Watling Street.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 166._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon._

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

WATT, James, and the Steam Engine.

      See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

WATTIGNIES, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

WAUHATCHIE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

WAYNE, General Anthony, and the storming of Stony Point.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

   Chastisement of the Northwestern Indians.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

WAYNESBOROUGH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

WEALH.

      See THEOW.

WEAVING BROTHERS, The.

      See BEGUINES.

{3648}

WEBSTER, Daniel, and the Dartmouth College case.

      See (in Supplement) DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.

   The Tariff Question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES):
      A. D. 1816-1824; and 1828.

   Debate with Hayne.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   In the Cabinet of President Tyler.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841; and 1842
      THE ASHBURTON TREATY.

   Seventh of March Speech.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

   In the Cabinet of President Fillmore.
   The Hülsemann Letter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

WECKQUAESGEEKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

WEDMORE, Peace of.

   A treaty of peace concluded between King Alfred and the Danes,
   by which the latter were bound to remain peacefully on that
   side of England which lay north and east of "Watling Street"
   (the Roman road from London to Chester) and to submit to
   baptism.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 2, section 4 (volume l)._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

WEHLAU. Treaty of (1657).

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

WEIMAR.

   For an account of the origin of the Duchy of Saxe Weimar;

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

   "Small indeed is the space occupied on the map by the Duchy of
   Saxe-Weimar; yet the historian of the German Courts declares,
   and truly, that after Berlin there is no Court of which the
   nation is so proud. … Small among German princes is mine, poor
   and narrow his kingdom, limited his power of doing good.' Thus
   sings Goethe in that poem, so honourable to both, wherein he
   acknowledges his debt to Karl August. … Weimar is an ancient
   city on the Ilm, a small stream rising in the Thuringian
   forests, and losing itself in the Saal, at Jena; this stream
   on which the sole navigation seems to be that of ducks,
   meanders peacefully through pleasant valleys, except during
   the rainy season, when mountain-torrents swell its current and
   overflow its banks. The Trent, between Trentham and
   Stafford—'the smug and silver Trent' as Shakespeare calls
   it—will give an idea of this stream. The town is charmingly
   placed in the Ilm valley, and stands some eight hundred feet
   above the level of the sea. 'Weimar,' says the old
   topographer, Mathew Merian, 'is Weinmar, because it was the
   wine market for Jena and its environs. Others say it was
   because some one here in ancient days began to plant the vine,
   who was hence called Weinmayer. But of this each reader may
   believe just what he pleases.' On a first acquaintance, Weimar
   seems more like a village bordering a park, than a capital
   with a Court, having all courtly environments. … Saxe-Weimar
   has no trade, no manufactures, no animation of commercial,
   political, or even theological activity. This part of Saxony,
   be it remembered, was the home and shelter of Protestantism in
   its birth. Only a few miles from Weimar stands the Wartburg,
   where Luther, in the disguise of Squire George, lived in
   safety, translating the Bible, and hurling his inkstand at the
   head of Satan, like a rough-handed disputant as he was. In the
   marketplace of Weimar stand, to this day, two houses from the
   windows of which Tetzel advertised his indulgences, and Luther
   afterwards in fiery indignation fulminated against them. These
   records of religious struggle still remain, but are no longer
   suggestions for the continuance of the strife. … The theologic
   fire has long burnt itself out in Thuringia. In Weimar, where
   Luther preached, another preacher came, whom we know as
   Goethe. In the old church there is one portrait of Luther,
   painted by his friend Lucas Kranach, greatly prized, as well
   it may be; but for this one portrait of Luther, there are a
   hundred of Goethe. It is not Luther, but Goethe, they think of
   here; poetry, not theology, is the glory of Weimar. And,
   corresponding with this, we find the dominant characteristic
   of the place to be no magnificent church, no picturesque
   ancient buildings, no visible image of the earlier ages, but
   the sweet serenity of a lovely park. The park fills the
   foreground of the picture, and always rises first in the
   memory. … Within its limits Saxe Weimar displayed all that an
   imperial court displays in larger proportions: it had its
   ministers, its army, its chamberlains, pages, and sycophants.
   Court favour, and disgrace, elevated and depressed, as if they
   had been imperial smiles, or autocratic frowns. A standing
   army of six hundred men, with cavalry of fifty hussars, had
   its War Department, with war minister, secretary, and clerk.
   As the nobles formed the predominating element of Weimar, we
   see at once how, in spite of the influence of Karl August, and
   the remarkable men he assembled round him, no real public for
   Art could be found there. Some of the courtiers played more or
   less with Art, some had real feeling for it; but the majority
   set decided faces against all the beaux esprits. … Not without
   profound significance is this fact that in Weimar the poet
   found a Circle, but no Public. To welcome his productions
   there were friends and admirers; there was no Nation. Germany
   had no public."

      _G. H. Lewes,
      The Life and Works of Goethe.
      book 1, chapter 1._

WEISSENBURG, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

WELATABIANS, The.

      See WILZEN.

WELDON RAILROAD,
   Battles on the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

WELFS.

      See GUELFS.

WELLESLEY, MARQUIS OF.
   The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

WELLESLEY COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

WELLINGHAUSEN,
KIRCHDENKERN, Battle of(1761).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

WELLINGTON.
   Campaigns of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809, to 1812-1814;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1815.

   Ministry.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.1827-1828; 1830.

WELSH, The Name of the.

   "The Germans, like our own ancestors, called foreign, i. e.
   non-Teutonic nations, Welsh. Yet apparently not all such
   nations, but only those which they in some way associated with
   the Roman Empire: the Cymry of Roman Britain, the Romanized
   Kelts of Gaul, the Italians, the Roumans or Wallachs of
   Transylvania and the Principalities. It does not appear that
   either the Magyars or any Slavonic people were called by any
   form of the name Welsh."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 17, foot-note._

   "Wealhas, or Welshmen; … it was by this name, which means
   'strangers,' or 'unintelligible people,' that the English knew
   the Britons, and it is the name by which the Britons, oddly
   enough, now know themselves."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 122._

{3649}

WENCESLAUS,
WENZEL,
VACSLAV I.,
   King of Bohemia, A. D. 1230-1253.

   Wenceslaus I., King of Hungary, 1301-1305;

   Wenceslaus III. of Bohemia, 1305-1306.

   Wenceslaus II., King of Bohemia, 1278-1305.

   Wenceslaus IV., King of Bohemia, 1378-1419;
   King of Germany, 1378-1400.

WENDS, The.

   "The Germans call all Slavonians Wends.
   No Slavonian calls himself so."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus; Prolegomena,
      section 15._

      See, also, SLAVONIC PEOPLES;
      VENEDI; VANDALS; and AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

WENTWORTH, Thomas (Earl of Strafford).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, 1640-1641;
      and IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

WENZEL.

      See WENCESLAUS.

WERBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

WERBEN, The camp of Gustavus Adolphus at.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

WERGILD.

   "The principle that every injury to either person or property
   might be compensated by a money payment was common to all the
   northern nations. It was introduced into Gaul by the
   conquering Franks, and into Britain by the English invaders.
   Every man's life had a fixed money value, called the
   'wergild.' In the case of a freeman, this compensation for
   murder was payable to his kindred; in that of a slave, to his
   master. The amount of the wergild varied, according to a
   graduated scale, with the rank of the person slain."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 41._

WEROWANCE.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

WESLEYS, The, and early Methodism.

      See METHODISTS.

WESSAGUSSET, Weston's settlement at.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

WESSEX, The Kingdom of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

WEST INDIA COMPANY, The Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

WEST INDIA COMPANY, The French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1663-1674.

WEST INDIES, The.

   "The name West Indies recalls the fact that the discovery of
   the new world originated in an attempt to find a western route
   to the eastern seas, and that, when Columbus crossed the
   Atlantic and sighted land on the other side, he fancied he had
   reached the further coasts of the Indies.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492, and 1492.

   'In consequence of this mistake of Columbus,' says Adam Smith,
   'the name of the Indies has stuck to those unfortunate
   countries ever since.' The islands, or some of them, have long
   borne the name of Antilles. Antillia or Antigua was a mythical
   island [see ANTILLES] which found a place on mediæval maps,
   and the name was applied by geographers to Hispaniola and Cuba
   upon their first discovery. In modern times Cuba, Hispaniola
   or Hayti, Jamaica, and Porto Rico have usually been known as
   the Greater Antilles; and the ring of smaller islands,
   including the Windward and the Leeward Islands, as the Lesser
   Antilles. The terms Windward and Leeward themselves demand
   some notice. The prevailing wind in the West Indies being the
   north-east trade wind, the islands which were most exposed to
   it were known as the Windward islands, and those which were
   less exposed were known as the Leeward. According]y, the
   Spaniards regarded the whole ring of Caribbean islands as
   Windward islands, and identified the Leeward islands with the
   four large islands which constitute the Greater Antilles as
   given above. The English sailors contracted the area of
   Windward and Leeward, subdividing the Caribbean islands into a
   northern section of Leeward islands and a southern section of
   Windward islands, which project further into the Atlantic. In
   1671 this division was made a political one, and the English
   Caribbean islands, which had before constituted one
   government, were separated into two groups, under two
   Governors-in-chief; the islands to the north of the French
   colony of Guadeloupe forming the government of the Leeward
   islands, the islands to the south of Guadeloupe forming the
   government of the Windward islands. Latterly the signification
   has been again slightly modified; and, for administrative
   purposes under the Colonial Office, the Leeward islands group
   now includes the more northerly section of the Caribbean
   islands belonging to Great Britain, from the Virgin islands to
   Dominica [embracing Antigua, St. Christopher or St. Kitts,
   Nevis, Montserrat, the Virgin Islands, Dominica, Barbuda,
   Redonda, and Anguilla]; while the Windward islands are
   artificially restricted to St. Lucia, St. Vincent, the
   Grenadines, and Grenada, the two most windward of all,
   Barbados and Tobago, being separated from the group." Barbados
   is a distinct crown colony, and Tobago is joined with Trinidad
   to form another.

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, section 2. chapters 1, and 4-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. H. Eden,
      The West Indies._

      _T. Southey,
      Chronological History of the West Indies._

      See, also, CUBA; HAYTI; and JAMAICA.

WEST POINT.

   "The importance of fortifying the Hudson River at its narrow
   passes among the Highlands was suggested to the Continental
   Congress by the Provincial Assembly of New York at an early
   period of the war [of Independence]. On the 6th of October,
   1775, the former directed the latter to proceed to make such
   fortifications as they should deem best. On the 18th of
   November, Congress resolved to appoint a commander for the
   fortress, with the rank of colonel, and recommended the New
   York Assembly, or Convention, to empower him to raise a body
   of 200 militia from the counties of Dutchess, Orange, and
   Ulster, and a company of artillery from New York city, to
   garrison them." As the result of these proceedings a fort
   named "Constitution" was constructed on Martelaer's Rock (now
   Constitution Island) opposite West Point, under the direction
   of an English engineer, Bernard Romans. "After the capture of
   Forts Clinton and Montgomery, near the lower entrance to the
   Highlands, in 1777, and the abandonment of Fort Constitution
   by the Americans a few days afterward, public attention was
   directed to the importance of other and stronger
   fortifications in that vicinity. … Washington requested
   General Putnam to bestow his most serious attention upon that
   important subject. He also wrote to Governor Clinton, at the
   same time, desiring him to take the immediate supervision of
   the work; but his legislative duties, then many and pressing,
   made it difficult for him to comply. Clinton … made many
   valuable suggestions respecting the proposed fortifications.
   He mentioned West Point as the most eligible site for a strong
   fort."

{3650}

   In the spring of 1778, "a committee of the New York
   Legislature, after surveying several sites, unanimously
   recommended West Point as the most eligible. Works were
   accordingly commenced there under the direction of Kosciuszko.
   … Kosciuszko arrived on the 20th of March, and the works were
   pushed toward completion with much spirit. The principal
   redoubt, constructed chiefly of logs and earth, was completed
   before May, and named Fort Clinton. … At the close of 1779,
   West Point was the strongest military post in America. In
   addition to the batteries that stood menacingly upon the
   hilltops, the river was obstructed by an enormous iron chain.
   … West Point was considered the keystone of the country during
   the Revolution, and there a large quantity of powder, and
   other munitions of war and military stores, were collected.
   These considerations combined made its possession a matter of
   great importance to the enemy, and hence it was selected by
   Arnold as the prize which his treason would give as a bribe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER)].

   When peace returned, it was regarded as one of the most
   important military posts in the country, and the plateau upon
   the point was purchased by the United States Government. … The
   Military Academy at West Point was established by an act of
   Congress which became a law on the 16th of March, 1802. Such
   an institution, at that place, was proposed by Washington to
   Congress in 1793; and earlier than this, even before the war
   of the Revolution had closed, he suggested the establishment
   of a military school there. But little progress was made in
   the matter until 1812."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 702-706._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. C. Boynton,
      History of West Point._

   ----------WEST VIRGINIA: Start--------

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1632.
   Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April-June).
   Opposition to Secession.
   Loyal State Government organized.

      See VIRGINIA; A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-JUNE).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY).
   General McClellan's successful campaign.
   The Rebels driven out.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
   Steps taken toward separation from Virginia.
   Constitutional Convention at Wheeling.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   The campaign of Rosecrans against Lee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
   The completed separation from Old Virginia.
   Admission to the Union.

   The work of the convention at Wheeling which framed a
   constitution for the new State of West Virginia was
   satisfactorily performed, and "on the first Thursday of April,
   1862, the people approved the constitution by a vote of 18,862
   in favor of it with only 614 against it. The work of the
   representatives of the projected new State being thus
   ratified, the Governor called the Legislature of Virginia
   together on the 6th day of May, and on the 13th of the same
   month that body gave its consent, with due regularity, to 'the
   formation of a new State within the jurisdiction of the said
   State of Virginia.' A fortnight later, on the 28th of May,
   Senator Willey introduced the subject in Congress by
   presenting a memorial from the Legislature of Virginia,
   together with a certified copy of the proceedings of the
   Constitutional Convention and the vote of the people. The
   constitution was referred to the Committee on Territories and
   a bill favorable to admission was promptly reported by Senator
   Wade of Ohio. The measure was discussed at different periods,
   largely with reference to the effect it would have upon the
   institution of slavery, and Congress insisted upon inserting a
   provision that 'the children of slaves, born in the State
   after the 4th day of July, 1863, shall be free; all slaves
   within the said State who shall at that time be under the age
   of ten years shall be free when they arrive at the age of
   twenty-one years all slaves over ten and under twenty-one
   shall be free at the age of twenty-five years; and no slave
   shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent
   residence therein.' This condition was to be ratified by the
   convention which framed the constitution, and by the people at
   an election held for the purpose, and, upon due certification
   of the approval of the condition to the President of the
   United States, he was authorized to issue his proclamation
   declaring West Virginia to be a State of the Union. … On the
   14th of July, three days before Congress adjourned, the bill
   passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 17. Mr. Rice of Minnesota
   was the only Democrat who favored the admission of the new
   State. … Mr. Chandler and Mr. Howard of Michigan voted in the
   negative because the State had voluntarily done nothing
   towards providing for the emancipation of slaves; Mr. Sumner
   and Mr. Wilson, because the Senate had rejected the
   anti-slavery amendment [proposed by Mr. Sumner, declaring
   immediate emancipation in the new State]; Mr. Trumbull and Mr.
   Cowan, because of the irregularity of the whole proceeding.
   The bill was not considered in the House until the next
   session. It was taken up on the 9th of December," and was
   warmly debated. "On the passage of the bill the ayes were 96
   and the noes were 55. The ayes were wholly from the Republican
   party, though several prominent Republicans opposed the
   measure. Almost the entire Massachusetts delegation voted in
   the negative, as did also Mr. Roscoe Conkling, Mr. Conway of
   Kansas and Mr. Francis Thomas of Maryland. The wide difference
   of opinion concerning this act was not unnatural. But the
   cause of the Union was aided by the addition of another loyal
   commonwealth, and substantial justice was done to the brave
   people of the new State. … To the old State of Virginia the
   blow was a heavy one. In the years following the war it added
   seriously to her financial embarrassment, and it has in many
   ways obstructed her prosperity."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

   In the legislative Ordinance of 1861 the proposed new State
   was called Kanawha; but in the Constitutional Convention this
   name was changed to West Virginia.

      ALSO IN:
      _V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapters 25-26._

      _E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during
      the Great Rebellion,
      pages 377-378._

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapter 14._

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE).
   Fremont's Mountain Department.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

{3651}

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

WESTERN EMPIRE, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395, and 423-450;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

WESTERN LANDS, Cession of, to the United States by the States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

WESTERN RESERVE OF CONNECTICUT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1786-1796.

WESTFALIA.

      See WESTPHALIA.

WESTMINSTER, Provisions of.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

WESTMINSTER, Statutes of.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1275, and 1285.

WESTMINSTER, Treaty of.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.1643 (JULY); and 1646 (MARCH).

WESTMINSTER PALACE.

   "Westminster was from the days of Edward the Confessor the
   recognised home of the great council of the nation as well as
   of the king. How this came about, history does not record; it
   is possible that the mere accident of the existence of the
   royal palace on the bank of the Thames led to the foundation
   of the abbey, or that the propinquity of the abbey led to the
   choice of the place for a palace; equal obscurity covers the
   origin of both. … At Westminster Henry I held his councils,
   and Stephen is said to have founded the chapel of his patron
   saint within the palace. … From the very first introduction of
   representative members the national council had its regular
   home at Westminster. There, with a few casual exceptions, …
   all the properly constituted parliaments of England have been
   held. The ancient Palace of Westminster, of which the most
   important parts, having survived until the fire of 1834 and
   the construction of the New Houses of Parliament, were
   destroyed in 1852, must have presented a very apt illustration
   of the history of the Constitution which had grown up from its
   early simplicity to its full strength within those venerable
   walls. It was a curious congeries of towers, halls, churches,
   and chambers. As the administrative system of the country had
   been developed largely from the household economy of the king,
   the national palace had for its kernel the king's court, hall,
   chapel, and chamber. … As time went on, every apartment
   changed its destination: the chamber became a council room,
   the banquet hall a court of justice, the chapel a hall of
   deliberation. … The King's Chamber, or Parliament Chamber, was
   the House of Lords from very early times until the union with
   Ireland, when the peers removed into the lesser or White Hall,
   where they continued until the fire. The house of commons met
   occasionally in the Painted Chamber, but generally sat in the
   Chapter House or in the Refectory of the abbey, until the
   reign of Edward VI, when it was fixed in S. Stephen's chapel.
   … After the fire of 1834, during the building of the new
   houses, the house of lords sat in the Painted Chamber, and the
   house of commons in the White Hall or Court of Requests. It
   was a curious coincidence, certainly, that the destruction of
   the ancient fabric should follow so immediately upon the great
   constitutional change wrought by the reform act, and scarcely
   less curious that the fire should have originated in the
   burning of the ancient Exchequer tallies, one of the most
   permanent relics of the primitive simplicity of
   administration."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 20, sections 735-736 (volume 3)._

WESTMINSTER SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

WESTPHALIA:
   The country so named.

      See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

WESTPHALIA, The Circle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

WESTPHALIA, The Kingdom of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
      1813(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

WESTPHALIA, The Peace of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

WESTPORT, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

WETTIN, House of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

WEXFORD: Stormed by Cromwell (1649).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

WHIG PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

WHIGS (WHIGGAMORS):
   Origin of the name and the English Party.

   "The southwest counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to
   serve them round the year: and the northern parts producing
   more than they need, those in the west come in summer to buy
   at Leith the stores that come from the north: and from a word
   'whiggam,' used in driving their horses, all that drove were
   called the 'whiggamors,' and shorter the 'whiggs.' Now in that
   year [1648], after the news came down of Duke Hamilton's
   defeat [at the battle of Preston—see ENGLAND: A. D. 1648
   (APRIL-AUGUST)], the ministers animated their people to rise
   and march to Edenburgh; and they came up marching on [at] the
   head of their parishes, with an unheard-of fury, praying and
   preaching all the way as they came. The marquis of Argile and
   his party came and headed them, they being about 6,000. This
   was called the 'whiggamors' inroad; and ever after that all
   that opposed the court came in contempt to be called 'whiggs':
   and from Scotland the word was brought into England, where it
   is now one of our unhappy terms of distinction."

      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 1 (Summary), section 43 (volume 1)._

   "We find John Nicoll, the diarist, in 1666, speaking of the
   west-country Presbyterians as 'commonly called the Whigs,
   implying that the term was new. The sliding of the appellation
   from these obscure people to the party of the opposition in
   London a few years later, is indicated by Daniel Defoe as
   occurring immediately after the affair of Bothwell Bridge in
   1679. The Duke of Monmouth then returning from his command in
   Scotland, instead of thanks for his good service, found
   himself under blame for using the insurgents too mercifully.
   'And Lauderdale told Charles, with an oath, that the Duke had
   been so civil to the Whigs because he was himself a Whig in
   his heart. This made it a court-word; and in a little while
   all the friends and followers of the Duke began to be called
   Whigs.'"

      _R. Chambers,
      Domestic Annals of Scotland,
      volume 2, page 172._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 74 (volume 7)._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.

{3652}

WHIPS, Party.

   The "party whips," in English politics, are "an extremely
   useful and hard-working body of officials. Being charged with
   the duty of keeping the respective sides in readiness for all
   emergencies, they are generally to be found in the lobby,
   where they make themselves acquainted with the incomings and
   outgoings of members, and learn a good deal as to their
   prospective movements. The whips are the gentlemen who issue
   those strongly underlined circulars by which legislators are
   summoned on important nights; and who, by their watchfulness
   and attention, can generally convey reliable intelligence to
   the party chiefs. If the Ministers, for example, are engaged
   in any controversy, and their whips are not absolutely certain
   of a majority, they would make arrangements for a succession
   of men to keep on talking till the laggards could be brought
   to their places." The whips also arrange "pairs," by which
   members of opposite parties, or on opposite sides of a given
   question, agree in couples, not to vote for a certain fixed
   period of time, thereby securing freedom to be absent without
   causing any loss of relative strength to their respective
   parties. This arrangement is common in most legislative
   bodies. "In addition to these duties, the whips of the
   opposing forces have to move for the issue of new writs in the
   place of deceased members—task never undertaken till they
   have a candidate ready for the fray."

      _Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
      page 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      page 198, and appendix K._

WHISKY INSURRECTION, The.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

WHISKY RING, The.

   The Whisky Ring, so called, brought to light in the United
   States in 1875, "was an association, or series of
   associations, of distillers and Federal officials for the
   purpose of defrauding the Government of a large amount of the
   tax imposed on distilled spirits, and, further, of employing a
   part of the proceeds in political corruption. On the trial of
   the indictments a number of Federal officers were convicted."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Whisky Frauds: Testimony Taken
      (44th Congress, 1st Session,
      H. R. Mis. Doc's, Number 186, volume 9)._

WHITE BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

WHITE CAMELLIA, Knights of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

WHITE CASTLE OF MEMPHIS, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

WHITE CITY, The.

      See BELGRADE.

WHITE COCKADE, The.

   "This is the badge at the same time of the House of Stuart and
   of the House of Bourbon."

      _E. E. Morris,
      The Early Hanoverians,
      page 138._

WHITE COMPANY, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

WHITE CROSS, Order of the.

   An order founded by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, 1814.

WHITE EAGLE, Order of the.

   A Polish order of knighthood, instituted in 1325 by
   Ladislaus IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

WHITE FRIARS.

      See CARMELITE FRIARS.

WHITE GUELFS (Bianchi).

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

   "The Caputiati, or Capuchons, or White Hoods, [was] a sect
   originating with a wood-cutter of Auvergne, by name Durand,
   about the year 1182. Their primary object was the maintenance
   of peace, and the extermination of the disbanded soldiery,
   whom the English kings had spread over the south of France,
   and [who] were now ravaging the country under the name of
   Routiers or Cotereaux. The members of this religious
   association were bound by no vow, and made no profession of
   any particular faith; they were only distinguished by the
   white head-gear that gave them their name, and wore a little
   leaden image of the Virgin on their breast. They found favour
   at first with the bishops, especially in Burgundy and the
   Berri, and were even, from the best political causes,
   countenanced by Philip Augustus. They thus rose to such a
   degree of power that on the 20th of July, 1183, they
   surrounded a body of 7,000 of the marauding party, and
   suffered not one man to escape. They were, however, soon
   intoxicated with success, and threw out some hints about
   restoring the primæval liberty of mortals and universal
   equality; thereby incurring the displeasure of Hugo Bishop of
   Auxerre, who took arms against them, and put an end to the
   sect by the might of the sword in 1186."

      _L. Mariotti,
      Frà Dolcino and his times,
      chapter 1._

WHITE HOODS OF GHENT, The.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

WHITE HOUSE, The.

   The plain white freestone mansion at Washington in which the
   President of the United States resides during his term of
   office is officially styled the "Executive Mansion," but is
   popularly known as the White House. "It was designed by James
   Hoban in 1792. The corner-stone was laid on October 13, 1792,
   and its construction went on side by side with that of the
   Capitol. … President John Adams and his wife, on arriving … in
   November, 1800, found it habitable, although but six of its
   rooms were furnished. … In his design Hoban copied closely the
   plan of a notable Dublin palace, the seat of the Dukes of
   Leinster."

      _C. B. Todd,
      The Story of Washington,
      page 264._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Clemmer,
      Ten Years in Washington,
      chapter 19._

WHITE HUNS, The.

      See HUNS, WHITE.

WHITE MONKS.

      See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

WHITE MOUNTAIN, Battle of the (1620).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

WHITE OAK ROAD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

WHITE OAK SWAMP, Retreat through.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

WHITE PENITENTS,
WHITE COMPANIES.

   "The end of the 14th century witnessed a profound outburst of
   popular devotion. The miserable condition of the Church,
   distracted by schism, and the disturbed state of every country
   in Europe, awoke a spirit of penitence and contrition at the
   prospect of another great Jubilee, and the opening of a new
   century.
{3653}
   Bands of penitents wandered from place to place, clad in white
   garments; their faces, except the eyes, were covered with
   hoods, and on their backs they wore a red cross. They walked
   two and two, in solemn procession, old and young, men and
   women together, singing hymns of penitence, amongst which the
   sad strains of the 'Stabat Mater' held the chief place. At
   times they paused and flung themselves on the ground,
   exclaiming 'Mercy,' or 'Peace,' and continued in silent
   prayer. All was done with order and decorum; the processions
   generally lasted for nine days, and the penitents during this
   time fasted rigorously. The movement seems to have originated
   in Provence, but rapidly spread through Italy. Enemies were
   reconciled, restitution was made for wrongs, the churches were
   crowded wherever the penitents, or 'Bianchi' ['White
   Penitents,' 'White Companies,' 'Whitemen' are various English
   forms of the name] as they were called from their dress, made
   their appearance. The inhabitants of one city made a
   pilgrimage to another and stirred up their devotion. The
   people of Modena went to Bologna; the Bolognese suspended all
   business for nine days, and walked to Imola, whence the
   contagion rapidly spread southwards. For the last three months
   of 1399 this enthusiasm lasted, and wrought marked results
   upon morals and religion for a time. Yet enthusiasm tended to
   create imposture."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1, pages 145-146._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      volume 2, page 297._

      See, also, FLAGELLANTS.

WHITE PLAINS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

WHITE RUSSIA.

      See RUSSIA, GREAT, &c.

WHITE SEA, The.

      See ÆGEAN.

WHITE SHIP, The sinking of the.

   William, the only legitimate son of Henry I. of England,
   accompanied his father on a visit to Normandy (A. D. 1120).
   "When they were about to return by the port of Barfleur, a
   Norman captain, Thomas Fitz-Stephen, appeared and claimed the
   right of taking them in his ship, on the ground that his
   father had been captain of the 'Mora,' in which the Conqueror
   crossed to invade England. The king did not care to alter his
   own arrangements, but agreed that his son should sail in the
   'Blanche Nef' [the White Ship] with Fitz-Stephen. William
   Ætheling, as the English called him, was accompanied by a
   large train of unruly courtiers, who amused themselves by
   making the sailors drink hard before they started, and
   dismissed the priests who came to bless the voyage with a
   chorus of scoffing laughter. It was evening before they left
   the shore, and there was no moon; a few of the more prudent
   quitted the ship, but there remained nearly 300—a dangerous
   freight for a small vessel. However, fifty rowers flushed with
   wine made good way in the waters; but the helmsman was less
   fit for his work, and the vessel struck suddenly on a sunk
   rock, the Raz de Catteville. The water rushed in, but there
   was time to lower a boat, which put off with the prince. When
   in safety, he heard the cries of his sister, the countess of
   Perche, and returned to save her. A crowd of desperate men
   leaped into the boat; it was swamped, and all perished."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 445._

WHITE TERROR, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

WHITE TOWER, The.

      See TOWER OF LONDON.

WHITE TOWN, The.

      See ROCHELLE.

WHITE VALLEY, Battle of the (1476).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.

WHITNEY, Eli, and the invention of the cotton-gin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1793 WHITNEY'S COTTON-GIN; and 1818-1821.

WICHITAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

WIDE AWAKES.

   In the American presidential canvass of 1860, there were
   organized among the supporters of Abraham Lincoln numerous
   companies of young Republicans who undertook the parades and
   torchlight processions of the campaign in a systematic and
   disciplined way that was then quite new. They were simply
   uniformed in glazed-cloth caps and capes and took the name of
   Wide Awakes.

WIGHT, Isle of: Conquest by the Jutes.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

WIGHT, Isle of: A. D. 1545.
   Occupation by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

WILDCAT BANKS.

   "During Jackson's struggle with the Bank of the United States
   [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836, and 1835-1837]
   many new banks had been formed in various States, generally
   with little or no capital to pay the notes which they issued.
   They bought large quantities of cheaply printed bills. As
   these bills had cost them very little, they could afford to
   offer a higher price in paper money for lands in distant
   States and Territories than others could afford to offer in
   gold and silver. Having bought the lands for this worthless
   money, the wildcat bankers sold them for good money, hoping
   that their own bills would not soon find their way back for
   payment. If they were disappointed in this hope, the bank
   'failed,' and the managers started a new one."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      section 496._

      See, also: MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841.

WILDERNESS, Hooker's Campaign in the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

WILDERNESS, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) GRANT'S MOVEMENT.

WILHELMINA, Queen of the Netherlands, A. D. 1890-.

WILKES, John, The case of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764; and 1768-1774.

WILKINSON, General James, and Aaron Burr.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

   Command on the Northern frontier.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

WILLIAM (of Holland),
   King of Germany: A. D. 1254-1256.

   William (called The Silent), Prince of Orange, Count of Nassau,
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, 1558-1584.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, to 1581-1584.

   William I.,
   German Emperor, 1870-1888;
   King of Prussia, 1861-1888.

   William I. (called The Conqueror),
   King of England (and Duke of Normandy), 1066-1087.

   William I., King of Naples and Sicily, 1154-1166.

   William I., King of the Netherlands, 1815-1840.

   William II., German Emperor and King of Prussia, 1888-.

   William II. (called Rufus or The Red), King of

{3654}

   England, 1087-1100.

   William II., King of Naples and Sicily, 1166-1189.

   William II., King of the Netherlands, 1840-1849.

   William II., Prince of Orange,
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, 1647-1650.

   William III., King of Naples and Sicily, 1194.

   William III., King of the Netherlands, 1849-1890.

   William III., Prince of Orange and
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, A. D. 1672-1702;
   King of England (with Queen Mary, his Wife), 1689-1702.

   William IV., King of England, 1830-1837.

   William IV. (called The Lion), King of Scotland, 1165-1214.

WILLIAM HENRY, Fort: A. D. 1757.
   The French capture and the massacre of prisoners.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

WILLIAMS, Roger,
   Founder of Rhode Island and Apostle of Religious Liberty.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1683.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

WILLIAMSBURG, Canada, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

WILLOWS, Battle of the.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.

WILMINGTON, Delaware: A. D. 1638.
   The founding of the city.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

WILMINGTON, Delaware: A. D. 1865.
   Occupied by the National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

WILMOT PROVISO, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

WILSON, James, and the framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

WILSON TARIFF ACT, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1894.

WILSON'S CREEK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

WILSON'S RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

WILZEN,
WELATABIANS, The.

   "The Wilzen, as the Franks called them, or the Welatabians, as
   they called themselves, were perhaps the most powerful of the
   Sclavonian tribes, and at [the time of Charlemagne] occupied
   the southern coast of the Baltic; their immediate neighbors
   were the Abodrites, old allies of the Franks, whom they
   harassed by continual raids." Charlemagne led an expedition
   into the country of the Wilzen in 789 and subdued them.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 4._

WIMPFEN, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

WINCEBY FIGHT (1643).

   The sharp encounter known as Winceby Fight, in the English
   civil war, was one of Cromwell's successes, which drove the
   royalist forces out of the Lincolnshire country, and compelled
   the Marquis of Newcastle, who was besieging Hull, to abandon
   the siege. "Cromwell himself was nearer death in this action
   than ever in any other; the victory, too, made its due figure,
   and 'appeared in the world.' Winceby, a small upland hamlet,
   in the Wolds, not among the Fens, of Lincolnshire, is some
   five miles west of Horncastle. The confused memory of this
   Fight is still fresh there." The Fight occurred October 10,
   1643.

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      letter 18 (volume 1)._

      See HULL.

WINCHESTER, General:
   Defeat at the Raisin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

WINCHESTER, England:
   Origin of.

   "There can be little doubt that a town, of greater or less
   importance, has existed since the earliest dawn of English
   history on the same place where stands the Winchester of
   to-day. … If the first founders of the ancient city were
   Celtic Britons, covering with their rude dwellings the summit
   and sides of S. Catherine's Hill they were certainly conquered
   by the Belgæ, also probably of Celtic origin, who, crossing
   over from Gaul, established themselves in a large district of
   southern England. But whether in their time Winchester was
   called Caer Gwent is doubtful; very probably it was simply
   Gwin or Gwent, the white place. … But as there is no question
   of the Roman occupation of Britain, first by Julius Cæsar,
   later on by Claudius and Vespasian, so we know that the
   settlement on the Itchen was turned into Venta Belgarum, and
   S. Catherine's Hill converted into a Roman camp. … Venta, as
   well as many other towns, was completely Romanised. … But the
   time arrived when Rome could no longer defend herself at home,
   and was thus forced to leave Britain to contend with the wild
   Northmen who had already begun their inroads. The Britons
   implored their former masters to come back and help them, but
   in vain. … We know how Vortigern, chief among the southern
   British kings, invited the Saxon adventurers to help him
   against the Picts and Scots, who encroached more and more in
   Britain. … In 495 (as we learn from the Brito-Welsh
   Chronicle), there · came two ealdormen to Britain, Cerdic and
   Cymric,' who landed at Hamble Creek, and eventually, after
   many battles much extolled in the Saxon Chronicle, became
   kings of the West Saxons. Cerdic is said to have been crowned
   in Venta, to have slaughtered most of the inhabitants and all
   the priests, and to have converted the cathedral into a
   heathen temple. … The name Venta now becomes Wintana, with the
   affix of 'ceaster,' Saxon for fortified place."

      _A. R. R. Bramston and A. C. Leroy,
      Historic Winchester,
      chapter I._

      See, also, VENTA.

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1862.
   Defeat of General Banks.
   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1864.
   Sheridan's victory.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

WINDSOR CASTLE:
   Rebuilt by Edward III.

      See GARTER, KNIGHTS OF THE.

WINDWARD ISLANDS, The.

      See WEST INDIES.

WINEDI.

      See VENEDI.

{3655}

WINGFIELD, Battle of.

   Fought, A. D. 655, between King Oswin of Northumberland and
   King Penda of Mercia, the latter being defeated and slain.

WINKELRIED, Arnold von, at the battle of Sempach.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

WINNEBAGOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WINSLOW, Edward, and the Plymouth colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.1623-1629 (PLYMOUTH), and after.

WINTHROP, John, and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

   See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.

WINTHROP, John, Jr., and the founding of Connecticut.

   See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

WINTHROP, Theodore:
   Death at Big Bethel.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WIPPED'S-FLEET, Battle of.

   The decisive battle fought, A. D. 465, between the Jutes under
   Hengest and the Britons, which settled the conquest of Kent by
   the former.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

WISBY, Its Code of Maritime Laws.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

WISBY: A. D. 1361.
   Taken and plundered by the Danes.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

   ----------WISCONSIN: Start--------

WISCONSIN:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1634-1673.
   Visited by Nicolet, and traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Sylvania, Michigania
   and Assenisipia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1785.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of
   Massachusetts, ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
   Territorial vicissitudes.
   Admission into the Union as a State.

   From 1805 to 1809, Wisconsin formed a part of Indiana
   Territory. From 1809 to 1818 her territory was embraced In the
   Territory of Illinois, excepting a small projection at the
   northeast which was left out of the described boundaries and
   belonged nowhere. When Illinois became a State, in 1818, and
   her present boundaries were established, an the country north
   of them was joined to Michigan Territory. In 1834 that huge
   Territory was still further enlarged by the temporary addition
   to it of a great area west of the Mississippi, embracing the
   present states of Iowa, Minnesota and part of Dakota. It was
   an unwieldy and impracticable territorial organization, and
   movements to divide it, which had been on foot long before
   this last enlargement, soon attained success. In 1836, the
   year before Michigan became a State, with her present limits,
   the remaining Territory was organized under the name of
   Wisconsin. Two years later, "by act of June 12, 1838, congress
   still further contracted the limits of Wisconsin by creating
   from its trans-Mississippi tract the Territory of Iowa. This,
   however, was in accordance with the original design when the
   country beyond the Mississippi was attached to Michigan
   Territory for purposes of temporary government, so no
   objection was entertained to this arrangement on the part of
   Wisconsin. The establishment of Iowa had reduced Wisconsin to
   her present limits, except that she still held, as her western
   boundary, the Mississippi river to its source, and a line
   drawn due north therefrom to the international boundary. In
   this condition Wisconsin remained until the act of congress
   approved August 6, 1846, enabling her people to form a state
   constitution. … Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, by act
   approved May 29, 1848, with her present limits."

      _R. G. Thwaites,
      The Boundaries of Wisconsin
      (Wisconsin State Historical Society Collections,
      volume 11, pages 455-468)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 17._

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1854.
   Early formation of the Republican Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

   ----------WISCONSIN: End--------

WISCONSIN, University of.

   "In 1838, two years after organization as a Territory,
   Wisconsin petitioned Congress for aid to establish a
   university. The request was granted, the usual seventy-two
   sections of land were set aside for this object, and the
   Territorial Legislature at once passed a law establishing the
   University of the Territory of Wisconsin. The organization of
   a board of trustees was, however, the only other action which
   took place previous to the adoption of the State Constitution
   In 1848; this provided for the establishment of a State
   university 'at or near the seat of government,' and stated,
   emphatically, that the lands granted for a university should
   constitute a perpetual fund, the income of which should be
   devoted to the support of this institution. This declaration
   was apparently to little purpose, as the State has treated
   these domains as granted absolutely, and not as held in trust.
   There is probably no worse example of mismanaged public
   educational funds on record than is to be found in connection
   with this institution. … The entire sum realized from the
   46,080 acres was only 'about $150,000.' The University of
   Wisconsin was established in 1850 on the basis of the funds
   thus secured, but even while passing laws for the sale of the
   university lands the Legislature realized that the income
   would be insufficient to support the institution, and they
   therefore petitioned Congress for seventy-two additional
   sections in lieu of the saline lands granted to the State in
   1848 but never located. Congress granted this petition in
   1854. … An opportunity to atone for past errors was now
   afforded the Legislature. It began to be realized, after it
   was too late to enact suitable laws to remedy the evil, that
   the best lands had been sold at a disadvantage.
{3656}
   It was felt that, whereas the policy pursued had benefited the
   State at large, it was not faithful to the increase of the
   seminary fund. … After fully examining the claims of the
   regents and the condition of the university in 1872 for four
   years, this body granted $10,000 annually, to atone for the
   injustice done by the State in selecting for an endowment
   unproductive lands."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States (Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 250-251._

WISHOSKAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WISHOSKAN FAMILY.

WISIGOTHS.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS).

WISMAR.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

WITCHCRAFT, Salem.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

WITE-THEOW.

      See THEOW.

WITENAGEMOT, The.

   "The Witenagemot or assembly of the wise. This [in old English
   history] is the supreme council of the nation, whether the
   nation be Kent or Mercia as in the earlier, or the whole gens
   Anglorum et Saxonum, as in the later history. The character of
   the national council testifies to its history as a later
   development than the lower courts, and as a consequence of the
   institution of royalty. The folkmoot or popular assembly of
   the shire is a representative body to a certain extent: it is
   attended by the representatives of the hundreds and townships,
   and has a representative body of witnesses to give validity to
   the acts that are executed in it. … The council of the
   aggregated state is not a folkmoot but a witenagemot. … On
   great occasions … we must understand the witenagemot to have
   been attended by a concourse of people whose voices could be
   raised in applause or in resistance to the proposals of the
   chiefs. But that such gatherings shared in any way the
   constitutional powers of the witan, that they were organised
   in any way corresponding to the machinery of the folkmoot,
   that they had any representative character in the modern
   sense, as having full powers to act on behalf of constituents,
   that they shared the judicial work, or except by applause and
   hooting influenced in any way the decision of the chiefs,
   there is no evidence whatever. … The members of the assembly
   were the wise men, the sapientes, witan; the king, sometimes
   accompanied by his wife and sons; the bishops of the kingdom,
   the ealdormen of the shires or provinces, and a number of the
   king's friends and dependents. … The number of the witan was
   thus never very large."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 6, sections 51-52 (volume 1)._

   The constitution and powers of the witenagemot are very fully
   discussed by Mr. Kemble, who gives also a list of the recorded
   witenagemots, with comments on the business transacted in
   them.

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Gneist,
      The English Parliament._

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH:
      EARLY STAGES OF ITS EVOLUTION; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

WITIGIS, King of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

WITT, John De, The administration and the murder of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650; 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.

WITTELSBACH, The House of.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

WITTENBERG, Luther at.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1017, and after.

WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

WITTENWEIHER, Battle of (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

WITTSTOCK, Battle of (1636).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

WITUMKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

WIZA.

      See THRACIANS.

WOCCONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WOIPPY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

WOIWODES,
VOIVODES,
WAIWODES.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1078-1652;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WOLFE, General, Victory and death of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

WOLFENBÜTTEL, Duchy of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

WOLSEY, The ministry and fall of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1513-1529; and 1527-1534.

WOMAN ORDER, General Butler's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

   ----------WOMAN'S RIGHTS: Start--------

WOMAN'S RIGHTS.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE: A. D. 1790-1849.
   The pioneer advocates.

   "In 1790, Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Vindication of the Rights of
   Women,' published in London, attracted much attention from
   liberal minds. She examined the position of woman in the light
   of existing civilizations, and demanded for her the widest
   opportunities of education, industry, political knowledge, and
   the right of representation. … Following her, came Jane
   Marcet, Eliza Lynn, and Harriet Martineau—each of whom in the
   early part of the 19th century exerted a decided influence
   upon the political thought of England. … Frances Wright, a
   person of extraordinary powers of mind, born in Dundee,
   Scotland, in 1797, was the first woman who gave lectures on
   political subjects in America. When sixteen years of age she
   heard of the existence of a country in which freedom for the
   people had been proclaimed; she was filled with joy and a
   determination to visit the American Republic where the
   foundations of justice, liberty, and equality had been so
   securely laid. In 1820 she came here, traveling extensively
   North and South. She was at that time but twenty-two years of
   age. … Upon her second visit she made this country her home
   for several years. Her radical ideas on theology, slavery, and
   the social degradation of woman, now generally accepted by the
   best minds of the age, were then denounced by both press and
   pulpit, and maintained by her at the risk of her life. … In
   1832, Lydia Maria Child published her 'History of Woman,'
   which was the first American storehouse of information upon
   the whole question, and undoubtedly increased the agitation.
   In 1836, Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady—banished from her
   native country by the Austrian tyrant, Francis Joseph, for her
   love of liberty—came to America, lecturing in the large cities
   North and South upon the 'Science of Government.' She
   advocated the enfranchisement of woman. Her beauty, wit, and
   eloquence drew crowded houses.
{3657}
   About this period Judge Hurlbut, of New York, a leading member
   of the Bar, wrote a vigorous work on 'Human Rights,' in which
   he advocated political equality for women. This work attracted
   the attention of many legal minds throughout that State. In
   the winter of 1836, a bill was introduced into the New York
   Legislature by Judge Hertell, to secure to married women their
   rights of property. This bill was drawn up under the direction
   of Honorable John Savage, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court,
   and Honorable John C. Spencer, one of the revisers of the
   statutes of New York. It was in furtherance of this bill that
   Ernestine L. Rose and Paulina Wright at that early day
   circulated petitions. The very few names they secured show the
   hopeless apathy and ignorance of the women as to their own
   rights. As similar bills were pending in New York until
   finally passed in 1848, a great educational work was
   accomplished in the constant discussion of the topics
   involved. During the winters of 1844-5-6, Elizabeth Cady
   Stanton, living in Albany, made the acquaintance of Judge
   Hurlbut and a large circle of lawyers and legislators, and,
   while exerting herself to strengthen their convictions in
   favor of the pending bill, she resolved at no distant day to
   call a convention for a full and free discussion of woman's
   rights and wrongs. … In 1840, Margaret Fuller published an
   essay in the Dial, entitled 'The Great Lawsuit, or Man vs.
   Woman: Woman vs. Man.' In this essay she demanded perfect
   equality for woman, in education, industry, and politics. It
   attracted great attention and was afterward expanded into a
   work entitled 'Woman in the Nineteenth Century.' … In the
   State of New York, in 1845, Reverend Samuel J. May preached a
   sermon at Syracuse, upon 'The Rights and Conditions of Women,'
   in which he sustained their right to take part in political
   life, saying women need not expect 'to have their wrongs fully
   redressed, until they themselves have a voice and a hand in
   the enactment and administration of the laws.' … In 1849,
   Lucretia Mott published a discourse on woman, delivered in the
   Assembly Building, Philadelphia, in answer to a Lyceum lecture
   which Richard H. Dana, of Boston, was giving in many of the
   chief cities, ridiculing the idea of political equality for
   woman. … It was her early labors in the temperance cause that
   first roused Susan B. Anthony to a realizing sense of woman's
   social, civil, and political degradation, and thus secured her
   life-long labors for the enfranchisement of woman. In 1847 she
   made her first speech at a public meeting of the Daughters of
   Temperance in Canajoharie, New York. The same year Antoinette
   L. Brown, then a student at Oberlin College, Ohio, the first
   institution that made the experiment of co-education,
   delivered her first speech on temperance in several places in
   Ohio, and on Woman's Rights, in the Baptist church at
   Henrietta, New York. Lucy Stone, a graduate of Oberlin, made
   her first speech on Woman's Rights the same year in her
   brother's church at Brookfield, Massachusetts. Nor were the
   women of Europe inactive."

      _E. C. Stanton, S. B. Anthony, and M. J. Gage, editors,
      History of Woman Suffrage,
      chapter 1._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1804-1891.
   The higher Education of women in America.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &C.: A. D. 1804-1891.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1839-1848.
   Legal emancipation of women in the United States.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1839-1848.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1840-1890.
   The organized agitation.

   "In 1840 a 'World's Antislavery Convention' was held in
   London, and all Antislavery organizations throughout the world
   were invited to join in it, through their delegates. Several
   American societies accepted the invitation, and elected
   delegates, six or eight of whom were women, Lucretia Mott and
   Mrs. Wendell Phillips among them. The excitement caused by
   their presence in London was intense, for the English
   Abolitionists were very conservative, and never dreamed of
   inviting women to sit in their Convention. And these women who
   had come among them had rent the American Anti-slavery
   Societies in twain, had been denounced from the pulpit,
   anathematized by the press, and mobbed by the riffraff of the
   streets. … A long and acrimonious debate followed on the
   admission of the women. … When the vote was taken, the women
   delegates were excluded by a large majority. William Lloyd
   Garrison did not arrive in London until after the rejection of
   the women. When he was informed of the decision of the
   Convention he refused to take his seat with the delegates. And
   throughout the ten days' sessions he maintained absolute
   silence, remaining in the gallery as a spectator. … The London
   Convention marked the beginning of a new era in the woman's
   cause. Hitherto, the agitation of the question of woman's
   equal rights had been incidental to the prosecution of other
   work. Now the time had come when a movement was needed to
   present the claims of woman in a direct and forcible manner,
   and to take issue with the legal and social order which denied
   her the rights of human beings, and held her in everlasting
   subjection. At the close of the exasperating and insulting
   debates of the 'World's Antislavery Convention,' Lucretia Mott
   and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton agreed to hold a Woman's
   Rights Convention on their return to America, and to begin in
   earnest the education of the people on the question of woman's
   enfranchisement. Mrs. Stanton had attended the Convention as a
   bride, her husband having been chosen a delegate. Accordingly
   the first Woman's Rights Convention of the world was called at
   Seneca Falls, New York, on the 19th and 20th of July, 1848. It
   was attended by crowds of men and women, and the deepest
   interest was manifested in the proceedings. 'Demand the
   uttermost,' said Daniel O'Connell, 'and you will get
   something.' The leaders in the new movement, Lucretia Mott and
   Mrs. Stanton, with their husbands, and Frederick Douglass,
   acted on this advice. They demanded in unambiguous terms all
   that the most radical friends of women have ever claimed. …
   The Convention adjourned to meet in Rochester, New York,
   August 2, 1848. … A third Convention was held at Salem, Ohio,
   in 1850; a fourth in Akron, Ohio, in 1851; a fifth in
   Massillon, Ohio, in 1852; another at Ravenna, Ohio, in 1853,
   and others rapidly followed. The advocates of woman suffrage
   increased in number and ability. Superior women, whose names
   have become historic, espoused the cause—Frances D. Gage,
   Hannah Tracy Cutler, Jane G. Swisshelm, Caroline M. Severance,
   Celia C. Burr, who later be·came Mrs. C. C. Burleigh,
   Josephine S. Griffing, Antoinette L. Brown, Lucy Stone, Susan
   B. Anthony, Paulina W. Davis, Caroline H. Dall, Elizabeth
   Oakes Smith, Ernestine L. Rose, Mrs. C. H. Nichols, Dr.
   Harriot K. Hunt; the roll-call was a brilliant one,
   representing an unusual versatility of culture and ability.
{3658}
   The First National Woman Suffrage Convention was held in
   Worcester, Massachusetts, October 23 and 24, 1850. It was more
   carefully planned than any that had yet been held. Nine States
   were represented. The arrangements were perfect—the addresses
   and papers were of the highest character—the audiences were at
   a white heat of enthusiasm. The number of cultivated people
   who espoused the new gospel for women was increased by the
   names of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Bronson and
   Abby May Alcott, Thomas W. Higginson, William I. Bowditch,
   Samuel E. and Harriet W. Sewall, Henry Ward Beecher, Henry B.
   Blackwell, Ednah D. Cheney, Honorable John Neal, Reverend
   William H. Channing, and Wendell Phillips. … A dozen years
   were spent in severe pioneer work and then came the four years
   Civil War. All reformatory work was temporarily suspended, for
   the nation then passed through a crucial experience, and the
   issue of the fratricidal conflict was national life or
   national death. The transition of the country from peace to
   the tumult and waste of war was appalling and swift, but the
   regeneration of its women kept pace with it. … The development
   of those years, and the impetus they gave to women, which has
   not yet spent itself, has been wonderfully manifested since
   that time. … It has been since the war, and as the result of
   the great quickening of women which it occasioned, that women
   have organized missionary, philanthropic, temperance,
   educational, and political organizations, on a scale of great
   magnitude. … In 1869, two great National organizations were
   formed. One styled itself 'The National Woman Suffrage
   Association,' and the other was christened 'The American Woman
   Suffrage Association.' The first established its headquarters
   in New York, and published a weekly paper, 'The Revolution,'
   which was ably edited by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. 'The
   American' made its home in Boston, and founded 'The Woman's
   Journal,' which was edited by Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mrs.
   Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Lucy Stone, William Lloyd Garrison and
   Thomas W. Higginson. … After twenty years of separate
   activities, a union of the two national organizations was
   effected in 1890, under the composite title of 'The National
   American Woman Suffrage Association.'"

      _M. A. Livermore,
      Woman in the State
      (Woman's Work in America, chapter 10)._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1842-1892.
   Women in the Medical profession.

   "The first advocate for women medical students, Miss Elizabeth
   Blackwell, after many years of struggle obtained entrance into
   the medical faculty of Geneva in 1842; in 1847 she received
   her doctor's degree, and went to England, Germany, and finally
   to Paris, to complete her studies. Her example fired others.
   In that same year a medical college for women was founded in
   Boston, in 1850 a similar one in Philadelphia, one in New York
   in 1868, and in Chicago in 1870. Soon after, the greater
   number of universities in America were thrown open to women,
   and by this their studies were largely extended. The
   difficulties proved far greater in Europe. The universities of
   Zurich in 1864, and of Berne in 1872, were the first to
   receive lady students for the study of medicine. In 1868 the
   Medical Faculty of Paris, chiefly through the intervention of
   the Empress Eugenie, first admitted lady students to follow
   the medical course. In Italy, in 1876, they obtained equal
   success; in Russia, an ukase of the Czar Alexander II., of
   November 2nd, 1872, conferred upon ladies the right to attend
   the medical courses in the Medico-Chirurgical Academy of St.
   Petersburg, but this permission was subsequently withdrawn on
   political grounds, on the accession of a new government. In
   1874 the first school of medicine for women was started in
   London; in 1876 they were admitted to the study of medicine in
   Dublin. In Germany and Austro-Hungary women are not allowed to
   enter the universities, although ladies' associations have
   obtained thousands of signatures to petition both parliaments
   on the subject. From statistical sources, we learn that there
   are seventy lady doctors in practice in London, five in
   Edinburgh, and two in Dublin. Seven hundred lady doctors
   practise in Russia, of whom fifty-four are the heads of
   clinical schools and laboratories. In Italy, at the same time,
   there were only six. Spain has but two qualified lady doctors.
   Roumania, also, has two. Sweden, Norway, and Belgium have
   likewise comparatively few. In Berlin there are Dr. Franziska
   Tiburtius and Dr. Lehmus (who founded a poly-clinical school
   which is increasing year by year), Dr. Margaret
   Mengarin-Traube and Fraulein Kuhnow. In Austria, Dr. Rosa
   Kerschbaumer is the sole possessor of Government authority to
   practise her profession. In India, where native religion
   forbids their women calling in men doctors, there has been a
   strong movement in favour of ladies, and they have now one
   hundred lady doctors, three of whom are at the head of the
   three most important hospitals. The largest number of women
   practising medicine is in America."

      _A. Crepaz,
      The Emancipation of Women,
      pages 99-103._

   "The medical faculty of the University of Paris opened its
   doors to women in 1868, but at first only a very few availed
   themselves of the privileges thus offered. In 1878 the number
   in attendance was 32; during the next ten years (1878-1888) it
   increased to 114, and is at present 183, of whom the great
   majority (167) are Russians. The remainder are Poles,
   Rumanians, Servians, Greeks, and Scotch, and only one German."

      _The Nation,
      February 14, 1895._

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1865-1883.
   The higher Education of Women in England.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1869-1894.
   Progress in Europe and America.

   A certain number of the English cities "occupy a privileged
   position, under the title of 'municipal boroughs.' These alone
   are municipal corporations, enjoying a considerable degree of
   autonomy by virtue of charters of incorporation granted in the
   pleasure of the crown. … The other cities have as such no
   legal existence: they are simply geographical units. In past
   times the privilege of incorporation was often granted to
   wretched little hamlets. But whether they were once of
   consequence or not, the municipal corporations degenerated
   everywhere into corrupt oligarchies. The municipal reform of
   1835 destroyed these hereditary cliques and extended the
   municipal franchise to all the inhabitants who paid the poor
   tax as occupants of realty.
{3659}
   But in doing this … it was expressly provided in the Municipal
   Corporations Act of 1835 that the electoral franchise in the
   municipal boroughs should belong to male persons only. Before
   long the unorganized condition of the larger towns that were
   not municipal boroughs received the attention of Parliament.
   It did not grant them communal autonomy,—there could be no
   question of that,—but conceded special powers to establish
   sanitary systems and to undertake works of public utility such
   as lighting, paving, sewerage, etc. The special acts passed
   for these purposes from time to time, as the necessity for
   them arose, were consolidated and made general in two
   statutes: the Public Health Act of 1848, for a class of towns
   designated as 'local government districts,' and the
   Commissioners' Clauses Act of 1847, for the cities described
   as 'improvement commissions districts.' These acts gave to
   these urban agglomerations an incipient municipal
   organization, by establishing boards of health in some, and in
   others commissions to direct the public works. In both these
   classes of 'nascent, half-developed municipalities,' which had
   scarcely emerged from the parochial phase of local
   self-government, the authorities—i. e. the members of the
   boards of health and the commissioners—were elected, as in
   the parishes, by the rate-payers without distinction of sex.
   As these cities enlarged and developed, they were admitted to
   the honor of municipal incorporation. But since the Municipal
   Corporations Act limited the franchise to men, it resulted
   that while the city which was promoted to the rank of
   municipal borough saw its rights increased, a part of its
   inhabitants—the women—saw theirs suppressed. This anomaly gave
   the advocates of woman suffrage a chance to demand that the
   ballot be granted to women in the municipal boroughs. In 1869
   Mr. Jacob Bright introduced such a measure in the House of
   Commons, and it was adopted almost without discussion. … But
   when the English legislator placed the administration of the
   'nascent, half-developed municipalities'—which were only
   temporarily such and which might become cities of the first
   rank—on the same plane, as far as the suffrage of women was
   concerned, with the government of the parishes, he substituted
   a fluctuating for a permanent test, and as a result wiped out
   his own line of demarcation. When this fact was brought out,
   Parliament could not but recognize and bow to it. This
   recognition was decisive: it resulted in the overthrow of the
   electoral barriers against women in the entire domain of local
   self-government. The clause which, upon the proposal of Mr.
   Jacob Bright, was inserted in section 9 of the municipal act
   of 1869, found its way into the revised municipal act of 1882.
   Section 63 of this latter act reads: 'For all purposes
   connected with and having reference to the right to vote at
   municipal elections, words importing in this act the masculine
   gender include women.' This clause gave women the ballot in
   the municipal boroughs, but did not make them eligible to
   office. And as the general qualification for municipal
   suffrage is the occupancy by the elector in his own name of a
   house subject to the poor tax, the law includes independent
   women only, not married women. … When in 1881 the municipal
   suffrage was extended to women in Scotland, the question
   whether the separated woman could vote was decided in her
   favor. But of course this does not change the position of
   married women in England. A year after the introduction of the
   municipal suffrage of women they obtained (in 1870) the school
   vote also, in connection with the establishment of the
   existing system of primary instruction. … It still remained
   for women to make their way into the local government of the
   county; but county government, although representative, was
   not elective. In 1888 county councils were established, chosen
   by the ratepayers. The analogy of the municipal councils
   demanded that women should be included among the electors of
   the new local assemblies. Accordingly the Local Government Act
   of 1888 admits women to the electorate in England, and the act
   of 1889 gives them the same right in Scotland. … In Sweden
   local self-government is exercised in first instance, in the
   city and country communes, by the tax-payers in general
   assembly, or town meeting, where their votes are reckoned in
   proportion to the taxes paid, according to a graded scale,
   just as in the English vestries. In the cities with a
   population above 3,000 the taxpayers elect a communal council.
   … In the full assemblies of the communes that have no
   councils, and in the elections at which councillors are
   chosen, unmarried women have the same right of participation
   as men. … The next higher instance of local self-government
   consists of provincial councils (landstings). All the
   municipal electors, women not excepted, vote for the members
   of these councils. … In Norway women have no share in local
   government, except in the school administration. … In Denmark
   women are entirely excluded from local government; but they
   have been admitted to it in one Danish dependency—Iceland. …
   Finland, which was attached to Sweden for centuries before it
   fell under the sway of Russia, is still influenced by the
   movement of legislation in the former mother-country. … The
   law of February 6, 1865, concerning the rural communes,
   admitted women to communal rights under almost the same
   conditions as in Sweden. … The law of April 14, 1856,
   concerning the organization of the rural communes in the six
   eastern provinces of the kingdom of Prussia (section 6), as
   well as the analogous law of March 19, 1856, for the province
   of Westphalia (section 15), provide that persons of female sex
   who possess real property carrying with it the right to vote
   shall be represented—the married women by their husbands, the
   single women by electors of the male sex. A similar provision
   was adopted for the province of Schleswig-Holstein, after its
   annexation by Prussia (law of September 22, 1867, section 11).
   But in the Rhine province, where the administrative and the
   private law still show deep traces of the French influence,
   women are expressly excluded from the communal franchise. … In
   Saxony women are admitted to the communal vote in the country
   districts on the same terms as men. … Eligibility to communal
   office is denied to women in all the countries enumerated
   above. In Austria, as one consequence of the revolutionary
   movement of 1848, the legislator endeavored to infuse fresh
   life into the localities by giving a liberal organization to
   the rural communes. The law of 1849 granted communal rights to
   all persons paying taxes on realty and industrial enterprises,
   and also to various classes of 'capacities'—ministers of
   religion, university graduates, school principals and teachers
   of the higher grades, etc.
{3660}
   Among the electors of the first and most important group,
   based wholly upon property, were included women, minors,
   soldiers in active service and some other classes of persons
   who, as a rule, were excluded from suffrage, on condition that
   their votes be cast through representatives. … The Russian
   village community, the mir, which has come down across the
   centuries into our own time with very few changes in its
   primitive organization, is a typical example of rudimentary
   local self-government, where all who have an interest, not
   excepting the women, have a right to be heard in the common
   assemblies. … In the Dominion of Canada local suffrage has
   only recently been granted to women. The first law regulating
   this matter was passed in the province of Ontario (Upper
   Canada) in 1884. This law has served as an example, and in
   part also as a model, for the other provinces. The electoral
   rights granted to women by the legislation of the province of
   Ontario may be grouped under four heads:
   (a) participation in municipal elections,
   (b) participation in municipal referenda,
   (c) participation in school-board elections, and
   (d) eligibility to office.
   All unmarried women and widows twenty-one years of age,
   subjects of her Majesty and paying municipal taxes on real
   property or income, may vote in municipal elections. …
   Finally, all taxpayers resident in the school district are
   recognized by the laws of 1885 and 1887 as eligible to the
   office of school trustee. … Female suffrage does not exist in
   the great French-speaking province of Quebec (Lower Canada),
   in New Brunswick or in Prince Edward Island. … In almost all
   the continental [Australasian] colonies the municipal suffrage
   rests upon the same basis as does the parish franchise of the
   mother-country, i. e. the possession or occupation of real
   property. … [In the United States] several States have granted
   to women simply the right of being elected to school offices,
   provided always that they possess the qualifications
   prescribed for men. The question is thus decided in
   California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
   Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. … At the present time the
   system of granting to women both rights—eligibility and
   suffrage—in school matters has been adopted in the following
   states besides Massachusetts: Colorado, North and South
   Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,
   New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and
   Wisconsin and the territory of Arizona. Of course to this list
   must be added Wyoming, where women vote at all elections, and
   Kansas, where they possess complete local suffrage. Finally,
   Kentucky and Nebraska admit women only to the school
   franchise, and that only under special conditions."

      _M. Ostrogorski,
      Local Woman Suffrage
      (Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891)._

   "In three Territories … the right of voting at legislative
   elections was given by the legislature of the Territory, and
   in one of these, Wyoming, it was retained when the Territory
   received Statehood in 1890. In Utah it was abolished by a
   Federal statute, because thought to be exercised by the Mormon
   wives at the bidding of their polygamous husbands, and thus to
   strengthen the polygamic party. In Washington Territory the
   law which conferred it in 1883 was declared invalid by the
   courts in 1887, because its nature had not been properly
   described in the title, was re-enacted immediately afterwards,
   and was in 1888 again declared invalid by the United States
   Territorial Court, on the ground that the Act of Congress
   organizing the Territorial legislature did not empower it to
   extend the suffrage to women. In enacting their State
   Constitution (1889) the people of Washington pronounced
   against female suffrage by a majority of two to one; and a
   good authority declared to me that most of the women were well
   pleased to lose the privilege. In 1893 the legislature of
   Colorado submitted to the voters (in virtue of a provision in
   the Constitution) a law extending full franchise for all
   purposes to women, and it was carried by a majority of 6,347.
   … In Michigan in 1893, women received the suffrage in all
   municipal elections. In Michigan, however, the law has since
   been declared unconstitutional. … In Connecticut, the latest
   State which has extended school suffrage to women (1893), it
   would appear that the women have not, so far, shown much
   eagerness to be registered. However, while the advanced women
   leaders and Prohibitionists started a campaign among the women
   voters, the husbands and brothers of conservative proclivities
   urged their wives and sisters to register, and not without
   success. In Wyoming (while it was still a Territory) women
   served as jurors for some months till the judges discovered
   that they were not entitled by law to do so, and in Washington
   (while a Territory) they served from 1884 to 1887, when the
   legislature, in regranting the right of voting, omitted to
   grant the duty or privilege of jury service. … As respects the
   suffrage in Wyoming, the evidence I have collected privately
   is conflicting. … No opposition was offered in the Convention
   of 1889, which drafted the present Constitution, to the
   enactment of woman suffrage for all purposes. The opinion of
   the people at large was not duly ascertained, because the
   question was not separately submitted to them at the polls,
   but there can be little doubt that it would have been
   favourable. … The whole proceedings of the Convention of 1889
   leave the impression that the equal suffrage in force since
   1869 had worked fairly, and the summing up of the case by a
   thoughtful and dispassionate British observer (Mr. H.
   Plunkett) is to the same effect."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth (3d edition),
      chapter 96 (volume 2)._

   "No complete and reliable statistics have ever been obtained
   of the number of women who register and vote on school
   questions. This varies greatly in different localities, and in
   the same localities in different years. With women, as with
   men, the questions connected with the schools do not suffice
   to bring out many voters as a rule. Those few who have voted
   hitherto have been of more than average character and ability,
   and influenced wholly by public spirit. But comparatively few,
   even of suffragists, have as yet availed themselves of the
   privilege. To secure any general participation of women in
   elections, a wider range of subjects must be thrown open to
   them. Wherever, as in Kansas, party issues and moral questions
   are involved, the women show a greater interest. In several
   States, as in Kansas, Iowa, and Rhode Island, prohibition
   amendments are said to have been carried by the efforts of
   women-workers at the polls, although not themselves voters."

      _The Nation,
      April 28, 1887,
      page 362._

{3661}

WOOL, General John E.: In the war of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

WOOD'S HALFPENCE.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.

WOOLLY-HEADS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

WOOLSACK, The.

   "Perhaps you have noticed, when paying a visit to the House of
   Lords in holiday time, a comfortable kind of ottoman in front
   of the throne. This is the Woolsack, the seat of the Lord
   Chancellor [who presides in the House of Lords]. In the reign
   of Elizabeth an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent the
   exportation of wool, and to keep in mind this source of our
   national wealth, woolsacks were placed in the House of Lords,
   whereon the judges sat."

      _A. C. Ewald,
      The Crown and its Advisers,
      lecture 3._

WORCESTER, Marquis of, The inventions of.

      See STEAM ENGINE.

WORCESTER, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (AUGUST).

WORDE, Wynkyn de, The Press of.

      See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1476-1491.

WORLD'S COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, The.

      See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.

      [Transcriber's note]
      See
      _C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham,
      Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847_

WORLD'S FAIR, The First.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

WORMS.

   "Worms (Wormatia) (Borbetomagus), situated on the left bank of
   the Rhine, existed long before the Roman conquest, and is
   supposed to have been founded by the Celts, under the name of
   Borbetomagus. … In the 4th and 5th centuries it was a
   flourishing town in the possession of the Burgundians. Under
   their King Gundahar, the vicinity of Worms was the scene of
   the popular legend handed down in the romantic poem known as
   the Nibelungen-lied. In 496, by the victory of Tolbiacum, it
   formed a part of the empire of Clovis."

      _W. J. Wyatt,
      History of Prussia,
      volume 2, page 447._

WORMS: A. D.406.
   Destruction by the Germans.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

WORMS: A. D. 1521.
   The Imperial Diet.
   Luther's summons and appearance.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

WORMS: A. D. 1713.
   Taken by the French.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

WORMS: A. D. 1743.
   Treaty between Austria, Sardinia and England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1743;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

WORMS: A. D. 1792.
   Occupied by the French Revolutionary Army.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

WORMS, Concordat of(1122).

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

WÖRTH, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

WRANGLERS, Senior.

   At Oxford and Cambridge Universities, "by a strange relic of
   the logical and disputatory studies of the Middle Ages, the
   candidates for University honors maintained in public some
   mathematical thesis, about which they disputed in Latin,
   never, as it may be supposed, of the best. To keep up the
   illusion of the monkish time, and the seven liberal arts, a
   little metaphysics and a good deal of theology were thrown in
   at the time of the examination; but the real business of the
   'schools' at Cambridge was mathematics. The disputing,
   however, was so important a part of the performances that the
   first division of those to whom were awarded honors were
   called by distinction,'the wranglers'; and the head man—the
   proud recipient of all the glory which at the end of a four
   years' course the ancient University showered on the son she
   possessed most distinguished in her favorite studies—was
   called the senior wrangler. In process of time, the
   disputations and Latin were all done away with. An examination
   from printed papers was made the test. Yet, still, every year,
   at the end of the arduous eight days' trial, the undergraduate
   who takes his bachelor's degree in virtue of passing the best
   examination in mathematics, is called the senior wrangler; and
   attains the proudest position that Cambridge has to bestow."

      _W. Everett,
      On the Cam,
      lecture 2._

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
WRIT OF MAINPRISE.
WRIT DE HOMINE REPLEGIANDO.

   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679.

WRITS OF ASSISTANCE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1761;
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

WROXETER, Origin of.

   See URICONIUM.

   ----------WÜRTEMBERG: Start--------

WÜRTEMBERG:
   Early Suevic population.

      See SUEVI.

WÜRTEMBERG: Founding of the Dukedom.

   "Conrad of Beutelsbach, the first of this family that appears
   upon record, got the County of Würtemberg from the Emperor
   Henry IV. in 1103, and was succeeded by his son Ulrick I. as
   Count of Würtemberg, in 1120. Henry, the fourteenth in lineal
   descent from Ulrick, was made Duke of Würtemberg in 1519.
   Frederick II., and eighth Duke of Würtemberg, succeeded his
   father in 1797, and was proclaimed King of Würtemberg in
   1805."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, page 430._

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Kingdom.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1809.
   Incorporation of the rights and revenues of the Teutonic
   Order with the Kingdom.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1813.
   Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French Alliance.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1816.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Treaty of union with the Germanic Confederation,
   soon transformed into the German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); and 1871.

   ----------WÜRTEMBERG: End--------

WÜRTZBURG, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

WUZEER,
VIZIR.

      See OUDE; and VIZIR.

WYANDOT CONSTITUTION, The.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

WYANDOTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS OR WYANDOTS.

{3662}

WYAT'S INSURRECTION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.

WYCLIF'S REFORMATION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
      BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415,
      and BEGUINES.

WYOMING:
   The Name.

   "Wyoming is a corruption of the name given to the locality by
   the Indians. They called it 'Maughwauwame.' The word is
   compounded of 'maughwau,' large, and 'wame,' plains. The name,
   then, signifies 'The Large Plains.' The Delawares pronounced
   the first syllable short, and the German missionaries, in
   order to come as near as possible to the Indian pronunciation
   wrote the name M'chweuwami. The early settlers, finding it
   difficult to pronounce the word correctly, spoke it Wauwaumie,
   then Wiawumie, then Wiomic, and, finally, Wyoming,"

      _G. Peck,
      Wyoming: Its History &c.,
      chapter 1._

WYOMING (State): A. D. 1803.
   Eastern portion embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

WYOMING (State): A. D. 1890.
   Admission to the Union as a State.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1889-1890.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1753-1799.
   Connecticut claims and settlements.
   The Pennamite and Yankee War.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1755.
   The Grasshopper War of the Delaware and Shawanese tribes
   of American Indians.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1778.
   The Tory and Indian invasion and massacre.
   Its misrepresentation by historians and poets.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

X.

X, Y, Z, CORRESPONDENCE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.

XENOPHON'S RETREAT.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

XERES DE LA FRONTERA, Battle of (A. D. 711).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

XERXES.

      See PERSIA: B. C, 486-405,
      and GREECE: B. C. 480-479.

Y.

YAKOOB BEG, The Dominion of.

   The Chinese obtained possession of Kashgar or Chinese
   Turkestan (see TURKESTAN) about 1760, and held it for a
   century, overcoming much revolt during the last forty years of
   that period. In 1862, the revolt assumed a more formidable
   character than it had borne before. Its beginning was among a
   neighboring people called, variously, the Tungani, Dungani, or
   Dungans. These were "a Mahomedan people settled in the
   north-west province of Kansuh and in a portion of Shensi. Many
   of them had migrated westward at the time of the wars of Keen
   Lung, and had colonized various parts of the Chinese
   conquests. During a century this movement westward had
   continued, and in 1862 the Tungani represented the majority of
   the population, not only in parts of Kansuh, but also in the
   country to the west, as far as Ili and the city of Turfan.
   Although Mahomedans, they had acted as the soldiers of the
   Chinese. They had won their battles, laid down their roads,
   and held the Tartar population in check. From the Tungani the
   Chinese never for an instant expected danger. They were
   certainly heretics; but then they were part and parcel of
   themselves in every other respect. They hated the Khokandians
   and the people of Kashgar with a hatred that was more bitter
   than that they bore to the Khitay or Buddhist Chinese. In all
   essentials the Tungani were treated exactly like the most
   favoured children of the empire. … The only cause that it is
   possible to assign for their rebellion is that vague one of
   the religious revival which was then manifesting itself among
   the Mahomedans all over the world. But whatever the cause, the
   consequences were clear enough. In 1862 a riot occurred at a
   village in Kansuh. Order was restored with some small loss of
   life; and the momentary alarm which had been caused by it
   passed away. The alarm was, however, only too well founded. A
   few weeks afterwards a more serious riot took place at the
   town of Houchow or Salara. This was the signal for the rising
   of the Tungani in all directions. The unanimity shown by the
   various Tungani settlements proved that there had been a
   preconcerted arrangement amongst them; but the Chinese had
   known nothing of it. … The few Imperial troops remaining in
   the province of Kansuh were unable to withstand the desperate
   and unanimous assault of the Mahomedans. They were swept out
   of existence, and with them the larger portion of the Khitay
   population as well. The Mahomedan priests took the lead in
   this revolt, and the atrocities which they and their followers
   enacted were of the most horrible and blood-thirsty character.
   The butchery of tens of thousands of their Buddhist subjects
   in Kansuh appealed loudly to the Chinese Government for
   revenge; and it was not long before their troops restored
   Kansuh to its allegiance. Those of the Tungani who were
   captured were given over to the executioner. But a large
   number escaped, fleeing westward to those cities beyond the
   desert, where other Mussulmans had imitated, with like
   success, the deeds of their kinsmen in Kansuh. … No sooner
   then did the tidings of the events in Kansuh reach Hamil and
   Barkul, Turfan and Manas, than risings at once took place
   against the Khitay. In all cases the movement was successful.
   The Manchus were deposed: the 'mollahs' were set up in their
   stead. After a short interval the other cities of Karashar,
   Kucha, and Aksu, followed the example, with an identical
   result. The Tungan revolt proper had then reached its limit. …
   The communications between Pekin and Jungaria were cut, and a
   hostile territory of nearly 2,000 miles intervened. To restore
   those communications, to reduce that hostile country, would
   demand a war of several campaigns; and China was not in a
   condition to make the slightest effort. All that her statesmen
   could hope for was, that she would not go irretrievably to
   pieces.
{3663}
   The Tungani flourished on the misfortunes of the empire. …
   During some months after the first successes of the Tungani,
   the people of Kuldja and Kashgaria remained quiet, for the
   prestige of China's power was still great. But when it became
   evident to all, that communication was hopelessly cut off
   between the Chinese garrisons and the base of their strength
   in China, both the Tungan element and the native population
   began to see that their masters were ill able to hold their
   own against a popular rising. This opinion gained ground
   daily, and at last the whole population rose against the
   Chinese and massacred them. … But no sooner had the Chinese
   been overthrown, than the victors, the Tungani and the
   Tarantchis, began to quarrel with each other. Up to the month
   of January, 1865, the rising had been carried out in a very
   irregular and indefinite manner. … It was essentially a blind
   and reckless rising, urged on by religious antipathy; and,
   successful as it was, it owed all its triumphs to the
   embarrassments of China. The misfortunes of the Chinese
   attracted the attention of all those who felt an interest in
   the progress of events in Kashgaria. Prominent among these was
   a brother of Wali Khan, Buzurg Khan [heir of the former
   rulers, the exiled Khojas], who resolved to avail himself of
   the opportunity afforded by the civil war for making a bold
   attempt to regain the place of his ancestors. Among his
   followers was Mahomed Yakoob, a Khokandian soldier of fortune,
   already known to fame in the desultory wars and feuds of which
   Central Asia had been the arena. His previous career had
   marked him out pre-eminently as a leader of men, and he now
   sought in Eastern Turkestan that sphere of which Russian
   conquests had deprived him in its Western region. There is
   little to surprise us in the fact that, having won his
   battles, Yakoob deposed and imprisoned his master Buzurg. In
   several campaigns between 1867 and 1873 he bent back the
   Tungani from his confines, and established an independent
   government in the vast region from the Pamir to beyond Turfan,
   and from Khoten and the Karakoram to the Tian Shan. He treated
   on terms of dignity with the Czar, and also with the
   Government of India. He received English envoys and Russian
   ambassadors, and his palace was filled with presents from
   London and St. Petersburg. … Urged on by some vague ambition,
   he made war upon the Tungani, when every dictate of prudence
   pointed to an alliance with them. He destroyed his only
   possible allies, and in destroying them he weakened himself
   both directly and indirectly. In the autumn of 1876 Yakoob Beg
   had indeed pushed forward so far to the east that he fancied
   he held Barkul and Hamil in his grasp; and the next spring
   would probably have witnessed a further advance upon these
   cities had not fate willed it otherwise. With the capture of
   the small village of Chightam, in 92° E. longitude, Yakoob's
   triumphs closed. Thus far his career had been successful; it
   may then be said to have reached its limit. In the autumn of
   1876, the arrival of a Chinese army on his eastern frontier
   changed the current of his thoughts. … From November, 1876,
   until March, 1877, the Chinese generals were engaged in
   massing their troops on the northern side of the Tian Shan
   range. … Yakoob's principal object was to defend the Devan
   pass against the Chinese; but, while they attacked it in
   front, another army under General Chang Yao was approaching
   from Hamil. Thus outflanked, Yakoob's army retreated
   precipitately upon Turfan, where he was defeated, and again a
   second time at Toksoun, west of that town. The Chinese then
   halted. They had, practically speaking, destroyed Yakoob's
   powers of defence. That prince retreated to the town of Korla,
   where he was either assassinated or poisoned early in the
   month of May. … Korla was occupied on the 9th of October
   without resistance; and towards the end of the same month,
   Kucha, once an important city, surrendered. The later stages
   of the war were marked by the capture of the towns of Aksu,
   Ush Turfan, and Kashgar. With the fall of the capital, on the
   17th of December, 1877, the fighting ceased. The Chinese
   authority was promptly established in the country as far south
   as Yarkand, and after a brief interval in Khoten."

      _D. C. Boulger,
      Central Asian Questions,
      chapter 12._

YALE COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1701-1717.

YAMASIS AND YAMACRAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

YAMCO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

YANACONAS.
MAMACONAS.

   "The Yanaconas were a class existing [in Peru] in the time of
   the Incas, who were in an exceptional position. They were
   domiciled in the houses of their masters, who found them in
   food and clothing, paid their tribute, and gave them a piece
   of land to cultivate in exchange for their services. But to
   prevent this from degenerating into slavery, a decree of 1601
   ordered that they should be free to leave their masters and
   take service elsewhere on the same conditions." The Mamaconas
   of Peru were a class of domestic servants.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Colonial History of South America,
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, page 296)._

YANAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: YANAN FAMILY.

YANKEE:
   Origin of the term.

   "The first name given by the Indians to the Europeans who
   landed in Virginia was 'Wapsid Lenape' (white people); when,
   however, afterwards, they began to commit murders on the red
   men, whom they pierced with swords, they gave to the
   Virginians the name 'Mechanschican' (long knives), to
   distinguish them from others of the same colour. In New
   England they at first endeavoured to imitate the sound of the
   national name of the English, which they pronounced
   'Yengees.'" After about the middle of the Revolutionary War
   the Indians applied the name "Yengees" exclusively to the
   people of New England, "who, indeed, appeared to have adopted
   it, and were, as they still are, generally through the country
   called 'Yankees,' which is evidently the same name with a
   trifling alteration. They say they know the 'Yengees,' and can
   distinguish them by their dress and personal appearance, and
   that they were considered as less cruel than the Virginians or
   'long knives.' The proper English they [for 'they' read 'the
   Chippeways and some other nations.'—Editor's foot-note] call
   'Saggenash.'"

      _J. Heckewelder,
      History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 12)
      pages 142-143._

{3664}

   "The origin of this term [Yankees]. so frequently employed by
   way of reproach to the New England people, is said to be as
   follows. A farmer, by name Jonathan Hastings, of Cambridge,
   about the year 1713, used it as a cant, favorite word, to
   express excellency when applied to any thing; as a Yankee good
   horse, Yankee cider, &c., meaning an excellent horse and
   excellent cider. The students at college, having frequent
   intercourse with Mr. Hastings, and hearing him employ the term
   on all occasions, adopted it themselves, and gave him the name
   of Yankee Jonathan; this soon became a cant word among the
   collegians to express a weak, simple, awkward person, and from
   college it was carried and circulated through the country,
   till, from its currency in New England, it was at length taken
   up and unjustly applied to the New Englanders in common, as a
   term of reproach: It was in consequence of this that a
   particular song, called 'Yankee doodle,' was composed in
   derision of those scornfully called Yankees."

      _J. Thatcher,
      Military Journal during the Revolutionary War,
      page 19._

   "Dr. William Gordon, in his History of the American War,
   edition 1789, volume i., pages 324,325, says it was a
   favourite cant word in Cambridge, Massachusets, as early as
   1713, and that it meant 'excellent.' … Cf. Lowland Sc.
   'yankie,' a sharp, clever, forward woman; 'yanker,' an agile
   girl, an incessant speaker; 'yanker,' a smart stroke, a great
   falsehood; 'yank,' a sudden and severe blow, a sharp stroke;
   'yanking,' active, pushing (Jamieson). … If Dr. Gordon's view
   be right, the word 'yankee' may be identified with the Sc.
   'yankie,' as above; and all the Scotch words appear to be of
   Scandinavian origin, due, ultimately Icel. 'jaga,' to move about. …
   The fundamental idea is that of 'quick motion'; see 'yacht.'
   But the word cannot be said to be solved."

      _W. W. Skeat,
      Etymological Dictionary._

   "The best authorities on the subject now agree upon the
   derivation of this term from the imperfect effort made by the
   Northern Indians to pronounce the word 'English.'"

      _M. Schele de Vere,
      Americanisms,
      page 22._

      ALSO IN:
      Notes and Queries,
      series 1, volume 6, page 57.

YANKTONS. The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

YARD-LAND.

   An ancient holding of land in England equivalent to the
   virgate.

      See HIDE OF LAND;
      and MANORS.

YATASSEES. The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

YEAR BOOKS, English.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1307-1509.

YEAR OF ANARCHY, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

YEAR OF METON, The.

      See METON, THE YEAR OF.

YELLOW FEVER, Appearance of.

      See PLAGUE: 18TH CENTURY.

YELLOW FORD, Battle of the (1598).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

YELLOW TAVERN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

YELLOWS (of Venezuela) The.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

YEMAMA, Battle of.

      See ACRABA.

YENIKALE, Attack on (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

YEOMEN.

   "A 'yeoman' is defined by Sir Thomas Smith (Rep. Anglor. lib.
   1. c. 24) as he whom our law calls 'legalem hominem,' a
   free-born man that may dispend of his own free land in yearly
   revenues to the sum of forty shillings. But it had also a more
   general application, denoting like 'valet' a higher kind of
   service, which still survives in the current phrase to do
   'yeoman's service.' In the household of the mediæval knight or
   baron the younger sons of yeomen would form a large proportion
   of the servitors, and share with the younger sons of knight or
   squire the common name of 'valetti.' The yeomen too who lived
   on their own land, but wore the 'livery of company' of some
   baron or lesser territorial magnate, would also be his
   'valets.' The mediæval 'yeoman' was the tenant of land in free
   socage. The extent of his holding might be large or small."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 343, foot-note._

   "At the period when the higher gentry began to absorb what
   remained of the feudal nobility, and established themselves
   definitely as an upper class, the small landowners—freeholders
   holding estates of inheritance or for life—long leaseholders
   and the larger copyholders made corresponding progress, and
   the yeomen (the common term applied to all of them) began in
   their turn to fill the position and take the rank of an
   agricultural middle class. The reign of Henry VI. had marked
   the zenith of their influence; they had by that time fully
   realized the fact of their existence as a body. The inferior
   limit of their class was approximately determined by the
   electoral qualification of the forty-shilling freeholder
   (under the Act of 1430), or by the £4 qualification for the
   office of juror. The superior limit was marked from a legal
   point of view by the property qualification of a magistrate,
   but socially there was not on this side any definite boundary
   line. In 1446 it was considered necessary to forbid the county
   electors to return 'valetti,' that is yeomen, to the House of
   Commons, a proof that custom and opinion left to themselves
   did not look upon the higher section of their class as
   unworthy of a seat in Parliament, an honour originally
   confined to the knights. Fortescue testifies almost with
   triumph to the fact that in no country of Europe were yeomen
   so numerous as in England."

      _E. Boutmy,
      The English Constitution,
      part 2, chapter 4._

   In later English use the word "yeoman" has signified "a man of
   small estate in land, not ranking among the gentry."

YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.

   "This corps was instituted by Henry VII. in 1485. It now
   consists of 100 men, six of whom are called Yeomen Hangers,
   and two Yeomen Bed-goers; the first attending to the hangings
   and tapestries of the royal apartments, and the second taking
   charge of all beds during any royal removals. The yeomen of
   the guard carry up the royal dinner, and are popularly
   designated as 'beef-eaters, 'respecting the origin of which
   name some differences of opinion exist, for many maintain that
   they never had any duties connected with the royal beaufet. A
   yeoman usher and a party of yeomen attend in the great chamber
   of the palace on drawing-room and levee days, to keep the
   passage clear."

      _C. R. Dodd,
      Manual of Dignities,
      part 2, section 1._

YERMOUK, Battle of (A. D. 636).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

YEZID I., Caliph, A. D. 679-683.

   Yezid II., Caliph, 720-724.

   Yezid III., Caliph, 744.

YNCAS,
INCAS.

      See PERU.

{3665}

YNGAVI, Battle of (1841).

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

YORK: The Roman capital of Britain.

      See EBORACUM.

YORK:
   The capital of Deira and Northumbria.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

YORK: A. D. 1189.
   Massacre of Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1189.

YORK: A. D. 1644.

   Parliamentary siege raised by Prince Rupert.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

YORK, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.
   The American Congress in session.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

YORKINOS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

YORKISTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

YORKTOWN: A. D. 1781.
   Surrender of Cornwallis and his army to Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

YORKTOWN: A. D. 1862.
   McClellan's siege.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA).

YOUNG, Brigham, and the Mormons.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, 1846-1847;
      and UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850, and 1857-1859.

YOUNG IRELAND MOVEMENT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

YOUNG ITALY.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

YPRES: A. D. 1383.
   Unsuccessful but destructive siege by the English.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

YPRES: A. D. 1648.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

YPRES: A. D.1659.
   Restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

YPRES: A. D. 1679.
   Ceded to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

YPRES: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

YPRES: A. D. 1744-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

YPRES: A. D. 1794.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

YUCATAN:
   The aboriginal inhabitants, their civilization
   and its monuments.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;
      also MEXICO, ANCIENT.

YUCATAN:
   Discovery.
   Disputed origin of the name.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

YUCHI.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: UCHEAN FAMILY.

YUGUARZONGO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

YUKIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: YUKIAN FAMILY.

YUMAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: YUMAN FAMILY.

YUMAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

YUNCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

YUNGAY, Battle of (1839).

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

YUROKS,
EUROCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

Z.

ZAB, Battle of the (A. D. 750).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

ZACHARIAS, Pope, A. D. 741-752.

ZAGONARA, Battle of (1424).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

ZAHARA: A. D. 1476.
   Surprise, capture and massacre by the Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ZALACCA, Battle of (1086).

      See ALMORAVIDES;
      and PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ZAMA, Battle of (B. C. 202).

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

ZAMBESIA.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

ZAMINDARS, OR ZEMINDARS.

      See TALUKDARS;
      also INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

ZAMZUMMITES, The.

      See JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

ZANCLE.

   See MESSENE IN SICILY, FOUNDING OF.

ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Seizure of territory by Germany.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

ZAPORO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ZAPOTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, etc.

ZARA: A. D. 1203.
   Capture and Destruction.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

ZARAGOSSA.

      See SARAGOSSA.

ZARAKA, The.

      See SARANGIANS.

ZARANGIANS, The.

      See SARANGIANS.

ZARATHUSTRA,
ZOROASTER.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

ZEA.

      See PIRÆUS.

ZEALOTS, The.

   A party among the Jews which forced on the great struggle of
   that people with the Roman power,—the struggle which ended in
   the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. A party of ardent
   patriots in its origin, and embracing the flower of the
   nation, it degenerated, by enlistment of the passions of the
   populace, into a fierce, violent, desperate faction, which
   Ewald (History of Israel, book 7) compares to that of the
   Jacobins of the French Revolution.

      _Josephus,
      The Jewish War._

ZEEWAND.

      See WAMPUM.

ZEGRIS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273; and 1476-1492.

ZELA, Battle of (B. C. 47).

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

ZEMINDARS,
ZAMINDARS.

      See TALUKDARS;
      also INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

{3666}

ZEMSTVO, The.

   "The Zemstvo (in Russia] is a kind of local administration
   which supplements the action of the rural communes [see MIR],
   and takes cognizance of those higher public wants which
   individual communes cannot possibly satisfy. Its principal
   duties are to keep the roads and bridges in proper repair, to
   provide means of conveyance for the rural police and other
   officials, to elect the justices of peace, to look after
   primary education and sanitary affairs, to watch the state of
   the crops and take measures against approaching famine, and in
   short to undertake, within certain clearly-defined limits,
   whatever seems likely to increase the material and moral
   well-being of the population. In form the institution is
   parliamentary—that is to say, it consists of an assembly of
   deputies which meets at least once a year, and of a permanent
   executive bureau elected by the assembly from among its
   members. … Once every three years the deputies are elected in
   certain fixed proportions by the landed proprietors, the rural
   communes, and the municipal corporations. Every province
   (guberniya) and each of the districts (uyezdi) into which the
   province is subdivided has such an assembly and such a
   bureau."

      _D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 14._

ZENDAVESTA, The.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

ZENDECAN, Battle of (1038).

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

ZENGER'S TRIAL.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

ZENO, Roman Emperor (Eastern). A. D. 474-491.

ZENOBIA, The Empire of.

      See PALMYRA.

ZENTA, Battle of (1697).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

ZEPHATHAH, Battle of.

   Fought by Asa, king of Judah, with Zerah the Ethiopian, whom
   he defeated.

      _2 Chronicles, xiv. 9-15._

ZEUGITÆ, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

ZEUGMA.

      See APAMEA.

ZIELA, Battle of.

   A battle fought in the Mithridatic War, B. C. 67, in which the
   Romans were badly defeated by the Pontic king.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2._

ZIGANI.
ZIGEUNER.
ZINCALI.
ZINGARRI.

      See GYPSIES.

ZINGIS KHAN, The conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

ZINGLINS.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

ZINZENDORF, Count, and the Moravian Brethren.

      See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

ZION.

      See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

ZNAIM, Armistice of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ZOAN.
TANIS.
SAN.

   These are the names which, at different periods, have been
   given to an ancient city near the northeastern borders of
   Egypt, the ruins of which have been identified and are being
   explored, on the east bank of the canal that was formerly the
   Tanitic branch of the Nile. Both in Egyptian history and
   Biblical history Zoan was an important place. "The whole
   period of the Hebrew sojourn is closely interwoven with the
   history of Zoan. Here ruled the king in whose name Egypt was
   governed by the Hebrew, who was no less than regent; here
   ruled those who still favoured the people of Israel. Under the
   great Oppression, Zoan was a royal residence."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. F. Petrie,
      Tanis (2d Mem., Egypt Expl. Fund)._

      See, also, JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

ZOBAH, Kingdom of.

   A kingdom of brief importance, extending from the Orontes to
   the Euphrates, which appears among the allies of the
   Ammonites, in their war with David King of Israel.

      _H. Ewald,
      Lectures on the History of Israel,
      volume 3, pages 150-152._

ZOE AND THEODORA, Empresses in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek). A. D. 1042.

ZOHAR, The.

      See CABALA.

ZOHARITES, The.

   A singular Jewish sect which sprang up in Poland during the
   seventeenth century, taking its name from the Zohar, one of
   the books of the Cabala, on which it founded its faith.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews.
      book 28._

ZOLLPARLAMENT, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

ZOLLVEREIN, The German.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS (GERMANY): A. D. 1833.
      Also (in Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1815-1848.

ZOQUES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS. etc.

ZORNDORF, Battle or.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

ZOROASTRIANS.
MAGIANS.
PARSEES.

   "The Iranians were in ancient times the dominant race
   throughout the entire tract lying between the Suliman
   mountains and the Pamir steppe on the one hand, and the great
   Mesopotamian valley on the other. … At a time which it is
   difficult to date, but which those best skilled in Iranian
   antiquities are inclined to place before the birth of Moses,
   there grew up, in the region whereof we are speaking, a form
   of religion marked by very special and unusual features. …
   Ancient tradition associates this religion with the name of
   Zoroaster. Zoroaster, or Zarathrustra, according to the native
   spelling, was, by one account, a Median king who conquered
   Babylon about B. C. 2458. By another, which is more probable,
   and which rests, moreover, on better authority, he was a
   Bactrian, who, at a date not quite so remote, came forward in
   the broad plain of the middle Oxus to instil into the minds of
   his countrymen the doctrines and precepts of a new religion. …
   His religion gradually spread from 'happy Bactra,' 'Bactra of
   the lofty banner,' first to the neighbouring countries, and
   then to all the numerous tribes of the Iranians, until at last
   it became the established religion of the mighty empire of
   Persia, which, in the middle of the 6th century before our
   era, established itself on the ruins of the Assyrian and
   Babylonian kingdoms, and shortly afterwards overran and
   subdued the ancient monarchy of the Pharaohs. In Persia it
   maintained its ground, despite the shocks of Grecian and
   Parthian conquest, until Mohammedan intolerance drove it out
   at the point of the sword, and forced it to seek a refuge
   further east, in the peninsula of Hindustan. Here it still
   continues, in Guzerat and in Bombay, the creed of that
   ingenious and intelligent people known to Anglo-Indians—and
   may we not say to Englishmen generally?—as Parsees [see
   PARSEES]. The religion of the Parsees is contained in a volume
   of some size, which has received the name of 'the Zendavesta.'
   … 'Anquetil Duperron introduced the sacred book of the Parsees
   to the knowledge of Europeans under this name; and the word
   thus introduced can scarcely be now displaced.
{3667}
   Otherwise, 'Avesta-Zend' might be recommended as the more
   proper title. 'Avesta' means 'text,' and Zend means 'comment.'
   'Avesta u Zend,' or 'Text and Comment,' is the proper title,
   which is then contracted into 'Avesta-Zend.' … Subjected for
   the last fifty years to the searching analysis of first-rate
   orientalists—Burnouf, Westergaard, Brockhaus, Spiegel, Haug,
   Windischmann, Hübschmann,—this work has been found to belong
   in its various parts to very different dates, and to admit of
   being so dissected as to reveal to us, not only what are the
   tenets of the modern Parsees, but what was the earliest form
   of that religion whereof theirs is the remote and degenerate
   descendant. Signs of a great antiquity are found to attach to
   the language of certain rhythmical compositions called Gâthâs
   or hymns; and the religious ideas contained in these are found
   to be at once harmonious, and also of a simpler and more
   primitive character than those contained in the rest of the
   volume. From the Gâthâs chiefly, but also to some extent from
   other, apparently very ancient, portions of the Zendavesta,
   the characteristics of the early Iranian religion have been
   drawn out by various scholars, particularly by Dr. Martin
   Haug. … The most striking feature of the religion, and that
   which is generally allowed to be its leading characteristic,
   is the assertion of Dualism. By Dualism we mean the belief in
   two original uncreated principles, a principle of good and a
   principle of evil. … Both principles were real persons,
   possessed of will, intelligence, power, consciousness, and
   other personal qualities. To the one they gave the name of
   Ahura-Mazda, to the other that of Angro-Mainyus. … The names
   themselves sufficiently indicated to those who first used them
   the nature of the two beings. Ahura-Mazda was the
   'all-bountiful, all-wise, living being' or 'spirit,' who stood
   at the head of all that was good and lovely, beautiful and
   delightful. Angro-Mainyus was the 'dark and gloomy
   intelligence' that had from the first been Ahura-Mazda's
   enemy, and was bent on thwarting and vexing him. And with
   these fundamental notions agreed all that the sacred books
   taught concerning either being. … The two great beings who
   thus divided between them the empire of the universe were
   neither of them content to be solitary. Each had called into
   existence a number of inferior spirits, who acknowledged their
   sovereignty, fought on their side, and sought to execute their
   behests. At the head of the good spirits subject to
   Ahura-Mazda stood a band of six dignified with the title of
   Amesha-Spentas, or 'Immortal Holy Ones.' … In direct
   antithesis to these stood the band, likewise one of six, which
   formed the council and chief support of Angro-Mainyus. …
   Besides these leading spirits there was marshalled on either
   side an innumerable host of lesser and subordinate ones,
   called respectively 'ahuras' and 'devas,' who constituted the
   armies or attendants of the two great powers, and were
   employed by them to work out their purposes. The leader of the
   angelic hosts, or 'ahuras' was a glorious being, called
   Sraosha or Serosh—'the good, tall, fair Serosh,' who stood in
   the Zoroastrian system where Michael the Archangel stands in
   the Christian. … Neither Ahura-Mazda nor the Amesha-Spentas
   were represented by the early Iranians under any material
   forms. The Zoroastrian system was markedly anti-idolatrous:
   and the utmost that was allowed the worshipper was an
   emblematic representation of the Supreme Being by means of a
   winged circle, with which was occasionally combined an
   incomplete human figure, robed and wearing a tiara. … The
   position of man in the cosmic scheme was determined by the
   fact that he was among the creations of Ahura-Mazda. Formed
   and placed on earth by the Good Being, he was bound to render
   him implicit obedience, and to oppose to the utmost
   Angro-Mainyus and his creatures. His duties might be summed up
   under the four heads of piety, purity, industry, and veracity.
   Piety was to be shown by an acknowledgment of Ahura-Mazda as
   the One True God, by a reverential regard for the
   Amesha-Spentas and the Izeds, or lower angels, by the frequent
   offering of prayers, praises, and thanksgivings, the
   recitation of hymns, the occasional sacrifice of animals, and
   the performance from time to time of a curious ceremony known
   as that of the Haoma or Homa [see SOMA.—HAOMA). … The purity
   required of the Iranians was inward as well as outward. … The
   duty of veracity was inculcated perhaps more strenuously than
   any other. … If it be asked what opinions were entertained by
   the Zoroastrians concerning man's ultimate destiny, the answer
   would seem to be, that they were devout and earnest believers
   in the immortality of the soul, and a conscious future
   existence. … The religion of the early Iranians became
   corrupted after a time by an admixture of foreign
   superstitions. The followers of Zoroaster, as they spread
   themselves from their original seat upon the Oxus over the
   regions lying south and south-west of the Caspian Sea, were
   brought into contact with a form of faith considerably
   different from that to which they had previously been
   attached, yet well adapted for blending with it. This was
   Magism, or the worship of the elements [see MAGIANS). The
   early inhabitants of Armenia, Cappadocia, and the Zagros
   mountain-range, had, under circumstances that are unknown to
   us, developed this form of religion, and had associated with
   its tenets a priest-caste. … The four elements, fire, air,
   earth, and water, were recognised as the only proper objects
   of human reverence. … When the Zoroastrians came into contact
   with Magism, it impressed them favourably. … The result was
   that, without giving up any part of their previous creed, the
   Iranians adopted and added on to it an the principal points of
   the Magian belief, and all the more remarkable of the Magian
   religious usages. This religious fusion seems first to have
   taken place in Media. The Magi became a Median tribe, and were
   adopted as the priest-caste of the "Median nation." This
   "produced an amalgam that has shown a surprising vitality,
   having lasted above 2,000 years—from the time of Xerxes, the
   son of Darius Hystaspis (B. C. 485-465) to the present day."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Religions of the Ancient World,
      chapter 3._

   "As the doctrines of Zoroaster bear in several points such a
   striking resemblance to those of Christianity, it is a
   question of grave importance to ascertain the age in which he
   lived. … Since there can be no doubt that … we must assign to
   Zarathustra Spitama a date prior to the Median conquest of
   Babylon by a Zoroastrian priest king, the only question
   remaining to be solved is, whether he lived only a short time,
   or long, before that event.
{3668}
   I am inclined to believe that he lived only about 100 or 200
   years before that time, and that the conquest of Babylon was
   one of the last consequences of the great religious enthusiasm
   kindled by him. He preached, like Moses, war and destruction
   to all idolaters and wicked men. … According to this
   investigation we cannot assign to Zarathustra Spitama a later
   date than about 2300 B. C. Thus he lived not only before
   Moses, but even, perhaps, before Abraham. … He was the first
   prophet of truth who appeared in the world, and kindled a fire
   which thousands of years could not entirely extinguish."

      _M. Haug,
      Lectures on an Original Speech of Zoroaster
      (Yasna 45),
      pages 17, 26._

      _M. Haug,
      Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings
      and Religion of the Parsees._

   "Prof. Darmesteter has published a new translation [of the
   Zend Avesta] with a most ably written introduction, in which
   he maintains the thesis that not a line of our Avesta text is
   older than the time of Alexander's conquest, while the greater
   part belongs to a much later date. We may briefly remind our
   readers that, according to the traditional view, the old
   Zoroastrian books, which belong to the times of the
   Achæmenidæ, were destroyed at the Macedonian conquest, but
   that portions were preserved by the people, who retained the
   old faith, during the long period of the Arsacidan rule,
   though the Court favoured Greek civilization. … According to
   this view, we still possess the genuine remains of the old
   pre-Alexandrine literature, mutilated and corrupted during the
   period of Arsacidan indifference, but yet, so far as they go,
   a faithful representative of the sacred text of the Achæmenian
   time. … Professor Darmesteter, on the contrary, maintains that
   all our texts are post-Alexandrine in form and in substance.
   Some may belong to the 1st century B. C. or A. D., and some,
   as the legislative parts of the Vendidad, may be founded on
   older texts now lost; but a large portion was composed by the
   priests of Ardashir's Court in the 3d century. The Gâthâs,
   which till now have been generally considered as the ancient
   nucleus of the whole system and ascribed to Zoroaster himself,
   are, in the Professor's opinion, certainly modern, and are
   relegated to the 1st century of our era."

      _The Athenæum,
      June 30, 1894_

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Geiger,
      Civilization of the Eastern Iranians._

      _W. Geiger, and F. von Spiegel,
      The Age of the Avesta._

      _D. F. Karaka,
      History of the Parsis._

      _S. Johnson,
      Oriental Religions: Persia._

ZOTTS.

      See GYPSIES.

ZOUAVES, The.

   During the wars of the French in Algeria, there arose a body
   of soldiers "who, both in the campaign in Algeria and in the
   contest in the Crimea, have acquired the very highest renown.
   The name of the Zouaves will never be forgotten as long as the
   story of the siege of Sebastopol endures. … They were
   originally intended to be regiments composed of Frenchmen who
   had settled in Algeria, or their descendants; but the
   intermixture of foreigners in their ranks ere long became so
   considerable, that when they were transported to the shores of
   the Crimea, though the majority were French, they were rather
   an aggregate of the 'Dare-devils' of all nations. In their
   ranks at Sebastopol were some that held Oxford degrees, many
   those of Göttingen and Paris, crowds who had been ruined at
   the gaming-table, not a few who had fled from justice, or
   sought escape from the consequences of an amorous adventure.
   Yet had this motley crowd, composed of the most daring and
   reckless of all nations, become, in the rude school of the
   wars in Algeria, an incomparable body of soldiers, second to
   none in the world in every military duty, perhaps superior to
   any in the vehemence and rush of an assault."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapter 45._

ZÜLPICH, Battle of (A. D. 496).

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      also FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ZULUS,
AMAZULU.
   The Zulu War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS:
      and SOUTH AFRICA, A. D. 1877-1879.

ZUÑI.

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
      also AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZUÑIAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

ZURICH: A. D. 1519-1524.
   Beginning of the Swiss Reformation, under Zwingli.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

ZURICH: A. D. 1799.
   Battle of French and Russians.
   Carnage in the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ZURICH, Treaty of (1859).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1572.
   Massacre by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1586.
   Battle of English and Spaniards.
   Death of Sir Philip Sidney.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1591.
   Capture by Prince Maurice.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

ZUYDERZEE, Naval battle on the (1573).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ZWINGLI, and the Swiss Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

ZYP, Battle of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

{3669}

SUPPLEMENT.


   This Supplement contains:

   1. Some passages translated from German and French writings,
   touching matters less competently treated in the body of the
   work, where the compilation is restricted to "the literature
   of history in the English language," either originally or in
   published translations.

   2. Some postscripts on recent events, and some excerpts from
   recent books.

   3. Treatment of some topics that were omitted from their
   places in the body of the work, either intentionally or by
   accident, and which it seems best to include.

   4. Some cross-references needed to complete the
   subject-indexing of the work throughout.

   5. A complete series of chronological tables, by centuries.

   6. A series of dynastic genealogies, in a form different from
   the usual plan of their construction, and which, it is hoped,
   may be found more easily intelligible.

   7. Select bibliographies, partly annotated, of several of the
   more important fields of history.

   8. A full list of the works quoted from in this compilation of
   "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading," with the
   names of the publishers.

   The selections and translations from the German, excepting
   Bismarck's speeches, have been made by Ernest F. Henderson,
   A. M., Ph. D., author of "A History of Germany in the Middle
   Ages." Mr. Henderson has also prepared and annotated the
   bibliography of German and French writings.

   ---------- A --------

ABELARD AND THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL (page 692).

ABHORRERS.

   Charles II. and his court, in England, were troubled about
   1680 with numerous petitions for the calling of parliament.
   "As the king found no law by which he could punish those
   importunate, and, as he deemed them, undutiful solicitations,
   he was obliged to encounter them by popular applications of a
   contrary tendency. Wherever the church and court party
   prevailed, addresses were framed, containing expressions of
   the highest regard to his majesty, the most entire
   acquiescence in his wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his
   prerogative, and the deepest abhorrence of those who
   endeavoured to encroach upon it, by prescribing to him any
   time for assembling the parliament. Thus the nation came to be
   distinguished into 'petitioners' and 'abhorrers.'"

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 68._

ACCAD.
ACCADIANS.

      See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

ADAIS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADAIS (page 77).

ADAMS, John Quincy.
   His defense of the right of petition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842 (page 3378).

ADELBERT COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

ADMIRALTY LAW, History of.

      See LAW (page 1955).

ADVENTURERS, Merchant.

      See MERCHANT ADVENTURERS (page 2153).

   ----------AFRICA: Start--------

AFRICA.
   A chronological record of European Exploration,
   Missionary Settlement, Colonization and Occupation.

AFRICA: 1415.
   Conquest of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1434-1461.
   Portuguese explorations down the western coast, from Cape
   Bojador to Cape Mesurado, in Liberia, under the direction of
   Prince Henry, called the Navigator.

AFRICA: 1442.
   First African slaves brought into Europe by one
   of the ships of the Portuguese-Prince Henry.

AFRICA: 1471-1482.
   Portuguese explorations carried beyond the Guinea Coast,
   and to the Gold Coast, where the first settlement was
   established, at El Mina.

AFRICA: 1482.
   Discovery of the mouth of the Zaire or Congo by the
   Portuguese explorer, Diogo Cao, or Diego Cam.

AFRICA: 1485-1596.
   Establishment of Roman Catholic missions on the western coast,
   and creation, by Pope Clement VIII., of the diocese of Mbazi
   (San Salvador), embracing Congo, Angola and Benguela.

AFRICA: 1486.
   Unconscious rounding of the Cape of Good Hope by
   Bartholomew Diaz.

AFRICA: 1490-1527.
   Visit to Abyssinia of Pedro da Covilhão, or Covilham,
   the Portuguese explorer.

AFRICA: 1497.
   Voyage of Vasco da Gama round the Cape of Good Hope to India.

{3670}

AFRICA: 1505-1508.
   Portuguese settlements and fortified stations' established on
   the eastern coast, from Sofala to Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1506.
   Discovery of Madagascar by the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1520-1527.
   Portuguese embassy to Abyssinia, narrated by Father Alvarez.

AFRICA: 1552-1553.
   Beginning of English voyages to the Guinea and Gold Coasts.

AFRICA: 1560.
   French trading to the Senegal and Gambia begun.

AFRICA: 1562.
   First slave-trading voyage of Sir John Hawkins to the Guinea
   Coast.

AFRICA: 1569.
   Expedition of Barreto up the Zambesi from its mouth to Sena
   and beyond.

AFRICA: 1578.
   Founding of St. Paul de Loando, the capital of the Portuguese
   possessions on the west coast.

AFRICA: 1582 (about).
   Founding of the French post, St. Louis, at the mouth of the
   Senegal.

AFRICA: 1588.
   First (English) African Company chartered by Queen Elizabeth.

AFRICA: 1595.
   Opening of trade on the western coast by the Dutch.

AFRICA: 1618-1621.
   Exploration of the River Gambia by George Thompson and Captain
   Richard Jobson, for the Royal Niger Company of England.

AFRICA: 1625.
   Jesuit mission of Father Lobo and his companions to Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1637.
   Visit of Claude Jannequin, Sieur de Rochfort, to the River
   Senegal.

AFRICA: 1644.
   Fort Dauphin founded by the French in the island of Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1652.
   Dutch settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.

AFRICA: 1662.
   British African Company chartered by Charles II.
   and fort built on the Gambia.

AFRICA: 1664-1684.
   Wars of France with the Algerines.

AFRICA: 1681-1683.
   Brandenburg African Company formed by "the Great Elector";
   settlements established and trade opened on the western coast.

AFRICA: 1694-1724.
   Explorations of the River Senegal and interior by André Brue,
   the French governor, for the Royal Senegal Company.

AFRICA: 1698.
   Arab conquests from the Portuguese on the eastern coast,
   breaking their ascendancy.

AFRICA: 1702-1717.
   Captivity of Robert Drury in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1723.
   Exploration of the Gambia by Captain Bartholomew Stibbs, for
   the English Royal African Company.

AFRICA: 1736.
   Moravian Mission planted on the Gold Coast.

AFRICA: 1737.
   Moravian Mission planted by George Schmidt among the
   Hottentots; suppressed by the Dutch government in 1744, and
   revived in 1792.

AFRICA: 1754.
   Substantial beginning of the domination in Madagascar of the
   Hovas, a people of Malay origin.

AFRICA: 1758.
   British conquest of the French establishments on the Senegal.

AFRICA: 1761-1762.
   Dutch expedition from Cape Colony beyond the Orange River into
   Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1768-1763.
   Journey of James Bruce to the fountains of the Blue Nile in
   Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1774.
   Founding of a French colony in Madagascar by Count Benyowsky.

AFRICA: 1775-1776.
   Explorations of Andrew Sparrman from Cape Town to Great Fish
   River.

AFRICA: 1778.
   Cession by Portugal to Spain of the island of Fernando Po.

AFRICA: 1779.
   Recovery of Senegal from the English by the French.

AFRICA: 1781-1785.
   Travels of M. Le Vaillant from the Cape of Good Hope into the
   interior of South Africa, among the Hottentots and Kafirs.

AFRICA: 1787.
   Founding of the English settlement for freed slaves at Sierra
   Leone.

AFRICA: 1788.
   Formation of the African Association in England, under the
   presidency of Sir Joseph Banks, for systematic exploration in
   the interest of geographical science.

AFRICA: 1789-1794.
   Fruitless attempts by agents of the African Association to
   reach the Niger and Timbuctoo from the west coast and from the
   Nile.

AFRICA: 1795.
   The Cape Colony taken from the Dutch by the English.

AFRICA: 1795-1797.
   The first exploring journey of Mungo Park, in the service of
   the African Association, from the Gambia, penetrating to the
   Niger, at Sego.

AFRICA: 1798.
   Mission of Dr. John Vanderkemp to the Kafirs, with the support
   of the London Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1798.
   Journey of the Portuguese Dr. Lacerda from the Lower Zambesi
   to the kingdom of Cazembe, on Lake Moero.

AFRICA: 1800.
   Unsuccessful attempts of the Dutch Missionary Society in Cape
   Town among the Bechuanas.

AFRICA: 1801-1805.
   War of the United States with the pirates of Tripoli.

AFRICA: 1802-1806.
   Restoration of Cape Colony to the Dutch and its reconquest by
   the English.

AFRICA: 1802-1811.
   Journey of the Pombeiros, Baptista and Jose (negroes) across
   the continent from Angola to Tete, on the Zambesi River.

AFRICA: 1804.
   Founding of the Church of England Mission in Sierra Leone.

AFRICA: 1805.
   Second expedition of Mungo Park from the Gambia to the Niger,
   from which he never returned.

AFRICA: 1805.
   Travels of Dr. Lichtenstein in Bechuanaland.

AFRICA: 1806.
   Missionary journey of Christian and William Albrecht beyond
   the Orange River.

AFRICA: 1809.
   Second conquest of Senegal by the English.

AFRICA: 1810.
   Missions in Great Namaqualand and Damaraland begun by the
   London Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1812.
   Exploration of the Orange River and the headwaters of the
   Limpopo by Campbell, the missionary.

AFRICA: 1812-1815.
   Journey of Burckhardt under the auspices of the African
   Association, up the Nile, through Nubia, to Berbera, Shendy,
   and Suakin; thence through Jidda to Mecca, in the character of
   a Mussulman.

AFRICA: 1815.
   Senegal restored to France by the Treaty of Paris.

AFRICA: 1815.
   War of the United States with the piratical Algerines.

AFRICA: 1815.
   Shipwreck and enslavement of Captain James Riley in Morocco.

AFRICA: 1816.
   Bombardment of Algiers by a British fleet under Lord Exmouth.

AFRICA: 1816-1818.
   Fatal and fruitless attempts of Tuckey, Peddie, Campbell, Gray
   and Dochard to explore the lower course and determine the
   outlet of the Niger.

{3671}

AFRICA: 1818.
   Mission in Madagascar undertaken by the London Missionary
   Society.

AFRICA: 1818.
   Beginning, on the Orange River, of the missionary labors of
   Robert Moffat in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1818.
   Exploration of the sources of the Gambia by Gaspard Mollien,
   from Fort St. Louis, at the mouth of the Senegal.

AFRICA: 1818-1820.
   Exploration of Fezzan to Its southern limit, from Tripoli, by
   Captain Lyon.

AFRICA: 1820.
   First Wesleyan Mission founded in Kafirland.

AFRICA: 1820.
   Treaty abolishing the slave-trade in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1821.
   Mission-work in Kaffraria undertaken by the Glasgow Missionary
   Society.

AFRICA: 1822.
   Founding of the republic of Liberia by the American
   Colonization Society.

AFRICA: 1822.
   Official journey of Lieutenant Laing from Sierra Leone in the
   "Timannee, Kooranko and Soolima" countries.

AFRICA: 1822-1825.
   Expedition of Captain Clapperton, Dr. Oudney, and Colonel
   Denham, from Tripoli to Lake Tchad and beyond.

AFRICA: 1825-1826.
   Expedition of Major Laing, in the service of the British
   Government, from Tripoli, through the desert, to Timbuctoo,
   which he reached, and where he remained for a month. Two days
   after leaving the city he was murdered.

AFRICA: 1825-1827.
   Expedition of Captain Clapperton from the Bight of Benin to
   Sokoto.

AFRICA: 1827.
   Moravian Mission settled in the Tambookie territory, South
   Africa.

AFRICA: 1827.
   Journey of Linant de Bellefonds, for the African Association,
   up the White Nile to 18° 6' north latitude.

AFRICA: 1827-1828.
   Journey of Caillé from a point on the west coast, between
   Sierra Leone and the Gambia, to Jenna and Timbuctoo; thence to
   Fez and Tangier.

AFRICA: 1828.
   Undertakings of the Basle Missionary Society on the Gold
   Coast.

AFRICA: 1830-1831.
   Exploration of the Niger to the sea by Richard and John
   Lender, solving the question as to its mouth.

AFRICA: 1830-1846.
   French conquest and subjugation of Algiers.

AFRICA: 1831.
   Portuguese mission of Major Monteiro and Captain Gamitto to
   the court of Muata Cazembe.

AFRICA: 1831.
   Absorption of the African Association by the Royal
   Geographical Society of London.

AFRICA: 1832-1834.
   First commercial exploration of the lower Niger, from its
   mouth, by Macgregor Laird, with two steamers.

AFRICA: 1833.
   Mission in Basutoland established by the Evangelical
   Missionary Society of Paris.

AFRICA: 1834.
   Beginning of missionary labors under the American Board of
   Missions in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1834.
   Mission founded at Cape Palmas on the western coast, by the
   American Board for Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1834.
   The Great Trek of the Dutch Boers from Cape Colony and their
   founding of the republic of Natal.

AFRICA: 1835.
   Mission among the Zulus established by the American Board of
   Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1835-1849.
   Persecution of Christians in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1836-1837.
   Explorations of Captain Sir James E. Alexander in the
   countries of the Great Namaquas, the Bushmen and the Hill
   Damaras.

AFRICA: 1839-1811.
   Egyptian expeditions sent by Mehemet Ali up the White Nile to
   latitude 6° 35' North; accompanied and narrated in part by
   Ferdinand Werne.

AFRICA: 1839-1843.
   Missionary residence of Dr. Krapf in the kingdom of Shoa, in
   the Ethiopian highlands.

AFRICA: 1840.
   Arrival of Dr. Livingstone in South Africa as a missionary.

AFRICA: 1841.
   Expedition of Captains Trotter and Allen, sent by the British
   Government to treat with tribes on the Niger for the opening
   of commerce and the suppression of the slave trade.

AFRICA: 1842.
   Travels of Dr. Charles Johnston in Southern Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1842.
   Gaboon Mission, on the western coast near the equator, founded
   by the American Board of Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1842.
   The Rhenish Mission established by German missionaries at
   Bethanien in Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1842.
   Wesleyan and Norwegian Missions opened in Natal.

AFRICA: 1842-1862.
   French occupation of territory on the Gaboon and the Ogowé.

AFRICA: 1843.
   British annexation of Natal, and migration of the Boers to
   found the Orange Free State.

AFRICA: 1843.
   Exploration of the Senegal and the Falémé by Huard-Bessinières
   and Raffenel.

AFRICA: 1843-1845.
   Travels and residence of Mr. Parkyns in Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1843-1848.
   Hunting journeys of Gordon Cumming in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1844.
   Mission founded by Dr. Krapf at Mombassa, on the Zanzibar
   coast.

AFRICA: 1845.
   Duncan's journey for the Royal Geographical Society from
   Whydah, via Abome, to Adofudia.

AFRICA: 1845.
   Mission to the Cameroons established by the Baptist Missionary
   Society of England.

AFRICA: 1846.
   Unsuccessful attempt of Raffenel to cross Africa from Senegal
   to the Nile, through the Sudan.

AFRICA: 1846.
   Mission of Samuel Crowther (afterwards Bishop of the Niger), a
   native and a liberated slave, to the Yoruba country.

AFRICA: 1846.
   Mission on Old Calabar River founded by the United
   Presbyterian Church in Jamaica.

AFRICA: 1847-1849.
   Interior explorations of the German missionaries Dr. Krapf and
   Mr. Rebmann, from Mombassa on the Zanzibar coast.

AFRICA: 1848.
   Founding of the Transvaal Republic by the Boers.

AFRICA: 1849.
   Missionary journey of David Livingstone northward from the
   country of the Bechuanas, and his discovery of Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1849-1851.
   Journey of Ladislaus Magyar from Benguela to the kingdoms of
   Bihe and Moluwa on the interior table-land, and across the
   upper end of the Zambesi valley.

AFRICA: 1850.
   Sale of Danish forts at Quetta, Adds, and Fingo, on the
   western coast, to Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1850-1851.
   Travels of Andersson and Galton from Walfish Bay to
   Ovampo-land and Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1850-1855.
   Travels of Dr. Barth from Tripoli to Lake Tchad, Sokoto and
   the Upper Niger to Timbuctoo, where he was detained for nine
   months.

AFRICA: 1851.
   Discovery of the Zambesi by Dr. Livingstone.

{3672}

AFRICA: 1852-1863.
   Hunting and trading journeys of Mr. Chapman in South Africa,
   between Natal and Walfish Bay and to Lake Ngami and the
   Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1853.
   Founding of the Diocese of Natal by the English Church and
   appointment of Dr. Colenso to be its bishop.

AFRICA: 1853-1856.
   Journey of Dr. Livingstone from Linyanti, the Makololo
   capital, up the Zambesi and across to the western coast, at
   St. Paul de Loando, thence returning entirely across the
   continent, down the Zambesi to Quilimane at its mouth,
   discovering the Victoria Falls on his way.

AFRICA: 1853-1858.
   Ivory-seeking expeditions of John Petherick, up the
   Bahr-el-Ghazel.

AFRICA: 1853-1859.
   Roman Catholic mission established at Gondokoro, on the Upper
   Nile.

AFRICA: 1854.
   Exploration of the Somali country—the "eastern horn of
   Africa"—by Captains Burton and Speke.

AFRICA: 1855.
   Beginning of attempts by the French governor of Senegal,
   General Faidherbe, to carry the flag of France into the
   Western Sudan.

AFRICA: 1856-1859.
   Journeys of Du Chaillu in the western equatorial regions, on
   the Gaboon and the Ogobai.

AFRICA: 1857-1858.
   Expedition of Captains Burton and Speke, from Zanzibar,
   through Uzaramo, Usagara, Ugogo, and Unyamwezi, to Ujiji, on
   Lake Tanganyika—making the first European discovery of the
   lake; returning to Kazé, and thence continued by Speke alone,
   during Burton's illness, to the discovery of Lake Victoria
   Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1858.
   Journey of Andersson from Walfish Bay to the Okavango River.

AFRICA: 1858.
   English mission station founded at Victoria on the Cameroons
   coast.

AFRICA: 1858-1863.
   Expedition of Dr. Livingstone, in the service of the British
   Government, exploring the Shiré and the Rovuma, and
   discovering and exploring Lake Nyassa—said, however, to have
   been known previously to the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1860-1861.
   Journey of Baron von Decken from Mombassa on the Zanzibar
   coast, to Kilimanjaro mountain.

AFRICA: 1860-1862.
   Return of Speke, with Captain Grant, from Zanzibar to Lake
   Victoria Nyanza, visiting Karagwe, and Uganda, and reaching
   the outlet of the Nile; thence through Unyoro to Gondokoro,
   and homeward by the Nile.

AFRICA: 1861.
   Establishment of the Universities Mission by Bishop Mackenzie
   on the Upper Shiré.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   English acquisition of the town and kingdom of Lagos on the
   Bight of Benin by cession from the native ruler.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Sir Samuel Baker's exploration of the Abyssinian tributaries
   of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Journey of Captain Burton from Lagos, on the western coast, to
   Abeokuta, the capital of the Akus, in Yoruba, and to the
   Camaroons Mountains.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Journey of Mr. Baines from Walfish Bay to Lake Ngami and
   Victoria Falls.

AFRICA: 1862.
   Resumption of the Christian Mission in Madagascar, long
   suppressed.

AFRICA: 1862-1867.
   Travels of Dr. Rohlfs in Morocco, Algeria and Tunis, and
   exploring journey from the Gulf of the Syrtes to the Gulf of
   Guinea.

AFRICA: 1863.
   Travels of Winwood Reade on the western coast.

AFRICA: 1863.
   Incorporation of a large part of Kaffraria with Cape Colony.

AFRICA: 1863.
   Second visit of Du Chaillu to the western equatorial region
   and journey to Ashangoland.

AFRICA: 1863-1864.
   Official mission of Captain Burton to the King of Dahomey.

AFRICA: 1863-1864.
   Exploration of the Bahr-el-Ghazel from Khartoum by the wealthy
   Dutch heiress, Miss Tinné, and her party.

AFRICA: 1863-1865.
   Expedition by Sir Samuel Baker and his wife up the White Nile
   from Khartoum, resulting in the discovery of Lake Albert
   Nyanza, as one of its sources.

AFRICA: 1864.
   Mission of Lieutenant mage and Dr. Quintin, sent by General
   Faidherbe from Senegal to the king of Segou, in the Sudan.

AFRICA: 1866.
   Founding of a Norwegian mission in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1866-1873.
   Last journey of Dr. Livingstone, from the Rovuma River, on the
   eastern coast, to Lake Nyassa; thence to Lake Tanganyika, Lake
   Moero, Lake Bangweolo, and the Lualaba River, which he
   suspected of flowing into the Albert Nyanza, and being the
   ultimate fountain head of the Nile. In November, 1871,
   Livingstone was found at Ujiji, on Lake Tanganyika, by Henry
   M. Stanley, lender of an expedition sent in search of him.
   Declining to quit the country with Stanley, and pursuing his
   exploration of the Lualaba, Livingstone died May 1, 1873, on
   Lake Bangweolo.

AFRICA: 1867.
   Mission founded in Madagascar by the Society of Friends.

AFRICA: 1867-1868.
   British expedition to Abyssinia for the rescue of captives;
   overthrow and death of King Theodore.

AFRICA: 1868.
   British annexation of Basutoland in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1869.
   Christianity established as the state religion in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1869.
   Fatal expedition of Miss Tinné from Tripoli into the desert,
   where she was murdered by her own escort.

AFRICA: 1869-1871.
   Explorations of Dr. Schweinfurth between the Bahr-el-Ghazel
   and the Upper Congo, discovering the Wellé River.

AFRICA: 1869-1873.
   Expedition of Dr. Nachtigal from Tripoli through Kuka,
   Tibesti, Borku, Wadai, Darfur, and Kordofan, to the Nile.

AFRICA: 1870-1873.
   Official expedition of Sir Samuel Baker, in the service of the
   Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, to annex Gondokoro, then named
   Ismalia, and to suppress the slave-trade in the Egyptian
   Sudan, or Equatoria.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Transfer of the rights of Holland on the Gold Coast to Great
   Britain.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Annexation of Griqualand West to Cape Colony.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Scientific tour of Sir Joseph D. Hooker and Mr. Ball in
   Morocco and the Great Atlas.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Missionary journey of Mr. Charles New in the Masai country and
   ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro.

AFRICA: 1871-1880.
   Hunting journeys of Mr. Selous in South Africa, beyond the
   Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1872-1875.
   Travels of the naturalist, Reinhold Buchholz, on the Guinea
   coast.

AFRICA: 1872-1879.
   Trave]s of Dr. Holub between the South African diamond fields
   and the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1873-1875.
   Expedition of Captain V. L. Cameron, from Zanzibar to Lake
   Tanganyika, and exploration of the Lake; thence to Nyangwe on
   the Lnalaba, and thence across the continent, through Ulunda,
   to the Portuguese settlement at Benguela, on the Atlantic
   coast.

{3673}

AFRICA: 1873-1875.
   Travels of the naturalist, Frank Oates, from Cape Colony to
   the Victoria Falls.

AFRICA: 1873-1876.
   Explorations of Güsfeldt, Falkenstein and Pechuel-Loesche,
   under the auspices of the German African Association, from the
   Loango coast, north of the Congo.

AFRICA: 1874.
   British expedition against the Ashantees, destroying their
   principal town Coomassie.

AFRICA: 1874.
   Mission of Colonel Chaillé-Long from General Gordon, at
   Gondokoro, on the Nile, to M'tesé, king of Uganda, discovering
   Lake Ibrahim on his return, and completing the work of Speke
   and Baker, in the continuous tracing of the course of the Nile
   from the Victoria Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1874-1875.
   Expedition of Colonel C. Chaillé-Long to Lake Victoria Nyanza
   and the Makraka Niam-Niam country, in the Egyptian service.

AFRICA: 1874-1876.
   First administration of General Gordon, commissioned by the
   Khedive as Governor of Equatoria.

AFRICA: 1874-1876.
   Occupation and exploration of Darfur and Kordofan by the
   Egyptians, under Colonels Purdy, Mason, Prout and Colston.

AFRICA: 1874-1877.
   Expedition of Henry M. Stanley, fitted out by the proprietors
   of the New York Herald and the London Daily Telegraph, which
   crossed the continent from Zanzibar to the mouth of the Congo
   River; making a prolonged stay in the empire of Uganda and
   acquiring much knowledge of it; circumnavigating Lakes
   Victoria and Tanganyika, and exploring the then mysterious
   great Congo River throughout its length.

AFRICA: 1874-1877.
   Explorations of Dr. Junker in Upper Nubia and in the basin of
   the Bahr-el-Ghazel.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Expedition of Dr. Pogge, for the German African Association,
   from the west coast, south of the Congo, in the Congo basin,
   penetrating to Kawende, beyond the Ruru or Lulua River,
   capital of the Muata Yanvo, who rules a kingdom as large as
   Germany.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Expedition of Colonel Chaillé-Long into the country of the
   Makraka Niam-Niams.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Founding by Scottish subscribers of the mission station called
   Livingstonia, at Cape Maclear, on the southern shores of Lake
   Nyassa; headquarters of the mission removed in 1881 to
   Bandawé, on the same lake.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Mission founded at Blantyre, in the highlands above the Shiré,
   by the Established Church of Scotland.

AFRICA: 1875-1876.
   Seizure of Berbera and the region of the Juba River, on the
   Somali Coast, by Colonel Chaillé-Long, for the Khedive of
   Egypt, and their speedy evacuation, on the remonstrance of
   England.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Conference at Brussels and formation of the International
   African Association, under the presidency of the king of the
   Belgians, for the exploration and civilization of Africa.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Voyage of Romolo Gessi around Lake Albert Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Mission in Uganda established by the Church Missionary Society
   of England.

AFRICA: 1876-1878.
   Scientific explorations of Dr. Schweinfurth in the Arabian
   Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea.

AFRICA: 1876-1880.
   Explorations and French annexations by Svorgnan de Brazza
   between the Ogowé and the Congo.

AFRICA: 1877.
   The Livingstone Inland Mission, for Christian work in the
   Congo valley, established by the East London Institute for
   Home and Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
   Second administration of General Gordon, as Governor-General
   of the Sudan, Darfur and the Equatorial Provinces.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
   War of the British in South Africa with the Zulus, and
   practical subjugation of that nation.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
   Journey of Serpa Pinto across the continent from Benguela via
   the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1877-1880.
   Explorations of the Portuguese officers, Capello and Ivens, in
   western and central Africa, from Benguela to the territory of
   Yacca, for the survey of the river Cuango in its relations to
   the hydrographic basins of the Congo and the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Founding in Glasgow of the African Lakes Company, or "The
   Livingstone Central Africa Company," for trade on Lakes Nyassa
   and Tanganyika; by which company the "Stevenson Road" was
   subsequently built between the two lakes above named.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Walfish Bay and fifteen miles around it (on the western coast,
   in Namaqualand) declared British territory.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Journey of Paul Soleillet from Saint-Louis to Segou.

AFRICA: 1878-1880.
   Royal Geographical Society's East Central African expedition,
   under Joseph Thomson, to the Central African lakes,
   Tanganyika, Nyassa and Leopold, from Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Establishment, by the Belgian International Society, of a
   station at Karema, on the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Formation of the International Congo Association and the
   engagement of Mr. Stanley in its service.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Missionary expeditions to the Upper Congo region by the
   Livingstone Inland Mission and the Baptist Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Journey of Mr. Stewart, of the Livingstonia Mission, on Lake
   Nyassa, from that lake to Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Discovery of the sources of the Niger, in the hills about 200
   miles east of Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, by the
   French explorers, Zweifel and Moustier.

AFRICA: 1879-1880.
   Journey of Dr. Oskar Lenz, under the auspices of the German
   African Society, from Morocco to Timbuctoo, and thence to the
   Atlantic coast in Senegambia. The fact that the Sahara is
   generally above the sea-level, and cannot therefore be
   flooded, was determined by Dr. Lenz.

AFRICA: 1879-1881.
   Expedition of Dr. Buchner from Loanda to Kawende and the
   kingdom of the Muata Yanvo, where six months were spent in
   vain efforts to procure permission to proceed further into the
   interior.

AFRICA: 1880.
   Mission established by the American Board of Foreign Missions
   in "the region of Bihé and the Coanza," or Quanza, south of
   the Congo.

AFRICA: 1880-1881.
   War of the British with the Boers of the Transvaal.

AFRICA: 1880-1881.
   Official mission of the German explorer, Gerhard Rohlfs,
   accompanied by Dr. Stecker, to Abyssinia.

{3674}

AFRICA: 1880-1884.
   Campaigns of Colonel Borgnis-Desbordes in Upper Senegal,
   capturing Bamakou and extending French supremacy to the Niger.

AFRICA: 1880-1884.
   German East African Expedition, under Kaiser, Böhm, and
   Reichard, to explore, in the Congo Basin, the region between
   the Lualaba and the Luapula.

AFRICA: 1880-1886.
   Explorations of Dr. Junker in the country of the Niam-Niam,
   seeking to determine the course and the outlet of the great
   river Wellé, and his journey from the Equatorial Province held
   by Emin Pasha against the Mahdl, through Unyoro and Uganda, to
   Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1880-1889.
   Journey of Captain Casati, as correspondent of the Italian
   geographical review, "L' Exploratore," from Suakin, on the Red
   Sea, into the district of the Mombuttu, west of Lake Albert,
   and the country of the Niam-Niam; in which travels he was
   arrested by the revolt of the Mahdi and forced to remain with
   Emin Pasha until rescued with the latter by Stanley, in 1889.

AFRICA: 1881.
   French Protectorate extended over Tunis.

AFRICA: 1881.
   Portuguese expedition of Captain Andrada from Senna on the
   Zambesi River to the old gold mines of Manica.

AFRICA: 1881.
   Journey of F. L. and W. D. James from Suakin, on the Red Sea,
   through the Base country, in the Egyptian Sudan.

AFRICA: 1881.
   Founding of a mission on the Congo, at Stanley Pool, by the
   Baptist Missionary Society of England.

AFRICA: 1881-1884.
   Expedition of Dr. Pogge and Lieutenant Wissmann to Nyangwe on
   the Lualaba, from which point Lieutenant Wissmann pursued the
   journey to Zanzibar, crossing the continent, while Dr. Pogge,
   returning, died soon after his arrival at St. Paul de Loanda.

AFRICA: 1881-1885.
   Revolt of the Mahdl in the Sudan; the mission of General
   Gordon to Khartoum to effect the evacuation of the country;
   his beleaguerment there by the Mahdists; the unsuccessful
   expedition from England to rescue him; the fall of the city
   and his death.

AFRICA: 1881-1887.
   French protectorate established over territory on the Upper
   Niger and Upper Senegal.

AFRICA: 1882.
   Italian occupation of Abyssinian territory on the Bay of
   Assab.

AFRICA: 1882.
   Formation in England of the National African Company for the
   development of trade in the region of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1882.
   Missionary visit to the Masal people by Mr. J. T. Last.

AFRICA: 1882-1883.
   German scientific expedition, under Dr. Böhm and Herr
   Reichard, to Lakes Tanganyika and Moero.

AFRICA: 1882-1883.
   Journey of Mr. H. H. Johnston on the Congo.

AFRICA: 1882-1885.
   Mr. Stutfield's travels through Morocco.

AFRICA: 1883.
   German acquisition of territory on Angra Pequeña Bay, in Great
   Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Exploration of Masailand by Dr. Fischer, under the auspices of
   the Hamburg Geographical Society.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Explorations of Lieutenant Giraud in East Central Africa,
   descending for some distance the Luapula, which flows out of
   Lake Bangweolo, but driven back by hostile natives.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Geological and botanical investigation of the basins of Lakes
   Nyassa and Tanganyika, by Mr. Henry Drummond, for the African
   Lakes Company.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Journey of Mr. O'Neill to Lake Shirwa and the sources of the
   Lujenda.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Journey of Mr. Révoil in the South Somali country to the Upper
   Jub.

AFRICA: 1883-1884.
   Explorations of Mr. Joseph Thomson from Mombassa, through
   Masailand, to the northeast corner of the Victoria Nyanza,
   under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society.

AFRICA: 1883-1885.
   War of the French with the Hovas of Madagascar, resulting in
   the establishment of a French Protectorate over the island.

AFRICA: 1883-1885.
   Exploration of Lieutenant Giraud in the lake region—Lake
   Nyassa to Lake Bangweolo, Lake Moero and Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1883-1886.
   Austrian expedition, under Dr. Holub, from Cape Colony,
   through the Boer states, Bechuanaland and Matabeleland to the
   Zambesi, and beyond, to the borders of the Mashukulumbe
   territory, where the party was attacked, plundered, and driven
   back.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Annexation by Germany of the whole western coast (except
   Walfish Bay) between the Portuguese Possessions and those of
   the British in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1884.
   German occupation of territory on the Cameroons River, under
   treaties with the native chiefs. English treaties securing
   contiguous territory to and including the delta of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1884.
   German Protectorate over Togoland on the Gold Coast declared.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Expedition of Dr. Peters, representing the Society of German
   Colonization, to the coast region of Zanzibar, and his
   negotiation of treaties with ten native chiefs, ceding the
   sovereignty of their dominions.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Crown colony of British Bechuanaland acquired by convention
   with the South African Republic.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Portuguese Government expedition, under Major Carvalho, from
   Loanda to the Central African potentate called the Muata
   Yanvo.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Exploration of the Benué and the whole region of the Adamawa,
   by Herr Flegel, for the German African Society.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Scientific expedition of Mr. H. H. Johnston to Kilimanjaro
   mountain, sent by the British Association for the Advancement
   of Science and the Royal Society.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Discovery of the M'bangi or Ubangi River (afterwards
   identified with the Wellé—see below, 1887), by Captain Hansens
   and Lieutenant Van Gèle.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Exploration of Reichard in the southeastern part of the Congo
   State.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   The Berlin Conference of Powers, held to determine the limits
   of territory conceded to the International Congo Association;
   to establish freedom of trade within that territory, and to
   formulate rules for regulating in future the acquisition of
   African territory.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   Journey of Mr. Walter M. Kerr from Cape Colony, across the
   Zambesi, to Lake Nyassa, and down the Shiré River to the
   coast.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   Travels of Mr. F. L. James and party in the Somali country.

AFRICA: 1884-1887.
   Exploration by Dr. Schinz of the newly acquired German
   territories in southwest Africa.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Transfer of the rights of the Society of German Colonization
   to the German East Africa Company, and extension of imperial
   protection to the territories claimed by the Company. German
   acquisition of Witu, north of Zanzibar.

{3675}

AFRICA: 1885.
   Agreement between Germany and France, defining their
   respective spheres of influence on the Bight or Biafra, on the
   slave coast and in Senegambia.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Transformation of the Congo Association into the Independent
   State of the Congo, with King Leopold of Belgium as its
   sovereign.

AFRICA: 1885.
   British Protectorate extended to the Zambesi, over the country
   west of the Portuguese province of Sofala, to the 20th degree
   of east longitude.

AFRICA: 1885.
   British Protectorate extended over the remainder of
   Bechuanaland.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Italian occupation of Massowa, on the Red Sea.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Mission of Mr. Joseph Thomson, for the National African
   Company, up the Niger, to Sokoto and Gando, securing treaties
   with the sultans under which the company acquired paramount
   rights.

AFRICA: 1885-1888.
   Mission of M. Borelli to the kingdom of Shoa (Southern
   Ethiopia) and south of it.

AFRICA: 1885-1889.
   When, after the fall of Khartoum and the death of General
   Gordon, in 1885, the Sudan was abandoned to the Mahdi and the
   fanatical Mohammedans of the interior, Dr. Edward Schnitzer,
   better known as Emin Pasha, who had been in command, under
   Gordon, of the province of the Equator, extending up to Lake
   Albert, was cut off for six years from communication with the
   civilized world. In 1887 an expedition to rescue him and his
   command was sent out under Henry M. Stanley. It entered the
   continent from the west, made its way up the Congo and the
   Aruwimi to Yambuya; thence through the unexplored region to
   Lake Albert Nyanza and into communication with Emin Pasha;
   then returning to Yambuya for the rearguard which had been
   left there; again traversing the savage land to Lake Albert,
   and passing from there, with Emin and his companions, by way
   of Lake Albert Edward Nyanza (then ascertained to be the
   ultimate reservoir of the Nile system) around the southern
   extremity of the Victoria Nyanza, to Zanzibar, which was
   reached at the end of 1889.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Settlement between Great Britain and Germany of the coast
   territory to be left under the sovereignty of the Sultan of
   Zanzibar, and of the "spheres of influence" to be appropriated
   respectively by themselves, between the lakes and the eastern
   coast, north of the Portuguese possessions.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Agreement between France and Portugal defining limits of
   territory in Senegambia and at the mouth of the Congo.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Transformation of the National African Company into the
   British Royal Niger Company, with a charter giving powers of
   administration over a large domain on the River Niger.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Mission station founded by Mr. Arnot at Bunkeya, in the
   southeastern part of the Congo State.

AFRICA: 1886-1887.
   Journey of Lieutenant Wissmann across the continent, from
   Luluaburg, a station of the Congo Association, in the dominion
   of Muata Yanvo, to Nyangwe, on the Lualaba, and thence to
   Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1886-1889.
   Expeditions of Dr. Zintgraff in the Cameroons interior and to
   the Benue, for the bringing of the country under German
   influence.

AFRICA: 1887.
   Annexation of Zululand, partly to the Transvaal, or South
   African Republic, and the remainder to the British
   possessions.

AFRICA: 1887.
   French gunboats launched on the Upper Niger, making a
   reconnoissance nearly to Timbuctoo.

AFRICA: 1887.
   Identity of the Wellé River with the M'bangi or Ubangi
   established by Captain Van Gèle and Lieutenant Liénart.

AFRICA: 1887.
   First ascent of Kilimanjaro by Dr. Hans Meyer.

AFRICA: 1887-1889.
   Exploration by Captain Ringer of the region between the great
   bend of the Niger and the countries of the Gold Coast.

AFRICA: 1887-1890.
   Expedition of Count Teleki through Masailand, having for its
   most important result the discovery of the Basso-Narok, or
   Black Lake, to which the discoverer gave the name of Lake
   Rudolf, and Lake Stefanie.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Chartering of the Imperial British East Africa Company, under
   concessions granted by the sultan of Zanzibar and by native
   chiefs, with powers of administration over a region defined
   ultimately as extending from the river Umba northward to the
   river Jub, and inland to and across Lake Victoria near its
   middle to the eastern boundary of the Congo Free State.

AFRICA: 1888.
   British supremacy over Matabeleland secured by treaty with its
   King Lobengula.

AFRICA: 1888.
   British Protectorate extended over Amatongaland.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Ascent of Mt. Kilimanjaro by Mr. Ehlers and Dr. Abbott; also
   by Dr. Hans Meyer.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Travels of Joseph Thomson in the Atlas and southern Morocco.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Royal charter granted to the British South Africa Company,
   with rights and powers in the region called Zambesia north of
   British Bechuanaland and the South African Republic, and
   between the Portuguese territory on the east and the German
   territory on the west.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Will of King Leopold, making Belgium heir to the sovereign
   rights of the Congo Free State.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia acknowledged by the
   Negus.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Portuguese Roman Catholic Mission established on the south
   shore of Lake Nyassa. Portuguese exploration under Serpa Pinto
   in the Lake Nyassa region, with designs of occupancy
   frustrated by the British.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Journey of M. Crampel from the Ogowé to the Likuala tributary
   of the Congo, and return directly westward to the coast.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Dr. Wolf's exploration of the southeast Niger basin, where be
   met his death.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Major Macdonald's exploration of the Benue, sometimes called
   the Tchadda (a branch of the Niger), and of its tributary the
   Kebbi.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Journey of Mr. H. H. Johnston north of Lake Nyassa and to Lake
   Leopold.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe through the country lying between the
   Shiré and Loangwa Rivers.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Mr. Pigott's journey to the Upper Tana, in the service of the
   Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   British Protectorate declared over Nyassaland and the Shiré
   Highlands.

{3676}

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Italian Protectorate established over territory on the eastern
   (oceanic) Somali coast, from the Gulf of Aden to the Jub
   River.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Imperial British East Africa Company's expedition, under
   Jackson and Gedge, for the exploring of a new road to the
   Victoria Nyanza and Uganda.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Captain Lugard's exploration of the river Sabakhi for the
   Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Journey of Lieutenant Morgen from the Cameroons, on the
   western coast to the Benue.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   French explorations in Madagascar by Dr. Catat and MM. Maistre
   and Foucart.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Anglo-German Convention, defining boundaries of the
   territories and "spheres of influence" respectively claimed by
   the two powers; Germany withdrawing from Vitu, and from all
   the eastern mainland coast north of the river Tana, and
   conceding a British Protectorate over Zanzibar, in exchange
   for the island of Heligoland in the North Sea.

AFRICA: 1890.
   French "sphere of influence" extending over the Sahara and the
   Sudan, from Algeria to Lake Tchad and to Say on the Niger,
   recognized by Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Exploration of the river Sangha, an important northern
   tributary of the Congo, by M. Cholet.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Exploring journey of M. Hodister, agent of the Upper Congo
   Company, up the Lomami river and across country to the
   Lualaba, at Nyangwe.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Journey of Mr. Garrett in the interior of Sierra Leone to the
   upper waters of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Journey of Dr. Fleck from the western coast across the
   Kalihari to Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Italian possessions in the Red Sea united in the colony of
   Eritrea.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Mission of Captain Lugard to Uganda and signature of a treaty
   by its king acknowledging the supremacy of the British East
   Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Exploration by M. Paul Crampel of the central region between
   the French territories on the Congo and Lake Tchad, ending in
   the murder of M. Crampel and several of his companions.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe from Mandala, in the Shiré Highlands, to
   Garenganze, the empire founded by an African adventurer,
   Mshidi, in the Katanga copper country, between Lake Moero and
   the Luapula river on the east, and the Lualaba on the west.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Lieutenant Mizon from the Niger to the Congo.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Captain Becker from Yambuya, on the Aruwimi,
   north-northwest to the Wellé.

AFRICA: 1890-1892.
   Italian explorations in the Somali countries by Signor
   Robecchi, Lieutenant Baudi di Vesme, Prince Ruspoli, and
   Captains Bottego and Grixoni.

AFRICA: 1890-1893.
   Expedition of Dr. Stuhlmann, with Emin Pasha, from Bagamoyo,
   via the Victoria Nyanza and the Albert Edward, to the plateau
   west of the Albert Nyanza. From this point Dr. Stuhlmann
   returned, while Emin pursued his way, intending it is said, to
   reach Kibonge, on the right bank of the Congo, south of
   Stanley Falls. He was murdered at Kinena, 150 miles northeast
   of Kibonge, by the order of an Arab chief.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Extension of the British Protectorate of Lagos over the
   neighboring districts of Addo, Igbessa, and Ilaro, which form
   the western boundary of Yoruba.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal defining their
   possessions; conceding to the former an interior extension of
   her South African dominion up to the southern boundary of the
   Congo Free State, and securing to the latter defined
   territories on the Lower Zambesi, the Lower Shiré, and the
   Nyassa, as well as the large block of her possessions on the
   western coast.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Convention between Portugal and the Congo Free State for the
   division of the disputed district of Lunda.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Convention of the Congo Free State with the Katanga Company,
   an international syndicate, giving the Company preferential
   rights over reputed mines in Katanga and Urua, with a third of
   the public domain, provided it established an effective
   occupation within three years.

AFRICA: 1891.
   French annexation of the Gold Coast between Liberia and the
   Grand Bassam.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Opening of the Royal Trans-African Railway, in West Africa,
   from Loanda to Ambaca, 140 miles.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Survey of a railway route from the eastern coast to Victoria
   Lake by the Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Exploration of the Jub River, in the Somali country, by
   Commander Dundas.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Exploration by Captain Dundas, from the eastern coast, up the
   river Tana to Mount Kenia.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Mr. Bent's exploration of the ruined cities of Mashonaland.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Journey of M. Maistre from the Congo to the Shari.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Journeys of Captain Gallwey in the Benin country, West Africa.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Mission established by the Berlin Missionary Society in the
   Konde country, at the northern end of Lake Nyassa.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Incorporation of the African Lakes Company with the British
   South Africa Company. Organization of the administration of
   Northern Zambesia and Nyassaland.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of the Katanga Company, under Captain Stairs, from
   Bagamoyo to Lake Tanganyika, thence through the country at the
   head of the most southern affluents of the Congo, the Lualaba
   and the Luapula.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Belgian expeditions under Captain Bia and others to explore
   the southeastern portion of the Congo Basin, on behalf of the
   Katanga Company, resulting in the determination of the fact
   that the Lukuga River is an outlet of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Journey of Dr. James Johnston across the continent, from
   Benguela to the mouth of the Zambesi, through Bihe, Ganguela,
   Barotse, the Kalihari Desert, Mashonaland, Manica, Gorongoza,
   Nyassa, and the Shiré Highlands.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of Mr. Joseph Thomson, for the British South Africa
   Company, from Kilimane or Quillimane on the eastern coast to
   Lake Bangweolo.

{3677}

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Journey of Captain Monteil from the Niger to Lake Tchad and
   across the Sahara to Tripoli.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Exploration by Lieutenant Chaltin of the river Lulu, and the
   country between the Aruwimi and the Welle Makua rivers, in the
   Congo State.

AFRICA: 1891-1893.
   Journey of Dr. Oscar Baumann from Tanga, a port on the eastern
   coast, in the northern part of the German Protectorate;
   passing to the south of Kilimanjaro, discovering two lakes
   between that mountain and the Victoria Nyanza; exploring the
   southeastern shores of the Victoria, traversing the Shashi
   countries lying east of the lake, and the Urundi country
   between the Victoria and Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1891-1894.
   Expedition under the command of Captain Van Kerckhoven and M.
   de la Kéthulle de Ryhove, fitted out by the Congo Free State,
   for the subjugation of the Arabs, the suppression of the slave
   trade and the exploration of the country, throughout the
   region of the Wellé or Ubangi Uellé and to the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Decision of the Imperial British East Africa Company to
   withdraw from Uganda.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Practical conquest of Dahomey by the French, General Dodds
   taking possession of the capital November 16.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Journey of M. Méry in the Sahara to the south of Wargla,
   resulting in a report favorable to the construction of a
   railway to tap the Central Sudan.

AFRICA: 1892.
   French expedition under Captain Binger to explore the southern
   Sudan and to act conjointly with British officials in
   determining the boundary between French and English
   possessions.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe from the Shiré River to Lake Moero or
   Mweru and the Upper Luapula.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   Construction of a line of telegraph by the British South
   African Company, from Cape Colony, through Mashonaland, to
   Fort Salisbury, with projected extension across the Zambesi
   and by the side of Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika to Uganda,—and
   ultimately down the valley of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   French scientific mission, under M. Dècle, from Cape Town to
   the sources of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   Italian explorations, under Captain Bòttego and Prince
   Ruspoli, in the upper basin of the River Jub.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Brussels Antislavery Conference, ratified in its action by the
   Powers.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Official mission of Sir Gerald Porter to Uganda, sent by the
   British Government to report as to the expediency of the
   withdrawal of British authority from that country.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Scientific expedition of Mr. Scott-Elliot to Uganda.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Scientific expedition of Dr. Gregory, of the British Museum,
   from Mombassa, on the eastern coast, through Masailand to
   Mount Kenia.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Journey of Mr. Bent to Aksum, in Abyssinia, the ancient
   capital and sacred city of the Ethiopians.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Journey of M. Foureau in the Sahara, crossing the plateau of
   Tademait from north to south.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   German scientific survey of Mount Kilimanjaro, under Drs. Lent
   and Volkens.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Expedition of Mr. Astor Chanler and Lieutenant von Höhnel from
   Witu, on the eastern coast, to the Jombini Range and among the
   Rendile.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Explorations of Baron von Uechtritz and Dr. Passarge on the
   Benue.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Journey of Baron von Schele from the eastern coast to Lake
   Nyassa, and thence by a direct route to Kihsa.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Journey of Count von Götzen across the continent, from
   Dar-es-Salaam, on the eastern coast, to the Lower Congo.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Treaty between Great Britain and the Congo Free State,
   securing to the former a strip of land on the west side of the
   Nile between the Albert Nyanza and 10° north latitude, and to
   the latter the large Bahr-el-Ghazel region, westward. This
   convention gave offense to France, and that country
   immediately exacted from the Congo Free State a treaty
   stipulating that the latter shall not occupy or exercise
   political influence in a region which covers most of the
   territory assigned to it by the treaty with Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Franco-German Treaty, determining the boundary line of the
   Cameroons, or Kamerun.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Treaty concluded by Captain Lugard, November 10, at Nikki, in
   Borgu, confirming the rights claimed by the Royal Niger
   Company over Borgu, and placing that country under British
   protection.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Agreement between the British South Africa Company and the
   Government of Great Britain, signed November 24, 1894,
   transferring to the direct administration of the Company the
   Protectorate of Nyassaland, thereby extending its domain to
   the south end of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Renewed war of France with the Hovas of Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Expedition of Dr. Donaldson Smith from the Somali coast,
   aiming to reach Lakes Rudolf and Stefanie, but stopped and
   turned back by the Abyssinians, in December.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Visit of Mr. Cecil Rhodes to England to arrange financially
   for the extension of the Cape railway system northwards from
   Mafeking into Matabeleland.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Completed conquest of Dahomey by the French; capture of the
   deposed king, January 25, and his deportation to exile in
   Martinique. Decree of the French Government, June 22,
   directing the administrative organization of the "colony of
   Dahomey and Dependencies"; with a ministerial order of the
   same date which divides the new conquest into "Territoirés
   annexés; Territoirés protégés; Territoirés d'action
   politique."

AFRICA: 1894.
   Occupation of Timbuctoo by a French force.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Journey of Count von Götzen across the continent, from the
   eastern coast, through Ruanda and the Great Forest to and
   along the Lowa, an eastern tributary of the Congo, reaching
   the Lower Congo in December.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Exploration of the Upper Congo and the Lukuga by Mr. R. Dorsey
   Mohun, American Agent on the Congo, and Dr. Hinde.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Scientific    to the Zambesi and Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1894-1895.
   War of the Italians in their colony of Eritrea with both the
   Abyssinians and the Mahdists. Italian occupation of Kassala as
   a base of operations against the Mahdists.

{3678}

AFRICA: 1895.
   Franco-British agreement, signed January 21, 1895, respecting
   the "Hinterland" of Sierra Leone, which secures to France the
   Upper Niger basin.

AFRICA: 1895.
   Convention between Belgium and France signed February 5,
   recognizing a right of pre-emption on the part of the latter,
   with regard to the Congo State, in case Belgium should at any
   time renounce the sovereignty which King Leopold desires to
   transfer to it.

AFRICA: 1895.
   Russian scientific expedition to Abyssinia, under Lieutenant
   Leontieff.

   ----------AFRICA: End--------

AKKADIANS,
ACCADIANS.

      See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

ALEXANDRIA:
   Early Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100,
      and 100-312 (pages 43 and 445).

ALEXANDRIA:
   Library.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2003).

AMANA COMMUNITY, The.

   See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874 (page 2945).

   ----------AMERICA: Start--------

AMERICA:
   The discoverers of the Northern Continent.
   Mr. Harrisse's conclusions.

   "The main points attained in this elaborate survey of all the
   facts and documents known can be recapitulated as
   follows,—perhaps with less assurance than a desire to be
   succinct may undesignedly impart to our expressions:

   1. The discovery of the continent of North America, and the
   first landing on its east coast were accomplished not by
   Sebastian Cabot, but by his father John, in 1497, under the
   auspices of King Henry VII.

   2. The first landfall was not Cape Breton Island, as is stated
   in the planisphere made by Sebastian Cabot in 1544, but eight
   or ten degrees further north, on the coast of Labrador; which
   was then ranged by John Cabot, probably as far as Cape
   Chudley.

   3. This fact was tacitly acknowledged by all pilots and
   cosmographers throughout the first half of the 16th century;
   and the knowledge of it originated with Sebastian Cabot
   himself, whatever may have been afterwards his contrary
   statements in that respect.

   4. The voyage of 1498, also accomplished under the British
   flag, was likewise carried out by John Cabot personally. The
   landfall on that occasion must be placed south of the first;
   and the exploration embraced the northeast coast of the
   present United States, as far as Florida.

   5. In the vicinity of the Floridian east coast, John Cabot, or
   one of his lieutenants, was detected by some Spanish vessel,
   in 1498 or 1499.

   6. The English continued in 1501, 1502, 1504, and afterwards,
   to send ships to Newfound·land, chiefly for the purpose of
   fisheries. …

   7. The Portuguese mariners who lived in the Azores were the
   first who probed the Atlantic in search of oceanic islands and
   continents. Their objective, after the discovery achieved by
   Christopher Columbus, was the north-east coast of the New
   World.

   8. The earliest authentic records of Lusitanian transatlantic
   expeditions begin only with Gaspar Corte-Real, who made three,
   and not two voyages only; all to the same regions, as follows:
   The first voyage of that navigator was undertaken previous to
   May, 1500, in the direction of Greenland and Newfoundland, and
   proved an absolute failure. The second voyage lasted from the
   early part of the summer of 1500 until the autumn of that
   year, and embraced the east coast of Newfoundland, from its
   northernmost point down to Cape Race. The third expedition set
   out from Lisbon early In the spring of 1501. It was composed
   of three vessels. One of these returned to port On the 8th or
   9th of October, the second on the 11th following. As to the
   third, which was under the Immediate command of Gaspar
   Corte-Real, it was ice-bound or shipwrecked, we do not know
   when nor where, but probably in Hudson Bay, during the winter
   of 1501-1502. The country visited during the first part of the
   expedition seems to have been the northern extremity of
   Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador.

   9. The expedition of Miguel Corte-Real in search of his
   brother, sailed May 10, 1502, and was also lost. …

   10. Portugal continued to send ships to the fishing banks; and
   the region south of Newfoundland was explored, particularly by
   João Alvares Fagundes before 1521. …

   11. The assertion that already in the time of Christopher
   Columbus navigators and geographers believed in the existence
   of a continent interposed between the West Indies and Asia,
   and which was not Cathay, stands uncontroverted either by
   contemporary authorities, or by the early Spanish charts. Nay,
   it is corroborated by that class of proofs.

   12. The absolute insularity of Cuba was an acknowledged fact
   years before the periplus made by Sebastian de Ocampo, in
   1508.

   13. The mainland of the New World was believed to be a
   continent distinct from Cathay and from India the moment
   navigators commenced to search after a strait leading from the
   Atlantic Ocean to the Asiatic seas.

   14. The idea that America was a mere prolongation of Asia
   ceased therefore to be entertained almost immediately after
   the discovery of its east coast; by John Cabot in 1497; by
   Americus Vespuccius, before 1501; by Gaspar Corte-Real, before
   1502.

   15. Christopher Columbus himself soon ceased to think that he
   had discovered Cathay, or the Asiatic coast.

   16. So early as October, 1501, the notion prevailed in Europe
   that from Circulus articus to Pollus Antarticus, the newly
   discovered land formed a single coast line belonging to a
   separate continent."

      _H. Harrisse,
      Discovery of North America,
      part 1, book 8, chapter 5._

AMERICA:
   The alleged first voyage of Vespucius.

   In the first volume of this work (page 52) the argument in
   support of the disputed claim for Amerigo Vespucci, or
   Vespucius, that he made a voyage in 1497-8 during which he
   coasted the American continent from Honduras to Cape Hatteras,
   is given in an excerpt from Dr. Fiske's "Discovery of
   America." The following, from a paper by Mr. Clements R.
   Markham, read before the Royal Geographical Society in June,
   1892, presents, in part, the counter argument: "Vespucci's
   account of his alleged first voyage is briefly as follows. He
   says that he went to Spain to engage in mercantile pursuits,
   but that after some years he resolved to see the world and its
   marvels. King Ferdinand having ordered four ships to go forth
   and make discoveries to the westward, Vespucci was chosen by
   His Highness to go in the fleet, to assist in the work of
   discovery. They sailed from Cadiz on May 10th, 1497, and
   reached Grand Canary, which, he says, is in 27° 30' North, and
   280 leagues from Lisbon.
{3679}
   There they remained eight days, and then sailed for
   thirty-seven (twenty-seven, Latin version) days on a W. S. W.
   course ('Ponente pigliando una quarta di libeccio'), reaching
   land when they were nearly 1,000 leagues from Grand Canary.
   For they found, by their instruments, that they were in 16°
   North latitude and 75° West longitude. Vespucci then gives a
   long account of the natives. After some days they came to a
   village built over the water, like Venice, about forty-four
   houses resting on very thick poles. Sailing along the land for
   80 leagues, they came to another people, speaking a different
   language, where Vespucci saw an iguana being roasted, which he
   describes. He made an excursion inland for 18 leagues, and
   found the country very populous. This place was on the Tropic
   of Cancer, where the latitude is 23° North. The province is
   called 'Parias' (Latin version), 'Lariab' (Italian version).
   Thence they sailed, always in sight of the land, on a
   Northwest course ('verso el maestrale') for 870 leagues,
   having intercourse with many tribes, and finding some gold.
   When they had been absent thirteen months the ships begun to
   leak, and required caulking, so they entered the best harbour
   in the world, where there were many friendly people. Here they
   refitted, and remained for thirty-seven days. They then sailed
   eastward for seven days, and carne to some islands 100 leagues
   off the mainland, inhabited by fierce people called 'Iti.'
   They had encounters with the natives, when one of their men
   was killed and twenty-two were wounded. They then sailed for
   Spain with 222 slaves, arriving at Cadiz on October 15th,
   1498, where they sold their slaves, and were well received.
   This is the story of Vespucci. It has been considered to be a
   fabrication from that time to this, for the following reasons.
   Vespucci was at Seville or San Lucar, as a provision merchant,
   from the middle of April, 1497, to the end of May, 1498, as is
   shown by the official records, examined by Muñoz, of expenses
   incurred in fitting out the ships for western expeditions.
   Moreover, no expedition for discovery was despatched by order
   of King Ferdinand in 1497; and there is no allusion to any
   such expedition in any contemporary record. The internal
   evidence against the truth of the story is even stronger.
   Vespucci says that he sailed West South West for nearly 1,000
   leagues from Grand Canary. This would have taken him to the
   Gulf of Paria, which is rather more than 900 leagues West
   South West from Grand Canary. It would never have taken him
   near the land at 16° North. Even with a course direct for that
   point, instead of a West North West course, and disregarding
   intervening land, the distance he gives would leave him 930
   miles short of the alleged position. No actual navigator would
   have made such a blunder. He evidently quoted the dead
   reckoning from Ojeda's voyage, and invented the latitude at
   random. It is useless for the defenders of Vespucci to refer
   to the faulty reckonings of those days, and to pilots thinking
   they were near the Canaries when they were off the Azores.
   This is a different matter. It is the case of a man alleging
   that he has fixed his position by observations, and giving a
   dead reckoning nearly a thousand miles out, in the belief that
   it would bring him to the same point. It is fudging, but the
   fudging of a man ignorant of a pilot's business. His statement
   that he went Northwest for 870 leagues (2,610 miles) from a
   position in latitude 23° North, is still more preposterous.
   Such a course and distance would have taken him right across
   the continent to somewhere in British Columbia. The chief
   incidents in the voyage are those of the Ojeda voyage in 1499.
   There is the village built on piles called Little Venice.
   There is the best harbour in the world, which was the Gulf of
   Cariaco, where Ojeda refitted. There was the encounter with
   natives, in which one Spaniard was killed and 22 were wounded.
   These numbers are convincing evidence. … Vespucci does not
   mention the commanders of the expedition, nor any Spanish name
   whatever, and only gives two names of places, namely, 'Parias'
   or 'Lariab,' and 'Iti,' both imaginary. Humboldt was aware of
   the proofs that Vespucci could not have been absent from Spain
   in 1497-98, and that the incidents of his alleged first voyage
   belonged to that of Ojeda; but he was reluctant to believe in
   actual fraud. He therefore suggested that there were misprints
   with regard to the dates; that the first voyage of Vespucci
   was that of Ojeda; and that the Florentine merchant returned
   home from Española in time to join the voyage of Pinzon in
   1500, which was the second voyage. But no one was allowed to
   land from Ojeda's ships at Española, and the dates are too
   detailed, and occur too clearly in both versions, to admit of
   the wholesale alterations demanded by this theory. The Baron
   Varnhagen, in his defences of Vespucci, published in 1865 at
   Lima, and in 1869 at Vienna, takes a bolder course. He adopts
   the whole of the statements of Vespucci as perfectly true,
   including the dates; but his defence does not amount to much.
   He was evidently unaware of the extent of the error in
   Vespucci's reckoning, and did not realise the inevitable
   inference. He got over the Little Venice difficulty by
   suggesting that there were many other villages built on piles,
   and that there might have been one on the coast of Tabasco.
   That is true. There was also the old Quebec hotel in
   Portsmouth Harbour; but this is not the point, and he failed
   to see where the difficulty lies. The Little Venice was a
   discovery in Ojeda's voyage when Vespucci was present. Its
   recurrence here, and its omission in the version of Ojeda's
   voyage by Vespucci, are the suspicious points which Varnhagen
   fails to explain away. Of the words 'Parias' and 'Lariab' in
   the two versions, Varnhagen prefers the latter. It is quite
   impossible to tell which form, or whether either, was in the
   original manuscript. Although there is no such place as
   'Lariab,' yet a Mexican author, named Orozco, said that some
   of the names of places near Tampico, where the Huasteca
   language is spoken, ended in 'ab.' This is a point, so far as
   it goes—which is not very far. Even the voyage of 870 leagues
   Northwest from latitude 23°, does not daunt the Baron. He
   ignores Vespucci's course, and takes him a marvellous voyage
   round the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and the peninsula of
   Florida, to Cape Hatteras, where he certainly does not find
   the best harbour in the world. Thence Vespucci is taken to
   Bermuda, identified as 'Iti,' and so home. It is well known
   that Bermuda was uninhabited before its settlement by
   Europeans, and that there were no signs of previous
   inhabitants; while the 'Iti' of Vespucci was densely peopled
   with fierce savages. But this is ignored by Varnhagen.
{3680}
   It would certainly have been a most extraordinary voyage, and
   it is still more extraordinary, that though the secret must
   have been known to many people at the time, it should have
   been inviolably kept without any object in such secrecy, and
   that the discoveries should have appeared on no map and in no
   narrative. Yet Vespucci's story, though a bold flight, bears
   no comparison with the grandeur of Varnhagen's conception of
   it."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Fourth Centenary of his Discovery,
      note 2 (Royal Geographical Society,
      Proceedings, 1892, September)._

AMERICA:
   Monetary effects of the discovery of America.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17TH CENTURIES (page 2208).

   ----------AMERICA: End--------

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Hiawatha the founder.

      See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY (page 1802).

AMERICAN COLONIAL TRADE.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

AMERICAN LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017, and after).

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2021).

AMHERST COLLEGE, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

AMPERE'S ELECTRO-MAGNETIC DISCOVERIES.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1820-1825 (page 772).

   [Transcriber's note: For a detailed look at electrical
   theory of 1892.]

      _T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary,
      www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535._

AMSTERDAM, The founding of the Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2208).

ANÆSTHETICS, The discovery of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2143).

ANARCHISM AND NIHILISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894;
      and 1860-1870 (pages 2941 and 2948).

ANDORRA.

   "The pastoral and picturesque valley of Andorra, a jumble of
   hills, enclosed on all sides by the Pyrenean spurs, extends
   about 7 L. long by 6 broad, and is bounded by the French and
   Spanish ridges, by Puigcerdá to the South and East, by the
   Comté de Foix (départ. de l'Ariège) to the North, and by the
   Corregimiento of Talaru to the West. Watered by the Balira [or
   Valira], Ordino, and Os, it is one of the wildest districts of
   the Spanish Pyrenees, abounding in timber, which is floated
   down the Balira and Segre to Tortosa. The name Andorra is
   derived from the Arabic Aldarra, 'a place thick with trees,'
   among which is found the Cabra Montaraz, with bears, boars,
   and wolves."

      _R. Ford,
      Handbook for Travellers in Spain,
      part 1, section 6._

   "The republic of Andorra is said to owe its existence to a
   defeat of the Saracens by Charlemagne or Louis le Débonnaire,
   but in reality up to the French Revolution the valley enjoyed
   no sovereign rights whatever. It was a barony of the Counts of
   Urgel and of Aragon. In 1278 it was decided that Andorra
   should be held jointly by the Bishops of Urgel and the Counts
   of Foix. In 1793 the French republic declined to receive the
   customary tribute, and in 1810 the Spanish Cortes abolished
   the feudal regime. Andorra thus became an independent state.
   The inhabitants, however, continue to govern themselves in
   accordance with old feudal customs, which are not at all
   reconcilable with the principles of modern republics. The land
   belongs to a few families. There is a law of entail, and
   younger brothers become the servants of the head of the
   family, whose hospitality they enjoy only on condition of
   their working for him. The tithes were only abolished in 1842.
   The 'liberty' of these mountaineers consists merely in
   exemption from the Spanish conscription and impunity in
   smuggling; and, to increase their revenues, they have recently
   established a gambling-table. Their legitimate business
   consists in cattle-breeding, and there are a few forges and a
   woollen factory. The republic of Andorra recognises two
   suzerains, viz. the Bishop of Urgel, who receives an annual
   tribute of £25, and the French Government, to whom double that
   sum is paid. Spain and France are represented by two provosts,
   the commandant of Séo de Urgel exercising the functions of
   viceroy. The provosts command the militia and appoint the
   bailiffs, or judges. They, together with a judge of appeal,
   alternately appointed by France and Spain, and two
   'rahonadores,' or defenders of Andorran privileges, form the
   Cortes. Each parish is governed by a consul, a vice-consul,
   and twelve councillors elected by the heads of families. A
   General Council, of which the consuls and delegates of the
   parishes are members, meets at the village of Andorra. But in
   spite of these fictions Andorra is an integral part of Spain,
   and the carabineers never hesitate to cross the frontiers of
   this sham republic. By language, manners, and customs the
   Andorrans are Catalans. Exemption from war has enabled them to
   grow comparatively rich."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe, Spain,
      section 6._

ANN ARBOR, University at.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 732).

ANNAM.

      See TONKIN (page 3114).

ANSELM: Dispute with William Rufus.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135 (page 796).

ANTIOCH, The early Christian Church in.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100 (page 435).

ANTIOCH COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 744).

ANTI-SEMITE MOVEMENT, The.

      See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY (page 1931).

APOSTLES, Missionary labors of the.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100 (page 433).

ARABS:
   Ancient and Mediæval Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE.

ARABS:
   Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2129).

   ----------ARCTIC EXPLORATION: Start--------

ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
   A Chronological Record.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1500-1502.
   Discovery and exploration of the coast of Labrador and the
   entrance of Hudson Strait by the Cortereals.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1553.
   Voyage of Willoughby and Chancellor from London, in search of
   a northeast passage to India. Chancellor reached Archangel on
   the White Sea, and opened trade with Russia, while Willoughby
   perished with all his crew.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1556.
   Exploring voyage of Stephen Burroughs to the northeast, approaching Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1576-1578.
   Voyages of Frobisher to the coast of Labrador and the entrance
   to Davis Strait, discovering the bay which bears his name, and
   which he supposed to be a strait leading to Cathay; afterwards
   entering Hudson Strait.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1580.
   Northeastern voyage of Pet and Jackman, passing Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1585-1587.
   Three voyages of John Davis from Dartmouth, in search of a
   northwestern passage to India, entering the strait between
   Greenland and Baffinland which bears his name and exploring it
   to the 72nd degree north latitude.

{3681}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1594-1595.
   Dutch expeditions (the first and second under Barentz) to the
   northeast, passing to the north of Nova Zembla, or Novaya
   Zem]ya, but making no progress beyond it.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1596-1597.
   Third voyage of Barentz, when he discovered and coasted
   Spitzbergen, wintered in Nova Zembla with his crew, lost his
   ship in the ice, and perished, with one third of his men, in
   undertaking to reach the coast of Lapland in open boats.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1602.
   Exploration for a northwest passage by Captain George
   Weymouth, for the Muscovy Company and the Levant Company,
   resulting in nothing but a visitation of the entrance to
   Hudson Strait.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607.
   Polar voyage of Henry Hudson, for the Muscovy Company of
   London, attaining the northern coast of Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1608.
   Voyage of Henry Hudson to Nova Zembla for the Muscovy Company.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1610.
   Voyage of Henry Hudson, in English employ, to seek the
   northwest passage, being the voyage in which he passed through
   the Strait and entered the great Bay to which his name has
   been given, and in which he perished at the hands of a
   mutinous crew.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1612-1614.
   Exploration of Hudson Bay by Captains Button, Bylot, and
   Baffin, practically discovering its true character and shaking
   the previous theory of its connection with the Pacific Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1614.
   Exploring expedition of the Muscovy Company to the Greenland
   coast, under Robert Fotherby, with William Baffin for pilot,
   making its way to latitude 80°.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1616.
   Voyage into the northwest made by Captain Baffin with Captain
   Bylot, which resulted in the discovery of Baffin Bay, Smith
   Sound, Jones Sound, and Lancaster Sound.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1619-1620.
   Voyage of Jens Munk, sent by the King of Denmark to seck the
   northwest passage; wintering in Hudson Bay, and losing there
   all but two of his crew, with whom he succeeded in making the
   voyage home.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1632.
   Voyages of Captains Fox and James into Hudson Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1670.
   Grant and charter to the Hudson Bay Company, by King Charles
   II. of England, conferring on the Company possession and
   government of the whole watershed of the Bay, and naming the
   country Prince Rupert Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1616.
   Voyage of Captain John Wood to Nova Zembla, seeking the
   northeastern passage.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1728.
   Exploration of the northern coasts of Kamtschatka by the
   Russian Captain Vitus Behring, and discovery of the Strait
   which bears his name.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1741.
   Exploration of northern channels of Hudson Bay by Captain
   Middleton.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1743.
   Offer of £20,000 by the British Parliament for the discovery
   of a northwest passage to the Pacific.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1746.
   Further exploration of northern channels of Hudson Bay by
   Captains Moor and Smith.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1753-1754.
   Attempted exploration of Hudson Bay by the colonial Captain
   Swaine, sent out from Philadelphia, chiefly through the
   exertions of Dr. Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1765.
   Russian expedition of Captain Tchitschakoff, attempting to
   reach the Pacific from Archangel.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1768-1769.
   Exploration of Nova Zembla by a Russian officer, Lieutenant
   Rosmyssloff.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1769-1770.
   Exploring journey of Samuel Hearne, for the Hudson Bay
   Company, from Churchill, its most northern post, to Coppermine
   River and down the river to the Polar Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1773.
   Voyage of Captain Phipps, afterwards Lord Mulgrave, toward the
   North Pole, reaching the northeastern extremity of
   Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1779.
   Exploration of the Arctic coast, east and west of Behring
   Strait, by Captain Cook, in his last voyage.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1789.
   Exploring journey of Alexander Mackenzie, for the Northwest
   Company, and discovery of the great river flowing into the
   Polar Sea, which bears his name.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1806.
   Whaling voyage of Captain Scoresby to latitude 81° 30' and
   longitude 19° east.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1818.
   Unsatisfactory voyage of Commander John Ross to Baffin Bay and
   into Lancaster Sound.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1818.
   Voyage of Captain Buchan towards the North Pole, reaching the
   northern part of Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1820.
   First voyage of Lieutenant Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage, through Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound,
   and Barrow Strait, to Melville Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822.
   Journey of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Franklin, Dr.
   Richardson, and Captain (afterwards Sir George) Back, from
   Fort York, on the western coast of Hudson Bay, by the way of
   Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake, and Coppermine River, to
   Coronation Gulf, opening into the Arctic Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1824.
   Russian expeditions for the survey of Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1820-1824.
   Russian surveys of the Siberian Polar region by Wrangel and
   Anjou.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1821-1823.
   Second voyage of Captain Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage to the Pacific Ocean, through Hudson Strait and Fox
   Channel, discovering the Fury-and-Hecla Strait, the northern
   outlet of the Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1821-1824.
   Russian surveying expedition to Nova Zembla, under Lieutenant
   Lutke.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1822.
   Whaling voyage of Captain Scoresby to the eastern coast of
   Greenland, which was considerably traced and mapped by him.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1822-1823.
   Scientific expedition of Captain Sabine, with Commander
   Clavering, to Spitzbergen and the eastern coast of Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1824-1825.
   Third voyage of Captain Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage, by way of Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and Lancaster
   Sound, to Prince Regent Inlet, where one of his ships was
   wrecked.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1825-1827.
   Second journey of Franklin, Richardson, and Back, from Canada
   to the Arctic Ocean; Franklin and Back by the Mackenzie River
   and westward along the coast to longitude 149° 37'; Richardson
   by the Mackenzie River and the Arctic coast eastward to
   Coppermine River.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1826.
   Voyage of Captain Beechey through Behring Strait and eastward
   along the Arctic coast as far as Point Barrow.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1827.
   Fourth voyage of Captain Parry, attempting to reach the North
   Pole, by ship to Spitzbergen and by boats to 82° 45' north
   latitude.

{3682}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833.
   Expedition under Captain Ross, fitted out by Mr. Felix Booth,
   to seek a northwest passage, resulting in the discovery of the
   position of the north magnetic pole, southwest of Boothia, not
   far from which Ross' ship was ice-bound for three years.
   Abandoning the vessel at last, the explorers made their way to
   Baffin Bay and were rescued by a whale-ship.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1833-1835.
   Journey of Captain Back from Canada, via Great Slave Lake, to
   the river which he discovered and which bears his name,
   flowing to the Polar Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1836-1837.
   Voyage of Captain Back for surveying the straits and channels
   in the northern extremity of Hudson Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1837-1839.
   Expeditions of Dease and Simpson, in the service of the Hudson
   Bay Company, determining the Arctic coast line as far east as
   Boothia.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1845.
   Departure from England of the government expedition under Sir
   John Franklin, in two bomb-vessels, the Erebus and the Terror,
   which entered Baffin Bay in July and were never seen
   afterward.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848.
   Expedition of Sir John Richardson and Mr. John Rae down the
   Mackenzie River, searching for traces of Sir John Franklin and
   his crews.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848-1849.
   Expedition under Sir James Clarke Ross to Baffin Bay and
   westward as far as Leopold Island, searching for Sir John
   Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848-1851.
   Searching expedition of the Herald and the Plover, under
   Captain Kellett and Commander Moore, through Behring Strait
   and westward to Coppermine River, learning nothing of the fate
   of the Franklin party.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850.
   Searching expedition sent out by Lady Franklin, under Captain
   Forsyth, for the examination of Prince Regent Inlet.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   United States Grinnell Expedition, sent to assist the search
   for Sir John Franklin and his crew, consisting of two ships,
   the Advance and the Rescue, furnished by Mr. Henry Grinnell
   and officered and manned by the U. S. Government, Lieutenant
   De Haven commanding and Dr. Kane surgeon. Frozen into the ice
   in Wellington Channel, in September, 1850, the vessels drifted
   helplessly northward until Grinnell Land was seen and named,
   then southward and westward until the next June, when they
   escaped in Baffin Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   Franklin search expedition, sent out by the British
   Government, under Captain Penny, who explored Wellington
   Channel and Cornwallis Island by sledge journeys.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   Discovery of traces of Franklin and his men at Cape Riley and
   Beechey Island, by Captain Ommaney and Captain Austin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1852.
   Franklin search expedition under Captain Collinson, through
   Behring Strait and eastward into Prince of Wales Strait,
   sending sledge parties to Melville Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1854.
   Franklin search expedition under Captain McClure, through
   Behring Strait and westward, between Banks Land and Prince
   Albert Land, attaining a point within 25 miles of Melville
   Sound, already reached from the East; thus demonstrating the
   existence of a northwest passage, though not accomplishing the
   navigation of it. McClure received knighthood, and a reward of
   £10,000 was distributed to the officers and crew of the
   expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851.
   Expedition of Dr. Rae, sent by the British Government to
   descend the Coppermine River and search the southern coast of
   Wollaston Land, which he did, exploring farther along the
   coast of the continent eastward to a point opposite King
   William's Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851-1852.
   Franklin search expedition sent out by Lady Franklin under
   Captain Kennedy, for a further examination of Prince Regent
   Inlet and the surrounding region.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1852-1854.
   Franklin search expedition of five ships sent out by the
   British Government under Sir Edward Belcher, with Captains
   McClintock, Kellett, and Sherard Osborn under his command.
   Belcher and Osborn, going up Wellington Channel to
   Northumberland Sound, were frozen fast; McClintock and Kellett
   experienced the same misfortune near Melville Island, where
   they had received Captain McClure and his crew, escaping from
   their abandoned ship. Finally all the ships of Belcher's fleet
   except one were abandoned. One, the Resolute, drifted out into
   Davis Strait in 1855, was rescued, bought by the United States
   Government and presented to Queen Victoria.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1853-1854.
   Hudson Bay Company expedition by Dr. Rae, to Repulse Bay and
   Pelly Bay, on the Gulf of Boothia, where Dr. Rae found Eskimos
   in possession of articles which had belonged to Sir John
   Franklin, and his men, and was told that in the winter of 1850
   they saw white men near King William's Land, traveling
   southward, dragging sledges and a boat, and, afterwards saw
   dead bodies and graves on the mainland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1853-1855.
   Grinnell expedition, under Dr. Kane, proceeding straight
   northward through Baffin Bay, Smith Sound and Kennedy Channel,
   nearly to the 79th degree of latitude, where the vessel was
   locked in ice and remained fast until abandoned in the spring
   of 1855, the party escaping to Greenland and being rescued by
   an expedition under Lieutenant Hartstein which the American
   Government had sent to their relief.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1855.
   Cruise of the U. S. ship Vincennes, Lieutenant John Rodgers
   commanding, in the Arctic Sea, via Behring Strait to Wrangel
   Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1855.
   Expedition of Mr. Anderson, of the Hudson Bay Company, down
   the Great Fish River to Point Ogle at its mouth, seeking
   traces of the party of Sir John Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1857-1859.
   Search expedition sent out by Lady Franklin, under Captain
   McClintock, which became ice-bound in Melville Bay, August,
   1857, and drifted helplessly for eight months, over 1,200
   miles; escaped from the ice in April, 1858; refitted in
   Greenland and returned into Prince Regent Inlet, whence
   Captain McClintock searched the neighboring regions by sledge
   journeys, discovering, at last, In King William's Land, not
   only remains but records of the lost explorers, learning that
   they were caught in the ice somewhere in or about Peel Sound,
   September, 1846; that Sir John Franklin died on the 11th of
   the following June; that the ships were deserted on the 22d of
   April, 1848, on the northwest coast of King William's Land,
   and that the survivors, 105 in number, set out for Back or
   Great Fish River. They perished probably one by one on the
   way.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861.
   Expedition of Dr. Hayes to Smith Sound; wintering on the
   Greenland side at latitude 78° 17'; crossing the Sound with
   sledges and tracing Grinnell Land to about 82° 45'.

{3683}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862.
   Expedition of Captain Hall on the whaling ship George Henry,
   and discovery of relics of Frobisher.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1864-1869.
   Residence of Captain Hall among the Eskimos on the north side
   of Hudson Strait and search for further relics of the Franklin
   expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1867.
   Tracing of the southern coast of Wrangel Land by Captains Long
   and Raynor, of the whaling ships Nile and Reindeer.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1867.
   Transfer of the territory, privileges and rights of the Hudson
   Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1868.
   Swedish Polar expedition, directed by Professor Nordenskiöld,
   attaining latitude 81° 42', on the 18th meridian of east
   longitude.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869.
   Yacht voyage of Dr. Hayes to the Greenland coasts.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869-1870.
   German Polar expedition, under Captain Koldewey, one vessel of
   which was crushed, the crew escaping to an ice floe and
   drifting 1,100 miles, reaching finally a Danish settlement on
   the Greenland coast, while the other explored the east coast
   of Greenland to latitude 77°.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.
   Voyage of the steamer Polaris, fitted out by the U. S.
   Government, under Captain Hall; passing from Baffin Bay,
   through Smith Sound and Kennedy Channel, into what Kane and
   Hayes had supposed to be open sea, but which proved to be the
   widening of a strait, called Robeson Strait by Captain Hall,
   thus going beyond the most northerly point that had previously
   been reached in Arctic exploration. Wintering in latitude 81°
   38' (where Captain Hall died), the Polaris was turned homeward
   the following August. During a storm, when the ship was
   threatened with destruction by the ice, seventeen of her crew
   and party were left helplessly on a floe, which drifted with
   them for 1,500 miles, until they were rescued by a passing
   vessel. Those on the Polaris fared little better. Forced to
   run their sinking ship ashore, they wintered in huts and made
   their way south in the spring, until they met whale-ships
   which took them on board.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1872-1874.
   Austro-Hungarian expedition, under Captain Weyprecht and
   Lieutenant Payer, seeking the northeast passage, with the
   result of discovering and naming Franz Josef Land, Crown
   Prince Rudolf Land and Petermann Land, the latter (seen, not
   visited) estimated to be beyond latitude 83°. The explorers
   were obliged to abandon their ice-locked steamer, and make
   their way by sledges and boats to Nova Zembla, where they were
   picked up.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875.
   Voyage of Captain Young, attempting to navigate the northwest
   passage through Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait and Peel
   Strait, but being turned back by ice in the latter.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875-1876.
   English expedition under Captain Nares, in the Alert, and the
   Discovery, attaining by ship the high latitude of 82° 27', in
   Smith Sound, and advancing by sledges to 83° 20' 26", while
   exploring the northern shore of Grinnell Land and the
   northwest coast of Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1876-1878.
   Norwegian North-Atlantic expedition, for a scientific
   exploration of the sea between Norway, the Faroe Islands,
   Iceland, Jan Mayen, and Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878.
   Discovery of the island named "Einsamkeit," in latitude 77°
   40' North and longitude 860 East, by Captain Johannesen, of
   the Norwegian schooner Nordland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1879.
   Final achievement of the long-sought, often attempted
   northeast passage, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, by
   the Swedish geographer and explorer, Baron Nordenskiöld, on
   the steamer Vega, which made the voyage from Gothenburg to
   Yokohama, Japan, through the Arctic Sea, coasting the Russian
   and Siberian shores.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1883.
   Six annual expeditions to the Arctic Seas of the ship Willem
   Barentz, sent out by the Dutch Arctic Committee.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879.
   Cruise of Sir Henry Gore-Booth and Captain Markham, R. N., in
   the cutter Isbjorn to Nova Zembla and in Barentz Sea and the
   Kara Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.
   Journey of Lieutenant Schwatka from Hudson Bay to King William
   Island, and exploration of the western and southern shores of
   the latter, searching for the journals and logs of the
   Franklin expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.
   Polar voyage of the Jeannette, fitted out by the proprietor of
   the New York Herald and commanded by Commander De Long, United
   States Navy. The course taken by the Jeannette was through
   Behring Strait towards Wrangel Land, and then northerly, until
   she became ice-bound when she drifted helplessly for nearly
   two years, only to be crushed at last. The officers and crew
   escaped in three boats, one of which was lost in a storm; the
   occupants of the other two boats reached different mouths of
   the river Lena. One of these two boats, commanded by Engineer
   Melville, was fortunate enough to find a settlement and obtain
   speedy relief. The other, which contained commander De Long,
   landed in a region of desolation, and all but two of its
   occupants perished of starvation and cold.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1880-1882.
   First and second cruises of the United States Revenue Steamer
   Corwin in the Arctic Ocean, via Behring Strait, to Wrangel
   Land seeking information concerning the Jeannette and
   searching for two missing whaling ships.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1880-1882.
   Two voyages of Mr. Leigh Smith to Franz Josef Land, in his
   yacht Eira, in the first of which a considerable exploration
   of the southern coast was made, while the second resulted in
   the loss of the ship and a perilous escape of the party in
   boats to Nova Zembla, where they were rescued.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881.
   Expedition of the steamer Rodgers to search for the missing
   explorers of the Jeannette; entering the Arctic Sea through
   Behring Strait, but abruptly stopped by the burning of the
   Rodgers, on the 30th of November, in St. Lawrence Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881.
   Cruise of the United States Alliance, Commander Wadleigh, via
   Spitzbergen, to 79° 3' 36" north latitude, searching for the
   Jeannette.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884.
   International undertaking of expeditions to establish Arctic
   stations for simultaneous meteorological and magnetic
   observations: by the United States at Smith Sound and Point
   Barrow; by Great Britain at Fort Rae; by Russia at the mouth
   of the Lena and in Nova Zembla; by Denmark at Godhaab, in
   Greenland; by Holland at Dickson's Haven, near the mouth of
   the Yenisei; by Germany in Cumberland Sound, Davis Strait; by
   Austro-Hungary on Jan Mayen Island; by Sweden at Mussel Bay in
   Spitzbergen. The United States expedition to Smith Sound,
   under Lieutenant Greeley, established its station on Discovery
   Bay. Exploring parties sent out attained the highest latitude
   ever reached, namely 83° 24'. After remaining two winters and
   failing to receive expected supplies, which had been
   intercepted by the ice, Greeley and his men, twenty-five in
   number, started southward, and all but seven perished on the
   way. The survivors were rescued, in the last stages of
   starvation, by a vessel sent to their relief under Captain
   Schley, United States Navy.

{3684}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1882-1883.
   Danish Arctic expedition of the Dijmphna, under Lieutenant
   Hovgaard; finding the Varna of the Dutch Meteorological
   Expedition beset in the ice at 69° 42' North latitude and 64°
   45' East longitude; both vessels becoming frozen in together
   and drifting for nearly twelve months, being carried to 71°
   North; the Dijmphna taking the crew of the Varna, which
   succumbed to the ice pressure and went down; the Danish ship
   finally being liberated, August 1, 1893, and regaining Vardo,
   Norway, in October of that year.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883.
   Expedition of Lieutenant Ray, United States Navy, from Point
   Barrow, on the Arctic Ocean, to Meade River.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883.
   Expedition of Baron Nordenskiöld to Greenland, making
   important explorations in the interior, but failing to find
   the temperate central valleys which the Baron's theoretical
   studies had led him to expect.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883-1885.
   East Greenland expedition of Captain Holm and Lieutenant
   Garde, surveying and mapping the coast from 59° 49' to 68° 45'
   North latitude, and studying its geology, meteorology and
   natural history.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1884.
   Second cruise of the U. S. Revenue Marine Steamer Corwin in
   the Arctic Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1886.
   Reconnoissance of the Greenland inland ice by Civil Engineer
   R. E. Peary, United States Navy, "to gain a practical
   knowledge of the obstacles and ice conditions of the
   interior," and "to put to the test of actual use certain
   methods and details of equipment."

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1888.
   Journey of Dr. Nansen across South Greenland, from the
   icebound eastern coasts to the Danish settlements on the
   western.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Swedish expedition to Spitzbergen, under G. Nordenskiöld and
   Baron Klinkowström.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Danish scientific explorations in North and South Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Russian exploration of the Malo-Zemelskaya, or Timanskaya
   tundra, in the far north of European Russia, on the Arctic
   Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of Lieutenant Peary, United States Navy, with a
   party of seven persons, including Mrs. Peary, establishing
   headquarters on McCormick Bay, on the north side of Murchison
   Sound, north west Greenland; thence making sledge journeys to
   the northeastern coast of Greenland, at Independence Bay and
   northward from it to latitude 82°, and following the coast
   southward to Cape Bismarck. The surveys of Lieutenant Peary
   have gone far toward proving Greenland to be an island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1892.
   Danish East Greenland expedition of Lieutenant Ryder,
   wintering on Denmark Island in Scoresby's Sound, from which
   boat journeys were made and the interior ramifications of the
   Sound surveyed and mapped.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1893.
   Expeditions of Dr. Drygalski to Greenland for the study of the
   movement of the great glaciers.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1892.
   Swedish expedition of Bjorling and Kallstenius, the last
   records of which were found on one of the Cary Islands, in
   Baffin Bay, in the autumn of 1892.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1892.
   French expedition under M. Ribot to explore the islands of
   Spitzbergen and Jan Mayen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Expedition of Dr. Nansen, who sailed June 24, in the Fram from
   Christiania, for the New Siberian Islands, thence aiming to
   enter a current which flows, in Dr. Nansen's belief, across
   the Arctic region to Greenland, touching the North Pole, or
   nearly, in its course.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Russian expedition, under Baron Toll, to the New Siberian
   Islands and the Siberian Arctic coasts.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Danish expedition to Greenland, under Lieutenant Garde, for a
   geographical survey of the coast and study of the inland ice.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893-1894.
   Expedition of Lieutenant Peary and party (Mrs. Peary again of
   the number), landing in Bowdoin Bay, Inglefield Gulf, north of
   McCormick Harbor, in August, 1893; attempting in the following
   March a sledge journey with dogs to Independence Bay, but
   compelled to turn back when no more than a quarter of the
   distance had been traversed. An auxiliary expedition brought
   back most of the party to Philadelphia in September, 1894; but
   Lieutenant Peary with two men remained in Greenland to
   continue explorations.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893-1894.
   Scientific journey of Mr. Frank Russell, under the auspices of
   the State University of Iowa, from Lake Winnipeg to the mouth
   of Mackenzie River and to Herschel Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1894.
   Expedition of Mr. Walter Wellman, an American journalist,
   purposing to reach Spitzbergen via Norway, and to advance
   thence towards the Pole, with aluminum boats, weighing only
   400 pounds each, and provided with runners for use on the ice.
   The party left Tromsoë May 1, but were arrested before the end
   of the month by the crushing of their vessel in the ice at
   Walden. They were picked up and brought back to Norway.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1894.
   Departure of what is known as the Jackson-Harmsworth North
   Polar Expedition, which sailed from Greenhithe, in England,
   July 11, under the command of Mr. F. G. Jackson, Mr.
   Harmsworth equipping the expedition at his personal cost. Its
   plan is to make Franz Josef Land a base of operations from
   which to advance carefully and persistently towards the Pole.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1895.
   Preparations of Herr Julius von Payer, the explorer of Franz
   Josef Land, for an artistic and scientific expedition to the
   east coast of Greenland, in which he will be accompanied by
   landscape and animal painters, photographers, and savants.

   ----------ARCTIC EXPLORATION: End--------

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, The Constitution of.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC (page 511).

ARMENIA, Atrocities in.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1895 (page 3157).

ARYAN NATIONS OF EUROPE.

      See EUROPE (page 990, and after).

ASCHAM, Roger, and "The Scholemaster."

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE (page 708).

{3685}

ASCLEPIADÆ, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2124).

ASIA MINOR, Missionary journeys of St. Paul in.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100 (page 436).

ASOKA, and the rise of Buddhism.

      See INDIA: B. C. 312 (page 1704).

ASSIGNATS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

ASSYRIAN EDUCATION, Ancient.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT (page 674).

ASSYRIAN LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2000).

ASSYRIAN MONEY AND BANKING.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

ATHENS: Outline sketch of ancient history.

      See EUROPE (pages 992-996).

ATLANTIC CABLE, The laying of the.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

ATTAINDER.
BILL OF ATTAINDER.

   "An attainder ('attinctura') is a degradation or public
   dishonouring, which draws after it corruption of blood. It is
   the consequence of any condemnation to death, and induces the
   disherison of the heirs of the condemned person, which can
   only be removed by means of parliament. A bill of attainder,
   or of pains and penalties, inflicts the consequences of a
   penal sentence on any state criminal. … By the instrumentality
   of such bill the penalties of high treason are generally
   imposed. Penalties may, however, be imposed at pleasure,
   either in accordance with, or in contravention of, the common
   law. No other court of law can protect a person condemned in
   such manner. The first bill of the kind occurred under Edward
   IV., when the commons had to confirm the statute condemning
   Clarence to death. This convenient method of getting rid of
   disagreeable opponents was in high favour during the reign of
   Henry VIII. The bills of pains and penalties were hurried
   through the parliament, and the parties accused were not even
   put upon their trial. Thus were the illustrious Sir Thomas
   More and Bishop Fisher, for misprision of treason, without
   regular trial, without examination of witnesses, or hearing
   the accused in their self-defence, legally consigned to the
   scaffold. Anne Boleyn was formally tried for high treason by
   the house of peers; but the head of Catharine Howard was
   disposed of by a simple bill of attainder. This was the first
   case in which the offence charged was created by the very bill
   against which the pretended criminal was held to have
   offended. Under Philip and Mary the benefit of clergy was, by
   means of a bill, withheld from a certain Rufford. What had
   been an instrument of kingly despotism, under Tudor sway, was
   converted, under the Stuarts, into a parliamentary engine
   against the crown. The points of indictment against Strafford
   were so weak that the lords were for acquitting him.
   Thereupon, Sir Arthur Haselrig introduced a bill of attainder
   in the commons. The staunch friends of freedom, such as Pym
   and Hampden, did not support this measure; but yet it passed
   through the commons with only 59 dissentient voices. After the
   35 peers opposed to the trial of Strafford had withdrawn, the
   terror-stricken lords accepted the bill by 26 against 19
   votes. … This parliamentary administration of justice has by
   no means been relinquished. A bill of attainder may refer
   simply to a concrete case, and contrive penalties for acts
   which are not specially punishable by statute, whereas an
   impeachment applies to some violation of recognized legal
   principles, and is a solemn indictment preferred by the
   commons to the house of lords."

      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      book 7, chapter 9._

   "By the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, forfeiture and attainder for
   treason or felony have been abolished."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 10 (2d edition, page 393), foot-note._

   ----------AUSTRIA: Start--------

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.
   The House of Hapsburgh in the earlier period of its fortunes.

   "It was just now [1273] that the German monarchy received once
   more a real king [in the person of Rudolph of Hapsburgh]. It
   is evident that Ottocar's remarkable rise into power was due
   essentially to the previous excessive weakness of German
   kingship. He had acquired Austria and Styria by doubtful right
   according to German notions, Carinthia and Carniola without
   any acquiescence at all on the part of the empire. … In the
   election of Rudolph he was not willing to take part and
   afterwards he refused him recognition. No wonder that from the
   very beginning the German princes felt the necessity of
   driving him from his usurped position. … For the German cause
   it was the greatest gain that through Ottocar's fall (1278)
   room was won on the Middle Danube for a national rule: the
   House of Austria was enabled there to found that power which
   played so great a part in the world's history. The victory on
   the marchfeld was a victory of the renewed imperial might over
   a recalcitrant vassal whose power had extended the due measure
   of that of a prince of the realm. Looked at in this light the
   fall of Ottocar reminds one of the fall of Henry the Lion a
   hundred years before; the gain for Rudolph, however, was still
   greater and more essential than it had been at that former
   time for Frederick I. His position was for the first time now
   actually assured; for if the battle had resulted unfavorably
   it is doubtful if he could have continued to command
   obedience. Besides this the possibility presented itself now
   of using the position of ruler, conferred on him personally,
   to the lasting advantage of his house; at the same time he
   could only go to work in the matter very slowly and
   cautiously. … At his departure from these parts in 1281 he
   conferred the regency in Austria proper and in the other lands
   to his own son Albrecht. The latter appears already as a
   matured man with a certain talent for ruling. He overthrew all
   those who opposed them but, having done this, he bore no
   malice and cherished no hostility. No one could be in doubt
   but that for Albrecht, and for his house altogether, the king
   thought to found there a separate territorial principality. To
   begin with, the fiefs which the dukes of Austria had held of
   the neighboring bishoprics, especially the Bavarian ones, were
   conferred by Rudolph on his sons, other privileges in
   compensation being granted to the bishoprics. The consent of
   the electors, according to the new order of things, was
   necessary in such a case, and the king next sought to gain
   them over. … On December 27, 1282, he invested his sons
   Albrecht and Rudolph in common with Austria, Styria, Carniola
   and the Windischmark. …
{3686}
   At the request of the Estates of those lands, who wished
   neither a joint rule nor a separation from each other, Rudolph
   in 1283 invested his son Albrecht alone with those four
   provinces. To the younger Rudolph the promise of another
   appanage or at least of a compensation was held out—a fatal
   matter! For the son of this Rudolph was John the Parricide. It
   was an event of the greatest import that in these
   south-eastern marks of the empire the Babenbergers were
   replaced by the Hapsburghs. The latter now, in consequence of
   their all-decisive victory, turned their attention at the same
   time to Bohemia and Hungary. Although neither in the one land
   nor the other did they now actually attain their goal, yet
   their efforts in this direction deserve our close attention as
   being the first tokens of a policy that was most strongly to
   affect the world's history. … One sees, even in these
   unsuccessful attempts, the bold dynastic ambition of King
   Rudolph; the kingdom of Arles, also, he had had in view for
   one of his sons. The acquisition of Austria alone, indeed,
   marks an epoch in itself; all the more so as only through this
   did he gain the prestige which he needed to enable him to do
   justice to his task as king of Germany. If this task be
   regarded as having consisted chiefly in restoring and
   maintaining the public peace after thirty years of utter
   confusion, then, indeed, he showed himself completely equal to
   it. … In short, through valor and steadfastness he strongly,
   in internal matters, upheld the power of the empire.
   Rebellions, indeed, were not wanting; now the archbishop of
   Cologne, now the duke of Savoy revolted; now Bern or Colmar,
   now the counts in Suabia and Burgundy. He overcame and humbled
   them all. … He was a very tall, thin man, pale of countenance
   and with very little hair on his small head; in all things
   moderate and of a genial nature as was shown by his offering
   to become the guest of artisans and by his darning his own
   doublet. … When giving Austria to his son Albrecht who was to
   try and establish here a dynastic power (Hausmacht), Rudolph
   had really intended to give the German crown to his younger
   son, Rudolph, and he might have put this through had not this
   son died before himself. In May 1291 the king then held a diet
   at Frankfort for the purpose of inducing the electors now to
   give their vote to his son Albrecht. This he was unable to
   bring about and with his hopes unrealized he died on the 15th
   of July 1291. … After long preliminary negotiations between
   the separate electors … the election took place on May 5th,
   1292. Albrecht had not yet abandoned hope and had appeared in
   the vicinity. … The electors laid down the principle that it
   was not right for the son to directly follow the father on the
   throne of the empire. … They chose again a simple count,
   Adolphus of Nassau. … The less Adolphus fulfilled the
   expectations of his electors … the more did he lose his
   authority. … In short it appears that Adolphus's whole
   attitude, his league with England, his conception of the
   rights of the empire, the way he insulted ecclesiastical and
   secular princes, his policy with regard to the majority of the
   cities, caused a general ferment. … It was at a great assembly
   of princes in Prague, where Mainz, Bohemia, Brandenburg and
   Saxony met together that Albrecht's influence began to gain
   the upper hand. Albrecht promised, in case he should become
   king, to give to King Wenzel the conquests made by Adolphus in
   Meissen. Albrecht and all his friends then girded themselves
   up to conquer the empire. In April 1298 we find him in Alsace
   opposing Adolphus who, however, still had the upper hand. The
   archbishop of Mainz then summoned the electors to Mainz for
   June 15 to consult about the disturbances in the empire. …
   They determined now to depose the king whom they had elected.
   This was done in the Thiergarten near Mainz on June 23, 1298.
   … The battle for the possession of the empire took place on
   July 2nd at Göllheim, where a stone cross still marks the
   spot. … The kings wore the same coat-of-arms—yellow with a
   black eagle—and bore the same banner. According to one
   account, for which Albert of Strassburg is voucher, they came
   into hand to hand conflict with each other. Adolphus cried
   out: 'Here you will relinquish the Empire!' Albrecht answered
   'The decision lies in the hand of God.' The one-eyed Albrecht
   struck the surer blow, hitting his antagonist directly over
   the eye. The blood ran down Adolphus s face; he fell and died.
   Albrecht would never acknowledge that he had been the slayer
   of the Lord's anointed. Be that as it may he won the crown for
   himself on the battle-field. … Albrecht is altogether a
   striking figure in German history. Everywhere, in the lowest
   plains of Switzerland or in the highest mountains of
   Switzerland he is busy in founding his dynastic power. Under
   him the House of Austria made a vigorous beginning in the
   matter of establishing a great and extensive authority in all
   parts of the empire. … It was fatal for him that the harsh
   want of consideration which forms the chief feature of his
   sway as a statesman should have raised up a murderer against
   him in his own immediate vicinity—in the person of his own
   nephew."

      _L. Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 8, pages 566-601._

      See, also, AUSTRIA (pages 199-201).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1648-1715.
   Relations with Germany and France.
   See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1780-1790.
   Joseph II., the enthroned Philosopher.

   "The prince who best sums up the spirit of the century, is not
   Frederic [the Great, of Prussia), it is Joseph II. [the
   emperor]. Frederic was born a master, Joseph II. a disciple,
   and it is by disciples that we judge schools. The king of
   Prussia dammed up the waters, directed their flow, made use of
   the current: the emperor cast himself upon them and permitted
   himself to be carried. With Frederic the statesman always
   dominates, it is he who proposes and finally decides; the
   philosopher is subordinate: he furnishes to the results
   brought about by policy their abstract cause for existence and
   their theoretical justification. With Joseph II. rational
   conception precedes political calculation and governs it. He
   had breadth of mind, but his mind was superficial; ideas
   slipped from it. He had a taste for generosity, a passion for
   grandeur; but there was nothing profound in him but ambition,
   and it was all counter-stroke and reflection. He wished to
   surpass Frederic; his entire conduct was but an awkward,
   imprudent and ill-advised imitation of this prince whom he had
   made his hero, whom history made his rival and whom he copied
   while detesting him.
{3687}
   The political genius of Frederic was born of good sense and
   moderation: there was nothing in Joseph II. but the
   immoderate. He was a man of systems: he had only great
   velleities. His education was mediocre, and, as to methods,
   entirely jesuitical. Into this contracted mould he cast
   confusedly notions hastily borrowed from the philosophers of
   France, from the economists especially. He thus formed a very
   vague ideal of political aspirations and an exaggerated sense
   of the power at his disposition to realize them. 'Since I
   ascended the throne and have worn the first crown of the
   world,' wrote he in 1781, 'I have made Philosophy the lawmaker
   of my empire. Her logical applications are going to transform
   Austria.' He undertakes reforms in every direction at once.
   History is null for him, traditions do not count, nor do facts
   acquired. There is no race, nor period, nor surrounding
   circumstances: there is the State which is everything and can
   do everything. He writes in 1782, to the bishop of Strasbourg:
   'In a kingdom governed conformably to my principles,
   prejudice, fanaticism, bondage of mind must disappear, and
   each of my subjects must be reinstated in the possession of
   his natural rights.' He must have unity, and, as a first
   condition, the rejection of all previous ideas. Chance makes
   him operate on a soil the most heterogeneous, the most
   incoherent, the most cut up, parceled out and traversed by
   barriers, that there is in Europe. Nothing in common among his
   subjects, neither language, nor traditions, nor interests. It
   is from this, according to him, that the defect of monarchy
   arises. 'The German language is the universal language of my
   empire. I am the emperor of Germany, the states which I
   possess are provinces which form but one body with the State
   of which I am the head. If the kingdom of Hungary were the
   most important of my possessions, I should not hesitate to
   impose its tongue on the other countries.' So he imposes the
   German language on the Hungarians, the Croats, the Tchèques,
   the Poles, on all the Slavs. He suppresses the ancient
   territorial divisions; they recall the successive
   agglomerations, the irregular alluvions which had formed the
   monarchy; he establishes thirteen governments and divides them
   into circles. The diets disappear; the government passes into
   the hands of intendants according to the French formula. In
   the cities the burgomaster appointed by the government becomes
   a functionary. The nobles lose the part, already much
   curtailed, that they still had, here and there, in the
   government. He taxes them, he taxes the ecclesiastics; he
   meditates establishing a tax proportional to incomes and
   reaching all classes. He protects the peasants, alleviates
   serfdom, diminishes the corvées, builds hospitals, schools
   above all, in which the state will form pupils to obey her.
   His ideal would be the equality of his subjects under the
   uniform sway of his government. He unifies the laws; he
   institutes courts of appeal with a supreme court for the
   entire empire. He makes regulations for manufactures, binds
   commerce to the most rigorous protective system. Finally he
   puts a high hand on the church and decrees tolerance. … This
   immense revolution was accomplished by means of decrees, in
   less than five years. If we compare the state of cohesion
   which the Bourbon government had brought about in France in
   1789, with the incoherence of the Austrian monarchy on the
   death of Maria Theresa in 1780, it will be seen that the
   revolution which caused the Constituent Assembly was a small
   matter compared with that which Joseph II. intended to
   effect."

      _A. Sorel,
      L'Europe et la Rêvolution française
      (translated from the French),
      part 1, pages 119-122._

   ----------AUSTRIA: End--------

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

AUSTRIAN SCHOOLS.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 709).

AVICENNA AND ARABIAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2130).

B.

BÂB, The.

   The word Bâb, "meaning, in Arabic, 'a gate,' is the title of a
   hero of our own days, the founder, if not of a new religion,
   at least of a new phase of religious belief. His history, with
   that of his first followers, as told by M. le Comte de
   Gobineau in his 'Religions et Philosophies dans l'Asie
   Centrale,' presents a picture of steadfast adherence to truth
   (as they held it), of self-denial, of joyful constancy in the
   face of bitterest suffering, torture and death, as vivid and
   touching as any that are found in the records of the heroic
   days of old. … Among the crowd of pilgrims who flocked to
   Mecca in the summer of 1843 was a youth who had then hardly
   completed his nineteenth year. He had come from the far
   distant city of Shiraz, where his family held an honourable
   position, claiming, indeed, to trace their descent from the
   great Prophet himself. Thoughtful and devout from his
   childhood, Mirza Ali Mohammed had zealously and regularly
   practised all religious duties considered binding on an
   orthodox Mussulman. He had received a liberal education, and
   while still a mere boy had eagerly examined and weighed every
   new set of ideas with which he came in contact. Christians,
   Jews, Fire-worshippers—he conversed with them all, and studied
   their books. … Up to the time of his visiting the shrine of
   the Prophet there had been no indication of any departure from
   the faith of his fathers. But this pilgrimage, instead of
   confirming his faith in Islam, had a quite contrary effect.
   While still in the holy city, and still more on the return
   journey, he had begun to confide to a select few views which
   attracted and delighted them, not more, perhaps, by their
   breadth and freedom than by the vague mystery in which they
   were still wrapped. His decisive breach with the old faith was
   not far distant. … Arrived at Shiraz, his first overt act was
   to present to his friends his earliest written works. These
   were two: a journal of his pilgrimage and a commentary on a
   part of the Korân. In the latter the readers were amazed and
   charmed to find meanings and teachings of which they had never
   dreamed before. From this time he began to teach more
   publicly; and day by day larger crowds flocked around him.
{3688}
   In public he still spoke with reverence of the Prophet and his
   laws; while in more private conferences he imparted to his
   disciples those new ideas which were, perhaps, not yet very
   clearly defined in his own mind. Very soon he had gathered
   round him a little band of devoted followers, ardently
   attached to himself, and ready to sacrifice wealth, life, all,
   in the cause of truth. And throughout the great empire men
   began everywhere to hear of the fame of Mirza Ali Mohammed.
   There was much in the young teacher himself, apart from the
   subject of his teaching, to account for this rapid success. Of
   blameless life; simple in his habits; strict and regular in
   all pious observances, he had already a weight of character to
   which his extreme youth added a tenfold interest. But in
   addition to these things, he was gifted with striking beauty
   of person, and with that subtle, winning sweetness of manner
   so often possessed by leaders of men, and to which, more than
   to the most weighty arguments, they have often owed their
   power. … Ere long, Mirza assumed the title by which he has
   since been known throughout Persia—the Bâb—that is, the Door,
   the only one through which men can reach the knowledge of God.
   It may be well to give here an outline of what the Bâb did
   teach. He believed in one God, eternal, unchangeable, Creator
   of all things, and into whom all shall finally be reabsorbed.
   He taught that God reveals His will to men by a series of
   messengers, who, while truly men, are not mere men, but also
   divine; that each of these messengers—Moses, Jesus,
   Mohammed—is the medium of some new truth, higher than that
   brought by the one who preceded him; that he himself, the Bâb,
   though claiming divine honours while he lived, was but the
   forerunner of one greater than he, the great Revealer—'He whom
   God shall manifest, who should complete the revelation of all
   truth, and preside at the final judgment, at which all the
   good shall be made one with God, and all evil annihilated. One
   of the most marked and singular characteristics of his system
   is the prominence given in it to that mysterious and fanciful
   theory of numbers which had always had so great a charm for
   him. Taking various forms of the name of God—'ahyy,' meaning
   'the giver of life'; 'wahed,' 'the only One'; or that which is
   a most sacred formula, 'Bismillah elemna elegdous,' 'in the
   name of God, highest and holiest'—he shows that the letters
   composing each of those names, taken by their numerical value,
   make up the number 19. This he therefore concludes is the
   number which lies at the foundation of all things in heaven
   and earth, the harmony of the universe, the number which must
   rule in all earthly arrangements. The year should have 19
   months, the month 19 days, the day 19 hours. … There are three
   points in particular in which the reforms proposed by the Bâb
   cannot fail, so far as they gain ground, to have a mighty
   effect on society. In the first place, he abolished polygamy;
   that is, he so strongly discountenanced it that his followers
   universally regard it as a prohibition. In close
   connection—almost as a necessary accompaniment of this—he
   forbade divorce; that festering sore which corrupts the mass
   of Persian society to its very heart, and makes pure family
   life almost impossible. His third revolutionary step was in
   the same direction. He abolished the veiling of the women. …
   While the fame and popularity of the young preacher were daily
   increasing, his bold exposure of the vices of the clergy
   aroused against him their bitterest enmity." This hostility
   soon became influential enough to prevail on the king and his
   ministers to silence the Bâb. Mirza was placed under
   confinement in his own house; but a chosen band of apostles
   went forth to do missionary work throughout the empire, and
   their success was great. Ere long, they began to combine
   political with religious aims, and one of them, Moulla
   Houssein, organized a movement which assumed a revolutionary
   character and spread to formidable proportions. The government
   became greatly alarmed, and an energetic minister took
   measures to suppress the Bâbys, which was done with merciless
   vigor. The Bâb, himself, though he had taken no part in the
   political doings of his disciples, and had remained a quiet
   prisoner on parole at Shiraz, was put to death, after being
   brutally exposed for several hours to the insults of a mob.
   This was in 1851. The following year witnessed the martyrdom
   of a large number of the surviving Bâbys of prominence, all of
   whom died for their faith without shrinking—as exalted in
   spirit, it would seem, as the early Christian martyrs. But
   Bâbism was not extinguished. It is said to have spread
   secretly and continually throughout Persia, and to be of
   unknown extent at the present day."

      _M. F. Wilson,
      The Story of the Bâb
      (Contemporary Review, December, 1885)._

BABŒUF, Conspiracy of.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797 (page 2934).

BABYLONIA: Captivity of the Jews.

      See JEWS: B. C. 604-536;
      and 537 (page 1907).

BABYLONIA:
   Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

BABYLONIA:
   Education, ancient.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT (page 674).

BABYLONIA:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2000).

BABYLONIA:
   Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, BABYLONIAN (page 2122).

BABYLONIA:
   Money and banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

BACK, Captain, Northern explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1833-1835; and 1836-1837.

BACTERIOLOGY, Development of the science of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2146).

BALOCHISTAN,
BALUCHISTAN.

   "Balochistan, in the modern acceptation of the term, may be
   said, in a general sense, to include all that tract of country
   which has for its northern and north-eastern boundary the
   large kingdom of Afghanistan, its eastern frontier being
   limited by the British province of Sindh, and its western by
   the Persian State, while the Arabian Sea washes its southern
   base for a distance of nearly six hundred miles. … In area
   Balochistan had long been supposed to cover in its entirety
   quite 160,000 square miles, but the latest estimates do not
   raise it higher than 140,000 square miles, of which 60,000 are
   said to belong to what is termed Persian Balochistan, and the
   remaining 80,000 to Kalāti Balochistan, or that portion which
   is more or less directly under the rule of the Brāhui Khān of
   Kalāt. …
{3689}
   Balochistan may be said to be inhabited chiefly by the Baloch
   tribe, the most numerous in the country, and this name was
   given to the tract they occupy by the great Persian monarch,
   Nadir Shah, who, as St. John remarks, after driving the Afghan
   invaders from Persia, made himself master in his turn of the
   whole country west of the Indus, and placed a native chief
   over the new province, formed out of the districts bounded on
   the north and south by the Halmand valley and the sea, and
   stretching from Karmān on the west to Sindh on the east. This
   newly formed province he called Balochistan, or, the country
   of the Baloch, from the name of the most widely spread and
   numerous, though not the dominant, tribe. According to Masson,
   who, it must be admitted, had more ample opportunities of
   obtaining correct information on this subject than any other
   European, the Balochis are divided into three great classes,
   viz.,
   (1) the Brahuis;
   (2) the Rinds; and
   (3) the Lumris (or Numris);
   but this must be taken more in the sense of inhabitants of
   Balochistan than as divisions of a tribe, since the Brahuis
   are of a different race and language and call the true
   Balochis 'Nhāruis,' in contradistinction to themselves as
   'Brahuis.' … The origin of the word 'Baloch' is evidently
   involved in some obscurity, and has given rise to many
   different interpretations. Professor Rawlinson supposes it to
   be derived from Belūs, king of Babylon, the Nimrod of Holy
   Writ, and that from 'Kush,' the father of Nimrod, comes the
   name of the Kalāti eastern district, 'Kachh.' Pottinger
   believes the Balochis to be of Turkoman lineage, and this from
   a similarity in their institutions, habits, religion—in
   short, in everything but their language, for which latter
   anomaly, however, he has an explanation to offer. But be this
   as it may, the very tribe themselves ascribe their origin to
   the earliest Muhammadan invaders of Persia, and are extremely
   desirous of being supposed to be of Arab extraction. They
   reject with scorn all idea of being of the same stock as the
   Afghan. They may possibly be of Iranian descent, and the
   affinity of their language, the Balochki, to the Persian,
   bears out this supposition; but the proper derivation of the
   word 'Baloch' still remains an open question. … The Brahuis,
   who, as a race, are very numerous in Balochistan, Pottinger
   considers to be a nation of Tartar mountaineers, who settled
   at a very early period in the southern parts of Asia, where
   they led an ambulatory life in Khels, or societies, headed and
   governed by their own chiefs and laws for many centuries, till
   at length they became incorporated and attained their present
   footing at Kalāt and throughout Balochistan generally. Masson
   supposes that the word 'Brahui' is a corruption of Ba-roh-i,
   meaning, literally, of the waste; and that that race entered
   Balochistan originally from the west. … The country may be
   considered as divided into two portions—the one, Kalāti
   Balochistan, or that either really or nominally under the rule
   of the Khān of Kalāt; and the other as Persian Balochistan, or
   that part which is more or less directly under the domination
   of the Shah of Persia. Of the government of this latter
   territory, it will suffice to say that it is at present
   administered by the Governor of Bam-Narmashir, a deputy of the
   Kermān Governor; but the only district that is directly under
   Persian rule is that of Banpur—the rest of the country, says
   St. John, is left in charge of the native chiefs, who, in
   their turn, interfere but little with the heads of villages
   and tribes. … It would … appear that the supremacy of the Shah
   over a very large portion of the immense area (60,000 square
   miles) known as Persian Balochistan is more nominal than real,
   and that the greater number of the chiefs only pay revenue to
   their suzerain when compelled to do so. As regards Kalāti
   Balochistan, the government is, so to speak, vested
   hereditarily in the Brahui Khān of Kalāt, but his sovereignty
   in the remote portions of his extensive territory (80,000
   square miles), though even in former times more nominal than
   real, is at the present moment still more so, owing to the
   almost constant altercations and quarrels which take place
   between the reigning Khān and his Sardārs, or chiefs. … In …
   the modern history of Kalāti Balochistan under the present
   dynasty, extending from about the commencement of the 18th
   century, when Abdula Khān was ruler, down to the present time,
   a period of, say, nearly 180 years, there is not much to call
   for remark. Undoubtedly the Augustan age of Balochistan was
   the reign of the first Nasir Khān [1755-1795], the Great
   Nasir, as he is to this day called by the Balochis. Of his
   predecessors little seems to be known; they were indeed simply
   successful robbers on a large scale, with but few traces of
   any enlightened policy to gild over a long succession of deeds
   of lawlessness, rapine, and bloodshed. … Had his successors
   been of the same stamp and metal as himself, the Kalāti
   kingdom of to-day would not perhaps show that anarchy and
   confusion which are now its most striking characteristics."

      _A. W. Hughes,
      The Country of Balochistan,
      pages 2-48, and 285._

BANKING, History of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2198).

BANKS, Nathaniel P.
   His election to the Speakership.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856 (page 3396).

BAPTIST CHURCH, The first in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639 (page 2641).

BAPTISTS.

    The name 'Baptist' was not a self-chosen one. In the early
    Reformation time those who withdrew from the dominant
    churches because of the failure of these churches to
    discriminate between the church and the world, between the
    regenerate and the unregenerate, and who sought to organize
    churches of believers only, laid much stress on the lack of
    Scriptural warrant for the baptism of infants and on the
    incompatibility of infant baptism with regenerate membership.
    Following what they believed to be apostolic precept and
    example, they made baptism on a profession of faith a
    condition of church-fellowship. This rejection of infant
    baptism and this insistence on believers' baptism were so
    distinctive of these Christians that they were stigmatized as
    'Anabaptists,' 'Catabaptists,' and sometimes as simply
    'Baptists'; that is to say, they were declared to be
    'rebaptizers,' 'perverters of baptism,' or, as unduly
    magnifying baptism and making it the occasion of schism,
    simply 'baptizers.' These party names they earnestly
    repudiated, preferring to call themselves Brethren,
    Christians, Disciples of Christ, Believers, etc. …
{3690}
    Baptists have, for the most part, been at one with the Roman
    Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and most Protestant communions
    in accepting for substance the so-called Apostles', Nicene,
    and Athanasian creeds, not, however, because they are
    venerable or because of the decisions of ecclesiastical
    councils, but because, and only in so far as, they have
    appeared to them to be in accord with Scripture. … As regards
    the set of doctrines on which Augustin differed from his
    theological predecessors, and modern Calvinists from
    Arminians, Baptists have always been divided. … The great
    majority of the Baptists of today hold to what may be called
    moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the
    evangelical anti-Augustinianism which came through the
    Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully
    to bear on all bodies of evangelical Christians. Baptists are
    at one with the great Congregational body and with most of
    the minor denominations as regards church government."

      _A. H. Newman,
      A. History of the Baptist Churches in the United States,
      introduction._

   "Baptist principles are discoverable in New England from the
   very earliest colonial settlements. The Puritans of Plymouth
   had mingled with the Dutch Baptists during the ten years of
   their sojourn in Holland, and some of them seem to have
   brought over Baptist tendencies even in the Mayflower. Dutch
   Baptists had emigrated to England and extended their
   principles there; and from time to time a persecuted Baptist
   in England sought refuge in America, and, planted here,
   brought forth fruit after his kind. But as every offshoot of
   these principles here was so speedily and vigorously beaten
   down by persecution, and especially as, after the banishment
   of Roger Williams, there was an asylum a few miles distant,
   just over Narraganset Bay, where every persecuted man could
   find liberty of conscience, Baptist principles made little
   progress in the New England colonies, except Rhode Island, for
   the first hundred and twenty years. A little church of Welsh
   Baptists was founded in Rehoboth, near the Rhode Island line,
   in 1663, and shortly afterwards was compelled by civil force
   to remove to Swanzea, where, as it was distant from the
   centres of settlement, it was suffered to live without very
   much molestation. It still exists, the oldest Baptist church
   in the State. In 1665, the First Baptist Church in Boston was
   organized, and, alone, for almost a century, withstood the
   fire of persecution,—ever in the flames, yet never quite
   consumed. In 1693, a second church was constituted in Swanzea,
   not as a Regular, but as a Six-Principle, Baptist Church. In
   1705, a Baptist church was formed in Groton, Connecticut.
   These four churches, three Regular and one Six-Principle,
   having in the aggregate probably less than two hundred
   members, were all the Baptist churches in New England outside
   of Rhode Island previous to the Great Awakening."

      _D. Weston.
      Early Baptists in Massachusetts
      (The Baptists and the National Centenary),
      pages 12-18._

   "The representative Baptists of London and vicinity, who in
   1689 put forth the Confession of Faith which was afterward
   adopted by the Philadelphia Association, and is therefore
   known in this country as the Philadelphia Confession, copied
   the Westminister Confession word for word, wherever their
   convictions would permit, and declared that they would thus
   show wherein they were at one with their brethren, and what
   convictions of truth made impossible a complete union. And
   wherever Baptists appeared however or by whomsoever they were
   opposed, the ground of complaint against them was their
   principles. Some of these principles were sharply antagonistic
   to those of existing churches, and also to those on which the
   civil governments were administered. They were widely
   disseminated, especially in Holland, England, and Wales, and
   there were separate churches formed. From purely doctrinal
   causes also came divisions among 'the Baptized churches'
   themselves. The most notable one was that in England between
   the General or Arminian Baptists, and the Particular or
   Calvinistic Baptists. With the latter division do the Regular
   Baptists of America hold lineal connection. … The churches of
   Philadelphia and vicinity kept the closest connection with the
   mother country, and were most affected by it. In New England,
   in 'the Great Reformation' under the lead of Jonathan Edwards,
   there was made from within the Congregational churches a most
   vigorous assault against their own 'half-way Covenant' in the
   interest of a pure church. Along his lines of thought he
   started multitudes who could not stop where he himself
   remained and would fain have detained them. They separated
   from the Congregational churches, and were hence called
   Separates. A large proportion of them became Baptists, and
   formed themselves into Baptist churches. Through the labors of
   earnest men who went from them to Carolina and Virginia, their
   principles were widely disseminated in those and the
   neighboring colonies, and, in consequence, many churches came
   into existence."

      _G. D. B. Pepper,
      Doctrinal History and Position (The same),
      pages 51-52._

BARDI, The.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2206).

BARENTZ, Voyages of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1594-1595; and 1596-1597.

BARNARD COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

BARRE, Colonel Isaac.
   Speech against the Stamp Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765 (page 3186).

BATTLE, Trial by.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1077,
      and CRIMINAL: A. D. 1818 (pages 1957 and 1985).

BELCHER, Sir Edward,
   Franklin search expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1852-1854.

BELGIUM:
   Constitutional revision of 1893.

      See (in this Supplement) CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.

BELGIUM:
   King Leopold's legacy of the Congo State.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1889.

BELGIUM:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

BELGIUM:
   Schools.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 709).

BELL TELEPHONE, The invention of the.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1876-1892 (page 776).

      [Transcriber's Note.]
      _T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary,
      www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535._

BELLAMY, Edward, and the Nationalist Movement.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893 (page 2956).

BENTHAM, Jeremy, and reforms in the Law of Evidence.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1851 (page 1979).

{3691}

BERNADOTTE:
   Election to the throne of Sweden.

      See (in this Supplement) SWEDEN: A. D. 1810.

BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: FRANCE (page 2010).

BICHAT, and the progress of physiological science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2142).

BILL OF ATTAINDER.

      See (in this Supplement) ATTAINDER

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1603 (page 1968).

BIORKO.

      See (in this Supplement), COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

BISMARCK'S POLICY AND SPEECHES.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890.

BLACK FRIDAY.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1869 (page 2347).

BLAKE, Admiral Robert, Victories of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654 (page 885).

BLANC, Louis, and his scheme of stateaided co-operation.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1848 (page 2942).

BLUE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT, The.

   "Just when or by whom the acts and proceedings of New Haven
   colony were first stigmatized as Blue Laws, cannot now be
   ascertained. The presumption, however, is strong that the name
   had its origin in New York, and that it gained currency in
   Connecticut, among episcopalian and other dissenters from the
   established church, between 1720 and 1750. … In the colony of
   New Haven, before the union with Connecticut, the privileges
   of voting and of holding civil office were, by the
   'fundamental agreement,' restricted to church-members. This
   peculiarity of her constitution was enough to give color to
   the assertion that her legislation was, pre-eminently, blue.
   That her old record-book contained a code of 'blue laws' which
   were discreditable to puritanism and which testified to the
   danger of schism—became, among certain classes, an assured
   belief. To this imaginary code wit and malice made large
   additions, sometimes by pure invention, sometimes by borrowing
   absurd or arbitrary laws from the records of other colonies.
   And so the myth grew—till the last vestige of truth was lost
   in fable. The earliest mention of the 'New Haven Blue Laws'
   that I remember to have seen in print, is in a satirical
   pamphlet published in 1762, entitled; 'The Real Advantages
   which Ministers and People may enjoy, especially in the
   Colonies, by conforming to the Church of England,' etc. … From
   the manner in which this allusion is introduced it is evident
   that reproach of New Haven for her 'blue laws' was already a
   familiar weapon of religious controversy. A few years later—in
   1767—William Smith, Chief-Justice of New York, had the
   curiosity to inspect 'the first records of the colony of New
   Haven, vulgarly called the Blue Laws.' In the continuation of
   his history of New York, he gives (p. 93) the result of his
   examination: 'A note ought not to be suppressed concerning
   these records, to correct a voice of misplaced ridicule. Few
   there are, who speak of the Blue Laws, … who do not imagine
   they form a code of rules for future conduct, drawn up by an
   enthusiastic, precise set of religionists; and if the
   inventions of wits, humorists, and buffoons were to be
   credited, they must consist of many volumes. The author had
   the curiosity to resort to them, when the Commissaries met at
   New Haven, for adjusting a partition line between New York and
   the Massachusetts in 1767; and a parchment-covered book of
   demi-royal paper was handed to him for the laws asked for, as
   the only volume in the office passing under this odd title. …
   It contains the memorials of the first establishment of the
   colony, which consisted of persons who had wandered beyond the
   limits of the old charter of the Massachusetts Bay, and who,
   as yet unauthorized by the crown to set up any civil
   government in due form of law, resolved to conduct themselves
   by the Bible. As a necessary consequence, the judges they
   chose took up an authority similar to that which every
   religious man exercises over his own children and domestics.
   Hence their attention to the morals of the people, in
   instances with which the civil magistrate can never
   intermeddle under a regular well-policied institution;
   because, to preserve liberty, they are cognizable only by
   parental authority. … So far is the common idea of the blue
   laws being a collection of rules from being true, that they
   are only records of convictions, consonant, in the judgment of
   the magistrates, to the word of God, and dictates of reason.'
   … Occasional allusions to the 'Blue Laws' are found in
   newspapers and pamphlets printed before the Revolution, but no
   specimens of the laws so stigmatised seem to have been
   published before 1781, when 'a sketch of some of them' was
   given to the world by the Rev. Samuel Peters, in 'A General
   History of Connecticut, from its First Settlement under George
   Fenwick, Esq.,' etc.: 'By a Gentleman of the Province:'
   printed in London, 'for the Author.' … As the sole authority
   for the only 'New Haven Blue Laws' that are now popularly
   known by the name, he and his book are entitled here to a
   larger notice. The late Professor J. L. Kingsley, in the notes
   to his Historical Discourse at New Haven (1838), was at the
   pains of pointing out 'a few errors'—as he charitably named
   them—of 'the work which, more than any other, has given
   currency to various misrepresentations respecting the New
   Haven colony:' and in this connection he quoted a remark made
   by the Rev. Dr. Trumbull, the historian, who was a townsman of
   Peters and had known him from childhood,—that, 'of all men
   with whom he had ever been acquainted, Dr. Peters, he had
   thought, from his first knowledge of him, the least to be
   depended upon as to any matter of fact, especially in
   story-telling.' The best excuse that can be made for him is,
   that he was a victim of pseudomania; that his abhorrence of
   truth was in fact a disease, and that he was not morally
   responsible for its outbreaks. He could not keep even his name
   clear of falsification. It passes into history with doubtful
   initials and fictitious titles. … In 1774, his obstinate and
   aggressive toryism rendered him very obnoxious to his
   neighbors and finally provoked the resentment of the Sons of
   Liberty. A party of two or three hundred men paid him a visit,
   threatened him (so he averred) with tar and feathers, handled
   him somewhat roughly when they detected him in falsehood, and
   drew from him a promise that he would not again meddle in
   public affairs. … He found his only comfort in the
   anticipation that, if his plans of vengeance should succeed,
   Connecticut might be blotted out: 'the bounds of New York may
   directly extend to Connecticut river, Boston meet them, New
   Hampshire take the Province of Maine, and Rhode Island be
   swallowed up as Dathan.'
{3692}
   In October, 1774, he sailed for England, where he remained
   until 1805. He obtained a small pension from the crown, and
   some compensation for the property he professed to have lost
   in Connecticut: and it was perhaps in the hope of eking out a
   livelihood, as well as of gratifying his resentment, that he
   employed his pen in abuse of the colony which gave him birth,
   and the religion of his fathers. He did not, says Mr.
   Duykinck, 'carry his point of dismembering Connecticut, but he
   punished the natives almost as effectually by writing a
   book—his History of the State.'"

      _J. H. Trumbull,
      Introduction to "The True-Blue Laws of
      Connecticut and New Haven."_

   "In this 'History' were collected all the extravagant stories
   that had been set afloat during the previous fifty years to
   gratify the stupidity of those among the lower classes in New
   York who were descended from the Dutch, or the hatred of the
   most bitter of the British royalists. This 'History' is the
   first and the only 'authority' for the 'Blue Laws' which were
   attributed to the early New Haven colonists. … No person in
   America who knew anything about the history of his country
   ever seriously quoted Dr. Peters's 'History' as an authority
   on any subject whatever. The 'Comic History of England,' or
   the 'Travels of Baron Munchausen,' would be as little likely
   to be quoted in England for any serious purpose. And yet this
   falsehood about the 'Blue Laws,' which was thus first
   concocted for a purpose, has a vitality which, in some of its
   aspects, is amusing."

      W. L. Kingsley,
      Blackwood's Magazine on the "Blue Laws"
      (New Englander, April, 1871), pages 296-299.

BODLEIAN LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2016).

BOERHAAVE, and humoral pathology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2136).

BOLOGNA, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL (page 696).

"BOMBA," King.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849 (page 1862).

BOOTH, Reverend General William, and the Salvation Army.

      See (in this Supplement) SALVATION ARMY.

BOROUGH FRANCHISE, English.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885 (pages 973-978).

BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 727).

BOTHWELL, James Hepburn, Earl of, and Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.
      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568 (page 2857).

BOWDOIN COLLEGE.

   An act of the Legislature of the province of Maine, approved
   in 1794, incorporated the above-named institution. The
   management of the college was placed under a board of
   trustees, with full powers of control. … That the institution
   might not want for proper support, it was further enacted,
   'That the clear rents, issues, and profits of all the estate,
   real and personal, of which the said corporation shall be
   seized or possessed, shall be appropriated to the endowment of
   the said college, in such manner as will most effectually
   promote virtue, piety, and the knowledge of such of the
   languages and the useful and liberal arts and sciences as
   shall hereafter be directed from time to time by said
   corporation.' Five townships of land, each six miles square,
   were granted to the college for Its endowment and vested in
   the trustees, provided that fifteen families be settled in
   each of the said townships within a period of twelve years,
   and provided further that three lots containing 320 acres each
   be reserved, one for the first settled minister, one for the
   use of the ministry, and one for the support of schools within
   the township where it is located. These townships were to be
   laid out and assigned from any of the unappropriated lands
   belonging to the commonwealth of the district of Maine. The
   first money endowment was instituted by a general law of
   Massachusetts, approved February 24, 1814, which reads as
   follows: 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives in General Court now assembled, That the tax
   which the president, directors and company of the
   Massachusetts Bank are and shall be liable to pay to the
   commonwealth, shall be and hereby is granted to and
   appropriated as follows, viz: ten-sixteenths parts thereof to
   the president and fellows of Harvard College; and
   three-sixteenths parts thereof to the president and trustees
   of Williams College; and three-sixteenths thereof
   to the president and trustees of Bowdoin College.'"

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in
      the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 123-124._

   The college was named in honor of Governor James Bowdoin, of
   Massachusetts, whose son made valuable gifts to it.

BRACTON, Henry de, and early English Law.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1216-1272 (page 1961).

BRADFORD PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 16815-1693:
      and 1704-1729 (page 2597).

BRAZIL: A. D. 1891.
   Adoption of the Constitution.

      For text see CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL (page 518).

BRAZIL: A. D. 1893-1894.
   Triumph of the Peixoto government.

   "The civil war In Brazil resulted in the complete triumph of
   the Peixoto government in the spring. During November [1893]
   the insurgents held their own in the harbor of Rio Janeiro,
   and in the following month occupied a number of islands in the
   bay. On December 1 Admiral Mello, their leader, with two of
   his ships, ran past the government batteries and out to sea,
   leaving in command in the harbor Admiral da Gama, who up to
   that time had remained neutral. The latter shortly after
   issued a manifesto pointing to a restoration of the monarchy
   as the ultimate purpose of the rebels. This seems to have
   tended rather to weaken the insurgent cause, and a month later
   da Gama tried in another proclamation to explain away the
   interpretation that had been put upon the first. The
   government, meanwhile, confined itself to strengthening its
   positions in the city and along the shore so as to make any
   attempt to land unsuccessful. Desultory hostilities continued
   throughout December and January, incidentally to which the
   American commander on one occasion enforced respect for
   merchant vessels bearing his flag by firing on an insurgent
   vessel. On February 12 da Gama made his most elaborate attempt
   to gain a foothold on the main land at Armacao, but was repulsed
   with severe losses.
{3693}
   By this time the insurgent cause was clearly on the decline.
   On the first of March a presidential election was held, which
   resulted in the choice of Prudente Moraes, a civilian. This
   removed the leading grievance of the rebels, that Piexoto was
   perpetuating a regime of pure militarism. On the 11th of March
   the fleet which the government had been fitting out in the United
   States and Europe appeared at the entrance to the harbor of
   Rio, and Peixoto gave notice of an active movement against the
   rebels. Da Gama promptly offered to surrender on certain
   conditions, which being refused, he and his officers sought
   asylum on first a French and later a Portuguese war vessel.
   Thus deserted, the crews of the insurgent vessels surrendered
   without resistance when the government batteries opened fire
   on the 13th. Admiral Mello, meanwhile, had been operating with
   some success in connection with the insurgents on land in the
   southern states of Brazil. In the first part of April,
   however, the government forces totally defeated the rebels in
   Rio Grande do Sul, and Mello, about the middle of the month,
   surrendered himself and his command to the Uruguayan
   authorities, by whom they were disarmed."

      _Political Science Quarterly,
      June, 1894._

BREAKSPEAR, Nicholas.
   Pope Hadrian IV., 1154-1159.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LIFE, Schools of the.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE (page 705).

BRISBANE, Albert, and Fourierism in America.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847,
      and 1841-1847 (pages 2940 and 2944).

BRITANNIC FEDERATION, Proposed.

      See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (page 1112).

BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: ENGLAND (page 2014).

BROCTON COMMUNITY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875 (page 2951).

BROOK FARM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS; A. D. 1841-1847 (page 2943).

BROTHERHOOD OF THE NEW LIFE, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875 (page 2951).

BROWN UNIVERSITY.

   "Brown University, the oldest and best endowed institution of
   learning connected with the Baptist denomination, dates back
   for its origin to a period anterior to the American
   Revolution, when in all the thirteen colonies there were less
   than 70 Baptist churches, with perhaps 4,000 communicants. It
   is not surprising that, at the memorable meeting of the
   Philadelphia Association, held on the 12th of October, 1762,
   when the members were finally led to regard it, in the words
   of Backus, as 'practicable and expedient to erect a College in
   the Colony of Rhode Island, under the chief direction of the
   Baptists, in which education might be promoted and superior
   learning obtained, free from any sectarian tests,' the mover
   in the matter should at first have been laughed at, the thing
   being looked upon as, under the circumstances, an utter
   impossibility. But lenders at that time, like Morgan Edwards
   and Isaac Eaton, Samuel Jones, Abel Morgan, Benjamin Griffith,
   John Sutton and John Gano, were men of faith. … At the time of
   which I speak, there was graduated from Princeton, with the
   second honors of his class, a man of wonderful mental and
   physical endowments, an early pupil of Isaac Eaton at
   Hopewell, James Manning, of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. To him
   the enterprise of the college was by common consent intrusted.
   … The first commencement of the college, which was held in the
   then new Baptist meeting-house of the town of Warren, on the
   7th of September, 1769, has already been regarded as a Red
   Letter Day in its history. Five years previous, the General
   Assembly, begun and holden by adjournment at East Greenwich,
   on the last Monday in February, 1764; after various
   difficulties and delays, in consequence of the determined
   opposition of those who were unfriendly to the movement, had
   granted a charter for a 'College or University in the English
   Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New
   England in America.' Such is the language of the act of
   incorporation. But though Rhode Island had been selected for
   its home by the original projectors of the institution, and a
   liberal and ample charter had thus been secured, the college
   itself was still in embryo. Without funds, without students,
   and with no present prospect of support, a beginning must be
   made where the president could be the pastor of a church, and
   thus obtain an adequate compensation for his services. Warren,
   then as now, a delightful and flourishing inland town,
   situated 10 miles from Providence, seemed to meet the
   requisite requirements and thither, accordingly, Manning
   removed with his family in the spring of 1764. He at once
   commenced a Latin School, as the first step preparatory to the
   work of college instruction. Before the close of the year a
   church was organized, over which he was duly installed as
   pastor. The following year, at the second annual meeting of
   the corporation, held in Newport, Wednesday, September 3d, he
   was formally elected, in the language of the records,
   'President of the College, Professor of Languages and other
   branches of learning, with full power to act in these
   capacities at Warren or elsewhere.' On that same day, as
   appears from a paper now on file in the archives of the
   Library, the president matriculated his first student, William
   Rogers, a lad of fourteen, the son of Captain William Rogers,
   of Newport. Not only was this lad the first student of the
   college, but he was also the first freshman class. Indeed, for
   a period of nine months and seventeen days, as appears from
   the paper already referred to, he constituted the entire body
   of students. From such feeble beginnings has the university
   sprung."

      _R. A. Guild,
      The First Commencement of Rhode Island College
      (Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, v. 7),
      pages 269-271._

   Six years after the founding of the University it was removed
   from Warren to Providence, and its name changed from Rhode
   Island College to Brown University, in honor of John Brown, of
   Providence, who was its most liberal benefactor.

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      page 196._

   Although founded by the Baptist Church, the charter of the
   University "expressly forbids the use of religious tests. The
   corporation is divided into two Boards—the Trustees, 36 in
   number, of whom 22 must be Baptists, 5 Quakers, 5
   Episcopalians, and 4 Congregationalists, and the Fellows, 12
   in number, of whom 8, including the President, must be
   Baptists, and the remainder of other denominations. Twelve
   Trustees and 5 Fellows form a quorum. The college estate, the
   students, and the members of the faculty, with their families,
   are exempt from taxation and from serving as jurors."

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of the State of Rhode Island,
      chapter 18 (volume 2)._

{3694}

BRUCHION, Library of the.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2003).

BRUNONIAN SYSTEM, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2141).

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

BUBBLE ACT, The.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1710 (page 1971).

BULGARIANS, The conversion of the.

      See CHRISTIANITY: 9TH CENTURY (page 464).

BUREAU OF EDUCATION, The United States.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 735).

BURKE, Edmund.
   Speech on Conciliation of the American Colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (pages 3218-3221).

BYNG, Admiral John, Execution of.

      See MINORCA: A. D. 1756 (page 2187).

BYZANTINE TRADE.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

CABOTS, Voyages of the.

      See (in this Supplement) AMERICA.

C.

CALHOUN, John C., The aggressive proslavery policy of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1837-1838, and 1847 (pages 3375 and 3380).

CAMBOJA.

      See TONKIN (page 3114).

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION (pages 701, 706 and 710).

CAMPBELLITES, The.

      See (in this Supplement) DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

CANADA:
   Constitution of the Dominion.

      See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (page 526).

CANADA:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: CANADA (page 2023).

CANADA:
   The Ontario school system.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

CANALS.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

CANULEIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 445-400 (page 2667).

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1600,
      and 1660-1820 (pages 1983 and 1984).

CARNATIC, The.

      See (in this Supplement) KARNATIC.

CARNOT, President Sadi, The assassination of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

CARTHAGINIAN COMMERCE.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

CASHGAR.

      See TURKESTAN (page 3130);
      and YAKOOB BEG (page 3662).

CASIMIR-PERIER,
   Election to the Presidency of the French Republic,
   and resignation.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

CATHOLIC REACTION IN GERMANY, The.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 16TH CENTURY;
      also, page 2457.

CAUCASUS, The Races of the.

   "One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Caucasus is
   that, while it has acted as a barrier between the north and
   the south, stopping and turning aside the movements of
   population, it has also preserved within its sheltered
   recesses fragments of the different peoples who from time to
   time have passed by it, or who have been driven by conquest
   into it from the lower country. Thus it is a kind of
   ethnological museum, where specimens may be found of countless
   races and languages, some of which probably belong to the
   early ages of the world; races that seem to have little
   affinity with their present neighbours, and of whose history
   we know nothing except what comparative philology can reveal.
   Even before the Christian era it was famous for the variety of
   its peoples. … No more inappropriate ethnological name was
   ever propounded than that of Caucasian for a fancied division
   of the human family, the cream of mankind, from which the
   civilized peoples of Europe are supposed to have sprung. For
   the Caucasus is to-day as it was in Strabo's time, full of
   races differing in religion, language, aspect, manners,
   character."

      _J. Bryce,
      Trans-caucasia and Ararat,
      chapter 2._

CELESTINES,
CELESTINIANS.

   A religious order founded by the hermit, Peter of Morone, who
   afterwards, in 1294, became Pope, and took the name Celestine
   V. The rules of the order were austere. It became widespread
   throughout Europe, but was suppressed in France in 1766.

CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS, in England and Germany.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1695 (pages 2597 and 1602).

CENSUS, United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1790 (page 3305); 1800 (page 3324), and after.

CHANCELLOR.
CHANCERY.

      See LAW, EQUITY (page 1988).

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800, 800, and
      814-843 (pages 1436-1438); and (in this Supplement) ROME.

CHARLEMAGNE'S PALATINE SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL (page 689).

CHARTERHOUSE SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 712).

CHASE, Judge, Impeachment and trial of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3329).

CHATHAM, John Pitt, Earl of, and the Walcheren expedition.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (page 947).

CHATHAM, William Pitt, Earl of,
   Speech on the repeal of the Stamp Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (page 3201).

CHICAGO UNIVERSITY, The founding of the.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 738).

CHILE.

   The account of Chilean affairs given in volume 1 (pages
   411-415) ends with the overthrow and suicide of the
   dictatorial usurper, Balmaceda (September 20, 1891), the
   triumph of the Congress party, and the election to the
   Presidency of Admiral Jorge Montt. During the civil war which
   had this termination, the representative of the United States,
   Minister Egan, showed marked favor to Balmaceda and his party,
   which irritated the Chileans and produced among them a hostile
   feeling towards Americans and the American government. This
   was increased by the action of Mr. Egan, after the defeat of
   the Balmacedists, in sheltering a large number of refugees of
   that party within the walls of the American legation.
{3695}
   The same was done by other foreign representatives, but to no
   such extent, except in the case of the Spanish legation. A
   telegram sent by Mr. Egan on the 8th of October to the State
   Department at Washington stated: "80 persons sought refuge in
   his legation after the overthrow of the Balmaceda government;
   about the same number in the Spanish legation, 8 in the
   Brazilian, 5 in the French, several in the Uruguayan, 2 in the
   German and 1 in the English. Balmaceda sought refuge in the
   Argentine. All these have gone out except 15 in his own
   legation, 1 in the German and 5 in the Spanish." Not venturing
   to violate the privileges of the American Minister's
   residence, the Chilean authorities placed it under police
   surveillance, and arrested a number of persons entering the
   premises. The Minister complained, and was supported in his
   complaints at Washington, causing further irritation in Chile.
   This was again greatly increased by his claiming the right,
   not only to shelter the refugees in his residence, but to
   protect them in their departure from the country. In that,
   too, he was sustained by his government, and the refugees were
   safely sent away. Meantime a more serious cause of quarrel
   between the two countries had risen. A party of sailors on
   shore at Valparaiso, from the United States ship Baltimore,
   had been assailed by a mob, October 16, and two were killed,
   while eighteen were wounded. The United States demanded
   satisfaction, and much angry correspondence ensued, made
   particularly offensive on the Chilean side by an insulting
   circular which Señor Matta, the Chilean Foreign Minister,
   issued December 13, and which he caused to be published in the
   Chilean newspapers. But Señor Matta disappeared from the
   Foreign Department soon after and his successor made
   apologies. "On January 16th the Chilean authorities notified
   Mr. Egan that they would withdraw any offensive passages in
   the Matta circular, and had instructed their Minister in
   Washington to express regret. The apology, thus expressed both
   in Washington and Santiago, was stiff and ungraceful, perhaps
   inadequate; but it was made in good faith. On January 20th,
   evidently feeling that all was now serene, the Chileans
   ventured, acting on a hint of Mr. Blaine's, to ask for Egan's
   withdrawal as a 'persona non grata.' What, therefore, must
   have been the dismay of the Chileans on January 23d, to
   receive an official notice, which the newspapers dubbed an
   'ultimatum,' containing the statement that the United States
   Government was not satisfied with the result of the judicial
   investigation at Valparaiso and still asked 'for a suitable
   apology;' that for the Matta note there must be still another
   'suitable apology,' without which the United States would
   terminate diplomatic relations; and that the request for Mr.
   Egan's withdrawal could not at that time be considered. It was
   a bitter draught for any government; but threats of war were
   resounding through the United States; American naval vessels
   were hurriedly being made ready; coal and supplies were going
   into the Pacific. There was power behind the note, and Chile
   prepared to bend to the storm. The 'ultimatum' appears to have
   reached the Chileans on Saturday, January 23d. On Monday,
   January 25th, they sent an answer which could not possibly be
   read as anything but a complete and abject apology on all the
   three points." But on the same day on which this answer was
   being forwarded, the President of the United States sent a
   warlike message to Congress. "It rehearsed the whole
   controversy at great length, submitted copious correspondence,
   and ended with the significant phrase: 'In my opinion I ought
   not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of
   Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.' … It
   is an unprofitable controversy as to whether the authorities
   in Washington knew that an answer was on its way: if they had
   read the correspondence they knew that an answer must come,
   and that the Chilean Ministry must sent a peaceful answer. It
   is therefore difficult to understand the purpose of the
   President's message. … The effect … was to inflict an
   unnecessary humiliation on Chile. Spanish-Americans have good
   memories. Mexico still cherishes resentment for the war begun
   against her forty-five years ago; and forty-five years hence
   the Chileans are likely to remember the Balmaceda affair as
   Americans remembered the impressment of American seamen by
   Great Britain. We have the apology, but with it we have the
   ill-will."

      _A. B. Hart,
      Practical Essays on American Government,
      essay 5._

CHINA,
   Education in.

      See EDUCATION (pages 675 and 724).

CHINA,
   Imperial Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: CHINA (page 2024).

CHINA,
   Mediæval trade with India and the West.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

CHINA,
   Paper Money, ancient.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: CHINA (page 2200}.

CHINA,
   War with Japan.

      See (in this Supplement) COREA.

CHOLERA, Asiatic, The visitations of.

      See PLAGUE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2543).

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS, The.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 739).

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886 (page 2939).

CID, The.

      See (in this Supplement)
      SPAIN: A. D. 1034-1090.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM:
   Progress in the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (page 3586).

CLARK UNIVERSITY, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 738).

CLEVELAND, Grover.
   Message on the Tariff question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3083).

   Special Message on the National Finances.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (page 3586).

COCHIN-CHINA.

      See TONKIN(page 3141).

CODES, New York.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883, and 1848 (page 1979).

COINAGE.

      See MONEY, &c. (page 2198).

COLET, John, and St. Paul's School.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE (page 707).

COLLECTIVISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: DEFINITION OF TERMS (page 2933).

COLLEGES.

      See EDUCATION (page 673) and the same in this Supplement.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 730).

COMENIUS, and Educational Reform.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 739).

{3696}

   ----------COMMERCE: Start--------

COMMERCE:
   Ancient.
   The Earliest Records of Trade.

   Probably the oldest commercial record that exists was found
   sculptured on the rocks in the valley of Hammamat, east from
   Koptos on the Nile. It relates to an expedition which was sent
   out by the Pharaoh Sankh-ka-ra, to trade in the "land of
   Punt." Dr. Brugsch fixes the reign of Sankh-ka-ra at about
   2500 B. C., which is five or six centuries before the time
   when Abraham is supposed to have lived. The "land of Punt" he
   considers to have been the Somali coast of Africa, south of
   the extremity of the Red Sea, on the Gulf of Aden. Other
   writers maintain that it was southern Arabia. It was the "Holy
   Land" of the Egyptians, from which their gods were supposed to
   have anciently come. The trading expedition of Sankh-ka-ra was
   commanded by one Hannu (a name which has a Phœnician sound)
   and it is he who tells the story of it in the inscription at
   Hammamat. "I was sent," he says, "to conduct ships to the
   country of Punt, to bring back odoriferous gums." He then
   describes the army of 3,000 men which accompanied him, and
   narrates their march from Koptos to the Red Sea, through the
   desert, at several stations in which they dug reservoirs for
   water. "I arrived," he continues, "at the port Seba [believed
   to be the harbor now called Koseir or Quosseir] and I made
   transport vessels to bring back all kinds of products. I made
   a great offering of oxen, cows and goats. When I returned from
   Seba I executed the order of his Majesty; I brought him back
   all kinds of products which I met with in the ports of the
   Holy Land. I came back by Uak and Rohan. I brought back
   precious stones for the statues of the temples. Never was a
   like thing done since there were kings." It would seem from
   this that Hannu's expedition opened the first direct trade of
   the Egyptians with the land of Punt. But it is evident that
   they already had knowledge of the country and of its products,
   and it is probable they had formerly been receiving its gums
   and precious stones through the traders of some other country.
   Some seven or eight centuries after Hannu's voyage to Punt was
   made, we obtain in the Bible a most interesting glimpse of the
   trade then going on between Egypt and surrounding countries.
   It is found in the story of Joseph. When Joseph's brethren
   threw him into a pit, intending that he should be left there
   to die, their plans were changed by seeing a "Company of
   Ishmaelites from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and
   balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt." Then Judah
   said, "let us sell him to the Ishmaelites," and when these
   "Midianites, merchantmen," as they are called in the next
   verse, came near, the heartless brothers of Joseph drew him
   out of the pit and sold him, to be taken as a slave into
   Egypt. Now this story is found to agree well with other facts
   that have been learned, and which go to show that some, at
   least, among the ancient tribes in northern Arabia—the
   Ishmaelites of the Bible—were great traders between the richer
   countries that surrounded them. The Midianites and Edomites,
   who occupied the region near the head of the Red Sea, were
   especially the masters of that trade. Their poor land, which
   gave them little to subsist upon, had one gift for its people
   that went far toward making up for its barren poverty. It gave
   them the camel—that strange and homely beast, which is better
   fitted than any other for bearing burdens and for making long
   journeys without food or drink. At a later day they acquired
   the horse, from Media or from Mesopotamia, and bred that noble
   animal to such perfection that Arabia was long supposed to be
   its native home. But in Joseph's time the horse can hardly
   have been in use among the Arabs, since it seems to have been
   unknown in Egypt, which they constantly visited, until a
   considerably later day. However that may be, the camel was
   always the Arab's most useful servant—his carrier, his patient
   burden-bearer, his "ship of the desert," as Eastern poets have
   fitly named it. By the poverty of their country, by their
   wandering disposition, by their possession of the camel, and
   by their geographical situation, intermediate between several
   of the richest regions of antiquity, these Arabs of the olden
   time must have naturally been made a trading people, as early
   as it became possible for trade to exist. To the west of them
   was Egypt, with its fertile basin of the Nile and its
   remarkable people, probably first among all races that we know
   to rise out of barbarism and acquire order and industrial
   arts. To the east, in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris,
   were the fertile plains of Mesopotamia, where the second
   oldest civilization that Is known was growing up. To the north
   were Canaan and Gilead, the Scripture "land of promise," full
   of vineyards, of pastures and of harvest fields, with wide
   Syria beyond, and with Phœnician merchant cities just rising
   along the coast of the sea. To the south, in their own
   peninsula, was Arabia Felix, or Arabia the Blest, a famous
   land of pleasantness and plenty in ancient days. With their
   caravans of camels they traveled back and forth, very busily,
   no doubt, through the desert, which needed no building of
   bridges or making of roads. In one direction they carried the
   barley, wheat, millet, flax and woven goods of Egypt; in
   another, the honey, wine, wax, wool, skins, gums, resins and
   asphalt of Canaan and Syria; in still another the more costly
   freight of gold ornaments, precious stones, pearls, ivory,
   ebony, spices and fragrant gums from the south. In all
   directions, it is probable, they dragged poor unfortunates
   like Joseph, whom they bought or kidnapped from home and
   friends, to sell as slaves.

COMMERCE:
   Babylonia.

   "The industry of the Babylonians quickly attained great skill
   and wide development. They were famous for their weaving in
   wool and linen. The nations of the West agree in acknowledging
   the excellence of the cloths and coloured stuffs of Babylonia.
   Their pottery was excellent and the manufacture active; the
   preparation of glass was not unknown; the ointments prepared
   in Babylon were famous and much sought after, and the stones
   cut there were highly valued. The products of Babylonian skill
   and industry were first brought to their kinsmen in Syria, who
   could offer oil and wine in exchange. In the Hebrew scriptures
   we find Babylonian cloaks in use in Syria before the
   immigration of the Hebrews into Canaan. … The rough material
   required by Babylonian industry was supplied in the first
   place by the Arabs, who exchanged their animals, skins, and
   wool for corn and weapons.
{3697}
   Wine, and more especially wood, of which there was none in
   Babylonia, were brought by the Armenians from their valleys in
   the north down the Euphrates to Babylon. Before 1500 B. C. the
   commerce of the Arabs brought the products of South Arabia,
   the spices of Yemen, and even the products and manufactures of
   India, especially their silks, which reached the coasts of
   Southern Arabia, to Babylon. The Babylonians required the
   perfumes of Arabia and India to prepare their ointments. …
   When the cities of Phenicia became great centres of trade
   which carried the wares of Babylonia by sea to the West in
   order to obtain copper in exchange, the trade between
   Babylonia and Syria must have become more lively still. It was
   the ships of the Phenicians which brought the cubic measure,
   and the weights, and the cubit of Babylonia to the shores of
   Greece, and caused them to be adopted there."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COMMERCE:
   Egypt.

   "In ancient Egypt agricultural counted for more than
   manufactures, and manufactures were of more importance than
   commerce. The trade which existed was brisk enough as far as
   it went, but it aimed at little more than the satisfaction of
   local wants by the more or less direct exchange of commodities
   between producers. The limited development of internal traffic
   was due to two principal causes: the natural products of
   different parts of the country were too much alike for much
   intercourse to be necessary for purposes of exchange, and the
   conformation of the country, in itself scarcely larger than
   Belgium, was such as to give the longest possible distance
   from north to south. … The Nile was the only known highway, so
   much so that the language scarcely possessed a general word
   for travelling; going southward was called 'going up stream,'
   and a journey to the north, even by land into the desert, was
   described by a term meaning to sail with the current. … While
   internal traffic was thus brought to a minimum by natural
   causes, foreign commerce can scarcely be said to have existed,
   before the establishment of peaceable intercourse with Syria
   under the new empire. The importation of merchandize from
   foreign countries was a political rather than a commercial
   affair. Such foreign wares as entered the country came as
   tribute, as the spoil of war, or as memorials of peaceful
   embassies. … The list of the spoil taken by Thothmes III.
   gives a tolerably exhaustive account of the treasures of the
   time. It includes, of course, bulls, cows, kids, white goats,
   mares, foals, oxen, geese, and corn; then follow strange
   birds, negroes, men and maid-servants, noble prisoners and the
   children of defeated kings, chariots of copper, plated with
   gold and silver, iron armour, bows, swords and other
   accoutrements, leather collars ornamented with brass, gold and
   silver rings, cups, dishes and other utensils, vessels of iron
   and copper, statues with heads of gold, ell-measures with
   heads of ivory, ebony, and cedar inlaid with gold, chairs,
   tables and footstools of cedar wood and ivory, a plough inlaid
   with gold, blocks of bluestone, greenstone and lead, 'a golden
   storm-cap inlaid with bluestone,' jars of balsam, oil, wine
   and honey, various kinds of precious woods, incense,
   alabaster, precious stones and colours, iron columns for a
   tent with precious stones in them, bricks of pure brass,
   elephants' tusks, natron, and, finally, by way of curiosity,
   from the land of the kings of Ruthen, three battle-axes of
   flint."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      book 1, chapter 3, section. 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COMMERCE:
   India.

   "It is said in the Rig-Veda that 'merchants desirous of gain
   crowd the great waters with their ships.' And the activity in
   trade, thus early noted, has continued ever since to be
   characteristic of the country. Professor Lassen considers it
   remarkable that Hindus themselves discovered the rich,
   luxurious character of India's products. Many of the same
   beasts, birds, and fragrant oils are produced in other
   countries, but remain unnoticed until sought for by
   foreigners; whereas the most ancient of the Hindus had a keen
   enjoyment in articles of taste or luxury. Rajas and other rich
   people delighted in sagacious elephants, swift horses,
   splendid peacocks, golden decorations, exquisite perfumes,
   pungent peppers, ivory, pearls, gems, &c.; and, consequently,
   caravans were in constant requisition to carry these, and
   innumerable other matters, between the north and the south,
   and the east and the west, of their vast and varied country.
   These caravans, it is conjectured, were met at border
   stations, and at out-ports, by western caravans or ships bound
   to or from Tyre and Egypt, or to or from the Persian Gulf and
   the Red Sea. To the appearance of India goods in Greece,
   Professor Lassen attributes the Greek invasion of India. … The
   indirect evidence afforded by the presence of India's products
   in other ancient countries, coincides with the direct
   testimony of Sanskrit literature, to establish the fact that
   ancient Hindus were a commercial people. The code of Manu
   requires the king to determine the prices of commodities, and
   also the trustworthiness of the weights and measures used. And
   that the transactions contemplated were not restricted to
   local products is evident from reference to the charges for
   freight for articles in river boats, and the undetermined and
   larger charges to which sea-borne goods were liable. The
   account of King Yudhishthira's coronation in the Mahâbhârata
   affords an instance of precious articles from distant lands
   brought into India. So also in the Ramayana, we read that when
   Rama and his brothers were married, the brides were clad in
   silk from China. … Merchants are constantly being introduced
   into Sanskrit fiction, and equally often into Buddhist legend.
   They seem to have been always at hand to give variety and
   movement to the monotony of daily life."

      _Mrs. Manning,
      Ancient and Mediæval India,
      chapter 40 (volume 2)._

COMMERCE:
   Phœnicians and Carthaginians.

   "The Phœnicians for some centuries confined their navigation
   within the limits of the Mediterranean, the Propontis, and the
   Euxine, land-locked seas, which are tideless and far less
   rough than the open ocean. But before the time of Solomon they
   had passed the pillars of Hercules, and affronted the dangers
   of the Atlantic. Their frail and small vessels, scarcely
   bigger than modern fishing-smacks, proceeded southwards along
   the West African coast, as far as the tract watered by the
   Gambia and Senegal, while northwards they coasted along Spain,
   braved the heavy seas of the Bay of Biscay, and passing Cape
   Finisterre, ventured across the mouth of the English Channel
   to the Cassiterides.
{3698}
   Similarly, from the West African shore, they boldly steered
   for the Fortunate Islands (the Canaries), visible from certain
   elevated points of the coast, though at 170 miles distance.
   Whether they proceeded further, in the south to the Azores,
   Madeira, and the Cape de Verde Islands, in the north to the
   coast of Holland, and across the German Ocean to the Baltic,
   we regard as uncertain. It is possible that from time to time
   some of the more adventurous of their traders may have reached
   thus far; but their regular, settled and established
   navigation did not, we believe, extend beyond the Scilly
   Islands and coast of Cornwall to the north-west, and to the
   south-west Cape Non and the Canaries. The commerce of the
   Phœnicians was carried on, to a large extent, by land, though
   principally by sea. It appears from the famous chapter [xxvii]
   of Ezekiel which describes the 'riches and greatness of Tyre
   in the 6th century B. C., that almost the whole of Western
   Asia was penetrated by the Phœnician caravans, and laid under
   contribution to increase the wealth of the Phœnician traders.
   … Translating this glorious burst of poetry into prose, we
   find the following countries mentioned as carrying on an
   active trade with the Phœnician metropolis:—Northern Syria,
   Syria of Damascus, Judah and the laud of Israel, Egypt,
   Arabia, Babylonia, Assyria, Upper Mesopotamia, Armenia,
   Central Asia Minor, Ionia, Cyprus, Hellas or Greece, and
   Spain."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapter 9._

   "Though the invincible industry and enterprise of the
   Phenicians maintained them as a people of importance down to
   the period of the Roman empire, yet the period of their widest
   range and greatest efficiency is to be sought much
   earlier—anterior to 700 B. C. In these remote times they and
   their colonists [the Carthaginians especially] were the
   exclusive navigators of the Mediterranean: the rise of the
   Greek maritime settlements banished their commerce to a great
   degree from the Ægean Sea, and embarrassed it even in the more
   westerly waters. Their colonial establishments were formed in
   Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, the Balearic Isles, and Spain. The
   greatness as well as the antiquity of Carthage, Utica, and
   Gades, attest the long-sighted plans of Phenician traders,
   even in days anterior to the first Olympiad. We trace the
   wealth and industry of Tyre, and the distant navigation of her
   vessels through the Red Sea and along the coast of Arabia,
   back to the days of David and Solomon. And as neither
   Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, or Indians, addressed
   themselves to a sea-faring life, so it seems that both the
   importation and the distribution of the products of India and
   Arabia into Western Asia and Europe were performed by the
   Idumæan Arabs between Petra and the Red Sea—by the Arabs of
   Gerrha on the Persian Gulf, joined as they were in later times
   by a body of Chaldæan exiles from Babylonia—and by the more
   enterprising Phenicians of Tyre and Sidon in these two seas as
   well as in the Mediterranean."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 18._

   "The Commerce of Carthage may be conveniently considered under
   its two great branches—the trade with Africa, and the trade
   with Europe. The trade with Africa … was carried on with the
   barbarous tribes of the inland country that could be reached
   by caravans, and of the sea-coast. Of both we hear something
   from Herodotus, the writer who furnishes us with most of our
   knowledge about these parts of the ancient world. … The goods
   with which the Carthaginian merchants traded with the African
   tribes were doubtless such as those which civilized nations
   have always used in their dealings with savages. Cheap finery,
   gaudily coloured cloths, and arms of inferior quality, would
   probably be their staple. Salt, too, would be an important
   article. … The articles which they would receive in exchange
   for their goods are easily enumerated. In the first place
   comes … gold. Carthage seems to have had always at hand an
   abundant supply of the precious metal for use, whether as
   money or as plate. Next to gold would come slaves. … Ivory
   must have been another article of Carthaginian trade, though
   we hear little about it. The Greeks used it extensively in
   art. … Precious stones seem to have been another article which
   the savages gave in exchange for the goods they coveted. …
   Perhaps we may add dates to the list of articles obtained from
   the interior. The European trade dealt, of course, partly with
   the things already mentioned, and partly with other articles
   for which the Carthaginian merchants acted as carriers, so to
   speak, from one part of the Mediterranean to another. Lipara,
   and the other volcanic islands near the southern extremity of
   Italy, produced resin; Agrigentum, and possibly other cities
   of Sicily, traded in sulphur brought down from the region of
   Etna; wine was produced in many of the Mediterranean
   countries. Wax and honey were the staple goods of Corsica.
   Corsican slaves, too, were highly valued. The Iron of Elba,
   the fruit and the cattle of the Balearic islands, and, to go
   further, the tin and copper of Britain, and even amber from
   the Baltic, were articles of Carthaginian commerce. Trade was
   carried on not only with the dwellers on the coast, but with
   inland tribes. Thus goods were transported across Spain to the
   interior of Gaul, the jealousy of Massilia (Marseilles) not
   permitting the Carthaginians to have any trading stations on
   the southern coast of that country."

      _A. J. Church and A. Gilman,
      The Story of Carthage,
      part 3, chapter 3._

   A high authority on questions of intercourse in ancient times
   throws doubt on the supposed African caravan trade of the
   Carthaginians—as follows: "There seems no doubt that the
   existing system of caravan trade dates only from the
   introduction of Islamism into Africa. It was the Arabs who
   first introduced the camel into Northern Africa, and without
   camels any extensive intercourse with the interior was
   impossible. The Negro races have never shown any disposition
   to avail themselves of this mode of transport, and at the
   present day the commerce of the interior is carried on almost
   entirely by Moorish, that is, by Mohammedan, traders. The
   spread of Islamism has doubtless led to increased
   communication from another cause, the necessity for the
   Mohammedan inhabitants of the outlying and detached regions of
   the continent to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Even in the
   most flourishing times of the Carthaginians they do not appear
   to have made any use of camels; and as late as the days of
   Strabo the communications with the tribes of Western Africa
   who dwelt beyond the Sahara were scanty and irregular. In the
   time of Herodotus there is certainly no indication that either
   the Carthaginians or the Greeks of the Cyrenaica had any
   commercial intercourse with the regions beyond the Great
   Desert."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 8, note I (volume 1)._

      See, also, PHŒNICIANS (pages 2530-2534);
      and CARTHAGE (pages 392-395).

{3699}

COMMERCE:
   Jews.

   Beginning early in his reign, Solomon made great and
   enlightened efforts to promote the commerce and industries of
   the people of Israel. "To increase the land traffic, he had
   small cities built in advantageous localities, in which goods
   of all sorts in large quantities were kept in suitable
   storehouses; a practice similar to that which had from ancient
   times prevailed in Egypt. … They were established chiefly in
   the most northern districts of Israel, towards the Phœnician
   boundaries, as well as in the territories of the kingdom of
   Hamath, which was first conquered by Solomon himself.—The main
   road for the land traffic between Egypt and the interior of
   Asia must have been the great highway leading past Gaza and
   further west of Jerusalem to the Northern Jordan and Damascus.
   Here it was joined by the road from the Phœnician cities, and
   continued as far as Thapsacus, on the Euphrates. This was
   entirely in the dominions of the king; and here, under the
   peaceful banner of a great and powerful monarchy, commerce
   could flourish as it had never flourished before. It was
   clearly for the improvement of this route, which had to
   traverse the Syrian desert on the north, that Solomon built,
   in a happily chosen oasis of this wilderness, the city of
   Thammor, or Tadmor, of which the Greek version is Palmyra.
   There is not a single indication that this city was of
   importance before Solomon's time, but from that era it
   flourished for more than a thousand years. … For any distant
   navigation, however, Solomon was obliged to rely on the aid of
   the Phœnicians, inasmuch as they were in that age the only
   nation which possessed the necessary ability and inclination
   for it. It is true that the idea of competing with the
   Phœnicians upon the Mediterranean could hardly have occurred
   to him, since they had long before that time attracted all the
   commerce upon it to themselves, and would scarcely have
   desired or even tolerated such a rival. … But the Red Sea,
   which had been thrown open to the kings of Israel by the
   conquest of the Idumeans, offered the finest opportunity for
   the most distant and lucrative undertakings, the profit of
   which might perfectly satisfy a nation in the position of
   Israel in the dawn of maritime activity; and on their part,
   the Phœnicians could not fail to be most willing helpers in
   the promotion of undertakings which it lay in the hands of the
   powerful king of Israel entirely to cut off from them, or at
   any rate to encumber with great difficulties. In this way the
   mutual desires and needs of two nations coincided without any
   injury to the one or the other. … Phœnician sailors were at
   first, it is true, the teachers of the Israelite. It was they
   who aided them in constructing and manning the tall ships,
   which, destined to distant voyages upon uncertain seas, needed
   to be strongly built; but yet how many new ideas and what
   varied knowledge the nation would in this way acquire! The
   ships were built in Ezion-geber, the harbour of the town of
   Elath (or Eloth), probably on the very spot where Akaba now
   stands. The cargo brought back each time from the three years'
   voyage consisted of 420 talents of gold, besides silver,
   ivory, red sandal-wood, apes, and peacocks, probably also nard
   and aloe."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 3, page 261-264._

COMMERCE:
   Greeks.

   "When the Greeks had established themselves, not only on the
   peninsula, but also on the islands and on the east coast of
   the Ægean Sea, their navigation was greatly extended. That
   this, even in the first half of the 8th century, was
   profitable in its results, we see from the instance of Dius of
   Cyme, the father of Hesiod, who maintained himself in this
   manner. The works of art in which Lydia and Caria excelled,
   together with the products and manufactures of the east, which
   reached the western coasts of Asia, the products of these
   coasts, and wine and oil from Lesbos and Samos—all these could
   be shipped from the Greek maritime cities of Asia Minor, and
   carried to the peninsula. It was through this commerce … that
   Chalcis and Eretria laid the foundation of their greatness. To
   what proportions it had attained, even in the course of the
   8th century, we find from the mint marks of Phocæa and Cyme,
   the standards of Chalcis and Eretria, the coins and weights
   and measures of Phidon of Argos. … From the middle of the 8th
   century, the Greeks no longer merely practised navigation;
   they became, in an eminent sense, a maritime nation. At the
   time when Sinope and Trapezus were founded in the east, Naxos,
   Catana, and Syracuse in Sicily, and Cyme in Campania, a
   nautical discovery had already been made, by means of which
   the Greeks surpassed the Phœnicians, the ancient voyagers of
   Syria; this was the building of triremes. To what an extent
   and proficiency must seamanship have attained, what importance
   naval battles must have assumed, to give rise to the attempt
   to replace the ancient war vessels by others of a far more
   powerful kind! When the first triremes were built at Corinth
   and Samos, about the year 700 B. C., Greek cities already
   existed on the southern shore of the Black Sea, on the coasts
   of Thrace, in Corcyra and Sicily; the southern coast of Italy
   had also been colonised. The products of Greek industry,
   pottery, implements, and weapons, were advantageously bartered
   on the coasts of the Thracians, Scythians, Illyrians,
   Sicilians, and Oscans, for the fruits of the soil, and for the
   cattle of those regions. The need of the means of exchange
   must have given great encouragement and impetus to
   manufactures in the Greek cities of the peninsula, on the
   coasts of Asia, and in the newly-founded Asiatic settlements
   themselves. … Navigation and commerce must have become
   permanent occupations. And the great increase of manufactures
   must also have given employment to numbers of the country
   people. Thus there grew up under the very rule of the
   aristocracy a powerful rival to itself; a nautical, artisan,
   commercial class, side by side with the land population. If
   the protecting walls of the chief place of the canton had
   previously been sought only in time of need, in case of
   surprises or hostile landings, the new industrial classes were
   now settled together in the harbours and centres of trade.
   Handicrafts, navigation, and commerce, could not exist without
   one another. In the maritime cantons on the east of the
   peninsula, and in the cantons on the coasts of the
   Peloponnesus, there sprang up simultaneously with the burgher
   class a town population."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

{3700}

   "Between 700 B. C. and 530 B. C., we observe … an immense
   extension of Grecian maritime activity and commerce—but we at
   the same time notice the decline of Tyre and Sidon, both in
   power and traffic. The arms of Nebuchadnezzar reduced the
   Phenician cities to the same state of dependence as that which
   the Ionian cities underwent half a century later from Crœsus
   and Cyrus; while the ships of Miletus, Phokæa and Samos
   gradually spread over all those waters of the Levant which had
   once been exclusively Phenician. In the year 704 B. C., the
   Samians did not yet possess a single trireme: down to the year
   630 B. C. not a single Greek vessel had yet visited Libya. But
   when we reach 550 B. C. we find the Ionic ships predominant in
   the Ægean, and those of Corinth and Korkyra in force to the
   west of Peloponnesus—we see the flourishing cities of Kyrene
   and Barka already rooted in Libya, and the port of Naukratis a
   busy emporium of Grecian commerce with Egypt. The trade by
   land—which is all that Egypt had enjoyed prior to
   Psammetichus, and which was exclusively conducted by
   Phenicians—is exchanged for a trade by sea, of which the
   Phenicians have only a share, and seemingly a smaller share
   than the Greeks. Moreover the conquest by Amasis of the island
   of Cyprus, half-filled with Phenician settlements and once the
   tributary dependency of Tyre—affords an additional mark of the
   comparative decline of that great city. In her commerce with
   the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf she still remained without a
   competitor, the schemes of the Egyptian king Nekos having
   proved abortive. Even in the time of Herodotus, the spices and
   frankincense of Arabia were still brought and distributed only
   by the Phenician merchant. But on the whole, both political
   and industrial development of Tyre are now cramped by
   impediments, and kept down by rivals, not before in operation.
   … The 6th century B. C., though a period of decline for Tyre
   and Sidon, was a period of growth for their African colony
   Carthage, which appears during this century in considerable
   traffic with the Tyrrhenian towns on the southern coast of
   Italy, and as thrusting out the Phokæan settlers from Alalia
   in Corsica."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 21._

   "It is a remarkable fact in the history of Greek colonies that
   the exploration of the extreme west of the Mediterranean was
   not undertaken either by the adventurers who settled at Cyme,
   or by the powerful cities of Sicily. A century or more elapsed
   from the foundation of Syracuse before any Greek vessel was
   seen on the coast of Spain or Liguria, and when the new
   beginning was made, it was not made by any of the colonies,
   Chalcidian, Dorian, or Rhodian, which had taken part in the
   discovery of the West. It was the Phocaeans of Ionia,
   Herodotus tells us, who first made the Greeks acquainted with
   the Hadriatic, with Tyrrhenia, Iberia (Spain), and Tartessus
   (the region round Cadiz). The first impulse to these distant
   voyages arose from a mere accident. At the time of the
   foundation of Cyrene, about the year 630 B. C., a Greek of
   Samos, by name Colaeus, when on his way to Egypt, was carried
   by contrary winds beyond the pillars of Heracles to Tartessus.
   There he found a virgin market, from which he returned to
   realise a profit of 60 talents (£12,000), an amount only
   surpassed by the gains of Sostratus of Aegina, who was the
   premier of Greek merchants. But this was the beginning and the
   end of Samian trade to the West; why they left it to the
   Phocaeans to enter into the riches which they had discovered,
   we cannot say, but within thirty years of this date, the
   enterprising Ionian town sent out a colony to Massilia near
   the mouth of the Rhone, in the district known as Liguria. …
   The mouth of the Rhone was the point where all the routes met
   which traversed France from the English Channel to the Gulf of
   Genoa. Of these Strabo specifies three. Merchandise was
   carried by boats up the Rhone and Saône, from which it was
   transferred to the Seine, and so passed down the river; or it
   was taken by land from Marseilles (or Narbo) to the Loire; or
   again carried up the Aude and transported thence to the
   Garonne. By one or other of these routes, the wares collected
   by the Gaulish merchants—more especially the tin, which they
   imported from Britain—was brought into the Greek market, if
   indeed it was not carried on pack-horses straight across the
   narrowest part of the country. The importance of these lines
   of transit at a time when the western Mediterranean was held
   by the Carthaginians, and the northern Hadriatic by the
   Tyrrhenians, can hardly be over-estimated. The colonists
   extended their borders by degrees, though not without severe
   contests with the Ligurians and Tyrrhenians by sea and land.
   New cities were founded to serve as outposts against the
   enemy; Agatha in the direction of the barbarians of the Rhone;
   Olbia, Antipolis, and Nicaea in the direction of the Salyans
   and Ligurians of the Alps. They also spread themselves down
   the coast of Spain."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 13._

COMMERCE:
   Rome.

   "Rome, placed like a mightier Mexico in the centre of her
   mighty lake, was furnished with every luxury and with many of
   her chief necessaries from beyond the waters; and cities on
   every coast, nearly similar in latitude and climate, vied in
   intense rivalry with each other in ministering to her
   appetite. First in the ranks of commerce was the traffic in
   corn, which was conducted by large fleets of galleys, sailing
   from certain havens once a year at stated periods, and pouring
   their stores into her granaries in their appointed order. Gaul
   and Spain, Sardinia and Sicily, Africa and Egypt were all
   wheat-growing countries, and all contributed of their produce,
   partly as a tax, partly also as an article of commerce, to the
   sustentation of Rome and Italy. The convoy from Alexandria was
   looked for with the greatest anxiety, both as the heaviest
   laden, and as from the length of the voyage the most liable to
   disaster or detention. The vessels which bore the corn of
   Egypt were required to hoist their topsails on sighting the
   promontory of Surrentum, both to distinguish them from others,
   and to expedite their arrival. These vessels moreover,
   according to the institution of Augustus, were of more than
   ordinary size, and they were attended by an escort of war
   galleys. The importance attached to this convoy was marked by
   the phrases, 'auspicious' and 'sacred,' applied to it. … A
   deputation of senators from Rome was directed to await its
   arrival at the port where it was about to cast anchor, which,
   from the bad condition of the haven at Ostia, was generally at
   this period Puteoli in Campania.
{3701}
   As soon as the well-known topsails were seen above the horizon
   a general holiday was proclaimed, and the population of the
   country, far and near, streamed with joyous acclamations to
   the pier, and gazed upon the rich flotilla expanding gaily
   before them. The vessels engaged in this trade, however
   numerous, were after all of small burden. The corn-fleets did
   not indeed form the chief maritime venture of the
   Alexandrians. The products of India, which had formerly
   reached Egypt from Arabia, and were supposed indeed in Europe
   to have come only from the shores of the Erythræan Sea, were
   now conveyed direct to Cleopatris or Berenice from the mouths
   of the Indus and the coast of Malabar, and employed an
   increasing number of vessels, which took advantage of the
   periodical trade winds both in going and returning. The
   articles of which they went in quest were for the most part
   objects of luxury; such as ivory and tortoise shell, fabrics
   of cotton and silk, both then rare and costly, pearls and
   diamonds, and more especially gums and spices. The consumption
   of these latter substances in dress, in cookery, in the
   service of the temples, and above all at funerals, advanced
   with the progress of wealth and refinement. The consignments
   which reached Alexandria from the East were directed to every
   port on the Mediterranean; but there was no corresponding
   demand for the produce of the West in India, and these
   precious freights were for the most part exchanged for gold
   and silver, of which the drain from Europe to Asia was
   uninterrupted. The amount of the precious metals thus
   abstracted from the currency or bullion of the empire, was
   estimated at 100,000,000 sesterces, or about £800,000 yearly.
   The reed called papyrus, the growth of which seems to have
   been almost confined to the banks of the Nile, was in general
   use as the cheapest and most convenient writing material, and
   the consumption of it throughout the world, though it never
   entirely superseded the use of parchment and waxen tablets,
   must have been immense. It was converted into paper in Egypt,
   and thence exported in its manufactured state; but this
   practice was not universal, for we read of a house at Rome
   which improved on the native process, and produced what Pliny
   calls an imperial or noble out of a mere plebeian texture.
   With respect to other articles of general use, it may be
   remarked that the most important, such as corn, wine, oil, and
   wool, were the common produce of all the coasts of the
   Mediterranean, and there was accordingly much less interchange
   of these staple commodities among the nations of antiquity
   than with ourselves, whose relations extend through so many
   zones of temperature. Hence, probably, we hear of none of
   their great cities becoming the workshops or emporiums of the
   world for any special article of commerce. The woollens indeed
   of Miletus and Laodicea, together with other places of Asia
   Minor, were renowned for their excellence, and may have been
   transported as articles of luxury to distant parts; but Africa
   and Spain, Italy and parts of Greece, were also breeders of
   sheep, and none of these countries depended for this prime
   necessary on the industry or cupidity of foreigners. The
   finest qualities of Greek and Asiatic wines were bespoken at
   Rome, and at every other great seat of luxury. The Chian and
   Lesbian vintages were among the most celebrated. … Again,
   while the clothing of the mass of the population was made
   perhaps mainly from the skins of animals, leather of course
   could be obtained abundantly in almost every locality. When we
   remember that the ancients had neither tea, coffee, tobacco,
   sugar, nor for the most part spirits; that they made little
   use of glass, and at this period had hardly acquired a taste
   for fabrics of silk, cotton, or even flax, we shall perceive
   at a glance how large a portion of the chief articles of our
   commerce was entirely wanting to theirs. Against this
   deficiency, however, many objects of great importance are to
   be set. Though the ruder classes were content with wooden cups
   and platters fashioned at their own doors, the transport of
   earthenware of the finer and more precious kinds, and from
   certain localities, was very considerable. Though the Greeks
   and Romans generally were without some of our commonest
   implements of gold and silver, such for instance as watches
   and forks, it is probable that they indulged even more than we
   do in personal decoration with rings, seals, and trinkets of a
   thousand descriptions. … The conveyance of wild animals,
   chiefly from Africa, for the sports of the amphitheatres of
   some hundreds of cities throughout the empire, must alone have
   given occupation to a large fleet of ships and many thousand
   mariners. Nor were the convoys smaller which were employed to
   transport marble from the choicest quarries of Greece and Asia
   to many flourishing cities besides the metropolis. … After due
   deduction for the more contracted sphere of ancient commerce,
   and the lesser number of articles, for the extent also to
   which the necessaries and conveniences of life were
   manufactured at home in the establishments of wealthy slave
   owners, we shall still readily believe that the
   inter-communication of the cities of the Mediterranean, such
   as Corinth, Rhodes, Ephesus, Cyzicus, Antioch, Tyrus,
   Alexandria, Cyrene, Athens, Carthage, Tarraco, Narbo and
   Massilia, Neapolis and Tarentum, Syracuse and Agrigentum, and
   of all with Rome, must have been a potent instrument in fusing
   into one family the manifold nations of the empire. … In the
   eyes of the Orientals and the Greeks, the mistress of lands
   and continents, the leader of armies, and the builder of roads
   was regarded as the greatest of all maritime emporiums, and
   represented in their figurative style as a woman sitting
   enthroned upon the waves of the Mediterranean. The maritime
   aspect thus assumed by Rome in the eyes of her subjects beyond
   the sea, is the more remarkable when we consider how directly
   her ancient policy and habits were opposed to commercial
   development. … The landowners of Rome, in the highday of her
   insolent adolescence, had denounced both commerce and the arts
   as the business of slaves or freedmen. So late as the year 535
   a law had been passed which forbade a senator to possess a
   vessel of burden, and the traffic which was prohibited to the
   higher class was degraded in the eyes of the lower. … It was …
   by following the natural train of circumstances, and by no
   settled policy of her own, that Rome secured her march across
   the sea, and joined coast to coast with the indissoluble chain
   of her dominion. On land, on the contrary, she constructed her
   military causeways with a fixed and definite purpose. … The
   population of Gaul crept, we know, slowly up the channel of
   the rivers, and the native tracks which conveyed their traffic
   from station to station were guided by these main arteries of
   their vital system.
{3702}
   But the conquerors struck out at once a complete system of
   communication for their own purposes, by means of roads cut or
   built as occasion required, with a settled policy rigidly
   pursued. These high roads, as we may well call them, for they
   were raised above the level of the plains and the banks of the
   rivers, and climbed the loftiest hills, were driven in direct
   lines from point to point, and were stopped by neither forest
   nor marsh nor mountain."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 39._

COMMERCE:
   Gaul under the Romans and after the fall of the Empire.

   "In the second century of our era, in the time of Trajan and
   the Antonines, Gaul with its fertile fields, its beautiful
   meadows, its magnificent forests, was one of the best
   cultivated countries of the Roman world. It exported into
   Italy grain from Aquitaine, Celtique and from the country of
   the Allobroges (Dauphiné), flax from Cadurques (Quercy) and
   Bituriges (Berry), hemp from Auvergne and the valley of the
   Rhône, spikenard from Provence (valeriana celtica according to
   M. Littré) renowned in the Roman pharmacopœia, oak and pine
   from the immense forests which still covered the Pyrenees, the
   Cevennes, the Alps, the Jura, the Vosges and nearly all the
   north of Gaul (forest of Ardennes), horses from Belgium, wool
   from the Narbonnaise, cheese from the Alps and from Nîmes,
   hams and salt provisions from Séquanaise (Franche-Comté), and
   the Pyrenees. The wines of the Narbonnaise and the valley of
   the Rhône, often adulterated and little relished by the
   Italians, were notwithstanding one of the principal objects of
   commerce in the interior of Gaul, in Great Britain and
   Germany. The oysters of the Mediterranean and even those of
   the Atlantic and the Channel which the ancients had perhaps
   found means of keeping in fresh water, figured upon the tables
   of the gourmets of Rome. We know that long before the
   conquest, the Gauls took gold from the sands of their rivers
   and that in certain regions (Upper Pyrenees), territory of the
   Tarbelles, and Val d'Aoste, territory of the Salasses, they
   extracted gold from the auriferous rocks by processes quite
   analogous to those which are now employed by the great
   Californian companies. These mines which were yet in existence
   under Augustus were not long in being exhausted, but the iron
   of Berry, Sénonais, Perigord, Rouergue, the valley of the
   Rhône and of the Saône, the copper of the Pyrenees
   (Saint-Etienne-de-Baïgorry), of the Alps (country of the
   Centrons, now Upper Savoy), of the Cevennes (Cabrieres in
   Hérault and Chessy in Rhône), the tin of Limousin, the
   argentiferous lead of the territory of the Rutènes (Rouergue),
   of the Gabales (Gévaudan), of the Centrons, etc., were mined
   and wrought with a skill which placed the metallurgy of Gaul
   in the first rank of the industries of the empire. These
   mining operations, superintended by the State, although they
   belonged to the proprietors of the soil, were often directed
   by companies which combined the working of the metal with its
   extraction from the ore. One which had its seat at Lyons is
   known to us by many inscriptions. Textile industries were not
   less flourishing than metallurgy, the manufacture of
   sail-cloth was carried on all over Gaul; the bleached linens
   of Cahors, the carpets of the Narbonnaise, the sagums of
   mingled bright colors were renowned even in Italy. The
   progress of commerce had followed that of agriculture and
   manufacture. The network of Roman roads planned by Agrippa was
   completed and four roads accessible to carriages or beasts of
   burden, crossed the Alps by the passes of the Little (Graius
   Mons) and of the Great Saint-Bernard (Summus Penninus), of
   Mount Genèvre (Mons Matrona) and of the Argentière: the
   Corniche road stretched along the Mediterranean from Genoa to
   Marseilles: those of the pass of Pertus (Summa Pyrenoeco), of
   the valley of Aran, of the Somport, of Roncevaux, and from
   Lapurdum (Bayonne) to Pampeluna connected Gaul to Spain. …
   Notwithstanding the competition of new roads, river navigation
   had retained all its activity. … We know from inscriptions of
   a certain number of associations for water transportation
   which appear to have played a great rôle in the interior
   commerce of Gaul from the first century of our era. The
   boatmen of the Rhône, the Saône, the Durance, the Seine, the
   Loire, the Aar, an affluent of the Rhine, formed corporations
   recognized by the State, organized on the model of cities,
   having their regulations, property, elective chiefs, and
   patronized by great personages who charged themselves with
   defending their interests against the Roman authorities. The
   most celebrated, If not the most important of these
   associations, is that of the Nautæ Parisiaci, the memory of
   which has been preserved to us by the remains of an altar
   raised, under Tiberius, at the point of the Isle of the City
   (the ancient Lutetia) and found in 1711 under the choir of
   Notre-Dame. … The two great commercial ports of the
   Mediterranean were Narbonne and Arles, after Marseilles had
   lost her maritime preponderance and was only a city of
   science, luxury and pleasure. … Immense labor upon embankments
   and canalization which had thrown within Narbonne the mass of
   the river and deepened the maritime channel made of the
   metropolis of the Narbonnaise one of the safest ports upon the
   coast of Gaul. It communicated with the Rhône by the
   navigation of the lakes (étangs) which at that time extended
   without interruption to the western mouth of the river, with
   the ocean by the course of the Garonne, navigable from
   Toulouse (Tolosa). The port of the Garonne was then as now
   Bordeaux (Burdigala) which already had intercourse with Great
   Britain and Spain. Aries, connected with the sea by the canal
   of Marius and perhaps also by the small arm of the Rhône and
   the navigation of the lakes (étangs), was a maritime port and
   at the same time the outlet for the navigation of the Rhône
   which was prolonged by the Saône as far as Chalon
   (Cabillonum). Upon the banks of the river rose the wealthy
   cities of Tarascon, Avignon (Avenio), Orange (Arausio),
   Vienne. Lyons is the commercial and also the political
   metropolis of Gaul, the seat of the most powerful
   manufacturing and commercial companies; the boatmen of the
   Saône and the Rhône, the wine merchants, the mining and
   smelting company of the valley of the Rhône. Above Chalon,
   four great commercial routes start from the valley of the
   Saône. The first ascends the Doubs as far as Besançon
   (Vesuntio) and terminates at the Rhine near Augst (Augusta
   Rauracorum), where the river is already navigable.
{3703}
   The second follows the valley of the Saône and descends by the
   Moselle, navigable above Trèves (Augusta Trevirorum), and by
   the Meuse, toward the middle and lower valley of the Rhine. …
   The third route, that from the Saône to the Loire, set out
   from Chalon, crossed Autun (Augustodunum), and reached the
   Loire above Orleans (Genabum, later Aurelianum). Goods
   embarked upon the river arrived, after a voyage of 870
   kilometers (2,000 stades), at Nantes (Portus Namnetum) which
   appears to have been substituted, about the beginning of the
   first century, for the ancient port of Corbilo and which was
   also in intercourse with Great Britain. The fourth route, that
   from the Saône to the Seine, crossed Autun, was there divided
   into two branches which went by way of Avallon and Alise to
   meet at Sens (Agedincum) on the Yonne, and descended the Seine
   to its mouth by Melun (Melodunum), Paris (Lutetia) and Rouen
   (Rotomagus). This was the shortest route between the new
   province of Britani and the Mediterranean; but the ancients,
   notwithstanding the progress in navigation, always distrusted
   long passages by sea; so the principal emporium of commerce
   with Britani was not Caracotinum (Harfleur), the port of the
   Seine, but Gesoriacum, later Bononia (Boulogne), which is
   distant only 50 kilometers from the English coast. It was
   there that Caligula erected that gigantic pharos known to the
   middle-ages under the name of the tower of Odre and which
   existed until 1645. … When one thinks of Gaul in the second
   half of the 5th century, after those great streams of invasion
   which swept it for fifty years, one easily fancies that the
   flood has carried everything away, that the Roman institutions
   have disappeared, that private fortunes are swallowed up in a
   frightful catastrophe, that the barbarians have enslaved the
   Gallo-Romans, that social life is suspended, manufactures
   ruined, commerce interrupted. This picture which responds to
   the idea we form of a barbarian conquest, is necessarily
   exaggerated, because the Germanic invasion was not a conquest.
   The Germans who established themselves upon the Roman
   territory, those even who had employed force to make a place
   for themselves within it, did not consider themselves
   conquerors, but subjects and soldiers of the Empire: they
   dreamed so little of destroying it that they aspired to serve
   it whether it would or no. Notwithstanding the decadence of
   manufactures and the inevitable disorders which weakness of
   the central power brings in its train, commerce appears to
   have preserved a certain amount of activity. In the 6th
   century, post stages still existed. Upon the Roman roads,
   maintained and repaired by the Merovingians, heavy wagons
   which served for the transportation of goods and travelers
   circulated with their teams of oxen or horses. Royal decrees
   commanded the preservation of towing-paths along navigable
   rivers; the rivers had remained the high-ways of interior
   commerce, and the boatmen's companies of Roman Gaul had
   perhaps survived the fall of the imperial domination. The
   ports of the Atlantic, Bordeaux and Nantes, those of the
   Channel, Alet (between Saint-Malo and Saint-Servan), Rouen,
   Quantovic (Etaples or Saint-Josse-sur-Mer?) on the bay of the
   Canche, Boulogne, were in relations with the Visigoths and the
   Suevi of Spain, the Irish, the Frisians, and received in
   exchange for the wines, honey, madder, grains and linens of
   Gaul, oils and lead from Spain, metals and slaves from Great
   Britain, coarse cloths from Ireland and finer fabrics which
   they were beginning to make in Frisia. Marseilles, Arles,
   Narbonne, the great ports of the Mediterranean, were always
   the depots for the trade of the Orient, where their vessels
   went for spices, silks, papyrus from Alexandria, cloths and
   carpets from Antioch and Laodicea, which their merchants
   exchanged in part for money, in part for metals, honey,
   saffron, almonds and linens from southern Gaul, coral brought
   from Italy, and amber brought overland from the borders of the
   Baltic. The conquests of the Franks, masters of central and
   southern Germany, had opened to commerce two new roads: one,
   by the Danube, stretched away to the frontiers of the Eastern
   Empire and to Constantinople through the countries occupied by
   the fierce tribes of the Avars and the Bulgarians; the other
   arrived by Thuringia in the regions where the Slav tribes,
   Sorbs (Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Pomerania) and Wends
   (Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Carinthia) dominated. In these
   uncultivated countries, covered with forests and marshes, in
   the midst of these warlike peoples, the merchants could risk
   themselves only in large caravans, sword at the side and lance
   in hand. These distant and perilous expeditions were
   attractive to the adventurous spirit of the Frank race. …
   Faith, as well as ambition, found its account in these
   journeys to the countries of the pagan. On the way, they
   distributed religious images to the heathen, they tried to
   convert them while profiting by them. … This mingling of
   commerce and religion is one of the characteristic traits of
   the middle ages, as it is of antiquity. The most ancient fairs
   of Gaul, that of Troyes which was in existence as early as the
   5th century, that of Saint-Germain-des-Pres, that of
   Saint-Denis, which goes back to the time of Dagobert (629),
   were at the same time pilgrimages. This latter the most
   celebrated of all, under the Merovingians, was held outside
   the walls of Paris, between the churches of Saint-Martin and
   Saint-Laurent, upon the lands watered by the brook
   Ménilmontant; it was opened on the festival of Saint-Denis and
   continued four weeks, in order to permit, says its charter,
   merchants from Spain, Provence and Lombardy and even those
   from beyond the sea, to take part in it. … The fair of
   Saint-Denis was the rendezvous of merchants from all parts of
   Gaul and Europe. Beside the wines and oils of the South might
   be seen the honey and wax of Armorica, the linens and madder
   of Neustria, the metals of Spain and England, the furs of the
   North, the products of the royal manufactories; but the
   choicest goods were the spices, pepper, tissues of silk and of
   cotton, jewels, enamels, goldsmiths' work, which came from the
   Orient by the Mediterranean ports, more rarely by way of the
   Danube, and whose guardians were the Syrians or Jews destined
   to hold so great a place in the commerce of the middle ages.
   The Syrians,—and under this name the Franks comprehended,
   without doubt, all merchants native to Egypt or Roman
   Asia,—formed powerful communities at Marseilles, Narbonne,
   Bordeaux; at Paris they had sufficient influence to enable one
   of them, Eusebius, to succeed in purchasing the episcopate, in
   591. … As to the Jews, a great number were already established
   in Gaul before the fall of the Roman Empire, but their
   prosperity dates only from the epoch of disorganization which
   followed the barbarian invasion."

      _H. Pigeonneau,
      Histoire du Commerce de la France
      (translated from the French), tome 1, livre 1._

{3704}

COMMERCE: Mediæval.
   Early trade with China.

   "During the Tang Dynasty the intercourse between China and
   other considerable powers was not only closer but conducted on
   more nearly equal terms than at any other time. … The
   neighbouring kingdom of Tibet is first mentioned in the annals
   for 634 A. D. as sending ambassadors with tribute and being
   able to raise a large and formidable army. … Appeals from
   Persia and India for help against the Saracens were addressed
   to China more than once in the 7th and 8th centuries; and the
   heir apparent to the Persian throne resided for a time as
   hostage at the court of China. … But for the physical
   structure of the continent, which isolates India and China,
   while freezing Tibet and nomadizing Tartary, the spread of
   Arab conquest round or across the desert would have reached a
   point near enough to bring about a collision with China. As it
   was, a general impetus was given to foreign travel and foreign
   commerce; and … colonies of traders established themselves in
   the southern ports, as well as along the continental trade
   routes. … About the year 700 A. D. a market for strangers was
   opened at Canton, and an imperial commission appointed to levy
   duties. In 714 A. D. we hear of a petition of foreign
   merchants, arriving by way of the southern sea, which is
   forwarded from the coast in quite modern fashion for the
   emperor's consideration. It set forth all the precious things
   which the merchants could bring from the countries of the
   West, and represented them as only desirous of collecting
   medicinal drugs and simples. Unfortunately for the traders,
   they arrived at the beginning of a new reign, when a vigorous
   attempt had been made to put down the luxury of the court. …
   It was concluded to take no further notice of the petition.
   Foreign trade continued to exist on sufferance, but so far as
   the Chinese were concerned, it was limited by the attitude of
   the Government to a moderate exportation of staple
   commodities, paid for in foreign coin or precious metals. What
   China had to sell was much more important to the Western
   nations than anything she or her rulers could be prevailed
   upon to buy; and so long as the trade dealt with surplus
   manufactures, like silk, or natural products, like musk or
   rhubarb, and did not endanger the local food supply, it was
   not interfered with. In 794 A. D. complaints were made that
   trade was leaving Canton for Cochin China, but the traders'
   schemes for recovering or pursuing it were discouraged by the
   Government, which opined that there must have been intolerable
   extortions used to drive it away, or a want of natural
   inducements to bring it, and quoted the Shoo: 'Do not prize
   strange commodities too much, and persons will come from
   remote parts.' Arab geographers and travellers of the 9th
   century show what a development had been reached by foreign
   commerce under this modified freedom. The Jewish merchants
   described by Ibn Khordadbeh as speaking Persian, Latin, Greek,
   Arab, Spanish, Slavonic, and Lingua franca, and trading by sea
   and land to the remotest regions, had their representatives at
   Canton; and the four trade routes, enumerated by Sir Henry
   Yule, enabled all the great commercial communities to try
   their hand at the China trade. The first of these routes led
   from the Mediterranean over the Isthmus of Suez, and onwards
   by sea; another reached the Indian sea viâ Antioch, Bagdad and
   Bussora and the Persian Gulf; a third followed the coast of
   Africa by land from Tangiers to Egypt and thence by Damascus
   to Bagdad, while the fourth led south of the Caspian Sea and
   north of the central Asian desert to the gates of the Great
   Wall. The Chinese traders either met the Western merchants at
   Ceylon, or themselves came as far as the mouth of the
   Euphrates."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      book 4, chapter 12, section 2 (volume 2)._

COMMERCE: Mediæval.
   The Arabs.

   The earliest date to which any positive statement of
   intercourse between the Arabs and the Chinese "appears to
   refer is the first half of the 5th century of our era. At this
   time, according to Hamza of Ispahan and Masudi, the Euphrates
   was navigable as high as Hira, a city lying south-west of
   ancient Babylon, near Kufa, (now at a long distance from the
   actual channel of the river), and the ships of India and China
   were constantly to be seen moored before the houses of the
   town. Hira was then abounding in wealth, and the country
   round, now a howling wilderness, was full of that life and
   prosperity which water bestows in such a climate. A gradual
   recession took place in the position of the headquarters of
   Indian and Chinese trade. From Hira it descended to Obolla,
   the ancient Apologos, from Obolla it was transferred to the
   neighbouring city of Basra, built by the Khalif Omar on the
   first conquest of Irak (636), from Basra to Siraf on the
   northern shore of the gulf, and from Siraf successively to
   Kish and Hormuz. Chinese Annals of the Thang dynasty of the
   7th and 8th centuries, describe the course followed by their
   junks in voyaging to the Euphrates from Kwangcheu (Canton). …
   The ships of China, according to some authorities, used to
   visit Aden as well as the mouths of Indus and Euphrates. I do
   not think that either Polo or any traveller of his age speaks
   of them as going further than Malabar, the ports of which
   appear to have become the entrepôts for commercial exchange
   between China and the west, nor does it appear what led to
   this change. Some time in the 15th century again they seem to
   have ceased to come to Malabar. … The Arabs at an early date
   of Islam, if not before, had established a factory at Canton,
   and their numbers at that port were so great by the middle of
   the 8th century that in 758 they were strong enough to attack
   and pillage the city, to which they set fire and then fled to
   their ships. Nor were they confined to this port. … In the 8th
   century also the Arabs began to know the Chinese not only as
   Sinæ, but as Seres, i. e. by the northern land route. …
   Besides … communication by land and sea with Arabia, and with
   the various states of India, … there existed from an old date
   other and obscurer streams of intercourse between China and
   Western Asia, of which we have but fragmentary notices, but
   which seem to indicate a somewhat fuller mutual knowledge and
   freer communication than most persons probably have been
   prepared to recognise. Thus, China appears to have been well
   known from an early period to the Armenians."

      _H. Yule,
      Cathay and the Way thither, preliminary essay
      (volume 1), pages lxxvii-lxxxii._

{3705}

   After the Arabs began their career as a conquering people,
   under Mahomet and his successors, and took possession of the
   great ancient fields of Asiatic and African commerce, with its
   highways and its capital seats, from Ispahan to Palmyra,
   Damascus, Baalbec, Tyre, Alexandria, and the old Carthaginian
   ports, they quickly caught the large ideas of trade that were
   then opened up to them. They improved the early caravan routes
   and established new ones in many directions. They dug wells,
   made cisterns and built caravansaries, or public places of
   shelter for travelers and traders, along the important desert
   roads. The pilgrimages which their religion encouraged had a
   lively traffic connected with them, and by spreading one
   language and one set of customs and laws over the wide region
   which they ruled, they helped commerce as the Romans had done.
   From Bagdad, the new capital city which they built on the
   Tigris, nearly opposite the deserted ruins of Babylon, on the
   other side of the Chaldean plain, they carried on direct trade
   with India, through Afghanistan; with China by three routes
   through Bokhara, or Tartary; with Siberia and with Russia, to
   the very center of it, through the agency of the Turkish and
   Tartar races. This city of Bagdad became a marvel of
   magnificence under the early Arabian caliphs. Other cities of
   Asia that acquired importance in manufactures or trade, or
   both, during the period of Arabian power, were Ispahan, in
   Persia, the woolens and linens from which were equally noted
   for their fineness; Damascus, in Syria, which produces cutlery
   of steel, and especially sword blades, that have never been
   surpassed, and which gave the name of "damasks" to certain
   raised patterns in linen that are well known by that term to
   this day; Herat, in Afghanistan, which was famous for its
   carpet looms and for its cultivation of saffron and
   assafœtida; Balkh and Khotan, in Bokhara, the former of which,
   on the banks of the Oxus, was a populous seat of trade between
   China, India and the West. From its great antiquity, Balkh was
   called "the mother of cities." In their native country, the
   Arabs, during this brilliant period of their history,
   increased the ancient trade which they had carried on by sea,
   with India, on one hand, and with the eastern coasts of
   Africa, on the other. They extended the latter far south of
   the limits of ancient Ethiopia, and even to the island of
   Madagascar. There are few settlements now existing on the east
   African coast, below the straits of Babel-Mandeb, which were
   not of Arabian origin. The pilgrimages to Mecca, their holy
   city, where the remains of Mahomet were interred, made that a
   great market and both industry and commerce were enlivened
   throughout the Arabian peninsula. As masters of Egypt, the
   Arabians reorganized with fresh vigor the ancient caravan
   traffic with central Africa and with the countries on the
   Upper Nile. Alexandria, it is true, lost much of its former
   importance. This was owing, in part, to the bitter hostility
   that existed between the Mahometans and the European
   Christians, which broke up, for a long period, nearly all open
   commerce between the two. But Alexandria was also hurt by the
   rise of new Arabian cities, in Egypt and on the Barbary coast,
   which drew away some of the trade that had centered almost
   wholly at Alexandria before. Cairo, the modern capital of
   Egypt, stood first among these and became a wealthy seat of
   many manufactures and of much commercial exchange. The
   interior caravan traffic of Egypt centered principally at
   Syene, while Temnis and Damietta were busy productive towns.
   Within the old Carthaginian dominions, west of Egypt, on the
   Mediterranean, the Arab conquerors revived a traffic quite as
   extensive, perhaps, as the greatest that ancient Carthage had
   controlled. Not far from the site of that ancient emporium,
   and twelve miles from the modern city of Tunis, they built the
   now forgotten city of Kirwan, which was one of the largest and
   most magnificent of its time. It was a point from which
   numerous caravan routes led southward into the heart of the
   African continent, even beyond the great desert, as well as
   eastward to Egypt and westward to the Atlantic coasts and
   Spain. Many flourishing towns surrounded this African
   metropolis and were the centers of many different activities,
   such as the cultivation of grain, the making of salt, the
   rearing of silk-worms and the production of silk. In
   Mauritania, which embraced the modern empire of Morocco and
   part of Algiers, the Arabs introduced the same spirit of
   enterprise. In their hands, the barren country—which has
   since become almost a desert again—was made fertile, through
   wide regions, by extensive irrigation, and produced wheat,
   olives, grapes, dates and other fruits in great abundance,
   besides feeding flocks and herds of sheep, goats, horses,
   asses and camels in rich pastures. The people became skilful
   in several manufactures, including weaving and dyeing, the
   making of silk and gold thread, the mining and smelting of
   copper and iron, the preparation of soap and the tanning of
   leather. From the Atlantic coast of their Mauritanian
   dominion, the Arabs pushed their traffic far down the western
   shores of the continent, while they opened caravan routes to
   the interior quite as widely, perhaps, as they did from Kirwan
   and from Egypt. The chief city that they founded in Mauritania
   was Fez, which still bears witness to its former glory in a
   lingering university, or collection of Mahometan schools; in
   the remains of many mosques, and in a vast number of
   caravansaries. The native inhabitants whom the Arabs found in
   Mauritania derived from their country the name of Moors. They
   embraced the Mahometan religion and joined their Saracen
   conquerors in invading Spain, A. D. 712. This led, in Europe,
   to the applying of the name "Moors" to the whole of the mixed
   races which took possession of southern Spain, and finally
   gave that name to all the Mahometans on the western
   Mediterranean coasts. But the Moors and the Arabs were
   distinct races of people. The conquest of southern Spain gave
   the Arabs the finest field in which their energy and genius
   were shown. They made the most of its mineral treasures, its
   delightful climate and its fertile soil. On the remains of
   Roman civilization, which Vandals and Visigoths had not wholly
   destroyed, they built up, with wonderful quickness, a new
   culture—of industry, of manners and of taste, of art, of
   literature, of government and of social life—that was
   splendidly in contrast with the rude state of Europe at large.
   The trade of the Spanish Moors was considerably extended
   among the Christians of Europe, notwithstanding the religious
   enmities that opposed it.
{3706}
   The products of their skilful workmanship were so eagerly
   desired, and they controlled so many of the coveted luxuries
   found in Africa and the East that their Christian neighbors
   could not be restrained, by war nor by the commands of the
   church nor by the hatred which both stirred up, from dealings
   with them. With other parts of the Mahometan dominion, and
   with the countries in commercial connection with it, the trade
   of Moorish Spain was active and large. In exchange for the
   varied products which they received, they gave the fine
   fabrics of their looms; exquisite work of their goldsmiths and
   silversmiths; famous leather; iron, quicksilver and silver
   from the old Spanish mines, which they worked with new
   knowledge and skill; sugar, the production of which they had
   learned and introduced from India; olive oil, raw silk,
   dye-stuffs, sulphur and many commodities of less worth. The
   career of the Arabs, in the large region of the world which
   they conquered, was brilliant but not lasting. The energy
   which carried them for a time far ahead of their slower
   neighbors in Europe showed signs of decay before two centuries
   of their career had been run.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Byzantine Trade.

   "The commerce of Europe centred at Constantinople in the 8th
   and 9th centuries more completely than it has ever since done
   in any one city. The principles of the government, which
   reprobated monopoly, and the moderation of its duties, which
   repudiated privileges, were favourable to the extension of
   trade. While Charlemagne ruined the internal trade of his
   dominions by fixing a maximum of prices, and destroyed foreign
   commerce under the persuasion that, by discouraging luxury, he
   could enable his subjects to accumulate treasures which he
   might afterwards extort or filch into his own treasury,
   Theophilus prohibited the persons about his court from
   engaging in mercantile speculations, lest by so doing they
   should injure the regular channels of commercial intercourse,
   by diminishing the profits of the individual dealer. … During
   this period the western nations of Europe drew their supplies
   of Indian commodities from Constantinople, and the Byzantine
   empire supplied them with all the gold coin in circulation for
   several centuries. The Greek navy, both mercantile and
   warlike, was the most numerous then in existence. Against the
   merchant-ships of the Greeks, the piratical enterprises of the
   Egyptian, African, and Spanish Arabs were principally
   directed. Unfortunately we possess no authentic details of the
   commercial state of the Byzantine empire, nor of the Greek
   population during the Iconoclast period, yet we may safely
   transfer to this time the records that exist proving the
   extent of Greek commerce under the Basilian dynasty. Indeed,
   we must remember that, as the ignorance and poverty of western
   Europe was much greater in the 11th and 12th centuries than in
   the 8th and 9th, we may conclude that Byzantine commerce was
   also greater during the earlier period. The influence of the
   trade of the Arabians with the East Indies on the supply of
   the markets of western Europe has been overrated, and that of
   the Greeks generally lost sight of. … The Byzantine markets
   drew their supplies of Indian and Chinese productions from
   Central Asia, the trade passing north of the caliph's
   dominions through the territory of the Khazars to the Black
   Sea. This route was long frequented by the Christians, to
   avoid the countries in the possession of the Mohammedans, and
   was the highway of European commerce for several centuries.
   Though it appears at present a far more difficult and
   expensive route than that by the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean,
   it was really safer, more rapid, and more economical, in the
   8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. This requires no proof to those
   who are acquainted with caravan life in the East, and who
   reflect on the imperfections of ancient navigation, and the
   dangers and delays to which sailing vessels of any burden are
   exposed in the Red Sea. When the Venetians and Genoese began
   to surpass the Greeks in commercial enterprise, they
   endeavoured to occupy this route; and we have some account of
   the line it followed, and the manner in which it was carried
   on, after the East had been thrown into confusion by the
   conquests of the Crusaders and Tartars, in the travels of
   Marco Polo. For several centuries the numerous cities of the
   Byzantine empire supplied the majority of the European
   consumers with Indian wares, and it was in them alone that the
   necessary security of property existed to preserve large
   stores of merchandise. Constantinople was as much superior to
   every city in the civilised world, in wealth and commerce, as
   London now is to the other European capitals. And it must also
   be borne in mind, that the countries of central Asia were not
   then in the rude and barbarous condition into which they have
   now sunk, since nomade nations have subdued them. On many
   parts of the road traversed by the caravans, the merchants
   found a numerous and wealthy population ready to traffic in
   many articles sought after both in the East and West; and the
   single commodity of furs supplied the traders with the means
   of adding greatly to their profits. Several circumstances
   contributed to turn the great highway of trade from the
   dominions of the caliphs to Constantinople. The Mohammedan
   law, which prohibited all loans at interest, and the arbitrary
   nature of the administration of justice, rendered all
   property, and particularly commercial property, insecure.
   Again, the commercial route of the Eastern trade, by the way
   of Egypt and the Red Sea, was suddenly rendered both difficult
   and expensive, about the year 767, by the Caliph Al Mansur,
   who closed the canal connecting the Nile with the Red Sea. The
   harvests of Egypt, which had previously filled the coast of
   Arabia with plenty, could no longer be transported in quantity
   to the ports of the Red Sea; living became expensive; the
   population of Arabia declined; and the carrying trade was
   ruined by the additional expenditure required. The caliph
   certainly by this measure impoverished and depopulated the
   rebellious cities of Medina and Mecca to such a degree as to
   render their military and political power less dangerous to
   the central authority at Bagdat, but at the same time he
   ruined the commerce of Egypt with India and the eastern coast
   of Southern Africa. Since that period, this most important
   line of communication has never been restored, and the coarser
   articles of food, of which Egypt can produce inexhaustible
   stores, are deprived of their natural market in the arid
   regions of Arabia.
{3707}
   The hostile relations between the caliphs of Bagdat and Spain
   likewise induced a considerable portion of the Mohammedan
   population on the shores of the Mediterranean to maintain
   close commercial relations with Constantinople. A remarkable
   proof of the great wealth of society at this period is to be
   found in the immense amount of specie in circulation. … The
   poverty of Europe at a later period, when the isolation caused
   by the feudal system had annihilated commerce and prevented
   the circulation of the precious metals, cannot be used as an
   argument against the probability of this wealth having existed
   at the earlier period of which we are treating."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, 716-1057,
      book 1, chapter 4, section 1._

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Venice and Genoa.

   In the slow revival of commerce which took place in Christian
   Europe, during the later half of the middle ages, no one city
   or people can be said to have taken a lead from the beginning.
   At various points, north and south, on the Mediterranean and
   the Adriatic, on the Baltic, on the Rhine and other rivers
   which flow into the North Sea, and on the Danube, the Dnieper
   and the Don, centers of trade were growing up in a gradual
   way, out of which it would be hard to name one that ranked
   much above the rest for many generations. But the 11th century
   brought a great commercial leader to the front. This was
   Venice. The circumstances of the founding of Venice, in the
   5th century, and the history of the rise of the singular
   republic, are given elsewhere.

      See VENICE (page 8602).

   The condition of the unfortunate refugees, who sought shelter
   from invading savages on a few small mud banks, barely
   separated from the shore of their Adriatic coast, did not seem
   to be a promising one. Nor was it so. While the neighboring
   parts of Italy were being overrun by Huns, Goths and Lombards
   in succession, and while the settlement of the barbarous new
   races was going on over all Southern Europe, in the midst of
   great disorder and constant war, these islanders and their
   descendants, for generations, were protected as much by their
   poverty as by the shallow waters that surrounded them. They
   had nothing to tempt either plunder or conquest. They lived by
   salt-making, fishing and fish-salting. They began trade in a
   small way by exchanging their salt and salted fish for other
   articles. It grew in their hands from year to year, for they
   were enterprising, industrious and courageous. Procuring
   timber on the opposite Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, they
   became expert ship builders and sailors. The safety of their
   situation caused increasing numbers of their Italian fellow
   countrymen to join them. The islands of the Venetian lagune
   were, in time, all occupied, and bridges between several of
   them were built. From the selling of salt and fish to their
   neighbors, the Venetians went on to more extensive commercial
   business. By slow degrees, they took the occupation of general
   merchants, buying goods here and there to sell again. They
   became friendly with the Greeks on the eastern side of the
   Adriatic, in Dalmatia and Albania, and this led them into
   important relations, both commercial and political, with the
   Byzantine Empire and its capital city, Constantinople. By the
   time they had gained wealth and consequence enough to attract
   the notice of their rough neighbors and invite attack, they
   had also gained strength enough to defend themselves. They
   took part then in the wars of the Byzantines, rendering
   valuable services in Italy and elsewhere, and they joined the
   Greeks in destroying the pirates who infested the Adriatic
   Sea. The early important trade of the Venetians was with
   Constantinople, where they enjoyed, for a long period, the
   peculiar favor of the Byzantine rulers. After the Saracens had
   mastered Syria and Persia, and taken possession of Alexandria
   (A. D. 640), Constantinople became the emporium of Eastern
   trade, adding it to a great traffic which the Byzantine
   capital had always carried on with the Tartar and Russian
   territories in Asia and Europe. When the Venetians gained a
   footing there, as political friends and favored merchants,
   their fortunes were made. While the Greeks were busy in
   desperate wars with their Mahometan neighbors, these
   enterprising Italians took into their own hands more and more
   of the profitable trade which the Greeks had opened to them.
   They soon had the handling of Byzantine commerce in western
   Europe almost wholly. From partners they became rivals, and
   especially in the Russian traffic, which they drew away from
   Constantinople, to a large extent, by opening direct dealings
   with the Russian traders, at a market place established on the
   Dnieper. From the beginning of the Crusades, in the 11th
   century, the rise of Venetian commerce and Venetian power was
   very rapid. The Venetians were prepared, as no other people
   were, at the time, to furnish fleets, both for transportation
   and for naval war. They enlisted in the crusading enterprises
   with a zeal which was not, perhaps, purely pious. Their
   carrying ships were busy conveying men and supplies; their war
   galleys were in the front of some sea fighting with the
   Moslems, and more with Christian rivals; their shrewd
   politicians were alert, at all points and among all parties,
   looking after the interests of the republic; their merchants
   were everywhere ready to improve the new opportunities of
   trade which these times of excitement opened up. In all
   directions, and throughout the whole of Europe, new activities
   were awakened, and especially such as led to a busier trade.
   The crusaders who lived to return, into France, Flanders,
   Italy, Germany, and England, brought home with them many ideas
   which they had picked up in the East, and much new knowledge
   of oriental products and arts, all of which became widely
   diffused and produced great effects. The result was to
   stimulate and improve the industries and to increase the
   commerce which the Europeans carried on among themselves, as
   well as to greatly enlarge their demand for the products of
   the Asiatic world. A new era in European commerce was opened,
   therefore, by the Crusades, and the Venetians, by their
   enterprise, their energy and their early experience, took the
   lead in its activities. They organized the traffic between the
   East and the West, the North and the South, upon a great
   scale, and centered the larger part of it in their island
   city. By sea and by land they managed it with equal vigor.
   Their merchant fleets were under the protection of the state
   and made voyages, at regular and appointed times, under the
   convoy of vessels of war. On the landward side, they arranged
   an extensive trade with the interior of Germany, Hungary and
   Bohemia, through the Tyrol and Carinthia.
{3708}
   As the first bitterness of hatred between Christians and
   Mahometans wore away, they grew willing to trade with one
   an·other, though the Popes still forbade it. The Venetians
   were among the first in such willingness. Having many quarrels
   with the Byzantine Greeks, they were eager to reopen the old
   eastern market at Alexandria, and did so at the earliest
   opportunity. From that beginning they spread their trade with
   Arabs, Moors and Turks, along the whole Mahometan line, in
   Asia and Africa. But, though Venice took the lead in the
   reviving commerce of the middle ages and held it substantially
   to the end of that period of history, she had powerful rivals
   to contend with, and the strongest were among her near
   neighbors in Italy. The same commercial spirit was alive in
   several other Italian cities, which had grown up in the midst
   of those disorderly times and had contrived to acquire more or
   less of independence and more or less of power to defend
   themselves. Amalfi, Genoa and Pisa were the earliest of these
   in growing to importance, and Florence at a somewhat later day
   rose to high rank. Florence, which did not become a free city
   until near the end of the 12th century, gained its subsequent
   wealth more by manufactures and by banking than by trade. Its
   chief products were woolens, silk and jewelry, and its
   money-lenders were everywhere in Europe.

      See FLORENCE (pages 1130-1143).

   The commercial career of Amalfi was cut short in the 12th
   century by events connected with the Norman conquest of
   Southern Italy. Pisa, an ancient city, whose history goes back
   to Etruscan times, was a considerable seat of trade while
   Venice was little known; but she fell behind both Venice and
   Genoa, soon after those vigorous republics were fairly entered
   in the race. The Pisans prospered highly for some time, by
   going into partnership or alliance with the Venetians, first,
   and afterwards with the Genoese; but they quarreled with the
   latter and were ruined in the wars that ensued. After the
   thirteenth century Pisa had no commercial importance.

      See PISA (pages 2537-2539).

   The great rival of Venice was Genoa, a city which claims to
   be, like Pisa, of more than Roman antiquity. In the trade of
   the Levant—that is, the eastern ports of the Mediterranean
   Sea—the Genoese pushed themselves into competition with the
   Venetians at an early day, and they seemed for some time to
   hold an equal chance of controlling the prize. During the
   later part of the 12th century, such unfriendly feelings had
   grown up between the Venetians and the Byzantine court that
   the latter transferred its commercial favors to the merchants
   of Genoa, Pisa and Amalfi, and gave them many privileges at
   Constantinople. The Venetians were thus placed at a
   disadvantage in the Bosphorus and the Black Sea; but they did
   not long submit. In 1204 they persuaded one of the crusading
   expeditions to join them in attacking Constantinople, which
   was taken, and the dominions of the ancient Empire of the East
   were divided among the captors, Venice receiving a goodly
   share.

      See CRUSADES (page 631).

   This was a golden era for Venice and she improved it to the
   utmost. For almost sixty years she triumphed over her rivals
   completely. But in 1261 her merchants were again expelled from
   Constantinople and the Black Sea. The Greeks had continued to
   hold a large part of the ancient domain of the Byzantine
   Empire in Asia Minor, and now, with the help of the Genoese,
   they succeeded in retaking their old capital city. The Frank
   Empire, or Latin Empire as it was differently called, which
   the Crusaders and the Venetians had set up, was extinguished
   and the Genoese again took the place of the Venetians as
   masters of the Byzantine trade, including that of the Black
   Sea and the Asiatic traffic which was carried on from its
   ports. But by this time the better disposition to deal
   commercially with one another had grown up between the
   Christians and the Mahometans. So the Venetians, when they
   lost their footing at Constantinople, very promptly went over
   to Alexandria and made excellent arrangements with the
   Saracens there, for supplying Europe once more with the
   commodities of the East, by those easier and shorter ancient
   routes which Christian commerce had not used for several
   hundred years. This opening of trade with the Mahometan races,
   at Alexandria, and elsewhere soon afterwards, may easily have
   repaid the Venetians for what they lost in the Byzantine
   direction; but they did not give up the latter. A long series
   of desperate wars between the competitors ensued, with such
   shiftings of victory that Venice seemed sometimes to be almost
   in a hopeless strait; but, in the end, she broke the power of
   her rival completely. The final peace, which was concluded in
   1381, left her quite undisputed]y, for a time, the mistress of
   the Mediterranean and its trade.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299 (page 1419);
      and VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379, and 1379-1381 (page 3608).

   Both the northward and the southward lines of traffic between
   Asia and Europe, through Alexandria and through
   Constantinople, were now chiefly in the hands of the
   Venetians. Between those great courses were important minor
   currents of commerce, along caravan routes through Asia Minor
   and Syria, which they mainly controlled. The trade of the rich
   islands of the Levant and of Moorish Africa was under their
   management for the most part, and they found on the northern
   shores of the Black Sea a commerce with the Russian region
   which the Genoese had increased while they ruled in those
   waters. For three quarters of a century the Venetians enjoyed
   this large extent of commerce with the East. Then the Turks
   came, besieged and captured Constantinople (A. D. 1453) and
   spread over the country which they now occupy. For the next
   two centuries the Venetians were at war with the Turks
   —defending Christendom in the Mediterranean with little help.
   At the same time they had to encounter an almost fatal attack
   from Christian princes who had become jealous of their
   formidable wealth and power and who united against the
   republic in the League of Cambrai.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509 (page 3611).

   They might have recovered from this attack, for they still
   held the Mediterranean trade; but a great event had occurred,
   just ten years before the League of Cambrai, which was more
   fatal than war, not to Venice alone, but to most of her rivals
   in trade as well. This was the discovery, by Vasco da Gama, of
   the ocean passage to the Eastern world around the Cape of Good
   Hope. The toiling traffic of desert caravans, to Alexandria,
   to Constantinople, to Tyre, Antioch, Ephesus and Erzeroum, was
   soon reduced to insignificance. The rich trade of the Indies
   and of all the farther East—the trade of the silk countries
   and the cotton countries, of the spice islands, of the pearl
   fisheries, of the lands of ivory, of ebony, of gold, of
   precious stones, of fragrant gums, of curious things and
   curious arts—was quickly swept into a different course—into
   broader seas than the Mediterranean and into new hands.

{3709}


COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Northern Europe.
   The Baltic Cities.
   The Hansa.

   The earliest commercial seaports of northwestern Europe had
   their rise, not on the North Sea, but on the Baltic and the
   straits which enter it. The Northmen of that region were not
   alone in the traffic which grew up there, for the Wends (a
   Slavonic people), who occupied most of the southern shores of
   the Baltic, east of the Elbe, appear to have stoutly rivalled
   them from the first. Biorko, on an island in Lake Maelar,
   Sweden (the inlet upon which Stockholm is situated), was one
   of the first of the seats of commerce at the North. It is
   supposed to have been destroyed about 1008. But the most
   famous was the city of Winet, or Vineta, on the island of
   Usedom, at the mouth of the river Oder. It may not have been
   quite as rich and magnificent a town as some would infer from
   accounts given in early chronicles; but no doubt it was
   remarkable for the age, in that part of the world, and carried
   on a large trade. The Swedes and Danes were the destroyers of
   Vineta, before the middle of the 9th century, and the former
   people are said to have carried away from it great quantities
   of marble, brass and iron work, with which they gave splendor
   to their own newer city of Wisby, then just rising on the
   island of Gothland. The career of Wisby lasted several
   centuries and it was prominent in commerce throughout the
   Middle Ages. All that can be said of that most ancient
   commerce in northern Europe is gathered from sources which are
   uncertain and obscure. It is not until the 12th century that
   much of the real history of trade in the Baltic region opens.
   In 1140 the modern city of Lubeck was founded, on the site of
   a more ancient town, known as Old Lubeck, which is supposed to
   have been a thriving port of trade in its day but which had
   been utterly destroyed by its rivals or enemies. The new
   Lubeck established close relations with the Genoese and soon
   took the lead in the commerce of the north, among a large
   number of enterprising towns which, about that time, came into
   prominence on the northern coast and on the rivers which run
   to it. The city of Hamburg, on the Elbe, lying inland and not
   very distant from Lubeck, was one of the earliest of these.
   Like Lubeck, it had suffered destruction, in the constant
   warfare of the earlier time, and had made a new beginning of
   existence about 1013. Hamburg had access to the North Sea by
   the Elbe and Lubeck to the Baltic by the Trave. Trading in
   different directions, therefore, by sea, they carried on an
   active traffic with one another, across the narrow stretch of
   land which divides them,—as they still do to this day. But
   this inland commerce was greatly disturbed by robbers who
   infested the country, until the two cities, Lubeck and
   Hamburg, in 1241, agreed to establish and support in common a
   body of soldiers for the protection of their merchants. That
   agreement is believed to have been the beginning of a
   wide-spread union which afterwards took shape among the
   commercial cities of northern Europe, and which became
   powerful and famous in the later history of the Middle Ages,
   under the name of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS: (pages 1624-1626),
      and (in this Supplement) GERMANY, 13-15th,
      and 15-17th CENTURIES.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Frisians and Flemings.
   The early Netherlands.

   The two peoples who inhabit the region called the
   Netherlands—a purely Germanic stock in the north (modern
   Holland) and a mixed but largely Celtic population in the
   south (modern Belgium)—have had a history so much in common
   that it cannot well be divided, though they have differed in
   experiences as widely as in character. The struggle with
   nature for a foothold in the lowland itself was harder in the
   north than in the south, and no doubt that is why the Teutonic
   Frisians led the way in industrial training. It was among them
   that the arts of weaving and dyeing were cultivated first to a
   notable excellence. As early as the age of Charlemagne (8-9th
   centuries), Frisian robes, of white and purple woolen stuffs,
   are mentioned among the choice gifts which the Emperor
   sometimes sent to foreign princes, and even to the great
   caliph, Haroun al Raschid. In the 9th century, Frisian weavers
   are said to have been persuaded by an enterprising count of
   Flanders to settle in his dominions, at Ghent, and introduce
   there a better knowledge of their art. But if the Flemish
   people borrowed from the Frisians in this matter, they soon
   outran their teachers and made the loom their own peculiar
   property. The shuttle, ere long, was in the hands of a very
   large part of the whole south Netherland or Belgian
   population, and they became almost a nation of weavers. The
   same Count Baldwin of Flanders who brought the Frisian weavers
   into Ghent established annual markets, or fairs, in various
   towns, which drew merchants from abroad, promoted trade and
   stimulated manufacturing industries throughout the country.
   Woolen, linen, and finally silk looms multiplied to a
   prodigious extent, and the weavers in all these branches
   acquired remarkable skill. The working of metals was also
   learned with great aptness, and Flemish cutlery, weapons and
   armor became very nearly as renowned as those of Milan and
   Damascus. Tanning was another valuable art which the Flemings
   and their Netherland neighbors cultivated, and the tilling of
   the soil was so industriously pursued that flax, hemp, grain
   and other farm products were raised quite abundantly for sale
   abroad. In the north Netherlands—the Hollow-land of the sturdy
   "Free Frisians" and Batavians, who were afterwards called the
   Dutch—the hard working energy of the people had been pushed in
   some different directions. The old trade of weaving was still
   vigorously carried on, in nearly every important town, and
   Dutch woolens, damask linens, carpets, velvets, etc., were
   largely produced and widely sought after; but this industry
   was never so prominent as it became in the Belgian provinces.
   The fortunes of the Hollanders were founded to a large extent
   upon their fisheries, and especially the herring fishery,
   which assumed great importance in their hands after the middle
   of the 12th century. Before that time, they appear to have
   been obliged to seek the herring in other waters than their
   own—along the shores of England, Scotland and Norway. But some
   change in the movements of those curiously swarming fish, about
   the time above mentioned, brought great shoals of them to the
   Dutch coast, and the herring harvest thereafter was a rich
   source of gain to the Hollanders.
{3710}
   They discovered some secrets of salting or curing the fish
   which were very much valued, and the Dutch herring were
   eagerly bought for all parts of Europe. The making of pottery
   was another industry to which the Dutch applied themselves
   with success, and particularly at the town of Delft, which
   gave its name for many centuries to the common earthenware
   used in western Europe. In dairy farming and skilful
   horticulture, or gardening, the Hollanders were superior to
   all other people at an early time. Wherever sea-fisheries are
   extensive, sailors and ship builders are trained and ocean
   navigation and commerce are sure, in time, to be prosperously
   pursued. It was so with the Dutch. Their Frisian ancestors had
   suffered so much on their coasts from the harassing raids of
   the Norse pirates, or Vikings, that they did not figure very
   early in seafaring enterprise. But they fought the
   free-booters in their stubborn and stout-hearted way and were
   able at last to make the harbors of their coast tolerably
   safe. From that time the seaport towns of Holland grew
   rapidly, and Dutch merchants and merchant ships, trading with
   the cities of the Baltic, with England and with Flanders and
   France increased in number. The Hollanders had an advantage in
   this matter over their Flemish neighbors of the South
   Netherlands. They were provided with better harbors and they
   held the outlets of the great rivers in their hands. This
   latter was the cause of incessant quarrels between the two
   peoples. The 15th century found the whole Netherlands, both
   north and south, in a thriving state, so far as industry and
   trade were concerned, notwithstanding bad government and
   disorderly times. The people were counted among the richest in
   Europe. Many great and wealthy cities had grown up, containing
   large populations and very busy ones. In the north, there were
   Dordrecht or Dort, Hoorn, Zierikzee, Haarlem, Delft, Leyden,
   Deventer, Enkhuizen, Middelburg, Nimeguen, Utrecht, Rotterdam,
   and Amsterdam, which last named city eclipsed them all in the
   end, though it was one of the latest to rise. In the south
   there was Ghent, with forty thousand weavers inside its strong
   walls, who were always as ready to string the bow as to throw
   the shuttle, and whose hot-tempered revolts against tyranny
   and wrong are among the most exciting incidents of history.
   There was Bruges, which became for a time the great emporium
   of the commerce of northern and southern Europe, but which
   lost its importance before the 15th century closed. There was
   Antwerp, which succeeded to the trade of Bruges and rose to
   unrivalled rank; and there were Lille, Mechlin (or Malines),
   Courtrai, Ypres, Louvain, and other towns, all centers of
   flourishing manufactures, chiefly those of the loom.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Trade Routes, west and north from the Mediterranean.

   "The connection between the two great divisions of European
   commerce, the northern including the Hansa and the Flemish
   towns, and the southern the Italian republics and
   Mediterranean ports, was effected by two chief routes. One was
   by sea from the Mediterranean through the Straits of
   Gibraltar, up the coasts of Spain and France to Flanders. This
   route was used more by the southern, and especially by
   Venetian, merchants than by the northern traders, for … Venice
   sent every year a large fleet to Flanders and the English
   Channel, which fleet would meet at Bruges, the great Hansa
   depot, the most important merchants of North Europe and the
   Hansa traders. Bruges was indeed for a long time the central
   mart in the north for the commercial world, till 1482, when
   the canal connecting it with the port of Sluys was blocked up.
   But at Bruges also the maritime trade just mentioned met the
   overland trade through central Europe, a trade that was very
   important, and which enriched many a city upon the Rhine and
   farther south, from Augsburg to Cologne. We must consider this
   overland route more carefully. The great centre from which it
   started, or to which it tended, was Venice, where as we know
   were collected most of the products of the East, coming both
   via Egypt and via the lands round the Black Sea. … Starting …
   from Venice, the merchants used to cross the Alps by the
   Brenner or Julier Passes, and then would make for the Upper
   Danube or one of its tributaries, and thence get on to the
   stream of the Rhine. Their object was generally to utilise a
   natural waterway wherever possible, rather in contrast to the
   old Roman traders, who preferred the roads. But the roads of
   the Middle Ages were far inferior to the old Roman highways.
   One of the first great cities which the mediæval trader passed
   on this route, coming from Venice, was Augsburg. … Thence he
   might go down the stream to Regensburg (Ratisbon) and Vienna;
   or he might go up to Ulm and then make a short land journey
   till he reached the Rhine, and so right away down that
   convenient stream. This was perhaps the main route from north
   to south. But many others converged from central Europe to
   Italy, and many important cities owed their wealth to the
   stream of trade. In Karl the Great's time the cities on the
   great waterway to the East along the Danube became very
   flourishing; Regensburg, Passau, and Vienna being the most
   important. From Regensburg there ran north and west two great
   commercial highways into the interior of Germany, one by way
   of Nürnberg and Erfurt and the other past Nürnberg to the
   Rhine. Another route from Regensburg, by river, to Trentschin
   on the river Waag took its merchants through Galicia into
   Russia, whither they went as far as Kief, the centre of
   Russian trade. Along this great waterway of the Danube and its
   tributaries came the products of the East from Constantinople
   and the Black Sea. … Another important route was that from the
   cities of the Rhine, such as Coblenz and Basle, up that river
   and on to Chur and then by the Julier Pass and the Engadine
   and the Etschthal to Venice; or again, after passing Chur,
   through the Septimer Pass and the Bergeller Thal to Genoa.
   These Rhine cities were very flourishing, from Basle to
   Cologne. … Like most trading towns in the Middle Ages, the
   Rhine cities were compelled to form themselves into a
   confederacy to resist the robbery and extortions of feudal
   nobles, whose only idea of trade seems to have been that it
   providentially existed as a source of plunder to themselves.
   But besides this Confederacy of the Rhine there was another
   great Confederacy of the Swabian cities, arising from the same
   causes. … That of the Rhine included ninety cities, and
   existed in a fully organised form in 1255.
{3711}
   The Swabian Confederacy was formed a little later, about 1300
   or 1350, under the leadership of Augsburg, Ulm, and Nürnberg,
   and was in close political and commercial relations both with
   Venice and Genoa. … If now we turn from trade routes in Europe
   itself to those which led to Europe from the East, we find
   that at the time of which we are now speaking there were three
   main streams of commerce. In the 12th century the caravan
   trade in Central Asia had passed along several different
   paths; but after the Crusades, and the decline of the Eastern
   empire by the capture of Constantinople (1204), the various
   tribes of Central Asia, rendered more fanatical and warlike
   than ever by these military and religious events, caused
   caravan trading to become very unsafe. The first of the three
   routes which now remained in the 13th century was from India
   and the western coasts of Asia, past Basra on the Persian Gulf
   to Bagdad by water. From Bagdad merchants went, still by
   water, along the Tigris to the point on that river nearest to
   Seleucia and Antioch, and so to Orontes, and then to the coast
   of the Levant. The second route followed the same course as
   the first till the point of leaving the Tigris, and then
   proceeded over the Highlands of Asia Minor and Armenia to the
   port of Trebizond on the Black Sea, where Venetian vessels
   used to meet Asiatic traders. For both these routes Bagdad
   formed a very important centre. … The third route from the far
   East was from India by sea to Aden, then by land across the
   desert to Chus on the Nile, which took nine days, and then
   again by water down the Nile to Cairo, a journey of thirteen
   days. From Cairo there was a canal, 200 miles long, to
   Alexandria, where again Venetian and Genoese merchants were
   ready to receive the rich spices, sugar, perfumes, precious
   stones, gum, oil, cotton, and silk brought from the East."

      _H. de B. Gibbins,
      History of Commerce in Europe,
      book 2, chapter 5._

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
   The English.

   "Whilst the Italians were vigorously pursuing their trade in
   India and Europe, and Spain was renowned for her manufactures;
   whilst the Hanse merchants were extending their factories, and
   Portuguese navigators were bent upon maritime discoveries;
   whilst the Dutch were struggling for independence, and France
   was planting the seeds of her industries; England was only
   known as possessing a few articles of commerce of great value.
   Her wools and her metals were eagerly sought by foreign
   traders, but she had no ships of her own to carry them abroad.
   She had many raw materials, but she produced no manufactures
   for exportation. Nor was her policy respecting foreign trade
   the most wise. The chief concern of the legislature in those
   days seemed to be to prevent foreign nations doing with
   English produce what, after all, the English could not do
   themselves. Again and again the export of wool was prohibited,
   or was hindered by prohibitory duties. … The people regarded
   the introduction of foreigners with the utmost jealousy. They
   resented their competition, they grudged their profits and
   their advantages. The guilds would not admit them as members,
   and it was hard for the poor strangers to establish a footing
   in England, even although Magna Charta had long before
   declared that all merchants shall have safety in coming to or
   going out of England, and in remaining and travelling through
   it, by land or water, for buying or selling, free from any
   grievous imposition. Anyhow, whatever the opposition of cities
   and corporations, the nation was benefited by the foreign
   merchants. Thankful, indeed, might England have been for the
   Lombards, who brought hither money and merchandise, banking
   and insurance; for the Flemings, who, driven by intestine
   dissension, found refuge on British soil, and became the
   founders of the woollen manufacture; and for the Huguenots,
   who brought with them the silk manufacture. … But a new era
   advanced. The discovery of the American continent by Columbus,
   and of a maritime route to India by Vasco da Gama, altered the
   course and character of commerce. Till then trade was
   essentially inland, thenceforth its most conspicuous triumphs
   were to be on the ocean. Till then, the Mediterranean was the
   centre of international trading. From thenceforth the tendency
   of trade was towards the countries bordering on the Atlantic.
   … It was not long … before England followed the lead of Spain
   and Portugal. John Cabot and his sons went in quest of land to
   North America; Drake went to circumnavigate the globe;
   Chancellor sailed up the White Sea to Russia; Willoughby went
   on his ill-fated voyage in search of a north-eastern passage
   to India; Sir Walter Raleigh explored Virginia; the Merchant
   Adventurers pushed their adventures to Spain and Portugal; and
   English ships began to be seen in the Levant. Meanwhile,
   English trade enlarged its sphere, English bravery at sea
   became most conspicuous, and English industry advanced apace."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      2d edition, introduction._

   "In the 14th century the whole of the external, and much of
   the internal, trade of the country had been in the hands of
   foreigners; in the 15th our merchants began to push their way
   from point to point in the Mediterranean and the Baltic; in
   the 16th they followed slowly in the wake of other
   adventurers, or tried to establish themselves in unkindly
   regions which had attracted no one else. When Elizabeth
   ascended the throne England appears to have been behind other
   nations of Western Europe in the very industrial arts and
   commercial enterprise on which her present reputation is
   chiefly based."

      _W. Cunningham,
      Growth of English Industry and Commerce,
      volume 2, page 2._

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
   Trade and Piracy.

   "It would be wrong to infer from the prevalence of piracy at
   this period [the 15th century] that commerce must have
   declined. On the contrary, it was probably the increase of
   commerce, unaccompanied by the growth of adequate means for
   its defence, which made the pirate's calling so profitable.
   Nor was the evil confined to the professional pirate class, if
   we may use the expression. Even recognised associations of
   merchants frequently indulged in practices which can only be
   characterised as piracy. Commerce, in fact, was deeply imbued
   with the spirit of lawlessness, and in these circumstances it
   is probable that the depredations of pirates did not excite
   the same alarm nor discourage trade in the same degree as
   would be the case in more law-abiding times. In the 15th
   century the profession of Christianity and extreme
   respectability were not incompatible with a life of violence
   and outrage, and it is to be feared that in some cases the
   Governments which should have repressed pirates by the
   severest measures, encouraged their depredations.
{3712}
   Certainly they have never enjoyed such immunity from the
   strong arm of the law as in the 15th century. Outrage and
   robbery went on unchecked along the coasts and in the track of
   merchant vessels. No trader was safe even in the rivers and
   ports of his own country. The pirates burnt and sacked towns
   as important as Sandwich and Southampton; they carried off not
   only the goods they could lay their hands on, but men and
   women, and even children, whom they held to ransom. Unable to
   look to the Government for protection of life and property
   while they were engaged in trade, the merchants were thrown
   upon their own resources to provide security. The best method
   of grappling with the pirates, and that which was most
   frequently adopted, was for merchant vessels to sail together
   in such numbers that they could repel attack; and these
   voluntary efforts were sometimes aided by the Government. In
   1406 Henry IV. granted the merchants 3s. on every cask of wine
   imported, and certain payments on Staple exports for purposes
   of defence. Two Admirals were appointed, one for the north and
   the other for the south, with full jurisdiction in maritime
   affairs and power to organise naval forces. But this scheme
   was unsuccessful. A similar expedient was tried in 1453, but
   abandoned two years afterwards. The only satisfactory remedy
   would have been a strong navy, but the conditions necessary
   for this had not yet been realised. The country could not have
   supported the charge of maintaining a strong naval force. …
   That merchants were beginning to realise the importance of the
   subject, and were becoming wealthy enough to build vessels of
   a considerable size, is evident from the operations of John
   Taverner, of Kingston-upon-Hull, and the famous William
   Cannynges of Bristol, the latter of whom is said to have
   possessed 2,470 tons of shipping and some vessels of 900 tons
   burthen."

      _W. A. S. Hewins,
      Industry and Commerce
      (in "Social England," edited by H. D. Traill,
      chapter 7, volume 2)._

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
   The Portuguese, and the finding of the Ocean Way to the Indies.

   It was not by accident that the Portuguese rose all at once,
   in the closing years of the 15th century and the early years
   of the 16th, to a position in which they controlled and
   directed the main current of trade between Europe and the
   Eastern world. The discovery by Vasco da Gama of an ocean
   route to the Indies, and all the results (hereafter
   described), which it yielded to his countrymen for the time,
   were a reward of enterprise which the Portuguese had fully
   earned. They had worked for it, patiently and resolutely,
   through almost a hundred years. The undertaking was begun, at
   about the commencement of the 15th century, by a Portuguese
   prince who ought to enjoy greater fame than if he had
   conquered an empire; because his ambition was nobler and the
   fruits were of higher worth to the world. He was known as
   "Prince Henry the Navigator," and he was the third son of the
   Portuguese King John I. who was called the Great, on account
   of his success in wars with the Castillians and the Moors. But
   this young son, Prince Henry, was much the greater man of the
   two. He could not endure the ignorance of his time with regard
   to the mysterious ocean that stretched westward and southward
   from the shores of the little country which his father ruled.
   He was bent on knowing more about it; and he was specially
   bent on having the Portuguese sailors make their way down the
   shores of the African continent, to learn where it ended and
   what track to the farther side might be found. Beyond Cape
   Nun, at the southern extremity of the modern empire of
   Morocco, nothing was known of the western coast of Africa when
   Prince Henry began his work. The Phœnicians and Carthaginians,
   two thousand years earlier, had probably known more about it;
   but their knowledge was lost. Prince Henry studied everything
   that could give him light and became well convinced that round
   the continent of Africa there was a way to the Indies for bold
   sailors to find. Then he applied himself, with a zeal which
   never flagged, to the working out of that achievement. He was
   a young man when he began, and during more than forty years of
   his life he devoted his time and his means almost wholly to
   the fitting out and directing of exploring ships and he fixed
   his residence upon the most southerly promontory of Portugal,
   to watch their going and coming. But the art of navigation was
   so little understood and the navigators were so timid, that
   slow progress was made. Each explorer only ventured a little
   farther than the one before him; and so they went feeling
   their way, league by league, down the African coast. The
   forty-three years of Prince Henry's endeavors were consumed in
   reaching what is now the settlement of Sierra Leone, near the
   head of the gulf of Guinea. But even this added more than a
   thousand miles of the western coast of Africa to the maps of
   the 15th century and was a greater advance in geographical
   knowledge than had been made since Carthage fell. Before he
   died (A. D. 1460), Prince Henry secured from the Pope (who was
   supposed to have the giving of all heathen countries) a grant
   to Portugal of all these discoveries, both island and
   mainland, and of all which the Portuguese explorers might make
   in the future, between Europe and India. So he died well
   content, let us hope, with the work which he had done for his
   country and for mankind. The enthusiasm for exploration which
   Prince Henry had awakened in Portugal did not die with him,
   though his efforts had met with unending opposition and
   excited very much discontent. Repeated expeditions were still
   sent down the African coast, and they crept farther and
   farther toward the goal of desire. At last, in 1486,
   Bartholomew Diaz, with three ships, actually rounded the Cape
   of Good Hope without knowing it, and only learned the fact
   when he turned backward from his voyage, discouraged by
   storms. Eleven years later, Vasco da Gama set out, fired with
   fresh determination, by the great discovery of a new world
   which Columbus had so lately made for Spain, and this time
   there was no failure. He passed the Cape, sailed up the
   eastern shores of the African continent to Melinda, in
   Zanguebar, and thence across the Indian Ocean to Calicut in
   Hindostan. The ocean route to India was now fully proved; the
   new era was opened and its grand prize plucked by the
   Portuguese—thanks to Prince Henry the Navigator.

      See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460
      and 1463-1498 (pages 2571-2573).

{3713}

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   New Routes and New Marts.

   There is nothing at all imaginary in the line which is drawn
   in history across the later years of the 15th and the early
   years of the 16th century, to mark the beginning of a new era
   in human affairs. It is a line very real and very distinct,
   dividing one state of things, known as the mediæval, from
   another state of things, known as the modern. It was fixed by
   the occurrence of a series of extraordinary events, which came
   quickly, one after the other, and which brought about, either
   singly or together, the most tremendous changes, in many ways,
   that ever happened to the world in the same space of time. The
   first of these was the invention of printing, which dates as a
   practical art from about 1454. The second was the discovery of
   the new world by Columbus, A. D. 1492. The third was the
   passage around the Cape of Good Hope by the Portuguese
   navigator, Vasco da Gama, A. D. 1497. The fourth was the
   religious reformation set in motion by Martin Luther, at
   Wittenberg, A. D. 1517. The combined effect of these great
   events was to make really a new starting point in almost every
   particular of human history, and to do so very quickly. The
   commercial changes which resulted are among the most
   remarkable. No sooner had the route by sea to southern and
   eastern Asia and the islands of the Indian ocean been found,
   than almost the whole traffic of Europe with that rich eastern
   world abandoned its ancient channels and ran into the new one.
   There were several strong reasons for this. In the first
   place, it cost less to bring goods by ship from India, Ceylon
   or China direct to European ports, than to carry them over
   long distances by land to the eastern shores of the
   Mediterranean and there ship them to the West. In the second
   place, by taking its new route, this commerce escaped the
   Moorish pirates in the Mediterranean, who had long been very
   troublesome. And, lastly, but not least in importance, the
   European merchants gained a great advantage in becoming able
   to deal directly with the East Indians and the Chinese,
   instead of trading at second hand with them, through Arabs and
   Mahometan Turks, who controlled the Asiatic and African
   routes. So the commerce of the Indies, as it was generally
   called, fled suddenly away from the Mediterranean to the
   Atlantic; fled away from the Venetians, the Genoese, the
   Marseillaise, and the Barcelonians; from Constantinople,
   lately conquered by the Turks; from Antioch and Alexandria;
   and from many cities of the Hansa League in the north, which
   had learned the old ways of traffic and were slow to learn
   anything new. Soon many of the great marts which had been
   busiest, grew silent and deserted and fell into slow decay.
   The most enriching commerce of the world was passing to
   different hands and bringing younger races into the front of
   history.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Portuguese in the lead.

   Having found the way to India by sea, the Portuguese were
   prompt in taking measures to make themselves strong in that
   part of the world and to control the trade with it. They were
   helped in this effort by the grant of imagined rights which
   Prince Henry had obtained from the Pope, long before. But they
   strengthened the rights which the Pope gave them, by the older
   fashioned methods of conquest and possession. They began at
   once to plant themselves firmly at important points in the
   eastern seas and on the Indian coast. They sent out one of
   their ablest military men, Francesco d'Almeida, with a strong
   force of ships and volunteers, and appointed him Viceroy of
   India. He took possession of several parts of the Malabar
   coast (the western coast of the southern extremity of
   Hindostan) and built forts in which garrisons were placed. He
   similarly established the Portuguese power in Ceylon, took
   possession of the Maldive Islands and founded trading
   settlements in Sumatra. The Venetians, who saw that their
   ancient trade with the East was doomed unless this new rivalry
   could be crushed, now joined their Mahometan allies of Egypt
   in a great effort to drive the Portuguese back. A formidable
   fleet was fitted out on the Red Sea and sent against Almeida.
   He was unfortunate in his first encounter with these allied
   enemies and lost the squadron that opposed them. But the
   resolute viceroy was undaunted. Recalled from his command, he
   refused to give it up until he had equipped and led another
   fleet against the navy of the Egyptians and completely
   destroyed it. The successor of Almeida, as viceroy of India,
   was a remarkable personage who is known in the annals of his
   time as "the great Afonso D'Albuquerque." The chronicle of his
   exploits in Africa and India, compiled by his son from his own
   letters and records, and entitled "The commentaries of the
   great Afonso D'Albuquerque," has been translated into English
   and published by the Hakluyt Society. He was a remarkably
   energetic commander, and very honest in his way, according to
   the notions of his time; but he did the work of subjugation
   and conquest which he was sent to do in a cruel and rapacious
   style. He was not rapacious on his own account; but he saw no
   wrong in anything done for the profit of his country. In the
   course of seven years he spread the Portuguese power so widely
   and fixed it so firmly on the East Indian coasts and in the
   neighboring seas that there was hardly an attempt for many
   years to disturb it. None but Portuguese ships dared enter the
   Indian ocean without special permits, and the few which
   received admission were forbidden to trade in spices—the most
   precious merchandise of the region. From the Indies the
   Portuguese made their way to the coasts of China and put
   themselves on friendly terms with its people. They were
   permitted to occupy the port of Macao and have possessed it
   ever since. Some years later they discovered the islands of
   Japan and opened the earliest European commerce with that
   singular country. So they held for a time the complete mastery
   of eastern trade and enlarged it to greater bounds than it had
   ever reached before. But they were satisfied with keeping the
   sources of the supply of eastern goods to Europe in their own
   hands. The first handling of the commodities was all that they
   tried to control. They brought to Lisbon the spices, silks,
   cotton, pearls, ivory, sugar, aromatic drugs and the like,
   which their ships and merchants gathered up, and there sold
   them to other traders, Dutch, English and German for the most
   part, who found the final markets for them and who enjoyed a
   good half of the profits of the trade. These latter derived
   great advantages from the arrangements—much more than they had
   gained in their trading with Genoa and Venice—and the commerce
   of Holland and England grew rapidly as the result.
{3714}
   But the glory and prosperity of the Portuguese, as masters of
   the rich traffic of the eastern world, were not of long
   duration. Before the 16th century closed, they had lost the
   footholds of their power and were slipping into the background
   very fast. By misfortunes and by folly combined, all the
   fruits of the patient wisdom of Prince Henry, the persevering
   courage of Vasco da Gama, the bold energy of Almeida, and the
   restless enterprise of Albuquerque, were torn out of their
   hands. Almost from the first, a greedy and jealous court had
   done all that could be done to destroy the grand opportunities
   in trade which the country had gained. Private enterprise was
   discouraged; the crown claimed exclusive rights over large
   parts of the commerce opened up, and these rights were sold,
   given to favorites and dealt with in many ways that are
   ruinous to successful trade. Royal jealousy sent three
   viceroys to divide among them the government of the Portuguese
   possessions in the East, when there should have been but one,
   and the same jealousy kept these vice-royalties ever changing.
   Of course, there was nowhere good government nor thrifty
   management of trade. In the midst of this bad state of things,
   the royal family of Portugal died out, in 1580, and Philip II.
   of Spain set up claims to the crown which he was strong enough
   to make good. Portugal thus became joined to Spain, for the
   next sixty years, and was dragged into Philip's wicked war
   with the Netherlands. Her Spanish masters did what they could
   to draw her trade away from Lisbon to Cadiz and Seville. The
   Dutch and English, her former customers and friends, made
   enemies now by Philip of Spain, pushed their way into the
   eastern seas, defying the mandates of the Pope, and broke down
   her supremacy there. When the Portuguese, in 1640, threw off
   the Spanish yoke and asserted their independence again,
   calling a prince of the house of Braganza to the throne, there
   was not much left of their former power or their former trade.
   They still held Goa, on the western coast of Hindostan, and
   the Chinese port of Macao—as they do to the present day; and
   they retained, as they still do, considerable possessions in
   Africa. But their brief importance in navigation, in
   colonization and trade, was quite gone and they dropped back
   to a humble position in the history of the world. Even the
   management of their home trade with other countries fell
   mostly, after a time, into the hands of the English, who
   became their special allies and friends.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Spaniards.

   While the Portuguese were pursuing glory and gain in the track
   of Vasco da Gama, which led them south and east, the Spaniards
   were doing the same in the wake of the three little ships
   which Columbus, with a bolder hand, had steered westward, to
   strange shores which he never dreamed of finding. These newly
   opened regions of the globe, in the Atlantic and on both sides
   of it, were divided between the two nations by the Pope, and
   it was a bold matter in those days to dispute his right. He
   gave to the Spaniards all islands and countries found west of
   a meridian line drawn 27½° west of the island of Ferro, in the
   Canary group. This nearly corresponds with the meridian 45½°
   west of Greenwich. To the Portuguese he assigned all
   discoveries east of it. So they both went on their appointed
   ways, with pious hearts and untroubled consciences, busily
   hunting for heathen lands to seize and despoil. But the
   eastern field, in which the Portuguese did most of their work,
   was one where commerce was old and where something of Europe
   and its people was already known. They were forced to look
   upon trade as the chief object of their pursuit. With the
   Spaniards the case was different. They found their way to a
   quarter of the world which Europe had never heard of and came
   upon people who never saw the faces of white men until then.
   These strange races of the new world were some of them quite
   as civilized, in certain respects, as the Spaniards who
   invaded them, and even more so, it would seem, in their
   notions of truth and in the refinement of their manners and
   modes of life. But they were simple and unsuspecting; they
   were not warlike in disposition and they were rudely and
   poorly armed. So the mail-clad cavaliers of Spain crushed them
   into helpless slavery with perfect ease. From the islands of
   the West Indies, which they discovered and occupied first, the
   Spaniards had soon made their way to the shores of the two
   continents of America, North and South. They found cities and
   nations which astonished them by their splendor and wealth and
   set them wild with greedy desires. Europe looked poor in
   comparison with the shining wealth of Mexico and Peru. The
   Spaniards went mad with the lust of gold. They lost human
   feeling and common sense in their greediness to grasp the
   metal treasures of the new world. They were indifferent to the
   more precious and abounding products that it offered, and
   neglected to build up the great commerce which might have
   filled their hands with lasting riches. They made the old
   fable of the goose which laid golden eggs a piece of real
   history. They killed the goose; they destroyed their source of
   wealth in Peru and Mexico by their eager extortions. Of true
   commerce between the old world and the new there was little
   while the Spaniards controlled it. They did, in the course of
   time, ship considerable quantities of sugar, tobacco, hides,
   logwood, indigo, cochineal, cocoa, cinchona, or Peruvian bark
   (from which quinine is extracted) and other American products,
   from their various colonies; but to no such extent as a wise
   and enterprising people would have done, having the same
   opportunities. Once a year, or once in two years, a fleet of
   ships was sent from Seville, at first, and afterwards from
   Cadiz, to Vera Cruz, for freights from Mexico, and another to
   Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Panama, for the South American
   freights. The ships which made the latter voyage were
   distinguished from the Mexican fleet by being called the
   galleons. For a long time, twelve galleons in the one squadron
   and fifteen ships in the other, making their voyage once a
   year, and sometimes only every other year, conveyed all the
   trade that passed between Spain and America; which shows how
   little the Spaniards drew from their great possessions, except
   the enormous treasure of silver and gold which a few ships
   could transport. This glittering treasure formed, in fact, the
   main cargo of the Peruvian galleons and the Mexican fleet.
   Before the close of the reign of Philip II. the number of
   galleons was increased to about forty and that of the fleet to
   fifty or sixty.
{3715}
   It is quite certain that no country had ever before received
   such a quantity of gold and silver as came into Spain during
   the 16th century. Instead of enriching, it ruined the nation.
   Neither rulers nor people had sense enough to see what a
   treacherous and delusive kind of wealth it formed, if trusted
   to alone. They vainly fancied that, with such a store of
   precious metals to draw upon, they could afford to despise the
   homely labors by which other people lived. With such mad
   notions as these, the honest industries of Spain were treated
   with neglect or worse. Her trade with neighboring countries
   was looked upon as a business too insignificant for Spaniards
   to care for or trouble themselves about. It was mostly given
   over to the Dutch and Flemings, while they remained under
   Spanish rule, and it was afterwards kept up in great part by
   smugglers, Dutch and English. Agriculture decayed, and its
   destruction was helped by the formation of a great
   aristocratic company of sheep-farmers, called the Mesta, to
   which such tyrannical rights and privileges were given by the
   crown that the most fertile parts of Spain were finally turned
   into sheep-pasture, under its control. The best artisans and
   the most enterprising merchants of the kingdom were driven
   out, because they were Moors and Jews, or they were burned for
   Christian beliefs which the Church did not approve. The
   Inquisition was so busy, with its racks and its fires, that no
   other business could thrive. Every kind of production
   dwindled, and for the supplying of all descriptions of wants
   the Spaniards were soon driven to look to other countries. The
   few who laid hands upon the riches coming in from the plunder
   of America spent it recklessly, in extravagant ways, while
   costly foreign wars which had no success, and plots in France
   and England which came to nothing, drained the coffers of the
   king. And thus the great stream of gold and silver which
   flowed into Spain from the new world ran out of it quite as
   fast, until nearly every other country in Europe held more of
   it than Spain herself. The strong hand with which the
   Spaniards were able at first, and for some time, to hold the
   vast domain of sea and land which the Pope had given them and
   which their own sailors and soldiers had explored and seized,
   grew weak before the end of a hundred years after the
   memorable voyage of Columbus was made. The hardy Dutch, driven
   to revolt and enmity by tyrannical government and by cruel
   religious persecutions, attacked them everywhere, in the
   eastern and western world. The English, just beginning to grow
   ambitious and bold on the ocean, and constantly threatened by
   the armadas of Spain, did the same. But these were not the
   only enemies who harassed the Spanish colonies and fleets. In
   a general way, the whole world went to war with the insolent
   nation which claimed the lordship of the earth. There came
   into existence, in the 17th century, a powerful organization
   of pirates or freebooters, made up of daring men of all
   nations, who carried on for many years a villainous warfare of
   their own against the Spaniards at sea and against their
   American settlements. These Buccaneers, as they were called,
   gained strongholds in several islands of the West Indies, from
   which the Spaniards were not able to dislodge them. Under the
   attacks of all these enemies, combined with her own
   misgovernment and her contempt and abuse of thrifty industries
   and fair trade—which no people can neglect without ruin—Spain
   steadily and rapidly sank.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Flemings and the Dutch.

   In the first half of the 16th century, the people of the
   Netherlands were the tolerably contented subjects of that
   famous monarch, the Emperor Charles V., who ruled in Spain, in
   Naples, in Germany (the old Empire), and in Burgundy, as well
   as in the Lowland principalities, Flanders, Holland, and the
   rest. They were already very prosperous, working hard at many
   callings, trading shrewdly and busily with the rest of the
   world, and diligently picking up all kinds of knowledge
   everywhere. In the southern provinces (which we may call the
   Belgian, because they are mostly now embraced in the modern
   kingdom of Belgium) the chief industries were those of the
   loom, in all branches of weaving; and in skilful workmanship
   of every kind the people were tasteful and apt. These
   provinces were the seat of a much greater and more general
   activity in manufactures than appeared in the states to the
   north of them (which we will call the Dutch states, without
   distinction, because they are now included in the kingdom of
   Holland). The latter were more extensively employed in
   fisheries, in navigation and in ship building, although most
   kinds of industry, manufacturing and agricultural, were
   thriftily and successfully carried on. At the time when
   Charles V. ruled the Netherlands, the city of Antwerp, in the
   Belgian circle of provinces, was the great metropolis of
   Netherland trade. It was much more than that. It was the
   foremost commercial capital of the world. The traffic which
   slipped away from Venice and Genoa, had fixed its central seat
   in this younger town on the Scheldt. It was sure to plant its
   new emporium somewhere in the Netherlands, because there was
   nowhere else in Europe so much energy, so much enterprise, so
   much industry, so much commercial wisdom, so much activity of
   domestic trade. Spain and Portugal held the wealth of the
   Indies and the Americas in their hands, but we have seen how
   incapable they were of using the commercial advantage it gave
   them. Lisbon, Cadiz and Seville were only depots for the
   transfer of merchandise; it was impossible to make them real
   capitals of trade, because they could not and would not
   furnish either the spirit, or the genius, or the organized
   agencies that it demands. The Netherlands, with their long
   schooling in commerce upon a smaller scale, were ready to meet
   every requirement when the new era opened and gave them their
   greater chance. There was no other mercantile organization so
   well prepared. The league of the Hansa Towns was breaking and
   failing; the English were just beginning to show their
   aptitude for manufactures and trade. Some one of the
   Netherland cities was sure to win the sovereignty in
   commercial affairs which Venice gave up, and Antwerp proved
   the winner, for a time. During most of the 16th century, it
   was the business center of Europe. It was the gathering-place
   of the merchants and the seat of the money-changers and
   bankers. Two and three thousand ships were often crowded in
   its harbor, at one time. It distributed the merchandise of the
   East and West Indies, which it took from Portugal and Spain,
   and the manifold wares of the many manufacturing towns of
   Flanders, Brabant, southern Germany, to a great extent, and
   northern France.
{3716}
   At the same time, its own looms, anvils, tanneries,
   glass-works, dyeing-vats and mechanic shops of various kinds
   were numerous and busy. Its thriving population was rapidly
   increased, for it welcomed all who came with skill or
   knowledge or money or strong hands to take part in its work.
   Such was Antwerp during the reign of Charles V., and at the
   time (A. D. 1555-1556) when that weary monarch gave up his
   many crowns to his evil son, Philip II. of Spain, and went
   away to a Spanish monastery to seek for rest. The government
   of Charles in the Netherlands had been hard and heavy, but the
   people were left free enough to prosper and to grow
   intelligent and strong. Under Philip the prospect changed. The
   story of his malignant persecutions and oppressions, of the
   revolt to which they drove the Netherland provinces, of the
   long, merciless war in which he strove to ruin or subdue them,
   of the independence which the Dutch provinces achieved and the
   prosperous career on which they entered, is told in another
   place.

      See NETHERLANDS (page 2256, and after).

   Antwerp, the great capital of trade, stood foremost in the
   struggle, as became its greatness, and it suffered
   correspondingly. The death-blow to its fortunes was given in
   1585, when, after a siege that is almost unexampled, it was
   taken by the Spaniards under Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma,
   and given up to pillage and slaughter. Its surviving
   inhabitants fled in large numbers, the greater part of them to
   Holland, some to England, and some to other countries.
   Commerce abandoned the port. The chief merchants who had made
   it the center of their undertakings chose Amsterdam for their
   future seat of business, and that city rose at once to the
   commercial rank of which Antwerp had been stripped by the
   stupid malice of its Spanish sovereign. While the Belgian
   Netherlands fell hopelessly under the fatal despotism of
   Spain, the Dutch Netherlands fought their way slowly to
   independence, which Spain was forced to acknowledge in 1648.
   But long before that time the Dutch Republic had become a
   power in Europe—much greater in every way than Spain. Its
   foundations had been laid by the union of the seven provinces
   of Holland, Zealand, Friesland, Utrecht, Groningen, Overyssel
   and Gelderland. It had grown firmer and stronger year by year,
   and the people, after a time, had not only found themselves
   able to thrive generally in the midst of their desperate war
   with Spain, but the war itself opened their way to wealth and
   power. They learned, early, as we have seen, that they could
   attack their enemy to the best advantage at sea. In pursuing
   this ocean warfare they were led on to the East and West
   Indies, and soon broke, in both regions, the exclusive power
   which the Spanish and Portuguese had held. When Portugal was
   dragged into a fatal union with Spain, under Philip II., it
   had to suffer the consequences of Philip's wars, and it bore
   more than its share of the suffering. The Dutch and the
   English forced their way pretty nearly together into the
   eastern seas, and, between them, the Portuguese were mostly
   driven out. They divided the rich commerce of that great
   Asiatic and Oceanic region, and, for a time, the most
   lucrative part of it was gained by the Dutch. While the
   English got their footing on the coasts of Hindostan and were
   laying the foundations of their future empire in India, the
   Dutch gained control of the spice-growing islands, which, in
   that day, were the richer commercial prize. The first Dutch
   fleet that rounded the Cape of Good Hope and made its way into
   East Indian waters, sailed under the command of one Cornelius
   Houtmann, who had been in the service of the Portuguese and
   learned the route. He started in 1595 with four ships and
   returned, after a voyage of eighteen months, with only two. He
   had lost more than half his men, and he brought back very
   little cargo to pay for the adventurous undertaking. But the
   Dutch were well satisfied with the experiment; they knew that
   more experience would lead to better success. Another fleet of
   eight ships was sent out in 1598 and when four of them
   returned the next year with a precious cargo of spices and
   other merchandise from Java, which they had procured very
   cheaply in exchange for the cloths, the metal wares and the
   trinkets that they took out, the delight of the nation can
   hardly be described. Part of the fleet had remained in the
   East to hold and strengthen the position they had gained, and
   other ships were sent speedily to join them. Very soon the
   armed merchantmen of the Dutch were thickly swarming in that
   part of the world, ready for fight or for trade, as the case
   might be. So many companies of merchants became engaged in the
   business that too lively competition between them occurred and
   they threatened to ruin one another. But that danger was
   overcome in 1602 by joining the rival interests together in
   one strong association, to which the government gave exclusive
   rights of trade in the East. Thus the Dutch East India Company
   was formed, in which the merchants of Amsterdam, Rotterdam,
   Delft and other cities of the republic put their capital
   together. By its charter, this great company held powers of
   war as well as of commerce and it used them both with
   prodigious energy. At first, the chief trading stations of the
   Dutch in the East were at Bantam, in Java, and Amboyna, one of
   the group of the Moluccas or Spice Islands; but the city of
   Batavia, which they founded in Java in 1619, became afterwards
   their principal seat of trade and the capital of their
   surrounding possessions. The chief aim of the Dutch was to
   gather into their hands the profitable commerce of the island
   world of the Eastern Archipelago, but they did not fail to
   pursue their Spanish and Portuguese enemies in other quarters,
   where the chances of traffic looked inviting. They seized
   positions on the Guinea coast of western Africa and took their
   full share of the trade with its savage natives, who gave gold
   dust, ivory, ebony, gums, wax, ginger, pepper, palm oil,
   various choice kinds of wood, and slaves (for the West Indies
   and America, when the plantations there began to want labor),
   in exchange for trinkets and cheap goods. They also occupied
   and colonized the Cape of Good Hope, which the Portuguese had
   neglected, and made it, in time, a very prosperous and
   valuable possession. That they should carry their war with
   Spain into the West Indies and to the American coasts, was a
   matter of course. In 1623 a Dutch West India Company was
   chartered, to organize these operations in the western world,
   as the East India Company had organized undertakings in
   the East.
{3717}
   But the West India Company was much less commercial and much
   more warlike in its aims than the corporation of the orient.
   Its first object was to take spoils from the enemy, and it
   found the prizes of war so rich that not much else was thought
   of. On the North American continent, a most important lodgment
   was made, as early as 1614, at the mouth of the Hudson River,
   where the colony of New Netherland was founded. In this
   quarter, as everywhere, the Dutch and English were rivals, and
   before many years they came to open war. In the series of wars
   which followed (1652, 1665, 1672), and in the long contest
   with Louis XIV. of France which they shared with England, the
   Dutch expended more of their energies than they could afford.
   The English, with their well protected island, rich in soil
   and in minerals, had heavy advantages on their side, when once
   they had acquired the knowledge of commerce and the ability in
   labor which enabled them to compete with the Dutch. To the
   latter nature had always been wholly unfriendly. They had
   fought against circumstances at every step in their history,
   and had won their wealth, their knowledge, their high
   importance and influence in the world, by sheer hard work,
   tireless patience and indomitable will. But the natural
   advantages against which they struggled were sure to overcome
   them in the end. It must be said, too, that they did not grow
   in character as their fortunes rose. It is not difficult,
   therefore, to account for the fact that the Dutch nation
   slowly slipped back, during the 18th century, from the high
   and leading position in civilization to which it had climbed,
   and lost by degrees its commercial supremacy, while the
   English nation came to the front.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The English:
   16-17th Centuries.
   Commercial progress.
   The East India Company.

   As English commerce slowly freed itself from foreign hands, it
   fell under the control of monopolies at home. The merchants of
   the Middle Ages, in England and elsewhere, had formed
   themselves into societies, or guilds, just as the artisans and
   mechanics in different trades had done. Such associations had
   originally grown out of the disorderly state of the times,
   when government and law were weak, and when men who had common
   interests were forced to unite to protect themselves, and to
   establish customs and rules for regulating their business
   affairs. But the guilds almost always became, in time,
   oppressive monopolies, each acquiring, in its own department
   of business, such exclusive rights and privileges as
   practically shut out from that business all persons not
   admitted to its membership. This occurred among the merchants,
   as it did elsewhere, and English commerce grew up under the
   control of various societies of "Merchant Adventurers," as
   they were called.

      See MERCHANT ADVENTURERS (page 2153).

   The disputes and contests of these companies, at home and
   abroad, and their suppression of individual enterprise, appear
   to have hindered the growth of English commerce for a long
   period. But it did grow steadily, notwithstanding, and through
   the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, the number of English
   ships set afloat and of English merchants trading abroad, was
   rapidly multiplied. Meantime the English people gained skill
   in weaving, dyeing and other arts, and were fast extending the
   manufacture at home of their own famous Wool. This, in turn,
   made the sheep farming more profitable, and so much land was
   taken for that purpose that other products were diminished and
   most articles of food rose in price. That occurrence caused
   grave anxiety, and the meddling statesmen of the time, who
   thought that nothing could go well if their wisdom did not
   regulate it by law (as too many meddling statesmen think yet)
   began to frame acts of Parliament which directed how farming
   lands should be managed and how many sheep a single farmer
   should be permitted to own. The same kind of statesmanship
   took alarm at the spread of weaving, in a small way, among
   industrious villagers and country people, who set up looms and
   made and sold cloth, outside of the guilds of the town
   weavers. So the complaints of the latter were listened to, and
   Parliament forbade weaving to be done outside of certain
   towns, except for home use in the family of the weaver. There
   was much of that sort of legislation during Tudor times, and
   the industry and enterprise of the country had to struggle
   long and hard for freedom to fairly exercise themselves. But
   in spite of meddling statesmen and tyrannical monopolies, the
   people went all from year to year, learning more, doing more,
   producing more, wanting more, buying and selling more, and
   living in a better way. After about 1511, there appears to
   have been a considerable direct trade growing up between
   England and the countries of the eastern Mediterranean (the
   Levant), and consuls, to look after the rights and interests
   of English merchants, began to be appointed, at Candia, and
   elsewhere, as early as 1530. The voyage from London to the
   Levant and return then occupied from eleven months to a year.
   About 1535 the English made their appearance as traders on the
   Guinea coast of West Africa, disputing the exclusive rights
   which the Portuguese claimed there, and in 1537 they opened
   trade with the Moors of the Barbary coast, in northern Africa.
   In 1553 a chartered company of London merchants was formed
   with the object of exploring for a northeastern passage to
   China, around Europe, through the Arctic seas, as a means of
   dividing the trade of the East with the Portuguese, who
   controlled the southern route, around Africa. This is believed
   to have been the first joint stock corporation of shareholders
   that was organized in England. Sebastian Cabot, then "Grand
   Pilot of England," was at the head of it. The northwestern
   passage was not found, but the company opened a trade with
   Russia which proved to be exceedingly valuable. Accepting
   this, in lieu of the China trade which it could not reach, it
   became, as the Russia Company, a rich and powerful
   corporation. The success of the Russia Company stimulated the
   adventurous disposition of the English people and set other
   enterprises in motion. But still more energy was roused by the
   hostility of national feeling toward Spain. The destruction of
   the Armada broke the Spanish naval power and made the English
   bold. They began to navigate the sea from that time with
   intent to become its masters, though the Dutch were still
   superior to them in maritime strength and experience. During
   the reign of Elizabeth there rose a new race of Vikings, very
   much like the old Norse heroes of the sea, and pursuing a very
   similar career.
{3718}
   The most daring and most famous among them, such as Grenville,
   Drake and Hawkins, were more than half pirates, and their
   voyages were chiefly expeditions for plunder, directed against
   the Spaniards and Portuguese. The trade which they first gave
   attention to was the trade in negro slaves. But those
   piratical adventurers of the 16th century made England the
   "mistress of the seas." They trained for her a body of sailors
   who were able in time to more than cope with the Dutch, and
   they opened the newly known regions of the world for her
   merchants and colonists to spread over them. Before the end of
   the 17th century, the English had become the foremost power in
   the western world and were making the most of its
   opportunities for production and trade. Meantime they were
   pushing their way with equal energy in the East. On the last
   day of the year 1600 the "Company of Merchants of London
   trading into the East Indies," which became afterwards so
   great and famous as the "East India Company" of England, was
   chartered by the Queen. The Company sent out its first fleet
   of five vessels in 1601. The expedition returned, after an
   absence of two years and seven months, richly laden, in part
   with pepper from Sumatra and in part with the spoils of a
   Portuguese ship which it had captured in the straits of
   Malacca. It had settled a trading agency, or factory, at
   Bantam—and that was the beginning of the vast empire which
   England now rules in the East.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702 (page 1709).

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English:
   17-18th Centuries.
   The Colonial or Sole Market Commercial System.

   "The doctrine that the commercial prosperity of a country
   depends on the creation, maintenance, and extension of a sole
   market for its products and for its supplies, was prevalent
   from the discovery of the New World and the Cape Passage down
   to the war of American Independence. This was the principal
   object of Borgia's Bulls. This was what animated the Dutch, in
   their successful, in the end too successful, struggle, after a
   monopoly of the Spice islands. This was the motive which led
   to the charters of the Russian Company, the Levant Company,
   the East India Company, the Turkey Company, the Hudson's Bay
   Company, in England. The theory was organized in the colonial
   system, which Adam Smith examined, attacked, and as far as
   argument could go, demolished in his great work. But the dream
   of a sole market is still possessing the Germans and the
   French. … The early wars of Europe were wars of conquest. …
   After them came the wars of religion, from the outbreak of the
   Insurrection in the Low Countries, and the civil wars in
   France, down to the Peace of Westphalia in the middle of the
   17th century. From that day to our own, European wars have
   been waged on behalf of the balance of power, the principal
   mischief-maker in the contest being France. The English, the
   French, and the Dutch were the competitors in the wars for a
   sole market. But Holland was practically ruined at the peace
   of Aix-la-Chapelle, and France was stripped … of her colonies
   at the peace of Paris, and England became not only the
   principal maritime, but the principal manufacturing and
   mercantile country in the world. As regards English trade,
   however, though India was an outlet to some extent for English
   goods, its trade was in the hands of a chartered company, whom
   the Seven Years' War had left in serious straits. The most
   important sole market which Great Britain had acquired by her
   wars was the seaboard of North America. To support the
   finances of the chartered company, the British Parliament
   determined on taxing the inhabitants of her sole market, and
   the result as you know was the war of American Independence. …
   The colonial or sole-market system was based on a strict
   reciprocity. The English Government admitted colonial produce
   into the English markets at differential duties, or prohibited
   the produce of foreign nations and foreign colonies
   altogether. The Colonies were not only the customers of
   English manufacturers only, to the absolute exclusion of
   foreign manufactures, but were prohibited from undertaking
   those manufactures themselves. The English Government adopted
   with their colonies the policy which they adopted with Irish
   manufactures, which they also prohibited, but with this
   difference, that they disabled the Irish from having any trade
   whatever with England, with the Colonies, and with foreign
   countries. They wished to extinguish, with one exception,
   every Irish product, and to constitute themselves the sole
   manufacturers and shopkeepers for the Irish. They allowed only
   the linen manufacture of Ulster. The Irish were to be, with
   this exception, agriculturists only, but they were to be
   disabled from selling their agricultural produce in England,
   or elsewhere. They were practically denied the right of trade.
   … It was the doctrine of the sole market in its most
   exaggerated form. … The colonial system, under which
   advantages were secured to the colonial producer by giving him
   a preferred market in Great Britain, while the colonist was
   debarred from engaging in manufactures, was a selfish one on
   the part of the English merchants and manufacturers. It gave
   the colonist a sole market, it is true. But it does not follow
   that a sole market is a high market. On the contrary, it is
   probable that the offer of a sole market is intended to secure
   a low market. The Virginian planter sent the whole of his
   tobacco to England. The English trader re-exported it to other
   countries, say Holland or Germany. It may be presumed that he
   made a profit on the original consignment, and on the
   re-exportation, or he would not have undertaken the business.
   … The colonial system did not preclude the plantations from
   sending, under the strict conditions of the Navigation Act,
   certain kinds of produce to other countries than England.
   These were called non-enumerated commodities, the principal
   being corn, timber, salted provisions, fish, sugar, and rum.
   There was a reason for this, which was to be found in the
   fiscal system of England. We did not want colonial corn, for
   there were duties on corn, levied in the interest of the
   landlords, nor colonial timber, salted meat and salted fish,
   for the home produce of these articles were similarly
   assisted. Sugar and rum were allowed to be exported, for the
   owners of the plantations in the Leeward isles were chiefly
   absentee English proprietors, who had already a monopoly of
   English supply, and were powerful enough in Parliament to get
   an extended market elsewhere. But in 1769, just before the
   troubles broke out with the American plantations, an Act was
   passed, disabling the colonists from sending even the
   non-enumerated commodities to any country north of Cape
   Finisterre, in Northern Spain. … The enumerated goods, and
   there was a long list of them, could be exported to Great
   Britain only. They consisted, as Adam Smith says, of what
   could not be produced in this country, and what could be
   produced in great quantity in the Colonies."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Economic Interpretation of History,
      lecture 15._

{3719}

COMMERCE: MODERN: The Americans:
   Colonial Trade.

   "We are a nation of land-traffickers, but our ancestors in the
   colonies traded and traveled almost entirely by water. There
   were but twelve miles of land-carriage in all the province of
   New York; beyond Albany the Indian trade was carried on by
   'three-' or 'four-handed batteaus,' sharp at both ends, like
   the Adirondack boat of to-day. Yachts, with bottoms of black
   oak and sides of red cedar, brought wheat in bulk and peltries
   down the Hudson; other craft carried on the domestic trade of
   New York town with the shores of Long Island, Staten Island,
   and the little ports beyond the Kill von Kull. … The first
   regular wagon-carriage from the Connecticut River to Boston
   did not begin until 1697; Massachusetts had then been settled
   seventy years. The flat-bottomed boat, which has since played
   so important a part in the trade of the Ohio and the
   Mississippi, and whose form was probably suggested by that of
   the 'west country barges' of England, appears to have been
   used for floating produce down the Delaware before 1685. In
   the Chesapeake colonies, until late in the provincial period,
   there were almost no roads but the numerous bays and
   water-courses, and almost no vehicles but canoes, row-boats,
   pinnaces and barks. Places of resort for worship or business
   were usually near the waterside. … But of all means of travel
   or trade the Indian canoe was the chief. … Roads in the
   colonies were hardly ever laid out, but were left where Indian
   trail or chance cart-track in the woods had marked them. …
   From England, along with bad roads, the colonists brought the
   pack-horse which, in Devon and Cornwall, at the close of the
   last century, still did the carrying, even of building-stones
   and cord-wood. Most of the inland traffic of the colonial
   period was done by packing. … The Germans, whose ancestors had
   four-wheeled vehicles in the days of Julius Cæsar, made good
   roads wherever they planted themselves. While their English
   neighbors were content to travel on horseback and to ford and
   swim streams, the Salzburgers in Georgia began by opening a
   wagon-road twelve miles long, with seven bridges, 'which
   surprised the English mightily.' Pennsylvania, the home of the
   Germans, alone of the colonies built good straight roads; and
   the facility which these afforded to ten thousand
   freight-wagons was the main advantage that gave Philadelphia
   the final preeminence among the colonial sea-ports, and made
   Lancaster the only considerable inland mart In North America.
   … Proximity to the wampum-making savages at one end of Hudson
   River navigation and to the beaver-catchers at the other made
   New York the chief seat of the fur trade. Wagon-roads, soil,
   climate, and an industrious people made Philadelphia the
   principal center of the traffic in bread and meat. The
   never-ending line of convenient shore that bordered the
   peninsulas of Maryland and Virginia, and gave a good
   landing-place at every man's door, with a tobacco currency,
   rendered it difficult to build towns or develop trade among
   the easy-going planters of the Chesapeake and Albemarle
   regions. A different coast-line, and rivers less convenient,
   made Charleston the rich and urbane commercial and social
   center of southern Carolina. Until about 1750 Boston was the
   leading sea-port, and its long wharf, 2,000 feet in length
   with warehouses on one side of it, was the New World wonder of
   travelers. Five or six hundred vessels annually cleared out of
   Boston in the middle of the 18th century for the foreign trade
   alone, and the city contained between twenty and thirty
   thousand people at the outbreak of the Revolution. But
   Newport, with its thirty distilleries to make rum of the
   molasses brought from the islands, and its seventeen sperm-oil
   and candle factories to work up the results of the whaling
   industry, had nearly half as many ships in foreign trade as
   Boston, and three or four hundred craft of all sorts in the
   coast-wise carrying trade. He was thought a bold prophet who
   said then that 'New York might one day equal Newport'; for
   about 1750 New York sent forth fewer ships than Newport, and
   not half so many as Boston. … But Philadelphia—planted late in
   the 17th century—outstripped all rivals, and for the last
   twenty years of the colonial period was the chief port of
   North America. … The imports and exports of the two tobacco
   colonies together were far larger than those of Philadelphia,
   but their profits were far less."

      _E. Eggleston,
      Commerce in the Colonies
      (Century, June, 1884)._

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English:
   18-19th Centuries.
   Rising prosperity and commercial supremacy.
   Successful War, Free Trade and Steam Power.

   "If we look at the state of the European powers after the
   conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, we shall see how
   favourable our position then was. In the first place, England
   had seriously crippled her commercial rival, France, both in
   her Indian and American possessions, and thereby had gained
   extensive colonial territories which afforded a ready market
   for British goods. Spain, which had been allied with France,
   had lost at the same time her position as the commercial rival
   of England in trade with the New World. Germany had for some
   time ceased to be a formidable competitor, and was now being
   ravaged by internal conflicts between the reigning houses of
   Austria and Prussia. Holland, which had once been England's
   most serious rival—especially in foreign commerce—was at this
   time in a similar condition, and had greatly declined from the
   prosperity of the 16th and 17th centuries. Hence England alone
   had the chance of 'the universal empire of the sole market.'
   The supply of this market was in the hands of English
   manufacturers and English workmen, so that the great
   inventions which came into operation after 1763 were thus at
   once called into active employment, and our mills and mines
   were able to produce wealth as fast as they could work,
   without fear of foreign competition. It is not surprising,
   therefore, to find that in the ten years, from 1782 to 1792,
   our entire foreign trade was nearly doubled, the exact figures
   being:
   1782, imports £10,341,628, exports £13,009,458;
   1792, Imports £19,659,358, exports £24,905,200.
   And this remarkable progress was still kept up even during the
   great continental wars which were caused by the French
   Revolution, and which lasted for almost a quarter of a
   century. …
{3720}
   In spite of the almost entire loss of our trade in some
   directions, English commerce improved in others; and, in fact,
   any loss was more than counterbalanced by an increase in
   regard to the (now independent) United States, Russia, Venice,
   Germany, and Northern Europe, as well as with the West and
   East Indian colonies, both British and foreign. In fact, many
   of the countries whom France had compelled to become our
   enemies found themselves unable to do without British
   manufactures, especially as their own industries were
   suffering from the warfare that was going on on the Continent,
   and therefore had to find means to procure our goods. … The
   close of the 25 years of continental war (1815) is sometimes
   taken as being the date when the modern system of commerce may
   be said to have had its beginning. Up to that time, although
   great changes and advances had been made, the spirit of
   monopoly and the general restrictive policy which
   characterised previous centuries, were still, to some extent,
   in force. But not very long after the peace that was won by
   the battle of Waterloo, a remarkable change was made in the
   commercial policy of England. … We now come to the beginnings
   of freedom of trade."

      _H. de B. Gibbins,
      British Commerce and Colonies,
      pages 91-102._

   "When the wars of the French Revolution began, the foundations
   of a great empire had already been broadly laid; and when it
   ended, England stood out as a power which had grown greater in
   the struggle. … Dutchman, Dane, and Spaniard, Frenchman and
   Venetian, all ancient competitors of England, fell before her;
   and, when the sword was sheathed in 1815, it was no
   exaggerated boast to call her mistress of the seas. These
   facts should never be lost sight of in any consideration of
   the causes which have led us to where we now are. Without
   these preparatory steps, both in domestic industries and in
   foreign wars and conquests, England would not, with all her
   material advantages, have been so entirely the gainer by the
   progress of the last fifty years as she has so far proved to
   be. … There is the more need to remember this because the time
   immediately following the war was one of severe domestic
   suffering, and of much retrograde legislation, conceived with
   a view to, if possible, lessen that suffering. … The worst of
   all the laws which then restricted trade were those relating
   to the exports and imports of corn, which the younger men of
   to-day have well-nigh forgotten. … It was not till after long
   years of agitation by John Bright, Richard Cobden, and other
   leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, that the landed party
   gave way sullenly, and assented, amid the most gloomy
   predictions of impending ruin, to the repeal of the sliding
   scale altogether, and the virtual abolition of all corn laws
   by the substitution of a fixed duty of 1 s. per quarter. Thus
   recently was one of the most oppressive pieces of fiscal
   legislation that man could have conceived withdrawn; and not
   until 1849, when that law came into force, could the
   industries of the country be said to be anything like
   unfettered. Yet twenty years more passed before this shilling
   duty—the last rag of protection—was itself flung aside, and
   the import of corn became perfectly free. … But many other
   changes had in the meantime taken place, all tending more and
   more to throw off the shackles of trade. … As late as 1840 our
   customs tariff was described in the report of a committee of
   the House of Commons as 'presenting neither congruity nor
   unity of purpose;' as 'often aiming at incompatible ends,'
   seeking both to produce revenue and to protect interests in
   ways incompatible with each other. There were no fewer than
   1,150 different rates of duty chargeable on imported articles,
   … and the committee gave a list of 862 of such articles which
   were subject to duty, seventeen of which then produced 94 per
   cent. of a revenue amounting to £23,000,000. … The present
   customs tariff contains less than two dozen articles all told,
   and including those on which duty is imposed to countervail
   the excise charges on internal products. The ordinary import
   articles on which duty is charged number only seven. … But
   there is yet another hindrance the removal of which has to be
   noticed, and which, till removed, cramped England very
   seriously, viz. the navigation laws and the great trade
   monopoly of the East India Company. … It took longer time … to
   accomplish the complete deliverance of our mercantile marine
   from the baneful influence of 'protective' jealousy than to
   accomplish any other great free-trade reform. A tentative
   effort to lessen the consequences of confining the carrying
   trade of England to English ships was made in 1825 by Mr.
   Huskisson; but it was not till 1854 that complete free trade
   on the sea was granted by the abolition of any restriction as
   to the nationality of vessels engaged in the coasting trade of
   the kingdom. … Here, then, we have noted briefly the various
   steps and leading characteristics of the commercial reforms
   which, in this country, either paved the way for or secured
   the benefit of the great outburst of enterprise and influx of
   wealth which began in the second quarter of the present
   century. These various reforms constitute, so to say, the
   negative side of the modern commercial prosperity which this
   country built upon the foundations of her world-wide empire;
   and, in order to get a complete outline of the position which
   we at present occupy, we must now revert briefly to the
   positive side of the subject; we must find out where the great
   modern wealth has come from, and on what it has been based.
   Freedom of trade no doubt did much to call wealth and
   enterprise into being; but in what did this wealth consist?
   Happily the leading features are not difficult to trace.
   Although the foundations of the great manufacturing industries
   of this country lie far back in the past, their development,
   like the growth of free-trade principles, is quite modern, and
   dates in reality from the day when George Stephenson won the
   competition at Liverpool with his locomotive 'the Rocket,'
   settling thereby the question of railroad travelling by steam
   beyond dispute. The mere stimulus to all kinds of mining and
   manufacturing industries which this victory and the subsequent
   railway operations gave, was itself enough to cause the trade
   of this country to press forward by 'leaps and bounds.' Since
   November 1830, it may be said to have done so; and the mere
   fact that England was the originator of the railway systems of
   the world, and that she contained within herself almost
   boundless materials wherewith to supply those systems, would
   itself suffice to explain the pre-eminence which from that day
   to this has been unquestionably hers.
{3721}
   The great natural resources of the country were first employed
   in supplying the materials for home development, and then
   gradually the wealth thus acquired by digging in the bowels of
   the earth was utilised in tempting or leading other nations
   into a career of 'progress' similar to our own. In spite of
   the many losses which individuals suffered in the early days
   of this progress, the nation grew steadily richer and its
   stores of realised wealth increased with every new enterprise
   almost that it took up. … Each year the realised wealth of the
   one before told, as it were, in swelling the working power of
   the nation, and in enlarging the business capacities and scope
   of its credit. … Side by side with the increased produce of
   the country, the increased manufactures, and the increasing
   wealth, there were growing up facilities for
   intercommunication with all parts of the world, and with that
   an increasing tendency to emigration. The home hives were
   constantly throwing off young swarms, which, settling now in
   America, now in Australia, now in Africa, became so many new
   centres of demand, so many links in the trade chain that we
   had bound round the world."

      _A. J. Wilson,
      British Trade
      (Fraser's Magazine, September, 1876),
      pages 271-277._

   "The almost unlimited expansion which becomes marked about
   1850 and culminates in 1873, has been pointed to by many
   different people as proof of the great effect of different
   measures or inventions; as a matter of fact, it was due to no
   one cause, but was rather the result of multitudinous
   discoveries and events, acting and reacting on each other.
   Perhaps the following list of dates shows this most clearly;—

   Opening of first English railway, 1830;
   Wheatstone's telegraph, 1837;
   first ocean steamer, 1838;
   settlement in New Zealand, 1840;
   reduction of duties on raw materials, 1842;
   repeal of Corn Laws, 1846;
   commercial treaty with France, 1860.

   Here are seven events of widely different natures, each of
   which must have had its effect in the period under
   consideration, and it would be useless, even if it were
   possible, to weigh the separate result of each. We cannot
   estimate, we can obtain no criterion of the vast effects of
   the adoption of Free Trade. Three things, however, are clear;—
   First, that till the suffocating restrictions were removed,
   trade could not expand; when exports were prohibited, imports
   could not be plentiful; when imports were taxed, the demand at
   enhanced prices could not be great. Secondly, if every
   restriction was removed from every branch of trade, there
   would be no increase without natural causes of manufacture and
   demand, no increased demand without a cheapening or
   improvement of supply; that, in fact, Free Trade is the
   method, not the source, of commerce, and that the claim of
   this increase as the direct result of freedom and a proof of
   its expediency is an inaccurate exaggeration. Thirdly, that
   the date of the marked commencement of the expansion coincides
   exactly with the reductions and abolitions of duties, pointing
   to the fact, borne out by all concurrent events, that the
   adoption of Free Trade was the opening of the valve which
   allowed the forces of commerce full play. … It was in the
   trades of comparatively recent establishment, in England
   especially, that there were immense outputs (of cotton goods
   and machinery, for instance), in great excess of the home
   demand; and this could only pay if the foreign demand grew in
   proportion to the growing efficiency; that is to say, our
   newer industries became the most important, and were marked as
   our division of international labour. The foreign demand,
   indeed, for our manufactures and our machines was
   extraordinary. Now, every country is trying to rival our
   goods, and each to produce for herself the manufactures she
   requires; then, rivalry was out of the question. … On every
   side new markets were opened; old trades were increased, new
   developed. The railways built with our materials opened up
   districts hitherto inaccessible; this acted as a fresh
   stimulus to our manufacturers—more capital was forthcoming,
   and more railways were built. Not only were countries, with
   which we had already established some trade, brought nearer
   and in closer relation, but new countries were discovered.
   Australia and New Zealand were ready to take our surplus
   population, and were not behindhand in the new system of
   development. Our older colonies also increased. With each
   emigration the number of our customers abroad was multiplied.
   In 1850 and 1852 this process was accelerated by the news of
   the gold discoveries in California and Australia. So great was
   the emigration and the consequent demand for ships that all
   freights were increased, and, with a short lull, this
   continued till 1856. … The last great impetus was given by the
   Suez Canal, by which the journey to India and the East was
   quickened by one-half, and, at the same time, rendered more
   secure."

      _A. L. Bowley,
      England's Foreign Trade in the Nineteenth Century.
      chapter 4._

      See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (pages 3073-3077).

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Americans: A. D. 1856-1895.
   Decay of American shipping interests.

   "Down to the year 1856, the United States had rapidly advanced
   in commercial greatness, and had overcome all the obstacles
   which had clustered about their path. At that time we were
   close upon the heels of England, and everything pointed to our
   speedily passing her in the race for commercial supremacy.
   Since then our commerce has steadily declined,—a misfortune
   usually attributed to the civil war, and subsequently to the
   competition of more profitable forms of investment. These
   circumstances no doubt hastened the loss of our commerce; but,
   as Lieutenant Kelley points out, they are not the true causes
   of its decline, inasmuch as that began before the civil war.
   The origin of our difficulties lay in the abandonment of our
   old policy, which, from the beginning of the century,
   consisted in surpassing all the world in the quality and speed
   of our ships and in our naval architecture. With the
   substitution of iron for wood we began to drop behind, until,
   with a population of 55,000,000, we have a tonnage but little
   greater than we had when half as numerous. Moreover, our
   percentage of wrecks is larger than that of any other
   seafaring people, and our ships and steamers are
   shorter-lived.

      _The Question of Ships
      (Atlantic Monthly, June, 1884, pages 859-861)._

{3722}

   "The first symptoms of the decadence appeared in 1856, in the
   falling-off in the sales of American tonnage to foreigners;
   the reduction being from 65,000 in 1855 to 42,000 in 1856, to
   26,000 in 1858, and to 17,000 in 1860. During the war,
   however, the transfers of American tonnage to foreign flags
   again increased very largely, and, for the years 1862 to 1865
   inclusive, amounted to the large aggregate of 824,652 tons, or
   to more than one-fourth of all the registered tonnage (the
   tonnage engaged in foreign trade) of the United States in
   1860. But these transfers, it is well understood, were not in
   the nature of ordinary business, but for the sake of obtaining
   a more complete immunity from destruction upon the high seas
   than the United States at that time was able to afford. The
   year 1856 also marks the time when the growth of our foreign
   steam-shipping was arrested, and a retrograde movement
   inaugurated; so that … our aggregate tonnage in this
   department was 1,000 tons less in 1862 than it was in 1855.
   The total tonnage of every description built in the United
   States also declined from 583,450 tons in 1855 (the largest
   amount ever built in any one year) to 469,393 in 1856, 378,804
   in 1857, and 212,892 in 1860, a reduction of 68 per cent in
   five years. During the year 1855, American vessels carried
   75.6 per cent of the value of the exports and imports of the
   United States. After 1855 this proportion steadily declined to
   75.2 per cent in 1856, 70.5 in 1857, 66.9 in 1859, and 65.2 in
   1861, the year of the outbreak of the war. … Of the enormous
   increase in the foreign commerce of the United States since
   1860, as above noted, every maritime nation of any note, with
   the exception of the United States, has taken a share.
   American tonnage alone exhibits a decrease. Thus, comparing
   1880 with 1856, the foreign tonnage entering the seaports of
   the United States increased nearly 11,000,000 of tons; whereas
   the American tonnage entered during the same period exhibits a
   decrease of over 65,000 tons. British tonnage increased its
   proportion from 935,000 tons in 1856 to 7,903,000 in 1880;
   Germany, during the same time, from 166,000 to 1,089,000; and
   Sweden and Norway from 20,662 to 1,234,000. Austria, limited
   to almost a single seaport, jumped up from 1,477 tons in 1856
   to 206,000 tons in 1880, and had, in 1879, 179 large-class
   sailing-vessels engaged in the American trade. Sleepy Portugal
   increased during the same period from 4,727 tons to 24,449
   tons. … How is it, that the United States, formerly a maritime
   power of the first class, has now no ships or steamers that
   can profitably compete for the carrying of even its own
   exports; not merely with the ships of our great commercial
   rival, England, but also with those of Italy, Sweden, Norway,
   Germany, Holland, Austria, and Portugal? … The facts already
   presented fully demonstrate that the war was not the cause,
   and did not mark the commencement, of the decadence of
   American shipping; although the contrary is often and perhaps
   generally assumed by those who have undertaken to discuss this
   subject. The war simply hastened a decay which had already
   commenced. … The primary cause was what may be termed a
   natural one, the result of the progress of the age and a
   higher degree of civilization; namely, the substitution of
   steam in place of wind as an agent for ship-propulsion, and
   the substitution of iron in the place of wood as a material
   for ship-construction. … The means and appliances for the
   construction of iron vessels did not then [in 1855] exist in
   the United States; while Great Britain, commencing even as far
   back as 1837 (when John Laird constructed his first iron
   steamers of any magnitude for steam navigation), and with
   eighteen years of experience, had become thoroughly equipped
   in 1855 for the prosecution of this great industry. The
   facilities for the construction of steam machinery adapted to
   the most economical propulsion of ocean vessels, furthermore,
   were also inferior in the United States to those existing in
   Great Britain; and, by reason of statute provisions, citizens
   of the United States interested in ocean commerce were
   absolutely prevented and forbidden from availing themselves of
   the results of British skill and superiority in the
   construction of vessels when such a recourse was the only
   policy which could have enabled them at the time to hold their
   position in the ocean carrying trade in competition with their
   foreign rivals. … The inability of the ships of the United
   States to do the work which trade and commerce required that
   they should do as well and cheaply as the ships of other
   nations having been demonstrated by experience, the decadence
   of American shipping commenced and was inevitable from the
   very hour when this fact was first recognized, which was about
   the year 1856. Here, then, we have the primary cause of the
   decay of the business of ship-building in the United States
   and of our commercial marine. … The question which next
   naturally presents itself in the order of this inquiry and
   discussion is, Why is it that the people of the United States
   have not been permitted to enjoy the privileges accorded to
   other maritime nations, of adjusting their shipping interests
   to the spirit and wants of the age? Why have they alone been
   debarred from using the best tools in an important department
   of commerce, when the using meant business retained, labor
   employed, and capital rewarded, and the non-using equally
   meant decay, paralysis, and impoverishment? The answer is,
   Because of our so-called navigation laws."

      _D. A. Wells,
      Our Merchant Marine,
      chapters 2-3._

   "Somewhat curtailed, the navigation laws may be summarized as
   follows: No American is allowed to import a foreign-built
   vessel in the sense of purchasing, acquiring a registry, or
   using her as his property; the only other imports, equally and
   forcibly prohibited, being counterfeit money and obscene
   goods. An American vessel ceases to be such if owned in the
   smallest degree by a naturalized citizen, who may, after
   acquiring the purchase, reside for more than one year in his
   native country, or for more than two years in any other
   foreign state. An American ship owned in part or in full by an
   American citizen who, without the expectation of relinquishing
   his citizenship, resides in any foreign country except as
   United States Consul, or as agent or partner in an exclusively
   American mercantile house, loses its register and its right to
   protection. A citizen obtaining a register for an American
   vessel must make oath that no foreigner is directly or
   indirectly interested in the profits thereof, whether as
   commander, officer, or owner. Foreign capital may build our
   railroads, work our mines, insure our property, and buy our
   bonds, but a single dollar invested in American ships so
   taints as to render it unworthy of the benefit of our laws. No
   foreign-built vessel can, under penalty of confiscation, enter
   our ports and then sail to another domestic port with any new
   cargo, or with any part of an original cargo, which has once
   been unladen previously, without touching at some port of some
   foreign country.
{3723}
   This law is construed to include all direct traffic between
   the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States via Cape
   Horn, the Cape of Good Hope, or the Isthmus of Panama; and
   being a coasting trade, foreigners cannot compete. An American
   vessel once sold or transferred to a foreigner, can never
   again become American property, even if the transaction has
   been the result of capture and condemnation by a foreign power
   in time of war. Vessels under 30 tons cannot be used to import
   anything at any seaboard town. Cargoes from the eastward of
   the Cape of Good Hope are subject to a duty of 10 per cent. in
   addition to the direct importation duties. American vessels
   repaired in foreign ports must pay a duty on the repairs equal
   to one-half the cost of the foreign work or material, or pay
   50 per cent. ad valorem, the master or owner making entry of
   such repairs as imports. This liberal provision, which dates
   from 1866, is made to include boats obtained at sea, from a
   passing foreign vessel, in order to assure the safety of our
   own seamen. … All other nations have the power of buying ships
   for foreign trade in the cheapest market, and the effort to
   protect our shipbuilders by the denial of this right forbids
   the return of commercial prosperity."

      _J. D. J. Kelley,
      The Question of Ships,
      chapters 4-5._

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The recent revolution in Commerce.

   "All economists who have specially studied this matter are
   substantially agreed that, within the period named
   [1860-1885], man in general has attained to such a greater
   control over the forces of Nature, and has so compassed their
   use, that he has been able to do far more work in a given
   time, produce far more product, measured by quantity in ratio
   to a given amount of labor, and reduce the effort necessary to
   insure a comfortable subsistence in a far greater measure than
   it was possible for him to accomplish 20 or 30 years anterior
   to the time of the present writing (1889). In the absence of
   sufficiently complete data, it is not easy, and perhaps not
   possible, to estimate accurately, and specifically state the
   average saving in time and labor in the world's work of
   production and distribution that has been thus achieved. In a
   few departments of industrial effort the saving in both of
   these factors has certainly amounted to 70 or 80 per cent; in
   not a few to more than 50 per cent. … Out of such results as
   are definitely known and accepted have come tremendous
   industrial and social disturbances, the extent and effect of
   which—and more especially of the disturbances which have
   culminated, as it were, in later years—it is not easy to
   appreciate without the presentation and consideration of
   certain typical and specific examples. … Let us go back, in
   the first instance, to the year 1869, when an event occurred
   which was probably productive of more immediate and serious
   economic changes—industrial, commercial, and financial—than
   any other event of this century, a period of extensive war
   excepted. That was the opening of the Suez Canal. … The old
   transportation had been performed by ships, mainly
   sailing-vessels, fitted to go round the Cape, and as such
   ships were not adapted to the Suez Canal, an amount of
   tonnage, estimated by some authorities as high as two million
   tons, and representing an immense amount of wealth, was
   virtually destroyed. The voyage, in place of occupying from
   six to eight months, has been so greatly reduced that steamers
   adapted to the canal now make the voyage from London to
   Calcutta, or vice versa, in less than 30 days. The notable
   destruction or great impairment in the value of ships
   consequent upon the construction of the canal did not,
   furthermore, terminate with its immediate opening and use; for
   improvements in marine engines, diminishing the consumption of
   coal, and so enabling vessels to be not only sailed at less
   cost, but to carry also more cargo, were, in consequence of
   demand for quick and cheap service so rapidly effected, that
   the numerous and expensive steamer constructions of 1870-1873,
   being unable to compete with the constructions of the next two
   years, were nearly all displaced in 1875-1876, and sold for
   half, or less than half, of their original cost. And within
   another decade these same improved steamers of 1875-1876 have,
   in turn, been discarded and sold at small prices. … Again,
   with telegraphic communication between India and China, and
   the markets of the Western world, permitting the dealers and
   consumers of the latter to adjust to a nicety their supplies
   of commodities to varying demands, and with the reduction of
   the time of the voyage to 30 days or less, there was no longer
   any necessity of laying up great stores of Eastern commodities
   in Europe; and with the termination of this necessity, the
   India warehouse and distribution system of England, with all
   the labor and all the capital and banking incident to it,
   substantially passed away. Europe, and to some extent the
   United States, ceased to go to England for its supplies. …
   Importations of East Indian produce are also no longer
   confined in England and other countries to a special class of
   merchants; and so generally has this former large and special
   department of trade been broken up and dispersed, that
   extensive retail grocers in the larger cities of Europe and
   the United States are now reported as drawing their supplies
   direct from native dealers in both China and India. … In
   short, the construction of the Suez Canal completely
   revolutionized one of the greatest departments of the world's
   commerce and business; absolutely destroying an immense amount
   of what had previously been wealth, and displacing or changing
   the employment of millions of capital and thousands of men. …
   The deductions from the most recent tonnage statistics of
   Great Britain come properly next in order for consideration.
   During the ten years from 1870 to 1880, inclusive, the British
   mercantile marine increased its movement, in the matter of
   foreign entries and clearances alone, to the extent of
   22,000,000 tons; or, to put it more simply, the British
   mercantile marine exclusively engaged in foreign trade did so
   much more work within the period named; and yet the number of
   men who were employed in effecting this great movement had
   decreased in 1880, as compared with 1870, to the extent of
   about 3,000 (2,990 exactly). What did it? The introduction of
   steam hoisting-machines and grain-elevators upon the wharves
   and docks, and the employment of steam-power upon the vessels
   for steering, raising the sails and anchors, pumping, and
   discharging the cargo; or, in other words, the ability,
   through the increased use of steam and improved machinery, to
   carry larger cargoes in a shorter time, with no increase—or,
   rather, an actual decrease—of the number of men employed in
   sailing or managing the vessels. …
{3724}
   Prior to about the year 1875 ocean-steamships had not been
   formidable as freight-carriers. The marine engine was too
   heavy, occupied too much space, consumed too much coal. … The
   result of the construction and use of compound engines in
   economizing coal has been illustrated by Sir Lyon Playfair, by
   the statement that 'a small cake of coal, which would pass
   through a ring the size of a shilling, when burned in the
   compound engine of a modern steamboat would drive a ton of
   food and its proportion of the ship two miles on its way from
   a foreign port.' … Is it, therefore, to be wondered at, that
   the sailing-vessel is fast disappearing from the ocean? …
   Great, however, as has been the revolution in respect to
   economy and efficiency in the carrying-trade upon the ocean,
   the revolution in the carrying-trade upon land during the same
   period has been even greater and more remarkable. Taking the
   American railroads in general as representative of the
   railroad system of the world, the average charge for moving
   one ton of freight per mile has been reduced from about 2.5
   cents in 1869 to 1.06 in 1887; or, taking the results on one
   of the standard roads of the United States the (New York
   Central), from 1.95 in 1869 to 0.68 in 1885. … One marked
   effect of the present railroad and steamship system of
   transportation has been to compel a uniformity of prices for
   all commodities that are essential to life. … For grain
   henceforth, therefore, the railroad and the steamship have
   decided that there shall be but one market—the world."

      _D. A. Wells,
      Recent Economic Changes,
      pages. 27-47._

   A recent English writer says: "Formerly we [the English] were
   the great manufacturers of the world; the great distributors
   and the great warehousemen of the world. Our country was the
   point on which the great passenger traffic impinged from
   America and from our Colonies, and from which passengers
   distributed themselves over the continent of Europe. The
   products of the world as a general rule came to English ports,
   and from English ports were distributed to their various
   markets. All this has much changed. Probably the alteration is
   more marked in our distributing trade than in that of our
   manufacturing trade or in any other direction. About twenty
   years ago all the silk that was manufactured or consumed in
   Europe was brought to England from the East, mostly in a raw
   state, and was thence distributed to continental mills.
   Notwithstanding the increased consumption in Europe, silk now
   coming to England for distribution is only about one-eighth of
   the quantity that came here some twelve years ago. This is one
   single example of an Oriental product. The same diversion of
   our distributing trade can be traced in almost every other
   commodity. Many people believe that the opening of the Suez
   Canal has caused this diminution of our distributing trade,
   and it cannot be denied that the Suez Canal has done much to
   divert Oriental trade from this country, and to send goods
   direct through the Canal to the continental ports, where they
   are consumed, or where they can be placed on railways and be
   forwarded without break of bulk to their destinations. But
   whatever the Suez Canal may have done to divert trade in
   Oriental goods such as tea or silk, it cannot account for the
   diversion of the trade coming from America. Yet we find the
   same diversion of American products which formerly came to
   England for distribution. With cotton the same result is
   found, and with coffee from the Brazil. Nor does the diversion
   of these articles merely demonstrate that our distributing
   trade is being lost to us: it also shows that the
   manufacturers of England now permit the raw material of their
   industries to be sent straight to the factories of their
   competitors on the Continent. It shows that the great
   manufactures of the world are being transferred from England
   to Belgium, France, Germany, and even to Portugal and Spain.
   In the train of these manufactures are rapidly following all
   the complex and complicated businesses which are the
   hand-maidens of commerce. For instance, the financial business
   which used to centre in London is being transferred to Paris,
   Antwerp, and Germany, mainly because the goods to which this
   business relates are now consigned to continental countries
   instead of as formerly being brought to England to be
   distributed therefrom. … The loss of our distributing trade is
   to my mind in a great measure due to the fact that goods
   consigned to continental ports can be there put upon railways
   and sent straight to their destination; while goods sent to
   English ports must be put upon a railway, taken to our coast,
   there taken out of the railway, put on board a vessel, taken
   across to the Continent, there unloaded, then put on the
   railway and sent off to their ultimate destination. These
   transhipments from railway to vessel and from vessel to
   railway are always costly, always involve time, and in the
   case of some perishable articles render the transaction almost
   prohibitive. To get over this difficulty and to retain our
   distributing trade, there appears to me to be only one course
   open, and that is in some way to obtain direct
   railway-communication from Liverpool, from London, from
   Bristol, from Hull, from Glasgow, and from Dundee, to the
   continental markets where the goods landed at those ports are
   consumed."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      England's Real Peril
      (Macmillan's Magazine, July, 1888)._

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   Waterways and Railways in modern inland commerce.

   "There are three great epochs in the modern history of canal
   navigation, each marked by characteristics peculiar to itself,
   and sufficiently unlike those of either of the others to
   enable it to be readily differentiated. They may be thus
   described:

   1. The era of waterways, designed at once to facilitate the
   transport of heavy traffic from inland centres to the
   seaboard, and to supersede the then existing systems of
   locomotion—the wagon and the pack-horse. This era commenced
   with the construction of the Bridgewater Canal between 1766
   and 1770, and terminated with the installation of the railway
   system in 1830.

   2. The era of interoceanic canals, which was inaugurated by
   the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869, and is still in
   progress.

   3. The era of ship-canals intended to afford to cities and
   towns remote from the sea, all the advantages of a seaboard,
   and especially that of removing and dispatching merchandise
   without the necessity of breaking bulk.

{3725}

   The second great stage in the development of canal transport
   is of comparatively recent origin. It may, in fact, be said to
   date only from the time when the construction of a canal
   across the Isthmus of Suez was proved to be not only
   practicable as an engineering project, but likewise highly
   successful as a commercial enterprise. Not that this was by
   any means the first canal of its kind. On the contrary, … the
   ancients had many schemes of a similar kind in view across the
   same isthmus. The canal of Languedoc, constructed in the reign
   of Louis XIV., was for that day as considerable an
   undertaking. It was designed for the purpose of affording a
   safe and speedy means of communication between the
   Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean; it has a total length of
   148 miles, is in its highest part 600 ft. above the level of
   the sea, and has in all 114 locks and sluices. In Russia,
   canals had been constructed in the time of Peter the Great,
   for the purpose of affording a means of communication between
   the different inland seas that are characteristic of that
   country. The junction of the North and Caspian Seas, of the
   Baltic and the Caspian, and the union of the Black and the
   Caspian Seas, had all been assisted by the construction of a
   series of canals which were perhaps without parallel for their
   completeness a century ago. In Prussia a vast system of inland
   navigation had been completed during the last century, whereby
   Hamburg was connected with Dantzic, and the products of the
   country could be exported either by the Black Sea or by the
   Baltic. In Scotland the Forth and Clyde Canal, and the
   Caledonian Canal, were notable examples of artificial
   navigation designed to connect two seas, or two firths that
   had all the characteristics of independent oceans; and the
   Erie Canal, in the United States, completed a chain of
   communication between inland seas of much the same order. But,
   although a great deal had been done in the direction of
   facilitating navigation between different waters by getting
   rid of the 'hyphen' by which they were separated anterior to
   the date of the Suez Canal, this grand enterprise undoubtedly
   marked a notable advance in the progress of the world from
   this point of view. The work was at once more original and
   more gigantic than any that had preceded it. … The Suez Canal
   once completed and successful, other ship canal schemes came
   'thick as autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa.' Several of these
   were eminently practical, as well as practicable. The Hellenic
   Parliament determined on cutting through the tongue of land
   which is situated between the Gulfs of Athens and Lepantus,
   known as the Isthmus of Corinth. This isthmus divides the
   Adriatic and the Archipelago, and compels all vessels passing
   from the one sea to the other to round Cape Matapan, thus
   materially lengthening the voyages of vessels bound from the
   western parts of Europe to the Levant, Asia Minor and Smyrna.
   The canal is now an accomplished fact. Another proposal was
   that of cutting a canal from Bordeaux to Marseilles, across
   the South of France, a distance of some 120 miles, whereby
   these two great ports would be brought 1,678 miles nearer to
   each other, and a further reduction, estimated at 800 miles,
   effected in the distance between England and India. The Panama
   Canal (projected in 1871, and actually commenced in 1880) is,
   however, the greatest enterprise of all, and in many respects
   the most gigantic and difficult undertaking of which there is
   any record. The proposed national canal from sea to sea,
   proposed by Mr. Samuel Lloyd and others for Great Britain, the
   proposed Sheffield Ship Canal, the proposed Irish Sea and
   Birkenhead Ship Canal, and the proposed ship canal to connect
   the Forth and the Clyde, are but a few of many notable
   examples of the restlessness of our times in this direction. …
   There are not a few people who regard the canal system almost
   as they might regard the Dodo and the Megatherium. It is to
   them an effete relic of a time when civilisation was as yet
   but imperfectly developed. … Canals do, indeed, belong to the
   past. … That canals also belong to the present, Egypt, the
   American isthmus, Manchester, Corinth, and other places, fully
   prove, and, unless we greatly err, they are no less the
   heritage of the future."

      _J. S. Jeans,
      Waterways and Water Transport,
      section 1, chapter 1._

   "'The sea girt British Isles have upwards of 2,500 miles of
   canals, in addition to the Manchester Ship Canal, which is
   thirty-five and one-half miles, and is said to be one of the
   most remarkable undertakings of modern times.' … In 1878,
   Germany had in operation 1,289 miles of canals, and had
   ordered the construction of 1,045 miles of new canals. Belgium
   has forty-five canals. Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Holland and
   Russia have their respective systems of canals. France has
   expended a larger amount of money than any other European
   nation, to provide for canal navigation, and in 1887 the total
   length of its canals was 2,998 miles. About forty-eight per
   cent of the tonnage of that Republic was transported on its
   waterways. The average capacity of boats used therefor was 300
   tons. The total length of the canals in operation in the
   United States in 1890 was upwards of 2,926 miles."

      _H. W. Hill,
      Speech on Canals in New York
      Constitutional Convention of 1894._

   "In most of the leading countries of the world, a time arrived
   when the canal system and the railway system came into strong
   competition, and when it seemed doubtful on which side the
   victory would lie. This contest was necessarily more marked in
   England than in any other country. England had not, indeed,
   been the first in the field with canals, as she had been with
   railways. … But England having once started on a career of
   canal development, followed it up with greater energy and on a
   more comprehensive scale than any other country. For more than
   half a century canals had had it all their own way. … But the
   railway system, first put forward as a tentative experiment,
   and without the slightest knowledge on the part of its
   promoters of the results that were before long to be realised,
   was making encroachments, and proving its capabilities. This
   was a slow process, as the way had to be felt. The first
   railway Acts did not contemplate the use of locomotives, nor
   the transport of passenger traffic. The Stockton and
   Darlington Railway, constructed in 1825, was the first on
   which locomotives were employed.

      See Steam Locomotion (page 3029).

   Even at this date, there were many who doubted the expediency
   of having a railroad instead of a canal, and in the county of
   Durham … there was a fierce fight, carried on for more than
   twenty years. In the United States, the supremacy of waterways
   was maintained until a much later date. …
{3726}
   A keen and embittered struggle was kept up between the canal
   and the railroad companies until 1857; and even in the latter
   year the Legislature of the State of New York, finding that
   railway competition was making serious inroads upon their
   canal traffic, were considering whether they should not either
   entirely prohibit the railways from carrying freight, or
   impose such tolls upon railway tonnage as would cripple the
   companies in their competition with canals. … The agitation,
   however, came to nothing. It had no solid bottom. It was an
   agitation similar in kind to that which had disturbed Europe
   when Arkwright's spinning machine and Compton's mule were
   taking the place of hand labour. The clamour suddenly
   collapsed, and was never heard of afterwards. Meanwhile the
   railway system proceeded apace. The records of human progress
   contain no more remarkable chapter than that which tells of
   the growth of American railroads. … In the annals of
   transportation, there is no more interesting chapter than that
   which deals with the contest that has been carried on for
   nearly half a century between the railways and the lakes and
   canals for the grain traffic between Chicago and New York.
   This contest is interesting, not only to Americans, as the
   people who are engaged in it, and whom it more directly
   concerns; but also to the people of Europe, and of Great
   Britain in particular, the cost of whose food supplies is
   affected thereby. … The circumstances of the Erie Canal are,
   however, exceptional. Seldom, indeed, do railway freights run
   so low as they do on the 950 miles of rail way that separate
   Chicago from New York. Over this distance, the great trunk
   lines have recently been carrying freight at the rate of 15
   cents, or 7½ d. per 100 lbs. This is equivalent to about 14 s.
   per ton, or exactly 0.174 d. per ton per mile. There is
   probably no such low rates for railway transport in the world.
   But this low rate is due entirely to the competition of the
   lakes, rivers, and canals."

      _J. S. Jeans,
      Waterways and Water Transport,
      chapters 26-27._

   "The early railroad engineers overestimated the speed which
   could be readily attained. Fifty years ago it was generally
   expected that passenger trains would soon run at rates of from
   seventy-five to one hundred miles an hour—a prediction which
   has as yet remained unfulfilled. On the other hand, they
   underestimated the railroad's capacity for doing work cheaply.
   It was not supposed that railroads would ever be able to
   compete with water-routes in the carriage of freight, except
   where speedy delivery was of the first importance. Nor was it
   at that time desired that they should do so. The first English
   railroad charter contained provisions expressly intended to
   prevent such competition. A generation later, in the State of
   New York itself, there was a loud popular cry that the New
   York Central must be prohibited from carrying freight in
   competition with the Erie Canal. The main field of usefulness
   of railroads, and the means by which that field was to be
   developed, were not merely ignored, they were positively
   shunned. This period of railroad infancy ended about the year
   1850. The crisis of 1847 marked its close in England. The
   Revolution of 1848-51 was the dividing line on the continent
   of Europe. The land grants of 1850, and the formation of three
   trunk lines from the seaboard to the interior may be taken as
   the beginning of the new era in the United States. It began to
   be seen and felt that a steam railroad was something more than
   an exaggerated turnpike or horse railroad, and that it had
   functions and laws of its own. The changes were: first, the
   consolidation of old roads; second, the construction of new
   ones in a great variety of conditions; third, and most
   important, the development of traffic by cheap rates and new
   methods. … Under all these influences the railroad mileage of
   the world increased from 20,000 in 1850 to 66,000 in 1860,
   137,000 in 1870, 225,000 in 1880, and [406,416 in
   1893.—'Archiv für Eisenbahnwesen']. … Rapid as has been the
   growth of the railroad mileage, traffic has kept pace with it.
   It is estimated that the total number of tons moved in 1875
   was about 800,000,000. At present [1885] it is about
   1,200,000,000 annually, while the passenger movement has
   increased from 1,400,000,000 to 2,400,000,000. If we could
   take distance as well as quantity into account, the change
   (for freight at any rate) would be still greater. To a certain
   extent this increased intensity of use of railroads is due to
   improvements in engineering; to a much greater extent it is
   the result of improved business methods. … Between 1850 and
   1880 rates were reduced on an average to about one half their
   former figures, in spite of the advance in price of labor and
   of many articles of consumption. A variety of means were made
   to contribute to this result. The inventions of Bessemer and
   others, by which it became possible to substitute steel rails
   for iron, made it profitable for the railroads to carry larger
   loads at a reduction in rates. Improvements in management
   increased the effective use of the rolling stock, while the
   consumption of fuel and the cost of handling were diminished.
   By other changes in railroad economy it became possible to
   compete for business of every kind, with the best canals or
   with natural water-courses. The railroad rates of to-day are
   but a small fraction of the canal charges of two generations
   ago; while in volume of business, speed, and variety of use
   there is an inestimable advance."

      _A. T. Hadley,
      Railroad Transportation,
      chapter 1._

   "The railway mileage in the United States on June 30, 1893,
   was 176,461.07 miles. This shows an increase during the year
   of 4,897.55 miles, being an increase of 2.80 per cent. The
   previous report showed an increase during the year ending June
   30, 1892, of 3,160.78, being an increase of 1.88 per cent over
   the mileage of the year 1891. The rate of increase from 1886
   to 1887 was 9.08 per cent; from 1887 to 1888, 6.05 per cent;
   from 1888 to 1889, 3.22 per cent; from 18139 to 1890, 4.78 per
   cent; and from 1890 to 1891, 2.94 per cent. … The total number
   [of men] in the service of railways in the United States on
   June 30, 1893, was 873,602, being an increase of 52,187 over
   the number employed the previous year."

      _Interstate Commerce Commission,
      Statistics of Railways, 1883
      pages 11 and 31_.

   ----------COMMERCE: End--------

COMMON LAW, History of.

      See LAW (page 1956).

COMMUNISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (page 2932).

COMPURGATION, Disappearance of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1166 (page 1981).

CONGO STATE, The.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

{3727}

CONNECTICUT, Early provision for education in.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 729).

CONNECTICUT BLUE LAWS.

      See (in this Supplement) BLUE LAWS.

CONSTANTINOPLE: LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2006).

   Mediæval Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM: Start--------

   On page 2304 of this work, under NETHERLANDS (BELGIUM): A. D.
   1892-1893, there is given some account of the revision of the
   constitution of the kingdom, in 1893, and the peculiar new
   features introduced in its provisions, relative to the
   elective franchise. The following is a translation of the text
   of the revised constitution:

Title I.
   Of the Territory and of its Divisions.

   Article 1.
   Belgium is divided into provinces, these provinces are:
   Antwerp, Brabant, Western Flanders, Eastern Flanders, Hainaut,
   Liège, Limburg, Luxemburg, Namur. It is the prerogative of
   law, if there is any reason, to divide the territory into a
   larger number of provinces. Colonies, possessions beyond the
   seas or protectorates which Belgium may acquire, are governed
   by particular laws. The Belgian forces appointed for their
   defense can only be recruited by voluntary enlistment.

   Article 2.
   The subdivisions of the provinces can be established only by
   law.

   Article 3.
   The boundaries of the State, of the provinces and of the
   communes can be changed or rectified only by a law.

   Title II.
   Of the Belgians and their Rights.

   Article 4.
   The title Belgian is acquired, preserved and lost according to
   the regulations determined by civil law. The present
   Constitution, and other laws relating to political rights,
   determine what are, in addition to such title, the conditions
   necessary for the exercise of these rights.

   Article 5.
   Naturalization is granted by the legislative power. The great
   naturalization, alone, assimilates the foreigner to the
   Belgian for the exercise of political rights.

   Article 6.
   There is no distinction of orders in the State. Belgians are
   equal before the law; they alone are admissible to civil and
   military offices, with such exceptions as may be established
   by law in particular cases.

   Article 7.
   Individual liberty is guaranteed. No person can be prosecuted
   except in the cases provided for by law and in the form which
   the law prescribes. Except in the case of flagrant
   misdemeanor, no person can be arrested without the order of a
   judge, which must be served at the time of the arrest, or, at
   the latest, within twenty-four hours.

   Article 8.
   No person can be deprived, against his will, of the judge
   assigned to him by law.

   Article 9.
   No punishment can be established or applied except by
   provision of law.

   Article 10.
   The domicile is inviolable; no domiciliary visit can be made
   otherwise than in the cases provided for by law and in the
   form which it prescribes.

   Article 11.
   No person can be deprived of his property except for public
   use, in the cases and in the manner established by law, and
   with prior indemnity.

   Article 12.
   The penalty of confiscation of goods cannot be imposed.

   Article 13.
   Civil death is abolished; it cannot be revived.

   Article 14.
   Religious liberty, public worship, and freedom of expressed
   opinion in all matters are guaranteed, with a reserve for the
   repression of offenses committed in the exercise of these
   liberties.

   Article 15.
   No person can be compelled to join, in any manner whatsoever,
   in the acts and ceremonies of any worship, nor to observe its
   days of rest.

   Article 16.
   The State has no right to interfere in the appointment nor in
   the installation of the ministers of any religion, nor to
   forbid them to correspond with their superiors and to publish
   their acts under the ordinary responsibility of publication.
   Civil marriage shall always precede the nuptial benediction,
   with the exceptions to be prescribed by law in case of need.

   Article 17.
   Teaching is free; all preventive measures are forbidden; the
   repression of offenses is regulated only by law. Public
   instruction given at the expense of the State is also
   regulated by law.

   Article 18.
   The press is free; censorship can never be re-established;
   caution-money from writers, editors or printers cannot be
   required. When the author is known and is a resident of
   Belgium, the editor, the printer or the distributor cannot be
   prosecuted.

   Article 19.
   Belgians have the right to meet peaceably and without arms, in
   conformity with such laws as may regulate the use of their
   right but without the requirement of a previous authorization.
   This stipulation does not apply to open air meetings, which
   remain entirely subject to police regulations.

   Article 20.
   Belgians have the right of association; this right cannot be
   subject to any preventive measure.

   Article 21.
   It is the right of every person to address to the public
   authorities petitions signed by one or several. The
   constituted authorities alone have the right to address
   petitions in a collective name.

   Article 22.
   The secrecy of correspondence is inviolable. The law
   determines who are the agents responsible for violation of the
   secrecy of letters confided to the post.

   Article 23.
   The use of the languages spoken in Belgium is optional; it can
   be prescribed only by law, and only for acts of public
   authority and for judicial transactions.

   Article 24.
   No previous authorization is necessary for the undertaking of
   proceedings against public officials, on account of acts in
   their administration, except that which is enacted concerning
   ministers.

   Title III. Of Powers.

   Article 25.
   All powers are derived from the nation. They are exercised in
   the manner prescribed by the Constitution.

{3728}

   Article 26.
   Legislative power is exercised collectively by the King, the
   Chamber of Representatives and the Senate.

   Article 27.
   The initiative belongs to each one of the three branches of
   the legislative power. Nevertheless, all laws relating to the
   revenue or to the expenditures of the State, or to the
   contingent of the army must be voted first by the Chamber of
   Representatives.

   Article 28.
   The interpretation of laws by authority belongs only to the
   legislative power.

   Article 29.
   The executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs
   to the King.

   Article 30.
   The judicial power is exercised by the courts and tribunals.
   Decrees and judgments are executed in the name of the King.

   Article 31.
   Interests exclusively communal or provincial, are regulated by
   the communal or provincial councils, according to the
   principles established by the Constitution.

   Chapter First.—Of The Chambers.

   Article 32.
   Members of both Chambers represent the nation, and not merely
   the province or the subdivision of province which has elected
   them.

   Article 33.
   The sittings of the Chambers are public. Nevertheless, each
   Chamber forms itself into a secret committee on the demand of
   its president or of ten members. It then decides by absolute
   majority whether the sitting on the same subject shall be
   resumed publicly.

   Article 34.
   Each Chamber verifies the powers of its members and decides
   all contests on the subject that may arise.

   Article 35.
   No person can be at the same time a member of both Chambers.

   Article 36.
   A member of one of the two Chambers who is appointed by the
   government to any salaried office, except that of minister,
   and who accepts the same, ceases immediately to sit, and
   resumes his functions only by virtue of a new election.

   Article 37.
   At every session, each Chamber elects its president and its
   vice-presidents and forms its bureau.

   Article 38.
   Every resolution is adopted by the absolute majority of the
   votes, excepting as may be directed by the rules of the
   Chambers in regard to elections and presentations. In case of
   an equal division of votes, the proposition brought under
   deliberation is rejected. Neither of the two Chambers can
   adopt a resolution unless the majority of its members is
   present.

   Article 39.
   Votes are given by the voice or by sitting and rising; on
   "l'ensemble des lois" the vote is always taken by the call of
   the roll of names. Elections and presentations of candidates
   are made by ballot.

   Article 40.
   Each Chamber has the right of inquiry [or investigation].

   Article 41.
   A bill can be passed by one of the Chambers only after having
   been voted article by article.

   Article 42.
   The Chambers have the right to amend and to divide the
   articles and the amendments proposed.

   Article 43.
   The presenting of petitions in person to the Chambers is
   forbidden. Each Chamber has the right to refer to ministers
   the petitions that are addressed to it. Ministers are required
   to give explanations whenever the Chamber requires them.

   Article 44.
   No member of either Chamber can be prosecuted or called to
   account for opinions expressed or votes given by him in the
   performance of his duties.

   Article 45.
   No member of either Chamber can be prosecuted or arrested in
   affairs of repression, during the session, without the
   authorization of the Chamber of which he is a member, except
   the case be "de flagrant delit." No bodily constraint can be
   exercised against a member of either Chamber during the
   session, except with the same authorization. The detention or
   the prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended
   during the whole session if the Chamber so requires.

   Article 46.
   Each Chamber determines by its rules the mode in which it will
   exercise its powers.

   Section I.—Of the Chamber of Representatives.

   Article 47.
   Deputies to the Chamber of Representatives are elected
   directly under the following conditions: A vote is conferred
   on citizens who have completed their 25th year, who have
   resided for at least one year in the same commune, and who are
   not within one of the cases of exclusion provided for by law.
   A supplementary vote is conferred on each citizen who fulfills
   one of the following conditions:

   1. To have completed 35 years of age, to be married, or to be
   a widower having legitimate offspring, and to pay to the State
   a tax of not less than 5 francs on account of dwelling-houses
   or buildings occupied, unless exempted by reason of his
   profession.

   2. To have completed the age of 25 years and to be owner:
   Either of real property, valued at not less than 2,000 francs
   to be rated on the basis of the "revenu cadastral," or of a
   "revenu cadastral" proportioned to that value; Or of an
   inscription in the great book of the public debt, or of a
   "carnet de rente Belge" at the savings bank of at least 100
   francs of "rente." The inscriptions and bank books must have
   belonged to the incumbent for at least two years and a half.
   The property of the wife is assigned to the husband; that of
   children under age, to the father. Two supplementary votes are
   assigned to citizens fully 25 years of age who are included in
   one of the following cases: A. To be the holder of a diploma
   of higher instruction or of a similar certificate of
   attendance on a complete course of medium instruction of the
   higher degree, without distinction between public and private
   establishments. B. To fill or to have filled a public office,
   to occupy or to have occupied a position, to practise or to
   have practised a private profession, which implies the
   supposition that the titulary has at least an average
   education of the higher degree. The law determines these
   functions, positions and professions, as well as, in given
   cases, the time during which they shall have been occupied or
   practised. No person can accumulate more than three votes.

   Article 48.
   The constitution of the electoral colleges is regulated by law
   for each province. The vote is obligatory and takes place in
   the commune with exceptions to be determined by law.

   Article 49.
   The electoral law fixes the number of deputies according to
   the population; this number cannot exceed the proportion of a
   deputy for 40,000 inhabitants. It determines also the
   qualifications of an elector and the mode of the electoral
   operations.

{3729}

   Article 50.
   To be eligible, it is necessary:
   1. To be a Belgian by birth or to have received the "grand
   naturalization";
   2. To enjoy civil and political rights;
   3. To have completed 25 years of age;
   4. To reside in Belgium.

   No other condition of eligibility can be required.

   Article 51.
   The members of the Chamber of Representatives are elected for
   four years. Half of them are changed every two years,
   according to the order of the series determined by the
   electoral law. In case of dissolution, the Chamber is entirely
   renewed.

   Article 52.
   Each member of the Chamber of Representatives receives a
   yearly indemnity of 4,000 francs. He is, besides, entitled to
   free travel on the State railways and on the "conceded"
   railways, from his residence to the city where the session is
   held.

   Section II.—Of the Senate.

   Article 53.
   The Senate is composed:

   1. Of members elected in proportion to the population of each
   province, conformably to Article 47; though the law may
   require that the electors shall be 30 years of age, the
   provisions of Article 48 are applicable to the election of
   these senators.

   2. Of members elected by the provincial councils, to the
   number of two from each province having less than 500,000
   inhabitants, of three from each province having from 500,000
   to 1,000,000 of inhabitants, and of four from each province
   having more than one million of inhabitants.

   Article 54.
   The number of senators elected directly by the electoral body
   is equal to half the number of the members of the Chamber of
   Representatives.

   Article 55.
   Senators are elected for eight years; half of them are changed
   every four years, according to the order of the series
   determined by the electoral law. In case of dissolution, the
   Senate is entirely renewed.

   Article 56.
   To be eligible for election and to remain a senator, it is
   necessary:
   1. To be a Belgian by birth or to have received the "grande
   naturalization";
   2. To enjoy civil and political rights;
   3. To reside in Belgium;
   4. To be at least 40 years of age;
   5. To pay into the treasury of the State at least 1,200 francs
   of direct taxes, patents included; Or to be either proprietor
   or usufructuary of real property situated in Belgium, the
   cadastral revenue from which is at least 12,000 francs. In the
   provinces where the number of those eligible does not attain
   the proportion of one in 5,000 inhabitants, the list is
   completed by adding the heaviest tax-payers of the province to
   the extent of that proportion. Citizens whose names are
   inscribed on the complementary list are eligible only in the
   province where they reside.

   Article 56 bis.
   Senators elected by the provincial councils are exempted from
   all conditions of census; they cannot belong to the assembly
   which elects them, nor can they have been a member of it
   during the year of the election, nor during the two previous
   years.

   Article 57.
   Senators receive neither salary nor indemnity.

   Article 58.
   The King's sons, or in their absence the Belgian Princes of
   the branch of the Royal family called to reign, are by right
   senators at 18 years of age. They have a deliberative voice
   only at 25 years of age.

   Article 59.
   Any assembly of the Senate which may be held outside the time
   of the session of the Chamber of Representatives is null and
   void.

   Chapter II.—Of the King and his Ministers.

   Section II.—Of the King.

   Article 60.
   The constitutional powers of the King are hereditary in the
   direct, natural and legitimate descent from His Majesty
   Leopold-George-Christian-Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, from male
   to male, by order of primogeniture, and to the perpetual
   exclusion of the females of their line. The prince who marries
   without the consent of the King or of those who, in his
   absence, exercise his powers, in the cases provided for by the
   Constitution, shall forfeit his rights. Nevertheless he can be
   restored to his rights by the King or by those who, in his
   absence, exercise his authority in the cases provided for by
   the Constitution, with the consent of both Chambers.

   Article 61.
   In default of male descendants of his Majesty
   Leopold-George-Christian-Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, the King
   can name his successor, with the assent of the Chambers,
   expressed in the manner prescribed by the following article.
   If no nomination has been made according to the proceeding
   here stated, the throne will be vacant.

   Article 62.
   The King cannot be, at the same time, the chief of another
   State, without the consent of both Chambers. Neither of the
   two Chambers can deliberate on this subject if two-thirds at
   least of the members who compose it are not present, and the
   resolution is adopted only if it receives two-thirds at least
   of the votes cast.

   Article 63.
   The person of the King is inviolable; his ministers are
   responsible.

   Article 64.
   No act of the King can have effect if it is not countersigned
   by a minister, who, thereby, makes himself responsible.

   Article 65.
   The King appoints and dismisses his ministers.

   Article 66.
   He confers the grades in the army. He appoints to the offices
   of general administration and of foreign relations, with the
   exceptions determined by law. He appoints to other offices
   only by virtue of express provisions of a law.

   Article 67.
   He makes the regulations and decrees necessary to the
   execution of the laws, without power to suspend the laws
   themselves, nor to exempt from their execution.

   Article 68.
   The King commands the land and naval forces, declares war,
   makes treaties of peace, of alliance, and of commerce. He
   announces them to the Chambers as soon as the interest and the
   safety of the State admit of it, adding to them appropriate
   communications. Treaties of commerce and those which might
   burden the State or bind Belgians individually become
   effective only after having received the approval of the
   Chambers. No cession, nor exchange, nor addition of territory
   can take place without authority of a law. In no case can the
   secret articles of a treaty be destructive to the open
   articles.

   Article 69.
   The King sanctions and promulgates the laws.

   Article 70.
   The Chambers meet by right every year, on the 2d Tuesday in
   November, unless previously summoned by the King. The Chambers
   must remain in session at least 40 days in each year. The King
   declares the closing of the session. The King has the right to
   call extra sessions of the Chambers.

{3730}

   Article 71.
   The King has the right to dissolve the Chambers, either
   simultaneously or separately; the act of dissolution to
   contain a convocation of the electors within forty days and of
   the Chambers within two months.

   Article 72.
   The King may adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however,
   cannot exceed the term of one month, nor be renewed in the
   same session, without the consent of the Chambers.

   Article 73.
   He has the right to remit or to reduce penalties pronounced by
   the judges, except those which are enacted concerning the
   ministers.

   Article 74.
   He has the right to coin money, in execution of the law.

   Article 75.
   He has the right to confer titles of nobility, without power
   to attach any privilege to them.

   Article 76.
   He confers the military orders, observing in that regard what
   the law prescribes.

   Article 77.
   The law fixes the civil list for the duration of each reign.

   Article 78.
   The King has no other powers than those formally conferred on
   him by the Constitution, and by laws enacted pursuant to the
   Constitution.

   Article 79.
   On the death of the King, the Chambers meet without
   convocation, not later than the tenth day after that of his
   decease. If the Chambers had been previously dissolved, and if
   the convocation had been fixed in the act of dissolution for a
   later date than the tenth day, the old Chambers resume their
   functions until the meeting of those which are to take their
   place. If one Chamber only had been dissolved, the same rule
   is followed with regard to that Chamber. From the death of the
   King and until his successor on the throne or the regent has
   taken the oath, the constitutional powers of the King, are
   exercised, in the name of the Belgian nation, by the ministers
   assembled in council and under their responsibility.

   Article 80.
   The King is of age when he has completed his 18th year. He
   takes possession of the throne only after having solemnly
   taken, in the midst of the Chambers assembled together, the
   following oath: "I swear to observe the Constitution and the
   laws of the Belgian people, to maintain the national
   independence and to preserve the integrity of the territory."

   Article 81.
   If, on the death of the King, his successor is a minor, both
   Chambers meet in one body for the purpose of providing for the
   regency and the guardianship.

   Article 82.
   If it is impossible for the King to reign, the ministers,
   after having caused that inability to be established, convoke
   the Chambers immediately. Guardianship and regency are to be
   provided for by the Chambers convened.

   Article 83.
   The regency can be conferred on one person only. The regent
   enters upon his duties only after he has taken the oath
   prescribed by Article 80.

   Article 84.
   No change can be made in the Constitution during a regency.

   Article 85.
   In case of a vacancy on the throne, the Chambers deliberating
   together, arrange provisionally for the regency until the
   meeting of new Chambers, that meeting to take place within two
   months, at the latest. The new Chambers deliberating together
   provide definitely for the vacancy.

   Section II.—Of the Ministers.

   Article 86.
   No person can be a minister who is not a Belgian by birth, or
   who has not received the "grande naturalization."

   Article 87.
   No member of the royal family can be a minister.

   Article 88.
   Ministers have a deliberative voice in either Chamber only
   when they are members of it. They have free admission into
   each Chamber and must have a hearing when they ask for it. The
   Chambers may require the presence of ministers.

   Article 89.
   In no case, can the order of the King, verbal or written,
   relieve a minister of responsibility.

   Article 90.
   The Chamber of Representatives has the right to accuse
   ministers and to arraign them before the Court of Cassation
   [Appeal], which alone has the right to judge them, the united
   Chambers reserving what may be enacted by law concerning civil
   action by a party wronged, and as to crimes and misdemeanors
   which ministers may have committed outside of the performance
   of their duties. A law shall determine the cases of
   responsibility, the penalties to be inflicted on the
   ministers, and the manner of proceeding against them, either
   upon the accusation admitted by the Chamber of
   Representatives, or upon prosecution by parties wronged.

   Article 91.
   The King may pardon a minister sentenced by the Court of
   Cassation only upon the request of one of the two Chambers.

   Chapter III.—Of the Judiciary Power.

   Article 92.
   Contests concerning civil rights are exclusively within the
   jurisdiction of the tribunals.

   Article 93.
   Contests concerning political rights are within the
   jurisdiction of the tribunals, with exceptions determined by
   law.

   Article 94.
   No tribunal can be established otherwise than by law. Neither
   commissions nor extraordinary tribunals, under any
   denomination whatever, can be created.

   Article 95.
   There is for the whole of Belgium one Court of Cassation. This
   Court does not consider the ground of causes, except in the
   judgment of ministers.

   Article 96.
   Sittings of the tribunals are public, unless such publicity be
   dangerous to order or morals, and in that case the tribunal
   declares it by a judgment. In the matter of political or press
   offenses, the exclusion of the public must be voted
   unanimously.

   Article 97. The ground of every judgment is to be stated. It
   is pronounced in public sitting.

   Article 98.
   The jury is established in all criminal cases, and for
   political and press offenses.

   Article 99.
   The judges of the peace and judges of the tribunals are
   appointed directly by the King. Councillors of the Courts of
   appeal and presidents and vice-presidents of the courts of
   original jurisdiction are appointed by the King, from two
   double lists, presented, one by those courts and the other by
   the provincial Councils. Councillors of the Court of Cassation
   are appointed by the King from two double lists, one presented
   by the Senate and the other by the Court of Cassation. In
   these two cases the candidates whose names are on one list may
   also be inscribed on the other. All presentations are made
   public at least fifteen days before the appointment. The
   courts choose their presidents and vice-presidents from among
   their members.

{3731}

   Article 100.
   Judges are appointed for life. No judge can be deprived of his
   position or suspended, except by a judgment. The displacement
   of a judge can take place only through a new appointment and
   with his consent.

   Article 101.
   The King appoints and dismisses the public prosecutors to the
   courts and tribunals.

   Article 102.
   The salaries of the members of the judicial order are fixed by
   law.

   Article 103.
   No judge may accept salaried offices from the government
   unless he exercises them gratuitously, and excluding the cases
   of incompatibility defined by law.

   Article 104.
   There are three courts of appeal in Belgium. The law
   determines their jurisdiction and the places in which they
   shall be established.

   Article 105.
   Special enactments regulate the organization of military
   courts, their powers, the rights and obligations of the
   members of such courts, and the duration of their functions.
   There are tribunals of commerce in the places determined by
   law, which regulate their organization, their powers, the mode
   of appointment of their members and the term of the latters'
   duties.

   Article 106.
   Conflicts of jurisdiction are settled by the Court of
   Cassation, according to proceedings regulated by law.

   Article 107.
   Courts and tribunals shall apply general, provincial and local
   decisions and regulations only so far as they are conformable
   to the laws.

   Chapter IV.—Of Provincial and Communal Institutions.

   Article 108.
   Provincial and communal institutions are regulated by the
   laws. These laws sanction the application of the following
   principles:

   1. Direct election, with the exceptions which the law may
   establish in regard to the chiefs of communal administration
   and the government commissioners to the provincial councils;

   2. The assigning to provincial and communal councils of all
   which is of provincial and communal interest without prejudice
   to the approval of their acts in the cases and according to
   the proceedings which law determines;

   3. The publicity of the sittings of the provincial and
   communal councils within the limits established by law;

   4. The publicity of budgets and accounts;

   5. The intervention of the King' or of the legislative power
   to prevent the provincial and communal councils from going
   beyond their powers and injuring the general welfare.

   Article 109.
   The drawing up of certificates of birth, marriage and death,
   and the keeping of the registers, are the exclusive
   prerogatives of communal authorities.

   Title IV. Of the Finances.

   Article 110.
   No tax for the profit of the State can be imposed otherwise
   than by a law. No charge or provincial assessment can be
   imposed without the consent of the provincial council. No
   charge or communal assessment can be imposed, without the
   consent of the communal council. The law must determine those
   exceptions of which experience will show the necessity in the
   matter of provincial and communal impositions.

   Article 111.
   Taxes for the profit of the State are voted annually. The laws
   which impose them are valid for one year only, unless renewed.

   Article 112.
   There can be no creation of privilege in the matter of taxes.
   No exemption from nor diminution of taxes can be established
   otherwise than by a law.

   Article 113.
   Beyond the cases expressly excepted by law, no payment can be
   exacted from citizens, otherwise than in taxes levied for the
   profit of the State, of the province, or of the commune. No
   innovation is made on the actually existing system of the
   polders and the wateringen, which remain subject to the
   ordinary legislation.

   Article 114.
   No pension, nor gratuity at the expense of the public treasury
   can be granted without authority of law.

   Article 115.
   Each year, the Chambers determine the law of accounts and vote
   the budget. All the receipts and expenditures of the State
   must be entered in the budget and in the accounts.

   Article 116.
   The members of the court of accounts are appointed by the
   Chamber of Representatives and for the term fixed by law. That
   court is intrusted with the examination and the settlement of
   the accounts of the general administration and of all the
   accountants for the public treasury. It sees that no article
   of the expenses of the budget has been exceeded and that no
   transfer has taken place. It determines the accounts of the
   different administrations of the State and is required for
   that purpose to gather all information, and all documents that
   may be necessary. The general account of the State is
   submitted to the Chambers with the observations of the court
   of accounts. This court is organized by law.

   Article 117.
   The salaries and pensions of the ministers of religion are
   paid by the State; the sums required to meet these expenses
   are entered annually in the budget.

   Title V. Of the Army.

   Article 118.
   The mode of recruiting the army is determined by law. The law
   also regulates promotions, and the rights and obligations of
   the military.

   Article 119.
   The contingent of the army is voted annually. The law that
   fixes it is of force for one year only, unless renewed.

   Article 120.
   The organization and the powers of the gendarmerie are the
   subject of a law.

   Article 121.
   No foreign troops can be admitted to the service of the State,
   nor to occupy or pass through its territory, except by
   provision of law.

   Article 122.
   There is a civic guard; its organization is regulated by law.
   The officers of all ranks, up to that of captain at least, are
   appointed by the guards with exceptions judged necessary for
   the accountants.

   Article 123.
   The mobilization of the civic guard can occur only by
   direction of law.

{3732}

   Article 124.
   Military men can be deprived of their grades, honors, and
   pensions only in the manner determined by law.

   Title VI. General Provisions.

   Article 125.
   The Belgian nation adopts the colors red, yellow and black,
   and for the arms of the kingdom the Belgic lion with the
   motto: "L'Union fait la Force" ["Union is Strength"].

   Article 126.
   The city of Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the scat of
   its government.

   Article 127.
   No oath can be imposed except by law. The law also determines
   its formula.

   Article 128.
   Any foreigner who is within the territory of Belgium enjoys
   the protection accorded to persons and goods, with the
   exceptions defined by law.

   Article 129.
   No law, decree, or administrative regulation, general,
   provincial, or communal, is obligatory until it has been
   published in the form prescribed by law.

   Article 130.
   The Constitution cannot be suspended, either wholly or in
   part.

   Title VII. Of the Revision of the Constitution.

   Article 131.
   The legislative power has the right to declare that there is
   occasion for revising such constitutional provision as it
   designates. After such declaration, the two Chambers are
   dissolved. Two new Chambers shall then be convoked, in
   conformity with Article 71. These Chambers act, in concurrence
   with the King, on the points submitted for revision. In such
   case, the Chambers cannot deliberate unless two-thirds at
   least of the members composing each one of them are present,
   and no change which does not receive at least two-thirds of
   the votes in its favor shall be adopted.

   Title VIII.—Temporary Provisions.

   Article 132.
   For the first choice of the chief of the State, the first
   stipulation of Article 80 may be departed from.

   Article 133.
   Foreigners who settled in Belgium before the 1st of January
   1814, and who have continued to reside in the country, are
   considered as Belgians by birth, on condition that they
   declare their intention to enjoy the benefit of this
   provision. The declaration must be made within six months,
   dating from the day when the present Constitution becomes
   obligatory, if they are of age, and in the year following
   their majority if they are under age. The declaration must be
   made before the provincial authority within whose jurisdiction
   they reside. It must be made in person or through a
   representative bearing a special and authentic power of
   attorney.

   Article 134.
   Until otherwise provided for by a law, the Chamber of
   Representatives shall have a discretionary power to accuse a
   minister, and the Court of Cassation to judge him,
   characterizing the offense and determining the penalty.
   Nevertheless the penalty cannot exceed that of imprisonment,
   without prejudice to the cases expressly provided for by penal
   laws.

   Article 135.
   The staff of courts and tribunals is maintained as it actually
   exists, until it shall have been provided for by law. Such law
   shall be enacted during the first legislative session.

   Article 136.
   A law enacted in the same session shall determine the mode of
   the first appointment of members of the Court of Cassation.

   Article 137.
   The fundamental law of the 24th of August 1815, is hereby
   repealed, as well as the provincial and local statutes; but
   the provincial and local authorities will exercise their
   powers until the law shall have otherwise provided.

   Article 138.
   From the day on which this Constitution goes into effect, all
   laws, decrees, decisions, regulations, and other acts that are
   in conflict with it are abrogated.

   Supplementary Provisions.

   Article 139.
   The National Congress declares that it is necessary to provide
   by separate laws and with the least possible delay for the
   following objects:
   1. The Press;
   2. The organization of the jury;
   3. The finances;
   4. Provincial and communal organization;
   5. The responsibility of ministers and
   other agents of authority;
   6. The organization of the judiciary;
   7. The revision of the pension list;
   8. Proper measures for preventing the
   abuse of plurality of offices;
   9. Revision of the laws of bankruptcy and suspension;
   10. The organization of the army, the rights of
   promotion and retirement, and the military penal code;
   11. Revision of the codes.
   The executive power is charged with the execution of the
   present decree.

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM: End--------

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF ITALY: Start--------

   The kingdom of Italy is still governed under the constitution
   which was granted in 1848, by Charles Albert, to his Sardinian
   subjects. It remains unchanged in form, but in practice has
   been modified by legislation. The following translation of the
   instrument, made by S. M. Lindsay, Ph. D., and L. S. Howe, Ph.
   D., University of Pennsylvania, is borrowed, under permission,
   from the:

      _"Annals of the American Academy
      of Political and Social Science,"
      November, 1894, Supplement._

   In their historical introduction to the instrument, the
   translators say: "The extension of this constitution to the
   various parts of the present Kingdom of Italy was effected by
   a series of Plebiscites:

   Lombardy, December 7, 1859;
   Emilia by decree of March 18, 1860, and law of April 15, 1860;
   Neapolitan Provinces, December 17, 1860;
   Tuscany, decree March 22, and law April 15, 1860;
   Sicily, Marches and Umbria, December 17, 1860;
   Province of Venice, decree July 28, 1866;
   Roman Provinces, decree October 9 and law December 31, 1870.
   … Although no provision is to be found in this constitution
   for amendment, most Italian constitutional jurists have held
   that Parliament, with the approval of the King, has the power
   to make laws amending the constitution, for an immutable
   constitution is sure in time to hamper the development of a
   progressive people. It is hardly necessary to add that such an
   instrument is contrary to the true conception of an organic
   law.
{3733}
   As a matter of fact several provisions have been either
   abrogated or rendered null and void through change of
   conditions. Thus the second clause of Article 28, requiring
   the previous consent of the bishop for the printing of Bibles,
   prayer books and catechisms, has been rendered of no effect
   through subsequent laws regulating the relations of Church and
   State. Article 76, which provides for the establishment of a
   communal militia, has been abrogated by the military law of
   June 14, 1874. The fact that no French-speaking provinces now
   form part of the kingdom has made Article 62 a dead-letter. So
   also Articles 53 and 55 are no longer strictly adhered to. At
   all events their observance has been suspended for the time
   being."

   The translated text of the Constitution is as follows:

   (Charles Albert, by the Grace of God, King of Sardinia, Cyprus
   and Jerusalem, Duke of Savoy, Genoa, Monferrato, Aosta, of the
   Chiablese, Genovese and of Piacenza; Prince of Piedmont and
   Oneglia; Marquis of Italy, Saluzzo, Ivrea, Susa, Ceva, of the
   Maro, of Oristano, of Cesana and Savona; Count of Moriana,
   Geneva, Nice, Trenda, Romonte, Asti, Alexandria, Goceano,
   Novara, Tortona, Vigevano and of Bobbio; Baron of Vaud and
   Faucigny; Lord of Vercelli, Pinerolo, Tarantasia, of the
   Lomellina and of the Valley of Sesia, etc., etc., etc.) With
   the fidelity of a king and the affection of a father, we are
   about to-day to fulfill all that we promised our most beloved
   subjects in our proclamation of the eighth of last February,
   whereby we desired to show, in the midst of the extraordinary
   events then transpiring throughout the country, how much our
   confidence in our subjects increased with the gravity of the
   situation, and how, consulting only the impulse of our heart,
   we had fully determined to make their condition conform to the
   spirit of the times and to the interests and dignity of the
   nation. We, believing that the broad and permanent
   representative institutions established by this fundamental
   statute are the surest means of cementing the bonds of
   indissoluble affection that bind to our crown a people that
   has so often given us ample proof of their faithfulness,
   obedience and love, have determined to sanction and promulgate
   this statute. We believe, further, that God will bless our
   good intentions, and that this free, strong and happy nation
   will ever show itself more deserving of its ancient fame and
   thus merit a glorious future. Therefore, we, with our full
   knowledge and royal authority and with the advice of our
   Council, have ordained and do hereby ordain and declare in
   force the fundamental perpetual and irrevocable statute and
   law of the monarchy as follows:

   Article 1.
   The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the only
   religion of the State.

      See Law of the Papal Guarantees,
      under PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2478)].

   Other cults now existing are tolerated conformably to the law.

   Article 2.
   The State is governed by a representative monarchical
   government, and the throne is hereditary according to the
   Salic law.

   Article 3.
   The legislative power shall be exercised collectively by the
   King and the two Chambers, the Senate and the Chamber of
   Deputies.

   Article 4.
   The person of the King is sacred and inviolable.

   Article 5.
   To the King alone belongs the executive power. He is the
   supreme head of the State; commands all land and naval forces;
   declares war; makes treaties of peace, alliance, commerce and
   other treaties, communicating them to the Chambers as soon as
   the interest and security of the State permits, accompanying
   such notice with opportune explanations; provided that
   treaties involving financial obligations or change of State
   territory shall not take effect until they have received the
   consent of the Chambers.

   Article 6.
   The King appoints to all the offices of the State and makes
   the necessary decrees and regulations for the execution of the
   laws, provided that such decrees do not suspend or modify
   their observance.

   Article 7.
   The King alone sanctions and promulgates the laws.

   Article 8.
   The King may grant pardons and commute sentences.

   Article 9.
   The King convokes the two Chambers each year. He may prorogue
   their sessions and dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, in which
   case he shall convoke a new Chamber within a period of four
   months.

   Article 10.
   The initiative in legislation belongs both to the King and the
   two Houses. All bills, however, imposing taxes or relating to
   the budget shall first be presented to the Chamber of
   Deputies.

   Article 11.
   The King shall attain his majority upon completion of his
   eighteenth year.

   Article 12.
   During the King's minority, the Prince who is his nearest
   relative in the order of succession to the throne, shall be
   regent of the realm, provided he be twenty-one years of age.

   Article 13.
   Should the Prince upon whom the regency devolves be still in
   his minority and this duty pass to a more distant relative,
   the regent who actually takes office shall continue in the
   same until the King becomes of age.

   Article 14.
   In the absence of male relatives, the regency devolves upon
   the Queen-Mother.

   Article 15.
   In the event of the prior decease of the Queen-Mother, the
   regent shall be elected by the legislative Chambers, convoked
   within ten days by the Ministers of the Crown.

   Article 16.
   The preceding provisions in reference to the regency are also
   applicable in case the King has attained his majority, but is
   physically incapable of reigning. Under such circumstances, if
   the heir presumptive to the throne be eighteen years of age,
   be shall be regent of full right.

   Article 17.
   The Queen-Mother has charge of the education of the King until
   he has completed his seventh year; from this time on his
   guardianship passes into the hands of the regent.

   Article 18.
   All rights pertaining to the civil power in matters of
   ecclesiastical benefices and in the execution of all
   regulations whatsoever coming from foreign countries shall be
   exercised by the King.

   Article 19.
   The civil list of the Crown shall remain, during the present
   reign, at an amount equal to the average of the same for the
   past ten years. The King shall continue to have the use of the
   royal palaces, villas, gardens and their appurtenances, and
   also of all chattels intended for the use of the Crown, of
   which a speedy inventory shall be made by a responsible
   ministerial department. In the future the prescribed dotation
   of the Crown shall be fixed for the duration of each reign by
   the first Legislature subsequent to the King s accession to
   the throne.

{3734}

   Article 20.
   The property that the King possesses in his own right, shall
   form his private patrimony, together with that to which he may
   acquire title either for a consideration or gratuitously in
   the course of his reign. The King may dispose of his private
   patrimony either by deed or will exempt from the provisions of
   the civil law as to the amount thus disposable. In all other
   cases, the King's patrimony is subject to the laws that govern
   other property.

   Article 21.
   The law shall provide an annual civil list for the heir
   apparent to the throne when he has attained his majority, and
   also earlier on occasion of his marriage; for the allowances
   of the Princes of the royal family and royal blood within the
   specified conditions; for the dowries of the Princesses and
   for the dowries of the Queens.

   Article 22.
   Upon ascending the throne, the King shall take an oath in the
   presence of the two Chambers to observe faithfully the present
   constitution.

   Article 23.
   The regent, before entering on the duties of that office,
   shall swear fidelity to the King and faithful observance of
   this constitution and of the laws of the State.

   Article 24.
   All the inhabitants of the Kingdom, whatever their rank or
   title, shall enjoy equality before the law. All shall equally
   enjoy civil and political rights and be eligible to civil and
   military office, except as otherwise provided by law.

   Article 25.
   All shall contribute without discrimination to the burdens of
   the State, in proportion to their possessions.

   Article 26.
   Individual liberty is guaranteed. No one shall be arrested or
   brought to trial except in cases provided for and according to
   the forms prescribed by law.

   Article 27.
   The domicile shall be inviolable. No house search shall take
   place except in the enforcement of law and in the manner
   prescribed by law.

   Article 28.
   The press shall be free, but the law may suppress abuses of
   this freedom. Nevertheless, Bibles, catechisms, liturgical and
   prayer books shall not be printed without the previous consent
   of the bishop.

   Article 29.
   Property of all kinds whatsoever shall be inviolable. In all
   cases, however, where the public welfare, legally ascertained,
   demands it, property may be condemned and transferred in whole
   or in part after a just indemnity has been paid according to
   law.

   Article 30.
   No tax shall be levied or collected without the consent of the
   Chambers and the sanction of the King.

   Article 31.
   The public debt is guaranteed. All obligations between the
   State and its creditors shall be inviolable.

   Article 32.
   The right to peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized,
   subject, however, to the laws that may regulate the exercise
   of this privilege in the interest of the public welfare. This
   privilege is not applicable, however, to meetings in public
   places or places open to the public, which shall remain
   entirely subject to police law and regulation.

   Article 33.
   The Senate shall be composed of members, having attained the
   age of forty years, appointed for life by the King, without
   limit of numbers. They shall be selected from the following
   categories of citizens:
   1. Archbishops and Bishops of the State.
   2. The President of the Chamber of Deputies.
   3. Deputies after having served in three Legislatures, or
   after six years of membership in the Chamber of Deputies.
   4. Ministers of State.
   5. Secretaries to Ministers of State.
   6. Ambassadors.
   7. Envoys Extraordinary after three years of such service.
   8. The First Presidents of the Courts
   of Cassation and of the Chamber of Accounts.
   9. The First Presidents of the Courts of Appeal.
   10. The Attorney-General of the Courts of Cassation
   and the Prosecutor-General, after five years of service.
   11. The Presidents of the Chambers of the Courts of Appeal
   after three years of service.
   12. The Councillors of the Courts of Cassation and of the
   Chamber of Accounts after five years of service.
   13. The Advocates-General and Fiscals-General of the Courts
   of Appeal after five years of service.
   14. All military officers of the land and naval forces with
   title of general. Major-generals and rear-admirals after five
   years of active service in this capacity.
   15. The Councillors of State after live years of service.
   16. The members of the Councils of Division after three
   elections to their presidency.
   17. The Provincial Governors (Intendenti generali) after seven years of service.
   18. Members of the Royal Academy of Science
   of seven years standing.
   19. Ordinary members of the Superior Council of Public
   Instruction after seven years of service.
   20. Those who by their services or eminent merit have done
   honor to their country.
   21. Persons who, for at least three years, have paid direct
   property or occupation taxes to the amount of 3,000 lire.

   Article 34.
   The Princes of the Royal Family shall be members of the
   Senate. They shall take rank immediately after the President.
   They shall enter the Senate at the age of twenty-one and have
   a vote at twenty-five.

   Article 35.
   The President and Vice-Presidents of the Senate shall be
   appointed by the King, but the Senate chooses from among its
   own members its secretaries.

   Article 36.
   The Senate may be constituted a High Court of Justice by
   decree of the King for judging crimes of high treason and
   attempts upon the safety of the State, also for trying
   Ministers placed in accusation by the Chamber of Deputies.
   When acting in this capacity, the Senate is not a political
   body. It shall not then occupy itself with any other judicial
   matters than those for which it was convened; any other action
   is null and void.

   Article 37.
   No Senator shall be arrested except by virtue of an order of
   the Senate, unless in cases of flagrant commission of crime.
   The Senate shall be the sole judge of the imputed misdemeanors
   of its members.

   Article 38.
   Legal documents as to births, marriages and deaths in the
   Royal Family shall be presented to the Senate and deposited by
   that body among its archives.

   Article 39.
   The elective Chamber is composed of deputies chosen by the
   electoral colleges as provided by law.

{3735}

      ["The election law long in force was that of December 17,
      1860, which was subsequently modified in July, 1875, and in
      May, 1877. In January, 1882, a comprehensive electoral
      reform was inaugurated by which the electoral age
      qualification was reduced from twenty-five to twenty-one
      years, and the tax qualification to an annual payment of
      nineteen lire eighty centesimi as a minimum of direct
      taxes. This law introduced a new provision requiring of
      electors a knowledge of reading and writing. It is an
      elaborate law of 107 articles. The provisions relating to
      the elections by general ticket were further revised by law
      of May and decree of June, 1882, and the text of the whole
      law was co-ordinated with the preceding laws by Royal
      Decree of September 24, 1882. It was again modified May
      5th, 1891, by the abolition of elections on general tickets
      and the creation of a Commission for the territorial
      division of the country into electoral colleges. The number
      of electoral colleges is at present fixed at 508, each
      electing one Deputy. Twelve articles of this law of 1882,
      as thus amended, have been again amended by a law dated
      June 28, 1892, prescribing further reforms in the control
      and supervision of elections, and by law of July 11, 1894,
      on the revision of electoral and registration
      lists."—Foot-note.]

   Article 40.
   No person shall be a member of the Chamber who is not a
   subject of the King, thirty years of age, possessing all civil
   and political rights and the other qualifications required by
   law.

   Article 41.
   Deputies shall represent the nation at large and not the
   several Provinces from which they are chosen. No binding
   instructions may therefore be given by the electors.

   Article 42.
   Deputies shall be elected for a term of five years; their
   power ceases ipso jure at the expiration of this period.

   Article 43.
   The President, Vice-presidents and Secretaries of the Chamber
   of Deputies shall be chosen from among its own members at the
   beginning of each session for the entire session.

   Article 44.
   If a Deputy ceases for any reason whatsoever to perform his
   duties, the electoral college that chose him shall be convened
   at once to proceed with a new election.

   Article 45.
   Deputies shall be privileged from arrest during the sessions,
   except in cases of flagrant commission of crime; but no Deputy
   may be brought to trial in criminal matters without the
   previous consent of the Chamber.

   Article 46.
   No warrant of arrest for debts may be executed against a
   Deputy during the sessions of the Chamber, nor within a period
   of three weeks preceding or following the same.

      ["This article has been practically abolished by
      the Mancini law of December 6, 1877, doing
      away with personal arrest for debts."—Footnote.]

   Article 47.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall have power to impeach Ministers
   of the Crown and to bring them to trial before the High Court
   of Justice.

   Article 48:
   The sessions of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies shall begin
   and end at the same time, and every meeting of one Chamber, at
   a time when the other, is not in session, is illegal and its
   acts wholly null and void.

   Article 49.
   Senators and Deputies before entering upon the duties of their
   office shall take an oath of fidelity to the King and swear to
   observe faithfully the Constitution and laws of the State and
   to perform their duties with the joint welfare of King and
   country as the sole end in view.

   Article 50.
   The office of Senator or Deputy does not entitle to any
   compensation or remuneration.

   Article 51.
   Senators and Deputies shall not be held responsible in any
   other place for opinions expressed or votes given in the
   Chambers.

   Article 52.
   The sessions of the Chambers shall be public. Upon the written
   request of ten members secret sessions may be held.

   Article 53.
   No session or vote of either Chamber shall be legal or valid
   unless an absolute majority of its members is present.

      [This article is not observed in actual parliamentary
      practice.—Foot-note.]

   Article 54.
   The action of either Chamber on any question shall be
   determined by a majority of the votes cast.

   Article 55.
   All bills shall be submitted to committees elected by each
   House for preliminary examination. Any proposition discussed
   and approved by one Chamber shall be transmitted to the other
   for its consideration and approval; after passing both
   Chambers it shall be presented to the King for his sanction.
   Bills shall be discussed article by article.

   Article 56.
   Any bill rejected by one of the three legislative powers
   cannot again be introduced during the same session.

   Article 57.
   Every person who shall have attained his majority has the
   right to send petitions to the Chambers, which in turn must
   order them to be examined by a committee; on report of the
   committee each House shall decide whether they are to be taken
   into consideration, and if voted in the affirmative, they
   shall be referred to the competent Minister or shall be
   deposited with a Government Department for proper action.

   Article 58.
   No petition may be presented in person to either Chamber. No
   persons except the constituted authorities shall have the
   right to submit petitions in their collective capacity.

   Article 59.
   The Chambers shall not receive any deputation, nor give
   hearing to other than their own members and the Ministers and
   Commissioners of the Government.

   Article 60.
   Each Chamber shall be sole judge of the qualifications and
   elections of its own members.

   Article 61.
   The Senate as well as the Chamber of Deputies shall make its
   own rules and regulations respecting its methods of procedure
   in the performance of its respective duties.

   Article 62.
   Italian shall be the official language of the Chambers. The
   use of French shall, however, be permitted to those members
   coming from French-speaking districts and to other members in
   replying to the same.

   Article 63.
   Votes shall be taken by rising, by division, and by secret
   ballot. The latter method, however, shall always be employed
   for the final vote on a law and in all cases of a personal
   nature.

   Article 64.
   No one shall hold the office of Senator and Deputy at the same
   time.

   Article 65.
   The King appoints and dismisses his ministers.

   Article 66.
   The Ministers shall have no vote in either Chamber unless they
   are members thereof. They shall have entrance to both Chambers
   and must be heard upon request.

   Article 67.
   The Ministers shall be responsible. Laws and decrees of the
   government shall not take effect until they shall have
   received the signature of a Minister.

{3736}

   Article 68.
   Justice emanates from the King and shall be administered in
   his name by the judges he appoints.

   Article 69.
   Judges appointed by the King, except Cantonal or District
   judges (di mandamento), shall not be removed after three years
   of service.

   Article 70.
   Courts, tribunals and judges are retained as at present
   existing. No modification shall be introduced except by law.

   Article 71.
   No one shall be taken from his ordinary legal jurisdiction. It
   is therefore not lawful to create extraordinary tribunals or
   commissions.

   Article 72.
   The proceedings of tribunals in civil cases and the hearings
   in criminal cases shall be public as provided by law.

   Article 73.
   The interpretation of the laws, in the form obligatory upon
   all citizens, belongs exclusively to the legislative power.

   Article 74.
   Communal and provincial institutions and the boundaries of the
   communes and provinces shall be regulated by law.

   Article 75.
   The military conscriptions shall be regulated by law.

   Article 76.
   A communal militia shall be established on a basis fixed by
   law.

   Article 77.
   The State retains its flag, and the blue cockade is the only
   national one.

   Article 78.
   The knightly orders now in existence shall be maintained with
   their endowments, which shall not be used for other purposes
   than those specified in the acts by which they were
   established. The King may create other orders and prescribe
   their constitutions.

   Article 79.
   Titles of the nobility are guaranteed to those who have a
   right to them. The King may confer new titles.

   Article 80.
   No one may receive orders, titles or pensions from a foreign
   power without the King's consent.

   Article 81.
   All laws contrary to the provisions of the present
   constitution are hereby abrogated.

   Given at Turin on the fourth day of March, in the year of Our
   Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and of Our
   Reign the eighteenth.

Transitory Provisions.

   Article 82.
   This statue shall go into effect on the day of the first
   meeting of the Chambers, which shall take place immediately
   after the elections. Until that time urgent public service
   shall be provided for by royal ordinances according to the
   mode and form now in vogue, excepting, however, the
   ratifications and registrations in the courts which are from
   now on abolished.

   Article 83.
   In the execution of this statute the King reserves to himself
   the right to make the laws for the press, elections, communal
   militia and organization of the Council of State. Until the
   publication of the laws for the press, the regulations now in
   force on this subject remain valid.

   Article 84.
   The Ministers are entrusted with, and are responsible for the
   execution and full observance of these transitory provisions.

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF ITALY: End--------

CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK STATE, and its Revisions.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777, 1821, 1846, 1867-1882,
      and 1894 (page 2339, and after).

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888 (page 2646).

CONTRACT TABLETS, BABYLONIAN.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COOKE AND WHEATSTONE, Telegraphic Inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1825-1874 (page 773).

CO-OPERATION.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D). 1816-1886, 1840-1848,
      1848-1883 (pages 2938, 2942, 2946).

COPYRIGHT.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1499;
      and EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (pages 1965 and 1994).

COREA.
   The war between Japan and China.

   "The peninsula which projects between the Japanese and Yellow
   Seas southwards in the direction of the southern islands of
   Nippon is completely limited landwards. Like Italy, with which
   it may be compared in extent, and even to some degree in its
   orographic configuration, it is separated from the mainland by
   the Alpine Taipeishan or 'Great White Mountains,' of
   Manchuria. It has also its Apennines stretching north and
   south, and forming the backbone of the peninsula. … Like most
   regions of the extreme East, Korea is known to foreigners by a
   name which has little currency in the country itself. This
   term, belonging formerly to the petty state of Korié, has been
   extended by the Chinese and Japanese to the whole peninsula,
   under the forms of Kaokiuli, Korai, Kaoli. When all the
   principalities were fused in one monarchy, towards the close
   of the 14th century, the country, at that time subject to
   China, took the official title of Chaosien (Tsiosen)—that is,
   'Serenity of the Morning'—in allusion to its geographical
   position east of the empire. Thus it is now designated by a
   poetical expression which exactly indicates its position
   between China and Japan. While for the people of the continent
   Japan is the land of the Rising Sun, Korea is the 'Serene'
   land, illumined by the morning rays. Although washed by two
   much-frequented seas, and yearly sighted by thousands of
   seafarers, Korea is one of the least known Asiatic regions. …
   From its very position between China and Japan, Korea could
   not fail to have been a subject of contention for its powerful
   neighbours. Before its fusion in one state it comprised
   several distinct principalities, whose limits were subject to
   frequent changes. These were, in the north, Kaokiuli (Kaoli),
   or Korea proper; in the centre, Chaosien and the 78 so-called
   'kingdoms' of Chinese foundation, usually known as the San Kan
   (San Han), or 'Three Han'; in the south, Petsi, or Hiaksaï
   (Kudara), the Sinlo of the Chinese, or Siragi of the Japanese;
   beside the petty state of Kara, Zinna, or Mimana, in the
   south-east, round about the Bay of Tsiosan. The northern
   regions naturally gravitated towards China, whose rulers
   repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of the country.
   But the inhabitants of the south, known in history by the
   Japanese name of Kmaso, or 'Herd of Bears,' were long subject
   to Japan, while at other times they made frequent incursions
   into Kiu-siu and Hondo, and even formed settlements on those
   islands. The first conquest of the country was made by the
   forces of the Queen Regent Zingu in the 3d century.
{3737}
   Towards the end of the 16th the celebrated Japanese dictator
   and usurper Taïkosama, having conceived the project of
   conquering China, began with that of Korea, under the pretext
   of old Japanese rights over the country of the Kmaso. After
   wasting the land he compelled the King to become his
   tributary, and left a permanent garrison in the peninsula. A
   fresh expedition, although interrupted by the death of
   Taïkosama, was equally successful. Tsu-sima remained in the
   hands of the Japanese, and from that time till the middle of
   the present century Korea continued in a state of vassalage,
   sending every year presents and tribute to Nippon. … Thanks to
   the aid sent by the Ming dynasty to Korea, in its victorious
   struggle with the other petty states of the peninsula, and in
   its resistance to Japan, its relations with China continued to
   be of the most friendly character. Admirers of Chinese
   culture, the native rulers felt honoured by the investiture
   granted them by the 'Son of Heaven.' But after the Manchu
   conquest of the Middle Kingdom, Korea remaining faithful to
   the cause of the Mings, the new masters of the empire invaded
   the peninsula, and in 1637 dictated a treaty, imposing on the
   Koreans a yearly tribute. … But although since that time the
   native ruler takes the title of 'Subject,' China exercises no
   real sovereign rights in Korea."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

   "Since the conclusion of that treaty [of 1637], Corea has been
   at peace with both her neighbours and able, till within the
   last twenty years, to maintain the seclusion she so much
   desired. Until the beginning of the present century—when the
   doctrine preached by Roman missionaries in China began to
   filter across the frontier, and to provoke a fitful and
   uncertain intercourse between them and the few Coreans who had
   been attracted by the new religion—the only fresh glimpse we
   obtain of the interior of the country and its inhabitants is
   afforded by the well-known story of Henry Hamel, who was
   wrecked off the Corean coast in 1653, and detained there
   twelve years as a prisoner at large. … We come now to events
   nearer our own time, in which the propaganda of Rome and the
   proceedings of its emissaries begin to play a prominent and
   interesting part. In the year 1784, a young Corean named Le,
   who had come to Peking in the suite of the tribute-bearing
   embassy, applied to the Roman Catholic Mission for books and
   instruction in the science of mathematics, of which he was
   naturally fond. The missionaries profited by the occasion to
   lend him books on religion, which awakened his interest and
   led to his eventual conversion. As usual in such cases, the
   neophyte set himself, directly on his return, to propagate the
   new creed he had learned, among his relations and friends; and
   with so much success that, in less than five years, he had,
   according to Mgr. Govéa, gained 4,000 adherents. As may be
   imagined, however, the doctrine acquired from a convert who
   had had only a few months' instruction, and disseminated again
   at second-hand by men who had caught the crude idea from his
   conversation, was of a somewhat obscure description. … Neither
   letter nor news was received from the Corean Christians for
   more than two years; but two converts made their way to
   Peking, at the close of 1793, with news of a severe
   persecution which had occurred in the interval. … No sooner
   had the persecution … subsided, than a priest was successfully
   introduced across the frontier, to instruct and impart new
   life to the converts. Nor, it is affirmed, has the flock ever
   since been left unguarded. Persecution has followed
   persecution; but from Jacques Velloz, the first missionary to
   cross the frontier, who suffered martyrdom in 1800, to Mgr.
   Ridel, who has returned to Europe with health shattered by the
   anxieties and hardships undergone during the latest outbreak,
   there have always been some priests alternately tolerated or
   hiding in the country, and the spark lighted by the young
   Corean attache has never been quite extinguished. … On July
   7th, 1866, a Roman Catholic missionary arrived in a Corean
   boat at Chefoo, with a tale of dire persecution. Two bishops,
   nine priests, and a number of Christians of both sexes had
   been massacred, many of them after judicial tortures of
   atrocious cruelty. Three members of the mission only survived,
   and M. Ridel had been chosen to carry the news to China, and
   endeavour to procure assistance. It was to the French
   authorities, naturally, that he addressed himself; and both
   Admiral Roze, the Commandant of the French fleet in Chinese
   waters, and M. de Bellonet, then charge-d'affaires at Peking,
   lent a sympathetic ear to his protest. … An expedition was
   accordingly resolved on. … Admiral Roze started from Chefoo
   with the expeditionary force on October 11th, arrived off
   Kang-hwa on the 14th, and occupied it, after a merely nominal
   resistance, two days later. The Coreans were apparently taken
   by surprise, having perhaps thought that the danger had
   passed. … The forts along the banks of the river were found
   ungarrisoned, and Kang-hwa itself, a considerable fortress
   containing large stores of munitions of war, was practically
   undefended. A letter was received, a few days later, inviting
   Admiral Roze to come or send delegates to Söul, to talk over
   matters in a friendly spirit; but he replied that, if the
   Corean authorities wished to treat, they had better come to
   Kang-hwa. This attitude was meant, no doubt, to be impressive,
   but the event proved it to be slightly premature. So far all
   had gone well; but the expedition was about to collapse with a
   suddenness contrasting remarkably with the expectations raised
   by M. de Bellonet's denunciations and Admiral Roze's hauteur.
   … The disastrous termination of … two movements appears to
   have persuaded Admiral Roze that the force at his disposal was
   insufficient to prosecute the enterprise to a successful
   issue, in face of Corean hostility. It was no longer a
   question whether he should go to Söul or the Coreans come to
   him: the expedition was at a deadlock. He had rejected the
   first overtures, and was not strong enough to impose terms. A
   retreat was accordingly decided on. The city of Kang-hwa was
   burned, with its public offices and royal palace."

      _R. S. Gundry,
      China and her Neighbours,
      chapter 9._

   In 1866, when the French threatened Corea, the latter sought
   help from Japan and received none. Two years later, after the
   Japanese revolution which restored the Mikado to his full
   sovereignty, the Coreans declined to acknowledge his
   suzerainty, and bitterly hostile feelings grew up between the
   two peoples. The Japanese were restrained from war with
   difficulty by their more conservative statesmen.
{3738}
   Without war, they obtained from Corea, in 1876, an important
   treaty, which contained in the first article "the remarkable
   statement that 'Chosen, being an independent State, enjoys the
   same sovereign rights as does Japan'—an admission which was
   foolishly winked at by China from the mistaken notion that, by
   disavowing her connection with Korea, she should escape the
   unpleasantness of being called to account for the
   delinquencies of her vassal. This preliminary advantage was
   more than doubled in value to Japan when, after the revolution
   in Söul in 1884, by which her diplomatic representative was
   compelled to flee for the second time from the Korean capital,
   she sent troops to avenge the insult and declined to remove
   them until China had made a similar concession with regard to
   the Chinese garrison, which had been maintained since the
   previous outbreak in 1882 in that city. By the Convention of
   Tientsin, which was negotiated in 1885 by Count Ito with the
   Viceroy Li Hung Chang, both parties agreed to withdraw their
   troops and not to send an armed force to Korea at any future
   date to suppress rebellion or disturbance without giving
   previous intimation to the other. This document was a second
   diplomatic triumph for Japan. … It is, in my judgment, greatly
   to be regretted that in the present summer [1894] her
   Government, anxious to escape from domestic tangles by a
   spirited foreign policy, has abandoned this statesmanlike
   attitude, and has embarked upon a headlong course of
   aggression in Korea, for which there appears to have been no
   sufficient provocation, and the ulterior consequences of which
   it is impossible to forecast. … Taking advantage of recent
   disturbances in the peninsula, which demonstrated with renewed
   clearness the impotence of the native Government to provide
   either a decent administration for its own subjects, or
   adequate protection to the interests of foreigners, and
   ingeniously profiting by the loophole left for future
   interference in the Tientsin Agreement of 1885, Japan … (in
   July 1894) landed a large military force, estimated at 10,000
   men, in Korea, and is in armed occupation of the capital. Li
   Hung Chang … responded by the despatch of the Chinese fleet
   and of an expeditionary force, marching overland into the
   northern provinces."

      _G. N. Curzon,
      Problems of the Far East,
      chapter 7._

   "The ostensible starting-point of the trouble that resulted in
   hostilities was a local insurrection which broke out in May in
   one of the southern provinces of Corea. The cause of the
   insurrection was primarily the misrule of the authorities,
   with possibly some influence by the quarreling court factions
   at the capital. The Corean king applied at once to China as
   his suzerain for assistance in subduing the insurgents, and a
   Chinese force was sent. Japan, thereupon, claiming that Corea
   was an independent state and that China had no exclusive right
   to interfere, promptly began to pour large forces into Corea,
   to protect Japanese interests. By the middle of June a whole
   Japanese army corps was at Seoul, the Corean capital, and the
   Japanese minister soon formulated a radical scheme of
   administrative reforms which he demanded as indispensable to
   the permanent maintenance of order in the country. This scheme
   was rejected by the conservative faction which was in power at
   court, whereupon, on July 23, the Japanese forces attacked the
   palace, captured the king and held him as hostage for the
   carrying out of the reforms. The Chinese were meanwhile
   putting forth great efforts to make up for the advantage that
   their rivals had gained in the race for control of Corea, and
   to strengthen their forces in that kingdom. On the 25th a
   Chinese fleet carrying troops to Corea became engaged in
   hostilities with some Japanese war vessels, and one of the
   transports was sunk. On August 1 the Emperor of Japan made a
   formal declaration of war on China, basing his action on the
   false claim of the latter to suzerainty over Corea, and on the
   course of China in opposing and thwarting the plan of reforms
   which were necessary to the progress of Corea and to the
   security of Japanese interests there. The counter-proclamation
   of the Chinese Emperor denounced the Japanese as wanton
   invaders of China's tributary state, and as aiming at the
   enslaving of Corea. On August 26 a treaty of offensive and
   defensive alliance against China was made between Japan and
   Corea. … A severe engagement at Ping-Yang, September 16,
   resulted in the rout of the Chinese and the loss of their last
   stronghold in Corea. A few days later the hostile fleets had a
   pitched battle off the mouth of the Yalu River, with the
   result that the Japanese were left in full control of the
   adjacent waters. On the 26th of October the Japanese land
   forces brushed aside with slight resistance the Chinese on the
   Yalu, which is the boundary between Corea and China, and began
   their advance through the Chinese province of Manchuria,
   apparently aiming at Pekin."

      _Political Science Quarterly,
      December, 1894._

   On the 3d of November, Port Arthur being then invested by the
   Japanese land and naval forces, while Marshal Yamagata, the
   Japanese commander, continued his victorious advance through
   Manchuria, Prince Kung made a formal appeal to the
   representatives of all the Powers for their intervention,
   acknowledging the inability of China to cope with the
   Japanese. On the 21st of November, Port Arthur, called the
   strongest fortress in China, was taken, after hard fighting
   from noon of the previous day. In retaliation for the murder
   and mutilation of some prisoners by the Chinese, the Japanese
   gave no quarter, and are accused of great atrocities. To the
   advance of the Japanese armies in the field, the Chinese
   opposed comparatively slight resistance, in several
   engagements of a minor character, until the 19th of December,
   when a battle of decided obstinacy was fought at Kungwasai,
   near Hai-tcheng. The Japanese were again the victors.
   Overtures for peace made by the Chinese government proved
   unavailing; the Japanese authorities declined to receive the
   envoys sent, for the reason that they were not commissioned
   with adequate powers. Nothing came of an earlier proffer of
   the good offices of the Government of the United States.
   Obstinate fighting occurred at Kai-phing, which was captured
   by the Japanese on the 10th of January, 1895. On the 26th of
   January the Japanese began, both by land and sea, an attack on
   the stronghold of Wei-hai-wei, which was surrendered, with the
   Chinese fleet in its harbor on the 12th of February. Shortly
   afterwards, China made another effort to obtain peace,
   commissioning her able Statesman, Li-Hung-Chang, as a special
   envoy to Japan, with full power to negotiate terms. At the
   time of this writing, the result has not appeared.

{3739}

CORNELL UNIVERSITY, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 735).

CORONER AND CORONER'S JURY.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215, and 1276 (page 1982).

CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS,
   The English Act to prevent.

      See England: A. D. 1883 (page 972).

CORTEREALS, Voyages of the.

      See (in this Supplement) AMERICA.

COTTON-GIN, Whitney's, and its effect.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3306).

COURTS, Origin of the English Criminal.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1066-1272 (page 1981).

COURTS OF OYER AND TERMINER.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285 (page 1982).

COXEY MOVEMENT, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2956).

CRIMINAL LAW.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL (page 1981).

CRUSADES:
   The initial movements.

   "The pious legend according to which Peter the Hermit is
   supposed to have been miraculously chosen by God Himself to
   call Christendom to arms for the purpose of freeing the Holy
   Sepulchre has long since been proved unhistorical by
   scientific investigators. That account of the matter may have
   given suitable expression to the religious enthusiasm which
   the crusades called forth in those circles that were
   especially strongly influenced by the church; but it is
   entirely without any actual foundation in fact, nay, more; the
   religious element altogether did not play nearly so important
   a part in the origin of the crusades as it would seem to have
   done to judge by the later character of the great movement.
   For if in those days church influences and the religious
   impulses on which they were based made a mighty impression and
   in many ways produced an almost overwhelming effect;
   nevertheless the reason for all this lay essentially herein
   that the whole age, more than any other, was in a condition,
   through crying agricultural, social and political needs, to
   give itself up without reserve to the influence of similar
   impelling forces, and that just for this reason it took up
   with such enthusiasm the impulse furnished by the church. In
   its most general form the thought which lies at the base of
   the crusades springs from the idea of the calling of
   Christendom to have and to hold the rule of the world. The
   desire to practically carry out this idea was especially
   active whenever the Christian ideal of world-rule,
   incorporated as it was in a double form in the empire and in
   the papacy, seemed near to realization; then it was that its
   inherent magic unfolded most irresistibly its animating and at
   the same time ensnaring power. Thus did Otto II, already, plan
   a great undertaking for the protection of Christendom against
   the Arabs. Thus did the fantastic mind of his immature son
   busy itself with plans for a great crusade. Neither one nor
   the other carried out his intention. But, little more than two
   generations later, the commanding position which the empire
   had at that time held, passed into the holding of the
   hierarchical papacy. The creator of this hierarchical papacy,
   who was beyond a doubt a reformer of genius, but revolutionary
   in his means and hostile to the state as regarded his final
   ends, was far from contenting himself with the spiritual power
   which belongs uncontestedly to the church, but strove for an
   actual, secular rule of the world. He thought to bring into
   his own hands the complete political guidance of Christendom
   as well as the command over its war-forces. … Plans for
   widening his political and ecclesiastical sphere of power
   formed the pith of Gregory VIIth's crusading plans. … Already
   the victorious course had come to a stand-still in which the
   Arabs up to the beginning of the eleventh century had
   threatened to flood southwestern Europe. It was to rid
   themselves of their troublesome enemies and their deeds of
   violence, but not, however for the sake of the Faith, that
   those who were threatened had determined to help themselves.
   This led to the rapid rise of the naval power of Pisa and
   Genoa, which soon won brilliant victories on the north coast
   of Africa, and at the same time the brave Normans struggled
   with growing success against the Arabs for the possession of
   fair Sicily. There and not in Rome was the thought of a holy
   war against the power of the Crescent first taken hold of; it
   sprang from the knightly zeal for action and the political
   genius of Robert Guiscard. … About the same time, moreover,
   the Christians of the Pyrenean peninsula had energetically
   roused themselves to a new attack against the Mohammedans.
   Along the whole line therefore, in southwestern Europe, the
   Christian arms were already victoriously pressing forward
   against the followers of the prophet when the call from Rome
   to the crusades first sounded out. Regarded as a whole,
   therefore, the crusades cannot simply be looked upon as the
   exclusive work of the church. The movement was already in full
   progress and had, independently of the church, most successful
   results to show, when that church's head undertook through a
   skillful act to concentrate the separate movements and to
   unite and organize them under his own guidance. This policy
   was cleverly carried out by Urban. The church succeeded
   effectually in bringing under her own undivided direction the
   undertakings which different peoples of the Occident had
   separately begun against their Mohammedan adversaries. For on
   the one hand the empire, to which even then the opinion of the
   world ascribed the first right of leadership in such a
   struggle, lay prostrate in abject weakness and degradation; it
   was incapable of fulfilling its calling. The whole age on the
   other hand was so thoroughly roused to its depths and so
   exhausted through the mighty spiritual struggles by which
   church-life especially was shaken to its very foundation that
   it submitted without opposition and even willingly to a
   churchly right of guidance emphatically asserted; the more so
   as this new guide promised to show the individual the way to
   inward rest and peace of soul. The deeply sunken church had
   been reformed by Cluny ideas; in place of the worldly doings
   and sensual pleasures which had formerly engrossed her
   servants and dignitaries, stern asceticism and saintly
   enthusiasm ruled the day. Although it was among the clergy of
   the eleventh century that the effect of this was primarily to
   be seen, yet it was not without influence on the great body of
   laymen.
{3740}
   Not seldom do princes and nobles emulate each other in strict
   ecclesiasticism, in monkish practices and pilgrimages. An age
   without a parallel began of founding monasteries and churches.
   Was it to be wondered at that the people also, otherwise bound
   fast by the barren monotony of toilsome existence, turned
   their thoughts often in the same direction? The more frequent
   coming forward of popular saints and popular preachers, the
   overwhelmingly rapid increase in the worship of relics, which
   assumed a hitherto unheard-of significance for the catholic
   system of religious observance, and the astonishing renewal of
   life which came about in the matter of pilgrimages and sacred
   undertakings customary though they had been of old: all these
   show clearly how the enthusiastic frame of mind which had been
   aroused by Cluny won for itself wider and wider circles even
   beyond the pale of the clergy. And in an age like this, so
   deeply excited about church matters, fell now the
   world-rousing struggle between the papacy and the empire. It
   appeared to annihilate the foundations on which church and
   state had hitherto been reared. With bitterness men saw those
   powers in conflict with each other on whose concord they had
   believed the peace and happiness of the world to depend. …
   Most impressively of all, as far as the uneducated masses were
   concerned, was the wretchedness of the age betokened by the
   outward evils and ravagings which the termination of the reign
   of Henry IV brought about: by the vanishing of discipline and
   order, the utter prostration of law, the loosing even of the
   holy ties of family. The vassal broke faith with the feudal
   lord, the subject warred with the authorities, the son rose up
   against the father. Heavily did the chastening hand of God
   rest upon land and people. Everywhere did men suffer from
   feuds, robbery and violence; everywhere did the common man
   find himself in a position which he felt that he could no
   longer endure. In France the rural population was utterly
   prostrated under the galling oppressions of the nobles who
   were their landlords. In Germany, to add to similar evils,
   came the loosing of all bonds of order through the civil war
   which had sprung from the conflict concerning the investiture.
   … In short, wherever in the Occident one turns his gaze,
   everywhere did dissatisfaction and an impulse towards
   improvement, or at least towards change, rule the day;
   everywhere an eager desire with one stroke to break free from
   the uncomfortable, indeed in many cases unbearable, present!
   The dissatisfied and revolutionary mood which possessed high
   and low in almost all parts of occidental Christendom is one
   of the essential reasons why the call to the crusade at once
   set hundreds of thousands in motion and called forth a very
   wandering of the nations. … Hierarchical ideas and asceticism
   ruled the spirit of the age; in mind and in mood they had
   prepared Europe for the crusades. Most emphatically was this
   made evident by the fact that the crusaders marched out under
   the banner of the hierarchical papacy—that same red cross
   which Erlembald Cotta, the 'knight of the church' had borne on
   his white standard during the religious civil war in Lombardy,
   and which in 1066 had been bestowed by the pope on the
   conqueror of England. But on the other hand the political,
   social and agricultural needs, which were not to be put off
   and which kept calling for speedy change, were no less
   effective agents in the same direction. Not religious
   enthusiasm alone was it that ever anew, at the end of the
   eleventh century, impelled hundreds of thousands towards the
   Orient; how many would have staid at home quietly if they had
   had enough to eat and had otherwise rejoiced in an existence
   fit for a human being. But for years one bad harvest had
   succeeded another; almost everywhere there was want almost
   bordering on famine; to eke out their scanty existence
   countless of those of the lower classes had had to squander
   their possessions. They stood there now utterly without means;
   they were forced to emigrate if they would not starve at home.
   From all such oppressions, however, he was released who obeyed
   the call to the crusade. Brilliant gains seemed assured to him
   so soon as he allowed the red cross to be affixed to his
   garment. The serf became free, the debtor shook off his
   creditor or at any rate needed to pay him no interest. The
   monk escaped from the strict discipline of the monastery, he
   who had been under the ban was received again into the
   communion of the church. What wonder then if countless numbers
   hastened to join the adventurous expedition to the East which
   promised them such blessings; and to the outward advantages
   that allured the crusaders, to the expectation of the toilless
   acquisition of land and subjects, of money and possessions,
   must be added still the rich spiritual blessings and
   ecclesiastical rewards which were solemnly assured to the
   warriors of Christ. … Human nature at that time would have had
   to be actually raised out of itself, to have become to a
   certain extent untrue to itself if, in contrast to the misery
   at home, the alluring prospects which began to show themselves
   in the unknown distance had not worked an irresistible charm
   on the great masses of the people. Nor did the church have any
   scruples in putting in motion exactly these incentives to
   action; she declared that the prevailing misery arose from the
   thickness of the population in an impoverished land; she
   unchained the popular greed by representing what riches would
   be captured from the infidels, and even roused the sensual
   passions by the seductive praise of Greek female beauty. That
   such language should fairly carry away the great masses may
   easily be imagined. For we may surely not regard the people as
   of better moral fibre, and therefore more susceptible to ideal
   motives, than the princes and commanders who led the crusading
   armies. Of these, however, only the hot-blooded nobles of
   southern France can primarily pass for representatives of that
   churchly enthusiasm with which, according to the tradition
   well-tinged with legend, the crusaders as a whole are said to
   have been seized. And it is well known that their churchly
   narrow-mindedness brought the people of southern France, under
   Raymond of Toulouse, soon enough into direct opposition to the
   other participants in the first crusade. For the majority of
   the princes who had taken the cross were by no means willing
   to work for the sole advantage of the church, but wished to
   further their own worldly interests at least as much as they
   did those of the pope. Indeed the Norman princes whose race
   had been the first to take up the idea of a holy war against
   the infidels had joined the crusade without religious
   enthusiasm, after sober consideration and entirely following
   out their own selfish, world]y plans. And it was exactly into
   their hands that the leadership of the great undertaking
   primarily came: the more completely therefore did the worldly,
   political and dynastic points of view weigh down the churchly
   intentions of the pious fanatics who, under the influence of
   asceticism, wished only to serve the hierarchy."

      _Hans Prutz,
      Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge,
      (translated from the German)
      pages 12-17._

      See, also, CRUSADES, page 626.

{3741}

CUMBERLAND ROAD, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812 (page 3335).

CURIA REGIS.

      See LAW (page 1957).

CY PRES DOCTRINE.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1601 (page 1991).

CYRUS, King, and the Jews.

      See JEWS: B. C. 604-536, and 537 (pages 1908-1910).

D.

D'ALBUQUERQUE, Afonso,
   and the domination of the Portuguese in the East.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

DARNLEY, Lord, The murder of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568 (page 2857).

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE, The.

   "Dartmouth College … was originally a charity school for the
   instruction of Indians in the Christian religion, founded by
   the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, D. D., about the year 1754, at
   Lebanon, in Connecticut. Its success led Dr. Wheelock to
   solicit private subscriptions in England, for the purpose of
   enlarging it, and of extending its benefits to English
   colonists. Funds having been obtained for this purpose from
   various contributors, among whom the Earl of Dartmouth,
   Secretary for the Colonies, was a large donor, Dr. Wheelock
   constituted that nobleman and other persons trustees, with
   authority to fix the site of the college. The place selected
   was on the Connecticut River, at what is now the town of
   Hanover, in New Hampshire, where large donations of land were
   made by the neighboring proprietors. A charter for the college
   was obtained from the crown, in 1769, creating it a perpetual
   corporation. The charter recognized Dr. Wheelock as founder,
   appointed him to be the president, and empowered him to name
   his successor, subject to the approval of the trustees; to
   whom was also imparted the power of filling vacancies in their
   own body, and of making laws and ordinances for the government
   of the college, not repugnant to the laws of Great Britain or
   of the province, and not excluding any person on account of
   his religious belief. Under this charter, Dartmouth College
   had always existed, unquestioned and undisturbed in its rights
   as a corporation, down to the Revolution, and subsequently
   until the year 1815. Whether from political or personal
   motives springing up outside of the board of trustees of that
   period, or from some collisions arising within the body
   itself, it appears that … legislative interference with the
   chartered rights of this college was threatened. … In the
   following year (1816), the difficulties, which had become
   mixed with political interests, culminated in a direct
   interference by the Legislature. In that year an act was
   passed, changing the corporate name from 'The Trustees of
   Dartmouth College' to 'The Trustees of Dartmouth University;'
   enlarging the number of trustees, vesting the appointment of
   some of them in the political bodies of the State, and
   otherwise modifying the ancient rights of the corporation as
   they existed under its charter derived from the crown of
   England. A majority of the existing trustees refused to accept
   or to be bound by this act, and brought an action of trover in
   the Supreme Court of the State, in the name of the old
   corporation, against a gentleman, Mr. W. H. Woodward, who was
   in possession of the college seal and other effects, and who
   claimed to hold them as one of the officers of the
   newly-created 'university.' The argument in this case was made
   in the State court, for the college, by Mr. Mason and Mr.
   Jeremiah Smith, assisted by Mr. Webster. The decision was
   against the claim of the college. It was then determined to
   remove the cause, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court of
   the United States, under the provisions of the Federal
   Constitution and laws creating in that tribunal an appellate
   jurisdiction in cases which, although originating in a State
   court, involved the construction and operation of the Federal
   Constitution. This was supposed to be such a case, because it
   was claimed by the college that the act of the Legislature,
   modifying its charter, impaired the obligation of a contract;
   an exercise of power which the Constitution of the United
   States prohibits to the Legislature of a State. As soon as it
   was known in New Hampshire that this very interesting cause
   was to come before the Supreme Court of the United States, the
   friends of the college, including their other counsel in the
   State court, unanimously desired to have it committed to the
   hands of Mr. Webster. He consented to take charge of it in the
   autumn of 1817; but the cause was not argued at Washington
   until February, 1818. … Before the case of Dartmouth College
   vs. Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions
   respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to
   contracts, excepting that it had more than once been
   determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that a
   grant of lands made by a State is a contract within the
   protection of this provision, and is, therefore, irrevocable.
   These decisions, however, could go but little way toward the
   solution of the questions involved in the case of the college.
   … Was the State of New Hampshire—a sovereign in all respects
   after the Revolution, and remaining one after the Federal
   Constitution, excepting in those respects in which it had
   subjected its sovereignty to the restraints of that
   instrument—bound by the contracts of the English crown? Is the
   grant of a charter of incorporation a contract between the
   sovereign power and those on whom the charter is bestowed? If
   an act of incorporation is a contract, is it so in any case
   but that of a private corporation? Was this college, which was
   an institution of learning, established for the promotion of
   education, a private corporation, or was it one of those
   instruments of government which are at all times under the
   control and subject to the direction of the legislative power?
   All these questions were involved in the inquiry whether the
   legislative power of the State had been so restrained by the
   Constitution of the United States that it could not alter the
   charter of this institution, against the will of the trustees,
   without impairing the obligation of a contract. …
{3742}
   On the conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated
   that a decision was not to be expected until the next term. It
   was made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on
   which Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision,
   the principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which
   regards a charter of a private corporation as a contract, and
   places it under the protection of the Constitution of the
   United States, takes its date."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      See, also, LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1819 (page 1976).

DAVY, Sir Humphrey, and the discovery of the electric arc light.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY: A. D. 1810-1890 (page 772).

DENMARK: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

DENMARK: Schools.

      See EDUCATION (page 710).

DESCARTES, and modern physiological Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2134).

DIPHTHERIA, Appearance of.

      See PLAGUE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

   "This body, often called also Christians, was one of the
   results of the great revival movement which began in Tennessee
   and Kentucky in the early part of the present century. Rev.
   Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister who was prominent in
   the revival movement, withdrew from the Presbyterian Church,
   and in 1804 organized a church with no other creed than the
   Bible and with no name but that of Christian. One of his
   objects was to find a basis for the union of all Christian
   believers. A little later Thomas and Alexander Campbell,
   father and son, who came from Ireland, where the former had
   been a Presbyterian minister, organized union societies in
   Pennsylvania. Changing their views as to baptism, they joined
   the Redstone Association of Baptists. Shortly after, when
   Alexander Campbell was charged with not being in harmony with
   the creed, he followed the Burch Run Church, of which he was
   pastor, into the Mahoning Baptist Association, which, leavened
   with his teachings, soon ceased to be known as a Baptist
   association. In 1827, after some correspondence with Rev. B.
   W. Stone and his followers of the Christian Connection, there
   was a union with a large number of congregations in Ohio,
   Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the organization variously known
   as 'Disciples of Christ' and 'Christians' [also, popularly
   designated 'Campbellites'] is the result."

      _H. K. Carroll,
      Religious Forces of the United States,
      chapter 18._

DUNKARDS, The.

   "The Dunkards, or German Baptists, or Brethren, are of German
   origin, and trace their beginning back to Alexander Mack, of
   Schwartzenau, Germany. Early in the 18th century Mack and
   several others formed a habit of meeting together for the
   study of the New Testament. They were convinced that its
   doctrines and principles of church order were not being
   faithfully followed, either by the Lutheran or the Reformed
   Church. They therefore resolved to form a society of their
   own. Alexander Mack was chosen as their pastor. Persecution
   soon arose, and they were scattered. In 1719 most of them got
   together and came to the United States, settling in
   Pennsylvania, where their first church was organized about
   1723."

      _H. K. Carroll,
      Religious Forces of the United States,
      chapter 19._

DUTCH, Commerce of the.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

DYNAMO-ELECTRIC MACHINES, The invention of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

E.

EBENEZER AND AMANA COMMUNITIES.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: 1843-1874 (page 2945).

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

      See LAW, ECCLESIASTICAL (page 1986).

EDISON, Electrical Inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1841-1880, and 1876-1892 (pages 775-776).

EDMUNDS ACT, The.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893 (page 3591).

EDUCATION.

      See (in addition to pages 673-748),
      VERMONT UNIVERSITY (page 3619),
      VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY (page 3639),
      WISCONSIN UNIVERSITY (page 3655);
      and, (in this Supplement)
      BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BROWN UNIVERSITY,
      DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HAMILTON COLLEGE,
      MINNESOTA UNIVERSITY, OBERLIN COLLEGE,
      OHIO UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON COLLEGE,
      RUTGERS COLLEGE, TULANE UNIVERSITY, UNION COLLEGE.

EGIBI AND COMPANY, The House of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING:
      ANCIENT EGYPT AND BABYLONIA (page 2199).

EGYPT, ANCIENT: Chronology.

   Modern reckoning of Egyptian Chronology is by two modes: "(1)
   that by 'dead reckoning,' or adding the dynasties up one on
   another: (2) by certain fixed astronomical data, into the
   interpretation and calculation of which various uncertainties
   may enter. The more apart these modes can be kept the better,
   as then they serve to check each other. The fundamental fact
   on which all of our astronomically fixed points depend is the
   imperfection of the Egyptian calendar. Using a year of 365
   days, it followed that the nominal beginning of each year was
   a quarter of a day too soon: just as if we were to neglect the
   29th of February in leap years, and go on always from 28th
   February direct to 1st March. Thus every four years a day was
   slipped, and the nominal months of the year were begun a day
   too soon. In 4 x 7 = 28 they began, then, a week too soon. In
   4 x 30 = 120 years they began & month too soon; and after
   twelve months and five days thus slipped, or in 1,460 years,
   they began a year too soon, and so had rotated the nominal
   months through all the seasons. … This loss of the day in four
   years was … soon known to the Egyptians, and used by them as a
   mode of constructing a great cycle, which in Ptolemaic times
   became very prominent, and entered into all their fanciful
   adjustments of history and myths.
{3743}
   Some mode of noting the absolute months, as related to the
   seasonal periods, became a necessity; and, of course, the
   place of the sun among the stars most truly shows the exact
   length of the year. But how to observe both sun and stars,
   when without any mode of time-dividing,—such as clepsydra or
   clock,—was an essential difficulty. This was got over by
   noting on what day a particular star could be first seen, at
   its emerging from the glow of the sunlight. In actual practice
   they observed Sirius (or Sothis), the dog-star; and as the
   stars all rise and set earlier and earlier every night, they
   observed what was the first night in the year on which Sirius
   could just be seen emerging from the glow of sunlight at dawn,
   and this was entitled the heliacal rising. Hence, from using
   Sothis for this observation, the whole period during which the
   months rotated in the seasons was called the Sothic period of
   1,460 years. We have some definite statements as to this in
   Roman times. Censorinus, writing in 239 A. D., states that the
   Egyptian New Year's day, 1st of Thoth, fell on the 25th of
   June; and a hundred years before, in 139 A. D., it fell on the
   21st July, 'on which day Sirius regularly rises in Egypt.'
   Hence the beginning of a Sothic period of 1,460 years, or the
   New Year's day falling on the 21st of July at the heliacal
   rising of Sirius, took place in 139 A. D.; likewise in 1322 B.
   C., in 2784 B. C., and in 4242 B. C., or thereabouts. From
   this it is plain, that, as the nominal months rotated round
   all the seasons once In each of these cycles, therefore, if we
   only know the day of the nominal month in which any seasonal
   event happened,—such as the rising of Sirius, or the
   inundation,—we can find on what part of the cycle of 1,460
   years such a coincidence can have fallen. It is from data such
   as this that Mahler has lately calculated, by the rising of
   Sirius, and also the new moons, that Tahutmes III. reigned
   from 20th March 1503 B. C., to 14th February 1449. … Merenptah
   celebrated in the second year of his reign a festival of the
   rising of Sirius on the 29th of the month Thoth. Mahler has
   fixed the rising of Sirius, recorded on 28th Epiphi under
   Tahutmes III., as in 1470 B. C. From 28th Epiphi to 29th Thoth
   is 66 days, which the heliacal rising would change to in the
   course of 4 x 66 years, or 264 years. This, from 1470, gives
   1206 B. C. for the second year of Merenptah, or 1208 B. C. for
   his accession, which is just the date we have reached by the
   approximate summing of the reigns. Another datum on the other
   side is the calendar of the Ebers papyrus, which records the
   rising of Sirius on the 9th of Epiphi in the ninth year of
   Amenhotep I. The reading of the king's name has been much
   debated; but this is the last, and probable, conclusion. Now,
   from the 28th to the 9th of Epiphi is 19 days, which Sirius
   would change through in 76 years; so that the rising on the
   9th of Epiphi took place in 1470+76 = 1546 B. C.; and the
   first year of Amenhotep I. would be thus fixed in 1555 B. C.
   The date before reached is 1562 B. C., equal to a difference
   of less than 2 days in the time of Sirius' rising. This, at
   least, shows that there is no great discrepancy. Thus there
   are three data for the rising of Sirius, which agree within a
   few years, though at considerably different epochs. … We …
   have as a starting-point for our backward reckoning the
   accession of the XVIIIth dynasty about 1587 B. C. From this we
   can reckon in the dynastic data given by Manetho; following
   this account rather than the totals of reigns, as he appears
   to have omitted periods when dynasties were contemporary, as
   in the 43 years for the XIth after the close of the Xth. Thus,
   from the above starting-point of 1587 B. C., we reach the
   following results, solely by using material which has been
   discussed and settled in this history on its own merits alone,
   and without any ulterior reckoning in total periods.

Dynasty   Years.        B. C.
   I.      263          4777
   II.     302          4514
   III.    214          4212
   IV.     277          3998
   V.      218          3721
   VI.     181 (T. P.)  3503
   VII.     70          3322
   VIII.   146          3252
   IX.     100          3106
   X.      185          3006
   XI.      43          2821
   XII.    213 (T. P.)  2778
   XIII.   453          2565
   XIV.    184          2112
   XVI.    190          1928
   XVII.   151          1738
   XVIII.  260          1587
   XIX.                 1327

   … In the present rough state of the astronomical data, and the
   doubts as to the MS. authorities, we have reached quite as
   close an equivalence as we may hope for; and at least there is
   enough to show us that we may trust to the nearest century
   with fair grounds of belief. These dates then, are what I have
   provisionally adopted in this history; and though they are
   stated to the nearest year, for the sake of intercomparison,
   it must always be remembered that they only profess to go
   within a century in the earlier parts of the scale."

      _W. M. Flinders Petrie,
      A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times
      to the XVIth Dynasty,
      chapter 11._

EGYPT.
   Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE: THE EARLIEST RECORDS,
      and EGYPT.

EGYPT.
   Medical Science, Ancient.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE (page 2120).

EGYPT.
   Money and banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

EJECTMENT, Action of.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1499 (page 1966).

ELDON, Lord, and the rules of Equity.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827 (page 1993).

ELECTOR, The Great.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700;
      also page 309.

ELECTORS, Rise of the German College of.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1175-1272.

EMIGRES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
      and 1781-1791 (pages 1264, 1265, and 1268).

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1837 (page 1977).

ENGLAND: Outline sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE (page 1014, and after).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1622.
   First printed newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702 (page 2593).

{3744}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
   First daily newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702 (page 2594).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1844.
   The Bank Charter Act.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844 (page 2216).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1882.
   The Irish Coercion Bill and Land Act.
   Arrest of Irish leaders.
   Alleged Kilmainham Treaty and release of Mr. Parnell and others.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

ENGLAND:
   Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

ENGLAND:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2014).

ENGLAND:
   Possessions in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

ENGLAND, Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2209).

EQUITY.

      See LAW, EQUITY (page 1988).

ERITREA, The Italian colony of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1890-1801.

ESSENES, The.

   "Apart from the great high road of Jewish life, there lived in
   Palestine in the time of Christ a religious community which,
   though it grew up on Jewish soil, differed essentially in many
   points from traditional Judaism, and which, though it
   exercised no powerful influence upon the development of the
   people, deserves our attention as a peculiar problem in the
   history of religion. This community, the Essenes or Essaeans,
   is generally, after the precedent of Josephus, placed beside
   the Pharisees and Sadducees as the third Jewish sect. But it
   scarcely needs the remark, that we have here to deal with a
   phenomenon of an entirely different kind. While the Pharisees
   and Sadducees were large political and religious parties, the
   Essenes might far rather be compared to a monastic order.
   There is indeed much that is enigmatical in them as to
   particulars. Even their name is obscure. … The origin of the
   Essenes is as obscure as their name. Josephus first mentions
   them in the time of Jonathan the Maccabee, about 150 B. C.,
   and speaks expressly of one Judas an Essene in the time of
   Aristobulus I. (105-104 B. C.). According to this, the origin
   of the order would have to be placed in the second century
   before Christ. But it is questionable whether they proceeded
   simply from Judaism, or whether foreign and especially
   Hellenistic elements had not also an influence in their
   organization. … Philo and Josephus agree in estimating the
   number of the Essenes in their time at above 4,000. As far as
   is known, they lived only in Palestine, at least there are no
   certain traces of their occurrence out of Palestine. … For the
   sake of living as a community, they had special houses of the
   order in which they dwelt together. Their whole community was
   most strictly organized as a single body. … The strongest tie
   by which the members were united was absolute community of
   goods. 'The community among them is wonderful [says Josephus],
   one does not find that one possesses more than another. For it
   is the law, that those who enter deliver up their property to
   the order, so that there is nowhere to be seen, either the
   humiliation of poverty or the superfluity of wealth, but on
   the contrary one property for all as brethren, formed by the
   collection of the possessions of individuals.' 'They neither
   buy nor sell among each other; but while one gives to another
   what he wants, he receives in return what is useful to
   himself, and without anything in return they receive freely
   whatever they want.' … 'There is but one purse for all, and
   common expenses, common clothes and common food in common
   meals. For community of dwelling, of life and of meals is
   nowhere so firmly established and so developed as with them.
   And this is intelligible. For what they receive daily as wages
   for their labour, they do not keep for themselves, but put it
   together, and thus make the profits of their work common for
   those who desire to make use of it. And the sick are without
   anxiety on account of their inability to earn, because the
   common purse is in readiness for the care of them, and they
   may with all certainty meet their expenses from abundant
   stores.' … The daily labour of the Essenes was under strict
   regulation. It began with prayer, after which the members were
   dismissed to their work by the presidents. They reassembled
   for purifying ablutions, which were followed by the common
   meal. After this they again went to work, to assemble again
   for their evening meal. The chief employment of members of the
   order was agriculture. They likewise carried on, however,
   crafts of every kind. On the other hand, trading was forbidden
   as leading to covetousness, and also the making of weapons or
   of any kind of utensils that might injure men. … The Essenes
   are described by both Philo and Josephus as very connoisseurs
   in morality. … Their life was abstemious, simple and
   unpretending. 'They condemn sensual desires as sinful, and
   esteem moderation and freedom from passion as of the nature of
   virtue.' They only take food and drink till they have had
   enough; abstaining from passionate excitement, they are 'just
   dispensers of wrath.' At their meals they are 'contented with
   the same dish day by day, loving sufficiency and rejecting
   great expense as harmful to mind and body.' … There is not a
   slave among them, but all are free, mutually working for each
   other. All that they say is more certain than an oath. They
   forbid swearing, because it is worse than perjury. … Before
   every meal they bathe in cold water. They do the same after
   performing the functions of nature. … They esteem it seemly to
   wear white raiment at all times. … They entirely condemned
   marriage. Josephus indeed knew of a branch of the Essenes who
   permitted marriage. But these must at all events have formed a
   small minority. … A chief peculiarity of the Essenes was their
   common meals, which bore the character of sacrificial feasts.
   The food was prepared by priests, with the observance probably
   of certain rites of purification; for an Essene was not
   permitted to partake of any other food than this. … In their
   worship, as well as in that of other Jews, the Holy Scriptures
   were read and explained; and Philo remarks, that they
   specially delighted in allegorical interpretation. They were
   extraordinarily strict in the celebration of the Sabbath. They
   did not venture on that day to move a vessel from its place,
   nor even to perform the functions of nature. In other respects
   too they showed themselves to be Jews. Though they were
   excluded from the temple they sent gifts of incense there. …
   Concerning their doctrine of the soul and of its immortality,
   Josephus expresses himself most fully.
{3745}
   If we may trust his account, they taught that bodies are
   perishable, but souls immortal, and that the latter dwelt
   originally in the subtlest aether, but being debased by
   sensual pleasures united themselves with bodies as with
   prisons; but when they are freed from the fetters of sense
   they will joyfully soar on high, as if delivered from long
   bondage. To the good (souls) is appointed a life beyond the
   ocean. … But to the bad (souls) is appointed a dark cold
   region full of unceasing torment."

      _E. Schürer,
      A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
      volume 2, pages 190-205._

EXEMPTION LAWS.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1836 (page 1977).

EXPLORATION, African and Arctic.

   For a complete chronological record.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA; and ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

F.

FAMILISTÈRE OF M. GODIN, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

FAURE, François Felix.
   Election to the Presidency of the French Republic.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

FEDERALIST SECESSION MOVEMENT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

FEUDAL AIDS.

   "In theory the duty of the noble vassal towards his lord was a
   purely personal one and to commute it for a money payment was
   a degradation of the whole feudal relation. The payment of
   money, especially if it were a fixed and regular payment,
   carried with it a certain ignoble idea against which, in the
   form of state taxation, the feudal spirit rebelled to the
   last. When the vassal agreed to pay something to his lord, he
   called it, not a tax, but an 'aid' (auxilium), and made it
   generally payable, not regularly, like the tax-bill of the
   citizen, but only upon certain occasions—a present, as it
   were, coming out of his good-will and not from compulsion; e.
   g., whenever a fief was newly granted, when it changed its
   lord, and sometimes when it changed its vassal, it was from
   the beginning customary to acknowledge the investiture by a
   small gift to the lord, primarily as a symbol of the grant;
   then, as the institution grew and manners became more
   luxurious, the gift increased in value and was thought of as
   an actual price for the investiture, until finally, at the
   close of our period, it suffered the fate of all similar
   contributions and was changed into a definite money payment,
   still retaining, however, its early name of 'relief.' … The
   occasions for levying the aids were various but always, in
   theory, of an exceptional sort. The journey of a lord to the
   court of his suzerain, or to Rome, or to join a crusade, the
   knighting of his eldest son, the marriage of his eldest
   daughter and his ransom from imprisonment are among the most
   frequent of the feudal 'aids.' The right of the lord to be
   entertained and provisioned, together with all his following,
   was one of the most burdensome and, at the same time, most
   difficult to regulate. Its conversion into a money-tax was,
   perhaps for this reason, earlier than that of many other of
   the feudal contributions."

      _E. Emerton,
      Mediaeval Europe,
      chapter 14._

FEUDAL SYSTEM: Origin.

   "The 'benefice,' … emerges from the struggles of the eighth
   century as a form of grant originated by the ruling house and
   remaining at its disposal. It was a form of grant which was at
   all times revocable and which would thus necessarily prompt
   the grantee to avoid any act which could displease the
   sovereign. It entailed the reversion of the benefice at the
   death of the grantee as well as of the person granting. The
   benefice … was now chiefly made use of by the Carolingians of
   the 8th century to win the military aid of the nobles against
   internal and external enemies and especially against the
   Saracens. Army commanders and counts or other important
   officials would receive wide stretches of ecclesiastical or
   royal land. They would organize these into 'manors,' would
   collect a large 'following,' and would call in free tenants to
   do service in their armies in return for their protection.
   Thus they themselves became the stays and props of the new
   form of government. As the reorganization of the military
   forces went on this process was repeated more and more often,
   and as a matter of course the same vital principles which
   these holders had carried through with regard to those under
   them came to be applied to their own position as regarded
   their military duties to the king: namely that they should
   become vassals. This accordingly happened. The vassal system
   and the benefice system blended together into a new form of
   actual and personal union of the nobles with the crown. In
   receiving a benefice they swore to the king the special oath
   of fidelity of the 'following'; this fidelity on the other
   hand seemed assured through the power of the king to revoke
   the benefice. Quickly enough did this connection of the vassal
   system and the benefice system, which is commonly called
   vassalism, become so common that it began to extend downwards
   also. It had already become usual for rich landholders no
   longer, in the old Germanic manner, to provide for all their
   vassals at their own court, but to provide sustenance for them
   in various other ways—notably by granting them estates. Now,
   after the royal model, it came to be the custom to grant
   benefices and thus to found personal responsibilities. The
   results of this development were extraordinary. If on the one
   hand, in spite of all Charles the Great's measures to the
   contrary, the old army organization based on the service of
   all freemen fell into decay and the contingents from the land
   holders began to constitute the great mass of the army: on the
   other hand the bond of vassalism with its different variations
   became of prime importance for the administration of the land.
   No longer did the king by virtue of his royal ban or
   jurisdiction issue his commands to all freemen in common. He
   issued his commands to the nobles and they by virtue of their
   feudal prerogatives commanded the vassals who were subject to
   them. The evenly distributed mass of freemen subject to
   military duty had vanished; a high-towering structure of those
   bound in vassalage had taken its place. The military
   organization had assumed its position under the banner of the
   feudal state. The administration, too, was soon to be
   undermined by the system of vassalage and to change its
   structure from the very foundation."

      _Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte,
      volume 2, pages 104-105._

{3746}

   "The latest investigations of Brunner … have established the
   proof that feudalism originated in consequence of the
   introduction of cavalry service into the military system of
   the Frankish kingdom and that it retained its original
   character until well on towards the close of the Middle Ages.
   The Franks like the Lombards learned the use of cavalry from
   the Moors or Saracens. Charles Martel was led by his
   experiences after the battle of Poictiers to the conclusion
   that only with the help of mounted armies could these enemies
   be opposed with lasting success. It was between 732 and 758
   that the introduction of cavalry service into the Frankish
   army took place; it had hitherto consisted mainly of infantry.
   The attempt was first made, and with marked success, in
   Aquitaine and Septimania; almost contemporaneously also among
   the Lombards. In order to place the secular nobles in
   condition to fit out larger masses of cavalry a forced loan
   from the church was carried through by Charles Martel and his
   sons, it being under the latter that the matter was first
   placed upon a legal footing. The nobles received
   ecclesiastical benefices from the crown and regranted them in
   the way of sub-loans. The custom of having a 'following' and
   the old existing relationships of a vassal to his lord
   furnished a model for the responsibilities of those receiving
   benefices at first and at second hand. The secular nobles
   became thus at once vassals of the crown and lords (seigneurs)
   of those to whom they themselves in turn made grants. The duty
   of the vassals to do cavalry service was based on the
   'commendation': their fief was not the condition of their
   doing service but their reward for it. Hence the custom of
   denominating the fief (Lehn) as a 'fee' (feudum)—a designation
   which was first applied in southern France, and which in
   Germany, occasionally in the eleventh and ever more frequently
   in the twelfth century, is used side by side with the older
   term 'benefice,' until in the course of the first half of the
   13th century it completely displaces it. With the further
   development of cavalry service that of the feudal system kept
   regular pace. Already in the later Carolingian period Lorraine
   and Burgundy followed southern France and Italy in becoming
   feudalized states. To the east of the Rhine on the contrary
   the most flourishing time of cavalry service and of the feudal
   system falls in the time of the Hohenstaufens, having
   undoubtedly been furthered by the crusades. Here even as late
   as the middle of the twelfth century the horsemen preferred
   dismounting and fighting with the sword because they could not
   yet manage their steeds and the regular cavalry weapons, the
   shield and the spear, like their western neighbors. But never
   in Germany did feudalism make its way into daily life as far
   as it did in France where the maxim held true: 'nulle terre
   sans seigneur.' There never was here a lack of considerable
   allodial possessions, although occasionally, out of respect
   for the feudal theory, these were put down as 'fiefs of the
   sun.' The principle, too, was firmly maintained that a fief
   granted from one's own property was no true fief; for so
   thoroughly was feudal law the law governing the realm that a
   true fief could only be founded on the fief above it, in such
   manner that the king was always the highest feudal lord. That
   was the reason why a fief without homage, that is, without the
   relationship of vassalage and the need of doing military
   service for the state, could not be looked upon as a true
   fief. The knight's fee only (feudum militare) was such, and
   only a man of knightly character, who united a knightly manner
   of living with knightly pedigree, was 'perfect in feudal
   law,'—in possession, namely, of full feudal rights or of the
   'Heerschild.' Whether or not he had been personally dubbed
   knight made no difference; the fief of a man who was still a
   squire was also a true fief. … The object of the feudal grant
   could be anything which assured a regular
   emolument,—especially land, tithes, rents and other sources of
   income, tolls and jurisdictions, churches and monasteries;_
   above all, offices of state. In course of time the earlier
   distinction between the office and the fief which was meant to
   go with the office ceased to be made. … The formal course of
   procedure when granting was a combination, exactly on the old
   plan, of the act of commendation, now called Hulde, which was
   the basis of vassalage, and the act of conferring
   (investiture) which established the real right of the man to
   the fief. … The Hulde consisted in giving the hand (=the
   performing of mannschaft, homagium, hominium, Hulde) often
   combined with the giving of a kiss and the taking of an oath
   (the swearing of fidelitas or Hulde) by which the man swore to
   be 'true, loyal and willing' as regarded his lord. The custom
   earlier connected with commendation of presenting a weapon had
   lost its former significance and had become merged in the
   ceremony of investiture: the weapon had become a symbol of
   investiture. … These symbols of investiture were in part the
   same as in territorial law: the glove, the hat, the cape, the
   staff, the twig; occasionally probably also a ring, but quite
   especially the sword or spear. As regarded the principalities
   it had quite early become the custom to fasten a banner on the
   end of the spear in token of the royal rights of supremacy
   that were to be conferred. Thus the banner became the sole
   symbol of investiture in the granting of secular
   principalities and the latter themselves came to be called
   'banner fiefs.' The installation of the ecclesiastical princes
   by the king took place originally without any distinction
   being made between the office and the appanage of the office.
   It was done by conferring the pastoral staff (ferula, virga
   pastoralis) of the former bishop or abbot; in the case of
   bishops since the time of Henry III by handing the ring and
   crosier. In the course of the struggle concerning the
   ecclesiastical investitures both sides came to the conviction
   that a distinction could be made between the appanaging of the
   church with secular estates and jurisdictions on the one hand,
   and the office itself and the immediate appurtenances of the
   church—the so-called 'sacred objects' on the other. A union
   was arrived at in the Concordat of Worms which provided that
   for the granting of the former (the so-called Regalia) the
   secular symbol of the sceptre might replace the purely
   ecclesiastical symbols. As this custom was retained even after
   the incorporation of the ecclesiastical principalities in the
   feudalized state-system the ecclesiastical principalities, as
   opposed to the secular banner-fiefs, were distinguished as
   'sceptre-fiefs.'"

      _Schröder,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (1889),
      pages 381-388._

{3747}

   "By the time at which we have arrived (the Hohenstaufen
   Period) the knights themselves, 'ordo equestris major:' had
   come to form a class so distinct and so exclusive that no
   outsiders could enter it except in the course of three
   generations or by special decree of the king. Only to those
   whose fathers and grandfathers were of knightly origin could
   fiefs now be granted; only such could engage in judicial
   combat, in knightly sports and, above all, in the tournament
   or joust. … Feudalism did much to awaken a moral sentiment:
   fidelity, truth and sincerity were the suppositions upon which
   the whole system rested, and a great solidarity of interests
   came to exist between the lord and his vassals. The latter
   might bring no public charges against their master in matters
   affecting his life, limb or honor; on three grand occasions,
   in case of captivity, the knighting of his son, the marriage
   of his daughter, they were obliged to furnish him with
   pecuniary aid. Knightly honor and knightly graces come in the
   twelfth century to be a matter of fashion and custom; a new
   and important element, too, the adoration of woman, is
   introduced. A whole literature arises that has to do almost
   exclusively with knightly prowess and with knightly love.
   Altogether we see the dawn of a new social life."

      _E. F. Henderson,
      A History of Germany in the Middle Ages,
      page 424-425._

      See, also, FEUDALISM (page 1117);
      and EUROPE (pages 1019-1020).

FIELD, Cyrus, and the ocean telegraph.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

FINNISH POPULAR POETRY.

      See KALEVALA (page 1935).

      _John Martin Crawford,
      Kalevala,
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186
      One of several versions._

FLEMINGS, Commerce of the.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

FLORENTINE BANKERS AND MONEY CHANGERS.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

FORMOSA.

   "Formosa, or Taiwan, as it is called by the Chinese, is about
   400 miles south of the mouth of the Yang-tse, and 100 from the
   mainland of China. It lies between 25° 20' and 21° 50' north
   latitude, is nearly 240 miles long, by an average of 75 miles
   wide, and has an area of about 12,000 square miles. It is
   remarkable for its beauty and fertility, and also for the
   variety of its products. It was formerly attached to the
   province of Fohkien, and governed by a resident commissioner;
   but since the Franco-Chinese War, during which the French,
   under Admiral Courbet, were foiled in their efforts to take
   possession of it, it has been erected into an independent
   province by imperial decree, and is now [1887] governed by Liu
   Ming-Ch'uan, an able and progressive man, with the title and
   almost unlimited authority of governor-general. The island was
   once in the possession of the Spaniards, who called it Formosa
   (beautiful), but did not colonize it. It then passed into the
   hands of the Dutch, who built Fort Zealandia, and established
   a trading-post on the southwest coast, near the present city
   of Taiwan-fu, and another known as the Red Fort, at Tamsui, on
   the northwest coast. But the Dutch in turn abandoned the
   island about the year 1660, immediately after which it was
   occupied and colonized by the Chinese from Amoy and other
   points on the coast of Fohkien. The population is now
   estimated by the governor-general at 4,000,000 Chinese and
   60,000 savages, but the first figures are doubtless much too
   large. The savages are a fine race of men of the Malay or
   Polynesian type, who hold nearly all the east coast and the
   mountain region, covering over one half the island. They live
   mostly by hunting and fishing, or upon the natural products of
   the forest, and cultivate but little land. They wear scarcely
   any clothing, use bows, arrows, and knives, together with a
   few old-fashioned matchlocks, and yet withal they have up to
   the present time successfully resisted all efforts to
   subjugate them or to take possession of their fastnesses. They
   are brave, fierce, and active, but have made scarcely any
   progress in the arts of civilization. They are naturally kind
   and hospitable to Europeans, but look upon the Chinese as
   their deadly enemies."

      _J. H. Wilson,
      China,
      chapter 18._

   In 1874, in order to obtain redress for a murder of Japanese
   sailors by savages on the eastern coast of Formosa, the
   Japanese Government undertook to take possession of the
   southern part of Formosa, "asserting that it did not belong to
   China because she either would not or could not govern its
   savage inhabitants. … The expedition was called a High
   Commission, accompanied by a force sufficient for its
   protection, sent to aboriginal Formosa to inquire into the
   murder of fifty-four Japanese subjects, and take steps to
   prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. A proclamation was
   issued April 17, 1874, and another May 19th, stating that
   General Saigo was directed to call to an account the persons
   guilty of outrages on Japanese subjects. As he knew that China
   was not prepared to resist his landing at Liang-kiao, his
   chief business was to provide means to house and feed the
   soldiers under his command. The Japanese authorities do not
   appear very creditably in this affair. No sooner did they
   discover the wild and barren nature of this unknown region
   than they seemed fain to beat an incontinent and hasty
   retreat, nor did the troops landed there stand upon the order
   of their going. … The aborigines having fled south after the
   first rencontre, the Japanese leader employed his men as best
   he could in opening roads through the jungle and erecting
   houses. Meanwhile the Peking authorities were making
   preparations for the coming struggle, and though they moved
   slowly they were much in earnest to protect their territory.
   General Shin Pao-chin having been invested with full powers to
   direct operations against the Japanese forces, began at once
   to draw together men and vessels in Fuhchau and Amoy. The
   Japanese consuls at Amoy and Shanghai were allowed to remain
   at their posts; and during the year two envoys arrived at
   Pelting to treat with the Court. … The probabilities were
   strong against any settlement, when the parties were induced
   to arrange their quarrel by the intervention and wise counsel
   of Sir T. F. Wade, the British minister. The Japanese accepted
   500,000 taels for their outlays in Formosa for roads, houses,
   and defences; agreeing thereupon to retire and leave the
   further punishment of the aborigines to the Chinese
   authorities. The two envoys left Peking, and this attempt at
   war was happily frustrated. … The civilization of all parts of
   Formosa has since rapidly advanced by the extension of tea and
   sugar culture, the establishment of Christian missions, and
   the better treatment of the native tribes."

      _S. W. Williams,
      The Middle Kingdom,
      chapter 26 (volume 2)._

FOURIER AND FOURIERISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847,
      and 1841-1847 (pages 2939 and 2943).

{3748}

   ----------FRANCE: Start--------

FRANCE:
   Outline Sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE (page 1015. and after).

FRANCE: 1ST-5TH CENTURIES.
   The early routes and marts of trade.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

FRANCE: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
   Rise of the Privileged Bourgeoisies and the Communes.
   The double movement of Urban Emancipation.

   "The 12th and 13th centuries saw the production of that
   marvelous movement of emancipation which gave liberty to
   serfs, created privileged bourgeoisies and independent
   communes, caused new cities and fortresses to issue from the
   earth, freed the corporations of merchants and artisans, in a
   word placed at the first stroke, beside royalty, feudality and
   the church, a fourth social force destined to absorb one day
   the three others. While the cultivator of the soil passed by
   enfranchisement from the category of things sold or given away
   into that of the free people (the only ambition permitted to
   the defenseless unfortunates who inhabited isolated farms or
   unwalled villages), the population grouped in the urban
   centers tried to limit or at least to regulate the intolerable
   exploitation of which it was the object. The bourgeois, that
   is to say the inhabitants of walled cities, born under the
   shelter of a donjon or au abbey, and the citoyens of the
   ancient episcopal cities, rivaled each other in efforts to
   obtain from the seigneurial power a condition more endurable
   in point of taxation, and the suppression of the most
   embarrassing hindrances to their commerce and manufactures.
   These inhabitants of towns and cities constituted, if only by
   being grouped together, a force with which feudality was very
   soon obliged to reckon. Divided, besides, into merchants'
   societies and companies of workmen they found within
   themselves the germ of organization which permitted collective
   resistance. The seigneur, intimidated, won by an offer of
   money, or decided by the thought that his domination would be
   more lucrative if the city became more prosperous, made the
   concessions which were asked of him. Thanks to a favorable
   concurrence of circumstances, charters of franchises were
   multiplied in all parts of France. At the end of the 12th
   century, the national territory, in the north as well as the
   south, was covered with these privileged cities or
   bourgeoisies, which, while remaining administered, judicially
   and politically, by seigneurial officers, had acquired, in
   matters financial, commercial and industrial, the liberties
   necessary to their free development. Feudality very soon found
   such an advantage in regulating thus the exploitation of the
   bourgeois, that it took the initiative itself in creating, in
   the uninhabited parts of its domains, privileged cities,
   complete in all their parts, designed to become so many
   centers of attraction for foreigners. It is the innumerable
   bourgeoisies and 'villes neuves' which represent the normal
   form of urban emancipation. Certain centers of population
   obtained at the first stroke the most extensive civil and
   financial liberties; but, in the majority of cases, the
   bourgeois could win their franchises only bit by bit, at the
   price of heavy pecuniary sacrifices, or as the result of an
   admirable perseverance in watching for opportunities and
   seizing them. The history of the privileged cities, whose
   principal virtue was a long patience, offers nothing moving or
   dramatic. … But the spectacle of these laborious masses
   persisting, in obscurity and silence, in the demand for their
   right to security and well-being, does not the less merit all
   our attention. What forces itself upon the meditations of the
   historian, in the domain of municipal institutions, is just
   the progress slow and obscure, but certain, of the dependent
   bourgeoisie. … The development of the seigneurial cities
   offers such a variety of aspects, their progressive and
   regular conquests were so important in the constitution of our
   rights public and private, that too much care and effort
   cannot be devoted to retracing minutely their course. This
   history is more than any other that of the origin of our third
   estate. It was in the privileged cities, to which the great
   majority of the urban population belonged, that it began its
   political education. The city charters constituted the durable
   lower stratum of its first liberties. In other words the third
   estate did not issue suddenly from the more or less
   revolutionary movement which gave birth to the independent
   communes: it owes its formation and its progress above all to
   this double pacific evolution: the possessors of fiefs
   enfranchising their bourgeoisie and the latter passing little
   by little entirely from the seigneurial government under that
   of royalty. This was not the opinion which prevailed at the
   time when the founder of the science of municipal
   institutions, Augustin Thierry, published in the 'Courrier
   Français' his admirable 'Lettres ' on the revolutions of the
   communes. The commune, a city dowered with judicial and
   political privileges, which conferred upon it a certain
   independence, administered by its elected magistrates, proud
   of its fortified inclosure, of its belfry, of its militia,—the
   commune passed at that time as the pre-eminent type of the
   free city of the middle ages. That great movement of urban and
   rural emancipation which stirred the France of the 12th
   century to its very depths was personified in it. So the
   commune concentrated historical interest upon itself, leaving
   in the shade all other forms of popular evolution. Guizot, who
   had the sense of truth rather than that of the picturesque,
   tried to combat this exclusive tendency. In the brilliant
   lessons that he gave at the Sorbonne on the history of the
   origins of the third estate, he showed, with his customary
   clearness, that the development of the bourgeois class was not
   accomplished by any single method; that the progress realized
   in the cities where the communal regime had never succeeded in
   establishing itself must also be taken into account. The
   impression left by the highly colored and dramatic recitals of
   Augustin Thierry remained for a long time the stronger. …
   Contemporary science has not only assigned to itself the
   mission of completing the work of the historians of the
   Restoration: it has desired also to improve it by rectifying,
   upon many points, the exaggerated opinions and false judgments
   of which the history of our urban institutions was at first
   the victim. It has been perceived that the communal movement
   properly so called did not have, upon the destinies of the
   popular class, the decisive, preponderant influence which was
   attributed to it 'a priori.' The commune, a brilliant but
   ephemeral form of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, has
   been set back little by little into its true place.
{3749}
   It is now no longer regarded as an essential manifestation of
   our first democratic aspirations. One might be tempted to see
   on the contrary, in that collective seigneury, often hostile
   to the other social elements, impregnated with the spirit of
   'particularisme,' made for war and agitated without cessation
   by warlike passions, an original but tardy product of the
   feudal principle. … We must be resigned to a fact in regard to
   which nothing can be done: the absence of documents relative
   to the municipal constitution of cities and towns during four
   hundred years, from the 7th century to the 11th. From all
   appearances, this enormous hiatus will never be overcome. …
   Facts being lacking, scholars have had recourse to conjecture.
   Some among them have supposed that the principal
   characteristics of the Gallo-Roman municipalities were
   perpetuated during this period. At bottom, their hypothesis
   rests principally upon analogies of names. … From the point of
   view of positive science, the Germanic origin of the communes
   is not more easy of demonstration. … It is even doubtful
   whether the essential element of the communal institution, the
   confederation formed by the inhabitants, under the guaranty of
   the mutual oath, belongs exclusively to the customs of the
   Germans. The theory of Augustin Thierry, which made of the
   commune a special application of the Scandinavian gilde, has
   been judged too narrow by contemporary scholars. They have
   reproached him with reason for having localized an institution
   which belongs entirely to the Germanic race. But the principle
   of association, applied in the cities, is not a fact purely
   German. … Association is a fact which is neither Germanic nor
   Roman; it is universal, and is produced spontaneously among
   all peoples, in all social classes, when circumstances exact
   and favor its appearance. The communal revolution then is a
   national event. The commune was born, like other forms of
   popular emancipation, from the need which the inhabitants of
   the cities had of substituting a limited and regulated
   exploitation for the arbitrary exploitation of which they were
   the victims. Such is the point of departure of the
   institution. We must always return to the definition of it
   given by Guibert de Nogent. It is true as a basis, although it
   does not embrace all the characteristics of the object
   defined: 'Commune! new name, detestable name! By it the
   censitaires are freed from all service in consideration of a
   simple annual tax; by it they are condemned, for the
   infraction of the law, only to a penalty legally determined;
   by it, they cease to be subjected to the other pecuniary
   charges by which the serfs are overwhelmed.' At certain
   points, this limitation of the seigneurial power was made
   amicably, by pacific transaction between the seigneur and his
   bourgeois. Elsewhere, an insurrection, more or less prolonged,
   was necessary in order to establish it. When this popular
   movement had as a result, not only the assuring to the people
   the most necessary liberties which were demanded, but besides
   that of abating to their advantage the political position of
   the master, by taking from him a part of his seigneurial
   prerogatives, there arose not only a free city, but a commune,
   a bourgeois seigneury, invested with a certain political and
   judicial power. This definition of the commune implies that
   originally it was not possible to establish it otherwise than
   by a pressure exerted, more or less violently, upon the
   seigneurial authority. We have the direct proof of it for some
   of our free municipalities, but it is presumable that many
   other communes whose primitive history we do not know have
   owed equally to force the winning of their first liberties. …
   We do not mean that, in the first period of the history of
   urban emancipation, all the communes, without exception, were
   obliged to pass through the phase of insurrection or of open
   resistance. There were some which profited (as the cities of
   the Flemish region in 1127) by a combination of exceptional
   circumstances to attain political liberty without striking a
   blow. Among these circumstances must be mentioned in the first
   rank the prolonged vacancy of an episcopal see and the
   disappearance of a laic lord, dead without direct heir,
   leaving a succession disputed by numerous competitors. But,
   ordinarily, the accession of the bourgeoisie to the rank of
   political power did not take place pacifically. Either the
   seigneur struggled against his rebellious subjects, or he
   feared the struggle and bent before the accomplished fact. In
   all cases it was necessary that the people were conscious of
   their power and imposed their will. This is proven by the
   dramatic episodes which the narrations of Augustin Thierry
   have forever rendered celebrated. … Later, in the decline of
   the 12th century, it must be recognized that the opinion of
   the dominant class ceased to be as hostile to the communes.
   When the conviction had been acquired that the popular
   movement was irresistible, it was tolerated; the best means
   even were sought to derive advantage from it. The Church
   always remained upon the defensive; but the king and the great
   feudal lords perceived that in certain respects the commune
   might be a useful instrument. They accepted then the communal
   organization, and they even came to create it where it was not
   spontaneously established. But it is easy to convince one's
   self that the communes of this category, those which owe their
   creation to the connivance or even to the initiative of the
   seigneur, did not possess the same degree of independence as
   the communes of the primitive epoch, founded by insurrection.
   On the whole, the communal revolution was only one of the
   aspects of the vast movement of political and social reaction
   which the excesses of the feudal regime engendered everywhere
   from the 11th to the 14th century. … One would like to possess
   the text of one of those oaths by which the bourgeois of the
   northern communes bound themselves together, for the first
   time, with or without the consent of their seigneur, in the
   most ancient period of the communal evolution. It would be of
   the highest interest for the historian to know how they set
   about it, what words were pronounced to form what the
   contemporary writers called a 'conjuration,' a 'conspiration,'
   a 'confederation.' No document of this nature and of that
   primitive epoch has come down to us. … The sum total of the
   sworn bourgeois constituted the commune. The commune was most
   often called 'communia,' but also, with varying termination,
   'communa,' 'communio,' 'communitas.'
{3750}
   Properly speaking and especially with reference to the origin,
   the name commune was given not to the city, but to the
   association of the inhabitants who had taken oath. For this
   reason also the expression 'commune jurée' was used. Later the
   acceptation of the word was enlarged; it designated the city
   itself, considered as a geographical unit. … The members of
   the commune, those who formed part of the sworn association,
   were properly called 'the sworn of the commune,' 'jurati
   communie,' or, by abridgment, 'the sworn,' 'jurati.' They were
   designated also by the expression: 'the men of the commune,'
   or, 'those who belong to the commune,' 'qui sunt de communia.'
   They were also entitled 'bourgeois,' 'burgenses,' more rarely
   'bourgeois jurés'; sometimes also 'voisins,' 'vicini,' or even
   'friends,' 'amici.' … We are far from having complete light on
   the question as to what conditions were exacted from those who
   entered the communal association, and to what classes of
   persons the access to the bourgeoisie was open or interdicted.
   The variety of local usages, and above all the impossibility
   of finding texts which apply to the most ancient period of
   urban emancipation, will always embarrass the historian. To
   find upon these matters clear documents, developed and
   precise, we must come down, generally, to the end of the 18th
   century or even to the century following, that is to say to
   the epoch of the decadence of the communal regime. … The
   bourgeois could not be diseased, that is to say, undoubtedly,
   tainted with an incurable malady and especially a contagious
   malady, as leprosy. … The communal law excluded also bastards.
   On this point it was in accord with the customary law of a
   very great number of French regions. … They refused also to
   receive into their number inhabitants encumbered with debts.
   The condition of debtor constituted in effect a kind of
   servitude. He no longer belonged to himself; his goods might
   become the property of the creditor, and he could be
   imprisoned. … With still more reason does it appear
   inadmissible that the serf should be called to benefit by the
   commune. The question of urban serfdom, in its relations with
   the communal institution, is extremely obscure, delicate and
   complex. There are however two facts in regard to which
   affirmation is allowable. It cannot be doubted that at the
   epoch of the formation of the communes, at the opening of the
   12th century, there were no longer any serfs in many of the
   urban centers. It may be held also as certain that the desire
   to bring about the disappearance of this serfdom was one of
   the principal motives which urged the inhabitants to claim
   their independence. … The inhabitant who united all the
   conditions legally required for admission to the bourgeoisie
   was besides obliged to pay a town-due, ('droit d'entrée'). …
   If it was not always easy to enter a communal body, neither
   could one leave it as easily as might have been desired. The
   'issue de commune' exacted the performance of a certain number
   of troublesome formalities. … So, it was necessary to pay to
   become a communist, and to pay yet more in order to cease to
   be one. The bourgeois was riveted to his bourgeoisie. … Up to
   this point we have examined only half the problem of the
   formation of the commune, approaching it on its general side.
   There remains the question whether all the popular element
   which existed in the city formed part of the body of
   bourgeoisie, and whether the privileged class, that of the
   nobles and clergy, was not excluded from it. … We shall have
   to admit as a general rule, that the nobles and the clergy
   while taking oath to the commune, did not in reality enter it.
   What must be rejected, is the sort of absolute, inviolable
   rule which has been formed on this opinion. In the middle ages
   especially there was no rule without exception. … The commune
   was an institution rather ephemeral. As a really independent
   seigneury, it scarcely endured more than two centuries. The
   excesses of the communists, their bad financial
   administration, their intestine divisions, the hostility of
   the Church, the onerous patronage of the 'haut suzerain,' and
   especially of the king: such were the immediate causes of this
   rapid decadence. The communes perished victims of their own
   faults, but also of the hate of the numerous enemies
   interested in their downfall. … The principal cause of the
   premature downfall of the communal regime is without any doubt
   the considerable development of the monarchical power in
   France at the end of the 18th century. The same force which
   annihilated feudality, to the profit of the national unit, was
   also that which caused the prompt disappearance of the
   independence of the bourgeois seigneuries. With its privileges
   and its autonomy, the commune impeded the action of the
   Capetains. Those quarrelsome and restless republics had no
   reason for existence, In the midst of the peaceful and
   obedient bourgeoisie upon which royalty had laid its hand. The
   commune then was sacrificed to the monarchical interest. In
   Italy and in Germany, the free cities enjoyed their
   independence much longer, by reason of the absence of the
   central power or of its weakness."

      _Achille Luchaire,
      Les Communes Francaises a l'époque des Capétiens directs
      (translated from the French),
      pages 1-16, 45-56, 65, and 288-290._

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
   The reign of Saint Louis.
   The monarchy in his time and its kingdom.

   "The fundamental institution upon which all the social edifice
   rested, in the time of Saint Louis, was royalty. But this
   royalty, from the double point of view of theory and practice,
   was very different from what it had been originally. In
   principle it was the divine right, that is, it was an
   emanation from the Most High, and the king held of no other
   seigneur. This is what the feudal maxim expressed after its
   fashion; 'The king holds only of God and his sword.' … Royalty
   was transmitted by heredity, from father to son, and by
   primogeniture. However, this heredity, which had formerly
   needed a sort of election to confirm It, or at least popular
   acclamation, needed now to be hallowed by the unction of the
   church. Consecration, joined to the privilege of being the
   eldest of the royal race, made the king. … It must not be
   thought however that the ideas of the time attributed to the
   hereditary principle a force absolute and superior to all
   interests. Theologians could say to kings that the son should
   succeed the father if he imitated his probity; that power was
   transferred into other hands in punishment of injustice. …
   Christian tradition was, in fact, greatly opposed to what was
   then called tyranny. … Not only must royalty not be tyranny,
   but it must admit the representatives of the nation, in a
   certain measure, to a participation in the government. …

{3751}

   In practice, without doubt, these salutary principles were
   often disregarded; but it is still much that they were
   professed, and this fact alone constitutes an enormous
   difference between the middle ages and the later centuries.
   The royal power, besides, had not yet a material force
   sufficiently great to dominate everywhere as absolute master.
   Under the two first lines, it was exercised in the same degree
   over all points of the territory; from the accession of the
   third, on the contrary, it was only a power of two degrees,
   having a very unequal action according to the territory and
   the locality. A part of France composed the royal domain; it
   was the patrimony of the Capetian house, increased by conquest
   or successive acquisitions. There, the king exercised an
   authority almost without limit; he was on his own ground. All
   the rest formed duchies, counties, or seigneuries of different
   sorts, possessed hereditarily by great vassals, more or less
   independent originally. Here the king was only the suzerain;
   he had scarcely any rights excepting to homage, to military
   service, to pecuniary assistance in certain stated cases, and
   to some privileges called royal, as that of coining money. The
   entire royal policy, from Philip Augustus to Louis XI.,
   consisted in skilfully increasing the first of these parts by
   absorbing little by little the second. … The kingdom of
   France, in the time of Saint Louis, was still very nearly as
   the treaty of Verdun had established it. On the north and
   east, it was bounded by the Empire of Germany. The frontier
   line passed a little beyond the cities of Ghent, Audenarde,
   Tournai, Douai, Guise, Mézières, Grandpré, Vitry, Joinville,
   Fay, Mirabeau; then it followed the course of the Saône and
   the Rhône, from which it diverged only in two places in order
   to attribute to the Empire the, at least, nominal possession
   of part of Lyonnais and Vivarais. On the south, the Pyrenees
   formed, as originally, the natural limit; but from the treaty
   of Corbeil (1258) Roussillon remained with the king of Aragon,
   in exchange for his right over the county of Foix, the
   territory of Sault, Fenouilhedès and Narbonnais. On the other
   hand, the vast duchy of Guienne, comprising Bearn and the
   county of Bigorre, came … under the suzerainty of the king of
   France only by virtue of the treaty of Paris (1259). On the
   west the kingdom was bounded only by the ocean, Brittany also
   having rendered homage to the crown from the time of Philip
   Augustus. Thus Saint Louis and his son left it, on the whole,
   more extensive than it was before them, and if it was more
   limited than the France of the present, on the east, it
   reached, on the contrary, farther to the north. The royal
   domain embraced in 1226 only the half of this immense
   perimeter. It was composed of the primitive nucleus of the
   Capetian possessions: that is, of the Isle of France and of
   Orleannais; then of French Vexin. Gâtinais and the viscounty
   of Bourges, brought by Philip I.; of the county of Corbeil and
   the seigneury of Monthléry, acquired by Louis VI.; of Artois,
   Vermandois (with the county of Amiens), Valois, Norman Vexin,
   of the counties of Evreux, Meulan, Alençon, Perché, Beaumont
   sur Oise, acquired by Philip Augustus and Louis VIII.; finally
   the territory obtained by the former from John Lackland by war
   or by confiscation, that is, all Normandy, Touraine, Perigord,
   Limousin, and the viscounty of Turenne. Anjou, Maine, Poitou,
   Auvergne, Angoumois, included in the same conquest, had since
   been detached from the crown to form princely appanages. The
   profitable domain of Perigord of Limousin and of the viscounty
   of Turenne, was reconveyed, in 1259, to the king of England, …
   in order to bring all the region of the southwest within the
   pale of the royal suzerainty. But Saint Louis compensated for
   this diminution by acquiring successively the two great
   seneschalates of Nîmes and of Carcassonne, the counties of
   Clermont, of Mortain, of Macon, and Philip the Bold did more
   than redeem it, by realizing the annexation, so skilfully
   prepared by Blanche of Castile, of the last domains of the
   count of Toulouse, which had become those of Alphonse of
   Poitiers, that is, of nearly all Languedoc. The possessions of
   the crown thus formed two or three separate groups, cut up in
   the most fantastic fashion, and connected only as the result
   of long effort. All the rest of the kingdom was composed of
   great fiefs escaping the direct action of royalty, and
   themselves subdivided into lesser fiefs, which complicated
   infinitely the hierarchy of persons and lands. The principal
   were the counties of Flanders, Boulogne, Saint Pol, Ponthieu,
   Aumale, Eu, Soissons, Dreux, Montford-l'Amaury; the bishoprics
   of Tournai, Beauvais, Noyon, Laon, Lisieux, Reims, Langres,
   Chalons, the titularies of which were at the same time counts
   or seigneurs; the vast county of Champagne, uniting those of
   Réthel, Grandpré, Roucy, Brienne, Joigny and the county
   Porcien; the duchy of Burgundy, so powerful and so extensive;
   the counties of Nevers, Tonnerre, Auxerre, Beaujeu, Forez,
   Auvergne; the seigneury of Bourbon; the counties of Blois and
   of Chartres; the county or duchy of Brittany; Guienne, and,
   before 1271, the county of Toulouse; the bishoprics of Albi,
   Cahors, Mende, Lodève, Agde, Maguelonne, belonging temporally
   as well as spiritually to their respective bishops; finally
   the seigneury of Montpellier, holding of the last of these
   bishoprics. To which must yet be added the appanages given by
   Louis VIII. to his younger sons, that is, the counties of
   Artois, Anjou, Poitiers, with their dependencies. … So when
   the government of the kingdom at this epoch is spoken of, it
   must be understood to mean that of only the least considerable
   part of the territory,—that is, of the part which was directly
   submitted to the authority of the king. In this part the
   sovereign himself exercised the power, assisted, as ordained
   by the theories examined above, by auxiliaries taken from the
   nation. There were neither ministers nor a deliberative corps,
   properly speaking; however there was very nearly the
   equivalent. On one side, the great officers of the crown and
   the royal council, on the other the parliament and the chamber
   of accounts (exchequer), or at least their primitive nucleus,
   constituted the principal machinery of the central government,
   and had, each, its special powers. The great officers, of whom
   there had at first been five, were only four from the reign of
   Philip Augustus, who had suppressed the seneschal owing to the
   possibility of his becoming dangerous by reason of the
   progressive extension of his jurisdiction; they were the
   bouteiller, who had become the administrator of the royal
   expenditure; the chambrier, elevated to the care of the
   treasury; the connétable, a kind of military superintendent;
   and the chancelier, who had the disposition of the royal seal.
{3752}
   These four personages represented in a certain degree,
   secretaries of state. The two latter had a preponderant
   influence, one in time of peace, the other in time of war. To
   the chancellor belonged the drawing up and the proper
   execution (legalization) of the royal diplomas; this power
   alone made him the arbiter of the interests of all private
   individuals. As to the constable he had the chief direction of
   the army, and all those who composed it, barons, knights, paid
   troops, owed him obedience. The king, in person, had the
   supreme command; but he frequently allowed the constable to
   exercise it, and, in order not to impose too heavy a burden
   upon him, or rather to prevent his taking a too exclusive
   authority, he had appointed as coadjutors two 'maréchaux de
   France' who were second in command. … The king's council had
   not yet a very fixed form. Saint Louis submitted important
   questions to the persons about him, clerics, knights or men of
   the people; but he chose these advisers according to the
   nature of the questions, having temporary counsellors rather
   than a permanent council. Among these counsellors some were
   more especially occupied with justice, others with finance,
   others with political affairs. These three categories are the
   germ of the parliament, of the exchequer, and of the council
   of state; but they then formed an indistinct ensemble, called
   simply the king's court. They were not completely separated so
   as to form independent institutions until the time of Philippe
   le Bel. The first, that which later constituted the
   parliament, belongs especially to the judicial department. …
   The second, while not yet elevated into a distinct and
   permanent body, is already delegated to special duties, being
   charged with examining the accounts of the baillis and
   seneschals. The 'gentlemen of the accounts' ('gentes quae ad
   nostros computos deputantur') began under Saint Louis to meet
   periodically in the Temple, at Paris, and to exercise a
   regular control over the public finances; so that this new
   creation, which was, later, to render services so important,
   was an outcome of the scrupulous probity with which the royal
   conscience was filled. … The superior jurisdiction is
   represented by the parliament. The organization of this famous
   body was begun in the lifetime of Philip Augustus. Under the
   reign of this prince [Saint Louis] and notably as a result of
   his absence, the 'cour du roi' had begun to render more and
   more frequent decisions. The section which was occupied with
   judicial affairs, appears to have taken on, in the time of
   Saint Louis, an individual and independent existence. Instead
   of following the sovereign and meeting when he thought it
   expedient, it became sedentary. … The date at which the series
   of the famous registers of the parliament, known under the
   name of Olim begins may be considered that of the definitive
   creation of this great institution. It will be remarked that
   it coincides with the general reform of the administration of
   the kingdom undertaken by the good king on his return from
   Syria. … From its birth the parliament tended to become, in
   the hands of royalty, a means of domination over the great
   vassals. Not only were the seigneurs insensibly eliminated
   from it, to the advantage of the clergy, the lawyers, and the
   officers of the crown, but by a series of skilful victories,
   its action was extended little by little over all the fiefs
   situated outside the royal domain, that is over all France. It
   is again Saint Louis who caused this great and decisive
   advance toward the authority of the suzerain. He brought it
   about especially by the abolition of the judicial duel and by
   the multiplication of appeals to the parliament. … As for the
   appeals the interdiction of 'fausser jugement' (refusal to
   submit to the sentence pronounced) was not the only cause of
   their multiplication. Many of the great vassals were led to
   bring their affairs before the king's court, either on account
   of the confidence inspired by the well known equity of Saint
   Louis, or by the skill of the royal agents, who neglected no
   opportunity to cause the acceptance of the arbitration of the
   crown; and those who did not resign themselves to it were
   sometimes compelled to do so. The appeals of their subjects
   naturally took the same route; however they continued to
   employ the medium of the seneschal's court or that of the
   bailli, while those of the barons and the princes of the blood
   went directly to Paris. No general law was promulgated in
   regard to the matter. Royalty was content to recover little by
   little, by partial measures, the superior jurisdiction
   formerly usurped by the feudality. … Above and outside of the
   parliament justice was rendered by the king in person. … Saint
   Louis, always thoughtful of the interests of the lowly, had a
   liking for this expeditious manner of terminating suits.
   Nearly every morning, he sent two or three members of his
   council to inquire, at the palace gate, if there were not some
   private individuals there wishing to discuss their affairs
   before him; from this came the name 'plaids de la porte' given
   to this kind of audience. If his counsellors could not bring
   the parties to an agreement, he called the latter into his own
   room, examined their case with his scrupulous impartiality,
   and rendered the final sentence himself on the spot.
   Joinville, who took part more than once in these summary
   judgments, thus describes to us their very simple mechanism.
   'The king had his work regulated in such a way, that
   monseigneur de Nesle and the good count de Soissons, and the
   rest of us who were about him, who had heard our masses, went
   to hear the 'plaids de la porte,' which are now called
   'requêtes' (petitions). And when he returned from the
   monastery, he sent for us, seated himself at the foot of his
   bed, made us all sit around him, and asked us if there were
   any cases to despatch which could not be disposed of without
   him; and we named them to him, and he sent for the parties and
   asked them: Why do you not take what our people offer you? And
   they said: Sire, because they offer us little. Then he said to
   them: You should take what they are willing to give you. And
   the saintly man labored in this way, with all his might to set
   them in a just and reasonable path.' Here the great
   peace-maker is clearly seen; private individuals as well as
   princes, he desired to reconcile all, make all agree. These
   patriarchal audiences often had for theater the garden of the
   palace or the wood of Vincennes. The legendary oak which
   sheltered the modern Solomon remains in all memoirs as the
   symbol of his kindly justice and of his popularity, well
   acquired."

      _A. Lecoy de la Marche,
      La France sous Saint Louis et sous Philippe le Hardi,
      liv. 1, chapter 2, and liv. 2, chapters 1 and 3._

      _François Guizot,
      Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin,
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518._

{3753}

FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429.
   The family and circumstances of Jeanne d' Arc.

   "What were the worldly circumstances, what was the social
   position, of the parents of Jeanne d'Arc? Questioned on these
   points, the people of the country, called to testify at the
   public inquiry, in the course of the rehabilitation
   proceedings, all made the same reply; they said that the
   father and mother of the maid were unassuming husbandmen and
   possessed with their cottage only a moderate patrimony.
   According to a memorandum, made out with the assistance of
   papers and family traditions, a memorandum transmitted by the
   abbé Mandre, curé of Damvillers (Meuse), who died about 1820,
   to his nephew Mr. Villiaumé, father of the historian of Jeanne
   d' Arc and of the Revolution, the real estate belonging to
   Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée represented about twenty
   hectares, of which twelve were cultivated, four were meadow
   and four woodland, and in the latter the 'bois Chesnu'; they
   had beside their house, their furniture and a reserve of two
   or three hundred francs which they kept carefully in view of
   the possibility of a flight before some invasion, such as they
   had been obliged to take to Neufchâteau. By cultivating,
   themselves, what they possessed, they could obtain from it an
   annual revenue equivalent to four or five thousand francs of
   our money, which permitted them to distribute alms to the
   poor, notwithstanding their moderate patrimony, and to give
   hospitality to the mendicant friars as well as to the
   travelers who often passed through that country. If these
   valuations are not rigorously exact, they appear to us at
   least quite reasonable, though we are ignorant of the data
   upon which they rest. In a parochial register of Domremy,
   transcribed in 1490, we read that Jacob d'Arc and Ysabellot,
   his wife, had established an annual income of two gros [gros
   of Lorraine, coin worth 1/8 oz. of silver] in favor of the
   curé of Domremy from a 'fauchée' and a half [day and a half's
   mowing] of field situated in the 'ban' of Domremy, above the
   bridge, between the heirs Janvrel and the heirs Girardin, on
   condition of the celebration of two masses each year during
   the week of the Fontaines for anniversary services for the
   dead. The property of these honest people constituted, if we
   may judge by the different replies of the Maid compared with
   one another, what was called then in the Barrois a 'gagnage'
   or little farm; now, what distinguished the gagnage from the
   simple 'conduit,' was that the first always employed for the
   needs of cultivation a certain number of horses. The usage was
   at that time, in that region, to attach three or four mares to
   the plough, and they even had, at least in the great gagnages,
   a special horse to drag the harrow. Besides this property
   situated at Domremy, it may be supposed that Jacques d'Arc
   possessed in right of his wife some pieces of land at Vouthon,
   for we see by a register of the writs of court of the
   provostship of Gondrecourt that the eldest of his sons named
   Jacquemin made his residence from 1425 in this village of the
   Barrois holding where he cultivated undoubtedly the little
   patrimony of Isabelle Romée. Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle de
   Vouthon had three sons, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and two
   daughters, the elder named Catherine, the younger Jeanne or
   rather Jeannette, she who was by her heroism to immortalize
   her line. Two documents … prove with evidence that Jacques
   d'Arc figured in the first rank of the notables of Domremy. In
   the first of these, dated Maxey-sur-Meuse, October 7, 1423, he
   is styled 'doyen' of that village and by this title comes
   immediately after the mayor and alderman. 'In general,' says
   M. Edward Bonvalot, speaking of the villages in the region of
   the Meuse governed by the famous charter of Beaumont in
   Argonne, 'there is but one doyen or sergeant in each village,
   who convokes the bourgeois to the electoral assemblies and to
   the sittings of the court; it is he also who convokes the
   mayor, aldermen and the men of the commune to their reunions
   either periodical or special; it is he who cries the municipal
   resolutions and ordinances; it is he who commands the day and
   night watch; it is he who has charge of prisoners. Among the
   privileges which he enjoys must be cited the exemption from
   the taxes (deniers) of the bourgeoisie. At Linger, he has the
   same territorial advantages as the clerk of the commune.' It
   is seen by various documents that the doyens were also charged
   with the collection of the 'tailles,' 'rentes' and
   'redevances,' and that they were appointed to supervise bread,
   wine and other commodities as well as to test weights and
   measures. In the second document, drawn up at Vaucouleurs
   March 31, 1427, Jacques d'Arc appears as the agent of the
   inhabitants of Domremy in a suit of great importance which
   they then had to sustain before Robert de Baudricourt, captain
   of Vaucouleurs. … The situation of Domremy was privileged,
   and, thanks to this situation, humble peasants who had few
   needs found even in the soil which they cultivated nearly
   everything which was necessary for their subsistence. The
   heights crowned with beeches and venerable oaks, which shut in
   on the west the valley where the village lies, furnished
   fire-wood in abundance; the acorns permitted the fattening of
   droves of hogs; the beautiful vineyard of Greux, exposed to
   the east and climbing the slopes of these heights since the
   14th century, produced that light wine, excessively acid,
   which is not the less agreeable to the somewhat harsh palate
   of the children of the Meuse; the fields lying at the foot of
   these slopes and contiguous to the houses were reserved for
   the cultivation of the cereals, of wheat, of rye and of oats;
   finally, between these cultivated fields and the course of the
   Meuse, over a breadth of more than a kilometer stretched those
   verdant meadows whose fertility equals their beauty and from
   which is still taken the best and most renowned hay of all
   France. The principal wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy was
   the cattle which they pastured in these meadows, where each,
   after the hay-harvest, had the right to pasture a number of
   heads of cattle proportioned to that of the 'fauchées de pré'
   [days mowings of field] that he possessed. This is what was
   called the 'ban de Domremy' the care of which was confided, by
   turns, to a person taken from each 'conduit' or household. It
   may be seen by certain replies of Jeanne to her judges at
   Rouen that she had been more than once appointed to this
   charge, when the turn of her parents came, and her enemies had
   not failed to seize upon this circumstance to pretend to see
   in her only a shepherdess by profession. …
{3754}
   Most of the historians of Jeanne d'Arc have made a great
   mistake when they have imagined Domremy an out-of-the-way
   corner and isolated, so to speak, from the rest of the world;
   on the contrary, a road much frequented toward the end of the
   middle ages crossed this village. This was the old Roman road
   from Langres to Verdun which passed through Neufchâteau,
   Domremy, Vaucouleurs, Void, Commercy and Saint-Mihiel; it had
   acquired yet more importance since the marriage of Philip the
   Bold and Margaret, daughter of Louis de Male, had brought into
   the same hand Flanders, Artois and Burgundy. This marriage had
   had the effect of giving increased activity to the exchanges
   between the extreme possessions of the Burgundian princes. …
   It may be seen by what precedes that, like the legendary beech
   of her native village, the childhood of the virgin of Domremy
   sprang out of a soil full of vigor and was in the main haunted
   by beneficent fairies. Born in a fertile and smiling corner of
   the earth, the issue of an honest family, whose laborious
   mediocrity was elevated enough to touch nobility when
   ennobling itself by alms-giving, and humble enough to remain
   in contact with all the poor; endowed by nature with a robust
   body, a sound intelligence and an energetic spirit, the little
   Jeannette d'Arc became under these gentle influences all
   goodness and all love. Certain facts which are related of her
   early years show her religiously enamored of country life. She
   gave some wool from her sheep to the bell-ringer of Domremy to
   render him more zealous in fulfilling his office, so much did
   the silvery chiming of his church bell, sounding suddenly in
   the quiet of the valley, enchant her ear. And the inspiring
   virtue of the cool shadows, of the 'frigus opacum' of Virgil,
   who had better felt it than she who replied to her judges at
   Rouen: 'If I were in the midst of the woods, I should hear my
   voices better.' … One of the consequences of the treaty of
   Troyes was the occupation of Champagne by the [English]
   invaders.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422 (page 1175).

   It is certain, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary
   of many historians of Jeanne, that from this date the English
   were rendered absolutely masters of the bailiwick of Chaumont.
   The principal fortresses of Bassigny, notably Nogent-le-Roi
   and Montigny-le-Roi, received garrisons of the enemy. The
   'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' preserved in our National
   Archives, where the acts emanating from the English government
   [chancellorship] during this period are registered, are full
   of letters of pardon or of remission granted in the name of
   Henry V. and Henry VI. to different inhabitants of this
   bailiwick, and nothing proves better to what degree the
   authority of the king of England was at that time received and
   accepted in this region. Some of these letters were given on
   account of offenses committed in the provostship of Andelot,
   of which the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs held, as is known.
   This châtellenie was, in truth, the last fragment of French
   soil that Charles VII. had kept at the eastern extremity of
   his kingdom, as he had succeeded in keeping Mont-Saint-Michel
   at the western extremity. Pressed upon by the
   Anglo-Burgundians on the south, by the restless and violent
   Robert of Saarbruck, seigneur of Commercy, on the north,
   hemmed in, on the east and west, between the possessions of
   the dukes of Bar and of Lorraine, who were unceasingly at war
   with their neighbors, this little corner of the earth was a
   sort of arena where all parties came into collision; and
   during the four or five years which immediately preceded the
   first apparition of the archangel Michael to the Maid, toward
   the middle of 1425, ten or twelve leaders of bands may be
   counted who emulated each other, as it were, in ravaging it in
   all directions. During the first half of the 15th century, the
   men at arms of the marches of Lorraine had the reputation of
   being, with the Bretons, the greatest pillagers in the world.
   … We know now in all its details a curious episode which
   particularly concerns the native village of Jeanne. This
   episode had remained completely unknown up to the present day,
   and it was a fortunate accident which, in the beginning of our
   researches, commenced in 1878, caused us to discover in the
   National Archives, in the 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,'
   the document in which the relation of it is found. There is
   question in this document of a remission of penalty granted by
   King Charles VII. to a certain Burthélemy de Clefmont for the
   murder of an Anglo-Burgundian band-leader who had carried away
   the cattle from two villages of the châtellenie of
   Vaucouleurs; now, these two villages are precisely Greux and
   Domremy. … Different circumstances of the narrative, compared
   with several documents relative to the leader killed by
   Barthélemy de Clefmont, do not permit us to place the incident
   at any other date than 1425. … The principal, not to say the
   only wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy, was the cattle
   which they pastured in the meadows of the Meuse. The
   configuration of the soil permits the cultivation only of some
   fields situated along the border of these meadows, at the foot
   of the wooded hill against which the village is set; so, the
   little grain that was harvested there would not have sufficed
   to feed the population. … We understand then the important
   injury done to these unfortunate peasants by taking from them
   at one stroke all the communal flock; they were completely
   ruined; they were stripped between one day and another of the
   most precious of their possessions; they were almost condemned
   to die of poverty with very brief delay. Such a disaster would
   have cast down a spirit of ordinary temper; it had no other
   effect than to exalt the profound faith and to awaken the
   already extraordinary energies of the little Jeannette d'Arc.
   Endowed, notwithstanding her tender years, with that almost
   superhuman moral force of which we read that it transports
   mountains, she called Heaven confidently to the assistance of
   her people, and our readers already know that Heaven heard her
   voice. Jeanne de Joinville, lady of Ogéviller, the good
   châtelaine of Domremy, must have been keenly touched by the
   unfortunate situation caused to her people, and she had
   besides the greatest interest in making the brigands in the
   pay of Henri d'Orly disgorge, in order to assure the payment
   of her taxes. This is why she complained to her cousin Antoine
   de Lorraine, count of Vaudemont, who had in his immediate
   tenure the château of Doulevant, occupied by the chief of
   these brigands. The count hastened to give satisfaction to the
   demands of his relative; he sent Barthélemy de Clefmont, one
   of his men at arms, in pursuit of the marauders.
{3755}
   The expedition was a complete success. Though the cattle had
   already been taken as far as Dommartin-le-Franc, twenty
   leagues distant from the shores of the Meuse, they were
   recovered. Antoine de Lorraine then caused them to be restored
   to the lady of Ogéviller whose people, those of Greux as well
   as of Domremy, thus came again into possession of the precious
   booty which had been stolen from them and which they believed
   irreparably lost. What a signal favor of Providence, a
   miracle, these poor people in general and Jeannette d'Arc in
   particular must have seen in a restitution so unhoped for! In
   the meantime,—we may reasonably suppose this, if not affirm it
   with certainty,—the news of a great defeat inflicted on the
   English before Mont-Saint-Michel, toward the end of June 1425,
   by sea as well as by land, must have arrived at Domremy.
   Almost at the same time, that is in the last days of the
   following August, they learned that these same English had
   just invaded Barrois and that they had burned dwellings at
   Revigny as well as in the ban of Chaumont, near Bar-le-Duc.
   Never had Jeanne felt more sorrowfully 'the pity it was for
   the kingdom of France,' and never also had she had a more
   entire faith in God to assure the salvation of her country.
   The theft, then the restitution of the cattle of Greux and
   Domremy, the victory won by the defenders of
   Mont-Saint-Michel, the invasion of Barrois by the English,
   here are the three principal occurrences which immediately
   preceded and which explain, at least in a certain degree, the
   first apparition of the archangel Michael to the little
   Jeannette d'Arc."

      _S. Luce,
      Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy
      (translated from the French),
      chapters 2-3._

FRANCE: A. D. 1582.
   Footing secured at the mouth of the Senegal.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1582.

FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
   First printed newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1631 (page 2594).

FRANCE: A. D. 1648-1715.
   Relations with Germany and Austria.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

FRANCE: A. D. 1682-1693.
   Contest of the King and the Gallican Church with the Papacy.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693 (page 2462).

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1770.
   The fatal policy in Europe which lost to the French their
   opportunity for colonial aggrandizement.

   "Louis XIV. had made France odious to her neighbors and
   suspected by all Europe. Those who succeeded him required much
   prudence and wisdom to diminish the feelings of fear and
   jealousy which this long reign of wars and conquests had
   inspired. They were fortunate in that the moderation demanded
   of them was for France the most skilful and advantageous
   policy. France kept Alsace, Franche-Comte, Flanders,
   Roussillon, and beyond this enlarged frontier she was no
   longer menaced by the same enemies. The treaty of Utrecht had
   modified the entire balance of power. There is henceforward no
   house of Austria excepting in Germany. It is too often
   forgotten, in speaking of this house and its rivalry with that
   of France, that the most ardent center of hatred was in Spain.
   It was Spain which cherished that violent rancor which, for
   lack of words as much as of ideas, is placed to the account of
   Austria alone. Spain is no longer to be feared; she is
   weakened, she is becoming dependent. A cadet of France, a
   Bourbon, reigns at Madrid, and the roles, in that direction,
   are exchanged. As to Austria even, she has increased
   undoubtedly: she has taken the Low Countries, Milan, Naples,
   very soon she adds Sicily to them; but she is scattered. In
   multiplying her outposts, she presents so many points of
   aggression to her adversaries. France has the Low Countries
   under her hand: Savoy threatens Milan: and, in Germany,
   Prussia, which is growing, groups the opponents of the Empire.
   France completes her work by the annexation of Lorraine. The
   house of Lorraine is transported to Tuscany, and by the effect
   of the same treaty, that of Vienna in 1738, Naples and Sicily
   pass to the Spaniards. It seems that henceforward France has
   only to conserve on the continent. She presents to it the most
   compact power. Her principal enemy in it is greatly reduced.
   She is surrounded by states, weaker than she, who defer to her
   and fear her; she can resume that fine role of moderator and
   guardian of the peace of Europe which Richelieu had prepared
   for her, and bear elsewhere, into the other hemisphere, the
   superabundance of her forces and that excess of vigor which in
   great nations is precisely the condition of health. The future
   of her grandeur is henceforward in the colonies. There she
   will encounter England. Upon this new stage their rivalry will
   be revived, more ardent than in the days of the hundred years
   war. To maintain this struggle which extends over the entire
   world, France will not be too strong with all her resources.
   When she is engaged in Canada and the Indies at the same time,
   she will not need to carry her armies across the Rhine. Peace
   on the continent is the condition necessary to the magnificent
   fortune which awaits her in America and Asia. If she wishes to
   obtain it she must renounce continental ambitions. She can do
   it; her defense is formidable. No one about her would dare to
   fire a gun without her permission. But, alas! she is far
   removed from this wisdom, and, in attempting to establish
   colonies, and make changes in the kingdoms of Europe at the
   same time, she will compromise her power in both worlds at
   once. The French desire colonial conquests, but they can not
   abstain from European conquests, and England profits by it.
   Austria becomes her natural ally against France. These
   powerful diversions keep the French on the ground. However,
   they can yet curb Austria; they have Prussia, Savoy, Poland
   and Turkey if necessary. Diplomacy is sufficient for this
   game; but this game is not sufficient for the French
   politicians. The hatred of the house of Austria survives the
   causes of rivalry. This house seems always 'the monster' of
   which Balzac speaks. One is not satisfied to have chained it;
   one can cease only after having annihilated it. 'There is
   always,' writes Argenson, 'for politicians a fundamental rule
   of reducing this power to the point where the Emperor will not
   be a greater landholder than the richest elector.' Charles VI.
   dies in 1740; he leaves only a daughter; the opportunity seems
   favorable, and noisily sounding the death-cry (l'hallali) they
   take the field at the head of all the hunters by inheritance.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D.1740, and after (pages 212-220).


{3756}

   They go 'to make an emperor, to conquer kingdoms!' The
   Bavarian whom they crown is a stage emperor, and, as for
   conquests, they are considered only too fortunate that Maurice
   of Saxe preserves to France those of Louis XIV. The coalition
   has no other result than to enlarge Prussia. Meanwhile France
   is beaten on the sea and abandons solely to the resources of
   his genius Dupleix, who with a handful of men was founding an
   empire. There was besides another small matter; after having
   exposed Canada in order to conquer Silesia for the king of
   Prussia, it was lost in order to have the pleasure of giving
   back that province to the queen of Hungary. France had played
   the game of England in the war of the succession of Austria,
   she played that of Austria in the seven years war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after (pages 1495-1502).

   Frederic was the most equivocal of allies. In 1755, he
   deserted cynically and passed over to the English, who had
   just recommenced war against France. England having Prussia,
   it was important in order to maintain the equilibrium, that
   France have Austria. Maria Theresa offered her alliance and
   France accepted it. Thus was concluded the famous treaty of
   May 1, 1756. The object of this alliance was entirely
   defensive. This is what France did not understand, and she did
   not cease to be a dupe for having changed partners. Louis XV.
   made himself the defender of Austria with the same blindness
   as he had made himself her adversary. The continental war
   which was only the accessory became the principal. From a
   ruling power, France fell to the rank of a subordinate. She
   did not even attain the indirect result to which she
   sacrificed her most precious interests. Frederic kept Silesia,
   France lost Canada and abandoned Louisiana; the empire of the
   Indies passed to the English. Louis XV. had thus directed a
   policy the sole reason for which was the defeat of England, in
   such a way as to assure the triumph of that country. 'Above
   all,' wrote Bernis to Choiseul, then ambassador at Vienna,
   'arrange matters in such a way that the king will not remain
   in servile dependence on his allies. That state would be the
   worst of all.' It was the state of France during the last
   years of the reign of Louis XV. The alliance of 1756 which had
   been at its beginning and under its first form, a skilful
   expedient, became a political system, and the most disastrous
   of all. Without gaining anything in territory, France lost her
   consideration in Europe. She had formerly grouped around her
   all those who were disturbed by the power of Austria; forced
   to choose between them and Austria, she allowed the Austrians
   to do as they chose. To crown the humiliation, immediately
   after a war in which she had lost everything to serve the
   hatred of Maria Theresa for Frederic, she saw those
   unreconcilable Germans draw together without her knowledge,
   come to an understanding at her expense and, in concert with
   Russia, divide the spoil of one of the oldest clients of the
   French monarchy, Poland. There remained to France but one
   ally, Spain. They were united in 1761 by the Family Pact, the
   only beneficial work which had been accomplished in these
   years of disaster. … To the anger of having felt herself made
   use of during the war, to the rancor of having seen herself
   duped during the peace, was joined the fear of being despoiled
   one day by an ally so greedy and so little scrupulous. 'I
   foresee,' wrote Mably some years later, 'that the Emperor will
   demand of us again Lorraine, Alsace and everything which may
   please him.'—'Who can guaranty France, if she should
   experience a complicated and unfortunate war,' said one of the
   ministers of Louis XVI., 'that the Emperor would not reclaim
   Alsace and even other provinces?' It was in this way that the
   abuse made by Austria of the alliance revived all the
   traditions of rivalry. Add that Maria Theresa was devout, that
   she was known to be a friend of the Jesuits, an enemy of the
   philosophers, and that at the King's court, the favorites were
   accounted as acquired from Austria: everything thus
   contributed to render odious to public opinion the alliance
   which, in itself, already seemed detestable. At the time when
   they were beginning to style the partisans of new ideas
   'patriots,' they were in the habit of confounding all the
   adversaries of these ideas with the 'Austrian party.' … The
   marriage of Marie Antoinette with the Dauphin was destined to
   seal forever the alliance of 1756. The unfortunate princess
   accumulated on her head the hatreds and prejudices heaped up
   by three centuries of rivalry and excessively stimulated by
   the still smarting impression of recent wrongs. Even the cause
   of her coming to France rendered her suspected by the French;
   they imputed to her as a crime her attachment to the alliance,
   which was, notwithstanding, the very reason of her marriage.
   To understand the prodigious unpopularity which pursued her in
   France, it is necessary to measure the violence of the
   passions raised up against her mother and her country; it was
   summed up, long before the Revolution, in that word which
   became for Marie Antoinette a decree of forfeiture and of
   death: the Austrian."

      _A. Sorel,
      L'Europe et la Révolution française
      (translated from the French),
      part 1, pages 288-297._

FRANCE: A. D. 1776-1778.
   Disposition to aid the revolt of the
   English colonies in America.
   The American embassy.
   Dealings of Beaumarchais and Silas Deane.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1778 (pages 3241, 3244).

FRANCE: A. D. 1777.
   The first daily newspaper.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1777 (page 2600).

FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789.
   Paris in the Revolution.
   The part of the Nobodies.

   "The history of the revolution can no more be understood
   without understanding the part played in it by Paris, than one
   can conceive of the tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet
   left out; and to understand the part played by Paris in the
   revolution is equally impossible. … Let us commence at the
   bottom with the nobodies. They are no specialty of Paris.
   There are many of them in every city, but the larger the city
   the greater the percentage. Paris, therefore, has the highest.
   They are isolated particles. In the ushering in of the new era
   they have no part. The regulations concerning the elections to
   the States-General contain no provision in regard to them. …
   It was simply a matter of course, that these nobodies went for
   nothing in the question at hand. Whether they were likely to
   continue to be nothing in it, nobody seems to have asked. …
   The existence of this class was partly due to natural causes,
   the working of which the wit of man can to a degree mitigate,
   but never prevent.

{3757}

   In the 'ancien régime,' however, the wit of man had altogether
   been bent upon stimulating it. The privilege-bane had also
   been extended over the domain of labor. When, in 1776, Turgot
   broke down the guilds, the Parliament of Paris strenuously
   opposed the government, declaring: all Frenchmen are divided
   into established corporations, forming one continuous chain
   from the throne down to the lowest handicraft, indispensable
   to the existence of the state, and not to be abolished, lest
   the whole social order break asunder. That was but too true.
   Since the days of Henry III. (1574-1589) the forcing of all
   industrial pursuits into the strait-jacket of guildships had
   been carried to the extreme of utter absurdity. Here, too, the
   chronic financial distress had been the principal cause. At
   first the handicrafts, which everybody had been at liberty to
   practice, were withdrawn from free competition and sold as a
   privilege, and then, when nothing was left to be sold, the old
   guilds were split up into a number of guildlets, merely to
   have again something to put on the counter. And it was not
   only left pretty much to the masters whom they would admit to
   the freedom of the guild, but besides the charges for it were
   so high that it was often absolutely out of the reach even of
   the most skillful journeyman. Even a blood-aristocracy was not
   lacking. In a number of guilds only the sons of masters and
   the second husbands of masters' widows could become masters.
   Thus an immense proletariat was gradually formed, which to a
   great extent was a proletariat only because the law
   irresistibly forced it into this position. And the city
   proletariat proper received constant and ever-increasing
   additions from the country. There such distress prevailed,
   that the paupers flocked in crowds to the cities. … In 1791,
   long before the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, there
   were in a population of 650,000, 118,000 paupers (indigents).
   Under the 'ancien régime' the immigrant proletariat from the
   country was by the law barred out from all ways of earning a
   livelihood except as common day-laborers, and the wages of
   these were in 1788, on an average, 26 cents for men and 15 for
   women, while the price of bread was higher than in our times.
   What a gigantic heap of ferment!"

      _H. von Holst,
      The French Revolution,
      lecture 2._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Effects of the Revolution in Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1794.
   Myths of the Revolution.

   "The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths
   are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while
   their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical
   students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented
   by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his
   liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not
   poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners
   by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the
   Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations
   have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to
   save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala
   were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that
   no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that
   the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that
   the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's
   wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and
   that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

      _J. G. Alger,
      Glimpses of the French Revolution,
      preface._

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1796.
   The Assignats of the Revolution.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1807.
   Napoleon and Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1855-1895.
   Acquisitions in Africa.

      (See in this Supplement)
      AFRICA: 1855, 1864, 1876-1880, and after.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858-1886.
   Conquest of Tonkin and Cochin China.

      See TONKIN (page 3114).

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1892.
   Advance in the policy of Protection.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1871-1892 (page 3082).

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Assassination of President Carnot.
   Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer.
   Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

   "The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of
   anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot,
   President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While
   driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part
   in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally
   stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The
   assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16.
   His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was
   evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a
   band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with
   the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a
   joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was
   immediately summoned for a presidential election. The
   convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour,
   president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot
   chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M.
   Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M.
   Dupuy third, with 97."

      _Political Science Quarterly,
      December, 1894._

   On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the
   world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly
   and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given
   was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of
   the President under the existing constitution. The exciting
   crisis which this resignation produced was passed through
   without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly
   elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

FRANCE: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES (page 2010).

FRANCE, Bank of.

      See MONEY (page 2212).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin,
   and the first subscription library.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
   Electrical discovery.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1745-1747 (page 770).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
   Examination before Parliament.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (pages 3192-3201).

FRANKLIN, Sir john.
   Northern explorations and voyages of.
   Loss and search for.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822, and after.

{3758}

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, in Italy.

      See (in this Supplement)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177;
      also, pages 1811-1813.

FREE CITIES OF GERMANY, The.

      See (in this Supplement)
      GERMANY: 13-15th CENTURIES; also, page 473.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

      See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW,
   The first.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3305).

   The Second.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (pages 3388-3391).

GALEN, and the development of anatomy and physiology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d CENTURY (page 2128).

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

GAUL: Ancient commerce.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GENOA: The Bank of St. George.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2207).

GENOA: Mediæval Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

GEORGE III.:
   Conversation with Governor Hutchinson
   on affairs in the colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

   His absolute notions of Kingship.

      See England: A. D. 1760-1763 (page 927).

GEORGE, Henry, and the Single Tax movement.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE, Origin and development of the.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES,
      and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

   ----------GERMANY:Start--------

GERMANY:
   Outline sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE (page 1015, and after).

GERMANY: A. D. 962.
   Otto I. and the Restoration of the Empire.

   "And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic
   nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from
   the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated
   pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire,
   an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the
   empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the
   old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the
   Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable
   expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an
   authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. …
   The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an
   organization which, resting on the internal development of the
   German nations had won a universal position through the
   extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the
   event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This
   Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely
   indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the
   Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German
   monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the
   empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its
   neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier
   one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time
   reducing to submission took in other regions extending far
   beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation
   of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its
   form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new
   constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old
   world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper
   place here to enter more deeply into the question of the
   feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed
   aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize
   this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made
   to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to
   the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements
   of life changed their character so soon as it became the
   custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided
   with possessions according to their own several grades, could
   only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far
   as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the
   land. It was through and through a living organization, which
   took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a
   many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own
   part entered into a similar relationship with their own
   sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an
   indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a
   connection which extended also to those border nations which
   were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an
   empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional
   obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as
   day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world
   depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone
   or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this
   same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be
   universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the
   general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful
   upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just
   this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy
   over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the
   German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was
   Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great
   originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion.
   He passed his life amid constant internal and external
   struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to
   leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most
   characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed,
   but they cannot complete."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte,
      (translated from the German),
      volume 7, pages. 5-7._

{3759}

   "For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a
   world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans
   and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received
   his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot
   in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this
   Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church
   with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had
   planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was
   determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the
   most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east,
   he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world
   Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The
   bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and
   through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared,
   marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most
   dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound
   forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time
   the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it
   the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the
   whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a
   Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time
   in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his
   forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which
   have affected the course of the world's history met together
   in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves
   there just as they did in the great onward course of events. …
   In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and
   with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it
   had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not
   through laws, not through an artificial state system, not
   through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western
   Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military
   resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through
   the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in
   war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check,
   compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of
   plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of
   the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up
   till then masses of peoples threatening everything with
   destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were
   closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal
   supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also
   protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally
   lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military
   resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding
   peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he
   himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own
   vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly
   royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial
   crown; but this again it is which first really secures and
   confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On
   this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the
   first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such
   he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military
   force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But
   not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far
   and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new
   crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the
   archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as
   well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he
   rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a
   decisive influence on church progress even in the western
   lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the
   church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish,
   faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed
   nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to
   maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the
   more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by
   the authority of the church. But one must not be led into
   error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a
   so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes
   he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the
   Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes
   of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under
   arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the
   Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric
   in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and
   vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he
   may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor
   and always hits the mark. With such a representative the
   empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but
   one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a
   power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

      _W. von Giesebrecht,
      Deutsche Kaiserzeit
      (translated from the German).
      volume 1, pages 476-484._

   "He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the
   German nation and this powerful and intelligent people
   undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the
   Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection
   of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and
   the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it
   was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being
   the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity,
   doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of
   the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces
   in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this
   long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has
   no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a
   visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for
   centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to
   construct those foundations of general European culture for
   which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

      _Gregorovius,
      Geschichte der Stadt Rom
      (translated from the German),
      volume 3, page 334._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 936-973 (pages 1439-1441).

GERMANY: 11-12th Centuries.
   The question of the Investitures.

      See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 11-12TH CENTURIES.

{3760}

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1272(?).
   The Rise of the College of Electors.

   "At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the
   first time the fully developed college of electors as a single
   electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what
   individuals composed it was definitely settled before
   Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of
   electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult
   at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of
   government in Germany there can be no question at all of a
   simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right
   was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which
   had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of
   selection from among the heirs available within this family.
   Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole
   character of German kingship as in consequence of its
   amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the
   lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to
   understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die
   out during many generations, the right came to be at last
   almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of
   those who had the right of election, would, already during his
   lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if
   possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the
   Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could
   not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after
   the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not
   determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years
   1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now
   predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at
   elections been handed down from the past? The very principle
   of election having been disregarded in the natural course of
   events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of
   procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not
   in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so
   disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had
   been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make
   it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the
   electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year
   1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically
   only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have
   been the former customary mode of elections which provided
   that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire
   should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected
   and the electors present should do homage to the new king.
   This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice
   had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the
   material part of the election, on the other hand, the part
   that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new
   expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the
   person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner
   of constituting this committee differed. Something essential
   had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at
   elections which should accord with the changed circumstances.
   One case however had not been provided for in these still so
   informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that
   those taking part in the election could come to no agreement
   at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be
   solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could
   men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th
   century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never
   taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two
   opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198,
   however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV
   were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of
   choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of
   course did not come about. As a consequence questions with
   regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly
   ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one:
   can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a
   majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this
   other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote?
   Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question
   in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the
   practical application of the principle that had been laid down
   in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should
   one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after
   the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of
   princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower
   electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect
   exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in
   the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain
   precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were
   the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below
   this electoral committee? These are questions which the German
   electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did
   the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to
   investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks
   repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests
   chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as
   the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated
   expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole
   matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th
   century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard
   to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms
   of the empire. One of the most important results of this
   reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given
   by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von
   Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections
   of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging
   to this committee certain particular princes: the three
   Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke
   of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being
   questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all
   events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the
   electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the
   year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular
   persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But
   side by side with this view the old theory still held its own,
   that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the
   election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was
   still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other
   could only be reached according to the way in which the next
   elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was
   elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical
   princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the
   first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king'
   was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among
   whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were
   bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the
   Rhine.
{3761}
   Present were also many counts. But William caused himself
   still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the
   margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also
   not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special
   emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse
   and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with
   perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been
   elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia;
   Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in
   addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes
   also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting,
   according to their own view, in part at least, by actually
   electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these
   elections is clear enough. The general right of election of
   the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral
   college, which was looked upon as possessing almost
   exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence,
   and the component parts which made it up correspond in
   substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in
   the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in
   all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the
   election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect;
   all share of others in the election is done away with.
   Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with
   Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote,
   yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia
   at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even
   if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most
   important revolutions in the German form of government was
   herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of
   the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a
   representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to
   the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being,
   not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result
   of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It
   must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and
   gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a
   national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at
   elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided;
   the era of double elections was practically at an end."

      _K. Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 4, pages 23-28._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152 (page 1444).

GERMANY:A. D. 1154-1190.
   Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.

      See (in this Supplement) ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.

GERMANY:A. D. 1162-1177.
   The Emperor and the Pope.

      See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.

GERMANY:12th-17th Centuries.
   Causes of the Disintegration of the Empire.

   "The whole difference between French and German constitutional
   history can be summed up in a word: to the ducal power, after
   its fall, the crown fell heir in France; the lesser powers,
   which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the
   same, the results were different: in France centralization, in
   Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the
   stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the
   mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion, who refused military
   service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the
   latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lombards.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183 (page 2813).

   … The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away
   his duchy to bestow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away
   with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia,
   went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different
   margraves were completely freed from the last remnants of
   dependence that might have continued to exist. In the
   intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords
   came to be directly under the emperor without a trace of an
   intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot,
   imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of
   Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no
   longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an
   honorary distinction above other counts and lords. What
   happened here had already begun to take place in the other
   duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from
   it of Austria; sooner or later the same process came about in
   all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies
   those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or
   subject to them gained every where an increase of power:
   partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary
   distinction by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by
   joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been
   removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct
   dependence on the empire. … Such was the origin of the idea of
   territorial supremacy. The 'dominus terrae' comes to feel
   himself no longer as a person commissioned by the emperor but
   as lord in his own land. … As to the cities, behind their
   walls remnants of old Germanic liberty had been preserved.
   Especially in the residences of the bishops had artisans and
   merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off
   their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic
   community. … The burghers could find no better way to show
   their independence of the princes than that the community
   itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over
   its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities
   come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a
   monarchical, the former a republican form of government. … It
   is a natural question to ask, on the whole, when this new
   formation of territories was completed. … The question ought
   really only to be put in a general way: at what period in
   German history is it an established fact that there are in the
   empire and under the empire separate territorial powers
   (principalities and cities)? As such a period we can designate
   approximately the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th
   centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial
   power and of territorial power is an established fact and the
   mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal
   history of later times. … The last ruler who had spread abroad
   the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a
   long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all,
   and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a
   century not one succeeded in making himself generally
   recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if
   they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the territorial
   powers.
{3762}
   Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum.
   … Rudolph of Hapsburgh and his successors, chosen from the
   most different houses and pursuing the most different
   policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the
   one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged
   from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make permanent
   concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain
   itself from one moment to another; on the other hand it finds
   no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its
   own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings
   strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by giving
   them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing
   together a dynastic appanage to gain for themselves an
   influential position: this is no policy that wavers between
   conceding and maintaining. … The crown can only keep its place
   above the territories by first recognizing the territorial
   powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial
   power by creating for itself the means of upholding its
   rights. … The next great step in the onward progress of the
   territorial power was the codification of the privileges which
   the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the 'Golden
   Bull' only the one provision is generally known, that the
   seven electors shall choose the emperor; yet so completely
   does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole
   empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it
   could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that,
   for the most part it did not create a new system of
   legislation but only sanctioned what already existed. But for
   the position of all the princes it was significant enough that
   the seven most considerable among them were granted an
   independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by
   way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A
   sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest
   significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories
   could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to
   attain. … This movement was greatly furthered when on the
   threshold of modern times the burning question of church
   reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor,
   was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary
   excesses. … The mightiest intellectual movement of German
   history found at last its only political mainstay in the
   territories. … This whole development, finally, found its
   political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War
   and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which
   the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed
   expressly that all territories should retain their rights,
   especially the right of making alliances among themselves and
   with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating
   the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Herewith
   the territories were proclaimed to be what they had really
   been for a long time—states under the empire."

      _I. Jastrow,
      Geschichte der deutschen Einheitstraum und seiner Erfüllung
      (translated from the German).
      pages 30-37._

GERMANY: 13th-15th Centuries.
   The rise of the Free Cities and their Leagues.

   "Under cities we are to understand fortified places in the
   enjoyment of market-jurisdiction (marktrecht), immunity and
   corporate self-government. The German as well as the French
   cities are a creation of the Middle Ages. They were unknown to
   the Frankish as well as to the old Germanic public law; there
   was no organic connection with the Roman town-system. … All
   cities were in the first place markets; only in
   market-jurisdiction are we to seek the starting point for
   civic jurisdiction. The market-cross, the same emblem which
   already in the Frankish period signified the market-peace
   imposed under penalty of the king's ban, became in the Middle
   Ages the emblem of the cities. … After the 12th century we
   find it to be the custom in most German and many French cities
   to erect a monumental town-cross in the market-place or at
   different points on the city boundary. Since the 14th century
   the place of this was often taken in North-German cities by
   the so-called Roland-images. … All those market-places
   gradually became cities in which, in addition to yearly
   markets, weekly markets and finally daily markets were held.
   Here there was need of coins and of scales, of permanent
   fortifications for the protection of the market-peace and the
   objects of value which were collected together; here merchants
   settled permanently in growing numbers, the Jews among them
   especially forming an important element. Corporative
   associations of the merchants resulted, and especially were
   civic and market tribunals established. … From the beginning
   such a thing as free cities, which were entirely their own
   masters, had not existed. Each city had its lord; who he was
   depended on to whom the land belonged on which they stood. If
   it belonged to the empire or was under the administration
   (vogtei) of the empire the city was a royal or imperial one.
   The oldest of these were the Pfalz-cities (Pfalzstädte) which
   had developed from the king's places of residence
   (Königspfälze). … Beginning with the 12th century and in
   course of the 13th century all cities came to have such an
   organ [i. e. a body of representatives] called the Stadtrath
   (consilium, consules) with one or more burgomasters (magistri
   civium) at their head. Herewith did the city first become a
   public corporation, a city in the legal sense. … Of the royal
   cities many since the time of Frederick II had lost their
   direct dependence on the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) and
   had become territorial or provincial cities, through having
   been sold or pledged by the imperial government. As soon as
   the view had gained ground that the king had no right to make
   such dispositions and thus to disregard the privileges that
   had been granted to the cities, people spoke no longer of
   royal cities but of cities of the empire. These had, all of
   them, in course of time, even where the chief jurisdiction
   remained in the hand of an imperial official, attained a
   degree of independence approximating to the territorial
   supremacy of the princes. They had their special courts as
   corporations before the king. Since the second half of the
   13th century they rejoiced in an autonomy modified only by the
   laws of the realm; they had the disposal of their own armed
   contingents and the sole right of placing garrisons in their
   fortresses. They had accordingly also the right of making
   leagues and carrying on feuds, the right to lordless lands
   (Heimfallsrecht) … and other prerogatives. The cities of the
   empire often ruled at the same time over extensive
   territories. …
{3763}
   Among the cities of the empire were comprised after the 14th
   century also various cities of bishoprics which had been able
   to protect themselves from subjection to the territorial power
   of the bishop, and which only stood to it in a more or less
   loose degree of subordination. … For the majority of the
   cities of bishoprics which later became cities of the empire
   the denomination 'Free Cities' came up in the 14th century
   (not till later 'Free Cities of the Empire'). … Among the
   leagues of cities, which especially contributed to raise their
   prestige and paved the way to their becoming Estates of the
   Empire or of the principalities, the great Rhenish civic
   confederation (1254-1256) lasted too short a time to have an
   enduring effect. The Swabian civic league was for purely
   political purposes—the maintenance of the direct dependence on
   the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) against the claims of
   territorial sovereignty of the princes, and its unfortunate
   ending served rather to deteriorate than to improve the
   condition of the cities. It was different with the Hansa. This
   name, which signified nothing else than gild or brotherhood,
   was first applied to the gild of the German merchants in the
   'stahlhof' in London. This gild, having originated from the
   amalgamation of various national Houses of German merchants in
   England, had finally, under the name of 'Hansa of Germany' or
   'Gildhall of the Germans in England,' come to comprise all
   Germans who carried on trade with England. Similar
   associations of the German merchants were the 'German House'
   in Venice, the 'German Counting-house' in Bruges and the
   German Hansas in Wisby on Gotland, in Schonen, Bergen, Riga
   and Novgorod. The chief purpose of these Hansas was the
   procuring of a 'House' as a shelter for persons and for wares,
   the maintaining of peace among, the Hansa brothers, legal
   protection, the acquisition of commercial privileges, etc. The
   Hansas were gilds with several elected aldermen at their heads
   who represented them in external matters and who administered
   the property. … Quarrels among the brothers might not, under
   penalty, be brought before external tribunals; they were to be
   brought before the Hansa committee as a gild-tribunal. This
   committee had also an extended penal jurisdiction over the
   members; under certain circumstances they had even the power
   of life and death in their hands. An especially effective
   punishment was the Hansa Bann, which occasioned, besides
   expulsion from the Hansa, a complete boycott on the part of
   the Hansa brothers. … The community of interests thus founded
   among these cities led repeatedly, already as early as the
   second half of the 13th century, to common steps on their
   part; so that in Hansa affairs a tacit league existed, even
   although it had not been expressly sanctioned. After this had
   become more clearly apparent in the troubles with Flanders
   (1356-1358) the name Hansa was also applied to this
   league-relationship, so that henceforward besides the Hansa of
   the German merchants there existed a Hansa of the German
   cities. The Hanseatic League received a firm organization
   through the Greifswald and Cologne confederations of 1361 and
   1367, both of which were at first only entered into for a
   single warlike undertaking (against Waldemar of Denmark), but
   which were then repeatedly renewed and finally looked upon as
   a permanent league. The Hanseatic League … came forward in
   external matters, even in international relationships, as an
   independent legal entity. It carried on war and entered into
   treaties with foreign nations; it had a league army at its
   disposal and a league fleet; it acquired whole territorial
   districts and saw to the building of fortresses. In itself it
   was not a defensive and offensive league; it did not concern
   itself with the feuds of single cities with outsiders. The
   sphere of activity of the league was essentially confined to
   the province of commerce: protection of commerce, … the
   closing of commercial treaties, etc. … The head of the League
   was and continued to be Lubeck. Its kernel, as it were, was
   formed by the Wendish (i. e. Mecklenburg and Pomeranian)
   cities which were united under Lubeck. Originally any city of
   Lower Germany which asked to be taken in was received into the
   League. … Hansa cities which did not fulfil their federal
   obligations came under the penalty of the Hansa bann and the
   general commercial ostracism consequent upon it. … The federal
   power was exercised by civic diets, which were assemblies of
   delegates from the members of the council [Rath] of the
   individual cities. The summons was sent by Lubeck. The decrees
   were passed in the form of 'recesses.' … Within the League
   again were narrower leagues with their own common affairs and
   their own civic diets. After numerous changes the four
   'quarters' were recognized as such: the Wendish under Lubeck
   as its head, the Saxon under Brunswick, the Cologne under
   Cologne, the Prussian-Livonian under Danzig.

      _R. Schröder,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte
      (translated from the German),
      pages 588-609._

      See, also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624),
      and CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE (page 473).

GERMANY: 15th-17th Centuries.
   The decay of the Hansa.

   "The complete ruin of the empire in the course of the 15th
   century necessarily entailed at last the ruin also of its
   members. Nowhere did this elementary truth make itself felt in
   a more terrible manner than in northeastern Germany, in those
   colonial districts which in consequence of the extraordinary
   development of the Hansa had risen in importance to the extent
   of having an influence on the whole east and northeast of
   Europe. Here the year 1370 had denoted for the Hansa a climax
   without a parallel. After a glorious war it had closed with
   the Danish king, Waldemar Atterdag, a peace which seemed about
   to keep the northern kingdoms, for a long time to come, under
   the power of its will. But, soon after, the Lubeck-Hanseatic
   policy began to degenerate. … The Hansa had looked on without
   interfering at the struggle which began between the Teutonic
   Order and Poland. This freed it from the threatening maritime
   supremacy of the Order; besides this it had just become
   involved, itself, in conflicts in the North. … A long and
   tedious war ensued … which ended to the disadvantage of the
   Hansa. … Within the Hansa, during the struggle, the divergency
   of interests between the Wendish, Prussian and Livonian cities
   had for the first time become so pronounced as to amount to
   complete disunion, and already in 1431 in Hanseatic circles
   the fear could be expressed … 'that the noble confederation of
   our Hansa will be dissolved and destroyed.' Such being the
   case it soon became evident that the struggle with King Erich
   had actually cost the Hansa the 'Dominium maris Baltici.'
{3764}
   For one thing the English and the Dutch, more and more
   unopposed, began to carry on in the East a commerce which was
   hostile to the Hansa. … While the Western enemies of the Hansa
   thus appeared in districts on the Baltic, which had hitherto
   been reserved for the Hanseatic merchant, the influence on the
   North Sea of the Baltic Hansa cities diminished also more and
   more. It was possible indeed, for some time to come, still to
   hold on to Norway. But further to the southwest the Hansa
   ships, in the war which England in union with Burgundy had
   been waging with France since the year 1415, saw themselves
   attacked on all sides in spite of the neutral flag. It was
   well-known that the empire would not protect the German flag.
   It was worse still that in England a more and more violent
   opposition arose against the Hanseatic privileges, for the
   progress of this movement laid bare once and for all the
   fundamental contrast between the commercial interests in
   England of the Rhenish Hansa cities and those of the
   'Osterlings' [Eastern cities]. If the English were prepared
   perhaps to further extend the rights of the Hansa in their
   land in return for the simultaneous free entry of their flag
   in the Baltic, that was a condition which pleased the German
   western cities as much as it seemed unacceptable to the
   Osterlings, Lubeck at their head. The English had succeeded in
   carrying discord into the enemy's camp. Affairs in Flanders
   were on a footing equally dangerous to the continued existence
   of the Hansa as a whole. … Lubeck, in a diet of the year 1466,
   recommended the members of the Hansa to consider the merchants
   of Cologne as not belonging to the Hansa when in the lands of
   the Duke of Burgundy. A complete breach could not now fail to
   come. It occurred, very unfortunately for Cologne and the
   western cities, on English territory. In 1468 English ships
   were plundered in the 'Sund,' at the bidding, as was claimed,
   of the Hansa. The result was that King Edward IV took prisoner
   all German merchants who happened to be in England and forbade
   commercial intercourse with Germany. From this restriction,
   however, the Cologners were able to free themselves through
   separate negotiations with the king. It was an inconsiderate
   step thus to separate themselves from the rest of the Hansa,
   and that, too, in such a question as this. Cologne stood there
   fully isolated now even from the western cities. Lubeck at
   once profited by the occasion to have Cologne placed under the
   Hansa bann and soon after the Hansa, almost entirely united
   now except for Cologne, began the war against England. In the
   year 1472 a great fleet sailed out against the island-kingdom;
   it had complete success. The peace of Utrecht of February 18th
   1474 restored once more the old Hanseatic privileges in
   England and opened up the prospect of damages amounting to
   £10,000. Cologne had to submit; in 1478 it returned to the
   Hansa. But all the same there was no complete restoration of
   the old unity. The mercantile differences between the west and
   the east cities not only continued but increased, and a
   dominion over the Baltic, not to mention the North Sea, was,
   in spite of the momentary success in England, no longer to be
   thought of. … After about 1490 the interests also of the
   Wendish cities including, say, Bremen, Hamburg and Lüneburg,
   became divided. … Thus towards the end of the 15th century the
   Hansa bore the stamp of decline in all directions, … the
   political-mercantile preponderance on land, as well as the
   'Dominium maris Baltici,' was broken and the league itself was
   torn by internal dissensions. In the years from 1476 to 1494
   only one common Hansa diet was held; complete ruin was now
   only a question of time. The 16th century and a part still of
   the 17th century comprise the period of the slow wasting away
   of the Hansa. While at the beginning of this period the South
   German merchant-princes developed a German world-commerce, the
   satiated mercantile houses of the North showed themselves
   incapable of progressing even on purely commercial paths. They
   remained in the ruts of old-fashioned commerce." In England
   "less and less regard was paid to the warnings and plaints of
   this antiquated piece of retrogression, until Queen Elisabeth
   made use of the incautious promulgation of an imperial edict
   forbidding English merchants to settle in the Hansa cities to
   simply abrogate the Hanseatic privileges in England. It was
   the key-stone on the tomb of the Hanseatic relations with
   England, once so close and full of import."

      _K. Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 4, pages 468-484._

   "The unmerciful fate which had overtaken the German nation
   [the 30 years war], like a storm wind descending upon the
   land, gave also the death-blow to that proud communal system
   which when in its prime showed better than any other
   institution the greatness of the German power in the Middle
   Ages. He who does not know the history of the Hansa does not
   know how to estimate the true significance of our people. He
   does not know that no goal was too distant for it, no task too
   great; that at the same time it could belong to the first
   commercial nations of the world and intellectually absorb and
   work over the idea of humanism, could offer defiance to the
   kings of the Danes and challenge the pope for usurping the
   rule of the world. How did things still look on the Thames
   when in Dantzig, day after day, four or five hundred ships
   were running in and out, when the merchants of Soest, Dortmund
   and Osnabrück were opening their counting-houses in the
   Warangian city of Novgorod? It is in truth nothing new if the
   German nation today again begins to reckon itself among the
   naval powers. … In those days it was also the baneful
   religious schism which hindered the great commercial centres
   on the German northern coast from making use of the favoring
   constellations which presented themselves. The evangelical
   burghers of Lubeck and Rostock could not make up their minds
   for the sake of advantageous trade connections with Spain to
   become bailiffs of their brothers of the faith in Holland;
   they could put no trust in the brilliant promises with which
   the emperor's Jesuits tried to turn them away from the cause
   of Denmark and Sweden, and herewith probably the last
   opportunity was missed of breathing new life in the already
   aging commercial league. The attempt made in 1641 to renew the
   league by ten cities remained ineffectual. Lubeck which
   already in 1629 had lost 96 ships could no longer keep itself
   from ruin; its great commercial houses became bankrupt and
   drew down the smaller ones with them in their fall; Dantzig,
   which still in 1619 had been able to show an export of grain
   to the amount of 102,981 tons, exported in 1655 only 11,361,
   and in 1659 not more than 542 tons."

      _Zwideneck-Sü-denhorst,
      Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 50._

{3765}

GERMANY: 16th Century.
   At the beginning of the Reformation Movement.

   "An increase in pilgrimages first begins to mark a new phase
   of religious life which was encouraged by the admonitions of
   preachers of repentance like Capistrano. Like an avalanche did
   the numbers grow of the pilgrims who streamed together from
   all parts of Upper and Central Germany, from the foot of the
   Alps to the Harz Mountains. Thirty, even seventy thousand
   might have been counted of those who assembled at Niklashausen
   to hear the words of the prophet (Boeheim) who was already
   reverenced as a saint. … This 'saint' was burned with an Ave
   Maria upon his lips. … It might have been supposed that the
   sad outcome of these movements would have frightened men away,
   but no; one can boldly maintain on the contrary that never,
   save during the crusades, were so many pilgrimages made as in
   the last 60 or 70 years before the reformation. … If that way
   of striving after righteousness before God, vain and mistaken
   as it seems to us, may be looked upon as religion, then the
   last fifty or sixty years before the reformation show an
   exceptionally high degree of religious feeling, or at least of
   religions need; a feeling ever increasing through lack of
   means to satisfy it. With regard to the clergy, indeed, things
   looked dark enough, especially in North and Central Germany.
   One does not know which was greater, their lack of knowledge
   or their lack of morality. … The most incredible facts were
   brought to light by the later visitations. … The result might
   have been a complete return to heathenism had such a clergy,
   which could show, especially in the larger South German
   cities, but few redeeming exceptions, had the whole spiritual
   guidance of the people in its hands. But it did not; and the
   doings of the secular clergy by no means affected the
   religious life of the community as they would have done
   to-day. The exponents and fosterers of this religious life at
   that time in Germany were the mendicant friars: Franciscans,
   Dominicans, Augustinian friars. … Many things in the outer
   world, especially at the end of the century, came to aid the
   church's efforts: the needs of an age in which so much was
   unstable; the anger of Heaven which, as the monks so
   drastically preached and the multitude piously believed, so
   evidently threatened to vent itself. That period of history,
   indeed, might be called a prosperous one by anyone regarding
   merely superficially the condition of social and political
   affairs. It is well known how German commerce prospered at
   that time, extending to all parts of the world and ever having
   new paths opened up for it by the new discoveries. Frenchmen
   and Italians, astounded at the riches and princely splendor
   which the commercial magnates in the South German
   trade-centres were able to display, sang the praises of the
   prosperity and culture of the land. Industry and commerce were
   on the increase and art, realizing its highest aims, found an
   abiding-place and self-sacrificing patrons in the houses of
   the citizens. With every year the number of high and low-grade
   schools on the Rhine and in South Germany increased in number,
   and were still scarcely able to do justice to the pressing
   educational needs. An undercurrent of fresh and joyous
   creative impulse, full of promise for the future, can be
   traced among the burghers. But if one regards the age as a
   whole one sees everywhere not only a threatening, but actually
   a present decline. The abundant popular literature, more even
   than the writings of scholars, gives a clear insight into
   these matters. … Since the days of antiquity, on the eve of
   the French Revolution alone do we find the opposing principles
   so sharply contrasted with each other as they were at the end
   of the Middle Ages. In the rich commercial cities themselves
   there was already an immense proletariat as opposed to the
   excessive wealth; and there is reason to believe that never,
   even counting the present day, have there been so many beggars
   as in those decades. It must be borne in mind that, both
   practically and theoretically, beggary was furthered by the
   church. Much from her rich table fell into the lap of the poor
   man, and actually not only was it no shame to beg but beggary
   was a vocation like any other. The man who ate the bread of
   beggary stood morally higher than he who toiled to gain a
   living. … Men did, on the other hand, have the consciousness
   that the great accumulation of capital in the hands of
   individuals furthered poverty as it always does. The
   complaints are general against 'selfishness'; the pauper, the
   town artisan, the noble and the scholar are remarkably in
   accord on this one point, that deception, usury and cheating
   are the only explanation of the prosperity of the merchant.
   When the knight attacked the goods-waggons of the traders he
   believed that he was only taking what rightfully belonged to
   himself. The merchants and the rich prelates were responsible
   to his mind for the deterioration of his own class or estate
   which can no longer hold its own against the rich civilians.
   All the more does he oppress his own serfs. Only seldom among
   the higher classes do we hear a word of pity for the poor man,
   a word of blame against the fleecing and harrassing of the
   peasants; much oftener bitter scorn and mockery, which
   nevertheless is founded on fear; for men know well enough in
   their inmost souls that the peasant is only waiting for a
   suitable moment in which to strike out and take bloody
   vengeance, and anxiously do they await the future. Even among
   the citizens themselves those who were without possessions
   were filled with hatred against the rich and against those of
   high degree. The introduction of Roman law, unintelligible to
   the burgher and peasant, made the feeling of being without law
   a common one. The more firmly did men pin their faith on that
   future in which the Last Judgment of God was to come and
   annihilate priests and lords. Such impressions, which were
   kept vivid by an ever spreading popular literature, by word of
   mouth and by pictorial representations, could only be
   heightened by the state of political affairs in the last
   decades of the 15th century and the first years of the 16th.
   Well known are the many struggles for the firmer organization
   of the empire, for the carrying through of the reform-plans of
   a Berthold of Mainz. The publicists of the time, and to no
   small degree the Emperor Maximilian himself, who, if he wanted
   to carry through any measure addressed himself directly to the
   people, cast broadside among the populace numerous pamphlets
   containing the most unintelligible ideas and promises.
{3766}
   And what a host of plans and ideas did this much loved,
   knightly emperor not have! How beautifully could he talk of
   old German might and glory and draw pictures of a rosy future.
   With intense interest did men follow the transactions of the
   diets which promised to better affairs. One plan of taxation
   followed on the heels of another. What project was left
   undiscussed for the better carrying out of the Peace of the
   Land! In the end everything remained as it had been save the
   want and general discomfort which increased from year to year.
   Bad harvests and consequent rise in prices, famine, severe
   sicknesses and plagues are once more the stock chapters in the
   chronicles. Frightful indeed were the ravages caused by the
   first, almost epidemic, appearance of the Syphilis; with
   regard to which, during the whole period of the reformation,
   the moral judgment wavered. … It is a wondrous, gloomy time,
   torn by contradictions, a time in which all is in a ferment,
   everything seems to totter. Everything but one institution,
   the firmly welded edifice of the Roman church. To Germany also
   came the news of the horrible vices with which the popes just
   at this time disgraced the Holy See: people knew that no deed
   was too black for them when it was a question of satisfying
   their greed of power and their lust. But nevertheless they
   remained the successors of Peter and the representatives of
   Christ, and so little can one speak of a process of
   dissolution in the church, that the latter appears on the
   contrary the only stable power and the
   religious-ecclesiastical idea is rather the one that rules all
   things. Although men to a great extent scorn and mock her
   servants and long often with burning hatred for their
   annihilation, yet it continues always to be the church that
   holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that can avert the
   wrath of God; the church, to which the anxious soul turns as
   the last anchor of hope and tries to outdo itself in her
   service. It is not indeed pious reverence for a God who is
   holy and yet gracious that draws the sinners to their knees,
   but the dread of the tortures of purgatory and of the wrath of
   Him who sits above the world to judge it. This causes the
   soul, restless, dissatisfied, to be ceaseless in its endeavors
   to conciliate the Angry One through sacrificial service—the
   whole religious activity being one half-despairing 'Miserere'
   called forth by fear. Such was the spirit of the age in which
   Martin Luther was born and in which he passed his youth."

      _Kolde,
      Martin Luther
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 5-27._

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513, to 1517-1521
      (pages 2441-2450).

GERMANY: 16th Century.
   The Catholic Reaction.

   "Altogether about the year 1570 the spread of protestantism in
   Germany and the lands under its influence had reached its
   zenith. It had been accepted by the great majority of the
   nation—already in 1558 about seven tenths; the gaining over of
   the rest also seemed only a question of the near future. Yet
   beyond a doubt its lasting success was only legally assured in
   places where it had won over the governing power and could
   stand on the generally recognized basis of the religious
   peace. This was the case in the secular principalities of the
   protestant dynasties, but not in the Wittelsbach and Hapsburgh
   lands, where its lawful existence depended only on the
   personal concessions of the existing ruler, and still less in
   the ecclesiastical territories. … To give it here the secure
   legal basis which it lacked was the most important problem, as
   regarded internal German affairs, of the protestant policy. …
   The only way to attain this was to secure the recognition on
   the part of the empire of the free right of choosing a
   confession in the bishoprics; in other words the renunciation
   of the 'Ecclesiastical reservation.' … This goal could only be
   attained if the protestants advanced in a solid phalanx. This
   is, however, just what they could not do. For they themselves
   were torn by bitter contentions with regard to the faith. …
   From this point of view it was no boon that Calvinism, the
   specifically French form of protestantism, found entrance also
   into Germany. … Under its influence, to begin with, the
   Saxon-Thuringian church became divided in its interpretation
   of the teachings concerning justification and the Lord's
   Supper. … The complications were still further increased when
   Frederick III of the Palatinate, elector since 1559, disgusted
   at the quarrelsomeness of the Lutheran theologians, dismissed
   the zealot Tilemann in August 1560, and in 1563 gave over the
   recognized church of the Palatinate to Calvinism. Herewith he
   completely estranged the Lutherans who did not regard the
   Calvinists as holding the same faith. … Germany could no
   longer count itself among the great powers and at home the
   discord was ever increasing. The motion of the Palatinate in
   the electoral diet of October 1575 to incorporate in the
   religious peace the so-called 'Declaration of King Ferdinand'
   with regard to it, and thus to secure the local option with
   regard to a creed in the bishoprics, was opposed not only by
   the ecclesiastical members of the electoral college but also
   by the electorate of Saxony. In consequence of the same party
   strife a similar motion of the Palatinate, made in the diet of
   Regensburg, was lost. … On the one hand hostilities grew more
   bitter among the German protestants, on the other the Roman
   church, supported by the power of the Spanish world-monarchy,
   advanced everywhere, within and without the German empire, to
   a well-planned attack. … She had won her first victory in the
   empire with the refusal in 1576 to grant the local option of
   creed, for this was almost equivalent to a recognition on the
   protestant side of the 'Ecclesiastical Reservation.' The more
   eagerly did Rome, by demanding the oath drawn up in the
   council of Trent, strive to chain fast her bishops to her, to
   remove those who made opposition even if it had to happen by
   disregarding the law of the land and the religious treaties,
   to bring zealous catholic men into the episcopal
   sees—everywhere to set the reaction in motion. The manner of
   proceeding was always the same: the protestant pastors and
   teachers were banished; the catholic liturgy, in which the
   utmost splendor was unfolded, was reintroduced into the
   churches, and competent catholic clergy were put in office.
   The members of the community, left without a leader, had now
   only the choice allowed to them of joining the catholic church
   or of emigrating; the protestant officials were replaced by
   catholic ones; new institutions of learning, conducted by
   Jesuits, were founded for the purpose of winning the rising
   generation, inwardly also, for Catholicism.
{3767}
   Beyond a doubt this whole work of restoration put an end in
   many cases to a confused and untenable state of affairs, but
   at least as often it crushed down by force a healthy, natural
   development and wrought havoc in the moral life of the people.
   Thus did the reaction gain the ascendancy in most of the
   ecclesiastical principalities of the South; in the North the
   scale still hung in the balance. … And in this condition of
   affairs the discord among the protestants grew worse year by
   year! 'Their war is our peace' was the exultant cry of the
   Catholics when they looked upon this schism. In order to
   preserve pure Lutheranism from any deviation, the electoral
   court of Saxony caused the 'Formula of Concord' to be drawn up
   by three prominent theologians in the monastery of Bergen near
   Madgeburg (20 May 1577), and compelled all pastors and
   teachers of the land to accept them under pain of dismissal
   from office. As this necessarily accentuated the differences
   with the Calvinists, John Casimir of the Palatinate
   endeavored, in the Convention of Frankfort on the Main in
   1577, to unite the protestants of all denominations and all
   lands … in a common effort at defence; but his appeal and the
   embassy which he sent to the evangelical princes met with no
   very favorable reception. On the contrary in course of time 86
   estates of the empire accepted the Formula of Concord which
   was now published in Dresden, together with the names of those
   who had signed it, on the 25th of June 1580, the 50th
   anniversary of handing in the Augsburg Confession. What a pass
   had matters come to since that great epoch! … At any rate the
   unity of the German protestants was completely at an end, and
   especially any joint action between Saxony and the Palatinate
   had been rendered impossible. … In 1582 the Roman party opened
   a well-planned campaign for the purpose of putting itself in
   full possession of the power in the empire. The emperor
   belonged as it was to their confession, so all depended on the
   manner in which the diet should be made up; and this again
   depended on who should be members of the college of princes:
   for in the college of electors the votes of the protestants
   and catholics were equal inasmuch as the Bohemian vote was
   'dormant,' and of the imperial cities only a few were still
   catholic. In the electoral college, then, the protestants
   possessed the majority so long as the 'administrators' [of the
   bishoprics] maintained as hitherto their seat and their vote.
   In the first place the catholics succeeded in the diet of 1582
   in persuading Magdeburg for the nonce to renounce in favor of
   Salzburg its presidency in the assembly of the princes;
   herewith, however, a precedent was given, not only for this
   ecclesiastical foundation but for all the evangelical
   administrators, that permitted of the most fateful conclusions
   being drawn to the disadvantage of the protestants. Scarcely
   had this happened when the Roman party gave a decisive turn to
   affairs on the Lower Rhine. Archbishop Gebhard of Cologne
   prepared to follow the example of his predecessor Hermann of
   Wied, chiefly induced, it must be said, by the wish to gain
   the hand of the fair countess Agnes of Mansfeld. Relying on
   the Cologne protestants and the Counts of the Wetterau and
   reckoning on help from the Netherlands he formally went over
   to the protestant church on the 19th of December 1582,
   proclaimed the local option of a creed for his diocese on the
   16th of January 1583, and married the Countess Agnes a few
   weeks later in Bonn. While on the one hand, now, the diet of
   the duchy of Westphalia declared for him and the local option
   was here put through, the Cologne diet, on the other, called
   together by the cathedral chapter, declared against him, under
   pressure as it was from both Spain and Rome. Pope Gregory XIII
   deposed him … and on the 23rd of May the pupil of the Jesuits,
   Ernest of Bavaria, who already since 1566 had been bishop of
   Freisingen, since 1573 of Hildesheim, since 1581 also of
   Liege, was placed in the see of Cologne. The war began. On the
   one side Spanish and Bavarian troops marched into the land, on
   the other forces from the Netherlands and the Palatinate, led
   by John Casimir in person under the approval of Louis VI. …
   The fortunes of war soon turned completely against him
   [Gebhard], … he himself was beaten and compelled to flee to
   the Netherlands, and Westphalia was then conquered. This
   victory was decisive not only for Northern Germany, but for
   the fate of the bishoprics altogether—indeed for the whole
   form which the administration of the empire was to take. Had
   Gebhard held his own, the majority in the electoral college
   would have become protestant; the bishoprics in the northwest
   which had not yet taken a decisive stand, and probably others
   also, would have followed the example of Cologne and would
   never have allowed their seats in the assembly of princes to
   be taken from them; the Lower Rhenish-Westphalian provinces
   would then have been gained for protestantism. The opposite of
   all this now happened. In the first place Archbishop Ernest
   restored the Roman church by the most oppressive means in
   Westphalia; he called the Jesuits to Bonn, Neuss, Emmerich and
   Hildesheim. His election as bishop of Munster (May 1585)
   decided the victory in that bishopric also. … The Roman party
   succeeded now, actually, in driving the administrators from
   the diet. In order not to cause the violent dissolution of the
   diet which met in April 1594 for the purpose of granting a tax
   which was pressingly needed for the Turkish war, Magdeburg
   renounced once more Its presidency in the college of princes;
   and when, in December 1597, the diet was again called for the
   same purpose, the catholic estates, in spite of all protests
   to the contrary, regarded the matter as having been settled by
   the precedents of the last two diets. Herewith the
   administrators lost their seats in the diet, and in the
   college of princes the majority was in the hands of the
   catholics. Inasmuch also as the evangelical members of the
   college of electors did not hold together, the total majority
   of the diet was at the disposal of the catholics. … On the
   27th of April 1608 the Palatinate, together with Brandenburg
   and nine lesser protestant estates, but without the electorate
   of Saxony [Luther's state!], declared to Duke Ferdinand of
   Styria, the emperor's representative, that they would leave
   the diet but would maintain the possession of the
   ecclesiastical estates by force if necessary. The schism with
   the church had already paralyzed the judicial system of the
   empire; it now paralyzed also its highest political
   corporation."

      _Käemmel,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      pages 701-715._

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563 (page 2458).

{3768}

GERMANY: A. D. 1615.
   First newspaper publications.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700.
   The rise of Prussia.

   "King Frederick [the Great] has good reason for it when he
   says in his memoirs: 'Just as a river first becomes valuable
   when it gets to be navigable, so the history of Brandenburg
   first gains more serious importance towards the beginning of
   the 17th century.' It was under the elector John Sigismund
   that three decisive occurrences took place which opened up a
   great future for the Marks—a totally different development
   from the growth of the other lands of the empire. These were
   the joining to Brandenburg of the secularized provinces of the
   Teutonic Order, the going over of the ruling house itself to
   the reformed church, finally the acquisition of the Lower
   Rhenish border lands. Other princes of the empire also,
   catholics as well as protestants, had enlarged their power by
   means of the lands of the old church. But in the matter of the
   territory of the Order the policy of the German protestants
   ventured its boldest move; by Luther's advice the Hohenzollern
   Albrecht snatched away from the Roman church the largest of
   all its clerical belongings. The whole territory of the new
   duchy of Prussia was alienated ecclesiastical land; the pope's
   anathema and the emperor's ban fell on the head of the
   renegade prince. Never was the Roman See willing to recognize
   such robbery. In uniting the ducal crown of their Prussian
   cousins with their own electoral hat the Hohenzollerns of the
   Mark broke forever with the Roman church. Their state stood
   and fell henceforward with the fortunes of Protestantism. At
   the same time John Sigismund adopted the reformed creed. … At
   the same time of thus gaining a firm footing on the Baltic
   John Sigismund acquired the duchy of Cleve together with the
   counties of Mark and Ravensberg,—a territory narrow in
   circumference but highly important for the internal
   development as well as for the European policy of the state.
   They were lands which were strongholds of old and proven
   peasant and civic freedom, richer and of higher capacities for
   culture than the needy colonies of the East, outposts of
   incalculable value on Germany's weakest frontier. In Vienna
   and Madrid it was felt as a severe defeat that a new
   evangelical power should establish itself there on the Lower
   Rhine where Spaniards and Netherlanders were struggling for
   the existence or non-existence of protestantism—right before
   the gates of Cologne which was the citadel of Romanism in the
   empire. … A power so situated could no longer have its horizon
   bounded by the narrow circle of purely territorial policy; it
   was a necessity for it to seek to round off its widely
   scattered provinces into a consistent whole; it was compelled
   to act for the empire and to strike for it, for every attack
   of strangers on German ground cut into its own flesh. … For
   the House of Brandenburg, too, tempting calls often sounded
   from afar, … but a blessed providence, which earnest thinkers
   should not regard as a mere chance, compelled the
   Hohenzollerns to remain in Germany. They did not need the
   foreign crowns, for they owed their independent position among
   other states to the possession of Prussia, a land that was
   German to the core, a land the very being of which was rooted
   in the mother-country, and yet at the same time one that did
   not belong to the political organization of the empire. Thus
   with one foot in the empire, the other planted outside of it,
   the Prussian state won for itself the right to carry on a
   European policy which could strive for none but German ends.
   It was able to care for Germany without troubling itself about
   the empire and its superannuated forms. … The state of the
   Hohenzollerns plunged once again headlong from the position of
   power which it had so recently attained; it was on the sure
   road to ruin so long as John Sigismund's successor looked
   sleepily into the world out of his languid eyes. This new
   attempt, too, at forming a German state seemed again about to
   end in the misery of petty-stateism as had been the case
   formerly with the political constellations of the Guelphs, the
   Wettiners, the Counts Palatine, which had arisen under
   immeasurably more favorable auspices. It was at this juncture
   that the elector Frederick William, the greatest German man of
   his day, entered the chaos of German life as a prince without
   land, armed only with club and sling, and put a new soul into
   the slumbering forces of his state by the power of his will.
   From that time on the impulse of the royal will, conscious of
   its goal, was never lost to the growing chief state of the
   Germans. One can imagine English history without William III,
   the history of France without Richelieu; the Prussian state is
   the work of its princes. … Already in the first years of the
   rule of the Great Elector the peculiar character of the new
   political creation shows out sharply and clearly. The nephew
   of Gustavus Adolphus who leads his army to battle with the old
   protestant cry of 'with God' resumes the church policy of his
   uncle. He it is who first among the strife of churches cries
   out the saving word and demands general and unconditional
   amnesty for all three creeds. This was the program of the
   Westphalian peace. And far beyond the provisions of this
   treaty of peace went the tolerance which the Hohenzollerns
   allowed to be exercised within their lands. … While Austria
   drives out its best Germans by force, the confines of
   Brandenburg are thrown open with unequalled hospitality to
   sufferers of every creed. How many thousand times has the song
   of praise of the Bohemian exiles sounded forth in the Marks! …
   When Louis XIV revokes the Edict of Nantes the little
   Brandenburg lord steps forth boldly against him as the
   spokesman of the protestant world, and offers through his
   Potsdam Edict shelter and protection to the sons of the
   martyred church. … Thus year after year an abundance of young
   life streamed over into the depopulated East Marks; the German
   blood that the Hapsburghs thrust from them fructified the land
   of their rivals, and at the death of Frederick II about a
   third of the inhabitants of the state consisted of the
   descendants of immigrants who had come there since the days of
   the Great Elector. … The particularism of all estates and of
   all territorial districts heard with horror how the Great
   Elector forced his subjects to live as 'members under one
   head,' how he subjected the multiplicity of rule in the diets
   to the commands of his own territorial jurisdiction and
   supported his throne on the two columns of monarchical
   absolutism: the miles perpetuus and permanent taxation.
{3769}
   In the minds of the people troops and taxes still passed for
   an extraordinary state burden to be borne in days of need. But
   Frederick William raised the army into a permanent institution
   and weakened the power of the territorial estates by
   introducing two general taxes in all his provinces. On the
   country at large he imposed the general hide-tax
   (general-hufenschoss), on the cities the accise, which was a
   multiform system of low direct and indirect imposts calculated
   with full regard for the impoverished condition of agriculture
   and yet attacking the taxable resources at as many points as
   possible. In the empire there was but one voice of execration
   against these first beginnings of the modern army and finance
   system. Prussia remained from the beginning of its history the
   most hated of the German states; those imperial lands that
   fell to this princely dynasty entered, almost all of them,
   with loud complaints and violent opposition into this new
   political combination. All of them soon afterwards blessed
   their fate. … Frederick William's successor by acquiring the
   royal crown gained for his house a worthy place in the society
   of the European powers and for his people the common name of
   Prussians. Only dire need, only the hope of Prussia's military
   aid, induced the imperial court to grant its rival the new
   dignity. A spasm of terror went through the theocratic world:
   the electorate of Mainz entered a protest; the Teutonic Order
   demanded back again its old possession, which now gave the
   name to the heretical monarchy while the papal calendar of
   states, for nearly a hundred years to come, was to know only a
   'margrave of Brandenburg.'"

      _H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 26-36._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618 (page 1466),
      and PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700 (page 2613).

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
   The effects of the Thirty Years War.

   "The national recollection holds fast to the great German war
   as a thirty years continuance of universal warlike ravagings.
   As a matter of fact, however, the separate parts of the empire
   were directly affected by it in very different degrees; some
   parts only seldom and to a small extent, many at frequent
   intervals or through long-enduring periods: no part however to
   such an extent that during the whole three decades it stood
   always under the immediate pressure of military events and of
   military burdens. Devastation and exhaustion worked their
   immediate results in all directions, but we must not leave out
   of consideration that the local differences were naturally
   very great. An incalculable number of details concerning the
   horrors of the war and concerning its destructive effects lies
   before us. … So undoubtedly well-founded as on the whole the
   majority of these details may be said to be, impressively as
   they are apt to be brought forward, they are none the less not
   such as to suffice to enable us to gain from them an
   exhaustive representation of the condition of things. We have
   hundreds who give testimony to all the ravagings and the
   misery of the time, and the voices of such witnesses are
   almost the only ones that are heard. It is natural that there
   are no equally eloquent reports concerning those periods of
   time and those places in which people found themselves in
   medium and comparatively bearable circumstances. For the most
   part only what was exceptional—although, indeed, that happened
   only too often—is depicted in the complaining reports. … It
   cannot be denied too that amid the fearful needs of that time
   the German language succumbed to a certain propensity for what
   is monstrous. In all the writings which speak of war and the
   ravages of war one sees an exuberance, which comes to be a
   fixed mannerism, of almost whiny tones of complaint. … The
   superlative of horror predominates almost exclusively; and
   with an exceedingly fertile faculty of invention men surpass
   themselves in ever new, ever more blood-curdling variations of
   the one theme of blood and arson, of wretchedness and famine.
   … The most severe of all evils, indeed, as a matter of fact,
   were those to which the peasant element was subjected. … The
   profits of all agricultural labor were most perceptibly
   diminished on account of the extraordinary highness of wages,
   which, a natural result of the lack of workmen, formed the
   subject for the chief complaints after the war, especially of
   those classes which possessed land. Everywhere we meet with
   the fact that those entirely without property, such as serving
   men and maids are really better off than the peasant who has
   land. They draw the highest wages in money and in natural
   products, they must be treated with the greatest consideration
   by their employers to prevent them from quitting their
   service, for everywhere they are sought after and easily do
   they find work. … If the evils hitherto touched upon concerned
   chiefly the peasant holdings, there was another and no less
   important one which concerned all property holders and
   especially the nobles, whether feudatory or directly under the
   empire. This was the general burden of debt on landed
   property. … The noble as well as the peasant had, from of old,
   mortgages resting upon his property; those who made the loans
   were chiefly the large and the small capitalists in the
   cities. … As a matter of fact, already during the war itself
   in large parts of the empire the landed property had been in a
   condition of insolvency."

      _B. Erdmannsdörffer,
      Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 100-109._

   "How bitterly the decrease of population was felt in many
   regions is proved by a decree of the local diet [kreistag] in
   Franconia, transmitted to us by Hormayr, according to which
   any man might take two wives, priests (catholic) might marry
   and no man under 60 years of age might enter a monastery.
   Quite incalculable was the loss of domestic animals; we have
   but very incomplete statistics on the subject, but according
   to these few the assertion is not unjustifiable that at most
   one fifth of the number existing before the war remained. The
   lack of working people being so great it was therefore
   inevitable that famine should break out in very many regions.
   The memoranda in chronicles and diaries contain truly
   horrible, heart-breaking representations on the subject. J. J.
   Rayser's 'Historischer Schauplatz der Stadt Heidelberg'
   reports from the Palatinate: … 'Many rejoiced if they could
   only get oxhides, cowhides, the skins of horses, sheep and
   other animals, and eat them. Indeed cruel hunger drove them to
   other things too, towards which human nature is apt to feel
   horror and disgust. They ate dogs, cats, rats, mice, frogs and
   other animals in order to appease their bitter hunger.
{3770}
   Nor did they refrain from such animals as had already lain for
   several weeks on the roads, or in pools and streams and which
   gave forth a horrible odor. … The starving people even killed
   each other and ate up the corpses; they ransacked the
   cemeteries, broke open graves, climbed up on the gallows and
   on the wheel and took the dead away to eat them.' … The
   reports of single cases of cannibalism from neighborhoods
   where otherwise the most friendly and contented people lived,
   are too disgusting to allow us to quote any further examples.
   … There is no other example of a destruction of civilization
   such as the Thirty Years War in Germany produced. There is no
   other case where a whole people in all parts of the land was
   uniformly exposed to such severe losses, so that in numbers it
   was reduced to one half; where, from riches, luxury and
   abundance such as had undoubtedly prevailed at the beginning
   of the century men had come to poverty and to the want of even
   the necessaries of life. … The dissolution of the numerous
   military organizations and the dismissal of the regiments had
   created an enormous number of tramps of the most dangerous
   sort and still continued to do much towards increasing
   vagabondage. The grade of intelligence among the people of the
   lowlands had decreased most alarmingly; while superstition was
   continually on the increase. Witch-trials flourished both in
   the city and in the country. Beggary had long ceased to be a
   cause for shame; the war, which had brought down to it in a
   short time even those who had been formerly the richest,
   caused even the most dishonorable trade to be held in honor.
   Whoever by daily labor could earn his daily bread might think
   himself fortunate. In the place of the horses which war had
   carried away, human beings took to dragging carts in the
   street. … With the ruin of the trade and of the art industry
   of Germany, which in the 16th century would for so many
   objects have probably needed to fear no rivalry and which was
   only surpassed by that of Italy, went hand in hand the rise
   and increase of French industry. This was due in no small part
   to the fact that an extensive market was opened up for it in
   Germany. From the great and small courts of the secular and
   ecclesiastical princes, from the estates of the nobles, where
   the plunder of the generals and colonels of all nations and
   confessions had at last indeed been unloaded, the money
   contributed by the subjects flowed into the strong-boxes of
   the Paris manufactories, which dictated the fashions for the
   whole continent. Thus did the industrial triumph of France
   supplement its political supremacy; thus did Germany's
   misfortune become the cause of enriching her western neighbor,
   France having known how to secure its existence as a state by
   itself three centuries earlier than the Germans had done."

      _H. von Zwiedineck-Südenhorst,
      Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 45-49._

   "Through the complete destruction of its old civilization,
   through an unexampled devastation of its prosperity and ruin
   of its moral life the fatherland of the Reformation had saved
   for that part of the world the freedom of faith. Strangers
   played with the strongest people of Europe. That language
   which in Luther's and Hutten's time had gloried at once in the
   purity of its origin and in the terse power of its national
   plainness had become Gallicized and full of flourishes, a
   disgusting mixture of flatness and bombast, of artificiality
   and coarseness, so servile, so incapable of expressing in
   simple grandeur what was high and noble that in answer to the
   question what German writings of those times can we read
   to-day the honest reply must be, with the exception of some
   poems by Simon Dach, Logau and Paul Gerhard, solely the droll
   adventures of Simplicissimus and the merry sermons of Father
   Abraham a Santa Clara. The terror and need of the time, the
   rule of brute force and the intrusion of foreign customs, had
   jarred and disturbed the inner life of the nation to its very
   depths. Truth and fidelity had vanished, as well as the proud
   frankness and bright enjoyment of life of the older
   generation. A hideous greed of gold had taken hold of high and
   low; the boastful pride of luxurious extravagance continued in
   the midst of the general poverty."

      _Essay by Heinrich von Treitschke,
      quoted by Zwiedineck,
      page 52._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1648, to 1648-1780
      (pages 1484-1489).

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.
   Relations of Austria, Germany and France
   after the Thirty Years War.

   "After 1648 it was the natural policy of the Hapsburgh
   emperors to maintain the status quo of the Westphalian
   treaties. … After the emperor had once lost the prospect of
   gaining for himself the undivided rule over Germany, all his
   endeavors were needed at least to hinder it from passing to
   another. The efforts of the separate territorial sovereigns to
   enlarge and round off their lands, their attempts to extend
   their power externally and at the same time to tighten their
   hold on their own subjects found henceforward a counterpoise
   in Austria."

      _L. Häusser,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 21._

   "The whole shamefulness of this disintegration of Germany,
   showed itself in the defenceless state of the empire. … Right
   under the greedy hands of France lay the weakest, the most
   unguarded members of the empire. All along that priest-avenue
   the Rhine, from Munster and Osnabrück up to Constance,
   stretched a confused mass of tiny states, incapable of in any
   way seriously arming themselves, compelled to betray their
   country through the feeling of their own utter weakness.
   Almost all the Rhenish courts held pensions from Versailles. …
   Fully one-third of Germany served in the wars of the empire as
   a dead burden. … The weakness of Germany was to blame for the
   new growth of power in Austria and France; … the foreigners
   laughed at the 'querelles allemandes' and the 'misère
   allemande'; the Frenchman Bonhours mockingly asked the
   question if it was possible that a German could have
   intellect. … As the born antagonist of the old order of things
   in Europe the basis of which was Germany's weakness, Prussia
   stood in a world of enemies whose mutual jealousies formed her
   only safeguard. She was without any natural ally, for the
   German nation had not yet come to understand this budding
   power. … Just as the House of Savoy was able to tread its way
   through the superiority of the Hapsburghs on the one hand and
   of the Bourbons on the other, so did Prussia, although
   immeasurably harder pressed, have to find a path for herself
   between Austria and France, between Sweden and Poland, between
   the maritime powers and the inert mass of the German empire.
{3771}
   She had to use every means of remorseless egoism, always ready
   to change front, always with two strings to her bow. The
   electorate of Brandenburg felt to the very marrow of its being
   how deeply foreign ideas had eaten into Germany. All the
   disorganized forces … which opposed the strong lead of the new
   monarchy placed their faith in foreign help. Dutch garrisons
   were stationed on the Lower Rhine and favored the struggle of
   the Cleve estates against their German lords. The diets of
   Magdeburg and of the electoral Mark counted on Austria. …
   Frederick William breaks down the barriers of the
   Netherlanders in the German Northwest; he drives their troops
   from Cleve and from East Friesland. … Then he calls out to the
   deaf nation his warning words, 'Remember that you are
   Germans,' and seeks to drive the Swedes from the soil of the
   empire. Twice did the ill-will of France and Austria succeed
   in robbing the Brandenburg prince of the reward of his
   victories, of the rule in Pomerania: the fame of the day at
   Fehrbellin they could not take from him.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688 (page 310).

   … When the republic of the Netherlands threatened to fall
   before the attack of Louis XIV Brandenburg caught the raised
   arm of the conqueror.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678 (page 2289).

   Frederick William carried on the only serious war that the
   empire ventured on for the recovery of Alsace.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714 (page 209)].

   … With the rise of Prussia began the long bloody work of
   freeing Germany from foreign rule. … In this one state there
   awoke again, still half unconscious as if drunken with long
   sleep, the old hearty pride in the fatherland. … The House of
   Hapsburgh recognized earlier than the Hohenzollerns did
   themselves how hostile this modern North German state was to
   the old constitution of the Holy Empire. In Silesia, in
   Pomerania, in the Jülich-Cleve war of succession—everywhere
   Austria stood and looked with distrust on its dangerous rival.
   … Equally dangerous to Hapsburgh and to the German empire were
   the French and the Turks; how natural was it for Hapsburgh to
   seek support from Germany, to involve the empire in its wars,
   to use it as a bulwark towards the west or for diversions
   against France in case the Turks threatened the walls of
   Vienna. … Only it cannot be denied that in this common action
   the Austrian policy, under a more centralized guidance and
   backed by a firmer tradition, looked out for its own advantage
   better than did the German empire—loose, heavy, and without
   consistent leadership. When the might of Louis XIV began to
   oppress Germany the policy of the Hapsburghs was to remain for
   a long time luke-warm and inactive. This policy led Austria
   indeed even to make a league with France and, when she did at
   last decide to help the great elector of Brandenburg against
   the enemy of the empire, this happened so charily and
   equivocally as to give rise to the doubt whether the Austrian
   army was not placed there to keep watch over the Brandenburg
   forces or even to positively hinder their advance. An Austrian
   writer himself assures us that Montecuculi was in secret
   commanded only to make a show of using his weapons against the
   French. For a long time Austria stood by inactive while the
   Reannexations were going on.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1691 (page 1236).

   … The whole war as conducted by Austria on the Rhine and in
   the West was languid and sleepy;

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714 (page 209);

   the empire and individual warlike princes were left to protect
   themselves. What an entirely different display of power did
   Austria make when it was a question of fighting for its own
   dynastic interests!"

      _H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 21-33._

   "As in the wars so in the diplomatic negotiations the
   separation of the Austrian dynastic interests from the
   advantage and needs of the German empire often enough came to
   light. It is only necessary to revert to the attitude which
   the emperor's diplomacy took at Nimeguen and Ryswick.

      See NIMEGUEN (page 2362);
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (page 1243)].

   … When in the conferences at Gertruidenburg (1710) Louis XIV
   was reduced to being willing not only to give up the
   'Reannexations' and Strassburg but even to restore Alsace and
   the fortress of Valenciennes, it was also not the interests of
   the empire but solely those of the House of Hapsburgh which
   led to the rejection of these offers and to the continuance of
   a war by which, as it turned out eventually, not one of these
   demands was gained. No wonder that in Germany, restricted
   though the imperial authority already was, men still did not
   feel secure so long as the emperor continued to have even the
   power of making peace independently of the empire."

      _L. Häusser,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German).
      volume 1, page 23._

   "Louis XIV regarded himself not exactly as enemy of the German
   empire and of the imperial power of the House of Hapsburgh,
   but rather as a pretendant to the throne. As he explains it in
   the political directions meant for his son the empire of the
   West, the heritage of Charles the Great, belongs not of right
   to the Germans but to the kings who are crowned at Rheims. …
   The Germans have ruined the empire, only a ruler with the
   power of the French king can bring it again to honor. … If
   Louis XIV by means of the Rhine Confederation of 1658 saw
   himself bound in a close communion with German princes and
   electors, if his troops rushed in at the decisive moment
   before Erfurt and at Saint Gothard, if his omnipresent
   diplomacy sought to find starting-points everywhere, even in
   the Hofburg at Vienna: all this seemed to him activity in a
   field which he really felt belonged to himself. The rendering
   of the German princes dependent on the French court, the
   loosening of the bonds which held the empire together, the
   isolation of the Hapsburghs from the rest of the empire: these
   were tasks which presented themselves as a matter of course if
   taken in connection with those views of the right of the
   French to the empire. … Already in Richelieu's time the king's
   councillor, Jacques de Cassan, had brought forward the proof,
   in a writing dedicated to the cardinal, that the greater part
   of the existing European states, including Germany, were lands
   which had unjustly been estranged from the French crown. …
   This idea d'Auberry now carried further: as a matter of fact
   Germans and French were to be considered one people as they
   had been under the Merovingians and Carolingians; … the true
   ruler, in the sense of the original world-organization was not
   the emperor but the French king."

      _B. Erdmannsdörffer,
      Deutsche Geschichte (1648-1740)
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 509._

{3772}

GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Germany and the French Revolution.

   "What enthusiasm prevailed when France proclaimed the equality
   of everything that bears human form, when the prophecies of
   Rousseau, who spoke as no other Frenchman could, to the
   hearts, to the courage, to the ideals of the German youth,
   seemed about to be realized! All the cravings of the time, the
   noble eagerness to recognize the dignity of man and the
   heaven-storming defiance of the sovereign ego, found
   themselves satisfied by the bold sophism of the Genevan
   philosopher who declared that, in a condition of absolute
   equality, everyone should obey himself only. The sins of the
   Revolution appeared to the harmless German spectators as
   hardly less seductive than its great deeds. The taste which
   had been educated on Plutarch's lives of heroes grew loyally
   excited over the broad Catonism of the new apostles of
   freedom: the unhistorical abstractions of their political
   creed were in keeping with the philosophical self-satisfaction
   of the age. The over-zealous youths in whose ears still
   sounded the stirring words of the robber Moor felt themselves
   drawn along by the rhetorical pathos of the French and
   unsuspectingly admired the republican virtue of the Girondists
   at the very time when this party with unhallowed frivolity was
   instigating a war against Germany. … In Hamburg and several
   other cities the festival of confraternity was celebrated and
   the liberty pole erected on the anniversary of the storming of
   the Bastille. … Even in Berlin women of rank were seen adorned
   with the tricolored ribbon and the rector of the Joachimsthal
   gymnasium, in a solemn official address held on the occasion
   of the king's birthday, praised the glorious Revolution to the
   lively applause of Minister Hertzberg. … But this enthusiasm
   of the German cultivated world for revolutionary France was
   and remained purely theoretical; … the German admirers of the
   Revolution never once laid before themselves the question how
   their feelings on the subject should take on flesh and blood.
   The wise man of Konigsberg [Kant] unconditionally and harshly
   rejected all right of resistance. Even Fichte, the most
   radical of his disciples, who even in the days of Robespierre
   still dared to defend French liberty, warned emphatically
   against the carrying out of his own ideas. He saw no bridge
   between the 'level high road of natural law' and the 'dark
   defile of a half-barbaric policy,' and he closed with the
   renunciatory declaration: 'Worthiness to attain liberty can
   only come upwards from below; freedom itself, if there is to
   be no disturbance, can only descend from above.' … When the
   struggle of parties continued to rage ever more fiercely and
   with more cruelty, when the fanatic zeal for equality took
   upon itself to annihilate even the last aristocracy of all,
   that of life itself, then the faithful and unchanging mind of
   the German found it impossible any longer to follow the
   unaccountable contortions of French passion. The German
   enthusiast turned weeping away from the barbarian who had
   defiled his sanctuary. … Only in the minor states, which
   lacked the sense of justice of a monarchy, did the sins of the
   old French regime find an echo. There in the Germany of the
   religious foundations (the Rhine bishoprics) there still
   flourished the catholic unity of faith and the pride of
   cathedral chapters which were recruited from nobles. In the
   cities of the empire the haughtiness and corruption of old
   civilian confraternity held sway, in the territories of the
   princes, counts and imperial knights, the arrogance of little
   corner tyrants. The whole existence of these ruined and
   ossified forms of government cried shame on the ideas of the
   century. Almost solely in these tiniest provinces did a slight
   popular ferment show itself when the glad news of the great
   peasant emancipation came from France. It chanced that the
   abbess of Frauenalbe was hunted from her lands by her
   subjects, that the oath of allegiance was refused to her
   sister-abbess in Elten. Small peasant revolts broke out here
   and there. … All this betokened little; in reality nowhere was
   the political slumber of the empire deeper than in these
   regions. … The weak and weaponless small states were entirely
   without power of resistance against foreign violence. …
   Neither was the emperor nor were the Prussian statesmen blind
   to the immeasurable dangers of a war in the condition in which
   things were. Leopold's cold-blooded, calculating nature
   remained long unmoved by the appeals for help written by his
   unhappy sister Marie Antoinette, who allowed herself to be
   carried to the very verge of betraying her country by her
   woman's passion and her princely pride. The Prussian cabinet
   was at first very well pleased with the steps taken by the
   constitutional parties; its envoy, von der Goltz, made no
   secret of acknowledging the righteousness of the cause of the
   revolution and showed that he had kept his eyes open to the
   accumulated acts of folly of the blinded court. The mad doings
   of the emigres were condemned with equal severity in Vienna
   and in Berlin. Not until the spring of 1791, not until King
   Louis had had to atone for his unsuccessful flight by unheard
   of personal humiliations, did the two courts begin to think
   seriously of protecting themselves against acts of
   revolutionary violence. … Frederick William's chivalrous soul
   was aglow with the thought of avenging with his sword the
   offended majesty of France. Single clever heads among the
   émigrés succeeded after all in gaining secret influence at
   court. … In his circular from Padua Leopold invited the
   European powers to enter the lists for his ill-used
   brother-in-law, to avenge by forcible means every insult to
   the dignity of the king, to recognize no constitution of
   France of which the crown should not voluntarily approve.
   Bischoffswerder, of his own accord and contrary to his
   instructions, then signed the Vienna treaty of the 25th of
   July by which both parties (Prussia and Austria) mutually
   guaranteed each other's possessions and promised each other
   help in case of internal disturbances. … Public opinion in
   Prussia greeted the Austrian alliance with deep mistrust, …
   but King Frederick William approved the arbitrary steps of his
   friend (Bischoffswerder). He met Leopold soon after in
   Pillnitz … and rejoiced in the thought that the league of the
   two chief powers in Germany would last eternally, to the weal
   of coming generations. In all of these mistaken acts there was
   no immediate threat against France. In Pillnitz those émigrés
   who urged war were sternly thrust aside and all that was
   obtained was the empty declaration of August 27; the two
   powers announced that they considered King Louis's cause a
   matter common to all sovereigns; in case all European powers
   should agree, there should be interference in France's
   internal affairs.
{3773}
   This meant nothing whatever, for everyone knew that England
   would have nothing to do with armed intervention. And even
   these obscure conditions were abandoned in Vienna when King
   Louis, in the autumn, was reinstated in his dignities and
   voluntarily accepted the new constitution. The Revolution
   seemed to have come to a standstill, the emperor was
   completely pacified. … It was France and France alone that, in
   the face of this peaceable attitude of the German powers,
   forced the war upon them. … The antipathy of a great majority
   of the nation [France] to the republic was to be overcome by
   the glamor of military successes, by the old darling
   dream-project of natural boundaries. The financial needs of
   the state were to be remedied by a mighty plundering
   expedition. … While the war-like mood in the legislative
   assembly increased from day to day, in the negotiations with
   the emperor paltry disdain was shown; not even was a definite
   indemnity offered to the estates of the empire in Alsace. It
   was then that the House, carried away by the stirring speeches
   of the Gironde, demanded a solemn declaration from the emperor
   that he would give up the plan of a European league and would
   show his readiness to support France according to the old
   treaties of alliance with the Bourbons. The penalty of refusal
   was to be immediate war. Upon Leopold giving a dignified and
   temperate reply war was declared against Austria on April 20th
   1792. … A doctrinary speech of Condorcet's announced to the
   world that the principles of republican liberty had risen up
   against despotism. The glove was thus thrown down to the whole
   of ancient Europe: for Prussia, moreover, the Vienna Treaty
   now became binding, having meanwhile been supplemented by a
   formal defensive league."

      _H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 114-124._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (pages 1271-1275).

GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.
   Germany and Napoleon.

   "With the Italian campaign of 1796 began the second epoch of
   the revolutionary era, the more fruitful one for the world at
   large. The propaganda of the revolution now first began to
   take actual effect and in Central Europe a new order of things
   superseded the old division of lands, the traditional forma of
   state and society. It was through Bonaparte's victories that
   the weapons of France first acquired an indisputable
   ascendancy. … As was the case with her manner of making war,
   so did France's European policy take on a new character in the
   hands of the victor of Montenotte and Rivoli. … In the head of
   the great man without a home, to whom the soul-life of
   nations, the ideal world, ever remained an unknown quantity,
   the horrible conception of a new world-monarchy had already
   found a place. The images of the Cæsars and the Carolingians
   stood in dazzling splendor before his mind. The rich history
   of a thousand years was to be annihilated by a single grand
   adventure; the multiform culture of the West was to yield to
   the sway of one gigantic man. This new and altogether
   un-French policy of conquest rushed to its goals with a
   wonderful assurance and want of conscience. Bonaparte's
   perspicuity recognized at once by what means Austria,
   victorious in Germany but worsted in Italy, could be forced
   into a temporary peace: … he offered the imperial court the
   possession of Venice in return for Milan, Belgium and the left
   bank of the Rhine. … Under such conditions the Peace of Campo
   Formio was entered into on October 17th 1797. Once more the
   Holy Empire was to pay the penalty for Austria's defeats, and
   once more, with greater hypocrisy than ever before, there rang
   out in the diet those unctuous, imperially-paternal phrases
   with which the un-German imperial power was wont to bemantle
   its dynastic policy. Whereas among the conditions of the
   secret articles of Campo Formio were the mutilation of the
   German western boundary, the secularization of ecclesiastical
   territory, the compensation of foreign princes at the cost of
   the empire: the published version of the treaty spoke only of
   the unviolated integrity of the empire. … At last, however,
   the unhallowed secret had to come out. At Christmas-tide 1797
   Mainz was vacated by the imperial troops. There came to light
   the whole hopelessly confused relationships of the two
   similarly-fortuned nations of central Europe when, at the same
   time, the French occupied the unconquered bulwark of the Rhine
   provinces and the conquered Austrians marched into the city of
   St. Mark. Soon afterwards the envoys of France at Rastadt
   openly came forward with the demand for the left bank of the
   Rhine. It was the first official forewarning of the
   annihilation of the Holy Empire. … So deep was the empire
   sunken when the dreaded 'Italicus,' on the occasion of a
   flying visit to Rastadt first cast a glance into German life.
   On the shallow intrigues of this fruitless congress did
   Bonaparte base his judgment of our fatherland. He saw through
   the absolute nullity of the imperial constitution and
   complacently came to the opinion that if such a constitution
   had not existed it would have been necessary to invent it in
   the interests of France. … It seemed to him high time to win
   the petty dynasts entirely for France by gratifying their
   greed of land, and thus to rob sundered Germany of its
   nationality (dépayser l'Allemagne). … On February 9th, 1801,
   the Peace of Luneville proclaimed openly and unequivocally
   that which the treaty of Campo Formio had only secretly and
   obscurely provided: that the Rhine was henceforward to be
   Germany's boundary. A district of nearly 1,150 square miles
   and containing nearly four million inhabitants was thus lost
   to Germany. … With uncanny cold-bloodedness the German nation
   accepted the fearful blow. Scarcely a sound of patriotic wrath
   was heard when Mainz and Cologne, Aachen and Treves, the
   broad, beautiful lands that had been the scene of our earliest
   history, passed into the hands of the stranger. How many
   bitter tears had the decrepit generation of the Thirty Years
   War once poured forth for the sake of Strassburg alone! … The
   first consul resumed the plan which Sièyes as ambassador in
   Berlin had sketched already ill 1798. He prepared a threefold
   division of Germany and, in order to bring the defenceless
   minor states wholly in his power, sought first to thrust back
   the two chief German powers as far as possible towards the
   east. … The great man-scorner now invented an infallible means
   of gaining sway over these south and west German provinces.
{3774}
   Not in vain had he probed the German higher nobility at
   Rastadt into the inmost recesses of their hearts. He created
   our new intermediate states for the purpose, through them, of
   securing forever Germany's disintegration. The host of petty
   princes, counts and imperial knights, were burdensome to him
   because they belonged mostly to the Austrian party and were of
   no use in war. Among the electors and dukes, on the contrary,
   there was useful material enough for the formation of a crowd
   of French vassals; … they had almost all, during the recent
   wars, made separate treaties with the enemies of the empire.
   As rebels against that empire and its emperor they had
   abandoned the ground of legality and broken their bridges
   behind them. If the man who was omnipotent now took under his
   protection these political hermaphrodites who were fit neither
   to live nor die; if he satisfied their greed by throwing them
   some crumbs from the belongings of their lesser co-estates and
   tickled their vanity by means of pretentious titles and a show
   of independence; if he rolled together the hundreds of tiny
   territories into some dozens of new accidental states with a
   history of yesterday and entirely without a legal title,
   living solely from the favor of France; if he then led his
   satraps to audacious wars against their fatherland and hurried
   them on from one felony to another, rewarding new
   lackey-services by new booty—where was the wonder? They had
   sold their souls to him and he was able to reckon on it that
   they would rather kiss the boots of the stranger than ever
   submit to subordinate themselves to a German commonwealth. …
   Bonaparte, meanwhile, had long made up his mind to resume the
   war with his unassailable enemy [England]. Already in March
   1803, long before the breach occurred between the two western
   powers, he sent his confidant Duroc to Berlin with the notice
   that he saw himself compelled to seize Hanover. … Therewith
   the last and sole pride of the Prussian policy, the neutrality
   of North Germany, was threatened with its death-blow. … And
   meanwhile the Holy Empire was made to drink the cup of shame
   to the very dregs. When Bonaparte caused the Duke of Enghien,
   seized within the limits of Baden, to be led to execution,
   only foreign powers like Russia, Sweden and England dared in
   Regensburg to demand satisfaction for the scandalous breach of
   the peace of the empire. Baden on the contrary, by Napoleon's
   command, begged most earnestly that the painful matter might
   not be followed up any further; while the rest of the
   plenipotentiaries took their holiday before the time and thus
   by their flight cut off all further negotiations. In May 1804
   the Napoleonic empire was founded. … A hard, distrustful
   foreign rule weighed upon Germany even before its princes had
   formally made their submission to the emperor. … Thus
   prepared, Napoleon proceeded to realize in his own way the
   idea of a German triad with which Hardenberg had just been
   amusing himself. Not in bond with Austria and Prussia but
   independently and in opposition to them was France's old
   protegée, 'la troisième Allemagne,' to take political form and
   shape. … In the spring of 1806 the rumor spread at the German
   courts that a new and extensive mediatization was to take
   place. Once more, as had happened four years previously, the
   envoys of our high nobility hastened to Paris on behalf of
   their lords, to secure by flattery and bribery their share of
   the booty. … The Rhine confederation of Louis XIV was
   resuscitated in an incomparably more pronounced form. Sixteen
   German princes renounced the empire, declared that they
   themselves were sovereigns and that every law of the venerable
   old national commonwealth was null and void. They recognized
   Napoleon as their protector and placed at his disposal an army
   of 63,000 men to be used in any continental war in which
   France should engage. … German particularism entered into the
   bloom-time of its sins. … The anarchy of a new interregnum
   broke in upon Germany. Faustrecht held sway, exercised no
   longer by bandit nobles but by princely courts. Napoleon
   regarded with mistrust any and every expression of national
   feeling in the enslaved land. The interest of France, he wrote
   to his Talleyrand, demands that opinion in Germany remain
   divided. A certain Yelin of Ansbach published an anonymous
   pamphlet, 'Germany at its lowest Depth,' a well-meant writing,
   full of feeling, and one which, in an age of iron, had only
   the peaceful advice to give: 'Weep aloud, oh noble, honest
   German!' But even this pious ejaculation of a harmless petty
   citizen seemed to the emperor a matter for alarm and he caused
   the book-seller Palm, who is said to have aided in spreading
   the book, to be court-marshalled and shot. It was the first
   judicial murder of Napoleonism on German ground, and the
   clever people in Bavaria began to doubt whether the Rhine
   Confederation had, after all, really brought about the victory
   of freedom and enlightenment. … A new act of treason on the
   part of Napoleon led at last to the out-break of the
   inevitable war. Often and solemnly had Napoleon assured to his
   Prussian ally the possession of Hanover. It was now suddenly
   reported in Berlin that the emperor, who all through the
   summer had been carrying on peace-negotiations with England
   and Russia, had not scrupled to offer to deliver back to the
   Guelphs their hereditary lands. When this news reached him
   Frederick William at once (August 9) wrote to the Czar: 'If
   Napoleon treats with England concerning Hanover he will ruin
   me.' The king foresaw that in a short time the miserable
   condition in which things had been in February would recur
   again and that Prussia had only the choice left of once more
   in silence suffering herself to be shamefully plundered or of
   opposing by arms the ingress of the grand army. That was why
   the Prussian army was placed on a war-footing and made to
   assemble in Magdeburg's territory. With this step of
   justifiable self-defence the war was decided. … Nothing could
   have been more honest than the unsparingly upright defiance of
   the king to Napoleon; nothing more righteous than the three
   demands of the Prussian ultimatum of October: withdrawal of
   the French from Germany, recognition of the North German
   Confederation, a peaceful agreement as to the remaining
   questions at issue between the two powers. Even from the
   verbose, clumsy war-manifesto there breaks forth occasionally
   a tone of dignified national pride: the king takes up arms 'to
   free unhappy Germany from the yoke under which it is being
   crushed. Nations have certain rights independent of an
   treaties!' … Already on the 15th of October (1806) Napoleon
   laid a contribution on all the Prussian provinces this side
   the Weichsel of 159 million francs, declaring that the result
   of the battle of the former day (Jena) had been the conquest
   of all these lands.
{3775}
   Never had the man of fortune boasted so outrageously, and yet,
   through a strange turn of fortune, the most unhallowed of his
   lies was to become literally true. Immediately after the
   defeat the court of Saxony carried out its long-planned
   desertion and went over to Napoleon. A week after the battle
   the Prussian territory to the left of the Elbe, and the
   possessions of the House of Orange and of the electors of
   Hesse, were provisionally incorporated in the French empire. …
   On July 7-9, 1807, the Peace of Tilsit was signed, the most
   cruel of all French treaties of peace, unprecedented in form
   as well as in contents. It ran, not that the lawful king of
   Prussia ceded certain lands to the victor, but that the
   conqueror, out of regard for the emperor of all the Russias,
   granted back to its sovereign the smaller half of the Prussian
   state. And this scandalous phrase, which contemporaries only
   looked upon as a freak of Napoleonic arrogance, expressed
   simply the naked truth. … Alexander did not wish the last
   narrow dam which separated the Russian empire from the lands
   of the vassals of France, to be torn away. … Prussia retained,
   outside of the 5,700 square miles which the state, exclusive
   of Hanover, had owned before the war, only about 2,800, … of
   9¾ million inhabitants only 4½ million. The work of Frederick
   the Great seemed undone."

      _H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19 Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 164-265._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER),
      and after (pages 1314-1349.)

GERMANY: A. D. 1815-1848.
   After the struggle.
   The Zollverein.

   "In Austria, in the decades succeeding the wars of liberation,
   their reigned the most immovable quiet. The much-praised
   system of government consisted in unthinking inactivity. The
   Emperor Francis, a man with the nature of a subaltern
   official, hated anything that approached to a constitution and
   a saying of his was often quoted: 'Totus mundus stultizat et
   vult habere constitutiones novas.' Metternich's power rested
   on the 'dead motionlessness' of affairs. As far as his German
   policy was concerned his aim was to hold fast to the
   preponderating influence of Austria over the German states,
   but not to undertake any responsibilities towards them. … As
   for Prussia, in spite of the great sacrifices which she had
   made, she emerged from the diplomatic negotiations and
   intrigues of the Vienna Congress with the most unfavorable
   disposition of territory imaginable. To the five million
   inhabitants that had remained to her five and a half millions
   were added in districts that had belonged to more than a
   hundred different territories and had stood under the most
   varied laws. There began now for this state a time well filled
   with quiet work, the aim and object being to create a whole
   out of the various parts. … The founding of the Burschenschaft
   [student league] in Jena, the antagonistic attitude of the
   Weimar press, the Wartburg festival with its extemporized
   conflagration scene, excited scruples and fears in the ruling
   circles. The murder of Kotzebue and the attempt on Ibell's
   life showed the growing fanaticism and called forth stronger
   measures from the governments. … Metternich recognizes their
   usefulness for the carrying through of his reactionary
   measures. … At a meeting in Teplitz he succeeds in winning
   Frederick William III for his plans. In Carlsbad, over the
   heads of the members of the federal diet, the most decisive
   regulations were adopted which culminated in the appointment
   of the Mainz Central-Investigation-Committee … and confirmed
   Metternich's unhallowed rule in Germany as well as the reign
   of that most miserable reaction which called forth a burst of
   indignation even from the most moderate-minded patriots, and
   which laid the land open to the scorn of the foreigner."

      _Bruno-Gebhardt,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 2, pages 501-504._

   "The Congress of Vienna created in 1815 a form of government
   for Germany which was very unsatisfactory in character. It
   was, however, so constituted that a national development at
   some future time was not rendered an utter impossibility. The
   German confederation was rather, on the whole, provisional in
   its character; this fact comes out more and more plainly with
   each thorough analysis and illustration of its constitution
   and of its institutions. The main thing was that the German
   confederation preserved unimpaired the dualism in Germany.
   Technically the emperor of Austria had the honorary direction
   of the confederation; practically he possessed as emperor of
   Germany little r no power. In point of fact the German
   imperial title was only a decoration for the ruler over a
   variegated mixture of peoples, in the midst of which German
   nationality was hard pressed by the national strivings of the
   other races. In reality the strongest member of the German
   confederation was the kingdom of Prussia, although according
   to the federal laws it stood on a like footing with Bavaria,
   Saxony, Hanover and Würtemberg. … This German confederation
   was only capable of eking out its existence in a long period
   of freedom from European disasters. … Only gradually, in the
   various heads, did the opinion begin to form of the historical
   vocation of Prussia to take her place at the head of the
   German confederation or, possibly, of a new German empire.
   Gradually this opinion ripened into a firmer and firmer
   conviction and gained more and more supporters. The more
   evidently impossible an actual guidance of Germany by Austria
   became, the more conscious did men grow of the danger of the
   whole situation should the dualism be allowed to continue. In
   consequence of this the idea of the Prussian hegemony began to
   be viewed with constantly increasing favor. A great step
   forward in this direction was taken by the Prussian government
   when it called into being the Zollverein [or customs-union].
   The Zollverein laid iron bands around the separate parts of
   the German nation. It was utterly impossible to think of
   forming a customs-union with Austria, for all economic
   interests were as widely different as possible; on purely
   material grounds the division between Austria and Prussia
   showed itself to be a necessity. On the other hand the
   economic bonds between Prussia and the rest of the German
   lands grew stronger from day to day. This material union was
   the prelude to the political one: the Zollverein was the best
   and most effectual preparation for the German federal state or
   for the German empire of later days."

      _W. Maurenbrecher,
      Gründung des Deutschen Reichs,
      pages 4-5._

{3776}

   "Paul Pfizer wrote in 1831 his 'Correspondence of Two
   Germans,' the first writing in the German language in which
   liberation from Austria and union with Prussia was put down as
   the solution of the German question and in which faith in
   Prussia was made a part of such love to the German fatherland
   as should be no longer a mere dream. … 'So little as the dead
   shall rise again this side the grave, so little will Austria,
   which once held the heritage of German fame and German glory,
   ever again become for Germany what she has once been.'"

      _W. Oncken,
      Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 69-70._

   The formation of the Zollverein "was the most important
   occurrence since the wars of liberation: a deed of peace of
   more far-reaching consequences and productive of more lasting
   results than many a battle won. The economic blessings of the
   Zollverein soon began to show themselves in the increasing sum
   total of the amount of commerce and in the regularly growing
   customs revenues of the individual states. These revenues for
   example increased between 1834 and 1842 from 12 to 21 million
   thalers. Foreign countries began to look with respect and in
   part also with envy on this commercial unity of Germany and on
   the results which could not fail to come. … A second event
   happened in Germany in 1834, less marked in its beginnings and
   yet scarcely less important in its results than the
   Zollverein. Between Leipzig and Dresden the first large
   railroad in Germany was started, the first mesh in that
   network of roads that was soon to branch out in all directions
   and spread itself over all Germany. … A direct political
   occurrence, independent of the Zollverein and the railroads,
   was, in the course of the thirties, to assist in awakening and
   strengthening the idea of unity in the German people by making
   evident and plain the lack of such unity and its disastrous
   consequences. This was the Hanoverian 'coup d'etat' of the
   year 1837. … In that year William IV of England died without
   direct successors. … Hanover came into the hands of the Duke
   of Cumberland, Ernest Augustus. … The new king, soon after his
   inauguration, refused to recognize the constitution that had
   been given to Hanover in 1833, on the ground that his
   ratification as next heir to the throne had not been asked at
   that time. … By persistent efforts Ernest Augustus … in 1840
   brought about a constitution that suited him. Still more than
   this constitutional struggle itself did a single incident
   connected with it occupy and excite public opinion far and
   wide. Seven professors of the Gottingen university protested
   against the abrogation of the constitution of 1833. … Without
   more ado they were dismissed from their positions. … The brave
   deed of the Gottingen professors and the new act of violence
   committed against them caused intense excitement throughout
   all Germany. … A committee composed both of conservatives and
   liberals was formed in Leipzig and raised collections, in
   order by honorable gift to replace at least the material
   losses of the banished professors. … In the course of the
   forties the idea of nationality penetrated more and more all
   the pores of German opinion and gave to it more and more, by
   pressure from all sides, the direction of a great and common
   goal. At first there were only isolated attempts at reform …
   but soon the national needs outgrew such single expressions of
   good will. … A tendency began to show itself in the public
   opinion of Germany to accept the plan of a Prussian leadership
   of all un-Austrian Germany."

      _K. Biedermann,
      Dreissig Jahre Deutscher Geschichte.
      volume 1, pages 9-91._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820,
      to 1819-1847 (pages 1531-1533).

GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890.
   The Bismarck policy.
   "Blood and iron" speech of the Prussian Premier.

   On the question of the reorganization of the army, which was
   brought forward early by Prince William (afterwards King and
   Emperor) after he assumed the Regency in 1858, the Prussian
   Diet placed itself in determined opposition to the government.
   At a session of the Budget Commission of the House of
   Representatives, September 30, 1862, Deputy Forckenbeck
   offered the following resolution: "Whereas it is also feared
   that after the declaration of the royal state government made
   the 29th inst. the same would continue the expenditures for
   the organization of the army on its own responsibility which
   have already been rejected by the House for the year 1862 and
   the rejection of which is likewise to be expected for 1863,
   according to the acknowledgment of the government itself, and
   Whereas a direct insistence of the prerogatives of the
   people's representatives is urgently required, the House of
   Representatives declares as follows:

   1. The royal government is requested to lay the estimates for
   1863 before the House as speedily as possible for their
   constitutional consideration, so that the amount of the same
   may be constitutionally fixed before January 1st 1863.

   2. It is unconstitutional for the royal government to direct
   expenditures which were by resolution of the House of
   Representatives definitely and expressly rejected."

   The Minister of State, Herr von Bismarck, spoke on these
   resolutions as follows: "I would willingly accept the
   estimates for 1862, if I could do so without entering upon
   explanations which might prove prejudicial. Either side might
   abuse its constitutional rights and be met by a reaction in
   kind from the opposite side. The crown, for instance, might
   decree dissolution twelve times in succession without
   violating the letter of the constitution, yet would it be an
   abuse of power. It may refuse to accept a striking out of
   estimates without measure. Where will you draw the line? At 6
   millions? at 16? or at 60? There are members of the National
   Verein [National Union]—an organization highly respected for
   the well known fairness of its demands,—very estimable
   members—who declare all standing armies as superfluous. Well
   then, if the House of Representatives should hold such view
   must not the government repudiate it? The 'cool headedness' of
   the Prussian people has been referred to. Well, it is a fact,
   the great self-assertion of individuality among us makes
   constitutional government very hard in Prussia; in France,
   where this individual self-assertion is wanting, it is
   otherwise. There a constitutional conflict was no disgrace,
   but all honor. We are perhaps too 'cultured' to tolerate a
   constitution; we are too critical; the ability to pass
   judgment on measures of the government or acts of the
   legislature is too universal; there is a large number of
   'Catilinarian Characters' [existences in the original] in the
   land whose chief interest is in revolutions. All this may
   sound paradoxical; yet it proves how hard constitutional life
   is in Prussia.
{3777}
   The people are too sensitive about the faults of the
   government; as if the whole did not suffer when this or that
   individual minister blunders. Public opinion is changeable,
   the press is not public opinion; everyone knows how the press
   originates; the representatives have the higher task of
   directing opinion, of being above it. To return once more to
   our people: our blood is too hot, we are fond of bearing an
   armor too large for our small body; now let us utilize it.
   Germany does not look at Prussia's liberalism but at its
   power. Let Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden indulge in liberalism,
   yet no one will assign to them the rule of Prussia; Prussia
   must consolidate its might and hold it together for the
   favorable moment, which has been allowed to pass unheeded
   several times. Prussia's boundaries, as determined by the
   Congress of Vienna, are not conducive to its wholesome
   existence as a sovereign state. Not by speeches and
   resolutions of majorities the mighty problems of the age are
   solved—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by Blood and
   Iron. Last year's grants have been made, no matter on what
   grounds; I am seeking sincerely for a road to harmony: the
   finding of it does not depend on me alone. It were better, the
   House of Representatives had not made an accomplished fact.
   When the appropriations are not passed, then the way is clear.
   The constitution affords no relief, for interpretation is
   opposed to interpretation, 'summum ius, summa iniuria' [the
   highest law, greatest injustice], 'the letter killeth.' I am
   glad that the chairman by certain turns of speech admits the
   possibility of an understanding, of a different vote of the
   house on a new proposition of the government; I am searching
   for the same bridge; when it will be found is uncertain. The
   establishment of a budget for this year is barely possible;
   the time is too short; our conditions are exceptional. The
   government concedes the principle of the earliest possible
   handing down of the estimates. But you say, this has been
   promised so often and has not been done. Well 'You must trust
   us for honest people.' I do not share in the interpretation
   that it was unconstitutional to make expenditures that have
   been denied, all three factors [i. e. Commons, Upper House and
   Crown] must agree upon an interpretation, before it stands."

      _Die Politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 2, pages 20, 28-30._

   "Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, born April 1, 1815, was a
   Junker [squire, aristocrat] from top to toe, but from the very
   first, as was the case with all the Junkers of Prussia,
   Pomerania and the Mark, his life had been thoroughly merged in
   that of the Prussian state. He had first called attention to
   himself in 1847 at the general diet (Vereinigter Landtag]. In
   1849 he came forward in the chamber of deputies, in 1850 in
   the Union Parliament at Frankfort—always as the goad of the
   extreme right, and each time his appearance gave the signal
   for a violent conflict. Perfectly unsparing of all his
   opponents, very anti-liberal but very Prussian, very
   national-minded, in spite of being such a Junker, Bismarck
   flared up with especial violence against the democratic
   attacks on the army and the monarchy. … To Frankfort Bismarck
   came as the sworn defender of the policy of reaction. The
   Austrian party, thinking him to be a man of no consequence,
   greeted his coming with joy. He soon made himself unpleasant
   enough, especially to the Austrian presidents of the federal
   diet. … He refused to accept the servile role which Austria
   had apportioned to him; his objections in matters of form and
   on unimportant occasions prepared the great fundamental
   anti-Austrian uprising. A feeling of pain came over him at the
   sight of the Prussian submission to Austria, but at the same
   time he was seized with a thirst for vengeance. … In
   Frankfort, too, he learned thoroughly to know German affairs:
   the utter weakness of the Confederation and the misery of
   having so many petty states. … To his mind the goal of
   Prussian policy was to drive Austria out of Germany and then
   to bring about a subordination of the other German states to
   Prussia. … Nor did he make the least secret of his warlike
   attitude towards Austria. When an Austrian arch-duke, who was
   passing through, once asked him maliciously whether all the
   many decorations which he wore on his breast had been won by
   bravery in battle: 'All gained before the enemy, all gained
   here in Frankfort,' was the ready answer. In the year 1859
   came the complications between Austria and Italy, the latter
   being joined by France. This Italian war between Austria and
   France thoroughly roused the German nation. … Many wanted to
   protect Austria, others showed a disinclination to enter the
   lists for Austria's rule over Italy. … Bismarck's advice at
   this time was that Prussia should side against Austria and
   should join Italy. In the spring of 1859, however, he was
   transferred from Frankfort on the Main to St. Petersburg: 'put
   on ice on the Neva,' as he said himself, 'like champagne for
   future use.' … In June 1859, in view of the Italian war, it
   had been decreed in Prussia that the army should be mobilized
   and kept in readiness to fight. … When, later, in the summer
   of this year, the probability of war had gone by, the Landwehr
   was not dismissed but, on the contrary, a beginning was made
   with a new formation of regiments which had already been
   planned and talked over. … On February 10, 1860, the question
   of the military reorganization was laid before the diet, where
   doubts and objections were raised against it. … On the 4th of
   May, at the same time when the law about civil marriages was
   rejected, the land-tax, by which the cost of the
   army-reorganization was to have been covered, was refused by
   the Upper House. The liberals were disappointed and angered.
   The ministry was soon in a bad dilemma: should it give way to
   the liberal opposition and dissolve the newly formed
   regiments? The expedient that was thought of seemed clever
   enough but it led in reality to a blind alley and was
   productive of the most baneful consequences. The ministry
   moved a single grant of 9,000,000 thalers for the purpose of
   completing the army and maintaining its efficiency on the
   former footing. The motion was carried on May 15, 1860, by a
   vote of 315 against two. … The new elections for the house of
   deputies in December 1861 produced a diet of an entirely
   different stamp from that of 1858. … The moderate majority was
   now to atone for the sin of not having come to any real
   arrangement with the ministry on the army question; for the
   new majority came to Berlin with the full intention of
   crushing the army-reform. … The chief task of the newly formed
   ministry of 1862 was to solve the military question, for the
   longer it had remained in abeyance the more complicated had
   the matter become.
{3778}
   The newly-elected diet had been in session since the 19th of
   May. The majority was determined to draw the conclusion from
   the provisional nature of the army-reorganization grants that
   no such grants were any longer to be made. The battle cry of
   the majority of the diet was that all further demands of the
   government for the military reform were to be refused. … But
   how would this result? … The new officers had an actionable,
   legal claim to their salaries; who was to pay them? The budget
   for 1862 was already in great part expended. … Were the
   ministers themselves to pay the damages? Such seems to have
   been the idea of the fanatics in the parliament. … By
   September 1862 the belligerent and uncompromising attitude of
   the liberal majority had induced King William to lay aside his
   earlier distrust of Bismarck. He allowed him to be summoned
   and placed him at the head of the ministry. Most stirring was
   the first audience which Bismarck had with his king in the
   Park of Babelsberg on September 23. The king first of all laid
   before Bismarck the declaration of his abdication. Very much
   startled, Bismarck said: 'To that it should never be allowed
   to come!' The king replied that he had tried everything and
   knew no other alternative. His convictions, contrary to which
   he could not act, contrary to which he could not reign,
   forbade him to relinquish the army-reorganization. Thereupon
   Bismarck explained to the king his own different view of the
   matter and closed with the request that his Majesty might
   abandon all thoughts of abdication. The king then asked the
   minister if he would undertake to carry on the government
   without a majority and without a budget. Bismarck answered
   both questions in the affirmative and with the utmost
   decision. … The alliance between the king and his minister was
   closed and cemented on that 23rd of September in Babelsberg to
   endure for all time. … To this bond of allegiance which joined
   king and minister, Prussia and Germany owe all the glory that
   has fallen to their share. … In the summer of 1863 was
   originated the famous Austrian project of reform. … The
   proposals of Prussia that there should be one central head of
   Germany with popular representation from the whole nation was
   entirely thrust aside and, on the contrary, a federal
   directory was recommended with a parliament of delegates from
   the separate diets. … In spite of Prussia's absence the
   assembly of princes took place at Frankfort. King John of
   Saxony again travelled to Baden to urge King William to attend
   but the latter again declined. Not but that this refusal cost
   him a great struggle. … Bismarck had to threaten with his
   resignation before he could make the king remain firm; … he
   did not breathe freely again until the Saxon king had taken
   his leave. Then with his powerful hand he demolished a plate
   of glasses that stood before him; that cooled his anger and
   his excitement and he was once more the polished courtier. …
   Bismarck's policy now met with a great piece of good fortune.
   Through the death of the king of Denmark, namely, the
   Schleswig-Holstein question was forced to a final solution and
   this offered Bismarck an opportunity of trying his diplomatic
   skill, while at the same time it gave the Prussian army a
   brilliant occasion for showing what it could accomplish. In a
   series of bold moves Bismarck steered through the
   complications of the Schleswig-Holstein question; it is the
   first stage in his great career of victory. … But in spite of
   all the successes of the Danish war the diet continued in its
   opposition. A loan for the war was refused; any loan made
   without the consent of the diet was declared unconstitutional
   and not binding. … The subsequent grant for the costs of the
   war was refused. … Naturally the Prussian war-budget could not
   be made up, and the land continued to be governed without a
   budget. The details of the debates on these subjects are today
   only of minor interest. Much time was lost in mutual insults
   between Bismarck on the one hand and Virchow and Gneist on the
   other. Bismarck challenged Virchow to a duel, Virchow refused
   the challenge. … By April 1866 Bismarck had cleared the
   political field for his war against Austria; the necessity for
   that war had long been apparent to him. … That the German
   question could only be settled by the separation of Austria
   from Germany and that this separation could only be brought
   about by a war between Prussia and Austria had, in the course
   of years, become clear to all patriots who knew anything of
   history. With incomparable perspicuity the statesman who had
   led Prussia's policy since the autumn of 1862 had grasped the
   idea and had seen to carrying it out with the whole force of
   his iron will. Already in the autumn of 1863 he had drawn up
   the program of what he intended that the German Confederation
   should be. … The history of the world had not for centuries
   seen such a war as 1866. … It was then that King William and
   his minister, crowned with victories, asked the Prussian diet
   for indemnity: i. e. for an acknowledgment of their good
   purposes in spite of their illegal acts. … In point of fact
   the diet had been wrong and the king and his minister had
   acted wisely and well; in point of form they had broken the
   letter of the law. … In the years 1862-1866 Bismarck had held
   off Napoleon with incomparable political skill. He had always
   refused the French demands, but so that Napoleon in each case
   could cherish some hope and could venture again and again to
   approach Prussia with some new lure. Not until August 1866 did
   Napoleon receive a thorough and open repulse. Bismarck then
   answered every threat of the French with the counter-threat of
   a German war. The refusal of Bismarck and his king brought
   Napoleon into a very bad position as regarded the French
   people. In the minds of the latter a war against Germany was a
   foregone conclusion since 1866. … On the 8th of July (1870)
   the French envoy came to King William in Ems and demanded that
   he should forbid Prince Leopold to accept the crown of Spain.
   … It is a popular fiction that the king turned his back on
   Benedetti, or that he answered that he 'had nothing more to
   say to him,' or that he out and out refused him an audience.
   An extra of the German papers of July 14th did indeed read to
   that effect: Bismarck himself had drawn up the notice for the
   papers. He had made no false additions, but here and there he
   had erased and omitted some of the words spoken at Ems, thus
   rendering possible at least the whole false conception of the
   matter. Bismarck ventured on such a step, having clearly
   counted the costs; the result showed how closely he had made
   his calculations. …
{3779}
   It was the war of 1870 that fundamentally changed the
   relations of the chancellor to the mass of the people. After
   1871 he was immensely popular. … People believed that he could
   do anything, that he could make possible what was impossible
   for other men. … Bismarck was very soon surrounded with an
   almost mythical halo."

      _W. Maurenbrecher,
      Gründung des Deutschen Reichs
      (translated from the German),
      pages 13-258._

      See, also, GERMANY:
      A. D. 1861-1866, and after (pages 1537-1548).

GERMANY: A. D. 1863.
   Formation of the first Socialist party by Lassalle.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.
   The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages.
   Speeches of Bismarck.

   "For reasons relating to its own internal affairs the state,
   even though it took no special attitude to the dogma of
   infallibility in itself, could not avoid being drawn into the
   conflicts which that dogma was bound to call forth between its
   upholders and its opponents. It was the duty of the state to
   prevent the evil results to its citizens of the anathema which
   the bishops hurled at those who denied the infallibility; it
   was necessary for it to interfere and, by introducing civil
   marriages, to render marriage possible to those apostates who
   were not allowed to receive the sacraments; it was necessary
   for it to protect in the exercise of their office those of its
   public teachers who rejected the new dogma, even if their
   spiritual superiors should declare them unfit to hold such
   office. In cases, finally, where whole congregations, or
   majorities of them, remained true to the old teachings it was
   necessary for the state to protect them in the possession of
   their churches of which the bishops tried to deprive them.
   Already in November and December 1870 the first cases had
   occurred with regard to which the Prussian minister of
   education had been obliged to draw these conclusions.
   Professors of the Bonn and Breslau universities who, because
   they denied the infallibility, had been forbidden to lecture
   by Archbishop Melchers of Cologne and Prince-bishop Forster of
   Breslau, appealed to the protection of the minister. Certain
   pastors and teachers of gymnasiums, who had joined in a
   declaration drawn up at Nuremberg (August 25, 1870) against
   the new dogma, and who had in consequence been threatened with
   ecclesiastical punishments, did the same. Mühler had no other
   course than to declare that, so far as officials appointed by
   the state were concerned, the state must maintain its
   exclusive disciplinary power, and that he would continue in
   future to regard as catholics those whom he had so regarded
   before the decree of infallibility was passed, even if they
   saw fit to reject that dogma. Similar conflicts broke out in
   Bavaria where the minister, Lutz, upheld the pastor Renftle,
   of Mering near Augsburg, in the enjoyment of his benefices in
   the face of the bishop, and where the Munich professors,
   Döllinger, Friedrich, Huber and others courageously refused
   such assent to the dogma as the Archbishop Scherr, on October
   20, 1870, demanded from them. Döllinger's written
   justification of himself, published on March 20, 1871, seemed
   to give a firm basis and a distinguished leader to the whole
   movement. … Twelve thousand signatures were collected in a few
   weeks for an address to the king of Bavaria and an appeal was
   made to the catholics of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in
   favor of common action. … Meanwhile the other party had been
   busy enough. Hundreds and hundreds of ecclesiastics protested
   against Döllinger's assertion that thousands of the clergy
   thought as he did. A lay assembly in Munich, held on April 23,
   which expressed itself in favor of infallibility, was the
   forerunner of countless similar ones. … Already some weeks
   earlier the archbishop of Munich had ventured to excommunicate
   Döllinger. … On August 27 Lutz sent a writing to Archbishop
   Scherr claiming the right to regulate afresh the relations
   with the church as the dogma of infallibility was something
   essentially new: at the same time he announced that the
   government would do its utmost to protect the upholders of the
   old teachings and to secure the independence of civil affairs
   from ecclesiastical right of compulsion. In Munich such
   decisive measures would probably not have been adopted had not
   matters in Prussia taken a similar turn. The conflict had been
   brought to a climax here by the demand of Bishops Krementz and
   Ermeland that two teachers in Braunsberg, Wollmann and
   Treibel, should be dismissed for denying the infallibility.
   This demand the minister had refused on March 18, 1871, and on
   June 29 had even given his approval to the regulation that
   scholars who should obey the orders of the bishop to absent
   themselves from the class in religious instruction of these
   teachers should be expelled from the gymnasium. The bishop had
   retaliated by excommunicating the two teachers in question, as
   well as Professor Michelis, one of the chief opponents of
   infallibility. In the dioceses of Cologne, Paderborn and
   Breslau also, the conflicts had become more fierce on account
   of excommunications imposed by the bishops. Still more
   important was it that the chancellor of the empire had now
   personally entered the lists. As his cool attitude already
   before the council had given reason to expect, the Vatican
   dogma did not much trouble him. All the more alarming seemed
   to him the agitation which the clergy were stirring up among
   the Polish nobles, and the league of Guelphism and Catholicism
   as illustrated by Windhorst's position in the Centre. … He
   [Bismarck] caused the announcement to be made in an article of
   the Kreuzzeitung that the government would not only continue
   on the defensive against the Centre, but in turn would proceed
   to attack it. The ultramontanes had better consider whether
   such a struggle could turn out to the advantage of the Roman
   Church. If, he concluded, three hundred years ago Teutonism in
   Germany was stronger than Romanism, how much stronger would it
   be now when Rome is no longer the capital of the world, but on
   the point of becoming the capital of Italy, and when the
   German imperial crown no longer rests on the head of a
   Spaniard but of a German prince. … In the Federal Council Lutz
   moved an amendment to the criminal code which should threaten
   any clergyman with imprisonment up to two years if he should
   misuse his office and discuss state affairs so as to disturb
   the peace. … This 'pulpit-paragraph' was accepted with 179 to
   108 votes and became law December 14th 1871. … The Prussian
   diet was opened on November 27, 1871, with the announcement of
   four new laws which should regulate marriages, the
   registration of civil personal matters, the withdrawal from
   existing churches, and the supervision of schools. …
{3780}
   The conservative party was in wild excitement over these
   measures and the Kreuzzeitung became the organ of decided
   opposition, especially against the school-supervision law
   which was chosen as the first object of attack. The
   conservatives collected petitions from all parts of the land
   to kill this law which they prophesied would make the schools
   a tool of atheism, a hot-bed of revolution, unnationality and
   immorality. They succeeded in getting together more than
   300,000 signatures. … At the first reading in the House of
   Deputies the school-supervision law was passed, although by a
   majority of only 25 votes. … At the second reading the
   majority increased to 52. … The chief struggle was expected in
   the House of Lords. … The vote here was favorable beyond all
   hopes, resulting on March 8th in a majority in favor of the
   law almost as great as that in the House of Deputies. … By no
   means calm was the attitude of the pope towards the increasing
   complications, and when, a few weeks later, on June 24th,
   1872, he received the German 'Leseverein' in Rome he
   complained bitterly of the prime minister of a powerful
   government who, after marvellous successes in war, should have
   placed himself at the head of a long-planned persecution of
   the church; a step which would undoubtedly tarnish the glory
   of his former triumphs. 'Who knows if the little stone shall
   not soon be loosened from above that shall destroy the foot of
   the Colossus!' The chief cause of this embitterment lay in the
   expulsion of the Jesuits which had meanwhile been decreed by
   the diet. … The more the national opposition to the Roman
   claims increased, the more passionate did the frame of mind of
   the ultramontanes become; and also, in no small degree, of the
   pope. An allocution addressed to the cardinals on December 22,
   1872, surpassed in violence anything that had yet been heard.
   … Even Reichensperger found it advisable in excusing a
   vehemence that thus went beyond all bounds to call to mind
   that the Latinized style of the papal chancery was not to be
   taken too literally. The German government, after such a
   demonstration, had no other alternative than to recall the
   last representative of its embassy to the papal court. …
   Already in November Minister Falk had laid before the House a
   draft of a law concerning the limits of ecclesiastical
   punishments and disciplinary measures; on January 9, 1873,
   followed the drafts of three new laws. … Still more
   passionately than in the debate concerning the change in the
   Constitution did Bismarck come forward in the discussion of
   April 24-28. … Windhorst and Schorlemer-Alst answered him back
   in kind. … With violent attacks on Bismarck they prophesied
   that these Draconic laws would rebound against the passive
   opposition of the people; that dawn was glimmering in men's
   minds and that the victory of the Church was near. To the
   great majority of the German people, who had followed the
   political-ecclesiastical debates with the liveliest interest,
   such assurances seemed almost laughable. They felt sure of
   victory now that Bismarck himself had seized the standard with
   such decision. The 'May Laws' which the king signed on May 11,
   1873, were considered a weapon sure to be effectual, and even
   the advanced-liberals, who had followed many of the steps of
   the Government with hesitation and doubt, declared in an
   appeal to their electors on March 23 that the conflict had
   assumed the proportions of a great struggle for enlightenment
   (Kulturkampf) in which all mankind were concerned, and that
   they themselves, in junction with the other liberal parties,
   would accordingly support the Government. … On August 7 (1873)
   Pius IX sent a letter to the emperor under pretext of having
   heard that the latter did not sympathize with the latest
   measures of his government. He declared that such measures
   seemed to aim at the annihilation of Catholicism and warned
   him that their final result would be to undermine the throne.
   He deduced his right to issue this warning from the fact that
   he was bound to tell the truth to all, even to non-catholics:
   for in one way or another—exactly how this was not the place
   to make clear—everyone who had received baptism belonged to
   the pope. The emperor answered on September 3rd in a most
   dignified tone. … 'We can not pass over in silence the remark
   that everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope. The
   evangelical faith which I, as your Holiness must know, like my
   forefathers and together with the majority of my subjects,
   confess, does not allow us to accept any other Mediator in our
   relations with God save our Lord Jesus Christ.' … Among
   protestants this royal answer was greeted with jubilant
   acclamations and even in foreign lands it found a loud echo.
   The aged Earl Russell organized a great meeting in London on
   January 27, 1874. … Soon after the opening of the Prussian
   diet Falk could bring forward the draft of a law which handed
   over to state-officials [Standesbeamte] all matters referring
   to the celebration of marriages and the registration of civil
   personal matters. This draft was sure from the first of a good
   majority. … On March 9th 1874 the law could be proclaimed. In
   the same month still the deputies Hinschius and Völk made a
   motion in the diet to introduce civil marriages throughout the
   whole empire. … It furthermore seemed necessary to take
   stronger measures against bishops and priests unlawfully
   appointed and whom the state had either deposed or refused to
   recognize. The mildest measure was to remove them from their
   dioceses or parishes, to banish them to certain fixed places
   and, in the worst cases, to expel them altogether from the
   lands of the empire. … The draft of the law (to this effect)
   was warmly supported and at last, April 25, 1874, was accepted
   by a vote of 214 to 208. … On July 13th, 1874, as Prince
   Bismarck, who had gone to take the cure in Kissingen, was
   driving to the Saline the twenty-one year old
   cooper's-apprentice Kullmann, of Magdeburg, fired a pistol at
   him, and wounded him in his right hand which he had just
   raised for the purpose of saluting. At once arrested, Kullmann
   declared to the chancellor, who visited him an hour later in
   his prison, that he had wished to murder him on account of the
   laws against the church. … The reading of ultramontane papers
   and the violent discourses of the catholic clergy had driven
   him to the deed. He atoned for it with fourteen years in the
   House of Correction. Not alone did public opinion make
   ultramontanism accountable for the deed, but Bismarck himself
   laid very strong emphasis on the fact that the criminal had
   spoken of the Centre as 'his party.' 'You may try as hard as
   you please to rid yourselves of this murderer,' he cried out
   in the diet of December 4th, 'he none the less holds fast to
   your coat-tails!'"

      _C. Bulle,
      Geschichte der neuesten Zeit
      (translated from the German),
      volume 4, pages 20-41._

{3781}

   At the Session of the Lower House of the Prussian Diet January
   30, 1872, Deputy Windthorst spoke in opposition to the royal
   order for the abolition of the separate Roman Catholic section
   of the department of worship and public instruction and Prince
   Bismarck, in reply, said: "The party to which the gentleman
   belongs has contributed its share to the difficulty of
   obliterating the denominational standpoint in matters
   political. I have always considered it one of the most
   monstrous manifestations in politics, that a religious faction
   should convert itself into a political party. If all the other
   creeds were to adopt the same principle, it would bring
   theology into the parliamentary sessions and would make it a
   matter of public debate. … It has always been one of my
   fundamental principles that every creed ought to have full
   liberty of development, perfect liberty of conscience. But for
   all that I did not think it was a necessary corollary that a
   census of each denomination be taken merely for the purpose of
   giving each its proportional share in the Civil Service. …
   Where will you stop? You begin with a Cabinet; then you count
   the Chiefs of Division. I do not know what your ratio is—I
   think you claim four to seven—nor do I care to know. The
   subordinates in the Civil Service follow next. It is a fact,
   moreover, that the Evangelicals are by no means united in one
   denomination. The contrast is not merely between Protestants
   and Catholics. The United Prussian Established Church, the
   Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, all have claims
   analogous to those of the Catholics. As soon as we cut up the
   state into denominational sections, giving each creed its
   proportional share, then the large Jewish population will come
   in for its part, a majority of which, distinguished by its
   special capacity, skill and intelligence, is peculiarly fitted
   for the business of the State. … We cannot admit the claim of
   the ecclesiastical authorities to a further share in the
   administration and in the interest of peace we are obliged to
   restrict the share they already have; so that we may have room
   beside each other and be obliged, as little as possible, to
   trouble ourselves about theology in this place."

      _Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 5, pages 231-240._

   In the German Parliament, May 14, 1872, on the question of a
   grant of 19,350 thalers for the German embassy at the See of
   Rome, Prince Bismarck spoke as follows: "I can easily
   understand how in considering this item of the estimates, the
   opinion may be held that the expenditure for this embassy was
   superfluous, as it does no longer consider the protection of
   German citizens in foreign parts. Still I am glad that no
   motion for the striking out of this post was made, which would
   be unpleasant to the Government. The duties of an embassy
   consist not merely in affording protection to their
   countrymen, but also in keeping up the political relations of
   the Government which it represents with that to which it is
   accredited. Now there is no foreign sovereign, who, in the
   present state of our laws, might be called upon to exercise,
   in accordance with those laws, prerogatives in the German
   empire like those of His Holiness, approaching almost to
   sovereignty, limited by no constitutional responsibility.
   There is therefore great importance for the German empire in
   the character that is given to our diplomatic relations with
   the head of the Roman Church, wielding, as he does, an
   influence in this country unusually extensive for a foreign
   potentate. I scarcely believe, considering the spirit dominant
   at present in the leading circles of the Catholic Church, that
   any ambassador of the German empire could succeed, by the most
   skilful diplomacy, or by persuasion (comminatory attitudes
   conceivable between secular powers are out of the question
   here)—I say no one could succeed by persuasion in exerting an
   influence to bring about a modification of the position
   assumed by His Holiness the Pope towards things secular. The
   dogmas of the Catholic Church recently announced and publicly
   promulgated make it impossible for any secular power to come
   to an understanding with the church without its own
   effacement, which the German empire, at least, cannot accept.
   Have no fear; we shall not go to Canossa, either in body or in
   spirit. Nevertheless it cannot be concealed that the state of
   the German empire (it is not my task here to investigate the
   motives and determine how much blame attaches to one party or
   the other; I am only defending an item in the Budget)—that
   the feeling within the German empire in regard to religious
   peace, is one of disquietude. The governments of the German
   empire are seeking, with all the solicitude they owe to their
   Catholic as well as Lutheran subjects for the best way, the
   most acceptable means, of changing the present unpleasant
   state of affairs in matters of religion to a more agreeable
   one, without disturbing to any degree the creedal relations of
   the empire. This can only be done by way of legislation—of
   general imperial legislation—for which the governments have to
   rely upon the assistance of the Reichstag. That this
   legislation must not in the least infringe upon the liberty of
   conscience,—must proceed in the gentlest, most conciliatory
   manner; that the government must bend all its energies in
   order to prevent unnecessary retardation of its work, from
   incorrect recording or errors in form, you all will admit.
   That the governments must spare no efforts for the
   establishment of our internal peace, in a manner least
   offensive even to the religious sensitiveness of those whose
   creed we do not share, you will also admit. To this end,
   however, it is before all things needful that the Roman See be
   at all times well informed of the intentions of the German
   governments, much better than it has been hitherto. The
   reports made in the past to His Holiness, the Pope, on the
   state of affairs in Germany, and on the intentions of the
   German governments, I consider as one of the chief causes of
   the present disturbances of denominational relations; for
   those presentations were both incorrect and perverted, either
   by personal bias, or by baser motives. I had hoped that the
   choice of an ambassador, who had the full confidence of both
   parties, both on account of his love of truth and reliability,
   and on account of the nature of his views and his
   attitude—that the choice of such an ambassador as His Majesty
   had made in the person of a distinguished prince of the church
   [Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe] would be welcomed at Rome; that it
   would be taken as an earnest of our peaceable and conciliatory
   intentions; that it would be utilized as a means to our mutual
   understanding.
{3782}
   I had hoped that it would afford the assurance that we would
   never ask anything of His Holiness, but what a prince of the
   church, sustaining the most intimate relations to the Pope,
   could present before him; that the forms with which one
   sacerdotal dignitary confers with another would continue to
   prevail and that all unnecessary friction in a matter so
   difficult in itself would be avoided. … All this we had hoped
   to attain. But alas! for reasons which have not yet been
   submitted to us, a curt refusal on the part of the Papal See
   frustrated the intentions of His Majesty. I dare say such an
   incident does not often occur. It is customary, when a
   sovereign has made choice of an ambassador, out of courtesy to
   make inquiry at the court to which the chosen ambassador is to
   be accredited, whether he be persona grata or not. The case of
   a negative reply, however, is extremely rare, bringing about,
   as it must, a revocation of the appointment made not
   provisionally, but definitely, before the inquiry. Such a
   negative reply is equal to a demand to annul what has been
   done, to a declaration: 'You have chosen unwisely.' I have now
   been Foreign Minister for ten years; have been busy in matters
   of higher diplomacy for twenty-one years; and I can positively
   assert that this is the first and only case in my experience
   of such an inquiry receiving a negative reply." Deputy
   Windthorst, in reply, criticised the procedure of the German
   Government in this affair, and justified the position taken by
   the papal court, saying: "I believe, gentlemen, for my part,
   that it was the duty of the Cardinal to ask the permission of
   his master, the Pope, before accepting the post. The Cardinal
   was the servant of the Pope, and as such, could not accept an
   office from another government without previous inquiry. … The
   case would be the same if His Holiness had appointed an
   adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, only more
   flagrant, for you will admit that a Cardinal is quite a
   different person from an adjutant general." Prince Bismarck
   replied: "I do not wish to discuss here the personal criticism
   which the gentleman made on His Eminence, the Cardinal, but I
   would say a word about the expression 'master' which was used.
   The gentleman is certainly well versed in history, especially
   ecclesiastical history, and I wish to ask him, who was the
   master of Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin. Both of
   these dignitaries were engaged in controversies and had to
   settle important differences with the See of Rome, in the
   service of their sovereign, the king of France; and yet they
   were Cardinals. … If it should please His Holiness to appoint
   an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, I should
   unconditionally advise His Majesty to accept him. … I am an
   enemy to all conjectural politics and all prophesies. That
   will take care of itself. But I can assure the gentleman that
   we will maintain the full integral sovereignty of the law with
   all means at our disposal, against assumptions of individual
   subjects of His Majesty, the king of Prussia, be they priests
   or laymen, that there could be laws of the land not binding
   upon them; and we are sure of the entire support of a great
   majority of the members of all religious confessions. The
   sovereignty can and must be one and integral,—the sovereignty
   of the law; and he who declares the laws of his country as not
   binding upon himself, places himself outside the pale of the
   law."

      _Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 5, pages 337-344._

   The following is from a speech of Prince Bismarck in the Upper
   House, March 10, 1873, during the discussion of the May Laws:
   "The gentleman who spoke before me has entered on the same
   path which the opponents of these bills followed in the other
   house by ascribing to them a confessional, I might say, an
   ecclesiastical character. The question we are considering is,
   according to my view, misconstrued, and the light in which we
   consider it, a false light if we look upon it as a
   confessional, a church question. It is essentially a political
   one; it is not, as our catholic fellow citizens are made to
   believe, a contest of an evangelical dynasty against the
   Catholic Church; it is not a struggle between faith and
   unbelief; it is the perennial contest, as old as the human
   race, between royalty and priestcraft, older than the
   appearance of our Savior on earth. This contest was carried on
   by Agamemnon at Aulis, which cost him his daughter and
   hindered the Grecian fleet from going to sea. This contest has
   filled the German history of the Middle Ages even to the
   disintegration of the German Empire. It is known as the
   struggles of the popes with the emperors, closing for the
   Middle Ages when the last representative of the noble Suabian
   imperial dynasty died on the block beneath the axe of the
   French conqueror, that French conqueror being in league with
   the then ruling pope. We were very near an analogous solution
   of this question, translated into the manners of our own time.
   Had the French war of conquest been successful, the outbreak
   of which coincided with the publication of the Vatican
   Decrees, I know not what would have been narrated in Church
   circles of Germany of 'gestis Dei per Francos' ['Gesta Dei per
   Francos,' 'Deeds of God by the French' is the title of a
   collection by Bongars, containing the sources of the history
   of the crusades.—Footnote]. … It is in my opinion a
   falsification of history and politics, this attitude of
   considering His Holiness, the Pope, exclusively as the high
   priest of a religious denomination, or the Catholic Church as
   the representative of Churchdom merely. The papacy has at all
   times been a political power, interfering in the most resolute
   manner and with the greatest success in the secular affairs of
   this world, which interference it contended for and made its
   program. These programs are well known. The aim which was
   constantly present in its mind's eye, the program which in the
   Middle Ages was near its realization, was the subjection of
   the secular powers to the Church, an eminently political aim,
   a striving as old as mankind itself. For there have always
   been either some wise men, or some real priests who set up the
   claim, that the will of God was better known to them than to
   their fellow beings and in consequence of this claim they had
   the right to rule over their fellowmen. And it cannot be
   denied that this proposition contains the basis of the papal
   claims for the exercise of sovereign rights. …
{3783}
   The contention of priesthood against royalty, in our case, of
   the Pope against the German Emperor, … is to be judged like
   every other struggle; it has its alliances, its peace
   conventions, its pauses, its armistices. There have been
   peaceful popes, there have been popes militant, popes
   conquerors. There have been even peace-loving kings of France,
   though Louis XVI. was forced to carry on wars; so that even
   our French neighbors have had monarchs who preferred peace to
   war. Moreover in the struggles of the papal power it has not
   always been the call that Catholic powers have been
   exclusively the allies of the pope; nor have the priests
   always sided with the pope. We have had cardinals as ministers
   of great powers at a time when those great powers followed an
   antipapal policy even to acts of violence. We have found
   bishops in the military retinue of the German emperors, when
   moving against the popes. This contest for power therefore is
   subject to the same condition as every other political
   contest, and it is a misrepresentation of the issue,
   calculated to impress people without judgment of their own,
   when it is characterized as aiming at the oppression of the
   church. Its object is the defense of the State, to determine
   the limits of priestly rule, of royal power, and this limit
   must secure the existence of the State. For in the kingdom of
   this world the rule and the precedence is the State's. We in
   Prussia have not always been the pre-eminent object of this
   struggle. The papal court for a long time did not consider us
   as its principal opponent. Frederic the Great was at perfect
   peace with the Roman See while the contemporary emperor of
   Catholic Austria [Joseph II.] was engaged in the most violent
   contention with the Catholic Church. I wish to prove thereby
   that the question is entirely independent of creed. I will
   further add that at the Vienna Congress it was King Frederic
   William III., thoroughly and most strictly evangelical, nay,
   it might be said, anticatholic in his belief, that it was he
   who insisted upon and carried through the restoration of the
   secular rule of the pope; nevertheless he departed this world
   while engaged in a struggle with the Catholic Church. In the
   paragraphs of the constitution we have under consideration we
   found a 'modus vivendi,' an armistice, concluded at a time
   when the State was in need of help and thought to obtain this
   help or at least some support in the Catholic Church. This
   hope was based upon the fact that at the election for the
   national assembly of 1848 the districts in which the Catholic
   population preponderated elected, if not royalists, yet
   friends of order,—which was not the case in evangelical
   districts. Under this impression the compromise between the
   ecclesiastical and secular arms was concluded, though, as
   subsequent events proved, in miscalculation as to its
   practical effects. For it was not the support of the electors
   who had thus voted but the Brandenburg ministry and the royal
   army that restored order. In the end the State was obliged to
   help itself; the aid that might have been given by the
   different churches did not pull it through. But at that time
   originated the 'modus vivendi' under which we lived in peace
   for a number of years. To be sure, this peace was bought only
   by an uninterrupted yielding of the State, by placing its
   rights in regard to the Catholic Church, without reservation,
   in the hands of a magistracy which was originally intended to
   be the guardian of the royal Prussian prerogatives against the
   Catholic Church, but which in fact ultimately became a
   magistracy in the service of the pope, in order to guard the
   rights of the church against the encroachments of the Prussian
   State. Of course, I refer to the Catholic section in the
   Supreme Church Council [the Church Council is a Protestant
   body.—Foot-note]. I mean of the Ministry of worship. … When we
   were yet in Versailles I was somewhat surprised to learn, that
   Catholic members of parliamentary bodies were asked to declare
   whether they were ready to join a religious party, such as we
   have now in the Party of the Center, and whether they would
   agree to vote and agitate for the insertion of the paragraphs
   we are at present considering into the constitution of the
   Empire. I was not much alarmed then at that program; I was a
   lover of peace to such a degree. I knew from whom it emanated;
   partly from an eminent prince of the church [Bishop Ketteler
   of Mayence] whose chief task it was to do for the papal policy
   what he could. … I was completely deceived. … When I returned
   here I saw how strong was the organization of this party of
   the church militant, against the state. … What, was this
   program? Read it. There are pamphlets in everybody's hand,
   written with spirit, pleasant to read. Its object was the
   introduction of a state dualism in Prussia, the erection of a
   state within the state to bring it about that all Catholics
   should follow the guidance of this Party of the Center in
   their private as well as their political conduct, a dualism of
   the worst kind. Under different conditions a dualistic
   constitution might work well in an empire. Witness the
   Austro-Hungarian monarchy. But yonder it is no religious
   dualism. With us the construction of two denominational states
   is aimed at, to be engaged in a dualistic struggle, one of
   which was to have for its supreme ruler a foreign church
   potentate, whose seat is in Home, a potentate who by the
   latest changes in the constitution of the Catholic Church has
   become more powerful than ever before. If this program were
   carried out, we were to have instead of the one formerly
   integral state of Prussia, instead of the German Empire then
   at the point of realization—we were to have two state
   organizations, running side by side in parallel lines; one
   with the Party of the Center as its general staff, the other
   with its general staff in the guiding secular principle, in
   the government and the person of his Majesty the Emperor. This
   situation was absolutely unacceptable for the government whose
   very duty it was to defend the state against such a danger. It
   would have misunderstood and neglected this duty if it had
   looked on calmly at the astounding progress which a closer
   examination of the affair brought to light. … The Government
   was obliged to terminate the armistice, based upon the
   constitution of 1848, and create a new 'modus vivendi' between
   the secular and sacerdotal power. The State cannot allow this
   situation to continue without being driven into internal
   struggles that may endanger its very existence. The question
   is simply this: Are those paragraphs of the constitution [of
   1848] dangerous to the State, as is contended for by the
   government of His Majesty, or are they not?
{3784}
   If they are, then it is your duty as conservatives to vote
   against the retention of those paragraphs. If you think them
   entirely harmless then you hold a conviction which the
   government of His Majesty does not share, and as it is not
   able to assume the responsibility for the administration of
   the affairs of the State with these articles of the
   constitution in force, it must surrender it to those who
   consider them harmless. The Government, in its struggle for
   the defense of the State, applies to the Upper House for aid
   and assistance for the strengthening of the State and its
   defense against attacks and machinations that undermine its
   peace and endanger its future. We trust and believe that this
   assistance will not fail us with the majority of the Upper
   House."

      _Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 5, pages 384-391._

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1873.
   Adoption of the gold standard.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873 (page 2220).

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1895.
   The organization of the modern German Empire.

   "The idea of the unity of the empire in its purest and most
   unadulterated form is most clearly typified by the German
   diet. This assembly, resulting from general elections of the
   whole people, shows all the clefts and schisms which
   partisanship and the spirit of faction have simultaneously
   brought about among the different classes of the people and
   among their representatives. But there is not one among all
   the prominent factions of the German diet which owes its
   formation to territorial differences. The changing majorities
   and minorities have assumed their form more curiously in our
   parliament than in any other in the world, but there never has
   been a single case where in taking a vote North Germans have
   come forward in a body against South Germans or vice versa, or
   where small and medium states have been pitted against the one
   large state. If the constitution of the empire reminds each
   deputy that he is a representative of the whole people, the
   best part of the provision is that it comes to be looked upon
   as a matter of course; it belongs to the very essence of a
   parliamentary assembly that it should see in a particular
   constellation of opposing factions only something exceptional.
   How indispensable a parliamentary organ which actually
   represents the unity of the people is to every state in a
   confederation is best shown by the energy with which the
   Prussian government again and again demanded a German
   parliament at the very time when it fairly despaired about
   coming to an understanding with its own body of
   representatives. In the middle between the head of the empire
   and such a diet as we have described is the place occupied by
   the Federal Council (Bundesrath): not until we have made this
   clear to ourselves can we fully understand the nature of this
   latter institution. Each of its members is the plenipotentiary
   of his sovereign just as were the old Regensburg and Frankfort
   envoys. It is a duty, for instance, for Bavaria's
   representative to investigate each measure proposed and to see
   whether it is advantageous or not for the land of Bavaria. The
   Federal Council is and is meant to be the speaking-tube by
   which the voice of the separate interests shall reach the ear
   of the legislator. But all the same, held together as it is by
   the firm stability of the seventeen votes which it holds
   itself and by the balancing power of the emperor and of the
   diet, it is the place where daily habit educates the
   representatives of the individual states to see that by
   furthering the welfare of the common fatherland they take the
   best means of furthering their own local interests. Taken each
   by himself the plenipotentiaries represent their own
   individual states; taken as a whole the assembly represents a
   conglomeration of all the German states. It is the upholder of
   the sovereignty of the empire. If, then, the federal council
   already represents the whole empire, still more is this true
   of the general body of officials, constituted through
   appointment by the emperor although with a considerable amount
   of co-operation on the part of the federal council. The
   imperial chancellor is the responsible minister of the emperor
   for the whole of the empire. At his side is the imperial
   chancery, a body of officials who, in turn, have to do in each
   department with the affairs of the whole empire. The imperial
   court, too, in spite of all its limitations, is none the less
   a court for the whole empire. Not less clearly is the
   territorial unity expressed in the unity of legislation. In
   the circumstances in which we left the old empire there could
   scarcely be any question any longer of real imperial
   legislation. Under the confederation beginnings were made, nor
   were they unsuccessful; but once again it was primarily the
   struggle against the strivings for unity that chiefly impelled
   the princes to united action. The 'Carlsbad decrees' placed
   limits to separate territorial legislation to an extent that
   even the imperial legislation of to-day would not venture upon
   in many ways. The empire of the year 1848 at once took up the
   idea of imperial legislation; a 'Reichsgesetzblatt' [imperial
   legislative gazette] was issued. In this the imperial
   ministry, after first passing them in the form of a decree,
   published among other things a set of rules regulating
   exchange. The plan was broached of drawing up a code of
   commercial law for all Germany for the benefit of that class
   of the population to which a uniform regulation of its legal
   relationships was an actual question of life and death. So
   firmly rooted was such legislation in the national needs that
   even the reaction of the fifties did not venture to undo what
   had been done. Indeed the idea of a universal code of
   commercial law was carried on by most of the governments with
   the best will in the world. A number of conferences were
   called and by the end of the decade a plan had been drawn up,
   thoroughly worked out and adopted. It has remained up to this
   very day the legal basis for commercial intercourse. It is
   true it was not the general decrees of these conferences that
   gave legal authority to this code, but rather its subsequent
   acceptance by the governments of the individual states. But
   the practical result nevertheless was that, in one important
   branch of law, the same code was in use in all German states.
   Never before, so long as Germany had had a history, had a
   codification of private law been introduced by means of
   legislation into the German states in common; for the first
   time princes and subjects learned by its fruits the blessing
   of united legislation. But a few years later they were ready
   enough to give over to the newly established empire all actual
   power of legislation: only, indeed, for such matters as were
   adapted for common regulation, but, so far as these were
   concerned, so fully and freely that no local territorial law
   can in any way interfere.
{3785}
   What the lawgiver of the German empire announces as his will
   must be accepted from the foot of the Alps to the waves of the
   German Ocean. Thus after long national striving the view had
   made a way for itself that, without threatening the existence
   of the individual states, the soil of the empire nevertheless
   formed a united territorial whole. But not only the soil, its
   inhabitants also had to be welded together into one
   organization. The old empire had lost all touch with its
   subjects—a very much graver evil than the disintegration of
   its territory. So formidable an array of intermediate powers
   had thrust itself in between the emperor and his subjects that
   at last the citizen and the peasant never by any chance any
   more heard the voice of their imperial master. … In three ways
   the German emperor now found the way to his subjects. Already
   as king of Prussia the emperor of the future had been obeyed
   by 19 millions of the whole German population as his immediate
   subjects. By the entrance of a further 8 millions into the
   same relationship on the resignation of their own territorial
   lords by far the majority of all Germans became immediate
   subjects of the emperor. The German empire, secondly, in those
   branches of the administration which it created anew or at
   least reorganized, made it a rule to preserve from the very
   beginning the most immediate contact with its subjects: so in
   the army, so in the department of foreign affairs. The empire,
   finally, even where it left the administration to the
   individual states, exercised the wholesome pressure of a
   supreme national authoritative organization by setting up
   certain general rules to be observed. The empire, for
   instance, will not allow any distinctions to be made among its
   subjects which would interfere with national unity. If the
   Swabian comes to Hesse, the Hessian to Bavaria, the Bavarian
   to Oldenburg, his inborn right of citizenship gives him a
   claim to all the privileges of one born within those limits.
   For all Germany there is a common right of citizenship; and
   this common bond receives its true significance through
   numerous actual migrations from one state to another, the
   right of choosing a domicile being guaranteed. … It belongs in
   the nature of a federative state that it should not claim for
   itself all state-duties but should content itself with
   exercising only such functions as demand a centralized
   organization. In consequence we see the individual states
   unfolding great activity in the field of internal
   administration, in the furtherance of education, art and
   science, in the care of the poor: matters with which the
   empire as a whole has practically nothing to do. All those
   affairs of the states, on the other hand, which by their
   nature demand a centralized administration have been taken in
   hand by the empire, and the unity of public interests to which
   the activity of the empire gives utterance is shown in the
   most different ways. There are certain affairs administered by
   the empire which it has brought as much under a central
   organization as ever the Prussian state did the affairs of the
   amalgamated territories within its limits. With regard to
   others the empire has preserved for itself nothing more than
   the chief superintendence; with regard to others still it is
   content to set up principles which are to be generally
   followed and to exercise a right of supervision. It would be
   wrong, however, to imagine that the two last-mentioned
   prerogatives are only of secondary importance. The
   superintendence which the German emperor exercises over the
   affairs of the army, the chief part of which, indeed, is under
   his direction as king of Prussia, is sufficient in its
   workings to make the land-army, in time of war, as much of a
   unit as is the consolidated navy. … Customs' matters form a
   third category, with regard to which the empire possesses only
   the beginnings of an administrative apparatus: all the same we
   have seen in the last years how the right of general
   supervision was sufficient in this field to bring about a
   change in the direction of centralization, the importance of
   which is recognizable from the loud expressions of approval of
   its supporters and also in equal measure from the loud
   opposition of its antagonists. … In the field of finance the
   empire has advanced with caution and consideration and at the
   same time with vigor. In general the separate states have
   retained their systems of direct and indirect taxation. Only
   that amount of consolidation without which the unity of the
   empire as a whole would have been illusory was firmly decreed:
   'Germany forms one customs and commercial unit bounded by
   common customs limits.' The internal inter-state customs were
   abolished. The finances that remained continued to belong to
   the individual states—the direct taxes in their entirety, the
   indirect to a great extent. The administration of the customs
   on the borders even remained in the hands of the local
   customs-officials, only that when collected they were placed
   to the general account. But the unconditional right of the
   empire to lay down the principles of customs legislation gave
   it more and more of an opportunity to create finances of its
   own and to become more and more independent of the scheduled
   contributions from the separate states. … Judicial matters are
   the affair of the individual state. With his complaints and
   with his accusations the citizen whose rights have been
   infringed turns to the court established by his territorial
   lord. But already it has been found possible to organize a
   common mode of procedure for this court throughout the whole
   empire; the rules of court, the forms for criminal as well as
   civil suits are everywhere the same. … The general German
   commercial code and the exchange regulations, which almost all
   the states had proclaimed law on the ground of the conferences
   under the confederation, were proclaimed again in the name of
   the empire and were supplemented in certain particulars. As to
   criminal law a general German criminal code has unified the
   more important matters and, with regard to those of less
   importance, has legally fixed the limits to be observed by the
   individual states. Work is constantly going on at a civil code
   which is to be drawn up much on the same lines. The German
   nation is busily engaged in creating a German legal system
   according to which the Prussian as well as the Bavarian, Saxon
   or Swabian judge is to render his decisions. Furthermore, a
   century-long development in our civilized states has brought
   it about that a supervision, itself in the form of legal
   decisions, should be exercised over the legality of judicial
   sentences. Here again it was in commercial matters that the
   jurisdiction of a supreme court first showed itself to be an
   unavoidable necessity.
{3786}
   Then it was, however, that after a slumber of seventy years
   the old imperial court rose again from the dead, not entirely
   without limitations, but absolutely without the power to make
   exceptions. The imperial court at Leipzig is a court for the
   whole empire and for one and all of its subjects. If we turn
   to the internal administration it is chiefly matters
   concerning traffic and intercommunication which call by their
   very nature for regulation under one system. Although the
   management of local and to some extent also of provincial
   postal affairs is left as far as possible to the individual
   states themselves, the German post is nevertheless imperial,
   all the higher officials are appointed by the emperor, the
   imperial post office passes its rules and regulations and sees
   that they are carried out with reference to the whole empire.
   Just this branch of the administration indeed has had to halt
   at the Würtemberg and Bavarian frontiers, but in these two
   states also the legal foundations of the postal system have
   been adopted in all essential points. And if in the actual
   administration the differences likewise begin to vanish, the
   reason for this is more gratifying than is the fact itself:
   the extraordinary triumphs, namely, of our imperial post,
   which of themselves invite imitation and a breaking down of
   barriers. The introduction of the penny tariff has increased
   the amount of mail matter to four or five times what it was
   before. Postcards, invented by the director of our postal
   system, are already [1885], issued annually by the 150
   million. The parcels-post, made cheaper and more convenient,
   has attained such importance that it has actually come to
   serve as a regulator of prices for the retail business of
   mercantile houses. Great differences of price in different
   parts of the empire become more and more an impossibility so
   soon as one only has to pay ten pfennigs per kilo (2 pounds)
   to procure the same goods in two or three days from the
   cheapest place, be it ever so far off. What is true of the
   post is true also of the telegraph which has come again to be
   one with it. Here, too, we can observe how the centralization
   in the empire has been of especial advantage to just those
   places which lie most out of the way. Chiefly in connection
   with existing or newly created post offices, the imperial post
   office, in the first five years after the direction of the
   telegraph came into its hands, opened more than four thousand
   telegraph counters—on an average two new counters a day!
   Through an extended system of treaties the German imperial
   post has regulated its relations to foreign lands and paved
   the way for the World-postal-association, the first such
   association in the history of the world to take in states from
   all four quarters of the globe. … Compared with the postal
   system the other branches of inter-communication and of
   internal administration seem to be only in the first stages of
   centralization; but here, too, much has been accomplished. The
   railroads stand under the direction or supervisory
   administration of the individual states, but unity with regard
   to time-tables, connections, fares and forwarding has been in
   so far preserved that differences which might interrupt
   traffic are avoided as far as possible. The governments of the
   confederated states are under obligations 'to allow the German
   railroads, in the interests of general communication, to be
   administered as one unbroken network.' A separate Imperial
   Railroad Bureau watches over the fulfillment of this
   agreement. Nothing, however, has given clearer expression to a
   unified system of intercommunication in Germany than the
   equalization of the coinage. In old times, when all or at
   least the chief territorial lords possessed the unrestricted
   right of coinage, each state did not, indeed, have its own
   standard, for how would it have been possible to invent
   several hundred standards of coinage? But when the territorial
   lord did make up his mind to adopt some existing system he
   usually chose one that was not in vogue in the state next to
   him, so that the boundaries of his own state might be the more
   clearly defined. That was how it came about that a map of the
   coinage standards of Germany looked almost as variegated as
   the map of its states. … Still worse than with regard to
   coined money—which, after all, always had a natural regulator
   in the actual market value of the silver or gold—did the want
   of unity show itself in the matter of paper money. Not only
   did the various states have different principles on which they
   issued it, and a different system of securities in funding it,
   but one and the same state would continue to use its old paper
   money even when issuing new on another principle. Hundreds of
   different bank-notes were in use, many which had long been
   called in continued still to circulate until some unfortunate
   last holder had to pay the costs. He who had thus learned a
   lesson at his own expense became very cautious and would
   refuse even the best paper money. The black Schwarzburg notes
   looked so grimy that the petty folk in their own land
   considered them out of date and preferred Prussian money. … In
   the matter of coins the empire found no general European model
   to go by. The mark, which was finally chosen as the unit of
   coinage, had the double advantage of facilitating a transition
   from the old thaler days and of inaugurating a firm
   relationship to the franc of the Romanic coinage system, the
   pound of the English world, the gulden of the Austrian empire
   (so soon as the latter power resumed metal coinage). The
   introduction of a gold basis gave the young coinage system a
   solid basis on the most precious metal. The mints remained in
   the hands of the separate states, but the coin was issued 'on
   account with the empire.' The coins accordingly bear on one
   side the image of the territorial lord who issues them, on the
   other, to give them general validity, the coat of arms of the
   empire. … Founded thus on a system of firm finances, on the
   uniform administration of justice in all lands, on an internal
   administration which, however varied, nevertheless fulfills
   the necessary demands of unity, the German empire shows a
   measure of consolidation the best outward expression to which
   is given by its army. Among the two million men on land and on
   sea who are ready to protect the Fatherland's boundaries there
   is not one who has not sworn fidelity to his imperial master:
   among the generals, not one who has not been appointed by the
   emperor. The most cherished of all duties binds the German to
   his German Fatherland. If, as regards the land-army, the
   princes still have a certain right of administration over
   their own contingents: on the man-of-war, where the sons of
   all the states that border on the sea come together, every
   possible distinction vanishes. The German navy knows no other
   flag, no other cockade, than the black-white-and-red."

      _I. Jastrow,
      Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und seiner Erfüllung (translated from the German),
      pages 285-303._

{3787}

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1889.
   Bismarck's Sickness, Accident and Old-Age Insurance Laws.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889 (page 2955).

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1894.
   Acquisitions in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1883, and after.

GERMANY: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2010).

   ----------GERMANY: End--------

GHENT, Treaty of (the text).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (pages 3355-3358).

GIRTON COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 745).

GODIN, and his Social Palace at Guise.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

GODOY, The Ministry of.

      See (in this Supplement) SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.

GOLD AND SILVER, Production of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893 (page 2217).

GORTON, Samuel, in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647 (page 2641).

GRANGERS, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

GRANT, General U. S.: Report on affairs in the South.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

GREAT SEAL, Lord Keeper of the.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1990).

GREECE: Outline Sketch of ancient history.

      See EUROPE (pages 991-996).

GREECE: Commerce, ancient.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GREECE: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2002.)

GREECE: Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2124).

GREECE: Money and Banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2201 and 2202).

GREELEY, Lieutenant, Polar expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884.

GREGORY I., Pope (called the Great).

      See PAPACY: A. D. 461-604 (page 2422).

GREGORY VII., Pope, and the Empire.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (page 2427);
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122 (page 1441);
      and CANOSSA (page 386).

GRINNELL EXPEDITIONS.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851, 1853-1855.

GRIPPE, La, Early appearances of.

      See PLAGUE, ETC.; A. D. 1485-1593,
      and 18TH CENTURY (page 2542).

GUILDS, OR GILDS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800 (page 2933).

GUNBOATS, Jefferson's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

H.

HABEAS CORPUS, President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863 (page 3447).

HAHNEMANN, and the system of Homœopathy.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HALL, Captain Charles F., Arctic explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862; 1864-1869; and 1871-1872.

HALLER, Albrecht von, The medical system of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2141).

HANSA, The.

      See (in this Supplement)
      COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL;
      and GERMANY: 13-15TH, and 15-17TH CENTURIES.
      Also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624).

HAPSBURG, Early fortunes of the family of.

      See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.

HARMONY SOCIETY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

HARVEY, and the discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HAYES, Dr. Isaac I., Arctic explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861, and 1869.

HELMONT, John Baptist, The medical system of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HENRY, Professor Joseph,
   Invention of the electric telegraph.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1825-1874 (page 772).

   For other work of Henry;

      _T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

HERCULANEUM, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2005).

HIGHER-LAW SPEECH, Seward's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

HINDU MEDICAL SCIENCE.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, HINDU (page 2123).

HIPPOCRATES.
   The Hippocratic Oath.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2125).

HOFFMANN, Frederic, and Humoral Pathology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2136).

HOLLAND: Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

HOLLAND: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).


HOLT, Lord, and the Law of Bailments.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1698-1710 (page 1971).

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 9)62;
      also, page 2652.

HOMŒOPATHY, Origin of the system of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HUDSON, Henry, Northern voyages of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607, and after.

HUNTER, Dr. John, The work of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2139).

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas.
   Conversation with King George.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

{3788}

I.

ICARIA.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883 (page 2943).

ICILIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C.456 (page 2665).

INDIA, Ancient Commerce.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, The question of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1807. and 1816-1817 (pages 3335 and 3360).

INTERNATIONAL, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872,
      and 1872-1886 (pages 2950 and 2953).

INVESTITURES, The question of.

      See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: 11-12TH CENTURIES;
      also page 2427.

   ----------ITALY: Start--------

ITALY: 11-15th Centuries.
   Commerce of the city republics.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.
   Invasions of Frederick Barbarossa.

   "In November Frederick appeared in Lombardy and hung up his
   shield on a high post as a token that he was to hold a review
   of the army and a general court. The most of the complaints of
   the cities were directed against Milan, but on complaint of
   Pavia the emperor first attacked Tortona. … A horrible
   chastisement was inflicted on the city; … the inhabitants were
   driven away. … Now at length Frederick turned his attention to
   Rome. On June 18, 1155, he marched into the Leonine City and
   was at once crowned in St. Peter's. … The results of this
   first Italian expedition were nevertheless small. The emperor
   had not conquered Rome; William I of Naples was more
   independent than ever; in northern Italy after Frederick's
   departure Milan was pre-eminent. By her authority Tortona was
   built up again. The Milanese sent the city a brass trumpet
   with which to call her inhabitants together once more. … The
   emperor was determined to put an end forever to all this
   opposition. In July 1158 an immeasurably greater expedition
   started with the express purpose of restoring the authority of
   the empire in Italy. … The Milanese in addition (having after
   a short siege recognized the emperor's claims) paid a fine,
   gave 300 hostages, … and afterwards made their submission in
   the humblest manner: the nobles with drawn swords across their
   shoulders, the people with cords around their necks, fell down
   before the emperor and did him homage. … It was in pursuance
   of Frederick's intention, and of his desire to settle the
   matter once and for all, that to his purposed diet in the
   Roncaglian plains he also summoned some teachers of law from
   Bologna. … Enough, in the assembly at Roncaglia through a well
   authorized judicial sentence, those regalia [royal rights]
   which had gone over to the civic communes were adjudged to the
   emperor, save in cases where by special privilege they had
   been relinquished to special cities. The emperor was
   recognized as the highest legislative power. … Frederick had
   set himself the great problem of uniting together authority
   and freedom. In the best possible monarchical spirit he
   expressed it that he wished an empire resting on a legal
   foundation in order to maintain every man in his freedom. But
   it is none the less evident that he wished the centre of
   gravity to lie in his own authority. It was not the demand of
   the regalia alone that caused the trouble, but just this
   principle, and it comes to the fore in the clearest manner in
   his relations with Milan. The agreement on the occasion of the
   peace with Milan had been that the civic authorities should be
   freely elected but should be invested by the emperor. In
   Roncaglia on the other hand it was decreed that the emperor
   should nominate the authorities subject to the assent of the
   people. A slight change, but one which in reality betokened an
   immense difference. Thus at the diet of Roncaglia did the
   empire unfold once more its full glory. But in the carrying
   out of these decrees, and especially in the matter of
   nominating the authorities; immeasurable difficulties now
   showed themselves. … On this matter, then, it had to come to
   blows. At the very first attempt in Milan a popular tumult
   arose. Frederick instituted proceedings which ended with a new
   banning of the city. … Large as the city was a way was found
   of cutting off from it all supplies. Through extreme want it
   was at last compelled to surrender and to beg for mercy. … The
   city was actually made to cease to exist. It was to be divided
   into four different places. If every trace of it was not
   completely obliterated this was solely due to regard for
   certain churches. The Milanese were treated like a tributary
   people on conquered territory. … In November 1166 the emperor
   started out to drive Pope Alexander from Rome. But already
   under his eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves
   against him. They were discontented on account of oppressions
   which they were obliged to suffer more through the violence of
   the imperial officials than from any fault of the laws. … The
   Lombards considered that if the pope were again to be beaten
   they should find no more help against the power which was
   holding them down. What especially goaded them on was the
   firmness of the imperial rule, its methodical and stern manner
   of proceeding against every one who opposed it. … It was after
   the imperial governors in consequence of the growing
   disaffection had claimed and received new hostages that the
   representatives of Cremona, Brescia, Ferrara and Mantua came
   together in Pontida (April 1167). … The decision of the
   Lombards was, not to consider due to the emperor any more than
   had been considered due to him at the death of Henry V and to
   oppose him by force should he demand more. They restored
   Milan, which joined them, compelled Lodi to go over to their
   side and captured, as they had once done before, the treasure
   of the emperor which was in Trezzo. … Frederick thought to
   crush all opposition in Upper Italy if he could only withdraw
   from it the help of the Greeks and of the pope. He therefore
   turned first against Ancona which the emperor Manuel had
   captured and compelled the city to give him hostages. … He
   then attacked Rome. … They (the Germans) conquered the Leonine
   City after a bloody fight. The emperor himself appeared,
   installed his own pope and caused his queen to be crowned
   (August 1, 1167). Alexander fled, the city of Rome consented
   to make peace. … Thus had the main point been gained and the
   emperor prepared to renew the struggle against the Lombards.
{3789}
   It was then that his brilliant army, beyond a doubt the most
   efficient of its age, was struck down by the hand of fate. A
   plague broke out which ravaged the city as well as the army,
   but which almost annihilated the latter. … He could no longer
   strike an effective blow at the Lombards. But he did not on
   that account lose his head. In Pavia he pronounced the bann
   against the cities; they answered by now first strengthening
   their bonds of union on a large scale. The cities which had
   previously been allied with Venice, and all the others,
   entered into a league which all were to swear to uphold; at
   the head of it was Venice. They were to make common cause in
   war and peace and to perform no services other than the
   customary ones. … The emperor felt that he could not cope with
   this new development and left Pavia. Only after great perils
   did he escape. They strove quite openly to take his life. With
   only a few companions he rescued himself. … In March 1172 the
   emperor represented to the princes that the contagion of
   faithlessness with which Italy had contaminated herself was
   seeking to spread itself out over Greece and Sicily. The term
   for the imperial campaign nevertheless was only set for two
   years later. … In July 1174 the emperor with his army crossed
   the Alps over the Mt Cenis. At this very time the Italians had
   opposed to him a new bulwark—a new city which they called
   Allessandria in honor of the pope. The emperor first attacked
   this but met with an opposition similar to that which
   Archbishop Christian experienced before Ancona. … Many
   conferences took place between the imperial plenipotentiaries,
   the delegates of the cities and the papal legates. But these
   latter, standing as they did at the same time in league with
   the Greek emperor and the king of Sicily, felt themselves to
   be the stronger. … Everything depended on his [Frederick's]
   procuring new help. … The great all-deciding question was
   whether Frederick would have Henry the Lion on his side; not
   indeed exclusively on account of the actual help that he would
   render but because his name in itself would increase the
   prestige of the emperor. … The power of an emperor in its full
   development seemed unbearable to Henry the Lion, even as in
   earlier times it had been unbearable to the German princes. …
   Henry's defection gave courage to the Italian cities. … On May
   29, 1176, a battle took place near Legnano. … Brave as the
   emperor was he nevertheless suffered a complete defeat. … The
   letter is extant which the Milanese wrote to the Bolognese
   concerning the battle. Countless, so they exclaim, are the
   slain, the drowned, the prisoners. We have the shield, the
   standard, the lance and the cross of the emperor. Incalculable
   is the booty. … It is the battle through which the freedom and
   the progress of Italian nationality were founded. … Here [in
   Venice] now, with the pope and the king of Sicily a peace,
   with the Lombards a truce of six years was brought about. Then
   took place that famous meeting of the pope and the emperor in
   Venice, on the 24th of July 1177. … With the cities the
   emperor closed the peace of Constance in the year 1183. He
   acknowledged therein the extension of their jurisdiction over
   the surrounding territory and sanctioned their league but
   retained for himself three things:

   1. his regalia, of which however an estimate was to be made
   according to their value and which were to be compensated for
   by payment of a fixed sum from each city;

   2. the investiture of the consuls; …

   3. the right that appeals should be made within Italy to
   imperial representatives.

   It does not appear that these reservations greatly interfered
   with the liberty of the cities. … In a word, the two opponents
   of the empire in Italy had achieved great victories. The
   emperor had abandoned the idea of maintaining the old
   supremacy of the empire over the church and of subjecting the
   cities to his administration; he did not however on that
   account break off his connection with them. In 1184 he again
   came to Italy; for a yearly sum of 300 lire he abandoned all
   the rights that he had hitherto claimed from the cities and
   allied himself with them. … Meanwhile the emperor succeeded in
   making the greatest possible acquisition in Lower Italy. For
   that Norman kingdom which the Germans had so often attacked in
   vain there was only an heiress left, Constance, aunt of the
   ruling king. Bitterly as the pope opposed it the emperor was
   nevertheless able to bring about a marriage between her and
   his son Henry VI. and thus to secure for him the sure prospect
   of succeeding to Naples and Sicily. … Without knowing it
   Frederick thus tied a new knot which was to be decisive for
   the fate of his house and, we might even say, of Germany
   itself."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte
      (translated from the German).
      volume 8. pages 171-209._

      ALSO IN:
      _K. Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183
      (pages 1811-1813).

ITALY: A. D. 1644.
   First publication of gazettes, or newspapers.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

ITALY: A. D. 1870.
   Law of the Papal Guarantees.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2477).

ITALY: A. D. 1882-1895.
   Acquisitions in Abyssinia.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA:
      1882, 1885, 1889, 1889-1890, 1890-1891, 1894-1895.

ITALY: Constitution.

      For a translation of the text,
      see (in this Supplement) CONSTITUTION OF ITALY.

ITALY: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE, and MODERN (page 2012).

   ----------ITALY: End--------

J.

JAPAN: A. D. 1894-1895.
   War with China.

      See (in this Supplement) COREA.

JAPAN: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: JAPAN (page 2024).

JEANNE D'ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429;
      also, page 1175.

JEANNETTE, Polar voyage of the.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.

JEFFERSON'S GUNBOATS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

JENNER, Dr. Edward, and the discovery of Vaccination.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2140).

{3790}

JEWS:
   Ancient commerce.
   Connection with the Phœnicians.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

JEWS:
   Ancient money.

         See MONEY AND BANKING: JEWS (page 2203).

JEWS:
   Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, JEWISH (page 2124).

JOAN OF ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429;
      also, page 1175.

JOSEPH II., Emperor: His character and his reforms.

      See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1780-1790.

JUDICATURE ACTS, The.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1873 (page 1981).

JURY, Trial by.

      See LAW, COMMON (page 1956, and after).

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1344 (page 1983).

JUSTICIARY, Chief: Disappearance of the office.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1265 (page 1962).

K.

KANE, Dr. Elisha Kent,
   Polar expeditions and adventures of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1850-1851, and 1853-1855.

KARNATIC, The.

   "Bishop Caldwell says: 'When the Muhammadans arrived in
   Southern India, they found that part of it with which they
   first became acquainted-the country above the Gháts, including
   Mysore and part of Telingána—called the Karnataka country. In
   course of time, by a misapplication of terms, they applied the
   same name Karnatak, or Carnatic, to designate the country
   below the Gháts, as well as that which was above. The English
   have carried the misapplication a step further, and restricted
   the name to the country below the Gháts, which never had any
   right to it whatever. Hence the Mysore country, which is
   properly the true Karnatic, is no longer called by that name;
   and what is now geographically termed "the Karnatic" is
   exclusively the country below the Gháts, on the Coromandel
   coast, including the whole of the Tamil country and the
   Telugu-speaking District of Nellore.'"

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Imperial Gazetteer of India: Karnatic
      (volume 5)._

KASHGAR.

      See TURKESTAN (page 3130),
      and YAKOOB BEG (page 3662).

KASSHITE, OR KASSITE, DYNASTY, The.

      See SEMITES: THE FIRST BABYLONIAN EMPIRE (page 2890).

KENT, Chancellor, and American jurisprudence.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823 (page 19(3).

KILMAINHAM TREATY, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

KING'S LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2014).

KING'S PEACE, The.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1100, 1135, and 1300
      (pages 1956, 1958 and 1963).

KNIGHTS OF LABOR, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883 (page 2952).

KOCH, Dr. Robert, Bacteriological studies of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2146).

KOLDEWY, Captain, Polar expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869-1870.

KOREA.

      See (in this Supplement) COREA.

KULTURKAMPF, The.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.

L.

LAFAYETTE, General: Visit to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825 (page 3365).

LAND, Ultimate property in.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1776 (page 1974).

LAND, Indian right of occupancy.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1823 (page 1976).

LAND ACT OF 1881, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

LAND REGISTRATION.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641 (page 1969).

LAND-TRANSFER REFORM.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1854-1882, and 1889
      (pages 1980-1981).

LASSALLE, Ferdinand, and German Socialism.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

LATIN UNION, The.

      See MONEY and BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874 (page 2218).

LAW, Roman.

      See ROMAN LAW (page 2652).

LEE, Arthur, in France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778
      (pages 3242-3244).

LEGAL TENDER NOTES.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878 (page 2219).

LEO THE GREAT, Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 42-461 (page 2421);
      and HUNS: A. D. 452 (page 1689).

L'ESTRANGE, Roger, and the early newspaper press in England.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694 (page 2596).

LEVANT, The.

   A term applied to the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean,
   from the western part of Greece round to the western border of
   Egypt—more specifically to the coasts and islands of Asia
   Minor and Syria. The name—which signifies "rising" hence "the
   East"—was given to this region by the Italians.

LIBEL, The Criminal Law of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1770, and 1843
      (pages 1984 and 1986).

LIBERTY, Religious.

      See in this Supplement:
      TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS. (page 3807)

LINCOLN, Abraham:
   Debate with Douglas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858 (page 3401).

   First Inaugural Address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3417).

   First Message.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (pages 3421 and 3448).

   First call for troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3423).

   Proclamation of Blockade.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3427).

   Suspensions of Habeas Corpus.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3447).

   Message proposing compensated Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3453).

{3791}

   Letter to Horace Greeley.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3476).

   Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3480).

   Final Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3487).

   Letter to General Hooker.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3489).

   Letters to New York and Ohio Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3407).

   Address at Gettysburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3514).

   Proclamation of Amnesty and Message.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3515).

   Plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3518).

   Re-election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3533).

   Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3546).

   Second Inaugural Address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3549).

   Last Speech.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3551).

   At Richmond.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3554).

   Assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3(55).

LINE-OF-BATTLE SHIP.

      See SHIP OF THE LINE (page 2901).

LISTER, and Antiseptic Surgery.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 10TH CENTURY (page 2145).

LIVINGSTONE, David, Explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1840, 1840, and after.

LOBENGULA, War of the English with.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965).

LOMBARD BANKERS AND MONEY-CHANGERS.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT SEAL, The.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1000).

LOUIS IX., King of France (called St. Louis).

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.

      _François Guizot,
      Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518_

LOUIS XV., King of France, Fatal foreign policy of the reign of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. p. 1715-1770.

McCLINTOCK, Captain, Franklin search expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1852-1854, and 1857-1859.

McCLURE, Captain, Franklin search expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1854.

McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1890 (page 3085).

MADAGASCAR.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MANCHUS.
MANCHURIA.

   "The Manchus, from the earliest period of Chinese history,
   have occupied the country bounded on the east by the Japanese
   Sea, which is drained in its southern portion by the Tumun, by
   the right affluents of the Ya-lu-kiang, and by the upper
   portions of the left affluents of the Liau; and in its
   northern portion by the right affluents of the Upper Soongari,
   and the Lower Soongari, and Lower Amoor, with their affluents
   on both sides. This extent of country may be fitly called
   Manchuria Proper, to distinguish it from the present political
   Manchuria. This latter embraces not only the real Manchuria,
   but also a tract on the east side of the Liau, composed of the
   lower valleys of its left affluents, and of the Liau
   peninsula, and another on the west of the Liau, lying between
   its right bank and the Great Wall. Now these two tracts, known
   severally as Liau-tung or Liau East and Liau-se or Liau West,
   have, from the earliest historical periods, been occupied by a
   Chinese population, with the settled habits of their nation:
   agriculturists, artisans, and traders, dwellers in villages
   and cities. Hence, though situated beyond the Great Wall, it
   has always been a part, though a very exposed and often
   politically separated part, of China Proper. Manchuria Proper,
   as above defined, is a mountainous, well-watered tract,
   formerly altogether covered with forests, of which large
   portions still remain. The principal mountain range is the
   Chang-pih-shan, or Shan-a-lin, or Long White Mountains. … As
   the great arid plateau, the Shamo, has given to the Mongols
   their national characteristics, so the Long White Mountains,
   with their northerly spurs, separating the Upper Soongari, the
   Hurka, and the Usuri, have constituted the character-giving
   home and stronghold of the Manchus. These, unlike the Mongols,
   who have 'moved about after grass and water,' have always been
   a settled people, who in ancient times dwelt during the cold
   season in holes excavated in the sides of dry banks, or in
   pits in the earth, and during summer in huts formed of young
   trees and covered with bark or with long wild grass. They
   have, unlike the Mongols, from the earliest periods been
   somewhat of agriculturists; like them they have always reared
   domestic animals. … It has hitherto been the custom among
   Occidentals to speak of the Manchus as 'Tartars;' but if, as I
   believe, this name generally conveys the idea of a people of
   nomadic herdsmen, and usually large owners of camels, it will
   be seen from the foregoing sketch that it is altogether a
   misnomer as applied to the Manchus. … In the 11th century
   before Christ this nation appeared at the court of the Chow
   dynasty as Suh-chin, and presented tribute, a portion of which
   consisted of stone-headed arrows. In the 3d century after
   Christ they reappeared as Yih-low. … In the 5th, 6th, and 7th
   centuries after Christ we find them under the names of
   Wuh-keihs, and Mo-hos, still described as rude barbarians, but
   politically organized as a confederation of seven large tribes
   or seven groups of tribes. At length, in the beginning of the
   8th century, a family named Ta, belonging to the Suhmo-Mo-hos,
   that member of the confederation whose territory lay
   immediately on the north of Corea and north-east of Liau East,
   established themselves as rulers over the whole of Manchuria
   Proper, over Liau East, and over a large portion of Corea. In
   A. D. 712, the then Whang-ti, or Emperor of China, conferred
   the title of Prince of Po-hae on the head of the family; but
   the immediate successors of this prince shook off even the
   form of vassalage, and by their conquest of Northern Corea and
   Liau East, assumed a position of hostility to the Whang-ti.
   Po-hac, the name adopted by the new rulers, became the name of
   the Manchu Nation; which under it for the first time takes a
   place in history, as constituting a civilized State with a
   centralized administration. … It was overthrown by the Ketans.
   About these the Chinese accounts conflict as to whether they
   were a Manchu or a Mongol tribe: I consider them more of the
   former than of the latter. They took their rise in the valleys
   of the Hu-lan, a small northern branch of the Soongari, which
   falls into the latter about 100 miles below its junction with
   the Nonni.
{3792}
   The Ketans had possessed themselves of Eastern Mongolia, and
   been engaged in successful war on China before they, in A. D.
   926, attacked the Po-hae state, which they speedily overthrew,
   incorporating into their own dominions all Manchuria Proper
   and the East of the Liau. Before the middle of the 10th
   century, they had conquered nearly all Mongolia and Northern
   China. … They assumed for their dynasty the name of Liau, that
   of the river which flows past this port. Under the eighth of
   the line, their power had sunk so much that it fell easily
   before the attacks of A-kuh-ta, the chief of a purely Manchu
   tribe or commune, the Neu-chins, whose original seat was the
   country between the Upper Soongari and the Hurka. The
   Neu-chins rebelled against the Ketans or Liaus in A. D. 1113.
   Within 15 years, they had possessed themselves of the whole of
   Manchuria, Mongolia, and Northern China, driving the Chinese
   Whang-ti to the south of the Great River, and themselves
   establishing a rival line under the name of Kin, or Golden;
   adopted because their own country Manchuria 'was a
   gold-producing one.' The Neu-chins or Kins were in their turn
   overthrown by the Mongols, under Ghenghis Khan and his
   immediate successors. Manchuria came under their power about
   A. D. 1217, Northern China, about A. D. 1233, and Southern
   China, about A. D. 1280, when they established—it was the
   first time the thing had happened—a line of non-Chinese
   Whang-tis in undisputed possession of that dignity. … The
   Mongol dynasty maintained itself in China for about 90 years,
   when (in A. D. 1368) the last Whang-ti of the line was driven
   to the north of the Great Wall by the forces of a Chinese
   rebel, who established himself at Nanking as the first
   Whang-ti of the Ming dynasty."

      _T. T. Meadows
      (Quoted in A. Williamson's "Journeys in North China,"
      volume 2, chapter 4)._

   In 1644 the Ming dynasty was overthrown by a domestic
   rebellion in China, and a Manchu prince, called in by one of
   the generals of the fallen government, established himself on
   the throne, where his descendants have reigned to this day.

      See CHINA:A. D. 1294-1882 (page 420) and after.

MANSFIELD, Lord, and Commercial Law.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1756-1788, and 1783 (page 1973).

MARSHALL, John, as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801 (page 3326).

MARX, Karl, and the socialistic movements of his time.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894, 1843-1883, 1862-1872 (pages 2941, 2945, 2951).

MASAILAND, Exploration of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1860-1861, 1871 and after.

MASHONALAND, English occupation of.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965);
      also (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MASSACHUSETTS, Free Libraries in.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2021).

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1066 (page 1988).

MATABELELAND, English occupation of.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965);
      also (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1888.

MEDICAL PROFESSION, Women in the.

      See WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1842-1892 (page 3658).

MENNONITES, The.

   "The Mennonites take their name from Menno Simons, born in
   Witmarsum, Holland, in 1492. He entered the priesthood of the
   Roman Catholic Church, and in 1524 was appointed chaplain in
   Pingium. Two years later he began to read the Scriptures,
   which he had hitherto ignored. Becoming a close student of
   them, his views on various doctrines soon changed, and he was
   known as an evangelical preacher. … He renounced Catholicism
   early in 1536, and was baptized at Leeuwarden. In the course
   of the following year he was ordained a minister in what was
   then known as the Old Evangelical or Waldensian Church. From
   this time on to his death, in 1559, he was active in the cause
   of evangelical truth, traveling through northern Germany, and
   preaching everywhere. The churches which he organized as a
   result of his labors rejected infant baptism and held to the
   principle of non-resistance. A severe persecution began to
   make itself felt against his followers, the Mennonites; and,
   having heard accounts of the colony established in the New
   World by William Penn, they began to emigrate to Pennsylvania
   near the close of the 17th century. … Successive immigrations
   from Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and, in the last
   twenty-five years, from southern Russia, have resulted in
   placing the great majority of Mennonites in the world on
   American soil, in the United States and Canada."

      _H. K. Carroll,
      The Religious Forces of the United States,
      chapter 28._

MICHIGAN WILD CAT BANKS.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841 (page 2215).

MIDDLE AGES, Commerce of the.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

MILLS TARIFF BILL, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3085).

MINNESOTA, University of.

   "Two years after the organization of the territory, the
   Legislature petitioned Congress for a grant of 100,000 acres
   of land to endow a university, and on the very day of this
   petition two townships were set aside for that purpose. The
   Legislature went on to enact that the University of Minnesota
   should be established at or near the Falls of St. Anthony and
   should have the income from all land thereafter granted by the
   United States for University purposes. Under this grant the
   regents selected a large portion of the lands and erected a
   costly edifice, but they were soon obliged to mortgage both
   building and lands in order to meet the obligations incurred.
   Affairs were in this condition when Congress passed the act
   admitting Minnesota to the Union, by which two townships of
   land were granted for the use and support of a State
   university. … Efforts were at once made to open the
   university, but the financial crisis of 1857 and the Civil War
   checked further action and encumbered the university with
   debt. … The present organization of the university dates from
   1868, when an act was passed 'to reorganize the University of
   Minnesota and to establish an agricultural college therein.'
   In the following year college classes were first organized.
   The act of 1868 provided that the university should have the
   income from the agricultural college grant. … From the
   university lands that have been sold something over $800,000
   has been received, from which there is an annual income of
   about $37,000."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, no. 1),
      pages 295-297._

{3793}

MISSIONS, Christian, in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: The question of navigation in dispute with Spain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788 (page 3293).

MORMONS: Abandonment of Polygamy.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893 (page 3591).

MORRISON TARIFF BILL, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3083).

MORSE, SAMUEL F. B., Telegraphic inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1825-1874 (page 773).

      _T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

MORTON, Dr., and the discovery of Anæsthetics.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th CENTURY (page 2144).

MOSQUITO COUNTRY.

      See (in this Supplement) NICARAGUA.

N.

NANSEN, Dr., Arctic expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1888, and 1893.

NAPOLEON I., and Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

NARES, Captain, Polar voyage of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875-1876.

NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893 (page 2956).

NETHERLANDS, Commerce of the.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

NEUTRALITY, The Queen of England's Proclamation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3428).

NEW CHURCH, The.

      See (in this Supplement) SWEDENBORG.

NEW HARMONY COMMUNITY. The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824,
      and 1805-1827 (pages 2936-2937).

NEW JERSEY, College of.

      See (in this Supplement) PRINCETON COLLEGE.

NEW LANARK, Robert Owen's experiment at.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824 (page 2935).

NEWNHAM HALL.

      See EDUCATION (page 746).

NICARAGUA, AND THE MOSQUITO INDIANS.

   The question of the sovereignty of Nicaragua over the Mosquito
   country was settled affirmatively by a convention concluded in
   November, 1894. Great Britain at the same time gave assurances
   to the United States that she asserts no rights of sovereignty
   or protection over the country in question.

NIHILISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870 (page 2948).

NILE, Exploration of the sources of the.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

NON-INTERCOURSE, The Jefferson policy of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
      and 1808-1810 (pages 3332 and 3338).

NORDENSKIÖLD, Professor (Baron),
   Achievement of the Northeast Passage by.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1879.

NORTH AMERICA, The Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784 (page 2212).

NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST PASSAGE, Search for.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

NORWAY, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

O.

OBERLIN COLLEGE.

   "Oberlin is a development from the missionary and reform
   movements of the early quarter of our century. Its direct
   impulse was the new spirit of active benevolence which tested
   old doctrines by experience and by their fitness for organized
   philanthropy. Its foundations were laid 23 years after the
   organization of the American Foreign Missionary Association, 7
   years after the first American temperance society, 15 years
   before the first public move to extend the rights of women,
   and in the same year with the American Anti-Slavery Society.
   All of these reform movements were more or less united in the
   Oberlin movement. The founders were themselves home
   missionaries in the West and among the Indians, and Oberlin
   has ever since been vital with the missionary spirit. From the
   first, alcoholic beverages have been excluded. Although not
   adopting the extreme doctrine of woman's rights, yet Oberlin
   was the first college in the world to admit young women to all
   its privileges on equal terms with young men; and as for its
   anti-slavery leanings, it had received colored students into
   its classes 28 years before emancipation. Such bold disregard
   of the old landmarks was not attractive to the power and
   wealth of the country, and so for 50 years Oberlin owed its
   life to the sacrifice and devotion of its founders and
   instructors. … In 1831 John J. Shipherd, under commission from
   the American Home Missionary Society, entered upon his work as
   pastor of the church at Elyria, Ohio. … In the summer of 1832
   he was visited by Philo P. Stewart, an old school friend in
   the days when they both attended the academy at Pawlet,
   Vermont. Stewart, on account of the failing health of his
   wife, had returned from mission work among the Choctaws in
   Mississippi, but his heart was still burning with zeal for
   extending Christian work in the West. The two men, after long
   consultations and prayer, finally concluded that the needs of
   the new country could best be met by establishing a community
   of Christian families with a Christian school, … the school to
   be conducted on the manual labor system, and to be open to
   both young men and young women.
{3794}
   It was not proposed to establish a college, but simply an
   academy for instruction in English and useful languages, and,
   if Providence should favor it, in 'practical theology.' In
   accordance with this plan the corporate name 'Oberlin
   Collegiate Institute' was chosen. Not until 1851 was a new and
   broader charter obtained, this time under the name of 'Oberlin
   College.' The name 'Oberlin' was chosen to signify the hope
   that the members of the new enterprise might be moved by the
   spirit of the self-sacrificing Swiss colporteur and pastor,
   John Friederich Oberlin."

      _J. R Commons,
      Oberlin College
      (in Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1801, no. 5),
      pages 55-56._

OERSTED, and his discovery of the Electro-Magnet.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1820-1825 (page 772).

      _T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

OHIO UNIVERSITY.

   "Ohio University bears the double distinction of being the
   first college in the United States founded upon a land
   endowment from the national Government, and also of being the
   oldest college in the Northwest Territory. … The university
   owes its origin and endowment to the Ohio Company of
   Associates, who in 1787 purchased a large tract of land from
   the old board of treasury for the purpose of colonizing it
   with pioneers from New England. … The honor of obtaining this
   endowment belongs to Dr. [Manasseh] Cutler. … In 1795 the
   lands to be devoted to the support of the university were
   located. The townships selected were those now called Athens
   and Alexander, in Athens County. General Rufus Putnam, who was
   deeply interested in the proposed institution, used his
   influence to secure settlers for the college lands. … December
   18, 1799, the Territorial legislature appointed Rufus Putnam,
   Benjamin Ives Gilman, and Jonathan Stone 'to lay off, in the
   most suitable place within the townships, a town plat, which
   should contain a square for the colleges; also lots suitable
   for house lots and gardens for a president, professors,
   tutors, etc., bordering on or encircled by spacious commons,
   and such a number of town lots adjoining the said commons and
   outlots as they shall think will be for the advantage of the
   university.' … In 1802 the legislature of the Northwest
   Territory passed an act establishing a university and giving
   to it in trust the land grant."

      _G. W. Knight and J. R. Commons,
      History of Higher Education in Ohio
      (Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 5)._

ONEIDA COMMUNITY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848 (page 2946).

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

OTHO THE GREAT, and the restoration of the Empire.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 962.

OWEN, Robert, and his social experiments.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824, 1805-1827,
      and 1816-1886 (pages 2935, 2937, and 2938).

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285 (page 1982).

P.

PAMIR, The.

   The Pamir and Tibet, which converge north of India and east of
   the Oxus, form jointly the culminating land of the continent.
   Disposed at right angles, and parallel, the one to the
   equator, the other to the meridian, they constitute the
   so-called 'Roof,' or 'Crown of the World,' though this
   expression is more usually restricted to the Pamir alone. With
   its escarpments, rising above the Oxus and Tarim plains west
   and east, the Pamir occupies, in the heart of the continent,
   an estimated area of 30,000 square miles. With its
   counterforts projecting some 300 miles, it forms the western
   headland of all the plateaux and mountain systems skirting the
   Chinese Empire; it completely separates the two halves of
   Asia, and forms an almost impassable barrier to migration and
   war-like incursions. Yet notwithstanding its mean elevation of
   13,000 feet above arable land, it has been frequently crossed
   by small caravans of traders or travellers, and by light
   columns of troops. The attempt could not fail to be frequently
   made to take the shortest route across the region separating
   the Oxus from Kashgaria, and Europe from China. Hence the
   Pamir has often been traversed by Greeks, Romans, Arabs,
   Italians, Chinese, some as traders, some as explorers, some
   inspired by religious zeal. But of these travellers very few
   have left any record of their journey, and all took the lowest
   routes across the plateau."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 1, chapter 3, section 2._

PANIC OF 1873, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873 (page 3574).

   ----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY: 11th Century.
   The Church and the first Crusading movement.

      See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PAPACY: 11-12th Centuries.
   The Question of the Investitures.

   "By investiture in mediaeval church law is meant the act of
   bestowing a church office, with the use of symbols, on the
   clergyman who has been appointed to fill it. It is especially
   to signify the act by which secular princes conferred on the
   chosen candidates the offices of bishop and abbot that the
   word is used since the eleventh century. The struggle which
   the papacy and the church carried on in the last half of the
   11th and on into the 12th century for the purpose of doing
   away with this same right of the princes to confer such
   offices is called in consequence the war of the investitures.
   That the nomination of the bishops was a right pertaining to
   the sovereign was a view of the matter which had gained ground
   already in the time of the Frankish monarchy. The German kings
   up to the eleventh century insisted all the more on this right
   from the fact that the bishoprics and imperial abbacies had in
   course of time lost their original character of church
   organizations. They had been appanaged with imperial and other
   lands, with political and public rights, with immunities,
   rights of coinage etc. … They had, in consequence, become
   transformed into political districts, on a par with those of
   the secular princes and obliged, like the latter, to bear the
   public burdens, especially that of providing war-contingents
   and supplies. It Is true that in the period in question,
   although for the most part the king openly and freely filled
   the bishoprics and abbacies of his own accord, some elections
   had been carried through by the cathedral chapter, the other
   secular canons, the nobles, vassals and ministeriales of the
   bishopric. This was usually on the ground of royal privileges,
   of special royal permission, or of a designation of the
   candidate by the king.
{3795}
   However the person might have been elected he could only enter
   into possession of the bishopric or abbacy after the king had
   formally conferred the office upon him. The death of a bishop
   would be announced to the king by envoys from the episcopal
   residence who at the same time, handing over the episcopal
   crosier and ring, would beg that the king would see to the
   refilling of the vacant office. It need hardly be said that
   any new candidate who might in the meantime have been elected
   presented himself likewise at court. The king discussed the
   matter of the bestowal of the vacant bishopric or abbacy with
   his secular and ecclesiastical nobles and councillors. His
   next step was to confer the office on the candidate he had
   chosen by means of investiture, that is by handing him the
   episcopal crosier and ring. The candidate in return had to
   take the oath of fealty and to perform the act of homage, the
   so-called hominium. This is how an episcopal office, at that
   time regarded as a conglomeration of ecclesiastical and
   secular rights, was regularly filled. … After the middle of
   the 11th century there began to show itself within the
   reform-party, which at that time gave the tone at Rome, a
   tendency, ever growing stronger, in favor of achieving the
   complete liberation of the church from the secular influence.
   The German kingdom and empire were to be subordinated to the
   papacy as to the proper controlling power. Those who held
   these views declared that the investiture of the bishops and
   abbots by the king was simony because, as was the custom on
   the part of those receiving other feudal grants, certain
   presents were made in return. It was demanded that the
   episcopal symbols, the ring and the crosier, should no longer
   be disposed of at the hand of a layman. As a matter of fact
   there had frequently been carried on an unworthy traffic with
   the bishoprics in consequence of the manner of conferring
   them. The ecclesiastical legislators, besides passing general
   laws against simony, came forward at first cautiously enough
   with the regulation that the clergy should accept no churches
   from the hands of a layman. The direct clash with the German
   court came later, in 1068, where the king had conferred the
   bishopric of Milan as usual through investiture, while the
   people, under the influence of the papal reform-party,
   demanded a bishop elected canonically and with Rome's consent.
   The king did not give way and Gregory VII, in the Roman synod
   of 1074, increased the severity of the earlier laws against
   simony, opening the struggle in a synod of the following year
   by ordaining that the people should not be present at
   ecclesiastical functions performed by those clergy who had
   gained office through simony, the reference being to those
   bishops who adhered to the king. Furthermore the royal right
   of conferring bishoprics by investiture was now directly
   denied. With this attack on an old and customary prerogative
   of the German king, one to which in earlier times had even
   been expressly acknowledged by the pope, an attempt was made
   to thoroughly undermine the foundations of the German empire
   and to rob the royal power of one of its chief supports. The
   bishops and abbots were princes of the realm, possessing,
   besides a number of privileges, the large feudal and allodial
   holdings which went with their churches. They had, on behalf
   of their bishoprics, to sustain the largest share of the
   empire's burdens. The crown found in them the chief props and
   supports of its power, for the ecclesiastical principalities
   could be freely granted to devoted adherents without regard to
   the hereditary dynastic claims of families. The only legal
   bond by which these princes were bound to the crown was the
   investiture with its oath of fealty and homage. The
   prohibition of this, then, denoted the cessation of the
   relationship which assured the dependence of the
   ecclesiastical princes on the king and on the empire and the
   performance of their duties to that empire. It delivered over
   the considerable material wealth and power of the imperial
   bishoprics and abbacies to a clergy that was loosed from all
   connection with the crown. With regard to the manner in which
   in future, according to the opinion of Gregory VII or the
   church-reform party, the bishoprics were to be filled, the
   above-mentioned synod does not express itself. The decrees of
   the Roman synod of 1080, as well as Gregory's own further
   attitude, however, make it appear unquestionable that, with
   the formal restoration of the old so-called canonical election
   by clergy and people in common with the metropolitan and his
   suffragans, he purposed the actual subjection to the pope of
   the episcopacy and of the resources which in consequence of
   its political position stood at its command. From the election
   of a secular clergy which should be freed from national and
   state interests by the carrying out of the celibacy laws—an
   election in which metropolitans who were to be kept in
   dependence on the papal throne were to play their part—there
   could result as a rule only bishops submissive to the papal
   court. All the more so as the Roman synod of 1080, in a form
   probably intentionally vague, gave the pope a right,
   concurrent with that of the archbishop, of testing the
   elections and of hindering any such as might be objectionable
   to the court of Rome. That the bishops and abbots elected in
   this way were to retain their former possessions and
   privileges in the empire was taken by Gregory VII as a matter
   of course. But were this the case their considerable resources
   stood wholly at the disposition of the papal chair; on the
   pope it depended what amount of services he would still allow
   for the benefit of the empire. Nay, more, as regards the
   ecclesiastical princes the pope would actually have taken the
   place of the emperor and king and could command the movements
   of the most insignificant vassal of a bishopric. … The dispute
   was finally ended by the concordat agreed to at Lobweisen
   (near Lorsch) and announced at Worms: … In the concordat the
   emperor renounced wholly the former investing with the
   bishop's and abbot's office by means of crosier and ring, and
   granted that in all churches these offices should be filled by
   canonical election and by the free consecration of the person
   elected. On the other hand the pope granted that the election
   of bishops and abbots belonging to the German kingdom might
   take place in presence of the emperor but without simony or
   violence, and that the emperor should have a right, employing
   the sceptre as a symbol and causing homage to be rendered, to
   perform the investiture—before the consecration, namely—with
   regard to the regalia, i. e. the totality of the landed
   possessions and rights which belonged to the individual
   bishopric or abbacy. …
{3796}
   With the Concordat of Worms the church and the papacy, after a
   long struggle, had gained the victory over the empire. Even
   though the papal party had not been able to put through all
   its demands with regard to the question of investitures, yet
   the empire was compelled to renounce rights which had been
   exercised unassailed for centuries, and thereby to confirm the
   emancipation of the papacy from the former imperial
   overlordship, thus stamping its position as an independent
   political power. This success was the more considerable for
   the reason that the agreement of Worms had established the
   ecclesiastical and imperial rights only in the most general
   terms and in an equivocal form, but had left the further
   development of the new manner of conferring the offices to be
   decided by practice. … If already the Hohenstaufens of the
   12th century had succeeded only with great efforts in
   protecting themselves against such interpretation of the
   Concordat as infringed on the imperial rights, there was,
   naturally, in the 13th century,—in view of the condition of
   the empire, the political situation of Germany, and the
   predominating supremacy of the papacy,—no further question of
   such an attitude. … In this form of interpretation, given to
   it by usage and derogatory to the imperial rights, the
   Concordat of Worms remained the basis of the German imperial
   law regarding the collation of bishoprics and imperial
   abbacies until the dissolution of the German empire in 1806."

      _Hinschius,
      Investiturstreit
      (Herzog's Realencyklopaedie für protestantische
      Theologie und Kirche, volume 6)._

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (pages 2427-2431).

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.
   The Pope and the Emperor.

   "In this fullness of his power [after the destruction of
   Milan, 1162] the emperor came anew into conflict with the
   papacy. Reason enough for it was that the emperor intended to
   treat Rome also as a city of the empire like the rest. …
   Between the claims of the two powers there was an ineradicable
   fundamental difference which showed itself at every moment.
   What the papacy did, to continually bring forward and maintain
   new rights, the empire could, after all, do also. Among other
   ways the remarkable contradiction finds utterance thus, that
   the emperor claims to be above the law, the pope above
   tribunals; the one is the chief, unrestricted lawgiver, the
   other the chief judge over all. The emperor rose up in injured
   self-esteem when the pope used the word 'benefice' in speaking
   of his relations with the empire. The pope was forced to
   explain the word, which had two meanings, in its more harmless
   sense. The Lombard cities always maintained that they had been
   strengthened in their opposition by Adrian IV. It is probable
   that already between the emperor and this pope a struggle
   would have taken place; but Adrian died (at Anagni, September
   1, 1159), and after his death there was a disputed papal
   election. There was a powerful imperial faction among the
   cardinals but a still more powerful anti-German one. At the
   election it came to a hand to hand fight, as it were, between
   the two candidates. The purple mantle was just about to be
   laid on the shoulders of the anti-imperial cardinal Roland
   when the imperial candidate Octavian rushed in and tore it
   away from him. The latter was first proclaimed in Rome as
   Victor IV, the former was consecrated in Ninfa as Alexander
   III. The emperor saw here an opportunity of extending his
   power, indirectly at least, over the papacy also. He ordered
   both popes to appear at a council which he called. He took
   occasion to recall to remembrance an old right of the empire,
   the right of holding councils and passing judgment on the
   papacy. He accordingly appointed a church assembly to be held
   in Pavia and invited to it, as he says in his summons, all the
   bishops of England, France, Hungary, Denmark and his own
   kingdom. What a conception he had of his own dignity is shown
   by the words: 'It is enough to have one God, one pope, one
   emperor, and it is proper that there should be only one
   church.' In venturing once more to pass judgment on
   Frederick's actions and to inquire, solely from a historical
   point of view, how far his ideas deviated from previous ones I
   find that in this case he went to work exactly as he did
   against the cities. From the oldest times church conflicts had
   been settled by the emperor with the assistance of a council;
   since the days of Otto I immense achievements had been made in
   this way; but never yet had a German emperor called together
   at the same time the bishops of all other kingdoms.
   Frederick's deviation lay herein, that he appropriated to
   himself this right. He did not stop at what was customary and
   a matter of precedent but, on the basis of his own ideal
   conception of the imperial rights, extended his claim until it
   became altogether universal. It might have been possible to
   maintain this claim; but, so much is certain, it could only
   have happened after previous arrangement with the other
   monarchs. The council was attended from all parts of the
   empire on the one side or the other of the Alps. The emperor
   left the deliberations in the hands of the clergy. They
   declared in a body for Victor; the emperor spoke last and
   accepted him. Thus did he understand the imperial power, thus
   did he wish to exercise it. But it is evident that herewith
   the whole conflict with the papacy came into an entirely new
   stage. The emperor with his council wished to decide which
   pope all Europe should obey. Naturally he met with opposition.
   John of Salisbury expresses the point at issue very well;
   'who,' he says, 'has made the Germans judges over the
   nations?' One might almost say this had been their claim. In
   so far as they appointed the emperor they wished also to have
   the precedence over other nations. … Of the popes only one,
   the favored one, Victor, submitted; the other, Alexander III,
   declared the pope should summon and not be summoned, should
   judge and not be judged. He was not willing to plunge the
   church into a new slavery. For the time being Victor
   maintained the supremacy in Italy. … The Romans dated their
   legal documents according to the years of his pontificate.
   Meanwhile Alexander III fled to France. He found support here
   mainly from the fact that the western nations would not accord
   to the emperor the supremacy over Europe which was implied in
   his decision regarding the papacy. … For a moment the kingdom
   of England seemed about to join in the church policy of the
   German empire; they formed as it were a Germanic party. The
   strict papistical idea was more the Romanic; but at the same
   time it was that of the expanding freedom of the people.
{3797}
   That is why Alexander III had also on his side the Lombard
   cities which were opposing the emperor. Here too it was not a
   mere faction but a grand idea. The cities, with their striving
   for a constitution to a certain degree autonomic and resting
   on a basis of free elections, sided with the idea of the
   independence of the European kingdoms. From the depths of
   European life arose mighty strivings which opposed the idea of
   the emperor to renew the Roman empire and its prerogatives. …
   In the year 1165 Alexander, coming from Salerno, was escorted
   by William I [of Sicily] into Rome. This great opposition
   against the German empire was joined also by the Greek
   emperor, Manuel. He wished himself to attain the rule of the
   Roman empire and in return the Greek and the Roman churches
   were to be united. All at once Emperor Frederick found himself
   involved in a most dangerous struggle, but he was determined
   to fight it out. And he had the empire of the Germans on his
   side in the matter. At a great diet in Wurzburg, at the
   especial prompting of the imperial chancellor Raynald,
   archbishop elect of Cologne, the emperor and the princes swore
   never to acknowledge either Alexander III or any pope elected
   by his party. Indeed no future emperor was to be elected who
   would not promise to act accordingly. Stern obligations were
   further attached to this oath. … In November 1166 the emperor
   began his expedition for the purpose of driving out Pope
   Alexander. But already under his very eyes the Lombard cities
   were bestirring themselves against him."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte
      (translated from the German)
      volume 8, pages 179-185._

   "The battle of Legnano, fought on May 29th, 1176, ended in
   disaster and defeat. Frederick himself, who was wounded and
   thrown from his horse, finally reached Pavia after days of
   adventurous flight, having meanwhile been mourned as dead by
   the remnant of his army. All was not yet lost, indeed, … but
   Frederick, although he at first made a pretense of continuing
   the war, was soon forced by the representations of his nobles
   to abandon the policy of twenty-four years, and to make peace
   on the best terms obtainable with Alexander III, and through
   him with the Lombard cities. The oath of Wurzburg was broken
   and the two treaties of Anagni and Venice put an end to the
   long war. … The terms of the treaty were finally assented to
   by the emperor at Chioggia, July 21st, 1177. Alexander now
   prepared to carry out his cherished project of holding a
   mighty peace congress at Venice; and there, at the news of the
   approaching reconciliation, nobles and bishops and their
   retinues came together from all parts of Europe. Now that the
   peace was to become an accomplished fact Venice outdid herself
   in preparing to honor the emperor. The latter, too, was
   determined to spare no expense that could add to the splendor
   of the occasion. He had negotiated for a loan with the rich
   Venetians, and he now imposed a tax of 1,000 marks of silver
   on his nobles. Frederick's coming was announced for Sunday,
   July 24th, and by that time the city had donned its most
   festive attire. … A platform had been constructed at the door
   of the church, and upon it was placed a raised throne for the
   pope. … Having reached the shore Frederick, in the presence of
   an immense crowd, approached the papal throne, and, throwing
   off his purple mantle, prostrated himself before the pope and
   kissed the latter's feet. Three red slabs of marble mark the
   spot where he knelt. It was a moment of world-wide importance;
   the empire and the papacy had measured themselves in mortal
   combat, and the empire, in form at least, was now surrendering
   at discretion. No wonder that later ages have fabled much
   about this meeting. The pope is said, with his foot on the
   neck of the prostrate king, to have exclaimed aloud, 'The lion
   and the young dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet!'"

      _E. F. Henderson,
      History of Germany in the Middle Ages,
      pages 277-279._

PAPACY: A. D. 1870-1874.
   The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.

   ----------PAPACY: End--------

PARIS: A. D. 1788-1789.
   The city during the Revolution.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789.

PARIS: Municipal Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: (page 2011).

PARRY, Captain, Northern voyages of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1820, and after.

PATENT-RIGHT.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

PEARY ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1886, 1891-1892, and 1893-1894.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1785.
   The first Protective Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1785 (page 3065).

PENNSYLVANIA BANK, The.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784 (page 2212).

PENNSYLVANIA GERMANS.

   "At the close of the Thirty Years' war there ran through
   Protestant Germany a broad line; upon the one side of that
   line stood the followers of Luther and Zwingli, of Melanchthon
   and Calvin—these were the Church people; upon the other side
   stood Menno Simon and 'The Separatists'—these were the Sect
   people. It was a line which divided persecution by new
   boundaries, and left the faggot and the stake in new hands,
   for the Peace of Westphalia had thrown the guarantees of its
   powerful protection only over the one side of this Protestant
   division. … When 'the news spread through the Old World that
   William Penn, the Quaker, had opened an asylum to the good and
   the oppressed of every nation, and Humanity went through
   Europe gathering up the children of misfortune,' our
   forefathers came out from their hiding places in the forest
   depths and the mountain valleys which the sun never
   penetrated, clad in homespun, their feet shod with wood, their
   dialects ofttimes unintelligible to each other. There was
   scarcely a family among them which could not be traced to some
   ancestor burned at the stake for conscience sake. Judge
   Pennypacker says: 'Their whole literature smacks of fire.
   Beside a record like theirs the sufferings of Pilgrim and
   Quaker seem trivial.' … The thousands of Germans, Swiss and
   Dutch who migrated here on the invitation of Penn, came
   without ability to speak the English language, and without any
   knowledge, except that derived from general report, of the
   customs and habits of thought of the English people.
{3798}
   They went vigorously to work to clear the wilderness and
   establish homes. They were sober, religious, orderly,
   industrious and thrifty. The reports the earlier settlers made
   to their friends at home of the prosperity and liberty they
   enjoyed in their new homes, induced from year to year many
   others to come. Their numbers increased so much as to alarm
   the proprietary officials. Logan wanted their immigration
   prevented by Act of Parliament, 'for fear the colony would in
   time be lost to the crown.' He wrote a letter in which he
   says: 'The numbers from Germany at this rate will soon produce
   a German colony here, and perhaps such a one as Britain
   received from Saxony in the 5th Century.' As early as 1747,
   one of the proprietary Governors attributed the prosperity of
   the Pennsylvania colony to the thrift, sobriety and good
   characters of the Germans. Numerous as they were, because this
   was in its government a purely English colony, the part they
   took in its public affairs was necessarily limited. The
   Government officials and the vast majority of the members of
   the Assembly were all English. During the long struggle in the
   Colonies to adjust the strained relations with Great Britain,
   the Germans were seemingly indifferent. They saw no practical
   gain in surrendering the Penn Charter, and Proprietary
   Government, under which they had obtained their homes, for the
   direct rule of the British King. They could not understand the
   distinction between King and Parliament. … When, therefore, in
   1776, the issue was suddenly enlarged into a broad demand for
   final separation from Great Britain, and the creation of a
   Republic, all their traditional love of freedom was fully
   aroused. Under the Proprietary rule, although constituting
   nearly one-half the population of the colony, they were
   practically without representation in the General Assembly,
   and without voice in the Government. The right of 'electing or
   being elected' to the Assembly was confined to natural born
   subjects of England, or persons naturalized in England or in
   the province, who were 21 years old, and freeholders of the
   province owning fifty acres of seated land, and at least
   twelve acres improved, or worth clear fifty pounds and a
   resident for two years. Naturalization was not the simple
   thing it now is. The conditions were exceptionally severe, and
   comparatively few Germans qualified themselves to vote. The
   delegates to the Colonial Congress were selected by the
   General Assembly. In November, 1775, the Assembly instructed
   the Pennsylvania delegates not to vote for separation from
   Great Britain. The majority of the delegates were against
   separation. … At the election for new members in May, 1776, in
   Philadelphia, three out of four of those elected were opposed
   to separation. The situation was most critical. Independence
   and union were not possible without Pennsylvania.
   Geographically, she was midway between the Colonies. She was
   one of the wealthiest and strongest. Her government was in the
   hands of those opposed to separation. One course only
   remained. Peaceful efforts in the Assembly to enfranchise the
   Germans, by repealing the naturalization laws and oath of
   allegiance, had failed, and now this must be accomplished by
   revolution, because their enfranchisement would give the
   friends of liberty and union an overwhelming and aggressive
   majority. This was the course resolved on. The Philadelphia
   Committee called a conference of committees of the Counties.
   On the 18th of June, 1776, this provincial conference,
   numbering 104, met in Philadelphia. The German counties were
   represented no longer by English tories. There were leading
   Germans in the delegations from Philadelphia, Lancaster,
   Northampton, York, Bucks and Berks. In Berks, the royalist
   Biddle gives place to eight prominent Germans, headed by
   Governor Heister, Colonels Hunter, Eckert and Lutz. The
   proprietary government of Pennsylvania, with its Tory
   Assembly, was overthrown—foundation, pillar and dome. This
   conference called a Provincial Convention to frame a new
   Government. On the petition of the Germans, the members of
   that Convention were to be elected by persons qualified to
   vote for Assembly, and by the military associators
   (volunteers), being freemen 21 years of age, resident in the
   province one year. This gave the Germans the right to vote.
   Thus says Bancroft: 'The Germans were incorporated into the
   people and made one with them.' The 19th of June, 1776,
   enfranchised the Germans, and made the Declaration of
   Independence possible. … It is absolutely true, that, as the
   English people of the province were divided in 1776, the
   Germans were the potential factors in securing the essential
   vote of Pennsylvania for the Declaration of Independence. …
   Throughout the Revolution, these Germans … were the steadfast
   defenders of the new Republic. Dr. Stille, in his recent
   admirable 'Life of Dickinson,' concedes that 'no portion of
   the population was more ready to defend its homes, or took up
   arms more willingly in support of the American cause.'
   Washington, when in Philadelphia after the war, testified his
   high appreciation of the hearty support the Germans gave him,
   and the cause he represented, by worshiping with his family in
   the old German church on Race street. The descendants of the
   Pennsylvania-Germans have settled all over the West,
   contributing to Ohio, Illinois and other Western States, the
   same sturdy, honest population that characterizes
   Pennsylvania. From Revolutionary times until now, they have
   borne an honorable part In the Nation's history and progress."

      _E. K. Martin and G. F. Baer,
      Addresses
      (Proceedings,
      Pennsylvania-German Convention, April 15, 1891),
      pages 14-24._

PENNY NEWSPAPERS, The beginning of.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1830-1888,
      and 1853-1870 (page 2601).

PETER, ST., and the Church at Rome.

      See PAPACY (page 2417).

PETER THE HERMIT, and the first Crusade.

      See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT;
      also PHŒNICIANS (page 2530).

PINEL, and the treatment of the Insane.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19TH CENTURIES (page 2142).

PITT, William.

      See CHATHAM.

{3799}

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, The.

   "The rise of Plymouth Brotherism was almost contemporaneous
   with that of Tractarianism, and, far apart as the two systems
   appear to be, they were partly due to the action of similar
   causes. In both cases there was a dissatisfaction with the
   state of spiritual life, and a longing for something more
   real, more elevated in tone, more practical in results. … The
   society or 'assembly,' as the Brethren love to call it, was a
   development. There was no purpose on the part of its founders
   of establishing any new sect or party. A few men with
   spiritual affinities, desiring a religious fellowship which
   they could not find in the ordinary services of their Church,
   grouped themselves in small companies and held periodical
   meetings for the study of the Scriptures, for Christian
   conference, and for prayer. From the very beginning the
   movement had attractions for devout men of high social
   position and some culture. Mr. Darby, who was one of the
   leading spirits in Dublin, and who is said by those who have
   had personal acquaintance with the inner life of the Brethren
   to wield a power over his followers to which there is no
   parallel among ecclesiastics, except in the case of the Pope
   himself, was originally a curate of the Church of Ireland. Mr.
   Benjamin W. Newton, who was one of the principal members of
   the similar society in Plymouth, which has given its name to
   the movement, was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Dr.
   Tregelles, another of the Plymouth company, was a
   distinguished Biblical scholar. Mr. A. Groves, who, perhaps,
   rather than Mr. Darby or Mr. Newton, may be regarded as the
   promoter of these meetings, but who early withdrew from the
   party when, on a return from a visit to the East, he found
   that their social religious gatherings were rapidly developing
   into a distinct sectarian organization, was a student for the
   Anglican ministry at Trinity College, Dublin. The Brethren
   despise culture, and yet apart from men of culture it is hard
   to see how the movement could have had such success."

      _J. G. Rogers,
      The Church Systems of England in the 19th Century,
      lecture 10._

POLAR EXPLORATION.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

POLARIS, Voyage of the.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.

PORTUGAL: Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

PORTUGAL: Exploration, and colonization in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

PRINCETON COLLEGE.

   The College of New Jersey, more commonly called Princeton
   College, "originated in the plan of Jonathan Dickinson, John
   Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Aaron Burr, with others, to found
   an institution 'in which ample provision should be made for
   the intellectual and religious culture of youth desirous to
   obtain a liberal education, and more especially for the
   thorough training of such as were candidates for the holy
   ministry.' Its first charter was granted in 1746 by the
   Honorable John Hamilton, President of His Majesty's Council,
   and is noteworthy as the first college charter ever given in
   this country by a Governor or acting Governor with simply the
   consent of his Council. A second and more ample charter was
   granted September 14th, 1748, by the 'trusty and well-beloved'
   Jonathan Belcher, Esquire, Governor and Commander-in-chief of
   the province of New Jersey. After the war of the Revolution,
   the charter was confirmed and renewed by the Legislature of
   New Jersey. The Corporation is styled in that instrument 'the
   Trustees of the College of New Jersey.' … On April 27th, 1747,
   the Trustees made a public announcement that they had
   'appointed the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, President,' and that
   the college would be opened in the fourth week of May next at
   Elizabethtown. President Dickinson having died on the 7th of
   October following, the Rev. Aaron Burr assumed the duties of
   the Presidency and the college was removed from Elizabethtown
   to Newark. Soon after, it was removed from Newark to
   Princeton, where in 1754-1755 the first college building was
   erected. … The College of New Jersey, as now constituted,
   includes the John C. Green School of Science. This
   institution, which has its own professors and instructors, was
   founded in 1873 upon an endowment of Mr. John C. Green. The
   first college building, erected in 1754-5, was named Nassau
   Hall, at the request of Governor Belcher."

      _College of New Jersey,
      Catalogue, 1893-4,
      pages 8-9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Hageman,
      History of Princeton and its Institutions._

PROFIT-SHARING EXPERIMENTS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889,
      and 1859-1887 (pages 2944 and 2947).

PROUDHON, and the doctrines of Anarchism.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894 (page 2941).

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1258 (page 1962).

PRUSSIA, The rise of.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700;
      also, page 309.

PULLMAN STRIKE, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2957).

R.

RAE, Dr., Franklin search expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1851, and 1853-1854.

RAILWAYS, in modern inland commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

RAPP, George, and the Rappites.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

REDWOOD LIBRARY.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN:
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 2019).

REFORMATION, The Protestant: Outline sketch.

      See EUROPE (pages 1053-1065).

REFORMATION, The Protestant:
   The beginning in Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 16TH CENTURY;
      also, page 1456.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

      See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

RENAISSANCE, Libraries of the.

      See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE (page 2008).

ROCHDALE SOCIETY, The Co-operative.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886 (page 2938).

ROME:
   Outline sketch of the history of the Republic and the Empire.

      See EUROPE (pages 996-1013).

{3800}

ROME:
   Charlemagne's restoration of the Empire in the West.
   His imperial coronation and its significance.

   "The Germans, who had destroyed the Western Empire, now, after
   having been received into Roman civilisation and the bosom of
   the Church, effected its restoration. And the Church, whose
   laws controlled the West, created anew from within herself the
   Roman Empire, as the political form of her cosmopolitan
   principle, and that spiritual unity within which the Popes had
   embraced so many nations. Her supremacy over all churches of
   the West could, moreover, only attain complete recognition
   through the Emperor and the Empire. The restoration of the
   Empire was rendered necessary by the formidable power of
   Islam, which not only harassed Byzantium, but, from the side
   of Sicily and Spain, also threatened Rome. The Greek Emperors
   could rule the West together with the East so long as the
   Roman Church was weak, so long as Italy lay sunk in lethargy,
   and the German West swarmed with lawless barbarians. It was no
   longer possible to do so when the Church attained
   independence, Italy consciousness of her nationality, and
   Europe had become united in the powerful Frankish Empire, at
   the head of which stood a great monarch. Thus the idea of
   proclaiming Charles Emperor arose, and thus was carried out
   the scheme with which the irate Italians had threatened Leo
   the Isaurian at the beginning of the Iconoclastic controversy.
   The West now demanded the occupation of the Imperial throne.
   True, the Byzantine Empire had, in the course of time,
   acquired a legal sanction. Byzantium, however, was but the
   daughter of Rome. From Rome the Imperium had proceeded; here
   the Cæsars had their seat. The illustrious mother of the
   Empire now resumed her rights, when, as in ancient times, she
   offered the Imperial crown to the most powerful ruler of the
   West. … A transaction so momentous, and rendered necessary by
   the ideas of the time and the demands of the West, but which,
   nevertheless, bore the semblance of a revolt against the
   rights of Byzantium, could scarcely have been the work of the
   moment, but more probably was the result of a sequence of
   historic causes and resolutions consequent upon them. Can we
   doubt that the Imperial crown had been the goal of Charles's
   ambition and the ideal of such of his friends as cherished
   Roman aspirations? He himself came to Rome evidently to take
   the crown, or, at least, to form some decisive resolution with
   regard to it, and during his sojourn in France the Pope had
   declared himself ready to help in the accomplishment of this
   great revolution. … We may suppose that Charles's clerical
   friends were the most zealous supporters of the scheme, which
   perhaps was not received by the Pope with a like degree of
   enthusiasm. Alcuin's letter proves that he, at least, had
   already been initiated into the idea; and the Frankish envoys,
   after a year spent in Rome, had doubtless come to an
   understanding with the Romans, on whose vote the election
   mainly depended. The Romans it was who, exercising the ancient
   suffrages of the Senate and people, had elected Charles their
   Patricius, and who now, in virtue of the same rights, elected
   him Emperor. And only as Emperor of the Romans and of Rome did
   he become Emperor of the entire State. A decree of the Roman
   nobility and people had undoubtedly preceded the coronation;
   and Charles's nomination as Roman Emperor (in strict
   accordance with the plan of a papal election) was effected by
   the three traditional elective bodies. The great revolution
   which extinguished the ancient rights of the Byzantines was
   not to appear the arbitrary deed of either King or Pope, but
   the act of God Himself, and therefore the legal transaction of
   Christendom, as expressed by the voice of the Roman people, of
   the parliament of the united clergy, optimates, and citizens
   assembled in Rome, Germans as well as Latins. The Frankish
   chroniclers themselves say that Charles was made Emperor by
   the election of the Roman people, quote the united parliament
   of the two nations, and enumerate the list of the members who
   took part in the parliament: the Pope, the entire assembly of
   bishops, clergy, and abbots, the Frankish senate, the Roman
   optimates, and the rest of the Christian people. The
   resolution of the Romans and Franks was announced to Charles
   in the form of a request. Are we to believe that, like
   Augustus in former days, he made a feint of reluctance to
   accept the supreme dignity, until it was forced upon him as an
   accomplished fact? Are we to receive as hypocritical the
   assurance of a man so pious and heroic, when he asserts that
   the Imperial crown came upon him wholly as a surprise, and
   adds that he would not have entered S. Peter's had he known of
   Leo's intention? Had not Charles's son, Pipin, been purposely
   recalled from the war against Benevento, in order to witness
   the Imperial coronation? An explanation of these conflicting
   statements has been sought in the statement of Eginhard, who
   maintains that Charles's hesitation was dictated by respect
   for Byzantium; that he had not yet assented to the scheme, and
   had sought by negotiations to gain the recognition of the
   Greeks to the election; that, therefore, the coronation really
   did take him by surprise, and, with regard to the time chosen,
   seemed inopportune. This view is supported by reasons of
   probability, which, however, solely concern the occasion
   chosen for the coronation, since to his elevation to the
   Imperial throne Charles had already long given his consent. …
   When, in later times, the German Empire came into conflict
   with the Papacy, doctors of canon law advanced the theory that
   the Emperor received the crown solely by favour of the Pope,
   and traced the investiture to Charles's coronation at the
   hands of Leo the Third. The Emperors, on the other hand,
   appealed to the shout of the people: 'Life and victory to the
   Emperor of the Romans, crowned by God,' and asserted that they
   derived the crown, the inalienable heritage of the Cæsars,
   from God alone. The Romans, on their side, maintained that
   Charles owed the crown entirely to the majesty of the Roman
   Senate and people. The dispute as to the actual source of
   Empire continued throughout the entire Middle Ages, and, while
   exercising no actual change in the world's history, revealed
   an indwelling need of mankind; the necessity, namely, of
   referring the world of facts back to a rudimentary right by
   which power becomes legalised. Pope Leo the Third as little
   possessed the right to bestow the crown of Empire, which was
   not his, as Charles did to claim it.
{3801}
   The Pope, however, regarded himself as the representative of
   the Empire and of Romanism; and undoubtedly, as the head of
   Latin nationality, and still more as the recognised spiritual
   overseer of the Christian republic, he possessed the power of
   accomplishing that revolution which, without the aid of the
   Church, would have been impossible. Mankind at large regarded
   him as the sacred intercessor between the world and the
   Divinity; and it was only through his coronation and unction
   at the papal hands that the Empire of Charles received divine
   sanction in the eyes of men. The elective right of the Romans,
   on the other hand, in whatever form it may appear, was
   uncontested, and in no later Imperial election could it have
   been of so decisive legal significance."

      _F. Gregorovius,
      History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages,
      book 4, chapter 7, section 3 (volume 2)._

ROME: Ancient commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

ROME: Money and banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME (page 2203).

RONALDS, Sir Francis, The telegraphic experiments of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1753-1820
      (page 771).

ROSS, Captain, Polar Expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833 and 1848-1849.

RUSSIA, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

RUTGERS COLLEGE.

   "Rutgers College, located at New Brunswick, was chartered by
   George III. in 1770, and was called Queen's College, in honour
   of his consort. The present name was substituted by the
   legislature of the State, in 1825, at request of the trustees,
   in honour of Colonel Henry Rutgers, of New York, to whom the
   institution is indebted for liberal pecuniary benefactions.
   The charter was originally granted to such Protestants as had
   adopted the constitution of the reformed churches in the
   Netherlands, as revised by the national synod of Dordrecht, in
   the years 1618 and 1619. … The Theological College of the
   Reformed Dutch Church is established here and intimately
   blended with the literary institution."

      _T. F. Gordon,
      Gazetteer of the State of New Jersey.
      (bound with "History of New Jersey"),
      page 86._

S.

SAINT SIMON, and Saint-Simonism.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825 (page 2939).

SALVATION ARMY, The.

   "Some people of to-day seem to have the idea that the Rev.
   William Booth was Jove, and that the Salvation Army sprang
   from his brain full-grown and fully armed. Far from it; a boy
   trained in the Church of England is converted among Wesleyan
   Methodists, and, believing thoroughly in what he professes, is
   constrained to feel interested in the salvation of others. He
   is much moved by some revival services that he hears conducted
   by the Rev. James Caughey, an American evangelist, and the
   effect of the straightforward, conversational style of
   preaching, makes an impression upon him that is never
   forgotten. Through all the years that follow, among all the
   scenes of his labors as a Methodist minister, he never forgets
   that simple, open-air preaching, that pushing home of the
   truth, with its wonderful results, and year after year only
   increases the conviction that the masses can only be reached
   by going to them, and never, never saved by waiting until they
   come to us. Years passed away before William Booth and his
   wife came to the point where they could step out, shake off
   traditional methods and means, and begin to carry out
   evangelistic work on lines forbidden by the churches. …
   'Nothing succeeds like success,' and when the first results
   were between three and four thousand souls in four little
   towns of Cornwall, there was a decided leaning toward them,
   overpowered, though, at a meeting of the Wesleyan Conference,
   which promulgated the strange formula that 'evangelistic
   movements are unfavorable to Church order.' However, the work
   was carried on steadily, until that memorable Sunday [July
   5th, 1865] on Mile End Waste, East London, from which William
   Booth consecrated himself to the salvation of the ignorant,
   and from which he dates all statistics referring to his work
   as an independent movement in the religious world. From this
   time forward, without interrupting in the least the open-air
   work, one shelter after another was secured and appropriated
   for mission work, here a tent or an old stable, there a
   carpenter's shop, until the movement was strong enough to
   warrant the lease of 'The Eastern Star,' a notorious
   beer-house, which was used as book-store, hall, and classroom.
   From this place, with its name of good hope, hundreds of souls
   went forth to make the wilderness blossom like the rose, so
   far as their humble homes were concerned. Sheds, lofts,
   alleys, tumble-down theatres, well-known places of resort or
   of refuge were preferred as being familiar to the class of men
   who were to be reached. Such was the Salvation Army in its
   early years, merely a 'mission.' with no more idea of
   development into an 'army,' with military rule and
   nomenclature, than we at the present time have of what may
   come to us in the next twenty years."

      _M. B. Booth,
      Beneath Two Flags,
      chapter 2._

   "In 1873 Mrs. Booth, overcoming her own intense reluctance,
   began to preach. In 1874 and the two following years the work
   spread to Portsmouth, Chatham, Wellingborough, Hammersmith,
   Hackney, Leeds, Leicester, Stockton, Middlesborough, Cardiff,
   Hartlepool, and other towns, where recent converts of the
   humblest rank—tinkers, railway guards, navvies—took charge of
   new stations. In 1876, shaking itself more and more free from
   the trammels of custom and routine, the Army deliberately
   utilized the services of women. In 1877 it spread still
   further. In 1878 it 'attacked' no less than fifty towns,
   and—more by what we should call 'accident' than by
   design—assumed the title of the Salvation Army. It also
   adopted, for good or for evil, the whole vocabulary of
   military organization, which has caused it to be covered with
   ridicule, but which may undoubtedly have aided its discipline
   and helped its progress. In 1879 advance was marked by the
   imprisonment of three Salvationists—who refused, as always, to
   pay the alternative fine—for the offence of praying in a
   country road near a public-house, which was regarded as
   'obstructing the thoroughfare.'
{3802}
   In this year began also the establishment of training homes
   for the instruction and equipment of the young officers; the
   printing of the 'War Cry'; the use of uniforms and badges; and
   the extension of the work to Philadelphia and the United
   States. In 1880 the United Kingdom was mapped into divisions.
   In 1881 the work was extended to Australia and the colonies,
   and so stupendous had become the religious energy of the
   soldiers that they began to dream of the religious rescue of
   Europe as well as of Great Britain and its empire-colonies.
   Since that year its spread, in spite of all opposition, has
   been steady and continuous, until, in 1890, it excited the
   attention of the civilized world by that immense scheme of
   social amelioration into which we shall not here enter
   particularly. At the present moment [1891] the Army has no
   less than 9,349 regular officers, 13,000 voluntary officers,
   30 training homes; with 400 cadets, and 2,864 corps scattered
   over 32 different countries. In England alone it has 1,377
   corps, and has held some 160,000 open-air meetings. This
   represents a part of its religious work. Besides this it has
   in social work 30 rescue homes, 5 shelters, 3 food depots, and
   many other agencies for good."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      The Salvation Army
      (Harper's Magazine, May, 1891)._

   In one of his addresses, delivered during his visit to the
   United States, in February, 1895, General Booth said: "We
   have, with God's help, been able to carry our banner and hoist
   our flag in 45 different countries and colonies, and we are
   reaching out day by day. We have been able to create and bring
   into harmonious action, with self-supporting and self-guiding
   officers, something like 4,000 separate societies. We have
   been able to gather together something like 11,000 men and
   women, separated from their earthly affiliations, who have
   gone forth as leaders of this host." In the same address,
   General Booth gave the number of the Army newspapers as 27,
   with a circulation of 50,000,000,—presumably meaning the total
   issues of a year.

SARACENS, Medical Science of the.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2129).

SARDANAPALUS.

      See SEMITES: THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (page 2892).

SCHULZE-DELITZSCH, and the Cooperative movement in Germany.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883 (page 2946).

SCHURZ, Carl.
   Report on affairs in the South.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

SCHWATKA, Lieutenant, Polar explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.

SECESSION, The Federalist Movement of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

SERVIA, A. D. 1893. Royal Coup d'Etat.

   "A great sensation was created by the announcement, January
   19, that Milan and Natalie, the divorced parents of King
   Alexander, had become reconciled at Biarritz. Whether this had
   political significance was unknown, but rumor connected it
   with various incidents bearing on the pending elections. The
   Skupshtina was dissolved in November, and the Liberal
   government, by energetic measures, put the electoral machinery
   in such shape that at the voting in March a small Liberal
   majority was secured in the place of the enormous Radical
   majority that had controlled the former legislature. When the
   Skupshtina assembled, April 6, the Radicals, in resentment at
   certain proceedings of the government designed to increase its
   majority, left the hall and refused to take part in the
   session. The troublesome situation thus produced was wholly
   abolished by a coup d'etat of King Alexander, April 13. At a
   banquet in the palace, at which the regents and cabinet were
   present, the king suddenly accused them of misrule and
   demanded their resignations, saying that he would assume the
   government himself. On the refusal of the regents to resign he
   ordered them under guard, and on the following day a new
   ministry was appointed, with M. Dokitch, a Radical, at its
   head. Careful arrangement of the troops had insured that no
   resistance could be made to the king's acts, and no blood was
   shed. The constitution makes eighteen the age at which the
   king attains his majority, but Alexander is not yet seventeen.
   His action was greeted with general favor throughout the
   country. An explanation of the affair is found in the
   ill-disguised relations of the Radicals with the pretender
   Karageorgiewitch, and the dread of Milan and Natalie that the
   hostile policy of the regents toward the Radicals, who are in
   a majority in the land, would precipitate an overthrow of the
   reigning dynasty." The elections which followed the coup d'
   état gave the Radicals an overwhelming majority in the
   Skupshtina—122 members out of 134.

      _Political Science Quarterly,
      June and December, 1893._

SEWARD, William H.,
   The "higher law" speech of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

SIEMENS, Dr. W., and his dynamo-electric inventions.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

      _T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_


SINGLE TAX MOVEMENT, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

SLAVE TRADE: Abolition in the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807 (page 3335).

SLAVERY, Petitions against, in the American Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1835, 1836, 1837-1838, and 1842,
      (page 3373, and after).

SOCIAL PALACE AT GUISE, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864,
      and 1875-1893 (pages 2949 and 2953).

SOLOMON.
SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

      See JEWS: (page 1902);
      and TEMPLE OF SOLOMON (page 3093).

SOMMERING'S TELEGRAPH.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1753-1820 (page 771).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861.
      Monarchical cravings.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3426).

SPAIN: Outline Sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE
      (pages 1016, 1034-1035, 1050-1051, 1055-1065, and after).

{3803}

SPAIN: A. D. 1034-1090.
   The exploits of the Cid.

   "Rodrigo Diez de Bivar, who came of an old Castilian stock,
   was born in 1026—others say 1040—and was thus a contemporary
   of William the Conqueror, of England. Diez was his patronymic,
   meaning the son of Diego (in English James), and Bivar, the
   village of his birth, near Burgos, where the site of his house
   is still shown. His name of 'El Cid,' the Lord, or 'Mio Cid,'
   which is exactly 'Monseigneur,' was given him first by the
   Moors, his own soldiers and subjects, and universally adopted
   by all Spaniards from that day to this. Such a title is
   significant, not only of the relations between the two
   peoples, but of Rodrigo's position as at once a Moorish and a
   Spanish chief. 'El Campeador,' the name by which Rodrigo is
   also distinguished, means in Spanish something more special
   than 'champion.' A 'campeador' was a man who had fought and
   beaten the select fighting-man of the opposite side, in the
   presence of the two armies; which points to a custom derived,
   as much else of early Spanish, from the East. Rodrigo earned
   the name, not at the expense of any Moor but of a Christian,
   having when quite a youth slain a Navarrese champion in a war
   between Castile and Navarre. The first mention of his name
   occurs in a deed of Fernando I., of the year 1064."

      _H. E. Watts,
      Christian Recovery of Spain,
      chapter 3._

   "Sancho III. of Navarre, who died in 1034, had united almost
   all the Christian states of the Peninsula under one dominion,
   having married the heiress of the county of Castile, and
   obtained the hand of the sister of Bermudez III., the last
   king of Leon, for his second son, Ferdinand. The Asturias,
   Navarre, and Aragon, were all subject to him, and he was the
   first who assumed the title of King of Castile. To him the
   sovereign houses of Spain have looked up as their common
   ancestor, for the male line of the Gothic Kings became extinct
   in Bermudez III. … D. Sancho divided his states amongst his
   children: D. Garcia became King of Navarre, D. Ferdinand, King
   of Castile, and D. Ramirez, King of Aragon. The Cid, who was a
   subject of D. Ferdinand, entered upon his military career
   under that monarch's banners, where he displayed that
   marvellous strength and prodigious valour, that constancy and
   coolness, which raised him above all the other warriors of
   Europe. Many of the victories of Ferdinand and the Cid were
   obtained over the Moors, who being at that time deprived of
   their leader and without a central government, were much
   exposed to the attacks of the Christians. … The arms of
   Ferdinand and the Cid were not, however, always directed
   against the infidels. The ambitious Monarch soon afterwards
   attacked his brother-in-law, Bermudez III. of Leon, the last
   of the descendants of D. Pelagius, whom he despoiled of his
   states, and put to death in 1037. He subsequently attacked and
   dethroned his eldest brother, D. Garcia, and afterwards his
   younger brother, D. Ramirez, the former of whom he likewise
   sacrificed. The Cid, who had received his earliest
   instructions under D. Ferdinand, made no scrupulous enquiries
   into the justice of that prince's cause, but combating blindly
   for him, rendered him glorious in the eyes of the vulgar by
   these iniquitous conquests. It is also in the reign of
   Ferdinand that the first romantic adventures of the Cid are
   said to have occurred; his attachment to Ximena, the only
   daughter of Count Gormaz; his duel with the Count, who had
   mortally injured his father; and lastly his marriage with the
   daughter of the man who had perished by his sword. The
   authenticity of these poetical achievements rests entirely on
   the romances [of the Chronicle of the Cid]; but though this
   brilliant story is not to be found in any historical document,
   yet the universal tradition of a nation seems to stamp it with
   sufficient credit. The Cid was in habits of the strictest
   friendship with the eldest son of Ferdinand, D. Sancho,
   surnamed the Strong, and the two warriors always combated side
   by side. During the lifetime of the father, the Cid, in 1049,
   had rendered tributary the Musulman Emir of Saragossa. He
   defended that Moorish prince against the Aragonese, in 1063;
   and when Sancho succeeded to the throne in 1065, he was
   placed, by the young King, at the head of all his armies,
   whence, without doubt, he acquired the name of 'Campeador.' D.
   Sancho, who merited the friendship of a hero, and who always
   remained faithful to him, was, notwithstanding, no less
   ambitious and unjust than his father, whose example he
   followed in endeavouring to deprive his brothers of their
   share of the paternal inheritance. To the valour of the Cid he
   owed his victories over D. Garcia, King of Galicia, and D.
   Alfonso, King of Leon, whose states he invaded. The latter
   prince took refuge amongst the Moors, with the King of Toledo,
   who afforded him a generous asylum. D. Sancho, after having
   also stripped his sisters of their inheritance, was slain in
   1072, before Zamora, where the last of his sisters, D. Urraca,
   had fortified herself. Alfonso VI., recalled from the Moors to
   ascend the vacant throne, after having taken an oath,
   administered by the hands of the Cid, that he had been in no
   degree accessary to his brother's death, endeavoured to attach
   that celebrated leader to his interests by promising him in
   marriage his own niece Ximena, whose mother was sister-in-law
   to Ferdinand the Great and Bermudez III. the last King of
   Leon. This marriage, of which historical evidence remains, was
   celebrated on the 19th of July, 1074. The Cid was at that time
   nearly fifty years of age, and had survived his first wife
   Ximena, the daughter of Count Gormaz, so celebrated in the
   Spanish and French tragedies. Being soon afterwards despatched
   on an embassy to the Moorish princes of Seville and Cordova,
   the Cid assisted them in gaining a great victory over the King
   of Grenada; but scarcely had the heat of the battle passed
   away when he restored all the prisoners whom he had taken,
   with arms in their hands, to liberty. By these constant acts
   of generosity he won the hearts of his enemies as well as of
   his friends. He was admired and respected both by Moors and
   Christians. He had soon afterwards occasion to claim the
   protection of the former; for Alfonso VI., instigated by those
   who were envious of the hero's success, banished him from
   Castile. The Cid upon this occasion took refuge with his
   friend Ahmed el Muktadir, King of Saragossa, by whom he was
   treated with boundless confidence and respect. He was
   appointed by him to the post of governor of his son, and was
   in fact intrusted with the whole administration of the kingdom
   of Saragossa, during the reign of Joseph El Muktamam, from
   1081 to 1085, within which period he gained many brilliant
   victories over the Christians of Aragon, Navarre, and
   Barcelona. Always generous to the vanquished, he again gave
   liberty to the prisoners. Alfonso VI. now began to regret that
   he had deprived himself of the services of the most valiant of
   his warriors; and being attacked by the redoubtable Joseph,
   the son of Teschfin, the Morabite, who had invaded Spain with
   a new army of Moors from Africa, and having sustained a defeat
   at Zalaka, on the 23d of October, 1087, he recalled the Cid to
   his assistance.
{3804}
   That hero immediately repaired to his standard with 7,000
   soldiers, levied at his own charge; and for two years
   continued to combat for his ungrateful sovereign; but at
   length, either his generosity in dismissing his captives, or
   his disobedience to the orders of a prince far inferior to
   himself in the knowledge of the art of war, drew upon him a
   second disgrace about the year 1090. He was again banished;
   his wife and son were imprisoned, and his goods were
   confiscated. It is at this period that the poem … commences.
   It is in fact the fragment of a complete history of the Cid,
   the beginning of which has been lost."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      Chronicle of the Cid, from the Spanish._

      _R. Markham,
      Chronicle of the Cid, edited with introduction._

      _G. Ticknor,
      History of Spanish Literature,
      period 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

SPAIN: 15-17th Centuries.
   The waste of the commercial opportunities of the Spaniards.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.
   Charles IV., Marie Louise, and Godoy.

   "Charles III. had just died when the French Revolution
   commenced. He was the best sovereign that Spain had had in a
   long time; he left good ministers: Aranda, Campomanès, Florida
   Blanca; but it was not given to them to continue his work.
   This reparative reign was followed by one the most
   disintegrating. Spain, elevated anew for an instant by an
   intelligent prince, was, in a few years, under the government
   of an imbecile one, to founder in an ignoble intrigue. The web
   of this latter was begun immediately upon the accession of the
   new king. Charles IV. was forty years old; corpulent and
   weak-minded, simple and choleric, incapable of believing evil
   because he was incapable of conceiving it: amorous, chaste,
   devout, and consequently the slave of his wife even more than
   of his temperament, the first years of his marriage blinded
   him for his entire life. Scrupulous to the point of separating
   himself from the queen when he no longer hoped to have
   children by her, he took refuge in the chase, manual labor,
   violent exercise, caring only for the table, music and
   bull-fights, exhausted when he had followed his trade of king
   for half an hour. Small and without beauty, dark of
   complexion, but with some grace, with elegance and above all
   carriage, Marie Louise of Parma was at once superstitious and
   passionate, ignorant, uneasy, with a very frivolous soul as a
   foundation, with obstinacy without firmness, with artifice
   without intelligence, with intrigue leading to no result, more
   covetousness than ambition, much emptiness of mind, still more
   of heart. Her husband seemed to her coarse and brutish; she
   despised him. She detested her eldest son and cared moderately
   for her other children. She was thirty-four years old, of
   perturbed imagination, of uneasy senses, without any curb of
   religion or virtue, when she ascended the throne and the
   fortune of Godoy threw him in her way. He was a small
   provincial gentleman; for lack of something better, he had
   entered the life-guards at seventeen. He was then twenty-one.
   He was very handsome, with a grave beauty frequent in the men
   of the south, which gives to youth that air of restrained and
   imperious passion, to mature age that impenetrable and
   imposing exterior so well calculated to conceal mediocrity of
   mind, barrenness of heart, despotic selfishness, and all the
   artifices of a corruption the more insinuating because it
   seems to be unaware of itself. The queen fell in love with
   him, and abandoned herself wildly; he took advantage of it
   without shame. She was not satisfied to make of Godoy her
   lover, she desired to make a great man of him, a minister, to
   make him a partner in her power. She introduced him to the
   court and into the intimacy of the royal household, where
   Charles IV. tractably became infatuated with him. Marie Louise
   had at first some circumspection in the gradation of the
   honors which she lavished upon him, and which marked, by so
   many scandals, the progress of her passion; but she was very
   soon entirely possessed by it. Godoy obtained over her an
   ascendancy equal to that which she arrogated to herself over
   Charles IV. Thus on the eve of the French Revolution, these
   three persons, so strangely associated, began, in court
   costume, and under the austere decorum of the palace of Philip
   II., that comedy, as old as vice and stupidity, of the
   compliant husband duped by his wife and of the old mistress
   exploited by her lover. At the beginning of the reign, Charles
   IV. from scruple, the queen from hypocrisy, Godoy from policy,
   became devout. The queen wished power for Godoy, and Godoy
   wished it for lucre. It was necessary to set aside the old
   counsellors of Charles III. They were philosophers, the nation
   had remained catholic. Marie Louise and Godoy relied on the
   old Spanish fanaticism. The ministers very soon lost
   influence, and after having secluded them for some time, the
   queen disgraced them. A complete reaction took place in Spain.
   The church regained its empire; the Inquisition was
   re-established. It would appear then that the Revolution must
   necessarily have found Spain hostile; a Bourbon king and a
   devout government could but detest it. But before being a
   Bourbon the king was a husband, and Marie Louise was devout
   only to mask her intrigues. The same passions led her to
   desire by turns, war to make her lover illustrious and peace
   to render him popular. This debilitated and corrupt court
   found itself given over in advance to all the suggestions of
   fear, to all the temptations of avidity. Those who had to
   treat with it did not fail to profit by its feebleness to
   dominate it. We see it successively linked to England, then to
   France; treat the Revolution with consideration, condemn it
   with violence, combat it without vigor; seek an alliance with
   the Directory, and abandon itself to Napoleon who annihilated
   it. France found at Madrid only too much docility to her
   designs; the illusions that she conceived from it became more
   fatal for her than were for Spain the incapacity and turpitude
   of its rulers. The French were led by the habits and
   traditions of the 'ancien regime' to treat the Spaniards as a
   subordinate nation consigned to the role of auxiliary. Holding
   the court of Spain as cowardly and venal, the politicians of
   Paris neglected to take account of the Spanish people. They
   judged them to be divisible and governable at mercy.
{3805}
   It was not that they despised them nor that they intended to
   reduce them to servitude as a conquered people; but they
   thought that the last Austrian kings had enervated and
   enfeebled them, that they had been uplifted from this
   decadence only by the Bourbons, that that dynasty was
   degenerating in its turn; that another foreign government,
   more intelligent, more enlightened, more resolute, alone could
   take up again the work of reparation and bring it to a
   successful result by means of rigorous treatment and
   appropriate applications. What Louis XIV. had undertaken
   solely in the interest of despotism, France, herself
   regenerated by the Revolution, had the right and the power to
   accomplish, for the highest good of Spain and of humanity.
   These calculations in which the essential element, that is to
   say the Spanish character, was suppressed, deceived the
   Convention, led the Directory astray, and ended by drawing
   Napoleon into the most fatal of his enterprises."

      _A. Sorel,
      L'Europe et la Revolution française
      (translated from the French),
      part 1, pages 373-377._

SPAIN: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

   ----------SPAIN: End--------

STAMP TAX ON NEWSPAPERS, English.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1712,
      and 1853-1870 (pages 2599 and 2602).

STANLEY, Henry M., Explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1866-1873, and after.

SUEZ CANAL, Effects of the opening of the.

      See (in this Supplement)
      COMMERCE, MODERN: THE RECENT REVOLUTION IN COMMERCE.

SUMERIAN.

      See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

SUMNER, Senator Charles, The assault of Preston Brooks on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 (page 3398).

SUMTER, Thomas, in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (page 3273).

   ----------SWEDEN: Start--------

SWEDEN: A. D. 1810.
   The election of Bernadotte.

   "It was necessary to look out for a new successor to the
   throne. Adlersparre desired the brother of the deceased crown
   prince, Frederic Christian, duke of Augustenborg, thinking by
   this means to secure the fruits of the revolution and to keep
   in view the union between Sweden and Norway. He succeeded in
   persuading Charles XII. to give his voice for this prince, and
   the council of State even sustained this idea, with the
   exception of Adlercreutz who proposed the emperor Alexander's
   brother-in-law, the Duke of Oldenburg. A third candidate was
   King Frederic VI. of Denmark, and even Napoleon himself worked
   in secret for him as he had by this time realized the
   advantage of the formation of a strong Northern power as a
   balance against Russia. But the king of Denmark as a candidate
   was far from popular among the Swedes, and still less prospect
   was there of the election of prince Gustaf. The Swedish
   government which had made its determination sent a writing to
   Napoleon in order to gain his influence in favor of the
   prince. The message was sent in duplicate by different roads.
   The choice of the Swedish government did not meet his
   approval; still he declared that he would not oppose it. One
   of the couriers who brought the above writing to Paris, was
   lieutenant in Upland's regiment, baron Carl Otto Mörner. This
   young officer was no friend of the candidacy of the Duke of
   Augustenborg; like many other Swedes, especially in the army,
   he desired as a successor to the throne a warrior, above all a
   French marshal, persuaded that in that way Sweden would most
   readily gain the alliance with France, and revenge upon
   Russia. Among the French marshals Bernadotte, prince of Ponte
   Corvo, was particularly known in Sweden through his contact
   with them during the last wars and to him their thoughts had
   turned in the first place. Young, bold, and forward, at the
   same time full of the wish to be useful to his country, Mörner
   had contrived to obtain the office of courier in order to find
   a successor to the crown at his own risk. He calls on a
   certain Captain La Pie whose acquaintance he had made on a
   former visit to Paris, and explains his plans, and La Pie
   strengthens him in his ideas, that Bernadotte would be
   preferable before Macdonald, Eugene Beauharnais, and others
   whom Mörner had in his mind. Through La Pie and the Swedish
   general consul Signeul, Mörner obtains the necessary
   information which enables him to meet the Marshal. He calls on
   Bernadotte and finds him, however careful in his utterance
   regarding the matter, not opposed to the project; nay
   Bernadotte hastens immediately after the conference with
   Mörner to the emperor to impart it to him. Napoleon, who had
   officially been informed of the thoughts of the Swedish
   government, looked on the whole matter as a ghost of the
   brain, but declared that he would not meddle with it. At
   Mörner's last visit (27 June 1810) Bernadotte gave him leave
   to communicate that the emperor had nothing against
   Bernadotte's election and that he himself was ready to accept
   if the choice fell on him. It is easy to imagine the
   astonishment of Engström, the minister of state, when he heard
   Mörner's description of his bold attempt in Paris. 'What do
   you bring from Paris?' Engström asked, when Mörner came into
   the foreign Minister's cabinet in Stockholm. 'That I have
   induced the prince of Ponte Corvo to accept the Swedish
   crown.' 'How could you speak to him about it without being
   commissioned?' 'Our only safety lies in the prince of Ponte
   Corvo.' 'Are you sure that he will receive it so that we are
   not doubly committed?' 'Certainly. I have a letter here.'
   'From him to you?' 'No, from me to him.' 'Boy.' exclaimed
   Mörner's relation, his excellency Von Essen, at the end of the
   conference, 'You ought to sit where neither sun nor moon will
   shine on you.' But Mörner's project won more and more favor in
   the country though he himself was arrested in Orebro, whereby
   the government desired to prevent his presence as a member of
   the house of knights at the special diet called at Örebro for
   election. Through messengers and a pamphlet on the succession
   in Sweden he though absent worked for his plan even among the
   estates which met the 23d July 1810."

      _Sveriges Historia, 1805-1875
      (translated from the Swedish by L. G. Sellstedt),
      pages 29-31._

      See, also,
      SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1810 (page 2831).

SWEDEN: Libraries.

   See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

   ----------SWEDEN: End--------

{3806}

SWEDENBORG, and the New Church.

   "Swedenborg was born in 1688, and died in 1772. The son of a
   Lutheran Bishop of Sweden, a student at several universities,
   and an extensive traveler throughout all the principal
   countries of Europe, he had exceptional opportunities for
   testing the essential quality of contemporaneous Christianity.
   … Until he was more than fifty years of age, Swedenborg had
   written nothing on religious subjects, and apparently given
   them no special attention. He was principally known, in his
   own country, as Assessor Extraordinary of the Board of Mines,
   and an influential member of the Swedish Diet; and not only
   there, but throughout Europe, as a writer on many branches of
   science and philosophy. In this field he acquired great
   distinction; and the number and variety of topics which he
   treated was remarkable. Geometry and algebra, metallurgy and
   magnetism, anatomy, physiology, and the relation of the soul
   to the body were among the subjects which received his
   attention. There is to be noticed in the general order of his
   publications a certain gradual, but steady, progression from
   lower to higher themes,—from a contemplation of the mere
   external phenomena of nature to a study of their deep and
   hidden causes. He was always full of devout spiritual
   aspirations. In all his scientific researches he steadfastly
   looked through nature up to nature's God. … Maintaining this
   inflexible belief in God and revelation, and in the essential
   unity of truth, Swedenborg, in his upward course, at last
   reached the boundary line between matter and spirit. Then it
   was that he entered on those remarkable experiences by which,
   as he affirms, the secrets of the other world were revealed to
   him. He declares that the eyes of his spirit were opened, and
   that he had, from that time forward, conscious daily
   intercourse with spirits and angels. His general teaching on
   this subject is that the spiritual world is an inner sphere of
   being,—not material, and in no wise discernible to natural
   senses, yet none the less real and substantial,—and that it is
   the ever-present medium of life to man and nature."

      _J. Reed,
      Why am I a New Churchman?
      (North American Review, January, 1887)._

   "The doctrine of Correspondence is the central idea of
   Swedenborg's system. Everything visible has belonging to it an
   appropriate spiritual reality. The history of man is an acted
   parable; the universe, a temple covered with hieroglyphics.
   Behmen, from the light which flashes on certain exalted
   moments, imagines that he receives the key to these hidden
   significances,—that he can interpret the 'Signatura Rerum.'
   But he does not see spirits, or talk with angels. According to
   him, such communications would be less reliable than the
   intuition he enjoyed. Swedenborg takes opposite ground. 'What
   I relate,' he would say, 'comes from no such mere inward
   persuasion. I recount the things I have seen. I do not labour
   to recall and to express the manifestation made me in some
   moment of ecstatic exaltation. I write you down a plain
   statement of journeys and conversations in the spiritual
   world, which have made the greater part of my daily history
   for many years together. I take my stand upon experience. I
   have proceeded by observation and induction as strict as that
   of any man of science among you. Only it has been given me to
   enjoy an experience reaching into two worlds—that of spirit,
   as well as that of matter.' … According to Swedenborg, all the
   mythology and the symbolisms of ancient times were so many
   refracted or fragmentary correspondences—relics of that better
   day when every outward object suggested to man's mind its
   appropriate divine truth. Such desultory and uncertain links
   between the seen and the unseen are so many imperfect attempts
   toward that harmony of the two worlds which he believed
   himself commissioned to reveal. The happy thoughts of the
   artist, the imaginative analogies of the poet, are exchanged
   with Swedenborg for an elaborate system. All the terms and
   objects in the natural and spiritual worlds are catalogued in
   pairs."

      _R. A. Vaughan,
      Hours with the Mystics,
      book 12, chapter 1, (volume 2)._

   "It is more than a century since the foundation of this church
   [the New-Church] was laid, by the publication of the
   theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. For more than half
   of that time, individuals and societies have been active in
   translating them, and in publishing them widely. There have
   been many preachers of these doctrines, and not a few writers
   of books and periodicals. The sale of Swedenborg's writings,
   and of books intended to present the doctrines of the church,
   has been constant and large. How happens it, under these
   circumstances, that the growth of this church has been and is
   so slow, if its doctrines are all that we who hold them
   suppose them to be? There are many answers to this question.
   One among them is, that its growth has been greater than is
   apparent. It is not a sect. Its faith does not consist of a
   few specific tenets, easily stated and easily received. It is
   a new way of thinking about God and man, this life and
   another, and every topic, connected with these. And this new
   way of thinking has made and is making what may well be called
   great progress. It may be discerned everywhere, in the
   science, literature, philosophy, and theology of the times;
   not prevalent in any of them, but existing, and cognizable by
   all who are able to appreciate these new truths with their
   bearings and results. … Let it not be supposed that by the
   New-Church is meant the organized societies calling themselves
   by that name. In one sense, that is their name. Swedenborg
   says there are three essentials of this Church: a belief in
   the Divinity of the Lord, and in the sanctity of the
   Scriptures, and a life of charity, which is a life governed by
   a love of the neighbor. Where these are, there is the Church.
   Whoever holds these essentials in faith and life is a member
   of the New-Church, whatever may be his theological name or
   place. Only in the degree in which he so holds these
   essentials is anyone a member of that church. Those who,
   holding or desiring to hold these essentials in faith and
   life, unite and organize that they may be assisted and may
   assist each other in so holding them, constitute the visible
   or professed New-Church. But very false would they be to its
   doctrines, if they supposed themselves to be exclusively
   members of that Church, or if they founded their membership
   upon their profession or external organization. For there is
   no other true foundation for this membership than every man's
   own internal reception of the essentials of the Church, and
   his leading the life which its truths require."

      _T. Parsons,
      Outlines of the Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,
      chapter 14, section 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Swedenborg,
      The four leading Doctrines of the New Church._

      _G. F. E. Le Boys Des Guays,
      Letters to a Man of the World._

      _B. F. Barrett,
      Lectures on the New Dispensation._

SWITZERLAND, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

{3807}

T.

TAORMINA.
TAUROMENION.

   About 392 B. C. Dionysios, the tyrant of Syracuse, expelled
   the Sikels, or natives of Sicily, from one of their towns,
   Tauromenion (modern Taormina) on the height of Tauros,
   overlooking the site of the old Greek city of Naxos, which
   Dionysios had destroyed ten years before. He peopled the town
   anew with some of his mercenaries; but after his death the
   scattered Naxians were brought together in it, and made it
   their home. "The city thus strengthened by new colonists grew
   and prospered, and became specially remarkable for the wealth
   of its citizens. Greek Tauromenion ran through the usual
   course of a Sikeliot city in later times. Settled again by a
   Roman colony, it lived on till the days of its greatest glory,
   as the last of Sikeliot cities to hold out for Christ and
   Cæsar against the assaults of the besieging Saracens. But even
   that greater memory does not shut out the thoughts of the
   stirring early days of the city. … The rocks and the heights
   are there still, and not the rocks and the heights only. There
   is the wall with the work of the Sikel and the Greek side by
   side. There is the temple of the Greek changed into the church
   of the Christian apostle of Sicily. There is the theatre, the
   work of the Greek enlarged and modified by the Roman; the
   theatre which, unlike those of Syracuse and Argos, still keeps
   so large a part of its scena, 'and where we hardly mourn the
   loss of the rest as we look out on the hills and the sea
   between its fragments. … The matchless site would be something
   even without a story, but at Taormina the story is for ever
   written on the site. On the long ridge of the town, on its
   walls and gates, on the rocks on which it stands, on the
   prouder rocks which rise above it, we may truly say that, of
   all who have assailed or defended the mountain-city, alongside
   of the names of Ibrahim and of Roger, the first names in the
   long story of Tauromenion dwell there also."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapter 11, section 2 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Century,
      September 1893._

TELEGRAPH, Invention of the Electrical.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION (pages 771-772).

      _T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The effects of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1648; also page 1484.

"TIPPECANOE AND TYLER TOO."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840 (page 3377).

   ----------TOLERATION, Religious: Start--------

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1631-1661.
   Denied in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1656-1661
      (pages 2103 to 2109).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1636.
   Established by Roger Williams in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647 (page 2639).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1649.
   Enacted in Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649 (page 2094).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1689.
   Partial enactment in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (page 909).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1778.
   Repeal of Catholic penal laws in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780 (page 936).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1827-1829.
   Removal of disabilities from Dissenters and Emancipation
   of Catholics in England and Ireland.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828 (page 952);
      and IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829 (page 1784).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1869.
   Disestablishment of the Irish Church.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870 (page 969).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1871.
   Abolition of religious tests in English Universities.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871 (page 970).

   ----------TOLERATION, Religious: End--------

TORQUEMADA.

      See INQUISITION (page 1751).

TRADE.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE.

TRADE-MARKS, Protection of.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

TRADES UNIONS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
      A. D: 1720-1800 (page 2933), and after.

TSIAM NATION, The.

      See TONKIN (page 3115).

TULANE UNIVERSITY, or University of Louisiana.

   "This institution had its origin in certain land grants made
   by the United States 'for the use of a seminary of learning.'
   By an act of the General Government passed in 1806 one
   township of land was granted for the above named purpose, and
   in 1811 another township was added to this and both were
   confirmed by an act (of 1824) which also authorized their
   location. The first movement toward the utilization of these
   grants was made in 1845, when the following clause was adopted
   in the amended Constitution: 'A university shall be
   established in the city of New Orleans. It shall be composed
   of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of medicine, one of
   natural sciences, and one of letters.' … The university was
   chartered in 1847. … For many years the university received
   but meagre support from the State. … By the Constitution of
   1879 the institution was endowed permanently by authorizing
   the sum of not more than $10,000 payable annually [for five
   years] to the university. At the expiration of this period the
   university was united with the Tulane University (in 1884).
   Since that time no appropriations have been made by the
   Legislature."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1890. number 1), pages 272-273._

TYPHOID FEVER, Appearance of.

      See PLAGUE; 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

U.

"UNCLE TOM'S CABIN," The effect of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852 (page 3392).

   -----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

{3808}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Historical Geography.

   The historical geography of the United States possesses, in a
   unique degree, a two-fold character. These divisions of the
   subject are best described by the words exterior and interior.
   While such a classification is, of course, inevitable in the
   history of every nation, the fact remains that, with the
   United States, these divisions stand in a different relation
   to each other from any that appear usually in the historical
   geography of other countries. The difference is chiefly one of
   relative importance. The internal historical geography of the
   Old World nations, barring the feudal period, involves so
   largely questions concerning mere provincial administration
   that it has no claim, from a geographical standpoint, to an
   importance equal to the shifting of the great national
   frontiers. Examples of this are found in the Roman and
   Byzantine empires, and in the majority of the modern states.
   In our own case however the order of interest is reversed. Our
   internal geography has attracted the chief attention of the
   student, not so much from the greater difficulty of the
   subject as from its vast importance in the early history of
   our government. It is not, indeed, too much to say that the
   organization of the present government under the constitution
   is an event of scarcely greater importance than the
   determination of the final policy of the states and the nation
   concerning the unoccupied western lands. It is this fact alone
   which gives the higher degree of relative importance to our
   internal historical geography. The general facts concerning
   our external geography are quickly told. The outlines of the
   entire subject are contained in the enumeration of the eight
   cessions, as follows:

   the original territory ceded by Great Britain at the
   peace of Paris in 1783 (see page 3287);

   the Louisiana purchase from France in 1803
   (pages 2049, and 3327);

   the acquisition of Florida from Spain by the treaty of 1819
   (page 1154);

   the admission of Texas in 1845 (page 3102);

   the undisputed acquisition of the Oregon country by treaty
   with Great Britain in 1846 (page 2402);

   the first Mexican cession by the peace of Guadalupe
   Hidalgo in 1848 (page 2175);

   the second Mexican cession, known as the Gadsden purchase, in
   1853 (page 133);

   and the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 (page 30).

   The enumeration of these eight acquisitions, all of which,
   save the final one are shown on the first United States map,
   affords a complete picture of the successive stages of our
   territorial growth. The occasion of these different
   annexations, as well as their exact territorial extent, would
   involve us in a series of details which are beyond the purpose
   of the present article. It should be observed, however, that
   in several cases the map shows the territories in question as
   finally determined by treaty or survey, rather than their
   actual extent as understood at the time the annexations were
   made. This is one of the inevitable disadvantages in the
   purely cartographic treatment of such a subject. The
   historical map is compelled from its nature to give a tangible
   appearance to matters which are often very intangible in fact.
   In the case, for example, of what we may call the first United
   States, the country as recognized by the treaty of Paris, the
   western line of the Mississippi was the only boundary which
   was not the subject of future discussion. The southern
   frontier as arranged at Paris was affirmed by treaty with
   Spain in 1795. On the other side, however, Great Britain
   retained a number of posts in the Old Northwest up to the Jay
   treaty of 1794; the boundary between the upper Mississippi and
   the Lake of the Woods, imperfectly described in the Paris
   treaty, was not settled until 1818; the line from the
   intersection of the St. Lawrence to the Sault Ste. Marie was
   established in 1822 by joint commission under the treaty of
   Ghent; while the Maine frontier question, the most difficult
   and obstinate of all our boundary disputes, was not finally
   settled until the year 1842. The Louisiana purchase of 1803
   brought in fresh questions concerning our territorial limits.
   On three sides, the North, West and Southwest the frontiers of
   this vast area were undefined. On the northern side the
   boundary was settled with Great Britain by the treaty of 1818
   which carried the line along the forty-ninth parallel to the
   Rocky Mountains, while the treaty of 1819 with Spain, which
   ceded Florida to the United States, also defined the limits of
   Louisiana on the South-West. This line of 1819 has an
   additional importance, in that it drew the frontier between
   Spain and the United States along the forty-second parallel to
   the Pacific coast. The importance of this lay in the fact that
   it gave us a clear title on the Spanish side to the so-called
   Oregon country. The exact connection, real or supposed,
   between this territory and the Louisiana country was for many
   years one of the disputed points in American historical
   geography. The belief in this connection, at one time general,
   undoubtedly had its origin in the undefined character of
   Louisiana at the time of the purchase, and the fact that our
   government turned this indefiniteness to its own purpose in
   advancing its Oregon claims. It is now clear, however, from
   the evidence of the old maps, the official statement of the
   limits of the region, of which there is but one in existence
   (the Crozat grant of 1712) and lastly the understanding of
   France herself at the time of the cession, that Louisiana did
   not include in its limits any part of the Pacific watershed. A
   map published in a subsequent work of the French
   plenipotentiary placed the western boundary of Louisiana at
   the one hundred and tenth meridian. A line drawn in this
   arbitrary fashion and unsanctioned by the terms of the treaty
   itself may be regarded merely as one of convenience. If this
   view is correct it is certainly more convenient and, at the
   same time, more logical, to consider the western boundary as
   extending to the Rocky Mountain watershed,—a line which would
   not deviate to any radical extent from the meridian in
   question. The historical connection however between the
   Louisiana purchase and our subsequent acquisition of the
   Oregon country is perfectly clear. The exploration of the
   latter followed almost immediately but its final annexation
   was delayed by the opposing claim of Great Britain. In this
   controversy the claim of the United States was merely relative
   as opposed to that of England. The just claimant was
   undoubtedly the king of Spain, whose rights, based on
   discovery, antedated those of either of the contesting powers.
   The Spanish title, however, having, as we have seen, been
   relinquished by the treaty of 1819, the issue between Great
   Britain and the United States became clearly defined. A joint
   occupation of the disputed territory by the two powers ensued
   from 1818 to 1846. In the latter year was negotiated the
   compromise treaty, which continued our northern line of 1818
   on the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the
   Pacific coast. From the treaty of 1846 we may date the
   completion of our northern frontier, although the ownership of
   certain islands between Vancouver and the mainland was not
   settled until 1872.
{3809}
   A few more years witnessed the completion of our southern
   frontier, as well. In 1845 Texas was admitted to the Union.
   The western boundary of the Rio Grande, claimed by the new
   state under her constitution of 1836, led directly to the war
   with Mexico, and by that war to the great additional cession
   at Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The southern boundary was
   finally completed by the Gadsden purchase of 1853. Coming now
   to the study of our internal geography, we find ourselves in
   contact with what is practically a distinct subject. Here we
   encounter a whole series of those weighty questions, the
   solution of which figures so prominently in the early history
   of the American government. We have already noted that the
   first western boundary of the United States was placed by the
   treaty of 1783 at the Mississippi river. But during the Paris
   negotiations our ally France and quasi ally Spain both opposed
   this westward extension of our territory and it was long an
   open question, even after our independence itself was assured,
   whether we should not be compelled to accept a western
   boundary on the Appalachian range. Years before the final
   settlement of the question at Paris, the expectancy of the
   Mississippi boundary had given rise to questions which caused
   an undercurrent of dissension between the states during the
   entire period of the Revolutionary War. In their relation to
   the western land question, the thirteen original states divide
   themselves into two classes, the claimant and non-claimant
   states. In the first class were Massachusetts, Connecticut,
   New York, Virginia, the two Carolinas and Georgia; in the
   second, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
   Delaware and Maryland. The claims of the seven first named
   states covered every inch of our prospective western domain
   and in the country north of the Ohio, known as the Old
   Northwest there were opposing claims of two and in some
   districts of even three states to the same territory. The
   extent of these claims is indicated on the map of the
   Federated states in 1783. They rested for the most part upon
   the royal grants and charters to the colonies, and, in the
   case of New York, upon the treaties with the Iroquois. Their
   relative merits where conflicting, or their collective merit
   as a whole, are questions which we will not attempt to
   discuss. It is sufficient to observe that if insisted upon in
   their entirety they would have presented an insuperable
   obstacle to the formation of an American federate government.
   In the proceedings of the Continental Congress, as well as in
   the state legislative bodies, touching this western domain, we
   may find the germs of nearly all the political and
   constitutional questions which have made the greater part of
   our subsequent history. The relative rank and power of the
   states, the obligation of one state towards another, the
   individual rights of states as opposed to the collective
   rights of the Union; all of these questions entered into the
   great problem which the nation was now called upon to solve.
   The objections to the western claims by the non-claimant
   states, though urged with varying degrees of vehemence and
   accompanied with many widely differing alternatives, may be
   fairly resolved into the two following contentions: that it
   was unjust that so vast a domain, whose acquisition at the
   peace could only be insured through the joint labor of all the
   states, should thereafter become the property of a certain
   favored few, and also that the claims if allowed would in the
   end give the claimant states a preponderating power which
   would be extremely prejudicial if not dangerous to the others.
   Of all the non-claimant states, Maryland was the most
   determined in her opposition, and it is to her that Professor
   Herbert B. Adams in his monograph on "Maryland's Influence
   upon Land Cessions to the United States," assigns the chief
   credit for the final creation of the first national domain
   (see page 3280). The claim though a just one cannot be
   asserted without an important qualification. The proposition
   advanced by Maryland, that a national title to the western
   lands be asserted by a clause in the Articles of
   Confederation, was manifestly one to which the claimant states
   would never give their consent. It was due, however, to the
   action of Maryland,—which refused for more than three years,
   from November 1777 to March 1781, to ratify the articles,—
   that the question was kept open until the claimant states, in
   order to complete the circle of the Union, found it necessary
   to adopt the policy of voluntary cessions, suggested by
   Congress. The history in detail of the several state cessions
   involves many questions concerning the distribution and sale
   of public lands which need not concern us. Some of the offers
   of cession, at first conditional and partial, were made
   absolute and final, as, one by one, the besetting difficulties
   were cleared away. The dates of the final cessions by the
   seven claimant states in order were as follows:
   New York 1781,
   Virginia 1783,
   Massachusetts 1785,
   Connecticut 1786,
   South Carolina 1787,
   North Carolina 1790,
   Georgia 1802.

   Certain land reservations north of the Ohio, as shown on the
   map of the United States in 1790, were made by both Virginia
   and Connecticut; but Virginia renounced jurisdiction over
   these lands in the cession, and Connecticut did likewise in
   1800, the two states reserving merely the property rights. The
   territory south of the Ohio was not included in the Virginia
   cession of 1783 but the district of Kentucky was made the
   subject of a second cession in 1789. The completion of this
   list closed the interesting chapter in our history covered by
   the state cessions and gave to the United States the
   sovereignty over its first great western public domain. Before
   pursuing this subject further, let us see in what relation the
   cessions stand to the present form of the thirteen original
   states. Some boundary contentions still remained, but these
   are not of historic importance. The claim of Massachusetts in
   what is now "Western New York was settled by joint commission
   in 1786, while Pennsylvania purchased a tract of land on lake
   Erie from the general government in 1792. At the present day
   sixteen states stand upon the territory which remained to the
   original thirteen, the three additional ones each springing
   from the partition of one of the older states. In 1790 New
   York assented to the independence of Vermont, which was
   admitted to the Union in the following year; in 1820 Maine was
   separated from Massachusetts and admitted; and finally, in
   1862, West Virginia was set off from Virginia and became a
   state in 1863. We will now resume the subject of the
   disposition of the western lands.
{3810}
   We have already noted the termination of that stage of their
   history which involves the territorial claims of individual
   states. The second stage concerns itself with the evolution of
   what may be called the American system of territorial
   government. The first, indeed, had not reached its completion
   before the second began to receive the greater measure of
   public attention. The western land cessions to the government
   were made with the general understanding, tacit in most cases,
   but in that of Virginia explicitly stated, that the ceded
   territory should eventually be formed into additional states.
   The first national domain may therefore be regarded as a
   district held in trust by the government for a special
   purpose. This view, which was not only required by the terms
   of the Virginia cession, but also represented the general
   sentiment of the time, has formed the basis of our entire
   subsequent policy in dealing with the national domain,—a
   policy which has remained unaltered even in the case of the
   immense territories that afterwards came into the direct
   possession of the government by treaty with foreign powers.
   The one question remaining was the erection of the legislative
   machinery which should provide for the government of the
   territories during their preparation for statehood. The
   problem was finally solved by the Ordinance of 1787 for the
   government of the Northwest territory. This famous ordinance,
   the first of the long series of acts concerning territorial
   government, was the last noteworthy piece of legislation under
   the old Articles of Confederation, and the year which
   witnessed both the successful inauguration of our territorial
   policy and the adoption of the new constitution is the most
   memorable in the entire history of American institutions. The
   history of the enactment of the Ordinance, for many years
   veiled in obscurity, has been fully elucidated by the late W.
   F. Poole (monograph on "The Ordinance of 1787"); the full text
   is printed in its proper place in this work (page 2380). Many
   of its provisions, suited only for the special occasion of
   their use, are now antiquated and obsolete, and neither their
   letter nor spirit find a place in subsequent territorial
   legislation. But the fact remains that this act was in a
   certain sense the great proto-type; it was the first to
   organize and set in motion the machinery of our territorial
   policy. A policy that has provided without friction for the
   tremendous national expansion which has ensued during the
   present century may justly be regarded as one of the greatest
   achievements in the political history of the American
   government. In our own day, when the admission of a new state
   or the erection of a new territory is regarded as hardly more
   than a routine event in the working of our political system,
   it is easy for us to underestimate the vital importance of the
   first steps which were taken concerning the regulation of the
   national domain. It was because those steps were to determine
   in a measure our entire future policy, that the history of the
   old Continental Congress should form an absorbing theme for
   every student of our internal geography. It is unnecessary to
   follow this subject in detail through its later history, which
   is simply a monotonous record of legislative enactments for
   the organization of new territories or the admission of new
   states. The principle had been fully established; the history
   of the next century, followed step by step, can show very
   little beyond its consistent application. Political
   considerations have, it is true, often delayed or prematurely
   hastened the admission of new states, but there has been one
   case only where we have been called upon again to face a
   question similar to that which was solved by the old congress.
   The circumstances of the admission of the republic of Texas
   bear no analogy to that of any other state received into the
   Union since the formation of the government. Here was, not a
   state created by mere legislative enactment, but an
   independent foreign sovereignty, admitted to the Union at its
   own solicitation, bringing with it as a dower a territory
   immeasurably greater than the national policy had ever before
   assigned to a single state. Once more therefore we have the
   old question of a troublesome state sovereignty in immense
   unoccupied lands. The comparative absence of friction in the
   solution of this new problem proves again the efficiency of
   the old policy in dealing with all such questions. No cession
   of territory was wrung from Texas or in this case even
   solicited. The state was admitted to the Union in 1845
   claiming a continuous western boundary on the Rio Grande. In
   1850, after the peace of Guadalupe Hidalgo had determined our
   boundary on the Mexican side, Texas sold to the General
   Government, for the sum of $10,000,000, all of her territorial
   claims north and west of her present boundaries. With some
   modifications the history of the original cessions repeats
   itself in this transaction, which was the last occasion of a
   great transfer of territory to the Union by one of its
   members. There are many other features in our internal
   geography, among the most notable the institution of slavery,
   which would be worthy of attention were the space to permit.
   In view of this limitation, however, we cannot pursue the
   subject beyond this general review of its main outlines. There
   is a dearth of works on American historical geography
   subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. It is a
   subject, indeed, which cannot be very satisfactorily studied
   simply through the literature dealing exclusively with the
   topic. Of the atlases Professor Albert Bushnell Hart's. "Epoch
   Maps Illustrating American History" is the best; the most
   serviceable of the text works is Henry Gannett's pamphlet on
   "Boundaries of the United States and of the several States and
   Territories, with a Historical Sketch of the Territorial
   Changes," published as bulletin Number 13 of the United States
   Geological Survey. Townsend MacCoun's "Historical Geography of
   the United States" and the later chapters of Walter B.
   Scaife's "America, its Geographical History" are also useful.
   An excellent account of our geographical history during the
   early years of the Government, covering the period of the
   state cessions, may be found in B. A. Hinsdale's Old
   Northwest, with a View of the Thirteen Colonies as constituted
   by the, Royal Charters." For a more careful study there is of
   course no substitute for the texts of the grants, charters,
   treaties and legislative acts of Congress, and the more
   important of these are freely quoted from in Mr. Gannett's
   work.

      Alan C. Reiley.

UNITED STATES: A. D. 1863.
   Adoption and Organization of the National Bank System
   of the United States.

   See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878 (page 2219).

{3811}

UTOPIAS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (page 2932).

UZBEGS.

   A Turkish branch of the Tatars of Turkestan.

V.

VOLAPUK.

   A proposed universal language, invented in 1879 by a
   Swabian pastor, named Schleyer.

VOLTA, The electrical discoveries of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

W.

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

WHEATSTONE, Prof., Inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY (page 773).

      _T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535_

{3812}

CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT AND INDICATIVE EVENTS.

TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA. [BEFORE]

B. C. 4777.
      Beginning of the Egyptian dynasties as given by Manetho,
      according to the latest computations. [Uncertain date]

2250.
      Beginning of the reign of Hammurabi, or Chammurabi, the
      first important king of Babylonia. [Uncertain date]

1500.
      Independence of Assyria as a kingdom separate from
      Babylonia, and rise of Nineveh. [Uncertain date]

1330.
      Beginning of the reign in Egypt of Ramses II.,
      the Sesostris of the Greeks. [Uncertain date]

1260.
      Death of Ramses II., king of Egypt, and accession of
      Merneptah or Merenptah, supposed by many writers to be
      the Pharaoh of the Oppression. [Uncertain date]

1200.
      Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt.
      [Uncertain date]

1120.
      Beginning of the reign of Tiglathpileser I.,
      king of Assyria. [Uncertain date]

1000.
      Beginning of the reign of King David. [Uncertain date]

960.
      Death of David and beginning of the reign of Solomon.
      [Uncertain date]

776.
      Beginning of the Olympiads.

753.
      The founding of Rome. [Uncertain date]

745.
      First war between Sparta and Messenia.

734.
      Founding of Syracuse by Greeks from Corinth.

725.
      End of first Messenian War.
722.
      Overthrow of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians.
      Captivity of the Ten Tribes.

685.
      The second war between Messenia and Sparta.

668.
      End of the second Messenian war.

640.
      Birth of Thales. [Uncertain date]

624.
      Supposed date of the legislation of Draco, at Athens.
      [Uncertain date]
612.
      Conspiracy of Cylon at Athens.

608.
      Accession of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylonia.

606.
      Destruction of Nineveh and overthrow of the Assyrian
      empire by the Medes. [Uncertain date]

601.
      First invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar.

598.
      Invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar.

594.
      The Constitution of Solon adopted at Athens.

586.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
      End of the kingdom of Judah and exile of the remnant
      of the people to Babylon.

560.
      Tyranny of Pisistratus established at Athens.

551.
      Birth of Confucius [Uncertain date] (d. 478).

549.
      Overthrow of the Median monarchy by Cyrus,
      and founding of the Persian.

546.
      Overthrow of Crœsus and the kingdom of Lydia by Cyrus,
      king of Persia.

538.
      Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus.

529.
      Death of Cyrus and accession of Cambyses
      to the throne of Persia.

525.
      Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, king of Persia.
      Birth of Æschylus (d. 456).

521.
      Accession of Darius I., king of Persia.

520.
      Birth of Pindar. [Uncertain date]
516.
      Invasion of Scythia by Darius, king of Persia.
      [Uncertain date]

514.
      Birth of Themistocles [Uncertain date]
      (d. 449 [Uncertain date]).

510.
      Expulsion of the Pisistratids from Athens.

509.
      Expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome. [Uncertain date]
      Founding of the Republic (Roman chronology).

508.
      Political reorganization of Athens by Cleisthenes.

506.
      Subjection of Macedonia to Persia.

500.
      Rising of the Greek colonies in Ionia, against the Persians.

495.
      Birth of Sophocles (d. 405 [Uncertain date]).

493.
      League of the Romans and Latins.

492.
      First secession of the Roman Plebs.
      Creation of the Tribunes of the People.

490.
      First Persian expedition against Greece.
      Destruction of Naxos by the Persians.
      Their overwhelming defeat at Marathon.

489.
      Condemnation and death of Miltiades at Athens.
      [Uncertain date]

486.
      Accession of Xerxes to the throne of Persia.

484.
      Birth of Herodotus. [Uncertain date]

480.
      Second Persian invasion of Greece.
      Thermopylæ.
      Artemisium.
      Salamis.
      Retreat of Xerxes.
      Carthaginian invasion of Sicily.
      Battle of Himera.
      Birth of Euripides. [Uncertain date]

479.
      Battles of Platæa and Mycale and end of
      the Persian invasion of Greece.

478.
      Beginning of the tyranny of Hieron at Syracuse.

477.
      Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, under Athens.

471.
      Exile of Themistocles from Athens.
      Birth of Thucydides (d. 401 [Uncertain date]).

{3813}

469.
      Birth of Socrates [Uncertain date]
      (d. 399 [Uncertain date]).

466.
      Naval victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Eurymedon.
      Outbreak of the Plague at Rome.
      Revolt of Naxos from the Delian Confederacy.
      Fall of the tyrants at Syracuse.

465.
      Murder of Xerxes I., and accession of Artaxerxes I.
      to the throne of Persia.

464.
      Great earthquake at Sparta.
      Rising of the Helots,
      or beginning of the third Messenian War.

460.
      Birth of Hippocrates.

458.
      Commencement of the Long Walls of Athens.

457.
      Beginning of war of Corinth, Sparta, and Ægina with Athens.
      Battle of Tanagra.

456.
      Athenian victory at Œnophyta.

455.
      End of the third Messenian War.

450.
      End of war against Athens.
      Framing of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law.
      The Decemvirs at Rome.
      Birth of Alcibiades [Uncertain date] (d. 404).

447.
      Defeat of the Athenians by the Bœotians at Coronea.

445.
      Conclusion of the Thirty Years Peace between Athens
      and Sparta and their allies.
      Ascendancy of Pericles at Athens.
      Peace of Callias between Greece and Persia.
      Birth of Xenophon. [Uncertain date]

444.
      Creation of Consular Tribunes at Rome.
      Exile of Thucydides from Athens.

435.
      War between Corinth and Corcyra.

432.
      Complaints against Athens.
      Peloponnesian Congress at Sparta.
      Revolt of Potidæa.

431.
      Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
      Invasion of Attica.

430.
      Second invasion of Attica.
      The Plague at Athens.

429.
      Death of Pericles at Athens.
      Capture of Potidæa.
      Birth of Plato (d. 347).

427.
      Destruction of Platæa by the Peloponnesians.
      Massacre at Corcyra.

425.
      Surrender of Spartans to the Athenians at Sphacteria.
      Accession of Xerxes II., king of Persia.

421.
      Peace of Nicias between Athens and Sparta.
      End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.

415.
      Expedition of the Athenians against Syracuse.
      Mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens.
      Accusation and flight of Alcibiades.

413.
      Disaster to the Athenians before Syracuse.
      Renewal of the Peloponnesian War.

411.
      Oligarchical revolution at Athens.
      The Four Hundred and their fall.
      Recall of Alcibiades.

409.
      Carthaginian invasion of Sicily.

406.
      Victory of the Athenians over the Peloponnesians in
      the battle of Arginusæ.
      Execution of the generals at Athens.

405.
      Defeat of the Athenians at Aigospotamoi.
      Successful revolt of the Egyptians against the Persians,
      and independence established.

404.
      Fall of Athens.
      End of the Peloponnesian War.

401.
      Expedition of Cyrus the Younger.

400.
      Retreat of the Ten Thousand under Xenophon.
      Birth of Timoleon [Uncertain date] (d. 337).

391).
      Condemnation and death of Socrates at Athens.
      War of Sparta with Persia.

395.
      League of Greek cities against Sparta.
      The Corinthian War.

390.
      Rome destroyed by the Gauls.

389.
      Birth of Æschines [Uncertain date] (d. 314).

387.
      Peace of Antalcidas between the Greeks and Persians.

385.
      Birth of Demosthenes [Uncertain date] (d. 322).

384.
      Birth of Aristotle (d. 322).

383.
      Betrayal of Thebes to Sparta.
      War of Syracuse with Carthage.

379.
      Overthrow of the Olynthian League by Sparta.
      Deliverance of Thebes.

371.
      Defeat of Sparta at Leuctra.
      Ascendancy of Thebes.
      Arcadian Union.

370.
      Peloponnesian expedition of Epaminondas.

361.
      Adoption of the Licinian Laws at Rome.

362.
      Victory and death of Epaminondas at Mantinea.

359.
      Accession of Philip to the throne of Macedonia.

357.
      Outbreak of the Ten Years Sacred War in Greece.

356.
      Burning of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus.
      Birth of Alexander the Great (d. 323).

353.
      Final conquest of Egypt by the Persians.

352.
      Interference of Philip of Macedonia in the Greek Sacred War.
      First Philippic of Demosthenes.

343.
      Deliverance of Syracuse by Timoleon.
      First Samnite War in Italy.

341.
      End of first Samnite War.

340.
      Adoption of the Publilian Laws at Rome.

338.
      League of Greek cities against Philip of Macedonia.
      His victory at Chæronea.
      His domination established.
      Subjugation of the Latins by Rome.

336.
      Assassination of Philip of Macedonia,
      and accession of Alexander the Great.

335.
      Revolt of Thebes.
      Alexander's destruction of the city.

334.
      Alexander's expedition against Persia.
      His victory at the Granicus.

333.
      Alexander's victory over the Persians at Issus.

332.
      Alexander's sieges of Tyre and Gaza.
      His conquest of Egypt and founding of Alexandria.

331.
      Alexander's victory at Arbela.
      Overthrow of the Persian empire.

{3814}

330.
      Alexander's destruction of Persepolis.

326.
      Alexander in India.
      Defeat of Porus.
      Beginning of second Samnite War in Italy.

323.
      Death of Alexander the Great at Babylon.
      Partition of his dominion among the generals.
      Revolt in Greece.
      The Lamian War.

322.
      Subjugation of Athens by the Macedonians.
      Death of Demosthenes.

321.
      Beginning of the Wars of the Successors of Alexander.
      Founding of the kingdom of the Ptolemies In Egypt.
      Defeat of the Romans by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks.

317.
      Execution of Phocion at Athens.

307.
      Athens under the rule of Demetrius Poliorcetes.

306.
      Royal titles assumed by Antigonus (as king of Asia),
      Ptolemy, in Egypt, Seleucus Nicator, in Syria, Lysimachus,
      in Thrace, and Cassander, in Macedonia.

305.
      Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

304.
      End of the second Samnite War in Italy.

301.
      Battle of Ipsus.
      Overthrow and death of Antigonus.

298.
      Beginning of third Samnite War.

295.
      Roman defeat of the Gauls at Sentinum.

290.
      End of the third Samnite War.

287.
      Birth of Archimedes [Uncertain date] (d. 212).

286.
      Adoption of the Hortensian Laws at Rome.

280.
      Invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.
      Invasion of Greece by the Gauls.
      Rise of the Achaian League.

278.
      Pyrrhus in Sicily, in war against Carthage.

275.
      Defeat of Pyrrhus at Beneventum.

264.
      Beginning of the first Punic War between Rome and Carthage.

263.
      Athens captured by Antigonus Gonatus.

255.
      Defeat and capture of Regulus in Africa.

250.
      Founding of the kingdom of Parthia by Arsaces.
      [Uncertain date]

247.
      Birth of Hannibal [Uncertain date] (d. 183).
241.
      End of the first Punic War.
      Roman conquest of Sicily.
      Revolt of the Carthaginian mercenaries.

234.
      Birth of Cato the Elder (d. 149).
      Birth of Scipio Africanus the Elder [Uncertain date](d. 183).

227.
      War of Sparta with the Achaian League.

222.
      Roman conquest of Cisalpine Gaul completed.

221.
      Battle of Sellasia.
      Sparta crushed by the king of Macedonia.

218.
      Beginning of the second Punic War between Rome and Carthage.
      Hannibal in Italy.

217.
      Hannibal's defeat of the Romans at the Trasimene Lake.
      Cœle-Syria and Palestine ceded to Egypt by
      Antiochus the Great.

216.
      Great defeat of the Romans by Hannibal at Cannæ.

214.
      Beginning of war between Rome and Macedonia.

212.
      Siege and reduction of Syracuse by the Romans.

211.
      Hannibal at the Roman gates.

210.
      Ægina taken by the Romans and the inhabitants
      reduced to slavery.

207.
      Defeat of Hasdrubal on the Metaurus.

206.
      Birth of Polybius. [Uncertain date]

205.
      End of first Macedonian War.

202.
      Scipio's decisive victory at Zama, in Africa,
      ending the second Punic War.

201.
      Subjection of the Jews to the Seleucid monarchy.

200.
      Roman declaration of war against the king of Macedonia.

197.
      Decisive Roman victory over the Macedonians at Cynoscephalæ.

196.
      Freedom of the Greeks proclaimed by the
      Roman general Flamininus.

195.
      Birth of Terence [Uncertain date] (d. 158 [Uncertain date]).

191.
      Romans defeat Antiochus of Syria at Thermopylæ in Greece.
      Final subjugation of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans.

190.
      Decisive defeat of Antiochus at Magnesia, by the Romans.
      Beginning of Roman conquest in Asia.

189.
      Fall of the Ætolian League.

185.
      Birth of Scipio Africanus the Younger (d. 129).

171.
      The third war between Rome and Macedonia.

168.
      Roman victory at Pydna;
      extinction of the Macedonian kingdom.
      Birth of Tiberius Gracchus [Uncertain date] (d. 133).

167.
      Revolt of the Jews under Judas Maccabæus,
      against Antiochus, king of Syria.

165.
      Judas Maccabæus in Jerusalem; the Temple purified.
161.
      Defeat and death of Judas Maccabæus.

157.
      Birth of Marius (d. 86).

149.
      Opening of the third Punic War between Rome and Carthage.

146.
      Roman destruction of Carthage and Corinth.
      Greece absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

138.
      Birth of Sulla (d. 78).

135.
      Assassination of Simon Maccabæus;
      accession of John Hyrcanus to the High Priesthood.

133.
      Outbreak of the Servile War in Sicily.
      Attempted reforms and death of Tiberius Gracchus at Rome.
      Reduction of Numantia.

121.
      Death of Caius Gracchus at Rome.

111.
      Beginning of the Jugurthine War between Rome and Numidia.

{3815}

106.
      Birth of Cicero (d. 43).
      Birth of Pompey the Great (d. 48).

105.
      Great defeat of the Romans by the Cimbri at Arausio.
      Royal title taken by Aristobulus in Judea.

104.
      Ending of the Jugurthine War by Marius.

102.
      Destruction of the Teutones at Aquæ Sextiæ by the
      Romans under Marius.

101.
      Destruction of the Cimbri by Marius.

100.
      Adoption of the Apuleian Law at Rome.
      Birth of Julius Cæsar (d. 44).

95.
      Birth of Lucretius (d. 55).

90.
      Outbreak of the Social War, or struggle of the Italians.

88.
      Beginning of the first civil war (Marius and Sulla) at Rome,
      and of war with Mithridates, king of Pontus.
      Unsuccessful siege of Rhodes by Mithridates.

87.
      Campaigns of the Romans under Sulla against Mithridates in Greece.
      Marian proscriptions at Rome.
      Birth of Catullus [Uncertain date] (d. 47 [Uncertain date]).

86.
      Sulla's capture of Athens and victory at Chæronea.
      Death of Marius.
      Birth of Sallust (d. 34 [Uncertain date]).

84.
      End of the first Mithridatic War.

83.
      Return of Sulla to Italy;
      burning of the Temple of Jupiter;
      civil war at Rome.

82.
      Sulla master of Rome;
      the Sullan reign of terror.

80.
      War with Sertorius in Spain.

79.
      Sulla's resignation of the dictatorship.

78.
      Death of Sulla.

74.
      Opening of third Mithridatic War between Rome and
      the king of Pontus.

73.
      Rising of the Roman gladiators under Spartacus.

72.
      Assassination of Sertorius in Spain;
      Pompey in command.

71.
      Defeat of the gladiators and death of Spartacus.

70.
      Consulship of Pompey and Crassus at Rome.
      Cicero's impeachment of Verres.

61.
      Pompey's campaign against the pirates of Cilicia.

66.
      Command of Pompey in the East.
      Overthrow of Mithridates.

65.
      Birth of Horace (d. 8).

64.
      Extinction of the Seleucid kingdom by Pompey.

63.
      Consulship of Cicero at Rome;
      Conspiracy of Catiline.
      Pompey's siege and conquest of Jerusalem;
      the Asmonean kingdom made tributary to Rome.

60.
      The first Triumvirate at Rome.

59.
      Consulship of Cæsar at Rome.

58.
      Beginning of Cæsar's campaigns in Gaul.
      Exile of Cicero from Rome.

57.
      Recall of Cicero.

56.
      Roman conquest of Aquitaine.

55.
      Cæsar's first invasion of Britain.

53.
      Roman war with Parthia;
      defeat and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.

51.
      Cæsar's conquest of Gaul completed.

50.
      Beginning of the second Civil War at Rome;
      Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.

49.
      Cæsar's campaign against the Pompeians in Spain;
      his conquest of Massilia.

48.
      Cæsar's victory at Pharsalia;
      death of Pompey in Egypt;
      Cæsar in Alexandria.

46.
      Cæsar's victory at Thapsus;
      death of Cato.

45.
      Cæsar's victory in Spain.

44.
      Assassination of Cæsar at Rome.

43.
      The second Triumvirate at Rome;
      murder of Cicero.
      Birth of Ovid (d. A. D. 18).

42.
      Battles of Philippi;
      destruction of the Liberators.

40.
      Herod proclaimed King of Judea.

37.
      Conquest of Jerusalem by Herod.

31.
      War of Antony and Octavius;
      victory of Octavius at Actium, establishing his supremacy.

30.
      Death of Antony and Cleopatra;
      annexation of Egypt to the Roman dominion.

29.
      Triumph of Octavius celebrated at Rome;
      title of Imperator given to him;
      closing of the Temple of Janus.

27.
      Title of Augustus assumed by Octavius at Rome.

12.
      Expedition of the Romans under Drusus into Germany.

9.
      Last German campaign and death of Drusus.

8.
      First campaign of Tiberius
      (afterward Roman emperor) in Germany.

4.
      Probable date of the birth of Jesus.
      Death of Herod, king of Judea.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

First Century.

1.
      Beginning of the Christian Era.

4.
      Campaign of the Emperor Tiberius in Germany.

6.
      Deposition of the Herodian ethnarch Archelaus;
      Judea made a district of the Roman prefecture of Syria.

9.
      Destruction of Varus and his Roman legions
      by the Germans under Arminius.

14.
      Death of Augustus;
      Tiberius made Emperor of Rome.
      Expedition of Germanicus into Germany.

23.
      Birth of Pliny the Elder (d. 79).

26.
      Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator in Judea.

{3816}

27.
      Completion of the Pantheon at Rome.

29.
      Crucifixion of Jesus. [Uncertain date]
      Martyrdom of Saint Stephen.

35.
      Conversion of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]

37.
      Death of the Emperor Tiberius.
      Accession of Caius, called Caligula.
      Birth of Agricola (d. 93).
      Birth of Josephus (d. 95 [Uncertain date]).

40.
      Birth of Martial. [Uncertain date]

41.
      Murder of the Emperor Caligula;
      elevation of Claudius to the throne.
      Restoration of the Herodian kingdom of Judea
      under Herod Agrippa.

43.
      Roman invasion of Britain by Aulius Plautius
      and the Emperor Claudius.

44.
      Death of Herod Agrippa;
      extinction of the kingdom of Judea.

50.
      First missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]

51.
      Capture of Caractacus, king of the Trinobantes, in Britain.
      Adoption of Nero by Claudius.

52.
      Second missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]
      Birth of Trajan [Uncertain date] (d. 117).

53.
      Felix, procurator of Judea.

54.
      Murder of the Emperor Claudius and accession of Nero.
      Saint Paul at Athens. [Uncertain date]

55.
      Third missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]
      Birth of Tacitus. [Uncertain date]

59.
      Festus made governor of Judea.
      Arrest of Saint Paul.
      Murder of Agrippina.

61.
      Destruction of the Druids of Britain;
      revolt under Boadicea.
      Saint Paul in Rome. [Uncertain date]

62.
      Birth of Pliny the Younger. [Uncertain date]

64.
      The burning of Rome;
      first persecution of Christians.

65.
      Conspiracy of Piso.
      Execution of Lucan and Seneca by the command of Nero.

66.
      Revolt of the Jews.

67.
      Campaign of Vespasian against the insurgent Jews.

68.
      Suicide of the Emperor Nero;
      Galba proclaimed Emperor.

69.
      Murder of Galba;
      brief reigns of Otho and Vitellius;
      Vespasian raised to the throne.
      Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

70.
      Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

78.
      Beginning of Agricola's campaign in Britain.

79.
      Death of the Emperor Vespasian and accession of Titus.
      Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.
      Pestilence in the Roman Empire.

81.
      Death of the Emperor Titus and accession of Domitian.

96.
      Murder of the Emperor Domitian;
      Nerva raised to the throne.

97.
      Adoption of Trajan by Nerva.

98.
      Death of the Emperor Nerva and accession of Trajan.


Second Century.

106.
      Completed Roman conquest of Dacia by Trajan.

115.
      War of Rome with Parthia.
      Trajan's conquests in Asia.
      Martyrdom of St. Ignatius.
      Great earthquake at Antioch.

116.
      Rising of the Jews in Cyrene, Cyprus and Egypt.

117.
      Death of the Emperor Trajan and accession of Hadrian.
      Relinquishment of Asiatic conquests.

118.
      Campaign of Hadrian in Mœsia.

119.
      Hadrian's visit to Britain.

121.
      Birth of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (d. 180).

131.
      Birth of Galen.

132.
      Savage revolt of the Jews, savagely repressed;
      name of Jerusalem changed to Ælia Capitolina;
      complete dispersion of the Jews.

138.
      Death of the Emperor Hadrian and
      succession of Antoninus Pius.

161.
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus made Emperor on
      the death of Antoninus Pius.
      Roman war with Parthia begun.

165.
      End of war between Rome and Parthia.
      Sack of Seleucia and Ctesiphon.
      Acquisition of Mesopotamia by Rome.

166.
      Great plague in the Roman Empire.

167.
      Beginning of the wars of Rome with the Marcomanni and Quadi.

174.
      Great victory of Marcus Aurelius over the Quadi.

180.
      Death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius;
      and accession of his Bon Commodus.

186.
      Birth of Origen [Uncertain date] (d. 253).

192.
      Murder of the Emperor Commodus (December 31).

193.
      Pertinax made Emperor, and murdered;
      sale of the throne of the Roman Empire to Didius Julianus;
      contest of rivals;
      accession of Septimius Severus.

198.
      Siege and capture of the Parthian city Ctesiphon
      by the Romans.


Third Century.

208.
      Campaign of Severus against the Caledonians of Britain.

211.
      Death of the Emperor Severus;
      accession of his sons, Caracalla and Geta.

212.
      Murder of Geta by Caracalla.

213.
      First collision of the Romans with the Alemanni.

215.
      Massacre at Alexandria commanded by Caracalla.

217.
      Murder of the Emperor Caracalla;
      elevation of Macrinus.

218.
      Overthrow of Macrinus by Elagabalus.

{3817}

222.
      Murder of Elagabalus;
      Alexander Severus made Emperor.

226.
      The new monarchy of Persia;
      fall of the Parthian power;
      rise of the Sassanidæ.

235.
      Murder of the Emperor Alexander Severus;
      accession of Maximin.

237.
      Fate of the two Gordians at Rome.

238.
      Overthrow and death of the Emperor Maximin;
      elevation of the third Gordian.

244.
      Death of the Emperor Gordian;
      accession of Philip.

249.
      Death of the Emperor Philip;
      accession of Decius.

250.
      Decian persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.
      Gothic invasion of Mœsia.

251.
      Victory of the Goths over the Romans;
      death of Decius in battle;
      accession of Gallus to the imperial throne.

253.
      Murder of the Emperor Gallus;
      accession of Æmilianus.
      First appearance of the Franks in the Empire.
      Murder of Æmilianus and accession of Valerian.

259.
      Invasion of Gaul and Italy by the Alemanni.

260.
      Roman war with Persia.
      Defeat and capture of the Emperor Valerian;
      accession of Gallienus.

267.
      Accession of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra.

268.
      Murder of the Emperor Gallienus;
      accession of Claudius II.
      Invasion of Thrace and Macedonia by the Goths
      checked by Claudius.

270.
      Death of the Emperor Claudius II.;
      accession of Aurelian.
      Dacia yielded to the Goths.
      Italy invaded by the Alemanni.

273.
      Defeat and capture of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra,
      by the Emperor Aurelian.

275.
      Murder of the Emperor Aurelian;
      accession of Tacitus.

276.
      Death of the Emperor Tacitus;
      accession of Probus.

277.
      Roman repulse of the Franks.
      Invasion of Germany by Probus.

282.
      Murder of the Emperor Probus;
      accession of Carus.

283.
      War of Rome with Persia.
      Death of Carus;
      accession of Numerian.

284.
      Murder of the Emperor Numerian;
      accession of Diocletian.

286.
      Maximian made imperial colleague of Diocletian.

287.
      Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

288.
      Revolt of Carausius in Britain.

292.
      Galerius and Constantius Chlorus created "Cæsars."

296.
      Revolt of the African provinces of Rome;
      siege of Alexandria.
      Birth of Athanasius [Uncertain date] (d. 373).

297.
      Roman war with Persia;
      defeat of Galerius.

298.
      Victorious peace of Rome with Persia;
      extension of the Empire.


Fourth Century.

303.
      Persecution of Christians by the Emperor Diocletian.

305.
      Abdication of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian;
      Galerius and Constantius Chlorus become "Augusti";
      Maximin and Severus made "Cæsars."

306.
      Constantius Chlorus succeeded as "Cæsar"
      by his son Constantine;
      beginning of civil war between Constantine and his rivals;
      defeat of the Salian Franks by Constantine.

312.
      Conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity.

313.
      Constantine and Licinius share the Empire.
      Toleration Edict of Milan.

316.
      Birth of Saint Martin of Tours (d. 397).

318.
      Opening of the Arian controversy.

325.
      First general Council of the Church at Nicæa.

330.
      Removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to
      Byzantium (Constantinople).

337.
      Death of the Emperor Constantine;
      partition of the Empire.

340.
      Beginning of Civil War between the
      three sons of Constantine.

348.
      Defeat of the Romans by the Persians at Singara.

353.
      Constantius sole Emperor.
      Synod of Aries.

354.
      Birth of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo (d. 430).

355.
      Julian made Cæsar;
      his defense of Gaul.

361.
      Death of the Emperor Constantius and accession of Julian;
      revival of Paganism.

363.
      Expedition of Julian into Persia;
      his retreat and death;
      accession of Jovian;
      Christianity again ascendant.

364.
      Death of the Emperor Jovian;
      accession of Valentinian I. in the West
      and of Valens in the East.

365.
      Great earthquake in the Roman world.

367.
      First campaigns of Theodosius against the Picts and Scots.

368.
      Repulse of the Alemanni, from Gaul.

375.
      Death of Valentinian;
      accession of Gratian and Valentinian II. in the West.

376.
      The Visigoths, driven by the Huns, admitted to the Empire.

377.
      Rising of the Goths in Mœsia and
      indecisive battle of Ad Salices.

378.
      Death of the Emperor Valens in battle with the Goths at
      Adrianople.
      Invasion of Gaul by the Alemanni and
      their repulse by Gratian.

379.
      Theodosius named Emperor in the East by Gratian.

380.
      Trinitarian edict of Theodosius.

381.
      Second general council of the Church, at Constantinople.

382.
      Conclusion of peace with the Goths by the Emperor Theodosius;
      final settlement of the Goths in Mœsia and Thrace.

{3818}

388.
      Overthrow of the usurper, Maximus.
      Formal vote of the Senate establishing Christianity in the
      Roman Empire.

389.
      Destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria.

390.
      Sedition at Thessalonica and massacre ordered by Theodosius.

392.
      Final suppression of Paganism in the Empire, by law.
      Murder of Valentinian II., Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of Eugenius.

394.
      Overthrow of the usurper Eugenius.

395.
      Death of the Emperor Theodosius;
      accession of his sons, Arcadius and Honorius;
      final division of the Empire.
      Invasion of Greece by Alaric;
      capture of Athens.

398.
      Suppression by Stilicho of Gildo's revolt in Africa.

400.
      Alaric's invasion of Italy.


Fifth Century.

402.
      Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.
      Birth of Phocion [Uncertain date] (d. 317).

404.
      Removal of the capital of the Western Empire
      from Rome to Ravenna. [Uncertain date]
      Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom,
      from Constantinople;
      burning of the Church of St. Sophia.

406.
      Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy.
      Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
      overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans,
      Suevi, and Burgundians.

407.
      Usurpation of Constantine in Britain and Gaul.

408.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius,
      and accession of Theodosius II.
      Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
      massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
      blockade of Rome by Alaric.

409.
      Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans.

410.
      Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric;
      his death.
      Abandonment of Britain by the Empire.
      The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.

412.
      Gaul entered by the Visigoths.
      Cyril made Patriarch of Alexandria.

414.
      Title of Augusta taken by Pulcheria at Constantinople.

415.
      Visigothic conquest of Spain begun.
      Persecution of Jews at Alexandria;
      death of Hypatia.

418.
      Founding of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse in Aquitaine.

420.
      Death of Saint Jerome, in Palestine.

422.
      War between Persia and the Eastern Empire;
      partition of Armenia.

423.
      Death of Honorius, Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of John the Notary.

425.
      Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III.,
      under the regency of Placidia;
      formal and legal separation of the
      Eastern and Western Empires.

428.
      Conquests of the Vandals in Spain.
      Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.

429.
      Vandal conquests in Africa begun.

430.
      Siege of Hippo Regius In Africa;
      death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

431.
      Third general Council of the Church, held at Ephesus.

433.
      Beginning of the reign of Attila, king of the Huns.
      [Uncertain date]

435.
      Nestorius exiled to the Libyan desert.

439.
      Carthage taken by the Vandals.

440.
      Leo the Great elected Pope.

441.
      Invasion of the Eastern Empire by Attila and the Huns.

443.
      Conquest and settlement of Savoy by the Burgundians.

446.
      Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
      humiliating purchase of peace with them
      by the Eastern Emperor.

449.
      Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.
      [Uncertain date]
      Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

450.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II.,
      and accession of Pulcheria.

451.
      Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons;
      retreat of Attila from Gaul.
      Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.

452.
      Invasion of Italy by Attila;
      origin of Venice.

453.
      Death of Attila;
      dissolution of his empire.
      Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.

455.
      Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of Maximus.
      Rome pillaged by the Vandals.
      Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).

456.
      Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian
      mercenaries, in the Western Empire;
      Avitus deposed.

457.
      Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer,
      raised to the throne of the Western Empire.
      Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.

461.
      Marjorian deposed;
      Severus made Emperor in the West.
      Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.

467.
      Anthemius made Emperor in the West.

472.
      Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
      death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
      Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

473.
      Ostrogothic invasion of Italy diverted to Gaul.

474.
      Julius Nepos Emperor in the West;
      accession of Zeno in the Eastern Empire.

475.
      Romulus Augustulus made Emperor in the West.

476.
      Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer;
      extinction for more than three centuries of
      the Western line of emperors.

477.
      Beginning of Saxon conquests in Britain.

480.
      Birth of Saint Benedict (d. 543).

481.
      Founding of the Frank kingdom by Clovis.

{3819}

483.
      Election of Pope Felix II.

486.
      Overthrow of the kingdom of Syagrius,
      the last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

488.
      Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the
      Eastern Emperor to invade Italy.

489.
      Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Verona.

491.
      Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East.
      Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.

492.
      Election of Pope Gelasius I.

493.
      Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna; his murder:
      Theodoric king of Italy.

494.
      Landing of Cerdic and his band of Saxons in Britain.
      [Uncertain date]

496.
      Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis,
      king of the Franks;
      baptism of Clovis.
      Election of Pope Anastasius II.


Sixth Century.

504.
      Expulsion of the Alemanni from the Middle Rhine by the Franks.

505.
      Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

501.
      Overthrow of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse by Clovis.

511.
      Death of Clovis;
      partition of the Frank kingdom among his sons.
      Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

512.
      Second Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

515.
      Publication of the monastic rule of Saint Benedict.

518.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Anastasius,
      accession of Justin I.

519.
      Cerdic and Cynric become kings of the West Saxons.

525.
      Execution of Boethius and Symmachus by Theodoric,
      king of Italy.

526.
      Death of Theodoric and accession of Athalaric.
      Great earthquake at Antioch.
      War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

527.
      Accession of Justinian in the Eastern Empire.

528.
      Conquest of Thuringia by the Franks.

529.
      Defeat of the Persians, at Dara,
      by the Roman general Belisarius.
      Closing of the schools at Athens.
      Publication of the Code of Justinian.

531.
      Accession of Chosroes, or Nushirvan,
      to the throne of Persia.

532.
      End of war between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
      Nika sedition at Constantinople.

533.
      Overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius.
      Publication of the Pandects of Justinian.

534.
      Conquest of the Burgundians by the Franks.

535.
      Recovery of Sicily from the Goths by Belisarius.

536.
      Rome taken from the Goths by Belisarius for Justinian.

537.
      Unsuccessful siege of Rome by the Goths.

539.
      Destruction of Milan by the Goths.
      Invasion of Italy by the Franks.

540.
      Surrender of Ravenna to Belisarius;
      his removal from command.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes, king of Persia;
      storming and sacking of Antioch.
      Formal relinquishment of Gaul to the Franks by Justinian.
      Vigilius made Pope.

541.
      Gothic successes under Totila, in Italy.
      End of the succession of Roman Consuls.
      Defense of the East by Belisarius.

542.
      Great Plague in the Roman Empire.

543.
      Surrender of Naples to Totila.
      Death of Saint Benedict.
      Invasion of Spain by the Franks.

544.
      Belisarius again in command In Italy.

546.
      Totila's siege, capture and pillage of Rome.

547.
      The city of Rome totally deserted for six weeks.
      Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia
      (afterward included in Northumberland) in England.
      Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

548.
      Death of the Eastern Empress, Theodora.

549.
      Second siege and capture of Rome by Totila.
      Beginning of the Lazic War.

552.
      Totila defeated and killed by the
      imperial army under Narses.

553.
      End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
      restoration of the imperial sovereignty.
      Fifth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople.
      Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna,
      representing the Emperor at Constantinople.

555.
      Pelagius I. made Pope.

558.
       Reunion of the Frank empire under Clothaire I.

560.
      John III. made Pope.

563.
      Founding of the monastery of Iona, in Scotland,
      by Saint Columba.

565.
      Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
      accession of Justin II.

566.
      Conquest of the Gepidæ in Dacia by the Lombards and Avars.

567.
      Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms
      of Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.

568.
      Invasion of Italy by the Lombards;
      siege of Pavia.

570.
      Birth of Mahomet. [Uncertain date]

572.
      Renewed war of the Eastern Empire with Persia.

573.
      Murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards.
      Subjugation of the Suevi by the Visigoths in Spain.

574.
      Benedict I. made Pope.

578.
      Accession of the Eastern Emperor Tiberius Constantinus.
      Pelagius II. made Pope.

582.
      Accession of Maurice, Emperor in the East.

{3820}

588.
      Kingdom of Northumberland, in England,
      founded by the union of Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.

589.
      Abandonment of Arianism by the Goths in Spain.

590.
      Gregory the Great elected Pope.

591.
      Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

597.
      Mission of Saint Augustine to England.
      Death of Saint Columba.


Seventh Century.

602.
      Revolt in Constantinople;
      fall and death of Maurice;
      accession of Phocas.

604.
      Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
      Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date]

608.
      Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.

610.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
      accession of Heraclius.
      Venetia ravaged by the A vars.

614.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;
      capture of Damascus.

615.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;
      removal of the supposed True Cross.

616.
      First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
      Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.
      The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
      Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

626.
      Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.

627.
      Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
      Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.
      Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
      from the Persians, by Heraclius.

630.
      Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.

632.
      Death of Mahomet;
      Abu Bekr chosen caliph.

634.
      Death of Abu Bekr;
      Omar chosen caliph.
      Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
      Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date]
      Defeat of Heraclius.
      Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date]

635.
      Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
      invasion of Persia;
      victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date]
      Defeat of the Welsh by the English in the
      battle of the Heavenfield.

636.
      Mahometan subjugation of Syria;
      retreat of the Romans.

637.
      Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;
      their victories In Persia.

639.
      Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.

640.
      Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems:
      invasion of Egypt by Amru.

641.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
      three rival emperors;
      accession of Constans II.
      Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
      by the Mahometans;
      end of the Sassanian kingdom;
      capture of Alexandria [Uncertain date];
      founding of Cairo.

643.
      Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.

644.
      Assassination of Omar:
      Othman chosen caliph.

646.
      Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.

648.
      Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."

649.
      Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.

650.
      Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.
      [Uncertain date]

652.
      Conversion of the East Saxons in England.

653.
      Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.
      by the Emperor Constans II.

656.
      Murder of Caliph Othman;
      Ali chosen caliph;
      rebellion of Moawiyah;
      civil war;
      Battle of the Camel.

657.
      Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.

658.
      Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;
      Egypt in revolt.

661.
      Assassination of Ali;
      Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
      Damascus his capital.

663.
      Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.

668.
      Assassination of Constans at Syracuse [Uncertain date];
      accession of Constantine IV. to the throne
      of the Eastern Empire.
      Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

670.
      The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date]

673.
      First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
      Birth of the Venerable Bede (d. 735).

677.
      The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
      treaty of peace. [Uncertain date]

680.
      Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
      condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
      Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
      and accession of Justinian II.
      The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
      defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

687.
      Battle of Testri;
      victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.

695.
      Fall and banishment of Justinian II.

696.
      Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.

697.
      Election of the first Doge of Venice.

698.
       Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.
       [Uncertain date]


Eighth Century.

704.
      Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

705.
      Accession of the Caliph Welid.

709.
      Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.

711.
      Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
      Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
      Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

{3821}

712.
      Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.

717.
      Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne
      of the Eastern Empire.
      Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
      Great defeat of the Moslems at
      the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

718.
      Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
      his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

719.
      Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.

721.
      Siege of Toulouse;
      defeat of the Moslems.

725.
      Mahometan conquests in Septimania.

726.
      Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
      tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

731.
      Death of Pope Gregory II.;
      election of Gregory III.;
      last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

732.
      Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
      under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
      Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
      edict against the Iconoclasts.

733.
      Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.

735.
      Birth of Alcuin (d. 804).

740.
      Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
      accession of Constantine V.

741.
      Death of Charles Martel.
      Death of Pope Gregory III.;
      election of Zacharias.

742.
      Birth of Charlemagne (d. 814).

744.
      Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
      their forced baptism.
      Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

747.
      The Plague in Constantinople.
      Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

750.
      Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and
      rise of the Abbassides.

751.
      Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.

752.
      End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
      assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pope Zacharias;
      election of Stephen II.

754.
      First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
      Rome assailed by the Lombards.

755.
      Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
      his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

756.
      Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.

757.
      Death of Pope Stephen II.;
      election of Paul I.

758.
      Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.

759.
      Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
      Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

763.
      Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
      [Uncertain date]

767.
      Death of Pope Paul I.;
      usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.

768.
      Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pippin;
      accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
      Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
      election of Pope Stephen III.

771.
      Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne
      sole king of the Franks.

772.
      Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
      Death of Pope Stephen III.;
      election of Hadrian I.

774.
      Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
      his enlargement of the donation of
      temporalities to the Pope.
      Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date]

775.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;
      accession of Leo IV.

778.
      Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;
      the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.

780.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
      accession of Constantine VI.;
      regency of Irene.

781.
      Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate
      kingdoms by Charlemagne.

785.
      Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;
      submission of Wittikind.

786.
      Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.

787.
      Seventh General Council of the Church
      (Second Council of Nicæa).
      First incursions of the Danes in England.

788.
      Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.
      Death of Abderrahman.

790.
      Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date]

791.
      Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.

794.
      Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.

795.
      Death of Pope Hadrian I.;
      election of Leo III.

797.
      Deposition and blinding of the Eastern
      Emperor Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

800.
      Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
      revival of the Empire.
      Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
      the first king of all the English.


Ninth Century.

801.
      Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

805.
      Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
      Creation of the Austrian march.

806.
      Division of the Empire by Charlemagne between
      his sons formally planned.

809.
      Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

812.
      Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
      siege of Bagdad.

814.
      Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
      his only surviving son.

816.
      Death of Pope Leo III.;
      election of Stephen IV.

817.
      Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

826.
      Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle to Harold,
      king of Jutland, by the Emperor.

827.
      Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

830.
      First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

{3822}

833.
      Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
      the "Field of Lies";
      deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
      Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

834.
      Restoration of Louis the Pious.

835.
      Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking
      of Utrecht by the Northmen.

836.
      Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
      Death of Egbert, the first king of all the English.

837.
      First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

838.
      Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
      the Amorian War.

840.
      Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish
      Emperor Louis the Pious;
      his death;
      civil war.

841.
      Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
      their capture of Rouen.

842.
      The Oath of Strasburg.

843.
      Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
      Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
      Emperor Louis the Pious;
      formation of the realms of Louis the German and
      Charles the Bald, which grew into the kingdoms of
      Germany and France.

845.
      First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
      their destruction of Hamburg.

846.
      Rome attacked by the Moslems.

847.
      Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

849.
      Birth of Alfred the Great.

852.
      Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

854.
      Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

855.
      Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks,
      and civil war between his sons.
      First footing of the Danes established in England.

857.
      Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
      and elevation of Photius.

860.
      Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date]

861.
      Formation of the Duchy of France;
      origin of the House of Capet.
      Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863.
      Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
      Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

864.
      Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

865.
      First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

866.
      Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

871.
      Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
      surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
      Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

875.
      Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
      imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

876.
      The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

877.
      Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
      and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
      Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

878.
      Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

880.
      Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
      battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
      Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
      Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date]

881.
      Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

884.
      Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
      under Charles the Fat.

885.
      Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

887.
      Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

888.
      Death of Charles the Fat and
      final disruption of the Empire of the Franks;
      founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
      The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count
      of Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

889.
      Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

890.
      Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

891.
      Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

894.
      Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

895.
      Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

898.
      Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple
      sole king of France.

899.
      Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
      accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

900.
      Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.


Tenth Century.

901.
      Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and
      accession of his son, Edward the Elder.
      Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

904.
      Sergius III. made Pope;
      beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

909.
      Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

910.
      Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.

911.
      Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing the
      Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of
      Conrad the Franconian.
      Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;
      cession of Normandy to Rollo.

912.
      Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.

914.
      Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by
      the courtesan, Theodora. [Uncertain date]

916.
      Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.

919.
      Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,
      to the kingship of Germany.
      Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

{3823}

923.
      The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple
      by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

924.
      Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;
      truce agreed upon for nine years.
      Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.
      Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon king.

925.
      Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
      and accession of his son Ethelstan.

928.
      Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X. by
      the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date]

929.
      Death of Charles the Simple in France.

931.
      John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia, made Pope.
      [Uncertain date]

932.
      Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.

936.
      Election of Otho, called the Great,
      to the throne of Germany.
      Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of the
      Carolingians to the French throne.

937.
      Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots
      at the battle of Brunnaburgh.
      Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

940.
      Death of the English king, Ethelstan, and
      accession of his brother Edmund.

946.
      Death of the English king, Edmund, and
      accession of his brother Edred.

951.
      First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
      founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

954.
      Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,
      succeeding him.
      Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,
      called" d'Outremer";
      accession of Lothaire.

955.
      Germany invaded by the Hungarians;
      their decisive defeat on the Lech.
      Death of the English king, Edred, and
      accession of his nephew, Edwig.

956.
      Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.

957.
      Revolt against the English king Edwig;
      division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.
      [Uncertain date]

959.
      Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;
      Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

961.
      The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.

962.
      Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
      revival of the Western Empire.

963.
      Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;
      election of Leo VIII.

964.
      Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;
      return and death of John XII.;
      siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

965.
      Death of Pope Leo VIII.;
      election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

967.
      Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date]

969.
      Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
      by John Zimisces, his successor.

972.
      Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,
      to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.
      Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

973.
      Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;
      accession of Otho II.

974.
      Murder of Pope Benedict VI.

975.
      Election of Pope Benedict VII.
      Death of the English king Edgar;
      accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

979.
      Death of Edward the Martyr;
      accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date]

983.
      Death of the Emperor Otho II.;
      accession of Otho III. to the German throne,
      under the regency of his mother, Theophano.
      Death of Pope Benedict VII.
      First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

984.
      Election of Pope John XIV.

985.
      Murder of Pope John XIV.;
      election of Pope John XV.

986.
      Death of Lothaire, king of France;
      accession of his son Louis V.

987.
      Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
      election of Hugh Capet.

988.
      Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
      Cherson acquired by the Romans.

991.
      Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;
      battle of Maldon.

996.
      Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;
      accession of his son, Robert II.
      Death of Pope John XV.;
      election of Gregory V.
      Imperial coronation of Otho III.

997.
      Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.
      Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;
      expulsion of the Pope.

998.
      Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
      Excommunication of King Robert of France.

999.
      Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,
      as Sylvester II.

1000.
      Expectations of the end of the world.
      Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
      Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
      by the Pope.
      Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.


Eleventh Century.

1002.
      Massacre of Danes in England on St. Brice's Day.
      Death of the Emperor Otto III., and election of Henry II.

1003.
      Invasion of England by Sweyn of Denmark.

1005.
      Birth of Lanfranc [Uncertain date] (d. 1089).

1013.
      Flight to Normandy of the English king, Ethelred.
      The West and North of England submissive to Sweyn.
      Imperial coronation of Henry II.

1014.
      Death of Sweyn.
      Return of Ethelred to England;
      his war with Sweyn's son Canute.
      Defeat of the Danes at the battle of Clontarf in Ireland;
      death of King Brian.

1016.
      Death of the English kings, Ethelred and his son,
      Edmund Ironside.
      Submission of the kingdom to Canute, king of Denmark.

1017.
      The Saracens driven from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

1024.
      Death of the Emperor Henry II., and election of Conrad II.

1027.
      Imperial coronation of Conrad II.

1031.
      End of the Ommeyyad caliphate of Cordova, in Spain.
      Death of Robert II., king of France;
      accession of Henry I.

{3824}

1033.
      Birth of Saint Anselm. [Uncertain date] (d. 1109).

1035.
      Death of Canute, king of England and Denmark,
      and accession of his son Harold.
      Creation of the kingdom of Aragon in Spain.

1039.
      Death of Conrad II., and election of Henry III.,
      king of Germany.
      Murder of Duncan, king of Scotland,
      by his successor, Macbeth.

1040.
      Death of Harold, king of England,
      and accession of Hardicanute.

1042.
      Death of Hardicanute, and end of Danish rule in England.
      Accession of Edward the Confessor.

1044.
      Sale of the papal see by Benedict IX. to Gregory VI.

1046.
      Three rival popes suppressed by the Emperor Henry III.
      Election of Pope Clement II.
      Imperial coronation of Henry III.

1049.
      Election of Pope Leo IX.
      The monk Hildebrand made Administrator of
      the Patrimony of St. Peter.

1051.
      Exile of Earl Godwine of Wessex.
      Visit of William of Normandy to England.

1052.
      Return of Earl Godwine to England.

1053.
      Defeat of Pope Leo IX. by the Guiscards.
      The Norman conquests in southern Italy conferred
      on them as a fief of the Church.
      Death of Earl Godwine.

1054.
      Death of Pope Leo IX.
      Final separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.

1055.
      Election of Pope Victor II.

1056.
      Death of the Emperor Henry III.
      Election of Henry IV., king of Germany,
      under the regency of his mother.

1060.
      Death of Henry I., king of France;
      accession of Philip I.

1066.
      Invasion of England by the Norwegian king, Harold Hardrada,
      and Tostig, the English king Harold's brother;
      their defeat at Stamford Bridge.
      Invasion of England by William, duke of Normandy;
      defeat of the English at Senlac or Hastings;
      death of Harold, last of the Saxon kings.

1071.
      Final overthrow of the English at Ely.
      The Norman conquest of England completed.

1073.
      Election of Hildebrand (Gregory VII.) to the papal throne.

1075.
      Synod of Pope Gregory and its decrees against clerical
      incontinence, and decrees against simony.
      Beginning of strife between the Pope and Henry IV.
      Great defeat of the Saxons, by Henry IV., at Langensalza.

1076.
      Council at Worms, called by Henry IV. of Germany,
      which pronounces the deposition of the Pope.
      Excommunication of Henry by Pope Gregory VII.
      Jerusalem captured by the Seljuk Turks.

1077.
      Humiliation of Henry IV. before Pope Gregory at Canossa;
      election of the anti-king Rudolph.
      Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.
      Accession of Ladislaus (called Saint), king of Hungary.

1078.
      Building of the Great or White Tower at London.
      [Uncertain date]

1079.
      Birth of Abelard (d. 1142).

1080.
      Renewal of the Pope's ban against Henry IV.
      Defeat and death of his rival Rudolph.
      Election of the anti-pope, Clement III.

1081.
      Unsuccessful attacks on the city of Rome by Henry IV.
      Invasion of Greece by the Norman duke, Robert Guiscard.
      Constantinople sacked by the army of Alexius Comnenus;
      coronation of Alexius.

1084.
      Henry IV. in Rome.
      Seating of the anti-pope, Clement III.
      Imperial coronation of Henry IV.
      Sack and burning of Rome by the Normans under Robert Guiscard.
      Founding of the Carthusian Order by Saint Bruno.

1085.
      Death of Pope Gregory VII. in exile at Salerno.
      Death of Robert Guiscard.

1086.
      Completion in England of King William's Domesday Survey
      and Domesday Book.

1087.
      Death of William the Conqueror;
      accession of William Rufus to the English throne.

1091.
      Rebellion of Conrad, eldest son of the German emperor,
      Henry IV.
      Birth of Saint Bernard (d. 1153).

1094.
      The Council of Clermont.
      Address of Pope Urban II.

1095.
      Death of (Saint) Ladislaus of Hungary.

1096.
      Movement of the first armies of the Crusades;
      massacre of Jews in Europe.

1099.
      Coronation of Henry v., second son of the emperor,
      as King of the Romans.
      Recovery of the Holy City by the Crusaders;
      founding of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.

1100.
      Death of William Rufus, king of England,
      and accession of Henry I.


Twelfth Century.

1101.
      Disastrous crusading expeditions from
      Italy, France and Germany.
      Agreement between King Henry I. of England and
      his brother Robert.

1104.
      Rebellion against the Emperor, Henry IV., headed by his son.

1135.
      Imprisonment and abdication of the Emperor, Henry IV.

1106.
      English conquest of Normandy;
      defeat and capture of Duke Robert.
      Death of the Emperor, Henry IV.

1108.
      Death of Philip I., king of France,
      and accession of Louis VI. (the Fat).

1109.
      Death of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury.

1110.
      Expedition of Henry V. to Italy.

1111.
      Insurrection at Rome;
      attack on the Germans;
      imperial coronation of Henry V.
      Concession of the right of investiture by the Pope.

1112.
      Repudiation of the Pope's concession and
      renewal of the War of Investitures.

{3825}

1115.
      Death of the Countess Matilda of Tuscany:
      her vast possessions bequeathed to the Church.

1118.
      Death of Pope Pascal II.
      Election of Pope Gelasius II.
      and the anti-pope Gregory VIII.
      Founding of the Order of the Templars.

1119.
      Battle of Noyon, in Normandy.
      Death of Pope Gelasius II. and election of Callistus II.

1120.
      The sinking of "the White Ship";
      drowning of the English King Henry's son.

1121.
      Condemnation of Abelard in France.

1122.
      Settlement of the question of investitures;
      Concordat of Worms.

1123.
      First Lateran Council of the Church.

1124.
      Death of Pope Callistus II. and election of Honorius II.

1125.
      Death of the Emperor Henry V. and election of Lothaire,
      of Saxony, to the German throne.
      Opening of the strife between Guelfs and
      Hohenstaufens or Ghibellines.

1130.
      Death of Pope Honorius II.;
      election of Innocent II., and the anti-pope, Anacletus II.

1131.
      Birth of Maimonides [Uncertain date]
      (d. 1201 [Uncertain date]).

1133.
      Coronation of the Emperor Lothaire at Rome.

1135.
      Death of Henry I., king of England;
      civil war between Stephen and Matilda.

1136.
      Progress of the Emperor Lothaire through the
      peninsula of Italy;
      submission of the cities.

1137.
      Death of the Emperor Lothaire.
      Death of Louis VI. of France and accession of Louis VII.;
      his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine.
      Birth of Saladin (d. 1193).

1138.
      Election in Germany of Conrad of Hohenstaufen.
      Second invasion of England by David of Scotland.
      Battle of the Standard.

1139.
      Banishment from Italy of Arnold of Brescia.
      Defeat of the Moors in Portugal by Affonso Henriques,
      at the battle of Orik or Ourique.
      Second Lateran Council of the Church.

1140.
      Siege of Weimsberg.
      First use of the party names, Welf or Guelf and
      Waiblingen or Ghibelline.
      Portugal separated from Castile,
      and made a separate kingdom.

1142.
      Death of Abelard at Clugny.

1143.
      Death of Pope Innocent III.
      Election of Celestine II.

1144.
      Turkish capture of Edessa.
      Jerusalem threatened.
      Appeal to Europe.
      Death of Pope Celestine II.
      Election of Lucius II.

1145.
      Death in battle of Pope Lucius II. and
      election of Eugenius II.
      Establishment of the republic of Arnold of Brescia at Rome.

1146.
      Massacre of Jews by Crusaders and mobs in Germany.
      Sack of Thebes and Corinth by the Norman
      King Roger of Sicily.

1147.
      The Second Crusade, from France and Germany.
      Lisbon taken from the Moors and
      made the capital of Portugal.
      Founding of Moscow.

1148.
      Unsuccessful siege of Damascus by the Crusaders.

1152.
      Death of the Emperor Conrad of Hohenstaufen and
      election of Frederick I. (Barbarossa).
      Marriage of Prince Henry, afterward Henry II. of England,
      to Eleanor of Aquitaine.

1153.
      Death of Pope Eugenius III. and election of Anastasius IV.

1154.
      Death of Stephen, king of England,
      and accession of Henry II.
      First expedition of Frederick Barbarossa into Italy.
      Death of Pope Anastasius IV. and election of Hadrian IV.
      Ireland granted to the English crown by Pope Hadrian IV.

1155.
      Overthrow of the republic of Arnold of Brescia at Rome;
      his death.
      Tumult at the imperial coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.

1158.
      Second expedition of Frederick Barbarossa into Italy.
      Siege of Milan.

1159.
      Death of Pope Hadrian IV.;
      election of Alexander III. and the anti-pope Victor IV.

1162.
      Thomas Becket made Archbishop of Canterbury.
      Destruction of Milan by Frederick Barbarossa.
      Birth of Genghis Khan [Uncertain date] (d. 1227).

1163.
      Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa to Italy.

1164.
      Enactment of the Constitutions of Clarendon in England.
      Death of the anti-pope Victor IV. and election of
      the anti-pope Pascal III.

1166.
      The Assize of Clarendon in England.
      Fourth Italian expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.

1167.
      Formation of the League of Lombardy;
      rebuilding of Milan.
      Storming of Rome by Frederick Barbarossa;
      seating of the anti-pope Pascal.

1168.
      Death of the anti-pope Pascal III. and
      election of the anti-pope Callistus III.

1169.
      Beginning of Strongbow's conquest of Ireland.

1170.
      Murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket in England.
      Birth of Saint Dominic (d. 1221).

1174.
      Invasion of England by King William of Scotland.
      His defeat and capture.
      Last visitation of Italy by Frederick Barbarossa.
      The leaning tower of Pisa commenced.

1175.
      Anglo-Norman conquest of Ireland completed;
      limits of the English pale defined.

1176.
      Defeat of Frederick Barbarossa by the
      Lombard League at Legnano.

1177.
      The peace of Venice;
      submission of the Emperor to the Pope, Alexander III.

1179.
      Submission of the anti-pope, Callistus III.,
      to Pope Alexander III.
      Third Lateran Council of the Church.

1180.
      Death of Louis VII., king of France,
      and accession of Philip Augustus.
      Sentence against Henry the Lion in Germany.

1181.
      Death of Pope Alexander III. and election of Lucius III.

1182.
      Birth of Saint Francis of Assisi (d. 1226).

1183.
      Peace of Constance between Germany and Italy.
      Independence of the Lombard Republics.

{3826}

1184.
      Birth of Saadi [Uncertain date] (d. 1291).

1185.
      Death of Pope Lucius III. and election of Urban III.

1187. Saladin's victory at Tiberias;
      recovery of Jerusalem by the Moslems.
      Death of Pope Urban III.;
      election and death of Gregory VIII.;
      election of Clement III.
      End of the Ghaznavide dynasty in Afghanistan.

1188.
      Imposition of the Tithe of Saladin in England.

1189.
      Death of King Henry II. of England and
      accession of Richard I. (Cœur de Lion).
      Crusade of King Richard of England, Philip Augustus
      of France, and Frederick Barbarossa of Germany.
      Massacre of Jews in England.

1190.
      Death, by drowning, of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa,
      in Asia Minor;
      accession of Henry VI., king of Germany.

1191.
      Death of Pope Clement III. and election of Celestine III.
      Imperial coronation of the Emperor Henry VI.

1192.
      Captivity of King Richard of England.

1195.
      Birth of Matthew Paris [Uncertain date] (d. 1259).

1196.
      Crusade of German barons to the Holy Land.

1199.
      Death of King Richard I. of England;
      accession of John.


Thirteenth Century.

1201.
      Crusade to the Holy Land urged by Pope Innocent III.
      Institution of the Order of the Sword for crusading
      against the heathen of the Baltic region.
      Cession to the Papacy by the Emperor, Otho IV., of all
      the territory claimed by Innocent III. as constituting
      the States of the Church.
      Chartering of the University of Paris by Philip Augustus.

1202.
      The Crusaders at Venice;
      their bargain with the Venetians and attack on Zara.

1203.
      Attack on Constantinople by the Crusaders and Venetians.

1204.
      Capture and pillage of Constantinople by
      the Crusaders and Venetians;
      creation of the Latin Empire of Romania and election of
      Baldwin of Flanders to the throne.
      Loss of Normandy by King John of England.
      Founding of the Monastery of Port Royal.

1205.
      Genghis Khan proclaimed by a great assembly Khakan
      or Emperor of Tartary.

1206.
      Founding of the Greek empire of Nicæa by Theodore Lascaris.

1209.
      First crusade against the Albigenses,
      instigated by Pope Innocent III.
      Imperial coronation of Otho IV. at Rome.

1210.
      Second crusade against the Albigenses.
      Founding of the Franciscan Order of Friars.

1212.
      Children's Crusade from France and Germany.
      Great defeat of the Moors by the Christians on
      Las Navas de Tolosa, in Spain.

1213.
      Subjugation of the Albigenses by Simon de Montfort,
      who receives the principality of Toulouse.
      Submission of John of England to the Pope as a vassal.

1214.
      Battle of Bouvines, in Flanders;
      defeat of the English king, John, and the German
      king and emperor Otho IV., by Philip Augustus of France.
      Birth of Roger Bacon (d. 1292).

1215.
      The Great Charter extorted from King John by
      the barons of England.
      Founding of the Dominican Order of Friars.
      Beginning, in Florence, of the fierce quarrel
      of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

1216.
      Election of Pope Honorius III.
      Crusade to the Holy Land led by King Andrew of Hungary.
      Death of King John of England and accession of Henry III.

1217.
      Revolt of the Toulousans;
      death of Simon de Montfort.

1218.
      Death of the Emperor Otho IV.
      Attack of the Crusaders on Egypt;
      siege of Damietta.

1220.
      Imperial coronation of Frederick II., the Hohenstaufen.
      Evacuation of Egypt by the Crusaders.
      Destruction of Bokhara by Genghis Khan.

1222.
      The charter called the Golden Bull conferred on Hungary
      by King Andrew.

1223.
      Death of Philip Augustus, king of France, and
      accession of Louis VIII.

1224.
      Birth of Sire de Joinville (d. 1317).

1226.
      Renewed crusade against the Albigenses;
      invasion of Languedoc by the French king, Louis VIII.,
      after buying the rights of Simon de Montfort's son.
      Death of Louis VIII. and accession in France of Louis IX.
      (Saint Louis) under the regency of Blanche of Castile.

1227.
      Election of Pope Gregory IX.
      Death of Genghis Khan.
      Birth of Thomas Aquinas [Uncertain date] (d. 1274).

1228.
      Crusade led by the Emperor Frederick II.
      His treaty with the Sultan recovering Jerusalem.

1229.

      Cession, by treaty, of two thirds of the dominions of the
      expelled Count of Toulouse to the king of France.
      Frederick II. in Jerusalem.

1230.
      Castile and Leon united under Ferdinand III.

1235.
      Recovery of Cordova from the Moors by Ferdinand III.
      of Leon and Castile.

1236.
      Defeat of the Lombard League by Frederick II. at Cortenuova.

1238.
      Founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada, in Spain.

1240.
      Birth of Cimabue (d. 1302 [Uncertain date]).

1241.
      Election and death of Celestine IV.
      Invasion and desolation of Russia, Hungary and Poland
      by the Mongols, or Tatars.

1242.
      Sack of Jerusalem by the Carismians.

1243.
      Election of Pope Innocent IV.

1244.
      Earliest use of the name Parliament in England.

1245.
      Decree of the Council at Lyons, held by Pope Innocent IV.,
      deposing Frederick II.

{3827}

1248.
      Expulsion of the Guelfs from Florence.
      Crusade of Saint Louis.
      Recovery of Seville from the Moors by
      King Ferdinand III. of Leon and Castile.

1249.
      Commencement of the building of Cologne cathedral.

1250.
      Death of the Emperor Frederick II.
      Rising of the people and establishing of a popular
      constitution in Florence.
      Defeat and captivity of Saint Louis and
      his crusaders in Egypt.

1252.
      Crusading movement of "the Pastors" in France.

1254.
      Election In Germany of William of Holland to be
      King of the Romans.
      Election of Pope Alexander IV.
      Return of the Guelfs to Florence,
      driving out the Ghibellines.

1257.
      Double election in Germany of Richard, Earl of Cornwall,
      and King Alfonso X. of Castile, rival Kings of the Romans.

1258.
      Formulation in England of the Provisions of Oxford.
      Founding of the Mongol empire of the Ilkhans,
      embracing Persia and Mesopotamia.

1259.
      Beginning of the reign of the great Mongol sovereign,
      Kublai Khan, whose empire covered most of Asia.

1260.
      Defeat of the Florentine Guelfs at Montaperte by the
      exiled Ghibellines;
      expulsion of Guelfs from Florence and Lucca.

1261.
      Fall of the Latin Empire of Romania;
      recovery of Constantinople by the Greeks of Nicæa.
      Election of Pope Urban IV.

1263.
      Norwegian invasion of Scotland and defeat at Largs.

1264.
      Battle of Lewes, in England;
      victory of the Barons.
      Summoning of Simon de Montfort's Parliament.

1263.
      Election of Pope Clement IV.
      Battle of Evesham in England;
      defeat and death of Simon de Montfort.
      Birth of Dante (d. 1321).
      Birth of Duns Scotus (d. 1308).

1266.
      Conquest of Sicily by Charles of Anjou.
      Exclusion of the Florentine Grandi, or nobles,
      from all part in the government of the commonwealth.

1268.
      Execution of Conradin, the last Hohenstaufen, in Sicily.

1269.
      Restoration of the Guelfs in Florence,
      with help from Charles of Anjou.

1270.
      Second Crusade of Saint Louis;
      his attack on Tunis;
      his death;
      accession in France of Philip III.

1271.
      Election of Pope Gregory X.
      Crusade of Prince Edward, of England.

1272.
      End of the Great Interregnum in the Empire;
      election of Rudolf of Hapsburg, King of the Romans.
      Death of Henry III. king of England, during the absence
      in the Holy Land of his son and successor, Edward I.

1276.
      Election and death of Popes Innocent V. and Hadrian V.;
      election of Pope John XXI.
      Birth of Giotto (d. 1337 [Uncertain date]).

1277.
      Election of Pope Nicholas III.

1278.
      Defeat, at Marschfeld, of Ottocar, king of Bohemia,
      by Rudolf of Hapsburg.
      Ghibellines permitted to return to Florence.

1281.
      Election of Pope Martin IV.

1282.
      Settlement of Austria, Styria and Carniola on the
      Hapsburg family, thus founding the House of Austria.
      Massacre of French in Sicily, called "the Sicilian Vespers";
      acquisition of the crown of Sicily by Pedro of Aragon.

1284.
      Completed conquest of Wales by Edward I. of England.

1285.
      Election of Pope Honorius IV.
      Death of Philip III., in France, and accession cf Philip IV.

1288.
      Election of Pope Nicholas IV.

1289.
      Victory of the Florentines at Campaldino over the
      Ghibellines of Arezzo and their allies.

1290.
      Expulsion of Jews from England by Edward I.
      Death of Margaret, queen of Scotland,
      called "The Maid of Norway";
      disputed succession to the Scottish throne.
      Birth of John Tauler (d. 1361).

1291.
      Death of Rudolf of Hapsburg;
      election of Adolf of Nassau, King of the Romans.
      Siege and conquest of Acre by the Sultan of Egypt and Syria;
      end of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem;
      rally of the Knights Hospitallers in Cyprus.
      Confederation of the three Forest Cantons of Switzerland.

1294.
      Election and abdication of Pope Celestine V.;
      election of Boniface VIII.

1295.
      The "first perfect and model Parliament" of England
      summoned by King Edward I.

1296.
      Fulmination of the bull "Clericis laicos" by Pope
      Boniface VIII. against the taxation of the clergy by
      Philip the Fair of France.
      Invasion and conquest of Scotland by Edward I. of England.

1297.
      Defeat of the English at Stirling by
      the Scottish hero Wallace.

1298.
      Deposition of Adolf of Nassau by the German Electors,
      and election of Albert of Austria.

1299.
      Alliance of the Templars with the Mongols,
      and defeat of the Turks at Hems;
      momentary recovery of Jerusalem.
      Invasion of the Greek Empire by the Ottoman Turks.

1300.
      Institution of the Jubilee by Pope Boniface VIII.
      Rise of the factions of the Neri and Bianchi at Florence.
      Birth of William Occam (d. 1347).


Fourteenth Century.

1301.
      The papal bulls, "Salvator mundi" and "Ausculta fill,"
      launched by Pope Boniface VIII. against Philip IV.,
      king of France.
      First meeting of the States-General of France,
      convened by the king.
      Death of Andrew III., king of Hungary, ending the Arpad
      line of sovereigns, and leaving the crown contested for
      several years.

{3828}

1302.
      Banishment of Dante and his party from Florence.

1303.
      Seizure of Pope Boniface VIII. at Agnani; his death;
      election of Benedict XI.
      Submission of Scotland to Edward I. of England.

1304.
      Birth of Petrarch (d. 1374).

1305.
      Election of Pope Clement V.
      Establishment of the papal court at Lyons, France;
      beginning of the so-called "Babylonish Captivity."

1306.
      Rising in Scotland under Robert Bruce against the rule
      of the English king.

1307.
      Arrest of the Knights Templars in France by King Philip V.
      Death of Edward 1., king of England,
      and accession of Edward II.
      Ravages of the Catalan Grand Company in Greece.

1308.
      Election in Germany of Henry of Luxemburg (Henry VII.).

1309.
      Removal of the papal court to Avignon.

1310.
      The burning of 59 Templars at Paris.
      Expedition of Henry VII. into Italy.
      Acquisition of the crown of Hungary by the Neapolitan House
      of Anjou, in the person of Charles Robert, or Charobert.
      Conquest of Rhodes from the Turks by the
      Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

1311.
      Sovereignty of Milan secured by Matteo Visconti.

1312.
      Abolition of the Order of the Templars.
      Imperial coronation of Henry VII. at Rome.

1313.
      Death of the Emperor Henry VII. at Pisa.
      Birth of Boccaccio (d. 1375).

1314.
      Death in France of Philip IV., called "the Fair,"
      and accession of Louis X., called "Hutin."
      Election in Germany of rival Kings of the Romans,
      Frederick of Austria and Louis of Bavaria (Louis V.).
      Great defeat of the English by the Scots at Bannockburn.
      Invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce.

1315.
      Edict of the French king, Louis Hutin, emancipating all
      serfs within the royal domains, on payment of a just composition.
      Defeat of Frederick of Austria by the Swiss at Morgarten.

1316.
      Election of Pope John XXII.
      Death, in France, of Louis Hutin, and
      accession of his brother Philip V.

1318.
      Defeat and death of Edward Bruce,
      in the battle of Dundalk, Ireland.

1320.
      Establishment of the tyranny of Castruccio at Lucca.
      Composition of the Old English poem, "Cursor Mundi."
      [Uncertain date]

1322.
      Death of the French king, Philip V.,
      and accession of his brother, Charles IV.
      Triumph of Louis V. over Frederick at the battle of
      Muhldorf in Germany;
      excommunication of Louis.
      Departure of Sir John Maundeville on his travels in the East.

1324.
      Birth of Wyclif [Uncertain date] (d. 1384).
      Birth of William of Wykeham (d. 1404).

1325.
      Birth of John Gower [Uncertain date] (d. 1408).

1326.
      First admission of burgesses into the Scottish parliament.

1327.
      Death of Edward II., king of England,
      and accession of Edward III.
      Expedition of Louis V., of Germany, into Italy;
      his Imperial coronation at Rome.

1328.
      Death of Charles IV., king of France, and accession of
      Philip VI., the first of the House of Valois.
      Peace of Northampton between the English and the Scotch.
      Death of Castruccio, of Lucca.
      Birth of Chaucer [Uncertain date] (d. 1400).

1329.
      Death of Robert Bruce, king of Scotland and
      accession of his infant son, David.

1330.
      Surrender of Nicæa to the Ottoman Turks.

1332.
      Acquisition of the throne of Scotland by Edward Balliol,
      with English aid.

1333.
      Defeat of the Scots by Edward III. of England,
      at Halidon Hill.
      Accession in Poland of Casimir the Great,
      last king of the Piast line.

1334.
      Election of Pope Benedict XII.

1336.
      Birth of Timour, or Tamerlane (d. 1405).

1337.
      Revolt of the Flemings under Jacques Van Arteveld.
      Birth of Froissart, the chronicler
      (d. 1410 [Uncertain date]).

1338.
      Declaration by the German Diet of the independence of
      the Empire in temporal matters.

1339.
      Beginning of the Hundred Years War between the English
      and French kings.

1340.
      Successful war of the Hanseatic League with Denmark.

1341.
      Return of King David II. to Scotland,
      Edward Balliol retiring.

1342.
      Walter de Brienne, Duke of Athens,
      proclaimed sovereign lord of Florence.
      Death of Charles Robert, king of Hungary,
      and accession of Louis, called the Great.
      Election of Pope Clement VI.

1343.
      Expulsion of the duke of Athens from Florence.
      Death of Robert, king of Naples.
      Accession of Queen Joanna I.

1345.
      Downfall and death of Jacques Van Arteveld at Ghent.

1346.
      Great English victory over the French at Crecy.
      Defeat of the Scots by the English at Neville's Cross,
      and captivity of King David II.

1347.
      Outbreak in Europe of the plague called "the Black Death."
      Death, in Germany, of Louis V. and election of Charles IV.
      Revolution of Rienzi, in Rome.

1348.
      Purchase of the sovereignty of Avignon by Pope Clement VI.
      from Joanna, queen of Naples and countess of Provence.
      Founding of the University of Prague.

1350.
      Death of Philip VI. of France and accession of King John.

1352.
      Election of Pope Innocent VI.

1353.
      Downfall and death of Rienzi, at Rome.

1356.
      Defeat of the French by the English Black Prince at Poitiers.
      Promulgation in Germany of the Golden Bull of Charles IV.

1357.
      Meeting of the States-General of France and popular
      movement in Paris under Stephen Marcel.

{3829}

1358.
      Insurrection of the Jacquerie in France.

1360.
      The Peace of Bretigny between England and France,
      suspending for a time the Hundred Years War.
      Outbreak of the Children's Plague in England.
      First distinct appearance of Wycliffe in English history,
      as an Oxford lecturer.

1361.
      Adrianople taken by the Turks and made the capital of Solyman.

1362. Election of Pope Urban V.
      Conjectured composition or beginning of Langland's
      "Piers Plowman," in its first form. [Uncertain date]

1364.
      Death of King John of France;
      accession of Charles V.

1366.
      Birth of the painter Hubert van Eyck (d. 1426).

1367.
      Victory of the Black Prince at Navarette, in Spain,
      restoring Peter the Cruel to the throne of Castile.
      Passage of the Kilkenny Act, in Ireland.

1369.
      Reopening of the Hundred Years War in France.
      Death, in Poland, of Casimir the Great, passing the
      crown to Louis of Anjou, king of Hungary.

1370.
      Beginning of the Stuart dynasty on the Scottish throne.

1371.
      Election of Pope Gregory XI.

1373.
      Birth of John Huss [Uncertain date] (d. 1415).

1374.
      Appearance in Europe of the Dancing Mania.

1375.
      Appointment at Florence of the Eight Saints of War.

1376.
      Death, in England, of the Black Prince.

1377.
      Return of the papal court to Rome from Avignon.
      Death, in England, of Edward III.,
      and accession of Richard II.
      Birth of Brunelleschi (d. 1444).

1378.
      Election of rival popes, Urban VI. and Clement VII.;
      beginning of the Great Schism.
      Death of the Emperor Charles IV., in Germany, and succession
      of Wenceslaus (elected King of the Romans in 1376).
      Tumult of the Ciompi in Florence.

1379.
      War of the factions of the rival popes In Rome.
      Revolt of the White Hoods in Flanders.

1380.
      Death, in France, of Charles V.,
      and accession of Charles VI.
      Post messengers established in Germany by
      the Teutonic Knights.
      Birth of Thomas a Kempis [Uncertain date] (d. 1471).

1381.
      Capture of Naples by Charles of Durazzo, who became
      king as Charles III.
      Insurrection of the Maillotins in Paris.
      Rise to power in Flanders of Philip Van Arteveld.
      Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

1382.
      Death of Louis the Great, king of Hungary and Poland;
      accession of his daughter Mary in Hungary,
      and of Hedvige, daughter of Casimir the Great, in Poland.
      Death, in prison, of Queen Joanna, of Naples.
      Defeat and death of Philip Van Arteveld at Rosebecque.

1383.
      Incorporation of Flanders in the dominions of
      the Duke of Burgundy.
      Birth of Donatello (d. 1466).

1385.
      Acquisition of the crown of Portugal by John I.,
      founder of the House of Avis.

1386.
      Marriage of the Emperor Sigismund to Mary, Queen of Hungary.
      Assassination, in Hungary, of Charles III. of Naples;
      accession in Naples of Ladislas, contested by Louis of Anjou.
      Marriage of Hedvige, queen of Poland, to Jagellon,
      duke of Lithuania, uniting the states and founding the
      Jagellon dynasty.
      Victory of the Swiss over the Austrians at Sempach.

1387.
      Birth of Fra Angelico (d. 1455 [Uncertain date]).

1388.
      Battle of Otterburn between the Scots and the English.
      Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Naefels.
      Death of the Persian poet Hafiz. [Uncertain date]

1389.
      Turkish conquest of Bulgaria and Servia by Amurath I.;
      decisive battle of Kossova.
      Election, at Rome, of Pope Boniface IX.

1390.
      War of Florence with the duke of Milan.
      Birth of Jan van Eyck [Uncertain date]
      (d. 1440 [Uncertain date]).

1392.
      Appearance of insanity in the young French king,
      Charles VI.

1394.
      Birth of the Portuguese Prince Henry, "the Navigator"
      (d. 1460).

1395.
      The Milanese dominion of the Visconti created a duchy
      of the Empire by the Emperor Wenceslaus.

1396.
      Great defeat at Nicopolis of the Christian defenders of
      Hungary by the Turkish Sultan Bajazet.

1397.
      Union of the three crowns of Sweden, Denmark and Norway,
      called the Union of Calmar.

1398.
      Invasion of India by Timour, or Tamerlane.

1399.
      Deposition of Richard II. from the English throne by
      Henry of Bolingbroke, duke of Lancaster, who became
      king as Henry IV.

1400.
      Deposition of Wenceslaus by the electoral college of Germany.
      Invasion of Scotland by Henry IV. of England.


Fifteenth Century.

1402.
      Birth of Masaccio (d. 1428).

1403.
      Hotspur's rebellion in England.

1405.
      Sale of Pisa to Florence by the Visconti.
      Capture by the English of the heir to the Scottish crown,
      afterwards James I.

1406.
      Surrender of the Pisans to Florence after a year of war.

1407.
      Founding of the Bank of St. George at Genoa.

1409.
      Chartering of the University of Leipsic.
      Meeting of the Council of Pisa.

1411.
      Defeat of the Scottish Lord of the Isles and
      the Highland clans at the battle of Harlaw.
      Founding of the University of St. Andrew's.

1412.
      Meeting of the Council called at Rome by Pope John XXIII.
      Birth of Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans (d. 1431).
      Birth of Filippo Lippi (d. 1469).

{3830}

1414.
      Meeting of the Council of Constance;
      summons to John Huss to appear before the Council.

1415.
      Condemnation and martyrdom of Huss.
      Renewal of the Hundred Years War with France
      by Henry V. of England;
      his great victory at Agincourt.
      Capture of Ceuta from the Moors by the Portuguese.

1417.
      Massacre of Armagnacs at Paris.
      Creation of the Electorate of Brandenburg by
      the Emperor Sigismund and its bestowal on Frederick,
      Count of Zollern, or Hohenzollern.
      Deposition of the rival popes by the Council of Constance,
      and ending of the Great Schism;
      election of Pope Martin V.

1419.
      Rising of the Hussites in Bohemia.
      Assassination of the duke of Burgundy, at the Bridge of
      Montereau, and alliance of the Burgundians with the
      English invaders of France.

1420.
      First crusade against the Bohemian Hussites
      summoned by the Pope.
      Treaty of Troyes between the English king, Henry V.,
      in France, and the Burgundians;
      marriage of Henry V. to Princess Catherine, of France.

1421.
      Second crusade against the Bohemians.

1422.
      Date of the first in the collection of Paston Letters.
      Death of Henry V., king of England, and claiming
      to be king of France;
      accession of his infant son Henry VI.
      Death of Charles VI., king of France;
      the succession of his son, Charles VII.,
      disputed in favor of the Infant Henry VI. of England.

1424.
      Release of James I. of Scotland from his
      long captivity in England.

1429.
      Siege of Orleans by the English, repelled,
      under the influence of Jeanne d'Arc;
      coronation of Charles VII., king of France.

1430.
      Capture of Jeanne d'Arc by the English.
      Acquisition of the greater part of the Netherlands
      by Philip of Burgundy.

1431.
      Condemnation and burning of Jeanne d'Arc for witchcraft
      by the English.
      Election of Pope Eugenius IV.
      Meeting of the Council of Basle.
      Birth of Mantegna (d. 1506).

1433.
      Treaty of the Council of Basle with the insurgent Bohemians.

1434.
      Organization of the Utraquist national church in Bohemia.
      Attainment of power in Florence by Cosmo de' Medici.
      First expedition sent out by the Portuguese Prince Henry
      to explore the western coast of Africa.
      Birth of Boiardo [Uncertain date] (d. 1494).

1437.
      Recovery of Paris from the English by the French king,
      Charles VII.
      Death of Sigismund, emperor, and king of Hungary;
      election of Albert of Austria to the Hungarian throne.

1438.
      Election of Albert II. of Austria by the German
      electoral princes.

1439.
      Death of Albert II., of Germany and Hungary;
      election of Ladislaus III., king of Poland,
      to the Hungarian throne.

1440.
      Election of Frederick III., of Austria,
      by the electoral princes of Germany.

1442.
      Ladislaus, posthumous son of Albert of Austria,
      acknowledged king of Bohemia, and prospective king of
      Hungary, on the attainment of his majority.
      First modern Importation of negro slaves into Europe,
      by the Portuguese.

1444.
      Defeat of the Hungarians by the Turks at Varna and
      death of Ladislaus III., king of Poland and Hungary;
      government in Hungary entrusted to John Huniades,
      during the minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.

1445.
      Destruction of Corinth by the Turks.
      Birth of Comines, the chronicler (d. 1509).

1446.
      Birth of Perugino (d. 1524).

1447.
      Election of Pope Nicholas V., founder of the Vatican Library.
      Death of the last of the ducal family of Visconti,
      leaving the duchy in dispute.

1450.
      Rebellion of Jack Cade in England.
      Possession of Milan and the duchy won by Francesco Sforza.

1451.
      Rebellion of Ghent against Philip of Burgundy.
      Founding of the University of Glasgow.

1452.
      Birth of Savonarola (d. 1498).
      Birth of Leonardo da Vinci (d. 1519).

1453.
      Conquest of Constantinople by the Turks.
      Defeat of the men of Ghent at Gaveren and their
      submission to the duke of Burgundy.
      Austria raised to the rank of an archduchy by the
      Emperor Frederick III.
      Unsuccessful rising in Rome, against the Papacy,
      under Stefano-Porcaro.

1454.
      Production of the first known Printing with movable type
      by Gutenberg and Fust, at Mentz.
      Treaty of Venice with the Turks, securing trade privileges
      and certain possessions in Greece.

1455.
      Beginning of the Wars of the Roses in England.

1456.
      The Turks in possession of Athens.
      Siege of Belgrade by the Turks and their defeat by Huniades;
      death of Huniades.
      Publication at Mentz of the first printed Bible,
      now called the Mazarin Bible. [Uncertain date]

1457.
      Organization of the church of the Unitas Fratrum in Bohemia.
      Death of Ladislaus Posthumus, king of Bohemia and of
      Hungary and archduke of Austria.

1458.
      Submission of Genoa to the king of France.
      Election of Matthias, son of Huniades, king of Hungary,
      and George Podiebrad, leader of the church-reform party,
      king of Bohemia.
      Division of the crowns of Naples and Sicily (the Two Sicilies)
      on the death of Alfonso of Aragon.

1460.
      Death of Prince Henry the Navigator.

1461.
      Death of Charles VII., king of France,
      and accession of Louis XI.
      Emancipation of Genoa from the yoke of France.
      Surrender of Trebizond, the last Greek capital,
      to the Ottoman Turks.
      Deposition of Henry VI. declared by a council of lords in
      England and Edward Duke of York crowned king (Ed ward IV.);
      defeat of Lancastrians at Towton.

{3831}

1463.
      War between Turks and Venetians in Greece.
      Birth of Pico della Mirandola (d. 1494).

1464.
      Submission of Genoa to the duke of Milan.

1465.
      League of the Public Weal, in France, against Louis XI.;
      battle of Montlehery.
      Siege, capture and pillage of Athens by the Venetians.

1467.
      Accession of Charles the Bold to the dukedom of Burgundy;
      beginning of his war with the Liégois.
      Crusade against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia,
      proclaimed by the Pope.
      Birth of Erasmus [Uncertain date] (d. 1536).

1468.
      Visit of Louis XI. to Charles the Bold, at Peronne;
      capture and destruction of Liege by Charles.
      War of the king of Bohemia with Austria and Hungary.

1469.
      Beginning of the rule of Lorenzo de' Medici
      (the Magnificent) in Florence.
      Marriage of Isabella of Castile to Ferdinand of Aragon.
      Birth of Machiavelli (d. 1527).

1470.
      Restoration of Henry VI. to the English throne
      by Earl Warwick;
      flight of Edward IV.
      Siege and capture of Negropont by the Turks, and massacre
      of the inhabitants.

1471.
      Acquisition of Cyprus by the Venetians.
      Return of Edward IV. to England;
      his victories at Barnet and Tewksbury and
      recovery of the throne;
      death of Henry VI. in the Tower.
      Death of George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia, and election
      of Ladislaus, son of the king of Poland, to succeed him.
      Translation by Caxton of "Recueil des Histoires de Troyes,"
      by Raoul le Fèvre.
      Birth of Albert Durer (d. 1528).
      Birth of Cardinal Wolsey (d. 1530).

1473.
      Birth of Copernicus (d. 1543).

1474.
      Birth of Las Casas (d. 1566).
      Birth of Ariosto (d. 1533).

1475.
      Birth of the Michael Angelo (d. 1564).
      Birth of the Chevalier Bayard (d. 1524).

1477.
      Marriage of Maximilian, son of the Emperor Frederick III.,
      to Mary of Burgundy.
      Invasion of Italy by the Turks, approaching to within
      sight of Venice.
      Production from Caxton's press of the "Dictes or Sayengis
      of the Philosophers," the first book printed in England.
      War with the Swiss, defeat and death of Charles the Bold.
      Grant of the Great Privilege of Holland and Zealand by
      Duchess Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold.
      Birth of Giorgione (d. 1511).
      Birth of Titian (d. 1576).

1478.
      Conspiracy of the Pazzi in Florence.
      Overthrow of the city-republic of Novgorod by
      Ivan III. of Russia.

1480.
      Birth of Sir Thomas More (d. 1535).

1481.
      Founding of the Holy Office of the Inquisition at Seville.
      Printing in England of Caxton's translation of
      "Reynard the Fox." [Uncertain date]

1482.
      Death of Mary of Burgundy and succession of her infant son,
      Duke Philip, to the sovereignty of the Netherlands.

1483.
      Death of Edward IV. king of England;
      murder of the princes, his sons, and usurpation of the
      throne by his brother Richard.
      Death of Louis XI., of France, and accession of Charles VIII.
      Appointment of Torquemada Inquisitor General for Castile
      and Aragon.
      Birth of Luther (d. 1546).
      Birth of Raphael (d. 1520).

1484.
      Birth of the Swiss reformer, Zwingli (d. 1531).

1485.
      Arrival of Columbus in Spain, seeking help for a westward
      voyage to find the Indies.
      Overthrow and death of Richard III. in England,
      on Bosworth Field;
      accession of Henry VII., the first of the Tudor line.
      Appearance in England of the Sweating Sickness.
      Capture of Vienna by Matthias of Hungary and expulsion of
      the Emperor Frederick III. from his hereditary dominions.
      Printing of Malory's "Morte d' Arthur." [Uncertain date]

1486.
      Election of Maximilian, son of the Emperor, Frederick III.,
      King of the Romans.
      Unconscious doubling of the Cape of Good Hope by
      Bartholomew Diaz.

1487.
      Rebellion of Lambert Simnel in England.
      Birth of Andrea del Sarto (d. 1531).

1488.
      Capture and confinement for four months of Maximilian,
      then King of the Romans, by the citizens of Bruges.
      Rebellion in Scotland and defeat and death of James III.
      at Sauchie Burn.

1490.
      Beginning of the preaching of Savonarola at Florence.
      Death of Matthias, king of Hungary, and election to the
      Hungarian throne of the Bohemian king, Ladislaus II.
      Birth of Thomas Cromwell [Uncertain date] (d. 1540).
      Birth of Vittoria Colonna (d. 1547).

1491.
      Union of Brittany with France, by marriage of the
      Duchess Anne to Charles VIII.
      Conquest of Granada by Ferdinand and Isabella;
      end of Moorish dominion in Spain.
      Birth of Loyola (d. 1556).

1492.
      First voyage of Columbus westward, resulting in the
      discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.
      Death of Lorenzo de' Medici at Florence.
      Outbreak of the Bundschuh insurrection in Germany.
      Expulsion of Jews from Spain.
      Election of Pope Alexander VI. (Roderigo Borgia).

1493.
      Papal bull granting to Spain the New World found by
      Columbus and defining the rights of Spain and Portugal.
      Second voyage of Columbus.
      Death of the Emperor Frederick III.;
      assumption of the title (without coronation at Rome),
      of "emperor elect" by his son Maximilian, already elected
      King of the Romans.
      Birth of Paracelsus (d. 1541).

1494.
      Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal,
      partitioning the ocean.
      Expedition of Charles VIII. into Italy.
      Expulsion of Pietro de' Medici, son of Lorenzo,
      from Florence;
      formation of the Christian Commonwealth at Florence
      under Savonarola.
      Passage of the Poynings Laws in Ireland.
      Birth of Hans Sachs (d. 1578 [Uncertain date]).
      Birth of Correggio Granada (d. 1534).

1495.
      Abolition of the right of private warfare (diffidation)
      in Germany.
      Easy conquest of Naples by Charles VIII. of France,
      and his quick retreat.
      Birth of Rabelais [Uncertain date] (d. 1553).
      Birth of Clement Marot [Uncertain date] (d. 1544).

1496.
      Marriage of Philip, son of Maximilian of Austria and
      Mary of Burgundy, to Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and
      Isabella of Spain.
      Rebellion of Perkin Warbeck in England.
      Establishing of the Estienne or Stephanus press in Paris.

{3832}

1497.
      Discovery of the continent of North America by John Cabot.
      Disputed first voyage of Americus Vespucius to the New World.
      Discovery of the passage to India round the Cape of
      Good Hope by Vasco da Gama.
      Excommunication of Savonarola by the Pope.
      Birth of Melancthon (d. 1560).

1498.
      Third voyage of Columbus, to the northern coast
      of South America;
      his arrest and return to Spain in irons.
      Arrest and execution of Savonarola at Florence.
      Death of Charles VIII., king of France,
      and accession of Louis XIII.
      Birth of Hans Holbein (d. 1559).

1499.
      Voyage of Americus Vespucius, with Ojeda,
      to the Venezuela coast.
      Conquest of Milan and the duchy by Louis XII. of France.
      Founding of the Sefavean dynasty in Persia and
      establishment of the Shiah sect in ascendancy.

1500.
      Voyage of the Cortereals to Newfoundland.
      Discovery of Brazil by the Portuguese navigator, Cabral.
      Birth of Charles, eldest son of Philip of Burgundy and
      Joanna of Spain, who became, the Emperor Charles V.
      and who united the sovereignties of Austria, Burgundy and Spain.
      Birth of Benvenuto Cellini (d. 1570).


Sixteenth Century.

1501.
      Voyage of Americus Vespucius, in the Portuguese service,
      to the Brazilian coast.
      Creation of the Aulic Council by the Emperor Maximilian.
      Joint conquest and partition of the kingdom of Naples by
      Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.

1502.
      Fourth and last voyage of Columbus coasting Central America.
      Election of Montezuma to the military chieftainship
      of the Aztecs.
      Marriage of King James IV. of Scotland to Margaret,
      daughter of Henry VII. of England, which brought the
      Stuarts to the English throne.
      Quarrel and war between the French and Spaniards in Naples.

1503.
      Election of Pope Julius II.
      Birth of Garcilaso de la Vega (d. 1536).

1504.
      Expulsion of the French from Naples by the Spaniards,
      under the Great Captain.
      Suppression of the independence of the Scottish
      Lord of the Isles.

1505.
      Birth of John Knox (d. 1572).

1506.
      Death of Columbus.
      Death of Philip, consort of Queen Joanna of Castile,
      and acting sovereign.
      Beginning of the building of St. Peter's at Rome
      by Pope Julius II.
      Birth of Saint Francis Xavier (d. 1552).

1507.
      Unsuccessful revolt of Genoa against the French.

1508.
      Formation of the League of Cambrai against Venice
      by the kings of France and Aragon, the Emperor, the Pope
      and the republic of Florence.
      Birth of the duke of Alva, or Alba (d. 1582).

1509.
      First Spanish settlement on the American mainland.
      Death of Henry VII., king of England, and
      accession of Henry VIII.
      Publication of Barclay's "Ship of Fools."
      Birth of Calvin (d. 1564).

1510.
      Portuguese occupation of Goa on the coast of India.
      Dissolution of the League of Cambrai, and alliance of
      Pope Julius II. with Venice and the Swiss against France.
      Birth of Palissy the potter (d. 1590).

1511.
      Spanish conquest of Cuba.
      Formation of the Holy League of Pope Julius II. with
      Venice, Aragon and England against France.

1512.
      Discovery of Florida by Ponce de Leon.
      Restoration of the Medici to power in Florence.
      Birth of Tintoretto (d. 1594).

1513.
      Discovery of the Pacific Ocean by Vasco Nunez de Balboa.
      Beginning of the ministry of Wolsey in England.
      Invasion of France by Henry VIII. of England, and his
      victory in the Battle of the Spurs.
      War of the Scots and English and defeat of
      the Scots at Flodden.
      Peasant insurrection of the Kurucs in Hungary.
      Complete expulsion of the French from Italy.
      Death of Pope Julius II. and election of the Medicean, Leo X.

1515.
      Death of Louis XII., king of France, and accession of
      Francis I.; his invasion of Italy, victory over the Swiss
      at Marignano, and occupation of Milan.
      Death of Ladislaus II., king of Hungary and of Bohemia,
      and succession of his son. Louis II., on both thrones.
      Birth of Saint Philip Neri (d. 1595).

1516.
      Founding of the piratical power of the Barbarossas at Algiers.
      Treaty and Concordat of Francis I. of France with the Pope,
      guaranteeing to the former the duchy of Milan and securing
      to him the duchies of Parma and Piacenza, and taking away
      the liberties of the Gallican Church.
      Appointment of Las Casas Protector of the Indians by
      Cardinal Ximenes.
      Publication of the "Utopia" of Sir Thomas More.

1517.
      Appearance of Tetzel in Germany, selling papal indulgences;
      Luther's denunciation of the traffic;
      posting of the Ninety-five Theses on the
      church-door at Wittenberg.
      Preaching of reformed doctrines at Zurich by Zwingli.
      Execution of Balboa by Pedrarias Davila, in the colony
      of Darien.
      Discovery of Yucatan by Cordova.
      Birth of Camoëns [Uncertain date] (d. 1579).

1519.
      Landing of Cortes in Mexico and advance to the capital.
      Sailing of Magellan on his voyage of circumnavigation.
      Luther's disputation with Eck.
      Death of the Emperor Maximilian and election of his
      grandson, Charles V., already sovereign of Spain, the Two
      Sicilies, the Netherlands, and the Austrian possessions.
      Cession of the Austrian sovereignty by Charles V. to his
      brother Ferdinand.
      Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi by Garay.

1520.
      Long battle of Cortés with the Aztecs in the city of Mexico;
      death of Montezuma;
      retreat of the Spaniards.
      Rebellion of the Holy Junta in Spain.
      Birth of William Cecil, Lord Burleigh (d. 1598).

1521.
      Siege and conquest of the Mexican capital by Cortés
      and the Spaniards.
      Conquest of Belgrade by the Turks.
      Promulgation of the first of the edicts of
      Charles V. against heresy in the

{3833}

      Netherlands, called Placards.
      Excommunication of Luther by the Pope;
      his appearance before the Diet at Worms;
      his abduction by friends and concealment at Wartburg.

1522.
      Appointment of Cortés to be Governor, Captain-General,
      and Chief Justice of New Spain (Mexico).
      Conquest of Rhodes by the Turks from the
      Knights of St. John.
      Election of Pope Adrian VI.

1523.
      Treason of the Constable of Bourbon, escaping from France
      to take command of the Imperial army.
      Abrogation of the mass and image worship at Zurich.
      Organization of the reformed Church in northern Germany.
      Election of Pope Clement VII.
      Publication of Lord Berner's translation of Froissart.
      Publication of Luther's translation of the New Testament.

1524.
      Voyage of Verrazano, in the service of France,
      to the North American coast.
      Death of the Chevalier Bayard in battle with the
      imperialists under Bourbon.
      Invasion of Italy by Francis I. of France;
      Outbreak of the Peasants' War, in Thuringia.

1525.
      Bloody suppression of the Peasants' revolt, in Germany,
      and execution of Münzer.
      Battle of Pavia;
      defeat and captivity of Francis I. of France.
      Marriage of Luther to Catherine Bora.
      Protestant League of Torgau.

1526.
      Great defeat of the Hungarians by the Turks at Mohacs and
      death of King Louis II.
      Election of John Zapolya to the vacant throne of Hungary,
      and rival election of Ferdinand of Austria.
      Treaty of Madrid, for the release of Francis I.
      from his captivity, and its perfidious repudiation by the
      king of France when free.
      Victory of Babar the Mongol at Panipat in India.
      Printing (at Worms) of Tyndale's English version of the
      New Testament.

1527.
      Expulsion of Zapolya from Hungary by Ferdinand,
      archduke of Austria, who wins the Hungarian crown.
      Capture and sack of Rome by the Spanish and German
      imperialists, commanded by the Constable Bourbon.
      The republic restored in Florence by a popular rising.

1528.
      Alliance of John Zapolya, king of Hungary, with the Turkish
      sultan Solyman, against his rival, Ferdinand of Austria.
      Deliverance of Genoa from the French by Andrea Doria.
      Marriage of Marguerite d'Angoulême, sister of Francis I.
      of France, to the king of Navarre.
      Birth of Paul Veronese (d. 1588).

1529.
      Fall of Wolsey from power in England.
      Unsuccessful siege of Vienna by the Turkish sultan, Solyman.
      Siege of Florence by the imperialists;
      surrender of the city and restoration of the Medici.
      Peace of Cambrai, or the Ladies' Peace, between Francis I.
      of France and the Emperor Charles V.
      Protest of the German reformers (against action of the
      Diet of Spires) which caused them to be called Protestants.

1530.
      German Diet at Augsburg;
      formulation of the Protestant Confession of Faith;
      the condemnatory Augsburg Decree;
      formation of the Protestant League of Smalkalde.
      Cession of Malta by the Emperor to the
      Knights Hospitallers of St. John.
      Siege of Buda by the Austrians.

1531.
      Breach of Henry VIII. with the Pope on the question of
      the annulling of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

1532.
      Religious peace, with freedom of worship, restored in
      Germany by the Pacification of Nuremberg.
      Conquest of Peru by Pizarro.

1533.
      Annulment of the marriage of Henry VIII. to Catherine of
      Aragon by Cranmer;
      marriage of the English king to Anne Boleyn.
      Murder of the Ynca, Atahualpa, by Pizarro.
      Birth of Montaigne (d. 1592).

1534.
      First voyage of Jacques Cartier, to the St. Lawrence.
      The Anabaptist seizure of the city of Munster.
      Passage by the English Parliament of the Act of Supremacy,
      establishing independence of Rome in the English Church.
      Beginning of fierce persecution of the reformers in France.
      Election of Pope Paul III.

1535.
      Expedition of Charles V. against Tunis.
      Execution of Sir Thomas More in England.
      Suppression of the English monasteries.
      Establishing of Protestantism in Geneva.
      Printing of Coverdale's English version of the Bible.
      Second voyage of Jacques Cartier and exploration of the
      St. Lawrence to Montreal.

1536. Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn,
      and marriage of Henry VIII. to Jane Seymour.
      Martyrdom of Tyndale.
      Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
      Publication of the "Institutions" of Calvin.

1537.
      Death in childbed of Jane Seymour, the English queen.
      Brief of Pope Paul III. forbidding further enslavement
      of Indians in America.

1538.
      Treaty of Peace between Charles V. and Francis I.
      Formation of the Holy League of the Catholic
      Princes of Germany.
      Birth of Cardinal Borromeo (d. 1584).

1539.
      Enactment of the Bill of the Six Articles in England.
      Landing of Hernando de Soto in Florida and beginning
      of his explorations.
      Revolt of Ghent against the exactions of
      the Emperor Charles V.

1540.
      Marriage and divorce of Anne of Cleves by Henry VIII.
      and his marriage to Catherine Howard.
      Submission of Ghent to the Emperor, annulling of its
      charter and removal of the great bell Roland.
      Death of John Zapolya, king of Hungary, and support given
      by the Turkish sultan to the claims of his son, against
      Ferdinand (now emperor).
      Expedition of Coronado from Mexico into New Mexico,
      seeking the "Seven Cities of Cibola."
      Papal sanction of the Society of Jesus,
      founded by Ignatius Loyola.
      First known Printing done in America (in Mexico).

1541.
      Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.
      Buda occupied by the Turks, becoming the seat of a pasha
      who ruled the greater part of Hungary.
      Assassination of Pizarro.
      Third and last voyage of Cartier to the St. Lawrence.

{3834}

1542.
      Execution of Catherine Howard, fifth queen of Henry VIII.
      Death of Hernando de Soto on the shores of the Mississippi.
      Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
      Alliance of the latter with the Turks, who ravaged the
      coasts of Italy.
      Organization of Calvin's religious state in Geneva.
      Mission of Saint Francis Xavier to Goa.
      War of the Scots and English;
      Scottish panic at Solway Firth;
      death of James V.;
      birth of Mary Stuart.
      Promulgation of the "New Laws" of Charles V., prohibiting
      the enslavement of Indians in America.

1543.
      Marriage of Henry VIII. to Catherine Parr.

1544.
      Victory of the French at Cerisoles over the Imperialists;
      treaty of Crespy, terminating the war.
      Birth of Torquato Tasso (d. 1595).

1545.
      Assembling of the Council of Trent (called in 1542).

1546.
      Massacre of Waldenses in southeastern France.
      Death of Luther.
      Treaty of the Emperor Charles V. with the Pope,
      binding the former to make war on the Protestants of Germany.
      Murder of Cardinal Beatoun in Scotland.
      Birth of Tycho Brahe (d. 1601).

1547.
      Death of Henry VIII. and accession of Edward VI., in England;
      repeal of the Six Articles and completion of the
      English Reformation.
      Death of Francis I. king of France,
      and accession of Henry II.
      Defeat of the Elector of Saxony by the Emperor,
      at the battle of Muhlberg;
      his imprisonment and deposition;
      bestowal of the Electorate of Saxony on Duke Maurice of Saxony.
      The Interim of Augsburg.
      Marriage of Jeanne d'Albret, heiress to the crown of
      Navarre, to Antoine de Bourbon.
      Assumption of the title of Czar, or Tzar, by the Grand
      Prince of Moscow, Ivan IV., called the Terrible.
      Siege of the Castle of St. Andrew's in Scotland;
      captivity and condemnation of John Knox to the French galleys.
      Birth of Cervantes (d. 1616).

1549.
      Mission of Xavier to Japan.
      Election of Pope Julius III.
      Publication of the English Book of Common Prayer
      (First Book of Edward VI).

1550.
      Promulgation of the most infamous of the edicts of
      Charles V. against heresy in the Netherlands.
      Election of Pope Julius III.
      Birth of Coke (d. 1634).

1551.
      Alliance of the French king, Henry II.,
      with the Protestants of Germany.
      Narrow escape of the Emperor Charles V. from capture by
      Maurice of Saxony.

1552.
      French seizure of Les Trois Évéchés, Metz, Toul and Verdun.
      Treaty of Passau between the Emperor and
      the German Protestants.
      Unsuccessful efforts of the Emperor to recover
      Metz from the French.
      Ravages of the Turks on the coast of Italy and blockade of
      Naples by their galleys.
      Birth of Sir Walter Raleigh (d. 1618).
      Birth of Paolo Sarpi (d. 1623).
      Birth of Spenser [Uncertain date] (d. 1599 [Uncertain date]).

1553.
      Death of Edward VI. and accession of Queen Mary, in England;
      unsuccessful attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne.
      Battle of Sievershausen in Germany and death of Maurice
      of Saxony;
      religious Peace of Augsburg, giving religious supremacy to
      each German prince in his own dominions.

1554.
      Wyat's insurrection in England;
      execution of Lady Jane Grey;
      marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain.
      Birth of Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586).

1555.
      Beginning of Queen Mary's persecution of
      Protestants in England;
      burning of Rogers, Latimer and Ridley.
      Return of John Knox to Scotland.
      First act of the abdication of the Emperor, Charles V.,
      performed in Brussels;
      accession of his son Philip in the Netherlands.
      Election of Pope Paul IV. (Cardinal Caraffa).

1556.
      Burning of Cranmer in England.
      Unsuccessful expedition of the duke of Guise against Naples.
      Completed abdication of all his crowns by Charles V.;
      succession of his son Philip II. in Spain, Naples and Milan;
      succession of his brother, Ferdinand I.,
      to the imperial throne.
      Second Mongol victory at Panipat, by Akbar, founder of the
      Mongol or Mogul empire in India.

1557.
      Battle and siege of St. Quentin, with success for the
      Spaniards, invading France.
      Signing of the first Scottish Covenant by the Lords
      of the Congregation.

1558.
      Recovery of Calais by the French from the English.
      Death of Queen Mary and accession of Queen Elizabeth,
      in England.
      Marriage of Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, to the French
      dauphin, afterwards Francis II.

1559. Passage of the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity in England.
      Treaties of Cateau Cambresis, restoring peace between
      France, Spain and England.
      Death of Henry II., king of France,
      and accession of Francis II.;
      dominating influence of the Guises in France.
      Institution of the Papal Index of prohibited books.
      Election of Pope Pius IV.

1560.
      Huguenot Conspiracy of Amboise, in France;
      death of Francis II. and accession of Charles IX., under
      the controlling influence of Catherine de' Medici.
      Death of Melancthon.
      Election of Pope Pius V.
      Successful rebellion of the Scottish Lords
      of the Congregation;
      adoption in Scotland of the Geneva Confession of Faith.
      Printing of the Geneva Bible.
      Birth of the Duke of Sully (d. 1641).

1561.
      Return of Queen Mary Stuart from France to Scotland.
      Birth of Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam (d. 1626).

1562.
      First slave-trading voyage of John Hawkins.
      First attempt of Coligny to found a Huguenot colony in Florida.
      Massacre of Huguenots at Vassy, beginning the
      War of Religion in France;
      capture of Orleans by Condé for the Huguenots;
      battle of Dreux.
      Birth of Lope de Vega (d. 1635).

1563.
      Assassination of the Duke of Guise while besieging Orleans;
      treaty and Edict of Amboise, restoring peace between
      Catholics and Huguenots in France.
      Closing of the Council of Trent.
      Publication of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs."

1564.
      Huguenot colony settled on the St. John's river in Florida.
      Death of the Emperor, Ferdinand I., and accession of his
      son Maximilian II., the tolerant emperor.
      Birth of Shakespeare (d. 1616).
      Birth of Marlowe (d. 1593).
      Birth of Galileo (d. 1642).

1565.
      Destruction of the Huguenot colony in Florida
      by the Spaniards;
      Spanish settlement of St. Augustine.
      Great defense of Malta against the Turks by the
      Knights of St. John.
      Marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to Lord Darnley.

{3835}

1566.
      Beginning of organized resistance to Philip II. in the
      Netherlands by the signing of "The Compromise" and
      formation of the league of the Gueux, or Beggars;
      rioting of image-breakers in Flemish cities.
      Sack of Moscow by the Crim Tatars.
      Murder of Rizzio, secretary to the queen of Scots.
      Publication of Udall's "Ralph Royster Doyster," the first
      printed English comedy.

1567.
      Renewal of the religious civil war in France;
      battle of St. Denis, before Paris, in which the Constable
      Montmorency was slain.
      Peace in Hungary with the Turks, and between the Emperor
      and Zapolya, rival claimants of the crown.
      Arrival of the duke of Alva, with his army,
      in the Netherlands;
      arrest of Egmont and Horn, and retirement of the Prince
      of Orange into Germany.
      Creation of Alva's Council of Blood.
      Murder of Lord Darnley, husband of the queen of Scots;
      marriage of the queen to Earl Bothwell;
      rising of the Scottish barons, imprisonment and deposition
      of the queen, and accession of her son, James VI.
      Birth of Saint Francis de Sales (d. 1622).

1568.
      Treacherous Peace of Longjumeau and gathering of Huguenots
      at Rochelle, joined there by Jeanne d'Albret, queen of Navarre.
      Decree of the Inquisition condemning the whole population
      of the Netherlands to death;
      opening of war against the Spaniards by the Prince of Orange.
      Escape of Mary, queen of Scots, to England.
      Printing of the Bishop's Bible in England.

1569.
      Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, under the
      sovereignty of the Medici.
      Defeat of the French Huguenots at Jarnac and murder of Condé;
      choice of young Henry of Navarre for the Huguenot command;
      second Huguenot defeat at Moncontour.

1570.
      Peace of St. Germain-en-Laye between the warring
      religions in France.
      Assassination of the regent, Murray, in Scotland, and
      outbreak of civil war.
      Publication of Ascham's "Scholemaster."

1571.
      Holy League of Venice, Spain and the Pope against the Turks;
      Turkish conquest of Cyprus;
      sea-fight of Lepanto and defeat of the Turks by
      Don John of Austria.
      Death of Zapolya in Hungary.
      The Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church made
      binding on the clergy.
      Birth of Kepler (d. 1630).

1572.
      Marriage of Henry of Navarre to Margaret of Valois;
      massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in France;
      death of Jeanne d'Albret;
      submission of Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of
      Condé to the Catholic Church.
      Election to the Hungarian throne of Rudolph, eldest
      son of the Emperor Maximilian.
      Capture of Brill by the "Beggars of the Sea," and rapid
      expulsion of the Spaniards from Holland and Zealand.
      Election of Pope Gregory XIII.
      Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland.

1573.
      Siege of the Huguenots gathered in Rochelle,
      followed by the Peace of Rochelle.
      Election of Henry of Valois, duke of Anjou,
      to the throne of Poland.
      Spanish siege and capture of Haarlem.
      Retirement of Alva from the Spanish command in the
      Netherlands and appointment of Requesens.
      Publication of Tusser's
      "Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry."

1574.
      Death of Charles IX. of France and accession of his
      brother, Henry III. (the lately crowned king of Poland).
      Siege and relief of Leyden, commemorated by the founding
      of the University.
      Birth of Ben Jonson (d. 1637).

1575.
      Election of Rudolph, the Emperor's son,
      to the throne of Bohemia, and, as King of the Romans,
      to the imperial succession.
      Election of Stephen Batory to the throne of Poland.
      Offer of the sovereignty of the Netherlands to Queen
      Elizabeth of England.

1576.
      Escape of Henry of Navarre from the French court and
      return to the Huguenots and their faith;
      negotiation of the Peace of Monsieur;
      rise of the Catholic League in France.
      Death of the Emperor, Maximilian II., and accession of
      his son Rudolph.
      Death of Requesens;
      the "Spanish Fury" at Antwerp and elsewhere;
      union of the Protestant and Catholic provinces of the
      Netherlands by the treaties called the Pacification of
      Ghent and the Union of Brussels;
      appointment of Don John of Austria to the Spanish
      government of the Netherlands.
      Birth of St. Vincent de Paul (d. 1660).

1577.
      The sailing of Sir Francis Drake on his voyage which
      encompassed the world.
      Renewed war and renewed peace between the religious
      factions in France.
      Publication, in England, of Holinshed's "Chronicle."
      Birth of Rubens (d. 1640).

1578.
      Death of Don John of Austria and appointment of Alexander
      Farnese, of Parma, Spanish governor of the Netherlands.

1579.
      Treaty of Nerac arranged by Catherine de' Medici with
      Henry of Navarre.
      Constitution of the United Provinces or Dutch Republic
      by the Union of Utrecht;
      submission of the Walloon provinces of the Netherlands
      to the Spanish king.

1580.
      Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.
      Jesuit mission dispatched to England from the continent.
      Protestant persecution of Jesuits and Seminary priests
      in England.
      War of the Lovers, reopening the civil conflict in France;
      suspended by the Treaty of Fleix.
      Outlawry of the Prince of Orange by Philip II. of Spain,
      inviting his assassination.
      Seizure of the crown of Portugal by Philip II. of Spain.
      Publication of the first two books of Montaigne's Essays.

1581.
      Formal declaration of independence by the Dutch provinces
      of the Netherlands.
      The Second Covenant, or first National Covenant, in Scotland.
      Publication of Tasso's "Gerusalemme Liberata."

1582.
      Sovereignty of Brabant and other Netherland provinces
      conferred on the French duke of Anjou.
      Raid of Ruthven and confinement of King James, in Scotland.
      Founding of the University of Edinburgh.

1583.
      Colonizing expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
      Newfoundland, returning from which he perished.
      Treacherous attempt of Anjou to seize Antwerp.
      Introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in most Catholic
      countries of Europe.
      Birth of Grotius (d. 1645).
      Birth of Oxenstiern (d. 1654).
      Birth of Wallenstein (d. 1634).

{3836}

1584.
      Assassination of the Prince of Orange by instigation of
      Philip II. of Spain.

1585.
      First colonizing attempt of Sir Walter Raleigh in America,
      at Roanoke.
      Alliance of the Catholic League of France with Philip II.
      of Spain, and renewal of war with the Huguenots;
      the War of the Three Henrys.
      Siege and capture of Antwerp by Parma.
      Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spaniards.
      Arrival of the Earl of Leicester in the Netherlands with
      delusive aid from England.
      Election of Pope Sixtus V.
      Birth of Cardinal Richelieu (d. 1642).

1586.
      Battle of Zutphen in the Netherlands and death of
      Sir Philip Sidney.
      Beginning of the reign in Persia of Shah Abbass,
      called the Great.
      Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the Polish throne.
      Publication of Camden's "Britannia."

1587.
      Second colony planted by Raleigh on Roanoke island.
      Execution of Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, in England.
      Defeat of the Catholic League by Henry of Navarre at Coutras.

1588.
      Destruction of the Spanish Armada.
      Insurrection in Paris in favor of the duke of Guise;
      escape of the king (Henry III.) from Paris;
      assassination of the duke of Guise at Blois by
      order of the king;
      alliance of Henry III. with Henry of Navarre
      against the League.
      Birth of Hobbes (d. 1679).

1589.
      Death of Catherine de' Medici;
      siege of Paris by Henry III. and Henry of Navarre;
      assassination of Henry III., the last of the Valois,
      leaving Henry of Navarre (first of the Bourbons)
      the nearest heir to the French crown.
      Publication of the first volume of Hakluyt's
      "Voyages and Discoveries. "

1590.
      Continued war of the League, in France,
      against Henry of Navarre;
      his victory at Ivry and siege of Paris;
      summons of the duke of Parma from the Netherlands to
      save Paris from Henry.
      Publication of the first three books of Spenser's
      "Faerie Queene," Sidney's "Arcadia," and part of
      Marlowe's "Tamburlane."

1591.
      Siege of Rouen by Henry of Navarre and second interference
      by the Spaniards in aid of the League.
      Death of the duke of Parma.

1592.
      Election of Pope Clement VIII.
      Birth of Sir John Eliot [Uncertain date] (d. 1632).

1593.
      Abjuration of the Protestant religion by Henry of Navarre.
      Publication of Shakespeare's "Venus and Adonis."

1594.
      Coronation of Henry of Navarre as Henry IV.,
      king of France, and his reception in Paris.
      Publication of four books of Hooker's" Ecclesiastical
      Polity" and Shakespeare's "Lucrece."

1595.
      Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
      War of the French king with Spain.
      First expedition of Sir Walter Raleigh in
      search of El Dorado.

1596.
      Frightful defeat of the Austrians and Transylvanians
      by the Turks, on the plain of Cerestes, in Hungary.
      Capture of Cadiz by the Dutch and English.
      Birth of Descartes (d. 1650).

1597.
      Abolition of the privileges of the Hansa
      merchants in England.
      Irish rebellion under Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone.
      Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.
      Publication of Bacon's Essays, also of a pirated copy of
      Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," and of the first editions
      of "King Richard II." and "King Richard III."

1598.
      The Edict of Nantes, issued by Henry IV., of France,
      securing religious freedom to the Huguenots;
      peace with Spain by the Treaty of Vervins.
      Publication of Shakespeare's" Love's Labor Lost,"
      of Stowe's" Survey of London," and of Drayton's "England's
      Heroical Epistles."

1599.
      Birth of Oliver Cromwell (d. 1658).
      Birth of Van Dyck (d. 1641).
      Birth of Velasquez (d. 1660).

1600.
      First charter granted to the English East India companies.
      Gowrie Plot in Scotland.
      Publication of Shakespeare's "King Henry V."
      (pirated and imperfect), "King Henry IV.," part 2,
      "Much Ado about Nothing," "Midsummer Night's Dream," and
      "Merchant of Venice."
      Death of Giordano Bruno at the stake.
      Birth of Calderon de la Barca (d. 1683 [Uncertain date]).
      Birth of Claude Lorraine (d. 1682).


Seventeenth Century.

1601.
      Suppression of the rebellion in Ireland.
      Enactment of the first English Poor Law.

1602.
      Chartering of the Dutch East India Company.
      Beginning of the long imprisonment of Sir Walter Raleigh
      in the Tower on charge of treason.
      First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."
      Founding of the Bodleian Library.
      Birth of Cardinal Mazarin (d. 1661).

1603.
      Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of
      the Scottish king, James I. of England and VI. of Scotland.
      First publication of "Hamlet."

1604.
      Founding of a French colony at Port Royal in Acadia
      (Nova Scotia).
      The Hampton Court Conference of King James with the
      English Puritans.

1605.
      Gunpowder plot of English Catholics against
      King and Parliament.
      Election of Pope Paul V.
      Death of Akbar, founder of the Mogul empire in India,
      and accession of Jahangir.
      Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning,"
      and part 1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."

1606.
      Charter granted by King James I. of England to the London
      and Plymouth companies, for American colonization.
      Venice placed under interdict by the Pope;
      beginning of the public service of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
      Peace of Sitvatorok, ending the war with the Turks in Hungary.
      Deposition of the Emperor Rudolph from the headship of the
      House of Austria, by a family conclave, in favor of his
      brother Matthias.
      Surrender of Austria and Hungary to Matthias by Rudolph.
      Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at
      Scrooby, England.
      Birth of Corneille (d. 1684).
      Birth of Rembrandt (d. 1669).

1607.
      Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
      Migration of the Independents of Scrooby to Holland.
      Birth of Roger Williams [Uncertain date] (d. 1683).

{3837}

1608.
      Formation of the Evangelical Union among the
      Protestant princes of Germany.
      First French settlement, by Champlain, at Quebec.
      Publication of Shakespeare's "King Lear."
      Birth of Milton (d. 1674).
      Birth of Thomas Fuller (d. 1661).
      Birth of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon (d. 1674).

1609.
      Discovery of the Hudson River by Henry Hudson.
      Arrangement of a twelve years truce between Spain and
      the United Provinces.
      Final expulsion of the Moriscoes from Spain.
      Opening of the Julich-Cleve contest in Germany.
      Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.
      Publication of the Douay translation of the Bible.
      The royal charter called the Letter of Majesty granted to
      Bohemia by Rudolph.
      Founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.
      Discovery by Champlain of the lake which bears his name.
      Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery
      of Jupiter's moons. [Uncertain date]

1610.
      Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of
      Louis XIII., under the regency of Marie de Medici.
      Formation of the Catholic League in Germany.
      Beginning of trade with the Indians on the Hudson
      by the Dutch.
      First acting of Shakespeare's "Macbeth";
      publication of twelve books of Chapman's translation
      of the Iliad.

1611.
      Founding of Montreal by Champlain.
      Death of Charles IX., king of Sweden, and accession
      of Gustavus Adolphus.
      Publication in England of the King James or
      Authorized version of the Bible.
      Plantation of Ulster by English courtiers and London
      livery companies.
      Birth of Turenne (d. 1675).

1612.
      Death of the Emperor Rudolph and coronation of Matthias.
      Birth of Samuel Butler (d. 1680).

1613.
      Destruction of the French colony at Port Royal, Acadia,
      by Argall of Virginia.
      Election to the throne of Russia of Michael Romanoff,
      founder of the reigning dynasty.
      Birth of Jeremy Taylor (d. 1667).
      Birth of Gerard Dow (d. 1680 [Uncertain date]).

1614.
      Last meeting of the States General of France
      before the Revolution.
      Beginning of the extermination of Christianity in Japan.
      Publication of Raleigh's "History of the World."
      Birth of Cardinal de Retz (d. 1679).

1615.
      Visit of the first English ambassador to the court of
      the Great Mogul.
      Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known
      weekly newspaper, regularly printed and published.
      Birth of Salvator Rosa (d. 1673).

1616.
      Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.
      Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.

1617.
      Election of Ferdinand, duke of Styria, to the thrones
      of Bohemia and Hungary.
      Cession of territory on the Baltic to Sweden by Russia.
      Second expedition of Sir Walter Raleigh
      in search of El Dorado.
      Opening of the famous reunions at the Hotel de Rambouillet.

1618.
      Rising of Protestants in Bohemia,
      beginning the Thirty Years War.
      Union of Prussia with the electorate of Brandenburg.
      Execution of Sir Walter Raleigh.
      Adoption of the Five Articles of Perth by the Assembly
      of the Scottish Church.
      Birth of Murillo (d. 1682).

1619.
      Death of the Emperor Matthias, and succession in the
      Empire of his cousin, Ferdinand II., already for several
      years his imperial colleague, and also king of
      Bohemia and Hungary.
      Deposition of Ferdinand in Bohemia and election of
      Frederick, elector palatine, to the Bohemian throne.
      Meeting of the Synod of Dort and condemnation of
      Arminianism in the United Provinces.
      Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.
      Introduction of slavery in Virginia.
      Birth of Colbert (d. 1683).

1620.
      Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle
      of the White Mountain, and flight of Frederick,
      the newly elected king.
      Annexation of Navarre and Bearn to France.
      Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.
      Final migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America,
      landing at Plymouth in New England.
      Incorporation by King James I. of England of the Council
      for New England, successor to the Plymouth Company of 1606.
      Publication of Bacon's "Novum Organum."

1621.
      The Elector Palatine under the ban of the Empire.
      Invasion and subjugation of the Palatinate.
      Dissolution of the Evangelical Union.
      Peace of Montauban between the French king and the Huguenots.
      Renewed war of the United Provinces with Spain.
      Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.
      Formation of the Dutch West India Company.
      The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.

1622.
      Founding of the College of the Propaganda at Rome.
      Grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason
      of a province embracing parts of New Hampshire and Maine.
      Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in
      England—"The Weekly Newes."
      Birth of Molière (d. 1673).

1623.
      Conquest and transfer of the Palatine electorate to
      Maximilian, duke of Bavaria.
      Erection of a fort on Manhattan Island by the Dutch West
      India Company.
      Publication of "The First Folio" edition of
      Shakespeare's plays.
      Birth of Pascal (d. 1662).

1624.
      Alliance of England, Holland and Denmark, to support
      the Protestants of Germany.
      Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.
      Birth of George Fox (d. 1690).

1625.
      First Jesuit mission to Canada.
      Death of James I. of England, and accession of Charles I.
      Beginning of the English struggle between
      King and Parliament.
      Opening of the Valtelline War by Richelieu, to expel the
      Austrians and Spaniards from the Valtelline passes.
      Fresh insurrection of the French Huguenots.
      Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of
      the Emperor against the Protestants.

1626.
      Peace of Monzon between France and Spain.
      End of the Valtelline War.
      Purchase of Manhattan Island from the Indians by the Dutch
      West India Company.

1627.
      Seizure of a part of Brazil by the Dutch.
      Death of the Mogul Emperor Jahangir and accession of
      Shah Jahan, builder of the Taj Mahal, at Agra.
      Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.
      Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.
      Birth of Bossuet (d. 1704).

{3838}

1628.
      Unsuccessful siege of Stralsund by Wallenstein.
      Passage by the English Parliament of the act
      called the Petition of Right.
      Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.
      Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.
      Outbreak of the war of the Mantuan succession between
      France, Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.
      Publication of Harvey's discovery of the
      circulation of the blood.
      Birth of Bunyan (d. 1688).

1629.
      The Emperor's Edict of Restitution, requiring the
      Protestant princes of Germany to surrender sequestrated
      church property.
      Tumult in the English Parliament and forcible detention
      of the Speaker;
      dissolution by the king and arrest of Eliot and others.
      Division of the grant made in New England to Gorges and
      Mason, giving New Hampshire to the latter.
      Introduction of the Patroon system in New Netherland
      by the Dutch West India Company.
      First conquest of Canada by the English.

1630.
      Dismissal of Wallenstein by the Emperor.
      Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,
      as the champion of Protestantism.
      Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      in New England, and founding of Boston.
      The Day of the Dupes in France and triumph of Richelieu.

1631.
      Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial
      general, Tilly.
      Treaty of Bärwalde between Gustavus Adolphus and
      the king of France.
      Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig,
      by Gustavus Adolphus.
      End of the war concerning Mantua.
      Appearance of the first printed newspaper in France.
      Birth of Dryden (d. 1700).

1632.
      Defeat and death of Tilly, in battle with the
      Swedish king on the Lech.
      Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus in battle with
      Wallenstein at Lützen;
      accession in Sweden of Queen Christina;
      Chancellor Oxenstiern invested with the supreme direction
      of Swedish affairs in Germany.
      Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., king of England,
      granting him as a palatine principality the territory in
      America called Maryland.
      Restoration of Canada and Nova Scotia by England to France.
      First Jesuit mission to Canada.
      Birth of John Locke (d. 1704).
      Birth of Spinoza (d. 1677).
      Birth of Bourdaloue (d. 1704).
      Birth of Christopher Wren (d. 1723).

1633.
      Union of Heilbronn formed by Oxenstiern, consolidating
      Protestant interests.
      Appointment of Wentworth to be Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

1634.
      Conspiracy against Wallenstein,
      resulting in his assassination.
      Defeat of the Swedish army in Germany, by imperialists and
      Spaniards, at Nördlingen.
      Terms of peace with the Emperor made by Saxony
      and Brandenburg.
      Levy of Ship-money in England.
      Naming the town on Manhattan island New Amsterdam.
      Acting of Milton's "Comus."

1635.
      Active interference of Richelieu in the Thirty Years War.
      Unsuccessful French expedition into Italy for
      the expulsion of the Spaniards from Milan.
      First settlements in the Connecticut valley.
      Dissolution of the Council for New England and
      partitioning of its territory.

1636.
      Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his
      founding of Providence.
      Migration of the Newtown congregation from Massachusetts
      to the Connecticut valley, founding Hartford.
      Founding of Harvard College in Massachusetts.
      Campaign of Duke Bernhard of Weimar in Alsace and Lorraine,
      in the pay of France.
      Success of the Swedish general, Baner, at Wittstock,
      over Saxons and imperialists.
      Birth of Boileau (d. 1711).

1687.
      Death of the Emperor Ferdinand II. and accession of his
      son Ferdinand III.
      The Pequot War in New England.
      Introduction of Land's Service-book in Scotland;
      tumult in St. Giles' church.
      Publication of Descartes' "Discours de la Méthode."

1638.
      Planting of the Swedish colony on the Delaware
      river in America.
      Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.
      Settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
      Opening of New Netherland to free colonization and trade.
      Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;
      organization of the Tables;
      signing of the National Covenant.
      Planting of New Haven colony in New England.
      Turkish siege and capture of Bagdad and horrible massacre
      of its people.

1639.
      Adoption of the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and the
      Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.
      Grant of Maine as a palatine principality to
      Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
      The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.
      Birth of Racine (d. 1699).

1640.
      Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.
      English settlement of Madras in India.
      Recovery of national independence by Portugal,
      with the House of Braganza on the throne.
      Extraordinary double siege of Turin.
      Introduction in Europe of Peruvian bark (cinchona).

1641.
      Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption
      of the Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.
      Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres
      of Protestants.

1642.
      King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the
      Five Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.
      Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.
      Death of Cardinal Richelieu.
      Second battle of Breitenfeld in Germany,
      won by the Swedes under Torstenson.
      Birth of Sir Isaac Newton (d. 1727).

1643.
      Confederation of the United Colonies of New England.
      Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
      Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant
      between the Scotch and English nations.
      Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.
      Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.
      under the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria, and the
      ministry of Cardinal Mazarin.
      Victory of the Duke d' Enghien (afterwards called
      the Great Condé) over the Spaniards at Rocroi.
      Alliance of Denmark with the Emperor and
      disastrous war with Sweden.

1644.
      Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, and siege
      of Lathom House, in the English civil war.
      Charter granted to the colony of Providence Plantations.
      Invention of the barometer by Torricelli.
      Birth of William Penn (d. 1718).

1645.
      Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English
      Parliamentary army.
      His victory at Naseby.
      The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.
      Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.
      Victory of Torstenson and the Swedes over the imperialists
      at Jankowitz in Bohemia.
      Defeat of the imperialists by the French near Allerheim.
      Peace of Bromsebro between Sweden and Denmark.
      Beginning of the War of Candia (Crete).

{3839}

1646.
      Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.
      Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.
      Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards by
      the French and Dutch.
      Birth of Leibnitz (d. 1716).

1647.
      Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, his
      imprisonment at Holdenby House and his seizure by the Army.
      Insurrection of Masaniello at Naples.
      Truce of the Elector of Bavaria with the Swedes and French.
      Election of Ferdinand, son of the Emperor,
      to the throne of Hungary.
      Beginning of the administration of Peter Stuyvesant
      in New Netherland.

1648.
      The second Civil War in England.
      Cromwell's victory at Preston.
      Treaty of Newport with the king, Grand Army Remonstrance,
      and Pride's Purge of Parliament, reducing it to "the Rump."
      Conflict of the French crown with the Parliament of Paris,
      and defeat of the crown.
      Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
      Peace of Westphalia;
      cession of Alsace to France;
      separation of Switzerland from the Empire;
      division of the Palatinate;
      acknowledgment of the independence of the United Provinces
      by Spain.
      Election of John Casimir king of Poland.

1649.
      Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England,
      and establishment of the Commonwealth.
      Mutiny of the Levellers in the Parliamentary Army.
      Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.
      First civil war of the Fronde in France,
      ended by the treaty of Reuil.
      Passage of the Act of Toleration in Maryland.

1650.
      Charles II. in Scotland.
      War between the English and the Scotch.
      Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.
      The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.
      Its defeat by Mazarin at Rethel.
      Suspension of the Stadtholdership in the United Provinces.
      Publication of Baxter's "Saint's' Everlasting Rest," and
      Jeremy Taylor's "Holy Living."
      Birth of Marlborough (d. 1722).

1651.
      Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;
      Cromwell's victory at Worcester;
      complete conquest of Scotland.
      Passage of the Navigation Act by the English Parliament.
      Banishment of Mazarin from France and restoration of peace. Renewal of civil war by Condé.
      Adoption of the Cambridge Platform in Massachusetts.
      Beginning of the rule, in the United Provinces,
      of John De Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland.
      Publication of Hobbes' "Leviathan," and Jeremy Taylor's
      "Holy Dying."
      Birth of Fenelon (d. 1715).

1652.
      Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.
      Battle of Porte St. Antoine, Paris,
      between the armies of Condé and Turenne.
      End of the Fronde, and departure of Conde to enter the
      service of Spain.
      Recovery of Dunkirk by the Spaniards.
      Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.
      Transfer of the allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine
      from Poland to Russia.
      Legislation to restrict and diminish slavery in Rhode Island.
      Settlement of a Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope.

1653.
      Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment
      of the Protectorate in England.
      Adoption of the Instrument of Government.
      Return of Mazarin to power in France.
      The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.
      Concession of municipal government to
      New Amsterdam (New York).
      Establishment of a penny post in Paris by M. de Velayer.
      Publication of Walton's "Complete Angler."

1654.
      Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,
      under Cromwell.
      Peace between the English and Dutch.
      Conquest of Nova Scotia by the New England colonists.
      Death of Ferdinand, king of Hungary,
      and election of his brother Leopold.
      Abdication of Queen Christina of Sweden;
      accession of Charles X.

1655.
      Conquest of the Swedish colony on the Delaware by
      the Dutch of New Netherland.
      Alliance of England and France against Spain.
      English conquest of Jamaica from Spain.
      Occurrence in the Russian Church of the great schism
      called the Raskol.
      Publication of the first of Pascal's" Provincial Letters."

1656.
      Beginning of the Persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.

1657.
      Death of the Emperor Ferdinand III.
      Intrigues of Louis XIV. of France
      to secure the imperial crown.

1658.
      Siege and capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and
      possession given by the French to the English.
      Death of Cromwell and succession of his son
      Richard as Protector.
      Election of Leopold I., son of the late emperor,
      to the imperial throne.
      Seizure of the Mogul throne in India by Aurungzebe.

1659.
      Meeting of a new Parliament in England;
      its dissolution;
      resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation
      of a provisional government by the Army.
      Treaty of the Pyrenees between France and Spain,
      and marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish infanta.
      Production of Molière's "Les Précieuses Ridicules."

1660.
      March of the English army under Monk from
      Scotland to London.
      Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of
      the monarchy, in the person of Charles II.
      Abrogation of the incorporated union with Scotland.
      Renewed war of Austria with the Turks.
      Closing of the schools of Port Royal through Jesuit influence.
      Death of Charles X. of Sweden and accession of Charles XI.
      Publication of Dryden's "Astræa Redux."

1661.
      Restoration of the Church of England and passage of a new
      Act of Uniformity, ejecting 2,000 nonconformist ministers.
      Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.
      Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.
      Cession of Bombay by the Portuguese to the English.
      Birth of Defoe (d. 1731).

1662.
      Royal charter to Connecticut colony, annexing New Haven.
      Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.
      Beginning of the attacks of the Mahrattas on the Mogul empire.
      Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of
      the Covenanters.
      Publication of Fuller's "Worthies of England."

1663.
      Grant of the Carolinas by Charles II. of England to
      Clarendon and others.
      Erection of New France (Canada) into a royal province.
      Publication of the first part of Butler's "Hudibras."
      Birth of Prince Eugene of Savoy (d. 1736).

{3840}

1664.
      Passage of the Conventicle Act in England, for suppression
      of the nonconformists.
      Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the
      English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the
      duke of York.
      Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret,
      by the duke of York.
      War by France upon the piratical Barbary states.
      Great defeat of the Turks by the Austrians and French,
      in the battle of St. Gothard.
      Publication of the first Tariff of Colbert, in France.

1665.
      Passage of the Five Mile Act, in continued persecution of
      the English nonconformists.
      Outbreak of the great Plague in London.
      Formal declarations of war between the English and the Dutch.

1666.
      The great fire in London.
      Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and
      defeat of the former.
      Production of Molière's "Le Misanthrope."

1667.
      Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames.
      Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland,
      France and Denmark.
      War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights,
      in the Spanish Netherlands.
      Restoration of Nova Scotia to France.
      Augmentation of Colbert's Protective Tariff in France.
      Publication of Milton's "Paradise Lost,"
      and Dryden's "Annus Mirabilis."
      Production of Racine's "Andromaque."
      Birth of Swift. (d. 1745).

1668.
      Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against France.
      Abdication of John Casimir, king of Poland.
      Birth of Vico (d. 1744).
      Birth of Boerhaave (d. 1738).

1669.
      First exploring journey of La Salle from
      the St. Lawrence to the West.
      Adoption of the fundamental constitutions framed by
      John Locke for the Carolinas.
      Surrender of Candia to the Turks.

1670.
      Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,
      betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess
      himself a Catholic.
      Publication of Spinoza's "Tractatus Theologico-politicus."

1671.
      Publication of Milton's "Paradise Regained."
      Birth of Steele (d. 1729).

1672.
      Declaration of Indulgence by Charles II. of England.
      Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.
      Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the
      Prince of Orange, and murder of the DeWitts.
      Birth of Joseph Addison (d. 1719}.
      Birth of Peter the Great (d. 1725).

1673.
      Discovery of the Upper Mississippi by Joliet and Marquette.
      Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.
      Sale of West Jersey by Lord Berkeley to Quakers.

1674.
      Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch
      and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.
      Purchase of Pondicherry, on the Carnatic coast of India,
      by the French.
      Election of John Sobieski to the throne of Poland.
      Birth of Isaac Watts (d. 1748).

1675.
      War with the Indians in New England,
      known as King Philip's War.
      Defeat of the Swedes by the Elector of Brandenburg at
      the battle of Fehrbellin.

1676.
      Bacon's rebellion in Virginia.
      Birth of Sir Robert Walpole (d. 1745).

1677.
      Tekeli's rising in Hungary against oppression and
      religions persecution.
      Production of Racine's" Phèdre."

1678.
      The pretended Popish Plot in England.
      Treaties of Nimeguen between France, Rolland and Spain.
      Publication of the first part of Bunyan's
      "Pilgrim's Progress."
      Birth of Bolingbroke (d. 1751).

1679.
      Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.
      Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.
      Murder of Archbishop Sharp.
      Defeat of Claverhouse by the Covenanters at Drumclog.
      Defeat of Covenanters by Monmouth at Bothwell Bridge.
      Treaty of Nimeguen between France and the Emperor.
      Building of the Griffon on Niagara river by La Salle.

1680.
      First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.
      Complete incorporation of Alsace and Les Trois Évéchés,
      and seizure of Strasburg, by France.
      Imprisonment of the Man with the Iron Mask.
      Founding of Charleston, S. C.

1681. Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.
      Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in France.
      Alliance of Tekeli and the Hungarian insurgents with the
      Turks and the French.
      Proprietary grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to
      William Penn.
      Publication of Dryden's "Absalom and Achitophel."

1682.
      Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.
      Purchase of East Jersey by Penn and other Quakers.
      Penn's treaty with the Indians.
      Accession of Peter the Great in association with
      his brother Ivan.

1683.
      The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and
      Algernon Sidney, in England.
      Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;
      their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by
      John Sobieski, king of Poland.
      Establishment of a penny post in London by Robert Murray.
      Founding of Philadelphia by William Penn.

1684.
      Forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter.
      Holy League of Venice, Poland, the Emperor and the Pope
      against the Turks.
      Birth of Bishop Berkeley (d. 1753}.
      Birth of Händel (d. 1759).

1685.
      Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession
      of his brother James II., an avowed Catholic.
      Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth, crushed at Sedgemoor
      and in the Bloody Assizes of Judge Jeffreys.
      Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.
      First lighting of the streets of London.
      Demand upon Connecticut for the surrender of its charter;
      concealment of the instrument in the Charter Oak.
      Birth of Johann Sebastian Bach (d. 1750).

1686.
      Revival of the Court of High Commission in England.
      Consolidation of New England under a royal governor-general.
      League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France, formed by
      the Prince of Orange and including Holland, Spain, Sweden,
      the Emperor, and several German princes.
      Recovery of Buda by the Austrians from the Turks and
      end of the Hungarian insurrection.
      Introduction of Bradford's Printing Press in Pennsylvania.

1687.
      Action of the Hungarian diet making the crown of Hungary hereditary in the Hapsburg family.
      Second battle of Mohacs, disastrous to the Turks.
      Siege of Athens by the Venetians;
      bombardment of the Acropolis and
      partial destruction of the Parthenon.
      Rule in Ireland of Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel.
      Publication of Newton's "Principia."

{3841}

1688.
      Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England,
      and imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for
      refusing to publish it.
      Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the
      English crown.
      Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and
      flight of James.
      Battle of Enniskillen in Ireland.
      Recovery of Belgrade from the Turks by the Austrians.
      Union of New York and New Jersey with New England under
      Governor-general Sir Edmund Andros.
      Birth of Swedenborg (d. 1772).
      Birth of Pope (d. 1744).

1689.
      Completion of the English Revolution.
      Settlement of the crown on William and Mary.
      Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights.
      Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island;
      siege and successful defense of Londonderry;
      battle of Newton Butler.
      Battle of Killiecrankie, in Scotland,
      and death of Claverhouse.
      Revolution in New York led by Jacob Leisler.
      Birth of Montesquieu (d. 1755).

1690.
      Destruction of Schenectady, New York, by French and Indians.
      The first congress of the American colonies.
      The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France
      developed into the Grand Alliance of England, Holland,
      Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.
      Second devastation of the Palatinate by the French.
      Reconquest of Belgrade by the Turks.
      English conquest of Acadia and unsuccessful
      attempt against Quebec.
      French naval victory off Beachy Head, over the English
      and Dutch fleets.
      Battle of the Boyne in Ireland;
      defeat and flight of James II.
      Publication of Locke's
      "Essay concerning Human Understanding."

1691.
      Battle of Aughrim and surrender of Limerick, completing
      the Orange conquest of Ireland.
      The violated Treaty of Limerick.
      Execution of Jacob Leisler in New York.

1692.
      Ernst Augustus, duke of Hanover and of Brunswick, raised
      to the rank of Elector.
      New Hampshire settlements, in New England, separated from
      Massachusetts.
      Defeat of King William by the French at Steinkirk.
      Beginning of the Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.
      Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.
      Attempted invasion of England from France defeated by the
      English and Dutch fleets at the battle of La Hogue.
      Destructive earthquake in Jamaica.

1693.
      Founding of the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
      Removal of Bradford's Press from Philadelphia to New York.
      French victories at Neerwinden and Marsaglia.
      Absolutism established in Sweden by Charles XI.
      Discovery of the fixed temperature of boiling water.

1694.
      The founding of the Bank of England.
      Birth of Voltaire (d. 1778).

1695.
      Passage of the first of the Penal Laws,
      oppressing Catholics in Ireland.
      Expiration of the Press-censorship law in England.

1696.
      Death of John Sobieski and purchase of the Polish crown by Frederick Augustus, elector of Saxony.

1697.
      Peace of Ryswick, ending the war of the Grand Alliance.
      Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.
      Campaign of Prince Eugene against the Turks and his
      decisive victory at Zenta.
      Death of Charles XI. of Sweden and accession of Charles XII.
      Sojourn of Peter the Great in Holland.
      Publication of Bayle's Dictionary.
      Birth of Hogarth (d. 1764).

1698.
      Grant to the English by the Mogul of the site on which
      Calcutta grew up.
      Undertaking, in Scotland, of the Darien scheme of
      colonization and commerce.
      Visit of Peter the Great to England.
      Publication of Algernon Sidney's "Discourse on Government."
      Birth of Metastasio (d. 1782).

1699.
      Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland,
      Venice, and the Emperor, which reduced the European
      dominions of the Sultan nearly half.
      Settlement of Iberville's French colony in Louisiana.
      Publication of Fénélon's "Télémaque."

1700.
      Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.
      First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden, against the
      Danes and the Russians.
      Death of Charles II. of Spain, bequeathing his crown to
      Philip, duke of Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France.


Eighteenth Century.

1701.
      English Act of Settlement, fixing the succession to the
      throne in the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her heirs.
      Death of James II., of England, at St. Germains.
      Possession of the crown of Spain taken by Philip of Anjou,
      as Philip V.
      Founding of Yale College at New Haven, Connecticut.

1702.
      Death of William III., king of England and stadtholder of Holland.
      Accession in England of Queen Anne.
      The Camisard rising in France.
      Beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession
      (called in America Queen Anne's War).
      Battle of Friedlingen in Germany.
      Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.
      Attack on the treasure fleet in Vigo Bay.
      Victories of Prince Eugene in Italy, followed by reverses
      and retreat into the Tyrol.
      Savoy overrun by the French.
      Union of rival English East India Companies.
      Publication of the first daily newspaper in England,
      the "Courant."
      Legislative separation of Delaware from Pennsylvania.
      Union of East and West Jersey in one royal province.

1703.
      The Methuen Treaty between England and Portugal.
      The Aylesbury Election case in England.
      Birth of Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758).
      Birth of John Wesley (d. 1791).

1704.
      Campaign of Marlborough and Prince Eugene on the Danube.
      Victory of Blenheim.
      Capture of Gibraltar by the English from Spain.
      Insurrection in Hungary under Rakoczy.
      Publication (at Boston) of the first newspaper in
      the English American colonies.
      Completed subjugation of Poland by Charles XII. of Sweden.
      Publication of Swift's "Tale of a Tub," and of the first
      part of Clarendon's "History of the Great Rebellion" (England).

1705.
      Capture of Barcelona by the Earl of Peterborough.

1706.
      Marlborough's victory at Ramillies over the French
      under Villeroy.
      Expulsion of the French from Antwerp, Ghent, and other
      strong places of Flanders.
      Madrid lost and regained by the Bourbon king of Spain.
      French siege of Turin.
      Deliverance of the city by Prince Eugene.
      Birth of Benjamin Franklin (d. 1790).

{3842}

1707.
      Union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
      Victories of Marlborough and Prince Eugene at Oudenarde
      and Malplaquet, over Vendôme and Villars.
      Victory of Berwick, for the French and Spaniards, at Almanza.
      Disastrous expedition of Prince Eugene against Toulon.
      Death of Aurungzebe, the last important Mogul emperor.
      Subjugation of Saxony by Charles XII.
      Birth of Buffon (d. 1788).
      Birth of Fielding (d. 1754).

1708.
      English conquest of Majorca and Minorca, by General Stanhope.
      Renewed persecution of the Jansenists.
      Dispersion of the nuns of Port Royal of the Fields.
      Invasion of Russia by Charles XII.
      Birth of Charles Wesley (d. 1788).
      Birth of William Pitt, Lord Chatham (d. 1778).

1709.
      The first Barrier Treaty between Holland and Great Britain.
      Dispersion of the nuns of Port Royal.
      Defeat of Charles XII. at Pultowa by the Russians and his
      escape into Turkish territory.
      Publication of the first numbers of Steele and Addison's
      "Tatler," and of Berkeley's "New Theory of Vision."
      Birth of Dr. Samuel Johnson (d. 1784).

1710.
      Trial of Dr. Sacheverell in England.
      Peace conferences at Gertruydenberg between France,
      Great Britain, Holland, Spain and Austria.
      Madrid again lost and recovered by Philip V.
      Franco-Spanish victories of Villa Viciosa and Brihuega.
      Capture of Port Royal, Acadia, by the New Englanders;
      final English conquest of Acadia and change of name to
      Nova Scotia.

1711.
      Fall of the Whigs from power, in England.
      Passage of the Occasional Conformity Act.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Joseph I.
      Election and coronation of Charles VI.
      Opening of negotiations for peace between England and France.
      Peace of Szathmar, ending the revolt in Hungary.
      Publication of the first numbers of "The Spectator," by
      Addison, Steele, and others; also of Pope's
      "Essay on Criticism."
      Birth of David Hume (d. 1776).

1712.
      Dismissal of Marlborough from his command,
      by the British Government.
      Peace Conference at Utrecht.
      Imposition of the Stamp Tax on newspapers in England.
      Birth of Frederick the Great (d. 1786).
      Birth of Jean Jacques Rousseau (d. 1778).

1713.
      The Peace of Utrecht, ending the War of the Spanish
      Succession except as between France and the Emperor;
      cession of Sicily by Spain to the duke of Savoy, with the
      title of king;
      restoration of Savoy and Nice to the same prince,
      by France, with cessions of certain valleys and forts;
      exchange by the king of Prussia of the principality of
      Orange and the lordship of Châlons for Spanish Guelderland
      and the sovereignty of Neufchatel and Valengin;
      cession by Spain to the House of Austria of the kingdom
      of Naples, the duchy of Milan, the Spanish Tuscan territories,
      and the sovereignty of the Spanish Netherlands, reserving
      certain rights of the elector of Bavaria;
      agreement for the destruction of the fortifications and
      harbor of Dunkirk;
      relinquishment to Great Britain of Newfoundland, Nova
      Scotia, Gibraltar, Minorca, Hudson Bay, and the island of
      St. Christopher;
      concession of the Assiento or Spanish slave-trading
      contract to Great Britain for thirty years.
      Second Barrier Treaty between Great Britain and Holland.
      The papal Bull Unigenitus against the doctrines
      of the Jansenists.
      Production of Addison's "Cato."
      Birth of Sterne (d. 1768).
      Birth of Diderot (d. 1784).

1714.
      Death of Queen Anne of England;
      accession of George I.
      Treaty of Rastadt or Baden, establishing peace between
      France and the Emperor;
      relinquishment of Sardinia by the Elector of Bavaria to
      the Emperor, in return for the Upper Palatinate.
      Opening of war with the Turks by the Emperor, Charles VI.
      Return of Charles XII. to Sweden.
      Invention of Fahrenheit's Thermometer.
      Birth of Condillac (d. 1780).
      Birth of Helvetius (d. 1771).
      Birth of Vauvenargues (d. 1747).

1715.
      Jacobite rising in Great Britain.
      Death of Louis XIV. in France;
      accession of Louis XV., under the regency of the
      duke of Orleans.
      Barrier treaty of Holland with the Emperor.
      Publication of the first books of Pope's translation of
      the "Iliad," and the first books of Le Sage's "Gil Blas."

1716.
      Passage of the Septennial Act, extending the term of the
      British Parliament to seven years.
      Victory of Prince Eugene over the Turks, at Petervardein.

1717.
      Launching of the Mississippi scheme of John Law, in France.
      Triple Alliance of France, Great Britain and Holland to
      oppose the projects of Alberoni and Queen Elizabeth Farnese,
      in Spain.
      Spanish capture of Sardinia.
      Final recovery of Belgrade from the Turks by the Austrians.
      Birth of D' Alembert (d. 1783).

1718.
      Promulgation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.,
      defining the Austrian succession in favor of his daughter,
      Maria Theresa.
      Spanish conquest of Sicily from the duke of Savoy.
      Quadruple Alliance of France, Great Britain, Holland and
      the Emperor against Spain.
      Peace of Passarowitz between the Emperor and the Porte.
      Removal of the capital of Russia to St. Petersburg.
      Death of Charles XII. of Sweden.
      Founding of the city of New Orleans by Bienville.

1719.
      French and English attacks on Spain.
      Submission of Philip V. to the Quadruple Alliance.
      Banishment of Alberoni.
      Spanish evacuation of Sicily and Sardinia.
      Restoration of the oligarchical constitution of Sweden.
      Publication of the first part of De Foe's
      "Robinson Crusoe," and of Watts' "Psalms and Hymns."

1720.
      The South Sea Bubble in England.
      Forced exchange by the duke of Savoy, with the Emperor,
      of Sicily for Sardinia, the latter being raised to the rank
      of a kingdom.
      Reversion of the duchies of Parma and Placentia and of the
      Grand Duchy of Tuscany to Don Carlos, son of the king
      of Spain.
      Publication of Vico's "Jus Universale."

1721.
      Rise of Walpole to ascendancy in the British Government.
      Introduction of preventive inoculation against smallpox
      in England by Lady Montague.
      Election of Pope Innocent XIII.

1722.
      Grant of Wood's patent for supplying Ireland with
      a copper coinage.
      Conquest of Persia by the Afghans.
      Birth of Samuel Adams (d. 1803).

1723.
      Majority of Louis XV., king of France.
      Termination of the Regency.
      Publication of Ramsay's "Gentle Shepherd."
      Birth of Adam Smith (d. 1790).

{3843}

1724.
      Election of Pope Benedict XIII.
      Publication of Swift's "Drapier's Letters" against
      Wood's halfpence, in Ireland.
      Birth of Kant (d. 1804).

1725.
      Treaty of Spain with Austria guaranteeing the
      Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.
      Alliance of Hanover between France,
      Great Britain and Holland.
      Death of Peter the Great, of Russia, and accession of his
      empress, Catherine I.
      Birth of Clive (d. 1774).

1726.
      Treaty of Russia with Austria guaranteeing the Pragmatic
      Sanction of Charles VI.
      Publication of Swift's "Gulliver's Travels."

1727.
      Death of George I. of England.
      Accession of George II.
      Hostilities without formal war between
      Great Britain and Spain.
      Siege of Gibraltar by the Spaniards.
      Deliverance of Persia from the Afghans by Nadir Kuli.
      Birth of Turgot (d. 1781).

1728. Treaty of Prussia with Austria guaranteeing the Pragmatic
      Sanction of Charles VI.
      Birth of Goldsmith (d. 1774).

1729.
      End of proprietary government in the Carolinas.
      Birth of Edmund Burke (d. 1797).
      Birth of Lessing (d. 1781).
      Birth of Moses Mendelssohn. (d. 1786).

1730.
      Election of Pope Clement XII.
      Founding of Baltimore in Maryland.
      Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway;
      accidental death of Mr. Huskisson, prime minister of England.
      Birth of Edmund Burke [Uncertain date] (d. 1797).

1731.
      Treaty of Seville between Great Britain, France, and Spain.
      Don Carlos established in the duchies of Parma and Placentia.
      Treaties of England and Holland with Austria, guaranteeing
      the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.
      Founding of the "Gentleman's Magazine."
      Birth of William Cowper (d. 1800).

1732.
      Usurpation of the Persian throne by Nadir Kuli,
      thenceforward entitled Nadir Kuli Khan, or Nadir Shall.
      Grant of Georgia in America to General Oglethorpe by
      George II., of England.
      Founding, at Philadelphia, of the first Subscription
      Library in the United States, by Franklin.
      Publication of the first part of Pope's" Essay on Man."
      Birth of Washington (d. 1799).
      Birth of Haydn (d. 1809).

1733.
      The first Bourbon Family Compact between the French
      and Spanish sovereigns.
      Death of Augustus II. of Poland.
      War of the Polish Succession between France and Austria.
      John Kay's invention of the fly-shuttle for weaving.
      Founding of Savannah, Georgia, by General Oglethorpe.
      Birth of Wieland (d. 1813).
      Birth of Joseph Priestley (d. 1804).

1734.
      Conquest of Naples and Sicily by Don Carlos, son of the
      king of Spain, and assumption by him of the kingship of
      the Two Sicilies, under the name and style of Charles III.
      Zenger's trial in New York and vindication of the freedom
      of the English colonial press.

1735.
      Treaty of Vienna between France, Austria and Spain,
      confirming Charles III. in possession of the kingdom
      of the Two Sicilies; ceding Lorraine to France and
      Tuscany in reversion to the former duke of Lorraine.
      First Moravian (Unitas Fratrum) settlement in America
      planted in Georgia.
      Birth of John Adams (d. 1826).

1736.
      Founding of the short-lived realm of King Theodore in Corsica.
      Publication of Butler's "Analogy of Religion."
      Porteous riots in Edinburgh.
      Birth of Lagrange (d. 1813).

1737.
      Birth of Edward Gibbon (d. 1794).

1738.
      Treaty of France with Austria guaranteeing the Pragmatic
      Sanction of Charles VI.

1739.
      War of Jenkins' Ear, between Great Britain and Spain.
      Capture of Delhi, in India, with sack and massacre,
      by Nadir Shah, the Persian conqueror.

1740.
      Accession of Frederick the Great in Prussia.
      Death of the Emperor Charles VI.
      Treachery of the Powers which had guaranteed the Austrian
      succession to Maria Theresa.
      Opening of the War of the Succession.
      Invasion of Silesia by Frederick of Prussia.
      Election of Pope Benedict XIV.
      Settlement of the Moravians (Unitas Fratrum) in
      Pennsylvania, at Bethlehem.
      First performance of Händel's "Messiah."

1741.
      Battle of Mollwitz.
      Alliance of Prussia, France and Bavaria.
      Appeal of Maria Theresa to the Hungarians.
      Franco-Bavarian invasion of Bohemia and Austrian
      invasion of Bavaria.
      Secret bargain of Frederick with Maria Theresa, and
      abandonment of his allies.
      Pretended Negro Plot in New York.
      Publication of the first volume of Hume's
      "Essays Moral and Political."

1742.
      Resignation of Walpole from the British Ministry.
      Imperial election and coronation of the elector of Bavaria
      as Charles VII.
      Reversing of the treachery of Frederick and renewal of
      his war with Austria.
      Battle of Chotusitz.
      Treaty of Breslau between Austria and Prussia.
      Cession of Silesia and Glatz to Frederick.
      Continuation of the war of Austria and France.
      Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.
      Birth of Scheele (d. 1786).

1743.
      The second Bourbon Family Compact between the sovereigns
      of France and Spain.
      Great Britain involved in the War of the Austrian
      Succession, supporting the cause of Maria Theresa.
      Victory of the "Pragmatic Army" (English and Hanoverian)
      at Dettingen.
      Birth of Thomas Jefferson (d. 1826).
      Birth of Toussaint L' Ouverture (d. 1803).
      Birth of Lavoisier (d. 1794).

1744.
      Renewal of war with Austria by Frederick of Prussia.
      His invasion of Bohemia, his capture of Prague and
      his forced retreat.
      Birth of Herder (d. 1803).

1745.
      The last Jacobite rebellion in Great Britain.
      Death of Sir Robert Walpole.
      Capture of Louisburg and the island of Cape Breton from
      France by the New England colonists.
      Death of the Emperor Charles VII.
      Defeat of the British and Dutch by the French at Fontenoy.
      Peace made by Austria with Bavaria, and alliance with
      Saxony against the king of Prussia.
      Prussian victories at Hohenfriedberg, Sohr, Hennersdorf,
      and Kesselsdorf.
      Election of the husband of Maria Theresa to the Imperial
      throne, as Francis I.
      Peace between Austria and Prussia.
      Success of the French, Spaniards, and Genoese in Lombardy,
      expelling the Austrians from every part except the
      citadel of Milan and the fortress of Mantua.
      Invention of the Leyden jar.

{3844}

1746.
      French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands.
      Retreat of Spaniards and French from North Italy.
      Surrender of Genoa to the Austrians, and their expulsion
      by a popular rising.
      Capture of Madras by the French.
      Birth of Pestalozzi (d. 1827).
      Birth of Henry Grattan (d. 1820).

1747.
      French invasion of the United Provinces (Holland);
      risings of the Orange party;
      restoration of the Stadtholdership,
      in the person of William IV.
      Unsuccessful siege of Genoa by the Austrians and Sardinians.
      Franklin's identification of lightning with electricity.
      Murder of Nadir Shah, the Persian conqueror.

1748.
      Treaty of Aix-Ia-Chapelle, ending the War of the
      Austrian Succession;
      general restoration of conquests made during the war;
      confirmation of Silesia and Glatz to Frederick of Prussia;
      general guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.
      Beginning of excavations at Pompeii.
      Birth of Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832).

1749.
      Formation of the Ohio Company, with a royal grant of lands
      in the Ohio Valley.
      Founding of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
      Publication of Montesquieu's "Esprit des Lois";
      of Fielding's "Tom Jones," and of John Wesley's
      "Plain account of the people called Methodists."
      Birth of Charles James Fox (d. 1806).
      Birth of Goethe (d. 1832).
      Birth of Mirabeau (d. 171)1).
      Birth of Vittorio Alfieri (d. 1803).
      Birth of Laplace (d. 1827).
      Birth of Jenner (d. 1823).

1751.
      Beginning of the military career of Clive in India by the
      taking of Arcot from the French.
      Introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, or change from
      Old Style to New, in England.
      Publication of Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard,"
      and of the first volume of "L' Encyclopedie."
      Birth of R. B. Sheridan (d. 1816).
      Birth of James Madison (d. 1836).

1754.
      Founding of King's College (now Columbia) at New York.
      Congress of the American Colonies at Albany and
      plans of Union.
      Building of Fort Duquesne by the French and Washington's
      expedition against them.
      Publication of the first volume of
      Hume's "History of England."
      Birth of Talleyrand (d. 1838).

1755.
      Beginning of the Seven Years War, called in America
      the French and Indian War;
      Braddock's defeat by the French and Indians in America;
      battle of Lake George and defeat of the French;
      dispersion in exile of the French Acadians from Nova Scotia.
      Birth of Hahnemann, the originator of Homœopathy.
      Great earthquake at Lisbon.
      Birth of John Marshall (d. 1835).

1756.
      Formal declarations of war by Great Britain and France;
      conquest of Minorca by the French from the English.
      Invasion and occupation of Saxony by Frederick of Prussia.
      Frederick under the Ban of the Empire.
      Capture of Delhi by the Afghan Durances;
      capture of Calcutta by Shrajah Dowlah,
      and tragedy of the Black Hole.
      Birth of Mozart (d. 1791 [Uncertain date]).

1757.
      Execution in England of Admiral Byng.
      Beginning of the administration of the elder Pitt.
      Invasion of Bohemia by Frederick;
      his victory at Prague, his defeat at Kolin, convention of
      Closter-Seven, battles of Rossbach and Leuthen.
      Capture of Fort William Henry in America, by the French.
      Franklin's mission to England for the Pennsylvanians.
      Clive's overthrow of Surajah Dowlah at the battle of
      Plassey, in India.
      Birth of Canova (d. 1822).
      Birth of Alexander Hamilton (d. 1804).
      Birth of Lafayette (d. 1834).
      Birth of Baron von Stein (d. 1831).

1758.
      Siege of Olmutz by Frederick;
      his victory over the Russians at Zorndorf;
      his defeat by the Austrians at Hochkirch.
      Election of Pope Clement XIII.
      Repulse of the British at Ticonderoga, in America;
      capture of Louisburg and Fort Du Quesne (afterwards
      Pittsburg) by the English from the French.
      Beginning of the publication of Dr. Johnson's "Idler."
      Birth of Lord Nelson (d. 1805).
      Birth of Robespierre (d. 1794).

1759.
      Naval battles of the English and French off Lagos and in
      Quiberon Bay.
      Battles of Bergen and Minden in Germany;
      defeat of Frederick at Kunersdorf;
      loss of Dresden;
      capitulation of Maxen.
      Expulsion of the Jesuits from the Portuguese dominions.
      Capture of Quebec, in Canada, from the French,
      by General Wolfe;
      British capture of Fort Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.
      Opening of the British Museum.
      Publication of Dr. Johnson's "Rasselas," Adam Smith's
      "Moral Sentiments," the first volumes of Sterne's
      "Tristram Shandy," and the first volume
      of the "Annual Register," edited by Burke.
      Birth of Schiller (d. 1805).
      Birth of Robert Burns (d. 1796).
      Birth of William Wilberforce (d. 1833).
      Birth of William Pitt (d. 1806).

1760.
      Death of George II., king of England;
      accession of George III.
      Frederick's bombardment of Dresden.
      Battles of Liegnitz, Torgau and Warburg.
      Completion of the English conquest of Canada.
      Defeat of the French by the English,
      in India, at Wandiwash.
      Publication of Rousseau's "Nouvelle Heloise," and
      Goldsmith's "Citizen of the World."

1761.
      Resignation of Pitt from the British Ministry.
      The third Bourbon Family Compact of
      the French and Spanish kings.
      Campaigns in Saxony and Silesia.
      Battle of Panniput in India and defeat of the Mahrattas
      by the Afghans.
      Speech of Otis, at Boston, against the Writs of Assistance.
      Surrender of Pondicherry to the English by the French.

1762.
      Ascendancy of Lord Bute in the British Ministry;
      publication of Wilkes' "North Briton;"
      declaration of war against Spain;
      siege and conquest of Havana.
      Death of the Empress Elizabeth of Russia;
      accession, deposition and murder of Peter III.;
      elevation of Catherine II. to the throne.
      Decree of the Parliament of Paris for the suppression of
      the Society of Jesus.
      Publication of Macpherson's "Poems of Ossian,"
      and of Rousseau's "Contrat Social."
      Birth of Fichte (d. 1814).

1763.
      Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg,
      ending the Seven Years War:
      cession to Great Britain of Canada, Nova Scotia and
      Cape Breton by France, and of Florida by Spain;
      transfer of Louisiana to Spain by France.
      First English measure (the Sugar Act) for taxing the
      American colonies.
      Proclamation of King George excluding settlers from the
      Northwest territory in America.
      Outbreak in America of the Indian war called Pontiac's War.
      Resignation of Lord Bute from the British Ministry and
      formation of the Grenville Ministry.
      Death of Augustus III. of Poland.
      Birth of Jean Paul Frederick Richter (d. 1825).

{3845}

1764.
      Expulsion of Wilkes from the British House of Commons.
      Election of Joseph II., King of the Romans.
      Election of Stanislaus Poniatowsky to the Polish throne,
      under the protection of Russia.
      Ordonnance of Louis XV. forbidding the existence of the
      Society of Jesus in France.
      Beginning of the survey of Mason and Dixon's line,
      determining the boundary between Pennsylvania and Maryland.
      Publication of Goldsmith's "The Traveller," and
      of Rousseau's "Emile."

1765.
      First derangement of the English king, George III.
      Dismissal of Grenville.
      Formation of the Rockingham Ministry.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Francis I.;
      imperial coronation of Joseph II.
      Passage of the English Stamp Act for the taxation of
      the American colonies;
      formation in the colonies of the Sons of Liberty, and
      convening of the Stamp Act Congress.
      Publication of the first volume of
      Blackstone's "Commentaries."

1766.
      The Grafton-Chatham Ministry in power in Great Britain.
      Repeal of the colonial Stamp Act.
      Discovery of hydrogen, by Cavendish.
      Publication of Lessing's "Laokoön," and of
      Goldsmith's "Vicar of Wakefield."
      Birth of John Dalton (d. 1844).

1761.
      Suppression of the Jesuits in Spain.
      Beginning of the first war of the English in
      India with Hyder Ali.
      The Townshend measures of the British Parliament for
      taxation of the colonies.
      Birth of August Wilhelm von Schlegel (d. 1845).
      Birth of Wilhelm von Humboldt (d. 1835).
      Birth of Andrew Jackson (d. 1845).
      Birth of John Quincy Adams (d. 1848).

1768.
      The Middlesex elections in England;
      repeated expulsion and re-election of Wilkes;
      withdrawal of Chatham from the Ministry.
      Religious disturbances in Poland.
      Confederation of Bar.
      Turkish interference against Russia.
      Circular letter of Massachusetts to the
      other American colonies.
      Cession of Corsica (in revolt) by Genoa to France.

1769.
      Demand of Spain, France and Naples at Rome for the
      abolition of the Society of Jesus.
      Election of Pope Clement XIV.
      Patents issued in Great Britain to James Watt for his first
      improvements in the steam engine, and to Richard Arkwright
      for his roller-spinning "water-frame";
      publication of the first "Letters of Junius."
      Migration of Daniel Boone from North Carolina into Kentucky.
      Birth of Wellington (d. 1852).
      Birth of Napoleon Bonaparte in Corsica (d. 1821).
      Birth of Alexander von Humboldt (d. 1850).
      Birth of Cuvier (d. 1832).

1770.
      Patenting in Great Britain of Hargreave's spinning-jenny.
      Beginning of the administration of Lord North in Great Britain.
      Publication of Burke's "Thoughts on the Present Discontents,"
      of Goldsmith's "Deserted Village," and of the first edition
      of the "Encyclopædia Britannica."
      Birth of Thorwaldsen (d. 1844).
      Birth of Wordsworth (d. 1850).
      Birth of Hegel (d. 1831).
      Birth of George Canning (d. 1827).
      Birth of Beethoven (d. 1827).

1771.
      Freedom of the reporting of proceedings conceded by
      the British Parliament.
      Insurrection of the Regulators in North Carolina and
      battle of the Alamance.
      Constitutional revolution in Sweden carried out
      by Gustavus III.
      Birth of Bichat (d. 1802).
      Birth of Sir Walter Scott (d. 1832).

1772.
      Treaty for the first Partitioning of Poland arranged
      between Prussia, Austria and Russia.
      The institution in the American colonies of Committees
      of Correspondence.
      Forming of the Watauga Association, from which grew the
      State of Tennessee.
      Decision by Lord Mansfield, in the case of the negro
      Somersett, that a slave cannot be held in England.
      Birth of Coleridge (d. 1834).
      Birth of Ricardo (d. 1823).

1773.
      Papal decree of Pope Clement XIV. abolishing
      the Society of Jesus.
      Appointment of Warren Hastings, the first English
      Governor-General in India.
      Resistance in the English American colonies to
      the duty on tea;
      the Boston tea-party.
      Publication of Goethe's "Götz von Berlichingen."
      Birth of Metternich (d. 1859).

1774.
      Death of Louis XV., king of France;
      accession of Louis XVI.
      Passage of the Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
      and the Quebec Act by the British Parliament.
      Meeting of the first Continental Congress of the
      American colonies;
      organization of the revolutionary Provincial Congress in
      Massachusetts, and of the Committee of Safety.
      Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians;
      murder of the family of Logan, the chief.
      Publication of Goethe's "Werther."
      Discovery of oxygen by Priestley.
      Birth of Southey (d. 1843).

1775.
      Speech of Burke on "Conciliation with America."
      Beginning of the War of the American Revolution:
      battles of Lexington and Concord;
      siege of Boston;
      surprising of Ticonderoga and Crown Point;
      battle of Bunker Hill;
      creation of the Continental Army;
      appointment of Washington Commander-in-Chief;
      expedition to Canada.
      Execution of Nuncomar in British India.
      Election of Pope Pius VI.
      Production of Sheridan's "The Rivals" and
      of Beaumarchais' "Barbière de Seville."
      Birth of Daniel O'Connell (d. 1847).
      Birth of Charles Lamb (d. 1834).
      Birth of Walter Savage Landor (d. 1864).
      Birth of Turner (d. 1851).

1776.
      Dismissal of Turgot in France by Louis XVI., yielding to
      the intrigues of the French court.
      Evacuation of Boston, Massachusetts, by the British army;
      repulse of the British from Charleston;
      retreat of Arnold from Canada;
      Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress;
      battle of Long Island and defeat of the Americans;
      retreat of Washington into New Jersey and
      his success at Trenton.
      Publication of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations,"
      of Paine's "Common Sense,"
      of Bentham's "Fragment on Government,"
      and of the first volume of Gibbon's"
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
      Birth of Niebuhr (d. 1831).
      Birth of Herbart (d. 1841).

1777.
      Washington's victory over Cornwallis at Princeton;
      British occupation of Philadelphia, and victories over
      the Americans at Brandywine and Germantown;
      arrival in America of Lafayette and Steuben;
      Burgoyne's expedition from Canada and surrender at Saratoga;
      the winter of Washington's army at Valley Forge;
      the Conway Cabal.
      Production of Sheridan's "School for Scandal."
      Birth of Henry Clay (d. 1852).

1778.
      War of the Bavarian Succession between Austria and Prussia.
      Alliance of France with the American colonies.
      British evacuation of Philadelphia and defeat at Monmouth;
      Tory and Indian savagery at Cherry Valley and Wyoming;
      arrival of a French fleet and army in America;
      capture of Savannah by the British.
      Publication of Fanny Burney's "Evelina."
      Birth of Humphry Davy (d. 1829).
      Birth of Guy-Lussac (d. 1850).

{3846}

1779.
      Clark's conquest of the Northwest for Virginia;
      storming of Stony Point on the Hudson by General Wayne;
      expedition of General Sullivan against the Seneca Indians
      in western New York;
      sea-fight of the Bon Homme Richard (Paul Jones) and
      the Serapis;
      repulse of French and Americans from Savannah.
      Publication of Lessing's "Nathan der Weise."
      Birth of Joseph Story (d. 1845).
      Birth of Thomas Moore (d. 1852).
      Birth of Berzelius (d. 1848).

1780.
      The Gordon No-Popery Riots in England.
      Death of Maria Theresa of Austria.
      Second war of the British in India with Hyder Ali.
      British siege and capture of Charleston, S. C., and defeat
      of the Americans at Camden;
      treason of Benedict Arnold;
      American victory at King's Mountain.
      Insurrection of Tupac Amaru in Peru.
      Gradual emancipation act passed in Pennsylvania.
      Birth of Béranger (d. 1857).

1781.
      Dismissal of Neckar by the French king.
      Edict of Toleration in the Austrian dominions and
      abolition of serfdom, by Joseph II.
      Reconquest of West Florida from the English by Spain.
      Defeat of British troops by the Americans at the Cowpens
      and Guilford Court House;
      British victory at Hobkirk's Hill;
      drawn battle of Eutaw Springs;
      surrender of Cornwallis and the British army at Yorktown;
      final ratification of the Articles of Confederation of the
      United States of America.
      Extinction of slavery in Massachusetts.
      English and Dutch naval battle off the Dogger Banks.
      Publication of Kant's "Critique of the Pure Reason."
      Production of Schiller's "Die Räuber."
      Birth of George Stephenson (d. 1848).
      Birth of Sir David Brewster (d. 1868).

1782.
      English naval victory by Rodney, in the West Indies,
      over the French fleet.
      Fall of Lord North;
      the Rockingham Ministry.
      Destruction of the Barrier Fortresses in the Netherlands,
      by the Emperor.
      The first Sunday School opened by Robert Raikes,
      in Massachusetts.
      Concession of legislative independence to Ireland by England.
      Peace overtures from the British Government to the
      United States, and opening of negotiations.
      Publication of Priestley's "Corruptions of Christianity."
      Birth of Froebel (d. 1852).
      Birth of Lamennais (d. 1854).
      Birth of John C. Calhoun (d. 1850).
      Birth of Daniel Webster (d. 1852).

1783.
      Treaty of peace signed at Paris, between Great Britain
      and the United States of America;
      evacuation of New York by the British army.
      Fall of the Coalition Ministry in Great Britain;
      beginning of the administration of the younger Pitt.
      Seizure of the Crimea by Catherine II. of Russia.
      Birth of Bolivar (d. 1830).
      Birth of Washington Irving (d. 1859).

1784.
      The affair of the Diamond Necklace, in France.
      Founding, at Philadelphia, of the first Daily Newspaper
      in America.
      Appearance of the Peep-o'-Day Boys in Ireland.
      Birth of Manzoni (d. 1873).

1785.
      Negotiation of the United States with Spain for the free
      navigation of the Mississippi river.
      Publication of Cowper's "The Task,"
      Paley's "Moral and Political Philosophy,"
      and Reid's "Essays on the Intellectual Powers."
      Birth of De Quincey (d. 1859).

1786.
      Electrical discoveries of Galvani.
      Publication of Burns' "Poems chiefly
      in the Scottish Dialect."

1787.
      Meeting of the Assembly of Notables in France.
      Conflict of the French Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
      Impeachment of Warren Hastings by the British
      House of Commons.
      Suppression of Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts.
      Passage by the American Congress of the Ordinance for the
      Government of the Northwest Territory.
      Meeting of the Convention which framed the Federal
      Constitution of the United States of America.
      Birth of Archbishop Whately (d. 1863).
      Birth of Guizot (d. 1874).

1788.
      Second derangement of George III. of England.
      Revolt in the Austrian provinces in the Netherlands.
      State ratification and complete adoption of the Federal
      Constitution of the United States of America.
      Opening of the trial of Warren Hastings.
      Establishment of an English settlement of convicts
      at Botany Bay.
      Publication of St. Pierre's "Paul and Virginia."
      Birth of Sir Robert Peel (d. 1850).
      Birth of Schopenhauer (d. 1860).
      Birth of Lord Byron (d. 1824).
      Birth of Sir William Hamilton (d. 1856).

1789.
      Meeting of the States-General of France;
      seizure of power by the Third Estate;
      insurrection of Paris;
      taking of the Bastille;
      formation of the National Guard;
      emigration of the nobles;
      rising of the women;
      escorting of the king to Paris;
      appropriation of Church property.
      War of the English in India with Tippoo Saib.
      Organization of the Government of the United States of
      America under its new Constitution,
      with George Washington chosen President.
      Erection, at Baltimore, of the first Roman Catholic
      episcopal see in the United States.
      Founding of the Tammany Society in New York.
      Publication of White's "Natural History of Selborne."
      Birth of James Fenimore Cooper (d. 1851).

1790.
      Issue of French Assignats.
      Feast of the Federation;
      rise of the revolutionary clubs.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Joseph II., and
      accession of Leopold II.

1791.
      Flight and arrest of the French king at Varennes;
      completion of the French Constitution and its acceptance
      by the king;
      tumult in the Champs de Mars;
      dissolution of the Constituent National Assembly;
      meeting of the Legislative Assembly;
      appearance of the Girondins;
      repeal in France of all enactments against the Jews.
      Reformed Constitution for Poland suppressed by Russia.
      Organization in Ireland of the Society of United Irishmen.
      Passage of the Canadian Constitutional Act, dividing the
      province into Upper and Lower Canada.
      Incorporation of the first Bank of the United States;
      report of Hamilton on manufactures;
      adoption of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution
      of the United States of America.
      Insurrection of slaves in Hayti.
      Separation of Kentucky from Virginia and admission to the
      American Union as a State.
      Publication of Boswell's "Life of Dr. Johnson,"
      of Paine's "Rights of Man,"
      of Burke's "Thoughts on French Affairs,"
      and of Schiller's "Thirty Years War."
      Birth of Faraday (d. 1867).
      Birth of S. F. B. Morse (d. 1872).

{3847}

1792.
      Declaration of war by France with Austria and Prussia;
      dismissal of Girondin ministers;
      mob attack on the Tuilleries and massacre of the Swiss;
      deposition and imprisonment of the king;
      seizure of power by the insurgent Commune of Paris;
      strife of Jacobins and Girondins;
      withdrawal of Lafayette from the country;
      the September Massacres;
      meeting of the National Convention;
      proclamation of the Republic;
      battle of Valmy;
      annexation of Savoy and Nice;
      trial of the king.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Leopold II.
      Accession of Francis II.
      Beginning of Pinel's reform in the treatment of the insane.
      Re-election of George Washington,
      President of the United States.
      Birth of Shelley (d. 1822).
      Birth of Cousin (d. 1867).

1793.
      Execution of Louis XVI.;
      declaration of war with England;
      invasion of Holland;
      formation of the Revolutionary Tribunal and the Committee
      of Public Safety;
      fall of the Girondins;
      formation of the European Coalition;
      revolt in La Vendée, and in Lyons, Toulon,
      and other cities;
      assassination of Marat;
      beginning of the Reign of Terror;
      execution of the queen, and the Girondins;
      institution of the "worship of Reason";
      the "Noyades" at Nantes.
      Partial concession of rights to Catholics in Ire]and.
      Second Partition of Poland.
      Passage of the first Fugitive Slave Law by the
      United States Congress.
      Invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney.
      Emancipation of slaves proclaimed by the French in Hayti,
      and alliance formed with the blacks, under Toussaint
      L'Ouverture, against Spaniards and English.
      Publication of Wordsworth's "An Evening Walk" and
      "Descriptive Sketches."

1794.
      Destruction of the Hébertists in France;
      fall and death of Danton;
      Feast of the Supreme Being;
      conquest of the Austrian Netherlands;
      climax of the Terror;
      downfall and end of Robespierre and of the Jacobin Club;
      reaction;
      the White Terror;
      subjugation of Holland;
      Chouannerie in Brittany.
      Whisky Insurrection in Pennsylvania.
      Negotiation of the Jay Treaty between Great Britain
      and the United States.
      Decisive victory of General Wayne over the
      Indians on the Maumee.
      Publication of Fichte's "Wissenschaftslehre"
      and of Goethe's "Reinecke Fuchs."
      Birth of William Cullen Bryant (d. 1878).
      Birth of Meyerbeer (d. 1864).

1795.
      Suppression of insurrection by the Paris bourgeois;
      adoption of the Constitution of the Year III.;
      peace with Spain;
      acquisition of Spanish San Domingo;
      Austrian victory at Loana;
      insurrection of the 13th Vendemiare put down by
      Napoleon Bonaparte;
      dissolution of the National Convention;
      government of the Directory.
      Formation of the Orange Society, in Ireland.
      Third Partition of Poland.
      Sale of the Western Reserve of Connecticut (in Ohio).
      Publication of the first part of Goethe's
      "Wilhelm Meister's Lehrjahre" and of Richter's "Hesperus."
      Birth of Keats (d. 1821).
      Birth of Carlyle (d. 1881).
      Birth of Dr. Arnold (d. 1842).

1796.
      Bonaparte sent to command in Italy;
      submission of Sardinia;
      expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy;
      formation of the Cispadane Republic.
      Unsuccessful French expedition under Hoche to Ireland.
      Death of Catherine II. of Russia and accession of Paul.
      Publication of Washington's Farewell Address;
      election of John Adams to the Presidency
      of the United States.
      Publication of Southey's "Joan of Arc" and
      of Coleridge's first volume of "Poems."

1797.
      Bonaparte's Treaty of Tolentino with the Pope;
      his invasion of Austria;
      peace preliminaries of Leoben;
      overthrow and enslavement of Venice, delivered to Austria;
      creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
      Peace of Campo Formio;
      revolutionary Coup d'Etat at Paris.
      Difficulties between the American and the French republics.
      Suspension of specie payments in England.
      Mutiny of the British fleet.
      British naval victories, of Cape Vincent, over the fleet of
      Spain, and of Camperdown over that of Holland.
      Birth of Schubert (d. 1828).
      Birth of Joseph Henry [Uncertain date] (d. 1878).

1798.
      French intrigues at Rome;
      imprisonment of the Pope and formation of the Roman Republic.
      Subjugation of Switzerland by the French, and formation of
      the Helvetian Republic.
      Expedition of Bonaparte to Egypt;
      his seizure of Malta and expulsion of the Knights of St. John.
      Destruction of the French fleet by Lord Nelson in the
      battle of the Nile;
      siege and conquest of Malta by Nelson.
      Declaration of war against France by Turkey.
      Expulsion of the king from Naples and creation of the
      Parthenopeian Republic.
      Suppressed rebellion in Ireland and imprisonment and
      suicide of Wolfe Tone.
      Publication in England of Jenner's work on Vaccination.
      Passage of the Alien and Sedition Laws in the United States,
      and adoption of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
      Publication of the "Lyrical Ballads" of Wordsworth and
      Coleridge, of Landor's "Gebir,"
      of Schiller's "Wallenstein's Lager,"
      and of Malthus' "Principles of Population."
      Discovery that Heat is a mode of Motion, by Count Rumford.
      Birth of Thomas Hood (d. 1845).
      Birth of Comte (d. 1857).

1799.
      Bonaparte's advance into Syria and repulse from Acre;
      his victory at Aboukir.
      The armies of Austria and Russia in Italy and Switzerland.
      Expedition from England against Holland;
      capture of the Dutch fleet.
      Fall of the new republics in Italy.
      Return of Bonaparte from Egypt;
      overthrow of the Directory;
      creation of the Consulate;
      Bonaparte First Consul.
      Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.
      Invention of Volta's Pile.
      Birth of Balzac (d. 1850).
      Birth of Pushkin (d. 1837).

1800.
      Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland.
      Creation of the United Kingdom.
      Bonaparte's Marengo campaign in Italy.
      Moreau's victory at Hohenlinden.
      Assassination of Kleber in Egypt.
      Retrocession of Louisiana to France by Spain.
      Convention of the United States with France from which
      arose the French Spoliation Claims.
      Election of Thomas Jefferson President of the United States.
      Beginning of Robert Owen's social experiments at New Lanark.
      Decomposition of water with the Voltaic pile,
      by Nicholson and Carlisle.
      Publication of Richter's "Titan,"
      Birth of Moltke (d. 1891).
      Birth of Macaulay (d. 1859).
      Birth of Heine (d. 1856).

{3848}

Nineteenth Century.

1801.
      Defection of the Russian czar, Paul, from the European
      coalition, and his alliance with Napoleon.
      Treaty of Luneville between Napoleon and the Emperor
      Francis, and of Foligno between France and Naples.
      Formation of the northern league of neutrals.
      English bombardment of Copenhagen.
      Murder of the czar, Paul, and accession, in Russia,
      of Alexander I.
      Surrender of the French army in Egypt to the English.
      Concordat between Napoleon and the Pope.
      Imposition by Napoleon of new constitutions on the Dutch
      and Cisalpine republics.
      Cession of Louisiana to France by Spain.
      Resignation of Pitt from the British premiership;
      formation of the Addington Ministry.
      Passage of the first English Factory Act.
      Appointment of John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the
      Supreme Court of the United States.
      Inauguration of Jefferson as President of the United States.
      Opening of war by the United States with the pirates of Tripoli.
      Independence of Hayti proclaimed by Toussaint L' Ouverture.
      Birth of Farragut (d. 1870).

1802.
      Peace of Amiens between England and France.
      Voting of the First Consulate for life to Napoleon
      by the French people;
      his election to the presidency of the Cisalpine republic.
      Subjection of Switzerland, and annexation of Piedmont,
      Parma and Elba to France.
      Complaints of Napoleon against the English press;
      the Peltier trial.
      Founding of the United States Military Academy at West Point.
      Subjection of Hayti by the French and treacherous capture
      of Toussaint L'Ouverture.
      Founding of the Edinburgh Review.
      Birth of Victor Hugo (d. 1885).
      Birth of Kossuth (d. 1894).
      Birth of Harriet Martineau (d. 1876).
      Birth of Father Lacordaire (d. 1861).

1803.
      Renewal of war between Great Britain and France;
      detention of English in France.
      Secularization of the spiritual principalities in Germany
      and absorption of free cities.
      Purchase of Louisiana by the United States from France.
      Report to the Congress of the United States on the British
      impressment of seamen from American ships.
      Introduction of sheep-farming in Australia.
      Defeat of the Mahrattas at Assaye and Argaum by Wellesley
      (afterward Wellington).
      The Emmet insurrection in Ireland.
      Birth of Emerson (d. 1882).
      Birth of Francis Deak (d. 1876).
      Birth of Ericsson (d. 1889).

1804.
      Napoleon's abduction and execution of the Due d'Enghien.
      His elevation to the throne as emperor;
      his coronation by the Pope.
      Completion of the civil Code for France.
      Return of Pitt to the head of government in England.
      Federalist secession movement in the United States;
      re-election of President Jefferson;
      undertaking of the exploring journey of Lewis and Clark
      across the American continent.
      Death of Hamilton in duel with Burr.
      Birth of Hawthorne (d. 1864).
      Birth of Richard Cobden (d. 1865).
      Birth of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (d. 1881).
      Birth of George Sand (d. 1876).
      Birth of Sainte-Beuve (d. 1869).

1805.
      Bestowal of the crown of Italy on Napoleon;
      formation of the third European Coalition against him;
      his abortive plans for the invasion of England;
      his extraordinary march to the Danube;
      his capture of the army of Mack;
      his occupation of Vienna;
      his victory at Austerlitz.
      Nelson's victory and death at Trafalgar.
      Treaty of Presburg between France and Austria.
      Creation of the kingdoms of Bavaria and Würtemberg and
      the grand duchy of Baden.
      Impeachment trial of Judge Chase in the United States.
      Treaty of the United States with Tripoli,
      ending the payment of tribute.
      Publication of Scott's "Lay of the Last Minstrel."
      Birth of Hans Christian Andersen (d. 1875).

1806.
      Death of Pitt;
      formation of the British Ministry of All the Talents;
      death of Fox.
      British Order in Council declaring a blockade of the
      continental coast from Brest to the Elbe;
      Napoleon's Berlin Decree declaring the British islands
      under blockade and interdicting all intercourse with them.
      Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
      Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire;
      resignation of its sovereignty by Francis II., and his
      assumption thenceforth of the title of "Emperor of Austria."
      Humiliation and oppression of Prussia by the French emperor;
      the nation driven to war and subjugated at Jena.
      Advance of the French into Poland;
      war with Russia.
      Dethronement of the Bourbon dynasty in Naples and bestowal
      of the crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
      Creation of the kingdom of Holland, with Louis Bonaparte
      on the throne.
      Acquisition of the Cape of Good Hope by England from the Dutch.
      Filibustering scheme of Aaron Burr in the United States.
      Publication of Coleridge's "Christabel."
      Birth of John Stuart Mill (d. 1873).

1807.
      British Order in Council, retaliating the Berlin Decree,
      followed by the Milan Decree of Napoleon.
      Battles of Eylau and Friedland between the French and
      the Russians.
      Meeting of Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia on
      the raft at Tilsit;
      their public treaty and their secret agreements.
      British bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
      the Danish fleet.
      Creation of the kingdom of Westphalia for Jerome Bonaparte.
      Baron von Stein placed at the head of affairs in Prussia.
      Delusive arrangement of Napoleon with the king of Spain
      for the partition of Portugal;
      occupation of Lisbon by the French;
      flight of the royal family of Portugal to Brazil.
      Passage of an Act of the British Parliament for the
      suppression of the Slave-trade;
      fall of the Ministry of All the Talents;
      formation of the Portland Ministry.
      Arrest and trial of Burr in the United States.
      British outrage on the United States frigate Chesapeake;
      passage of Embargo Act by the American Congress.
      Abolition of the Slave-trade in the United States.
      Deposition of the reforming sultan, Selim III.,
      by the Turkish Janissaries;
      elevation of his nephew Mustapha to the throne.
      First publication of Dalton's Atomic theory of Chemistry.
      First trips of Fulton's steamboat "Clermont."
      Birth of Longfellow (d. 1882).
      Birth of Garibaldi (d. 1882).

1808.
      Erfurt conference and treaty of Napoleon and the Czar.
      Formation of the Tugendbund in Germany;
      Fichte's addresses on the state of that country.
      Napoleon's crime against Spain;
      knavish acquisition of the throne for his brother Joseph;
      the Spanish national revolt;
      English troops in the peninsula;
      Napoleon's crushing campaign.
      Opening of the French siege of Saragossa.
      Transfer of the crown of Naples from
      Joseph Bonaparte to Murat;
      appearance of the Carbonari.
      Conquest of Finland by Russia from Sweden.
      Murder of the deposed Turkish sultan, Selim III., and
      repeated revolutions at Constantinople.
      Election of James Madison President of the United States.
      Founding of the Quarterly Review.
      Birth of Mazzini (d. 1872).
      Birth of General Robert E. Lee (d. 1870).

{3849}

1809.
      Renewal of war between Austria and France;
      revolt in the Tyrol;
      Napoleon again in Vienna;
      his defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram;
      arrangement of peace by the Treaty of Schonbrunn, taking
      an enormous territory from the Austrian empire.
      Sir John Moore's advance in Spain;
      his retreat and death;
      fall of Saragossa.
      Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) in command
      of the British forces in the Peninsula;
      his passage of the Douro and battle of Talavera;
      his retreat into Portugal and construction of the Lines
      of Torres Vedras.
      The British Walcheren expedition.
      Inauguration of President Madison, in the United States;
      substitution of Non-intercourse for the Embargo.
      Publication of Byron's "English Bards and Scotch Reviewers."
      Birth of Abraham Lincoln (d. 1865).
      Birth of Gladstone.
      Birth of Charles Darwin (d. 1882).
      Birth of Tennyson (d. 1892).
      Birth of Elizabeth Barrett (Mrs. Browning) (d. 1861).
      Birth of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, (d. 1894).
      Birth of Mendelssohn (d. 1847).

1810.
      Abdication of the throne of Holland by Louis Bonaparte.
      Annexation of Holland, the Hansa towns and the Swiss Valais
      to France
      Suppression of the Tyrolese revolt and
      execution of Andrew Hofer.
      Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to the
      arch-duchess Maria Louisa of Austria.
      Massena's defeat at Busaco;
      his recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.
      Unceasing guerilla war in Spain.
      Final insanity of George III. of England.
      Revolution in Buenos Ayres and Chile, establishing
      complete separation from Spain.
      Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince of Sweden
      and successor to the throne.
      Founding of the University of Berlin.
      Birth of Cavour (d. 1861).
      Birth of Freiligrath (d. 1876).
      Birth of William Henry Channing (d. 1883).

1811.
      Defeat of Massena at Fuentes de Onoro.
      Regency of the Prince of Wales instituted in Great Britain.
      War in the United States against the Indian chief
      Tecumseh and his league.
      Declaration of the independence of Venezuela.
      Treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes in Egypt
      by Mehemet Ali.
      Birth of Thackeray (d. 1863).
      Birth of John Bright (d. 1889).
      Birth of Lord Lawrence (d. 1879).
      Birth of Edgar A. Poe (d. 1849).

1812.
      Rupture of Napoleon with the czar;
      his invasion of Russia;
      battles of Smolensk and Borodino;
      advance to Moscow and occupation of the city;
      burning of Moscow and disastrous retreat of the French.
      Wellington's victory at Salamanca and entry into Madrid;
      his retreat into Portugal.
      Establishment of a Constitution in Spain.
      Assassination of Mr. Perceval, prime minister of England;
      formation of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool.
      Declaration of war by the United States
      against Great Britain;
      opposition of Federalists;
      surrender of Hull at Detroit;
      battle of Queenstown Heights;
      naval victories by the U. S. frigates Constitution and
      United States.
      Re-election of President Madison.
      Admission of the state of Louisiana to the American Union.
      Appalling earthquake at Caraccas.
      Publication of the first and second cantos of
      Byron's "Childe Harold."
      Publication of "Kinder und Haus-Märchen" by
      the brothers Grimm.
      Birth of Dickens (d. 1870).
      Birth of Robert Browning (d. 1889).

1813.
      The War of Liberation In Germany;
      Austria and Great Britain in a renewed Coalition;
      battles of Lützen, Bautzen, Kulm, Gross-Beeren, the
      Katzbach, Dennewitz, Leipsic (Battle of the Nations), Hanau;
      retreat of Napoleon beyond the Rhine.
      Fall of the kingdom of Westphalia.
      Wellington's victory at Vittoria;
      expulsion of the French from Spain;
      restoration of Ferdinand VII. to the throne.
      Recovery of independence by Holland.
      Luddite riots in England.
      Naval battle of Lake Erie In the war between England and
      the United States;
      defeat and death of Tecumseh;
      burning of Toronto;
      American expedition against Montreal;
      British surprise of Fort Niagara and burning of Buffalo;
      outbreak of the Creek Indians.
      Publication of Shelley's "Queen Mab."
      Birth of Henry Ward Beecher (d. 1887).
      Birth of Richard Wagner (d. 1883).

1814.
      Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
      Invasion of France by the Allies;
      Napoleon's unsuccessful campaign of defense;
      surrender of Paris;
      abdication of the fallen emperor;
      treaty of Fontainebleau;
      retirement of Napoleon to Elba;
      return of the Bourbons to the throne of France,
      in the person of Louis XVIII.
      Treaty of Paris.
      Battle of Toulouse, ending the Peninsular War.
      Meeting of the Congress of Vienna.
      Return of Pope Pius VII. to Rome;
      restoration of the Jesuits.
      Union of Belgium and Holland in the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands.
      Union of Norway and Sweden.
      Abrogation in Spain of the Constitution of 1812
      by Ferdinand;
      abolition of the Cortès;
      re-establishment of the Inquisition.
      Restoration of Austrian despotism in Northern Italy.
      Battles of Chippewa and Lundy's Lane, siege of Fort Erie,
      British capture of Washington, and naval fight on Lake
      Champlain, in the war between England and the United States;
      Hartford Convention of Federalists opposed to the war;
      treaty of peace negotiated at Ghent.
      Temporary recovery of Chile by the Spaniards.
      Dictatorship of Dr. Francia established in Paraguay.
      Building of the first locomotive of George Stephenson.
      Publication of Scott's "Waverley."
      Birth of Motley (d. 1877).
      Birth of Edwin M. Stanton (d. 1869).

1815.
      Return of Napoleon from Elba;
      flight of Louis XVIII;
      the Hundred Days of restored Empire;
      the Waterloo campaign and end of the Corsican's career;
      his final abdication, surrender to the English,
      and captivity at St. Helena.
      Second Bourbon restoration and second Treaty of Paris.
      Execution of Marshal Ney.
      Formation of the Holy Alliance.
      Reconstruction of Germany;
      formation of the Germanic Confederation.
      Fall and death of Murat.
      Establishment of the protectorate of Great Britain over
      the Ionian Islands.
      Enactment of the British Corn Law, to maintain high prices
      for bread-stuffs.
      Repulse of the British at New Orleans by General Jackson.
      War of the United States with the Dey of Algiers.
      Birth of Bismarck.

1816.
      Agitation for Parliamentary Reform;
      multiplication of Hampden Clubs.
      Admission of Indiana into the American Union.
      Charter granted to the second Bank of the United States.
      Election of James Monroe President of the United States.
      Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
      First Seminole War.
      Publication of Bryant's "Thanatopsis."

{3850}

1817.
      Rioting in England;
      march of the Blanketeers from Manchester.
      Inauguration of James Monroe,
      President of the United states.
      Admission of Mississippi to the American Union.
      Formation of the Burschenschaft in Germany.
      Birth of Theodor Mommsen.

1818.
      Complete establishment of Chilean independence.
      General Jackson's invasion of Florida.
      Publication of Irving's "Sketch Book."

1819.
      "Peterloo Massacre" at Manchester, England.
      Assassination of Kotzebue by the student, Sand.
      Admission of Alabama to the American Union as a state.
      First voyage across the Atlantic by a vessel
      (the "Savannah ") using steam.
      Discovery of Electro-magnetism, by Oersted.
      Complete attainment of independence in Venezuela and
      New Granada, under the lead of Bolivar.
      Publication of Schopenhauer's
      "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung."
      Birth of Marian Evans (George Eliot) (d. 1880).
      Birth of Charles Kingsley (d. 1875).
      Birth of James Russell Lowell (d. 1891).

1820.
      Death of George III. of England;
      accession of George IV.;
      trial of Queen Caroline.
      Adoption in the United States of the Missouri Compromise,
      excluding slavery from the territories
      north of latitude 36° 30';
      admission of Maine to the Union.
      Re-election of Monroe to the American presidency.
      Assassination of the duke of Berry in France.
      Revolution in Spain, restoring the constitution of 1812.
      Revolution in Portugal,
      instituting a constitutional government.
      Revolution in Naples and Sicily, extorting a constitution
      from the king.
      Congress of sovereigns of the Holy Alliance at Laybach.
      Publication of Keats' "Lamia," "Isabella,"
      "Eve of St. Agnes," "Hyperion."
      Birth of General Sherman (d. 1891).
      Birth of Professor Tyndall (d. 1893).

1821.
      Revolution in Mexico, establishing independence.
      Liberation of Peru by San Martin and the Chileans.
      Return of King John VI. from Brazil to Portugal.
      Union of Venezuela, New Granada and Ecuador in the
      Republic of Colombia.
      Cession of Florida to the United States by Spain.
      Admission of Missouri to the American Union.
      Revolt in Greece against the rule of the Turks.
      Suppression of the constitutional movement in the Two
      Sicilies by Austrian arms acting for the Holy Alliance.
      Constitutional rising in Piedmont;
      abdication of Victor Emmanuel I. in favor of his
      brother Charles Felix;
      interference of Austria;
      suppression of the revolution.
      Publication of De Quincey's "Confessions of an Opium Eater,"
      and Cooper's "The Spy."
      Birth of Jenny Lind (d. 1887).

1822.
      Meeting of the Congress of Verona.
      Canning made foreign Secretary in the British Government.
      Proclamation of the independence of Brazil;
      Dom Pedro crowned emperor.
      Pronunciamento in Mexico, making Iturbide emperor.
      Turkish massacre of the Greeks of Chios.
      Publication of Lamb's "Essays of Elia," Heine's "Gedichte,"
      and Wilson's "Noctes Ambrosianæ."
      Birth of General Grant (d. 1885).
      Birth of Matthew Arnold (d. 1888).
      Birth of Pasteur.
      Birth of Rosa Bonheur.

1823.
      Enunciation of the "Monroe Doctrine," in the annual message
      of the President of the United States.
      Death of Marco Bozzaris, hero of the Greek insurrection.
      Fall of Iturbide In Mexico;
      establishment of a republic.
      Intervention of France in Spain and overthrow
      of the Constitution.
      Birth of Renan (d. 1892).

1824-.
      Presidential election in the United States,
      resulting in no choice by the popular vote;
      election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.
      Visit of Lafayette to the United States.
      Death of Louis XVIII., the restored king of France,
      and accession of Charles X.
      Death of Lord Byron in Greece.
      The first Anglo-Burmese war.
      Formation of the Catholic Association in Ireland.
      Decisive battle of Ayacucho,
      securing the independence of Brazil.
      Founding of the Westminster Review.
      Birth of Stonewall Jackson (d. 1863).
      Birth of George W. Curtis (d. 1892).

1825.
      Opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway in
      England—the first undertaking for the conveyance of
      passengers and goods by steam locomotion.
      Opening of the Erie Canal, from Lake Erie to
      the Hudson River.
      Publication of De Vigny's "Cinq Mars," Cooper's "Last
      of the Mohicans," and Heine's "Reisebilder."
      Birth of Huxley.

1826.
      Abduction of William Morgan and Anti-Masonic
      excitement in New York.
      Meeting of the Congress of Panama.
      Creation of the republic of Bolivia in Upper Peru.
      Insurrection and destruction of the Turkish Janissaries.

1827.
      Canning's brief premiership in England and sudden death.
      Intervention of Russia, England and France
      in favor of the Greeks;
      battle of Navarino and destruction of the Turkish fleet;
      national independence of Greece established.
      Extinction of slavery in the state of New r York.
      Publication of Hallam's "Constitutional History of England,"
      Keble's "Christian Year," and Alfred and Charles Tennyson's
      "Poems by Two Brothers."

1828.
      Formation of the Ministry of the duke of Wellington
      in Great Britain.
      Removal of political disabilities from Dissenters in England.
      Election of General Andrew Jackson President of
      the United States.
      Beginning of the construction of the
      Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
      Russo-Turkish war;
      siege and capture of Varna by the Russians.
      Birth of Taine (d. 1893).

1829.
      Inauguration of President Jackson;
      introduction of the "Spoils System"
      in American national politics.
      Acknowledgment of Greek independence by the Porte.
      Passage by the British Parliament of the
      Catholic Emancipation Act for Ireland.
      Abolition of slavery in Mexico.
      Ending of the Russo-Turkish war by the Treaty of Hadrianople.

1830.
      Death, in England, of George IV.;
      accession of William IV.;
      opening of the final agitation for Parliamentary Reform;
      resignation of the Wellington Ministry, succeeded by that
      of Earl Grey.
      Debate between Webster and Hayne in the United States Senate.
      French conquest of Algiers.
      Revolution in Paris;
      flight of Charles X.;
      elevation of Louis Philippe, duke of Orleans, to the throne.
      Revolt in Poland.
      Recognition of the autonomy of Servia by the Ottoman Porte.
      Constitution of the Kingdom of Greece, with Prince Otho
      of Bavaria on the throne.
      Belgian revolt and separation from Holland.
      Publication of the "Book of Mormon" at Palmyra, N. Y.
      Publication of the first part of Comte's
      "Cours de Philosophie."

{3851}

1831.
      Introduction in the British Parliament and defeat of the
      first ministerial bill for Parliamentary Reform;
      dissolution of Parliament and appeal to the people.
      Assumption of the name Conservatives by the English Tories.
      Nat Turner's slave-rising in Virginia.
      First publication of William Lloyd Garrison's anti-slavery
      paper, "The Liberator."
      Forced abdication of Dom Pedro I. in Brazil;
      accession of Dom Pedro II.
      Founding of the system of National Schools in Ireland.
      Revolt in the Papal States and in Modena and Parma
      suppressed by Austrian troops;
      exile of Mazzini from Italy.
      Creation of the Kingdom of Belgium, Prince Leopold of
      Saxe Coburg king.
      Rebellion of Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, against the Porte.
      Discovery of Magneto-electricity, by Faraday.
      Publication of Poe's "The Raven."
      Birth of General Sheridan (d. 1888).

1832.
      Passage by the British Parliament of the bill to
      Reform the Representation.
      Passage of the Nullification Ordinance of South Carolina;
      proclamation of President Jackson against the nullification
      movement;
      re-election of President Jackson.
      The Indian war in America, called the Black Hawk War.
      Resistance of Holland to the separation of Belgium;
      bombardment of Antwerp by the French and English.
      Merciless suppression of the Polish rebellion.
      Civil war in Portugal.
      Birth of Castelar.

1833.
      Compensated emancipation of slaves in the
      British West Indies.
      Passage of the Compromise Tariff Bill in the United States;
      removal of government deposits from the United States
      Bank by President Jackson.
      Beginning of the revolt of Abd-el-Kader against the French
      in Algiers.
      Election of Santa Anna to the Presidency of Mexico.
      Death of Ferdinand VII. of Spain;
      regency of Maria Christina;
      insurgent proclamation of Don Carlos;
      beginning of the civil war between Carlists and Christinos.
      First Prussian treaty which formed the German Zollverein.
      Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi between Russia and Turkey.
      Publication of Carlyle's "Sartus Resartus," and
      Faraday's "Experimental Researches in Electricity."
      Birth of General Gordon (d. 1885).

1834.
      Resignation of Earl Grey from the premiership in the
      English Ministry, succeeded first by Lord Melbourne and
      after a brief interval by Sir Robert Peel.
      Abolition of slavery in the British colonies.
      Organization of the Whig party in the United States.
      End of civil war in Portugal.
      Publication of Dickens' "Sketches by Boz," and
      Balzac's "Père Goriot."

1835.
      Recall of Lord Melbourne to the English Ministry, and
      retirement of Peel.
      Exclusion of anti-slavery literature from the
      United States mails;
      passage of the act against anti-slavery petitions called
      the "Atherton Gag."
      Beginning of the second Seminole War.
      Death of the Emperor Francis of Austria and accession
      of Ferdinand I.
      Publication of Browning's" Paracelsus," Thirlwall's
      "History of Greece," Strauss's" Das Leben Jesu," and
      De Tocqueville's "La Democratie en Amerique."

1836.
      Election of Martin Van Buren President of the United States.
      Admission of Arkansas to the American Union.
      Texan independence of Mexico declared and won at San Jacinto.
      First futile attempt of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte to effect
      a revolution in France.
      Publication of Dickens' "Pickwick."

1837.
      Death of William IV. of England, and
      accession of Queen Victoria.
      Great commercial collapse In the United States;
      Introduction of the sub-treasury system.
      Founding of Melbourne in Australia.
      Outbreak of the rebellion in Canada called
      "the Patriot War."
      Publication of Carlyle's" French Revolution,"
      and Thackeray's "Yellowplush Papers."
      Birth of Grover Cleveland.
      Birth of Swinburne.

1838.
      Beginning of the Chartist agitation in England.
      Interference of England in affairs of Afghanistan.
      The burning of the "Caroline" in Niagara river;
      suppression of the Canadian rebellion.
      Beginning of practically successful steam navigation
      on the ocean.
      Beginning of Cobden's agitation for the repeal of the
      English Corn Laws.

1839.
      Resignation of Lord Melbourne from the Government in England;
      wreck of Peel's Ministry on the "Bedchamber Question";
      return of Melbourne to office.
      Invasion of Afghanistan by British forces and
      dethronement of Dost Mahomed.
      Daguerre's discoveries in photography.

1840.
      Marriage of Queen Victoria of England to
      Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg.
      Adoption of Penny Postage in England.
      Election of General William Henry Harrison
      President of the United States;
      the "Log-cabin and Hard-cider campaign."
      Settlement of the Mormons at Nauvoo.
      Second revolutionary attempt of
      Louis Napoleon Bonaparte in France;
      his imprisonment at Ham.
      Reunion of Upper and Lower Canada.
      Opium War of England with China.
      Quadruple alliance for the settlement
      of the Egyptian question;
      British bombardment of Alexandria;
      hereditary possession of the pashalik of Egypt secured
      to Mehemet Ali.

1841.
      Fall of the Melbourne Ministry in England;
      Peel made Prime Minister.
      Death of President Harrison;
      advancement of Vice President John Tyler to the
      Presidency of the United States;
      his breach with the Whig party.
      Revolt in Afghanistan;
      frightful retreat and destruction of the British.
      Founding of the Brook Farm Association in Massachusetts.
      Birth of the Prince of Wales.

1842.
      Negotiation of the Ashburton Treaty between Great Britain and
      the United States, settling the northeastern boundary question.
      Return of British forces to Cabul, Afghanistan.
      End of the Opium War;
      treaty of peace between England and China.
      The Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island.

1843.
      Disruption of the Church of Scotland.
      Publication of Ruskin's "Modern Painters."

1844.
      Election of James K. Polk President of the United States.
      Completion, between Washington and Baltimore, of the first
      line of electric telegraph, under the direction of Prof.
      Morse.
      Passage of the English Bank Charter Act.
      Murder of Joe Smith, the founder of Mormonism, by a mob.
      Publication of Dumas' "Trois Mousquetaires."

{3852}

1845.
      Annexation of Texas to the American Union;
      splitting of the Democratic party of the United States into
      Hunkers and Barnburners, or Hard-Shells and Soft-Shells.
      Beginning of the war of the English with the Sikhs.
      Arctic expedition of Sir John Franklin from which he never
      returned.
      Publication of Carlyle's "Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,"
      and Hawthorne's "Mosses from an Old Manse."

1846.
      Repeal of the British Corn Laws.
      The Potato Famine in Ireland.
      War of the United States with Mexico;
      defeat in the United States Senate of the "Wilmot Proviso,"
      to exclude slavery from territory about to be acquired
      from Mexico;
      American conquest of California;
      migration of the Mormons from Nauvoo to Great Salt Lake.
      Settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute.
      Adams' and Le Verrier's discovery of the planet Neptune
      by mathematical calculation.
      Patenting of the Sewing-machine by Elias Howe.
      End of resistance to the French in Algiers;
      surrender and imprisonment of Abd-el-Kader.
      Publication of the first volume of Grote's
      "History of Greece."

1847.
      Successful campaign of General Scott in Mexico.
      Civil war in Switzerland;
      suppression of the Sonderbund.
      Death of Daniel O'Connell.
      Publication of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," the first
      part of Thackeray's "Vanity Fair,"
      and Longfellow's "Evangeline."
      Birth of Edison.

1848.
      Revolution in France:
      abdication and flight of the king;
      creation of the National Workshops;
      insurrection of the workmen, suppressed by General Cavaignac;
      organization of the Second Republic,
      Louis Napoleon Bonaparte President.
      Revolutionary movement in Germany:
      rioting in Berlin;
      meeting of National Assembly at Frankfort;
      election of Archduke John of Austria to be
      Administrator of Germany;
      forcible dispersion of the Prussian National Assembly.
      Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary:
      bombardment of Prague and Vienna;
      abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand and accession of
      Francis Joseph.
      Revolutionary movements in Italy:
      Neapolitan insurrection crushed by King Ferdinand II.;
      expulsion of Austrians from Milan and Venice;
      undertaking of Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, to support
      and head the revolution, and his defeat by the Austrian
      general Radetzky;
      ineffectual concessions of Pope Pius IX. to the Romans;
      his flight to Gaeta;
      expulsion of the dukes of Modena and Parma and extortion
      of a constitution from the grand-duke of Tuscany.
      Suppression of the "Young Ireland" rebellion.
      Schleswig-Holstein war in Denmark.
      Revision of the constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
      Last demonstration of the Chartists in England.
      Organization of the Free Soil party of the United States
      in convention at Buffalo;
      election, by the Whigs, of General Zachary Taylor President
      of the United States.
      Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo between the United States and
      Mexico;
      purchase and cession of New Mexico and California to the
      United States;
      discovery of gold in California;
      admission of Wisconsin to the American Union.
      Publication of the first two volumes of Macaulay's
      "History of England."
      Birth of Arthur J. Balfour.

1849.
      Framing of a constitution for a new Empire of Germany by
      the National Assembly at Frankfort;
      offer of the imperial crown to the king of Prussia and
      its refusal;
      failure of the work of the Assembly and end of the
      revolutionary movement in Germany.
      Declaration of Hungarian independence and formation of the
      Hungarian Republic, with Louis Kossuth for its President;
      interference of Russia to aid the Austrians in suppressing
      the Magyar revolt;
      surrender of Görgei;
      escape of Kossuth and other leaders into Turkey.
      Renewed attempt of Charles Albert of Sardinia against the
      Austrians in Lombardy and his crushing defeat at Mortara
      and Novara;
      his resignation of the crown in favor of his son,
      Victor Emmanuel II.;
      siege and subjugation of Venice by Haynau.
      End of the Schleswig-Holstein war.
      Annexation of the Punjab to British India.
      Repeal of the English Navigation Laws.
      First explorations of Dr. Livingstone in Africa.
      Determination of the mechanical equivalent of heat, by Joule.
      Publication of the first part of Dickens'
      "David Copperfield," Kingsley's "Alton Locke," and
      Emerson's "Representative Men."
      Sainte-Beuve's "Causerie du Lundi" begun
      in the "Constitutionel."

1850.
      Death of General Taylor, President of the United States,
      and succession of the Vice President, Millard Fillmore;
      slavery agitation on the question of the admission of
      California;
      Clay's Compromise measures;
      Webster's Seventh of March Speech;
      Seward's Higher Law Speech;
      the Omnibus Bill;
      passage of the Fugitive Slave Law.
      Negotiation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty between the
      United States and Great Britain.
      Restoration of the Roman episcopate in England.
      Publication of Mrs. Browning's "Sonnets from the Portuguese,"
      and Tennyson's "In Memoriam."

1851.
      The Coup d' Etat of Louis Napoleon, destroying the French
      Republic and making himself dictator.
      Dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the British cabinet.
      Discovery of gold in Australia;
      separation of the colony of Victoria from New South Wales.
      Outbreak of the Taiping Rebellion in China.
      The Lopez filibustering expedition to Cuba.
      Passage of the Massachusetts Free Public Library Act.
      The first World's Fair, in London.
      Visit of Kossuth to America.
      Publication of Spencer's "Social Statics."

1852.
      Defeat and resignation of the Russell Ministry;
      the first Derby-Disraeli Ministry:
      the Aberdeen Ministry.
      Rise of the Know Nothing or American party in the
      United States;
      election by the Democratic party of Franklin Pierce
      President of the United States.
      Publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
      Promulgation of a new Constitution for France by the dictator,
      Louis Napoleon, soon followed by the revival of the Empire.
      Second Anglo-Burmese War;
      annexation of Pegu to British India.

1853.
      Expedition of Commodore Perry to Japan.
      Dispute between Russia and Turkey, leading to the Crimean War.

1854.
      Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, in the United States,
      by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill;
      rise of the Republican Party.
      Negotiation of the Reciprocity Treaty between the United
      States and Canada.
      Treaties of Japan with the United States and Great Britain,
      opening the former country to trade.
      Promulgation by Pope Pius IX. of the dogma of the Immaculate
      Conception of the Virgin Mary.
      Alliance of England, France and Sardinia with Turkey
      against Russia in the Crimean War;
      siege of Sebastopol;
      battles of the Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman;
      siege of Kars.

{3853}

1855.
      Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry in England;
      rise of Palmerston to the head of government.
      Continued siege of Sebastopol.
      Beginning of the struggle for Kansas between the supporters
      and the opponents of Slavery in the United States.
      Rise to power in Abyssinia of an adventurer afterwards
      known as King Theodore.
      Introduction of Civil Service Reform in Great Britain.
      Walker's first filibustering invasion of Nicaragua.
      Abolition of the Stamp tax on newspapers in England.

1856.
      Assault on Mr. Sumner in the United States Senate by
      Preston Brooks of South Carolina;
      continued struggle in Kansas;
      election of James Buchanan President of the United States.
      Operations of the San Francisco Vigilance Committee.
      Quarrel of England with China over the affair of the "Arrow."
      Congress of Paris and treaty ending the Crimean War.
      Publication of first part of Lotze's "Mikrokosmos."

1857.
      Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
      Triumphant appeal of Palmerston to English voters on the
      question of war with China;
      alliance with France in the war;
      capture of Canton.
      The Sepoy Mutiny in India:
      siege and capture of Delhi;
      massacre of English at Cawnpore;
      siege and relief of Lucknow.
      Mountain Meadows Massacre and Mormon rebellion in Utah.
      Publication of the first volume of Buckle's
      "History of Civilization."

1858.
      Fall of Palmerston, consequent on his Conspiracy Bill;
      second Derby-Disraeli Ministry in England.
      Debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, as
      candidates for the United States Senate, from Illinois.
      Regency of Prussia assumed by Prince William in consequence
      of the mental incapacity of the king.
      Treaty of peace between England, France and China.
      Discovery of gold in Colorado.
      Laying of the first Atlantic Cable, which quickly failed.
      Assumption of the government of India by the British crown.
      Beginning of the Fenian movement in Ireland.
      Discovery of Lake Victoria Nyanza by Captain Speke.
      Publication of George Eliot's "Scenes of Clerical Life,"
      Tennyson's "Idylls of the King," and Holmes' "Autocrat of
      the Breakfast Table."

1859.
      War of Sardinia and France with Austria;
      battles of Montebello, Magenta and Solferino;
      defeat of Austria;
      treaties of Villafranca and Zurich;
      cession of Lombardy to Sardinia.
      John Brown's invasion of Virginia and
      seizure of Harper's Ferry;
      his capture, trial and execution.
      Admission of Oregon to the American Union.
      Publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species,"
      and George Eliot's "Adam Bede."
      Return of Palmerston to the English premiership.
      Separation of the colony of Queensland from New South Wales.
      Renewed war of England and France with China.
      Nationalization of Church property in Mexico;
      suspension of payments on foreign debts.

1860.
      Election of Abraham Lincoln President of the United States;
      secession of South Carolina;
      disunion message of President Buchanan;
      the Crittenden Compromise and its failure;
      treachery of Floyd, Secretary of War; occupation of
      Fort Sumter by Major Anderson.
      Franco-English capture of Pekin and destruction of
      the summer palace.
      Annexation of the Central Italian states to Sardinia
      by popular vote;
      cession of Savoy and Nice to France.
      Negotiation of the Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty
      between England and France.

1861.
      Secession of Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana,
      Alabama and Texas from the American Union;
      seizure of United States arsenals, arms and forts in
      the seceded States;
      abortive Peace Convention at Washington;
      admission of Kansas to the Union;
      adoption of a Constitution for the "Confederate States
      of America," and organization of a Confederate government;
      inauguration of Abraham Lincoln President of the United States;
      outbreak of civil war by the attack of Confederate forces
      on Fort Sumter;
      rising of the North on President Lincoln's call to arms;
      attack on Massachusetts Volunteers in Baltimore;
      Secession of Virginia and North Carolina;
      blockade of Southern ports;
      proclamation of British neutrality by Queen Victoria;
      declaration of General Butler that slaves are
      Contraband of War;
      fight at Big Bethel;
      Secession of West Tennessee;
      campaign of General McClellan in West Virginia;
      Union advance from Washington and defeat at Bull Run;
      depredations by the Confederate cruiser Sumter;
      struggle with secession in Missouri, battles of Boonville
      and Wilson's Creek;
      appointment of General McClellan to the chief command
      of the Union forces;
      creation of the Army of the Potomac;
      expedition against Fort Hatteras;
      Fremont's emancipation proclamation modified by the President;
      campaign of Rosecrans against Lee in West Virginia;
      General Grant's first battle at Belmont;
      Union disaster at Ball's Bluff;
      Port Royal expedition;
      the Trent affair (arrest of Mason and Slidell on a
      British steamer) and its settlement.
      Death of King Frederick William IV. of Prussia and
      accession of his brother, William I.
      Liberation of Sicily and Naples by Garibaldi;
      Sardinian occupation of Umbria and the Marches;
      proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy;
      death of Cavour.
      Polish insurrection at Warsaw.

1862.
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley,
      battle of Kernstown;
      capture of Forts Henry and Donelson by General Grant;
      expulsion of the Confederates from Missouri,
      battle of Pea Ridge;
      expedition of Burnside to Roanoke and capture of Newbern;
      siege and capture of Fort Pulaski;
      Union advance up the Tennessee and battle of Shiloh;
      proposal of compensated emancipation by President Lincoln,
      approved by Congress;
      battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac in Hampton Roads;
      capture of New Madrid on the Mississippi and Island No. 10;
      movement of McClellan against Richmond by way of the
      peninsula, battles of Williamsburg, Fair Oaks, or Seven
      Pines, Mechanicsville, Gaines' Mill, Savage Station,
      Glendale and Malvern Hill;
      forcing of the lower Mississippi and capture of New Orleans;
      separation of West Virginia from the Old Dominion;
      abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia;
      passage of the Homestead Act and the Legal Tender Act;
      arming of freed negroes, evacuation of Norfolk by the
      Confederates and destruction of the Merrimac;
      second campaign of Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley;
      first undertakings against Vicksburg;
      capture of Memphis;
      Confederate invasion of Kentucky by Bragg, battle of Perryville:
      confiscation of the slave property of rebels;
      beginning of the destructive career of the
      Confederate cruiser Alabama;
      end of the peninsular campaign and withdrawal of the
      Army of the Potomac;
      campaign under General Pope, battles of Cedar Mountain,
      Second Bull Run and Chantilly;
      Lee's invasion of Maryland and check by McClellan at
      South Mountain and Antietam;
      preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation by President Lincoln;
      successes by Grant at Iuka and Corinth;
      battle of Prairie Grove in Arkansas;
      removal of McClellan from command of the Army of
      the Potomac and appointment of Burnside;
      disastrous attack on Fredericksburg;
      second Union attempt against Vicksburg;
      victory of Rosecrans at Stone River.
      Land-grant of the United States for industrial colleges.
      Intervention of Louis Napoleon in Mexico;
      creation of the empire under Maximilian of Austria.
      Bismarck made chief minister of the king of Prussia.
      Revolution in Greece;
      deposition of King Otho;
      election of Prince George of Denmark to the Greek throne;
      annexation of the Ionian Islands.
      Attempt of Garibaldi against Rome checked by the
      Italian government;
      his defeat and capture at Aspromonte.
      Publication of Spencer's "First Principles."

{3854}

1863.
      President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation;
      passage of the National Bank Act, and the Conscription Act;
      Hooker's disaster at Chancellorsville;
      death of Stonewall Jackson;
      naval attack on Charleston;
      Grierson's raid;
      Grant's siege and capture of Vicksburg;
      Banks' siege and capture of Port Hudson;
      Lee's second invasion of the North;
      battle of Gettysburg;
      Draft riots in the city of New York;
      Morgan's raid into Ohio and Indiana;
      assault on Fort Wagner;
      battles of Bristol Station and Rappahannock Station;
      Burnside's advance into East Tennessee;
      defeat of Rosecrans at Chickamauga;
      siege and reduction of Fort Wagner;
      Grant's victory at Chattanooga;
      siege of Knoxville;
      President Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg, and
      Proclamation of Amnesty.
      Death of Frederick VII. of Denmark and
      accession of Christian IX.;
      reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question;
      coalition of Prussia and Austria against Denmark.
      Appointment of General Gordon to command in China.
      Confederation of the United States of Colombia.
      Rebellion in Poland.
      Political organization of Socialism in Germany by Lassalle.
      Publication of Huxley's "Man's Place in Nature,"
      and Renan's "Vie de Jesus."

1864.
      Reconstruction in Louisiana and Arkansas, the President's
      plan and the Congressional plan;
      Sherman's Meridian expedition;
      Kilpatrick and Dahlgren's raid to Richmond;
      appointment of General Grant to
      the chief command of the army;
      Banks' Red River expedition;
      Price's invasion of Missouri;
      Forrests' capture of Fort Pillow and massacre
      of colored soldiers;
      Grant's movement on Richmond, battles of the Wilderness,
      Spottsylvania Court House, and Cold Harbor;
      Sherman's movement on Atlanta, battles of New Hope Church,
      Kenesaw and Peach Tree Creek;
      Sheridan's raids to Richmond and Trevelyan Station;
      Grant's siege of Petersburg, battle of Reams' station;
      destruction of the Alabama by the Kearsarge;
      Greeley and Jaques-Gilmore peace missions;
      Early's invasion of Maryland;
      Farragut's great battle in Mobile Bay;
      Sheridan's campaign against Early in the Shenandoah Valley,
      battles of Winchester, Fisher's Hill and Cedar Creek;
      Sherman's clearing of Atlanta;
      Hood's movement into Tennessee and defeat by Thomas at
      Franklin and Nashville;
      re-election of President Lincoln;
      St. Albans raid from Canada;
      Cushing's destruction of the ram Albemarle;
      Sherman's March to the Sea and occupation of Savannah.
      Schleswig-Holstein war: Austro-Prussian
      conquest of the duchies.
      Detention and imprisonment of foreigners in Abyssinia
      by King Theodore.
      End of the Taiping Rebellion in China.
      Publication of the Encyclical "Quanta cura" and the
      Syllabus of Pope Pius IX.
      Organization at London of the International.

1865.
      Adoption by the Congress of the United States of the
      Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment, prohibiting
      slavery forever;
      creation of the Freedman's Bureau;
      Hampton Roads Peace Conference;
      evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates;
      Sherman's northward march from Savannah;
      battle of Bentonsville;
      occupation of Wilmington by Schofield;
      battle of Kinston;
      second inauguration of President Lincoln;
      battle of Five Forks;
      evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond by the Confederates;
      battle of Sailor's Creek;
      surrender of Lee at Appomattox Court House;
      assassination of President Lincoln;
      succession of Andrew Johnson, Vice President,
      to the Presidency;
      surrender of General Johnston;
      fall of Mobile;
      capture of Jefferson Davis;
      end of the Rebellion;
      opening of the conflict between Congress and
      President Johnson on questions of Reconstruction.
      Death of Lord Palmerston in England;
      premiership of Lord John Russell.
      Transfer of the capital of Italy to Florence.
      Ferocious suppression of an insurrection in Jamaica
      by Governor Eyre.
      Beginning of war between Paraguay and Brazil.

1866.
      Quarrel of Austria and Prussia over the administration
      of Schleswig and Holstein;
      alliance of Prussia with Italy;
      outbreak of the Seven Weeks War;
      decisive Prussian victory at Sadowa, or Königgrätz;
      treaty of Prague;
      exclusion of Austria from the Germanic political system;
      formation of the North German Confederation;
      incorporation of the kingdom of Hanover, the electorate of
      Hesse, the duchies of Nassau, Schleswig and Holstein, and
      the free city of Frankfort, by Prussia.
      Success of Austria in the war with Italy, at Custozza on
      the land and at Lissa on the sea;
      success of Italy in the settlement of peace, receiving
      Venetia, on the demand of Prussia.
      Wreck of the Ministry of Lord John Russell on a reform bill;
      third Derby-Disraeli administration.
      Fenian invasion of Canada from the United States.
      Laying of the first successful Atlantic Cable.
      Beginning of the struggle of the Cretans for deliverance
      from the Turkish yoke.
      Reconstruction riot in New Orleans.
      Organization of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States.
      Passage of the first Civil Rights Bill by the Congress of
      the United States over the President's veto;
      Congressional adoption of the Fourteenth Constitutional
      Amendment.
      Formation of the Ku-Klux Klan in the Southern States.

1867.
      Passage of the Disraeli Reform Bill by the British Parliament.
      Purchase of Alaska by the United States from Russia.
      Federation of Austria and Hungary in the Austro-Hungarian
      Empire.
      Federation of the provinces of British America, forming
      the Dominion of Canada.
      Purchase of the title of Khedive from the Sultan by Ismail
      Pasha of Egypt.
      Fenian risings in Ireland.
      Renewed attempt by Garibaldi to liberate Rome from the
      Papal government;
      his defeat by the French at Mentana.
      Withdrawal of the French from Mexico;
      fall of the empire;
      execution of Maximilian.
      Passage of the Military Reconstruction Acts by the
      Congress of the United States;
      extension of suffrage to blacks in the District of Columbia.

{3855}

1868.
      Withdrawal of Lord Derby from the British Ministry;
      advancement of Disraeli to the premiership;
      passage of reform bills for Scotland and Ireland;
      defeat of the ministry on the Irish Church question;
      resignation of Disraeli;
      first administration of Mr. Gladstone.
      Revolution in Spain and flight of Queen Isabella to France.
      British expedition for the rescue of captives in Abyssinia;
      storming of Magdala;
      suicide of King Theodore.
      Negotiation of the Burlingame Treaty between China and
      the United States.
      Revolution in Japan;
      abolition of the Shogunate;
      restoration of the authority of the Mikado.
      Occupation of Samarcand by the Russians
      Impeachment, and trial of President Johnson in
      the United States;
      election of General Grant to the American Presidency.
      Ratification by the States of the Fourteenth Amendment
      to the Constitution of the United States.

1869.
      Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
      Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty between the
      United States and Great Britain, rejected by the
      United States Senate.
      Expiration of the charter of the Hudson Bay Company and
      incorporation of its territory in the Dominion of Canada.
      Creation of the United States Bureau of Education.
      Opening of the Suez Canal.
      "Black Friday" in New York.
      Organization of the Knights of Labor.
      Congressional adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
      Constitution of the United States.
      Adoption of a monarchical constitution in Spain;
      regency of Marshal Serrano.
      Adoption of Woman Suffrage at municipal elections in
      England, and at all elections in Wyoming Territory.
      Publication of Hartmann's "Philosophie des Unbewusstens."

1870.
      Sudden occurrence of the Franco-German War:
      invasion of France by the Germans;
      victories at Wörth, Spichern, Gravelotte, and Sedan;
      captivity of the French emperor;
      revolution at Paris;
      fall of the Empire;
      investment and siege of Paris by the Germans;
      surrender of Bazaine at Metz;
      unsuccessful resistance in the provinces.
      Completion of the new Germanic Confederation, embracing the
      states of South Germany, with the North German Confederation,
      and having the king of Prussia for its president.
      Passage of Mr. Gladstone's first Irish Land Bill by
      the British Parliament.
      Passage of the Education Bill in England.
      Occupation of Rome by the troops of the king of Italy;
      plebiscite for annexation to the Italian kingdom;
      end of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope.
      Election of Amadeo, of Italy, to the Spanish throne.
      Completed reconstruction of the American Union;
      ratification of the Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

1871.
      Capitulation of Paris;
      peace preliminaries of Versailles and treaty of Frankfort;
      French cession of Alsace and part of Lorraine, with five
      milliards of francs indemnity;
      election and meeting of a National Assembly at Bordeaux;
      organization of the Third Republic with Thiers
      as its President;
      evacuation of Paris by the Germans, followed by the
      insurrection of the Communists and their seizure of the city;
      siege and reduction of Paris by the national government.
      Assumption by King William of Prussia of the title
      "German Emperor";
      proclamation of the constitution of the new Empire.
      Negotiation and ratification of the Treaty of Washington,
      between the United States and Great Britain;
      meeting of the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, for the
      settlement of the Alabama claims.
      Gradual emancipation of slaves enacted in Brazil.
      First attempts at Civil Service Reform in the United States,
      made by President Grant.
      Exposure of the Tweed Ring in New York.
      The Great Fire in Chicago.
      Transfer of the capital of Italy from Florence to Rome.
      Abolition of feudalism in Japan.
      Passage of the Force Bill by the Congress of the United States.
      The finding of Dr. Livingstone in Africa by Henry M. Stanley.
      Publication of Darwin's "Descent of Man," and
      Swinburne's "Songs before Sunrise."

1872.
      Award of the Geneva Tribunal of Arbitration in settlement
      of the Alabama Claims.
      Re-election of General Grant, President of the United States.
      The Credit Mobilier Scandal in the United States Congress.

1873.
      Resignation of President Thiers in France and
      election of Marshall MacMahon.
      Passage of the May Laws in the Prussian Diet, opening the
      contest with the Catholic Church known as the Kulturkampf.
      Appearance of the Home Rule movement in Irish politics.
      Abdication of the throne of Spain by Amadeo;
      unsuccessful attempt at republican government.
      Financial panic in the United States.

1874.
      Fall of the Gladstone Government in England;
      return of Disraeli to power.
      General Gordon's first appointment in the Sudan.
      Restoration of monarchy in Spain, under Alphonso XII.,
      son of Queen Isabella.
      Publication of the first volume of Stubb's
      "Constitutional History."

1875.
      Adoption of a constitution in France.
      Revolt against Turkish rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
      Passage of the second Civil Rights Bill by the
      Congress of the United States.

1876.
      Founding of the International African Association by
      King Leopold of Belgium.
      Insurrection in Bulgaria, suppressed with atrocious
      cruelty by the Turks.
      Holding of the United States Centennial Exhibition
      at Philadelphia.
      First exhibition of the Telephone, by Professor Graham Bell.
      Disputed Presidential Election in the United States.

1877.
      War of Servia with the Turks;
      defeat of the Servians.
      Russo-Turkish War;
      sieges of Plevna and Kars.
      Assumption by Queen Victoria of the
      title "Empress of India."
      First election of Porfirio Diaz to the Presidency of
      the Mexican republic.
      Creation of the Electoral Commission in the United States;
      award of the Presidential election to Rutherford B. Hayes.
      Return of Stanley from his expedition across Africa,
      exploring the Congo.

1878.
      Second war of the English in Afghanistan.
      End of the Russo-Turkish war;
      Treaty of San Stefano, superseded by the Congress and
      Treaty of Berlin;
      independence secured to Servia and Roumania;
      transfer of Bosnia to Austria;
      division of Bulgaria into two states.
      Election of Pope Leo XIII.
      Passage of the Bland Silver Bill in the United States.

1879.
      Resignation of the Presidency of the French Republic
      by Marshal MacMahon and election of M. Jules Grevy.
      Massacre of English in Cabul;
      occupation of the Afghan capital by British forces;
      deposition of the Ameer.
      Beginning of war between Chile and Peru.
      Organization of the Land League in Ireland.
      Zulu War in South Africa.
      Formation of the International Congo Association.

{3856}

1880.
      Resignation of Disraeli from the British Ministry and
      return of Gladstone to power;
      passage of Gladstone's Second Irish Land Act.
      Renewed war against the English in Afghanistan.
      Election of James A. Garfield
      President of the United States.

1881.
      Occupation of Tunis by the French.
      Evacuation of Afghanistan by the British forces.
      Submission of Peru to Chile.
      Advent of the Mahdi in the Sudan.
      Arabi's revolt in Egypt.
      Suppression of the Irish Land League and arrest of
      Mr. Parnell and others.
      Institution of local assemblies in Japan.
      Assassination of the Czar Alexander II.
      Capture of Geok Tepe by Skobeleff, the Russian general.
      War of Great Britain with the Boers.
      Assassination of President Garfield;.
      succession of Vice President Arthur to the
      Presidency of the United States.

1882.
      Death M. Gambetta, in France.
      Elevation of Servia to the rank of a kingdom.
      British bombardment of Alexandria.
      Phœnix Park murders, of Lord Frederick Cavendish and
      Mr. Burke, at Dublin.
      Beginning of work on De Lesseps' Panama Canal.

1883.
      Death of the Comte de Chambord (called Henry V. by his
      supporters), claimant of the crown of France and last of
      the elder line of the Bourbons.
      Passage in England of the Act for Prevention of
      Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.
      Destruction of Hicks Pasha and his army by the
      Mahdists of the Sudan.
      Passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Bill in
      the United States.
      Suppression of Arabi's rebellion;
      British occupation of Egypt.

1884.
      War of the French in Tonquin and with China.
      Passage in England of the Third Reform Bill.
      Meeting of the Berlin Conference to settle questions of
      acquisition in Africa.
      Beleaguerment of General Gordon at Khartoum by the Mahdists;
      British rescue expedition.
      Occupation of Merv by the Russians and completed conquest
      of the Turcomans.
      Election of Grover Cleveland President of the United States.

1885.
      Overthrow of the Gladstone Government in Great Britain and
      brief reign of Lord Salisbury.
      Revolutionary reunion of the two Bulgarias.
      Fall of Khartoum and death of Gordon.
      Transformation of the Congo Association into the
      Independent State of Congo.

1886.
      Banishment of the Bourbon princes from France.
      Recall of Gladstone to the head of
      the Government in England;
      his Home Rule Bill for Ireland and its defeat;
      resignation of Gladstone and return of Salisbury;
      division of the Liberal Party.
      Anarchist crime in Chicago.
      Undertaking of the "Plan of Campaign" in Ireland.

1887. Forced resignation of President Grevy, in France,
      and election of M. Sadi Carnot.
      Revision of the constitution of the
      kingdom of the Netherlands.
      Tariff Message of President Cleveland.
      African expedition of Stanley to rescue Emin Pasha.

1888.
      Threatening intrigues of General Boulanger in France;
      his prosecution and flight.
      Bankruptcy of the Panama Canal Company.
      Death of the German Emperor William I.;
      accession and death of Frederick III.,
      and accession of William II.
      Incorporation in the German Zollverein of Hamburg and
      Bremen, the last of the Free Cities.
      Final abolition of slavery in Brazil.
      Inquiry into Irish matters by the Parnell Commission.
      Defeat of the Mills Tariff Bill in the United States Senate.
      Election of General Benjamin Harrison
      President of the United States.

1889.
      Abdication of King Milan of Servia in favor of his young son.
      Revolution in Brazil;
      expulsion of the Emperor and royal family from the country.
      Promulgation of the Constitution of Japan.
      Opening of Oklahoma to settlement.
      Destruction of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, by flood.
      Admission of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and
      Washington, to the American Union.
      Chartering of the British South Africa Company.
      Publication of Bryce's "American Commonwealth."

1890.
      Dismissal of Bismarck from office by the
      German Emperor William II.
      Commercial collapse and political revolution in the
      Argentine Republic.
      Organization of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
      Expulsion of Jews from Russia.
      Passage of the McKinley Tariff Act in the United States.
      Admission of Idaho and Wyoming to the American Union.
      Passage of the Sherman Silver Act.
      Anglo-German Convention defining boundaries in Africa.

1891.
      Dictatorship proclaimed by President Fonseca of Brazil,
      producing revolt;
      resignation of the President;
      installation of Floriano Peixoto.
      Civil war in Chile;
      defeat and suicide of President Balmaceda.
      Establishment of free schools in England.
      Death of Mr. Parnell.

1892.
      The Panama Canal Scandal in France.
      Election in Great Britain of a Parliament favorable to
      Home Rule for Ireland;
      resignation of the Salisbury Ministry;
      reascendency of Gladstone;
      passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons
      and its defeat by the Lords.
      Evacuation of Uganda by the British East Africa Company.
      Passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act by the Congress
      of the United States.
      Election of Grover Cleveland President of the United States.
      Revolution in Venezuela.
      Difficulty between the United States and Chile.

1893.
      The World's Columbian Exposition at Chicago.
      Revolution in the Hawaian Islands.
      Suspension of free coinage of silver in India.
      Repeal of the Sherman Silver Act by the
      Congress of the United States.
      Revision of the Belgian Constitution.
      War of the British South Africa Company with the Matabele.
      Popular vote in Colorado for the extension of equal
      suffrage to women.

1894.
      Assassination of President Carnot, in France;
      election of M. Casimir-Périer.
      War between Japan and China.
      The strike at Pullman, Illinois, and the "sympathy strike"
      of the American Railway Union.
      The "Coxey movement" in the United States.
      Passage of the Wilson Tariff Act.
      Turkish atrocities in Armenia.
      Passage of enabling act for the admission of Utah
      to the American Union.
      Triumph of the Peixoto government over the insurgents in Brazil.
      Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Ship Canal.
      Death of Alexander III., Czar of Russia;
      accession of Nicholas II.

1895.
      Resignation of M. Casimir-Périer,
      President of the French Republic;
      election of M. François Felix Faure to succeed him.
      Armistice pending negotiations between China and Japan.

{3857}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE WEST SAXON KINGS OF ENGLAND and
 LINEAGE OF THE DUKES OF NORMANDY TO THE CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.]

{3858}
{3859}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF ENGLAND
FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST.]

{3860}

[Image:THE GUELF LINE OF DESCENT OF THE HOUSE OF HANOVER.

{3861}

[Image: THE CAROLINGIANS.]

{3862}
{3863}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE KINGS OF GERMANY AND EMPERORS.]
HOUSE OF HAPSBURG.]

{3864}
{3865}

[Blank]

{3866}
{3867}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF FRANCE.]

{3868}

[Image: GENEALOGY OF THE BONAPARTE FAMILY.]

{3869}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE DUKES OF BURGUNDY.]

{3870}
{3871}

[Image: THIRD HOUSE OF ANJOU.]

{3872}

[Image: LATER HOUSE OF LORRAINE.]

{3873}

[Blank]

{3874}
{3875}

[Image: LINAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF CASTILE AND ARAGON
TO THE UNION OF THE CROWNS.]

{3876}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE HAPSBURG AND
BOURBON SOVEREIGNS OF SPAIN.]

{3877}

[Image: THE HOUSE OF SAVOY.]

{3878}

[Image: THE FAMILY OF THE MEDICI, IN FLORENCE.]

{3879}

[Image: THE HOUSE OF ORANGE-NASSAU.]

{3880}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF SWEDEN.]

{3881}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF DENMARK.]

{3882}

[Image: LINEAGE OF THE ROMANOFF SOVEREIGNS OF RUSSIA.]

{3883}

[Image: THE SELJUK TURKISH SULTANS.]

[Image: THE OTTOMAN TURKISH SULTANS.]

{3884}

[Blank]

{3885}

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
WITH OCCASIONAL NOTES.

ANCIENT HISTORY: ORIENTAL.

BLISS, FREDERICK J.
   A mound of many cities, or Tell el Hesy excavated.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

BRUGSCH, HENRY.
   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
   derived entirely from the monuments.
   London: J. Murray. 1879. 2 volumes.

   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
   derived entirely from the monuments.
   A new edition, condensed and revised by Mr. Brodrick.
   London: J. Murray. 1891.

      Corrected in some particulars by later discoveries, the
      work of Dr. Brugach is still the most comprehensive
      summary of Egyptian history derived from the study of
      the monuments.

BUDGE, E. A. WALLIS.
   Babylonian life and history.
   London: R. T. S. 1884.

      Number IV. In the series entitled
      "By-paths of Bible Knowledge."

   The Mummy: chapters on Egyptian funeral archaeology.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1893.

CHEYNE, T. K.
   Jeremiah: his life and times.
   London: J. Nisbet & Co. [1888.]

CHURCH, ALFRED J.
   The story of the last days of Jerusalem.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1881.

      The narrative of Josephus translated in the
      happy style for which Mr. Church Is famous.

CONDER, CLAUDE R.
   Heth and Moab, explorations in Syria In 1881-82.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1883.

   Syrian stone-lore; or the monumental history of Palestine.
   London: Bentley & Son. 1886.

      Published for the Committee of the
      Palestine Exploration Fund.

DARMESTETER, JAMES.
   Les Prophètes d'Israel.
   Paris: C. Lévy. 1892.

DUNCKER, MAX.
   History of Antiquity;
   translated by Evelyn Abbott.
   London. 1877-82. 6 volumes.

EDWARDS, AMELIA B.
   Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

   A thousand miles up the Nile.
   London: Longmans. 1877.

EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND.
   Memoirs.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1885.

      The Store-city of Pithom and the route of the Exodus;
      by E. Naville.

      Tanis;
      by W. M. Flinders Petrie, parts 1 and 2.

      Naukratis;
      by W. M. F. Petrie, parts 1 and 2.

      The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen;
      by E. Naville;

      The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias;
      by E. Naville;

      Bubastis;
      by E. Naville.

      The festival Hall of Osorkon II.
      in the great temple of Bubastis;
      by E. Naville.

      Ahnas el Medineh (Heracleopolis Magna);
      by E. Naville.

ERMAN, ADOLF,
   Life in ancient Egypt.
   London and New York: Macmillan &Co.

EVETTS, BASIL T. A.
   New light on the Bible and the Holy Land, being an
   account of some recent discoveries in the East.
   New York: Cassell Co. [1894.]

EWALD, HEINRICH.
   History of Israel.
   London: Longmans. 1869-86. 8 volumes.

GEIGER, W.
   Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in ancient times;
   with an introduction on the Avesta religion.
   London: H. Frowde. 1885. 2 volumes.

GRAETZ, H.
   History of the Jews, from the earliest times
   to the present day.
   London: D. Nutt. 1891. 5 volumes.

      Sketches the ancient history of the Jews very slightly
      but is full from the Roman Period down to 1870.

GRANT Sir ALEXANDER. Xenophon.
   (Ancient Classics for English Readers.)
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott & Co. 1811.

HARPER, HENRY A.
   The Bible and modern discoveries,
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

HERODOTUS.
   Stories of the East from Herodotus;
   by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1881.

   The story of the Persian War from Herodotus;
   by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1882.

HERODOTUS.
   History; a new English version;
   edited with notes, etc.,
   by George Rawlinson and G. Wilkinson.
   London: J. Murray. 1858. 4 volumes.

      A work of great value, in which Canon Rawlinson and Mr.
      Wilkinson were assisted by Sir Henry Rawlinson, the
      Assyriologist. It in not every reader who has leisure two
      master such a book as Rawlinson's English 'Herodotus.' But;
      something of this fountain of history all may know; Even
      such pleasant boy's as Mr. Church's 'Stories from the East'
      and 'Stories from Herodotus' we get some flavour of the
      fine old Greek traveller. There are three great sections of
      Herodotus which are of special interest:
      1. the history of the foundation of Cyrus' kingdom;
      2. the books on the history, antiquities and customs of Egypt;
      3. the immortal story of Marathon, Thermopylæ and Salamis."
      Frederic Harrison, The Meaning of History, page 90.

JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS.
   Works; Whiston's translation,
   revised by A. R. Shilleto.
   London: Bell & Sons. 1889.

LACOUPERIE, TERRIEN DE.
   Western origin of the early Chinese civilization.
   London: Asher & Co. 1894.

      A definite presentation of the view long urged by Dr.
      Lacouperie, that the Akkadian or primitive Babylonian
      culture was communicated at an early day to the Chinese.

LEWIN, THOMAS.
   The siege of Jerusalem by Titus.
   London: Longmans. 1863.

LOCKYER, J. N.
   The dawn of Astronomy; a study of the temple-worship
   and mythology of the ancient Egyptians.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

McCURDY, JAMES FREDERICK.
   History, Prophecy and the Monuments.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

      A work in which the latest researches and studies
      in the East are made fruitful.

MARIETTE, AUGUSTE.
   Outlines of ancient Egyptian history.
   London: Gilbert & Rivington. 1890.

MASPERO, G.
   The dawn of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldæa;
   edited by A. H. Sayee.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1894.

   Egyptian archæology;
   translated from the French by Amelia B. Edwards.
   London: H. Grevel & Co.

   Hlstoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient.
   Paris: Hachette. 1886.

MILMAN, HENRY HART.
   History of the Jews.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.

      Bringing the modern account of the Jews throughout
      the world down to about 1860.

MORRISON, W. D.
   The Jews under Roman rule.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

      In the series of "The Story of the Nations."

MYERS, P. V. N.
   Eastern nations and Greece.
   (Ancient history for colleges and high schools.)
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1890.

NEWMAN, FRANCIS W.
   History of the Hebrew Monarchy, from the administration of
   Samuel to the Babylonish captivity.
   2d edition London: J. Chapman. 1853.

PERROT, GEORGES, and CHARLES CHIPIEZ.
   History of Art in ancient Egypt;
   translated from the French.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1883. 2 volumes.

   History of Art In Chaldea and Assyria.
   London. 1884. 2 volumes.

   History of Art In Phœnicia and its dependencies.
   London. 1885. 2 volumes.

   History of Art in primitive Greece.
   London. 1894.

PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS.
   History of Egypt from the earliest times to the XVIth dynasty.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1894.

      "This volume is but the first of a series which is intended
      to embrace the whole history of Egypt down to modern times.
      It is expected that three volumes will treat of the period
      of the Pharaohs, one volume of the Ptolemies, one volume of
      the Roman age, and one volume of Arabic Egypt. So far as
      practicable, the same system will be maintained throughout,
      though by different writers; and the aim of all will be to
      provide a general history, with such fulness and precision
      as shall suffice for the use of students."
         From the Author's Preface.

{3886}

PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS.
   Tell el Amarna;
   with chapters by A. H. Sayce and others.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1894.

   Ten years' digging in Egypt, 1881-1891.
   London: R. T. S. 1892.

POOLE, REGINALD STUART.
   The cities of Egypt.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1882.

RAGOZIN, ZENAÏDE A.
   The story of Chaldea, to the rise of Assyria.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1886.

   Story of Assyria: to the fall of Nineveh.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1887.

   The story of Media, Babylonia and Persia, to the Persian War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin.

      Three good popular histories in the series entitled
      "The Story of the Nations."

RAMSAY, W. M.
   Historical geography of Asia Minor.
   London: J. Murray. 1890.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE.
   The Five Great Monarchies of the ancient eastern world
   [Chaldea, Assyria, Babylon, Media and Persia].
   London: Murray. 1862.

   The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy [Parthia].
   London: Longmans. 1873.

   The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy
   [Sassanian or New Persian].
   London: Longmans. 1876.

      In the light of later discoveries, Rawlinson's history of
      the five earlier oriental monarchies is very defective;
      but the history of Parthia and of the revived Persian
      monarchy retains its value.

RECORDS OF THE PAST;
   being English translations of the
   Assyrian and Egyptian monuments.
   London: S. Bagster & Sons. 1873-81, 12 volumes.,
   and 1889-1893. 6 volumes.

RENAN, ERNEST.
   History of the People of Israel till
   the time of King David.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888. 3 volumes.

SAYCE, A. H.
   The Ancient Empires of the East. Herodotus I-III.
   With notes, introductions, and appendices.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Assyria, its princes, priests and people.
   London: R. T. S. 1885.

   Fresh light from the ancient monuments.
   London: R. T. S. [1883.]

      Numbers VII. and III. in the series entitled
      "By-path of Bible Knowledge."

   The Hittites: the story of a forgotten empire.
   London: R. T. S. 1888.

   Introduction to the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.
   London: R. T. S. 1885.

   Life and times of Isaiah,
   as illustrated by contemporary monuments.
   London: R. T. S. 1889.

      Number XIII. in the series of small monographs entitled
      "By-paths of Bible Knowledge."

   A primer of Assyriology.
   New York: F. H. Revell Co. [1894.]

SCHÜRER, EMIL.
   History of the Jewish people in the time of Christ.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1885.
   5 volumes and index.

SHARPE, SAMUEL.
   History of Egypt from the earliest times
   till the conquest of the Arabs.
   London: Moxon & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

      Important as covering the Ptolemaic and Roman
      periods in Egyptian history more fully than any other
      work in English.

SIMCOX, EDITH J.
   Primitive civilizations; or outlines of
   the history of ownership in archaic communities.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

SMITH, GEORGE ADAMS.
   Historical geography of the Holy Land.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1894.

SMITH, R. BOSWORTH.
   Carthage and the Carthaginians.
   London: Longmans. 1878.

SMITH, W. ROBERTSON.
   The Prophets of Israel and their place in history,
   to the close of the 8th century B. C.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1882.

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL ARCHÆOLOGY.
   Transactions, 1872-1894. 10 volumes.
   Proceedings, 1878-1894. 16 volumes.

TIELE, C. P.
   Babylonische-Assyrische Geschichte.
   Gotha: F. A. Perthes. 1886. 2 volumes.

   Western Asia, according to the most recent discoveries.
   Rectorial address, Leyden University, 1893.
   London: Luzac & Co.

TOMKINS. H. G.
   Life and times of Joseph, in the light of Egyptian lore.
   London: R. T. S. 1891.

      In the series entitled "By-paths of Bible Knowledge."

   Studies on the times of Abraham.
   London: Bagster & Sons. [1879.]

TWENTY-ONE YEARS' WORK IN THE HOLY LAND
   (a record and a summary); 1865-1886.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1886.

      Published for the Committee of the
      Palestine Exploration Fund.

WELLHAUSEN, J.
   Sketch of the history of Israel and Judah.
   3d edition. London: A. & C. Black. 1891.

      A republication of the article "Israel" contributed to
      the Encyclopædia. Britannica.

WENDEL, F. C. H.
   History of Egypt.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1890.

      An extremely condensed and not very readable sketch of the
      history of ancient Egypt, but one which specialist have
      commended for correctness of knowledge.

WILKINSON, Sir J. GARDNER.
    Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians.
    New edition, revised and corrected by Samuel Birch.
    London: J. Murray. 1878. 2 volumes.

WRIGHT, W. B.
   Ancient cities; from the dawn to the daylight.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886.


ANCIENT HISTORY: GREECE AND ROME.

ABBOTT, EVELYN.
   History of Greece.
   London: Rivingtons. 1888. volumes 1-2.

      The first volume carries the narrative to the Ionian
      revolt, the second to the Thirty Years Peace. "When
      completed, it will supply a want long felt, that of a good
      history of Greece of a size intermediate between Thirlwall,
      Grote, and Curtius, on the one hand, and the smaller text
      books and manuals on the other."
         _English Historical Review,
         January, 1889._

   Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA. Papers:
   Classical Series. Boston. 1882.

      Including "Papers of the American School of Classical
      Studies at Athens."

ARISTOTLE.
   On the Constitution of Athens;
   translated by E. Poste.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

      A translation of the lately-found treaties believed to be
      by Aristotle. "While putting us in possession of more facts
      concerning the constitutional history of Athens than have
      been known hitherto, this treatise presents very great
      difficulties, both critical and historical. … We must
      receive the new information with caution, and far from
      looking on it as superseding our older authorities, we must
      remember that much of it may not be the work of Aristotle
      or of Aristotle's time."
         E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 2, appendix 2.

   Politics;
   translated by B. Jowett: with essays, notes, etc.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1885. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, THOMAS.
   History of Rome; new edition.
   London: T. Fellowes. 1871. 3 volumes.

      Dr. Arnold's History is founded on Niebuhr's. The fact is
      frankly stated in his preface: " When Niebuhr died, and
      there was now no hope of seeing his great work completed in
      a manner worthy of its beginning, I was more desirous than
      ever of executing my original plan, of presenting in a more
      popular form what he had lived to finish, and of continuing
      it afterwards with such advantages as I have derived from a
      long study and an intense admiration of his example and
      model." It was Dr. Arnold's hope to cover the whole stretch
      of Roman history, to Charlemagne; but he had only reached
      the narrative of the second Punic War when death arrested
      his work.

BARTHÉLEMY, Abbé.
   Travels of Anacharsis the younger in Greece, 4th century, B. C.

BLÜMNER, H.
   The home life of the ancient Greeks;
   translated from the German.
   London: Cassell Co. 1890.

BURY, J. B.
   History of the later Roman Empire, from Arcadius to Irene.
   (395 to 800 A. D.),
   London: Macmillan & Co., 1889. 2 volumes.

      A work written with more knowledge and carefulness
      than literary art.

BUTCHER, S. H.
   Some aspects of Greek genius.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

CÆSAR, CAIUS JULIUS.
   Commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars,
   with the supplementary books attributed to Hirtius;
   literally translated, with notes [Bohn edition].

CICERO.
   Life and letters;
   the life by Dr. Conyers Middleton;
   letters translated by W. Melmoth and Dr. Heberden.
   Edinburgh: W. P. Nimmo. 1892.

CURTIUS, ERNST.
   History of Greece;
   translated from the German by A. W. Ward.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1871-74. 5 volumes.

      Professor Curtius ends his History at the attainment of
      supremacy in Hellas by Philip of Macedonia. See note to
      Thirlwall's "History of Greece," below.

DAVIDSON, THOMAS.
   The education of the Greek people and
   its influence on civilization.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

{3887}

DODGE, THEODORE A.
   Alexander: a history of the origin and growth of the art
   of war, to the battle of Ipsus, B. C. 301.
   Boston: Houghton; Mifflin & Co. 1890.

   Cæsar: a history of the art of war among the
   Romans down to the end of the Roman Empire.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   Hannibal: a history of the art of war among the Carthaginians
   and Romans, down to the battle of Pydna, 168 B. C.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891.

DUNCKER, MAX.
   History of Greece;
   translated, from the German.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1883-86. volumes 1-2.

      An unfinished work.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of Greece and of the Greek people,
   to the Roman conquest;
   translated from the French.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1892. 4 volumes.

   History of Rome and the Roman people, to the
   establishment of the Christian Empire;
   translated from the French;
   edited by J. P. Mahaffy.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1883.

      Works both scholarly and popular, and made exceedingly
      attractive by admirable illustrations.

DYER, THOMAS H.
    Ancient Athens: its history, topography and remains.
    London: Bell & Daldy. 1873.

EPOCHS OF ANCIENT HISTORY;
   edited by Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, Bart., and C. Sankey.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

      The Greeks and the Persians;
      by Rev. Sir G. W. Cox.

      The Athenian Empire, to the fall of Athens;
      by Rev. Sir G. W. Cox.

      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies;
      by Charles Sankey;

      The rise of the Macedonian Empire;
      by Arthur M. Curteis:

      Rome to its capture by the Gauls;
      by Wilhelm Ihne.

      Rome and Carthage;
      by R. Bosworth Smith.

      The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla;
      by A. H. Beesly.

      The Roman Triumvirates;
      by Charles Merivale.

      The Early Roman Empire, from the assassination
      of Cæsar to that of Domitian;
      by W. W. Capes.

      The Roman Empire of the second century,
      or the age of the Antonines;
      by W. W. Capes.

FALKE, JACOB VON.
   Greece and Rome; their life and art;
   translated from the German.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1882.

FELTON, C. C.
   Greece, ancient and modern.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1867. 2 volumes.

FINLAY, GEORGE.
   Greece under the Romans.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons.

FOWLER, W. WARDE.
   The city-state of the Greeks and Romans.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

   Julius Cæsar and the foundation
   of the Roman imperial system.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   History of Federal Government. volume 1.
   General Introduction.
   History of the Greek Federations.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1863.

      "This noble work, in some respects the grandest of the
      author's conceptions, was never completed. … The war of
      1866 between Prussia and Austria marked the beginning of
      organic changes in Germany which Mr. Freeman was anxious to
      watch for awhile before finishing his book. He therefore
      turned aside and took up the third of his three great
      works[the History od Sicily being the second]—the only one
      that he lived to complete—the History of the Norman
      Conquest of England."
         _J. Fiske. Edward Augustus Freeman
         (Atlantic Monthly; January, 1893)._

   History of Sicily.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891. volumes 1-4.

      Left unfinished at Professor Freeman's death. The fourth
      volume, prepared by other hands, from the materials that he
      had made ready, carries the history to the death of
      Agathokles.

FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY.
   Cæsar: a sketch.
   London: Longmans. 1879.

      A brilliant and fascinating piece of historical writing,
      but tainted with Carlylean hero worship.

FUSTEL DE COULANGES, N. D.
   The ancient city: a study of the religion, laws and
   institutions of ancient Greece and Rome;
   translated from the French.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1874.

GARDNER, PERCY.
   New chapters in Greek history: historical results of
   recent excavations in Greece and Asia Minor.
   London: J. Murray. 1892.

GIBBON, EDWARD.
   History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire;
   with notes by Milman, Guizot, and Dr. William Smith.

      "We may correct and improve in detail from the stores which
      have been opened since Gibbon's time; we may write again
      large parts of his story from other, and often truer and
      more wholesome, points of view. But the work of Gibbon, as
      a whole, as the encyclopædic history of thirteen hundred
      years, as the grandest of historical designs carried out
      alike with wonderful power and with wonderful accuracy,
      must ever keep its place. Whatever else is read, Gibbon
      must be read too."

         _E. A. Freeman,
         Historical Essays,
         pages 307-308._

      "It is no personal paradox but the judgment of all
      competent men, that the 'Decline and Fall' of Gibbon is the
      most perfect historical composition that exists in any
      language: at once scrupulously faithful in its facts;
      consummate in its literary art; and comprehensive in
      analysis of the forces affecting society over a very long
      and crowded epoch."
         _Frederic Harrison,
         The Meaning of History, page 101._

GLADSTONE, WILLIAM E.
   Juventus Mundi; the gods and men of the heroic age.
   London: Macmillan. 1869.

GROTE, GEORGE.
   History of Greece, to the close of the generation
   contemporary with Alexander the Great.
   London: J. Murray. 12 volumes.

      "A business man, foreign to university life and its
      traditions, a skeptic in religion, a positivist in
      philosophy and, above all, an advanced Radical in
      politics," Grote. "was persuaded that the great social and
      political results of Greek history were because of, and not
      in spite of, the prevalence of democracy among its states.
      He would not accept the verdict of all the old Greek
      theorist who voted for the rule of the one or enlightened
      few; and he wrote what may be called a great political
      pamphlet in twelve volumes in vindication of democratic
      principles. It was this idea which not only marshalled his
      facts, but lent its fire to his argument; and when combined
      with his Radicalism in religion and philosophy, produced a
      book so remarkable, that, however much it may be corrected
      and criticised, it will never be superseded. It is probably
      the greatest history among the many great histories
      produced in this century; and though very inferior in style
      to Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall,' will rank next to it as a
      monument of English historical genius."
         _J. P. Mahaffy,
         Problems in Greek History, chapter 1._

GUHL, E. and W. KONER.
   The life of the Greeks and Romans;
   translated from the German. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   The dynasty of Theodosius;
   or eighty years' struggle with the barbarians;
   a series of lectures.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

HORTON, R. F.
   History of the Romans.
   London: Rivingtons. 1885.

      A short history of republican Rome, containing more of the
      tracing of influences, constitutional and institutional,
      and more of the interpreted meaning of events, than are
      found in any other work of its modest class.

IHNE, WILHELM.
   History of Rome.
   English edition.
   London: Longmans. 1871-77. 5 volumes.

      Closes with the death of Sulla., where Dean Merivale begins
      his "History of the Romans under the Empire." "As the book
      maintains in all its parts a strictly judicial attitude, it
      is far less entertaining than the brilliant advocacy of
      Mommsen; but for this very reason it is to be held as a
      safer authority."
         _C. K. Adams,
         Manual of Historical Literature,
         page 124,_

LANCIANI, RODOLFO.
   Ancient Rome in the light of recent discoveries.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

LEWIS, GEORGE CORNEWALL.
   An inquiry into the credibility of early Roman history.
   London: J. W. Parker & Sons. 1855. 2 volumes.

LIDDELL, HENRY G.
   History of Rome, to the establishment of the Empire.
   London: J. Murray. 1855. 2 volumes.

LIVIUS, TITUS.
   History of Rome,
   literally translated by Dr. Spillan, C. Edmonds,
   and others [Bohn edition].
   London: G. Bell & Son.

   Stories from Livy;
   by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1883.

LONG, GEORGE.
   Decline of the Roman Republic.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1864. 5 volumes.

MAHAFFY, J. P.
   Greek life and thought from the age of Alexander
   to the Roman conquest.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

   The Greek world under Roman sway, from Polybius to Plutarch.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

   History of classical Greek literature.
   London: Longmans. 1880. 2 volumes.

   Old Greek life. (History Primer.)
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878.

   Problems in Greek history.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   Social life in Greece, from Homer to Menander.
   3d edition revised and enlarged.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

   The story of Alexander's Empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London:. T. F. Unwin. 1887.

      One of the very good books in the series of
      "The Story of the Nations."

MERIVALE, CHARLES.
   The fall of the Roman Republic;
   a short history of the last century of the Commonwealth.
   London: Longmans.

   History of the Romans under the Empire.
   London: Longmans. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 7 volumes.

      "His [Merivale's] history is a great work in itself, and it
      must be a very great work indeed which can outdo it within
      its own range. In days of licensed blundering like ours, it
      is delightful indeed to come across the sound and finished
      scholarship; the unwearied and unfailing accuracy, of Mr.
      Merivale. … On some points we hold that Mr. Merivale's
      views are open to dispute; but it is, always his views,
      never his statements."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Historical Essays; page. 309._

{3888}

MOMMSEN, THEODOR.
   History of Rome;
   translated by W. P. Dickson;
   new edition revised throughout and embodying recent additions.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1894-95. 4 volumes.

   The Provinces, from Cæsar to Diocletian.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1886.

      "The Roman History of Mommsen is, beyond all doubt, to be
      ranked among those really great historical works which do
      so much honour to our own day. We can have little doubt as
      to calling it the best complete Roman History that we have.
      … We have now, for the first time, the whole history of the
      Roman Republic really written in a way worth of the
      greatness of the subject."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Historical Essays,
         pages. 239-240._

MÜLLER, C. O.
   History and Antiquities of the Doric race;
   translated from the German by H. Tufuell and G. C. Lewis.
   2d edition revised.
   London: J. Murray. 1839., 2 volumes.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   History of Rome;
   translated by J. C. Hare and C. Thirlwall.
   London: Walton. 1859. 3 volumes.

   Lectures on the history of Rome,
   to the fall of the Western Empire.
   London: Walton. 3 volumes.

OMAN, C. W. C.
   History of Greece, to the Macedonian conquest.
   London: Rivingtons. 1890.

      "This is the best school history of Greece which has
      appeared for many a day. While the style is never heavy,
      nothing of importance has been omitted."
         _English Historical Review, October 1890._

PELHAM, H. F.
   Outlines of Roman history.
   London: Percival.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

PLUTARCH.
   Lives,
   the translation called Dryden's corrected from the Greek
   and revised by A. H. Clough.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1859. 5 volumes.

POLYBIOS.
   Histories;
   translated from the text of Hultsch by E. S. Shuckburgh.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

      Polybios, "the historian of the Decline and Fall of Ancient
      Greece," "is like a writer of our own times; with far less
      of inborn genius, he possessed a mass of acquired knowledge
      of which Thucydides could never have dreamed. He had, like
      a modern historian, read many books and seen many lands. …
      He had, himself personally a wider political experience than
      fell to the lot of any historian before or after him. … He
      could remember Achaia a powerful federation, Macedonia a
      powerful monarchy, Carthage still free, Syria still
      threatening; he lived to see them all subject provinces or
      trembling allies of the great municipality Rome."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         History of Federal Government,
         page 226._

RAMSAY, WILLIAM.
   Manual of Roman antiquities;
   revised and partly rewritten by R. Lanciani.
   London: C. Griffin.

SCHLIEMANN, Dr. H.
   Ilios: the city and country of the Trojans.
   London: J. Murray. 1880.

   Troja: results of the latest researches and discoveries
   on the site of Homer's Troy.
   London: J. Murray. 1884.

   Mycenæ: a narrative of researches and discoveries.
   London.

   Tiryns, the prehistoric palace of the King of Tiryns.
   London: John Murray. 1885.

SCHÖMANN, G. F.
   A dissertation on the assemblies of the Athenians;
   translated from the Latin.
   Cambridge: W. P. Grant. 1838.

   The antiquities of Greece;
   translated from the German.
   London: Rivingtons, 1880.

      Only the first volume, treating of "The State,"
      has been published.

SCHUCHHARDT, C.
   Schliemann's excavations;
   an archæological and historical study;
   translated from the German.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

SUETONIUS, C. TRANQUILLUS.
   Lives of the Twelve Cæsars [Bohn edition].
   London: Bell & Sons.

TACITUS, C. CORNELIUS.
   The Annals, The History, The Germany, The Agricola,
   The Dialogue on Oratory;
   translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb;
   revised edition, with notes.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877-82. 3 volumes.

      The annals of Tacitus extend over most of the period from
      the death of Augustus to Nero, with important parts lost.
      The fragments preserved of the history gives us only four
      and a half out of fourteen books which made up the original
      work. These books contain the history of the years 69 and
      70, not quite complete, and tell the story of the Vitellian
      conflict.

THIRLWALL, CONNOP.
   History of Greece.
   London: Longmans. 1835. 8 volumes.

      Bishop Thirlwall's History covers the whole national life
      of the Greeks, down to the Roman conquest. “The strength of
      Thirlwall as clearly lies in the history of Alexander and
      his successors as the strength of Grote lies in the
      political history of Athenian and Syracusan democracy, as
      the strength of Curtius lies in the geography, in the
      artistic side of things, in the general picture of that age
      which was the glory of Athens, but which, as the disciples
      of Finlay know, was an age of decline for Hellas in the
      wider sense."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         The Methods of Historical Study,
         page 287._

      "The student of to-day who is really intimate with
      Thirlwall's history may boast that he has a sound and
      accurate view of all the main questions in the political
      and social development of the Hellenic nation. But he will
      never have been carried away with enthusiasm."
         _J. P. Mahaffy,
         Problems in Greek History,
         chapter 1._

THUCYDIDES.
   History;
   translated into English, with introduction and notes,
   by B. Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881. 2 volumes.

      "Thucydides is much more than a great historian; or,
      rather, he was what every great historian ought to be—he
      was a profound philosopher. His history of the
      Peloponnesian War is like a portrait by Titian; the whole
      mind and character, the inner spirit and ideals, the very
      tricks and foibles, of the man or the age come before us in
      living reality. No more memorable, truthful and profound
      portrait exists than that wherein Thucydides has painted
      the Athens of the age of Pericles."
         _Frederic Harrison,
         The Meaning of History,
         page 92._

TORR, CECIL.
      Rhodes in ancient times.
      Cambridge: University Press. 1885.

TROLLOPE, ANTHONY.
   Life of Cicero.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1880. 2 volumes.

      Written in vindication of Cicero against the injustice done
      to the great patriotic orator in Froude's Cæsar. Both books
      are writings of advocacy rather than history.

WHIBLEY, L.
   Political parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War.
   Cambridge, Warehouse. 1889.

XENOPHON.
   Works;
   translated by H. G. Dakyns.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890. volumes 1-2.

      Volume I. contains books 1 and 2 of the Hellenica, and the
      Anabasis; volume 2 contains books 3 to 7, with Agesilaus,
      The Politics, and Revenues. Two more volumes are yet to be
      published.


MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN EUROPE.

ADAMS, CHARLES.
   Great campaigns: a succinct account of the principal
   military operations which have taken place in Europe
   from 1796 to 1870.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1877.

      Edited from lectures delivered by Major C. Adams at
      the Royal Military and Staff Colleges, England.

ADAMS, GEORGE BURTON.
   Civilization during the Middle Ages,
   especially in relation to modern civilization.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894.

ADDISON, C. G.
   The Knights Templars. 3d edition.
   London: Longman. 1854.

ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.
   History of Europe, 1789 to 1815, and 1815 to 1852.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1853. 28 volumes.

      "We are not unaware … of the surpassing greatness of the
      external events of which his history is composed, nor do we
      complain of the minute and laborious zeal with which he has
      gathered every particular concerning them, ransacking
      archives and measuring fields of slaughter; but we do
      complain that he has allowed the tumult and dust of these
      vast contests to stop his ears and blind his eyes to every
      object but themselves."
         _Parke Godwin,
         Out of the Past;
         page 207._

BALZANI, UGO.
   The Popes and the Hohenstaufen.
   London: Longmans.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Church History."

BEARD, CHARLES.
   The Reformation of the 16th Century
   in its relation to modern thought.
   London: Williams and Norgate. 1883.

      Hibbert Lectures for 1883.

BRADLEY, HENRY.
   The story of the Goths, to the end of the
   Gothic dominion in Spain.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

      One of the better books in the series of
      "The Story of the Nations."

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The Holy Roman Empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

CAYLEY, EDWARD S.
   The European revolutions of 1848.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

CHEETHAM, S.
   History of the Christian Church
   during the first six centuries.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

CHURCH, R. W.
   The beginning of the Middle Ages.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1877.

      An admirable brief survey of early mediæval history, in
      the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

COMYN, Sir ROBERT.
   History of the western empire,
   from Charlemagne to Charles V. [800-1520].
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1841. 2 volumes.

COX, GEORGE W.
   The Crusades.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1874.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of History."

CREIGHTON, MANDELL.
   History of the Papacy during the period of the Reformation.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1882-94. volumes 1-5.

{3889}

CUTTS, EDWARD L.
   Scenes and characters of the Middle Ages.
   London: Virtue & Co. 1872.

DEMOMBYNES, G.
   Constitutions Européennes.
   Paris: L. Larose et Forcel. 1881. 2 volumes.

DILKE, Sir CHARLES W.
   Position of European politics, 1887.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1887.

DÖLLINGER, JOHN IGNATIUS VON.
   Addresses on historical and literary subjects;
   translated by Margaret Warre.
   London: J. Murray. 1894.

      Containing as follows:
      Universities past and present;
      Founders of Religions;
      the Empire of Charles the Great and his Successors;
      Anagni;
      the Suppression of the Knights Templars;
      the History of Religious Freedom;
      various estimates of the French Revolution;
      the part taken by North America in Literature.

   Studies in European history;
   translated by Margaret Warre.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

      Academical addresses on the following subjects:
      The significance of Dynasties in the history of the world;
      the House of Wittelsbach and its place in German history;
      the relation of the City of Rome to Germany in
      the Middle Ages;
      Dante as a Prophet;
      the struggle of Germany with the Papacy under the
      Emperor Ludwig of Bavaria;
      Aventin an his Times;
      on the Influence of Greek Literature and Culture upon
      the Western World in the Middle Ages;
      the origin of the Eastern Question;
      the Jews in Europe;
      upon the Political and Intellectual development of Spain;
      the Policy of Louis XIV.;
      the most influential Woman of French history
      (Madame de Maintenon).

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT.
   Studies in European politics.
   Edinburg: Edmonston & Douglas. 1866.

      These well-named "Studies" in the political history of the
      Continent, by an English statesman, are mostly devoted to
      the important but little understood period between 1815 and
      1848, in Spain, Russia Austria, Prussia, Holland, and
      Belgium. They are deficient in attention to the social
      conditions of the time.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of modern times, from the
   fall of Constantinople to the French Revolution;
   translated and revised, with notes, by E. A. Grosvenor.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1894.

   History of the middle ages;
   translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney,
   with notes and revisions by G. B. Adams.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1891.

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
   History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.
   Geo. Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.

      Dyer's History of Modern Europe "represented the labour of
      years, and chronicled the period from the fall of
      Constantinople to the end of the Crimean "War. It was a
      clear and painstaking compilation, whose main object was to
      expound the origin and nature of the European concert."
         _G. Barnett Smith.
         Biographical Sketch
         (in the Dictionary of National-Biography)._

EGINHARD.
   Life of Charlemagne;
   translated by S. E. Turner.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

EMERTON, EPHRAIM.
   Introduction to the study of the Middle Ages (A. D. 375-814).
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.

   Mediæval Europe, 814-1300.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1894.

FISHER, GEORGE PARK.
   History of the Christian Church.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   The Reformation.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

FLINT, ROBERT.
   Philosophy of history in Europe.
   volume 1, France and Germany.
   Edinburg: Blackwood & Sons. 1874.

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The Chief Periods of European History;
   six lectures, Oxford, 1885.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

      The "chief periods" treated of are "those which concern the
      growth and the dying out" of the Roman power: "Europe
      before the growth of Rome—Europe with Rome, in one shape or
      another, as her centre—Europe since Rome has practically
      ceased to be."
         _Author's Preface._

   Fifty years of European history: four Oxford lectures.
   [Also] The Teutonic conquest of Gaul and Britain.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

      The fifty years of European history reviewed in the first
      four of these lectures are those that had been spanned by
      the reign of Queen Victoria when its jubilee was
      celebrated, in 1887.

   General sketch of European history.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1872.

   Historical Essays.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1871-92. 4 volumes.

      Volume 1.
      The Mythical and Romantic Elements in early English History;
      the continuity of English History;
      Relations between the Crowns of England and Scotland;
      Saint Thomas of Canterbury and his Biographers;
      the Reign of Edward III.;
      the Holy Roman Empire;
      the Franks and the Gauls;
      the early Sieges of Paris;
      Frederick I., King of Italy;
      the Emperor Frederick II.;
      Charles the Bold;
      Presidential Government.

      Volume 2.
      Ancient Greece and Mediæval Italy;
      Mr. Gladstone's "Homer and the Homeric Age";
      the Historians of Athens;
      the Athenian Democracy;
      Alexander the Great;
      Greece during the Macedonian Period;
      Mommsen's History of Rome;
      Sulla;
      the Flavian Cæsars.

      Volume 3.
      First Impressions of Rome;
      the Illyrian Emperors and their Land;
      Augusta Treverorum;
      the Goths at Ravenna;
      Race and Language;
      the Byzantine Empire;
      First impressions or Athens;
      Mediæval and Modern Greece;
      the Southern Slaves;
      Sicilian Cycles;
      the Normans at Palermo.

      Volume 4.
      Carthage;
      French and English Towns;
      Aquæ Sextiæ;
      Orange;
      Augustodunum;
      Perigueux and Cahors;
      the Lords of Ardres;
      Points in the History of Portugal and Brazil:
      Alter Orbis;
      Historical Cycles;
      Augustan Ages;
      English Civil Wars.

   The historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.
   1 volume text; 1 volume maps.

      The object of this remarkably valuable work is to "trace
      out the extent of territory which the different states and
      nations of Europe and the neighbouring lands have held at
      different times in the world's history, to mark the
      different boundaries which the same country has had, and
      the different meanings in which the same name has been
      used.
         _Author's Introduction._

FROISSART, SIR JOHN.
   Chronicles [1326-1400];
   translated by T. Johnes.
   London: Wm. Smith. 2 volumes.

   Same;
   edited for boys, with an introduction, by Sidney Lanier.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

FYFFE, C. A.
   History of modern Europe.
   London: Cassell. 1880-1889.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1881-90. 3 volumes.

      Covers the period from the beginning of the war with
      revolutionary France, in 1792, to the Berlin Congress and
      Treaty, 1878; a well-constructed and well-written piece of
      history.

GERARD, JAMES W.
   The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

GRUBE, A. W.
   Heroes of history and legend.
   London: Griffith & Farran. 1880.

      A translation of the second part of Grube's
      "Charakterbilder aus der Geschichte und Sage."

GUIZOT, F. P.
   History of civilization, to the French revolution;
   translated from the French.
   London: Geo. Bell & Sons. 3 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

      "The originality of M. Guizot's work consists in the truly
      scientific spirit and character of his method. He was the
      first to dissect a society, in the same comprehensive,
      impartial, and thorough way in which an anatomist dissects
      the body of an animal, and the first to study the functions
      of the social organism in the same systematic and careful
      manner in which the physiologist studies the functions of
      the animal organism."
         _R. Flint,
         The Philosophy of History in France and Germany,
         Page 240._

HALLAM, HENRY.
   View of the state of Europe during the Middle Ages.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.
   New York: W. J, Widdleton. 3 volumes.

      "He [Hallam] never thoroughly took in either the Imperial
      or the ecclesiastical element in history; if I say that he
      did not thoroughly take in the Teutonic element either, it
      might seem that I leave him no standing-ground at all. And
      whither shall he seem to vanish, if I add that he never
      shows that same kind of thorough knowledge of original
      authorities, that mastery of them that delight in them,
      which stands out in every line of Kemble and Palgrave?
      Hallam had nothing of the spirit of the antiquary; he had
      not, I should say very much of the spirit of the historian
      proper. Yet Hallam was a memorable writer, whose name ought
      to be deeply honoured, and a large part of whose writings
      are as valuable now as when they were first written."
         _E. A. Freeman.
         Methods of Historical Study,
         page 282_.

HÄUSSER, LUDWIG.
   The period of the Reformation, 1517-1648,
   edited by W. Oncken;
   translated by Mrs. Sturge.
   London: Strahan. 1873.
   New York: Robert Carter & Bros.

      Unquestionably the best comprehensive survey of the
      Reformation and the Reformation period that has yet
      been placed before English readers.

HEEREN. A. H. L.
   A manual of the history of the political system of Europe
   and its colonies; from the close of the 15th century to
   the fall of Napoleon;
   translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846.

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,
   Select historical documents of the middle ages;
   translated and edited.
   London: Geo. Bell & Sons. 1892.
   New York: Macmillan & Co.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   Italy and her Invaders.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1880-85. 4 volumes.

      A very satisfactory work, narrating that part of the
      barbaric avalanche of the fifth and sixth centuries which
      crushed the Empire in its western seat. The first volume
      deals with the Visigothic invasion, the second with the
      Hunnish, Vandal and Herulian, the third with the
      Ostrogothic, the fourth with Justinian's recovery of Italy.

   Theodoric the Goth; the barbarian champion of civilization.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

JOHNSON, A. H.
   The Normans in Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons.

JOHNSTONE, C. F.
   Historical abstracts.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1880.

      Excellent outline sketches of the history of Denmark,
      Norway, Sweden, the kingdom of the Netherlands, Belgium,
      the Ottoman Empire, Greece, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, and
      the Swiss Confederation.

{3890}

KEARY, C. F.
   The Vikings in western Christendom, 789-888.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

KINGTON, T. L.
   History of Frederick II., Emperor of the Romans.
   London: Macmillan & Co; 1862. 2 volumes.

LACROIX, PAUL.
   The eighteenth century [1700-1789]: its institutions, &c.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1876.

LATHAM, ROBERT. G.
   Ethnology of Europe.
   London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.

   The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1863. 2 volumes.

LAVISSE, ERNEST.
   General view of the political history of Europe;
   translated by Charles Gross.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

      "While giving the essential facts of universal history, he
      [Lavisse] aims above all, to describe the formation and
      political development of the states of Europe, and to
      indicate the historical causes of their present condition
      and mutual relations. In other words, he shows how the
      existing political divisions of Europe, with their peculiar
      tendencies, were created. … The ability of Professor
      Lavisse to compress the essence of a great event or
      sequence of events into a few comprehensive and expressive
      sentences, has enabled him to accomplish his difficult task
      with signal success."
         _Translator's Preface._

LEA, HENRY CHARLES.
   History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888. 3 volumes.

LODGE, RICHARD.
   History of Modern Europe, 1453-1878.
   London: J. Murray. 1885.
   New York:, Harper Bros.

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
   The Nineteenth Century; a history.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1880.

McLAUGLIN, EDWARD TOMPKINS.
   Studies in mediæval life and literature.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894.

MACLEAR, G. F.
   The conversion of the West.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING.
   Don John of Austria;
   or, passages from the history of the 16th Century, 1547-1578.
   London: Longmans. 1883. 2 volumes.

MAY, Sir THOMAS E.
   Democracy in Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877. 2 volumes.
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 2 volumes.

MERIVALE, CHARLES.
   The conversion of the northern nations:
   Boyle lectures. 1865.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

MERLE D'AUBIGNE, J. H.
   History of the great Reformation of the 16th century.
   New York: Carter & Bros. 1863-77. 8 volumes.

MICHAUD, J. F.
   History of the Crusades;
   translated from the French.
   London: G. Routledge & Co. 1852. 2 volumes.

MICHELET, JULES.
   Summary of Modern History;
   translated from the French and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.

MILMAN, HENRY HART.
   History of Latin Christianity,
   including that of the Popes to Nicholas V.
   London: J. Murray. 1854. 6 volumes.

      "I know few books more delightful and more instructive to
      read than Milman's 'History of Latin Christianity.' And
      none better discharges the work of a guide, both to the
      original authorities, and what we cannot neglect, to modern
      German writers."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Methods was of historical study,
         page 283._

MOELLER, WILHELM.
   History of the Christian Church, A.D. 1-600;
   translated from the German.
   London: S. Sonnenschein. 1892.

   History of the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages.
   London: S. Sonnenschein. 1893.

MONSTRELET, ENGUERRAND DE.
   Chronicles;
   translated by T. Johnes.
   London: Geo. Routledge & Sons. 1867. 2 volumes.

      A chronicle which continues that of Froissart, from
      1400 to 1467, and is continued by others to 1516,
      especially narrating events in the Hundred Years War.

MONTALEMBERT, CHARLES F., Count de.
   The Monks of the West, from St. Benedict to St. Bernard;
   authorized translation.
   London: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1861-79. 7 volumes.

      "His pages bring before us tales handed down by oral
      tradition alone for perhaps two or three generations,
      together with documents and letters as genuine as the
      despatches of the Duke of Wellington. But there is little
      or no effort to show that one is more valuable than the
      other, or to determine where the poetry which is lavish of
      marvellous incidents ends, and where the region of fact
      begins."
         _Edinburgh Review, v. 127, page. 404._

MÜLLER, W.
   Political history of recent times. 1816-1875;
   translated [and continued to 1881] by J.,P. Peters.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

      "For many years—as Professor of Modern History, first at
      the State University of Michigan, afterward at Cornell
      University—I had been seeking a work which should give to
      thoughtful students a view, large but concise, of the
      political history of Continental Europe in the nineteenth
      century. … At last I came upon the 'Politische Geschichte
      der Neuesten Zeit,' by Professor Wilhelm Miller, of
      Tübingen. … Three readings of it satisfied me that it is
      what is needed in America. … It is not an abridgment; it is
      a living history."
         _Andrew D. White,
         Prefatory Note._

MURDOCK, HAROLD.
   The reconstruction of Europe [1852-1870].
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

      A volume of lectures delivered at South Place Institute,
      London, in 1889-90, designed "to give information, in a
      popular form, with regard to the national development and
      modes of political action among the different nations
      throughout the world." The lecturers were generally men
      specially well informed on their several subjects, such as
      Professor J. E. Therold Rogers, Professor Pulszky. J. T.
      Bent, J. C. Cotton Minchin, Eirikr Magnusson, and others.

NEANDER, AUGUSTUS.
   General history of the Christian religion and Church;
   translated from the German by Joseph Torrey.

      "He … made church history a book of instruction,
      edification and comfort, on the firm foundation of profound
      and accurate learning, critical mastery of the sources,
      spiritual discernment, psychological insight, and sound,
      sober judgment."
         _P. Schaff,
         Saint Augustin Melanchthon,
         Neander, page 136._

PALGRAVE, Sir FRANCIS.
   History of Normandy and England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 4 volumes.

PASTOR, LUDWIG.
   History of the Popes from, the close of the Middle Ages;
   translated from the German.
   London: J. Hodges.

      A history written from the Roman Catholic standpoint.

PERIODS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY;
   edited by Arthur Hassal.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

      Period 1, A. D. 476-918; by Charles W. C. Oman.
      Period 5, A. D. 1598-1715; by Henry O. Wakeman.
      Period 7, A.D. 1789-1815; by H. Morse Stephens.
      Other periods not yet published.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations from 1494 to 1514;
   translated from the German.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1887.

   History of the Popes in the 16th and 17th centuries;
   translated from the German by Mrs. Austin.
   London: J. Murray. 2 volumes.

ROBERTSON, JAMES C.
   History of the Christian Church;
   from the Apostolic Age to the Reformation.
   London: J. Murray. 1875. 8 volumes.

ROBERTSON, WM.
   History of the reign of the emperor Charles V.;
   with life of the emperor after his abdication,
   by W. H. Prescott.
   London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.

ROBINSON, A. MARY F. (Madame Darmesteter).
   The end of the middle ages.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

      "Essays and questions in History," as follows:
      the Beguines and the Weaving Brothers;
      the Convent of Helfta;
      the attraction of the Abyss (Mysticism);
      the Schism;
      Valentine Visconti;
      the French claim to Milan;
      the Malatestas of Rimini;
      the Ladies of Milan;
      the Flight of Piero de' Medici;
      the French at Pisa.

ROSE, J. H.
   A century of continental history, 1780-1880.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1889.

      Aims only at "giving an outline of the main events
      which have brought the Continent of Europe to its
      present political condition," and does so acceptably.

SCHLOSSER, F. C.
   History of the eighteenth century, etc.;
   translated by D. Davison.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52; 8 volumes.

SHEPPARD, JOHN G.
   The fall of Rome and the rise of the new nationalities.
   London and New York: Routledge. 1861.

      "One of the best manuals for the use of a student or the
      Middle Ages. Perhaps its most striking characteristic is in
      its large dependence on original authorities, and in the
      stress winch it lays on the use of such authorities in the
      study of the period under examination."
         _C. K. Adams,
         Manual of Historical Literature.
         3d edition, page 168._

SMITH, I. GREGORY:
   Christian Monasticism, from the 4th to the 9th centuries.
   London: A. D. Innes & Co. 1892.

SMYTH, WM.
   Lectures on modern history.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.

SOREL, ALBERT.
   L'Europe et la Revolution française.
   Paris: Plon. 1885.

STEPHENS, W. R. W.
   Hildebrand and his Times.
   London: Longmans. 1888.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Church History."

STILLÉ, CHARLES J.
   Studies in mediæval history.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1882.

      On the following topics:
      General characteristics of the mediæval era;
      the Barbarians and their invasions;
      the Frankish conquests and Charlemagne;
      Mohammed and his System;
      mediæval France;
      Germany, feudal and imperial;
      Saxon and Danish England;
      England after the Norman conquest;
      the Papacy to the reign of Charlemagne;
      the Papacy and the Empire;
      the struggle for Italian nationality;
      Monasticism, Chivalry and the Crusades:
      Scholastic philosophy—the Schoolmen—Universities;
      the laboring classes in the Middle Ages;
      mediæval Commerce;
      the era of Secularization.

{3891}

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Seventeen lectures on the study of mediæval and
   modern history and kindred subjects.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1886.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

      Inaugural Lecture;
      on the Present State and Prospects of Historical Study;
      the Purposes and Methods of Historical Study;
      Learning and Literature at the court of Henry II.;
      the Mediæval Kingdoms of Cyprus and Armenia;
      on the Characteristic Differences between Mediæval
      and Modern History;
      the Reign of Henry VIII.;
      Parliament under Henry VIII.;
      history of the Canon Law in England;
      the Reign of Henry VII.;
      last statutory public lecture.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   History and literature of the Crusades;
   translated from the German.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1861.

SYMONDS, JOHN ADDINGTON.
   The Catholic reaction.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1886. 2 volumes.

      These are the concluding volumes of Symonds'
      "Renaissance in Italy."

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Lectures on mediæval Church history.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1878.

VAN PRAET, JULES.
   Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th,
   and 17th centuries
   [translated from the French].
   London: Richard Bentley. 1868.

VILLEMAIN, A. F.
   Life of Gregory VII. [Hildebrand];
   preceded by a sketch of the Papacy to the 11th century;
   translated from the French.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1874. 2 volumes.

VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.
   Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne.
   (Works, translated by Smollett and others,
   1761, volumes 20-22).

WARD, A., W.
   The Counter-Reformation.
   London: Longmans. 1889.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Church History."

WOODHOUSE, F. C.
   The military religious orders of the Middle Ages.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1879.


GREAT BRITAIN: GENERAL.

BRIGHT, J. F.
   History of England.
   London: Rivingtons. 1880-1888. 4 volumes.

      A very carefully written history, brought down to 1880;
      quite full in detail, and necessarily, therefore,
      condensed in the narrative.

BUCKLE, HENRY THOMAS.
   History of civilization in England.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

      A work which has lost the great influence that it exerted
      when it first appeared, but which is full of suggestion,
      nevertheless, to one who reads it thoughtfully.

BUCKLEY, ARABELLA B.
   History of England for beginners.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

BURROWS, MONTAGU.
   Commentaries on the history of England
   from the earliest times to 1865.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1893.

      A successful "attempt to interpret the History of England
      in accordance wit the latest researches"; "a digest and a
      commentary rather than an abstract or an epitome.

BURTON, JOHN HILL.
   History of Scotland from Agricola's invasion to the
   last Jacobite insurrection;
   new and enlarged edition.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 8 volumes.

CALLCOTT, Lady M.
   Little Arthur's history of England.
   London: J. Murray.

      Very high in the esteem of those who judge books for
      children most carefully.

DICEY, ALBERT V.
   The Privy Council: the Arnold prize essay.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

DUFFY, Sir CHARLES GAVAN.
   Bird's-eye view of Irish history.
   Dublin: J. Duffy & Son. 1882.

ENGLISH WORTHIES;
   edited by Andrew Lang.
   London: Longmans. 1885.

      Raleigh; by Edmund Gosse.
      Blake; by David Hannay.
      Claverhouse; by Mowbray Morris
      Marlborough; by George Saintsbury.
      Shaftesbury; by H. D. Traill.
      Canning; by F. H. Hill.
      Darwin; by Grant Allen.

FORSYTH, WILLIAM;
   History of Trial by Jury.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1852.

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The growth of the English constitution.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1872.

GAIRDNER, JAMES, and JAMES SPEDDING.
   Studies in English history.
   Edinburgh. 1881.

      A volume of collected essays, on the Lollards, the
      Historical element in Shakespeare's Falstaff, Katharine of
      Aragon's first and second marriages, history of the
      doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, Sundays, ancient and
      modern, and other topics.

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON.
   Historical biographies.
   London: Longmans. 1884.

      Contains brief but excellent biographies of Simon de
      Montfort, Edward the Black Prince, Sir Thomas More, Sir
      Francis Drake, Cromwell, and William III.

   A student's history of England, from the earliest
   times to 1885.
   London: Longmans. 1890—1. 3 volumes.

      Professor Gardiner, being a specialist distinctly, in the
      one period of English history to which he has devoted
      himself—the period of the Stuarts—would not claim
      authority, of course, as an original investigator of other
      times; and some parts of this general text-book have been
      found open to criticism. But, on the whole, it can claim
      the first rank among text-books of its class.

GNEIST, RUDOLPH.
   History of the English Constitution;
   translated from the German.
   London: W. Clowes & Son. 1886. 2 volumes.

   The English Parliament in its transformations through
   a thousand years.
   London: Grevel & Co. 1886.

      "The work of Gneist on the English Constitution is scarcely
      less indispensable to the English student than the works of
      Stubbs and Hallam, while, as a distinguished jurist and
      politician in Germany, he surveys his subject from a
      different standpoint."
         _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English' History,
         page 410._

GREEN, JOHN RICHARD.
   Short history of the English people.
   Illustrated edition, edited by Mrs. J. R. Green and
   Miss Kate Norgate.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 4 volumes.

      "The success of the 'Short History' was rapid and
      overwhelming. Everybody read it. It was philosophical
      enough for scholars, and popular enough for school boys. No
      historical book since Macaulay's has made its way so fast.
      … The characteristic note of his [Green's] genius was also
      that of Gibbon's, the combination of a perfect mastery of
      multitudinous details with a large and luminous view of
      those far-reaching forces and relations which govern the
      fortunes of peoples and guide the course of empire."
         _J. Bryce,
         John Richard Green
         (Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1883)._

   History of the English people.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878. 4 volumes.

      An enlargement of the "Short History."

JOYCE, P. W.
   Short history of Ireland, from the earliest times to 1608.
   London: Longmans. 1893.

KNIGHT, CHARLES.
   Popular history of England;
   London: Bradbury & Evans. 8 volumes.

      A work of great merit as a popular history, making no
      pretensions to original research; liberal in spirit and
      admirable in tone. It was one of the first works of the
      kind to be pictorially illustrated in a really historical
      way.

LANGMEAD, THOMAS P. TASWELL.
   English constitutional history, from the Teutonic conquest to
   the present time. 2d edition revised, with additions.
   London: Stevens & H. 1880.

LINGARD, JOHN.
   History of England from the first invasion by the Romans.
   London: Burns & Oates; 10 volumes.

      English history written with general fairness from the
      Roman Catholic standpoint.

LOFTIE, W. J.
   History of London.
   London: E. Stanford. 1883-1884.
   2 volumes with supplement.

MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON, Baron.
   History of England from the accession of James II.
   London: Longmans.

      A brief survey of previous events introduces the history
      proper which begins with the accession of James II., in
      1685. As the death of the author brought his work to an
      abrupt end before he had finished his account of the reign
      of William III. (1689-1702), the history covers a period of
      less than eighteen years. Its extraordinary brilliancy, on
      the one and, and its defects of partisan prejudice and
      misjudgment on the other, are well known. "I can see
      Macaulay's great and obvious faults as well as any man; I
      know as well as any man the cautions with which his
      brilliant pictures must be studied; but I cannot feel that
      I have any right to speak lightly of one to whom I owe so
      much in the matter of actual knowledge, and to whom I owe
      more than to any man as the master of historical
      narrative."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of Historical Study,
         page 105._

POWELL, F. YORK.
   History of England, to the death of Henry VII.
   London: F. Rivingtons.

      An excellent school text-book of the early centuries of
      English history, presenting really one of the best succinct
      studies that can be found of the four centuries from the
      first Norman to the first Tudor. It belongs to a series of
      three volumes, only one other of which (the third, by
      Professor Tout) has appeared.

RANNIE, DAVID W.
   Historical outline of the English Constitution, for beginners.
   London: Longmans. 1882.

SKOTTOWE, B. C.
   A short history of Parliament.
   London: Sonnenschein & Co. 1892.

SMITH, G. BARNETT.
   History of the English Parliament;
   with an account of the Parliaments of Scotland and Ireland.
   London: Ward, Lock, B., & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

{3893}

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Lives of the British admirals;
   completed by Robert Bell:
   London: Longmans. 1833. 5 volumes.

TRAILL, HENRY D., editor
   Social England; a record of the progress of the people in
   religion, laws, learning, arts, industry, commerce, science,
   literature, and manners, from the earliest times to the
   present day, by, various writers.,
   London: Cassell & Co.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894-5.

      A work somewhat unequally executed by the different writers
      engaged; but generally admirable, and exceedingly
      interesting. Three volumes have thus far been issued.

TWELVE ENGLISH STATESMEN.
   London: Macmillan & Co; 1888-.

      William the Conqueror; by Edward, A. Freeman.
      Henry the Second; by Mrs. J. R. Green.
      Edward the First; by Prof. T. F. Tout.
      Henry the Seventh; by James Gairdner.
      Cardinal Wolsey; by Bishop Creighton.
      Elizabeth; by E. S. Beesly.
      Oliver Cromwell; by Frederic Harrison.
      William the Third; by H. D. Traill.
      Walpole; by John Morley.
      Chatham [in preparation]; by John Morley.
      Pitt; by Lord Rosebery.
      Peel; by J. R. Thursfield.

YONGE, CHARLOTTE M.
   Cameos from English history.
   London: Macmillan. 1871-1890.
   Philadelphia.: Lippincott & Co.

      Seven series of clear-cut historical narratives, each quite
      distinct in subject, but following one another in close
      relations of time. Many of the subjects are from
      Continental events which have some close connection with
      English history. The periods covered by the several series
      are defined and entitled as follows:
      1. Rollo to Edward II.
      2. The wars in France.
      3. The wars of the Roses.
      4. Reformation times.
      5. England and Spain.
      6. Forty years of Stewart rule.
      7. Rebellion and Restoration.


GREAT BRITAIN: EARLY AND MEDIÆVAL.

BROWNE: MATTHEW.
   Chaucer's England.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1869. 2 volumes.

CHURCH, R. W. Saint Anselm.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1870.

CREIGHTON, MANDELL.
   Life of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester.
   London: Rivingtons. 1876.

ELTON, CHARLES.
   Origins of English history.
   London: B. Quaritch. 1882.

      "An attempt to rearrange in a convenient form what is known
      of the history of this country from those obscure ages
      which preceded the Roman invasions to the time when the
      English accepted the Christian religion."—
         _Author's opening chapter._

ENGLISH HISTORY FROM CONTEMPORARY WRITERS:
   The misrule of Henry III.
   Edward III. and his wars.
   Strongbow's conquest of Ireland.
   Simon de Montfort and his cause.
   The Wars of York and Lancaster.
   London: D. Nutt. 5 volumes.

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   History of the Norman Conquest of England; its causes
   and its results.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1870. 5 volumes and index.

   Old English history for children.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

      An attempt by the late Professor Freeman to make
      "Old English history" interesting to children, and one
      in which he did not fail.

   The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry I.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1882. 2 volumes.

      "Taken as a whole, the seven volumes ['Norman Conquest' and
      'William Rufus'] give us such a masterly philosophic
      analysis and such a picturesque and vivid narrative of the
      history of England in the eleventh century that it must be
      pronounced the monumental work upon which Mr. Freeman's
      reputation will chiefly rest."
         _John Fiske,
         Edward Augustus Freeman
         (Atlantic Monthly, January 1893)._

GAIRDNER, JAMES.
   History of the life and reign of Richard III.
   London: Longmans. 1878.

      "I have, in working out this subject, always adhered to the
      plan of placing my chief reliance on contemporary
      information; and so far as I am aware, I have neglected
      nothing important that is either directly stated by
      original authorities and contemporary records, or that can
      be reasonably inferred from what they say."
         _Author's preface._

   The Houses of Lancaster and York, with the conquest
   and loss of France.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

      Belonging in the excellent series of the
      "Epochs of Modern History"—small, but satisfactory.

GREEN, J. R.
   The making of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

   The conquest of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

      In the first of these books, Mr. Green has told the story
      of the Saxons and Angles in England down to the union of
      the land under, Ecgberht; the period of their settlement,
      "in which their political and social life took the form
      which it still retains." In the second work he continues
      the narrative to the Norman conquest.

GREEN, Mrs. J. R.
   Town life in the fifteenth century.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

      "Every page gives proof of careful research, skilful
      arrangement of facts, and felicitous treatment."
         _C. J. Robinson,
         Review (Academy, June 16, 1894)._

GROSS, CHARLES.
   The Gild Merchant; a contribution to British municipal history. Oxford. 1890.

      Concededly the best work on the subject.

KEMBLE, JOHN M.
   The Saxons in England.
   New edition, edited and revised by W. De Gray Birch.
   London: B. Quaritch. 1876. 2 volumes.

      "An account of the principles upon which the public and
      political, life of our Anglosaxon forefathers was based;
      and of the institutions in which those principles were most
      clearly manifested."
         _Author's Preface._

      "Kemble has no narrative work to compare with that of
      Palgrave; but the 'Saxons in England' may fairly be
      compared with the 'History of the English Commonwealth.'
      They are two great works, works of two great scholars,
      who assuredly are not yet superseded. They will give you
      two sides of the same general story."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of Historical Study,
         page 281._

LECHLER, G.
   John Wiclif and his English precursors;
   translated from the German.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

LONGMAN, WILLIAM.
   History of the life and times of Edward III.
   London: Longmans. 1869.

MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
   Lives of English popular leaders in the Middle Ages.
   London: H. S. King, 1872-5. 2 volumes.

      Stephen Langton, Wat Tyler, John Ball and Sir John
      Oldcastle are the subjects.

NORGATE, KATE.
   England under the Angevin kings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

      "In point of historical scholarship it is rarely indeed
      that Miss Norgate gives anything to complain of. What
      strikes us before all things is her firm grasp of facts and
      authorities. … It is a sterling book, one which places its
      writer very high indeed in the ranks of real scholars."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Review (English History Review, October., 1887)._

OMAN, CHARLES W.
   Warwick, the Kingmaker.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

      An excellent small book on the Wars of the Roses, written
      for a series entitled, "English Men of Action."

PALGRAVE, Sir FRANCIS.
   History of Normandy and England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1851 and 1878. 4 volumes.

      A work which can almost be described as the history of
      Western Europe from the eighth to the end of the eleventh
      century, viewed especially in its connection with the
      movements and settlements of the Northmen.

   History of the Anglo Saxons.
   London: W. Tegg.

      Written from studies made more than sixty years ago, and
      subject now to considerable modification; but it is still
      valuable, and no later work has quite replaced it.

   The rise and progress of the English Commonwealth:
   Anglo-Saxon period.
   London: Murray. 1831. 2 volumes.

      See note to Kemble's "Saxons in England," above.

PASTON LETTERS, THE; 1422-1509;
   a new edition, edited by James Gairdner.
   London: [E. Arber.] 1872. 3 volumes.

      "A collection of family letters written during the Wars of
      the Roses, which are now commonly known as the 'Paston
      Letters,' because most of them were written by or to
      particular persons of the family of Paston in Norfolk. …
      Mr. Gardner's Introduction of 130 closely printed pages to
      the first volume, 50 to the second, and 60 to the third, is
      a book in itself, giving a clear record of the public and
      private life of England from 1422 to 1509, so far as they
      are illustrated by, or illustrate, the 'Paston letters.'"
         _H. Morley,
         English Writers,
         volume 6, pages 253 and 261._

PAULI, R.
   Life of Alfred the Great;
   translated from the German by B. Thorpe.
   London: Bohn. 1853.

PEARSON, CHARLES H.
   History of England during the Early and Middle Ages.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1867. 2 volumes.

      A work of ability which presents views of early English
      history considerably antagonistic to those of Stubbs,
      Freeman and Green, especially concerning the
      destructiveness of the Saxon conquest and the completeness
      of the break in institutional history which that event
      produced; also touching the results of the Norman conquest.

PROTHERO, GEORGE W.
   Life of Simon De Montfort.
   London: Longmans. 1877.

RAMSAY, Sir JAMES H.
   Lancaster and York:
   a century of English history (A. D.1399-1485).
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892. 2 volumes.

      "'Lancaster and York' is essentially a book of reference,
      to be at the elbow of every careful student who would know
      the honest fact, or would be saved indefinite quest through
      a score of records. … We must admit that it is not a
      readable book."
         _G. Gregory Smith.
         Review (Academy, October 29, 1892)._

{3893}

RHYS, J.
   Celtic Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

      A small book, but probably the best that can be found
      on the subject.

ROUND, J. H.
   Geoffrey de Mandeville; a study of the Anarchy.
   London: Longmans. 1892.

      Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, played a
      dishonorable but important part in the strife for the
      English crown between the Empress Matilda and Stephen of
      Blois. He is used by Mr. Round as merely a central figure
      in the most thorough study that has been made of that
      distressing time of anarchy.

ROWLEY, JAMES.
   The rise of the People and the growth of Parliament, 1215-1485.
   London: Longmans.

      An interesting outline of the period in which the popular
      institutions of England were rooted. It is one of the
      little volumes in the series of the "Epochs of English
      History."

SCARTH, H. M.
   Roman Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

SKENE, W. F.
   Celtic Scotland.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1876. 3 volumes.

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Constitutional history of England
   in its origin and development.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1874-7. 3 volumes.

      "In along and careful study of the Bishop of Chester's
      writings I will not say that I have always agreed with
      every inference that he has drawn from his evidence; but I
      can say that I have never found a flaw in the statement of
      his evidence. … After five-and-thirty years' knowledge of
      him and his works, I can say without fear that he is the
      one man among living scholars to whom one may most freely
      go as to an oracle, that we may feel more sure with him
      than with any other that in his answer we carry away words
      of truth which he must be rash indeed who calls in
      question."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of historical study, page 10._

   The Early Plantagenets.
   London: Longmans. 1877.

      A little volume in the series of "Epochs of Modern History,"
      contributed by one of the master-historians.

WARBURTON, W.
   Edward the Third.
   London: Longmans.

      In the series of the "Epochs of Modern History."

WRIGHT, THOMAS.
   The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon:
   a history of the early inhabitants of Britain.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1875.

      Particularly a good summary of what is known of the
      Celtic and Roman periods.

   History of domestic manners and sentiments in England
   during the Middle Ages.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1862.

WYLIE, JAMES HAMILTON.
   History of England under Henry IV.
   London: Longmans. 1881-94.
   2 volumes. (a third volume to come).

      An elaborate and painstaking investigation of the period,
      producing a useful but not an interesting work.


GREAT BRITAIN: MODERN.

AIRY, OSMUND.
   The English restoration and Louis XIV.;
   from the Peace of Westphalia to the Peace of Nimwegen.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889.

ANSON, Sir W. R.
   Law and custom of the Constitution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.

BACON, FRANCIS, Lord.
   History of the reign of Henry VII.
   [Works, edited by Spedding, et al., volume 6.]
   London: Longmans, 1857-62.

BAGEHOT, WALTER.
   The English Constitution.
   London: Chapman & Hall.

      Not a history of the English constitution, but an essay
      in exposition and elucidation of its principles and its
      practical working. The book is one of the classics of
      political literature.

BAYNE, PETER.
   The chief actors in the Puritan Revolution; 2d edition.
   London: J. Clarke & Co. 1879.

BOURNE, H, R. FOX.
   English seamen under the Tudors.
   London: R. Bentley. 1868. 2 volumes.

   Sir Philip Sidney.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.
   London: T. F. Unwin.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

BOUTMY, ÉMILE.
   The English Constitution;
   translated from the French,
   with an introduction by Sir Fredrick Pollock.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

BREWER, J. S.
   The reign of Henry VIII. from his accession to
   the death of Wolsey.
   London: J. Murray. 1884. 2 volumes.

      This work "consists of four different treatises, which were
      originally published as prefaces to the four volumes of
      'Letters an Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII.,' edited by
      Professor Brewer for the Master of the Rolls. … They do not
      … contain a detailed systematic narrative of all that was
      done in the times of which they treat; but they certainly
      do contain a review of the reign of Henry VIII. down to the
      death of Wolsey, as clear sighted as it is comprehensive,
      drawn from the latest sources of information, carefully
      collected and arranged by the author himself."
         _Preface, by James Gairdner._

BRIDGET, T. E.
   Life and writings of Sir Thomas More.
   London: Burns & Oates; 1891.

BURKE, S. HUBERT.
   Historical portraits of the Tudor dynasty and
   the Reformation period.
   London: J. Hodges. 1879-83. 4 volumes.

      An interesting, view of Tudor times and people by a well
      instructed and fairly candid Roman Catholic student.

BURNET, Bishop.
   History of his own time.
   London: W. Smith. 1839. 2 volumes.

BURTON, THOMAS [member in the Parliaments
of Oliver and Richard Cromwell from 1656 to 1659].
   Diary;
   edited by J. T. Rutt.
   London: H. Colburn. 1828. 4 volumes.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, with elucidations.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 5 volumes.
CHAMBERS, ROBERT.
   History of the rebellion of 1745-6.
   Edinburgh 1847.

CHARLES I.
   Letters to Queen Henrietta Maria;
   edited by 'J. Bruce.
   London: Camden Society 1856.

CLARENDON, EDWARD HYDE, Earl of.
   History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England.
   Oxford. 1849. 7 volumes.

      "What is unique in his case is the value of his facts, as
      contrasted with, nay as demonstrating, the inconsequence of
      his reasonings. Other historians, when they go wrong, can
      be refuted only by reference to other authorities;
      Clarendon can be answered out of his own lips."
         _P. Bayne,
         Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
         page 475._

COOKE, GEORGE W.
   History of Party, from the rise of the Whig and Tory factions,
   in the reign of Charles II., to the passing of the Reform Bill.
   London: J. Macrone. 1836. 2 volumes.

CORDERY, B. MERITON, and J. S. PHILLPOTTS.
   King and Commonwealth; a history of Charles I.
   and the great rebellion.
   London: Seeley & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. H. Coates & Co.

      The principal author of this bit of compact, careful
      historical writing is now better known as Mrs. Bertha M.
      Gardiner, wife of the historian, Samuel Rawson Gardiner.

CREIGHTON, LOUISE.
   Life of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.
   London: Rivingtons. 1879.

   Life of Sir Walter Raleigh.
   London: Rivingtons. 1877.

DICEY, A. V.
   Lectures introductory to the study
   of the law of the Constitution.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1885.

EPOCHS OF ENGLISH HISTORY.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 8 volumes or 1 volume.

      Early England to the Norman Conquest; by F. York Powell.

      England a Continental Power from the Conquest
      to the Great Charter, 1055-1215; by Mrs. M. Creighton.

      The rise of the People and the growth of Parliament,
      from the Great Charter to the accession of Henry VII.,
      1215-1485; by James Rowley.

      The Tudors and the Reformation, 1485—1603,
      by Rt. Rev. M. Creighton

      The struggle against absolute Monarchy 1603-1088;
      by Mrs. S. R. Gardiner.

      The settlement of the Constitution, 1689-1781:
      by James Rowley.

      England during the American and European wars, 1763—1820;
      by O. W. Tancock.

      Modern England, 1820-1885; by Oscar Browning.

FORSTER, JOHN.
   Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England.
   London: Longmans. 1840. 7 volumes.

      Biographies of Eliot, Strafford, Pym, Hampden, Vane,
      Marten, Cromwell. It is now known that the biography of
      Strafford was written for Forster by Robert Browning, and
      it has been separately published as Browning's work. "Mr.
      Forster … was not only an historical writer, but his time
      and energies were also largely absorbed in the journalism
      of the Whig party of his day, and his treatment of
      important questions too often betrays the influence of a
      strong feeling of partisanship."
         _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 354._

FROUDE, J. A.
   History of England, from the fall of Wolsey
   to the death of Elizabeth.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner & Co. 12 volumes.

      “The well-known work of Mr. Fronde abounds with graphic
      descriptions accompanied by much admirable and just
      criticism. In its composition he was largely aided by his
      researches among the archives at Simancas, collections
      which at that time had been very imperfectly investigated.
      Unfortunately, the conception he has formed of the
      character and conduct of Henry VIII. is of so strange and
      unreal a kind as to deprive this portion of his History of
      much of its value. The reign of Edward VI. is described
      with more impartiality, but the policy of Somerset is
      somewhat harshly judged. … The volumes that relate to the
      reign of Elizabeth are the most valuable part of the work."
         _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, 
         page 325._

   Life and times of Thomas Becket.
   New York: C. Scribner.

GARDINER, S. R.
   The first two Stuarts and the Puritan revolution, 1603-1660.
   London: Longmans.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

   History of England from the accession of James I. to
   the outbreak of the civil war, 1603-1642.
   London: Longmans. 1883-4. 10 volumes.

   History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649.
   London: Longmans. 1886-94. 3 volumes.

{3894}

GARDINER, S. R.
   History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1894. volume 1.

   editor, The constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

GASQUET, FRANCIS AIDAN.
   Henry VIII. and the English monasteries.
   London: J. Hodges. 1888. 2 volumes.

      An investigation of facts connected with the suppression
      of the monasteries, by a learned Roman Catholic.

GEIKIE, C.
   The English Reformation.
   London: Strahan & Co. 1879.

GEORGE III. Correspondence with Lord North, from 1768 to 1783.
   London: J. Murray. 1867. 2 volumes.

GREVILLE, CHARLES C. F.
   Memoirs: a journal of the reigns of George IV., William IV.,
   and Victoria.
   London: Longmans. 1874-88.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 8 volumes.

      The journal is brought to a close in the year 1860.

GUIZOT, F. P.
   History of Richard Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II.;
   translated by A. R. Scoble.
   London: R. Bentley's Sons. 1856. 2 volumes.

   History of the English revolution of 1640, commonly
   called the great rebellion;
   translated by William Hazlitt.
   London: H. Bohn.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846. 2 volumes.

   Monk: or the fall of the Republic and the restoration
   of the Monarchy in England in 1660;
   translated by A. R. Scoble.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1866.

HALE, E.
   The fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe from 1678 to 1697.
   London: Longmans. 1876.

      A small book in the series entitled
      "Epochs of Modern History."

HALL, HUBERT.
   Society in the Elizabethan Age.
   London: Sonnenschein & Co. 1887.

HALLAM, HENRY.
   Constitutional history of England, from the accession
   of Henry VII. to the death of George II.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.

HAMILTON, J. A.
   Life of Daniel O'Connell.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1888.

HEATON, WILLIAM.
   The three reforms of Parliament: a history, 1830-1885.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1885.

HERBERT OF CHERBURY, EDWARD, Lord.
   History of England under Henry VIII.
   London: A. Herbert. 1870.

HOSMER, JAMES K.
   Life of Young Sir Henry Vane, Governor of Massachusetts Bay
   and leader of the Long Parliament.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

      A careful study from original sources of the political
      career of Sir Henry Vane on both sides of the sea.

HUGHES, THOMAS.
   Alfred the Great.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

HUTCHINSON, LUCY.
   Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson:
   revised, with additional notes, by C. H. Firth.
   London: Nimmo. 1885.

      "Hutchinson represented Nottinghamshire in the Long
      Parliament, taking the parliamentary side; and the
      narrative throws much light on the conduct of the
      committees through which Parliament worked, and the
      machinery whereby it maintained its authority over the
      whole kingdom."
         _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 318._

JEPHSON, HENRY.
   The Platform: its rise and progress.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      "In 1820 we find the word 'platform' used as describing the
      place from which the speakers addressed the meeting, and
      gradually, as we advanced into the present century, the
      word 'platform' by a perfectly simple and natural
      transition, came into general use and acceptation, not
      merely in the technical sense, as the place from which the
      Speech was made, but as descriptive of the spoken
      expression of public opinion outside Parliament."
         _H. Jephson, The Platform,
         its rise and progress, introduction._

LECKY, W. E. H.
   History of England in the 18th century.
   London: Longmans. 1878-87.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878-90. 8 volumes.

      "Mr. Lecky's book ought to have been entitled 'Essays on
      the Growth of the British Empire during the Eighteenth
      Century.' … He has seized more clearly than most writers
      the fruitful idea that the importance of the eighteenth
      century in English history lies in the transformation of
      England into the British Empire, and further, that no part
      of British history can be understood unless the development
      of the Empire be regarded as a whole."
         A. V. Dicey,
         Lecky's History
         (Nation, April 18, 1878, page 261).

LETTERS AND PAPERS, foreign and domestic, of the
reign of Henry VIII., preserved in the Public Records
Office, the British Museum and elsewhere in
England;
   arranged and catalogued by J. S. Brewer
   [after his death by James Gairdner],
   under the direction of the Master of the Rolls.
   London: Longmans. 1862-93. 12 volumes in 18.

LYALL, Sir ALFRED.
   Warren Hastings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

McCARTHY, JUSTIN.
   The epoch of Reform, 1830-1850.,
   London: Longmans. 1882.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

   History of our own times, from the accession of
   Queen Victoria to the Berlin Congress.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1879. 4 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880. 2 volumes.

      A most readable narrative of recent history: colored
      by the national and partisan prejudices of the writer,
      as every contemporary writing of history is sure to be;
      but manifestly honest in intention, and a praiseworthy
      piece of work.

MACKINTOSH, Sir JAMES.
   History of the Revolution in England in 1688:
   comprising a view of the reign of James II.;
   completed, to the settlement of the crown, by the editor.

      "Almost all the distinguished writers who have treated of
      English history are advocates. Mr. Hallam and Sir James
      Mackintosh alone are entitled to be called judges. But the
      extreme austerity of Mr. Hallam takes away something from
      the pleasure of reading his learned, eloquent and judicious
      writings. He is a judge, but a hanging judge, the Page or
      Buller of the High Court of Literary Justice. His black cap
      is in constant requisition. … Sir James, perhaps, erred a
      little on the other side. He liked a maiden assize and came
      away with white gloves, after sitting in judgment on
      batches of the most notorious offenders."
         _Lord Macaulay, Sir James Mackintosh (Essays)._

MAHON, Lord (afterwards Earl Stanhope).
   History of England, comprising the reign of Queen Anne
   until the Peace of Utrecht, 1701-1713.
   London: J. Murray. 1870.

   History of England from the Peace of Utrecht [1713]
   to the Peace of Versailles [1783].
   London: J. Murray. 7 volumes.

      "Though the volumes of Lord Mahon are distinguished by
      research and varied learning, by a spirit at once candid,
      patient, and investigating—though his lordship possesses
      considerable ability as a narrator, and is a master of a
      style at once easy, flowing, and thoroughly English, yet
      with all his calm discrimination, and all his spirit of
      truth and justice, there 18 something of the leaven of old
      Toryism about his tone of thought."
         _Fraser's Magazine, volume 51, page 128._

   Life of William Pitt. 2d edition.
   London: J. Murray. 1862. 4 volumes.

MALLESON, Colonel G. B.
   Lord Clive.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1893.

MARTINEAU, HARRIET.
   History of England, A. D. 1800-1815; being an introduction
   to the history of the peace.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1878.

   History of the Thirty Years' Peace, A. D. 1816-1846.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877. 4 volumes.

      A work which is exceedingly heavy reading, and which does
      not at all sustain the literary reputation of Miss
      Martineau. It gives, however, the most complete account we
      have of the thirty years following the Napoleonic wars.

MASSEY, WILLIAM.
   History of England during the reign of George III.
   2d edition, revised and corrected.
   London: Longmans. 1865. 4 volumes.

      "Mr. Massey is clear, succinct and nervous. He is a careful
      and conscientious inquirer, who searches into original and
      contemporary documents, and who does not take facts or
      adopt opinions at second hand. Mr. Massey is not a decided
      party man, though a Liberal in the best sense of the word."
         _Fraser's Magazine,
         volume 51, page 144._

      "The work is dispassionate and impartial in its tone."
         _J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the Study of English History,
         part 2, page 394._

MASSON, DAVID.
   Life of John Milton, narrated in connection with the
   political, ecclesiastical and literary history of his time.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1858-80. 6 volumes and index.

      "Professor Masson's 'Life of Milton' is an elaborate and
      often highly interesting study of all the contemporary
      movements—religious, political, and social—which may be
      supposed to have influenced the poet's genius or to have
      moulded the national history."
         _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History,
         page 336._

MAY, THOMAS ERSKINE.
   Constitutional history of England since the accession
   of George III., 1760-1860.
   London: Longmans. 1861-2.
   Boston: Crosby & Nichols. 2 volumes.

      A continuation of Hallam's "Constitutional History."

MIGNET, F. A.
   History of Mary, Queen of Scots.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1887.

MOBERLY, C. E.
   The early Tudors: Henry VII.; Henry VIII.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

      A small book in the series entitled
      "Epochs of Modern History."

MOLESWORTH, WILLIAM NASSAU.
   History of England from 1830 to 1874.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1874. 3 volumes.

MORLEY, JOHN.
   Edmund Burke: a historical study.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867.

{3895}

MORLEY, JOHN.
   Life of Richard Cobden.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1881.

      A fine piece of biographical writing and the best account
      existing, of the Anti-Corn-Law League and the struggle for
      free trade in England.

MORRIS, EDWARD E.
   The age of Anne.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1877.

   The early Hanoverians.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

NAPIER, MARK.
   Montrose and the Covenanters.
   London: J. Duncan. 1838. 2 volumes.

PAUL, ALEXANDER.
   History of reform; a record of the struggle for the
   representation of the people in Parliament. 2d edition.
   London: Routledge & Sons. 1884.

PEPYS, SAMUEL.
   Diary, completely transcribed by the late Rev. Mynors Bright,
   with Lord Braybrooke's notes;
   edited with additions by H.B. Wheatley.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1893. 3 volumes.

PERRY, GEORGE G.
   History of the Reformation in England.
   London: Longmans. 1886.

PORRITT, EDWARD.
   The Englishman at home; his responsibilities and privileges.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1893.

PRIME MINISTERS OF QUEEN VICTORIA;
   edited by Stuart J. Reid.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1890.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

      Lord Beaconsfield; by J. A. Froude.
      Lord Melbourne; by Henry Dunckley.
      Sir Robert Peel; by Justin McCarthy.
      Gladstone; by G. W. E. Russell.
      Marquis of Salisbury; by H. D. Traill.
      Viscount Palmerston; by the Marquis of Lorne.
      The Earl of Derby; by George Saintsbury.
      The Earl of Aberdeen; by Sir A. Gordon.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   History of England, principally in the 17th century;
   translated from the German.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1875. 6 volumes.

      The broadest and most philosophical study that has been
      made of English history in the important period from the
      Reformation to the Revolution.

SEELEY, J. R.
   The expansion of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

      A comprehensive and highly suggestive survey of the
      colonial system of England and of her historical relations
      to the vast dependent empire that has been organized around
      her.

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   Three English statesmen; a course of lectures on the
   political history of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

      The three English statesmen discussed are Pym,
      Cromwell and Pitt.

SMITH, R. BOSWORTH.
   Life of Lord Lawrence.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co; 1883. 2 volumes.

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Life of Nelson.
   London: J. Murray.

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Life of Wesley: the rise and progress of Methodism.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1864.

STEBBING, W.
   Sir Walter Raleigh: a biography.
   Oxford. 1891.

SYDNEY, WILLIAM CONNOR.
   England and the English in the 18th century.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

THACKERAY, W. M.
   The four Georges: sketches of manners, morals,
   court and town life.
   London: Smith & Elder. 1861.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

THORNBURY, G. W.
   Shakespeare's England;
   or sketches of our social history in the reign of Elizabeth.
   London: Longmans. 1856. 2 volumes.

TODD, ALPHEUS.
   Parliamentary government in England;
   its origin, development and practical operation;
   new edition, abridged and revised by Spencer Walpole.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      A work which has grown steadily in reputation
      since it first appeared.

TREVELYAN, GEORGE OTTO.
   Early history of Charles James Fox.
   London: Longmans. 1880.

TULLOCH, JOHN.
   English Puritanism and its Leaders.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons.

      Biographical essays on Cromwell, Milton, Baxter and Bunyan.

TWO CENTURIES OF IRISH HISTORY; with introduction by James Bryce.
   London: K. Paul & Co. 1888.

WAITE, ROSAMUND.
   Life of the Duke of Wellington.
   London: Rivingtons. 1878.

WAKELING, G. H.
   King and Parliament (A. D. 1603-1714).
   London: Blackie & Son. 1894.

      One of a promising series of small books lately undertaken,
      entitled "Oxford Manuals of English History."

WALPOLE, SPENCER.
   History of England from the conclusion of the great war in 1815.
   London: Longmans. 1878-86. 5 volumes.

      "His treatment does not exhibit any of the higher powers of
      philosophic generalisation; but his research is extensive;
      and the commercial, economic, and financial questions which
      now begin to enter more largely than ever into the
      political history of the nation, are treated with sound
      judgment and conspicuous moderation."
         _S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 403._

WOLSELEY, G. J., Viscount.
   Life of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough,
   to the accession of Queen Anne.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1894. 2 volumes.

WRIGHT, THOMAS, editor.
   Queen Elizabeth and her times: a series of original letters.
   London: H. Colburn. 1838. 2 volumes.

      Letters selected from the unpublished private
      correspondence of the Lord Treasurer Burghley, the Earl of
      Leicester, and other distinguished persons of the time.


GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

ARNDT, E. M.
   Werke. Leipzig. 1892-.
   Geist der Zeit. Erinnerungen, etc.

      All-important for age of Napoleon.

ARNETH, A. V.
   Geschichte Maria Theresias.
   Wien. 1863-79. 10 volumes.

BAUMGARTEN, H.
   Geschichte Karls V. volumes 1-8.
   Stuttgart. 1885-92.

      Extends only to 1639.

BENEDETTI, V., Comte.
   Ma Mission en Prusse.
   Paris. 1871.

BEUST, FRIEDRICH F., Count von.
   Memoirs [1830-/ 1885].
   London: Remington & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

      The memoirs of a statesman who bore the leading part in the
      reconstruction and reconstitution of the Austrian empire
      after the Seven Weeks War of 1866 are necessarily important
      and interesting.

BEZOLD, F. VON.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Reformation.
   Berlin. 1887-90.

      Theil von Oncken, Allgem. gesch. in Einzeldarstellungen.
      Highly praised.

BIEDERMANN, K.
   Dreissig jahre Deutscher geschichte;
   von der Thronbesteigung Friedrich Wilhelms IV
   bis zur aufrichtung des neuen Deutschen Kaiserthums.
   Breslau. 1881-2. 2 volumes.

   Mein Leben und ein Stück Zeitgeschichte.
   Breslau. 1886-7. 2 volumes.

BISMARCK, Furst.
   Gesammelte werke: briefe, reden und aktenstücke;
   herausg. von B. Walden. 5 volumes.
   Berlin. 1892.
   Briefe. Eb. 1892.

   Politische reden. Historisch-kritische gesammtausgabe
   besorgt von H. Kohl.
   Stuttgart. 1892-4. 9 volumes.

BLUM, Dr. Hans.
   Das Deutsche Reich zur zeit Bismarcks;
   politische geschichte von 1871 bis 1890.
   Leipzig und Wien. 1893. volumes 1-2.

BOYEN, HERMANN V.
   Erinnerungen aus dem Leben.
   Herausgegeben von F. Nippold.
   Leipzig. 1889-90.

      Important for the war of Liberation.

BRACE, CHARLES LORING.
   Hungary in 1851.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1852.

BRACKENBURY, Colonel C. B.
   Frederick the Great.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

      A succinct, clear, well studied military history.

BROGLIE, JACQUES V. A., Duc de.
   Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa;
   translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

      "Piquant, readable, and full of interesting revelations."
         _Herbert Tuttle, Preface to
         "History of Prussia under Frederick the Great."_

BROSIEN, H.
   Preussische geschichte: Abth. 1.
   Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg im Mittelalter.
   Leipzig. 1887.

      Das wissen der gegen wart.

BUCHWALD, G. V.
   Deutsches gesellschaftsleben im endenden Mittelalter.
   Kiel. 1885-7. 2 volumes.

BULLE, C.
   Geschichte der neuesten zeit, 1815-1871.
   Leipzig. 1886'-7. 4 volumes.

BUNSEN, CH. K. J., Freiherr v.
   Aus seinen Briefen und nach eigener Erinnerung geschildert,
   von seiner Witwe. 3 auf., vermehrt von F. Nippold.
   Leipzig. 1868-71. 3 volumes.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   History of Friedrich II. of Prussia.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

      See note to Tuttle's "History of Prussia." below.

COXE, WILLIAM.
   History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.

      "Besides being a work of real intrinsic merit, it has the
      greater distinction of being the only complete history of
      the House of Austria accessible to the reader of English."
         _C. K. Adams. Manual of Historical Literature,
         3d edition; page 283._

{3896}

DAHLMANN-WAITZ.
   Quellenkunde der Deutschen geschichte.
   Gottingen. 1894.

      6,550 titles.

DEBIDOUR, A.
   Histoire diplomatique de l'Europe
   depuis l'ouverture du congrès de Vienne jusqu' à
   la clôture du congrès de Berlin (1814-1878).
   Paris. 1891. volumes 1-2.

DELBRÜCK, H.
   Das Leben des Feldmarshalls Grafen Neithardt von Gneisenau.
   Berlin. 1882. 2 volumes.

DICEY, EDWARD.
   The battlefields of 1866.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1866.

   The campaign [of 1866] in Germany.
   (Macmillan's Magazine, 14:386. 1866.)

DÖLLINGER, J. V.
   Das Papstthum.
   München: 1892.

   Briefe und Erklärungen über die Vatikanischen Dekrete, 1869-87.
   Herausg. von F. H. Reusch.
   Münch. 1890.

DROYSEN, G.
   Gustav Adolf.
   Leipzig. 1869-70. 2 volumes.

      Well written and by a great authority.

DROYSEN, J. G.
   Das Leben des Feldmarshalls Grafen Yorck von Wartenburg.
   9 auf. Berlin. 1884. 2 volumes.

DUNHAM, S. A.
   History of the Germanic empire.
   London: Longmans. 1834. 3 volumes.

EGELHAAF, G.
   Deutsche Geschichte im zeitalter der Reformation.
   Berlin. 1885.

      A prize work.

EHERRIER, C. DE.
   Histoire de la lutte des papes et des
   empereurs de la maison de Souabe;
   Paris. 1858-9. 3 volumes.

ERDMANNSDÖRFFER, B.
   Deutsche Geschichte vom Westphälischen Frieden bis zum
   Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des grossen, 1648-1740.
   Berlin. 1892-4. 2 volumes.

      Theil von Oncken, Allgem. gesch.

FORBES, ARCHIBALD.
   William of Germany.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1888.

FORSTER, FLORENCE. A.
   Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir;
   with a preface by M. E. Grant Duff.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

FREDERIC, HAROLD.
   The young emperor, William II. of Germany.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

FREDERICK II. (called the Great.)
   History of my own times [1740-1745].
   (Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. volume 1.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.).

FREYTAG,
   G. Bilder aus der Deutschen Vergangenheit.
   Leipzig. 18th edition. 1892. 5 volumes.

      Excellent as history and as literature.

GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
   The Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648.
   (Epochs of history.)
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1876.

GERMANY, FEDERAL. CONSTITUTION OF;
   with an historical introduction;
   translated from the German.
   Philadelphia 1890.

      Published in the Political Economy and Public Law Series of
      the University of Pennsylvania.

GERVINUS, G. G.
   Geschichte des XIX Jahrhunderts
   seit den Wiener Verträgen.
   Leipzig. 1855-66. 8 volumes.

GIESEBRECHT, W. v.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Kaizerzeit;
   Braunschweig u. Leipzig.

      Five editions, last one in 1888.
      Extends from 911 to c. 1180.

GINDELY, ANTON.
   History of the Thirty Years' War;
   translated by A. Ten Brook.
   London: R. Bentley & Sons. 1884.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

GODKIN, EDWIN L.
   History of Hungary and the Magyars.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1853.

GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.
   My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9;
   translated.
   London: D. Bogue.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1852.

GÖTZ VON BERLICHINGEN.
   Eigne Lebensbeschreibung.
   In Götz Graf von Berlichingen-Rossach:
   geschichte des Ritters G. v. B. und seiner Familie.
   Leipzig. 1861.

      (Also in Reclam library.)

GOULD, S. BARING.
   The story of Germany.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

      In the series entitled "Story of the Nations."

HALLWICH, H.
   Wallenstein's Ende: ungedruckte Briefe und Akten.
   Leipzig. 1879. 2 volumes.

HAÜSSER, L.
   Deutsche geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des grossen bis zur
   gründung des Deutschen Bundes.
      Berlin. 1869. 4 volumes.

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.
   A history of Germany in the Middle Ages.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1894.

      This is the only book which brings to English readers the
      latest fruits of the thorough-going German investigation of
      German mediæval history.

HOFER, ANDREW.
   Memoirs of the life of; containing an account of the
   transactions in the Tyrol, 1809;
   from the German, by C. H. Hall.
   London: J. Murray. 1820.

HOZIER, H. M.
   The Seven Weeks' War.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867. 2 volumes.

HUDSON, E. H.
   The life and times of Louisa, Queen of Prussia.
   London: Hatchards. 2 volumes.

JASTROW, I.
   Geschichte des Deutschen Einheitstraums und seiner Erfüllung.
   Berlin. 1891.

      A prize essay.

KLAPKA., General GEORGE.
   Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary;
   translated by O. Wenckstern.
   London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.

KOSER, R.
   Friedrich der grosse als Kronprinz.
   Stuttgart. 1886.

   König Friedrich der grosse. volumes 1. 1893. Bibl. D. G.

      Greatest modern authority on Frederick.

KÖSTLIN, J.
   Luthers Leben.
   Leipzig. 1882.

LENZ, M.
   Martin Luther.
   Berlin. 1883.

      Short, scholarly and well written.

KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
   The growth of German unity,
   London: David Nutt. 1892.

KUGLER, B.
   Wallenstein.
   Leipzig. 1884.

      Der Neue Plutarch.

LAMPRECHT, K.
   Deutsche geschichte.
   Berlin. 1891. volumes 1-5.

      Extends as yet to the Reformation.

LEGER, LOUIS.
   History of Austro-Hungary;
   translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

LEHMANN, M.
   Scharnhorst.
   Leipzig. 1886-7.

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
   History of Germany.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1874.

      Based on Muller's History of the German People.

LIPPERT J.
   Deutsche Sittengeschichte.
   Leipzig. 1889. 3 volumes.

      Das Wissen der gegenwart.

LÖHER, F. V.
   Kulturgeschichte der Deutschen im Mittelalter.
   Münich. 1891-4. 3 volumes.

LONGMAN, F. W.
   Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War.
   London:. Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1881.

LOWE, CHARLES.
   Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

MACAULAY, Lord.
   Frederick the Great. [Essays.]
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

      This fascinating essay does not in all matters represent
      the facts and the personages of the story as less brilliant
      but more careful historians of the present day depict them.
      [sic.]

MALET, Sir ALEXANDER.
   The overthrow of the Germanic confederation, 1866.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1870.

MALLESON, Colonel G. B.
   Battle-fields of Germany.
   London: V. H. Allen & Co. 1884.

   Life of Prince Metternich.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &; Co. 1888.

   Loudon [Austrian field-marshal, 1743-1790].
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.

   The refounding of the German empire, 1848-1871.
   London, Seeley & Co. 1893.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

MAURENBRECHER, W.
    Gründung des Deutschen Reichs, 1859-1871,
    Leipzig. 1892.

MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
   Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy,
   Austria-Hungary, and Germany.
   London: George Bell and Sons. 1887.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

MAXIMILIEN I. et MARGUERITE D' AUTRICHE.
   Correspondence, 1507-19.
   Paris: A. G. LeGlay. 1839. 2 volumes.

MAZADE, CH. DE.
   Un chancelier d' ancien régime.
   Le règne diplomatique de Metternich.
   Paris. 1889.

MENZEL, WOLFGANZ.
   History of Germany;
   translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.

METTERNICH, Prince.
   Memoirs [1773-1835];
   translated by Mrs. Napier.
   London: Bentley & Son. 1880.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

{3897}

MITCHELL, Lieutenant-Colonel J.
   Life of Wallenstein.
   London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.

MOLTKE, HELMUTH, Graf von.
   Gesammelte Schriften und Denkwürdigkeiten.
   Berlin. 1891-2. 7 volumes.

   Essays, speeches and memoirs;
   translated from the German.
   New York; Harper & Bros. 1893.

MORRIS, WILLIAM O'CONNOR.
   Moltke: a biographical and critical study.
   London; Ward & Downey. 1894.

MÜLLER, W.
   Field Marshal Count Moltke, 1800-1878;
   translated from the German.
   London: Sonnenschein & Co. 1870.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   Lebensnachrichten über N. Herausg. von D. Hensler.
   Hamburg. 1838-9. 3 volumes.

ONCKEN, W.
   Das Zeitalter der Revolution, des Kaiserreiches
   und der Befreiungskriege.
   Berlin. 1881-87. 2 volumes.

   Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm.
   Berlin. 1890-02. 2 volumes.

      Both in Oncken, Allg-geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria;
   translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
   London: Longmans. 1862.

      An essay on the State of Germany immediately after
      the Reformation.

   Geschichte Wallensteins. 4 auf.
   Leipzig. 1880.

   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514;
   translated by Philip A. Ashworth.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.

   History of the reformation in Germany;
   translated by Sarah Austin.
   London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and history of
   Prussia during the 17th and 18th centuries;
   translated by Sir A. and Lady Duff Gordon.
   London: J. Murray. 1849. 3 volumes.

   Weltgeschichte, herausg. von A. Dove u. G. Winter.
   Leipzig. 1886-8. 9 volumes.

      Extends to 15th century.

SCHACK, A. F. Graf von.
   Ein halbes Jahrhundert Lebenserinnerungen.
   Stuttgart. 1880.

SCHERER, W.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Literatur.
   Berlin. 1891.

SCHILLER, FREDERICK.
   History of the Thirty Years' War;
   [also] History of the revolt of the Netherlands
   to the confederacy of the Gueux;
   translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn.

SEELEY, J. R.
   Life and times of Stein,
   or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic age.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1878. 3 volumes.

      The only full, clear, broadly studied account that we have
      in the English language of the remarkable work of national
      development, by education and organization, that was begun
      in Prussia after her prostration by Napoleon, and which
      made her the nucleus of the Germanic consolidation that has
      taken place in our own time.

SÉGUR, L. P.
   History of the reign of Frederic William II., King of Prussia;
   translated from the French.
   London: Longmans. 1801. 3 volumes.

SIME, JAMES.
   History of Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

      An excellent brief sketch of German history by one who had
      been gathering material, during many years, for a larger
      work, but who died recently without fulfilling his purpose.

SIMON, E.
   Histoire du Prince de Bismarck (1847-1887).
   Paris. 1887.

   L'empereur Guillaume et son règne.
   Paris. 1886.

   L'empereur Frederic.
   Paris. 1888.

   L'empereur Guillaume II et la première année de son règne.
   Paris. 1880.

   Emperor William and his reign;
   translated from the French.
   London: Remington & Co. 1886. 2 volumes.

SMITH, THOMAS.
   Arminius: a history of the German people and of their customs
   from the days of Julius Cæsar to the time of Charlemagne.
   London: J. Blackwood & Co. 1861.

STILES, WILLIAM. H.
   Austria in 1848-49.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1852-3. 2 volumes.

STOCKMAR, FRH. v.
   Denkwürdigkeiten.
   Braunschweig. 1872.

STOFFEL, Colonel Baron.
   Military reports addressed to the French war minister, 1800-70:
   translated at the [English] war office, by Captain Home.
   London: 1873.

      These are the reports on the organization and efficiency of
      the Prussian army which might have deterred France from her
      insane declaration of war in 1870, and saved her from her
      great humiliation, it Napoleon III. and his reckless
      ministers had given attention to them.

STRAUSS, G. L. M.
   Men who have made the new German empire.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1875. 2 volumes.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   The founding of the German empire, by William I.;
   translated by M. L. Perrin.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1890—4. 5 volumes.

SZABAD, EMERIC.
   Hungary, past and present.
   Edinburg: A. & C. Black. 1854.

TAYLOR, BAYARD.
   School history of Germany.
   New York: Appleton & Co. 1874.

      A compilation from David Müller's "History of the German
      People" more condensed than that of Charlton T. Lewis.

TESTA, GIOVANNI B.
   History of the war of Frederick I. against the communes
   of Lombardy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1877.

TREITSCHKE, H. v.
   Deutsche Geschichte im 19 Jahrhundert.
   Leipzig. 1870-95. 5 volumes.

      Extends as yet to 1847.

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Gustavus Adolphus in Germany. 2d edition.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1872.

      Lectures, two only of which were published in 1865.

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
   Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the
   dissolution of the empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1898.

TUTTLE, HERBERT.
   Brief biographies: German political leaders.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons 1876.

      Prince Bismarck;
      Dr. Falk;
      President Delbrück;
      Herr Camphausen;
      Prince Hohenlohe;
      Count von Arnim;
      Herr von Bennigsen;
      Dr. Simson;
      Herr Lasker;
      Herr Windthorst;
      Dr. Lewe;
      Herr Schulze-Delitzsche;
      Herr Jacoby;
      Herr Hasselmann;
      Herr Sonnemann;
      Professors Gneist, Virchow, Treitschke, and Von Sybel.

   History of Prussia to the accession
   of Frederick the Great, 1134-1740.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1864.

   History of Prussia Under Frederick the Great, 1740-1756.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

      In the preface to these last two volumes of his work, which
      he did not live to complete, Professor Tuttle remarked:
      "The great name of Carlyle is associated so commandingly
      with the reign of Frederic the Great that any other writer,
      who ventures to treat the same subject, is bound to make
      good in advance his claim to a hearing. … But my own faith
      was shaken when during a residence of several years in
      Berlin I discovered how inadequate was Carlyle's account,
      and probably also his knowledge, of the working system of
      the Prussian government in the last century,—a system which
      it is absolutely necessary to understand if one desires to
      know as well why Frederic was able to accomplish what he
      did, as why his successors failed to accomplish what they
      undertook.

VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, and LOUIS HEILPRIN.
   The story of Hungary.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
   London: T. F. Unwin.

      In the series entitled "Story of the Nations."

VARNHAGEN v. ENSE, K. A.
   Denkwürdigkeiten und vermischten Schriften.
   Leipzig. 1871. 3 volumes.

VICKERS, ROBERT H.
   History of Bohemia.
   Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1894.

VOIGT, J.
   Geschichte des Deutschen Ritterordens.
   Berlin. 1857-59. 2 volumes.

VOSS, Gräfin von.
   Neunundsechzig Jahre am preussischen Hofe. 5 auf.
   Leipzig. 1887.

WEINHOLD, K.
   Die Deutschen Frauen in dem mittelalter.
   Wien. 1882. 2 volumes.

WHITMAN, SIDNEY.
   The realm of the Habsburgs.
   London: William Heinemann. 1893.

WILLIAMS. W. K.
   The Communes of Lombardy from the 6th to the 10th century.
   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. 1891.

WINTER, G.
   Geschichte des dreissigjährigen Krieges.
   Berlin. 1893.

      Theil von Oncken, Allgem. gesch.

ZIMMERMANN, Dr. William.
   A popular history of Germany;
   translated by H. Craig.
   New York: H. J. Johnson. 1877. 4 volumes.

      A much better history than its form of publication
      might lead one to suppose.

ZIMMERN, HELEN.
   The Hansa towns.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

      In the series entitled "Story of the Nations."


FRANCE: GENERAL.

BINGHAM, D.
   The Bastille.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888. 2 volumes.

CHAVANNE, DARESTE DE LA.
   Histoire de France.
   Paris. 1868-73. 8 volumes.

CREIGHTON, LOUISE.
   First history of France.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1893.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of France:
   abridged and translated by Mrs. Carey [to 1889].
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co.

{3898}

JERVIS, W. H.
   The Gallican Church.
   London: John Murray. 1872. 2 volumes.

KITCHIN, G. W.
   History of France [to 1793].
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 3 volumes.

      The best general history of France that one can now
      find in English.

LACOMBE, PAUL.
   The growth of a people;
   translated from the French.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1883.

MARTIN, HENRI.
   Histoire de France.
   Paris: Furne, Jouvet et Cie. 26 volumes.

MICHELET, JULES.
   Histoire de France.
   Paris: C. Marpon et E. Flammarion. 1879. 19 volumes.

      Extends to 1789.

   History of France [to 1483],
   translated from the French.
   London: Whittaker. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

MONOD, G.
   Bibliographie de l'histoire de France.
   Paris: Hachette. 1888.

      Contains 4542 titles.

   Les maîtres de l'histoire: Renan, Taine, Michelet.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1894.

RAMBAUD.
   Histoire de la civilization française.
   Paris: Colin. 1885-87. 2 volumes.

      Full of new facts and views.

SOREL, A.
   Lectures historiques.
   Paris: Plon. 1894.

      Covers 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries; is highly praised.

STEPHEN, Sir JAMES.
   Lectures on the history of France.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1851.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

      "The lectures giving most important presentations are
      those in which the parliaments and States-general are
      described."
         _C. K. Adams,
         Manual of Historical literature, 3d edition,
         page 383._


FRANCE: TO THE REVOLUTION.

ARMSTRONG, E.
   The French wars of religion; their political aspects.
   London: Percival & Co. 1892.

AUMALE, Due d'.
   History of the princes de Condé, 16th and 17th centuries;
   translated by R. B. Borthwick.
   London: Richard Bentley & Sons. 2 volumes.

BAIRD, HENRY M.
   History of the rise of the Huguenots of France.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879. 2 volumes.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 2 volumes.

   The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 2 volumes.

BEAUCOURT, G. DU FRESNE DE.
   Histoire de Charles VII.
   Paris: Alphonse Picard. 1891. 6 volumes.

      Work crowned by the Academy.

BÉMONT, C., et G. MONOD.
   Histoire de l'Europe et en particulier de France de 395 à 1270.
   Paris: F. Alcan. 1891.

      The best summary of the period.

BESANT, WALTER.
   Gaspard de Coligny.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. 1879.

BROC, Vicomte de.
   La France sous l'ancien regîme.
   Paris: Plon. 1887-89. 2 volumes.

BROGLIE, Duc de.
   Frederic II et. Louis XV.
   Paris. 1885. 2 volumes.

      Collected articles from the "Revue des deux mondes."

CANET.
   Jeanne d'Arc.
   Lille: Desclee. 1887.

CARRÉ, H.
   La France sous Louis XV.

      An interesting study.

CHANTELAUZE, R.
   Portraits historiques [De Commynes, Condé, Mazarin, etc.].
   Paris. 1886.

CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH, Princess Palatine.
   Life and letters, 1652-1672.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

CLERMONT, LOUIS DE.
   Un mignon de la cour de Henri III.
   Paris. 1885.

      The life of a rascally but attractive governor of Anjou:
      "le brave Bussy."

COIGNET, Madame C.
   François I.
   Paris: Plon. 1885.

COMBES, F.
   Madame de Sevigne, historien.
   Paris. 1885.

COMINES, PHILIP DE.
   Memoirs [Louis XI. and Charles VIII.]
   London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn). 2 volumes.

COSNAC, JULES, Comte de.
   Mazarin et Colbert.
   Paris: Plon. 1892. 2 volumes.

   Souvenirs du règne de Louis XIV.
   Paris. 1874-81. 8 volumes.

COSTELLO, LOUISA S.
   Jacques Cœur: the French Argonaut and his times.
   London: R. Bentley & Co. 1847.

DECRUE, FRANCIS.
   Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et
   grand connetable de France.
   Paris: Plon. 1885.

FERRIÈRE, HECTOR DE LA.
   La Saint-Barthélmy.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1892.

GEFFROY, A.
   Madame de Maintenon d'aprés sa correspondance authentique.
   Paris: Hachette. 1887.

GODWIN, PARKE.
   History of France: Ancient Gaul.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860.

HANOTAUX, GABRIEL.
   Études historiques sur Ie XVI et XVII siècle en France.
   Paris: Hachette. 1886.

      Essays on Francis I;, Catherine de Medicis, etc.

   Histoire du cardinal de Richelieu:
   La jeunesse de Richelieu, 1585-1614.
   Paris. 1893.

HOZIER, Captain H. M.
   Turenne.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

JAMISON, D. F.
   Life and times of Bertrand du Guesclin;
   a history of the 14th century.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

JOINVILLE, Sire de.
   Saint Louis, king of France [1254-1317];
   translated by J. Hutton.
   London: Low, Marston & Co.

LARCHEY, LOREDAN.
   History of Bayard;
   compiled by The Loyal Serviteur;
   translated from the French.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1883.

LECESTRES, L.
   Memoires de gourville.
   Paris. 1894.

      Published by La société de l'histoire de France.
      Covers period from 1646-1697, and is most curious.

LEMONNIER.
   L'art français au temps de Richelieu et de Mazarin.
   Paris: Hachette. 1893.

      A study of art in connection with history.

LUCE, SIMÉON.
   La France pendant la guerre de cent ans.
   Paris. 1890.

      Public and private life in 14th and 15th centuries.

   Jeanne D'Arc à Domremy; recherches critiques sur les
   origines de la mission de la Pucelle.
   Paris: H. Champion. 1886.

LUCHAIRE, ACHILLE.
   Les communes françaises à l'époque des Capétiens directs.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1890.

MARTIN, HENRY.
   History of France: age of Louis XIV.;
   translated by Mrs. Booth.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Co. 2 volumes.

MERLE D'AUBIGNE, J. H.
   History of the reformation in the time of Calvin:
   translated from the French.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: Robert Carter & Bros. 8 volumes.

MONTPENSIER, M'lle de.
   Memoirs [1627-1683];
   translated from the French.
   London: Henry Colburn. 3 volumes.

MORRISON, J. COTTER.
   Madame de Maintenon: an étude.
   London: Field & Tuer.

PARIS, PAULIN.
   Études sur François I.
   Paris: Leon Téchener. 1885. 2 volumes.

PERKINS, JAMES BRECK.
   France under Mazarin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

      "About a third of the work is given to Richelieu; about a
      third (six chapters out of twenty) to the Fronds; and three
      chapters at the end are of a general nature, upon the
      administration, society, and religion. The reader lays
      aside the book with a higher estimate of Mazarin's ability
      and character. The style is for the most part excellent—
      serious and perspicuous in discussion and in the
      delineation of character, animated in narration."
         _The Nation, September 9, 1886._

   France under the regency.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

PERRY, WALTER C.
   The Franks.
   London:. Longmans, Green & Co. 1857.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Civil wars and monarchy in France, 16th-17th centuries:
   translated by M. A. Garvey.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1852.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

RETZ, Cardinal de.
   Memoirs [1614-1655];
   translated from the French. 3 volumes.

ROBINSON, A. MARY F. (Madame Darmesteter).
   Margaret of Angoulême, Queen of Navarre.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1886.

SAINT-SIMON, Duc de.
   Mémoires, p. p. de Boislisle.
   Paris: Hachette. 10 volumes.

      The edition published in the collection entitled
      "Grands Ecrivains de France."

   Memoirs on the reign of Louis XIV. and the regency [1692-1723].
   Abridged from the French by Bayle St. John.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1857. 4 volumes.

SEPET, MARIUS.
   Jeanne d'Arc.
   Tours: Alfred Marne. 1891.

SMILES, SAMUEL.
   The Huguenots.
   London: John Murray: 1867.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

TAINE, H. A.
   The ancient regime;
   translated from the French.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1876.

{3899}

THIERRY, AUGUSTIN.
   Formation and progress of the tiers état in France;
   translated.
   London: T. Bosworth. 1855. 2 volumes.

THIERS, ADOLPHE.
   The Mississippi Bubble; a memoir of John Law.
   New York: W. A. Townsend & Co. 1859.

WEILL, G.
   Saint-Simon et ses oeuvres.
   Paris: Perrin. 1894.

WILLERT, P. F.
   Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons; 1893.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."


FRANCE: THE REVOLUTION AND AFTER.

ABRANTES, Duchess d' (Madame Junot).
   Memoirs of Napoleon, court and family;
   translated from the French.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

ADAMS, CHARLES K.
   Democracy and monarchy in France.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

ALGER, JOHN G.
   Glimpses of the French Revolution;
   myths, ideals and realities.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1894.

BARANTE, CLAUDE DE.
   Souvenirs du Baron de Barante.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1893-4. 4 volumes.

      Correspondence with Chateaubriand, Guizat,
      M. de Rémusat, etc.

BERTIN, ERNEST.
   La société du Consulat et de l'Empire.
   Paris. 1890.

      A work brilliant and distinguished in its style.

BERTRAND, P.
   Lettres inédites de Talleyrand à Napoleon.
   Paris: Perrin. 1889.

BLANC, LOUIS.
   History of ten years, 1830-1840;
   translated by W. K. Kelly.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1845. 2 volumes.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 2 volumes.

BLENNERHASSET, Lady.
   Talleyrand;
   translated from the German.
   London: J. Murray. 1894. 2 volumes.

BOURRIENNE, FAUVELET DE.
   Private memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte;
   [translated from the French].
   London: Henry Colburn & R. Bentley. 4 volumes.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 4 volumes.

BRETTE, ARMAND.
   Serment du Jeu de Paume.
   Paris. 1894.

BROC, Vicomte de.
   La France pendant la revolution.
   Paris: Plon. 2 volumes.

      A work crowned by the Academy.

BROWNING, OSCAR.
   Modern France, 1814-1879.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1880.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

BURKE, EDMUND.
   Reflections on the Revolution in France;
   edited, with notes, by F. G. Selby.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   The French revolution.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 3 volumes.

      "The great name of Carlyle has made men wary of seeming to
      tread in his path, and the mass of English readers are
      therefore left in ignorance of the many points in which he
      erred, not wilfully, but from the scantiness of the
      information at his disposal."
         _H. Morse Stephens,
         Preface to "History of the French Revolution." _

CAVAIGNAC, Madame.
   Memoires d'une inconnue.
   Paris: Plon. 1894.

      Manners and customs at beginning of century.

CLARETIE, JULES.
   Camille Desmoulins and his wife.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.

CLÉRY, J. B. C. H.
   Journal at the Temple during confinement of Louis XVI.
   London. 1798.

CROKER, JOHN W.
   Essays on the early period of the French revolution.
   London: John Murray. 1857.

DICKINSON, G. LOWES.
   Revolution and reaction in modern France.
   London: George Allen. 1892.

DUMONT, ETIENNE.
   Recollections of Mirabeau;
   [translated from the French].
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea.

FAURIEL, CLAUDE.
   The last days of the consulate;
   edited by Lalanne.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1885.

FLERS, DE:
   Le comte de Paris.
   Paris: Perrin. 1887.

FOURNIER, Dr. A.
   Napoleon I.
   Leipzig: Freytag. 1888-9.

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR, 1870-1871;
   translated from the German official account.
   London. 1874-84. 5 volumes.

GARDINER, BERTHA M.
   The French revolution.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

      A sketch condensed to the last degree, and yet not
      lifeless, nor without suggestions of meaning and relation
      in the events narrated.

GAUTIER. HIPPOLYTE.
   L'an 1789.
   Paris: Delagrave. 1889.

GORCE, PIERRE DE LA.
   Histoire de la séconde république française.
   Paris: Plon. 1887. 2 volumes.

HAUSSONVILLE, Vicomte d'.
   The Salon of Madame Necker;
   translated by H. M. Trollope.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1882.

HAZLITT, WILLIAM.
   Life of Napoleon.
   London: 4 volumes.

HOLST, HERMANN VON.
   The French Revolution tested by Mirabeau's career;
   lectures at the Lowell Institute.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1894.

HOOPER, GEORGE.
   Campaign of Sedan.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.

HOZIER, Captain H. M., editor.
   The Franco-Prussian War.
   London: W. Mackenzie. 2 volumes.

HUGO, VICTOR.
   The history of a crime;
   [translated from the French].
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1877-1879. 4 volumes.

JERVIS, W. H.
   The Gallican church and the revolution.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

JOMINI, Baron H. DE.
   Life of Napoleon;
   translated by H. W. Halleck.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand. 4 volumes.

      Of value, no doubt, to military students, but absurdly
      written as though narrated by Napoleon in the other world
      to a ghostly audience of the great warriors of the past.

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE.
   History of the Girondists.
   London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).
   New York: Harper & Bros. 3 volumes.

LANFREY, P.
   History of Napoleon I.
   [translated from the French].
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1871-9. 4 volumes.

      A review of the career of Napoleon by a stern judge, but
      one who is generally just. The author died before his work
      was finished.

LA ROCHEJAQUELEIN, Marchioness de.
   Memoirs [1792-1802];
   translated from the French.
   Edinburgh: Constable & Co. (1827).

LA ROCHETERIE, MAXIME DE.
   Life of Marie Antoinette;
   translated from the French.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893.

LATIMER, ELIZABETH W.
   France in the nineteenth century, 1830-1890.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1892.

      A useful compilation of recent French history.

LEVY, ARTHUR.
   The private life of Napoleon, from the French.
   London: R. Bentley & Son.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

LEWES, GEORGE H.
   Life of Robespierre.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Hart. 1849.

LISSAGARAY, P. O.
   History of the commune of 1871;
   translated by E. M. Aveling.
   London: Reeves & Turner. 1886.

LOCKWOOD, HENRY C.
   Constitutional history of France, 1789-1889.
   Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co. 1890.

LOMÉNIE, LOUIS DE.
   Beaumarchais and his times;
   translated by H. S. Edwards.
   London: Addey & Co. 1856. 4 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

LOWELL, EDWARD J.
   The eve of the French-revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

      In Mr. Lowell's view, the year 1789 is a date which "marks
      the outbreak in legislation and politics of ideas which had
      already been working for a century, and which have changed
      the face of the civilized world." His book is a thoughtful
      study of those ideas in their rise and development.

MACDONALD, Marshal.
   Recollections;
   translated from the French.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1892. 2 volumes.

MACDONELL, JAMES.
   France since the first empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

MAHAN, Captain ALFRED T.
   The influence of sea power upon the French
   revolution and Empire.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      A book which has produced a new conception of the
      importance of naval power in history.

MARBOT, Baron de.
   Memoirs [1793-1814];
   translated by A. J. Butler.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      "It is as the vivacious exponent of the spirit of the
      Grande Armée that he possesses the most serious interest
      for the historical student. Others have chronicled the
      deeds of that army, others have contributed to its
      anecdotic history, others have surpassed him in the skilful
      narration of its military achievements; but no one except
      Marbot has so unwittingly but so truly revealed its spirit
      in all its heroism and its weakness."
         _H. M. Stephens, Review (Academy, May 21, 1892)._

MARCEAU, SERGENT.
   Reminiscences of a regicide [1751-1847];
   edited by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

MARIE LOUISE [wife of Napoleon].
   Correspondance.
   Paris: Klinckzieck. 1887.

{3900}

MARZIALS, FRANK T.
   Life of Leon Gambetta.
   London: Allen & Co. 1890.

MAULDE-LA-CLAVIÈRE, R; DE.
   Les origines de la revolution française.
   Paris: Leroux. 1889.

MÉNEVAL, Baron de.
   Memoirs illustrating the history of Napoleon I.,
   from 1802 to 1815;
   translated from the French.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

MÉZIÈRES, A.
   Vie de Mirabeau.
   Paris: Hachette. 1892.

MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.
   History of the French revolution, 1789-1814;
   translated from the French.
   London: George Bell & Sons.

MITCHELL, Lieutenant-Colonel J.
   The fall Of Napoleon.
   London: G. W. Nickisson. 1845. 3 volumes.

MOLTKE, Count von.
   Franco-German war of 1870-1871.
   London: Osgood, McIlvaine & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR.
   Diary and letters [1788-1794];
   edited by A. C. Morris.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1888.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 2 volumes.

      Gouverneur Morris succeeded Jefferson as American Minister
      to Franca in 1792; but he had been in France most of the
      time since 1789, and he remained until 1794. His diary of
      the events of those terrible years is the most valuable
      record that has come down from them.

NAPIER, Lieutenant-General. Sir William. F. P.
   History of the war in the Peninsula. 1807-1814.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 6 volumes.

NAPOLEON I.
   Oeuvres litteraires.
   Tancrède Martel.
   Paris: 1888. 4 volumes.

      Contains letters, memoirs, etc.

NOLHAC, DE.
   Marie Antoinette.
   Paris: Alph. Lemerre. 1892.

PALLAIN, G.
   Correspondance diplomatique de Talleyrand.
   Paris: Plon. 1891.

PASQUIER, ETIENNE DENIS, Duc.
   History of my time: memoirs;
   translated from the French,
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1893-4. volumes 1-2.

      The Chancellor Pasquier was an observer and a prominent
      actor in events during the whole period of, the Revolution,
      the Consulate and the Empire.

PONCHALON, HENRI DE.
   Souvenirs de guerre.
   Paris. 1893.

      Written by a colonel who fought at Sedan.

PRESSENSÉ, EDMOND DE.
   Religion and the reign of terror;
   translated by J. P. Lacroix.
   New York: Carlton & Lanahan.

RÉMUSAT, Madame de.
   Memoirs, 1802-1808;
   translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co; 3 volumes.

RÉMUSAT, PAUL DE.
   Thiers;
   translated from the French.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1889.

ROCHECHOUART, DE.
   Souvenirs sur la revolution, l'empire et la restauration.
   p. p. son fils.
   Paris. 1889.

ROCQUAIN, FELIX.
   The revolutionary spirit preceding the French revolution;
   translated by J. D. Hunting;
   with introduction by Professor Huxley.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

      A work warmly commended by Mr. Lecky, as well as by
      Professor Huxley.

ROLAND, Madame M. J. P.
   An appeal to impartial posterity;
   translated from the French.
   London: J. Johnson. 2 volumes.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   The campaign of Waterloo; a military history. 2d edition.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

ROSE, J. H.
   The Revolutionary and Napoleonic era, 1789-1815.
   Cambridge: University Press.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

      In the "Cambridge Historical Series."

SAY, LÉON.
   Turgot;
   translated by M. B. Anderson.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.

SEELEY, JOHN R.
   Short history of Napoleon the First.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1886.

      An excellent sketch of the career of Napoleon, written
      with severity but righteousness of judgment.

SEPET, MARIUS.
   Napoléon.
   Paris. Perrin. 1894.

SIMON, JULES.
   The government of M. Thiers, 1871-1873;
   translated from the French.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 2 volumes.

SOREL, ALBERT.
   L'Europe et la révolution française.
   Paris: Plon. 1892. 4 volumes.

STAEL-HOLSTEIN, Madame de.
   Considerations on the French revolution;
   translated from the French. 2 volumes.

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   History of the French revolution.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: C. Scribner' Sons. 1886. volumes 1-2.

   editor.
   Principal speeches of the statesmen and orators
   of the French revolution. 1789-1795.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      In the two volumes which have appeared, Mr. Stephens has
      fully justified his undertaking to write a history of the
      French Revolution based on the abundant new material that
      has come to light since Thiers, Carlyle Sybel, Michelet and
      Mignet wrote.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   History of the French revolution:
   translated from the German by W. C. Perry,
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.

      A philosophical study of the Revolution especially in its
      relations to European politics.

TAINE, HIPPOLYTE A.
   The French revolution;
   translated by J. Durand.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 3 volumes.

   The modern regime;
   translated by J. Durand; volume 1.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1890.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.

TALLEYRAND; Prince de.
   Memoirs;
   translated by R. L. de Beaufort.
   London: Griffith, Farran & Co.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891. 5 volumes.

      These memoirs, long waited for, were a disappointment when
      they appeared, containing little that was not well
      understood before.

TÉNOT, EUGENE.
   Paris in December, 1851: the coup d' état;
   translated from the 13th French edition.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton.

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
   History of the French revolution;
   translated by F. Shoberl.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.

   History of the consulate and the empire of France
   under Napoleon;
   translated from the French.
   London: G. Bell & Sons (Bohn).
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 5 volumes.

      The histories of M. Thiers have been losing their early
      reputation under criticisms which challenge their accuracy
      and question their spirit. He wrote as a champion of the
      Revolution and an admirer of the "glory" of the Napoleonic
      period,—not always in the temper of a scrupulous historian.

THOUVENEL.
   Episode d' histoire contemporaine.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1893.

THUREAU-DANGIN.
   Historie de la monarchie de Juillet.
   Paris: Plon. 7 volumes.

      Twice crowned by the Academy.

TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS DE.
   On the state of society in France before 1789;
   translated by H. Reeve.
   London: John Murray. 1856.

   Souvenirs.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1893.

TUCKERMAN, BAYARD.
   Life of Lafayette.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.
   London: Low, Marston & Co.

VÉSINIER, P.
   History of the commune of Paris;
   translated by J. V. Weber.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1872.

VYRÉ, F. DE.
   Marie Antoinette, sa vie, sa mort.
   Paris: Plon. 1889.

WASHBURNE, ELIHU B.
   Recollections of a minister to France, 1869-1877.
   London: Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887. 2 volumes.

YOUNG, ARTHUR.
   Travels in France 1787-1789;
   edited by M. B. Edwards.
   London; G. Bell & Sons. 1889. 2 volumes.


ITALY.

      Works in the Italian language were selected for this list
      by Mr. William Roscoe Thayer, author of "The Dawn of
      Italian Independence."

ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.
   Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.

BALBO, C.
   Storia d'Italia [476-1848].

BENT, J. T.
   Genoa.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1881.

BERSEZIO, V.
   Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II.
   1878. 4 volumes.

BONGHI, R.
   Vita di Valentino Pasini.

BOSSI.
   Istoria d'Italia. 1819.

BOTTA, C.
   Storia dei popoli italiani [300-1789].

BROWN, HORATIO F.
   Venice; an historical sketch of the republic.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

BROWNING, OSCAR.
   Guelphs and Ghibellines;
   a short history of mediæval Italy, 1250-1409.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1893.

BURCKHARDT, JACOB.
   The civilization of the period of the Renaissance in Italy;
   translated from the German.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

CANTU, C.
   Cronistoria dell' Indipendenza Italiana.
   Gli eretici d'Italia.

{3901}

CAVOUR, C.
   Lettere edite ed inedite. 1887. 6 volumes.

CESARESCO, Countess EVELYN M.
   The liberation of Italy, 1815-1870.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1894.

DENINA, C.
   Rivoluzioni d'Italia. 3 volumes.

FARINI, L. C.
   La stato Romano.

GALLENGA, ANTONIO.
   History of Piedmont.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1855. 3 volumes.

GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.
   Autobiography;
   translated by A. Werner.
   London: W. Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.

GIANNONE, P.
   Istoria civile del regno di Napoli. 1873.

GIESEBRECHT, F. G. B. VON.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit.

GODKIN, G. S.
   Life of Victor Emmanuel II., first King of Italy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

GUALTEIRO, F. A.
   Gli ultimi Revolgimenti italiani.

GUICCIARDINI, F.
   Storia florentina.

HUNT, WILLIAM.
   History of Italy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

      A sketch of Italian history in "Freeman's Historical
      Course for Schools."

LA FARINA, G.
   Storia d' Italia dal 1789.

LANGE.
   Geschichte der Römischen Kirche.

MACHIAVELLI, NICCOLO.
   Historical, political and diplomatic writings;
   translated by C. E. Detmold.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1882. 3 volumes.

      Life of Machiavelli.
      History of Florence.
      The Prince.
      Discourses on Livius.
      Thoughts of a statesman.
      Missions.
      Miscellaneous.

MARRIOTT, J. A. R.
   The makers of modern Italy: Mazzini, Cavour, Garibaldi.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

MARTIN, H.
   Vie de D. Manin.

MAZADE, CHARLES DE.
   Life of Count Cavour;
   translated from the Italian.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.

MURATORI, L. A.
   Annali d' Italia dal principio dell' êra volgare sino al 1750.
   Milano: 1818. 18 volumes.

NAPIER, HENRY E.
   Florentine history.
   London: E. Moxon. 1846. 6 volumes.

OLIPHANT, Mrs. M. O. W.
   The Makers of Florence.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

PERRENS, F. T.
   History of Florence, from the domination of the Medici
   to the fall of the republic;
   translated from the French.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1892.

PROBYN, J. W.
   Italy from the fall of Napoleon I., in 1815, to 1890.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1891.

QUINET, E.
   Révolutions d' Italie (1852).

RAUMER, FRIEDRICH L. G. YON.
   Geschichte der Hohenstaufen.

REUCHLIN.
      Geschichte Italiens.

REUMONT, ALFRED VON.
   Historie de Florence.
   Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent;
   translated from the German.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

ROBERTSON, ALEXANDER.
   Fra Paoli Sarpi, the greatest of the Venetians;
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1894.

ROCQUAIN.
   La Papauté an moyen âge.

ROMANIN, S.
   Storia documentata di Venezia. 1853.

ROSCOE, WILLIAM.
   Life and pontificate of Leo X.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.

   Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, called the Magnificent.
   London: H. G. Bohn.

SCHIRRMACHER.
   Kaiser Friedrich II.

SISMONDI, J. C. L. DE.
   Les republiques italiennes. 1826.

   History of the Italian Republics.
   London: Longmans. New York: Harper & Bros.

      A greatly abridged translation at Sismondi's work.

SYMONDS, JOHN A.
   Renaissance in Italy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1875-86. 7 volumes.

      The Age of the Despots.
      The Revival of Learning.
      The Fine Arts.
      Italian Literature.
      The Catholic Reaction.

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
   The dawn of Italian independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

      A history of Italy from the Congress of Vienna, 1814, to
      the fall of Venice, 1849, which leaves nothing more to be
      desired for that important period.

TIRABOSCHI, G.
   Storia della letteratura italiana. 3d edition.
   Venezia: 1823-5. 27 volumes.

TROLLOPE, T. A.
   History of the Commonwealth of Florence.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1865. 4 volumes.

TROYA, C.
   Italia nel medio-evo.

URQUHART, W. P.
   Life and times of Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1852. 2 volumes.

VILLANI, G. M. e F.
   Cronaca.

VILLANI, P.
   Niccolò Machiavelli.

   La storia di Girolamo Savonarola.

VILLARI, PASQUALE.
   History of Girolamo Savonarola and of his times;
   translated from the Italian.
   London: Longmans. 1863. 2 volumes.

   Niccolo Machiavelli and his times;
   translated from the Italian.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1878-83. 4 volumes.

   The two first centuries of Florentine history.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1894.

   Ed. Storia politica, 476-1878. 8 volumes.

ZELLER, J. S. Abérge de l'historie d'Italie (476-1864).


OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

BURKE, U. R.
   History of Spain.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1805.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   The early kings of Norway.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1875.

COPPÉE, HENRY.
   History of the conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

CREASY, Sir EDWARD S.
   History of the Ottoman Turks;
   revised edition.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1877.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

DAVIES, C. M.
   History of Holland to the end of the 18th century.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1841. 3 volumes.

DU CHAILLU, PAUL B.
   The Viking age.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889. 2 volumes.

FINLAY, GEORGE.
   History of Greece;
   new edition, revised by H. F. Tozer.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877. 7 volumes.

      "George Finlay, more perhaps than any other modern writer,
      belongs to the same class as these earlier historians who
      began a story of remote ages and carried it on into times
      and scenes in which they were themselves spectators and
      actors. … While Grote put forth volume after volume amid
      the general applause of scholars, Finlay toiled on at his
      thankless task, amid every form of neglect and
      discouragement, till he made a few here and there
      understand that there was a Roman Empire of the East. Full
      of faults his book is, in form, in matter, in temper; but
      it is a great work all the same."
         _E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of Historical Study,
         pages 285-286._

FLETCHER, C. R. L.
   Gustavus Adolphus and the struggle of Protestantism
   for existence.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The Ottoman power in Europe.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

GEIJER, ERIC GUSTAVE.
   History of the Swedes, first part;
   translated from the Swedish.
   London: Whittaker & Co.

GRIFFIS, W. E.
   Brave little Holland, and what she has taught us.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1894.

HAMLEY, General Sir EDWARD.
   The war in the Crimea.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1891.

      In the series entitled "Events of Our Own Time."

HUG, Mrs. LINA and R. STEAD.
   Switzerland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

      In the series entitled "The Story of the Nations."

KEARY, C. F.
   Norway and the Norwegians.
   London: Percival. 1892.

KINGLAKE, A. W.
   The invasion of the Crimea.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1863-80.
   N. Y.: Harper & Bros. 6 volumes.

MOLTKE, Count HELMUTH VON.
   Poland: an historical sketch:
   translated from the German.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

MORFILL, W. R.
   The story of Poland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1893.

   The story of Russia.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

      In the series entitled "The Story of the Nations."

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP.
   The rise of the Dutch Republic.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1856. 3 volumes.

      History of the United Netherlands, from the death of
      William the Silent to the Synod of Dort.
      New York: Harper & Bros. 1861-8. 4 volumes.

      Life and death of John of Barneveld.
      New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

         "He paints the confused scenes of the period he has
         chosen to describe—its great and little passions, its
         atrocious and its noble men, its terrible sieges and
         picturesque festivals, bridals in the midst of
         massacres, its fights upon the sea and under the sea,
         its torture-fires and blood-baths—in vivid colors, with
         a bold free hand, and with a masterly knowledge of
         effect. Whatever was dramatic in those fierce conflicts
         he has seized; whatever is peculiar or striking in
         character, he has penetrated; whatever is significant of
         time or place, he appropriates: while he has never
         forgotten the great purpose of history, which is the
         illustration of moral power."
            _P. Godwin, Out of the Past, page 439._

{3902}

PONTALIS, A. L.
   John DeWitt, Grand Pensionary of Holland.
   London: Longmans. 1885. 2 volumes.

POOLE, STANLEY LANE.
   The story of Turkey.
   New York: G. P. Putnam s Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

      In the series entitled "The Story of the Nations."

PRESCOTT, W. H.
   History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic;
   revised edition.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1882. 3 volumes.

PRESCOTT, W. H.
   History of the reign of Philip II., king of Spain.
   Boston: 1855-8. volumes 1-3 [left unfinished].

RAMBAUD, ALFRED.
   History of Russia, to 1877;
   translated from the French.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   History of Servia;
   translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

SCHUYLER, EUGENE.
   Peter the Great, emperor of Russia.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   The story of Portugal.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

      One of the best books in the series entitled
      "The Story of the Nations."

VOLTAIRE, M. DE.
   History of Charles XII.;
   edited by O. W. Wight.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1881.

WATSON, PAUL B.
   The Swedish revolution under Gustavus Vasa.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1889.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GENERAL.

      A considerably extensive bibliography of Aboriginal America
      and of the European discovery and exploration, will be
      found in Appendix F. to volume 1.


AMERICAN COMMONWEALTHS;
   edited by Horace E. Scudder.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 14 volumes.

      Virginia; by John Esten Cooke.
      Oregon; by William Barrows.
      Maryland; by William Hand Browne.
      Kentucky; by N. S. Shaler.
      Michigan; by T. M. Cooley.
      Kansas; by L. W. Spring.
      California; by Josiah Royce.
      New York; by Ellis H. Roberts (2 volumes.).
      Connecticut; by Alexander Johnston.
      Missouri; by Lucien Carr.
      Indiana; by J. P. Dunn. Jr.
      Ohio; by Rufus King.
      Vermont; by Rowland E. Robinson.

AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

      The Colonial Era; by George Park Fisher.

      The French War and the Revolution;
      by William Milligan Sloane.
      (Other volumes in preparation.)

AMERICAN STATESMEN;
   edited by John T. Morse, Jr.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882-93. 25 volumes.

      George Washington; by Henry Cabot Lodge.
      Benjamin Franklin; by John T. Morse. Jr.
      Samuel Adams; by James K. Hosmer.
      Patrick Henry; by Moses Colt Tyler.
      John Adams; by John T. Morse, Jr.
      Alexander Hamilton; by Henry Cabot Lodge.
      Thomas Jefferson; by John T. Morse. Jr.
      John Jay; by George Pellew.
      Gouverneur Morris; by Theodore Roosevelt.
      James Madison; by Sidney Howard Gay.
      John Marshall; by Allan B. Magruder.
      Albert Gallatin; by John Austin Stevens.
      James Monroe; by Daniel C. Gilman.
      John Quincy Adams; by John T. Morse, Jr.
      John Randolph; by Henry Adams.
      Andrew Jackson; William G. Sumner.
      Martin Van Buren; by Edward M. Shepard.
      Thomas H. Benton; by Theodore Roosevelt.
      Daniel Webster; by Henry Cabot Lodge.
      Henry Clay: by Carl Schurz (2 volumes).
      John C. Calhoun; by Dr. H. von Holst.
      Lewis Cass; by Andrew C. McLaughlin.
      Abraham Lincoln; by John T. Morse, Jr.(2 volumes).

ANDREWS, ELISHA BENJAMIN.
   History of the United States.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894. 2 volumes.

      Not such a history, either in style of writing or skill of
      handling, as should have been expected from the President
      of Brown University, but yet to be welcomed until something
      better comes to supply the need of an intermediate work,
      between the school textbooks and the histories of special
      periods.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States of America from the discovery
   of the Continent: author's last revision.
   New York: Appleton & Co. 1883-5. 5 volumes.
   [See, also, next page.]

      Ends at the closing of the War of Independence. "The last
      volumes are limited in scope, giving a history of little
      but military and diplomatic movements during the
      Revolution. Perhaps it is as well. Bancroft's talents for
      the narration of military and diplomatic history were of a
      very high order. He had great skill in marshalling large
      arrays of facts, good judgment, and a lucid and picturesque
      style. On the other hand, a history of popular movements,
      of public opinion and of tie internal development of the
      United States, would exhibit at the greatest disadvantage
      the author's faults."
         _J. F. Jameson,
         History of Historical Writing in America,
         page 108._

BANCROFT, HUBERT H.
   History of the Pacific States of North America.
   San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Co. 1882-90. 34 volumes.

      "From twelve to twenty accomplished linguists, we are told,
      have been constantly employed in Mr. Bancroft's service
      since 1869. Secretaries have all this time been reading,
      translating, summarizing, cataloguing, and indexing the
      whole collection. The result, attained at the cost of half
      a million dollars, is a mass of systematized information,
      such as must make the users and the desirers of historical
      materials elsewhere deeply envious. … Mr. Bancroft has
      prepared from these materials, and published, a gigantic
      'History of the Pacific States of America,' in thirty-four
      unusually large volumes."
         _J. F. Jameson,
         History of Historical Writing in America,
         page 153._

BOLLES, ALBERT S.
   Financial history of the United States.
   N. Y.: D. Appleton & Co. 1879-85. 3 volumes.

BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S.
   The Century book for young Americans.
   New York: Century Co. 1894.

      Descriptive of the machinery of government at Washington,
      in its practical working, as seen by an imaginary party of
      young visitors.

BROOKS. NOAH.
   Short studies in party politics.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1895.

      Some first things in American politics.
      The passing of the Whigs.
      When Slavery went out of Politics.
      The Party Platforms of Sixty Years.

BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SYDNEY H. GAY.
   Popular history of the United States, to the end
   of the first century of the Union.
   New York: Scribner, A. & Co. 1876. 4 volumes.

      Understood to have been substantially the work of Mr. Gay.
      Mr. Bryant's contribution to it having been very slight.
      Although it brings nowhere, perhaps, new light from
      original studies to bear on American history, it is a work
      of much merit.

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The American Commonwealth; 3d edition, completely revised,
   with additional chapters.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1895. 2 volumes.

      "One may doubt if such a living picture of Democracy in all
      its ways, in its strength and its weakness, its dangers and
      its future, in all its strange nakedness of appearance, and
      its amazing vitality and force, in its golden hopes, and
      its simplicity and limitations as of a raw, lucky,
      inexperienced youth entering on a matchless inheritance for
      good or for evil, has ever yet been drawn by a competent
      hand."
         _Frederic Harrison,
         Mr.Bruce's "American Commonwealth"
         (Nineteenth Century, January 1889)._

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
   The Puritan in Holland, England and America.

      A work which has commanded attention to the influence
      exerted by the Dutch on the development of ideas and
      institutions in the United States, and which has done so
      with good effect, though with some exaggeration.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLETON.
   Building the nation: from the Revolution to the beginning
   of the war between the states.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1883.

      For young readers, especially.

DAWES, ANNA L.
   How we are governed; an explanation of the constitution
   and government of the United States, for young people.
   Boston: Lothrop & Co. 1885.

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
   The making of the Great West, 1512-1888.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   The making of the Ohio Valley States, 1660-1837.
   New York: C. Scribner & Sons. 1894.

EPOCHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY;
   edited by Albert Bushnell Hart.
   New York and London: Longmans. 1891-3. 3 volumes.

      The colonies, 1492-1750; by Reuben Gold Thwaites.
      Formation of the Union, 1750-1829: by Albert Bushnell Hart.
      Division and reunion, 1829—1889; by Woodrow Wilson.

FISKE, JOHN.
   Civil government in the United States considered with some
   reference to its origins.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

   History of the United States for schools.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1894.

FOSTER, W. E.
   References to the history of
   Presidential administrations, 1789-1885.
   New York: Society for Political Education. 1885.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL.
   Topical outline of the courses in constitutional and political
   history of the United States given at Harvard College, 1887-88.
   Part 1 (1783-1829). Cambridge. 1886.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   Larger history of the United States,
   to the close of Jackson's administration.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1886.

{3903}

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   Young folks' history of the United States.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1875-83.

      Always attractive to young readers.

HILDRETH RICHARD.
   History of the United States
   [to the end of the 16th Congress].
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1849-51. 6 volumes.

      "A man of very decided convictions, and ardently interested
      in politics, the Whig editor wrote the 'History of the
      United States' with a strong partisan bias."
         _J. F. Jameson,
         The History of Historical Writing in America,
         page 112._

HINSDALE, B. A.
   How to study and teach history, with particular reference
   to the history of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

   The Old Northwest.
   New York: T. MacCoun. 1888.

HOLST, Dr. H. VON.
   Constitutional and political history of the United States;
   translated from the German.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1876-85. 7 volumes.

      Volume 1. 1750-1833.
         State sovereignty and slavery.

      Volume 2. 1828-1846.
         Jackson's administration;
         annexation of Texas.

      Volume 3. 1816-1850.
         Annexation of Texas;
         Compromise of 1850.

      Volume 4. 1850-1851:
         Compromise of 1850;
         Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

      Volume 5. 1851-1856.
         Kansas-Nebraska Bill;
         Buchanan's election.

      Volume 6. 1856-1859.
         Buchanan's election;
         end of the 35th Congress

      Volume 7. 1859—1861.
         Harper's Ferry;
         Lincoln's inauguration.

JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER.
   History of American politics. 2d edition.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1881.

      Parties and party politics in the United States sketched
      with a brevity which spoils neither the instructiveness nor
      the interest.

   History of the United States for schools.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1885.

   The United States; its history and constitution.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1889.

      Originally written for the latest edition of the
      Encyclopædia Britannica, the remarkable excellence of this
      compact account of the history and constitution of the
      United States caused its republication separately.

LALOR. J. J., editor.
   Cyclopædia of political science, political economy,
   and of the political history of the United States.
   Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co. 1881. 3 volumes.

MACLAY, EDGAR STANTON.
   History of the United States navy from 1775 to 1893.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

McMASTER, JOHN BACH.
   History of the people of the United States from the
   Revolution to the Civil War.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1883-95. volumes 1-4.

      "Mr. McMaster's book is a valuable contribution to our
      history, and will be the cause of work better than its own.
      His industrious collection of materials, and his effective
      arrangement and courageous presentation of them, cannot
      fail to stimulate other workers in the same field. But he
      does not always discriminate as to the value of
      authorities, and his history suffers somewhat in
      consequence."
         _Mellen Chamberlain,
         McMaster's History
         (Andover Review, June. 1886)._

POPULAR HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1875-8.

      A book which has been successful in interesting young
      readers in American history.

PRATT, MARA L.
   American history stories.
   Boston: Educational Publishing Company. 1890. volumes 1-4.

      For readers of the youngest class, and happily adapted
      to their taste.

PRESTON, HOWARD W.
   Documents illustrative of American history (1606—1863).
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE.
   The Winning of the West.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-94. 3 volumes.

      "Before Mr. Roosevelt began his work, there was no
      satisfactory account of our westward expansion as a whole.
      … Mr. Roosevelt had the historical insight and the good
      fortune to make use of a vast mass of original material. …
      These abundant materials [he] has used with the skill of a
      practised historian."
         _The Nation, March 28, 1895._

SCHOULER, JAMES.
   History of the United States of America under the Constitution.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. volumes 1-5.

      A sound, painstaking piece of historical work,
      but without much literary attractiveness.

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   The United States; an outline of political history, 1492-1871.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

      There is probably no other living man who could put so much
      into a bird's-eye view of American history, and put it into
      English of such classical fineness, as Professor Goldwin
      Smith has done in this little book.

STANWOOD, EDWARD.
   History of Presidential elections.
   2d edition, revised.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

TUCKER, GEORGE.
   History of the United States.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1856. 4 volumes.

      By a southern writer and representing the better-minded
      southern view of events and movements in the first halt
      century of American national history.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE.
   Writings;
   collected and edited by Worthington C. Ford.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-91. 14 volumes.

WILSON, WOODROW.
   Congressional government: a study in American politics.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.
   Narrative and critical history of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886-9. 8 volumes.

      "With its chapters of historical narrative by our most
      learned and able historical scholars, each writing upon his
      own special field, and with its critical essays upon the
      sources of information, it seems without doubt to be the
      most important and useful contribution over yet made to
      American historical science. It splendidly sums up the
      historical labors of a century."
         _J. F. Jameson,
         History of Historical Writing in America, p. 156._


UNITED STATES: TO THE CIVIL WAR.

ADAMS HENRY.
   History of the United States of America
   [during the administrations of Jefferson and Madison].
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889-90. 9 volumes.

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY.
   Lives of James Madison and James Monroe,
   with historical notices of their administrations.
   Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Co. 1850.

   Memoirs, comprising portions of his diary from 1795 to 1848;
   edited by Charles Francis Adams.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874-5. 12 volumes.


ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY and CHARLES FRANCIS.
   Life of John Adams;
   revised and corrected.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1871. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, SAMUEL G.
   History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the formation of the Constitution
   of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1882. 2 volumes.

BEER, GEORGE LOUIS.
   The commercial policy of England toward the American colonies.
   New York 1893.

      One of the "Studies in History, Economics and Law," edited
      by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College.

BENTON, THOMAS H.
   Thirty Years' View; or a history of the working of the
   American government from 1820 to 1850, chiefly taken from the
   Congress debates, private papers of General Jackson and
   speeches of Senator Benton.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
   History of Virginia [to 1706];
   reprinted from the 2d revision edited. (London, 1722).
   Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.

BRODHEAD, JOHN R.
   History of the State of New York.
   New York: Harper & Bros: 1853-71. 2 volumes.

BROWN, ALEXANDER, editor.
   The Genesis of the United States;
   a narrative of the movement in England, 1605-1616.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

      A collection of historical manuscripts now first printed,
      with a reissue of rare contemporaneous tracts, accompanied
      by brief biographies, portraits, etc.

BUTLER, NICHOLAS MURRAY.
   Effect of the War of 1812 upon the consolidation of the Union.
   Baltimore: 1887.

      Published among the Johns Hopkins University Studies
      in History and Political Science.

CARRINGTON. HENRY B.
   Battles of the American Revolution, 1775-1781:
   historical and military criticism.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1876.

      A volume of battle-maps and charts, with notes, to
      supplement the above, was issued by the same publishers in
      1881.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLETON.
   The boys of '76: a history of the battles of the Revolution.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1877.

   Old times in the colonies.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

CURTIS, GEORGE T.
   History of the origin, formation and adoption of the
   constitution of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854. 2 volumes.

DOYLE, J. A.
   The English in America: Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.
   London: Longmans. 1882.

   The English in America: The Puritan Colonies.
   London: Longmans. 1887. 2 volumes.

DWIGHT, THEODORE.
   History of the Hartford Convention.
   New York: N. & J. White. 1833.

ELLIS, GEORGE E.
   The Puritan age and rule in the colony of
   Massachusetts Bay, 1629-1685.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

{3904}

FISKE, JOHN.
   The American Revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

   The War of Independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

      The last named of these two is a small book which preceded
      Dr. Fiske's larger history of the American Revolution,
      treating the same subject in a simpler way, especially for
      young readers. There is the same delightful clearness of
      narrative, and the same large intelligence of view, in both
      works, and they easily take the first place among histories
      of the Revolution.

   The beginnings of New England: or the Puritan theocracy in
   its relations to civil and religious liberty.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

   The critical period of American history, 1783-89.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

      "It is not too much to say that the period of five years
      following the peace of 1783 was the most critical moment in
      all the history of the American people. The dangers from
      which we were saved in 1788 were even greater than the
      dangers from which we were saved in 1865.' This proposition
      Mr. Fiske makes abundantly good and he has turned it into a
      text for one of the most interesting chapters of history
      that has been written for many a day."
         _John Morley,
         Review (Nineteenth Century, August, 1889)._

FORCE, PETER.
   American Archives; a collection of authentic state papers
   [etc.], forming a documentary history of the
   North American colonies.
   Washington 1837-48. 9 volumes.

      Only part of the collection, forming the 4th series
      (1774-1776) and 3 volumes of the 5th series, was published.

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN.
   Life, written by himself; now first edited, from original mss.
   and from his printed correspondence, by John Bigelow;
   2d edition revised and corrected.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. 1884. 3 volumes.

FROTHINGHAM, RICHARD.
   The rise of the Republic of the United States.
   Boston: Little, Brown &; Co. 1886.

GOODWIN, JOHN A.
   The Pilgrim republic; an historical review of the
   colony of New Plymouth.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

GRAHAME, JAMES.
   History of the United States of North America from the
   plantation of the British colonies to their assumption
   of national independence.
   2d edition revised and enlarged.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846. 2 volumes.

GREENE, GEORGE W.
   The German element In the War of American Independence.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1876.

      Contains biographical sketches or Baron von Steuben
      and General John Kalb, and an account of the German
      mercenaries.

   Life of Nathanael Greene, major-general in the army
   of the Revolution.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1871. 3 volumes.

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, JAMES MADISON and JOHN JAY.
   The Federalist: a commentary on the
   Constitution of the United States;
   edited by Henry Cabot Lodge.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

HAMILTON, JOHN C.
   Life of Alexander Hamilton, by his son.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1840. 2 volumes.

HENRY, WILLIAM WIRT.
   Patrick Henry: life, correspondence and speeches.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891. 3 volumes.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
   History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-1691.
   Boston. 1764.

   History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1691-1750.
   Boston. 1767.

   History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774.
   London: J. Murray. 1828.

IRVING, WASHINGTON.
   Life of George Washington.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 5 volumes.

   Life of Washington; abridged for schools, with a brief
   outline of United States history, by John Fiske.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1887.

JOHNSON, ROSSITER.
   History of the French war, ending in the conquest of Canada.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. [1882.]

   History of the war of 1812-1815.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. [1882.]

JOHNSTON, HENRY P.
   The campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn.
   Brooklyn: Long Island Historical Society. 1878.

   The Yorktown campaign and the surrender of Cornwallis, 1781.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

JONES, THOMAS.
   History of New York during the Revolutionary War, and of the
   leading events in the other colonies at that period;
   edited by E. F. De Lancey.
   New York: New York Historical Society. 1879. 2 volumes.

      A loyalist history of the Revolution, by one of the Judges
      of the Supreme Court of the Province of New York, who wrote
      his account soon after the close of the war, being then in
      exile.

KAPP, FRIEDRICH.
   Life of Frederick William von Steuben.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1859.

LADD, HORATIO O.
   History of the War with Mexico.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1883.

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
   Life and letters of George Cabot.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1877.

   Short history of the English colonies in America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

LOSSING, BENSON J.
   Life and times of Philip Schuyler.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 2 volumes.

   Pictorial field book of the War of 1812.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1868.

      Chiefly valuable for its descriptions and illustrations of
      the scenes of the war, personally visited by the writer.

LOWELL, EDWARD J.
   The Hessians, and the other German auxiliaries of Great
   Britain in the Revolutionary War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1884.

MANSFIELD, E. D.
   The Mexican War. 10th edition.
   New York: Barnes & Co. 1819.

MOORE, FRANK, editor.
   Diary of the American Revolution,
   from newspapers and original documents.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1860. 2 volumes.

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR.
   Diary and letters;
   edited by Anne C. Morris.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

MORSE, JOHN T., JR.
   Life of Alexander Hamilton.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
   History of New Netherland; or New York under the Dutch.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846-8. 2 volumes.

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1858-64. 3 volumes.

   History of New England, from the revolution of the
   17th century to the revolution of the 18th.
   Boston: Little. Brown & Co. 1875-90. 2 volumes.

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   Works [historical].
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 11 volumes.

      Pioneers of France in the New World.
      The Jesuits in North America.
      La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West.
      The Old Regime in Canada.
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.
      A half century of conflict (2 volumes).
      Montcalm and Wolfe (2 volumes.).
      The conspiracy of on Pontiac.

QUINCY, EDMUND.
   Life of Josiah Quincy, by his son.
   Boston: Ticknor & Field. 1868.

RANDALL, HENRY S.
   Life of Thomas Jefferson.
   New York: Derby & Jackson. 1858. 3 volumes.

RHODES, JAMES FORD.
   History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893. 2 volumes.

RIEDESEL, Major General.
   Memoirs, letters and journals;
   translated from the German by W. L. Stone.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1868. 2 volumes.

RIEDESEL, Mrs. General.
   Letters and journals relating to the
   War of the American Revolution;
   translated from the German by W. L. Stone.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1867.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE.
   The naval war of 1812.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

SABINE, LORENZO.
   The American Loyalists.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

SCHUYLER, GEORGE W.
   Colonial New York: Philip Schuyler and his family.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1885. 2 volumes.

SCOTT, EBEN G.
   Development of constitutional liberty in the
   English colonies of America.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

SEWARD, F. W.
   Story of the life of William H. Seward.
   New York: Derby & Miller. 1891. 3 volumes.

SHEA, JOHN G.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi Valley.
   New York: Redfield. 1852.

SOLEY, JAMES RUSSELL.
   The boys of 1812 and other naval heroes.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1887.

      For young readers.

STEDMAN, C.
   History of the origin, progress and termination
   of the American War.
   London. 1794. 2 volumes.

      A contemporary history of the war of the Revolution written
      from the British standpoint, by one who served under Howe,
      Clinton and Cornwallis.

STEVENS, B. F.
   Facsimiles of manuscripts in European archives relating
   to America, 1773-1783; with descriptions, editorial notes,
   collations, references and translations.
   London. 1889-05. 25 volumes.

STEVENS, CHARLES ELLIS.
   Sources of the Constitution of the United States considered
   in relation to colonial and English history.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

{3905}

STILLÉ, CHARLES J.
   Major-General Anthony Wayne and the Pennsylvania Line in
   the Continental Army.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1893.

   Life and times of John Dickinson, 1732-1808.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1891.

STONE, WILLIAM L.
   Life and times of Sir William Johnson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

STORY, JOSEPH.
   Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
   Boston: Hilliard, G. & Co. 1833. 3 volumes.

SUMNER, WILLIAM G.
   The financier [Robert Morris] and the finances
   of the American Revolution.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1891.

TARBOX, INCREASE N.
   Life of Isreal Putnam.
   Boston: Lockwood, B. & Co. 1876.

TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS DE.
   Democracy in America;
   translated by Henry Reeves.
   London: Saunders & Co. 1886. 4 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815 (volume 1)
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/816 (volume 2)

   Same [under the title of "American Institutions"];
   revised and edited by F. Bowen. 7th edition.
   Boston: J. Allyn., 1874.

UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
   Documentary history of the Constitution of the
   United States of America, 1787-1870; derived from the
   records, manuscripts and rolls deposited in the
   Bureau of Rolls and library of the Department of State.
   Washington. 1894. volume 1.

WELLS, WILLIAM V.
   Life and public services of Samuel Adams.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1865. 3 volumes.

WHARTON, FRANCIS. editor.
   The Revolutionary diplomatic correspondence
   of the United States.
   Washington. 6 volumes.

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   Reader's handbook of the American Revolution, 1761-1783.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1880.

      It seems safe to say that no period in the history of any
      other country has so perfect a guide to the literature
      relating to it as this which Mr. Winsor has prepared for
      the period of the American Revolution.

WINTHROP ROBERT C.
   Life and letters of John Winthrop,
   Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company.
   2d edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1869. 2 volumes.


UNITED STATES: THE CIVIL WAR AND AFTER.

BADEAU, ADAM.
   Military history of Ulysses S. Grant, 1861-65.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868-81. 3 volumes.

BATTLES AND LEADERS OF THE CIVIL WAR;
   contributions by Union and Confederate officers;
   edited by R. U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buell.
   New York: Century Co. 1887-9. 4 volumes.

BLAINE, JAMES G.
   Twenty years of Congress: from Lincoln to Garfield;
   with a review of the events which led to the political
   revolution of 1860.
   Norwich, Connecticut: The Henry Bill Publishing Co. 1884-6.
   2 volumes.

      Mr. Blaine's contribution to the history or his own time is
      unquestionably to be counted among the works of permanent
      value.

BOWMAN, Colonel S. M., and Lieutenant Colonel R. B. IRWIN.
   Sherman and his campaigns: a military biography.
   New York: C. B. Richardson. 1865.

BOYNTON, CHARLES B.
   History of the navy during the Rebellion.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868. 2 volumes.

CAMPAIGNS OF THE CIVIL WAR.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1881-8. 13 volumes.

      1.  The outbreak of rebellion; by J. G. Nicolay.
      2.  From Fort Henry to Corinth; by M. F. Force.
      3.  The Peninsula: McClellan's campaign of 1862;
          by Alexander S. Webb.
      4.  The Army under Pope; by J. C. Ropes.
      5.  The Antietam and Fredericksburg; by F. W. Palfrey.
      6.  Chancellorsville and Gettysburg; by Abner Doubleday.
      7.  The Army of the Cumberland; by Henry M. Cist.
      8.  The Mississippi; by F. V. Greene
      9.  Atlanta; by Jacob D. Cox
      10. The March to the Sea; by Jacob D. Cox.
      11. The Shenandoah Valley in 1864; by George E. Pond.
      12. The Virginia campaign of '61 and '65;
          by A. A. Humphreys.
      (Supplementary volume) Statistical record of the armies
      of the United States.

CHAMPLIN, JOHN D., JR.
   Young folks' history of the War for the Union.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLETON.
   The drum-beat of the nation.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

   Marching to victory.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1889.

   Redeeming the Republic.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1890.

   Freedom triumphant.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

      The first of the four books last named narrates the history
      of the Civil War to the close of 1862; the second relates
      the events of 1863, the third those of 1864, and the fourth
      to the end of the war. They are great favorites among young
      readers.

   The boys of '61, or four years of fighting; personal
   observation with the army and navy.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1831.

COOKE, JOHN ESTEN.
   Stonewall Jackson; a military biography.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1876.

DAVIS, JEFFERSON.
   The rise and fall of the Confederate Government.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

DODGE, THEODORE A.
   A bird's-eye view of our Civil War.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1888.

DOUBLEDAY, A.
   Gettysburg made plain.
   New York: Century Co. 1888.

DRAPER, JOHN W.
   History of the American Civil War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867. 3 volumes.

FAMOUS ADVENTURES AND PRISON ESCAPES OF THE CIVIL WAR.
   New York: Century Co. 1893.

FARRAGUT, LOYALL.
   Life of David Glasgow Farragut.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879.

GIDDINGS, JOSHUA R.
   History of the Rebellion, its authors and causes.
   New York: Follett, Foster & Co. 1864.

      Really a Congressional history of the years preceding
      the Rebellion.

GORDON, GEORGE H.
   History of the campaigns of the Army of Virginia
   under John Pope, 1862.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1880.

GRANT, ULYSSES S.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1885-6. 2 volumes.

      "Nine-tenths of the value of autobiography is in the
      revelation of the writer himself to the world. This book is
      no exception to the rule. The history of his campaigns may
      be got elsewhere. Badeau's book is more full and has
      scarcely less of Grant's authority, for he revised its
      statements and certified that it contained his views. … It
      is, then, for the new light which they throw upon Grant
      himself that these memoirs will be prized. His personality
      was too strong to be hidden. When he took his pen to tell
      the story of his career, the things which flowed most
      easily from his mind were the judgments and opinions of men
      and of events in the gross and not the detailed incidents
      which the experienced writer would use to fill and color
      his narrative. … As to his style, it has the principal
      element of thoroughly good writing, since we are made to
      feel that the writer's only thought, in this regard, is how
      to express most directly and simply the thing he has to
      say."
         _J. D. Cox,
         Review (Nation, February 25. 1886)._

GREELEY, HORACE.
   The American conflict: a history of the Great Rebellion in the
   United States of America, its causes, incidents and results.
   Hartford: O. D. Case & Co. 1867. 2 volumes.

      A hurried and careless piece of work: poor in style and
      quite unworthy of the eminent journalist who produced it,
      but valuable as a document representing the views and
      feelings of the time.

HALE, EDWARD E., editor.
   Stories of war, told by soldiers.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1879.

HARRIS, T. M.
   The assassination of Lincoln: a history
   of the great conspiracy, trial of the conspirators
   by a military commission, and a review of the
   trial of John H. Surratt; by a member of the
   commission.
   Boston: American Citizen Co. 1892.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
   Army life in a black regiment.
   Boston: Fields, Osgood & Co. 1870.

HUGHES, ROBERT M.
   General [Joseph E.] Johnston.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1893.

HUMPHREYS, ANDREW A.
   From Gettysburg to the Rapidan: the Army of the Potomac,
   July, 1863, to April, 1864.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1888.

IRWIN, RICHARD B.
   History of the Nineteenth Army Corps.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

JOHNSON, ROSSITER.
   Short history of the War of Secession.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

KIEFFER, HARRY M.
   Recollections of a drummer-boy.
   7th edition revised and enlarged.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

LINCOLN, ABRAHAM.
   Complete works; comprising his speeches, letters,
   state papers, and miscellaneous writings;
   edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay.
   New York: Century Co. 1894.

LIVERMORE, MARY A.
   My story of the War: a woman's narrative of experience as
   nurse in the Union Army.
   Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Co. 1868.

LONG, A. L.
    Memoirs of Robert E. Lee.
    New York: Stoddard & Co. 1886.

McCLELLAN, GEORGE B.
   McClellan's own story: the war for the Union, the soldiers who
   fought it, the civilians who directed it, and his relations to
   it and to them.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1887.

{3906}

MAHAN, Captain A. T.
   Admiral Farragut.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

McPHERSON, EDWARD.
   Political history of the United States
   during the great Rebellion.
   Washington: Philip & Solomon. 1865.

      A valuable collection of state papers, Congressional
      enactments and other documents of the Rebellion history.

MILITARY HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
   Papers read, 1876-&1.
   Boston: 1881-86. 2 volumes.

      Volume 1. Peninsular campaign of General McClellan in 1862.
      Volume 2. Virginia campaign of General Pope.

NAVY IN THE CIVIL WAR, The.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883. 3 volumes.

      1. The blockade and the cruisers; by J. R. Soley.
      2.The Atlantic Coast}; by Daniel Ammen.
      3. The Gulf and inland waters; by A. T. Mahan._

NICHOLS, GEORGE WARD.
   The story of the great march.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1865.

      Descriptive of Sherman's march from Atlanta to the Sea.

NICOLAY, JOHN G., and JOHN HAY.
   Abraham Lincoln: a history.
   New York: Century Co. 1890. 10 volumes.

PARIS, Comte de.
   History of the Civil War in America;
   translated from the French.
   Philadelphia: J. H. Coates & Co. 1875-83. volumes 1-4.

      The most competent and thorough military history of the
      war, and its incompleteness must forever be regretted.

PARTON, JAMES.
   General Butler in New Orleans.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1864.

PITTENGER, WILLIAM.
   Capturing a locomotive; a history of secret service.
   Washington: National Tribune. 1885.

      An extraordinarily thrilling true story of war adventure;
      but the writer has exploited it in too many forms and under
      too many different titles.

PORTER, DAVID D.
   Naval history of the Civil War.
   New York: Sherman Publishing Co. 1886.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   The story of the Civil War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894. part 1.

SCHARF J. T.
   History of the Confederate States navy.
   Albany: J. McDonough. 1894.

SCHURZ, CARL.
   Abraham Lincoln: an essay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

SHERIDAN, PHILIP H.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

SHERMAN, GENERAL WILLIAM T.
   Memoirs, by himself; with an appendix, bringing his life
   down to its closing scenes.
   4th edition.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1891.

      A memoir of very great value in the literature of the
      history of the Civil War, owing to its straightforward,
      frank dealing with the events in which the Writer took
      part.

SOLEY, J. R.
   The sailor boys of '61.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1888.

SWINTON, WILLIAM.
   Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac: a critical history.
   New York: University Publishing Co. 1871.

   The twelve decisive battles of the War.
   New York: Dick & Fitzgerald. 1871.

TENNEY, W. J.
   Military and naval history of the Rebellion in
   the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

UNITED STATES, WAR DEPARTMENT.
   War of the Rebellion: a compilation of the Official Records of
   the Union and Confederate Armies.
   Washington. Series 1. volumes 1—46.

VAN HORNE, THOMAS B.
   History of the Army of the Cumberland.
   Cincinnati: R. Clarke & Co. 1875. 2 volumes and atlas of maps.

      A history largely based on the private military journal
      of General George H. Thomas, and written at his request.

   Life of Major General George H. Thomas.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

WALKER, FRANCIS A.
   History of the Second Army Corps in the Army of the Potomac.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

WILLIAMS, GEORGE W.
   History of the negro troops in the War of the Rebellion.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

WILSON, HENRY.
   History of the rise and fall of the slave power in America.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1872-7. 3 volumes.

WOODBURY, AUGUSTUS.
   Major General Ambrose E. Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps.
   Providence: S. S. Rider & Bro. 1867.


HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY.

   This, bibliography has been prepared by Mr. Alan C. Reiley,
   who writes the following explanatory note: "The original
   purpose of this bibliography was simply to bring together in a
   group by themselves the atlas works on historical geography;
   but the fact that all of the contributions to the literature
   of the subject do not exist in map form requires a slight
   expansion of the original plan. The list contains, therefore,
   in addition to the atlases, a number of carefully chosen text
   works, some of them not devoted exclusively to historical
   geography, but that subject forming in all them a predominant
   feature. The term 'historical geography' as here used refers
   distinctly to the geography of history, preferably the
   political geography of history and all of the much more
   numerous class of works on what may be called the history of
   geography, save as they may in some feature fall within the
   strict interpretation of this definition, have been carefully
   excluded."

   Mr. Reiley is not responsible for the typographical style in
   which German titles are printed.


ADAMS, SEBASTIAN C.
   Chronological chart of ancient, modern and biblical history;
   with thirteen historical maps by J. A. Paine.
   New York: Colby & Co. No date.

ANDRÄ, J. C.
   Kleiner historischer schul-atlas.
   Twelve maps, covering 19 pages, with text.
   Leipzig: Voigtländer. 1890.

ANDRIVEAU-GOUJON, G. G.
   Atlas classique et universel de géographie,
   ancienne et moderne.
   Paris: Andriveau-Goujon. 1865.

ANSART, FELIX.
   Atlas historique et géographique
   dressé pour l'usage des lycées, des colléges, etc.,
   nouvelle édition par Edmond Ansart fils. 121 maps.
   Paris: Fourant.

   Cours d'histoire et de géographie, à l'usage de tous
   les établissements d'instruction secondaire.
   Paris: Fourant. 5 volumes.

   Atlas historique universel dressé d'apres l'atlas
   historique des états Européens de Kruse. 19 maps.
   Paris: Andriveau-Goujon. 1861.

ANTHON, CHARLES.
   A system of ancient and mediaeval Geography.
   New York: Harper. 1850.

ANVILLE, J. B. B. d'.
   Compendium of ancient geography. 9 maps.
   London and New York. 1814. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, WILHELM.
   Ansiedelungen und wanderungen deutscher stämme.
   Marburg. 1875. 8 volumes.

BARBARET, C., and C. PÉRIGOT.
   Atlas général de géographie physique et politique, ancienne,
   du moyen âge, et moderne.
   Paris: Tandou et Cie. 1864.

BAZIN, FRANÇOIS.
   Atlas spécial de géographie physique, politique et
   historique de la France.
   Paris: Delalain. 1856.

BECK, J.
   Historisch-geographischer atlas für schule und haus. 26 maps.
   Freiburg: Herder. 1877. 3 parts.

BEDEUS VON SCHARBERG, JOSEPH.
   Historisch-genealogisch-geographischer atlas zur uebersicht
   der geschichte des ungrischen Reichs, seiner nebenländer und
   der angrenzenden staaten und provinzen.
   Hermannstadt. 1853.

BIANCO, ANDREA.
   Der atlas vom jahre 1436 in 10 tafeln. 9 plates and text.
   Venice: Münster. 1869.

BOECKH. R., und H. KIEPERT.
   Historische karte von Elsass und Lothringen zur uebersicht
   der territorialen veränderung im 17 und 18 jahrhundert;
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1871.

BOUFFARD, L.
   Atlas politique de l'Europe, 1814-1864, exposant le
   développement des principes de '89, etc.,
   accompagné d'un texte par Alexandre Bonneau.
   Paris: Dentu. 1864.

BOUILLET, NICOLAS.
   Atlas universel d'histoire et de géographie.
   88 cartes gravées et coloriées.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1872.

   Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1878.

BRASELMANN, J. E.
   Bibel-atlas zum schul und privat gebrauche.
   Düsseldorf: H. Michels. 1892.

BRECHER, ADOLF.
   Darstellung der gebietsveränderungen in den ländern Sachsens
   und Thüringens von dem zwölften jahrhundert bis heute.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1883.

   Darstellung der geschichtlichen entwickelung des bayerischen
   staatsgebietes.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1890.

   Darstellung der territorialen entwickelung des
   brandenburgisch-preussischen staates von 1415 bis jetzt.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1893.

   Historische wandkarte von Preussen. 9 blätter.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1888.

BRETSCHNEIDER.
   See Spruner-Bretschneider.

BRUÉ, ADRIEN.
   Atlas universel de géographie physique, politique, ancienne,
   du moyen âge et moderne, etc.;
   nouvelle édition par C. Piquet, complétée par E. Grangez.
   Paris: Barthélemier 1858.

{3907}

BUNBURY, E. H.
   A history of ancient geography among the Greeks and Romans
   from the earliest ages to the fall of the Roman empire.
   20 maps.
   London: John Murray. 1883. 2 volumes.

BUTLER, GEORGE.
   The public schools atlas of ancient geography.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.

BUTLER, SAMUEL.
   Atlas of ancient geography.
   21 maps.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.

CHEVALLIER, HENRI.
   Atlas de géographie historique, politique et physique;
   composé de 14 cartes.
   Paris: Delalain. 1865.

COLBECK, C.
   The public schools historical atlas.
   101 maps, covering 69 pages.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1885.

COLEMAN, LYMAN.
   Historical text book and atlas of biblical geography.
   7 maps and text.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1867.

COLLEGIATE ATLAS.
   See International atlas.

COLLIER, W. F.
   See Library atlas, also International atlas.

CORTAMBERT, E.
   Atlas (petit) de géographie ancienne, du moyen age et moderne;
   composé de 66 cartes.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1861.

   Atlas (nouvel) de géographie ancienne, du moyen âge, et
   moderne: compose de 100 cartes in 4to.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie.

   Cours de géographie, comprenant la description
   physique et politique et la géographie historique
   des diverses contrées du globe.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1873.

COUREN, A.
   Atlas classique d'histoire universelle ancienne et moderne.
   Paris: Putois-Cretté. 1880.

CURTIUS, ERNEST.
   Peloponnesos: eine historisch-geographische beschreibung.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1851. 2 volumes.

DAHN, FELIX.
   Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen völker.
   With maps.
   Berlin: 1881-1889. 4 volumes.

DELAMARCHE, A.
   Atlas de géographie physique, politique
   et historique; revue et augmenté par Grosselin.
   Paris: Grosselin 1865.

DENAIX, A.
   Atlas historique de la France,—depuis la
   conquête des Francs jusqu' à nos jours.
   Paris: A. Delahays. 1860.

DESJARDIN, E.
   Atlas géographique de l' Italie ancienne.
   Composé de 7 cartes et d'un dictionaire, etc.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1852.

   Geographie historique et administrative de la Gaule Romaine.
   With map and tables.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1876-1893. 4 volumes.

DITTMAR, G.
   Sieben geschichts-karten zum leitfaden
   der weltgeschichte von H. Dittmar.
   Heidelberg: C. Winter. 1888.

DITTMAR-VÖLTER'S historischer atlas. 19 maps.
   Heidelberg: C. Winter. 1884.

DROYSEN, G.
   Allgemeiner historischer hand atlas.
   96 maps and text.
   Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing; 1886.

DUFOUR, A. H.
   Le globe: atlas classique universel de géographie
   ancienne et moderne. 44 maps.
   Paris: J. Renouard. 1861.

DUFOUR, A. H. et T. DUVOTENAY.
   La terre: atlas de géographie ancienne,
   du moyen age, et moderne. 44 maps and text.
   Paris: A. Logerot. 1864.

DUSSIEUX, L.
   Atlas de géographie ancienne, du moyen âge, et moderne.
   68 maps.
   Paris: Lecoffre. 1848.

   Atlas general de géographie, physique, politique et historique.
   163 maps.
   Paris: Lecoffre. 1848.

   Les grands faits de l'histoire de la géographie.
   Paris: Lecoffre. 1882-1884. 6 volumes.

FIX, W.
   Territorialgeschichte des brandenburgisch-preussischen staates.
   Berlin. 1884.

   Übersichts-karte zur geschichte des preussischen
   staates und der übrigen staaten des deutschen reiches.
   Berlin: Schropp. 1890.

FORBIGER, ALBERT.
   Handbuch der alten geographie, aus den quellen bearbeitet.
   Hamburg: Haendcke & Lehmkuhl. 1877. 3 volumes.

FREEMAN, E. A.
   Historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881. 2 volumes;
   volume 1: text;
   volume 2: 65 maps.

FREUDENFELDT, H.
   Erwerbungen Preussens und Deutschlands:
   eine karte in farbendruck.
   Berlin: Seehagen. 1892.

FREUDENFELDT, H. und C. L. OHMANN.
   Karte des preussischen staates in seiner territorialen
   entwickelung unter den Hohenzollern. In farb.
   Berlin: Friedberg & Mode. 1892.

FREYHOLD, A. VON.
   Historisch-geographische karts von Preussen.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1850.

   Vollständiger atlas zur universalgeschichte. 3 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1850.

GAEBLER, E.
   Historische karte von Preussen.
   Leipzig: Lang. 1890.

GAGE, W. L.
   A modern historical atlas. 14 maps.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1869.

GANNETT, HENRY.
   Boundaries of the United States and of the several states and
   territories, with a historical sketch of the territorial changes.
   Washington: Government Printing Office. 1885.

GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
   School atlas of English history.
   66 colored maps, 22 battle plans.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

GAZEAU, A.
   Histoire de la formation de nos frontières.
   Paris: H. E. Martin. 1881.

GESTER, J. S.
   Karten zur schweizer-geschichte. 8 maps and text.
   Zürich: Hofer & Burger. 1886.

GOVER, EDWARD.
   The historic geographical atlas of the middle and modern ages.
   17 maps (based on Spruner).
   London: Varty & Owen. 1853.

GRABOWSKY, WILHELM VON.
   Territorialgeschichte des preussischen staates.
   Berlin. 1845.

HANNAK, EMAN und F. UMLAUFT.
   Historischer schul-atlas in 30 karten.
   Vienna: Hölder. 1891.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL.
   Epoch maps illustrating American history.
   14 maps.
   New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

HERMANS, H. und J. WOLTJER.
   Atlas der algemeene en vaderlandsche geschiedenis.
   68 large and small maps, and text.
   Groningen.: J. B. Wolters. 1891.

HERTSLET, EDWARD.
   The map of Europe by treaty showing the various political and
   territorial changes which have taken place since the general
   peace of 1814; nearly 700 state papers, numerous maps.
   London. 1875-1891. 4 volumes.

HIMLY, AUGUSTE.
   Histoire de la formation territoriale des états
   de l'Europe centrale.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1876.

HINSDALE, B. A.
   The old northwest, with a view of the thirteen colonies as
   constituted by the royal charters.
   10 maps.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1888.

HOPF, CARL.
   Historiseh-genealogischer atlas, seit Christi geburt bis
   auf unsere zeit.
   Abtheilung: Deutschland.
   Gotha: F. A. Perthes. 1858-1866.

HUBAULT, G.
   Atlas pour servir à l'histoire des guerres de lá République
   et de l'Empire.
   Paris: Berlin. 1860.

HUGHES, WILLIAM.
   Atlas of classical geography;
   edited by George Long.
   26 plates containing 62 maps.
   Philadelphia: Blanchard & Lea. 1858.

HURLBUT, J. L.
   Manual of biblical geography;
   27 full page maps, text, etc.
   Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co.

IMBERT DES MOTTELETTES, CHARLES.
   Atlas pour servir à l'étude de l'histoire moderne de
   l'Europe (1615-1815).
   Paris: Chez l'autenr. 1834-1849.

INTERNATIONAL ATLAS.
   Contains 62 maps. The classical and historical maps of
   Schmitz and Collier respectively in this atlas, are, with
   some color variations, identical with those in the "Library
   Atlas." The "Collegiate Atlas" is the International
   with a few omissions.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

ISSLEIB, WILHELM.
   Historiseh-geographischer schul-atlas. 36 maps.
   Gera: Issleib & Rietschel. 1874.

ISSLEIB, WILHELM und T. KONIG.
   Atlas zur biblischen geschichte.
   8 maps.
   Gera: Issleib & Rietschel. 1878.

JACOBI, C.
   Bibel-atlas. 9 maps and text.
   Gera: Hofmann. 1891.

JAUSZ, G.
   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas.
   3 parts: Die alte welt, das mittel-alter, die neue
   und neueste zeit. 32 maps and text.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1876.

JOHNSON, T. B.
   Historical geography of the clans of Scotland,
   1 large and 5 small maps.
   Edinburgh: W. & A. K. Johnston. 1873.

JOHNSTON, A. K.
   Atlas to Alison's history of Europe, 108 maps,
   mostly battle maps.
   Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1875.

JOHNSTON, KEITH.
   Half-crown atlas of British history, 30 maps.
   Edinburgh: W. & A. K. Johnston.

   Physical, historical, political and descriptive geography.
   21 maps, the first 12 historical.
   London: E. Stanford. 1890.

JONES'S classical atlas. 18 maps.
   London: Jones & Co. 1830.

{3908}

KAEMMEL, OTTO und G. LEIPOLD.
   Handkarte zur geschichte der wettinischen lande.
   Also "Schulwandkarte" of the same.
   Dresden: Huhle. 1891.

KAMPEN, ALBERT VON.
   Atlas antiquus.
   Taschen atlas der alten welt. 24 maps.
   Gotha: J:Perthes. 1893.

   Descriptiones nobilissimorum apud classicos locorum.
   First series: Caesar's Gallic war. 15 maps with tables.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1879.

   Orbis terrarum antiquus in scholarum usum descriptus.
   16 maps with text.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1888.

   Tabulae maximae quibus illustrantur terrae veterum
   in usum scholarum descriptae. Tabula I-IV.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1888.

KARTENSKIZZE der alten welt zur allgemeinsten übersicht der
alten und mittleren geschichte, mit besond. rücksicht auf F. v.
W.'s schlachten und gefechts-tafeln entworfen und zeittafel der
wichtigsten kämpfe und einiger besonders interessanten momente
von 1.500 v. Chr. bis 1492 n. Chr. 5 tab.
   Vienna: Artaria, 1888.

KEPPEL, CARL.
   Atlas zur geschichte des deutschen volkes für mittelschulen.
   13 maps.
   Hof: Büching. 1876.

   Geschichts-atlas In 27 karten.
   Nuremberg: Büching. 1889-1892.

KIENITZ, O.
   Historische karte des grossherzog.
   Baden. 6 nebenkarten.
   Karlsruhe: Bielefleld. 1886.

KIEPERT, HEINRICH.
   Atlas antiquus. 12 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1892.

   Formae orbis antiqui. Part 1, 6 maps.
   To be completed in six parts.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1894.

   Historisch-geographischer atlas der alten welt. 16 maps.
   Weimer: Geograph. Institut. 1878.

   Historische karte des brandenburgisch-preussischen
   staates nach seiner territorial-entwickelung unter
   den Hohenzollern.
   Berlin: Paetel. 1889.

   Lehrbuch der alten geographie.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1878.

   Leitfaden der alten geographie.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1879.

   Neuer atlas von Hellas und den hellenischen colonien. 15 maps.
   Berlin: Nicolai. 1872.

   Numerous historical maps (including wall maps);
   each published separately.
   Berlin: D. Reimer.

KIEPERT, HEINRICH und C. WOLFF.
   Historischer schul-atlas zur alten, mittleren
   und neueren geschichte. 36 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1893.

KIEPERT, HEINRICH und R. BOECKH.
   See BOECKH, R.

KIRCHNER, M.
   Spezialkarten.
   I: Elsass im jahre 1648 (mit Abhandlung).
   II: Elsass im jahre 1789.
   III: Das reichsland Lothringen im jahre 1766. Wandkarte.
   Das reichsland Elsass Lothringen 1648-1789.
   Strassburg: Trübner. 1878.

KÖNIG, TH.
   See Issleib.

KŒPPEN, A. L.
   The world in the middle ages: an historical geography.
   Text and six maps.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1854.

KRUSE, CHRISTIAN.
   Atlas und tabellen zur übersicht der geschichte aller
   europäischen länder und staaten.
   Friedrich Kruse, editor. Halle. 1834.

LABBERTON, ROBERT H.
   New historical atlas and general history.
   71 maps and text.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1888.

LANCIZOLLE, C. W. VON.
   Geschichte der bildung des preussischen staates.
   Berlin. 1828.

LANESSAU, J. L. DE.
   L'expansion coloniale de la France.
   Paris. 1886.

LANGHANS, PAUL.
   Deutscher kolonial-atlas.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1893-1895.

LAPIE.
   Atlas universel de géographie ancienne et moderne. 50 maps.
   Paris: Lehuby. 1851.

LEEDER, E.
   Atlas zur geschichte des preussischen staates. 10 plates.
   Geographisches Institut. zu Weimar. 1875.

   Schul-atlas zur biblischen geschichte.
   6 maps and text.
   Essen: Baedeker. 1892.

LEIPOLD, G.
   See Kaemmel.

LEJOSNE, L. A.
   Géographie physique, politique, historique et économique de la
   France et de ses colonies: revue et corrigée par A. Dufresne.
   Paris: Bertaux. 1877.

LELEWEL, JOACHIM.
   Geographie du moyen age.
   Brussels. 1852-57. 5 volumes and atlas.

LEVESQUE, P. C.
   Atlas de l'histoire de Russie et des principales nations
   de l'empire Russe. 60 maps.
   Paris. 1812.

LIBRARY ATLAS.
   Contains 90 maps, including 16 of historical geography
   by W. F. Collier and 14 of classical geography by
   Leonhard Schmitz.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1876.
   (See International Atlas).

LONG, GEORGE.
   See Hughes.

LONGNON, A.
   Atlas historique de la France depui César jusqu' à nos jours.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1884-1889.
   To be completed in 7 parts containing 5 plates each;
   3 parts Issued.

   Geographie de la Gaule au VI siècle.
   With atlas containing 11 maps.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1878.

LUCAS, C. P.
   Historical geography of the British colonies. 31 maps.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890. 3 volumes.

MacCOUN, TOWNSEND.
   Historical geography charts of Europe.
   37 charts, 18 ancient and 19 mediaeval and modern.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1894.

   Historical geography charts of the United States. 18 charts.
   New York: Silver, Burdett & Co. 1889.

   An historical geography of the United States.
   New York: Silver, Burdett & Co. 1892.

MANDROT, A VON.
   Historischer atlas der Schweiz vom jahre 1300 bis 1798.
   Geneva: Kessman. 1855.

MEES, A.
   Historische atlas van Noord Nederland.
   Rotterdam. 1852-1865.

MEISSAS, A., et MICHELET.
   Atlas universel de geographie ancienne, du moyen age
   et moderne, et de geographie sacrée, composé de 54 cartes
   écrites avec 8 cartes muettes.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie.

MENKE, THEODOR.
   Bibel-atlas. 8 plates.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1868.

   Orbis antiqui descriptio. 18 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1865.

   Historico-geographical hand-atlas
   [continuation of the above]. 27 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1872.

   See also Spruner-Menke.

MEYER, C. F. und A. KOCH.
   Atlas zu Caesar's bellum Gallicum.
   Essen: Baedeker. 1889.

MEYER VON KNONAU, GEROLD.
   See Vögelin.

MOMMSEN, THEODOR.
   The provinces of the Roman empire from Caesar to Diocletian:
   translated by Wm. P. Dickson, with 10 maps by Kiepert.
   New York: Charles Scribner's' Sons. 1887. 2 volumes.

OHMANN, C. L.
   Palaestina zur zeit Jesu und der Apostel.
   II. Das königreich Jerusalem zur zeit der kreuzzüger.
   Berlin: Wruck. 1868.

OHMANN, C. L.
   See. Freudenfeldt.

PAQUIER, J. B.
   Histoire de l'unité politique et territoriale de la France.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1879-1880. 3 volumes.

PAWLOWSKI, J .N.
   Historisch-geographische karte vom alten Preussen und
   Pommerellen während der herrschaft des deutschen Ritterordens.
   Graudenz: Gaebel. 1890.

PEARSON, CHARLES H.
   Historical maps of England during the first thirteen centuries.
   5 maps and text.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1870.

PERIGOT, C.
   See BARBARET.

PLÄNE DER SCHLACHTEN UND TREFFEN.
   Feldzügen der jahre 1813, 1814, und 1815.
   (Herausgegeben vom Königl. Preuss. Generalstab.) 15 plans.
   Berlin: Reimer. 1821-82.

PORPHYROGENITUS, CONSTANTINUS.
   De thematibus et de administrando imperio.
   (In "Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae," 3rd volume.)
   Bonn. 1840.

PORSCHKE, E.
   Schulwandkarte der brandenburgisch-preussichen geschichte.
   Elberfeld: Loewenstein. 1891.

PÜTZ, WILHELM.
   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas. 20 maps and text.
   Regensburg: Manz. 1882.

   Manual of ancient geography and history;
   translated by T. K. Arnold.
   New York: Appleton. 1851.

   Manual of mediaeval geography and history:
   translated by R. B. Paul.
   New York: Appleton. 1863.

   Manual of modern geography and history:
   translated by R. B. Paul.
   New York: Appleton. 1851.

PUTZGER, F. W.
   Historischer schul-atlas der alten, mittleren
   und neuren geschichte.
   32 large and 51 small maps.
   Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1887.

   Kleiner geschichtsatlas. 17 large and 23 small maps.
   Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1889.

QUIN, EDWARD.
   Atlas of universal history. 21 maps on uniform scale.
   London and Glasgow: R. Griffin & Co.

RAFFY, CASIMIR.
   Atlas classique des repetitions et des lectures d'histoire
   et de geographie. 40 maps.
   Toulouse: Durand. 1863.

RAMSAY, WILLIAM M.
   Historical geography of Asia Minor.
   (Royal Geographical Society. Supplementary papers, volume 4.)
   London: John Murray. 1890.

RASCHE, R., und R. ZIMMERMANN.
   Historischer atlas. 12 maps.
   Annaberg: Rudolph & Dieterici. 1874.

{3909}

RHEINHARD, H.
   Atlas orbis antiqui. 12 maps.
   Struttgart. 1886.

RHODE, C. E.
   Historischer schul-atlas der alten, mittleren
   und neueren geschichte. 30 plates containing 89 maps.
   Glogau: Flemming. 1875.

RIESS, RICH. VON.
   Atlas historique et géographique de la Bible. 10 maps.
   Freiburg: Herder. 1892.

ROLLAND DE DEN US, ANDRÉ.
   Les anciennes provinces de la France.
   Paris: Le Chevalier. 1885.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   Atlas to the campaign of Waterloo. 14 maps.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

RUSTOW, WILHELM.
   Atlas zu Caesar's gallischem krieg. 15 maps.
   Struttgart: Hoffman. 1868.

SALÉ, RENÉ.
   Geographie physique, politique, historique, etc.,
   de la France et de ses colonies.
   Paris: Nouvelle librarie scientifique et littéraire. 1884.

SCAIFE, WALTER B.
   America: its geographical history. 1492-1892.
   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 1892.

SCHADE, T.
   Atlas zur geschichte des preussischen staates.
   12 maps and text.
   Glogau: Flemming. 1881.

SCHLACHTEN
   ATLAS des 19ten jahrhundert.
   Zeitraum, 1820 bis zur gegenwart. 63 maps.
   Iglau: Bäuerle. 1889-92.

SCHMITZ, LEONHARD.
   See LIBRARY ATLAS, also INTERNATIONAL ATLAS.

SCHRADER, F.
   Atlas de geographie historique.
   18 parts of 3 map each.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. en cours de publication.

SCHROEDEL'S
   Atlas zum religions-und kirchen-geschichtlichen unterricht.
   9 maps.
   Halle: H. Schroedel. 1891.

SCHUBERT, F. W.
   Atlas antiquus. Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas
   der alten welt.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1887.

SCHUBERT, F. W. und W. SCHMIDT.
   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas des mittel alters.
   19 maps.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1889.

SCHURIG, G.
   Karten-atlas, historischer, zunächst zur ergänzung von
   G. Schurig's lehrbüchern der geschichte.
   14 large and 15 small maps.
   Breslau: F. Hirt. 1886.

SEIBERT, A. E.
   Geschichts-karten für volks-und bürgerschulen. 4 maps.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1879.

SELOSSE, RENÉ.
   Traité de l'annexion au territoire français et de son
   démembrement, etc.
   Paris: Larose. ]879.

SEYFFERTH, J. A.
   Atlas der biblischen länder für volks und mittelschulen.
   Hof: Büching. 1876.

SHEAHAN, JAMES W.
   The universal historical atlas; genealogical, chronological
   and geographical. 25 maps, statistical charts, tables, etc.
   New York and Chicago: Warren, Cockcroft & Co. 1873.

SIEGLIN, W.
   Karte der entwickelung des römischen reiches; with text.
   Leipzig: Schmidt & Günther. 1885.

   See also SPRUNER-SIEGLIN.

SMITH, GEORGE ADAM.
   The historical geography of the Holy Land, especially in
   relation to the history of Israel and of the early church.
   6 maps.
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 1894.

SMITH, WILLIAM.
   Atlas of ancient geography.
   43 maps by Dr. Charles Müller, and descriptive text.
   London: John Murray. 1874.

   Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography.
   London: 1854.

   Student's manual of ancient geography.
   London: 1861.

SPRUNER, K. VON.
   Atlas zur geschichte von Bayern.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1838.

   Historisch-geographischer atlas. 23 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes.

   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas des gesammt-staates
   Oesterreich von der ältesten bis auf die neuesten zeiten.
   13 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1860.

   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas von Deutschland.
   12 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1866.

SPRUNER-BRETSCHNEIDER.
   Historischer wand-atlas. 10 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1877.

SPRUNER-MENKE.
   (part 1) Atlas antiquus. 31 colorirte karten.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1865.

   (Part 2). Hand-atlas für die geschichte des mittelalters
   und der neueren zeit. 90 colorirte karten in kupferstich
   mit 376 nebenkarten.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1879.

   (part 3). Atlas zur geschichte Asiens, Afrikas,
   Amerikas und Australiens. 18 colorirte karten mit 9 nebenkarten.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1855.

SPRUNER-SIEGLIN.
   Atlas antiquus. (Atlas zur geschichte des alterthums.)
   34 colorirte karten in kupferstich, 94 historische karten und
   73 nebenkarten. To be completed in 8 parts, 3 parts issued.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1893-94.

SÜSSMILCH-HÖRNIG, M. VON.
   Historisch-geographischer atlas von Sachsen und Thüringen.
   Dresden: Von Bötticher. 1863.

TARDIEU, AMÉDÉE.
   Atlas universel de geographie ancienne et moderne;
   revue et corrigé par A. Vuillemin.
   Paris: Furne. 1863.

UKERT, FRIEDRICH.
   Geographie der Griechen und Roemer von d. frühesten zeiten
   bis auf Ptolemäus.
   Weimar: Geograph-Institut. 1816-1846. 3 volumes.

UMLAUFT, F.
   Wandkarte zum studien der geschichte
   der österr.-ungar. monarchie.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1890.

UMLAUFT, F. und E. HANNAK.
   See Hannak, E.

VAT, L.
   Nouvel atlas classique, politique, historique et commercial.
   Paris: Alexandre. 1863. 3 volumes.

VIVIEN DE SAINT MARTIN, L.
   Description historique et géographique de l'Asie Mineure,
   comprenant les temps anciens, le moyen age et les temps
   modernes, précédée d'un tableau de l'histoire géographique
   de l'Asie depuis les plus anciens temps jusqu' à nos jours.
   Paris: Bertrand. 1852. 2 volumes.

VIVIEN DE SAINT MARTIN, L. und F. SCHRADER.
   Atlas universel de geographie moderne, ancienne et
   du moyen age. 110 maps and text.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1891.

VÖGELIN, J. K., und G. MEYER VON KNONAU.
   Historisch-geographischer atlas der Schweiz.
   Zürich: Schulthess. 1868.

VOIGHT, F.
   Historischer atlas der Mark Brandenburg. 7 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1845.

   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas der mittleren und
   neueren zeit. 17 maps.
   Berlin: Nicolai. 1877.

   Schul-atlas der alten geographie. 16 maps.
   Berlin: Nicolai. 1877.

WELLER. EDWARD.
   The student's atlas of classical geography.
   15 maps, with text by L. Schmitz.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

WENDT, G.
   Schul-atlas zur brandenburgisch-preussischen geschichte.
   12 maps and text.
   Glogau: Flemming. 1889.

WILTSCH, J. E. T.
   Atlas Sacer. 5 maps.
   Göttingen. 1843.

   Kirchliche geographie und statistik.
   Gottingen. 1846. 2 volumes.
   English translation by John Leitch.
   London. 1859.

WITZLEBEN, A. F. VON.
   Geschichtlich-geographische entwickelung des zuwachses und der
   abnahme des polnischen reiches vom jahre 992 bis zum jahre
   1831.
   5 maps and text.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1831.

WOLFF, C.
   Historischer atlas zur mittleren und neueren geschichte.
   19 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1877.

   Karte des ehemaligen königreich Polen, nach den grenzen von
   1772. Mit angabe der theilungslinien von 1772, 1793, und 1795.
   Hamburg: Friederichsen. 1872.

   Die mitteleuropaeischen staaten nach ihren geschichtllchen
   bestandtheilen des ehemaligen römisch-deutschen kaiser-reiches.
   Berlin: Habel. 1872.

WOLFF, C. und H. KIEPERT.
   See KIEPERT, H.

ZIMMERMANN, R.
   See RASCHE.

{3910}

A LIST OF THE WORKS FROM WHICH PASSAGES HAVE BEEN QUOTED IN
"HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE AND TOPICAL READING."


ABBOT, J. WILLIS.
   Battle-fields and victory.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1891).

ABBOTT, EVELYN.
   History of Greece.
   London: Rivingtons. 1888-92. volumes 1-2.

   Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens.
   New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

ACADEMY, The.
   London.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
   Revised version.

ADAMS, BROOKS.
   The emancipation of Massachusetts.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

ADAMS Major CHARLES.
   Great campaigns In Europe from 1796 to 1870.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877.

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
   Massachusetts: its historians and its history.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893.

   Railroads: their origin and problems.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1878.

   Richard Henry Dana.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890. 2 volumes.

ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL.
   Democracy and monarchy in France.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.

   Manual of historical literature.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

ADAMS, FRANCIS.
   Preliminary discourse
   [Genuine works of Hippocrates.
   London: Sydenham Society. 1849. 2 volumes.].

ADAMS, Sir FRANCIS O., and C. D. CUNNINGHAM.
   The Swiss Confederation.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

ADAMS, GEORGE BURTON.
   Civilization during the Middle Ages.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1894.

ADAMS, HENRY.
   History of the United States [1801-1817].
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889-91. 9 volumes.

   John Randolph.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

   Life of Albert Gallatin.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1879.

ADAMS, HERBERT B.
   Maryland's influence upon land cessions to the United States.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 3d series number 1.)
   Baltimore. 1885.

   Methods of historical study.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 2d series 1-2.).
   Baltimore. 1884.

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY.
   Life of John Adams, completed by Charles Francis Adams.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1871. 2 volumes.

   Memoirs; edited by Charles Francis Adams.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874-5.

ADAMS, W. H. DAVENPORT.
   The Queen of the Adriatic.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1869.

ADDISON, C. G.
   The Knights Templars. 3d edition.
   London: Longman. 1854.

ADLER, G. J.
   Introduction to Fauriel's "History of Provençal poetry"
   New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860.

ADOLPHUS, JOHN.
   History of England, reign of George III.
   London: John Lee. 1840. 7 volumes.

ADVOCATE, The.

AIRY, OSMUND.
   The English restoration and Louis XIV.
   London: Longman, Green & Co. 1888.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1889.

AITCHISON, Sir CHARLES.
   Lord Lawrence.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892.

ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, The.

ALEXANDER, W. D.
   Brief history of the Hawaiian people.
   New York: American Book Co. (c. 1891).

ALGER, JOHN G.
   Glimpses of the French Revolution.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1894.

ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.
   History of Europe, 1789-1815. 10 volumes.
   1815-1852. 6 volumes.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   Epitome of History of Europe.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1880.

ALISON. Sir ARCHIBALD.
   Military life of John, Duke of Marlborough.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1847.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1848.

ALLAN, WILLIAM.
   The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

ALLEN, JOSEPH HENRY.
   Christian history in its three great periods.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1883.

   Hebrew men and times.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Co. 1861.

ALLEN, WALTER.
   Governor Chamberlain's administration in South Carolina.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

ALLEN, WILLIAM B.
   History of Kentucky.
   Louisville, Kentucky: Brady & Gilbert. 1872.

ALLIES, THOMAS W.
   The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations.
   London: Burns & Oates.
   New York: Catholic Publication Society. 1888.

ALZOG, JOHN.
   Manual of universal Church History.
   Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son. 1879-82. 4 volumes.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
   Annals. Philadelphia.

AMERICAN ANNALS OF EDUCATION.
   Boston: Otis, Broaders & Co.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
   Reports.

AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.
   Publications.
   Baltimore.

AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL CYCLOPÆDIA.
   New York: J. W. Schermerhorn & Co. 1875.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
   Annual reports.
   Washington: Government Printing Office.

   Papers.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

AMERICAN LAW REVIEW, The.
   Boston and St. Louis.

AMERICAN NATURALIST, The.
   Philadelphia.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CHURCH HISTORY.
   Papers.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

ANDERSON, RASMUS B.
   America not discovered by Columbus.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1874.

   Norse mythology.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1875.

ANDOVER REVIEW.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

ANDREWS, CHARLES McLEAN.
   The old English manor.
   (Johns Hopkins Studies, extra volume 12.)
   Baltimore. 1892.

ANDREWS, E. BENJAMIN.
   History of the United States.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894. 2 volumes.

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1870, 1887, 1889, 1891.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.

ANSON, Sir WILLIAM R.
   Law and custom of the Constitution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1896-92. 2 volumes.

APPLETONS' ANNUAL CYCLOPÆDIA.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

APPLETONS' JOURNAL.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, The.
   London.

ARGYLL, Duke of.
   Scotland as it was and as it is.
   Edinburgh: David Douglas. 1887. 2 volumes.

ARISTOTLE.
   On the Constitution of Athens;
   translated by E. Poste.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

   Politics;
   translated by Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1885. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, EDWIN.
   Marquis of Dalhousie's administration of British India.
   London: Saunders, Otley & Co. 1862-5. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, ISAAC N.
   Life of Abraham Lincoln.
   Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co. 1885.

ARNOLD, MATTHEW.
   Higher schools and universities in Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

   Isaiah of Jerusalem.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Schools and universities on the continent.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1868.

ARNOLD, SAMUEL GREENE.
   History of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859-60. 2 volumes.

{3911}

ARNOLD, THOMAS.
   History of Rome.
   London. 1871. 3 volumes.

   History of the later Roman commonwealth.
   London: Bickers & Son. 1882. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD. W. T.
   The Roman system of provincia] administration.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

ASHLEY, W. J.
   Introduction to English economic history and theory.
   London: Rivingtons. 1888.

ASHWORTH, HENRY.
   Recollections of Richard Cobden.
   London and New York: Cassell. [1877.]

ATHENÆUM, The.
   London.

ATKINSON, PHILIP.
   Elements of electric lighting.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand Co. 1890.

ATLANTIC MONTHLY, The.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

AUMALE, Due d'.
   History of the Princes de Condé.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1872. 2 volumes.

AUSTIN, GEORGE LOWELL.
   History of Massachusetts.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1876.

AUSTIN, JOHN.
   Lectures on jurisprudence.
   London: John Murray. 2 volumes.

BAAS, JOH. HERMANN.
   Outlines of the history of medicine.
   New York: J. H. Vail & Co. 1889.

BADEAU, ADAM.
   Grant In peace.
   Hartford: S. S. Scranton & Co. 1887.

   Military history of Ulysses S. Grant.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868-81. 3 volumes.

BAGEHOT, WALTER.
   Biographical studies.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.

   Lombard street.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1873.

   Physics and politics.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1873.

BAIRD, CHARLES W.
   History of the Huguenot emigration to America.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1885.) 2 volumes.

BAIRD, HENRY M.
   History of the rise of the Huguenots of France.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1879. 2 volumes.

   The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

BALBO, CESARE.
   Life and times of Dante.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1852. 2 volumes.

BALCH, THOMAS.
   The French in America during the War of Independence.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1891.

BALZANI, UGO.
   The Popes and the Hohenstaufen.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States: author's last revision.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1883-5. 6 volumes.

   Martin Van Buren.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1889.

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
   History of the Pacific states of North America.
   San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Co. 1882-90. 34 volumes.

   Native races of the Pacific states.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874-1876. 5 volumes.

BANDELIER, ADOLF F.
   A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary
   Indians of New Mexico.
   (Papers of the Archæological Institute of America:
   American series, volume 1.)
   Boston: A. Williams & Co. 1881.

BANKER'S MAGAZINE, The.
   New York: Homans Publishing Co.

BAPTISTS AND THE NATIONAL CENTENARY, The.
   Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society. 1876.

BARCLAY, THOMAS.
   Selections from the correspondence of Thomas Barclay.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1894.

BARMBY, J.
   Gregory the Great.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1879.

BARNARD, HENRY.
   National education in Europe. 2d edition.
   New York: Charles B. Norton. 1854.

   editor. American Journal of Education.
   Hartford.

   editor. Letters, essays and thoughts on studies and conduct.
   2d edition.
   Hartford: American Journal of Education. 1873.

   editor. Papers on Froebel's kindergarten.
   Hartford: American Journal of Education. 1881.

BARNARD, J. G.
   The Peninsular campaign.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand. 1864.

BARNES, THURLOW WEED.
   Memoir of Thurlow Weed.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

BARNES, WILLIAM H.
   History of the 39th Congress of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1868.

BARROWS, WILLIAM.
   Oregon.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

BARRY, JOHN STETSON.
   History of Massachusetts.
   Boston. 3 volumes.

BARRY, WILLIAM.
   Venezuela.
   London: Marshall Bros. 1886.

BARSTOW, G.
   History of New Hampshire.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1853.

BARY. A. DE.
   Lectures on bacteria.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1887.

BASTABLE, C. F.
   Commerce of nations.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1892.

BATTLES AND LEADERS OF THE CIVIL WAR:
   edited by Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buel.
   New York: The Century Co. (c.1884-1888.) 4 volumes.

BAUR, FERDINAND C.
   Church history of the first three centuries.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1878-1879. 2 volumes.

BAYNE, PETER.
   Martin Luther.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

BAZAN, E. P.
   Russia.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1890.

BEARD, CHARLES.
   Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany.
   London: Kegan Paul, French & Co. 1889.

   The Reformation.
   (Hibbert lectures, 1883.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1883.

BEDE, The Venerable.
   Ecclesiastica] history of England:
   edited by A. Giles.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1849.

BEER, GEORGE L.
   Commercial policy of Eng]and toward the American colonies.
   (Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2.) 1893.

BEESLY, EDWARD SPENCER.
   Queen Elizabeth.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

BELL, ROBERT.
   History of Russia.
   London: Longman. 1836. 3 volumes.

   Life of Rt. Hon. George Canning.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1846.

BENJAMIN, PARK.
   The age of electricity.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

BENJAMIN, S. G. W.
   Story of Persia.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

BENT, J. THEODORE.
   Genoa.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1881.

BENTLEY'S MISCELLANY.
   London.

BENTON, T. H.
   Thirty Years' View.
   New York: D. Appleton and Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

BERDOE, EDWARD.
   Origin and growth of the healing art.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1893.

BESANT, WALTER.
   Gaspard de Coligny.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1879.

   Readings in Rabelais.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. 1883.

BESANT, WALTER. and E. H. PALMER.
   Jerusalem.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1871.

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
   History of Virginia.
   Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.

BEZOLD, C.
   Oriental diplomacy: being the transliterated text of the
   cuneiform despatches.
   London: Luzac & Co. 1893.

BIEDERMANN, KARL.
   Dreissig jahre Deutscher geschichte.
   Breslau. 1881-2. 2 volumes.

BIGELOW, L. J.
   Bench and bar.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867.

BIGELOW, MELVILLE M.
   History of procedure.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

BIGG, CHARLES.
   The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.
   (Bampton Lectures, 1886.)
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.

BIGLAND, JOHN.
   History of Spain.
   London: Longman. 1810. 2 volumes.

BIKELAS, DEMETRIOS.
   Seven essays on Christian Greece.
   Paisley and London: Alexander Gardner. 1890.

BINGHAM, ANSON.
   Law of real property.
   Albany: W. C. Little & Co. 1868.

BINGHAM, JOSEPH.
   Antiquities of the Christian Church.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1865. 2 volumes.

BISHOP, J. LEANDER.
   History of American Manufactures.
   Philadelphia: Edward Young & Co.
   London: S. Low, Son & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

BISMARCK-SCHÖNHAUSEN. KARL OTTO, Prince.
   Politischen reden.
   Stuttgart. 1892-4. volumes 1-12.

BLACK, ALEXANDER.
   Story of Ohio.
   Boston: D. Lothrop Co. (c. 1888).

BLACK, CHARLES INGHAM.
   The proselytes of Ishmael.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1881.

BLACKIE JOHN STUART.
   Four phases of morals.
   London: Hamilton & Co.

   What does history teach?
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

{3912}

BLACKSTONE, Sir WILLIAM.
   Commentaries on the laws of England.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.

BLACKWOODS' EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.
   Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood & Sons.

BLADES, WILLIAM.
   Books in chains.
   London: Elliot Stock. 1892.

BLAINE, JAMES G.
   Twenty years of Congress.
   Norwich, Connecticut: The Henry Bill Publishing Co. 1886.
   2 volumes.

BLANQUI, JÉRÔME-ADOLPHE.
   History of political economy in Europe.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1880.

BLÜMNER, H.
   Home life of the ancient Greeks.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1893.

BLUNT, JOHN HENRY.
   Reformation of the Church of England, 1514-1547.
   London: Rivingtons. 1869.

BOCCACCIO, GIOVANNI.
   The Decameron.
   London: George Routledge & Son.

BOECKH, AUGUSTUS.
   Public economy of the Athenians.
   London: S. Low, Son & Co.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1857.

BOLLES, ALBERT S.
   Financial history of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879-86. 3 volumes.

BONNECHOSE, EMILE DE.
   History of France.
   London: Ward, Lock & Co.

BOONE, RICHARD G.
   Education In the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1889.

BOOTH, MARY L.
   History of the city of New York.
   New York: W. R. C. Clark. 1866.

BOOTH, MAUD B.
   Beneath two flags.
   New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls. 1889.

BORROW, G.
   The Zincali.
   London: John Murray. 1841. 2 volumes.

BOSANQUET, BERNARD.
   The civilization of Christendom, etc.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

BOTTA, CARLO.
   Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon.
   Philadelphia. 1829.

BOUCHOT, HENRI.
   The printed book.
   London: H. Grevel & Co. 1887.

BOULGER, DEMETRIUS C.
   Central Asian questions.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1685.

   History of China.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1881-84. 3 volumes.

BOURINOT, JOHN G.
   Federal Government In Canada.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th series, nos. 10-12.)
   Baltimore. 1889.

   Manual of the constitutional history of Canada.
   Montreal: Dawson Bros. 1888.

BOURNE, H. R. FOX.
   The romance of trade.
   London: Cassell.

BOURRIENNE, F. DE.
   Private memoirs of Napoleon.
   London: H. Colburn & R. Bentley. 1880. 4 volumes.

BOUTELL, CHARLES.
   Arms and armour; from the French of Lacombe.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1870.

BOUTMY, ÉMILE.
   The English constitution.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

BOWEN, CLARENCE W.
   Boundary disputes of Connecticut.
   Boston: James R. Osgood & Co. 1882.

BOWEN, J. E.
   The conflict of East and West in Egypt.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

BOWLEY, ARTHUR L.
   Short account of England's foreign trade In the 19th century.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

BOWMAN, S. M., and R. B. IRWIN.
   Sherman and his campaigns.
   New York: Charles B. Richardson. 1865.

BOWRING, Sir JOHN.
   Kingdom and people of Siam.
   London: John W. Parker & Son. 1857. 2 volumes.

BOYCE, WILLIAM B.
   Introduction to the study of history.
   London. 1884.

BOYNTON, CHARLES B.
   History of the navy during the Rebellion.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868. 2 volumes.

BOZMAN. JOHN L.
   History of Maryland, 1683-1660.
   Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837.

BRACKENBURY, Colonel C. B.
   Frederick the Great.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

BRACKENRIDGE, H. M.
   Voyage to South America.
   Baltimore. 1819. 2 volumes.

BRACKETT, ANNA C., editor.
   Woman and the higher education.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893.

BRADFORD, ALDEN.
   History of the federal government.
   Boston: Samuel G. Simpkins. 1840.

BRADLEY, HENRY.
   Story of the Goths.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1888.

BRAMSTON, A. R. and A. C. LEROY.
   Historic Winchester.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

BRANDES, GEORG.
   Impressions of Russia.
   New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1889).

BRESSE, J.
   History of the Vaudois.
   [Abridged translation, in Arnaud's "Authentic details of the
   Valdenses." London. 1827].

BRETT, REGINALD BALIOL.
   Footprints of statesmen during the 18th century.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

BRETT. Rev. W. H.
   Indian tribes of Guiana.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.

BREVAL., JOHN.
   History of the House of Nassau.
   Dublin. 1784.

BREWER, J. S.
   English studies.
   London: John Murray. 1881.

   Reign of Henry VIII.
   London: John Murray. 1884. 2 volumes.

BREWER, W.
   Alabama.
   Montgomery, Alabama: Barrett & Brown. 1872.

BRIGHT, J. FRANCK.
   History of England.
   London: Rivingstons. 1880-88.
   New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. 4 volumes.

BRINTON, DANIEL G.
   American hero-myths.
   Philadelphia: H. C. Watts & Co. 1882.

   The American race.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891.

   Essays of an Americanist.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.

   The Lenâpé and their legends.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1885.

   Myths of the new world.
   New York: Leypoldt & Holt. 1868.

   Notes on the Floridian peninsula.
   Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.

   Races and peoples.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890.

   The Maya chronicles. editor.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882.

BRITANNIC CONFEDERATION:
   a series of papers; edited by Arthur Silva White.
   London: George Philip & Son. 1892.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
   List of books of reference in the reading room.
   3d edition. 1889.

BRODHEAD, JOHN R.
   History of the state of New York.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1858. 2 volumes.

BROUGHAM, HENRY, Lord.
   History of England and France under the House of Lancaster.
   London: Griffin, Bohn & Co. 1861.

BROWN, HORATIO F.
   Venice, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: Percival & Co. 1893.

BROWN, JOHN.
   Locke and Sydenham.
   Edinburgh: D. Douglas. 1882.

BROWN, JOHN, editor.
   The Stundists.
   London: James Clarke & Co. 1893.

BROWN, RICHARD.
   History of the Island of Cape Breton.
   London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.

BROWN, ROBERT.
   Countries of the world.
   London and New York: Cassell. 4 volumes.

BROWN, ROBERT.
   The great Dionysiak myth.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877. 2 volumes.

BROWNE, IRVING.
   Short studies of great lawyers.
   Albany: Albany Law Journal. 1878.

BROWNE, R. W.
   History of Rome from A. D. 96.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

BROWNE, WILLIAM HAND.
   Maryland.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

BROWNELL, HENRY.
   North and South America Illustrated.
   Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Co. 1860. 2 volumes.

BROWNING, OSCAR.
   Guelphs and Ghlbellines.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1893.

   Introduction to the history of educational theories.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

BROWNING, ROBERT.
   Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
   [Eminent British statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2.
   London: Longman. 1886].

BROWNLOW, W. G.
   Sketches of the rise, progress and decline of Secession.
   Philadelphia: George W. Childs. 1862.

BROWNLOW, W. R.
   Lectures on slavery and serfdom in Europe.
   London: Burns & Oates. 1892.

BRUGSCH-BEY, HENRY.
   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs.
   London: John Murray. 1879. 2 volumes.

   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs. edited by Brodrick.
   London: John Murray. 1891.

BRUNO-GEBHARDT.
   Lehrbuch der Deutschen geschichte.
   Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft. 1892.

BRYANT, SOPHIE.
   Celtic Ireland.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1889.

BRYANT, WILLIAM C.
   Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.
   [Buffalo. 1890.]

BRYCE, GEORGE.
   Short history of the Canadian people.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1887.

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The American commonwealth.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

   The American commonwealth. 3d edition.,
   revised 1895. 2 volumes.

{3913}

BRYCE, JAMES.
   Holy Roman Empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

   Transcaucasia and Ararat.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

BUCK, A. H., editor.
   Treatise on hygiene and public health.
   New York: William Wood & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

BUCKLE, HENRY THOMAS.
   History of civilization in England.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 3 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

BUCKLEY, ARABELLA B. (Mrs. Fisher).
   History of England.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   History of England for beginners.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

BUDGE, E. A. WALLIS.
   Babylonian life and history.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1884.

   Dwellers on the Nile.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1885.

   The Mummy.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1893.

BUFFALO HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Publications.

BULLE, CONSTANTINE.
   Geschichte der neuesten zeit, 1815-1871.
   Leipzig: 1886-7. 4 volumes.

BULWER, Sir EDWARD LYTTON.
   Athens.
   London: Saunders & O. 2 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

BULWER, Sir HENRY LYTTON.
   Historical characters.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1868. 2 volumes.

BUNBURY, E. H.
   History of ancient geography.
   London: John Murray. 1879. 2 volumes.

BURCKHARDT, JACOB.
   Civilisation of the period of the Renaissance in Italy.
   London: C. Kegan Paul and Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

BURKE, Sir BERNARD.
   Book of orders of knighthood.
   London: Hurst and Blackett. 1868.

BURKE, EDMUND.
   Works, volume 2.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 12 volumes.

BURKE, S. HUBERT.
   Historical portraits of the Tudor dynasty
   and Reformation period.
   London: John Hodges. 1879-83. 4 volumes.

BURN, ROBERT.
   Rome and the Campagna.
   London: George Bell & Co. 1876.

BURNE, General Sir OWEN TUDOR.
   Clyde and Strathnairn.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

BURNET, GILBERT.
   History of his own time.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1833. 6 volumes.

BURNS, WILLIAM.
   The Scottish war of independence.
   Glasgow: James Maclehose. 1874. 2 volumes.

BURROWS, MONTAGU.
   The Cinque Ports.
   London and New York: Longmans Green & Co. 1888.

   Commentaries on the history of England.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1893.

BURTON, J. H.
   History of Scotland.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1867-70. 7 volumes.

BURTON, R. F.
   Ultima Thule.
   London: William P. Nimmo. 1875. 2 volumes.

BURY, J. B.
   History of the later Roman empire.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

BURY, WILLIAM COUTTS KEPPEL, Viscount.
   Exodus of the western nations.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.

BUSH, GEORGE GARY.
   Harvard.
   Boston: Cupples, Upham & Co. 1886.

BUSH, R. W.
   St. Athanasius.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1888.

BUSK, M. M.
   History of Spain and Portugal.
   London: Baldwin & Cradock. 1833.

BUSSEY, GEORGE MOIR, and THOMAS GASPEY.
   Pictorial history of France.
   London: W. S. Orr & Co. 1843. 2 volumes.

BUTCHER, S. H.
   Some aspects of the Greek genius.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

BUTLER, CHARLES.
   Historical memoirs respecting the English, Irish,
   and Scottish Catholics.
   London: John Murray. 1819. 2 volumes.

BUTLER, WILLIAM.
   Mexico in transition.
   New York: Hunt & Eaton. 1893.

BUTT, ISAAC.
   History of Italy.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1860. 2 volumes.

BUTTS, FRANK B.
   The Monitor and the Merrimac.
   (Soldiers' and Sailors' Historical Society of Rhode Island,
   4th series, number 6.)
   Providence. 1890.

CABLE, GEORGE W.
   The Creoles of Louisiana.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

CÆSAR, JULIUS.
   Commentary on the Gallic War.

CAIRNES, J. E.
   Essays In political economy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.

CALAMY, EDMUND.
   The nonconformist's memorial. 2d edition.
   London. 1802. 3 volumes.

CALDECOTT, ALFRED.
   English colonization and empire.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891.

CALLCOTT, MARIA.
   Short history of Spain.
   London: John Murray. 2 volumes.

CAMDEN, WILLIAM.
   History of Queen Elizabeth;
   newly done into English
   [Kennet's Complete history of England, volume 2. 1706.]

CAMPBELL, CHARLES.
   Introduction to the history of the colony and ancient
   dominion of Virginia.
   Richmond: B. B. Minor. 1847.

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
   The Puritan in Holland, England and America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1892. 2 volumes.

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Lord.
   Lives of the Lord Chancellors.
   London: John Murray. 10 volumes.

CAPES, W. W.
   Roman history: The early empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. N. Y.: Scribner, A. & Co. 1876.

   University life in ancient Athens.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: Harper & Bros. [1877.]

CAPPER, JOHN.
   The three presidencies of India.
   London: Ingram, Cooke & Co. 1853.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   Works
   [Critical and miscellaneous essays. 6 volumes.
   Early kings of Norway.
   French Revolution. 3 volumes.
   Heroes and hero-worship.
   History of Friedrich II. 10 volumes.
   Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches. 5 volumes.].
   London: Chapman and Hall.

CARPENTER, W. H.
   History of Tennessee.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1854.

CARR, ARTHUR.
   The Church and the Roman empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 1887.

CARR, LUCIEN.
   Missouri.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

CARREL, A.
   History of the Counter-Revolution in England.
   London: David Bogue. 1846.

CARRINGTON, HENRY B.
   Battles of the American Revolution.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1876.

CARROLL. H. K.
   Religious forces of the United States.
   New York: Christian Literature Co. 1893.

CARWITHEN, J. B. S., and A. LYALL.
   History of the Christian Church.
   London: Richard Griffin & Co. 1856.

CASSELL'S ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 10 volumes.

CAYLEY, EDWARD S.
   The European revolutions of 1848.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

CENTURY MAGAZINE, The.
   New York: The Century Co.

CHALMERS, M. D.
   Bills of exchange.

CHAMBERLAIN, BASIL HALL.
   Things Japanese.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1890.

CHAMBERLAIN, MELLEN.
   John Adams: address before the Webster Historical Society,
   Boston, January 18, 1884.

CHAMBERS, ROBERT.
   Domestic annals of Scotland.
   2d edition. Edinburgh:
   W. & R. Chambers. 1859. 3 volumes.

CHAMBERS, W.
   France, its history and revolutions.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers. 1871.

   Stories of old families.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers. 1878.

CHAMBERS'S JOURNAL.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers.

CHAMBERS'S MISCELLANY.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers.

CHAMPLIN, JOHN D., JR.
   Young folks' history of the war for the Union.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1881.

CHAPMAN, B.
   History of Gustavus Adolphus.
   London: Longmans. 1856.

CHAPMAN, T. J.
   The French in the Allegheny valley.
   Cleveland: W. W. Williams. (c. 1887).

CHARLEVOIX, Father.
   History of New France;
   translated by Shea.
   New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-72. 2 volumes.

   History of Paraguay.
   London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.

CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH, Princess Palatine.
   Life and letters.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

CHAUTAUQUAN, The.
   Meadville, Pennsylvania: T. L. Flood Publishing House.

CHEAP-MONEY EXPERIMENTS.
   Reprinted from The Century Magazine.
   New York: The Century Co. 1892.

CHEETHAM, S.
   History of the Christian Church during
   the first six centuries.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

CHESNEY, CHARLES C.
   Essays in military biography.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.

CHESTER, HENRIETTA M.
   Russia.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1881.

CHEVALIER, MICHEL.
   Mexico, ancient and modern.
   London: J. Maxwell & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

   On the probable fall In the value of gold.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859.

{3914}

CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF.
   Official bulletin, number. 1.
   Chicago. 1891.

CHICAGO LAW TIMES, The.

CHISHOLM, H. W.
   On the science of weighing and measuring.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

CHURCH, ALFRED J.
   Henry the Fifth.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

CHURCH, ALFRED J. and ARTHUR GILMAN.
   Story of Carthage.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

CHURCH, F. J.
   Introduction to "Trial and Death of Socrates"
   (London: Macmillan. 1886).

CHURCH, R. W.
   Beginning of the Middle Ages.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. [1877.]

   Dante and other essays.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   The gifts of civilisation.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

CITIES OF THE WORLD.
   London, and New York: Cassell & Co. 4 volumes.

CITY IN THE SEA, The.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1884.

CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.
   Life and correspondence of John A. Quitman.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860. 2 volumes.

   Mississippi: volume 1.
   Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880.

CLARENDON, EDWARD, Earl.
   History of the Rebellion.
   Oxford: University Press. 1849. 7 volumes.

CLARKE, JAMES FREEMAN.
   Anti-slavery days.
   New York: R. Worthington. 1884.

CLARKSON, THOMAS.
   History of the abolition of the African slave-trade.
   London: Longman. 1808. 2 volumes.

   Memoirs of the life of William Penn.
   Philadelphia: 1814. 2 volumes.

CLAY, HENRY.
   Life, correspondence, and speeches;
   by Calvin Colton.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1857. 6 volumes.

CLAYDEN, P. W.
   England under the Coalition.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1892.

CLERKE, AGNES M.
   Familiar studies in Homer.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

CLEVELAND, HENRY.
   Alexander H. Stephens in public and private.
   Philadelphia: National Publishing Co. (c. 1866).

CLINTON, H. R.
   From Crécy to Assye.
   London: Frederick Warne & Co. [1881].

   The war in the Peninsula and Wellington's campaign
   in France and Belgium.
   London: Frederick Warne & Co. [1890.]

COBBETT'S
   Parliamentary history of England
   [continued as "Parliamentary debates"].
   London. 1806-16. 32 volumes.

COCKAYNE, T. OSWALD.
   Life of Marshal Turenne.
   London: Longman. 1864.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLTON.
   Drum-beat of the nation.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

COGGESHALL, GEORGE.
   History of the American privateers.
   New York 1856.

COIGNET, C.
   Francis the First and his times.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1888.

COLERIDGE, HARTLEY.
   Biographia Borealis.
   London: Whitaker, Treacher & Co. 1833.

COLLIER, WILLIAM F.
   History of England.
   London: T. Nelson & Sons. 1868.

   History of Ireland.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. [1885.]

COMINES, PHILIP DE.
   Memoirs.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855. 2 volumes.

COMPAYRÉ, GABRIEL.
   Abelard and the origin and early history of universities.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

   History of pedagogy;
   translated by W. H. Payne.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. 1886.

COMYN, Sir ROBERT.
   History of the Western Empire.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1841. 2 volumes.

CONDER, CLAUDE R.
   Syrian stone-lore.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1886.

CONNECTICUT.
   Public records of the colony.
   Hartford: Brown & Parsons. 1850-1852. 2 volumes.

CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, The.
   London: Isbister & Co.

COOKE, GEORGE W.
   History of party.
   London: J. Macrone. 1886-7. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of Lord Bolingbroke.
   London: R. Bentley. 1835. 2 volumes.

COOKE, JOHN ESTEN.
   Life of Robert E. Lee.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1871.

   Stonewall Jackson.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866.

   Virginia.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

COOLEY, THOMAS McINTYRE.
   Acquisition of Louisiana.
   (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3).

   Constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative
   power of the states. 6th edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1890.

   Michigan.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

COOLIDGE, SUSAN, pseudo (S. C. WOOLSEY).
   Short history of the city of Philadelphia.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1887.

COOPER, JAMES FENNIMORE.
   Naval history of the United States.
   New York: G. P. Putnam & Co. 1853.

COOPER, THOMAS V.
   American politics.
   Chicago: C. R. Brodix. 1884.

COPPÉE, H.
   History of the conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1881.

CORDERY, B. M. and J. S. PHILLPOTTS.
   See GARDINER, BERTHA M.

CORNHILL, MAGAZINE.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.

CORTÉS, HERNANDO.
   Despatches to the Emperor Charles V.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.

COTTON, J. S. and E. J. PAYNE.
   Colonies and dependencies.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

COX, Sir GEORGE W.
   The Athenian empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

   The Crusades.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

   The Greeks and the Persians.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

   History of Greece.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874. 2 volumes.

COX, SAMUEL S.
   Three decades of federal legislation.
   Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid. 1885.

COXE, WILLIAM.
   Account of the Russian discoveries between Asia and America.
   London. 1803.

   History of the House of Austria.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of the kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon.
   London: Longman. 5 volumes.

CRAIK, GEORGE L.
   Compendious history of English literature.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1863. 2 volumes.

   History of British commerce.
   London: C. Knight & Co. 1844.

CRAIK, HENRY.
   The state in its relation to education.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1884.

CRANE, THOMAS FREDERICK.
   Introduction to "La société française au dix-septième siècle"
   (New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889).

CREASY, Sir EDWARD.
   Fifteen decisive battles of the world.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son.

   History of England.
   London: J. Walton. 1869-1870. 2 volumes.

   History of the Ottoman Turks.
   London: R. Bentley & Sons.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

   Memoirs of eminent Etonians.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1870.

   Rise and progress of the English constitution.
   London: R. Bentley & Sons.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1869.

CREIGHTON, Rev. MANDELL.
   The age of Elizabeth.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1876.

   Cardinal Wolsey.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   History of Rome.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

   History of the Papacy during the Reformation.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co 1882-1894. volumes 1-5.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. volumes 1-4.

   The Tudors and the Reformation. 3d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

CREPAZ, ADELE.
   The emancipation Of women.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

CREVIER, JOHN B. L.
   History of the Roman emperors.
   London: 1814. 10 volumes.

CRICHTON, ANDREW, and HENRY WHEATON.
   Scandinavia.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1838. 2 volumes.

CROWE, EYRE EVANS.
   History of France.
   London: Longman. 1830. 3 volumes.

CROZIER. JOHN BEATTIE.
   Civilization and progress.
   London: Longmans & Co. 1888.

CRUIKSHANK, ERNEST.
   Story of Butler's Rangers.
   Welland, Ontario. 1893.

CRUTTWELL, CHARLES THOMAS.
   Literary history of early Christianity.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893. 2 volumes.

CUMMING, C. F. GORDON.
   Wanderings In China.
   Edinburgh.: William Blackwood & Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

CUNNINGHAM, Sir H. S.
   Earl Canning.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

CUNNINGHAM, Rev. JOHN.
   Church history of Scotland.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1859. 2 volumes.

{3915}

CUNNINGHAM, W.
   Growth of English industry and commerce in modern times.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1892.

CURRY, J. L. M.
   Constitutional government in Spain.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1889.

   The southern states of the American Union.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894.

CURTIS, GEORGE TICKNOR.
   History of the constitution of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854-1858. 2 volumes.

   Life of Daniel Webster.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1872. 2 volumes.

CURTIS, GEORGE WILLIAM.
   Address at Annual Meeting of the
   National Civil-Service Reform League, 1891.

CURTIUS, ERNST.
   History of Greece.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1871. 5 volumes.

CURZON, G. N.
   Problems of the far East.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1894.

CUSHING, CALEB.
   The Treaty of Washington.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1873.

CUST, Sir EDWARD.
   Annals of the wars of the 18th century.
   London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.

   Lives of the warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
   London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.

CUTTS, EDWARD L.
   Charlemagne.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

   Constantine the Great.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1881.

CYCLOPEDIC REVIEW OF CURRENT HISTORY
   [formerly Quarterly register of current history].
   Buffalo: Garretson, Cox & Co.

CZARTORYSKI, Prince ADAM.
   Memoirs.
   London: Remington & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

DAHLGREN, Admiral J. A.
   Memoir of Ulric Dahlgren.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1872.

DALL, W. H.
   Tribes of the extreme northwest
   [Contributions to North American Ethnology,
   volumes 1. Washington. 1877].

DALRYMPLE, Sir JOHN.
   Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland.
   London. 1700. 3 volumes.

DALTON, HENRY G.
   History of British Guiana.
   London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.

DARMESTETER, JAMES.
   The Mahdi.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1885.

DARRAS, J. E.
   General history of the Catholic Church.
   New York: P. O'Shea. 1866-9. 4 volumes.

DASENT, GEORGE WEBBE
   Story of Burnt Njal.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1861. 2 volumes.

DAVIDS, T. W. RHYS.
   Buddhism.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

DAVIDSON, THOMAS.
   Aristotle.
  New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

DAVIES, C. M.
   History of Holland.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1841-4. 3 volumes.

DAVIS, G. L. L.
   Day-star of American freedom.
   N. Y.: C. Scribner. 1855.

DAVIS, WILLIAM T.
   Ancient landmarks of Plymouth.
   Boston: A. Williams & Co. 1883.

DAWKINS, W. BOYD.
   Cave hunting.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

   Early man in Britain.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

DAWSON, WILLIAM HARBUTT.
   Bismarck and state socialism.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1800.

   German socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.

   Germany and the Germans.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1894. 2 volumes.

DEAK, FRANCIS,
   Hungarian statesman: a memoir.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

DE COSTA, Rev BENJ. FRANKLIN, editor.
   The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen.
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868.

DELEPIERRE, OCTAVE.
   Historical difficulties and contested events.
   London: John Murray. 1868.

DEL MAR, ALEXANDER.
   History of money.
   London: G. Bell &. Sons. 1885.

DENT, HASTINGS C.
   A year in Brazil.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1886.

DENT, JOHN CHARLES.
   Story of the Upper Canadian rebellion.
   Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson. 1885. 2 volumes.

DENTON, W.
   England in the 15th century.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1888.

DE QUINCEY, THOMAS.
   The Cæsars
   [collected writings, volumes 6.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1889-90. 14 volumes.].

   Joan of Arc
   [Collected writings, volumes 5].

DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.
   Memoirs.
   London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.

DICEY, A. V.
   The Privy Council.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

DICEY, EDWARD.
   Victor Emmanuel.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. 1882.

DICKENS, CHARLES.
   Child's history of England.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

DICKINSON, G. LOWES.
   Revolution and reaction in modern France.
   London: G. Allen. 1892.

DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY;
   edited by Leslie Stephen, and Sidney Lee.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.
   N. Y.: Macmillan & Co. 1885-. volume 1-.

DIGBY, KENELM E.
   Introduction to history of the law of real property.
   Oxford Warehouse.

DILKE, Sir CHARLES WENTWORTH.
   Problems of Greater Britain.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

DILLON, JOHN FOREST.
   Laws, and jurisprudence of England and America.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1894.

DIMAN, J. L.
   Orations and essays.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

DIODORUS.
   Historical library;
   translated by G. Booth.
   London. 1814. 2 volumes.

DIPLOMACY OF THE UNITED STATES, The.
   Boston: Wells & Lilly. 1826.

DIPPOLD, GEORGE THEODORE.
   Great epics of mediæval Germany.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1882.

DIXON, WILLIAM HEPWORTH.
   Free Russia.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

   Her majesty's tower.
   London: Hurst & Blackett.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1869.

   History of William Penn.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1872.

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN.
   Account of the Abipones.
   London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes.

DOBSON, AUSTIN, editor.
   Eighteenth century essays.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

DODD, CHARLES R.
   Manual of dignities.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1844.

DODGE, THEODORE AYRAULT.
   Bird's-eye view of our Civil War.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1883.

   The campaign of Chancellorsville.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1881.

DÖLLINGER, JOHN J. I. VON.
   The Gentile and the Jew in the courts of the Temple of Christ.
   London: Longman. 1862. 2 volumes.

   History of the Church.
   London: C. Dolman. 1840-2. volume 4.

   Studies in European history.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

DOMETT, HENRY W.
   History of the Bank of New York.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

DOMINGUEZ, LUIS L.
   Introduction to "The Conquest of the River Plate."
   (London: Hakluyt Society. 1891).

DONALDSON, THOMAS.
   The public domain.
   Washington: 1884.

DOUBLEDAY, ABNER.
   Gettysburg made plain.
   New York: The Century Co. (c. 1888).

DOUGLAS, ROBERT K.
   China.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

DOUGLAS, STEPHEN A.
   Brief treatise upon constitutional and party questions and
   the history of political parties;
   [reported] by J. Madison Cutts.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866.

DOVE, P. E., editor.
   Domesday studies: being papers read at the Domesday
   commemoration, 1886.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.

DOVER, Lord.
   Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.
   London: Longman. 1831.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

DOYLE, JOHN A.
   The English in America.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 3 volumes.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 3 volumes.

DRAKE, FRANCIS S.
   Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati of Massachusetts.
   Boston. 1873.

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
   Around the hub.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1881.

   The making of the great west.
   NEW YORK: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   Old landmarks and historic personages of Boston.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1873.

DRANE, AUGUSTA THEODOSIA.
   Christian schools and scholars. 2d edition.
   London: Burns & Oates. 1881.

DRAPER, JOHN WILLIAM.
   History of the American Civil War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867-70. 3 volumes.

   History of the intellectual development of Europe.
   Revised edition.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1876. 2 volumes.

DRIVER, S. R.
   Isaiah.
   London: James Nisbet & Co. [1888.]

{3916}

DROYSEN, JOHANN GUSTAV.
   Outline of the principles of history.
   Boston: Ginn and Co. 1893.

DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE.
   Dublin: James McGlashan.

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT.
   Studies in European politics.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1866.

DUFFY, BELLA.
   The Tuscan republics.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1893.

DUFFY, Sir CHARLES GAVAN.
   A bird's-eye view of Irish history
   [chapter 4 in "Young Ireland "].
   Enlarged and revised.
   Dublin: J. Duffy & Son. 1882.

   Four years of Irish history.
   London and New York: Cassell. 1883.

DUNBAR, EDWARD E.
   The romance of the age.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867.

DUNCKER, MAX.
   History of antiquity;
   translated by Evelyn Abbott.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1877-82. 6 volumes.

   History of Greece.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1883-6. 2 volumes.

DUNHAM, S. A.
   History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
   London: Longman. 1839. 3 volumes.

   History of Poland.
   London: Longman. 1831.

   History of Spain and Portugal.
   London: Longmans. 5 volumes.

   History of the Germanic empire.
   London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.

DUNLAP, WILLIAM.
   History of the New Netherlands and New York.
   New York: Carter & Thorp. 1839. 2 volumes.

DUNLOP, JOHN.
   Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700.
   Edinburgh: T. Clark. 1834. 4 volumes.

DURFEE, T.
   Historical discourse
   [250th anniversary of the settlement of Providence. 1887].

DURHAM, Earl of.
   Report and despatches
   [on the affairs of British North America].
   London: Ridgways. 1839.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of France:
   abridged and translated by Carey.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1889.

   History of Greece.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1892. 4 volumes.

   History of Rome.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 8 volumes.

   The history of the Middle Ages.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1891.

DWIGHT, THEODORE W.
   Introduction to H. S. Maine's "Ancient Law."
   (New York: H. Holt & Co. 1875.)

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
   History of modern Europe.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.
   G. Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.

   History of the city of Rome.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1865.
   New York: R. Worthington.

EATON, DORMAN B.
   Civil service in Great Britain.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

EBERS, GEORG.
   Egypt.
   London and New York: Cassell. [1881-1882.] 2 volumes.

EDEN, CHARLES H.
   The fifth continent.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1877.]

   The West Indies.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

EDERSHEIM, ALFRED.
   Life and times of Jesus the Messiah.
   London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1883. 2 volumes.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 2 volumes.

EDINBURGH REVIEW.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.

EDUCATION.
   Boston: Frank H. Kasson.

EDUCATIONAL REVIEW.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

EDWARDS, AMELIA B.
   Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

EDWARDS, BRYAN.
   History of the British colonies in the West Indies.
   London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.

EDWARDS, EDWARD.
   Libraries and the founders of libraries.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1805.

   Lives of the founders of the British Museum.
   London: Trübner & Co.
   New York: J. W. Bouton & Co. 1870.

   Memoirs of libraries.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

EDWARDS, H. SUTHERLAND.
   The Romanoffs.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1890.

EGAR, JOHN H.
   Christendom, from Constantine to the Reformation.
   New York: J. Pott & Co. 1887.

EGGLESTON, EDWARD, and LILLIE E. SEELYE.
   Pocahontas.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. [1879.]

EGINHARD.
   Life of Charlemagne.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

EGLE, WILLIAM H.
   Illustrated history of Pennsylvania.
   Philadelphia: E. M. Gardner. 1880.

EHRICH, LOUIS R.
   The question of silver.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

ELIOT, SAMUEL.
   History of the early Christians.
   London: R. Bentley. 1853. 2 volumes.

   History of the United States.
   Boston: William Ware & Co. 1880.

ELIOT, SAMUEL.
   The Liberty of Rome.
   New York: G. P. Putnam.
   London: R. Bentley. 1849. 2 volumes.
   (volumes 1 and 2 of "History of Liberty."
   New York: James Miller. 4 volumes.)

ELLIOTT, CHARLES B.
   The United States and the northeastern fisheries.
   Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 1887.

ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.
   The New England history.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.

ELLIOTT, O. L.
   The tariff controversy in the U. S., 1789-1833.
   (Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs, number 1).

ELLIS, GEORGE E.
   History of the battle of Bunker's [Breed's] Hill.
   Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Co. 1875.

   The Puritan age and rule in the colony of the Massachusetts Bay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

ELLIS, HAVELOCK.
   The nationalisation of health.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1892.

ELTON, CHARLES.
   Origins of English history.
   London: Bernard Quaritch. 1882.

ELY, RICHARD T.
   French and German socialism in modern times.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1883.

   The labor movement In America.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1886.)

   Socialism.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1894.

ELZE, KARL.
   William Shakespeare.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1888.

EMERTON, EPHRAIM.
   Introduction to the study of the Middle Ages.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.

   Mediaeval Europe.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1894.

ENGELS, FREDERICK.
   Socialism, Utopian and scientific.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, The.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co.

ERDMANNSDÖRFFER, B.
   Deutsche geschichte, 1648-1740.
   Berlin. 1892-4. 2 volumes.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.
   Ecclesiastical history.
   London: Macmillan.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865.

EVELYN, JOHN.
   Memoirs.
   London: H. Colburn. 1827. 5 volumes.

EVERETT. EDWARD.
   Life of George Washington.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 1860.

EVERETT, WILLIAM.
   On the Cam.
   Cambridge: Sever & Francis. 1865.

EVETTS. BASIL T. A.
   New light on the Bible and the Holy Land.
   New York and London: Cassell Publishing Co. [1894].

EWALD, ALEXANDER C.
   The crown and its advisers.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1870.

EWALD, HEINRICH.
   History of Israel.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1869-86. 8 volumes.

FARRAGUT, LOYALL.
   Life of David Glasgow Farragut.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879.

FARRAR, F. W.
   The early days of Christianity.
   New York and London: Cassell. [1882.] 2 volumes.

   The First Book of Kings.
   (Expositor's Bible.)
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 1893.

   Seekers after God.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

FAY, THEODORE S.
   The three Germanys.
   New York: The author. (c. 1889.) 2 volumes.

FEDERALIST, The,
   reprinted from the original text of
   Hamilton, Jay, and Madison;
   edited by H. C. Lodge.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

FELBERMANN, LOUIS.
   Hungary and its people.
   London: Griffith, Farran & Co. (1892).

FELTON, C. C.
   Greece, ancient and modern.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1867. 2 volumes.

FERRIS, BENJAMIN.
   History of the original settlements on the Delaware.
   Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.

FINLAY, GEORGE.
   Greece under the Romans.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1857.

   History of Greece from its conquest by the Crusaders
   to its conquest by the Turks, and of the empire
   of Trebizond.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1851.

   History of Greece under Othoman and Venetian domination.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1856.

   History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 2 volumes.

FISCHEL, EDWARD.
   The English constitution.
   London: Bosworth & Harrison. 1863.

FISHER, GEORGE PARK.
   History of the Christian Church.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   The Reformation.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

FISKE, JOHN.
   American political ideas.
   New York: Harper & Bros. (c. 1885).

{3917}

FISKE, JOHN.
   The American Revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

   The beginnings of New England.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

   Civil government In the United States.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

   The critical period of American history.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   The discovery of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

   The War of Independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

FITZMAURICE. Lord EDMOND.
   Life of William, earl of Shelburne.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1876-6. 8 volumes.

FLETCHER, C. R. L.
   Gustavus Adolphus and the struggle of Protestantism
   for existence.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

FLETCHER, J. C. and D. P. KIDDER.
   Brazil and the Brazilians.
   9th edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1879.

FLINT, R.
   History of the philosophy of history: France, etc.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894.

FLINTOFF, OWEN.
   Rise and progress of the laws of England and Wales.
   London. 1839.

FOOTE, H. S.
   War of the Rebellion.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1866.

FORBES, ARCHIBALD.
   The Afghan wars.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1892.

   Chinese Gordon.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 1884.

   William of Germany.
   New York: Cassell & Co. (c. 1888.)

FORCE, M. F.
   Some early notices of the Indians of the Ohio.
   Cincinnati: R. Clarke & Co. 1879.

FORD, ISAAC M.
   Tropical America.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

FORD, RICHARD.
   Handbook for travellers in Spain.
   London: John Murray. 1855. 2 volumes.

FORD. THOMAS.
   History of Illinois.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1854.

FORD, WORTHINGTON C., editor.
   The American citizen's manual.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882-83. 2 volumes.

FORDE, GERTRUDE.
   A lady's tour In Corsica.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1880. 2 volumes.

FOREIGN QUARTERLY REVIEW. The.
   London.

FORSTER, JOHN.
   Historical and biographical essays.
   London: J. Murray. 1858. 2 volumes.

   Statesmen of the Commonwealth.
   London: Longmans. 1840. 7 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1846. 2 volumes.

FORSYTH, WILLIAM.
   Trial by jury.
   London: John W. Parker & Son.

FORT, GEORGE F.
   Medical economy during the Middle Ages.
   New York: J. W. Bouton. 1883.

FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW, The.
   London: Chapman & Hall.

FORUM, The.
   New York.

FOSTER. WILLIAM E.
   Stephen Hopkins.
   Providence: Sidney S. Rider. 1884. 2 volumes.

FOWLE, T. W.
   The poor law.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

FOWLER, W. WARDE.
   The city-state of the Greeks and Romans.
   London' Macmillan & Co. 1898.

   Julius Cæsar.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

FOX, CHARLES JAMES.
   History of the early part of the reign of James II.
   [in Carrel's "Counter-Revolution."
   London: David Bogue. 1846].

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR, The;
    translated from German official account.
    London. 1874-84. 10 volumes.
    (5 volumes, text, 5 volumes, maps).

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN.
   Life of, written by himself;
   edited by John Bigelow.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1884. 3 volumes.

FRASER, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL.
   Life and letters of George Berkeley
   [volume 4 of Berkeley's "Works."
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1871. 4 volumes.].

FRASER, Rev. R. W.
   Turkey, ancient and modern.
   Edinburgh: A. and C. Black. 1854.

FRASER'S MAGAZINE.
   London: James Fraser; Longmans, Green & Co.

FRAZER, J. G.
   The golden bough.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890. 2 volumes.

   Totemism.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1887.

FREDERIC, HAROLD.
   The new exodus.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: W. Heinemann. 1892.

FREDERICK II. (The Great.)
   History of my own times
   [posthumous works. volumes 1.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.]
   History of the Seven Years War
   [posthumous works, volume 2-3.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.]

FREEMAN. EDWARD A.
   The chief periods of European history.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

   Comparative politics.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1874.
   Exeter. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1887.

   General sketch of European history
   [also published as "Outlines of history"].
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.

   Growth of the English constitution. 2d edition.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.

   Historical essays:
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1871-92. Series 1-4.

   Historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

   History and conquest of the Saracens.
   Oxford: J. H. & James Parker. 1856.

   History of federal government. volume 1.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1868.

   History of Sicily. volumes 1-4.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891-4.

   History of the Norman conquest of England. 2d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1870-79. 5 volumes and index.

   Lectures to American audiences.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1882.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates.

   Methods of historical study.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

   Old English history for children.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

   The Ottoman power in Europe.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

   Short history of the Norman conquest of England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1880.

   Sketches from the subject and neighbour lands of Venice.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

   Story of Sicily.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1892.

   William the Conqueror.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

FREMONT, JOHN CHARLES.
   Memoirs of my life.
   Chicago and New York: Belford, Clarke & Co. 1887.

FREYTAG, GUSTAV.
   The crown prince.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1890.

FROISSART, Sir JOHN.
   Chronicles;
   translated by Johnes.
   London: William Smith. 1848. 2 volumes.

FROTHINGHAM, OCTAVIUS BROOKS.
   George Ripley.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

FROTHINGHAM, RICHARD.
   History of the siege of Boston.
   Boston: C. C. Little & J. Brown. 1851.

   Rise of the republic of the United States.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1886.

FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY.
   Cæsar.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

   The English in Ireland.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 3 volumes.
   New York: Scribner. Armstrong & Co. 1873-4. 3 volumes.

   History of England.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 12 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1865-70. 12 volumes.

   Life and times of Thomas Becket.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1885.

   Lord Beaconsfield.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bro. 1800.

   Luther.
   London: Longmans. Green & Co. 1883.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

   Short studies on great subjects.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 4 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1868-1883. 4 volumes.

FULLER. THOMAS.
   Church history of Britain.
   London. 3 v.

FUSTEL DE COULANGES, NUMA DENIS.
   The ancient city.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1874.

FYFFE, C. A.
   History of Greece.
   New York: D. Appleton. & Co. 1886.

   History of modern Europe.
   London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1881-90. 3 volumes.

GAIRDNER, JAMES.
   Henry the Seventh.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

   History of the life and reign of Richard the Third.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878.

   Houses of Lancaster and York.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

GAIRDNER, JAMES and JAMES SPEDDING.
   Studies in English history.
   Edinburgh: David Douglas. 1881.

GALAXY. The.
   New York.

GALLATIN, ALBERT.
   A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.
   (Archæologia Americana. volume 2.
   Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836).

GALLENGA, ANTONIO C. N. (L. MARIOTTI, pseud.)
   Historical memoir of Frà Dolcino and his times.
   London: Longman. 1853.

   History of Piedmont.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1855. 3 volumes.

{3918}

GALLENGA, ANTONIO C. N.
   Italy.
   London: Saunders & Otley. 1841. 2 volumes.

   South America.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1880.

GAMMELL, WILLIAM.
   Life of Roger Williams
   [Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volumes 4.
   Boston: 1845].

GANOT, ADOLPHE.
   Elementary treatise on physics;
   translated and edited by E. Atkinson.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1872.

GARDINER, BERTHA M.
   The French Revolution.
   London: Longmans. Green & Co. 1883.

GARDINER, BERTHA M. and J. SURTEES PHILLPOTTS.
   King and Commonwealth. 2d edition.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1874.
   Philadelphia: Jos. H. Coates & Co. 1876.

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON.
   Constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

   History of the great civil war. 1642-1649.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891. 3 volumes.

   The Thirty Years' War.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON and J. B. MULLINGER.
   Introduction to the study of English history. 3d edition.
   London: K Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1894.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

GARDNER, PERCY.
   New chapters in Greek history.
   London: John Murray. 1892.

GARFIELD, JAMES ABRAM.
   Works.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1882. 2 volumes.

GARNEAU, F. X.
   History of Canada;
   translated by A. Bell.
   Montreal: Richard Worthington. 1866. 2 volumes.

GASPEY, THOMAS.
   History of England, George III. [to] Victoria.
   London Printing and Publishing Co. 4 volumes.

GATSCHET, ALBERT S.
   The Klamath Indians.
   (Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)
   Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.

   A migration legend of the Creek Indians. volume 1.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884.

GAY, SYDNEY HOWARD.
   James Madison.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.
   Louisiana: its colonial history and romance.
   New York: Harper &: Bros. 1851.

   Philip II. of Spain.
   New York: W. J. Widdleton. 1866.

GEDDES, JAMES.
   History of the administration of John de Witt.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1879. volume 1.

GEIJER, ERIC GUSTAVE.
   History of the Swedes.
   London: Whittaker & Co.

GEIKIE, JAMES.
   Prehistoric Europe.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1881.

GELL, Sir WILLIAM.
   Topography of Rome.
   London: Saunders & Otley. 1834. 3 volumes.

GELLIUS, AULUS.
   The Attic nights;
   translated by W. Beloe.
   London. 1795. 3 volumes.

GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, The.
   London.

GEORGE, HENRY.
   Progress and poverty.
   New York: Henry George & Co. 1887.

GERARD, JAMES WATSON.
   The peace of Utrecht.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

   Titles to real estate.
   New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co.

GIBBINS, H. DE B.
   History of commerce in Europe.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

GIBBON, EDWARD.
   Decline and fall of the Roman empire;
   with notes by Dr. W. Smith.

GIBBONS, JAMES, Cardinal.
   The faith of our fathers.
   Baltimore: J. Murphy & Co. 1879.

GIBBS, GEORGE.
   Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
   (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1.)
   Washington: 1877.

GIDDINGS, JOSHUA R.
   History of the Rebellion.
   New York: Follett, Foster & Co. 1864.

GIESEBRECHT, W. VON.
   Geschichte der deutschen kaiserzeit.
   Braunschweig. 1878-1881. 5 volumes.

GIESELER, JOHN C. L.
   Compendium of ecclesiastical history. 2d edition.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1846-55. 5 volumes.

GILES, H. A.
   Historic China.
   London: T. DeLa Rue & Co. 1882.

GILES, J. A.
   Life and times of Alfred the Great.
   London: G. Bell. 1848.

GILMAN, ARTHUR.
   Story of Boston.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

   Story of the Saracens.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1887.

GILMAN, DANIEL C.
   James Monroe.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

GILMAN, NICHOLAS PAINE.
   Profit sharing.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

GINDELY, ANTON.
   History of the Thirty Years' War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

GLADSTONE, Rt. Hon. W. E.
   Homer.
   London: Macmillan.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878.

GLEIG, G. R.
   Campaigns of the British army at
   Washington and New Orleans, 1814-1815.
   London: John Murray. 1836.

   The Leipsic campaign.
   London: Longman. 1862.

GNEIST, RUDOLF.
   The English parliament in its transformations.
   London: H. Grevel & Co. 1886.

   History of the English constitution.
   London: William Clowes & Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

GODKIN, EDWIN L.
   History of Hungary and the Magyars.
   London: Cassell. 1853.

GODKIN, G. S.
   Life of Victor Emmanuel II.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

GODWIN, PARKE.
   History of France: Ancient Gaul.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860.

GODWIN, WILLIAM.
   History of the commonwealth.
   London: H. Colburn. 1824-1828.

GOMME, GEORGE LAURENCE.
   Primitive folk-moots.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

   editor. Gentleman's Magazine Library:
   Bibliographical notes.
   London: E. Stock. 1889.

GOODWIN, JOHN A.
   The Pilgrim republic.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

GORDON, GEORGE H.
   History of the campaign of the Army of Virginia
   under John Pope.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1880.

GORE, CHARLES.
   Leo the Great.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

GOSSE, EDMUND.
   History of eighteenth century literature.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

GOULD, S. BARING.
   The Church in Germany.
   London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co. 1891.

   Germany, present and past.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

   Story of Germany.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

GRAETZ, H.
   History of the Jews.
   London: David Nutt. 1891-92. 5 volumes.

GRAHAM, WILLIAM.
   Socialism, new and old.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1891.

GRAHAME, JAMES.
   History of the rise and progress of the
   United States of North America till 1688.
   London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.

   History of the United States of North America. 2d edition.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846. 2 volumes.

GRANT, A. J.
   Greece in the age of Pericles.
   London: J. Murray. 1893.

GRANT, JAMES.
   The newspaper press.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1871. 8 volumes.

GRANT, ULYSSES S.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

GRASBY, W. CATTON.
   Teaching in three continents.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1891.

GRATTAN, THOMAS C.
   History of the Netherlands.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.

GREAT BRITAIN.
   Colonial and Indian exhibition, 1886.
   Her Majesty's Colonies.
   London: William Clowes & Sons. 1886.

GREELEY, HORACE.
   The American conflict.
   Hartford: O. D. Case & Co. 1866-1867. 2 volumes.

GREEN, J. R.
   The conquest of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   History of the English people.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878-1880. 4 volumes.

   The making of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   Short history of the English people.
   London: Macmillan & Co. Illustrated edition.,
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1894. 4 volumes.

GREEN, Mrs. J. R.
   Henry the Second.
   London and New York: Macmillan. 1888.

GREEN BAG, The.
   Boston.

GREENE, GEORGE WASHINGTON.
   Historical studies.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 1850.

   Life of Nathanael Greene.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1871. 3 volumes.

   Short history of Rhode Island.
   Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid. 1877.

GREENWELL, W.
   British barrows.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1877.

GREGG, WILLIAM S.
   Irish history for English readers. 2d edition.
   London: Vizetelly & Co. 1886.

GREGOROVIUS, FERDINAND ADOLF.
   Geschichte der stadt Rom.
   Stuttg. 1875-1881. 8 volumes.

   History of the city of Rome in the Middle Ages.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1894. 2 volumes.

GRESWELL, WILLIAM PARR.
   History of the Dominion of Canada.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

GRIFFIS, WILLIAM E.
   Influence of the Netherlands.
   Boston: DeWolfe, Fiske & Co. 1891.

GRIFFITHS, ARTHUR.
   French revolutionary generals.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1891.

GRIMM, HERMAN.
   Life of Michael Angelo.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1865. 2 volumes.

GRONLUND, LAURENCE.
   Ça Ira!
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1888.

{3919}

GROSS, CHARLES.
   The gild merchant.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890. 2 volumes.

GROTE, GEORGE.
   History of Greece.
   London: John Murray. 1884. 12 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 12 volumes.

GRUBE, A. W.
   Heroes of history and legend.
   London: Griffith & Farran. 1880.

GUEST, EDWIN.
   Origines Celticae.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

GUEST, M. J.
   Lectures on the history of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

GUETTÉE, R. F.
   The Papacy.
   New York: Carleton. 1867.

GUHL, E., and W. KONER.
   The life of the Greeks and Romans.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

GUILLEMIN, AMÉDÉE.
   Electricity and magnetism;
   translated from the French,
   revised and edited by S. P. Thompson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

GUIZOT, F. P. G.
   France under Louis Philippe.
   London: R. Bentley. 1865.

   History of Civilization.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1861.

   History of Oliver Cromwell.
   London: R. Bentley. 2 volumes.
   Philadelphia: Blanchard & Lea. 1854. 2 volumes.

   History of Richard Cromwell and the restoration.
   London: R. Bentley. 1856. 2 volumes.

   History of the English Revolution of 1640.
   London: H. Bohn. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846. 2 volumes.

   Memoirs to illustrate the history of my own time.
   London: R. Bentley. 1851-61. 4 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28169 (Volume 1)

   Popular history of France.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 6 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11951
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11952
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11953
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11954
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11955
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11956

GUNDRY, R. S.
   China and her neighbours.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1893.

HADLEY, ARTHUR T.
   Railroad transportation.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

HADLEY, JAMES.
   Introduction to Roman law.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1873.

HAKE, A. E.
   Story of Chinese Gordon.
   London: Remington & Co. 1884-1885. 2 volumes.

HAKLUYT SOCIETY.
   Publications. London.

HALE, E.
   The fall of the Stuarts and western Europe.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1876.

HALE, EDWARD EVERETT, editor.
   Stories of war told by soldiers.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1879.

ALE, EDWARD EVERETT, and SUSAN.
   Story of Spain.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

HALE, HORATIO, editor.
   Iroquois book of rites.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.

HALE, SUSAN.
   Story of Mexico.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

HALES, W.
   New analysis of chronology.
   London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington. 1830. 4 volumes.

HALIBURTON, T. C.
   Historical and statistical account of Nova Scotia.
   Halifax: Joseph Howe. 1829. 2 volumes.

   Rule and misrule of the English in America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1851.

HALL, Captain BASIL.
   Extracts from a journal. 4th edition.
   Edinburgh: A. Constable & Co. 1825. 2 volumes.

HALL, WILLIAM EDWARD.
   Treatise on international law. 3d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

HALLAM, HENRY.
   Constitutional history of England.
   London: John Murray. 1857. 3 volumes.

   View of the state of Europe during the Middle Ages.
   London: John Murray. 3 volumes.

HALLIDAY, Sir ANDREW.
   Annals of the House of Hanover.
   London: William Sams. 1826. 2 volumes.

HAMERTON, PHILIP GILBERT.
   Paris in old and present times.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1885.

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER.
   Report on manufactures
   [Works, volumes 3.
   New York: Charles S. Francis & Co. 1851. 7 volumes.].

HAMILTON, J. A.
   Life of Daniel O'Connell.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

HAMILTON, JOHN C.
   History of the United States as traced in the
   writings of Alexander Hamilton, etc.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1857. 2 volumes.

HAMILTON, THOMAS.
   Annals of the Peninsular campaigns.
   Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1849.

HAMILTON, WALTER.
   Poets Laureate of England.
   London: Eliot Stock. 1879.

HAMILTON, Sir WILLIAM.
   Discussions on philosophy and literature, etc.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1861.

HAMMOND, JABEZ D.
   History of political parties in the State of New York.
   Albany. 1842. 2 volumes.

HAMPSON, R. T.
   Origines patriciæ.
   London: H. K. Causton. 1846.

HANNA, WILLIAM.
   Wars of the Huguenots.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1871.

HANNAY, JAMES.
   History of Acadia.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

HANSON, CHARLES HENRY.
   The land of Greece.
   London: T. Nelson & Sons. 1886.

HARCOURT, L. F. VERNON.
   Achievements in engineering.
   London: Seeley & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891.

HARE, AUGUSTUS J. C.
   Cities of northern and central Italy.
   London: Daldy, Isbister & Co. 1876. 3 volumes.

   Walks In Rome.
   London: George Allen.
   New York: G. Routledge & Sons.

HARNACK, ADOLF.
   Outlines of the history of dogma.
   New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co. 1893.

HARPER'S NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

HARRISSE, HENRY.
   The discovery of North America.
   London: Henry Stevens & Son. 1892.

HARRISON, FREDERIC.
   Oliver Cromwell.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

HARRISON, JAMES A.
   Spain.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. (c. 1881.)

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL.
   Formation of the Union, 1750-1829.
   (Epochs of American history.)
   New York and London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

   Introduction to the study of federal government.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1891.

   Practical essays on American government.
   New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1894.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL and E. CHANNING, editors.
   American history leaflets.
   New York: A. Lovell & Co.

HART, GERALD E.
   The fall of New France.
   Montreal: W. Drysdale & Co.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

HARTLEY, CECIL B.
   Heroes and patriots of the south.
   Philadelphia: G. G. Evans. 1860.

HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

HASSAUREK, F.
   Four years among-Spanish-Americans.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1868.

HASSENCAMP, R.
   History of Ireland.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1888.

HASTINGS, SYDNEY.
   Treatise on the law of torts.
   London. 1885.

HATCH, EDWIN.
   Influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church.
   (Hibbert Lectures, 1888.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1890.

   Organization of the early Christian Churches.
   (Bampton Lectures, 1880.)
   London: Rivingtons. 1881.

HATTON, JOSEPH, and M. HARVEY.
   Newfoundland.
   Boston: Doyle & Whittle. 1883.

HAUG, M.
   Essays on the sacred language, writings, and
   religion of the Parsis.
   London: Trübner & Co.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1878.

   Lecture on an original speech of Zoroaster (Yasna 45).
   London: Trübner & Co. 1865.

HÄUSSER, L.
   Deutsche geschichte vom tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur
   Gründung des Deutschen bundes.
   Berlin. 1869. 4 volumes.

   Period of the Reformation.
   London: Strahan & Co. 1873.
   New York: Robert Carter & Bros.

HAVERTY, MARTIN.
   History of Ireland.
   Dublin: James Duffy. 1860.

HAWKS, FRANCIS L.
   History of North Carolina.
   Fayetteville, North Carolina: E. J. Hale & Son. 1858-9.
   2 volumes.

HAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL.
   The marble faun.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

HAYTER, HENRY H.
   Notes on the colony of Victoria.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1875.

HAZARD, SAMUEL.
   Cuba with pen and pencil.
   Hartford: Hartford Publishing Co. 1871.

HAZEN, General W. B.
   Narrative of military service.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1885.

HAZLITT, WILLIAM.
   Lectures on the literature of the age of Elizabeth.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877.

   Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.

HAZLITT, WILLIAM CAREW.
   History of the Venetian republic.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1860. 4 volumes.

HEADLEY, J. T.
   The second war with England.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1853. 2 volumes.

HEARD, ALBERT F.
   The Russian Church and Russian dissent.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1887.

HEARD, J. B.
   Alexandrian and Carthaginian theology contrasted.
   Edinburgh: T. T. Clark. 1893.

HEATH, RICHARD.
   The Reformation in France.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1886-1888. 2 volumes.

HEATON, WILLIAM.
   The three reforms of parliament.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1885.

HEBBERD, S. S.
   History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France.
   Madison: Midland Publishing Co. 1890.

{3920}

HECKER, J. F. C.
   Epidemics of the Middle Ages. 3d edition.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1859.

HECKEWELDER, JOHN.
   History, manners, and customs of the Indian nations.
   (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 12.)
   Philadelphia. 1876.

HEEREN, A. H. L.
   Manual of ancient history. 3d edition.
   Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1840.

   Manual of the history of the political system of
   Europe and its colonies.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846.

   Reflections on the politics of ancient Greece.
   Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Co. 1824.

HELMHOLTZ, H.
   Popular lectures on scientific subjects.
   2d series.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881.

HELPS, Sir ARTHUR.
   Friends in council.
   London: Smith & Elder. 1879. 2 volumes.
   New York: James Miller. 1869. 2 volumes.

   Spanish conquest in America.
   London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867. 4 volumes.

HEMANS, C. I.
   Historic and monumental Rome.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1874.

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.
   History of Germany in the Middle Ages.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1894.
   New York: Macmillan & Co.

HENDERSON, T. F.
   The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1889.

HENRY, WILLIAM WIRT.
   Patrick Henry: life, correspondence and speeches.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891. 3 volumes.

HERFORD, BROOKE.
   Story of religion in England. 2d. edition.
   Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co.
   London: Sunday School Association. 1880.

HERMANN, CHARLES FREDERIC.
   Manual of the political antiquities of Greece.
   Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1886.

HERNDON, WILLIAM H. and J. W. WEIK.
   Herndon's Lincoln.
   Chicago: Belford, Clarke & Co. (c. 1889.) 3 volumes.

HERODOTUS.
   History;
   a new version, edited by George Rawlinson, assisted by
   Sir Henry Rawlinson and J. G. Wilkinson.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.

   Story of the Persian War;
   [version of] A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1882.

HERSHON, P. I., comp.
   Talmudic miscellany.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1880.

HERTSLET, EDWARD.
   Map of Europe by treaty.
   London. 1875-91. 4 volumes.

HERTSLET, LEWIS, comp.
   Collection of treaties and conventions.
   London. 1840-1850. 7 volumes.

HESSELS, J. H.
   Haarlem the birth-place of printing, not Mentz.
   London: E. Stock & Co. 1887.

HEYLYN, PETER.
   Ecclesia restaurata.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1849. 2 volumes.

HICKSON, MARY.
   Ireland in the 17th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1884. 2 volumes.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   Larger history of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1886.

HILDRETH, RICHARD.
   History of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1849-52. 6 volumes.

HILL, FRANK H.
   George Canning.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1887.

HILL, NATHANIEL P.
   Speeches and papers.
   Colorado Springs. 1890.

HILL, O'DELL T.
   Introduction to Savonarola's "Triumph of the Cross"
   (London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1868).

HILL, WILLIAM.
   First stages of the tariff policy of the United States.
   (American Economic Association publications,
   volume 8, number 6.) 1893.

HILLARD, G. S.
   Life of Captain John Smith
   [Library of American Biography. volume 2. Boston: 1834.]

HINSCHIUS.
   Investitustreit
   (Herzog's Realencyklopaedie für protestantische theologie
   und kirche, volume 6).

HINSDALE, B. A.
   The American government.
   Ann Arbor: The Register Publishing Co. 1891.

   The old northwest.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1888.

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE, The.
    Morrisania, New York: Henry B. Dawson.

HISTORY OF PARIS, The.
   London: G. B. Whittaker. 1827. 3 volumes.

HITCHCOCK, ROSWELL D.
   Socialism.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 1879.

HOBHOUSE, HENRY, editor.
   The Parliamentary Elections
   (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1888.
   London: W. Maxwell & Son. 1883.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   The dynasty of Theodosius.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   Italy and her Invaders.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1880-1885. 4 volumes.

HOLDSWORTH, W. A., editor.
   The new Reform Act.
   London: Ward, Lock & Co.

HOLLAND FREDERIC M.
   Rise of intellectual liberty.
   New York: H. Holt & CO. 1885.

HOLLAND, JOSIAH GILBERT.
   Life of Abraham Lincoln.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.

HOLLAND, THOMAS ERSKINE.
   Elements of jurisprudence.
   London: Macmillan & Co, 1880.

HOLLISTER, G. H.
   History of Connecticut.
   New Haven: Durrie & Peck. 1855. 2 volumes.

HOLLISTER, O. J.
   Life of Schuyler Colfax.
   New York: Funk & Wagnalls. 1886.

HOLMES, T. R. E.
   History of the Indian Mutiny.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1883.

HOLST, H. VON.
   Constitutional and political history of the United States.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1876-1889. 7 volumes.

   French Revolution.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

   John Brown.
   Boston: Cupples & Hurd. 1889.

HOMŒOPATHIC MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
   Transactions. 1869.

HOOKHAM, MARY A.
   Life and times of Margaret of Anjou.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1872. 2 volumes.

HOOPER, GEORGE.
   The campaign of Sedan.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1887.

   Waterloo.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1862.

   Wellington.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

HOPE, THOMAS.
   Costume of the ancients.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1875. 2 volumes.

HOPKINS, MANLEY.
   Hawaii. 2d edition.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1869.

HOPKINS, STEPHEN.
   Historical account of the planting and growth of Providence
   [Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 2d series,
   volume 9. Boston. 1832].

   True representation of the plan formed at Albany in 1754,
   for uniting all the British northern colonies; with
   introduction and notes by S. S. Rider.
   (Rhode Island Historical Tracts, number 9.)

HORN, F. W.
   History of the literature of the Scandinavian north.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1884.

HORNE, R. H.
   History of Napoleon Bonaparte.
   London and N. Y.: Routledge & Sons. 1879.

HORNE, T. H.
   Introduction to the study of bibliography.
   London. 1814. 2 volumes.

HORTON, R. F.
   History of the Romans.
   London: Rivingtons. 1885.

HOSMER, JAMES K.
   Life of Young Sir Henry Vane.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

   Samuel Adams.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

   Short history of German literature.
   St. Louis: G. I. Jones & Co. 1879.

HOUGHTON, WALTER R.
   History of American politics.
   Chicago: Caxton Publishing Co. 1884.

HOWELL, GEORGE.
   Conflicts of capital and labour.
   London, Chatto & Windus. 1878.

   Trade unionism.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1891.

HOWORTH, HENRY H.
   History of the Mongols.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876-1888.
   Parts 1-3 (4 volumes).

HOZIER, HENRY M.
   The British expedition to Abyssinia.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

   Turenne.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

   The Franco-Prussian War.
   London: William Mackenzie. 2 volumes.

HUBER. V. A.
   The English universities.
   London: William Pickering. 1843. 2 volumes in 3.

HUC, EVARISTE R., Abbé.
   Christianity In China, Tartary, and Thibet.
   London: Longman. 1857-8. 3 volumes.

HUDSON, FREDERIC.
   Journalism in the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1813.

HUG, Mrs. LINA, and RICHARD STEAD.
   Switzerland.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

HUGHES, A. W.
   The country of Balochistan.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877.

HUGHES, ROBERT M.
   General Johnston.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1893.

HUGHES, THOMAS.
   Alfred the Great.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

HUGO, VICTOR.
   History of a crime. London:
   S. Low. Marston & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

HUME, DAVID.
   History of England.

HUMPHREYS, H. NOEL.
   History of the art of printing.
   London: Bernard Quaritch, 1868.

HUNT, WILLIAM.
   History of Italy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

{3921}

HUNT, WILLIAM.
   Norman Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1884.

HUNTER, J.
   Founders of New Plymouth.
   (Collections concerning the church at Scrooby.)
   London: John Russell Smith. 1854.

HUNTER, P. HAY.
   After the exile.
   Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier. 1890.

HUNTER, Sir WILLIAM W.
   Brief history of the Indian people.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1882.

   Imperial gazetteer of India.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1881, 9 volumes.

   The Marquess of Dalhousie.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

HURST, JOHN F.
   Indika.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
   Diary and letters.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1883-1886. 2 volumes.

   History of the province of Massachusetts Bay.
   London: John Murray. 1828.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS J.
   The Parana.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1868.

HUTTON, JAMES.
   Central Asia.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1875.

   James and Philip van Arteveld.
   London: John Murray. 1882.

HUXLEY, THOMAS HENRY.
   Science and culture.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

IHNE, WILHELM.
   History of Rome.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1871-1882. 5 volumes.

   Researches into the history of the Roman constitution.
   London: William Pickering. 1853.

IMBERT DE SAINT-AMAND, A. L.
   Memoirs of the Empress Marie-Louise.
   London: Remington & Co. 1886.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF PREHISTORIC ARCHÆOLOGY, 1868.
   Transactions. London:
   Longmans, Green & Co. 1869.

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH EXHIBITION, LONDON.
   Conference on education, 1884. London. 4 volumes.

INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONFERENCE, 1881.
   Proceedings.
   Washington. 1881.

IRISH PEASANT, The;
   a sociological study.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1892.

IRVING, WASHINGTON.
   Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes.

   Life of Washington.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 5 volumes.

   Mahomet and his successors.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 2 volumes.

IYENAGA, TOYOKICHI.
   Constitutional development of Japan.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, number. 9.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

JACKSON, MARY A.
   Life and letters of General Thomas J. Jackson.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1892.

JACOBS, JOSEPH, editor.
   The Jews of Angevin England.
   (English history by contemporary writers.)
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

JAMES, G. P. R.
   Dark scenes of history.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1862.

   Eminent foreign statesmen.
   volumes 2-5.
   London: Longman. 1836-1838.

   History of Charlemagne.
   2d edition.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1847.

   Life and times of Louis XIV.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1851. 2 volumes.

JAMESON, J. FRANKLIN.
   History of historical writing in America.
   Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891.

JASTROW, IGNACE.
   Geschichte der deutschen einheitstraum und seiner erfüllung.
   Berlin. 1891.

JAY, JOHN.
   The great conspiracy.
   New York: James G. Gregory. 1861.

JEANS, J. STEPHEN.
   Waterways and water transport.
   London: E. & F. N. Spon. 1890.

JEBB, RICHARD C.
   Growth and Influence of classical Greek poetry.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS.
   Writings: edited by H. A. Washington.
   Washington: Taylor & Maury. 1853. 9 volumes.

   Notes on the state of Virginia.

JERVIS, W. HENLEY.
   The Gallican Church: A history of the Church of France.
   London: John Murray. 1872. 2 volumes.

   The Gallican Church and the Revolution.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

   [Student's] History of France.
   London: John Murray. 1884.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1872.

JESSOPP, AUGUSTUS.
   The coming of the friars.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

JEVONS, FRANK BYRON.
   History of Greek literature.
   London: C. Griffin & Co.

JEWITT, LLEWELLYNN.
   Grave-mounds.
   London: Groombridge & Sons. 1870.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
   Studies in historical and political science.
   Baltimore.

JOHNSON, A. H.
   The Normans In Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

JOHNSON, CRISFIELD.
   Centennial history of Erie County.
   Buffalo: Matthews & Warren. 1876.

JOHNSON, ROSSITER.
   History of the French War.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1882).

   History of the War of 1812-1815.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1882).

   Short history of the War of Secession.
   Boston: Ticknor &: Co. 1888.

JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER.
   Connecticut.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

   Genesis of a New England state.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11.)
   Baltimore. 1883.

   History of American politics.
   2d edition.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1884.

   History of the United States for schools.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1885.

JOHNSTON, HENRY P.
   The campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn.
   (Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society. volume 3.)
   Brooklyn. 1878.
   Part 1: Narrative.
   Part 2: Documents.

   The Yorktown campaign.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E.
   Narrative of military operations.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874.

JOHNSTON, R.
   Short history of the Queen's reign.
   London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. [1892.]

JOHNSTONE, C. F.
   Historical abstracts.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1880.

JOMINI, Baron de.
   Political and military history of the campaign of Waterloo.
   New York: Redfield. 1853.

JONES, J. W.
   British Museum: a guide. 1873.

JOYNEVILLE, C.
   Life and times of Alexander I.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1875. 3 volumes.

   Life of Alexander II.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1883.

JUGLAR, CLEMENT.
   Brief history of panics.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

JULIAN, GEORGE W.
   Political recollections.
   Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co. 1884.

JUSTIN.
   History:
   translated by J. S. Watson.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1853.

KÄMMEL, OTTO.
   Deutsche geschichte.
   Dresden: Höckner. 1889.

KAPP, FRIEDRICH.
   Life of Frederick William Von Steuben.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1859.

KAUFMANN, M.
   Utopias.
   London: C. Kegan, Paul & Co. 1879.

KAYE, JOHN WILLIAM.
   Administration of the East India Company.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1853.

   History of the Sepoy War in India, 5th edition.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1870. 2 volumes.

KEANE, A. H.
   Eastern geography.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1887.

KEARY, C. F.
   Dawn of history.
   London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1888.

Norway and the Norwegians.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

KEBBEL, T. E.
   Life of the Earl of Derby.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1890.

KEENE. H. G.
   Mádhava Ráo Sindhia.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

   Sketch of the history of Hindustan.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1885.

KEIGHTLEY, THOMAS.
   The Crusaders. 5th edition.
   London: John W. Parker & Son. 1859.

   History of Greece.
   London: Whittaker.
   New York: Leavitt, Trow & Co. 1848.

   History of the Roman Empire.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1850.
   New York: Leavitt, Trow & Co. 1848.

   Outlines of history
   London: Longman. 1830.

KEIL, CARL FRIEDRICH.
   Manual of Biblical archæology.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1887-8. 2 volumes.

KEIM, THEODOR.
   History of Jesus of Nazara.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1876. 4 volumes.

KELLER, FRANZ.
   The Amazon and Madeira rivers.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1875.

KELLEY, J. D. JERROLD.
   The question of ships.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

KELLY, WALTER K.
   History of Russia.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1854-1855. 2 volumes.

   History of the House of Austria
   [1792-1848; continuation of Coxe's History].
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

KELTIE, J. SCOTT.
   The partition of Africa.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1893.

KEMBLE, JOHN M.
   The Saxons In England.
   London: Bernard Quaritch. 1876. 2 volumes.

{3922}

KENNEDY, JOHN P.
   Memoirs of the life of William Wirt.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.

KENRICK, JOHN.
   Phœnicia.
   London: B. Fellowes. 1855.

KENT, JAMES.
   Commentaries on American law.
   Boston: Little Brown & Co.

   International law;
   edited by J. T. Abdy.
   London: Stevens & Sons.

KERLY, D. M.
   History of equity.
   History of the Court of Chancery.

KING, DAVID BENNETT.
   The Irish question.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

KING, RUFUS.
   Ohio.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

KINGLAKE, ALEXANDER WILLIAM.
   The invasion of the Crimea.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 6 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 5 volumes.

KINGSFORD, WILLIAM.
   History of Canada.
   London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1888-1894. volumes 1-7.

KINGSLEY, CHARLES.
   Hereward the Wake.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

   The hermits.

KINGSLEY, J. S., editor.
   Standard natural history.
   Boston: S. E. Cassino & Co. 1885. 6 volumes.

   Now "Riverside natural history."
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888. 6 New York.

KINGTON, T. L.
   History of Frederick the Second.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1862. 2 volumes.

KINLEY, D.
   The Independent Treasury of the United States.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. [1893.]

KINLOCH, M. G. J.
   History of Scotland. 2d edition.
   Edinburgh: R. Grant & Son.
   New York: T. Whittaker. 1888. 2 volumes.

KINSEY, W. M.
   Portugal Illustrated.
   London. 1829.

KIRK, JOHN FOSTER.
   History of Charles the Bold.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864-1868. 3 volumes.

KIRKUP, THOMAS.
   History of socialism.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1892.

KITCHIN, G. W.
   History of France. 2d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881-1882. 3 volumes.

KNIGHT, CHARLES.
   Crown history of England.
   London: Bradbury, Evans & Co. 1870.

   Popular history of England.
   London: Bradbury & Evans. 1856-1862. 8 volumes.

KNOWLEDGE.
   London: Witherby & Co.

KNOWLES, JAMES D.
   Memoir of Roger Williams.
   Boston: Lincoln, Edmands & Co. 1834.

KNOX, JOHN J.
   United States notes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

KNOX, THOMAS W.
   Decisive battles since Waterloo.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM.
   The revolutions of Europe.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1839.

KOHL, J. G.
   History of the discovery of Maine.
   (Maine Historical Society Collections, 2d series, volume. 1.)
   Portland. 1869.

KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH.
   History of Germany.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
   New York: Appleton. 1845.

KOLDE, THEODOR.
   Martin Luther.
   Gotha: Perthes. 1884.

KRASINSKI, HENRY.
   Cossacks of the Ukraine.
   London: Partridge & Oakey. 1848.

KRASINSKI, VALERIAN.
   Lectures on the religious history of the Slavonic nations.
   Edinburgh. 1869.

KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
   Growth of German unity.
   London: David Nutt. 1892.

KUENEN, A.
   The religion of Israel.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1874-1875. 3 volumes.

LABAUME, EUGENE.
   Circumstantial narrative of the campaign in Russia.
   Hartford: S. Andrus & Son. 1852.

LABILLIERE, FRANCIS PETER.
   Early history of the colony of Victoria.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

LACOMBE, P.
   Arms and armour.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1870.

   Short history of the French people.
   Boston: Henry A. Young & Co. 1878.

LACOUPERIE, TERRIEN DE.
   Early history of the Chinese civilization.
   London: E. Vaton. 1880.

LADD, HORATIO O.
   History of the war with Mexico.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1883).

LAING, MALCOLM.
   History of Scotland.
   London. 1804. 4 volumes.

LAING, SAMUEL.
   The Heimskringla.
   London: Longman. 1844. 3 volumes.

LALOR, JOHN. J., editor.
   Cyclopædia of political science.
   Chicago: volume 1, Rand, McNally & Co.,
   volumes 2-3, Melbert B. Gary & Co. 1881-1884. 3 volumes.

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE.
   History of the Girondists.
   London: H. Bohn. 3 volumes.
   N. Y: Harper & Bros. 1850. 3 volumes.

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE.
   History of Turkey.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1855-1857. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of celebrated characters.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854. 2 volumes.

LAMB, Mrs. MARTHA J.
   History of the city of New York.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. (c. 1877-80.) 2 volumes.

LAMBERT, HENRY.
   Progress of civil service reform in the United States.
   Newton Civil Service Reform Association. 1885.

LAMPRECHT, KARL.
   Deutsche geschichte.
   Berlin: Gaertner. 1891-1894. 5 volumes.

LANCIANI, RODOLFO.
   Pagan and Christian Rome.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893.

LANDON, JUDSON S.
   Constitutional history and government of the United States.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

LANFREY, P.
   History of Napoleon I.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.

LANG, ANDREW.
   Books and bookmen.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: G. J. Coombes. 1886.

   Homer and the epic.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1893.

   The library.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

   Oxford.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1890.

LANGDELL, C. C.
   Summary of equity pleading.
   Cambridge, Massachusetts: C. W. Sever.

LANGMEAD, T. P. TASWELL.
   English constitutional history. 2d edition.
   London: Stevens & Haynes. 1880.

LANKESTER, E. RAY.
   Advancement of science.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

LAPPENBERG, J. M.
   History of England under the Anglo-Saxon kings.
   London: John Murray. 1845. 2 volumes.

LA ROCHETERIE, MAXIME DE.
   Life of Marie Antoinette.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

LATHAM, ROBERT G.
   Ethnology of Europe.
   London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.

   The Germania of Tacitus.
   London: Taylor, Walton & Maberly. 1851.

   Introduction to Kemble's "Horæ Ferales"
   (London: Lovell Reeve & Co. 1863).

   The nationalities of Europe.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1863. 2 volumes.

LATIMER, ELIZABETH W.
   France in the nineteenth century.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1892.

LAUGHLIN, J. L.
   History of bimetallism In the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

LAURIE, S. S.
   John Amos Comenius.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

   The rise and early constitution of universities.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1887.

LAVELEYE, ÉMILE DE.
   The Balkan peninsula.
   London. T. Fisher Unwin. 1887.

   The socialism of to-day.
   London: Field & Tuer.

LAVISSE, ERNEST.
   General view of the political history of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

LAW MAGAZINE AND REVIEW.
   London.

LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW.

LAWLESS, Hon. EMILY.
   Story of Ireland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

LEA, HENRY C.
   Studies in Church history.
   Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea.
   London: S. Low, Son & Marston. 1869.

   Superstition and force.
   Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea. 1866.

LEAF, WALTER.
   A companion to the Iliad.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

LEAKE, WILLIAM MARTIN.
   Topography of Athens.
   2d edition.
   London. 1841. 2 volumes.

LEBON, ANDRÉ, and PAUL PELET.
   France as it is.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1888.

LECHLER, GOTTHARD VICTOR.
   The apostolic and post-apostolic times.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1886.

LECKY, WILLIAM. E. H.
   History of England in the 18th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878-1890. 8 volumes.

   Leaders of public opinion In Ireland; revised edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1871.

   The political value of history.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1893.

LECOY DE LA MARCHE, A.
   La France sous Saint Louis, at sous Philippe le Hardi.
   Paris: Quantin.

LEE, FITZHUGH.
   General Lee.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

LEE, VERNON.
   Euphorion: being studies of the antique and the
   mediæval in the Renaissance.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1884. 2 volumes.

{3923}

LEFÉVRE, ANDRÉ.
   Race and language.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

LEGER, LOUIS.
   History of Austro-Hungary;
   translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

LENORMANT, FRANÇOIS.
   Chaldean magic.
   London: Samuel Bagster & Sons. [1877.]

LENORMANT, FRANÇOIS and E. CHEVALLIER.
   Manual of the ancient history of the east.
   London: Asher & Co. 1869-1870. 2 volumes.

LEROY-BEAULIEU, ANATOLE.
   The empire of the tsars and the Russians.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

LETCHWORTH, WILLIAM P.
   The insane in foreign countries.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

LEVERMORE, CHARLES H.
   The republic of New Haven.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 1.)
   Baltimore. 1886.

LEVI, LEONE.
   History of British commerce. 2d edition.
   London: John Murray. 1880.

LEWES, GEORGE HENRY.
   Biographical history of philosophy.
   London: Parker & Son.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1857.

   Life and works of Goethe. 2d edition.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1864.

   Life of Maximilien Robespierre.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Hart. 1849.

LEWIN, THOMAS.
   Jerusalem.
   London: Longman. 1861.

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
   History of Germany.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1874.

LEWIS, Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL.
   Inquiry Into the credibility of early Roman history.
   London: John W. Parker & Son. 1855. 2 volumes.

LIBRARY CHRONICLE, The.
   London.

LIBRARY JOURNAL, The.
   New York.

LIDDELL, HENRY G.
   History of Rome.
   London: John Murray. 1855. 2 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878.

LIGHTFOOT, J. B.
   Dissertations on the apostolic age.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

LINCOLN, ABRAHAM.
   Complete works; edited by J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay.
   New York: Century Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

LINGARD, JOHN.
   History of England.
   London: Baldwin & Cradock. 1837-1839. 13 volumes.

LIPPINCOTT'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

LITERARY WORLD, The.
   Boston: E. Hames & Co.

LIVIUS, TITUS.
   Stories from; by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1883.

LLOYD, WILLIAM W.
   The age of Pericles.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875. 2 volumes.

LOCKHART, J. G.
   Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
   London: Bickers & Son. 1883.

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
   Alexander Hamilton.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

   Daniel Webster.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

   George Washington.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

   Life and letters of George Cabot.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1877.

   Short history of the English colonies in America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

LODGE, RICHARD.
   History of Modern Europe.
   London: J. Murray. 1885.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

LOFTIE, W. J.
   History of London.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1883. 2 volumes.

LONG, A. L.
   Memoirs of Robert E. Lee.
   New York: J. M. Stoddart & Co. 1886.

LONG, GEORGE.
   Decline of the Roman Republic.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1864-1874. 5 volumes.

LONGMAN, F. W.
   Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

LORNE, Marquis of.
   Imperial federation.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1885.

   Viscount Palmerston.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1892.

LOSSING, BENSON J.
   The Empire State.
   Hartford: American Publishing Co. 1888.

   Family history of the United States.
   Hartford: T. Belknap. (c. 1875, 1881.)

   Life and times of Philip Schuyler.
   VOLUMES: Sheldon & Co. (c. 1861, 1872.) 2 volumes.

   Pictorial field-book of the Civil War.
   Hartford: T. Belknap 1876. 3 volumes.

   Pictorial field-book of the Revolution.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860. 2 volumes.

LOWE, C.
   Prince Bismarck.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

LOWELL, EDWARD J.
   The eve of the French Revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   The Hessians in the Revolutionary War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1884.

LOWELL, JAMES RUSSELL.
   Witchcraft
   ["Among my books," series 1.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.].

LOWELL INSTITUTE LECTURES:
   Early history of Massachusetts.
   Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society. 1869.

LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES, New York Commandery.
   Personal recollections of the War of the Rebellion;
   edited by J. G. Wilson and T. M. Coan.
   New York 1891.

LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES, Ohio Commandery.
   Sketches of war history.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1888-1890. volumes 1-3.

LUBBOCK, Sir John.
   Pre-historic times.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1869.

LUCAS, C. P.
   Historical geography of the British colonies.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1888-94. volumes 1-3.

LUCE, SIMÉON.
   Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy.
   Paris: H. Champion. 1886.

LUCHAIRE, ACHILLE.
   Les communes françaises a l'epoque des Capétîens directs.
   Paris: Hachette. 1890.

LUDLOW, JOHN MALCOLM.
   British India.
   Cambridge: Macmillan & Co. 1858. 2 volumes.

LUGARD, Capt. F. D.
   Rise of our East African empire.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1893. 2 volumes.

LYALL, Sir ALFRED.
   Asiatic studies.
   London: John Murray. 1882.

   Rise of the British dominion in India. 2d edition.
   London: John Murray. 1893.

   Warren Hastings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

LYTE, H. MAXWELL.
   History of the University of Oxford, to 1530.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

MACARTHUR, MARGARET.
   History of Scotland.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

MACASKIE, STUART C.
   Treatise on the law of executors and administrators.
   London: Stevens. 1881.

MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON, Baron.
   Essays.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

   History of England.
   London: Longmans.

McCALMAN, ARCHIBALD H., comp.
   Abridged history of England.
   New York: Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co. 1880.

McCARTHY, JUSTIN.
   The epoch of reform.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

   History of our own times.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1879-1830. 4 volumes.

   History of the four Georges.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1884-1890. volumes 1-2.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1885-1890. volumes 1-2.

   Short history of our own times.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1883.

   Sir Robert Peel.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1891.

McCARTHY, JUSTIN HUNTLY.
   England under Gladstone, 1880-1884.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1884.

   Ireland since the union.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1887.

   Outline of Irish history.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1884.

McCLELLAN, GEORGE B.
   McClellan's own story.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1887.

McCRIE, Rev. THOMAS.
   Sketches of Scottish church history.
   Edinburgh and London: John Johnstone. [1841.] 2 volumes.

McCULLAGH, W. TORRENS.
   Industrial history of free nations.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1846. 2 volumes.

McCULLOCH, HUGH.
   Men and measures of half a century.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1888.

McCURDY, JAMES F.
   History, prophecy and the monuments.
   New York and London: Macmillan & Co. 1894. volume 1.

MACDONELL, JAMES.
   France since the First Empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

McDOUGALL, MARION G.
   Fugitive slaves, 1619-1865.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1891.

MAcFARLANE, CHARLES.
   The French Revolution.
   London, C. Knight & Co. 1844-1845. 4 volumes.

McGEE, THOMAS D'ARCY.
   Popular history of Ireland.
   New York: D. J. Sadler & Co. 1869. 2 volumes.

MACHIAVELLI, NICCOLO.
   History of Florence.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1847.

{3924}

MACKAY, C.
   Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 1869.

MACKENZIE, HARRIET D. S.
   Switzerland.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. (c. 1881).

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
   America.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.

   The nineteenth century.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1880.

MACKINTOSH, Sir JAMES.
   Cabinet history of England, Scotland and Ireland.
   London: Longman.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1830-1833. 3 volumes.

   History of the revolution in England in 1688.
   London: Longman.
   Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard. 1835.

   Sir Thomas More
   [Eminent British statesmen. volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1831].

MACKINTOSH, JOHN.
   Scotland.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

MACLEAR, G. F.
   Apostles of mediæval Europe.
   London: Macmillan & Co. [1869.]

   Conversion of the West:
   The Celts; The English; The Northmen; The Slavs.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 4 volumes.

McMASTER, JOHN BACH.
   History of the people of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1883-1895.
   (6 volumes) volumes 1-4.

MACMILLAN, HUGH.
   Roman mosaics.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

MacMULLEN, JOHN.
   History of Canada.
   London: S. Low & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1869.

McMURDO, EDWARD.
   History of Portugal.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1888-1889. volumes 1-3.

MACPHERSON, DAVID.
   Annals of commerce.
   London. 1805. 4 volumes.

McPHERSON, EDWARD.
   Hand-book of politics.
   Washington.

   Political history of the United States during
   the great Rebellion.
   Washington: Philip & Solomons. 1865.

McPHERSON, J. H. T.
   History of Liberia.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies, 9th series, number 10.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

MacRITCHIE, DAVID, collector and editor.
   Accounts of the gypsies of India.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1886.

McSHERRY, JAMES.
   History of Maryland.
   Baltimore: John Murphy. 1849.

MADAN, FALCONER.
   Books in manuscript.
   London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1893.

MADISON, JAMES.
   Letters and other writings.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865. 4 volumes.

MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN HISTORY.
   New York.

MAGRUDER, ALLAN B.
   John Marshall.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

MAHAFFY, J. P.
   Greek life and thought.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

   Greek world under Roman sway.
   London; Macmillan & Co. 1890.

   Old Greek education.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

   Problems in Greek history.
   London; Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   Social life in Greece, from Homer to Menander.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

   Story of Alexander's empire.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

MAHAN, Captain A. T.
   Influence of sea power upon the French Revolution and Empire.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

MAHON, Lord (Earl Stanhope).
   Historical essays.
   London: John Murray. 1889.

   History of England, 1701-1713.
   London; John Murray. 1870.

   History of England, 1713-1783. 5th edition.
   London: John Murray. 1858. 7 volumes.

   Life of Louis, Prince of Condé.
   London: John Murray. 1861.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1845.

MAINE, Sir HENRY SUMNER.
   Ancient law.
   London: John Murray. 1861.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1875.

   Popular government.
   London: John Murray. 1885.

MAINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Collections. volume 6.
   Portland. 1859.

MAITLAND, S. R.
   The dark ages. 3d edition
   London: F. & J. Rivington. 1853.

MAJOR, RICHARD H.
   Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, surnamed the Navigator.
   London: A. Asher & Co. 1868.

MALCOLM, Sir JOHN.
   History of Persia.
   London: John Murray. 1829. 2 volumes.

MALDEN, HENRY E.
   Vienna 1683.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1883.

MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.
   Akbar.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

   Battle-fields of Germany.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1884.

   Decisive battles of India.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1883.

   Lord Clive.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1893.

   Military life of Loudon.
   London; Chapman & Hall. 1884.

   Prince Eugene of Savoy.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888.

   Studies from Genoese history.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1875.

MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.
   The French Revolution.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

MALTE-BRUN, C.
   System of universal geography.
   Boston: Samuel Walker. 1834. 3 volumes.

MANN, HORACE.
   Lectures and annual reports on education.
   Cambridge. 1867.

MANNING, Mrs.
   Ancient and mediæval India.
   London: William H. Allen & Co. 1869. 2 volumes.

MARCEAU, SERGENT.
   Reminiscences of a regicide.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

MARIETTE-BEY, AUGUSTE.
   Monuments of Upper Egypt. London:
   Trübner & Co. 1877.

MARIO, JESSIE W. V.
   Introduction to "Autobiography of Garibaldi"
   (London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.).

MARIOTTI, L., pseudo
   See GALLENGA, A.

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
   Cuzco, and Lima.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1856.

   General sketch of the history of Persia.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

   Introduction to Pedro Simon's
   "Expedition of Ursua and Aguirre"
   (London: Hakluyt Society, 1861).

   Life of the Great Lord Fairfax.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1870.

   Peru.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

   Peruvian bark.
   London: John Murray. 1880.

   The sea fathers.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 1884.

   editor. Reports on the discovery of Peru.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1872.

MARQUIS, A. N.
   Hand-hook of Chicago.
   Chicago: A. N. Marquis & Co. 1885.

MARRAS, AMERICO PALFREY.
   Secret fraternities of the Middle Ages.
   London: Rivingtons. 1865.

MARRIOTT, J. A. R.
   Makers of modern Italy.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

MARSDEN, J. B.
   History of the early Puritans.
   London: Hamilton, Adams & Co. 1850.

MARSH, GEORGE P.
   Origin and history of the English language. 3d edition.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1871.

MARSHALL JOHN.
   Life of George Washington.
   Philadelphia: C. P. Wayne. 1805-1807. 5 volumes.

MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.
   Historical writings.
   Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1887.

   The Niagara frontier.
   [Buffalo: the author.]

MARTIN, FRANCOIS-XAVIER.
   History of North Carolina.
   New Orleans: A.T. Penniman & Co. 1829. 2 volumes.

MARTIN, HENRY.
   History of France: Age of Louis XIV.;
   translated by Mrs. Booth.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Co. 2 volumes.

   Popular history of France from the first revolution.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

MARTIN, R. MONTGOMERY.
   History of Upper and Lower Canada.
   London: John Mortimer. 1836.

MARTIN, W. A. P.
   The Chinese.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

MARTINEAU, HARRIET.
   History of British rule in India.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1859.

   History of England. 1800-1815.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1878.

   History of the Thirty Years' Peace.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877-78. 4 volumes.

MASPÉRO. G.
   Life in ancient Egypt and Assyria.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

MASSACHUSETTS.
   Free Public Library Commission.
   First report.
   Boston. 1891.

MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
    Collections.
    Boston.

MASSEY, WILLIAM.
   History of England during the reign of George III.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1865. 4 volumes.

MASSON, DAVID.
   Life of John Milton.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1859-1880.
   6 volumes. Index. 1895.

MASSON, GUSTAVE.
   The Huguenots.
   London and New York: Cassell.

   Saint Louis and the 13th century;
   edited from Guizot's "History of France."
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.
   Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.
   (U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey, Mis. Pub., no. 7).
   Washington. 1877.

{3925}

MAURENBRECHER, W.
   Gründung des deutschen reichs. 1859-71.
   Leipzig. 1892.

MAY, THOMAS ERSKINE.
   Constitutional history of England. London:
   Longman. 1861-1862. 2 volumes.
   Boston: Crosby & Nichols. 1862-1863. 2 volumes.

   Democracy In Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 2 volumes.
   N.Y.: W. J. Widdleton. 1878. 2 volumes.

MAYER, BRANTZ.
   Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican.
   Hartford:S. Drake & Co. 1851. 2 volumes.

MELLICK, ANDREW D., JR.
   Story of an old farm.
   Somerville, New Jersey: The Unionist-Gazette. 1889.

MENDENHALL, T. C.
   A century of electricity.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

MENZEL, WOLFGANG.
   History of Germany.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.

MENZIES, SUTHERLAND.
   History of Europe from the decadence of the Western Empire
   to the Reformation.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

   Turkey, old and new.
   London: William H. Allen & Co. 1880. 2 volumes.

MERIVALE, CHARLES.
   Four lectures on some epochs of early church history.
   London: Longmans. 1879.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

   General history of Rome.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

   History of the Romans.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton 8:. Co. 1864-1866. 7 volumes.

   The Roman triumvirates.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.
   New York: Scribner & Co.

MERLE D'AUBIGNY, J. H.
   History of the Reformation of the 16th century.
   New York: American Tract Society. 5 volumes.

   The Protector.
   London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.
   New York: Robert Carter. 1847.

MERRILL, GEORGE E.
   Story of the manuscripts.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. [1881.]

MICHAUD, J. F.
   History of the Crusades.
   London: George Routledge & Co. 1852. 3 volumes.

MICHELET, J.
   Historical view of the French Revolution.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1864.

   History of France.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844-1846.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867. 2 volumes.

   History of the Roman Republic.
   London: David Bogue. 1847.

   Summary of modern history;
   translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.

   editor. Life of Luther, written by himself:
   translated by W. Hazlitt. 2d edition.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1882.

MIDDLETON, J. HENRY.
   Ancient Rome in 1885.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1885.

MIGNET, FRANCOIS A. M.
   History of the French Revolution.
   London: G. Bell & Sons.

MILITARY HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
   Papers, volume 1.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1881.

MILL, JAMES.
   History of British India. 3d edition.
   London. 1826. 6 volumes.

MILLAR, JOHN.
   Educational system of the Province of Ontario, Canada.
   Toronto: Warwick & Sons. 1893.

MILLS, CHARLES.
   History of chivalry.
   London: Longman. 1826. 2 volumes.

   History of the Crusades,
   London: Longman. 1820. 2 volumes.

MILMAN, H. H.
   History of Christianity.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1855.

   History of Latin Christianity.
   London: John Murray. 1854-1855. 6 volumes.

   History of the Jews.
   London: John Murray, 3 volumes.
   New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes.

MINCHIN, J. G. COTTON.
   Growth of freedom in the Balkan peninsula.
   London: John Murray. 1886.

MINER, LEWIS H.
   The valley of Wyoming.
   New York: R. H. Johnson & Co. 1866.

MINERVA, 1893-1894.
   Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.

MIOT, A. F., Count de Melito.
   Memoirs. London: Low, Marston & Co.
   2 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1881.

MITCHELL, J.
   Fall of Napoleon.
   2d edition.
   London: G. W. Nickisson. 1846. 3 volumes.

   Life of Wallenstein.
   London: J. Fraser. 1837.

MITFORD, WILLIAM.
   History of Greece.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 10 volumes.
   Boston: Timothy Bedlington & Charles Ewer. 5 volumes.

MOBERLY, C. E.
   The early Tudors.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

MOELLER, WILHELM.
   History of the Christian Church A. D. 1-600.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   History of the Christian Church: in the Middle Ages.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1893.

MOLESWORTH, W. N.
   History of England, 1830-1874.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1874. 3 volumes.

MOLTKE, HELMUTH VON, Count.
   Poland.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

MOMBERT, J. I.
   History of Charles the Great.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1888.

MOMMSEN, THEODOR.
   History of Rome.
   London: R. Bentley. 4 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner. 4 volumes.

   History of Rome: The provinces.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1886. 2 volumes.

   History of the Roman republic;
   abridged from the History by Bryans and Hendy.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889.

MONETTE, J. W.
   Discovery and settlement of the valley of the Mississippi.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1848. 2 volumes.

MONGREDIEN, AUGUSTUS.
   History of the free-trade movement In England.
   London and New York: Cassell. [1881.]

MONSTRELET, ENGUERRAND DE.
   Chronicles;
   translated by Johnes.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 1867. 2 volumes.

MONTAGUE, F. C.
   Life of Sir Robert Peel.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

MONTALEMBERT, CHARLES F., Count de.
   The monks of the west.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1861-1879. 7 volumes.

MONTEFIORE, C. G.
   Religion of the ancient Hebrews.
   (Hibbert lectures, 1892.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1892.

MONTGOMERY, D. H.
   Leading facts of American history.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1890.

MONTOR, A. DE.
   Lives and times of the Roman Pontiffs.
   New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co. 1866. 2 volumes.

MOORE, FRANK: ed:
   Rebellion Record.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 1862-1871. 12 volumes.

MOORE, JACOB BAILEY.
   Lives of the governors of New Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay.
   New York: Gates & Stedman. 1848.

MORELL, JOHN REYNELL.
   Algeria.
   London: Nathaniel Cooke. 1854.

MORFILL, W. R.
   Story of Poland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1893.

   Story of Russia.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

MORGAN, LEWIS H.
   Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.
   (Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)
   Washington. 1881.

   The League of the Ho-de'-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.
   Rochester: Sage & Bro. 1851.

MORLEY, JOHN.
   Critical miscellanies. 2d series.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1877.

   Edmund Burke: a historical study.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867.

   Life of Richard Cobden.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1881. 2 volumes.

   Walpole.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

MORRIS, EDWARD E.
   The early Hanoverians.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.

MORRIS, WILLIAM, and E. B. BAX.
   Socialism.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

MORRIS, WILLIAM O'CONNOR.
   The French Revolution and First Empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

   Napoleon, warrior and ruler.
   New York: G, P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

MORRISON, W. D.
   The Jews under Roman rule.
   New York: G P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

MORSE, JOHN T., JR.
   Abraham Lincoln.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

   Benjamin Franklin.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

   John Quincy Adams.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

   Life of Alexander Hamilton.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

   Thomas Jefferson.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

MOSES, B.
   Federal government of Switzerland.
   Oakland, California: Pacific Press Publishing Co. 1889.

MOSHEIM, JOHN L. VON.
   Historical commentaries on the state of Christianity.

   Institutes of ecclesiastical history.

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP.
   History of the United Netherlands.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 4 volumes.

   Rise of the Dutch republic.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 3 volumes.

MUIR, Sir WILLIAM.
   Annals of the early caliphate.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1883.

{3926}

MÜLLER, C. O.
   History and antiquities of the Doric race.
   London: John Murray. 1839. 2 volumes.

MÜLLER, F. MAX.
   Biography of words, and the home of the Aryas.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.

   Lectures on the science of language.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1862-1865. 2 volumes.

MÜLLER, K. O.
   History of the literature of ancient Greece.
   London: R. Baldwin. 1847.

MÜLLER, WILHELM.
   Political history of recent times.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

MULLINGER, J. BASS.
   History of the University of Cambridge.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.

MUNRO, J. E. C.
   The constitution of Canada.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1889.

MÜNSTER, GEORGE HERBERT, Count.
   Political sketches of the state of Europe, 1814-1867.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1868.

MURDOCK, HAROLD.
   Reconstruction of Europe.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

MURPHY, JOHN N.
   The chair of Peter.
   London: Burns & Oates.

MURRAY, DAVID.
   Story of Japan.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894.

MURRAY, EUSTACE C. GRENVILLE.
   Embassies and foreign courts.
   London: G. Routledge & Co. 1856.

MURRAY'S MAGAZINE.
   London: John Murray.

NAPIER, HENRY EDWARD.
   Florentine history.
   London: E. Moxon. 1846-1847. 6 volumes.

NAPP, R. and others.
   The Argentine Republic.
   Buenos Ayres: Sociedad Anonima. 1876.

NATION, The.
   New York: Evening Post Publishing Co.

NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT:
   addresses by E. Magnusson and others.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1891.

NATIONAL QUARTERLY REVIEW, The.
   New York.

NAVILLE, EDOUARD.
   Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen.
   (Egypt Exploration Fund.)
   London: Trübner & Co. 1887.

   The store-city of Pithom and the route of the Exodus.
   (Egypt Exploration Fund.)
   London: Trübner & Co. 1885.

NEAL, DANIEL.
   History of the Puritans.
   Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 1816. 5 volumes.

NEALE, EDWARD V.
   Associated homes.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

NEANDER, AUGUSTUS.
   General history of the Christian religion and church.

NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE.
   Boston: Warren F. Kellogg .

NEW ENGLANDER AND YALE REVIEW.
   New Haven.

NEW JERSEY, COLLEGE OF, Princeton.
   Catalogue.

NEW PRINCETON REVIEW, The.
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son.

NEW REVIEW, The.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.

NEW WORLD, The.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.
   Catalogue.

NEW YORK STATE.
   Superintendent of Public Instruction.
   Annual report.
   Albany. 1869.

NEW YORK TRIBUNE EXTRA.
   volume 1, number 12. 1889.

NEWHALL, FREDERICK C.
   With General Sheridan in Lee's last campaign;
   by a staff officer.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1866.

NEWMAN, A. H.
   History of the Baptist churches in the United States.
   New York: Christian Literature Co. 1894.

NEWMAN, FRANCIS W.
   History of the Hebrew monarchy.
   London: J. Chapman. 1853.

NEWMAN JOHN HENRY.
   Essays critical and historical.
   London: Basil Montagu Pickering. 1871. 2 volumes.

   Historical sketches.
   London: Basil Montagu Pickering. 1872.

NICHOLLS, J. H. KERRY-.
   The King country. 2d edition.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1884.

NICOLAS, Sir HARRIS.
   Chronology of history.
   London: Longman. 1833.

NICOLAY, JOHN G., and JOHN HAY.
   Abraham Lincoln: a history.
   New York: Century Co. 1890. 10 volumes.

NICOLINI, G. B.
   History of the Jesuits.
   Edinburgh: J. Nichol. 1853.

NICOLL, HENRY J.
   Great movements.
   London: John Hogg. 1881.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   History of Rome.
   Philadelphia. 1835. 2 volumes.

   Lectures on ancient ethnography and geography.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1854. 2 volumes.

   Lectures on ancient history.
   London: Taylor, Walton & Maberly. 1852. 3 volumes.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   Lectures on the history of Rome.
   2d edition.
   London: Taylor, Walton & Maberly. 1850. 3 volumes.

NINETEENTH CENTURY, The.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.

NITOBE, INAZO (OTA).
   Intercourse between the United States and Japan.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies, extra volume 8.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

NÖLDEKE, THEODOR.
   Sketches from eastern history.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1892.

NOLL, ARTHUR H.
   Short history of Mexico.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1890.

NORDHOFF, CHARLES.
   Communistic societies of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1875.

NORGATE, KATE.
   England under the Angevin kings.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. The.
   New York.

NORTH BRITISH REVIEW.
   Edinburgh.

NORTHCOTE, J. S. and W. R. BROWNLOW.
   Roma sotterranea.
   London: Longmans, Green' & Co. 1869-79. 2 volumes.

NORTON, A. TIFFANY.
   History of Sullivan's campaign against the Iroquois.
   Lima, New York 1879.

NORTON, C. B.
   World's fairs.
   Chicago: World's Columbian Exposition. 1890.

   [See also: Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
   by Arnold and Higinbotham.
   Press Chicago Photo-Gravure Co.: 1893.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847]

NÖSSELT, F.
   Mythology, Greek and Roman.
   London: Kerby & Endean. 1885.

NOYES, JOHN H.
   History of American socialisms.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1870.

OBER, FREDERICK A.
   Young folks' history of Mexico.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1883.

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
   History of New Netherland.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846-1848. 2 volumes.

OCEAN STEAMSHIPS;
   by F. E. Chadwick, and others.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891.

O'CLERY, The Chevalier.
   History of the Italian Revolution.
   London: R. Washbourne. 1875.

   The making of Italy.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1892.

O'CONOR, W. A.
   History of the Irish people.
   Manchester: Abel Heywood & Son. 2 volumes.

O'HAGAN, JOHN.
   Joan of Arc.
   London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1893.

OLDEST SCHOOL IN AMERICA
   [the Boston Latin School].
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

OLIPHANT, Mrs. M. O. W.
   Makers of Florence.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

   Makers of Venice.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

OLLIER, EDMUND.
   Cassell's illustrated history of the Russo-Turkish War.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 2 volumes.

OMAN, C. W. C.
   History of Greece.
   London: Rivingtons. 1890.

   Story of the Byzantine empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1892.

   Warwick the kingmaker.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

ONCKEN, WILHELM.
   Das zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm.
   Berlin. 1890-1892. 2 volumes.

OSBORN, ROBERT D.
   Islam under the khalifs of Baghdad.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1878.

OTTÉ, E. C.
   Scandinavian history.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

PAINTER, F. V. N.
   History of education.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

PALESTINE EXPLORATION FUND.
   The city and the land:
   a course of 7 lectures on the work of the society
   [by Wilson, Conder, Petrie, and others].
   London. 1892.

   Publications.
   London.

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   Compendious history of New England.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 4 volumes.

   History of New England.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1858-1890. 5 volumes.

PALGRAVE, Sir FRANCIS.
   History of Normandy and of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1857-78. 4 volumes.

   History of the Anglo-Saxons.
   London: William Tegg. 1869.

PALMBERG, ALBERT.
   Treatise on public health.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1893.

PALMER, E. H.
   Haroun Alraschid.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. 1881.

   History of the Jewish nation.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1880.

PALMER, H. S.
   Sinai.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

PARIS, Comte de.
   History of the Civil War in America.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875-88. 4 volumes.

PARK, ROSWELL.
   Lectures on the history of medicine (in ms.).

{3927}

PARKE, J.
   History of English Chancery.

PARKER, CORTLANDT.
   Address [Bi-centennial celebration of the Board of
   American Proprietors of East New Jersey.
   Newark. 1885].

PARKER, FOXHALL A.
   The fleets of the world.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand. 1876.

PARKER, WILLIAM H.
   Recollections of a naval officer.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   France and England in North America (parts 1, 4, 7).
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 9 volumes.

   History of the conspiracy of Pontiac.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

PARNELL, ARTHUR.
   The War of the Succession in Spain.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1888.

PARSONS, JAMES RUSSELL, Jr.
   Prussian schools through American eyes.
   Syracuse: C. W. Bardeen. 1891.

PARSONS, THEOPHILUS.
   Outlines of the religion and philosophy of Swedenborg.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1876.

PARTON, JAMES.
   General Butler in New Orleans.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1864.

   Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1864. 2 volumes.

   Life of Andrew Jackson.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1861. 3 volumes.

PASQUIER, E. D., Chancellor.
   Memoirs.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893. volume 1.

PASTOR, LUDWIG.
   History of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages.
   London: John Hodges. 1891. 2 volumes.

PATON, A. A.
   History of the Egyptian Revolution.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1870. 2 volumes.

   Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1862. 2 volumes.

PATTISON, Mrs. MARK.
   The renaissance of art in France.
   London: Kegan Paul & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

PATTON, JACOB HARRIS.
   Concise history of the American people.
   New York: Fords, Howard & Hulbert. 1883. 2 volumes.

PAULI, REINHOLD.
   Pictures of old England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1861.

PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.
   History of European colonies.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1878.

   Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America.
   London: Thomas De La Rue & Co. 1886.

PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.
   History of the new world called America.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892. volume 1.

PAYNE, JOSEPH.
   Lectures on the history of education.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

PEABODY, W. B. O.
      Life of James Oglethorpe
      [Library of American Biographies,
      2d series, volume 2. Boston: 1844].

PEARS, EDWIN.
   The fall of Constantinople.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1885.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

PEARSON, CHARLES H.
   English history in the 14th century.
   London: Rivingtons. 1876.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

   History of England during the early and middle ages.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1867. 2 volumes.

   National life and character.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

PEBODY, CHARLES.
   English journalism.
   London and New York: Cassell. 1882.

PEDLEY, CHARLES.
   History of Newfoundland.
   London: Longman. 1863.

PELHAM, H. F.
   Outlines of Roman history.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

PELLEW, GEORGE.
   John Jay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

PENNINGTON, ARTHUR R.
   Epochs of the Papacy.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1881.

PENNSYLVANIA-GERMAN SOCIETY.
   Proceedings. volume 1. 1891.

PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Memoirs.

PERKINS, JAMES BRECK.
   France under Mazarin.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

   France under the regency.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

PERKINS, JAMES H.
   Annals of the West.
   St. Louis: James R. Albach. 2d edition. 1850.

PERKINS, SAMUEL.
   History of the late war.
   New Haven. S. Converse. 1825.

PERRAUD, A.
   Ireland under English rule.
   Dublin: J. Duffy. 1864.

PERRENS, F. T.
   History of Florence.
   London: Methuen & Co. volume 1. 1892.

PERROT, G., and C. CHIPIEZ.
   History of art in Phœnicia and its dependencies.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

PERRY, ARTHUR LATHAM.
   Elements of political economy. 5th edition.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1870.

PERRY, GEORGE G.
   History of the Reformation in England.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1886.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

PERRY, WALTER C.
   The Franks.
   London: Longman. 1857.

PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS.
   History of Egypt.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1894. volumes 1.

PETTIGREW, T. J.
   On superstitions connected with medicine and surgery.
   London: J. Churchill. 1844.

PHELAN, JAMES.
   History of Tennessee.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

PICTON, J. ALLANSON.
   Oliver Cromwell.
   London and New York: Cassell. 1882.

PIGEONNEAU, H.
   Histoire du commerce de la France.
   Paris: Léopold Cerf. 1885-1889. volumes 1-2.

PIGNOTTI, LORENZO.
   History of Tuscany.
   London. 1823. 4 volumes.

PIMBLETT, W. M.
   English political history.
   London: E. Stock. 1885.

PITKIN, TIMOTHY.
   Political and civil history of the United States, 1763-1797.
   New Haven. 1828. 2 volumes.

PLATO.
   Dialogues;
   translated by B. Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1871. 4 volumes.

PLINY.
   Natural history.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855. 6 volumes.

PLUMMER, ALFRED.
   The Church of the early fathers.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1887.

PLUTARCH.
   Lives;
   translated by Dryden;
   edited by Clough.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 3 volumes.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 5 volumes.

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY.
   New York: Ginn & Co.

"POLITIKOS."
   Sovereigns and courts of Europe.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1891.

POLLARD, EDWARD A.
   The first year of the war.
   (Southern history of the war.)
   Richmond: West & Johnston. 1862.

   The lost cause.
   New York: E. B. Trent & Co. 1866.

POLLOCK, FREDERICK.
   Essays in jurisprudence and ethics.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1882.

   Oxford lectures.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

PONTALIS, ANTONIN L.
   John de Witt.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 2 volumes.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

POOL, JOHN J.
   Studies in Mohammedanism.
   London: A. Constable & Co. 1892.

POOLE, REGINALD LANE.
   History of the Huguenots of the dispersion.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

   Wycliffe and movements for reform.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

POOLE, REGINALD STUART.
   Cities of Egypt.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1882.

POOLE, STANLEY LANE, editor.
   Coins and medals.
   London: E. Stock. 1892.

   Egypt. London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1881.

   The Muhammadan dynasties.
   London: A. Constable & Co. 1894.

   Story of the Barbary corsairs.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

   Story of Turkey.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

   Studies in a mosque.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

POOLE, WILLIAM FREDERICK.
   Anti-slavery opinions before the year 1800.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1873.

POPULAR ACCOUNT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
   London: Walter Scott.

POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, The.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

PORRITT, EDWARD.
   The Englishman at home.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1893).

PORTER, DAVID D.
   Naval history of the Civil War.
   New York: Sherman Publishing Co. 1886.

PORTER, Sir JAMES.
   Turkey.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1854. 2 volumes.

POWERS, STEPHEN.
   Tribes of California.
   (Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)
   Washington. 1877.

PREECE, WILLIAM H., and JULIUS MAIER.
   The telephone.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1889.

PRENDERGAST, JOHN P.
   The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.
   New York: P.M. Haverty. 1868.

{3928}

PRESCOTT, GEORGE B.
   Electricity and the electric telegraph.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1877.

PRESCOTT, WILLIAM H.
   History of the conquest of Mexico.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 3 volumes.

   History of the conquest of Peru.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott& Co. 2 volumes.

   History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 3 volumes.

   History of the reign of Philip II.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 3 volumes.

PRESSENSÉ:, E. DE.
   The early years of Christianity.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1870.

   Jesus Christ. 3d edition.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1869.

PRESTON, HOWARD W., editor.
   Documents illustrative of American history.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

PRICHARD, JAMES C.
   Researches into the physical history of mankind.
   2d edition.
   London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.

PRINCE SOCIETY.
   Publications.
   Boston.

PROBYN, JOHN W.
   Italy from 1815 to 1890.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1891.

PROCTER, GEORGE.
   History of Italy. 2d edition.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1844.

   History of the Crusades.
   New York: Allen Bros. 1869.

PROVIDENCE, R. I.
   Two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, 1886.
   Providence. 1887.

PRUTZ. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge.
   Berlin: Mittler. 1883.

PUNCHARD, GEORGE.
   History of Congregationalism.
   2d edition.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1865-1867. 3 volumes.

PUTNAM'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
   New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, The.
   Boston: George H. Ellis.

QUARTERLY REGISTER OF CURRENT HISTORY, The.
   Detroit.

QUARTERLY REVIEW, The.
   London: John Murray.

QUICK, ROBERT H.
   Essays on educational reformers.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. Syracuse,
   New York: C. W. Bardeen. 1886.

QUINCY, EDMUND.
   Life of Josiah Quincy.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1868.

QUINCY, JOSIAH.
   Memoir of the life of John Quincy Adams.
   Boston: Phillips, Sampson & Co. 1858.

RAE, J.
   Contemporary socialism.
   2d edition.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.

RAGOZIN, Z. A.
   Story of Chaldea.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1886.

RAMBAUD, ALFRED.
   History of Russia.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

RAMSAY, W. M.
   The Church in the Roman Empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

   Historical geography of Asia Minor.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

RAMSAY, WILLIAM.
   Manual of Roman antiquities.
   London and Glasgow: R. Griffin & Co. 1855.

   Manual of Roman antiquities.
   Revised by Lanciani.
   London: C. Griffin & Co. 1894.

RANDALL, HENRY S.
   Life of Thomas Jefferson.
   New York: Derby & Jackson. 1858. 3 volumes.

RANDALL, S. S.
   History of the state of New York.
   New York: J. B. Ford & Co. 1870.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Civil wars and monarchy in France.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1852. 2 volumes.

   History of England, 17th century.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1875. 6 volumes.

   History of Servia.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1887.

   History of the Popes.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1871. 3 volumes.

   History of the Reformation in Germany.
   London: Longman. 1845-1847. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg.
   London: John Murray. 1849. 3 volumes.

   Universal history.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1885.
   Weltgeschichte. Leipzig. 1886-1888. 9 volumes.

RANKINE, WILLIAM J. M.
   Manual of the steam engine.
   5th edition.
   London: C. Griffin & Co. 1870.

RANNIE, DAVID W.
   Historical outline of the English constitution.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE.
   Five great monarchies.
   London: John Murray. 3 volumes.

   History of ancient Egypt.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

   History of Phœnicia.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.

   Manual of ancient history.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1869.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE.
   Religions of the ancient world.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1882.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

   Seventh great oriental monarchy.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.

   Sixth great oriental monarchy.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1873.

   Story of Phœnicia.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

RAYMOND, HENRY J.
   Life and public services of Abraham Lincoln.
   New York: Derby & Miller. 1865.

READ, JOHN M., JR.
   Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.

RÉCLUS, ÉLISÉE.
   The earth and its inhabitants.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1882-1895. 19 volumes.

RED CROSS, History of the.
   Washington. 1883.

REED, Sir EDWARD J.
   Japan.
   London: John Murray. 1880. 2 volumes.

REEVES, J.
   History of the English law;
   edited by W. F. Finlason.
   London: Reeves & Turner. 3 volumes.

REICH, EMIL.
   Graeco-Roman institutions.
   Oxford: Parker & Co. 1890.

REID, ANDREW, editor.
   Ireland.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1886.

RÉMUSAT, PAUL DE.
   Thiers.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1889.

REMY, J., and J. BRENCHLEY.
   Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City.
   London: W. Jeffs. 1861.

RENAN, ERNEST.
   English conferences.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1880.

   History of the people of Israel.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888-1891. volumes 1-3.

   Studies of religious history and criticism.
   New York: Carleton. 1864.

RENOUARD, P. V.
   History of medicine.
   Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstach, Keys & Co. 1856.

REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS;
   edited by Charles Kendall Adams.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's sons. 1884. 3 volumes.

REUMONT, ALFRED VON.
   The Carafas of Maddaloni: Naples under Spanish dominion.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1854.

   Lorenzo de' Medici.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

REVIEW OF REVIEWS, The.
   New York.

RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Collections.

RHODES, JAMES F.
   History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893. 2 volumes.

RHYS, JOHN.
   Celtic Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

   Lectures on Celtic heathendom.
   (Hibbert Lectures, 1886.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1888.

   Studies in the Arthurian legend.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

RICE, ALLEN THORNDIKE, editor.
   Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by
   distinguished men of his time.
   New York: North American Publishing Co. 1886.

RICE, VICTOR M.
   Special report On education.
   Albany. 1867.

RICHARDSON. H. W.
   The national banks.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

RICHEY, A. G.
   Short history of the Irish people.
   Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co. 1887.

RIDDLE, Rev. J. E.
   History of the Papacy.
   London: R. Bentley. 1854.

RIDER, S. S., editor.
   Book notes.
   Providence.

RIDPATH JOHN CLARK.
   Life and work of James A. Garfield.
   Cleveland: George M. Rewell & Co. 1881.

RIGG, JAMES H.
   National education.
   London: Strahan & Co. 1873.

RINK, H.
   Tales and traditions of the Eskimo.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.

RITCHIE, LEITCH.
   History of the oriental nation.
   [also issued as "History of the Indian Empire"].
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1]848. 2 volumes.

RIVES, WILLIAM C.
   History of the life and times of James Madison.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1866. 3 volumes.

ROBERTS, ELLIS H.
   New York.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

ROBERTS, GEORGE.
   Life of James, Duke of Monmouth.
   London: Longman. 1844. 2 volumes.

ROBERTS, R. D.
   Eighteen years of university extension.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1891.

   The university extension scheme.
   Aberystwyth. 1887.

ROBERTSON, ALEXANDER.
   Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   London; S. Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: T. Whittaker. 1894.

{3929}

ROBERTSON, C. F.
   The Louisiana purchase.
   (Papers of American Historical Society Association,
   volume 1, number 4.)
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

ROBERTSON, E. W.
   Scotland under her early kings.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1862. 2 volumes.

ROBERTSON, JAMES C.
   History of the Christian Church.
   London: John Murray. 1875. 8 volumes.

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
   Works
   [America, 3 volumes;
   Charles V., 3 volumes;
   Scotland, 2 volumes].
   Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler.

ROBINSON, A. MARY F.
   End of the Middle Ages.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

ROCHE, JAMES J.
   The story of the Filibusters.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   N. Y.: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

ROCQUAIN, FELIX.
   Revolutionary spirit preceding the French Revolution.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.

RODD, RENNELL.
   Customs and lore of modern Greece.
   London: David Stott. 1892.

   Frederick, crown prince and emperor.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

ROGERS, HORATIO.
   Rhode Island's adoption of the federal constitution.
   Providence. 1890.

ROGERS, J. GUINNESS.
   Church systems of England in the 19th century.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1881.

ROGERS, JAMES E. THOROLD.
   Economic Interpretation of history.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

   Historical gleanings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

   History of agriculture and prices in England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1866-1887. volumes 1-6.

   Six centuries of work and wages.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1884. 2 volumes.

   Story of Holland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London. T. F. Unwin. 1889.

ROGERS, ROBERT.
   Concise account of North America.
   London. 1765.

RONAN, PETER.
   Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation.
   Helena: Journal Publishing Co. 1890.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE.
   Life of Thomas Hart Benton.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

   Naval War of 1812.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

   New York.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

   The Winning of the West.
   New York and London:
   G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-1894. volumes 1-8.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   Story of the Civil War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894. Part 1.

ROSCHER, W.
   Principles of political economy.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

ROSE, J. H.
   A century of continental history.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1889.

ROSEBERY, Lord.
   Pitt.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

ROSS, DAVID.
   The land of the five rivers and Sindh.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888.

ROSS, JOHN M.
   Scottish history and literature.
   Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons. 1884.

ROSSETTI, MARIA FRANCESCA.
   A shadow of Dante.
   London: Rivingtons. 1871.

ROUND, J. H.
   Geoffrey de Mandeville.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

ROWLAND, KATE MASON.
   Life of George Mason.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892. 2 volumes.

ROWLEY, JAMES.
   Settlement of the constitution.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878.

ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.
   Proceedings.
   London.

ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Transactions.
   London.

ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY.
   Journal.
   London.

ROYCE, JOSIAH.
   California.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886.

ROYLE, C.
   The Egyptian campaigns, 1882 to 1885.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1886. 2 volumes.

RUSSELL, G. W. E.
   The Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

RUSSELL, J. R.
   History and heroes of medicine.
   London: J. Murray. 1861.

RUSSELL, MICHAEL.
   History of the Barbary States.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1835.

   Nubia and Abyssinia.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1833.

RUSSELL, WILLIAM.
   History of modern Europe.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons 4 volumes.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 4 volume.
   New York: Harper Bros. 3 volumes.

RYE, WILLIAM B.
   Introduction to "Discovery and conquest of Terra Florida;
   by a gentleman of Elvas"
   (London: Hakluyt Society. 1851).

SABATIER, A.
   The Apostle Paul.
   New York: James Pott & Co.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1891.

SABINE, LORENZO.
   Biographical sketches of loyalists of the American Revolution.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

ST. GILES' LECTURES.
   3d and 4th series.
   Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace. 1883-1884. 2 volumes.

ST. JOHN, J. A.
   The Hellenes.
   London: R. Bentley. 1844. 3 volumes.

SAINT SIMON, Duke of.
   Memoirs;
   abridged translation by St. John.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1857. 2 volumes.

SAINTSBURY, GEORGE.
   Marlborough.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1885.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

SALMON, GEORGE.
   The infallibility of the Church.
   2d edition.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

SAMUELSON, JAMES.
   India, past and present.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1890.

   Roumania, past and present.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

SANDERS, LLOYD C.
   Life of Viscount Palmerston.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

SANFORD ELIAS B.
   History of Connecticut.
   Hartford: S. S. Scranton & CO. 1888.

SANKEY, CHARLES.
   Spartan and Theban supremacy.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

SARGENT, NATHAN.
   Public men and events, 1817-1853.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1875. 2 volumes.

SARGENT, WINTHROP.
   Life and career of Major John André.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1861.

SAYCE, A. H.
   Ancient empires of the East. Herodotus I-III.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Assyria, its princes, priests and people.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1885.

   Babylonian literature.
   London: Samuel Bagster & Sons.

   Fresh light from the ancient monuments.
   London: Religious Tract Society.

   The "higher criticism," and the verdict of the monuments.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1894.

   The Hittites.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1888.

   Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1885.

   Life and times of Isaiah.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1889.

   Primer of Assyriology.
   New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.
   London: Religious Tract Society. [1894.]

   Races of the Old Testament.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1891.

   Social life among the Assyrians and Babylonians.
   London: Religious Tract Soc. 1893.

SCAIFE, WALTER B.
   Florentine life during the Renaissance.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies in
   History and Political Science, extra volumes 14.)
   Baltimore. 1893.

SCARTH, H. M.
   Roman Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1883.]

SCHAFF, PHILIP.
   History of the Christian Church.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1859-92. volumes 1-7.

   History of the Vatican Council
   ["Vatican Decrees," by W. E. Gladstone.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1875].

SCHÄFFLE, A.
   Quintessence of socialism.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1889.

SCHARF, J. THOMAS.
   History of the Confederate States navy.
   2d edition.
   Albany: Jos. McDonough. 1894.

SCHARF, J. THOMAS and T. WESTCOTT.
   History of Philadelphia.
   Philadelphia: L. H. Everts & Co. 1884. 3 volumes.

SCHERER, W.
   History of German literature.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886. 2 volumes.

SCHILLER, FREDERIC.
   History of the revolt of the Netherlands.

   History of the Thirty Years' War.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846.

SCHIMMELPENNINCK, MARY ANNE.
   A tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse.
   London. 1816. 2 volumes.

SCHLOSSER, F. C.
   History of the eighteenth century.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-1852. 8 volumes.

SCHÖMANN, G. F
   Antiquities of Greece: The state.
   London: Rivingtons. 1880.

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
   Historical and statistical information
   respecting the Indian Tribes.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1851-1855. 5 volumes.

   Notes on the Iroquois.
   Albany: E. H. Pease & Co. 1847.

SCHOULER, J.
   History of the United States.
   Washington: W. H. Morrison.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. volumes 1-5.

{3930}

SCHRÖDER, RICHARD.
   Lehrbuch der deutschen rechtsgeschichte.
   Leipzig: Veit. 1889.

SCHULZE-GAEVERNITZ, G. VON.
   Social peace.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

SCHÜRER, EMIL.
   History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1885-91. 5 volumes and index.

SCHURMAN, JACOB GOULD.
   Address at inauguration as President of Cornell University,
   November 11, 1892.
   Ithaca.

SCHURZ, CARL.
   Abraham Lincoln.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   Life of Henry Clay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

SCHUYLER, EUGENE.
   American diplomacy.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

   Peter the Great.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

SCHUYLER, GEORGE W.
   Colonial New York.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1885. 2 volumes.

SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.
   History of the church known as The Unitas Fratrum.
   Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Moravian Publication Office. 1885.

SCOTCH-IRISH SOCIETY OF AMERICA.
   Proceedings.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1889.

SCOTT, CHARLES A. A.
   Ulfilas, apostle of the Goths.
   Cambridge: Macmillan & Bowes. 1885.

SCOTT, EBEN GREENOUGH.
   Development of constitutional liberty in the English
   colonies of America.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

SCOTT, Sir WALTER.
   Essay on chivalry.
   History of Scotland.
   Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
   Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
   abridged by E. Ginn.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1885.

SCOTTISH REVIEW, The.
   London: Alexander Gardner.

SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY.
   New York: Scribner & Co.

SCRUTTON, THOMAS E.
   Commons and common fields.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1887.

SEDGWICK, A. G., and F. S. WAIT.
   Treatise on the principles and practice governing
   trial of title to land.
   New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co. 1882.

SEEBOHM, FREDERIC.
   The English village community.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1883.

   The era of the Protestant Revolution.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1874.

   The Oxford reformers.
   2d edition, revised and enlarged.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1869.

SEELEY, J. R.
   The expansion of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Life and times of Stein.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1878. 8 volumes.

   Roman imperialism.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1871.

   Short history of Napoleon the First.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1888.

SÉGUR, L. P. (the elder),
   History of the principal events of the reign of
   Frederic William II., king of Prussia.
   London: Longman. 1801. 3 volumes.

SELIGMAN, EDWIN R. A.
   Two chapters on the mediæval guilds of England.
   (American Economic Association Publications,
   volume 2, number 5.) 1887.

SENIOR, NASSAU W.
   Journals kept in France and Italy, 1848-1852.
   London: H. S. King & Co. 1871. 2 volumes.

SERGEANT, LEWIS.
   Greece.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

SEWARD, FREDERICK W.
   Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State.
   New York: Derby & Miller. 1891.

SEWARD, WILLIAM H.
   Works.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 5 volumes.

SHALER, N. S.
   Kentucky.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

   The United States of America.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

SHARPE, REGINALD R.
   Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the
   Court of Husting, London"
   (London. 1889-90. 2 volumes.).

SHARPE, SAMUEL.
   History of Egypt.
   4th edition.
   London: E. Moxon & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

   History of the Hebrew nation.
   London: John R. Smith. 1869.

SHAW, ALBERT.
   Icaria.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

SHEA, JOHN GILMARY.
   The Catholic Church in colonial days.
   New York. 1886.

   Note 46 to George Alsop's "Character of the Province
   of Maryland"
   (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5. New York. 1869).

SHEPARD, EDWARD M.
   Martin Van Buren.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

SHEPPARD, JOHN G.
   The fall of Rome.
   London: Routledge, Warne & Routledge. 1861.

SHERIDAN, PHILIP H.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

SHERMAN, General WILLIAM TECUMSEH.
   Memoirs, written by himself.
   4th edition.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1891.

SHERRING, M. A.
   The sacred city of the Hindus.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1868.

SHIPPEN, EDWARD.
   Naval battles.
   Philadelphia: A. Gorton & Co. 1883.

SHUCKBURGH, EVELYN SHIRLEY.
   History of Rome, to the battle of Actium.
   New York and London: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

SIMCOX, E. J.
   Primitive civilizations.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

SIMCOX, GEORGE AUGUSTUS.
   History of Latin literature.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1883. 2 volumes.

SIME, JAMES.
   History of Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

SIMMS, WILLIAM GILLMORE.
   History of South Carolina.
   New York: Redfield. 1860.

SIMON, EDOUARD:
   The Emperor William and his reign.
   London: Remington & Co. 1886. 2 volumes.

SISMONDI, J. C. L. SIMONDE DE.
   France under the feudal system.
   London: W. & T. Piper. 1851.

   The French under the Carlovingians.
   London: W. & T. Piper. 1850.

   The French under the Merovingians.
   London: W. & T. Piper. 1850.

   History of the fall of the Roman Empire.
   London: Longman. 1884. 2 volumes.

   History of the Italian republics.
   London: Longman. 1851.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

   Historical view of the literature of the south of Europe.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846. 2 volumes.

SKELTON, JOHN.
   Essays in history and biography.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1883.

SKENE, WILLIAM F.
   Celtic Scotland.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1876-1880. 8 volumes.

SKETCHES OF POPULAR TUMULTS.
   London: C. Cox. 1847.

SKINNER. ORRIN.
   Issues of American politics.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1878.

SKOTTOWE, B. C.
   Our Hanoverian kings.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1884.

   Short history of Parliament.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1892.

SLAFTER, E. F.
   Memoir of Champlain
   ["Champlain's Voyages."
   Boston: Prince Society 1878-82. 3 volumes].

SLATER, J. H.
   Book collecting.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1892.

SLOANE, WILLIAM MILLIGAN.
   The French War and the Revolution.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

SMALL, ALBION W.
   Beginnings of American nationality.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 8th series, numbers. 1-2.)
   Baltimore. 1890.

SMEDLEY, E.
   History of France.
   Part 1. London: Baldwin & Cradock. 1886.

SMILES, SAMUEL.
   The Huguenots.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1868.

   Life of George Stephenson.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   Lives of Boulton and Watt.
   London: John Murray.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865.

   Self-help.
   Revised and enlarged edition.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1872.

SMITH, ADAM.
   Wealth of nations.

SMITH, CHARLES ROACH.
   Illustrations of Roman London.
   London. 1859.

SMITH, EDMOND R.
   The Araucanians.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1855.

SMITH, GEORGE.
   Ancient history from the monuments: Assyria.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1876.

   Assyrian discoveries, 1873-1874.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1875.

SMITH, GEORGE ADAM.
   Historical geography of the Holy Land.
   London: Hodder &. Stoughton. 1894.

SMITH, GEORGE BARNETT.
   The prime ministers of Queen Victoria.
   London and New York: G. Routledge & Sons. 1886.

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   Canada and the Canadian question.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.
   Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. 1891.

{3931}

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   Irish history and Irish character.
   Oxford and London: J. H. & J. Parker. 1861.

   Lectures on the study of history.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1866.

   The moral crusader, William Lloyd Garrison.
   New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co. 1892.

   Three English statesmen.
   London: Macmillan.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867.

   A trip to England.
   2d edition.
   Toronto: Williamson & Co. 1891.

   The United States.
   New York and London: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

SMITH, HERBERT H.
   Brazil, the Amazons, and the coast.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

SMITH, I. GREGORY.
   Christian monasticism.
   London: A. D. Innes & Co. 1892.

SMITH, PHILIP.
   Ancient history of the East.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878.

   History of the world: Ancient history.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1865-1870. 3 volumes.

SMITH, R. A. H. BICKFORD.
   Greece under King George.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1893.

SMITH, R. BOSWORTH.
   Life of Lord Lawrence.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

   Rome and Carthage.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

SMITH, THOMAS.
   Arminius: a history of the German people, etc.,
   from Cæsar to Charlemagne.
   London: J. Blackwood. 1861.

SMITH, Rev. THOMAS.
   Mediæval missions.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1880.

SMITH, W. ROBERTSON.
   The prophets of Israel.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1882.

SMITH, WILLIAM, editor.
   Smaller history of Greece.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

   [Student's] History of Greece.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

SMYTH, WILLIAM.
   Lectures on modern history.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1854.

   Lectures on the history of the French Revolution.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855. 2 volumes.

SNOWDEN, JAMES ROSS.
   Description of ancient and modern coins.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &Co. 1860.

SOLEY, JAMES RUSSELL.
   Boys of 1812.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. (c. 1887).

   Sailor boys of '61.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1888.

SOREL, ALBERT.
   L'Europe et la révolution française.
   Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie. 1885-1892. volumes 1-4.

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Book of the Church.
   London: Frederick Warne & Co. 1869.

   History of Brazil.
   London: Longman. 1810-1819. 3 volumes.

   History of the Peninsular War.
   London: John Murray. 6 volumes.

   Lives of the British admirals.
   London: Longman. 1833-1840. 5 volumes.

SPARKS, JARED.
   Life of Ethan Allen
   [Library of American Biographies, volume 1. Boston. 1834].

SPAULDING, E. G.
   One hundred years of progress in banking.
   Buffalo. 1876.

SPECTATOR, The.
   London.

SPEER. WILLIAM.
   The oldest and the newest empire.
   Hartford: S. S. Scranton & Co. 1870.

SPENCE, G.
   Equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
   London: Stevens. 1849. 2 volumes.

SPENCE, JAMES M.
   The land of Bolivar.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

SPENCER, AMBROSE.
   Narrative of Andersonville.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1866.

SQUIER, E. GEORGE.
   Peru.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1877.

STANFORD'S Compendium of geography and travel.
   London: Edward Stanford. 6 volumes.

STANHOPE, Earl.
   See MAHON.

STANLEY, ARTHUR PENRHYN.
   Historical memorials of Canterbury.
   5th edition.
   London: John Murray. 1868.

   Lectures on the history of the Church of Scotland.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1872.

   Lectures on the history of the Eastern Church.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1862.

   Lectures on the history of the Jewish church.
   London: John Murray. 3 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner. 2 volumes.

STANLEY, HENRY M.
   Slavery and the slave trade In Africa.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893.

STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY, and others, editors.
   History of woman suffrage.
   New York: Fowler & Wells. 1881-1887. 3 volumes.

STANWOOD, EDWARD.
   History of presidential elections.
   2d edition, revised.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

STAPLES, WILLIAM R.
   Annals of the town of Providence.
   (Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, volume 5.)
   Providence: 1843.

STATESMAN'S YEAR-BOOK, The.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

STATISTICAL SOCIETY, The.
   Journal.
   London.

STEBBING, HENRY.
   History of Christ's universal Church.
   London: Arthur Hall & Co. 2 volumes.

STEEG, JULES.
   Introduction to Rousseau's "Émile"
   Boston: Ginn, Heath & Co. 1885.

STEPHEN, Sir JAMES.
   Lectures on the history of France.
   London: Longman.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1852.

STEPHEN, Sir JAMES FITZJAMES.
   Commentaries.
   History of the criminal law of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883. 3 volumes.

   Story of Nuncomar.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

STEPHEN, LESLIE.
   History of English thought in the 18th century.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1876. 2 volumes.

   Swift.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   History of the French Revolution.
   London: Rivingtons. 1886. (3 volumes.) volumes. 1-2.
   New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons. 1886-1891. volumes 1-2.

   Story of Portugal.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

STEPHENS, W. R. W.
   Hildebrand and his times.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888;
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

STEPHENSON, ANDREW.
   Public lands and agrarian laws of the Roman Republic.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers. 7-8.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

STEPNIAK.
   The Russian peasantry.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

   Underground Russia.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1883.

STERNBERG, GEORGE M.
   Manual of bacteriology.
   New York: William Wood & Co. 1893.

STERNE, SIMON.
   Constitutional history and political development
   of the United States.
   New York and London: Cassell. (c. 1882).

STEVENS, HENRY.
   Historical and geographical notes on
   the earliest discoveries in America.
   London: Henry Stevens.
   New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.

STEVENS, J. A.
   Albert Gallatin.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

STEVENS, JOHN L.
   History of Gustavus Adolphus.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

STEVENS WILLIAM BACON.
   History of Georgia.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1847. 2 volumes.

STILES, HENRY R.
   History of the city of Brooklyn.
   Brooklyn. 1867-1870. 3 volumes.

STILLÉ, CHARLES J.
   Life and times of John Dickinson.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 1891.

   Studies in mediæval history.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1882.

STIMSON, FREDERIC J.
   American statute law.
   Boston: Charles C. Soule. 1886.

STINE, J. H.
   History of the army of the Potomac.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Rodgers Printing Co. 1892.

STOBART, J. W. H.
   Islam and Its founder.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1877.]

STOKES, GEORGE T.
   Ireland and the Celtic Church.
   2d edition.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1888.

STONE, WILLIAM L.
   Life and times of Sir William Johnson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

   Life of Joseph Brant-Thayendanegea.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

STORY, JOSEPH.
   Commentaries on the constitution of the United States.

STORY, WILLIAM W.
   Castle St. Angelo.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Phil.: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1877.

STOUGHTON, JOHN.
   History of religion in England.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton; revised edition. 1881. 6 volumes.

STRACHEY, Sir JOHN.
   India.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1888.

STRAUS, OSCAR S.
   Roger Williams.
   New York: Century Co. 1894.

STRICKLAND. F. DE BEAUCHAMP, editor.
   The Engadine.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1890.

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Constitutional history of England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1874-1878. 3 volumes.

   The early Plantagenets.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

   Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

{3932}

STUBBS, WILLIAM. editor.
   Select charters, etc.
   2d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1876.

STUTFIELD, HUGH E. M.
   El Maghreb.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1886.

SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, C.
   Lives of the twelve Cæsars.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855.

SULLIVAN, A. M.
   New Ireland.
   6th edition.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1878.

SUMNER, WILLIAM GRAHAM.
   Andrew Jackson.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

   The financier and the finances of the American Revolution.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

   History of American currency.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

SUTHERLAND, ALEXANDER and GEORGE.
   History of Australia.
   14th edition.
   Melbourne: George Robertson & Co. 1890.

SVERIGES HISTORIA, 1805-1875.
   Stockholm: T. Säve. 1881.

SWINBURNE, ALGERNON C.
   Miscellanies.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1886.

SWINTON, WILLIAM.
   Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac.
   New York: University Publishing Co. 1871.

   The twelve decisive battles of the war.
   New York: Dick & Fitzgerald. 1871.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   The founding of the German Empire by William I.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1890-1891. 5 volumes.

   History and literature of the crusades.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1861.

   History of the French Revolution.
   London: John Murray. 1867-1869. 4 volumes.

SYDNEY, WILLIAM CONNOR.
   England and the English in the 18th century.
   London: Ward & Downey. 2 volumes.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

SYMES. J. E.
   The French Revolution.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1892.

SYMONDS, JOHN ADDINGTON.
   Renaissance In Italy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1875-86. 5 volumes.

   Shakespeare's predecessors in the English drama.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1884.

   Sketches and studies in Italy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1879.

   Sketches in Italy and Greece.
   2d edition.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1879.

SYPHER, J. R., and E. A. APGAR.
   History of New Jersey.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1870.

SZABAD, EMERIC.
   Hungary, past and present.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.

TACITUS.
   Germany:
   translated by Church and Brodribb
   [Minor works].
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

TAINE, HIPPOLYTE ADOLPHE.
   The ancient régime.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1876.

   The French Revolution.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1878-1885. 3 volumes.

   History of English literature.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 2 volumes.
   New York: Holt & Williams. 1872. 2 volumes.

   Italy, Florence and Venice.
   New York: Holt & Williams. 1872.

TALLACK, WILLIAM.
   Malta, under the Phenicians, Knights, and English.
   London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.

TALLEYRAND, Prince de.
   Memoirs.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891-1892. 5 volumes.

TARBOX, INCREASE N.
   Sir Walter Raleigh.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1884.

TAUSSIG, F. W.
   The sliver situation In the United States.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

   Tariff history of the United States.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

TAYLOR, BAYARD.
   School history of Germany.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874.

TAYLOR, HANNIS.
   Origin and growth of the English constitution.

TAYLOR, ISAAC.
   Etruscan researches.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

TAYLOR, JAMES.
   The Scottish Covenanters.
   London and N. Y.: Cassell.

TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOKE.
   Life and times of Sir Robert Peel.
   London: Peter Jackson. 3 volumes.

   Student's manual of ancient history.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1886.

TEGG, WILLIAM.
   Posts and telegraphs.
   London: William Tegg & Co. 1878.

TEMPLE, Sir RICHARD.
   James Thomason.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1893.

TEMPLE BAR.
   London.

TEN BRINK, B.
   History of English literature: Wyclif, etc.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1893.

TENNENT, Sir JAMES E.
   History of modern Greece.
   London: H. Colburn. 1845. 2 volumes.

TENNEY, W. J.
   Military and naval history of the Rebellion.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866.

TESTA, GIOVANNI B.
   History of the war of Frederick I. against
   the communes of Lombardy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1877.

THACKERAY, W. M.
   The four Georges.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co.

THATCHER, JAMES.
   Military journal during the American Revolutionary War.
   Boston. 1823-1827. 2 volumes.

THAYER, J. B.
   Select cases on evidence.

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
   Dawn of Italian independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

THIERRY, AUGUSTIN.
   Formation and progress of the Tiers Etat.
   London: T. Bosworth. 1855. 2 volumes.

   History of the conquest of England by the Normans.
   London: volume 1, David Bogue. 1840;
   volume 2, H. G. Bohn. 1846.

   Narratives of the Merovingian era, Historical essays, etc.
   London: Whittaker & Co.

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
   History of the Consulate and the Empire.
   London: G. Bell & Sons.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 5 volumes.

   History of the French Revolution.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 5 volume.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volume.

THIRLWALL, CONNOP.
   History of Greece.
   London: Longman. 8 volumes.

THOMAS, CYRUS.
   The problem of the Ohio mounds.
   Washington. 1889.

THOMAS, ISAIAH.
   History of printing in America.
   2d edition.
   (Archæologia Americana, volumes 5-6.)
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1874. 2 volumes.

THOMPSON, MAURICE.
   Story of Louisiana.
   Boston: D. Lothrop Co. (c. 1888).

THOMPSON, SILVANUS P.
   The electromagnet and electromagnetic mechanism.
   2d edition.
   London: E. & F. N. Spon.
   New York: Spon & Chamberlain. 1892.

THOMPSON, ZADOCK.
   History of the state of Vermont.
   Burlington: Smith & Co. 1858.

THOMSEN, VILHELM.
   Relations between ancient Russia and Scandinavia.
   Oxford: James Parker & Co. 1877.

THOMSON, Sir JOHN.
   Account of the life, lectures and writings of William Cullen.
   London. 1832.

THORNTON, PERCY M.
   The Brunswick accession.
   London: W. Ridgway. 1887.

THUCYDIDES.
   History;
   translated by B. Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881. 2 volumes.

THURSFIELD, EMILY.
   England and Ireland.
   London: Rivingtons. 1884.

THURSTON, ROBERT H.
   History of the growth of the steam-engine.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878.

THWAITES, REUBEN GOLD.
   The boundaries of Wisconsin
   [Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 11].

   The colonies, 1492-1750.
   (Epochs of American history.)
   New York and London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

TIFFANY, JOHN K.
   History of the postage stamps of the United States.
   St. Louis: C. H. Mekael. 1887.

TIGHE, AMBROSE.
   Development of the Roman constitution.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

TIKHOMIROV, L.
   Russia, political and social.
   London: S. Sonnenschein, Lowry & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

TILLEY, ARTHUR.
   Literature of the French Renaissance.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1885.

TIMAYENIS, T. T.
   History of Greece.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

TIMBS, JOHN.
   Clubs and club life in London.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1886.

TIMES, The.
   London.
   Annual summaries reprinted from The Times.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.
   London: The Times Office.

   Eminent persons: biographies reprinted from The Times.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.
   London: The Times.

   Memoir of the Duke of Wellington.
   London: Longman. 1852.

TIMPERLEY, C. H.
   Encyclopædia of literary and typographical anecdote.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1852.

TOCQUEVILLE, A. DE.
   State of society in France before the Revolution.
   London: John Murray. 1856.

TOLSTOI, LEO, Count.
   Physiology of war.
   Napoleon and the Russian campaign.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1888).

TOMKINS, HENRY G.
   Studies on the times of Abraham.
   London: Samuel Bagster & Sons. [1878].

{3933}

TORRENS, W. M.
   Empire in Asia: how we came by it.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1872.

TORRIANO, W. H.
   William the Third.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1887.

TOUT, T. F.
   Edward the First.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

TOWLE, GEORGE M.
   Modern France.
   New York: Harper &: Bros. 1879.

TOZER, HENRY F.
   The Church and the Eastern Empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

TRAILL, H. D.
   Lord Strafford.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

   William the Third.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   editor.
   Social England;
   by various writers.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1894. volumes 1-2.

TREITSCHKE, H. VON.
   Deutsche geschichte im 19 jahrhundert.
   Leipzig. 1879-1895. volumes 1-5.

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 2d edition. 1872.

   Lectures on mediæval church history.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

TREVERT, EDWARD.
   Electric railway engineering.
   Lynn, Massachusetts: Bubier Publishing Co. 1892.

TREVOR, GEORGE.
   Rome: from the fall of the Western Empire.
   London: Religious Tract Society. [1869.]

TRINITY OF ITALY, The;
   by an English civilian.
   London: E. Moxon & Co. 1867.

TROBRIAND, REGIS DE.
   Four years with the Army of the Potomac.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1889.

TROLLOPE, ANTHONY.
   The Commentaries of Cæsar.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1870.

   South Africa.
   4th edition.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1878. 2 volumes.

TROLLOPE, T. ADOLPHUS.
   History of the commonwealth of Florence.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1865. 4 volumes.

TROTTER, L. J.
   History of India.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1874.]

   Warren Hastings.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1878.

TROUESSART, E. L.
   Microbes, ferments and moulds.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.
   Complete history of Connecticut.
   New Haven. 1818. 2 volumes.

TRUMBULL, H. CLAY.
   Kadesh-Barnea.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

TRUMBULL, J. HAMMOND.
   Introduction to "The True-Blue Laws of Connecticut
   and New Haven"
   (Hartford: American Publishing Co. 1876).

TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.
   Travels in Peru.
   London: David Bogue.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1847.

TUCKER, GEORGE.
   History of the United States.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1856-1858. 4 volumes.

   Life of Thomas Jefferson.
   London: C. Knight & Co. 1837. 2 volumes.

TUCKER, POMEROY.
   Origin, rise and progress of Mormonism.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867.

TUCKERMAN, BAYARD.
   Life of General Lafayette.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

   Peter Stuyvesant.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893.

   William Jay and the constitutional movement for
   the abolition of slavery.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893.

TUDOR, WILLIAM.
   Life of James Otis.
   Boston: Wells & Lilly. 1823.

TULLOCH, JOHN.
   Leaders of the Reformation.
   2d edition.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1860.

   Pascal.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

   Rational theology and Christian philosophy in England.
   2 volumes.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1872.

TUNZELMANN, G. W. DE.
   Electricity in modern life.
   London: Walter Scott. [1889.]

TURNER, O.
   History of the pioneer settlement of Phelps and
   Gorham's Purchase.
   Rochester: William Alling. 1852.

   Pioneer history of the Holland Purchase.
   Buffalo: Derby & Co. 1849.

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
   Sketch of the Germanic constitution.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

TURNER, SHARON.
   History of England during the Middle Ages.
   London: Longman. 1825. 5 volumes.

TUTTLE, CHARLES WESLEY.
   Captain John Mason.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1887.

TUTTLE, HERBERT.
   History of Prussia, 1134-1756.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884-1888. 3 volumes.

TWO CENTURIES OF IRISH HISTORY 1691-1870;
   with introduction by Jas. Bryce.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1888.

TYLER, MOSES COIT.
   History of American literature.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1878. 2 volumes.

TYNDALL, JOHN.
   Fragments of science.
   6th edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1879. volume 1.

   New fragments.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

TYTLER, PATRICK FRASER.
   History of Scotland.
   Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo. 1864. 4 volumes.

TYTLER, SARAH.
   Marie Antoinette.
   London: Marcus Ward.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1883.

UEBERWEG, FRIEDRICH.
   History of philosophy.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1872. 2 volumes.

UHLHORN, GERHARD.
   Conflict of Christianity with heathenism.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. (c. 1879).

ULLMANN, C.
   Reformers before the Reformation.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1855. 2 volumes.

UNITARIANISM: its origin and history.
   Boston: American Unitarian Association. 1890.

UNITED STATES.
   The argument at Geneva.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1873.

   Bureau of education.
   Circulars of information.
   Washington.

   Bureau of Ethnology.
   5th and 7th annual reports, 1883-4, 1885-6.
   Washington.

   Bureau of the American Republics.
   Bulletins.
   Washington.

   Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
   Arbitration at Geneva.
   Washington. 1872.

   Commissioner of Education.
   Annual reports.
   Washington.

   Congress, Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War.
   Report.

   Geographical and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology.
   Washington.

   Interstate Commerce Commission.
   Statistics of Railways.
   Washington.

   Sanitary Commission, Commission of inquiry.
   Narrative of privations and sufferings of prisoners
   of war in the hands of the rebel authorities.
   Philadelphia. 1864.

   Statutes, 49th Congress, 1st session.
   Washington.

   Statutes at large.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1850.

   Supreme Court.
   Report of the decision in the case of Dred Scott, 1856
   [from Howard's Reports, volume 19].
   Washington: C. Wendell. 1857.

   Treaties and conventions between the United States
   and other powers.
   Washington. 1889.

   War Records Office.
   War of the Rebellion: Official records.

UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW.

UPHAM, CHARLES W.
   Salem witchcraft.
   Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1867. 2 volumes.

UPTON, FRANCIS H.
   The law of nations affecting commerce during war.
   3d edition.
   New York: J. S. Voorhees. 1863.

URBANITZKY, ALFRED RITTER VON.
   Electricity in the service of man.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1886.

URQUHART, WILLIAM P.
   Life and times of Francesco Sforza.
   Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood & Sons. 1852.

VAMBÉRY, ARMINIUS.
   The coming struggle for India.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 1885.

   History of Bokhara.
   London: H. S. King & Co. 1873.

VANE, General (Marquess of Londonderry).
   Story of the Peninsular War.
   London: J. Blackwood & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854.

VAN HORNE, THOMAS B.
   Life of Major-General George H. Thomas.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

VAN LAUN, HENRI.
   The French Revolutionary epoch.
   London: Cassell & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

VAN PRAET, JULES.
   Essays on the political history of the
   15th, 16th, and 17th centuries.
   London: R. Bentley. 1868.

VAUGHAN, ROBERT.
   History of England under the House of Stuart.
   London: H. Bohn. 1840.

   Revolutions in English history.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1867. 3 volumes.

VAUGHAN, ROBERT ALFRED.
   Hours with the mystics.
   2d edition, revised and augmented.
   London: J. W. Parker & Son. 1860. 2 volumes.

VERITY, JOHN B.
   Electricity up to date.
   London: F. Warne & Co. 1893.

VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Collections.

VICARY, J. FULFORD.
   Saga time.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1887.

VICTOR O. J.
   History of the Southern Rebellion.
   New York: J. D. Torrey. 4 volumes.

{3934}

VIGFUSSON, G., and F. YORK POWELL. editors.
   Corpus poeticum boreale.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1883. 2 volumes.

VILLARI, PASQUALE.
   History of Girolamo Savonarola.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1863. 2 volumes.

   Niccolò Machiavelli and his times.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1878-1883. 4 volumes.

VILLEMAIN, A. F.
   Life of Gregory the Seventh.
   London: R. Bentley & Co. 1874. 2 volumes.

VINCENT, JOHN M.
   State and federal government in Switzerland.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 9.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

VINOGRADOFF, PAUL.
   Villainage in England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892.

VIOLLET-LE-DUC, E. E.
   Discourses on architecture.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1875.

   Habitations of man in all ages.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1876.

VIZETELLY, HENRY, editor.
   Paris In Peril.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1882. 2 volumes.

VOGT, H.
   The Egyptian war of 1882.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1883.

VOLTAIRE.
   Ancient and modern history
   (Works, translated by Smollett and others, volumes 1-9.
   London. 1761-1770. 36 volumes.).

   History of Charles XII.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

WACE, HENRY, and C. A. BUCHHEIM, editors.
   First principles of the Reformation.
   London: J. Murray. 1883.

WACHSMUTH, WILLIAM.
   Historical antiquities of the Greeks.
   Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1887. 2 volumes.

WADDINGTON, GEORGE.
   History of the Church.
   London: H. Bohn. 1835.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1834.

   History of the Reformation.
   London: Duncan & Malcolm. 1841. 3 volumes.

WAKEMAN, HENRY OFFLEY.
   The Church and the Puritans.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 1887.

   History of religion in England.
   London: Rivingtons. 1885.

   Life of Charles James Fox.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1890.

WALFORD, N. L.
   Parliamentary generals of the great civil war.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1886.

WALISZEWSKI, R.
   Romance of an empress, Catherine II. of Russia.
   London: William. Heinemann. 1894. 2 volumes.

WALKER, FRANCIS A.
   History of the Second Army Corps.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

   Money.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1878.

WALKER, PHILIP F.
   Afghanistan.
   2d edition.
   London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Welsh. 1885.

WALLACE, D. MACKENZIE.
   Russia.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1877.

WALLACE, JOSEPH.
   History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French rule.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1893.

WALPOLE, SPENCER.
   Foreign relations.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1882.

   History of England from 1815.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

   Life of Lord John Russell.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

WARBURTON, E.
   The conquest of Canada.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1850. 2 volumes.

WARBURTON, W.
   Edward III.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1875.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

WARD, ADOLPHUS W.
   The Counter-Reformation.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

WARD, THOMAS H., editor.
   The reign of Queen Victoria.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

WARD, W. H., editor.
   Records of members of the Grand Army of the Republic.
   San Francisco: H. S. Crocker & Co. 1886.

WARE, WILLIAM.
   Memoir of Nathaniel Bacon
   [Library of American Biographies,
   2d series, volume 3. Boston. 1844].

WARFIELD, ETHELBERT DUDLEY.
   The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

WARING, GEORGE E., and GEORGE W. CABLE.
   History and present condition of New Orleans
   [10th Census of the United States, volume 19].
   Washington 1881.

WASHBURN, EMORY.
   Treatise on the law of real property.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 3 volumes.

WASHBURNE, E. B.
   Recollections of a minister to France.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887. 2 volumes.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE.
   Writings;
   edited by W. C. Ford.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-93. 14 volumes.

WATSON, ROBERT.
   History of the reign of Philip II.
   7th edition.
   London: T. Tegg. 1839.

WATSON, ROBERT G.
   Spanish and Portuguese South America.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1884. 2 volumes.

WATTS, HENRY EDWARD.
   The Christian recovery of Spain.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1894.

WATTS, JOHN.
   The facts of the Cotton Famine.
   London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. 1866.

WAUTERS; A. J.
   Stanley's Emin Pasha expedition.
   London: John O. Nimmo. 1890.

WEBB, SIDNEY and BEATRICE.
   History of trade unionism.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1894.

WEBER, ALBRECHT.
   History of Indian Literature.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1878.

WEBSTER, DANIEL.
   Works.
   Boston: C. C. Little & J. Brown. 1851. 6 volumes.

WEED, THURLOW.
   Autobiography.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

WEEDEN, WILLIAM B.
   Economic and social history of New England, 1620-1789.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890. 2 volume.

   Indian money as a factor In New En(gland civilization.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 2d series, numbers. 8-9.)
   Baltimore. 1884.

WEIR, ARCHIBALD.
   Historical basis of modern Europe.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1886.

WELLES, GIDEON.
   Lincoln and Seward.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.

WELLHAUSEN, J.
   Sketch of the history of Israel and Judah.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1891.

WELLS, DAVID A.
   Our merchant marine.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

   Recent economic changes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1889.

WERNER, EDGAR A.
   Civil list and constitutional history of New York.
   Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co. 1888.

WESTMINSTER REVIEW.
   London: Henry & Co.

WESTROPP, HODDER M.
   Early and Imperial Rome.
   London: E. Stock. 1884.

WHARTON, FRANCIS, editor.
   Digest of the International law of the United States.
   Washington. 1886. 8 volumes.

   editor.
   The Revolutionary diplomatic correspondence of
   the United States.
   Washington. 1889. 6 volumes.

WHEELER, J. TALBOYS.
   History of India.
   London: N. Trübner & Co. 1867-1881. 4 volumes.

   Indian history, Asiatic and European.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

   Short history of India.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

WHEELER. JOHN H.
   Historical sketches of North Carolina.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1851. 2 volumes.

WHEELER, L. N.
   The foreigner in China.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1881.

WHEWELL. W.
   History of the inductive sciences.
   London: Parker & Son. 1857. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1858. 2 volumes.

WHITE, ARTHUR SILVA.
   The development of Africa.
   London: George Philip & Son. 1890.

WHITE, JAMES.
   History of France.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

WHITEHEAD, W. A.
   East Jersey under the proprietary governments.
   (New Jersey Historical Society Collections, volume 1.) 1846.

WHITELOCK, WILLIAM.
   Life and times of John Jay.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1887.

WHY THE SOLID SOUTH?
   (Noted men on the Solid South.)
   Baltimore: R. H. Woodward & Co. 1890.

WILKENSON, Sir J. GARDNER.
   Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians:
   edited by S. Birch. 3 volumes.
   London: John Murray. 1878.

WILLERT, P. F.
   Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

   Reign of Lewis XI.
   London: Rivingtons. 1876.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

WILLIAMS, GEORGE W.
    History of the negro race in America.
    New York: G. P. Putnam s Sons. 1883. 2 volumes.

WILLIAMS, Sir MONIER-MONIER.
   Buddhism.
   London: John Murray. 1889.

   Hinduism.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1877.

   Indian wisdom.
   3d edition.
   London: William H. Allen & Co. 1876.

   Religious thought and life in India.
   Part 1.
   London: John Murray. 1883.

WILLIAMS, ROGER.
   Letters;
   edited by J. R. Bartlett.
   Providence: Tibbitts & Shaw. 1882.

WILLIAMS, S. W.
   The middle kingdom.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883. 2 volumes.

{3935}

WILLIAMSON, ALEXANDER.
   Journeys In North China.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1870. 2 volumes.

WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM D.
   History of the state of Maine.
   Hallowell: Glazier, Masters &; Co. 1832. 2 volumes.

WILLOUGHBY, W. W. and W. F.
   Government and administration of the United States.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies, series 9, numbers. 1-2.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

WILLSON, MARCIUS.
   American history.
   New York: M. H. Newman & Co. 1847.

WILMOT, S. EARDLEY.
   The development of navies.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1892.

WILSON, DANIEL.
   Memorials of Edinburgh.
   Edinburgh: Thomas C. Jack. 2 volumes.

WILSON, ERASMUS.
   The Egypt of the past.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

WILSON, HENRY.
   History of the rise and fall of the slave power in America.
   Boston: James R. Osgood & Co. 1872-1877. 3 volumes.

WILSON, HORACE H.
   Essays on Sanskrit literature.
   (Works, volumes 3-5.)
   London: Trübner & Co. 1864. 3 volumes.

WILSON, J. LEIGHTON.
   Western Africa.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1856.

WILSON, JAMES GRANT, editor.
   Memorial history of the city of New York.
   New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.

WILSON, JAMES HARRISON.
   China.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1887.

WILSON, ROBERT.
   Life and times of Queen Victoria.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

WILSON, ROBERT A.
   Mexico: Its peasants and its priests.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1856.

WILSON, General Sir ROBERT T.
   Narrative of events during the Invasion of Russia.
   London: John Murray. 1860.

WILSON, WOODROW.
   Division and reunion, 1829-1889.
   (Epochs of American History.)
   New York and London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1893.

WILTSCH, J. E. T.
   Handbook of the geography and statistics of the Church.
   London: Bosworth & Harrison. 1859.

WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.
   Narrative and critical history of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886. 8 volumes.

WINTHROP, ROBERT C.
   Addresses and speeches.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1852-1886. 4 volumes.

WIRT, WILLIAM.
   Sketches of the life and character of Patrick Henry.
   15th edition.
   Hartford: S. Andrus & Son. 1854.

WISE, B. R.
   Industrial freedom.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1892.

WISE, ISAAC M.
   History of the Hebrews' second commonwealth.
   Cincinnati: Bloch & Co. 1880.

WISEMAN, N.
   Lectures on the principal doctrines and practices
   of the Catholic Church.
   3d edition.
   London: C. Dolman. 1851. 2 volumes.

WOLSKI, KALIXT.
   Poland.
   London: Derby & Endean. 1883.

WOMAN'S WORK IN AMERICA;
   edited by Annie Nathan Meyer.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1891.

WOOD, J. T.
   Discoveries at Ephesus.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   Boston: James R. Osgood. 1877.

WOODHEAD, GERMAN SIMS.
   Bacteria and their products.
   London: W. Scott. 1891.

WOODHOUSE, F. C.
   Military religious orders of the Middle Ages.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1879.
   New York: Pott, Young & Co.

WOODWARD, C. M.
   The manual training school.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. 1887.

WOOLSEY, THEODORE D.
   Communism and socialism.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1880.

   Introduction to the study of international law.
   New York: C. Scribner.

WORTABET, JOHN.
   Researches into the religions of Syria.
   London: J. Nisbet & Co. 1860.

WRAXALL, Sir N. WILLIAM.
   History of France.
   2d edition.
   London: Cadell & Davies. 1814. 6 volumes.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D.
   Factory legislation
   [10th Census of the United States, volume 2].

WRIGHT, THOMAS.
   The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon.
   3d edition.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1875.

   History of France.
   London Printing & Publishing Co. 3 volumes.

   History of Ireland.
   London Printing & Publishing Co. 3 volume.

WRIGHT, WILLIAM BURNET.
   Ancient cities.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886.

WRIGHTSON, RICHARD H.
   The Sancta Respublica Romana.
   London: Henry Frowde. 1890.

WRONG, GEORGE M.
   The crusade of MCCCLXXXIII.
   London: J. Parker & Co. 1892.

WYATT, W. J.
   History of Prussia.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

XENOPHON.
   The Cyropedia and the Hellenics;
   translated by Watson and Dale.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1870.

   Hellenica
   (Works; translated by Dakyns, volume 2.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892).

   Minor works;
   translated by Watson.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1857.

YALE REVIEW, The.
   Hartford.

YATES, JOHN V. N., and J. W. MOULTON.
   History of the state of New York.
   New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1824-1826. 2 volumes.

YEATS, JOHN.
   Growth and vicissitudes of commerce.
   London: Virtue & Co. 1872.

YONGE, CHARLES DUKE.
   History of France under the Bourbons.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1866-1867. 4 volumes.

   Three centuries of modern history.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1872.

YONGE, CHARLOTTE M.
   Cameos from English history.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1868-90. 7 volumes.

   History of France.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1882.

   Landmarks of recent history, 1770-1883.
   London: Walter Smith. 1883.

   Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1878.

YOUNG, ALEXANDER.
   History of the Netherlands.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1884.

YULE, Colonel HENRY,
   translated and edited.
   Cathay and the way thither.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1866. 2 volumes.

ZELLER. E.
   Socrates and the Socratic schools.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1868.

   The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1870.

ZIMMER, H.
   The Irish element in mediæval culture.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM.
   Popular history of Germany.
   New York: H. J. Johnson. (c. 1877.) 4 volumes.

ZIMMERN, HELEN.
   The Hansa towns.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

ZSCHOKKE, HEINRICH.
   History of Switzerland.
   New York: Albert Mason. 1875.
   London: S. Low, Son & Co. 1860.

ZWIEDINECK-SÜDENHORST.
   Deutsche geschicte (1648-1740).
   Stuttgart: Cotta.



   ----------Volume 5: End--------

   ----------Word List: Start--------
a
AACHEN
aah
Aahmes
Aalberg
Aar
Aarau
Aargau
Aaron
Ab
aba
abacus
Abaffi
abaft
Abancay
Abancourt
abandon
abandoned
abandoning
abandonment
abandons
abanished
Abascal
abasement
Abasside
abate
abated
abatement
abating
abatis
abattis
Abba
abbacies
abbacy
Abbas
Abbaseh
Abbaside
Abbasides
Abbass
Abbasside
ABBASSIDES
Abbassieh
Abbatis
Abbaye
Abbe
abbess
abbesses
abbey
abbeys
Abbot
abbots
Abbott
abbreviated
abbreviating
Abbreviatio
abbreviation
abbreviations
Abby
Abbásid
Abbásids
Abbé
abbés
Abd
Abdalee
Abdalees
Abdalla
Abdallah
Abdallee
ABDALLEES
ABDALMELIK
Abdalrahman
Abdelasis
Abdelmumen
Abdera
Abderrahman
abdicate
abdicated
abdicating
Abdication
abdications
Abdillah
Abdollatif
abdomen
abducted
abducting
abduction
abductors
Abdul
Abdula
Abdurahman
Abdurrahman
Abdy
Abednego
Abeille
Abeires
Abel
Abelard
Aben
Abenaki
Abenakis
Abenaques
Abenaquis
Abencerrages
Abend
Abendpost
Abensberg
ABENSBURG
Abeokuta
Abercrombie
Abercromby
Aberdeen
Aberdeenshire
Aberfoil
Abergavenny
aberration
aberrations
Aberystwith
Aberystwyth
abet
abetted
abetting
abettors
abeyance
Abgar
Abgarns
Abgarus
Abhandlung
Abhira
abhor
abhorred
abhorrence
abhorrent
abhorrer
ABHORRERS
abhorring
Abi
Abiathar
abib
Abid
abide
abides
abideth
abiding
ABIEL
Abigail
abilities
ability
Abimelech
Abingdon
Abinger
abiogenesis
Abipones
Abishag
Abishai
Abitation
Abitu
Abiturienten
Abiverd
abject
abjectly
abjuration
Abjurations
abjure
abjured
abjuring
able
abler
ablest
Ablution
ablutions
ably
abnahme
Abnaki
ABNAKIS
abnakisandtheir00vetrgoog
abnakistheirhist00vetr
Abnaquies
abnegation
Abnekais
ABNER
Abnoba
abnormal
abnormally
ABO
aboard
abode
abodes
Abodrites
abolish
abolished
abolishes
abolishing
abolishment
abolition
ABOLITIONISM
abolitionist
Abolitionists
abolitions
Abome
abominable
abominated
abomination
abominations
Aboras
aboriginal
aboriginals
ABORIGINES
abortion
abortive
abortively
Abotrites
Abou
aboue
abouesaid
Aboukir
Aboul
abound
abounded
abounding
abounds
about
abouts
above
Abr
Abra
Abraham
ABRAM
Abrantes
abreast
Abreu
abridge
abridged
abridgements
abridging
abridgment
abridgments
abroad
abrogate
abrogated
abrogating
Abrogation
abrupt
abruptly
abruptness
Abruzzi
Abruzzian
Absalom
Absaroka
Absarokas
abscess
abscesses
Abschaffung
abscond
absconding
absence
absences
absent
absented
absentee
absenteeism
Absentees
absenting
absies
Absimarus
absolute
absolutely
absoluteness
absolution
absolutions
absolutism
Absolutist
Absolutists
absolutory
absolve
absolved
absolving
absorb
absorbed
absorbing
absorbs
ABSOROKOS
absorption
absorptions
abstain
abstained
abstaining
abstemious
abstemiousness
abstention
abstinence
abstinences
abstract
abstracted
abstraction
abstractions
abstracts
abstruse
absurd
absurdities
absurdity
absurdly
absurdum
Abth
Abtheilung
Abu
Abubeker
Abukir
Abul
Abulfarage
Abulghazi
Abulpharagius
Abulpharagus
Abulpharaj
abumir
Abuna
abundance
abundant
abundantly
Abury
abuse
abused
abuses
abusing
abusion
abusive
abut
abutted
abutting
ABYDOS
abyme
abyss
Abyssinain
Abyssinia
Abyssinian
Abyssinians
ABÆ
Abæ
Abérge
Abú
ac
Aca
Acaba
Acacius
Academia
Academic
academical
Academicians
academies
ACADEMY
Acadia
Acadian
Acadians
Acadie
Acadié
Académie
Acamapichtli
Acanthus
Acapulco
Acarnania
Acarnanian
ACARNANIANS
ACAWOIOS
Acbah
Acbar
ACCAD
Accadia
Accadian
ACCADIANS
Accadiaus
Accado
accede
acceded
acceding
accelerate
accelerated
accelerating
acceleration
accent
accents
accentuate
accentuated
accept
acceptable
acceptably
acceptance
acceptation
acceptations
accepte
accepted
accepting
acceptor
accepts
access
Accessaries
accessary
accessibility
accessible
Accession
accessions
accessories
accessory
Acciainoli
Acciaioli
Acciaiuoli
Accidence
accident
accidental
accidentally
accidents
accise
acclaim
acclaimed
acclamation
acclamations
acclimated
acclimating
Acco
accolade
Accomac
accommodate
accommodated
accommodates
accommodating
accommodation
accommodations
accompagné
accompanied
accompanies
accompaniment
accompaniments
accompany
accompanying
accomplice
accomplices
accomplish
accomplished
accomplishes
accomplishing
accomplishment
accomplishments
accord
accordance
accordant
accorded
according
accordingly
accords
accosted
accouchement
Accoucheurs
account
accountability
accountable
accountant
accountants
accounted
accounting
accounts
accouterments
accoutred
accoutrements
accredit
accredited
accretion
accretions
accrue
accrued
accruing
acct
accumulate
accumulated
accumulating
accumulation
accumulations
accuracy
accurate
accurately
accursed
accusation
accusations
accuse
accused
accuser
accusers
accuses
accusing
accustom
accustomed
accustoming
ace
acequias
Acerbissimum
Acerragio
Achaean
Achaeans
Achaemenes
Achaemenian
Achaemenids
Achaeus
Achaia
Achaian
Achaians
Acharnae
Acharnes
Acheen
Achelous
Acheloûs
Acheron
achieve
achieved
achievement
achievements
achieving
ACHILLE
Achilles
Achilleus
achillis
Achin
Achitophel
Achmed
Achmet
Achmetha
Achorion
ACHRADINA
Achrida
Achulgo
ACHÆAN
ACHÆMENIDS
Achæa
Achæan
Achæans
Achæmenes
Achæmenian
Achæmenids
Achæmenidæ
Achæmens
Achæus
acid
Acilian
Acilius
Ackerman
acknowledge
acknowledged
acknowledgement
acknowledgements
acknowledges
acknowledging
acknowledgment
Acknowledgments
Ackworth
Acla
Acland
Aclæa
acme
ACOLAHUS
Acolhuas
acolytes
acolyth
Acoma
Aconeechis
acorns
Acosta
acqua
acquaint
acquaintance
acquaintances
acquainted
acquainting
Acquaviva
Acqui
acquiesce
acquiesced
acquiescence
acquiescent
acquire
acquired
acquirement
acquirements
Acquires
acquiring
acquisition
acquisitions
acquit
acquits
acquittal
acquittals
acquittance
acquitted
acquitting
Acra
Acraba
ACRABATTENE
Acragas
acre
acreage
ACRELIUS
acres
acrid
acrimonious
acrimony
Acro
ACROCERAUNIAN
Acropolis
acropolises
across
acrostic
act
Acta
Acte
acted
Actiengesellschaft
acting
actinomycosis
action
actionable
actions
Actium
active
actively
activities
activity
Acton
actor
Actors
actress
Acts
actual
actuality
actualize
actually
actuate
actuated
Acuco
ACULCO
acumen
acute
acutely
acuteness
Acz
AD
Ada
adage
Adai
Adair
Adairsville
Adais
Adaizan
Adaize
Adalard
Adalbert
ADALING
ADALOALDUS
Adam
Adamawa
Adames
Adamites
Adamnan
Adams
Adamses
Adamson
Adana
adapt
adaptability
adaptation
adaptations
adapted
adapting
adaptive
adapts
Adar
add
Adda
Added
Addey
addicted
addiction
adding
Addington
Addis
Addison
addition
additional
additionally
additions
Addled
Addo
address
addressed
Addresses
addressing
adds
Addua
adduce
adduced
ADEL
Adela
Adelaide
Adelantado
ADELANTADOS
ADELANTAMIENTOS
Adelardi
Adelbert
Adelberto
ADELE
Adelings
Adelphia
Adelwald
Ademar
Aden
ADEODATUS
adept
adepts
adequate
adequately
Aderbeijan
Aderbidjan
Aderbijan
Adet
Adhemer
Adherbal
adhere
adhered
adherence
adherent
adherents
adheres
adhering
adhesion
adhesions
Adiabene
adiaphora
adiaphoristic
adiaphorists
adieu
Adige
adiorned
adioyned
adioyneinge
adioyueing
Adirondack
Adirondacks
ADIS
Adite
Adites
adjacent
adjective
Adjem
Adjemi
adjoined
adjoining
adjoins
adjourn
adjourned
adjourning
adjournment
adjournments
adjourns
adjudge
adjudged
adjudicate
adjudicated
adjudication
adjunct
adjunction
adjuncts
adjuration
adjured
adjust
adjusted
adjusting
adjustment
adjustments
adjutant
adjutants
Adjutators
Adlai
Adler
Adlerberg
Adlercreutz
Adlersparre
Adliyah
administer
administered
administering
administers
administrando
Administration
administrations
administrative
administratively
Administrator
Administrators
admirable
admirably
admiral
admirals
admiralty
admiration
admire
admired
admirer
admirers
admiring
admiringly
admissible
admission
admissions
admit
admits
admitt
admittance
admitted
admittedly
admitting
admixture
admonish
admonished
admonishes
admonition
admonitions
admonitor
admonitors
admonitory
Admêtus
ado
adobe
Adofudia
adolescence
Adolf
Adolph
Adolphe
Adolphus
Adonijah
Adonis
adopt
adopted
ADOPTIANISM
adopting
adoption
ADOPTIONISM
adoptive
adopts
adorable
adoration
adore
adored
adoring
adorn
adornatæ
adorned
Adorni
adorning
adornment
Adorno
adorns
Adour
Adramyttium
Adrastus
Adresses
Adria
Adriaen
Adrian
Adrianople
Adriatic
Adrien
adrift
adroit
adroitly
adroitness
Adronicus
Adrumetum
adscribed
adscripti
Aduatuca
ADUATUCI
aduise
adulation
adulations
Adulis
Adullam
Adullamite
Adullamites
adult
adulterate
adulterated
adulteration
adulteries
adulterous
adultery
adults
Aduwert
advance
advanced
Advancement
advances
advancing
advantage
advantageous
advantageously
advantages
Advent
adventitious
adventure
adventureful
adventurer
adventurers
adventures
adventuress
adventuring
adventurous
adversaries
adversary
adverse
adversely
adversity
advert
adverted
adverting
advertise
advertised
advertisement
advertisements
Advertiser
advice
advices
advisability
advisable
advise
adviseable
advised
adviser
advisers
advises
advising
advisors
advisory
advocacy
advocate
advocated
advocates
advocating
advowsons
Adwalton
Adái
Aebli
Aedan
Aediles
Aegean
Aegeri
Aegialeans
Aegidius
Aegina
Aeginetan
Aeginetans
Aegipan
Aeinautæ
Aelian
Aelius
Aemilianus
Aemona
Aeneas
Aeolian
Aeolians
Aeolic
Aeolis
Aequi
aerial
aerolite
Aeschines
Aesepus
Aesis
aestuary
Aesymnetae
aether
Aetins
Aetius
Aetolia
Aetolian
Aetolians
afaires
afar
afayres
Afdhal
affability
affable
affair
affaires
affairs
affayres
affect
affectation
Affectations
affected
affecting
affection
affectionate
affections
affects
affianced
affiancing
Affiches
affidavit
affidavits
affiliated
affiliation
affiliations
affinities
affinity
affirm
affirmance
Affirmation
affirmations
affirmative
affirmatively
affirmed
affirming
affirms
affix
affixed
affixing
afflatus
Afflavit
afflict
afflicted
affliction
afflictions
affluence
affluent
affluents
Affonso
afforcement
afford
afforded
affording
affords
afforested
afforesting
affray
Affre
affreightment
affright
affrighted
affront
affronted
affronts
Afghan
Afghanistan
Afghans
Afghaun
Afghauns
afield
Afloat
Afonso
afoot
afore
aforementioned
aforesaid
aforetime
afraid
Afranius
afresh
Africa
African
Africanized
Africans
AFRICANUS
Afrikas
Afrique
aft
after
afterglow
afternoon
afterthought
aftertime
aftertimes
Afterward
afterwards
Afzool
Afædesret
ag
Aga
Agade
Agadir
again
against
Agamemnon
Agamenticus
Agapetus
Agapite
Agariste
AGAS
agate
Agatha
Agathias
AGATHO
Agathocles
Agathokles
Agathoklês
Agathyrsi
agatis
agave
agayne
Agbatana
Agde
Age
aged
AGEDINCUM
Agela
AGELATAS
ageless
AGEMA
Agen
agencies
agency
AGENDICUM
agent
agents
ager
agere
ages
Agesilaos
Agesilaus
Agesipolis
agger
agglomerated
agglomeration
agglomerations
agglutinative
aggrandise
aggrandised
aggrandisement
aggrandising
aggrandize
aggrandized
aggrandizement
aggrandizements
aggrandizing
aggravate
aggravated
aggravation
aggravations
AGGRAVIADOS
aggregate
aggregated
aggregates
aggregating
aggregation
aggression
aggressions
aggressive
aggressively
aggressiveness
aggressor
aggressors
aggrieved
AGHA
aghast
AGHLABITE
AGHRIM
agile
agility
AGILULPHUS
Agincourt
aging
AGINNUM
Agis
agitate
agitated
agitates
agitating
agitation
Agitations
agitator
agitators
Aglabite
aglow
AGNADEL
Agnani
agnate
agnates
agnati
AGNATIC
Agnes
Agniers
Agnès
ago
Agobbio
AGOGE
Agolanti
agonies
agonised
agonising
agonized
agony
agora
Agra
Agram
agrarian
Agraulos
agree
agreeable
agreeably
agreed
agreeing
agreement
agreements
agrees
Agri
Agria
Agricola
agricultural
agriculturalists
agriculture
agriculturist
agriculturists
Agrigentum
Agrippa
Agrippina
Agrippinensis
aground
AGRÆI
Agræans
Agræi
Aguascalientes
ague
agues
Aguila
Aguirre
Agustin
Agustulus
Aguto
agw0321
Agyris
Agyrium
Ah
Ahab
Ahala
Ahasuerus
Ahaz
ahead
Ahimelech
Ahiram
Ahmad
Ahmadabad
ahmar
Ahmed
Ahmednagar
Ahmednuggur
Ahmes
Ahnas
Ahualulco
Ahuizotl
Ahura
ahuras
AHYAS
ahyy
Ai
Aibak
aibek
Aichspalter
aid
AIDAN
aide
aided
aiders
Aides
Aidin
aiding
aids
AIgerine
Aigina
Aigospotamoi
Aigues
Aiguillon
Aiken
Aikman
Aila
Ailleboust
Ailly
ailment
ailments
aim
aimed
aiming
aimless
aimlessly
aims
Aimé
Ain
Ainos
Ainzarba
air
Aire
Aires
Airolo
airs
Airvault
Airy
Airya
aisle
Aisne
Aistaulf
Aistulf
Aitchison
Aitolia
Aitona
Aix
Aiyubite
AIZNADIN
Aizu
Ajaccio
Ajax
Ajmere
Ajmir
Ak
Akaba
Akadhimia
Akansea
Akarnan
Akarnania
AKARNANIAN
Akarnanians
Akasa
Akashi
Akastus
Akbar
ake
Akeman
aker
Akerman
Akhal
Akhalzikh
Akharu
Akhtuba
Akhæmenes
akin
Akiris
Akiya
Akkad
Akkadian
AKKADIANS
Akkado
AKKARON
Akrokeraunian
Akron
Akropolis
Aksonghar
Aksu
Aksum
akten
aktenstücke
Aktor
Akus
Akyphas
al
Ala
Alabama
Alabamas
alabaster
Alacab
Alachua
alacrity
Aladin
ALADSHA
Alaeddin
Alafdhal
Alaftas
Alagoas
Alai
Alalia
Alam
ALAMANCE
ALAMANNI
Alamannia
Alamannic
Alamannis
Alamanniæ
Alamans
Alaminos
ALAMO
ALAMOOT
Alamout
Alamut
Alan
Alani
Alans
Alapuche
ALARCOS
Alaric
alarm
alarmed
alarming
alarmingly
alarmists
alarms
ALARODIANS
Alarud
alarum
alas
Alashehr
Alashgerd
ALASKA
Alaskan
Alatamaha
ALATOONA
Alava
Alaziz
ALBA
Albach
Albaias
ALBAIS
Alban
ALBANI
Albania
Albanian
Albanians
Albano
ALBANS
Albanus
Albany
Albaret
albas
Albatross
Albaycin
Albayzin
albeit
Albemarle
Alberg
Alberic
Alberico
Alberoni
Albert
Alberta
Alberti
Albertine
Albertines
Alberto
Albertus
Albi
ALBICI
Albigenses
Albigensian
Albigeois
Albiney
Albinus
Albion
Albiona
ALBIS
Albizzi
ALBOIN
Albon
Albornos
Albornoz
Albrecht
Albret
Albrets
Albu
Albucasis
album
Albunea
ALBUQUERQUE
Alby
Alcala
ALCALDE
alcaldes
Alcan
Alcaniz
Alcantara
Alcayde
ALCAZAR
alchemist
alchemy
alchymists
Alcibiades
Alcidas
Alcimus
Alclud
Alcluith
Alcluyd
Alclyde
Alcmaeonid
Alcmaeonidae
Alcman
ALCMÆONIDS
Alcmæon
Alcmæonid
Alcmæonids
Alcmæonidæ
alcohol
alcoholic
Alcolea
Alcott
Alcuin
Alcyde
Alcyone
Alcæus
Aldarra
Aldborough
Aldegonde
Alden
Alderete
Alderley
alderman
aldermanic
Aldermen
Alderney
Aldersgate
Aldi
ALDIE
Aldighieri
Aldighiero
Aldine
Aldo
Aldobrandini
Aldringer
Aldus
ale
Alec
Alee
alehouse
ALEMANNI
ALEMANNIA
Alemannians
Alemannic
Alemans
Alembert
Alemquer
Alemtejo
Alemæonidæ
Alençon
Aleppo
Aleria
alert
alertness
Alesia
Alessandria
Alessandro
Alessio
Alet
Aletes
Aleut
Aleutian
Aleutians
Aleuts
Alex
Alexander
Alexanders
Alexandra
Alexandre
Alexandretta
Alexandria
Alexandrian
Alexandrians
Alexandrie
Alexandrina
Alexandrine
Alexandro
Alexandrovsk
Alexinatz
Alexios
Alexiovitch
Alexiowitsch
Alexis
Alexius
Alfieri
Alfonso
Alford
Alfred
Alfures
Algarve
Algarves
Algau
algebra
algemeene
ALGER
Algeria
Algerian
Algerine
Algerines
Algernon
Algesira
Algeziras
Algeçiras
Algidus
Algiers
ALGIHED
Algoa
Algoma
Algonkin
ALGONKINS
ALGONQUIAN
Algonquin
Algonquins
alguacil
alguazil
Alhama
Alhamar
ALHAMBRA
Alhamra
alhondiga
Ali
ALIA
Aliaco
alias
ALIBAMONS
Alibamu
Alibamus
Alicant
Alicante
Alice
Aliculufs
alien
alienate
alienated
alienating
Alienation
alienations
alienaverit
aliened
alienee
alienist
aliens
Aligarh
Alighieri
alighted
alighting
alii
alike
aliment
alimentary
alimony
Alinagore
Aliorumnas
alir
Alise
Alishtar
Aliso
Alison
Aliturus
alive
Aliverdy
Aliwal
Alix
ALJUBAROTA
Aljubarrota
alkalis
alkaloidal
Alkibiades
Alkibiadês
Alkinous
Alkmaar
Alkman
ALKMAR
Alkmæon
Alkmæôn
All
Allah
Allahabad
Allan
allanerly
ALLANSON
Allard
Allatoona
allay
allayed
allaying
Alle
Allectus
Allefonsce
Alleg
Alleganies
Allegany
allegation
allegations
allege
alleged
alleges
Allegewi
Alleghanies
Alleghans
Alleghany
Alleghenny
Allegheny
allegiance
alleging
allegoric
allegorical
allegories
allegorising
Alleluia
Allelujah
Allemagne
Allemand
allemande
allemandes
Allemands
Allemanni
Allemannia
Allemans
Allemant
Allen
Allende
aller
Allerheim
Allerton
Alles
Allessandria
alleu
alleviate
alleviated
alleviates
alleviation
alley
alleys
Allg
Allgem
Allgemeine
Allgemeiner
allgemeinsten
Allhallowtide
Alli
Allia
alliance
alliances
allied
Allier
allies
Alligator
alligators
Alligewi
Alling
Allison
Allmighty
ALLOBROGES
allocation
Allocution
Allocutions
allodial
Allons
allot
allotment
allotments
allotted
allotting
Allouez
allow
allowable
allowance
allowances
allowed
allowing
allows
alloy
alloyed
alloys
allude
alluded
alludes
alluding
allured
allurement
allurements
alluring
allusion
allusions
alluvial
alluvions
allwayes
ally
allying
Allyn
Alma
Almagest
Almagristas
Almagro
Almagros
almalec
Almalik
Almamon
Almamum
almanac
Almanack
almanacks
Almanacs
Almansor
Almanza
Almarez
Almehs
Almeida
Almelek
ALMENARA
Almeria
Almeric
Almighty
Almohade
ALMOHADES
Almohides
Almon
Almonacid
Almond
almonds
Almoner
Almonry
Almonte
Almopia
Almoravide
Almoravides
Almos
almost
alms
Almsgiving
almshouses
almsmen
Alnwick
ALOD
alodia
alodial
aloe
aloft
alone
along
alongside
Alonso
Alonzo
aloof
Alost
aloud
Alovisino
alowance
Aloys
Aloysius
Alp
Alparslan
Alpass
Alpeni
Alpes
Alph
alphabet
alphabetic
alphabetical
alphabetically
Alpheus
Alphonse
Alphonsists
Alphonso
Alphonsus
Alphonzo
Alpin
Alpine
Alps
Alptigin
Alpuxarras
Alquier
Alraschid
already
als
Alsace
Alsacian
Alsacians
ALSATIA
Alsatian
Alsatians
Alsatis
Alsleben
ALSO
Alsomunsit
Alson
Alsop
Alst
Alstadt
Alstadtt
Alstine
Alston
alta
Altai
Altaic
Altaku
Altamaha
Altamura
altar
altars
Altdorf
Alte
alten
Altenberg
Altenburg
Alteneck
Altenheim
ALTENHElM
Altenhoven
Altenstein
alter
alteration
alterations
altercation
altercations
altered
altering
alternate
alternated
alternately
alternates
Alternating
alternations
alternative
alternatively
alternatives
alters
Altersversicherungsgesetz
Alterth
alterthums
Alterthumskunde
Alterthümer
Altevelde
Althaemenes
Altham
Althing
altho
Althorpe
Although
Alticlinio
Altimsh
Altinum
Altis
altitude
Altmarck
Altmark
Alto
altogether
Alton
Altona
Altoona
ALTOPASCIO
Altorf
Altringer
Altundash
Altus
alum
Alumgeer
aluminum
alumni
Aluta
Alva
Alvarado
Alvares
Alvarez
Alvaro
Alvear
Alvera
Alviano
Alviella
Alvin
Alvinzi
Alvise
always
Aly
Alyite
alysson
Alzog
am
am21p
Ama
Amadas
Amadeo
Amadeus
Amadis
AMAHUACA
Amahuacas
Amakhami
Amal
Amalakites
Amalaric
AMALASONTHA
Amalasuntha
Amalek
Amalekites
Amales
Amalfi
Amalfians
amalgam
amalgamate
amalgamated
amalgamation
Amalie
Amalika
Amaling
AMALINGS
Amalphi
Amalric
AMALS
Amalsuentha
Amana
Amand
Amando
amanuenses
Amanus
Amanvillers
Amar
Amardians
amarillos
Amarna
Amaru
Amasis
amass
amassed
amassing
Amat
amateur
amateurs
Amath
Amathus
Amatonga
Amatongaland
amatory
Amaury
amaze
amazed
amazement
amazes
Amaziah
Amazigh
amazing
amazingly
Amazon
Amazonas
Amazones
Amazonian
Amazons
AMAZULU
AMAZULUS
Ambaca
ambacti
Ambala
AMBARRI
ambassador
ambassadors
Ambato
Ambelakia
amber
Amberg
Ambiani
ambiguities
ambiguity
ambiguous
Ambiorix
ambit
ambition
ambitions
ambitious
ambitus
AMBIVARETI
Ambleteuse
AMBLEVE
ambling
Amblève
Amboise
Amboy
Amboyna
AMBRACIA
Ambracian
Ambraciotes
Ambraciots
Ambrakia
Ambrakian
Ambrakiotic
Ambrakiots
Ambrister
Ambrogio
Ambroise
AMBRONES
Ambrose
Ambrosian
Ambrosianus
Ambrosianæ
Ambrosio
ambulabis
ambulance
ambulances
ambulatory
Ambuscade
ambuscaded
ambuscades
ambush
ambushing
Amedée
Ameer
Ameers
Ameixal
AMELIA
ameliorate
ameliorated
ameliorating
amelioration
Amelius
Amelot
Amen
amenable
amend
amendatory
amended
amending
Amendment
amendments
amends
Amenemha
Amenemhas
Amenemhe
Amenhotep
Amenhoteps
Amenia
amenities
amenity
Amenophis
Amenti
amerced
amercement
amercements
amerciaments
Ameria
America
American
Americana
Americanised
Americanisms
Americanist
Americano
Americans
Americas
AMERICO
Americus
Amerige
AMERIGO
Amerikas
Amerique
Amersfoort
Ames
Amesha
Amestris
amherawdwr
Amherawdyr
Amherst
amiability
amiable
amiably
amicable
amicably
Amichino
amici
AMICITIÆ
Amicitiæ
amid
Amida
Amidas
Amidei
amidships
amidst
Amiens
Amil
AMIN
Amintius
Amir
Amirs
AMISIA
Amisos
amiss
Amisus
amity
Amma
Ammann
Ammen
Ammi
Ammianus
Ammirato
Ammon
Ammonites
AMMONITI
Ammonium
Ammonius
ammonizioni
ammunition
ammunitions
amnestied
amnesties
amnesty
Amoaful
Amon
among
amongest
amongst
Amoo
Amoor
amor
Amorges
Amorgos
Amorian
Amorinm
Amorite
Amorites
Amorium
amorous
amorphous
amortissement
Amos
amount
amounted
amounting
amounts
amour
amoureux
amours
Amoy
Ampere
Amphiaraus
amphibious
amphibiæ
Amphictyonic
Amphictyons
AMPHICTYONY
Amphiktionic
Amphiktyonic
Amphiktyons
AMPHIKTYONY
Amphilochi
AMPHILOCHIANS
Amphipolis
Amphipolitan
Amphissa
Amphissians
amphitheatre
amphitheatres
AMPHORA
Amphoræ
Ampilochus
ample
ampleness
ampler
amplest
amplifications
amplified
amplifies
amplifying
amplitude
amply
Ampsaga
Ampudia
Ampurias
amputate
amputated
Ampère
Amr
Amritsar
Amrou
Amru
Amsberg
Amstel
Amsteldam
Amsterdam
Amt
Amter
Amtmen
Amts
amulet
amulets
Amurath
Amurri
amuse
amused
amusement
amusements
amusing
Amyclae
AMYCLÆ
Amyclæ
Amyntas
Amyrgians
Amyrtæus
Amytes
AMYTHAONIDÆ
Amythaonidæ
Amytis
AMÉDÉE
Amélie
Amérique
Amöneburg
amœbæ
Anabaptism
Anabaptist
Anabaptists
Anabasis
Anabesto
Anacarpi
Anacharsis
anachronism
anachronisms
Anacletus
Anacreon
Anactoria
Anactorians
Anagm
Anagni
Anagnosta
Anagnostes
Anahuac
Anakim
Anaktorium
analogical
analogies
analogous
analogue
analogues
analogy
analysing
analysis
analysts
analytical
analyze
analyzing
Anamalai
Anamba
Anan
Ananias
ANAPA
anarchic
anarchical
Anarchism
anarchist
anarchistic
anarchists
anarchy
Anartes
anasarca
Anastasius
Anastatius
anathema
anathemas
anathematized
anathematizing
Anathoth
ANATOLE
ANATOLIA
Anatolian
Anatolius
Anatomic
Anatomica
anatomical
anatomist
anatomists
anatomy
Anaxagoras
Anaxilas
Anaya
Anbessa
ANCALITES
Ancas
Ancaster
Ancenis
Ancester
ancestor
ancestors
ancestral
ancestress
ancestry
anchor
anchorage
anchorages
anchored
anchoring
anchorite
ANCHORITES
anchors
Ancien
ancienne
anciennes
anciens
Ancient
anciently
ancients
ancles
Ancon
Ancona
Ancre
ANCRUM
Ancus
and
ANDAGOYA
Andalucia
Andalucians
Andalusia
Andalusian
Andaman
Andasta
Andastes
ANDASTÉS
Andastés
Andecavi
Andecavorum
Andechs
Andelot
Anderdon
ANDERIDA
Andersen
Anderson
Andersonville
Andersson
Andes
ANDESIANS
Andi
Andorra
Andorran
Andorrans
Andover
Andrada
Andrassy
Andre
Andrea
Andreade
Andreades
Andreas
ANDREDSWALD
Andree
Andreossi
Andres
Andrew
Andrews
Andreä
Andreäs
Andria
Andrieux
Andriveau
Androcles
Androclus
Androklos
Andromachus
Andromaque
Andronicus
Androphagi
Andros
Androscoggin
Andrus
Andry
ANDRÄ
ANDRÉ
Andrássy
André
Anduesa
Andèlys
ane
anecdote
Anecdotes
anecdotic
Aneke
anemone
Anencletus
anent
Anere
Anethan
Aneurin
aneurism
anew
ang
angabe
Angad
Ange
Angel
Angela
Angeles
Angeli
angelic
Angelico
Angelique
angelism
Angell
Angelo
Angelos
angels
Angelus
Angennes
anger
angered
angering
Angero
Angers
Angevin
Angevine
Angevins
Anghiari
Anghiera
Angilbert
Anglas
angle
angled
Angler
Angles
ANGLESEA
Anglesey
Angleterre
Angli
Anglia
Angliae
Anglian
Angliane
Anglic
Anglican
Anglicana
Anglicanism
Anglicans
Anglicised
Anglicized
ANGLICUS
anglicé
Anglii
angling
Angliæ
Anglo
Anglois
Angloman
Anglomany
ANGLON
Anglona
Anglor
Anglorum
Anglosaxon
Anglosaxons
Angola
Angora
ANGOSTURA
Angouléme
Angoulême
Angoumois
Angra
angrenzenden
Angrevarii
Angria
angrily
Angrivarii
Angro
angry
Anguilla
anguish
angular
Angus
Angustine
Angustinians
Angélique
Anhalt
ANI
Anicetus
Anicia
Aniello
Anienus
aniline
Anilleros
anima
animadversions
animae
animal
animalculæ
Animalibus
Animalium
animals
Animas
Animata
animate
animated
animates
animating
animation
Animatum
animaux
animism
animistic
animosities
animosity
animosus
animus
Anio
Anitchkof
Anius
Anjou
Ankarsvard
ANKENDORFF
anker
ANKERS
Ankerstrom
ankles
Ankæus
Anlaf
Ann
Anna
Annaberg
Annahawas
ANNALES
Annali
annalist
annalistic
annalists
Annals
Annam
Annamese
Annan
Annandale
Annapolis
Annas
Annasir
ANNATES
annats
Anne
Annecy
Annemasse
Annesley
annex
annexation
Annexations
annexed
annexes
annexing
annexion
annexés
Annibaldi
Annie
annihilate
annihilated
annihilating
annihilation
Annius
anniversary
anno
Annobon
annonæ
annotated
annotates
annotator
announce
announced
announcement
announcements
announces
announcing
annoy
annoyance
annoyances
annoyed
annoying
Annual
annually
annuitant
annuitants
Annuities
annuity
annul
annulled
annulling
annulment
annuls
annum
annunciation
Annus
Annæus
année
anoint
anointed
anointing
anointment
anomalies
anomalous
anomaly
anon
Anonima
anonyme
Anonymous
anonymously
anopistograph
Another
Anquetil
Anrelian
ans
Ansan
ANSAR
ANSART
Ansbach
Anschar
Anselm
Ansemond
Anses
Ansgar
ANSIBARII
Ansiedelungen
Ansion
Anskar
Anson
Anspach
Ansted
Anstruther
answer
answerable
answered
answering
answers
ant
Anta
antagonism
antagonisms
antagonist
antagonistic
antagonists
antagonize
antagonized
Antalcidas
Antalkidas
Antam
Antarticus
ante
antea
antecedent
antecedents
antechamber
antedate
antedated
Antellesi
antelopes
Antenor
Anterior
Anterus
ANTES
Antesian
Antesians
ANTESIGNANI
Anth
Anthedon
Anthela
anthem
Anthemius
Anthemus
ANTHESTERIA
Anthesterion
anthologies
ANTHON
Anthony
anthracis
anthrax
anthropoglassica
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
anthropologists
anthropology
anthropomorphic
Anthropomorphism
Anti
Antiates
Antiboul
anticatholic
antichretic
Antichrist
antichristian
anticipate
anticipated
anticipates
anticipating
anticipation
anticipations
Anticosti
antics
antidote
antidotes
antient
Antietam
ANTIGONEA
Antigoneia
Antigonia
ANTIGONID
Antigonids
Antigonos
Antigonus
Antigua
Antiguos
Antikyra
Antilia
Antilibanus
Antilles
Antillia
Antimachus
Antimano
antimony
Antinomian
antinomianism
Antioch
Antiochia
Antiochians
Antiochs
Antiochus
Antiopê
antipapal
Antiparos
Antipas
Antipater
antipathies
Antipathy
Antiphlogistic
antiphon
antiphonaries
antipodal
antipodes
Antipolis
antipope
antipopes
antiqua
antiquarian
antiquarianism
antiquarians
antiquaries
antiquary
antiquated
antique
antiques
antiqui
antiquitate
antiquitates
Antiquities
antiquity
antiquo
antiquus
Antis
antiseptic
antislavery
Antissa
antithesis
antithetical
Antium
Antivari
ANTIVESTÆUM
Antivestæum
Antofagasta
Antoin
Antoine
Antoinette
Antoinettes
Anton
Antonelle
Antonelli
Antonia
Antonian
ANTONIN
Antonine
ANTONINES
Antoninus
Antonio
Antoniotto
Antonis
Antonius
Antony
Antrim
Antrustiones
ants
Antwerp
Antwerpers
Anu
Anvers
anvil
Anville
anvils
anxieties
anxiety
anxious
anxiously
any
anybodies
Anybody
Anyhow
anyone
anything
Anytus
anywhere
anywise
Anzan
Anzeiger
ANÆSTHETICS
Anáhuac
Anæsthetics
Aones
Aonik
Aosta
Aoste
Aous
ap
apace
APACHE
Apaches
Apalache
Apalachen
APALACHES
Apalachi
Apalachian
Apalachicola
Apalachicolos
Apamea
Apameias
Apamæa
apanage
apanages
Apapi
apart
apartment
apartments
Apastamba
apathetic
apathy
APATURIA
Apaturius
Apaum
ape
aped
Apeldern
APELLA
Apelles
APELOUSAS
Apennine
Apennines
Apepi
Aper
aperient
aperture
apertures
apes
apex
Apgar
APHEK
Aphetæ
aphorism
Aphrodite
Apia
Apianus
Apicius
Apidanus
apiece
Apieum
Apion
Apis
Apiu
Apo
Apocalypse
apocalyptic
Apochaps
apochryphal
Apocrypha
Apodaca
APODECTÆ
apodectæ
Apodoti
Apolinaris
Apollinaris
Apolline
Apollo
APOLLONIA
Apollonius
Apologete
apologetic
Apologetica
Apologia
apologies
apologise
apologised
apologises
apologist
Apologists
apologized
apologizer
apologizes
Apologos
Apology
apoplexy
apostacy
apostasion
apostate
apostates
Apostel
Apostle
apostles
apostleship
apostolate
apostolic
apostolica
apostolical
apostolicas
Apostolici
APOSTOLICUM
apothecaries
apothecary
apothecarye
apothegm
apotheosis
App
Appa
Appalache
Appalachian
Appalachicola
appall
appalled
appalling
appals
appanage
appanaged
appanages
appanaging
apparatus
apparel
appareled
apparent
apparently
apparition
apparitions
appeal
appealed
appealing
appeals
appear
appearance
appearances
appeared
appearing
appears
appease
appeased
appeasing
appel
appelate
appelation
appellant
appellate
appellati
appellation
appellations
appellative
appellee
Appelousas
appendage
appendages
appendant
appended
appendices
appending
appendix
Appenines
Appennines
Appenzell
appertain
appertained
appertaining
appertains
appetite
appetites
Appia
Appian
Appius
applaud
applauded
applauding
applause
applauses
apple
apples
Appleton
Appletons
appliance
appliances
applicability
applicable
applicants
application
applications
applied
applies
apply
applying
appoint
appointed
appointees
appointing
appointive
appointment
Appointments
appoints
Appollonius
Appomattox
apportion
apportioned
apportioning
apportionment
apportionments
appoynt
appoyntment
appraised
appraisement
appraisements
appreciable
appreciate
appreciated
appreciating
appreciation
apprehend
apprehended
apprehending
apprehension
apprehensions
apprehensive
apprentice
apprenticed
apprentices
apprenticeship
apprise
apprised
apprize
apprized
approach
approachable
approached
approaches
approaching
approbation
approbrium
appropriate
appropriated
appropriately
appropriateness
appropriates
appropriating
appropriation
appropriations
approval
approve
approved
approver
approvers
approves
approving
approximate
approximated
approximately
approximating
approximation
Appuleius
appurtenances
appurtenant
appuyed
Apragmosune
apres
Apricot
Apries
April
Aprill
aproned
Apros
aprés
apse
apt
aptitude
aptitudes
aptly
aptness
Apuans
apud
APULEIAN
Apuleius
Apulia
Apulian
Apulians
Apulo
Apure
Apurimac
Apáliché
Aqua
aquae
Aquamachukes
Aquapendente
Aquarius
aquatic
Aquaviva
Aquedneck
aqueduct
aqueducts
Aquetnet
Aquia
Aquiday
Aquidneck
Aquidnick
AQUILA
Aquileia
Aquileja
aquiline
Aquillius
Aquinas
Aquitain
AQUITAINE
Aquitainian
Aquitani
Aquitania
Aquitanian
Aquitanians
Aquoddiauke
Aquoddie
AQUÆ
aquæ
Ar
Ara
Arab
Araba
Arabah
Arabela
ARABELLA
Arabes
arabesques
Arabi
Arabia
Arabian
Arabians
Arabic
arabicized
arable
Arabs
Aracan
Aracaunos
Arachosia
ARACHOTI
Arachotia
Arachotus
Aracthus
Arad
Aradus
Aragau
Arago
Aragon
Aragonese
ARAICU
Arakos
Aral
Aralo
Aram
Aramaean
Aramaic
ARAMBEC
Aramea
Aramean
Arameans
ARAMÆANS
Aramæan
Aramæans
Aran
Aranbega
Aranda
Aranjuez
Arapaho
Arapahoes
ARAR
ARARAT
Ararud
Aras
Arathu
Arathutu
Aratos
Aratus
ARAUACAS
Araucanian
Araucanians
Arauco
Araunah
Arausio
ARAVISCI
Aravulli
Arawaks
ARAXES
Araxus
ARBAS
arbeitenden
Arbeitercatechismus
Arbeiterpartei
Arbeiterverein
Arbela
Arbelitis
Arbella
Arber
Arbia
arbiter
arbiters
arbitrament
arbitrarily
arbitrariness
arbitrary
arbitrate
arbitration
arbitrator
Arbitrators
Arbogast
Arbolanche
Arbor
arboretum
Arbour
Arbuthnot
Arc
arcade
arcades
Arcadi
Arcadia
Arcadian
Arcadians
Arcadius
Arcam
arcana
arceo
arch
archaeological
archaeologist
archaeologists
Archaeology
Archagathus
Archagetae
archaic
Archangel
archbishop
archbishopric
archbishopricks
Archbishops
Archdale
Archdeacon
archdeaconry
archdeacons
Archducal
archduchess
archduchesses
archduchy
Archduke
archdukes
archdutchy
Arche
arched
Archelaos
Archelaus
Archeologica
archeological
archepiscopal
Archer
archers
archery
arches
archetype
Archeus
archi
Archias
Archibald
Archidamus
Archiepiscopal
archiepiscopate
archiepiscopo
Archihau
Archilochus
Archimedes
Archimides
arching
Archipelago
architect
architects
architectural
architecturally
architecture
Architiles
architrave
architraves
Archiv
archive
archives
Archon
archons
archonship
archtraitor
ARCHÆOLOGICAL
ARCHÆOLOGY
Archæanaktidæ
Archælogical
Archæologia
Archæological
archæologically
archæologist
archæologists
Archæology
Archæus
Archœologia
Archœology
Arcis
Arcissur
ARCOLA
Arcoli
Arcos
Arcot
Arcs
ARCTIC
Arcy
Ardahan
Ardaric
Ardashir
Arde
Ardea
Ardebil
Ardee
ARDEN
Ardennes
ardent
ardently
Ardnabrahair
Ardnamurchan
Ardoates
Ardoin
Ardoino
ardor
ardour
Ardres
Ardri
Ardrigh
ARDSHIR
Arduenna
arduous
arduousness
Ardys
Ardèche
Ardêche
are
area
Areans
areas
ARECOMICI
ARECUNAS
Areians
Areiopagus
AREIOS
Areizaga
Arelate
Arelates
Aremberg
Aremorica
Aremoricus
arena
arenas
Arendal
Arengo
Arent
Areopagite
Areopagos
Areopagus
Arequipa
Ares
Aretas
Arethusa
Aretino
AREVACÆ
Arevolo
Arezzo
Argadeis
Argaeus
Argal
Argall
Argau
Argaum
Argeian
Argeians
Argens
Argenson
argent
Argentaria
argentarii
Argenterius
argentiferous
ARGENTINE
Argentines
Argentière
Argenton
Argentoratum
Argençon
Arghandab
Argile
Argiletum
Argilus
Arginusae
Arginusæ
Argish
Argive
Argives
Argo
Argolic
Argolid
Argolis
Argonaut
Argonautic
Argonautica
Argonauts
Argonne
Argonnes
Argos
argosies
Argovia
argue
argued
argues
Arguin
arguing
argument
argumentation
argumentative
arguments
Argus
Argyle
Argyleshire
Argyll
Argylls
Argyllshire
Argyraspides
ARGYRE
ari
Aria
Ariadne
Ariald
Ariamnes
Arian
ARIANA
Arianism
Arianized
ARIANS
Ariarathes
Ariba
ARICA
Aricarees
ARICIA
ARICIAN
ARICONIUM
arid
aridity
Aridæus
Ariel
ArIes
aright
Arii
Arikaras
Arima
Arimaspian
Ariminum
Arimæans
Ariobarzanes
Arioi
Arion
Ariosto
ARIOVALDUS
Ariovistus
Arisba
arise
arisen
arises
ariseth
ARISH
arising
Arisona
Arista
Aristagoras
Aristainos
Aristarchus
Aristeides
Aristeus
Aristides
Aristion
Aristo
Aristobulus
aristocracies
aristocracy
aristocrat
Aristocrates
aristocratic
aristocratical
aristocrats
Aristodemus
Aristodikos
Aristogeiton
Aristogiton
Aristolaidas
Aristomenes
ARISTOMNEAN
Ariston
Aristonicus
Aristophanes
Aristotelean
Aristotelian
Aristotelians
Aristotle
Aristæus
arithmetic
arithmetical
arithmeticians
Arius
Ariya
Ariyaramna
Arizanti
ARIZONA
Arizonac
Ariège
Ariége
Arjamund
Arjun
ark
Arka
Arkadelphia
Arkadia
Arkadian
Arkadians
Arkansa
ARKANSAS
Arkatu
ARKITES
Arklow
Arkwright
arle
Arles
Arleux
Arlington
Arlès
arm
Armacao
Armachis
Armada
armadas
ARMAGEDDON
Armagh
Armagnac
Armagnacs
armament
armaments
ARMAND
Armansperg
armature
Armaud
Armauer
armed
Armenia
Armenian
Armenians
armerie
armes
armies
Arming
Arminian
Arminianism
Arminians
Arminius
armis
armistice
armistices
Armitage
Armoises
armor
armored
armorers
armorial
Armorian
Armoric
Armorica
Armorican
Armoricans
Armorici
armories
Armory
armour
armourer
armourers
armouries
armoury
armpit
armpits
arms
Armstrong
army
Armèe
armée
Arnaeans
Arnaud
Arnauld
Arnaulds
Arnaut
Arnauts
ARNAY
ARNDT
Arnemuyden
ARNETH
Arngonese
Arnheim
Arnim
Arno
Arnold
Arnon
Arnot
Arnulf
Arnuphis
Arnus
ARNÆANS
Aroge
AROGI
aroma
aromatic
arose
AROUET
around
arouse
aroused
ARPAD
arpents
Arphacsad
Arphaxed
Arpinum
arquebuse
arquebuses
arquebusiers
Arques
Arrabbiati
Arrabiati
Arrabo
Arracan
Arragon
Arragonese
arraign
arraigned
arraignment
Arran
arrange
arranged
arrangement
arrangements
Arranger
arranges
arranging
arrant
ARRAPACHITIS
ARRAPAHOES
Arras
array
arrayed
arraying
arrays
arrear
arrears
arrest
arrested
arresting
arrests
Arretium
Arrhidæus
Arrian
Arrighi
Arringhi
Arrivabene
arrival
arrivals
arrive
arrived
arrives
arriving
arrogance
arrogant
arrogantly
arrogate
arrogated
arrogates
Arrogating
Arrondissement
Arrondissements
Arrouch
arrow
arrows
Arruntii
Arruntius
arrêt
arrêts
Arsa
Arsaces
Arsacid
Arsacidan
Arsacides
Arsacids
ARSACIDÆ
Arsacidæ
Arsama
ARSEN
arsenal
arsenals
ARSENE
arsenic
Arses
Arsinoe
Arsinoë
ARSLAN
arson
art
Arta
artaba
Artaban
Artabanus
Artabazus
Artaguette
Artalia
Artaphernes
Artaria
Artaveld
Artaveldt
ARTAXATA
Artaxerxes
Arte
artem
Artemas
Artemion
Artemis
Artemisium
Artemita
arterial
arteries
artery
artes
artesian
Arteveld
Artevelde
Artevelds
artful
artfully
Arth
Arthois
Arthur
Arthurian
arti
artichoke
Article
articles
articulate
articulately
articulation
Articulations
articus
artifice
artificer
artificers
artifices
artificial
artificiality
artificially
Artigas
artillerie
artillerists
artillery
artillerymen
artisan
artisans
artist
artisti
artistic
artistically
artists
artistæ
artizan
artizans
artless
artlessness
arto
ARTOIS
arts
Artyni
Aruba
Arundel
Arundell
Aruwimi
Arvad
ARVADITES
Arval
Arvat
Arverna
Arvernes
Arverni
Arvernian
Arvernorum
arx
ARXAMUS
Ary
Aryan
Aryandes
Aryanic
Aryans
ARYAS
Aryo
Arzawiya
Arzew
Arzobisbo
Arês
As
Asa
Asaf
ASAHEL
Asaky
Asaph
Asaphs
Asarhaddon
Asau
Asboth
Ascalon
Ascalonites
Ascanian
Ascanians
Ascanien
ASCANIENS
Ascanier
Ascanio
Ascanium
Ascaricus
ascend
ascendancy
ascendant
ascended
ascendency
ascendeney
ascending
ascends
ascension
ascent
ascents
ascertain
ascertainable
ascertained
ascertaining
ascertainment
ascetic
ascetical
asceticism
ascetics
Aschaffenburg
Ascham
Ascherleben
Aschersleben
Ascholius
ascient
ascites
Asclepia
Asclepiades
Asclepiads
ASCLEPIADÆ
Asclepiadæ
Asclepion
Asclepius
Asconius
ascribe
ascribed
ascribes
ascribing
ascripticii
ascription
Asculum
Aselli
Asfeld
Asgall
ash
ashamed
Ashangoland
ASHANTEE
Ashantees
Ashburton
Ashbury
Ashby
Ashdod
Ashe
Asher
ashes
Ashford
Ashikaga
Ashikagas
Ashington
Ashirta
Ashkelon
Ashland
Ashley
Ashmole
Ashmolean
Ashmun
ashoar
ashore
Ashraf
Ashrafiyeh
Ashtarti
ASHTI
Ashton
Ashworth
Asia
Asian
Asiana
Asiatic
Asiatico
Asiatics
aside
Asie
Asien
Asiens
asiento
Asikni
Asile
Asinius
Asinê
Asiongaber
Asirgarh
ask
Askabad
Askalaphus
asked
Askelon
asking
ASKLEPIADS
Asklêpiads
Asklêpius
Askold
asks
asleep
Asmara
Asmon
Asmonaeans
Asmonean
Asmoneans
Asof
Asoka
Asola
Asopia
Asopus
Asov
asp
ASPADAN
Aspamitres
Aspar
Aspasia
aspect
aspects
aspergillus
asperities
asperity
Aspern
asperse
aspersed
aspersions
asphalt
asphyxiating
aspidem
Aspinwall
aspirant
aspirants
aspirates
aspiration
aspirations
aspire
aspired
aspires
aspiring
aspis
Aspro
Aspromonte
Aspropotamos
Asquith
asramas
ass
Assab
assafœtida
assail
assailable
assailant
assailants
assailed
assailing
Assam
ASSANDUN
Assaracus
assassin
assassinate
assassinated
assassinates
assassinating
Assassination
assassinations
ASSASSINS
assault
assaulted
assaulting
assaults
Assaye
assaying
Assche
Assemani
assemblage
assemblages
assemble
assembled
assembles
assemblies
assembling
assembly
assemblyman
Assemblée
assemblées
Assenisipi
Assenisipia
assent
assented
assenting
assents
Asser
assert
Asserted
asserting
assertion
assertions
assertor
assertors
asserts
asses
assess
assessed
assessing
assessment
assessments
Assessor
assessore
assessors
assets
asseverated
Asshur
Asshurbanipal
Assi
ASSIDEANS
assiduity
assiduous
assiduously
Assidæans
Assiento
assign
assignable
assignat
Assignation
assignats
assigned
assignees
assigning
assignment
assignments
assigns
assimilate
assimilated
assimilates
assimilating
assimilation
assimulated
Assinaboin
Assinaros
Assinarus
Assiniboia
Assiniboin
Assiniboins
Assinniboine
Assis
Assise
Assisi
assist
assistance
Assistant
assistants
assisted
assisting
assists
assize
Assizes
associate
associated
associates
associating
association
Associationists
associations
Associationswesen
associators
assorted
assorting
assortment
assotiate
assuage
assuagement
assuaging
assume
assumed
assumes
assuming
assumpsit
Assumption
assumptions
Assur
assurance
assurances
Assurbanipal
Assurbannipal
assure
assured
assuredly
assures
assuring
Assurnazirpal
Assye
Assyria
Assyrian
Assyrians
Assyriologist
Assyriologists
Assyriology
Assyrische
Assyro
Astarte
aster
Asterius
astern
asthenic
asthma
Asti
astir
ASTOLF
Astolph
Astolphus
Aston
astonish
astonished
astonishes
astonishing
astonishingly
astonishment
Astor
astound
astounded
astounding
Astrakhan
astray
astringent
astrolabe
Astrologer
astrologers
astrological
Astrology
astronomer
astronomers
astronomical
astronomically
astronomy
Astrowno
Astræa
ASTU
Astures
ASTURIA
Asturian
Asturians
Asturias
astute
astuteness
astuter
Asty
Astyages
ASTYNOMI
Asuncion
Asunden
asunder
Asurbanipal
aswad
Aswins
asylum
asylums
at
Ata
Atabalipa
Atabecks
Atabeg
Atabegs
Atabeks
Atacama
Atacames
Atahuallpa
Atahualpa
atak
Atalante
Atar
Atauchi
Ataulph
Ataulphus
Atawulf
Atawulfs
Atbara
ate
atelier
ateliers
Aten
Ateta
Ath
Athabasca
ATHABASCAN
ATHABASCANS
Athabascas
Athabaskans
Athaide
athaim
Athalaric
Athalayas
Athaliah
Athamas
Athanasian
Athanasians
Athanasius
ATHAPASCAN
Athapascans
Atharva
Athaulphus
Athboy
atheism
atheist
atheistic
atheistical
atheists
ATHEL
Athelbonde
Athelby
Athelham
ATHELING
Athelstan
Athelstane
Athena
Athenagoras
Athenai
Athenaïs
Athene
Atheneas
Athenian
Athenians
Athenio
Athenodorus
ATHENRY
Athens
ATHENÆUM
Athenæum
Athenæus
Athenè
Athenœum
ATHERTON
Atheyes
athirst
athisme
athlete
athletes
athletic
athletics
Athlone
Athman
Athol
Athole
Athos
Athothes
Athrapaiti
Athrapata
Athravas
athwart
Athênê
ati
Atillan
Atimia
Atimoi
Atimuca
atiâ
Atk
Atkinson
Atlanta
Atlantic
Atlantick
Atlanticum
Atlanticvs
Atlantis
atlas
atlases
Atlicum
atmosphere
atmospheres
Atmospheric
Atomic
atoms
atone
atoned
atonement
atony
Atossa
Atotarho
Atouguia
atque
Atra
atrabile
atrabilious
Atrani
Atrato
Atrebates
Atreus
Atri
atrium
atrocious
atrociously
atrocities
atrocity
Atropatene
Atropates
atrophy
Atsina
ATSINAS
att
atta
ATTABECKS
Attabeg
Attabegs
Attacapa
Attacapan
attach
attache
attached
attaches
attaching
attachment
attachments
attachés
attack
attacked
attacking
attacks
Attacotti
attain
attainable
attainder
attainders
attained
attaining
attainment
attainments
attains
attainted
attainting
Attakapa
Attalia
Attalid
Attalus
attaman
Atte
ATTECOTTI
Attelburg
attempt
attempted
attempting
attempts
attend
attendance
attendances
attendant
attendants
attended
attending
attends
attentato
attention
attentions
attentive
attentively
attenuate
attenuated
Atterbury
Atterdag
Atteridolo
attest
attestation
attestations
attested
attesting
attests
Attic
Attica
Attico
Atticus
Attik
Attike
Attila
attinctura
Attiouandaronk
attire
attired
attitude
attitudes
Attiwandaronks
Attleborough
Attock
Attone
attorney
attorneys
attour
attract
attracted
attracting
attraction
attractions
attractive
attractiveness
attracts
attributable
attribute
attributed
attributes
attributing
attribution
attributions
attrition
Attucks
Attwood
ATTYADÆ
Attys
Atwater
Atyadæ
Atzerodt
au
AUBAINE
Aube
Aubenton
Auberry
AUBIGNE
Aubigny
Aubigné
Aubin
Aubriot
Aubry
Auburn
Auburndale
Aubusson
Aucanian
AUCH
Auche
Auchterarder
Auckland
auction
auctioneer
auctor
auctoritas
audacious
audaciously
audacity
Aude
AUDENARDE
Audh
audible
audibly
audience
audiences
Audiencia
AUDIENCIAS
audiendum
Audio
Audit
audited
auditing
auditor
auditors
auditorship
auditory
audits
Audley
Audu
AUERSTADT
Auerswald
auf
Auffenberg
aufrichtung
Aug
Augeas
Augereau
Aughrim
aught
augment
augmentation
augmented
augmenting
augments
augmenté
Augsburg
Augsburgian
Augst
Auguis
augur
augured
augures
auguries
Auguring
Augurinus
AUGURS
augury
August
Augusta
Augustal
augustals
Augustan
AUGUSTE
Augustenborg
Augustenburg
Augusti
Augustin
Augustine
Augustinian
Augustinianism
Augustinians
Augustinus
Augusto
Augustodunum
Augustonemetum
Augustulus
Augustus
Aula
Aulay
auld
AULDEARN
Aulerci
Auletes
Auliata
Aulic
Aulick
Aulis
Aulius
Aull
Aulnay
Aulum
Aulus
Aumale
auncyent
Auneau
Aunis
aunt
aura
Aurach
Auramazda
AURANGZEB
Aurangzib
Aurangzile
Auraria
AURAY
Aurea
Aurelian
Aureliani
Aurelianum
AURELIO
Aurelius
Aurelle
Aureolus
Aureus
auri
auricle
auricles
auricular
auriferous
Aurora
Aurum
AURUNCANS
Auruncians
Aurungzeb
Aurungzebe
aus
Ausci
Ausculta
Ausgleich
Ausonian
AUSONIANS
auspices
auspicia
auspiciis
auspicious
auspiciously
Auspicium
austere
austerely
Austerfield
austerities
austerity
Austerlitz
Austin
Australasia
Australasian
Australe
Australia
Australian
Australians
Australiens
Australis
Austrasia
Austrasian
Austrasians
Austria
Austriacum
Austriae
Austrian
Austrians
Austrias
Austrie
Austrifrancia
Austro
aut
Autariatæ
Autaritus
Autbert
autenr
AUTERI
Autharis
authentic
authentically
authenticated
authentication
authenticity
authentique
author
authorisation
authorise
authorised
authorising
authoritative
authoritatively
authorities
authority
authorization
authorizations
authorize
authorized
authorizes
authorizing
authors
Authorship
Autiochus
auto
autobiographical
Autobiography
autochthones
autochthonous
autocracy
autocrat
autocratic
autocrats
autocthon
autograph
autographic
Autographs
Autolykus
automatic
automatically
automatons
Auton
Autonines
Autoninus
autonomic
autonomies
autonomistic
Autonomists
autonomous
autonomy
autotype
autrefois
AUTRICHE
autumn
autumnal
Autun
Auvergne
auw
Aux
Auxerre
auxiliaries
auxiliary
auxilium
Auxiron
Ava
Avacal
avail
availability
available
availed
Availing
avails
avalanche
Avallon
Avalon
Avalos
Avar
Avaric
avarice
avaricious
AVARICUM
Avariko
Avaris
Avars
Avatara
Avataras
Avaux
Ave
Avebury
avec
Avein
Aveiro
Aveling
Avellaneda
avenge
avenged
Avenger
avengers
avenging
Avenio
Avennes
Aventin
Aventine
Aventino
aventure
Avenue
avenues
average
averaged
averages
averaging
Averill
AVERNUS
averred
averring
avers
Aversa
averse
aversion
aversions
Averso
aversum
avert
averted
averting
Averysboro
Avesnes
Avesta
Avestic
Aveyron
Avicenna
avidity
Avidius
Avignon
Avignonais
Avignonese
Avignonnais
Avila
Aviles
AVIONES
AVIS
avisera
Aviso
Avitus
avocat
avocation
avocations
avoid
avoidable
avoidance
avoided
avoiding
avoids
avoirdupois
Avold
Avon
Avondale
Avons
Avoués
avow
avowal
avowals
avowed
avowedly
avowing
avows
Avoyelles
AVVIM
avvocati
Avô
AW
await
awaited
awaiting
awaits
awake
awaked
awaken
awakened
awakening
AWAKES
awaking
award
awarded
awarding
awards
aware
away
awe
awed
awes
awestruck
awful
awfully
awhile
awkward
awkwardness
awnings
awoke
Ax
Axayacatl
axe
Axel
axes
Axewater
axiom
axioms
axis
Axon
Axum
Axumites
Ay
Ayacucho
Ayala
aye
ayes
Ayescha
Ayesha
Aylesbury
Aylesford
Ayllon
Aymara
Aymaras
Aymer
Aymeric
Ayn
Ayodhya
Ayolas
Ayonbite
Ayoob
Ayotla
Ayoub
Ayoubite
Ayoubites
Ayr
AYRAULT
Ayreans
Ayres
Ayrshire
Ayur
Ayuthia
Ayutla
Az
Azara
Azariah
Azarius
Azcaputzalco
Azeglio
Azelmicus
Azerbaidjan
Azerbaijan
Azerbaïdjan
Azerbijan
Azhar
Azim
Azincour
Azincourt
Aziru
Aziz
Aznar
Azo
Azof
Azon
Azoph
Azor
Azores
azoteas
Azov
Aztec
Aztecs
Azul
Azuru
Azzo
Aëtius
Ba
Baal
Baalbec
Baalim
Baalzephon
Baas
Baastards
Bab
Baba
Babar
Babbitt
babble
babbler
Babblers
babbling
babe
Babek
Babel
Babelsberg
Babenberg
Babenbergers
Babenbergs
Baber
babes
babies
Babil
Babinais
Babine
Babington
Babli
Babocsa
Baboon
baby
Babyca
babyhood
Babylas
Babylon
Babylonia
Babylonian
Babylonians
Babylonische
Babylonish
BABŒUF
Babœuf
BACALHAO
BACALHAS
Baccalaos
Baccalaureate
Baccallaos
bacchanalian
Bacchantic
Bacchiad
BACCHIADÆ
Bacchiadæ
BACCHIC
Bacchis
Bacchus
Bacchyllus
Bacciocchi
bacelles
BACENIS
BACH
Bachanalians
Bacharach
Bache
bachelier
bachelle
bachelles
bachelor
bachelors
bacillary
bacilli
bacillus
back
backbiting
backbone
backe
backed
backgammon
background
backing
backs
backslidings
backstairs
Backus
backward
backwardly
backwards
backwoods
backwoodsman
backwoodsmen
Bacninh
Bacon
Baconian
Bacracz
Bacska
Bactche
bacteria
bacterial
bacteriological
bacteriology
Bactra
Bactria
Bactrian
Bactrians
bad
Badahuenna
Badajos
Badajoz
Baddeley
bade
BADEAU
Baden
Badenfield
Badenoch
Bader
badge
badges
Badish
Badius
badly
badmashes
BADON
Badr
Baduila
Baedeker
Baer
Baersch
Baetica
Baeza
Baffin
Baffinland
baffle
baffled
baffles
baffling
bag
baga
BAGACUM
bagad
Bagalus
Bagamoyo
bagat
Bagauds
Bagaudæ
Bagdad
Bagdat
Bagebot
Bagehot
baggage
bagger
BAGGERS
bagging
Baghat
Baghdad
BAGISTANA
Baglioni
Bagno
Bagomoyo
Bagot
Bagradas
Bagrathion
BAGRATIDAE
Bagratidæ
Bagration
bags
Bagster
Bagwell
Bahadur
BAHAMA
Bahamas
Bahar
Bahari
Bahawalpur
Bahia
Bahr
Bahram
Bahrein
Bahrite
Baie
Baiern
Baihaut
Baikal
bail
bailable
bailed
bailee
bailees
BAILEY
Bailies
Bailiff
bailiffs
bailing
bailiwick
bailiwicks
Bailleul
bailli
bailliages
Baillie
baillis
Bailly
bailment
Bailments
bailor
Bain
Bainbridge
Baines
Baiovarii
Bairaktar
Baird
Baireuth
Bairn
bait
Baited
baiting
BAIÆ
Baiæ
Bajazet
Baji
Bajoaria
bak
Bakairi
Bakchik
bake
baked
Baker
bakeries
bakers
Bakewell
Bakhdhi
Bakhtri
baking
Bakkhar
Bakounine
Bakr
BAKSAR
Baku
Bakunin
Bakunine
Bala
Balaclava
Baladan
Balafré
Balagni
Balagny
Balaguer
Balaji
Balaklava
Balam
Balamber
balance
balanced
balances
balancing
Balas
Balat
Balban
Balbi
BALBINUS
Balbo
Balboa
Balbus
Balcarce
BALCH
BALCHITAS
balconies
balcony
Bald
Baldassare
Baldaya
Baldwin
Bale
Baleares
Balearic
baleful
bales
Balezor
Balfour
Bali
Balia
Balik
BALIOL
Balira
Balise
balistæ
Balize
Balk
BALKAN
Balkans
balked
Balkh
balks
Ball
ballad
Ballades
ballads
ballance
Ballarat
ballast
ballastage
ballasted
Ballasteros
Ballater
ballein
Ballenstadt
Ballenstädt
Ballimore
Ballincarrig
Balliol
Balliols
balloon
ballot
balloting
ballotings
ballots
Ballou
Balls
Ballyboght
Balm
Balmaceda
Balmacedists
Balmain
Balmerino
Balnagowan
BALNEÆ
balneæ
Baloch
Balochis
Balochistan
Balochki
balsam
balsas
Balta
Baltha
Balthazar
Balthi
Balthing
Balthings
Baltic
Baltici
BALTIMORE
Baltimores
Baluchistan
Baluz
Balzac
Balzani
Bam
Bamakou
Bamberg
bamboo
Bambuk
Bamford
Bamian
Bamiduniya
Bampton
ban
banana
Banaras
Banat
banates
Banba
Banbury
banc
Bancroft
band
BANDA
bandage
bandages
bandaging
Bandawé
banded
Bandelier
Bandelli
Bandera
Bandhayana
banding
bandit
bandits
banditti
bands
bandying
bane
baneful
Baner
Banff
Bangalore
bangi
Bangor
Bangweolo
bani
banish
banished
banisheth
banishing
banishment
banishments
bank
banker
bankers
Bankes
BANKING
Banko
bankrupt
Bankruptcies
bankruptcy
bankrupts
banks
Bankson
bann
BANNACKS
bannats
banned
banner
banneret
BANNERETS
Bannermen
banners
banning
Bannock
BANNOCKBURN
Bannon
Banos
Banpur
banquet
banqueting
banquets
bans
Banswarra
BANT
Bantam
banter
Bantry
bantu
Bantus
Banus
BANVARD
Bapaume
Baphomet
baptised
baptising
baptism
baptismal
baptisms
Baptist
Baptista
Baptiste
baptisteries
baptistery
Baptists
baptize
baptized
baptizers
baptizes
baptizing
Bapu
bar
Baracoa
Baradai
Baradæus
Baraguai
Barak
Barante
barathrum
Barbadoes
Barbados
Barbara
BARBARET
barbarian
Barbarians
Barbaric
barbarism
barbarities
Barbarity
barbarized
Barbaro
barbaroi
Barbarossa
BARBAROSSAS
barbarous
barbarously
Barbaroux
Barbary
Barbatus
Barbe
barbecue
barbed
barber
Barberini
Barberis
barbers
barbes
Barbets
barbette
Barbiano
Barbier
Barbière
Barbone
Barbour
Barbuda
Barbudo
Barbès
Barbé
BARCA
Barcas
Barcellonette
Barcelona
Barcelonians
Barcenos
Barchochebas
Barcides
Barcine
Barclay
Barco
Barcochebas
bard
Bardanes
Bardeen
Bardeleben
Bardengau
Bardes
Bardewick
Bardi
Bardisy
Bardoes
Bardonache
Bardonneche
Bards
Bardstown
BARDULIA
Bardwan
bare
Barebone
Barebones
bared
barefaced
barefoot
barefooted
bareheaded
Bareilly
barely
Barenberge
Barentin
Barentz
BARERE
bareshirt
barest
Barfleur
bargain
bargained
bargainers
bargaining
bargains
Bargas
barge
barges
Barham
Barhamdown
Barhamsville
Bari
Barillon
BARING
Barings
Baris
bark
Barka
Barkas
barkeepers
barkentine
Barker
BARKIAROK
Barkouk
barks
Barksdale
Barkukiyeh
Barkul
Barlaimont
Barletta
barley
Barlow
Barmby
Barmecides
Barmek
BARMEKIDES
barn
Barnabas
Barnabites
Barnabo
Barnaby
Barnard
Barnave
Barnburner
Barnburners
Barnburning
Barnea
Barnes
Barnet
BARNETT
Barneveld
Barneveldt
Barney
Barnhagen
Barns
Barnstable
Barnwell
Baroche
Baroda
Baroius
barometer
barometers
Baron
baronage
barones
baronet
baronetcies
baronets
baronial
baronies
Baronius
barons
BARONY
Barotse
barque
Barquisimeto
Barra
barrack
barracks
barracoon
Barrados
Barrancas
Barras
Barre
barred
barrel
barreled
barrels
barren
barrenness
Barrero
Barreto
Barrett
barricade
barricaded
barricades
barricading
barrier
barriers
barring
Barrington
barrister
barristers
Barrois
Barron
Barrot
Barrow
barrows
Barrua
Barruel
Barrukzye
Barrukzyes
Barry
Barré
Bars
Barsippa
BARSTOW
Barsumas
Bart
Bartenstein
barter
bartered
bartering
Barth
Barthelémi
Barthema
Barthez
Bartholin
Bartholomew
Bartholomewday
BARTHÉLEMY
Barthélemier
Barthélemy
Barthélmy
Bartle
Bartlett
Bartolomeo
Bartolomew
Bartolommeo
Bartolomé
Barton
BARTRAM
Barts
Baruckzyes
BARWALDE
Barwell
Bary
Barz
BARÉ
Barère
Baré
bas
basalt
Basché
base
based
Basedow
Basel
baseless
basely
baseness
baser
bases
basest
Basha
Bashan
Bashaw
Bashaws
bashful
Bashi
Bashilo
Bashkirs
Basil
Basileus
Basiliade
Basilian
Basilica
basilicas
BASILICÆ
Basilicæ
Basilides
Basilidæ
Basilii
BASILIKA
BASILIKE
Basilios
basiliscum
basilisk
Basilius
Basin
BASING
Basingstock
Basingstoke
basins
basis
basket
baskets
Basks
baskàks
Basle
Basnage
BASOCHE
BASOCHIENS
Basque
Basques
Basra
BASS
Bassam
Bassano
Basse
Bassein
Basses
Basset
Bassett
Bassi
Bassigny
Bassmanaia
basso
Bassompierre
Bassora
Bassorah
basswood
Bast
Basta
Bastable
Bastain
bastard
bastardized
bastards
bastardy
BASTARNÆ
Bastarnæ
Bastel
Bastidas
Bastile
Bastille
Bastilles
bastinado
bastion
bastions
Bastiop
BASTITANI
Bastonnais
Basutoland
Basutos
Bataillard
Batak
Batang
Batavi
Batavia
Batavian
Batavians
batayles
batch
Batchelder
batches
bateau
bateaux
bated
bateren
Bates
BATH
bathe
bathed
bathing
Bathori
Bathory
baths
Bathsheba
Bathurst
Bati
Batis
Batista
Bato
Baton
Batonian
Batory
Batoum
Batoun
bats
Battaglia
Battaks
battalion
battalions
batteaus
batteaux
Battenberg
battered
batteries
battering
battery
Batthany
Batthyani
Batthyanyi
Batthyány
BATTIADÆ
Battiadæ
battle
battleaxe
battled
battlefield
Battlefields
battleground
battlegrounds
battlement
battlemented
battlements
Battles
battling
Battus
Batu
Batukhan
bauble
baubles
Baudi
Baudot
Baudouin
Baudricourt
baulk
baulked
baulking
Baum
Baumann
Baumgarten
Baur
Baure
Bausitz
Bauséant
Bautzen
Baux
Bavai
Bavaria
Bavarian
Bavarians
Bavay
Bavon
bawd
bawling
BAX
BAXAR
Baxter
bay
Bayamo
Bayard
Bayazid
Baye
Bayer
bayerischen
Bayern
Bayes
Bayeux
Bayezid
Bayle
Baylen
Baylies
Bayne
Bayogoulas
bayonet
bayoneted
bayonets
Bayonne
Bayou
bayous
Bayreuth
bays
bazaar
Bazadors
Bazaine
BAZAN
Bazar
Bazarof
Bazaroff
Baze
Bazeries
BAZIN
Baznine
Bazooks
Bazouks
Baïgorry
Baños
be
beach
beached
beaching
Beachy
Beacon
beacons
Beaconsfield
bead
beaded
beadles
beads
Beagle
beak
beaked
Beale
Beals
Beam
Beaman
beamed
Beamish
beams
Beamten
bean
beans
bear
bearable
bearbeitet
beard
beardless
beards
Beare
bearer
bearers
beareth
bearing
bearings
Bearn
bears
beast
beastly
beasts
beat
beaten
beater
beaters
beatified
beating
Beaton
Beatoun
Beatrice
Beatrix
BEATTIE
Beau
Beaubassin
Beauce
Beauchamp
Beauchesne
Beauclerc
Beauclerk
beaucoup
BEAUCOURT
beaufet
Beaufort
Beauforts
BEAUGÉ
Beauharnais
Beaujeu
Beaujolais
Beaulieu
Beaumarchais
Beaumont
Beauport
beaureaucratic
Beauregard
Beausse
beauteous
beauties
beautified
beautiful
beautifully
beautifying
beauty
Beauvais
Beauvilliers
Beauvoisin
beaux
Beav
beaver
beavers
Bebel
BEBRYKIANS
Bec
became
because
Beccaria
Bechuana
Bechuanaland
Bechuanas
beck
Becker
Becket
Beckett
Beckhampton
Beckley
beckoned
beckoning
BECKWOURTH
beclouded
become
becomes
becometh
Becoming
bed
Beda
Bedawin
bedchamber
bedding
Beddoes
Bede
Bedeau
bedecked
BEDEUS
Bedford
Bedfordshire
Bedlington
Bedloe
Bedmar
Bedouin
Bedouins
Bedoween
Bedoweens
Bedr
Bedriacum
bedridden
bedroom
bedrooms
beds
bedside
bedstead
Bedwin
bee
beech
Beecher
beeches
Beechey
BEECHY
Beeckman
beef
beefsteak
beehive
Beekman
been
beene
beer
Beerbhoom
Beeren
Beeroth
Beers
bees
Beesly
beeswax
beet
Beethoven
beets
beeves
befall
befallen
befalling
befell
befit
befitted
befitting
befooled
before
beforehand
befouled
Befreiungskriege
befriend
befriended
befriending
beg
Begams
began
begane
begat
begets
begetter
beggar
beggared
beggars
beggary
begged
beggen
begging
Beghardi
Beghards
BEGHINES
begin
begining
beginner
beginners
beginning
beginnings
begins
Begoe
begotten
begrimed
begs
Beguards
beguile
beguiled
beguinage
Beguine
Beguines
Beguini
Beguinæ
Begums
begun
behalf
Behar
Beharee
behave
behaved
behaving
behavior
behaviour
beheaded
beheading
beheld
behest
behests
behind
behindhand
Behistun
Behlul
Behmen
behold
beholden
beholder
beholders
beholding
beholds
behoof
behooved
behoved
behoves
Behram
Behrend
Behring
Beijapoor
being
beings
Beira
Beirut
Beiträge
Bejapore
Bekr
Bel
Bela
Belalcazar
belated
Belbeis
Belbek
Belcher
belching
Belchite
beleaguer
beleaguered
beleaguering
Beleaguerment
beleaguers
Belem
Belen
BELERION
Belfast
Belford
Belfort
belfries
belfry
Belgae
Belgarum
Belge
Belgia
Belgian
Belgians
Belgic
BELGIQUE
Belgium
Belgrad
BELGRADE
Belgrano
BELGÆ
Belgæ
Belial
belie
belied
belief
beliefs
believable
believe
believed
Believer
Believers
believes
believing
BELIK
Belisarius
belittled
belittles
Belize
Belknap
Bell
BELLA
belladonna
Bellamy
Bellasis
Bellasys
Bellay
Belle
Bellefonds
Belleforest
Bellegarde
Belleisle
Bellerophon
belles
Belleville
belli
bellies
belligerency
belligerent
belligerents
Bellingham
Bellings
Bellini
Bellinus
Bellinzona
Bello
Bellomont
Bellona
Bellonet
Bellovaci
bellow
bellowing
Bellows
bells
bellum
Belluno
BELLVILLE
belly
Belmont
Beloe
belong
belonged
belonging
belongings
belongs
Beloochistan
Belostok
beloved
below
Beloy
Belsham
Belshazzar
belt
belted
belts
Belturbet
Beltz
Beluchis
Beluchistan
Belurdagh
Belus
Belva
Belvedere
Belvidera
Belūs
Bem
Bema
Beman
bemantle
Bembo
Bemis
ben
Benaiah
Benalcazar
Benares
Bench
Benchers
benches
bend
Bender
Bendigo
bending
Bendragon
bends
bene
beneath
Benedek
Benedetti
Benedetto
Benedick
Benedict
Benedictine
Benedictines
benediction
benedictions
benefaction
benefactions
benefactor
benefactors
benefactress
benefice
beneficed
beneficence
beneficent
beneficently
benefices
beneficial
beneficially
beneficiaries
beneficiary
Beneficiis
BENEFICIUM
benefit
benefited
benefiting
benefits
Beneventine
Benevento
BENEVENTUM
benevolence
benevolences
Benevolent
benevolently
Benfey
Bengal
Bengalee
Bengalis
Benger
Benghazi
Benguela
Benhadad
Benham
Beni
benighted
benign
benignant
Benignus
Benin
Benincasa
Beningsen
Benito
BENJ
Benja
Benjamin
Benjamite
Benjamites
Benkendorf
Bennet
Bennett
Bennigsen
Benning
Benningsen
Bennington
Benscrade
Benso
BENSON
bent
Bentham
Bentinck
Bentivogli
Bentivoglio
Bentley
Benton
Bentonsville
Bentonville
Benu
Benue
Benué
Benvenuto
Benyowsky
benzo
benzoin
Benzoni
Beobachter
Beorhtric
Beorna
Beornicia
Beothuk
BEOTHUKAN
Beothuks
Beowulf
bequeath
bequeathed
bequeathing
bequeaths
bequest
bequests
Beral
Beraldi
Berar
Berard
Berber
Berbera
Berbers
Berbice
Berchtold
BERDOE
Berdt
Berea
bereave
bereaved
bereft
Berenclau
Berengar
Berengaria
Berenger
Berenguela
Berenice
Beresford
BERESINA
BERESTECZKO
Berg
Bergamah
Bergamo
bergamots
bergantin
Bergasse
Bergeller
Bergen
Berger
Bergerac
Berghama
Berghaus
Berghem
Bergoing
Bergues
Bergyon
Beriah
Berig
Bering
Berk
Berkal
Berkeley
Berkhamstead
Berks
Berkshire
Berkyaruk
Berlaymont
Berlepsch
Berlichingen
Berlin
Bermejo
Bermius
Bermuda
Bermudas
Bermudez
Bermudo
Bern
Bernabo
Bernabos
Bernadotte
Bernal
Bernard
Bernardin
Bernardine
Bernardini
Bernardino
Bernardins
Bernardo
Berne
Berneich
Berner
Bernese
Bernhard
Bernhardi
Berni
Bernicia
Bernis
Berno
Bernouilli
Berosos
Berosus
Berquin
Berri
berries
Berruyer
Berry
Berryer
Berryville
BERSERKER
BERSEZIO
Bersier
Bertaux
berth
BERTHA
Berthelsdorf
Berthier
Berthold
Berthollet
Berthoud
berths
BERTIN
Bertrand
Berwick
Berwicks
Berytos
Berytus
Berzelius
BESANT
BESANÇON
Besançon
Besborodko
beschreibung
beseech
beseeched
beseeching
beseemed
beseemeth
beseeming
beset
beseth
besetting
Beshilo
beside
besides
besids
besiege
besieged
besieger
besiegers
besieging
Besika
besmeared
besom
besond
besonders
besorgt
besotted
besought
bespeak
bespeaks
bespoke
bespoken
Bessarabia
Bessarabian
Bessborough
Bessemer
Bessi
Bessieres
Bessin
Bessinières
Bessières
Bessus
best
bestandtheilen
bestial
bestiality
bestialize
bestir
bestirred
bestirring
bestow
bestowal
bestowed
bestowing
bestows
bestride
Beständige
Bet
betake
betaken
betaking
Beth
Bethanien
Bethel
Bether
Bethesda
bethink
Bethlehem
Bethlem
Bethlen
Bethniville
bethought
Bethsaida
Bethshean
BETHSHEMESH
Bethune
bethyn
BETHZUR
Betica
betimes
betoken
betokened
betokens
betook
betray
betrayal
betrayed
betrayer
betrayers
betraying
betrays
betrothal
betrothed
better
bettered
bettering
betting
Betuwe
between
betwixt
Beugnot
Beurnonville
Beust
Beutelsbach
Beuve
beverage
beverages
BEVERHOLT
Beveridge
Beverley
Beverly
Bevern
Beverwyck
Beville
bevy
bewail
bewailed
beware
bewildered
bewilderment
bewilders
bewitch
bewitched
bewitching
Bexar
Bexwell
BEY
Beyas
Beylan
Beylerbey
Beylerbeys
Beyn
beyond
beyonde
BEYROUT
Beyrut
Beys
Beytarch
Beza
bezant
Bezhuidenot
BEZIERES
Beziers
Bezirke
Bezières
BEZOLD
Beárn
bhaga
Bhaow
Bharadars
Bharata
Bhartpur
bhasha
Bhilsa
Bhima
Bhonsla
BHURTPORE
Bhutan
bi
Bia
Biafra
Bialystock
Bianca
Bianchi
BIANCO
Biandrate
Biard
Biarne
Biarritz
BIART
bias
biassed
Bibars
Bibel
Biberach
Bibiena
Bibl
Bible
bibles
Biblical
biblically
bibliographers
Bibliographical
Bibliographie
Bibliographies
bibliography
bibliomaniacs
bibliophile
bibliopolists
Biblioteca
Bibliotheca
bibliothecal
Bibliothek
BIBLIOTHÈQUE
Bibliothèque
Bibliothèques
biblischen
Bibracte
BIBROCI
Bibulus
BICAMERAL
Bichat
bickering
bickerings
Bickers
Bickerstaff
Bickerton
Bickford
BICOCCA
BICOQUE
bicycles
Bicêtre
bid
Bidasoa
Bidassoa
bidden
bidder
bidders
bidding
biddings
Biddle
bided
biding
bids
Bidwell
Biederkeit
BIEDERMANN
Biel
Biela
Bielefleld
Biella
Bielo
bien
Biencourt
biennial
Bienville
bier
Bifrons
Big
bigamist
Bigamy
Bigandet
BIGELOW
Bigerriones
BIGG
Biggelow
bigger
Bight
BIGI
Bigland
Biglow
Bignon
Bigonnet
Bigorre
bigot
bigoted
bigotries
bigotry
bigots
Bigui
Bihar
Bihe
Bihé
Bijigarh
bijschoolen
Bikanir
Bikelas
Bilbao
Bilboa
Bilder
Bilderbuch
bildung
bile
bilingual
Bilious
bill
Billah
BILLAUD
Bille
billeted
billeting
billets
Billings
billions
Billom
billows
bills
billum
Biloxi
Biloxis
Bimetallism
Bimini
Bin
binal
binary
Binch
Binches
Binckes
bind
binder
binding
bindings
binds
bing
Bingen
Binger
binges
Bingham
Binghamton
Bio
Biog
biographer
biographers
Biographia
Biographical
Biographie
Biographies
biography
Biological
biology
Biorko
Biot
bipeds
Bir
Biraparach
Birch
birchwood
Bird
birds
Biren
Birger
Biridashwi
Biridshik
Birinus
Birka
Birkbeck
Birkedal
Birkenfeld
Birkenhead
Birket
Birlad
birlying
Birmingham
Birney
Birneyites
Biron
Biroteau
Birs
Birsen
Birth
birthday
birthplace
birthright
births
Biru
bis
Biscay
Biscayan
Biscayans
Bischoffswerder
Biscke
Biscop
biscuit
biscutella
bisect
bisected
bisecting
Bisentium
Biserta
bishop
Bishopp
bishopric
bishoprick
bishopricks
bishoprics
bishops
Bishopsgate
Bishopstoke
bishopstool
Bismarck
Bismarcks
Bismark
Bismillah
bismuth
bison
Bisset
Bissett
Bissextile
Bistritz
Bit
Bitche
bite
bites
Bithoor
Bithur
Bithynia
Bithynian
BITHYNIANS
biting
Bitonto
bits
Bitsch
bitten
Bittenfeld
bitter
bitterest
bitterly
Bittern
bitterness
bitumen
Bituriges
Bivar
bivouac
bivouacked
bivouacs
bizarre
Bizerte
Bizochi
Bizoin
Bizya
Bizye
Bjorling
björn
Bl
Blaatand
Blaauw
Blachern
black
Blackbird
blackbirds
Blackburn
blacken
blackened
blackening
blacker
blackest
Blackett
BLACKFEET
Blackfoot
Blackfriars
blackguards
Blackheath
Blackie
blacking
blacklegs
blackmail
Blackmar
blackness
blacks
blacksmith
Blackstone
Blackwater
Blackwell
Blackwood
BLACKWOODS
bladder
blade
Bladensburg
BLADES
Blagden
Blaine
Blair
Blairgowrie
Blaise
BLAKE
Blakely
Blakeney
blamable
blame
blamed
blameless
blameworthy
blaming
Blanc
Blanca
Blancas
Blanchard
Blanche
blanched
Blanches
Blanco
Bland
Blandemont
Blandford
Blandina
blandishments
Blandrate
BLANII
blank
blanke
Blankenburg
Blankenheim
blanket
Blanketeers
blankets
blankly
blanks
Blanqui
Blanquilla
Blantyre
Blaquiere
Blas
Blasco
Blasius
blasphemed
blasphemer
blasphemies
blaspheming
blasphemous
blasphemy
blast
blasted
blasting
blasts
Blathwayte
Blaubeuren
blaud
Blavet
blaze
blazed
blazing
blazon
blazoned
blazoning
blazonry
bleached
bleacher
bleaching
bleak
bleared
bleating
bled
Bleda
Bleecker
bleeding
Bleek
Bleking
blemish
blemishes
blend
blended
blending
blends
BLENEAU
Blenheim
Blenheims
BLENNERHASSET
Blennerhassett
blenorrhœa
Blesard
bless
blessed
blessedest
blessedness
blessing
blessings
Blest
blew
Blewfield
Blies
Bligh
blight
blighted
blighting
Blignières
blind
blinded
blinding
blindly
Blindness
blinked
Bliss
blissful
blistered
blistering
Bloch
block
blockade
blockaded
blockaders
Blockades
blockading
blocked
blockheads
blockhouse
blocking
blocks
Blodaexe
BLOIS
Blommaert
blond
Blondel
Blondin
blood
blooded
bloodedly
bloodedness
bloodhounds
bloodier
bloodiest
bloodily
bloodings
bloodless
BLOODS
bloodshed
bloodstained
bloodthirsty
bloody
bloom
bloomed
Bloomfield
blooming
Bloomington
blooms
Bloomsbury
Bloreheath
blossom
blossomed
blossoming
blossoms
blot
blotches
blots
blotted
Blotterature
Bloudy
Blount
blow
blowing
blown
Blows
blubbering
BLUCHER
bludgeons
Blue
Blues
bluestone
Bluff
Bluffs
Blum
Blumenthal
Blumhardt
blunder
blundered
blundering
blunders
Blunt
blunted
bluntest
bluntly
blush
blushless
Bluss
bluster
blustered
blustering
blyde
Blyenbeck
blythe
BLÜMNER
blätter
Blücher
Blümner
Bne
Bo
Boabdil
Boadicea
BOAIRE
boar
board
boarded
boarders
boarding
boards
BOARIAN
Boarium
boars
Boas
boast
boasted
boastful
boastfully
boasting
boastings
boasts
boat
boatmen
boats
Bobadilla
bobbins
Bobbio
Bobio
Boc
Boca
Bocage
Bocanegra
Bocasoti
Bocayuva
Bocca
Boccaccio
Boccanegra
Bocche
Bocchus
Bochara
Bochetta
Bockelson
Bockholz
BOCLAND
Bod
Boddy
boded
Bodega
Boden
Bodensee
Bodenstein
Bodha
Bodhi
bodices
Bodichon
Bodie
bodied
bodies
bodily
boding
Bodleian
Bodley
Bodmer
Bodmin
body
bodye
bodyguard
Boece
Boeckh
Boedrömia
Boeheim
Boehm
Boehmerwald
Boehmischgrod
Boeotia
Boeotian
Boeotians
Boer
Boerhaave
Boers
Boerstler
Boerum
Boethius
bog
Bogdan
Bogdania
Bogdanoff
Bogdanovitch
Boges
BOGESUND
Boggs
boggy
Bogislaw
Bogle
Bogomile
Bogomiles
BOGOMILIANS
Bogoris
Bogota
Bogotá
bogs
Bogu
Bogue
Bogumil
Bohada
Bohemia
Bohemian
Bohemians
Bohemond
Bohemund
Bohn
Bohuns
Boian
Boians
Boiardo
Boii
boil
Boileau
boiled
boiler
boilers
boiling
Boioas
Boiotia
Boiotians
BOIS
Boishebert
Boislisle
Boissy
boisterous
Boit
Bojador
Bokhar
Bokhara
Bokhariots
Bola
Bolan
bold
bolder
boldest
boldly
boldness
BOLERIUM
Boleslaus
Boleslaw
BOLEYN
BOLGARI
Bolgs
Bolinbroke
Bolingbroke
Bolivar
BOLIVIA
Bolivian
Bolivians
Boll
Bollaert
Bolles
Bollinger
Bologna
Bolognese
Bolor
Bolsena
bolson
bolsones
bolstering
bolsters
bolt
bolted
bolting
Bolton
bolts
Boma
bomb
BOMBA
bombard
bombarded
bombardier
bombarding
bombardment
bombardments
bombast
bombastic
Bombay
bombazines
bombs
Bombshell
Bommel
bomæ
Bon
bona
Bonaire
Bonamy
Bonanza
Bonaparte
Bonapartes
Bonapartist
Bonapartists
Bonaventura
Bonaventure
Bonavista
Bonchamps
bond
bondage
bonded
bondholders
bondman
bondmen
bonds
bondsman
bondsmen
bone
boned
BONER
bones
bonfire
bonfires
Bongars
BONGHI
Bonheur
Bonhomme
Bonhours
Boni
Boniface
Bonifacio
Bonifazio
bonitates
Bonizo
Bonjean
BONN
Bonne
Bonneau
Bonnechose
Bonnel
bonnes
bonnet
bonnets
Bonnier
Bonnivet
Bononia
Bonpland
Bonuccorsi
bonus
Bonvalot
Bonzes
bonâ
book
Bookbinding
bookcases
booke
bookkeeping
Bookland
bookmaking
Bookmen
bookright
books
bookseller
booksellers
boom
boomed
booming
booms
boon
Boone
Boonesborough
Booneville
Boonsboro
Boonville
boor
boorish
boorishly
boorishness
Boors
boot
booters
Booth
Boothia
Booths
bootless
boots
booty
boozing
Boppart
Bor
Bora
Borbetomagus
Borbstaedt
bord
bordarii
BORDEAUX
Bordentown
border
bordered
borderer
borderers
bordering
borderland
borders
Bordesanes
Bordeu
Bordone
bore
Boreale
Borealis
Boreas
bored
Borelli
Borga
Borghese
Borghesi
BORGHETTO
Borgia
Borgias
Borgne
Borgnis
Borgo
Borgu
Borhoime
boring
Boris
Borisof
Borissof
Borku
Borla
Borlase
Bormida
Bormio
born
Borna
borne
Borneo
Bornheimer
Bornholm
BORNHOVED
BORNY
Boroa
Borodino
Boromh
BOROUGH
BOROUGHBRIDGE
boroughs
Borra
BORROMEAN
Borromeo
borrow
borrowed
borrower
borrowers
borrowing
borrows
borse
Borsippa
Borso
Borthwick
Boru
Boruwa
BORYSTHENES
bos
BOSANQUET
Boscawen
BOSCOBEL
Bosjesmans
Boslas
BOSNIA
Bosniacs
Bosnian
Bosnians
Bosniæ
Boso
bosom
bosoms
Bosomworth
Boson
Bosphoranus
Bosphorensis
Bosphoritanus
Bosphorus
Bosporanic
Bosporus
Bosquet
Bosra
boss
bosses
BOSSI
BOSSISM
Bossoli
Bossu
Bossuet
Bostanaï
Boston
Bostonian
Bostonians
Bostonnais
Bostra
Boswell
Bosworth
Botaneites
botanical
botanist
botanists
botany
botch
Boteler
Botelho
Botetourt
both
bother
Bothgowan
Bothnia
Bothwell
Botocudos
Botolphs
Botskai
Botta
Bottego
bottle
bottles
bottom
bottomed
bottomless
bottomry
bottoms
Botzen
boucans
Bouchain
Boucher
Bouches
BOUCHOT
Boucicault
Boudicea
boudoir
boudoirs
Boudonitza
BOUFFARD
Boufflers
Bougainville
bougette
bough
boughs
bought
Bougiah
Bouide
Bouides
BOUILLET
Bouillon
Bouillé
Bouju
Boulak
Boulanger
Boulangerism
Boule
Boulevard
boulevards
Boulger
Boulogne
Boulon
Boulton
bound
boundaries
boundary
bounded
bounden
bounding
boundless
bounds
bounties
bountiful
bountifully
bounty
Bouquet
Bourbaki
BOURBON
Bourbonism
Bourbonists
Bourbonnais
Bourbons
Bourbotte
Bourbourg
BOURCHIER
Bourdaloue
Bourdeau
Bourdeaux
Bourdonnaie
Boure
Bourg
bourgades
Bourgemont
bourgeois
bourgeoisie
bourgeoisies
Bourges
Bourget
Bourgogne
bourgs
Bourinot
Bourke
Bourkes
Bourlamaque
Bourmont
Bourn
Bourne
Bourrienne
Bours
Boursa
Bourse
boursiers
Boussard
Boussingault
bout
Bouteiller
Boutell
Boutmy
Bouton
Boutwell
BOUVINES
bouwerie
bouweries
BOVATE
Bovates
Boven
Bovet
Bovey
BOVIANUM
bow
Bowden
Bowditch
BOWDOIN
bowed
bowels
BOWEN
Bower
Bowes
BOWH
Bowides
bowing
Bowker
bowl
Bowlby
Bowlegs
Bowles
BOWLEY
Bowling
bowls
Bowman
bowmen
bownd
BOWRING
bows
Bowyer
box
Boxer
boxes
boxing
boy
Boyaca
boyard
Boyards
Boyars
Boyce
boycott
boycotts
Boyd
Boydton
BOYEN
Boyer
Boyerists
boyers
boyhood
boyish
Boyle
Boylston
Boyne
Boynton
Boys
Boyun
Boz
BOZMAN
Bozon
BOZOUK
Bozouks
Bozra
Bozzaris
br
Brabant
Brabançons
Brabo
Bracata
BRACCATA
BRACCATI
Braccio
Bracciolani
Bracciolini
braccæ
Brace
braced
bracelet
bracelets
Braceville
brachycephalic
Bracislav
Brackenbury
Brackenridge
brackets
Brackett
brackish
Brackley
Braclav
Bracton
Bradbury
Braddock
Bradford
Bradley
Bradshaw
Bradstreet
Brady
Brae
Braemar
Braganza
Braganzas
Brage
Bragg
braggart
Brahe
Brahilow
Brahim
Brahma
Brahman
Brahmanas
Brahmanic
Brahmanical
Brahmanism
Brahmans
Brahmin
Brahminism
Brahmins
Brahmā
Brahui
Brahuis
braided
Braila
brain
brained
brainless
brains
Braintree
brake
brakes
Bramante
Bramaputra
brambles
Bramhall
BRAMSTON
bran
Branau
Brancaster
branch
branched
branches
BRANCHIDÆ
Branchidæ
branching
Branchville
Branco
Brancovano
Brand
branded
Brandenbourg
BRANDENBUHG
Brandenburg
Brandenburgers
Brandenburgh
brandenburgisch
Brandes
brandies
branding
brandishing
Brandon
brands
Brandt
BRANDY
Brandywine
Branford
BRANKIRKA
Brankovich
Brankovitch
Brannibor
Brant
Brantford
BRANTZ
Bras
BRASELMANN
Brash
Brasidas
brasier
Brasilica
brass
Brasseur
Brassey
Bratrska
Brattahlid
Brattle
Brauant
Braun
Braunau
Braunsberg
Braunschweig
bravado
brave
braved
bravely
braver
bravery
braves
bravest
braving
Bravinium
Bravo
brawl
Brawler
brawlers
brawls
brawn
Braxton
bray
Braybrooke
brayed
Brayley
braynes
brazas
brazen
brazenly
Brazer
Brazil
Brazilian
Brazilians
Braziliensis
Brazils
brazing
brazos
Brazza
breach
breached
breaches
breaching
bread
Breadalbane
breadstuffs
breadth
breadths
break
breakage
breakdown
breaker
breakers
breakfast
breaking
breaks
BREAKSPEAR
Breakspeare
breakwater
Brearley
breast
breasted
breasting
breasts
breastwork
breastworks
breath
breathable
breathe
breathed
breathes
breathing
breathless
Brebeuf
Brebir
BRECHER
Brechin
Breck
Breckenridge
Breckinridge
Brecknoekshire
Brecon
bred
Breda
Brederode
breech
breeches
Breechless
breed
breeders
breeding
BREEDS
Breeknoek
breeze
breezy
Bref
Bregenz
Brehon
Brehons
Breintnal
Breisach
Breisgau
Breitenfeld
Breitenwald
breith
Brema
BREMEN
Bremer
Bremerlehe
Bremgarten
Bremi
Brenchley
Brendan
BRENHIN
Brennan
Brenner
BRENNI
Brenns
Brennus
Brent
Brenta
BRENTFORD
Brenton
Brentsville
Brereton
Brescia
Brescian
Breshwood
Breslau
Breslaw
Bresse
Bresson
Bressure
Brest
Bretagne
Bretainy
Bretany
brethren
Bretigni
BRETIGNY
Breton
Bretonnante
Bretons
Brets
BRETSCHNEIDER
BRETT
BRETTE
Bretwalda
Bretwaldas
Breuckelen
Breval
Breve
brevet
breviary
brevity
Brevoort
brewed
Brewer
breweries
brewery
brewing
Brewster
Breyzad
Brezé
Brian
Briançon
briars
bribe
bribed
bribery
bribes
bribing
Brice
bricht
brick
brickbats
bricking
bricklayers
brickmakers
bricks
bridal
bridals
bride
Bridegroom
bridegrooms
brides
bridewell
bridge
bridged
Bridgeman
Bridgeport
Bridger
bridges
Bridget
Bridgett
BRIDGEWATER
bridging
Bridgnorth
Bridgwater
bridle
bridled
Bridport
Brie
brief
Briefe
Briefen
briefer
briefly
briefs
Brieger
Brien
Brienne
Briens
brier
Brig
brigade
brigades
Brigadier
Brigadiers
brigadiership
brigand
brigandage
brigandages
brigands
BRIGANTES
Brigantian
brigantine
brigantines
Briggs
Brigham
Bright
brightened
brightening
brighter
brightest
brightly
brightness
Brighton
brigs
Brihtnoth
Brihuega
Brill
brilliance
brilliancy
brilliant
brilliantly
brilliants
brimming
brimstone
Brindisi
Brine
bring
bringer
bringers
bringest
bringeth
bringing
brings
brink
brinks
Brinton
briny
Briquemaut
Brisac
Brisach
Brisbane
Briscoe
Brisgau
Brisgovia
Brisimir
brisk
briskly
briskness
Brissac
Brisson
Brissot
BRISSOTINS
Brissots
bristle
bristled
bristles
bristling
Bristoe
Bristol
Brit
Britain
Britains
Britani
Britanni
BRITANNIA
Britanniarum
Britannic
Britannica
Britannicus
Britanniæ
BRITANNY
Britany
brith
BRITHONS
British
Brito
Briton
Britons
Brittanic
Brittanica
Brittany
Brittish
brittle
Britton
Brittonum
Brivio
Brixen
BRIXHAM
Briçonnet
Brno
Bro
broached
broad
broadcast
broaden
broadened
broadening
broadens
broader
Broaders
broadest
Broadhead
broadly
broadsheets
broadside
broadsides
Broadstone
broadsword
Broadway
Brobdingnagian
BROC
brocade
brocades
Brock
Brockett
Brockhaus
Brockman
Brocton
Brod
Brodar
Brodford
Brodhead
Brodix
Brodribb
Brodrick
Broghan
Broglie
Broglies
Broglio
brogues
broils
broke
broken
brokenness
broker
brokers
Bromfield
Bromhead
Bromsebro
Bronkhorst
Bronson
Bronte
bronze
bronzed
bronzes
brooch
brooches
brood
brooded
brooding
broods
brook
Brooke
brooked
Brookfield
brooking
Brookline
Brooklyn
Brooks
Broom
Broome
Bros
BROSIEN
broth
brothel
brother
brotherhood
brotherhoods
Brotherism
brotherly
Brothers
Brotherton
Brough
Brougham
brought
Brouillan
Broussel
brow
browbeat
browed
Brown
Browne
BROWNELL
Browning
Brownism
Brownist
Brownists
Brownlow
Brownson
Brownsover
Brownsville
brows
Broxburn
Broxmouth
Bruce
Bruchion
Bruchium
Bructeri
Brue
Brueys
Brugach
Bruges
Brugg
Bruggh
Brugsch
Bruinsburg
bruised
bruit
bruited
Bruix
BRULÉ
Brulé
Brumaire
Brun
Brunanbeorh
BRUNANBURH
Brundisium
Brundusium
Brune
Brunei
Brunel
Brunelleschi
Brunhilda
Brunkeberg
BRUNKEBURG
Brunn
Brunnaburgh
Brunnanburgh
Brunner
Bruno
Brunonian
Brunonis
Brunsweig
Brunswic
Brunswick
Brunswickers
brunt
Brusa
Brusati
brush
brushed
brushing
brushwood
brusquely
Brussels
Brut
brutal
brutalise
brutalising
brutalities
brutality
brutalizing
brutally
brute
brutes
brutish
Bruttii
Bruttium
Brutum
Brutus
Bruyas
Bruys
Bruyère
Bruzual
BRUÉ
Bry
BRYAN
Bryans
Bryant
Bryce
Brycton
Brydon
Brymner
Brymuer
BRYN
Bryne
Brython
Brythonic
Brythons
Brytskaia
Bryttisc
Brzesc
Brzozowski
BRÊMULE
Bränkirka
Bréal
Bréard
Brébœuf
Brétigny
Brézé
Brêmule
Brömsebro
Brühl
Brāhmana
Brāhmans
Brāhui
Bu
Buade
Bubastis
Bubb
bubble
bubbles
Bubier
Bubna
bubo
buccaneer
buccaneers
Buccleugh
Bucentaur
Bucentaure
Bucer
Buch
Buchan
Buchanan
Bucharest
Buchheim
Buchholz
Buchner
Buchsee
BUCHWALD
BUCK
Buckingham
Buckinghamshire
Buckle
buckler
bucklers
BUCKLEY
buckling
Buckner
Bucks
buckshot
Bucktail
Bucktails
buckwheat
Bucquoi
bud
Buda
Budapest
BUDAPESTH
Budawal
Buddenbroch
Buddha
Buddhas
Buddhism
Buddhist
Buddhists
budding
Buddingh
Budge
Budgebudge
Budgell
budget
budgets
Budii
Budimir
BUDINI
Budissin
Budrum
Budweis
Budweiss
Budæus
Budé
Buel
Buell
BUENA
Buenaventura
Bueno
Buenos
buff
Buffalo
buffaloes
buffalos
buffer
buffeting
buffetted
BUFFINGTON
Buffon
buffoons
Buffs
Buffum
Buford
Bug
bugas
bugbear
bugbears
Bugeaud
Bugey
BUGIA
Bugis
bugle
bugles
Buids
build
builded
builder
builders
building
buildings
builds
built
Buisson
Bukephalia
Bukhara
Bukharia
Bukhelin
Bukht
Bukovina
Bukowina
Bulan
bulava
Bulfinch
Bulgar
Bulgaria
Bulgarian
Bulgarians
Bulgarias
Bulgars
bulk
Bulkely
bulky
Bull
BULLA
bulldozing
BULLE
Bullen
Buller
bullet
Bulletin
Bulletino
Bulletins
bullets
bullied
bullies
Bullinger
bullion
bullions
Bulloch
Bullock
bullocks
Bulls
bully
bullying
Bulow
bulrushes
Bulstrode
Bulwant
bulwark
bulwarks
Bulwer
BUMMERS
BUMP
bumped
bumpers
Bunbury
bunch
Bund
Bundalkhand
Bundelkhand
bundes
Bundesgericht
Bundesgesetzblatt
Bundeskanzlei
Bundespresident
BUNDESRATH
Bundesstaat
Bundesstaaten
Bundestaat
Bundestag
Bundesversammlung
Bundesverwandte
bundle
bundles
Bunds
Bundschuh
Bungener
bungling
Bungo
Buninyong
Bunker
bunkers
Bunkeya
Bunnock
Bunsen
Bunswickers
bunting
Bunyan
Bunzelwitz
Bunzlau
Buol
Buon
Buonaparte
Buonarroti
Buonconvento
Buondelmonte
Buondelmonti
buoni
buono
buoy
buoyancy
buoyant
buoyed
buoys
Burbach
Burbur
Burcardus
Burch
Burchard
Burckhardt
burden
Burdened
burdening
burdens
burdensome
Burdett
Burdigala
Bureau
bureaucracy
bureaucratic
Bureaus
bureaux
Buren
Burford
Burg
burgage
Burgarde
Burgaud
Burgdorf
burgenses
Burger
Burgermeister
Burgess
burgesses
Burgevine
Burggrave
burgh
burghal
burgher
burghers
burghership
Burghley
burghs
burgi
Burgisser
burglar
burgomaster
burgomasters
Burgos
Burgoyne
Burgrave
BURGRAVES
Burgundi
Burgundia
Burgundian
Burgundians
Burgundies
Burgundii
Burgundo
Burgunds
Burgundy
burh
BURI
burial
buried
Burk
Burke
Burkes
Burkhard
Burkhardt
Burksville
Burlamachi
Burleigh
burlesque
Burley
Burlingame
Burlington
Burlonde
burly
Burma
Burmah
Burman
Burmann
Burmans
Burmese
burn
Burnaby
burncow
Burne
burned
Burnel
burner
Burnes
BURNET
Burnett
Burney
Burning
burnings
burnished
Burnouf
Burns
Burnside
Burnsville
burnt
Burr
Burraburiyash
Burrard
Burrington
Burritt
Burroughs
burrow
Burrows
bursars
Burschenschaft
Burschenschaften
Burslem
burst
bursting
Bursts
Burt
burthen
burthened
burthening
burthens
Burthélemy
Burton
Buru
bury
burying
Busaco
Busae
Buschmann
Bush
bushel
Bushell
bushels
bushes
BUSHMEN
BUSHNELL
bushrangers
Bushrod
BUSHWHACKERS
BUSHY
busied
busier
busies
busiest
busily
business
businesses
businesslike
Busiris
Busk
buskin
buskins
Busrah
Buss
Bussche
Bussex
Bussey
Bussir
Bussora
Bussorah
Bussy
bust
Busteed
bustle
bustling
Busto
busts
Buswell
busy
busying
but
BUTADÆ
Butadæ
BUTCHER
butchered
butcheries
butchering
butchers
butchery
BUTE
Butler
Butlers
Butrinto
Butt
Butte
butted
Butter
Butterfield
butterfly
Butterlin
butternut
Butternuts
Buttmann
Button
buttons
buttress
buttresses
Buttrick
Butts
Buturlin
BUXAR
Buxhöwden
Buxton
buy
buyer
buyers
buying
buys
Buyyides
Buzancy
Buzot
Buzruna
Buzurg
Buzzard
buzzing
by
Byblos
Byblus
bye
byeway
byeword
bygone
Byllinge
Bylot
Byng
Byrd
Byron
Byrsa
bystander
bystanders
Bythinia
Bytown
byways
byword
BYZACIUM
Byzance
Byzantia
Byzantinae
Byzantine
Byzantines
Byzantion
Byzantium
byzants
BÂB
BÆCULA
BÆRSÆRK
BÆTICA
BÆTIS
BÉMONT
Bálig
Bâb
Bâbism
Bâbys
Bâle
Bâles
bâton
Bäer
Bäle
Bär
Bärwalde
Bäuerle
Bæcula
Bærsærk
Bærsærkegang
Bærsærks
Bætica
Bègue
Bègut
Bèze
Béarn
Béarnais
Béarnese
Béatrix
Bécard
Bécourt
Béla
Béranger
Bérgiers
béte
bête
Bòttego
Böckh
Böhm
Böhmen
Böhmert
Börde
Börsenblatt
Bötticher
Bötzen
Búrthegn
Bübner
Bücheburg
Büching
Bückeburg
Bühl
Bülow
Bündners
bürgerschulen
BŒOTARCHS
BŒOTIA
BŒOTIAN
BŒOTIANS
Bœhmer
Bœon
Bœotarchs
Bœotia
Bœotian
Bœotians
Bœtica
Bœuf
C
CAABA
Caamaño
Cab
cabal
CABALA
Cabalism
cabalistic
cabalists
cabals
Cabanos
cabbages
cabbalistic
Cabeiri
Cabell
Cabes
Cabet
Cabeza
Cabeça
CABILDO
Cabillonum
cabin
cabined
Cabinet
cabinets
cabins
Cabiri
Cable
cables
Cabo
Caboche
Cabochiens
Cabot
Caboto
Cabots
Cabra
Cabral
Cabrera
Cabrieres
Cabrillo
cabriolet
Cabrières
Cabul
cacabus
Caceres
Cacha
Cachapoal
caches
cachet
cacique
caciques
cackle
cacochymia
cactus
cad
Cadamosto
Cadaracqui
cadastral
cadaver
cadaverous
Caddo
CADDOAN
Caddoes
Caddos
Cade
Cadell
cadence
Cadesia
cadet
cadets
cadetted
Cadi
CADIE
Cadillac
Cadillot
cadis
Cadiz
Cadmea
Cadmean
CADMEANS
Cadmeia
Cadmeian
Cadmeians
Cadmus
Cadoba
Cadoc
Cadogan
Cadolingi
Cadore
Cadoudal
CADURCI
Cadurques
CADUSIANS
Cadwallader
Cadwallon
Cady
Caelia
Caen
Caens
Caer
Caere
Caerites
CAERLAVEROCK
CAERLEON
Caernarvon
Caervorden
Caerwan
Caerwent
Caes
Caesar
Caesarea
Caesareia
Caesars
Caf
Caffa
Caffarel
cage
caged
cages
Cagli
Cagliari
Caglio
Cagliostro
Cagniard
cahiers
Cahira
Cahohatatea
Cahokia
Cahors
Cahorsiens
CAHROCS
cahua
Caiaphas
Caicus
Caietan
Caillard
Caillou
Cailloux
Caillé
Caine
Cains
Cairbre
CAIRN
Cairnes
cairns
CAIRO
CAIROAN
Cairowan
caissons
Caister
Caithness
Caius
Caix
Cajetanus
cajole
cajoled
cajolery
cajoling
Cakchiquel
Cakchiquels
cake
cakes
Calabar
Calabria
Calabrian
Calabrians
Calach
Calah
Calahorra
Calais
CALAMATIUS
calamities
calamitous
calamity
Calamy
Calandre
Calatayud
CALATRAVA
Calauria
Calaveras
Calbraith
calcareous
Calchaquis
Calchis
calcin
CALCINATO
calcined
calcium
calculate
calculated
calculates
calculating
calculation
calculations
calculator
Calcutta
caldaria
CALDECOTT
Calder
Calderon
Calderwood
caldron
Caldwell
Cale
CALEB
Caled
Caledon
CALEDONIA
Caledonian
Caledonians
CALEDONII
Calef
calend
Calendar
Calendares
Calendaria
calendars
Calends
Caleti
calf
Calgaich
Calhoun
caliber
calibre
calico
calicoes
Calicut
Caliente
Calif
California
Californian
Californians
califs
Calig
Caliga
caligraphers
caligraphy
Caligula
Calimala
Calimaruzza
Caliph
Caliphate
Caliphates
Caliphs
Calisch
calix
Calixtine
Calixtines
Calixtins
Calixtus
call
CALLAGHAN
Callander
Callao
Callaruega
CALLCOTT
called
Calleja
Callejon
Callery
Callet
CALLEVA
CALLIAS
Callicrates
Callicratidas
Callidromus
Callieres
Callimachus
calling
callings
CALLINICUS
Callistratus
Callistus
Callixtus
Callières
callous
calls
calm
Calmann
CALMAR
calmed
calmer
calmest
calmly
calmness
calms
Calmuck
Calmucks
calo
Calonne
caloyers
Calpetani
Calpulalpam
Calpurnia
CALPURNIAN
Calpurnius
Calpé
Calstein
calumet
calumniate
calumniated
calumniates
calumnies
calumnious
calumny
Calusa
Calusahatchi
Calvados
Calvary
calved
Calven
Calvert
Calverts
calves
CALVIN
Calvinian
Calvinism
Calvinist
Calvinistic
Calvinists
Calvinius
Calvinus
Calyce
Calydnae
Cam
Camac
Camaldoli
CAMARCUM
Camaret
Camarilla
Camarina
Camarons
Camaroons
Cambacérès
CAMBALEC
CAMBALU
Cambas
Cambay
cambi
Cambio
Camboja
Cambojan
Cambojans
Cambon
Camboricum
Camboritum
Cambrai
Cambray
Cambresis
Cambria
Cambrians
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
Cambunian
Cambyses
Camden
came
Camel
cameleopards
Camellia
camelopard
camels
cameo
Cameos
Camerarius
Camerino
Cameron
Cameronian
Cameronians
Cameroons
camest
Camille
Camillo
Camillus
Camin
Camirus
camisa
Camisades
Camisard
CAMISARDS
Camoens
Camorra
Camorristi
Camoëns
camp
Campa
Campagna
Campagne
campaign
campaigning
Campaigns
Campaldino
Campan
Campanella
Campania
Campanian
Campanians
Campanile
Campanus
Campbell
CAMPBELLITES
Campbells
Campeachy
Campeador
Campeche
camped
Campeggio
Campegio
Camperdown
campfires
Camphausen
Campian
camping
Campion
Campo
Campofregoso
Campomanès
camps
Campus
Camulodunum
CAMUNI
can
Cana
Canaan
Canaanite
Canaanites
Canaanitic
Canaanitish
Canace
Canada
Canadas
Canadea
Canadian
Canadians
Canadien
Canai
canaille
Canajoharie
Canajoharrie
Canajokaties
Canal
Canale
Canaliculata
canalisation
canalization
canals
Cananama
Canandaigua
Cananore
CANARES
Canaries
CANARY
Canas
Canascraga
Canawagus
Canby
cancel
canceled
canceling
cancellarius
cancellation
cancelled
cancelli
Cancellieri
cancelling
Cancello
cancer
Canche
Canclaux
Candace
Candacé
Candahar
Candaules
candentia
Candia
Candiano
candid
Candidacy
candidate
candidates
candidature
Candidatures
candidly
candle
Candlemas
candles
candor
candour
Candra
CANDRAGUPTA
cane
Canea
caned
Caner
canes
CANET
Cangas
Cange
Cangi
Canicas
Canichanas
Canield
Canienga
Caniengas
Canisius
canister
Canizares
canker
cankered
Canmore
Cannae
CANNENEFATES
Cannes
Cannewagus
cannibal
cannibalism
cannibals
Canning
cannister
Cannnseraga
cannon
cannonade
cannonaded
cannonading
cannonballs
cannoneer
cannoneers
cannons
Cannosa
cannot
Cannynges
CANNÆ
Cannæ
Cano
Canobic
Canobus
canoe
canoes
canon
Canonchet
canonical
canonically
canonicity
Canonicus
canonised
canonist
canonists
canonization
canonized
Canonmills
canonry
CANONS
Canonsburg
Canoodagtoh
canoongoes
Canopus
canopy
Canosa
Canossa
Canova
Canovas
Canrobert
cansans
Canseau
Canso
cansos
canst
cant
Cantabri
CANTABRIA
Cantabrian
Cantabrians
Cantacuzene
Cantacuzenos
Cantacuzenus
Cantal
canteens
Cantelmo
Cantemir
Canterac
Canterbury
Canti
canticle
canticles
Cantii
Canto
Canton
cantonal
cantonalists
cantoned
Cantonese
cantonment
cantonments
cantons
cantos
CANTU
Cantyre
CANTÆ
Cantæ
Canuleian
Canuleius
Canusium
Canute
Canutson
canvas
canvass
canvassed
canvassers
canvassing
canyon
CANZACA
Cao
Caorle
Caorlo
cap
capabilities
capability
capable
capably
Capac
capacious
capacities
capacity
caparison
caparisoned
Cape
Capefigue
Capehart
Capel
Capelle
Capello
Capena
caper
capers
Caperton
capes
Capet
Capetains
Capetian
Capetians
Capetown
Capets
Capgrave
CAPHARSALAMA
Caphtor
CAPHYÆ
capias
Capillo
Capistrano
capital
Capitalis
capitalism
capitalist
capitalistic
capitalists
capitalization
capitalized
capitally
capitals
capitan
Capitani
capitation
capite
Capitol
Capitolian
Capitolina
Capitoline
Capitolinus
Capitolium
capitula
capitularies
Capitulary
capitulate
capitulated
capitulating
Capitulation
capitulations
Capitulum
Capizucchi
Capmany
Capo
Capodistna
Capoon
Cappadocia
Cappadocian
Cappadocians
capped
Cappello
CAPPER
capping
Capponi
cappuccio
Capraja
Capreae
Caprera
Capri
caprice
caprices
capricious
capriciously
Capricornus
Caprivi
Caprularia
CAPS
capstan
capstone
Capt
Captain
captaincies
Captaincy
Captains
CAPTAL
captals
caption
captions
captious
Captivated
captivating
captive
captives
CAPTIVITY
captor
captors
capture
captured
captures
capturing
Capua
Capuchin
Capuchins
Capuchons
Capucin
Capudan
caput
Caputiati
Capétiens
Capétîens
Car
Cara
Carabeesi
carabineers
Carabisce
CARABOBO
carac
Caracalla
Caracallæ
Caracas
Caraccas
Caracotinum
CARACS
Caractacns
Caractacus
Carafas
Caraffa
Caraibs
Caramanian
Caranquis
CARANS
Caras
carat
carats
Carausius
caravan
Caravans
caravansaries
caravel
caravelas
CARAVELS
Carbajal
CARBERRY
carbine
carbines
Carbo
carbolic
carbon
carbonadoed
Carbonari
Carbonarism
Carbonaro
Carbonear
Carbonic
carbonized
carbons
carbuncle
carbuncles
carcan
carcase
carcases
Carcaso
carcasses
Carcassone
Carcassonne
carcer
Carceres
Carchemish
card
CARDADEN
Cardadeu
cardboard
carded
Carders
Cardiff
Cardiganshire
Cardinal
cardinals
carding
Cardona
Cardozo
Cardross
cards
CARDUCHI
carduus
Cardwell
care
cared
careen
career
careered
careers
careful
carefully
carefulness
Careggi
Carehemish
Careless
carelessly
carelessness
Carelia
cares
caress
Caresse
caressed
caresses
Careta
CAREW
careworn
Carey
Cargill
Cargillites
cargo
cargoes
CARHAM
Caria
Cariaco
Carian
CARIANS
Cariay
Carib
CARIBBEAN
Caribbee
Caribbees
Caribert
CARIBS
Carica
caricature
caricatured
caricatures
caricaturing
Carignan
Carignano
CARILLON
Carinae
caring
Carinthia
Carinthians
CARINUS
Caripuna
CARISBROOK
Carisbrooke
Carismia
Carismian
Carismians
Carizine
Carizme
Carizmian
CARIZMIANS
carkets
Carl
Carle
Carleton
Carlile
Carlin
Carling
CARLINGS
Carlisle
Carlist
Carlists
Carlmann
Carlo
Carloman
Carlos
Carlotta
Carlovingian
Carlovingians
Carlow
Carlowicz
Carlowitz
carls
Carlsbad
Carlsruhe
Carlstadt
CARLTON
CARLYLE
Carlylean
Carmagnola
carmagnole
Carman
Carmania
CARMANIANS
Carmarthen
Carmarthenshire
Carmath
Carmathians
Carmel
CARMELITE
Carmelites
Carmentalis
Carmes
CARMIGNANO
Carmina
Carmona
CARNABII
CARNAC
carnage
carnal
carnally
Carnarvon
Carnarvonshire
Carnascialeschi
Carnates
Carnatic
carne
Carneades
Carnegie
Carneian
Carneius
carnet
Carneto
Carnians
Carnifex
Carniola
carnival
carnivorous
CARNONACÆ
Carnonacæ
Carnot
Carnutes
Carobert
Carolana
Caroli
CAROLINA
Carolinas
Caroline
Caroling
Carolingia
Carolingian
Carolingians
Carolinian
Carolinians
Carolo
Caroluses
Caron
Carondelet
carousal
carousals
caroused
Carousel
carouses
carousing
Carpathian
Carpathians
Carpathus
Carpentaria
Carpenter
carpenters
Carpentras
carpentry
Carperius
carpet
carpeted
carpets
Carpi
Carpians
Carpini
Carpon
Carr
CARRACKS
CARRARA
Carraras
Carraresi
Carrefour
Carrel
Carrera
Carrerists
CARRHÆ
Carrhæ
carriage
carriages
Carrib
Carribbee
Carrick
Carrickfergus
carried
Carrier
carriers
carries
Carrington
Carrion
CARROCCIO
Carrol
Carroll
Carrolls
Carrollton
Carrolton
Carron
Carrousel
carry
carrying
CARRÉ
cars
Carse
Carson
cart
Carta
Cartagena
Cartarum
Cartatone
carte
Carteaux
carted
Carteia
cartel
Carter
Carteret
cartes
Cartesians
Carth
Carthage
Carthagena
Carthagenians
Carthaginensis
Carthaginian
Carthaginians
Carthago
Carthusian
Carthusians
Carthy
Carthys
Cartier
Carties
cartload
cartographic
Cartography
cartons
cartouche
cartouches
cartridge
cartridges
carts
Cartula
cartulaire
cartulary
Cartwright
caruca
carucate
Carus
Carvalho
carve
carved
Carver
Carvilius
carving
carvings
Carwithen
Cary
Cas
Casa
Casal
Casale
CASALSECCO
Casamanza
Casander
Casas
Casati
Casaubon
Casazzo
Cascade
Casciano
Casco
CASDIM
case
Caseli
Caselle
casemate
casemates
Casembrotspel
Casena
Casentino
Caserio
CASEROS
cases
Casey
cash
Cashel
Cashgar
cashiered
cashiers
Cashmere
Cashmir
casidi
Casimir
casing
Casini
casino
cask
Casket
casks
Caspar
Caspian
CASPIÆ
Caspiæ
Cass
Cassamarca
Cassan
Cassander
Cassandra
CASSANO
Cassation
Cassau
Cassel
Cassell
cassette
Cassia
Cassian
Cassianus
Cassii
Cassino
Cassiodorius
Cassiodorus
cassiques
Cassite
CASSITERIDES
Cassites
Cassius
Cassivelaunus
Cassivellaunus
cassock
CASSOPIANS
Cassubitæ
Cassville
cast
Castaldo
CASTALIAN
castanets
Castaños
caste
Castel
Castelar
Castelfidardo
Castelhanos
Castella
castellan
Castellana
Castellane
castellano
castellanos
castellans
castellated
Castelli
Castello
Castellon
castellum
Castelnau
Castelnuovo
Castelreagh
Castes
castigando
castigated
castigation
CASTIGLIONE
Castile
Castiles
Castilian
Castilians
Castilla
Castille
Castillian
Castillians
Castillo
CASTILLON
Castin
Castine
casting
Castinus
Castle
Castlemaine
Castlenaudari
Castlereagh
castles
Castleton
Castletown
Castor
castra
Castracane
Castracani
castri
Castricum
Castriot
Castriots
Castro
Castrocaro
Castros
CASTRUCCIO
castrum
casts
Casu
casual
casually
casualties
casuistical
casuistry
casus
CASWELL
Cat
Catabaptists
cataclysm
Catacombs
Catahouche
CATALAN
Catalans
Catalaunian
catalog
catalogi
catalogs
Catalogue
catalogued
catalogues
Cataloguing
Catalonia
Catalonian
Catalonians
Catamarca
CATANA
Catania
CATAPAN
catapult
catapults
catapultæ
Cataract
cataracts
Cataraqui
Cataraquy
Catare
catastrophe
catastrophes
Catat
Catawba
Catawban
Catawbas
Catawissa
catch
catchers
catches
catching
Cateau
Catechetical
catechetics
catechising
catechism
Catechisme
catechisms
catechists
catechizing
categorical
categorically
categories
category
Catelet
cateran
CATERANS
Caterina
caterpillar
Catesby
Cathari
Catharine
Catharins
CATHARISTS
cathartics
Cathay
Cathcart
cathedral
cathedrals
cathedrâ
Cathelineau
Catherina
Catherine
Catherinestown
Cathlamahs
catholepistemia
catholepistemiad
CATHOLIC
Catholica
Catholicism
Catholicity
catholicly
Catholicon
Catholicorum
Catholicos
Catholics
Catibah
Catilina
Catilinarian
Catilinarians
Catiline
Catilius
Catin
Catinat
Catini
catle
CATLIN
Cato
Catoche
Catolicos
CATON
Catonian
Catonism
Catos
CATRAIL
Catron
cats
CATTANI
Cattano
Cattaraugus
Cattaro
Cattegat
Catteville
CATTI
cattle
Cattolica
CATTON
Catullus
Catulus
CATUVELLANI
Catyeuchlani
caucasia
Caucasian
Caucasus
Cauci
Caucoliberis
Cauconian
caucus
caucuses
Caudebec
Caudine
Caughey
caught
Caulaincourt
Cauldrons
cauleing
Caulfield
caulking
Caulonia
Caunus
Caupolican
causa
causal
causantes
causation
causative
cause
caused
CAUSENNÆ
Causerie
causes
causeway
causeways
causing
Caussidière
Caussin
Caussèque
caustic
Causton
causæ
cauter
cauterization
cautery
Cautio
caution
cautionary
cautioned
cautioning
cautions
cautious
cautiously
Cauvery
Caux
cava
Cavada
Cavagnari
Cavaignac
Cavaignae
Cavaignes
Cavaillon
Cavalcabò
cavalcade
cavalcades
Cavalier
cavaliere
Cavaliers
cavalry
cavalrymen
Cavan
cavate
Cave
Caveirac
Cavelier
Cavello
Cavendish
cavern
caverns
caves
cavil
cavillers
cavilling
cavillings
cavils
cavities
Cavo
Cavour
CAWNPORE
Cawnpur
Cawsund
Caxamarca
Caxton
Caxtons
Cay
Cayenne
Cayes
CAYLEY
Cayster
Cayuga
CAYUGAS
Cayuse
Cazembe
Cazotte
Caïcus
Cañares
Cañaveral
cañons
cd
ce
CEADAS
Ceanmore
Ceará
cease
ceased
ceaseless
ceaselessly
ceases
ceasing
Ceaster
Ceastre
Ceaulin
Ceawlin
Cebenna
CEBRENES
Cecil
Cecilius
Cecils
Cecora
CECROPIA
CECROPIAN
Cecropidæ
Cecrops
Cecryphalea
Cedar
cedars
cede
ceded
cedes
ceding
Cegiha
Ceile
ceiled
ceiling
ceilings
cela
Celano
Celaya
Cele
Celebes
celebrate
celebrated
celebrates
celebrating
celebration
celebrations
celebrities
celebrity
Celect
Celectmen
celerity
celestial
Celestin
Celestine
CELESTINES
Celestinians
Celestius
Celi
Celia
celibacy
celibate
cell
cella
cellar
cellars
Cellini
cells
Cellular
Celoron
Celsus
Celt
Celtae
Celtiberi
Celtiberian
CELTIBERIANS
CELTIC
celtica
Celticae
Celtici
Celticizing
Celticæ
Celtique
celtis
Celto
Celts
Celtæ
CELYDDON
Celydon
cement
cementation
cemented
cementing
cemeteries
cemetery
Cempoalla
CENABUM
cenacula
Ceninenses
Cenis
Ceno
cenobitic
cenobitical
Cenomanians
Cenomanni
Cenred
censitaires
censor
censorial
censorii
Censorinus
censorious
censors
Censorship
censure
censured
censures
censuring
Census
censuses
cent
centage
centaury
centenarian
Centenary
Centennial
Center
centered
centering
centers
centesimi
centimes
centimetres
Centinel
Central
Centrale
centrales
centralisation
centralised
centralising
centralism
centralization
centralize
centralized
centralizing
centrall
centrally
centre
centred
centres
Centreville
centrical
centrifugal
centring
centripetal
Centrons
cents
centum
centurial
CENTURIATA
centuriate
Centuriators
centuries
CENTURION
centurions
Centurles
Century
Cenwalch
Cenwulf
Ceorl
ceorls
Ceos
Cepeda
Cephallenia
Cephalonia
Cephas
Cephissus
Cephisus
Cerameicus
Ceramicus
Ceramio
Cerata
Ceraunus
Cerberus
Cerchi
Cerda
Cerdagne
Cerdas
Cerdic
Cerdie
cereals
ceremonial
ceremonials
ceremonies
Ceremonious
ceremoniously
ceremony
Cereris
Ceres
Ceresco
CERESTES
Cerf
Cerialis
CERIGNOLA
Cerigo
Cerio
Cerisoles
cermalus
Cermeñon
Cernau
cernimus
CERONES
Cerro
certain
certainly
certainties
certainty
certen
certificate
certificated
certificates
certification
certifie
certified
certifies
certify
certifying
certiorari
Cerularius
cerulian
Cervantes
Cervin
Cesaire
Cesana
Cesanne
Cesano
Cesar
CESARE
Cesarea
CESARESCO
Cesarini
Cesena
Cesina
Cesnola
CESS
cessation
cession
cessions
Cestius
cestui
cestuis
cet
Cetchwayo
cetera
Cethegi
ceti
Cetius
Cetswayo
cette
Cettigne
Ceuta
Ceva
Cevallos
Cevenna
Cevennes
Ceylon
cf
CH
Cha
Chabas
Chablais
Chaboneau
Chaboras
Chabot
Chabran
Chacabuco
Chachamim
Chaco
Chacou
Chacu
Chad
Chadwick
Chaeroncia
Chaeronea
chafed
chaff
chaffering
chafing
CHAGAN
Chagans
Chagatai
chagrin
chagrined
Chahta
Chaillot
Chaillu
Chaillé
chain
chained
chains
chair
Chaire
chairman
chairmanship
chairmen
chairs
Chaise
Chait
Chalcedon
Chalcedonian
chalci
Chalcideans
Chalcidian
Chalcidians
Chalcidic
Chalcidice
Chalcis
Chalco
CHALCUS
chalcûs
Chaldaea
Chaldaic
Chaldea
Chaldean
Chaldeans
Chaldee
Chaldees
Chaldiran
Chaldun
Chaldæa
Chaldæan
Chaldæans
Chaldée
Chaldœa
Chaleurs
CHALGROVE
chalice
chalices
Chalier
chalk
Chalke
chalked
Chalkidian
Chalkidic
Chalkidike
Chalkis
Challans
Challemel
Challen
challenge
Challenged
challenger
challenges
challengeth
challenging
Chalmers
Chalon
Chalons
Chaltin
Chalybes
Chalybians
Cham
Chamaves
Chamavi
Chamber
Chamberlain
chamberlains
Chamberlayne
Chambers
Chambersburg
Chambery
Chambiva
Chambly
Chambord
Chambre
chambres
chambrier
Chambéry
Chamicoco
Chamier
Chammurabi
Chamouri
Champ
Champa
Champagn
Champagne
Champagny
Champaign
CHAMPEAUBERT
Champeaux
Champenoise
Champigny
champion
championed
Championnet
champions
championship
Champlain
Champlin
Champlitte
Champollion
CHAMPS
champêtre
Chan
Chancas
chance
chanced
chancel
chancelier
Chancellerie
chancellor
Chancellors
Chancellorship
Chancellorsville
Chancery
chances
Chanco
Chandak
chandas
chandelier
Chandernagore
Chandler
Chandni
CHANDRAGUPTA
chandyis
CHANEERS
Chanes
Chang
Changarnier
change
changeable
changeableness
changed
changeful
changeling
changement
CHANGERS
changes
changing
Changiz
Chanler
Channel
channels
Channing
chant
chanted
CHANTELAUZE
Chantelles
Chantilly
Chantonnay
Chantre
chantries
chantry
chants
Chanzeau
Chanzu
Chanzy
Chao
Chaones
Chaonians
chaos
Chaosien
chaotic
Chaou
Chaouanon
CHAOUANONS
chap
Chapa
CHAPANECS
CHAPAS
chapel
Chapelain
Chapelier
Chapelle
chapelry
Chapels
Chapin
chaplain
chaplains
chaplets
Chaplin
Chapman
Chapoltepec
Chappe
chapter
chaptered
chapters
Chapultepec
character
characterise
characterised
characterises
characteristic
characteristically
characteristics
characterization
characterize
characterized
characterizes
characterizing
characterless
characters
Charaibes
Charaka
Charakterbilder
Charander
Charante
Charassiab
Charbon
Charcas
charcoal
Charcoals
Chard
Charente
Charenton
Charette
charge
chargeable
charged
charger
charges
charging
Chargé
CHARIBERT
charily
Charing
chariot
charioteer
chariots
charitable
charitableness
charitably
Charites
charities
Chariton
charity
Charkof
Charkow
charlatan
charlatanism
charlatans
Charlemagne
Charlemont
Charleroi
Charleroy
Charles
Charleses
Charlesfort
Charleston
Charlestown
Charlevoix
Charlot
Charlotte
Charlottenburg
Charlottesville
Charlottetown
Charlton
charm
charmed
charming
charmingly
Charmis
charms
CHARNAY
charnel
Charnisé
Charobert
Charolais
Charon
Charondas
Charras
charred
chart
Charta
charte
charter
chartered
Charterhouse
chartering
charters
Chartes
charting
Chartism
Chartist
Chartists
Chartres
Chartreuse
charts
chartularies
Chartulary
charuz
Charès
Chas
CHASAURI
chase
chased
chases
CHASIDEES
Chasidim
CHASIDM
chasing
chasm
Chasmon
chasms
chassepot
chassepots
Chasset
Chasseurs
Chassé
chaste
Chasteler
Chastellux
chastened
chastening
Chastenoy
Chastes
chastise
chastised
chastisement
chastisements
chastising
chastity
chastizing
Chasuarii
chat
Chatahoochee
Chatahuchi
Chateau
Chateaubriand
Chateaugay
Chateauroux
Chateauvieux
chateaux
Chatel
Chatelar
Chatelherault
Chatfield
CHATHAM
Chatillon
Chatillons
Chatsworth
Chattab
Chattahoochee
Chattahoochy
Chattan
Chattanooga
Chatte
chattel
chattels
chattered
Chatterton
Chatti
chatting
Chatto
Chaucer
Chauci
Chaudiere
Chaudière
Chauhans
Chaumette
Chaumont
Chauncey
Chauncy
Chauni
chaunting
Chaussegross
chaussée
Chautauqua
Chautauquan
Chauve
Chauveau
Chauvelin
Chauvin
CHAVANNE
Chayla
Chazaria
Chazarian
Chazars
che
Cheap
cheapen
cheapened
cheapening
cheaper
Cheapeside
cheapest
cheaply
cheapness
Cheapside
cheat
cheated
Cheatham
cheating
cheats
Chebar
Chebucto
Chebuctou
Chebuetow
chec
check
checked
checkerboard
checkered
checking
checkmate
checkmated
checks
Chedorlaomer
cheefest
cheek
cheeked
cheeks
Cheer
cheered
cheerful
cheerfully
cheerfulness
cheerily
cheering
cheerless
cheers
cheery
cheese
Cheesemakers
cheetahs
CHEETHAM
Cheever
Chefoo
Chefren
chefs
Cheh
Cheilon
Cheimerion
CHEIROTONIA
Chekh
Chekhs
Chelcicky
Chelidonian
Chelles
Chelm
Chelmsford
Chelsea
Cheltenham
CHEMI
chemical
chemically
chemico
Chemillé
chemise
chemist
Chemistry
chemists
Chemnitz
Chempho
Chemung
Chen
Chenab
Chenango
Chenaur
Chenensu
Cheney
Cheng
Chenghis
Chenier
Cheops
Chepachet
Chephirah
Chephren
Chepultepec
cheque
chequered
cheques
Cher
Cherakis
Cherasco
Cheraw
Cherbourg
CHERBURY
Cherika
cherish
cherished
cherishes
cherishing
Cherokee
Cherokees
Cheroki
cherries
Cherronesus
Cherry
Cherson
Chersonese
Chersonesos
Chersonesus
Chersonnesus
Cheruscan
Cherusci
Chesapeake
Cheshire
Chesiopiock
Chesney
Chesnu
CHESS
chessboard
Chessy
chest
Chester
Chesterfield
Chesters
Chesterton
chestnut
chests
Cheta
Chetham
Chevalier
Chevallier
Chevardino
chevaux
Cheves
Cheviot
Chevreuse
CHEVY
Chevyot
chew
Chewalla
Cheyenne
CHEYENNES
CHEYNE
Cheyney
Cheyte
Chez
Chhing
Chi
Chia
Chiablese
Chian
Chians
Chiapa
Chiapas
Chiari
Chiavenna
Chibcha
Chibchas
Chicachas
Chicago
chicane
chicanery
Chicasa
Chicasas
Chichester
Chichimec
Chichimecs
Chickahominy
Chickamauga
Chickasas
Chickasaw
Chickasaws
Chickasâs
chickens
Chico
CHICORA
Chicory
Chicot
chiding
Chief
Chiefdom
chiefdoms
chiefest
chiefly
chiefs
chiefship
chiefships
chieftain
chieftaincies
chieftaincy
chieftains
chieftainship
chieftainships
chieftancy
Chien
Chieri
Chiers
Chieti
Chievres
chiffrée
Chightam
Chigi
Chignecto
Chih
Chihuahua
Chikitsa
Chilaga
Chilan
child
childbed
Childe
Childebert
Childeric
Childers
childhood
childish
childishness
childless
childlike
children
Childric
Childs
Chile
Chilean
Chileans
Chili
Chilian
Chilians
CHILIARCHS
Chilicothe
chill
chilled
CHILLIANWALLAH
Chillicothe
chilling
Chillon
CHILPERIC
Chiltern
Chilton
Chilts
Chimakuan
Chimakum
Chimalakwe
Chimalpopoca
Chimari
CHIMARIKAN
Chimariko
Chimborazo
chimera
chimerical
chiming
Chimmesyan
chimney
chimneys
chin
China
Chinaman
Chinamen
Chinantecs
Chinantla
Chinas
Chinchiruca
Chinchon
Chinchona
Chine
Chinese
Chinesee
Ching
Chinghiz
CHINGIS
Chingliput
Chinhat
chinked
Chinkiang
chinks
Chinnock
Chinon
Chinook
CHINOOKAN
Chinooks
chins
Chinsurah
Chioggia
CHIOS
Chiozza
Chip
Chipeway
Chipiez
chipped
Chippendall
CHIPPEWA
Chippewas
Chippeway
Chippewayans
Chippeways
Chippewyans
chipping
chips
Chiquito
Chiquitos
Chira
Chiri
Chiricaguis
Chirk
Chirurgical
chisel
chisels
Chisholm
Chitimachan
chiton
chitons
Chittagong
Chittenden
CHITTIM
Chittore
Chiuhaha
chivalric
chivalrous
chivalrously
Chivalry
Chivasso
chlamys
Chlodovech
Chlodowig
Chlodvig
Chlodwig
Chlopicki
chlorine
Chlorus
Chlother
Chlovis
Chlum
Chnodomar
Choaspes
Choate
Chobe
Chocim
chocolate
Chocta
Choctas
Choctaw
Choctaws
Choctâs
Chocuyem
CHOCZIM
Chodkiewicz
choice
choicest
choir
choirmaster
choise
Choiseuil
Choiseul
choke
choked
chokes
Choktah
Cholat
cholera
choleric
Cholet
Chollet
Chololan
Chololans
Cholollan
Cholovone
Cholula
Cholulans
Chonek
chong
Chonians
Chonos
Chonquiro
Chontakiro
Chontal
Chontales
chontalli
Chontallis
Chontals
Chontaquiro
CHONTAQUIROS
Choo
choose
chooses
choosing
chop
chopped
choral
chorale
Chorasmia
Chorasmians
Chorassan
chord
choregia
choristers
chorographer
chorus
choruses
chose
chosen
choses
choseu
Choshiu
Choshu
Chosroes
Chosroës
CHOTUSITZ
CHOTYN
chou
Chouan
Chouannerie
Chouans
Chouda
Chouk
CHOUT
chow
Chowan
Chowans
Chowle
Chowringhee
choyse
CHOZIM
Chr
Chremonidean
Chremylus
Chriemhilde
Chriemhilden
Christ
Christabel
christen
Christendom
christened
christening
Christi
Christiaensen
Christian
Christiana
Christiania
Christianised
Christianising
Christianisme
Christianity
Christianization
christianize
Christianized
Christianizing
christianly
Christians
Christie
Christina
Christine
Christino
Christinos
Christison
Christliche
Christmas
Christobal
Christophe
Christopher
Christopherson
Christovão
christs
Christum
Christus
Christy
Chrobatia
Chrodegang
Chron
chronic
Chronicle
chronicled
chronicler
chroniclers
Chronicles
chronicling
Chronique
Chronograph
chronologers
Chronological
Chronologically
chronologists
Chronology
chrusos
CHRYSE
Chrysippus
CHRYSLER
chrysobulum
Chrysoceras
Chrysopolis
CHRYSOPOLlS
chrysoprase
Chrysopylæ
Chrysostom
Chrystler
Chrzanowski
chu
chuang
Chubb
Chuchama
Chud
Chudleigh
Chudley
Chulak
CHUMARS
Chumash
Chumashan
Chunar
Chunda
Chungtu
Chuninc
chunk
Chunkey
Chuquisaca
Chuquisaco
Chur
Church
Churchdom
churches
Churchill
churchly
Churchman
churchmanship
Churchmen
churchwarden
churchyard
Churl
churlishly
CHURUBUSCO
Chus
Chusan
chuse
chuses
chusing
Chuttanuttee
Chutter
Chwan
Chwang
chweuwami
chyle
chyli
chynne
Chynoweth
CHÂTEAU
CHÆRONEA
Châlons
Châtaigneraie
Château
Châteaubriand
Châteaudun
Châteaufort
Châteauroux
Châteauvieux
châteaux
châtelaine
Châtelet
châtellenie
Châtellerault
Châtillon
Chãlons
Chærea
Chæronea
Chæroneia
Chétardie
chétiveté
Chêne
Chênæ
ci
Cialdini
Cibalis
Cibao
Cibber
Cibola
Cibolo
Cibò
Cicala
cicatrices
Cicero
Ciceromania
cicisbei
Cid
cider
Cie
CIEZA
Cifuentes
cigar
cigars
cihuacoatl
CILICIA
Cilician
Cilicians
CILICIÆ
Ciliciæ
Cilley
Cilli
Cilly
CILURNUM
Cima
Cimabue
Cimaron
Cimaroui
Cimarron
Cimarrones
Cimber
Cimbri
Cimbrian
Cimbric
Ciminia
CIMINIAN
Cimmerian
CIMMERIANS
Cimolian
Cimon
Cinaloa
cinchona
Cincia
Cincinnati
Cincinnatus
Cinco
cincture
CINE
cinebar
Cinhona
Cinna
cinnabar
Cinnaed
Cinnamon
Cinnas
Cinq
Cinque
Cintra
Ciompi
Cipango
cipher
Circ
circa
CIRCARS
Circassia
Circassian
CIRCASSIANS
Circe
Circeian
Circeii
Circenses
Circensian
Circesium
circi
circle
circles
circonscriptions
circuit
circuitous
circuits
circular
Circulars
circulate
circulated
circulates
circulating
circulation
Circulus
CIRCUMCELLIONES
circumcised
circumcision
circumference
circumflexed
circumjacent
circumlocution
circumlocutory
circumnavigate
circumnavigated
circumnavigating
circumnavigation
circumscribe
circumscribed
circumscribing
circumscription
circumspect
Circumspecte
circumspection
circumstance
Circumstanced
circumstances
Circumstantial
circumvallation
circumvallations
circumvent
circumvented
circumventing
circus
Cirencester
Cirphis
CIRRHA
CIRRHÆAN
Cirrhæan
Cirrhæans
Cirta
Cis
CISALPINA
Cisalpine
Cisalpines
Cisatlantic
Cisgangetic
Cisjurune
Cisleithania
Cisleithanian
Cisneros
Cispadane
Cispadine
Cispius
Cisplatine
Cissa
Cissia
Cist
Cisteaux
Cistellum
CISTERCIAN
Cistercians
Cistern
cisterns
citadel
citadels
citation
citations
cite
Citeaux
cited
CITERIOR
cites
Cithaeron
Cithæron
citied
cities
citing
Citium
citizen
Citizeness
citizens
citizenship
Citoyen
citoyens
Citramontanes
Città
city
Cité
Ciuadad
Ciudad
Ciuell
CIVES
civet
civibus
civic
Cividale
civil
civile
Civilian
civilians
Civilis
civilisation
civilisations
civilise
civilised
civiliser
civilising
civility
civilization
civilizations
civilize
civilized
civilizers
civilizing
civilly
Civiltà
Civis
Civita
Civitas
Civitate
civitates
civitatibus
civitatis
civitatum
Civitella
Cività
civium
Cl
clad
clads
Claflin
Clagenfurth
Clagny
Claiborne
claim
claimable
claimant
claimants
claimed
claiming
claims
Clain
Claine
Clair
Claire
Clairfait
Clairvaux
clairvoyant
clam
clambering
Clamet
clamor
clamored
Clamorgan
clamoring
clamorous
clamorously
clamors
clamour
clamoured
clamouring
clamourous
clamours
clan
Clancaux
clandestine
clandestinely
clang
clanging
clanks
clannish
Clanricarde
clans
clanships
clansman
clansmen
clap
Clapp
clapped
Clapperton
clapping
clapt
Clara
Clare
Clarence
Clarendon
Clares
claret
Claretie
Clarian
Clarion
clarions
claris
Clark
Clarke
Clarkson
Clarksville
Clarotae
clarus
Clary
clash
clashed
clashing
clasp
clasped
clasping
clasps
class
classed
classes
classfellow
classic
classical
classicos
classics
classification
classifications
classified
classifies
classify
classifying
classique
classis
classroom
Clatsops
clatter
clattering
Claude
Claudia
Claudian
Claudiana
Claudianus
Claudius
Claus
clause
Clausel
clauses
Clausewitz
claustral
clausæ
Clauzel
clave
Claverhouse
Clavering
CLAVIGERO
Clavigo
Clavius
CLAVIÈRE
Clavière
Clavo
claws
Clay
CLAYBANKS
Clayborne
Clayden
clayey
Claypole
CLAYTON
Clazomenae
Clazomenæ
clean
cleaned
cleaning
cleanliness
Cleanse
cleansed
cleansing
clear
clearance
clearances
Clearchus
cleared
clearer
clearest
Clearfield
clearing
clearings
clearly
clearness
clears
cleavage
Cleaveland
Cleaves
Cleburne
Clef
Clefmont
cleft
clefts
Cleisthenes
Cleland
clemency
Clemens
Clement
clemently
CLEMENTS
Clemmer
clenched
clenching
Cleodamus
Cleomenes
Cleomenic
Cleon
Cleonymus
Cleopatra
Cleopatris
Cleophas
CLEPHES
Clepho
clepsydra
Clercq
Clercs
clerestories
CLERGY
clergyman
clergymen
cleric
clerical
Clericalism
Clericals
Clericis
CLERICO
clericorum
clerics
clerk
Clerke
Clerkenwell
clerks
Clerkship
Clermont
CLERUCHI
cleruchiae
cleruchies
cleruchs
Clerveaux
Clery
Clerys
Cleve
Cleveland
clever
cleverer
cleverly
cleverness
Cleves
clew
clews
Cleïppides
Cliath
Clichy
Clichyans
client
clientage
clientele
CLIENTES
clients
clientship
cliff
Clifford
cliffs
Clifton
Climacus
climate
climates
climatic
climax
climb
climbed
climbing
clime
climes
Clinch
cling
clinging
clings
clinical
Clink
clinked
Clinton
CLINTONIANS
clipped
clipping
clique
cliques
Clissa
CLISSAU
Clisson
CLISSOW
Clisthenes
Clive
Clivus
CLOACA
cloacæ
cloak
cloaked
cloaks
clock
clocks
clockwork
clod
cloddish
Clodion
Clodius
CLODOMIR
Clodoveus
clog
clogged
clogging
cloister
cloisters
Clonard
Clonmacnoise
Clontarf
Clootz
Clopas
Clopton
Clorus
Clos
close
closed
closely
closeness
closer
closes
closest
closet
closeted
closets
closing
Closter
closure
Clotaire
cloth
Clothaire
clothe
clothed
clothes
clothier
clothiers
clothing
cloths
Clotilda
Clotilde
Clotildis
cloud
clouded
Cloudesley
cloudless
clouds
Clough
clove
Cloverdale
cloves
Clovis
Clowes
Cloyd
Cloyse
Club
clubbed
clubbing
Clubmen
clubs
clue
cluere
Clugni
Clugnian
Clugny
clumps
clumsy
Clun
Clunes
clung
Cluniac
Cluny
Cluseret
CLUSIUM
cluster
clustered
clustering
clutch
clutched
clutches
Clyde
Clydesdale
Clymer
Clypea
CLYPEUS
CLÉRY
Clèves
clémence
Clément
Cléry
clôture
Cn
Cnacion
Cneius
Cnemus
Cnidos
Cnidus
CNOSSUS
Cnut
CNYDUS
Cnæus
Co
coach
Coaches
coachman
coadjutor
coadjutors
coadjutorship
coagula
Coahasset
Coahuila
COAHUILTECAN
COAJIRO
coal
coaled
Coales
coalesce
coalesced
coalescence
coalescing
coalescings
coalition
coalitions
coals
Coan
Coanza
coarse
coarseness
coarser
coarsest
coast
coastal
coasted
coasters
coasting
coastland
coastlands
coastline
coastmen
coasts
coastwise
coat
coated
Coates
coating
coatl
coats
coaxed
coaxing
cob
Cobb
Cobbet
Cobbett
COBBLER
cobblers
Cobden
Cobham
Coblentz
Coblenz
Cobleskill
Cobourg
cobra
COBURG
Cocceius
Cocchi
COCCIUM
Coche
Cocheco
COCHIBO
Cochin
cochineal
Cochiquima
Cochiti
Cochlæus
Cochrane
Cock
cockade
cockades
Cockayne
Cockburn
Cockcroft
cockets
cockfighting
cockle
cocks
Cocksedge
Coco
cocoa
Cocomes
Coconoon
Coconoons
Coconun
Cocosa
COCOSATES
cocta
Coctecmalan
Coctier
coction
cod
Coddington
Code
codes
Codex
codfish
codices
codification
codified
codifier
codifying
CODMAN
Codogno
Codomannus
Codrington
Codrus
Cods
Coed
Coehorn
coerce
coerced
coercendâ
coercing
Coercion
coercive
Coeur
coeval
coexist
coextensive
Cofan
coffee
coffeehouses
coffers
Coffey
coffin
coffins
Cofitachiqui
cogent
COGGESHALL
Coggs
Coggswell
cogitations
Cognac
cognate
cognates
cognisable
cognisance
cognisant
cognitione
cognizable
cognizance
cognizant
COGNOMEN
Cogswell
cohabit
cohabitation
cohabiting
cohabitte
Cohass
coheir
coheirs
cohen
coherence
coherency
coherent
cohesion
Cohn
Cohors
cohort
Cohortes
cohorts
Coif
coiffure
coign
Coignat
COIGNET
Coigny
coil
coiled
coils
Coimbra
coin
Coinage
coinages
coincide
coincided
coincidence
coincident
coincides
coinciding
coined
coiner
coining
coins
Coire
COIT
Cojedes
Cojohuacan
Coke
Col
Cola
Colaeus
Colard
COLBECK
Colbert
Colbertism
Colborne
Colburn
Colby
Colchester
Colchi
Colchians
Colchis
cold
Colden
colder
coldest
coldly
coldness
Coldstream
Coldwater
Cole
Coleman
Colenso
Coleoni
Colepepper
Colera
Coleraine
Coleridge
Coleroon
Colet
Colfax
Colhuacan
colic
Coligni
Coligny
Colima
Colin
Colines
Coliseum
Coll
Colla
collaborators
Collamer
collapse
collapsed
collapses
collar
Collard
collars
Collas
collated
collateral
collaterally
collaterals
Collatia
collating
Collatinus
collation
Collationarii
collations
collaudantes
Colle
colleague
colleagues
collect
collected
collecting
Collection
collections
collective
collectively
Collectivism
collectivist
collector
collectors
collects
Colledge
colledges
College
colleges
COLLEGIA
Collegial
collegians
collegiate
Collegio
Collegium
collegiums
Colletet
Colleton
Colletta
Colley
colli
collided
Collier
Colliery
Colline
Collingwood
Collins
Collinson
Collioure
collis
collision
Collisions
Collony
collops
colloque
colloques
Colloquia
colloquial
colloquially
colloquium
colloquy
Collot
collusion
collusively
colluvies
colléges
Colman
Colmans
COLMAR
Colmeiro
Colmenares
Colne
coloa
Cologne
Cologners
Coloma
Coloman
COLOMBEY
Colombia
Colombian
Colombians
Colombino
Colombo
Colon
colonades
Colonatus
Colonel
colonelcy
colonels
Coloneus
Coloni
Colonia
colonial
coloniale
Colonie
colonien
Colonies
colonisation
colonise
colonised
colonising
colonist
colonists
colonization
Colonizations
colonize
colonized
colonizers
colonizing
coloniæ
Colonna
colonnade
colonnades
Colonnas
Colonnes
colonus
colony
Colophon
colophons
Color
colorable
Colorado
colored
coloring
colorirte
coloriées
colorless
colors
colossal
Colosseum
colossi
Colossians
COLOSSUS
Colotes
colour
colourable
coloured
colouring
colourless
colours
colporteur
Colquhoun
Colston
Colt
Colton
Coltrano
Coltrin
Colum
Columba
Columban
Columbanus
Columbia
Columbiads
Columbian
Columbiana
Columbians
Columbus
column
columnae
Columnar
columned
columns
Colve
Colvile
Colvin
com
Comacchio
Coman
Comana
Comanche
Comanches
comandante
Comans
Comares
Comata
Comba
Combahee
combat
combatant
combatants
combated
combating
combative
combats
combatted
combed
COMBES
combination
combinations
combine
combined
combines
combining
Combrailles
Combrox
comburendo
combustible
combustibles
combustion
come
Comecrudo
comedies
comedy
Comeille
comely
Comenius
comer
comers
comes
Comet
cometh
comets
comfort
comfortable
comfortably
comforted
comforter
comforteth
comforting
comfortless
comforts
comic
Comines
coming
comitat
COMITATUS
Comite
COMITES
comitia
Comitis
Comitissæ
Comittee
comittees
comity
Comité
Commachio
COMMAGENE
Command
commandant
commandants
commanded
commander
commanderies
commanders
Commandery
commanding
commandingly
commandite
commandment
commandments
commands
comme
Commedia
commemorate
commemorated
commemorates
commemorating
commemoration
commemorative
commence
commenced
commencement
commencements
commences
commencing
commend
commendable
commendam
commendation
Commendator
commendatory
commended
commending
commends
commensurate
comment
Commentaries
Commentary
commentator
commentators
commented
commenting
comments
commerce
commercial
Commercially
Commercium
Commercy
comminatory
Commines
Comminges
commingled
commingling
commis
commiserate
commiserated
commiseration
commissa
commissariat
commissaries
commissary
Commission
commissionaries
commissioned
commissioner
commissioners
commissioning
Commissions
commit
Commitment
commitments
commits
committal
committals
committed
Committee
Committeeman
Committeemen
committees
committing
commixture
commodious
commodiously
commodities
commodity
Commodore
commodores
Commodus
common
commonable
commonality
commonalty
commoner
commoners
commonest
commonly
commonplace
commonplaces
Commons
Commonweal
commonwealth
commonwealths
commotion
commotions
commun
communa
communal
Communards
Commune
communed
Communeros
communers
communes
communia
communicable
communicant
communicants
communicate
communicated
communicates
communicating
communication
communications
communidades
communie
communio
communion
communions
Communism
communist
Communistic
communists
communitas
communitates
communities
community
commutation
commutations
commutator
commute
commuted
commuting
Commynes
Comnena
Comneni
Comnenian
Comnenius
Comnenos
Comnenus
Como
comon
Comonfort
ComonweIth
Comonwelth
Comorin
comp
compact
Compactata
compacted
compactible
compactly
compactness
compacts
COMPAGNACCI
compagnie
companies
companion
companions
companionship
Company
comparable
comparative
comparatively
compare
compared
compares
comparing
comparison
comparisons
compartments
compass
compassed
compasses
compassing
compassion
compassionate
compatibility
compatible
compatriot
compatriots
COMPAYRÉ
Compayré
compeer
compeers
compel
compellable
compelled
compelling
compels
compendia
Compendious
Compendium
compends
compened
compensate
compensated
compensates
Compensating
compensation
compensations
compensatory
compera
compere
compete
competed
competence
competency
competent
competently
competing
competition
competitions
competitive
competitor
competitors
Compiegne
compilation
compilations
Compiled
compiler
compilers
compiling
Compiègne
complacency
complacent
complacently
complain
complainant
complainants
complained
complaining
complains
complaint
complaints
complaisance
complaisant
compleat
complement
complemental
complementary
complete
Completed
completely
completeness
completer
completes
completest
completing
completion
complex
complexion
complexioned
complexions
complexities
complexity
compliance
compliances
compliant
complicate
complicated
complication
complications
complicity
complied
complies
compliment
complimentary
complimented
compliments
comply
complying
complétée
compo
component
comport
comported
comports
compose
composed
composer
composers
composes
composing
composite
composition
compositions
compositor
COMPOSTELLA
composure
composé
compound
compounded
compounding
compounds
comprehend
comprehended
comprehending
comprehends
comprehensible
comprehension
comprehensive
comprehensively
comprehensiveness
comprenant
compress
Compressed
compressing
comprise
comprised
comprises
comprising
Compromise
compromised
Compromisers
compromises
compromising
Comptes
Compton
Comptroller
comptrollers
compulsion
compulsive
compulsorily
compulsory
compunction
compunctions
COMPURGATION
compurgatores
compurgators
computation
computations
compute
computed
computes
computing
computos
comrade
comrades
comradeship
Comstock
Comtat
Comte
Comtesse
Comtism
COMTÉ
Comté
Comum
Comune
Comus
Comyn
Comédie
comœdia
Con
Conacia
Conahasset
Conaire
Conall
Conan
Conant
conca
concave
conceal
concealed
concealers
concealing
concealment
conceals
conceaue
concede
conceded
Concededly
concedendo
concedes
conceding
conceditur
conceit
conceited
conceits
conceivable
conceivably
conceive
conceived
conceives
conceiving
concentrate
concentrated
concentrates
concentrating
concentration
concentric
concentrically
Concepcion
concept
conception
conceptions
concepts
concern
concerne
concerned
concerneth
Concerning
concernments
concerns
concert
concerted
concerting
concession
Concessionaires
concessions
concesso
Conchobar
concierge
Conciergerie
conciliar
conciliate
conciliated
conciliating
conciliation
conciliator
conciliatory
concilium
concilliated
Concini
Concino
CONCIONES
concise
concisely
conciseness
conclave
conclude
concluded
concludes
concluding
conclusion
conclusions
conclusive
conclusively
concocted
concomitant
CONCON
Concord
Concordat
Concordats
Concorde
Concordia
concourse
concrete
concubinage
concubine
concubines
concur
concurred
concurrence
concurrent
concurrently
concurring
concurs
concussed
concussion
Condamine
Conde
condemn
condemnation
condemnations
condemnatory
condemned
condemning
condemns
condensation
condensed
condenser
condensing
CONDER
condescend
condescended
condescending
condescends
condescension
condign
Condillac
condiment
condita
condition
conditional
conditionally
conditioned
conditions
condito
Conditæ
condominium
condonation
condone
condoned
Condorcanqui
Condorcet
Condore
condotta
Condottiere
Condottieri
CONDRUSI
conduce
conduced
conduces
conducible
conducive
conduct
conducted
conducting
conductor
conductors
conducts
Conduit
conduits
Condy
CONDÉ
Condé
Condés
cone
Conectecotte
Conecticut
Conehobar
Conestoga
Conestogas
Conesus
Coney
confection
confederacies
Confederacy
Confederate
confederated
Confederates
Confederatio
Confederation
confederations
CONFEDS
Confedération
confer
Conference
conferences
conferred
conferring
confers
confess
confessed
confessedly
confesses
confessing
Confession
confessional
Confessionals
confessions
confessor
confessors
Confiance
conficiamur
confidant
confidants
confide
confided
confidence
confident
confidential
confidentially
confidently
confiding
configuration
confine
confined
confinement
confinements
confines
confining
confirm
Confirmatio
confirmation
Confirmations
confirmatory
confirmed
confirming
confirms
confiscate
confiscated
confiscating
Confiscation
confiscations
conflagration
conflagrations
Conflans
Conflict
conflicted
Conflicting
conflicts
confluence
confluent
conflux
conform
conformable
conformably
conformation
conformed
conforming
conformist
Conformists
conformity
confound
confounded
confounding
confounds
confraternities
confraternity
confront
confrontation
confronted
confronting
confronts
confréries
Confucian
Confucianism
Confucius
confuse
confused
confusedly
confuses
confusing
confusion
confusions
Confutation
confuted
Conférences
Cong
congeners
congenial
congenital
congeries
congested
congestion
Congleton
conglomeration
Congo
congratulate
congratulated
congratulates
congratulating
congratulation
congratulations
congregated
congregation
Congregational
Congregationalism
Congregationalist
Congregationalists
congregations
Congress
Congresse
Congresses
Congressional
congressmen
Congreve
congruity
congrès
congréganiste
Coni
Coniah
Conibo
conical
conioyne
conjectural
conjecture
conjectured
conjectures
conjecturing
conjoin
conjoined
conjoint
conjointly
conjugal
conjunct
conjunction
conjunctions
conjunctly
conjuncture
conjunctures
conjuration
conjurations
conjuratores
conjure
conjured
conjuring
conjuror
conjurors
Conkling
Conn
connais
Connaught
Conneaut
connect
connected
CONNECTICUT
connecting
connection
connections
connects
conned
Connell
Connemara
connetable
connexion
connexions
connivance
connive
connived
conniving
connoisseur
connoisseurs
Connolly
CONNOP
CONNOR
Connors
connotation
connoting
connubium
Connétable
Conolly
Conon
Conor
Conoy
CONOYS
conquer
conquered
conquerer
Conquereux
conquering
conqueror
conquerors
conquerour
conquers
conquest
conquests
Conquistador
conquête
Conrad
Conradin
Conrart
Consalvi
Consalvo
consanguinity
conscience
conscienceless
consciences
conscientious
conscientiously
conscionable
conscious
Consciously
consciousness
CONSCRIPT
Conscripti
conscription
conscriptions
conscripts
consecrate
consecrated
consecrating
consecration
consecution
consecutive
consecutively
Conseil
conseiller
consensu
consent
consented
consenting
consents
consequence
consequences
consequent
consequential
Consequently
conserns
conservation
conservatism
Conservative
Conservatives
conservator
conservators
conserve
conserved
consider
considerable
considerably
considerate
consideration
considerations
considered
considering
considers
Considérant
consiglio
consign
consigned
consignee
consignees
consignment
consignments
consignor
consiliarii
Consilio
consilium
Consimili
consist
consisted
consistence
consistency
consistent
consistently
consisting
consistorial
consistoriali
consistories
Consistory
consists
consociate
Consolacion
consolation
consolations
consolato
console
consoled
Consoli
consolidate
consolidated
consolidates
consolidating
consolidation
consolidations
consolidator
consoling
consols
consonance
consonant
consonants
Consort
consorted
consorts
conspicuous
conspicuously
conspiracies
conspiracy
conspiration
conspirator
conspirators
conspire
conspired
conspires
conspiring
Const
constable
constables
constabulary
Constance
constancy
Constans
constant
Constantina
Constantine
Constantinian
Constantinople
Constantinopolitan
CONSTANTINUS
Constantius
constantly
Constanz
Constellation
constellations
consternation
constituencies
constituency
Constituent
constituents
constitute
constituted
constitutes
constituting
Constitution
constitutional
CONSTITUTIONALISM
constitutionalist
Constitutionalists
constitutionality
constitutionally
constitutione
Constitutionel
Constitutionem
constitutiones
Constitutions
constitutive
constrain
constrained
constraining
constrains
constraint
constraints
construct
constructed
constructing
construction
constructionist
Constructionists
constructions
constructive
constructor
constructors
constructs
construe
construed
construes
construing
consubstantial
consubstantiality
consuetudine
consuetudinem
consuetudinibus
consul
consular
consularis
Consulat
Consulate
consulates
Consulatum
consules
consuls
consulship
consulships
consult
consultation
consultations
consultative
consulte
consulted
consulting
Consultore
Consultum
consume
consumed
consumer
consumers
consuming
consummate
consummated
consummating
consummation
consumption
Consus
contact
Contades
contadini
contado
contagia
contagion
contagious
Contagium
contain
contained
containing
contains
contaminated
contaminating
contamination
Contarini
contemned
contemplate
contemplated
contemplates
contemplating
contemplation
contemplations
contemplative
contemplator
contemporaine
CONTEMPORANEOUS
contemporaneously
contemporanous
contemporaries
contemporary
contempt
contemptible
contempts
contemptuous
contemptuously
contend
contended
contending
contends
contenement
content
contented
contentedly
contenting
contention
contentions
contentious
contentment
contents
Contepec
conterminous
contest
contestants
contested
contesting
contests
Conti
contiguity
contiguous
continence
continency
Continent
continental
Continentals
continents
contingencies
contingency
contingent
contingents
continual
continuall
continually
continuance
continuation
continuations
Continuator
continuators
continue
continued
continues
continuing
continuity
continuous
continuously
contio
contiones
contortions
contour
contra
Contraband
Contrabands
contract
contractants
contracted
contractile
contracting
contraction
contractions
contractor
contractors
contracts
Contractual
contradict
contradicted
contradicting
contradiction
contradictions
contradictory
contradicts
contradistinction
contradistinguished
contraries
contrarieties
contrariety
contrariness
contrariwise
contrary
contrast
Contrasted
contrasting
contrasts
Contrat
contravallation
contravene
contravened
contraveners
contravening
contravention
contraventions
Contrecœur
CONTRERAS
contretemps
contribute
contributed
contributes
Contributing
contribution
contributions
Contributionship
contributor
contributors
contributory
contrition
contrivance
contrivances
contrive
contrived
contriver
contrivers
contrives
contriving
control
controlled
controller
controlling
controls
controul
controuling
controversial
controversialist
controversialists
controversies
controversy
controvert
controverted
controvertible
contrées
contumacious
contumacy
contumely
contusions
Contz
convalescence
convalescent
convene
convened
convenes
convenience
conveniences
conveniencies
conveniency
convenient
conveniently
convening
Convent
Conventa
conventicle
conventiclers
conventicles
Convention
conventional
Conventionalists
conventionalities
conventionality
conventionally
conventions
Convento
convents
conventual
conventually
converge
converged
convergent
converging
conversable
conversant
conversation
conversational
conversations
Converse
conversed
conversely
conversing
conversion
conversions
convert
converted
Converters
convertibility
convertible
converting
Convertis
converts
convey
conveyance
conveyances
Conveyancing
conveyed
conveying
conveys
convict
convicted
conviction
convictions
convicts
convince
convinced
convincing
conviviality
Convivæ
convocated
convocation
convocations
convoke
convoked
convokes
convoking
convoy
convoyed
convoying
convoys
convulse
convulsed
convulsion
convulsions
convulsive
Conway
Conybeare
Conyers
coo
cook
Cooke
cooked
cookery
cookhouse
cooking
cooks
cool
cooled
cooler
coolest
Cooley
Coolidge
coolie
coolies
coolly
coolness
COOMASSIE
Coombes
coon
coop
cooped
Cooper
cooperate
cooperated
cooperating
cooperation
cooperative
Cooperstown
coordinate
Coorg
Coos
Coosa
Coosadas
Coote
Cootenai
Copaic
Copan
cope
COPEHAN
Copenam
Copenhagen
Copernicus
copes
Copher
Copiapins
Copiapo
copied
copies
coping
copious
copiously
copiousness
Copohan
Copons
Copp
copper
Copperfield
Copperhead
COPPERHEADS
Coppermine
Coppoc
COPPÉE
Coppée
Copredy
coprologi
Copronymus
copse
Copt
Coptic
COPTOS
Copts
COPWAY
copy
copyhold
copyholders
copying
copyist
copyists
Copyright
Copyrights
Copæic
coquets
coquetted
coquetting
Coquibacoa
Coquille
Coquimbo
cor
Cora
Coradinus
coral
coram
Coran
Corbeil
Corbett
Corbeuil
Corbey
Corbie
Corbilo
Corbin
Corbinian
Corbridge
Corcoran
Corcyra
Corcyreans
Corcyrian
Corcyrians
Corcyru
cord
cordage
Corday
corde
Cordeiro
Cordelier
Cordeliers
Cordery
cordial
cordiality
cordially
cordials
cordillera
cordilleras
Cordilliere
cordis
Cordoba
cordon
Cordova
Cordovan
cords
CORDUENE
corduroy
corduroying
cordwood
Cordyene
core
Corea
Corean
Coreans
Coreish
Corentyn
cores
Corey
CORFINIUM
Corfiotes
Corfu
Coriander
CORINIUM
Corinth
Corinthia
Corinthian
Corinthians
Corintho
Coriolanus
Corioli
Coriondi
CORITANI
CORITAVI
cork
Corkran
corks
Corlear
Cormier
Corn
CORNABII
Cornaro
CORNAVII
Cornbury
corne
Cornehill
Corneille
cornel
Cornelia
Cornelian
Cornelis
Cornelius
Cornell
corner
corners
cornerstone
cornet
Corneto
CORNEWALL
corneæ
cornfields
Cornhill
cornice
cornices
Corniche
corning
Cornish
Cornouaille
Cornouailles
corns
cornucopia
Cornwaleys
Cornwall
Cornwallis
corollaries
corollary
Coromandel
Coron
corona
CORONADO
coronal
coronation
coronations
coronato
Coronatoris
Coronea
Coroneia
Coronel
Coronelli
CORONER
Coroners
coronet
coronets
corporal
corporate
corporation
corporations
corporative
corporators
Corporeal
corps
corpse
corpses
corpulent
Corpus
corpuscles
Correa
correct
corrected
correcter
correcting
correction
corrections
corrective
correctly
correctness
corrects
Correggi
Correggio
Corregidor
Corregimiento
correlated
correlative
Correr
correspond
Correspondance
corresponded
Correspondence
correspondences
correspondency
correspondent
correspondents
corresponding
correspondingly
corresponds
corridor
corridors
Corrientes
corrigé
corrigée
Corrispondenza
corroborate
corroborated
corroborates
corroborating
corroboration
corroborative
corrosion
corrupt
corrupted
corrupter
corrupters
corruptibility
corruptible
corrupting
corruption
corruptions
corruptly
corrupts
Corrèze
corsair
corsairs
corsarios
Corse
corselets
Corsi
CORSICA
Corsican
Corsicans
Corsini
corslet
Corso
Corstiaensen
CORTAMBERT
Corte
cortege
Cortenuova
Cortereal
Corterealis
Cortereals
Cortes
Cortez
CORTLANDT
Cortona
CORTÉS
cortège
Cortès
Cortés
Cortéz
Corunna
CORUPEDION
Coruña
corvette
corvettes
Corvey
Corvinus
Corvo
Corvus
CORVÉE
corvée
corvées
Corwin
Cory
Cos
Cosa
Cosby
Cosimo
Cosmas
Cosmedin
Cosmetes
cosmic
Cosmical
COSMIOS
Cosmo
cosmographer
cosmographers
Cosmographia
Cosmographic
Cosmography
Cosmopolis
cosmopolitan
cosmopolite
Cosmos
Cosmé
COSNAC
Cosninos
Cospeau
Cossa
Cossack
Cossacks
Cosse
Cossus
COSSÆANS
Cossé
cost
Costa
Costaldo
costano
COSTANOAN
Costar
costas
Coste
Costello
Coster
Costeriana
costing
costliness
costly
costs
Costume
costumes
Costümkunde
Cosumalwhuapa
Cosumne
cosy
Cosá
Cotantin
cotarii
Cotentin
Cotereaux
coterie
coterminous
cotes
Cotesworth
COTHON
Cotin
Cotoname
cots
COTSETI
cotta
cottage
cottager
cottagers
cottages
cottah
cottars
Cottenham
COTTER
Cottereau
cotters
Cottian
cottier
cottiers
COTTON
Cottoni
Cottonian
cottons
Cottu
COTY
Coubertin
couch
couched
couches
Coucy
Coudres
Coues
cough
coughed
coul
Coulanges
could
COULMIERS
Coulon
Coulonges
Council
Councillor
councillors
councilman
councilmen
councilor
councilors
Councils
counsel
counseled
counselled
counselling
counsellor
Counsellors
counselor
counselors
counsels
Count
countable
counted
countenance
countenanced
countenances
countenancing
counter
counteract
counteracted
counteracting
counteraction
counterbalance
counterbalanced
counterbalances
counterbalancing
counterfeit
counterfeited
counterfeiting
counterflory
counterforts
countermand
countermanded
countermanding
countermarch
countermarched
countermarches
countermarching
countermining
counterpart
counterpoint
counterpoise
counterpoises
counters
counterscarp
counterscarps
countersign
countersignature
countersigned
countersigns
countervail
countervailed
countervailing
counterweight
counterwork
counterworking
Countess
countesses
counties
counting
countless
countries
country
countrye
countryman
countrymen
countrywomen
counts
countship
countships
County
Coup
Couperie
couple
coupled
couples
couplets
Coupling
coupons
Cour
courage
courageous
courageously
Courant
Courbet
Courbevoie
Courbevoye
Courbieres
Courcelles
Courcies
COUREN
Coureurs
Courier
couriers
Courland
Courlander
couroultai
Courrier
cours
course
coursers
courses
coursing
court
Courte
courted
Courten
Courtenay
courteous
courteously
courtesan
courtesans
courtesies
courtesy
courtezan
courtezans
Courthouse
Courtier
courtiers
courting
Courtlandt
courtly
Courtney
Courtrai
Courtray
courts
courtyard
courtyards
cousin
Cousine
cousins
Cousiots
Coutances
Couthon
Coutras
COUTTS
coutume
coutumes
Couwenhoven
Couza
COVADONGA
Cove
covenant
covenanted
Covenanters
covenanting
COVENANTS
Covent
Coventry
cover
Coverdale
covered
covering
Coverley
covers
covert
covertly
coverts
covet
covetable
coveted
covetous
covetousness
Covilham
Covilho
Covilhão
Covillan
Covington
Covode
cow
Cowan
coward
cowardice
cowardly
cowards
COWBOYS
Cowdery
Cowdrey
cowed
cower
cowering
Cowes
Cowesets
Coweta
cowherding
cowhides
cowl
Cowley
Cowp
Cowpens
Cowper
cows
Cox
Coxe
Coxey
Coxon
Coyoteros
Coze
cozening
Cozenza
COZZENS
coöperate
coöperating
coöperation
coöperators
coûte
Crabb
Crabbe
crabs
crack
cracked
cracker
cracking
crackling
cracks
CRACOW
cradle
cradled
cradles
cradling
Cradock
craft
craftiest
craftily
craftiness
crafts
craftsman
craftsmen
crafty
crag
cragged
craggy
Cragie
crags
Craig
Craigellachie
CRAIK
Crain
Craiova
CRAL
Cramandus
Cramer
crammed
Cramond
cramped
Crampel
cramps
Crampton
Cranach
Cranborne
Cranch
Crane
Craney
Cranfill
CRANGALLIDÆ
Crania
cranium
crank
cranky
Cranmer
CRANNOGES
CRANNON
Crantz
Cranz
Craon
CRAONNE
crape
crash
crashed
crashes
crashing
Crasna
Crassus
crater
craters
CRATERUS
Crato
Crauford
Craugallidæ
cravat
craved
Craven
craving
cravings
Crawfish
Crawford
crawl
crawled
crawling
Cray
Crayford
craze
crazed
crazes
crazy
cream
Creasy
create
created
creates
creating
creation
creations
creative
creativeness
creator
creators
creature
creatures
Creci
Crecy
credence
credentials
Credenza
credibility
credible
credibly
credit
creditable
creditably
credited
crediting
creditor
creditors
credits
Credo
credulity
credulous
Cree
creed
creedal
creeds
Creek
Creeks
creep
creepers
creeping
Crees
Crefeld
Cregier
CREIGHTON
Crema
Cremona
Cremonese
Crenaic
Creole
Creoles
CREONES
CREPAZ
crept
Crequi
Crerar
Cresap
Crescens
CRESCENT
Crescentius
Crespi
Crespo
CRESPY
Cressy
crest
cresting
crests
Creswel
Creswell
Cretan
Cretans
CRETE
Cretes
Cretté
Creuse
Crevelt
crevice
crevices
CREVIER
crew
crews
criar
cribbed
Crichton
cricket
Crie
cried
Crieff
crier
criers
cries
Crignon
Crim
crime
Crimea
Crimean
crimen
crimes
criminal
criminality
criminally
criminals
criminate
crimination
criminatory
Criminous
crimping
crimson
Crinas
cringing
criollo
cripple
crippled
cripples
crippling
Crisa
crises
CRISFIELD
crisis
crisp
Crispo
Crispus
crispy
CRISSA
Crissæan
Cristoforo
Cristophe
Crit
criteria
criterion
Critias
critic
Critical
critically
criticise
criticised
criticises
criticising
criticism
criticisms
criticize
criticized
criticizing
Critico
critics
Critique
critiques
Crittenden
Cro
croaking
Croat
Croatan
Croatans
Croatia
Croatian
Croatians
Croatorum
Croats
Croce
Crocker
crocodiles
Croesus
croft
crofts
Croghan
Croia
Croix
Croker
Crom
Cromarty
Cromberger
cromlech
CROMLECHS
Crompton
Cromwell
Cromwellian
Cromwellians
Cromwells
Cronaca
Cronistoria
Cronstadt
Crook
crooked
crookedly
crookedness
crop
cropped
Croppy
crops
Cros
Crosby
crosier
Crosne
Cross
Crosse
crossed
crosses
crosseth
crossing
crossings
Crosswell
crosswise
crotchetty
Croton
CROTONA
Crotoy
Crouchback
crouched
crouching
crounes
croupiers
Crow
crowbars
crowd
crowded
crowding
Crowds
Crowe
Crowell
Crowley
crown
Crowne
crowned
crowning
crowns
Crows
Crowther
Croy
Croydon
Croyland
Crozat
crozier
croziers
Cruces
crucial
cruciati
crucified
crucifix
crucifixes
crucifixion
crucify
crucifying
Crucis
crude
Crudeli
crudest
crudities
crudity
cruel
crueler
cruelest
cruellest
cruelly
cruelness
cruelties
cruelty
Cruft
Cruikshank
cruise
cruised
cruiser
cruisers
cruises
cruising
Cruithentuath
Cruithne
Cruithneehan
CRUITHNIANS
Cruithnig
CRUITHNIGH
crumb
crumble
crumbled
crumbles
crumbling
crumbs
Crump
Crumwell
crural
crusade
crusader
crusaders
Crusades
Crusading
crush
crushed
crushes
crushing
crushingly
Crusoe
crust
crusty
crut
Cruttwell
Cruz
cry
crying
Crynsenn
crypt
CRYPTEIA
crypts
crystal
crystalizing
crystallised
crystallize
crystallized
CRÉCY
Crèvecœur
Crèveœur
Crécy
Crémieux
Créqui
Crête
Crêtois
Crœsus
Csepel
Csoma
ct
Ctesias
Ctesiphon
cts
Cuango
CUATOS
Cuba
Cubagua
Cuban
cube
cubic
Cubicularius
cubit
cubits
Cubitt
cubitus
cubs
Cuchan
cuckoo
Cucogry
cucumber
Cucuta
cudgel
cudgelling
cudgels
Cudjoe
cue
cueillettes
Cuenca
Cuernavaca
Cuesta
Cueva
Cufa
cuffed
Cuicidh
cuirass
cuirassiers
Cuitlahua
Cujas
cujus
Cukulcan
Culdee
Culdees
Culebra
Culenborg
Culeus
Culhua
Culhuacan
Culhuas
culinary
culled
Cullen
Culloch
CULLODEN
Cullum
Culm
culminate
culminated
culminates
culminating
culmination
Culmore
culottes
culottid
Culp
culpabilis
culpability
culpable
culpably
Culpeper
Culpepper
culprit
culprits
cult
cultivable
cultivate
cultivated
cultivating
cultivation
cultivations
cultivator
cultivators
cults
culture
cultured
cultures
Culturkampf
cultus
cum
Cuma
Cumaean
Cumaeans
Cumamá
Cuman
Cumana
Cumanians
Cumans
Cumaná
cumbered
Cumberland
cumbersome
Cumbrense
Cumbria
Cumbrian
cumbrous
cumbrousness
Cumino
Cummin
Cumming
Cummings
Cumnock
cumulative
cumulatively
Cumurgi
CUMÆ
CUMÆAN
Cumæ
Cumæan
Cumæans
CUNARD
Cunaxa
Cunctator
Cundinamarca
Cuneda
Cunegonda
cuneiform
cunens
Cuneo
Cuneus
Cunibert
CUNIBERTUS
Cunigunda
CUNIMARÉ
Cunimaré
Cunn
cunning
Cunningham
cunningly
Cuno
Cunobelin
Cuoq
cup
cupbearer
cupbearers
cupboard
Cupharas
cupidities
cupidity
cupolas
cupping
Cupples
cups
Cur
cura
curate
curates
curative
curator
curators
Curazao
Curaçoa
curb
curbed
curbing
curbs
curdling
CURDS
cure
cured
cures
cureth
Cureton
Curetonian
curfew
Curia
Curial
curiales
CURIATA
curies
curing
Curio
curiosities
curiosity
Curiosolitae
CURIOSOLITÆ
curious
curiously
Curius
curiæ
curled
curlier
curling
curly
Curntorium
Currachan
Curran
currants
currencies
currency
current
currently
currents
curricula
curriculum
Currier
CURRY
curse
cursed
curses
cursing
cursive
Cursor
cursory
cursu
curt
curtailed
curtailing
curtailment
curtain
curtains
Curteis
Curtin
Curtis
Curtius
curtly
curule
Curulis
curvature
curve
curved
curves
curvilinear
Curwin
Curzola
CURZON
curé
curés
Cusco
Cush
Cushan
Cushing
cushion
cushions
Cushite
CUSHITES
Cushman
Cushna
Cusick
cusses
Cust
CUSTER
Custine
custodes
custodian
custodiat
custodiers
custody
custom
customarily
customary
customer
customers
Customhouse
customs
custos
Custozza
Custrin
cut
cutaneous
Cutha
Cuthah
Cuthbert
Cutheans
Cuthæan
Cutlasses
Cutler
cutlery
cutoff
cuts
Cutt
Cutter
cutters
cutthroats
cutting
Cutts
Cuttyhunk
Cuvier
Cuyahoga
Cuyo
Cuyriri
Cuza
Cuzco
Cwen
cwt
Cy
Cyana
Cyane
Cyaxares
Cybele
Cyclades
Cyclatic
cycle
Cycles
cyclone
Cyclop
Cyclopean
Cyclopedia
cyclopedias
Cyclopedic
Cyclopes
Cyclops
CYCLOPÆDIA
Cyclopædia
Cyclopœdia
Cydnus
Cydonia
Cyges
Cygnes
Cygony
cylinder
cylinders
cylindrical
Cylon
Cym
cymbals
Cymbeline
Cyme
Cymon
Cymri
Cymric
Cymru
Cymry
Cyn
cynebarn
cynecyn
cynedom
cynehelm
cynehlaford
cynic
cynical
cynically
cynicism
cynics
Cyning
Cynosarges
CYNOSCEPHALÆ
Cynoscephalæ
Cynossema
Cynric
CYNURIANS
cypher
cyphered
Cyphus
cypress
cypresses
Cypria
Cyprian
Cypriot
Cypriots
Cyprus
Cyr
Cyran
CYREANS
Cyrenaica
Cyrenaïca
Cyrene
Cyreneans
Cyrenius
Cyria
Cyril
Cyrillic
Cyrillus
Cyropedia
Cyropædia
Cyrrhus
Cyrus
Cythera
Cytheron
Cyzicum
Cyzicus
Czar
Czardom
Czarean
czarina
Czarovitz
Czars
Czartoriskys
CZARTORYSKI
Czas
Czaslau
Czech
Czechs
Czekhs
Czenstochovo
Czernicheff
Czernitz
Czernowitz
Czerny
CÆLLAN
CÆSAR
CÆSAREA
CÆSARIENSIS
CÆSAROMAGUS
CÆSARS
CÉVENNES
Càn
Câteau
Câtelet
Cæcilius
Cæcina
Cædmon
Cælean
Cælian
Cæpio
Cære
Cæsalpina
Cæsalpinus
Cæsar
Cæsaraugusta
Cæsarea
Cæsarean
Cæsareia
Cæsarian
Cæsariensis
Cæsarius
Cæsaromagus
Cæsars
Cæsarship
Cèloron
Cé
Célman
César
Cévennes
Cévenol
Cívica
Córdoba
Côte
Côtentin
Côtes
Cöln
CŒLE
CŒNOBITES
CŒNOBIUM
Cœle
Cœlebs
Cœli
Cœlian
Cœlo
Cœlos
Cœlosyria
cœnobite
cœnobites
Cœnobium
Cœur
Cœuvres
da
dabbled
Dabik
Dablon
Dabney
DACCA
Dach
Dachtelfield
Daci
DACIA
Dacian
Dacians
DACOITS
Dacotahs
DACOTAS
Dacres
Dactyli
dad
Dade
Daft
Dag
dagg
dagger
daggers
Dagh
Daghestan
Dagobert
dagon
Daguerre
dah
Dahcota
Dahcotah
Dahcotas
Daher
DAHIS
Dahl
Dahlgren
Dahlmann
DAHN
Dahna
Dahomey
Dahra
Dai
Daigakku
Dailamy
dailies
Daily
Daimbert
daimio
Daimios
daimyos
dain
daintily
daintiness
dainty
Dair
dairy
dais
Dakoit
Dakoitee
DAKOITS
Dakota
DAKOTAS
Daksha
Dakshinapatha
Dakyns
dal
DALAI
Dalaradia
Dalberg
Dalboquerque
DALCASSIANS
Daldy
Dale
Dalecarlia
dales
Dalesmen
Dalhgren
Dalhousie
Dalia
Dalkey
Dall
Dallas
Dalles
dalliance
dallied
Dalling
dallying
DALMATIA
Dalmatian
Dalmatians
Dalmaticæ
Dalmatius
Dalminium
Dalriada
Dalriadic
Dalriads
Dalrymple
Dalswinton
Dalton
Dalzell
dam
damage
damaged
damages
damaging
Damara
Damaraland
Damaras
Damaris
Damas
Damascene
Damascus
damask
damasks
Damasus
Dambrowka
Dame
DAMES
Damiani
Damianus
Damiens
DAMIETTA
Damis
Damm
Dammartin
Damme
dammed
DAMMIM
damming
damnable
damnation
damnatory
damned
damnified
DAMNII
damning
Damnonia
Damnonii
Damnoniorum
damnum
Damocles
damoisel
damoiselle
damoisil
damp
damped
dampened
Dampier
Dampierre
dampness
Damrémont
Dams
damsel
damsels
Damville
Damvillers
Damyanics
Dan
Dana
DANAAN
Danaans
DANAIDÆ
Danaidæ
Danaus
Danbury
Danby
dance
danced
dancer
dancers
dances
dancing
Dandolo
DANDRIDGE
dandy
Dane
DANEGELD
danegelt
DANELAGA
Danelagh
DANELAU
Danelaw
Danes
Danewerk
Dang
danger
Dangerfield
dangerous
dangerously
dangers
DANGIN
dangled
Danglia
dangling
Dani
Danican
Daniel
Danification
Danilo
Danish
Danite
Danites
Danl
Dannewerk
Dannewerke
dans
Dansville
Dante
Danton
Dantonists
Dantzic
Dantzick
Dantzickers
Dantzig
Danube
Danubian
Danuna
Danvers
Danville
danzel
Danzig
Daphnae
Daphne
Daphnus
Daphnusia
DAR
Dara
Darayeh
DARBAR
Darboy
Darby
Darc
Dardanelle
Dardanelles
Dardani
Dardania
DARDANIANS
Dardanides
Dardanus
Dardenne
dare
dared
Dareios
dares
DARESTE
Darfoor
Darfur
Dargham
Dargo
Darien
daring
daringly
Darini
Dariorigum
Darius
Darjeeling
dark
darken
darkened
darkening
darkenings
darkens
darker
darkest
darkling
darkly
darkness
Darling
darlings
Darlington
Darmesteter
Darmstadt
darning
Darnley
DARORIGUM
Darrahh
Darras
Darrein
Darstellung
Darstellungen
dart
darted
Darthé
darting
Dartmouth
Darton
darts
Daru
Darwin
Darya
das
Dasas
Daschkaw
Dasent
dash
dashed
dashes
dashing
Dashwood
Dastagerd
dastard
dastardly
DASYUS
data
Dataria
date
dated
dates
Dathan
dating
Datis
datum
daubed
daughter
daughters
Daula
Daun
Daunians
Daunou
daunt
daunted
dauntless
dauntlessly
dauphin
Dauphine
dauphins
Dauphiny
Dauphiné
Davaine
Davenant
DAVENPORT
Daventry
DAVID
Davidic
Davidowich
DAVIDS
Davidson
Davies
Davila
Davin
Davis
Davison
Davitt
Davos
Davoust
Davout
Davy
dawdling
Dawes
Dawkins
dawn
dawned
dawning
dawns
Dawson
Dax
day
DAYAKS
daybreak
dayes
daylight
days
Daystar
daytime
Dayton
dazed
dazzle
dazzled
dazzles
dazzling
Daïdu
daïs
dc
Dda
de
Deacon
deacons
dead
deaden
deadened
deadlier
deadliest
deadliness
deadlock
deadly
deaf
deafness
Deak
deal
deale
dealer
dealers
dealing
dealings
deals
dealt
Dean
Deane
deans
dear
DEARBORN
dearer
dearest
dearly
dearness
dearth
Dease
death
deathbed
deathblow
deathless
deathly
deaths
Deaver
debar
debarcation
debarkation
debarked
debarred
debars
debase
debased
debasement
debasing
debatable
Debate
debated
debater
debates
debating
debauch
debauched
debauchee
debaucheries
debauchery
Debbeh
debentures
DEBIDOUR
debilitated
debility
debits
Debonnaire
Deborah
debouched
DEBRECZIN
debris
Debry
Debs
debt
debtes
debtor
debtors
debts
Dec
decade
decadence
decadences
decadent
Decades
Decalogue
Decameron
Decamisados
decamped
decanter
decapitalising
decapitate
decapitated
Decapolis
Decatur
decay
decayed
decaying
decays
Decazes
Deccan
decease
deceased
deceases
deceit
deceitful
deceitfully
deceive
deceived
deceives
deceiving
Decelea
Decelean
Decelia
DECELIAN
December
Decembrists
decemviral
decemvirate
DECEMVIRS
decencies
decency
decennial
decennium
decent
decently
decentralization
deception
deceptive
dechéance
Decian
Decianus
decide
decided
decidedly
decides
deciding
decimal
deciman
decimated
decimating
decimation
Decimus
deciphered
decipherer
deciphering
decipherment
decision
decisions
decisive
decisively
decisivum
Decius
deck
Deckan
decked
Decken
decker
decking
decks
Decl
declaim
declaimed
declaimers
declaiming
declamation
declamations
declamatory
Declaration
declarations
Declaratory
declare
declared
declares
declaring
declension
declination
decline
declined
declines
declining
declivities
declivity
decoction
decoctions
decomposing
decomposition
decompositions
decorate
decorated
decorating
decoration
decorations
decorative
decorator
decorous
decorum
decoyed
decoys
decrease
decreased
decreasing
decree
decreed
decreeing
decrees
decrepit
decrepitude
Decreta
Decretal
Decretals
Decretum
decreverit
decried
DECRUE
decry
Decrès
DECUMATES
DECUMÆ
decumæ
decurion
DECURIONES
decurions
Dedham
dedicate
dedicated
dedicates
dedicating
dedication
dedicatory
dedimus
DEDITITIUS
Dedo
deduce
deduced
deduces
deduct
deducted
deducting
deduction
deductions
Dee
deed
deeds
deem
deemed
deeming
deems
deemsters
Deen
deep
deepen
deepened
deepening
deeper
deepest
deeply
deer
Deerfield
Deerhound
defaced
defacement
defamation
defamatory
defame
default
defaulted
defaulter
defaulters
defaulting
defeasance
Defeat
defeated
defeating
defeats
defecation
defect
defection
defections
defective
defects
Defence
defenceless
defencelessness
defences
defend
defendant
defendants
defended
defender
defenders
defending
defends
DEFENESTRATION
defense
defenseless
defenses
defensible
defensibleness
defensive
defensively
defer
deference
deferential
deferred
deferring
defeudalized
defiance
defiances
defiant
defiantly
deficiencies
deficiency
deficient
deficit
defied
defile
defiled
defilement
defiles
definable
define
defined
defines
defining
definite
definitely
definiteness
definition
definitions
definitive
definitively
deflect
deflected
deflection
deflexion
deflowered
Defnsætas
Defoe
DEFOREST
deform
deformations
deformed
deforming
deformity
defraud
defrauded
defrauders
defrauding
defray
defrayal
defrayed
defraying
defrays
defter
Defterdars
defunct
defy
defying
degeneracy
degenerate
degenerated
degenerating
degeneration
degl
degli
degradation
degradations
degrade
degraded
degrading
degree
Degrees
Deh
Dehehs
Dehli
Dehomé
dehors
Dei
deicide
DEICOLÆ
Deicolæ
deification
deified
deifies
Deifyr
deign
deigned
deigning
deigns
Deion
Deir
Deira
deism
deities
deity
dejected
dejecting
dejection
Dekarchies
DEKELEIA
DEKELEIAN
Dekhan
Dekhun
Dekrete
del
DeLa
Delacroix
Delagrave
Delahaye
Delahays
Delalain
DELAMARCHE
Delancey
Delaplace
DELATION
delator
delatores
DELATORS
Delaware
Delawares
Delawarr
delay
delayed
Delayer
delaying
delays
DELBRÜCK
Delbrück
dele
delegate
delegated
delegates
delegating
delegation
Delegations
Deleitosa
delenda
Delepierre
Deleseluze
Delessart
deleterious
Deleyannes
Deleytosa
Delfino
Delfosse
Delft
Delhi
Delian
Delians
deliberandum
deliberate
deliberated
deliberately
deliberateness
deliberates
deliberating
deliberation
deliberations
deliberative
delicacy
delicate
delicious
delicto
delicts
delight
delighted
delightful
delighting
delights
Deligrad
delimitation
delineated
delineation
delinquencies
delinquency
delinquent
delinquents
delirious
delirium
delit
Delitzsch
Delitzsche
DELIUM
deliver
deliverance
delivered
deliverer
deliverers
deliveries
delivering
delivers
delivery
DELL
Della
delle
dello
Delmas
Delmenhorst
Delort
DELOS
Deloume
DELPHI
Delphian
Delphians
Delphic
Delphion
Delta
delude
deluded
deludes
deluding
deluge
deluged
delusion
delusions
Delusive
dem
Demades
demagogic
demagogue
demagoguery
demagogues
demagogy
demand
demanded
demanding
demands
Demaratos
Demaratus
demarcation
demarch
demarkation
Dembinski
deme
demeaned
demeaning
demeanor
demeanour
demented
Demerara
Demerera
demerits
demes
demesne
demesnes
demesnial
Demetae
Demeter
DEMETES
Demetrias
Demetrios
Demetrius
demi
demigod
demigods
demise
demised
demission
demitting
DEMIURGI
Demiurgus
Demmler
Democedes
democracies
democracy
Democrat
democratic
democratical
democratically
Democratie
democratische
democratised
democratists
democratize
democratizing
Democrats
Demoiselle
Demokrat
Demokratie
demolish
demolished
demolisher
demolishing
demolition
Demombynes
demon
demonetization
demonetized
demoniac
demoniacal
demonic
demonism
demons
demonstrably
demonstrate
demonstrated
demonstrates
demonstrating
demonstration
demonstrations
demonstrative
Demont
demoralisation
demoralised
demoralising
Demoralization
demoralizations
demoralize
demoralized
demoralizes
demoralizing
Demos
Demosthenes
Demotic
Demuchus
demur
demure
demurred
demurrer
demurrers
demurring
demurs
den
Dena
DENAIN
DENAIX
Denarii
denarius
denars
denationalised
denationalized
Denbigh
Denbighshire
Dender
Dendermonde
Dene
Denghil
Dengis
Denham
denhorst
Denia
denial
denials
denied
deniers
denies
denighroghkwayen
Deniker
DENINA
Denis
Denison
denizen
denizens
DENKERN
Denkwürdigkeiten
Denman
Denmark
Dennequin
DENNEWITZ
DENNIKON
Dennis
Dennison
Dennistoun
denominate
denominated
denominates
denominating
denomination
denominational
denominations
denominative
Denonville
denote
denoted
denotes
denoting
denounce
denounced
denouncers
denounces
denouncing
dens
dense
densely
denser
densest
density
DENT
dentist
dentistry
dentists
Denton
Dentu
denuded
denunciation
denunciations
denunciatory
Denver
deny
denyed
denying
Denys
Denzil
Deo
deodands
Deodoro
Deora
DEORHAM
depart
departed
departing
department
departmental
Departments
departure
departures
depe
depend
dependant
dependants
depended
dependence
dependences
dependencies
dependency
dependent
dependents
depending
depends
depict
depicted
depicting
depicts
depleted
depleting
depletion
deplorable
deplorably
deplore
deplored
deploring
deploy
deployed
deployment
depopulated
depopulating
depopulation
Deportation
deported
deportment
depose
deposed
deposing
deposit
depositaries
depositary
deposite
deposited
deposition
depositions
depositories
depositors
depository
deposits
depot
depots
Depous
depravation
deprave
depraved
depraving
depravity
deprecate
deprecated
deprecation
deprecatory
depreciate
depreciated
depreciating
depreciation
depredation
depredations
depredators
depress
depressed
depresses
depressing
depression
depressions
deprivation
deprivations
deprive
deprived
deprives
depriving
Deptford
depth
depths
depui
depuis
deputantur
deputation
deputations
depute
deputed
deputies
deputy
deputyes
depôt
depôts
der
deranged
derangement
derangements
Derbe
Derbend
Derby
Derbyite
Derbyshire
Derdia
derechio
derelict
dereliction
Derezgye
derided
derision
derisively
derivation
derivations
derivative
derivatives
derive
derived
derives
deriving
Dermer
Dermot
Derna
dernierement
derogate
derogation
derogatory
derringer
Derry
Dertad
Dervish
dervishes
Derwent
Derwentwater
Des
Desaix
Desaugier
Desbordes
Desborough
descanted
descanting
Descartes
descend
descendant
descendants
descended
descendents
descendible
descending
descends
descent
descents
Deschamps
Desclee
describe
described
describes
describing
descried
descriptae
descriptio
description
Descriptiones
descriptive
descriptus
descry
Desdemona
desecrate
desecrated
desecrating
desecration
Deseret
desert
deserted
deserter
deserters
deserting
Desertion
desertions
deserts
deserve
deserved
deservedly
deserves
deserving
Desht
Deshti
Desiderius
desiertas
design
designate
designated
designates
designating
designation
designations
designed
designedly
designing
designs
Desilver
desirability
desirable
desirableness
desirably
Desirade
desire
desired
desirers
desires
desiring
desirous
desist
desisted
desisting
DESJARDIN
desk
desks
Desmarets
Desmichels
Desmond
DESMONDS
Desmoulins
Desney
Desnouettes
desolate
desolated
desolates
desolating
desolation
desolution
despair
despaired
despairing
despairingly
despairs
despatch
despatched
Despatches
despatching
despende
despendeth
Despenser
despent
desperadoes
desperate
desperately
desperation
despicable
despicably
despise
despised
despiser
despisers
despises
despising
Despite
despoil
despoiled
despoiling
despoils
Despois
despoliation
despondency
despondently
desponding
Desponsamus
desponsationis
Despot
despotat
despotats
despotic
despotical
despotically
despotism
despotisms
despots
Desrues
Dessaix
Dessalines
DESSAU
Dessequebe
Dessoles
destination
destinations
destined
destinies
Destiny
Destinée
destitute
destitution
Destouches
Destrem
Destrieri
Destriero
DESTRIERS
destroy
destroyed
destroyer
destroyers
destroying
destroys
destruction
destructive
destructively
destructiveness
desuetude
desultory
detach
detached
detaches
detaching
detachment
detachments
detail
detailed
detailing
details
detain
detained
Detainer
detaining
detect
detected
detection
detective
detectives
detention
deter
deteriorate
deteriorated
deteriorating
deterioration
determinable
determinate
determinately
determination
determinations
determine
determined
determines
determining
deterred
deterrent
deterring
detest
detestable
detestation
detested
detesting
dethrone
dethroned
dethronement
dethrones
dethroning
detinue
Detmold
detour
detract
detracting
detraction
detractors
detracts
detriment
detrimental
Detroit
Dettingen
Deucalion
Deum
Deums
deus
Deusdedit
Deut
deuten
Deuteronomy
Deutsch
DEUTSCHBROD
Deutsche
deutschen
Deutscher
Deutsches
Deutschland
Deutschlands
Deux
DEVA
Devan
Devana
devant
devas
devastate
devastated
devastating
devastation
devastations
devastator
DEVE
deveigne
develop
develope
developed
developing
development
developments
develops
Devens
Deventer
Devereux
devested
Devi
deviate
deviated
deviation
deviations
device
devices
devil
devilish
devilry
devils
DeVinné
devious
devisable
devise
devised
devisee
devising
Devizes
devoid
devolve
devolved
devolves
devolving
Devon
Devonshire
devote
devoted
devotedly
devotedness
devotee
devotees
devotes
devoting
devotion
devotional
devotions
devour
devoured
devouring
devours
devout
devouter
devoutly
devoutness
Dewey
Dewhurst
Dewitt
DeWitts
DeWolfe
dews
Dexippus
Dexter
dexterity
dexterous
dexterously
Dey
Deynse
Deza
Dezevo
Deák
Dharma
Dhegiha
DHIHAD
dhing
Dhuleep
di
Diablintes
diabolic
diabolical
Diaconus
Diacrii
diadem
diadems
Diadochi
Diadorus
Diadumenianus
diagnosis
diagonal
diagonally
diagrams
Dial
dialect
dialectic
dialectical
dialectician
dialectics
dialects
Dialis
dialogue
dialogues
Dialogus
dials
diameter
diametrically
Diamond
diamonds
Diana
diapered
diaphragm
Diarbekir
Diarbekr
Diaries
diarist
Diarmaid
diarrhœa
Diary
Diaspora
diathesis
diatribe
diatribes
Diaz
Dic
DICASTERIA
dicasts
dice
Diceto
Dicey
dichalchon
Dichu
dicitur
Dick
Dicken
DICKENS
Dickenson
Dickinson
Dickson
Dict
dicta
dictate
dictated
dictates
dictating
dictation
dictations
dictator
dictatorial
dictators
dictatorship
dictatorships
Dictes
diction
dictionaire
dictionaries
Dictionary
Dictionnaire
dictum
did
didactic
didactics
didaskalos
didaxia
didaxum
Diderot
Didia
DIDIAN
DIDIER
Didius
Didja
didn
Dido
didst
didyma
DIDYMÆUM
Didymæum
Die
Diebitcb
Diebitch
Diebitsch
Dieci
died
Diedenhofen
Diedrich
Diego
diem
Dieman
Diemel
DIEMEN
dienen
Dienstmannen
Dieppe
dies
Dieskau
Diet
Dieterici
dietetics
Diether
Dietine
Dietrich
diets
Dietz
Dietzel
Dieu
Dieulafoy
Diez
differ
differed
difference
differences
different
differential
differentiate
differentiated
differentiates
differently
differing
differs
difficult
difficulties
difficulty
diffidatio
diffidation
diffidationis
diffidence
diffuse
diffused
diffusible
diffusing
diffusion
diffusions
dig
DIGBY
Digest
digested
Digester
digesting
digestion
digged
diggers
digging
diggings
Diggs
Digiti
digits
Digma
Digna
digne
dignes
dignified
dignify
dignifying
dignitaries
dignitary
dignities
dignity
dignus
digs
Diis
Dijmphna
Dijon
dikastery
dike
dikes
Dikæarchus
dilapidated
dilapidation
dilapidations
dilate
dilated
dilatoriness
dilatory
Dilemite
DILEMITES
dilemma
dilettant
dilettante
dilettanti
Dilhasha
diligence
diligent
diligente
diligently
DILKE
dill
Dillemburg
Dillenbourg
Dillenburg
Dillon
Dilly
dilute
diluted
dim
Diman
dimensions
Dimetia
diminish
diminished
diminishes
diminishing
diminution
diminutive
diminutives
Dimitrievitch
Dimitry
dimly
dimmed
dimmer
dimmest
dimness
din
DINAN
Dinanderie
DINANT
dinars
Dindaleathglass
Dindymon
dine
dined
Dingaan
dinginess
dingirra
dingles
dingy
dining
Dinis
dinner
dinners
dint
DINWIDDIE
Dio
DIOBOLY
diocesan
diocesans
diocese
dioceses
Dioclesian
Diocletian
Diod
Diodorus
Diodotus
Diogenes
Diognetus
Diogo
DIOKLES
Dioklesian
DIOKLÉS
Dioklês
Diomed
Diomede
Diomedon
Diomos
Dion
Dionisius
Dionondadies
Dionys
Dionysia
Dionysiac
Dionysiak
Dionysian
Dionysios
Dionysius
Dionysos
Dionysus
Diophanes
Diophantus
diorite
Dios
Dioscorides
Dioscurias
Diosemia
diot
dip
Dipalpur
diphtheria
diphtheritis
diphthong
diplax
diploma
Diplomacy
diplomas
diplomat
diplomatic
diplomatically
Diplomaticus
diplomatique
diplomatising
diplomatist
diplomatists
diplomatized
diplomats
dipped
dipping
DIPPOLD
Dippoldiswalde
dipsomaniac
Dipylum
Dir
Dirce
Dircks
dire
direct
directed
directing
direction
directions
directive
directly
Director
Directorate
directorial
directories
directors
Directory
directs
direful
dirges
Dirk
Dirks
Dirkson
dirt
dirty
dis
disabilities
disability
disabled
disabling
disabused
disabusing
disadvantage
disadvantageous
disadvantages
disaffect
disaffected
disaffection
disafforesting
disagree
disagreeable
disagreeably
disagreed
disagreement
disagreements
disallow
disallowance
disallowed
disallowing
disappear
disappearance
disappearances
disappeared
disappearing
disappears
disappoint
disappointed
disappointing
disappointment
disappointments
disapprobation
disappropriation
disapproval
disapprove
disapproved
disapproves
disapproving
disarm
disarmament
disarmed
disarming
disarranged
disarray
disassociating
disaster
disasters
disastrous
disastrously
disavow
disavowal
disavowed
disavowing
disband
disbanded
disbanding
disbarring
disbelief
disbelieved
disbelievers
disburse
disbursed
disbursement
disbursements
disc
discard
discarded
discarding
discern
discernable
discerned
discernible
discerning
discernment
discerns
discharge
discharged
discharges
discharging
disciple
disciples
Disciplinam
disciplinarian
disciplinarians
disciplinary
discipline
disciplined
disciplining
disciplyne
disclaim
disclaimed
disclaimers
disclaiming
disclose
disclosed
discloses
disclosing
disclosure
disclosures
discolored
discomfited
discomfitted
discomfiture
discomfort
discomposed
disconcert
disconcerted
disconnected
disconsolate
discontent
discontented
discontents
discontinuance
discontinue
discontinued
discontinuing
discontinuous
discord
discordant
discords
discount
discounted
discountenance
discountenanced
discountenancing
discounts
discourage
discouraged
discouragement
discouragements
discouraging
Discours
discourse
discoursed
discourses
discourteous
discourtesies
discourtesy
discover
discoverable
discovered
discoverer
discoverers
Discoverie
Discoveries
discovering
discovers
discovery
discredit
discreditable
discredited
discrediting
discreet
discreetly
discreetness
discrepancy
discretion
discretionally
discretionary
discretions
discriminate
discriminated
discriminates
discriminating
discrimination
discriminations
discriminative
discrowned
discursive
discuss
discussed
discusses
discussing
discussion
discussions
disdain
disdained
disdainful
disdainfully
disdaining
disease
diseased
diseases
disembark
disembarkation
disembarked
disembarrassed
disenchantment
disencumber
disencumbered
disendow
disendowment
disengage
disengaged
disengagement
disengages
disentangled
disenthralled
disentitled
disentombment
disestablished
disestablishing
Disestablishment
disesteem
disfavor
disfavour
disfigure
disfigured
disfiguring
disforested
disfranchise
disfranchised
disfranchisement
disgorge
disgorged
disgrace
disgraced
disgraceful
disgracefully
disgraces
disgracing
disguise
disguised
disguises
disguising
disgust
disgusted
disgusting
dish
disheartened
disheartening
disheartenment
disheartenments
disherison
disherited
dishes
dishonest
dishonestly
dishonesty
dishonor
dishonorable
dishonored
dishonoring
dishonour
dishonourable
dishonourably
dishonoured
dishonouring
dishshaped
disillusioned
disinclination
disincline
disinclined
disinfection
disingenuous
disinherit
disinherited
disinheriting
disintegrated
disintegrates
disintegrating
disintegration
disinterested
disinterestedly
disinterestedness
disinterment
disinterred
disinterring
disjoined
disjointed
disk
diskos
dislike
disliked
dislikes
disliking
dislikings
dislocated
dislocating
dislocations
dislodge
dislodged
dislodgement
dislodging
disloyal
disloyalty
dismal
dismantle
dismantled
dismantling
dismasted
dismay
dismayed
dismember
dismembered
dismembering
dismemberment
dismiss
dismissal
dismissed
dismisses
dismissing
dismission
dismount
dismounted
dismounting
disobedience
disobedient
disobey
disobeyed
disobeying
disoblige
disobliged
disorder
disordered
disorderly
disorders
disorganisation
disorganised
disorganization
disorganize
disorganized
disorganizing
disown
disowned
disowning
disparage
disparaged
disparagement
disparaging
disparagingly
disparity
dispassionate
dispassionately
dispatch
dispatched
Dispatches
dispatching
dispel
dispelled
dispend
dispenden
dispensaries
dispensary
dispensation
dispensations
Dispensator
dispense
dispensed
dispenser
dispensers
dispenses
dispensing
dispeopled
dispers
dispersal
disperse
dispersed
dispersing
dispersion
dispirited
dispiriting
displace
displaced
Displacement
displaces
displacing
display
displayed
displaying
displays
displease
displeased
displeasing
displeasure
disported
disposable
disposal
dispose
disposed
disposer
disposers
disposes
disposing
disposition
dispositions
dispossess
dispossessed
dispossessing
dispossession
disproportion
disproportionate
disproportionately
disproportioned
disprove
disproved
disputable
disputant
disputants
disputation
disputations
disputatious
disputatiousness
disputatory
dispute
disputed
disputes
disputing
disqualification
disqualifications
disqualified
disqualifies
disqualify
disqualifying
disquiet
disquieted
disquieting
disquietude
disquis
disquisition
Disraeli
disregard
disregarded
disregarding
disreputable
disrepute
disrespect
disrespectful
disrespectfully
disrupt
disrupted
disrupting
disruption
disruptions
disruptive
Dissatisfaction
dissatisfied
dissect
dissected
dissecting
dissection
dissections
dissector
dissectors
dissects
disseised
Disseisee
Disseisin
disseizetur
dissemble
dissembled
dissembler
dissembling
disseminate
disseminated
disseminating
dissemination
disseminator
dissension
dissensions
dissent
dissented
dissenter
Dissenters
dissentient
dissentients
dissenting
Dissentis
dissents
dissertation
dissertationen
Dissertations
disserved
dissever
dissevered
dissevering
dissidence
dissidents
dissimilar
dissimilarity
dissimulation
dissipate
dissipated
dissipati
dissipation
dissociated
dissociating
dissociation
dissoluble
dissolued
dissolute
dissoluteness
dissolution
dissolutions
dissolve
dissolved
dissolves
dissolving
dissuade
dissuaded
dissuasion
Dist
distaff
distance
distances
distant
distantly
distaste
distasteful
distemper
distempered
distempers
distich
Distillation
distilled
distiller
distilleries
distillers
distilling
distinct
distinctest
distinction
distinctions
distinctive
distinctively
distinctly
distinctness
distinguish
distinguishable
distinguished
distinguishes
distinguishing
distort
distorted
distorts
distract
distracted
distractedly
distracting
distraction
Distractions
distrain
distrained
distraining
distress
distressed
distresses
distressful
distressing
distribute
distributed
distributes
distributing
distribution
distributions
distributive
distributively
distributor
distributors
district
districting
districts
distrust
distrusted
distrustful
distrustfully
distrusting
distrusts
disturb
disturbance
disturbances
disturbed
disturber
disturbers
disturbing
disturbs
disunion
disunionists
disunited
disuse
disused
disyllabic
ditch
ditchers
ditches
ditchside
dithyrambic
Ditmarsch
Ditmarsen
dittander
dittany
DITTMAR
ditto
diu
Dium
diuretics
Dius
diutisc
diuyne
Divan
Dive
diverge
diverged
divergence
divergences
divergencies
divergency
divergent
diverging
divers
diverse
diversely
diverses
diversified
diversifying
diversion
diversions
diversities
diversity
divert
diverted
diverting
Dives
divest
divested
divesting
Divico
divide
divided
dividend
dividends
divides
dividing
Divin
Divina
divination
divinators
divine
divined
divinely
diviners
divines
diving
divining
divinities
divinity
Divionense
divisible
Division
divisions
divisive
Divitiacus
Divodurum
Divona
divorce
divorced
divorcing
divulge
divulged
diwan
diwani
Dix
Dixmude
Dixmuyde
Dixmüden
Dixon
Diyar
Dizier
dizzy
Diætetæ
diète
Dié
diñh
Djam
Djammel
Djedid
Djem
Djend
Djenghiz
Djerash
Djezzar
Djigelli
Djinghiz
Djudi
dli
Dneiper
Dneister
Dnieper
Dniester
do
Doab
doabs
Dobb
Dobbs
doblon
Dobrin
Dobrizhoffer
Dobrowsky
Dobrudja
Dobrudscha
Dobrudsha
Dobrutcha
Dobson
DOBUNI
Doc
Docetic
DOCETISM
Dochard
docile
docility
dock
Dockers
docket
dockets
docks
dockyard
dockyards
Docs
Doctor
doctorate
doctores
doctoring
doctors
doctorship
Doctrina
doctrinaire
doctrinal
Doctrinale
doctrinally
doctrinarians
doctrinary
doctrine
doctrines
document
documentary
documentata
Documents
Docwray
Dod
Dodd
Doddington
Dodds
dodecapolis
Dodge
Dodici
Dodo
Dodona
Dodsley
doe
doek
doer
doers
does
dog
Dogberry
doge
Doges
Dogeship
dogged
doggedly
Dogger
doggerel
Dogherty
dogma
dogmas
dogmatic
dogmatical
dogmatically
dogmatics
dogmatism
dogmatist
dogmatists
dogmatizing
dogs
dogstar
Doherty
Dohm
Dohna
doi
doing
doings
Doire
dok
DOKIMASIA
Dokitch
Dolabella
Dolcina
Dolcino
Dole
doled
doleful
doles
Dolfo
Dolgorouki
Dolgorukis
DOLICHOCEPHALIC
dollar
dollars
Dollart
DOLLINGER
Dolma
Dolman
dolmen
dolmens
Dolopians
Dolore
Dolores
dolorous
dolphin
Dolson
Dom
domain
domains
Dombrowski
dome
DOMENECH
Domenigo
domes
Domesday
domestic
domesticated
domesticating
domestication
Domestici
domesticity
domestics
DOMETT
domicella
domicellus
domicil
domicile
domiciled
domiciliary
domiciliated
dominance
DOMINANT
dominate
dominated
dominates
dominating
domination
dominations
Domine
domineer
domineered
domineering
Domingo
Dominguez
Domini
Dominic
Dominica
Dominican
Dominicans
dominici
Dominico
dominicum
dominion
dominions
Dominique
Dominium
domino
Dominus
Domitian
Domitilla
Domitius
DOMITZ
Dommartin
domnicellus
Domnus
domo
Domremy
Domrémy
Domsaga
domscholaster
domus
Don
Dona
Donabue
Donahoe
Donai
Donald
Donaldson
Donat
donated
Donatello
Donati
donating
Donation
donationis
donations
Donatist
DONATISTS
donative
Donato
Donatus
Donatuses
Donauwerth
Donauworth
DONAUWÖRTH
Donauwörth
Donawert
Donawerth
done
Donegal
Donel
Donelson
Dong
Dongan
Dongola
Doni
Doniol
Doniphan
Donis
donjeons
donjon
donkey
donkeys
Donna
Donnachy
Donnacona
Donnai
donned
Donnel
Donnell
Donnells
Donnino
Donoghue
Donoju
donor
Donore
donors
Donovan
Donski
Donskoi
donum
DONUS
DONZELLO
doodle
doom
doomed
Doomesdaege
dooming
dooms
DOOMSDAY
door
Dooranee
DOORANEES
Dooranie
Doordowran
doorkeepers
doors
doorway
doorways
Dora
DORADO
Doran
Dorchester
Dordogne
Dordrecht
DOREE
Doria
Dorian
Dorians
Dorias
Doric
Dorilaus
Doris
Doriscus
Doriskos
Doriskus
Dorization
Dorkis
DORMAN
DORMANS
dormant
Dormer
dormitory
Dorn
Dornach
Dornberg
Dornbourg
Dorner
Dorogobouche
Dorotheus
Dorpat
Dorr
Dorrego
Dorsal
Dorset
Dorsetshire
Dorsey
Dorsheimer
Dort
Dortmund
DORYLAEUM
Dorylæum
Doré
Dorée
dos
dose
doses
Dositheus
Doson
Dost
Dosza
Dot
dotage
dotard
dotation
doth
Dotheboys
dotis
dots
dotted
Doty
Douai
douaniers
Douay
double
doubled
Doubleday
doubleness
doubles
doublet
doubling
doubloon
doubly
Doubs
doubt
doubted
Doubtful
doubtfully
doubtfulness
doubting
doubtless
doubts
doubtsome
Douce
Doucet
douceur
Doug
Dougal
doughface
Doughfaces
Douglas
Douglases
Douglass
Douglasses
Doulevant
Doullens
DOURA
dourness
Douro
Douw
Doué
dove
dovecote
Dover
doves
dovetailed
Dow
dowager
Dowd
Dowdeswell
Dowell
dower
dowered
Dowla
Dowlah
down
downcast
Downey
downfall
downfallen
Downie
Downing
downpour
downright
downs
downward
downwards
dowries
dowry
doxologies
doxology
doyen
doyens
Doyle
Doyster
dozed
dozen
dozens
dozing
Dr
drachm
DRACHMA
drachmas
drachms
drachmæ
Draco
Draconian
Draconic
Dracontidas
Dracos
Draft
drafted
drafting
drafts
draftsman
drag
dragged
dragging
Drago
dragoman
Dragon
Dragonnade
Dragonnades
dragons
dragoon
dragoonades
dragooned
dragoons
Dragosch
Dragut
drain
drainage
drained
draining
Drake
Drakenberg
drakes
Drako
drama
dramas
dramatic
Dramatis
Dramatist
dramatists
Drane
Drangians
drank
draped
Draper
Drapers
drapery
Drapier
drastic
drastically
drastics
draught
draughted
draughts
Drave
DRAVIDIAN
Dravidians
Dravyabhidhana
draw
drawback
drawbacks
drawbridge
drawbridges
drawee
drawer
drawers
drawing
Drawings
drawn
draws
drayman
Drayton
dread
dreaded
dreadful
dreadfully
dreadfulness
dreading
dream
dreamed
dreamer
dreamers
dreaming
dreams
dreamt
dreary
Dred
dregs
Dreissig
dreissigjährigen
drenched
drenching
Drenthe
Drepana
Dresden
dress
dressed
dresser
dressers
dresses
dressing
dressé
Dreux
drew
Drewry
dribbles
dried
driest
drift
drifted
drifting
drifts
driftwood
drill
drilled
drilling
drills
Drin
Drina
Dringeberg
drink
drinkers
drinking
drinks
Drinkwater
dripping
drippings
Drissa
drive
driveller
Driven
Driver
drivers
drives
driveth
driveway
driving
drizzling
Droghdagh
Drogheda
droit
Droitwich
Drolin
droll
drollery
dromedaries
DROMONES
Drone
Drontheim
drooped
drooping
drop
dropped
dropping
drops
dropsical
dropsies
dropsy
dropt
droschky
Drouet
drought
droughts
Drouot
drouth
Drouyn
drove
droves
Drovetti
drown
Drownages
drowned
drowning
Droysen
Drs
dru
drudgery
Druentia
drug
drugget
druggist
druggists
drugs
Druidic
Druidical
Druidism
Druids
Druidæ
Drum
Drumalban
Drumbeat
Drumclog
Drumcondra
Drumlaneric
drummer
Drummond
drums
Drunemeton
drunk
drunkard
drunken
drunkenness
Drury
Drusus
dry
Dryasdust
Dryden
dryeth
Drygalski
drying
Dryopes
DRYOPIANS
DRYOPIS
Drysdale
Drôme
Dschebalu
Dschebel
Dsungaria
Dsunovas
du
duae
Dual
dualism
dualistic
duality
Duan
Duane
duas
dub
Dubais
Dubarri
DUBARRY
dubbed
Dubh
Dubienka
dubious
DUBITZA
Dublin
Dubois
Dubos
DUBRIS
Dubrovsky
DUBRÆ
Dubuque
Duc
Duca
ducado
ducal
Ducange
Ducas
ducat
ducats
ducatus
Duces
Duchesneau
Duchess
Duchesse
Duchicela
duchies
duchy
Ducie
Duck
duckduckgo
ducks
Duckworth
Duclaux
Duclos
Ducos
Ducrot
ducs
duct
ducum
Duderstadt
Dudley
Dudleys
Dudon
due
duel
duellist
duellum
duels
Duemichen
Duer
Duero
dues
Duesberg
Dufaure
Dufay
Duff
DUFFERIN
Duffy
Dufilé
Dufour
Dufresne
dug
Dugall
Dugommier
Duhesme
Duilius
Duin
Dukas
Duke
dukedom
dukedoms
Dukes
Dukinfield
Dulce
Dulcigno
DULGIBINI
dull
duller
dullest
dullness
duly
dum
Dumas
dumb
Dumbarton
Dumbartonshire
Dumesnil
dumfounded
Dumfries
Dumfriesshire
Dumhnail
Dummer
dummies
DUMNONIA
Dumnonii
Dumont
Dumouriez
dumped
dumping
Dun
Duna
Dunaan
Dunant
DUNBAR
Dunbrettan
Dunbritton
Duncan
Duncannon
Dunciad
Duncker
Dunckley
Duncombe
Dundalk
Dundas
Dundee
Dundonald
dunes
Dunfermline
dung
Dungani
Dungans
Dungarvon
dungeon
dungeons
dunghill
Dungi
Dunham
Dunigan
Dunkards
Dunkeld
Dunkellin
Dunkerque
Dunkirk
Dunlap
Dunlop
Dunmore
Dunn
Dunnichen
Dunning
Dunois
Dunraven
Duns
Dunse
Dunst
Dunstable
Dunstan
Dunton
Dunube
Dunwich
duodecimo
duodenary
Dup
dupe
duped
Duperron
DUPES
Duphot
Dupin
Dupleix
duplicate
Duplicates
duplicity
Duplin
Duponceau
Dupont
Duport
Duportail
DUPPELN
Dupplin
Duprat
Dupuy
Duquesne
Duquesnel
Duquesnoy
Dur
DURA
durability
durable
durance
Durances
Durand
Duranee
DURANEES
Durango
Durani
Durantaye
Durante
Duranthon
Duras
duration
duraverat
Durazzo
DURBAR
durch
Durer
duress
Durfee
Durfort
Durfree
Durham
during
Durkee
Durnford
Durobrivian
DUROBRIVÆ
Durobrivæ
Duroc
DUROCOBRIVÆ
Durocortorum
Durotriges
DUROVERNUM
Duroy
Durrie
durst
Duruy
Durward
Dusch
Dushan
dusk
dusky
Dusseldorf
DUSSIEUX
dust
dusty
Dutch
Dutchess
dutchies
Dutchman
Dutchmen
Dutchy
dutiable
duties
dutiful
Duttah
Dutton
duty
duumvirs
Duval
Duvall
Duvivier
DUVOTENAY
dux
Duykinck
Duyphen
Duyveland
dvor
dvors
dwarfed
dwarfish
Dwarfs
dwell
dwelled
dwellers
dwelling
dwellings
dwells
dwelt
Dwight
Dwina
dwindle
dwindled
dwindles
dwindling
Dwyer
dya
DYAKS
Dyarbekr
Dyck
dye
dyed
dyeing
Dyer
dyers
dyes
dyewoods
Dyfed
Dyfnaint
dying
DyingGaul
dyke
dykes
Dyle
Dylnun
Dyluun
Dymanes
Dyme
Dynabourg
dynamic
dynamical
dynamite
dynamo
dynast
dynastic
Dynastically
dynasties
dynasts
dynasty
Dyonisian
Dyrrachium
Dyrrhachium
dysentery
dyslogistic
Dyved
Dyvnaint
DÂMOISEL
DÆGSASTAN
DÉCADI
DÉSIRÉ
DÖLICHOCEPHALIC
DÖLLINGER
DÜPPEL
DÜTLINGEN
Dávila
dâmoisel
Dänemark
dæmons
Dècle
dé
Débonnaire
débouché
débouehé
décadi
déchaîner
Découverte
Découvertes
Défense
démembrement
Départ
dépayser
désiré
désormais
Déspensers
détenus
détour
développement
Dêlos
Dêmos
Dêmosthenes
Dêmosthenês
Dó
Dôdôna
Dôme
Döllinger
Dömitz
Dörnberg
Dörpfeld
Dörpfield
dût
Düben
Düna
Düppel
Düren
Dürer
Düsseldorf
Dütlingen
ea
each
Eadgar
Eadmund
Eadward
EADWINE
Eadwinesburh
eager
eagerly
eagerness
eagle
eagles
Eakids
ealdor
ealdorman
ealdormanship
ealdormen
Ealga
Ealhmund
Eanbald
Eannes
ear
Eardley
Earfleda
Earl
earldom
EARLDOMS
Earle
earlier
earliest
Earls
Early
earn
earned
earner
earners
earnest
earnestly
earnestness
earning
earnings
earrings
ears
earth
earthen
earthenware
earthern
earthly
Earthquake
earthquakes
earthwork
earthworks
earthworms
earthy
ease
eased
easements
eases
easier
easiest
easily
easing
east
Eastchurch
Easter
easterly
Eastern
Easternland
easternmost
Eastertide
Eastfalia
Eastfalian
Eastland
EASTMAN
Easton
Eastport
eastward
eastwardly
eastwards
Eastwick
easy
eat
eaten
eater
eaters
eating
Eaton
eats
Eau
Eause
eave
eaves
Eb
ebb
ebbed
ebbing
EBBSDORF
Ebbsfleet
Ebed
Ebeling
EBEN
Ebenezer
Eber
Eberhard
Eberle
Ebers
Ebersberg
EBERSBURG
Ebionism
Ebionites
Eblani
Eblé
ebn
Ebno
ebony
ebooks
EBORACUM
Ebrington
Ebro
Ebroin
ebullition
ebullitions
EBURACUM
Eburones
Eburovices
Ecadamos
Ecbatana
Ecbatanas
Ecce
Eccelino
eccentric
eccentrically
eccentricities
eccentricity
Eccles
Ecclesia
ecclesiae
Ecclesiam
ecclesiastic
Ecclesiastica
Ecclesiastical
ecclesiastically
ecclesiasticism
ecclesiastico
ecclesiastics
ECENI
Ecgbehrt
Ecgberht
Ecgfrid
Ecgfrith
ech
Echelle
echelon
echeloned
echelonned
Echemus
Echenique
Echerolles
echevins
echo
echoed
echoes
echoing
Ecija
Eck
Eckbert
Eckert
Eckford
Eckley
ECKMÜHL
Eckmühl
eclat
Eclectic
eclecticism
Eclectics
Eclectus
eclipse
eclipsed
eclipses
eclipsing
Ecnomus
Ecolampadius
Ecole
Ecoles
Econ
Economic
economical
Economically
Economics
Economies
economising
Economist
economists
economize
economized
economizing
economy
Ecorcheurs
Ecrivains
ecstacies
ecstasies
ecstasy
ecstatic
Ecthesis
Ecu
ECUADOR
Ecumenical
Ecusgina
Ecuyer
Ecyk
Ed
Edam
Edda
EDDAS
Edden
Eddi
eddies
eddin
eddy
Eden
Edenburgh
Edenton
Edersheim
Edessa
Edessene
Edfû
Edgar
edge
Edgecote
edged
Edgehill
edgerail
edges
Edgeware
Edgeworth
EDHEL
edhiling
edible
Edico
Edict
Edicta
edictal
edicts
edification
edifice
edifices
edified
edify
Edin
Edinburg
Edinburgh
EDINGTON
Edison
Edisto
edite
Edited
EDITH
Editha
editing
edition
editions
editor
editorial
editorially
editorials
editors
editorship
Edkins
Edmands
EDMOND
Edmonds
Edmonston
Edmund
EDMUNDS
Edmundsbury
Ednah
Edom
Edomite
Edomites
Edonian
EDOUARD
Edred
Edris
Edrisi
Edrisites
edu
educate
educated
educates
educating
Education
educational
educationalists
educationist
educationists
educator
educators
educed
Edw
Edward
Edwardes
Edwards
EDWIG
Edwin
Edwy
Eel
Eelking
EELLS
Eels
eeyo
efface
effaced
effacement
effaces
effacing
effect
effected
effecting
effective
effectively
effectiveness
effectives
effects
effectual
effectually
effectuate
effectuated
effeminacy
effeminate
Effendi
effervescence
effete
Effiat
efficacious
efficaciously
efficacy
efficiency
efficient
efficiently
effigies
effigy
Effingham
effort
efforts
effrontery
effusion
effusions
effusive
eg
Egalité
Egan
Egar
Egbert
Egean
EGELHAAF
Egenolph
Eger
Egerton
Egesta
EGFRITH
Egg
EGGLESTON
eggs
Eghihard
Egibi
EGINA
Eginetan
Eginetans
Eginhard
Eglantine
Egle
eglise
Eglon
Egmond
Egmont
EGNATIAN
ego
egoism
egotism
egotistic
Egra
egress
Egripo
Egypt
Egyptian
Egyptianised
Egyptians
Egyptologers
Egyptologists
Eh
ehemaligen
EHERRIER
Ehlers
Ehrenbreitstein
Ehrich
Ehstland
Ehsts
Ehud
Eichhorn
Eichsfeld
Eichstadt
Eider
Eidgenossen
Eidgenossenschaft
Eiffel
eigener
eight
eighteen
Eighteenth
eightfold
eighth
eighths
eightieth
eightpence
eights
eighty
Eigne
Eike
Eiken
EIKON
Eilenburg
Ein
Einar
eine
einem
Einhard
einheitstraum
Einheitstraumes
Einheitstraums
einiger
Einsamkeit
Einwohnergemeinde
Einzeldarstellungen
einzelnen
EION
Eira
Eire
Eireannach
Eirikr
EIRINN
Eisenach
Eisenbahnwesen
Eisleben
either
ejaculation
ejaculations
eject
ejected
ejecting
ejection
ejectione
ejections
ejectment
Ejector
ejQVAAAAQAAJ
ejus
Ekbatana
eke
Ekhili
eking
Ekkehard
EKKLESIA
Ekklêsia
EKOWE
Ekron
EL
elaborate
elaborated
elaborately
elaborating
elaboration
elaborative
elaborator
Elagabalus
Elam
Elamite
Elamites
Elaphebolion
elapse
elapsed
elastic
elasticity
Elatea
elated
Elateia
Elath
elation
Elaver
Elba
Elbe
Elberfeld
Elbing
Elbingen
elbow
Elbridge
Elbruz
Elburz
Elbée
elder
elderly
elders
eldership
eldest
Eldon
Eldorado
Eldridge
Eleanor
Eleanora
Eleans
Eleazar
Eleazer
elect
Electa
elected
electeur
electing
Election
electioneering
elections
electis
elective
electiveness
Elector
electoral
Electorate
electorates
electores
electors
Electorship
electress
Electric
electrical
electrician
electricians
electricities
Electricity
electrified
electro
electromagnet
electromagnetic
electroscope
elects
electuaries
eleemosynary
elegance
elegancies
elegant
elegantia
elegdous
elegiac
Elegit
elegy
Elektra
element
elemental
elementary
elements
elemna
Eleonora
ELEPHANT
Elephantine
elephants
Elesbaan
ELEUSINIAN
Eleusinians
Eleusis
Eleutherius
Eleuts
elevate
elevated
elevating
Elevation
elevations
elevators
eleven
eleventh
Eleëmon
elf
Elfsborg
Elfy
Elgin
Eli
Elia
Eliadah
Eliakim
Elians
Elias
Eliashib
elicit
elicited
eliciting
Elie
Eliensis
eligibility
eligible
Eligius
Elihu
Elijah
eliminate
eliminated
eliminating
elimination
Elinor
Eliot
Elis
Elisabeth
Elisha
Elisii
Elissa
elite
elixir
elixirs
Eliz
Eliza
Elizabeth
Elizabethan
Elizabethtown
Elizondo
Elizur
Elk
Elkhorn
elks
ELKWATER
ell
Ella
Ellak
ELLANDUM
Ellebri
Ellen
Ellenborough
Ellery
Ellesmere
Ellet
Ellicott
Elliot
ELLIOTT
elliptical
elliptically
Ellis
ells
Ellsworth
Ellwangen
elm
Elmacin
ELMET
Elmira
Elmo
elms
Elne
elongated
eloquence
eloquent
eloquently
Eloth
Elpaso
Elphinstone
Elphlnstone
els
Elsass
Elsasshausen
else
elsewhere
Elster
Elswitha
Elteb
ELTEKEH
Elten
Elting
ELTON
Eltville
elucidate
elucidated
elucidating
elucidation
elucidations
elude
eluded
eluding
Elus
Elusa
ELUSATES
elusive
elusory
Elvas
Elvend
Elvina
ELVIRA
ELWELL
Ely
ELYMAIS
Elymaïs
ELYMEIA
ELYMIANS
Elymiots
Elyria
ELYSIAN
Elysii
Elysée
Elysées
ELZE
Elzevir
Elzevirs
em
emaciated
emaciation
Emain
Emalthia
EMAN
emanate
emanated
emanates
emanating
emanation
emancipate
emancipated
emancipates
emancipating
emancipation
emancipationist
emancipator
emancipists
emanni
Emanuel
Emanuele
emasculate
emasculated
emasculating
emasculation
embalm
embalmed
embalmers
embalming
embankment
embankments
embargo
embark
embarkation
embarkations
embarked
embarking
embarrass
embarrassed
embarrassing
embarrassment
embarrassments
embassador
embassadors
embassies
embassy
embattled
Embatum
Embden
embedded
embellish
embellished
embellishing
embellishment
embers
embezzled
embezzlement
embitter
embittered
embittering
embitterment
emblazoned
emblem
Emblematic
emblems
embodied
embodies
embodiment
embodiments
embody
embodying
embolden
emboldened
embosomed
embossed
embouchure
embouchures
embowed
embowered
embrace
embraced
embraces
embracing
embrasures
embroidered
embroideries
embroidering
embroidery
embroil
embroiled
embroiling
embroilment
embroilments
embrued
Embrun
embryo
embryonic
emendata
emendation
Emerald
emerge
emerged
emergence
Emergencies
emergency
emerges
emerging
EMERIC
EMERICH
Emerick
EMERITA
Emerson
Emerton
Emery
Emesa
Emessa
emetics
Emicon
Emigrant
emigrants
emigrate
emigrated
emigrating
emigration
emigrations
emigre
emigres
Emigrés
EMIL
Emile
Emilia
Emilio
Emilius
EMILY
Emim
Emin
eminence
eminences
eminencies
Eminent
eminently
emir
EMIRATE
emirs
emissaries
emissary
emission
emissions
emit
EMITES
emitted
emitting
Emma
Emmanuel
EMMAUS
Emmel
Emmen
EMMENDINGEN
Emmeran
Emmerich
Emmet
Emmett
emolument
Emoluments
EMORY
emotion
emotional
emotions
empanelled
Empedocles
empereur
empereurs
emperor
emperors
Emperour
emphasis
emphasised
emphasize
emphasized
emphasizes
emphatic
emphatically
empire
Empires
Empiric
empirical
empiricism
empirics
employ
employed
employee
employees
employer
employers
employes
employing
employment
employments
employs
employé
employés
EMPORIA
emporium
emporiums
empower
empowered
empowering
empowers
emprented
empresario
empresarios
Empress
Empresses
emptied
empties
emptiness
emption
Emptores
empty
emptying
empyema
Ems
Emser
emulate
emulated
emulating
emulation
emulations
emulous
Emuq
en
enable
enabled
enables
enabling
enact
enacted
enacting
enactment
enactments
enacts
enameled
enamelled
enamels
enamored
enamoured
Enc
Encalada
encamp
encamped
encampment
encampments
encased
enceinte
enchained
enchant
enchanted
enchanting
enchantment
enchantments
enchased
enchorial
encircle
encircled
encircles
encircling
Enciso
Enckhuyzen
enclaves
enclavures
enclose
enclosed
encloses
enclosing
enclosure
enclosures
encomendar
encomendero
encomia
encomienda
ENCOMIENDAS
encomiums
encompass
Encompassed
encompasses
Encompassing
encounter
encountered
encountering
encounters
encourage
encouraged
encouragement
encouragements
encourages
encouraging
encrease
encreased
encroach
encroached
encroaches
encroaching
encroachment
encroachments
encumber
encumbered
encumbering
encumbers
encumbrances
encyclic
Encyclical
Encyclicals
Encyclopedia
encyclopedic
Encyclopedie
Encyclopedists
ENCYCLOPÆDISTS
Encyclopædia
encyclopædic
encyclopædists
Encyclopœdia
end
Enda
endamaged
endanger
endangered
endangering
Ende
Endean
endear
endeared
endearment
endeavor
endeavored
endeavoring
Endeavors
endeavour
endeavoured
endeavouring
endeavours
ended
endemic
endenden
Endicott
ENDIDJAN
Ending
endless
endlessly
endocarditis
endorse
endorsed
endorsement
endorsing
endow
endowed
endowing
endowment
endowments
ends
endue
endued
endurable
endurance
endure
endured
endures
enduring
enduringly
Endymion
Eneid
enemies
Enemond
enemy
energetic
energetically
energies
energized
energy
enervate
enervated
enervating
Eneti
enfant
Enfantines
enfeeble
enfeebled
enfeeblement
enfeebling
enfeoff
enfeoffed
enfilade
enfiladed
enforce
enforced
enforcement
enforcements
enforcing
enfranchise
enfranchised
enfranchisement
enfranchisements
enfranchising
Eng
Engadine
engage
engaged
engagement
engagements
Engagers
engages
engaging
Engel
Engelard
Engelbert
Engels
Engen
engender
engendered
engendering
engenders
Engern
Enghien
Engilenheim
engine
engineer
engineered
engineering
engineers
enginery
engines
England
ENGLANDER
Englanders
Englandmen
ENGLE
Englisc
English
Englishman
Englishmen
Englishry
Englishwoman
engrafted
engrained
engrave
engraved
engraven
engravers
engraving
engravings
engross
engrossed
engrosses
engrossing
Engström
Enguerrand
engulf
engulfed
engulfing
engulphed
enhance
enhanced
enhancement
enhancing
enigma
enigmatical
Enim
Enimgas
Enipeus
enjoin
enjoined
enjoining
enjoins
enjoy
enjoyed
enjoying
enjoyment
enjoyments
enjoys
Enkefort
Enkhuizen
Enkhuysen
enkindle
enlarge
enlarged
enlargement
enlargements
enlarges
enlarging
enlighten
enlightened
enlightening
enlightenment
enlist
enlisted
enlisting
enlistment
enlistments
enlists
enlivened
enlivening
enmities
enmity
Enna
Ennana
Enniskillen
Enniskilleners
Ennius
ennoble
ennobled
ennobles
ennobling
Ennodius
Ennoree
Enns
ennui
Eno
Enoch
enomotarch
enormities
enormity
enormous
enormously
enough
enquestes
enquire
enquired
Enquirer
enquirers
enquiries
enquiring
enquiringly
enquiry
Enquêtes
enrage
enraged
enraging
enraptured
enregistrés
enrich
enriched
enriching
enrichment
ENRIQUE
enrol
enroll
enrolled
enrolling
Enrollment
enrolment
enrolments
ensanguined
ensconced
ENSE
Enseignement
ensemble
enshrined
enshrines
ensign
ensigns
ENSISHEIM
enslave
enslaved
enslavement
enslavers
enslaving
ensnare
ensnared
ensnaring
ensue
ensued
ensueing
ensues
ensuing
ensure
ensured
ensuring
Entail
entailed
entailing
entails
entangle
entangled
entanglement
entanglements
entangling
Entemi
enter
entercourse
entered
entering
enterprise
enterprises
enterprising
enterprize
enterprizes
enters
entertain
entertaine
entertained
entertainer
entertaining
entertainment
entertainments
entertains
enthrone
enthroned
enthronement
enthusiasm
enthusiast
enthusiastic
enthusiastically
enthusiasts
entice
enticed
enticing
Entick
entier
entire
entirely
entireness
entirety
entities
entitle
entitled
entitles
entitling
entituled
entity
Entlebuch
Entlibuch
Entlibuchers
entombments
entourage
Entragues
entrance
entranced
entrances
entrancing
entrap
entrapped
entrapping
entrayles
Entre
entreat
entreated
entreaties
entreating
entreaty
entrench
entrenched
entrenching
entrenchment
entrenchments
entrepots
entrepreneurs
entrepôt
entrepôts
entries
entrust
entrusted
entrusting
entrusts
entry
entrée
entwickelung
entwined
entworfen
enumerate
enumerated
enumerates
enumerating
enumeration
enunciate
enunciated
enunciation
envelop
envelope
enveloped
envelopes
enveloping
envenom
envenomed
enviable
enviably
envied
envious
environed
environment
environments
environs
envoy
envoys
envy
envying
Enyo
Enzersdorf
ENÔMOTY
enômoty
eo
Eoforwic
Eoghan
Eorcenweld
Eorforwick
Eorl
eorlas
eorls
EORMEN
Epameinondas
Epameinôndas
Epaminondas
Epaminondias
Epaphroditus
Eparch
eparchies
epaulettes
Epeians
EPEIROS
Epeirot
Epeirots
Epeirus
Epernon
EPES
EPHAH
ephahs
Ephebi
ephemeral
EPHES
Ephesia
Ephesian
Ephesians
Ephesos
Ephesus
EPHETÆ
Ephetæ
Ephialtes
ephoralty
ephors
Ephraim
Ephraimites
Ephrem
Ephthalites
Ephyra
epic
epical
epics
Epictetus
Epicurean
Epicureanism
Epicureans
Epicurus
EPIDAMNUS
Epidaurians
Epidauros
Epidaurus
epidemic
Epidemics
epidemy
EPIDII
EPIGAMIA
EPIGONI
epigram
epigrammatically
epigrams
Epigraphic
epigraphically
epigraphy
Epiknemidian
Epil
Epilegomena
epileptic
epilogue
epilogues
Epiphanes
Epiphania
Epiphanius
Epiphi
EPIPOLÆ
Epiros
Epirot
Epirote
Epirotes
Epirotic
EPIROTS
Epirus
episcopacy
Episcopal
Episcopalian
Episcopalians
episcopate
episcopis
Episeopale
episode
episodes
Epistates
episternum
epistle
Epistles
epistolary
epitaph
epitaphs
epithet
epithets
Epitome
epitomes
Epitomized
Epizephyrian
Epizephyrii
Epmus
Epoch
Epocha
epochs
EPONYM
Eponymos
eponymous
eponyms
EPONYMUS
epoque
Epping
Eppinger
Eprémenil
Epte
EPULONES
Epworth
Eq
equable
Equador
equal
equaled
equaling
equalisation
equalising
equality
equalization
equalize
equalized
equalizing
equall
equalled
equalling
equally
equals
Equanimity
equator
Equatoria
equatorial
Equatoriale
equerries
Eques
equestrian
equestrianism
equestris
equilateral
equilibrium
equinoctial
equinox
equip
equipage
equipages
equipment
equipments
equipoise
equipped
equipping
equitable
equitably
equites
EQUITY
equivalence
equivalent
equivalents
equivocal
equivocally
equivocate
equivocation
equivocations
er
era
Eraclea
eradicate
eradicated
eradicating
eradication
ERANI
Erard
eras
erase
erased
Erasinides
Erasistratus
Erasmus
Erastian
ERASTIANISM
Erastians
Erastus
erasure
Eratosthenes
erbunterthänigkeit
Erc
Ercenwine
ERCTE
ERCTÉ
ERDINI
ERDMANNSDÖRFFER
Erdmannsdörffer
Erdreich
ere
Erebus
Erech
Erechtheus
erect
erected
ERECTHEION
Erectheus
erecting
erection
erections
erects
Eremite
EREMITES
eremitical
Eresus
eretici
Eretria
Eretrians
Erfurt
Erfurth
Erfüllung
ergastula
ergastulum
Erginus
ergo
ergänzung
ERIC
Erich
Erichson
Ericht
Ericsfiord
Ericson
Ericsson
Erie
Eries
Erigena
Erik
Erin
Erineon
Erinnerung
Erinnerungen
Erinyes
ERITREA
Erivan
Eriwan
Erklärungen
erkoren
Erlach
Erlangen
Erlau
erleap
Erlembald
Erlon
Ermak
ERMAN
ERMANARIC
ERMANRIC
Ermeland
ermine
Erming
ERMYN
Ern
Ernak
Erne
Ernest
ErnestF
Ernesti
Ernestine
ernet
Ernhardt
Ernst
Eroica
Eroles
erotic
ERPEDITANI
err
errand
errands
errant
errantry
erratic
erred
erroneous
erroneously
error
errors
Erskine
erst
ERTANG
Ertha
erudite
erudition
eruption
eruptions
eruptive
Erwerbungen
Erycina
Erycinian
erysipelas
Erythra
Erythrae
Erythraean
Erythras
Erythrean
ERYTHRÆ
ERYTHRÆAN
Erythræ
Erythræan
Erythrêam
Erythrêan
ERYX
Erz
Erzeroum
Erzgebirge
es
Esarhaddon
Esau
Escaillon
escalade
escaladed
escape
escaped
escapement
escapes
escaping
escarpments
Escaut
eschac
escheat
escheated
escheating
escheatorship
escheats
eschecs
Escobar
ESCOCÉS
Escocés
ESCOMBOLI
Escorial
escort
escorted
escorting
escouade
escouades
escouadier
Escovedo
Escu
Esculapius
esculent
esculents
Escurial
escutcheon
ESCUYER
ESDRAELON
Esdras
Esek
Eseuyer
Esk
Eskdale
Eskill
ESKIMAUAN
Eskimo
Eskimos
Esla
Esmerelda
ESNE
Esopus
esoteric
Espana
Esparta
ESPARTERO
Española
especial
especially
Espejo
Espenan
espied
Espinosa
espionage
Espiritu
espousal
espousals
espouse
espoused
espousing
Espoz
esprit
esprits
Esq
esqrs
Esquibi
Esquiline
Esquire
esquires
Esquiros
Essaeans
Essai
Essais
essay
essayed
essaying
essayist
Essayists
essays
Essek
Esselen
Esselenian
Essen
essence
Essene
ESSENES
essential
essentially
essentials
Essequebe
Essequibo
Essex
Essling
ESSLINGEN
Essoin
Essonne
ESSUVII
est
establish
established
establisher
establishes
establishing
establishment
establishments
estafette
Estaing
Estampes
Estate
Estates
Este
esteem
esteemed
esteeming
ESTEN
Esterhazy
Estero
Estes
Estevan
Esther
Esthonia
Esthonians
Estienne
Estiennes
Estill
estimable
estimate
estimated
estimates
estimating
estimation
Estonia
Estrades
estragements
Estrange
estranged
estrangement
estranging
Estrees
estreete
Estrella
Estremadura
Estremos
Estrées
estuaries
estuary
estymacioum
Esztergom
et
Eta
etablissement
Etaples
Etat
etc
etched
Etchemin
ETCHEMINS
Etchoe
Eteobutadæ
eternal
eternally
eternised
eternities
eternity
Etetchemins
Eth
Etham
Ethan
Ethandun
Ethbaal
ETHEL
Ethelbald
Ethelberht
Ethelbert
Etheldreda
Ethelfled
Ethelfrith
Ethelgiva
ETHELING
ETHELINGS
Ethelred
Ethelstan
Ethelswitha
Ethelwerd
ETHELWULF
ether
etherialized
ethical
Ethico
ethics
Ethiopia
Ethiopian
Ethiopians
Ethiopic
Ethir
Ethnarch
ethnic
ethnical
ethnically
ethnographers
ethnographic
ETHNOGRAPHICAL
ethnographically
Ethnographie
Ethnographische
Ethnographischen
Ethnography
ethnologic
Ethnological
ethnologically
Ethnologie
Ethnologilcal
Ethnologischen
Ethnologisches
ethnologist
ethnologists
ethnology
Etienne
etiological
Etiology
etiquette
etiquettes
Etiwan
Etlingen
Etna
Etoiles
Etolia
Eton
Etonians
Etowah
Etruria
Etruscan
ETRUSCANS
Etrusci
Etruscis
Etrées
Etschthal
Ettenheim
Ettingen
Ettlingen
Ettrek
Ettwein
Etymological
etymologically
etymologies
etymologists
etymology
etymon
Etzel
Eu
Euboea
Euboia
Euboians
Euboic
EUBŒA
Eubœa
Eubœan
Eucharist
Eucharistic
Euchites
Euclid
Eucrates
Eudemos
Eudes
Eudo
Eudoses
Eudoxia
Eudoxus
Euergetes
euery
Eugene
Eugenian
EUGENIANS
Eugenie
Eugenio
Eugenius
Eugubio
Eugène
Eugénie
Eulalius
eulogies
eulogised
eulogized
eulogy
Eumenes
Eumenius
EUMOLPHIDÆ
Eumolpids
Eumolpidæ
Eumolpus
Euneus
euntibus
eunuch
eunuchs
Eunus
Eupator
Eupatrid
Eupatrids
EUPATRIDÆ
Eupatridæ
Euphemios
euphemism
euphonious
euphoniæ
euphony
Euphorion
Euphrates
Euphratic
Euphêmus
Eupolemos
eur
Eure
Euric
Euripides
Euripus
EUROCS
Euroes
EUROKS
Europa
Europe
European
Europeanisation
Europeanised
Europeans
europäischen
Européennes
Européens
Eurotas
Euryalus
Eurydice
Eurylochus
Eurymachus
Eurymedon
Eurystheus
Eurytanes
Eurytus
Eurīpus
Eusden
Euseb
Eusebia
Eusebius
Eusk
Euskaldunac
Euskara
Euskkerria
Eustace
Eustache
Eustachius
Eustatius
Eustazza
Eustis
Eusèbe
Eutaw
Euterist
Euthalites
euthanasia
Eutherius
Euthydemus
EUTHYNI
Eutropius
Eutyches
Eutychian
Eutychianism
Eutychianus
Eutychius
Euxine
Euxinus
Ev
Eva
evacuate
evacuated
evacuating
evacuation
evade
evaded
evading
Evagoras
EVAN
evanescent
Evangel
evangelic
Evangelical
Evangelicals
Evangelicism
Evangelicorum
Evangeline
evangelisation
Evangelist
evangelistic
Evangelists
Evangelization
evangelized
evangelizing
Evangéliques
Evans
evaporate
EVARISTE
Evaristus
Evarts
evasion
evasions
evasive
evasively
eve
Evelina
EVELYN
Evemerus
even
evened
Evenement
evening
evenings
evenly
event
eventful
events
eventual
eventually
eventuate
eventuated
ever
everafter
EVERARD
Everett
Everglades
evergreen
Everitt
everlasting
evermore
Everts
Evertsen
every
everybody
everyday
everyone
everything
everywhere
Evesham
Evetts
evict
evicted
evicting
eviction
evictions
Evid
evidence
evidenced
evidences
evident
evidently
evil
evils
evince
evinced
evinces
evincing
evo
evoke
evoked
evoking
evolution
evolutionary
evolutionist
evolutions
evolve
evolved
evolving
Evora
Evreux
Evéchés
Evêchés
Evêque
Ewald
Ewart
Ewell
Ewen
Ewer
Ewes
Ewing
ex
exact
exacted
exacting
exaction
exactions
exactitude
exactly
exactness
Exactorious
exaggerate
exaggerated
exaggerating
exaggeration
exaggerations
exalt
Exaltados
exaltation
exalted
exalting
exalts
exaltés
Examen
examination
examinations
examine
examined
Examiner
examiners
examines
examining
example
examples
Exanceaster
exarch
exarchate
exarchs
exasperate
exasperated
exasperating
exasperation
exasperative
excavate
excavated
excavating
excavation
excavations
excavator
exceed
exceeded
exceeding
exceedingly
exceeds
excel
excelled
excellence
excellences
Excellencies
excellency
excellent
excellently
excels
Except
excepte
excepted
excepting
exception
exceptionably
exceptional
exceptionally
exceptions
excerpt
excerpts
excess
excesses
excessive
excessively
exch
exchange
exchangeable
exchanged
exchangers
exchanges
exchanging
Exchequer
excise
excised
excises
excission
excitability
excitable
excitants
excitation
excite
excited
excitedly
excitement
excitements
exciters
excites
exciting
exclaim
exclaimed
exclaiming
exclaims
exclamation
exclamations
exclude
excluded
excludes
excluding
exclusion
exclusionary
exclusive
exclusively
exclusiveness
excogitandum
excommunicate
excommunicated
excommunicating
excommunication
Excommunicatione
excommunications
excrement
excrementious
excrescences
excretion
excruciating
exculpated
exculpatory
Excursion
excursions
excusable
excuse
excused
excuses
excusing
Exe
Execestides
execrable
execrate
execrated
execration
execrations
execute
executed
executes
executing
execution
executioner
executioners
executions
executive
Executives
executor
executors
Exedarius
exedræ
exegesis
exegete
exegetical
EXEGETÆ
exemplar
exemplary
exemplification
exemplifications
exemplified
exemplifies
exempt
exempted
exempting
exemption
exemptions
exempts
exequatur
exercise
exerciseable
exercised
exercises
exercising
Exercitatio
exercitation
exercitus
exert
exerted
exerting
exertion
exertions
exerts
Exeter
exhalation
exhalations
exhaled
exhaust
exhausted
exhausting
exhaustion
exhaustive
exhaustively
exhaustless
exhibit
exhibited
exhibiting
exhibition
exhibitions
exhibitors
exhibits
exhilarating
exhilaration
exhort
exhortation
exhortations
exhorted
exhorting
exhorts
exhumation
exhume
exhumed
exigencies
exigency
exigible
Exiguus
Exilarch
Exilarchate
Exilarchs
exile
exiled
exiles
exilic
Exilles
Eximiam
exist
existed
existence
existences
existent
existentibus
existing
exists
exit
Exmouth
Exodares
exodus
exonerate
exonerates
exonerating
exorbitant
exorbitantly
exorcise
exorcising
exorcism
exorcisms
exorcists
exoteric
exotic
expand
expanded
expanding
expands
expanse
expansible
expansion
expansions
expansive
expansively
expatiate
expatriated
expatriation
expect
expectancies
expectancy
expectant
expectants
expectation
expectations
expected
expecting
expects
expediency
expedient
expedients
expedite
expedited
expedition
expeditionary
expeditions
expeditious
expeditiously
expel
expelled
expelling
expend
expended
expending
expenditure
expenditures
expense
expenseful
expenses
expensive
experience
experienced
experiences
experiencing
Experiment
experimental
experimented
experimenter
experimenters
experimenting
experiments
expert
expertness
experts
expiate
expiated
expiation
expiatory
expiration
expire
expired
expires
expiring
expiry
Expl
explain
explained
explaining
explains
explanation
explanations
explanatory
explicable
explicating
explication
explicit
explicitly
explode
exploded
exploding
exploit
exploitation
exploited
exploiting
exploits
exploration
explorations
Exploratore
explore
explored
explorer
explorers
explores
exploring
Explosion
explosions
explosive
explosives
exponent
exponents
export
exportable
exportation
exportations
exported
exporters
exporting
exports
exposant
expose
exposed
exposes
exposing
exposition
expositions
Expositor
expositors
expostulated
expostulations
exposure
exposures
expound
expounded
expounder
expounders
expounding
express
expressed
expresses
expressible
expressing
expression
expressions
expressive
expressiveness
expressly
expropriate
expropriated
expropriation
expropriator
exprssed
expulse
Expulsion
expulsions
expulsis
expunge
expunged
expunging
Expurgatorius
Exquemelin
exquisite
exquisitely
extant
extemporised
extemporize
extemporized
extend
extended
extending
extends
extensibility
extension
extensionists
extensions
extensive
extensively
extent
extenuating
extenuation
exterior
exterminate
exterminated
exterminating
extermination
exterminations
external
externally
externals
extinct
extinction
extinguish
extinguished
extinguishing
extinguishment
extirpate
extirpated
extirpating
extirpation
extol
extolled
extolling
extols
extort
extorted
extorting
extortion
extortionate
extortioners
extortions
extra
Extract
extracted
extracting
extraction
extracts
extradition
extraneous
Extraordinaries
extraordinarily
extraordinary
extras
extravagance
extravagances
extravagancies
extravagant
extravagantly
extreme
extremely
extremes
extremest
extremist
extremists
extremities
extremity
extricate
extricated
extricating
extrinsic
exuberance
exuberant
exult
exultant
exultation
exulted
exulting
Exuperius
Exurge
exvotos
Eyck
Eyder
eye
eyebrows
eyed
eyelid
eyen
eyes
Eylau
eyott
Eyre
eyres
eyrie
eyries
Eystein
ez
Ezbekiyeh
Ezeban
Ezekiel
ezer
Ezion
Eziongeber
Ezra
ezrach
Ezzelino
eâ
Eïon
F
Faber
Fabert
Fabian
Fabio
Fabius
fable
fabled
fables
fabliaux
Fabrateria
Fabre
fabric
fabricated
fabrication
fabricator
Fabricius
fabrics
fabrique
fabulist
fabulous
fabulously
Fabyan
fac
face
faced
facedness
faces
facetious
facetiously
facias
faciat
facile
Facilidas
facilitate
facilitated
facilitating
facilities
facility
facing
Facino
faciundis
facsimile
Facsimiles
fact
facta
faction
factional
factions
factious
factiously
factitious
facto
factor
factorage
factories
factors
Factory
factotum
facts
faculties
faculty
FADDILEY
faded
fades
fading
fads
Faenza
Faerie
fag
Fagan
Fages
Fagging
Faggiola
Faggiuola
faggot
faggots
Fagundes
Fagutal
fah
Fahr
Fahrenheit
Faidherbe
faihu
fail
failed
failing
failings
Failly
fails
failure
Failures
fain
faint
fainted
fainter
faintest
fainthearted
faintheartedness
fainting
faintings
faintly
FAINÉANS
FAINÉANT
fainéans
fainéant
fainéants
fair
Fairbairn
Fairbanks
Fairchild
faire
fairer
fairest
Fairfax
Fairfaxes
Fairfield
fairguni
Fairhair
Fairhaired
Fairhaven
fairies
fairly
Fairmount
fairness
fairs
fairy
Fairyland
fait
faith
faithful
faithfully
faithfulness
faithless
faithlessly
faithlessness
faiths
faits
Faizabad
fakir
Fala
Falaise
Falck
Falcon
FALCONER
falconers
falconets
falconry
falcons
Falcón
Falerio
Falk
FALKE
Falkenburg
Falkenstein
Falkirk
Falkland
fall
fallacies
fallacious
fallaciousness
fallacy
fallen
falleth
fallible
falling
fallow
falls
Falmouth
false
falsehood
falsehoods
falsely
falsification
falsified
falsifiers
falsifying
falsities
falsity
Falstaff
Falstaffian
falsâ
falter
faltered
faltering
Falémé
fama
Famagosta
famam
fame
famed
fames
Famil
familia
familiar
familiarised
familiarity
familiarize
familiarized
familiarly
familiars
Familie
families
Familists
FAMILISTÈRE
Familistère
familiæ
family
famine
famines
famished
famishing
famous
Fan
FANARIOTS
fanatic
fanatical
fanaticism
fanatics
fancied
fancies
fanciful
fancifully
Fanciulle
FANCOURT
fancy
Fancying
fane
Faneuil
fang
fangs
fanned
Fannia
FANNIAN
Fanning
Fannius
Fanny
Fano
Fans
Fanshawe
fantastic
fantastical
fantastically
Fanti
Fantino
Fantosme
far
Faraday
Farah
Faraones
farb
farbendruck
farce
farcical
Fardel
fare
fared
Farel
fares
farewell
Farias
FARINA
Farinata
faring
FARINI
Farlane
FARM
farmed
Farmer
farmers
farmhouse
farming
farms
Farmville
Farnese
Farnesi
Farnie
Farnobius
Faro
Faroe
Faroese
Faroma
Faroë
Farquharson
Farr
farrago
Farragut
Farran
Farrand
Farrar
Farrell
Fars
Farsaidh
FARSAKH
FARSANG
Farsistan
farther
farthest
farthing
farthings
Farwell
fas
fasces
fascinate
fascinated
fascinating
fascination
fascinations
Fascine
fascines
fashion
fashionable
fashionably
fashioned
fashioning
fashions
Fashoda
fast
fasted
fasten
fastened
fastening
fastenings
fastens
faster
fastest
Fasti
fastidious
fasting
fastings
fastness
fastnesses
Fastolfe
fasts
Fat
Fata
fatal
fatales
fatalism
fatalistic
fatalists
fatality
fatally
fate
fated
fateful
fates
Father
fathered
fatherland
fatherlands
fatherly
Fathers
Fathi
fathom
fathomed
fathoms
fatigue
fatigued
fatigues
fatiguing
Fatiko
Fatima
Fatimeh
Fatimide
Fatimides
Fatimite
Fatimites
fatness
Fattah
fatten
fattened
fattening
fatter
fatuity
fatuous
fatuus
Faubourg
Faubourgs
Faucher
Fauchet
fauchée
fauchées
Faucigny
fault
faultless
faultlessly
faults
faulty
faun
fauna
fauns
Fauquier
FAURE
FAURIEL
fausser
Faust
Fausta
Faustin
Faustina
Faustino
Faustinus
Faustrecht
faut
FAUVELET
Fauvera
fauxbourgs
FAVILA
Favin
favor
favorable
favorably
favored
favorers
favoring
FAVORITA
favorite
favorites
favoritism
favors
favour
favourable
favourably
favoured
favourer
favourers
favouring
favourite
favourites
favouritism
favours
Favre
favus
FAWKES
fawning
Fay
Faydide
Fayette
Fayetteville
Faypoult
Fayrer
faythfull
Fayum
façade
façades
Fe
fealty
fear
feared
fearful
fearfully
Feargus
fearing
Fearless
fearlessly
fearlessness
Fearnot
fears
feasibility
feasible
feast
feasted
feasting
feastings
feasts
feat
feather
feathered
feathering
feathers
feats
feature
features
Feb
febrifuge
febrile
Febris
FEBRUARY
feces
feciales
fecundity
fed
Fedeli
Federal
federalism
Federalist
federalistic
Federalists
federalized
federally
Federals
federate
federated
federately
Federating
Federation
Federationists
federations
Federative
Federico
Federigo
Federman
Fedorovitch
Feds
fee
feeble
feebleness
feebler
feeblest
feebly
feed
feeders
feeding
feeds
feel
feeling
feelingly
feelings
feels
fees
feet
feete
Fehde
Fehderecht
Fehleisen
Fehmgerichte
FehrbeIlin
Fehrbellen
Fehrbellin
fehu
feigned
Feigning
feigns
feint
feints
FEIS
Felbermann
Feldkirch
Feldmarshalls
Feldzügen
Felician
felicitate
felicitations
felicitous
felicitously
felicity
Felicitá
feline
Felix
fell
fellahs
felled
Fellenburg
felling
fellow
Fellowes
fellowmen
Fellows
fellowship
fellowshipped
fellowships
felon
felonies
felons
felony
felsen
Felsina
felt
Feltmakers
Felton
Feltre
Feltro
felts
Feltz
female
females
feminine
Femmes
femoral
Fen
fence
fenced
fences
Fenchurch
fencible
fencing
fend
Fendall
fender
Fenelon
Fenestrelles
Feni
Fenian
Fenianism
Fenians
Fenimore
Fenius
Fenland
fennel
Fenner
FENNIMORE
Fenno
Fenny
Fenouilhedès
fens
Fenwick
Feodor
Feodore
Feodorovitch
feodum
FEOF
feoffee
feoffment
feoffments
feoffor
feoh
feordings
feorm
Fer
Ferales
ferat
Feraud
Ferdinand
Ferdinandeums
Ferdinandian
Ferdinando
Ferencz
ferendo
Feretrius
Ferfeasa
Fergant
Ferghana
fergunnd
Fergus
Ferguson
Fergusson
Feria
Feriae
Feringi
Ferishta
FERIÆ
feriæ
Ferkenskill
FERM
Fermanagh
ferment
fermentable
fermentation
fermentations
fermented
fermenting
Ferments
fermo
Fermor
fern
Fernanda
Fernandez
Fernandina
Fernando
Fernelius
Fernow
ferocious
ferociously
ferocity
Ferozepoor
Ferozepore
Ferozeshur
Ferraio
Ferrajo
Ferrand
Ferrandino
Ferrante
Ferrantino
Ferrara
Ferrarese
Ferrens
Ferrero
Ferretti
Ferrier
Ferrieres
ferries
Ferris
FERRIÈRE
Ferrières
Ferro
Ferroe
Ferrol
Ferronaye
Ferruch
Ferry
Ferrybridge
ferrying
Ferryland
ferrymen
fersakhs
fertile
fertilise
fertilised
fertilising
fertility
fertilize
fertilized
fertilizing
Ferté
ferula
Ferulam
ferule
fervency
fervent
ferventis
fervently
fervid
fervor
fervors
fervour
Fescennine
Fessenden
festal
feste
festering
Festi
festival
Festivalis
festivals
festive
festively
festivities
festivity
Festus
fetch
fetched
fetching
fete
fetes
Feth
FETIALES
fetich
fetid
fetish
Fetridge
fetter
fettered
fettering
Fetterman
fetters
feu
feud
Feudal
feudalism
feudalisms
feudalists
feudality
Feudalität
feudalized
feudataries
feudatories
feudatory
feuds
feudum
Feuerbach
Feuillant
Feuillants
Feuille
fever
feverish
feverishly
feverous
fevers
Feversham
few
fewer
fewest
feytsien
Fez
Fezensac
Fezzan
ff
Fialin
FIANNA
fiat
fibre
fibres
fibrous
Ficana
Fichte
fickle
fickleness
fiction
fictions
fictitious
fiddler
Fide
fidei
fidelitas
fidelity
fidellity
FIDENÆ
Fidenæ
fiduciary
fief
fiefs
field
Fielden
Fielding
fieldmarshal
fields
fiend
fiendish
fiendishness
fiends
Fiennes
fierce
fiercely
fierceness
fiercer
fiercest
fieri
fiery
Fieschi
Fiesco
FIESOLE
Fiesolines
Fifanti
Fife
Fifeshire
fifteen
fifteenth
fifth
fifthly
fifths
fifties
fiftieth
fifty
fig
Figeac
Figgis
fight
fighter
fighters
fighting
fights
figment
figs
Figueras
Figuier
Figuiera
Figuières
figurante
figurative
figuratively
figure
figured
figurehead
figures
figuring
fihu
Fiji
fijodalgo
filaments
Filargo
filch
filched
filchings
file
filed
Fileli
FileLocator
files
fili
filia
filial
Filiberta
filibuster
Filibustering
filibustero
filibusteros
Filibusters
Filidecht
Filimer
filing
filings
FILIOQUE
Filippo
Filisola
Filius
fill
filled
filles
fillets
filling
Fillippopoli
Fillmore
fills
fils
Filson
filter
filtered
filtering
filth
filthiest
filthiness
filthy
Fimbria
Fimbrians
Fin
FINAL
Finale
finality
finally
Finan
finance
finances
financial
financially
Financier
Financiers
Finch
Finck
Finckenstein
find
Findel
finder
finders
finding
finds
fine
fined
Finegan
finely
fineness
finer
Finerty
finery
fines
finesse
finessed
finest
Fineux
Fingall
fingendum
finger
fingered
fingers
Fingo
Finian
Finibuster
fining
Finis
finish
finished
finishing
Finisterre
Finistère
Finkler
Finland
Finlason
FINLAY
Finley
Finn
Finnan
Finnian
Finnic
Finnish
Finnland
Finno
FINNS
Fins
FINÉ
Fiodh
fior
fiord
fiords
Fiore
fiorentino
fir
Firbolgs
Firdousi
fire
firearms
firebrand
fired
firelock
Firemen
fireplace
fireraisings
fires
fireside
firesides
firewood
fireworks
firing
firm
FIRMA
firmament
firmaments
firman
Firme
firmed
firmer
firmest
Firmian
Firmin
firmly
firmness
firms
Firmus
firmân
firmæ
Firoz
Firozpur
firs
First
firstborn
firstly
Firth
Firths
Firuz
Firuzabad
fisc
fiscal
FISCALINI
fiscals
Fischel
Fischer
FISCUS
fish
Fishback
fished
Fisher
fisheries
fisherman
fishermen
fishers
fishery
fishes
fishing
Fishkill
Fishmongers
fishponds
Fisiraghi
Fisk
Fiske
Fismes
Fison
fissure
fissures
fist
fists
fistula
fit
Fitch
Fitero
fitful
fitfully
Fithian
fitly
fitness
fits
fitte
fitted
fittest
fitting
fittingly
fittings
Fitz
Fitzer
Fitzgerald
Fitzgeralds
Fitzgibbon
Fitzgilbert
FitzHerbert
FITZHUGH
FITZJAMES
FITZMAURICE
Fitzpatrick
Fitzroy
Fitzstephen
Fitzwilliam
Fiume
five
fivefold
Fivizanno
Fivizano
fix
fixed
fixedness
fixes
fixing
fixity
fixture
Flaccilla
Flaccus
Flacius
flag
FLAGELLANTS
Flagellation
Flagg
flagged
flagging
flagitions
flagitious
flagrant
flagrante
flagrantly
flags
flagship
Flagstaff
flagstaffs
Flaherty
flail
flails
flakes
Flamborough
flame
flamed
Flamen
FLAMENS
flames
flamines
flaming
Flamingia
Flaminia
Flaminian
Flamininus
Flaminius
Flamma
Flammarion
Flanagan
Flanders
Flandre
Flandreau
Flandria
Flanenberg
flank
flanked
flanking
flanks
flannel
flare
flared
flash
flashed
flashes
flashing
flat
flatboats
flatbottomed
Flatbow
Flatbush
Flathead
Flatheads
flatly
flatness
Flats
flattened
flattening
flatter
flattered
flatterer
flatterers
flatteries
flattering
flatters
flattery
Flaubert
flaunting
Flavia
Flavian
Flavianites
Flavians
Flavius
flavor
flavour
flavours
flaw
flax
flaxen
Flaxman
flay
fleasg
Fleck
fled
fledged
flee
fleece
fleecing
fleecy
fleeing
fleet
Fleete
fleetest
fleeting
fleets
FLEETWOOD
Flegel
Flegma
Fleix
Fleming
Flemings
Flemish
Flemming
FLERS
flesh
fleshy
Fleta
Fletcher
Fleuri
fleurs
Fleurus
Fleury
Flevo
flew
flexibility
flexible
flibote
flibustiers
flicker
flickered
flickering
fliers
flies
flight
flightily
flights
flighty
Fligier
flimsiness
flimsy
flinch
flinched
flinching
Flinders
fling
flinging
flings
Flint
Flintner
Flintoff
flints
Flintshire
flirtation
flitting
float
floated
floating
floats
flock
flocked
flocking
flocks
Flocon
Flodden
floe
flog
flogged
flogging
flood
flooded
floodgate
flooding
floods
floor
floored
flooring
floors
Flor
Flora
Floralia
Flore
Floreal
Florence
Florences
Florent
Florentia
Florentin
florentina
Florentine
Florentines
Flores
Florian
Floriano
FLORIANUS
Florida
Floridan
Floridans
Floridas
Floridian
florin
Florinda
florins
Florinus
Floris
Florus
flory
FLORÉAL
Floréal
flota
flotilla
flotillas
floundered
floundering
flour
Flourens
flourish
flourished
flourishes
flourishing
flouted
flow
flowed
flower
flowering
flowers
flowery
flowing
flown
flows
Floyd
fluctuate
fluctuated
fluctuating
fluctuation
fluctuations
flue
fluency
fluent
fluid
fluidity
fluids
flung
flunkey
flush
flushed
Flushing
flute
fluted
flutter
fluttered
fluttering
fluvial
flux
fly
flying
Fléchier
Flô
foals
foamed
foaming
focis
FOCKSHANI
foco
focos
focus
fodder
Foddha
Fodhla
foe
foederati
foes
fog
Foggia
foggy
fogs
Fohkien
foi
foible
foibles
foil
foiled
foils
foisted
Foix
fol
folc
FOLCLAND
folcmot
fold
folded
folding
folds
Folengo
Foley
FOLIGNO
folio
folios
folk
Folkestone
Folketing
Folkland
folkmoot
folkright
folks
FOLKTHING
Folkungas
Folkungers
foll
Follenai
Follett
follies
follow
followed
follower
followers
followeth
following
follows
folly
Folsom
foment
Fomentations
fomented
fomenter
fomenters
fomenting
foments
FOMORIANS
fond
fondaco
fonder
Fondi
fondly
fondness
fonds
Fonfrède
Fonfréde
fons
Fonseca
font
Fontain
Fontainbleau
Fontaine
Fontainebleau
Fontainelles
Fontaines
Fontana
Fontane
Fontanes
Fontanet
Fontanetum
Fontanges
Fontarabia
Fontenailles
Fontenay
Fontenelle
Fontenoy
fonts
foo
food
foodless
foods
fool
fooled
foolery
foolhardiness
foolhardy
foolish
foolishly
foolishness
Fools
Foot
Foote
foothills
foothold
footholds
footing
footlights
footman
footmen
Footnote
footpath
Footprints
footstep
footsteps
footstool
footstools
footway
footways
For
Fora
forage
foragers
foraging
foraine
Forann
FORASMUCH
foray
forays
Forbach
forbad
forbade
forbear
forbearance
forbearing
FORBES
forbid
forbidden
forbidding
forbids
FORBIGER
forbore
forborne
Forcalquier
Force
forced
Forcel
forces
Forcheim
Forchein
Forchhammer
forcible
forcibly
forcing
Forckenbeck
FORD
fordable
Forde
forded
fords
fore
forebode
foreboded
foreboding
forebodings
forecast
forecastings
forecastle
forecastles
forecasts
foreclosure
forecluded
forecourt
foredoomed
forefather
forefathers
forefront
forego
foregoing
foregone
foreground
forehead
foreheads
foreign
foreigner
foreigners
forejudged
Foreland
forelands
foreman
foremast
foremen
foremost
forenoon
forensic
foreordained
forepart
foreposts
forerunner
forerunners
foresaid
foresail
foresaw
foresee
foreseeing
foreseen
foreshadowed
foreshadowing
Foreshadowings
foreshown
foresight
Forest
Foresta
forestall
forestalled
forestallers
Forester
foresters
forestry
FORESTS
foreswore
foretaste
foretell
foretelling
forethought
forethoughtfulness
foretime
foretold
foretop
forever
forewarned
forewarning
Forez
forfeit
forfeited
forfeiting
forfeits
forfeiture
forfeitures
forgave
forge
forged
forger
forgeries
Forgery
forges
forget
forgetful
forgetfulness
forgets
forgetting
forging
forgivable
forgive
forgiven
forgiveness
forgot
forgotten
fork
forking
forks
FORLI
Forlimpopoli
forlorn
form
forma
Formae
formal
formalism
formalities
formality
formally
Forman
formation
formations
formative
formatting
forme
formed
formen
former
formerly
formes
Formiae
formidable
formidably
Formigny
forming
Formio
Formiæ
formless
Formorian
FORMORIANS
FORMOSA
FORMOSUS
forms
formula
formulary
formulas
formulate
formulated
formulates
formulation
formulæ
fornication
FORNUOVA
Fornuovo
forordningen
Forrest
Forrests
forsake
forsaken
forsaking
forsook
forsooth
Forster
forswear
forsworn
Forsyth
Fort
forte
Fortescue
forth
forthcoming
forthwith
forthwth
forties
fortieth
fortieths
fortification
fortifications
fortified
fortify
fortifying
fortitude
fortnight
FORTNIGHTLY
FORTRENN
fortress
fortresses
forts
fortuitous
fortunate
fortunately
fortune
fortuned
fortunes
forty
forum
Forumpopoli
forward
forwarded
forwarding
forwardness
forwards
Fosca
FOSI
Foss
FOSSA
Fosse
fosses
Fosseuse
Fostat
Foster
fostered
fosterers
fostering
fosters
fot
Fotherby
Fothergill
FOTHERINGAY
fou
Foucart
Foucault
Foucaux
Fouché
fought
foul
fouled
fouler
foulest
foully
Foulon
Foulque
Foulquet
found
foundamentall
Foundation
foundations
founded
founder
foundered
founders
FOUNDING
foundling
foundries
foundry
founds
fount
fountain
fountains
founts
Fouquet
Fouquier
Fouqué
four
Fourah
Fourant
Fourcroy
foure
Foureau
Foureroy
fourfold
Fourichon
FOURIER
Fourierism
Fourierist
Fourierists
Fourierites
FOURMIGNY
Fournier
fourpence
Fourrierism
Fours
Fourscore
fourteen
fourteenth
fourth
fourthings
Fourthly
fourths
fous
Fowell
fower
fowerteene
FOWEY
Fowke
fowl
Fowle
Fowler
fowls
Fowltown
Fox
Foxe
Foxes
FOXHALL
Foxhunter
Foy
Foyle
Fr
Fra
fraction
fractional
fractions
fractured
fractures
fragile
fragment
fragmentary
fragments
fragrance
fragrant
frail
frailer
frailness
frailties
frailty
Fram
frame
framed
framers
frames
framework
framing
franc
Franca
Francaises
France
Frances
FRANCESCA
Francesco
Francese
Francfort
FRANCHE
Franchemont
franchise
franchises
Franci
Francia
Francici
Francis
Francisane
Francisca
Franciscan
Franciscans
Francisco
Franck
Franco
FRANCOIS
Francomania
Franconia
Franconian
Franconians
Francos
francs
Francus
Franeker
Frangipani
Frank
FRANKALMOIGN
Franken
Frankendahl
Frankenhausen
Frankenland
Frankenthal
Frankfort
Frankfurt
frankincense
franking
Frankish
Frankland
frankleyn
Franklin
franklins
frankly
frankness
frankpledge
Franks
Franro
Frans
Frantic
frantically
Franz
Franziska
Französische
FRANÇOIS
français
Française
françaises
François
FRANĆAISE
Frarçaise
Fras
Fraser
Frasnes
Frater
Fraterculi
fraternal
fraternise
fraternised
Fraternities
fraternity
fraternization
fraternize
fraternized
fraternizing
Fratres
Fratri
Fratricelli
fratricidal
fratricides
Fratrum
fraud
frauds
fraudulent
fraudulently
Frauen
Frauenalbe
Frauenberg
Frauenstein
fraught
Fraulein
Fraunces
fray
frayed
FRAZER
Frazier
freak
freaks
freckled
Fred
Fredegar
Fredegis
Fredegunda
Fredelon
frederati
Frederic
Frederica
Fredericia
Frederick
Fredericksburg
FREDERICKSHALL
FREDERICKSHAMM
Frederics
Fredericton
Frederikshamn
Frederman
Fredlingen
Fredrick
free
freebooter
freebooters
freebooting
freeborn
freed
freedman
freedmen
freedom
freedome
freedoms
freehold
freeholder
freeholders
freeholds
freeing
freely
Freeman
freemasonry
Freemasons
freemen
freeness
Freeport
freer
FREESOCAGE
freest
freestone
freethinker
freethinkers
Freetown
freewill
freeze
freezing
FREGELLÆ
Fregellæ
Fregosi
Fregoso
Freiberg
Freiburg
Freie
freight
freighted
freights
Freiheitskämpfer
Freiherr
Freiligrath
Freire
Freising
Freisingen
Freistadt
Freistädte
FREJUS
Frelinghuysen
Fremona
Fremont
French
Frenchman
Frenchmen
Frenchtown
Frenchwoman
Frenchwomen
FRENTANIANS
frenzied
frenzy
frequency
frequent
frequented
frequenter
frequenters
frequenting
frequently
Frere
Freres
Freron
Frescobaldi
frescoed
fresh
fresher
freshest
freshet
freshets
freshly
freshman
freshness
FRESNE
Fresno
fret
fretful
fretted
Freudenfeldt
Frey
Freyberg
Freyburg
Freycinet
Freydis
Freydorf
FREYHOLD
Freytag
FRH
Friar
Friars
Friburg
friction
frictional
frictions
Friday
Fridays
Frideswide
Frideswyde
Fridolin
Friedberg
Frieden
Friedenstadt
Friederich
Friederichsen
Friedland
Friedlanders
Friedlingen
Friedländer
Friedmann
Friedrich
Friedrichs
Friedrickshall
friend
friendis
friendless
friendliest
friendliness
friendly
friends
friendship
friendships
Friesland
Frieslanders
frieze
friezes
Friezland
frigate
frigates
fright
frighten
frightened
frightening
frightens
frightful
frightfully
frigid
Frigidus
frigidæ
frigus
friling
Frimaire
fringe
fringed
fringing
Frio
Frischen
Frischermont
Frise
Frises
Frisia
Frisian
Frisians
Frising
Frisinga
Frisingen
Friso
Frisons
frith
Fritigern
frittered
Fritz
Friuli
frivolities
frivolity
frivolous
frize
frizzly
fro
Froben
Frobisher
frock
Froebel
frog
frogg
frogs
Frohsdorf
Froissard
Froissart
frolic
frolicked
frolics
from
Froment
Fronde
Frondeurs
Fronds
front
frontage
frontcover
fronted
Frontenac
FRONTERA
frontier
Frontiers
frontiersmen
Frontignac
fronting
Frontinus
frontispiece
frontières
Fronto
fronts
Froschweiler
Frossard
Frost
Frostarious
frostbitten
frosts
frosty
froth
Frothingham
frotton
Froude
froward
Frowde
frown
frowned
frowning
frowns
frowsy
froze
frozen
Frs
Fructidor
fructification
fructified
fructifies
fructify
fructifying
FRUELA
frugal
frugality
Frugi
fruit
fruitage
fruitful
fruitfulness
fruition
fruitless
fruitlessly
fruits
frumentaria
FRUMENTARIAN
Frumentius
Frundsberg
frustrate
frustrated
frustrating
frustration
Fry
Fryar
Frye
Frà
Frère
Fréjus
Frémont
Fréron
frühesten
Frœbel
ft
fu
Fuca
Fuchs
fudging
Fuegians
Fuego
fuel
Fuensaldaña
Fuentarabia
Fuentes
Fuentés
fuerit
fueros
fuerte
fuertes
Fufia
FUFIAN
Fugger
Fuggers
fugitive
fugitives
fugling
fugue
Fuh
Fuhchau
fuit
Fujiwara
Fulahs
fulani
Fulc
Fulco
fulcrums
Fulda
fulfil
fulfill
fulfilled
fulfilling
fulfillment
fulfills
fulfilment
fulfils
FULFORD
Fulgent
fulguritorum
Fulk
full
fullbooks
fuller
fullers
fullest
fulling
fullness
fully
Fulmen
fulminate
fulminated
Fulmination
Fulneck
fulness
Fulrad
fulsome
FULTON
fultum
Fulvia
Fulvian
Fulvius
fumbiro
fumed
fumes
fun
function
functionaries
functionary
functions
Fund
fundamental
fundamentally
funded
Fundi
funding
funds
Fundy
Funen
funeral
funerals
Fung
fungi
Fungus
Funk
fuori
fuorusciti
fur
furies
furious
furiously
Furius
furled
furlong
furlongs
furlough
furnace
furnaces
Furne
Furnes
Furness
Furnifell
furnish
furnished
furnishes
furnishing
furnishings
furniture
furor
Furrah
furred
furrow
furrowed
furrows
furs
Furst
further
furtherance
furthered
furthering
furthermore
furthest
furtively
fury
furze
Fusaiqwan
Fusang
fuse
Fused
fuses
Fushan
Fushimi
fusilade
fusillade
fusilladed
fusillades
fusillading
fusing
fusion
fussy
Fust
Fustel
fustian
futile
futilities
futility
Futteh
FUTTEHPORE
Futtuh
futuity
future
futurity
fuzes
Fyffe
fyl
FYLFOT
Fylke
fyne
fynes
fyrd
Fyzabad
FÆSULÆ
FÈRE
FÜRST
fæstanmen
Fæsulanus
Fæsulre
Fère
Fèvre
Fé
fédéral
fédérale
fédératif
fédérative
Fédérés
Fénelon
Fénélon
fête
fêted
fêtes
Fünen
für
Fürst
Fürsten
Fürstenberg
Fürstenburg
Fürth
FŒDERATI
fœderati
fœdus
ga
gaah
Gabales
gabarre
Gabarus
GABELLE
Gabii
Gabinia
Gabinian
Gabinius
gables
Gaboon
Gabor
Gabran
GABRIEL
Gabrielle
Gabriello
Gachupines
Gad
Gadara
Gade
GADEBUSCH
Gadeira
Gadelians
Gadeni
GADES
Gadir
Gadra
GADSDEN
Gadsdens
Gaebel
GAEBLER
Gaedhelic
Gaedhil
Gaedhuil
Gaekwar
Gael
Gaelic
Gaels
Gaertner
Gaeta
Gaetani
Gaetano
Gaetulians
Gaevernitz
Gaffori
gafol
gag
Gagarin
Gage
Gagelin
Gagern
Gages
gagnage
gagnages
gags
GAH
GAI
Gaidaroff
Gaidhel
gaieties
gaiety
GAILLARD
Gaillenus
Gaillon
gaily
gain
Gainas
gained
gainer
gainers
Gaines
Gainesville
gainful
Gaini
gaining
gains
gainsaid
gainsay
gainsayed
gainsays
gainstand
gainstanders
Gairdner
Gaiseric
gait
Gaius
Gakdul
Gaku
Gal
Gala
Galante
galas
Galata
Galatia
Galatian
Galatians
Galatz
Galatza
GALATÆ
Galatæ
Galaxy
Galba
gale
galeasses
GALEAZA
galeazzas
Galeazzo
Galen
Galenism
Galenists
galeon
galeoncillo
GALEONS
galeota
GALERA
Galerie
Galerius
gales
Galesburg
Galgacus
Galibis
Galicia
Galician
Galienus
Galigai
Galil
Galileans
Galilee
Galileo
Galilæa
Galissonière
Galissonnière
Galitzin
Gall
Galla
Gallacia
GALLAIRD
gallant
gallantest
gallantly
gallantry
Gallas
Gallatin
GALLDACHT
galled
Gallen
Gallenga
GALLEON
galleons
galleots
galleries
gallery
galley
galleys
Gallgaidheal
Galli
Gallia
Gallic
Gallica
Gallican
Gallicanism
Gallicans
Gallicante
Gallicia
Gallician
Gallicians
Gallicized
Gallicum
Gallienus
gallies
galling
Gallipoli
gallischem
Gallo
GALLOGLASSES
gallon
gallons
gallop
galloped
galloping
Gallorum
Galloway
Gallowglasses
gallows
gallowses
Galls
Gallura
Gallus
Gallwey
Galpin
Galton
Galusha
Galvani
galvanic
Galvanis
Galvanism
galvanometer
Galveston
Galvez
Galway
Gama
Gamain
Gamaliel
Gamarra
Gambacorta
Gambacorti
Gambetta
Gambia
Gambier
gamble
gambled
gambler
gamblers
gambling
Gambrivii
game
gamecock
gamekeeper
gamekeepers
games
gami
gaming
gamins
Gamitto
Gamla
GAMMADION
Gammell
GAMORI
Ganawese
Gand
Gandaria
Gandarians
GANDASTOGUES
Gandastogué
Gandastogués
Gandia
Gando
Gandu
gang
Ganganelli
Gangani
Ganger
Ganges
Gangetic
gangrene
gangrened
gangrenous
gangs
Ganguela
gangway
Ganneau
Gannett
Gano
Ganot
Gansevoort
Gantheaume
gaol
gaolam
gaoler
Gaolers
gaols
Gaon
Gaonate
gap
gaps
Gar
GARAMANTES
garantir
Garat
Garay
garb
Garben
garbled
Garbo
Garces
Garcia
Garcilaso
Garcilasso
Gard
Garda
Gardane
Gardar
Garde
Gardeau
garden
gardener
gardeners
gardening
gardens
gardes
Gardiner
Gardner
Gardoqui
Garelli
Garenganze
Garfield
Gargantua
Garganus
Gargon
GARIBALD
Garibaldi
Garibaldian
Garibaldians
Garigliano
Garites
GARITIES
garland
Garlande
garlands
Garlandville
garment
garments
Garneau
Garner
garnered
Garnet
garnets
Garnett
Garnier
garnished
garokwa
Garonne
garret
garrets
Garretson
Garrett
Garrick
Garrigues
garrison
garrisoned
Garrisonian
garrisoning
garrisons
Garry
Gartcha
Garten
Garter
garters
Garumna
Garumni
Garvey
Gary
Garza
gas
Gasca
Gascoign
Gascon
Gascons
Gascony
Gascoyne
gaseous
gases
gash
gasind
gasp
Gaspar
Gaspard
GASPE
Gaspereaux
Gaspey
gaspings
Gaspé
Gasquet
Gass
Gassan
Gassion
Gast
Gastaldi
GASTEIN
Gastinois
Gaston
Gastyne
Gatanois
gate
gates
Gateschina
gateway
gateways
GATH
GATHAS
gather
gathered
gatherer
gatherers
gathering
gatherings
gathers
Gatinais
Gatling
Gatschet
Gatton
Gatu
Gatzkow
gau
Gaubius
Gaucher
gaucheries
Gaudama
Gauden
gaudily
Gaugamela
gauge
Gaul
Gaule
Gauley
Gaulish
Gaulonitis
GAULS
Gault
Gaumata
gaunt
gauntlet
Gauntlett
Gaur
GAURUS
gaus
Gausarapo
Gausarapos
Gauss
Gautama
Gautemala
Gauthier
GAUTIER
Gauts
Gauttier
Gavan
gave
gavelkind
Gaven
Gaveren
Gaveston
Gavre
Gawdy
Gaxaca
Gay
Gaya
Gayarre
GAYARRÉ
Gayarré
gayest
gayety
Gaylesville
gayly
Gayoso
Gaza
GAZACA
Gazah
Gazan
GAZARI
gaze
GAZEAU
gazed
gazers
gazette
Gazetteer
gazettes
gazi
gazing
Gazna
Gaznevide
GAZNEVIDES
Gaëta
gbsgesummaryr
GE
gear
geared
Geary
Geatas
Gebah
Gebalene
Gebel
geber
Gebhard
GEBHARDT
gebietsveränderungen
Gebir
Gebirge
gebrauche
geburs
geburt
Gedaliah
GEDDES
Gedeontes
Gedge
Gedichte
Gedimin
Gedrosia
GEDROSIANS
geer
Geert
Geertruydenberg
geese
gefechts
Geffcken
Geffrard
Geffrey
GEFFROY
gegen
gegenwart
geh
Gehenna
Gehwer
Geierstein
Geiger
GEIJER
GEIKIE
Geinti
Geisa
Geisberg
Geiserich
Geist
Geiza
GELA
Gelaleddin
Gelasius
gelatinize
Gelderland
Gelders
Geleontes
Gelheim
Gelimer
Gell
Gellius
Gelo
Gelon
Gelong
GELONI
gelt
GELVES
Gelôn
gem
Gemara
Gemaras
Gemblours
Gembloux
gemein
GEMEINDE
Gemeinderath
Gemeine
Gemerall
Gemini
Geminus
Gemioncourt
gemot
gems
Gemót
Gen
Genabum
Genappe
Genauni
gendarme
gendarmerie
gendarmes
gender
genealogical
genealogically
genealogies
genealogisch
genealogischer
genealogists
genealogy
Genebrard
Genera
General
generalcy
generale
generaled
generalesses
generali
Generalia
generalisation
generalisations
Generalissima
Generalissimo
generalities
generality
generalization
generalized
generalizing
generall
generalled
generally
Generals
generalship
Generalstab
generated
generating
generation
generations
generator
generic
generically
generis
generosity
generous
generously
Genesee
Geneseo
Genesis
GENET
genetically
Genetrix
Geneva
Genevan
Genevese
Genevieve
Geneviève
Genevois
Genghis
genial
genially
genii
Genis
Genista
genitive
genius
geniuses
Genlis
Gennesareth
Genoa
Genoese
Genola
Genos
Genossenschaften
Genouilly
Genovese
Genrall
gens
gensdarmerie
gensdarmes
Genseric
Gensonné
Gent
gentes
gentian
Gentile
Gentiles
Gentili
Gentilis
Gentilshommes
gentium
gentle
gentleman
gentlemen
gentleness
gentler
gentles
gentlest
gently
Gentoo
Gentoos
gentry
gents
Gentz
Genua
GENUCIAN
Genucius
genuine
genuinely
genuineness
genus
Genèvre
Geo
Geodetic
Geoffrey
Geoffry
Geog
Geograph
geographer
geographers
geographic
Geographical
geographically
geographie
geographische
geographischer
Geographisches
geography
Geok
geologic
Geological
geologist
geologists
geology
geometrical
geometry
GEOMORI
GEONIM
Georg
George
Georges
Georgetown
Georgevitch
GEORGIA
Georgian
Georgians
Geougen
Gepanta
Gepelmukpechenk
Gepid
Gepidae
GEPIDÆ
Gepidæ
Gera
Geraint
geral
Gerald
Geraldine
GERALDINES
Geranea
Geraneia
Geranium
Gerard
Gerards
Gerasa
GERBA
Gerbert
GEREFA
gerent
GERGESENES
Gergitheans
Gergithes
Gergithian
Gergithians
Gergovia
Gerhard
Gerhardus
Gerichte
Gerim
Gerizim
Gerland
Germ
Germain
Germaine
Germains
German
Germani
Germania
Germanians
Germanic
Germanica
GERMANICUS
Germanie
Germanies
Germanique
Germanisation
germanischen
Germanised
Germanising
Germanism
Germanist
Germanize
Germanized
Germanizing
Germanna
Germano
Germans
Germantown
Germanus
Germany
Germanys
Germersheim
Germin
Germinal
germinate
germinating
germs
Gernsheim
geroefa
GEROLD
Gerona
Geronimo
gerontes
Gerontius
gerontocracy
Gerousia
Gerrha
Gerrit
Gerry
Gerrymander
gerrymandering
Gers
GERSCHHEIM
Gerson
Gerster
Gertrude
Gertruidenburg
Gertruydenberg
Gerusalemme
Gerusia
Gervais
Gervas
Gervase
Gervinus
Geryon
Ges
Gesammelte
gesammt
gesammtausgabe
gesch
Geschehene
Geschehenen
Geschichte
Geschichtlich
geschichtlichen
geschichtllchen
Geschichts
geschichtsatlas
geschicte
geschiedenis
geschildert
Geschlecht
geschäftlichen
gesellschaftsleben
Geser
gesith
GESITHCUND
gesiths
Gesner
Gesoriacum
gesserit
Gessi
Gessler
Gesta
GESTER
gesticulation
gestis
gesture
gestures
get
Geta
Gethsul
Geticis
gets
Gette
getting
Gettysburg
Getulia
Getulians
Getzul
GETÆ
Getæ
Gewerbszweigen
GEWISSAS
Gewordenen
Gex
Gezer
ghany
Ghar
Gharb
Gharnatta
ghastly
Ghats
Ghazal
Ghazan
Ghazel
Ghaznavide
Ghaznevide
GHAZNEVIDES
Ghazni
Gheel
Ghelani
Ghenghis
Ghent
Ghenters
Ghentois
Ghenucci
Gherardesca
Gherei
GHERIAH
Ghetto
Ghettos
Ghez
Ghiacciuolo
Ghiara
Ghibelin
Ghibeline
Ghibelines
Ghibelins
Ghibelline
Ghibellines
Ghibellinism
Ghibellino
Ghibellins
Ghiberti
Ghilan
ghilde
Ghildes
Ghilzyes
Ghirai
Ghislain
Ghizeh
Ghizni
Ghlbellines
Gholab
Ghor
Ghorians
Ghorka
Ghorkas
GHOST
ghostly
Ghosts
Ghulam
Ghulan
Ghureyyib
Ghuri
Ghuznee
Ghuzni
Gháts
Gia
Giacomo
Giafferi
Giagiolo
Gian
Gianbelli
Giangaleazzo
GIANNONE
Giannoné
Giano
giant
Giants
Giao
gibberish
gibbet
gibbets
GIBBINS
Gibbon
Gibbons
GIBBORIM
Gibbs
GIBEON
Gibeonites
gibes
Giblites
Gibraltar
Gibralter
Gibson
giddiest
Gidding
Giddings
giddy
Gideon
Gideons
Gidney
Gielgud
Gien
Giers
Giesebrecht
Gieseler
Giessen
Giffen
Gifford
gift
gifted
gifts
gig
gigantic
Giggleswick
gigliati
Gigni
Gihon
Gijon
Gil
Gila
Gilbart
GILBERT
Gilboa
gild
Gilda
Gildas
gilde
gilded
Gilder
Gildersleeve
Gildhall
gilding
Gildo
gilds
gildsmen
GILEAD
Giles
Gileños
Gilgal
Gilibert
Gill
Gilles
Gillespie
Gillett
Gillis
Gillmore
gills
GILMAN
GILMARY
GILMORE
Gilolo
Gilpin
gilt
Gilán
Gimignano
Gimri
gin
Gindely
ginger
Gingilovo
Ginicel
Ginkel
Ginn
gins
Gintl
Gio
Gioberti
Giocondo
Gioras
Giordano
Giorgione
giorno
Giotto
Giovan
Giovane
Giovanna
Giovanni
Gipsies
giraffe
Giraldus
Girard
Girardin
Giraud
gird
girded
girding
girdle
girdled
girdles
girds
Girduni
Girgenti
girl
girlhood
Girling
girls
Girolamo
Giron
Girona
Gironde
Girondin
Girondins
Girondism
Girondist
Girondists
girt
GIRTON
Girtys
Girvii
Gisbert
Gischala
Gisco
Gisella
Gisgo
Gisla
Gislebert
gist
GITANOS
Gitschin
Giubileo
giue
giueing
giuen
Giulay
Giuliano
Giulio
GIURGEVO
GIUSEPPE
Giustiniani
Giustiniano
give
given
giver
givers
gives
Givet
giveth
giving
Givonne
Gizeh
Gizza
Giúlay
Glabrio
Glaces
Glacial
Glacidas
glacier
glaciers
glacis
glad
gladdened
gladdest
glades
Gladiator
Gladiatoria
gladiatorial
gladiators
gladiatorship
gladly
gladness
Gladstone
Gladstonian
Gladstonians
Gladwin
Glais
glaive
glamor
Glamorgan
Glamorganshire
glamour
glance
glanced
glancing
gland
glanders
glands
glandular
Glanvil
Glanvill
Glanville
glare
glaring
Glarus
Glas
Glasdale
Glaser
Glasgow
glass
glasses
glassy
Glastonbury
Glattau
Glatz
Glaucus
glazed
Glazier
gleam
gleamed
gleaming
gleams
gleaned
gleaning
Gleanings
glebe
glebes
glebæ
glee
gleeful
Gleig
glen
Glenbervie
Glencairn
Glenco
Glencoe
Glendale
Glendochart
Glendower
Glenfinnan
Glenlyon
GLENMALURE
glens
glesum
GLEVUM
Gli
glib
glibly
GLIDDON
glided
glimmered
glimmering
glimmerings
glimmers
glimpse
glimpses
glistened
glittered
glittering
gloat
gloated
gloating
globe
globes
Glogau
Gloire
gloom
gloomiest
gloomily
gloomy
Gloria
gloriam
gloried
glories
glorification
glorifications
glorified
glorifies
glorify
glorifying
glorious
gloriously
glory
glorying
gloss
Glossa
Glossarial
glossaries
glossary
glossator
GLOSSATORS
glosses
glottologist
Gloucester
Gloucestershire
glove
Glover
gloves
glow
glowed
glowing
glue
Glurns
glut
Glutha
glutted
glutting
glutton
gluttonous
gluttony
Glycerius
Glyn
Glücksburg
Gnadenhütten
gnashing
gnawed
gnawing
Gneisenau
Gneist
Gnesen
Gnezen
Gni
gnomes
Gnosis
Gnostic
Gnosticism
Gnostics
go
Goa
goad
goaded
goading
goads
Goajira
goal
goals
goat
goatherd
goatherds
goats
Gobelin
Gobi
Gobineau
goblet
goblets
Gobryas
Goceano
God
Goddard
Goddes
goddess
goddesses
Godeau
Godegisel
Goderich
godfather
Godfrey
Godhaab
Godhead
Godin
Godkin
godless
godlike
godliness
godly
godmother
GODOLO
Godolphin
Godounoff
Godoy
Gods
godsend
godson
Godwin
GODWINE
Godyn
goe
Goeben
Goeffrey
goeing
Goeje
Goek
goer
goers
Goertz
goes
Goethe
Goetz
Goff
Goffe
Gog
Gohard
Gohier
Gohlis
Gohur
GOIDEL
Goidelic
Goidels
going
Goislard
GOITO
Gokla
Golconda
gold
Goldbach
golden
Goldsboro
Goldsborough
Goldschmidt
Goldsmid
Goldsmith
goldsmiths
Goldwin
Goletta
Goliad
Goliath
Golitsins
Golnau
Golo
GOLOWSTSCHIN
Goltz
Golymin
Golz
Gomara
Gomates
Gombauld
Gomer
Gomera
GOMERISTS
gomers
Gomerus
Gomez
Gomme
Gomorrah
Gomphi
Gonatas
Gonatus
Gondi
Gondokoro
Gondolfo
gondoliers
Gondrecourt
GONDS
gone
Gonfalon
Gonfalonier
Gonfaloniere
Gonfaloniers
Gonfanon
Gongylos
Gonino
gonorrhœa
gonorrhœal
Gonsalez
Gonsalo
Gonsalves
Gonsalvo
Gontery
Gonville
Gonzaga
Gonzagas
Gonzaghi
Gonzales
Gonzalez
Gonzalo
Gonzalvez
Gonçalvez
Gooch
Goochland
good
Goodell
goodliness
Goodloe
goodly
goodman
goodness
Goodnow
Goodrich
goods
goodwill
GOODWIN
Goody
google
Gookin
GOORKAS
GOOROO
goose
Gora
GORCE
Gorcum
Gorden
Gordian
Gordians
Gordium
Gordius
Gordo
Gordon
Gordons
Gordonsville
GORDYENE
Gordyenes
Gordyæans
Gore
Goree
gorge
Gorgeana
gorged
Gorgei
gorgeous
gorgeously
gorgeousness
Gorges
Gorgias
Gorgidas
Gorgo
Gorgus
Gorham
Goricia
Gorico
Goring
Goriot
GORM
Gormaz
Gorongoza
Goroszlo
Gorringe
Gortchakof
Gorton
Gortschakoff
GORTYN
Gorzkowsky
Gosch
Goschen
Gosford
Gosh
Goshen
Goshgoshink
Goslar
Gosnold
gospel
gospell
Gospellers
Gospels
Gospodin
Gosport
Goss
Gossa
GOSSE
Gosselies
Gosselin
gossip
gossiping
gossips
gossipy
Gosuites
got
Gotama
Gote
Goth
Gotha
Gothard
Gothenburg
Gothi
Gothia
Gothic
Gothicus
GOTHINI
Gothis
Gothland
GOTHONES
Goths
Gotini
Gotland
Gotschalk
Gott
Gottard
gotten
Gotteshausbund
Gottfried
Gotthard
Gottingen
gotton
Gottorp
Gou
Gouda
Goudsmit
Gouerment
gouerned
Gouernor
Gouernour
Gouffre
Gough
Goujon
Goulbourn
Goulburn
Gould
Gour
Gourgaud
Gourgues
Gouriel
Gourko
gourmets
Gournor
gourville
Gout
gouty
Gouv
Gouvernement
Gouverneur
Gouvion
gov
GOVER
govern
governable
governance
governe
governed
governess
governing
Government
governmental
Governments
Governor
governors
governorship
governorships
Governour
governs
Govind
Govéa
Gowan
Gowans
Gowanus
Gower
gown
gowns
gownsman
Gowrie
Goya
Goza
Gozbert
Gozlin
Gozo
Gozon
gr
GR2157
GR3089
Graafield
Graal
Grabow
GRABOWSKY
Gracchan
Gracchi
Gracchus
grace
graced
graceful
gracefully
graceless
graces
Gracias
gracieux
gracing
gracious
graciously
graciousness
gradation
gradations
grade
graded
Gradenigo
grades
gradient
Gradisca
Gradlitz
Grado
gradual
gradually
graduate
graduated
graduates
graduation
gradus
Graeci
Graecia
Graeco
Graetz
GRAF
Grafen
graff
Grafio
Grafs
graft
grafted
grafting
Grafton
grafts
GRAHAM
Grahame
Graikoi
grain
grains
Graius
Gram
Grambo
grammar
grammarian
grammarians
grammars
grammateion
grammatical
Grammatically
grammatici
grammaticis
Gramme
grammes
Grammont
Gramont
Grampian
Grampians
GRAMPIUS
grams
Gran
Granada
GRANADINE
Granadines
granaries
granary
Granby
Granchester
Grand
grandchild
grandchildren
granddaughter
Grande
grandee
grandees
Grandella
grander
grandest
grandeur
grandfather
grandfathers
grandi
Grandidier
grandiloquence
grandly
Grandmaster
grandmother
grandmothers
Grandpré
Grands
grandsire
grandson
grandsons
granduncle
Grange
Grangeneuve
Granger
GRANGERS
Grangez
Granicus
Granikos
granite
GRANPIUS
Granson
grant
Granta
Grantebrycgr
granted
grantee
grantees
granth
Grantham
granting
grantor
grantors
grants
granulated
Granvella
Granvelle
Granvil
Granville
grape
grapes
graphic
graphically
grapple
grappled
grappling
GRASBY
grasp
grasped
grasping
grass
Grasse
grasses
GRASSHOPPER
grasshoppers
grassy
grata
grateful
gratefully
Grateley
grates
Gratia
Gratian
Gratianus
gratias
gratification
gratifications
Gratified
gratify
gratifying
grating
Gratiot
gratis
gratitude
gratiâ
Grattan
gratuities
gratuitous
gratuitously
gratuity
gratulation
gratulations
Gratus
Gratz
Grau
Graubund
Graubunden
Graubünden
Graudenz
Graue
graunt
Graupius
grave
gravel
Gravelines
Graveling
gravelly
Gravelotte
gravely
graven
graver
graves
Gravesend
gravest
graveyard
graveyards
gravibus
gravibusque
Gravier
Gravina
Gravissimus
gravitated
gravitates
gravitating
Gravitation
gravity
Gravière
Gravure
Gravé
gravées
Grawen
gray
GRAYBACKS
Grays
Grayson
Graz
grazed
grazier
graziers
grazing
grease
greased
Great
greatcoat
greater
greatest
Greathouse
greatly
greatness
Greatrakes
greaves
Greble
Grecia
Grecian
Grecianizing
Grecians
Greco
grede
Greece
greed
greedily
greediness
greeds
greedy
Greek
Greeks
Greeley
Green
GREENBACK
Greenbackers
Greenbacks
Greenbrier
Greene
Greenhithe
Greenland
Greenleaf
Greenock
Greenough
greens
greenstone
greensward
Greenville
Greenwell
Greenwich
Greenwood
Greer
greeted
greeting
grefes
greffier
Greg
gregarious
Gregers
GREGG
Grego
Gregoire
Gregor
GREGORIAN
Gregorians
Gregorio
Gregorovius
Gregory
Greifswald
Greifswalde
Greisheim
Grellman
Greman
Grenada
grenades
Grenadier
grenadiers
Grenadines
Grenier
Grenoble
Grentebrige
Grenvil
Grenville
Grenvilles
Grenvillle
grenzen
Gresham
Greswell
Greta
gretest
Greux
Greve
greved
Grevel
GREVILLE
Grevy
grew
Grey
Greyfriars
GREYS
Greytown
Griaznof
Grider
Gridley
Griechen
Griechenlands
grief
griefs
Griefswald
GRIERSON
Griesinger
grievance
grievances
Grieve
grieved
grieves
grievous
grievously
Griffet
Griffin
Griffing
griffins
GRIFFIS
Griffith
Griffiths
Griffon
Grig
Griggs
Grignau
Grigsby
Grijalva
Grillon
grim
Grimaldi
Grimes
Grimké
grimly
Grimm
Grimsby
grimy
grind
Grindal
grinding
grindstones
GRINNELL
Grinstead
grip
GRIPPE
gripped
grips
Griqua
Griqualand
GRIQUAS
grisettes
Grison
Grisons
Grist
Griswoldville
Grits
Grixoni
grizzly
groan
groaned
groaning
groans
groat
Groby
grocer
Grocers
Grochow
Grodekoff
Grodno
Groesbeck
Groete
Grog
groin
GROL
Grolmann
Gronau
Gronenburg
Groningen
Gronland
GRONLUND
Gronsfeld
groom
Groombridge
Groome
Groot
groote
groove
grope
groped
groping
Gros
groschen
gross
Grossbeeren
Grosse
Grosselin
grossen
grosser
grossest
Grosset
Grosseteste
grossherzog
grossly
Grossmüthige
grossness
Grosso
Grossteste
Grosswardein
Grosvenor
Grosventre
Grosventres
Grote
Grotefend
grotesque
GROTIUS
Groton
Grotta
grotto
grottoes
Grouchy
ground
grounded
grounding
groundless
groundnuts
grounds
groundwork
group
grouped
grouping
groupings
groups
Grousset
grove
grovel
Groveland
Grover
groves
Groveton
grow
growe
grower
growers
growing
growled
growling
grown
grownds
grows
growth
growths
Groyne
Gruach
grub
grubbed
GRUBE
grudge
grudged
grudges
grudging
grudgingly
grumble
grumbled
grumbling
Grumentum
Grundemann
Grundlöv
Grundy
Grundzüge
Gruner
Grunzvittigau
Gruthungi
Gruyère
Gryneum
Grynæus
GRÆCIA
GRÉVY
GRÜTLI
Gräfen
Gräfin
Græc
Græca
Græci
Græcia
Græco
Græcus
Grève
Gréard
Grégoire
Grévy
Gröningen
Grübe
Gründung
Grütli
GUADACELITO
Guadalajara
Guadalete
Guadaloupe
Guadalquiver
Guadalupe
GUADALUPES
Guadarama
Guadarrama
Guadeloupe
Guadet
Guadix
Guaicarus
Guaifer
Guajira
Gualo
GUALTEIRO
Gualter
Guamanga
Guanahani
Guanajuato
Guanas
Guanaxuato
GUANCHES
Guanima
guano
Guarai
Guaranay
GUARANI
Guaranis
guarantee
guaranteed
guaranteeing
guarantees
guarantied
guaranties
guarantors
guaranty
guard
guarda
guardant
guarded
guardedly
guardhouse
guardian
guardianed
guardians
guardianship
Guardias
guarding
Guardiola
Guards
guardships
guardsman
Guarnieri
Guast
Guastala
Guastalla
Guastella
Guasto
GUATEMALA
Guatemaltec
Guatemaltecs
Guatemozin
Guayana
GUAYANAS
Guayaquil
Guaycara
Guays
Gubbins
Gubernatione
Gubernator
gubernatorial
guberniya
GUCK
Gucumatz
Gudrid
Guebriant
Guechoff
Guedynum
Guelderland
Guelders
Gueldre
Gueldres
Guelf
Guelfa
Guelfic
Guelfo
Guelfs
Guelph
Guelphic
Guelphism
Guelpho
Guelphs
GUERANDE
Guercheville
Guercio
Guergué
Guericke
guerilla
Guerinets
Guernsey
GUERRA
Guerrazzi
guerre
Guerrero
guerres
guerrilla
guerrillas
Guerrière
GUESCLIN
guess
guessed
guesses
guessing
guesswork
guest
guests
GUETTÉE
Guettée
Gueux
Guevara
Guffroy
Guhl
gui
Guiana
Guibert
Guicciardini
Guicowar
guidance
guide
guided
guides
guiding
Guido
Guienne
Guignard
Guigue
Guilbert
guild
guilder
guilders
Guildford
Guildhall
guildlets
Guilds
guildships
guile
guileless
Guilford
Guiliano
Guillaume
GUILLEMIN
Guillotin
guillotine
guillotined
guillotines
Guillotining
guilt
guiltiness
guiltless
guilty
Guimaraens
Guinea
guineas
Guinegaste
GUINEGATE
Guines
Guiney
Guingette
guinguette
Guinizzelli
Guinizzi
GUINNESS
Guiot
Guipuscoa
Guipuzcoa
Guiscard
Guiscards
Guise
Guises
Guislain
Guisnes
Guiteau
Guiton
Guizat
Guizot
Gujarat
Gujerat
Gujrat
gulden
Gules
Guleyn
Gulf
gulfs
Gulliver
gulph
gum
Guminen
Gumri
gums
gun
gunboat
gunboats
Gundahar
GUNDEBERTUS
Gundicarius
Gundiok
Gundobad
Gundobald
GUNDRY
Gundulph
Gunhilde
Guni
Gunnbjorn
gunneress
gunners
gunnery
Gunniborn
Gunning
gunpowder
guns
gunshot
gunsmiths
Guntellino
Gunther
Guntram
Gunynna
gupta
Gurdistan
Gurgan
Gurghan
GURKHAS
Gurley
Gurnigel
Gurowski
Guru
gush
gushing
Gusman
Gusses
gust
Gustaf
GUSTAV
GUSTAVE
Gustavus
GUTBORM
gute
gutenberg
Guth
Guthrie
Guthrum
Gutierrez
Gutstadt
gutted
gutter
GUTTONES
Gutzlaff
Guuchie
GUUCHIES
Guy
Guyana
Guyandotte
Guyanne
Guyard
Guyenne
Guyon
Guyot
Guyton
Guzarat
Guzarate
Guzerat
Guzman
Guzmán
guzzled
GUÉLFS
Guárico
Guébriant
Guéménée
Guérande
gwaah
Gwalchmei
Gwalior
Gwent
Gwin
Gwinnett
gwledig
gwledigs
Gwydion
Gwyn
Gwynedd
GWYTHER
Gyalba
Gyarus
Gyges
Gylippos
Gylippus
gymnasia
gymnasial
GYMNASIARCH
gymnasiarchia
gymnasiarchy
Gymnasien
gymnasium
gymnasiums
Gymnast
gymnastic
gymnastics
Gympie
gynæceum
Gyon
GYPSIES
Gypsum
gypsy
Gyrth
GYRWAS
Gythium
gyves
GÖRGEI
GÖRSCHEN
GÖTZ
Gâthâs
Gâtinais
gä
gäle
Gælic
Gænsefleisch
Gèle
général
Générale
Généralité
généralités
généraux
géographie
géographique
Gérard
Gévaudan
Gîzeh
Göben
Göldlin
Göllheim
Görgei
Göritz
Görlitz
Görschen
Görtz
Göteberg
Göttingen
Götz
Götzen
Günther
Güsfeldt
ha
Haarfager
Haarfagr
Haarlem
Haarlemmers
Haas
Habana
habeas
Habel
habent
Haberdashers
habere
haberjeets
Habersham
Habichtsburg
habiliments
habilitated
habit
habitable
habitants
habitat
habitation
habitations
habitats
habited
habits
habitual
habitually
habituated
habitués
Habsburg
Habsburgers
Habsburgs
Habus
Habâsa
hac
Hacem
Hachette
Hacienda
hack
hacked
Hacker
HACKINSACKS
Hackney
Hackston
hacky
Haco
had
hadad
Hadadezer
Hadar
hadasha
Haddick
Haddington
Hader
Hades
Hadgi
Hadhr
HADI
hadjarel
Hadji
Hadjouts
Hadley
Hadmandods
Hadramaut
Hadria
Hadrian
Hadrianapolis
Hadriani
Hadrianople
Hadrianus
Hadriatic
HADRUMETUM
hae
Haeg
Haemus
Haendcke
Haeretico
Hafiz
Hafs
Hafún
Hagan
Hagareni
Hageman
Hagenau
Hagerstown
haggard
Hagmatan
Hagmatán
Hagnon
Hague
HAGUENAU
Hahiroth
Hahn
Hahnemann
hai
Haida
Haidah
Haidar
Haidarabad
HAIDAS
HAIDERABAD
hail
hailed
Haileybury
hailing
hails
hailstorm
Haimburg
Hainault
Hainaulters
Hainaut
Haine
Haines
hair
hairbreadth
haircloth
haired
Haish
Haiti
Haitian
Haitians
Hake
Hakem
Hakhamanis
Hakhamanisiya
Hakka
HAKLUYT
HAKO
Hakodate
Hakon
Hal
HALAMAH
halberd
halberdier
Halberstadt
halberts
halbes
Haldimand
Hale
Halebi
Haleby
haled
Hales
Haley
half
Halfa
Halfdan
halfhearted
halfmoon
halfpence
halfpenny
Halfway
Halfweg
HALIARTUS
HALIBURTON
Halicarnassus
Halicz
Haliday
Halidon
Halieis
Halifax
Halikarnassus
Halim
Hall
hallali
Hallam
Halland
Halle
Halleck
hallelujah
hallelujahs
HALLER
Hallett
halliards
Halliday
Hallier
Hallische
hallow
hallowed
Hallowell
hallowing
halls
Halltown
hallucination
Halluin
HALLWICH
Halmand
halo
Halske
halt
halted
halter
Halteren
halters
halting
halts
halves
halyards
Halykus
Halys
Halévy
Ham
Hama
HAMADAN
Haman
Hamar
Hamath
Hamathites
Hambden
Hamble
Hamburg
Hamburgenses
Hamburger
Hamburgh
Hamburghers
Hamel
Hameln
Hamerton
Hames
Hamet
Hamid
Hamil
Hamilcar
Hamilcars
Hamilton
Hamiltonian
Hamiltonians
Hamite
HAMITES
Hamitic
hamlet
hamlets
Hamley
Hamlin
Hammamat
Hammelburg
Hammer
hammered
Hammerer
hammering
hammers
Hammersmith
hammock
Hammond
Hammourabi
Hammurabi
Hamon
HAMPDEN
Hampdens
hamper
hampered
Hampshire
HAMPSON
Hampton
hams
Hamset
Hamtranck
Hamud
Hamun
Hamza
Han
Hanau
Hanbury
hanc
Hancock
hand
handbills
handbook
Handbuch
handed
handedly
handful
handfuls
handicapped
handicraft
handicrafts
handicraftsman
handicraftsmen
handing
handiwork
Handkarte
handkerchief
handkerchiefs
handle
handled
handles
handling
handlooms
handmaid
handmaidens
hands
handsome
handsomely
handsomeness
handsomer
handsomest
handvests
handwrit
handwriting
handwritings
handy
HANES
hang
Hangcheu
hange
hanged
hangers
hangeth
hanging
hangings
hangman
hangs
hanker
hankering
Hankinson
Hanlin
Hanna
Hannah
HANNAK
Hannan
Hannay
Hannibal
Hannibalianus
Hannibalic
Hanniballianus
Hannibals
Hannington
Hannis
Hanno
Hannos
Hannover
Hannu
Hanoi
HANOTAUX
Hanover
Hanoverian
Hanoverians
Hanovertown
Hans
HANSA
Hansard
Hansards
Hansas
Hanse
Hanseatic
Hanseats
Hansen
Hansens
Hansi
Hansiro
Hanson
Hanstien
hany
HAOMA
hap
haphazard
hapless
happen
happened
happening
happenings
happens
happier
happiest
happily
happiness
happy
Hapsburg
Hapsburgh
Hapsburghs
Hapsburgs
hapta
Har
Hara
Harahvaiti
Harald
Haram
Haran
harangue
harangued
harangues
haranguing
harass
harassed
harassing
harb
harbinger
harbingers
harbor
harborage
harbored
harboring
Harborough
harbors
harbour
harbourage
harboured
harbouring
harbourless
harbours
HARBUTT
Harcourt
hard
HARDACRE
Hardee
harden
Hardenberg
Hardenburg
hardened
hardening
harder
Harderwyk
hardest
Hardi
Hardicanute
hardier
hardiest
hardihood
Harding
HARDINGE
hardly
Hardness
Hardrada
Hardrade
hardship
hardships
Harduin
Hardwick
Hardwicke
hardworking
hardy
Hare
Harefoot
harem
harems
hares
Harfager
Harfagr
HARFLEUR
Harfraga
Hargrave
HARGREAVE
Hargreaves
HARII
Hariot
Harisse
harken
Harlai
Harlan
Harlaw
Harlay
Harlebec
Harleian
Harlem
harlequin
harlequins
Harley
harlot
harm
Harman
Harmanus
Harmar
harmed
harmful
harmless
harmlessly
harmlessness
Harmodius
Harmonia
harmonies
harmonious
harmoniously
harmonise
harmonize
harmonized
harmonizes
harmonizing
harmony
Harmost
Harmosts
Harmostæ
Harmsworth
Harmus
HARNACK
harness
harnessed
Harnett
Harney
Haro
Harold
Haroot
Haroun
harp
Harpagus
Harpalus
Harper
harps
harpsichord
Harrach
harrass
harrassing
harried
Harriet
Harrington
Harriot
Harris
Harrisburg
Harrisburgh
Harrison
Harrisonburg
HARRISSE
Harrod
Harrodsburg
Harrow
Harrowby
harrowing
Harry
harrying
harsh
harsher
harshest
harshly
harshness
Hart
Harteford
Harteforde
Hartford
Hartger
Harthacnut
Harthacnute
Hartig
Hartington
Hartlepool
Hartley
Hartmann
HARTPOLE
Hartshore
Hartstein
Hartsuff
Hartung
Hartz
Hartzburg
haruspices
Harvard
harvest
harvested
harvesting
harvests
Harvey
Harvæus
Harz
has
Hasan
Hascen
Hasculf
Hasdrubal
Hase
Haselrig
Hasenclever
Hashem
Hashim
Hashimite
Hashimiyeh
hashshashiyun
Hasiz
Haslerig
Hasmonean
HASMONEANS
Hasmonæan
Haspinger
Hassal
Hassall
Hassan
HASSAUREK
Hassayampa
Hasselaer
Hasselmann
Hasselt
Hassem
Hassen
HASSENCAMP
Hasset
Hassi
HASSIDIN
hast
hastati
haste
hasted
hasten
HASTENBACK
Hastenbeck
hastened
hastening
hastens
hastily
Hasting
Hastings
hastlie
hasty
hat
hata
Hatasu
Hatch
Hatchard
Hatchards
hatched
Hatcher
hatches
hatchet
hatchets
Hatchie
hatching
hate
hated
hateful
hatefulness
hater
haters
Hatfield
hath
Hathor
hating
Hatinh
Hatra
hatred
hatreds
Hats
Hattam
Hatte
hatted
Hatteras
Hatti
Hatton
HATUNTAQUI
haubert
haud
haue
Hauenstein
Haug
haughtier
haughtiest
haughtily
haughtiness
HAUGHTON
haughty
Haugwitz
hauing
Haukal
haul
hauled
hauling
haunches
haunt
haunted
haunting
haunts
Haur
Hauraki
Hauri
haus
Hausmacht
Hausrucksviertel
Hausrück
Hausser
HAUSSONVILLE
haut
haute
Hautefort
Hautes
hauteur
Hauteville
Havana
Havannah
Havatch
have
Havel
Havelberg
Havelburg
Havell
Havelland
HAVELOCK
Haven
havens
Haverfordwest
Haverhill
haversack
haversacks
Haverstraw
Haverty
Haviland
Having
havoc
havock
Havre
Haw
Hawaian
Hawaii
Hawaiian
Hawaiians
Hawaiki
Hawarden
Hawazin
Hawk
Hawkabites
Hawke
hawked
hawker
Hawkers
Hawkesbury
Hawkesworth
Hawkeye
hawking
Hawkins
Hawks
Hawksbee
Hawkwood
Hawley
hawthorn
Hawthorne
Haxall
Haxthausen
Hay
Hayden
Haydn
Haye
Hayes
Hayman
Haymarket
Haynau
Hayne
Haynes
Hayradin
Hays
Hayter
Hayti
Haytian
Haytians
Haytien
Hayward
Hazael
Hazara
HAZARD
hazarded
hazardous
hazards
Hazarehs
Hazelton
Hazen
hazily
Hazlerig
Hazlerigg
HAZLITT
Hazor
hazy
HAÜSSER
Haïthal
Haïtheleh
he
Hea
head
headache
headed
headedness
headgear
heading
headings
headland
headlands
headless
Headley
headlong
headman
headquarters
heads
headship
headsman
headstall
headstrong
headwaters
headway
heady
heal
Heald
healed
Healer
Healing
health
healthful
healthier
healthiest
healthiness
healthy
HEALY
Heang
Heaou
heap
heaped
heaping
heaps
hear
heard
heare
hearer
hearers
hearest
hearing
hearings
hearken
hearkened
Hearne
hears
hearsay
hearse
hearses
heart
heartache
hearted
heartedness
heartfelt
hearth
hearths
hearthstone
heartiest
heartily
heartiness
heartless
heartlessly
heartlessness
hearts
hearty
heat
heated
Heath
heathen
heathendom
heathenish
heathenism
heathens
heaths
heating
HEATON
heats
heave
heaved
Heaven
Heavenfield
heavenly
heavens
heavenward
heavier
heaviest
heavily
heaviness
heaving
heavy
heb
heba
Hebberd
Hebdomon
Heber
Heberden
Hebertists
Hebi
Hebraic
Hebraism
Hebraized
Hebrard
Hebrew
Hebrews
Hebrides
HEBRON
Hebrus
HECANA
Hecanas
Hecateus
HECATOMB
Hecatombeus
hecatombs
HECATOMBÆON
HECATOMPEDON
HECATOMPYLOS
Hecker
Heckethorn
Heckewelder
Hecla
hectares
Hector
hectoring
Hectors
Hecuba
Hedde
Heder
hedge
hedged
Hedgeley
hedgerows
hedges
Hedley
Hedvige
Hedwig
HEDWIGA
Hedwige
hee
heed
heeded
heeding
heedless
heedlessly
heedlessness
heeds
heel
heeled
heelers
heels
heen
heerban
heerby
HEEREN
Heerschild
Hefele
Hefner
Hegave
Hegel
Hegelian
Hegelianism
Hegelians
hegemony
Hegira
Hegius
heide
Heideck
Heidelberg
Heiden
heifers
height
heighten
heightened
heightening
heights
Heilbron
Heilbronn
heilige
Heiligenhausen
Heiliger
HEILPRIN
Heilsberg
heimathlosat
Heimathlosen
Heimfallsrecht
Heimskringla
Heindorf
Heine
Heinemann
heinous
heinousness
Heinric
HEINRICH
Heinsius
Heintzelman
heir
heiress
heiresses
heirloom
heirlooms
heirs
heirship
Heiss
Heisse
Heister
Heiterblick
Hejaz
hejira
Hejiræ
Hekademus
HELAM
held
Heldenbuch
Helder
Helding
Helen
HELENA
Helene
Helens
Helepolis
Helfenstein
Helfta
heliacal
Heliast
Heliasts
Heliastæ
helices
HELICON
Heligoland
Heliodorus
heliographic
Heliopolis
Helios
Helisson
helix
HELIÆA
Heliæa
Hell
Helladius
Hellania
Hellanius
Hellas
Helle
hellebore
Hellegat
Hellen
Hellene
Hellenes
Hellenic
Hellenica
Hellenics
HELLENION
hellenischen
hellenised
hellenising
Hellenism
Hellenist
Hellenistic
Hellenists
Hellenization
hellenized
Hellespont
Hellespontians
Hellespontine
hellfire
Helli
hellish
Hellmuth
Hellopia
hells
HELLULAND
Hellwald
Hellwig
Hellé
Hellênion
helm
Helmand
Helmend
helmet
helmets
Helmholtz
Helmont
helmsman
Helmstadt
HELMUTH
Heloise
Helos
Helot
helotage
HELOTS
Help
helped
helper
helpers
helpful
helping
helpless
helplessly
helplessness
helps
Helsingfors
Helsingland
Helvecones
Helvetia
Helvetian
Helvetic
Helveticum
Helvetii
Helvetius
HELVII
Helvius
Helvoetsluys
hem
Hemans
Hemart
Hemina
Heming
hemisphere
hemispheres
hemlock
hemmed
hemming
hemp
Hempel
hempen
Hemphill
Hempholme
Hempstead
Hems
Hen
hence
henceforth
henceforward
henceforwards
Henderson
Hendred
Hendrick
Hendricks
Hendrik
hendu
Hendy
Hengest
HENGESTESDUN
Hengist
Hening
Henle
HENLEY
Henlopen
henna
Henneh
Hennepin
Hennersdorf
Hennessy
Henningsen
Henoticon
Henri
Henrici
HENRICIANS
Henrico
Henries
Henrietta
Henriette
Henriot
Henriques
Henry
HENRYS
Henshaw
Hensler
Hepburn
Hephthagh
Hephæstion
Heptachorion
Heptannesos
HEPTANOMIS
HEPTARCHY
Hepworth
her
Hera
Heraclas
HERACLEA
Heracleia
Heracleid
HERACLEIDÆ
Heracleidæ
Heracleonas
Heracleopolis
Heracles
Heraclian
Heraclide
Heraclids
HERACLIDÆ
Heraclidæ
Heraclitus
Heraclius
Herakleia
Herakleid
HERAKLEIDS
Herakleidæ
Herakles
herald
heralded
heraldic
heraldry
heralds
Heras
Herat
herausg
Herausgegeben
herb
herbage
Herbart
Herbert
Herbois
herborising
herbs
Hercte
HERCTÉ
Herculaneum
Herculano
herculean
Hercules
HERCULIANS
Herculius
Hercynia
HERCYNIAN
herd
herde
herded
Herder
herders
herding
Herdonea
herds
herdsman
herdsmen
here
hereafter
hereby
hereditability
hereditament
hereditaments
hereditarily
hereditary
heredity
Hereford
Herefordshire
herein
hereinafter
hereinbefore
hereof
Hereon
Herero
heresiarch
heresiarchs
heresies
heresy
heretic
heretical
heretics
hereto
heretofore
heretoga
hereunder
hereunto
Hereupon
Hereward
herewith
Herford
Heribann
Heribert
Heriot
Herirud
Herispoë
Heristal
heritable
heritage
heritages
Heriulfson
HERKIMER
Herkte
Herlouin
Herlover
hermai
Herman
hermandad
hermandades
Hermann
Hermannstadt
Hermanric
HERMANS
HERMANSTADT
hermaphrodite
hermaphrodites
Hermes
hermetically
Herminigild
Herminones
Herminsaule
Hermione
HERMIONES
Hermionê
Hermippus
hermit
hermitage
hermitages
hermits
Hermocopidæ
Hermogenes
Hermokratês
Hermon
Hermonassa
HERMONTHIS
Hermunduri
Hermus
HERMÆ
HERMÆAN
Hermæ
Hermês
Hernandez
Hernando
HERNDON
Hernican
Hernicans
Hernici
hero
Herod
HERODEANS
Herodes
Herodian
Herodians
Herodias
Herodot
Herodotus
Herods
heroes
heroic
Heroical
heroically
heroine
heroines
heroism
heroisms
Herold
Heron
Heroopolis
Herophilists
Herophilus
HEROÖPOLIS
Herr
Herran
Herrendag
Herrenhausen
Herrera
Herrick
Herries
herring
HERRINGS
Herrison
Herrmann
Herrn
Herrnhut
Herron
herrschaft
hers
Herschel
Herschell
herself
Hersfeld
Hershon
Herst
Hertel
Hertell
Hertford
Hertfordshire
Herts
Hertslet
Hertzberg
Herule
Herules
HERULI
Herulian
Heruls
Hervey
Herwarth
Herzegovina
Herzegovinese
Herzegovinian
Herzen
Herzenism
Herzog
Herzogenbuchsee
Herzogs
Heræa
Heræum
Hesdin
Hesekiel
Heshbon
Hesiod
Hesiodic
hesitate
hesitated
hesitating
hesitatingly
hesitation
hesitations
Hesperia
Hesperides
Hesperis
Hesperus
Hesse
Hessels
Hessen
Hessey
Hessia
Hessian
Hessians
Hestia
Hestiaia
hestiasis
Hestiæa
Hesy
HESYCHASTS
hetaerae
Hetaira
Hetairist
HETAIRISTS
hetep
heterodox
heterodoxy
heterogeneous
heterogenous
Heth
Hethei
HETMAN
Hettite
Hettites
HETÆRIES
Hetæræ
Heuheu
Heung
Heusde
heute
Heuvel
HEVENFIELD
hew
hewed
hewers
Hewes
Hewett
hewing
Hewins
Hewitt
hewn
Hewson
hexastyle
HEXHAM
Hey
heyday
HEYDUCS
Heyes
Heylin
Heylyn
Heyn
Heyne
heyre
Heyward
Heywood
Hezekiah
Hi
Hiah
Hiaksaï
Hiantsoung
hiatus
HIAWATHA
Hibbert
Hibernia
Hiberniores
Hibernis
hibitâ
Hickenilde
Hickey
Hickory
Hicks
HICKSON
hid
hidage
hidalgo
hidalgoism
hidalgos
HIDATSA
Hidatsas
hidden
hide
hideous
hideousness
Hider
hides
Hideyoshi
hiding
hied
Hiera
hierarchical
hierarchy
HIERATIC
Hierax
Hiero
HIERODULI
hieroglyphic
HIEROGLYPHICS
hieroglyphs
Hieromax
Hieromnêmones
Hieron
Hieronimus
Hieronymite
Hieronymites
Hieronymus
Hierophant
Hierum
Higden
Higgins
HIGGINSON
high
highday
higher
highest
Highgate
Highland
Highlander
Highlanders
Highlands
highly
highness
highnesses
highroads
Highs
highway
highwayman
highways
Higinbotham
Higo
Higra
Hii
Hijaz
Hijra
Hikenilde
Hiketas
Hilarion
hilarious
Hilarius
Hilary
Hildburghausen
Hildebrand
Hildeburn
Hildesheim
Hildreth
Hill
Hillah
Hillard
hilled
Hiller
Hillhouse
Hilliard
Hillier
Hilliers
hillmen
hillock
hillocks
hills
Hillsboro
Hillsborough
hillside
hilltop
hilltops
hilly
Hilmend
Hilperik
hilt
Hiltisrieden
HILTON
hilts
him
Himalaya
Himalayan
Himalayas
himatia
himation
Himera
Himerians
Himilco
Himilkôn
HIMLY
Himmelstierna
himself
himselfe
Himyar
Himyarite
Himyarites
Himyaritic
Himyer
hin
Hinckley
Hind
Hinde
hinder
hindered
hindering
hindermost
Hindi
Hindlopen
Hindman
hindmost
Hindo
Hindoo
Hindooism
Hindoos
Hindostan
hindrance
hindrances
HINDU
Hinduism
Hindus
Hindustan
Hindustani
hinged
hinges
Hingham
Hinguar
Hinkston
Hinman
Hinnom
Hinschius
Hinsdale
hint
hinted
Hinter
Hinterland
hinting
hints
Hiong
Hiouen
hip
Hippagretæ
HIPPARCH
Hipparchus
Hipparinus
HIPPEIS
Hippias
Hippicus
HIPPIS
Hippius
Hippo
HIPPOBOTÆ
Hippobotæ
Hippocrates
Hippocratic
Hippocratists
Hippodamus
hippodrome
Hippokrates
Hippolyte
Hippolyto
Hippolytus
Hippomenes
Hipponicus
hippopotamus
Hippos
HIPPOTOXOTÆ
Hippotoxotæ
Hippônion
hips
Hira
Hiram
Hirchova
hire
hired
hireling
hirelings
hiring
Hirlap
hiro
Hirpenians
Hirschau
hirsute
Hirt
Hirtia
Hirtius
his
Hisar
Hispalis
Hispania
Hispaniola
Hispaniolized
Hispano
Hissar
Hissarlik
hissed
hisses
Hist
Histiæus
Histoire
Histoires
HISTORIA
Historiae
historian
historians
Historic
Historica
Historical
historically
historico
Historie
historien
Histories
historiographer
historiographers
historique
historiques
Historisch
Historische
historischer
Historiseh
History
Histriomastix
hit
hitch
Hitchcock
Hitchin
Hitchiti
Hitchitis
Hitchittees
hither
hitherto
Hitotsubashi
hits
Hittell
HITTIN
hitting
Hittite
Hittites
hive
hived
hives
Hivites
Hizen
HLAFORD
Hlstoire
HLUDWIG
HLÆFDIGE
Hlæfdige
Hm
ho
Hoadley
Hoar
hoard
hoarded
hoarding
hoards
hoarseness
hoarser
Hobal
Hoban
Hobart
Hobbes
Hobbs
hobgoblin
Hobhouse
Hobkirk
Hoboken
Hobson
hoc
Hoch
Hochangara
Hoche
Hochelaga
Hochheim
Hochkirch
Hochkirchen
Hochkirk
Hochstadt
Hochstedt
Hochungorah
Hocquart
Hocquincourt
hodden
Hodder
HODEIBIA
Hodge
Hodges
Hodgkin
Hodister
Hodmodods
Hodskin
Hodson
Hoe
Hoechst
hoes
Hoey
Hof
Hofburg
Hofe
Hofer
Hoffman
Hoffmann
Hoffmeyer
Hofmann
Hoftage
Hog
Hogarth
Hoge
Hogenbach
Hogg
hogge
hogs
hogsheads
Hogstraaten
Hogue
hoh
Hoha
Hohen
Hohenburg
Hohenembs
Hohenfriedberg
Hohenlinden
Hohenlohe
Hohenstaufen
Hohenstaufens
Hohenstauffen
Hohenstein
Hohenzollern
Hohenzollerns
hoist
hoisted
hoisting
Hojo
Hoke
Hokucho
Holbach
Holbein
Holborn
Holcombe
Holcroft
hold
holden
Holdenby
holder
Holdernesse
holders
holding
holdings
holds
Holdsworth
hole
holed
holes
holethnos
holiday
holidays
holier
Holies
holiest
Holiness
Holinshed
Holkar
Holkars
Hollaendare
Holland
Hollander
Hollanders
Holles
Hollins
Hollis
Hollister
hollow
hollowed
hollowing
hollowness
hollows
Holly
Holm
Holmby
Holme
Holmes
Holmpatrick
holocaust
holocausts
Holst
HOLSTEEN
Holstein
Holston
Holt
Holub
Holwell
Holy
holydays
Holyman
Holyoake
Holyoke
Holyrood
Holzer
Homa
homage
homagium
Homans
hombres
Homburg
home
homeland
homeless
homely
Homem
Homer
Homeric
Homeridæ
Homerites
homes
homesickness
homespun
homestead
homesteader
homesteads
homeward
homewards
homicide
homicides
HOMILDON
homilies
HOMINE
hominem
homines
hominium
hominy
homish
Homme
hommes
Hommil
homo
homogeneity
homogeneous
homogeneousness
Homoiousians
HOMOIOUSION
Homoloic
Homonai
Homoousian
Homoousians
homoousion
Hompesch
HOMS
HOMŒOPATHIC
HOMŒOPATHY
Homœopathic
Homœopathy
Hon
Hona
Honan
Honda
Hondius
Hondo
HONDSCHOTTEN
Hondt
Honduras
Hone
HONEIN
Honeoye
honest
honestest
honestly
honesty
honey
honeycombed
honeycombing
honeyed
Honeyman
Honeysuckles
Honfleur
Hong
Hongkong
Honi
Honiton
Honolulu
Hononus
honor
Honorable
honorably
honorary
honored
honoring
Honorius
honors
honorum
Honorè
Honoré
honour
honourable
honourably
honoured
honours
Hontan
honveds
Honvéd
Honvéds
Hood
hooded
Hoods
hoof
hoofs
Hoogenboets
Hooghly
Hoogley
Hook
Hooke
hooked
Hooker
Hookham
Hooks
hoop
Hoopa
Hoopah
Hoopahs
Hooper
hoops
Hoorn
Hoosac
hooted
hooting
hootings
HOOVER
hop
hope
hoped
Hopeful
hopefully
hopefulness
hopeless
hopelessly
hopelessness
hopes
Hopewell
HOPF
Hophra
hoping
Hopkins
Hopkinson
Hopletes
hoplites
Hoppin
hopping
hops
Hopton
Hor
Horace
Horatian
Horatii
Horatio
Horatius
horde
HORDERE
hordes
Hordynski
Hore
Horemheb
HORESTII
Horik
HORIKANS
Horites
horizon
horizontal
horizontally
Hormayr
Hormisdas
Hormuz
Hormuzd
Horn
Hornbeam
Hornblower
Hornc
Horncastle
Horne
horned
Hornet
horns
Horoje
horologe
HORON
horoscopes
horrible
horribly
horrid
horrified
horrifying
Horrocks
horror
horrors
Horry
hors
Horsa
horse
horseback
horsed
horseflesh
horseman
horsemanship
horsemen
horses
Horseshoe
horseshoes
horsewhipped
HORSFORD
Horsman
Horsoks
Horsted
Horsthegn
hort
Hortales
Hortense
Hortensia
Hortensian
Hortensius
horticulture
Horton
Hortulorum
Horus
Horzitz
Horæ
hos
Hosack
Hosannah
hose
Hosea
HOSEIN
Hoses
Hosey
Hoseyn
Hoshea
Hosier
HOSMER
Hospes
hospice
hospitable
hospitably
hospital
HOSPITALIS
hospitalities
hospitality
Hospitaller
Hospitallers
hospitals
Hospites
hospitia
Hospitium
Hospodar
Hospodars
Hossan
Hossein
Hosset
host
hostage
hostages
hostelry
hostels
hostess
hostile
hostiles
Hostilia
hostilibus
hostilities
hostility
Hostilius
HOSTIS
hosts
hot
hotbed
hotbeds
Hotel
Hotels
hotly
Hotman
Hotnots
Hotspur
Hotspurs
Hottentot
Hottentotes
Hottentots
hotter
hottest
Hotze
Houchard
Houchow
Houdancourt
houder
houes
Hough
houghed
houghers
Houghton
Hougoumont
Houlagou
Houlka
hounded
hounding
hounds
Hounslow
hour
hourly
hours
Housatannuck
Housatonic
Housatonick
House
Housecarls
housed
housefather
household
householder
householders
households
houseless
housemaid
housemasters
Houses
housetop
housewife
housewives
housing
Houssein
Houston
Houtman
Houtmann
HOVAS
hove
hovel
Hovenden
hover
hovered
hovering
hovers
Hovgaard
how
Howard
Howarth
Howbeit
Howe
Howel
Howell
however
Howie
Howitt
howitzer
howitzers
howl
Howland
howled
howlers
howling
howlings
howls
Howorth
howse
Howson
Howth
Hoyt
HOZIER
hracian
Hreop
Hrepa
hrepp
hreppr
HRINGS
Hrof
Hrofescester
Hrolf
Hrolfr
Hrægel
Hsi
hta
HTAS
htchi
htm
html
http
https
Hu
Hualapais
Hualcopo
HUAMABOYA
Huancabamba
Huancas
Huancayo
huans
Huara
Huard
Huascar
Huasteca
Huastecas
Huastecs
Huaylas
HUAYNA
Huaynacapac
hub
HUBAULT
Hubba
Hubbard
hubble
hubbub
Huber
Hubert
Hubertsburg
Hubner
Huc
huckster
Hud
Huddersfield
huddle
huddled
Huddling
Hudibras
HUDSON
hue
Huecos
hued
Hueffer
hues
Huesca
Huey
Hufeland
hufenschoss
huff
Hug
huge
hugely
Huger
hugest
hugged
hugging
Hugh
Hughes
Hugo
Hugonot
Hugonots
Huguenin
Huguenot
Huguenotism
Huguenots
Hugues
Huguet
Huguon
Huhle
Huhn
Huimanguillo
Huissier
huissiers
Huitzilihuitl
Huitzilopochtli
hul
Hulagu
Hulakoo
Hulaku
Hulbert
Hulde
Hulin
Hulk
hulks
Hull
hulls
Hulst
Hultsch
Huma
human
humane
humanely
Humaniores
humanises
Humanism
humanist
humanistic
humanists
humanitarian
humanitarianism
humanities
humanity
humanized
humanly
Humanæ
HUMAS
Humayoon
Humayoun
Humayun
Humber
Humbercourt
Humbert
humble
humbled
HUMBLEDON
humbleness
humbler
humblest
humbling
humbly
Humboldt
HUME
Humes
Humfrey
humid
humiliate
humiliated
humiliating
humiliation
humiliations
humility
Humières
Hummelwald
Hummers
Humming
hummocks
humor
Humoral
Humorism
humorist
humorists
humorously
humors
humour
humoured
humourist
humours
Humphrey
Humphreys
Humphry
Humphrys
Hun
hunchback
Huncks
hundred
hundreders
hundreds
hundredth
hundredths
hung
Hungarian
Hungarians
Hungarovallachia
Hungarowallachia
Hungary
hunger
hungered
hungering
hungry
Huniades
HUNINGEN
Huningue
Hunker
Hunkers
Hunniades
Hunnic
Hunnish
Huns
HUNT
huntari
hunte
hunted
Hunter
hunters
Huntersville
hunting
Huntingdon
Huntingdonshire
Huntington
Huntley
Huntly
Huntlys
Hunton
hunts
huntsmen
Huntsville
Hunyad
Hunyades
Hunyadi
Hunyady
Hupa
Hupas
Hur
Hurd
Hurepoix
Hurka
hurl
Hurlbut
hurled
hurling
hurlings
Huron
Hurons
Hurrah
hurrahing
hurricane
hurricanes
hurried
hurriedly
hurries
hurry
hurrying
Hurst
hurt
hurtful
hurting
hurts
Hus
husband
husbanded
husbanding
husbandman
husbandmen
Husbandry
husbands
huscarles
huscarls
hush
hushed
husk
Huskisson
husks
husky
Huss
Hussar
HUSSARS
Hussein
Hussite
Hussites
Husting
hustings
hustled
hut
Hutchins
Hutchinson
Hutchinsonian
Hutin
huts
Hutten
Hutton
Huttonsville
Huvishka
Huxley
Huy
Huyshe
huzza
huzzas
hwa
Hwang
Hwiccas
Hwiccia
Hwui
Hy
Hyacinth
HYACINTHIA
Hyacinthus
HYBLA
Hyblaian
Hydarnes
HYDASPES
Hydatids
Hyde
Hyder
Hyderabad
Hydes
hydra
hydraulic
hydraulics
hydrocele
hydrogen
hydrographic
hydrophobia
Hydros
hydrothorax
Hydur
hyena
Hygeia
hygh
hygiene
hygienic
Hyginus
Hyk
HYKSOS
Hyksôs
Hylian
Hylleans
Hylleis
Hyllus
Hymettus
hymn
Hymne
HYMNS
Hypatia
Hyperacrii
hyperbole
Hyperbolos
HYPERBOREANS
hypercritical
Hyperion
HYPHASIS
hyphen
hypochondria
hypocras
hypocrisy
hypocrite
hypocritical
hypocritically
hypostases
hyposthenic
hypothec
hypotheca
hypothecation
Hypothecs
hypotheque
hypotheses
hypothesis
hypothetical
Hypsistia
Hypsistos
Hyrcani
Hyrcania
Hyrcanian
Hyrcanians
Hyrcanus
Hyrum
hys
Hystaspes
Hystaspis
hysterical
hysterics
Hythe
HÄUSSER
HÆDUI
HÆMUS
HÆRRED
HÉBERT
HÉBERTISTS
HÔTEL
HÖCHST
HÖRNIG
HÜLSEMANN
Hárfragi
Hâmra
Händel
Häusser
Hæcceity
Hædui
hæmophilia
Hæmus
hæretico
hærred
Hèze
Hébert
Hébertists
Hélian
Héloise
Hélène
Hérault
Héristal
Héros
Hêrakleids
Hêrakles
Hêraklês
Hêrê
Hôpital
Hôtel
Höchst
Höckner
Höhnel
Hölder
Hölzel
Hú
Hübschmann
Hülsemann
I
Ia
ia902705
Iade
Iagellon
Iago
Iagoo
Iahveh
Ialmenus
Ialysus
Iamblicus
IAN
Iapygian
Iapygians
Iarls
Iason
Iatro
Iatronices
Iaxartes
IAZYGES
Iaïk
Ibar
Ibayeta
Ibbetson
Ibea
Ibelin
Ibell
IBERA
Iberes
Iberia
Iberian
Iberians
Iberic
IBERION
Iberus
Iberville
ibi
ibid
Ibn
Ibnu
Ibrahim
Ibrail
Ibycus
Ica
ICARIA
Icarian
Icarians
Icarie
Icarius
ice
icebergs
icebound
Icel
Iceland
Icelander
Icelanders
Icelandic
Iceni
Icenorum
Ichabod
Icilia
ICILIAN
Icilius
Icknield
Iclingham
Iconium
iconoclasm
Iconoclast
Iconoclastae
ICONOCLASTIC
Iconoclasts
Iconoduli
Iconolatrae
Iconomachi
icthyophagi
Ictinus
ICTIS
Icy
id
Ida
Idaho
Idas
Iddesleigh
Ide
idea
ideal
idealisation
idealise
idealised
idealism
Idealist
idealists
ideally
ideals
ideas
Ideler
identical
identically
identification
identifications
identified
identifies
identify
identifying
identity
Ideo
ideographic
Ideologists
ides
Idhus
idiocy
idiom
idiomatic
idioms
idiosyncrasies
idiot
Idiotes
idiotic
idiots
idle
idleness
Idler
idlers
idling
idly
idol
idolater
idolaters
idolatries
idolatrous
idolatry
idolized
idolizing
idols
IDOMENE
Idstedt
Idumean
Idumeans
Idumæa
Idumæan
idyll
idyllic
Idylls
Idæan
Ie
Iemitsu
Iemochi
Ierne
ierokwa
Ieyasu
if
Ifferten
Iganie
Igbessa
Igdy
Iglau
Ignace
Ignacio
Ignala
Ignatieff
Ignatiew
Ignatius
igne
Ignes
ignis
ignite
Ignobilis
ignobility
ignoble
ignobly
ignominious
ignominiously
ignominy
ignoramuses
ignorance
ignorant
ignorantly
ignore
ignored
ignores
ignoring
Igor
igu
IGUALA
Igualada
iguana
Ihanktonwan
Ihanktonwanna
Ihne
ihren
iio
IKENILD
Ikouteka
il
Ila
Ilantz
ILARCH
Ilaro
Ildefons
Ildefonso
Ilderim
Ildibad
Ilduz
Ile
Ilerda
ILeu
Ilha
Ili
Iliad
Ilian
Ilios
Ilissos
Ilissus
ILIUM
ILKHANS
Ilkshidites
ill
Illan
ille
illegal
illegality
illegall
illegally
illegible
illegitimacy
illegitimate
Iller
illiberal
Illiberality
Illiberis
illicit
illicita
illicitly
illimitable
ILLINOIA
Illinois
illiterate
illiterates
illness
illogical
ills
illuminant
illuminate
illuminated
Illuminati
illuminating
illumination
illuminations
Illuminator
illumine
illumined
illumines
illusion
illusions
illusive
illusively
illusory
illustrantur
illustrate
illustrated
illustrates
illustrating
illustration
Illustrations
Illustrative
illustrious
illy
Illyria
Illyrian
ILLYRIANS
Illyricum
Illyricus
Illyris
Illyrium
Ilm
Ilos
Ilow
iluna
Ilyan
im
Image
imaged
imagery
images
imaginable
imaginary
imagination
imaginations
imaginative
imagine
imagined
imagines
imagining
Imaginum
Imam
Imamat
IMAMATE
Imams
Iman
Imaum
Imaums
Imaus
imbarred
imbecile
imbecility
imbedded
imbedding
Imbercourt
Imbert
imbibed
imbittered
Imboden
imbroglio
Imbros
imbued
imbuing
imbursement
Imeritia
Imilkon
imitate
imitated
imitates
imitating
imitation
imitations
imitative
imitator
imitators
Imler
Immaculate
Immartinek
immaterial
immature
immeasurable
immeasurably
immediacy
immediate
immediately
immediateness
immemorial
immemorially
immense
immensely
immensity
immerse
immersed
immersion
immigrant
immigrants
immigrated
immigrating
immigration
immigrations
imminence
imminent
immoderate
immoderately
immoderation
Immola
immolate
immolated
immolation
immoral
immoralities
immorality
immortal
immortalised
immortality
immortalize
immortalized
immortally
Immortals
immortelles
immovable
immovably
immoveable
immoveables
immunities
immunity
immured
immuring
immutable
immutator
IMMÆ
Immæ
Imogen
Imola
Imp
impact
impacted
impair
impaired
impairing
impairment
impairs
impaled
impalement
impalpable
Impanel
impanelled
Imparlance
impart
imparted
impartial
impartiality
impartially
Impartiaux
imparting
imparts
impassable
impassible
impassioned
impassive
impassively
impatience
impatient
impatiently
impeach
impeached
impeaching
impeachment
Impeachments
impecunious
impede
impeded
impediment
impedimenta
impediments
impeding
impel
impelled
impelling
impels
impended
impending
impenetrable
impenetrably
Imperare
imperative
imperatively
IMPERATOR
Imperatori
Imperators
Imperatorship
imperceptible
imperceptibly
imperfect
imperfection
imperfections
imperfectly
Imperial
Imperialism
Imperialist
imperialistic
Imperialists
imperialization
imperialized
imperially
imperii
imperil
imperiled
imperiling
imperilled
imperio
imperious
imperiously
imperiousness
imperishable
imperishably
imperium
impersonal
impersonated
impersonation
impertinence
Impertinences
impertinent
imperturbability
imperturbable
impervious
impetuosity
impetuous
impetuously
impetus
Impey
impieties
impiety
impinged
impious
impis
implacability
implacable
implacably
implanted
implants
impleaded
implement
implements
implicate
implicated
implication
implications
implicit
implicitly
implied
impliedly
implies
implore
implored
implorer
imploring
imploringly
Imployment
imply
implying
impolicy
impolitic
impoliticly
import
importance
important
importantly
Importants
importation
importations
imported
importer
importing
imports
importunate
importunately
importuned
importunities
importunity
impose
imposed
imposes
imposing
imposingly
imposition
impositions
impossibilities
impossibility
impossible
impossibly
impost
Imposter
impostor
impostors
imposts
imposture
impostures
impotence
impotency
impotent
impoverish
impoverished
impoverishing
impoverishment
impowered
impracticability
impracticable
impractical
imprecation
imprecations
impregnability
impregnable
impregnated
imprescriptible
impress
impressed
impresses
impressing
impression
impressions
impressive
impressively
impressiveness
impressment
imprint
imprinted
imprison
imprisoned
imprisoning
imprisonment
imprisonments
improbabilities
improbability
improbable
improbably
impromptu
improper
improperly
impropriety
improve
improved
Improvement
improvements
improves
improvident
improvidently
improving
improvised
imprudence
imprudences
imprudent
imprudently
imps
impudence
impudent
impugn
impugned
impugning
impulse
impulses
impulsive
impulsiveness
impunity
impure
impurities
impurity
imputable
imputation
imputations
impute
imputed
imputes
imputing
Impériale
Imám
In
inability
inaccessibility
inaccessible
inaccuracies
inaccuracy
inaccurate
inaccurately
Inachus
inacta
inaction
inactive
inactivity
inadequacy
inadequate
inadequately
inadmissible
inadvertently
inadvisable
Inage
Inaken
inalienable
inalienableness
inalienably
inanimate
inanition
inapplicable
inappropriate
inappropriately
inapt
inaptitude
inaptly
inaptness
Inarticulately
inartificial
Inarus
inasmuch
inattention
inaudible
inaugural
inaugurate
inaugurated
inaugurating
inauguration
inaugurator
inauspicious
Inazo
inborn
Inca
incalculable
incandescence
incandescent
incantation
incantations
incapability
incapable
incapacitated
incapacitates
incapacities
incapacity
incarcerate
incarcerated
Incarnate
incarnation
incarnations
Incas
incautious
incautiously
incendiaries
incendiarism
incendiary
incense
incensed
incentive
incentives
inception
incessant
incessantly
incest
incests
incestuous
inch
inches
Inchiquin
inchoate
incidence
incident
incidental
incidentally
incidents
incipient
Incisa
incision
incisions
incitability
incitants
incitation
incite
incited
incitement
incitements
incites
inciting
inclemencies
inclemency
inclement
inclination
inclinations
incline
inclined
inclines
inclining
inclose
inclosed
inclosing
inclosure
inclosures
include
included
includes
including
inclusion
inclusive
inclusively
incognito
incoherence
incoherent
income
incomes
incoming
incomings
incommodious
incomparable
incomparably
incompatibilities
incompatibility
incompatible
incompetence
incompetency
incompetent
incompetents
incomplete
incompletely
incompleteness
incomprehensible
inconceivable
inconceivably
inconclusive
incongruities
incongruity
incongruous
inconnue
inconquerable
inconsequence
inconsiderable
inconsiderate
inconsiderately
inconsistencies
inconsistency
inconsistent
inconspicuous
inconstancy
inconstant
incontestable
incontestably
incontinence
incontinent
incontinently
incontrovertible
inconvenience
inconvenienced
inconveniences
inconveniencies
inconveniency
inconvenient
inconvertible
incorporate
incorporated
incorporating
incorporation
incorporations
incorrect
incorrectly
incorrigible
incorruptible
increase
increased
increases
increasing
increasingly
Incredibili
incredible
incredibly
incredulity
incredulous
increment
increments
incriminated
incriminating
incroachment
incubation
incubus
inculcate
inculcated
inculcates
inculcating
inculcation
incumbency
incumbent
incumbents
incumbrance
incumbrancer
incumbrances
incunabula
Incunabuli
incur
incurable
incurably
incurred
incurring
incursion
incursions
incuse
Ind
Inday
inde
Indebitatus
indebted
indebtedness
indecency
indecent
indecision
indecisive
indecorous
indecorum
Indeed
indefatigable
indefatigably
indefeasible
indefensible
indefinable
indefinite
indefinitely
indefiniteness
indelible
indelibly
indemnification
indemnified
indemnify
indemnifying
indemnities
indemnity
indent
indentation
indentations
indented
indenture
Independence
Independencia
independency
independent
independently
Independents
indescribable
indescribably
indestructible
Indeterminate
Index
indexed
Indexing
INDIA
Indian
Indiana
Indianapolis
Indianologists
Indians
indicate
indicated
indicates
indicating
indication
indications
indicative
indicator
Indices
indict
indictable
indicted
indiction
INDICTIONS
indictment
indictments
indicto
Indicus
Indies
indifference
indifferency
indifferent
INDIFFERENTISM
indifferently
indigence
indigenous
indigent
indigents
indignant
indignantly
indignation
indignations
indignities
indignity
indigo
Indika
Indipendenza
indirect
indirection
indirectly
Indische
indiscreet
indiscretion
indiscretions
indiscriminate
indiscriminately
indiscriminating
indispensable
indispensably
indispensible
indisposed
indisposition
indisputable
Indisputably
indissoluble
indissolubly
indistinct
indistinctly
individual
individualism
individualist
Individualistic
individuality
individually
individuals
Individuation
indivisibility
indivisible
indiviso
Indo
indoctrinating
Indoi
indolence
indolent
indolently
indomitable
INDONESIA
Indor
Indore
indorse
indorsed
indorsement
indorser
indorsing
Indos
Indra
Indraspathi
Indre
indubitable
Indubitably
induce
induced
inducement
inducements
induces
inducing
inducted
induction
Inductive
indulge
indulged
Indulgence
indulgences
indulgent
Indulgents
indulges
indulging
indunas
induration
Indus
industrial
industrialist
industrially
Industrie
industriel
Industriels
industries
industrious
industriously
industry
indwelling
indépendants
INE
inedite
inedited
ineffably
ineffaceable
ineffaceably
ineffective
Ineffectual
ineffectually
inefficiency
inefficient
ineligibility
ineligible
inequalities
inequality
inequitable
inequities
ineradicable
ineradicably
inert
inertness
Ines
inestimable
inevitable
inevitably
inexcusable
inexhaustible
inexorable
inexorably
inexpediency
inexpedient
inexpensive
inexperience
inexperienced
INEXPIABLE
inexplicable
inexplicit
inexpressible
inexpressibly
inexpugnable
inextinguishable
inextricable
inextricably
Inez
infallibility
infallible
infallibly
infame
infamies
infamous
infamy
infancy
infans
infant
Infanta
Infantado
infantas
Infante
infantes
infanticide
infantine
infantry
infants
infanzones
infatuated
infatuation
infect
infected
infecting
infection
infections
infectious
infective
infects
infeoffed
infeoffment
infer
inference
inferences
inferior
inferiority
inferiors
inferiour
Infernal
inferred
infers
infest
infested
infeudation
infeuded
infidel
infidelities
infidelity
infidelium
Infidels
infiltrated
infiltration
infinite
infinitely
infinitesimal
infinitude
infinity
infirm
infirmaries
infirmities
infirmity
inflame
inflamed
inflaming
inflammability
inflammable
inflammables
inflammation
inflammatory
inflated
inflation
inflationists
inflection
inflexibility
inflexible
inflexibly
inflict
inflicted
inflicting
infliction
inflictions
inflicts
inflow
influence
influenced
influences
influencing
influential
influenza
influx
inforce
inforcement
inform
informal
informality
informally
informants
information
informations
informed
informer
informers
informing
informs
infra
infraction
infractions
infractors
infrequent
infrequently
infringe
infringed
infringement
infringements
infringes
infringing
infula
infuriate
infuriated
infuse
infused
infusing
infusion
infusions
Inférieure
ing
Ingago
ingatherers
Inge
Ingelger
Ingelheim
ingenious
ingeniously
ingeniousness
INGENUI
ingenuity
ingenuous
Ingersoll
INGHAM
Ingle
Inglefield
Ingles
Inglis
inglorious
ingloriously
Ingoldsby
Ingoldstadt
Ingolstadt
ingots
ingraft
INGRAHAM
ingrained
Ingram
ingratiate
ingratiating
ingratitude
ingredient
ingredients
ingress
Ingria
ings
Inguiomerus
INGÆVONES
Ingævones
inhabit
inhabitable
inhabitancy
inhabitant
inhabitants
inhabited
inhabiting
inhabits
inhalation
inhale
inhaled
inhaling
inharmonious
inhered
inherent
inherit
inheritable
inheritance
inheritances
inherited
inheriting
inheritor
inheritors
inhibit
inhibited
inhibition
inhospitable
inhuman
inhumane
inhumanity
inhumanly
Ini
Inies
inimical
inimitable
iniquities
iniquitous
iniquity
Inis
initial
initialed
initials
initiate
initiated
initiates
initiating
initiation
initiations
initiative
initiatives
initiatory
Initintivbegehren
iniuria
injected
injection
injudicious
injudiciously
injunction
Injunctions
injure
injured
injures
injuries
injuring
injurious
injuriously
injury
injustice
injustices
ink
Inkerman
Inkermann
inkhorns
inkling
inkomst
inkshed
inkstand
inlaid
inland
inlet
inlets
inmate
inmates
inmost
Inn
innate
inner
innermost
Innes
innkeeper
innkeepers
innocence
Innocent
innocently
innocents
innocuous
innocuously
innovata
innovated
innovating
innovation
innovations
innovator
innovators
Inns
Innspruck
Innsprück
Innthal
innuendoes
innuendos
Innuit
INNUITS
innumerable
Innviertel
inoculate
inoculated
inoculating
Inoculation
inoculations
inoffensive
inoperative
inopportune
inordinate
inordinately
inorganic
inquest
inquests
inquire
inquired
inquirendum
inquirer
inquiries
inquiring
inquiry
Inquisitio
Inquisition
inquisitions
inquisitive
inquisitiveness
Inquisitor
inquisitorial
inquisitors
inrich
inroad
inroads
inrush
Ins
insalubrious
insalubrity
insane
insanely
insanities
insanity
insatiable
insatiably
insatiate
insatiateness
inscribe
inscribed
inscription
inscriptions
inscrutable
insect
insects
insecure
insecurity
insensate
insensibility
insensible
insensibly
inseparable
inseparably
insermentés
insert
inserted
inserting
insertion
inserts
inshore
Inshtatheamba
inside
insidious
insidiously
insight
insignia
insignificance
insignificant
insincere
insincerity
insinuate
insinuated
insinuating
insinuation
insinuations
insipid
insist
insistance
insisted
insistence
insisting
insists
insolence
insolences
insolent
insolently
insoluble
insolvency
Insolvent
Insolvents
insomuch
inspect
inspected
inspecting
inspection
inspections
inspector
inspectors
inspiration
inspirations
inspire
inspired
inspirer
inspirers
inspires
inspiring
inspirited
inspiriting
Inst
instability
install
installation
installed
installing
installment
installments
instalment
instalments
instance
instanced
instances
instant
instantaneous
instantaneously
instantly
instants
instatement
instead
instep
instigate
instigated
instigates
instigating
instigation
instigations
instigator
instigators
instil
instilling
instinct
instinctive
instinctively
instincts
Instit
Institut
institute
instituted
Institutes
instituting
Institution
institutional
institutiones
Institutions
Instituto
Institutor
instruct
instructed
instructing
instruction
instructions
instructive
instructiveness
instructor
instructors
instructs
instrument
instrumental
instrumentalities
instrumentality
instruments
insubordinate
insubordination
Insubrian
Insubrians
insufferable
insufficiency
insufficient
insufficiently
insula
insular
insularis
insularity
insulated
insulating
insulation
insult
insulted
insulters
insulting
insultingly
insults
insuperable
insupportable
insupportably
Insurance
insurances
insure
insured
insures
insurgent
insurgents
Insuring
insurmountable
insurrection
insurrectional
insurrectionary
insurrectionist
insurrectionists
insurrections
Int
intact
intangibility
intangible
integral
integrally
integrity
inteliectual
intellect
intellects
intellectu
intellectual
intellectuality
intellectually
intelligence
Intelligencer
Intelligencers
intelligent
intelligently
intelligible
intemperance
intemperate
intend
Intendancies
intendant
Intendants
intended
intendente
Intendenti
intending
intendment
intense
intensely
intenser
intensest
intensified
intensity
intent
intention
intentional
intentionally
intentioned
intentions
intents
inter
interaction
Interamna
interblended
intercalary
intercalated
intercalations
intercede
interceded
interceding
intercept
intercepted
intercepting
interception
intercession
intercessions
intercessor
interchange
interchangeable
interchanged
interchanges
interchanging
Intercolonial
intercommunication
intercommunion
intercomparison
intercourse
interdict
interdicted
interdicting
interdiction
INTERDICTS
interessanten
interest
interested
interesting
interests
interfere
interfered
interference
interferences
interferes
interfering
Interim
interior
interiors
interlaced
interlacing
interlarded
interlinear
interlined
interlocked
interloper
interlopers
interlude
intermarriage
intermarriages
intermarried
intermarry
intermeddle
intermeddling
intermediary
intermediate
intermediation
interment
interminable
interminably
Interminelli
intermingled
intermingles
intermingling
intermission
intermissions
intermittance
intermittent
intermittently
intermix
intermixed
intermixture
intermontium
intermédiarie
interna
internal
Internally
International
Internationale
Internationalists
internationality
internationally
Internationals
internecine
interned
internet
interoceanic
interpellate
interpellation
interpenetrated
interpenetrates
interpenetrative
interpleader
interpolated
interpolation
interpolations
interpose
interposed
interposes
interposing
interposition
interpositions
interpret
Interpretamenta
interpretation
interpretatione
interpretations
interpreted
interpreter
interpreters
interpreting
interprets
interred
interreges
interregnum
interregnums
INTERREX
interrogated
interrogatories
interrogatory
interrupt
interrupted
interrupting
interruption
interruptions
interrupts
intersect
intersected
intersecting
intersection
intersects
interspersed
Interstate
interstice
intertribal
intertwined
interval
intervale
intervals
intervene
intervened
intervenes
intervening
intervention
interview
interviews
interweaving
interwove
interwoven
intestacy
intestate
intestinal
intestine
intestines
intimacy
intimate
intimated
intimately
intimates
intimating
intimation
intimations
intimidate
intimidated
intimidating
intimidation
intire
intirely
intituled
into
intolerable
intolerably
intolerance
intolerant
intonation
intoxicate
intoxicated
intoxicating
intoxication
intractable
INTRANSIGENTISTS
intreat
intreated
intreaties
intrench
intrenched
intrenching
intrenchment
intrenchments
intrepid
intrepidity
intricacies
intricacy
intricate
intrigue
intrigued
intriguer
intriguers
intrigues
intriguing
intrinsic
intrinsically
intro
introd
introduce
introduced
introduces
introducing
Introductio
Introduction
introductions
introductory
introspectively
introuvable
intrude
intruded
intruder
intruders
intrudes
intruding
intrusion
intrusions
intrusive
intrust
intrusted
intrusting
intuition
intuitions
intuitive
intérieur
Inu
inundated
inundating
inundation
inundations
inure
inured
inuring
inutiles
inutility
invade
invaded
invader
invaders
invading
invalid
invalidate
invalidated
invalidating
invalide
invalided
invalides
invalids
Invalidäts
invaluable
invariable
invariably
Invasion
invasions
invasive
invective
invectives
inveigh
inveighed
inveighing
inveigled
inveniendum
invent
invented
inventers
inventing
invention
inventions
inventive
inventiveness
inventor
inventories
inventors
inventory
invents
Inverary
Inverlochy
Inverness
inverse
inversely
inverts
invest
invested
investigate
investigated
investigates
investigating
investigation
investigations
investigator
investigators
investing
investiture
Investitures
Investiturstreit
Investitustreit
investment
investments
investors
invests
inveterate
invidious
invigorated
invigorates
invigorating
invigoration
invincibility
invincible
invincibly
inviolability
inviolable
inviolably
inviolate
Invisibility
Invisible
invisibles
invitation
invitations
invite
invited
invites
inviting
invocation
invocations
invoices
invoke
invoked
invokes
invoking
involuntarily
involuntary
involve
involved
involves
involving
invulnerable
inward
inwardly
inwards
inédites
Io
Ioannina
iodine
Iolanta
Iolante
Iolaus
iom
Iona
Ionia
Ionian
Ionians
Ionic
iota
IOWA
Iowas
Ioways
Iplcus
Ippolito
Ipsamboul
Ipsilanti
ipsis
ipso
ipsos
Ipsus
Ipswich
Iquique
Ir
ira
IRACA
iracund
Iradé
Irak
Irala
Iran
Iranean
Iranian
Iranians
Iranic
irascible
irate
irato
Iravati
Irawaddy
Irdjar
Ire
Ireland
Irelanders
Irenaeus
Irene
Irenæus
Ireton
iridium
iris
Irish
Irishman
Irishmen
Irishry
irksome
Irmak
Irmingard
Irminsul
Irnerius
iron
Ironarm
IRONCLAD
ironclads
Irondequoit
ironed
ironhearted
ironical
ironically
Ironmongers
irons
Ironside
Ironsides
Ironteeth
irony
Iroquoian
Iroquois
Iroquoise
irrational
Irrawaddi
Irrawadi
irreclaimable
irreconcilable
irreconcilables
irreconcilably
irrecoverable
irrecoverably
irredeemable
Irredenta
Irredentists
irreducible
irreformable
irrefragable
irrefragably
irregular
irregularities
irregularity
irregularly
irregulars
irrelevant
irreligion
irreligious
irremediable
irremediably
irremovability
irremovable
irremoveable
irreparable
irreparably
irrepealable
irreplaceable
irrepressible
irreproachable
irresistible
irresistibly
irresolute
irresolutely
irresolution
irrespective
irresponsibility
irresponsible
irresponsibly
irretrievable
irretrievably
irreverent
irreverently
irreversible
irreversibly
irrevocability
irrevocable
irrevocably
irrigated
irrigation
irrigations
irritable
irritate
irritated
irritating
irritation
Irritations
irruption
irruptions
Irtish
Irun
Irvine
Irving
Irwin
Irwinville
irâ
is
ISAAC
Isabel
Isabella
Isabelle
Isagoras
Isagoria
Isaiah
Isala
Isandlana
Isara
ISASZEG
Isaurian
Isaurians
Isauricus
Isbister
Isbjorn
Isca
iscas
Ische
Ischia
iscus
Iscævonian
Isdigerd
Isdubar
Isegoria
Iselberg
Iser
Isere
Isfaham
Isfahan
ish
Isham
Ishbosheth
Ishmael
ISHMAELIANS
Ishmaelites
Ishmaelitish
Ishmaileans
Ishmailites
Isidore
ISIDORIAN
Isidorus
ISINÆ
Isis
Iskander
Iskanderbeg
Iskanderieh
iske
Iskendar
Isla
Islam
Islamism
Islamite
Islamites
island
Islander
islanders
islands
Islas
Islay
Isle
Isles
islet
islets
Islington
Isly
ism
Isma
Ismael
Ismaelians
Ismaelitish
Ismail
Ismaileans
Ismailia
Ismailiah
Ismailiens
Ismailïa
Ismalia
Ismaïlovski
Ismenian
Ismenias
Ismenus
Ismidt
Isna
Isnard
Isnik
Isocrates
isolate
isolated
isolates
isolating
Isolation
ISONOMY
Isonzo
Isopathy
isopolity
Isotimy
Ispahan
Israel
Israelite
Israelites
Israelitish
Isreal
Issac
Issachar
Issel
Issleib
Issolu
Issos
issuance
issue
issued
issuer
issues
issuing
Issus
Issy
Issyk
ist
Istakhri
ISTAKR
Istamboul
Ister
ISTHMIAN
Isthmus
isthmuses
isti
Istoria
Istrea
Istria
Istrian
ISTRIANS
Istriots
István
ISTÆVONES
Istævones
ISURIUM
Isère
it
Ita
Itagaki
Itagamapairi
Itajubá
Itakkama
Itali
Italia
Italian
italiana
italiane
italiani
Italianised
Italianize
Italianized
Italians
Italic
Italica
Italicans
Italicos
italics
Italicus
Italie
italiennes
Italiens
Italiotes
Italiots
Italus
Italy
Itasca
Itata
itch
Itchen
item
items
ITHACA
Ithir
Ithobaal
Ithome
Iti
Itinera
itinerant
itinerantes
Itineraries
Itinerario
itinerary
itinerate
itineris
Itinéraire
itio
ITIUS
Ito
Itoco
ITOCOS
Itonama
Itonamos
Itonomos
Itri
its
itself
Iturbide
Iturbidists
Iturrigaray
ITUZAINGO
Ituzaingó
Ityke
Ityræans
Itzamna
Itzas
Itzehoe
itztli
iudge
iudices
Iuka
ius
iustice
IV
Ivah
Ivan
Ivanhoe
Ivanovna
Ivar
Ivens
Iverea
IVERNI
Ivernians
Ives
Ivo
ivories
ivory
Ivrea
Ivry
Ivy
Iwakura
Iwer
IX
Ixcoatl
ixtli
Ixtlixochitl
IYENAGA
iyo
Izard
Izborsk
Izcoatzin
Izdubar
Izeds
Iztapalapan
Iñatè
Iñigo
J
Jaafar
Jabbok
Jabesh
Jabez
Jabin
Jablochkoff
Jac
Jacia
Jacinto
JACK
jackal
jacket
jackets
Jackman
Jackson
Jacksonian
Jacksons
Jacksonville
Jaco
Jacob
Jacoba
JACOBI
Jacobin
Jacobinical
Jacobinism
Jacobins
Jacobite
Jacobites
Jacobitism
Jacobs
Jacobsen
Jacobus
Jacoby
Jacome
Jacomuzzo
Jacquelein
jacquelin
Jacqueline
Jacquemart
Jacquemin
Jacquerie
Jacques
jaded
Jadis
Jaegendorf
Jaegendorff
Jaegers
Jael
Jaen
Jafar
Jaffa
Jaffer
Jaffier
jaga
Jagatai
Jagellon
Jagellonic
Jagellonidæ
Jagellons
Jagerndorf
jagheer
Jaghellon
Jaghir
Jaghirs
jagir
Jago
Jaguello
Jah
JAHAN
Jahangir
Jahleel
Jahrbücher
jahre
Jahrhundert
Jahrhunderts
Jahveh
jail
jailer
jailers
jailor
jailors
jails
JAINISM
Jains
Jaipur
Jair
JAITCHE
Jaitpur
Jake
Jalalu
JALALÆAN
Jalalæan
Jalapa
Jalisco
Jaloffs
JALULA
jam
Jamaica
jambage
Jamdudum
James
Jameson
Jamestown
Jametz
Jamieson
Jamison
jammed
JAMNIA
Jamsilla
Jamteland
Jan
Jane
Janeiro
Janet
jangling
JANICULUM
Janissaries
Janissary
Janizaries
Jankowitz
Jannequin
Jannes
Jannina
Jannæus
Janow
Jansen
Jansenism
Jansenist
Jansenistic
Jansenists
Jansenius
Janszoon
Januarius
January
JANUS
janvier
Janvrel
JAPAN
Japanese
Japhet
Japhetic
Japura
Jaqueline
Jaques
jar
Jardin
JARED
jargon
Jarl
Jarls
Jarnac
Jaroslaf
Jaroslavetz
jarred
jarring
jarrings
Jarrow
jars
Jarvis
Jas
Jasmund
Jason
JASPER
Jassy
JASTROW
Jaswant
Jats
Jatt
JATTS
Jaumont
Jaun
Jaundice
Jaunpur
Jaurequi
JAUSZ
Jaut
JAUTS
Java
JAVAN
Jave
javelin
javelins
Jaw
jaws
Jaxartes
Jay
JAYHAWKERS
JAYME
Jazberin
Jazyges
Jaûn
Je
jealous
jealousies
jealousing
jealously
jealousy
Jean
Jeanne
Jeannetin
Jeannette
Jeans
Jearim
Jebal
JEBB
Jebus
Jebusite
Jebusites
Jechoniah
Jecker
Jeconiah
Jeconias
Jedediah
Jedid
JEDIDIAH
Jedisan
Jednota
jeer
jeered
Jeff
Jefferies
Jefferson
Jeffersonian
Jeffersonians
Jeffersonton
Jeffery
Jeffrey
Jeffreys
Jeffs
Jehad
Jehan
Jehoahaz
Jehoiachin
Jehoiakim
Jehoshaphat
Jehovah
Jehu
Jehuda
Jehudi
Jelal
Jellachich
Jellalabad
Jellinek
jelly
Jelum
Jem
JEMAPPES
Jemez
Jemison
Jemmapes
JEMMINGEN
Jemmy
Jemshid
Jena
Jencks
Jenghiz
JENGIS
Jenifer
JENKINS
Jenkinson
Jenks
Jenna
Jenner
Jennings
Jenny
Jens
Jenson
jeopard
jeoparded
jeopardised
jeopardized
jeopardy
Jephson
Jephtha
Jequetepeque
JERBA
Jeremiah
Jeremy
Jericho
jerkined
Jeroboam
Jerome
Jeronymians
JERROLD
Jersey
Jerseyman
Jerseys
Jerubbaal
Jerusalem
Jervis
Jeshua
Jesi
Jesse
Jessica
Jessie
Jesson
Jessop
JESSOPP
Jessore
jest
jested
jesters
jesting
jestingly
jests
Jesu
JESUATES
Jesuit
Jesuited
Jesuitical
Jesuitism
Jesuitry
JESUITS
Jesus
jet
Jetans
Jethro
jetzt
JEU
Jeune
JEUNESSE
Jevons
Jew
Jewan
Jewel
jewelers
jewelled
jeweller
jewellery
jewelry
jewels
Jewess
Jewett
Jewish
Jewitt
Jewry
Jews
JEYPOOR
Jeypore
Jezebel
JEZIREH
Jezreel
Jhankushai
Jhansi
Jhelum
Jhind
Jibleam
jibs
Jibute
Jibway
Jidda
Jigo
Jihon
Jijeli
Jimenes
Jin
Jinghis
Jingi
Jingis
Jingiz
jingle
Jingo
Jingoes
Jingoism
Jivara
Jivaro
Jno
Joab
JOACHIM
Joachimsthal
Joachin
Joam
Joan
Joanna
Joannes
Joannina
Joans
Joaquin
Joash
Job
jobbers
jobbery
jobbing
jobs
Jobson
Jobst
Jocatra
Jocelin
Jochai
Jochanan
jockeying
jockeyship
Jodhpoor
Jodocus
Joe
Joegerndorf
Joel
JOGLARS
Jogler
JOGUES
Joh
Joham
Johan
Johann
Johannes
Johannesen
John
Johnes
Johnnies
Johnny
Johns
Johnson
Johnsons
Johnston
Johnstone
Johnstons
JOHNSTOWN
Joigny
join
Joined
joiner
joiners
joining
joins
joint
jointed
jointly
joints
jointure
jointures
Joinville
joke
joked
jokers
jokes
joking
Joktan
Joktanite
Joktanites
jokuls
Joli
Joliet
jolly
Joly
Jombini
Jomini
JOMSBORG
Jomsburg
Jon
Jona
Jonah
Jonas
Jonathan
Joncaire
Jones
JONESBORO
jongleurs
Jonson
Joo
JOPPA
Jordan
Jorge
Joris
Jorjan
Jornandes
JOROSLAVETZ
JOS
Jose
Josef
Joseph
Josephel
Josephine
Josephites
Josephstadt
Josephus
Joshua
Josiah
Josias
Joss
Josse
Josselyn
Josslyn
jostle
jostled
jostling
José
jot
JOTAPATA
Joubert
Jouett
Jouffroy
Joule
jour
Jourdain
Jourdan
Journal
journalism
journalist
journalistic
journalistically
journalists
Journals
journey
journeyed
journeying
journeyman
Journeymen
journeys
journied
journies
jours
Jousseff
joust
joustings
jousts
Joutel
Jouvet
Joux
Jove
joviality
Jovian
Jovians
Jovinus
Jovius
Jowett
joy
Joyce
joyed
Joyeuse
joyful
joyfully
Joyneville
joyous
joyousness
Jozsef
João
Jr
jstor
Jsus
Ju
Juan
Juana
Juangs
Juarez
Juaristas
Juarros
Jub
Juba
Jubal
jubilant
Jubilee
jubilees
Juchi
Judaea
Judah
Judahite
Judaical
Judaised
Judaising
Judaism
Judaizers
Judaizing
Judas
Jude
Judea
Judex
Judge
judged
judgement
judges
judging
judgment
judgments
judicatories
judicature
judices
judicial
judicially
Judicials
Judiciary
judicious
judiciously
judicium
Judith
Judiths
Judson
JUDÆA
Judæa
Judæan
Judæans
Juel
Juet
Juets
Jugantes
Jugarius
Jugdulluck
Jugdulluk
jugement
jugera
jugerum
juggle
juggler
juggling
Juglar
Jugoria
Jugurtha
Jugurthine
juice
juices
Juillet
Juitemal
Jujui
Jujuy
Jules
Julia
Julian
Julianus
Julich
Julie
Julien
Julier
Juliers
Juliet
JULII
JULIOMAGUS
Julius
JULIÆ
Juliæ
Jullunder
Jullundhur
July
Juma
jumble
jumbled
Jumma
Jummoo
Jumna
Jumonville
jump
jumped
jumping
jun
Junaid
junction
juncture
Jundt
JUNE
Jung
Jungaria
jungle
jungles
Jungs
Juniata
Junin
junior
juniors
juniper
Junius
junk
Junker
Junkers
Junkin
junks
Juno
JUNONIA
Junot
Junr
Junta
juntas
Junto
Jupa
Jupiter
jupons
Jura
jural
Jurane
jurata
jurati
juratores
juratum
jure
juridical
juries
Jurieu
juring
JURIS
jurisconsult
jurisconsults
jurisdiction
jurisdictions
JURISFIRMA
Jurisprudence
jurist
juristic
juristical
jurists
Juroipach
juror
jurors
Jurua
jury
jurymen
jurée
jurés
jus
jusqu
Jussouf
jussu
just
Justamond
juste
juster
Justice
Justices
justiciar
justiciaries
Justiciarius
justiciars
justiciary
Justicier
justiciero
justifiable
justification
justified
justifies
justify
justifying
Justin
Justina
Justinian
Justinus
justitiam
Justitiarii
Justiza
justling
justly
Justo
Justus
jut
Jutay
jute
Jutes
JUTHUNGI
Jutish
Jutland
juts
jutted
jutting
juvat
JUVAVIUM
JUVENAL
Juvenile
Juventus
Juverna
Juxon
juxta
juxtaposition
JÉRÔME
JÜLICH
JÜTERBOGK
Jäschke
Jühlke
Jülich
Jüterbock
Jüterbogk
K
KA
Kaaba
Kabacha
Kabah
KABALA
Kaballa
Kabeljauws
Kabinda
Kaboto
Kabul
Kabyles
Kachh
Kadech
Kader
Kaders
Kadesh
Kadeshu
Kadiaskers
Kadisiyeh
Kadmeia
KADMEIANS
Kadmonites
kado
Kady
Kaemmel
Kaffa
Kaffir
Kaffraria
Kafir
Kafirland
Kafirs
Kafraria
Kafur
Kaghul
Kagi
Kago
Kagosima
KAH
KAHKEWAQUONABY
Kahlan
Kahlanites
Kahoolawe
Kahouagoga
Kahpoo
Kahtan
Kai
Kainardji
Kainarji
Kaiowe
Kairo
Kairwan
KAISAR
Kaisariyeh
Kaiser
Kaiserberg
Kaiserreiches
Kaisers
Kaiserslautern
Kaiserstaat
Kaiserthums
Kaiserzeit
Kaizerzeit
Kaki
Kako
Kalahari
Kalakaua
Kalamas
Kalamita
Kalapooian
Kalaureia
Kalauria
Kalavatsch
Kalaïs
Kalb
Kaled
kaleidoscope
Kalemberg
Kalenberg
Kalendar
Kalendarium
Kalendars
kaleva
Kalevala
Kalewala
Kalhora
Kalif
Kalihari
Kalinjar
KALISCH
KALIXT
Kalka
Kallimma
Kallinus
Kallippus
Kalloo
Kallstenius
Kalm
Kalmuck
Kalmucks
Kalmucs
Kalmuk
KALMUKS
Kalocsa
Kalouga
Kalu
Kaluga
Kalymnos
Kalāt
Kalāti
Kamarina
KAMBALU
Kambria
Kambujiya
KAMBULA
Kambyses
Kamchatka
Kamenski
Kamerun
KAMI
Kamilaroi
Kaminietz
Kamit
Kammen
Kammerer
Kammergut
Kammin
Kamp
KAMPEN
Kampf
Kampushea
Kamran
Kamtchatka
Kamtschatka
Kamus
Kaméhaméha
Kan
Kanadesaga
Kanagawa
Kanahasgwaicon
KANAKAS
Kanan
Kanat
Kanauj
Kanawageras
Kanawah
Kanawha
Kanawhas
Kanda
Kandahar
Kandaules
Kandern
Kandh
Kandhs
Kane
Kanesville
kang
Kangra
Kankakee
kankamon
Kanonsionni
Kanouj
Kansas
Kansu
Kansuh
Kant
Kantism
Kanzellist
Kanôpic
Kaokiuli
Kaoli
Kaou
Kaphtor
Kapila
Kapital
Kapitel
Kapohn
KAPOLNA
KAPP
Kappadokia
KAPPEL
Kappeler
Kara
Karabel
Karabogdon
Karabusa
Karachi
Karaduniyash
Karageorgiewitch
Karagwe
Karaism
KARAITES
Karaka
Karakakoa
Karakoram
KARAKORUM
Karalene
Karaman
Karamsin
Karankawa
Karankawan
Karashar
Karasi
Karaveloff
Karchedon
Kardu
Karelians
Karema
Karfürst
Karian
Karians
Karigaum
Karikal
KARKAR
Karl
Karle
Karlemann
KARLINGS
Karlmann
Karloman
Karlowitz
Karls
Karlsbad
Karlsefne
Karlsruhe
KARMATHIANS
Karmān
Karnac
Karnak
Karnatak
Karnataka
KARNATIC
KARNATTAH
Karok
Karoks
Karoling
KAROLINGIA
Karolingian
KAROLINGIANS
Karolings
Karoly
Karr
Kars
Karta
karte
karten
KARTENSKIZZE
Karthada
karts
Karystus
Kasan
Kasar
Kasawat
Kasdim
Kasgil
Kashgar
Kashgaria
Kashghar
KASHMERE
Kashmir
Kashmîr
Kasi
Kasim
Kasimir
Kaskaskia
Kaskaskias
Kasr
Kasreyn
Kassala
Kassander
Kassassin
Kasshite
Kasshites
Kassite
Kassites
Kasson
KASSOPIANS
Kassub
Kassē
Kastor
Kasvin
Kaszeb
KAT
Kataba
Katahdin
Katak
Katakady
Katana
Katanga
Katanê
Katapan
Katchan
KATE
Katerina
Katharine
Katherine
Kathiawar
Katif
Katt
Kattegat
Katzbach
Kauai
Kaub
Kauffmann
KAUFMANN
Kaula
Kaulônia
Kaunitz
KAUS
Kaw
Kawende
Kawhia
Kaws
KAY
Kaye
Kayrawan
Kazala
Kazan
Kazerun
Kazé
Kaïster
ke
Kealakcakua
Kean
Keane
Keang
keaou
KEARNEY
KEARNEYITES
Kearny
Kearsarge
Keary
KEATING
Keats
KEBBEL
Kebbi
Keber
Kebir
Keble
Kechko
Kedar
Kedder
Kedem
Kedesh
Keduk
KEECHIES
Keeheetsas
keel
keels
keen
KEENE
keener
keenest
keenly
keenness
keep
keeper
Keepers
keepes
keeping
keeps
KEEWATIN
Keft
Kegan
Kegs
Kehl
Kehlheim
Kei
Keich
Keifer
Keightley
keihs
KEIL
Keilhau
Keim
Keiserlautern
Keiskamma
Keiss
Keith
Keithian
kel
Keladun
Kelb
Kelenderis
Kelheim
Kell
Keller
Kellerberg
Kellerman
Kellermann
Kellett
Kelley
Kellogg
Kells
Kelly
Kelso
Kelt
Keltic
KELTIE
Keltre
KELTS
KEM
Kemble
Kemeni
Kemi
Kemp
Kempen
Kempis
Kempten
ken
Kenai
Kenau
Kenaz
Kendai
Kendal
Kendall
KENELM
Kenesaw
Kenhawa
Kenia
Kenilworth
Kenistenos
Kenite
Kenites
Kenizzites
Kenmare
Kenmure
Kennayans
Kennebec
Kennebeck
Kennedy
kennel
Kennemer
Kennet
Kenneth
Kennett
Kennington
Kenrick
Kensington
Kent
Kentigern
Kentish
Kentishman
Kentishmen
Kentuckian
Kentuckians
Kentucky
Kenyer
Kenyon
Kenzie
Keo
Keogh
Keokuk
Keowee
Kephallenia
Kephisus
Kepi
Kepler
Keppel
kept
Ker
Kerameikos
Kerasunt
keratitis
Keratry
Keraunos
KERAÏT
Keraït
Kerbala
Kerbela
Kerby
kerchief
Kerckhoven
Keren
KERESAN
KERESTES
Kerim
Kerioth
Kerki
Kerkyra
Kerly
Kerman
Kerment
Kermineh
Kermān
KERN
KERNE
kernel
Kernes
Kernstown
kerosene
Kerr
Kerrera
Kerry
Kerschbaumer
Kershaw
Kertch
Kertsch
Kerun
Kervelagan
Kervelegan
Kervyn
Kervélégan
KERYKES
Kesselsdorf
Kessi
Kessman
Kesson
Ketans
Ketcham
ketches
Ketchum
Ketelholdt
Ketteler
kettle
Kettles
Kettlewell
Ketzer
Kevenhuller
Kew
Key
Keyauwees
Keyes
keynote
KEYNTON
keys
Keyserwerth
keystone
Keôs
kg
kha
Khaar
Khabs
Khacan
Khachi
Khadijah
KHAGAN
Khahrezm
Khahrezmian
Khahrezmians
Khahrezmides
Khaibar
Khaispis
Khajar
Khak
Khakan
Khaldoun
Khaled
khaleefeh
Khalif
Khalifa
Khalifah
Khalifate
khalifs
Khalsa
Khalunni
Kham
Khammuragas
khan
Khanat
Khanate
Khanates
Khanbalik
Khandesh
Khanpo
Khans
Khanzir
Khar
Kharejite
Kharejites
Kharezm
Kharism
Kharkof
Khartani
Khartoum
KHARU
Khasars
Khatmandu
Khatta
Khatti
Khawah
Khayyam
Khazars
Khedive
Khedives
Khedivial
KHEL
Khelat
Khels
KHEMI
Kherson
Khetas
Khevenhuller
Khevenhüller
Khiam
Khiljis
Khita
Khitai
Khitan
KHITANS
Khitat
Khitay
Khitaï
Khiva
Khmelnitski
Khmer
Khmers
Kho
Khoczim
KHODYA
Khojas
Khokand
Khokandian
Khokandians
Khokland
Khomartekin
Khonds
Khorasan
KHORASSAN
Khorasun
Khordadbeh
Khorramabad
Khorsabad
Khorásán
Khosa
Khotan
Khoten
KHOTIN
Khotur
Khotzim
KHOULIKOF
Khouni
KHOZARS
Khu
KHUAREZM
Khuarezmian
KHUAREZMIANS
Khubilai
Khudabenda
Khudayar
Khudur
Khufu
Khulagu
Khurasan
Khurdistan
Khureitun
Khurshid
Khusru
Khuwarizm
Khwarezm
Khwarizm
Khyber
Khâya
Khān
ki
Kiang
Kiangsoo
kiao
Kiapha
Kiasma
kiau
Kiawah
kibitka
kibitkas
Kiblai
Kibonge
Kiches
kick
KICKAPOO
Kickapoos
kicked
kickers
kicking
kicks
Kidder
kidnapped
kidnapper
kidnappers
kidnapping
kidneys
Kido
kids
Kief
KIEFFER
KIEFT
Kieh
Kiel
KIENITZ
Kiepert
Kieran
kieren
kiesen
Kiev
Kiew
Kihsa
kii
Kikan
Kikapoo
Kikapoos
kil
Kilburn
Kildare
Kilian
Kilic
Kilidsch
Kilidseh
KILIKIA
Kilimane
Kilimanjaro
Kilkenny
kill
Killarney
killed
Killen
killeth
Killian
Killicranky
Killiecrankie
killing
Killingworth
Killmucks
kills
Kilmainham
Kilmarnock
kilns
kilo
Kilokhari
kilometer
kilometers
kilometres
kilomètres
kilos
Kilpatrick
Kilsyth
Kilwarden
Kimball
Kimbolton
Kimera
Kimmerian
Kimon
Kimôlus
Kimôn
kin
Kinburn
Kincardine
kind
kinder
kindergarten
kindergartens
kindergartner
kindle
kindled
kindles
kindliness
kindling
kindly
kindness
kindnesses
kindred
kinds
kine
Kinena
Kineo
king
kingcraft
Kingdom
kingdoms
Kingfisher
Kinghood
Kingite
KINGLAKE
kingless
kinglet
kinglets
kingly
Kingmaker
kings
KINGSBOROUGH
Kingsford
kingship
Kingsland
Kingsley
Kingssé
Kingston
Kington
Kinkel
Kinley
Kinloch
Kinneil
Kinney
Kinoge
Kins
Kinsale
Kinsey
kinsfolk
kinship
Kinsky
kinsman
kinsmen
Kinston
Kintyre
Kinzig
Kiong
Kios
Kioto
Kiouprougli
Kiouprouglis
Kiowa
Kiowan
Kiowas
KIP
Kipchak
KIPCHAKS
Kiptchak
Kiptchaks
Kipzak
Kirby
Kirch
Kirchberg
KIRCHDENKERN
kirche
kirchen
Kircher
Kirchliche
Kirchner
Kirghis
Kirghiz
Kiriri
Kirishitan
Kirjath
kirk
Kirkaldy
Kirkcudbright
Kirke
Kirker
Kirkes
KIRKI
Kirkley
kirkmen
Kirkpatrick
kirks
KIRKSVILLE
Kirkup
Kirkwall
Kirman
Kirmani
Kirmenshah
Kirphis
Kirrha
KIRRHÆAN
Kirrhæans
Kirtland
Kirwan
Kiscapokoke
Kisco
Kish
Kishon
kiss
Kissavo
kissed
kisses
KISSIA
kissing
Kissingen
Kistna
kistvaens
Kit
Kitara
kitchen
kitchens
Kitchi
Kitchin
kite
kites
kith
Kithærôn
Kittaning
Kittery
KITTIM
Kitts
Kituanahan
Kitunaha
KITUNAHAN
Kiu
Kiusiu
Kiwewa
Kiyovia
Kizil
Kiümen
KJÖKKENMÖDINGR
Kjökkenmödingr
kkk
Kl
Kladsko
Klage
Klagenfurt
Klamath
Klamaths
Klan
KLAPKA
Klaproth
Klasing
Klassen
Klazomenæ
Klea
Klebelsberg
Kleber
Klebs
Klein
Kleine
Kleiner
Kleinsite
Kleist
Kleisthenean
Kleisthenes
Kleisthenian
Kleisthenês
Klenau
Kleobulus
Kleomenes
Kleomenic
Kleomêdês
Kleon
Kleopatra
Klerouchoi
Kleruchs
Klesel
Kleôn
Klinckzieck
Kling
Klinkowström
Kloster
Klostergrab
Kluge
Klundert
Klux
Klytaemnestra
Kléber
km
Kmaso
knackers
Knapp
knapsacks
knave
knavery
knaves
knavish
kneaded
Knechte
knee
kneel
kneeled
kneeling
knees
knell
knelt
Knemis
Knes
knew
Kniaz
Kniazes
Knickerbocker
Knidus
knife
Knigge
knight
knighted
KNIGHTHOOD
knighting
knightly
Knightrider
Knights
Knipperdolling
knit
knitted
knitting
knives
Knob
knock
knocked
knocking
knocks
Knokke
knoll
Knolles
Knollys
KNONAU
Knoque
knot
knots
knotted
knout
know
Knower
knowest
knoweth
knowing
knowingly
knowledge
Knowles
known
knows
Knox
Knoxville
knuckle
KNUT
Knutsford
Knutson
Knutsson
Knuyt
KNYDUS
Knyphausen
Knyvet
ko
KOASSATI
Koassáti
Kobad
Kobulmish
KOCH
Kocher
Koenigsberg
Koenigsmark
Koffee
Kogisho
Kogo
Koh
KOHL
Kohlrausch
Koi
Koin
Kojiki
Kok
Kokheba
Kolarian
Kolarians
Kolde
Koldewey
KOLDEWY
Kolding
KOLIN
Kollin
Kolokol
KOLOMAN
kolonial
Kolophon
Kolophôn
kolosh
KOLUSCHAN
Koluschen
Komans
Komenski
Kommission
Komnenos
KOMORN
Komos
kon
Konde
KONDUR
Koner
Kong
Koniah
KONIEH
KONIG
Koniggrätz
Konigsberg
Konigsegg
Konishi
Konisky
Konon
KONSAARBRUCK
Konsaarbrück
konx
Konyunjik
Koopers
Kooranko
Koord
Koordish
KOORDS
KOOSH
Kootenay
Kopet
Kopp
Koptos
Kora
Korai
Koran
Korana
Korans
Korasmian
KORASMIANS
Kordofan
Kordu
Korea
Korean
Koreans
Koreish
Koresh
Korf
Korié
Korkyra
Korkyraian
Korkyraians
Korkyraic
Korkyreans
Korkyrians
Korkyræan
Korla
Korniloff
Koron
KORONEA
Korsakoff
Korti
Korum
Koryphasium
Korân
Kos
Kosaque
Kosaques
Koscheleff
Kosciusko
Kosciuszko
Koseir
Kosel
KOSER
Kosmos
KOSSOVA
Kossovo
Kossuth
KOSSÆANS
Kossæans
Kostczyn
Kostern
Kostobar
Kostromitonov
kottus
Kotzebue
Kotzim
Kouiliou
KOULEVSCHA
Koumanoi
Koumoundouros
Kouprianoff
Kour
Kourdistan
Kouroutses
Koutchko
Koutouzof
Kouyoundjik
Kouyunjik
kouê
Koven
Kovno
Kowenstyn
Kowlitz
Kowno
KOYUNJIK
Kozacy
kraal
Krage
KRALE
Kranach
KRANNON
Krapf
Krapotkine
Krashi
Krasinski
KRASNOE
Krasnoi
Krasnovodsk
Krasnoé
Kraterus
Krathis
KRAUSE
Kray
Kreisschulinspektoren
kreistag
Kremenetz
Krementz
Kremlin
Krems
Kremsier
Kreon
Krete
Kretheus
kreutzer
Kreuz
Kreuznach
Kreuzzeitung
Kreuzzüge
kreuzzüger
Krevitchi
krieg
Krieges
Kriegsverein
Kriehn
Kriemhild
Kriesheim
KRIM
KRIMESUS
Krissa
KRISSÆAN
Krissæans
Kritik
kritische
Krivichi
Kroja
Krok
kroner
Kronium
Kronprinz
Kropotkine
Kroton
Krudener
Krug
Kruger
Kruse
Krynssen
KRYPTEIA
Krête
Krüdener
Krüsi
Krœsos
Kshatriya
KSHATRIYAS
Kshatryas
ku
KUAN
Kuango
kub
Kuban
Kublai
Kucha
Kuchwaha
Kudara
Kudiaskers
Kudjuk
kuei
Kuenen
Kueprily
KUFA
Kufans
Kufstein
Kuges
KUGLER
kuh
Kuhistan
Kuhnow
Kuilemberg
Kuilenburg
Kuka
Kukul
Kul
Kulanapan
Kuldja
Kuli
Kull
Kullmann
Kulm
Kulpa
Kultur
Kulturgeschichte
Kulturkampf
Kum
Kuma
Kumani
Kumaon
Kumar
Kumestan
Kummer
Kumuks
KUNAXA
KUNBIS
Kunersdorf
Kung
Kungwasai
Kunwald
Kunze
Kunzendorf
kupferstich
Kur
Kura
Kuraish
Kuram
Kurd
Kurdish
Kurdistan
Kurds
KUREEM
KURFÜRST
Kurfürst
Kurfürste
Kurfürsts
Kurgan
Kurihama
Kuriltai
Kurium
Kurland
Kurnai
Kurnaul
Kuropatkin
Kurrachee
Kursaal
Kurtz
KURUCS
Kurucz
Kurus
Kusan
Kush
KUSHITES
Kuskuskee
Kustendje
Kutais
Kutayah
Kutb
KUTCHINS
Kutenay
Kutschouc
Kutschuk
Kutta
Kuttenberg
Kutusof
Kutusoff
Kutusow
Kutzo
Kwangcheu
Kwapas
Kwara
kwas
Kwasind
Kwe
kwei
Kwokwoos
Kwotszekien
Kyaxares
Kybele
Kybur
Kyburg
kydells
Kydrara
Kyk
Kyklades
Kylon
Kyme
Kymri
Kymric
KYMRY
Kymê
Kyning
KYNOSSEMA
Kynosura
Kynuria
KYNURIANS
Kyoto
Kypros
Kypselidæ
Kypselus
kyr
Kyrene
Kyros
Kythera
Kythnus
Kytinion
Kyusbu
Kyushu
KYZICUS
KÄMMEL
KÖNIG
KÖNIGGRÄTZ
KÖSTLIN
Ká
Káyowe
Kâfir
Kâsa
Käemmel
kämpfe
Kärnthen
Kæneus
Kératry
Kéthulle
Kêpheus
Kïow
Kó
Kônigsmark
Köln
König
Königgrätz
Königinhof
Königl
Königliche
königreich
Königsberg
Königsmark
Königspfälze
Königstein
Körner
Körös
Köstlin
Köthen
Küssen
Küstrin
KŒPPEN
La
Labarum
Labaume
Labbe
LABBERTON
label
labeled
labels
Labian
Labicum
Labienus
Labilliere
labor
laboratories
Laboratoris
laboratory
Laborde
labored
laborem
laborer
Laborers
laboring
laborious
laboriously
laboriousness
Laborosoarchod
labors
laborum
Labouchere
labour
Labourd
Labourdonnais
laboured
labourer
labourers
labouring
labours
labra
Labrador
Labranda
Labussière
labyrinth
labyrinthine
labyrinths
Lac
Lacedaemon
Lacedaemonian
Lacedaemonians
LACEDÆMON
LACEDÆMONIAN
Lacedæmon
Lacedæmonia
Lacedæmonian
Lacedæmonians
Lacerda
laces
Laches
Lachine
Lachish
Lachlan
Lachmann
Lacies
lacing
lack
Lackawanna
lacked
lackey
lackeys
lacking
Lackland
lacks
Laclede
Lacock
Lacombe
Laconia
Laconian
laconic
laconically
Lacordaire
Lacoste
Lacouperie
Lacour
LACROIX
lacrymalis
lacs
Lactant
Lactantius
lacteal
lacteals
lacunæ
LACUSTRINE
Lacuèe
Lacy
Lacépède
lad
Ladak
LADD
ladder
ladders
Lade
Ladebat
laden
Ladenburgh
ladies
lading
Ladislas
Ladislaus
Ladmirault
LADOCEA
Ladoga
LADOKEIA
Ladrones
Ladré
lads
LADY
Laeken
Laertês
Laet
Lafayette
Lafond
Lafontaine
Lafourche
Lafrénière
Lagado
Lagamar
Lagenia
Lager
Laggan
laggard
laggards
laggart
lagged
lagging
LAGIDE
Lagidæ
Lagny
Lago
lagoon
Lagoons
Lagos
Lagrange
lags
Lagthing
Lagting
Laguna
lagune
lagunes
Lagus
Laharpe
LAHONTAN
Lahor
Lahore
Laibach
laic
laicize
laicized
LAICOS
laics
laid
Laigle
lain
Lainez
Laing
lair
Laird
Lairds
Lais
laissez
laity
Lake
Lakedaimon
Lakedæmon
Lakedæmonian
Lakeland
lakes
lakhs
Lakonia
Lakonians
Lal
Lalaguna
Laland
Lalanne
Lallemand
Lally
Lalor
Lam
Lama
Lamachos
Lamachus
LAMAISM
Lamar
Lamarque
Lamartine
Lamas
Lamb
Lamba
Lamballe
Lambe
Lambec
Lambeque
Lambert
Lamberton
Lambesc
Lambeth
lambkin
Lambrechtsen
Lambs
lame
Lamego
Lamennais
lament
lamentable
lamentably
lamentation
lamentations
lamented
lamenting
laments
Lameth
Lameths
Lamia
Lamian
Lammermuir
Lamoignon
LAMONE
Lamoricière
Lamotte
lamp
lampadarchy
Lamprecht
lamps
Lampsacus
lan
Lanahan
Lanai
Lanari
Lanark
Lanarkshire
Lancashire
Lancaster
Lancasterian
Lancastrian
Lancastrians
lance
Lancelot
lancers
lances
lancet
Lancey
LANCIANI
Lancisi
LANCIZOLLE
land
Landammann
Landanama
Landau
LANDDFRIEDE
landdrost
lande
landed
Landen
Lander
Landerer
landers
Landes
Landesausschuss
Landeskirche
landfall
LANDFRIEDE
Landgemeinden
landgrave
landgraves
landgraviate
landholder
Landholders
landing
landings
landlady
landless
landlocked
landlord
landlords
landmark
Landmarks
Landnámabók
Lando
Landon
Landor
landowner
landowners
landownership
landowning
Landrecht
Landreci
Landrecies
Landrecy
LANDRIANO
lands
landscape
LANDSHUT
Landshutt
landsmen
Landsquenets
Landsting
landstingen
Landstings
Landsturm
Landständische
Landtag
Landulph
landward
landwards
LANDWEHR
Lane
lanes
LANESSAU
Lanfranc
Lanfrey
Lang
Langalibalele
Langdale
Langdell
Langdon
LANGE
Langemantel
Langensalza
Langenthal
Langeron
Langes
Langford
LANGHANS
Langhe
Langland
Langley
Langmead
LANGOBARDI
Langobardian
Langobards
Langport
Langres
langridge
Langside
Langton
language
languages
langue
langued
Languedoc
Languedocian
Languedocians
languid
languidly
languish
languished
languishes
languishing
languor
Languschi
Languédoc
Lanier
Lanjuinais
Lanka
Lankester
Lannes
Lannoi
Lannoy
LANSDOWNE
Lansfeldt
Lansing
Lansquenets
lantern
Lanterne
Lanuvium
Lanyon
Lanzarote
Lanzknechts
Laocoon
Laodice
Laodicea
Laodiceas
Laoghaire
Laokoön
Laon
Laos
Laotians
Laou
lap
LAPHAM
LAPIE
lapis
Lapisse
LAPITHÆ
Laplace
Lapland
Laporte
Lapoukhine
Lappenberg
Lappes
Lapps
Laps
lapse
lapsed
lapsing
Lapurdum
Lar
Lara
Laramie
lararium
larceny
larchen
LARCHEY
Lard
larded
larder
Lardner
Larga
large
largely
largeness
Larger
largess
largesses
largest
largo
Largs
Lariab
Larinum
Larissa
Larissus
LARKIN
Larne
Larned
Laroche
LAROCHEJACQUELIN
Larochejaquelain
Larochejaquelein
Larose
Larroumet
Lars
Larsa
Larévillière
LAS
LaSalle
Lasar
Lascaris
Lascelles
Lascy
Lasell
lash
lashed
Lasher
Laskaris
Lasker
Lasource
Lassa
Lassal
Lassalle
Lassen
lasses
LASSI
lassitude
last
lasted
lasting
lastingly
lastly
lasts
Laswari
Lat
late
lateen
lately
lateness
latent
later
lateral
laterally
Lateran
latere
latest
Latham
Lathan
Lathanos
Lathbury
lathe
lathes
Lathom
Lathrop
Lathyrus
Latialis
Latiaris
LATIFUNDIA
Latimer
Latin
Latina
Latini
Latinised
Latinists
Latinity
Latinized
Latins
Latinæ
latitude
latitudes
latitudinal
latitudinarian
Latitudinarianism
latitudinous
Latium
Latouche
Latour
latrines
LATT
latter
Latterly
latters
Lau
Laud
LAUDABILITER
Laudabilitur
laudable
laudably
laudation
laudatory
Lauder
Lauderdale
Laudet
Laudice
Laudohn
Laudon
Laudonnière
Lauenberg
Lauenburg
Laufenburg
Lauffenburg
Lauffenburgh
laugh
laughable
laughed
laughing
laughingly
Laughlin
laughs
laughter
Laugingen
Lauingen
Laun
Launay
Launceston
launch
launched
launches
launching
laundry
Launoi
Laura
Laurans
Lauras
Laureate
laurel
laurelled
laurels
Laurence
Laurens
Laurent
Laurentian
Laurentius
Lauriat
LAURIE
Laurion
Lauriston
Laurium
Laus
Lausanne
Lausitz
Lautaro
Lauter
Lauterbourg
Lauth
Lautrec
LAUTULÆ
Lautulæ
Lauzun
Lava
Lavagna
Laval
Lavalette
Lavalle
Lavater
Laveleye
lavender
Laverne
lavers
Lavigerie
lavish
lavished
lavishly
LAVISSE
Lavoisier
Lavoro
law
Lawes
LAWFELD
lawful
lawfull
lawfully
lawfulness
lawgiver
lawgivers
lawless
lawlessness
lawmaker
lawmaking
lawn
lawns
Lawren
Lawrence
Lawrences
laws
Lawson
lawsuit
lawsuits
Lawton
lawyer
lawyers
Lawæstine
lax
laxative
laxer
laxity
laxly
laxness
lay
Layard
Laybach
Laye
layer
layers
laying
layman
laymen
layout
lays
lazar
Lazare
lazarettos
LAZARISTS
LAZARUS
Lazes
Lazi
Lazic
LAZICA
laziest
laziness
Lazowski
lazuli
lazy
lazzaroni
LAZZI
lazzus
laïque
laïques
lb
lbs
Ld
IDUMEANS
Le
Lea
lead
leaden
Leadenhall
leader
leaders
leadership
leadeth
leading
leads
Leaf
leafless
Leaflets
League
leagued
leaguer
Leaguers
leagues
leaguing
Leah
leak
Leake
leaked
leaky
lean
LEANDER
leaned
leaner
Leang
leaning
leanings
leans
leant
Leao
Leaou
leap
leaped
leaping
leaps
Lear
learn
learned
learners
Learning
learnings
learns
learnt
Leary
lease
leased
leasehold
leaseholders
leases
leash
least
leather
leathern
Leatus
leave
leaved
leaven
leavened
leavening
Leavenworth
leaves
leaving
Leavitt
Lebanon
Lebedus
Leben
Lebensbeschreibung
Lebenserinnerungen
Lebensnachrichten
Leber
Lebon
Lebrun
Lebus
Lebœuf
Lecce
LECESTRES
LECH
leche
Lechelle
LECHFELD
Lechler
Lechæum
Leck
Lecky
Leclaire
Leclerc
Lecoffre
Lecompton
Lecomte
Lecourbe
LECOY
Lect
Lectionary
lecto
lecture
lectured
lecturer
lecturers
Lectures
lecturing
Leczinski
led
Ledger
ledges
Ledinallah
leding
Ledjûn
Ledlie
Ledochowski
Ledra
Ledru
Lee
Leech
leeches
leeching
LEEDER
LEEDS
Leedsville
Leeku
Lees
LEESBURG
Leese
LEET
leets
Leeuwarden
Leeuwen
Leeuwenhoek
Leeuwin
Leeward
Lefebvre
Lefevre
Lefferts
Leflô
Lefort
Lefroy
Left
LEFÈVRE
LEFÉVRE
Lefèbvre
Lefèvre
leg
legacies
legacy
Legal
legalem
legalisation
legalise
legalised
legalists
legality
legalization
legalize
legalized
legalizes
legalizing
legall
legally
Leganez
Legardeur
legare
legate
legatees
legates
legateship
legati
legatine
Legation
Legations
legazia
legend
legendary
Legendre
legends
Leger
Leges
Legge
legged
leggings
Leghorn
legible
Legio
legion
legionaries
legionary
Legionis
legions
Legis
legislate
legislated
legislates
legislating
legislation
legislative
legislator
legislators
legislature
legislatures
legist
legists
legitimacy
legitimate
legitimated
legitimately
Legitimism
legitimist
Legitimists
LeGlay
Legnago
Legnano
Legrand
legs
Lehigh
LEHMANN
Lehmkuhl
Lehmus
Lehn
Lehrbuch
lehrbüchern
Lehrjahre
Lehua
Lehuby
Lehurecht
Lehwald
leibeigenschaft
Leibnitz
Leicester
Leicestershire
Leiden
Leif
Leigh
Leighlin
Leighton
Leiningen
Leinster
Leintwarden
LEIPOLD
Leipsic
Leipsig
Leipzig
Leisler
Leislerians
leisure
leisurely
Leitch
leitfaden
Leith
Leitha
Leithan
Leithania
Leitmeritz
Leix
Leixlip
LEJOSNE
Lekhs
Leland
LELANTIAN
Lelantum
Leleges
LELEWEL
LELIAERDS
lelie
Lemaistre
Leman
LEMANIS
Lemans
Lemanus
Lemberg
Lemerre
Lemnos
Lemoine
Lemonade
LEMONNIER
lemons
Lemos
LEMOVICES
LEMOVII
Lemus
Lena
Lenaia
Lenape
Lenapees
Lenapé
lend
lender
lenders
lending
lends
length
lengthen
lengthened
lengthening
lengths
lengthways
lengthwise
lengthy
Lengua
leniency
lenient
leniently
lenity
Lenni
Lennox
Lenoir
Lenormant
Lenostre
Lenox
Lens
lenses
Lent
Lenten
Lenthall
LENTIENSES
lentils
Lentuli
Lentulus
Lenz
Lenâpé
Leo
Leoa
Leoben
Leocadio
Leodegar
LEODIS
Leofwine
Leominster
Leon
Leonard
Leonardo
Leonatns
Leone
LEONHARD
Leonidas
Leonine
Leonnatus
Leonora
Leontes
Leontiades
Leontieff
Leontine
Leontini
Leontinoi
LEONTIUS
Leopard
leopards
Leopold
Leopoldville
Leosthenes
Leotychides
Leovigild
Leowar
Lepanto
Lepantus
leparamantium
Lepaux
Lepe
Lepeaux
leper
lepers
Lepidus
lepra
leprosy
leprous
Lepsius
lepta
Leptis
Lerdistas
Lerdo
Lerens
LERIDA
Lerinensian
Lerins
Lerma
Leros
Leroux
Leroy
Les
Lesage
Lesbian
Lesbians
Lesbos
Lescarbot
LESCHE
LESCO
Lescure
Lesdeguières
Lesdiguieres
Lesdiguières
lese
Leseverein
Lesghians
lesions
Leskovatz
Lesley
Leslie
Lesly
less
Lessart
lesse
Lessee
lessees
lessen
lessened
lessening
lessens
Lesseps
lesser
Lessing
lesson
lessons
lest
Lester
Lestines
Lestocq
Lestrange
LESZCZYNSKI
let
Letcher
Letchworth
Letellier
lethargy
lether
lething
Lethington
Leto
lets
Lett
Lettenhove
letter
letteratura
Lettere
lettered
lettering
Letters
letting
Lettish
Lettou
LETTRE
Lettres
Letts
Letzerich
Leucadia
Leucadian
Leucadians
Leucas
Leucate
LEUCI
Leuctra
LEUCÆ
Leucæ
LEUD
leude
leudes
Leuenberger
leuga
Leukas
Leukopetra
Leunclavius
leute
Leuthen
leuy
leuyed
leuyes
Leuze
Levant
Levantina
Levantine
Levantines
Levanto
levari
Levasseur
Levaux
levee
levees
level
leveled
leveling
levelled
Levellers
levelling
levels
Leven
lever
Leverett
Levermore
levers
LEVESQUE
Levett
Levi
leviable
Leviathan
levied
levies
Levin
Levis
Levite
Levitical
Leviticus
levities
levity
levy
levying
levée
Lew
lewd
lewdness
Lewe
Lewenhaupt
Lewes
Lewin
Lewins
Lewis
Lewisburg
Lewiston
Lex
lexical
lexicographer
Lexicon
lexicons
LEXINGTON
Lexovii
Ley
Leyde
Leyden
Leydenberg
Leye
Leypoldt
Leyva
LHASSA
Lhut
Lhuys
LI
Lia
liabilities
liability
liable
Liancourt
liang
Liao
liar
liars
Liau
Liaus
lib
Libanius
Libanus
libations
Libby
libeccio
libel
libeller
Libellers
libellous
libellum
libelous
libels
libenter
liber
Liberal
liberales
liberalising
liberalism
liberalities
liberality
liberalization
liberalize
liberally
Liberals
Liberata
liberate
liberated
liberateurs
liberating
liberation
liberator
liberators
liberi
Liberia
Liberian
liberis
Liberius
libero
Libertad
Libertate
libertatibus
libertatis
liberti
liberties
libertine
libertines
LIBERTINI
libertinism
liberty
Liberté
Liberum
libidinous
Libius
libra
Librairie
Librarian
librarians
librarie
LIBRARIES
Library
Libre
libri
Libro
Liburnia
LIBURNIANS
Libussa
Liby
Libya
Libyan
Libyans
lice
licence
licences
license
licensed
licenser
licensers
licenses
licensing
licentiate
licentiates
licentious
licentiously
licentiousness
Lichbarrow
Lichfield
Lichnowsky
Lichtenstein
Lichterfelde
Licinian
Licinii
Licinius
lick
Lickbarrow
licked
Licking
Licks
lictor
lictors
Liddell
Liddesdale
lide
Lidi
Lido
Lidum
LIDUS
lie
Liebenstein
Liebertwolkwitz
Liebig
Liebknecht
Lieblein
LIED
Liefland
Lieflanders
Liefs
liege
liegeman
liegemen
Liegeois
lieges
LIEGNITZ
lien
Lier
Lies
lieu
lieue
Lieut
lieutenancies
lieutenancy
Lieutenant
lieutenants
lieux
Lieven
Life
lifeblood
lifeguardsman
lifeless
lifelike
lifelong
Liffey
Lift
lifted
lifting
Liga
ligament
Ligarius
ligated
ligature
Liger
LIGERIS
light
lighted
lighten
lightened
lightening
lighter
lighters
lightest
Lightfoot
lighthearted
lighthouse
Lighthouses
lighting
lightly
lightness
lightning
lightnings
lights
LIGII
Ligne
Lignitz
lignum
Ligny
Ligonia
Ligue
Ligugé
Liguori
Liguria
Ligurian
Ligurians
Liholiho
LII
LIII
Lij
like
liked
likelier
likelihood
likely
liken
likened
likeness
likens
liker
likes
likest
likewise
liking
likings
Likuala
Lilburne
lilies
Liliuokalani
Liliuokulani
LILLE
LILLEBONNE
Lillibullero
LILLIE
Lillius
Lillo
Lilly
LILY
LILYBÆUM
Lilybæum
Lima
Limanon
limb
limbe
limberness
limbo
Limbourg
limbs
Limburg
lime
Limerick
Limes
limestone
Limiers
LIMIGANTES
Limisso
limit
limitanean
limitary
limitation
limitations
limited
limiting
limitless
limits
Limmat
LIMOGES
LIMONUM
Limousin
limped
limpid
Limpopo
limu
Lin
LINA
Linacer
Linacre
LINAGE
Linant
Linares
Linchamp
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
Lind
Lindau
Lindblom
Lindenau
LINDESFARAS
Lindesig
Lindet
Lindewode
Lindisfarne
LINDISWARA
Lindisware
Lindsay
Lindsey
LINDUM
Lindus
line
lineage
lineal
lineally
lineaments
Linear
lined
linen
linens
liners
lines
Ling
Lingan
LINGARD
linger
lingered
Lingerer
lingerers
lingering
lingers
Lingg
Lingones
Lingua
lingual
linguist
linguistic
linguistically
linguists
lining
link
linked
Linken
linkets
linking
links
LINKÖPING
Linköping
Linlithgow
Linnet
Linnæus
linseed
lint
lintels
Lintz
Linus
Linyanti
Linz
Linzee
lion
Lionardo
Lioncy
Lionel
Lioness
lions
lip
Lipa
LIPAN
Lipanes
Lipara
LIPIDUS
Lippa
Lippe
lipped
LIPPERT
Lippi
Lippincott
lips
liquid
liquidate
liquidation
liquids
liquor
liquors
lira
lire
Liris
Lis
Lisbon
Lisbonians
Lisbos
Lisieux
LISLE
Lismore
lisp
lisped
LISSA
Lissagaray
Lissus
List
LISTE
listed
listen
listened
listener
listeners
listening
listens
Lister
listlessly
listlessness
lists
lit
Litang
litanies
litany
litera
literal
literally
literalness
literary
literate
literati
Literatur
literature
liters
literæ
lithe
lithotomy
Lithuania
Lithuanian
Lithuanians
Lithuanic
Liti
litigate
litigating
litigation
Litigations
litigious
Litorius
litres
Litt
Littany
Littell
litter
litteraires
Litterarische
litterateur
littered
litters
Litteræ
little
Littlejohn
Littleton
littoral
Littoris
Littré
littéraire
Litu
liturgia
liturgical
LITURGIES
Liturgiæ
liturgy
LITUS
lituus
Liu
liude
Liudprand
liue
Liutprand
LIV
Livadia
live
lived
livelier
liveliest
livelihood
liveliness
lively
liver
liveries
livering
Livermore
Liverpool
livers
livery
lives
Livia
livid
Livii
living
livings
Livingston
Livingstone
Livingstonia
Livingstons
Livius
Livland
Livon
LIVONIA
Livonian
Livonians
livrait
livre
livres
livrées
Livy
LIX
Lizard
lizards
Lizzie
LIÈGE
Liège
Liége
Liégois
Liénart
ll
llamas
Llancarvan
Llandaff
Llaneros
llano
LLANOS
lldefonso
lle
Llewellin
Llewellyn
LLEWELLYNN
Llewelyn
LLORENS
Llorente
LLOYD
Llyn
Llyndin
Lnalaba
lnter
Lo
load
loade
loaded
loaden
loaders
loading
loads
loadstone
loaf
loafers
loan
Loana
Loanda
Loando
loaned
Loango
Loangwa
loaning
LOANO
loans
Loarn
loath
loathe
loathed
loathing
loathsome
loaves
Lobau
lobbies
lobby
lobbying
lobbyists
Lobcowitz
Lobengula
Lobkowitz
Lobo
LOBOSITZ
Lobweisen
local
localised
localities
locality
localization
localized
locally
locate
located
locates
locating
location
locations
locators
Loch
Loches
Lochlann
Lochlanni
Lochleven
lochs
lock
Locke
locked
Lockhart
locking
Lockport
locks
locksmith
Lockwood
LOCKYER
Lockyier
Loco
locofoco
Locofocos
locomotion
locomotive
locomotives
locorum
Locri
Locriams
Locrian
Locrians
Locris
locust
locusts
Lodbrok
LODE
Lodge
lodged
lodgement
lodger
Lodgers
lodges
lodging
lodgings
lodgment
lodgments
Lodi
Lodovico
Lodrino
Lodève
Loeffler
LOEN
Loesche
Loewenstein
LOFTIE
loftier
loftiest
loftily
loftiness
lofts
Loftus
lofty
log
Logan
Logar
Logau
Logerot
logged
loggia
Logi
logic
Logical
logically
logician
logicians
logis
LOGISTÆ
logistæ
Loglin
LOGOGRAPHI
logographic
Logos
LOGOTHETES
logs
LOGSTOWN
logwood
Loher
Lohier
Loi
Loibersdorf
Loidis
Loing
loins
Loir
Loire
Loiret
Lois
Loison
loitered
Loiterers
loitering
Loix
Loja
Lojera
Lok
Lokri
Lokrian
LOKRIANS
Lokris
Lola
Lollard
Lollardism
Lollardry
Lollards
Lollardy
lollen
Lolley
Lolme
Lomakin
Lomami
Lombard
Lombardo
Lombards
Lombardy
Lomellina
Lomenie
Lomond
LOMÉNIE
Loménie
Lon
Lonato
Londinium
London
Londonderry
Londoner
Londoners
LONE
loneliness
lonely
lonesomeness
long
Longa
longanimity
Longchamps
longed
longer
longest
longevity
Longfellow
Longfield
Longford
LONGIMANUS
longing
longingly
longings
Longinus
longitude
longitudes
longitudinal
Longius
Longjumeau
Longman
Longmans
LONGNON
Longobards
Longone
Longstreet
Longsword
Longueville
Longus
Longwy
lonians
Lons
Lonsdale
lontano
Loo
Loodeeana
Loodianah
Looe
look
looked
looker
lookers
looking
Lookout
looks
loom
loomed
Looming
Loomis
looms
loon
loop
loophole
loopholed
loopholes
loose
loosed
loosely
loosen
loosened
looseness
loosening
looser
loosest
loosing
looting
Lope
Lopez
lopped
lopping
loquacity
Lor
Loraine
Lorch
lorcha
Lord
lorded
lording
lordless
lordly
Lords
Lordship
lordships
lore
LOREDAN
Lorenzo
Lorette
Loretto
Lorges
LORGUES
Loria
LORING
Loris
Lorium
Lorn
Lorne
Loroux
Lorraine
Lorrainers
Lorris
Lorsch
Los
Losantiville
lose
loser
losers
loses
losing
LOSKIEL
loss
losse
losses
Lossing
lost
lot
Lotbinière
loth
Lothair
Lothaire
Lothar
Lotharingia
Lotharingian
Lotharingians
Lothario
Lothars
Lother
Lotheringia
Lothian
Lothier
Lothierregne
Lothringen
Lothrop
lots
lotte
lotteries
lottery
Lottringen
Lotze
Loubet
loud
louder
loudest
loudly
Loudon
Loudoun
Lough
Loughborough
Louis
Louisa
Louisades
Louisbourg
Louisburg
Louise
Louisiana
Louisville
lounged
lounger
loungers
lounging
Lounsbury
loup
loups
lour
Louth
loutish
Loutre
Loutsk
Louvain
Louvet
Louvois
Louvre
lovableness
Lovas
Lovat
love
loved
Lovejoy
loveliest
loveliness
Lovell
lovelocks
lovely
lover
lovers
loves
Lovett
loving
lovingly
Lovio
Low
Lowa
lowable
Lowe
Lowell
Lowells
Lower
lowered
lowering
LOWES
lowest
lowing
Lowland
Lowlanders
Lowlands
lowliness
lowly
Lowndes
lowness
Lowositz
Lowry
lows
Lowther
Loxa
Loyal
loyalism
loyalist
Loyalists
LOYALL
loyally
loyalty
Loyd
Loyola
lozenges
Lozère
Lu
Lualaba
Luapula
Lubbock
Lubeck
Lublin
lubricity
Luca
Lucan
Lucania
Lucanians
Lucar
Lucas
Lucases
Lucayo
Lucayos
Lucca
Lucchese
Lucchino
Luccoli
LUCE
Lucena
Luceres
Luceria
Lucerne
Lucerners
LUCHAIRE
LUCHANA
LUCIA
Lucian
Luciano
lucid
lucidity
lucidly
Lucie
Lucien
Lucius
luck
LUCKA
luckier
luckiest
luckily
luckless
Luckner
Lucknow
lucky
Lucon
Luconia
LUCOTECIA
Lucototia
lucrative
lucre
Lucrece
Lucretia
Lucretian
Lucretius
Lucrezia
Lucrinus
luctuosissimis
Lucullus
Lucy
Lud
Luddite
Luddites
Luden
Ludgate
Ludgershall
Ludi
ludicro
ludicrous
ludicrously
Ludlow
Ludovic
Ludovick
Ludovico
Ludovisi
Ludovisio
Ludowic
Ludwig
Lugano
Lugard
Lugdun
Lugdunensis
Lugdunum
luggage
Lugo
Lugudunensian
Lugudunum
LUGUVALLIUM
Luigi
Luines
Luis
Luisa
LUITPERTUS
Luitpold
Luitprand
Luiz
Lujenda
Luke
LUKETIA
lukewarm
lukewarmness
Lukha
Lukhnow
Lukuga
Lulis
lull
lulled
Lulling
Lulu
Lulua
Luluaburg
lumbar
lumber
luminaries
luminous
luminousness
Lumisden
Lumleian
Lumley
LUMMIS
lump
Lumps
Lumris
Lun
Luna
Lunalilo
lunar
lunatic
lunatics
lunch
Lund
Lunda
Lunde
Lundi
Lundinium
Lundy
LUNEBURG
Lunenburg
Luneville
Lung
lungs
luni
Lunigiana
Lunpo
Lunt
Lunæ
Lunéville
luogatorio
luogo
Lupercal
LUPERCALIA
Lupercus
Lupicinus
Lupton
Lupus
Luque
Luray
lurch
lure
lured
lures
lurid
luring
Luris
Luristan
lurk
lurked
lurking
Lusace
Lusatia
Lusatian
luscious
Luserna
Lusetia
Lusignan
Lusignans
Lusimachos
Lusitani
LUSITANIA
Lusitanian
Lusitanians
Lusius
Lussac
Lusson
lust
luster
lustful
Lustgarten
lustre
lustrous
lustrum
lusts
Lutatius
lute
lutes
Lutetia
Luther
Lutheran
Lutheranism
Lutherans
Lutherr
Luthers
Lutke
Lutscher
lutte
Lutter
Luttrell
Lutuami
Lutuamian
Lutz
Lutzen
Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Luxemburgh
Luxeuil
luxuriance
luxuriant
luxuriantly
luxuries
luxurious
luxury
Luyck
Luz
Luzac
Luzern
Luzerne
Luzon
LUZZARA
Luçon
lwydd
ly
Lyall
Lybia
Lybian
Lycabettus
Lycaonia
Lycenm
Lyceum
lyceums
Lychnidus
Lycia
LYCIAN
LYCIANS
Lycias
Lycius
Lycon
Lycurgan
Lycurgean
Lycurgus
Lycus
Lycæum
lycées
Lyde
Lydgate
Lydia
Lydiades
Lydian
Lydians
Lydias
Lygian
LYGIANS
Lygii
Lygonia
lying
Lykia
Lykian
LYKIANS
Lykiarch
Lykortas
Lykourgos
Lykurgean
Lyman
Lyme
Lymfjord
lymited
Lymne
lymph
Lymphatic
Lynar
Lynch
Lynchburg
lynching
Lyndhurst
Lyne
Lynkeus
Lynn
Lyon
Lyonnais
Lyonnese
Lyons
lyre
lyric
lyrical
Lyrics
lyrists
Lys
Lysander
Lysandra
Lysandros
Lysanias
Lysias
Lysicles
Lysimacheia
Lysimachia
Lysimachus
Lysimmachus
Lystra
Lysymachus
Lyte
Lyttelton
Lyttleton
Lytton
LÆNLAND
LÆT
LÆTI
LÉON
LÖGBERG
LÖHER
LÜNEBURG
LÜTZEN
lá
Lâbâshi
Lâon
länder
ländern
Lælius
lænland
Læstrygones
læt
Læti
læts
Lætus
Lævians
lèse
Législatif
légistes
Léon
Léopold
Lépeaux
Léry
Lévis
Lévy
Lêitus
ló
Lô
Löffler
Lögberg
Lönnrot
Löwendahl
Löwenstein
Lübeck
Lückner
Lüderitz
Lüders
Lügenfeld
Lüneberg
Lüneburg
Lüneburgers
Lützen
LŒTIC
Lœti
lœtic
Ma
Maacah
Maarmor
MAARMORS
Maartensdyk
Maas
Mab
Maberly
Mabillon
Mabinogion
Mably
Mac
Macalo
Macao
Macarius
MACARTHUR
Macarthy
Macartney
MACASKIE
Macaulay
macaw
Macbeda
MACBETH
Maccabean
Maccabee
Maccabees
Maccabeus
MACCABÆUS
Maccabæus
maccaronic
MacCarthy
MacCauley
Macchiavelli
MACCIOWICE
MacCoun
Macdon
Macdonald
Macdonalds
MACDONELL
Macdonough
Macdowall
Macduffs
mace
Macedon
Macedonia
Macedonian
Macedonians
Macer
MACERATA
maceration
maces
MacFarlane
MacGahan
MacGeogeghan
MACGREGOR
MacGregors
Macguire
Macha
Machanidas
Machaon
Machault
Machecoul
Machias
Machiavel
Machiavelli
MACHICUIS
machina
machinate
machination
machinations
machine
machinery
machines
machinists
Machlinia
Machupo
Macintosh
Mack
Mackay
MACKENZIE
Mackenzies
mackerel
MACKIE
Mackinaw
Mackinnon
Mackinnons
Mackintosh
MacKnight
MACLAY
Maclean
Macleans
Maclear
Maclehose
Macleods
Maclure
MacMahon
Macmillan
MacMullen
MacMurchad
Macmurrough
Macmurroughs
Macnab
MacNabs
Macnaghten
Macnamara
MacNeile
MacNeill
Macniven
Macomb
Macon
Macpherson
Macquarie
Macra
Macrinus
MacRitchie
Macro
MacRoderic
Macron
Macrone
Macushi
Macusis
MACÆ
Macæ
mad
Madagascar
Madagascars
Madalena
Madalinski
Madam
Madame
Madan
madcap
madd
Maddaloni
Maddelena
madden
maddened
maddening
maddens
madder
madding
made
Madeira
Madeleine
Mademoiselle
Madgeburg
Madgid
Madhava
madhouse
Madhyadesa
Madison
madly
madman
madmen
madness
Madoc
Madonna
Madox
Madras
Madrid
Madrigal
Madrilejos
Madura
Maecenas
Maeedonian
Maelar
Maele
Maelgwn
maelstrom
Maer
Maes
maestrale
maestria
Maestricht
maestro
Mafeking
Maffeo
Maffit
Mafia
Mafrian
Mag
Magadha
Magadhi
Magaillans
Magalhaes
Magalhães
Magazine
magazines
Magdala
Magdalen
Magdalena
Magdalene
Magdeburg
Magdeburgh
Magdolon
mage
Magellan
magellan00towl
Magellanica
MAGENTA
Magestmts
Magestracy
Magestraey
Magestrate
Magestrats
Magestruts
MAGESÆTAS
Magesætas
maggior
Maggiore
maggiori
maggots
Maggy
magh
Maghella
Maghreb
Magi
Magian
MAGIANS
magic
magical
magician
Maginnis
Magism
Magister
magisterial
magistracies
magistracy
Magistrale
Magistrat
magistrate
magistrates
magistraticall
magistrature
magistratures
magistratus
Magistri
magistrorum
Maglocunus
Magna
Magnalia
Magnan
magnanimity
magnanimous
magnanimously
Magnano
magnate
magnates
magnatibus
MAGNATÆ
Magnatæ
Magnentius
Magnes
MAGNESIA
Magnesian
magnet
Magnetes
magnetic
Magnetical
magneticians
magnetism
magnetizing
Magneto
magnets
Magni
magnificence
magnificent
magnificently
magnificos
magnified
magnifies
magnify
magnifying
Magnin
magnitude
magno
Magnolia
Magnum
Magnus
Magnusson
Magny
Magnêsians
Mago
Magoffin
Magog
magoi
Magon
Magruder
Maguelonne
Maguire
Magurim
Magus
Magush
Magyar
Magyars
Magôn
Maha
Mahabharat
Mahabharata
Mahadaji
Mahadi
Mahaffy
Mahal
MAHAN
Mahanaim
Maharaja
Maharajah
Mahas
Mahattan
Mahawawa
Mahdi
Mahdiism
Mahdis
Mahdists
Mahdiya
Mahdl
Mahican
Mahicanni
Mahicans
Mahikanders
MAHLDORF
Mahler
Mahlstrom
Mahmood
Mahmoud
Mahmud
mahogany
Mahomed
Mahomedan
Mahomedanism
Mahomedans
Mahomet
Mahometan
Mahometanism
Mahometans
Mahommedan
Mahon
Mahongwi
Mahoning
Mahony
Mahound
Mahrah
Mahratta
Mahrattas
Mahul
MAHÉ
Mahâbhârata
Mahé
Mai
Maia
maid
Maida
Maidalchina
maiden
maidens
Maids
Maidstone
Maienfeld
Maier
Maij
mail
mailed
Maillard
Maillebois
Mailleraye
Maillotins
mails
maimed
maiming
Maimonides
main
Maina
Mainard
Maine
mainland
mainlands
mainly
mainmast
mainmorte
MAINPRISE
Mains
mainspring
mainstay
maintain
maintainable
maintained
maintainer
maintainers
maintaining
maintains
Maintenance
Maintenon
maintop
Mainwaring
Mainyus
Mainz
maior
Mairet
Mairie
Mairies
Mais
maison
Maisonneuve
Maistre
Maitland
Maitre
Maitres
MAIWAND
maize
maj
MAJESTAS
majestatis
majestic
majestically
Majestie
Majesties
Majesty
Majiar
Major
majorat
MAJORCA
majorem
majores
Majorian
majorities
majority
majors
Majuba
majus
mak
Maka
make
Makedon
Makedonia
Makedonian
Makedonians
makeing
Makemie
maker
Makers
makes
makeshift
maketh
makeweight
making
Makkabi
Makololo
Makraka
Makran
Maksan
Makua
Makârib
mal
mala
Malabar
Malacca
Malachi
Malachy
maladies
maladministration
malady
MALAGA
Malagrida
Malakhoff
Malakoff
Malamocco
Malar
Malaria
malarial
Malatesat
MALATESTA
Malatestas
Malatesti
Malay
Malayan
Malayic
Malays
Malaysia
Malcha
Malcolm
malcontent
Malcontents
Malden
Malderen
Maldive
MALDON
Maldonado
male
Malea
Malean
malecontent
malecontents
maledictions
malefactor
malefactors
Malefami
Malek
Malekshah
males
Malesherbes
Malespini
MALET
malevolence
malevolent
malfeasance
Malherbe
mali
Malia
Maliac
Malian
Malians
malice
malicious
maliciously
malign
malignancy
Malignant
MALIGNANTS
maligned
malignity
Malik
MALINES
Malipiero
Malis
Malispini
mall
MALLBERG
malleable
Malleson
Mallet
mallets
Malley
malloca
Mallone
Mallory
mallow
mallstatt
Mallum
mallums
Mallus
Malmaison
Malmesbury
MALMÖ
Malmö
Malo
Malory
Malouet
Maloun
Malowe
MALPLAQUET
malpractices
Malt
MALTA
MALTE
Maltese
Malthace
Malthus
Maltravers
maltreat
maltreated
maltreating
maltreatment
Maltzahn
malum
malus
MALVASIA
Malvern
malversation
malversations
Malwa
MAMACONAS
Mamaluco
Mamelon
Mameluke
Mamelukes
Mamercus
Mamers
Mamertin
Mamertine
Mamertines
Mamertinl
Mamertinus
Mamertius
Mami
Mamilius
Mamluk
Mamluks
mamma
mammal
mammals
mammoth
Mamoun
Mamun
man
Mana
Manabozho
manacles
manage
manageable
managed
management
manager
managerial
managers
managing
Manahachtanink
Manahattani
manahs
Manan
Manaos
Manas
Manassas
Manasseh
Manasseïn
Manathanes
Manathones
Manatthans
Manavas
Manawapou
Manby
Manchac
Manche
Manchester
Manchoos
Manchows
Manchu
Manchuria
Manchus
Mancini
Mancinus
Manco
MANCUNIUM
Manda
Mandala
mandamento
mandamus
Mandan
Mandanes
MANDANS
mandarin
mandarins
Mandat
Mandata
mandate
mandates
Mandchu
Mandeb
MANDELL
Mandeville
mandolin
Mandre
MANDROT
MANDUBII
mane
Manes
Manesca
Manetho
Manethonian
Manethouian
Manetoulin
maneuver
maneuvers
Manfred
manfully
Manga
Mangalore
Mangi
mangled
mangling
mangoe
Mangu
Mangum
Manhados
MANHATTAN
Manhattans
Manhattes
Manhattoes
Manhattos
Manhattæ
Manhegin
Manheim
Manhitas
manhood
Mani
mania
maniacal
maniacs
Maniakes
Manica
Manichean
Manicheans
Manichees
Manichæan
Manichæans
Manichæism
manifest
manifestation
manifestations
manifested
manifesting
manifestly
manifesto
manifestoes
manifests
manifold
manifoldly
Manila
Manilian
Manilla
MANIMI
Manin
MANIOTO
maniples
manipulated
manipulating
manipulation
Manipulations
manipuli
Manipur
Manitie
Manitoba
Manius
Manjiro
mankind
MANLEY
manliest
manliness
Manlius
manly
Mann
manna
Mannahoacs
manned
manner
mannered
mannerism
manners
Mannheim
manni
mannikin
Mannin
Manning
mannschaft
Mannus
Manny
Manoa
manoeuvres
manor
manorial
MANORS
Manrique
Mans
Mansart
Manse
Mansel
Mansfeld
Mansfeldt
Mansfield
Mansi
mansion
mansiones
Mansions
manslaughter
MANSOURAH
Mansur
Mansura
Mansvelt
Mansúr
mant
mantas
Mantegna
Manteo
Mantes
Mantet
Manteuffel
Mantinea
Mantineans
Mantineia
Mantineians
Mantinæa
mantle
mantles
Manton
mantras
Mantua
Mantuan
MANU
Manual
manuals
manubiis
Manuccio
Manuductio
Manuel
manufactories
manufactory
manufacture
manufactured
manufacturer
manufacturers
manufactures
manufacturing
manumission
manumitted
manure
manures
manuscript
manuscripts
Manutio
MANX
Manxmen
Many
Manyanga
MANYPENNY
manysidedness
Manz
Manzi
MANZIKERT
Manzoni
Manáchtey
Manátey
manœuvering
manœuvre
manœuvred
manœuvres
manœuvring
manœvres
mao
Maogamalcha
MAONITES
Maori
Maoris
map
maple
Mapochins
Mapoclio
mapped
mapping
maps
Maquaas
maquah
MAQUAHUITL
Mar
MARA
Marabou
marabout
Maracaibo
Maracanda
Maragha
Marah
Marais
Marajo
Maranatha
MARANGA
MARANHA
Maranham
Maranon
MARAPHIANS
Marat
MARATA
Maratha
Marathas
Marathon
Marathons
Maratists
Marats
marauders
marauding
maravedi
maravedis
Marañan
Marañon
marble
Marblehead
marbles
Marbod
Marbois
Marbot
Marburg
Marburgh
Marc
MARCEAU
Marcel
Marcelli
Marcellinus
Marcellus
Marcet
march
Marchand
marchands
Marche
marched
marchensis
marchers
marches
Marchese
Marchesella
Marchfeld
Marchiafava
Marchiennes
Marchin
marching
Marchio
Marchioness
marchland
Marchmen
Marché
Marcia
Marcian
Marciana
MARCIANAPOLIS
Marcianople
Marcianopolis
Marcianus
Marcii
Marcion
MARCIUS
Marck
Marcks
Marco
Marcomanni
MARCOMANNIAN
Marcomannic
Marcos
Marcoussis
Marcoy
Marcus
Marcy
Marcé
Mardaites
Mardia
MARDIANS
Mardonius
Marduk
Mardus
Mardyck
Mardyke
Mare
marechal
Maremma
Maremmes
Marengo
Mareotis
mares
Marescalcus
Marescall
Mareschal
Mareschals
Marescot
Marescotti
MARFEE
Marfée
Margall
Margaret
Margarita
Margate
MARGHUSH
MARGIANA
Margiani
margin
marginal
margins
Margos
Margraf
Margravate
margravates
Margrave
margraves
Margraviate
margraviates
Margravine
Marguerite
MARGUS
Marhatta
Marhattas
Marheineke
Maria
Mariage
Mariamne
Marian
Mariana
MARIANDYNIANS
Marianne
MARIANO
MARIANS
Marianus
Maribor
Maricopa
Maricopas
Marie
Marienberg
Marienburg
Marienthal
Marienwerder
Marietta
Mariette
Marignan
Marignano
Marigni
Marigny
Mariguana
Marillac
Marin
Marina
marine
mariner
mariners
marines
Marinese
Marino
Marinus
Mario
MARIOLATRY
Marion
Mariotti
Mariposa
MARIPOSAN
maris
Marischal
Maritima
maritime
Maritimes
Marius
Marizza
Mariæ
MARJ
Marjorian
Marjory
mark
marked
markedly
market
marketability
marketable
marketed
marketing
marketplace
marketplaces
markets
markgenossen
Markgraf
Markgrafdom
Markgrafs
markgrave
Markgraves
Markgraviate
MARKHAM
marking
MARKLAND
marks
Marksman
marksmanship
marksmen
Marksville
marktrecht
Markusoff
Marland
MARLBOROUGH
Marlenheim
Marli
Marlowe
Marly
Marlès
Marmaduke
Marmarosch
Marmion
Marmont
Marmora
Marmoutiers
Marne
Marnix
Maro
Maroboduus
MAROCCO
Maron
Maroni
Maronites
Maroon
Maroons
Marosch
Marot
Maroto
Marozia
marplot
Marpon
Marquardt
marque
Marques
Marquesas
Marquess
Marquesses
marquetry
Marquette
Marquez
Marquis
Marquisate
marquise
Marquises
MARRANA
Marranos
Marras
Marrast
marred
marriagcs
Marriage
marriageable
marriages
married
marries
marring
Marriott
marrow
MARRUCINIANS
marry
marrying
Mars
Marsa
Marsaglia
Marsal
Marsala
Marsan
MARSCHFELD
Marsden
Marseillais
Marseillaise
Marseille
Marseilles
Marseillese
marsh
marshal
marshaling
Marshall
marshalled
marshalling
Marshalls
marshals
Marshalsea
marshes
Marshfield
marshy
MARSI
MARSIAN
Marsians
Marsic
Marsigni
Marsillac
Marsin
Marston
mart
Marta
Martaban
Marteau
Martel
Martelaer
Martell
martello
marten
Martens
Martha
martial
Martiales
Martialis
martialled
Martignac
Martin
Martineau
Martinez
Martinico
Martinique
Martinitz
Martino
Martinsburg
Martinussius
Martire
Martius
MARTLING
Martos
marts
Martyn
Martyr
martyrdom
martyrdoms
martyred
Martyres
Martyropolis
martyrs
Maru
marvel
marvelled
marvellous
marvellously
marvelous
marvels
Marvin
Marwar
Marx
Mary
Marye
Maryland
Marylanders
MARZIALS
Marzocco
maréchal
maréchaux
Masaccio
Masai
Masailand
Masal
Masaniello
Masaruni
Mascagni
Mascara
Mascezel
Mascontenck
Mascontens
Mascoutins
masculine
Masham
Mashapaug
Mashonaland
Mashonas
Mashpee
Mashukulumbe
Masinissa
MASK
masked
Maskhutah
MASKOKALGIS
Maskoki
Maskokálgi
Maskontens
MASKOUTENS
masks
Maskógi
Maskóki
MASNADA
Masnadieri
Mason
MASONIC
masonry
MASONS
Masoretes
Masoretic
Maspero
MASPIANS
MASPÉRO
Maspéro
masque
masquerade
masquerades
masquerading
masques
mass
Massa
Massabi
Massac
Massachewset
Massachuset
Massachusets
Massachusetts
Massachusit
massacre
massacred
massacres
massacring
MASSAGETÆ
Massagetæ
Massalia
Massalians
MASSALIOTS
Massaniello
Massaponax
Massarene
Massaruni
Massasoit
Massassoit
Massaua
Massawa
masse
massed
Massena
masses
MASSEY
Massi
Massilia
Massilians
Massiliot
Massiliots
Massillon
MASSIMILIANO
Massimo
massing
Massinissa
massive
massiveness
Masson
Massonney
Massora
Massorete
Massoretes
Massoretic
Massoud
Massowa
Massowah
massy
Masséna
mast
Mastai
master
masterbuilder
mastered
masterful
masterfully
mastering
masterless
masterly
masterpiece
masterpieces
masters
Mastership
masterships
mastery
mastheads
Mastino
masts
Masudi
MASULIPATAM
Masué
mat
Mata
Matabele
Matabeleland
Matabeles
Matadi
Matafuz
Matagorda
Mataguaya
Mataguayas
Matanes
Matanzas
Matapan
Matarazzo
match
matched
matches
Matchett
matchless
matchlocks
mate
mated
matelot
matelotage
Matene
Mateo
Mater
Materia
material
materialism
materialist
materialistic
materialized
materially
materials
materiel
maternal
maternally
Maternelles
Maternity
mathematica
mathematical
mathematician
mathematicians
Mathematicks
mathematics
Matheo
Mather
Mathesons
Mathew
Mathews
Mathias
Mathilda
Mathilde
Mathildis
Matho
Mathura
Mathæ
Mati
Matias
Matienzo
Matilda
Matildan
Matins
Matière
Matlock
Mato
Matowack
matriculate
matriculated
matriculation
Matrimonial
matrimonium
matrimony
matron
Matrona
MATRONALIA
matrons
mats
Matsas
Matta
Mattabesett
Mattaniah
Mattapan
Mattapony
Mattathias
matted
Matteo
matter
mattered
matters
Matth
Mattheson
Matthew
MATTHEWS
Matthias
Matthieu
Mattiaci
matting
Mattioli
mattress
mature
matured
maturely
maturer
Maturin
maturing
maturity
Matutaera
matutinal
Maubeuge
Maubourg
Mauch
Mauchlaw
Mauclerc
MAUD
Maudlin
maughwau
Maughwauwame
maugre
Maui
MAULDE
Maule
Maulevrier
Maultasche
Maulé
Maumee
Maundeville
Maupas
Maur
Maura
maurabotini
MAUREGATO
MAURENBRECHER
Maurentia
Maurepas
Maurer
Mauresques
Mauretania
Mauretanian
Mauretanians
MAURI
Mauriac
Maurice
Mauricius
Maurienne
Maurier
Mauripaux
Mauritania
Mauritanian
Mauritanians
MAURITIUS
Mauroy
Maurusii
Maury
Maurya
mausolemn
mausoleum
Mausolus
mauvaisc
Mauve
Mavera
Maverick
MAVOR
Mavro
Mavrokordatos
MAVROVALLACHIA
mawkish
Mawr
Max
Maxen
Maxentius
Maxey
maxim
Maxima
maximae
MAXIME
maximi
Maximian
Maximianus
Maximilian
Maximilien
Maximin
Maximinus
maxims
maximum
Maximus
Maxwell
Maxyans
may
MAYA
MAYAS
maybe
Mayder
Mayen
Mayence
Mayenne
Mayer
Mayflower
Maynard
Mayne
MAYNO
Maynooth
mayntayne
Mayo
Mayor
mayoralties
mayoralty
Mayors
Mayoruna
Maypo
Maypole
maz
Mazaca
Mazaces
Mazade
Mazara
Mazarin
mazarinades
Mazarine
Mazarinists
Mazarquiver
Mazas
Mazatlan
Mazda
maze
Mazeppa
Mazes
Mazoe
MAZOR
Mazzini
Mazzinian
MAÍTRES
Maçons
maître
maîtres
Mba
Mbazi
Mc
McAllister
McCall
McCalman
McCarthy
McCarthys
McCauley
McCausland
McCauslin
McClean
McClellan
McClernand
McClintock
McClure
McClurg
McCoan
McCook
McCormick
McCoun
McCown
McCray
McCrea
McCRIE
McCullagh
McCulloch
McCurdy
McDermott
McDonald
McDonnel
McDonough
McDougal
McDOUGALL
McDowell
McDuffie
McElroy
McF
McFarland
McGEE
McGillLibrary
McGlashan
McGowan
McGregor
McGuire
McHarg
McHENRY
McI
McIlvaine
McIntosh
McINTYRE
McIver
McKean
McKeen
McKendree
McKENNA
McKENNEY
McKinley
McKinnon
McL
McLaughlin
McLAUGLIN
McLaws
McLEAN
McLeary
McLeod
McMahon
McMaster
McMillan
McMullen
McMurdo
McN
McNally
McNeill
McParlin
McPherson
McQueen
McRae
McSherry
Md
MDCCCXCV
MDCXLVIII
Mdewakantonwan
me
Mead
Meade
meadow
meadows
meads
Meadville
meager
meagerly
meagerness
Meagher
meagre
meagreness
meal
meals
mean
Meander
meanders
Meanee
meaner
meanest
meaning
meaningless
meanings
meanly
meanness
meannesses
means
meant
meantime
Meanwhile
Meara
Mearns
Mearnshire
measles
Measrs
measurable
measurably
measure
measured
measureless
measurement
measurements
Measures
Measuring
meat
Meath
meats
Meautys
Meaux
meber
Mecca
mechanic
mechanical
mechanically
mechanicals
mechanics
Mechanicsville
mechanism
mechanisms
Mechanschican
Mechasja
Mechlin
Mechoacan
Mecia
Mecklenburg
Mecklenburgh
Mecklenburgs
MEDAIN
medal
medals
meddle
meddled
meddler
meddlers
meddles
meddlesome
meddling
Mede
Medeah
Medecis
Medenblik
Medes
Medfield
Medford
Media
Mediaeval
medial
Median
Medians
mediary
medias
mediate
mediated
mediately
mediating
mediation
mediatised
mediatization
Mediator
mediators
mediatorship
mediatrix
Medic
medica
medical
medicaments
Medicean
Mediceans
Medici
medicinal
Medicine
medicines
Medicis
Medico
Medicus
Medieval
Medina
Medineh
Medinet
Medino
medio
mediocre
mediocri
mediocrity
Mediolanum
Mediomatrici
medising
Medism
Medist
meditate
meditated
meditates
meditating
meditation
Meditations
meditative
Mediterranean
Mediterraneans
medium
mediums
medize
MEDIZED
Medizing
MEDIÆVAL
mediæval
MEDJID
Medjoy
medley
Medleys
Medo
Medon
Meds
Medsherda
Medshid
Medusa
Medway
meed
Meehan
meek
meekly
meekness
Meer
Meerfeld
Meerut
MEES
meet
meete
meeting
meetings
meets
Mefitis
Megabazus
Megabyzus
Megacles
megafile
Megala
Megalepolis
MEGALESIA
Megalithic
Megalopolis
Megalopolitans
MEGAPOLENSIS
Megara
Megareans
Megarians
Megarid
Megaris
Megasthenes
Megatherium
Megiddo
MEGISTANES
Mehdi
Mehemed
Mehemet
Meherrins
Mehrfeldt
Mehring
mei
Meid
Meigs
Meiji
Meilleraie
meilleure
Mein
Meinhard
Meiningen
MEISSAS
Meissen
Meissner
Meister
Meistersänger
meix
Mejia
Mejid
Mekael
Mekhong
Mekka
Mekong
Mekran
Meks
Mela
Melampodion
Melampos
Melanchlæni
melancholy
Melanchthon
Melancthon
Melancton
Melander
Melanesian
Melanthius
Melanthus
Melarro
Melas
Melazzo
Melbert
Melbourne
Melcar
Melcha
Melchers
Melchiades
Melchior
Melchisedek
MELCHITES
Melchizedek
Melchthal
Melcomb
Melcombe
MELDÆ
Meleager
melee
Melegnano
Melendez
Meles
Melesias
Melfi
Melgar
Melh
Melian
Melians
Meliapoor
Meliapore
Melibœus
Melignano
Melikof
Melikow
Melikshah
Melinda
meliorated
Melipotamus
Melisceet
Melisende
Melish
Melissenos
Melita
Melite
Melitene
Melito
Melk
Melkart
Melkarth
Melkthal
mell
MELLEN
Mellick
Mellitus
Mello
Melmoth
Melo
melodies
melodious
melodramatic
Melodunum
Melon
melons
MELORIA
Melos
Melphi
melt
melted
melting
Melton
MELUN
Melvil
Melville
Melzi
melée
Mem
member
membered
members
membership
Memberton
membrane
Memel
memineritis
Meminit
Memlooks
Memluk
Memluks
Memmingen
Memmius
Memnon
Memoir
Memoires
Memoirs
memorabile
memorable
memoranda
memorandum
Memorial
memorialise
memorialised
memorialists
memorialized
memorializing
Memorials
Memoriam
memories
memoriter
memory
Memphis
Memphite
Memphitic
Memphytic
men
Mena
menace
menaced
menaces
menacing
menacingly
Menads
menagerie
Menahem
Menai
Menalcas
Menam
Menan
Menander
Menapian
Menapii
Mencius
mend
mendacious
mendacity
Mende
mended
Mendelssohn
Mendenhall
menders
Mendes
Mendesian
Mendewahkantoan
mendicancy
mendicant
mendicants
mendicare
mending
Mendon
Mendoza
Menehould
Menelaus
Menelik
Menendez
Meneptah
Menes
menestrels
Meneval
Mengarin
Mengo
Mengwe
MENHIR
menial
Menilek
Menin
Menkara
Menke
Menlo
Mennais
Mennaisiens
Menno
Mennonites
Mennufre
Menominee
MENOMINEES
Menomonee
Menomonies
menorrhagia
Menotomy
Menotti
Menou
Menptah
Menschenrassen
Menschikoff
Menshikov
mensuration
mensâ
mental
mentally
MENTANA
Mentelin
Menti
mention
mentioned
mentioning
mentions
Mentor
Mentschikoff
Mentz
Mentzel
Menu
menus
Menvale
Menzel
MENZIES
Menzikoff
Menœtius
mephitic
Mequachake
Mer
Meran
mercantile
Mercatanzia
Mercator
Mercatoria
mercatorum
MERCED
mercenaria
mercenaries
mercenary
Mercer
Merceria
Mercers
merchandise
merchandises
merchandize
merchandizes
merchant
merchantable
merchantman
merchantmen
Merchants
Merci
Mercia
Mercian
Mercians
Mercier
mercies
merciful
mercifully
merciless
mercilessly
Mercure
mercurial
Mercuriano
Mercurianus
Mercurie
Mercuries
Mercury
Mercy
Mercœur
Merda
Mere
Meredith
merely
Merenptah
merest
merge
merged
MERGENTHEIM
merges
merging
Meri
Meria
Merian
MERIDA
Meridian
merie
Merimée
Merines
Mering
merino
Merionethshire
merit
merited
meriting
MERITON
meritorious
meritoriously
merits
Merivale
Meriwether
Merle
Merlin
Mermnad
MERMNADÆ
Mermnadæ
Merneptah
Merodach
MEROM
Meropius
Meroveus
Merovingeans
Merovingian
Merovingians
MEROË
Meroë
merrier
Merrill
merrily
Merrimac
Merrimack
merriment
Merritt
merry
Merryman
Merrymount
Merseburg
Mersey
Merton
MERTÆ
Mertæ
MERU
meruit
Merv
MERWAN
Merwin
MERWING
Merwings
Mery
mesas
Mescaleros
Meschianza
Mesembria
mesentery
mesh
Mesha
Meshech
meshes
Meskell
mesne
Mesnier
Mesopotamia
Mesopotamian
message
Messageries
messages
Messagouche
Messala
Messalina
MESSANA
Messapian
MESSAPIANS
MESSENE
messenger
messengers
Messenia
MESSENIAN
Messenians
Messer
Messiah
Messianic
Messianism
Messidor
Messieurs
Messin
MESSINA
messmate
messmates
Messnitskaia
Messrs
Mesta
MESTIZO
mestizoes
Mestre
Mesurado
MESÖ
Mesö
met
Metabus
Metacomet
Metageitnon
Metagitnion
metal
metallic
metallurgists
metallurgy
metals
metamorphosed
metamorphoses
metamorphosis
metaphor
metaphorical
metaphorically
metaphors
metaphysical
metaphysicians
metaphysics
Metapontine
Metapontium
Metapontum
Metastasio
Metaurus
metayer
metayers
Metcalfe
mete
meted
Metelli
Metellus
Metemneh
metempsychosis
meteor
meteorological
meteorology
metes
Methamaucus
Methinks
method
methodic
methodical
methodically
Methodism
Methodist
METHODISTS
Methodius
methodless
Methods
Methone
Methuen
Methymna
metics
meting
Metline
Metoac
metoikoi
Meton
Metowacks
metre
metres
metretes
metrical
Metris
metropolis
metropolitan
Metropolitana
metropolitans
metropolitical
Metropotamia
Metschnikoff
Metternich
Metternichian
mettle
Metz
METÖACS
Metöacs
METŒCI
Metœci
meubles
Meudon
Meulan
Meurthe
Meuse
Mewat
Mews
MEXICAN
Mexicans
Mexico
Mexitl
Mey
Meyer
Meyerbeer
Meyerfeld
Meyersholz
Meywar
Mezeray
Mezrop
MEΣ卍
Mgr
mi
Miami
Miamis
Miani
Miantinomi
Miantinomo
Miantonomi
Miantonomo
Miantonomoh
miasma
miasmatic
micaceous
Micah
mice
MICESLAUS
Mich
Michael
Michaelis
Michaelmas
Michaelovsk
Michailovitch
Michaud
Michel
Michele
Michelet
Micheli
Michelis
Michelon
Michels
Michie
Michieli
MICHIELS
Michigan
Michigania
Michilimackinac
MICHILLIMACKINAC
Michillimaekinac
Michmash
Michoacan
Michælmas
Micipsa
Mickiewicz
MICKLEGARTH
Micmac
MICMACS
Micmak
micro
microbe
Microbes
microcosm
Micronesians
microscope
microscopic
microscopist
microscopy
microörganism
microörganisms
mid
Midas
midday
Middelburg
Middelelser
Middendorf
middens
Middle
Middleberg
Middleborough
Middlebrook
Middleburg
Middleburgh
middleman
middlemen
Middlesborough
Middlesex
Middleton
Middletown
middling
Midea
Midia
Midian
Midianites
midland
Midlanders
Midlands
Midlothian
Midnapur
midnight
Midon
Midrash
Midshipman
midst
midsummer
midway
midwife
midwinter
midwives
Mieczislaus
Mieczyslav
Mieczyslaw
Mielziner
mien
Mifflin
Migdol
might
mightier
mightiest
mightily
mightiness
Mightinesses
mighty
Mignet
mignon
mignons
migrant
migrate
migrated
migrating
migration
migrations
migratory
Miguel
Miguelites
mihi
Mihiel
Mijatovich
Mijerda
Mikado
Mikados
Mikasuki
MIKASUKIS
Mikra
Mikrokosmos
mil
Milak
MILAN
Milanese
Milaness
Milano
Milaradowitch
Milborne
Milburn
milch
Milchsuppe
mild
milder
mildest
mildly
Mildmay
mildness
mile
mileage
Miled
miles
Milesian
Milesians
milestone
Miletos
Miletus
Miley
Milford
Milhau
Milhet
Milianah
miliary
milieu
Militaire
militant
militare
militarem
militarism
military
militated
militating
militia
militiaman
militiamen
militias
militum
milizia
milk
milked
milkers
milki
milkmaid
milkmaids
Milky
mill
Millar
Millard
Milledgeville
Millen
Millenarianism
millenary
MILLENIAL
Millenium
millennium
Miller
millers
Millesimo
millet
milliard
milliards
MILLIGAN
Milliken
Millington
million
millionaire
millionaires
millions
Millo
Mills
millstone
MILMAN
Milner
Milo
Milon
Miloradovitch
Milosch
Milosh
Milroy
Miltiades
Miltitz
Milton
Miltonian
milui
MILVIAN
Milwaukee
Milzbrand
Milêtus
Mimana
Mimbres
Mimbreños
mimic
Mimnermus
Mims
mimæ
min
mina
Minamoto
Minamotos
minaret
minarets
minas
Mincees
Minchin
Mincio
mind
Mindarus
minded
mindedness
MINDELEFF
Minden
mindful
minding
Mindlesheim
minds
Mine
mined
Mineptah
MINER
mineral
mineralogist
minerals
miners
Minerva
Minerve
mines
Minetare
Minetaree
Minetares
Minetaries
Mineure
Ming
Mingelsheim
Minghetti
mingle
mingled
mingles
mingling
Mingo
Mingoes
Mingos
Mingrelia
Mings
Minho
Miniato
miniature
minima
minimise
MINIMS
minimum
Minin
mining
minion
minions
Minisinks
minister
ministered
ministerial
ministeriales
Ministerialists
ministerially
ministering
Ministerium
ministers
Ministeré
ministrated
ministration
ministrations
Ministries
ministry
Ministère
Minn
MINNE
Minneapolis
Minneconjou
Minnesincks
minnesingers
Minnesota
Minnetaree
Minnetarees
Minnisink
Minoan
MINOR
Minorbino
MINORCA
MINORES
Minori
Minorite
MINORITES
minorities
minority
Minors
Minos
Minot
Minqua
Minquas
Minsi
Minsis
Minsk
Minsterialists
minstrel
minstrels
minstrelsy
mint
minted
minting
Minto
mints
Minty
Minucius
Minuit
minus
minute
minuted
minutely
minuteness
minuter
minutes
minutest
Minutius
minuto
Minyae
Minyan
Minyans
Minyas
Minyi
Minæan
Minæans
Mio
mioki
Miollis
Miot
Miquelon
mir
Mirabeau
Mirabel
mirabilis
miracle
miracles
miraculous
miraculously
Miraflores
Miramon
Miranda
Mirandola
Miranha
Mirat
Mircea
mire
MIRISZLO
Mirkhond
Mirror
mirrored
mirrors
mirth
miry
Mirza
Mirzapur
Mirò
Mis
misadventure
misadventures
misanthrope
misapplication
misapplied
misapprehend
misapprehended
misapprehension
misappropriation
misbehaviour
misbelievers
misbelieving
miscalculated
miscalculating
miscalculation
miscalculations
miscarriage
miscarriages
miscarried
miscellaneous
Miscellanies
Miscellany
mischances
MISCHIANZA
mischief
mischiefs
mischievous
mischievously
Mischna
misconceived
misconception
misconceptions
misconduct
misconducted
misconstruction
misconstrued
miscreant
miscreants
misdeed
misdeeds
misdemeanor
misdemeanors
misdemeanour
misdemeanours
misdirected
misdoings
Mise
Misenum
miser
miserable
miserably
Miserere
miseries
miserly
misery
misfortune
misfortunes
misframed
misgiving
misgivings
misgoverned
misgovernment
misguided
misguiding
mishap
mishaps
Mishawum
Mishna
misinformed
misinterpret
misinterpretation
misinterpreted
misinterpreting
Misitheus
Misithra
Misitra
misjudged
misjudgment
mislaid
mislead
misleading
misleadingly
misled
misls
mismanaged
mismanagement
misnamed
Misnia
misnomer
misplaced
misprints
misprision
Misr
misrepresent
misrepresentation
misrepresentations
misrepresented
misrepresenting
misrule
Miss
missal
missals
missed
misses
misshapen
Missi
Missiessy
missiles
missing
mission
missionaries
Missionary
Missions
Missionsgeographie
Missionsgeschichte
Mississippi
Mississippians
Missive
missives
Missolonghi
Missouri
Missourians
Missouris
misspelt
mist
mistake
mistaken
mistakenly
mistakes
mistaking
Misteslavsk
mistletoe
mistook
mistranslated
mistranslation
mistress
mistresses
mistrust
mistrusted
mistrustful
mistrusting
mists
misty
misunderstand
misunderstanding
Misunderstandings
misunderstood
misuse
misused
Misère
mit
Mitchell
Mitchigannon
MITCHILL
mite
Mitford
Mithra
Mithradates
Mithridates
MITHRIDATIC
mitigate
mitigated
mitigating
mitigation
Mitinti
MITLA
Mito
Mitra
Mitrahenny
mitraillades
Mitre
mitred
Mitrovitz
Mittau
Mitte
Mittel
Mittelalter
mittelalters
mitteleuropaeischen
mittelschulen
Mittermaier
Mittheilungen
Mittler
mittleren
Mitylenaeans
Mitylenaian
Mitylene
Mitylenean
Mityleneans
Mitylenæans
mix
mixed
Mixes
mixing
mixta
Mixtecs
mixture
mixtures
Miyatovitch
Mizon
Mizpeh
MIZRAIM
mizzen
mKhan
Mlle
MM
Mme
Mnemon
mnemonic
mnemotechnics
Mnesicles
Mniszek
Mniszeks
MO
moa
Moab
Moabite
MOABITES
moan
moaned
moaning
moanings
moat
moats
Moawiyah
Moawiyeh
mob
Mobangi
mobbed
Mobbing
MOBERLY
Mobile
mobiles
mobilia
Mobilians
MOBILIER
mobilised
mobility
mobilization
mobilize
mobilized
mobilizing
mobs
moccasins
Mocenigo
Mocha
mock
mocked
mockery
mockingly
MOCOVIS
mode
model
modeled
modeling
modelled
modelling
models
Modena
Modenese
Moderado
Moderados
moderantisme
moderate
moderated
moderately
moderates
moderating
moderation
Moderator
moderators
modern
moderne
modernes
modernized
modernly
moderns
modes
modest
modestly
modesty
modicum
modification
modifications
modified
modify
modifying
modius
Modjmal
Modlin
Modoc
MODOCS
Modoks
Modon
modulated
modum
modus
modérés
moehe
Moehren
Moelfra
Moeller
Moens
MOERIS
Moero
Moesia
MOESKIRCH
Moeso
Moez
Moffat
Mogador
Moggridge
Moghal
Moghilef
Moghilov
Moghlene
Moghul
Moghuls
Mogollon
Mogontiacense
MOGONTIACUM
Mogor
MOGUL
Moguls
Mohacs
Mohacz
Mohaez
Mohamed
MOHAMEDAN
Mohammad
Mohammadan
Mohammed
Mohammedan
Mohammedanism
Mohammedans
Mohan
Moharram
Mohaves
Mohawk
Mohawks
Moheagans
Mohegan
MOHEGANS
Mohican
Mohicans
Mohieddin
Mohikanders
MOHILEF
Mohilev
Mohilow
MOHOCKS
MOHONK
Mohr
Mohun
moi
moiety
Moines
MOIR
Moira
moist
moistened
moisture
Mojave
Mojaves
Mojos
Mokau
Moki
Mokran
Mola
Molaghlin
Molai
Molasses
Molay
Moldau
MOLDAVIA
Moldavian
molded
moldering
Moldo
mole
Molele
MOLEMES
moles
molest
molestation
molestations
molested
molesting
molests
Molesworth
Moleville
Moliere
Molina
Molineux
MOLINISTS
MOLINO
Molinos
Molitor
Molière
Moll
Mollah
mollahs
Mollendorf
Mollien
mollify
mollifying
molluscs
MOLLWITZ
Molo
Moloch
Molokai
Molokini
Molon
Molossian
Molossians
molten
Moltke
Moluc
Moluccas
Moluche
Moluwa
Molwitz
Molycria
Molyens
Molyneux
Molé
Molêmes
Mom
Mombassa
Mombert
Mombuttu
Momemphis
Momenin
moment
momenta
momentarily
momentary
momente
momentous
moments
momentum
Mommsen
Mon
Mona
Monacans
Monachism
Monaco
Monagas
MONAPIA
monarch
monarchic
Monarchical
monarchically
monarchie
Monarchies
Monarchique
monarchism
monarchist
Monarchists
monarchs
Monarchy
Monarque
Monasteries
monasterium
monastery
monastic
MONASTICISM
monastics
Monastir
Monatons
Monboire
Moncada
Monceaux
Moncel
Moncey
Monckton
Moncontour
Moncton
Monday
Monde
Mondego
Mondejeu
Mondes
Mondovi
Mondragon
Mondragone
Moneta
monetary
Monette
money
moneyed
moneying
moneys
Monferrat
Monferrato
Mong
Monge
mongers
mongery
Mongewell
Monginevra
Mongol
Mongoles
Mongolia
Mongolian
Mongolians
Mongolic
Mongolo
Mongoloid
Mongols
MONGREDIEN
mongrel
Mongu
Monhattoes
Monheur
monied
MONIER
monies
Moniteur
monition
Monitor
monitorial
monitorium
monitors
monitory
Monjuich
monk
monkeys
monkish
monks
Monmouth
Monmouthshire
Monnier
Monnikendam
MONOCACY
MONOD
monoglottic
monogram
monograph
monographic
Monographs
monolithic
Monomachius
Monomachus
monomania
monometallism
Monongahela
Mononia
MONOPHYSITE
Monophysites
Monophysitism
monopolies
monopolise
monopolised
monopolisers
monopolist
monopolists
monopolize
monopolized
monopolizing
monopoly
monosyllabic
monotheism
monotheist
monotheistic
MONOTHELITE
Monothelites
monotonies
monotonous
monotonously
monotony
Monreale
Monro
Monroe
MONROVIA
Mons
Monseigneur
Monseur
Monsey
Monseys
Monsieur
Monsignor
Monson
monsoons
monster
monsters
monstrans
Monstrelet
monstrosities
monstrosity
monstrous
Mont
MONTAGNAIS
MONTAGNARDS
MONTAGNE
Montagu
Montague
Montaigne
Montaigu
Montal
Montalambert
Montalbano
MONTALEMBERT
Montana
montane
montani
Montanism
Montanist
MONTANISTS
Montanus
Montaperte
Montaperti
Montaraz
Montargis
Montauban
Montauk
Montauks
Montausier
Montbazon
MONTBÉLIARD
Montbéliard
Montcalm
Montclar
Monte
Monteagle
Monteagudo
Monteano
Montebello
Montecatini
Montecuculi
Montefalcone
Montefeltro
Monteferetro
MONTEFIORE
Monteil
Monteiro
Monteith
Montelucari
Montemolin
Montenegrans
Montenegrians
Montenegrin
Montenegrins
Montenegro
Montenotte
Montereau
MONTEREY
montes
Montesa
Montesquieu
Montesquiou
Monteverde
MONTEVIDEO
Montez
Montezuma
Montezumas
Montfaucon
Montferrat
Montford
Montfort
Montgomerie
Montgomery
Montgomeryshire
month
Montheys
monthly
Monthléry
Montholon
months
MONTI
Montierender
Montigny
Montisregal
Montjouich
Montlehery
Montlehéry
Montluc
Montmagny
Montmarte
Montmartre
Montmeillan
MONTMIRAIL
Montmorenci
Montmorencies
Montmorency
Montmorin
MONTMÉDY
Montmèdy
Montmédy
Montmélian
Montor
MONTPELIER
Montpellier
Montpensier
Montrath
montre
Montreal
Montrevel
Montrond
Montrose
Montrouge
Monts
Montserado
Montserrat
Montt
Montvert
Monument
Monumental
monuments
mony
Monza
Monzelice
Monzievaird
Monzon
MONÇON
mood
Moodkee
moods
moody
Mook
Mookerheyde
Mookerhyde
moolah
Moolavee
Moolk
MOOLTAN
moon
Mooney
moonless
moonlight
moonlighted
moonrise
moons
moonshine
Moor
Moore
moored
Moorefields
MOOREHEAD
Moorfields
Moorghab
mooring
Moorish
moorland
moorlands
Moors
Moorshedabad
Mooshausic
Mooshausick
Moossa
moot
mooted
moots
Moph
Mopsuestia
Moquelumnan
Moquelumne
Moqui
Moquis
Mor
Mora
Morabethah
Morabite
Moradabad
Moraes
moral
morale
Morales
moralist
moralists
morality
moralizing
morally
morals
Morand
Morant
morass
morasses
MORAT
Morava
Moravia
Moravian
Moravians
Moray
Morazan
morbid
morbidly
morbific
Morbihan
morbus
Morcar
morceau
Mordaunt
Mordaunts
more
Morea
Moreau
MORELET
MORELL
Morelly
Morelos
Morena
Moreno
moreover
Moret
Moreton
Morey
Morfill
Morgan
MORGANATIC
morganaticam
Morgantown
Morgarten
Morgartens
Morgen
morgengabe
Morgetes
Morgus
Mori
Moriah
Moriale
Moriana
moribund
Morier
Morillo
Morin
Morini
Morisco
MORISCOES
Morison
Moritz
Morland
Morley
Mormaer
MORMAERS
Mormans
Mormon
MORMONISM
Mormons
morn
morning
mornings
Mornington
Morny
Moro
MOROCCO
Moron
Morona
Morone
Morosaglia
Morosini
Morpain
Morpeth
morphology
Morrha
Morrice
Morrill
Morris
Morrisania
Morrison
Morristown
morrow
morrows
MORSE
morsel
morselled
Morsiney
mort
Mortain
mortal
mortale
mortality
mortally
mortals
mortar
Mortara
mortars
Morte
mortem
Mortemer
Mortes
mortgage
mortgaged
mortgagee
mortgages
mortgaging
mortgagor
Mortgarten
mortice
Mortier
mortification
mortifications
mortified
mortify
mortifying
Mortillet
Mortimer
Mortimers
mortise
mortmain
Morton
MORTUATH
morum
Morveau
MOSA
Mosaic
mosaics
Mosambique
mosch
Moschian
Moscosa
Moscovite
Moscow
Moseilama
Mosel
Moseley
Mosella
Moselle
Moses
Moshassuck
Mosheim
Moskowa
Moslem
Moslemah
Moslems
mosque
Mosquera
mosques
MOSQUITO
mosquitoes
Moss
mosses
Mossman
Mossoul
most
Mostaganem
Mostanser
Mostarabes
Mostareba
Mostassem
mostly
Mosul
mot
Motacem
motality
Motareba
Motassem
Motawaccel
MOTAWAKKEL
mote
Motecusuma
motes
Mothe
mother
motherless
mothers
Motiers
motion
motionless
motionlessness
motions
motive
motives
motley
motor
motors
Mott
MOTTELETTES
motto
mottoes
motu
Motupe
Motya
Motye
Moucheron
Moucron
Moudon
Mougoulachas
Moujik
mould
moulded
mouldering
moulding
moulds
mouldy
Mouley
Moulins
Moulius
Moulla
Moulmein
MOULTON
Moultrie
mound
mounded
mounds
Mounin
MOUNT
mountain
Mountaineers
mountainous
mountains
mountainside
Mountcashel
mountebanks
mounted
Mounth
mounting
Mountjoy
Mountnorris
Mounts
MOUNTSTUART
Mourad
Mouravieff
mourn
mourned
mourners
mournful
mournfully
mourning
mournings
Mourt
Mourtzophlos
MOURU
Mousa
mouse
Mouson
Mousquetaires
Moussa
Mousson
moustache
Moustier
mouth
mouthed
mouthful
mouthfuls
mouthpiece
mouthpieces
mouths
moutiers
Moutmorencies
mouture
Mouvements
Mouzaffer
Mouzaia
Mouzon
movable
movables
move
moveable
moveables
moved
movement
movements
mover
movers
moves
moving
Movpet
Movpetan
mow
Mowbray
mowed
mowing
mowings
mown
Moxo
Moxon
Moxos
moyen
moyenne
Moyenvic
Moynier
moyst
Moystyn
MOYTURA
Mozafferides
Mozambique
MOZARABES
MOZART
Mozley
Moïmir
mp3
Mr
Mrs
Mruli
MS
msa
Mshidi
mss
Mt
Mtesa
Muata
muca
much
mucosus
mucus
mud
Mudd
muddy
Mudir
Mudraya
muerte
muettes
Muezzeddin
muffled
MUFTI
Mug
Mugehid
MUGELLO
Muggleton
Muggletonians
Mughair
MUGHAL
Mughals
Mugheir
Mughols
Mughul
Mugnone
Mugwumps
MUHAJIRIN
Muhammad
Muhammadan
Muhammadanism
Muhammadans
Muhlberg
Muhldorf
Muhlenberg
Muhlhausen
Muhlleuten
Muhr
Muhâjirîn
Muir
Muirhead
Mukattam
Mukhtar
Muktadir
Muktamam
mulatto
mulattoes
Mulconry
Mulda
Mulde
Mulder
mule
mules
Muley
Mulgrave
Mulhall
Mulhausen
Mulk
Mull
MULLAGHMAST
Muller
mullets
MULLIGAN
Mullinger
mullions
Multan
multifarious
multifariously
multiform
multilingual
Multiple
multiples
multiplication
Multiplices
multiplicity
multiplied
multiplier
multiply
multiplying
Multis
multitude
multitudes
multitudinous
Mumford
Mumfordsville
mummeries
mummery
mummicking
mummies
Mummius
mummy
Mums
Mumtaz
Munagge
Muncey
Munchausen
Munda
Mundavers
mundborh
MUNDI
Mundo
Mundruco
Mundrucu
Mundus
Mundzukh
Munera
Mungo
Munhatos
Munich
municipal
Municipales
municipalities
Municipality
Municipals
municipi
Municipia
municipium
munificence
munificent
munificently
muniments
munitions
Munk
Munks
Munoz
Munro
Munroe
Munsee
Munsees
Munsell
Munseys
Munsis
Munster
Muntasir
Munteuffel
Munychia
Munychion
muore
Mura
Murad
Muraire
Murat
Muratori
Murchison
MURCI
Murcia
Murcian
Murdas
Murder
murdered
murderer
murderers
murderess
murdering
murderous
murderously
murders
Murdoch
Murdock
Muret
Murfreesboro
Murfreesborough
Murgab
Murghab
Murgis
muriatic
Murides
Murillo
Murjab
murk
Murkgraf
murmur
murmured
murmuring
murmurs
Murphy
murrain
Murray
murrha
Murrheaque
Murrhina
Murrhine
Murrough
MURSA
Murshidabad
Murten
murtherers
Murtzuphlos
murus
mus
Musa
Musalman
Muscadins
muscardine
Muscat
Muschenbroeck
muscle
muscles
Muscogee
Muscogulgee
Muscovite
Muscovites
Muscovy
muscular
MUSCULUS
Muse
mused
Muselman
Muses
Musetto
Museum
museums
Musgrave
Musgrove
Mushrikin
mushroom
mushrooms
music
musical
musically
musician
musicians
Musiette
musings
Musjid
musk
musket
musketeer
musketeers
musketry
muskets
MUSKHOGEAN
MUSKHOGEE
Muskhogees
MUSKHOOEAN
Muskingum
MUSKOGEAN
Muskoki
Muslema
Muslemin
Muslim
Muslims
Musquakkiuk
musquetry
Musquito
Musquitos
Musseau
mussel
Mussey
Mussulman
Mussulmans
must
musta
Mustafa
Mustapha
mustard
muster
mustered
mustering
musters
Muston
musty
Musulman
Musæ
Musée
MUTA
mutandis
mutation
mutationes
mutations
mutatis
Mutawakkil
mute
Muteczuma
mutely
mutes
Muthul
mutilate
mutilated
mutilating
Mutilation
mutilations
MUTINA
mutineers
mutinied
mutinies
mutinous
mutiny
Mutten
Muttenthal
mutter
Mutterers
muttering
mutterings
Mutton
mutual
Mutualism
mutually
Muyscas
Muzaffar
Muzo
Muzur
muzzle
muzzles
Muñez
Muñoz
Mwanga
Mweru
my
Mycale
Mycel
Mycenae
MYCENÆ
Mycenæ
Mycenæan
Mycerinus
Mycia
MYCIANS
MYERS
Mykalê
Mykenai
Mykenæ
Mykenæan
Mykonos
Myles
MYLÆ
Mylæ
Mynors
MYONNESUS
Myrcinus
myriad
myriads
Myrmidons
Myron
Myronides
myrrh
myrtle
myself
myselfe
Mysia
Mysian
Mysians
Myson
Mysore
Mysorean
Mysteries
mysterious
mysteriously
mystery
mystic
mystical
MYSTICISM
mystics
Mystæ
Myth
mythic
mythical
mythico
mythicsoft
mythologic
mythological
Mythologically
mythologising
Mythology
myths
mythus
MYTILENE
Myus
Myûs
MÆATÆ
MÆOTIS
MÆSIA
MÉNEVAL
MÉRY
MÉTAYERS
MÉZIÈRES
MÖKERN
MÖLLHAUSEN
MÜHLDORF
MÜLHAUSEN
MÜLLER
MÜNSTER
Máchequoce
Mádhava
mál
Mâcon
Märchen
Mæander
Mæcenas
Mælius
Mænad
Mænads
Mænius
Mæotis
Mæsia
Mæôtis
Mère
Médard
médecin
mélée
Mémoire
Mémoires
Ménage
Ménilmontant
Ménippée
Mérimée
Mérindol
Mérovingian
Méry
Méré
Mésy
métayers
Méthode
Mézières
Mêlos
mêlée
même
míko
Mó
Mökern
Mömpelgard
Mönke
Möri
Mörner
Mühldorf
Mühler
Mühlhausen
Mülhausen
Müller
Münch
München
Münchengratz
Münich
Münster
Münsterburg
Münsterthal
Münter
Münzer
MŒSIA
MŒSO
Mœckern
mœnia
mœniani
Mœris
mœrore
Mœsia
Mœsian
Mœso
Na
Naab
Naaman
Naarden
Naassenes
naba
Nabal
Nabalia
Nabathean
Nabatheans
Nabathæan
Nabatæan
Nabatæans
Nabedaches
Nabha
Nabi
Nabis
Nabob
Nabonasser
Nabonedus
Nabonidos
Nabonidus
Nabopolassar
Nabu
Nabuchodrozzor
Nabucudur
Nabunahid
nach
Nacheinander
Nachitoches
Nachrichten
Nachtigal
Nacimiento
Nacogdoches
nada
Nadaillac
Nadasdy
Naddodd
Nadir
Nadouessioux
Nadowe
Naefels
Naf
Nag
Nagasaki
Nagash
Nagpur
Nagy
Nahanarvali
Nahant
Nahar
NAHARAIM
Naharaina
Nahardea
Nahe
Naherdea
nahid
Nahr
Nahua
Nahuas
Nahuatl
Nahum
Nai
Naik
nail
nailed
nails
Nairn
Nairs
Naissa
naissance
NAISSUS
naive
naively
Najara
Najd
Nak
Nakahama
naked
nakedly
nakedness
Nakhud
nal
nala
Nalicurgas
NAMANGAN
Namaqua
Namaqualand
Namaquas
name
named
nameh
nameless
namely
names
namesake
naming
Nammatius
Namnetes
Namnetum
Namur
Namyawiza
nan
NANA
Nanak
Nancho
Nanci
Nancy
Nand
Nandakoes
Nangasaki
Nangis
Nangkiass
Nankhundi
Nankin
NANKING
NANNETES
Nansemond
Nansen
Nansouty
Nantasket
Nantes
Nanticoke
Nanticokes
Nantucket
Nantwich
Nantz
Nanuk
Nanur
nao
naomh
nap
Napata
Naphtali
naphtha
Napier
napkin
napkins
NAPLES
Naplousa
Napo
Napoleon
Napoleone
Napoleonic
Napoleonides
Napoleonids
Napoleonism
Napoleonists
Napoleons
Napoli
Napoléon
Napp
Napper
naptha
Nar
Naraganset
Naram
Narbada
Narbo
Narbon
Narbonensis
Narbonnais
Narbonnaise
Narbonne
Narciso
Narcissus
narcotic
nard
Narentines
NARES
Narew
Nari
NARISCI
Narmadas
Narmashir
Narni
Narnia
Narok
Narr
Narraganset
Narragansets
Narragansett
Narragansetts
narrate
narrated
narrates
narrating
narration
narrations
narrative
narratives
narrator
Narrogancett
Narrogansett
narrow
narrowed
narrower
narrowest
narrowing
narrowly
narrowness
Narrows
Narses
Narva
NARVAEZ
nasal
nascent
Naseby
Nash
Nashua
Nashville
Nasi
Nasica
Nasir
Nasquapee
Nasr
Nassau
Nassauers
Nassaus
Nasser
Nastasket
Nat
Nata
Natages
Natal
Natalia
Natalie
Natches
NATCHESAN
NATCHEZ
Natchitoches
Natecœt
Nathalie
NATHAN
Nathanael
Nathaniel
Natio
Nation
National
NATIONALE
Nationalisation
Nationalism
Nationalist
Nationalists
nationalities
nationality
nationalization
nationalize
nationalized
nationalizing
nationally
Nationalrath
Nationals
nationaux
nations
native
natives
NATIVI
nativity
nativus
natlonaux
natron
natura
natural
naturale
Naturalisation
naturalise
naturalised
naturalising
NATURALISM
Naturalist
naturalistic
naturalists
naturalization
naturalize
naturalized
Naturalizes
naturalizing
naturally
nature
natured
naturedly
natures
Nau
NAUARCHI
Nauclides
Naucratis
Naudowessies
naught
naughty
Naukraries
Naukratis
NAULOCHUS
Naumachia
NAUMACHIÆ
naumachiæ
Naumberg
Naumburg
Naumkeag
Nauni
NAUPACTUS
Nauplia
NAURAGHI
nausea
nauseous
Nauset
Nausets
Nausett
Nausinicus
nautical
Nautilus
Nautæ
Nauvoo
Navajo
NAVAJOS
naval
Navarese
Navarette
Navarin
Navarino
Navarra
Navarre
Navarrese
Navarro
navas
nave
Navel
Navelsby
Navesby
Navidad
navies
navigable
navigate
Navigated
navigating
navigation
navigations
navigator
navigators
Navigero
Naville
navio
Navisinks
navvies
Navy
Nawab
Naxians
NAXOS
Nay
nays
Nazara
Nazarene
Nazareth
Naze
Nazi
Nazianzen
Nazianzum
Nazianzus
Nazionale
naïd
naïve
naïvely
nd
ne
Neal
Neale
Neander
NEANDERTHAL
Neapolis
Neapolitan
Neapolitans
near
nearby
Nearchos
Nearchus
Nearda
neared
nearer
nearest
nearing
nearly
nearness
neat
neater
neatly
neatness
Nebel
Nebeneinander
nebenkarten
nebenländer
Nebireh
Nebo
Nebraska
Nebuchadnezzar
Nebuchadrezzar
Nebuzaradan
Neby
necessaries
necessarily
necessary
necessitas
necessitate
necessitated
necessitates
necessitating
necessities
necessitous
necessity
Nechanitz
Necho
Nechoh
Nechtain
Nechtan
Neck
Neckar
necke
necked
Necker
necklace
necklaces
necks
Neco
Necropolis
Nectanebo
Nectansmere
Neda
Nedelist
Nederland
Nedjef
nee
Neebe
need
needed
needful
needing
needle
needles
needless
needlessly
needs
needy
neegilist
Neely
neere
Neerwinden
Nef
nefarious
Nefasti
Negapatam
negation
negations
negative
negatived
negatives
neglect
neglecte
neglected
neglectful
neglecting
neglects
Negley
negligence
negligences
negligent
negligently
Negm
negociate
negociation
negociations
negociators
Negoos
negotiable
negotiate
negotiated
negotiates
negotiating
negotiation
negotiations
negotiator
negotiators
Negra
Negress
Negrete
Negrier
NEGRITO
Negritos
Negro
negroes
negroid
Negroids
Negroland
Negropont
negros
Negus
Nehavend
Nehemiah
nehr
Nehrwan
Nehushtan
neighbor
neighborhood
neighborhoods
neighboring
neighborly
neighbors
neighbour
neighbourhood
neighbourhoods
neighbouring
neighbourly
neighbours
Neil
Neile
Neill
Neills
Neils
Neisse
Neisser
Neit
Neithardt
neither
Neitic
NEK
Nekos
Nekyomanteion
Nel
Nell
Nellenburg
Nellore
Nelson
Neman
Nemanja
Nemausus
Nemea
NEMEAN
NEMEDIANS
Nemedius
Nemesis
NEMETACUM
Nemetes
Nemetocenna
Nemi
Nemo
Nemorensis
Nemos
Nemours
Nen
Nennius
Neo
Neocles
NEODAMODES
Neojehe
Neokles
Neolithic
neonatorum
neophyte
Neoplatonic
NEOPLATONICS
Neoplatonism
Neoptolemus
Nepal
Nepaul
Nepaulese
Nepherites
nephew
nephews
Nephthalites
Neponset
Nepos
nepotism
Neptune
Nerac
nere
Nerepis
NERESHEIM
Nergal
Neri
Neriglissar
NERIUM
Nero
Neronia
Nerra
Nerva
Nervasian
nerve
nerved
nerveless
nerves
Nervian
NERVII
nervous
nervously
nervousness
Nesa
Nescitis
Nesle
Nesmith
Nesmond
Ness
NESSA
Nesselrode
NESSY
Nest
Nesta
Nestor
Nestorian
Nestorianism
NESTORIANS
Nestorius
nests
net
Netad
Nether
Netherland
Netherlanders
Netherlands
nets
nett
netted
nettled
Nettuno
network
Neu
Neuberg
Neubourgs
Neuburg
Neuchatel
NEUCHATÊL
Neuchâtel
Neue
neuen
Neuenberg
Neuer
neueren
neueste
Neuesten
Neufchatel
Neufchâteau
Neufchâtel
Neuhaus
Neuhoff
Neuhäusel
Neuilly
Neumann
Neumark
Neunundsechzig
neuren
Neuri
Neuse
Neuss
Neustadt
Neustrasia
Neustria
Neustrian
Neustrians
neuter
neuters
neutral
neutralise
neutralised
neutrality
neutralization
neutralize
neutralized
neutralizing
neutrals
neuve
neuves
Neuville
Neva
Nevada
Nevado
Neveau
NEVELLE
never
Neverovski
Nevers
Nevertheless
Nevesincks
Neville
Nevis
Nevski
Nevsky
New
Newab
Newark
Newars
Newbern
Newberne
Newberry
Newbold
Newborne
Newburgh
Newburn
Newbury
Newburyport
Newcastle
Newcomen
newcomers
newe
newer
Newes
Newest
Newfound
NEWFOUNDLAND
Newgate
NEWHALL
Newhasel
Newhaven
Newington
Newittee
Newland
newlines
newly
Newman
Newmarket
newness
Newnham
Newport
news
Newsletter
Newspaper
newspapers
Newstadt
Newton
Newtonia
Newtown
Newtowne
nexi
next
Ney
Neyille
Nez
Nezamysl
Nezib
NG
Ngami
Ngannan
Ngaruawahia
ngoai
Nguru
Nhāruis
ni
Niagara
Nial
NIALS
Niam
Niams
Niantics
Nibelungen
Nicaea
Nicander
Nicanor
NICARAGUA
Nicaraguan
Nicator
Niccola
Niccoli
NICCOLO
Niccolò
Nice
Nicea
nicely
Nicene
Nicephorus
Nicetas
niceties
nicety
niche
niches
Nichol
Nicholas
NICHOLLS
Nichols
Nicholsburg
Nicholson
Nichomachus
Nicias
nick
nickel
Nickers
Nickisson
nickname
nicknamed
nicknames
Nicodemus
Nicolai
Nicolaier
Nicolas
Nicolay
NICOLET
Nicolini
NICOLL
Nicolls
Nicolo
Nicolovius
Nicolás
Nicolò
Nicomedes
Nicomedia
Nicon
NICOPOLIS
NICOSIA
Nicotia
Nicuesa
NICÆA
Nicæa
Nicæan
nid
Nidana
Nidda
Nidwalden
Niebuhr
niece
nieces
Nieder
Niederschönfeld
niello
Niels
Nieman
Niemen
Nieuport
Nift
Nigel
Niger
niggardliness
niggardly
nigger
niggers
nigh
night
Nightcaps
nightfall
Nightingale
nightly
nightmare
nights
Nigra
Nigritic
nih
Nihil
Nihilism
nihilist
nihilistic
Nihilists
Nihongi
Niihau
Nijni
Nika
Nikator
Nikias
Nikita
Nikki
Niklashausen
Nikolsburg
Nikæa
Nil
Nile
Niles
nimble
nimbly
Nimeguen
Nimegueu
Nimes
Nimmo
Nimptschen
Nimrod
Nimroud
Nimrud
Nimwegen
Nina
nine
nineteen
Nineteenth
NINETY
Nineveh
Ninevite
Ninfa
Ninfeo
ning
Ningpo
Ninian
NINIQUIQUILAS
ninth
Niobrara
Niort
Nipal
Nipissings
Nipmuc
Nipmucks
Nipmucs
Nipnets
nipped
Nippold
Nippon
Nirgua
Nirvana
Nis
Nisa
Nisaea
Nisan
Nisbet
Nisch
NISCHANDYIS
Nish
Nishabur
Nishapoor
Nishapur
Nishi
nisi
NISIB
Nisibis
NISMES
NISSA
Nisyros
Nisyrus
NISÆAN
Nisæa
Nithsdale
NITIOBRIGES
Nitiobroges
Nitobe
Nitocris
nitrate
nitrates
nitre
nitrogen
nitrous
Niul
NIVELLE
Nivelles
Nivernais
Nivose
NIVÔSE
Nivôse
Nixon
niyeh
Niza
Nizam
nizamat
Nizams
Nizza
Nièvre
Njal
nlm
no
Noah
Noailles
Nob
nobiles
nobili
Nobilis
nobilisque
nobilissimorum
nobilities
nobility
nobiscum
noble
nobleman
noblemen
nobleness
nobler
nobles
noblesse
noblest
nobly
nobodies
nobody
Nobunaga
Nocera
noche
Noctes
nocturnal
nod
nodded
Noddle
nodes
noe
NOEL
Noell
noes
Nogais
Nogaret
Nogays
Nogent
noi
noir
Noircarmes
Noire
Noirmoutiers
Noirot
noise
noised
noiseless
noiselessly
noiselessness
noises
noisily
noisy
Noix
Nokki
Nola
Nolan
nolens
NOLHAC
Nolichucky
Noll
Nollet
nom
nomad
nomade
Nomades
nomadic
nomadizing
nomads
nomarchies
Nombre
nome
nomen
nomenclature
Nomenoe
NOMES
nominal
Nominalists
nominally
nominate
nominated
nominates
nominating
nomination
nominations
nomine
nominee
nominees
Nominoë
NOMOPHYLAKES
NOMOTHETÆ
non
Nona
Nonantula
nonce
nonchalance
noncombatants
Nonconformist
Nonconformists
nonconformity
nondescript
none
nonentities
NONES
nonfeasance
NONINTERCOURSE
nonjurors
Nonni
Nono
Nonobservance
Nonohualcas
nonpayment
nonsense
Nonville
Nook
nooks
noon
noonday
noontide
noor
Noord
Noorpoor
noose
Nootka
Nootkas
NOPH
nor
Nora
Norax
Norba
Norbanus
Norbergia
Norbert
Nord
Norddeutsche
Norden
Nordens
NORDENSKIÖLD
Nordenskiöld
Norderies
Nordgau
Nordhausen
Nordhoff
Nordland
Nordlingen
Nordmanni
Nordureyer
NORE
NOREMBEGA
Noremberc
Norfolk
Norgate
Noric
Noricans
Noricum
Norimberga
norm
normal
Normales
normally
Norman
Normanby
Normand
Normande
Normandy
Normanizing
Normannica
NORMANS
Noronha
Norric
Norridgewock
Norris
Norrköping
Norroganatt
Norroys
Norse
Norsemen
Nort
Norte
North
Northallerton
NORTHAMPTON
Northamptonshire
Northbrook
Northcastle
Northcote
northeast
northeastern
northeastward
northerly
Northern
Northerner
Northerners
northernmost
Northfield
Northfolc
Northington
Northman
Northmannorum
northmen
Northstead
Northumberland
Northumbria
Northumbrian
Northumbrians
northward
northwardly
northwards
Northwest
northwesterly
Northwestern
northwesternmost
northwestward
northwestwardly
NORTON
Norumbega
Norvins
Norwalk
Norway
Norwegian
Norwegians
Norwich
nos
Noscitis
NOSE
nosed
noseless
noses
Nosseyr
Nossolitof
noster
Nostitz
nostram
Nostrand
Nostrandt
nostras
nostri
nostrils
nostros
nostrum
nostrums
not
nota
notability
notable
Notables
notablest
notably
Notaio
Notaquoncanot
notarial
notaries
Notary
notation
notch
notches
note
noted
Notepad
Notes
noteworthy
nothing
nothingness
Nothings
Nothomb
Nothus
notice
noticeable
noticeably
noticed
notices
noticing
notification
notified
notify
notifying
noting
notion
notions
Notitia
Notium
Noto
notoriety
notorious
notoriously
Notre
Notrib
Nott
Nottingham
Nottinghamshire
Nottoways
notwithstanding
Noue
Nought
NOUILLY
noun
Nouraddin
Noureddin
nourish
nourished
nourishes
nourishing
nourishment
Nourrit
Nourse
nourtering
nouther
Nouveau
Nouveaux
nouvel
Nouvelle
Nov
Nova
Novalese
Novantes
NOVANTÆ
Novara
Novarese
Novarrese
novas
Novati
Novatians
novations
Novaya
Nove
novel
novelist
novelists
novellae
novellette
Novello
novels
novelties
novelty
November
Novgorod
Novgorodians
Novi
Novibazar
novice
novices
noviciate
Novigrad
Noviomagus
novitiate
Novo
Novogorod
Novogrodek
Novos
Novum
Novus
now
nowadays
nowe
nowhere
nowise
noxious
Noy
Noyade
Noyades
Noyading
Noyan
Noyers
Noyes
Noyon
NOËTIANS
Noëtus
ns
ntil
Nu
Nuad
Nub
Nubar
nuber
Nubes
Nubia
Nubian
Nubians
Nuceria
nuclei
nucleus
nudity
Nueces
Nueva
Nuevn
Nuevo
nugatory
Nugent
nuisance
nuisances
Nuithones
Nujeeb
null
nulle
Nullification
nullified
Nullifiers
nullify
Nullifying
nullity
Nullus
Numa
Numantia
NUMANTIAN
Numantines
numbed
number
numbered
numbering
numberless
numbers
Numenius
numerals
numeration
Numerian
NUMERIANUS
numerical
numerically
numerous
numerously
Numicius
Numidia
Numidian
Numidians
Numismatic
nummns
nummus
Numris
nun
nuncii
nuncio
nuncios
Nuncomar
nuncupative
Nunez
nunneries
nunnery
Nuno
Nunquam
nuns
Nuova
NUOVO
nuptial
nuptials
Nur
Nura
Nuraghi
Nuremberg
Nurembergers
Nuremburg
Nurmane
Nurse
nursed
nurseries
nursery
nurses
Nursia
nursing
nurslings
nurturing
Nurumbega
Nushirvan
Nushtekin
nut
Nutcelle
nutmegs
nutriment
nutrition
nutritive
nuts
Nutt
NUTTALL
Nuys
Nuñez
Nuño
ny
Nyah
Nyangwe
Nyantics
Nyanza
Nyassa
Nyassaland
Nyborg
Nye
Nyenskanz
Nyköping
Nymegen
Nymeguen
nymph
nympha
Nymphas
nymphs
Nymwegen
Nyon
Nyssa
Nystad
Nystadt
Nysæus
NÉRAC
NÖFELS
NÖLDEKE
NÖRDLINGEN
NÖSSELT
Nérac
Nîmes
Nôtre
Nöldeke
Nördlingen
Nösselt
Nûnes
Nürnberg
O
Oahu
Oajaca
Oak
oaken
Oakes
Oakey
Oakland
Oakley
oaks
oar
oars
oarsmen
oases
oasis
Oates
oath
oaths
oatmeal
oats
Oaxaca
Ob
Obadiah
Oban
Obando
obdurate
Obe
obedience
obediences
obedient
obedientiae
obedientiæ
Obeid
Obeidah
obeisance
Obelerio
obelisk
OBELISKS
OBER
Oberdeutsch
Obere
Oberenheim
Oberholtzer
Oberland
Oberlausitz
OBERLIN
Obermeier
Oberpfalz
Oberstein
Oberweissbach
obes
obesity
obey
obeyed
obeying
obeys
Obispado
Obispo
Obizzo
object
objected
objecting
objection
objectionable
objections
objective
objectively
objectless
objectors
objects
OBLATES
obligated
obligation
obligations
obligatory
oblige
obliged
obliging
oblique
obliquely
Obliquing
obliterate
obliterated
obliterating
obliteration
oblivion
oblivious
oblong
obloquy
obnoxious
obnuntiatio
Obok
oboli
Obolla
obols
obolus
Oborites
OBOTRITES
Obrenovitch
OBRIADTSI
obscene
obscenities
obscurantism
obscuration
obscure
obscured
obscurely
obscurer
obscuring
obscurities
obscurity
obscurum
obsequies
obsequious
obsequiously
obsequiousness
observable
Observance
observances
observant
observation
observational
observations
Observator
observatories
Observatory
observe
observed
observer
observers
observes
observing
Obsidian
obsolescence
obsolescent
obsolete
obstacle
obstacles
obstante
obstetrical
obstinacy
obstinate
obstinately
obstreperous
obstruct
obstructed
obstructing
obstruction
obstructions
obstructive
obstructives
obtain
obtainable
obtained
obtaining
obtains
obtestations
obtruding
obtrusion
obtuse
obverse
obviate
obviated
obvious
obviously
Obwalden
OC
Ocampo
Ocana
Ocaña
Occam
occasion
occasional
occasionally
occasioned
occasioning
occasions
occation
occations
Occean
Occhino
Occiden
Occident
occidental
Occidentale
Occidentalis
Occidentals
Occoquan
occult
occupancy
occupant
occupants
occupation
occupations
occupied
occupier
occupiers
occupies
occupy
occupying
occur
occurred
occurrence
occurrences
occurring
occurs
occutions
ocean
Oceana
oceanic
Oceanica
Oceanius
Oceano
oceans
Oceanus
Ochente
Ochiali
OCHLOCRACY
ocho
Ochquaga
Ochrida
Ochterlony
Ochus
Ociano
Ocker
Ockley
Oct
OCTAETËRIS
octagon
octagonal
octaroon
Octave
Octavia
Octavian
Octavianus
Octavius
octavo
Octaëteris
octennial
October
octogenarian
octopus
Octorara
octroi
octrois
octroyirte
ocular
Oczakof
od
ODAL
odd
Oddi
oddities
oddly
Oddo
odds
Ode
Odeleben
Odell
Odelsret
ODELSTHING
ODENATHUS
Odenatus
Odenwald
Odeon
Oder
odes
Odessa
Odessus
ODEUM
Odhinn
Odillon
Odilon
Odin
odio
odious
odium
Odo
Odoacer
Odonellus
odor
Odoric
odoriferous
odour
odourous
Odovacar
Odovakar
Odre
Odyssee
Odysseus
Odyssey
oecumenical
Oekonomie
OELAND
Oels
Oenoe
Oenotrians
Oersted
Oertel
Oesel
OESTERREICH
Oeta
Oettingen
Oeuvres
Oeversee
Oeyras
of
Ofen
off
Offa
offal
Offaly
offence
offences
offend
offended
offender
offenders
offending
offends
offense
offenses
Offensive
offensively
offensiveness
offer
offered
offering
offerings
offers
offhand
office
officer
officered
officers
offices
Official
officially
Officials
officiate
officiated
officiating
Officiel
officina
officio
officious
officiously
OFFLEY
offset
offsets
offshoot
offshoots
offspring
oft
ofte
often
oftener
oftenest
oftentimes
ofttimes
Og
Ogalala
Ogalalas
Ogam
Ogatai
Ogden
Ogdensburg
Ogeechee
Ogham
Oghuz
Ogilby
ogima
Ogle
Oglesby
Oglethorpe
Oglethrope
Oglio
Oglou
Oglu
Ogobai
Ogors
Ogotai
Ogowé
Ogulnian
Ogulnii
Ogulnius
Ogygia
Ogéviller
Oh
Oharta
Oheeyo
ohia
OHIO
ohionha
Ohlau
OHMANN
Oho
OHOD
Oig
oil
oiled
oils
Oinaion
Ointment
ointments
Oise
Ojebway
Ojeda
Ojibbewas
Ojibwa
OJIBWAS
Ojibway
Ojibways
Ojo
Okavango
Okeden
Oki
okimaw
Okkodai
Oklahoma
Okolona
Oktai
Oktibbeha
Ol
Olaf
Olamentke
Olaus
Olave
Olbia
Olcott
old
Oldach
Oldcastle
olden
Oldenburg
Oldenburgh
older
oldest
Oldham
Oldmixon
Oleg
Oleron
olfactory
Olga
Olgierd
Oliarus
Olid
oligarchic
oligarchical
oligarchies
oligarchs
oligarchy
Oligarquia
Olim
Olimpia
Olin
Oliphant
Oliphants
OLISIPO
Oliva
Olivarez
olive
Oliver
olives
Olivet
OLIVETANS
oliveyard
oliveyards
Olivier
Olivola
Olivolo
Ollamh
Ollamhs
Ollier
Ollivier
Olmstead
Olmutz
Olmütz
Olney
Olon
Olonne
Olonnois
Olpai
OLPÆ
Olsoufief
Olsson
Olum
OLUSTEE
Olybrius
Olymp
Olympia
Olympiad
OLYMPIADS
Olympian
Olympias
Olympic
Olympieum
OLYMPIUM
Olympius
Olympos
Olympus
OLYNTHIAC
Olynthian
Olynthians
Olynthus
Oléron
om
Omagh
OMAGUAS
Omaha
Omahas
Omahaws
Oman
Omar
Omdurman
omen
omened
omens
OMER
omers
Omeya
Omeyya
Omeyyad
OMEYYADES
Omeyyads
Omichund
ominous
ominously
omission
omissions
omit
omits
omitted
omitting
Ommaney
Ommeyyad
Ommiad
Ommiade
Ommiades
Ommiads
Ommiah
Ommyiades
omnes
omni
omnibus
omnipotence
omnipotent
omnipresent
Omniscience
omniscient
omnium
ompax
omphalos
Omri
Omura
Omychund
On
Onas
Onca
once
Oncken
Oncle
oncoming
Oncæic
ONDERDONK
Ondewater
Ondicavae
one
Onega
Oneglia
Oneida
Oneidas
oneness
onepage
onerous
ones
oneself
Onesilus
Ongiara
Onias
oniatare
onicus
Onions
onlookers
only
Onomarchus
Onondaga
ONONDAGAS
Onondago
Ononteeyo
Onontio
Onoro
onrush
onset
onsets
onslaught
onslaughts
Onslow
ont
ontare
Ontareeyo
Ontario
onto
Onuphrius
onward
onwards
onyx
oo
OODEYPOOR
ool
Oormia
Oostanaula
ooze
oozy
op
opacum
opal
opaque
Opdam
Opdycke
Opechancanough
open
opened
openhanded
opening
openings
openly
openness
opens
Opequan
opera
operandi
operate
operated
operates
operating
operation
operations
operative
operatively
operatives
operator
operators
operatum
Ophel
Ophioneis
Ophir
Ophis
Ophites
Ophrah
Opican
Opici
Opicia
OPIMA
opined
opinion
opinionated
opinions
opium
Opocno
opoltchénié
Oporto
Oppa
Oppelen
Oppeln
Oppen
Oppenheim
Oppert
Oppia
Oppian
OPPIDUM
Oppius
opponent
opponents
opportune
opportunely
opportuneness
opportunist
Opportunists
opportunities
opportunity
oppose
opposed
opposer
opposers
opposes
opposing
opposite
opposition
oppositions
oppress
oppressed
oppressing
oppression
oppressions
Oppressive
oppressively
oppressor
oppressors
opprobrious
Oppède
Opsikian
optation
optical
optico
Optimate
Optimates
optimist
option
optional
opulence
opulences
opulent
Opuntian
Opus
Oquaga
or
oracle
ORACLES
oracular
Oraibi
oral
orally
Oran
Orange
Orangeism
Orangeman
Orangemen
orangery
oranges
Oranienbaum
ORARIANS
Oration
Orationes
Orations
orator
Oratorians
oratorical
orators
oratory
Orbegoso
Orbi
Orbigny
orbis
orbit
Orbitello
orbits
Orcades
ORCHA
Orchan
Orchard
orchards
orchestra
Orchia
ORCHIAN
Orchies
Orchomenians
Orchomenos
Orchomenus
Orcynia
ORCYNIAN
Ord
orda
ordain
ordained
Ordainers
ordaining
ordains
Ordam
ordeal
ordeals
Ordenanzas
order
ordered
Ordericus
ordering
orderly
orders
Ordinance
ordinances
Ordinaries
ordinarily
ordinary
ordinate
ordinated
ordination
Ordino
ordnance
ordningen
Ordo
ordonnance
ordonne
ordonné
ORDOVICES
ORDOÑO
Ordoño
ordu
ore
Orebro
Oregon
Oregonian
OREJONES
Orel
Orellana
Orenburg
Ores
Orestes
ORESTÆ
Orestæ
Oreto
Orford
org
organ
organic
organiques
Organisateur
organisation
organisations
organise
organised
organiser
organising
organism
organisms
organist
organization
organizations
organize
organized
organizer
organizers
organizes
organizing
Organon
organs
Organum
orgiastic
orgie
Orgiel
orgies
Orgon
orgy
Oria
oriel
Orient
Oriental
Orientales
Orientalis
orientalists
Orientals
Oriente
Orients
oriflamme
Origen
origin
Original
originality
originally
originals
originate
originated
originates
originating
origination
originator
originators
Origine
Origines
Origins
origo
Orik
Orinoco
Oriskany
Orissa
Oristano
Orizaba
Orkhan
Orkhon
Orkney
Orkneys
Orlando
Orleanist
Orleanists
Orleannais
Orleanness
Orleans
Orlof
Orloff
Orly
Orléanis
Orléans
Orm
Ormazd
Orme
Ormesson
Ormond
Ormonde
Ormsby
Ormus
Ormuz
ORMÉE
Ormée
ornament
ornamental
ornamented
ornamenting
ornaments
ornavit
Orne
Orneæ
ORO
Oroatis
orographic
Oronoco
Oronoko
Orontes
Oroonoko
Oropesa
Oropos
Oropus
Oroses
Orosius
Orozco
orphan
orphanage
orphaned
orphans
Orpheus
Orr
Orrery
Orrin
ORSAMUS
Orsay
Orsi
Orsini
Orsippus
Orson
Orsova
Orsua
Orsy
Ort
Orte
Ortega
Ortelius
Ortenau
Orthagoras
ORTHAGORIDÆ
Orthagoridæ
Orthes
orthodox
orthodoxy
orthographical
orthography
Orthogrul
Orthès
Ortnau
Orton
ORTOSPANA
Ortubia
Ortygia
Oryphas
Orôpus
Os
Osage
Osages
Osaka
Osawatomie
Osborn
Oscan
OSCANS
Oscar
Osceola
oscillate
oscillating
oscillation
oscillations
Osgood
osha
Osi
Osiek
Osimo
Osiris
OSISMI
Oskar
Osker
Osma
osmak
osmaks
OSMAN
Osmanli
OSMANLIS
OSMUND
Osnabruck
OSNABRÜCK
Osnabrück
Osnaburg
Osorio
Osorkon
Osorno
Ospina
Osrhene
Osrhoene
OSRHOËNE
Osrhoëne
OSRHŒNE
OSROËNE
Ossa
Ossawattomie
Osselin
Ossian
ossified
Ossin
Ossipee
Ossory
Ossun
Ost
Ostend
ostensible
ostensibly
ostentation
Ostentatious
ostentatiously
Oster
Osterhaus
Osterland
Osterlings
Ostermann
Osterreich
Osterrichi
Ostia
Ostiaks
Ostian
ostiatim
ostium
Ostmark
Ostmen
Ostorius
OSTRACH
ostracism
ostracized
Ostragoths
Ostrich
ostriches
Ostrogorski
Ostrogoth
Ostrogotha
Ostrogothic
Ostrogoths
Ostrolenka
Ostrovno
Osuiu
Oswald
Osward
Oswegachie
Oswego
OSWI
Oswin
Oswiu
Oswold
Oswy
Ota
OTADENI
Otaheite
Otaki
Otbert
Otchagras
Otchakof
ote
OTFORD
other
others
otherwise
Othman
Othmans
Otho
Othoman
Othonians
Othos
Othrys
Otilia
Otis
Otley
Otoe
Otoes
Otokar
OTOMIS
Otompan
Otos
Otra
OTRANTO
Otsego
Ott
Ottadeni
Ottagamies
Ottakar
Ottavio
Ottawa
Ottawas
Ottawawa
OTTEDENI
Ottentoos
otter
Otterburn
otters
Ottimati
OTTO
Ottoacer
Ottobono
Ottobuoni
Ottocar
OTTOES
Ottokar
Ottoman
Ottomans
Ottomati
Ottos
OTTÉ
Otté
Otumba
OTZAKOF
ou
OUAR
Ouatanon
Ouchda
OUDE
Oudenaarde
Oudenarde
Oudewater
Oudh
OUDINARDE
Oudinot
Oudney
Oued
Ouelle
Ouen
Oufamaquin
ought
oui
Ouiars
Ouigours
Ouigurs
Oulell
Oulx
Oum
Oumas
ounce
ounces
Our
Oural
Ouralsek
Ourique
Ouro
Ourouk
ours
Oursel
ourselves
Ousamequin
Ouse
Ousemaguin
oust
ousted
ousting
out
Outagamies
outbade
outbid
outbreak
outbreaks
outbribed
outbuildings
outburst
outbursts
outcast
outcasts
outcome
outcries
outcrop
outcropping
outcry
outdid
outdo
outdoing
outdone
outdoor
outed
outen
outer
outermost
outfit
outfits
outflank
outflanked
outflanking
outflow
outgeneraled
outgeneralled
outgo
outgoing
outgoings
outgrew
outgrown
outgrowth
outgrowths
outlandish
outlasted
outlaw
outlawed
outlawing
outlawry
outlaws
outlay
outlays
outlet
outlets
outlier
Outline
outlined
outlines
outlive
outlived
outlook
outlots
outlying
outmanoeuvred
outmanœuvred
outnumber
outnumbered
outnumbering
outports
outpost
outposts
outpouring
outputs
outrage
outraged
outrageous
outrageously
outrages
outraging
Outram
outran
outranked
Outre
outreaching
Outremer
outriders
outright
outrunners
outsailed
outset
outshine
outshining
outshone
outside
outsider
outsiders
outskirt
outskirts
outspoken
outspread
outstanding
outstretched
outstrip
outstripped
outswarmings
outvote
outvoted
outvoting
outwanderings
outward
Outwardly
outwards
outweigh
outweighed
outweighing
outweighs
outwit
outwitted
outwitting
outwork
outworks
Ouverture
ouvrier
Ouyouckatan
oval
Ovampo
Ovando
ovatio
OVATION
oven
ovens
over
overarching
overawe
overawed
overawing
overbalance
overbalanced
overbear
overbearing
overboard
overbore
overborne
overburdened
Overbury
overcame
overcast
overcautious
overcharged
overcome
overcoming
overcrowded
overcrowding
overdid
overdrawn
overestimate
overestimated
overflow
overflowed
overflowing
overflown
overflows
overgrown
overhang
overhanging
overhasty
overhauled
overhauling
overhead
overheard
overheated
Overhill
overhung
Overkirk
overlaid
overland
overlap
overlapped
overlapping
overlay
overleap
overleaped
overlook
overlooked
overlooking
overlord
overlords
overlordship
overmastering
overmatched
overpass
overpassing
overplus
overpower
overpowered
overpowerful
overpowering
overpoweringly
overran
overrate
overrated
overrating
overreach
overridden
override
overriding
overrode
overrule
overruled
overruling
overrun
overrunning
overruns
oversea
oversee
overseeing
overseer
overseers
overshadow
overshadowed
overshadowing
overshadows
oversharp
overshot
oversight
overspread
overspreading
overstated
overstepped
overstepping
Overstone
overstrained
overt
overtake
overtaken
overtakes
Overtaxation
overtaxed
overthrew
Overthrow
overthrowing
overthrown
overthrows
overtly
Overton
overtook
overtop
overtopped
overtopping
overture
overtures
overturn
overturned
overturning
overturns
overwatched
overweening
overwhelm
overwhelmed
overwhelming
overwhelmingly
overwhelms
overwork
overworked
Overyssel
Ovid
Ovide
OVIEDO
OVILIA
owe
owed
Owen
Owenagungas
owes
oweth
Owhyhee
owing
owl
owls
own
owne
owned
owner
owners
ownership
owning
owns
ox
oxen
Oxenford
Oxensteirn
Oxenstiern
Oxenstierna
Oxenstjerna
Oxford
Oxfordshire
OXGANG
oxhides
Oxiana
oxidation
oxide
Oxus
oxygen
oxymuriatic
Oyapok
Oyer
Oyster
oysters
oz
Ozark
Ozbegs
ozero
Ozolian
Ozolæ
Pa
Paauw
Pablo
Pablos
Paca
Pacaguara
Pacamora
Pacca
pace
paced
paces
pacha
Pachacamac
Pachachaca
Pachami
Pachas
Pache
Pacheco
Paches
Pachilia
Pachomius
Pacific
pacifically
Pacification
pacifications
pacificator
Pacifico
Pacificum
Pacificvm
pacified
Pacifique
pacify
pacifying
Pacinotti
pacis
pack
package
packages
packed
Packenham
packet
packets
packhorses
packing
packs
Pacome
Pacorus
pact
Pacta
Pacthod
Pactolus
Pactyes
Pacuvius
Paddington
paddle
paddled
paddles
Paderborn
Paderni
Padi
Padilla
Padillo
Padischah
Padishah
padlock
padlocks
Padre
Padri
Padriabrad
pads
Padua
Paduan
Paduans
Paducah
Padus
Paetel
Paez
Pagan
Paganino
Paganism
paganisms
Pagano
pagans
Pagasean
Pagasæ
Pagasæan
page
Page151
pageant
pageantries
pageantry
pageants
paged
pages
Paget
pagi
pagoda
pagodas
PAGUS
Pagæ
Pagès
PAH
Pahlav
Pahlen
Pahoja
Paian
paid
PAIDONOMUS
pail
pailfuls
pain
Paine
painful
painfuler
painfully
painless
pains
painstaking
paint
Painted
painter
painters
painting
paintings
paints
PAINTSVILLE
Paionians
pair
pairs
Paisley
PAITA
Paix
paja
Pakbo
Pakenham
Pakhtun
pal
palace
palaces
Palacio
Palacky
Paladines
Paladins
Palaemon
Palaepolis
Palaestina
Palafox
Palafreni
Palaihnihan
Palaiologoi
Palaiologos
Palais
Palaisdes
Palaiseau
Palanka
palatable
palate
palatia
palatial
palatii
palatinate
palatinates
Palatine
PALATINES
Palatium
Palatka
palaverers
Palazzo
Palazzuola
PALE
paled
Palencia
Palengue
PALENQUE
paleographical
Paleologos
Paleologus
paler
Palermo
Pales
Palestina
Palestine
Palestinian
Palestinians
palestra
Palestrina
Palestro
palette
Paley
Palfrey
PALFREYS
Palfy
Palgrave
PALI
Palibothra
Palikao
Palilia
palimpsests
palisade
palisaded
palisades
palisadings
Palisse
Palissy
pall
PALLA
palladia
palladium
Palladius
PALLAIN
Pallas
Pallavicini
Palle
palled
Pallene
Palleschi
pallets
Palliano
palliata
palliate
palliated
palliation
palliatives
pallium
palm
Palma
Palmaria
Palmas
palmata
Palmberg
palmed
Palmella
Palmer
Palmerio
Palmerston
Palmetto
palmettos
Palmi
palms
palmy
Palmyra
Palmyrene
Palmyrenian
PALMYRÊNÉ
Palmyrêné
Palo
Palos
palpable
palpably
palpitating
palpitation
Palsgrave
palsgraves
palsied
palsy
paltriest
paltry
PALUDAMENTUM
PALUS
PALÆOLITHIC
PALÆOLOGI
PALÆOPOLIS
PALÆPOLIS
PALÆSTRA
Palæ
Palæolithic
Palæologi
Palæologus
Palæopolis
Palæpolis
Palæste
Palæstina
palæstra
palæstrai
Pambœotia
Pamela
Pamfili
Pamiers
Pamir
Pamisus
Pamlico
Pamlicoes
PAMLICOS
Pammenes
pampa
Pampas
Pampean
Pampeans
Pampeluna
pampered
Pamphilo
Pamphilus
pamphlet
pamphleteer
pamphleteering
pamphleteers
pamphlets
Pamphyli
Pamphylia
Pamplona
Pampticoke
Pampticokes
Pampus
Pamunkey
Pan
Panacea
Panacton
Panaghia
Panaktum
Panama
PANATHENÆA
Panathenæa
Panchaia
Pancras
pancreas
Pande
Pandect
Pandects
pandemic
pandemonium
panderers
panders
PANDES
Pandion
Pandits
Pandolfo
Pandora
Pandosia
Pandours
Pandulf
Pandulph
pane
Panegyr
panegyric
panegyrics
panegyrist
panegyrists
panel
Panels
pang
Pangaeus
pangs
Pangæum
Pangæus
Panhellenist
panhypersevastos
panic
Panics
Panin
Panionia
Panipat
panis
Panium
Panizzi
Panjab
Panlines
Panmure
panniers
Panniput
Pannonia
Pannonian
Pannonians
Pannonii
Pano
Panodorus
panoply
panorama
panoramic
Panorma
Panormos
Panormus
Panos
pans
Pansa
Panslavists
pant
pantaloons
PANTANO
panted
Pantelleria
Pantheism
pantheistic
pantheistical
Pantheon
panther
panthers
Pantibiblon
Panticapæum
PANTIKAPÆUM
Pantikapæum
panting
pantomimist
Panuco
Panum
Panætius
Pao
Paola
PAOLI
Paolis
Paolo
Papa
PAPACY
Papago
Papagos
papal
Papalist
papas
Papauté
paper
papered
Papers
papes
Paphlagonia
Paphlagonians
Paphos
Papias
Papin
Papineau
Papinian
Papiria
Papirian
Papirius
Papist
papistical
Papistries
papistry
Papists
Pappelotte
Pappenheim
pappooses
Pappus
papr
paprs
Papstthum
Papua
Papuan
Papuans
Papuas
papuwah
papyre
papyri
papyrus
PAQUIER
par
Para
parable
parables
parabolani
Paracelsus
Parachucla
Paraclete
Parad
parade
paraded
parades
parading
Paradise
paradox
paradoxical
Paraetaceni
parage
paragon
paragraph
paragraphing
paragraphs
Paraguaio
Paraguay
Paraguayan
Paraleda
PARALI
parallel
paralleled
parallelism
parallelisms
parallelogram
parallels
PARALUS
paralyse
paralysed
paralysing
paralysis
paralyze
paralyzed
paralyzes
paralyzing
paramount
paramour
paramours
Parana
Paraná
parapet
parapets
paraphernalia
paraphrased
paraphrasing
parasang
parasite
parasites
parasitic
parasols
Parawianas
parcel
parceled
parcell
parcelled
parcelling
parcels
parched
parchment
parchments
Pardo
Pardoe
pardon
pardonable
pardoned
pardoning
pardons
Pardubic
pared
Paredes
pareils
parenchyma
parens
parent
parentage
parental
parentheses
parents
pares
Parganas
parhelion
pari
Paria
pariahs
Parian
Parians
Parias
PARICANIANS
Paricura
PARILIA
paring
Paris
Parisades
parish
parishes
parishioners
Parisi
Parisiaci
Parisian
Parisians
Parisii
parisis
Parisot
parity
Park
Parke
parked
Parker
Parkersburg
Parkes
Parkhurst
parking
Parkinson
Parkman
parks
Parkyns
Parl
Parlamento
parlance
Parlement
parley
parleying
parleyings
parleys
Parliament
Parliamentarian
Parliamentarians
Parliamentary
Parliaments
Parliamentum
parlour
PARMA
Parmenides
Parmenio
Parmenius
Parmesan
Parmese
Parnahyba
Parnassus
Parnell
Parnells
Parnes
Parnon
parochial
parodied
parodies
parody
parol
parole
paroled
paroles
paroling
paroquets
Paros
paroxysm
paroxysms
Parque
Parr
Parrhesia
parricide
parried
Parris
parrots
Parrott
Parry
Parsec
Parseeism
Parsees
Parsi
parsimonious
parsimony
Parsis
Parsloe
parson
parsonage
Parsons
Parsonstown
part
partake
partaken
partakers
partakes
partaking
Parte
parted
partes
Partha
Parthamasiris
Parthamaspes
Parthenay
Parthenii
Parthenius
Parthenon
Parthenopean
Parthenopeian
PARTHENOPÉ
Parthenopé
Parthenos
Parthi
PARTHIA
PARTHIAN
Parthians
Parthicus
Parthis
parti
Partial
partiality
partially
partible
partibus
Particiacio
participant
participants
participate
participated
participates
participating
Participation
participations
participator
participators
Participazio
participle
particle
particles
particular
particularise
particularised
particularism
particularisme
particularistic
particularities
particularize
particularizing
particularly
particulars
particulate
particulier
Partidas
Partido
parties
parting
partisan
partisans
partisanship
partition
partitioned
partitioners
Partitioning
Partitions
partizans
partizanship
partly
partner
partners
partnership
partnerships
Parton
Partons
partook
partout
Partridge
parts
party
Paru
parvenu
parvenus
parvi
parvis
Parviz
Parysatis
Pará
Paré
pas
PASARGADÆ
Pasargadæ
Pascagoula
PASCAGOULAS
Pascal
Pascataqua
Pascha
Paschal
Paschali
Pasco
Pascogoulas
Pascua
PASCUAL
Pasha
pashalik
pashaliks
Pashas
Pashtun
Pashwan
Pasini
Paskewitch
Paskievitsch
Paskiewitch
Pasqua
Pasqual
Pasquale
Pasqualigo
Pasquier
pasquinades
pass
passable
passage
passages
Passaic
Passamaquoddy
passant
Passarge
Passarowitz
Passau
Passayunk
passe
passed
passenger
passengers
Passerini
passers
passes
Passeyr
passing
passion
passionate
passionately
passionless
passions
passive
passively
Passover
passport
passports
passu
passwords
Passy
PASSÉ
Passé
past
Pastaca
Pastaça
pasteboard
pasted
Pasteur
pastime
pastimes
PASTON
Pastophori
Pastor
pastoral
pastoralis
pastorals
Pastoret
Pastors
Pastoureaux
PASTRENGO
Pastry
pasturage
pasturages
pasture
pastured
pastures
Pasvan
Patachiaow
Patagonia
Patagonian
PATAGONIANS
Patak
Patali
Pataliputra
Patapsco
PATARA
Patarener
Patarenes
Pataria
Patarines
Patarini
Patarins
Patavilca
Patavium
Patay
patch
patched
patches
PATCHINAKS
patchwork
pate
patent
Patente
patented
patentee
patentees
Patenting
Patents
patentés
pater
Paterculus
paterfamilias
Paterines
Paterini
Paterins
paternal
Paterniano
paternity
paternité
Paterno
Paternoster
paternosters
Paterson
patesi
path
Pathan
pathetic
pathetically
pathless
pathogenesis
pathogenic
Pathologia
pathological
Pathologie
Pathologischen
pathologist
pathology
pathos
paths
pathway
Pathyapathya
pati
Patiala
patibulo
patience
patient
patiently
patients
Patna
patois
Patomit
Paton
Patoris
Patrae
Patrai
Patras
PATRATUS
patrem
patres
patria
patriae
patrial
patriarch
patriarchal
patriarchate
Patriarchates
Patriarches
PATRIARCHS
patrice
patrician
patricians
patriciate
patricii
patricius
Patriciæ
Patriciœ
Patrick
Patrie
patrimonial
patrimony
Patriot
patriotic
patriotically
patriotism
patriots
Patripassians
Patris
patristic
PATRIÆ
patriæ
Patrocinio
patrol
patroles
patrolled
patrolling
patrols
patron
patronage
patroness
patronise
patronised
patronising
patronize
patronized
patronizes
patronizing
patrons
patronus
patronymic
patronymics
Patroon
patroons
Patru
patrum
Patræ
Patta
Patten
pattern
patterned
patterns
Patterson
PATTISON
PATTON
Patuas
Patuxent
PATZINAKS
Pau
Paucartambo
Paucartampu
Paucatuck
paucity
Paul
Paula
Paulding
Paules
Paulet
Paulette
PAULI
Paulician
Pauliciani
PAULICIANS
PAULIN
Paulina
Pauline
PAULINES
Paulinus
Paulistas
Paulli
Paullus
Paulo
Pauls
Paulus
Paume
paunch
Paunches
pauper
paupere
pauperism
paupers
Paupukkeewis
Pausanias
PAUSANIUS
pause
paused
pauses
Pausing
Pauvres
pave
paved
pavement
pavements
paves
Pavia
pavilion
Pavillon
paving
pavings
Pavon
Pavonia
paw
Pawlet
PAWLOWSKI
pawn
pawnbrokers
pawnbroking
pawned
PAWNEE
Pawnees
paws
Pawtucket
Pawtuxet
Pax
Paxo
Paxos
Paxton
pay
payable
Payagua
Payaguas
payee
Payens
payer
Payerne
payers
paying
paymaster
Paymasters
Paymastership
payment
payments
Payne
payoff
pays
Paytite
Paytiti
Pazzi
pcr
pcrarchive
Pe
Pea
Peabody
peace
peaceable
peaceably
peaceful
peacefully
peacemaker
peacemakers
Peach
Peacock
peacocks
Peada
peage
Peak
PEAKE
peaked
peaks
peal
pealed
peals
pear
Pearce
pearl
pearls
Pears
Pearse
Pearson
Peary
peasant
peasantries
peasantry
peasants
Pease
peat
pebble
pebbles
Pebody
PEC
peccadilloes
peccant
peccatum
Pecci
Pecheli
Pechuel
peck
Peckham
Pecora
Pecos
Pecquet
peculation
peculations
peculiar
peculiarities
peculiarity
peculiarly
pecunia
pecuniarily
pecuniary
pecuniis
pedagogic
pedagogical
Pedagogique
pedagogiums
pedagogue
pedagogues
Pedagogus
Pedagogy
pedant
pedantic
pedantries
pedantry
pedants
Pedasus
PEDDAR
Peddie
peddlar
Pedee
pedes
pedestal
pedestals
pedestrians
Pedianus
pedigree
pedigrees
pediment
PEDION
PEDIÆI
Pediæi
pedlar
pedlars
Pedley
Pedobaptists
Pedrarias
Pedraza
Pedro
Pedroites
Peeblesshire
peece
peek
Peel
peeled
peeling
Peelites
peen
Peene
PEEP
peeping
peer
peerage
Peerages
Peere
peering
peerless
peers
PEET
peg
Pegasius
Pegasus
Pegau
pegged
pegging
Pegram
Pegu
Pegæ
Pehen
Pehlevi
PEHUELCHES
Peiho
Peimic
Peiraeus
Peiraieus
Peiraios
Peirce
Peiræa
Peiræeus
Peiræus
Peisidike
Peisistratid
Peisistratus
Peixoto
Pekah
PEKIN
Peking
Pelagian
Pelagianism
Pelagians
Pelagie
Pelagio
Pelagius
Pelagonia
Pelasgean
Pelasgi
Pelasgian
Pelasgians
Pelasgic
Pelatiah
Pelavicini
Pelayo
Pelet
Peleus
Pelham
PELHAMS
Pelias
Pelican
PELIGNIANS
Pelion
Pelisipi
Pelisipia
pelisse
Pelissier
Pelisson
pell
Pella
Pellegrini
Pellegrino
Pellene
Pellenians
Pelletan
Pelletier
PELLEW
Pelligrini
Pells
pellucid
Pelly
Pelones
Pelopid
Pelopidae
Pelopidas
PELOPIDS
Pelopidæ
Peloponnese
Peloponnesian
Peloponnesians
Peloponnesos
Peloponnesus
Peloponnêsos
Pelops
Peloria
pelos
peltasts
pelted
Peltier
Pelting
Peltrie
peltries
peltry
Pelts
PELUCONES
Pelusium
Pemaquid
Pemba
Pemberton
Pembina
Pembroke
Pembrokeshire
pen
Pena
Penacook
Penacooks
penal
penalties
penalty
penance
penances
Penang
pence
pencil
Pencils
Penco
Penda
pendant
pendants
pendencies
pendent
Pender
pendere
pending
PENDLE
Pendleton
Pendragon
pendulum
Penelope
Penestae
PENESTÆ
Penestæ
penetrate
penetrated
penetrates
penetrating
penetration
penetrative
Peneus
Peney
penholders
Peniel
Penington
PENINSUAL
peninsula
peninsular
Peninsulares
peninsulas
penitence
penitent
penitential
Penitentiaries
penitentiary
Penitents
penitenza
Penka
penmanship
Penn
Penna
Pennacook
PENNAMITE
pennant
pennants
penned
pennies
pennig
Penniless
Penniman
Pennington
Penninus
pennon
pennons
Penns
Pennsilvania
Pennsilvaniense
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvanian
Pennsylvanians
penny
Pennypacker
Penobscot
Penobscott
penon
PENRHYN
Penrith
Penryn
pens
Pensacola
pense
Pensilvania
pension
Pensionary
pensioned
pensioner
pensioners
pensioning
pensions
pent
PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI
Pentagoet
pentagonal
Pentapolis
Pentapolitan
Pentarchy
Pentateuch
pentathlon
Pentecost
Pentecostal
Pentelic
Pentelican
Pentelicus
Pentelikus
Penthièvre
Pentoïrit
penury
people
peopled
peoples
peopling
Peoria
Peorias
Pepe
peperino
PEPIN
Pepins
peplum
Pepoli
pepper
Pepperell
peppers
Peppin
Pepys
Pepé
Pequa
Pequeña
Pequod
Pequods
Pequoitt
Pequot
Pequots
per
Pera
Perak
perambulation
perceivable
perceive
perceived
perceives
Perceiving
percent
percentage
percentages
perceptible
perceptibly
perception
perceptions
Perceval
perchance
Perche
perched
Perchelto
Perché
Percies
Percival
percolated
percussion
Percy
Percys
PERCÉS
Percé
Percés
Perdiccas
Perdido
Perdikkas
perdition
Perdono
Perduellio
Perduellis
Perea
Pered
Peredur
Perefixe
Peregrine
PEREGRINI
Peregrinus
Pereiaslavl
Perekop
peremptorily
peremptoriness
peremptory
Perendoli
perennial
perennially
Perenyi
Perez
perfect
perfecte
perfected
perfecters
perfecting
perfection
Perfectionists
perfections
perfectly
perfectness
perfectors
perfects
perfidies
perfidious
perfidiously
perfidy
perforated
perforating
perforation
perforce
perform
performance
performances
performed
performer
performers
performing
performs
perfume
perfumed
perfumes
perfunctory
perfusi
Perga
Pergamene
Pergamos
Pergamum
Pergamus
perhaps
Periander
Periclean
Pericles
PERIER
Perieres
Perigord
PERIGOT
perigrinations
Perigueux
Perikles
Periklymenus
Periklês
peril
periled
perilled
Perillus
perilous
perilouse
perilously
perils
perimeter
Perinthos
Perinthus
period
periodic
periodical
periodically
periodicals
periods
PERIOECI
Peripatetic
Peripatetics
peripatos
peripheries
Periplus
Peripoli
Perisabor
perish
perishable
perished
perishes
perishing
peristyle
peritonæum
periwinkle
Perizzites
Periœci
Periœkis
perjure
perjured
perjuries
Perjury
Perkin
PERKINS
Permacoil
permanence
permanency
permanent
permanently
permeate
permeated
permeating
Permede
permissible
permission
permissions
permit
permits
permitted
permitting
Pernambuco
pernicious
perniciously
perniciousness
Peronne
peroration
Perosa
Peroso
Perouse
Perovsky
perpendicular
perpendicularly
Perperna
perpetrate
perpetrated
perpetration
perpetrators
Perpetua
perpetual
perpetually
perpetuance
perpetuate
perpetuated
perpetuates
perpetuating
perpetuation
perpetuique
perpetuity
perpetuus
Perpignan
perplex
perplexed
perplexes
perplexing
perplexities
perplexity
Perponcher
perquisite
perquisites
perquisitions
PERRAUD
Perrenotte
PERRENS
Perrers
PERRHÆBIANS
Perrhæbian
Perrhæbians
Perrin
PERROT
Perry
Perryville
Persagadæ
Persan
Persano
PERSARGADÆ
Persarmenia
persecute
persecuted
persecuting
Persecution
persecutions
persecutor
persecutors
PERSEIDÆ
Perseidæ
Persephone
PERSEPOLIS
Perseus
perseverance
persevere
persevered
persevering
perseveringly
Persia
Persian
Persians
Persigny
persist
persisted
persistence
persistency
persistent
persistently
persisting
Perso
person
persona
personage
personages
personal
personalities
personality
personally
personam
personate
personated
personation
personification
personified
personify
personnel
persons
Personæ
perspective
perspectives
perspicuity
perspicuous
perspiration
persuade
persuaded
persuades
persuading
persuasion
persuasions
persuasive
Persuasiveness
perswaded
Pertabgarh
pertain
pertained
pertaineth
pertaining
pertains
Pertaub
Perth
Perthes
Perthshire
Perticarum
perticuler
pertinacious
pertinacity
Pertinax
pertinence
pertinent
perturbation
perturbations
perturbators
perturbed
perturber
Pertus
Peru
Perugia
Perugian
Perugino
peruke
perukes
Perun
Perus
perusal
peruse
perused
Perusia
perusing
Peruvian
Peruvians
Peruzzi
pervade
pervaded
pervades
pervading
perverse
perversely
perverseness
perversion
perversity
pervert
perverted
perverters
perverting
Peræa
Pes
Pesara
Pesaro
Pescara
Pescennius
Peschek
Peschel
Peschiera
Peshawar
Peshawur
Peshito
Peshwa
Peshwas
peso
pesos
pessimism
pessimist
pest
Pestalozzi
Pestalozzian
pestered
Pesth
Pesthi
Pestilence
pestilences
pestilent
pestilential
pests
pet
petalism
Petavius
Petcheneges
Petchora
petechial
Peter
Peterborough
Peterhouse
Peterloo
Petermann
Peters
Petersburg
Petersburgh
Petersen
Petersham
Petersilie
Peterswald
PETERVARDEIN
Petervardin
Peterwardein
Petherick
Peticola
petiefogger
Petilia
Petion
petit
Petite
petites
petition
petitioned
petitioner
petitioners
petitioning
petitions
Petitot
Petits
Petra
Petracheffsky
Petrarca
Petrarch
Petre
Petreity
Petreius
Petri
Petrie
petrified
petrifying
Petrine
Petris
Petro
PETROBRUSIANS
PETROCORII
petroleum
Petrone
PETRONILLA
Petronius
Petrovic
Petrovitch
Petrowskoié
Petrucci
Petrus
Petrussovitch
Petræa
Petschenegs
Petsi
petted
Petter
petticoat
petticoats
pettier
pettiest
pettifogging
PETTIGREW
pettiness
petty
Pettyquamscott
petulant
petulantly
Petun
Petzenegoi
Peuce
Peucini
PEUKETIANS
Peuple
peuples
Peur
peut
Peutinger
Peutingeria
PEUTINGERIAN
Pevensey
pew
pews
pewter
Peyrat
Peyrière
Peyster
Peyton
Pezet
Pezuela
Pfaffenkönig
Pfalfy
Pfalz
Pfalzburg
PFALZGRAF
Pfalzstädte
Pfeil
pfennig
pfennigs
Pfizer
Pflug
Pfühl
Ph
Phacusa
PHACUSEH
Phagocyte
phagocytes
Phaja
Phalange
phalangite
PHALANGITES
phalansterian
Phalanstery
Phalantus
phalanx
Phalanxes
Phalaris
Phalassar
Phaleas
Phalerean
Phalereus
Phalerian
Phaleron
Phaleros
Phalerum
Phalerus
Phalsbourg
Phalêrum
Phanagoria
Phanar
Phanariote
PHANARIOTES
Phanariots
Phanes
Phanias
Phantasm
phantasmagoria
phantis
phantom
phantoms
Phaon
Pharamund
Pharaoh
PHARAOHITES
Pharaohs
Pharaonic
Pharas
pharasaical
Pharisaic
Pharisaism
Pharisee
Pharisees
pharishah
Pharlane
pharmaceutical
pharmacies
pharmacopœia
pharmacy
Pharnabazus
Pharnaces
Pharonx
pharos
PHARSALIA
Pharsalian
Pharsalus
Phasael
Phasaelis
phase
Phaselis
phases
Phasis
Phayr
Pheasants
Pheidias
Pheidon
Phelan
Phelim
Phelps
Phenicia
Phenician
Phenicians
phenomena
phenomenal
phenomenally
phenomenon
Pherozes
PHERÆ
Pheræ
Phi
phial
Phidias
Phidon
Phil
Phila
Philadelphia
Philadelphos
Philadelphus
Philaeni
philanthropic
Philanthropinum
philanthropist
philanthropists
philanthropy
Philaret
Philbrick
Philemon
Philetas
Philetærus
Philhellene
Philhellenic
Philhellenism
Philibert
Philip
Philipeaux
PHILIPHAUGH
Philipine
Philippa
Philippart
Philippe
Philippeaux
Philippenes
Philippeville
Philippi
Philippians
Philippic
PHILIPPICS
PHILIPPICUS
Philippine
Philippines
Philippopolis
Philippsburg
Philips
Philipsburg
Philipse
Philipsthal
Philipville
Philistia
Philistian
Philistina
Philistine
Philistines
Phill
Phillimore
Phillip
Phillipeville
Phillipics
Phillipines
Phillippe
Phillippicus
Phillips
Phillipstown
PHILLPOTTS
Philo
PHILOCRATES
Philodemus
philologer
philologers
philological
philologically
philologist
philologists
philology
Philopappos
Philopator
Philopoimen
Philopœmen
Philorthodox
philosopher
philosophers
Philosophes
philosophi
philosophic
philosophical
philosophically
Philosophie
Philosophies
philosophique
philosophize
philosophizing
Philosophoumena
philosophy
Philostorgius
Philostratus
Philoxenian
Philpot
Philus
Philæ
Philæni
phing
Phinney
Phipps
Phips
phlegm
phlegmatic
phlegmatically
Phliasia
Phliasian
Phlious
PHLIUS
phlogiston
Phocaea
Phocaeans
Phocas
Phocian
Phocians
Phocion
Phocis
Phocus
PHOCÆANS
Phocæa
Phocæans
Phoebidas
Phoenicia
Phoenician
Phoenicians
PHOENIX
Phokaians
Phokas
Phokian
PHOKIANS
Phokis
Phokylidês
PHOKÆANS
Phokæa
Phokæan
Pholegandrus
phonascus
phonetic
phonetics
phonological
phonology
Phormio
Phormion
Phormiôn
phosphorus
Photius
Photo
photographed
photographers
photographs
photography
Phoœnician
Phra
phrase
phraseology
phrases
phratric
Phratries
Phratrius
PHRATRIÆ
Phratriæ
Phratry
Phrygia
Phrygian
Phrygians
Phrynichus
Phryxus
phthisis
Phthiôtic
phttps
Phusis
Phut
phylactery
phylarch
Phyle
Phyllidas
PHYLÆ
Phylæ
Phyrgia
physic
physical
physically
physici
physician
physicians
physicke
physico
physics
Physicus
physiognomies
physiognomy
physiognostica
physiolatry
physiological
Physiologically
physiologist
physiologists
physiology
physique
PHÆACIANS
Phæacians
Phæakians
Phænarete
phænomena
Phèdre
Phôkæa
PHŒNICIA
PHŒNICIAN
PHŒNICIANS
Phœbidas
Phœbus
Phœicia
Phœnicia
Phœnician
Phœnicians
Phœnicium
Phœnix
Pi
Pia
Piacenza
piagnoni
Piali
Pianezza
pianger
piani
Piankishaw
Piankishaws
Piano
PIASSES
Piast
piastres
PIASTS
Piave
Piazetta
Piazza
pica
Picard
Picardie
Picards
Picardy
Picayune
Piccinino
Piccolomini
PICENIANS
Picenum
Pichegru
Pichincha
pick
pickaninnies
Pickawillany
pickaxes
picked
Pickens
Pickering
picket
picketed
picketing
pickets
Pickett
picking
pickled
Pickles
pickpockets
picks
Pickwick
Pico
Picolata
Picot
Picquets
Pict
picta
Pictavi
Pictavia
Picti
Pictish
pictographic
pictography
Picton
PICTONES
Pictor
Pictorial
pictorially
Picts
picture
pictured
pictures
picturesque
picturesquely
picturesqueness
picturing
Picunche
Piczino
PIDGEON
Pie
piece
pieced
piecemeal
pieces
piecing
Pied
Piedmont
Piedmontese
Piedras
pieds
Piegan
Piegans
Piemont
pier
Pierce
pierced
pierces
piercing
Piercy
Pieria
Pierians
Pierino
Piero
Pierpont
Pierre
piers
Pierson
pies
Piet
Pieter
Pietermaritzburg
pieties
Pietro
piety
Piexoto
pig
Pigafetta
Pigeon
Pigeonneau
pigliando
pigment
pigmy
Pignatelli
Pignerol
PIGNOTTI
Pigott
pigs
Pigu
pih
pike
pikes
Pikoweu
Pilate
Pilatus
Pilco
Pilcomayo
pile
piled
piles
Pilesar
Pileser
pilfering
Pilgrim
pilgrimage
pilgrimages
pilgrimes
pilgrims
piling
Pilkington
pillage
pillaged
pillagers
pillages
pillaging
pillar
pillars
Pillau
pillion
Pillnitz
pilloried
pillories
pillory
Pillow
PILNITZ
PILON
Pilony
pilot
piloted
pilots
Pilsbury
Pilsen
pilum
Pima
PIMAN
Pimas
Pimblett
Pimenteiras
Pin
Pinaleños
Pinarus
pincers
pinch
pinchbeck
pinched
pincher
Pinches
pinching
Pincian
Pinckney
Pindar
Pindari
Pindaris
PINDHARIES
Pindi
Pindus
pine
pined
Pineda
PINEL
Pinerola
Pinerolo
Pines
Ping
pingdom
Pingium
pings
pining
PINK
Pinkerton
PINKIE
Pinkney
pinnace
pinnaces
pinnacle
pinnacles
pinned
Pinney
pinning
Pinola
Pinsk
pint
Pinta
Pintard
Pinto
Pinzon
Pinzons
Pinçon
Pio
piombi
Piombino
Pioneer
pioneered
Pioneers
Pious
piously
PIPE
Piper
pipes
Pipin
piping
Pippin
Pippins
Piqua
Piquant
pique
piquet
piquets
Pir
piraa
Piracies
piracy
Piraeeus
Piraeus
pirate
pirated
pirates
piratic
piratical
Piratininga
Pirch
Pirkheimer
PIRMASENS
Pirminius
Pirna
Pirot
Pirthi
Piru
PIRÆUS
Piræeus
Piræus
Pisa
Pisagua
Pisan
Pisander
Pisani
Pisano
Pisans
Pisatis
Piscataqua
Pisces
Pisco
Piseck
Pisidia
Pisidians
Pisistratides
Pisistratids
PISISTRATIDÆ
Pisistratidæ
Pisistratus
Piso
Pissouthnes
Pissuthnes
pistachio
PISTICS
Pistis
Pistoia
pistol
pistols
piston
Pistoya
pit
Pitcairn
pitch
pitched
pitchfork
pitchforks
pitching
piteous
piteously
pitfalls
pith
Pithaura
PITHECUSA
Pithoigia
Pithom
pithy
pitiable
pitied
pitiful
pitiless
pitilessly
Pitkin
pits
Pitt
Pittakus
pittance
pitted
PITTENGER
Pitti
Pittites
Pittman
Pitts
Pittsburg
PITTSBURGH
Pittsfield
pity
pitying
Pityus
Piura
Pius
Piutes
pivot
Pixii
Piyy
Pizarro
Pizarros
Pizzighitone
Pizzo
Piæeus
Piété
Piërna
Pl
Pla
placable
Placard
placarded
Placards
placate
placated
place
placebos
placed
placemen
placenta
Placentia
Placenza
placers
places
placet
placid
Placidia
PLACILLA
placing
placita
placito
Placitorum
Placitum
Placé
plage
plague
plagues
plaguy
PLAID
Plaids
plain
Plaine
plainer
plainest
plainly
plainness
plains
Plaint
plaintiff
plaintiffs
plaintive
plaints
Plaisance
Plaisantine
plaisir
plaisirs
plaited
plaiting
plan
Planchas
Planchenoit
Plancus
plane
planet
Planetarum
planets
planisphere
plank
planked
planking
planks
planned
planning
plans
plant
Planta
plantacon
Plantagenet
Plantagenets
plantagenista
Plantation
plantations
plantator
plantators
planted
planter
planters
Plantes
planting
plants
Plaquemines
PLASSEY
Plassy
plaster
plastered
plasterer
plastering
plasters
plastic
plat
Plata
Plataea
Plataeae
Plataiai
Platana
platanos
plate
plateau
plateaux
plated
plateing
plater
plates
platform
Platforms
plating
platinum
platitudes
Plato
Platof
Platonic
Platonism
Platonists
platoon
platoons
plats
Platt
Platte
platters
Plattsburg
platynocephalous
PLATÆA
Platæa
Platæan
Platæans
Platæid
Platææ
plaudits
Plauen
plausibilities
plausibility
plausible
plausibly
Plautianus
Plautilla
PLAUTIO
Plautius
Plautus
Plavis
play
playa
played
player
players
Playfair
playgrounds
playing
plays
plaything
playthings
plaza
plea
plead
pleaded
pleader
pleaders
pleading
pleadings
pleads
pleas
pleasant
pleasanter
pleasantly
pleasantness
pleasantry
pleasaunce
please
pleased
pleases
pleaseth
pleasing
pleasingly
Pleasonton
pleasure
pleasures
plebe
plebeian
plebeians
plebis
plebiscita
plebiscite
Plebiscites
plebs
pledge
pledged
pledges
pledgets
pledging
Pleiades
pleins
Pleisse
Pleistarchus
Pleistoanax
pleistocene
plenary
Plenciz
plenipotentiaries
plenipotentiary
plenitude
plenteous
plentiful
plentifully
plentifulness
plenty
pleo
Plessis
Plesswitz
Pleswitz
plethora
Plevna
pliable
pliancy
pliant
plied
plight
plighted
plighting
plinths
Pliny
Plock
plodded
plodding
Plombières
Plomer
Plon
plot
Plotina
Plotinus
plots
plotted
plotters
plotting
plottings
plough
ploughboy
ploughed
ploughing
ploughman
ploughs
ploughshare
ploughshares
Plover
plow
Plowden
Plowman
plows
pluck
plucked
plucking
plugs
plum
plumbatæ
plume
Plumed
plumes
Plummer
plump
Plumsted
plunder
plundered
plunderers
plundering
plunderous
plunge
plunged
plunging
Plunkett
plural
plurality
pluribus
Pluries
plus
Plutarch
plutocratic
Pluton
PLUVIÔSE
Pluviôse
ply
plying
Plymouth
plymouthcolony
PLÄNE
plébiscite
plébiscites
Pneuma
Pneumatic
pneumonia
Pnyx
Po
poachers
Pobedonosteff
Pocahontas
pocahontas00seel
Pock
pocket
pocketing
pockets
poco
Pocock
Pococke
Pocotaligo
pocula
Podabe
Podalirius
podesta
podestas
Podiebrad
Podobenoszew
Podolia
Poe
poem
Poems
poenituerit
poesy
poet
poeta
poetastering
poetic
poetical
poetically
Poetico
Poeticum
poetry
poets
Pogge
Poggibonzi
Poggio
Poggios
Pogonatus
Pohjola
Poictiers
poignant
poinarded
Poincy
Poindexter
Poinsett
point
Pointe
pointed
pointedly
pointer
pointing
Pointis
points
Poischwitz
poison
poisoned
poisoning
poisonous
poisons
Poissonnière
Poissy
Poitevin
Poitiers
Poitou
Pojarski
Pokanoket
Pokanokets
Pokernacutt
Pokonchi
Pokono
Pol
Pola
Polabic
Polack
Polanco
Poland
Polar
Polaris
polarity
polders
Pole
Polemarch
polemarchs
polemic
polemical
Polemon
Polen
Polenta
Poles
POLETERIUM
POLETÆ
poletæ
Polians
Polias
police
policed
policeman
policemen
policie
policied
policies
policing
policy
Polidor
polie
Polignac
Polignacs
Polio
Poliorcetes
Polish
polished
polishing
Polit
polite
politely
politeness
politic
politica
political
politically
politician
politicians
politico
politics
politicus
polities
Politikos
politique
Politiques
politische
Politischen
Politorium
polity
Polk
POLKOS
poll
Pollard
polled
pollen
Pollender
Pollentia
POLLICES
polling
Pollio
pollitique
Pollock
polls
Pollus
polluted
polluting
pollution
Pollux
polnischen
Polo
Polonna
Polotsk
Polovtzi
polska
Poltaratski
Poltava
poltroon
Poltrot
poly
polyandry
polyarchy
Polybios
Polybius
Polychronicon
Polycrates
Polydamna
Polydore
Polyeuctes
polygamic
polygamist
polygamous
Polygamy
polygons
Polynesea
Polynesian
POLYNESIANS
polypharmacists
Polypotamia
Polypus
Polysperchon
Polystratus
polysyllabic
polysynthetic
Polysæmon
Polytechnic
polytheism
polytheist
Polytimetus
Polæologus
pomades
Pombal
Pombeiros
pomegranate
pomegranates
Pomentium
Pomerania
Pomeranian
Pomeranians
Pomerellen
Pomerelllen
POMERIUM
Pomeroon
POMEROY
Pometia
Pomfret
Pommerellen
Pommern
Pomoerium
pomp
Pompadour
Pompeia
Pompeian
Pompeians
POMPEII
Pompeius
Pompey
Pompeys
Pompeïus
Pompilius
Pomponins
Pomponio
Pomponius
Pomposa
pompous
pompously
Pomptine
Pompton
POMPÆ
pomœrium
Ponca
PONCAS
Ponce
Poncha
PONCHALON
Pond
ponder
pondered
pondering
ponderous
Pondicherry
Pondichéry
ponds
pondus
pone
Ponente
Ponet
poniard
poniards
Poniatowski
Poniatowsky
Ponickausche
ponies
PONKAS
PONS
Ponsonby
Pont
Pontalis
Pontarlier
Pontcharra
Pontchartrain
Ponte
Pontecorvo
Pontefice
Pontefract
Pontgravé
Ponthieu
PONTIAC
Pontianus
Pontiatine
Pontic
Pontica
Pontida
Pontifex
Pontiff
pontiffs
Pontifical
Pontificalis
pontificals
pontificate
pontificates
pontifices
Pontigny
Pontine
Pontius
Pontlevoi
Pontoise
ponton
pontoniers
pontoon
pontoons
Pontotoc
Ponts
Pontus
Ponza
Ponzio
Ponzoni
pooh
poohed
pool
Poole
pools
Poona
poop
pooped
poops
poor
Poore
poorer
poorest
poorhouses
poorly
pooste
Popayan
Pope
popedom
Popelhards
Poperinge
Poperingen
Popery
popes
Popham
popish
poplar
popliteal
Popocatopetl
Popol
Popolani
popoli
Popolo
popoloca
Popolocas
Poppaea
poppy
populace
Popular
Populares
popularis
popularise
popularised
popularising
popularity
popularize
popularized
popularizing
popularly
populate
populated
populating
population
populations
populi
Populist
Populists
populor
populous
populousness
populus
poquauhock
Porcaro
porcelain
Porch
Porchester
Porcia
Porcian
Porcien
Porcius
Porcupine
Porcus
Pores
Porfirio
poring
pork
Pormort
Pornic
PORNOCRACY
porous
Porphyorgenitus
porphyries
Porphyrius
Porphyrogeniti
PORPHYROGENITUS
Porphyrogennetus
porphyry
Porpoise
Porra
Porritt
Porrois
PORSCHKE
Port
porta
portable
portage
portages
Portail
portal
Portarlington
PORTCHESTER
portcullis
Porte
portended
portent
portentous
portents
Porteous
Porter
Porterfield
porters
Porteños
Portfolio
Portici
portico
porticoes
porticos
Portier
Portillo
portion
portioning
portions
Portius
Portland
portmanteaus
portmote
Portnadown
Portnaw
Portneuf
Porto
PORTOBELLO
PORTOLONGO
Portraicture
portrait
portraits
Portraiture
portray
portrayal
portrayed
portraying
portrays
ports
Portsmouth
Portucalensis
PORTUGAL
Portugals
Portuguesa
Portuguese
Portugueze
Portus
Porus
Poschega
Poschiavo
posed
Poseidon
Poseidonia
Poseidôn
Posen
Posey
Posideon
Posidon
Posidonia
Posidus
Posilipo
posing
position
positions
positive
positively
positiveness
positivist
Posnania
posse
possess
possessed
possesses
possessing
Possessio
possession
possessions
possessive
possessor
possessors
possessory
possibilities
possibility
possible
possibly
possidetis
possint
post
POSTAGE
Postal
Postboy
Postboys
Postcards
Poste
postea
posted
posterior
posterities
posterity
postern
Posters
posthouse
Posthuma
Posthumous
posthumously
Posthumus
posting
postman
Postmaster
postmasters
Postmen
postpone
postponed
postponement
postponing
posts
postscripts
postulated
POSTUMIAN
Postumius
Postumus
posture
postures
pot
Potatau
potations
potato
potatoes
Potchefstrom
Potemkin
potency
potent
potentate
potentates
Potente
potential
potentially
potestas
potestatem
Potestà
Potgiesserus
Potherie
Potidaea
POTIDÆA
Potidæa
Potidæans
potion
potiori
Potitus
potle
Potocchi
Potocki
Potomac
Potosi
Potowotamies
Potreros
pots
Potsdam
potsherd
potsherds
Pott
Pottawatamies
Pottawatomies
Pottawattamies
Pottawattomie
Pottawotomi
Pottawottamies
potted
Potter
potteries
potters
pottery
Pottinger
potwalloper
Pouch
pouches
Pouchot
poudres
Poughkeepsie
Poulson
poultry
pounce
pounced
pound
POUNDAGE
pounded
pounder
pounders
pounding
pounds
pour
poured
pouring
pourparlers
pours
poursuite
Poutrincourt
Pouzan
Pouzzoli
poverties
poverty
Povoador
powder
powdered
Powderly
Powders
Powell
power
powerful
powerfully
powerless
powerlessness
powers
Powhatan
POWHATANS
Powis
Pownall
Powys
pox
Poyndah
POYNING
Poynings
Pozsony
POZZI
Pozzo
Pozzuoli
pp
Pr
practicability
practicable
practical
practically
practice
practiced
practices
practicing
practick
practise
practised
practises
practising
practitioner
practitioners
Prado
Pradt
praedictae
Praefect
praefectus
praemunire
Praeneste
praeses
Praet
Praetor
Praetoria
Praetoriae
praetorian
praetorians
praetorianum
praetorio
Praetorium
praetors
Praga
Pragelas
pragma
Pragmatic
Pragmatica
Pragmaticum
Prague
PRAGUERIE
Prah
Prairial
prairie
Prairies
praise
praised
Praisegod
praises
praiseworthy
praising
Prajapati
Prakrit
Prakrita
prances
pranks
Prasiæ
Praslin
Prasutagus
Prater
prating
PRATO
Pratt
Pratz
Pravadi
Praxagoreaus
Praxiteles
Pray
Praya
Prayaga
prayed
prayer
prayerfully
prayers
praying
prays
prceed
pre
preach
preached
preacher
preachers
preaches
preaching
preachings
preamble
prebend
prebendal
prebendaries
Preble
precarious
precariously
precaution
Precautionary
precautions
precede
preceded
precedence
precedency
precedent
precedents
precedes
preceding
precept
preceptor
preceptories
preceptors
preceptory
precepts
Preciani
Precieuses
precinct
precincts
precious
preciousness
precipice
precipices
precipitancy
precipitate
Precipitated
precipitately
precipitating
precipitation
precipitous
precise
precisely
precision
preclude
precluded
precludes
precluding
precocious
precocity
preconceived
preconcerted
Precurser
precursor
Precursors
predatory
predecessor
predecessors
predestinarianism
predestinated
predestination
predestined
predetermined
predial
predicament
predicaments
predicate
predicated
predict
predicted
predicting
prediction
predictions
predicts
predilection
predilections
predisposing
predisposition
predominance
predominancy
predominant
predominantly
predominate
predominated
predominates
predominating
predominence
PREECE
preeminence
preeminences
preeminent
preeminently
preempted
preemption
Pref
Preface
prefaced
prefaces
Prefatory
prefect
Prefectorial
prefects
prefecture
Prefectures
prefer
preferable
preferably
prefered
preference
preferences
preferential
preferment
preferments
preferred
preferring
prefers
prefigure
prefigured
prefix
prefixed
prefixes
prefixing
pregadi
pregnant
prehistoric
prehistorical
prejudge
prejudged
prejudice
prejudiced
prejudices
prejudicial
prejudicially
prelacies
Prelacy
prelate
prelates
prelatical
Prelatists
prelim
preliminaries
preliminarily
preliminary
prelude
preluded
Preludes
premature
prematurely
premeditated
premeditation
Premier
premiership
premise
premised
premises
PREMISLAUS
premium
premiums
première
premonition
premonitions
premonitory
PREMONSTRATENSIAN
Premonstratensians
Premunire
Premysl
Premyslide
Premyslides
Prendergast
prenomen
Prentice
prentices
Prentiss
Prentzlow
preoccupations
preoccupied
prepaid
preparation
preparations
preparative
preparatories
preparatory
prepare
prepared
preparedness
preparer
prepares
preparing
prepaying
prepayment
preponderance
preponderant
preponderate
preponderated
preponderates
preponderating
preponderatingly
prepossessing
prepossession
prepossessions
preposterous
prerequisite
prerogative
prerogatives
PRES
presage
presaged
presages
Presburg
Presburgh
presbyter
presbyterial
Presbyterian
Presbyterianism
Presbyterians
presbyteries
presbyters
Presbytery
Prescient
Prescott
prescribe
prescribed
prescribes
prescribing
prescription
prescriptions
prescriptive
prescriptively
presence
present
presentation
presentations
presented
presentiment
presenting
presently
presentment
presentments
presents
preservation
preservative
preserve
preserved
preserver
preservers
preserves
preserving
preside
presided
Presidencies
presidency
President
Presidential
presidents
presides
Presidii
presiding
PRESIDIO
presidios
Presidium
Presidt
Presqu
Presque
Press
PRESSBURG
Presse
pressed
Pressense
PRESSENSÉ
Pressensé
presses
Pressfreiheit
pressing
pressingly
pressure
pressures
Prest
PRESTER
prestige
Preston
Prestonburg
Prestonpans
Prestwich
presumable
presumably
presume
presumed
presumedly
presumes
presuming
presumption
Presumptions
presumptive
presumptuous
presuppose
presupposed
presupposes
presupposing
presupposition
PRETAXATION
pretence
pretences
pretend
pretendant
pretended
pretendedly
pretender
pretenders
pretending
pretends
pretense
pretenses
pretension
pretensions
pretentions
pretentious
preternatural
pretext
pretexta
pretexts
pretious
Pretium
Preto
Pretoria
pretorian
pretty
Preuss
Preussen
Preussens
preussichen
Preussische
preussischen
preux
prevail
prevailed
prevailing
prevails
prevalence
prevalent
prevaricated
prevarications
prevent
preventative
prevented
preventing
prevention
preventive
prevents
previous
previously
prevision
Prevost
prey
preyed
Preëminence
preëminent
preëminently
prfesse
Priam
Pribilov
Pribislaw
price
priced
priceless
prices
PRICHARD
prick
pricked
pricking
prickly
pride
Prideaux
prided
Prie
Priene
Prienean
Prierias
priest
priestcraft
priestess
priestesses
priesthood
priesthoods
Priestley
priestly
priests
Prietas
Prieur
Prignani
Prignitz
Prim
Prima
Primacy
primaire
primal
primarily
primary
primate
Primates
Prime
Primer
Primers
primeval
Primi
primitive
primitively
Primo
primogeniture
primordial
Primrose
primum
primus
primæval
Prince
Princedom
princelie
princelings
princely
princeps
princes
Princess
Princesses
Princeton
principal
principales
principalities
principality
principally
principals
principate
Principe
principes
Principia
principibus
principio
principle
principles
Pring
Pringle
print
printed
printer
printers
printing
prints
printsec
Printz
Prinzenraub
prior
priori
priories
priority
priors
priory
Pripet
pris
PRISAGE
Prisca
prisci
Priscian
priscorum
Priscus
prise
prison
prisoner
prisoners
prisonibus
prisons
Prissac
Prisse
Pristina
pristine
prit
prius
privacies
privacy
Privas
Privat
Private
privateer
Privateering
privateers
privately
privates
privation
privations
privatus
Priviledge
priviledged
privilege
privileged
privileges
Privilegie
Privilegium
privity
Privy
Priyadarsi
prize
prized
prizes
Priênê
Pro
prob
probabilities
probability
probable
probably
Probate
probates
probation
probationers
Probe
probed
probi
probities
probity
problem
problematical
problems
Probstheida
Probtsheyda
Probuli
Probus
Probyn
Proc
procedure
procedures
proceed
proceeded
proceedeth
proceeding
proceedings
proceeds
Procerum
process
processes
procession
processions
Procida
proclaim
proclaimed
proclaiming
proclaims
proclamation
proclamations
proclivities
Proconsul
proconsular
proconsuls
Proconsulship
Procopius
procrastinated
procrastination
Procter
Proctor
proctors
procuradores
procuration
Procurator
procurators
procure
procured
procurement
procurer
procureur
procuring
Prodere
Prodieus
prodigal
prodigality
prodigies
prodigious
prodigiously
prodigy
produce
produced
producer
producers
produces
producible
producing
product
production
productions
productive
productiveness
productivity
products
proedri
proethnic
Prof
profanation
profanations
profane
profaned
profaneness
profaners
profanity
proferred
profert
profess
professed
professedly
Professer
professes
professing
profession
professional
professionally
professions
Professor
Professorat
professorial
professoriate
professors
professorship
professorships
proffer
proffered
proffers
proficiency
proficient
profile
profiles
profit
profitable
profitableness
profitably
profited
profiting
profitless
profits
profitted
profligacy
profligate
profligately
profound
profounder
profoundest
Profoundly
profundity
profuse
profusely
profusion
progenitor
progenitors
progeny
prognosis
prognostic
prognosticated
Prognostications
program
Programm
programme
programmes
programs
Progresistas
Progress
progressed
progresses
progressing
progression
progressional
Progressist
Progressists
progressive
progressively
Progrès
Progymnasien
progymnasiums
prohibit
prohibited
prohibiting
prohibition
Prohibitionist
PROHIBITIONISTS
Prohibitions
prohibitive
prohibitory
prohibits
prohibitum
project
Projected
projectile
projectiles
projecting
projection
projections
projector
projectors
projects
projet
Prokonnesos
Prolegomena
proletarians
proletariat
proletariate
proletariates
prolific
prolifically
prolocutor
prologue
prolong
prolongation
prolongations
prolonged
prolonging
prolongs
Promanty
Prome
promenade
promenaded
promenaders
promenades
Prometheus
prominence
prominent
prominently
promiscuous
promiscuously
promise
promised
promisee
promises
promising
promisingly
promisor
promissory
promontories
PROMONTORY
promote
promoted
promoter
promoters
promotes
Promoting
promotion
promotions
promotive
promotors
prompt
prompted
prompting
promptings
promptitude
promptly
promptness
prompts
promulgate
promulgated
promulgates
promulgating
promulgation
promulgator
promulge
prone
proneness
prong
pronoun
pronounce
pronounced
pronounces
pronouncing
pronunciamento
pronunciamiento
pronunciamientos
pronunciation
proof
proofs
prop
propaganda
Propagandism
propagandists
propagate
propagated
propagating
Propagation
propagators
propel
propelled
propeller
propelling
propensities
propensity
proper
properly
Propert
properties
property
prophecies
prophecy
prophesied
prophesies
Prophesying
PROPHESYINGS
prophet
prophetess
prophetesses
Prophetic
prophetical
prophetically
Prophets
Prophthasia
prophylactic
prophylactics
Prophètes
propinquity
propitiate
propitiated
propitiation
propitious
Propontis
proportion
proportionably
proportional
proportionally
proportionate
proportionately
proportioned
proportions
proposal
proposals
propose
proposed
proposer
proposes
proposing
proposition
propositions
propound
propounded
propounder
propounds
propre
proprietaries
proprietary
proprieties
Proprietor
proprietors
proprietorship
propriety
propriété
PROPRÆTOR
proprætor
props
propter
propulsion
PROPYLÆA
Propylæa
prorogation
prorogue
prorogued
prorogues
proroguing
prorsus
prosaic
proscribe
proscribed
proscribing
proscription
proscriptions
proscripts
prose
prosecute
prosecuted
prosecuting
prosecution
prosecutions
prosecutor
prosecutors
proselyte
proselytes
proselyting
proselytising
proselytism
prosequi
proseuchæ
proslavery
prosody
Prosopitis
prospect
prospecting
prospective
prospectively
prospectors
Prospects
Prospectus
prosper
prospered
prospering
prosperity
Prospero
prosperous
prosperously
prospers
Prostatæ
prostitute
prostituted
prostitutes
prostitution
prostrate
prostrated
prostrating
prostration
Protagoras
Prote
protect
protected
protecting
protection
protectionism
protectionist
Protectionists
protections
Protective
Protector
Protectoral
Protectorate
protectorates
Protectores
protectors
protectress
protects
protege
proteges
protegé
protegée
protest
Protestant
protestantische
Protestantism
Protestants
protestation
protestations
protested
Protesters
protesting
protests
Prothero
proto
protocol
protocols
protoplasm
PROTOSEVASTOS
prototype
prototypes
protract
protracted
protracting
protraction
protruded
protruding
protuberance
protégé
protégée
protégés
proud
prouder
proudest
Proudfit
PROUDHON
proudly
proue
Proust
Prout
Prov
prove
proved
proveditori
proven
Provence
provençal
Provençals
Provençaux
Provera
proverb
proverbial
proverbially
proverbs
proves
providatore
provide
provided
Providence
Providences
provident
providential
providentially
providently
provides
providing
province
provinces
Provincetown
provincia
provincial
Provinciales
provincialisms
provincialized
Provincials
provinciam
proving
Provins
provinzen
Provinzial
provision
Provisional
provisionally
provisioned
provisioning
provisions
proviso
Provisors
provisory
provisos
provoaking
provocation
provocations
provocative
provoke
provoked
provokes
provoking
provokingly
provost
provosts
provostship
prow
prowess
prowl
prowled
prows
Prowse
Proxeni
Proxenus
proxies
proximate
proximity
proxy
prportion
prpownded
prsearue
prsent
prson
prsons
prt
prte
prty
prtyes
prud
prudence
prudent
Prudente
prudential
prudentials
Prudentius
prudently
prudentum
Prudhomme
Prudhon
pruided
pruidence
prune
pruned
pruning
prurient
PRUSA
Prusse
Prussia
Prussian
Prussians
Prutaneion
Pruth
Prutz
prvided
Pry
Prydyn
prying
Prynne
Prynnes
prytaneia
Prytaneis
prytanes
prytaneum
PRYTANIS
Prytany
Prytskaia
Pryttisc
PRÆFECTS
PRÆMUNIRE
PRÆNESTE
PRÆNOMEN
PRÆTOR
PRÆTORIAN
PRÆTORIANS
PRÆTORIUM
PRÆTORS
PRÉFÊTS
Prättigau
Prätzen
prædial
Prædicatores
Prædicatorum
præfect
præfects
præfectural
præfecture
præfectus
Præmonstratensian
Præmunire
Præneste
prænomen
prætexta
prætor
prætores
prætorian
Prætorians
prætorium
prætors
Prætorship
Prætos
Prè
près
Pré
Précieuse
Précieuses
précédée
préfets
préfêt
présents
Prévôt
prêche
prêtres
prœcipe
Prœtidic
Prœtus
psalm
Psalmist
psalmody
Psalms
Psalter
psalters
psaltery
Psammenitus
Psammetichus
Psammeticus
Psammitichus
Psamtik
PSEPHISM
pseud
Pseudo
pseudomania
pseudonym
pseudonyms
Pskof
pson
Psyche
psychological
psychologique
psychologist
psychology
pt
Ptacek
Ptah
Ptarsko
Pteleum
Ptolemaic
Ptolemais
Ptolemaïs
Ptolemies
Ptolemy
Ptolemys
Ptolemäus
Ptolemæus
Ptomaine
ptomaines
Ptoïum
Puans
Pub
pubblici
pubblico
puberty
Pubhke
pubic
public
publica
publicam
publicando
Publicani
publicans
Publication
publications
Publiciani
publicist
publicists
publicity
Publick
publickly
publicly
Publicola
Publicum
publicus
publike
PUBLILIAN
Publilius
publique
publish
published
publisher
publishers
publisheth
Publishing
Publius
Pubs
puce
Pucelle
Puckenakick
Puckering
puddings
puddle
Pudens
Pudentiana
Puebla
pueblo
PUEBLOS
Puelle
PUELTS
puerile
puerilities
Puerta
PUERTO
Pueyrredon
puffed
puffer
puffing
puffs
Pugacheff
Puget
Pugh
pugilists
pugnacious
Puigcerdá
Puisaye
puisne
puissant
PUJUNAN
Pujuni
Pul
Pulaski
Pulawski
Pulcheria
Pulci
Pulckerie
Pulgar
Puliars
Pulignano
PULILIA
pull
Pullani
pulled
Pulleine
Puller
pullers
pulli
pulling
Pullman
pulmonary
pulpit
pulpits
pulse
pulses
PULSIFER
Pulszky
Pultawa
Pulteney
Pultney
Pultowa
Pultusk
Pulu
pulverizati
Pulvis
Pumacagua
Pumbaditha
pump
pumped
pumping
pumps
pun
Puna
Puncas
punch
Punchard
punched
punctilio
punctilious
punctiliously
punctual
punctually
punctuate
punctuation
pungent
Punic
Punicus
punish
punishable
punished
punishes
punishest
punishing
punishment
punishments
punitive
Punitz
punivit
Punjab
PUNJAUB
Punjunan
punning
Puno
puns
Punt
puny
Pupienus
pupil
pupilage
pupils
puppet
puppets
Puranas
Purchas
purchasable
purchase
purchased
purchaser
purchasers
purchases
purchasing
Purdy
pure
purely
pureness
purer
purest
purgation
purgations
purgatives
purgatorial
purgatory
Purge
purged
purging
purgunnah
Purification
Purifications
purified
purifier
purifies
purify
purifying
Puritan
puritanical
Puritanism
Puritans
purity
Purkhard
purloined
purloining
Purmerende
purple
purport
purported
purporting
purports
purpose
purposed
purposely
purposes
purposing
purpura
Pursat
purse
purses
pursuading
pursuance
pursuant
pursue
pursued
pursuer
pursuers
pursuing
pursuit
pursuits
pursy
Puruaran
Puruha
Puruhas
Purumancian
Purumancians
Purves
purveyance
purveyor
purveyors
purview
purwanah
pus
Pusey
Puseyism
push
pushed
pushing
Pushkin
pusillanimity
pusillanimous
Pustule
pustules
put
putative
Puteoli
Putnam
Putney
Putois
putra
putrefaction
putrefactive
putrefy
putrefying
putrescent
putrid
putridity
puts
Putter
putting
putty
putwarees
PUTZGER
Puy
Puycerda
Puyrredon
puzzle
puzzled
puzzling
puzzlingly
PUÆTORIAN
Pyanepsion
Pydna
Pye
Pygmalion
Pylagoroi
Pylos
Pylus
PYLÆ
Pylæ
Pym
pyramid
Pyramids
Pyramus
pyre
Pyrenean
Pyrenees
Pyrenoeco
Pyrrha
PYRRHIC
Pyrrhos
Pyrrhus
Pyrula
Pyréneées
Pyrénées
Pythagoras
Pythagorean
Pythagoreans
Pytheas
Pythia
Pythian
Pythium
Pythius
Pytho
Pythodorus
Python
Pythoness
pyx
Pyxus
PÆANS
PÆONIANS
PÉRIGOT
PÜTZ
pá
párĭk
pæan
Pæans
pædagogue
pædagogus
Pæetor
Pæonia
Pæonian
Pæonians
Pæstum
Père
pébrine
Pédagogie
Pélagie
Périer
Périgord
Périgueux
Pétion
Pêgæ
Pêleus
Pêneleôs
Pölde
Pösche
Pûtikâs
Pœas
Qadees
qr
qu
qua
quack
quackery
quacks
Quadalaxara
QUADI
quadrangle
quadrangles
quadrangular
Quadrantal
quadrants
quadrata
Quadratus
Quadrilateral
quadrilleros
quadripartite
Quadrivium
quadrupeds
Quadruple
quadrupled
quadruplex
quae
quaere
quaestio
Quaestor
quaestors
quaff
quaffing
quahog
quailed
quaint
quaintest
quaintly
quaintness
Quais
Quaker
Quakerism
Quakers
quaking
qualification
Qualifications
qualified
qualifies
qualify
qualifying
qualitie
qualities
quality
quallified
quam
quamdiu
Quanta
Quantin
Quantis
quantisque
quantitatively
quantities
quantity
quantityes
Quanto
Quantovic
Quantrell
Quantum
quantumque
Quanza
Quapaw
Quapaws
Quappas
quarantia
quarantine
Quarawetes
Quarequa
Quaritch
Quarnero
quarrel
quarreled
quarreling
quarrelled
quarrelling
Quarrels
quarrelsome
quarrelsomeness
quarries
quarry
Quarta
quartan
quartane
quarte
quarter
quarterdeck
quartered
quartering
Quarterly
Quartermaster
quarters
Quartier
quarto
quarts
quartz
Quasdanovich
quash
quashed
quasi
quaternary
Quatre
QUATREFAGES
Quauhtimali
quay
quays
que
Quebec
Quebrada
Quedem
Quedlinburg
queen
Queenborough
Queene
Queenhithe
queenly
queens
Queensberry
Queensland
Queenston
Queenstown
queer
queerly
Quehuani
Quehuasca
Queich
Queipo
quel
Quelches
quell
quelled
quellen
Quellenkunde
quelling
Queluz
Quemadero
quench
quenched
quenching
quenouille
Quentin
Querandies
Querandis
Querci
Quercy
querelles
Queretaro
queries
query
Querétaro
Quesada
Quesne
Quesnel
Quesnoy
Quesnè
quest
Questenberg
questio
question
questionable
questioned
questioner
questioners
questioning
questionings
questions
Questor
questors
Quetta
Quetzalcoatl
queue
queues
qui
Quia
Quiabanabaite
quibble
quibbles
quibbling
Quiberon
Quibus
QUIBÉRON
Quiche
QUICHES
Quichua
Quichuas
Quiché
Quichés
quick
quicken
quickened
quickener
quickening
quicker
quickest
quickly
quickness
quicksand
quicksands
quickset
quicksilver
quid
quiddity
quidem
quidquid
QUIDS
quiescence
quiescent
quiet
quieted
quieter
quieting
QUIETISM
Quietist
Quietists
quietly
quietness
quietude
Quietus
Quigley
QUIJO
Quilimane
quill
quillets
Quillimane
quilted
QUIN
quina
Quinames
Quinapiack
Quinarius
Quincampoix
quince
Quincey
Quinctii
Quinctius
Quincy
Quindecemveri
quindecemvirs
Quinet
quinine
Quinnipiac
QUINNIPIACK
quinoa
quinquennial
quinquereme
quinquina
Quinsan
Quinsigamond
quintal
Quintana
Quintavalle
quintennial
quintessence
Quintilian
Quintilis
Quintilius
Quintin
Quintino
quintuple
Quintus
Quinze
quipe
quipo
quippus
quipu
quipus
quires
QUIRINAL
Quirinalis
Quirinius
Quirinus
Quiritary
Quirites
Quiroga
Quiros
quis
Quisque
quit
Quitchoane
quitclaimed
quite
Quitman
Quito
quitrents
quits
quittance
quitted
quitting
Quitu
quiver
quivered
quivering
Quivira
Quixote
quixotic
quizzing
quo
quod
Quoddy
quoitings
quondam
Quonehtacut
quoque
Quoratean
quorum
Quosseir
quota
Quotas
quotation
quotations
quote
quoted
quotes
quotidian
quoting
quotæ
Qurpon
Quum
QUÆSTIO
QUÆSTOR
QUÆSTORS
quâ
quæ
quæstio
quæstor
quæstors
quæstorship
Quêsne
ra
Raab
Raamah
Raamses
rab
Rabbe
Rabbi
Rabbinical
Rabbinism
Rabbins
Rabbis
rabbits
rabble
rabbling
RABELAIS
rabid
Rabshakeh
Raby
Racan
Racca
Raccoon
raccoons
race
races
Rache
Rachel
RACHISIUS
Rachlin
Rachman
racial
Racially
Racine
racing
rack
racked
racks
rackwork
Racotis
Radagais
Radagaisus
Radbod
Radet
Radetsky
Radetzky
radiance
radiant
radiate
radiated
radiating
radical
radicalism
radically
Radicals
radii
RADISSON
radius
Radley
Radnor
Radnorshire
Radolfzell
Radot
Radulf
Radziewiski
Radzivill
Radziwil
Rae
Raetia
Rafael
Raffenel
RAFFY
Rafn
raft
Rafting
rafts
rag
RAGA
rage
raged
rages
ragged
RAGHA
raging
Raglan
Ragman
Ragnsa
Ragoczy
Ragonaut
Ragotski
Ragozin
rags
Ragusa
RAGÆ
rah
Raheita
Rahman
rahonadores
Rahova
Rai
raid
raided
raiders
raiding
raids
Raidân
Raikes
rail
railing
railings
Railroad
railroads
rails
railway
railways
raiment
Raimondo
Raimundes
rain
rainbow
rained
rainfall
Rainhill
Rainier
raining
rainless
rains
rainy
raise
raised
raiser
raisers
raises
Raisin
raising
raisins
raison
Raja
Rajah
Rajahstan
Rajas
Rajpoot
RAJPOOTANA
Rajpoots
Rajput
Rajputana
RAJPUTS
rake
raked
raking
Rakka
Rakoczi
Rakoczis
Rakoczy
Rakos
Rakosch
Rakotski
Ralegh
Raleigh
Raleighs
Ralf
Ralle
rallied
rally
rallying
Ralph
ram
Rama
Ramadan
Ramalho
Ramayana
Rambald
Rambaud
Rambler
Rambles
rambling
Rambolt
Rambouillet
Rameau
Ramel
Rameses
Rameside
Ramesides
RAMESSIDS
Ramessu
ramification
ramifications
ramified
ramifying
Ramilies
Ramillies
Ramirez
Ramiro
Ramkissenseat
Ramla
Ramleh
rammed
Rammekens
Ramnagar
Ramnes
RAMNIANS
Ramodanofsky
Ramon
RAMOTH
ramp
rampant
rampart
ramparted
ramparts
rams
Ramsay
Ramses
Ramsey
Ramula
Ramus
Ramusio
Ramæ
ran
Ranas
Ranch
rancho
rancor
rancorous
rancorously
rancour
rancours
Rancé
Rand
Randall
Randaterra
Randell
Randolph
random
Ranee
rang
range
ranged
Rangers
ranges
ranging
Rangitikei
Rangoon
Ranieri
RANJIT
rank
Ranke
ranked
Rankine
RANKING
rankle
rankled
rankling
rankness
ranks
Rannie
ransack
ransacked
ransacking
ransom
Ransome
ransomed
ransoming
ransoms
Ranstadt
Ranters
Rantzau
Ranuccio
Rao
Raouf
Raoul
Raow
rapacious
rapacity
RAPALLO
Rape
Rapel
RAPES
rapeseed
Raphael
RAPHIA
rapid
Rapidan
Rapide
rapidity
rapidly
Rapids
Rapin
rapine
Rapp
Rappahannoc
Rappahannock
Rappahanock
Rapparee
RAPPAREES
Rapperswyl
Rappia
Rappists
Rappites
rapt
rapture
rapturously
rare
rarely
rareness
rarer
rarest
Raritan
RARITANS
rarities
rarity
Rarotonga
Ras
Rasavidya
rascal
rascalities
rascality
rascally
rascals
RASCHE
Raschid
RASCIA
Rascians
RASCOL
rase
rased
Rasehid
RASENNA
Rasennic
rash
Rashid
rashly
rashness
Rasi
Raska
Raskol
Raskolniks
RASMUS
Raspail
Raspe
Rassam
Rasselas
rasta
Rastadt
Rastal
Rastislav
Rastiz
Rasumoffsky
Rat
rata
ratable
Ratazzi
Ratbod
Ratcliff
Ratcliffe
Ratdolt
rate
rateable
rated
ratepayers
ratepaying
rates
RATH
Rathbone
Rathenau
rather
Rathhaus
Rathillet
Rathmines
Rathore
RATHS
Rathsfreund
Rathsherr
RATHSMANN
RATHSMEISTER
Ratibor
Ratich
ratification
ratifications
ratified
ratifies
ratify
ratifying
rating
ratio
ration
rational
rationalising
RATIONALISM
rationalistic
rationalizing
rationally
Rationelle
rations
ratios
Ratisbon
Ratisbona
rats
Rattazzi
rattle
rattles
rattling
Rattone
Ratzeburg
RATÆ
RAU
Raucoux
RAUDINE
Rauhe
Raum
Raumer
RAURACI
Rauracorum
Rauscher
ravage
ravaged
ravagers
ravages
ravaging
ravagings
Ravaillac
raved
Ravee
ravelin
ravelins
ravelled
raven
Ravenika
Ravenna
ravenous
ravens
Ravensberg
RAVENSPUR
Ravensworth
ravine
ravines
raving
ravings
ravished
ravisher
ravishers
ravishing
raw
Rawal
Rawdon
RAWLE
Rawleigh
Rawlins
Rawlinson
rawness
Rawson
ray
Rayahs
Rayefskoi
Rayer
Raym
Raymond
RAYNAL
Raynald
Rayneval
Raynor
Raynouard
Rayon
rays
Rayser
Raystown
Raz
raze
razed
Razilly
razing
razor
razors
Razoumovski
razzia
razzias
rbsclcsummary
Rd
re
reabsorbed
reach
reached
reaches
Reaching
reacknowledgment
reacquired
reacquiring
react
reacted
reacting
reaction
reactionaries
reactionary
reactionist
reactionists
reactions
read
readable
Reade
reader
readers
readier
readiest
readily
readiness
reading
readings
readjusting
readjustment
readjustments
readmission
readmit
readmitted
reads
ready
reaffirm
reaffirmed
reaffirms
Reagan
Reagh
Real
Realencyklopaedie
reales
Realf
Realgymnasien
realisation
realise
realised
realising
realism
realistic
Realists
realities
reality
realization
realize
realized
realizes
realizing
really
realm
realms
Realschulen
realty
Reams
reanimate
reanimated
reanimates
reannexation
Reannexations
REANNEXATON
reannexed
reap
reaped
reaping
reappear
reappearance
reappeared
reappearing
reappears
reappointed
reappointing
reappointment
rear
reared
rearguard
rearing
rearmost
rearrange
rearranged
rearrangement
rears
rearward
reascend
reascendant
reascended
reascendency
reason
reasonable
reasonableness
reasonably
reasoned
reasoner
reasoners
Reasoning
reasonings
reasons
reassemble
reassembled
reassembling
reassert
reasserted
reasserting
reassume
reassumed
reassure
reassured
reassuring
Reate
reawakened
reawakening
Reb
rebaptizers
Rebecca
REBECCAITES
Rebecqui
Rebeka
rebel
rebelled
rebellers
rebelling
Rebellion
rebellions
rebellious
rebels
Rebmann
rebound
Rebs
rebuff
rebuffed
rebuild
REBUILDING
rebuilt
rebuke
rebuked
rebukes
rebuking
rebus
rebusses
rebut
recalcitrant
recalcitrants
Recall
recalled
recalling
recalls
Recant
recantation
recanted
recapitulate
recapitulated
recapitulating
recapitulation
recapture
recaptured
recapturing
recast
recasting
Reccared
receaue
receaued
recede
receded
recedes
receding
receipt
receipts
receivable
receive
received
receiver
receivers
receives
receiving
recension
recent
recently
receptacle
receptacles
receptaculum
reception
receptions
receptive
receptus
recess
recessed
recesses
recession
RECHABITES
recharter
Rechartering
recherches
Rechin
Rechsalterth
Recht
Rechtsbewusstsein
Rechtsgeschichte
Rechtsverhältnisse
recipe
recipes
recipient
recipients
reciprocal
reciprocally
reciprocated
Reciprocity
recital
recitals
recitation
recitations
recite
recited
reciter
reciters
recites
reciting
reckless
recklessly
recklessness
reckon
reckoned
reckoning
reckonings
reckons
reclaim
reclaimed
reclaiming
reclaims
Reclam
reclamation
reclamations
reclined
reclothe
Reclus
recluse
recluses
recognisable
recognisance
recognise
recognised
recognises
recognising
recognition
recognitions
recognizable
recognizance
Recognizances
recognize
recognized
recognizes
recognizing
recoil
recoiled
recoiling
recoined
recollect
recollected
recollecting
recollection
recollections
Recollects
Recollet
Recollets
recommence
recommenced
recommencement
recommences
recommencing
recommend
recommendation
recommendations
recommended
recommending
recommit
recommitted
recompense
recompensed
recompenses
recompose
Reconati
reconcilable
reconcile
reconcileable
reconciled
reconcilement
reconciles
reconciliation
reconciliations
reconciling
reconduct
reconnaissance
reconnaissances
reconnoisance
reconnoissance
reconnoissances
reconnoiter
reconnoitered
reconnoitering
reconnoitre
reconnoitred
reconnoitring
reconnoitrings
reconquer
reconquered
reconquering
reconquest
reconsider
reconsideration
reconsidered
reconstitute
reconstituted
reconstitutes
reconstituting
Reconstitution
reconstruct
reconstructed
reconstructing
Reconstruction
reconstructions
reconvening
reconverted
reconveyed
recopies
record
recorded
Recorder
recording
Records
recount
recounted
recounts
recourse
recourses
recover
recoverable
recovered
recoveries
recovering
recovers
recovery
recreant
recreate
recreated
recreation
recreations
recriminate
recrimination
recriminations
recriminative
recross
recrossed
recrossing
recrudescence
recruit
recruited
Recruiters
recruiting
recruitment
recruits
rectam
rectangle
rectangular
Recteur
rectification
rectifications
rectified
rectify
rectifying
rectilinear
rectitude
Rector
Rectorial
rectories
rectors
Rectorship
Rectortown
rectory
Recueil
Reculver
recuperate
recuperating
recur
recurred
recurrence
recurrences
recurrent
recurring
recurs
recusancy
recusant
recusants
Red
redacted
redactor
Redan
Redbald
Redcaps
Redcliffe
reddened
redder
Redding
reddish
redeem
redeemable
redeemed
Redeemer
redeeming
redeems
redemanding
redemption
redemptioners
REDEMPTOR
Redemptorists
Reden
redevances
Redfield
Reding
rediscovered
rediscovery
redistribute
redistributed
redistribution
redivided
redividing
Redivision
redivisions
Redmen
redness
Redonda
REDONES
redouble
redoubled
redoubt
redoubtable
redoubted
redoubts
redound
redounded
redounds
Redoutable
Redpath
redress
redressed
redressing
Reds
Redschid
Redskin
Redskins
REDSTICKS
Redstone
reduce
reduced
reducement
reduces
reducible
reducing
reducta
reductio
reduction
Reductions
redundant
reduplication
Redux
Redwood
reebning
Reed
Reeds
reef
reeked
reeking
reel
reelected
reelection
reeled
reeling
reembark
reembarked
reenacted
reenforced
reenforcement
reenforcements
reenlisted
reentered
reentering
Rees
reestablish
reestablished
reestablishing
reestablishment
REEVE
Reeves
reexported
refashioning
Refectory
refer
referable
referee
referees
reference
References
referenda
referendarius
referendum
referred
referring
refers
refilling
refine
refined
refinement
refinements
refiners
refining
refit
refitted
reflect
reflected
reflecting
reflection
Reflections
reflective
Reflector
reflects
refluent
Reform
Reformas
Reformation
reformations
reformatory
reformed
reformer
Reformers
reforming
reformistas
reforms
refortified
refound
refounding
refracted
refractoriness
refractory
refrain
refrained
refraineth
refraining
refresh
refreshed
refreshing
refreshment
refreshments
Reft
refuge
refugee
refugees
refund
refunded
refusal
refusall
refusals
refuse
refused
refuses
refusez
refusing
refutation
refutations
refute
refuted
refutes
Reg
regain
regained
regaining
Regaisus
regal
regaled
regalia
regalian
regalities
regality
regard
regarded
regardest
regardeth
regarding
regardless
regards
regatta
Rege
Regeb
REGED
Regem
regencies
Regency
regenerate
regenerated
regenerating
regeneration
regenerative
regenerator
regenerators
REGENSBURG
Regent
Regente
Regents
regerings
reges
Reggio
Regia
regicide
regicides
regidores
Regierung
Regierungen
Regierungsantritt
Regilla
Regillus
regime
regimen
regiment
regimental
regiments
Regina
REGINALD
regio
region
regionary
regione
regionis
regions
REGIS
Register
registered
registering
registers
Registrar
Registrars
registration
registrations
registres
Registries
Registry
Regium
Regius
regnal
Regner
Regni
Regnier
Regnitz
regno
Regnum
regranted
regranting
regret
regretful
regrets
regretted
regretting
regular
regularity
regularly
regulars
regulate
regulated
regulates
regulating
regulation
regulations
regulative
regulator
REGULATORS
REGULBIUM
Reguli
REGULUS
regîme
rehabilitate
rehabilitated
rehabilitating
rehabilitation
rehearsal
rehearse
rehearsed
rehearsing
Rehob
Rehoboam
Rehoboth
rehoisted
Rei
Reich
Reichard
Reiche
Reichel
Reichenau
Reichenberg
Reichensperger
Reichenstein
reiches
Reichs
Reichsfürstenrath
Reichsgesetzblatt
Reichskanzler
Reichsland
Reichsrath
Reichstadt
Reichstag
Reichstage
Reichstags
Reichstädt
Reichstädte
Reichsunmittelbarkeit
Reichsvogt
Reid
Reigate
reign
reigned
reigneth
reigning
reigns
Reil
Reiley
Reille
Reilly
reimburse
reimbursed
reimbursements
reimbursing
Reimer
reimpose
reimposed
Reims
rein
Reinach
Reinald
reinaugurate
reincorporated
Reindeer
Reine
Reinecke
reinforce
reinforced
reinforcement
reinforcements
reinforcing
reinhabited
Reinhard
REINHOLD
Reinos
reins
reinspirited
reinstalled
reinstate
reinstated
reinstatement
reinstating
reintroduced
reintroducing
reinvented
reinvigorate
reinvigorated
Reis
Reisebilder
Reislaufen
REISS
reissue
reissued
Reiter
reiterate
reiterated
reiterates
reiterating
reiteration
reiters
Reitzel
reject
rejected
rejecting
rejection
Rejectors
rejects
rejoice
rejoiced
rejoices
rejoicing
Rejoicings
rejoin
rejoinder
rejoinders
rejoined
rejoining
rejudge
rekindle
rekindled
rekindling
relanded
relapse
relapsed
relapses
relapsing
relate
Related
relaters
relates
relating
Relation
relations
relationship
relationships
relative
relatively
relatives
relax
relaxation
relaxations
relaxed
relaxes
Relaxing
relay
relays
release
released
releases
releasing
relegate
relegated
relegates
relegation
relent
relented
relentless
relentlessly
reliability
reliable
reliance
relic
relics
relicts
relied
relief
reliefe
reliefs
relies
relieve
relieved
relieves
relieving
relievos
relighted
religieuse
religio
religion
religione
Religioners
religionis
religionist
religionists
religions
religionslos
religious
religiously
relinquish
relinquished
relinquishes
relinquishing
relinquishment
relique
relish
relished
relishing
reluctance
reluctant
reluctantly
rely
relying
rem
remain
remainder
remainders
remained
remaining
remains
remanded
remark
remarkable
remarkably
remarked
remarking
remarks
remarry
remboché
Rembrandt
remedial
remedied
remedies
remedy
remedying
remember
rememberable
remembered
remembering
remembers
remembrance
Remembrancers
remembrances
Remensis
REMI
Remigio
Remigius
remind
reminded
reminder
reminders
reminding
reminds
Remington
reminiscence
reminiscences
remiss
remission
remissions
remissness
remit
remits
remittance
remittances
remitted
remittent
remitting
Remmius
remnant
remnants
Remo
remodel
remodeled
remodelled
remodelling
Remonstrance
remonstrances
Remonstrant
remonstrants
remonstrate
remonstrated
remonstrating
remorse
remorseless
remorselessly
remote
remotely
remoteness
remoter
remotest
remould
remount
remounted
remounting
removable
Removal
removals
remove
removed
removes
removing
Rems
remunerate
remunerated
remuneratingly
remuneration
remunerations
remunerative
Remus
Remy
remysl
Renaissance
Renaix
renamed
Renan
Renandot
Renata
Renau
Renaudot
Renault
rencontre
rencounter
rencounters
rend
Rendall
render
rendered
rendering
renderings
renders
Rendez
rendezvous
rendezvoused
rendezvousing
Rendile
rending
rendition
Rene
renegade
renegades
renew
renewable
Renewal
renewed
renewetl
renewing
Renfrew
Renfrewshire
Renftle
Rengger
Reni
Renneberg
RENNELL
Rennes
Reno
renominated
renomination
Renouard
renounce
renounced
renouncement
renounces
renouncing
renovate
renovated
renovates
renovating
renovation
renovator
renown
renowned
Renschild
Rensselaer
Rensselaers
RENSSELAERWICK
Rensselaerwyck
rent
rental
rentcharge
rente
rented
renters
rentes
renting
rents
renunciation
renunciations
renunciatory
Renwick
Renzi
RENÉ
René
Renée
reoccupation
reoccupied
reoccupy
reopen
reopened
reopening
reorganisation
reorganised
reorganising
reorganization
reorganize
reorganized
reorganizing
Rep
repacked
repaid
repair
repaired
Repairing
repairs
reparation
reparative
repartees
Repartimentos
repartimiento
repartimientos
repartir
repass
repassed
repassing
repast
repave
repay
repayment
repeal
repeale
repealed
repealing
repeals
repeat
repeated
repeatedly
repeating
repeats
repel
repelled
repellent
repelling
repels
repent
repentance
repentant
repented
repentence
repenting
repeople
repeopled
repertas
repertory
repetition
repetitions
repetundis
REPETUNDÆ
Repetundæ
Repgow
REPHAIM
replace
replaced
replacement
replaces
replacing
REPLEGIANDO
replenish
replenished
replenishing
replete
replevying
replication
replications
replied
replies
replunged
reply
replying
Repnin
repopulated
Repopulation
report
reported
reporter
reporters
reporting
reports
Reportt
repose
reposed
reposes
reposing
Repositories
repository
repossess
repossessed
Repossession
reprehensible
reprehension
represent
representation
representations
Representative
representatives
represented
representing
represents
repress
repressed
repressing
repression
repressive
reprieve
reprieved
reprieves
reprimand
reprimanded
reprimands
reprint
reprinted
reprinting
reprints
reprisal
reprisals
reprize
reproach
reproached
reproaches
reproachful
reproaching
reprobate
reprobated
reprobating
reprobation
reproche
reproduce
reproduced
reproduces
reproducing
reproduction
reproductions
reproductive
reproof
reproofs
reprove
reproved
reproves
reproving
Représentant
reptile
reptiles
Republic
Republican
republicanism
republicanize
republicanized
Republicans
republication
Republics
Republique
republiques
republished
repudiate
repudiated
repudiating
Repudiation
repugnance
repugnant
repulse
repulsed
repulsing
repulsive
repurchase
repurchased
reputable
reputation
repute
reputed
Requena
Requescens
Requesens
request
requested
requesting
requests
requiem
require
required
requirement
requirements
requires
requiring
requisite
requisites
requisition
requisitions
requisitt
requisitte
requital
requited
requiting
Requêtes
Reresby
Rerum
res
RESACA
RESAINA
Resaro
Resartus
Resch
Reschid
rescind
rescinded
RESCISSORY
RESCOTT
rescript
Rescripta
Rescripts
Rescriptum
rescue
rescued
rescuers
rescues
rescuing
research
researches
reselling
resemblance
resemblances
resemble
resembled
resembles
resembling
Resen
resent
resented
resentful
resenting
resentment
resentments
reservation
reservations
reserve
reserved
Reserves
reserving
reservoir
reservoirs
resetters
Reshid
reshipped
Resiant
reside
resided
Residence
residences
Residencia
Residency
resident
residents
Residenz
resides
residing
residual
residuary
residue
residuum
resign
Resignation
resignations
resigned
resigning
resin
resinous
resins
resist
resistance
resistant
resisted
resisting
resistless
resists
resold
resolute
resolutely
resoluteness
resolution
resolutions
resolvable
resolve
resolved
resolves
resolving
resons
resort
resorted
resorting
resorts
resounded
resounding
resounds
resource
resourceless
resources
respect
respectability
respectable
respectably
respected
respecter
respectful
respectfully
Respecting
respective
respectively
respects
respiration
respite
respond
respondeat
responded
respondere
responding
responds
Responsa
response
responses
responsibilities
responsibility
responsible
responsive
responso
Respublica
resseants
ressort
rest
Restante
restatement
Restaurata
restauration
rested
Resting
Restitution
Restitutions
restive
restiveness
restless
restlessly
restlessness
restoration
restorations
restorative
restore
restored
restorer
restores
restoring
restrain
restrained
restraining
restrains
restraint
restraints
restrict
restricted
restricting
restriction
restrictionists
restrictions
restrictive
restricts
rests
resubjection
resubjugation
result
resultant
resulted
resulting
results
resume
resumed
resumes
resuming
resumption
resurrected
resurrection
resurrectionist
resuscitate
resuscitated
resuscitating
resuscitation
retail
retailed
retailers
retailing
retain
retained
retainer
retainers
retaining
retains
retake
Retaken
retaking
retaliate
retaliated
retaliating
retaliation
retaliations
retaliatory
retard
retardation
retarded
Retaux
retelling
RETENNU
retention
Retes
Rethel
reticence
reticent
Retief
retinue
retinues
retire
retired
retirement
retirements
retires
retiring
Retiro
retook
retorted
retouched
retrace
retraced
retracing
retract
retractation
retracted
retracting
retraction
retrait
retreat
retreated
retreating
retreats
retrench
retrenched
retrenchment
Retrete
retribution
retributive
retrieve
retrieved
retrieving
retro
retroactive
retroceded
Retrocession
retroensas
Retrogradation
retrograde
retrograded
retrogrades
retrogression
retrospect
retrospective
retrospectively
Rettberg
return
returnable
returne
returned
returning
returns
RETZ
REUBEN
REUCHLIN
Reudigni
Reuil
Reumont
reunion
reunions
reunite
reunited
reuniting
Reusch
Reuss
Reussen
Reuter
Reutlingen
Rev
reveal
revealed
Revealer
revealing
reveals
Revel
revelation
Revelations
revelator
revelers
Revell
revelled
revellers
revelling
revelries
revelry
revels
revendicate
revenge
revenged
revengeful
revengers
revenges
revenging
revenu
revenue
revenues
reverberating
reverberation
reverberations
Reverdy
Revere
revered
reverence
reverenced
reverend
reverent
reverential
reverently
reveries
reversal
reverse
reversed
reverses
reversibility
reversing
reversion
reversionary
reversions
revert
reverted
reverting
revery
revictual
revictualled
Review
reviewed
reviewer
Reviewers
reviewing
reviews
Revigny
reviled
Revillout
revisable
revisal
revise
revised
revisers
revises
revising
revision
revisionary
Revisions
revisit
revisited
revisiting
revival
revivalists
revivals
revive
revived
reviver
revives
revivified
revivify
reviving
revocable
revocation
revoke
revoked
revokes
revoking
Revolgimenti
revolt
revolted
revolters
revolting
revolts
Revolucion
Revolution
revolutionaries
revolutionary
revolutionise
revolutionised
revolutionising
revolutionist
revolutionists
revolutionize
revolutionized
revolutionizing
revolutions
revolve
revolved
revolver
Revolvers
revolves
revolving
Revue
revulsion
reward
rewarded
rewarding
rewards
Rewbel
Rewbell
Rewell
rewounded
rewritten
rewrought
Rex
Rey
Reydaniya
Reyes
Reynard
REYNELL
Reynier
Reyno
Reynold
Reynolds
Reynosa
Reza
Rezon
reëlected
reëlection
reëmbarked
reënforce
reënforced
reënforcement
reënforcements
reënforcing
reëntered
reëstablish
reëstablished
reëstablishing
reëstablishment
reörganized
Rhacotis
Rhadegund
Rhaetian
Rhages
Rhagiana
Rhakotis
rhamnus
Rhampsinitus
rhapsode
rhapsodies
rhapsodists
Rhazes
Rhea
Rhedones
Rhees
Rhegion
Rhegium
Rhei
Rheims
Rhein
Rheinberg
Rheinbund
Rheinfeld
Rheinfelden
RHEINHARD
Rheinsberg
Rheinthal
Rhenea
Rhenish
Rhetian
Rhetor
rhetoribus
rhetoric
rhetorical
rhetorically
rhetorician
rhetoricians
rhetra
Rhetrae
RHETRÆ
Rhett
rheumatism
Rhey
Rhianus
Rhin
Rhine
Rhineland
Rhinelands
rhinoceros
Rhinocorura
rhinoplasty
Rhinotmetus
Rhium
Rhizotomos
Rhodanus
Rhode
Rhodes
Rhodian
Rhodians
Rhodolph
Rhodope
Rhodopé
Rhonda
Rhone
rhubarb
Rhuddlan
Rhydderch
Rhyderc
rhyme
Rhymes
rhymesters
Rhynland
Rhys
rhythm
rhythmical
rhythms
RHÆTIA
RHÆTIANS
Rhæti
Rhætia
Rhætian
Rhætians
Rhé
Rhétel
Rhêgion
Rhône
Ri
Riada
rial
Riall
Rialto
Rianzares
Riario
Riaz
Riazan
Riaña
Ribadeo
RIBAGORCA
ribald
Ribault
Ribaut
Ribble
ribbon
Ribbonism
Ribbonmen
ribbons
RIBCHESTER
Ribero
Ribot
ribs
Ric
Rica
Ricans
Ricardo
Ricasoli
Riccall
Ricci
Riccia
Riccio
rice
rich
Richard
Richards
Richardson
Richart
Richborough
Richd
Riche
Richelieu
Richemont
richer
riches
richest
Richey
richly
Richmond
richness
Richstat
Richter
Richtrude
Riché
Ricimer
Rickett
Ricketts
rickety
Rico
Ricola
ricos
rid
riddance
Riddarhus
ridden
riddeth
ridding
Riddle
riddled
riddles
riddling
ride
Rideau
Ridel
Rider
riders
rides
ridge
ridged
ridges
RIDGEWAY
Ridgway
Ridgways
ridicule
ridiculed
Ridicules
ridiculing
ridiculous
ridiculously
riding
Ridings
Ridley
Ridolfo
Ridpath
Ried
RIEDESEL
Riego
Riel
Rienzi
Riesengebirge
RIESS
Rieti
Rietschel
rievers
rife
riffraff
rifle
rifled
riflemen
rifles
rifling
Riformatori
rift
rifts
Rig
Riga
Rigault
Rigby
Rigdon
Rigg
rigged
rigging
Riggs
Righ
Righfhada
right
righteous
righteously
Righteousness
rightful
rightfully
rightfulness
righting
rightly
rights
rigid
rigidity
rigidly
Rigny
rigor
rigorism
rigorists
rigorous
rigorously
rigors
rigour
rigourously
rigours
Rigsdag
Rigsret
Rigveda
rike
riks
Riksdag
riksdags
Riley
Rilliet
rim
Rimini
Rimmon
Rimnik
Rimouski
rimy
Rinaldo
Rinds
Ring
ringer
Ringgold
ringing
ringleader
ringleaders
Ringold
RINGS
Ringwood
Rink
Rinuccini
Rio
Riobamba
Rioja
Riolan
Rion
Rios
riot
rioted
rioter
rioters
rioting
riotous
Riots
Rip
Ripa
Ripacurcia
riparian
Riparii
ripe
ripely
ripen
ripened
ripeness
ripening
ripens
riper
Ripley
Ripon
ripost
Rippach
ripped
Ripperda
ripping
ripple
Ripuarian
Ripuarians
Ripuarii
Ripumarian
Riquelme
Riquier
rise
risen
riser
rises
riseth
rish
Rishis
Risico
rising
risings
risk
risked
risking
risks
Ritchie
rite
rites
Ritter
Ritterordens
Ritters
Rittich
ritual
Ritualists
Riva
Rivadavia
rival
rivaled
rivaling
rivalled
rivalling
rivalries
rivalry
rivals
rivalship
rivalships
Rivalto
Rivas
Rive
river
Riverene
RIVERO
riverport
rivers
Riverside
Rives
rivet
riveted
rivets
Riviera
Riviere
Rivingstons
Rivington
Rivingtons
Rivière
rivolet
Rivoli
Rivoluzioni
rivulet
rivulets
Rivus
rix
Rizpah
Rizzio
ROACH
road
roads
roadside
roadstead
roadway
roadways
roam
roamed
roaming
Roanoke
roar
roaring
roarings
roast
roasted
roasting
Rob
Robarts
Robaut
Robb
robbed
Robben
Robber
robberies
robbers
robbery
robbing
robe
Robecchi
robed
Roberjeot
Robert
Roberts
Robertson
Roberval
robes
Robeson
Robespierian
Robespierre
Robespierres
Robin
Robins
Robinson
Robison
Robogdii
Robson
Robt
robust
Roca
ROCCA
Roccus
Rochambeau
Rochdale
Roche
ROCHECHOUART
Rochefort
Rochefoucald
Rochefoucauld
ROCHEFOUCAULT
Rochejacquelin
ROCHEJAQUELEIN
Rochel
Rochelle
Rochellese
Rochellois
Rocher
Roches
Rochester
Rocheterie
Rochford
Rochfort
Rochus
rock
rocked
Rockefeller
rocket
rockets
Rocketts
Rockfish
Rockhill
Rockingham
rocks
Rockwell
Rockwood
rocky
ROCQUAIN
Rocroi
Rocroy
rod
Rodah
Rodbertus
Rodd
rode
Rodenhus
rodens
Roderic
Roderick
Roderigo
Roderique
Rodez
Rodgers
Rodil
Rodney
RODOALDUS
RODOGAST
Rodolf
RODOLFO
Rodolph
Rodri
RODRIDGO
Rodrigo
Rodriguez
rods
Roe
Roebuck
Roederer
Roehefoucauld
Roemer
Roer
Roeschlaub
ROESKILDE
Roesler
Roffensis
rogatio
ROGATION
rogations
Roger
Rogers
Roget
Roggendorf
Roggewein
Rogue
roguery
Rogues
roh
Rohan
Rohans
Rohilkhand
Rohilla
Rohillas
Rohlfs
roi
ROIS
Rojas
rok
ROKH
Rokycana
Roland
Rolands
Roldan
role
roles
Rolf
Rolfe
ROLICA
Roliça
roll
Rolla
ROLLAND
Rolle
rolled
roller
rollers
rollicking
Rollin
rolling
Rollo
Rolls
Rom
Roma
Romagna
Romagnano
Romaic
Romaine
Romainville
Roman
Romana
Romanam
romance
romancer
romances
Romandiola
Romane
Romani
ROMANIA
Romanic
Romanice
ROMANIN
romanischen
Romanised
Romanism
Romanist
Romanists
Romanization
Romanized
Romano
Romanoff
Romanoffs
Romanos
Romanovsky
Romans
Romansh
romantic
Romanum
Romanus
Romanzoff
Romanzow
Rome
Romeo
Romer
Romero
ROMERS
Romeyn
Romilly
Romish
Rommany
Romme
Romney
Romola
Romolo
Romont
Romonte
Roms
Romsdorff
Romulo
Romulus
ROMÚNI
Romänische
Romée
Romúni
Ronald
Ronalds
RONAN
Roncaglia
Roncaglian
Roncesvalles
Roncevaux
Ronco
rond
Ronda
Rondeau
RONDTHALER
Ronzini
ROOD
roof
roofed
roofs
Rooke
rookery
room
rooms
roomy
Roon
Roos
ROOSEBECK
Roosebeke
Roosevelt
root
rooted
rooting
roots
rope
Roper
ropes
Roppell
Roque
Roquemont
Rorke
Rory
Ros
Rosa
Rosalie
Rosalind
Rosamond
ROSAMUND
Rosario
rosary
ROSAS
Rosate
ROSBACH
ROSCHER
Roscida
ROSCOE
Roscommon
ROSE
Rosebecque
Rosebery
rosebush
Rosecrans
ROSELLY
rosemary
Rosen
Rosenau
Rosenberg
Rosenhagen
Rosenthal
Roses
Rosetta
rosettes
Rosheim
Rosicrucian
Rosicrucianism
ROSICRUCIANS
Rosier
rosin
ROSLIN
Rosmyssloff
Rosne
Ross
Rossach
Rossall
Rossbach
Rossbrunn
Rossel
Rosses
ROSSETTI
Rossi
Rossignol
ROSSITER
Rosso
Rossomme
Rossville
rost
Rostislav
Rostock
Rostopchin
Rostopochin
Rostopschin
Rostov
Rostra
rostral
rostrum
Roswell
rosy
Rot
rotary
rotate
rotated
rotating
rotation
rotatory
Rotch
Rotennu
Roth
Rothaida
Rothen
Rothenburg
Rothenthurm
Rothes
Rothesay
Rothfeld
ROTHIERE
ROTHIERÈ
Rothière
Rothsay
Rothschild
Rothschilds
Rotomagus
Rotonda
Rotorua
Rotrou
rots
rotted
rotten
Rottenburg
Rottenheads
rottenness
Rotterdam
rotting
Rottmann
ROTTWEIL
Rotulus
rotundity
Rotundo
roture
Rou
Rouarie
roubles
Roucoux
Roucy
Rouen
Rouennese
Rouergue
Rouge
Rouget
rough
rougher
roughly
roughness
Rouher
Rouillé
Roum
Rouman
ROUMANI
Roumania
Roumanian
Roumanians
Roumans
Roumelia
Roumelian
Roumelians
Roumnn
round
rounded
Roundhead
Roundheads
rounding
roundish
roundly
roundness
rounds
Rourke
Rous
rouse
roused
Rousillon
rousing
Rousseau
Roussel
Roussillon
Roussilon
rout
route
routed
routes
Routh
Routiers
routine
routing
Routledge
Routou
Rouvier
Rouvray
Rouvre
Roux
roués
roved
rover
Rovere
Roveredo
rovers
Rovesca
Rovigo
roving
Rovuma
row
Rowe
rowed
Rowell
rowers
Rowing
Rowland
Rowlandson
ROWLEY
rows
Roxana
Roxburgh
Roxburghe
Roxbury
ROXOLANI
Roy
royal
ROYALE
royalism
royalist
royalists
royally
royalties
Royalton
royalty
Royaume
ROYCE
Roye
Royer
Royle
Royster
Roze
Rt
Rts
Ruanda
rub
rubbed
rubbing
rubbish
rubble
Rubens
Ruberto
Rubicon
rubies
RUBRA
Rubric
Rubrii
Rubruquis
rubs
ruby
RUCANAS
rud
Rudbert
rude
rudely
Rudeness
ruder
rudest
Rudge
Rudhart
Rudiger
rudimentary
rudiments
Rudolf
Rudolph
Rudolstadt
Rue
Ruel
ruffian
ruffianhood
ruffianism
ruffians
ruffled
ruffling
Ruffo
Rufford
Rufinus
Rufus
Rugby
Ruge
Rugen
rugged
ruggedness
Ruggles
Rugian
Rugians
RUGII
ruin
ruine
ruined
ruining
ruinous
ruinously
ruins
Rukn
rule
ruled
ruler
rulers
rules
ruling
rulings
rull
Rullianus
Rullus
rum
Rumanians
rumble
rumbling
Rumford
ruminated
Rumiñagui
rummaged
rummaging
rumor
rumored
rumors
rumour
rumoured
rumours
Rump
Rumsey
Run
runas
runaway
runaways
rundlett
Runemede
runes
rung
Runingmede
Runjeet
Runjet
RUNJIT
Runkel
Runkle
runlets
runner
runners
runneth
running
runninge
Runnymede
Runoias
runots
runs
Runyon
Ruo
rupee
rupees
Rupert
Rupertism
Rupes
Rupin
Ruppin
Ruprecht
rupture
ruptured
rural
Ruralist
Ruremonde
Ruric
Rurik
Ruru
Rus
Rusca
RUSCINO
Rusden
ruse
Rusel
Rush
rushed
rushes
rushing
Rushworth
Rusicada
Ruskin
Rusniac
Ruspina
Ruspoli
Russ
Russam
Russe
Russell
Russellville
russet
russets
Russia
Russian
Russianized
Russians
Russias
Russie
Russland
Russo
RUSSY
Rust
Rustam
Rustan
Rustchuk
rustic
rusticity
Rustico
rustics
rustling
RUSTOW
rusty
Ruteni
RUTENNU
RUTGERS
Ruth
Ruthen
Ruthene
Ruthenia
Ruthenian
Ruthenians
Rutherford
Rutherglen
Ruthin
ruthless
ruthlessly
ruthlessness
Ruthven
Rutilius
Rutland
Rutlandshire
Rutledge
Rutledges
Rutowsky
ruts
Rutt
RUTTENBER
Rutuli
RUTULIANS
RUTUPIÆ
Rutupiæ
Rutènes
Ruvigni
Ruvigny
Ruwaard
Ruward
Ruy
Ruysch
Ruyter
Rw
Ry
Ryan
Ryder
Rye
Ryerson
ryght
Ryhove
Rykman
ryot
ryots
Rysingh
Ryssel
Ryswic
Ryswick
Rzad
Rzewuski
RÆTIA
RÉCLUS
RÉCOLLETS
RÉMUSAT
RÉNE
RÖTTELN
RÜTLI
Ráo
rä
Räuber
Räzuns
Rætia
Rætian
règne
Ré
récit
Récollet
Réforme
régime
Rémusat
Rénaudie
Réné
Républicain
République
Résumé
Réthel
Réunion
réveil
Réveillère
Révoil
révolution
révolutionnaire
Révolutions
Révélation
Réynier
Rêvolution
rôle
Rögnwald
Röm
Römer
römisch
Römische
römischen
Rösch
Rötteln
rücksicht
Rügen
Rühs
Rüstow
Rütli
Sa
Saadi
Saal
Saale
Saalfeld
Saalfield
Saar
Saarbourg
Saarbruck
SAARBRÜCK
SAARBRÜCKEN
Saarbrücken
Saarburg
Saargemünd
Saari
Saarlouis
Sab
Saba
Sabah
Sabaja
Sabakhi
Sabako
SABANA
Sabatier
Sabazius
Sabbas
sabbath
Sabbathai
SABBATHAISTS
Sabbaths
sabbatic
Sabbatical
Sabeires
Sabeiri
Sabektekin
Sabellian
Sabellians
Sabellius
saber
sabers
Sabi
Sabin
Sabina
Sabine
SABINES
Sabinian
Sabinus
Sabio
sable
Sables
Sablons
Sabrata
sabre
sabred
sabres
SABRINA
Sabuktigin
Saburow
SABÆANS
Sabâ
Sabæan
Sabæans
SAC
Sacae
Sacastana
Saccas
Sacco
Sacellum
Sacer
sacerdotal
sacerdote
SACERDOTES
sachem
sachems
sachemships
Sacheverell
sachimma
Sachs
Sachsen
Sachsenland
Sachsens
Sachsenspiegel
Saci
Sack
sackbut
sacked
Sacken
Sackerson
Sackett
Sacki
Sacking
sacks
Sackville
Saco
Sacra
Sacrament
sacramental
sacramentales
SACRAMENTARIANS
Sacramento
Sacraments
sacramentum
sacred
sacredest
sacredly
sacredness
sacrifice
sacrificed
sacrifices
sacrificial
sacrificing
sacrilege
sacrileges
sacrilegious
sacrilegiously
SACRIPORTUS
sacris
sacristy
Sacro
sacrosancti
sacrée
SACS
SACÆ
Sacæ
sad
saddened
sadder
saddest
saddle
saddled
saddler
saddles
Sadducee
Sadduceeism
Sadducees
Sadi
sadler
Sadlier
sadly
sadness
Sadolet
Sadowa
Sadr
Saemund
Saenz
safe
safeguard
safeguards
safely
safer
safest
safety
Saffaris
SAFFARY
Safford
saffron
Safidrud
Saft
safty
Saga
sagacious
sagacity
Sagadahoc
Sagadahock
Sagamore
sagamores
SAGAMOSO
Sagar
Sagartia
SAGARTIANS
sagas
Sagasta
Sage
sages
SAGGENASH
sagging
Sagittarius
Sagonte
Sagredo
Sagres
Saguenai
Saguenay
sagums
Saguntum
Sahagun
SAHAPTINS
Sahara
Saharan
SAHAY
Sahib
Sahim
Sahund
Saib
said
Saifus
Saigo
Saigon
sail
sailed
sailer
sailing
sailor
sailors
sails
SAIM
SAINSBURY
Saint
Sainte
sainted
Saintes
saintliness
saintly
Saintonge
Saints
Saintsbury
Saio
SAIONES
Sais
Saisset
Saissetti
Saite
saith
Saiyid
Saiyids
Sajetta
Sajo
Sakai
Sakatonchee
sake
sakes
sakima
Sakimaxing
SAKKARAH
sakki
Sakol
Saksonski
Sakya
Sal
Salaam
Salaberry
Salabut
SALADIN
SALADO
Salaethus
Salah
Salam
Salama
Salamanca
salamander
salamed
Salaminian
Salamis
Salammbo
Salankament
Salapia
Salara
Salarian
salaried
salaries
salary
Salasses
Salathiel
Salces
Saldanha
sale
Salem
Salemi
Salentine
Salernitana
Salerno
sales
Salian
Salians
Salic
Salica
Salice
SALICES
saliency
salient
Salih
Salii
Salim
Salimbene
SALINAN
Salinas
Salinator
saline
SALINÆ
salio
Salique
Salisbury
Salish
Salishan
Salkehatchie
Salkeld
SALLE
Salles
Sallie
sallied
sallies
Sallust
SALLUVIANS
sally
sallying
Salm
salmon
Salmoneus
Salmour
Salnave
Salome
Salomon
salon
Salona
Salonae
Salonica
Salonika
Saloniki
Salons
saloon
saloons
Salop
SALOPIAN
Salpétrière
Salpêtrière
Salsas
Salsbach
salt
Salta
salted
Salters
Saltes
Saltillo
salting
Salton
Saltonstall
saltpetre
Saltrum
salts
Saltville
Saltzburg
salubrious
salubrity
Saluces
Saluda
Salus
Salut
salutary
salutation
salutations
salutatory
salute
saluted
salutes
saluting
Saluvii
Saluzzo
Salva
Salvador
salvage
Salvatierra
salvation
Salvationis
Salvationists
SALVATOR
SALVES
Salvestro
Salvian
Salviati
Salvii
Salvius
salvo
Salwen
Salyans
Salyes
Salz
Salza
Salzburg
Salzburgers
Salzer
Salzwedel
SALÉ
Sam
sama
Samah
Samana
Samani
Samanians
Samanide
SAMANIDES
Samany
Samara
SAMARAH
Samarcand
Samaria
Samaritan
Samaritans
Samarkand
Samarkhand
Samarobriva
Sambalpur
Sambhal
Sambix
Sambre
SAMBUCA
Same
sameness
Samhitas
Sami
Samian
Samians
Saml
Sammanicus
Sammarinesi
Samnite
Samnites
Samnium
Samo
Samoa
Samoan
Samogitia
Samojedes
Samoniva
SAMOS
SAMOSATA
Samoset
Samothrace
Samoyedic
Sampaio
Sampiero
sample
samples
Sampson
Sams
Samson
Samsons
Samsoon
Samsu
Samuel
Samuelson
San
Sanballat
Sanborn
Sancerre
Sanchez
Sancho
Sanchoniathon
Sancian
Sancroft
Sancta
sanctam
sanctification
sanctified
sanctify
sanctifying
sanctimonious
Sanctio
Sanction
sanctioned
sanctioning
sanctions
sanctities
sanctity
sanctorum
sanctuaries
sanctuary
Sanctæ
Sancy
sand
sandal
sandalled
sandals
sandbanks
Sandels
Sandeman
Sandemanians
Sanders
Sanderson
Sandford
sandhill
Sandjak
SANDJAKS
Sandjar
Sandomir
Sandoval
Sandracottus
Sandro
Sandrokottos
sands
sandspit
sandstone
Sandusky
Sandwich
Sandwith
Sandy
Sandys
sane
Sanford
Sanfuentes
sang
SANGALA
Sangallo
Sangamon
Sangar
Sangarins
Sangarius
Sangha
Sangrador
sanguinary
sanguine
Sanguinis
Sanhedrim
Sanhedrin
Sanhedrins
Sanhedrion
SANHIKANS
Sanhita
saning
Sanitarian
sanitary
sanitation
sanity
sanjak
Sanjaks
Sanjar
sank
Sankey
Sankh
Sanquhar
Sans
Sanscrit
sansculotte
Sansculottes
SANSCULOTTIDES
Sansculottism
Sanseverini
Sanseverino
Sanskrit
Sanskrita
Sanson
Santa
Santals
Santana
Santander
Santapace
SANTAREM
Santarosa
Sante
Santee
Santees
Santerre
Santhia
Santi
Santia
Santiago
Santis
Santissima
Santo
SANTONES
Santorin
Santorini
Santos
Sanudo
Sao
Saone
sap
Saparda
SAPAUDIA
Sapeires
Sapeirian
Saphadin
sapientes
Sapienza
Sapienzu
sapless
Sapor
sapped
sappers
sapphires
Sappho
sapping
Sapta
Sara
Saracen
Saraceni
Saracenic
Saracens
Saragossa
Sarah
Sarai
Saraiva
Saraka
Sarakhs
Saranac
SARANGIANS
Sarasvati
Saraswati
Saratoga
Sarawak
sarazens
sarcasm
sarcasms
sarcastic
sarcastically
Sarcee
Sarcees
sarcophagus
Sarcostemma
Sarcoxie
SARDANAPALUS
Sardanapulus
Sardeis
Sardes
Sardian
Sardica
Sardinia
Sardinian
Sardinians
Sardis
Sardo
Sardus
Sardārs
Sarepta
Sargant
Sargasso
Sargeant
Sargent
Sarginu
Sargon
Sargonides
Saric
Sarim
sarissa
sarissas
SARK
Sarkars
Sarludari
Sarmatia
Sarmatian
Sarmatians
Sarmatæ
Sarmiento
SARN
Sarnus
Saronic
Sarpedon
Sarpi
Sarras
Sarrasin
Sarre
Sarrebourg
Sarrik
Sarsec
sarsen
Sarsfield
Sart
Sarthe
Sartine
Sarto
Sartus
Sarum
SARUS
Sarwar
Saryacu
Saryoukin
Saryoukm
Sarzana
Sarzaua
Sarzec
Sas
Sasan
Sasanids
sash
Saskatchawine
Saskatchewan
Saspeires
sass
Sassacus
sassafras
Sassanian
Sassanides
Sassanids
Sassanidæ
Sassannian
Sassasinides
Sassenage
Sassoun
SASTEAN
sat
Satan
Satanic
Satara
sate
sated
satellite
satellites
satiate
satiated
satiating
satiety
Satilla
satins
Satire
satires
satirical
satirised
satirist
satirists
satirize
satirized
satisfaction
satisfactorily
satisfactory
satisfied
satisfies
satisfy
satisfying
satlaj
SATOLLI
Satow
satrap
satrapa
satrapial
satrapies
satraps
satrapy
Satsuma
Sattagydia
SATTAGYDÆ
Sattagydæ
Sattara
Sattler
sattvas
saturated
Saturday
Saturdays
Saturn
SATURNALIA
Saturnian
Saturnin
saturnine
Saturninus
Saturnius
satyr
satz
sau
sauce
Sauchie
SAUCY
Sauerbach
Saugerties
SAUK
Saukies
Sauks
Saul
SAULCOURT
Saulnier
Sault
Saulteur
Saumur
Saunders
SAUROMATÆ
Sauromatæ
Saussaye
Saut
Sautrey
sauve
Sauveur
Sauvolle
Sauvons
Sauzet
savage
savagely
savageness
savagery
savages
Savai
Savaii
Savannah
Savannahs
savannas
Savantes
savants
Savary
save
saved
Savelli
SAVENAY
SAVERIO
Saverne
Savery
saves
savez
Savia
Savigliano
Savigny
Savile
Saville
saving
savings
Savior
saviour
saviours
Savoie
Savona
Savonarola
Savone
savor
savored
savors
savour
savoured
savouring
savours
savoury
Savoy
Savoyan
Savoyard
Savoyards
saw
Sawaamset
Sawad
Sawane
sawed
sawing
saws
Sawyer
SAWÂD
Sawâd
Sax
SAXA
Saxe
Saxon
Saxones
Saxonia
Saxonici
Saxonicum
Saxons
Saxonum
Saxony
Saxton
say
saya
Sayam
Saybrook
Saybrooke
Sayce
Sayee
Sayengis
Sayer
sayers
saying
sayings
Sayle
says
sayth
Saïte
Saône
Sbirri
Sc
sc2908
scabbard
scabs
Scaccario
scaccarium
scacco
scaffold
scaffolds
SCAIFE
Scajaquada
Scala
scald
scalding
SCALDIS
Scalds
Scaldscaparmal
scale
scaled
scales
Scaliger
SCALIGERI
Scaligers
scaling
scallop
scalp
scalped
scalping
scalps
SCAMANDER
Scammel
scamp
scampered
Scandal
scandalised
scandalized
Scandalo
scandalous
scandalously
scandals
Scanderbeg
Scandinavia
Scandinavian
Scandinavians
Scania
scanned
scant
scantier
scantiest
scantily
scantiness
scanty
Scanzia
scape
scapece
scapegoat
scapegoats
Scapin
Scapula
scapular
scapulary
scar
Scarborough
scarce
scarcely
scarcer
scarcity
scare
scared
scarf
scarifying
scarlatina
scarlet
scarp
scarped
Scarron
scars
SCARTH
scarves
scat
scathed
scathing
scatter
scattered
Scattering
Scaurus
Scawyace
sceat
scena
scene
scenery
scenes
Scenici
scent
scented
scenting
sceoton
Scepeaux
scepter
sceptic
sceptical
scepticism
sceptics
sceptre
sceptred
sceptres
sch
Schaack
Schach
Schachenthal
SCHACK
SCHADE
Schafarik
Schaff
Schaffarik
Schaffhausen
Schah
Schaick
Schamyl
Schanfigg
Schar
SCHARBERG
Scharf
Scharkioun
Scharnhorst
Schauenberg
Schauffhausen
Schaumburg
Schaumburgh
Schauplatz
sche
Scheam
schedule
scheduled
schedules
Scheel
Scheele
Scheffer
Scheick
Scheimer
Scheld
Schelde
Scheldt
Schele
Schelestadt
Schellenberg
Schem
schema
scheme
schemed
schemer
schemes
scheming
Schenck
Schenectady
schepens
Scherer
Scheria
Schermerhorn
Scherr
Scheuerlen
Scheveling
Schiedam
Schiefner
Schiegnieto
Schieland
Schieringers
Schiess
schiffe
Schilder
SCHILL
Schiller
Schimmelpenninck
Schindellegi
Schingu
Schinkaï
Schinz
SCHIRRMACHER
Schism
schismatic
schismatical
Schismatics
schisms
Schkipetars
SCHLACHTEN
Schlagintweit
Schlangenbad
Schlegel
Schleiden
Schleiermacher
Schleimfieber
Schlesien
Schlestadt
Schleswic
Schleswiek
Schleswig
Schley
Schleyer
Schliemann
Schloss
Schlosser
Schmalkald
Schmalkaldic
Schmalz
Schmettau
Schmidt
Schmitz
Schmucker
Schneider
Schnellendorf
Schnitzer
Schnyder
Schoeffer
Schoell
Schoenhausen
Schofield
Schoharie
Schohariekill
Schola
scholar
SCHOLARII
scholarium
scholarly
scholars
scholarship
scholarships
scholarum
scholastic
Scholastica
scholastically
scholastici
SCHOLASTICISM
Scholastics
Schole
scholemaster
schollers
scholæ
Schomberg
Schomburg
Schonbrunn
Schonen
School
schoolboy
schoolboys
Schoolcraft
Schoole
schooled
schooles
schoolfellow
schoolhouse
schooling
schoolmaster
schoolmasters
schoolmen
Schoolmijsters
schoolroom
schools
schooner
schooners
Schopenhauer
Schorlemer
Schott
Schouler
schout
Schouwen
SCHRADER
Schriften
Schroedel
Schroeder
Schropp
Schryfambacht
SCHRÖDER
Schröder
Schubert
Schuchardt
SCHUCHHARDT
Schuckers
Schul
Schulcollegium
Schulcommission
schuld
Schuldner
schule
Schulemburg
Schulenburg
Schullehrer
Schullemberg
Schulte
Schultheis
Schulthess
Schulwandkarte
Schulze
Schumann
Schumia
Schumla
SCHURIG
Schurman
Schurz
Schussenried
Schutzbrief
Schuyler
Schuylkill
Schwab
Schwaben
Schwald
Schwan
Schwanburg
Schwann
Schwartzenau
Schwartzenberg
Schwartzenburg
Schwarzburg
Schwarzenberg
Schwarzkopf
Schwarzwald
Schwatka
Schwatz
Schwechat
Schweidnitz
Schweigger
Schweinfurt
Schweinfurth
SCHWEINITZ
Schweitz
Schweiz
Schweizer
Schwerin
Schwerta
Schwytz
Schwyz
Schynner
SCHÄFFLE
SCHÖMANN
SCHÖNBRUNN
SCHÖNHAUSEN
SCHÜRER
Schäffle
Schérer
Schöman
Schömann
Schönbrunn
Schöner
Schürer
Schütt
Schütz
SCHŒNE
Sciahhal
Sciarra
sciatica
Science
sciences
scient
scientific
scientifically
scientifique
scientists
Scilly
scimitar
scimitars
SCINDE
Scindia
scintilla
Scio
sciolists
scion
scions
scioperato
Sciota
Scioto
Scipio
Scipionic
Scipios
Scir
scire
scirgemot
scirgerefa
Scirigman
Sciris
Scirman
Scironian
Scituate
Sclav
SCLAVENES
Sclavic
Sclavonia
Sclavonian
Sclavonians
SCLAVONIC
Sclopis
Scoble
SCODRA
scoff
scoffed
scoffers
scoffing
scoffings
Scogan
scolaire
Scomius
Scone
scope
scorched
scorching
SCORDISCANS
score
scored
scores
Scoresby
scorn
scorned
scorner
scornful
scornfully
scorpion
Scorpius
Scot
Scota
Scotch
scotched
Scotchman
Scotchmen
Scoti
Scotia
Scotian
Scotland
Scoto
Scots
Scotsman
SCOTT
Scotti
Scottish
Scotus
Scouler
scoundrel
scoundrelism
scoundrels
scour
scoured
Scourers
scourge
scourged
scourgers
scourges
scourging
scourgings
scouring
scout
scouted
scouting
scouts
scowls
Scoyck
scramble
scrambled
Scranton
scrap
scrape
scraped
scraping
scrapnel
scraps
scratched
scrawl
scream
screamed
screaming
screen
screened
screener
screens
SCREW
screwed
screwing
screws
scribblers
Scribe
SCRIBES
Scribner
Scribonia
scrimmage
scrip
scripserat
script
scripta
Scriptorium
Scriptorum
scriptre
scripts
scriptural
Scripture
scriptures
Scrivia
scrofula
scroll
scrolls
Scrooby
scrotum
scruple
scrupled
scruples
scrupling
SCRUPULA
scrupulous
scrupulously
scrupulousness
scrutin
scrutinised
scrutinising
scrutinized
scrutiny
Scrutton
Scudder
Scudéry
scuffle
scuffled
scuffling
Scull
scullion
sculptor
sculptors
sculpture
sculptured
sculptures
Scultetus
scum
Scuria
Scurr
scurrilous
scurvy
scutage
scutages
Scutari
scutcheon
scuttle
scuttled
SCUTUM
Scylax
Scyri
Scyrii
SCYRIS
Scyros
SCYTALISM
scythe
scythed
scythes
Scythia
Scythian
Scythians
Scythic
Scythopolis
Scyths
SCYTHÆ
Scythæ
Scæan
scélérats
se
Sea
seaboard
seacoast
seacoasts
seafarers
seafaring
Seal
sealed
sealing
seals
seam
seaman
seamanship
seamed
seamen
seamy
seang
seaport
seaports
search
searched
Searcher
searchers
searches
searching
seared
searing
Sears
searuice
seas
seashore
season
seasonable
seasonableness
seasonal
seasoned
seasons
seat
seated
seating
Seaton
seats
Seattle
Seaver
seaward
seawards
seaweed
seaworthy
Seba
Sebaste
Sebastian
Sebastiani
Sebastion
SEBASTOPOL
Sebastopolis
Sebastos
Sebectagi
Sebennyte
Sebennytus
Sebridae
Sebzar
Sec
seca
SECCA
Secchia
secede
seceded
seceder
seceders
seceding
SECESH
secession
secessionist
secessionists
secessions
Sechelles
Sechuen
Sechura
seck
Seckendorf
seclud
secluded
seclusion
SECO
Secocoeni
SECOFFEE
SECOND
Secondaire
secondarily
secondary
seconded
seconding
secondly
seconds
secrecy
secret
secretarial
secretaries
Secretary
Secretaryship
secreted
secretion
secretions
secretly
secrets
sect
sectarian
sectarianism
sectarians
sectaries
Section
sectional
sectionalism
sectionalize
sectionaries
sectionary
sections
sector
sects
secular
secularise
secularised
secularising
secularization
secularize
secularized
secularizing
seculars
Secumne
Secunda
Secundi
Secundra
secundum
Secundus
secure
secured
securely
securer
secures
securing
securis
securitate
securities
security
Secydianus
sed
Sedalia
Sedan
sedate
Seddon
Sedehs
sedentary
sedes
sedge
Sedgemoor
Sedgmoor
Sedgwick
Sedici
Sedition
seditions
seditious
seduce
Seduced
seducer
seduction
seductions
seductive
sedulously
See
Seebohm
Seebote
seed
seeds
Seehagen
seeing
seek
seeker
Seekers
seeking
Seekonk
seeks
Seeland
Seeley
SEELYE
seem
seemed
seemeth
seeming
seemingly
seemly
seems
seen
seene
seer
seers
sees
seest
seethed
seething
SEFAVEAN
seg
Segesta
Segesvar
segment
segmentation
segments
Segna
Segnei
SEGNI
Sego
SEGONTIACI
Segontium
Segou
Segovia
Segrais
Segre
segregation
Seguin
Segur
Seguro
SEGUSIAVI
Sehleiermacher
Sehlick
Sehluss
SEIBERT
Seidlitz
Seienden
Seigneur
seigneurial
seigneurie
seigneuries
Seigneurs
seigneury
Seignior
seigniorage
seigniorial
seigniories
seigniority
seigniors
seigniory
seignorial
seignories
seignory
Seiks
Sein
Seine
seinen
seiner
Seiont
seipsum
Seir
seisachtheia
seised
seisen
seisin
Seistan
seit
seize
seized
seizes
SEIZIN
seizing
Seizure
seizures
Sejanus
Sekkinga
Sel
Selah
Selborne
Selby
Selden
Seldjik
Seldjuk
Seldjukides
SELDJUKS
seldom
Sele
Select
selected
selecting
selection
selections
selectmen
selects
Seleuceia
Seleucia
Seleucians
Seleucias
Seleucid
Seleucidae
Seleucids
SELEUCIDÆ
Seleucidæ
Seleucidæan
Seleucis
Seleucus
Seleueus
Seleukos
Seleukus
self
selfish
selfishly
selfishness
selfless
Selfridge
SELGOVÆ
Selgovæ
Seligmacher
Seligman
Selim
Selino
Selinous
Selinus
Selj
Seljook
Seljookian
Seljouk
Seljoukian
Seljouks
Seljuk
Seljukian
Seljukides
SELJUKS
Selkirk
sell
SELLA
Sellasia
seller
sellers
Selli
selling
sells
Sellstedt
Selma
SELOSSE
Selous
Selsey
selskï
Seltz
Selucids
Selucidæ
selues
selvaggia
selves
SELWOOD
Selwyn
Selymbria
semanóle
semaphore
semblance
Semendra
Semendria
Semenevskoé
Semenovski
Semgallen
semi
semicircle
semicircles
semicircular
semilunar
seminal
Seminar
Seminara
seminaries
seminarists
seminary
Seminole
Seminoles
Semipelagianism
Semite
Semites
Semitic
Semitized
Semlin
Semmes
Semno
Semnones
Sempach
semper
SEMPRONIAN
Sempronius
SEMPRONIÆ
Sen
Sena
Senaar
Senaculum
Senate
senates
Senator
senatorial
senators
senatorships
senatu
SENATUS
senatusconsulta
sence
SENCHUS
sencschal
send
sender
sending
sends
Seneca
Senecas
Senef
Seneffe
Senegal
Senegallia
Senegambia
Senegambian
Seneschal
seneschalates
seneschals
Senga
Senigaglia
senility
Senior
seniority
seniors
Senkereh
Senlac
Senlis
Senna
Sennaar
Sennacherib
Sennachies
Sennar
Sennecas
SENONES
Senonian
Senor
Senora
Senouissian
Senoussi
Sens
sensation
sensational
sensations
sense
senseless
senselessness
senses
sensibilities
sensibility
sensible
sensibly
sensitive
sensitiveness
sensu
sensual
sensualist
sensualities
sensuality
sensuous
sent
sentence
sentenced
sentenceJ
sentences
sentencing
senteneed
sententious
sententiæ
sentient
Sentier
sentiment
sentimental
sentimentality
sentiments
sentinel
sentinelled
sentinels
Sentins
Sentinum
sentries
sentry
Senuc
Seoul
separable
separate
separated
separately
separateness
separates
separating
separation
separatish
separatism
Separatist
SEPARATISTS
SEPET
SEPHARDIM
Sepharvaim
SEPHER
SEPOY
SEPOYS
Sept
septa
septem
SEPTEMBER
Septemher
Septemvirs
septenary
septennary
Septennate
SEPTENNIAL
septicæmia
SEPTIMANIA
Septimer
Septimius
septimontium
Septimus
Septième
septs
Septuagint
sepulcher
sepulchral
Sepulchre
sepulchres
sepulture
seq
Sequana
Sequanese
Sequani
Sequatchie
sequel
sequelam
sequence
sequester
sequestered
sequestrated
sequestrating
sequestration
sequestrations
sequins
ser
Serabi
seraglio
seraglios
Serai
SERAPEUM
Seraph
Seraphim
Serapion
Serapis
Seraskier
Serb
Serbellone
Serbic
Serbon
Serbonian
Serbonis
Serbs
Serchio
Serebinoff
Serena
Serene
serenity
Serenus
Seres
serf
serfage
serfdom
Serfhood
serfs
serge
sergeant
sergeants
sergeantships
Sergel
sergens
Sergent
sergents
serges
Sergius
serial
series
Seringapatam
serious
seriously
seriousness
Seriphus
Serjeant
SERJEANTS
SERJEANTY
Serjens
Serment
sermentés
sermon
sermonis
sermons
Sermylus
seront
Serosh
Serpa
Serpent
serpents
SERPUL
Serra
Serrano
serrata
Serravalle
Serre
Serrin
Serrurier
Sertorius
Serurier
Serv
Servan
servant
servants
serve
served
serveillance
server
servers
serves
Servetus
Servi
Servia
Servian
Servians
service
serviceable
services
Servien
Servientcs
servile
Serviles
Servilia
servilities
servility
Servilius
serving
servir
SERVITES
Serviteur
servitor
servitors
servitude
Servius
Servo
Servorum
servus
ses
Sesia
Sesnando
Sesodia
Sesostris
SESQUIPES
Sess
Sessa
Sessia
session
sessional
Sessions
Sesslavine
sesterces
sestertii
SESTERTIUS
Sesto
SESTOS
Sestri
SESTUNTII
Sestus
set
setback
Seth
Sethos
Sethroitic
Seti
Setia
Seton
sets
sett
Sette
setter
setting
settings
settle
settled
settlement
settlements
settler
settlers
settles
settling
Setzen
seu
seuerall
seuerally
seurall
seurrall
Seuthes
Sevaji
sevastokrator
Sevastopol
SEVASTOS
SEVEN
sevens
seventeen
seventeenth
seventh
seventies
seventieth
seventy
sever
several
severall
severally
severalty
Severance
severe
severed
severely
severer
severest
Severian
Severians
Severin
severing
SEVERINUS
severities
severity
Severn
Severus
Sevi
Sevier
Sevigne
Seville
SEVIN
Sew
Sewall
Sewan
Seward
sewed
Sewell
sewer
sewerage
Sewers
Sewing
sex
sexes
Sextiae
Sextilis
Sextius
SEXTIÆ
Sextiæ
Sexton
Sextus
sexual
SEYFFERTH
Seyid
Seymens
Seymore
Seymour
Seyr
Sezanne
Seäy
Seïf
Señor
Sfax
sfleet
Sforza
Sforzas
sha
Shaack
Shabacz
Shabats
SHABATZ
shabbiest
shabbiness
shabby
Shacaya
Shackamaxon
shackle
shackled
shackles
shackling
shad
Shaddu
shade
shaded
shades
shadow
shadowed
shadows
shadowy
Shadrach
Shadwell
shady
Shaff
Shafra
shaft
Shaftesbury
shafts
Shah
Shahaptian
Shahin
Shahjahanpur
Shahjan
Shahji
SHAHPUR
Shahpura
Shahr
Shahrbarz
Shahs
Shahzada
Shakah
shake
SHAKEH
shaken
Shakers
shakes
Shakespear
Shakespeare
shaking
Shakoans
Shakspeare
Shakspere
shaky
shal
shalbe
SHALER
shall
shallah
shallop
shallow
shallower
shallowness
shallows
Shalman
Shalmaneser
Shalmanezer
shalt
sham
Shamanism
Shamans
shambles
shame
shamed
shamefaced
shameful
shamefully
shamefulness
shameless
shamelessly
shamelessness
Shamo
shampooing
Shamrock
shams
Shan
Shandy
Shane
Shang
Shanghai
Shannon
Shans
Shanse
Shansi
shanties
Shanty
shape
shaped
shapeless
shapes
shaping
Shaporee
share
shared
shareholder
shareholders
sharer
sharers
shares
sharezer
Shari
sharing
sharings
Sharkey
Sharkün
Sharman
SHARON
sharp
SHARPE
sharpen
sharpened
sharpening
sharper
sharpers
sharpest
sharply
sharpness
SHARPSBURG
sharpshooters
sharpshooting
Sharrukin
Sharuhen
Shashi
Shasta
Shastas
Shasu
shatter
shattered
shattering
Shattock
shave
shaved
Shaveh
shavelings
shaven
shaving
Shaw
Shawanee
Shawanees
SHAWANESE
Shawano
Shawanoes
Shawer
shawl
Shawmut
Shawnee
SHAWNEES
Shawnoes
Shawomet
Shay
Shays
she
Shea
sheadings
sheaf
Sheaffe
Sheah
SHEAHAN
Sheahs
Shean
shear
shearing
sheath
sheathe
sheathed
sheathing
Sheba
Shechem
shed
Shedd
shedding
Sheds
Sheel
sheeling
sheep
Sheepeaters
sheepfold
sheepskin
sheer
sheered
Sheerness
sheet
sheets
Sheffield
Sheger
Sheik
Sheikh
Sheil
SHEKEL
shekels
Shekka
Shelburne
Shelby
Shelbyville
Sheldon
shelf
shell
shelled
Shelley
Shelling
shells
shelter
sheltered
sheltering
shelters
Shelton
shelved
shelves
Shem
Shemer
shemesh
Shems
Shenandoah
Shendy
SHENIR
Shennan
Shense
Shensi
Shepard
Shephard
SHEPHELAH
shepherd
shepherdess
shepherdesses
shepherds
Shepherdstown
Shepley
Sheppard
Sheppey
Shepstone
Sher
Shera
Sherard
sherbet
Sherborne
Sherbro
Sherburne
Shere
Shereefian
Sheremetoff
Sherer
Sheridan
Sherif
Sheriff
sheriffdoms
SHERIFFMUIR
sheriffs
Sherlock
Sherman
Sherring
Sherston
SHERSTONE
Sherwood
Sheshatapoosh
Sheshonk
Shetland
Shetlands
shew
shewed
shewing
shewn
shews
Sheyenne
SHEYENNES
Sheykhs
Sheïbani
shi
Shia
Shiah
shiahs
Shias
shibboleths
shield
shielded
shielding
Shields
shift
shifted
shifter
shifting
shiftings
shiftless
Shifts
shifty
SHIITES
Shilleto
shilling
shillings
Shiloh
Shilston
Shimei
Shimoda
Shimonoseki
Shin
Shinar
shine
shines
shingles
shining
shinnes
Shinto
ship
shipboard
shipbuilders
Shipherd
Shipka
shipload
shipmen
shipment
shipments
shipowner
shipowners
shipped
SHIPPEN
shipper
shipping
ships
Shipton
shipwreck
shipwrecked
Shipwrecks
shipwright
shipwrights
shipyards
Shir
Shiracouh
Shiraz
shire
SHIREMOOT
shires
Shirewood
Shirkoh
shirks
Shirley
shirt
shirts
Shirwa
Shiré
Shis
Shishak
shivered
shivering
Shiya
Shiyas
SHIZ
Shkypetares
Sho
Shoa
shoal
shoaling
Shoals
Shoberl
shock
shocked
shocking
shocks
shod
shoe
shoeblacks
shoemaker
shoemakers
Shoenbrun
shoes
Shofetim
Shogun
Shogunate
Shoguns
shone
Shoo
shook
shoot
shooter
shooters
shooting
shoots
shop
shophet
Shophetim
shopkeeper
shopkeepers
shops
shore
Shoreham
shores
shorn
short
shortcomings
shorten
shortened
shortening
shorter
shortest
Shortland
shortly
shortness
Shoshone
SHOSHONEAN
SHOSHONES
Shoshoni
shot
shotiah
shots
shotted
should
shoulder
shouldered
shoulders
shouldst
shout
shouted
shouters
shouting
shouts
Shovel
shovels
show
showed
shower
showered
showers
SHOWING
shown
shows
showy
Shrajah
shrank
shred
shreds
Shreveport
shrewd
shrewder
shrewdly
shrewdness
Shrewsbury
shriek
shrieked
shrieking
shrieks
shrill
shrilling
shrine
shrines
shrink
shrinkage
shrinking
shrinks
shriveled
shrivelled
shrivels
Shropshire
shroud
shrouded
shrouding
shrub
shrubs
shrunk
shrunken
SHUCKBURGH
shudder
shuddered
shuddering
shudderingly
shuffled
shuffles
Shuja
Shujo
SHULUH
Shumir
Shumiro
Shumla
Shumsheer
Shun
shunned
shunning
Shupane
SHUPANES
SHURTLEFF
Shushan
Shushinak
shut
Shutargardan
Shute
shuts
shutter
shuttered
shutters
shutting
shuttle
shuttles
shy
shyness
Shán
Shíite
Shômeron
Si
Siam
Siamese
Siamet
Siberia
Siberian
sibi
sibilant
sibilantly
Sibley
Siborne
Sibour
SIBUZATES
Sibyl
Sibyline
Sibylline
SIBYLS
Sic
SICAMBRI
Sicambrian
Sicanians
Sicarii
Sicca
Sicel
Siceli
SICELIOTEB
SICELIOTES
Sicels
Sicharbaal
Sichem
Sicilian
Sicilians
Sicilies
Sicily
sick
sickened
sickening
Sickingen
sickle
Sickler
sickly
Sickness
sicknesses
Sicoris
SICULI
Siculus
Sicyon
Sicyonians
side
sided
sidedness
sides
sidewalks
sideways
Sidi
siding
Sidmouth
Sidney
Sidneys
Sidon
Sidonia
Sidonian
SIDONIANS
Sidonius
Sidra
Sidrocs
Sieben
SIEBENBÜRGEN
Siebenbürgen
Siedlice
siege
sieges
Siegfried
SIEGLIN
Siegmund
Siemen
Siemens
SIENA
Sienese
Sienna
Siennese
SIENPI
Sierch
Sierra
Sierras
Siete
Sieur
SIEVERSHAUSEN
SIEYES
Sieyès
Siffin
sifted
sifting
siftings
sig
SIGAMBRI
Siganfu
Sigebert
Sigeion
Sigel
Sigeum
sigh
Sighebert
sighed
sighs
sight
sighted
sightedness
sighting
sights
Sigillum
Sigismond
Sigismondo
Sigismund
Sigm
Sigmaringen
SIGMUND
sign
signal
signalised
signalize
signalized
signalizing
signalled
signally
signals
signataries
signatories
signatory
Signatura
signature
signatures
signboard
signed
signer
signers
signet
signets
Signeul
Signia
significance
significances
significant
significantly
signification
significations
signified
signifies
signify
signifying
signing
Signor
Signorelli
Signori
signoria
signors
Signory
signs
signum
Sigulf
Sigurd
Sigurdsson
Sihon
Sihoon
Sihun
sik
Sikandar
Sikans
Sikel
Sikeliot
SIKELS
Sikh
Sikhs
Sikinus
Sikkak
Siksika
Siksikas
Sikyon
Sikyonians
Silarus
Silas
SILBURY
SILCHESTER
silence
silenced
silencing
Silent
silently
Silenus
SILESIA
Silesian
Silesians
Siletz
silex
Silhouette
Silingi
Silistria
silk
Silken
silks
silkworm
Sillery
silly
SILO
Siloam
silphium
silt
silting
Silures
Silurian
Silurum
SILVA
Silvagni
SILVANUS
silver
silversmiths
silvery
Silvester
sima
Simancas
Simanos
Simanóle
Simbel
Simcoe
Simcox
SIME
Simeon
similar
similarities
similarity
similarly
similes
similitude
Simla
Simmern
Simmesport
Simms
Simnel
Simnitza
Simon
SIMONDE
Simone
simoniacal
Simonian
Simonides
Simonism
Simons
simony
simoom
SIMPACH
Simpkin
Simpkins
simple
simpler
simples
simplest
simplici
Simplicissimus
simplicity
Simplicius
Simplification
simplified
simplify
simplifying
Simplon
simply
Simpson
SIMS
Simson
simulate
simulated
simultaneous
simultaneously
Simyra
SIMÉON
sin
Sina
Sinai
Sinaitic
Sinaloa
Sinamari
Sinan
since
sincere
sincerely
sincerity
Sinclair
Sinclairs
Sind
Sinde
Sindh
sindhava
Sindhavas
Sindhia
Sindhias
Sindhu
Sindia
SINDMAN
Sindus
sine
sinecure
Sinei
Sineus
sinew
sinews
sinewy
sinful
sinfulness
sing
Singan
Singanfu
Singapore
Singara
singer
singers
Singh
Singidunum
singing
single
singled
singleness
singling
singly
Sings
singular
Singulari
Singularis
Singularity
Singularly
singulis
Sinhalese
Sinigaglia
Sinim
sinister
SINITES
Sinitic
sink
Sinkat
Sinke
sinking
sinks
Sinlo
Sinmuballit
sinn
Sinnamari
sinned
Sinnekox
sinner
sinners
Sinnett
sino
Sinope
sins
SINSHEIM
Sinsteden
Sint
Sinus
SINÆ
Sinæ
Sion
SIOUAN
Sioux
sipahi
Sipahis
Siphnos
Siphæ
Sippar
Sippara
Sippars
Sipylus
Sir
Sirach
Siraf
Siragi
Sirbonis
Sire
Siren
sirens
sires
Sirhind
Siricius
Siris
Siritid
Siritis
Sirius
Sirk
SIRKARS
Sirmia
SIRMIUM
sirnamed
sirs
sirup
Sirur
sirventeses
Siryenians
Sisebut
Sisebuto
SISECK
Siseek
Sisera
Sisern
Sisika
SISIKAS
Sisinnius
Sisitoans
Sisitonwan
Siskiyou
Sismondi
Sisseton
Sissetons
Sistan
sister
sistered
sisterhood
sisterhoods
sisters
Sistine
Sistova
Sisyphus
Sit
Sitabaldi
Sitalkes
site
sites
Sitgreaves
Sithiu
Sitio
Sitka
sits
Sittang
Sittengeschichte
Sittengeschiehte
sitting
sittings
situate
situated
situation
situations
Sitvatorok
sitzen
Sitzredakteure
Siu
Siva
Sivaji
Sivan
Sivas
sive
Siwah
six
sixe
sixes
sixpence
sixpences
Sixteen
sixteenth
sixteenths
sixth
sixthly
sixths
sixties
Sixtine
Sixtus
sixty
size
sized
sizes
siècle
Sièyes
Siéyes
Siéyès
Skaane
Skaania
skald
skaldic
skalds
Skandinaven
Skane
Skaneateles
Skardus
Skarn
skates
skean
Skeat
Skeats
Skeffington
SKELESSI
skeleton
skeletons
SKELION
Skelton
SKENANDOAH
Skender
Skenderoun
Skene
Skenesborough
Skenker
skeptic
skeptical
skepticism
Skerries
sketch
sketched
Sketches
sketching
skies
skiff
skilful
skilfully
skilfulness
skill
skilled
skillful
skillfully
skim
skimming
skin
Skink
skinned
SKINNER
Skinners
skins
Skione
Skipetars
Skipper
Skippon
Skiptars
skirmish
skirmished
skirmishers
skirmishes
skirmishing
skirt
skirted
skirting
skirts
SKITTAGETAN
Skobeleff
SKODRA
Skolus
Skomius
SKOTTOWE
Skripu
Skrzynecki
SKRÆLINGS
Skrælings
skulked
skulking
skull
skulls
Skupshtina
SKUPTCHINA
Skuylkill
sky
Skyros
SKYTALISM
Skytte
slab
slabs
Slack
slacken
slackened
slackening
slackness
Slade
SLAFTER
slain
slalbe
slander
slandering
slanderous
slanders
slang
Slangenberg
slanting
slap
slashings
slate
Slater
Slatin
slaughter
slaughtered
slaughterers
slaughtering
slaughterous
slaughters
Slav
Slava
Slavata
slave
slaveholder
slaveholders
slaveholding
slaver
slaveries
slavers
slavery
slaves
Slavi
Slavic
slaving
Slavinia
slavish
slavishly
Slavism
Slavist
slavistic
Slavo
slavocracy
Slavonia
Slavonian
Slavonians
Slavonic
Slavophil
Slavs
Slawata
Slawische
slay
slayer
slaying
Sleda
sledge
sledges
sleek
Sleeman
sleep
sleepers
sleepily
sleeping
sleepless
sleeplessness
sleepy
sleet
sleeve
sleeved
sleeveless
sleeves
sleight
Slemmer
slender
slenderer
slenderest
slenderly
slenderness
slept
Sleswick
Sleswig
sleuth
slew
slice
Slicer
slices
slid
slide
SLIDELL
slides
sliding
slight
slighted
slighter
slightest
slighting
slightingly
slightly
slightness
Sligo
slim
slime
slimy
sling
slingers
slinging
slings
slinking
slip
slipped
slipper
slippers
slipping
slips
slit
slitting
sliver
SLIVNITZA
Slivno
Sloane
Sloat
SLOBADYSSA
Slocum
Slonim
sloop
sloops
slope
sloped
slopes
sloping
slopingly
Sloss
sloth
slothful
slothfulness
slouched
slough
sloughing
Sloughter
Sloutsk
Slovac
Slovak
Slovaks
Slovene
Slovenes
Slovenic
slovenly
Slovens
slow
Slowan
slower
slowest
slowly
slowness
sluggish
sluggishly
sluggishness
sluices
slumber
slumbered
slumbering
slumbers
slumped
slung
slunk
Sluys
smacks
Smalcald
smale
Smalkald
Smalkalde
Smalkalden
small
smaller
smallest
smallness
smallpox
smart
smarted
Smarting
smartness
smash
smashing
smatterers
smattering
smeared
smearing
Smeathman
Smeaton
Smedley
smell
smells
smelt
smelting
Smendou
Smerdis
Smerwick
SMET
Smidar
Smike
smilax
smile
smiled
Smiles
smiling
smirch
smirched
Smirke
smite
Smith
Smithfield
smithies
smithing
smiths
Smithsonian
smitten
smock
smocks
Smohain
smoke
smoked
smoking
Smoky
smoldering
Smolensk
Smolenski
Smolensko
Smollett
smooth
smoothed
smoother
smoothest
smoothly
smoothness
Smorghoni
Smorgoni
smote
smother
smothered
smouldered
smouldering
smug
smuggle
smuggled
smuggler
smugglers
smuggling
smutted
Smyrna
Smyth
snails
Snake
snakes
Snap
snapped
snapping
snare
snares
snarling
snatch
snatched
snatches
snatching
Snead
sneer
sneeringly
sneers
sneezewort
sneezing
Snelling
snipped
snipping
snoffe
Snorre
Snorri
Snorro
SNOSHONEAN
snow
snowbreak
Snowden
Snowdon
snowing
Snowland
snows
snowy
snubbing
snuff
snuffling
snug
so
soak
soaked
Soames
soap
soar
soared
Soaring
Soathampton
Sobach
Sobaipuri
sobbing
sober
sobered
sobering
soberly
soberness
Sobieska
Sobieski
Sobiesky
Sobral
SOBRAON
SOBRARBE
sobriety
sobriquet
sobs
soc
SOCAGE
social
Sociale
Socialism
Socialisms
Socialist
Socialistic
Socialistische
Socialists
socializing
socially
Sociedad
societe
societies
society
Socii
Socinian
Socinians
sociological
société
socket
Socko
socmanni
Socmen
Soconusco
Socrates
Socratic
Soczava
sod
soda
sodalitates
sodalitia
Sodbury
Soden
Soderini
Sodom
Sodor
soe
Soest
soever
Sofala
sofar
Sofia
Sofian
Sofiân
Soft
soften
softened
softening
softenings
softer
softly
softness
Sogd
Sogdia
SOGDIANA
Sogdiani
Sogdians
Sogdianus
Soghanli
Sogliano
Sohash
Sohm
Soho
SOHR
Soignies
soil
soiled
Soiler
soilers
Soissons
Soit
sojourn
sojourner
sojourners
sojourning
Sokclli
sokeman
sokemanni
sokemen
sokes
Sokolli
Sokoto
sol
solace
solaced
solaces
solacing
Solander
Solano
solar
solate
Solatis
sold
Solde
soldered
soldering
soldi
soldier
soldierlike
soldierly
soldiers
soldiership
soldiery
Sole
Solebay
Soleil
Soleillet
solely
Solemn
solemnised
solemnities
solemnity
solemnization
solemnize
solemnized
solemnly
Solent
SOLES
Soleure
Soley
Solferino
solicit
solicitation
solicitations
solicited
soliciting
Solicitor
solicitors
solicitous
solicits
solicitude
solicitudes
solicitudo
solid
solidairement
solidarity
solides
solidi
solidification
solidified
solidify
solidifying
Solidism
solidity
solidly
solids
SOLIDUS
Soliman
Solinus
SOLIS
solitaries
solitary
solitude
solitudes
Solmes
Solms
Solo
Solomon
Solomons
Solon
Solonian
Solons
Solothurn
Solous
Solovetsk
Solre
solstice
Soltikoff
soluble
Solum
Solus
solution
Solutions
solve
solved
solvency
solvent
solves
solving
solvit
SOLWAY
Solyman
Solymi
Soma
Somali
Somarled
Somasca
SOMASCINES
SOMATOPHYLAX
Somauli
sombre
Sombreffe
Sombreuil
some
somebody
Somehow
Somerled
Somers
Somerset
Somersetshire
Somersett
Somerville
somes
something
sometime
sometimes
somewhat
somewhere
Somme
SOMMERING
Sommersett
Somnath
Somnauth
somnolent
Somo
Somport
Somál
son
Soncino
Sonderbund
Sonderburg
Sondershansen
Sondershnusen
song
songs
Songwé
Sonnemann
Sonnenschein
sonnet
Sonnethal
sonnets
Sonnoy
Sonoma
Sonontowanas
Sonora
sonorous
Sonoy
Sons
Sontay
Soo
Soobahs
Sooja
Soojah
Soolima
soon
sooner
soonest
Soongari
sooth
soothe
soothed
soothing
soothsayers
Sooy
Sophene
Sopher
Sopherim
Sophi
Sophia
Sophian
SOPHIE
Sophis
sophism
sophisms
sophist
sophistic
sophistical
sophisticated
sophistries
sophistry
Sophists
Sophocles
Sophokles
Sophonides
Sophroniscus
Sopt
Sora
Sorabi
Sorabian
SORABIANS
Soracte
SORBIODUNUM
Sorbon
Sorbonne
Sorbs
Sorcerer
sorcerers
sorceress
sorceries
sorcery
sordid
SORDONES
sore
Sorel
sorely
Sorento
sorer
sorghum
Sorgues
Soroka
sorriness
sorrow
sorrowful
sorrowfully
sorrowing
sorrows
sorry
sort
sortes
sortie
sorties
sorts
sos
Sostratus
Sot
Soter
Sothel
Sothic
Sothis
Sotiates
sotnias
Soto
sotterranea
sou
Souabe
Souakim
Souakin
Soubise
Soubises
Soubitza
Soublette
Soubrany
soubriquet
Soudan
Soudanese
souffrance
sought
Souham
soul
Soule
souled
soulless
Soulouque
souls
Soult
Soulé
sound
sounded
sounder
soundest
sounding
Soundings
soundly
soundness
sounds
soup
sour
source
sources
soured
Sous
Sousa
South
Southampton
Southamptonshire
southeast
southeasterly
southeastern
southeastwardly
southerly
Southern
southerner
Southerners
southernmost
Southey
Southfield
Southgate
Southhampton
Southold
southward
southwards
Southwark
southwest
southwesterly
Southwestern
southwesternmost
southwestward
southwestwardly
southwestwards
Southwick
Southwold
Souvarof
souvenir
Souvenirs
Souvorof
Souvré
Souzdal
sovereign
sovereigns
sovereignties
sovereignty
sow
sowed
sowing
sown
Sozopetra
Sp
Spa
Spaar
space
spaces
spacious
spade
spades
SPAHI
spahis
Spaight
Spain
Spains
spake
Spalatin
SPALATO
Spalding
Spam
span
Spandau
Spangled
Spangler
Spanheim
Spaniard
Spaniards
Spanish
spanned
spanning
spans
spare
spared
spares
sparing
sparingly
spark
Sparke
Sparkes
sparkled
sparkling
sparks
sparring
Sparrman
sparrow
sparse
sparsely
sparseness
Sparta
SPARTACUS
Spartan
Spartans
Spartiatæ
Spartolus
spas
spasm
spasmodic
spasmodical
spasms
spat
Spaulding
spawn
speak
speakeings
speaker
speakers
Speakership
speaketh
speaking
speaks
spear
speared
spearmen
spears
speccol
spech
special
specialist
specialists
specialize
specialized
specially
specialties
specialty
specie
species
specific
specifically
specification
specified
specifies
specify
specifying
specimen
specimens
specious
speck
Speckbacher
specks
spectacle
spectacles
Spectator
spectators
spectral
spectre
spectres
speculate
speculated
speculating
speculation
speculations
Speculative
speculatively
speculator
speculatories
speculators
Speculum
Speculums
sped
SPEDDING
speech
SPEECHES
speechifyings
speechless
speed
speede
speedier
speediest
speedily
speeding
speeds
Speedwell
speedy
SPEER
Speier
Speirs
Speke
spell
spellbound
spelled
spelling
spellings
spells
spelt
Spence
Spencean
SPENCEANS
Spencer
spend
spender
spending
Spendius
spendthrift
spendthrifts
Spenser
spent
Spentas
Speranza
Spercheios
Spercheius
Spercheus
Sperchius
Sperchæus
sperm
Sperreuter
Spessart
spetiall
Speusinii
Speusinus
Spey
Speyer
Speyers
Spezia
Spezialkarten
Spezzia
SPHACTERIA
Sphakteria
Sphaktêria
sphere
spheres
Sphinx
Sphinxes
spice
Spiceries
spicery
spices
Spichern
spicienda
spider
spiders
Spiegel
Spieghel
Spielberg
Spielmann
Spiers
spies
Spike
spiked
spikenard
spikes
Spillan
spilled
spilt
spin
spinal
Spinalonga
spindle
spindles
Spine
spinet
Spini
spinner
spinners
spinning
Spinola
Spinoza
spinster
Spinther
spiral
spirally
spire
spires
spirit
spirited
spiriting
spiritless
Spirito
spirits
spiritu
spiritual
spiritualis
spiritualistic
spirituality
spiritualized
spiritually
Spirituals
spirituous
spit
Spitama
spite
spiteful
Spithead
Spiti
spitting
Spitzbergen
splashes
spleenful
splendid
splendidly
splendor
splendors
splendour
splendours
splenic
splinter
split
splitting
splittings
Spljet
spluttered
spoil
spoiled
spoiler
spoilers
spoiling
spoils
spoilt
spoke
spoken
spokes
spokesman
spokesmen
Spoleto
Spolia
spoliation
spoliations
spoliative
spoliis
Spon
Spondanus
sponge
sponges
sponsor
sponsors
spontaneity
spontaneous
spontaneously
spontaneousness
spoonfuls
Spoonhandle
spoons
SPORADES
sporadic
sport
sported
sporting
sportive
sports
sportsman
sportsmen
Sporus
spot
spotless
spots
Spotswood
Spotsylvania
spotted
Spottiswoode
Spottsylvania
spouse
spout
spouted
Sprague
sprang
spray
spread
spreader
spreaders
spreading
spreads
Spree
sprig
sprightly
sprigs
spring
springes
Springfield
springing
springs
springtide
springtime
sprinkle
sprinkled
sprinkling
sprit
sprouting
Spruce
SPRUIT
SPRUNER
sprung
spuds
spun
Spur
spurious
spuriousness
Spurius
spurn
spurned
spurns
spurred
spurring
spurs
spurted
spurts
sputter
spy
spyes
spying
spécial
squabble
squabbles
squabbling
squad
squadron
squadrons
squads
squalid
squall
squally
squalor
squander
squandered
squandering
squanders
Squantum
square
squarely
squares
squat
squatter
squatters
squatting
Squaw
squaws
squeamish
squeeze
squeezed
squeezes
squeezing
squelched
SQUIER
squilla
Squillace
SQUIRE
squirearchy
squireens
squires
Squirrel
Sr
Sraosha
sruti
SS
Ssanang
ssi
Ssouth
St
Sta
Staat
Staaten
Staatenbund
Staatenstaat
staates
Staats
staatsgebietes
stab
Stabat
stabbed
stabbing
stability
stabilivit
Stabiæ
stable
stabled
stables
Stabulator
stabuli
stack
stacked
Stad
Stadacona
Stadaconé
STADE
stades
stadholder
stadholderate
Stadholders
stadia
Stadin
stadion
stadium
stadsfullmäktige
stadt
stadtholder
Stadtholderate
stadtholders
stadtholdership
STADTLOHN
Stadtmeister
Stadtrath
Stadtrecht
Stadtschulrath
STAEL
Stafa
staff
STAFFARDA
Stafford
Staffordshire
staffs
stag
stage
Stageirus
stages
stagger
staggered
staggering
stagnant
stagnated
stagnates
stagnating
stagnation
Stahl
stahlhof
Stahremberg
staid
stain
stained
Staines
staining
stains
Stair
staircase
staircases
stairs
Staite
stake
staked
stakes
staking
STAKR
stale
stalk
stalked
stalks
stall
Stallaert
stalled
Staller
stalls
Stallupöhnen
Stalwart
Stalwartism
Stalwarts
Stalybridge
Stambol
Stamboul
Stambouloff
STAMFORD
stamina
stammered
Stammerer
Stammerers
stammering
stamp
stamped
stampede
stampeded
stampeding
stamping
stamps
stan
Stanbery
stanch
stand
Standard
standardize
standards
stander
standers
Standesbeamte
STANDING
Standish
standpoint
standpoints
stands
standstill
Stanford
Stanhope
Stanislas
Stanislaus
Stanitzas
Stankekans
Stanley
Stanleys
Stannary
Stanton
Stanwix
Stanwood
Stanz
Stanzerverkomniss
Staoueli
staple
staplers
STAPLES
Stapleton
Star
starboard
starch
starched
stared
Staremberg
Staremburg
staring
stark
Starkad
STARO
starost
starosta
STAROSTS
Starr
starred
Starry
stars
Start
started
starting
startle
startled
startling
startlingly
starts
starvation
starve
Starved
starveling
starving
Stat
State
stateaided
statecraft
stated
statehood
stateism
stateliest
stateliness
stately
statement
statements
Staten
States
Statesman
statesmanlike
statesmanship
statesmen
Stati
Statics
stating
Station
stationarii
stationary
stationed
stationer
Stationers
stationery
Stationing
stations
statistical
statisticians
statistics
Statistik
Statistique
Statius
stato
Statsraad
Statthalter
statu
statuary
statue
statues
stature
Status
Statute
Statutes
Statuto
statutory
Statutum
Staufberg
Staufen
Stauffacher
staunch
staunchest
Staunton
Staupitz
Stauracius
Stauratio
staves
STAVOUTCHANI
stay
stayed
staying
stays
Staël
STE
stead
steadfast
steadfastly
steadfastness
steadied
steadier
steadiest
steadily
steadiness
steady
steadying
STEAK
steaks
steal
stealers
stealing
Steallere
steals
stealth
stealthily
Stealthy
steam
steamboat
steamboats
steamed
Steamer
steamers
steaming
Steamship
steamships
Stearns
Stebbing
Stecker
Stecknitz
STEDMAN
steed
Steedman
steeds
STEEG
STEEL
Steele
steeled
Steenbock
Steenkerke
Steenstrupp
Steenwyck
Steenwyk
steep
steeped
steeple
steeples
steeps
steer
steered
steering
Stefanie
STEFANO
Stein
Steinau
Steinheil
Steinkirk
Steinmetz
STELA
stele
Stella
stelæ
stem
stemmed
stemming
stems
Sten
Stenai
Stenay
stench
Stendal
Stengel
Stenhouse
Steno
stenographers
stenography
Stenzyca
step
Stephan
Stephani
Stephanie
Stephano
Stephanus
Stephen
Stephens
Stephenson
stepmother
Stepniak
Steppe
stepped
steppes
stepping
steps
stepson
stepsons
stereotyped
stereotypes
sterile
sterility
sterilization
sterilized
Sterling
stern
Sternberg
Sterne
sterner
sternest
sternly
sternness
Stertinius
stetit
STETSON
Stettin
Steuben
Stevens
Stevenson
stew
steward
stewards
stewardship
Stewart
Stewarts
stewed
Steyer
sthenic
Stibbs
stick
sticklers
sticks
stiff
stiffen
stiffened
stiffly
stifle
stifled
stifling
Stiftsbibliothek
stigma
stigmatise
stigmatised
stigmatises
stigmatisings
stigmatize
stigmatized
Stikine
Stiles
stiletcziki
Stilicho
Stilico
still
Stille
stilled
stillest
stilling
stillness
Stillwater
STILLÉ
Stillé
Stimson
stimulants
stimulate
stimulated
stimulates
stimulating
Stimulation
stimulations
stimuli
stimulus
Stine
sting
stingiest
stinginess
stinging
stings
Stinkards
stint
stinted
stipend
stipendia
stipendiaries
stipendiarium
stipendiary
stipends
stipulate
stipulated
stipulates
stipulating
stipulation
stipulations
stir
stirabout
Stirling
Stirlingshire
stirred
stirring
stirrup
stirs
Stirum
stitched
stitching
Stith
stoa
Stobart
stock
STOCKACH
stockade
stockaded
stockadoes
Stockbridge
Stockdale
stocked
Stockfish
stockholders
Stockholm
stocking
stockinged
stockings
stockjobbers
STOCKMAR
Stockport
stocks
Stockton
Stocqueler
Stoddard
Stoddart
Stoetteritz
STOFFEL
Stoffiet
Stofflet
Stoic
stoical
Stoicism
Stoics
Stoke
stokers
STOKES
stola
stole
stolen
Stolhofen
stolid
Stolietoff
Stolo
Stolzenau
stomach
stone
stoned
STONEHENGE
Stoneman
stones
Stonewall
STONEY
stoning
STONINGTON
Stonne
Stono
stony
stood
Stool
stools
stoop
stooped
stooping
stop
Stoppage
stopped
stopping
stops
Stor
Stora
storage
storages
store
stored
storehouse
storehouses
storeroom
storerooms
stores
storeships
Storia
storied
stories
storing
stork
storks
storm
Stormarn
stormed
storming
storms
stormy
Storthing
Storthings
storting
Story
Stott
Stoughton
Stour
Stourdza
stout
stoutest
stoutly
stove
stoves
Stow
Stowe
stowed
Stowell
Strabane
Strabo
Strachan
STRACHEY
Strada
Strader
Strafford
straggled
stragglers
straggling
Strahan
straight
straightened
straightening
straighter
straightforward
straightway
strain
strained
straining
strains
Strait
straitened
straitly
Straits
Stralheim
Stralsund
Stranchius
Strand
stranded
strands
strange
strangely
strangeness
stranger
strangers
strangest
Strangford
strangle
strangled
strangler
strangling
strangulation
strappado
straps
Strasbourg
Strasburg
Strasburgh
Strassburg
strata
stratagem
stratagems
strategem
Strategi
strategic
strategical
strategically
strategist
Strategoi
strategus
strategy
Stratford
Strath
STRATHCLYDE
Stratherne
Strathfieldsayes
Strathnairn
Stratiocus
Strato
Stratoniceia
Strator
Stratos
Stratton
stratum
Stratus
Straubingen
Straus
STRAUSS
straw
Strawberry
straws
stray
strayed
straying
streak
stream
streamed
streamers
streaming
streams
Street
Streeter
streets
Strehlen
Strelitz
STRELTZE
Strengnäs
strength
strengthen
strengthened
strengthening
strengthens
strengths
Streniæ
strenuous
strenuously
stress
stretch
stretched
stretchers
stretches
stretching
STRETE
strewed
strewing
strewn
stricken
Strickland
strict
stricter
strictest
strictly
strictness
stride
strides
strife
strifes
strike
strikers
Strikes
striking
strikingly
string
stringed
stringency
stringent
Stringham
strings
strip
striped
stripes
stripling
stripped
stripping
strips
stript
strive
striven
strives
striving
strivings
Strode
stroke
strokes
stroking
strollers
Strolling
Strom
Strond
strong
Strongbow
stronger
strongest
stronghold
strongholds
strongly
Strossmayer
Stroudsburg
strove
Strozzi
Strub
strublum
Struchates
struck
structura
structure
structures
struetureless
struggle
struggled
struggler
struggles
struggling
strung
strut
Strutt
strutted
Struttgart
Struve
Stryi
Strymon
Strype
Stuart
Stuarts
Stubb
stubborn
stubbornly
stubbornness
Stubbs
Stube
Stuber
stucco
stuck
stud
studded
student
students
studi
studia
studied
studien
studies
studio
studios
studious
studiously
studium
study
studying
stuff
stuffed
stuffs
Stuhlmann
Stuhlweissenburg
Stukely
stultification
stultified
stultizat
Stum
stumbled
stumbling
stump
stumps
stunden
Stundism
Stundist
Stundists
stung
stunk
stunned
stunning
stunt
stunted
stupefaction
stupefied
stupefying
Stupendous
stupid
stupidity
stupidly
stupor
Stura
sturdier
sturdiest
sturdily
sturdy
Sture
Sturge
Sturgeon
Sturleson
Sturmius
Sturt
STUTFIELD
Stuttg
Stuttgart
Stuvé
Stuyvesant
style
styled
styles
styling
Stylite
stylus
Styra
Styria
Styrum
STÄNDERATH
STÜBEL
Städteordnung
stämme
Ständerath
Stæmpfii
Stöhrer
Stück
Su
sua
Suabia
Suabian
Suabians
Suabiau
Suakim
Suakin
Suard
Suardo
SUARDONES
suasions
suave
sub
Subah
Subahdar
Subalpine
subaltern
subalterns
Subash
subclavian
subcommittee
Subdeacon
subdivide
subdivided
subdividing
subdivision
subdivisional
subdivisions
subdue
subdued
subdues
subduing
Subercase
subheadings
Subiaco
subject
subjected
subjecti
subjecting
subjection
subjective
subjectively
subjects
subjiciendum
Subjoined
subjugate
subjugated
subjugating
subjugation
subjugator
sublet
SUBLICIAN
Sublicius
Sublima
sublimated
SUBLIME
sublimest
Sublimity
submerge
submerged
submission
submissions
submissive
submissively
submissiveness
submit
submits
submitted
submitting
subordinate
subordinated
subordinately
subordinates
subordinating
subordination
subornation
suborned
subpoena
subpæna
subpœna
subregulus
subs
subscribe
subscribed
subscriber
subscribers
subscribes
subscribing
subscription
subscriptions
subsequent
subsequently
subserve
subserved
subservience
subserviency
subservient
subside
subsided
subsidence
subsidiary
subsidies
subsiding
subsidise
subsidised
subsidising
subsidize
subsidized
subsidy
subsist
subsisted
subsistence
subsisting
subsists
substance
substances
substantial
substantially
substantiate
substantiated
substantive
substitute
substituted
substitutes
substituting
substitution
substratum
substructions
substructure
Subsérra
subtended
subterfuge
subterfuges
subterranean
subterraneous
subtile
subtilized
subtilty
Subtitles
subtle
subtler
subtlest
subtleties
subtlety
subtly
subtraction
subtractions
Subura
suburb
suburban
suburbicarian
suburbs
Suburra
subvention
subversion
subversive
subvert
subverted
subverters
subverting
subverts
Subzi
succeed
succeeded
succeeding
succeeds
success
successes
successful
successfully
succession
successions
successive
successively
successless
successor
successors
succinct
succor
succors
SUCCOTH
succour
succouring
succours
succumb
succumbed
succumbing
such
Suchet
suchlike
suck
Suckauhock
sucked
sucking
Sucre
Sucusa
Suda
SUDAN
Sudbury
sudden
suddenly
suddenness
Suddhodana
Suddozyes
Suderies
Sudermania
sudes
Sudley
sudor
sudorifics
Sudra
Sudras
Sudureyer
sue
SUEBI
sued
Sueiro
Suero
Suessa
Suessiones
Suet
Suetonian
Suetonius
Suett
Sueve
Sueves
Suevi
Suevia
Suevian
Suevians
Suevic
Suez
suffer
sufferable
sufferance
suffered
sufferer
sufferers
suffering
sufferings
suffers
Suffes
Suffetes
suffice
sufficed
suffices
sufficiency
sufficient
sufficiently
sufficing
suffocate
suffocated
suffocating
suffocation
Suffolckiæ
Suffolk
suffragan
suffragans
Suffrage
suffrages
suffragii
suffragio
suffragist
suffragists
Suffren
suffused
Sufi
SUFIS
Sugambri
sugar
sugars
Suger
suggest
suggested
suggesters
suggesting
suggestion
suggestions
suggestive
suggestiveness
suggests
Suguda
Suh
Suhmo
sui
Suicer
suicidal
suicide
suid
Suidas
suing
Suinyi
SUIONES
Suippe
suis
Suisse
Suisun
suit
suitability
suitable
suitably
suite
suited
suites
suitor
suitors
suits
Sujah
Sukharti
Sul
Suleiman
Suleyman
Suli
Sulian
Suliman
Sulina
SULIOTES
Sulla
Sullan
Sullans
Sullas
sullen
sullenly
sullenness
sullied
Sullivan
Sullivans
Sully
Sulmona
sulphur
sulphuric
sulphurous
Sulpice
Sulpician
Sulpicians
Sulpicius
Sultan
Sultana
Sultanas
sultanate
sultanism
Sultans
sultry
Sulzbach
sum
Sumatra
sume
Sumer
sumere
Sumerian
sumes
SUMIR
Sumirians
Sumiswald
Summa
summaries
summarily
summarised
Summarium
summarized
summarizes
summarizing
Summary
summed
summer
summers
Summerville
summing
summit
summits
summon
summoned
summoning
summons
summonses
summovere
summum
Summus
Sumner
sumons
Sumorsætas
sumptuary
sumptuous
sumptuously
sums
SUMTER
sun
sunburnt
Sunbury
Sund
Sunda
Sunday
Sundays
sundered
Sunderland
Sundgau
sundown
sundry
sung
Sunium
sunk
sunken
sunless
sunlight
Sunlurmh
Sunnah
Sunnees
Sunni
sunny
sunrise
Suns
sunset
sunshine
sunstroke
sunt
sunward
suo
suorum
suos
SUOVETAURILIA
sup
Super
superabundance
superabundant
superabundantly
superadded
superadditions
superannuated
superb
Superbus
supercession
superciliary
supercilious
superciliousness
supererogation
supererogatory
superficial
superficially
superficies
superfluities
superfluity
superfluous
superfluously
superhuman
superincumbent
superinduce
superinduced
superintend
superintended
superintendence
Superintendency
superintendent
superintendents
superintending
superintends
superior
superiorities
superiority
superiors
superlative
Supernatural
supernaturalism
supernaturally
supernumeraries
superscription
supersede
superseded
superseding
supersession
superstition
superstitions
superstitious
superstructure
supervene
supervened
supervening
supervise
supervised
supervises
supervising
supervision
Supervisors
supervisory
supine
supinely
supineness
supoena
supped
Supper
suppers
supplant
supplanted
supplanter
supplanting
supple
Supplement
supplemental
supplementary
supplemented
supplementing
Supplementor
supplements
suppliant
suppliants
supplicants
supplicate
supplicated
supplicating
supplicatio
supplication
supplications
supplied
supplies
supply
supplying
support
supportable
supported
supporter
supporters
supporting
supports
supposable
supposal
suppose
supposed
supposedly
supposes
supposing
supposition
suppositions
suppositious
supposititious
suppress
suppressed
suppresses
suppressing
Suppression
Suppuration
supra
Suprabuddha
suprema
Supremacies
supremacy
supreme
supremely
Supérieur
sur
Sura
Surajah
Suras
Surat
Surats
Surcees
surcharged
sure
surely
SURENA
sureness
surer
surest
sureties
surety
Suretyship
Sureté
surf
surface
surfaces
surfeit
surfeited
surge
surged
surgeon
surgeons
Surgery
surgical
surgically
surging
Surgut
Surinam
Surintendant
surly
surmise
surmised
surmising
surmount
surmounted
surmounting
surname
surnamed
surnames
surpass
surpassed
surpasses
surpassing
surpassingly
Surplice
surpliced
surplices
surplus
surprise
Surprised
surprises
surprising
surprisingly
surprized
Surratt
Surrattsville
surrender
Surrendered
Surrenderer
surrendering
surrenders
Surrentum
surreptitious
surreptitiously
Surrey
Surreys
surround
surrounded
surrounding
surroundings
surrounds
Sursee
SURTEES
surveillance
survey
surveyable
surveyed
surveying
surveyor
surveyors
surveys
survival
survivals
survive
survived
survives
surviving
survivor
survivors
Surya
Susa
Susan
Susannah
susceptibilities
susceptibility
susceptible
Susdal
Susian
Susiana
Susianian
SUSMARSHAUSEN
suspect
suspected
suspecting
suspects
suspend
suspended
suspending
suspendium
suspense
suspension
suspensions
suspensive
suspicion
suspicions
suspicious
suspiciously
suspiciousness
Susquehanna
Susquehannah
SUSQUEHANNAS
Susquehannocks
Sussex
sustain
sustained
sustainers
sustaining
sustains
sustenance
sustentation
Sutcliffe
Sutekh
SUTHERLAND
Suthfolc
Suthrige
Sutlaj
Sutlej
Sutri
SUTRIUM
Sutro
SUTTEE
Sutter
Sutton
Suvaroff
SUVARROF
Suvoroff
Suvóroff
Suwanee
Suwannee
Suwarof
Suwarroff
SUWARROW
Suy
Suza
Suzerain
suzerains
suzerainty
SVASTIKA
Svatopluk
Svavs
Svealand
Sven
Sveriges
Sviatopluk
Svie
Svorgnan
Svr
Sw
Swaanendael
Swabia
Swabian
Swabians
swaddling
Swain
Swaine
swallow
swallowed
swallowing
swam
swamp
swamped
swamps
swampy
Swan
SWANS
Swansey
Swanton
Swanwick
Swanzea
swarm
swarmed
swarming
swarmingly
swarms
swart
swarthy
Swartwout
Swartzemberg
swathed
swathing
sway
swayed
swaying
sways
Swazi
Swea
Sweaborg
swear
swearing
swears
Sweat
Sweaters
sweating
sweats
Swede
Sweden
Swedenborg
Swedes
Swedish
SWEENEY
Sweenies
Sweeny
sweep
sweepers
sweeping
sweepingly
sweepings
sweeps
sweet
sweeten
sweeter
sweetest
sweetness
sweets
Sweetser
Swegen
swell
swelled
swelling
swellings
swells
Swendson
swept
SWERKER
Swerkerson
SWERRO
swerve
swerved
Swestrones
Sweyn
Sweynson
swift
swifter
swiftly
swiftness
Swilly
swim
swimmers
swimming
swimmingly
swims
Swinburne
swindle
swindler
swindling
swine
swing
swinging
swings
Swinton
Swiss
Swisshelm
Swithiod
SWITZERLAND
swivels
swollen
swoon
swoop
swooped
swooping
sword
swords
swordsman
swore
Swormstedt
sworn
sworne
swung
Syagrius
Sybaris
sybarite
SYBARITES
SYBEL
Sybille
Sybota
sycamore
Sycophant
Sycophants
syde
Sydenham
Sydney
Sydneys
Syene
Sykes
Sylla
SYLLABARIES
syllabary
syllabic
syllable
syllabled
syllables
Syllabus
syllogism
sylphs
Sylva
sylvan
Sylvania
sylver
Sylverius
Sylvester
Sylvius
symbol
Symboles
symbolic
symbolical
symbolise
symbolism
symbolisms
symbolize
symbolized
symbolizes
symbols
Syme
Symeon
Symes
Symington
SYMMACHIA
Symmachus
symmachy
Symmes
symmetrical
symmetry
SYMMORIÆ
symmoriæ
Symonds
Symons
sympathetic
sympathetically
sympathies
sympathise
sympathised
sympathises
sympathising
sympathize
sympathized
sympathizers
sympathizing
sympathy
symphonies
Symposium
symptom
symptoms
synagogue
synagogues
syncellita
Syncellus
synchronise
synchronism
synchronized
syncretism
syncretistic
syncretistically
Syndic
syndicate
syndicates
syndics
Synedrion
synedrium
Synhedrion
Synke
Synod
synodal
synods
SYNOECIA
synoikismos
synonym
synonyme
synonymes
synonymous
synonymously
Synopsis
syntax
synthesis
syo
Syphax
Sypher
syphilis
syphilitic
Syra
Syracusan
Syracusans
SYRACUSE
Syria
Syriac
Syrian
Syrians
SYRO
Syrtes
Syrtis
syrup
syrups
Sysinnius
Syssitia
system
systematic
systematically
systematise
systematized
systematizing
systems
Système
Szabad
Szabatch
Szapolyai
Szaratow
Szathmar
Szechenyi
Szegeddin
SZEGEDIN
Szeklers
Szela
Szemere
Szigeth
Széchenyi
SÄCKINGEN
SÆCULARES
SÆTAN
SÉGUR
SÜDENHORST
SÜSSMILCH
Sâone
São
Säckingen
Säve
Sæculares
sæculum
sæpe
særk
Sève
Sèvres
séant
séconde
Séguier
Ségur
Séjour
Sémonville
Sénonais
sénéchaussée
Séo
Séquanaise
Séquard
Sévigné
Sömmering
Sön
Söul
Sü
Südenhorst
Süvern
T
Ta
Taafna
Taanach
Tab
Tabanouly
Tabasco
Tabellariae
TABELLARIÆ
tabellas
tabellen
Tabenna
Taberistan
tabernacle
tabernacles
tabernæ
table
tableau
tableaux
tabled
tableland
Tables
tablet
tablets
Tabor
Taborites
Tabreez
tabret
Tabrimmon
Tabriz
tabu
Tabula
Tabulae
tabular
tabulation
Tac
Tacamez
Tachies
Tachiputo
Taché
tacit
tacitly
taciturn
Taciturnity
TACITUS
tack
tacked
tacking
tacks
TACNA
Tacony
tact
tactic
tactical
tactician
tacticians
tactics
Tacuba
Tacubaya
TACULLIES
TADCASTER
Tademait
Tadeo
Tadjiks
TADMOR
Tadousac
Tadoussac
taels
Taensa
TAENSAS
TAEXALI
tafeln
taffetas
Tafilet
Tagliacozzo
TAGLIAMENTO
Tagore
Tagos
Tagus
Taher
Tahgahjute
Tahiawagi
Tahionwatha
Tahirite
Tahiti
Tahmasp
Tahpanhes
Tahutmes
Tai
Taidu
TAIFALÆ
Taifalæ
Taiko
tail
tailed
TAILEE
taillables
TAILLE
Taillefer
Tailles
tailleur
tailleurs
tailor
tailors
tails
Taimur
Taine
taint
tainted
taints
Taipeishan
Taiping
Taipings
Taira
Taisez
Taitsan
Taiwan
Taixali
TAJ
TAKBIR
take
Takelma
taken
taker
takers
takes
taketh
Takeyama
Takilma
Takilman
taking
Takish
Takkazie
Taksony
Taku
TALAJOTS
Talambo
Talaru
Talatui
Talavera
Talbor
Talbot
Talboys
Talca
Talcahuano
Talcott
Talcuhuana
tale
talent
talented
Talents
tales
Taley
Talfourd
Taliaferro
talibus
Taliesen
talisman
talismanic
talismen
talk
Talkan
talkative
talked
talkers
talking
talks
tall
Tallack
TALLAGE
tallages
Tallagio
Tallahassee
Tallahatchee
Tallapoosa
Tallard
Tallegwi
tallest
Talleyrand
tallied
Tallien
tallies
Talligewi
Tallmadge
Tallness
tallow
tally
Talmash
Talmud
Talmude
Talmudic
Talmudists
Talmuds
Talon
talons
Taltarum
Taluka
Talukdar
Talukdars
Taman
Tamanaca
Tamanes
Tamar
TAMASP
Tamatave
Tamaulipas
Tamberlaine
Tambookie
Tambora
Tambours
Tamburlaines
Tamburlane
tame
tamed
tamely
TAMERLANE
Tamil
Taminent
taming
Tammany
Tammuz
Tampa
tamper
tampered
tampering
Tampico
Tamsui
Tamujin
TAMULS
TAMWORTH
tan
Tana
Tanacharisson
TANAGRA
TANAIM
Tanais
Tanaka
Tanaro
Tancock
Tancred
Tancrède
Tandou
Tandy
Taneef
Taney
Taneytown
TANFANA
Tang
Tanga
Tanganika
Tanganyika
Tangermünde
tangibility
tangible
Tangier
Tangiers
tangle
tangled
tangles
Tangs
Tangut
TANIS
Tanissee
tanistry
Tanitic
Tanjore
tank
tanks
Tann
tanned
Tannenburg
Tanner
tanneries
tanners
tanning
TANOAN
tanquam
TANTALIDÆ
Tantalidæ
tantalised
tantalizing
Tantalus
tantamount
Tantia
tanto
Tantrist
Tanucci
Taoism
Taonhiawagi
Taormina
Taou
Taouism
tap
Tapajoz
Tapassier
Tape
tapers
tapestries
tapestry
Tapferkeit
Tapiche
TAPIO
tapis
Tappan
TAPPANS
tapped
tapping
TAPROBANE
taproot
tapsters
Taptee
Tapurians
Tapuyas
TAPÆ
Tapæ
tar
TARA
Taragon
Taragona
Taranaki
Tarantaise
Tarantasia
Tarantchis
Taranteens
Taranto
tarantula
Tarapaca
Taras
Tarascans
Tarascon
Tarascos
Tarbelles
Tarbelli
Tarbet
TARBOX
Tarchon
TARDIEU
tardily
tardiness
TARDUCCI
tardy
Tarenteens
Tarentine
TARENTINES
tarentini
Tarento
Tarentum
tares
target
targets
TARGOWITZ
Targum
tari
Tarifa
tariff
tariffs
Tarik
Tarim
TARLETON
Tarn
tarnish
tarnished
Taro
Taronhiawagon
Tarpeia
TARPEIAN
Tarpeius
Tarquin
Tarquinian
Tarquinii
Tarquinius
Tarquins
Tarquinus
Tarr
Tarracina
Tarraco
Tarraconensis
Tarragona
TARRATINES
tarred
tarried
tarring
tarry
tarrying
Tarrytown
Tarshish
Tarsus
tartan
Tartar
Tartarean
Tartars
Tartary
Tartessus
Tarumi
TARUSATES
Taschen
Tashi
Tashkend
Tashkent
task
Tasker
taskmasters
tasks
Tasm
Tasman
Tasmania
Tasmetu
tassel
tassels
Tassilo
Tasso
taste
tasted
tasteful
tastes
tasting
Taswell
Tatar
Tatars
Tate
Tathideo
Tatian
Tatius
Tatler
Tatlers
Tatsing
tatterdemalian
tattered
tatters
tattery
tattle
tattoo
tattooed
tattooing
tau
Tauber
TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM
Tauchnitz
Tauenzein
Tauenzien
taught
taula
Tauler
taunt
taunted
Taunton
taunts
Taupo
Tauri
Tauric
TAURICA
Taurida
Tauris
Tauromenion
Tauromenium
Tauros
Taurus
Taussig
tautology
Tavannas
Tavannes
tavern
Taverner
Tavernier
taverns
Tavistock
Tavora
Taw
Tawaconies
tawarikh
Tawasentha
tawdriness
tawny
tax
taxable
taxation
taxed
taxes
taxgatherer
TAXIARCH
Taxila
Taxiles
taxing
Taxis
taxpayer
taxpayers
taxpaying
Tay
Taya
Taydo
Taygetus
Tayif
Taylor
TAYLORS
TAÑOAN
Taïkosama
Tañoan
Tchad
Tchadda
Tchagatai
Tchaghatai
Tchakar
Tchang
Tchardjui
tche
Tchekermish
tcheng
Tcheou
Tchernaieff
TCHERNAYA
Tchernigof
Tchernizo
Tchetchens
Tchin
Tching
Tchingis
Tchinovniks
Tchins
Tchitchagof
Tchitschakoff
Tchiwere
Tchoudes
Tchoupria
tchuana
Tchèques
Tcin
Te
tea
teach
teacher
teachers
teachership
teaches
teaching
teachings
team
teams
tear
tearing
Tearless
tears
teas
Teatro
Teavrach
Teazer
Tebaldeschi
technical
technicalities
technicality
technically
technique
Technology
Tecpan
Tecpanecas
Tectelan
Tectosages
Tecumseh
Tecuna
Tecunas
Tedaldo
tedeschi
Tedesco
tedious
tediously
Tee
teemed
teeming
teens
Tees
Teesdale
teeth
Teetotal
Tegea
Tegeans
Tegg
Tegnapatam
TEGYRA
Teh
Tehama
Teheran
Tehuantepec
Tehuel
Teia
Teians
Teias
Teignmouth
Teimer
Teispes
Teith
Tejada
Tejend
Tejuas
Tekeli
TEKKE
Tekkes
Teks
Tel
TELAMON
Telamôn
Teleclus
telegram
telegrams
telegraph
telegraphed
telegraphic
telegraphing
telegraphs
telegraphy
Teleki
Telemachus
Teleontes
Telephone
telephones
telescope
Telesphorus
Telfair
Telgte
Telha
Telham
Telier
Teligny
Telingas
Telingána
tell
Tellena
tellers
Tellicherry
TELLIER
telling
tells
Telmelches
Telos
Telugu
TEMENIDÆ
Temenidæ
Temenites
temenos
Temenus
temerity
Temesa
TEMESVAR
Temeswar
Temixtitan
Temnik
Temnis
Temnos
temp
TEMPE
temper
temperament
temperaments
temperance
temperate
temperately
temperature
temperatures
tempered
tempers
tempest
tempests
tempestuous
Templar
Templars
temple
temples
Templeton
templorum
Temporal
temporalities
temporally
temporarily
temporary
tempore
temporise
temporised
temporize
temporizers
temporizing
Temps
tempt
temptation
temptations
tempted
tempter
tempting
temptingly
tempts
ten
tenable
tenacious
tenaciously
tenacity
tenancies
tenancy
tenant
tenanted
Tenantless
tenantry
tenants
Tenaro
Tenasserim
Tenawas
Tenchebray
Tenchteri
Tencteri
Tenctheri
tend
tended
tendencies
tendency
tender
tendered
tenderest
tendering
tenderly
tenderness
tenders
Tendilla
tending
tendo
tendons
tends
Tenedos
tenement
tenemento
tenements
Tenent
tenentes
Teneriffe
TENESE
tenet
tenets
Tenetur
Tenez
tenfold
Tengen
Tenn
Tennant
Tennent
Tennesseans
Tennessee
Tenney
tennis
Tenno
tennyn
Tennyson
Tenochtitlan
tenon
tenor
tenour
TENPET
tens
tense
Tenshi
tent
tentacles
tentative
tentatively
tented
Tenterden
tenth
tenths
tents
Tenuai
tenuity
tenure
tenures
Tençin
teocalli
Teologo
Teos
TEOTIHUACAN
Tepe
Tepejacac
Teplitz
Tequesta
Tequestas
Terah
Terai
Terceira
tercentenary
terebinth
teredo
Terence
TERENTILIAN
Terentilius
Terentius
tergiversation
Tergukasoff
terik
Terina
Teriolis
Terke
Terkhan
term
Termagant
termed
TERMILI
terminable
terminandum
terminate
terminated
terminates
terminating
Termination
terminations
TERMINER
terminology
terminus
Termonde
terms
ternary
Ternay
Terni
Terouenne
Terpander
terpen
Terra
terrace
terraced
Terraces
Terracina
terrae
terrarum
Terre
Terrence
terrestrial
Terreur
terribile
terrible
terribly
Terrien
terrier
terrific
terrified
terrify
terrifying
territoire
Territoirés
territorial
territoriale
territorialen
Territorialgeschichte
territorially
territories
territory
TERROR
terrorism
Terrorist
Terrorists
terrorized
terrors
terrour
Terry
terse
tersely
terser
tertian
tertiaries
TERTIARII
tertiary
Tertre
Tertullian
Tertullus
Tertzski
Teschen
Teschfin
Tesher
Teshfin
Teshtedar
Tesino
tessellated
tessera
Tessier
Tessino
Tessé
test
Testa
Testament
testamentary
testamento
Testaments
testate
testator
tested
tester
testicle
testifie
testified
testifies
testify
testifying
testimonial
testimonials
testimonies
testimony
testing
Testri
Testry
tests
testy
tesé
tetania
tetanus
Tete
tethered
Teton
Tetons
Tetrachorion
tetrapolis
tetrarch
tetrarchs
tetrarchy
Tetricus
Tettenborn
Tetuan
Tetzel
Teucer
Teuchira
Teuchteri
Teucri
Teucrians
teud
Teukri
Teukrians
Teul
Teunis
Teunissen
Teut
Teutecas
Teutoburg
Teutoburger
Teutoburgian
Teuton
TEUTONES
Teutonic
Teutonica
Teutonici
Teutonicorum
Teutonicum
Teutonicus
Teutonism
Teutonists
Teutonized
Teutons
Teutsch
Teutschland
TEWFIK
Tewkesbury
Tewksbury
Texan
Texans
Texas
Texeira
Texel
text
textbook
textbooks
texte
Textile
Textores
texts
texture
textures
textus
Teyss
Tezcoco
Tezcuco
Teôs
Th
THABORITES
Thacher
THACKERAY
Thackif
Thackwell
Thaddeus
Thadeus
Thai
thairafter
Thal
thaler
thalers
Thales
Thalês
Thaman
THAMANÆANS
Thamar
Thame
Thames
Thammor
Thamudites
than
THANAGE
Thanatopsis
THANE
thanes
Thanet
Thang
Thank
thanked
thankful
thankfully
thankfulness
thanking
thankless
Thanks
thanksgiving
thanksgivings
Thann
Thapsacus
Thapsakus
Thapsus
Tharypas
THASIAN
Thasians
Thasos
that
thatch
thatched
Thatcher
Thaumaturgus
THAUN
Thaur
THAUSS
thaw
thawed
thawing
Thaxis
Thayendanegea
Thayer
the
Theate
theater
Theatines
theatre
theatres
theatrical
theatrically
theatricals
Thebaid
Thebais
Theban
Thebans
Thebaïde
Thebes
Thebez
Thebæ
thee
Theerenburch
theft
thefts
thegn
thegnhood
thegns
thei
Theil
theilungslinien
Theiner
Theiphali
THEIPHALIA
their
theire
theirs
Theism
Theiss
them
thema
themata
thematibus
theme
THEMES
Themiskyra
Themistocles
Themistokles
themselues
themselves
then
thence
thenceforth
thenceforward
Thenceforwards
Theo
Theobald
theocracy
theocratic
Theocritus
theod
Theodahad
Theodal
Theodatus
Theodebert
Theodemir
Theoderic
Theoderik
Theodomer
THEODOR
Theodora
Theodoras
Theodore
Theodoret
Theodoric
Theodorich
Theodorici
Theodoro
Theodorus
Theodosia
THEODOSIAN
Theodosius
Theokles
theologian
theologians
theologic
theological
Theologico
Theologicus
Theologie
theologies
theology
Theon
Theophania
Theophano
Theophilus
Theophrastus
Theopompus
theorems
theoretical
theoretically
theoretico
THEORI
theorica
THEORICON
theories
theorist
theorists
Theoriæ
theory
Theos
theosophic
Theosophists
theosophy
theotisc
Theotisca
THEOW
Thera
Theramenes
therapeutic
therapeutics
Therapeutæ
Therapia
There
thereabouts
Thereafter
thereat
thereby
therefor
therefore
therefrom
therein
thereof
thereon
Theresa
Theresias
thereto
theretofore
thereunder
thereunto
thereupon
therewith
therfore
therm
Therma
Thermaic
thermal
Thermes
Thermidor
THERMIDORIANS
Thermidorien
Thermometer
Thermon
Thermopylae
THERMOPYLÆ
Thermopylæ
Thermus
THERMÆ
Thermæ
Thermôdon
Therold
Theron
Therouane
Thervingi
Thesaurarius
these
theses
Theseus
thesis
thesmoi
Thesmophoria
thesmothet
THESMOTHETES
Thespian
Thespians
Thespiæ
Thesprotians
Thessalian
Thessalians
Thessalonian
Thessalonians
Thessalonica
Thessalonike
Thessalus
Thessaly
Thestrup
Thet
THETES
Theudalinda
Theudebert
Theudemer
Theuderik
theurgic
theurgy
Thevet
they
Thiaki
THIASI
Thibalt
Thibault
Thibet
Thibetic
Thibodi
thick
thickened
thickening
thicker
thickest
thicket
thickets
thickly
thickness
thicknesse
thief
Thiele
Thielemann
Thielman
Thien
Thiene
Thiergarten
Thierhaupten
Thierri
Thierry
Thierrée
Thiers
thieves
thieving
thievish
thigh
thighes
thighs
THIN
thine
thing
Thingmen
things
THINGVALLA
Thinis
think
thinker
thinkers
thinketh
thinking
thinks
thinly
thinned
thinner
thinness
thinning
THINÆ
Thinæ
Thionville
third
thirdly
thirds
Thirlwall
thirst
thirsted
thirstiness
thirsting
thirsty
thirteen
thirteenth
thirties
thirtieth
thirty
this
Thisbe
thisness
Thistle
Thistlewood
thither
thiuda
thiudisks
Tho
Thoas
Thoiras
Tholen
Thomas
Thomason
Thomists
Thomond
Thompson
Thomsen
Thomson
Thomé
Thonis
Thonon
Thopitis
thoracic
Thoreau
Thorfinn
Thorn
Thornbury
THORNDIKE
Thorne
Thorney
thorns
Thornsætas
Thornton
thorny
Thorold
Thoron
thorough
Thoroughfare
thoroughfares
thoroughgoing
thoroughly
thoroughness
thorow
Thorp
Thorpe
Thorstein
Thorvald
Thorwaldsen
Thos
those
Thoth
Thothmes
Thou
Thouar
Thouars
though
thought
thoughtful
thoughtfully
thoughtless
thoughts
Thoulouse
Thouret
thousand
thousands
thousandth
thousandths
THOUVENEL
thr
Thrace
Thraceward
Thracia
Thracian
Thracians
Thrakian
thraldom
Thrales
thrall
thrash
thrashed
Thrasian
thrasonical
Thrasybulus
Thrasyllus
Thrasylus
Thrasymene
thread
threading
threads
threat
threaten
threatened
threatening
threateningly
threatens
threats
three
threefold
threepence
threepences
threshed
threshing
threshold
threw
Threïcians
Thria
thrice
thrift
thriftily
thriftiness
thriftless
thriftlessness
thrifty
thrill
thrilled
thrilling
thrillingly
thrive
thrived
thriven
thrives
thriving
thro
throat
throats
throb
throbbed
throbbing
Throckmorton
throes
Throgmorton
Thronbesteigung
throne
throned
thrones
throng
thronged
thronging
throngs
throttle
through
throughout
throve
throw
throwing
thrown
throws
thrust
thrusting
THRUSTON
thrusts
Thsang
Thsin
Thu
Thucydides
Thucydidês
Thug
Thuggee
Thugs
Thugut
Thuin
THULE
thumb
thumbing
thumbs
Thumim
Thummim
thumping
thunder
thunderbolt
thunderclap
thundered
THUNDERING
thunderous
thunders
thunderstorm
thunderstruck
thundery
Thur
THUREAU
Thurgau
Thurgovian
Thurians
Thurieu
THURII
Thuringen
Thuringia
Thuringian
THURINGIANS
Thuriot
THURIUM
Thurloe
Thurlow
Thurm
Thurman
THURN
Thurnam
Thurot
Thurreau
Thursday
Thursdays
Thursfield
Thurston
thus
thusly
Thwaites
thwart
thwarted
thwarting
thy
Thyamis
Thyatira
Thyestes
THYMBRÆAN
Thymbræan
Thyme
Thyni
Thynians
Thyrea
Thyreates
Thyreatis
thyself
Thébaud
Théophraste
Théorie
Théot
Théroigne
Thésée
Thêra
Thêseus
Thüringen
Thüringens
Thüringerwald
ti
Tian
tiara
TIBARENIANS
Tibbitts
Tibboos
Tiber
Tiberias
Tiberius
Tibesti
Tibet
Tibetan
Tibetans
Tibeto
tibi
tibicines
TIBISCUS
Tibur
Tiburga
TIBURTINE
Tiburtius
Ticino
Ticinum
Ticinus
Tickell
ticket
tickets
tickled
Tickler
Ticknor
Ticonderoga
tics
tidal
tide
tideless
tides
Tidewater
tidings
tie
tied
Tiel
Tiele
tiempo
Tien
Tienti
Tientsin
tier
Tiernan
Tierra
Tiers
ties
TIFFANY
Tiffin
Tifiis
Tiflis
Tiger
Tighe
tight
tighten
tightened
tighter
tightly
Tiglath
Tiglathpileser
Tigorini
Tigranes
Tigranocerta
Tigre
Tigris
Tigro
Tigré
Tigurini
Tikhomirov
Tikomirov
Tilbury
tilde
Tilden
tile
Tilemann
tiles
Tilford
Tilghman
till
tillage
Tillamook
Tillamooks
tilled
Tillemont
tiller
tillers
Tilley
tilling
Tillotson
Tilly
Tilsit
tilt
tiltyard
Timagenidas
Timagoa
Timannee
Timanskaya
TIMAR
Timarli
Timayenis
timber
timbered
timbers
Timbs
Timbuctoo
time
timed
timely
times
timid
timidity
timidly
Timocracy
Timoleon
Timoni
Timor
timorous
timorousness
Timoseef
Timosthenes
Timotheus
Timotheüs
Timothy
Timour
Timourlenk
timously
Timperley
TIMUCHI
TIMUCUA
Timuquanan
Timur
tin
tincture
tinctured
tinctures
Tindal
tinder
Ting
tinga
tinge
tinged
tingeing
tiniest
tinkering
tinkers
Tinneh
Tinné
tinsel
Tinsley
tint
Tintoretto
tints
Tinville
tiny
TIOCAJAS
Tioga
Tionontates
TIPPECANOE
tipped
Tipperary
TIPPERMUIR
Tipping
tippling
Tippoo
Tippu
tipsy
Tipton
Tipu
TIRABOSCHI
tirade
Tirawley
Tirconnell
tire
tired
tireless
tiresome
Tirhakah
Tiridates
Tirnova
TIROL
TIRSHATHA
Tiryns
Tirynthian
Tis
Tisamenus
Tisias
Tissaphernes
tissue
tissues
Titan
Titanic
Titanus
Titchfield
tithe
Tithed
titheland
tithes
Titian
Titicaca
Tities
Titiokura
title
titled
titles
Titonwan
tittle
Titu
Tituba
Titular
titularies
titularly
titulary
Titus
Tityre
tiut
Tiverton
Tivitivas
Tivoli
Tizoc
tlacatecuhtli
TLACOPAN
Tlacuba
Tlaloc
Tlascala
Tlascalan
Tlascalans
Tlemsen
Tmolus
to
toad
toade
toasting
toasts
Tob
tobacco
tobacconists
Tobago
TOBAS
Tobie
Tobit
Tobler
Tocantins
Tocqueville
tocsin
tocsins
today
TODD
Tode
Todleben
Todos
toe
Toeplitz
toes
Tofana
toft
toga
togas
TOGATA
togather
TOGATI
together
TOGGENBURG
Toggenburgers
Togo
Togoland
Togrul
TOHOMES
TOHOPEKA
toi
toil
toiled
toilers
toiling
toilless
toils
toilsome
TOISECH
TOISON
Tokar
Tokay
token
tokens
Tokharistan
Tokmak
Toksoun
Tokugawa
Tokush
Tokyo
Tola
Tolain
Toland
Tolbiac
Tolbiacum
told
tolderias
TOLEDO
TOLENTINO
tolerable
tolerably
tolerance
tolerant
tolerantly
tolerate
tolerated
tolerating
TOLERATION
tolerations
Toletana
Tolewahs
Tolewas
toll
Tollan
Tollans
Tollantzinco
tolled
Tollendal
Tollery
tolling
tolls
Tolly
Tolmidas
Tolmides
Tolomei
Tolosa
Tolosanum
TOLOSO
Tolstoi
Toltec
Tolteca
Toltecatl
Toltecs
Tolumnius
Tolunides
Tom
tomahawk
tomahawked
Tomarus
Tomas
tomb
tomber
Tombigbee
Tombigby
tombs
tombstone
tome
TOMI
Tomitudes
Tomkins
Tomline
Tommasi
Tommaso
tomorrow
Tomory
Tompkins
ton
Tonawanda
Tondu
tone
toned
toneles
tones
Tonfrède
Tonga
Tongariro
Tongern
Tongking
Tongres
tongs
tongue
tongued
tongues
tonic
Tonika
Tonikan
Tonkawan
Tonkawe
Tonkin
tonnage
Tonnerre
Tonquin
tons
tonsure
Tonti
TONTONTEAC
TONTOS
Tonty
too
took
tooke
tool
Toole
tools
Toombs
Toorks
tooth
toothache
toothbrush
toothed
top
TOPASSES
tope
Topeka
Topelius
Topete
Topham
Tophet
Topi
topiary
topic
Topical
topics
Topin
Toplitz
topmost
topographer
topographic
topographical
Topography
Topola
topped
topping
toppled
toppling
tops
topsails
Topschidera
toqui
TOQUIS
tor
Torah
Torbay
Torbert
Torc
Torcello
torch
torches
torchlight
Torci
Tordesilhas
Tordesillas
tore
Torfæus
Torgau
Torghūd
Tories
Torkel
Tormassof
torment
tormented
tormentors
Tormentoso
torments
Tormes
torn
tornado
Tornea
torneamentum
Tornel
Tornielli
Tornosa
Toro
Toromonos
Torone
TORONTO
torpedo
torpedoes
Torphichen
torpid
torpor
Torquato
Torquatus
Torquay
Torquemada
Torquemadas
torques
TORR
Torre
Torrens
Torrensi
torrent
torrents
Torrero
Torres
Torresani
Torrey
Torriano
Torricelli
Torrington
Torry
Torstensohn
Torstenson
tort
Tortino
Tortoise
tortoises
Tortona
Tortosa
torts
Tortuga
TORTUGAS
Tortulfus
tortuous
torture
tortured
tortures
torturing
Tory
Toryism
Tosa
Toscanelli
Toshabim
toss
tossed
tossing
tost
Tostig
Total
totality
totally
totals
totam
totem
totemic
Totemism
totems
totidem
Totila
Totilas
Totiris
Totleben
Totnanus
Totnes
toto
Totonacos
Totonacs
Totonicapan
Totopotomoy
totter
tottered
tottering
Totus
touch
touched
touches
touchholes
touching
touchstone
Tougeni
tough
toujours
TOUL
TOULMIN
Toulon
Toulousans
Toulouse
tounge
Touques
Tour
Touraine
Tourakhan
Tourane
TOURCOIGN
tourist
tourists
Tourkmantchai
tourn
Tournai
tournament
tournaments
Tournay
Tourneur
Tourney
Tournon
tournoyer
Tourraine
Tours
Tourville
Tourzel
Tourzell
tous
Toushi
TOUSSAINT
Tout
Toutoush
Tovey
tow
toward
towards
towed
tower
towered
towering
towers
Towerson
towing
Towle
town
Towne
Townes
Townhall
Townley
towns
Townsend
townsfolk
Townshend
township
townships
townsman
townsmen
townspeople
Towser
Towson
Towton
Toxandri
Toxandria
TOXARCHI
toxicological
toy
TOYOKICHI
toys
Tozer
Tr
trabea
trace
traceable
traced
traces
trachea
TRACHINIA
Trachis
trachoma
tracing
track
tracked
tracking
trackless
tracks
trackway
tract
tractabitur
tractable
tractably
TRACTARIAN
Tractarianism
Tractarians
tractate
tractates
Tractatus
Traction
tracts
Tractus
Tracy
trade
traded
trader
traders
trades
tradesman
tradesmen
tradespeople
tradeswoman
trading
tradition
traditional
traditionally
traditionary
traditions
traduce
traducer
traduction
Traerbach
Trafalgar
traffic
traffickers
trafficking
traffiques
tragedies
tragedy
Tragia
tragic
tragical
tragically
Tragus
trail
trailed
trailing
Traill
train
trainbands
trained
training
trains
trait
traite
traiterous
traiterously
traitor
traitorous
traitorously
traitors
traits
Traité
Trajan
TRAJANI
Trajanopolis
Trajanus
Tralles
tram
Trameli
trammel
trammels
tramp
tramped
tramping
trample
trampled
trampling
tramps
tramroad
tramway
Trani
tranquil
tranquilising
tranquility
tranquilized
tranquille
tranquillised
tranquillity
tranquillized
TRANQUILLUS
tranquilly
Trans
transact
transacted
transacting
transaction
transactions
Transalbingia
Transalpine
transatlantic
Transcaucasia
transcend
transcended
transcendent
transcendental
transcendere
transcending
transcends
transcontinental
transcribe
transcribed
Transcriber
transcribers
transcribes
transcribing
Transcript
transcription
transcripts
transepts
transfer
transferable
transference
transferences
transferred
transferring
transfers
Transfiguration
transfixed
transform
transformation
transformations
transformed
transforming
transforms
transgress
transgressed
transgresses
transgressing
transgression
transgressions
transgressor
transgressors
transhipments
transient
Transiently
transit
transition
transitional
transitionary
transitory
Transitu
Transjuran
Transjurane
translatable
translate
translated
translates
translating
translation
translations
Translator
translators
Transleithania
transliterated
transliteration
transmarine
transmigration
transmissible
transmission
transmissions
transmit
transmits
transmitted
transmitter
transmitting
transmutation
transmuted
transmuting
Transoxana
Transoxania
Transoxiana
TRANSPADANE
transparent
transpire
transpired
transpiring
transplant
transplantation
transplanted
transplanting
transplants
transport
transportable
transportation
transported
transporting
transports
transpose
transposed
TRANSRHENANE
transubstantiation
Transvaal
transverse
Transvlvanians
Transylvania
Transylvanian
Transylvanians
Trant
trap
Trapeziticus
Trapezuntine
Trapezus
Trapnitz
Trappe
trapped
trappers
Trappes
trappings
TRAPPISTS
traps
Trarbach
Tras
trash
Trasimene
Trasimenus
Trasmania
Trastamare
Trastamere
Trastevere
Trau
Traube
Traun
Traungau
TRAUSI
travail
travaile
Travancore
Trave
travel
traveled
traveler
travelers
traveling
travelled
traveller
travellers
travelling
Travels
TRAVENDAHL
Travendhal
Travenstadt
Travers
traverse
traversed
traversing
travestied
travesties
travesty
Travillians
Treacher
treacheries
treacherous
treacherously
treachery
treacle
tread
treading
Treason
treasonable
treasonably
treasons
treasure
treasured
Treasurer
treasurers
treasures
Treasuries
Treasury
treat
treated
Treaties
treating
treatise
treatises
treatment
treatments
treats
Treaty
Trebbia
TREBIA
Trebizond
treble
trebled
trebling
trebly
Trebonian
Trebonianus
TREBONII
Trebonius
Treby
TREDAH
Tredegar
tree
treeless
trees
TREFFEN
Tregarthen
Tregelles
Treibel
Treilhard
Treitschke
trek
trekked
trekking
Trelawny
trellis
Tremain
tremble
trembled
tremblement
trembling
Tremecen
Tremecin
tremendous
tremendously
tremendousness
tremens
Tremont
Tremoïlle
Trench
trenched
trenches
trend
Trenda
trended
trending
trends
Trenholm
Trent
Trentham
Trentine
Trenton
Trentschin
trepan
trephine
trepidation
trepidations
Trerus
trespass
trespasser
trespassers
trespasses
trespassing
tressure
trestles
tresurer
trethings
Trevelyan
Treveri
Treverorum
Trevert
Treves
Trevi
Trevillian
TREVIRI
Trevirorum
Trevisan
Treviso
Trevithick
Trevor
Trezel
Trezzo
tri
TRIAD
Triads
Trial
Trials
triangle
triangles
triangular
TRIANON
triarii
tribal
Triballi
tribe
tribes
tribesmen
TRIBOCES
TRIBOCI
TRIBON
Tribonian
tribuere
tribulation
tribulations
tribunal
tribunals
tribunate
tribune
tribunes
tribuneship
tribunicia
tribunician
TRIBUNITIA
tribunitian
Tribur
TRIBUS
tributa
tributaries
Tributarii
tributary
tribute
tributes
tributo
tributum
Tricamaron
TRICASSES
tricennalia
Tricesimo
Trichinae
Trichinopoly
trick
tricked
trickery
tricks
trickster
tricksters
tricksy
tricky
triclinium
tricolor
tricolored
tricolour
tricoloured
Tricoteuses
Tridentine
Tridentum
tried
triennial
Trier
TRIERARCHY
Triers
tries
Trieste
Trifanum
trifle
trifled
trifles
trifling
trigone
trilingual
trilithons
Trim
Trimalchio
Trimbakji
Trimble
trimmed
trimming
Trimontaine
Trimountain
Trinacria
TRINCOMALEE
Trinidad
Trinita
Trinitarian
Trinitarianism
Trinity
trinket
trinkets
Trino
Trinobantes
Trinobantine
trinoda
trio
TRIOBOLON
Triomphe
Triopian
Triopium
trip
Triparadisus
tripartite
Triphon
Triple
tripled
triplicate
tripling
tripod
Tripodiskus
tripods
Tripoli
Tripolis
Tripolitan
Tripolitana
Tripolitans
Tripolitza
TRIPONTIUM
tripping
trips
trireme
triremes
Trisagion
TRISKELION
Trist
Tristam
triste
Tristram
trite
Tritenheim
Trithemius
Trithings
Trittyes
Trittys
Triulcio
triumph
triumphal
Triumphales
triumphalis
triumphally
triumphant
triumphantly
triumphator
triumphe
triumphed
triumphing
triumphs
triumvir
triumvirate
Triumvirates
Triumviri
Triumvirs
trivial
trivialities
trivium
Trivulzio
Troad
Troano
Troas
Trobador
Trobadors
trobar
Trobe
Trobriand
Trocadéro
Trochu
trod
trodden
Troes
Troezen
Troezene
Trogir
Troglodytes
Trogus
Troil
Trois
troisième
TROISVILLE
Troizen
Troja
Trojan
Trojans
Trolle
Trollope
Tromp
Trompette
Tromsoë
Tron
Trondhjem
trong
troop
troopers
trooping
troops
Troost
TROPAION
Tropez
trophies
trophy
tropic
tropical
tropics
Troppau
trot
troth
Trotter
trottoirs
Troubadour
Troubadours
trouble
troubled
troublers
troubles
troublesome
troubling
troublous
TROUESSART
troughs
troupes
trousers
Trout
Trouveurs
TROUVÈRES
Trouvère
Trouvères
Trovatore
trove
trover
Trow
Trowbridge
trowsers
troy
TROYA
TROYES
Tru
truce
TRUCELESS
truces
Truchsess
truck
truckled
truckling
trucks
truculence
truculent
trudged
true
Truellas
truer
truest
Truguet
Trujillo
truly
Truman
Trumbull
trump
trumped
trumpery
trumpet
trumpeted
trumpeter
trumpeters
trumpets
truncated
Trungau
trunk
trunks
Truro
trust
trusted
trustee
Trustees
trusteeships
trustiest
trusting
trusts
trustworthiness
Trustworthy
trusty
Trutbert
truth
truthful
truthfulness
truths
Truvor
Truxillo
Truxtun
try
Tryal
tryckfrihets
tryed
Tryggveson
Trygveson
trying
Tryon
trysting
TRÈVES
Trèves
Trémoille
Trémouille
Trésor
Tréville
Trêres
Trêves
Trübner
Trœzen
Trœzene
Ts
tsa
Tsad
tsai
Tsamak
Tsang
Tsar
Tsars
Tscheremissians
Tscheri
Tschingis
Tschudes
TSCHUDI
Tschudish
Tse
Tsech
Tsechs
tseh
Tsernagora
Tsernoi
tseuen
Tshekh
TSHEKHS
Tshinkitani
Tshokoyem
Tsiam
Tsiams
tsiganologue
Tsin
Tsing
Tsings
Tsinuk
Tsiosan
Tsiosen
tsong
Tsour
Tsu
tsuen
Tsugaru
tsung
tsze
Tu
tuam
Tuariks
Tuas
Tuath
Tuatha
Tuathal
Tuaths
Tub
Tubantes
tube
tubercle
tubercles
tubercular
tuberculosis
tuberculous
tubers
tubes
Tubriz
tubular
tucked
Tucker
Tuckerman
Tuckey
Tucuman
Tucumán
Tudela
Tudor
Tudors
Tudrus
TUE
Tuer
Tuesday
Tuesdays
tufa
tufts
Tufuell
tug
Tugaloo
tugboat
Tugenbund
Tugendbund
Tugendverein
tugged
tugging
Tughlak
Tughlakabad
tugs
Tuileries
Tuilleries
Tuisco
tuitio
tuition
Tuke
Tukuarika
TUKUARIKAS
Tula
Tulan
Tulane
Tulansingo
Tulas
tulchan
Tule
Tuli
tulips
Tullahoma
Tullia
TULLIANUM
Tullius
TULLOCH
Tullus
Tully
Tulm
Tulni
Tultcha
Tului
Tum
Tuman
Tumans
Tumbez
tumble
tumbled
Tumblers
tumbling
tumbril
tumbrils
tumefaction
Tumilat
Tumilât
tumour
tumours
tumps
tumuli
tumult
tumultous
tumults
tumultuary
tumultuous
TUMULUS
Tumun
TUMUQUANAN
tun
Tunbridge
tundra
tune
Tunes
tung
Tungan
Tungani
Tungarara
Tungchow
tungerefa
Tungking
Tunglas
Tungri
Tungrians
Tungus
Tungusic
tunic
tunica
tuning
Tunis
Tunisian
Tunisians
Tunja
Tunking
TUNNAGE
tunnel
tunnelled
tunny
tuns
TUNSCIPE
Tunstall
TUNZELMANN
Tuolumne
Tuonela
Tuoni
Tupac
Tupelo
TUPI
Tupinama
Tupinamba
Tupis
Tupper
Tupuyas
Turan
Turanian
Turanians
turban
turbaned
turbans
turbid
turbulence
turbulent
Turc
Turcoman
Turcomania
Turcomans
Turcomany
TURDETANI
TURDETANIA
Tureau
Turenne
Turennes
turf
Turfan
Turgenieff
Turgot
Turgovitch
Turguenief
Turicum
Turiero
TURIN
Turingheim
Turk
Turkei
Turkestan
Turkestán
Turkey
turkeys
Turki
Turkic
turkies
Turkish
Turkman
Turko
Turkoman
Turkomans
Turks
turlupini
TURLUPINS
turmoil
turn
TURNBULL
turned
TURNER
turneth
turning
turnpike
turnpikes
turns
Turnèbe
Turon
Turones
Turowla
turpentine
turpitude
turret
turreted
turrets
Turrhene
Turrhenoi
Turrianus
turtle
tus
Tusayan
Tuscaloosa
Tuscan
Tuscans
Tuscany
Tuscarawas
Tuscarawi
Tuscarora
TUSCARORAS
Tuscos
Tusculan
Tusculanum
Tusculum
Tuscumbia
Tuscus
Tuskis
tusks
Tusser
Tusun
tutelage
tutelar
tutelary
Tutelo
Tuteloes
Tutelos
Tuthmosis
Tutlingen
Tutnes
tutor
tutorial
tutors
tutorship
tutoyer
Tuttle
Tuttlingen
Tutul
Tutush
Tuxpan
Tuxtepec
TUÈVES
Tvartko
twaddle
twain
Twas
Tweddale
Tweed
tweedle
tween
twelfth
twelfths
twelve
twelvemonth
twenties
Twentieth
twentieths
twenty
twice
twig
Twiggs
Twightwees
twilight
Twiller
twin
twine
twinges
twinkled
twinkling
twins
Twisden
twist
twisted
twitted
two
twofold
twopence
twopenny
twoscore
txt
Ty
Tyana
Tybee
Tyburn
TYCHE
Tychefeld
Tycho
Tycoon
tye
tyekhana
tying
Tyler
Tylers
TYLIS
TYLOR
Tylos
tyme
tymes
tympanites
tympany
Tymphrestus
Tyndale
Tyndall
TYNDARIS
Tyne
Tynemouth
Tynwald
type
types
typhoid
typhus
typical
typically
typified
typifying
Typographical
typography
tyrannic
tyrannical
tyrannically
tyrannicide
tyrannies
Tyrannio
tyrannis
tyrannize
tyrannized
tyrannous
tyranny
tyrant
tyrants
Tyras
Tyrconnel
Tyrconnell
TYRE
Tyrian
Tyrians
Tyrius
Tyrol
Tyrolese
Tyrone
Tyropœon
Tyrrel
Tyrrhenia
Tyrrhenian
Tyrrhenians
Tyrrheno
Tyrrhenus
Tyrtæus
Tyrunnion
Tyrus
Tyson
Tytler
Tzar
Tzaragorod
Tzarina
Tzars
tze
Tzech
Tzekeli
Tzendals
TZOMBOR
Tzoueca
Tzouroulos
Tzrnogora
Tzutuhill
TÉNOT
Táchira
Tænarus
Téchener
Télémaque
Téméraire
Ténochtitlan
Ténot
Tépé
Tênos
Tênot
tête
Tónkawa
Tököli
Tönningen
tût
Tübingen
Türr
U
Uak
uan
Uango
UAUPE
Uaupes
Ubangi
Uberti
Ubi
Ubii
ubiquitous
ubiquity
Ucayale
Ucayali
Ucayari
Uchanski
Uchean
Uchees
uchicago
Ucles
Uclés
Ucondono
ud
UDAIPORE
Udaipur
Udall
udder
uddin
Udenheim
Udha
Udine
Ueber
uebersicht
Uebersichtskarte
UEBERWEG
Uechtritz
Uellé
Ueno
Uffa
Uffings
Ugalenzes
Uganda
Ugarit
ugliness
ugly
Ugo
Ugogo
Ugolino
UGRI
Ugria
Ugrian
Ugrians
Ugric
UGRO
Uguccione
Uhatezmalha
Uhilches
Uhlan
Uhland
Uhlhorn
Uiguric
Uirina
uiscus
Uitenhage
Ujain
Ujiji
Ukami
ukase
ukases
ukaze
UKERT
Ukra
Ukraine
Ukrania
UL
Uladislaus
Uladislav
Ulca
ulceration
ulcerator
ulcers
ulcus
Uldes
Ulema
ulemas
Ulf
Ulfilas
Ulfljót
Ulfrhedin
Ulfrid
Ulidia
ulla
Ullmann
Ulloa
Ulm
Ulmenes
Ulphilas
Ulpian
Ulpius
Ulric
Ulrica
Ulrich
Ulrick
Ulshoeffer
Ulster
ulterior
ulterius
ultima
ultimate
ultimately
ultimatum
ultimi
ultimo
ultra
Ultrajectum
ultramontane
ultramontanes
Ultramontanism
ultramontanists
ultras
Ulucciali
Uluch
Ulugh
Ulunda
Ulundi
Ulwar
Ulysses
Umarkot
Umba
Umballah
umber
umbrage
Umbri
Umbria
Umbrian
UMBRIANS
Umbro
Umbrosa
Umfreville
umich
UMLAUFT
Ummar
umpire
umpires
Umqua
un
una
unabashed
unabated
unable
unacceptable
unaccompanied
unaccomplished
unaccountable
unaccountably
unaccustomed
unacknowledged
unacquainted
Unadilla
unadorned
unadulterated
unadvisable
unadvised
unadvisedly
unaffected
unaided
Unaka
Unalachtigo
Unalachtigos
unalienable
unalloyed
unalterable
unaltered
Unam
unambiguous
Unami
Unamis
unanimity
unanimous
unanimously
unannounced
unanointed
unanswerable
unanswerably
unanswered
unapproachable
unappropriated
unapt
unarmed
unascertained
unassailable
unassailed
unassisted
unassociated
unassuming
unattached
unattainable
unattained
unattempted
unattended
unattractive
unauthenticated
unauthorised
unauthoritative
unauthorized
unavailable
unavailing
unavailingly
unavoidable
unavoidably
unavowed
unaware
unawares
unawed
unbaked
unbalanced
unbar
unbearable
unbeaten
unbeautiful
unbecoming
unbefitting
unbelief
unbeliever
unbelievers
unbending
unbetrayed
Unbewusstens
unbiased
unbidden
unbinding
unblamable
unblazoned
unblemished
unblessed
unblushing
unblushingly
unborn
unbound
unbounded
unbridled
unbroken
unburden
unburdened
unburied
unburying
uncancelled
uncanny
uncapricious
uncared
uncatholic
unceasing
unceasingly
uncemented
uncensured
unceremonious
unceremoniously
uncertain
uncertainly
uncertainties
uncertainty
unchained
unchallenged
Unchangeable
unchanged
unchanging
uncharitable
unchastity
unchecked
unchivalric
unchristian
unchristianly
UNCIA
Unciae
uncircumcised
uncircumcision
uncivilized
unciæ
Uncle
unclean
uncleanness
uncleared
uncles
unclosed
unclouded
uncoined
uncolored
uncomfortable
uncommon
uncommonly
uncomplaining
uncompleted
uncomplied
uncompromising
unconcealed
unconceded
unconcentrated
unconcern
unconcerned
unconciliatory
uncondensed
unconditional
unconditionally
unconfined
uncongenial
unconnected
unconnectedly
unconquerable
unconquered
unconscionable
unconscious
unconsciously
unconsciousness
unconsecrated
unconsidered
unconstitutional
unconstitutionality
unconstitutionally
unconstrained
unconsum
unconsumed
uncontaminated
uncontested
uncontestedly
uncontrollable
uncontrolled
uncontroverted
unconverted
uncorrected
uncorroborated
uncorrupted
uncouth
uncover
uncovered
uncovering
uncoveted
Uncpapa
Uncpapas
uncreated
uncritical
uncrowned
unction
unctuous
uncultivated
uncultured
uncustomed
uncut
und
undated
Undaunted
undauntedly
undazzled
undeceive
undeceived
undecided
undecisive
undeclared
undefeated
undefended
undefined
undegenerate
undelayed
undelegated
undemocratic
undeniable
undeniably
undenied
undenominational
undepraved
under
underbrush
undercurrent
underestimate
underestimated
underfief
undergo
undergoes
undergoing
undergone
undergraduate
undergraduates
Underground
undergrowth
underhand
Underhill
underlain
underlay
underlie
underlies
underlined
underlines
underlings
underlying
undermine
undermined
undermines
undermining
underneath
underrate
underrated
underrating
undersell
underselling
undersigned
undersized
undersold
understand
understanding
understandingly
understandings
understands
understood
undertake
undertaken
undertaker
undertakers
undertakes
undertaking
undertakings
undertone
undertook
undervalue
undervalued
undervaluing
Underwalden
underwent
underwood
underwritten
undeserved
undeservedly
undeserving
undesignedly
undesirable
undestroyed
undetectable
undetermined
undeterred
undeveloped
undeviating
undid
undifferentiated
undignified
undiminished
undisciplinable
undisciplined
undiscouraged
undiscovered
undiscriminating
undiscussed
undisguised
undisguisedly
undismayed
undisposed
undisputed
undissembled
undistinguishable
undistinguished
undistracted
undistributed
undisturbed
undisturbedly
undivided
undivisible
undo
undoing
undone
undoubted
Undoubtedly
undoubting
undrawn
undressed
Undried
Undstrut
undue
undulating
unduly
undutiful
undyed
undying
une
unearned
unearthed
unearthing
uneasily
uneasiness
uneasy
uneconomical
uneducated
unelastic
Unelli
unembarrassed
unembittered
unemployed
unencumbered
unending
unendurabilities
unendurable
unenfranchised
unengraved
unenterprising
unenthusiastic
unenviable
unequal
unequaled
unequalled
unequally
unequivocal
unequivocally
unerased
unerring
unerringly
unescorted
uneven
unevenly
uneventful
uneventfully
unexampled
unexceptionable
unexecuted
unexhausted
unexpected
unexpectedly
unexpended
unexperienced
unexplainable
unexplained
unexplored
unfailing
unfailingly
unfair
unfairly
unfairness
unfaithful
unfaithfulness
unfaltering
unfamiliar
unfathomable
Unfatigued
unfavorable
unfavorably
unfavourable
unfavourably
unfederated
unfeeling
unfeigned
unfettered
unfilled
unfinished
unfit
unfitness
unfitted
unfitting
unfixed
unflagging
unflatteringly
unflinching
unflinchingly
unfold
unfolded
unfolding
unfolds
unfordable
unforeseen
unforgivable
unforgiving
unformed
unformulated
unfortified
unfortunate
unfortunately
unfortunates
unfought
unfounded
unfree
unfrequent
unfrequented
unfrequently
Unfriendliness
unfriendly
unfrightful
unfrocking
unfruitful
unfulfilled
unfunded
unfurled
unfurnished
ungar
ungarrisoned
ungedruckte
ungenerous
ungenerously
ungenial
Unger
ungirt
ungovernable
ungoverned
ungraceful
ungracious
ungraciously
ungraded
ungrateful
ungratefully
Ungri
ungrischen
unground
ungrudgingly
unguarded
unguent
unguents
unguis
unhallowed
unhampered
unhappiest
Unhappily
unhappiness
unhappy
unharassed
unharmed
unhealthiness
unhealthy
unheard
unheeded
unhelped
unhesitating
unhesitatingly
unhewn
unhindered
unhinged
unhistorical
unholy
unhonoured
unhoped
unhorsed
unhorsing
unhospitable
unhurt
Uniates
unification
unified
unifies
uniform
uniformed
uniformity
uniformly
uniforms
unify
unifying
Unigenitus
unimaginative
unimpaired
unimpeachable
unimpeded
unimportant
unimprovable
unimproved
uninclosed
unincorporate
unincorporated
unincumbered
uninfluenced
uninhabitable
uninhabited
uninjured
uninstructed
unintarian
unintelligent
unintelligible
uninteresting
unintermitted
uninterpreted
uninterrupted
uninterruptedly
uninviting
Union
Unionism
Unionist
Unionists
unions
Uniontown
unique
Unis
unison
unit
Unitarian
UNITARIANISM
Unitarians
unitary
Unitas
unite
UNITED
unitedly
unites
unities
uniting
unitis
units
unity
unité
Univ
Universal
Universale
universalgeschichte
universality
universall
universally
universals
universe
universel
Universelle
Universitas
universitates
universities
University
Università
Universo
Unión
unjust
unjustifiable
unjustly
unkept
Unkiar
unkind
unkindly
unkneaded
unknowingly
unknown
unlade
unladen
unlamblike
unlaurelled
unlawful
unlawfully
unlearned
unlearnedly
unleavened
unless
unlettered
unliberated
unlicensed
unlike
unlikelihood
unlikely
unlimited
unlink
unload
unloaded
unloading
unlock
unlocked
unlocks
unlooked
unloosed
unloveliness
unloving
Unluckily
unlucky
unmade
unmanageable
unmanifested
unmanly
unmanned
unmannerly
unmanufactured
unmarried
unmasked
unmatchable
unmatched
unmeaning
unmeasured
unmeet
unmerciful
unmilitary
unmindful
unmingled
unmistakable
unmistakably
unmistakeable
unmitigated
unmixed
unmodified
unmolested
unmoors
unmourned
unmoved
unmuzzle
Unna
unnamed
unnationality
unnatural
unnaturally
unnecessarily
unnecessary
unnerved
unnoticed
unnumbered
Uno
unobjectionable
unobscured
unobserved
unobstructed
unobtrusive
unoccupied
unoffending
unofficial
unofficially
unopened
unopposed
unorganized
unorthodox
unpaid
unparalleled
unpardonable
unpatriotic
unpaved
unpeopled
unperceived
unpitying
unpleasant
unpleasantly
unpleasantness
unpleasing
unpolitic
unpolitical
unpopular
unpopularity
unpopulated
unpossessed
unpractical
unprecedented
unprejudiced
unprepared
unpreparedness
unpretending
unprincipled
unprivileged
unproductive
unproductiveness
unprofitable
unprofitableness
unprofitably
unprogressive
unpromising
unpropitious
unprosperous
unprotected
unproved
unprovided
unprovoked
unpublished
unpunished
unqualified
unqualifiedly
unquenchable
unquenched
unquestionable
unquestionably
unquestioned
unquestioning
unquiet
unrational
unravelled
unravelling
unread
unreadiness
Unready
unreal
unrealities
unreality
unrealized
unreasonable
unreasonably
unreasoning
unreasoningly
unreclaimed
unrecognised
unrecognized
unreconcilable
unreconciled
unrecorded
unrecoverable
unredeemed
unrefined
unreflecting
unreformed
unrefreshing
unregarded
unregenerate
unregistered
unregulated
unrelated
unrelenting
unrelentingly
unreliable
unrelieved
unreligious
unremembered
unremitting
unremunerative
unrenewed
unrepaired
unrepealed
unrepentant
unrepresentative
unrepresented
unrepublican
unrequited
Unrescinding
unreserved
unreservedly
unresisted
unresisting
unrest
unresting
unrestored
unrestrained
unrestricted
unrevoked
unrewarded
unrighteous
unripe
unrivalled
unrolled
Unruh
unruled
unruly
unsacked
unsaddled
unsafe
unsalable
unsaleable
unsanctioned
unsatisfactoriness
unsatisfactory
unsatisfied
unsavory
unsceptred
unscientific
unscrupulous
unscrupulously
unscrupulousness
unsealed
unseasonable
unseated
unseaworthy
unsectarian
unseemly
unseen
unselfish
unselfishly
unselfishness
unsentimental
unser
unsere
unserviceable
Unsettled
unsettlement
unsevered
unsexual
unshackled
unshackling
unshakable
unshaken
unsheath
unsheathed
unsheathing
unsheltered
unshrinking
unsi
unsigned
unskilful
unskilfully
unskilfulness
unskilled
unskillful
unsold
unsolved
unsophisticated
unsought
unsound
unsoundness
unsparing
unsparingly
unspeakable
unspecified
unspoiled
unstable
unstably
unstained
unsteady
unstinted
unstintedly
unstrapping
UNSTRUTT
unstudied
unsubdued
unsubstantial
unsuccessful
unsuccessfully
unsuitable
unsuited
unsullied
unsummoned
unsupported
unsurpassed
unsuspected
unsuspecting
unsuspectingly
unsuspicious
unswept
unswerving
unsympathetic
untainted
untaken
untamable
untamed
untarnished
untaught
untaxed
untempered
untenability
untenable
untenanted
unter
unterricht
unterrified
Untersuchungen
unterthan
Unterthanenverband
Unterwald
Unterwalden
unthankful
unthinking
unthought
unthreshed
untie
untied
until
untill
untilled
untimely
untiring
unto
untold
untouched
untoward
untraced
untractable
untrained
untrammeled
untrammelled
untranslated
untried
untrodden
untroubled
untrue
untruly
untrustworthy
untruth
untruthful
unturned
untutored
untying
unused
unusquisque
unusual
unusually
unutterable
unutterably
unvanquished
unvaried
unvarnished
unvarying
unveiled
unveiling
unvexed
unvictorious
unviolated
unvisited
unwalled
unwarily
unwarlike
unwarrantable
unwarranted
unwary
unwashed
unwavering
unwearied
unwearying
unwelcome
unwell
unwept
unwholesome
unwieldy
unwilling
unwillingly
unwillingness
Unwin
unwinding
unwinged
unwise
unwisely
Unwittingly
unwont
unwonted
unworked
unworldliness
unworldly
unworthily
unworthiness
unworthy
unwounded
unwritten
unwrought
Unyamwezi
unyielding
Unyoro
Unzaga
uomini
up
Upanishads
upas
upbraid
upbraiding
UPCHURCH
Updike
Upham
upheaval
upheavals
upheave
upheaved
upheld
uphold
upholder
upholders
upholding
upholds
upholsterer
upland
uplands
uplifted
uplifting
upon
Upper
uppermost
Uppingham
Uprawda
upright
uprightness
uprising
uprisings
uproar
uproarious
uproars
uproot
uprooted
uprose
Upsala
Upsaroka
Upsarokas
upset
upsetting
upshot
Upshur
upside
upstart
upstarts
upsydedoune
UPTON
upward
upwards
Ur
Ura
Uraba
Urabá
Urach
Uraga
Ural
Uralian
Uralo
Urarda
Urardians
Urartha
Urban
urbana
urbane
urbanity
Urbanitzky
Urbano
urbanus
Urbarium
urbe
urbes
Urbino
urbis
urbs
Urci
Urcos
Urdanete
Ure
Urfa
urge
urged
Urgel
urgency
Urgendj
urgent
urgently
urges
Urgeschichte
urging
Urgundab
Urh
Uri
Uriah
Uriconium
Uriel
Urim
urinating
urination
urine
URLs
urn
urns
Urosh
Urquhart
Urquiza
URRACA
Urrutia
Urseolus
Urseren
Ursicinus
URSINI
Ursinus
Urso
Ursua
Ursula
Ursuline
URSULINES
Ursus
Uru
Urua
Uruguay
Uruguayan
Urukh
Urumia
Urumiyeh
Urundi
Urus
Urvolk
Urwähler
us
USA
Usagara
usage
usages
usance
Usbegs
Uscocks
USDIÆ
Usdiæ
use
used
Usedom
useful
usefull
usefully
usefulness
Useguha
useless
uselessly
uselessness
user
users
Usertsen
uses
Ush
Ushant
Usher
ushered
ushering
Ushers
using
USIPETES
Usipites
Usk
Usoga
Usque
usquebaugh
Usselinx
Usson
usual
usually
usufruct
usufructuary
usum
Usumacinta
usur
usurer
usurers
Usuri
usurious
usurp
usurpation
usurpations
usurped
usurper
usurpers
usurping
usury
ut
Utah
UTAHS
Utaw
Utawas
Ute
utensils
uterus
UTES
Uthong
Uthr
uti
UTICA
utile
utilise
utilised
utilising
utilitarian
utilities
utility
utilization
utilize
utilized
utilizing
utmost
Utopia
Utopian
Utopias
Utopists
utraque
Utraquist
Utraquists
Utrecht
Uts
utser
utter
utterance
utterances
uttered
uttering
utterly
uttermost
Uxbridge
UXELLODUNUM
Uxmal
uyezdi
Uytenbogen
Uzaramo
UZBEGS
UZES
Uzzano
Uzès
Va
Vaal
Vaca
VACALUS
vacancies
vacancy
vacant
vacate
vacated
vacating
Vacation
Vacations
vaccina
vaccinate
vaccinated
Vaccination
vaccine
VACCÆI
vacillated
vacillating
vacillation
vacillations
Vacomagi
VACSLAV
vacuum
Vader
vaderlandsche
vadiatio
Vadier
Vadimonian
vagabondage
vagabonds
vagaries
vagire
vagitanus
vagrancy
vagrant
vagrants
vague
vaguely
vagueness
vaguer
Vahal
Vail
Vaillant
vain
vainglorious
vainly
Vaisyas
Val
Valais
Valazé
Valcour
Valdarno
Valdemar
Valdenses
VALDEVEZ
Valdez
Valdivia
vale
Valea
valedictory
Valence
Valencia
Valencian
Valencians
Valenciennes
Valenciènnes
Valengin
Valens
Valentia
Valentina
VALENTINE
Valentinian
Valentino
Valentinus
Valenza
Valençay
Valeria
Valerian
valeriana
Valerianus
Valerii
Valerio
Valerius
Valero
VALERY
vales
valet
valets
Valetta
Valette
valetti
Valhalla
valiant
valiantly
valid
validate
validity
validly
Valin
Valira
Valkana
Vallachia
Vallachian
Vallachians
Vallachio
VALLACHS
Valladolid
Vallais
Vallandigham
Valle
Vallejos
Vallenges
Vallenses
valley
valleys
valli
vallies
Vallis
Vallombrosa
vallum
Vallée
Valmonte
Valmy
Valognes
Valois
valor
valorem
valorous
valorously
valour
valours
VALOUTINA
Valparaiso
Valromey
Valtelina
Valteline
Valtellina
Valtelline
valuable
valuables
valuation
valuations
Valuators
value
valued
valueless
values
valuing
valve
Valverde
valves
Vambery
VAMBÉRY
Vambéry
vampire
Van
Vanbrugh
Vancleve
Vancluse
Vancouver
Vandal
Vandalia
Vandalic
Vandalism
Vandals
Vandalusia
Vandamme
Vandenesse
Vanderbilt
Vanderkemp
Vandilii
Vandrille
Vane
Vanegas
vanes
Vangiones
vanguard
vanish
vanished
vanishes
vanishing
vanishingly
vanities
vanity
Vannes
Vannozza
Vanozza
vanquish
vanquished
vanquishing
Vansittart
vantage
Vanves
vapid
vapor
vaporing
vaporise
vaporous
vapors
vapour
vapours
Vaqueros
Var
Varad
Varadin
Varahran
Varangian
Varangians
VARAVILLE
Varchi
Varchonites
Vardar
Vardo
Varenne
Varennes
Vargas
variable
VARIAN
variance
variant
variation
variations
varied
variegated
varies
varieties
variety
Varignano
Varinas
varinel
Varini
variola
variolous
various
variously
Varius
VARKANA
Varkin
varna
Varnbüler
VARNHAGEN
Varni
varnish
Varro
Varronian
vars
Varty
Varuna
Varus
vary
varying
Vasa
Vasag
Vasari
Vasco
Vasconcellos
Vascones
Vasconia
Vasconians
vase
vases
Vasilovitch
Vasishtha
Vasquez
vassal
vassalage
Vassali
vassalism
Vassall
vassals
VASSAR
Vasseur
Vassi
Vassili
Vassilievitch
Vassodun
Vassy
vast
vaster
vastly
vastness
vastu
VAT
Vatable
Vataces
Vatatzes
VATICAN
Vaticana
Vaticanus
Vatikanischen
Vatinius
Vaton
vats
vatum
Vauban
Vauchamp
Vaucluse
Vaucouleurs
Vaud
Vaudemont
Vaudois
Vaudreil
Vaudreuil
Vaugelas
Vaughan
Vaughn
VAUGHT
vault
vaulted
vaulting
vaults
vaunted
vaunting
vauntingly
Vauvenargues
Vaux
VAVASOUR
Vavasours
vavassor
Vayrac
Vaz
ve
Vecchia
Vecchio
vecinos
VECTIGAL
VECTIGALIA
VECTIS
Veda
Vedas
Vedel
Vedic
Vedism
Vedras
Veechio
Veer
Veere
veered
Vega
Vegas
vegetable
vegetables
vegetate
vegetation
vegetative
vegetive
vehemence
vehement
vehementior
vehemently
vehicle
vehicles
Vehme
Vehmgericht
Vehmgerichts
Vehmic
Vehrkana
VEHSE
Veientes
VEIENTINE
Veii
veil
veiled
veiling
Veillane
veils
vein
veins
Veintemilla
Veit
Veitch
vel
Vela
velabrum
Velasco
Velasquez
Velayer
Veldentz
VELETRI
Velez
Velhagen
Velia
VELIBORI
VELITES
Velitrae
Velitræ
Velleda
velleities
Velleius
Velletri
Vellica
Vellinghausen
vellon
Vellore
Velloz
vellum
VELOCASSES
velocity
Velore
Velsers
Veltelin
velvet
velvets
Velíki
Ven
vena
Venable
Venables
Venaisin
Venaissin
venal
venality
Venango
Venant
Venationes
vend
Vendean
Vendeans
vended
Vendee
Vendemiaire
VENDEMIARE
Vendes
vendetta
vendette
Vendidad
vending
Vendome
vendor
Vendramin
vendue
Vendéans
Vendée
Vendémiaire
Vendémiare
Vendôme
Venecian
Venedi
Venedicus
Venedotia
Venegas
venerable
venerate
venerated
veneration
Venere
Venerii
Venesection
VENETA
VENETI
Venetia
Venetian
Venetians
Venezia
VENEZUELA
Venezuelan
Venezuelans
vengeance
vengeances
vengeful
vengefulness
vengeresse
Vengeur
Veni
venial
veniale
Venice
VENICONII
Veniero
venio
venire
venison
Venissa
Venlo
Venloo
Venmandois
Venner
Vennones
venom
venomous
Venosa
Venosta
Venricones
vent
Venta
Ventadour
vented
ventilation
Ventimiglia
venting
VENTRE
Ventres
ventricle
ventricles
venture
ventured
venturers
ventures
venturesome
venturesomeness
venturing
VENTÔSE
Ventôse
venue
Venus
Venusia
ver
Vera
veracious
veracity
Veracrusanos
Veracruz
Veragua
Veranius
veratrum
Verazani
verb
verbal
verbally
verbatim
verbiage
verbis
verbose
verbum
Verböczy
Verbündete
Verceil
VerceIli
Vercelli
Vercellæ
Vercingetorix
Verd
verdant
Verde
Verden
verdict
verdicts
Verdier
Verdigris
Verds
Verdun
verdure
Vere
Verein
Vereinigter
Veres
Vereshtchagin
Verfassung
Vergangenheit
VERGARA
verge
verged
Vergennes
verges
Vergil
verging
Vergniaud
vergobret
vergobretus
Verhuel
Verhältnissen
veri
Vericour
veriest
verification
verified
verifies
verify
verily
verisimilitude
veritable
veritably
Verity
verité
Verlagsgesellschaft
Vermandois
vermehrt
Vermejo
vermilion
vermillion
vermin
vermischten
Vermont
vernacular
vernacularly
vernaculars
vernal
VERNEUIL
VERNICOMES
Vernon
Veromandui
VEROMANDUORUM
Verona
Veronese
Verplanck
Verrall
Verrazano
Verres
Verrier
Verrua
Verrucchio
versa
Versailles
Versaillists
Versammlung
versatile
versatility
verse
versed
verses
versified
version
versions
verso
Versoix
versts
versus
Vert
Verte
VERTERÆ
Verteuil
vertical
vertically
Vertot
Verträgen
VERTURIONES
Verua
Verulam
Verulamium
Verus
vervehmen
Verviers
Vervins
very
verâ
veränderung
ves
Vesalius
vesicles
Vesme
VESONTIO
Vesoul
Vespasian
Vespasianus
Vespers
Vespucci
Vespuccius
Vespucius
vessel
vessels
vest
Vesta
VESTAL
Vestales
Vestals
vested
vestibule
vestige
vestiges
vesting
Vestinians
vestment
vestments
vestries
vestrum
vestry
vestrymen
Vestæ
Vesuntio
VESUVIUS
Vet
Vetera
veteran
veterans
Veteres
veterinary
veterum
veto
vetoed
vetoes
vetoing
vetoist
Vetranio
VETROMILE
Vettius
VETTONES
Vettor
Vettore
Vetus
Vetusta
Veuillot
veult
veut
Vevey
vex
vexata
vexation
vexations
vexatious
vexed
vexeth
Vexin
vexing
Veytia
VI
Via
Viaggi
Viala
Viamont
Viana
Viand
Vianden
viands
Vianna
Viatichi
Viatka
Viborg
vibrate
vibrated
vibrating
vibration
vibrations
Vic
Vicar
vicarage
vicarages
Vicariat
vicariates
vicarious
VICARS
Vicarship
Vicary
Vice
vicegerent
vicegerents
Vicente
Vicenza
viceregal
viceroy
viceroyal
viceroyalties
viceroyalty
Viceroys
vices
Vich
vici
vicinage
vicinal
vicinetum
vicini
vicinity
vicintum
Viciosa
vicious
vicissitude
vicissitudes
VICKERS
Vicksburg
Vico
Vicomte
vics
Vict
victim
Victime
victims
victis
Victoire
Victor
Victoria
Victorian
victoriatus
victories
victorious
victoriously
victors
victory
Victricensis
victrix
victuallers
victualling
victuals
Vicus
vida
Vidame
vide
videndum
Video
videri
videtts
VIDI
Vidommate
VIDOMME
viduity
Vie
vied
Viejas
Viejo
Viel
Viele
Vienna
Vienne
Viennese
Viennois
vient
Viera
Vieri
Vieuville
Vieux
view
viewed
Viewing
views
Vieyra
Vigean
Vigevanesco
Vigevano
VIGFUSSON
vigilance
vigilancy
vigilant
Vigilantius
vigilantly
Vigilius
vigils
Viglius
vignette
vignettes
Vignole
Vigny
Vigo
vigor
vigorous
vigorously
vigour
vigourous
vigourously
Vihiers
VII
VIII
VIIth
vij
Vijn
Vik
Viking
Vikingr
Vikings
VILAGOS
Vilagós
Vilaine
Vilcamayu
Vilcanota
Vilcañota
vile
vileness
vilest
VILHELM
vill
VILLA
Villach
Villadarias
Villafranca
Village
villagers
villages
villain
villainage
villainies
villainous
villains
villainy
Villalar
Villamarina
villanage
villani
villanies
Villanova
villans
Villanus
Villard
Villari
Villars
villarum
villas
VILLE
Villebon
Villegagnon
Villegaignon
Villegas
Villehardouin
villein
Villeinage
villeins
VILLEMAIN
Villena
villenage
Villeneuve
Villepigue
Villeroi
Villeroy
VILLERSEXEL
Villeré
villes
Villette
Villiaumé
Villiers
Villinage
Villmergen
Villoison
vills
villæ
Villèle
Vilna
Vilvoorde
Vimercato
VIMIERO
vimina
Viminal
Vimory
Vina
Vincennes
Vincent
VINCENTIAN
Vincents
Vincenzo
Vinci
Vincoli
Vincula
Vindalium
Vindelicia
Vindelicians
Vindelicorum
Vindelin
Vindex
Vindhya
Vindhyas
vindicate
vindicated
vindicates
vindicating
vindication
vindications
vindicator
vindicators
vindictive
vindictiveness
Vindili
Vindobona
vine
vinegar
Vineland
vines
Vinet
Vineta
Vineyard
vineyards
VINEÆ
vineæ
Vingeanne
Vingts
Vinicius
VINING
Vinland
Vinogradoff
Vinoy
vintage
vintages
vintner
vintners
Vintschgau
Vio
violate
violated
violates
violating
violation
violations
violator
violators
violence
violences
violent
violently
violet
violin
violinists
violins
Viollet
Viomesnil
Vionville
Vipaça
viper
Vipers
Virbhûmi
Virchow
VIRES
Viret
virga
virgate
virgates
Virgil
Virgilian
Virgin
virgines
Virginia
Virginian
Virginians
virginity
Virginius
virgins
Virgunnia
virgæ
Viriathus
Viribus
virile
Virk
VIROCONIUM
Virodomarus
Virro
virtual
virtually
virtue
virtues
virtuosi
virtuous
virtuously
virtus
virtute
virulence
virulent
virus
vis
visage
Viscaya
Visconti
Viscontis
viscosity
Viscount
viscounts
viscountship
Viscounty
vise
Visegrad
visendum
Viset
Viseu
Vishnu
Vishwanath
visible
visibly
Visigoth
Visigothic
VISIGOTHS
vision
visionary
visions
visit
visitation
visitations
Visitator
visitatorial
visited
visiting
visitings
visitor
visitors
visits
Vissegrad
Vissering
vista
Vistaçpa
visto
Vistula
Visurgis
Vita
vital
Vitalian
vitalised
Vitalism
vitalistic
vitality
vitalizing
vitally
vitals
Vitasta
Vite
Vitebsk
Vitelleschi
Vitelli
Vitellian
Vitellians
Vitellius
Vitepsk
Viterbo
vitiated
Vitiges
Vitigis
Vitisges
Vitold
Vitoria
vitreous
Vitri
vitriols
Vitruvius
Vitry
Vittelan
Vittore
Vittoria
Vittorio
vittæ
Vitu
vituperation
Vitus
viva
vivacious
vivacity
Vivaldi
Vivarais
vive
vivendi
Vivent
Vivera
Vivi
Vivian
vivid
vivida
vividly
vividness
VIVIEN
Vivienne
Vivier
Viviers
vivifying
Vivisci
Vivonne
vivos
vivum
vivâ
viz
Vizcaino
Vizetelly
Vizianagram
vizier
viziers
Vizille
Vizir
vizor
VIÇOSA
viâ
Viçosa
Vlach
Vlachs
Vlad
Vladika
Vladikas
VLADIMIR
Vladimiruko
Vladislav
Vly
vncensonable
vndisposed
vnion
vntill
vnto
voate
voats
vobiscum
voc
vocables
vocabularies
vocabulary
vocal
vocalists
Vocates
vocation
vocations
vocatur
voce
vociferous
vociferously
Voclad
VOCONIAN
Vodhena
VODIÆ
Vodiæ
Vogdes
Vogel
Voghera
Vogt
vogtei
Vogteien
vogue
Voguls
voice
voiced
voices
void
voidable
voiding
VOIGHT
VOIGT
Voigtländer
Voilà
voisins
Voiture
Voivode
voivodes
voivods
voix
Vojtech
Vol
Volage
VOLAPUK
VOLATERRÆ
Volaterræ
volatile
Volcae
volcanic
volcano
volcanoes
VOLCÆ
Volcæ
volemo
volens
Volero
Volga
volgare
Volhynia
volition
Volk
Volkens
volkes
Volkmar
Volkof
volks
Volksanregung
Volksblatt
Volkschule
Volksfreund
Volksraad
volley
volleying
volleys
Vollständiger
Volney
Volo
Volodomir
Vologeses
volonté
vols
Volsci
Volscian
Volscians
Volsei
Volsunga
Volta
Voltaic
Voltaire
Voltairean
volte
Volterra
Volturno
volume
Volume1
volumen
volumes
volumina
voluminous
voluntarily
voluntary
Voluntaryism
volunteer
volunteered
Volunteering
volunteers
VOLUNTII
voluptuaries
voluptuous
voluptuously
voluptuousness
vom
vomit
vomited
vomiting
vomits
Von
Voorhees
Voorhis
Voorst
Vopiscus
voracious
voracity
Vorarlberg
Vorschussverein
Vorstellung
Vorstius
vortex
Vortigern
Vos
Vosegen
Vosges
VOSS
Votan
Votanic
votaries
vote
voted
voter
voters
votes
voting
votive
votre
votum
vouched
voucher
vouchsafe
vouchsafed
VOUGLÉ
Vouglé
Vouillé
vouloir
vous
Vouthon
Vouziers
vow
vowed
vowel
vowels
vowing
vows
Vox
Voy
voyage
voyager
voyagers
voyages
voyageur
voyageurs
voyaging
vp
vppon
Vrachophagos
vrgent
Vries
Vriesendael
VROEDSCHAP
vs
Vt
Vues
Vuh
Vuillemin
Vulcan
Vulcanal
Vulcanale
Vulcani
vulgar
vulgari
vulgarism
vulgarized
vulgarizing
vulgarly
Vulgate
vulnerable
Vulnerarius
vult
Vulture
vultures
Vulturnum
vying
VYRÉ
VÁMBÉRY
VÉSINIER
VÖGELIN
VÖLTER
Vámbéry
væ
Véndee
Véran
vérifier
Vésinier
Vögelin
Völk
völker
Völkerkunde
Vörlande
W
wa
Waad
Waag
Waal
waale
WAARTGELDERS
Wabash
WABENAKIES
Wace
Wachau
WACHSMUTH
Wachtendonk
Wachusett
Wacos
Wad
Wadai
Waddell
Waddington
wade
waded
Wadi
wading
Wadleigh
Wadstena
Wadsworth
Wady
Waes
Waetla
wafer
wafers
waft
wafted
wag
wage
waged
Wager
wages
waggon
waggons
waging
Wagnalls
Wagner
wagon
wagons
Wagram
Wagstaff
wah
Wahab
Wahabee
Wahabees
wahed
Wahhabis
Wahkpakotoan
Wahkpatoan
Wahlmann
Wahlstadt
Wahoo
Wahpeton
WAHPETONS
Wahtootahtah
Wahuma
Waiblingen
Waifer
waifs
Waiilatpuan
Waika
Waikas
Waikato
wail
wailing
wainage
wainscot
wainscoting
Wainwright
Wairu
waist
waistcoat
Waists
wait
Waitangi
Waite
waited
waiting
waits
WAITZ
WAITZEN
waive
waived
waives
waiving
waivod
waivode
waivodes
WAIWODES
wak
Wakas
Wakash
Wakashan
Wake
waked
Wakefield
wakeful
WAKELING
WAKEMAN
wakened
wakening
wakes
Wakhpekute
Wakhpetonwan
waking
Wala
Walachia
Walam
Walcher
Walcheren
Walckenaer
Walcutt
Wald
Waldburg
Waldeck
Waldegrave
Waldemar
Walden
Waldenses
Waldensian
Waldersee
Waldeyer
Waldo
Waldron
Waldseemüller
WALDSHUT
Waldstatten
Waldstein
Waldstätten
Waled
Wales
Walewski
Walfish
Walford
Walhain
wali
Walid
walis
WALISZEWSKI
walk
Walke
walked
Walker
walking
walks
wall
Walla
Wallabout
Wallace
Wallach
Wallachia
Wallachian
Wallachians
Wallacho
Wallachs
Wallbrook
walled
Wallenstein
Wallensteins
Waller
wallet
wallets
WALLHOF
Wallia
Wallies
walling
Wallingford
Wallis
Wallon
Walloon
Walloons
wallow
wallowed
wallowing
walls
Walmoden
Walpole
Walram
Walsh
Walsingham
WALTER
Walters
Waltham
Walton
Walumolum
Walworth
wame
Wampanoag
Wampanoags
wampom
wampon
wampum
Wan
Wanasquatucket
Wanbanaghi
wanbanban
WANBOROUGH
Wanchese
wand
wander
wandered
wanderer
wanderers
Wanderinag
wandering
wanderings
wanders
wanderungen
Wandewash
WANDIWASH
Wandkarte
wane
waned
wang
Wangs
waning
want
Wantage
wanted
Wanti
wanting
wanton
wantonly
wantonness
wants
Wantsum
Waorinacks
Wapanachki
WAPANACHKIK
WAPENING
wapentake
wapentakes
WAPISIANAS
Wappinger
Wappingers
Wapsid
War
Waradein
Warangian
Waraus
Warbeck
Warburg
WARBURTON
Ward
WARDE
warded
Warden
wardens
Wardenship
warder
warding
Wardour
wardrobe
wards
wardship
wardships
Ware
warehouse
warehousemen
warehouses
warehousing
Warenne
wares
warfare
Warfield
Wargaum
Wargla
Warham
warily
Warin
Waring
Warings
Wark
Warka
Warke
Warkworth
warlike
warm
warmed
warmer
warmest
warming
warmly
warmness
warmth
warn
Warna
Warne
warned
Warnefrid
warneing
Warner
Warneton
warning
Warnings
warns
Waronawankongs
warp
warped
Warpeton
warr
warrant
warrantable
warranted
warranting
warranto
Warrants
Warranty
Warre
warred
Warren
warreners
warrens
Warrenton
warring
Warrington
Warrior
warriorlike
warriors
warriour
Warriston
wars
Warsaw
Warsheikh
warships
wart
Warta
Wartburg
WARTENBURG
Wartensee
Wartensleben
wartime
Warton
Warville
Warwick
Warwickshire
wary
was
Wascones
Wasen
wash
Washaki
WASHAKIS
Washbourne
Washburn
Washburne
washed
washerwoman
washes
washing
washings
Washington
Washita
Washoan
Wasp
wasps
wassail
Wasse
Wasselonne
Wassenaer
wast
waste
wasted
wasteful
wastefully
wastefulness
wastes
wasting
Wat
Watauga
watch
watched
watchers
watches
watchful
watchfulness
watching
watchmaker
watchman
watchmen
watchword
watchwords
water
Waterboer
watercourses
watered
Waterford
waterfronts
watering
wateringen
Waterland
Waterloo
Waterman
watermark
watermen
waterproof
waters
watershed
waterside
Watertown
Watertowne
Watervliet
waterway
waterways
watery
WATHEK
Watling
Watlinge
Watson
Watt
Wattignies
wattled
wattles
Watts
Waugh
WAUHATCHIE
wauns
Wausashe
Wauters
Wauwaumie
wave
waved
waver
wavered
waverer
waverers
wavering
Waverley
wavers
waves
waving
Wavre
wax
waxed
waxen
Waxhaws
waxing
way
wayes
wayfarer
wayfarers
waylaid
waylay
Waylen
Wayne
Waynesboro
Waynesborough
Waynesburg
Ways
wayside
wayward
waywardness
Wazir
wch
we
weak
weaken
weakened
weakening
weakens
weaker
weakest
weakling
weaklings
weakly
weakness
weaknesses
weal
Weald
WEALH
Wealhas
wealth
wealthier
wealthiest
wealthy
wean
weaned
weapon
weaponless
weapons
wear
Weare
wearer
wearers
wearied
wearies
wearily
weariness
wearing
wearisome
Wearmouth
wears
weary
wearying
weather
weathercock
weathered
Weatherford
Weathering
weave
weaved
weaver
weavers
weaving
web
Webb
WEBBE
Webber
Weber
webs
Webster
Weckquaesgeek
WECKQUAESGEEKS
wed
Wedbeck
wedded
Wedderburn
wedding
Wedelius
Wedelspang
Weden
wedge
wedged
wedges
wedlock
Wedmore
Wednesday
Wednesdays
Weed
weeded
Weeden
weeding
weeds
Weehawken
week
weeklies
weekly
weeks
weel
weels
Weems
ween
Weep
Weepers
weeping
weeps
Weeyots
weft
WEHLAU
wehren
Wehrmen
Wehwa
Wei
Weichsel
Weigert
weigh
weighed
weighing
weighs
weight
weighted
weightier
weightiest
weights
weighty
WEIK
Weil
WeIland
Weild
WEILL
Weimar
Weimer
Weimsberg
Weingarten
WEINHOLD
Weinmar
Weinmayer
Weinsberg
Weir
Weird
weirs
Weise
Weisenburg
Weishaupt
Weiss
Weisseberg
Weissemburgh
Weissenberg
Weissenburg
Weissenfels
Weitspek
Weitspekan
Weitzel
Welatabians
Welch
welcome
welcomed
welcoming
weld
welded
Weldon
Welf
welfare
Welfs
Welid
welkin
well
Welland
wellbeing
Welle
WELLER
Welles
Wellesley
Wellhausen
Wellingborough
WELLINGHAUSEN
Wellington
Wellman
wellnigh
Wells
Wellé
Wels
Welsh
Welshman
Welshmen
welt
Weltbürger
welter
weltering
Weltgeschichte
welth
Welwood
wen
Wenceslas
Wenceslaus
Wenck
Wenckstern
wend
wended
WENDEL
Wendell
Wenden
Wendes
Wendic
wending
Wendish
Wends
Wendt
Wenern
Wenham
Wenlock
went
Wentworth
Wenzel
wept
wer
Werbach
Werben
Werder
were
WEREGILD
werethrown
werf
wergild
Werke
Werla
Wermeland
Werne
Werner
WEROWANCE
Werowocomoco
werpen
Werra
Wert
Werter
Werth
Werther
Werwick
Werwyk
Wesel
Weser
Wesley
Wesleyan
WESLEYS
Wessagusset
Wessel
Wessels
Wessenberg
Wessex
West
Westbury
Westchester
Westcott
Westens
Westergaard
westerly
Western
Westerners
westernmost
Westeräs
Westfalen
Westfalia
Westfalian
Westgarth
Westley
Westliche
Westm
Westmeath
Westminister
Westminster
Westmoreland
Weston
Westover
Westphalia
Westphalian
Westphalians
Westphälischen
Westport
Westropp
westward
westwardly
westwards
wet
Wetherell
Wethersfield
Wette
Wetterau
Wettern
Wettin
Wettiners
wetting
wettinischen
Wetzlar
Wewa
Wexford
Wey
Weyman
Weymouth
Weyprecht
Whale
Whaler
whalers
whales
whaling
Whalley
Whang
Whanganui
wharf
wharfs
Wharncliffe
Wharton
wharves
what
Whately
whatever
whatsoeuer
whatsoever
wheat
Wheatley
WHEATON
Wheatstone
wheedled
wheedling
wheel
Wheelbarrows
wheeled
Wheeler
Wheeling
Wheelock
wheels
Wheelwright
wheelwrights
whelmed
whelp
whelps
When
whence
whenever
whensoever
where
whereabouts
whereas
whereat
whereby
Wherefore
wherein
whereof
whereon
wheresoever
whereto
whereupon
wherever
wherewith
wherewithal
Wherowhero
whet
whether
whetstone
whetted
WHEWELL
Whibley
which
whichever
whiff
Whig
whiggam
whiggamors
Whiggery
Whiggism
whiggs
Whigs
while
whiled
whiles
whiling
whilom
whilst
whim
whims
whimsical
whimsicality
whiny
whip
whipped
whipping
whippings
Whipple
whips
whirl
whirled
whirling
whirlpool
whirlwind
Whiskey
WHISKY
whisper
whispered
whispering
whispers
whistle
whistled
whistles
whistling
Whiston
whit
Whitaker
Whitbourne
white
Whiteboys
Whitebread
WHITEFIELD
Whitefriars
Whitehall
Whitehead
Whitelaw
WHITELOCK
Whitemarsh
Whitemen
whiten
whitened
whiteness
whitening
whites
Whiteside
whitewashed
whitewashing
Whitfield
Whitgift
whither
Whiting
whitish
Whitlocke
WHITMAN
Whitmore
Whitney
Whitsun
Whitsunday
Whitsuntide
Whittaker
Whittier
Whittington
Whittle
Whittlesey
whittling
Whitworth
Whiwi
who
Whoever
whole
wholesale
wholesome
wholly
whom
whome
whomsoever
whoop
whooping
whoremasters
whorls
whose
Whosoever
why
Whydah
whyrleth
whyrling
Wiawumie
Wiazma
Wibelung
Wiborg
Wichitas
wichtigsten
wicked
wickeder
wickedest
wickedly
wickedness
Wickenden
wicker
wicket
wickets
Wickford
Wicklow
Wiclif
Wicliffite
Wicocoa
Widdin
Widdleton
wide
widely
Widemir
widen
widened
wideness
widening
widens
wider
widespread
widest
widow
widowed
widower
widowers
widows
width
Wiecnowiecki
Wied
Wiedemann
Wieland
wield
wielded
wielder
wielders
wielding
Wielif
Wielopolski
Wien
Wiener
Wiesbaden
Wieseler
wife
wig
Wigfall
WIGGAMORS
Wiggeries
Wiggin
Wight
Wigmore
Wigtown
wigwam
wigwams
wiki
Wiking
Wikings
Wikipedia
Wil
Wilberforce
Wilcocke
Wilcox
wild
wildcat
Wilde
Wilder
wilderness
wildernesses
wildest
wildfire
wildly
wildness
wilds
Wildshut
wile
wiles
Wiley
Wilfred
Wilfrid
wilful
wilfully
wilfulness
WILHELM
WILHELMINA
Wilhelms
Wilhelmshöhe
Wilhelmstrasse
Wilhite
Wilkens
WILKENSON
Wilkes
Wilkesbarre
Wilkeson
Wilkins
Wilkinson
Wilkyns
will
Willamat
Willamette
Willard
Willcox
Wille
Willebrod
willed
Willekens
Willem
Willemstadt
Willericus
willers
Willert
willeth
Willetpoos
Willett
Willey
willfully
William
Williams
Williamsburg
Williamsburgh
Williamson
Williamsport
Williamstown
Willibald
Willibrod
Willibrord
Willie
Willielmi
willing
willingly
willingness
WILLIS
Willisan
Williston
Willoughby
WILLOWS
Wills
Willson
Wilmington
Wilmot
Wilna
Wilson
Wilstach
wilt
Wilton
WILTSCH
Wiltshire
Wiltsætas
wily
WILZEN
Wimberley
Wimberly
Wimpfen
Wimpina
win
WINCEBY
winch
Winchelsea
Winchelsey
Winchester
Wincing
Wincob
wind
Windebanck
Windebank
Winden
Winder
windfalls
Windham
Windhorst
Windiisch
winding
windings
Windischgraetz
Windischgrätz
Windischmann
Windischmark
Windismarck
windmill
windmills
Windom
window
windows
winds
Windsheim
Windsor
windswept
Windthorst
Windus
WINDWARD
windy
wine
Wineda
Winedi
Wineland
Winer
wines
Winet
Winfield
Winfrid
Winfrith
wing
Wingate
Winged
Wingfield
winging
Wingrove
wings
Winifred
winked
WINKELRIED
Winn
Winnebago
WINNEBAGOES
Winnebagos
Winnepeek
winner
winners
Winnibagoes
Winning
winnings
Winnipeg
Winnipek
Winnipiseogee
winnowing
Winnsboro
Winnsborough
Winona
wins
Winsberg
Winslow
Winsor
Wintana
winter
wintered
wintering
winters
WINTHROP
Winton
wintry
Wintzingerode
Winwood
Winzingerode
Wiomic
Wipbach
wipe
wiped
WIPPED
wire
wires
Wirt
Wirtemberg
Wirtemburg
Wirth
Wirtzburg
Wirz
Wisbuy
Wisby
Wisc
Wisconsin
wisdom
wise
wiseacres
wisely
WISEMAN
wiser
wisest
wish
Wishart
wished
wishes
wishing
Wishoskan
Wisigoths
Wisloch
Wismar
Wisner
Wisniowiecki
Wissahickon
Wissant
Wisselbach
wissen
Wissenschaftslehre
Wissgrad
Wissmann
wit
Witan
witanagemot
witch
Witchcraft
witchcrafts
witchery
witches
WITE
Witekind
WITENAGEMOT
witenagemotes
witenagemots
Witenagemót
Witepsk
witetheowas
Witgenstein
With
withal
Witham
withdraw
withdrawal
withdrawing
withdrawment
withdrawn
withdrew
wither
Witherby
withered
withering
Withers
Witherspoon
withes
withheld
withhold
Withholding
withholds
within
without
withstand
withstanding
withstood
WITIGIS
witless
Witmarsum
witness
witnessed
witnesses
witnessing
Witold
wits
Witsand
WITT
witted
Wittekind
Wittelsbach
Wittemberg
Wittenagemote
Wittenberg
WITTENWEIHER
Wittgenstein
witticisms
Wittikind
wittily
wittingly
Witton
Witts
Wittstock
witty
Witu
Witumka
WITUMKAS
Witwe
WITZLEBEN
wives
Wiza
wizard
wizards
Wizo
Wladimir
Wladislas
Wladislaus
Wladislaw
Wladyslaw
Wm
Wms
wo
woad
Woburn
Woccon
WOCCONS
Woden
Wodrow
woe
Woechentlicher
woeful
woes
woful
wofully
Woinoff
Woippy
Woiwode
woiwodes
Woiwodshaften
woke
Wokong
Wolcott
Wolds
wolf
Wolfe
WOLFENBÜTTEL
Wolfenbüttel
WOLFF
WOLFGANG
WOLFGANZ
Wolfian
Wolflings
Wolford
Wolfred
Wolfsbrücke
wolfskin
Wolga
Wolgast
Wollaston
Wollin
Wollmann
Wollrau
Wollstonecraft
Wolseley
Wolsey
WOLSKI
Wolstan
Wolters
WOLTJER
wolves
woman
womanhood
womanish
womanly
womb
women
wompam
Wompi
won
Wonameys
wonder
wondered
wonderful
wonderfully
wondering
wonderingly
wonders
wondrous
wont
wonted
Woo
Wood
Woodburn
Woodbury
Woodcroft
wooded
wooden
Woodfall
Woodford
WOODHEAD
Woodhouse
woodland
woodlands
woodmen
WOODROW
woods
woodsman
woodsmen
Woodstock
Woodward
woodwork
Woodworth
woody
wooed
wooing
Wool
woolen
woolens
Wooler
woolfels
woollen
woollens
WOOLLY
wools
Woolsack
woolsacks
Woolsey
Woolwich
Woosewen
Wooster
Worcester
Worcestershire
word
WORDE
worded
Worden
wording
words
Wordsworth
wordy
wore
work
workable
worked
worker
workers
Workhouse
workhouses
working
Workingman
workingmen
workings
workman
workmanship
workmen
workpeople
works
workshop
workshops
World
worldliness
worldlings
worldly
worlds
worm
Wormatia
Wormeley
Worms
Wormwood
worn
Woronzoff
worried
worry
worrying
Worsaae
worse
worship
worshiped
worshipful
worshiping
worshipped
worshipper
worshippers
worshipping
worships
Worsley
worst
worsted
wort
WORTABET
worth
worthier
Worthies
worthiest
worthily
Worthiness
Worthington
worthless
worthlessness
worthy
Wortley
Wotton
would
wound
Wounded
wounding
wounds
Wouter
wove
woven
Wrangel
wrangle
wrangled
wrangler
WRANGLERS
wrangling
wranglings
wrap
wrapped
wrappers
wrapt
wrath
wrathful
wrathfully
Wratislaw
Wraxall
Wray
wreak
wreaked
wreaking
wreath
wreaths
wreck
Wreckage
wrecked
wreckers
wrecking
wrecks
Wrede
Wren
wrench
wrenched
Wrentham
Wreschen
wrest
wrested
wresting
wrestle
wrestled
wrestler
wrestlers
wrestling
wretch
wretched
wretchedly
wretchedness
wretches
Wright
Wrightson
wring
wringing
Wriothesley
wrist
writ
write
writer
writers
writes
writhe
writhing
writhings
writing
Writings
writs
written
wrong
wronged
wrongful
wrongfully
Wrongheads
wrongly
wrongs
wrote
wroth
wrought
Wroxeter
Wruck
wrung
wt
wth
wthin
wthout
wty
WU
Wuertemberg
Wuffa
Wuffings
Wuh
Wulfstan
Wurm
Wurmb
Wurms
Wurmser
Wurtemberg
Wurtembergers
Wurtemburg
Wurtzburg
Wurzburg
Wuzeer
Wuzeers
www
Wyalusing
Wyandot
Wyandots
Wyandottes
Wyandotts
Wyapoco
Wyat
WYATT
Wyclevism
Wyclif
Wyclife
Wycliffe
Wycliffite
Wycomb
Wyden
Wye
Wykeham
Wylde
WYLIE
Wyllys
Wyndsor
Wynford
Wynkyn
Wyomen
Wyoming
Wyse
Wysegrad
Wytfleit
Wythe
Wythersfeild
WÄLSCH
WÖRTH
WÜRTEMBERG
WÜRTZBURG
wä
Wächter
während
Wäinämöinen
Wälsch
Wölf
Wörth
Würmser
Würtemberg
Würtembergers
Würtemburg
Würtemburgers
Würtzburg
Würzburg
Xanthen
Xanthippus
Xanthus
Xaraicejo
Xauxa
Xavier
Xenocrates
Xenophon
XERES
Xerxes
Xibalba
Xibalban
Xibalbans
Ximena
Ximenes
Ximenez
Xius
Xochimilco
Xoloc
xylographic
xylographs
Xystus
ya
Yacca
yacht
Yachts
Yadkin
Yaguimo
Yahgans
Yahia
Yahie
Yahni
Yahood
Yahveh
Yahya
Yahúb
Yajnavalkya
Yakoob
Yakub
Yakutats
Yale
Yalli
Yalta
Yalu
Yamacraw
Yamacraws
Yamagata
Yamaguchi
Yamasis
Yamassi
Yambuya
Yamco
Yamkallie
Yampais
Yamparacks
Yamuna
YANACONAS
YANAN
Yancy
yang
Yani
yank
Yankee
Yankees
yanker
yankie
yanking
Yanks
Yankton
Yanktonans
Yanktonnai
Yanktonnais
YANKTONS
Yanni
Yantsze
Yanvo
Yao
Yaocomoco
Yaou
Yapeyu
Yapoos
Yaracay
Yaracuy
Yarapolk
yard
yardarm
yardland
yards
Yarkand
Yarmouth
yarn
Yaroslaf
Yarra
Yarub
Yashdjob
Yasna
Yassi
YATASSEES
Yates
Yattassees
Yavari
Yavnan
yawl
yawn
yawning
Yaxartes
Yazoo
Yañez
Ychu
ye
Yea
Yeamans
year
yearbook
Yeardley
yeare
yeares
yearly
yearn
yearned
yearning
years
yeas
yeast
Yeats
Yedo
Yeh
Yelin
yell
yelling
Yellow
yellowish
Yellowplush
YELLOWS
Yellowstone
yells
YEMAMA
Yemassee
Yemen
Yemenite
yen
Yengees
Yeni
YENIKALE
Yenisei
Yeo
yeoman
yeomanry
yeomen
Yerba
yerely
Yermac
YERMOUK
Yermuk
Yerushalmi
Yes
yesterday
yet
Yethrib
YETZIRA
Yezd
Yezid
Ygnacio
yield
yielded
yielding
yields
Yih
Ymbercourt
Ynca
Yncanabaite
Yncas
YNGAVI
ynow
Yoakum
Yoens
yoke
yoked
yoking
Yokohama
Yokonan
Yokut
Yola
Yoland
Yolante
Yomut
YON
yonder
Yonge
Yonne
Yonnondio
yontare
Yorck
yore
Yoritomo
York
Yorke
Yorker
Yorkers
Yorkinos
Yorkist
Yorkists
Yorkshire
Yorkshireman
Yorktown
Yoruba
you
Youghiogheny
Youkiousme
YOULE
young
younger
youngest
Youngstown
your
yours
yourself
yourselves
Youta
youth
youthful
youthhead
youths
Ypres
Ypsilanti
Yr
yrfeland
Yriex
yron
Ysabellot
Ysendick
Yssel
Ystadt
yt
Yu
Yuan
yuca
Yucatan
Yucatecan
YUCHI
Yudhishthira
Yuen
YUGUARZONGO
Yuki
Yukian
Yukinaga
Yukon
yul
Yule
Yuma
Yuman
Yumas
Yun
Yunca
YUNCAS
Yung
Yungay
Yunnan
Yupanqui
Yuroks
Yurt
yurts
Yussuf
Yusuf
Yuta
Yutas
Yvan
Yverdun
Yvetot
Yzz
Yámassi
yä
Yú
Yúsuf
Yüeh
za
Zaara
Zab
Zabern
Zacatecas
Zaccheus
Zacharia
Zachariah
Zacharias
Zachary
Zacynthe
Zacynthus
zadikah
Zadir
ZADOCK
Zadok
Zadora
zag
Zagal
Zagatai
Zagazig
ZAGONARA
Zagra
Zagros
Zagrus
ZAHARA
Zaire
Zakar
Zakynthos
Zalaca
Zalacca
Zalaka
Zalkiewski
Zalussky
Zama
Zamah
Zambesi
Zambesia
Zambezi
Zamet
zamindari
ZAMINDARS
Zamná
Zamojski
Zamora
Zamosc
Zamoyski
Zamoyskis
Zamudio
Zamzummim
Zamzummites
Zancle
Zanclon
Zand
Zane
Zanguebar
Zankoff
Zante
Zanthippus
Zanzibar
Zapetra
Zapolya
Zaporo
Zaporowscy
Zapoteca
ZAPOTECS
Zapytees
Zaquir
Zara
Zaragossa
Zaragoza
ZARAKA
Zarangia
ZARANGIANS
Zarathrustra
Zarathustra
Zarco
zareba
Zarefshan
Zarytus
Zastrow
Zath
Zatt
Zavala
Zayi
Zborow
Zborowskis
ZD2URRe5Nbs
ZEA
zeal
Zealand
Zealanders
Zealandia
zealot
zealots
zealous
zealously
Zebaoth
Zebedee
Zebulon
Zebulun
Zecca
zecchins
Zedek
Zedekiah
Zedlitz
Zee
Zeeland
Zeelandia
ZEER
ZEEWAND
ZEGRIS
Zehn
ZEISBERGER
zeit
Zeitalter
zeiten
Zeitgeschichte
Zeitoun
Zeitraum
Zeitschrift
zeittafel
Zeitung
ZELA
Zeland
Zelanders
Zeleia
Zell
Zeller
Zelo
zelus
Zem
Zemar
Zembla
Zemelskaya
zemindar
ZEMINDARS
Zemp
Zempoalla
ZEMSTVO
Zemzen
ZENAÏDE
Zend
Zendavesta
Zendecan
Zenger
Zenghi
Zenghis
Zengui
zenith
Zenki
Zeno
Zenobia
Zenodotus
Zenon
Zenta
Zephaniah
ZEPHATHAH
Zephrem
Zephyrinus
Zeragh
Zerah
Zeraiah
Zerbst
Zerefshan
zero
Zerubbabel
zest
Zeta
ZETLAND
ZEUGITÆ
Zeugitæ
Zeugma
Zeus
Zeuss
Zeven
Zeyd
Zeyla
Zeyud
Zhana
Ziadet
Ziani
Zichy
Ziegler
ZIELA
Zierikzee
Ziethen
Zif
zig
Zigani
Zigeuner
Zigguratu
Zigrote
zigzag
zigzags
Ziklag
Zilbel
Zimisces
Zimiskes
ZIMMER
ZIMMERMAN
Zimmermann
ZIMMERN
Zimrida
Zin
zinc
Zincali
Zingarri
ZINGIS
ZINGLINS
Zingu
Zinna
Zintgraff
Zinzendorf
Zio
Zion
Zipangri
Zips
Zirgulla
Ziska
Zizembre
Zizim
Znaim
Znaym
Znoymo
Zoan
Zoba
Zobah
Zobeir
zodiacal
Zoe
Zohair
Zohar
ZOHARITES
Zolkiewski
Zoll
Zollern
Zollicoffer
ZOLLPARLAMENT
Zollverein
Zolnok
Zoltan
zone
zones
zoological
zoology
Zoom
Zopyrus
ZOQUES
Zor
Zoraya
Zorndorf
Zoroaster
Zoroastrian
Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrians
Zorobabel
Zorrilla
Zosimus
Zott
Zotts
Zouave
Zouaves
Zriny
Zschokke
zu
Zubly
Zufiian
Zug
Zugewandte
zuibreadstuff00cush
zuifetiches00cush
Zuinglian
Zuinglius
Zulficar
Zulia
Zuloaga
Zulu
Zululand
ZULUS
zum
Zumalacarregui
Zumalacarreguy
Zumbo
Zumim
Zumpango
Zuni
Zunis
zunächst
zur
Zurich
Zurichers
Zuruck
Zutphen
zuwachses
Zuweyleh
Zuyder
Zuyderzee
Zuyva
ZUÑI
ZUÑIAN
Zuñi
Zuñian
Zwackh
Zweibrücken
Zweifel
Zwenigarod
Zwickau
Zwideneck
Zwiedineck
Zwingle
Zwingli
ZWINGLIAN
Zwinglians
Zwinglius
Zwoll
Zwolle
Zwornik
zwölften
ZYLYFF
zymosis
Zyp
ZÜLPICH
Zähringen
Zäringen
Zévort
Zêtês
Zülpich
Zülzer
Zürich
À
Æacids
Æacidæ
ÆAKIDS
Æakus
Ædes
Ædesius
ÆDHILING
Ædiles
Æduan
ÆDUI
Æduian
ÆEDUI
Æetes
Ægaleos
ÆGATIAN
Ægean
ÆGIALEA
ÆGIALEANS
Ægidius
Ægikoreis
Ægina
Æginetan
Æginetans
Ægis
Ægisthus
ÆGITIUM
ÆGOSPOTAMI
Ægosthena
Ægre
Ægus
Ægyptus
Ægæ
Ægæan
Ælbert
Ælfred
Ælia
ÆLIAN
Ælianus
ÆLII
Ælius
Ælla
Ælle
Æmilia
Æmilian
Æmilianus
Æmilius
Æneas
Ænianes
Æolian
Æolians
Æolic
Æolid
Æolis
Æolus
Æqui
Æquians
ÆRARIANS
ÆRARIUM
Æsarus
Æschines
Æschylos
Æschylus
Æsculapeus
Æsculapius
Æscwin
Æsis
Æsop
Æsopus
Æstii
ÆSTYI
ÆSYMNETÆ
Æterni
Æthalsten
ÆTHEL
ÆTHELBERT
ÆTHELFRITH
Ætheling
ÆTHELINGS
Æthelred
Æthelric
Æthelstan
Æthelwulf
Æthiopia
Æthiopicus
Ætius
Ætolia
Ætolian
Ætolians
Æêtês
ÇA
Çatadru
Çughdha
Ètats
É
ÉChange
École
Écore
Écrivains
ÉCU
Édouard
Égalité
Églantine
ÉLISÉE
Émeric
Émery
ÉMIGRÉS
Émigré
Émigrés
ÉMILE
Éperjes
Épernon
Étaples
État
États
Études
Étât
Évremond
ÉVÊCHÉS
Évéchés
Évêchés
Île
Örebro
Öxará
Übersichts
à
á
â
âge
ä
ältesten
æ
ædicula
ædiculæ
ædiles
ædileship
ægis
æneum
æquilibrium
æquum
æra
ærarians
ærarium
æs
æsthetic
æsymnete
æsymnetæ
æternus
æthel
ætheling
ça
ès
é
échelon
échevin
éclat
écoles
économique
écrites
écus
édit
édition
édits
égalité
élève
émeute
émeutes
émigré
émigrés
époque
établissement
établissements
étangs
état
états
étes
étude
êra
être
österr
österreichischen
über
übersicht
übrigen
ā
īo
ĭ
ŏki
ŒA
Œconomy
Œcumenical
Œdipus
ŒKIST
Œlian
Œniadæ
Œnophyta
Œnotria
Œnotrian
ŒNOTRIANS
ŒNOË
Œnoë
Œta
œconomic
œcumenic
œcumenical
œdema
œil
œuvre


   ----------Word List: End--------